Language is a hot topic for theorists, it seems. The unreliable, shifting nature of its meanings and ability to communicate create a center for philosophical musings. Plato had a particular scorn for the written word: “Using the written word to give a distorted image of the nature of the gods and heroes…completely fails to capture the likeness of the original” (46). Although he disliked language in general, written language in particular was distasteful (being the imitation of speech, which in itself was an imitation of ideas and thoughts). Words have no real correlation to the objects or concepts they signify; they are only syllables collected into a configuration that societies and cultures agree to have certain meanings. Thus, language is inherently unreliable, particularly from culture to culture, society to society. The main problem with language is its inability to properly perform its function: communication of (“real”) truth.
Augustine picks up this thread, lamenting the state of scriptural translation as “Translators of scripture from Hebrew into Greek can be easily counted, but not so translators into Latin, for in the early days of the faith any person who got hold of a Greek manuscript and fancied that he had some ability in the two languages went ahead and translated it” (160). In this case, meanings have been lost by poor translation, complicating the already problematical process; as not all words or signs are universally shared, difficulties arise in conveying the same meanings and ideas across languages. And this, of course, is prior to the considerations of catachresis (“the use of a word in a context where strictly speaking it does not apply” [161, n. 3]), irony and antiphrasis (“saying one thing and meaning the contrary” [161, n. 4]), as well as figurative language, cultural context, and tropes. The analysis of figurative and literal meanings is yet another point at which language becomes unreliable. Augustine elaborates that it is important to not take the literal figuratively, nor the figurative literally, and that to not understand does not mean the reader has made “a fatal error, and is certainly not a liar” (157); he acknowledges the difficulty of language, the inherent unreliability of it. Unfortunately, this fallibility of language makes it difficult to communicate the scriptural truth.
Indeed, Moses Maimonides continues this analysis of meanings, understanding that there is no avoiding textual indeterminacy (the reader’s own culture and language will affect the perceived meaning and draw it away from the intended meaning, already creating a rift in communication). Maimonides expresses the complexity involved in finding meaning, how “it is necessary to conceal some parts and to disclose others” when communicating certain, obscure matters (176). Not all readers will understand or see the revealed parts of the meaning, creating a complication in the communication process already; only a few will receive the flash of light, the understanding of the truth (and even then, it will be once more obscured shortly). When Maimonides discusses parables, he notes that “In some of these parables each word has a meaning, while in others the parable as a whole indicates the whole of the intended meaning” (171); the reader, as Augustine pointed out in a similar vein, must navigate the realm of the figurative and discern meaning from unreliable language (is it figurative? How much of it—the whole or the words?). Atop these difficulties in understanding and communicating the truth, Maimonides comments that “two apparently contradictory proposition may both be parables and when taken in their external sense may contradict, or be contrary to, one another” (175). Further, the contradictory nature of language (which cannot universally be attributed to irony or intonation) adds another layer of complication. Despite his respect for language and words, Maimonides acknowledges (and even celebrates) the problems in communication that arise from the unreliability of language.
I find it most interesting that all three of these theorists grapple with the instability of language, particularly in regards to communicating (their own brands) of truth. Considering that each was attempting to convey to others what, exactly, real truth was, it is perfectly fitting that language and communication would be among their chief concerns.
Pax,
ReplyDeleteI think you're right. It's fascinating that so many of them were interested in the instability of language. It doesn't seem like an ancient concern, but it must have been.
I can't help but wonder if these ancient theorists realized how much they talked about the instability of language. Did they intend to talk about something else but go with that topic just because Plato started the trend? I lean toward no; after all, one thing everyone can relate to is the frustration from failed communication. Even if you're talking to someone in a language you're both native to, there are still things that can be lost in the discussion. It's something that's true across cultures, which I would imagine is why this has always been such a primary focus of theorists.
ReplyDeleteI find it most interesting the way that these thinker suggest we try to interpret our unreliable languages. For Augustine, it was a matter of the fruit it produced. Since we know the fundamental aim of scripture is to increase love for one's neighbor and for God, one can never go too wrong with an interpretation that leads to a greater sense of love for God and people. For Maimonides, it gets more complicated because he would claim that we do not have this foreknowledge of intended meaning. We can never know to what the scriptures are meant to point us. The interpretation for him depends upon discerning what type of contradiction has been made. For instance, for the two parables that contradict in their external meaning but have internal unity one would have to look for the common moral argument, assuming it exists. No matter how one goes about interpreting the Bible, they must somehow believe that there is a unified meaning beneath it all no matter how many metaphors and contradictions appear, there is a some consistent mystical secret to life and after-life.
ReplyDelete