Concordance Constructed Meaning

Interpretation is often unique to each individual recieving information. One person who is reading a traditional Shakespearean play may not find the same meaning and derive the same themes as another. Thus, analyzing and constructing meaning to a particular text is relative to the particular individual.

In Introducing Electronic Text Analysis by Svenja Adolphs, techonological text analysis is examined and discussed. Ultimately, it demonstrates how texts as varied as e-mails that are screened upon entrance into our country to classics like Heart Of Darkness, are electronically analysed, and placed through a slot-and-filler system in order to find a concordance output, or similarities in diction that could potentially suggest a theme.

This may work when analyzing something for protection of our nation… for when certian words of alarmed need to be flagged. But does this bean counting method actually work when attempting to asses the way a particular text, or movie dialogue, makes us feel?

As humans, it is logical to say that this is how we operate in communication. First, we listen to words. Then, we continue to listen to see how they coonnect with other words or see if they reoccur in a text or when one is speaking. Finally, we start to construct meaning, given these words. The difference with our own processes and that of technologically analyzing language is that we construct its meaning with our own minds; behind our construction there is interpretation based on our own experiences, our own memories, and our own souls. For this very reason, analyzing and assessing meaning to text, dialogue and even conversation cannot be universal through an advanced technological system.

One cannot truly find meaning behind a text by allowing some program to attain it through bean counting. This only helps us understnad on a scientific, intellectual level. Sure, this is helpful in certain circumstances, but how do I use these theories to talk about Holy writings, or poetry, or aesthetics in language? Literature like this has meaning beyond the words.

In the book Perks of Being a Wallflower, there is a particular scene where the main character, Charlie,  is in the car with his two best friends listenting to a song they all love. As he continues to listen, the lyrics, the words, start to make him feel a certain way. “And in that moment, I swear, we were infinite,” is what Charlie proclaims about the way the song made him feel. Granted, the music, the company he was with, and the place in his life also contributed to this feeling, but the discovery of it was not distinguised until after he heard the words of the song. The language being spoken to him through lyrics was strong enough to allow him to make an interpretation based on his own heart.

Texts can always contain a common constructed meaning, as concluded through electronic text analysis. But I believe it is disgraceful to praise this method in such a high light because words and language will be forever changing in meaning depending on the reader.

It is obvious that the classic To Kill A Mockingbird is about injustice and loneliness, and although I find this theme in the story, I also find a theme of brother and sister, and father and daughter, as reading this texted composed to beautifully by Harper Lee reminds me of my own Father, and the many lessons he has taught me.

Technology is awesome, and has accomplished so many legendary things in our world that words cannot even describe. But I would hate for it to corrupt the aesthetics that exist in literature. No form of analysis that is not done with one’s own mind can help us find heart; it does not tell me why certain books, songs, or movies make me cry, and it does not tell me when something is beautiful.