Text: Levels of Understanding and Sense Levels

Authors

  • Ирина Тарасова Саратовский национальный исследовательский государственный университет имени Н.Г. Чернышевского Факультет психолого-педагогического и специального образования 4100012, Россия, г. Саратов, ул. Астраханская, 83 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3188-215X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-8025.17.08

Keywords:

understanding, sense, levels model, interpretation, short novel

Abstract

Introduction. The goal of this study is to propose a typology of sense levels of a prosaic text that can be used productively in the framework of pedagogical hermeneutics, i.e. in the process of teaching interpretation of literary works at all steps of philological education.

According to the research hypothesis, there is a definite correlation between the levels of understanding of a text and the levels of meaning. Text concept is the mediator between the text and its sense.

In distinguishing between the levels of understanding of a text, the author follows the hermeneutic (G.I. Bogin) and didactic tradition (M.P. Voyushina). For comparison, the works of the cognitive line of research are used (Van Dijk, Kintsch, Zwaan, Kneepkens). Their authors consider the understanding of a text a process of building a multi-level mental representation. In the process of constructing a sense model of the text, the author investigates the main ideas of the theory of meaning by A.I. Novikov and the structure of the text category of informativeness emerging in the works of I.R. Halperin.

Empirical data and research design. The object of the research was the story of the famous children’s writer, V. Dragunsky, The Red Ball in the Blue Sky. The input material of the study was 30 interpretations of the story provided by students (future primary school teachers). The author performed a review of the submitted interpretations. During the interpretation, the keyword technique, the “close reading” method, and the interpretation protocol methodology were used.

Key findings and conclusions. Sense is repeatedly encoded in texts by means of text codes (language, subject, spatial, figurative, communicative, etc.). The process of decoding meaning consists in understanding the relationship between the units of these codes and discovering shared components of sense. The whole sense is the result of understanding of the text. Therefore, it is possible to establish a correlation between the levels of sense and the levels of understanding. We have established the following correspondence chains:

  • plot meaning – ascertaining the level of understanding – metapropositional model of representation;
  • psychological sense – understanding at the main character level – situational model of representation;
  • existential sense – understanding at the level of the author’s idea – a pragmatic model of representation.

The correlation between the structure of sense and the structure of text is possible owing to a text concept – a discrete model of meaning as a holistic entity.

A multi-level concept (namely, the concept of freedom represented at different levels in V. Dragunsky’s story) reflects a multi-level sense of the text. Therefore, the sense levels of the story are the levels of freedom:

  • the plot sense corresponds to the mundane (conditional) level of freedom: to give freedom – to leave, to let go, not to hold;
  • psychological sense (understanding at the main character level) – the psychological level of freedom which requires respect for the feelings and desires of others;
  • cultural-historical sense – at the level of (possible) subtext, it corresponds to the idea of political freedom;
  • existential sense (at the level of ideas) – the philosophical meaning of freedom as the highest human value and a manifestation of the spiritual essence of the person.

Not all aspects of textual sense are relevant for the modern reader. The spiritual dimension of freedom, irrelevant for readers, is not subtracted from the text, and in most works understanding remains at the level of psychological sense. The universality of freedom as an existential category is noted in only three works. The social aspects of sense were not indicated by anyone.

Thus, the part which is reflected in the basic concept (motive) of the text should be considered the invariant part of sense. This is the most general idea statement. Variant components of sense should be recognized as those that specify the general sense at different levels, taking account of projections on the reader’s personal experience: psychological, social, existential, spiritual.

The degree of variability of the wording of this meaning can vary: it depends on the conceptual system of the reader, his/her life (including social experience, age, etc.)

 

References

Бердяев, Н.А. (1994). Философия творчества, культуры и искусства. Т. 1. Москва: Искусство.
Google Scholar

Богин, Г.И. (1986). Типология понимания текста. Калинин: Издательство Калининского университета.
Google Scholar

Болотнова, Н.С. (2008). Коммуникативная стилистика текста: словарь-тезаурус. Томск: Издательство Томского государственного педагогического университета.
Google Scholar

Воюшина, М.П. (ред.) (2010). Методика обучения литературе в начальной школе. Москва: Академия.
Google Scholar

Гальперин, И.Р. (2006). Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. Москва: КомКнига.
Google Scholar

Драгунский, В.Ю. (1982). Красный шарик в синем небе. Москва: Советская Россия.
Google Scholar

Евгеньева, А.П. (ред.) (1985). Словарь русского языка: в 4 т. Т. I. Москва: Русский язык.
Google Scholar

Евгеньева, А.П. (ред.) (1988). Словарь русского языка: в 4 т. Т. IV. Москва: Русский язык.
Google Scholar

Залевская, А.А. (2002). Некоторые проблемы теории понимания текста. Вопросы языкознания, 3, 6274.
Google Scholar

Лукашевич, Е.В. (2002). Когнитивная семантика: эволюционно-прогностический аспект. Москва; Барнаул: Издательство Алтайского университета.
Google Scholar

Новиков, А.И. (2007). Текст и его смысловые доминанты. Москва: Институт языкознания РАН.
Google Scholar

Синельникова, Л.Н. (2019). Стихотворный текст: междисциплинарная интерпретация. Москва: Инфра-М.
Google Scholar

Солохина, А.С. (2004). Концепт «свобода» в английской и русской лингвокультурах: автореф. дисс. … канд. филол. наук. Волгоград.
Google Scholar

Тарасова, И.А. (2003). Идиостиль Георгия Иванова: когнитивный аспект. Саратов: Издательство Саратовского университета.
Google Scholar

Фарино, Е. (2004). Введение в литературоведение. Санкт-Петербург: Издательство РГПУ им. А.И. Герцена.
Google Scholar

Dijk van T.A., Kintsch W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Google Scholar

Kneepkens E., Zwaan R. (1994). Emotions and Literary Text Comprehension, Poetics, 23, 125138.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(94)00021-W

Berdyaev, N A. (1994). Filosofiya tvorchestva, kul’tury i iskusstva. T. 1. Moscow: Iskusstvo.
Google Scholar

Bogin, G.I. (1986). Tipologiya ponimaniya teksta. Kalinin: Izdatel’stvo Kalininskogo universiteta.
Google Scholar

Bolotnova, N.S. (2008). Kommunikativnaya stilistika teksta: slovar’-tezaurus. Tomsk: Izdatel’stvo Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta.
Google Scholar

Dragunskii, V.Yu. (1982). Krasnyi sharik v sinem nebe. Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya.
Google Scholar

Evgen’eva, A.P. (red.) (1985). Slovar’ russkogo yazyka: v 4 t. T. I. Moscow: Russkii yazyk.
Google Scholar

Evgen’eva, A.P. (red.) (1988). Slovar’ russkogo yazyka: v 4 t. T. IV. Moscow: Russkii yazyk.
Google Scholar

Farino, E. (2004). Vvedenie v literaturovedenie. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo RGPU im. A.I. Gertsena.
Google Scholar

Gal’perin, I.R. (2006). Tekst kak ob”ekt lingvisticheskogo issledovaniya. Moscow: KomKniga.
Google Scholar

Lukashevich, E.V. (2002). Kognitivnaya semantika: evolyutsionno-prognosticheskii aspekt. Moscow; Barnaul: Izdatel’stvo Altaiskogo universiteta.
Google Scholar

Novikov, A.I. (2007). Tekst i ego smyslovye dominanty. Moscow: Institut yazykoznaniya RAN.
Google Scholar

Sinel’nikova, L.N. (2019). Stikhotvornyi tekst: mezhdistsiplinarnaya interpretatsiya. Moscow: Infra-M.
Google Scholar

Solokhina, A.S. (2004). Kontsept „svoboda” v angliiskoi i russkoi lingvokul’turakh: avtoref. diss. … kand. filol. nauk. Volgograd.
Google Scholar

Tarasova, I.A. (2003). Idiostil’ Georgiya Ivanova: kognitivnyi aspekt. Saratov: Izdatel’stvo Saratovskogo universiteta.
Google Scholar

Voyushina, M.P. (red.) (2010). Metodika obucheniya literature v nachal’noi shkole. Moscow: Akademiya.
Google Scholar

Zalevskaya, A.A. (2002). Nekotorye problemy teorii ponimaniya teksta, Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 3, 6274.
Google Scholar

Published

2019-06-30

How to Cite

Тарасова, И. (2019). Text: Levels of Understanding and Sense Levels. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Linguistica Rossica, (17), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-8025.17.08