Text interpretation is a consequence-sensitive act, not a logical exercise.

Evidence

The interpretation of texts is not a logical exercise and the bounds of “interpretation” are so expansive (when we consider that among the verbal and other objects that are interpreted are dreams, texts in foreign languages, and musical compositions) as to cast the utility of the concept into doubt. Pragmatists will emphasize the role of consequences in “interpretation,” viewed humbly as the use of a text in aid of an outcome. They will point out, for example, that one reason we interpret the sentence “I’ll eat my hat” as facetious is that the consequences of attempting to eat one’s hat are so untoward. — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 97

Categorization

• DEFINE: Illuminates the pragmatist definition of interpretation as consequence-driven rather than deductive.
• XREF: connects to: Statutory interpretation problems usually involve vagueness, not ambiguity — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 689; Texts impose preferred readings that constrain audience interpretation.; Legal meaning derives from practices of legitimation, not truth conditions. — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 386

Broader Connections

• Texts impose preferred readings that constrain audience interpretation. #qualifies (0.60)
• Legal meaning derives from practices of legitimation, not truth conditions. #corroborates (0.55) — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 386