Continental literary interpretation , it is fully developed in the manner of the Anglo – American analytic philosophy , therefore , no sustained research ol their distinctive strategies . So it takes a much more conservative than the hermeneutical theory ” romantic ” ED Hirsch position ( such as possession – Not quite convincingly that Hirsch simply says that we ” must ” to the intent of the author’s real focus in determining the meaning of a text and, by Hirsch , we always do , then no matter how hard we try to come up with an alternative approach ) , but does so without the slightest attention to the ontology if the characteristic historical existence of the hermeneutical tradition and post – Heideggerian and without any attention to the complexity of conceptual talk about the intentions of the author. The result is that , although it is a very useful book , articulate as the case related to defend positions less skill is very narrow and ultimately more than sufficiently clearly unsustainable in fact. Juhl says he is not an ” empirical ” theory ” , but an analytical theory progress … subject to empirical constraints ” ( p. 10 ) . This apparently means that the argument is meant to reveal the necessary conceptual truths about ” what it is that of a literary text to have some sense ” ( p. 4 ) . It never reached: it was not entirely clear how you do it, even in the effort. At first glance , one of his alleged opponents (especially , perhaps, Hirsch and Monroe Beardsley ) a coherent alternative to its argument could formulate , then , on his own point of view , it would be wrong because it is essential in his eyes , ” we expressed such a concept [ of the meaning of a literary work ] , that such a concept [ all ) practice of literary interpretation underlies ” ( p. . IX ) . Both Hirsch and Beardsley (and of course many others ) says about his own vision Juhl , that ( i ) there are other alternatives , and ( ii ) they are or may be ( in fact) more convincing that the own thesis Juhl . What Juhl trying to do is to show that some authors such complaints are so incoherent and ultimately subscribe to his own position against her. But he never to show that there is no escaping the conclusion or another , perhaps more cautious or clever in this regard as it distinguishes failed to escape from his maneuvers . Succeeded More importantly , it is never very clear : ( a) what he means by saying that the meaning of a text of a call to the intention of the author is set , ( b ) the intention of the author can be determined empirically in all cases of reading a text or ( c ) if the argument is not without significance in the sense that everything turns out to be the meaning of a text is what the author intended. In short , it makes explicit account of how to use as a criterion to determine . The meaning of a text, the intention of the author
The problems that the bill Juhl at least the following elements. For one thing , it solves a fundamental ambiguity about the use of ” intent ” in reference to the intention of the author. Clearly , on its own terms and in their opposition to the doctrine associated Hirsch , he uses the term in a psychological sense thoroughbred . But he opposes excessive reliance on biographical details of the author states that ” even relying on the rules of the language , the claim that a particular interpretation is correct or not support is an implicit call to the likely use of the author of the words in question ” ( p. 150 ) . But he never let on , and some points of view plausible , it can not be done . For example , you may need a bit in the spirit of , say, Saussure and Wittgenstein that no one can internalize psychological rules of a natural language or culture with respect to which certain statements are interpreted correctly. Fully If so , then use this scheme should not lead to the thesis Juhl . And ( he showed that the critical interpretation invariably appeal to an independent test of the stated goal authorial intention entire argument collapses second Juhl lo never reached the calls site ( frankly , simply says , but no support) is that the only viable theory of meaning implies that the meaning of a statement , or in accordance with ( or author) psychological intention of the speaker here , perhaps , it is near some of HP Grice first positions of the speakers on the significance and meaning of words . Thirdly , it does not show that the interpretation of the texts , or only ” designed ” to provide is the meaning of the text rather how to find . Sometimes, for example , a property inherent in a text or actual object the interpretation of a text designed to get an idea of how the shape or structure of one could interpret give coherent text is not very different from the way we could talk about the structure of a musical composition . Kafka ‘s Castle , for example , is often said that invite interpretation despite the fact that the meaning of the individual words ol sentences and even paragraphs and longer sequences ol phrases is very clear and relatively unambiguous. Juhl do not provide that sense of interpretation that sense of “meaning” or text , so , to increase the validity and his thesis regarding the interpretation and interpreted . fourth, the amalgam Juhl or seriously confuses the fact that the author of a fiction must have in writing a story and claim that ” suggest some beliefs ” they say” expressed ” , ” implicit ” , ” proposed ” , ” successful ” or otherwise normally taken to illoculionary actions of characters to catch in the fictional world include those ol the real author ” as in speech fictional serious [ the saysj beliefs , attitudes, values expressed or implied by good due to the real author of the work … normal illocutionary obligations shall not be suspended ” ( p. 158 ) . yet, it certainly offers no reason to dismiss the charge . feature it takes the issue should be resolved simply by using the theory of language (without argument) that the meaning of any expression or is consistent with the intent of speaker. Finally , it fails to make a convincing argument ( or even very relevant ) that ” the literary work is one and only one correct interpretation ” ( p. 198 ) present here. Juhl not easy to understand the formal possibility that interpretations truth values or values truth as probability and improbability , giving conflicting interpretations of a model of truth and lie incompatible Nol made on the substituted model can be assigned , or , more practically , that the nature of a literary text ( never really discussed in an explicit way ) can probably invite or later , that the possibility of such an alternative model of alternative and ” inconsistent interpretations defend ” does not mean ( s) to ask , discuss , or even addressing the intentional theory of meaning that Juhl preference ( a fortiori , for its apparent emptiness roads) . It is , of course , refreshing to have a literary scholar Board of analytic philosophy find Juhl done in some detail . So many of those who theorize about literature today have their philosophical roots in suggestive but certainly curious literature phenomenology , hermeneutics , structuralism , semiotics , Marxism , deconstruclive theory , and others . Juhl ‘s work is a kind of hybrid , ie promotes analysis rather Beardsley (methods as in the famous ” fallacy” intentional paper Wimsatt and Beardsley ) , but his thesis is still on the right side of the strictest hernieneutic romantic thinkers ( perpendicular to the view Beardsley ) . Unlike many Anglo – American analysts , Juhl is not so ignorant of the complexity of intentionality and historicity that continental philosophy has been so palpable he is willing to reject their apparent relevance to the perceived clarity of the analysis itself . Here , ironically , he simply failed to notice that , by a kind of ruse of history , philosophers have analyzed tic actually converged with continental thinkers discover necessary truths ( what the book is all about Juhl ) can in principle be clearly defined empirical events and supposedly a priori conclusions depend on the exposure as inadequate by reflections across the diachronic changes in the cultural experience . Finally, this book shows Juhl by example is the need for a truly comprehensive account of the intentionality of the language , literature in particular. Which perhaps the most surprising interpretation the logical consequence of this requirement is that nowhere Juhl discusses the nature of the relationship of reading ( critical reading and interpreting ) to read text . Grease is widely recognized problematic theories of literature center . and criticism .