Contextual Cues in Conversation Gumperz

¶ … Contextual Cues in Conversation Gumperz (*) defines contextualization cues in the following manner: Contextualization cues refer to the means by which speakers signal and listeners interpret what the activity is, how semantic content is to be understood and how each sentence relates to what precedes or follows. (p.599) Since contextualization cues are habitually used and so innate to the process of speaking, they may be noted but are almost never talked about directly.

They, therefore, must be studied in the context of the situation and speech rather than as an abstract entity. The meaning of these contextual cues are implicit, and are tacitly and instinctively understood by the particular listener(s). When the listener understands contextual cues as the speaker intended them to be understood, the speaker's message is conveyed in its intended context. However, when these contextual cues are misunderstood or misinterpreted by the listener, misjudgments of the speaker can accrue.

The speaker may then be, possibly mistakenly perceived as being unfriendly, hostile, and impertinent, or a range of other negative associations simply due to a shift in rhythm or change in pronunciation that went unnoticed. Oftentimes, mutual frustration can occur. Gumperz (*) provides the example of a Black graduate student who received a cold and informal interview due to his using Standard English and failing to respond to his interviewee's formulaic opening gambit (mean to check the interviewer out) that was uttered in black dialect style.

Gumperz (*) provides further examples of where the accent is misunderstood: the husband simply wants to know where his paper is; the wife insists she'll retrieve it for him leading the husband to be increasingly annoyed at her obtuseness in failing to understand him. Several other examples that Gumperz (*) provided were given by him to different listeners to assess. Some of these listeners were of the same background as the original subjects in Gomperz's excerpts.

The exercise was presented in a way that listeners focused on question-answer pairs, and its object was to assess whether background similarities or differences would construe differences in interpretation. Results indicated significant differences in interpretation, with listeners interpreting contextual cues in almost always varying manners. The manner in which they interpreted contextual cues almost certainly was due to particular experiences, but it may also be sourced to cultural background.

Chan (*) disagrees with the essential concept of code switching being an element of 'contextualization cues', namely serving to 'index' or 'signal' certain contextual presuppositions that supposedly possess mutual meaningfulness. Since some instances of code switching do not seem to fall into this category at all, Chan (*) posits that code switching is better characterized as a textualization cue where the speaker implies that the listener has to interpret his forthcoming message somewhat differently to that which has preceded it.

There are three types of code switching cues: (a) social where the speaker diverts his nuances and context of speech to suit the altered social situation or participants, or where he targets saying to specific audience, (b) where the speaker switches his or her nuances to suit the internal state of the listener(s), and (c) where the speaker uses code switching to convey communicative effects or inferences. Only in the last situation is code switching employed as an instrument of contextualization cue.

In the former two instances (a), and (b), code switching is implemented in order to indicate that the speaker's forthcoming message is meant to be taken somewhat differently than that preceding it. In other words, contextualization cues should, according to Chan (*) be seen as exclusively representing a textualization cue, whereas code switching prompts the listener to make interpretation changes in forthcoming messages, but not necessarily to interpret a change in context. Textualization or entextualization refers to the listener's ability to interpret these elements in relation to the surrounding text (p.21).

Gomperz (*) seems to equate textualization with contextualization (as per his definition of contextualization cues: "the means by which speakers signal and listeners interpret what the activity is, how semantic content is to be understood and how each sentence relates to what precedes or follows" (599)). Chan (*), on the other hand, makes a distinction between contextualization and textualization.

Whereas code-switching can be seen as an instrument of textualization (namely, the listener interprets the message in relation to the surrounding text), this interpretation does not necessarily hinge on their understanding that there is a shift in context but rather on other implications. When describing these other implicates, Chan's proposal is similar to that of Halliday (1994) (in Chan, *). Halliday proposed bulleting semantics into three categories: ideational (i.e. referring to things, actions or events in the real world); interpersonal (i.e.

referring to the speaker's assessment or attitude towards an event); and textual (referring to the relationship of a word/phrase/sentence with its surrounding text). According to Halliday (1994), a language or a sentence conveys meaning on these three levels, although certain word classes may primarily appear to be expressing -- or occupying themselves -- with a particular type of meaning. Lexical words (such as nouns) express ideational meaning; modal verbs (such as verbs) express interpersonal meaning, whilst connectives express textual meaning.

Code switching, according to Chan (*) may "also express a combination of these different levels of meaning." (p. 22). In other words: Code-switching is quintessentially a textualization cue (Chan, 2003), which "frames" elements in a discourse that are to be interpreted in someway different from the preceding text. The implication is that the act of switching rather than the switched code is the most essential cue.

(Pp.22-23) Unlike Gomperz (*) and other linguists, therefore, who see code-switching as being an inherent part of contextualization cues, Chan (*) argues that "contextualization is only one of the pragmatic functions of code-switching" (p.23). In this way he coheres with Halliday's (2008) later assertion that human beings inhabit both phenomenal realms: a world of matter and a world of meaning and that matter and meaning are involved in the regions of our experience. Language takes matter and articulates it into meaning. Switch-codes do the same by incorporating 'entextualization'.

In an essay that approaches Gomperz's (*) thesis from another tangent, Sarangi (1994) speaks about intercultural communication. Gomperz (*) had mentioned how it is likely that contextual cues may engender interpretations based on the listener's particular cultural background. Sarangi (1994) demonstrates that cultural anthropologists divided researchers who study 'intercultural communication (i.e.

The study of interaction between individuals representing different' cultures) into two groups: those who seek to develop a humanistic view of communication theory and practice that would promote universal understanding of different cultures, and those who try to identify points of conflicts between different cultures as researchable issues. The underlying assumption, argues Sarangi (1994) is that cultural problems are more significant than linguistic ones and that 'language' is to be kept analytically separate from 'culture'. This, according to Sarangi (1994), is problematic since both are part of one integral whole.

There is such a thing as culture, but, on the other hand, culture cannot be made the exclusive topic. Gumperz (1992), as Sarangi, pointed out notes that: "The notion of contextualization has significant implications for our understanding of what culture is. Traditionally, anthropologists speak of culture in terms of shared meaning or shared interpretive practices or shared cognitive structures. Our discussion points to the importance of shared typifications that enter into the signaling and use of activity types in interaction, as well as systems of contextualization conventions.

In contrast to the established, commonly accepted idealizations, such interactively defined notions of culture can be studied by empirical means" (412). Here, Gomperz synthesizes 'humanism' with research by pointing out that there are "shared typifications" that enter into the signaling and use of activity types in interaction," that contextualization cues are just one instance of such 'shared typifications', and that these "shared typifications" can be studied by "empirical means." 'Culture' and 'language' objectives, in other words, need not be distinct one from the other.

Gomperz (1192) illustrates how the two can be combined, but Sarangi's issue is that he reduces linguistics -- or communication patterns -- to cultural differences. The problem that Sarangi (1994) seems to have with Gomperz and with similar linguists (particularly sociolinguists), is that they occupy themselves with "diagnosing and treating miscommunication among individuals in 'cultural ' terms" (413) rather than confining themselves to linguistic etiology. It is through miscommunication that cultural differences become real and that conflict ensues. Researchers, therefore, focus.