Home Page Button Syllabus / Policies Button Composition Button Grammar Button Rhetoric Button Rhetoric Button Literature button poetry button classical button medieval button Renaissance Button Vocabulary Button


Reception Theory

This page is under perpetual construction! It was last updated September 1, 2017.

RECEPTION THEORY: A variant of reader response theory emphasizing how each individual reader has a part in receiving (i.e., interpreting), the text. German scholar Hans-Robert Jauss in the late 1960s was the primary advocate. The central concern in this theory is called a "horizon of expectation," i.e., that a reader's experience of textual meaning will dramatically alter depending on the time and place of the reader. This idea contrasts radically with the New Historicists or biographical critics who argue that textual meaning will dramatically alter depending on the time and place the author wrote the work.

To illustrate this, imagine three different readers encountering the same text. Suppose the text is a hypothetical text by Cicero in 40 BCE, in which Cicero advocates fortitude in the face of adversity. Cicero writes the work while sitting in a cemetery where his ancestors are buried, and though he never mentions that in the text itself, the background of his ancestors' deeds inspires his whole work. Twenty year later, Reader A is from the Roman Republic in 60 BCE. He reads Cicero's treatise outside a Tuscan slave market during a boom in the slave trade. Reader B is another Roman, but he lives in 455 AD and he's a soldier reading the treatise in a military fort on the frontier where the enter barbarians are about to come crawling over the territorial boundaries. Reader C is a 19th-century British art student studying sculpture while she visits Italy. She's not even Roman at all, and she reads the essay while in a plaza surrounded by the broken architecture of a toppled empire. As a female reader, she also is keenly aware of a certain masculine bravado here, as it's clear from context that Cicero is thinking exclusively of Roman men--a distinction Reader A and B wouldn't even be aware of, necessarily. Each reader sees something different in the text. Which one is correct?

A biographical critic would say that the correct interpretive technique is to read the treatise and try to reconstruct the intentions of Cicero back in 40 BCE. The individual author is what's important for this traditional school of interpretation. A New Historicist counters that the corrective interpretive technique would be to de-emphasize Cicero's intentions, but instead to place that text in the larger historical background of 40 BCE. What's important is how readers at the time of Cicero would react to the text and how it fits into other textual traditions at the time, regardless of what Cicero meant to do. The reception theorist would argue that it is fruitless and unrealistic to re-create what Cicero meant or to re-create how most other Roman readers would have reacted. After all, when we approach a text, we cannot erase our later knowledge of what happened after Cicero's death or the last two-thousand years of history. Even if we could erase or ignore it, would it even be productive to do so?

All readers in different times and places will inevitably experience the work differently because of their varying circumstances in culture, time, and place shape them to be different readers. So, Cicero may argue about the fortitude Roman citizens should have, and the inspiration for his thought may have come from the fact he was writing in a cemetery. He thought of his dead Roman ancestors and wanted Rome to go back to the ways of previous generations. However, if Cicero never actually mentions the cemetery or his Roman ancestors in the text, we cannot (ever!) recover that unstated intention. Instead, new generations always read--and must read--the text through their own situation and their own time, and that's not a bad thing. So, twenty years later, Reader A interprets the call to fortitude through the context of the Roman slave trade. He sees that stoic model of endurance as good advice for slaves, as slaves must learn to bow before necessity as the slave trade grows in Rome and their forced labor grows harder.

The next Roman reader encounters the text 400 years later, but for him, the call to embrace fortitude is a patriotic reminder that soldiers must be tough and protect the empire, which is what Rome needs in the fifth century. He's a military man, so he can't help but think of the advantages of fortitude in a military situation.

Finally, 2,000 years after Cicero, the 19th-century British art student encounters the same text. She reads the treatise on fortitude, and as an art student, she cannot help but see in the treatise echoes of fortitude in Roman sculpture. As she reads, her mind is filled with imagery of marble statues of grim Roman soldiers and tough athletes. She sees the musculature and determination depicted in Roman arts as another manifestation of what Cicero explores philosophically. Encountering the text in the piles of broken statuary, and knowing the historical reality of Rome's disintegration, she cannot help but see Cicero's argument as ironic or tragic, for she knows the outcome of Rome's fate, and Cicero did not.

For the Reception Theorist, it's not a question of which reader is correct. The question is meaningless, as Cicero is dead and cannot tell us what the text means. Even if Cicero could be resurrected and tell us what he intended, Cicero could not have predicted the larger context of history after he wrote and how that context would shape readers' reactions. Finally, even if Cicero knew the future thousands of years in advance, Cicero could not change the fact that his future readers will have different cultural backgrounds and individual experiences, and thus react differently than classical Romans would. Since readers cannot purge their own knowledge or recover the exact mindset of an author or his age, they should instead be aware of how their horizons of expectations only partially overlap (or don't overlap at all!) with that of the author. They should realize they bring something of their own to the text when they read, and embrace that individualistic response rather than reject it or ignore it, according to this line of thinking.

Click here to go back to the list of literary vocabulary.


I consulted the following works while preparing this list. I have tried to give credit to specific sources when feasible, but in many cases multiple reference works use the same examples or provide the same dates for common information. Students should examine these resources for more information than these humble webpages provide:

Works Cited:

  • Abrams, M. H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 6th edition. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Pub., 1993. [Now superseded by later editions.]
  • ---. "Poetic Forms and Literary Terminology." The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 7th edition. Volume 1. New York: Norton, 2000. 2944-61. 2 Vols.
  • Algeo, John and Thomas Pyles. The Origin and Development of the English Language. 5th edition. U.S.A., 2004.
  • Anderson, Douglas. "Note on the Text" in J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings. 50th anniversary edition. Houghton Mifflin, 2004.
  • Baugh, A. C. and Thomas Cable. A History of the English Language. 6th edition. Boston: Pearson Publishing, 2013.
  • Brown, Michelle P. Understanding Illuminated Manuscripts: A Guide to Technical Terms. London: The British Library and the J. Paul Getty Museum, 1994.
  • Burkert, Walter. Greek Religion. [Originally published 1977 as Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche.] Trans. John Raffan. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1985.
  • Carrick, Jake. E-mail interview. 28 April 2016.
  • Catholic University of America Editorial Staff. The New Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1967-79.
  • Corbett, Edward P. J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990.
  • Crow, Martin and Virginia E. Leland. "A Chronology of Chaucer's Life and Times." As condensed and reproduced in Larry Benson's The Canterbury Tales, Complete. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. xxiii-xxv.
  • Cuddon, J. A. The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. London: Penguin Books, 1991.
  • Damrosch, David, gen. ed. The Longman Anthology of British Literature. 2nd Compact Edition. Volume A. New York: Pearson, 2004. 3 Vols.
  • Deutsch, Babette. Poetry Handbook: A Dictionary of Terms. Fourth Edition. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. Reprint as Barnes and Noble Edition, 1981.
  • Drout, Michael D. C. J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment. New York: Routledge, 2007.
  • Duffy, Seán. Medieval Ireland: An Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge, 2005.
  • Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1983.
  • Elkhadem, Saad. The York Dictionary Literary Terms and Their Origin: English, French, German, Spanish. York P, 1976.
  • Feeney, Denis. "Introduction." Ovid: Metamorphóses Trans. David Raeburn. London: Penguin Books, 2004.
  • Gabel, John B. and Charles B. Wheeler. The Bible as Literature: An Introduction. New York: Oxford U P, 1986.
  • Giroux, Joan. The Haiku Form. New York: Charles E. Tuttle Company, 1974. Reprinted New York: Barnes and Noble, 1999.
  • Greenblatt, Stephen. "Glossary." The Norton Shakespeare: Tragedies. New York: Norton, 1997. 1139-43.
  • Guerin, Wilfred L., et al. "Glossary." A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1979. 317-29.
  • Harkins, Williams E. Dictionary of Russian Literature. The New Students Outline Series. Patterson, New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams, and Co., 1959.
  • Harvey, Sir Paul and Dorothy Eagle, eds. The Oxford Companion to English Literature. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1969.
  • Holman, C. Hugh. A Handbook to Literature. 3rd edition. New York: The Odyssey Press, 1972.
  • Hopper, Vincent Foster. Medieval Number Symbolism: Its Sources, Meaning, and Influence on Thought and Expression. 1938. Republished Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2000.
  • Horobin, Simon. Chaucer's Language. New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2007.
  • Kane, George. The Autobiographical Fallacy in Chaucer and Langland Studies. London: H. K. Lewis, 1965.
  • Lacy, Norris J. The New Arthurian Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Publishing, 1996.
  • Lanham, Richard A. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. 2nd edition. Berkeley: U of California P, 1991.
  • Marshall, Jeremy and Fred McDonald. Questions of English. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995.
  • Mawson, C. O. Sylvester and Charles Berlitz. Dictionary of Foreign Terms. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 2nd ed. 1975.
  • McManus, Damian. Ogam Stones At University College Cork. Cork: Cork U P, 2004.
  • Metzger, Bruce M. and Michael D. Coogan, eds. The Oxford Companion to the Bible. New York: Oxford U P, 1993.
  • O'Donoghue, Heather. Old Norse-Icelandic Literature: A Short Introduction. Malden, MA:Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
  • Page, P.K. "Forward." Hologram. Brick Books, London, Ontario: 1994.
  • Palmer, Donald. Looking At Philosophy: The Unbearable Heaviness of Philosophy Made Lighter. 2nd edition. Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1994.
  • Peck, Harry Thurston. Harper's Dictionary of Clasical Literature and Antiquities. New York: The American Book Company, 1923. 2 vols.
  • Preminger, Alex, and T.V.F. Brogan, et al. The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. New York: MJF Books for Princeton University Press, 1993.
  • Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, U of Notre Dame P, 2000.
  • Pound, Ezra. ABC of Reading. New York: Laughlin, 1960..
  • The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989.
  • Quinn, Arthur. Figures of Speech: 60 Ways to Turn a Phrase. Davis, California: Hermagoras P, 1993.
  • Rae, Gail. Guide to Literary Terms. Staten Island, New York: Research and Educational Association, 1998.
  • Roberts, Edgar V. and Henry E. Jacobs. "Glossary of Literary Terms." Literature: An Introduction to Reading and Writing. 6th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. 2028-50.
  • Scott, Kathleen L. Later Gothic Manuscripts, 1390-1490. A Survey of Manuscripts Illuminated in the British Isles 6. London: Harvey Miller Publishers, 1996. 2 Vols.
  • Shaw, Harry. Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.
  • Shipley, Joseph T. Dictionary of World Literature: Criticism, Forms, Technique. The Philosophical Library. New York: Philosophical Library, 1943.
  • Smith, Richard Upsher, Jr. A Glossary of Terms in Grammar, Rhetoric, and Prosody for Readers of Greek and Latin. Mundelein, Illinois: Bolchazy-Caducci Publishers, Inc., 2011.
  • Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary. 1989.
  • Smith, David P. "Glossary of Grammar Terms." [Miscellaneous handouts made available to students in Basic Greek at Carson-Newman University in the Fall Term of 2006.]
  • Swain, Dwight V. Creating Characters. The Elements of Fiction Writing. Cincinnati: Writer's Digest Books, 1990.
  • Velásquez, Lito. E-mail communication. 26 October 2015.
  • Williams, Jerri. "Schemes and Tropes." [Miscellaneous handouts made available to her graduate students at West Texas A & M University in the Fall Term of 1993.]
  • Yasuda, Kenneth. The Japanese Haiku: Its Essential Nature, History, and Possibilities in English. Rutland, Vermont and Tokyo, Japan: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1957.
  • Zenkovsky, Serge A. Medieval Russia's Epics, Chronicles, and Tales. Rev Ed. New York: Meridian Books, 1974.
  • Zireaux, Paul. E-mail Interview. 21 June 2012.



To Home Page
Copyright Dr. L. Kip Wheeler 1998-2017. Permission is granted for non-profit, educational, and student reproduction. Last updated January 5, 2017. Contact: kwheeler@cn.edu Please e-mail corrections, suggestions, or comments to help me improve this site. Click here for credits, thanks, and additional copyright information.