{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01728201099764336, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.612334801762114, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ACTION AND MEANING IN LITERARY THEORY

In this paper I shall discuss two central aspects of an integrated theory of literature, viz., the theory of action and the concept of utterancemeaning. Although a literary theory must entail a theory of action on independent grounds, I would here like to show how action and meaning are essentially related in a general theory of meaning and hence to literary theory. There is no question but that some of the arguments are dated or radically simplified, but it is my primary purpose to raise questions and stimulate further inquiry into this general area by those primarily interested in literature. If the conceptual bases of this proposal are sound, the models presented here should be adequate for my purposes. The central topic of discussion will be the notion of utterance-meaning first proposed by H.P. Grice. I will begin by presenting some of Dennis Stampe's observations on the grammar of meaning, and then go on to talk about action theory and Grice's explanation of meaning in terms of intention. Finally, I shall discuss the notion of speech act proposed by John Searle. Since this is an exercise in theory, I would first like to make a brief comment on the kinds of theoretical explanations towards which we are moving.