The Function of Interpretation in an Empirical Science of Literature

In view of the problem of interpretation as a partial set of an Empirical Science of Literature (ESL) there are differences between N. Groeben's and S.J. Schmidt's conception of literary studies: following Schmidt, there is no place for interpretation within his ESL: according to Groeben, however, interpretation can be admitted in an ESL, but in a functionally modified way. These differences are grounded on divergently emphasized meta-theoretical and methodological viewpoints, e.g. a strict vs. a non-technical application of the non-statement view of theories, new formation of a theory-net vs. methodical revisions towards empirization, etc. On the object-theoretical level the function of interpretation is determined by a decision between a strong and a weak version of the polyvalence postulate - which is in fact an empirical issue. If, as Groeben expects, the individual reception of literary texts has a 'normalizing' character, not exhausting polyvalence potentials, then the constructive function of interpretation can bereconstructed in an ESL as an elaboration of polyvalence knowledge. However, it is not beyond doubt whether this reconstructed scientific type of action should be called 'interpretation'.