One idea from this chapter that striked me as interesting regarding the relationship between language and meaning is meaning, intention, and context. Culler says that can be based on the author’s intention, the context, the text itself, or the reader, and that because of this meaning is elusive (p.65). I think the most interesting claim Culler makes is that literature is more about what the reader interprets that what the author thought of when writing because literature and linguistics focus on structure more than they do meaning. This, in my opinion, is what can make a piece of literature timeless. Whether the author was thinking of feminism, post-colonial structure, or “the heterosexual matrix,” the themes should be clear to the reader no matter what time period the piece is read in.

The angle that I found the most interesting, and understood the most, is literature as the ‘foregrounding’ of language. I am infatuated with figurative speech, and this text made me realize that it is a good indicator of literature. When I stopped to think about texts that include alliteration, hyperbole, metaphors, rhyme, and so on, those texts (poetry, short stories, novels, plays) were all included in what I would consider to be literature. On the contrary, texts that steer away from figurative language, like news articles, research papers, and nutrition labels, were all texts that I would not usually consider to be literature. I think figurative speech is what Culler was referring to when he described one aspect of literature to be that it emphasizes that you are looking at language. It asks you to stop and pay extra attention to what you are reading.

The chapter asks more than just “what is literature and does it matter?” The chapter breaks down the definition of literature and rebuilds it as something that is subjective to the time and culture that it is being consumed in. As a result, the context of the words becomes just as important as the level of attention the words seem to beg for. These definitions are important because what might not be considered literature today may very well be respected and dissected in college classrooms years down the line, it is important to have an open mind.

One question that stuck with me is, who is it that gets the final say on what is literature? Is it a group of literary scholars who come together and decide?