【設問】
２ 次の文章を読んで，以下の問いに答えなさい。
問2 [出典：Wolfgang Iser, The Act of Reading.]
If interpretation has set itself the task of conveying the meaning of a literary text, obviously the text itself [ (a) ] already formulated that meaning. How can the meaning possibly be experienced if – as is always assumed by the classical norm of interpretation – it is already there, merely waiting for a referential exposition? As meaning arises out of the [ (b) ] of actualization, the interpreter should perhaps pay more attention to the [ (b) ] than to the product. His object should therefore be, not to explain a work, but to reveal the conditions that bring about its various possible effects. (c)If he clarifies the potential of a text, he will no longer fall into the fatal trap of trying to impose one meaning on his reader, as if that were the right, or at least the best, interpretation. The “critic,” says T. S. Eliot, “must not coerce, and he must not make judgments of worse or better. He must simply elucidate: the reader will form the correct judgment for himself.” As is evident from the variety of responses to modern art, or to literary works down through the ages, an interpreter can no longer claim to teach the reader the meaning of the text, (d)for without a subjective contribution and a context there is no such thing. Far more instructive will be an analysis of what actually happens when one is reading a text, for that is when the text begins to unfold its potential; it is in the reader that the text comes to life, and this is true even when the ‘meaning ’ has become so historical that it is no longer relevant to us. In reading we are able to experience things that no longer exist and to understand things that are totally unfamiliar to us; and it is this astonishing [ (b) ] that now needs to be investigated.
【解答例】
(ア) ④ cannot have
(イ) ② process
(ウ) もし解釈者が，テキストの書かれた潜在的な背景事情を明らかにさえすれば，読者に対して一つの意味を，まるでそれが唯一の正しい解釈，もしくは少なくともそれが最善の解釈であるかのように押し付けようとするという致命的な罠に陥ってしまうことはもはやなくなるだろう。
(エ) というのも，もし主観的な解釈や文脈がなければ，テキストに特定の意味など存在しないからである。
0コメント