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