|
A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION
Table of Content
Introduction
Since Lisa is one of Taiwan's most prominent experts in interpretation and she has indeed covered a lot of grounds in her discussion with her guest, I think it will be wise for me to share with you some other, theoretical concepts that may be of some use to you regarding this subject.
Interpretive Communities
Dr. Stanley Fish has long been a Professor of English at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. He has also been a very famous proponent of an influential theory in the field of literary criticism called "interpretive communities." This theory can be regarded as a response to some traditional notions regarding the interpretation of meaning in literary works, such as novel or any written text and, in more recent years, all sorts of media "texts" such as movies, TV programs, popular music.
Traditionally, a dominant belief in literature posits that the meaning of a literary work is created by the author through the use of existing literary means. According to this belief, therefore, the task of the readers is to "extract" or uncover the meanings imbedded in the text by the author. This has been a dominant paradigm in which many professors in literature, for instance, quiz their students on how "accurately" the students understand "the" meaning "intended" by the authors.
While there can be no denial that the author of any given text has in mind a set of meanings that he or she wants to write about or construct in the text. This is why people write to begin with; they all have something to say, whether it is an idea, a fantasy, a complaint, a proposal, a personal story, and so on. But what kind of meanings would the readers eventually "get" is another question or issue.
True, many of us "get" some ideas from the texts we read or things people say to us. But Professor Fish and his supporters of the "interpretive communities" theory suggest that readers of literary works do more than just "getting" the "embedded" meaning or message. In fact, he argued that readers of literary works always bring with them a specific set of analytical tools he called "frame of reference" to analyze literary works. The readers do not just read the text; they provide their own interpretation(s) of the text through their interpretive frame of reference.
I think I ought to clarify for you the original, literary context of Professor Fish's ideas about "interpretive communities" or "frame of reference." The kind of "readers of literary works" he referred to in this context are people who have received formal training in literary theory and criticism. These scholars are trained in the various intellectual, literary, or analytical traditions and methodologies, such as Marxism, feminism, Freudian psychoanalytical theory, post-modernism, and so on.
According to this theory, as the scholars are trained in a specific intellectual school of thought, they acquire a frame of reference, including specific methods, with which they analyze literary works. Therefore, scholars coming from different intellectual or theoretical traditions will maintain correspondingly different frames of reference; ultimately, they will come up with different interpretations of even the same piece of literary work or text.
For example, the famous murder scene in Alfred Hitchcock's psychological thriller "Psycho," in which the pathological inn owner Norman Bates brutally stabbed to death one of his female victims when she was taking a shower, has long been praised by movie critics as a masterpiece in montage. Montage is the artful juxtaposition of various audio and visual elements in the creation of dynamic cinematic reality or statement; a cinematic aesthetic theory championed by the eminent Russian stage and film director and pioneer Sergei Eisenstein in the 1920s.
But in the analytical or interpretive frame of reference of some feminist scholars, "Psycho" has a set of meanings that go outside of the cinematic aesthetics of montage. From the feminist perspective, which has one of its major concerns in understanding patriarchal domination in society, the film's subtext suggested that the source of evil for Norman Bates has been the women in his life, most notably his domineering and oppressive mother. To say the very least, the feminist perspective forces us to see the inter-gender tension in the world of Norman Bates.
In other words, we can have multiple interpretations of a singular text and, equally important, it is the readers who construct the interpretations.
In short, the interpretive communities theory does not refer to people living in proximity whereby they form some sort of community in the "neighborhood" sense of the word. Instead, it is used to describe people who share a similar, identifiable set of formal training and analytical frame of reference. So if you and I are schooled in the feminist theoretical tradition and methods, then we belong to the feminist interpretive community even though you and I have yet to meet face-to-face in a real-life situation.
But then, you may ask, would I have such a "frame of reference" if I have never been through a formal literary training? The short version is "yes"; we all have our own "frame of reference" that helps us construct meanings in everyday life contexts. I will have a fuller explanation in the next section for this aspect of our discussion.
Socialization and Personal Frame of Reference
We learn most of what we know in two ways, namely, formal training and incidental learning.
Formal training usually refers to schooling or programmatic learning. It is a process whereby we have a set of pre-determined goals and a set of methods or known procedures to achieve these pre-determined goals. So, whether we are going to college or a trade school or being a part of Action English program, we know ahead of time as to what we expect to get out of this formal training experience and how we would achieve our goal.
On the other hand, incidental learning refers to a much more informal learning process whereby learning outcome or "method of learning" is not always pre-determined or explicitly stated. What we know as "socialization" is a good example of incidental learning. Everyone of us goes through a long socialization process as we grow up. Through this socialization process, we come to be accepted as a member of our family, our neighborhood, our peer groups, and so on.
By and large, we go through our socialization "informally," through living our everyday life in casual, non-programmatic social settings. Through socialization, we learn all sorts of thing: the proper or improper ways of behaving; our prejudice against certain groups of people, ways of life, or cultures; our attitude or value system as to what is good, what is bad, and so on.
What I am trying to say here is that we can and do construct an interpretive frame of reference sociologically, that is, through the socialization process. Simply put, the attitude, perception, value system, or ideology we acquire through socialization serves as an "invisible filter," a "looking glass," through which we come to know and interpret events and their meanings in our lives. And since we have different life experiences, we have different ways of looking at things, different value systems, or different interpretive frames of reference.
The implication of the above discussion is that while you and your foreign friends may be speaking "English" together, you and your foreign friends may not "get" the same "meanings" from the words you use because of your differing interpretive frames of reference. If we are not acutely aware of how our differing interpretive frames of reference may produce different interpretations of things, then intercultural misunderstanding and even conflict may arise when we interact with our foreign friends and colleagues.
What can we do to avoid such a misunderstanding and to ensure successful communication with our foreign friends and colleagues in Action English?
The Risk of Word-For-Word Translation
To the novice (or beginning ESL speakers), speaking in English with foreign friends usually involves "instantaneous translation" of their messages in Chinese (in their mind) into English (in speech). When we translate, we tend to seek and employ words in English that have a similar, dictionary definition to the Chinese words we use to construct our initial message. But such word-for-word translation, as Lisa and her several guests also suggested humorously, can produce confusion on the part of the listeners.
I remember a funny story a professional colleague has told me a few years ago. Diane (not her real name) is a professor at a university with which I have no affiliation. Not long before our conversation, Diane's university had a ceremony whereby the distinguished achievement of one of their science professors was honored with an award. This award-receiving professor came to the U.S. from China a few decades ago.
In his acceptance speech, he offered a Chinese proverb (in English, of course) to express his humility on this occasion. I think that was a very well-intentioned gesture. Since I was not at the ceremony, I cannot tell you what exactly this distinguished professor said. But this is what my friend told me what she believed she heard: "He said something like he was a monkey and he became the king of the mountain only because the mountain has no tigers..."
Well, I am sure you know which Chinese proverb it was. Now, please do not get me wrong. Diane was not making fun of his colleague. In fact, she made it clear that this professor has been a very well-respected teacher on campus and she has very high regard for him. But the point here is that Diane could not make very good sense of what the professor's word-or-word translation of the Chinese proverb. She sensed that it "must be a Chinese proverb" but she was not entirely clear why the "monkey" and the "tigers" and she was puzzled about the relations between the two (but I think Diane and her Western colleagues got the "king of the hill" or "kind of the jungle" aspect of the proverb or metaphor).
In other words, while word-for-word translation allows us to get by on the "technical" level, we need to be conscious of the cultural connotations or contexts of the English words we use and how these words are used.
Interpretation: From Translating to Transcoding
In his doctoral dissertation, Professor Jonathan Slater at the State University of New York at Plattsburg examined the concept of "transcoding" in intercultural communication. While "translation" often focuses on the linguistic (or "dictionary-definitional") aspects of the process, "transcoding" requires that we must pay close attention to the cultural background of, as well as connotation imbedded in the words or linguistic utterances we are "translating" from one language to another.
Allow me to offer you an example by first asking you a question: How would you react if someone says to you "Wo ai ni [I love you]"? Well, wouldn't you feel strange or uneasy if that someone is not a person very close to you on the romantic level?
While I am aware of the diversity of the Chinese nation and what we generally refer to "Chinese society," I think it is safe for me to think that such a statement is usually reserved for or between members in the same family and people who are romantically involved. But as many, if not all, of you know, the word "love" is generally used in the West in a much more liberal manner. The word carries a wide spectrum of meanings or connotations.
In the U.S., for example, "love" can mean a state of affection on the intimately romantic level; it can also simply mean a positive degree of appreciation. I often hear my American friends use the word "love" to express their positive approval and friendly liking of people they know, as in "I love that guy [or woman]. He [or she] is a lot of fun." The word "love" in this context carries no romantic connotation at all.
One of my other favorite examples in this regard is a casual statement that Kojak, the American TV detective, liked to make: "I love you, baby." Again, as you see, this is not a romantic statement. Instead, it can only be regarded as Kojak's way of saying "Thank you," "Thanks a lot," or something of this nature.
While I do not want to over-generalize, I think Chinese and many other Asian cultures have tended to have a much more restricted and restrained use of the word "love" even among family members. An American-born Asian American student of mine has been lamenting about how little verbal affection her first-generation Asia immigrant parents have afforded her. I believe this is a cultural thing in that many people in Asian cultures tend not to express themselves in the same way Westerners express themselves both on the verbal as well as non-verbal levels.
Speaking of this aspect, I must confess that it took me a little while to get used to using the word "love" in my everyday speech after coming to the U.S. I often forced myself to listen very intently to the many ways in which my friends used the word in expressing their diverse messages. I experimented with using the word on various occasions and observed how people responded to it. I did my "experiments" very carefully because I did not know if I would offend anyone or lead anyone to think that I was harassing him or her.
But ultimately, I think time itself did its trick for me, that is, I have gradually acculturated myself in the usage of the word "love" in everyday contexts. Very often, I find myself using the expression "I love that guy [or woman]" or "I love you" to express my friendly fondness of someone just as anyone else uses the expression and without feeling uneasy about it. Of course, the word "love" and its usage is only one example. The more you are exposed to speaking English and its corresponding culture, they more you are acculturated in the wide spectrum of cultural meanings of the language.
Some Suggestions
To summarize our discussion in this column, I would love :-) to share with you some suggestions as to how you may better prepare yourself in matters relating to "interpretation."
First, any text or linguistic utterance can invoke multiple interpretations.
Second, your interpretation of any linguistic utterance is the result of your own "interpretative frame of reference."
Third, you and your foreign friends may have differing or even conflicting interpretations of something you say or he or she says.
Fourth, word-for-word translation can only be used as a basic technique in interpretation and, perhaps more importantly, in your communication with foreign friends and colleagues.
Fifth, for successful communication with you foreign friends, you need to know not only the linguistic-technical aspects of their language (e.g., English) but also the cultural aspects as well. In other words, you need to know the cultural heritage or background of your foreign friends for better transcoding.
Sixth, since your socialization or cultural upbringing forms the basis of your frame of reference, it can instinctively and easily define or dictate how you perceive and interpret what your foreign friends say to you. And since your cultural upbringing and your cultural understanding of many English expressions may differ from how your foreign friends view these expressions, you should be patient with the "pace" or "speed" of your "interpretation." In layman terms, (1) listen intently, (2) exercise caution, (3) do not react or jump to any easy or instinctive conclusion, and (4) think very carefully while you transcode your foreign friends' statements.
Seventh, do not be too concerned with if or the extent to which you can understand your foreign friends because you are a beginning English speaker. The specific social context in which you communicate with your foreign friends and colleagues contain many non-verbal messages to help you and your friends understand each other.
Eighth, and I believe I have said this a few times before this column, it takes time for your mind's ears and speech faculty to get used to (any) foreign language. So do not rush yourself or think that you are not as good as other people in your English competence. Time is always on your side for as long as you keep on practicing your Action English.
|
