Arie Verhagen‟s Context,
meaning, and
Interpretation, in a
practical approach to
linguistics
Meaning and Context in Language Teaching
1
Part 1 Summary
1.1 Introduction
Arie Verhagen tries to balance the contradiction between
appealing to context-dependent meaning, that is everyday
language use, and context-independent meaning or a general
linguistic identity across different contexts. He then moves
to discuss how meaning can constrain interpretation, that is
to prohibit certain types of grammatical operations from
applying to certain types of structures.
At first, it appears that John Lyons suggests that we often
rely on context to infer to the meaning, and yet continues to
illustrate how certain “lexeme, expression or utterance” may
be more or less appropriate or effective for a certain
context. The constant appeal to the way we use language
contradicts that certain expressions are more or less
appropriate in some context seems to require that we know what
it means across contexts.
This „paradox‟ is the subject of the paper, an attempt to
balance the two contradicting ideas, through explications of
“context” and “meaning” that respect the consequences of one
another. The explications will need to be interdependent to
account for each other‟s contradiction, as an example:
1. Here is word X means A, but there it is does not mean A,
but rather B
2. Since the word X means A, it can/cannot be used in this
context.
Statement 1 seems to imply that the meaning of X is not the
same through different contexts, and Statement 2 suggests that
X carries its meaning across A and B. Statements 1 & 2
contradict each other.
What follows is an attempt to accommodate for the roles of
factors that influence, and in turn, limit the variability of
meaning(s) through an empirical approach to examine the
2
formulation of meaning and context. The appropriateness of
language use, and its importance, and a description of
language independent of its use.
1.2 The necessity of context-independence
Language necessitates context so that communication between
the two entities that consist of a speaker and a listener
function effectively. Listeners for instance are obliged to
make use of their schemata, concepts and utterances to deduce
the meaning.
It is common knowledge that context plays a vital role in
communication and that the observation of meaning of an
utterance is ultimately determined in context. In an
evaluation of the quality of an instance of linguistic
communication, we should examine and the functions of the
utterances which in turn generally depend on the context
itself. This sort of evaluation will depend on indexical items
and the latter is defined as a word or expressions whose
meaning is generally dependent on the context in which it is
used.
Text and context have a fundamental relationship in the
case that aspects of context are embedded in texts therefore
we can assume that neither one of these notions can be
understood in if one of them is excluded. According to
Verhagen, a text should be analyzed while taking into
considerations a wide variety of aspects that we should rely
on, however the importance does not depend on these aspects
but in truth it counts on how we choose them. The analysis
must result in formulations which bring out the linguistic
features present in the text such as types of words,
intonation and rhythm etc. He posits that the utterances
involved in any linguistic communication may convey certain
functions depending on specific contexts and situations; Yet,
the chief goal of his paper, according to him, is to develop
an alternative approach to analyzing and evaluating the
3
functions of language in such a way that disregards the
context of their use. Indeed, in the sub-part of the paper, he
extensively discussed the two concepts “meaning” and “context”
from two different perspectives: the viewpoint of evaluating
language use and that of simply describing it.
In a similar vein, Interpreting and understanding language,
according to Verhagen, are directly linked to the present
situation of use and the previous experiences in which the
linguistic element is used, and little attention is paid to
the context of use. That is to say, acknowledging and making
the link between the present usage events and the previous
ones has a say in evaluating language, which necessitates
generalizations over contexts and therefore separation from a
specific context. The use of the word “donkey” and metaphors
as instances of language in use, according to Verhagen, best
exemplified this notion. Therefore, meaning here, especially
when It comes to the use of metaphor is context independent.
He gave the example of a man being charged and sentenced to
pay a fine because he insulted an officer on duty and called
him a “donkey” in order to illustrate and defend his position.
In this case, the man not only does he say “donkey” to mean “a
stupid officer” but he also considers the officer as a donkey.
In short, Verhagen asserted that the processes of
comprehending language, including metaphors, and the meaning
we derive from a particular linguistic item are contextindependent, that is, they are interpreted by comparing new
experiences to previous ones regardless of their context.
1.3 The necessity of context-sensitivity
If we want to evaluate an occurrence of an expression on
some particular occasion, we should have some idea of its
meaning, independently of that specific context. Still, the
context and purpose of the speaker must be taken into account.
To prove context-sensitivity, Verhagen gives the example of
two articles by different Dutch newspapers about the victory
4
of Ajax team in the national league, and the use of the
passive voice when talking about Ajax in the two articles.
Contradictory to a non-context-sensitive account, which would
predict that the passive voice is distributed randomly, It is
observed that the use of the passive voice is heavily
unbalanced in the two articles. The passive voice is used more
often in the article which is written by NRC Handelsblad, than
the one written by Het Parool. It is also observed that NRC‟s
article also holds a cynical view of how Ajax became
champions. In other words, the use of passive is meant to
disassociate NRC from Ajax. In this example, the evaluation of
the passive voice is dependent on the context. For example, if
Het Parool had referred to Ajax in the role of a passive
agent, we would feel justified in advising the writer to
change the sentences into the active voice.
Although in some cases, to draw practical consequences of
analysis, it might be enough to formulate the function of the
passive independently of the context, for analysts to
understand what constitutes the appropriateness of
construction, both features of the language and context are
necessarily taken into account. Meanings are not only
generalizations over contexts. In order for them to be useful
in evaluative or advisory practices, they also have to be
formulated in such a way that allows for adaptation to
context.
Verhagen goes on to argue that context-sensitive
formulations of meaning are useful for descriptive purposes.
Verhagen provides two cases: the first being the use of the
passive in the queen's speeches at the opening of the Dutch
parliamentary year. The use of passive was heavily unbalanced.
It was used more often in announcing policy measures rather
than clauses describing the events in reality. This comes as
no surprise when considering that most, if not all policy
measures are going to have a negative effect on at least a
5
part of the population, thus it is natural to not present the
speaker as an entity to identify with. It was also observed
that the active voice was used more often in parts where the
government expected to be applauded rather the denounced.
Although the Verhagen argued for context-independent
constancy of meaning in metaphors because they preserve some
form of a structure when moved from one context to another. He
claims that what is left and what is discarded from the
structure is related to context-sensitivity.
Verhagen argued for context-independent constancy of
meaning in metaphors because they preserve a structure when
moved from one context to another. He goes on to mention that
what is left and what is discarded from the structure is
related to context-sensitivity. Verhagen provides the example
of personification to prove this point. A common metaphor in
Western culture is "a state is a person". This metaphor has
many entailments. One is the assumption that a state is a
behavioral unity. Meaning its actions are based on its
intentions. Another entailment is that a state might be or go
through different life-stages. Meaning some states can be
children, in need of guidance, help, and education, while
others can be considered mature, thus more suited for
leadership in the community of states. However, this metaphor
does not include all life-stages. Despite the fact that there
is no structural reason for their absence, the old age, and
death stages are not included, or as Verhagen puts it
"activated".
Another use of personification is when the former Dutch
Minister Mr. Winsemius, described government policies as
“having a life”, similar to a person. They begin as children,
when they are created by government officials, then they
mature and become independent of their creators, and lastly
when the intended goal has been achieved, they die. From these
examples, we can conclude that the aspects or features that
6
are included or depicted from a metaphor are contextsensitive.
1.4 Parallel processing and the equivalence of
linguistic and non-linguistic context
Although language is a tool for communication, most
researches in neuroscience of language has focused on the
study of words and sentences, while the theory of Cognitive
science assumes that individual components of human cognition
are highly interactive and that knowledge of events, concepts
and language is represented in the cognitive system or what is
called parallel processing when information processing takes
place through the interactions of simple units, organized into
networks and operating in parallel.
To clarify it more, when people try to remember a word and
search for its meaning, spelling, pronunciation at the same
time. Third view of information processing linguistic or nonlinguistic in parallel it is named connectionism as well.
Arie Verhagen draws our attention to the concept of
constraint satisfaction, its relation with the notions of
meaning and context, and their interrelatedness. Verhagen
states that the interpretation of a linguistic event is an
actual practice interpretation of the entire event. As The
soft constraints on the representation, we are to build off
the entire situation.
Arie Verhagen states that connectionist network s doesn‟t
serve as useful for clarifying the complicated issues in the
analysis of actual language usage. Interpretation is highly
important for the linguistic elements.
1.5 Conclusion
Meaning and context are in some ways contradict each other,
noting the surface level of an ordinary observation turns into
a more complicated issue upon close inspection. Linguistic
features cannot alone provide ways or a framework to account
for missing information.
7
The major points in his paper, Verhagen talks about how
functional properties only account for meaning without its
context, and that non-linguistic aspect of the situation of
use cannot determine the larger role it plays in the
formulation of meaning.
For such a thing to be justified, the evaluation of the
meaning must take into consideration other possibilities of
the intention for its production. And meaning should be
limited to discern the general properties, and not specific to
one interpretation. Meaning should limit the interpretation,
since semantic analysis does not make it open-ended, that is
to say can change across contexts independent of the
circumstances. It rather eliminates them.
Language carries with it a load of variables that make its
Functions functional in certain situations, albeit not others,
the value of which can be derived from the environment or the
space of the production for a better interpretation.
8
Part 2 What we have learned
Language learners need more than formal properties of
language, grammar and vocabulary do not enable meaningful
messages alone. Context is an important part of constructing the
meaning. As language teachers, we have to include language as it
is actually used by its natives as well as the formal
properties, and usage.
Meaning is not only conveyed through what a speaker say, but
also how they say it with regard to their social setting.
Linguistic factors alongside situational factors both enable
meaningful messages, discarding one of them would render the
other as unnatural.
Context for language teachers is both situational and
linguistic. The linguistic environment of a language item, added
to it extra linguistic elements specific to a situation that
help in the creation of a message. In other words, the
linguistic feature of a structure, as a noun or a verb etc.,
padded by a pragmatic dimension, the group of words that
surround each other to make an implied meaning that gives us
what the person is talking about. Meaning cannot be inferred
from the individual linguistic features of the words separate
from each other, but rather, the relationship they form with
each other.
And for us, as language teachers, we have to pay close
attention to the different dimensions of language use.
9