Linguistic culture

When I finished read Laura Bohannans essay Shakespeare in the Bush I matt-up that I was smiling. Can you beat it Elizabeth Bowen-Smith (who go away became Laura Bohannan later), goodly student of Oxford university, sits on the calabash, drinks beer and explain the tommyrot of village to group of tribesmen. Some of them are a very experienced, old person who fill outs things. It seems that Laura met very interesting connection they are bilingual (but their English is much worse than their native Tiv language (Tiv-Batu sub-group of the Bantoid branch of the Benue-Congo subdivision of Niger-Congo)), they live only own culture and cogitate that people in all world are the same.This concept of universal understanding brought her audience to idea that this young European girl (because all whites should be Europeans) do not remember this history exactly. She made a lot of mistakes and near details of small town history were so strange for Tiv usages that they were even lief to a cknowledge that Europe is really another world. Bohannan told about Hamlet in very simple words and Tiv understood Hamlet plot, but very generally. distinct cultural backgrounds not only make the Tiv and Bohannan guide very different interpretations of Hamlet status (son of chief) or the general ideas of life and death. only when the Tiv people interpreted several specific aspects of the story much differently than the modern Western culture. Almost from the beginning of Bohannans tale, tribe members interrupted to drumhead and disagree with her about most of the key elements in the story. There was the appearance of Hamlets fathers phantasma, Claudius marriage to Gertrude, the fact that Hamlet couldnt connect Ophelia, Hamlets dementia, Polonius death, Ophelias drowning death and the poison for aft(prenominal) the final duel.The ghost of Hamlets father appeared in the castle to affirm Hamlet of the truth about his death. The most of modern people could easily explain what is a ghost. The Tiv thought otherwise. The tribesmen scoffed at the notion that Hamlets father is a ghost because they dont believe that any individual part of human personality survives aft(prenominal) death.Tiv culture believes in witches and witchcraft, and therefore Hamlets father image essential have been a zombie sent by witches as an omen. I like this passage from Bohannans essay The old men muttered such omens were matters for chiefs and elders, not for youngsters no good could come of going behind a chiefs back clearly Horatio was not a man who knew things (Bohannan).It seems that witches and their magic power were reality for Tiv people. You know that their religious beliefs were centered around the concept of akombo, defined as magical forces and their emblems. Between concepts of ghost and akombo we have intercultural gap. These words cannot be translated to other language without loosing some sense. Any translation is approximation only. For full understanding people sh ould be members of certain society.Lets go on. In the story of Hamlet, Hamlets uncle, Claudius, marries Hamlets mother, Gertrude. This marriage was only two months after Claudius brother, the power, was killed. The modern Western culture feels that this marriage was incestuous. It also took place too soon after the death of her husband. The Tiv, however, found no problem with it. It was a custom for the natives for the brother of a deceased man to marry his wife. This way, the fields could be taken like of and the farms could be managed.Another detail one of the younger Tiv men asked Laura who had married the other wives of the dead chief (King). When she told that the King had only one wife they were surprised. yet a chief must have many an(prenominal) wives How else can he brew beer and prepare food for all his guests? (Bohannan). Laura explanation about European tradition to have only one wife and to use servants for homework (and especially mentioning taxes) makes Tiv men to adduce an argument It was better for a chief to have many wives and sons who would help him hoe his farms and feed his people then everyone loved the chief who gave much and took nothing (Bohannan).As you remember, in the Shakespeares play, Hamlet could not marry his true love, Ophelia, because he was royalty and she a commoner. The Tiv disagreed with this also. They felt that the marriage should be permitted because since Hamlet was royalty, then he could shower Ophelias father, Polonius, with gifts and money. This seemed to be very intellectual to the Tiv, although it seems to be an odd to the modern Western culture.Since Hamlet was not permitted to marry Ophelia, he went mad. In the western tradition the positive imaging of love madness appeared probably in troubadours songs, probably in to a greater extent ancient times. But for African tribe it was impossible to attribute madness to unhappy love affair. The Tiv felt that Hamlets madness was attributed to more serious cause t o witchcraft. They said her that only witchcraft can make anyone mad, unless, of course, one sees the beings that lurk in the woodland (Bohannan).Laura did the best to explain relations between Hamlet, his uncle and his mother. These episodes of the play were absolutely unclear for Tiv people. They had several arguments for their position. Hamlet lambasted his mother for her sin but man should never scold his mother. Hamlet wanted to kill Claudius who killed his father but nobody can kill or attempt to kill his elders (in Tiv traditions). Tiv men said Hamlet should have contacted his fathers friends to avenge the murder of King but do not try and avenge the murder himself.I found no Tiv reactions (and no explanation by Laura) to the moment when Hamlet went to kill Claudius but found him praying. He did not kill him because he believed that killing Claudius while in postulation would send Claudiuss soul to heaven. We know that Tiv do not believe in the beyond. So this motive should not be clear for them. Laura missed this episode. whitethorn be she felt that she had no chances to explain this for her audience? She also did not tell about Hamlets words about Polonius murder paradise hath pleased it so / To punish me with this, and this with me (Hamlet, III.iv.157158) and about Polonius body The body is with the king, but the king is not with the body (Hamlet IV.ii.2526).When Hamlet killed Polonius, Ophelias father, she was so distraught after hearing about this that she committed suicide by drowning herself. The Tiv were strongly opposed to this. They felt that only witches could make someone drown because water alone cannot appal someone. It is merely something one drinks and bathes in (Bohannan). They understood that Ophelias brother, Laertes, killed her to sell her to the witches because he ran out of money.Also, at Ophelias funeral, Laertes jumped into her grave to say his last goodbye. Hamlet then jumped into the grave to say his last goodbye, also. The Tiv thought that Laertes was trying to steal the body so he could sell it to the witches. Since Hamlet jumped in, then he saved Ophelias body from being sold. They felt that Laertes wanted to kill Hamlet because he prevented him from selling Ophelias body. And I like Tiv explanation very much Hamlet prevented him, because the chiefs heir, like a chief, does not wish any other man to grow rich and powerful. (Bohannan)About understanding the duel between Hamlet and Laertes. King Claudius gave Laertes a poisoned rapier (probably Laura translated it as machete) so that Hamlet would die even if he was just scratched by the sword. Laertes has his sword poisoned in an effort to do Hamlet in once and for all. Claudius wanted Hamlet dead because he knew the truth about his fathers death. Just in case Hamlet survived the battle, a glass of poisoned wine-colored was waiting for the victor.The wine unfortunately fell into the wrong hands, and Hamlets mother drank it and died. The modern Wester n culture believes that the wine was intended for Hamlet in case he survived the duel. The Tiv believe otherwise. They felt that the wine was intended for the victor of the match, either Hamlet or Laertes. They thought that it would be used to kill Hamlet because he knew true about the murder of his father, or it would be used to kill Laertes so no one would know about the conspiracy between him and Claudius to kill Hamlet.I think that the main point of Bohannans essay was to illustrate that different cultures interpret things differently. What we accept is influenced by our own cultural and linguistic values. Both interpretations of Hamlet are correct according to the cultural values of the two different cultures. (May be Tiv opinion is more correct because they proposed for Laura to tell them some more stories of her country.They said We, who are elders, will instruct you in their true meaning, so that when you return to your own land your elders will see that you have not been si tting in the bush, but among those who know things and who have taught you wisdom. (Bohannan)) It seems that the author intentions is not a matter. If our interpretation is different than that of the author, but the story still influenced our life, then that is all that matters. Word is just symbol and everyone can understand it how he can. But if you want to communicate with other people you should condition their culture and to speak their language.ReferencesBohannan, Laura (1971), from Conformity and Conflict Readings in Cultural Anthropology, eds. James P. Spradley and David W. McCurdy Boston Little Brown and Company. Ethnographic Atlas of the Center of Social Anthropology and Computing. University of Kent at CanterburyWilliam Shakespeare. Hamlet The Oxford Shakespeare.1914