文本解释是虚构的吗?

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Gunther Scholz
{"title":"文本解释是虚构的吗?","authors":"Gunther Scholz","doi":"10.18287/2782-2966-2022-2-4-44-52","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the 19th century philology became the most important human science following history, and the interpretation methods were refined. However, in the 20th century, fundamental doubts arose about the possibility and the sense of the interpretation procedure, and an increasingly sharp criticism was expressed. It was aimed at the presupposition of a certain, unchangeable meaning of the texts. The diversity of interpretations seemed to confirm that. The interpretations could also be called \"fictions\". However, this essential doubt about a certainty of the text meaning contradicts the linguistic communication in the society. These critics ignore the fact that there are very different forms of texts and the interpretations in different cultural areas pursue very different objectives. It is reasonable to distinguish between criticism and hermeneutics to regulate the controversy of interpretations: while the latter tries to explore the author's perspective, in criticism the interpreter is allowed to bring his own perspective to bear. These two concepts are usually related in the interpretation process, but can be separated in case of controversy.","PeriodicalId":52036,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are text interpretations fictions?\",\"authors\":\"Gunther Scholz\",\"doi\":\"10.18287/2782-2966-2022-2-4-44-52\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the 19th century philology became the most important human science following history, and the interpretation methods were refined. However, in the 20th century, fundamental doubts arose about the possibility and the sense of the interpretation procedure, and an increasingly sharp criticism was expressed. It was aimed at the presupposition of a certain, unchangeable meaning of the texts. The diversity of interpretations seemed to confirm that. The interpretations could also be called \\\"fictions\\\". However, this essential doubt about a certainty of the text meaning contradicts the linguistic communication in the society. These critics ignore the fact that there are very different forms of texts and the interpretations in different cultural areas pursue very different objectives. It is reasonable to distinguish between criticism and hermeneutics to regulate the controversy of interpretations: while the latter tries to explore the author's perspective, in criticism the interpreter is allowed to bring his own perspective to bear. These two concepts are usually related in the interpretation process, but can be separated in case of controversy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52036,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Semiotic Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Semiotic Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18287/2782-2966-2022-2-4-44-52\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Semiotic Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18287/2782-2966-2022-2-4-44-52","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

19世纪,文献学成为继历史之后最重要的人文科学,其解释方法得到了完善。然而,在20世纪,对解释程序的可能性和意义产生了根本性的质疑,并表达了越来越尖锐的批评。它的目的是预设文本的某种不可改变的意义。各种各样的解释似乎证实了这一点。这些解释也可以被称为“虚构”。然而,这种对文本意义确定性的本质怀疑与社会中的语言交际相矛盾。这些批评忽略了这样一个事实,即文本的形式非常不同,不同文化区域的解读追求的目标也非常不同。区分批评和解释学是合理的,以规范解释的争议:后者试图探索作者的观点,而批评则允许解释者运用自己的观点。这两个概念在解释过程中通常是相关的,但在争议的情况下可以分开。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are text interpretations fictions?
In the 19th century philology became the most important human science following history, and the interpretation methods were refined. However, in the 20th century, fundamental doubts arose about the possibility and the sense of the interpretation procedure, and an increasingly sharp criticism was expressed. It was aimed at the presupposition of a certain, unchangeable meaning of the texts. The diversity of interpretations seemed to confirm that. The interpretations could also be called "fictions". However, this essential doubt about a certainty of the text meaning contradicts the linguistic communication in the society. These critics ignore the fact that there are very different forms of texts and the interpretations in different cultural areas pursue very different objectives. It is reasonable to distinguish between criticism and hermeneutics to regulate the controversy of interpretations: while the latter tries to explore the author's perspective, in criticism the interpreter is allowed to bring his own perspective to bear. These two concepts are usually related in the interpretation process, but can be separated in case of controversy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Chinese Semiotic Studies
Chinese Semiotic Studies HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信