Reader response criticism is a literary critical theory. It is promoted and developed by a variety of literary theorists and critics. Depending on the person advancing the concept, the theory may take on any number of nuanced meanings. Generally speaking however, reader response criticism suggests that a text gains meaning by the purposeful act of a reader’s reading and interpreting it. The relationship between reader and text is highly valued; text does not exist without a reader.
Those critical approaches are Reader-Response Criticism and Psychological (psychoanalytic) criticism. Reader-Response Criticism is as important as the author is since; readers are active participants in literary works and has his or her own opinion, understanding and image of the work read. Even though the interpretation may look similar from one person to another, nonetheless, there will always be a slight difference in how it is perceived. According to Barnet, Burto, and Cain (2011), readers are to give a response that cannot be compared to the real life. “At one extreme are those who say that our response to a work of literature should be purely aesthetic- a response to a work of art-and not the response we would have to something comparable in real life” (p. 1745).
In his famous essay, The Death of the Author, Roland Barthes examines the relationship between an author and their work. He argues that the reader determines the meaning of a text, and that meaning is generated in an active reading process, rather than the reader finding a hidden meaning from the author that was within the text to begin with. Barthes describes the writer as a “scriptor” or someone who writes simply to engage in the act of writing, but not in the creation of meaning (52). For Barthes, the meaning of the text is constructed through the performance of language, an active process of reading and creating meaning. This approach to literature focuses on the text rather than the Author, allowing for a more open interpretation of a
Hence, artistic creations are inseparable from the human lives and histories involved in their creation and consumption. Greenblatt’s views on textuality are central to the hermeneutical practice he advocates in the Poetics of Culture, which became popular in aesthetic circles as New Historicism.
Foucault says that, once we assume the idea of "author" as an individual creator, what do we think by "work". Foucault realized writing as interplay of signs arranged less according to its signified content than according to very nature of the signifier. As Foucault wrote: “that today’s writing has freed itself from the theme of expression”. He said that a writer's individuality is removed by writing, and with this idea he turned the literature into discourse because we see "author," as the function of language and become a part of the structure of texts. As he claimed: “Perhaps it is time to study discourses not only in terms of their expressive value or formal transformations but according to their modes of existence.
Chaucer highlights other aspect of literature to the same effect in the Nun’s Priest’s Tale. As Gania Barlow has argued Chaucer takes on the role of compiler in The Canterbury Tales rejecting moral responsibility for the work (420). Several factor contribute to this, such as his use of mock epic style
The formalists primarily concerned themselves with form as content – notions, emotions or humanity – was merely a justification to shape language in a literary fashion. Thus, a formalist approach empowers the reader to embark on an observant reading. The New Critics were similarly quite concerned on the text and debated that literary language conjures profound and tributary meanings, courtesy of their belief that it was connotative. However, unlike Formalism, New Criticism did not actively deliberate on the segregation of form and content. Rather, texts were regarded as mechanisms fused by their strategies, ideas, motifs and styles.
Khazaeifar(1384) believes that concept of literary translation can be defined according to two principles . These two principles are derived from the concept of literary translation. According to the first principle, the translation must be faithful to the original as possible. In second principle, translation should be a literary work with the target language standards. The importance of this definition is evident when we compare it with the commonly used definition of literary translation.
For example, there is no reciprocal communication between teachers and students in the learning process. In giving feedback, teachers tend to be the one and only source in the classroom. In fact, teachers can engage students to contribute in giving feedback by providing them with peer reviewing if it possible to be done. The method should be selected based on its appropriateness and effectiveness to the learning process so that it will enable teachers to explore the students’ ideas and help them to get better
It also helps the reader to understand the meaning that the writer wants to convey (Azzouz, 2009: p.18). The concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to relations of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text (Halliday & Hasan, 1976: p.4). In other words, Cohesion refers to the range of possibilities that exist for linking something with what has gone before. Since this linking is achieved through relations in meaning (Halliday & Hasan, 1976: p.10). Or cohesion is“the continuity that exists between one part of the text and another” (Halliday & Hasan, 1976: