INTENT of the author of the text

1. In Law

The argument of the legislator’s intentions interprets the law in accordance with the purpose of the legislative body. The purpose is determined by examining the legislative act itself, its social and historical context, the issues the legislator wanted to address, and the desired solution.

The intention of the legislator can also be determined by reference to the spirit of the law: this is called a psychological argument (Tarello, quoted in Perelman 1979, 58).

This form of argumentation is recognized as relevant in law, see legal logic; appeal to the letter (of the law); strict meaning (of the law).
The legislator’s intention can be determined through a historical, or genetic argument, using data from the law’s history. This history is evident in the preparatory works, the “whereas” section of the law, and parliamentary debates leading to its drafting.
When relying on the previous state of the law, the historical argument assumes that the legislator is conservative and that new legislation must be interpreted within the context of the legal tradition (the presumption of legal continuity).

This argument contrasts with arguments based strictly on the letter or on its strict literal meaning, of the text, as written in the code.

This argument is also known as the teleological argument. Teleology is a philosophical doctrine asserting that every phenomenon can be explained by its end, or  intention.
Teleology answers the questions: « What is it for? » « What is its good?”.

2. In Literature and Philosophy

The scope of this class of arguments extends beyond the legal field. They can be used with any text that an institution recognizes as valid.
For instance, in philosophy or literature, an interpretation of a text may appeal to the author’s intention. This intention can be inferred from  preliminary work, and  data, (e.g., drafts, notes, manuscripts, declared intentions); from psychological data, such as the spirit of the work and the author’s mindset at the time, as understood by the interpreter; and also from the historical context at large.
However, such arguments are considered misleading in structuralist literary analysis, which advocates an immanent approach to literary texts, see fallacy 1.