This page is referenced by:

• 1 2019-04-25T19:55:25-07:00 Interpretation 7 Christina Lee plain 2019-04-30T16:23:06-07:00

  Author: Christina Lee
  
  “What do you mean?” It’s a question we ask or receive nearly every day, and illustrates a person’s need for a certain level of understanding to interpret meanings and situations in the world around us. The keyword interpretation is essential to communication studies, as it exists to describe the way people explain and understand both verbal and nonverbal messages. According to the Oxford English Dictionary: Journal of Media and Communication, interpretation is defined as, “the process of explaining or clarifying the subjective or intersubjective meaning, significance, and/or relevance of something; also the product of this process; The process of inferring beyond the literal meaning of a message or text: ‘reading between the lines’ with reference to both textual knowledge and social knowledge” (Interpretation, 2011). Throughout history, interpretation has played a role in the way people communicate with one another and derive meanings from the world around them. As people come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, misinterpretation has also become a large area of study for communication scholars. By examining the etymology and usage of interpretation, it becomes clear that interpretation is an essential keyword for communication studies.

  The word interpretation was first coined in latin as a merging of explanation and negotiation. Interpretation stems from the latin word “interpretor,” which meant to explain, expound, or interpret (Interpretation, 2019). By combining the past participle of the latin word, “interpres”–defined as an agent, broker, or explainer and the word “inter” meaning between, the word interpretation was developed. The epistemology of the word interpretation is essential to its relevance to communication studies, as it shows its historical connection to the process of communication. One aspect of the word is tied to developing an explanation, and the other suggests a process between two or more people or things. By developing a present day definition for interpretation, we are inadvertently taking part in the process of interpretation. This is because by attempting to understand what the word “really means” or “ought to mean,” we suggest the word was once interpreted as something different from its commonly understood meaning (Edgerton 1938). Evidently, without interpretation, the way we communicate with one another would suffer and the language we use would have drastically different connotations depending on our experiences and backgrounds.

  In communication studies, interpretation is a key step in the communication process between sender and receiver. Within contemporary society, humans are recipients of information, which results in the latter process of response through actions and attitudes (Lukianova & Fell 2015). In a communication system there is typically a source of information, a coder, a transmission channel, a decoder, and a destination; however, in interpretation there must also be a source who has its own “code” which represents certain thoughts (Stumpers, 1959). Theorist of semiosis, Charles Peirce considers this process of interpretation or interpretive thought to be a condition of signification, which takes into account an “interpreting agent” or a meaning-making human being (Lukianova & Fell 2015). The “meaning-making human being” described exemplifies a communication concept of the “man-sign” where a human being is himself or herself a sign amongst the world of signs and “joins the triad of representaman, object, and interpretant creating a meaningful whole” (Lukianova & Fell 2015). Understanding this person as an individual carrier of language, and by understanding their signs, people are able to develop their own meanings shaped by ideologies as they enter the process of communication (Lukianova & Fell 2015). Though interpretation seems to have a clear process, the problem with interpretation is often more difficult than understanding a message, as it may be unclear who the source of a message is as well as for whom it was intended. According to Charles Pierce, “nothing is a sign unless it is interpreted as a sign” which indicates people’s various backgrounds and experiences may contribute to misinterpretation.

  Within the study of communication, interpretation is valuable for understanding the relationships people form with one another. In relationships with friends, family, coworkers, and romantic partners, it is not uncommon to hear someone say, “you took what I said the wrong way,” “you didn’t understand me,” or ask, “why can’t you see it from my point of view?” While these statements may be frustrating, they occur because each person speaks with their own background and personal history, experiences, impressions, beliefs, and values in the back of their mind (White 2011). Each person has a significant amount of differences informing their own communication, which shapes  the interpretation process. Though both communication actors now understand that one person misunderstood the words and actions of another, each person’s interpretation process is hidden from the view of the other (White 2011). Due to this hidden process, it is essential in communication to rely on other forms of message expression to interpret accurate understandings.

  In the process of communication, interpretation may cause people to be perceived in a different manner than how they perceive themselves, which is also a major area of study in communication. In the book No One Understands You and What To Do About It, author Heidi Grant tells a story of her friend Tim, who started a new job as manager with the intent of having great communication with his team (Smith 2015). Tim ensured to use his “active-listening face” when speaking with colleagues to let them know he cared about what they were saying. After a few weeks of meetings one colleague asked Tim, “Are you angry with us right now?” Evidently, Tim’s “active-listening face” was perceived as an “angry face” by members of his team, otherwise known as the transparency illusion (Smith 2015). This story is an important illustration of misinterpretation in communication, because there is more to consider than your own perception of yourself  in order to be interpreted correctly in verbal situations. Understanding the transparency illusion is essential if one wants to be interpreted in a certain way by others around you, as the illusion is the belief that what you feel, desire, and intend is crystal clear to you, though you have done little to communicate clearly what is going on inside your mind (Smith 2015). While misinterpretation is evident in verbal communication, it is also evident in nonverbal communication.

  In today’s politics, a figure of controversial communication skills who relies on misinterpretation as a political strategy is President Donald Trump. While there have been many disputes surrounding the president’s approach to communication, one major controversy involved a tweet Trump posted to slam “Crooked Hillary.” By turning to this example, it is evident just how important communication studies are in understanding political commentary. In the tweet, Trump included an anti-Clinton image with a six-pointed shape resembling the star of David with the background of $100 bills. Between the star of David and the historical stereotype that Jewish people are monetarily corrupt, much of the public was outraged by Trump’s anti-semitic critique of Clinton. After the news media and other powerful figures voiced their anger at Trump’s racist image, Trump claimed his post was misinterpreted as a way to avoid criticism for his actions. Though this is an example of a controversial moment in Donald Trump’s presidency, it highlights the role interpretation has on communication studies. By studying interpretation, it’s clear there is more to consider than one destination of the message, and it is necessary to consider what the message means to who it was addressed and what it means to us. In this scenario, the public and the media had a drastically different interpretation of the tweet than Trump supporters.

  In conclusion, the term interpretation is essential in understanding the way we communicate and understand one another in our everyday lives. The definition of the term as a process of reading between the lines with reference to textual and social knowledge is evident in the way we interpret messages in communication, whether it be the intended message of the sender or not. Whether interpreting a document from the 1700’s or interpreting a tweet in modern day, social context is inescapable. Ultimately, the epistemology of the term interpretation, its current usage, and its relevance to communication studies in the past and unforeseeable future highlights how important the term is to communication studies.
   

  Works Cited
  
  Edgerton, F. (2015). Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 159(2), Independence Square: Philadelphia.
  
  Interpretation. (2011). In Dictionary of Media and Communication. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199568758.001.0001/acref-9780199568758-e-1412?rskey=UNYhVH&result=2401.

  Interpretation. (2019). Retrieved from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/interpret.

  Lukianova, N., and Fell, E.V. (2015). Meaning Making in Communication Processes: the Role of a Human Agency. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 200, 614-617. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.047.

  Smith, E.E. (2015). Mixed Signals: Why People Don’t Understand Each Other. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/04/mixed-signals-why-people-misunderstand-each-other/391053/.
  
  Stumpers, F. (1959). Interpretation and Communication Theory. Synthese, 11(2), 119-126. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20114284.
  
  White, M. (2011). Why We Don’t Hear Each Other. Briggs, K. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/maybe-its-just-me/201103/why-we-dont-hear-each-other.