Humanities and Social Sciences Review, CD-ROM. ISSN: 2165-6258 :: 1(4):187–200 (2012)
THE IMPACT OF (MIS) ANCHORING IN CREATING A DIFFERENCE IN/DIFFERENT MEANING(S)
Yasser K. R. Aman Minia University, Egypt.
(Mis)anchoring is based on the claim that there may be a difference between the intention (stimulus) of the speaker/writer and that of the listener/reader. Both may refer to the same thing/concept but each reference retains a distinct situational meaning (response). Such a difference creates a double meaning which perceived by the reader who, in a way or another, builds up his own interpretation blended from both intentions he reads, or from the one intention that strikes a chord in him or finds an immediate anchor in his memory. As for the listener, his response, whether it is a state of anchoring or misanchoring, depends upon what his memory prioritizes as the best fit for the situation. Accordingly, incidents of everyday life, a movie or of a literary work may take an unexpected turn which produces different interpretation than the one intended. Taking NLP anchoring as a starting point prepares for and later creates a paradigm for measuring the richness and profitability of memories on which mis/anchoring is based. By discussing different literary works, movies and daily life events, using mis/anchoring as a reading mechanism, one concludes that a difference in/different meaning(s) can be crystallized in order to reach a better understanding of works under analysis.
Keywords: NLP anchoring, Situational (mis)anchoring, Misunderstanding, Literary works, Movies.
Introduction
NLP Anchoring and Accidental/Situational Mis/Anchoring
NLP anchoring can simply be diagramed as follows:
Stimulus memory recall anchoring state change.
Accidental/situational anchoring can similarly be diagramed:
Stimulus memory recall mis/anchoring state change.
The meaning of many works is reinforced, developed and interpreted by (mis)anchoring which associates a strong mental or emotional state to a stimulus. Intuitive judgment is part of the anchoring process and the context plays an important role in making the meaning clear. “Depending on the context, the word BANK will be interpreted as referring to money or to a river but not simultaneously to both, and the ambiguity is likely to be
187 188 YasserK.R.Aman resolved without being unnoticed” ( Morewedge and Kahneman). However, accidental/situational anchoring depends mainly on the person’s immediate memory; that is why an answer to the question “have you been to the bank recently?” will differ from a person to another accordingly.
NLP, or oriented, anchoring is 1. the process by which memory recall, state change or other responses become associated with (anchored to) some stimulus, in such a way that perception of the stimulus (the anchor) leads by reflex to the anchored response occurring. The stimulus may be quite neutral or out of conscious awareness, and the response may be either positive or negative. Anchors are capable of being formed and reinforced by repeated stimuli, and thus are analogous to classical conditioning (Comprehensive NLP). However, accidental/situational anchoring may be misplaced in a way that the mental or emotional state and the perception are associated to a stimulus different from the one intended; thus, leading to misanchoring which occurs when the stimulus, which can have more than one meaning, is different from that the listener perceives. The process of anchoring is basically a mental one since “NLP also teaches that the unconscious stores conditioned responses and calls this process anchoring (Bandler and Grinder, 1979 p.70 qtd. in Rowan).
In his article “Neurolinguistic Programming: A Systematic Approach to Change”, A. M. Steinbach states that a stimulus and its response are related to internal representations. However, he does not pay heed to the content (internal representation) which affects the form of behavior, which is evident in anchoring: 2. Every external stimulus is processed through internal representations, and a specific outcome is generated. Our fine sensory experiences are the basis for the strategies that we have for generating and guiding behavior.NLP concentrates on the form, not the content, of behavior (Steinbach). When an anchor (stimulus) is misplaced, at least two responses are produced: a true response and a false one. Of the seven presuppositions mentioned in Steinbach’s article, the third, fourth and sixth are relevant to (mis)anchoring: 3. The meaning of every communication is the response that it elicits, regardless of the communicator’s intent. Both verbal and nonverbal communication elicit a response in another person, which is frequently one that was not intended. It is important to be able to notice his responseand then alter your communication, if you are to communicate effectively. [When misachoring occurs a communicator should be smart enough to get the listener’s attention directed to his real intention]. 4. People are capable of one trial learning. A therapist can teach a patient the association between one response and another, or between an external stimulus and an internal response in one trial. This is called ‘anchoring’. [Accidental anchoring depends on the situation, not on a trial]. 5. Each person has all the resources he needs in his personal history to achieve his desired outcome [Brackets mine] (Steinbach). Of the various explicit NLP techniques used to help the patient evolve from his/her present state to the desired one, anchoring is listed and defined as “a basic intervention”. Reframing, another explicit technique, stresses the process of changing the behavior of the stimulus, which helps produce different meanings. “This is a technique which separates the intention of the The Impact of (Mis) Anchoring in Creating a Difference In/Different Meaning(s) 189 behavior from the behavior itself, and then attaches to the original stimulus alternative behaviors which satisfy the original intention. This particular intervention is extremely useful in medicine, for difficult problems such as pain control and compulsive behaviors (e.g. , overeating and smoking)” (Steinbach). Of course, situational/accidental anchoring differs from NLP anchoring since an element, a stimulus in NLP anchoring, is not intentionally added or repeated.
Anchoring is a technique described by Anthony Robbins as Neuro Associative Conditioning (sporthealth4u.com, 2009.), in which the practitioner includes a new added element into the client’s experience while the client is recalling a memory or experiencing a particular state (Bandler and Grinder, 1979 p. 83). The added element is a neurological stimulus, most usually kinaesthetic, such as a hand touch on the client’s shoulder, but it can also be a visual picture or an audio stimulus such as a word or specific tone of voice. The ubiquitous phenomenon of anchors being ‘set up’ and then ‘fired’ can be observed in the comedian’s catch phase, the lovers’ song and the bread shop’s allure (Rowan).
Rather, in situational/accidental anchoring, the situation creates an offhand stimulus, an anchor that works unconsciously, unlike NLP ones (O’Connor and Seymore 62), and recalls the immediate memory to the surface. Response to the situation may be an anchoring or a misanchoring. Gibson sees that one responds to conscious and subconscious anchors every day, claiming that one can set up anchors in order to achieve success regardless of the setting (183). However, she does not take into consideration offhand situations and situation-raised stimuli. What Hayes says about how anchoring works, can partially be applied to accidental anchoring. “It works on the same principle that is in place when a sensory stimulus puts us in mind of a particular time or context from our past” (69-70). In accidental anchoring the stimulus is situation-based; whereas NLP anchoring “is [essentially] using a stimulus” [Brackets mine](Hayes 70).
(Mis)/Anchoring and Daily Life
Anchoring on the jargon of a group enables one to discover whether someone with the same external appearance of the group members belongs and believes in the same group or not. Some Salafi, a bearded Muslim, was driving in an opposite direction, at which occasion a café man warned him in a loud voice saying “Forbidden”. The Salafi answered with a smile “ϚϴϠϋ ϦϨΤϳ Ϳ ", [Allah yehanen alaik] “May Allah be tender and generous with you”. The café man said to café goers laughingly “He is not “original”—meaning he is not a true follower—because if he was, he would say “ ήϴΧ Ϟϛ Ϳ" ϙΰΟ" , [gazak Allah kol khair] “May Allah reward you with all good things”, which is the first reply expected from the salafi. In 2002, in Giza railway station, at the time SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), a virus that was much in rife in China, was widespread one of the porters, seeing a group of Chinese tourists, used the same techniques of African American innuendos and called “ αέΎγ Ύϳ [ya SARS] SARS”. On seeing Chinese tourists, the first response was anchoring on a cultural event. In the political arena mistaken identity-based misanchoring can have negative results. Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) was accused by Rep. Allen West (R-FL) of mistaking him for Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC). 190 YasserK.R.Aman
Here’s what happened: Welch was wrapping up his own speech, looked in West’s direction, and said: “I see the gentleman from South Carolina.” West was the next speaker and began by chiding Welch:
"I do need to correct my colleague from Vermont, I'm not from South Carolina, I'm from Florida but that's OK. I'm the guy with hair." Scott has a shaved head.
Aides say the comment left the false impression that Welch was insensitive and mistaken. The Vermont Democrat’s office even received calls accusing him of being racist. His office says Welch was actually referring to South Carolina GOP Rep. Mick Mulvaney, who was seated behind West (O’Donnell).
Taken into consideration that West and Scott are the only African Americans in the House, West is seen as insensitive, mistaken and racist. But after the misanchored situation had been explained, the real meaning was clear and “West’s office says “there are no hard feelings,” and that the two congressmen were “joking about the misunderstanding,” according to West spokeswoman Angela Sachitano” (O’Donnell).
(Mis)/Anchoring and Literary Works
(Mis)/anchoring shows itself in different genres of literature: the drama, the novel and poetry. Different works by different writers will be discussed: In the drama, Shakespeare’s Comedies and Tawfiq Al Hakim’s The People of the Cave; in the novel, E. M. Forster’s A Passage to India and Thomas Hardy’s The Mayor of Casterbridge; and in poetry, Robert Frost’s “Home Burial” and T. S. Eliot’s “The Waste Land” (African American poet Yusef Komunyakaa and Affrilachian poet Nikky Finney will be touched upon). Comedians or humorists give good examples of positive or pleasant anchors. Pleasant anchors are associated with dear memories. Some criteria should occur before an anchor is properly formed. A trigger should be specific, intermittent and anchored to a unique action; otherwise, (mis)anchoring occurs and different meanings are produced. Romantic poetry, especially those poems on recollection of childhood, is a good example of anchoring. The duplicity of life in The Mayor of Casterbridge shows how anchoring effectively works through space and time. Anchoring has much in common with the idea of redefinition. “[T]he idea of anchoring…posits that one’s past experiences serve as constant subliminal sources of suggestion that are often incorporated in one’s conception of reality (Stephen and Graham 125 qtd. in Lusk and Roeske). For example, redefining the present history of Afrikaans literature needs one to go back to the past and to define a point of time one which one can anchor the chronological series of events (See: Kriger). Anchoring, mnemonic in nature, is used in Shakespearean theatre. “The physical properties of the theatre—the space itself, the players, and the many stage properties used and reused from play to play —become the materials for the mnemonic dramaturgy that shapes language, character and plot” (Wilder 2). Moreover, “in their frequent absence such objects become a way to evoke a mind and a past that move between the common (shared by the audience, staged elsewhere in the play) and the comparatively private( unstaged, but described in ways that evoke the physical materials of the stage). …in Shakespeare’s plays, the already theoretical methods of the place-based mnemonics become a theoretical language in which an intangible and imagined past is made rhetorically present” (Wilder 2). The temporal anchor is crystallized in Bakhtin’s The Impact of (Mis) Anchoring in Creating a Difference In/Different Meaning(s) 191 opinion. “Shakespeare’s memory theatre creates what Mikhail Bakhtin would call a chronotope: a time-space in which “[t]ime as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically visible; likewise space becomes charged and responsive to the movement of time, plot, and history” (Wilder 18). In Shakespeare’s comedies disguised and mistaken identities-based mis/anchoring produce a series of twisted meanings that change the course of events and help develop the plot. Confusion- based situations in which the characters are unaware of some facts known to the audience lead to a state of chaos and situational misanchoring. The Taming of the Shrew, Measure for Measure, Love’s Labor’s Lost and The Merchant of Venice hold good here. However, in The Comedy of Errors and Twelfth Night “mistaken identities are not just a device but the main impulse of the plot” (Moreno). A Midsummer Night’s Dream teems with farcical situations from which misunderstandings and confusion result:
Like much farce, A Midsummer Night’s Dream relies heavily on misunderstanding and mistaken identity to create its humorous entanglements. Oberon’s unawareness of the presence of a second Athenian couple—Lysander and Hermia—in the forest enables Puck’s mistaken application of the flower’s juice. This confusion underscores the crucial role of circumstance in the play: it is not people who are responsible for what happens but rather fate(Sparknote Editors. “SparkNote on A Midsummer Night’s Dream.”).
Many titles of Shakespeare’s plays illustrate past experience anchoring. Self-experience anchoring is featured on diaries, autobiographies, soliloquies and dramatic monologues as well. Tawfiq Al-Hakim’s "ϒϬϜϟ Ϟϫ" [Ahl Al Kahf], People of the Cave, provides an example of identity-based misanchoring. The three people of the cave, Mishlinya, Marnush and Yamlikha, did not realize that they spent three hundred years sleeping inside the cave.
“The king and his retinue, especially Gallias, the man of religion, mistake them for priests. Their perception of Time isolates the protagonists away from the people: their aims are different… Chaos springs from the absence of mutual understanding—a gap of three hundred years. As a for itself they seek to achieve their being, each in his own way: Marnush searches for his family, Yamlikha for his sheep, but Mishlinya, who believes that Priska is his beloved who he left three hundred years ago, stays in the palace” (Aman. Chaos Theory and Literature from an Existentialist Perspective).
Mishlinya took young Priska for her grandmother who he had loved before he went to the cave. His passion-infused talk was supposed to be directed to the old Priska of his time; however, it was young Priska who listened to him. Identity-based mis/anchoring is fundamental in enriching meaning in different novels. In A Passage to India, in the court room, Mrs. Moore’s name was misheard by the Indians as (Esmiss Esmoor), a Hindu goddess. “…people who did not know what the syllables meant repeated them like a charm. They became Indianized into Emiss Esmoor (Forster 250). The dignity the character gains, is created by Indian people’s anchoring on their own spiritual heritage. In Hardy’s The Mayor of Casterbridge, Lucetta promised to marry Henchard, while, at the same time, she was in love with Farfrae. This situation creates a duplicity in feelings. However, Henchard, eavesdropping on Lucetta’s and Farfrae’s conversation, knew their love affair. Therefore, he made her promise to marry him and Elizabeth-Jane was a witness. The reader knows both plans which the situation creates; however, Lucetta and Farfrae, at that point, did not know that it was because Henchard got part of their conversation that he made Lucetta promise to marry him. 192 YasserK.R.Aman
Henchard’s duplicity shows itself when he asserts to Newson that his daughter is dead. As Elizabeth-Jane, daughter of Newson and Susan, bears the same name of Henchard’s and Susan’s daughter, Henchard played on this duplicity since it was Henchard’s own daughter who died not Newson’s. Newson’s anchoring of his sad feelings was on his daughter’s supposed death which was based on a wrong anchor triggered by Henchard. The reader knows both meanings and can easily see an example of misanchoring created by Henchard’s misguided stimulus and Newson’s immediate response. Newson asks about the grave of Elizabeth-Jane: “Where is she buried? The traveler inquired” (Hardy 272). Henchard cunningly answers: “Besides her mother” (272). The double meaning created from this example of guided misanchoring enriches and adds to the plot and the subplot as well. In Robert Frost’s “Home Burial” misunderstanding is revealed in the setting of the poem: the wife is upstairs near the window while the husband stands down stairs near the door, the only outlet to the open, to freedom. The very title of the poem produces different meanings: for the husband, the wife and readers each of who will perceive anchors in the two words “home and “burial”, which associate with one’s own past memories.
The first twelve lines form an ambiguity-loaded image:
HE saw her from the bottom of the stairs
Before she saw him. She was starting down.
Looking back over her shoulder at some fear.
She took a doubtful step and then undid it
To raise herself and look again. He spoke
Advancing toward her: “What is it you see
From up there always—for I want to know.”
She turned and sank upon her skirts at that,
And her face changed from terrified to dull.
He said to gain time: “What is it you see,”
Mounting until she cowered under him.
“I will find out now—you must tell me dear” (Frost 69).
One does not know what the husband is talking about. What secret does his wife conceal from him? Does he mean by “What is it you see” a human being or a thing? If it is a human being, is it a lover of hers, a friend or a relative the husband does not like. Every reader is going to respond according to what anchor he perceived and which these lines triggered. Interpretations necessarily differ from one reader to another according to what response the associative memory provides to the anchor mis/understood.
The Impact of (Mis) Anchoring in Creating a Difference In/Different Meaning(s) 193
Lines 13 to 20 prolong the state of ambiguity, but reveal another dimension: husband-wife disturbed relationship because of lifelong mutual understanding:
She, in her place, refused him any help
With the least stiffening of her neck and silence.
She let him look, sure that he wouldn’t see,
Blind creature; and a while he didn’t see.
But at last he murmured, “Oh,” and again, “Oh.”
“What is it—what?” she said.
“Just that I see.”
“You don’t,” she challenged. “Tell me what it is”(Frost 69).
They are not of the same mind or vision. Therefore, his wife challenges him to tell what it is she is looking at, and the poet describes him as “blind creature”, which again leaves the reader with his own personal experience. A reader who happened to deal with a blind person before reading these lines may believe that it is just a blind’s husband’s roving over nothing. It is not until the reader reaches line 24 that he discovers that they talk about graves: “The little graveyard where my people are!” (69). It is clear now that she is looking at their child’s grave. In fact, the poem
can be read as a tragic double entendre. Although the death of the child is the catalyst of the couple’s problems, the larger conflict that destroys the marriage is the couple’s inability to communicate with one another. Both characters feel grief at the loss of the child, but neither is able to understand the way that their partner chooses to express their sorrow (Robert Frost: Poems Summary and Analysis).
The burial of the child shows utter misunderstanding. The wife sees the husband’s act of digging a grave and planting the child’s dead body as extreme callousness and apathy. Contrary to this, the husband may have suffered a lot but he accepted the natural cycle of life. She could not understand his words: “‘Three foggy mornings and one rainy day/Will rot the best birch fence a man can build.’” (72). She cannot understand the grief behind his words:
Indisposed to see her husband’s form of grieving as acceptable, she takes his words as literal, inappropriate comments on fence building. Yet they have everything to do with the little body in the darkened parlor. He is talking about death, about the futility of human effort, about fortune and misfortune, about the unfairness of fate and nature (Sparknotes Editors. “SparkNote on Frost’s Early Poems”).
Frustrated, the wife is unable to understand and appreciate her husband’s feelings. All forms of communication have been stifled. The wife sees that her husband cannot speak about their dead child, to which charge he replies “I’m cursed. God, if I don’t believe I’m cursed” (72). “There is a double meaning here: He is cursed with a wife who both misunderstands him, and he has a wife that curses him” (Curtis). Yet different meanings are to be produced since each reader 194 YasserK.R.Aman will understand a different anchor triggered by the curse that may remind him of a similar bad memory. Frost’s autobiography is important in understanding emotion-packed “Home Burial”. He tries to un-anchor a bad memory, the loss of his children, but by writing a poem on the same subject he triggers a new anchor each time a reader passes by the poem.
In the first part of “The Waste Land”, the speaker tauntingly addresses someone and referred to a corpse buried by the latter, asking him if it had sprouted. 'That corpse you planted last year in your garden,
'Has it begun to sprout? Will it bloom this year?
'Or has the sudden frost disturbed its bed?
'Oh keep the Dog far hence, that's friend to men,
'Or with his nails he'll dig it up again! (Eliot 3).
The corpse may refer to different secrets hidden by people (may be the listener’s interpretation); or it may refer to a real corpse (may be the speaker’s intention); and it may be thousands of different interpretations (different receptions by different readers). Commenting on Eliot’s basic method used in The Waste Land, especially on the fortune-telling of “The Burial of the Dead”, Cleanth Brooks sees it as the application of the principle of complexity that results in different interpretations. “[E]ach of the details (justified realistically in the palaver of the fortune- teller) assumes a new meaning in the general context of the poem. ... The items of her speech have only one reference in terms of the context of her speech…But transferred to other contexts they become loaded with special meanings”(Brooks) NLP anchoring is used to enhance self confidence. For instance, one recalls a happy moment when he had felt success and anchors the present moment at the past successful one, imitating or repeating a gesture or a movement he had done at that moment such as clinching a fist. A consoling tap on the shoulder because of loss of a loved one is an anchor of sadness. When repeated at intervals, the tap recalls sad feelings. African Americans have always exercised linguistic, identity and musical based anchoring in their communications with white people. The Signifying Monkey, the trickster, Uncle Tom and many other tradition-packed symbols of expression illustrate their mastery in using anchoring to avoid punishment and give full vent to their feelings. Anchoring of experience (or experience-based anchoring) plays a similar role to NLP anchoring. It is macrocosmic in nature and it awakens a collective consciousness. For example, the 1955 Rosa Parks incident has often been anchored upon in many poems. One of Nikky Finney’s poems, that appeared in Head off & Split, published in 2011, is titled “Red Velvet” talks about Rosa Parks, a pioneer of civil rights. Yusef Komunyakaa’s Copacetic teems with historical/literary figures that have been anchored on to recall moments of achievements “A sense of commitment to soothe the pain of his community is felt in Komunyakaa’s use of jazz and blues form, themes and idioms” (Aman. The Evolution of Jazz and Blues as Cultural Kernels: Expressing Racial Iniquity in Komunyakaa’s Copacetic 4). The Impact of (Mis) Anchoring in Creating a Difference In/Different Meaning(s) 195
(Mis)/Anchoring and Filmmaking
Audio-visual media anchoring is very important in arising one’s feelings. Sometimes when one’s team wins in a football match, one feels happy and vice versa. Recollection of a romantic scene from a movie may save a relationship from being broken up. Similarly, memory of a religious sermon may, at moments of spiritual instability, stop a God-fearing person from committing a crime. Of mistaken identity movies there are top 10: North by Northwest (1959), Galaxy Quest (1999), Being there (1979), The Big Lebowski (1998), El Mariachi (1992), The man with One Red Shoe (1985), The Wrong Man (1956), The Great Dictator (1940), Life of Brian (1979) and Monte Carlo (2011) (Top 10 Mistaken Identity Movies). However, some scenes in Rush Hour 3, "ΔϠΧΪϟ ΔϠϴϟ" ,[Lilat Aldokhla] The Wedding Night, and "ΐόϠϳ ΓΩΎϤΣ" ,[Hamada Yel’aab] Hamada May Have Fun, provide better misanchoring examples than these top 10 movies. In Rush Hour 3, a movie directed by Brett Ratner and produced in 2007, Chris Tucker, starring as Carter, a black friend of Jackie Chan who was starring as Lee, stood in front of a closed door eavesdropping and thinking that the screams of Lee and the Chinese woman were a natural response to a sexual intercourse.
Come on, crouching tiger, don't hide that dragon.
Uh!
Aaah!
Do it, Lee.
You tear that ass up.
Ahh!
Oh, oh!
You are a super freak! (Rush Hour 3 Script - Dialogue Transcript).
He anchors the aural image to a past stimulus (a sexual experience/scene). Misanchoring occurs since the audiences watch the real situation: a fierce fight in which the woman was keen on killing Jackie Chan. The intermingling of two events: one fake, the other real with a fixed space and time, shows that misanchoring may not strictly follow Bakhtin’s chronotope, bearing in mind that the stimulus is there in the past. In,"ΔϠΧΪϟ ΔϠϴϟ" [Lilat Aldokhla] The Wedding Night, one of the classics of the Egyptian cinema, directed by Mustafa Hassan and produced in 1950, with two great comedians: Ismail Yaseen, starring as Balabyoo’, and Hassan Fayq, starring as Nylon, misanchoring is at the heart of the main events of the movie. The two barbers got acquainted with two beautiful girls who they decided to marry. As it was the custom of the Egyptian society at that time, they sent a “Khatba”, a woman who goes between the suitor and the family of the suggested bride. Unfortunately, the “Khatba” caused misanchoring herself as she misinterpreted the information thinking that they talked about the same two ugly girls she meant, and unaware of the fact that two other beautiful girls lived at the same address. She betrothed the ugly ones. The suitors did not see the faces of the girls until the wedding night. At the wedding night, they were courting their brides, each in 196 YasserK.R.Aman his bedroom, supposing that they were the two beautiful ones they got acquainted to. When both grooms unveiled the brides’ faces, they were so shocked that they climbed down the window. In "ΐόϠϳ ΓΩΎϤΣ", [Hamada Yel’aab] Hamada May Have Fun, directed by Said Hamed and produced in 2005, exactly after twenty three minutes of the movies, Hamada and his friends went in another search for a girl called Leila sayed Ahmed in order to play the role of Hamada’s fiancé, who jilted him and got married to another one, so that Hamada can claim a one million dollar prize for which he had submitted a subscription signed by his and Leila’s names before. This Leila, of the following dialogue, happens to live and work in a brothel where they met the pimp in charge who they took for Leila’s father. A long misanchored dialogue took place among Hamada, his two friends Fouad and Abdulrahman, the pimp and the two whores: Laila and Bosayna. The dialoguei can be said to be a good example of a double entendre because it bears at least two meanings one of which is sexual.
The pimp: You are most welcome, knights.
Abdulrahman: Thank you reverend (hyjaja). What a cordial welcome, guys!
Hamada: We are sorry uncle as we visit you without a previous appointment.
The pimp: Oh, no. Don’t say so. Feel at home.
Fouad: We will say “congratulations, Hamada”.
Hamada: I beg your pardon, where is Miss Laila?
The pimp: Miss? Oh, how I feel at ease talking to you.
Abdulrahman: If so, we will take your daughter Laila to our son Hamada.
The pimp: You take her and give her to whoever you like, to Hamada or to any dick and Harry. You are free.
Abdulrahman: What?! Wh.. where is our beautiful bride?
The pimp: Getting ready. Will you go one by one or as a fruit mix-like (orgy)? Hamada: I swear by Allah, we do not need to drink anything. We are satisfied.
Fouad: Still you have the big night of wedding, God willing.
Hamada: God willing. I beg your pardon. I need to have a light talk with Miss Laila. The pimp: A light talk? Do you consider it appropriate?!
Laila: I am ready.
Abdulrahman: Oh! Hamada. At last you got what you deserve, boy!
The pimp: Here 100 pounds, take away 75.
Hamada, Abdulrahman and Fouad: What?! The Impact of (Mis) Anchoring in Creating a Difference In/Different Meaning(s) 197
The pimp: Ok, don’t get angry. Leave laila and take Bosyna. You, Bosayna
Bosyna: Yes master.
The pimp: Ha! What do you think of Bosyna,?
Hamada:Bosyna what? Reverend, this is not appropriate, it is a wrongdoing! I tell you Laila, we need Laila.
Abdulrahman: I don’t feel at ease. I smell trouble here, reverend Hitler!
The pimp: Don’t get on my nerves. Take both for 150.
Hamada: Isn’t there a charger as a free gift?! Reverend this is not a nice way of talking. Even if we were in a brothel, our talk would not be as dirty!
Fouad: Oh, buddy! Don’t be a doubting Thomas!
Another whore: Police! Police!
Abdulrahman: Oh, the police!
Hamada: No time for “oh!”, Run quickly!
Triple meanings are produced: the real meaning the audience knows, the meaning the friends are getting at and the pimp’s intention who took them for whoremongers. Some cultural specific words that create the misacnhored meanings need to be clarified in order for the dialogue to be fully grasped. "ΔΠϴΠΣ" [hyjaja] which I translated into reverend originally means a “hajj”, a pilgrim, but it is a title given to any aged respectable person. "ΕϮϳ" [aywoot], a word used only by people of Alexandria to express surprise which I translated to “oh”. Abdulrahman is the only one who insisted in using [aywoot], since there is a light shortened version of the same word [ayoo]. He used it when the pimp gave them a warm cordial welcome, when he saw Laila, the beautiful whore, and when the third whore screamed at the end of the dialogue saying “police, police”. "Δδϧϵ" [Al anesah] “Miss”, gives a very sharp sense of humor since they talk about a whore who was deflowered long ago and in our Egyptian culture “Miss” means a virgin. That is why the pimp repeated the word “Miss” sarcastically and added “oh, how I feel at ease talking to you” since he took them for an easygoing whoremongers. "ϮΗϮΘϟ ΎϬϳΪΗ ˬΓΩΎϤΤϟ ΎϬϳΪΗ" [tedyha li Hamad, tedyha li Toto]” give it to Hamada, or to any Dick and Harry” is culturally complicated. “Hamada and Toto” are two famous characters, a husband and a wife, that appeared in a movie titled “The Gang of Hamada and Toto”. The pimp’s reference to those characters asserts his utter carelessness to who the whore will go to sleep. The word "ΎϨϴΨϔΨϓ" [fakhfakhyna], a juice of fruit mix, which I translated as orgy, is used by the pimp to refer to the case of a whore having sex with a group of men. Hamada understands the surface meaning and missed the double entendre thanking the pimp, saying they do not want to drink anything. The phrase "ϒϗϮϟ ω ϦϴΘϤϠϛ" [kelmetain a’ lwaqef] , translated as “a light talk”, Hamada means to talk quickly to Laila and let her understand his predicament. However, the pimp misunderstands Hamada and construes “light talk” for having so quick a sexual intercourse, an action for which he won’t be paid well and, therefore, of which he does not approve. "ήϠΘϫ ΝΎΣ Ύϳ" [Ya hajj Hitler], translated as “ reverend Hitler”, is sarcastically said by Abdulrahman to the pimp who has a moustache similar to Hitler’s which, along with a similarity in features, makes him look like Hitler. The situation is a sarcastic 198 YasserK.R.Aman one since Hitler was known for his firm character, whereas the Hitler-like pimp’s character is loose. The phrase "ˮΔϳΪϫ ϦΣΎη ζϣϮϬϠϋΎϣϭ" [wea maa’lehomsh shah’n hedya], “Isn’t there a charger as a free gift?!” is a cynical remark said by Hamada when the pimp offers both girls for 150 pounds because, most of the time, when a product is being promoted another lesser product in value is offered as a free gift. All these cultural specific words and phrases help crystallize examples of misanchoring.
Conclusion
As the title of the paper shows, different perceptions lead to different responses. A reader’s/a listener’s memory responds to a given anchor according to the first meaning this anchor crystallizes. Examples of everyday life, literary works and movies illustrate that misanchoring occurs when an anchor is misunderstood. The nature of accidental/situational anchoring makes it different from NLP anchoring which can occur more than once by repeating the stimulus. Accidental mis/anchoring results from unprepared for situations; therefore, different meaning are produced leaving the end of the conversation/situation undecided and unexpected. Accidental/situational anchoring occurs every day. In different situations when a listener misunderstands a stimulus, his memory responds in a different way that is naturally expected. Misanchoring may cause political trouble as explained in the example above. The discussion of different literary works and movies asserts that misanchoring produces different meanings which add to the textual and intertextual density of the text. Many of Shakespeare’s comedies are based on misunderstanding and misachoring. Al Hakim’s play “People of the Cave” is a good example of the effect misanchoring has in producing different meanings. Hardy’s The Mayor of Casterbridge and Forster’s A Passage to India prove that identity-based misanchoring enriches the meaning and adds to the complexity of the events. Frost’s poem shows how misanchoring can affect one’s life negatively. The husband and wife in “Home Burial” misinterpret each other’s actions, which results in disturbance in family life. The “corpse” Eliot introduces in the first part of “The Waste Land” proves that one’s past memories, hidden secrets and bad/good experiences play an important role in mis/understanding the speaker. The corpse’s accurate meaning will ultimately remain undecided. Komunyakaa’s and Finney’s works stress the importance of Black people’s heritage on which they can anchor their present/situation trying to find solutions to problems that might be set in their way. Mistaken identity movies are based on misanchoring which is in the heart of dialogues that sometimes produce triple meaning. Rush Hour 3, The Wedding Night and Hamada May Have Fun illustrate the effectiveness of misanchoring in adding to the enjoyment while watching these movies. This paper is but a starting point that suggests how a new interdisciplinary field of study can be created depending on NLP anchoring and literary works and media-based accidental/situational mis/anchoring. Further research should be conducted in order for the relation between NLP anchoring and accidental/ situational anchoring to develop into joint research projects that depend on theory and practice with the ultimate aim of enriching human knowledge. The Impact of (Mis) Anchoring in Creating a Difference In/Different Meaning(s) 199
Works Cited
1. Aman, Yasser K.R.. The Evolution of Jazz and Blues as Cultural Kernels: Expressing Racial Iniquity in Komunyakaa’s Copacetic. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing, 2010. Print. 2. --- "Chaos Theory and Literature from an Existentialist Perspective." CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 9.3 (2007). Web.10 Nov., 2012.
24. “Top 10 Mistaken Identity Movies”.Web. 20 Aug., 2012
Notes
iBelowisthesourceArabictextofthedialogue: ϦϳέϮϨϣ ϥΎγήϔϟΎΑ ˱ϼϫ ˱ϼϫ :ΩϮϘϟ .ϥΎϋΪΟΎϳ ΓϮϠΤϟ ΔϠΑΎϘϤϟ ω ΕϮϳ .ΔΠϴΠΣΎϳ ϙέϮϧ Ω :ϦϤΣήϟ ΪΒϋ .ΩΎόϴϣ ήϴϏ Ϧϣ ϚΗήπΤϟ ΎϨϴΟ ϲϨόϳ ϲϤϋΎϳ Ϧϴϔγ ΎϨΣ· :ΓΩΎϤΣ .ϢϜΘϴΑ ΖϴΒϟ Ϊϛ ζϟϮϘΗΎϣ ϞΟέΎϳ ΐϴϋ :ΩϮϘϟ .ϩΩϮϤΣΎϳ ϙϭήΒϣ ϝϮϘϧ ΎϨϠϜη :ΩΆϓ ˮϦϴϓ ϰϠϴϟ Δδϧϵ ϚΗήπΣ ϥΫ· ΪόΑ ϲϨόϳ ΐσ :ΓΩΎϤΣ .ϢϜϟ ΡΎΗέ ϲΒϠϗ Ϳϭ ˮΔδϧ :ΩϮϘϟ .ΓΩΎϤΣ ΎϨϨΑϹ ϰϠϴϟ ϮϜΘϨΑ ΪΧΎϧ ϦϴϳΎΟ ΎϨΣ ϰΌΑ Ϊϛ βϴΣ ΐσ :ϦϤΣήϟ ΪΒϋ .ήΣ Ζϧ .ϮΗϮΘϟ ΎϬϳΪΗ ΓΩΎϤΤϟ ΎϬϳΪΗ .ΰϳΎϋ Ζϧ Ύϣ ϱί ΎϬϴϓ ϑήμΘΗϭ ΎϫΪΧΎΗ Ζϧ :ΩϮϘϟ .Ϧϴϓ ΓϮϠΤϟ ΎϨΘγϭήϋ ϝΎϣ˵ .ϩΎϫ :ϦϤΣήϟ ΪΒϋ ˮΎϨϴΨϔΨϓ ϻϭ ΪΣϭ ΪΣϭ ϮΘϧ . ςΒψΘΑΎϬδϔϧ :ΩϮϘϟ .ϡΎϤΗ ϪϠϛ ΎϨΣ· .ΔΟΎΣ ϱ Ώήθϧ έΪϘϨΣ ζϣ Ϣϴψόϟ Ϳϭ ϻ :ΓΩΎϤΣ .Ϳ ˯Ύη ϥ· ΓήϴΒϜϟ ΔϠϴϠϟ Δδϟ ϦϳΪόΑϭ :ΩΆϓ .Ϊϛ ϒϗϮϟ ω ϦϴΘϤϠϛ ϲϓ ϰϠϴϟ Δδϧϵ ΰϳΎϋ ΖϨϛ ˬϚΒϧΎΟ ϥΫ· ΪόΑ .Ϳ ˯Ύη ϥ· :ΓΩΎϤΣ ˮϪοήΑ ϡϼϛ ϪϤγ ϰΌΒϳ Ωϭ ˮϒϗϮϟ ω :ΩϮϘϟ .ΓΰϫΎΟ Ύϧ :ϰϠϴϟ .ϪϟϭΎϳ ΖϠϧϭ ΕήΒ˵λ Ϳϭ .ΓΩΎϤΣΎϳ ΕϮϳ :ϦϤΣήϟ ΪΒϋ .75 ϱϭ ϚΗ ΔϴϨΟ 100 ΎϨϫ : ΩϮϘϟ !!!!!!!!!!!!!Ϫϳ· :ΩΆϓϭ ˬϦϤΣήϟΪΒϋ ˬΓΩΎϤΣ .ΔϨϴδΑΎϳ ΖΑ .ΔϨϴδΑ ϭΪΧ ˭ϰϠϴϟ εϼΑ .εϮϠϋΰΗΎϣ ιϼΧ :ΩϮϘϟ . ΓϮϳΎηΎΑΎϳ : ΔϨϴδΑ ˮϰΌΑ ΔϨϴδΑ ϑ ϮϜϳέ Ϫϳ· ˬΎϫ :ΩϮϘϟ .ϰϠϴϟ ϦϳΰϳΎϋ ΎϨΣ· ˬϰϠϴϟ ϚϟϮϘΑ ΰΒϴϋ Ϊϛ ζΤμϳΎϣ ˮΝΎΣΎϳ Ϫϳ· ΔϨϴδΑ :ΓΩΎϤΣ .ήϠΘϫ ΝΎΣΎϳ ΪΑϻϭ ζϣ ΔΤϳέ ϢϣΎη Ύϧ .ϑέΎϋ ζϣ :ϦϤΣήϟ ΪΒϋ .150Ώ ϦϴϨΗϻ ϭΪΧ .ϰΌΑ ζϴϨϮϨΨΗΎϣ:ΩϮϘϟ !ˮΩ ΏϮϠγϷΎΑ ϰΌΒϴΣ ζϣ έϮΤϟ ΔϫϮΒθϣ ΔϘη ϑ ϦϳΪϋΎϗ Ϯϟ ΎϨΣ· .ΝΎΣΎϳ ΏϮϠγ ζϣ Ω ϮϫΎϣ !ˮΔϳΪϫ ϦΣΎη ζϣϮϬϠϋΎϣϭ :ΓΩΎϤΣ .Ϳ ϖϠΧ ϲϓ ϰΌΑ Ϛη ϙΎϳΎϔϛ ϲΧΎϳ :ΩΆϓ !ΔδΒϛ !ΔδΒϛ :ϯήΧ ΓήϫΎϋ .ΔϣϮϜΤϟ ΕϮϳ :ϦϤΣήϟ ΪΒϋ !ΔϋήδΑ ϱήΟ .ΕϮϳ Ζϗϭ Ωϭ ˮϪϳ· ΕϮϳ:ΓΩΎϤΣ To listen to the dialogue/watch the movie, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9Q_- LV5X90