Abstract

The word "interpretation" stands for a concept which applies to a basic and universal human activity and to its products, i.e., the individual interpretations. The purpose of this dissertation is to explore interpretation, the concept and the activity; to establish distinctions and correlations between interpretation and other concepts and activities with which it is usually associated or confused ; to identify the distinctive contributions of interpretation to the critical process; and to investigate interpretation from the standpoints of its aims, objects and truth value. ;Ineliminability of Interpretation. Interpretation is ineliminable from the study of art and literature. It is logically required by appreciation and evaluation. It is also wrong to assume that interpretation and enjoyment are mutually exclusive. ;Objects of Interpretation. The objects of interpretation, I argue, are those and only those objects which have or are thought to have meaning. There is therefore a conceptual relationship between meaning and interpretation. The concern with meaning and meaning-bearing properties is central to all forms of interpretation. ;Interpretation, Description and Evaluation. Various attempts to establish a clear-cut logical distinction between description and interpretation are rejected on the ground that the boundaries of texts or artworks are neither fixed nor clearly defined. Although interpretation and evaluation are separable from, not equivalent to each other, the latter is based on the former. ;Interpretation and Authors' Intentions. Non-intentionalism is rejected and its defects are exposed. The major defect is the construal of the text on the objectionable model of the physical object. There is a logical connection between the text's valid meaning and the author's intentions. Moreover, I argue for the historical view of art and literature, the view that it is possible to understand past meanings on their own terms. ;Validity in Interpretation. Various relativistic and objectivistic accounts are critically reviewed. Prevailing relativistic positions are not found compelling. Objectivism which is based on non-intentionalism is also rejected. An objectively valid interpretation, I conclude, is a probability judgment, one that is best supported by the available and carefully weighed evidence, textual and extra-textual