THE TRANSFER OF MEANING: THE ILLUSION OF COMMUNICATION — A CASE STUDY

Communication is a basic human need that has gained much more significance especially with the profound impact the technological revolution has had on means of communication. We are transferring meaning between each other and processing information at the micro level in interpersonal communication as well as at the macro level in intercultural and intergenerational communication without being aware of the communication illusion or miscommunication that usually occurs in discourse.

This paper analyzes how every transfer of meaning by different symbols (verbal/nonverbal) in our everyday communication contexts is illusive and unable to establish a complete communication. As it highlights the importance of being aware of such a phenomenon and its effects on the way we interpret and construct knowledge, attitudes, and ideologies. This hypothesis has been developed in neurolinguistic studies and its importance is shown in critical discourse studies especially those based on the socio-cognitive approach through the notions of “mental models” and “social cognition” (Van Dijk, 1993, 2016).

The first part of this paper presents how neuroscientists and some cognitive linguists have argued the idea of the “illusion” of communication.

In the second part, this phenomenon is studied in public communication contexts such as media and political discourses. For this purpose, we chose to analyze two slogans of the two final candidates in the second round of the last presidential election in Tunisia (2019).

As a result of this critical analysis based on the socio-cognitive approach, we found that these slogans could be interpreted in many different ways because of differences in mental models of the addresses about their linguistic meaning and their context. Even though politicians and their consultants that are experts in communication tried to transfer their political message through different discursive strategies, they usually failed to accomplish their mission. This could be explained by the fact the ideal communication and transfer of meaning between people is in fact a myth. In the process of interpretation, we are constructing and reconstructing meaning continuously according to the different perspectives and goals of the speaker/writer and the listener/reader.

Keywords: miscommunication, interpretation, discourse