Understanding and Appreciating Texts: The Role of Literary and Linguistic Experience
Written November 24, 2003

To many, reading may appear to be one of the simplest and most mundane acts in the world to engage in: their eyes take in textual information and their brain makes meaning out of the individual groups of letters, eventually consolidating them into a series of ideas or a plot. However, consideration of the role of the reader and their particular understanding of a text adds complexity to the nature of reading. Certain readers can take more appreciation and understanding from their reading, based upon their knowledge of language and literary works and the connections that they can make with this information while examining a particular text. Examining particular instances in the reading of a text where greater experience with language and literature would plainly benefit the reader’s understanding and appreciation, as compared to the alternative reaction of a less knowledgeable reader, will illustrate the importance of linguistic and literary competence in meaningful “readings” of texts.

The first situation where a heightened knowledge of language and literature is important to the appreciation and understanding of a text is that of simple word meaning. If a reader does not know the meaning of a particular word, their understanding of that part of the text as a whole is diminished. For example, if you take a random phrase from Julio Cortazar’s short story Blow-up: “…he was not the first to send a woman in the vanguard, to bring him the prisoners manacled with flowers” (Cortazar 175), and consider that a less competent reader might not be familiar with the words “vanguard” or “manacled”, it is apparent that their understanding of the sentence and its meaning will be far inferior to that of the reader who is familiar with these words. While the less knowledgeable reader might be able to infer meaning from “manacles” through its juxtaposition with the more familiar “prisoners”, the chance that they will comprehend the word as pertaining to binding chains or handcuffs is significantly less than the chance of a well experienced reader doing the same. This lack of vocabulary will further inhibit the less educated reader’s understanding and appreciation of the sentence, as their uncertainty of the word “manacled” will most likely lead to them missing Cortazar’s significant substitution of flowers for the usual steel construct of prisoner manacles. All interpretation of this particular phrase aside, it is important to note that strong knowledge of language and vocabulary provides a base from which meaning and appreciation can be derived from texts. It is entirely possible that a reader could stumble through a text that contains words they do not fully understand, making their own meaning through inferences and guesses, but their end interpretation of the text will likely be contrary to that of more learned individuals in various ways. Readers are free to interpret texts in any way that they wish but when their conclusions are based on flawed understandings of the building blocks used to construct the text, their interpretations may not be considered as “appreciation” or “understanding” by others, but rather ignorance.

In a similar vein, a lack of knowledge of language may deny readers access to various subtexts which are often critical to a deeper appreciation or understanding of the work. In Heinrich Boll’s The Seventh Trunk, significant understanding cannot be gained from the plot alone – it is merely a series of divergences. Rather, an examination of various elements within the text is necessary. For example, Boll accentuates the fact that his narrator’s ‘perfect story’ is marred by the replacement of the word “sensualness” with “senselessness” (Boll 19). While the less knowledgeable will merely see this as an erroneous replacement of one word with another, those with a strong understanding of language will appreciate the fact that these two words are actually direct opposites in their relevant definitions and use this fact as a launching point for making connections within the text, perhaps pertaining to the direct context in which the contradiction occurs. A strong understanding of language provides the opportunity for many connections within a text to be made and the reader will have a consequentially greater understanding and appreciation for the text upon revealing these complexities. The issue of whether the assessment of the text by the knowledgeable reader is ‘correct’ is inconsequential – it is enough that the reader is able to utilize the basic tools located within the text to experiment with various ideas and possible meanings. The reader’s interaction with the text is what creates appreciation and understanding for the reading – like many skills, the more time you spend reading and exploring the text, the more intimately familiar your understanding and appreciation will be. While less knowledgeable readers can also interact, they are hobbled by their lack of experience at making connections and their clumsy grasp of the text’s resources. Their capacity to create meaning from various elements of the text is limited by the range with which they command the language and if they are less knowledgeable by definition, they are less equipped to work with the text than someone with a wealth of linguistic experience and knowledge. Therefore, it stands to reason that readers with a deeper grasp of language will be able to read with more appreciation and understanding because their skills allow them to spend more time with texts, making connections and meaning from various elements.

Knowledge of literature and literary works is also an important part of understanding and appreciating texts. Authors often make references or allusions to works which have had a specific impact on them or which assist the author in explaining or making a certain point within their own story. References to classic or religious literature are especially prominent in many contemporary texts. For example, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale makes references to the “Rachel and Leah Centre” (Atwood 119) in conjunction with scripture. Although the reader is later hand-fed the concept through narration, an individual well-versed in the literature of the Bible would be able to use the religious references used by Atwood to reveal the motivations behind the use of handmaids as surrogate mothers through the parallel Old Testament story of Jacob and his two wives, Rachel and Leah. The reader who is knowledgeable in literature is given an advantage in understanding this fictional world that Atwood has created and is better able to appreciate the way in which she has illustrated the consequences of literal interpretation of the original Bible story. While a lack of experience in literature may enable a reader to appreciate stories for their own merit as self-enclosed texts, these readers are cut off from any allusions or parallels which an author may wish to create with other works, which may isolate them from important points that the author is trying to make and diminish their understanding of the text. Texts such as The Handmaid’s Tale, which base their plot on an idea outlined in an external reading such as the Bible, can be understood and appreciated to a much greater level by readers with background knowledge of the original work. Additionally, knowledge of intertextuality and allusion can be used in a manner similar to language as mentioned previously; to build connections and meaning around a text for the purpose of greater understanding and appreciation of the work. However, knowledge of literature is even more important in this case, as a strong knowledge of literature and genre gives readers the ability to compare and contrast a text with others with which they are familiar. The greater a reader’s knowledge of literature, the more able they are to utilize their sphere of known external works for the purpose of extracting meaning and further considering their understanding of a specific text. Readers who lack expansive knowledge of literature don’t have the tools to make the connections between texts that literary-aware readers do, and are thus barred from an equal level of understanding. Placing the text within the context of other works may also help a reader identify and appreciate its comparative strengths and innovations within genre boundaries and literature in general. A strong knowledge of literature gives readers the ability to extend their comprehension of a text to its external references and allusions, as well as assessing their level of appreciation for the text accurately within the context of similar works.

In conclusion, the linguistic and literary competence of the reader is an important factor in the level of appreciation and understanding of any specific text. Those with a greater grasp of linguistics and literary works are more likely to be able to fully utilize the basic tools available in each text and consequentially make more connections and understand more references from the author. This provides an opportunity for these readers to spend more time working through the text insightfully and therefore gain a greater understanding and appreciation for the work than those who are limited in the amount of analysis they can conduct by their lack of literary or linguistic knowledge. While those who know little about literary convention and language are benefited by a comparative lack of preconceptions and biases which frees them to look at works in ways which experienced readers may overlook, their lack of knowledge dictates that they cannot possibly approach texts with the level of understanding and appreciation that a reader experienced in linguistics and literary devices can obtain.

Works Cited

Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale. New York , Seal: 1998.

Boll, Heinrich. “The Seventh Trunk” in Anti-Story: An Anthology of Experimental

Fiction . Pp. 15-22. Edited by Philip Stevick. New York , The Free Press: 1971.

Cortazar, Julio. “Blow-up” in Anti-Story: An Anthology of Experimental Fiction. Pp. 163-177. Edited by Philip Stevick. New York , The Free Press: 1971.