Who is speaking?

"The array of possibilities only begins to become a more selective system of probabilities when, instead of confronting merely a word sequence, we also posit a speaker who very likely means something" (Hirsch 19).

Hirsch provides alot of back up for his claim that a critic needs to look beyond just the text in order to understand an author's intent and the meaning of the work. I liked the point that he made that we can talk about a car with easy understanding from others today, but if someone were to read about a car hundreds of years from now, would they still understand what we were talking about? Putting a face to the voice/phrase really helps to understand why a phrase was written. Although, as Hirsch pointed out, it can't lead directly to the right interpretation, it can certainly help to narrow down the possibilities and even create perspectives that may not have been possible when only looking at the text alone.

"...no mere sequence of words can represent an actual meaning with references to public norms alone" (Hirsch 19). This point really helped me to being to side with Hirsch in his claim. Without adding a face or voice to what is being said, how can we know for sure what was intended. A phrase that was written two hundred years ago taken by itself may not have the same meaning in today's society. However, adding a voice and background to that phrase, it helps to understand more what the original intent for the phrase might have been.

Bye!