Several times in Reading Argumentative Texts, I stated that there is no one authoritative – absolutely correct – reading of an argumentative text. It is profitable to revisit that proposition. If I am correct that in this view, then why is that so? There are several reasons.
As an initial matter, we saw in Chapter 6 of Reading and in the Workbook that sometimes authors are just not terribly careful in their writing. An author may be more focused on emotional appeals than argumentative rigor; she may not recognize one or more logical errors; she may not be attuned to the ambiguity in a word or phrase; and so on. Any one or more of those characteristics of an argumentative text may result in multiple reasonable interpretations of the text.
Moreover, even when an author is trying to be as precise as possible, the text may still have significant room for interpretation. On the one hand, written language is by its very nature plastic, open ended, and flexible. (Contrast it with the precision of mathematical symbols and proofs.) That plasticity can be an impediment to clear communication. Yet it can also have real benefits, in allowing a text to generate multiple meanings and, in some instances, multiple ideas or theories. On the other hand, as James Madison (the principal intellect behind our Constitution) recognized more than two centuries ago, written language also lacks precise words and phrases for every complex idea. We are constrained to express those ideas as best as we can through language and when those expressions fall short of the idea we seek to communicate, there will be room for multiple reasonable interpretations of that language.
Finally, as you have learned from reading Reading and the Workbook, there are at least four sources of meaning in an argumentative text: (1) the structure of the text; (2) the meanings of key words, phrases, and sentences; (3) the context of the text; and (4) the logical relations between the parts of the text. The way these four sources relate to each other, and the different emphases or stresses a reader gives to one or more of these sources, will yield different meanings for the text as a whole.
If there were a rule (or set of rules) a reader could follow to determine the proper stresses and emphases to give to these four sources of meaning for any particular text, then following that rule (or rules) may produce an authoritative reading for the text. But there is no such rule or set of rules. No rule can tell you that the context of a particular text is of greater or lesser importance in interpreting that text, or that some ambiguous term is to be interpreted as meaning X and not Y, or that a sentence is meant to be rhetorical and not part of the argument, and so on. Accordingly, for each text we must engage in the art of interpretation, recognizing that there are better and worse ways of performing that art (just as there are better and worse ways of singing or hitting a baseball) but no single, absolutely right way for any particular text.
One lesson to be taken from these brief reflections is this: if someone tells you that he has the authoritative reading of an argumentative text (or, by extension, a great work of fiction or historical event), you should view that claim with skepticism, perhaps even with extreme skepticism. If you put him through the paces and ask him to prove his claim, you shouldn’t be surprised if he can’t.
Reading Argumentative Texts 