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

In Vanhoozer's criticism of aesthetic theology and its effect on the postmodern hermeneutic of abandoning authorial intention, he claims that its recovery may well rest on the shoulders of Searle's speech act theory.64 He furthermore finds hope in speech act theory's attention to the speaker and his act of speaking:

If the text is a speech act, it seems far-fetched to separate an author from his language and literature as it does an agent from his action. The author "belongs" to his text. He is responsible for his illocutionary acts. Author-ity designates the right-indeed, the obligation-of the author to be responsible for his speech act. And if the author is accountable for his speech act, surely the reader is responsible for treating the author in way that he deserves. Willfully to misinterpret a text is akin to attributing an action to the author that he did not commit.65

Vanhoozer continues to rely heavily upon Searle's speech act theory in specifying language as a communicative action and recovering the author's intent as crucial in biblical interpretation. He claims that "in light of speech act philosophy, the author returns as a communicative agent."66 Watson, in asserting that "writing, like speaking, is a communicative action,"67 also exhibits his indebtedness to speech act theory. His program for recovering not only authorial intention, but the literal sense and objective interpretation, is dependent upon the foundational work of Austin and Searle.68 Together, Watson and Vanhoozer produce thoughtful evidence for the value of speech acts in defending a language-as-- communicative-act approach to biblical interpretation.

D. Meaning and Significance

The hermeneutics of Watson and Vanhoozer also find common ground in their insistence on a Hirschian distinction between a text's meaning69 and its significance.70 Evangelical interpreters vary their approaches to the meaning/significance question. Bernard Ramm draws a clear distinction between the two: the primary need of the hearer is to determine the meaning of the Bible, followed by the secondary need "to bridge the gap between our minds and the minds of the Biblical writers."71 Grant R. Osborne seems mixed in his approach. While he states that the "most important thing . .. is to base the application/contextualization on the intended meaning of the text" and that it "must be the inspired message which is relived rather than our subjective manipulation of the text,"72 he nevertheless claims that "we cannot finally separate exegesis from application, meaning from significance, because they are two aspects of the same hermeneutical act."73 Vern Poythress takes a blended approach in his God Centered Biblical Interpretation:

Contrary to some popular versions of meaning-application theories, meaning and application coinhere. Each is a perspective of the other, and neither can in the end be understood or even discussed or identified without tacit understanding of the other. God plans and intends that his words should have the effects on readers that they have. This intention includes all the details of all the applications throughout history. The applications are part of God's intention.74