 |
 |
David,
As you're now defending your use of the term "reception" as that found in it's "obvious meaning" ...
-- guh! I just noticed that! -- where do we find this apparently transparent-to-all-your-readers, "obvious meaning", since it's the lexicographer's pot of gold at the end of the rainbow --
... could you kindly explain to me what exactly, in that case, you mean by the term, "semantic reception"?
You seem to be, continually and throughout this -- I won't call it, "dialogue" -- using words in a way which is peculiar to yourself, then complaining because your audience doesn't understand you.
So, once more, "semantic reception"?
To me, meaning is among other things, transactional, so how can semantics, which, and I may be wrong here, I take you to be using as a partial synonym, be part of a transaction in which it is generated?
I'm confused.
Robin
On 26 October 2016 at 15:03 David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Not necessarily Robin. It can take in all literary theories from structuralism onwards—ie theory in general,
Though, that is not where I’m coming from. My use of the word “reception” is to be taken in it’s more obvious meaning, ie, the way the words of a poem or song evoke meaning to a reader or listener. As to how dissimilar these meanings manifest in each reader and listener, then that is not my concern, and therefore would be more relevant to reception theory. As far as I'm concerned if all readers and listeners came to the same obvious meaning/interpretation, my argument still stands.
So I don’t think my argument relies on reception theory.
-------------Original Message--------------
Robin Hamilton wrote:
All this is perfectly true, if but ONLY if, you're wedded to Reception Theory as your critical paradigm. I'm not.