An interpretation is considered admissible if it's not in contradiction with the text, but since the text is open and polysemous, the return to the text is often insufficient to determine the validity of the interpretations, which are diverses and can be contradictory. Literary interpretation is both subjective and in part conditioned by interpretative communities (Fish). We cannot use a criterion of truth (true / false) but an intersubjective validation process (admissible / contestable), in other words to be admissible an interpretation must be recognized as such by other readers. We must then turn to the explanation by the readers of the sources of their interpretations. In my educational research, I have shown that teachers refer more to literary culture and students to the values ​​shared in their communities as well as to their personal experiences of the world. Thank you for the rich discussion!

If an interpretation of literature is information about the interpreter's experience of the literature - that is true as long as he or she is not lying about his personal experience. If he claims that his/her interpretation is the only possible interpretation or the true interpretation, we enter another area of true/false - now it becomes a general propositional claim about not him- or herself but about the world. Now we are talking about another kind of information.

By the way, if we reflect over it - there is no such thing as false information. Information is always true, or it is not information. However, it can be hard to tell. Some philosopher (Floridi I think) has this metaphor. If you think you have X as a friend, and it shows that X has all the time just been trying to exploit you and work against your interests, is he now your non-friend, but was earlier your friend? No, he was not at anytime your friend, you were mistaken to believe it.

In my opinion, it all depends on the perspective your take. You can 'judge' from a traditional criticism perspective, but not from one based on reception theory. From a traditional criticism perspective, you assess the leaner's interpretation of authorial intentions. So I guess you judge as wrong any interpretation that does not look acceptable/feasible based on your beliefs/knowledge of authorial intentions.

Dear Mustapha Allami

Your interpretation is valid as long as you can provide evidence to support it from the text you’re examining. Literary texts are open to various readings which are occasionally even contradictory.

Нет ложной интерпретации. Любая трактовка есть факт слияния личного опыта реципиента с культурным событием времени -литературныи текстом. Если мнение автора расходится со мнением реципиента, значит последний смог открыть новый культурный смысл данного текста.

Interpretation varies from one individual to other individual. If a person from literary background for example a literary critic interprets a work of art his ideas are considered and enlisted as one of the remarkable views amidst literati whereas if a budding or a layman interprets according to his own yardstick it is condemned and his ideas are discarded.

This is rational rather than absolute! Interpretation is variable and depends on many factors. Different perspectives, backgrounds personal variations, and interests may sometimes lead to different interpretations which is normal and expected to happen.

Interpretation of other literature can not be judged as false because it represents their point of view according to their field trial environments.

An interpretation is considered admissible if it's not in contradiction with the text, but since the text is open and polysemous, the return to the text is often insufficient to determine the validity of the interpretations, which are diverses and can be contradictory. Literary interpretation is both subjective and in part conditioned by interpretative communities (Fish). We cannot use a criterion of truth (true / false) but an intersubjective validation process (admissible / contestable), in other words to be admissible an interpretation must be recognized as such by other readers. We must then turn to the explanation by the readers of the sources of their interpretations. In my educational research, I have shown that teachers refer more to literary culture and students to the values ​​shared in their communities as well as to their personal experiences of the world. Thank you for the rich discussion!

Well, I agree that there exist many interpretations of the text and all of them have the right to exist until they obey the logics (internal and external) and do not contradict cause-effect relations. Then, we may say, as in natural sciences, that all the hypotheses (in our case-interpretations) have the right to exist until there is a valid scientific proof/demonstration that they are wrong.

First of all, literature allows so much room for different and even contradictory interpretations So, it is difficult to dismiss an interpretation as completely 'wrong' or 'false'.

Sometimes, you can challenge an interpretation if there is clear, unambiguous textual evidence to the contrary.

A false interpretation is an interpretation that is not true. Although the word fallacy is sometimes used as a synonym for false statement, that is not how the word is used in philosophy, mathematics, logic and most formal contexts. ... A lie is a statement that is known to be untrue and is used to mislead.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statement

Misinterpretation and false interpretation are semantically related. In some cases you can use "Misinterpretation" instead a noun phrase "False interpretation". https://thesaurus.plus/related/false_interpretation/misinterpretation

False interpretation is the misunderstanding or misinterpretation of a word, action or event.

It is false depending on two interpretations:

1. if it is not related to the context's implications,

2. if it is not connected with the actual situations (reality) in our life or to be consistent with the permissible mind's eye (imagination). Meeting of minds should be met.

Morton Bloomfield famously remarked that ‘Except for textual scholars who attempt to preserve and protect the verbal surface of a work . . . we may put all interpreters into the general category of allegorists’. The remark is both insightful and deeply problematic, for it deliberately blurs the distinction between allegory and allegoresis. Allegory depends on a consistent one-to-one narrative relationship between vehicle and tenor so that readers have little difficulty in tracing the parallel metaphysical import of a tale. In terms developed by the Russian Formalists, sujet (plot) and fabula (story) are aligned in a simple, decipherable equivalence. Allegoresis, on the other hand, denotes ranges of interpretation provoked by the plot whose tentative realisations float free of definitive textual sanction. Nothing in the sujet determines that one particular range of meanings and no other exhausts the tale’s potential. So, to answer Mustapha's question, an interpretation is 'wrong' if it contradicts a feature of the sujet which is inescapable and cannot be disregarded. Different ranges of interpretation can produce widely differing fabula without being 'wrong' provided they are consonant with the sujet. These different interpretations may be judged as being richer and more satisfying or poorer and less satisfying, but not as right or wrong.

PS: The concept of allegory is better (more presicely) described by the contemporary cognitive linguistics, in particular, by the CMT and blending theory.

Agreed, Iren Boyarkina. There are some good articles in the Symbol and Metaphor journal (2011, issue 2). But I remain undecided as to whether cognitive linguistics is more than a metalanguage for matters which are already well understood in the hermeneutic literature going back centuries.

I think interpretation depends mostly on the two main things. the languages involved and the intention of the interpreter. frankly, the second factor plays the biggest role. I think to interpret correctly and capture correctly the intention of the original writer, you must understand the little things surrounding the text and mind of the creator.

One point to note beforehand – we usually understand the idea of interpretation as a more robust conceptual and material exposition on the work as a whole. An interpretation should seek to explain much more about a work, covering as many of it's distinct elements as possible. It is an understanding of the work as a whole. Hence, interpretation involves a level of coherence, comprehensiveness and self-sufficiency that mere readings, essays or even theoretical exempla lack. This is the bedrock upon which many scholars constitute minimal interpretive validity, from Aristotle onwards (the criteria of necessity and probability are applicable here as well) – does it follow from the text, does it make sense when tested throughout, does it contradict other significant portions of the work, does it fall under its own weight. For example, analysing a single motif from a poem could eventually lead you to an interpretation, but it is not, in itself an interpretation of the whole poem, unless you can point to how that singular motif permeates the whole thing. The very act of interpretation, in that regard, raises the stakes.

I would echo those that mentioned Fish and his framework of interpretive communities, but it is significant to note that the relation here is crucial. True, or valid, or correct interpretation in relation to what? Fish's response would be, valid in relation to an interpretive community, meaning that as long as it falls under some rubric of academic consensus and is not, in itself, self-contradictory, it will be valid. This is a slightly less liberal understanding than basic interpretive logic outlined above, as it demands that academic values be taken into account, but it is still a position that many academics subscribe to. Things can get much more complex very quickly. Should an interpretation be true in relation to the historical context of a work? In this sense, many modern interpretations would be patently invalid, as the historical framework excludes many contemporary associative meanings. What about auctorial intention? Again, many modern interpretations would fall far beyond the scope of what the original author may have even dreamt of.

These remarks reveal that interpretation rests on two opposing principles – the principle of uncovering some relatively stable meaning, generative aesthetic or functional principle embedded in the text (like the artefact and aesthetic object in Prague structuralism), where the interpreter is merely a vessel of such uncovering; and the principle of play, or even "inventing the resistance of the text", where the interpreter is a conscious participant of generating the meaning around, and inside the text. Usually, these schools of thought are mutually exclusive and what is valid for one group will not be valid for the other. For example, an interpretation rooted in positivist literary history and tracing a writer's reading materials is not compatible with a structuralist interpretation. The most basic answer to the question of whether an interpretation is "false", I would say, is that there are writings that obviously fail as interpretations, and those that do not, or fail to a less obvious degree. Partial readings masking as interpretations and claiming to signify more than they can bear out would also be "invalid". Ideological tracts and noxious abuses that characterise a portion of western scholarship today are also not interpretations. Propaganda, political advocacy, uncensored thoughts or uncontrolled opinions are always invading scholarship, but they ought not to be confused for it. The rest falls on a spectrum of sorts, ranging from modest to extreme in their claims.

On a more practical note, I would suggest consulting Umberto Eco's model, outlined in The Limits of Interpretation, as a happy medium between the two opposing poles and the problems they invite. Eco warns of the dangers of straying too far afield playing with texts, to the point of "over-interpretation" or basically making things up, and he also warns that not all interpreters are sincere, many of them wanting to "exploit the text" as opposed to interpreting it in earnest. For Eco, interpretation is limited by several factors: the literal meaning of the words, to which we must always return, and also the interpreter's cultural position and sensitivity to the sign systems of a given text. A valid interpretation tests its hypotheses on the entirety of the text, thus ensuring a level of veracity with respect to intentio operis and intentio auctoris. A good interpretation insists that a phenomenon has no more economic explanation, stems from a single cause, and can form a system alongside others. Regardless of all these obstacles, interpretation is still a creative endeavour, as an interpreter makes his hypotheses and tests things out based on his experience with the text.

There are many more thoughts swirling around in my head that could further complicate things, but this post is getting unwieldy and less readable by the word, so I'll stop here.

I strongly agree with Stefan Alidini , especially with the emphasis on points such as theoretically different or opposing critical approaches and on the logical point that an interpretation is "false" if it is internally flawed! All in all, I agree almost 100% with the astute articulation in all of its multifarious facets, as follows:

" RecommendedShare

• 1 Recommendation

📷Stefan Alidini added an answer to this discussion thread 23 hours ago, as follows:

"One point to note beforehand – we usually understand the idea of interpretation as a more robust conceptual and material exposition on the work as a whole. An interpretation should seek to explain much more about a work, covering as many of it's [sic] distinct elements as possible. It is an understanding of the work as a whole. Hence, interpretation involves a level of coherence, comprehensiveness and self-sufficiency that mere readings, essays or even theoretical exempla lack. This is the bedrock upon which many scholars constitute minimal interpretive validity, from Aristotle onwards (the criteria of necessity and probability are applicable here as well) – does it follow from the text, does it make sense when tested throughout, does it contradict other significant portions of the work, does it fall under its own weight. For example, analysing a single motif from a poem could eventually lead you to an interpretation, but it is not, in itself an interpretation of the whole poem, unless you can point to how that singular motif permeates the whole thing. The very act of interpretation, in that regard, raises the stakes.

I would echo those that mentioned [Stanley] Fish and his framework of interpretive communities, but it is significant to note that the relation here is crucial. True, or valid, or correct interpretation in relation to what? Fish's response would be, valid in relation to an interpretive community, meaning that as long as it falls under some rubric of academic consensus and is not, in itself, self-contradictory, it will be valid. This is a slightly less liberal understanding than basic interpretive logic outlined above, as it demands that academic values be taken into account, but it is still a position that many academics subscribe to. Things can get much more complex very quickly. Should an interpretation be true in relation to the historical context of a work? In this sense, many modern interpretations would be patently invalid, as the historical framework excludes many contemporary associative meanings. What about auctorial intention? Again, many modern interpretations would fall far beyond the scope of what the original author may have even dreamt of.

These remarks reveal that interpretation rests on two opposing principles – the principle of uncovering some relatively stable meaning, generative aesthetic or functional principle embedded in the text (like the artefact and aesthetic object in Prague structuralism), where the interpreter is merely a vessel of such uncovering; and the principle of play, or even "inventing the resistance of the text", where the interpreter is a conscious participant of generating the meaning around, and inside the text. Usually, these schools of thought are mutually exclusive and what is valid for one group will not be valid for the other. For example, an interpretation rooted in positivist literary history and tracing a writer's reading materials is not compatible with a structuralist interpretation. The most basic answer to the question of whether an interpretation is "false", I would say, is that there are writings that obviously fail as interpretations, and those that do not, or fail to a less obvious degree. Partial readings masking as interpretations and claiming to signify more than they can bear out would also be "invalid". Ideological tracts and noxious abuses that characterise a portion of western scholarship today are also not interpretations. Propaganda, political advocacy, uncensored thoughts or uncontrolled opinions are always invading scholarship, but they ought not to be confused for it. The rest falls on a spectrum of sorts, ranging from modest to extreme in their claims.

On a more practical note, I would suggest consulting Umberto Eco's model, outlined in The Limits of Interpretation, as a happy medium between the two opposing poles and the problems they invite. Eco warns of the dangers of straying too far afield playing with texts, to the point of "over-interpretation" or basically making things up, and he also warns that not all interpreters are sincere, many of them wanting to "exploit the text" as opposed to interpreting it in earnest. For Eco, interpretation is limited by several factors: the literal meaning of the words, to which we must always return, and also the interpreter's cultural position and sensitivity to the sign systems of a given text. A valid interpretation tests its hypotheses on the entirety of the text, thus ensuring a level of veracity with respect to intentio operis and intentio auctoris. A good interpretation insists that a phenomenon has no more economic explanation, stems from a single cause, and can form a system alongside others. Regardless of all these obstacles, interpretation is still a creative endeavour, as an interpreter makes his hypotheses and tests things out based on his experience with the text."

Congratulations and best regards!

Thank you all so very much for sharing your interesting insights.

Marion Sauvaire I think we are on the same wavelength. Admissible implies 'right or acceptable as far as it goes or up to a point'; inadmissible means 'wrong on evidence in the text'. Fish's notion of interpretive communities is helpful in describing what actually happens, but interpretive communities can be collectively wrong or simply misguided. We can certainly explain where an erroneous or inadequate interpretation comes from, i.e. we can interpret the interpretation, but that doesn't help Mustapha Allami with his problem of deciding whether an interpretation is right or wrong. Just because other readers concur does not imply that an interpretation must therefore be correct. Thanks for your helpful contribution!

At least fiction literature needs not anything to do with truth or falsity.

There is only good literature and bad literature.

It is just there to entertain, maybe offhand to give the reader some information

that they had not absorbed, but that is only indirect.

Sometimes its half way, like historical novels. Then the mission is double, to etertain and inform.

Often the politics or ideology of the author comes in. This can add or detract from the interest.

Then finally informative literature, the author is then responsible .

Unfortunately, when the audience is not very informed, too much junk can be passed over, as some popular physics journal articles, made to sound sensational.

لايوجد لمرونة الادب

We cannot rely on the interpretation of the text on words only, but we must look at the aspects of the text and the influences surrounding it, which reflect the image of the apparent meaning of the text. On the contrary, understanding dies if the words are rigid.

The hermeneutic exercise is individual and non-transferable, however the dialectic between interpretations made us leave Plato's cave, being such a continuous exercise, or we would not be here and at this moment, on this platform; dealing with this theme. Fraternal embrace.

To make the interpretation credible, it has to be directly or indirectly supported by the text.

Literature is porous in structure. Hence, we cannot assign any interpretation a strict demarcation of being right or wrong.

An interpretation is judged false if and only if it doesn't express the same proposition of the original. A proposition which describes a state-of-affairs in the external world can be expressed by different languages.

The 'reader response' is undoubtedly important in literary works and is about the subjective evaluation of many article authors who interpret literary works. However, accepting interpretations made independently of the text, period, cultural background and literary theory and produced by making completely unrelated connections might be contrary to the analytical approach. The text comes into existence through interpretations. However, ideas produced by force and that cannot be reconciled with the text in any way - metaphorically or directly - can be interpreted as 'unadmissable'. Therefore, although subjective inferences are made when interpreting literature, interpretations are expected to be logical, inferential and semantic in order to respect the essence and spirit of the text.