A Discussion of Interpretive Strategies and Texts: On the Certainty of Language Meaning

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.