THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL MARCH From the writings of Ricoeur and others it is possible to develop a hermeneutic framework for the analysis of interpretation using the following definitions (i)under standing: the construction of a text's meaning in its own terms.s (ii)explanation: the presentation of the understood meaning in term accessible to a particular audience (iii)interpretation: the process of dynamic interaction between under standing and explanation; (iv)meaning: the outcome of the process of interpretation (v) judgement: the construction of a relation between the text and something external to it (vi)criticism: the explanation and evaluation of the judgement (vii)application: the process of dynamic interaction between judgement and criticism, (viii)significance: the outcome of the process of application For Ricoeur these concepts are abstract poles within a concrete whole Interpretation is a dialectic of understanding and explanation in which the understanding of a text affects its explanation and vice versa. Likewise application is a dialectic of judgement and criticism. At a higher level there is also a dialectical interaction between interpretation and application. The dialectical approach of Ricoeur and other related organicist analyses of interpretation are able to provide an alternative set of presuppositions about the nature of interpretation to that associated with the atomistic view. This alternative set of presuppositions can be formulated in terms of four propositions. PROPOSITION I. Interpretation is a multi-dimensional process with multiple objectives Interpretation involves understanding and explanation as well as judgemer and criticism. It aims not only to provide meaning to a text but also to evaluate the significance of the text. The complexity of interpretation needs to be ecognised by writers in order to overcome the confusion. This conclusion is drawn by Aksoy (1989, P. 744) in his application of the hermeneutic perspective to the debates surrounding the interpretation of ricardo: ..there a great deal of confusion about the meaning and the purpose of the act of interpretation. In most cases, interpreters are found to be careless and aconsistent about the differences between interpretation, judgement, evalu ation and application PROPOSITION 2. Interpretation is not an objective process but this does not imply that nything goes. There is no objective criterion of consistency with the textual evidence on which to base the rational evaluation of alternative interpretations. But anything does not go. The interpretive process is historically and socially contingent. Fish(Ig8o) argues that interpreters are social beings, constrained y the set of characteristic beliefs of the particular interpretive community which the interpreters belong. The interpretive community acts as the