The focus hence shifts from the text as an interpretable object to the interpretive strategies it is able to solicit. However, we have still not solved the problem of how to define the intentio operis. Saying that the text expresses its intentions negatively does not necessarily imply that there is no structural matrix capable of generating all possible legitimate interpretations. It only means that we cannot get to know them unless we bang against them that is, unless our hypotheses are falsified by something that gets in the way of our interpretive habits.
This may be good enough for a single analysis, but it is still insufficient for a theory that aims to explain how human beings saturate the world with meaning through the interpretation of texts. What is lost in this restricted view of the text is the idea of the latter as a presuppositional machine that is able to encourage certain inferences, and not just to discourage others. Every empirical interpretation stemming from the text generates some of the outcomes potentially contained within the text, without ever exhausting or capturing the deep structure of the intentio operis once and for all.
We have seen how in Eco the intentio operis may be understood as a seminal possibility that virtually includes all its possible emanations all its empirical interpretations. After which, through some sort of Lamarckian heredity of acquired characters, the interpretations produced by the empirical readers if put at the disposal of the cultural community are absorbed into the intentio operis itself, thus offering themselves to new fertilizations.
At this point we might ask ourselves whether in this embrace between text and reader, the author has a role to play or if, once the intentio auctoris has been translated into intentio operis , he simply plays the gooseberry, so to speak. In other words, we must understand whether, other than being the terminus a quo of the semiosic act, the intentio auctoris may also be understood as the terminus ad quem of the interpretive process.
Indeed, if the author manages to express his intentions in the text, in the form of a recognizable communicative strategy, then there is no need to peek into his black-box to know what they are. If, on the other hand, he does not manage to express his intentions, then they are irredeemably lost and bad luck to him.
The counterintuitive semiotic idea that the interpretation of a text must be completely free from the attempt to reconstruct its intentio auctoris derives from the fact that for a long time the literary text 1. It is quite obvious that when somebody says something in everyday communication, we are usually interested to find out what this person really wants to tell us.
In some cases, such as confessions, intimate conversation or psychoanalytic exchanges, the rules of the game actually require the interpreter to delve into the deepest layers of the intentio auctoris , in order to bring to light what the intentio operis is possibly concealing. In The Role of the Reader , both the empirical reader and author are cast out from the field of semiotics, [25] to be replaced by their textual simulacra, specifically by the Model Reader and Model Author.
The latter is a discursive strategy, a voice, a style, at any rate something internal to the text. The decision to include the circumstances of utterance and the type of linguistic act in the schema of levels of textual cooperation shows that for Eco the figure of the empirical author is not completely eliminated from the act of textual cooperation. To answer this question, she must choose, from all the possible meanings of each one of the words forming the text, those which plausibly the author as a spatio-temporally localized individual with whose communicative habits the interpreter is more or less familiar had in mind.
And yet, although the intentio auctoris is in itself impenetrable and, at least in the case of the interpretation of a poetical text as we understand it today, largely negligible, its influence on the interpretive process is never completely eliminated. The very decision to interpret a text as a fictional rather than a factual narrative that is, to grasp its illocutory force is the result of a guessing game concerning the communicative intentions of the author.
The fact that these intentions are usually made evident from the generic clues which are manifested in the text and the paratext does not prove that the intentio auctoris is irrelevant. Once the humble rights of this shadow of an empirical author are guaranteed, the reader may take the interpretive paths she or he fancies. If, on the contrary, the bonds of the intentio auctoris were to be totally removed, this would result in the total emancipation of the reader theorized by certain deconstructionists and the consequent unconditional opening of the text.
In brief, the meaning, or rather meanings of a text derive from the tensive and sometimes variable interaction between the three intentions, none of which may be completely put aside to the advantage of the other two. Building a semiotic theory on an unwarranted generalization the idea that all interpretive cooperation follows the steps of artistic fruition has possibly caused many of the aporias discussed in this paper.
Blasi , Giulio. Bakespeare: Paradoxical operations on the concept of author. Versus Search in Google Scholar. Buyssens , Eric. Les langages et le discours. Cavicchioli , Sandra. Le sirene.
Analisi semiotiche intorno a un racconto di Tomasi di Lampedusa. Bologna : Clueb. Davidson , Donald. Radical interpretation. In Inquiries into truth and interpretation , — De Mauro , Tullio. Senso e significato. Bari : Adriatica. Derrida , Jacques. De la grammatologie. Paris : Minuit. Dijk van , Teun. Philosophy of action and theory of narrative. Poetics 5. Eco , Umberto. See Selected Bibliography in this volume.
Fabbri , Paolo. La svolta semiotica. Gadamer , Hans Georg. Warheit und Method. Iser , Wolfgang. The implied reader. Jakobson , Roman. Closing statements: Linguistics and poetics. In Thomas Sebeok ed. Nanni , Luciano. Contra dogmaticos. Bologna : Cappelli. Pareyson , Luigi. Milan : Bompiani. The professor thinks she is asking about reading materials but soon learns that the student is actually asking about the statues of the text in his class, in her words: "In this class do we believe in poems and things, or is it just us?
The professor learns that the student previously took a class with Fish, turning her to "one of his victims" in suggesting that the interpretation of a text is open and indeterminate. Fish turns this dialogue on itself in order to talk about the possibility of a definite interpretation and the relativistic dangers of reader based subjectivity.
Although he does not quote him, Fish corresponds to Roland Barthes' "The Death of the Author" where he argued that the reader, not the writer, as the authority over the interpretation of the text. Fish addresses the criticism levied against the idea of the reader being the locus of interpretation and not the text itself. Post a Comment. Shakespeare in the Bush interpretive communities no meaning"inherent" in the text "There is simply the conviction that the facts exist in their own self-evident shape and that disagreements are to be resolved by referring the respective parties to the facts as they really are.
In the view that I have been urging, however, disagreements cannot be resolved by reference to the facts, because the facts emerge only in the context of some point of view. Disagreements are not settled by the facts, but are the means by which the facts are settled" issue with literary criticism Raine - tyger is evil?
Hirsch - holiness of the Tyger " If Raine had not already decided that the answer to the poem's final question is "beyond all possible doubt, No," the cabbalistic texts, with their distinction between supreme and inferior deities, would never have suggested themselves to her as Blake's source.
The rhetoric of critical argument, as it is usually conducted in our journals, depends upon a distinction between interpretations on the one hand and the textual and contextual facts that will either support or disconfirm them on the other; but as the example of Blake's "Tyger" shows, text, context, and interpretation all emerge together, as a consequence of a gesture the declaration of belief that is irreducibly interpretive. If they were, they would not attempt to answer its questions.
It would be my answer too; but the real question is what gives us the right so to be right.
0コメント