This chapter discusses the contextualization of human traits in situations. Most of the research on contextualizing traits has, up to now, been centered on personality traits. Therefore, much of the examination is on how personality traits relate to situations, but it extrapolates those findings to virtues and discusses theory and research related to the contextualization of virtue traits. In the exploration of trait contextualization, the chapter clarifies that current understandings of traits do not take them to be simplistic behavioral tendencies that manifest despite contextual influences. Instead, the contemporary understanding of traits is that they are virtually always influenced by situational factors. It explores direct situational influence on action, the ways individuals influence situations, and three types of person–situation interactions. It then presents practical wisdom as a generally neglected feature of person-situation interactions. The chapter argues that practical wisdom's role in person–situation interactions goes beyond what shows up in personality research by clarifying that some individuals see more opportunities for virtue trait expression in situations than others. Moreover, this practical wisdom underwrites high-quality decision-making. It concludes by discussing how a virtue perspective adds important elements (agency, aspiration, and practical wisdom) to the contextualization of traits.

This chapter discusses the field of moral development and explores what this research field can tell us about virtue development, which is a relatively neglected topic in virtue theory. The chapter is primarily about moral development in children, both because there is substantial scientific interest in this population and because virtue development must begin in childhood. Moral development research illuminates three apparently naturally developing preconditions for virtue development: (1) the ability to choose, (2) an interest in collective welfare, and (3) an interest in ethical normativity. Moral development research is also compatible with the STRIVE-4 Model in that it is primarily quantitative. Moral development generally does not focus on traits, with the exception of some research on moral identity, moral emotions, and moral exemplars. The chapter concludes by exploring how virtue science can contribute to moral development research, including an increased emphasis on (1) person-centered research, (2) the contextualizing of development in situations and roles, (3) flourishing, and (4) practical wisdom.

This chapter discusses the contextualization of human traits in social roles. It begins by exploring how personality traits relate to social roles, then it extrapolates those findings related to virtues and discusses theory and research on social roles and virtue traits. The discussion of the social role contextualization is based on identity theory, which explains that social roles are repetitive patterns of action that are included in social structures and result in role identity formation in the individual. The chapter reiterates that up-to-date trait conceptualizations do not view them as simplistic behavioral tendencies that manifest in any social role. Instead, traits are currently understood as influenced by social role expectations. Practical wisdom plays a large part in the expression of virtues through social roles. Practical wisdom adds an element to virtue expression and social roles that is absent in personality research because some individuals see more opportunities for virtue trait expression within a role than others. It then clarifies this theoretical discussion with examples of common role and virtue enactments from the parenting, teaching, and healing roles. It concludes by discussing how a virtue perspective adds important elements (agency, aspiration, and practical wisdom) to the contextualization of traits.

This book explores the shifting discourses of prophethood and prophecy in the late antique Near East. It rejects the “Cessation of Prophecy” metanarrative that frames prophecy as perpetually in decline, and charts instead a novel trajectory for understanding prophethood and prophecy as discourse. It does so by working through a number of texts from the late antique Near East, including Manichaean literature, the classical rabbinic corpus, early Jewish mystical literature, the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies, and Neoplatonic literature. It argues that we should read these communities’ developing notions of prophethood and revelation alongside and against one another, on the one hand, and within broader developments in the late antique Near East, on the other.

Historical contextualization is vital to comparative historical analysis in social science. The meaning of important concepts such as rights, popular sovereignty, and the state differs across diverse historical contexts even within a single case such as England. Neglect of such differences makes state formation appear to occur along a linear trajectory and the state–society relationship seem simply confrontational. A comparative historical analysis based upon deep and solid examination of historical contexts reveals hitherto unobserved similarities in state formation between Western Europe and East Asia. It provides a new account of how domestic governance was attained through state–society collaboration when the state's capacity to directly provide public goods remained quite limited. Moreover, it casts new light on understanding the political “great divergence” in the transition from early modern to modern states, as well as offering a novel explanation of the resilience of contemporary authoritarian regimes that legitimate their power mainly through care for domestic welfare.

The concept of context has undergone some fundamental rethinking in the scientific community. Rather than being considered an external constraint on linguistic performance, context is analyzed as a product of language use and thus as an interactional achievement, which is negotiated and co-constructed, imported and invoked. Context and contexts are analyzed from the perspectives of interlocutors, considering contextualization, recontextualization and decontextualization, and entextualization. The complexity, multilayeredness and dynamics of context have far-reaching implications on its role in intercultural pragmatics with interlocutors from different linguistic backgrounds having diverging meaning-making processes, diverging contextualization conventions, and thus diverging constructions of context. Intercultural pragmatics thus calls for context-sensitive particularizations of the fundamental premises of cooperation, contextualization, meaning-making process, and negotiation of discourse common ground.

This article highlights translation as re-contextualization and emphasizes the role of context in translation. The importance of context for both translation and pragmatics is evidence of the close relation between translation and pragmatics. Initially, different classic views of context are briefly discussed. Secondly, linguistic approaches to translation are reviewed, and key concepts are defined. The author’s own theory of translation as re-contextualization is then discussed. Two fundamental, empirically derived translation types as qualitatively different ways of re-contextualization are proposed:overt and covert translation. The concept of a ‘cultural filter’ employed in covert translation is described, and examples are given. In conclusion, the current dominant role of English as a lingua franca and its influence on translation are discussed.

In this chapter, we outline the pragmatic issues involved in the analysis of digitally mediated communication. We start with several discursive qualities and implications regarding the range of options for contextualization that the different interfaces exhibit and how users face and overcome digital cues--filtered channels. Then, we move on to more interactive features of digitally mediated communication. Finally, some social aspects of digitally mediated communication are addressed. In the three mentioned areas (discursive, interactive, social), we also seek to explain the role that non-propositional constraints and effects play in the eventual satisfaction with digitally mediated communication, compared to the one that can be found in situations of physical co-presence.

The widespread incorporation of online communicative practices in the repertoires of language users has profoundly affected the structure of communicative ecologies around the world, thus compelling us to adjust some of our core vocabulary accordingly. This chapter therefore critically reexamines one of the key notions in discourse studies: context. Treating context as inextricably connected with meaning-making has historically set discourse studies apart from more formal branches in the study of language. This, however, has not necessarily led to overly sophisticated notions of context, and the mainstream modes of usage of context in much discourse analysis can be characterized as vague and imprecise, grounded in and biased by a default image of spoken, dyadic offline (“local”) discourse events as the most natural and fundamental ones. Such views of context have been imported in studies of online communication, leading to highly questionable but influential insights such as those on “context collapse.” In this chapter, I review some of the conceptual problems related to context in online–offline communicative ecologies. I argue that, in order to avoid the bias described earlier (spoken, dyadic and offline discourse as the “zero point” of language use), we might wish to shift to taking communicative action as our unit of analysis, and address this unit in its fullest ethnographic sense as characterized by normatively circumscribed sets of resources and participants brought into specific time-space constellations enabling and constraining the deployment and uptake of specific lines of activity, leading to effects that are effects both of meaning and of moral and identity valuations. Actions are here defined as chronotopically organized and ordered, with on- and offline chronotopes having particular characteristics and interactions between such chronotopically described “contexts” involving complex shifts in resource valuation, participation frameworks and normative codes of conduct, previously described as shifts in footing. Taking this approach, I argue, enables us to avoid the spoken-dyadic-offline bias inscribed in mainstream notions of context, forcing the analyst not just to approach new online forms of interaction as “abnormal” or “exceptional” interactions, even if they are characterized by the deployment of written/designed resources and directed at “networked publics” rather than at the individual interlocutor of dyadic interaction, and even if they appear not to respect clear boundaries between the online and the offline world. The chronotopic character of contexts for communicative action enables, I suggest, a new imagination of “society” as the necessary backdrop for any consideration of discourse, its means and effects, and in that sense invites a broad range of alternative theoretical and descriptive revisions.