AN ATTEMPT AT INTERPRETING LISTENING

Or can the language of science be independent?

Abstract

If the writer is supposed to think in subjects and predicates, what should a scholar dealing with the interpretation of literature have to deal with? The predicate is the impuls, driving force, unit, and essence of a text. Is the subject the author or the text itself? Is the object the message implied in it, or what the reader reads into it? Attributes and adverbs are modes and quality of elaboration. A scholar therefore does not think in subjects and predicates but in attributes, adverbs and objects. Does perhaps (observation of) the message go from the writers to the scholars? Does the message, in this case an understanding of literature, also determine the linguistic formulation? Can talking about literature approach the object from content? It can and dares to move in between criticism and philosophy, but with respect to the reader; his attention is not focussed on the faceless scholarly speaker, nor on the lyrical self or prose narrator alienated from his personality but an abstraction-free entity, the reader. The only question left is how to rid ourselves of certain prevailing commonplaces concerning the understanding of literature.