1. The role of intention in interpretation Theory combined with empirical research on reading Cecilia Therman, University of Helsinki HERMES summer school Prague Jun 18 th, 2015

2. Structure of the presentation Intentions and understanding language / literature Intentions and writing Understanding of literary texts

3. Intentions and understanding language Ludwig Wittgenstein: Philosophical Investigations §23 Understanding of language intertwined with understanding the activity in which language is used Intentions are an integral part of understanding human activity, and language

4. Intentions in understanding literature Claassen (2012): Readers will form an understanding of the author’s intentions whether they intend to or not Asch (1952) Readers interpret the text differently depending on who they assume the speaker is (Lenin / Jefferson) Gibbs (1991): Readers will work harder and find more interpretations if they assume a novel metaphor is written by a human in stead of a computer Zunshine (2006): Reading involves using our Theory of Mind to interpret the characters

5. Intentions in writing Searle (1983): Intention-in-action, e.g. driving to work Flower (1988): empirical research of writers at work shows that intentions are a web of purposes, often not clearly articulated

6. Understanding of literary texts Very few aspects of our understanding of a text are clearly articulated when we are finished with reading Mainly our understanding is potential to form an opinion, if unprompted remains largely unarticulated Anderson & Pichert (1978): recall influenced by schema change even after reading Zwaan & van Oostendorp (1993), Rapp & Kendeou (2007): spatial representation not created, updating only partial Sanford & Emmott (2012): aspects of a text not processed in equal detail Articulated understanding emerges in transaction with the text, the reader, and the environment (cf. Rosenblatt)

7. Conclusion I Intentions are an integral part of understanding literary texts Intentions during writing are intentions-in-action Ordinary reading results in an understanding that remains largely as potential Traditional literary interpretation which aims to give an explanation for every detail is a highly specialised practice On a general level people agree with each other and the author, the more detailed the interpretation, the more likely it is to differ from articulated intentions or interpretations.

8. Conclusion II Does not mean that tracing the author’s intentions is the only meaningful praxis for literary scholars But interpretations become more interesting if they state clearly how they should be conceptualised vis-a-vis the author’s intentions

9. References Anderson, R.,C., & Pichert, J.,W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 17, 1-12. Asch, S. (1952). Social psychology. New York: Prentice Hall. Claassen, E. (2012). Author representations in literary reading. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Flower, L. (1988). The construction of purpose in writing and reading. College English, 50(5), 528-550. Gibbs, R. W. (1991). Authorial intentions and metaphor comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(1), 11. Retrieved from Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2007). Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 35, 2019-2032. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Sanford, A. J., & Emmott, C.. (2012). Mind, brain and narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1963). Philosophical investigations [Philosophische Untersuchungen] (G. E. M. Anscombe Trans.). (2nd reprint ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Zunshine, L. (2006). Why we read fiction: Theory of mind and the novel. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Zwaan, R. A., & van Oostendorp, U. (1993). Do readers construct spatial representations in naturalistic story comprehension? Discourse Processes, 16, 125-143.