“Action And Meaning In Literary Theory” By Ronald Tanaka: Summary and Critique

1. Purpose and Scope of the Study

• Tanaka sets out to integrate action theory and utterance-meaning into a comprehensive literary theory.
• He argues that literary phenomena can be explained using general theories of meaning rather than treating “poetic meaning” as a separate category.
• The study draws upon H.P. Grice’s theory of intention, John Searle’s speech act theory, and linguistic models to unify meaning across discourse types.

2. Central Arguments on Literary Meaning

• Tanaka critiques the notion that literary utterances, such as poetry, possess a unique form of meaning distinct from other communicative acts.
• He demonstrates how Donne’s intentions in “The Canonization” could be analyzed through the lens of intention-based meaning:
  “Donne’s meaning that p by c (c = some sentence in the poem) entails some agent’s meaning that p by uttering x.”
  • Understanding Donne’s utterances involves assessing his intentions as a dramatist, linking this process to general rules of communication.

3. Distinction Between Sentence-Meaning and Utterance-Meaning

• Drawing on Dennis Stampe and Grice, Tanaka separates sentence-meaning (conventional semantics) from utterance-meaning (intentions behind speech).
• Example from Edward Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? highlights the contrast:
  • George intentionally misinterprets Nick’s “A what?” to explore the layers of meaning, illustrating how speaker intention dictates interpretation.

4. Role of Rules and Conventions in Meaning

• Tanaka emphasizes that language and meaning are governed by mutually recognized conventions, which enable understanding.
• Referencing Albee’s scene between George and Martha, Tanaka illustrates how their heated exchange reflects adherence to and violation of these rules: “You didn’t say that at all” becomes a deliberate manipulation of conventions to expose implicit intentions.

5. Speech Acts as the Basis for Literary Action

• Tanaka uses John Searle’s speech act theory to explain how promises, threats, and other performative acts manifest in literature.
• In Albee’s play, George’s threat to Martha—“You try it, and I’ll beat you at your own game”—is analyzed as a complex interaction shaped by shared knowledge and expectations.

6. Literary Language and Human Interaction

• Language in literature mirrors human relational dynamics, as demonstrated in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
• While George and Martha’s verbal sparring seeks connection through conflict, Nick and Honey’s superficial exchanges highlight emotional distance.

7. Implications for Literary Theory and Stylistics

• Tanaka concludes that literary theory must move beyond surface meanings and engage with deeper linguistic structures.
• He highlights case grammar (e.g., Fillmore’s framework) and universal grammar as tools for bridging thought and language in literature.
• Ultimately, the study proposes a unified, linguistically informed approach to understanding literary phenomena.

1. Unified Theory of Meaning

Contribution: Tanaka challenges the notion of “poetic meaning” as distinct from general meaning, arguing for a unified linguistic theory that applies universally.

• Specific Theory: Aligns with structuralism, which seeks universal systems underlying human expression.
• Reference: “The purpose of doing this is to make a simpler over-all theory of language in which there is only one theory of meaning instead of two, one of which only covers a restricted area, e.g., ‘literary meaning’ or ‘poetic meaning.'”

---

2. Intentionality in Literary Meaning

Contribution: Tanaka applies H.P. Grice’s theory of intention to literary interpretation, emphasizing the role of authorial and character intent in meaning-making.

• Specific Theory: Advances reader-response theory by situating the reader’s interpretation within the framework of inferred intentions.
• Reference: “Donne’s meaning that p by c… entails some agent’s meaning that p by uttering x. For anyone to mean something… is a function of their intentions.”

---

3. Speech Acts in Literature

Contribution: Tanaka uses John Searle’s speech act theory to analyze the performative nature of dialogue and narrative in literature. He demonstrates how utterances (e.g., threats, promises) drive character interactions and narrative action.

• Specific Theory: Expands pragmatics in literary studies, focusing on language use in context.
• Reference: “Promises are a part of a whole family of intentional actions which are customarily, if not uniquely, performed in the course of meaning something… We shall call these ‘speech acts’ after John Searle.”

---

4. Rules and Conventions in Literary Language

Contribution: Tanaka highlights the dependence of literary meaning on shared linguistic conventions and presuppositions between author, characters, and readers.

• Specific Theory: Contributes to semiotics, exploring how signs (words, utterances) function through culturally shared rules.
• Reference: “There has to exist some set of mutually-known conventions or presuppositions… One cannot simply intend their words to mean anything they want, like Humpty Dumpty.”

---

5. Contextual Meaning and Interpretation

Contribution: The analysis of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? illustrates the importance of context in determining meaning, especially when dialogue intentionally violates conventions.

• Specific Theory: Supports contextualism by underscoring how meaning arises dynamically in specific situations.
• Reference: “We know what Nick means and know that George knows what Nick means… George is intentionally ignoring the presupposition Nick expects him to make.”

---

6. Bridging Literary and Linguistic Theory

Contribution: By employing transformational grammar and case grammar, Tanaka connects deep linguistic structures to the analysis of literary texts.

• Specific Theory: Extends structural linguistics into literary criticism by formalizing the relationship between syntax and meaning.
• Reference: “Presently, however, linguistic research is beginning to point towards the possibility of a universal grammar… deep concepts that a theory of literature and style should find both interesting and useful.”

---

7. Highlighting Performativity in Narrative

Contribution: Tanaka shows how narrative actions are often shaped by performative utterances, linking language to narrative dynamics.

• Specific Theory: Influences post-structuralist theories, especially Jacques Derrida’s work on performativity.
• Reference: “The important actions of the play are speech acts… The games that are played, the attacks, cruelty… are possible only through language.”

1. Overemphasis on Linguistic Models

• Critics argue that Tanaka’s reliance on linguistic theories, such as H.P. Grice’s intention-based meaning and John Searle’s speech act theory, oversimplifies the complexity of literary texts by reducing them to language rules.
• The focus on formal linguistic structures might overlook the aesthetic and emotional aspects of literature that do not align with these models.

2. Limited Engagement with Poetic Meaning

• Tanaka’s dismissal of “poetic meaning” as a distinct category has been criticized for ignoring the unique characteristics of literary language, such as metaphor, symbolism, and ambiguity, which often resist straightforward linguistic analysis.
• By subsuming poetic and literary meaning under general rules of communication, the theory may fail to account for the interpretive richness of poetry.

3. Insufficient Attention to Reader-Response

• While the theory highlights authorial and character intentions, it places less emphasis on the reader’s active role in constructing meaning.
• Reader-response theorists might argue that the text’s meaning is co-created by readers and cannot be fully explained through speaker intentions alone.

4. Challenges with Contextual Variability

• Critics note that the theory assumes shared conventions and mutual understanding between speakers and audiences, which may not hold true across different cultural or historical contexts.
• The reliance on presuppositions and inference rules could be problematic in analyzing texts with ambiguous or unconventional meanings.

5. Neglect of Non-Linguistic Aspects of Literature

• The theory does not adequately address non-verbal elements of literature, such as visual, structural, or symbolic aspects, which can be central to understanding a text’s meaning.
• For instance, the narrative structure or use of silence in plays like Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? might escape the scope of linguistic analysis.

6. Lack of Empirical Validation

• Tanaka’s proposals rely heavily on theoretical models without extensive empirical validation or examples drawn from diverse literary traditions.
• The limited number of literary texts analyzed raises questions about the theory’s generalizability.

7. Potential Reductionism

• By prioritizing rules, conventions, and intentions, the theory risks reducing literature to a set of formulaic interactions, potentially undermining its complexity and interpretive depth.
• Critics argue that this approach might marginalize the multi-layered, subjective experience of engaging with literature.

8. Dependence on Philosophical Linguistics

• The reliance on philosophical concepts like Grice’s intention-based meaning and Searle’s speech acts might alienate literary theorists who favor more text-centric or cultural approaches.
• Some may view the integration of action theory and linguistics as overly theoretical and detached from practical literary criticism.

9. Limited Application to Experimental or Absurdist Texts

• The theory struggles to accommodate works that intentionally disrupt linguistic conventions, such as absurdist plays or postmodern literature.
• For example, the deliberate ambiguity in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot or the fragmented narrative in Virginia Woolf’s The Waves might resist the framework proposed by Tanaka.