Text, Authority, and Interpretation

I had the opportunity to do research, which was eventually published, while I studied abroad in Spain. One of the things my investigation centered upon was finding out whether talking about authentic texts in the target language increased proficiency. For example, does discussing La Casa de Bernalda Alba in Spanish increase proficiency in Spanish? But another (and to me, the most interesting) aspect of my research was how the issue of authority factored into proficiency. What I mean by authority is whose interpretation of the text carries weight. If a student learning a foreign language weighs in with his opinion of a text and his interpretation is approved of by the professor does proficiency increase? If the professor disapproves of it and puts forth his own interpretation of the text as the “right” one, does proficiency decrease?

The Role of Discourse
After doing a bit of research into language learning theory, I found that there are different types of “talk” concerning discussion of texts in the classroom. There’s teacher monologue—the teacher asks and answers his own questions, teacher initiated dialogue—the teacher asks a question prompting a response, student initiated dialogue—the student asks a question or offers a comment without prompting, and then there’s discourse. Discourse is ideal because it signals when the dialogue goes beyond talking about just the surface elements of the text—characters names, plot, setting—and approaches broader contexts connected to the text. Maybe dialogue about the characters in La Casa de Bernarda Alba would lead to discourse about Spain during and after the Spanish Civil War and the effects of Franco’s rule. I also found through my research that discourse is what allows second language learners’ speaking ability to flourish. However, when textual authority is maintained too strongly by the professor, opportunities for discourse are diminished. Students will be less likely to speak up because they fear being “wrong.”

Interpretation
There are some things that boil down to right and wrong when examining and discussing a text. If a student were to say that the main character of Don Quixote were Sancho, that statement would be wrong. Or if one were to say that Don Quixote actually saw things as they were in reality, that statement would also be wrong. Windmills aren’t giants. But if a statement can be backed up with sufficient evidence from the text, even if it doesn’t line up with the professor’s interpretation, I think we would all agree that that opinion holds weight.

I wonder if I can apply the findings of my research to everyday discussions of text. I would like to think that outside of the language learning context, discourse also allows each person to learn from the other. No one person has the ultimate say so about the true meaning of the text. Apparently, discourse is stunted when someone involved in the discussion has too much authority over the text. But how much is too much? I also wonder if these theories can be applied to discussions of the Bible. Should someone have the ultimate say so?