Modes of interpretation and interpretative constraints

Stein Haugom OLSEN

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between interpretation and what is normally called 'understanding'. It is argued that different modes of interpretation define different kinds of 'mental uptake' ('apprehension'), and that some modes of interpretation define types of apprehension for which the concept of 'understanding' is inadequate. It is also argued that given a mode of interpretation, the constraints of that mode are necessary in the sense that it is the constraints on how to interpret that define a mode of interpretation. Thus within a mode of interpretation (historical, literary) one cannot interpret freely. Indeed, unconstrained interpretation is not interpretation. In order to illustrate these points the article offers a detailed discussion of two examples. The interpretative debate over the Magna Carta is used to illustrate the difference between a constitutional and a historical interpretation. These two modes of interpretation are then contrasted with literary interpretation, the aim of which is appreciation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)135-148
Number of pages14
JournalBritish Journal of Aesthetics
Volume44
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2004

Fingerprint

Apprehension
Magna Carta
Literary Interpretation

Cite this

OLSEN, Stein Haugom. / Modes of interpretation and interpretative constraints. In: British Journal of Aesthetics. 2004 ; Vol. 44, No. 2. pp. 135-148.
@article{135a98ba297e49ce9f1590c669e98182,
title = "Modes of interpretation and interpretative constraints",
abstract = "This article explores the relationship between interpretation and what is normally called 'understanding'. It is argued that different modes of interpretation define different kinds of 'mental uptake' ('apprehension'), and that some modes of interpretation define types of apprehension for which the concept of 'understanding' is inadequate. It is also argued that given a mode of interpretation, the constraints of that mode are necessary in the sense that it is the constraints on how to interpret that define a mode of interpretation. Thus within a mode of interpretation (historical, literary) one cannot interpret freely. Indeed, unconstrained interpretation is not interpretation. In order to illustrate these points the article offers a detailed discussion of two examples. The interpretative debate over the Magna Carta is used to illustrate the difference between a constitutional and a historical interpretation. These two modes of interpretation are then contrasted with literary interpretation, the aim of which is appreciation.",
author = "OLSEN, {Stein Haugom}",
year = "2004",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/bjaesthetics/44.2.135",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "135--148",
journal = "British Journal of Aesthetics",
issn = "0007-0904",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

Modes of interpretation and interpretative constraints. / OLSEN, Stein Haugom.

In: British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 44, No. 2, 01.04.2004, p. 135-148.

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)

TY - JOUR

T1 - Modes of interpretation and interpretative constraints

AU - OLSEN, Stein Haugom

PY - 2004/4/1

Y1 - 2004/4/1

N2 - This article explores the relationship between interpretation and what is normally called 'understanding'. It is argued that different modes of interpretation define different kinds of 'mental uptake' ('apprehension'), and that some modes of interpretation define types of apprehension for which the concept of 'understanding' is inadequate. It is also argued that given a mode of interpretation, the constraints of that mode are necessary in the sense that it is the constraints on how to interpret that define a mode of interpretation. Thus within a mode of interpretation (historical, literary) one cannot interpret freely. Indeed, unconstrained interpretation is not interpretation. In order to illustrate these points the article offers a detailed discussion of two examples. The interpretative debate over the Magna Carta is used to illustrate the difference between a constitutional and a historical interpretation. These two modes of interpretation are then contrasted with literary interpretation, the aim of which is appreciation.

AB - This article explores the relationship between interpretation and what is normally called 'understanding'. It is argued that different modes of interpretation define different kinds of 'mental uptake' ('apprehension'), and that some modes of interpretation define types of apprehension for which the concept of 'understanding' is inadequate. It is also argued that given a mode of interpretation, the constraints of that mode are necessary in the sense that it is the constraints on how to interpret that define a mode of interpretation. Thus within a mode of interpretation (historical, literary) one cannot interpret freely. Indeed, unconstrained interpretation is not interpretation. In order to illustrate these points the article offers a detailed discussion of two examples. The interpretative debate over the Magna Carta is used to illustrate the difference between a constitutional and a historical interpretation. These two modes of interpretation are then contrasted with literary interpretation, the aim of which is appreciation.

UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/7142

U2 - 10.1093/bjaesthetics/44.2.135

DO - 10.1093/bjaesthetics/44.2.135

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

VL - 44

SP - 135

EP - 148

JO - British Journal of Aesthetics

JF - British Journal of Aesthetics

SN - 0007-0904

IS - 2

ER -