|
|||||
| Home | Article 5 of . Language |
List of Articles | Glossary |
| < previous | Section 6 |
The Text
in Literary .Theory
Continental literary theory includes a discussion on the roles of the author and reader of texts. Since I am a writer and web author, I give my views on this matter.
The sign is relative, with a subjective signifier and an objective signified. A text is built around signs. So a text can be considered to have both a subjective mode and an objective one as well. It is an analysis of the objective mode that appears to be missing from modern literary theory.
When the text is reduced to an arrangement of relative subjective signs then we have the Idealist stance of F. R. Leavis. When it is reduced to an arrangement of non-relative objective signs then we have the realist stance of Roland Barthes. Either way of reading a text is valid in its own way but it cannot be used to prove that other ways of reading are wrong. Both a Barthesian reading of a text and a Leavisite reading of the same text reflect partial understanding of the linguistic sign. The reader is free to make his own choice on how he reads.
In a text there are three tripartite relationships functioning simultaneously.
1) Individual * language – society.
2) Author * text – reader.
3) Referent * signifier – signified.
In modern literary theory the objects to the left of * are ignored, and only those to the right of it are accepted and analysed. Yet the referent gives rise to the signifier and signified, the individual gives rise to language and society, and the author generates the text and reader.
Literature is interesting to the extent that it is written by an individual, who is an author, and who acts as a locus (or referent) for interesting and /or original ideas.
In reality, those objects to the left of * are the source of all values and meanings. Those to the right are the arenas where values and meanings are practised. The referent gives rise to value since it becomes the model for future productions or categorisations of it.
There is no meaning in language considered just as language. Similarly, when the text is considered to be autonomous and self-sufficient then there is no meaning in it either. Nor is there meaning in ‘floating’ signifiers. The middle terms of the three relationships merely transmit meaning, they do not originate it. Language, text and linguistic signifier are all relative products.
Consider the relationships between author, text and reader. The author and the reader are social products in so far as they have values ; they are individuals in so far as they have meanings. The text has objective importance as a medium for the transmission of values – such values become objectified in social practice. The text has subjective importance as the medium for the transmission of meanings – it facilitates the development of self-awareness in the reader.
The complex issue of what happens when a person reads a text is due to the interaction of values and meanings within the person’s consciousness. The text is the locus of interaction where the values and meanings of the author engage the values and meanings of the reader.
My view of the textual interaction is :
Not all texts may have this full interaction. For example, a political manifesto will usually contain values but no meanings. And many readers are not seeking meanings.
Theories of reader responses need to combine psychology with philosophy. Philosophy by itself is not enough.
|
The articles in this section are :
The Text in Literary Theory
Copyright
© 2003 Ian Heath
All Rights Reserved
The copyright is mine, and the article is free to use. It can be reproduced anywhere, so long as the source is acknowledged.
Ian Heath
London, UKMy email address is likely to change.
So if you want to write to me, go to the Home page and use the address at the bottom,or click on http://www.modern-thinker.co.uk/