Selectivity Of Understanding英语毕业论文论理解的选择性.doc

Selectivity Of Understanding Abstract：This paper discusses the selective feature of understandingThe process of understanding is in nature that of constructing meaning and obtaining information, meanwhile, to construct meaning is to integrate different signs into a text by means of metaphor and metonymy and to naturalize the meaning of the text, which turns out to be a process of constant selection. In addition, the contextual factors such as different individuals or groups and different cultural backgrounds make the understanding process selective. The knowledge of the selective feature of understanding plays an important role in text reading, translation and daily communication, especially intercultural communication practice.Key words: understanding, selectivity, metaphor and metonymy, naturalize- tion, context                                    Introduction        In modern society, communication becomes one of the important parts of people's life, whether it is daily communication or intercultural communication. In this process, understanding is definitely the most important link, for the aim of communication is to understand each other. Yet different people of different ages, sex, or with different social backgrounds under different contexts may have different interpretations towards the same text, that is to say, understand- ing is selective. For example, the sentence “今天太累啦!” ( So tired today!)  may have the following four different interpretations under different contexts by different people:     a. 咱们回家吧。(Let's go back home.)     b. 该睡觉了。 (It's time for bed.)     c. 你洗一下碗吧。 (Could you wash the dishes?)     d.今天不看书了。 (I will not do any reading today.)     Why does this happen? Are there any reasons underlying these superficial phenomena? The author of this paper will provide a strong theoretical basis for these phenomena, give a systematic explanation of the selectivity of understanding and also raise people's awareness of it in text reading, translation, and communication practice.          1.Defining selectivity of understanding         According to Verschueren (1999), the process of using and understand- ing language is that of constantly making choices, consciously or unconsciously, for language-internal and/or language-external reasons. These choices can be situated at any level of linguistic form: phonetic/phonological, morphological, syntactic, lexical, and semantic. They may range over variety-internal options, or they may involve regionally, socially or functionally distributed types of variation. This is what we call selectivity. As for the selectivity of understanding, choices are made at the level of semantic form or meaning, and this feature comes into being as a result of the interaction between internal and external factors of language which will be elaborated in detail in later chapters.           2. The process of selective understanding          The process of understanding is, in nature, that of constructing mean- ing and obtaining information, and in order to construct meaning and obtain information, signs, which are basically arbitrary, should be organized into a text by going through a series of choices. "Where there is choice, there is meaning," this is a basic rule in communication, and still it can be applied to the understanding process, or meaning construction, which could be explicated in the following two aspects: a) signs are organized selectively into a text and its meaning is determined by a special group and then naturalized; b) to do the sign-organizing job, metaphor and metonymy are commonly used, the ways of which are also full of choices.         2.1  Meaning construction        A meaningful text is fundamentally a selective organization of a set of signs. According to F. de Saussure， all of the languages and sings are constructed on the basis of a coordinate formed in two dimensions, namely, syntagm and paradigm. Syntagm refers to the composition of these signs while paradigm deals with the relation of choice. An alphabet is a paradigm while the letters chosen from it can be composed of words and expressions, which is a kind of syntagm. The units in a paradigmatic relation with others in a paradigm should be different from each other and consequently obtain their separate meaning. To put it more clearly, the meaning construction of these units is defined by their relationship with other units, which haven't been selected out in a paradigm. This is a sort of selective/choice relation. For example, in the eyes of laymen, in the paradigm of animals on the farm, the meaning of the unit cow is distinguished from pig, horse and sheep; however, from a farmer's point of view, it means differently in that it is differentiated from heifer, steer, and bullock. In this example, it is because of the differences between each unit in a paradigm that their separate meaning is constructed and therefore one type of understanding of the meaning comes from one of the differences and so it is selective.          After the units are picked out, they are organized into a text. Since signs are arbitrary, the meaning of the text should be indefinite. However, the innate laziness of human beings, as said by Saussure, makes it appear to be definite. This process, from arbitrariness to convention, is what we call the naturalization of meaning, or the fixation of meaning. Roland Barthes, a French thinker and semiologist, once proposed that meaning naturalization is determined by a group of authority, which is a small group; that is to say, it can be some experts on technology, or may be some anonymous group. In the fixation of meaning, the group authority selects its preferred meaning on the basis of its own ideology and makes it a consensus in its authoritative range. Therefore, meaning is constructed and naturalized. In the process of naturalization of meaning, metaphor and metonymy are commonly used, which will be formulated in the next section.          2.2  Metaphor and metonymy          2.2.1  Metaphor          Metaphor is such a mode in which we compare two things according to their similarities; for example, we may use the upper and lower space to refer to the social status of an individual. To construct meaning by using a metaphor, we need form between two things a relation that does not originally exist and is a choice relation. This is because metaphor is operated according to the associative ( paradigmatic ) relation, that is to say, by using a metaphor an object unknown to others is embedded into a new associative relation and the unknown object thus obtains some new meanings. For example, in the metaphor "The ship is ploughing in the sea", the word sail, as an untold and unknown object, is embedded into the paradigm of the way of dividing up objects, and so it is coordinated with slice, unrip, saw, exscind, scissor, chop, unstick, etc. Through a certain imagination, the reader then transposes the general characteristics of the paradigm and the specific features of plough chosen from the paradigm and thus the unknown term sail is endowed with a new meaning. Here plough is selected from the paradigm and forms a relation with the ship and therefore, a new meaning of sail comes into being.           2.2.2.  Metonymy          Metonymy, to put it simply，refers to the mode in which a certain part is used to substitute the whole; and it manifests how the meaning of a sign substitutes for that of another. Which part can be used to substitute for the whole? This is a selective process. For example, on Oct. 27th, 1968, a peaceful anti-war in Vietnam demonstration was processed for five hours in London, and it ended still peacefully with only some small conflicts near the U. S. embassy and a few people injured. However, reports from British media went too far from the truth: they, with no exception, focused their reports on the conflicts happening near the U.S. embassy, and described a peaceful demonstration as a violent one. In this case, the media substituted the small conflicts for the whole demonstration, which is a metonymy; in that they transferred the meaning of the sign demonstration to conflict and so the meaning presented by conflict forms the meaning of demonstration. Obviously, this is a kind of choice. The media selected details to report the news for the purpose of the value of the news or maybe because of their own value system and social and cultural environment. But for whatever reasons, the selected information is still different from what the truth is.          The above analysis of the case formulates such a fact that metonymy bears a selective nature, and the signs in it should have relativity. Choice is made artificially but not arbitrarily: a sign should be selected in the scope of the other, that is, conflict should not be out of the range of the sign demonstration, and thus it is unworkable to substitute fashion for demonstration.         3. Contextual factors         According to the previous analysis, understanding of a text, in itself, is a selective and dynamic process. Yet there are still some external elements that make the results of understanding vary greatly from one person to another or one culture to another, etc. In order to make sense of those factors, a core notion of context should be introduced.         3. 1  Definition of context        In his article Meaning and Context, Zhang Zhigong makes it clear that context, in a narrow sense, refers to the actual linguistic context, for example, on what occasion the talk takes place, which directly affects the understanding of the meaning of a text. Besides, in a broad sense, time or society and its nature and features, and the situation of the individuals in communication, for example, educational background, life experience, language style and dialect, are also included in the realm of context. Generally, context can be divided into three kinds, namely, immediate linguistic context, social and cultural context, and individual context, each of which will be elaborated later in detail.          3.2  Immediate linguistic context         3.2. 1  Definition of immediate linguistic context Communication needs a place or an occasion. Either verbal communication or non-verbal communication always takes place  under actual circumstances. So in order to understand the exact meaning of a text, the immediate linguistic context should be taken into consideration.          Immediate linguistic context is the specific communication situation, which includes time and place of communication, topic, degree of formality, the relationship between the speaker and the hearer, etc. It is these factors that most directly influence our understanding of a text.         3.2.2  The impact on the understanding process         In the course of communication, the hearer selects the meaning, which is in consistence with what the speaker wants to convey, from his repertoire of the meaning set of the text according to the context. For example, In a long-jump competition, Maling did a good job. The audience thought it amazing, saying, “他跳得多远!” (How far he jumped!) When one Of the audiences came back and talked about this, one of the hearers may ask, “他跳了多远?” (How far did he jump?)          Here the word cluster “多远” in two contexts has different meanings. In the first one “他跳得多远!”, “多远” means "very far", which forms an exclamation to express the audiences' praise and amazement towards Maling. As for the second sentence“他跳了多远?”, the hearer wanted to know the exact meters Maling jumped, so the cluster “多远” means "What is the distance between the starting point and the point that Maling jumped up to?"         The example shows that it is the different immediate linguistic contexts that give rise to the meaning differences of the same phrase. In our understanding of a text, we are always trying to combine our previous knowledge about the text and its meaning set with the immediate linguistic context and thus picking out the meaning which is most suitable to the specific circumstance. Another example, the simple sentence "He is a good student" may have at least four different interpretations as follows:        a. He is a student who behaves well.        b. He is a student who works well.        c. He is a student who gets high marks.        d. He is a student who shows a high level of ability.        Here in order to get the exact meaning of the sentence, we should consider where and when the sentence is uttered. Two instances are given here.          a. Several teachers are correcting test papers. Having finished doing that, they talked about those who did a good job in the exam. One of the teachers pointed to the name of a student and said," He got the highest marks. He is really a good student."         In this case, the teacher made the sentence while discussing the marks of the exam, which presupposes that the meaning of the word "good" is definitely "getting high marks". So the sentence "He is really a good student" should be understood as "He is a student who gets high marks."         b. George is a student very popular with his teachers. One day, the head teacher was told that George beat someone when he was playing basketball. The teacher was surprised to hear that, and he said to other teachers, "It's incredible!  George is a good student. He always behaves himself!"        The teachers' impression of George was that he couldn't have done that, and the sentence "He is a good student" here thus means "He is a student who behaves well."         As we see from the above examples, immediate linguistic context directly conditions our selection from a meaning set of a text and therefore our understanding of it.         3.3  Social and cultural context         Social and cultural context refers to the historical background and a nation's unique traditions and customs formed with historic and social development. The following formulations will focus on two aspects, i. e. history and a nation's culture and their far-reaching impacts on our understanding of a text.         3.3.1  Historical background        The impacts that history has on meaning can be illustrated in the aspects of specialization, extension, amelioration, degeneration and transference of meaning. Consequently, our understanding of a specific word or text is also changing with the development of history. The word cab, which meant "a horse-drawn carriage for hire" in the 19th century, now means the same as the word taxi. Another example," John built a house in the north of Ottawa. "We now may interpret it as "John asked the construction company to dispatch an engineer corps to build a house for him in the north of Ottawa." But if it were in the 19th century, people would understand the sentence in this way: "John built a house by himself in the north of Ottawa." It is the same case with the sentence "He b