After reading “Literature, Meaning and Interpretation” I must say I was most intrigued by the idea of language taking on different interpretation as it relates to an individual’s specific  culture. For example Culler points out that the native Hopi people do the not share the same concept of time English speaking Americans might, therefore the language they use about it is  in turn be different. This language they use is defined by the “meaning” given to the thought or idea of time within their culture. This particular idea seems to be in line with others expressed by Culler. Culler often asserts that interpretations of writing tend to be defined either through subjective experiences or in relation to something else that already exists and has been defined.

Personally, Culler’s thoughts on how different languages take on the culture that either bore or informed them brings to mind the classic argument towards the subjectivity of comedy. It makes me think about how some jokes that we find funny here in the states might not “work” if we were to take them to another country. To be honest, some jokes specific to different cultures in THIS country would not work if done to a crowd that didn’t consist of a majority of that demographic. For example a joke that reflects a specific facet of working class Latino culture might not work when told to a majority Caucasian-American audience. Does this mean that the joke is no longer funny? No, it just denotes that the language used has been given different meaning.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.