A Criticism of Theories of Meaning in Analytic Philosophy of Art

Document Type : Scientific-research

Authors

1 PhD candidate, Department of philosophy, Faculty of literature and human sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

2 Associate Professor of philosophy, Department of philosophy, Faculty of literature and human sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

 
Variations of different theories in analytic philosophy of art have caused long debates about literary interpretation. Intentionalism and anti-intentionalism are the two main avenues and theorists have developed different positions, which lean towards each of the two. Along with the arguments for or against the link between the authorial intentions and the literary text, a question could be asked of different parties of the debate, that is, how the meaning of a piece of literature is constituted. In other words, how the meaning of a poem or a novel takes its shape? In this regard, I think, concentrating on the philosophy of language and theories of meaning would be much helpful. It seems to me that for answering this question one needs to withdraw from a Gricean theory of meaning. I argue that neither intentionalists nor anti-intentionalist, do not answer this question deftly. I will try to investigate some answers given to this question by two moderate intentionalists, Robert Stecker and Paisley Livingston, in order to show in which respects their answers are problematic. At last, I argue that Relevance Theory, developed by Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber, could answer this question in a way that dissolves some of the hard cases in the philosophy of interpretation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

بارت، رولان. (1388)، "مرگ مولف "چاپ شده در «به سوی پسامدرن: پساساختارگرایی در مطالعات ادبی»، گردآوری و ترجمۀ پیام یزدانجو، چاپ دوم، تهران،  نشر مرکز .
 
Beardsley, M. C, (1992), The Authority of the Text 2, Intention Interpretation, 24, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Davies, S. (2006), Authors' intentions, literary interpretation, and literary value, The British Journal of Aesthetics, 46(3), 223-247.
Grice, H. P. (1957), Meaning, The philosophical review, 377-388.
Hirsch, E. D, (1967), Validity in interpretation (Vol. 260), New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lamarque, P, (1992), Appreciation and Literary Interpretation, In M. Krausz (ed.), Is There a Single Right Interpretation?
Livingston, P, (1996), Arguing over intentions. Revue internationale de philosophie, 50 (4), 615-633.
Livingston, P, (2005). Art and intention: A philosophical study. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.
Nathan, Daniel O, (2005), A paradox in intentionalism, The British Journal of Aesthetics 45, no. 1: 32-48.
Nehamas, A. (2001). Writer, text, work, author, CONTRIBUTIONS IN PHILOSOPHY, 83, 95-116.
Sperber, D, & Wilson, D, (1986), Relevance: communication and cognition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D, & Wilson, D, (2002), Relevance theory, Handbook of pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell.
Stecker, R, (2008), Interpretation and construction: Art, speech, and the law, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Stecker, R, (2010), Aesthetics and the philosophy of art: An introduction, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Stecker, R. (1993), The role of intention and convention in interpreting artworks, The Southern journal of philosophy, 31(4), 471-489.
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics