The 'intentional fallacy,' identified by Wimsatt and Beardsley, argued that a poem's meaning is not reducible to the author's intention—the text stands on its own. This anti-intentionalism became literary studies orthodoxy for decades. Recent intentionalists respond that we interpret all communication by considering speaker meaning; ignoring authorial intention creates arbitrary limits. Moderate positions now distinguish 'work meaning' (constrained by text and convention) from 'utterer's meaning' (what the author intended), arguing both are legitimate objects of inquiry.
It can be inferred from the text that
the intentional fallacy remains unchallenged orthodoxy today
author's intention and textual meaning are always identical
debates about interpretation may evolve from stark dichotomies to more nuanced positions that acknowledge multiple dimensions
moderate positions deny that texts have any meaning
Correct Answer: C
Choice C is the best answer. The progression goes from anti-intentionalism to responses to moderate synthesis.
- Context clues: Anti-intentionalism was orthodoxy; intentionalists responded; moderate positions distinguish multiple types of meaning.
- Meaning: The debate evolved from either/or to both/and.
- Verify: Work meaning vs. utterer's meaning shows the nuanced current position.
đź’ˇ Strategy: When debates evolve from dichotomy to distinction-making, infer evolution toward nuance.
Choice A is incorrect because recent intentionalists and moderate positions have challenged it. Choice B is incorrect because the distinction between work meaning and utterer's meaning shows they differ. Choice D is incorrect because moderate positions affirm multiple types of meaning.