this Royal Game: language . . .

Many tend to think of language in terms of transactions made and completed.  I go to Bucklix and put a coke and two moon pies on the belt; I pay my money; the clerk says:  “hav a naice deh.”  The transaction works perfectly; I hav a naice deh eating my moon pies and drinking my coke.

If you have just celebrated Valentine’s Day and whispered sweet nothings into your significant other’s ear, you know language is more than a simple matter of transactions.  One Renaissance commentator called the non-transactional aspect of language a “Royal Game.”  This game theory of language pays attention to the various playful aspects of language which often fall to the back of our minds when we contemplate the very serious “business” of language.

Respond with an anecdote, a poem, or a quip which reveals your understanding of language as a “Royal Game.”

Belief, knowledge, thought, persuasion, conviction . . .

The silly season of quadrennial presidential politics is upon us.  Time to consider words we throw out (up?) every day of our lives.  Governor Perry (now a mere memory) says he does "not believe" in global warming.  Of course, "believe" functions badly here.  This sounds like those who say they "believe" the world is flat or some who might say they do not "believe" in gravity.

We get sloppy and misuse these words or treat them as synonyms:  Belief, knowledge, thought, persuasion, conviction . . .  What Governor Romney and what Helen Smith understand by "free enterprise" is worlds apart.  Am I "persuaded" that Helen Smith is correct or Am I "convinced" that she is correct; are they synonyms?  Do I "know" the world was created in seven days or do I "believe" the world was created in seven days.  Do I "think" that atoms and molecules exist or do I "know" they do.

Why does precise use of language matter?  Does it?  Like, you know, people can figure out what I mean . . .  can't they?

11/11/11

The challenge this week was to write an 11/11/11 poem; I hope a number of you will post your poems and comments here.  As you know, the armistice signed this day, ending the Great War, was greeted by joy as the War to End All Wars:

11/11/11

Eleven/eleven/eleven

Papa’s dead and gone to heaven

Tom and Dick took strange leaven

Eleven/eleven/eleven

Eleven/eleven/eleven

Tarot card, ouija board, master plot

Mayan sage, and all seers misbegot

Eleven/eleven/eleven

Eleven/eleven/eleven

Shrapnel and shell: we won

Lookie, lookie, what we done

Eleven/eleven/eleven

. . . and the Supreme Court says . . .

Kelliann H has left a new comment on your post "":

Mr. McDonald has the right to keep his handgun in his home. It is included in his basic rights to keep a gun, especially in his circumstances. The gang members have obtained guns, or weapons of some kind, so Mr.McDonald must be able to defend himself. The Second Amendment gives McDonald the right to bear arms and defend his life. Nearly everyday people suffer from misinterpretation, whether your parent misinterprets something you tell them, or a friend misinterprets a text. I am affected almost everyday by misinterpretation when I text and talk to friends and family.

The Supreme Court does not make decisions based on “feelings.”  It has a text – the Constitution – and it has the task of interpreting that text on the basis of textual evidence.  As we note in class, even a single word and its function in a sentence can shape crucial interpretation.  The justices regularly wrestle with the word “militia” in the second amendment. 

For instance, Justice Stevens noted that the “Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. . . . by its terms, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States; read properly, it does not even apply to individuals outside of the militia context.” This, as much as anything, illustrates the importance of what we know as “close reading” beyond the classroom, in actual life.  Stevens labors over a single word.  If we apply Justice Stevens to Kelliann’s comment, Mr. McDonald does not have the right to bear a gun, even for self-protection.

Given what we are reading this semester, I would like to hear from those of you who have seen scrutiny of a single word change your point of view with regard to a text.

A Tuesday meeting of the justices of the Supreme Court resembles a class discussion as the justices attempt to thread the vagaries of meaning and interpretation.  That Tuesday meeting illustrates how debates of meaning and interpretation are not simply irksome classroom exercise, but those debates affect actual lives in actual ways.  Becoming a savvy interpreter affects events in actual life.

Here is an example from the Supreme Court:

Gun case on way to Supreme Court creates strange bedfellows

Published: Feb. 28, 2010 at 8:59 AM

By HARRIET ROBBINS OST

CHICAGO, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- Otis McDonald, 76, lives in Morgan Park, a tough Chicago neighborhood where the same youngsters who used to shoot hoops in his back yard are now threatening his life.

A law-abiding citizen, McDonald wants to keep a handgun in his home to protect himself against gangs but that's against Chicago's gun-control laws.

"The people who want to control me, my family, my property -- these are the people who I want to protect myself from," McDonald told the Chicago Tribune.

McDonald's attempt to keep and use his weapon lawfully has been rejected by the trial court and the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals, both of which ruled in favor of the city. The U.S. Supreme Court takes up the issue Tuesday in McDonald vs. Chicago.

But allowing McDonald to have a gun for self-protection could mean huge upheavals in constitutional law, involving the Second and 14th amendments.

Here is the second amendment to the Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

On the basis of the 2^nd Amendment language, the Supreme Court must decide whether Otis McDonald has the right to defend his life and property.

I would be interested in two things:  1.  What do you think about this case.  2.  How has interpretation affected your life; have you ever suffered because of misinterpretation?

March Hare: …Then you should say what you mean.

Jaclyn Lund has left a new comment on your post ":Hidden Meanings" anyone?":

“I think that as the reader we have to make inferences based on the text. Maybe what we deduce is far from the writer's original intentions, but we have no way of knowing exactly what they meant at the time that the piece was written. The ‘hidden meanings’ that are found by the reader certainly differ based on the time in which a text is read, but the different conclusions that are drawn can only add another layer of meaning to the possible intentions of that author.”

Slowly, those of you posting to the blog have begun to differentiate between feeling and meaning.  Feelings remain inarticulate and nebulous until they get made concrete by word and action.  “Meaning” arises when our hunches about a text become concrete in word and action.

You might dismiss Bobby Stonecipher’s contention that the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse ride the heart of “A Goodman is Hard to Find,” but you cannot blithely dismiss his articulation and its evidence.  Nor can you ignore Marc Bernstein’s suggestion that the genealogy beginning Beowulf portends disaster rather than the promise of renewal as generation passes to generation.

Jaclyn Lund settles the issue of “hidden meanings.”  The Misfit in O’Connor and Wiglaf in Beowulf have the last words.  Their words demonstrate the powerful fact that words have results in the actual world.  The words and actions of the Grandmother lead to her death; the words and actions of Beowulf lead to the devastation of his land and country.  Now, I would like to see us begin to explore the ways in which words have results and implications in the actual world.

:Hidden Meanings" anyone?

Jason Malik has left a new comment on your post "I just don't get it . . .":

“I am skeptical of some of the connections that we make in class. Some times I feel that the writer had no intention of making a connection but we force one out.”

As we have said in class:  “You cannot know an author’s intention.  You cannot crawl into an author’s head – especially dead ones – except through the words of the text in front of you.”  Did Flannery O’Connor intend for the three shots fired by the Misfit to have religious significance.  Who knows?  We cannot get into her head; entropy and the grave have reduced that head to deliquescent mush.  We CAN look at the text and ask whether a religious reading works.  The Grandmother introduces talk of Jesus; that justifies the search for religious images – does it not?

Beowulf, on the other hand, illustrates why we must carefully follow the integrity of a text as we seek connections.  Because the original bardic poet was not Christian, we must carefully distinguish between the original bardic voice and the later scribal emendations. 

All of you have worked with the Odyssey, for instance, could you justifiably make Christian connections to that poem?  The integrity of the text must be your guide.