Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Literary utterances are not genuine speech acts but rather 'imitations' of speech acts, as Searle argues in 'The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse'.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Literary utterances still perform genuine illocutionary acts: novels warn, describe, and persuade with real communicative force and effect.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The distinction between 'genuine' and 'imitated' speech acts lacks clear criteria; both involve intentional communication with conventional meaning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Searle's account struggles with cases like embedded speech in fiction (dialogue) and metafictional works that blur the imitation/genuine boundary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Authors suspend normal communicative intent; they don't assert propositions to affect audiences' beliefs as genuine speakers do.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Literary speech lacks the binding social obligations of real promises, warnings, and declarations made outside fictional contexts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Readers understand literary utterances operate under different rules—we don't fact-check novels or hold authors accountable as we do speakers.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.