Understanding speech messages and the principle of complementarity

 

Understanding speech messages and the principle of complementarity

The purpose of the article is to formulate theoretical prerequisites for explaining the understanding of speech messages by communicators.

The content of a speech message is constructed from each recipient's knowledge associated with the linguistic sign bodies that comprise the speech message. Differences in such knowledge between recipients inevitably lead to the creation of non-identical contents within the same speech message. To theoretically understand the phenomenon of non-identical content, it is useful to use N. Bohr's principle of complementarity. According to this principle, non-identical contents within the same text can be interpreted as complementary models that do not contradict but rather complement each other.

The theoretical basis for additional models in the study of the problem of non-identity of the contents of a speech message can be found in the integrative-eclectic approach to the analysis of psychological phenomenology, developed by V.A. Yangus.

Keywords: speech message, principle of complementarity, non-identity of text, integrative-eclectic approach.

 

E. Tarasov, L. Golovina

UNDERSTANDING SPEECH MESSAGES AND THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPLEMENTARITY

The purpose of the article is to form theoretical prerequisites for explaining the understanding of speech messages by communicants.

The content of a speech message is constructed from the knowledge of each recipient associated with the bodies of language signs that make up this speech message. The difference of such knowledge of recipients inevitably leads to the creation of non-identical contents of the same speech message. For theoretical understanding of the phenomenon of non-identity of content it is advisable to use the principle of complementarity N. Bohr. According to this principle, non-identical contents of the same text can be interpreted as additional models that do not contradict but complement each other.

Theoretical substantiation of additional models in the study of the problem of non-identity of the contents of speech messages can be found in the integrative-eclectic approach to the analysis of psychological phenomenology, formed by VA Yangus.

Keywords: speech message, complementarity principle, non-identity of the text, integrative-eclectic approach.

 

When developing theoretical premises for explaining communicators' understanding of speech messages, one can proceed from the generally accepted assumption that communicants do not understand the same speech message identically. This occurs for at least two reasons: first, communicators associate a non-identical body of knowledge with each linguistic unit of the speech chain; second, communicators possess non-identical knowledge about the fragment of reality represented by the knowledge associated with the speech chain. In other words, each communicator possesses two types of knowledge: knowledge about the objects of their culture, so-called cultural objects—knowledge about their substance, function, and symbolic properties. This knowledge is formed by the individual through the appropriation of their ethnic culture. With the help of this knowledge, associated with the bodies of linguistic signs, bearers of a single culture form a common knowledge about the ethnic culture and the bearers of that culture themselves. Bearers of modern ethnic culture, being partial individuals, naturally possess not the entire culture, but only those fragments that allow them to survive in a specific natural and social environment; they possess the most precise and sufficient knowledge only within the framework of their profession, where they also possess the most precise terminological professional language.

Understanding is the process of recognizing an object (most often a cultural object) based on an examination of its characteristic features. The degree of understanding depends on the number of features examined: the fewer features required for recognizing an object, the better the understanding [2; 4]. The reduction in the time it takes to understand an object depends on the number of features examined for each participant in a joint activity (JA). It follows that understanding of the same speech message is not completely identical for each communicant.

Let us illustrate this thesis with the following example.

In April 2019, the newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets published an article about an incident involving the famous actor P., who was "dismissed from a plane in the city of B [...]" amidst a scandal. The article presents various versions of the events, i.e., interpretations of the incident, the content of which is interpreted differently by the participants and outside experts. Given the fact that the incident receives varying ethical assessments, the publishers allow actor P., an expert, and an Aeroflot representative to express their understandings of the incident, while also offering their own pointedly detached version, attempting to capture all perspectives on the essentially opposing communication between the direct participants in the incident.

The newspaper article under review demonstrates the practice of analyzing real cases of oppositional communication in society: the content and meaning of verbal acts, in which participants act within the framework of their understanding of goals and motives as means of social interaction, the chronotope, and so on. Such a multiplicative approach to analyzing the content of interactions is inevitable given the existence of non-identical understandings of the act of verbal communication formed by participants in social interaction. The researcher of verbal communication faces a choice in analyzing the object domain: either introduce the communicants' consciousness into the object domain, with their non-identical images of the verbal communication situation, or describe and interpret the understanding of the content of the communicants' speech acts solely from the researcher's perspective as an outside observer.

The problem of understanding reality (including speech) is fundamental in the theory of knowledge. This problem has received its most consistent solution in theoretical concepts of various types of rationality [7; 8].

In our article, we attempt to address a specific problem in scientific cognition: the understanding of speech messages produced in verbal communication involving not only multiple speakers but also, most importantly for our analysis, multiple listeners who strive not only to understand the speech of their partners in a collaborative activity but also to build their own strategy for regulating their partners' actions based on this understanding. The problem of understanding the same object by different recipients did not originate in linguistics, where it would seem to be the first to be addressed, as speech practices allow us to conclude that speech utterances are often perceived by several recipients simultaneously. However, linguists find such a subject too complex, and so they study the process of speech comprehension through a less-than-reflective introspection, analyzing their own understanding of the speech messages being studied and applying their findings to all non-linguistic recipients.

In science, the problem of discrepancies in the results of analysis of the same object by researchers armed with different cognitive tools, which arose when describing complex real-world phenomena disproportionate to ordinary human experience and became known as the problem of the duality of the spatial organization of matter and its study, was resolved by Nietzsche Bohr using the principle of complementarity. With this principle, Bohr legitimized an approach to analyzing complex phenomena by constructing theories (models) that are not identical but complement each other.

The ideological basis for the construction of the complementarity principle for N. Bohr was the work of W. Jame and S. Kierkegaard.

The need for additional models of the same object arises when that object is studied using different cognitive tools (instruments). This situation often arises, for example, in sociology, when a single social phenomenon is studied by different research teams, using different theories, etc.

N.K. Dentzin, who called this approach to the analysis of social phenomena triangulation, distinguishes four of its forms: «1) data triangulation, when different types of data are used within the framework of one research project; 2) triangulation of researchers, when several researchers participate in the project; 3) theoretical triangulation – the use of several approaches for the purpose of interpreting data; 4) methodological triangulation – the use of multiple methods in the study of any issue» [1, p. 487].

The development of this approach can be understood in the spirit of the principle of complementarity. The principle of complementarity is one way to understand the influence of the researcher's position on the construction of the image of the object of analysis. V.S. Stepin, who studied this problem in terms of the dependence of the result of analysis on the position of the researcher, showed that, beginning in the mid-20th century, regulations have been created in science, according to which "the truth of several different specific theoretical descriptions of the same reality is allowed, since each of them may contain an element of objectively true knowledge [...]. In this regard, types of explanation and description are accepted that explicitly contain references to the means and operations of cognitive activity" [8, p. 623].

One might wonder how the regulative principle of the multiplicity of relative truths about the same reality relates to the problem of communicators' non-identical understanding of the content of the same speech message. Any speech message allows, within certain limits, for individual understanding by each recipient, armed with their own unique consciousness but possessing an optimal commonality of consciousness with the subject of the speech message, enabling them to understand each other. In other words, the consciousness of communicators can be understood as an instrument (device), the uniqueness of which determines variability, while its commonality allows for the construction of identical content within the same speech message.

Consciousness as a tool can be understood as follows. Each recipient, for example, during visual perception, records a colored spot on the retina as the eye's sensory response to an external stimulus, which is the perceived object. To identify the perceived object by the colored spot, the perceiver recalls a perceptual standard from memory, which functions as one of the memory images formed from a previous perceptual image. Perceptual images, as perceptual standards, are formed by the perceiver through enculturation while perceiving objects of their ethnic culture. Thus, the native ethnic culture served as an object of perception and became the substance for constructing the consciousness of each bearer; their culture equipped each member of the ethnic group with the means of understanding reality: in other words, the bearer of a particular ethnic culture can only understand what their adopted culture allows them to understand in reality.

Consequently, the consciousness of the bearer of a specific ethnic culture can be considered as the only instrument that allows him to perceive reality.

Since the consciousness of each person is unique, albeit within the framework of their ethnic culture, we should talk about individual consciousness as an instrument (device) that allows the construction of an image of the world only in the space of additional models.

From this assumption follows the unambiguous conclusion that in any analysis of the content of speech utterances it is necessary to take into account the fact that the author and the recipient have a different understanding of this content.

In connection with the problem of additional models, it is necessary to point out the works of V.A. Yanchuk, who develops the «Integral-eclectic approach to the analysis of psychological phenomenology» [9, pp. 30-40; 10; 11].

In a generalized form, the central idea of the integrative-eclectic approach consists of justifying the movement in scientific research from a one-dimensional consideration of truth to pluralistic logic and multidimensional truth. «The methodological foundation of integrative eclecticism is made up of the concepts of the polyvariability of truth, ontological pluralism, dialogics and diatropics» [11, p. 11].

V.S. Bibler, the founder of dialogics and one of the predecessors of the integrative-eclectic approach, believes that «in modern conditions, not one of the logics has the prerogative to absolute truth, and the way out of this situation is in the ideological polyphony (and mutual transition) of many logics, many universal forms of thinking» [3].

Integrative eclecticism, developed in the most complex area of knowledge – human psychology – offers mechanisms for the development of psychological knowledge: paradigmatic positioning, integrative-eclectic dialogue of alternative traditions and critical positioning [11, p. 11].

To develop psychological knowledge within the framework of sound research mechanisms, V.A. Yanchuk proposes the following principles of analysis: "A clear definition of the paradigmatic coordinates within which the research is conducted and the associated possibilities and limitations in extrapolating results. Creation of a maximum information base for theoretical and empirical elaboration of the problem area in various systems of paradigmatic coordinates, given the availability of such possibilities and claims to a high level of generalization. Passing through a critical, reflective circle of alternative positioning as a condition for expanding paradigmatic frameworks, liberating oneself from prejudice, and moving to a higher-order metatheoretical level" [Ibid.].

The transfer of the integrative-eclectic approach to the analysis of the content of speech utterances within the framework of additional models requires the researcher's reflection on the nomenclature and content of the actions of participants in joint activities organized within the framework of speech communication as a process of organizing cooperation, since the content of speech actions externalized in speech utterances is, first of all, goals, objectives, motives, operations, tools, conditions for the implementation of joint activity, as well as the chronotope and meanings and senses of speech and non-speech actions.

If a common goal (goals) is necessary for the organization of the SD, as B.F. Lomov pointed out, then the commonality of motives of employees is not a mandatory prerequisite [6, p. 232].

Misalignment of communicators' motives is the cause of dissimilar comprehension (not understanding, but rather comprehension), as comprehension of a speech message involves correlating its content with the communicators' motives. Understanding the meaning allows us to answer the questions: What does the speaker need, and what conclusions does the speaker's activity lead to for the listener?

Now let us try to answer the question of what the SD participants should have in common knowledge.

It would not be a mistake to assert that, in answering this question, we are identifying the tasks to be solved during the development of speech communication, understood as the process of organizing speech communication.

The shared goals of the participants in a social action are, first and foremost, a shared image of the goal, i.e., a shared object of influence and a shared outcome of that influence. In accordance with the image of the outcome, a set of tasks, tools, and methods of using them are subject to agreement: the choice of tools is determined by the substance of the object and the image of the outcome, on the one hand, and the physical and social conditions of the unfolding of the activity, which will crystallize in the form of a product, the result of the influence on the object, on the other.

Discussing the relationship between the image of the result of an activity and its product, A.N. Leontiev asserts that "the product to which [...] the activity strives does not yet actually exist. Therefore, it can regulate the activity only if it is presented to the subject in a form that allows it to be compared with the source material (the object of labor) and its intermediate transformations" [5, p. 94]. From this idea of A.N. Leontiev it follows that the coordination of the image of the result and the idea of the source material and its intermediate transformations constitute the content of the first stages of speech acts (speech communication) in the organization of speech activity.

Furthermore, the operations (methods) of performing actions by each communicant are subject to agreement. Although the operations of joint actions are determined by the physical and social conditions within which the SD occurs, this determination is realized through the process of recognizing the problem of these limitations and addressing it. Consequently, the decision made jointly by the communicants is subject to agreement, as it can be a source of disagreement and misunderstanding.

The location and time of the SD, whether imposed or chosen voluntarily, are subject to agreement and, therefore, discussion. The question may arise: how does the analysis of the problems solved during the SD organization relate to the justification of the principle of analyzing the content of dyadic communication using additional models?

By designating the tasks of organizing the SD (goals, objectives, motives, operations, tools, etc.), we try to indicate those points of disagreement/agreement, reflection on which allows us to record differences and commonalities in additional models for describing the content of dyadic communication.

Expressing this idea differently, one could argue that the structure of the SD defines a framework for analyzing the content of additional models. Moreover, this analysis is based on the following premises: communicants possess a common knowledge associated with the bodies of linguistic and non-linguistic signs (meanings) and a common knowledge of the sanctioned and unsanctioned goals (values and disvalues) achieved by members of society, which impart unambiguous meanings to the verbal and non-verbal actions of communicants.

 

Conclusions

The phenomenology of speech communication reveals a non-identical (within certain limits) understanding of the content of speech messages by participants in the process of speech communication and speech communication.

The prerequisite for any symbolic communication is an optimal community of consciousnesses, which allows them to associate quasi-identical knowledge with the signs used and to construct quasi-identical contents.

The optimal community of consciousness of communicants for the development of sign communication is formed in the course of enculturation and socialization.

The appropriation of one's ethnic culture by an individual is specified and limited by the individual's role repertoire and, above all, by his or her professional role, within which the individual's knowledge has the utmost precision for a specific culture.

The post-non-classical method of theorizing allows us to consider the consciousness of the recipient perceiving the speech as a device that determines the understanding of the general and specific content of the partner’s speech.

V.A. Yanchuk's integrative-eclectic approach, which determined the multidimensionality and polyvariance of truth, legitimized the principle of ontological pluralism and the possibility of communicators understanding the content of the same speech utterance using additional models, which presupposes the construction of content from the position of each communicant.

It is advisable to focus the construction of the content of a speech utterance using additional models on the system of goals, objectives, motives, operations and tools, the achievement of which leads to the organization of SD in the process of developing speech communication.

 

Literature

1. Abercrombie N. Sociological Dictionary: Trans. from English / N. Abercrombie, S. Hill, B.S. Turner / Ed. S.A. Erofeev. 2nd ed., revised and enlarged. Moscow: ZAO Izdatelstvo "Ekonomika", 2004. 620 p.
2. Barabanshchikov V.A. Psychology of perception: Organization and development of the perceptual process. Moscow: Cogito-Center; Higher School of Psychology, 2006. 240 p.
3. Bibler V.S. From the Science of Science to the Logic of Culture: Two Philosophical Introductions to the Twenty-First Century. Moscow: Politizdat, 1991. 413 p.
4. Zaporozhets A.V. Selected psychological works: in 2 volumes. Volume 1. Mental development of the child. Moscow: Pedagogy, 1986. 320 p.
5. Leontiev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. Moscow: Kniga, 2012. 176 p.
6. Lomov B.F. Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. Moscow: Nauka Publishing House, 1984. P. 445.
7. Post-non-classical: philosophy, science, culture: Collective monograph / Ed. L.P. Kiyashchenko and V.S. Stepin. St. Petersburg: Publishing house "Mir", 2009. 672 p.
8. Stepin V.S. Theoretical knowledge. Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2000. 744 p.
9. Yanchuk V.A. Psychology at the Turn of the Third Millennium – Search for Paradigmatic Coordinates, Methods of Theorizing and Research Methods // Education and Upbringing. 1999. No. 8. P. 30-40.
10. Yanchuk V.A. Methodology, theory and method in social psychology and personology: an integrative-eclectic approach. Minsk: Bestprint. 2000. 416 p.
11. Yanchuk V.A. An integrative-eclectic approach to the analysis of psychological phenomenology. Dictionary and reference book. Mn. Academy of Postgraduate Education. 2009. 48 p.

 

 

 

References

1. Abercrombie N. The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology: Translated from English / N. Abercrombie, S. Hill, B.S. Turner / Ed. by S.A. Erofeeva. 2nd ed., revised and enlarged. Moscow: ZAO Izdatel'stvo Gekonomika, 2004. 620 pp.
2. Barabanshhikov VA Psihologija vosprijatija: Organization and development of the perceptive process. : Kogito-Centr; Vysshaja shkola psihologii, 2006. 240 s.
3. Bibler VS From Science to the Logic of Culture: Two Philosophical Introductions to the Twenty-First Century. Moscow: Politizdat, 1991. 413 p.
4. Zaporozhe AV Selected psychological works: In 2 volumes. T.1. Mental development of the child. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1986. 320 s.
5. Leontiev A. N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. M.: Kniga, 2012. 176 s.
6. Lomov BF Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology. : Nauka Publishing House, 1984. P. 445.
7. Postneklassika: filosofiya, nauka, kul'tura: Kollektivnaja monografija / Otv. ed. P. Kijashchenko i VS Stepin. SPb.: Izdatel'skij dom «Mir#», 2009. 672 s.
8. Stepin VS Teoreticheskoe znanie. : «Progress-Tradicija», 2000. 744 s.
9. Janchuk V. A. Psychology at the Turn of the Third Millennium – Search for Paradigmatic Coordinates, Methods of Theorizing and Research Methods // Education and Cultivation. 1999. No. 8. P. 30-40.
10. Janchuk VA Metodologija, teorija i metod v sotsial'noj psikhologii i personologii: integrativno-jeklecticheskij podhod. : Bestprint. 2000. 416 s.
11. Janchuk V. A. Integrative-jeklectic approach to the analysis of psychological phenomenology. Dictionary-reference book. Mn. Academy of Postgraduate Education. 2009. 48 p.