One idea that strikes me as interesting about language and meaning is the idea of the language and though. As it is mentioned in chapter four, “the language we speak determines what we can think.” I agree with these phrases. First of all, there are many languages over the world, and every language has its structures, rules, vocabularies, etc. thus making us think differently. I think the structures and rules are key to determine the meaning of a text. Culler gives us an example when he says, “Speakers of English have ‘pets’ – a category to which nothing in French corresponds, though the French possess inordinate numbers of dogs and cats.” This is just one of the many examples we can have. For instance, if two people who speak different languages observe the same event, they may interpret it in different ways because of the differences in each language. I think that is very interesting for many reasons. It can make us aware of the diversity around us, but most importantly, I think it can help us to understand why others think differently from us and why we think the way we do. It is to say, why do we give things the meaning we do?

The idea that language, regardless of whether it is spoken, written or sung, can convey an entirely separate meaning than the intention of the speaker, author or singer is something that never occurred to me. Culler runs through the ideas that one’s interpretation can be derived from things such as an author’s intentions, context, experience of the reader or the actual body of work (referring to the language used). Regardless, whether or not you (with your experience) are capable of understanding the mind or thoughts of an author (based on context), it may be impossible to tell whether or not the author got their actual intentions out in their work. Despite the fact that it is okay for a reader to have an interpretation that is different to others, it may be impossible to compare what you extrapolate from a text to, what the author wrote the text to represent. Such information is something we are unlikely to find, unless an author has written a memoir or specifically explained what their intentions were and whether they were misconstrued. It is even harder to do such when referring to poems or books, as many of these tend to become popular after the death of an author, or at least much further along in their career. However, it is reassuring to know that great writers of the past may have never understood the power or the effect that their ideas could have on so many others. The “oracle” isn’t truly all knowing.

Language use in our daily life normally exists in a simple way of both spoken and written aspects. However, it doesn’t quite apply to literary work. As culler mentioned, “Meaning is context-bound, but context is boundless.” Language itself seems not simple when it occurs in a literary work with a certain context which involves author’s experience and historical circumstance. It functions in diversity not only a property of a text but also a kind of deep reflection based on specific context. Readers have to analyze and think hard the language used in a work through connecting the language to the context, so as to understand meaning of a literary work by specific expressions of language. The process of understanding work will be an interesting experience of exploring more unknown knowledge that relates to the work and supposing a lot on contents work that plant to reflect. So language in different situations makes meaning diverse, it definitely engages readers to consider language and meaning broadly.

In “Literature, Meaning, and Interpretation,” Culler discusses the relationship between language and meaning, how language produces meaning. What is one idea from this chapter that strikes you as interesting regarding the relationship between language and meaning?