Topic 1 (session A) - Levels of language: Linguistic levels, style & meaning > Intertextuality > Real vs. critical reading

... More on Intertextuality

Real reading vs. the kind of reading assumed in critical discussion

It is important to note that what happens when a real person reads a text is not the same as the assumptions about reading that critical commentators have when they analyse and interpret texts. Indeed, critical commentary could not sensibly take place if real reading experiences of individuals had to be accounted for. Note, therefore, that if critics allude to the 'real' reading experience they are almost certainly claiming too much.

In real reading (sometimes called 'on-line processing' by the psychologists), even though they have lots in common (e.g. common background knowledge, knowledge of the language they speak, the society they live in, and so on) readers will also vary in all sorts of ways (e.g. what they already know and how tired and (in)attentive they are). When they read their eyes may catch information further down a page while they are beginning to read the top of the page, and so on. Moreover, so much of real reading experiences is subconscious that it is difficult, if not impossible, to investigate it completely.

This kind of variability is too complex and unpredictable for critical (including stylistic) discussion to cope with, and so such commentary makes a number of traditional and normative assumptions (though many critics are themselves often unaware that they are making these assumptions), some of which we outline below. Critical discussion is also a post-processed activity. It takes place after reading has finished, and indeed usually after the commentator has read the text a number of times, and become very familiar with it. Such post-processed accounts usually also allude to the reading experience, but in a normalised way. These normative assumptions are necessary for critical debate to take place (otherwise commentators could not assume that they were talking about the same thing, and so be able to enter in to discussion with one another -too much uncontrolled variation would be introduced). Here are some examples of the necessary normative assumptions which critics, stylisticians and other text analysts make when they discuss texts, but which do not necessarily apply in some real person's actual reading experience of some text:

Vs.

• The text is being read for the first time, even though the commentator must have read it many times (this assumption is necessary to capture surprise effects, for example).

• (The text is processed linearly, from the first word through to the last (this assumption is also necessary to capture surprise effects).

• The reader is absolutely attentive and so notices all details (otherwise some observable textual patterns and effects could be ignored, even after other critics had pointed them out).

• The reader is extremely knowledgeable (otherwise allusions and other effects needing particular background knowledge could not properly be accounted for).

• The linguistic social knowledge that is relevant is that which applies to the time at which the text was produced and the general knowledge and social conditions that pertained at the time (this assumption rules out historical anachronisms, e.g. a claim that the word 'gay' in a C18 poem has connotations of homosexuality, and inappropriate connotations from outside cultures, e.g. that a reference to the sun in a British poem could have negative connotations - as it might if you come from a desert society, for example).

There are bound to be other such assumptions too. Can you think of any? If so, you could post them up in the Language and Style Chat Café and we could add them to the list for future students.

Home ¦ Outline ¦ Contents ¦ Glossary