DO-IT-YOURSELF KIT PENTRU COMPREHENSIUNEA ȘI INTERPRETAREA TEXTULUI LITERAR: INSTRUMENTE CONCEPTUALE, PROTOCOALE EURISTICE
A DO-IT-YOURSELF KIT FOR THE COMPREHENSION AND INTERPRETATION OF LITERARY TEXTS: CONCEPTUAL TOOLS AND HEURISTIC PROTOCOLS

Summary/Abstract: This article develops a metacognitive and procedurally explicit protocol for the comprehension and interpretation of literary texts. Conceived as a flexible do-it-yourself toolkit, the model is organised into three analytically distinct yet recursive sequences: understanding, analysis, and interpretation. The first sequence establishes the hermeneutic contract, stabilises the textual object, calibrates the relevant contexts, records the effects of the initial reading, and identifies the text’s difficulties and indeterminacies. The second differentiates the textual levels through functional segmentation and through the analysis of enunciation, fictional worlds, discursive strategies, morphology, syntax, pragmatics, rhetoric, and semantic-symbolic configurations. The third reorganises the analytical findings into competing interpretive hypotheses, tests them through hermeneutic circles, transactional and recursive loops, counterexamples, and the travelling differential, and ultimately constructs a provisional scenario of meaning followed by a post-reading audit. The protocol brings together, in an explicitly eclectic framework, Howard Gardner’s model of the five minds, Teun A. van Dijk and Walter Kintsch’s strategic theory of discourse comprehension, Paul Ricœur’s hermeneutic arc, Umberto Eco’s concepts of topic and isotopy, Groupe μ’s rhetorical instruments, Wolfgang Iser’s account of registers and modes of interpretation, and Alina Pamfil’s three-stage model of literary reading. The algorithmic analogy functions heuristically: it makes inputs, operations, provisional outputs, feedback loops, errors, revisions, and stopping conditions visible without reducing literary meaning to a mechanically reproducible result. The central argument is that conceptual instruments and procedural discipline do not inhibit interpretive creativity; they render it more reflexive, accountable, communicable, and responsive to textual resistance.

• Details
• Contents