Szu-Yen Lin

A prominent trend in contemporary analytic philosophy of art is to construe literary works as utterances and interpret them accordingly. Actual intentionalists argue that a satisfactory theory of literary interpretation must address the constitutive question: what determines the meaning of a literary utterance? They claim that an author’s successfully realized intention constitutes such meaning and that major anti-intentionalist positions fail to provide a satisfactory alternative. Drawing on insights from the pragmatics of utterance interpretation, I advocate for an anti-intentionalist approach to literary interpretation that questions both the need for utterance meaning as a metaphysical posit and the pivotal role of authorial intention.

Adultery in Taiwan’s Criminal Law is defined as sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his/her spouse, however, a person cannot be accused of adultery unless substantial evidence of sexual intercourse is found. Until recently, electronically transmitted messages were not considered substantive proof of adultery, but new cases have acknowledged the validity of internet and MSN messages, representing a major change in the direction in Taiwan’s legal practice. The question we raise here is whether internet messages should be considered substantial evidence in current legal principle and practice. In an attempt to address this thorny question, we conduct an analysis of contemporary Taiwanese case law concerning adultery. This study is also aided by the application of probability theories of evidence in logical positivism to illustrate the legal status of internet evidence. Adopting this interdisciplinary approach, this paper aims to better illuminate the pressing problems of whether and how internet evidence can play a significant role in establishing adultery.

In this chapter, I examine the issue of art interpretation. The recent history of aesthetics saw the idea of the ‘death of the author’ playing a central role in the field. The question, in this case, is whether, how, and why the author’s intentions for interpreting a work ought to constraint the meaning we derive from it. I address a range of views, from absolute intentionalism to hypothetical intentionalism and anti-intentionalism, motivating and challenging them along the way. Beyond analytic philosophy, I also look at the work of Continental philosophers like Barthes and Foucault and take up cases ranging from Christopher Nolan movies to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and popular music. Ultimately, I argue, analytic philosophy of interpretation can be seen, in some ways, as an attempt to ‘save the author’ where Continental aesthetics has sought to empower the audience.

In contemporary analytic philosophy of art, the intentionalist debate is about whether the author’s intention is relevant to the interpretation of her work. Various positions have been proposed, and in this paper I defend what I call hypothetical author-hypothetical intentionalism, the position that interpretation is based on the intention attributed to the author constructed from the work. There are three aims to achieve: (1) to give a general account of hypothetical author-hypothetical intentionalism; (2) to present a moderate version of hypothetical author-hypothetical intentionalism; (3) to defend the moderate version of hypothetical author-hypothetical intentionalism against actual intentionalism and actual author-hypothetical intentionalism. Against the current trend that focuses on actual authors, I hope to show that the hypothetical author account is still a sustainable contender in the intentionalist debate.

Monroe C. Beardsley's unavailability argument is one of the most underrated anti‐intentionalist arguments in the philosophy of interpretation. The main idea of this argument is that, since independent evidence of authorial intent is normally unavailable, the literary interpreter should focus on what a text means rather than on what the author intends it to mean. In this article I propose a revised version of the argument to show that the unavailability of authorial intent suffices to make actual intentionalism untenable as a recommendation for finding out textual meaning.

Modest actual intentionalism is a major position on interpretation in contemporary analytic aesthetics. The position consists of a disjunctive formulation according to which work-meaning is determined by the author’s intention when such intention succeeds or by non-intentionalistic factors when it fails. I challenge the disjunctive view by presenting a constructive dilemma, the conclusion being that modest actual intentionalism ends up either making non-intentionalistic factors idle or making authorial intent superfluous.

Monroe C. Beardsley has been interpreted by many theorists as advocating antiexternalism with respect to an artwork's aesthetically relevant properties, typically its meaning. According to this orthodox interpretation, the meaning of a work is not established by external or contextual factors but by what is internally present in the work. This acontextual account of meaning is challenged by contextualism, which claims that a work's identity and meaning are in part determined by contextual factors. However, a close look at textual evidence shows that Beardsley actually leans toward contextualism. In particular, his speech act theory of literature compels him to hold an explicit contextualist position with respect...

The utterance model is a popular basis for theories of interpretation in the contemporary analytic philosophy of literature. This model suggests that interpretation should be constrained by a work's identity‐relevant factors in its context of production because a work, like an utterance, acquires its identity and content in part from its relations with that context. From a descriptive point of view, I argue that the implied author account of interpretation best describes critical practice following the current positions based on the utterance model. That is, people who interpret in accordance with these positions end up interpreting an implied author.

Interpretation in art refers to the attribution of meaning to a work. A point on which people often disagree is whether the artist’s or author’s intention is relevant to the interpretation of the work. In the Anglo-American analytic philosophy of art, views about interpretation branch into two major camps: intentionalism and anti-intentionalism, with an initial focus on one art, namely literature. This article elaborates on variations on these theories of interpretation and considers their notable objections. The debate about interpretation covers other art forms in addition to literature. The theories of interpretation are also extended across many of the arts. This broad outlook is assumed throughout the article, although nothing said is affected even if a narrow focus on literature is adopted.

Some theorists on literary interpretation have suggested a connection between Monroe C. Beardsley’s anti-intentionalism and hypothetical intentionalism based on an implied author. However, a full exploration has never been attempted. I undertake this task in this paper. A close reading of Beardsley reveals that he assumes something very similar to the implied author in interpretation. I distinguish five types of fictional works in terms of their narrative mode and show that my claim stands in at least four of the five types. The significance of my argument lies in exposing the above version of authorism in anti-intentionalism. Beardsley is generally perceived as advocating the irrelevance of authorial intention to literary interpretation. The common interpretation of his theory is that work-meaning is generated by linguistic conventions, with intention playing no role in meaning-determination. All the interpreter needs is knowledge of public, linguistic conventions in order to recover textual meaning. Nevertheless, when dealing with the problem of interpretation, Beardsley explicitly talks about attributing textual meaning to a fictional speaker. Although he does not elaborate on the nature of this speaker, clues scattered in his writings point to the striking similarity of this theoretical apparatus to an implied author. The key lies in his presumption that every fictional work must have an ultimate speaker to whom meaning inferred from the text should be attributed. This claim is almost the core of an implied author theory of interpretation. A difficulty in classifying Beardsley’s view as a version of the implied author position is that his characterization of the story’s presenter might apply better to the story’s narrator than to its implied author. To test this, I examine different types of narrative modes to see whether the fictional speaker merges with the implied author in each of these scenarios. The first factor to consider for classifying narrative modes is whether the narrator’s presence is explicit or implicit. The narrative scenario in which the narrator is implicit can be further divided into two sub-types: either the story is told from an omniscient viewpoint or centers on the experience of a third-person character. In either case, the story is not told by any of the characters in the story; rather, it is told by an implicit speaker whose words the work purports to be. It seems reasonable to identify this fictional speaker with the implied author, for both function as the subject to which textual meaning is attributed. As for the narrative mode in which the narrator is explicit, this involves first-person narratives. In these, either the narrator is reliable or unreliable. When the narrator is unreliable, a transcendental perspective is required in determining the text’s meaning, because what is said ultimately in the work is not equivalent to what is literally said by the unreliable narrator. It follows that an implicit speaker has to be assumed and she again coincides with the implied author. Where the narrator is reliable but textual meaning transcends what is literally expressed, an implicit speaker is at play again. This narrative scenario is thus better classified as a case in which the narrator’s presence is implicit. This leaves us with the narrative scenario in which the narrator is a reliable spokesperson for the implied author. The identification of the narrator with the implied author in the case last mentioned is controversial. The crucial difference between them is that the former is dramatized in the story while the latter is not. I accept that the narrator here is not happily called an implied author, though I also point out several similarities between the two. Finally, I discuss four complications to my argument. The first concerns multiple points of view in a story. To accommodate this kind of narrative, Beardsley could argue that an implicit narrator is needed to explain the definite meaning concealed behind what is literally said by different characters. The second complication is about the ontological status accorded to the narrator and the implied author. It might be objected that the two reside in different fictional worlds and this is what makes their merging impossible. But it is questionable whether this is a definitional feature of the implied author; moreover, the interpreter can take the implied author to be an instrumentalist concept and hence avoid talk about the ontological status of fictional entities. The third complication claims that versions of the implied author position developed by philosophers tend to be based on a contextualist ontology of literature; however, Beardsley’s account is acontextual. This is not true, for Beardsley has exhibited contextualist leanings in his writings. Finally, it has been objected that the formalist resources Beardsley has are not enough to guarantee a single right interpretation. But if Beardsley is actually a contextualist, contextual constraints will come into play and raise the chance of getting a single right interpretation. The article concludes by reflecting on the significance of the misrepresentation of anti-intentionalism: it is the intention of the actual author which anti-intentionalism is against. The position in question is actually developed in an intentionalist framework based on the implied author.

This paper attempts to revive interest in the speech act theory of literature by looking into Monroe C. Beardsley's account in particular. Beardsley's view in this respect has received, surprisingly, less attention than deserved. I first offer a reconstruction of Beardsley's account and then use it to correct some notable misconceptions. Next, I show that the reformulation reveals a hitherto unnoticed discrepancy in Beardsley's position and that this can be explained away by a weak version of intentionalism that Beardsley himself actually tolerates. Finally, I assess the real difficulty of Beardsley's theory and its relevance today.