Rationality and Reasonableness in Textual Interpretation

  • Massimo LeoneEmail author
Part of the Numanities - Arts and Humanities in Progress book series (NAHP, volume 6)


What is the difference between interpreting a literary text during a university lecture and interpreting reality outside of the academe? And what is the difference between interpreting in natural sciences and interpreting in the humanities? Despite evident and known divergences, humanities too can rank their interpretations and aspire to guide the interpretations of society. Three alternative methods can be used so as to test interpretive hypotheses, depending on whether the author’s, the reader’s, or the text’s meaningful intentionality is primarily investigated. The third method is superior to the first two since it leads to the creation of a common meta-discursive space for inter-subjective exchange about meaning. Although adopting an appropriate methodology is essential in textual analysis, that which is even more important is supporting the creation of a community of interpreters that, sharing the same method, engage in the constructive comparison and ranking of interpretive moves.


  1. Aumont, Jacques. 1990. L’image. Paris: Armand Colin. English translation by Claire Pajackowska. 1997. The image. London: British Film Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Barnstone, Willis. 1993. The Poetics of translation: History, theory, practice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Calabrese, Omar. 2000. Lo strano caso dell’equivalenza imperfetta. (Modeste osservazioni sulla produzione intersemiotica). Versus 85–87: 101–120.Google Scholar
  4. Danesi, Marcel. 2002. The puzzle instinct: The meaning of puzzles in human life. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Eco, Umberto. 1976. A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eco, Umberto. 1990. The limits of interpretation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Eco, Umberto. 1992. Interpretation and overinterpretation; with Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler, and Christine Brooke-Rose, ed. Stefan Collini. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fawcett, Antoinette, Karla L. Guadarrama García, and Rebecca Hyde Parker (eds.). 2010. Translation: Theory and practice in dialogue. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  9. Genette, Gérard. 1987. Seuils. Paris: Seuil. English translation by Jane E. Lewin; foreword by Richard Macksey. 1997. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Greimas, Algirdas Julien. 1976. Maupassant: La sémiotique du texte: Exercices pratiques. Paris: Éditions du Seuil; English translation by Paul Perron. 1988. Maupassant: The Semiotics of Text: Practical Exercises. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  11. Hjelmslev, Louis T., and Hans Jørgen Uldall. 1957. Outline of glossematics: A study in the methodology of the humanities with special reference to linguistics. Copenhagen: Nordisk Sprog- og Kulturforlag.Google Scholar
  12. Kreuz, Roger J., and Mary Sue MacNealy (eds.). 1996. Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub.Google Scholar
  13. Leone, Massimo. 2013. The semiotics of fundamentalist authoriality. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law—Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 26 (1): 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leone, Massimo. 31 December 2016. Metafisica del design: il senso degli oggetti in De Chirico, Kiarostami, Ozu. E/C, Online Journal of the Italian Association for Semiotic Studies: 1–37.Google Scholar
  15. Maitland, Sarah. 2017. What is cultural translation?. London, UK and New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  16. Oblinger, Diana G. (ed.). 2006. Learning spaces. Washington, DC: Educause.Google Scholar
  17. Popper, Karl. 1935. Logik der Forschung: zur Erkenntnistheorie der Modernen Naturwissenschaft. Vienna: Springer. English translation by Id. The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson, 1959.  CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reason, James. 2013. A life in error: From little slips to big disasters. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  19. Struck, Peter T. 2016. Divination and human nature: A cognitive history of intuition in classical antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhang, Jiang. 2016. The dogmatic character of imposed interpretation. Social Sciences in China 37 (3): 132–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TurinTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations