Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Representing in literature is a speech act — Carmelics
    Home/Aesthetics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Representing in literature is a speech act

    AestheticsPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If a linguistic expression were used in a representation without performing any speech act, it would have no speech act potential
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.On the Alston/Beardsley theory of meaning, an expression with no speech act potential has no meaning
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The expression 'Milton!' in Wordsworth's poem evidently does have meaning
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Literary utterances are not genuine speech acts but rather 'imitations' of speech acts, as Searle argues in 'The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An expression can carry meaning through its place in a semantic system without the author performing any illocutionary act directed at a real-world audience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, 'Milton!' in Wordsworth has meaning as a mimetic or quasi-assertive utterance, not because it constitutes a genuine speech act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On a Fregean or truth-conditional semantics, meaning is determined by sense and reference, not by speech act potential, making the Alston/Beardsley premise dispensable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the premise that 'meaning requires speech act potential' is false, the entire inference that literary representation must constitute a speech act collapses.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    AestheticsPhilosophy of Language

    Related

    An expression can carry meaning through its place in a semantic system without t...If a linguistic expression were used in a representation without performing any ...If the premise that 'meaning requires speech act potential' is false, the entire...Literary utterances are not genuine speech acts but rather 'imitations' of speec...
    +5 moreShow less
    On a Fregean or truth-conditional semantics, meaning is determined by sense and ...On the Alston/Beardsley theory of meaning, an expression with no speech act pote...The expression 'Milton!' in Wordsworth's poem evidently does have meaningTherefore, 'Milton!' in Wordsworth has meaning as a mimetic or quasi-assertive u...Therefore, 'Milton!' in Wordsworth's poem must have some speech act potential, m...

    Similar

    Representing (in language) is itself a speech act, just as much as sta...85%Therefore, 'Milton!' in Wordsworth's poem must have some speech act po...84%Even if a literary work is a representation or imitation of a speech a...81%The speech act potentials of 'Milton!' within a literary poem and outs...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: beardsley-aesthetics
    View source passageHide passage
    And it’s probably a good thing that representing is a speech act. If “Milton!” in Wordsworth’s poem were being used in a representation that wasn’t the performance of any speech act at all, that would presumably be because it had no speech act potential. On the Alston/Beardsley theory of meaning, it would then have no meaning. Since it evidently does have meaning, it has to have some speech act potential. And since it seems to share a good deal of its meaning with “Milton!” as bellowed by a seve
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit