Although humans are primarily defined as language-beings, language-skills do not come naturally to humans, it has to be intentionally developed. Language makes invisible as much as it reveals.
Consider the term 'polysemy' which refers to 'words' having the capacity to possess multiple-related meanings, due to the common application of pre-existing words to new situations. Understanding this characteristic of language is vital for our meaning-making capabilities.
Take for example, the word 'Israel' - It is a 'sign' that possesses many inter-related meanings. Among many meanings here are a few: It began as a proper-name given to Jacob in the OT; it then became the name of a group of tribes that lived in the Middle-east; in the NT the word is used metaphorically to refer to the church as 'New Israel'; from 1947 it is the name given to a newly formed nation-state. Finally, today's headlines uses the word to refer to an army in operation in Gaza. The term possesses many more usages.
Thus 'Israel' is a polysemous term with multiple-related meanings. Understanding polysemy will enable one to not conflate these different usages and thus enable one to draw careful and wise distinctions between what one supports and condemns.
But why is this polysemous characteristic of terms and signs not self-evident? It appears as though language actively hides its polysemous nature, and thus in turn hides the complexities of the world we live in. Understanding polysemy can be seen as one way of harnessing language and subduing it and not allowing it to dictate our existence.
Would not then overcoming-language be a necessary part of being human?
Consider the term 'polysemy' which refers to 'words' having the capacity to possess multiple-related meanings, due to the common application of pre-existing words to new situations. Understanding this characteristic of language is vital for our meaning-making capabilities.
Take for example, the word 'Israel' - It is a 'sign' that possesses many inter-related meanings. Among many meanings here are a few: It began as a proper-name given to Jacob in the OT; it then became the name of a group of tribes that lived in the Middle-east; in the NT the word is used metaphorically to refer to the church as 'New Israel'; from 1947 it is the name given to a newly formed nation-state. Finally, today's headlines uses the word to refer to an army in operation in Gaza. The term possesses many more usages.
Thus 'Israel' is a polysemous term with multiple-related meanings. Understanding polysemy will enable one to not conflate these different usages and thus enable one to draw careful and wise distinctions between what one supports and condemns.
But why is this polysemous characteristic of terms and signs not self-evident? It appears as though language actively hides its polysemous nature, and thus in turn hides the complexities of the world we live in. Understanding polysemy can be seen as one way of harnessing language and subduing it and not allowing it to dictate our existence.
Would not then overcoming-language be a necessary part of being human?
Brainerd, are there any distinctions between these different usages of the term 'Israel" that does not point to one and the same people group -- the 12 sons of Jacob -- the twelve tribes of Israel?
ReplyDeleteMoreover, it seems you have written the above paragraph with some presumptions, what is that? Can you clarify what are you pointing at?
Overcoming language... it doesn't even sound like a possibility to me right now. But if so, how so?
ReplyDeleteHi Anand, Well, to answer your question, yes I am very sympathetic to 'Israel', but immediately one can ask, which 'Israel' is one talking about and what exactly am I sympathetic to? I mean, in the OT narrative, even God, not only supported but also equally condemned 'Israel' throughout its early history. Currently, 'Israel' stands for a 'nation-state' a very recent political construct, and one can ask, can we conflate this political entity with any historical community? And even if we did, there is a whole lot of issues that need to be navigated, before we can come with a political theology of Israel. I mean, the way forward is not to simply conclude if one is supportive or condemning, rather one has to tease out what exactly is one supportive or condemning. That is what I mean to say, it is complex. Similarly, the same can be applied for 'India' a very recent political construct. The Hindutva narrative offers a very similar reading of an 'eternal history'. Now, I am all for history and genealogical continuity. I am not against it one bit and actually am sympathetic to some of the Hindutva claims.
ReplyDeleteBut, I am equally sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. I have a very good friend, who is a Palestinian Arab Christian who is doing a PhD on 'Theology of the Land' within Bibilical Studies. Another Palestinian Arab Christian Woman Lawyer doing another project. The way Palestinians are being treated is abominable and to condone the atrocities done to them would be inhumane, just as to condone the atrocities done to the Jews in Europe in early twentieth century would be inhumane, or for that matter, what has been done to the Afghans, the Iraqis, etc etc. In the same way, I am also sympathetic to the Indian Maoists, who are representing a reaction against oppressive structures.
I think one would be naive and simplistic to take superficial sides on these very complex historical issues. What we need is not conclusions and a 'taking of sides' but a deep understanding of these issues, which will help us articulate a meaningful and helpful response to particular issues rather than clubbing them all together under umbrella terms. I am interested to learn and understand more clearly about these historical particularities.
I think the problem lies in bandying around these umbrella terms such as 'Israel' or 'Hindu' or 'God' and assuming that there is one meaning and one reference to these words. I am questioning the 'theory of correspondence' that is at work within such an understanding - one that does not take either time, or history, or language seriously.
And Barbara, overcoming language, is a recent idea I am toying with, I do not know how so...we all can think through this...
I found this post in the search of a word. Maybe one of you could help.
ReplyDeleteI have an Israeli friend who is looking for an English word meaning "intentionally polysemous." There is a Hebrew expression that implies that all possible meanings are implied. It comes from the four-fold interpretation of the Torah (peshat, remez, drash and sod). I suggested "double entendre," but its connotation of the risque isn't ideal. Any ideas?
Hi Mari, I am very sorry for this great delay! I am very interested in the Hebrew equivalents of polysemy! In English,, you are absolutely right, 'double entendre' definitely has the connotation of 'risque'! Well, I recently heard a lecture that used the term 'slesa' as the Sanskrit equivalent and the English phrases that were used to represent it were - 'simultaneous narration' and 'multiple referents'. However, I am not sure if there is a single word in English that is synonymous to 'intentionally polysemous'. Hope this is of some help! Do you have any ideas?
ReplyDelete