Theorem 11: meanings control communication interpretation. It has to be understood that not everything is interpretable. There are interpretable meanings and not-interpretable meanings. D. L. Kincaid introduces a principle “the most important principle of semantics”, that specifies “there is no one-to-one correspondence between symbolic information and its meaning” (Kincaid D. L., 2009, p. 190). In absence of a correspondence between language and meanings, it is imposed interpretation.

In hermeneutics, constructively is sovereign. Constructively is the solution for  meanings addled, confused, ambiguous, elusive. Of course, there are differences of opinions concerning certain meanings. Generally, however meanings understanding is common. For meanings unnoticed it is neither appealed  to interpretation nor constructively. Interpretation and constructively are particularly hermeneutics situations. Not always is imposed hermeneutics process or constructive  of meanings. Such as postulates the most important representative of hermeneutics in XX century, Hans-Georg Gadamer „Interpretation is necessary where the meaning (…) cannot be immediately understood. It is necessary wherever one is not prepared to trust what a phenomenon immediately presents to us” (Gadamer H. G., 2004, p. 332).

Emory A. Griffin observes that in postmodern period is kept in mind that „interpretation is the only reality we can communicate” (Griffin E. A., 1997, p. 66). This remark goes on direction named by Giani Vattimo „weak thinking”, „weak thought”. The thesis that everything is interpretation is a thesis of radical constructionist that is in convergence with central idea of Gianni Vattimo’s school. The Variable Geometry-Constructive-Transactional Paradigm, P3, on its dimension cognitive-cogitative promote a constructionist moderate, flexible and open. Opinion inductors of P3 are modern constructivism.

Our thesis is that not any emitted meaning in communication needs interpretation. Meanings that are not finding in transaction an immediate understanding, a satisfactory understanding or are not finding anyhow understanding, will generate interpretation. Misunderstanding generates interpretation. This interpretation will be brought in situation to communicate and will be submitted to mutual accreditation.

Interpretation is released by a satisfactory misunderstanding of meanings. Understanding of meanings is no constructive , it is non-interpretative, it is non-hermeneutics. When meanings are understood, it is taken place a process of metonymic translation. Metonymic of communication hermeneutics is that any times are understood meanings     it is considered that the other is understood. Because always that one who is understood is communicator agent, we name this hermeneutics metonymic of communicator: to understand meanings is confused with to understand the person. Of course communication implies overturning of communicator role, but also to overturning, understanding also is referred to received meanings. Every time, received meanings belongs to an initiator. When take place meanings understanding, receiving becomes receptioned. In other terms, reception is a saturated receiving of generated meanings of communicator agent. Reception is available to understanding. In communication, understanding is of an agent by the other agent. Communicational understanding is a mutual understanding on meanings put in flux. Understanding process is marked of reciprocity. As Hans-Georg Gadamer says „to understand means to come to an understanding with each other” ; this  conducts to idea that „understanding is, primarily, agreement” (Gadamer H.-G., 2004, p. 180).

In communication, we emphasize, human beings interpret as they understand. Interpretative paradox  of communication is that when human beings understand much, they interpret little, and when they understand little, they interpret  a lot. Communication is, partially, the place of a meanings communion and, partially, interpretation environment. It is on a versant receiving – reception, on the other is receiving – interpretation. It is on a dimension conveying and on another dimension construction.

However construction is         the process that brings communicators to message meanings transmitted. Emitting agent transmits some meanings- message. In constructive process, it can’t be convinced that in reality it transmitted meanings that constitute another message. Communicators are not agreed concerning what emitting agent has to say, but about what is not understood by receiver agent. Construction object and transaction is not formed by transmitted meanings by emitting, but misunderstanding meanings by receiver. Mutual construction of meanings constitutes an agreed putting concerning decoding and of code or codifying. From fact perspective that, finally, it is arrived to a common understanding of meanings, construction appears as repartition, as a retrieval, as a retreading. Deficiency of understanding are repaired by interpretations  more convenient of code, of decoding, of communication situation, of communication contract. We confirm  by this that „all understanding has an intrinsic relation to interpretation” (Gadamer H.-G., 2004, p. 402).

Meanings understanding consist of reproducing and interpretation. We can formulate an equation of communication as form:

Communication  = Reproducing  +  Interpretation

Similarly, we can think communicational construct as:

Construction  =  Interpretation  +  Understanding

and,

Interpretation  = Understanding  +  Misunderstanding

We can get a new formula:

Construction  = Understanding  +  Misunderstanding  + Understanding.

Results that in communication, interpretation interferes iterative, recursive until canceling misunderstanding.