Hela Laadhari expected norms of the genre the reader acquires through
constant contact with literary works. Just as there is no act
Objective of this paper: Presenting some of the main of verbal communication that is not related to a general, ideas of reception theory by Hans Robert Jauss. socially or situationally conditioned norm or convention, says Jauss, It is also unimaginable that a literary work set Hans Robert Jauss belongs to the German Constance School itself into an informational vacuum, without indicating a (sometimes written Konstance), the same school that specific situation of understanding in other words, without a Wolfgang Iser belongs to. Therefore a distinction should be relation to a genre or a norm (79). The second emanates from made between the two seemingly close but in fact different the fact that the reader is already influenced by other works approaches: whether they preceded the work or appeared with it in the A theory of aesthetic response is confronted with the same period. The third factor is related to the fact that the problem of how a hitherto unformulated situation can be reader receives the work within the narrow horizon of literary processed and, indeed, understood. A theory of experience-the fact that literary language is different from reception always deals with existing readers, whose ordinary language and serves different functions. reactions testify to certain historically conditioned The horizon of expectations will help uncover the factors that experience of literature. A theory of response has its govern the readers interpretation of any text. It determines roots in the text; a theory of reception arises from a the aesthetic distance as Jauss defines it: The disparity history of readers judgment. (The Act of Reading x) between a given horizon of expectations and the appearance Jauss sees that the rank of literary works resides mainly from of new work (25). A work of art may fulfill, change or alter the criteria of influence, reception, and posthumous fame... a given horizon of expectations. The distance will mark the (Toward an Aesthetic of Reception, 5). His main focus is on value of the work. The initial rejection will change the the interpretations of the text by real readers but he does not horizon gradually and the violation becomes self-evident and lose sight of the primary aesthetic experience the text can expected resulting in the works canonisation. The work will provide. He defines primary aesthetic experience in relation reach a state in which it becomes entertaining or culinary to pleasure: Aesthetic experience occurs before there is when it fulfills the newly changed horizon. The changed cognition and interpretation of the significance of a work, horizon will form the new expectations against which other and certainly before all reconstruction of an authors intent. future works are received. The primary experience of a work of art takes place in the Reception includes the task of merging of horizons: the orientation of its effect, in an understanding that is pleasure, horizon of the present is fused with the original (or historical) and a pleasure that is cognitive. (Aesthetic experience and horizon in which the work is produced and initially received. Literary Hermeneutics, xxix). The reconstruction of the horizon of expectations would Jauss develops his theory on the bases of Marxism and allow one to pose the question to which the work is an Formalism. For Jauss, both schools have in common the answer (28). Jauss sees the work as an answer and the turning away from positivisms blind empiricism and reader will understand it if s/he constructs the question the literature... once again be productively conceived as an work is an answer to. When a reader decides to respond to evidence of the social process, or a moment of literary the work by becoming productive, by re-writing the work evolution (19). He attempts at bridg[ing] the gap between (such as in adaptations), it means that the answer the work literature and history, between historical and aesthetic provided is no longer satisfactory. approaches, begin[ning] at the point at which both schools stop (18). He wants to overcome the limitations of both schools as they deprive literature of a dimension that Bibliography: inalienably belongs to its social function: the dimension of its reception and influence... (19). The reader is abused in both Jauss, Hans Robert. Aesthetic Experience and Literary schools: on the one hand Orthodox Marxist aesthetics treat Hermeneutics. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press, 1982. the reader- if at all- no different from the author and on the Print. other hand, Formalist school needs the reader only as a ---. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Tran. Timothy Bathi. perceiving subject (18). Ed. Paul de Man. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1982. Print. In order to study the reception of the work one needs to reconstruct its horizon of expectations through the detection ---, Question and Answer: Forms of Dialogic Understanding. of the following elements: First through the familiar norms Ed & Tran. Michael Hays. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota or the immanent poetics of the genre, second, through the P, 1989. Print. implicit relationships to familiar works of literary- historical surroundings; and third, through the opposition between fiction and reality, between the poetic and the practical functions of language (24). The first element is related to the
Dark Psychology & Manipulation: Discover How To Analyze People and Master Human Behaviour Using Emotional Influence Techniques, Body Language Secrets, Covert NLP, Speed Reading, and Hypnosis.
Raising Mentally Strong Kids: How to Combine the Power of Neuroscience with Love and Logic to Grow Confident, Kind, Responsible, and Resilient Children and Young Adults
Empath: The Survival Guide For Highly Sensitive People: Protect Yourself From Narcissists & Toxic Relationships. Discover How to Stop Absorbing Other People's Pain