Content provided in partnership with
Meaning, intention, and application: Speech act theory in the hermeneutics of Francis Watson and Kevin J. Vanhoozer
Trinity Journal, Fall 2002 by Blue, Scott A
Watson and Vanhoozer in effect side with Ramm in maintaining a distinction between the concepts of meaning and application, in accordance with their use of speech act theory. Watson, in defending the understandability of biblical texts due to their nature as communicative acts, claims that texts presuppose the knowledge of such linguistic conventions as the use of words in their contexts and the scope of verbs. Meaning, therefore, is "irreducibly verbal" and distinct from "contextual significance."75 The latter, according to Watson, may change as the context shifts, but the former "is not so ephemeral."76 Significance becomes dependent on and subordinate to "the single, verbal meaning itself, that is, in its enduring illocutionary and perlocutionary force."77 Vanhoozer likewise distinguishes meaning from significance. He, agreeing with Hirsch, believes that "the author's intended meaning should remain the regulative principle for interpretation."78 Vanhoozer's appreciation for Hirsch extends to his differentiation between meaning and significance: "With regard to interpretation, the meaning/ significance distinction continues to be both meaningful and highly significant."79 Vanhoozer, on the other hand, finds within speech act theory the mechanism for maintaining his position. Meaning corresponds with illocution, while significance is best related to perlocution: "Illocutionary intent is thus constitutive of communicative action and of meaning in a way that perlocutionary intent is not."80
- More Articles of Interest
- First Theology: God, Scripture & Hermeneutics
- hermeneutic of E. D. Hirsch, Jr. and its impact on expository preaching:...
- Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of...
- Word and Supplement: Speech Acts, Biblical Texts, and the Sufficiency of...
- benefits of an author-oriented approach to Hermeneutics, The
V. Differences Between Watson and Vanhoozer
On the surface, the similarities between Watson and Vanhoozer might lead one to declare prematurely that they are altogether on the same side of the hermeneutical discussion. There are, however, distinct differences between them that must be identified before an evaluation of their approaches is completed. While Watson and Vanhoozer show broad similarities, there are differences in their overall programs of hermeneutics, their discussions of how speech act theory is used to resurrect the author's intent, and their views of significance after affirming a strict Hirschian distinction between meaning and significance.
A. Biblical Theology vs. Trinitarian Hermeneutics
The most apparent difference between Watson and Vanhoozer is the hermeneutical frameworks within which each operates. The most pressing question becomes whether or not Watson's biblical theological approach can coexist peaceably with Vanhoozer's Trinitarian approach. In order to answer this question, it seems best to begin with Watson's inclusion of text, truth, and world into his hermeneutical paradigm and consider Vanhoozer's possible response to each component part.
Watson begins his biblical theological approach with an unmistakable desire to focus interpretation of a biblical text on the notion that it resides within a larger canon of Scripture. He is predictably unimpressed with historical criticism's attempt to distance an individual text from its final form. Hermeneutics must therefore take this final form into consideration when determining the meaning of a biblical text. Vanhoozer is not beyond using the concept of a canon within his program of Trinitarian hermeneutics. The issue arises from his approach to the question of sensus plenior: is it possible for the meaning of a text to go beyond the intent of its author? Vanhoozer takes into consideration the canon as a communicative act: "If God is taken to be the divine author, in other words, then it is the canon as a whole that becomes the communicative act that needs to be described."81 Texts such as Isaiah 53 must be viewed in light of a dual authorship; on the human level, Isaiah writes with the supervening hand of God as the divine author. Vanhoozer thus finds room within his hermeneutical program for the notion that a broader canon does influence the interpretation and use of a given text. It remains to be seen whether he would agree with Watson's broader use of the final form of the biblical text, but initially it does not apparently pose a catastrophic threat to their coexistence.
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: Arts
Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »