Xenological Approach in Psycholinguistics and Literary Studies: the Meta-languages of Understanding Cover Image

Ксенологический подход в психолингвистике и литературоведении: метаязыки взаимопонимания
Xenological Approach in Psycholinguistics and Literary Studies: the Meta-languages of Understanding

Author(s): Maia Nachkebia
Subject(s): Studies of Literature, Psycholinguistics, Theory of Literature
Published by: ლიტერატურის ინსტიტუტის გამომცემლობა
Keywords: xenology; allology; different; otherness; self-existence; co-existence; other-existence understanding; metalanguage;

Summary/Abstract: This article analyzes xenological approach in psycho linguistic research: the analysis of the understanding possibilities and limitations, meta-languages understanding. Discusses the results and processes, paradoxes and mechanisms of interaction between man and the world, including in the reading context. Substantiates the idea that reading will require changes in the understanding of oneself and the world and assume this change will lead to the transformation of representations of the person, including the infinity of its own resources, time and space in his life. Main statements of the author’s model of human existence, uniting self-existence, In to (other)-existence and co-existence of people and the world, it is noted that the widening and deepening of awareness of oneself and the world is associated with the development of these components and their harmonious interaction. it is concluded that the reading result for human consciousness will be the development of his self-awareness as a person, the selection is in itself the most important, humanity constituting aspects of the growth of respect for life and the world in General.Another pushes its boundaries at the expense of “I”, thanks to him. Moreover, the knowledge “I am” about Her there is nothing that initially there would be a Stranger. Even concepts and ways of dealing with them arises in communication with Others taken over or designed – existing as a reality created by Another before, or arising as a result of implementation of Your communication needs with Others.Find out the current situation life values and meanings are the most important indicator of human nature, his deep-lying internal areas, defining a particular understanding of oneself and the world, preferences in the selection of the meta-languages of understanding.. Understanding as a unity of fact and its assessment requires “acceptance of another”,suggests her pre-knowledge. Understanding the future gives the sense of the present, is the process of (self -) designing, based on the experience of the past and its reconstruction in the current situation of the interaction: the ability to extract meaning and edification possible only when the reader took the author’s proposed message. If the message is “Dialogic intentions”, its provocation by the author in the text not observed, the reading of the text is so unlikely and unwarranted, that even the efforts of the understanding are often doomed to failure. Understanding as a synthesis of understandings – unguaranteed experience of co-existence, their construction and build relations between the author of the text and its reader. However, the will to meaning and the effort of understanding and understanding, increases the chances to be understand: at least at the momentary level, try entering and staying in the flow, in the inter textual and End notes “the gaps and layers in the ineffable and hidden intentionally or unconsciously – from the author and his reader.Do a person report or does not give, but in the book he’s looking for Another, and also the understanding of ourselves and the world that this other can give. The ability of the subject to understand and be understood is only possible because there is Another: the communication or communications is going beyond Yourself, outside Your to the Other,connecting Themselves with the Other. Don’t be Another, there would be no understanding. Understanding there is always a mutual or shared understanding: understanding of event co-existence. Own, not recognizing themselves and their boundaries, and would remain undeveloped, “at rest” in self-sufficiency: as described in various cosmologies and mythologies of the absolute. This is the return to the “peace of self-existence” and occurs when one or the other part of Your is out of contact with internal or external Others, or when she gets herself in and with a particular goal, passing through a chain of “incarnation – the transformation-the implementation of” from alien existence to the event and self-existence.Trying to fathom how someone else can deal with the fact that the Alien is not: the illusion of Otherness is also common, as the illusion of its invincibility. In the dialogue,in the process of understanding, according to the formation and development of “co-existence”, many of the transformations and returns to His own, is a series of processes.Faced with Other people are likely to be faced only with yourself. Knowing someone else in the historical or diachronic perspectives, the person usually considers the experience of Another only as a more or less clear version of the experience Itself. The only way to understand anything: that means nothing to the person from the point of view of the previous or anticipated experience, understood can not be. That understood, never has a definite meaning and completeness: understood is the result of the final at the moment in a given space point as part of a unified field of meaning of the Universe.There are three primary strategies for understanding themselves and the world.Understanding possible as “output” (the decision on the understanding) through belief in the truth, incompleteness and the impossible. These “outputs” unequal in the sense of “the exhaustion of symbolic resources” (ways of formation of the meaning of what is happening in his internal and external worlds). The first method involves the justification of hope for understanding, but neglecting and ignoring the dead ends, giving up their own efforts to understand the satisfaction of superficial “knowledge”. In the second case, the hope of the subject for understanding is not met, but the subject cares about them and understood that because of impotence (his or another) to understand the other and otherwise. In the third case the conclusion of the impossibility of understanding , and, especially , mutual understanding, has the effect of “beyond the limit” refusal of understanding and change,or the attempts the impossible as impossible (e.g. in the process of translation desire is suspended or emphathic understanding).

  • Issue Year: 2016
  • Issue No: 17
  • Page Range: 26-39
  • Page Count: 14
  • Language: Russian