A Discussion of Interpretive Strategies and Texts: On the Certainty of Language Meaning
1. College of Foreign Languages, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, China
2. College of Foreign Languages, Chengdu Normal University, Chengdu 611130, China
| Abstract: | As regards the interpretation of language meaning, contextualism proclaims that both sentence meaning and word meaning cannot be determined in the absence of specific contexts. Based on this, it can be further reasoned that the belief system of one particular individual will significantly impact how the meaning should be interpreted; thus, language meaning should differ greatly among people. Admitting this, however, fails to explain the fact that as long as one understands a language, then the meaning of an utterance composed by the vocabulary and syntactic rule of that language should be available to that person; a language has the literal meaning in the strict sense. This article critically evaluates Fish’s view with regard to interpretive strategies or subjects’ meaning-making, and endeavors to elaborate the certainty in the interpretation of language meaning by virtue of defending the literal meaning. Based on the concept of interpretive strategies, Stanley Fish argues that meanings or texts are completely attributed to the notions held by a reader or the interpretive methods which are learned. Thus, he reasons that one’s disposition to make meanings is the single force to call forms or meanings into being, and the text given on the writer’s part is defeasible. However, the psychological basis for a subject to make meanings and the conceptual analysis of interpretive strategies explain the necessity for the basic linguistic competence to be included in interpretive strategies. This inclusion entails that features of the text in vocabulary and syntax are not defeasible, and the forms decided by language conventions are prior to and decisive on interpretive strategies. |
| Keywords: | Interpretive Strategies; Text; Subjects’ Meaning-Making; Fish; Linguistic Competence |
| DOI: | 10.57237/j.cll.2022.01.005 |
View:
Downloads:
Received: 21 September 2022
Accepted: 9 November 2022
Published Online: 23 November 2022
Funding
| 1. | 四川省教育信息化应用与发展研究中心一般课题“类脑智能与外语教育神经科学研究” (JYXX21-008) |
References
| [1] | Recanati. 字面意义论 [M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 2010: 13-21. |
| [2] | 姚小琴. 语义最小论和语境论的争论与发展 [J]. 当代语言学, 2022, 24 (03): 429-446. |
| [3] | 黄乔, 刘利民. 语义最小论与语境论之争再探——从语境的角度看 [J]. 当代语言学, 2021, 23 (04): 574-590. |
| [4] | Quine, Willard Van Orman. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” [J]. The Philosophical Review, 1951, 60 (1): 20-43. |
| [5] | 博格. 意义新论 [M]. 上海: 复旦大学出版社, 2013: 48-52. |
| [6] | 程芳. 乔姆斯基语言哲学思想解读 [J]. 现代外语, 2007, 30 (4): 359-435. |
| [7] | 刘龙根，崔敏. “字面意义”概念的本体论探究 [J]. 四川外语学院学报, 2007, 23 (1): 86-89. |
| [8] | Cappelen, Herman, and Lepore Ernest. “Précis of Insensitive Semantics” [J]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 2006, 73 (2): 425-434. |
| [9] | 张瑛. 论语义最小论的三项测试——评当代心灵哲学的走向 [J]. 现代哲学, 2015 (3): 58-62. |
| [10] | 文一茗. 身份: 自我的符号化 [J]. 山东社会科学, 2017 (8): 61-66. |
| [11] | 文一茗. 论符号解释项与主体示意的关联 [J]. 中国外语, 2016, 13 (02): 41-47. |
| [12] | 刘利民. 在语言中盘旋——先秦名家“诡辩”命题的纯语言思辨理性研究 [M]. 成都: 四川大学出版社, 2007: 25-37. |
| [13] | 石毓智. 对乔姆斯基语言学科学性的质疑——回应王强和Chomsky的批评 [J]. 外国语, 2006 (4): 47-56. |
| [14] | 诺姆•乔姆斯基, 陆志军, 曾丹. 两种模块化观点 [J]. 外语研究, 2019, 36 (05): 1-7+13+112. |
| [15] | 陆志军, 曾丹. 乔姆斯基I-语言/E-语言之分的原则化诠释 [J]. 外语教学与研究, 2020, 52 (03): 323-336+479. |
Join the Editorial Board
We invite active, qualified and high profile scientists and researchers to join as Editorial Board Members.
Join UsBecome a Reviewer
Scholars with a strong interest in reviewing are invited to join the reviewer panel to ensure the quality of the research to be published.
Join Us