Multi-source symbiosis of textual meaning

2.1 Multiple sources of textual meaning

In literary creation, the author, as the originator and arbiter of meaning, imbues the text with a meaning that necessarily reflects their intention. Consequently, the author’s intention forms an integral part of the text’s overall meaning. The work or the written text fixes its language on a material medium, and it is those language symbols, including images, videos, etc., that convey the text’s intended meaning. As the reader receives the meaning of a literary text, they transform it from a latent state to a distinct comprehension, re-materializing it in their minds throughout the reading process. Meanwhile textual meaning is intricately linked to social reality. Although social reality does not constitute the core essence of textual meaning, the linguistic symbols that constitute the text embody “the elements of social reality” in the guise of “reference,” which invests the text with meaning. Consequently, social reality serves as the bedrock for the “referential” (i.e., meaningful) nature of linguistic symbols. Therefore, the author, the reader, the text, and the social reality all constitute integral components of the overall meaning of the text.

However, there is a problem that has to be raised: why is a particular source of textual meaning emphasized in different theoretical schools? In other words, why do the New Critics refute “the intentional fallacy” and “the affective fallacy”? Why does Roland Barthes announce “the death of the author”? Why does Hans-Robert Jauss prefer to view literary history as a history of readers’ reception? The emergence of these theoretical trends not only highlights a single source of textual meaning, but also underscores the significance of textual meaning. In other words, from a social and historical perspective, the author’s intention holds “the priority of meaning” in comprehending literary works. Consequently, the exploration of the author’s original intention has become a goal pursued by social and historical criticism. New Criticism suggests that the text itself is a source of meaning superior to the author’s intention and the reader’s feelings, as literary and artistic texts make their own meaning, and the author’s intention, which usually results in subjective meaning, cannot be fully known, resulting in the text’s subjective meaning. Therefore, what we need to do is to overcome the limitations of the “priority sources” of the textual meaning, fully comprehend the validity of those theoretical trends, and then try to establish a more comprehensive and objective view of “multiple sources.”

2.2 Co-generation of textual meaning

The “four elements of literature” argument, as posited by Abrams in his seminal work The mirror and the lamp: Romantic theory and the critical tradition, offers further theoretical underpinning for the multifaceted nature of textual meaning. As he observes, “although any reasonably adequate theory takes some account of all four elements, almost all theories, as we shall see, exhibit a discernible orientation towards one only” (Abrams 1953: 6). This observation highlights the inherent one-sidedness and even bias of the Western literary criticism. From this perspective, Chinese scholars view the “four elements of literature” as a dynamic process of mutual influence and mutual stimulation, thereby contributing Chinese wisdom to the discussion of the source of textual meaning. Tong Qingbing developed the “four elements of literature” theory into a “literary activity theory” based on the “double aesthetic relationship structure” (Tong 2001: 58). The symbiosis of textual meanings is reflected in the symbiosis of meanings in literary activities and runs through the various relationships between literary elements and their activities.

The writer’s intended meaning can only be deciphered through the process of encoding. In this context, “encoding” refers to the act of writers employing linguistic symbols to impart textual meaning. If a work is not read by a reader, it remains mere written words. Consequently, the transition from “work” to “text” necessitates the involvement and intervention of the reader. The connotation of “text” should be predicated on the “meaning-transmitting” activities of the “open text.” Similarly, a reader’s semantic comprehension, emotional resonance, and artistic interpretation remain potential without the “interpretation” link. Consequently, when examining the attributes of textual meaning, attention should be paid to three facets: literary activity, meaning production, and communication and dialogue. In this process, the “creative activity” ceases upon the finalization of the text, encompassing the “literary revision” activity. The “receptive activity” encompasses not only the reader’s engagement with the text but also their comprehension of the author. It is circumscribed by the reader’s reading situation, the author’s anticipations, experiential schema, emotional structure, and ideology. Consequently, “reception activities” (i.e., “reading activities” and “viewing activities”) are not only integral to the “multi-source symbiosis” of textual meaning but also constitute the critical “switch” and “catalyst” that propel the emergence of textual meaning. Reading activities activate numerous factors that impact the emergence of textual meaning and collaboratively shape the connotation of the text.

2.3 Dynamic changes in the meaning of text

After incorporating “literary activities” into the analysis of textual meaning, it is necessary to acknowledge that the “multi-source symbiosis” of textual meaning is actually a dynamic process of change, which is constrained by various variables, such as time, space, situation (context). Over time, literary works evolve and posit themselves along the literary history. During various literary periods, the interpretation and evaluation of literary works can vary. And regardless of the positive or negative values about them, the attention these works receive throughout literary history also changes over time. For instance, when entering the words “Mo Yan” into CNKI, a leading academic database service platform in China, we get the fluctuations since the 1980s in scholarly interest on him. And obviously, the interest peak occurred in the year he won the Nobel Prize in Literature (see Figure 1).

Figure 1:

The numbers of the academic papers on Mo Yan published on CNKI since the 1980s.

In terms of the spatial distribution, the academic papers on Mo Yan are most extensively published by Shandong University and Beijing Normal University. This phenomenon can be attributed to two reasons: firstly, Mo Yan is from Shandong, and Shandong University, the most renowned institution of higher learning in Shandong, has a geographical advantage in its research; secondly, Mo Yan graduated from Beijing Normal University, and also served as the director of the school’s International Writing Center, which makes it even more possible for the scholars at this university to write about him. Therefore, it is reasonable that these two universities have produced the most outstanding research results on Mo Yan (see Figure 2).

Figure 2:

Academic institutions with their numbers of publications on Mo Yan on CNKI.

Moreover, the changes in the situation (context) also lead to variations in the interpretation of textual meanings, which is quite common in both literary criticism and literary history. As such, we will not delve into it in detail. Apart from the illustration above, the studies on literary historical shift and cross-cultural comparison are also typical examples for the dynamic transformation of textual meaning as it varies over time, space, and circumstances (context). These are fundamental ideas in literary theory, yet it is usually easy for us to overlook them.

3.1 The objectivity of the source of textual meaning

“Objectivity” refers to an attribute that is not subject to individual will and remains constant, regardless of time, space, situation, and other factors. When discussing literary meaning and production, we must adhere to the fundamental principle of “objectivity of the source of textual meaning.”

Firstly, the author’s creative intention exists objectively. Consequently, the relationship between the author’s intention and literary significance is that the author’s intention is consistently reflected in literary texts in an implicit or explicit manner. This is consistently observed in creative talks, diaries, and manuscripts. The modification traces and other methods of “literary historical data” processing remain unrevealed by readers and critics. Therefore, even though the author may be deceased (Barthes 1977: 163), the author’s intention persists.

Secondly, in terms of its form, the literary text also possesses objectivity. This objectivity is intricately linked to the materiality of the work. The very concept of “work” is predicated upon the historical epoch of written literature, particularly printed literature. In today’s oral literature, such as that found in folk literature, one can observe the objectivity of texts in “version variation.” Each version lacks an original concept. Instead, they can all be considered as “copies” and “different performances,” reproduced by someone other than the author. However, in the era of written literature, the text became “rare copies” (“善本”) and at the same time, concepts such as “fake copies” (“伪本”) and “fragmented copies” (“残本”) emerged. In the age of technological reproducibility, printing technology innovation did not completely abandon manual reproduction logic. Consequently, Walter Benjamin viewed printing as a unique instance of technological reproducibility. In Benjamin’s view, “The enormous changes brought about in literature by movable type, the technological reproduction of writing, are well known. But they are only a special case, though an important one, of the phenomenon considered here from the perspective of world history” (Benjamin 2008: 20). It was only with the advent of digital reproducibility that the form of literary texts changed. “Hypertext” challenges the materiality of printed “works,” emphasizing instead the materiality of “text” (whether it be “printed text” in the era of printing or “bits” in the era of digital reproducibility). Consequently, textual materiality determines the objectivity of textual meaning, which in turn impacts the possibility of consensus on textual meaning.

Thirdly, regarding the objectivity of social reality, which is a crucial aspect of meaning, its nature cannot be ignored. When exploring the connection between literature and social reality, there have been various theories throughout history, including the “ideas” theory, the “mirror” theory, and the “reflection” theory. While literature may not provide an accurate depiction of reality, reality itself is undoubtedly objective. However, we must also consider the perspective of structuralism regarding social reality. Structuralists believe that all social reality is, in fact, a construction of language, which is our conceptual understanding and grasp of social reality. As a result, due to differences in individual cognition, the social context of meaning seems to lose its objectivity. Nevertheless, this is a strategy employed by structuralism theory to replace “realism” with “epistemology.” The material objectivity of social reality serves as the foundation and prerequisite for our understanding, while the linguistic construction of structuralism is merely a means of understanding and grasping social reality.

Finally, it must be recognized that readers of different groups and types also possess objectivity. A well-known Chinese proverb aptly summarizes this perspective: “The benevolent see benevolence, and the wise see wisdom” (“仁者见仁, 智者见智”). As the primary interpreter of literary texts, does the reader remain objective? This question echoes earlier structuralist logic. Our perspective rejects the existence of an abstract “ideal reader,” instead emphasizing the importance of a specific group of readers. The saying “finding the right audience is difficult” (“知音难觅”) suggests that the ideal reader is a theoretical construct, a value, and a goal. Therefore, while achieving an ideal interpretation and understanding of textual meaning as an ideal reader may be challenging, the objectivity of its meaning remains unchanged through each individual reader’s reading experience and historical context.

3.2 Understanding and interpreting text effectively

In terms of the “symbiosis” of textual meaning, text comprehension and meaning interpretation also have their own norms, which is also a crucial prerequisite for achieving consensus on textual meaning.

Firstly, the language symbols possess two characteristics: arbitrariness and convention. As a tool for comprehension and interpretation of texts and meanings, the formation process of language symbols and signifiers is arbitrary. However, once a language symbol is established, conventionality becomes its defining feature. Therefore, conventions play a crucial role in the interpretation and comprehension of literary texts. Nevertheless, conventionality does not suggest that the meanings of literary texts are unchanging and inflexible. Just as music relies on finite notes to create beautiful movements, literature and literary criticism, along with other disciplines, create new meanings of human culture by following and breaking the rules of language symbols.

Secondly, the methods of literary criticism possess distinct “moves” or “routines.” As Jean-François Lyotard explains in The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge, “the observable social bond is composed of language ‘moves.’ An elucidation of this assertion will lead us to the core of the matter at hand” (Lyotard 1983: 11). That is to say, literary criticism also employs techniques and modes, for instance, the “tension” and “ambiguity” in New Criticism, the “function” and “semantic square” in Structuralism, and the “différance” and “le supplément” in Deconstruction. The model of cultural theory is more significant and can be simplified into a series of antagonistic analytical strategies based on binary oppositions: such as bourgeoisie and proletariat in terms of class, men and women with regard to gender, white and black in the matter of race, First World and Third World as to geography, etc. These oppositions assume that the former is in a central and oppressive position, while the latter is in a marginalized and oppressed position. Therefore, it is natural to confront the center and the strong with the marginalized and the weakened.

These “moves” or “routines” arise from the need for literary education in Western higher education to acquire a scientific nature and to establish a set of methods that are “replicable, generalizable, and trainable.” As Eagleton states, “New Criticism evolved in the years when literary criticism in North America was trying to become ‘professionalized’ and accepted as a respectable academic discipline. The battery of critical instruments was a way of competing with hard sciences on their own terms in a society where such science was the dominant criterion of knowledge” (Eagleton 1983: 43). Secondly, it is essential to consider the potential impact of historical and cultural context. Culture serves as a boundary for interpreting textual meaning. Interpretation of textual meaning is limited by the boundaries of its historical and cultural context. However, in the context of globalization, cultural exchanges and collisions are becoming increasingly intense, and cultural integration is accelerating. Cultural borders are becoming loose and are gradually collapsing. For instance, the Bulgarian-French scholar Todorov had experienced anxiety of cultural identity for a long period when studying in France. However, with his adaptation to the new circumstances and acquisition of French citizenship, his cultural identity underwent a significant change: from “a stranger in Paris” and “cross-border” to a scholar with “dual cultural identity.” This change is vividly revealed in his work L’Homme dépaysé. Dual cultural identity signifies that Todorov broadened the boundaries of his historical and cultural context.

Finally, the consensus on textual meaning possesses certain characteristics of the times. While the conventionality of textual meaning exists, it is not static. As times change, the meanings of texts evolve. Consequently, we should examine the conventionality of textual meaning from a dynamic, transformative, and evolving perspective, integrating its era-specific characteristics into our understanding of the conventionality of textual meaning. For instance, “Every era has its own unique literature” (Wang 2017: 1). Correspondingly, each era has a distinct consensus on the meaning of a given literary text. In a particular era, there is a prevalent consensus on textual meaning. At the same time, a consensus that was once achieved may no longer be widely recognized in a certain historical period, but this does not signify the absolute demise of the consensus. As Bakhtin posits, “Nothing is absolutely dead: every meaning will have its homecoming festival” (Bakhtin 1986: 170). Perhaps in the distant future, we will still hear the echoes from history.

4.1 Reading behavior: the opening of the textual meaning

Firstly, the generation of literary meaning is intricately linked to the activities of two literary subjects: the author and the reader. From a semiotic perspective, literary activities can be viewed as a process that goes from “encoding” by the author to “decoding” by the reader, or from “meaning stitching” by the author to “meaning opening” by the reader. The author and the reader play distinct roles in the encoding and decoding of meaning, respectively, which together constitute all aspects of “textual meaning generation.”

Secondly, the process of generating reading behavior can be summarized as moving from “meaning (through reading)” to “gestalt reconstruction (through understanding).” In the fields of reader-response theory, reception aesthetics, and hermeneutics, reading behavior has been phenomenologically reduced and empirically developed. The term “meaning (through reading)” signifies that during the process of reading (or watching), the text gradually “reveals” itself to the reader’s gaze and is comprehended by the reader. “Gestalt reconstruction (through understanding)” denotes the process of the reader combining their own expectations, preconceptions, and self-filling of “blanks” and then interpreting the text after receiving the information conveyed by the text.

Finally, reading behavior is not an abstract expression, but rather a behavior executed by readers who possess unique personalities and social attributes within a specific historical period and social context. Therefore, it is imperative to incorporate the perspective of reading sociology in order to make a research paradigm shift from “abstract individual readers” to “specific reader groups.” Phenomenological and hermeneutic reading research necessitates the consideration of abstract individual readers; in literary readings, the generation of textual meaning is, of course, intricately linked to the text itself. Nevertheless, the text serves as a “triggering cause,” and true meaning originates from the personal experiences of specific readers.

4.2 Critical activity: proliferation of meaning in texts

In determining textual meaning, the experts’ critical activities are the most significant factor. In my book, Cultural analysis of seeing (Zeng 2007), I divide viewing subjects into “ordinary viewers/readers” (the moderate and silent majority), “fans,” and “experts.” The first category, “ordinary viewers” or “spectators,” is referred to as “the mass” in cultural imagery. In many people’s minds, ordinary viewers are vulgar and lacking in artistic cultivation, and their tastes are unrefined. Since most ordinary viewers are not financially wealthy, they have no higher spiritual aspirations, and sensual pleasure then becomes their top priority. Secondly, a “fan” is characterized as an excessive and obsessive observer, who reads and watches repeatedly. In social psychology, this refers to identification, exclusive possession, and domination (including material possession of the object of worship and symbolic possession of the object of worship). From a cultural perspective, popular art refers to “making do.” Some fans even engage in the object of obsession to a creative level, such as discussing and adapting the script, pushing the plot to develop in the direction they expect. However, the meanings multiplied by the first two types of viewers/readers often become fragmented, unsystematic, and unconscious. Enter the third category of “readers/viewers,” who are truly committed to expanding meaning – the “experts.” To a certain extent, they are also fans but of a different kind, being calmly obsessive. They usually advocate the middle-class taste of “beauty at a distance.” Their primary responsibility is to reproduce meaning, and they are committed to interpreting and reinterpreting textual meaning through intertextual reading/viewing (Zeng 2007: 251–316).

4.3 Literary events: multi-source triggers for textual meaning

In recent years, the concept of “event” has garnered significant attention, particularly in the theoretical works of Deleuze, Badiou, and Eagleton. It is crucial to note that the term “event” extends beyond its common usage in everyday language to denote occurrences or happenings. In the context of literature, “literary events” are significant occurrences that have far-reaching impacts. However, these events with singularity should be regarded as something significant, sudden, and far-reaching. From a literary and artistic perspective, regular readings by readers do not hold the same weight as momentous events like Mo Yan winning the Nobel Prize for Literature. This achievement sparked widespread attention and a proliferation of literary meanings attached to Mo Yan and his works. In the same vein, the adaptation of Chen Zhongshi’s White Deer Plain (《白鹿原》) from the novel to the television program transformed a literary classic that had been forgotten by regular readers into a “literary event.” Other examples include the discovery of Zhang Ailing’s posthumous manuscripts and the publication of the translation of Journey to the West. These literary events evoke distinct meanings in literary texts in various ways. Each event can activate different sources of textual meaning, leading to a renewed explosion of meaning. As art communication, cultural consumption, and creative industries continue to evolve, especially in the commercial and market-oriented field of “event marketing,” these man-made factors increasingly shape the meaning of texts. They are currently among the most significant sources of textual meaning.