Discourse Analysis and Multilingualism

The provided text appears to be an academic reference list or bibliography related to discourse analysis and multilingualism. It includes various articles, books, and conference proceedings that explore topics such as code-switching, contextualization cues, intercultural communication, and language learning in multilingual contexts. The references are from different authors and cover a range of disciplines, including linguistics, anthropology, and education. This assignment is likely intended for students or researchers in the field of discourse analysis and multilingualism to gain insight into the theoretical frameworks and empirical studies related to this topic.

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu
iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyu
iopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopa
System04002

1
Introduction
The contextualization cues refer to the signals, which are used by the speakers to indicate their
meaning or put more emphasis on them. The use and the interpretation of the contextualization
cues are developed as a result of cultural background of the individuals. The non-verbal cues,
such as utterance of words and pitch deeply influence the meaning of the speech. The use and
interpretation of contextualization cues are shaped by the cultural background of an individual.
The contextualization of cues encompasses different elements of linguistic structure, words and
syntax which are embedded with the language. There are also other paralinguistic features, such
as pitch, tempo and laughter and they are omnipresent in the human interaction. The term
contextualization of the cues was coined by John Gumperz, who used the term in the
conversational inference and states that mutual understanding can be achieved by social
interaction (Levinson, 2003).
The word “discourse Analysis” is polysemic as it refers to the close linguistic study of different
perspectives, which are using the same texts. Along with it, it also refers to the socially shared
habits, in which thoughts, perception ad behavior belonging to different genres are shared with
each other. The contextualization of cues is a term associated with intercultural communication.
The contextualization cue is the central communication component upon which communication
and miscommunication rests. It is the central piece in the human interaction, which adds meaning
to the shared understanding and meaning-making. If all the people interpret the information
correctly, it goes unnoticed; however, if the participants do not interpret the meaning correctly, it
can misled the communication. The contextualization of cues exists in all form of
communication. In the present times, emoticons which are commonly used in the text messages
can be used to understand the contextualization cues. If these cues are not interpreted correctly,
they can create challenges in the communication. The contextualization cues are an important
part of communication, as they change the meaning of the discourse. In the sociolinguistics,
contextualization of cues refers to the use of language and discourse to indicate interactional or
communicative situation (Scollon & Scollon, 2001). There are certain contextualization cues
such as intonation which allow the language users to infer adequate meaning of discourse. In this
essence, the present literature review will discuss the meaning and the theories associated with
the contextual cues. The literature review will synthesize and present information discussed by
the eminent authors.
Literature Review
In the perception of Eerdmans, Prevignano & Thibault (2003), the contextual cues are the pure
indexicals, which include symbolic lexical and grammatical signs. They do not have any
propositional content and they cannot be assigned context-free meaning. The contextualization
cues provide interpretive background for the propositional meaning.

2
The contextual cues assist in the delineation of the context as the meaning of the text changes.
The contextualization cues changes the context or meaning of the text. In other words, it can
channel or guide interpretation and giving additional meaning to the statements in the
conversation. The contextual cues assist people to provide meaning in the interaction. The
meaning of the contextual cues is dependent upon the kind of activity the people are engaged in,
the real meaning of the statements and the before and the after statements of the people.
According to Wilson (2004), the contextual cues have a significant impact in the interpretation of
meaning of the conversation. In conversations, a contextual cue has the effect of providing an
advanced message about the message, the intention of the message, and provides information
about the people interaction in a message. The contextual cue is a meta-message, which provides
information about the message.
In the perspective of Couper-Kuhlen (2015), the contextual cues refer to the signals, which refers
to phonetic, lexical or the syntactic expressions used in the conversation. It may include dialect,
register, or any other kind of information. The contextual cues indicate a marked choice. While
choosing a conventional cue, the speaker uses different forms of expressions for making a
statement.
In the views of Zheng (2016) all the choices made in the conversation have an important
discourse functions. They also have a micro linguistic function or meaning. The meaning of the
contextualization cues is implicit and can be interpreted through the text message. It means that
they do not have an independent meaning. The people outside the cultural context or outsider to
a specific conversation will not be able to recognize the contextualization cues used in the
conversation. These cues will not be noticeable to them and they will not be able to interpret
them as marked choice. Similarly, in order to interpret the contextualization cue, the person
should be tied to the conversation. Therefore, people, who are outside to a particular
conversation will not be able to understand a particular conversation.
According to Levinson (2015) when contextual cues are used, the people suppose that the
knowledge and understanding are shared with each other. The knowledge and the understanding
of the conversation and the contextual cues are developed in the conversation itself. These
contextual cues are carried from the previous conversations and the meaning is obtained from the
shared setting, previous interaction or some other platform, in which the information is shared.
In the perspective of Hamilton & Schiffrin (2015), in the conversation, the contextual cue is a
feature of the linguistic form, which contributes to the contextual presupposition. These cues
may have different interpretations, depending upon the situation and the past history of the
participants in the conversation. These cues have different linguistic realization in different
conversations. The linguistic cues carry specific information and the meanings are conveyed
through an interactive process. In a conversation, the cues carry different information and the

3
meaning is conveyed as a part of the interactive process. The words are discussed out of context;
however, meaning of the contextual cues is implicit.
In the perspective of Gordon (2015) the contextual cues refer to the verbal, nonverbal and
prosodic signals, which give meaning to the conversation. The identification of the contextual
cues in a conversation segment is challenging. Moreover, the identification of the contextual cue
does not shed light on understanding the meaning of the cue or speaker’s intention or the
interpretation of the listener’s. The meaning or the function of the contextualization cue depends
on several factors, which includes the shared understanding of the social context, which includes
the understanding of the social context, the aim and the purpose of the event, an event,
anticipation of the event, and the explicit and tacit conventions used in the conversation.
According to Crawford, Candlin, & Roger (2017), the contextual cues are part of the act or
performance that the people make towards each other. The actions and the reactions provide a
material basis for the situation and the people involved in the situation. Therefore, in a social
setting, there should be some actions or reactions and the people must have some action. When a
person reacts to the situation, they have previous acts, which involve the contextualization cues.
The reaction of the people involves the understanding of these contextual cues and their
understanding of these contextual cues. Therefore, the contextual cues must be visible and
understandable for all the involved people. However, the meaning of the cues is dependent upon
the actions and the reactions of other people, who are involved in the conversation. They are the
material basis of the understanding of an event.
It can be critiqued that the language is a material response to express oneself. It is not the
response to the past statements and actions but also to the future events. The contextual cues
become an important source of information in these conversations. These cues provide a level of
objectivity in the conversation and provide means to identify range of behaviors which can later
assist in the decision making. It is also beneficial in identifying the variables, which can help
others in validating their findings (Duff, 2007).
In the views of Bruna & Vann (2007) the contextual cues are fundamental in understanding the
transmission of the meaning of the communication. The context-specific behavior also has an
impact on the participation and the evaluation. Another important feature of contextual cues is
that their use is below the level of consciousness; it means that the people are unaware even
when they are using it. The people are unaware of the changes in the intonation patterns or the
postural figures and their effect on the contextual meaning. Moreover, most of the times, there is
no need of explicit awareness of these cues. It is because their use is shared with the people
interacting with these cues. It means that in the normal conversations, people are not explicitly
aware of the contextual cues; however, they are used and the people are aware of their implied
meaning. The difference in the intonation pattern and the rhythm of stresses can be used to
understand changes in courtesy and politeness. A specific pattern in intonation can be used to
understand courtesy and politeness. The stress on specific words can be used as a signal of

4
people understanding each other or working together. However, our awareness of the contextual
cues is below the surface of awareness; therefore, if there are any changes or personal
manifestations in the use of contextual cues, then it will create comprehension issues in
understanding these cues.
The people’s understanding of the cultural cues is also dependent upon their cultural background.
It means that the use and the meaning of the cultural cues are dependent upon the cultural
background and upbringing of the individual. If the people are interacting with the people of the
same culture, there are chances that there will be good interpretation of the contextual cues.
However, if people of different culture are interacting with one another, the use of the contextual
cues may differ. For example, the rising intonation might be perceived as significance in some
culture, whereas in other cultures, it may be perceived as arrogance. Furthermore, if the
participants of the communication are not aware of the contextualization cues, then there are
chances of misinterpretation and people can assign negative attributes to one another (Bloome,
Carter, Christian, Otto, Shuart-Faris, 2004).
According to Menard-Warwick (2008) the interpretation of the contextual cues is important in
the cross-cultural settings. The cross-cultural difference impacts the coherence within a narrative.
The use of the contextual cues in the conversation is not fixed. The people shift their codes or
cues such that it becomes appropriate for the situation. They also try to meaningfully engage in
the cross-cultural behavior.
Although Liebscher, G., & Dailey–o'cain (2005), the contextual cues are dependent upon the
theory id speech acts and are rooted on the notion of the situated meaning. The situated meaning
of the contextual cue is dependent upon the speaker’s intent in a specific situation. The context
might include the perception of the speaker in a social setting, their social relations, type of
social activity and the utterance of speaker’s perception regarding the social situation. The
understanding of the meaning is dependent upon several variables such as the literal content of
the speech and the metacommunication cues. The contextualization cues indicate the meaning of
the literal speech in a specific social situation. All across the globe, the contextual cues include
several aspects such as changes in intonation, code switching, utterance-sequence strategy,
stress, rhythm and choice of lexical items. Therefore, effective communication involves
interpretation of meaning of messages, which is eventually dependent upon the interpretation of
the contextual cues and the literal meaning of the text. The communication strategies used to
deliver the meaning of the context is dependent upon thee social convention. The shared
communication background experience determines the communication strategy and the
interpretation of the communication cues. The conventions which determine the meaning or the
interpretation of the communication cues are not directly or overtly spoken, these cues must be
learned indirectly by maintaining direct and regular connections with the use of these verbal
cues.

5
In the views of Harman & Varga-Dobai, (2012) the understanding or the comprehension of the
communication cues is a factor of shared background and the past communication experience
and values. If there are communication differences or cultural differences, there will be
difference in the communication strategies and the interpretation of the meaning of the passages.
In the intercultural setting, it could result in the misinterpretation of meaning from different
culture groups. Therefore, the cultural difference can cause issue of miscommunication.
There are some typical contextualization cues such as the increase in the loudness, changes in the
code, aversion in the gaze or stare, which does not have an independent meaning; however,
provide meaning to the literary speech. The contextual cues cannot be constructed through the
memory of the people using it. They are not considered as the competence of the speech
community and are difficult to record in the manual data.
According to Mooney, & Sullivan (2015) the contextual cues can be defined as the relationship
between the speaker, a context, spoken words and the contextualization cues. The context here is
a specific frame or situation in which the conversation or the communication is taking place. The
contextual cues are used by the users by adding a meaning to the interpretation of the whole
speech. There are several distinctions which give suggestions. The contextualization process uses
a specific cue and different contextualization is different processes which can be distinguished
by the context schema and the utterance of the words. There are several types of contexts, which
can be developed through the process of contextualization cues. The reflexive notion of context
states that it is not worthwhile to discuss independent aspects of context individually. It also
involves the amount of context required in the interaction.
As per the discussion of Oliveira (2017) the contextual cue is the feature of linguistic form,
which indicates the contextual presuppositions. These cues have different meanings and
linguistic realization, which depends on the past history of the conversation between the
participants. There are several factors such as the code, dialect, switching process and the lexical
or formulaic options, which gives unique meaning to the literary test. Other than that, opening of
the conversation closing and the sequence strategies also impact on the contextualization
functions. Contextualization cues are quite different from the conversational inference. The
conversational inference refers to the process of interpretation, which is based on the ability of
the participants to assess the intention of other participants and their responses. The participants
of the conversation make several predictions about the line of predictions, which is based on the
previous experience of interaction or communication.
In the views of Khan, Buriro & Abdullah, (2017) the contextualization cues and the
conversational inference are connected as the contextualization cues and the accuracy of the
inference affect the conversation. The contextualization cues refer to the strategies, which can be
used to imply the act of the speaker and the communication intention of the people. The
contextualization cues are the strategies which imply the context dependent meaning to the
people. The learner’s realization and the response to the contextual cues are important in the

6
social interaction. The contextual cues can be linguistic or paralinguistic in nature. However, if
the listener is not able to understand or has some misunderstanding then it will lead to failure in
communication. The skills and the ability of the human to understand and respond to the human
interaction depend on the cultural and the historic conventions, which crate significant issues in
the intercultural communication. Therefore, the contextualization cues refer to the conventional
subconscious or unconscious feature of the linguistic form which assists in the interpretation of
the meaning of the individuals. The contextual cues states that there are several features which
are considered as marginal such as intonation which are needed to be separated from core such
syntax or marginal. However, both of these features are not inseparable. These signals are of
high importance is communicating the meaning of the text.
In the perspective of Kouega & Aseh (2017), most of the linguistic theories focus on three
dimensions: (a) different aspects of context used in the language analysis (b) according to the
aspects of a context-bound interpretation and finally, and (c) according to the type of
relationships between the communication. These three dimensions are independent from each
other; however, have an independent impact of relationship between the linguistics.
In the views of Guimarães & Moita-Lopes (2018) links between linguistic symbols and similar
contextual features are essential in establishing textual cohesion. In the comprehension,
anaphoric features play a decisive role. Another fundamental contextual feature encompasses the
textual features is the conversation activities. Research in linguistic analysis has shown that the
changes in the conversational activities activity selection impacts on the meaning of the
conversation. In the conversation, different linguistic pairs denote a sequential link which can be
understood by the people of same cultural background. Whilst researchers have arrived at a
single view which can be stated as unifying discourse evaluation and intercultural conversation is
quite challenging due to differences in the perception. The point of interest has shifted faraway to
the difference between cultures or between people shows in different aspects of conversation.
With this variation of consciousness, there have been several assumptions for the effect of
contextual cues on the conversation. The tradition and culture impacts the contextual cues.
The contextualization refers to the ability of speakers to listen or speak with the use of verbal and
nonverbal signal to relate them with the past experiences and the acquired knowledge. It is
important to maintain the involvement in the conversation and asses the involvement of the
contextual cues on the interpretation of the text. There are several elements in the
contextualization such as prosody, paralinguistic signs, code choice, choice of lexical forms and
formulaic expressions. The prosody includes the intonation, stress or accent or pitch of the
people. The paralinguistic signs refer to the tempo, pause, hesitation or tone of expressive voice.
The code choice refers to the phonetic, phonological or morpho-syntactic expressions. The
lexical forms encompass the closing or opening routines of the speech. In the speech or
communication, the contextualization cues works to highlight, make foreground or make
phonological or lexical strings in a conversation. However, they cannot be assigned context-
independent and core lexical meanings.

7
The discourse structures are affected by gender, technology, career, corporate or institutional
placement, and they are strongly impacted by the ethnic identities. Each of the discourse
structures is manifested in a complex environment of discourse, socialization patterns, face
relationships and ideologies, and identification which creates internal (to the person) and outside
contradictions. It is apprehended that any individuals as placed as culturally or ethnically
develops his own set of comprehension cues. An interdiscursive technique in intercultural
communique has assisted in understanding the difference between discourse in different culture
or languages. This technique to intercultural conversation as discourse evaluation has led to
mediated discourse. A mediated discourse shifts from a focal point of subject to their
interpersonal or intercultural or even interdiscursive courting.
A multi-cultural technique might begin with the trouble for example when a German speaks with
a Chinese. Both the communities have different style of communication and use different
gestures to indicate different things. Therefore, it can create conflicts or challenges between both
the communities. A bias can also be probably derived due to commercial enterprise or diplomatic
issues at the theoretical aspect. In both cases, one may use the experimentally designed research
or quantitative survey studies to take a look at variations in values, perceptions, and standard
structure of genres, prices of speaking and of taking turning over turns, gestural and other
nonverbal conversation structures, or of worldwide view and beliefs.
In the views of Aakur de Souza & Sarkar (2017), the intercultural or interactional sociolinguistic
technique discovers people from these unique groups who are in social interconnection with each
other. The close analysis of the discourse states that interpreter could first become aware of
breakdowns in conversation, try and find the sources of the breakdowns inside the language used
which leads to the misinterpretation of contextualization cues. Differences between the
contributors would be high in all likelihood and develop from socialization and contextualization
cues within the actual situation of speaking with each other. A mediated discourse method might
begin trouble became posed in the first area as a problem in verbal exchange between
participants of various cultural or different discourse-based totally businesses. This issue with
social action could create issues with the group identities of the members to the extent that it will
hamper the productivity of the communication.
Summary
The contextualization refers to the phenomenon, in which the context of the discourse is
considered to be shaped by the several other factors other than language and text. In the
discourse analysis, contextualization is the process through which the participants make
foreground or background of the knowledge in the conversation ad try to understand the context
or the meaning of the conversation. The contextualization is the activity in the discourse analysis
in which the speakers and the communicators conduct a dynamic process through which the
participants interact with each other. It means that there is never a single context, which can be
imposed on conversation and multiple contexts can be created or shaped by the participants

8
during the interaction. The contextualization cues refer to the different features of the linguistic
forms, which can create signals for the contextual presumptions. In an ideal conversation, the
participants understand each other’s cues and the conversation goes on smoothly without any
hindrance. However, several times, the contextual cues are not properly understood and
miscommunication takes place. It results in the labeling of the participants, and increasing the
social awkwardness in the conversation. The communication contexts are not guided by the
physical or the social environment but develop as a result of negotiations and understanding
between the environment and the participants. The researchers have to face multiple contexts and
a communication event occurs along with numerous contextualization cues. The language can be
separated from the social and the cultural contexts; however, complete separation is difficult.
The contextual cues refer to the relationship between a speaker, a communicator, spoken words
and the receiver. The spoken words also contain the contextualization cues, which gives context
to the conversation. The context here is a specific situation or event in which the conversation or
the communication is taking place. It can also imply another event or situation and gives
effective meaning to the conversation. The contextual cues are used by the users by adding a
meaning to the whole speech. The meaning is given during the interpretation process. There are
several distinctions which can provide same meaning to the same language context. The
contextualization process can use multiple cues which can be distinguished by the context
schema and the utterance of the words. There are several types of contexts, which can be
developed through the process of contextualization cues. However, it is not worthwhile to
discuss independent aspects of context individually. It also involves the amount of context
required in the interaction.

9
References
Aakur, S. N., de Souza, F. D., & Sarkar, S. (2017). Exploiting Semantic Contextualization for
Interpretation of Human Activity in Videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.03725.
Akiyama, Y. (2016, November). 33Vicious cycles of turn negotiation in video-mediated
telecollaboration: interactional sociolinguistics perspective. In New directions in
telecollaborative research and practice: selected papers from the second conference on
telecollaboration in higher education (p. 277). Research-publishing. net.
Bloome, D., Carter, S.P., Christian, B.M., Otto, S., Shuart-Faris, N. (2004). Discourse Analysis
and the Study of Classroom Language and Literacy Events: A Microethnographic Perspective.
Routledge.
Bruna, K. R., & Vann, R. (2007). On pigs and packers: Radically contextualizing a practice of
science with Mexican immigrant students. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(1), 19.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Intonation and discourse. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2,
82-104.
Crawford, T., Candlin, S., & Roger, P. (2017). New perspectives on understanding cultural
diversity in nurse–patient communication. Collegian, 24(1), 63-69.
Duff, P. A. (2007). Second language socialization as sociocultural theory: Insights and
issues. Language teaching, 40(4), 309-319.
Eerdmans, S., Prevignano, C., & Thibault, P.J. (2003). Language and Interaction: Discussions
with John J. Gumperz. John Benjamins Publishing.
Gordon, C. (2015). 15 Framing and Positioning. The handbook of discourse analysis, 324.

10
Guimarães, T. F., & Moita-Lopes, L. P. (2018). Creative entextualizations of discourses about
race in multi-sited discursive practices in the Brazilian ‘periphery’. AILA Review, 30(1), 27-49.
Hamilton, H. E., & Schiffrin, D. (2015). The handbook of discourse analysis. John Wiley &
Sons.
Harman, R., & Varga-Dobai, K. (2012). Critical performative pedagogy: Emergent bilingual
learners challenge local immigration issues. International Journal of Multicultural
Education, 14(2).
Khan, F. R., Buriro, G. A., & Abdullah, M. (2017). A Study Of Motivational Factors For Code
Switching In Glamour Discourse. Grassroots, 51(1).
Kouega, J. P., & Aseh, M. (2017). Pidgin in creative works in English in Cameroon. Sustainable
Multilingualism, 10(1), 98-120.
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Contextualizing ‘contextualization cues’. Language and interaction:
discussions with John J. Gumperz, 31-39.
Levinson, S. C. (2015). John Joseph Gumperz (1922–2013). American Anthropologist, 117(1),
212-215.
Liebscher, G., & Dailey–o'cain, Jennifer (2005). Learner code‐switching in the content‐based
foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 89(2), 234-247.
Menard-Warwick, J. (2008). ‘Because she made beds. Every day’. Social positioning, classroom
discourse, and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 29(2), 267-289.

11
Mooney, S., & Sullivan, G. C. (2015). Investigating an Acoustic Measure of Perceived Isochrony
in Conversation: Preliminary Notes on the Role of Rhythm in Turn Transitions. University of
Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 21(2), 15.
Oliveira, M. M. D. (2017). Sociopragmatic failure revisited: the case of intercultural
communication between Brazilians and Americans. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada,
(AHEAD), 0-0.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). 27 Discourse and Intercultural Communication. The
handbook of discourse analysis, 538.
Wilson, A. (2004). When contextualization cues mislead: Misunderstanding, mutual knowledge,
and non-verbal gestures. California linguistic notes, 29(1), 1-4.
Zheng, B. (2016). Listening to Contextualization Cues: Co-constructed Power, Identity, and
Learning Between a NNEST and Adult Immigrant Learners. Working Papers in Educational
Linguistics (WPEL), 31(2), 4.