An idea from the chapter, “Literature, Meaning, and Interpretation,” by Jonathan Culler that I found most interesting regarding the relationship between language and meaning was the role of intention in the determination of literary meaning. Culler argues that interpretation of an authors work is not settled by consulting the author, but by what he or she was able to successfully embody in the work. I found this to be interesting because I agree with this theory that literary works are open to interpretation by the reader based on what the author was able to deliver. I believe that oftentimes, the message that the reader or audience takes away from the authors work is different from what the author initially desired to deliver. This does not mean that the author failed to deliver their message in a successful way, but proves a point that it is truly important for authors to communicate exactly what they desire for the reader to grasp. However, authors sometimes intentionally leave endings ambiguous for readers to interpret.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
Hi, I agree with your opinion that literary works are open to interpretation based on what the author was able to deliver. If literary works can be interpreted by readers in more other ways, it will be more meaningful.
Hello, I think that leaving the ends ambiguous makes the literary work more fun and interesting. Also, when the readers understand meanings other than what authors think, that gives the literary work more value as it becomes multi-meaningful.
Hi, I agree with your opinion that you say that literary works are show to an explanation or meaning that the author want to say. I think if readers understand the meaning of the word which author want to think, then that literary will be more meaningful.