I can't help but issue what I hope is a clarification to Linda's comments if I may. I think I can relate to the difference in your points of view in the analysis. I think that the actual presence of the expression "listening" is not necessary, and in fact may be distracting to the point that Linda is making. The idea in "re-process" is "think again" The interpreter asks: "How can I reinterpret this sentence, to have a broader meaning?" Yes, I can think of listening in there (without expressing it with an additional word uttered). It seems to be going on in the interface between syntax and semantics.
Bruce
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.