Validity in Interpretation
Abstract
“Here is a book that brings logic to the most unruly of disciplines, literary interpretation. Viewing this subject within the tradition of hermeneutics, Mr. Hirsch is able to trace its origins and development with brilliant insight. The result is a lucidly systemic and authoritative account of the premises and procedures applicable to the interpretation of a literary text. Mr. Hirsch has performed a monumental service thereby that of reinstating the credentials of objectivism and defining the limits of the aesthetics of truth. This study is a necessary took for anyone who wants to talk sense about literature.”—Virginia Quarterly Review By demonstrating the uniformity and universality of the principles of valid interpretation of verbal texts of any sort, this closely reasoned examination provides a theoretical foundation for a discipline that is fundamental to virtually all humanistic studies. It defines the grounds on which textual interpretation can claim to establish objective knowledge, defends that claim against such skeptical attitudes as historicism and psychologism, and shows that many confusions can be avoided if the distinctions between meaning and significance, interpretation and criticism are correctly understood.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Gadamer's view on how interpretation works is not universally accepted.
“Gadamer's view on how interpretation works is not universally accepted.”
From Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games (2018) · cites this paper as Hirsch, 1967
Hirsch disagrees, arguing that Gadamer confuses meaning (author's intent) with signification (reader's interpretation).
“Hirsch (1967, p. 123) disagrees, arguing that Gadamer confuses meaning (author's intent) with signification (reader's interpretation)”
From Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games (2018) · cites this paper as Hirsch, 1967, p. 123
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sarker, S., & Sahay, S. (2004) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000485 · Cited by 309 · see citing works
The role of theory in disability research ‐springboard or strait‐jacket?
Gustavsson, A. (2004) · Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research · doi:10.1080/15017410409512639 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Real-time hermeneutics: meaning-making in ludonarrative digital games
Arjoranta, J. (2018) · doi:10.31237/osf.io/uep74 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Proposing, disposing, proving: Barthes, intentionalism, and hypertext literary fiction
Brooker, S. (2021) · New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia · doi:10.1080/13614568.2021.1906955 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Huang, C.-C. (2008) · The Medieval History Journal · doi:10.1177/097194580701100104 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hirsch, Jr.
- Venue
- Bloomsbury Publishing Plc eBooks
- Publisher
- Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
- Published
- 1967
- OpenAlex
- W4300448215
- Cited by
- 1,300
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 168 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 53 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 96.20
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Bloomsbury Publishing Plc eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literary Theory and Cultural Hermeneutics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Hermeneutics and Narrative Identity
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Narrative Theory and Analysis
- Keywords
- literary interpretation, hermeneutics, objectivism, validity of interpretation, historicism, psychologism, meaning and significance, philosophy of literature
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review