Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika

Concerning the Program of

Understanding a Literary Text

Seda Gasparyan
Yerevan State University

Abstract
Text is a broad notion. It may be expressed both in writing and orally in the
form of a monologue, dialogue, utterance, etc. This may well be the reason for
the persistent interest towards text as such. The great variety of studies on the
nature of text and its objectives, however, are all somewhat controversial and
lack a unified conceptual approach. Things get even more complicated due to
the fact that now into scientific circulation has been introduced the notion of
discourse, and evidently of considerable popularity in the current stage of the
development of linguistics is the relationship between text and discourse.
The present article focuses on the study of the correlation of text and
discourse, views literary text as a unit of specific communication between the
writer and the reader, as well as centers the attention on the consecutive stages
of literary text perception and understanding.

Key words: author, reader, communicative intention of speech making,

literary communication process, the influence of external factors, a combination
of linguistic and extralinguistic knowledge, multiplicity of text perception, the
program of understanding text.

Introduction
The diversity of investigations on text is often controversial and lacks a
unified standpoint. This might be one of the reasons why the study of text
never ceases to be topical.
Text is rather a broad notion covering both the written and oral forms of
speech which can be actualized as a monologue, a dialogue, an utterance at

7
Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

large. Today the situation becomes even more complicated because the notion
of discourse (խոսույթ in Armenian) has occurred in the domain of science and
is being very actively circulated. Whether the Armenian translation of the term
discourse (խոսույթ) is justified and appropriately conveys the essence of the
notion discourse is a question of a separate discussion. However obvious is the
fact that the problem of text – discourse correlation is rather topical at the
present stage of linguistic research. The thing is that these two notions are very
often used without any clearcut differentiation, except that a piece of written
speech is defined as text, whereas oral speech is identified as discourse (Karasik
2002; Levitskiy 2006). It should be mentioned however that this differentiation
based on the statement of oral speech/written speech dichotomy can by no
means be justified as both text and discourse can be expressed both orally and in
written form. Indeed, there is also the approach according to which discourse
has two forms of expression – written and oral (Gasparyan 2010), however this
distinction has also given rise to various opinions and discussions. Some
linguists are doubtful about what recorded simultaneous text is – an oral text or
discourse. (Cf. Crystal, Davy 1979), though according to E. Ochs, oral speech is
distinguished with the proportionality of phonemes, words and syntax and the
lack of syntagms that make the speech coherent. Oral speeh acquires a
seemingly unfinished nature as it mostly contains unfinished sentences and
word-syntagms (Ochs 1979). On the other hand, the use of certain features,
typical of oral speech cannot be fully excluded in the written text. Very often
authors turn to reduced or elliptical utterances, lexical units and to the
description of the phonetic and intonational features of the characters to make
the language of a literary text more living and actual. Thus, it is not a surprise
that Evelyn Hatch suggests using the terms pre-planned speech and
spontaneous speech instead of written and oral (Hatch 1992).
It is an established fact that the cohesion of speech is one of the most
important pre-conditions to achieve the understanding of a text. And if the
text-froming units are uttered successively but are not cohesive, the string of
words is unable to convey a complete sense and be understood by the reader or
the listener. Whereas when utterances created in the process of speech
8
Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika

formation cohere semantically and structurally, and their correlations do not

contradict the logics of communication or do not distort the natural process of
realizing the communicative intention proper, then, as van Dijk states, we deal
with discourse. Van Dijk defines discourse as the uttered text, and text as the
abstract grammatical structure of the uttered. Proceeding from the Sossurian
distinction of language and speech he qualifies discourse as a unit of speech and
text as a means of materializing the language system (van Dijk 1982).
The brief examination of various approaches to the correlation of text and
discourse shows that discourse is widely refered to not only in linguistic but
also other scientific spheres, particularly in psychology, philosophy, political
studies and other social sciences. However, whatever the case, it is generalized
as an efficient way to reproduce the reality, particularly in the process of speech
formation and, in fact, demonstrates speech processes from a social,
psychological and cultural standpoint, emerging in certain communicative
situations in terms of the intention of the speaker and the attitude of the
listener (Gasparyan 2010). Moreover, the experience, the knowledge, the ability
of both parties to perceive, understand and reproduce the reality is of
paramount significance. It is not accidental that, for example, N.D. Arutyunova
defines discourse as a piece of speech immersed in the vortex of life and is
convinced that discourse is the coherent text with all its linguistic and extra-
linguistic factors (cultural, psychological, functional, etc.), i.e. the text with its
situational concepts (Arutyunova 1990). There are also others who believe that
discourse is the process of pronouncing, recording, interpreting the speech in its
entirety (Brown, Yule 1983).
Thus, if we try to formulate the notion of discourse broadly we shall say
that, in real fact, it is communication between the addresser (author) and the
addressee (reader or the listener), viewed through the interrelation of their
mental, cultural, social and linguistic features.
When we turn to questions related to the problem of perception,
understading and interpretation of texts we can easily notice that they have
nowadays undergone certain changes appearing in the limelight of linguistic
research. These changes occurred after the communicative approach came to
9
Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

replace the structural one and when man with his emotions and feelings, his
unique worldview and national and linguo-cultural characteristics obtained
special significance and came to occupy a special place in the sphere of
linguistic research. Perhaps this came to explain the interest of linguistics
towards the art of hermeneutics, and the problems of the poetic understanding
and interpretation of a text (particularly a literary text) were soon ranked
among the more actual problems of scientific cognition.

Literary Text as Communication

between the Writer and the Reader
What has been presented above shows rather obviously that discourse is an
active whole and text is its passive result. But can we accept this definition
without any reservation? First, as a matter of fact, there is no doubt that any
text turns into discourse when being read or reproduced. It is also appropriate
to consider the theory of the classification of speech functions offered by V.V.
Vinogradov who states that any form of speech is based on the communicative
function of the language (Vinogradov 1963). Therefore, it is not surprising to
come across the trend which states that though traditionally the text is viewed
as a complex made up of interrelated successive elements, the result of a
creative process endowed with certain stability devoid of mobility, still, this
idea can be considered acceptable as long as the text has not entered a
communicative process and has not turned into a diologue between the author
and the reader which brings it very close to discourse itself. It is not accidental
that the complete whole in the form of a written document which has come
into being as a result of the speech-making process and meets certain
requirements, enjoys certain pragmatic freedom (Gal’perin 1981) and is
distinguished with possibilities of intrinstic and extrinsic manifestations
(Morokhovskiy 1981; 1989). This makes it possible to view text as a real
communicative unit, to perceive it as a high-level system whose structural
composition is conditioned by the very communicative intention of speech-
production.

10
Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika

This multi-dimensional nature of the text, naturally, creates certain

challenges for its perception, understanding and interpretation, particularly as
far as a literary text, first and foremost associated with a piece of literary work,
is described as a special type of text: apart from enjoying the features of
coherence and integrity typical of any text, a literary work is also distinguished
with ideological and aesthetic unity which is realized in any text through an
inseparable and indivisible link between the content and form.
It has been established that various lexical, grammatical, stylistic and logical
links, as well as unique text-forming units are of special significance for any
text. However, the choice of most diverse linguistic means and their
combinations in a text are far more important since it is the very choice of these
units that comes to define the impact the author intends to make on the reader
by provoking a certain emotional state. The information here is not logical, but
mostly emotional, evaluative and, broadly speaking, aesthetic-imaginative
(Arnol’d 1990). Hence, the use of various linguistic means, including the
expressive ones, is conditioned by the very purport of the text and the far-
reaching intention of the author.
Being the unique and imaginary reverberation of the reality rather than its
direct and mirror reflection, the literary work contains certain conditionality.
And though it heavily rests upon the objective reality and feeds on it, the
linguistic units it contains do not represent the tangible and visible objects of
the reality. Otherwise stated, on the one hand, it reproduces the surrounding
world that is perceivable in the framework of human experience, and on the
other hand, it is fictitious, imaginative and comes to reflect the border of the
author’s imaginative perception of the reality. The author may choose this or
that object or phenomenon of the reality and reproduce them artistically.
However, despite the differences between the works born out of this process,
they undoubtedly bear the seal of the author’s worldvision and linguistic
mentality since they are always formed under the influence of the social,
economic and various other external factors of the given time period. In this
case, the reader’s personal descriptive features, his ideological, psychological
qualities, as well as worldvision take the lead. And since a truly valuable and
11
Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

high-quality literary work, transgressing its time, reflects the existing problems
of the society, the reader, relying on his own, personal experience and ideas,
always faces a certain challenge when trying to deeply perceive the issues raised
by the author and to re-evaluate the nature of the reality the author describes.

The Unity of Form and Content in Understanding Process

When examining the problems related to text perception, the issue of the
unity of form and content acquires special importance. The form of the work, in
fact, is quite a complicated and comprehensive notion since it includes not only
stylistic functional, phraseological coherence and syntactic structure, but also
certain phonetic and rhythmic peculiarities, which often help the author “hide”
the intention proper consciously or unconsciously. As far as the content of a
literary work is concerned, it is not homogenous in terms of perception,
understanding and interpretation. As a matter of fact, it is a hierarchical system
which is presented as a unity of linguistic, stylistic, imaginary, aesthetic and
ideological contents. Investigations indicate that perception will occur only
when the reader passes through all the levels of this system, from the lowest to
the highest where he will be able to reveal the general idea of the work and the
intent of the author (Gasparyan 2006).
If the reading of a piece of literature is broadly viewed as a specific
manifestation of communication, the author and the reader acquire no less
importance, they act as opposite sides of the same whole. The fact is that the
formation of the literary work is built upon the authorial intention, the idea
that was born out of the demand to tell the reader the important information
and this is accomplished by the author individually, in a unique way,
conditioned by his own worldview, his emotional, psychological and mental
peculiarities, thereby instilling or placing the so-called “authorial meaning” in
the texture and composition of his work.
As reseach indicates, the initial important condition of text understaning is
the knowledge of the given language. However, language competence can by no
means be sufficient for full understanding and interpretation of the text. Here,
the extra-linguistic knowledge and experience that are manifested in the text
12
Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika

content and linguistic composition in one way or another are of particular

significance. And since the author’s target is a certain category of readers when
writing any piece of work, he, as an addresser chooses and combines a complex
of linguistic and extralinguistic knowledge in his work which will be available
to the reader. This will give the latter a chance to understand the author, to
process and analyze the reading material, understand and interpret it. As is the
case with any type of text, in the literary text as well, the semantic-structural
features, i.e. the features which are the result of the creative process of the
author, are of foremost importance.
We have to agree that the complex mechanism of perception is not confined
to this, since, as already mentioned, the factors of experience, knowledge, level
of consciousness and memory are of no less importance. Nonetheless, the initial
stage of understaning starts with the creation of the sensory image of the object
the perception of which is confined to the material shape of the object. It is
evident that the first stage of the perception of the oral text is realized through
hearing and that of the written text – through vision. In this regard, it is
necessary to have an accurate idea of what the reading process is. In its primary
meaning “to read” means to perceive what is written and to reproduce it loudly
or in one’s mind. However, when it comes to the reading of fiction, it becomes
necessary to distinguish between two goals of reading – to read in order to
perceive the factual information in this or that text and to read with the
purpose of understanding the philologically subtle semantic and stylistic
nuances. Evidently, the latter is more complicated since the perception of any
piece of literary text can by no means be confined to the perception of the
material form only. The dialectic interrelation between the form and the
content displays more complicated manifestations owing to the multi-layered
system of the content of the work. This well explains the specific challenge of
reading and understanding a piece of fiction, since the mutual relation of the
writer and the reader is anchored on the purpose of perceiving and
understaning the ideological and aesthetic “information”, rather than on
revealing the mere plot of the work.

13
Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

Stages of Understanding Process

The process of text understanding runs as follows: first the analysis of
perception takes place which is paralleled with the attempt of the recipient to
analyze the meaning of the lexical elements and make some guesses about the
general contents. Then, proceeding from the results of the separate stages of
analysis, the obtained results are combined and synthesized. The examination of
the perception process brings close to the adequate psychological recognition of
linguistic images, and they are preserved in our short-term memory. This, in its
turn, is followed by the identification of certain constituent semanitic elements
in the general semantic structure of word-images which are of paramount
importance for understanding the whole. Thus, in the given sematic situation
and the given context the combination of the separate semantic elements shapes
our understanding of the whole.
It has been established that the possibility of various interpretations of one
and the same work is not uncommon for fiction. This, in fact, is one of the
underlying characteristiscs of a literary work. Usually a piece of imaginative
writing has no specific addressee and, as mentioned above, is targeted at a group
of readers with a certain level of intelligence who share a certain common
feature while differing in many others. Nevertheless, the general semantic core
of a literary work should be accessible for a wide circle of readers and not
transpass its border. Its guarantee is the program of text interpretation, which
the author places in the basis of his work having in mind the requirements of
his intention and the presumable developmental level of the reader who is the
addressee. Thus, we can see that the challenges of perceiving and understanding
a work of literature depend on not only the complex nature of the text and its
characteristics, but also the factor of the reader himself. And since the latter is
quite another personality and often belongs to another age, another generation,
and represents a new mentality, there is little likelihood that he may directly
penetrate into the world of the author, re-live his life, re-experience the same
emotions and feelings, let alone the fact that in the course if time the author
himself may change his own attitude towards his own work, in fact,
introducing new meanings and shades of meanings into the so-called “authorial
14
Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika

meaning” of the work. No matter how hard the reader tries to reproduce and
recreate the “authorial meaning”, he is sure to fail, since he is guided by his own
personality, his own life experience and his own inner world. This is the reason
why the reader, based on his own perceptions and interpretations, enjoys a
certain amount of freedom in shaping the “meaning” of the literary text.
However, the border of the freedom stretches up to that of the opportunities
provided by the text itself and the linguistic units used in it. Here, “inner
speech” comes to help. As a matter of fact, it is the most reliable factor guiding
the process of perception, understanding and interpretation since it best reflects
the essence proper of the literary work enhancing the phonetic, rhythmic,
melodic and timbre specificities it contains. The importance of “inner speech”
has found its clarification in the works of L.V. Shcherba, where he emphasizes
the necessity of the phonetic interpretation of poetic speech (Shcherba 1957; cf.
also Coleridge 1956).
The fact of the text is not a simple phenomenon itself, at least for the reason
that there is some disproportionality between the objects of reality and their
textual reproductions. It is known that the objects of the external world are
endowed with numerous or almost infinite number of features whose
reproduction in the text without any selection or choice may turn the text into
an unbound and infinite domain. On the other hand, it is quite clear that any
work of speech is supposed to be complete in a sense. This fact pushes the
author into a corner of contradiction: on the one hand the author needs to
describe and recreate the multi-faceted object of the real world with the help of
a limited number of linguistic elements which would expand the borders of the
text to infinity, on the other, he has to provide the completeness of the text.
Which is the way out?
Depending on the scope of his interests, social stance and world vision, the
author chooses those features of the real life objects that are important from the
point of view of his ideological and aesthietic intentions while leaving behind
the features of less significance or, more precisely, hiding them most carefully
between the lines of the text. The features the author considers important come
to shape the skeleton of the text and serve as a basis for the text perception by
15
Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

the reader. In this process the reader, i.e. the addressee himself builds his own
text based on his personal background, ignoring certain things, perceiving
others in a distorted way or adding something more. Perhaps, this can help
explain the fact that the impressions and the impact of the same text vary owing
to the psychological, mental and social differences of the readers. The
similarities in their interpretations depend on the amount of common
characteristic features the readers have. It is these descriptive features of the
potential readers that turn out to be decisive for the author in the process of
creating his literary text. And since the latter is re-created by the efforts of the
reader who is out of the direct control of the author, there emerges the
necessity for the reader himself to take charge of the direct control of the re-
creation of the text. The text, with all its peculiarities, becomes the sole reality
in the process of the literary communication, which takes the lead in the
reader’s perception. All the means and preconditions for the text perception
that regulate the whole process of reading are placed in the text from the very
start. The sum total of all these factors gives rise to the so-called program of text
perception, and the fact that some linguistis figuratively describe the program of
text perception, understanding and interpretation as a labyrinth is by no means
accidental (Eco 1983).

Conclusion
Thus we can conclude that the only way out of this labyrinth is to be aware
of the fact that the “meaning” of the work is built by the collective efforts of
both the author and the reader, and that the proceeding point in the whole
process is the language of the work. The appropriate choice and arrangement of
linguistic units by the writer, whether intuitively or knowingly provides a basis
for possible objective understanding of the work. Therefore, reading,
understanding and interpreting a work of literature calls for the perception of
the dialectical correlation of content and form, as well as appreciation of the
work as an aesthetic whole.

16
Linguistics Armenian Folia Anglistika

References:
1. Arnol’d, I.V. (1990) Stilistika sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka. M.:
Prosveshchenie.
2. Arutyunova, N.D. (1990) Lingvisticheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’. M.:
Sov. Entsiklopediya, pp. 136-137.
3. Brown, G.; Yule, G. (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP.
4. Coleridge, T.S. (1956) Biographia Literaria. / Ed. by G.Watson. New York:
Everyman’s Library.
5. Crystal, D.; Davy, D. (1979) Advanced Conversational English. London:
Longman.
6. Eco, U. (1983) The Author, the Text, and the Reader. LSJ Publ. House.
7. Gal’perin, I.R. (1981) Tekst kak ob’ekt lingvisticheskogo issledowaniya. M.:
Nauka.
8. Gasparyan, G.R. (2010) Tekst i diskours kak yedinicy rechetvorcheskoy i
kommunikativnoy deyatel’nosti. // Phenomen W. Saroyana v kontekste
mezhkulturnogo diskoursa (k probeme izucheniya lingvokognitivnoy
struktury teksta). / Doct. dissertation. Yerevan.
9. Gasparyan, S.K. (2006) Dzevi yev bovandakutyan miasnakanutyuny
banasirakan motetsmamb. // Banber Yerevani hamalsarani. Yerevan: YSU
Press, 3 (120), pp.79-83.
10. Hatch, E. (1992) Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: CUP.
11. Karasik, V.I. (2002) Yazykowoy kroug: lichnost’, kontsepty, diskours.
Volgograd: Peremena, Visshaya Shkola.
12. Levitskiy, U.A. (2006) Lingvistika teksta. M.: Visshaya Shkola.
13. Morokhovskiy, A.N. (1981) Nekotorye osnownye ponyatiya stilistiki i
lingvistiki teksta. // Linguistika teksta i metodika prepodawaniya
inostrannykh yazykov. Kiev: Visshaya Shkola, pp. 6-13.
14. Morokhovskiy, A.N. (1989) K probleme teksta i ego kategoriy. // Tekst i ego
kategorial’nye priznaki. Kiev: KSPIIYaz, pp. 113-117.
15. Ochs, E. (1979) Transcription as Theory. // Developmental Pragmatics. New
York: Academic Press.
16. Shcherba, L.V. (1957) Opyty lingvisticheskogo tolkovaniya stikhotvoreniy,
17
Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

“Vospominaniye” Pushkina. // Izbrannye raboty po russkomu yazyku. M.:

Uchpedgiz.
17. van Dijk, T.A. (1982) Options and Attitudes in Discourse Comprehension. //
Language and Comprehension. Amsterdam, etc.: North Holland, pp. 35-51.
18. Vinogradov, V.V. (1963) Stilistika. Teoriya poeticheskoy rechi. Poetika. M.:
AS SSSR.

Գեղարվեստական տեքստի հասկացման ծրագրի շուրջ

Գեղարվեստական տեքստի քննությանն առնչվող խնդիրները լուսա-

բանվել են տարաբնույթ ուսումնասիրություններում, որոնք սակայն աչքի
են ընկնում որոշակի տարակարծությամբ: Իրավիճակն ավելի է բարդա-
նում այն իրողությամբ, որ վերջին ժամանակներս գիտական շրջանա-
ռության մեջ հայտնված դիսկուրս հասկացությունը էլ ավելի է դժվարաց-
նում տեքստ – դիսկուրս հարաբերակցության շրջանակներում այդ երկու
երևույթների հստակ սահմանազատման հնարավորությունը: Սույն հոդ-
վածը ուշադրություն է սևեռում տեքստ – դիսկուրս հարաբերակցության
խնդիրներին, գեղարվեստական տեքստը դիտարկում որպես յուրօրինակ
հաղորդակցություն գրողի և ընթերցողի միջև, ներկայացնում գեղարվես-
տական տեքստի ընկալման ու հասկացման գործընթացի հաջորդական
փուլերի բնութագրական գծերը:

18