Mind and Language 28 (5):579-605 (2013)

This article addresses issues in the philosophy of fiction from the perspective of a relevance theoretic approach to communication: first, how should we understand the notion of ‘voice’ as it is used in the analysis of free indirect style narratives; and, second, in what sense can the person responsible for free indirect representations of fictional characters' thoughts be regarded as a communicator? The background to these questions is the debate about the roles of pretence and attribution in free indirect style. I argue that the role of expressives in sustaining the illusion that fictional characters speak their inner thoughts suggests that ‘voice’ should be understood in two distinct ways. On the one hand, there are cases in which the use of expressive devices leads to the formation of thoughts which are understood to resemble other (attributed) thoughts. On the other hand, there are other cases in which expressives are used as a means of simulating a fictional character's behaviour or style. At the same time, I argue that in order to accommodate free indirect thought representation in a relevance theoretic model of communication, the responsibility for ensuring that the effort of processing the text will be rewarded by optimal relevance must be decoupled from the point of view that is being represented. While the (constructed) author is responsible for orchestrating our interpretation of free indirect thought representations so that the effort of processing will result in optimal relevance, the reader does not necessarily assume this function is being performed by someone who intends to communicate their own thoughts: the relevance of the act of narration may instead lie in the sense of mutuality achieved between reader and character.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/mila.12035
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,295
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Literal Meaning.François Recanati - 2002 - Cambridge University Press.
Meaning and Relevance.Deirdre Wilson & Dan Sperber - 2012 - Cambridge University Press.

View all 32 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Puzzle of Free Indirect Discourse.Yael Sharvit - 2008 - Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (3):353-395.
Frege on Indirect Proof.Ivan Welty - 2011 - History and Philosophy of Logic 32 (3):283-290.
Kierkegaard on Indirect Communication, the Crowd, and a Monstrous Illusion.Antony Aumann - 2010 - In Robert L. Perkins (ed.), International Kierkegaard Commentary: Point of View. Macon, GA, USA: Mercer University Press. pp. 295-324.
Gegenstandslose Gedanken.Johannes Brandl - 1985 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 25 (1):501-531.
Libet and the Case for Free Will Scepticism.Tim Bayne - 2011 - In Richard Swinburne (ed.), Free Will and Modern Science. Oup/British Academy.
In Defence of a Structural Account of Indirect Realism.Michael Sollberger - 2015 - European Journal of Philosophy 23 (4):815-837.
Restrictivism is a Covert Compatibilism.Neil Levy - forthcoming - In N. Trakakis (ed.), Essays on Free Will and Moral Responsibility. Cambridge Scholars Press.


Added to PP index

Total views
149 ( #70,960 of 2,448,704 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #302,846 of 2,448,704 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes