Theoria 76 (1):68-90 (2010)

Jukka Mikkonen
University of Jyväskylä
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 No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1755-2567.2009.01051.x
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: 72,577
External links

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

The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse.John R. Searle - 1975 - New Literary History 6 (2):319--32.
The Ethical Criticism of Art.Berys Gaut - 1998 - In Jerrold Levinson (ed.), Aesthetics and Ethics: Essays at the Intersection. Cambridge University Press. pp. 182--203.

View all 114 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

On the Body of Literary Persuasion.Jukka Mikkonen - 2010 - Estetika: The European Journal of Aesthetics 47 (1):51-70.
Literary Fictions and As-If Fictions.Eric Miller - 1997 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 30 (4):428 - 442.
Literary Thickness.Rafe McGregor - 2015 - British Journal of Aesthetics 55 (3):343-360.
Contemplation and Hypotheses in Literature.Jukka Mikkonen - 2010 - Philosophical Frontiers 5 (1):73-83.
Video Games as Self-Involving Interactive Fictions.Jon Robson & Aaron Meskin - 2016 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 74 (2):165-177.
Video Games as Self‐Involving Interactive Fictions.Jon Robson & Aaron Meskin - 2016 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 74 (2):165-177.
Walton on Fictionality.Richard Woodward - 2014 - Philosophy Compass 9 (12):825-836.
The Puzzle of Multiple Endings.Florian Cova & Amanda Garcia - 2015 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 73 (2):105-114.
Fictions Within Fictions.Reina Hayaki - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 146 (3):379 - 398.


Added to PP index

Total views
107 ( #112,217 of 2,533,614 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #389,998 of 2,533,614 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes