Interpretowanie literatury: obrona intencjonalizmu i pluralizmu

• Authors: Aleksander Bjelčevič

Title variants

EN

LITERARY INTERPRETATION: IN DEFENCE OF INTENTIONALISM AND PLURALISM

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

I defend two positions concerning interpretation of literature: hypothetical in-tentionalism and critical pluralism. I will address four questions: What is the concept of interpretation? Do we interpret literature differently than non-literature? What are the aims of interpretation? Are there many acceptable interpretations of a given work (the question of pluralism)? My answers are: The concept of interpretation refers in particular to the interpretation of tropes and figures (metaphors, ironies, allegories, etc..). Literary tropes and figures can be interpreted the same way as non-literary. The question “What is the author trying to say with his literary work” is a legitimate question (although sometimes difficult) and seeking the answer to this question is a proper aim of interpretation. When interpreting a literary work readers can make several acceptable (and unacceptable) hypotheses about authorial intention; and the key to the meaning of a literary work is given by the best hypothesis from the position of an informed and competent reader. In addition to that an interpretation may have other legitimate aims (what meanings a text could have for non intended/non implied audience; making a text the best possible artwork etc.). Plurality of interpretations is therefore possible due to different acceptable hypotheses about author’s intentions and different intepretative aims.

Keywords

EN

INTENTIONALISM; PLURALISM

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Bielsko-Bialski
• Journal: Świat i Słowo
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 11
• Issue: 1(20)
• Pages: 27-37

Dates

published

2013-06

Contributors

author

Aleksander Bjelčevič

• University of Ljubljana (Univerza v Ljubljani), Kongresni trg 12, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija

References

• S. Lukes, Niezwykłe oświecenie profesora Caritata. Komedia idei, tłum. L. Stawowy, Warszawa 2003.
• M. Beardsley, W.K. Wimsatt, Intentional fallacy, „The Sewanee Review” 1946, nr 3, s. 468–488 (dostępny w internecie).
• M. Beardsley, The Authority of the Text (fragmenty The Possibility of Criticism.), [w:] Intention and Interpretation, red. G. Iseminger, Philadelphia 1992, s. 24–40.
• S. Knapp, W.B. Michaels, The Impossibilitiy of Intentionless Meaning, [w:]
• Intention and Interpretation, red. G. Iseminger, Philadelphia 1992, s. 51–64.
• J. Levinson, Intention and Interpretation: A Last Look, [w:] Intention and Interpretation, red. G. Iseminger, Philadelphia 1992, s. 221–256.
• J. Levsinson, Hypothetical Intentionalism: Statement, Objections and Replies, „Contemplating Art: Essays in Aesthetics” 2006 (dostępny w internecie).
• R. Stecker, Interpretation, [w:] The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics, red. B. Gaut, D. McIver Lopes, New York 2002, s. 239–252.
• R. Stecker, Art Interpretation, [w:] Philosophy of Literature. Contemporary and Classic
• Readings – An Anthology, red. E. John, D. McIver Lopes, Malden 2004, s. 273–279.
• U. Eco, Czytanie świata, tłum. M. Woźniak, Kraków 1999.
• Antologia poezji słoweńskiej, wybór, oprac. M. Piechal, Wrocław [i in.] 1973.