According to Maier, both (1), written by Tolkien, and (2), uttered by me, should be interpreted as prescriptions to imagine certain states of affairs, respectively Frodo’s having a very trying afternoon at some past time and Frodo’s being a hobbit born in the Shire. According to this view, a reader who understands correctly these utterances and complies with the prescription imagines that Frodo had a very trying time on a certain afternoon and that Frodo is a hobbit born in the Shire. The idea that fictional utterances, like (1), should be understood as requests that the addressee imagine, make-believe, that the content of the utterance is true is taken by many (Walton 1990; Currie 1990, among others) to be what distinguishes fictional utterances from assertions, which require the addressee to add the content of the utterance to her set of beliefs. On the other hand, the idea that (2), as uttered by me in recollecting the story told by Tolkien, is a prescription to imagine is disputed also by authors that accept the just mentioned characterization of the distinction between fictional discourse and assertion. For example, Currie claims:

中文翻译：

---

虚假游戏和事实信息

根据Maier的说法，（1）由托尔金（Tolkien）撰写，和（2）（由我说）都应被解释为想象某些情况的处方，分别是Frodo在过去的某个时候下午非常艰难，而Frodo则是霍比特人出生在夏尔。根据这种观点，正确理解这些话语并遵守处方的读者可以想象，Frodo在某个下午的时间非常艰难，而Frodo是出生在夏尔郡的霍比特人。像（1）一样，虚构话语应理解为要求收件人想象，虚构言语内容真实的想法（Walton，1990； Currie，1990）。将虚构话语与断言区分开来，后者要求收件人将话语的内容添加到其信念集合中。另一方面，我接受托尔金讲述的故事时所说的（2）是可以想象的处方的观点也受到那些接受了刚才提到的虚构话语和断言之间区别特征的作者的质疑。例如，Currie声称：