The modern conception of interpretation is a variety of intercontextuality. This means that the world always exists within a certain situational and temporal context - hence the possibility of different ways of interpretation of the same "life situations". A creative interpretation process could be described as an attempt to draw a phenomenological distinction, identify or re-identify something as a certain object, attach predicates to it, determine and describe its relations with other objects, classify the differences and in this way reveal its links with the present system of opinions, views and beliefs. Interpretative activity has an immediate relation to this game, as it is due to this activity that the value of signs is established on the basis of a wider pragmatic perspective or a wider world-outlook. It is within this framework that the distinction between a part and a whole, the particular and the general is drawn and the sign is incorporated into a certain temporal, situational and teleological context. Context here provides the necessary background for the possible spheres of interpretation.

In connection with this, Quine pointed out three reasons why literal translation is impossible: firstly, the vagueness of the notion of truth (each theory of truth suggests a different approach to translation); secondly, vagueness of the logical form of the utterance (some completely different singular terms, quantifiers and predicates may exist even within comparable theories); thirdly, vagueness of reference (different theories use the same words and utterances to denote different referents). Various attempts to minimize the negative results of Quine's conclusions have been made. The vagueness of the notion of truth is neutralized by the principle of tolerance. The vagueness of logical form is controlled by Tarski's semantic theory of truth. The vagueness of reference is tempered by a cautious approach to ontological transfer. These measures, however, do not eliminate the point of impossibility of radical interpretation. Translation process is a complex combination of various acts of interpretation: signs are interpreted in their respective locative and temporal context, speech is organized by logical and syntactical forms; various semantic attributes of signs identified, other persons' opinions considered, etc. In the case of successful communication, these pre-conditions are not perceived at all, since they function as "life forms". If, on the contrary, they come into contact with a different language, they begin to hinder our understanding. These pre-conditions are of a specific nature as they are formed against the background of one culture or another. The gap between them cannot be bridged on the basis of universal truth. Even the desire to understand another human being as one like yourself and possessing the same cultural background can do us a disservice. Interpretation should not be treated as assimilation of alien concepts. The most ethical way of recognition is the one based not so much on love as on tolerance. The solution of the problems of radical interpretation lies in the transition to responsive ethics, when the communicators express their grudges and not only defend their own opinion but take other communicators' opinions into consideration. One should exercise tolerance and politeness towards a stranger in his strangeness. Among other things, it is also an essential condition for the realization of our own ego, which evolves in the process of communication. That is why one of the most important tasks of interpretation theory is to explore various nuances of the general principle of tolerance within the framework of translation practices.