Skip to main content
Log in

Could you be more specific, please?

  • Published:
Neohelicon Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The notion of ambiguity raises questions about the nature of texts and the limits of interpretation. Both of these questions were addressed extensively by the theorists of reading and by the deconstructionists and their critics. It seems however that some of the political aspects of the academic praxis of disambiguation remain to be explored. Textual ambiguity and the possibility of disambiguation raises questions that go beyond the cognitive mechanics of reading, to include the politics of interpretation and the teaching of reading. This paper explores some of the problems raised when the scholar recognizes that ambiguity is an essential and inevitable part of texts and reading. Techniques of disambiguation rely on the agency of an individual reader, whether this is a real person or a theoretical construct. The reduction of a text’s ambiguity, we argue, necessarily increases the ambiguity of this agent’s own position. The process of disambiguation, when accomplished for someone else, as is the case with when an academic reads as text for his or her students or readers can be seen as a way of transferring ambiguity from the text to the reader. As a reading gains in clarity, the position, motivations, idiosyncrasies of the reader introduce a new kind of ambiguity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I will primarily discuss Umberto Eco’s influential Lector in fabula (1979), translated as The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts, Indiana University Press, 1984. See also Pavel (1990) and Picard (1986).

  2. See for example Ryan (1991) and Doležel (1998).

  3. Umberto Eco argues that reader in question is not really the empirical reader, but the reader that the text anticipates, that is, a reader possessing the minimal knowledge necessary to “correctly” read the text. However, this does not resolve the problem of the scholar’s reading and decisions as to what the “correct” reading is.

  4. See for example Caws (1978).

References

  • Barthes, R. (1970). Mythologies. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caws, M.-A. (1978). Semantic Incompatibilities in automatic writing (André Breton’s Poisson soluble). Théorie, tableau, texte: de Jarry à Artaud, Minard.

  • Doležel, L. (1998). Heterocosmica: Fiction and possible worlds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1979). Le visible et l’invisible Paris: Gallimard.

  • Pavels, T. (1990). Univers de la fiction. Paris: Seuil.

  • Picards, M. (1986). La Lecture comme jeu. Paris: Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riffaterre, M. (1990). Undecidability as hermeneutic constraint. In P. Collier & H. Geyer-Ryan (Eds.), Literary theory today (p. 109). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  • Ryan, M.-L. (1991). Possible worlds, artificial intelligence, and narrative theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

  • Spradely, J., & McCurdy, D. (Eds.). (1971). Conformity and conflict: Readings in cultural anthropology. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominique Vaugeois.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vaugeois, D. Could you be more specific, please?. Neohelicon 37, 441–448 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-010-0075-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-010-0075-4

Keywords

Navigation