Writer’s Intention and Reader’s Interpretation from an Integrative-Methodological Standpoint
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46991/BYSU.B/2025.16.3.063Keywords:
author, reader, cognition, aesthetics, hermeneutics, stylistics.Abstract
The present article targets the methodologies of literary text analysis with an emphasis on the exploration of writer’s intention and the way it is interpreted by readers. The main approaches covered in the present study are cognitive-stylistic analysis of texts with the objective of evaluating the aesthetics and disclosing the authorial intention of the text, hermeneutic interpretation with the purpose of studying the reader’s understanding of the text under discussion. The study of metaphors coined in J. London’s novel “White Fang” and the comparative analysis of their Armenian equivalents distinguished in the respective translation revealed that the integration of cognitive-stylistic, semantic and hermeneutic methods into the examination of literary texts contributes to the revelation of the author’s intention and determination of its interpretation. It can also be a possible solution for defining the criteria to assess and determine the aesthetic value of texts in the domain of verbal art.
References
Լոնդոն Ջ․ (2017) Սպիտակ ժանիք (թարգմ․՝ Վ․ Միքայելյան), Երևան, Էդիթ-պրինտ (London J. (2017). Spitak Zhanik, Yerevan: Edit Print (in Armenian, trans. by V. Mikayelyan)
Մադոյան Գ․ (2015) Հեղինակի մտադրությունը որպես տեքստաբանական քննության առարկա․/ Գ․ Մադոյան / ատենախոսություն, Երևանի պետական համալսարան (Madoyan G, (2015). Heginaki mtadrutyuny vorpes tekstabanakan qnnutyan ararka (Author’s Intention as an Object of Textological Study). Ph.D. dissertation, Yerevan State University (in Armenian)
Barthes R. (1977). Image, Music, Text, USA: Hill and Wang, pp. 52-148.
Bleich D. (1978). Subjective Criticism, US: The John Hopkins University Press, pp. 146–153.
Culpeper J. (2009). Reflections on a Cognitive Stylistic Approach to Characterization. In Brône G., Vandaele J. (eds.) (2009), Cognitive Poetics, Goals, Gains and Gaps), Berlin-New York, Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 125-161, < doi.org/10.1515/9783110213379.1.125> Accessed: May 24, 2025
Eco U. (1992). Interpretation and History. In Collini S. (ed.) (1992), Interpretation and Overinterpretation Umberto Eco with Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler, Christiner Brooke-Rose. UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23-44.
Eco U. (1992). Overinterpreting things. In Collini S. (ed.) (1992), Interpretation and Overinterpretation Umberto Eco with Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler, Christiner Brooke-Rose. UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45-66.
Eco U. (1992). Between Author and Text. In Collini S. (ed.) (1992), Interpretation and Overinterpretation Umberto Eco with Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler, Christiner Brooke-Rose. UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 67-88.
Fauconnier G. (2007). Mental Spaces. In Geerarts D. Cuyckens H. (eds.) (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 351-360.
Fauconnier G., Turner M. (2002). The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending and Mind’s Hidden Complexities, New York: Basic Books, pp. 44-47.
Fish S. (1970). Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics. In New Literary History. US: John Hopkins University Press. <https://doi.org/10.2307/468593> Accessed: May 24, 2025, pp. 130-135
Freud S. (1959). Creative Writers and Day-Dreaming. In Strachey J. (ed.) (1959), Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, the Hogarth Press, Vol. 9, pp. 145-150.
Gasparyan S. (2006). On Objectivity in Understanding Verbal Art. In La Conscenza della liltteratura. The Knowledge of Literature, Italy: Bergamo University Press, Vol. V, pp. 17-45.
Gasparyan S. (2019). A Methodological Mechanism for Applying the Hermeneutical Approach. In Armenian Folia Anglistika. International Journal of English Studies. Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press <https://doi.org/10.46991/AFA/2019.15.1.009> Accessed: May 24, 2025
Ghazala H. (2011). Cognitive Stylistics and the Translator, London: Sayab Books, pp. 31-71.
Grady J. (2007). Metaphor. In Geerarts D., Cuyckens H, (ed.) (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 190-195.
Holland N. (2009). Literature and the Brain, Florida: the PsyArt Foundation, pp. 40-321.
Johnson M. (2006). Mind Incarnate: From Dewey to Damasio. In Daedalus. US: MIT Press, Vol. 135, 533-545, < https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00974984> Accessed: May 24, 2025
Kant E. (1929). Critique of Pure Reason, trans. by Smith N. K., UK: MacMillan, pp. 152-160,
Lancashire I. (2007). Cognitive Stylistics and Literary Imagination, Canada: University of Toronto, pp. 27-35.
Langacker R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 74-75.
Leibniz G. (2008). Theodicy: A Defense of Theism. In Pojman L. (ed.) (2008), Philosophy of Religion: an Anthology. Belmont: Thomson/Wadsworth, pp. 152-158.
London J. (1906). White Fang, New York: the MacMillan Company, pp. 5-79
Piaget J, (1936). La naissance de l’intelligence chez l’enfant. Switzerland: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Poole R. (1972). Towards Deep Subjectivity, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 95-96.
Reddick J., Edmundson M. (2003). Sigmund Freud: Beyond the Pleasure Principle, New York: Penguin Books, pp. 45-52.
Sanders J., Spooren W. (1997). Perspective, Subjectivity and Modality from A Cognitive Linguistic Point of View. In Liebert W.-A., Redeker G. and Waugh L. (eds.) (1997), Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, XIV, Issue 151, pp. 86-89 < doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.08san> (Accessed: 2025.06.24)
Semino E. (2009). Text worlds. In Brône G., Vandaele J. (ed.) (1997), Cognitive Poetics, Goals, Gains and Gap. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 33-47.
Stockwell P. (2002). Cognitive Poetics: An Introduction, Routledge, New York: Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 28-33.
Turner M. (2007). “Conceptual Integration”. In Geerarts D., Cuyckens H. (ed.), (2007), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 378-385.
Будагов Р. А. (1972) О предмете языкознания. Серия литературы и языка, М.: Известие АН ССРОПРМ, вып. 5, – с. 401-412. (Budagov R. (1972). O predmete yazykoznaniya (On the Subject of Linguistics). In Izvestiya Akademii Nauk (Bullletine of the Academy of Sciences, USSR) Vol. 5, pp. 401-412)
Виноградов В. В. (1971) О теории художественной речи. М․: Высшая школа. (Vinogradov V. (1971). O teorii khudozhestvennoy rechi (On the Theory of Literary Speech), Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola)
Виноградов В. В. (1959) О языке художественной литературы. М․: Государственное издательство художественной литературы (Vinogradov V. (1959). O yazyke khudozhestvennoy literatury (On the Language of Literarure), Moscow: Gosudarstvennoye izdatel’stvo khudozhestvennoy literatury)
Толстой Л. Н. (1953) О литературе. М․։ Гослитиздат. (Tolstoy L. (1953). O literature (On Literature). Moscow: Goslitizdat).
Фуко М. (1996) Что такое автор? Воля к истине: по ту сторону знания, власти и сексуальности. Работы разных лет (М. Фуко). М․: Касталь,– c. 35-40. (Foucault M. (1996), Chto takoye avtor? In Volya k istine: po tu storonu znaniya, vlasti i seksual’nosti. Raboty raznykh let. Moscow: Kastal’ (in Russian) pp.35-40)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Seda Gasparyan, Nelli Sargsyan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
