Search

This study is aimed at clarifying the notions of 'situation' and 'communicative situation', drawing upon Alfred Schütz's theories of pragmatic and communicative aspects of the lifeworld. The concepts of 'situation' and 'communicative situation' are approached in relation to the phenomena of human action and human communication, respectively. Following Schütz, it is argued that the overall nature of 'situation' arises from its 'objective' and 'subjective' aspects, i.e. the spatial, temporal and socio-cultural conditions experienced by an individual and shaped by his or her unique 'biographical situation'. This perspective is temporarily suspended in communication: private systems of relevances are superseded by intersubjective constructions or interpretations of 'what-we-are-doing-in-and-through-communication'. The 'communicative situation' is conceived of as a dynamic phenomenon and a true achievement of social actors, who permanently define and redefine, interpret and reinterpret both its overall character and its relevant elements. This theoretical framework, enriched by the concept of semiotic multimodality, is exemplified by an analysis of conversational data drawn from ethnographic research into television news production. At the end of the paper, a distinction between the typifications made by ordinary social actors and by social scientists in characterizing communicative situations is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is based on the generally accepted and widely applied dichotomy between spoken-ness and writtenness (the spoken and the written word) and also between literariness (or stan-dard use) and colloquiality. The aim of the study is to show the groundlessness and impracti-cality of such an approach. It is suggested that the ideas we have about the first or the second type (mode) of language performance are not confirmed by real-life practice (or empiricism). Writing and speaking do not use entirely different linguistic means, and the situation of the written word and of the spoken word need not be given, constant or mutually different. The author prefers the solution based upon (proto) typical properties of texts and their actual concentration therein. The following part of the article presents (partial) results of an inquiry into the attitudes of Czech language users in various types of situations in which they express themselves orally or in written form and speak literary or colloquial Czech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]