【正文】 it is posed of a series of assumptions, which people put into mind for understanding the utterance correctly. The context is closely related to the human thinking activities。 the speaker should express the crucial emphasis by the way of ostensive inference, guiding the hearer to reason the actual context in the correct direction.Human beings have a natural interest in improving their understanding of the world around them, this understanding consisting of the assumptions about the world, which they have stored, in memory. [22] That is, human beings like to internalize the external environment, and their own experience to form a cognitive context that is helpful for their understanding of the utterance or text. So the cognitive context is not established before the understanding of an utterance, but established during the process of understanding by continuous selection. The process of processing and selecting the optimal context is a process of looking for the optimal relevance of utterance and context. Moreover, cognitive context is the consequence of assumptions selecting. However, the selection of context would definitely enlarge the context. In relevance theory, cognitive context is not static and fixed。 it rather refers to part of their “assumptions about the world” or cognitive environment, as it is called. So the cognitive context discusses context in the perspective of relevance theory and under the framework of cognition. The notion of ‘cognitive context’ takes into account the various external factors but places the emphasis on the information they provided and its mental availability for the interpretation process. [20] According to Sperber and Wilson, “the cognitive context of a person prises a potentially huge amount of very varied information. It includes information that can be perceived in the physical environment, information that can be retrieved from memoryin itself a vast store of information, including information deriving from preceding utterances plus any cultural or any other knowledge stored there and furthermore information that can be inferred from those two sources.” [21] Since any of this information could serve as the potential context, the most important question for a successful munication is: how the hearers or translators manage to select the actual, speakerintended assumptions from among all the assumptions they could use form their environment? Look at the following examples:(5). A: Do you like rugby?B: I am a New Zealander.In this example, A asks a simple question that just need the hearer give an answer of “yes” or “no”. But B gives a confusing and irrelevant answer so that A cannot understand immediately. So A needs some efforts to guess or reason the actual meaning of B. After a series of assumptions and retrieves in the memory, A may get information: Rugby is a very popular game in New Zealand。 meaning is dynamic and it depends on the negotiation of municators. And she considered the pragmatics as “the study of interactive meaning”. In her view, context is dynamic and changing all the time according to all the factors relevant to munication. [15] Most of the contextual factors are developing, and all the developing factors would probably bee the elements of context.As we all know, there are many ponents forming the context, and these contextual ponents are “the pool of shared knowledge”, which are very important to understand the utterance or text. But not all the contextual ponents can be seen as context, only those closely relate to the current munication can form the context. Professor Liu Huanhui pointed out that all the probable contextual ponents, objective or subjective, would not form the context if they lose the relevance to the linguistic munication. ”. [16] Commonly, people regard the linguistic munication as a r process of circular, which all the participators play the roles of speaker and hearer alternatively. But Frank Dance suggested that the process of munication is a process of twisting ascendance, and the linguistic munication is a continuously developing process. [17] Every success in information and meaning transformation means that the munication would be up to a new height. Otherwise, if a participator does not understand or misunderstand of the other participator’s intentional meaning, the munication would be blocked or drawn back. In another word, the linguistic munication is dynamic, the precious information is the foreword of the latter information, and then the latter information bees the foreword of the next latter information. In this way, the context is changing as the munication is developing. Hence, context is a dynamic concept as well as munication.In the perspective of pragmatics, “static context is by no means unimportant, but we attach233。 objective context refers to the objective existence in the objective world, which is made of the place and time of munication, and various plicated social and cultural environment. Explicit context is the linguistic and nonlinguistic environment that obviously shows in the munication, including time, place, audience style etc。 some prefer the term “situational context”, “context of situation”, and some others propose such terms as “context of culture”, “context of utterance”. Besides, quite a few persons choose the word “environment” and propose some terms like the following: language environment, pragmatic environment, social environment, natural environment etc. Up until now, the meaning of context is extended to a large scale, but no clear definitions have been given to. [11]Although people have not yet e to agreement on using the term “context”, all the people know the importance of context in understanding the text, especially in translation. Many translators realize that one should never understand a single word without considering its context. Here is a simple illustration may make the point clear. (4) “Out in the west where men are men”.