Context

Context (pronounced kon-tekst)

(1) In structural linguistics, the factors which may define or help disclose the meaning or effect of a written or spoken statement including (1) the words preceding or following a specific word or passage, (2) the position of the author, (3) the identity of the author, (4) the intended audience, (5) the time and place in which the words were delivered and (6) such other circumstances as may be relevant.

(2) The surroundings, circumstances, environment, background or settings that might determine, specify or clarify the meaning of an event or other occurrence.

(3) In mycology, the fleshy fibrous body (trama) of the pileus in mushrooms.

(4) In Novell’s Netware network operating system, an element of Directory Services (the hierarchical structure used to organize and manage network resources), one’s context being a specific level within the directory tree.

(5) To knit or closely bind; to interweave (obsolete).

(6) In archaeology and anthropology, the surroundings and environment in which an artifact is found and which may provide important clues about the artifact's function, age, purpose, cultural meaning etc.

(7) In formal logic (for a formula), a finite set of variables, which set contains all the free variables in the given formula.

1375–1425: From the late Middle English context (a composition, a chronicle, the entire text of a writing), from (and originally the past participle of) the Latin contextus (a joining together, scheme, structure), the construct being contex(ere) (to join by weaving; to interweave) + -tus (the suffix of a verb of action).  The construct of contexere was con- + texere (to plait or braid, to weave), from the primitive Indo-European root teks (to weave; to build; to fabricate).  The prefix con- was from the Middle English con-, from the Latin con-, from the preposition cum (with), from the Old Latin com, from the Proto-Italic kom, from the primitive Indo- European ḱóm (next to, at, with, along).  It was cognate with the Proto-Germanic ga- (co-), the Proto-Slavic sъ(n) (with) and the Proto-Germanic hansō.  It was used with certain words to add a notion similar to those conveyed by with, together, or joint or with certain words to intensify their meaning.  The verb contex (to weave together) was known as early as the 1540s and was also from the Latin contexere; it was obsolete by the early eighteenth century.

The meaning "the parts of a writing or discourse which precede or follow, and are directly connected with, some other part referred to or quoted" developed in the mid-late sixteenth century.  The adjective contextual (pertaining to, dealing with the context) dates from 1822, on the model of textual and the phrase “contextual definition” appeared first in works of philosophy in 1873.  Contextualization from 1930 & contextualize from 1934 were both products of academic writing.  Many of the derivations (acontextual, contextual criticism, contextual inquiry, contextualist, contextuality, contextualize, metacontextual, non-contextual, sub-contextual) are associated with academic disciplines such as linguistics and anthropology but, predictably, the verb decontextualize (study or treat something in isolation from its context) emerged in 1971 and came from postmodernism where it found a home, along with the inevitable decontextualized, decontextualizing & decontextualization.  Context is a noun, verb & adjective, contextual & contextualistic are adjectives, contextualism, contextuality & contextualization are nouns, contexture is a noun & verb, contextualist is a noun & adjective, contextualize, contextualizing & contexualized are verbs and contextualistically & contextually are adverbs; the noun plural is contexts.

Contextual truth

In the law of defamation law, “contextual truth” describes one of the defences available to a defendant (ie the party accused of defaming the applicant).  It’s an unusual aspect of defamation law (and there are others) in that while it acknowledges certain statements may literally be false yet may still convey a broader truth or accurate meaning when considered in the context in which they were made or considered in the context of other statements (dealing usually with matters more serious) which were part of the case.  Although there have been reforms in many jurisdictions, as a general principle, defamation happens if statements found to be false have harmed the reputation of an individual or entity (although in some places, including some with respectable legal systems, it’s possible to defame with the truth).  Typically though, successfully to establish a claim of defamation, a plaintiff needs to prove (1) a statement was false, (2) that it was published or communicated to a third party and (3) that the plaintiff suffered harm as a consequence.  The defense of contextual truth essentially “runs on top” of the traditional rules in that while the some (or even all in legal theory) of the specific details of a statement may be factually incorrect, but when considered in context, they can be found to convey an underlying truth.

For example, if someone publishes an article stating that a public figure was involved in a scandalous incident, and it later emerges that some of the specific details in the article were incorrect, the defendant might argue contextual truth. They may claim that while the specific details were inaccurate, the overall implication of wrongdoing or impropriety by the public figure was true or substantially true.  Successfully to invoke the defense requires a defendant must demonstrate the impression conveyed by the statement was substantially accurate, even if specific details were incorrect and the form this takes is often that the statement alleged to be defamatory statement was not intended as a recounting of specific facts but rather a representation of a larger truth.  Despite the terminology, the defences of justification and partial justification really don’t sit on a continuum with contextual truth which demands at least one or more imputations complained of to be substantially true, and in light of the substantial truth of those imputations, the remainder of the imputations complained of do no further harm to the plaintiff’s reputation.  Like justification, contextual truth can be a complete defence to a claim and is often invoked as a defense where other statements being considered allege conduct much more likely to damage a reputation.

Pronunciation can of course be political so therefore can be contextual.  Depending on what one’s trying to achieve, how one chooses to pronounce words can vary according to time, place, platform or audience.  Some still not wholly explained variations in Lindsay Lohan’s accent were noted circa 2016 and the newest addition to the planet’s tongues (Lohanese or Lilohan) was thought by most to lie somewhere between Moscow and the Mediterranean, possibly via Prague.  It had a notable inflection range and the speed of delivery varied with the moment.  Psychologist Wojciech Kulesza of SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Poland identified context as the crucial element.  Dr Kulesza studies the social motives behind various forms of verbal mimicry (including accent, rhythm & tone) and he called the phenomenon the “echo effect”, the tendency, habit or technique of emulating the vocal patters of one’s conversational partners.  He analysed clips of Lilohan and noted a correlation between the nuances of the accent adopted and those of the person with who Ms Lohan was speaking.  Psychologists explain the various instances of imitative behaviour (conscious or not) as one of the building blocks of “social capital”, a means of bonding with others, something which seems to be inherent in human nature.  It’s known also as the “chameleon effect”, the instinctive tendency to mirror behaviors perceived in others and it’s observed also in politicians although their motives are entirely those of cynical self-interest, crooked Hillary Clinton’s adoption of a “southern drawl” when speaking in a church south of the Mason-Dixon Line a notorious example.

Memo: Team Douglas Productions, 29 July 2004.

Also of interest is the pronunciation of “Lohan” although this seems to be decided by something more random than context although it’s not clear what.  Early in 2022, marking her first post to TikTok, she pronounced her name lo-en (ie rhyming with “Bowen”) but to a generation brought up on lo-han it must have been a syllable too far because it didn’t catch on and by early 2023, she was back to lo-han with the hard “h”.  It’s an Irish name and according to the most popular genealogy sites, in Ireland, universally it’s lo-han so hopefully that’s the last word.  However, the brief flirtation with phonetic H-lessness did have a precedent:  When Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005) was being filmed in 2004, the production company circulated a memo to the crew informing all that Lohan was pronounced “Lo-en like Co-en” with a silent “h”.