Generally, in didactic books, this manifest difference not if. The indiscriminate job of expressions is constant as ' ' Interpretation of Texto' ' , or ' ' Understanding of Texto' ' considering the same types of activities. It must be clearly that it has significant differences between these terms. The interpretation suggests that if it only understands what it is written in the text. Already the understanding aims at to understand the position of the author, why it said what he said.

In the Analysis of the Speech, the understanding is more important of what the interpretation, a time that such disciplines questions Why the author said this? not what it said. The understanding suggests as if it gave the interpretation. To if considering the exploitation the discursivas theories in the lessons of Portuguese Language in Average Ensino, are suggested to work, basically, with these concepts at the moment where if to work with a text or any another enunciative context. Of this form, the pupil will have ampler vision of the text in study, since he will not restrict himself what it is written, but yes to the conditions where that was written. These conditions are directly on to History and the ideology. Therefore that, an exercise of analysis, pautado in the theoretical subsidies of the theory chosen for this study, can lead, is given credit, the practical ones of more critical and reflexivas readings. ' ' prtica' ' from reading it can suffer different meanings, as it affirms Eni OrlandiLeitura seen in its ampler meaning, can be understood as ' ' attribution of sentido' '. (…) From there to be used indifferently in such a way for the writing as for the orality. On the other hand, it can mean ' ' concepo' ' , and it is in this direction that is used when &#039 is said; ' reading of mundo' '.