The paper discusses the results of the experimental research of the comprehension process the object of which is the text of social content.The investigation is carried out with the use of the "internal text" method.The author makes a comparative analysis of the experimental data obtained by means of studying secondary texts generated by experiment participants with the purpose of formulating both content and sense of the text perceived and the new experimental data in the form of recipients' "internal texts".The article also considers the performance in comprehension process of such general mechanisms as information compression, its thematic restructuring and thematic recentralization.Such mechanisms are realized by means of two verbal strategies: the strategy of "extraction", implemented with the use of "endo-lexicon" or the author's verbal instrument; and the strategy of "attribution", implemented with the use of "exo-lexicon", more general or abstract in relation to the text lexicon.These mechanisms are observed not only in the secondary texts but in the responses making up "counter texts", the latter case is marked by its peculiarities.In most cases, though not always, the peculiarities of these strategies realization in "internal texts" are conditioned by the type of verbal reaction.As a rule the reactions directly belonging to the text content are implemented by means of the strategy of "extraction".At the same time sense responses such as evaluation, emotional evaluation, particularly, association, visualization, "interpretation" are supposed to be presented with the use of the strategy of "attribution".The author comes to the conclusion that the fact of the two strategies dispersion in individual variants of the original text interpretation demonstrates that "internal texts" give more objective data compared to secondary texts for studying the mechanisms of recipients' intellectual activities contributing to the explication of their individual "sense code" of text comprehension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2016 study studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: