- Last 7 days
-
www.emerald.com www.emerald.com
-
This element in the comprehension of texts is usually called the 'interpretation'of the text87,88 and consists, in general, of reading the text not in a 'neutral'fashion with the purpose of simple comprehension, but with a directed purposesuch as deciding whether one agrees with it or whether it is interesting, amongmany others
Again, the author frames the issue as there being an intrinsic quality to the text that is being obscured by the subjectivity of perception. What if there is no intrinsic quality? And even if there is, how could it every be understood through anything other than being perceived, and thus always understood through the subjective lens of perception? Is the argument for an intrinsic quality to the text even valid if it can only be subjectively understood?
-
in-dependent aboutnes
the author hasn't yet argued for the validity of the existence of said aboutness as a characteristic
-
Whether or not a universally valid syntactics (e.g. citation order) and/orsemantics (e.g. non-culturally orientated warrants for classes) is possible for abibliographic classification system, neither has been universally accepted in theorynor adopted in practice
I think that this article implies the existence of some true, inherent, and "deep" characteristic of a text that can be discovered or synthesized, then can be used to categorize things in some idealized form of bias-free and "true" system of classification. The author needs to first address why they believe that an intrinsic characteristic can be found that is able to be differentiated from any other interepreted "meaning. They then need do address how it could be possible to organize things in such a way. There is a flavour of utopianism and character essentialism in the analysis that isn't critical addressed, and simply taken as a given
-
on the assumptionthat the aboutness of a document is relatively fixed and stable
I disagree that aboutness can be identified as a fixed, singular characteristic. The aboutness/meaning dichotomy seems to exist more for a desire to have an orderly categorization system, rather than a reflection of the reality of the documents
-
This assumption is somewhat controversial
Intrinsic meaning can be argued to be philosophically impossible
-
simply confirm or fail to confirm information previouslyknown to the enquirer.
Confirmation or failure to confirm are both the result of new information
-
'topicality' (aboutness) and 'informativeness' (meaning).
I think it good academic practice to choose terminology that doesn't scan to similar to one another. extensional/intensional is an example of terminology that can be confusing or difficult to reason or parse
-