Understanding and interpretation (II)
This two-part study aims to analyze the complex linguistic, pragmatic and cultural mechanisms involved in the act of text (discourse) understanding. The fundamental questions concerning this issue are as follows: How do we understand texts and what specific competences are involved in understanding? What exactly causes differences in understanding? And then, what are the causes of misunderstanding? Why, despite differences in understanding, can we find dominant ways of understanding texts? In short, what is understanding? Is there a relation between understanding and interpretation? And finally, what is interpretation?
The previous part of the study is concerned with the definitions of the three competences required in the process of understanding, i.e. linguistic, interdiscursive, and cultural competences. Now, this second part focuses on the analysis of both dominants and differences in understanding. The cause of this paradox in understanding is our world-based experience, which is the nucleus of our cultural competence. By means of frame theories borrowed from cognitive linguistics, we demonstrate that our understanding mechanisms are influenced by our embodied cognitive patterns that affect our individual and cultural experience. Therefore, our conceptual system and conceptual categories that define our experiences are quite similar, and thus they represent the basis of our cultural construals, which can differ across cultures and communities. This fact could explain both similarities and differences in understanding. In essence, understanding means building contextual bridges between differently determined world -based experiences. But, in this process, differences will always remain, at least as finer nuances, because understanding is interpretation. The only difference between understanding and interpretation is represented by their dynamics: while understanding is static and contextual, interpretation is trans-contextual and versatile.
Keywords: understanding process, understanding mechanisms, interpretation, linguistic competence, interdiscursive competence, cultural competence, frames, cognitive linguistics.
1.[1] O izotopie semantică este definită de Fr. Rastier ca efect al recurenţei aceluaiaşi sem, denumit de acesta sem izotopant. Rastier distinge între seme generice (care marchează apartenenţa unui semem la o clasă semantică) şi seme specifice (care marchează opoziţia sememului faţă de clasa de care aparţine). Acest lucru face posibilă şi distincţia între izotopie generică (recurenţă a unui sem generic) şi izotopie specifică (recurenţa unui sem specific).
2.[1] „Interpretarea” la Fillmore. Vom vedea însă mai jos că cele două noţiuni sunt compatibile.
3.[1] „setul de condiţionări ale înţelegerii unei propoziţii care figurează în toate contextele sale” (Fillmore 1985: 233).
4.[1] Lingvistica cognitivă este domeniul specific de studiu care s-a aplecat cu atenţie asupra studiului limbajului în termeni de categorii conceptuale, reformulând dintr-o nouă perspectivă ipotezele şi analizele semanticii structurale.
5.[1] „În ceea ce priveşte înţelesul cuvintelor, semantica cadrelor cognitive (frame semantics) poate fi gândită ca efort de a înţelege care e motivul pentru care o comunitate de vorbitori (speech community) a creat o categorie reprezentată de cuvânt şi de a explica înţelesul cuvântului prin prezentarea şi clarificarea acelui motiv. În ceea ce priveşte interpretarea textelor, semantica cadrelor cognitive poate fi gândită ca un efort de a înţelege procesul prin care fiecare cadru cognitiv este introdus într-un text pentru a crea şi dezvolta contextele textuale văzute în devenirea lor” (Fillmore 1985: 234).
6.[1] Sau „negociază”, ar spune Paul Cornea (2006: 29).
