“The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl

“The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” by P. D. Juhl first appeared in 1980 in the journal New Literary History. This essay is a cornerstone in the field of literary theory, offering a profound interrogation of the concept of “the text” itself. Juhl’s meticulous examination of the term’s various interpretations and implications has significantly influenced subsequent discussions about textual authority, reader response, and the nature of literary meaning. By challenging the notion of a fixed, objective text, Juhl opened up new avenues for exploring the dynamic relationship between the reader and the written word.

Summary of “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl

• Interpretation and Coherence:
  Juhl asserts that when we interpret a text, we often appeal to criteria like coherence or complexity. He explains that “we say that the text, or a certain part of the text, supports this interpretation rather than that because under the former the text is more coherent.” This means that interpretations are often validated by how logically consistent or sophisticated they render the text.
• Example of Interpretative Choices:
  Juhl illustrates the process of interpretation using a poem by Wordsworth, where the phrase “rolled round” could either imply a “slow and gentle motion” or a “violent motion.” The interpretation depends on how these connotations align with the surrounding text, showing how different readings can be supported by different assumptions about coherence.
• Significance of Authorial Intent:
  Juhl argues that interpretations must consider the author’s intention to be meaningful. He states that “an interpretation can account for such facts only if it is a statement about the author’s intention,” suggesting that understanding what the author intended is essential for making coherent and justified interpretations of the text.
• Hypothetical Scenarios to Illustrate Intent:
  Juhl uses thought experiments, such as imagining a poem being accidentally typed by a monkey or created by water erosion, to demonstrate that without intentional authorship, interpretations lose their grounding. He argues that if a text were created by chance rather than intention, “it would simply be an ‘accident’ that ‘rolled round’ is qualified by the words ‘in earth’s diurnal course,'” thus rendering coherent interpretation meaningless.
• Necessity of Intentionality for Coherence:
  Juhl emphasizes that only if the words “in earth’s diurnal course” were intentionally chosen by an author can we argue that one interpretation of “rolled round” (as gentle motion) is more coherent than another (as violent motion). This underscores the idea that coherence in interpretation is linked to the author’s purposeful use of language.
• Generalizing the Argument to All Textual Features:
  Juhl generalizes his argument by stating that the necessity of authorial intention applies to any textual feature that can be described as something the author has deliberately done, such as word choice, sentence structure, or imagery. He asserts that “what I have shown for f holds for any textual feature which can be described in terms of what the author has done.”
• Critique of Separating Speaker’s Intent from Author’s Intent:
  Juhl critiques the idea that interpretations could focus solely on the speaker’s intent, independent of the author. He argues that coherent interpretation inherently involves understanding the author’s broader intentions, stating that questions about the text often require an explanation not just of the “speaker’s action, but of the author’s.”
• Coherence as a Measure of Valid Interpretation:
  Juhl concludes that a valid interpretation is one that can account for the greatest amount of textual data, reflecting Beardsley’s idea that “a proposed explication may be regarded as a hypothesis that is tested by its capacity to account for the greatest quantity of data in the words of the poem.” This highlights the importance of coherence as a critical test for any interpretation.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl

Term/Concept	Definition
Coherence	The logical consistency and unity of a text or interpretation.
Complexity	The intricate and multifaceted nature of a text, allowing for multiple interpretations.
Interpretation	The process of assigning meaning to a text.
Textual Feature	Specific elements within a text, such as word choice, syntax, or imagery.
Authorial Intention	The author’s intended meaning or purpose in creating the text.
Function	The role or purpose of a textual element within the overall structure of the work.
Speaker	The voice or persona through which a poem is spoken.
Accident	A chance occurrence or event without a deliberate cause.

Contribution of “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl to Literary Theory/Theories

• Contribution to Hermeneutics (Interpretive Theory):
  Juhl’s emphasis on the necessity of authorial intent aligns with hermeneutic principles, which prioritize understanding a text through the intentions of its creator. He argues that “an interpretation can account for such facts only if it is a statement about the author’s intention,” reinforcing the hermeneutic view that meaning is deeply connected to the author’s purpose and context.
• Challenge to New Criticism:
  While New Criticism advocates for a focus on the text itself, independent of authorial intent or external factors, Juhl challenges this by asserting that valid interpretations must consider the author’s intention. He critiques the New Critical approach by stating that without understanding the author’s purpose, interpretations “lose their grounding in coherence or purpose,” thereby limiting the depth and accuracy of textual analysis.
• Engagement with Intentionalism:
  Juhl makes a significant contribution to Intentionalism by arguing that the interpretation of a text must be tied to the author’s intention. He posits that “only if the words ‘in earth’s diurnal course’ have been used to qualify ‘rolled round’ by the author” can an interpretation be coherent, thus reinforcing the Intentionalist view that understanding a text’s meaning is inseparable from understanding the author’s intended message.
• Critique of Reader-Response Theory:
  By insisting on the primacy of authorial intent, Juhl implicitly critiques Reader-Response Theory, which centers the reader’s interpretation as the primary source of meaning. He argues that interpretations detached from the author’s intention, such as those produced randomly, “lose their grounding” and cannot account for the text’s coherence, thus questioning the validity of purely reader-centered interpretations.
• Contribution to Functionalism in Literary Criticism:
  Juhl introduces a functional approach to literary criticism by suggesting that textual features can only be meaningfully explained if they serve the author’s purpose. He states, “the fact that the words ‘in earth’s diurnal course’ connote gentle motion could in principle explain” the author’s choice of words, but only if understood within the context of the author’s intentions. This perspective adds a functionalist dimension to the analysis of literary texts.
• Reinforcement of the Role of Context in Interpretation (Contextualism):
  Juhl’s argument underscores the importance of considering the author’s context and intentions in forming valid interpretations, aligning with Contextualist approaches in literary theory. He emphasizes that understanding why an author chose specific words or structures requires an analysis of the author’s intentions and circumstances, thus supporting a Contextualist view that interpretation cannot be isolated from the context in which a text was created.
• Support for Theories of Textual Authority:
  Juhl’s work contributes to debates on textual authority by asserting that the author’s intention holds significant interpretative weight. He argues that without considering the author’s intent, interpretations “cannot in principle account for” the coherence of the text, thereby supporting theories that view the author as the primary authority in determining textual meaning.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl

Criticism Against “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl

• Overemphasis on Authorial Intent: Critics argue that Juhl’s focus on authorial intent limits the interpretive possibilities of a text. By insisting that valid interpretations must be grounded in the author’s intentions, Juhl may disregard the potential for readers to find new meanings in texts that were not consciously intended by the author.
• Neglect of Reader Response: Juhl’s theory downplays the role of the reader in constructing meaning, which is a central tenet of Reader-Response Theory. Critics contend that this diminishes the importance of the reader’s engagement with the text, where meaning is seen as dynamic and created in the interaction between text and reader.
• Dismissal of Textual Autonomy: Some literary theorists critique Juhl for not allowing the text to stand on its own. By tying interpretation so closely to authorial intent, Juhl potentially undermines the concept of the text as an autonomous entity, capable of generating meaning independent of the author’s original intentions.
• Inflexibility in Interpretive Approaches: Juhl’s approach may be seen as too rigid, as it does not easily accommodate interpretative flexibility. Critics argue that this rigidity could stifle creative or alternative readings of texts that might offer valuable insights, particularly in post-structuralist and deconstructionist frameworks, where ambiguity and multiplicity of meaning are embraced.
• Potential Historical Limitations: Critics also point out that Juhl’s emphasis on authorial intent may be problematic when interpreting historical texts, where the author’s intent is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain. This reliance on intent could limit the applicability of his approach to literary works from earlier periods or works by anonymous authors.
• Insufficient Consideration of Cultural and Social Contexts: Juhl’s focus on the author’s intention may overlook the broader cultural, social, and historical contexts that influence both the creation and interpretation of texts. Critics argue that these contexts are crucial for a comprehensive understanding of a text, and that Juhl’s approach might not fully account for these factors.
• Exclusion of Non-Intentional Meanings: Juhl’s theory is critiqued for excluding interpretations that arise from unintended meanings or accidental features of the text. Critics argue that these non-intentional aspects can be just as significant in the interpretative process and that Juhl’s framework might dismiss these potential readings.

Suggested Readings: “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl

1. Beardsley, Monroe C. The Possibility of Criticism. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970.
2. Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Harvard University Press, 1980.
3. Hirsch, E. D. Jr. Validity in Interpretation. Yale University Press, 1967.
4. Wimsatt, W. K., and Monroe C. Beardsley. The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. University of Kentucky Press, 1954.
5. Juhl, P. D. “The Appeal to the Text: What Are We Appealing To?” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 36, no. 3, 1978, pp. 277–87. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/430438. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
6. Hirsch, E. D. “The Politics of Theories of Interpretation.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 9, no. 1, 1982, pp. 235–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343282. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
7. HERMAN, LUC, and BART VERVAECK. “Before and Surrounding Structuralism.” Handbook of Narrative Analysis, 2nd ed., University of Nebraska Press, 2019, pp. 11–41. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvr43mhw.6. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
8. KNAPP, STEVEN, et al. “The Impossibility of Intentionless Meaning.” Intention Interpretation, Temple University Press, 1992, pp. 51–64. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bs87q.8. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
9. NATHAN, DANIEL O., and GARY ISEMINGER. “Irony, Metaphor, and the Problem of Intention.” Intention Interpretation, Temple University Press, 1992, pp. 183–202. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bs87q.15. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.

Representative Quotations from “The Appeal To The Text: What Are We Appealing To?” By P. D. Juhl with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“We say that the text, or a certain part of the text, supports this interpretation rather than that because under the former the text is more coherent, or more complex, than under the latter.”	Juhl argues that coherence and complexity are often used as criteria to justify interpretations. This reflects the idea that interpretations are judged based on how well they make the text appear logically consistent or sophisticated.
“What is being claimed is that I), but not I2, can account for the fact that ‘rolled round’ is qualified by words connoting gentle motion rather than by words which would suggest that the woman is being violently whirled about.”	Here, Juhl illustrates the importance of authorial intent in determining which interpretation of a text is more coherent. The interpretation that aligns with the gentle motion suggested by the phrase is considered more coherent because it aligns with what is presumed to be the author’s intent.
“It is immediately obvious that we can no longer say that the words ‘in earth’s diurnal course’ qualify ‘rolled round’ because they are an appropriate means to suggest gentle motion.”	Juhl uses a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate that without authorial intent, the coherence of a text’s interpretation is lost. This underscores his argument that intentionality is crucial for making sense of a text’s features, such as word choice or phrasing.
“Hence the fact that the words ‘in earth’s diurnal course’ connote, or are an appropriate means to suggest, gentle motion could in principle explain f… only under the assumption that the author had a certain purpose or intention.”	Juhl emphasizes that understanding the meaning of a text relies on assuming the author had specific intentions. This reflects his argument that interpretation must be tied to what the author intended to convey for it to be coherent and meaningful.
“I have argued that unless an interpretation is a statement about the author’s intention, it cannot in principle account for f.”	This quotation encapsulates Juhl’s central thesis: that valid interpretations must reflect the author’s intentions. Without reference to what the author intended, an interpretation cannot fully account for the text’s features, making it less coherent or justified.