British Journal of Aesthetics 37 (1):15-30 (1997)
The paper explores the relevance of irrecoverable authorial intentions to the interpretation of texts. It suggests that the ways in which different conventions of discourse take account of the existence of irrecoverable intentions (i.e. of the failure of texts perfectly to represent their authors' intentions) can guide us to a criterion for distinguishing 'literary' from 'non-literary' texts, or 'literary'(aesthetically motivated) from 'non-literary' readings of texts.
|Keywords||literary aesthetics interpretation authorial intention meaning illocutionary act|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Truth-Claiming in Fiction: Towards a Poetics of Literary Assertion.Jukka Mikkonen - 2009 - Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 38 (18):34.
Interpreting Words, Interpreting Worlds.John Gibson - 2006 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 64 (4):439–450.
Proximal Intentions, Intention-Reports, and Vetoing.Alfred R. Mele - 2008 - Philosophical Psychology 21 (1):1 – 14.
Modes of Interpretation and Interpretative Constraints.Stein Haugom Olsen - 2004 - British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (2):135-148.
Intentions and Interpretations: Philosophical Fiction as Conversation.Jukka Mikkonen - 2009 - Contemporary Aesthetics 7.
The Intentionalist Controversy and Cognitive Science.Raymond W. Gibbs - 1993 - Philosophical Psychology 6 (2):181-205.
Authors' Intentions, Literary Interpretation, and Literary Value.Stephen Davies - 2006 - British Journal of Aesthetics 46 (3):223-247.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #191,396 of 2,177,988 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #317,698 of 2,177,988 )
How can I increase my downloads?