[DRAFT of]

A Configural-Discourse Analysis of Transpositions in Everything Is Illuminated.

James J. Sosnoski
University of Illinois at Chicago

 

Introduction

This paper is an analysis of a series of miscommunications that occur in the film Everything Is Illuminated (2005) which was directed by Live Schreiber who http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liev_Schreiberwon Laterna Magica Prize at 2005 Venice Film Festival.  The analysis shows how the interpersonal interactions between Alex and Jonathan which began with miscommunications developed into communications.

Synopsis of Everything Is Illuminated, 2005

Acclaimed actor Liev Schrieber (Daytrippers, The Manchurian Candidate) makes his directorial debut in this adaptation of Jonathan Safran Foer's bestselling novel about a young Jewish-American writer of the same name. Mixing equal parts black comedy and poignant drama, the film follows Jonathan (Elijah Wood) as he travels to the Ukraine to solve a family secret. There he meets his barely legitimate tour guides: Alex (Eugene Hutz, member of the folk-punk band Gogol Bordello), a cosmopolitan playboy obsessed with Michael Jackson and other American icons; Alex's grandfather (Boris Leskin), a man worn down by life who seems to be losing his grip on reality; and Sammy Davis, Jr. Jr, the "seeing-eye bitch" dog who comes along for the ride. As Jonathan closes in on his goal--to find the story behind the woman who saved his grandfather during the Holocaust--it becomes clear that Alex's grandfather has a dark secret of his own that needs to be, as the film suggests, illuminated.  [http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/everything_is_illuminated/about.php]

http://wip.warnerbros.com/everythingisilluminated/

Directed by Liev Schreiber
Produced by Marc Turtletaub
Peter Saraf
Matthew Stillman
Written by Screenplay by Liev Schreiber
Based on the Novel by Jonathan Safran Foer
Starring Elijah Wood
Eugene Hutz
Boris Leskin
Laryssa Lauret
Music by Paul Cantelon
Cinematography Matthew Libatique
Editing by Andrew Marcus
Craig McKay
Distributed by Warner Independent Pictures
Release date(s) September 16, 2005
Running time 106 mins.
Country USA
Language English, Russian, Ukrainian
Budget 7,000,000 $
[Wikipedia]

The “Production Notes” for the film touch upon the inter-cultural communication aspect of the film:

Originally published as a novel in 2001, the story first came to Schreiber's attention as a piece of short fiction sent to him by the New Yorker magazine. At the time Schreiber was acting in a stage play in New York and was doing a reading series for the magazine. He was immediately attracted to the material. Says Schreiber, "When I read the short story I was very moved by it and at the same time I thought it was the most hilarious thing I had read in years. It's really about people's need to be connected. We follow these two people from vastly different cultures who should have absolutely nothing in common, but come to realize that there's a deep connection between them that is emotionally and spiritually binding."  [Italics mine.]

Though the film ends with the two main characters communicating with each other despite their cultural differences, it begins with incidents in which they mis-communicate with each other owing to the circumstance that they are from two vastly different cultures.

 

Theoretical Background.

Like James Paul Gee, I believe that “a research method is made up essentially of various ‘tools of inquiry’ and strategies for applying them” (1999, 5).  From this point of view, analytical concepts are “tools of inquiry.”

James Paul Gee

I borrow several of his assumptions about “discourse analysis.” 

• That “when we speak or write, we always take a particular perspective on what the world is like” (2). And that “Grammar simply does not allow us to speak or write from no perspective (4). From the point of view of this paper, I am assuming that every expression in EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED is construed from the world-view of the speaker.
• That certain frames are “backgrounded” [located on a paradigmatic axis of the discourse—see below] and others are “foregrounded” [located on a syntagmatic axis—see below].   And that this creates a “scaffolding needed to frame [the] main points (3).
• That the conceptual tools used in discourse analysis are not “rigidly defined” but molded by the context in which the discourse is situated as well as by the “purpose” of the analyst (7).
• And I agee with Gee’s  account of method:

• “Since the word "method" so triggers in our minds ideas of a "step-by-step" set of "rules" to follow, I want to stress, once again, in closing, that that is not what "method" means here. Rather, it means sets of "thinking devices" with which one can investigate certain sorts of questions, with due regard for how others have investigated such questions, but with adapta­tion, innovation, and creativity, as well. "Validity" is communal: if you take risks and make mistakes, your colleagues will help you clean up the mess – that's what they're for. The quality of research often resides in how fruitful our mistakes are, that is, in whether they open up paths that others can then make more progress on than we have.”

As Gee recognizes, the tools “defined” in the context of the analysis a particular situated discourse usually need to be “transformed” or “abandoned” in the analysis of a differently situated discourse.  Extending the metaphor of analytic concepts as “tools,” I have put into my toolkit several conceptual tools borrowed from cognitive linguistics and cultural studies for the purpose of analyzing the miscommunications in Everything is Illuminated. 

Deborah Tannen

In Framing in Discourse, Deborah Tannen employs the concept of a “story-telling frame” to analyze various written responses to a short film.  In her discussions of “discourse analysis,” however, a “story-telling frame analysis” is not distinguished from analyses of non-narrative utterances.  I follow a narratological tradition that distinguishes “story”—narration—from “discourse”—dialogues within the story (see Chatman, Story and Discourse). I reserve the term “discourse analysis” for the study of non-narrative utterances,  For the study of cinematic or verbal expressions that convey inter-actions, I use the term “configural analysis.”  This distinction is helpful in the analysis of films since many interaction between characters are expressed visually rather than verbally.  Since this paper involves both types of analysis, I have used the term, “configural discourse analysis.”

Charles Fillmore

The term “frame” has a long and varied history.  I use it in Fillmore’s sense but consider it to be roughly synonymous with Langacker’s use of “domain,” and Lakoff’s use of “category.”  To include the activity of “categorization” in one’s understanding of a frame provides a conceptual tool capable of dealing with the dynamic ways frames change which is a critical consideration in the following analysis of EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED.  (See Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, 92-102.)

Configural analysis studies the story elements in a work, in this case a film.  In her story-telling frame analysis, Tannen borrows the concept of a “script” from Roger Schank and Abelson’s Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures (36-67).   This is suitable to the discourses she is studying which are about a commonly reoccurring set of behaviors.  For the analysis of the miscommunications in Everything is Illuminated, I prefer to use the concept “story” adding to its working definition the concept of “positionality” which I borrow from Harré and Langenhove’s Positioning Theory.  In examining a story like Everything is Illuminated where dialogue is such a predominant element, describing the ways the interlocutors position themselves conveys meanings central to their intercultural miscommunications and communications.  For example, Alex positions himself as Jonathan’s “translator.”  When Alex assumes this position between his grandfather and Jonathan, his translations convey to the audience Alex’s dispositions and thus his values.  This position between two figures in the story becomes a critical configuration (hence configural analysis) that provides the audience of the film with a “meta-discourse” through which to interpret Alex and Jonathan’s interpersonal interactions.  The alternative translations of the grandfather’s discourse given to us in subtitles is in effect meta-communication between the director (Liev Schreiber) and us (as audience to his film).  By comparing Alex’s translations to those in the subtitles we learn from the contrasting perspectives on events.

Other ways in which the figures in the film position themselves also reveal the “perspectives” embedded in their dialogues.  I borrow this conceptual tool from Ronald Langacker (2002, 120-132).  Identifying the perspective from which a character speaks helps us understand the way in which that figure is “mapping” (Fauconier) his cultural world-view onto his interlocutor’s.  Positioning and perspectives reflect values, as Harré and Langenhove demonstrate.  Thus one of the important aspects of a configural analysis is that it can describe instances of trans-positioning (Dilthey), that is, scenes in which one figure assumes the position and thereby the perspective of another figure.  Trans-positioning is a critical element in the move from inter-cultural mis-communication to inter-cultural communication because it allows persons to fill in the gap in their understanding of  cultural phenomena of which they have no experience (null experience-Sosnoski) with virtual experiences blended in their imaginations (Fauconnier/Turner) by recalling aspects of their own experiences that can be mapped onto the ones that are “other” to them.  The move in the film from intercultural miscommunication to the communication of a shared virtual world (Langacker, Herman), proceeds by means of introducing virtual experiences to bridge the gaps created by null experiences (Sosnoski). 

Wilhelm Dilthey

The concepts mentioned above allow me to use a “strategy” (derived from narratological analyses of fiction) which corresponds to Gee’s notion of “scaffolding.”  Gee’s metaphor might seem to suggest that discourse is a “fixed” structure.  We need to keep in mind that scaffolding is moved as the work proceeds.  Rather than construing a text as a relatively static linear sequence of sentences, it can be construed as a dynamic interaction between the words on its syntagmatic axis (the sequence of words) with the words that have occurred earlier in the text which form its paradigmatic axis.  For example, if we hear or read the sentence

            (2). Jill shot Jack when they reached the top of the hill.

Our understanding of it would differ if in one case this sentence were preceded by the sentence

(1a). Jack, a Russian spy, knew he had to eliminate the American agent Jill if his mission was to succeed.

Or in another case, it was preceded by the sentence

(1b)  Jill realized that Jack knew about her love affair with John and would never divorce her out of spite.

Cognitive linguists following Fillmore’s delineation of the concept of a “frame,” would remind us that the conventions of the “spy” genre evoked in sentence (1a) frame sentence (2) and add the audience expectation that, at least in cold war novel or films, Russian and American secret agents are antagonists and frequently try to “eliminate” each other.  And further that, in American films, the American agent usually kills the Russian agent.  In sentence (1b), the conventions of the “suspense” film frame sentence (2) since in that genre it is not uncommon that an unfaithful spouse tries to murder her husband because he will not divorce her out of spite.  We can consider the paradigmatic axis as the “frame” for subsequent sentences on the syntagmatic axis.  This use of the concept of “frame” is derived from Tannen’s use of the term influenced by Fillmore.

 

Schematically where each number represents a sentence, we can use the following abstract diagram to show the “dynamic” scaffolding that occurs is listening or reading a text

in this context, the position a figure takes gives us one perspective on subsequent events (sentences) that also frames them.  In (1a) Jack’s position toward Jill is conveyed by the implication that he is a Russian spy, whereas in (1b), Jill’s position toward Jack is conveyed to us by the implication that she was married to Jack and had an affair with John. 

In addition, unlike a script which is a routine in everyday life like going to a restaurant, the genres “spy story” and “suspense story” set up generic expectations in the audience and function as a correlative frame in the paradigmatic axis.

 

Analysis

The encounter between Jonathan, an American Jew, and Alex, his Ukrainian tour guide begins with three scenes, Jonathan’s arrival, the ride through the countryside, and dinner at a hotel.  The conversations included in these scenes involve at least seven instances of miscommunication.

In the first segment, “the exchange of names,” the mis-communication concerns the pronunciation of Jonathan’s name.  In the second, “the Grandfather & his dog,” Jonathan doesn’t understand why the Grandfather has a seeing-eye dog but is not blind and can drive.  In the third instance of miscommunication, “Jonathan’s dog phobia,” Alex and his grandfather can’t understand why anyone would be afraid of dogs.  In “Sammy Davis Jr.”, they can’t understand how a black man can be Jewish. Then in “Jonathan’s book,” Alex can’t understand what Jonathan means by identifying himself as a cataloger.  Before they arrive at the hotel, Jonathan, asks “Are we there yet?,” and Alex deliberately mistranslates his grandfather’s answer.  Finally, “at dinner,” Alex, his grandfather, and the waitress can’t understand why Jonathan is a vegetarian.

The following analyses offer reasons why the miscommunications occur and an interpretation of what the film says about inter-cultural miscommunication.

 

Seven Misunderstandings

I begin with the episode in which Jonathan, a Jewish American, meets Alex at the train station. Jonathan has hired Alex’s grandfather’s tour agency to drive him to a village in Ukraine.

1. exchange of names

[When Alex sees Jonathan’s train about to arrive, he gets a band of musicians who had been playing in the station to greet his customer.  As Jonathan is standing in the doorway about to deboard. The band begins playing the Star Spangled Banner (SSB).  Notable framing words in Alex’s unidiomatic English lexicon are highlighted.]  Alex: Are you Jonfen?  [The music makes it hard for Jonathan to hear.] Jonathan [shouting]: What? Alex [shouting]: Jonfen. Are you Jonfen? Jonathan [shouting]: It's Jonathan. Alex [shouting]: What? Jonathan [shouting]: My name. It's Jonathan. Alex [the music softens & attempting to mimic Jonathan]: Jonfen. Jonathan [as if searching for another topic]: Are you my translator? Alex: [offering his hand]Yes, I'm Alexander Perchov. I'll be your humble translator. [As Jon steps down from the train and puts his bags down, the band is coming to the final stanza of the SSB.] I implore you to forgive my speaking of English, Jonfen......as I'm not so premium with it. [Alex picks up his bags and as he turns] Jonathan [in a louder than normal voice to be heard over the final strains of SSB]: My name is Jonathan.

 

Alex first asks:  Are you Jonfen?  Jonathan who can’t quite hear him because of the loud music asks in return “what?,” which is a shortened version of “what did you say?”  Alex repeats “Jonfen.”  The miscommunication begins with Jonathan’s mis-recognition that to pronounce Jonathan in English is difficult for a non-native speaker like Alex.  The second time, Alex asks the question, Jonathan realizes that Alex is mispronouncing his name, but by responding “It’s Jonathan” makes it clear that his expectation is that Alex can pronounce it correctly, thus confirming his misrecognizing the difficulty a non-native speaker would have in speaking English.  Alex’s inability to pronounce “Jonathan” is confirmed in his attempt to repeat the word as Jonathan instructed.  Jonathan switches the conversation by asking Alex if he is his translator and Alex identifies himself by name and as a translator, albeit showing that his command of English is not idiomatic (“I’m not so premium with it.)  Jonathan continues to insist that Alex pronounce his name correctly.

This introductory exchange frames the next several exchanges providing paradigmatic nuances to what is said.  The important paradigmatic frames are

• Alex as translator,
  
• Alex’s non-idiomatic English
  
• Alex’s use of the English word “premium,” [carried over from an earlier scene]
  
• Jonathan’s rigidity  [the “chapter” headings of the film describe Jonathan’s quest as “rigid,” which carries over as a characterization of him.]

 

2. Grandfather & his dog

[Outside the train station, Alex leads Jon to the car. When they reach it] Alex [pointing to the driver’s side]: This is our driver. [The camera reverses to show his grandfather asleep with his head back and mouth open.] He is an expert at driving.  Jonathan [looking worried]: Is he all right? Alex [putting Jon’s bags in the trunk]: What? Jonathan [peering into the car at his grandfather]: I mean, you know, is he healthy? Alex [from outside the frame]: Of course. He's my grandfather. [As Jonathan is peering in at his grandfather, the dog leaps up to the window and Jonathan jumps backwards almost tripping over himself.  Alex appears: ]Please, do not be distressed. This is only driver's Seeing Eye bitch. [the dog growls] Okay, she's deranged, but so, so playful. Jonathan [in a panicked tone of voice]:  Wait, he's blind? Alex [pointing to his forehead]: No, only he thinks this. Please, do not be distressed. Alex [leaning inside the driver’s side window]: Grandfather! [louder] Grandfather, <subtitles> I've got Jonfen. We should go to Lutsk. Yes? [his grandfather wakes up] Jonathan [concerned]: Are you sure he's okay? Alex <subtitles> Grandfather! Grandfather <subtitles>: Shut up! I'm blind, not deaf. I heard you the first time! Jonathan [still worried]: What does he say? Alex [smiling]: He says, "Okeydokey, we will go now.”

 

We understand Alex’s shift in topic to his grandfather as their driver because Jonathan has accepted Alex’s positioning himself as translator and Alex then assigns the position of driver to his grandfather.  Jonathan’s mis-understanding of Alex’s grandfather begins with the question: “Is he alright?” which Alex at first does not understand and then illogically answers “of course” [because] “he’s my grandfather.”  Then Alex assumes that Jonathan perceived his grandfather’s dog as a “seeing eye dog” which is [we are privileged as audience to know from an earlier scene] a family “fiction” (joke?) about which Jonathan could not know.  Alex, then, describes the dog as “deranged” (framed by the previous conversation as a non-idiomatic use of the word).  [Note: “deranged” is slowly defined by Alex’s repeated use of it as the film goes on.]  At this juncture of the film, the dog as “deranged” is glossed for the audience (but not Jonathan) in the “overture” when Alex refers to it by that term and we are shown a clip of the dog leaping, in apparent futility, at the refrigerator door for a second time.  Were the term “deranged” not applied as this image is shown, we might understand that by leaping at the refrigerator the dog is in effect asking for food from inside the refrigerator.  In this scene, however, the audience is likely to construe the word in its usual sense. As the film progresses, the term takes on a new meaning as we learn more about Alex’s worldview.

Hearing that the dog is a seeing-eye dog, Jonathan (mirroring the audience’s likely expectations about drivers of cars) asks “Wait, he's blind?” Again, illogically, Alex answers “No, only he thinks this. Please, do not be distressed.” From an American audience’s point of view, if a person were not blind but thought he was blind, he would not continue to think he was blind if he could see (unless he was deranged).

In an earlier scene in which Alex (with voice over narration) introduces us to his family, he explains his grandfather’s blindness in the following way:

This is Grandfather. Like my father and myself, he too is dubbed Alex. My grandmother, Anna, died two years before of a cancer in her brain.  Precluding this, Grandfather became very melancholy... ...and also, he says, blind.  His most recent employment was Heritage Tours... ...a business he started in     s... ...mostly for aiding rich Jewish people to search for their dead families. It is a strange employment for Grandfather...

...as there is nothing he hates more than rich Jewish people or their dead families.

This is Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. She is Grandfather's Seeing Eye bitch.  Father purchased her for him not because he believes Grandfather is blind... ...but because a Seeing Eye bitch is also a good thing... ...for people who pine for the opposite of loneliness. In truth, Father did not purchase her at all... ...but merely retrieved her from the home for forgetful dogs. Because of this, she is not a real Seeing Eye bitch... ...and is also mentally deranged. Most of all, she relishes when I sing to her her most beloved song... ..."Billie Jean " by Michael Jackson.

Alex’s explanation frames the grandfather’s later remark “I'm blind, not deaf. I heard you the first time!” The grandfather’s acknowledgement that he is blind, forces us to blend (Fauconnier/Turner) our conception of a blind man with our conception of a man who drives a car with the conception of self-induced illnesses.

Though his grandfather says he is “blind,” Alex remarks in his account of the family, “precluding” his wife’s death from brain cancer. It is difficult to know how to interpret Alex’s use of “precluding.”  He seems to be saying that his grandmother’s death was not a cause of his grandfather’s psycho-somatic blindness.  But, given frame “b” from the previous scene, it seems appropriate to interpret it as another instance of non-idiomatic English.  Yet, even if an audience reacts to this usage as unidiomatic,  the meaning of the term registers with them.  As a result, the effect of Alex’s use of “precluding” on an audience would deepen its growing sense of Alex’s non-logical world view   The paradoxical “blind-seeing” framework given to us in an earlier scene seems symptomatic of the “culture” of the Perchov family.  Alex describes it as if it were a normal feature of everyday life.  In his worldview Alex’s grandfather is a “normal” member of the family.  But to an American, he probably seems “deranged” in the idiomatic sense of the word. American audiences most likely impose their view on Jonathan though says nothing about it.  A sense of miscommunication about the grandfather’s blindness is thereby occasioned by the resulting clash of worldviews and normal expectations. 

In this scene, Alex who had earlier positioned himself as an “translator” renders his grandfather’s remark “Shut up! I'm blind, not deaf. I heard you the first time!” with the English sentence "Okey-dokey, we will go now."  Since the “correct” translation of the grandfather’s remarks is given in the subtitles, the audience is able to frame Alex’s mis-translation as an effort to reduce the “stress” he earlier noticed that Jonathan was experiencing (“Please, do not be distressed.”)  The film uses the subtitles to frame Alex’s mistranslations and they function as a “meta-discourse” on the discourse. 

Added to the paradigmatic frames the audience brings with them to subsequent scenes are:

• Alex’s non-logical world,
• the paradox of the grandfather’s seeing-blindness,
• the “Perchov” culture—the non-logical world shared by Alex and his grandfather,
• Jonathan’s distress, and a modification of
• Alex as translator motivated by a desire to mediate potential conflict and thereby reduce stress.

 

3. Jonathan’s dog phobia

Jonathan [glancing toward the dog, with still worried look]: Where will the dog be? Alex: What do you mean? Jonathan: I have a phobia. [Alex grimaces indicating he doesn’t understand] A fear. [Alex grimaces again.  Jon looking for another expression] I'm distressed by dogs. Alex [grasps the point and bends down to the passenger window]<subtitles>: He is afraid of dogs. Grandfather <subtitles>: Bullshit, no one is afraid of dogs. Alex: Grandfather informs me this is not possible. Jonathan: What? Grandfather <subtitles>: Get in the car.  [Alex gets in the passenger seat] Grandfather <subtitles>: The bitch and the Jew will share the back seat. It is big enough for both of them. Jonathan [bending down facing the grandfather, implores]: No, wait. Wait. You don't understand. I have a very serious, serious problem with dogs. I can't sit in there. [Alex and his grandfather stare at Jonathan. The camera reverses to Jonathan who stands up looking dismayed]

The miscommunication in this episode is centered in being-afraid-of-dogs.  Jonathan is concerned about sitting in the car with the dog.  He tries to explain that he has a “phobia,” but Alex doesn’t understand the word.  He then tries “fear” as a translation, but Alex shakes his head again.  The likelihood is that Alex understands the word “fear,” but not in combination with “dog,” a view which his grandfather makes explicit.  At this juncture, Jonathan uses a word which he borrows from Alex’s lexicon, “distressed.”  Alex then says “Ah” indicating understanding.  This is an important exchange because it is the first time Jonathan makes an effort to transpose himself with [position himself as] Alex and assume his perspective [worldview] by using his lexicon.

Again, Alex mediates as translator, rendering his grandfather’s “Bullshit, no one is afraid of dogs” as “Grandfather informs me this is not possible.”

When the Grandfather demands they get in the car and Alex complies, Jonathan emphasizes his fear of dogs, but has no choice but to comply to the Grandfather’s commands.

This scene supplies two paradigmatic frames:

• Jonathan translating his idiomatic English into Alex’s unidiomatic usage, and
• the Grandfather as commandeer of the trip.

 

4. Sammy Davis Jr.

[The scene opens with a close-up of the dog watching.  The camera shifts to Jonathan (identifying him as the object of the dog’s gaze) who is sitting as far away from the dog as possible.  The camera shifts back to the dog, who barks.  Jonathan jumps back. From this point on, various scenes of the Ukranian towns and country are shown from the perspective of someone (presumably Jonathan) looking out the window.  Jonathan dozes off, then looks out the window.  Then looks apprehensive and turns to see the dog watching him.  Cut to Alex leaning over the front seat] Alex: Were you able to manufacture the Z’s Jonathan [Jon turns from dog to look at Alex]: What? Alex: The Z's. Were you able to make the Z’s Jonathan: I don't understand. Alex: Repose. [Alex puts his hands together next to his right ear suggesting sleep] Did you repose? Jonathan: Yeah, I reposed. Alex: Good. Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. is also in repose. [the dog is asleep; Jon looks down at him.] Jonathan [looking up seriously at Alex]: Why do you call her that? Alex: What? Jonathan: Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. Alex: Because Sammy Davis Jr. was Grandfather's [cut to grandfather driving with sunglasses] most beloved singer. You know, The Candy Man. The Negro from the Rat Pack. Jonathan [quickly inserting]: And a Jew. Alex: What? Jonathan: Yeah, he was a Jew. You didn't know that? Alex [cut to grandfather] <subtitles>: Grandfather, the Jew says that Sammy Davis Jr. is Jewish. Grandfather [nodding backward at the dog]<subtitles>: The bitch? Alex: <subtitles> Not Jr. Jr., Jr. the singer. Grandfather <subtitles>: That's bullshit! Alex: Grandfather informs me that this is not possible. Jonathan [in a matter of fact tone]: Of course it is. He converted. He's the most famous black Jew in America. Alex: Please tell me, is the Shaq also the Jew? Jonathan: Who? Alex: Shaquille O'Neal, the Los Angeles Laker. Jonathan: No. Alex: And Michael Jackson? Jonathan: No, definitely not a Jew.

 

The miscommunication in this scene centers in the clash of world-views like the one which we encountered in the previous scene where what is normal to Alex is not normal to Jonathan.  This time, however, the roles are reversed: Alex and his grandfather cannot comprehend Jonathan’s worldview.

By referring to the grandfather’s dog whose name is Sammy David Jr. Jr, the film provides a context in which Jonathan can point out that the actor was a Jew.  In Alex’s and his grandfather’s worldview, “Negroes” are never “Jews.”  [The word “negro” becomes another item to be negotiated in the inter-cultural communication.]

When Alex’s grandfather says in Russian “Bullshit,” Alex resumes his role as translator and indicates that this does not correspond to their worldview: “Grandfather informs me that this is not possible,” and reinforces his role as a “reducer of stress” by omitting “bullshit,” a potential insult.  In turn Jonathan insists, as he earlier did with the pronunciation of his name, on his American worldview.  At this juncture, an audience might expect that Alex and his grandfather, like Jonathan, will privilege their worldview and exclude an alternative worldview. But Alex separates himself from his grandfather by asking whether Shaquille O’Neal or Michael Jackson are also Jews?  This is the first instance of inquiry about another worldview.  It sets the stage for the communication that emerges later in the film and suggests a “bridge” for crossing cultural barriers—learning about the other [null experiences].

NOTE: We can hypothesize at this point that a “discursive formation” (in Foucault’s sense) in which “negro” and “Jew” can be attributed to the same person is NOT available to Alex and his grandfather.  In the discourse community (in Swales’ sense) to which Alex and his grandfather belong, “negro” and “Jew” cannot be combined in the formation of discourse.  This hypothesis can only be confirmed by a historical investigation like Foucault’s.

The important paradigmatic frame we take from this episode is (l) Alex accepting Jonathan as a credible source of information about American culture.  Alex is willing to learn from Jonathan about American culture.

 

5. Jonathan’s “book”

[The film then follows the car going through the Ukranian countryside from Jonathan’s point of view as he is looking out the window.  They pass a billboard with a box of snacks and a huge green grasshopper [framed by the grasshopper in the amber stone from the “overture”  Jon reaches down into his bag and retrieves a brown note book.  He begins writing in it.  Alex observes him doing this.]  Alex [looking back at Jon]: Father informs me you are writing a book about this trip. You are a writer? Jonathan [in a off-putting tone]: No. Alex: Then what is this? Jonathan [seeming to be annoyed by Alex’s interruption]: It's a catalog. Alex [puzzled]: Catalog . . . Catalog. Jonathan [in a somewhat angry tone]: I don't know why they told you that.  I'm not a writer. I mean, I write, but I'm more of... ...a collector, really. Alex: And what do you collect? Jonathan: Things. [looking & sounding as if they should be kept private] Family things. Alex: It is a good career, yes? Jonathan [in a softened matter of fact tone without annoyance or anger]: No, it's not a career. It's just something I do. Alex: Why? Jonathan: I don't know. Why does anybody do anything? It's just something to do. Alex: I understand. I also enjoy writing... [turns around]...but I truly feel I was born to be accountant.

 

Alex continues his questioning in this scene but reveals that his ability to transpose his experiences with Jonathan’s perspective is limited.  This time the miscommunication concerns the idea of a career.  Whereas in Jonathan’s world, one can do things for no particular reason and for no profit; in Alex’s world, what one does has some purpose, mostly to make a profit, as he admits: “I truly feel I was born to be accountant.”  In this episode, Alex’s willingness to take on Jonathan’s perspective is blocked by a matter that is more serious than whether American blacks are Jews, namely, money, giving us a glimpse of Alex’s values.  [Alex has introduced himself in terms of what he values in the overture but the value of a career was not mentioned there.]

Rather than adding a new paradigmatic frame, this scene modifies one that we have already encountered.

 

6. Are we there yet?

[They drive off of a superhighway onto a dirt road.] Jonathan:Are we close? Alex <subtitles>: The Jew wants to know if we are close. Grandfather The camera shows them from the front windshield all together] <subtitles>: Tell him to shut the hell up! Alex: Grandfather says we're very proximal.  He says it will not be long until we get to the superway to Lutsk. Jonathan: And from there? Alex <subtitles>: How long from here to Lutsk? Grandfather <subtitles>: Perhaps you would like me to stop the car... ...and you two can fuck yourselves to Lutsk! Jonathan [camera moves to a distance in front of car still going through fields]: What did he say? Alex: Grandfather says you should look out the window at the premium countryside. [As they pass the camera angle and drive ahead through fields of wheat and into the distance]

 

In this episode we are given additional instances of Alex’s unidiomatic lexicon as he uses the words “proximal” for the first time and “premium” for the third time in the film.  In the case of “premium” we are able to translate his meaning from the context: “Grandfather says you should look out the window at the premium countryside.”  For Alex “premium” means “good.”  We understand “proximal” later in the film when Alex asks: “You were very proximal with your grandfather, yes?” “Proximal” means “close.”

In this scene we learn that Alex’s unidiomatic lexicon, like the subtitles, constitutes a meta-discourse that goes beyond the humor.  Though not all of the words in Alex’s unidiomatic lexicon are equally revealing, several provide sub-texts on his world.

The characterization of the grandfather reasserts itself from earlier in the film as a frame:

(m) the grandfather’s irascibility to which is added his outright refusal to accept Jonathan’s world, especially the fact that Jonathan is in it. 

A new frame is added:

(n) the grandfather positions Alex and Jonathan over against him: “and you two can fuck yourselves to Lutsk.”  This expression, however vulgar, implies an “inter-course” between Alex and Jonathan that seems to refer to their ongoing conversation.

 

7. At dinner

[The camera fades into a courtyard with garments hanging from clotheslines and pulls up at the front of building with the sign “hotel.”  The camera fades to the dog lying on the floor Alex: Are you hungry? Jonathan: Yes.I just hope they have something I can eat. [The cuts to them sitting at a table in the dining room. Then the camera shifts back and forth to each speaker] Alex: What do you mean? Jonathan: I'm a vegetarian. Alex: You're a what? Jonathan: I don't eat meat. Alex: How can you not eat meat? Jonathan: I just don't. Alex [turning to his grandfather] <subtitles>: He says he does not eat meat. Grandfather [cut to grandfather] <subtitles>: What? Alex [camera follow dialogue in turn taking fashion]: No meat? Jonathan: No meat. Alex: Steak? Jonathan: No. Alex: Chickens? Jonathan: No. Alex: And what about the sausage? Jonathan: No, no sausage. No meat. Alex <subtitles>: He says he does not eat any meat. Not even sausage? I know. Grandfather <subtitles>: What is wrong with him? Alex: What is wrong with you? Jonathan: Nothing. I just don't eat meat. [There is a loud noise as the door opens, the dog looks up, and we see a bulky woman enter walking up to the table] Alex [cut to Alex] <subtitles>: Hello. [back to waitress who is silent] Alex [to Alex, the turn taking from shots of the full table to the waitress] <subtitles>: Excuse me, do you have anything without meat? Waitress <subtitles>: Why? Alex <subtitles>: Our friend here is American Waitress <subtitles>: I can see that. Alex <subtitles>: Yes, of course, but he does not eat meat. Waitress <subtitles>: What is wrong with him? Jonathan: What did she say? Alex: She says they do not have anything without meat. Jonathan: Don't they have potatoes or something? Alex <subtitles>: Potatoes? Waitress <subtitles>: You only get potato with the meat. Alex: The potatoes come only with the meat. Jonathan: But can't I have a potato on a plate by itself? Alex <subtitles>: Please, this American is deranged. Would it be possible to have a potato without the meat? [THE WAITRESS leaves, then BRINGS A POTATO ON A PLATE.  ALEX & HIS GRANDFATHER LOOK ASTONISHED. Jonathan ACCIDENTALLY KNOCKS THE POTATO ON THE FLOOR.  THERE IS A PAUSE.  THEN THE GRANDFATHER STICKS HIS FORK IN THE POTATO ON THE FLOOR; PUTS IT ON HIS PLATE; AND CARVES IT INTO FOUR PIECES.  HE GIVES ONE TO THE DOG, ONE TO ALEX, LEAVES ONE ON HIS PLATE, AND GIVE THE FOURTH TO JONATHAN. Who stares at it Grandfather <subtitles>: Welcome to Ukraine. Alex [laughing]: Welcome to Ukraine. [Jonathan then bends down, pulls out a platic bag and inserts the potato slice into it.  They look at each other.  Finally the grandfather starts to smile, then begins to shake with laughter.  Jonathan has the beginning of a smirk.  Alex starts to laugh.  Then Jonathan can seem to help from smiling.  The scene ends with a shot of the dog lying on the floor staring at his slice of potato as soft laughter can be heard.]

 

The miscommunication in this scene centers on Jonathan’s vegetarianism.  Just as in the earlier scene where “negro” and “Jew” are linked in the discursive formation of Alex and his grandfather, here “not + eating + meat” is not in their discursive formation and they, as well as the waitress, cannot comprehend Jonathan’s vegetarianism. 

Many of the paradigmatic frames that have been given to us in earlier episodes come into play in our understanding of this scene.   In some cases what our expectations, created by earlier frames, are thwarted and provide new meanings.   

• Alex as translator,
• Alex’s non-idiomatic English, 
• Alex’s use of the English word “deranged,”
• Jonathan’s rigidity 
• Alex’s non-logical world,
• the paradox of the grandfather’s seeing-blindness,
• the “Perchov” culture—the non-logical world shared by Alex and his grandfather,
• Jonathan’s distress, 
• Alex as translator motivated by a desire to mediate conflict.
• Jonathan translating his idiomatic English into Alex’s unidiomatic usage,
• the Grandfather as commandeer of the trip.
• Alex accepting Jonathan as a credible source of information about American culture. 
• the grandfather’s irascibility
• the grandfather positioning Alex and Jonathan over against him

The scene begins with Jonathan in “distress,” as usual, worried that there will be nothing for him to eat.  The Perchov culture—the non-logical world shared by Alex and his grandfather is unable to assimilate Jonathan’s vegetarianism.  Alex nonetheless questions him—as he did about negroes being Jewish—about it, whereas the grandfather continues to be irascible.  They wonder if something is wrong with Jonathan just as Jonathan wondered if something was wrong with Alex’s grandfather.  Alex continues the role of translator and mediator and uses “deranged” to explain Jonathan to the waitress.  The Grandfather commandeers the potato.  The grandfather who stares throughout the scene nonetheless sees finally through his blindness that Jonathan is funny and not just a burden.

Alex’s use of “deranged” to describe Jonathan differs from his earlier uses of the word.  Using “deranged” to describe Jonathan’s behavior places him in the same category with Sammy Davis Jr Jr or his Grandfather and thereby potentially places him in Alex’s world. 

This scene is a turning point in the film.  The first instance of a communication shared by all parties, the Grandfather, Alex, and Jonathan is occasioned by Jonathan “collecting” his share of the potato.  The Grandfather laughs first, then Alex, then Jonathan.  The event is construed by all as “funny” or odd and the laughter is not derisive.  This is Jonathan’s first acknowledgement that his customs and culture seem odd to Alex and his Grandfather.   This leads to an important transposition.  For Jonathan to understand that his culture seems to them just as odd as theirs does to him requires assuming their perspective
.

Concluding Interpretation

Everything is Illuminated is a story that begins with states of miscommunication, then through a series of transpositions ends in states of communication.  The importance of this film for an understanding of inter-cultural communication centers in the strategic transpositions portrayed in the film.  Transpositions (putting oneself in the position of the other and assuming his or her perspective) allow virtual experiences (anecdotes, narratives, etc.) to fill the gaps created by null experiences.

There are several critical transpositions:

1. Alex as mediating translator.

If we track Alex’s use of “degranged,” we notice that he uses it to explain the dog’s behavior to Jonathan, but also Jonathan’s behavior to the waitress.  In the later instance, Alex transposes his perspective as a way of “configuring” (understanding—in Dilthey’s sense of Verstehen) the waitress’s perspective.  But by doing so, he locates Jonathan’s “odd” behavior in his world.

2. Jonathan translating his idiomatic English into Alex’s unidiomatic usage.

Alex’s unidiomatic use of “distressed” provides an opportunity for Jonathan to discover a mode of transposition to communicate with Alex.

3. Alex is willing to learn from Jonathan about American culture.

Alex questions Jonathan and accepts his answers.  These instances of learning are transpositions.

4. The shared laughter over the potato episode

As I mentioned earlier, the event is construed by all as “funny” or odd.  For Jonathan to understand that his culture seems to them just as odd as theirs does to him requires assuming their perspective

In the first and third instances, Alex assumes the perspective belonging to Jonathan’s worldview.  In the second and fourth instances, Jonathan assumes the perspective that belongs to Alex’s worldview.

Basically, the story of how miscommunication becomes communication has as its turning point transpositions wherein one party configures another party by taking their position and perspective in his imagination to provide a virtual experience of what has been for them a null experience.

 

Works Cited:

Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental spaces : aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. (1999). Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Fauconnier, G., Turner Mark. (2003). The way we think : conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish : the birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis : Theory and Method. London: New York: Routledge.
Harre, R., & Langenhove., L. V. (Eds.). (1999). Positioning theory : moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford ; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things : what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2002). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, Calif. :: Stanford University Press, Year of Publication: 1987-[1991].
Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics : an introduction. Melbourne ; Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. (1997). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tannen, D. (Ed.). (1993). Framing in Discourse. New York, Oxford: Oxford U P.