Diana asks
what are your scholarly interests Tatiana?
O'K. Things I am dealing with are better described in metaphors,
comparisons, etc. A. Damasio, a neuropychologist, who's been holding brains
in his hands for more than 20 years, can't do without them in his books.
I'm developing a psycholinguistic theory of word meaning. What i have
managed to seize and grasp (partly, of course) resulted in two theses, a
monograph, articles, etc. They all relate to certain aspects of the
phenomenon which can't be actually segmented. I view word meaning as
something that emerges in one's head (mind, soul, body) at a certain
instant of communication between people of different age, sex, race,
cultures, intelligence etc. and that is influenced by personal life and
ten-minutes-ago experience. So many variables, which constitute the inner
context (cognitive, affective, perceptual) and external context of
communication! No wonder they say understanding is a guess-work and people
act on the basis of what they think they heard and not what was actually
said. And when it comes to bilingualism it's even worse. Even the Bible is
misinterpreted through different languages.
Now I turned to semiotics to see what's being done in the field, though
many years of my experimental work prove that for an individual peripheral
meanings are often more important than those belonging to the dictionary.
A few words about being an interdisciplinarian, as you , Diana, put it. It
has it's advantages and disadvantages. The first problem a scholar who
proclaims an integrated approach comes across is the problem of terms.
'Course most of the terms are valid only in the frames of the theories
which gave them birth and brought into another research context they change
their original meaning. We could argue that the terms develop their meaning
and therefore develop the original theory, but I am not sure the farthers
(mothers) of the theory would agree with such development. It courses much
misunderstanding which I sometimes experienced at the conferences,
explaining what I meant saying this or that and why.
The advantage is that being an interdisciplinarian I am not dogmatic, and I
believe that, if something never happened doesn't mean it might not ever
happen. I can assume practically anything, only "ifs" and "buts" will vary.
I have so many ideas that I began to work with post graduates because I
can't cope with them all.
Tatiana
P.S. A bit of psycholinguistic experiment. There is no word "faux" in my
dictionary. When I read the message for the first time I took it as
something negative, without realizing that i don't know the word. I noticed
the word when I reread the message and only then consulted the dictionary.
What did really you imply, diana, saying "faux-interdisciplinary"?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:46 PDT