Contributions to a neurophysiology of meaning: the interpretation of written messages could be an automatic stimulus-reaction mechanism before becoming conscious processing of information

Abstract

Background. Even though the interpretation of natural language messages is generally conceived as the result of a conscious processing of the message content, the influence of unconscious factors is also well known. What is still insufficiently known is the way such factors work. We have tackled interpretation assuming it is a process, whose basic features are the same for the whole humankind, and employing a naturalistic approach (careful observation of phenomena in conditions the closest to "natural" ones, and precise description before and independently of data statistical analysis). Methodology. Our field research involved a random sample of 102 adults. We presented them with a complete real world-like case of written communication using unabridged message texts. We collected data (participants' written reports on their interpretations) in controlled conditions through a specially designed questionnaire (closed and opened answers); then, we treated it through qualitative and quantitative methods. Principal Findings. We gathered some evidence that, in written message interpretation, between reading and the attribution of conscious meaning, an intermediate step could exist (we named it "disassembling") which looks like an automatic reaction to the text words/expressions. Thus, the process of interpretation would be a discontinuous sequence of three steps having different natures: the initial "decoding" step (i.e., reading, which requires technical abilities), disassembling (the automatic reaction, an unconscious passage) and the final conscious attribution of meaning. If this is true, words and expressions would firstly function like physical stimuli, before being taken into account as symbols. Such hypothesis, once confirmed, could help explaining some links between the cultural (human communication) and the biological (stimulus-reaction mechanisms as the basis for meanings) dimension of humankind.

Keywords: Cognition; Embodied cognition; Human behaviour; Human communication; Interpretation process; Meaning; Natural language interpretation; Perception and natural language.

Figure 1. The “megaphone-shape” model.

If the interpretation of a message should be linked only to the conscious processing of its information content, then we would expect a uniform interpretation, given that the source information is absolutely identical for all the participants. On the contrary, a wide scatter is always observed and its process can be represented with a “megaphone-shape” metaphor: information would be homogeneously processed but differently interpreted.

Figure 2. The “funnel-shape” model.

If the systematically observed scattering of message interpretations would be based on the scattering at “disassembling” step, we could expect that focusing on one same component would be followed by a convergent interpretation of it, as shown in this figure through the metaphor of the “funnels.” This is the opposite of the “megaphone-shape” metaphor shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 3. The “hourglass-shape” model.

This figure displays a metaphor representing the on-field observed process of message interpretation. Two kinds of scatter co-exist, manifesting themselves in sequence: the first one regards dispersion during the focusing on the components (“disassembling”); the second one regards the interpretation of the focused components (conscious information processing).

Figure 4. Scheme of the process of written message interpretation.

S, Sender; R, Receiver; 1-2-3, Progressive steps of the process. This figure presents our hypothesis about how a written message is understood by the receiver. Message production (performed by the sender) is not detailed. The process of interpretation is made up by three sub-processes, in a cascade. The automatic reaction on perceptual basis (step #2) is followed by the conscious information processing (step #3). The step #1 is decoding, given that the words must be, at first, recognized in order to be interpreted.

Figure 5. Sample distribution with respect to coherence levels /undifferentiated total sample.

L, Low; LM, Low-Medium; MG, Medium-Great; G, Great level of coherence. This histogram shows the distribution of ALL respondents according to the coherence (expressed through the coherence indicator) between, on the one hand, their interpretations of Messages #4/H (the “Hard” version) and #4/S (the “Softer” version); on the other hand, their final “H-or-S” choice. Data is shown for the undifferentiated total sample. The L level results over-represented with respect to what expected.

Figure 6. Sample percent distribution with respect to coherence levels / Comparing “H” and “S” choosers —total sample.

L, Low; LM, Low-Medium; MG, Medium-Great; G, Great level of coherence. This histogram shows the percent distribution of ALL respondents according to the coherence (expressed through the coherence indicator) between, on the one hand, their interpretations of Messages #4/H (the “Hard” version) and #4/S (the “Softer” version); on the other hand, their final “H-or-S” choice. Data is shown separately for “H” and “S” choosers. Distributions result significantly different (Chi-squared test and Fisher’s Exact test: p = 0.000).

Figure 7. Sample percent distribution with respect to coherence levels / Comparing “H” and “S” choosers —Sub-sample “AGE.”

L, Low; LM, Low-Medium; MG, Medium-Great; G, Great level of coherence. This histogram shows the percent distribution of respondents belonging to sub-sample “AGE” (30 years, and over, old persons) according to the coherence (expressed through the coherence indicator) between, on the one hand, their interpretations of Messages #4/H (the “Hard” version) and #4/S (the “Softer” version); on the other hand, their final “H-or-S” choice. Data is shown separately for “H” and “S” choosers. Distributions result significantly different (Chi-squared test and Fisher’s Exact test: p = 0.000).

Figure 8. Sample percent distribution with respect to coherence levels / Comparing “H” and “S” choosers —Sub-sample “EMPLOYMENT.”

L, Low; LM, Low-Medium; MG, Medium-Great; G, Great level of coherence. This histogram shows the percent distribution of respondents belonging to sub-sample “EMPLOYMENT” (workers only, students and unemployed excluded) according to the coherence (expressed through the coherence indicator) between, on the one hand, their interpretations of Messages #4/H (the “Hard” version) and #4/S (the “Softer” version); on the other hand, their final “H-or-S” choice. Data is shown separately for “H” and “S” choosers. Distributions result significantly different (Chi-squared test and Fisher’s Exact test: p = 0.000).