3: The Text Itself2 @! M9 ) E% ]! E& V" E. d
# {8 B- e2 G0 W+ L
This approach is adopted most frequently by those who study sacred texts. These, having been created by a deity, are taken to be composed entirely of truths, and in fact, it is not unusual for such texts to assert this as a primary fact. For example:
?1 "+ x. Q$ m6 P# U
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1.1, Harper Study Bible, Revised Standard Version 8 `* U8 Z+ d6 ) T* Fs- d0 A
Every Word of God proves true... - Proverbs 30.5, Harper Study Bible, Revised Standard Version 5 H) Q, U6 o- K; l! ^
And similarly:
The basic book of Islam is the Koran. This is believed to be the divine law of God as uttered by Allah himself in revelations to Mohammed, and passed on by the Prophet through word of mouth.... The authority of the Koran is believed by good Moslems to be absolute. It is without any question the most influential, and the most widely read book in all Arabic literature, and probably the most faithfully read scripture in the world. - The Portable World Bible, ed. Roberto Ballou, Penguin Books, 1986.
Z; f% l; s$ Q
If a text is taken in and of itself to contain the truth, then neither the intentions of its human writers nor the interpretations of its readers are relevant. The meaning is in the text, and if two readers disagree, then they must consult the text further in attempting to resolve the disagreement. There is no other authority.
V% P& `c$ E: X
A telephone directory is a good example of a text that lends itself to this approach. A book that contains only names and phone numbers, and assuming that there are no errors, contains only the truth. As readers, we consult the book and take what it says as fact
^) D6 x* p' {) e; tR) `
Text As Environment
Although each of the previous approaches works well for some varieties of text, none of them works entirely well for all text. In fact, most of the text that we encounter was written by someone who intended to say something; most readers extract meanings that the writer did not intend; most text contains some truth. Given this, scholars continue to argue as to which of the three approaches is the most effective. 4 N% s; W9 K8 l$ V; s$ "8 N
A fourth approach attempts to resolve this dilemma by considering text as part of the human social environment. According to this approach, each author adds to the "communication environment," and each reader takes meanings from it. When considered from this point of view, the text is not separate from the world, but is part of it. Writers and readers, who are also part of the world, participate in the "textual experience."
". w' X
As an example, consider the text called a "newspaper." Because many writers and editors contribute to each edition, there is no way to identify a single "author." As readers read the paper, they compare what they read to their experience in the world, and they discuss what they read with other readers. The meanings that readers take from the newspapers become the raw material of other texts, including such as the television and radio news of the day, and the next day's newspapers. The text of the newspaper is stored in libraries and other archives where it can be referenced at any time. Thus, the text becomes part of the fabric of the life of a society. 6 T+ i, c, h/ W3 Z; i
This goes deeper than the simple thought that "everyone reads more or less the same text." Because the codes by which humans communicate are shared by all members of the society, they, too, are part of the communication environment. This means that the texts, the people, the interpretations, and the rules that govern the interpretations are all mutually interactive. 9 T" d! h) I! V)
|