From the chapter “Literature, Meaning, and Interpretation”, one of the ideas that strikes me as interesting regarding the relationship between language and meaning is the method of reading literature works, which is the combination of poetics and hermeneutics. The author made the concepts of these two methods clear to us. The poetics is based on the attested meaning and aims to find out what have to be accounted and how the meaning is achieved. However, hermeneutics is based on the forms of the literature works and aims to discover new and better interpretation of the it. Poetics and hermeneutics are often combined to read literature works. I believe reading literature works by both of these methods is important and helpful for us to grasp and discover the meaning that we find in the literature works. Only when we know how the attested meaning is achieved by learning every part of the literature work will we have a better understanding of this, which I think is the basis of seeking to discover the new interpretation. Just like our annotations assignments, we read the poems, note what this part or that part is talking about and grasp what the author wants to deliver. After we have a basic understanding of this, we can read the poems again and try to think deeply.

An idea from the chapter, “Literature, Meaning, and Interpretation,” by Jonathan Culler that I found most interesting regarding the relationship between language and meaning was the role of intention in the determination of literary meaning. Culler argues that interpretation of an authors work is not settled by consulting the author, but by what he or she was able to successfully embody in the work. I found this to be interesting because I agree with this theory  that literary works are open to interpretation by the reader based on what the author was able to deliver. I believe that oftentimes, the message that the reader or audience takes away from the authors work is different from what the author initially desired to deliver. This does not mean that the author failed to deliver their message in a successful way, but proves a point that it is truly important for authors to communicate exactly what they desire for the reader to grasp. However, authors sometimes intentionally leave endings ambiguous for readers to interpret.

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?

I get a clearer understanding of the relation between text and meaning through chapter 4 by Culler. Intention, text, context and reader‘s experiences are four major factors determining the meaning of a text according to Culler, and language seems to be a platform for these factors to transfer meanings with each other. A more formal and regular language usage can help this communication platform function better with fewer barriers but not a complete determinant. It can never be a complete determinant because the experiences of readers at different times are uncontrollable. However, a better language command is easier for the transformation of meaning. When I was a kid I was not good at even my native language usage, every time I tried to express something I uttered in unorganized and impertinent words which made what the author says in chapter 4 that ” you may have intended to say x, but what you said actually means y “always happened in my early life. I got misunderstood for too many times and frustrated so that I choose to keep silent. I think the part of my brain that performs language function is not developed well and that’s why I am better at math than words, but I try hard to fix it and even labour for the second language now.

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.

After reading chapter II, “What is literature, and does it matter?” by Jonathan Culler, the point I was interested in was “Literature as fiction”. For me, the reason why fiction is interesting is there must be some parts connected to reality lives, they can be the political situation, the current events of the day even a war, hidden in author’s  writing , but the fiction creates difference and the new worlds , the difference with reality unleashes the imagination of the reader and which can make us, the reader, to follow the character or the time to figure out what happen. I think that is why reading research texts is boring, they lack a creativity and some literary beautification.

After continuing to read Culler’s  “What is Literature and Does it Matter?”, his explanation of Literature as Fiction really stuck with me. In my mind this angle of literature is the and easiest to see and explain. Culler explains that “the relation of what speakers say to what authors think is always a matter of interpretation”. Despite the fact that an author may have a specific scenario in mind, the fact that the words used to describe said scenario may be vague can cause the reader to modify what the scenario is. For example, Culler references, giving your friend specific directions (meet me at this café, at this time tomorrow for dinner) as opposed to the simplicity of “Inviting a Friend to Supper”, the title of a poem written by Ben Jonson. The first statement, allows the reader to understand specific “spatial and temporal referents”, whereas the title that Jonson chose gives some ambiguity and control to the readers imagination. There are many works of fiction that contain many references to our world, as many things can only be explained analogously. Despite that, not everyone may interpret the same words the same way, not because of ambiguity, but because of their understanding of the world. People  of different cultures/heritages, genders, social classes or raised in different eras can read the same text and not have the same understanding. As well as the aspect of reading something during different stages in your life. A book you are forced to read in college as an adolescent may become much more meaningful or powerful if you choose to read it again at a different point in time. All of this is encompassed as the angle of literature as fiction.