Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  intencja autora
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Hirsch o interpretacji. Analiza krytyczna

100%
Szahaj A.
Przestrzenie Teorii
|
2013
|
issue 20
187-205
EN
The main aim of the article is to reconstruct and critique E.D. Hirsch’s position in the debate about the necessary conditions and results of any interpretation. The author of this article seeks to demonstrate the difficulties connected with the intentionalist approach to the theory of interpretation which is typical of E.D. Hirsch and which unjustifiably privileges authorial intention. He also attempts to uncover the hidden assumptions of this approach by showing that, generally speaking, the dualist tendencies that are present in Hirsch’s theory cannot be justified. One of the objectives of this article is to propose an alternative approach to interpretation, which has been inspired by Stanley Fish and which emphasizes the integrity and monistic nature of interpretation as well as its constructivist and inevitably evaluative character. The author points to the fact that the arbitrarily established evaluation limits are unjustified as there is an element of evaluation on every level of interpretation and that the difference between understanding and interpretation cannot be validated. Also, one cannot interpret a text without each time referring to the social and cultural context.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Dokuczliwy skrzyp hermeneutycznego koła – komentarz do artykułu Andrzeja Szahaja

100%
Szajnert D.
Przestrzenie Teorii
|
2013
|
issue 20
207-217
EN
This essay is merely an additional commentary on the article entitled “Hirsch o interpretacji. Analiza krytyczna” (“Hirsch on interpretation. A critical analysis”). I do not focus here on Szahaj’s detailed objections to the concepts proposed by the author of Validity in Interpretation. I concentrate instead on the idea that forms the basis for such objections, i.e. radical, cultural interpretative constructivism. As a skeptical intentionalist, I cannot fully share his opinion and, therefore, I draw attention to views according to which the constructivist paradigm is becoming conventionalized and exhausted (especially in the humanities) and to the possible ways in which it can be overcome.
3

Tekst „edytorski” czy „wieloautorski”. Kilka uwag o heterogeniczności edytorstwa naukowego

51%
Bem P.
Pamiętnik Literacki
|
2020
|
vol. 111
|
issue 4
19-30
PL
Artykuł dotyczy teoretycznych i praktycznych problemów edytorstwa naukowego. Autor w szczególności skupia się na metodologicznej polaryzacji edytorstwa na świecie. Przedstawione argumenty przekonują, że nie istnieje i nie będzie istnieć jeden sposób uprawiania edytorstwa, a dążenia do ustalenia uniwersalnych metod stosowanych w tej dyscyplinie nie mogą przynieść skutku. Różne są bowiem – jak twierdzi autor – cele, jakie wyznaczają swojej pracy edytorzy, oraz rozbieżne stosowane przez nich definicje podstawowych pojęć, będących fundamentem i determinantem rozwiązań praktycznych. Na podstawie tekstologicznej historii wydania „Podróży Gulliwera” autor przekonuje, że edytor, chcący przygotować współczesną edycję tego tekstu, niezależnie od reprezentowanej opcji metodologicznej, stanie przed zadaniem karkołomnym, którego wynik nie będzie mógł satysfakcjonować wszystkich czytelników.
EN
The article refers to the theoretical and practical problems of scholarly editing. The author primarily focuses his attention on the methodological polarisation of editing in the world. The presented arguments convince that there is not, and never will be, a single mode of editing practice, and striving to formulate universal methods within this discipline cannot be conceived. There are various aims, as the author claims, with which the editors equip their work, and so dissimilar are definitions of the central notions that establish ground and determine the practical solutions. As based on the textological history of “Gulliver’s Travels”, the author assures that the editor wishing to prepare a contemporary edition of the text faces a challenging task, the result of which will fail to satisfy all the readers.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.