Context is the circumstances and conditions for the use of a word, phrase, sentence or several sentences. Context is especially important for determining the meaning of some words and expressions that have different meanings in different contexts. The word comes from the Latin contextus - "connection", "connection". Sometimes the context is simply the set of conditions in which the object is located, the semantic formation that determines its meaning. In cases where the common meaning of a term is suppressed by the conditions of use, for example, time frames, certain literature, one speaks of the contextuality of the term or calls it contextual. In linguistics, there are two types of context: left and right. Left context - statements that are to the left of the concept under consideration, right - to the right of it.

microcontext

The microcontext is the immediate environment of a word or expression, that is, a small passage in which it is used and wraps around with a meaning, which in this case may go beyond the type of circumstances of other parts of the text. The microcontext is an independent part of the context, which is separated from it by the semantic field of the language.

Contextualization

Contextualization is a cultural environment that can be of two kinds: high context and low context. The low context implies an emphasis on the essence of the translation of the text and is limited by its receptive nature, that is, it implies a "dry", but accurate, simple, quick, understandable presentation of the meaning. In high-context cultures, the meaning and essence of the message pass into the background, the main thing in them is the one who broadcasts the information, how he does it and the effect that he creates with his speech (text).

The difference between high and low contexts was identified in the 20th century by the American anthropologist and cross-cultural management researcher Edward Hall. He included Northern Europe, the countries of North America, as well as Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland, Finland and Scandinavian countries as low-context countries, and Japan, Arab countries, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Latin America as high-context countries. Principles of communication in countries with a low context: directness of speech, distinctness of the assessment of the situation / person / object under discussion, etc., innuendo is equated to incompetence, a clear expression of disagreement with something, non-verbal communication is used minimally. Countries with a high context are characterized by: streamlined expressions, frequent use of pauses, a pronounced role of non-verbal communication (facial expressions, gestures), excessive loading of speech with concepts distant from the main topic, restraint and even secrecy of indignation when disagreeing with opinions in any circumstances.

from lat. contextus - coupling, connection, connection), a fragment of a text or speech that is relatively complete in meaning, within which the meaning and meaning of dep. words, phrases, sets of phrases included in it. In the logic and methodology of science, K. is understood as a separate reasoning, a fragment of a scientific theory, or a theory as a whole.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

context

CONTEXT(from layu. contextus - close connection, connection) - a term widely used in the humanities, in philosophy and in everyday language. In particular, the methodological program of the philosophical hermeneutics, expressing dogs linguistic turn in epistemology, built around concepts understanding and interpretation, clarification of which is carried out by referring to the concept of "K." This program is not limited to hermeneutics, showing a strong tendency towards interdisciplinarity. The concept of k. entered into a stable circulation in epistemology, linguistics, social anthropology, psychology, the history of science, cognitive science, the history of philosophy, and even theology. Accordingly, one can speak of different types of contextualism that correlate and interact with each other. However, their analysis shows that the concept of K. has not been clarified in many respects. The non-obviousness of the concept of "K." falls into the focus of theoretical attention only if we distinguish between the special-scientific theories of K. and the philosophical problematization of this concept. K.'s theory has as its subject various types of integrity and interrelations of the studied phenomenon, its inclusion in the language, in the current situation. activities and communications, into local and universal culture. In philosophy, the concept of "K." faces the following questions. Thus, the understanding of a word presupposes taking into account the manifold K. Then, in the limit, its meaning actually turns out to be a conglomerate of semantic elements that are weakly interconnected. But how is it possible to preserve the identity of the meaning, if the word turns out to be so vague and ambiguous, how to ensure the adequacy of understanding and mutual understanding? In addition, the genesis or functioning of a certain cultural phenomenon (in art, religion, science, etc.) is determined by a number of determinants, or K. However, this phenomenon is also characterized by its own identity, difference from its K. What are the boundaries reductionism contextual explanation? Can we reduce the explained phenomenon to the totality of K. - for example, the science- to the historical conditions of its formation? Finally, even if each theory depends on its inherent scientific, social and cultural K. Are different, including historically and culturally distant, theories comparable in this case? Is their independent truth assessment, their rational choice, possible? Discussion of these questions deepens the understanding of the eternal philosophical problems behind the terms "meaning", "explanation-" or "true", and also contributes to the clarification of specific methodological dilemmas that arise in the sciences. K. in hermeneutics Within the framework of hermeneutics, the concept of K. does not receive an explicit thematization. However, the problem of the individuality of the speaker and the understander (F. Schleiermacher), time and temporality in the existential project (M. Heidegger), history, tradition and language of hermeneutic experience (H.-G. Gadamer) - all these concepts articulate "K." hermeneutic subject, which, with all the differences, are similar to the known concepts of theoretical linguistics. Every act of understanding is a reversal of the act of speech, according to Schleiermacher. Hermeneutics is designed to show how the meanings of words given at the language level in the process of speech use and understanding are concretized and turned into meanings. Schleiermacher distinguishes between two processes of interpretation. "grammatical" or "objective" interpretation consists in the linguistic interpretation of the linguistic form text, in the analysis of the correct use of the word, in revealing the true author's meaning. "Technical" ("psychological", "subjective") is designed to reveal the personality author in its specificity and its style as a unity of language and ideas, to carry out the "transformation" of the interpreter into the author. The first K., associated with the position of the interpreter, are the specific conditions and prerequisites inherent in him (individual knowledge, language talent, talent for knowing human characteristics). The second K. are opened in the very process of interpretation, which is aimed at trying to understand the element of language from its external relationships in the cycle of the whole and the part, and vice versa. In the language, direct text constructs are constructed, and with the help of language, its indirect ones are reconstructed. background and K. By creating the meaning of the text, they only reveal the text itself. Gadamer formulates the concept of the hermeneutic situation and the principle of the influence of history (Wirkungsgeschichte); they express the historicity of K., providing understanding. "Wirkungsgeschichte" is defined by him as a collision of the traditions of the subject with the individual historicity of the interpreter. The situation is a place that limits the possibilities of vision. What can be seen is the horizon, a circle of vision that includes and limits everything that can be seen from a given point. Language, according to Gadamer, is the basis of every experience. The historicity and finiteness of language determine not only our access to the world; in the language they receive a meaningful image of the traditions in which we meet with all kinds of historicity, as well as the hermeneutic situations in which we are embedded. "Being understandable is language" (Gadamer H.-G. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzuge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tubingen, 1975. S. 450; in an inaccurate Russian translation: “Being that can be understood is language” (Gadamer H.-G. Truth and method. M., 1988. S. 548). Thus, tradition, the influence of history, the horizon, the hermeneutic situation, and language are those K. in which meanings are produced and hermeneutic experience, or the process of cognition of cultural phenomena, is carried out. K. in the analytic tradition The problem of K., being a hermeneutic problem, at the same time is not limited to the continental (German-speaking) hermeneutic tradition. Understood as a philosophy of language, hermeneutics is gaining ground in analytical (linguistic) philosophy, for which the concept of K. is just as significant. Modern analytical discussions on the problem of K. are derived from the clash of three influential concepts. The latter are usually associated with D. Hume (skepticism), with J. Moore (common sense) and L. Wittgenstein (K.'s idea). Contextualism emphasizes the dependence of the meaning and meaning of a unit of language on inclusion in syntactic, semantic and pragmatic systems, on the situation of use, culture and history. Skepticism takes the program of contextualism to extremely relativistic consequences. Philosophy of common sense, on the contrary, denies the need for a contextual approach. Modern epistemological contextualism thus arose as a response to the skeptical denial of the possibility of knowing the world around us and to the simplistic justification for the possibility of such knowledge. Contextualism in its modern analytical version seeks to find common ground with skepticism and at the same time show the legitimacy of everyday knowledge. He does this by highlighting different contexts of reasoning and differentiating epistemic criteria (stronger and weaker) corresponding to them. The conflict of these three positions is thus imaginary, or rather, due to the dynamics of our knowledge. K. in psychology One of the first psychologists who realized the importance of K. in cognition was Karl Buhler. He formulated the “neighborhood theory”, or language environment (Umfeld-theorie): “You do not need to be a specialist in order to understand that the most important and most significant neighborhood of a linguistic sign is represented by its context; the individual reveals itself in connection with others like itself, and this connection acts as a neighborhood filled with dynamics and influence. (Btihler K. sprachtheory. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart, 1934/1965. S. 155). Here Buhler reveals his adherence to the Gestalt-theoretical paradigm, according to which individual elements form changeable wholes and are experienced in the K. of the latter. The transfer of Gestalt theory from psychology to the theory of language (in particular, the concept of "field" - Feld was taken from color theory) meant that individual linguistic phenomena are not considered in isolation, but only in relation to the integrity that dominates them. A similar position was defended at about the same time by L.S. Vygotsky: “The word absorbs intellectual and affective contents from the entire context in which it is woven, and begins to mean more and less than is contained in its meaning when we consider it in isolation and out of context: more - because the range of its meanings is expanding, acquiring a number of zones filled with new content; less - because the abstract meaning of the word is limited and narrowed by what the word means only in this context ... In this respect, the meaning of the word is inexhaustible ... The word acquires its meaning only in the phrase, the phrase itself acquires meaning only in the context of the paragraph, a paragraph - in the context of a book, a book - in the context of the entire work of the author" (Vygotsky L.S. Selected psychological studies. M., 1956. S. 370). K. in social anthropology and linguistics Modern social anthropology seeks to explain and understand all the existing social and cultural diversity. Her main method is the localization of specific social phenomena within the framework of a broad comparative K. She singles out the following dimensions: - setting: social and spatial framework in which interactions take place; - behavioral environment: the way in which participants use their bodies and behaviors as resources for framing and organizing conversation (gestures, postures, glances); - language K. (language as context): the way in which oneself talk, or text, voiced and produced by K. for another conversation, or text; - extrasituational context: understanding the exchange of remarks requires "basic knowledge" (background knowledge), which goes far beyond the local conversation and the immediate environment. In the 1990s, the social sciences experienced an ethnographic turn. A special anthropological innovation in the arsenal of social and humanitarian knowledge is "qualitative methodology". The latter is intended to provide new opportunities for understanding cognitive, emotional and behavioral development, as well as those problems that characterize modern society as a whole. Qualitative methods include a wide range of means from participant observation to hermeneutic work with text. Positioning qualitative ethnographic research at the center of social and scientific knowledge, anthropologists specifically demonstrate the epistemological relevance of the concept of K. (as well as the concepts values and subjectivity) in the behavioral sciences. In its ideas about K. modern social anthropology relies, however, on the long tradition of the British school of "contextualism", which originated in the works of B. Malinowski and J. Furs in the 30s. 20th century This school generalized individual ideas that are already found in W. Humboldt and F. Saussure, and anticipated what it later specifically focused on. interpretive anthropology and sociolinguistics(functional linguistics). B. Malinovsky initially believed that the dependence of a language on the sphere of its use is a feature of primitive, or primitive, languages. However, he then changed his point of view: “The true understanding of words is always, in the end, derived from the experience of activity in those aspects of reality to which these words refer” (Malinowski V. Coral Gardens and their Magic. V. 2. L., 1935. P. 58). This is what can be called "K. situations." Beyond it lies what might be called "cultural K.," and part of the definition of the word is to refer to it as cultural K.. Language, as a system of vocabulary and grammar, belongs to the culture of culture; examples of the use of language - special texts and their elements - refer to the K. situation. Both of these K. are outside the language. Linguists, without clearly formulating the concept of "situational K.", also gradually came to understand its necessity, since the "text" ceased to be limited written language and no longer referred primarily to the results of the work of deceased authors; linguists turned to speech, to dialectology. And here they had to take into account such factors as reference to a person, objects and events that are in the field of attention of the speaker (exophoric deixis - as a linguistic definition of a non-linguistic situation). So, in the words of M. Holliday, a famous British linguist, “the situation was likened to a text surrounding a segment of spoken discourse" (Halliday M.A.K. The Notion of "Context" in Language Education // Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1999, p. 4). This quotation contains an important analytical distinction between the text and K., living speech (directly and visually connected with K. and the process of its production, regardless of the observer) and the text (existing only in its carriers, cut off from extralinguistic K. and the production process). (On the difference between the terms "discourse" and "text" see also: Kasavin I.T. Problem and Context: On the Nature of Philosophical Reflection // Questions of Philosophy. 2004. No. 11.) The concept of cultural language as a system was, however, much more fully articulated by Sapir and Whorf. Sapir did not use the expression "context of culture", but he actually interpreted language as an expression of the mental life of the speaker, and, based on this, he and Whorf developed their concept of the interaction of language and culture. ("Sepira-Whorf hypothesis). According to her, since language developed as part of any human culture, it functioned as the primary means by which the basic perceptions and intersubjective experience of individuals were confirmed and translated into social reality. In this sense, culture offers the K. language, in which words and grammatical systems are interpreted. Systems of meaning that lie deep beneath the surface of grammatical constructions and can only be discovered by thorough grammatical analysis, Whorf called "cryptotypes". These two main traditions of language learning in Canada - British and American - substantially complement each other. The first focuses on the situation as the K. of language as a text, and language is seen as a form of activity, as an implementation of social relations and processes. The second focuses on culture as K. language as a system; language is understood here as a form of reflection, as an embedding of experience into a theory or into a model of reality. Theories of K. in a number of humanitarian studies are doomed to failure due to the infinity of K. and situations. This is typical for the interpretive anthropology of K. Geertz. It offers nothing more than a typological framework, which, in the process of text analysis, requires the interpreter to specify, determined by the specifics of contextual relations. From this it follows that there can be no theory of K. as a closed system. On this basis, modern linguists often declare the concept of K. trivial and even empty, since there is not a single phrase that can be given meaning outside of K. It remains only to build models of the interpretation process in which K. plays a significant role, and to deduce from this consequence for theory speech acts. It is this skeptical conclusion that critical linguists, aware of the limits of theorizing in their discipline, come to. The balance between science and art therefore remains an inevitable contextual strategy. reconstruction. Its methodology is far from algorithmic, it is rather situational. For a meaningful epistemological use of the term "K." it is necessary to build its typological definition on the basis of different forms of language manifestation and different types of sociality. This is a special task, which is still far from being solved. It is likely that the philosophical concept of K. can be formulated not so much as a generalization of the linguistic, anthropological and psychological meanings of this term, but by its contextual definition in the system of such concepts as text, discourse, knowledge, culture and sociality. A philosopher engaged in a socio-cultural interpretation of a certain element of knowledge is inspired by the diverse meanings with which it acquires, turning from an epistemological abstraction into a cultural object. However, he loses sight of the fact that any contextualization is localization, a transition from a possible variety of meanings to their real limitation, a transition from the general to the particular. Practiced on its own, this method leads from the philosophical generalizations to special scientific description- to what, in theory, is intended to serve as the starting point of philosophical reflection, but it turns out to be its involuntary, albeit not final, result. The brilliance of contextualism needs philosophical K., the latter is an appeal to the absolute. Philosophy as such is thought against the background of the absolute. Attention to K., in turn, allows us to show that the absolute does not just hover in a “smart place”, but is filled with human, cultural, historical content, which always strives to go beyond its own limits. I. T. Kasavin Lit.: Kasavin I.T. problem and context. On the nature of philosophical reflection // Questions of Philosophy. 2004. No. 11; His own. Contextualism as a Methodological Program // Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2005. No. 4; Ashenberg H. Contexte in Texten. Umfeldtheorie und literarische Situationsaufbau. Tubingen, 1999; Bihler K. sprachtheory. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart, 1934/1965; DeRose K. Solving the Skeptical Problem // Keith DeRose and Ted A. Warfield, (Eds.), Skepticism: A Contemporary Reader. Oxford, 1999; Enkvist N.E. Categories of Situational Context from the Perspectives of Stylistics // Language Teaching and Linguistics. Abstracts 13.1980; Gadamer H.-G. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundziige einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tubingen, 1975; Geertz C interpretation of cultures. N.Y., 1973; Goodwin, Duranti A. Rethinking Context: An Introduction // Duranti A., Goodwin C. (Eds.) Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge, 1991; Halliday M.A.K. The Notion of "Context" in Language Education // Text and Context in Functional Linguistics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia, 1999; Jessor R., Shweder R.A., Colby A.(Eds.) Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1996; Malinowski B. The problem of meanig in primitive language // Supplement 1 to C.K. Ogden & L.A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning. L., 1 9 2 3; Malinowski B. Coral Gardens and their Magic. V. 2. L., 1935; Morris E.K. Some reflections on contextualism, mechanism and behavior analysis // The Psychological Record. 47.1997; Steiner E. Die Entwicklung des Britischen Kontextualismus. Heidelberg, 1983; Schleiermacher E.E. Hermeneutik. Heidelberg, 1959; WorfB.L. Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge, Mass., N. Y., 1956.

- (lat. con with, and lat. textis). Text printed next to other text. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. CONTEXT [lat. contextus connection, close connection] verbal environment; text ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

context- The setting, frame or process in which events take place and meaning is provided for the content. Brief explanatory psychological and psychiatric dictionary. Ed. igisheva. 2008. context... Great Psychological Encyclopedia

context- CONTEXT (from layu. contextus close connection, connection) is a term widely used in the humanities, in philosophy and in everyday language. In particular, the methodological program of philosophical hermeneutics, which expressed dogs ... ... Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science

context- related passage, Dictionary of Russian Synonyms. noun context, number of synonyms: 2 excerpt (20) connection ... Synonym dictionary

context- a, m. contexte m. An excerpt of written speech (text), complete in terms of meaning, within which it is possible to understand the meaning of a single word included in it. ALS 1. Moralism of Tolstoy. Again a relapse, again a return to the beloved moralism... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

CONTEXT- (from Latin contextus connection connection), a relatively complete passage of written or oral speech (text), within which the meaning of individual words, expressions, etc., contained in it, is most accurately revealed ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

CONTEXT- (lat. contextus connection, close connection) a quasi-textual phenomenon generated by the effect of the systemic nature of the text as an expressive semantic integrity and consisting in the superadditivity of the meaning and meaning of the text in relation to the meaning and meaning of the sum ... ... The latest philosophical dictionary

CONTEXT- CONTEXT, context, male. (lat. contextus plexus, connection) (philol.). A connected verbal whole in relation to a specific word or phrase included in it. It is necessary to take the phrase in context, and then it will become clear. Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov

CONTEXT- CONTEXT, ah, husband. (book). Relatively complete in terms of semantic part of the text, statements. The meaning of a word is learned in context. | adj. contextual, oh, oh and contextual, oh, oh. Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova… … Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

CONTEXT- (from lat. contextus coupling, connection, connection), a fragment of text or speech that is relatively complete in meaning, within which the meaning and meaning of otd. the word, phrase, set of phrases included in it ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Context- (lat. contextus - connection, agreement, connection) the general meaning of socio-historical and cultural conditions that make it possible to clarify the semantic meaning of the results of human activity. Big explanatory dictionary of cultural studies .. Kononenko B.I ... Encyclopedia of cultural studies

Books

• Context-9. Almanac, No. 7, 2001, Alexey Yartsev, Evgenia Ryakovskaya, We offer you the seventh issue of the literary and philosophical almanac "Context-9" for 2001 ... Category: Scientific literature Series: Context-9 (almanac) Publisher: Context - 9, Buy for 351 rubles
• Context, Mark Troitsky, Book of poems and graphicsPublisher: Effect… Category:

2 Quite often, users come across not entirely clear expressions and words on the World Wide Web that require additional interpretation. That is why on the site you will find many decodings of the most popular terms and concepts. Don't forget to bookmark this resource so you can come back to us from time to time. Today we will talk about a rather interesting word that is found everywhere, it is Context what the word means you can find out a little lower.
However, before continuing, I would like to recommend you a couple more sensible publications on the subject of Internet slang. For example, what does Friend mean, how to understand the word BLJad, what does CAC mean, what is Custom, etc.
So, let's continue, what does the word Context mean? This term was borrowed from the Latin language "contextus", which can be translated as "weave", "weave". However, this concept came to Russia in the 18th century, and came from the French word " contexte".

Context- this is a certain set of circumstances surrounding, any object

Context- this is a verbal (in colloquial speech) or textual environment, any phrase. The mentioned environment has a complete meaning, and in fact is a paragraph into which a large text is divided, so that it is easier for the reader to assimilate it.

Context- this is a part of speech that "stores" information in itself that allows you to decipher further expressions and sentences, taking into account previously voiced references to any information

Context- this is a semantic situation, based on it, the meaning of words can take on a very different semantic load, often not at all characteristic of them

Taken out of context- this means that this expression was quoted without taking into account the speech situation in which it was pronounced

From time to time, people in everyday speech come across an expression, for example, "torn from context What does that mean, they ask?
In addition, not everyone understands when to use this word, and when it is better to refrain from using it.

Quite often it happens that the meaning of individual expressions and phrases cannot be understood without context, that is, the semantic environment. At the same time, not so much a momentary part of a conversation, text or speech can be taken as a basis. The general meaning can be "smeared" over a large time period.

Sometimes it’s difficult, without an example / half a liter you can’t figure it out.
For example, you know that your girlfriend likes sweet cakes and chocolates. Therefore, when meeting her, you can affectionately call her a sweet tooth, instead of her name. At the same time, she will not be offended, but will consider this quite normal, but only on the basis of context knowing that she likes sweets.

However, context may not always be part of a conversation or text. It can be both an entourage, and some place, memorable events, etc.
For example, you go up to a barrel of kvass on a hot summer day and ask: " How"?". And the seller will tell you the price, that is, based on the context, he understood you perfectly. However, when you meet this individual in an open field and approach him with this question, he will think that you were probably dropped as a child from the window, causing severe injury to your brain.

I think you already understand everything, but still, what does it mean " taken out of context"? And this is what we talked about in the last example. Pulling out that very seller of kvass from his barrel (context), and you get complete nonsense.

I will give another simple example, when part of the words are intentionally or thoughtlessly removed from a quote, then in the end this leads to a complete inversion of the meaning. This is actively used by liberal cattle and the most honest Western media in the world.
For example, Uncle Vova says that he is ready to use nuclear weapons in case of a real threat to the integrity of the Russian Federation, and Western mongrels write that despot Putin threatens to use nuclear weapons. In fact, it is, only it is not the whole truth, and this interpretation has almost completely distorted the words of our president. Sometimes it's called " twitching"But that doesn't matter at all.

Based on the foregoing, it can be understood that a few words taken out of context can lead to big problems. Therefore, always quote correctly in a conversation so as not to do stupid things. Consider context, in which this or that expression is written or pronounced, since sometimes this can be a key point.

I will add that there is on the Internet contextual advertising, which webmasters (people who create websites) call "context". Why is this word used for its name?
It's simple, it's actually true. The advertisement is located among the text, and it shows an ad that will be consonant with the content of the article. This means that it does not seem "foreign body", that is, "taken out of context", and it is this feature that allows us to consider it one of the best advertising tools today.

After reading this informative article, you learned what does context mean, the meaning of the word, and you will no longer get into trouble if you meet this term again on the Internet or in everyday speech.

What is Context? The meaning of the word "Context" in popular dictionaries and encyclopedias, examples of the use of the term in everyday life.

Meaning of "Context" in dictionaries

Context

– Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov

Context M. - Explanatory Dictionary of Efremova

1. An excerpt of text or speech, necessary to determine the meaning of the word or phrase included in it. 2. trans. The totality of various factors necessary for understanding, explaining any. phenomena of reality.

Context Theory - Psychological Dictionary

The theoretical point of view that all behavior must be analyzed in the context in which it occurs, that interpreting any action out of context is ultimately misleading.

Context Theory - Psychological Encyclopedia

– Psychological Dictionary

See learning, context specific.

Context Specific Learning - Psychological Encyclopedia

Context App. - Explanatory Dictionary of Efremova

1. Corresponding in value. with noun: the context associated with it. 2. Inherent to the context, characteristic of it.

Contextualization - Psychological Dictionary

Cultural indicator: the degree to which cultures encourage divergent behavior according to the specific context within which the behavior takes place.

Contextualization - Psychological Encyclopedia

Contextualism - Psychological Dictionary

See context theory.

Contextualism - Psychological Encyclopedia

Contextual Association - Psychological Dictionary

(contextual association) Context occupies an important but ambiguous position in psychol. theories. In early research English-speaking psychologists referred to context as background stimulation that reinforces and maintains behavior. Since the context was given the same logical status as other sources of stimulation, it could be treated as another stimulus capable of associating with other events. Used t. o. context has allowed psychologists to explore the question of how experience, or more specifically learning, can modify our perception. E. B. Titchener, the recognized leader of structuralism in the United States, proclaimed that sensations acquire meaning due to the context in which they occur. Simple sensations do not matter: meaning appears only when the primary sensation is accompanied by other sensations or images. According to E. B. Titchener, meaning is the totality of sensations conjured up in the imagination whenever a particular sensation is experienced in a particular context. Several Earlier, W. James discussed how the distinction between initially mixed stimuli occurs as a result of adding more distinguishable features, or associations, to each stimulus. Why are there such different schools - the structuralism of E. B. Titchener, the functionalism of W. James and the neo-behaviorism of modern. theorists - treated the same way with the context? Despite their many differences, all of these schools originate from empiricism. Like empiricism, they make the main emphasis on the analysis of phenomena and their decomposition into fundamentals. elements, and also share the call for associationism regarding the need to take into account the unity of the psychic. life. Although the context that enters into connection with the events taking place in it, m. b. considered as a stimulus, it is equally likely that the context of the stimulus can serve as a metamessage that classifies the elementary stimulus (signal). The message conveyed by a signal may be determined by the context in which it is located. Dr. In other words, the same stimulus in a different context can carry different messages. Viewed in this light, context becomes a superordinate concept that hierarchically arranges and structures behavior. See also Perception, Structuralism E. Rickert