Context and Conversation

By Michael Seufert (spring ’04)

The conversation that will be under analysis for context is going to
be one that took place between my brother and my father. It took place over
one of the weekends that I was visiting home, and it was not a happy
conversation. Their argument broke out over the use of the car (or
something silly along those lines) and I watched thinking it would be the
perfect example for my context analysis. Through this argument there were
several different contexts that appeared to worsen the argument and confuse
the communication process.
One of the main contexts that made the situation worse was "inner
context." Due to both of their overwhelming emotions during the
conversation (in this case anger,) it made it quite difficult for both
parties to not only express their thoughts, but also receive the other
party's thoughts. For example, one of the phrases used by my brother was,
"this is stupid." Because of the anger of my father the only thing he heard
was stupid, thus accusing my brother of calling him that. My brother did
not wish to express that he thought my father was stupid, only that he was
not pleased with the current situation. Another example of this is when the
phrase "you're acting like a baby" was used. My brother is a very mature
individual, and my father is well aware of this. But due to my father's
frustration at the whole ordeal, he used this phrase even though it really
held no truth. These were just a few examples of how "inner context" only
made the situation worse.
Another context which seemed to confuse the situation even more was
that of "relational context." The true relationship between the two is that
of "father-son." However this was not the way it was addressed in the
argument. My father felt as if he was being spoken to in a tone not fitting
for a "father-son" relationship, thus causing his anger to grow. When my
brother used the word "man" to address my father, such as "man, this is
stupid," my father responded that he was not just some kid on the street.
He wished to be spoken to with a respectful tone. Here the "relational
context" confused the situation even more.
The last context which appeared to contribute to the overall chaos
was "situational context." When the conversation began, it was quite
civilized (as most arguments are at the beginning.) But as the conversation
began to transform, both parties labeled it as an argument in their minds,
thus shifting from a conversational mode, to a more defensive one. Due to
this, the situation became worse because of both parties thought that they
had to persuade, by the force of words, that the other was in the wrong.
And due to the fact that both parties were quite defensive, neither could
convince the other. Here the "situational context" caused for the argument
to progress.
Although the other facets of context were involved in this situation
(i.e. physical, symbolic, and cultural,) the three contexts above were the
once which directly contributed to the argumentative aspect of the
conversation. Although it began as a natural conversation between a father
and his son, it soon transformed into a disagreement, and eventually an
argument by way of inner, relational, and situational contexts.