Función del estudiante

The theory of interpretation was propounded by Paul Ricoeur (1913-2005), a French philosopher who postulated the theory via what he calls the ‘hermeneutic arc’. In order to understand the basis of hermeneutic- arc, it is appropriate to set the historical context of hermeneutics. Originally, the word “Hermeneutics” came from the Greek Mythological figure Hermes. As a messenger, Hermes was responsible for interpreting Zeus messages for the other gods and goddesses. In the words of Adogbo and Ojo:

Hermeneutics itself means science of interpretation, which seeks to bring to light the primordial nature of a phenomenon or the very “essence” of the object under study. Its goal is to discover the essential structures of acts, and objects or entities that correspond to them. (10)

The hermeneutic arc is encapsulated in three stages; explanation, understanding and appropriation.

Explanation: “In this first stage, the interpreter explores about this question ‘What is this book about?’ And examines the texts inside nature thereby developing the quest to take an adventure into knowing what the play is all about on the part of the reader of a play” (Ricoeur 1624).

Understanding: “In this second stage, the interpreter explores about this question ‘What does this text talk about?’ In this level, the interpreter digs deep into the text for deeper understanding and seeks to bring out the hidden ingredients of the text” (Ricoeur 1625). Here the reader of a play takes steps further to know what the playwright tries to communicate to the interpreter/reader.

Appropriation: In the third stage, “the gained understanding is used for expanding the text into a life world, here the interpreter seeks to achieve the writers thoughts and feelings but does this through (the interpreter’s) understanding and meaning gained from the text” (Ricoeur 1627). The reader/interpreter here in the quest to discover the ‘dead’ author appropriates meaning to the codes embedded by the playwright. Whether he interprets the playwright’s intent or not, it is not a problem as he has the poetic license to appropriate his deducted meaning and adduced it in his own way.

Ricoeur indicates that there are two ways of looking at a text. The first he describes it as considering only the internal nature of the text. From this perspective, it has context, no external world and there is no consideration of its having an author or an audience. At this point, the text has no outside but only an inside, it has no transcendent aim. What arises from it in this case, is the explanation which is possible because of the objectivity of the text. At this level, understanding is relatively immature. It takes into account for example, the meaning of the words as the reader understands it which of course, might not be the exact meaning intended by the writer. As Nwabueze succinctly captures it that: “To Derrida, a document is replete with a multiplicity of

meaning because there is no fixed system of knowledge and therefore, no definite, absolute meaning in a text” (56). According to Ricoeur, “the gained understanding is used for expanding the text into a life world, here the interpreter seeks to achieve the writers thoughts and feelings but does this through (the interpreter’s) understanding and meaning gained from the text” (Ricoeur 1627). Corroborating this, Derrida asserts that: “The text (of a document) should be perceived as an entity within itself and its interpretation should not be encumbered by unnecessary intrusive meanings. It is the text that speaks and no prior or external presence ought to be considered in its analysis” (8). Because: “…the author is no longer the source of meaning in a text” (Nwabueze 57).

The second way of looking at text proposed by Ricoeur is to restore it to a living communication.

Through interpretation, the world of the text combines with the world of the interpreter to form something new. Yes, this interpretation although adding to the interpreter’s understanding is still fairly superficial. Thus Ruceour opines that: “the gained understanding is used for expanding the text into a life world, here the interpreter seeks to achieve the writers thoughts and feelings but does this through (the interpreter’s) understanding and meaning gained from the text” (Ricoeur 1627). Relating this theory to the research topic, Emeka Nwabueze opines that: “Deconstruction is a poststructuralist theory of critical thought which considers the idea of a unified document illusory because meaning in a document is indeterminate. An extension of the concept of hermeneutics, this theory was given impetus by Jacques Derrida” (56). Thus, the researcher vehemently proposes that in the theatre, the role/duty of the reader/interpreter of a play is the role of an interpreter because the reader or decoder seeks to interpret the characters from the script for effective communication. Therefore, the reader or decoder can be likened to the interpreter. This theory in relating it to the research topic can be analysed thus:

The first stage (Explanation): The researcher has ascertained the fact that the interpreter’s role to the text is unanimous to that of the reader’s/interpreter’s role towards effective and efficient communication. In fact, it is not an understatement to refer to the reader as an interpreter because the decoder chooses a play takes time to carefully read, study and critically analyses the play, hence making meaning from it. In this first stage according to Ricoeur’s theory reader or decoder (Interpreter), chooses a suitable play and goes through it first, to explore the content of the play in its raw form without any biased or sentimental attachments.

The second stage (Understanding): In this second stage, the reader or decoder (interpreter) goes beyond merely reading the play into deeper critical analysis of the text. This stage according to Ricoeur explores the question, “What does this text talk about?” At this stage, the reader or decoder comes in contact with the abstract (Not physical) personality of the writer but inherent in his plays, though “dead” author.

This assertions were made possible because the reader or critic takes a step deeper towards uncovering “when” “where” and “why” of every playwrights plays as this would serve as a backbone to the reader/interpreter in interpreting the play as he/she takes cognizance of the plot, setting and the thematic focus of the play; the characters in the play; their relationship with one another, the conflicts, climax, tempo, mood, tone and resolution among others inherent in the play.

It is at this stage that the reader/interpreter develops a germinal- idea of what/ how the play would look like in interpretation; the decoder starts exploring the possibility and applicability of the play interpretation and meaning appropriation.

The third stage (Appropriation): This is the third and last stage. From developing a germinal conception about the play, the critic/Interpreter goes beyond scrutinizing the text into interpretation

of the play. At this point, the reader/decoder now has a mature and concrete overview of the play, decodes the encoded messages hidden in the pages of the static script and can go as far as altering some parts of the play to suit his/ her style and concept of interpretation. The reader/decoder does this through the deconstruction of the language and character as embedded by the playwright to make his own meaning, as no work has static meaning. This is where all the reader’s interpretative prowess, artistic genius and cognitive ability come to play.

Hitherto, the text is in an imaginary world (Static) but at this stage, the reader begins to apply all his knowledge of interpretation through semiotic elements, aesthetic enterprise and deconstructive mind to generate his own meaning. This is aimed at transiting the text from its static state, to a living communication. From the above, the researcher agrees with Paul Ricoeur’s theory of interpretation as it is favourable to the reader who doubles as a play interpreter. However, it must be noted that from the researcher’s view, the theory has the shortfall of not taken the environment that produces the play as necessary. This alone may lead to misconception, misinterpretation and misjudgement of such play. Though it must be observed that the end product of the interpreter’s art is “communication” and the recipients of the live communication are the audience. It is instructive to note at this level that the principles of this primary theory are merged with Langer’s theory of symbols for analyses.