The paper is based on a strict distinction between the notion of a person referred to by a fictional name, as uttered within a text of narrative fiction, and the notion of a fictional character. The literary functions of such a text require the reader to interpret the occurences of a fictional name as records of utterances of that name by the narrator, referring to that individual which has been assigned that name at the beginning of the chain to which these utterances belong. This, according to the author’s view, provides proper basis also for interpretation of various kinds of extratextual use of fictional names. A literary character is, on the contrary, an element of a construction of a literary work and is identified by a set of requirements (e.g. of the kind mentioned above) imposed by the text’s literary functions on the reader. The author attempts to justify the assumption that the referential function of fictional names so understood is to be interpreted as directed to the actual world (rather than to an artificial world created by the writer), to specify the (rather limited) role reserved for pretense within this approach, to explain the implications of this account of fictional characters for the dispute between realists and anti-realists in this field etc, Článek je založen na striktním rozlišení mezi pojmem osoby, na kterou se odkazuje fiktivní jméno, jak je uvedeno v textu narativní fikce, a pojmem fiktivní povahy. Literární funkce takového textu vyžadují, aby čtenář interpretoval výskyty fiktivního jména jako záznamy o projevech tohoto jména vypravěčem, odkazující na toho jednotlivce, kterému bylo toto jméno přiděleno na začátku řetězce, ke kterému tato slova patří . To podle názoru autora poskytuje náležitý základ i pro interpretaci různých druhů extratextuálního použití fiktivních jmen. Literární charakter je naopak prvek konstrukce literárního díla a je identifikován souborem požadavků (např. Výše zmíněného druhu), které kladou literární funkce textu na čtenáře., and Petr Koťátko
The paper reacts on Pavel Cmorej’s analysis of sentences of the form (ιx)Φ(x) is C, focusing on the case where ''C'' stands for ''impossible''. The author agrees with Cmorej’s conclusion that in such a context the modal term applies on the meaning of the description, classifying it as unable to provide a procedure which would lead to identifying an individual (as a unique bearer of the property (λx)Φ(x) in some world and time). He questions Cmorej’s example of impossibility based on contradiction from the sphere of literary fiction, examines various ways in which the constitution of a literary character may impose (or seem to impose) incompatible demands on the reader, requiring her to ''think impossible'', and suggests a way of avoiding some confusions widespread in this field. and Petr Koťátko