In literary theory and aesthetics, authorial intentionality is a concept referring to an utterance's author's intent as it is encoded in the medium of communication (speech, writing, performance).

Literary Theory

In literary studies, the question of the validity of the methods of determining authorial intent has been debated since the early twentieth century. New Criticism, as espoused by Cleanth Brooks, W. K. Wimsatt, T. S. Eliot, and others, argued that authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work of literature. The author, they argue, cannot be reconstructed from a writing. The text is the only source of meaning, and any details of the author's desires or life are purely extranneous. In psychoanalytic criticism, on the other hand, the author's biography and subconscious state were seen as part of the text, and therefore the author's intent could be revived from a literary text -- although the intent might be a subconscious one.

In post-structuralism, there are a variety of approaches to authorial intent. For deconstruction, the authorial intent is again irrelevant and unknowable. Furthermore, the critic's will and intention are superior to the author's (cf. Roland Barthes's "The Death of the Author" and his S/Z). In other post-structuralist approaches, authorial intent exists as a psychological phenomenon, and texts endlessly recreate psycho-linguistic battles. For some of the theorists deriving from Jacques Lacan, and in particular theories variously called ecrit feminine, gender and sex predetermine the ways that texts will emerge, and the language of textuality itself will present an argument that is potentially counter to the author's conscious intent.

For Marxist literary theorists, the author's intent is always a code for a particular set of ideologies in the author's own day. For naive Marxists (especially those of the Soviet Realism type), authorial intent is manifest in the text and must be placed in a context of liberation and the materialist dialectic. However, Marxist-derived theorists have seen authorial intent in a much more nuanced way. Raymond Williams, for example, posits literary productions always within a context of emerging, resistant, and synthetic ideological positions. The author's intent is recoverable from the text, but there is always encoded within it several separate positions. The author might be arguing consciously for empire, but hidden within that argument will be a response to a counterargument and a presentation of an emerging synthesis. Some members of the Reception Aesthetics group (Hans Robert Jauss, in particular) have approximated the Marxist view by arguing that the forces of cultural reception reveal the ideological positions of both author and readership.

Reader Response critics view the authorial intent variously. In general, they have argued that the author's intent itself is immaterial and cannot be fully recovered. However, the author's intent will shape the text and limit the possible interpretations of a work. The reader's impression of the author's intent is a working force in interpretation, but the author's actual intent is not.

In Bibliography

Authorial intentionality is of great practical concern to bibliographers. When preparing a work for the press, an editor working along the principles outlined by W. W. Gregg will always seek to take the text that is most intended by the author. For transcription and typesetting, authorial intentionality is paramount.

When editing, one must ask whether what sees in a copytext is intended. On the one hand, one can argue that the author always intends whatever the author writes. On the other hand, an author may in some cases write something he or she does not intend. For example, a textual critic must decide upon emendation in the following cases:

• He misspells a letter: an error in intention, it is usually assumed. Editorial procedures for works available in no 'authorized editions' (and even those are not always exempt) often specify correcting errors -- correcting the moment of intention of a particular author.
• He misformats his text: he leaves a sentence in run-on form, regrets not beginning a new paragraph, etc: but he does not see these changes needed until afterwards, until rereading. Editorial practice is normally not to mend.
• He describes something incorrectly: he rereads it later and disagrees with his previous formulation of words. It does not "resemble" his memory of X event or thing.

see also: Intentional Fallacy