ABSTRACT

This article critiques existing textualist and extratextualist (intentionalist and reception-driven) approaches to capturing the ordinary understanding of the fiction/nonfiction distinction in philosophical and film scholarship on documentary and offers an alternative extratextualist approach dubbed institutionalism. I argue that textualist attempts fail because no textual element (presentational strategy, misrepresentation, staging, or indexicality) is necessarily either fictive or nonfictive. Intentionalism falls short because films can change their non/fictional status over time (e.g. phantom rides). Finally, reception-driven approaches confuse personal categorizations for public ones. The proposed institutionalism, by contrast, combines the strengths of moderate textualism and reception-driven theories (allowing for the changing status of documentary and nonfiction) with those of intentionalism (denying that some textual elements are necessarily fictive and others nonfictive) to capture the ordinary understanding of the fiction/nonfiction distinction.

摘要

本文对现有的文本主义和超文本主义（意图主义和接受驱动）方法进行了评论，以捕捉对纪录片哲学和电影学术中小说/非小说区别的一般理解，并提供了另一种称为制度主义的超文本主义方法。我认为，文本主义者的尝试失败了，因为没有任何文本要素（表达策略，虚假陈述，分期或索引性）必定是虚构的或虚构的。意向性不足，因为电影可以随着时间改变其非/虚构状态（例如幻影游乐设施）。最后，接收驱动的方法将个人分类与公共分类混淆了。相比之下，拟议的制度主义