|
|
|
|
|
|
tive exploitationfor poetic purposesof a principle which rules both the generation and the interpretation of texts in general. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1.2. Some Problems of the Pragmatics of Communication |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As is clearly maintained in Theory (2.15), the standard communication model proposed by information theorists (Sender, Message, Addressee in which the message is decoded on the basis of a Code shared by both the virtual poles of the chain) does not describe the actual functioning of communicative intercourses. The existence of various codes and sub-codes, the variety of sociocultural circumstances in which a message is emitted (where the codes of the addressee can be different from those of the sender), and the rate of initiative displayed by the addressee in making presuppositions and abductionsall result in making a message (insofar as it is received and transformed into the content of an expression) an empty form to which various possible senses can be attributed. Moreover, what one calls 'message' is usually a text, that is, a network of different messages depending on different codes and working at different levels of signification. Therefore the usual communication model should be rewritten (even though to a still extremely simplified extent) as in Figure 0.1. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A more reasonable picture of the whole semantico-pragmatic process would take the form (Figure 0.2) already proposed in Theory, where, even disregarding both the rightmost quarter of the square (all the 'aberrant' presuppositions) and the lower components (circumstances orienting or deviating the presuppositions), the notion of a crystal-like textual object is abundantly cast in doubt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should be clear that Figure 0.2 is not depicting any specially 'open' process of interpretation. It represents a semantico-pragmatic process in general. It is just by playing upon the prerequisites of such a general process that a text can succeed in being more or less open or closed. As for aberrant presuppositions and deviating circumstances, they are not realizing any openness but, instead, producing mere states of indeter- |
|
|
|
|
|