Author, reader, text. About reading as a game and its pragmatic referentials

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ribeiro, Osvaldo Luiz
Data de Publicação: 2022
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Teoliterária
Texto Completo: https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/teoliteraria/article/view/54865
Resumo: A proposal to solve the conflict of intentions (intentio auctoris, intentio lectoris and intentio operis) as expressed in Umberto Eco’s Interpretation and superinterpretation. The methodological path consists of the following steps: a) based on Johan Huizinga, apply the notion of game the practice of reading, establishing the fact that the rules of interpretation constitute a specific function of each reading game (play-element); b) discern the types of reading games based on the three types of pragmatics: aesthetics, politics and heuristics; c) based on Peirce, assume each of the three instances of meaning as the semiotic reference of a specific type of reading game; d) conclude that the plurality of possible interpretations of a text is a function of the application of the internal rules of each reading game. It is concluded, on the one hand, that aesthetic and political reading games potentially produce infinite interpretations and that only heuristic reading games can effectively impose limits on interpretation, and, on the other hand, that the result of each of these reading games it can only be assessed on the basis of its own rules.
id PUC_SP-7_20d96e8e5a8d580eb7b0deec7ae8a232
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/54865
network_acronym_str PUC_SP-7
network_name_str Teoliterária
repository_id_str
spelling Author, reader, text. About reading as a game and its pragmatic referentialsAutor, leitor, texto. Sobre leitura como jogo e seus referenciais pragmáticosintentio auctorisintentio lectorisintentio operisjogos de leituraintentio auctorisintentio lectorisintentio operisreading gamesA proposal to solve the conflict of intentions (intentio auctoris, intentio lectoris and intentio operis) as expressed in Umberto Eco’s Interpretation and superinterpretation. The methodological path consists of the following steps: a) based on Johan Huizinga, apply the notion of game the practice of reading, establishing the fact that the rules of interpretation constitute a specific function of each reading game (play-element); b) discern the types of reading games based on the three types of pragmatics: aesthetics, politics and heuristics; c) based on Peirce, assume each of the three instances of meaning as the semiotic reference of a specific type of reading game; d) conclude that the plurality of possible interpretations of a text is a function of the application of the internal rules of each reading game. It is concluded, on the one hand, that aesthetic and political reading games potentially produce infinite interpretations and that only heuristic reading games can effectively impose limits on interpretation, and, on the other hand, that the result of each of these reading games it can only be assessed on the basis of its own rules.Proposta de solução do conflito das intenções (intentio auctoris, intentio lectoris e intentio operis) conforme expresso em Interpretação e superinterpretação, de Umberto Eco. O caminho metodológico consiste nos seguintes passos: a) com base em Johan Huizinga, aplicar a noção de jogo à prática de leitura, estabelecendo o fato de que as regras de interpretação constituem função específica de cada jogo de leitura; b) discernir os tipos de jogos de leitura com base nos três tipos de pragmática: estática, política e heurística; c) com base em Peirce, assumir cada uma das três instâncias de sentido o papel de referencial semiótico de um específico tipo de jogo de leitura; d) concluir que a pluralidade de interpretações possíveis de um texto constitui função da aplicação das regras internas de cada jogo de leitura. Conclui-se, de um lado, que jogos estéticos e jogos políticos de leitura produzem potencialmente infinitas interpretações e que apenas jogos heurísticos de leitura efetivamente podem impor limites para a interpretação, e, de outro, que o resultado de cada um desses jogos de leitura só pode ser avaliado com base nas suas próprias regras.Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo2022-12-22info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArtigo avaliado pelos Paresapplication/pdftext/htmlhttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/teoliteraria/article/view/5486510.23925/2236-9937.2022v28p193-218TEOLITERARIA - Revista de Literaturas e Teologias; v. 12 n. 28 (2022): Literatura Luso-brasileira e Teologia; 193-2182236-9937reponame:Teoliteráriainstname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)instacron:PUC_SPporhttps://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/teoliteraria/article/view/54865/41301https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/teoliteraria/article/view/54865/41667Copyright (c) 2022 TEOLITERARIA - Revista de Literaturas e Teologiashttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRibeiro, Osvaldo Luiz2022-12-22T19:01:35Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/54865Revistahttps://revistas.pucsp.br/teoliterariaPRIhttps://revistas.pucsp.br/teoliteraria/oaialex@teoliteraria.com||teoliteraria@teoliteraria.com2236-99372236-9937opendoar:2022-12-22T19:01:35Teoliterária - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Author, reader, text. About reading as a game and its pragmatic referentials
Autor, leitor, texto. Sobre leitura como jogo e seus referenciais pragmáticos
title Author, reader, text. About reading as a game and its pragmatic referentials
spellingShingle Author, reader, text. About reading as a game and its pragmatic referentials
Ribeiro, Osvaldo Luiz
intentio auctoris
intentio lectoris
intentio operis
jogos de leitura
intentio auctoris
intentio lectoris
intentio operis
reading games
title_short Author, reader, text. About reading as a game and its pragmatic referentials
title_full Author, reader, text. About reading as a game and its pragmatic referentials
title_fullStr Author, reader, text. About reading as a game and its pragmatic referentials
title_full_unstemmed Author, reader, text. About reading as a game and its pragmatic referentials
title_sort Author, reader, text. About reading as a game and its pragmatic referentials
author Ribeiro, Osvaldo Luiz
author_facet Ribeiro, Osvaldo Luiz
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ribeiro, Osvaldo Luiz
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv intentio auctoris
intentio lectoris
intentio operis
jogos de leitura
intentio auctoris
intentio lectoris
intentio operis
reading games
topic intentio auctoris
intentio lectoris
intentio operis
jogos de leitura
intentio auctoris
intentio lectoris
intentio operis
reading games
description A proposal to solve the conflict of intentions (intentio auctoris, intentio lectoris and intentio operis) as expressed in Umberto Eco’s Interpretation and superinterpretation. The methodological path consists of the following steps: a) based on Johan Huizinga, apply the notion of game the practice of reading, establishing the fact that the rules of interpretation constitute a specific function of each reading game (play-element); b) discern the types of reading games based on the three types of pragmatics: aesthetics, politics and heuristics; c) based on Peirce, assume each of the three instances of meaning as the semiotic reference of a specific type of reading game; d) conclude that the plurality of possible interpretations of a text is a function of the application of the internal rules of each reading game. It is concluded, on the one hand, that aesthetic and political reading games potentially produce infinite interpretations and that only heuristic reading games can effectively impose limits on interpretation, and, on the other hand, that the result of each of these reading games it can only be assessed on the basis of its own rules.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-12-22
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Artigo avaliado pelos Pares
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/teoliteraria/article/view/54865
10.23925/2236-9937.2022v28p193-218
url https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/teoliteraria/article/view/54865
identifier_str_mv 10.23925/2236-9937.2022v28p193-218
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/teoliteraria/article/view/54865/41301
https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/teoliteraria/article/view/54865/41667
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2022 TEOLITERARIA - Revista de Literaturas e Teologias
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2022 TEOLITERARIA - Revista de Literaturas e Teologias
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv TEOLITERARIA - Revista de Literaturas e Teologias; v. 12 n. 28 (2022): Literatura Luso-brasileira e Teologia; 193-218
2236-9937
reponame:Teoliterária
instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
instacron:PUC_SP
instname_str Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
instacron_str PUC_SP
institution PUC_SP
reponame_str Teoliterária
collection Teoliterária
repository.name.fl_str_mv Teoliterária - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv alex@teoliteraria.com||teoliteraria@teoliteraria.com
_version_ 1799128719995961344