One way to show that text interpretation can be treated as a scientific problem is to show that the standards that are currently used in the natural sciences when dealing with problems not involving meaningful material can also be successfully employed in the case of text interpretation. These standards involve intersubjective intelligibility, testability with the use of evidence, rational argumentation, and making methodological decisions aiming at the attainment of truth, accuracy, simplicity and other epistemic values. In the case of text (...) interpretation—despite the fact that we deal with meaningful material—hypotheses can be formulated, consequences can be drawn by deduction, and these can be tested against empirical data. This claim is substantiated by the provision of an example of a scientific text. (shrink)

Relativistic accounts of interpretation are widespread in literary studies. According to these accounts, interpretations of works of literature can, at best, be relatively valid. Aiming for objective validity, proponents of relativism say, is an intrinsically flawed approach to the interpretation of literature. The book offers a comprehensive analysis of relativistic theories of literary interpretation. It examines the different forms relativistic theories can take, presents the arguments that were given for their justification, and gives a critical assessment of these arguments. The (...) main part of the book discusses four of the most prevailing argumentative strategies in favor of interpretive relativism: deconstructive relativism, pragmatic relativism, alethic (or logical) relativism, and constructive relativism. These types of relativistic theories are examined through the examples of four actual, fleshed-out theories of interpretation proposed by Jacques Derrida and other deconstructionists, Stanley Fish, Joseph Margolis, and Michael Krausz. Their specific theories are scrutinized in great detail but with an overarching purpose: The study aims at highlighting general problems and difficulties connected to the different justifications for interpretive relativism. The last part of the book deals with a number of theses that enjoy some popularity in literary studies – common assumptions that at least under some reading may have relativistic consequences. In particular, the following theses are discussed: the claim that ‘every reader interprets her/his own text’; the claim that readers should not aim for ‘true’ interpretations but for interpretations that are ‘plausible’ (with plausibility being construed without any appeal to truth); and the claim that the validity of interpretations is, in a non-trivial sense, relativeto the different interpretive aims readers may pursue. Finally, the question is raised (and answered at least in broad outline) to what extent the well-known fact of a vast plurality of divergent and sometimes incompatible theories, approaches, and methods in literary studies has any relativistic implications. (shrink)