{"id":254,"date":"2009-05-06T16:49:18","date_gmt":"2009-05-06T14:49:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cognitionandculture.local\/?p=254"},"modified":"2023-07-28T22:52:27","modified_gmt":"2023-07-28T20:52:27","slug":"the-interpretive-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cognitionandculture.local\/blogs\/brians-blog\/the-interpretive-process\/","title":{"rendered":"The interpretive process"},"content":{"rendered":"

This is the third installment of a series of posts on a cognitive approach to interpretive traditions (Part One<\/a> – Part Two<\/a>).<\/p>\n

One of the things people do with texts is read them. This is certainly not the only thing people do with texts, nor, I would argue, is it the primary thing people do with texts, but it is one of the more fundamental things, and even when texts are used for other purposes-such as when one saves a cash register receipt in case one might need to return a purchased item-these other actions are carried out with an eye to the possibility, at least, of someone reading the text.<\/p>\n

Scholarly approaches to the reading and interpretation of texts tend to fall into one of two broad tendencies. The first is the classic model of literary interpretation wherein the reader uses clues from the text to form ideas about what the text says. This model of reading tends to envision the single reader in isolation with the text and to focus on the features of the text that guide-well, should guide-the reader to the author’s intended interpretation. This model tends to be highly normative, and I do not think was ever really intended to be a description of how people actually read.<\/p>\n

The reaction to the classical model was a whole variety of reader-response theories that emphasize the active role of the reader in creating meaning. In some of these theories the text is almost entirely incidental. The anthropological versions of these theories have tended to emphasize discourse around texts, and to see reading as just a variety of social interaction. In these theories the text does nothing more than provide an occasion for interpretation, and the structure of the text is seldom discussed at all.<\/p>\n

I’ve never been comfortable with either approach.<\/p>\n

I think that much about the reader-response approach is correct, provided that we understand reader-response theory as a psychosocial theory, not a literary theory: it is not a theory of meaning, but an outline of the formation of mental representations and their attributions, at least those involving texts. Anthropological studies examining the discourse around texts can be very helpful. James Bielo’s recent Words upon the Word (<\/a>Bielo, 2009) is an excellent example of an anthropological study that examines the formation of interpretations in small group Bible studies, where the formation of interpretations is partly collaborative and tied to the communities’ self-definition.<\/p>\n

But there is still something to be said for the classic, formalist model. People do read by themselves. People do use the text to reconstruct an intended meaning. People do not merely read into texts what they have been told it says. The structure of the text does matter for what people think about it. If one observes instances of interpretive discourse, one commonly-though not always-sees reference to the structure of the text.<\/p>\n

There are three major problems with historical and literary studies of interpretation, as I see them:<\/p>\n