Interpretation and Overinterpretation

Abstract

Umberto Eco, international bestselling novelist and leading literary theorist, here brings together these two roles in a provocative discussion of the vexed question of literary interpretation. The limits of interpretation - what a text can actually be said to mean - are of double interest to a semiotician whose own novels' intriguing complexity has provoked his readers into intense speculation as to their meaning. Eco's illuminating and frequently hilarious discussion ranges from Dante to The Name of the Rose, Foucault's Pendulum to Chomsky and Derrida, and bears all the hallmarks of his inimitable personal style. Three of the world's leading figures in philosophy, literary theory and criticism take up the challenge of entering into debate with Eco on the question of interpretation. Richard Rorty, Jonathan Culler and Christine Brooke-Rose each offer a distinctive perspective on this contentious topic, contributing to a unique exchange of ideas between some of the foremost and most exciting theorists in the field.

Guardian angels and teachers from hell: Using metaphor as a measure of schools' experiences and expectations of General National Vocational Qualifications

“…Our problem is that his images and allusions derive not only from a time but also a social stratum with which most of us are now unfamiliar. Inevitably our social and cultural backgrounds have a bearing on how we interpret texts, be they novels or interview transcripts; but Eco (1990) would argue that there are usually properties of a text which do set some limits on the range of interpretations which it is legitimate to make. He gives the example of two metaphors: "Achilles is a lion" and "Achilles is a duck" (Eco, 1990: 63) From the first we understand that Achilles is fierce or brave or both of these; and most would agree that this metaphor works.…”

Aprendizaje de las matemáticas a través de la modelación matemática en un medio sociocultural ligado a la teoría de la actividad

“…Así, retomamos la definición de Voloshinov (1973), quien indica que la comunicación es el motor principal para la construcción de un signo. Además concordamos en que en la construcción de un signo, lo que es importante es el proceso que lleva cierta comunidad en su construcción y no el producto final, que es el signo (Eco, 1975(Eco, /1992Radford, 2002Radford, , 2003. En consecuencia, una representación espontánea ligada a la resolución de un problema o situación problema podrá evolucionar en la discusión con otros y convertirse en un signo dentro de esa microcomunidad.…”

The Communicative Relevance in Fictional Discourse

“…If this occurs, what is hypothetically plausible, then the statements were treated as a natural phenomenon, rather than intentional communication. It may occur for the reader to select an opposite interpretation to the one intended by the writer, as in cases of deliberate interpretation, or "over-interpretation," to borrow a term from Eco (1992). However, in general, the Página552 results of this occurrence neglect the linguistic evidence, and the failure to properly identify the statement in context can result in unacceptable interpretations.…”