David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theoria 46 (1):68-80 (2010)
During the last decades, there has been a debate on the question whether literary works are utterances, or have utterance meaning, and whether it is reasonable to approach them as such. Proponents of the utterance model in literary interpretation, whom I will refer to as ‘utterance theorists,’ such as Noël Carroll and especially Robert Stecker, suggest that because of their nature as linguistic products of intentional human action, literary works are utterances similar to those used in everyday discourse. Conversely, those whom I will refer to as ‘appreciation theorists,’ such as Stein Haugom Olsen and Peter Lamarque, argue that literary works are by no means comparable to conversational utterances, and treating them in terms of utterances mistakenly dismisses their literary features. The aim of this essay is twofold: to defend a central aspect of the utterance theory and to reconcile the two main positions about central issues in the debate on the meaning of literary works. On the one hand, I shall argue that it is both legitimate and reasonable to discuss the utterance meaning of a literary work on the basis of an interpretative approach interested in the author’s “message.” My aim is to show that literary works should be considered utterances in a conversational approach which aims at examining the illocutionary actions conveyed through the work. On the other hand, I attempt to show both that there are various legitimate interpretative approaches which are governed by the interpreter’s purposes and to suggest that the debate between utterance theorists and appreciation theorists is actually about merely different emphases.
|Keywords||literature fiction meaning utterance interpretation appreciation understanding|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Roman Bonzon (2003). Fiction and Value. In Matthew Kieran & Dominic Lopes (eds.), Imagination, Philosophy, and the Arts. Routledge. 160--176.
N. Carroll (2000). Art and the Domain of the Aesthetic. British Journal of Aesthetics 40 (2):191-208.
Noël Carroll (2000). Art and Ethical Criticism: An Overview of Recent Directions of Research. Ethics 110 (2):350-387.
Noël Carroll (1992). Art, Intention, and Conversation. In Gary Iseminger (ed.), Intention and Interpretation. Temple University Press. 97--131.
Noël Carroll (1998). Art, Narrative, and Moral Understanding. In Jerrold Levinson (ed.), Aesthetics and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection. Cambridge University Press. 126--60.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Carolyn Price (2003). Artificial Functions and the Meaning of Literary Works. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (1):1-17.
Petr Kot'?Tko (1998). Two Notions of Utterance Meaning. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 98:225 - 239.
Jukka Mikkonen (2009). The Realistic Fallacy, Or: The Conception of Literary Narrative Fiction in Analytic Aesthetics. Studia Philosophica Estonica 2 (1):1-18.
Jukka Mikkonen (2009). Intentions and Interpretations: Philosophical Fiction as Conversation. Contemporary Aesthetics 7.
Jukka Mikkonen (2009). Truth-Claiming in Fiction: Towards a Poetics of Literary Assertion. Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 38 (18):34.
Stein Haugom Olsen (1987). The End of Literary Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Jukka Mikkonen (2010). Contemplation and Hypotheses in Literature. Philosophical Frontiers 5 (1):73-83.
Jukka Mikkonen (2010). On the Body of Literary Persuasion. Estetika 47 (1):51-71.
Added to index2009-06-10
Total downloads26 ( #66,506 of 1,101,074 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #116,144 of 1,101,074 )
How can I increase my downloads?