Again from a communication perspective this can be considered as a distortion in the figure-ground relationships of the text. It can be considered, and used, as a story illustrating how torture is used for political purposes, to brainwash dissidents.
In that sense this recall is a reasonable and perfectly coherent mode of retelling this section, but — and this is our point — not of reconstructing its message within the overall framework of the text. To give another illustration of the problems of establishing inter- subjectivity between text and reader, we can take a passage which cheap custom essay papers was an example to illustrate something general.
The passage dealt with the difference between a deep and a surface approach to learning, which has been examined in previous chapters of the present book. The example used was about the training of graduate professionals and of sub- professionals in developing countries as compared to industrialized ones.
It was pointed out that in developing countries, this proportion is often very unfavourable, while in the industrialized countries it is much better (meaning a higher proportion of sub-professionals to professionals). The countries used as illustrations were, on the one hand, Chile, and on the other the USA and Sweden, and the occupational groups used as concrete examples for the comparisons were doctors and nurses. Neither Suzy nor Stan relates this passage to the topic of learning. What is said about Chile is treated as if it formed a part of the main theme of the text itself, and not as if it were a means to concretize differences in the outcome of learning. Stan: There were examples from the situation in Chile, where there were three doctors to one nurse or something like that, from a Swedish point of view a very bad proportion and even more so compared to America where there were seven nurses for every doctor, I think. I mean, its the same impression that you get from reading the newspapers, for instance, about how things are in the underdeveloped countries. LEARNING FROM READING 81 By contrast, Dora and Dave clearly perceive that the information about the education of doctors and nurses in different countries has the status of an example. Dora: Then there was a discussion about the value of different kinds of learning and well, there were other students who had to read another text and they also had to relate this text. It was a text which examined the working relationship between professionals and sub-professionals. Dave: Here they account for yet another example of experiments on how a text was read. They had read about this relationship, that qualified professionals need a large number of special assistants to be able to function properly and there was an example of doctors can i pay someone to write my essay versus nurses. Thus, a doctor should ideally have a greater number of nurses than the other way around. And then they had seen what these persons got out of this text and. This contrast between the two groups of exemplars was again apparent at a later stage in the interviews, when participants were specifically asked why this particular example had been introduced. The responses given by Dick, Dora and Dave provide further confirmation that they have grasped the illustrative function of the example. He appears to have interpreted the text as dealing with classical conditioning, instrumental conditioning, learning through language and the education of professionals and sub-professionals in various countries.
Suzy, Sean and Stan do not seem to have any difficulties in understanding the two passages per se. Rather what appears problematic, it seems, is to discern and to attend to the particular aspects of these illustrations that are relevant to the line of reasoning adopted by the author. Suzy, Sean and Stan seem to have adopted what Svensson (see Chapter 4) calls an atomistic approach. In consequence, in terms of the figure-ground analogy they seem to construe figures that are only partially related to the ones suggested by the author. However, and this seems important, their ways of making sense of these paragraphs are not wrong in any absolute sense and do not violate basic rules of language use. Nor is it reasonable to assume that general intellectual deficits would make it impossible for Suzy, Sean and Stan to reconstruct the messages as intended. Before attempting this, let us however comment on some other findings indicating differences in how the exemplars made sense of what they had been reading. In continuing our search for thesis abstracts the nature of the intersubjectivity established between the reader and the text, we shall add some observations from two other sources that reveal interesting differences. The first source was a very open and non-directive question asking participants to give their general reaction to the text. Consider first the accounts given by Suzy, Sean and Stan. Suzy: Well, I really think one should have had more time on it. At the end there were also such nice comments about deep structure and surface structure. These excerpts contain general reactions to the test as a thesis abstracts learning task and some comments about how interesting it was found to be. Dick, Dora and Dave also comment on their interest in the text, but add a very specific remark. Well it tied in with the questions we discussed earlier, sort of.
Why some people find it easier to learn and remember, and how you remember things and so on. Dora: Well, I need help with essay writing mean what we talked about earlier, it relates very closely to what I was saying... We had just been sitting here talking about learning and of course I thought about that.
What was said corresponded to a certain degree with the ideas I had and it was interesting to get it confirmed all this about the activity and so on and thinking independently. What is added in these comments is an explicit recognition that the text deals with the very same situation as was discussed in the initial interview. These participants, in contrast to their counterparts above, thus spontaneously react by pointing to the thematic continuity between two different instances of communication, the interview and the text. Furthermore, throughout the continued questioning they compare what they themselves had said about learning with what was said in the text. The second source of data to be commented upon here derives from the concluding interview, where the participants were encouraged to report on the associations they had been making while thesis abstracts reading and to explain to what extent and in what way the text had reminded them of things they had experienced or read about.