Any theory of the interpretation of literature is necessarily subsumed by a theory of interpretation in ordinary, mundane, spoken verbal interaction. But we must dig deeper than this. One cannot stop with words, or verbal behavior, because verbal behavior always takes place in some kind of situational context, and that context obviously plays a part in the act of interpretation. A theory of verbal behavior, therefore, must be subsumed by a more general theory, a theory of signs, or a semiotic theory. And here a further difficulty arises. Signs are said to have something called significance, or meaning. A sign, as the French say, wants to say something. Yet it can scarcely say something unless there is somebody to receive and respond to what it wants to say. Unless there is response on the part of somebody, there is no significance, no meaning. Clearly, a theory of signs must be subsumed by a theory of meaning. And if without response there is no meaning, then meaning can scarcely be immanent. And if it is not immanent, then the meaning is the response. …