Author, reader, text. About reading as a game and its pragmatic referentials
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |