【正文】 smunication. Furthermore, context influences municators and municators affect context as well. Communicators can create a favorable context for themselves according to the preexist context. In accordance with the subjective factors of municators and the relationship between municators and context, context is subjective. DynamicsAs context is determined by many contextual factors and these contextual factors are constantly changing in the process of munication, this makes the context’s shiftability. Context is a dynamic, not a static concept: it is to be understood as the continually changing surroundings, in the widest sense, that enable the participants in the munication process to interact, and in which the linguistic expressions of their interaction bee intelligible (May, 2001: 39). Context is a plicated adaptive system, which is defined by its dynamic structural pattern of functions and its essence of relevance. In verbal munication, municators need to manipulate context constantly so as to adapt to the changes of the immediately given context。 and in the meanwhile, municators have to select proper verbal or nonverbal behaviors to reconstruct a forthing context. For example: (In a job interview, K is applying for a job as an English interpreter in M’s pany.)M: 你好!K: 你好!M: OK, so could you make an introduction of yourself and give the reasons why you choose our pany?K: OK, my name is K and interpretation is my major…The interviewee K actively adapted to “the immediately given context” and switched the language code from Chinese to English, thus to create a new context which can help to show his English interpreting ability directly. The conclusion could, therefore, be arrived at that the use of language in munication is a continuous dynamic process of the municator’s adaptation to or utility of “immediately given contexts” and the manipulation of “forthing contexts”. Thus, context is dynamic. GradabilityContext of an utterance is numerous. Beyond small context there is bigger context。 the big context is actually posed of even smaller ones. Sperber and Wilson (2001: 246) reckon that each context (except for minimal context) includes one or more smaller contexts, and each context (except for maximal context) is included in one or more bigger contexts.. They interact in the munication, with the aims to facilitate the realization of the interlocutor’s municative intention. In the frame of context, three factors (cultural, municative and linguistic context) have their own features respectively but they also interrelated with each other. See the following figure:Linguistic ContextCommunication ContextCultural ContextCommunicatorsThe interaction of contextual factorsThe law reflected in context is that there is a crisscross and interrelated network of information between the cultural context, municative context and linguistic context, while the municators are located at the center. All of them are closely correlated with each other, so the change of any of them may cause or lead to new changes of the other contextual factors and even the whole context finally. DisparityThe disparity of context includes two aspects. First, context itself has different influences on pragmatic munication. The effect of different contextual factors on concrete munication is not pletely equal. Their influence can be direct or indirect, the mode of such influence can be explicit or implicit。 the form can be stable or dynamic (王健華, 2002). In this thesis, linguistic context is most direct, explicit and stable。 cultural context is most indirect, implicit and dynamic。 municative context lies between linguistic context and cultural context. Second, pragmatic munication is a twoway activity, including addressers and addressees who are affected by context. In the ideal munication, context ought to be the shared knowledge of addressers and addressees. However, it is not as ideal as that in the real munication. The munication breakdown always happens, because both sides have different understanding of the context. In short, the disparity of context is so mon in the munication that it ought to be taken seriously.5. The effects of context on crosscultural munication Communication is always carried on in some context. No context, no text. Context has a direct influence on people’s understanding and utility to utterance. The rich context and its classification indicate that context is very plicated. Its features such as subjectivity, dynamics, gradability, disparity make municators much harder to understand the concrete context. Mastery of these contextual features is helpful to municators. The better municators master the contextual features, the better they understand the context. If municators have known enough contextual knowledge, they will understand each other easily and the munication will be successful. On the contrary, if municators or one of them are lack of some contextual knowledge, they may not catch up with each other, and then the munication will be unsuccessful. Thus, the effects of context on crosscultural munication have two sides. The positive sideIt is easy to understand the literal meaning of a sentence. However, it is not always agreed with what speakers want to say. It shows up more choices of understanding and narrows down the choices, and then identifies the one that is most suitable. That is why addressees should be positive to make good use of contextual factors to convey the true meaning and eliminate ambiguities. Inference for implicated informationIn an ideal munication, as long as the participants get the utterance’s literal meaning, the munication moves on. However, the utterance is usually acpanied with some implicated information in a real munication. By saying “It’s very hot here”, a speaker could be simply stating a fact or requesting. Context helps decide which of these meanings the sentence will have. If the sentence was uttered in a