



































Posthumous festschrift in honour of late professor R.O. Ezeuko, edited by Dr. Odinye, Egenti & Orji


 

 

Posthumous festschrift in honour of late professor R.O. Ezeuko, edited by Dr. Odinye, Egenti & Orji 

 

162 

 

THE SCIENCE OF CONTEXT IN LINGUISTIC DISCOURSE 

Chukwualuka Michael Uyanne  

Department of English Language and Literature 

Alvan Ikoku Federal College of Education 

Owerri 

mikeuyanne@gmail.com 

 

& 

Grace Chukwukaodialu Obi-Nwoye 

International Secondary School 

Department of Languages 

Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University 

Bauchi  

 

Abstract 

Written discourse represents the writer’s intention and his meaning can be 

determined by analysing the discourse, using functional components of semantic 

system. Co-text or extra-linguistic environment discloses what texts truly are, and 

equally facilitates the description of their true implicative meanings. In effect, the 

true meaning of the text is more important than the intended meaning of the 

writer. So, meaning is realisable in a specific contextual action of sifting of a text, 

as part semantic potential which is the determinate meaning. 

 

Keywords: science, context, discourse 

 

Setting 

A means by which the discourse value of an item is interpreted, based on the 

communicative context of an utterance is called linguistic tactics. It is the 

discourse value of utterance is that semantic resource, which the speaker or writer 

expects his hearer or reader to appropriate (Chiluwa 61-62). So, (Adegbite 37) it 

allows the interactants in a discourse to consider not only the linguistic context of 



 

 

Posthumous festschrift in honour of late professor R.O. Ezeuko, edited by Dr. Odinye, Egenti & Orji 

 

163 

 

discourse, but also the “situational contexts to achieve the required result of 

matching, utterances with appropriate functions, which the speaker and hearer 

intend.” 

 

Context and Presupposition  

Writers or speakers often employ presuppositions in designing their message on 

the assumption, that the hearer or the reader has already a degree of the pre-

knowledge of discourse being communicated. So, the assumption of the writer on 

the other hand, inference is already known about the discourse is the 

presupposition. On the other hands, inference is truly based on the presupposition, 

because whether inference is right or wrong the reader (or hearer) should act on 

relevant information about the discourse. As a matter of fact, presuppositions are 

subtle means, in which the writer (or speakers) is derived; and the writers on their 

own intentionally allow some certain meaning to be encoded by way of intelligent 

presupposition (Chiluwa 64). 

 

Context and Conversation Analysis 

Grice asserted that a speaker or a hearer is guided by some certain “conversational 

principles” to make the right references and interpret meaning beyond the 

linguistics content of an utterance (74). In additions, the conversational or 

cooperative principles works along with some Maxims, in terms of the 

assumption that the (Kempson 50) speaker does not say what is false, or 

irrelevant, or too much or to little.” This principle forms the base; a hearer can 

deduce other additional information, from an utterance, beyond some “truth 

conditional content” of a message.” This additional information is called 

implicature. Conversational implicature actually occurs when the conversational 

maxims namely quantity, quality, relation (relevance) and manner are seemingly 

violated,” (Chiluwa 65) therefore, “forcing  the hearer to make additional 

assumptions in order to understand the speaker as conveying something true and 

relevant” (Kempson 141). 

 

 



 

 

Posthumous festschrift in honour of late professor R.O. Ezeuko, edited by Dr. Odinye, Egenti & Orji 

 

164 

 

Discursive and Linguistic Context 

Discourse analysis determines how people deduce meaning from the language 

they use, because language, social contexts and situations are tied together. And 

the interpretations of meanings are essentially based on what language is intended 

to do “in human affairs,” (Brown and Yale 1). It also accounts for the 

investigation of how “language users interpret what other language users’ intent 

to convey” (Yule 3). In addition, it accounts too, “how what is written or spoken 

makes sense whether or not it is strictly grammatical” (Chiluwa 66). More still, 

Cook asserts that language-users do not often write or speak incomplete 

sentences, yet they communicate effectively (3). If this is done, the language-

users therefore can inform, influence and achieve social interactions. In fact, this 

goes beyond the mere study of linguistic forms of analysis of “what language is 

used for” (Brown and Yule 1). So, it is consonant with the study of discourse, thus 

the object of analysis is not just only a sentence or a “language above the sentence 

… or conversational exchange” (Stubbs 1), but as Cook posits, “anything from a 

grunt or a simple expletive, through short conversations and scribble notes…” He 

further asserts that this occurs as a result of “what matters is not its conformity to 

rule, but the fact that it communicates and is recognized by its receiver as 

coherent” (7). In the same vein, Labov espouses that “the unit of analysis is not 

the grammatically defined clause or sentence but a functional unit …” Therefore, 

Chiluwa affirms that “the interpretation of meaning is possible because of the 

relationship, which exists between the units of analysis and the context of 

situation. 

As the study of language is use for communication, Halliday and Hasan declare 

that discourse analysis does not involve itself in analyzing just cohesive devices 

(10) that are found in texts, otherwise they would be restricted to text analysis. 

Cook stresses further that restricting discourse analysis to “the search for what 

gives discourse coherence” (7) “would amount to ignoring important functional 

units as grunts, exclamatory signals like “hmm,” “hunh,” “yaa,” which is their 

own rights can be analysed as discourse” (Chiluwa 67). 

 

Discourse and Acceptableness 

Most often users of language are inclined to breaking grammatical or ‘coherent 

discourse’ rules. This has mainly influenced discourse analysis ‘to discourse there 



 

 

Posthumous festschrift in honour of late professor R.O. Ezeuko, edited by Dr. Odinye, Egenti & Orji 

 

165 

 

rules and to describe the conversational structures they generate” (Coulthard, 6). 

Meanwhile, for a worthwhile analysis or interpretation of utterances, Chiluwa 

says that language-users use their knowledge of linguistic forms and structure 

(67). In addition, Coulthard writes that another area of concern is that discourse 

analysis shows the relationship that exists between discourse, the speakers and 

hearers, by and for whom it is produces, however, it is “a concern with how 

speakers take and relinquish the role of speaker; how social roles affect discourse 

options in terms of who speaks when and what they talk about; how non-verbal 

signaling works and how actual form of utterances is conditional by the social 

relationships between the participants” (11). Moreover, discourse analysis is also 

concerns itself with the function and the purpose of a unit of linguistic data and 

how the data is analysed, both by the speaker (writer) and the hearer (reader) 

Brown and Yule 4). Lyon takes and pragmatic model in the study of language in 

use, because he is interested in “investing in the use of language in context by a 

speaker/writer” and the relationship that exist between the utterance and speaker, 

in a particular context of language-use (35).  

Courthard sees discourse analysis as being interested in the characterization of 

speaker’s/writer’s meaning and it is explained, in the context of use. In other to 

actualize this, he ascribes two functions to discourse analysis, which include 

portraying “the structure of supra-sentential text of social transaction by imposing 

some framework upon the data, explicitly or implicitly, and to offer a 

characterization of how, in the context of negotiation, participants go about the 

process of interpreting meaning” (8) even if, it is reciprocal as applied in 

conversation or non-reciprocal as also applied in writing/reading. On this note 

Chiluwa espouses that this “structure-portraying” function is where text analysis 

and discourse analysis are related. Therefore, in the interpretation-characterizing 

role, discourse analysis is involved in “the assessment of the communicative 

function of momentary messages, drawing upon general and specific background 

knowledge in the process of making inference.”  More still, he adds that “the first 

type of inquiry in discourse analysis is the determination of interactive acts, 

designed them with some “larger interactional frame” while the objective of the 

second role is “the capturing of illocutionary force, drawing upon general 

pragmatic principle, an understanding of contextual expectation in the activity 

type under discussion, together with knowledge of how information may 

generally be structured and procedures of natural analogy” (68). 

 



 

 

Posthumous festschrift in honour of late professor R.O. Ezeuko, edited by Dr. Odinye, Egenti & Orji 

 

166 

 

The Interaction, Text and Context 

These elements form a procedure base, in critical discourse analysis. Chiluwa 

writes that the description of text helps to show the formal properties of a 

particular text, which may be identified in vocabulary or in grammar found in the 

discourse type where the text hinges on. In analysis of these properties or features 

in the text, he declares that it means taking account of what other choices in the 

discourse type that could have been used instead.” Furthermore, he maintains that 

fundamentally features of vocabulary or grammar must have those required 

discourse value,” such as ‘experiential,’ ‘relational’, or ‘expressive’ (56). 

Fairchough describes experiential value as ‘a trace of and a cue to the way in 

which the text producers experience of the natural or social world (knowledge and 

belief)’ is represented, he further explains that relationships, that are enacted 

through the text in the discourage and finally that expressive value is also “a trace 

of and a cue to the producer’s evaluation of the bit of the reality it relates to, 

specifically with subjects and social identities” (111-112). 

“The values of textual features,” Fairclough exerts, “only become real, socially 

operative, if they are embedded in social interaction, where texts are produced and 

interpreted against a background of “common sense assumptions,” which give 

textual features their value” (14). To properly analysis the discourse value of any 

text, in “terms of how socially operative it is as part of institutional and social 

processes of struggle (Chiluwa 57). He affirms further that Fairclough calls these 

discourse processes, “interpretation,” that is, the study and its reliance on the 

society and backgrounds hypotheses, in regard to the critical discourse procedure. 

More so, in further explanation of this interpretation, he writes that it can be 

achieved through the synthesis of what is in the text, and what is in the interpreter 

(taking the interpreter as a member of the society, and the resources that he 

involves in the interpretation). Four levels of analysis of interpretation are 

identified, they include, the surface of utterance, that is, how the analyst can 

change the ‘strings of sounds, word or sentences meaningfully, drawing upon his 

knowledge of the grammar, phonology or vocabulary or the language”, secondly, 

meaning of utterance, that is, “how analyst interprets utterance based on his 

ability to combine the meaning of words and grammatical information to arrive at 

the meaning of the whole text.” This also helps the interpreter to draw the 

pragmatic conventions in the utterance that enables him determine how utterance 

performs actions. Thirdly, local coherence, this enables the analyst to concentrate 

“on local” coherence relations within a particular part of text, that is, connections 



 

 

Posthumous festschrift in honour of late professor R.O. Ezeuko, edited by Dr. Odinye, Egenti & Orji 

 

167 

 

between utterance pairs and sequence of pairs.” Finally, text structure and point, 

this involves how a whole text hangs together to achieve a “global coherence” 

(Fairclough as qtd in Chiluwa 57). 

The analysis or interpretation of situational context is part of the above discussed 

“interpretation, if considered in respect to the properties of the physical context, 

the features of participants, that which has been said in the past and finally, the 

representations of societal and institutional social orders. Situational context has 

four aspect of interpretation which include, what is happening, that is, topic, 

purpose, activity secondly, who is involved, thirdly the relationship that are 

involved and fourthly, the role language plays in what is happening or going on 

(Chiluwa 57, Fairclough 150). 

To fully appreciate an utterance, the individual and situations view point have to 

be based of the interpretation. So, this implies that language occurs all the time 

within the meanings that are usually expressed in words. According to Fairclough, 

discourse is social practice and therefore utterances are determined by social 

conditions. This therefore brings texts, interaction and context “in an inextricable 

relationship in every communicative encounter,” (Chiluwa 69, Fairclough 156). 

Language-user use language as a medium for self-definition and cultural 

identification, so discourse takes place in cognitive context or social context of 

cultural context (Schiffrin 88). Participants are involved in language and 

discourse, with some degrees of shared meaning or co-operative principle. The 

moods, traits, attitudes and relations of such users form the indispensable part of 

the context. (Chiluwa 69-70). Meanwhile, according to Firth, a language or an 

utterance is considered to be nonsense, if it fails to have a coherent relationship 

with a generalized context of situation (63). However, even if the language may 

be grammatically acceptable, yet it fails to account for the ‘implication of 

utterance in some cultural acceptable and interpretable situation” it will not be 

seen as being meaningful at the level of semantic interpretation (Chiluwa 

70).Moreover, for meaning to be seen as a social-oriented communicative 

business, either at the grammatical, paralinguistic or phonological level, it must be 

contextualized. (Chiluwa 70). 

Competence and Context 

Communicative competence is somewhat the summary of what has been said 

about the knowledge needed by a speaker or hearer, on how to use linguistic 

forms appropriately, it is more broadly-based than linguistic competence. This 



 

 

Posthumous festschrift in honour of late professor R.O. Ezeuko, edited by Dr. Odinye, Egenti & Orji 

 

168 

 

brings it “closer to functional text grammars, particularly the systemic model, and 

virtually removes the gap … between theory and practice with linguistic 

competence and grammatical competence” (Adejare 159-160). He asserts that 

“language-use in normal situation is not only recognized as an important element 

of competence, it receives a higher ranking than linguistic competence or 

grammatical competence” (16). So, Campbell and Wales define it as the 

capability or ability to produce and understand utterances which are not so much 

grammatical but appropriate in the context in which they are used (241). In 

addition, Williams refers to it “as the ability to use language in its socio cultural, 

interpersonal aspects, beyond the sentence, that is, the discourse level” (16). 

This concept or model is the brainchild of Hymes in his bid to emphasize that 

language competence comprises more than just being able to “form grammatically 

correct sentences but also to know when and where to use these sentences and to 

whom” (Schmitt 6). He espouses that this development helped to change the focus 

from language “correctness” (accuracy) to suitability of any language for a given 

context (appropriateness) (6). 

Three main strands were developed in communicative competence, by Canale and 

Swain, namely grammatical competence – it is the knowledge of synaptic rules 

(sentence formation) of a given language. This knowledge alone cannot provide 

the user the ability to produce and interpreted utterances or language 

appropriately. Secondly, sociolinguistic competence – it enables the user to know 

when to say, where to say and to whom. This is the ability to produce and 

understand utterances, which are appropriate to the context in which they are 

used. Finally, strategic competency – it is the knowledge of using verbal and non-

verbal strategic to communicate effectively. These strategies are categorized as 

the paraphrase of approximation, borrowing or inventing words, gestures, asking 

for feedback and reduction. 

Hymes and Communicative Competence 

His ethnographic-functional model focused on the knowledge, which a 

communicator or user needs to communicate effectively and thereby, achieving 

communicative competence, which enables the user to use language in the 

appropriate context; that is, how language functions in discourse situation. 

Though he does not entirely rejected Chomsky’s approach, he broadens it, and 

gives greater or much emphasis to sociolinguistics and pragmatic factors (the skill 

that enables the user of language to know when to speak, when not to speak and 



 

 

Posthumous festschrift in honour of late professor R.O. Ezeuko, edited by Dr. Odinye, Egenti & Orji 

 

169 

 

as to what to talk about with whom, when in what manner). So, Hymes theorizes 

that the goal of every language user should be:  

to account for the fact that a normal child acquires knowledge of 

sentences, not only as grammatically, but also as appropriate. He 

or she acquires competence as to when to speak, when not and as 

to what to talk about with when, where, in what manner. In short, a 

child becomes able to accomplish a repertoire of speech acts, to 

take part in speech events, and to evaluate their accomplishment by 

others. This competence, moreover, is integral with attitudes, 

values and motivations concerning language, its features and uses, 

and integral with competence for, and attitude toward, the 

interrelation of language with the other code of communicative 

conduct (23). 

So, it takes a functional standpoint, which adopts pragmatic view of language 

study and further combines speech acts and interactional medium within a broader 

framework of inquiry. Communicative competence is embedded in the 

ethnographic framework of language, that analyses language as organized social 

behaviour, and therefore it is important to the proper use of language in context 

towards discovering the functional roles of discourse in social life. “For example, 

it includes knowing how to formulate a yes/no question” (Operator-NP-VP?) and 

knowing that only certain types (for example, could you VP?) function as polite 

requests and knowing how to use them appropriate” (Schmit 22). 

Conclusion 

The primary advantage of the model foraged, so far, is that it is context-oriented 

which forms it premise on the functional use of language, regardless of its well-

formedness or “correctness”. The deployment of the systemic-functional approach 

enables the researcher to incorporate some insights developed by other related 

areas of study, which include, communicative competence, pragmatics, discourse 

analysis. So, to achieve a workable framework for this study, concept like 

inference, implicature, background/shared knowledge and presupposition will be 

subsumed under the textual and contextual function of language. It is important in 

this study, because its situational components help to study language beyond mere 

abstraction or beyond grammatical analysis. It equally helps the researcher to 

analyse language from the view point of the language user and the context or 

situation of its use 



 

 

Posthumous festschrift in honour of late professor R.O. Ezeuko, edited by Dr. Odinye, Egenti & Orji 

 

170 

 

 

Works Cited 

Adegbite, Wale. “Pragmatics: Some Basic Principles and Procedures.” Babajide 

(Ed). Studies in English Language. Ibadan: Enicrownfit, (2000): 254-

269. 

Adejare, Oluwole. “Communicative Competence in English as a Second 

Languge.” New Englishes: A West African Perspective. Bamgbose, Ayo 

et al (Eds.) Ibadam: Mosuro (1995): 153-177. 

Brown, G. and George Yule. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press, 1983. 

Canale, M and M. Swain: “Theoretical Bases of Communication Approaches to 

Second Language Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics. ELT 

Journal 1(2003) 1-47. 

Chiluwa, Innocent E. Discourse Pragmatics of News Headlines and Lead Stores 

in Tell, the News and News-watch, 1996 – 2002. Unpublished Ph.D 

Thesis of the University of Lagos, 2005. 

Coulthard, M. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. 2nd ed. London. Longman, 

1985. 

Cook, G. Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. 

Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power. London: Longman, 1989. 

Firth, J.R. Papers in Linguistics. London: Edward Arnold, 1957. 

Fowler, Roger., B. Hodge, Gunther. Kress, and T. Trew (1979) Language and 

Control. London: Routledge andKegan Paul. 

Grice, H.Paul. “Logic and Conversation,” Harvard William Jones” Lectures 1967, 

in Cole, P- and Y.L. Morgan (Eds). Syntax and Semantics: Speech Act., 

3, New York: Academic Press, 1975. 

Hymes, Dell. (1972) ‘On communicative competence’, In Pride, J. B. and 

Holmes, J. 

(eds) Sociolinguistics Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269–93. 



 

 

Posthumous festschrift in honour of late professor R.O. Ezeuko, edited by Dr. Odinye, Egenti & Orji 

 

171 

 

Kempson, R. “Grammar and Conversational Principle.” F.J. Newmeyer (ed). 

Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press, 1988, 139-162. 

Labov, William. Sociolinguistic Patters. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania 

Press, 1972. 

Lyon, John. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. 

Williams, D. English Language Teaching. An Integrated Approach. Ibadan: 

Spectrum Books Limited, 1990. 

Stubbs, Michael. Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. 

Schmidt, Gurly and Jannis Androutsopoulos. “Lobbe Doch. 

Beziehungskommunikation mit SM”, Gesprachsforschung 5 51-71, 2004. 

Yule, George, The study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 

1985. 


