Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Peter Huhn - Et Al - Handbook of Narratology (2009, W. de Gruyter) PDF
Peter Huhn - Et Al - Handbook of Narratology (2009, W. de Gruyter) PDF
Narratologia
Contributions to Narrative Theory
Edited by
Fotis Jannidis, Matı́as Martı́nez, John Pier
Wolf Schmid (executive editor)
Editorial Board
Catherine Emmott, Monika Fludernik
José Ángel Garcı́a Landa, Peter Hühn, Manfred Jahn
Andreas Kablitz, Uri Margolin, Jan Christoph Meister
Ansgar Nünning, Marie-Laure Ryan
Jean-Marie Schaeffer, Michael Scheffel
Sabine Schlickers, Jörg Schönert
19
≥
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York
Handbook of Narratology
Edited by
Peter Hühn, John Pier
Wolf Schmid, Jörg Schönert
≥
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York
앪
앝 Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines
of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.
ISBN 978-3-11-018947-6
ISSN 1612-8427
쑔 Copyright 2009 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this
book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, includ-
ing photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without per-
mission in writing from the publisher.
Printed in Germany
Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Laufen
Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
Contents
Preface ...................................................................................... IX
Author ....................................................................................... 1
Jörg Schönert
Character .................................................................................. 14
Fotis Jannidis
Coherence ................................................................................. 44
Michael Toolan
Dialogism ................................................................................. 74
David Shepherd
Over the last few decades, the field of narrative studies has been vastly
expanded by a wide spectrum of original studies in the philologies and
other disciplines including linguistics, history, theology, art history or
psychology, and it has also seen a growing number of attempts to sur
vey, order, and summarize the results of such studies in the form of col
lections of essays, encyclopedias, companions, dictionaries, etc.
Against this background, the present Handbook of Narratology of
fers a new type of systematic in-depth overview of recent and older re
search, taking into account different disciplinary and national traditions
in narrative study. The 32 entries present international research regard
ing the key terms, categories, and concepts of narratology in the form
of full-length original articles structured in a parallel manner: each
entry starts with a concise definition followed by a more detailed ex
plication of the term in question and then proceeds, in its main part, to
provide a differentiated description and critical discussion of the vari
ous approaches, positions, and controversies in their historical develop
ment, concluding with topics for further research and a select biblio
graphy. All entries are cross-referenced. They vary in length in accord
ance with the complexity of the respective concepts.
The Handbook will subsequently be made available as an open-
access Living Handbook on the Internet by Hamburg University Press.
The articles will be updated and new articles made available at regular
intervals, both in the printed and in the online versions.
This handbook grew out of the work of the Narratology Research
Group at Hamburg University (2001−2007) and the Interdisciplinary
Center for Narratology (founded in 2007).
We thank Wilhelm Schernus for his expert subediting of the indi
vidual articles and Stephanie Neu for her helpful organizational sup
port.
1 Definition
2 Explication
During the 20th century, a broad spectrum of how the author is under
stood was developed in scholarly circles: for framing concrete contexts
(e.g. “producer of cultural goods”); for abstract author functions (e.g.
causa efficiens); for concepts of the author relevant for understanding
such as the → implied author. Unlike the dominant tendencies in the
intensive discussions conducted since 1990 on the status and under
standing of the author, this analysis will focus on the author’s narra
tological relevance.
2 Author
3.1 Antiquity
Use of the Latin term auctor (Eng. author; Ital. autore; Fr. auteur;
Span. autor; Ger. Autor) was extended to cover the creatorship of fac
tual and fictional texts. In general, it was only from the late 15th century
onwards that scholars and occasionally poets were referred to as
auctores, a practice that continued up to the early decades of the 18th
century. Viewed from a cultural-historical perspective, the classical
model of the poeta vates was re-interpreted as an extension into the
sphere of knowledge of the promises and teachings of Christianity so
that where this commitment was supplemented by poetological knowl-
edge, the result was to link up the author model with the poeta doctus.
In contrast to scientific texts, literary texts in the broader sense (as
in epics or in the Minnesang) were often handed down without the cre
ator being named, so that individual or collective anonymity prevailed.
Little distinction was made between the creators, copyists, editors,
commentators and compilers of texts in favor of “original” creatorship
in need of protection (cf. Minnis 1984), with far more emphasis being
placed on group identity: e.g.—depending on the type of text—in the
imitatio veterum (supported by the canon that provided a model) or—
when mediacy-oriented—in the case of collective manuscripts.
With the invention of the printing press, a public sphere based on writ
ten language was established for which, both in the dominant scholarly
literature and in the diversified sphere of belles lettres, the individual
ity of the author as well as the authenticity of the single work and reli
able copies (guaranteed by printing) gained progressively in impor-
tance. In literature, the author model of the poeta eruditus and the po
eta doctus dominated starting from the time of Humanism. For these
texts, “interpretation” was not the appropriate form of analysis, but
“commentary,” relating the text to previous sources backed up with
“authority” (cf. Scholz 1999: 347–50). Also revived was the model of
the poet moved by inspiration, sometimes in the sense of an alter deus
6 Author
5 Bibliography
Bosse, Heinrich (1981). Autorschaft ist Werkherrschaft. Über die Entstehung des Ur
heberrechts aus dem Geist der Goethezeit. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Burke, Seán, ed. (1995). Authorship. From Plato to the Postmodern. Criticism and
Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.
Chatman, Seymour (1990). Coming to Terms. The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and
Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Couturier, Maurice (1995). La figure de l’auteur. Paris: Seuil.
Detering, Heinrich, ed. (2002). Autorschaft. Positionen und Revisionen. Stuttgart:
Metzler.
Eco, Umberto (1990). The Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Fieguth, Rolf (1975). “Einleitung.” R. F. (ed). Literarische Kommunikation. Kron-
berg/Ts.: Scriptor, 9–22.
Foucault, Michel ([1969] 1979). “What Is an Author?” J. V. Harari (ed). Textual
Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 141–
60.
Friedemann, Käte ([1910] 1965). Die Rolle des Erzählers in der Epik. Darmstadt:
WBG.
Hahn, Barbara (1991). Unter falschem Namen. Von der schwierigen Autorschaft der
Frauen. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Haynes, Christine (2005). “Reassessing ‘Genius’ in Studies of Authorship.” Book His
tory 8, 287–320.
Hesse, Carla (1991). Publishing and Cultural Politics in Revolutionary Paris, 1789–
1810. Berkeley: U of California P.
Heinze, Richard (1925). “Auctoritas.” Hermes 60, 348–66.
Hirsch, Eric D. (1967). Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale UP.
Ingold, Felix Philipp (1992). Der Autor am Werk. Versuche über literarische Kreativi
tät. München: Hanser.
– & Werner Wunderlich, eds. (1992). Fragen nach dem Autor. Positionen und Per
spektiven. Konstanz: Universitäts-Verlag.
Jäger, Georg (1992). “Autor.” V. Meid (ed). Literaturlexikon. Begriffe, Realien, Me
thoden. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 66–72.
Jannidis, Fotis (2000). “Autor und Interpretation. Einleitung.” F. J. et al. (eds). Texte
zur Theorie der Autorschaft. Stuttgart: Reclam, 7–29.
– et al. eds. (1999). Rückkehr des Autors. Zur Erneuerung eines umstrittenen Be
griffs. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Jaszi, Peter & Martha Woodmansee, eds. (1994). The Construction of Authorship. Tex
tual Appropriation in Law and Literature. Durham: Duke UP.
Kamp, Werner (1996). Autorenkonzepte und Filminterpretation. Frankfurt/M.: Lang.
Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (2006). The Implied Author. Concept and Contro
versy. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Kleinschmidt, Erich (1998). Autorschaft. Konzepte einer Theorie. Tübingen: Francke.
Kristeva, Julia ([1969] 1980). “Word, Dialogue, and Novel.” J. K. Desire in Language.
A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art. New York: Columbia UP, 64–91.
Landow, George P., ed. (1994). Hyper/Text/Theory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
Lanser, Susan (1992). Fictions of Authority. Women Writers and Narrative Voice.
Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Author 11
Stecker, Robert (1987). “Apparent, Implied and Postulated Authors.” Philosophy and
Literature 11, 258–71.
Sussloff, Catherine (1997). The Absolute Artist: The Historiography of a Concept.
Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.
Viala, Alain (1985). Naissance de l’écrivain. Sociologie de la littérature à l’âge
classique. Paris: Minuit.
Vogel, Martin (1978). “Deutsche Urheber- und Verlagsrechtsgeschichte zwischen 1450
und 1850.” Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 19, Sp. 1–190.
Woodmansee, Martha (1994). The Author, Art, and the Market: Rereading the History
of Aesthetics. New York: Columbia UP.
Character
Fotis Jannidis
1 Definition
2 Explication
Until recently, there was nothing like a coherent field of research for
the concept of character, but only a loose set of notions related to it
touching on such issues as the ontological status of characters, the kind
of knowledge necessary to understand characters, the relation between
character and action, the naming of characters, characterization as pro
cess and result, the relation of the reader to a character centering
around the notions of identification and empathy, etc. The situation has
changed over the past ten or fifteen years thanks to a series of mono
graphs on character by Culpeper (2001), Eder (2008), Jannidis (2004),
Koch (1992), Palmer (2004), and Schneider (2001), all of which are in
debted to the ground-breaking work done by Margolin in the 1980s and
1990s. Most of these studies draw on the cognitive sciences and their
models of text processing and perception of persons (→ cognitive nar
ratology). However, even though there is now a consensus on some as
pects of character in narrative, many other aspects continue to be
treated disparately.
ants ordered into pairs: the hero (also sujet) and his search for an ob
ject; the sender and the receiver; the hero’s helper and the opponent.
Each actant is not necessarily realized in one single character, since
one character may perform more than one role, and one role may be
distributed among several characters. Schank’s concept of story skele-
tons also starts from the idea that stories have an underlying structure,
but in his model there are many such structures and therefore many dif
ferent roles for actors, e.g. the story of a divorce using the story skele-
ton “betrayal” with the two actors: the betrayer and the betrayed
(Schank 1995: chap. 6).
Campbell (1949) described in an influential work what he called,
using a term coined by James Joyce, the “monomyth,” which is an ab
straction of numerous mythological and religious stories marking the
stages of the hero’s way: separation/departure; the trials and victories
of initiation; return and reintegration into society (Campbell [1949]
1990: 36). According to Campbell, who bases his argument on Freud’s
and especially on Jung’s form of psychoanalysis, the monomyth is uni
versal and can be found in stories, myths, and legends all over the
world. In contrast to these generalized model-oriented approaches, tra
ditional approaches tend to employ a genre- and period-specific vocab
ulary for action roles such as confidant and intriguer in traditional
drama, or villain, sidekick, and henchman in the popular media of the
20th century.
Most of the common labels for character in use refer to the role a
character has in action. “Protagonist,” in use since Greek antiquity,
refers to the main character of a narrative or a play, and “antagonist” to
its main opponent. In contrast to these neutral labels, the term “hero”
refers to a positive figure, usually in some kind of representative story.
In modern high-culture narratives, there is more often an anti-hero or
no single protagonist at all, but a constellation of characters (Tröhler
2007).
3.5 Characterization
character (e.g. Scholes et al. [1966] 2006: chap. 5). A significant prob
lem in this discussion results from the fact that all we know about a
specific character is based on what can be learned from a text or an-
other medium. Therefore, it is often not easy to distinguish between the
character and the way it is presented, as can be seen, for example, with
Rimmon-Kenan, who proposes three dimensions to categorize charac
ters: “complexity, development, penetration into the ‘inner life’”
([1983] 2002: 41), thus mixing aspects of the character as an entity of
the storyworld with those of its presentation. Similarly, Hochman
(1985) proposes eight dimensions as a basis of categorization without
distinguishing between these two aspects. To name but three of them:
stylization―naturalism; complexity—simplicity; dynamism—stat
icism. One of the earliest attempts to distinguish clearly between these
aspects in categorizing characters comes from Fishelov (1990), who
combines the opposition between presentation and storyworld with the
distinction between flat and round characters. Another problematic as
pect of this approach is the fact that it is almost always combined with
an evaluative stance valorizing the complex and devaluating the simple
regardless of the requirements of different genres (as Forster already
deplored), or deprecating those genres.
Stereotypes are often regarded as the prototypical flat character.
With Dyer (1993), however, a distinction can be drawn between the so
cial type and the stereotype. Social types are known because they be
long to a society with which the reader is familiar, while stereotypes
are ready-made images of the unknown. In fiction they differ, accord
ing to Dyer, to the extent that social types can appear in almost any
kind of plot, while stereotypes carry with them an implicit narrative.
5 Bibliography
Aristotle ([1927] 1932). Aristotle in 23 Volumes. Vol. 23: The Poetics. Tr. W. H. Fyfe.
London: Heinemann.
Barthes, Roland ([1970] 1974). S/Z. New York: Hill & Wang.
Birus, Hendrik (1987). “Vorschlag zu einer Typologie literarischer Namen.” Zeitschrift
für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 17, No 67, 38–51.
Campbell, Joseph ([1949] 1990). The Hero with a Thousand Faces. New York: Harper
& Row.
Chatman, Seymour (1978). “Existents.” S. Ch. Story and Discourse: Narrative Struc
ture in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 96–145.
Crittenden, Charles (1982). “Fictional Characters and Logical Completeness.” Poetics
11, 331–44.
Culpeper, Jonathan (2001). Language and Characterisation. People in Plays and other
Texts. Harlow: Longman.
Dyer, Richard (1993). “The Role of Stereotypes.” R. D. The Matter of Images: Essays
on Representations. New York: Routledge, 11–8.
Eaton, Marcia M. (1976). “On Being a Character.” British Journal of Aesthetics 16,
24–31.
Eder, Jens (2007). “Filmfiguren: Rezeption und Analyse.” T. Schick & T. Ebbrecht
(eds). Emotion―Empathie―Figur: Spiel-Formen der Filmwahrnehmung. Berlin:
Vistas, 131–50.
– (2008). Die Figur im Film. Grundlage der Figurenanalyse. Marburg: Schüren.
Emmott, Catherine (1997). Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Ox
ford: Clarendon P.
Fishelov, David (1990). “Types of Character, Characteristics of Types.” Style 24, 422–
39.
Forster, Edward M. ([1927] 1985). Aspects of the Novel. San Diego: Harcourt.
Freud, Sigmund ([1900] 1950). The Interpretation of Dreams. New York: The Modern
Library.
Frevert, Ute & Heinz-Gerhard Haupt, ed. (2004). Der Mensch des 19. Jahrhunderts.
Essen: Magnus.
Gerrig, Richard J. & David W. Allbritton (1990). “The Construction of Literary Char
acter: A View from Cognitive Psychology.” Style 24, 380–91.
Character 28
1 Definition
2 Explication
2003)? Is it the case that, unlike other such tools (stress equations, de
ductive arguments, etc.), narrative is a mode of representation tailor-
made for gauging the felt quality of lived experiences (Fludernik 1996;
Herman 2007a, 2007b, 2009a: chap. 6)? More radically, do stories af
ford scaffolding for consciousness itself—in part by emulating through
their temporal and perspectival configuration the nature of conscious
awareness itself? In other words, are there grounds for making the
strong claim that narrative not only represents what it is like for experi
encing minds to live through events in storyworlds, but also constitutes
a basis for having—for knowing—a mind at all, whether it is one’s
own or another’s (Herman 2009a: chap. 6)?
Arguably, questions such as these could not have been formulated,
let alone addressed, within classical frameworks for narrative study
(but cf. Barthes 1966 and Culler 1975 for early anticipations). Cogni-
tive narratology can thus be thought of as a problem space that opened
up when earlier, structuralist models were brought into synergistic in
terplay with the many disciplines for which the mind-brain is a focal
concern.
At the time of writing, the term cognitive narratology itself has been in
use for only about a decade. As Eder (2003: 283 n.10) notes, the term
appears to have been first used by Jahn (1997). (In a personal commu
nication, Jahn confirmed that when he published this article he was not
aware of any prior use of the term, but also that Ansgar Nünning must
be credited with suggesting the second part of the article’s title.) How
ever, the issues and concerns encompassed by the term have been live
ones for a considerably longer period.
Beginning in the 1970s, studies in a number of fields provided, av
ant la lettre, important foundations for cognitive-narratological re
search. In the domain of literary studies, and in parallel with a broader
turn toward issues of reception or reader response (Iser 1972; Jauss
1977; Tompkins 1980), research by Sternberg (1978) and Perry (1979)
highlighted processing strategies (e.g. the “primacy” and “recency” ef
fects) that arise from the situation of a given event vis-à-vis the two
temporal continua of story and discourse, or fabula and sujet. Events
that happen early in story-time can be encountered late in discourse-
time, or vice versa, producing different reading experiences from those
set into play when there is greater isomorphism between the time of the
33 Cognitive Narratology
told and the time of the telling. (A still earlier precedent in this connec
tion is Ingarden’s [1931] account of literary texts as heteronomous vs.
autonomous objects, i.e. as schematic structures the concretization of
whose meaning potential requires the cognitive activity of readers.)
Likewise, in the fields of cognitive psychology and Artificial Intelli
gence research, analysts began developing their own hypotheses about
cognitive structures underlying the production and understanding of
narrative.
Psychologists such as Mandler (1984), for example, postulated the
existence of cognitively based story grammars or narrative rule sys
tems. Such grammars were cast as formal representations of the cogni-
tive mechanisms used to parse stories into sets of units (e.g. settings
and episodes) and principles for sequencing and embedding those units
(for a fuller discussion, cf. Herman 2002: 10–13). Roughly contempor
aneously with the advent of story grammars, research in Artificial Intel
ligence also began to focus attention on the cognitive basis for creating
and understanding stories. Schank & Abelson’s (1977) foundational
work explored how stereotypical knowledge reduces the complexity
and duration of many processing tasks, including the interpretation of
narrative. Indeed, the concept of script, i.e. a type of knowledge repre-
sentation that allows an expected sequence of events to be stored in the
memory, was designed to explain how people are able to build up com
plex interpretations of stories on the basis of very few textual or dis
course cues (→ schemata). Whereas the term “scripts” was used to
refer to kinds of world-knowledge that generate expectations about
how sequences of events are supposed to unfold, “frames” referred to
expectations about how domains of experience are likely to be struc
tured at a given moment in time (Goffman 1974). Frames guide my ex
pectations about the objects and decor that I am likely to find in a uni
versity classroom as opposed to a prison cell; scripts guide my expecta
tions about what I can expect to happen while ordering a beer in a bar
as opposed to defending a doctoral dissertation.
Although subsequent research on knowledge representations sug
gests the limits as well as the possibilities of the original frame and
script concepts (Sternberg 2003 provides a critical review), this early
work has shaped cognitive narratology from its inception, informing
the study of how particular features of narrative discourse cue particu
lar kinds of processing strategies. Indeed, Jahn’s (1997) foundational
essay in the field, mentioned above, draws on Minsky’s (1975) account
of frames (among other relevant research) to redescribe from a cogni-
tive perspective key aspects of Stanzel’s (1979) theory of narrative. In
Jahn’s proposal, higher-order knowledge representations or frames en
Cognitive Narratology 34
(a) Eder (2003: 284 n. 14) sets up a scale of seven possible relation
ships between cognitive reception theories and narratology. These pos
sibilities run the gamut from impossibility to unrelated coexistence to
the outright assimilation of narratology to cognitive theory. A more
general question can be extrapolated from Eder’s analysis: to what ex
tent does the research conducted to date warrant commitment to the
possibility of integrating narratological theory with ideas from the cog
nitive sciences? (b) Relatedly, Sternberg (2003) has raised questions
about the degree to which cognitive narratology enables true methodo
logical convergence among the domains of inquiry that it encompasses.
Part of the problem lies in the attempt to translate foundational con
cepts such as “frames” and “scripts,” “emotion,” and even “narrative”
across what remains for Sternberg a disciplinary divide between hu
manistic and social-scientific research. As this critique suggests, if cog
nitive narratology is to become a bonafide inter-discipline, it must
work toward combining its source concepts and methods into a whole
which is greater—more capable of description and explanation—than
the sum of its parts.
5 Bibliography
Eder, Jens (2003). “Narratology and Cognitive Reception Theories.” T. Kindt & H.-H.
Müller (eds). What Is Narratology? Questions and Answers Regarding the Status
of a Theory. Berlin: de Gruyer, 277–301.
Emmott, Catherine (1997). Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Ox
ford: Oxford UP.
Fludernik, Monika (1996). Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London: Routledge.
Genette, Gérard ([1972] 1980). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca: Cor
nell UP.
Gerrig, Richard J. (1993). Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Activ
ities of Reading. New Haven: Yale UP.
Goffman, Erving (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.
New York: Harper & Row.
Herman, David (1999). “Introduction.” D. H. (ed). Narratologies: New Perspectives on
Narrative Analysis. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1–30.
– (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln: U of Neb
raska P.
– (2003). “Stories as a Tool for Thinking.” D. H. (ed). Narrative Theory and the
Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: CSLI, 163–92.
– (2005). “Quantitative Methods in Narratology: A Corpus-based Study of Motion
Events in Stories.” J. Ch. Meister (ed). Narratology Beyond Literary Criticism.
Mediality, Disciplinarity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 125–49.
– (2007a). “Cognition, Emotion, and Consciousness.” D. H. (ed). The Cambridge
Companion to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 245–59.
– (2007b). “Storytelling and the Sciences of Mind: Cognitive Narratology, Discursive
Psychology, and Narratives in Face-to-Face Interaction.” Narrative 15, 306–34.
– (2009a). Basic Elements of Narrative. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
– (2009b). “Beyond Voice and Vision: Cognitive Grammar and Focalization
Theory.” P. Hühn et al. (eds). Point of View, Perspective, and Focalization: Model
ing Mediacy in Narrative. Berlin: de Gruyter, 119–42.
– ed. (2003). Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: CSLI.
Hogan, Patrick Colm (2003a). The Mind and Its Stories: Narrative Universals and Hu
man Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
– (2003b). Cognitive Science, Literature, and the Arts: A Guide for Humanists. Lon
don: Routledge.
Holland, Norman (1975). 5 Readers Reading. New Haven: Yale UP.
Ingarden, Roman ([1931] 1973). The Literary Work of Art. Evanston: Northwestern
UP.
Iser, Wolfgang ([1972] 1974). The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in
Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
Jackson, Tony E. (2005). “Explanation, Interpretation, and Close Reading: The Pro
gress of Cognitive Poetics.” Poetics Today 26, 519–33.
Jahn, Manfred (1996). “Windows of Focalization: Deconstructing and Reconstructing a
Narratological Concept.” Style 30, 241–67.
– (1997). “Frames, Preferences, and the Reading of Third-Person Narratives: Toward
a Cognitive Narratology.” Poetics Today 18, 441–68.
Cognitive Narratology 42
Brockmeier, Jens & Donal Carbaugh, eds. (2001). Narrative and Identity: Studies in
Autobiography, Self and Culture. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bruner, Jerome (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Herman, David (2009). “Cognitive Approaches to Narrative Analysis.” G. Brône & J.
Vandaele (eds). Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains, and Gaps. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter, 79–118.
Jahn, Manfred (2005). “Cognitive Narratology.” D. Herman et al. (eds). Routledge En
cyclopedia of Narrative Theory. London: Routledge, 67–71.
Vygotsky, Lev S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Coherence
Michael Toolan
1 Definition
2 Explication
vated on the discours level and in the references to the context, is usu
al. But it remains controversial to claim that they are essential.
What may have escaped notice is the borrowing of the more particular
notion of “narrative coherence,” which is now frequently invoked in
(inter alia) theories and practices of psychiatry (Fiese ed. 2001), human
psychology (McAdams 2006), psychotherapy (e.g. Linde 1993; Roberts
& Holmes eds. 1999), and work with high-functioning autistic or learn
ing-disabled children and adults (e.g. Diehl et al. 2006).
Some of the most interesting use of the notion of coherence in nar
rative studies has focused on the macrothematic and the largest long-
term consequences of a series of events. For example, life-story anal-
yses often focus on the coherence within those stories (Linde 1993;
Ochs & Capps 2001) in the course of understanding experiences which
are problematic or painful: coherence is integral to the therapeutic or
identity-affirming work undertaken (e.g. illness narratives: Hawkins
1993). And analysts of narratives who are most interested in the ideo-
logical, political or ecological positions depicted in life stories and
many other public narratives evaluate their consistency and fairness by
reference to coherence.
59 Coherence
5 Bibliography
Giora, Rachel (1985). “Notes Towards a Theory of Text Coherence.” Poetics Today 6,
699–715.
Goldman, Susan R., et al. eds. (1999). Narrative Comprehension, Causality, and Co
herence: Essays in Honor of Tom Trabasso. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Grice, Herbert Paul (1975). “Logic and Conversation.” P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (eds).
Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41–58.
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Long
man.
Hawkins, Anne (1993). Reconstructing Illness: Studies in Pathography. West Lafay
ette: Purdue UP.
Herman, David (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln:
U of Nebraska P.
– (2009). Basic Elements of Narrative. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hoey, Michael (2005). Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. Lon
don: Routledge.
Hühn, Peter (2008). “Functions and Forms of Eventfulness in Narrative Fiction.”
J. Pier & J. Á. García Landa (eds). Theorizing Narrativity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 141–
63.
Ingarden, Roman ([1931] 1973). The Literary Work of Art. Evanston: Northwestern
UP.
Iser, Wolfgang ([1976] 1978). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response.
London: Routledge.
Jauss, Hans Robert ([1977] 1982). Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis: U
of Minnesota P.
Kindt, Tom & Hans-Harald Müller (2003). ”Narrative theory and/or/as Theory of Inter
pretation.” T. K. & H.-H. M. (eds). What Is Narratology? Questions and Answers
regarding the Status of a Theory. Berlin: de Gruyter, 205–19.
Kintsch, Walter & Teun A. van Dijk (1978). “Toward a Model of Text Comprehension
and Production.” Psychological Review 85, 363–94.
Kock, Christian (1978). “Narrative Tropes: A study of points in plots.” G. D. Caie et al.
(eds). Occasional Papers 1976-1977. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 202–52.
Lämmert, Eberhard (1955). Bauformen des Erzählens. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Lesser, Ruth & Lesley Milroy (1993). Linguistics and Aphasia: Psycholinguistic and
Pragmatic Aspects of Intervention. London: Longman.
Linde, Charlotte (1993). Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence. New York: Oxford
UP.
Mandler, Jean & Nancy Johnson (1977). “Remembrance of things parsed: Story struc
ture and recall.” Cognitive Psychology 9, 111–51.
Margolin Uri (1983). “Characterization in Narrative: Some Theoretical Prolegomena.”
Neophilologus 67, 1–14.
– (1990). “Individuals in Narrative Worlds: An Ontological Perspective.” Poetics
Today 11, 843–71.
McAdams, Dan P. (2006). “The Problem of Narrative Coherence.” Journal of Con
structivist Psychology 19, 109–25.
Ochs, Eleanor & Lisa Capps (2001). Living Narrative: Creating Lives in Everyday
Storytelling. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
61 Coherence
Pier, John & José Ángel García Landa (eds) (2008). Theorizing Narrativity. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Poe, Edgar Allan ([1846] 1982). “The Philosophy of Composition.” The Complete
Tales and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 889–907.
Pratt, Mary Louise (1977). Towards a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse.
Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Prince, Gerald (1973). A Grammar of Stories: An Introduction. The Hague: Mouton.
– (1999). “Revisiting Narrativity.” A. Grunzweig & A. Solbach (eds). Grenzüber
schreitungen: Narratologie im Kontext / Transcending Boundaries: Narratology in
Context. Tübingen: Narr, 43–51.
Propp, Vladimir ([1928] 1968). Morphology of the Folktale. Austin: U of Texas P.
Reinhart, Tanya (1980). “Conditions for Text Coherence.” Poetics Today 1.1, 161–80.
Roberts, Glenn & Jeremy Holmes, eds. (1999). Healing Stories: Narrative in Psychi
atry and Psychotherapy. New York: Oxford UP.
Rosch, Eleanor (1978). “Principles of Categorization.” E. R. & B. B. Lloyd (eds). Cog
nition and Categorization. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 27–48.
Ryan, Marie-Laure (1991). Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative The
ory. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Schmid, Wolf (2003). “Narrativity and Eventfulness.” T. Kindt & H.-H. Müller (eds).
What Is Narratology? Questions and Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 17–33.
Schneider, Ralf (2001). “Toward a Cognitive Theory of Literary Character: The Dy
namics of Mental-Model Construction.” Style 35, 607–40.
Sinclair, John M. & Malcolm Coulthard (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse:
The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford UP.
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson ([1986] 1995). Relevance: Communication and Cogni
tion. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stanzel, Franz K. ([1955] 1971). Narrative Situations in the Novel: Tom Jones, Moby-
Dick, The Ambassadors, Ulysses. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
– ([1979] 1984). A Theory of Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Stein, Nancy & Christine Glenn (1979). “An analysis of story comprehension in ele
mentary school children.” R. D. Freedle (ed). Advances in Discourse Processes:
Vol. 2. New Directions in Discourse Processing. Norwood: Ablex, 53–119.
Stubbs, Michael (1983). Discourse Analysis: the Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural
Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Tammi, Pekka (2005). “Against Narrative (‘A Boring Story’).” Partial Answers 4, 19–
40.
Thorndyke, Perry W. (1977). “Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of
narrative discourse.” Cognitive Psychology 9, 77–110.
Todorov, Tzvetan (1969). Grammaire du “Décaméron.” The Hague: Mouton.
– ([1971] 1977). The Poetics of Prose. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
– ([1978] 1990). Genres in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Toolan, Michael (2009). Narrative Progression in the Short Story: a corpus stylistic
approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
van Dijk, Teun A. (1972). Some Aspects of Text Grammars. The Hague: Mouton.
Walsh, Richard (2007). The Rhetoric of Fictionality. Columbus: Ohio State UP.
Coherence 62
1 Definition
2 Explication
5 Bibliography
Brinker, Klaus & Sven F. Sager ([1989] 2006). Linguistische Gesprächsanalyse. Ber
lin: Schmidt.
Carter, Ronald (1997). Investigating English Discourse. London: Routledge.
Chafe, Wallace (1994). Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. The Flow and Displace
ment of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
– ed. ([1980] 2006). Pear Stories. Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of
Narrative Production. Norwood: Ablex.
Ehlich, Konrad, ed. (1980). Erzählen im Alltag. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Ėjxenbaum, Boris (Eikhenbaum) ([1918] 1975). “The Illusion of ‘Skaz’.” Russian Lit-
erature 12, 233–36.
Fludernik, Monika (1991). “The Historical Present Tense Yet Again: Tense Switching
and Narrative Dynamics in Oral and Quasi-Oral Storytelling.” Text 11, 365–98.
– (1992a). “The Historical Present Tense in English Literature: An Oral Pattern and
its Literary Adaptation.” Language and Literature 17, 77–107.
– (1992b). “Narrative Schemata and Temporal Anchoring.” The Journal of Literary
Semantics 21, 118–53.
– (1993). The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction. The Linguistic
Representation of Speech and Consciousness. London: Routledge.
– (1996). Towards a ‛Natural’ Narratology. London: Routledge.
Foley, Miles (1990). Traditional Oral Epic. The Odyssey, Beowulf, and the Serbo-
Croatian Return Song. Berkeley: U of California P.
– (1995). The Singer of Tales in Performance. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Goetsch, Paul (1985). “Fingierte Mündlichkeit in der Erzählkunst entwickelter
Schriftkultur.” Poetica 17, 202–18.
Gülich, Elisabeth (1970). Makrosyntax der Gliederungssignale im gesprochenen Fran
zösisch. München: Fink.
Herman, David (1997). “Scripts, Sequences, and Stories. Elements of a Postclassical
Narratology.” PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of Ameri-
ca 112, 1046–59.
– (1999). “Toward a Socionarratology: New Ways of Analyzing Natural-Language
Narratives.” D. Herman (ed). Narratologies. New Perspectives on Narrative Anal-
ysis. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 218–46.
Hodge, Bob & Gunther Kress ([1979] 1993). Language as Ideology. London: Rout
ledge.
Hutchby, Ian & Robin Wooffitt (1998). Conversation Analysis. Principles, Practices,
Applications. Cambridge: Polity.
Jaworski, Adam & Nikolas Coupland, eds. (1999). The Discourse Reader. London:
Routledge.
Johnstone, Barbara ([2002] 2008). Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine (1996). La conversation. Paris: Seuil.
– (2001). Les actes de langage dans le discours. Théorie et fonctionnement. Paris:
Nathan.
Labov, William (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Ver
nacular. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P.
72 Conversational Narration/Oral Narration
– & Joshua Waletzky (1967). “Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Personal Experi
ence.” J. Helm (ed). Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seattle: U of Washing
ton P, 12–44.
Leech, Geoffrey N. & Michael H. Short (1981). Style in Fiction. A Linguistic Introduc
tion to English Fictional Prose. London: Longman.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Longacre, Robert E. ([1983] 1996). The Grammar of Discourse. New York: Plenum.
Lord, Albert (1960). The Singer of Tales. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Lucius-Hoene, Gabriele & Arnulf Deppermann (2004). Rekonstruktion narrativer
Identität: Ein Arbeitsbuch zur Analyse narrativer Interviews. Wiesbaden: VS für
Sozalwissenschaften.
Mondada, Lorenza, ed. (1995). Formes linguistiques et dynamiques interactionelles
Lausanne: Institut de Linguistique des Sciences du Langage.
Ochs, Elinor & Lisa Capps (2001). Living Narrative: Creating Lives in Everyday
Storytelling. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Ong, Walter (1982). Orality and Literacy. London: Methuen.
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson (1995). “What Can Conversation Tell Us About
Syntax?” P. W. Davis (ed). Alternative Linguistics: Descriptive and Theoretical
Modes. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 213–71.
Parry, Adam, ed. (1971). The Making of Homeric Verse. The Collected Papers of Mil
man Parry. Oxford: Clarendon.
Perks, Robert & Alistair Thomson, eds. ([1990] 2006). The Oral History Reader. Lon
don: Routledge.
Propp, Vladimir ([1928] 1968). Morphology of the Folktale. Austin: U of Texas P.
Psathas, George (1995). Conversation Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Quasthoff, Uta (1980). Erzählen in Gesprächen. Tübingen: Narr.
– & Tabea Becker, eds. (2005). Narrative Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sacks, Harvey (1972). “An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data
for Doing Sociology.” D. Sudnow (ed). Studies in Social Interaction. New York:
Free P, 31–74.
– (1992). Lectures in Conversation. Ed. G. Jefferson. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell.
– et al. (1974). “A Simple Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Con
versation.” Language 50, 696–735.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in
Conversation Analysis. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Schiffrin, Deborah (1981). “Tense Variation in Narrative.” Language 57, 45–62.
– (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
– et al. eds. (2001). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schmid, Wolf (2005). Elemente der Narratologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Tannen, Deborah (1984). Conversational Style. Analyzing Talk Among Friends. Nor
wood: Ablex.
– (1989). Talking Voices. Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Dis
course. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
– (1990). You Just Don’t Understand. Women and Men in Conversation. New York:
Morrow.
Conversational Narration/Oral Narration 73
Tedlock, Dennis (1983). The Spoken Word and the Work of Interpretation. Phila-
delphia: U of Pennsylvania P.
Terkel, Studs ([1984] 1990). ‘The Good War.’ An Oral History of World War Two.
New York: Ballantine.
van Dijk, Teun A., ed. (1997). Discourse Studies. 2 vols. London: Sage.
Vinogradov, Viktor ([1925] 1980). “The Problem of Skaz in Stylistics.” E. Proffer &
C. R. Proffer (eds). The Ardis Anthology of Russian Futurism. Ann Arbor: Ardis.
Wittig, Susan (1978). Stylistic and Narrative Structures in the Middle English Ro
mances. Austin: U of Texas P.
Wolfson, Nessa (1982). CHP. Conversational Historical Present in American English
Narrative. Dordrecht: Foris.
Young, Katherine (1999). “Narratives of Indeterminacy: Breaking the Medical Body
into its Discourses; Breaking the Discursive Body out of Postmodernism.” D. Her
man (ed). Narratologies. New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis. Columbus: Ohio
State UP, 197–217.
1 Definition
2 Explication
not approach the object from the sidelines” (Baxtin [1934/35] 1981:
276–77; translation modified).
This extended quotation brings together many of the principal fea
tures—utterance, evaluation, accent, social dialogue—associated with
the Baxtinian account of dialogism; other terms from the essay that
have gained widespread currency as denotations of discourse encapsu
lating social dialogue include “hybridized” and “double-voiced.” As
the title of the essay suggests, for Baxtin the most effective means of
representing the inherently dialogic quality of discourse is the novel; in
turn, it is the polyphonic novel, exemplified most completely by the
works of Dostoevskij, that is the acme of the novelist’s “orchestration”
of raznorečie (usually translated as ® heteroglossia, the diversity of
socially specific discourses; Baxtin 1929, 1963). Baxtin’s promotion of
the novel relies to a large extent on a contrast between prose as dia
logic and epic and poetry as monologic, an opposition that is clearly
unsustainable if all discourse is indeed inherently dialogic: monologic
discourse (whether in poetry, epic or in any other medium or genre)
can, in Baxtin’s terms, only be dialogic discourse that misrecognizes or
misreads, wilfully or otherwise, its own relationship to other discourse
in order to present itself as authoritative.
model, a sustained plea that we should always see all sides of an argu
ment, or that “faced with a choice of competing interpretations we
must always choose both” (Booker & Juraga 1995: 16). In large meas
ure, the ease with which dialogism has been appropriated as a tool for
(not only) literary analysis, and the blunting of this tool by casual use,
are consequences of a failure to recognize and engage with the con-
cept’s place in intellectual history, with the philosophical and philolog-
ical contexts in which dialogism denotes not an identifiable quality of a
narrative text, but a set of problems in the study of human language,
communication and cognition (Linell 1998).
The implication of all this would appear to be not so much that dia
logism is not relevant for narratology, but that there is a mismatch
between the complexities of understanding dialogism in historical per
spective on the one hand, and on the other narratology’s apparent re
quirement for an instrument enabling more or less objective description
and analysis of certain properties of narrative texts and their effects.
But to assert this would be to disregard the prospect that theory de
scribable as “dialogic” does hold out of a sensitive and sophisticated
approach, firmly anchored in an account of the concrete institutions in
which fiction is produced and consumed, to questions of authorial, nar
ratorial and readerly agency and interdependence—in Prince’s terms,
the “elaboration of an explicit, complete, and empirically grounded
model of narrative accounting for narrative competence (the ability to
produce narratives and to process texts as narratives) [that] ultimately
constitutes the most significant narratological endeavor” (2003: 12). It
would also be to disparage unduly the achievements and, especially,
potential of narratology, not least in what Nünning (2003) describes as
the “postclassical” phase in which it seeks to move beyond structuralist
typologization (Herman 1999).
(a) The precise relationship between dialogism and other terms used to
denote modes of representing point of view (focalization, free indirect
discourse, polyphony, etc.; an excellent beginning to this investigation
is offered by Lock 2001). (b) The implications of the philosophical and
philological lineage of dialogism for the project of narratology (this is
simply one expression of the broader question of the extent to which
literary/critical theory does or does not recognize its historical affilia-
tions). Is dialogism a solution to a (narratological) problem, or a con
venient denotation of a set of complex (philosophical and linguistic)
problems in search of a solution?
Dialogism 78
5 Bibliography
– ([1929] 1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Williams, Patrick (2005). “Dialogism.” D. Herman et al. (eds). Routledge Encyclopedia
of Narrative Theory. London: Routledge, 104–05.
Zbinden, Karine (1999). “Traducing Bakhtin and Missing Heteroglossia.” Dialogism 2,
41–59.
1 Definition
The term “event” refers to a change of state, one of the constitutive fea
tures of narrativity. We can distinguish between event I, a general type
of event that has no special requirements, and event II, a type of event
that satisfies certain additional conditions. A type I event is present for
every change of state explicitly or implicitly represented in a text. A
change of state qualifies as a type II event if it is accredited—in an in
terpretive, context-dependent decision—with certain features such as
relevance, unexpectedness, and unusualness. The two types of event
correspond to broad and narrow definitions of narrativity respectively:
narration as the relation of changes of any kind and narration as the
representation of changes with certain qualities.
2 Explication
The event II concept has played no more than a peripheral role in nar
rative studies to date. Aspects of the phenomenon, however, have been
highlighted in other contexts and in the guise of different terminology.
Discussions of tellability and the “point of the narrative” (Labov 1972:
366) are the main examples of such contexts; they have led to the sug
gestion that events are one of the reasons why stories are narrated. An
early approach to describing narrative noteworthiness, in which the
term “tellability” was introduced, was put forward by Labov (1972:
363–70) in his study of everyday narratives. He used evaluation (366–
75) as a category for covering the means that the narrator uses to mark
what he calls the point of the narrative, its raison d’être. These include
external evaluation (direct identification), embedding (of utterances of
Event and Eventfulness 84
vs. reality, surface vs. depth, etc.), and thus serve as the central motiva
tion for reading. An example of this occurs when the protagonist in a
tragic or comic text unwittingly brings about a setback through his own
actions. This approach does, it is true, identify the crucial switches or
changes in the genres in question, but it too is nonetheless vulnerable
to the criticism outlined above regarding a definition of eventfulness
that is based purely on textual structure-cultural dependency, like the
relevance of text-internal norms, is ignored.
3.4.1 Event I
The approaches to defining narrativity based on event I are many and
varied. Numerous theorists define the minimal story or identify the
event as a basic element of narration in the context of an operational
87 Event and Eventfulness
3.4.2 Event II
Use of the concept of event in literary theory requires that type II
events meet certain additional conditions. Such conditions have been
identified from various perspectives, which will now be reviewed not
in historical order but systematically, progressing from approaches
concerned with definition to ones involving methodology and analysis,
in particular Lotman’s plot model, which has proved particularly pro
ductive in practice.
In his discussion of the role of narration in structuring reality as part
of human existence, Bruner (1991) draws attention to all the central di
mensions of eventfulness involved in event II: the hermeneutic com
ponent; the modality of deviation; the place of norms as a point of ref
erence; and context sensitivity. Bruner uses the idea of “hermeneutic
composability” (7–11) to stress the fact that stories do not exist in the
world, but depend for their existence on human consciousness to
provide the horizon against which they stand. He uses the phrase “ca
nonicity and breach” (11–3) to describe how a precipitating event, re-
sulting in a break with expectations, a deviation from what is normal
and from routine scripts, is a necessary condition of tellability. Breaks
of this kind always involve norms (15–6). Finally, these features give
rise to the context sensitivity (16–8) that makes real-world narration
“such a viable instrument for cultural negotiation” (17).
In order to distinguish event II from event I, Schmid (2003, 2005:
20–7) defines additional criteria that a change of state must fulfill in
order to qualify as an event in this narrower sense. First, facticity and
resultativity are specified as necessary conditions. Eventfulness, that is
to say, requires that a change actually take place (rather than being
simply desired or imagined) and that it reach a conclusion (rather than
having simply begun or being in progress). These binary conditions are
supplemented by five properties that can be present to different degrees
and must also be displayed by a change, if it is to qualify as eventful in
the manner of a type II event. Changes, that is to say, are more or less
eventful depending on the extent to which these five properties are
present. Specifically, the criteria are those of relevance (significance in
the represented world), unpredictability (deviation from what is expect-
ed, from the principles of the general order of the world), effect (im
plications of the change for the character concerned or the narrated
world), irreversibility (persistence and irrevocability of the change’s
consequences), and non-iterativity (singularity of the change).
Event and Eventfulness 90
der and norms are affirmed) or remain in motion, set forth again, and
go through another important change, triggering a realignment of field
structure (what was the second subset becomes the first subset of a new
overall and differently defined field; 240–41).
Renner (1983, 2004), Titzmann (2003), and Krah (1999) seek to in
crease the practical suitability of Lotman’s model for textual analysis
by refining its concepts and formalizing its categories. Renner (1983,
2004) reformulates Lotman’s spatial metaphor in terms of set theory,
describing the normative regularities of the semantic space as a set of
“ordering statements” so that spatial change can be redefined as a suc
cessive process of disruption, removal, or replacement of such ordering
statements. This picture of how the boundary crossing takes place
provides a more precise impression of it as a potentially progressive, as
opposed to instantaneous, phenomenon. An important prerequisite for
this refinement lies in the observation that spaces are not homogeneous
but can display a graded structure with respect to their ordering prin
ciples: at some stage, changing position within the space, the protago-
nist, because of his cumulative opposition to the dominant ordering
statements, reaches an extreme point that qualifies as an event (the ex
treme point rule). It is questionable, however, whether Renner’s ex
treme formalization of Lotman’s categories really represents a step for
ward for analysis in practice. Titzmann (2003) puts forward two addi
tional categories to supplement those of Lotman. First, he introduces
the concept of the meta-event, which involves not only the passage of
the protagonist from the first to the second subset as a result of his
boundary crossing, but also the modification of the entire field, the
world order itself (if, for example, the boundary crossing results in the
social opposition between the subsets being reconfigured as a morally
defined division in the field). Second, Titzmann introduces the concept
of the modalization of semantic spaces, which accounts for the fact that
it is possible for subsets to differ from one another in terms of their
modality (as dreams, fantasies, wishes contrasting with reality). Sub
categories of spatial opposition and boundary crossing, in particular,
are suggested by Krah (1999: 7–9) in the context of a closer study of
certain aspects of the concept of space. Subspaces can represent
autonomous alternatives in formal terms, or they can be related to one
another functionally as contrastive spaces or by their relationship to a
certain standpoint (system/environment, inside/outside). Spatial subdi
visions can also be conceptually defined in many ways, in terms, for
example, of nature vs. culture, home vs. foreign, normality vs. devia-
tion, past vs. present, everyday vs. exotic, as well as from a gender-spe
cific perspective. An event can take place in the form of a boundary
93 Event and Eventfulness
(a) The historical dimension of the category of event, i.e. its relation
ship to different types of culture and social world orders, remains open
to study: does it appear—as a sign of the new—more frequently in
periods when traditional orders are disintegrating or being weakened
(in the modern and modernist periods)? Are events to be found in tradi
tion-bound societies or cultures that operate in terms of tradition and
continuity? It would be interesting in this respect to provide a compari-
son with narrative texts from ‘distant’ cultures not yet affected by the
West (South America, Asia, Africa). (b) The potent concept of event
forged by Lotman is particularly well suited for use with literary narra-
tive texts. How might we describe points of eventfulness, or tellability,
in the case of other text types (anecdotes, news reports, newspaper arti-
cles, jokes, gossip, etc.) that also involve surprises and the unexpected?
(c) The expression of the concept of event in other literary genres, such
as drama and lyric poetry, requires consideration. (d) It is also neces
sary to investigate the expression of the concept of event in other me
dia, particularly film and painting.
5 Bibliography
Chatman, Seymour (1978). Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and
Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Culler, Jonathan (1975). Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study
of Literature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Frawley, William (1992). Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Friedemann, Käte ([1910] 1965). Die Rolle des Erzählers in der Epik. Darmstadt:
WBG.
Goethe, Johann W. von ([1795] 1960). Goethes Werke. Vol. VI: Romane und Novellen.
Eds. B. v. Wiese & E. Trunz. Hamburg: Wegner.
Goethe Wörterbuch (1989). 2 Vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Halliwell, Stephen (1987). The Poetics of Aristotle: Translation and Commentary.
London: Duckworth.
Hauschild, Christiane (2009). “Jurij M. Lotmans semiotischer Ereignisbegriff: Versuch
einer Neubewertung.” W. Schmid (ed). Slavische Narratologie: Russische und
tschechische Ansätze. Berlin: de Gruyter, 141–86.
Herman, David (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln:
U of Nebraska P.
– (2005). “Events and Event-Types.” D. Herman et al. (eds). Routledge Encyclope
dia of Narrative Theory. London: Routledge, 151–52.
Hühn, Peter (2005). “Plotting the Lyric: Forms of Narration in Poetry.” E. Müller-
Zettelmann & M. Rubik (eds). Theory into Poetry: New Approaches to the Lyric.
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 147–72.
– (2008). “Functions and Forms of Eventfulness in Narrative Fiction.” J. Pier &
J. Á. García Landa (eds). Theorizing Narrativity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 141–63.
– & Jens Kiefer (2005). The Narratological Analysis of Lyric Poetry: Studies in
English Poetry from 16th to the 20th Century. Berlin: de Gruyter.
– & Jörg Schönert (2002). “Zur narratologischen Analyse von Lyrik.” Poetica 34,
287–305.
Kock, Christian (1978). “Narrative Tropes: A study of points in plots.” G. D. Caie et al.
(eds). Occasional Papers 1976–1977. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 202–52.
Krah, Hans (1999). “Räume, Grenzen, Grenzüberschreitungen: Einführende Überle
gungen.” Kodikas/Code 22, 3–12.
Kunz, Josef, ed. ([1968] 1973). Novelle. Darmstadt: WBG.
Labov, William (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Ver
nacular. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P.
Lotman, Jurij M. ([1970] 1977). The Structure of the Artistic Text. Ann Arbor: U of
Michigan P.
Meister, Jan Christoph (2003). Computing Action: A Narratological Approach. Berlin:
de Gruyter.
Pabst, Walter (1953). Novellentheorie und Novellendichtung: Zur Geschichte ihrer An
tinomie in den romanischen Literaturen. Hamburg: Cram, de Gruyter.
Perels, Christoph (1998). “Der Begriff der Begebenheit in Goethes Bemerkungen zur
Erzählkunst.” Ch. P. Goethe in seiner Epoche. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 177–89.
Pratt, Mary Louise (1977). Towards a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse.
Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Prince, Gerald (1973). A Grammar of Stories: An Introduction. The Hague: Mouton.
Event and Eventfulness 96
Czucka, Eckehard (1992). Emphatische Prosa: Das Problem der Wirklichkeit der Er
eignisse in der Literatur des 19. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Hühn, Peter & Jens Kiefer (2007). “Approche descriptive de l’intrigue et de la
construction de l’intrigue par la théorie des systèmes.” J. Pier (ed). Théorie du ré
cit. L’apport de la recherche allemande. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires
du Septentrion, 209–26.
Kędra-Kardela, Anna (1996). “An (Un)Eventful Story: ‘Events’ in Frank O’Connor’s
Short Story ‘The Frying Pan’.” L. S. Kolek (ed). Appoaches to Fiction. Lublin: Fo
lium, 71–80.
Korthals, Holger (2003). Zwischen Drama und Erzählung: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie ge
schehensdarstellender Literatur. Berlin: Schmidt.
Koselleck, Reinhart & Wolf-Dieter Stempel, eds. (1973). Geschichte―Ereignis und
Erzählung. München: Fink.
Lotman, Jurij M. (2009). “Zum künstlerischen Raum und zum Problem des Sujets.” W.
Schmid (ed). Russische Proto-Narratologie. Texte in kommentierten Übersetzun
gen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 261–89.
Meuter, Norbert (2004). “Geschichten erzählen, Geschichten analysieren. Das narrati
vistische Paradigma in den Kulturwissenschaften.” F. Jäger & J. Straub (eds).
Handbuch der Kulturwissenschaften: Paradigmen und Disziplinen. Stuttgart:
Metzler, vol. 2, 140–55.
Naumann, Barbara (2003). “Zur Entstehung von Begriffen aus dem Ungeordneten des
Gesprächs.” Th. Rathmann (ed). Ereignis: Konzeptionen eines Begriffs in Ge
schichte, Kunst und Literatur. Köln: Böhlau, 103–18.
Nünning, Ansgar (2007). “Grundzüge einer Narratologie der Krise: Wie aus einer
Situation ein Plot und eine Krise (konstruiert) werden.” G. Grunwald & M. Pfister
(eds). Krisis! Krisenszenarien, Diagnosen und Diskursstrategien. München: Fink,
48–71.
Scherer, Stefan (2003). “Ereigniskonstruktionen als Literatur.” Th. Rathmann (ed). Er
eignis: Konzeptionen eines Begriffs in Geschichte, Kunst und Literatur. Köln:
Böhlau, 63–84.
Fictional vs. Factual Narration
Jean-Marie Schaeffer
1 Definition
2 Explication
dichotomy between fact and fiction. But even if it may be true that fic
tional narrative as a socially recognized practice is not an intercultur
ally universal fact, all human communities seem to distinguish between
actions and discourses that are meant to be taken “seriously” and others
whose status is different: they are recognized as “playful pretense” or
as “make-believe.” Furthermore, developmental psychology and com
parative ethnology have shown that the distinction between representa
tions having truth claims and “make-believe” representations is crucial
in the ontogenetic development of the cognitive structure of the infant
psyche and that this phenomenon is transcultural (see Goldman & Em
mison 1995; Goldman 1998). Finally, as far as myth is concerned, it is
clearly considered a type of factual discourse: people adhere to it as
serious discourse referring to something real (this is also the case of the
Bible; see Sternberg 1985, 1990). As shown by Veyne (1983), the so
cial construction of “truthful discourse” posits an array of “truth pro
grams” linked to various ontological domains (e.g. the profane as
distinct from the sacred). Thus “myth” can be “true” (i.e. treated as se-
rious and referring to some reality), even if believing in its truth enters
into conflict with what in another ontological domain is accepted as
truthful. For example, in myth and its corresponding reality, people can
be endowed with powers nobody would imagine them having in every
day life. This does not imply that there is no distinction between fact
and fiction, but that what counts as a fact may be relative to a specific
“truth program.”
The poststructuralist criticism of the fact/fiction dichotomy has
pointed out that every (narrative) representation is a human construc
tion, and more precisely that it is a model projected onto reality. But
the fact that discourse in general, and narrative discourse in particular,
are constructions does not by itself disqualify ontological realism or the
distinction between fact and fiction. To rule out ontological realism, it
would be necessary to show independently that the constructive nature
of discourse in general or of narrative in particular makes them fiction
al or at least implies a “fictionalizing” dynamics. This proof has never
been delivered, and so the common-sense hypothesis remains the de
fault option.
pothesizing. Hence the term has usually been linked to questions of ex
istence and non-existence, true and false belief, error and lie.
In classical philosophy, “fiction” was often used to designate what
we today would call a cognitive illusion (→ illusion). Hume used the
term in this sense when he spoke about causality or about a unified
self, calling them “fictions” (Hume [1739] 1992: Bk I, Pt IV, Sec VI).
Now, this type of fiction, as Hume himself explicitly stated, is quite
different from fiction in the artistic field. It is part of the definition of a
cognitive fiction that it is not experienced as a fiction. A narrative fic
tion, by contrast, is experienced as a fiction. This means that narrative
fictions, contrary to cognitive fictions, should not produce real-world
beliefs (even if in fact they sometimes do: fiction has its own patholo
gies).
The term fiction has also often been used to designate willful acts of
deception intended to be misleading or to produce false beliefs. In this
sense, deceptive fiction resembles cognitive fiction. But in the case of
willful deception, the production of a false belief depends at least
partly on the existence of true beliefs entertained by the person en
gaged in deceiving others: to induce willfully false beliefs, one must
hold at least some correct beliefs concerning the state of affairs about
which false beliefs are to be produced, for otherwise the result of will
ful deception will be haphazard. Willful deception (lies and manipula
tions) are, once again, quite different from narrative fiction, which im
plies that at some level pretense is experienced as pretense.
In science, the term is sometimes applied to theoretical entities pos
tulated to account for observational regularities which otherwise would
be unexplainable. Electrons and other elementary particles have been
called “fictions” in this sense. “Fiction,” used this way, does not desig
nate something known to be non-existent, but is rather the hypothetical
postulation of an operative entity whose ontological status remains in
determinate. Theoretical fictions are postulated entities whose ontolo
gical status remains unclear but which operate in real-world cognitive
commitments. Here again, the situation is quite different from fictional
entities in the context of narrative fiction: such entities do not operate
in real-world commitments. On the other hand, and contrary to theoret
ical entities, narrative fictional entities are entities which, if they exist-
ed, or if their existence were asserted, would have a canonical ontologi-
cal status, part of the real stuff of reality. So the difference is the fol
lowing: in the case of theoretical fictions, fictionality is due to the fact
that the ontological status (theoretical terms/real entities) of the entities
is indeterminate; in the case of narrative fictions, fictionality is due to
Fictional vs. Factual Narration 102
the fact that the entities are not inferentially linked to real-world exis-
tential propositions.
Finally, the term is also used to designate thought experiments.
Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment and Putnam’s Brain in a
Vat or Twin Earth thought experiments are fictions in this sense of the
word. Thought experiments are generally counterfactual deductive
devices giving rise to valid conclusions which are integrated into the
real-world belief system. Superficially, this may seem to be a situation
which resembles that of narrative fiction, but in fact, a narrative fiction
cannot be a thought experiment in the technical sense. The principal
reason why this assimilation is impossible is that the mental experience
induced by a narrative fiction and its validation are very different from
those of a thought experiment, for the attitude adopted when creating
or reading a thought experiment is an attitude of logical discrimination:
we have to verify its formal validity, determine whether or not it is con
clusive, think about how its relevance could be increased or refuted,
etc. Validating (or rejecting) a thought experiment is achieved through
technical controversies between specialists who accept it or not, refor
mulate or modify it using criteria of logical consistency and necessity.
A narrative fiction, by contrast, is activated in an immersive way: it is
“lived” and stored in the reader’s or spectator’s memory as a universe
closed on itself. As far as validating it is concerned, this is also quite
different from validating a thought experiment, since one would not
say of an narrative fiction that it is conclusive or faulty, but rather that
it is successful or unsuccessful in terms of its “effectiveness” as a vec
tor of immersion, its richness as a universe, etc. In other words, its “fe
licity conditions” are tied primarily to its immersion-inducing effec-
tiveness and to its capacity for producing an aesthetically satisfying ex
perience of its mimetic and artifactual properties. Admittedly, narrative
fictions can be evaluated in terms of the consistency of the fictional
universe or in those of their plausibility in relation to supposed real-
world situations or in terms of the desirable character or not of their ex
plicit or implicit standards. But all this has nothing to do with validat
ing a thought experiment. To state the difference more bluntly: a
thought experiment is an experimental device of a logical nature, a sup
positional or counterfactual propositional universe intended to help re
solve a philosophical problem; a narrative fiction, by contrast, invites
mental or perceptual immersion in an invented universe, engaging the
reader or the spectator on an affective level with the persons and events
that are depicted or described.
103 Fictional vs. Factual Narration
Historically (at least in Western culture), the key concept for analyzing
and describing fiction in the sense of artistic and, more specifically,
narrative fiction has not been the Latin concept of fictio, but the Greek
concept of mimesis. Unfortunately, mimesis, like fictio, is far from be
ing a unified notion. In fact, the first two important discussions of
mimesis, in Plato’s Republic (1974: chap. III and X) and a little later in
Aristotle’s Poetics, develop two quite divergent conceptions which
have structured Western attitudes toward fiction up to this day. Plato’s
theory of representation is founded on a strong opposition between im
itation of ideas and imitation of appearances (the empirical world): rep
resentation of events as such, contrary to rational argument, is an imita
tion of appearances, which means that it is cut off from truth. He fur
ther posits a strong opposition between mimesis and diegesis. Speaking
about stories and myths, he distinguishes between: (a) a pure story
(haple diegesis), in which the poet speaks in his own name (as in dithy
rambs) without pretending to be someone else; (b) a story by mimesis
(imitation), in which the poet speaks through his characters (as in
tragedy and comedy), meaning that he pretends to be someone else; (c)
a mixed form combining the two previous forms (as in epic poetry,
where pure narration is mixed with characters’ discourse). Plato’s pref
erence goes to pure narration, for he disapproves of representation by
mimesis (in Book X of The Republic, he goes so far as to exclude mi
metic artists from the “ideal city”). Mimesis is a simulacrum, an “as
if,” and as such it is opposed to truth: mimesis can never be more than
a “make-believe” (for the concept of “make-believe,” see Walton
1990).
The concept of mimesis developed by Aristotle in his Poetics di
verges from Plato in several important regards. For the fact/fiction
problem, only one is of interest: according to Aristotle, mimesis is a
specific form of cognition. Mimetic representation is even considered
by Aristotle to be superior to history because poetry expresses the gen
eral (i.e. the probable or necessary relations between events), while his
tory only expresses the particular (that which has happened): history
relates the life of the individual Alcibiades, while poetry is a mimetic
rendering of the typical actions that an Alcibiades-like individual
would probably or by necessity carry out (1996: chap. 9, 1451b). This
means not only that, according to Aristotle, mimesis triggers cognitive
powers of a different kind from those of history, but also that these
powers are of a higher order than those of factual discourse. Most clas
sical literary theories which assert that fiction possesses its own truth
Fictional vs. Factual Narration 104
standard understanding of fictional narrative. Even so, this does not ne
cessarily mean that a semantic definition of fiction is workable.
referent with each new E (each new speaker). In a novel, a new point of
view need not correspond to a new referent of the first person and
hence to a new text. This situation is of course impossible in real-life
communication, where each point of view is tied to a specific person.
Therefore, fictional sentences are “unspeakable.” In fact, Banfield’s
“E-level shifter” is functionally equivalent to Hamburger’s floating
“narrative function” which can move freely between different “I-ori
gins.”
Hamburger and Banfield have clearly identified linguistic processes
which are typical of internally focalized heterodiegetic fiction (→ fo
calization) and which cannot be easily accounted for in terms of pre
tense in third-person factual narrative. This is especially true of free in
direct discourse and grammatical anomalies of spatial and temporal
deictics. All of these phenomena are tied to what Banfield aptly calls a
“special” third-person pronoun which is able to shift freely between
different Egos. They invite an analysis of fictional narrative in terms of
direct simulation of imaginary universes presented perspectively and
(on the side of the reader) in terms of immersion (see Ryan 2001: 89–
171). The symptoms of fictionality (see Schmid 2005: 37–46) analyzed
by Hamburger and Banfield all share the same characteristic: they use a
third-person grammatical perspective to present a first-person mental
(perceptual, etc.) perspective (Schaeffer 1998: 148–66, 1999: 179–97).
On the side of the writer, these deviating practices are in fact the gram
matical third-person transcription of the imaginative simulation of
“fictive I-origins” (→ character). On the side of the reader, they acti-
vate an immersive dynamics: the reader “slips into” the characters, ex
periencing the fictional world as it is seen perspectively by the charac
ters from within or sometimes, as Banfield suggests, from a point of
view that remains empty (in terms of a specific “I”).
Contra Hamburger and Banfield, however, it is no less true that the
majority of heterodiegetic fictions also contain elements that are best
described as simulations of factual narrative statements (Schaeffer
1999: 61–132). The textual passages which Banfield calls “pure narra
tion,” and which correspond to Plato’s haple diegesis, are a case in
point. Furthermore, if we look at the history of narrative fiction, the
systematic use of internal (variable) focalization is fairly recent (as
Banfield and Hamburger acknowledge). If we take a broad historical
and intercultural outlook, it appears that heterodiegetic fictions without
any element of formal mimesis in third-person factual narrative are re-
latively rare except in some 19th-century fiction and, more frequently,
in the 20th-century fiction. So instead of interpreting the symptoms of
fictionality in an essentialist way and trying to use them as definitional
Fictional vs. Factual Narration 108
tion and its cognate immersion seem especially fruitful and may well
lead to a better understanding of both the distinction between fact and
fiction in narrative and their interplay.
Simulation and playful pretense are basic human capacities whose
roots are situated in mental simulation, a partly sub-personal process
(Dokic & Proust 2002: intro., vii). Could it be that the mental spe
cificity of fictional narrative is to be found in mental simulation? Actu
ally, simulation is a very broad concept which encompasses much more
than fiction. Theories of mental simulation were originally developed
in order to account for “mind reading,” i.e. the ability to explain and
predict the intentional behaviors and reactions of others. The assump
tion of simulation theories is that the competence of mind reading
makes it possible to put oneself imaginatively “into someone else’s
shoes.” It is true that mind reading has a strong narrative component, as
the “mind reader” immerses himself in scenarios and scripts. But, of
course, not every narrative is fictional.
Basically it can be said that if every fiction results from a process of
mental simulation, the opposite is not the case, i.e. that every simula
tion produces a fiction. Mind reading has a strong epistemic compon
ent: (a) it simulates the mental states of a really existing person; (b)
simulation must reproduce that person’s intentional states in a reliable
way, i.e. it is constrained by the necessity of correctly identifying and
assessing the real properties of the person whose mental states are be
ing simulated as well as by the context in which that person is found. In
the case of fictional simulation, however, the agents and actions are in
vented in and through the process of simulation. This process is not ref
erentially constrained and cannot be validated or invalidated in a direct
way (e.g. by a comparison between behaviors predicted by the simula
tion and an actually occurring behavior). This means that, contrary to
the results of mind reading, the results of a fictional narrative simula
tion are not fed into ongoing real-world interactions. Fictional (narra-
tive) simulation is not only off-line representational activity (as is
every simulation), but also a pragmatically encapsulated activity of
simulation. Except for pathological cases, the postulated entities of fic
tional representations are not fed into our belief system concerning the
trappings of the real world. Among other things, mental representations
triggered by fictional simulation are not fed into real-world feedback
loops. This does not mean that make-believe beliefs do not play into
the inferential processes concerning real-world situations, but that this
“playing into” is pretty much indirect.
Cognitive science also has shown that simulation and immersive
processes are not limited to fictional narratives. Every narrative in
Fictional vs. Factual Narration 112
comes how to maximize it. This in turn would serve to account for the
development of the anomalies studied by Hamburger and Banfield.
4 Bibliography
1 Definition
2 Explication
Lubbock. That these two models are not equivalent has been shown by
Kablitz (1988). If a novel begins by telling us who a character is, to
whom she is married, and for how long she has been living in a certain
town, it will reveal no more than the character knows herself, but no
one would describe such a beginning as an example of “vision with” or
character point of view. To tell a story from a character’s point of view
means to present the events as they are perceived, felt, interpreted and
evaluated by her at a particular moment.
Genette himself leans in the direction of the Todorovian, informa
tion-based model. On occasion, he talks about focalization in terms of
the point-of-view paradigm, e.g. when he describes it as placing narra-
tive focus at a particular “point” ([1983] 1988: 73); but in general, he
thinks of focalization in terms of knowledge and information. He thus
defines it as “a restriction of ‘field’ […], a selection of narrative in
formation with respect to what was traditionally called omniscience”
([1983] 1988: 74). This emphasis is also implied by the very term itself
and the preposition that goes along with it. Genette consistently writes
“focalisation sur” in French: while a story is told from a particular
point of view, a narrative focuses on something. This preposition indi-
cates the selection of, or restriction to, amounts or kinds of information
that are accessible under the norms of a particular focalization. If focal
ization is to be more than a mere “reformulation” of point of view, it is
this aspect of the term, the information-based model, which should be
emphasized.
Genette’s emphasis on knowledge and information is also revealed
by his extensive treatment of alterations ([1972] 1980: 194–98),
defined as a transgression of the informational norm established by the
focalization of a text. Alterations take two forms: paralepsis, the inclu
sion of an event against the norm of a particular focalization; and
paralipsis, a similarly transgressive omission of such an event. Accord
ing to Genette, the norms that are violated by these transgressions can
not be defined in advance (e.g. by commonsensical inferences as to
what a particular narrator may have learnt about the story he or she
tells). Instead, the norms are established by each particular text: “The
decisive criterion is not so much material possibility or even psycho
logical plausibility as it is textual coherence and narrative tonality”
(208). Shen disagrees with this view, arguing that it boils down to a
merely quantitative approach, a measurement of the relative length of
the normative and the transgressive portions of the text; she suggests
that there is a more general “legitimacy” that is violated by alterations
(2001: 168–69). However, her examples and her analyses show that
“legitimacy” in matters of focalization is far from self-evident. In her
Focalization 117
a little more evident than between who sees? and focalization. It is per
fectly possible to embrace Genette’s scheme, including the separation
and free combination of narrator and focalization types, while referring
to his three focalizations as points of view.
The case that the advocates of focalization have made for its superi
ority to point of view is by no means beyond dispute. Nor is it im
proved by the fact that some of them use the new term while still think
ing along the lines of the old, overlooking the semantic differences
between them and neglecting the new conceptual emphasis of the ne-
ologism. Füger, for example, explains that internal and external focal-
ization can be distinguished by the “situation of the agent of the pro
cess of perception” (1993: 47), which is nothing but a roundabout para
phrase of point of view. A characteristic instance of the reinterpretation
of focalization in terms of point of view is a change of preposition in
the English translation of Genette’s study: “[L]e mode narratif de la
Recherche est bien souvent la focalisation interne sur le héros” (1972:
214). “[T]he narrative mood of the Recherche is very often internal fo
calization through the hero” ([1972] 1980: 199). The rendering of sur
as through speaks volumes. It seems that the translator is under the
spell of the point-of-view paradigm. Instead of thinking about focaliza
tion as a selection of or a focusing on a particular region of the story
world—in this case the mind of the protagonist—the translator regards
this mind as a kind of window through or from which the world is per
ceived.
Bal’s influential revision of Genette’s theory is another example of
the reinterpretation of focalization in terms of point of view, although
she is more aware of this than others. Thus she admits that perspective
“reflects precisely” what she means by focalization ([1985] 1997: 143),
and she points out that Genette ought to have written “focalisation par”
instead of “focalisation sur” (1977: 29). The continuing influence of
the point-of-view paradigm also seems to underlie Bal’s reconceptual
ization of Genette’s typology in terms of focalizing subjects and focal
ized objects. According to her, the distinction between Genette’s zero
focalization and his internal focalization lies in the agent or subject that
“sees” the story (the narrator in the first case, a character in the
second); the difference between Genette’s internal and external focal-
ization, however, has nothing to do with the subject that “sees” but
with the object that is “seen” (thoughts and feelings in the first case,
actions and appearances in the second). Thus she ends up with a system
of two binary distinctions that replace Genette’s triple typology. There
are two types of focalization: character-bound or internal (Genette’s in
ternal focalization) and external (Genette’s zero and external focaliza
Focalization 119
tion combined into one). Furthermore, there are two types of focalized
objects: imperceptible (thoughts, feelings, etc.) and perceptible (ac
tions, appearances, etc.).
At least some of the elements in this reconceptualization result from
Bal’s adherence to the point-of-view paradigm, notably the elimination
of the distinction between Genette’s zero and external types (merged
by Bal into external focalization). Within the point-of-view model, this
change makes some sense. If one thinks about Genette’s zero and ex
ternal focalization in terms of a point from which the characters are
viewed, this point would appear to lie outside the characters in both
cases. However, if one thinks in terms of knowledge and information,
zero and external focalization are worlds apart. The first provides us
with complete access to all the regions of the storyworld, including the
characters’ minds, whereas in the second the access is extremely lim
ited and no inside views are possible.
While it is possible to explain the motivation of Bal’s modifications
of Genette’s theory by pointing out her adherence to point of view, it
must be said that, in themselves, these modifications are hardly com
pelling. It is simply erroneous to claim that Genette’s zero and external
types are distinguished by the focalizing subjects, whereas his internal
and external types differ in the focalized objects. All of Genette’s fo
calizations vary, among other things, in the range of objects that can be
represented; his zero focalization and his internal focalization (distin
guished in terms of the focalizing subjects by Bal) are also dissimilar in
this respect. Furthermore, the “focalized object” is a misleading
concept: the crucial distinction concerning such objects is between
“perceptible” and “imperceptible” ones, which means that the subjec-
tive element of perception that Bal has previously eliminated is reintro
duced by way of the adjective. As Edmiston writes: “[T]he focalizer
can be characterized by his objects of focalization, despite Bal’s efforts
to separate them [...]. Subject and object [of focalization] may be anal-
yzed separately, but they cannot be dissociated totally, as though there
were no correlation between them” (1991: 153).
Another feature of Bal’s theory, pointed out and criticized by Jahn,
is “that […] any act of perception (brief or extended; real, hypothetical
or fantasized) presented in whatever form (narrated, reported, quoted,
or scenically represented) counts as a case of focalization” (Jahn 1996:
260). This is a problematic premise, which perhaps stems from taking
Genette’s question who sees? rather too literally. It ultimately reduces
the analysis of focalization to a paraphrase of narrative content, to
identifying acts of perception. However, if a narrative tells us that
Mary sees John, it would appear to depend very much on how this is
120 Focalization
told and what the context is whether the narrative is also focalized “by”
(to use Bal’s preferred preposition) Mary. However, Bal is not the only
one to equate focalization with perception. This premise is also shared
by Herman & Vervaeck (2004), Margolin (2009) and Prince, who ex
plicitly states that his “discussion links focalization only to the percep
tion of the narrated by (or through, or ‘with’) an entity in that narrated”
(2001: 47).
The equation of focalization with perception is also made by David
Herman in “Hypothetical Focalization” (1994), a critical reading of this
article revealing the problems inherent in the equation. Drawing on
possible-worlds semantics, Herman examines passages that explicitly
describe what might have been seen at a particular point in the story if
there had been someone to see it. Thus, in Poe’s “The Fall of the House
of Usher,” the narrator invokes an imaginary onlooker of this kind
when he describes the house: “Perhaps the eye of a scrutinizing observ
er might have discovered a barely perceptible fissure, which, extending
from the roof of the building in front, made its way down the wall
[…]” ([1839] 1956: 97–8). There is a basic problem with Herman’s ar-
ticle. What he discusses is not hypothetical focalization, but hypothe-
tical perception. The discovery of the fissure by Poe’s imaginary ob
server is hypothetical only in comparison with the case of a character
actually seeing this fissure. In terms of the focalization of Poe’s story,
the discovery is not hypothetical at all for the simple reason that the
narrator utters it. It has an effect on the focalization in that it contrib
utes to the distancing of the narrating I from the experiencing I: the
narrating I knows there was a fissure because he has seen it very
clearly at the end of the story, whereas the experiencing I seems to be
unaware of it when he approaches the house for the first time. Gener
ally speaking, instances of hypothetical perception would appear to
point in the direction of zero focalization (or narratorial point of view
in the traditional paradigm), just like the “report [of] what a character
did not in fact think or say” discussed by Chatman ([1978] 1980: 225).
Hypothetical focalization in the strict sense is a focalization option that
is conceivable but not realized in a text, such as an internally focalized
version of Fielding’s Tom Jones. Whether a text itself can achieve or
suggest such hypothetical focalization is an interesting question await
ing an answer.
While Bal’s revision of Genette’s theory involves deletions such as
“external focalization,” it also contains additions, notably the “focal
izer,” i.e. the “agent that sees” in a given focalization (Bal [1985] 1997:
146). This concept has spawned a considerable amount of controversy,
including a more specific debate about the question of whether narra-
Focalization 121
tors can be focalizers. Bal, Phelan (2001) and many others assume that
both characters and narrators can be focalizers; Chatman (1990) and
Prince (2001) argue that characters can focalize while narrators cannot.
Genette, on the other hand, rejects character focalizers but concedes,
with some reluctance, the possibility of regarding the narrator as a fo
calizer ([1983] 1988: 72–3). However, he does not see any great need
for the term, an attitude shared by Nelles, who considers it redundant
(1990: 374). The skepticism of the latter two critics seems to be justi
fied. To talk about characters as focalizers is to confuse focalization
and perception. Characters can see and hear, but they can hardly focal
ize a narrative of whose existence they are not aware. This leaves us
with the narrator (or the author?) as the only focalizer, an inference
whose interest is primarily scholastic. If all the different focalization
options can be attributed to one agent, this attribution does not provide
us with any conceptual tools that we can use in distinguishing and anal-
yzing texts.
Furthermore, the concept of focalizer is misleading because it sug
gests that a given text or segment of text is always focalized by one
person, either the narrator or a character. But this is a simplification.
Consider the famous beginning of Dickens’s Great Expectations in
which Pip, the first-person narrator, tells us how, as a little orphan, he
visited the graves of his family and drew some highly imaginative con
clusions about his relatives from the shape of their tombstones. This
passage focuses on the thoughts and perceptions of the boy, but it also
communicates the knowledge and the attitude of the adult narrator,
primarily through style (elaborate language, ironically inflated lexis,
etc.). It makes little sense here to ask whether or not the boy is the fo
calizer in this passage. It is more appropriate to analyze focalization as
a more abstract and variable feature of the text, wavering between the
knowledge and the attitudes of the adult narrator and the experience of
the child character.
To sum up, the various theoretical innovations introduced by the ad
vocates of focalization are fraught with considerable problems; focal-
ization is hardly so much superior to point of view that the old term can
be discarded. Niederhoff (2001) compares the meanings and merits of
the terms, making a case for peaceful coexistence of and complemen-
tarity between the two. There is room for both because each highlights
different aspects of a complex and elusive phenomenon. Point of view
seems to be the more powerful metaphor when it comes to narratives
that attempt to render the subjective experience of a character; stating
that a story is told from the point of view of the character makes more
sense than to claim that there is an internal focalization on the charac
122 Focalization
(a) The most pressing need is for an analysis of the specific conceptual
features of the focalization metaphor in comparison with related meta
phors such as perspective, point of view, filter, etc. This needs to be
complemented by a thorough, non-dogmatic analysis of texts that
shows which of these terms is more appropriate to which kind of text.
(b) The question raised by Herman’s article remains to be investigated:
Is there such a thing as hypothetical focalization? In other words, can a
text suggest or imply a focalization that is not present in this text?
5 Bibliography
Herman, Luc & Bart Vervaeck (2004). “Focalization between Classical and Postclas
sical Narratology.” J. Pier (ed). The Dynamics of Narrative Form: Studies in An
lgo-American Narratology. Berlin: de Gruyter, 115–38.
Jahn, Manfred (1996). “Windows of Focalization: Deconstructing and Reconstructing a
Narratological Concept.” Style 30, 241–67.
Kablitz, Andreas (1988). “Erzählperspektive—Point of View—Focalisation: Überle
gungen zu einem Konzept der Erzähltheorie.” Zeitschrift für französische Sprache
und Literatur 98, 237–55.
Margolin, Uri (2009). “Focalization: Where Do We Go from Here?” P. Hühn et al.
(eds). Point of View, Perspective, and Focalization. Modeling Mediation in Nar
rative. Berlin: de Gruyter 48–58.
Nelles, William (1990). “Getting Focalization into Focus.” Poetics Today 11, 363–82.
Niederhoff, Burkhard (2001). “Fokalisation und Perspektive: Ein Plädoyer für fried
liche Koexistenz.” Poetica 33, 1–21.
Nünning, Ansgar (1990). “‘Point of view’ oder ‘focalization’? Über einige Grundlagen
und Kategorien konkurrierender Modelle der erzählerischen Vermittlung.” Litera-
tur in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 23, 249–68.
O’Neill, Patrick (1992). “Points of Origin: On Focalization in Narrative.” Canadian
Review of Comparative Literature / Revue Canadienne de Littérature Comparée
19, 331–50.
Phelan, James (2001). “Why Narrators Can Be Focalizers—and Why It Matters.”
W. van Peer & S. Chatman (eds). New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Al
bany: SUNY, 51–64.
Poe, Edgar Allan ([1839] 1956). Selected Writings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Prince, Gerald (2001). “A Point of View on Point of View or Refocusing Focalization.”
W. van Peer & S. Chatman (eds). New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Al
bany: SUNY, 43–50.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith ([1983] 2002). Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics.
London: Routledge.
Shen, Dan (2001). “Breaking Conventional Barriers: Transgressions of Modes of Fo
calization.” W. van Peer & S. Chatman (eds). New Perspectives on Narrative Per
spective. Albany: SUNY.
1 Definition
2 Explication
directly correlated with the author; there are always mediating entities,
and so the narrative text is always an indirect authorial utterance.
For the most part, the phenomenon of heteroglossia in narrative dis
course is treated as an aspect of the more general problem of point of
view (Uspenskij 1970); it is described in such cases as “phraseological
perspective” (Korman 1975) or “linguistic” perspective (Schmid 2003,
2005). Assuming that the terms are equivalent in this way, though, can
give cause for objection. The discursive practice to which a text (or the
quoted words of a text) belongs does not end with perspective: behind
the discourse there lies a certain axiological and cultural, ideological
and linguistic, socio-psychological horizon attached to those who are
speaking/writing. This horizon contains all the potential objects, found
by the mind in question, of a subjective stance concerning them; it is a
potential field of reference for the discourse. Perspective, on the other
hand, is always actual: it represents a “single (unique, ‘immediate’) re
lationship between subject and object” (Korman [1975] 2006: 184), it
activates a certain segment of the horizon and positions the subject it
self within that horizon. As a narratological category, it may well be
sufficient to define narrative perspective as a “position of the ‘observ-
er’ (the narrator, the character) in the represented world,” as a position
that “expresses the author’s evaluative stance toward this subject and
its mental horizon” (Tamarčenko 2004: 221). Even in the text, the hori
zon of a narrating entity itself has only a potential existence: it is rep
resented by the stylistic “symptoms” of its boundaries which are acti-
vated by the contrapuntal and/or polyphonic heteroglossia of the multi-
voiced text. In Lermontov’s novel, for example, the fatalist Vulič is
provided with an ideological and chronotopic perspective, but does not
have a voice of his own, since his axiological horizon is, as that of a
special being, potentially equivalent to the horizon of Pečorin the nar
rator himself, another special being who remains a doubting officer.
5 Bibliography
1 Definition
2 Explication
Self and identity are traditionally bound up with what is taken to be the
essence of the individual person which continues over time and space
in phylo- as well as in socio- and onto-genetic terms. However, this
overlooks how conceptions of self and identity have evolved histori-
135 Identity and Narration
cally and culturally and also how each individual’s personal ontogene-
sis undergoes continuous change. In addition, essentialist views of self
and identity camouflage the links between these concepts and their
counterparts in narration and narrative practices. Section 3.1 will fur
ther explore the connection between self and identity dilemmas (b) and
(c), while section 3.2 will be devoted to identity and dilemma (a).
Although self, like “I” and “me,” are highly specific morphological
items of the English lexicon, they are commonly assumed to refer uni
versally to corresponding concepts in other languages—an assumption
that has been contested, however. A closer look reveals that these con
cepts most often have a history of their own that varies in illuminating
ways (cf. Heelas & Lock eds. 1981; Triandis 1989). Modern notions of
self and individuality (cf. Elias 1987; Gergen 1991) are taken to be
closely intertwined with the emergence of local communities, nation
states, new forms of knowledge and reflection (“rationalization”), feel
ing, and perception—all in conjunction with increasing interiorization
and psychologization.
In this process of becoming individualized, self-narration (autobio
graphy, life-writing, autofiction) springs to the fore as the basic prac
tice-ground for marking the self off from “I” as speaker/agent and “me”
as character/actor (cf. the narratological distinctions between “narra-
ting self” and “narrated self” and between narrator and protagonist).
Acts of thematizing and displacing the self as character in past time
and space become the basis for other self-related actions such as self-
disclosure, self-reflection and self-criticism, potentially leading to self-
control, self-constraint, and self-discipline. What further comes to light
in this process is an increasing differentiation between (and integration
of) “I” and “me” (James 1890), and simultaneously between “I-we-us”
and “them-other” (Elias 1987). Thus, self, apparently, is the product of
an “I” that manages three processes of differentiation and integration:
(a) it can posit a “me” (as distinct from “I”); (b) it can posit and bal
ance this “I-me” distinction with “we”; and (c) it can differentiate this
“we” as “us” from “them” as “other.” This process of differentiation
must be taken into account when talking about “self” as different from
“other” and viewing self “in relation to self” (as in self-reflection and
self-control). Self, as differentiated from other by developing the abil
ity to account for itself (as agent or as undergoer), to self-reflect, and to
self-augment, can now begin to look for something like temporal con
Identity and Narration 136
tinuity, unity, and coherence, i.e. identity across a life (cf. Ricœur
1990).
earlier. A teller accounts for how s/he (a) has emerged (as character)
over time, (b) as different from others (but same), and simultaneously
(c) how s/he views her-/himself as a (responsible) agent. Managing
these three dilemmas in concert is taken to establish what is essential to
identity. Consequently, life-writing and biography, preferably as auto
biography or life story, become privileged arenas for identity research.
The link between life and narration and the exploration of lives (in
cluding selves and identity) through the exploration of narratives have
traditions going back to Freud (1900), Allport (1937), and Murray
(1938). However, this close connection between life and narrative is
said to require a particular retrospectiveness that values “life as reflect-
ed” and discredits “life as lived.” Sartwell (2000) has questioned (a)
whether life really has the purpose and meaningfulness that narrative
theorists metaphorically attempt to attribute to it and (b) whether nar
ratives themselves have the kind of → coherence and telic quality that
narrative theorists often assume. The problem Sartwell sees in this kind
of approach is that the lived moment, the way it is “sensed” and experi
enced, is said to gain its life-worthy quality only in light of its sur
rounding moments. Rather than empowering the subject with meaning
in life, Sartwell argues, narrative, conceived this way, drains and
blocks him or her from finding pleasure and joy in the here-and-now.
The subject is overpowered by narrative as a normalizing machine.
Another difficulty resulting from the close linkage between life,
narration, and identity consists in what Lejeune (1975) termed “the
autobiographical pact.” According to Lejeune, what counts as autobio
graphy is somewhat blurry, since it is based on a “pact” between author
and reader that is not directly traceable down into the textual qualities.
Thus, while a life story can employ the first-person pronoun to feign
the identity of author, narrator, and character, use of the third-person
pronoun may serve to camouflage this identity (cf. narrative unreliabili-
ty). Autobiographical fiction thrives on the blurring of these bound
aries. Of interest here are “the perennial theoretical questions of au
thenticity and reference” (Porter 2008: 25) leading up to the larger is
sue of the connection between referentiality and narration (cf.
Genette’s 1990 distinction between fictional narrative and factual nar
rative).
While most research on biography has been quite aware of the sit-
uated and locally occasioned nature of people’s accounts (often in in
stitutional settings) and the problems this poses for claims with regard
139 Identity and Narration
5 Bibliography
Bertaux, Daniel (1981). Biography and Society: The Life History Approach in the So
cial Sciences. London: Sage.
Bruner, Jerome (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Burke, Kenneth (1945). A Grammar of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Elias, Norbert ([1987] 1991). The Society of Individuals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Erikson, Erik H. ([1950] 1963). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.
Fisher-Rosenthal, Wolfram & Gabriele Rosenthal (1997). “Narrationsanalyse biogra-
phischer Selbstrepräsentation.” R. Hitzler & A. Horner (eds). Sozialwissenschaft
liche Hermeneutik. Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 133–64.
Freeman, Mark P. (1993). Rewriting the Self. History, Memory, Narrative. London:
Routledge.
Freud, Sigmund ([1900] 1913). The Interpretation of Dreams. New York: Macmillan.
Genette, Gérard (1990). “Fictional Narrative, Factual Narrative.” Poetics Today 11,
755–74.
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra (2006). “The Other Side of the Story: Towards a Narrative
Analysis of Narratives-in-Interaction.” Discourse Studies 8, 265–87.
– (2007). Small Stories, Interaction and Identities. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gergen, Kenneth (1991). The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary
Life. New York: Basic Books.
Goffman, Erving (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City:
Doubleday.
Goodson, Ivor F. & Pat Sikes (2001). Life History Research in Educational Settings:
Learning from Lives. Buckingham: Open UP.
Gubrium, Jaber F. & James A. Holstein (2008). “Narrative Ethnography.” S. B. Hesse-
Biber & P. Leavy (eds). Handbook of Emergent Methods. New York: Guildford P,
241–64.
Heelas, Paul & Andrew Lock, eds. (1981). Indigenous Psychologies: The Anthropol-
ogy of the Self. London: Academic P.
Herman, David (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln:
U of Nebraska P.
– (2009). Basic Elements of Narrative. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
James, William ([1890] 1900). Principles of Psychology. Vol. I. New York: Holt & Co.
Langellier, Kristin M. & Eric E. Peterson (2004). Storytelling in Daily Life: Perform
ing Narrative. Philadelphia: Temple UP.
Lejeune, Philippe ([1975] 1989). On Autobiography. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.
McAdams, Dan P. (1985). Power, Intimacy, and the Life Story: Personological Inqui-
ries into Identity. New York: Guildford P.
– et al. (2006). “Introduction.” D. P. McA. et al. (eds). Identity and Story. Washing
ton: American Psychological Association, 1–11.
Mishler, Elliot G. (1986). Research Interviewing. Context and Narrative. Cambridge:
Harvard UP.
Murray, Henry A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford UP.
Ong, Walter (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London:
Methuen.
Plummer, Kenneth (1983). Documents of Life. London: Allen & Unwin.
143 Identity and Narration
Polkinghorne, Donald (1988). Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany:
State U of New York P.
Porter, Roger J. (2008). “Introduction to World Narrative.” M. Fuchs & C. Howes
(eds). Teaching Life Writing Texts. New York: Modern Language Association of
America, 23–31.
Punday, Daniel (2003). Narrative Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Narratology. New
York: Palgrave.
Ricœur, Paul ([1985] 1988). Time and Narrative. Vol. 3. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
– ([1990] 1992). Oneself as Another. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
Riessman, Catherine Kohler (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thou
sand Oaks: Sage.
Ryan, Marie-Laure (2006). “Narrative, Media, and Modes.” M.-L. R. Avatars of Story.
Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 3–30.
Sartwell, Crispin (2000). End of Story. Toward an Annihilation of Language and His
tory. Albany: State U of New York P.
Schütze, Fritz (1977). Die Technik des narrativen Interviews in Interaktionsfeldstudien
dargestellt an einem Projekt zur Erforschiung von kommunikativen Machtstruktu
ren. Universität Bielefeld: Department of Sociology.
Strawson, Galen (2004). “Against Narrativity.” Ratio n.s. 17, 428–52.
Taylor, Charles (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Cam
bridge: Harvard UP.
Triandis, Harry Ch. (1989). “The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Contexts.” Psy
chological Review 96, 506–20.
1 Definition
2 Explication
ness of the story; (c) the content and its transmission tend to be serious;
(d) illusionist texts are predominantly hetero-referential.
As not all of these traits are self-explanatory, some comment is re
quired. Highlighting of the content level (a) can be explained by the at
tempt to portray a represented world in which recipients can become
experientially immersed. A certain textual extension is typical of illu
sionist worlds because aesthetic illusion is a state that emerges during a
process in which a transition must occur from the perceptions normally
experienced in everyday life to aesthetic reception. If this process is too
short owing to a minimal text basis, immersion may fail to take place.
This factor also accounts for the relative complexity of typical illusion
ist worlds. Although this may seem a special feature of realist fiction
only, it is in fact in keeping with the general illusionist effect of re-cen
tering the recipient in a world whose quality as “world” is enhanced by
both extension and complexity.
The consistency and life-likeness (or probability) of realistic narra-
tives are actually facets of a more general quality of illusionist worlds,
namely their accessibility. Represented worlds can provide different
degrees and types of accessibility (Ryan 1991: 32–3). It is obvious that
enhanced accessibility facilitates illusionist immersion and that illu
sionist works therefore tend to lower the threshold of access as much as
possible. In realism, this tendency is manifest in the construction and
presentation of fictional worlds that seem to be an extension of the re
cipients’ real world in terms of spatial, temporal (contemporary) and
social settings but also, for instance, in terms of norms, ideals and epi
stemological preconceptions about the “readability” of reality.
The relative inconspicuousness of the transmission level (b), which
is responsible for the mediality (→ narration in various media) but also
for the artificiality of representation and thus for potentially distance-
creating factors, corresponds to the centrality of the content level and is
closely related to the tendency of illusionist immersion to predominate
over aesthetic distance. Therefore, typically illusionist works, and in
particular realist novels, usually keep distancing elements to a mini-
mum.
The shunning of aesthetic distance can also be witnessed in a no
less typical tendency of illusionist works toward seriousness (c), al
though this does not exclude the comic from illusionism entirely. Com
edy and laughter imply emotional distance, which runs counter to the
strong affinity between emotional involvement and aesthetic illusion.
The interrelation between illusion, emotions and seriousness can be
seen not only in realist fiction, but also in drama: tragedy tends toward
151 Illusion (Aesthetic)
In Latin, illusio (from illudere [in+ludere]: “make fun of,” “jeer,” “de
ceive”) has both a negative sense (“deceit,” “jeering”) and a neutral or
positive sense, notably in classical rhetoric, where illusio is an accept
able device sometimes used as a synonym of “irony.” The negative
sense acquires Christian overtones in post-classical times, as in illu
siones diaboli (the devil’s deceits), and retains this negative meaning
through Medieval Latin, Old French and Middle English to Shake-
speare. A neutral or positive meaning re-emerges only in the 17 th cen
tury, as can be seen in the title of Corneille’s comedy L’Illusion
comique (1636). Shortly afterwards, the term can be encountered as an
aesthetic notion denoting dramatic illusion in French aesthetic theory
(e.g. in Abbé d’Aubignac’s Pratique du théâtre 1657). In French 18th-
century aesthetic theory from Dubos to Marmontel and Diderot, illu
sion becomes a much discussed term, and it is also in the 18 th century
that the term begins to be used in an aesthetic sense in German (often
equated with Schein; Oelmüller ed. 1982). In English, Henry Home,
Lord Kames called illusion an “ideal presence” (Home 1762), but
Coleridge began to use the term “Dramatic Illusion” ([1804/05] 1960,
vol. 1: 176). In the 20th century, it is the art historian Gombrich who,
owing to his magisterial Art and Illusion (1960), perhaps, has done
most to disseminate the term. It continues to be used in spite of
Brinker’s plea that the “concept” (he actually means “term”) be “elim
inate[d] from aesthetic theory” (1977/78: 191). Nowadays, “immer
sion” is often used in place of illusion.
the emotional effects of eleos and phobos, also points toward aesthetic
illusion while further evidence of literary illusion can be found in the
form of the playful incursions in classical Greek comedy. Most impor-
tant, however, is Plato’s hostility toward the mimetic arts due to the il
lusory nature of artistic representation. During the Renaissance, aes
thetic illusion became a consciously produced effect in literature and
was even the object of metatextual commentary (although not under
this term), as can be seen in Cervantes’s Don Quixote and in
Shakespeare (Wolf 1993b). In the history of fiction, Don Quixote is a
particularly remarkable milestone, owing to its illusionist ambivalence
(Wolf 1993a: chap. 4; Alter 1975): the novel is informed by both pro-
illusionist elements (thanks to its realistic opposition to the improbable
chivalric romances it parodies) and playful anti-illusionism (resulting
from its obtrusive metafictional dimension). It can thus be said to in
augurate two antagonistic traditions: the great tradition of illusionist
fiction, which found its peak in the 19th-century realist novel, and an
anti-illusionist counter-tradition in which various devices of “defamil-
iarization” (ostrananie) were developed, notably in Romanticism (in
texts characterized by romantic irony), in modernism and in the experi
mentations of radical postmodernism, the hitherto unsurpassed climax
of anti-illusionism. In contemporary post-postmodernist fiction, a com
promise seems to have been achieved in which an often ironic return to
illusionism is combined with moderate illusion-breaking devices in
double-layered ambivalent texts.
Ever since it has been cognized as such, aesthetic illusion has been ac
companied by controversial evaluations, the first manifestation of
which can be seen in the differing stances taken by Plato and Aristotle
toward immersion as an effect of mimesis. From the 17th to the end of
the 19th century, the pro-illusionist position prevailed with the aesthet
ics of sensibility (represented inter alia by Diderot) and with realism
(endorsed inter alia by Henry James) propagating an illusionism that
was fuelled by an emphasis on the emotional and moral effects of lit-
erature and art as well as on a probabilistic persuasiveness rivaling
non-fictional discourses. The illusion-critical position was motivated
by equally diverse factors. With reference to literature, one factor was
concern for the aesthetic appreciation of literature as an art (in his entry
on “Illusion” in the Encyclopédie, Marmontel opposes Diderot’s ideal
of complete illusion); another factor was distrust of complacent passiv
ity in the reception of literature, which was thought to prevent its poli-
Illusion (Aesthetic) 156
tical efficiency (cf. Brecht)—a position overlooking the fact that all re
ception is an active process. Yet another factor was the Romantic and,
later, postmodernist diffidence with regard to the pre-condition of all
aesthetic illusion, namely representation. It does not come as a surprise,
however, that despite fierce opposition, particularly in recent cultural
history, aesthetic illusion seems to be more alive than ever, notably in
the mass media, since immersion appears to cater well to a fundamental
human need for imaginary experience.
Both aesthetic illusion and anti-illusionism (often designated by
other terms such as “realism” and “immersion” for illusion, and
“metafiction” for anti-illusionism) have been discussed from various
angles. Up to the 1990s, historical approaches (e.g. in part, Gombrich
1960; Strube 1971; Alter 1975), phenomenological and reader-response
approaches (e.g. Lobsien 1975; Smuda 1979) as well as text-centered
approaches (Wolf 1993a) prevailed. More recently, aesthetic illusion
has been viewed from the perspective of possible-worlds theory (Ryan
1991, 2001) as well as in the context of emotion research (Mellmann
2002, 2006), a focus which also informs part of empirical reader re
sponse research (Miall 1995) and cognitive and/or psychological ap
proaches (Walton 1990; Gerrig 1993; Anderson 1996; Zwaan 1999;
Bortolussi & Dixon 2003).
5 Bibliography
1 Definition
2 Explication
The implied author has, after being introduced by Booth (1961), be
come a widespread term for a concept referring to the author contained,
but not represented, in a work. This concept presents itself in various
forms. Many users treat it as a term for an entity positioned between
the real → author and the fictive → narrator in the communication
structure of narrative works. Those adopting a critical stance, on the
other hand, use it as a term for a reader-generated construct without an
equivalent pragmatic role in the narrative work. In neither of these us
ages it is claimed that authors have the intention of creating an image
of themselves in their works. Instead, the image is understood as one of
the by-products that, in the sense of Bühler’s expressive function of
language (1918/20), necessarily accompany each and every symbolic
representation. Any of the acts that produced a work can function as an
indexical sign bearing this indirect form of self-expression. In particu
lar, these acts include the fabrication of a represented world; the inven
tion of a story with situations, → characters, and actions; the selection
of a particular action logic with a more or less pronounced world-view;
the deployment of a narrator and his or her → perspective; the trans
162 Implied Author
formation of the story into a narrative with the aid of techniques such
as flattening simultaneous events into a linear progression and rear
ranging the order of episodes; and finally, the presentation of the nar
rative in particular linguistic (or visual) forms.
The concept has provoked questions above all because it has two
dissimilar aspects. On the one hand, it has an objective component: the
implied author is seen as a hypostasis of the work’s structure. On the
other hand, it has a subjective component relating to reception: the im
plied author is seen as a product of the reader’s meaning-making activ
ity. The relative importance of these two aspects varies depending on
how the concept is used: essentialists insist on the importance of the
work’s structure in defining the implied author, whereas constructivists
highlight the role played by the freedom of interpretation. At any rate,
it must be remembered that, like the readings of different recipients, the
various interpretations of a single reader are each associated with a dif
ferent implied author. Depending on the function a work is believed to
have had according to a given reading, the implied author will be re
constructed as having predominantly aesthetic, practical, or ideological
intentions.
The concept of the implied author has given rise to heated debate.
Hempfer (1977: 10) passed categorical judgment over the concepts of
the implied (in his words “implizit,” i.e. “implicit”) author and reader,
writing that the two entities “not only seem to be of no theoretical use
but also obscure the real fundamental distinction, that between the
speech situation in the text and that outside it.” Over two decades later,
Zipfel (2001: 120) presented a similar indictment of the implied author,
condemning the concept as “superfluous to narrative theory,” “hope
lessly vague,” and “terminologically imprecise.” Bal has established
herself as a bitter opponent of Booth’s implied author and Schmid’s ab
stract author. These “superfluous” concepts (1981a: 208–09), she be
lieves, have fostered the misguided practice of isolating authors from
the ideologies of their works. The implied author, she believes, is a de
ceptive notion that promised to account for the ideology of the text.
“This would have made it possible to condemn a text without con
demning its author and vice versa—a very attractive proposition to the
autonomists of the ’60s” (1981b: 42).
More balanced criticism has been put forward in many forms. The
objections raised can be summarized as follows: (a) Unlike the fictive
narrator, the implied author is not a pragmatic agent but a semantic en
tity (Nünning 1989: 33, 1993: 9); (b) the implied author is no more
than a reader-created construct (Rimmon-Kenan [1983] 2002: 87;
Toolan [1988] 2001: 64) and as such should not be personified (Nün
ning 1989: 31–32); (c) despite repeated warnings against an overly an
thropomorphic understanding of the implied author, Chatman (1978:
151) puts forward a model in which the implied author functions as a
participant in communication—which is, according to Rimmon-Kenan
([1983] 2002: 89), precisely what the implied author is not; (d) in so far
as it involves a semantic rather than a structural phenomenon, the
concept of the implied author belongs to the poetics of interpretation
rather than the poetics of narration (Diengott 1993: 189); (e) Booth and
166 Implied Author
those who have used the concept after him have not shown how to
identify the implied author of any given text (Kindt & Müller 2006b:
167–68).
These criticisms are perfectly legitimate, but they are not sufficient
to justify excluding the implied author from the attention of narratol-
ogy. Many critics continue to use the concept, clearly because no better
term can be found for expressing that authorial element whose pres
ence is inferred in a work.
It is also striking that those who advocate abandoning the implied
author have put forward few convincing alternatives. Nünning, for ex
ample, who believes that it is “terminologically imprecise,” “theoreti-
cally inadequate,” and “unusable in practice,” suggests replacing it
with the “totality of all the formal and structural relations in a text”
(1989: 36). In a chapter “In Defense of the Implied Author,” Chatman
(1990: 74–89) suggests a series of alternatives for readers uneasy with
the term implied author: “text implication”; “text instance”; “text
design”; or simply “text intent.” Finally, Kindt & Müller (1999: 285–
86) identify two courses of action. We should, they suggest, either re
place the term implied author with that of “author” itself (which would
attract familiar objections from anti-intentionalistic quarters); or, if a
non-intentionalistic concept of meaning is to be retained, we should
speak instead of “text intention.” (Since texts as such do not have in
tentions, the latter term brings with it an undesirable metonymic shift
from maker to product.)
The case of Genette sheds light on the double-sided view of the im
plied author concept held by many theorists. Genette did not cover the
implied author in his Narrative Discourse (1972), which led to a cer
tain amount of criticism (e.g. Rimmon 1976: 58; Bronzwaer 1978: 3);
he then devoted an entire chapter to it in Narrative Discourse Revisited
([1983] 1988: 135–54). Detailed analysis in the latter work leads to a
conclusion that is not at all unfavorable to the implied author. Genette
observes first that, because it is not specific to the récit, the auteur im
pliqué is not the concern of narratology. His answer to the question “is
the implied author a necessary and (therefore) valid agent between the
narrator and the real author?” (139; emphasis in original) is ambival
ent. The implied author, he says, is clearly not an actual agent, but is
conceivably an ideal agent: “the implied author is everything the text
lets us know about the author” (148). But we should not, Genette
warns, turn this “idea of the author” into a narrative agent. This places
Genette in a position not so different from that of the proponents of
“full-blown models” of narrative communication to which he refers
(Schmid 1973; Chatman 1978; Bronzwaer 1978; Hoek 1981; Lintvelt
Implied Author 167
The implied author can be defined as the correlate of all the indexical
signs in a text that refer to the author of that text. These signs mark out
a specific world-view and aesthetic standpoint. The implied author is
not an intentional creation of the concrete author and differs categori-
cally in this respect from the narrator, who is always an explicitly, or
even implicitly, represented entity. The implied author belongs to a dif
ferent level of the work; the implied author stands for the principle be
hind the fabrication of a narrator and the represented world in its en
tirety, the principle behind the composition of the work (note here
Hühn’s “subject of composition” [1995: 5], a development of East
hope’s “subject of enunciation” [1983]). It has no voice of its own, no
text. Its word is the entire text with all its levels, the entire work as a
created object. Its position is defined by both ideological and aesthetic
norms.
The implied author has only a virtual existence in the work and can
be grasped only by turning to the traces left behind in the work by the
creative acts of production, taking concrete shape only with the help of
the reader. The implied author is a construct formed by the reader on
the basis of his or her reading of the work. If the process of construc
tion is not to simply confirm to the meanings that readers want to find
in the first place, it must be based on the evidence in the text and the
constraints this places on the freedom of interpretation. It would there
fore be more appropriate to speak of reconstruction instead of construc
tion.
The implied authors of various works by a single concrete author
display certain common features and thereby constitute what we might
call an œuvre author, a stereotype that Booth (1979: 270) refers to as a
“career author.” There are also more general author stereotypes that re-
late not to an œuvre but to literary schools, stylistic currents, periods,
and genres.
Contrary to the impression given by the term “author’s image,” the
relation between the implied author and the real author should not be
pictured in such a way that the former becomes a reflection or copy of
the latter. And despite the connotations of the German impliziter Autor
(implicit author, which brings with it a shift from the reception-based
orientation of implied to an ontologizing concept), the implied author
cannot be modeled as the mouthpiece of the real author. It is not unusu
168 Implied Author
al for authors to experiment with their world-views and put their be
liefs to the test in their works. In some cases, for example, authors use
their works to depict possibilities that cannot be realized in the context
of their real-life existence, adopting in the process standpoints on cer
tain issues that they could not or would not wish to adopt in reality. In
such cases, the implied author can be more radical than the real author
ever really was or, to put it more carefully, than we imagine him or her
to have been on the basis of the evidence available. Such radicalization
of the implied author is characteristic, for example, of Tolstoj’s late
works. The late Tolstoj was much less convinced by many of his ideas
than his implied authors; the latter embodied, and took to extremes, one
particular dimension of Tolstoj’s thought. Conversely, it is also pos
sible for the ideological horizons of the implied author to be broader
than the more or less markedly ideologically constrained ones of the
real author. An example of this is Dostoevskij, who in his late novels
developed a remarkable understanding of ideologies that he vehe
mently attacked as a journalist.
of the implied author in the work, above the characters and the narrator
and their associated levels of meaning, establishes a new semantic level
arching over the whole work: the authorial level (→ narrative levels).
5 Bibliography
Lintvelt, Jaap ([1981] 1989). Essai de typologie narrative. Le “point de vue.” Théorie
et analyse. Paris: Corti.
Mukařovský, Jan (1937). “L’individu dans l’art.” Deuxième congrès international
d’esthétique et de la science de l’art. Paris: F. Alcan, vol. 1, 349–54.
Nünning, Ansgar (1989). Grundzüge eines kommunikationstheoretischen Modells der
erzählerischen Vermittlung. Trier: WVT.
– (1993). “Renaissance eines anthropomorphisierten Passepartouts oder Nachruf auf
ein literaturkritisches Phantom? Überlegungen und Alternativen zum Konzept des
‘implied author’.” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geis
tesgeschichte 67, 1–25.
Okopień-Sławińska, Alexandra ([1971] 1975). “Die personalen Relationen in der litera
rischen Kommunikation.” R. Fieguth (ed). Literarische Kommunikation. Kronberg:
Scriptor, 127–47.
Prince, Gerald (1971). “Notes toward a Characterization of Fictional Narratees.” Genre
4, 100–06.
Rimmon, Shlomith (1976). “A Comprehensive Theory of Narrative: Genette’s Figures
III and the Structuralist Study of Fiction.” PTL: A Journal for Descriptive Poetics
and Theory of Literature 1, 33–62.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith ([1983] 2002). Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics.
London: Methuen.
Rymar’, Nikolaj & Vladislav Skobelev (1994). Teorija avtora i problema chudožest-
vennoj dejatel’nosti. Voronež: Logos-Trast.
Schmid, Wolf (1973). Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs. Amsterdam:
Grüner.
– (1986). “Nachwort zur zweiten Auflage. Eine Antwort an die Kritiker.” W. Sch.
Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs. Amsterdam: Grüner, 299–318.
– ([2005] 2008). Elemente der Narratologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
– (2007). “Textadressat.” Th. Anz (ed). Handbuch Literaturwissenschaft. Stuttgart:
Metzler, vol. 1, 171–81.
Sławiński, Janusz (1966). “O kategorii podmiotu lirycznego. Tezy referatu.” J.
Trzynadłowski (ed). Wiersz i poezja. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolinskich,
55–62.
– ([1967] 1975). “Die Semantik der narrativen Äußerung.” Literatur als System und
Prozeß. München: Nymphenburger, 81–109.
Toolan, Michael J. ([1988] 2001). Narrative. A Critical Linguistic Introduction. Lon
don: Routledge.
Tynjanov, Jurij ([1927] 1971). “On Literary Evolution.” L. Matejka & K. Pomorska
(eds). Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Cambridge:
MIT P, 66–78.
Vinogradov, Viktor (1971). “Problema obraza avtora v chudožestvennoj literature.” O
teorii chudožestvennoj reči. Moskva: Izd. Vysšaja škola, 105–211.
Wimsatt, William K. & Monroe C. Beardsley ([1946] 1976). “The Intentional Fallacy.”
D. Newton-de Molina (ed). On Literary Intention. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1–
13.
Zipfel, Frank (2001). Fiktion, Fiktivität, Fiktionalität. Berlin: Schmidt.
Implied Author 173
1 Definition
The term “mediacy” was coined by Stanzel ([1955] 1971: 6) and de
scribes the fact that the story is mediated by the narrator’s discourse in
one of two ways. Either the story is openly transmitted through a nar
rator who functions as a teller of the tale (“teller mode”) or the medi
ation is apparently occluded by a direct, im-mediate presentation of the
story through the consciousness of a reflector (character). In the re
flector mode, we seem to see the storyworld through the eyes of a char
acter and there seems to be no narrator operating as a mediator. Since
the introduction of Stanzel’s term, the fact of a mediate presentation of
the story has become a general foundation in structuralist narratology.
In Genette, mediation is two-fold on the levels of the discourse (récit)
and the narrator’s act of telling (narration) ([1972] 1980: 27, [1983]
1988: 13); Prince ([1987] 2003: 58) defines narrative as always having
a mediating narratorial level; and Chatman, who looks at film and non-
verbal narratives like ballet, speaks of “narrative transmission” (1978:
22). In recent years, the emphasis on different media using narrative
has resulted in the term mediation being applied to the way in which a
story is told in film, drama, cartoons, ballet, music, pictures, hypertext
narratives, and other genres and forms of narrative.
2 Explication
sees?”) (21; [1972] 1980: 189–94, 245). Genette considers this tax
onomy to be an improvement because it is more systematic and in
cludes less common narrative forms such as Hemingway’s “The
Killers,” a form of heterodiegetic narration with external focalization
(the neutral subtype in Stanzel [(1955) 1971: 93]), and Camus’s
L’Étranger, a form of homodiegetic narration with external focaliza
tion.
Stanzel’s mediacy is equivalent to what Genette calls “narrating
act” and “narrative.” More specifically, Genette discriminates between
“story (the totality of the narrated events), narrative (the discourse,
oral or written, that narrates them), and narrating (the real or fictive act
that produces that discourse—in other words, the very fact of recount-
ing)” ([1983] 1988: 13). In this model, the narrating act shapes and
transforms the story through the narrative discourse. Similarly, Rim
mon-Kenan uses the terms story, text, and narration ([1983] 2002: 3),
while Bal modifies Genette’s terminology by arguing that it is by way
of the text that the reader has access to the story, of which the fabula is
a memorial trace that remains with the reader after the reading ([1985]
1997: 5).
When Chatman introduced the principle of “narrative transmission,”
he discriminated between “overt narrators,” “covert narrators,” and
forms of “non-narration” for neutral narratives (1978: 22). Later, Chat
man rejects the idea of non-narration by arguing that “every narrative is
by definition narrated—that is, narratively presented” (1990: 115), but
he maintains the distinction between overt and covert narrators, equi
valent to Stanzel’s mediacy. His model is in close agreement with Stan
zel’s, except that he includes drama and film among the narrative
genres and therefore does not reduce narrative transmission or mediacy
to the discourse of a narrative voice. Chatman provides a sliding scale
from overt to covert narrators based on the linguistic markers of sub
jectivity, the presence of narratorial comments, and the use of evalua-
tive phrases. Like Stanzel and Genette, he argues that all narratives
have a narrator, so that all three theorists clearly oppose the Ban
fieldian “no-narrator” theory (1982), according to which certain sen
tences of fiction cannot possibly be enunciated by a narrator. Chatman
argues that “narrative presentation entails an agent,” even when “the
agent bears no signs of human personality” (1990: 115). The three au
thors agree that narratives always present a story which is mediated by
a narrator’s discourse. Furthermore, Chatman stresses the conjunction
of story and mediatory discourse by pointing out that “narrative entails
movement through time not only ‘externally’ (the duration of the
Mediacy and Narrative Mediation 180
presentation of the novel, film, play), but also ‘internally’ (the duration
of the sequence of events that constitute the plot)” (9).
It is quite apparent that Stanzel’s teller mode corresponds to Chat
man’s scale which ranges from overt to covert narration (i.e. from sub
jective and foregrounded tellers to “objective,” neutral, and back-
grounded narration). By contrast, with regard to Stanzel’s reflector-
mode narrative, in which an illusion of immediacy is projected, Chat
man (1978: 198) argues that a covert narrator expresses the thoughts of
a character, while Genette ([1983] 1988: 115) describes such a scenario
as heterodiegetic narration with internal focalization. What the two ter
minologies fail to take into account, however, is the prototypical ab
sence of a foregrounded narrator in reflector-mode narratives or, to put
it differently, the fact that in order to read an extended passage as in
ternal focalization, a pronounced teller must not interfere because such
a foregrounded narrative voice would impede a reading of the text from
the character’s perspective. Stanzel shows that Modernist novels (e.g.
Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man) establish a representa
tion of the narrative world which is (or seems to be) filtered through
the consciousness of the protagonist (cf. also James [1909]: 322–25).
This effect can only be achieved by completely backgrounding the nar
rative voice reporting on external events (for a critique of this claim,
see Schmid 1968). By distinguishing between a teller and a reflector
mode, however, the mere reduction of the narratorial voice to a default
existence is not sufficient to characterize the reflector mode, since it is
equally necessary to have a predominant internal perspective to pro
duce the relevant effect. The reflector mode as mode only makes sense
theoretically when one conceives of a different type of transmission
through the character’s perspective or consciousness in contrast to the
prominent (first- or third-person) teller-mode narrative which is medi
ated by an explicit transmitter.
As pointed out in Nünning & Nünning (2002) and Wolf (2002), the
definition of narrativity in reference to experientiality and the exten
sion of mediacy to include an open list of cognitive frames, scripts, and
schemata lead in the direction of transmedial and transgeneric narra
tology, as proposed in Fludernik (1996; → narration in poetry and
drama; → narration in various media). Many forays have recently been
made into the area of narratological approaches to film, hypertext nar
rative, ballet, comic strips, drama, poetry, even painting and music
(Ryan 2006, ed. 2004; Wolf 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2004; Nünning &
Nünning 2002). In this area, Chatman (1978, 1990) was an important
innovator, for it was he who staked out a place for film in narratology
(→ narration in film) and who also confronted narrative with other
text-types, putting the concept of narrative under a new light.
Chatman sees narrative transmission as media-related, and he there
fore dissociates narrativity from the figure of a human narrator (1990:
116; cf. Ryan 2001, 2006). Although he reintroduces a so-called “cine
matic narrator” for film, this figure is not a human or human-like nar
rator as in novels. Rather, the term denotes “the organizational and
sending agency” (1990: 127) behind the film and fulfills a neutral or
covert shower or arranger function. The notion is similar to what Jahn
calls the “filmic composition device (FCD),” which refers to “the the
oretical agency behind a film’s organization and arrangement” (2003:
F4.1). Even so, the question of who (or what) mediates a film as a
whole remains highly disputed. Bordwell, for one, argues that film has
narration but no narrator, and that consequently cinematic narration is
created by the viewer (1985: 61). On the other hand, Lothe (like Chat
man) posits a cinematic or film narrator as “the superordinate ‘in
stance’ that presents all the means of communication that film has at its
disposal” (2000: 30). And finally, theoreticians such as Gaut speak of
an “implied filmmaker” who mediates the film (2004: 248). From the
perspective of natural narratology, one can alternatively argue that film
resorts more generally to the “viewing” frame than to the “telling,” “re
flecting,” or “experiencing” frame.
Mediacy and Narrative Mediation 184
(a) The role of mediacy in drama and film remains open to study: does
it make sense to posit a dramatic or cinematic narrator? Can one argue
that they are mediated by the performance? Or should we assume that
plays and films are mediated by an implied author or filmmaker? Or
are all of these terms dispensable so that we can simply speak of the
author or filmmaker (a larger group of professionals) as mediating in
stances? (b) One should also address the question of whether we can
follow Walsh’s proposal to dispense with all extra- and heterodiegetic
narrators in novels and short stories. In most cases, it certainly makes
sense to discriminate between the author and the authorial or imperson
al narrator. (c) It is also necessary to investigate the development of
new cognitive frames of mediation in relation to experimental literary
narratives and new media (hypertext narratives and computer games).
5 Bibliography
Aristotle (2002). On Poetics. Tr. S. Benardete & M. David. South Bend: St. Au
gustine’s P.
Bal, Mieke ([1985] 1997). Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative.
Toronto: U of Toronto P.
Banfield, Ann (1982). Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the
Language of Fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Blackmur, Richard P. (1934). “Introduction.” H. James. The Art of the Novel: Critical
Prefaces. New York: Scribner’s, vii–xxxix.
Booth, Wayne C. ([1961] 1983). The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
Bordwell, David (1985). Narration in the Fiction Film. London: Routledge.
Chatman, Seymour (1978). Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and
Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
– (1990). Coming To Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca:
Cornell UP.
Cohn, Dorrit (1981). “The Encirclement of Narrative.” Poetics Today 2, 157–82.
– (1990). “Signposts of Fictionality: A Narratological Approach.” Poetics Today 11,
775–804.
– (1999). The Distinction of Fiction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
Fludernik, Monika (1996). Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London: Routledge.
– (2008). “Narrative and Drama.” J. Pier & J. Á. García Landa (eds). Theorizing Nar
rativity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 355–83.
Friedemann, Käte ([1910] 1965). Die Rolle des Erzählers in der Epik. Darmstadt:
WBG.
Friedman, Norman (1955). “Point of View in Fiction: The Development of a Critical
Concept.” PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America
70, 1160–184.
Gaut, Berys (2004). “The Philosophy of the Movies: Cinematic Narration.” P. Kivy
(ed). The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics. Malden: Blackwell, 230–53.
Genette, Gérard ([1972] 1980). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca: Cor
nell UP.
– ([1983] 1988). Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Hühn, Peter (2002). “Reading Poetry as Narrative: Towards a Narratological Analysis
of Lyric Poems.” Ch. Todenhagen & W. Thiele (eds). Investigations into Narrative
Structures. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 13–27.
– (2005). “Plotting the Lyric: Forms of Narration in Poetry.” Müller-Zettelmann &
M. Rubik (eds). Theory into Poetry: New Approaches to the Lyric. Amsterdam: Ro
dopi, 147–72.
– & Jörg Schönert (2002). “Zur narratologischen Analyse von Lyrik.” Poetica 34,
287–305.
Jahn, Manfred (2001). “Narrative Voice and Agency in Drama: Aspects of a Narrato
logy of Drama.” New Literary History 32, 659–79.
– (2003). “A Guide to Narratological Film Analysis.”
[www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/pppf.htm].
James, Henry ([1909] 1934). Preface to The Ambassadors. H. James. The Art of the
Novel: Critical Prefaces. New York: Scribner’s, 307–26.
Mediacy and Narrative Mediation 188
Lothe, Jakob (2000). Narrative in Fiction and Film: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
UP.
Lubbock, Percy (1921). The Craft of Fiction. New York: Scribner.
Müller-Zettelmann, Eva (2002). “Lyrik und Narratologie.” V. Nünning & A. Nünning
(eds). Erzähltheorie transgenerisch, intermedial, interdisziplinär. Trier: WVT,
129–53.
– (forthcoming). “Poetry and Narratology.” M. Fludernik & G. Olson (eds). Current
Trends in Narratology. Proceedings International Colloquium, Freiburg June 2007.
Nünning, Ansgar & Roy Sommer (2002). “Drama und Narratologie: Die Entwicklung
erzähltheoretischer Modelle und Kategorien für die Dramenanalyse.” V. Nünning
& A. Nünning (eds). Erzähltheorie transgenerisch, intermedial, interdisziplinär.
Trier: WVT, 105–28.
– (2008). “Diegetic and Mimetic Narrativity. Some Further Steps Towards a Narrato
logy of Drama.” J. Pier & J. Á. García Landa (eds). Theorizing Narrativity. Berlin:
de Gruyter, 331–54.
Nünning, Vera & Ansgar Nünning (2002). “Produktive Grenzüberschreitungen: Trans
generische, intermediale und interdisziplinäre Ansätze in der Erzähltheorie.” V.
Nünning & A. Nünning (eds). Erzähltheorie transgenerisch, intermedial, interdis-
ziplinär. Trier: WVT, 1–22.
Pfister, Manfred ([1977] 1988). The Theory and Analysis of Drama. Cambridge: Cam
bridge UP.
Plato (1937). The Republic. Tr. P. Shorey. Cambridge: Loeb Classical Library.
Prince, Gerald ([1987] 2003). A Dictionary of Narratology. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P.
Richardson, Brian (1987). “Time is Out of Joint: Narrative Models and the Temporality
of the Drama.” Poetics Today 8, 299–310.
– (1988). “Point of View in Drama: Diegetic Monologue, Unreliable Narrators, and
the Author’s Voice on Stage.” Comparative Drama 22, 193–214.
– (1991). “Pinter’s Landscape and the Boundaries of Narrative.” Essays in Literature
18, 37–45.
– (2006). Unnatural Voices: Extreme Narration in Modern and Postmodern Contem
porary Fiction. Columbus: Ohio State UP.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith ([1983] 2002). Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics.
London: Methuen.
Ryan, Marie-Laure (1991). Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative The
ory. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
– (2001). “The Narratorial Functions: Breaking Down a Theoretical Primitive.” Nar
rative 9, 146–42.
– (2006). Avatars of Story. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.
– ed. (2004). Narrative across Media: The Languages of Storytelling. Lincoln: U
Nebraska P.
Schaeffer, Jean-Marie & Ioana Vultur (2005). “Mimesis.” D. Herman et al. (eds). Rout
ledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. London: Routledge, 309–10.
Schmid, Wolf (1968). “Zur Erzähltechnik und Bewusstseinstechnik in Dostoevskijs
‘Večnyj muž’.” Die Welt der Slaven 13, 294–306.
– (1982) “Die narrativen Ebenen ‘Geschehen,’ ‘Geschichte,’ ‘Erzählung’ und
‘Präsentation der Erzählung.’” Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 9, 83–110.
189 Mediacy and Narrative Mediation
1 Definition
2 Explication
Genette’s remarks, though concise, stake out the key features of meta
lepsis, one of the least debated of his theoretical innovations for many
years. It is with subsequent and more differentiated developments that
the scope and import of this narrative practice that goes against the
grain of codified narratological categories has come to be more fully
appreciated. Following a proposal by Ryan (2005, 2006: 204–30, 246–
48), it is now widely acknowledged that metalepsis breaks down into a
rhetorical (Genette) and an ontological variety (McHale), parallel to
the distinction between illocutionary boundary at discourse level and
Metalepsis 192
3.1.1 Rhetoric
The etymology of metalepsis is disputed, but its sense can readily be
grasped from the word’s Latin equivalent—transumptio: “assuming
one thing for another.” Metalepsis has a complex history in that it has
been regarded either as a variety of metonymy, a particular form of
synonymy, or both. As metonymy, it has been identified: (a) in simple
form, or expression of the consequent understood as the precedent or
vice versa and; (b) as a chain of associations (“a few ears of corn” for
“a few years,” the transfer of sense implying “a few harvests” and “a
few summers”). Metalepsis can also be understood in Quintilian’s
sense as the intermediate step or transition between a term which is
transferred and the thing to which it is transferred, resulting in an inap
propriate synonym (Morier 1961; Burkhardt 2001; Meyer-Minnemann
2005: 140–43; Roussin 2005: 40–4; on metalepsis and evidentia, see
Häsner 2001: 20–7; Cornils 2005).
195 Metalepsis
3.2 Typologies
tamination of levels, as in the Möbius strip, and whose effects are dis
tributed throughout a given narrative.
Where the above typologies can be grouped under the heading
“meta-,” situating metalepsis on the same conceptual plane as metanar
rative, metadiegesis, etc., another typology, the most elaborate to date,
is built up around the suffix “-lepsis” in the sense of “action of taking”
(Lang 2006; cf. Meyer-Minnemann 2006). Narration is paradoxical
when, in violation of the principle “either one or the other” (cf. the
liar’s paradox), → coherence is undermined. On this basis, Lang pro-
vides a typology of paradoxical narration divided into devices that can
cel out boundaries (syllepsis, epanalepsis, the latter term designating
specular devices including the mise en abyme) and those that trans
gress boundaries (metalepsis, hyperlepsis, the latter equivalent to Ge-
nette’s pseudodiegesis: a metadiegetic narrative presented as though it
were diegetic). As in the Meyer-Minnemann/Schlickers typology, each
of these devices is analyzed into vertical (bottom-up or top-down) and
horizontal relations of discourse and story, respectively. In contrast to
the other models presented, this typology includes metalepsis among
other forms of paradoxical narration.
5 Bibliography
Meister, Jan Christoph (2005). “Le Metalepticon: une étude informatique de la méta
lepse.” J. Pier & J.-M. Schaeffer (eds), 225–46.
Meyer-Minnemann, Klaus (2005). “Un procédé narratif qui ‘produit un effet de bizar
rerie’: la métalepse littéraire.” J. Pier & J.-M. Schaeffer (eds), 133–50.
– (2006). “Narración paradójica y ficción.” N. Grabe et al. (eds). La narración
paradójica. “Normas narrativas” y el principio de la “transgresión.” Frankfurt
a.M.: Vervuert, 49–71.
Morier, Henri (1961). “Métalepse.” Dictionnaire de poétique et de rhétorique. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France, 673–76.
Nelles, William (1997). Frameworks: Narrative Levels and Embedded Narratives. New
York: Lang.
Pier, John (2005). “Métalepse et hiérarchies narratives.” J. Pier & J.-M. Schaeffer (eds),
247–61.
– & Jean-Marie Schaeffer (2005). “Introduction. La métalepse, aujourd’hui.” J. Pier
& J.-M. Schaeffer (eds), 7–15.
– eds. (2005). Métalepses. Entorses au pacte de la représentation. Paris: Éd. de
l’EHESS.
Prince, Gerald (2006). “Disturbing Frames.” Poetics Today 27, 625–30.
Rabau, Sophie (2005). “Ulysse à côté d’Homère. Interprétation et transgression des
frontières énonciatives.” Pier & Schaeffer (eds), 59–72.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith ([1983] 2002). Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics.
London: Routledge.
Roussin, Philippe (2005). “Rhétorique de la métalepse, états de cause, typologie, récit.”
J. Pier & J.-M Schaeffer (eds), 37–58.
Ryan, Marie-Laure (2005). “Logique culturelle de la métalepse, ou la métalepse dans
tous ses états.” J. Pier & J.-M. Schaeffer (eds), 201–23.
– (2006). Avatars of Story. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.
– ed. (2004). Narrative across Media: The Languages of Storytelling. Lincoln: U of
Nebraska P.
Schlickers, Sabine (2005). “Inversions, transgressions, paradoxes et bizzareries. La
métalepse dans les littératures espagnole et française.” J. Pier & J.-M. Schaeffer
(eds), 151–66.
Schmid, Wolf (2005). “La métalepse narrative dans la construction du formalisme
russe.” J. Pier & J.-M. Schaeffer (eds), 189–95.
Šklovskij, Viktor (Shklovsky, Victor) ([1921] 1990). “The Novel as Parody: Sterne’s
Tristram Shandy.” V. Š. Theory of Prose. Elmwood Park: Dalkey Archive P, 148–
71.
Wagner, Frank (2002). “Glissements et déphasages: note sur la métalepse narrative.”
Poétique 33, No 130, 235–53.
Wolf, Werner (1993). Ästhetische Illusion und Illusionsdurchbrechung in der Erzähl
kunst: Theorie und Geschichte mit Schwerpunkt auf englischem illusionsstörenden
Erzählen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
– (2005a). “Intermediality.” D. Herman et al. (eds). Routledge Encyclopedia of Nar
rative Theory. London: Routledge, 252–56.
203 Metalepsis
1 Definition
2 Explication
5 Bibliography
1 Definition
2 Explication
Broadly speaking, there are two different outlooks on cinema that di
vide the main camps of narratological research. If the medium itself
and its unique laws of formal representation (→ narration in various
media) serve as a starting-point (as it is the case in the course of this
article), many of its parameters either transcend or obscure the catego-
ries that have been gained in tracking narrative strategies of literary
texts. Thus Metz states that film is not a “language” but another kind of
semiotic system with “articulations” of its own (Chatman 1990: 124).
Though some of the equivalences between literary and filmic narrative
may be quite convincing (the neutral establishing shot of a panoramic
view can be easily equated with external focalization or even zero fo
calization), many other parallels must necessarily abstract from a num
ber of diverse principles of aesthetic organization before stating simil
arities in the perception of literature and film. Despite the fact that ad
apting literary texts into movies has long since become a conventional
practice, the variability of cinematographic modes of narrative expres
sion calls for such a number of subcategories that the principle of gen
eralization (inherent in any valid theory) becomes jeopardized.
If, however, narratological principles sensu stricto move to the fore
of analysis, the question of medial specificity seems to be less impor-
tant. Narratologists of a strongly persistent stance regret that connota
tions of visuality are dominant even in terms like point of view (→ per
spective) and → focalization, and they maintain that the greatest divide
between verbal and visual strategies is in literature, not in film (Brütsch
forthcoming). They hold that narratological categories in film and liter
ary studies differ much less than most scholars would suggest. Since
Genette’s model presents a primarily narratological, transliterary con-
cept (albeit close to novel studies), mediality is seen as affecting “nar
rative in a number of important ways, but on a level of specific repre-
sentations only. In general, narrativity can be constituted in equal
measure in all textual and visual media” (Fludernik 1996: 353).
The two approaches being given, they themselves depend on which
scholarly perspective is preferred: either how far narrative principles
can be limited to questions of narrativity alone, or whether the require
ments of the medium are a conclusive consequence for its narrative ca
pacities.
Narration in Film 214
character (e.g. Montgomery’s The Lady in the Lake, 1947), thus creat
ing an unmediated presence by means of internal ocularization, make
the viewer painfully aware of the impersonal and subjectless apparatus
of the camera which alienates them from the character rather than
drawing them into his ways of seeing and feeling.
3.3.1 Viewpoints
Point of view (POV) clearly becomes the prime starting point for narra
tology when applied to film. Though it has been defined as “a concrete
perceptual fact linked to the camera position” (Grodal 2005: 168), its
actual functions in narrative can be far more flexible and multifarious
than this definition suggests. As Branigan states in his landmark study
on narrative comprehension in cinema, point of view can best be under
stood as organizing meaning through a combination of various levels of
narration which are defined by a “dialectical site of seeing and seen”
223 Narration in Film
or, more specifically, the “mediator and the object of our gaze” (1984:
47). Branigan offers a model of seven “levels of narration” which is
based on Genette’s study of focalization and allows for constant oscil
lation between these levels, from extra-/heterodiegetic and omniscient
narration to adapting the highly subjective perception of a character.
Fulton speaks of a “multiple focalisation” that is “realized by different
camera angles, which position us to see the action from a number of
different viewpoints” (2005: 114). Yet there are many more focusing
strategies which select and control our perception as well as our emo
tional involvement such as deep-focus, the length and scale of a shot,
specific lighting, etc. The prerequisite for any POV analysis, however,
is the recognition that everything in cinema consists of “looks”: the
viewer looks at characters who look at each other, or s/he looks at
them, adopting their perspective of the diegetic world while the camera
frames a special field of seeing, or the viewer is privileged to look at
something out of the line of vision of any of the characters. Thus the
very question “Who sees?” involves a categorization of different forms
of POV that organize and orient the narrative from a visual and spatial
standpoint and that also include cognitive processes based on a number
of presuppositions about a proper perspective, not to speak of auditory
information.
feels and thinks or whether the film seeks to present objective correla-
tives of the mental and emotional dispositions of a protagonist. The
possible mingling of “real” and mental aspects makes it difficult to dif
ferentiate between focalization and ocularization as soon as there is no
marking of where a certain situation has its definite starting-point,
whether in an optical perspective or in a subjective perception (or
both). To understand POV in terms of the optical and auditory vantage
point of a character, as Bordwell does when he speaks of an “optically
subjective shot” (1985: 60), overlooks the fact that focalization can
shift all around its diegetic world (Fulton 2005: 111) without any no
ticeable breaks in the narration or any unconventional narrative tech
niques. Though narratology possesses tools for analyzing these shifts,
the categories used for film analysis seem to be far more complicated
than those employed for literary narration.
5 Bibliography
1 Definition
2 Explication
tions of voice, focalization and time of narration, singling out one spe
cial albeit significant case: generic subjectivity.
A systematic all-encompassing application of narratology, differen
tiating two basic aspects of mediation, agents or instances and levels of
mediation and types of perspective, is outlined by Hühn & Schönert
(2002: 295−98) and Hühn (2004: 147−51). Firstly, the four agents lo-
cated on four hierarchical levels largely coincide with those named by
Seemann and Kraan: biographical author; abstract (or implied) author;
speaker/narrator; protagonist or character in the happenings. Secondly,
the two types or modes of perspective are voice (a narrator’s or a char
acter’s verbal utterance, their language) and focalization (the position
that determines perception and cognition, the deictic center of the per
ceptual, cognitive, psychological and ideological focus on the happen
ings). For the notoriously tricky problem of distinguishing speaker and
abstract author and of relating focalization to agent (e.g. whether to
speaker or character), they introduce the operation of “attribution” per
formed by the reader in accordance with his particular understanding of
the text. These two sets of differential categories, in conjunction with
the operation of attribution, allow for a more precise analysis of lyric
poems in their individual, historical and cultural variations than do tra
ditional methods. Hence the seemingly unmediated self-expression of
the poet in a simultaneously ongoing experience characteristic of many
Romantic poems, for example, can be re-described as the manipulated
collapse of the agents/instances and levels of protagonist, speaker and
author as well as the contrived congruence of voice and focalization,
thus creating the effect of unmediated subjectivity.
The other dimension of the poetic text, sequentiality, has hitherto
been widely neglected in traditional approaches to poetry analysis,
even though it constitutes a central part of a poem’s meaning. For the
transgeneric approach to poetry, investigation of this dimension in its
temporal organization is essential, since it forms the basis for the ap
plication of narratology in the first place. Contrary to mediation with
the highly differentiated system of relevant categories already devel-
oped by narratology, the dimension of sequentiality lacks a broadly ac
cepted narratological terminology. Because of this, critics are left to
develop categories of their own or to draw on a variety of sources from
elsewhere.
Stillinger (1985: 98–9) sketches five concrete types of plot in Ro
mantic poetry: conflict between binary forces (mostly of a mental kind)
and its resolution; journeys or quests; confrontation between imagina
tion and reality with resultant disillusionment; violation and its con
sequences; competition between spatial divisions. From these he ab
233 Narration in Poetry and Drama
The relation of the various event types with different historical epochs
and with different cultures and cultural traditions; comparison between
poetry and prose fiction in their various genres with respect to the
schemata used, event types and the degree of realization of events.
239 Narration in Poetry and Drama
5 Bibliography
Stillinger, Jack (1985). “The Plots of Romantic Poetry.” College Literature 12, 95–112.
Weststeijn, Willem G. (1989). “Plot Structure in Lyric Poetry: An Analysis of Three
Exile Poems by Aleksandr Puškin.” Russian Literature 26, 509–22.
Wolf, Werner (1998). “Aesthetic Illusion in Lyric Poetry?” Poetica 30, 18−56.
Weidle, Roland (2009). “Organizing the Perspectives: Focalization and the Superordin
ate Narrative System in Drama.” P. Hühn et al. (eds). Point of View, Perspective,
and Focalization. Modeling Mediation in Narrative. Berlin: de Gruyter, 221–42.
1 Definition
2 Explication
In the context of the arts, the study of narrativity can turn to Lessing’s
famous Laocoön (1766). According to the definition proposed by this
essay for demarcating the fine arts from the literary arts (→ narration
in various media), painting and sculpture are marked by spatiality and
synchronicity, whereas temporality and diachronicity are the features
of poetry. The simultaneous arrangement of shapes and colors depicts
objects or bodies, while the successive arrangement of articulated
sounds results in the narration of actions. The visual arts can mediate
actions only indirectly through the depiction of bodies, whereas in po
etry a body can be portrayed only through the narration of actions. Ac
cording to Lessing, the painter or sculptor must therefore find the
“pregnant moment” that condenses the temporal movement in contrast
to the poet, who must integrate the “defining trait” of a body into narra
tion of the action. Moving beyond Lessing, other narrative means that
allow the visual arts to depict temporal sequences might be taken into
account (Pochat 1996).
245 Narration in Various Disciplines
3.4 Psychology
3.5 Psychoanalysis
3.6 Philosophy
Plato refers to stories and myths that serve as a point of departure and
exemplification for his abstract teachings, a tradition that continues in
philosophy even today. Underlying this practice is the idea that the
function of narrative is to provide concrete examples in support of con
ceptual arguments. Hegel formulates the insight that philosophical con
cepts can themselves only be understood as the end result of their own
story (Plotnitsky 2005a).
Husserl’s disciple Schapp (1953) was the first to develop a distinc-
tive “philosophy of stories.” According to his main thesis, the human
being is not the autonomous subject of his own constructions of mean
ing, but throughout his life is inextricably “entangled in stories” which
are the prerequisite for the formation of his identity and subjectivity.
Since, according to Schapp, stories are the fundamental medium
without which we would not be able to perceive meaning, one is justi
249 Narration in Various Disciplines
3.7 Ethics
3.8 Sociology
3.9 Theology
3.10 Pedagogy
Law studies have a strong affinity with the concept of narrativity, espe
cially in the Anglo-Saxon tradition of “case law” based on precedent
(Lüderssen 1996; van Roermund 1997; Bruner 2002). All laws can be
understood as abstractions of individual cases. Individual cases, in turn,
enter the legal system by way of narrations. The prosecutor, defendant,
defense counsel, counsel for the prosecution, witnesses, and experts
tell the court their version of events relevant to the case. Judge and jury
Narration in Various Disciplines 254
3.12 Medicine
plain, are far more complex and incorporate numerous factors that have
to be integrated into the narrative explanation. The complexity of factu
al processes cannot serve as an argument against narrative explanations
per se. On the contrary, a narrative, by definition, is a symbolic form of
representation that is flexible and malleable enough to make possible
the integration of (relevant) complex factors into the explanation. In
any case, the specific rationality and scientific nature of explanations in
cultural studies are directly linked with the narrative formula. In cultur
al studies, narratives are not regarded as a deficiency―something that
one has to fall back on in the absence of alternatives due to a lack of in
sight into “cultural laws,” for example―but rather a genuine means for
formulating insights and research findings.
Despite the fact that on occasion narrative elements are used in expla-
nations in the natural sciences (e.g. the narrative of “Schroedinger’s
cat”; cf. Plotnitsky 2005b) and that certain narrative backgrounds exist
(e.g. in the term “natural history” in the theory of evolution and in pa
leontology), a specifically narratological inquiry in the natural sciences
remains a desideratum. In the philosophy of science, this involves the
concept of meaning and the related classic dichotomy of “explaining”
and “understanding”: the world of nature is devoid of meaning and
must be explained through laws and the establishment of causal con
nections; by contrast, the world of culture and human understanding is
rendered meaningful and can be understood through stories (among
other means). An application of the concepts of narrative would there
fore presuppose a revision of fundamental precepts in the natural sci
ences: it would be necessary to understand nature as something that is
not (or at least not entirely) governed by laws and causal connections,
but primarily constitutes a dynamic and creative process. This calls for
philosophical paradigm shifts, the beginnings of which can be found in
Whitehead’s (1929) cosmology. In the tradition of Aristotelian physics,
being is conceived as a complex interplay of processes of becoming,
each having their own structure. Every occurrence in nature begins
with an event which becomes part of a creative process oriented to
wards the final outcome. From this point of view, it seems possible to
describe processes in nature with narrative categories (Meuter & Lach
mann forthcoming).
257 Narration in Various Disciplines
5 Bibliography
1 Definition
2 Explication
gist, channel-type media are only interesting to the extent that they in
volve “differences that make a narrative difference”—in other words,
to the extent that they function as both conduits and “languages.”
Among technologies, TV, radio, film, and the internet have clearly de
veloped unique storytelling capabilities, but it would be hard to find
reasons to regard Xerox copy machines or phonographs as possessing
their own narrative “language.”
biotic relation with each other. Dautenhahn (2003) attributes the need
to tell stories to the complex social organizations of humans, compared
to that of apes, while Turner (1996) argues that humans did not start
telling stories as the result of developing language, but rather that lan
guage was developed in response to the need to tell stories. In these ac
counts of the social and cognitive foundations of storytelling, natural
language is presented as the original narrative medium. The innate af
finity of narrative and language can be explained by the fact that nar
rative is not something that is perceived by the senses: it is constructed
by the mind, either out of data provided by life or out of invented ma
terials. Similarly, as a mode of representation, language speaks to the
mind rather than to the senses, though it is of course through the senses
that its signs are perceived. Thanks to its semantic nature and its power
of articulation, language is the only semiotic system (besides formal
notation systems) in which it is possible to formulate propositions.
Stories are about characters placed in a changing world, and narration
is crucially dependent on the ability of a medium to single out existents
and attribute properties to them. Neither images nor pure sound pos
sesses this intrinsic ability: sound has no meaning, and pictures can
show, but they cannot refer (Worth 1981). This makes it difficult for
them to foreground specific properties of objects out of the background
of their global visual appearance.
If we look at the constitutive features of narrative, we see other
reasons why natural language is its medium of choice. Narrative is wi-
dely regarded by scholars as a discourse that conveys a story; story, in
turn, has been defined as a mental image formed by four types of con
stituents (Ryan 2007): (1) a spatial constituent consisting of a world
(the setting) populated by individuated existents (characters and ob
jects); (2) a temporal constituent, by which this world undergoes signi
ficant changes caused by non-habitual events (→ event and eventful
ness); (3) a mental constituent, specifying that the events must involve
intelligent agents who have a mental life and react emotionally to the
states of the world (or to the mental states of other agents); (4) a formal
and pragmatic constituent, advocating closure and a meaningful mes
sage.
The first and fourth of these conditions are not particularly depend-
ent on language. Closure and meaningfulness can be achieved in any
semiotic system, and images are more efficient than words at represent
ing a world populated by existents because of the spatial extension and
visual appearance of concrete objects. But the second and third features
of narrative are highly language-dependent. As Lessing observed, the
temporality of language is naturally suited to represent events that suc
Narration in Various Media 271
have they done before? What are they doing? What are their reasons
for acting? What change of state will the action bring? How will the
characters react to the event? Pictures cannot answer these questions
directly because they are limited to the representation of visual proper
ties. Not only do images lack a temporal dimension, they are also un
able to represent language and thought, causal relations, counterfactu
ality, and multiple possibilities. Other limitations include the inability
to make comments, provide explanations, and create suspense and sur
prise, two effects which depend on a time-bound disclosure of informa
tion. Even so, the narrative incompleteness of images is a powerful
generator of curiosity. As Wolf (2005) has shown, reading a picture
narratively necessitates a far more elaborate gap-filling activity than
reading a language-based story. Monophase pictorial narratives are
either illustrative or indeterminate in their content. An indeterminate
picture opens a small window on time through the technique of the
pregnant moment, but many different narrative arcs can pass through
this window, corresponding to the multiple ways of imagining the long-
term past and future that expand the content of the window into a com
plete story. Perhaps the only type of monophase pictures that tells a de
terminate story is the humorous single-frame, caption-less cartoon, for
humor lies in a narrowly defined feature that people either get or miss.
Yet still pictures also have their narrative strengths, when compared
to language: they can give a far better idea of the spatial configuration
of the storyworld; they can suggest emotions through facial expressions
and body language; and they can show beauty directly, rather than
naming the property and leaving its specific representation to the
reader’s imagination. Though they lack operators of mental activity,
they can develop visual conventions, such as the thought balloon, to
“derealize” events and represent objects as mental images formed by
characters. They often make up for their inability to name characters by
using traditional attributes (keys for Saint Peter, horns for the devil),
and they can suggest abstract ideas through conventional visual sym
bols: lilies for purity, pomegranates for lust, a skull for death. When
purely visual means fail, they can internalize language by showing in
tra-diegetic objects bearing inscriptions, such as signs or letters (cf. the
very readable letter from Charlotte Corday held by the dead Marat in
Jacques-Louis David’s “Marat Assassinated”). Because pictures stand
still, the spectator has ample time to inspect them for narratively signi
ficant details.
In polyphase pictures, the narrative arc is much more determinate
because it is plotted through several distinct scenes within the same
global frame. These scenes are often separated by architectural fea
274 Narration in Various Media
(a) What structural types of plot are particularly well suited to indi
vidual media? (b) How does medium affect narrative techniques (e.g.
which media allow discourse features such as temporal reordering,
evaluation, digressions, effects of suspense and surprise, irony, unreli
ability)? (c) How do media compensate for their narrative deficiencies?
(d) How do newly developed media progressively free themselves from
Narration in Various Media 279
the influence of older media and discover their own narrative “lan
guage”? (e) What social practices are generated by the “cult narratives”
of mass media (e.g. practices such as the creation of fan communities
on the Internet, fan fiction, spoiling, online discussions of plots)? (f) In
which media, besides language, does fictionality exist? (g) What forms
does (or will) narrative take in interactive environments?
5 Bibliography
1 Definition
2 Explication
3.1 Russian Formalism and the Opposition between Fabula and Sujet
after him, does not associate the fabula with a neutral, given phe
nomenon. Instead, in contrast to the sujet, which is understood as bear
ing the literariness of the narrative work, he sees the fabula as some
thing subordinate that is overcome, so to speak, in the work of art (in
the same historical context, the opposite is the case in the work of
Propp [1928] which, with its model of actants and functions, was con
cerned solely with the plot structure of narrative works, and more pre
cisely with the rules governing constitution of the fabula).
Numerous Russian formalists took up the pair of terms during the
1920s and put what were at times very different slants on it. Tomašev-
skij used and popularized the fabula/sujet distinction in a way that re
tained at least something of Šklovskij’s understanding of it. In the first
edition of his textbook-like Teorija literatury (1925, revised 1928),
which found a relatively wide readership in Western European literary
studies, a footnote deleted from later editions contains the concise,
much-quoted formulation that “in short, the fabula is that ‘which really
was,’ the sujet that ‘how the reader has learnt about it’” ([1925] 1991:
137). In the main text of the work, on the other hand, Tomaševskij
provides a more nuanced definition of the fabula as “the totality of mo
tifs in their logical causal-temporal chain” and the sujet as “the totality
of the same motifs in that sequence and connectivity in which they are
presented in the work” (Černov 1977: 40). Thus, here and in other pas
sages of his Teorija literatury, Tomaševskij—in contrast to Šklovskij
—associates the fabula with the property of causally connected motifs
(in the sense of events). To this extent, it contains more than the aes
thetically indifferent, preliterary happenings, and is, even if Tomašev-
skij himself does not say so directly, already part of the artistic fashion
ing of the work.
then the queen died of grief,’ is a plot” (93). For Forster, then, the cru
cial difference between story and plot lies in the move from simple
chronology to causality—in the establishment of a causal relationship
between individual events. If we consider the fabula/sujet opposition of
the formalists with this in mind, it becomes clear that Forster’s model
should not be understood as straightforwardly analogous to the two
terms of Russian origin (Volek 1977: 147–48; Sternberg 1978: 8–14,
for a detailed description of the terms and concepts involved, and Pier
2003: 77–78, for a discussion of the issue of translating Russian fabula
and sujet into English). The concept of sujet has no direct equivalent in
Forster’s work; what Forster refers to with “plot” would seem to cor
respond to the meaning fabula has for Tomaševskij; and Forster’s
concept of story corresponds to what the formalists either consider part
of the fabula but do not name or, like Tomaševskij, say, distinguish
from the fabula and call xronika (“chronicle”; Tomaševskij [1925]
1965: 215).
If we exclude the case of Muir, who refers to plot and story but uses
the terms imprecisely and at times synonymously (e.g. [1928] 1979:
16–17), it was above all the term “plot,” frequently associated with the
Aristotelian concept of muthos, that was soon taken up by other schol
ars in the English-speaking countries. From the 1930s onward, they
used it as a central category in work on the composition of narrative
works (reconstructions of this process can be found in e.g. García
Landa 1998: 48–60). Brooks & Warren provided a widely known
definition: “Plot, we may say, is the structure of an action as it is
presented in a piece of fiction. It is not, we shall note, the structure of
an action as we happen to find it out in the world, but the structure
within a story. It is, in other words, what the teller of the story has done
to the action in order to present it to us” ([1943] 1959: 77).
Slavonic studies in Sofia (in fact, Todorov drew the terms histoire and
discours from a model developed by the linguist Benveniste, who actu
ally uses them to mean something different, namely the contrast to be
found in the tense system of French between forms of narration with
and without a clearly apparent speaking entity, discours and histoire re
spectively; Benveniste 1959). Todorov’s formulation is still potentially
compatible with Tomaševskij when he writes: “At the most general
level, the literary work has two aspects: it is at the same time a story
[histoire] and a discourse [discours]. It is story, in the sense that it
evokes a certain reality […]. But the work is at the same time discourse
[…]. At this level, it is not the events reported which count but the
manner in which the narrator makes them known to us” ([1966] 1980:
5).
These same words, though, also suggest that the terms histoire and
discours are not simply translations of fabula and sujet. Apart from
various studies of narrative grammar by Bremond and others (see for
example Bremond 1964; Greimas 1967; Todorov 1969), which stand in
the tradition of Propp and concentrate entirely on the constitution of
the histoire, the subsequent use of the terms histoire and discours in
French structuralism and its successors confirms that both the exten
sion of the two terms and the theoretical framework involved have
been altered in certain ways.
Unlike Šklovskij, say, who associates the sujet with the dynamic
nature and special quality of a principle of literary composition, the
French structuralists take discours to mean primarily the result, as it
presents itself in the individual narrative work, of a certain way of me
diating the set of happenings. Indeed, in contrast to the Russian formal
ists, histoire and discours are explicitly treated as having equal status:
“the two aspects, the story [histoire] and the discourse [discours], are
both equally literary” (Todorov [1966] 1980: 5). Neither of the two
components has priority over the other, which accords well with the
fact that writers such as Barthes and Genette drew up their narratologi-
cal models against the background of the theory of the linguistic sign
developed by Saussure. They treat the relationship between histoire
and discours as analogous to the dichotomy between signifier and sig
nified. The two terms are openly understood as having a greater exten
sion, though. Tomaševskij’s sujet, for example, relates primarily to the
order of events in their literary representation; yet as early as Todorov,
discours subsumes the literary mediation of a set of happenings in its
entirety (not just the sequence of events, that is to say, but also such
features as perspective, style, mode, and so on). And unlike To
maševskij’s fabula, which consists only of those parts of the narrated
Narrative Constitution 288
quire the function of initial motifs, transitional motifs, and the like.
There then remains the question of the story’s meaning. According to
White, this question involves the problem of explaining the set of hap
penings in the sense of grasping “the structure of the entire set of
events considered as a completed story” (1973: 7; italics in original).
This is where emplotment comes in, a concept much quoted in the con
text of the narrative turn in cultural studies but used somewhat vaguely
by White himself. There is a famous passage in which White defines it
thus: “Providing the ‘meaning’ of a story by identifying the kind of
story that has been told is called explanation by emplotment” (1973: 7;
italics in original). For White, then, who does not make a precise theo-
retical distinction between the acts of production and reception, the
meaning of a story takes shape as the historian shapes or discerns a plot
in the story formed on the basis of the chronicle: the events arranged
into a story, that is to say, are subsumed into a particular plot schema
(→ schemata) (“Thus, in telling a story, the historian necessarily re
veals a plot;” 1978: 52). Drawing on Frye (1957), White assumes fur
ther that there is a limited number of archetypal “modes of emplot
ment” (mythoi in the sense of Frye’s Poetics-based terminology) that
can provide a story with meaning, irrespective of whether it is a case of
literary or non-literary narration. Specifically, White believes there are
four such modes of emplotment: romance, tragedy, comedy, and satire.
If we recall now the origins of the two-tiered model for works of lit
erary narrative in Russian formalism, it becomes clear that White in his
Metahistory employs an essentially comparable model of narrative con
stitution with precisely the opposite objective. Šklovskij develops the
concept of a sujet that should be distinguished from the fabula, and
does so in order to set a certain emphasis by treating the fact of being
artificial as an essential quality of a particular form of narration, spe
cifically literary narration (with Šklovskij seeing the function of this
form of narration as being “to return sensation to our limbs” [(1925)
1991: 6]). White, on the other hand, uses the idea of emplotment, sit-
uated on a level between fabula and sujet, to show that the transforma
tion of happenings into stories necessarily involves a process of making
literature; the signs are that this process is understood as one of fiction
alization (accordingly in this respect, White describes historiographical
narration as “essentially a literary, that is to say fiction-making opera
tion;” 1978: 85).
Ricœur takes an analogous approach to White when, in discussing
narratives, he writes about how a reality that is in and of itself contin
gent is subjected to a fundamental reshaping by a “synthesis of the het
erogeneous” in the form of a process of mise en intrigue (rendered as
Narrative Constitution 292
5 Bibliography
Martínez, Matías & Michael Scheffel ([1999] 2007). Einführung in die Erzähltheorie.
München: Beck.
Meuter, Norbert (1994). “Prä-Narrativität. Ein Organisationsprinzip unseres Handelns.”
Studia Culturologica 3, 119–40.
Muir, Edwin ([1928] 1979). The Structure of the Novel. London: Chatto & Windus.
Pier, John (2003). “On the Semiotic Parameters of Narrative: A Critique of Story and
Discourse.” T. Kindt & H.-H. Müller (eds). What Is Narratology? Questions and
Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory. Berlin: de Gruyter, 73–97.
Prince, Gerald (1982). Narratology. The Form and Functioning of Narrative. Berlin:
Mouton.
Propp, Vladimir ([1928] 1968). Morphology of the Folktale. Austin: U of Texas P.
Ricœur, Paul ([1983/1985] 1984/1988). Time and Narrative. 3 vols. Chicago: U of
Chicago P.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith ([1983] 2002). Narrative Fiction. Contemporary Poetics.
London: Methuen.
Scheffel, Michael (1997). Formen selbstreflexiven Erzählens. Eine Typologie und
sechs exemplarische Analysen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Schmid, Wolf (1982). “Die narrativen Ebenen ‘Geschehen,’ ‘Geschichte,’ ‘Erzählung’
und ‘Präsentation der Erzählung’.” Wiener slawistischer Almanach 9, 83–110.
– (1984). “Der Ort der Erzählperspektive in der narrativen Konstitution.” J. J. van
Baak (ed). Signs of Friendship. To Honour A. G. F. van Holk, Slavist, Linguist, Se
miotician. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 523–52.
– (2005). Elemente der Narratologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
– (2007). “La constitution narrative: les événéments―l’histoire―le récit―la présent
ation du récit.“ J. Pier (ed.). Théorie du récit. L’apport de la recherche allemande.
Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 153–88.
– (2009). “‘Fabel’ und ‘Sujet’.” W. Schmid (ed). Slavische Narratologie. Russische
und tschechische Ansätze. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1–45.
Šklovskij, Viktor (Shklovsky, Victor) ([1925] 1991). Theory of Prose. Elmwood Park:
Dalkey Archive P.
Sternberg, Meir (1978). Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction. Balti
more: Johns Hopkins UP.
Stierle, Karlheinz ([1971] 1973). “Geschehen, Geschichte, Text der Geschichte.” R.
Koselleck & W. D. Stempel (eds). Geschichte―Ereignis und Erzählung. München:
Fink, 530–34.
Todorov, Tzvetan ([1966] 1980). “The Categories of Literary Narrative.” Papers on
Language and Literature 16, 3–36.
– (1969). Grammaire du Décaméron. The Hague: Mouton.
Tomaševskij, Boris ([1925] 1965). Teorija literatury. Poėtika. Moskva: Gos. Izd. Eng
lish trans. of the chapter “Thematics” from the 1928 ed.: L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis
(eds). Russian Formalist Criticism. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 61–95.
Volek, Emil (1977). “Die Begriffe ‘Fabel’ und ‘Sujet’ in der modernen Literaturwis
senschaft.” Poetica 9, 141–66.
White, Hayden (1973). Metahistory. The Historical Imagination in the Nineteenth Cen
tury. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
– (1978). Tropics of Discourse. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
Narrative Levels
Didier Coste & John Pier
1 Definition
2 Explication
mediately higher than the level at which the narrating act producing
this narrative is placed […]. The narrating instance of a first narrative
[récit premier] is therefore extradiegetic by definition, as the narrating
instance of a second (metadiegetic) narrative [récit second] is diegetic
by definition, etc.” (Genette ([1972] 1980: 228–29). Bal (1977: 35) and
Rimmon-Kenan ([1983] 2002: 92–3) invert this order, placing the die
getic level in a “subordinate” position in relation to the extradiegetic
level. Discussions of narrative level frequently overlook the fact that it
is not an isolated category but that, forming part of the narrating sit-
uation, it correlates with a second type of diegetic relation, a relation of
person: hence a → narrator is either heterodiegetic (absent from the
narrated world), homodiegetic (present in the narrated world) or auto-
diegetic (identical with the protagonist). Together, level and person
form the narrator’s status, broken down into a four-part typology of the
narrator (Genette [1972] 1980: 248; see 3.1.1 below. On the notion of
diegesis, cf. Pier 1986).
Formulated in terms of enunciation, narrative level in effect opposes
“who speaks?” and “who acts?,” thus opening the way to a more pre
cise description and analysis of change of level through the identifica
tion of textual markers. Genette ([1972] 1980: 232–34) distinguishes
three types of relations binding metadiegetic narrative to primary nar
rative: (a) explanatory, when there is a link of direct causality between
the events of the diegesis and those of the metadiegesis; (b) thematic,
by way of contrast or analogy between levels, as in an exemplum or in
mise en abyme, with a possible effect of the metadiegesis on the diege-
tic situation; (c) narrational, when the act of (secondary) narrating
merges with the present situation, diminishing the prominence of the
metadiegetic content (Rimmon-Kenan [1983] 2002: 93, names the lat
ter relation “actional”). With reference to Barth (1981), these types
were later refined into six “functions” ordered by decreasing thematic
relation between primary and second-level narrative with increasing
emphasis on the narrative act itself: (a) explicative; (b) predictive; (c)
purely thematic; (d) persuasive; (e) distractive; (f) obstructive (Genette
[1983] 1988: 92–4). And finally, by pushing the narrative act as a
means of transition between levels yet further, as when the author or
the reader enters the domain of the characters, or vice versa, the bound
aries between levels are violated, resulting in → metalepsis.
Narrative Levels 297
3.1 Embedding
are contained (cf. Ryan’s type 4a border crossing) and are thus, how
ever brief they might be, subject to the criteria of narrativity in their
own right (cf. Wolf 2006: 181). In addition to change of voice and
level and to the potential for multiple levels of embedding, narratives
that employ the framing technique—and this accessorily to the prin
ciple of narrative embedding properly speaking—can incorporate a
single second-level narrative (Heart of Darkness) or multiple second-
level narratives (the Arabian Nights) as well as, within a given second-
level narrative, additional embedded narratives (as in “The Three
Ladies of Baghdad”). A fourth feature of frame stories is their compo-
sitional distribution: a framing can be complete (appearing at the be
ginning and end of the embedded story), incomplete (introductory only
or terminal only, possibly producing metaleptic effects), or interpolated
(appearing intermittently) (adapted from Wolf 2006: 185–88).
Overall, the frame tale, together with its second-level narrative, re
lies heavily on compositional means. Most notably, it offers the possi-
bility of linking together an otherwise disparate group of stories and of
establishing thematic relations among them, and it thus contributes to
textual → coherence. Semiotically, this corresponds to the syntactic di
mension of semiosis. Another feature of the frame tale, particularly in
its written form, is that it replicates the communicative situation of oral
storytelling, indicating a time and place of the narrative act and the
audience and buttressing the “narratorial illusionism” of the framed
tale (Kanzog [1966] 1977: 322; Nünning 2004: 17; Williams 1998;
110, 113; Wolf 2006: 188–89). The communicative specificities of the
framing technique thus come within the scope of pragmatics. And fi
nally, the traditional function of the frame tale (carried over, inter alia,
to the elaborate prefatory material of the 18th-century novel) is to vali-
date the framed story (which itself may be improbable) with an air of
authenticity, thanks to the impartial report by the primary narrator. This
does not necessarily mean, however, that the primary narrator vouches
for the veracity of the related facts: a potentially rhetorical move (as in
the case of an unreliable narrator), authentification by the primary nar
rator consists in principle in affirming that the second-level narrator re
lated such-and-such, not in asserting what s/he related (cf. Duyfhuizen
1992: 134; Williams 1998: 114; Wolf 2006: 192). This aspect of the
framing technique can be assimilated to the semantic dimension of se
miosis, although it also merges with pragmatic considerations.
The defining characteristic of mise en abyme is the relation of rep-
etition and reflection the second-level narrative entertains with the
quantitatively greater narrative within which it is contained. Iconic in
the semiotic sense (cf. Bal 1978) and producing disruptive but poten
306 Narrative Levels
5 Bibliography
Ryan, Marie-Laure (1986). “Embedded Narratives and Tellability.” Style 20, 319–40.
– (1991). Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative Theory. Blooming
ton: Indiana UP.
– (2001). “The Narratorial Functions: Breaking Down a Theoretical Primitive.” Nar
rative 9, 146–52.
Schmid, Wolf (2005). Elemente der Narratologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Shryock, Richard (1993). Tales of Storytelling: Embedded Narration in Modern
French Fiction. New York: Lang.
Todorov, Tzvetan (1966). “Les catégories du récit littéraire.” Communications N° 8,
125–51.
– ([1971] 1977). The Poetics of Prose. Oxford: Blackwell.
Werth, Paul (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. Lon
don: Longman.
Williams, Jeffrey (1998). Theory and the Novel: Narrative Reflexivity in the British
Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Wolf, Werner (2006). “Framing Borders in Frame Stories.” W. W. & W. Bernhart
(eds). Framing Borders in Literature and Media. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 179–206.
Young, Katharine Galloway (1987). Taleworlds and Storyrealms: The Phenomenology
of Narrative. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
1 Definition
2 Explication
As noted above, the term “narrativity” did not develop its lively range
of conceptual roles until the emergence of a postclassical narratology
in the last decades of the 20th century. The most influential precursor
concept is the property of mediation, which Plato identified when dis
tinguishing between the indirect representational character of diegesis
and the direct presentational character of mimesis: the one narrated by
the poet, the other performed (The Republic, Bk 3). As Schmid (2003:
17–8) notes, mediation was a central focus of classical narratology well
before narratology got its name, notably in Stanzel’s major work of the
1950s and 1960s, later reinvigorated in A Theory of Narrative ([1979]
1984), but lacking the word “narrativity.” Another classical precursor
concept is Aristotle’s idea of muthos, “the configuration of incidence in
the story” (Greimas & Ricœur 1989: 551), which anticipates the
concept of “emplotment,” a central term for Ricœur and others in the
discourse on narrativity. In the development of classical narratology,
the Russian formalist idea of “the dominant” has also been critical.
312 Narrativity
3.2.1 Immanence
Greimas is the major exception to the general structuralist neglect of
narrativity. His conception of the term is also notable for its breadth of
application, referring to a structuring force that generates not simply all
narratives but all discourse: “le principe organisateur de tout discours”
(Greimas & Courtés 1979: 249). With regard to narrative in particular,
Greimas distinguishes between an apparent and an immanent level of
narration, with narrativity located in the latter. As such, “narrativity is
situated and organized prior to its manifestation. A common semiotic
level is thus distinct from the linguistic level and is logically prior to it,
whatever the language chosen for the manifestation” (Greimas [1969]
1977: 23).
It is also important to note that, for Greimas, narrativity is a disor
ganizing as well as an organizing force in that it disrupts old orders
even as it generates new ones. It is “the irruption of the discontinuous”
into the settled discourse “of a life, a story, an individual, a culture,”
disarticulating the existing discourse “into discrete states between
which it sets transformations” ([1983] 1987: 104). To bear this in mind
is to see the deep commonality of modes (descriptive, argumentative,
narrative) often left segmented in analytical terminology. In an analysis
of Maupassant’s “A Piece of String,” Greimas carefully demonstrates
how customary distinctions such as that between descriptive and nar
rative segments give way at a deeper level that organizes “according to
canonical rules of narrativity” ([1973] 1989: 625). However static they
may appear to be, descriptive segments are imbued with the same un
dergirding narrativity that organizes the segments of action.
Narrativity 313
3.2.2 Emplotment
For Ricœur, a key manifestation of narrativity is “emplotment,” the ar
ticulation of which involves “broadening, radicalizing, [and] enriching”
the Aristotelean idea of plot with the Augustinian understanding of
time ([1985] 1988: 4). This allows him on the one hand to develop a
complex reassessment of the temporal difference between fictional and
historical narrative, while on the other to bring out their deep common
alty. To accomplish this, Ricœur, like Greimas, posits a deep level of
narrativity; but unlike Greimas, he sees it as a “pre-understanding” of
our historical mindedness—“an intelligibility of the historicality that
characterizes us” (Greimas & Ricœur 1989: 552)—and it lies at the
heart of his critique of Greimas’s a-temporal model of fictional narra-
tive (Ricœur 1980). In addition, and further differentiating his usage
from that of Greimas, Ricœur saw the operation of emplotment as a
dialectical process, a dynamic interaction between this “first-order in
telligence” and the surface level where narrative is structurally mani
fest in the text (Greimas & Ricœur 1989: 551–52). Emplotment, then,
is an evolving, processual feed-back loop between the informing level
of narrativity and the particularity of its manifestation.
Like Ricœur, White (1973, 1978, 1981) does not limit narrativity to
the designated modes of fiction. But where Ricœur’s theory of emplot
ment not only bonds but distinguishes fictional and nonfictional nar
rativity (→ fictional vs. factual narration), White has tended over the
course of his writings to stress the commonality of their narrativity.
More than this, narrativity is for White a “panglobal fact of culture,”
without which there is no conveying knowledge as meaning. Narrati-
vity is at one with the perception of meaning because meaning only
emerges when events have been “emplotted” with “the formal coher
ency that only stories can possess” (White 1981: 19). For this reason,
history, by definition, cannot exist without narrativity. In its absence,
there is a mere succession of events (annals) or, at best, events organ
ized by some other means than plot (chronicles). It is emplotment that
brings events to life, endowing them with cultural meaning, since
“[t]he significance of narrative is not latent in the data of experience, or
of imagination, but fabricated in the process of subjecting that data to
the elemental rhetoric of the narrative form itself” (Walsh 2003: 111).
The final irony, then, is that narrativity is the unacknowledged neces
sity of what we take for truth, for to attain the status of truth, a repre-
sentation of “the real” requires, at a minimum, “the character of nar
rativity” (White 1981: 6).
314 Narrativity
ties marking narrative and helping a reader or viewer perceive the dif
ference between narrative and non-narrative texts” (Keen 2003: 121) or
“the set of properties characterizing narrative and distinguishing it
from nonnarrative” (Prince [1987] 2003: 65). But these same scholars
will often go on to treat the concept of narrativity as an intensional
quality by which a text is felt to be “more or less narrative” (ibid.). In
deed, as Schmid (2003: 30) notes, it is hard to remain objective or to do
away with an interpretive stance when discussing the scalar narrativity
of texts. This double usage of narrativity is the problem Prince (2008)
set out to resolve when he divided narrativity into narrativehood and
narrativeness. As he demonstrates, the scalar nature of narrativity is not
only complicated by the variable combinability of these two subcat
egories but by other factors as well. With similar ambition, Ryan has
spelled out a “tentative formulation of [nine] nested conditions” that
might be used in describing narrative as a “fuzzy set,” recognizable in
any particular work according to the number and importance of the
conditions present (Ryan 2006b: 194). Many scholars have, nonethe
less, centered their theorizing on a single manifestation of narrativity,
while explicitly or implicitly acknowledging the complexity of narra-
tive response that makes narrativity both a scalar and a fuzzy concept.
This in turn means that there can be no pure segregation of their work
under one caption or another.
3.3.1 Sequentiality
In the 1970s, when Sternberg developed his theory of three overarching
“master forces” of narrative—curiosity, suspense, and surprise (1978)
—he did not use the word “narrativity.” In more recent years, however,
the term “narrativity” has become increasingly important for him as
“the play of suspense/curiosity/surprise between represented and com
municative time,” while a narrative is a text in which “such play dom
inates.” Narrativity, then, is a scalar property which can be “stronger”
or “weaker.” But when it is dominant in any text, its “functional” char
acter is to act as a “regulating principle” (1992: 529). At this point, the
theory transits to a concept of inherency. Thus “strong narrativity […]
not merely represents an action but interanimates the three generic
forces that play between narrated and narrational time” (2001: 119).
All the elements are orchestrated according to “the unbreakable law
likeness of the narrative process itself” (2003: 328), so that, for ex
ample, whatever your sympathies regarding the characters in a story,
they “must arise from the generic trio, and impinge on everything else
in the reading, given the exigencies of intersequence” (ibid.).
316 Narrativity
3.3.2 Eventfulness
Recent attention to eventfulness by the Hamburg Narratology Research
Group responds to the need for a clearer understanding of what consti
tutes a narrative event than is found in most sequentiality-based theo-
ries (Hühn 2008: 146). Schmid (2003) develops his theory of eventful
ness within a definition of the narrative event as a non-trivial change of
state that takes place and reaches completion (is “resultative”) in the
actual (“real”) world of any particular fictional narrative. Its narrati-
vity, then, depends on its non-triviality, which in turn is a factor of its
eventfulness. For Schmid this depends on five key variable features:
relevance, unpredictability, persistence, irreversibility, and non-iter
ativity. Hühn (2008) supplements Schmid’s concept by drawing on
schema theory and Lotman’s concept of the “semantic field.” Combin
ing these two areas of research gives Hühn’s version of eventfulness an
analytical scope that includes both the cognitive drama of schematic
disruption and an awareness of historical and cultural contexts afforded
by the recognition of differing semantic socio-cultural fields.
Audet has sought to disconnect the concept of narrativity from any
dependent connection with crafted narrative, identifying it instead with
the more widely occurring sense of what he calls “eventness [événe
mentialité], […] where the tension between a before and an after seems
to generate a virtuality, that of a story to come” ([2006] 2007: 34).
Audet builds on Lotman’s idea of a hierarchy of events, proposing
three levels or types of event: the “inworld event” (concrete action), the
“discursive event,” and the “operal event” (“connected to the perform
ing of the work itself”) (33), each of which in its emergence raises nar
rativity through its aura of events to come. However far one wishes to
go down this road with Audet, he, like Cohen, Sturgess, and as we will
see Fludernik, has found a way to accommodate those postmodern ex
perimental texts that often frustrate narratologists wedded to a narra-
tive-centered theory.
3.3.3 Tellability
Originally introduced by Labov (1972), → tellability (or narratibility;
cf. Prince 2008) is what makes a story worth telling. It allows a posi-
tive answer to the question “What’s the point?” and has often been
“hard to disentangle” from narrativity (Ryan 2005b: 589). Specifically,
318 Narrativity
so, he argues, places “too much weight on a participant role whose de
gree of salience derives from a larger, preference-based system of
roles” (2002: 169, 2009: passim).
Phelan (2005, 2007), from his quite differently oriented “rhetorical
understanding of narrativity,” also advocates maintaining a focus on
both sides of the reader/text transaction. For him, narrativity is a com
plex, “double-layered phenomenon” involving both a progression of
events and a progression of reader response. Each is characterized by a
“dynamics of instability,” the one driving the tale, the other driving the
response to it (Phelan 2007: 7). The tension of characters acting and re
acting in an unstable situation is accompanied by a “tension in the
telling—unstable relations among authors, narrators, and audiences,”
and it is the complex interaction of the two kinds of instability that
constitutes narrativity and that “encourages two main activities: ob
serving and judging” (ibid.). Put differently, narrativity involves “the
interaction of two kinds of change: that experienced by the characters
and that experienced by the audience in its developing responses to the
characters’ changes” (Phelan 2005: 323). As a scalar concept, “[v]ery
strong narrativity depends on the work’s commitment to both sets of
variables (textual and readerly). Weak narrativity arises from the
work’s lack of interest in one or both sets of variables” (Phelan 2007:
215; see also Ryan 2007; Prince 2008).
3.3.5 Fictionality
Keen draws attention to a “slippage” whereby fictionality has been in
cluded as an index of narrativity (2003: 121). This controversial associ
ation of narrativity and fictionality can be traced back to Hamburger
(1957). However, as noted above, White (1973, 1978, 1981), has en
couraged not just a slippage but a conflation of narrativity, fictionality,
and history. Historical narratives are “verbal fictions the contents of
which are as much invented as found and the forms of which have
more in common with their counterparts in literature than they have
with those in science” (1978: 82). Consciously or not, White ironizes a
distinction that Woolf expressed when she wrote, “Let it be fact, one
feels, or let it be fiction. The imagination will not serve under two mas
ters simultaneously” (Woolf [1927] 1994: 473; see also Ryan 1991;
Doležel 1998: 1–28; Cohn 1999: chap. 7). Seeking to moderate both
White’s extreme view that “[a]ll narrativity […] shares in the proper
ties of fictionality” and the counter-argument for an absolute cat
egorical distinction between fiction and nonfiction, Walsh points out
that “[r]eference actually occurs” in fiction, “and the use of language in
fiction is shown to be continuous with its use elsewhere” (2003: 111).
322 Narrativity
time that our sense of narrative is being solicited, it is also being frus
trated” (McHale 2001: 164).
(a) The widely endorsed idea promoted by Bruner, Sacks, and others
that “each of us constructs and lives a narrative” (Sacks 1985: 105) has
been attacked by Strawson (2004) as a fallacy that does not match the
“gappy” discontinuity of consciousness and selfhood. But the issue is
more complex than either position (Battersby 2006), and narrativity
may play a key role in resolving it. (b) Related to this is the need for
more work on narrativity as a part of what Brooks calls “our cognitive
toolkit” (2005: 415; Herman 2002, 2009). (c) The narrativity of dreams
is a limit case on which much depends in the definition of narrativity.
On the one hand, there is flat rejection (Prince 2000: 16); on the other,
support (Metz 1974; Walsh forthcoming). (d) Work is needed on nar
rativity in digital media, especially in narrativized games (Ryan 2006a)
and what Aarseth (1997) calls ergodic literature in which the “story” is
created in real time insofar as the events are determined by “non-trivi
al” actions of the players. (e) A highly consequential and disputed area
for research is the role narrativity plays in law, its ethics and its prac
tice (Brooks & Gewirtz 1996; Brooks 2005; Abbott [2002] 2008: 175–
92; Sternberg 2008). (f) Narrativity may well turn out to be a key
concept in building a critical and theoretical understanding of “narra-
tive-impaired” art that has recently been gathered under the heading of
“unnatural narratology.”
5 Bibliography
– & Paul Gewirtz (1996). Law’s Stories: Narrative and Rhetoric in the Law. New
Haven: Yale UP.
Bruner, Jerome (1991). “The Narrative Construction of ‘Reality’.” Critical Inquiry 18,
1–21.
Chatman, Seymour (1990). Coming to Terms: The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and
Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Cohen, Keith (1979). Film and Fiction. New Haven: Yale UP.
Cohn, Dorrit (1978). Transparent Minds: Narrative Modes for Presenting Conscious
ness in Fiction. Princeton: Princeton UP.
– (1999). The Distinction of Fiction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
Culler, Jonathan (1975). Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Stu-
dy of Literature. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Doležel, Lubomír (1979). “Extensional and Intensional Narrative Worlds.” Poetics 8,
193–211.
– (1983). “Proper Names, Definite Descriptions, and the Intensional Structure of
Kafka’s ‘The Trial’.” Poetics 12, 511–26.
– (1998). Heterocosmica: Fiction and Possible Worlds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
UP.
Fludernik, Monica (1996). Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London: Routledge.
– (2003). “Natural Narratology and Cognitive Parameters.” D. Herman (ed). Narra-
tive Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 243–67.
Forster, Edward M. ([1927] 1962). Aspects of the Novel. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Grabócz, Márta (forthcoming). Musique, Narrativité, Signification.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien ([1969] 1977). “Elements of a Narrative Grammar.” Diacrit
ics 7, 23–40.
– ([1973] 1989). “Description and Narrativity: ‘The Piece of String’.” New Literary
History 20, 615–26.
– ([1983] 1987). “A Problem of Narrative Semiotics: Objects of Value.” A. J. G. On
Meaning: Selected Writings in Semiotic Theory. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.
– & Joseph Courtés (1979). Sémiotique: dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du lan
gage. Paris: Hachette.
– & Paul Ricœur (1989). “On Narrativity.” New Literary History 20, 551–62.
Hamburger, Käte ([1957] 1993). The Logic of Literature. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Herman, David (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln:
U of Nebraska P.
– (2009). Basic Elements of Narrative. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hühn, Peter (2008). “Functions and Forms of Eventfulness in Narrative Fiction.”
J. Pier & J. Á. García Landa (eds). Theorizing Narrativity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 141–
63.
Iser, Wolfgang ([1972] 1974). The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in
Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
Jakobson, Roman ([1935] 1971). “The Dominant.” L. Matejka & K. Pomorska (eds).
Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Cambridge: MIT
P, 105–110.
326 Narrativity
Jannidis, Fotis (2003). “Narratology and Narrative.” T. Kindt & H.-H. Müller (eds).
What Is Narratology? Questions and Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 35–54.
Kafalenos, Emma (2006). Narrative Causalities. Columbus: Ohio State UP.
Keen, Suzanne (2003). Narrative Form. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kermode, Frank (1983). The Art of Telling: Essays on Fiction. Cambridge: Harvard
UP.
Kramer, Lawrence (1991). “Musical Narratology: A Theoretical Outline.” Indiana The
ory Review 12, 141–62.
Labov, William (1972). Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P.
Leitch, Thomas M. (1986). What Stories Are: Narrative Theory and Interpretation.
University Park: Pennsylvania State UP.
McClary, Susan (1997). “The Impromptu that Trod on a Loaf: or How Music Tells
Stories.” Narrative 5, 20–35.
McHale, Brian (2001). “Weak Narrativity: The Case of Avant-Garde Narrative Poetry.”
Narrative 9, 161–67.
Metz, Christian ([1974] 1982). The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cine-
ma. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Nelles, William (1997). Frameworks: Narrative Levels and Embedded Narrative. New
York: Peter Lang.
Newcomb, Anthony (1987). “Schuman and Late-Eighteenth-Century Narrative Strate-
gies.” Nineteenth-Century Music 11, 164–75.
Pavel, Thomas G. (1986). Fictional Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Phelan, James (2005). “Narrative Judgements and the Rhetorical Theory of Narrative:
Ian McEwan’s Atonement.” J. Phelan & P. Rabinowitz (eds). A Companion to Nar
rative Theory. Malden: Blackwell, 322–36.
– (2007). Experiencing Fiction: Judgments, Progressions, and the Rhetorical Theory
of Narrative. Columbus: Ohio State UP.
Pier, John (2008). “After this, therefore because of this.” J. Pier & J. Á. García Landa
(eds). Theorizing Narrativity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 109–40.
Prince, Gerald ([1987] 2003). A Dictionary of Narratology. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P.
– (1999). “Revisiting Narrativity.” W. Grünzweig & A. Solbach (eds). Grenzüber
schreitungen: Narratologie im Kontext / Transcending Boundaries: Narratology in
Context. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 43–51.
– (2000). “Forty-One Questions on the Nature of Narrative.” Style 34, 317–17.
– (2008). “Narrativehood, Narrativity, Narratability.” J. Pier & J. Á. García Landa
(eds). Theorizing Narrativity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 19–27.
Rabinowitz, Peter J. (1987). Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics
of Interpretation. Ithaca: U of Cornell P.
Richardson, Brian (1997). Unlikely Stories: Causality and the Nature of Modern Nar
rative. Newark: U of Delaware P.
Ricœur, Paul ([1980] 1981). “Narrative Time.” W. J. T. Mitchell (ed). On Narrative.
Chicago: U of Chicago P.
– ([1985] 1988). Time and Narration. Vol. 3. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
Ryan, Marie-Laure (1991). Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative The
ory. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Narrativity 327
– (1992). “The Modes of Narrativity and Their Visual Metaphors.” Style 26, 368–87.
– (2004). “Introduction.” M.-L. R. (ed). Narrative across Media: The Languages of
Storytelling. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1–40.
– (2005a). “Media and Narrative.” D. Herman et al. (eds). Routledge Encyclopedia of
Narrative Theory. London: Routledge, 288–92.
– (2005b). “Tellability.” D. Herman et al. (eds). Routledge Encyclopedia of Narra-
tive Theory. London: Routledge, 589–91.
– (2005c). “On the Theoretical Foundations of Transmedial Narratology.” J. Ch.
Meister (ed). Narratology beyond Literary Criticism: Mediality, Disciplinarity.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1–23.
– (2006a). Avatars of Story: Narrative Modes in Old and New Media. Minneapolis:
U of Minnesota P.
– (2006b). “Semantics, Pragmatics, and Narrativity: A Response to David Rudrum.”
Narrative 14, 188–96.
– (2007). “Toward a Definition of Narrative.” D. Herman (ed). The Cambridge Com
panion to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 22–35.
Sacks, Oliver (1985). The Man Who Mistook His Hat for a Wife and Other Clinical
Tales. New York: Summit Books.
Schmid, Wolf (2003). “Narrativity and Eventfulness.” T. Kindt & H.-H. Müller (eds).
What Is Narratology? Questions and Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 17–34.
Scholes, Robert (1982). Semiotics and Interpretation. New Haven: Yale UP.
Stanzel, Franz ([1979] 1984). A Theory of Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Sternberg, Meir (1978). Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction. Bal
timore: Johns Hopkins UP.
– (1992). “Telling in Time (II): Chronology, Teleology, Narrativity.” Poetics Today
13, 463–541.
– (2001). “How Narrativity Makes a Difference.” Narrative 9, 115–22.
– (2003). “Universals of Narrative and their Cognitivist Fortunes (I).” Poetics Today
24, 297–395.
– (2008). “If-Plots: Narrativity and the Law-Code.” J. Pier & J. Á. García Landa
(eds). Theorizing Narrativity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 29–107.
Strawson, Galen (2004). “Against Narrativity.” Ratio n.s 17, 428–52.
Sturgess, Philip J. M. (1992). Narrativity: Theory and Practice. Oxford UP.
Tomaševskij, Boris (Tomashevsky) ([1925] 1965). “Thematics.” L. T. Lemon & M. J.
Reis (eds). Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P,
61–95.
Tynjanov, Jurij ([1927] 1971). “On Literary Evolution.” L. Matejka & K. Pomorska
(eds). Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views. Cambridge:
MIT P, 66–78.
Walsh, Richard (2003). “Fictionality and Mimesis: Between Narrativity and Fictional
Worlds.” Narrative 11, 110–21.
– (forthcoming). “Dreaming and Narrative Theory.” F. Aldama & P. C. Hogan (eds).
Toward a Theory of Narrative Acts. Austin: U of Texas P.
White, Hayden (1973). Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century
Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
328 Narrativity
1 Definition
2 Explication
The French term narratologie was coined by Todorov (1969: 10), who
argued for a shift in focus from the surface level of text-based narrative
(i.e. concrete discourse as realized in the form of letters, words and
sentences) to the general logical and structural properties of narrative
as a univers de représentations (9). Todorov thus called for a new type
of generalizing theory that could be applied to all domains of narrative,
and in fact for a hypothetical “science that does not exist yet; let’s call
it NARRATOLOGY, or science of narrative.”
The neologism alluded to social and natural sciences such as soci
ology and biology (Herman 2005: 19), and its invention by Todorov is
sometimes interpreted as a foundational act. However, the assumption
of a direct link between the history of the concept and the history of the
discipline is misleading: hardly any of the important contributions to
early narratology explicitly associated itself with “narratology” by title
(e.g. Communications 8, 1966; Genette 1972; Prince 1973; Bremond
1973; Culler 1975; Chatman 1978). Bibliometrical analysis of some
4,500 entries listed in the online bibliography of the “Interdisciplinary
Center for Narratology” (ICN) shows that usage of the concept as a
methodological and disciplinary identifier in French, Dutch, German,
and English monographs and journal articles only became popular after
332 Narratology
the publication of Bal’s Narratologie in 1977. The first use of the term
in an English title is found in Ryan (1979) and in a German title in
Schmidt (1989).
One of the reasons for the scientific community’s hesitant accept
ance of the name “narratology” was the proliferation of related and
more general concepts as well as of alternative research agendas con
cerned with narrative. In Germany, the terms Erzähltheorie and
Erzählforschung were already well established and had been in use
since the mid-1950s (Lämmert 1955), which might also explain why
Ihwe’s 1972 attempt to introduce the term “narrativics” (Narrativik)
met with limited success. Among the Russian avant-garde, for whom
poetry dominated literature, the call for a “theory of prose” amounted
to a plea for a revaluation of the other hemisphere, while important
American contributions such as Booth (1961) or Chatman (1978,
1990a) evolved from the tradition of New Criticism and rhetoric. Fi
nally, French narratologists were rooted in structural linguistics and se
miology (Greimas 1966), in logic (Bremond 1973), or in rhetorical and
traditional grammatical categories Genette (1972).
3.2 Precursors
the totality of events taking place in a depicted world and the de facto
narrated plot or muthos. He pointed out that the latter is always a con
struct presenting a subset of events, chosen and arranged according to
aesthetic considerations. This resulted in the Poetics’ functional ap
proach to fictional protagonists and their actions, the latter explained as
governed by the aesthetic and logical requirements of the overall
muthos.
3.2.6.1 Perspective
Early in the last century, the question of narrative → perspective be
came the subject of a poetological controversy initiated by the novelist
and theorist Henry James. He advocated the scenic method of narration
in which narrative perspective is strictly tied to the epistemological
constraints of a particular character, a technique demonstrated particu
larly in The Ambassadors (1903). James’s admirer Lubbock (1921)
postulated that such character-bound “point of view” should in fact be
considered the qualitative standard for narrative prose, thus elevating
James’s technical distinction into one of principle, namely that of
“showing” vs. “telling.” According to Lubbock, a coherent mimetic
representation can only originate from the epistemological point of
view of a character (i.e. from pure “showing”).
Descriptive rather than prescriptive by design, Pouillon (1946)
broadened the scope and distinguished three principal forms defined in
terms of the narrator’s temporal and cognitive stance vis-à-vis the char
acters. Friedman (1955) extended the scope further, proposing a graded
spectrum of eight modes of perspective in which each type is deter-
mined by its ratio of character to narrator-bound sequences. An even
more complex stratified model in which the positions of character and
narrator are correlated in the four dimensions of ideology, phraseology,
spatio-temporal constraints, and psychology of perspective was de
veloped by Uspenskij (1970), a member of the Moscow-Tartu school of
semiotics. The idea has been taken further in Schmid (2005), which
represents the most comprehensive model of perspective to date.
A phenomenological contribution to the theory of perspective was
that of the Austrian Anglicist Stanzel, who identified three proto-typi-
cal “narrative situations” (1955). In the “I narrative situation,” the nar
rator exists and acts within the narrated world; in the “authorial narra-
tive situation,” he is positioned outside the narrated world but domin
ates the process of mediation by commenting on events; in the “figural
narrative situation,” the third-person narrator remains unobtrusive
while the narrative information is filtered through the internal perspec-
tive of the reflector character. Stanzel understood these three narrative
336 Narratology
3.2.6.2 Time
With respect to the category of time, Müller (1948) introduced an
equally fundamental distinction between “narrated time” (erzählte Zeit)
vs. “time of narration” (Erzählzeit). The correlation between the two
dimensions, as he showed, characterizes the pace of a narrative.
This approach was further explored by Lämmert (1955), one of the
first large-scale taxonomies of narrative. For Lämmert, the phenomen-
ology of individual narratives can be traced back to a stable, universal
repertoire of elementary modes of narrating. He distinguished various
types of narration which stretched, abbreviated, repeated, paused and
interrupted, skipped and eliminated sub-sequences, while other types
perfectly imitated the flow of narrated time. (The category of time in
Genette 1972 is examined in similar terms.) Drawing on Lubbock’s
(1921) work as well as on Petsch (1934), Lämmert related these ele
mentary forms of narrative temporality to the principal modes of narra
tion such as scenic presentation, report, reflection, and description. Un
fortunately, the systematic gain of his contribution was hampered by an
overly complex and at times “fuzzy” taxonomy which tries to account
for all forms of narrative flashbacks and flash forwards.
French structuralism eventually gave the decisive impulse for the for-
mation of narratology as a methodologically coherent, structure-ori
ented variant of narrative theory. This new paradigm was proclaimed in
a 1966 special issue of the journal Communications, programmatically
titled “L’analyse structurale du récit.” It contained articles by leading
structuralists Barthes, Eco, Genette, Greimas, Todorov, and the film
theorist Metz.
Three traditions informed the new structuralist approach toward
narrative: Russian Formalism and Proppian morphology; structural lin
guistics in the Saussurean tradition as well as the structural anthropol-
ogy of Lévi-Strauss; the transformational generative grammar of
Chomsky. Against this background, the structuralists engaged in a sys
tematic re-examination of the two dimensions of narrative already iden
tified by Šklovskij, fabula and sujet, re-labeled by Todorov in French
as histoire and discours and by Genette as histoire and récit.
From 1966 to 1972, narratology focused mainly on the former. At
the most abstract level, the semiotician Greimas concentrated on the
elementary structure of signification. Building on Lévi-Strauss’s (1955,
1958) structural analysis of myths, Greimas (1966) proposed a deep-
level model of signification termed the “semiotic square,” which rep
resents the semiotic infrastructure of all signifying systems. The map
ping of this universal deep structure onto a given narrative’s surface
structure can then be explained in terms of transformational rules. Fi
nally, a typology of six functional roles attributable to characters (main
vs. secondary character, opponent vs. helper, sender vs. receiver; cf.
Greimas 1973) complements the approach. Barthes (1966) proposed a
functional systematics of narrated events which distinguishes “ker-
338 Narratology
nels,” i.e. obligatory events that guarantee the story’s coherence, and
optional “satellites” that serve to embellish the basic plot. Todorov
(1969) furthered the linguistic analogy by equating actions to verbs,
characters to nouns and their attributes to adjectives, and then by then
linking these elements through modal operators. This narrative syntax
operates on the abstract level of a narrative langue: instead of account
ing only for the manifest sequence of events represented in a given fic
tional world, this “grammar” also included the logic of virtual action
sequences, e.g. those imagined in a narrated character’s mind.
Bremond (1973) explored the logic of represented action from yet an
other angle, modeling it as a series of binary choices in which an
“eventuality” results in “action” or in “non-action” and, in the former
case, in “completion” or in “non-completion.” The interest in questions
of action logic and narrative grammar was taken up in Prince (1973)
which synthesized and systematized the earlier approaches, and yet
again in Pavel (1985), which combined Bremond’s abstract binary log-
ic with game theory (cf. Herman 2002).
While the theoretical ambition and level of abstraction of early
structuralist models of narrative were impressive, their practical rele-
vance was hard to prove to philologists. Greimassian semantics is a
case in point: used as a descriptive grammar, its categories were
defined with a degree of generality too broad to be faulted; put to the
test as a generative grammar, its yield was too abstract to demonstrate
the necessity or the explanatory power of the transformational process
from semiotic deep structure to the surface structure of narrated events
and characters.
This systematic and methodological gap was addressed by Genette
(1972), who presented a comprehensive taxonomy of discourse phe
nomena developed alongside a detailed analysis of narrative composi
tion and technique in Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu. Broadly
speaking, Genette’s narratological taxonomy covered three functional
domains of literary narrative: the temporal structure and dynamics of
representation (in the dual sense of product and process of representa
tional activity); the mode of narration and its underlying logic of nar
rative communication; and the epistemological and normative con
straints of the gathering and communication of information during the
narrative process. The terminology and neologisms introduced by
Genette in together with his taxonomy soon became the narratological
lingua franca.
In contrast to his formalist predecessors and structuralist colleagues,
Genette had no intention of designing a fully coherent and self-con
tained theory of narrative. This sparked fundamental narratological
Narratology 339
1992; Schlickers 1997; Mittell 2007; Eder 2008), music (Kramer 1991;
Wolf 2002; Seaton 2005; Grabócz forthcoming), the visual and per
forming arts (Bal 1991; Ryan 2003, ed. 2004; → performativity), com
puter games (Ryan 2001, 2006, 2008) as well as other domains. This
broadening of the narratological palette beyond specific media high
lights the necessity for further research on → narrativity.
3.6 Outlook
The diversification of narratology since the 1990s has not only borne
witness to its continued relevance, but it has also underscored the need
to address the problem of methodological identity. What exactly is nar
ratology (cf. Kindt & Müller 2003)? How can it be defined in theo
retical and methodological terms? The need for critical self-reflection
by practicing narratologists can be argued from two angles.
Even during the heyday of poststructuralism, it was observed that
“visits to the tool shed of narratology may be of advantage even to
those making critical theory their main residence” (Hoesterey 1991:
214). However, can conceptual imports taken from structuralist narra
tology retain their theoretical precision and integrity in a foreign meth
odological context, or are they not rather destined to degenerate into
mere metaphoric labels? Descriptive concepts such as mise en abyme
or metalepsis seem to be less at risk (cf. Wolf 2005; Schmid 2005a),
while others―notably the core narratological concept of narrator―re-
sist straightforward appropriation, as film or computer game studies
(e.g. Neitzel 2005) have come to realize.
Yet examples like these also point to a more fundamental issue that
extends beyond the scope of individual concepts. What is the principal
methodological status of the undertaking now that it has transformed
into a “Narratology beyond Literary Studies” (Meister et al. 2005): is
narratology a tool, a method, a program, a theory, or is it indeed a dis
cipline (Schönert 2004)?
Nünning & Nünning’s comprehensive 2002 survey (cf. Nünning
2003) of the multitude of “new narratologies” concluded with a list of
six desiderata, calling for: (a) more studies in the history of narratolo-
gy; (b) concrete examples of narratological analyses of texts; (c) de
tailed theoretical explication of narratological conceptual fundamen-
tals; (d) narratological reconstructions of phenomena relevant to liter
ary history; (e) narratological work in the field of cultural history; (f)
research on intermedial aspects of narrative.
In the intervening years, most of these desiderata have been ad
dressed at least in part. For example, the Russian formalists’ con
Narratology 343
stitutive role has been reconstructed in Schmid (ed. 2009), which in
cludes seminal original texts in (German) translation. Others have in
vestigated historical links between narratology and German Erzähl-
theorie (Cornils & Schernus 2003; Fludernik & Margolin 2004). Narra
tological analyses of texts, films, visual artifacts, etc. were undertaken
starting in the 1970s and continue to nourish narratological reflection
today. Numerous studies―some of them book-length―have been de
voted to fundamental concepts such as event and eventfulness (Schmid
2003), narrativity (Sturgess 1992; Sternberg 2001; Audet et al. 2006;
Pier & García Landa eds. 2008), action (Meister 2003), character (Jan
nidis 2004; Eder 2008) and perspective (Hühn et al. eds. 2009); re
search on procedural aspects of narrative that long remained unnoticed
has emanated from digital media studies (Ryan 2002, 2006).
By contrast, a narratologically based approach in literary history―
called for repeatedly (Bal 1986; Pavel 1990; Nünning 2000; Fludernik
2003, etc.)―is still outstanding. Similarly, the potential for interdiscip
linary cooperation between narratology and text linguistics has also not
been fully exploited yet. After a promising start in the 1970s (van Dijk
1975) this work has been taken up only occasionally (e.g. Adam 1985;
Karlgren & Cutting 1994; Toolan 1988). Recent contributions such as
Adam (2005), Lehmann (2008) or Janik (2008) demonstrate the syn
ergy of this approach.
Contemporary narratology has clearly responded to the call to
broaden the scope of methodology and object domain. At the same
time, the last two desiderata underscore literary narrative’s paradigmat
ic status for the narratological study of narrative representation.
5 Bibliography
– (1986). “Quelle est la faute de l’abbé Mouret? Pour une narratologie diachronique
et polémique.” Australian Journal of French Studies 23, 149–68.
– (1991). Reading “Rembrandt”: Beyond the Word-Image Opposition. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP.
Barry, Jackson G. (1990). “Narratology’s Centrifugal Force: A Literary Perspective on
the Extensions of Narrative Theory.” Poetics Today 11, 295–307.
Barthes, Roland ([1966] 1975) “An Introduction to the Analysis of Narrative.” New Li
terary History 6, 237–72.
Blanckenburg, Christian Friedrich von ([1774] 1965). Versuch über den Roman. Mit
einem Nachwort von Eberhard Lämmert. Faksimile der Originalausgabe. Stuttgart:
Metzler.
Booth, Wayne C. ([1961] 1983). The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
– (2005). “Resurrection of the Implied Author: Why Bother?” J. Phelan & P. Ra
binowitz (eds). A Companion to Narrative Theory. Oxford: Oxford UP, 75–88.
Bordwell, David (1985). Narration in the Fiction Film. London: Methuen.
Branigan, Edward (1992). Narrative Comprehension and Film. London: Routledge.
Bremond, Claude (1973). Logique du récit. Paris: Seuil.
Bringsjord, Selmer & David Ferrucci (1999). Artificial Intelligence and Literary Cre
ativity: Inside the Mind of BRUTUS, a storytelling machine. Mahwah: Erlbaum As
sociates.
Brooks, Peter (1984). Reading for the Plot. Design and Intention in Narrative. Oxford:
Clarendon P.
Chatman, Seymour (1978). Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and
Film. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
– (1990a). Coming to Terms. The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film. Ithaca:
Cornell UP.
– (1990b). “What Can We Learn from Contextualist Narratology”? Poetics Today 11,
309–28.
Cohn, Dorrit (1981). “The Encirclement of Narrative: On Franz Stanzel’s Theorie des
Erzählens.” Poetics Today 2.2, 157–82.
Cornils, Anja (2007). “Une théorie narrative pour les lecteurs? Le chemin de Franz K.
Stanzel vers le ‘structuralisme modéré’.” J. Pier (ed). Théorie du récit. L’apport de
la recherche allemande. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Septentrion, 131–50.
– & Wilhelm Schernus (2003). “On the Relationship between the Theory of the Nov
el, Narrative Theory, and Narratology.” T. Kindt & H.-H. Müller (eds). What Is
Narratology? Questions and Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 137–74.
Culler, Jonathan (1975). Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Stu-
dy of Literature. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
– (1981). “Story and Discourse in the Analysis of Narrative.” J. C. The Pursuit of
Signs. Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 169–87.
Doležel, Lubomír (1988). “Mimesis and Possible Worlds.” Poetics Today 9, 475–96.
Eder, Jens (2008). Die Figur im Film: Grundlagen der Figurenanalyse. Marburg:
Schüren.
Fehn, Ann, et al. eds. (1992). Neverending Stories. Toward a Critical Narratology.
Princeton: Princeton UP.
Narratology 345
Lönneker, Birte, et al. eds. (2005). “Story Generators: Models and Approaches for the
Generation of Literary Artefacts.” Proceedings of the 17th Joint International Con
ference of the Association for Computers and the Humanities and the Association
for Literary and Linguistic Computing, Victoria, BC, Canada, June 15–18, 126–33.
Lubbock, Percy ([1921] 1972). The Craft of Fiction. London: Cape.
Lukács, Georg ([1916] 1993). The Theory of the Novel. A historico-philosophical essay
on the forms of great epic literature. Cambridge: MIT P.
Mateas, Michael & Phoebe Sengers, eds. (2003). Narrative Intelligence. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Meister, Jan Christoph (2003). Computing Action. A Narratological Approach. Berlin:
de Gruyter.
– et al. (2005). “Introduction: Narratology beyond Literary Criticism: Mediality, Dis
ciplinarity.” J. Ch. M. (ed). Narratology beyond Criticism. Mediality, Disciplinar
ity. Berlin: de Gruyter, ix–xvi.
Mittell, Jason (2007). “Film and television narrative.” D. Herman (ed). The Cambridge
Companion to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 156–71.
Müller, Günther (1948). “Erzählte Zeit und Erzählzeit.” Festschrift für Paul Kluckhohn
und Hermann Schneider. Tübingen: Mohr, 195–212.
Neitzel, Britta (2005). “Levels of Play and Narration.” J. Ch. Meister (ed). Narratology
beyond Literary Criticism. Mediality, Disciplinarity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 45–64.
Nünning, Ansgar (2000). “Towards a Cultural and Historical Narratology: A Survey of
Diachronic Approaches, Concepts, and Research Projects.” B. Reitz & S. Rieuwerts
(eds). Anglistentag 1999 Mainz. Proceedings. Trier: WVT, 345–73.
– (2003). “Narratology or Narratologies?” T. Kindt & H.-H. Müller (eds). What Is
Narratology? Questions and Answers Regarding the Status of a Theory. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 239–75.
– & Vera Nünning (2002). “Von der strukturalistischen Narratologie zur ‘postklassi
schen’ Erzähltheorie: Ein Überblick über neue Ansätze und Entwicklungstenden
zen.” A. N. & V. N. (eds). Neue Ansätze in der Erzähltheorie. Trier: WVT, 1–33.
– & Roy Sommer (2008). “Diegetic and Mimetic Narrativity: Some further Steps to
wards a Transgeneric Narratology of Narrative.” J. Pier & J. Á. García Landa (eds).
Theorizing Narrativity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 331–54.
Pavel, Thomas G. (1985). The Poetics of Plot. The Case of English Renaissance
Drama. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.
– (1986). Fictional Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
– (1990). “Narrative Tectonics.” Poetics Today 11, 349–64.
Petsch, Robert (1934). Wesen und Form der Erzählkunst. Halle: Niemeyer.
Pier, John & José Ángel García Landa, eds. (2008). Theorizing Narrativity. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Pouillon, Jean (1946). Temps et roman. Paris: Gallimard.
Prince, Gerald (1973). A Grammar of Stories. An Introduction. The Hague: Mouton.
– (1980). “Aspects of a Grammar of Narrative.” Poetics Today 1, 49–63.
– ([1987] 2003). A Dictionary of Narratology. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P.
– (1990). “On Narratology (Past, Present, Future).” French Literature Series 17, 1–
14.
348 Narratology
Wolf, Werner (2002). “Das Problem der Narrativität in Literatur, bildender Kunst und
Musik: ein Beitrag zu einer intermedialen Erzähltheorie.” V. Nünning & A. Nün
ning (eds). Erzähltheorie transgenerisch, intermedial, interdisziplinär. Trier: WVT,
23–104.
– (2004). “‘Cross the Border―Close that Gap’: Towards an Intermedial Narrato
logy.” European Journal of English Studies 8, 81–103.
– (2005). “Metalepsis as a Transgeneric and Transmedial Phenomenon. A Case Study
of the Possibilities of ‘Exporting’ Narratological Concepts.” J. Ch. Meister (ed).
Narratology beyond Literary Criticism. Mediality, Disciplinarity. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 83–107.
1 Definition
2 Explication
Plato was the first to claim that the underlying difference between nar
rative and drama as basic types of discourse consists in the difference
between directly showing and indirectly telling or reporting, rooted in
the absence or presence respectively of a mediating instance between
the characters’ speech and the audience. And the narrator is precisely
this mediating instance. Modern arguments for mediacy as the generic
hallmark of narrative can be found in Friedemann (1910) and Stanzel
(1955). In contemporary narratology it is customary to distinguish
between three functions which are essential to give rise to any narra-
tive: doing, seeing and saying (Bal 1981: 45). Thus, characters do cer
tain things which are viewed from a certain perspective, and what is
seen is then reported. To these three functions there correspond three
roles: narrative agent, focalizer (which has been a subject of scholarly
controversy) and narrator. Baxtin’s (1934/35) influential theory of the
Narrator 353
Some narrators are more marked and individuated than others. But
what are the minimal textual conditions under which one could identify
a distinct narrating position or voice? Such conditions could be repre-
sented as a hierarchical series. The text must be capable of being natu-
ralized as representing one or more reporting utterances or speech acts
stemming from one or more agents. Some texts, classified as narratives
in our culture, such as unframed interior monologues (Schnitzler’s
Fräulein Else) or textes-limites of modernism or postmodernism, do
not satisfy this requirement and consequently cannot be considered as
possessing any inscribed originators. The second condition is that it
should be possible to demarcate the utterances of which the text con
354 Narrator
sists and assign each of them to a distinct voice or originator. (It is only
in rare cases that all utterances recorded in a text were originally made
by one speaker at one time.) The third condition is that one should be
able to determine the hierarchical relations between the different utter
ances and their originators, as defined by such questions as who can
quote whom, who can refer to whom and who can report about whom
(Margolin 1991), but also to determine the total number of such origi-
nators and levels of speech in the text. Finally, and most crucially, one
should be able to identify a single, highest-level originator of all origi-
nators, so to speak: one general, primary or global textual narrating
voice, such that (a) the text as a whole can be seen as a macro speech
act or utterance emanating from that voice, and (b) all textually occur
ring utterances originating with other speakers are embedded within
this macro speech act, that is, are merely quoted or mentioned in it.
There is no algorithm for deciding whether any or all of the above con
ditions are satisfied by a given text even though readers make such de
cisions semi-intuitively all the time. The muse who provides the an
swer to the epic question at the beginning of the Iliad is the earliest
Western example of such a global narrator, but this occurs also with
the anonymous voices relating the whole of War and Peace or Père
Goriot. When it is not possible to identify a single highest-level narra-
tor, we are dealing with multi-narrator narratives (Faulkner’s As I Lay
Dying or The Sound and the Fury, Orhan Pamuk’s My Name is Red) in
which different textual segments consist of reports stemming from dif
ferent speakers, none of whom occupy a position higher than the oth
ers. “Narrator” in the prototypical sense, however, designates the
single, unified, stable, distinct human-like voice who produces the
whole narrative discourse we are reading. In general, although not uni
versally, this discourse assumes the shape of an account of independ
ently existing and known facts. Going one step further, the narrator can
be envisioned as a fictional agent who is part of the story world and
whose task it is to report from within it on events in this world which
are real or actual for him (Thomson-Jones 2007: 78).
3.3.1 Knowledge
Once a global narrator has been identified in a discourse, all informa
tion about the narrated domain, including characters’ direct discourse,
originates with that narrator. Now the knowledge a narrator may have
about any of the characters may be restricted to what can be garnered
from sense impressions, or it may include direct access to their minds,
something not possible outside fiction (® focalization). Even if re-
stricted to external data, a narrator may know more, the same as or less
than one or more of his characters, and he may also withhold informa
tion from his addressee. One egregious example is Agatha Christie’s
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, where the narrator withholds the crucial
information that he himself is the murderer. Some, but by no means all,
anonymous narrating voices telling their story in the third-person past
tense are endowed with omniscience: “Familiarity, in principle, with
the characters’ innermost thought and feelings; knowledge of past, pre-
sent and future; presence in locations where characters are supposed to
be unaccompanied […]; and the knowledge of what happened in sever
al places at the same time” (Rimmon-Kenan [1983] 2003: 96). And
such panoramic or Olympian knowledge can be fully authoritative, not
open to any challenge or enquiry. This is the maximal degree and kind
Narrator 359
of knowledge any narrator can possess, and the possibility of any nar
rating instance possessing such knowledge is the most basic con
stitutive convention of all fiction writing. As soon as the narrator be
comes personalized, knowledge claims begin to be restricted in scope
and kind to the humanly possible (unless the speaker is a supernatural
entity) and are open to modalization (“it seems,” “probably,” “as far as
can be known”) and thus the challenge of limited epistemic authority.
Because of their rhetorical needs, authors sometimes endow personal
ized narrators with intermittent omniscience. The highly personalized
narrator of Proust’s first-person novel À la Recherche du temps perdu
can thus on occasion report with certainty about what another person
thought or what happened when someone was all by himself.
3.3.2 Reliability
Personalized narrators, and only personalized ones, may on occasion be
deemed by the reader as unreliable, meaning that the validity of some
or even all claims made by them is low or non-existent, that these
claims need consequently to be rejected and, if possible, replaced by
more valid, reader-formulated ones regarding the given topic. (Notice,
though, that if the narrator is cast in the role not of a reporter of facts
but of an inventor of tales, unreliability is inapplicable [Walton 1990:
374–75].) Following Phelan & Martin (1999), one can distinguish three
axes of unreliability: facts and events of the narrated domain; the inter
pretation of such facts (i.e. supplied inferences, explanations or motiva
tions); moral, practical, aesthetic, etc. judgments and evaluations of
these facts. While the first two kinds of reliability are epistemic, the
third is clearly axiological and normative. Moreover, unreliability of
factual claims is the most radical, since it may prevent us from figuring
out what the narrative world was “really” like. A narrator may himself
alter the reliability of any of his claims by citing lack of information or
inability on his part to fathom things. There are numerous indicators of
narratorial factual unreliability (cf. D’hoker & Martens eds. 2008) in
cluding paratextual and intertextual elements such as title (Diary of a
Madman) or a narrator figure falling clearly under a codified unreliable
literary type (picaro, scoundrel). In multiple narrator texts (3.4), con
flicts between the reports on the same events by different narrators in
dicate that at least one of them is unreliable. In realistic literature, a
major clash between our world knowledge (extra-textual information)
and claims made by the narrator may also serve as such an indicator
(Hansen 2007). Inner-textual indicators of factual unreliability are in
consistency and incongruity between claims made by the narrator re
garding the same events, while illogicality, invalid or non-sequitur in
360 Narrator
3.3.4 Articulateness
Under this heading is understood the manner of telling, especially those
stylistic choices that help characterize the speaker’s discourse and, by
metonymic transfer, the speaker’s mind as sophisticated, abstract, com
plex and rational or their opposite, finely nuanced or simplistic, emo
tional and immediate or rational and distanced, and so on. While such
qualifications cannot be strictly defined in any systematic and exhaus-
tive manner, they form an important part of our personality sketch of
the narrator as perceiver, chronicler and analyst of the narrated world.
Our corresponding judgment of him as intelligent and perceptive or not
will have a decisive influence on our assessment of his credibility and
ultimately on how much of what he claims about the narrated domain
we are ready to accept.
Caesar in De bello gallico). The reasons for such a deictic shift are nu
merous and local, but the transfer can never encompass the whole text;
otherwise, it will not be identifiable.
The issue in the context of fiction writing is the relation between the
textually inscribed originator of the narrative discourse and the actual
person(s) who has (have) composed or written the text. Both textual
features and the cultural codes of reading play a role here. When the
textually inscribed narrator is individuated in terms of proper name and
key attributes (age, sex, location) which are markedly different from
the author’s, we tend to say that the author is the mere producer of the
words or sentences on the page which are turned into propositions and
utterances, claims and reports once they are ascribed to the textually in
scribed speaker. By producing the words on the page, the author has
given rise in such cases to a substitutionary speaker who performs the
macro speech act of reporting and who is solely responsible for all
claims, specific and general, made in his report (on this issue, Ryan
1981; Martínez-Bonati 1996). The same named and individuated teller
may even serve as the narrator on the highest intradiegetic level in sev
eral works by the same author (Conrad’s Marlow, Hemingway’s Nick
Adams).
What do we do, however, if the highest textual speaker position is
occupied by a wholly non-individuated narrator, an anonymous voice?
Most contemporary theories of narrative assume a logical necessity of
positing a narrating voice distinct from the author, even in cases of an
effaced narrator, since only such a voice could proclaim as true the nar
rative propositions contained in the text. But there have always been
dissenting voices. Hamburger (1957), for example, has argued that one
can meaningfully speak of a narrator figure only in first-person narra-
tives, while in all other cases the narrator is a mere metonymy for a
narrative textual function. Banfield (1982) has argued on linguistic
grounds that the notion of narrator is meaningful only in cases of overt,
foregrounded narration, such as the skaz. And finally, Walsh (1997:
507, 511) has claimed that in the absence of a marked narrator, it is the
real author who makes the claims, both specific and general, contained
in the text, but in a ludic (pretense) mode.
A number of further distinctions should be made here. Claims by an
anonymous narrating voice involving mental access to others serve as
indicators that this is a work of fiction and also as a good reason not to
identify this voice with the author, but treat it instead as a substitution
366 Narrator
are objective inner-textual indicators. Why has this view emerged only
recently, and is the resistance to it associated with the implied author
postulate?
5 Bibliography
Margolin, Uri (1986). “The Doer and the Deed.” Poetics Today 7, 206–25.
– (1986/87). “Dispersing/Voiding the Subject.” Texte 5/6, 181–210.
– (1991). “Reference, Coreference, Referring, and the Dual Structure of Literary Nar
rative.” Poetics Today 12, 517–42.
Martínez-Bonati, Félix (1996). “On Fictional Discourse.” C.-A. Mihailescu & W.
Hamarneh (eds). Fiction Updated. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 65–75.
Nelles, William (2005). “Embedding.” D. Herman et al. (eds). Routledge Encyclopedia
of Narrative Theory. London: Routledge, 134–35.
Nünning, Ansgar (1989). Grundzüge eines kommunikationstheoretischen Modells der
erzählerischen Vermittlung. Trier: WVT.
– (2001). “Mimesis des Erzählens.” J. Helbig (ed). Erzählen und Erzähltheorie im
20. Jahrhundert. Heidelberg: Winter, 13–47.
Petersen, Jürgen H. (1993). Erzählsysteme. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Phelan, James & Mary Patricia Martin (1999). “The Lessons of Weymouth.” D. Her
man (ed). Narratologies: New Perspectives on Narrative Analysis. Columbus: Ohio
State UP, 88–109.
Prince, Gerald (1982). Narratology: The Form and Function of Narrative. Berlin:
Mouton.
Richardson, Brian (2006). Unnatural Voices. Columbus: Ohio State UP.
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith ([1983] 2003). Narrative Fiction. Contemporary Poetics.
London: Methuen.
Ryan, Marie-Laure (1981). “The Pragmatics of Personal and Impersonal Fiction.”
Poetics 10, 517–39.
– (2001). “The Narratorial Functions.” Narrative 9, 146–52.
Schmid, Wolf (2005). Elemente der Narratologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Spielhagen, Friedrich ([1883] 1967). Beiträge zur Theorie und Technik des Romans.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Stanzel, Franz ([1955] 1971). Narrative Situations in the Novel: Tom Jones, Moby-
Dick, The Ambassadors, Ulysses. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Thomson-Jones, Katherine (2007). “The Literary Origins of the Cinematic Narrator.”
British Journal of Aesthetics 47, 76–95.
Walsh, Richard (1997). “Who is the Narrator?” Poetics Today 18, 495–513.
Walton, Kendall (1990). Mimesis as Make-believe. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Yacobi, Tamar (1981). “Fictional Reliability as a Communicative Problem.” Poetics
Today 2.2, 113–26.
Marcus, Amit (2008). “A Contextual View of Narrative Fiction in the First Person
Plural.” Narrative 16, 46–64.
Nünning, Ansgar, ed. (1998). Unreliable Narration. Trier: WVT.
Patron, Sylvie (2009). Le Narrateur. Introduction à la théorie du récit. Paris: Armand
Colin.
Phelan, James (2001). “Why Narrators Can be Focalizers—and Why it Matters.” W.
van Peer & S. Chatman (eds). New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Albany:
State U of New York P, 51–64.
Tacca, Oscar (1985). Voces de la novela. Madrid: Gredos.
Performativity
Ute Berns
1 Definition
The terms “performativity” and “performance” derive from the verb “to
perform.” They denote the capacity to execute an action, to carry some
thing out actually and thoroughly, as well as to do according to pre
scribed ritual. “To perform” may also be used in the sense of “to per
form an artistic work,” i.e. to act in a play, to play an instrument, to
sing or dance. In narratology, performativity denotes modes of present
ing or evoking action. A performance, i.e. the embodied live presenta
tion of events in the co-presence of an audience at a specific place and
time, is performative in the narrow sense: performativity I. Here the
audience experiences the actors and the action directly, i.e. visually and
acoustically at a minimum. Performance can take place in the real
world (as in a wedding ceremony or a court trial) or it can depict fic
tional events (as in a theater performance). Verbal or visual scripts can
prepare the performance in playtexts and stage directions, film scripts
and choreographic sketches. These may also detail gestures, facial ex
pressions and voice. In a wider sense, the term performativity can also
be applied to non-corporeal presentations, e.g. in written narratives:
performativity II. Here performativity refers to the imitation or illusion
of a performance. In this case, readers reconstruct the performance di
mension in their minds―the performance is imagined.
In systematic terms, actions can be conveyed on two different levels
of the presentational process. They can be located, first, on the level of
histoire (the story that is presented). This aspect of performativity is
called “performativity I.i or II.i.” Here the spectator’s or reader’s atten
tion is directed to the actions taking place in the story, actions that can
be conveyed with varying degrees of immediacy. Secondly, the actions
can be located on the level of the narration (the narrator’s act of medi
ation). This is called “performativity I.ii or II.ii.” In this case, the
reader’s or spectator’s attention is directed to the act of narration itself,
or to the actions of the narrator, which can be foregrounded to a greater
or lesser degree. When the performativity of the act of narration is con
371 Performativity
2 Explication
2007). Nevertheless, the intensity with which they are experienced may
vary. The spatial proximity between performance and audience as well
as the possible manipulation of light and sound bear on this experience.
The impact of styles of acting or ritualized behavior within given con
ventions of presenting and viewing may also enhance or lessen the im
pact of performativity in a performance. Disciplines that study the per
formativity of narratives in cultural or theatrical performances rarely
draw on narratology, although they do focus on the performativity of
narratives in a wider, communicational and context-sensitive frame
work. Ethnographic and anthropological work (Turner 1982) investi-
gates the way in which a society performatively constructs, preserves
or changes its traditions, identity and cultural memory. Theater and
performance studies (Auslander ed. 2003) complement this research as
they analyze the processual nature and liminality of these performative
constructions, i.e. their capacity to dramatize moments of transition and
change. These studies emphasize the significance of material embodi
ment and re-contextualization, paying attention to the impact of fore
grounded theatricality, audience interaction and the transitoriness of
the performance (Fischer-Lichte 2004).
However, studies of oral narratives presented by a corporeal teller
tend to focus on performativity I.ii, i.e. on the level of the narrator’s
agency rather than on the story level, as they investigate how narratives
produce―in a performative and interactive manner―individual and
group identity on a pragmatic and cultural plane. Since Labov (1972),
research on oral narrative and face-to-face narration in linguistic dis
course analysis and sociolinguistics has been concerned with specific
characteristics of the oral format. More recent investigations have be
come increasingly sensitive to cultural contexts, analyzing how narra-
tive performances constitute or index individual, social and cultural
identities (Georgakopoulou 1997: 123–97), as well as roles, relation
ships, stances and activities (→ identity and narration). Moreover,
some analyses of the provisional character of narratives-in-perform
ance indicate that the act of narration, understood as a social, commu
nicational event, acquires collaborative aspects. From an ethnological
perspective, Bauman (1986) looks at narrators in closely-knit commu-
nal settings and shows how the narrated events are shaped in the narra-
tive event. And the sociolinguists Ochs & Capps (2001) analyze how
performances of provisional narratives negotiate the teller’s desire for
coherence and identity while acknowledging contradictory human ex
periences in open collaborative forms of narration. This focus on oral
narratives as performative modes of embodied social communication
375 Performativity
guishes between pure narrative, mixed narrative and dialogue, and pure
dialogue. In contrast to Plato, however, Aristotle (1448b, 5–20) en
dorses the mimetic mode specified by Plato on account of its strong im
itative force, which, he argues, gives pleasure and is pedagogically
valuable. On this account, he lauds Homer’s epic writing for its gener
ous use of the mimetic mode (1460a, 5–10).
The major classical authorities thus describe the dramatic genre as
performative because it presents the story in an unmediated or direct
manner. This description has been repeated throughout critical appre-
ciations of the genre, leading Pfister ([1977] 1993: 4) to draw attention
to the “absolute nature” or unmediated presentation as a necessary cri
terion in his classic model of dramatic communication. Yet Pfister ad
mits that unmediated or “absolute” presentation is an idealization, and
in fact research on forms of mediation to be found in drama has greatly
expanded (see below).
Performativity in the sense of direct or mimetic performativity can
also become a feature of narratives that are regarded as mediated such
as short stories or novels. In the 18th century, readers juxtaposed the
“dramatic illusion” (performativity II.i) attributed to Richardson’s nov
els and the “epic” impact (performativity II.ii) ascribed to the work of
Fielding who foregrounds the narrator. In 19th-century definitions, nar
rative realism had to be “dramatic,” “impersonal,” or “objective.” And
in the early 20th century, the mimetic mode of “showing” as opposed to
the diegetic mode of “telling” turns into a well-nigh obligatory and de
fining characteristic of modernist writing and poetics. Henry James
([1909] 1986: 45–51) gives explicit priority to modes of immediacy
such as rendering the characters in their own voices or portraying the
events through their eyes and minds in order to achieve empathy and a
“scenic” impression of life. At about the same time, Lubbock ([1921]
1957: 200) attempted an extensive analysis of the methods of presenta
tion involved in the creation of this illusion of an immediate encounter
with “life,” which “gives validity, gives direct force to a story.” Histo-
ricizing the modernist era’s normative aesthetics, Lodge (1996) sug
gests that its adherence to a mimetic manner of representation has giv
en way, in postmodernist fiction, to a preference for the mediated, die
getic mode.
Without using the term, Booth and Genette both take a closer look
at the concept of performativity underlying these normative assump
tions. Though opposing showing and telling, Booth points out that au
thorial agency is not conveyed merely in addresses to the reader or in
comments and direct judgments, but also through the direct speech of
reliable characters, the ordering of the narrative discourse or through
377 Performativity
As this brief survey has shown, the notion of performativity cuts across
a wide spectrum of fruitful research in narratology that calls for more
systematic investigation. Rather than aiming to replace the categories
that have served to label some of this research so far (“mimesis,” “aes
thetic illusion,” “metanarrativity,” etc.), such investigations could fur
ther explore the relations between them. For instance, this survey sug
gests that the concept of performativity could serve as an ideal site for
studying the interrelation between the degree of narrative performativi-
ty in visual or verbal forms of presentation and the more or less de
terminate visual and kinesthetic mental performance taking place in the
mind of the reader or spectator. How do different media or specific cul
tural environments affect this interrelation? Furthermore, the survey in
dicates that the concept of performativity and the two levels of narra-
tive to which it refers provide a distinct inroad into research on written
narratives. In this perspective, investigation into the textual illusion of
scenic presentation and the textual illusion of orality can be pursued as
accounts of complementary types of textual performativity. At the
same time, the capacity of speech acts to shape gendered as well as so
cial or cultural identities (Butler 1997) seems to merit closer analysis in
written narratives, too.
Yet the concept of performativity also introduces a theoretical
query. In narratology, the notion of performativity is indebted both to
the concept of the speech act and to the concept of performance.
Speech act analysis, when restricted to verbal narratives, demands a
certain degree of idealized formalization, while the analysis of per
formance deals with highly contingent and embodied interactions as
processes. The relation between these two points of reference and their
381 Performativity
5 Bibliography
Genette, Gérard ([1972] 1983). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca: Cor
nell UP.
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra (1997). Narrative Performances: A Study of Modern
Greek Storytelling. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Herman, David (1999). “Toward a Socionarratology: New Ways of Analyzing Natural-
Language Narratives.” D. H. (ed). Narratologies: New Perspectives. Columbus:
Ohio State UP, 218–46.
Hutcheon, Linda (1984). Narcissistic Narrative: The Metafictional Paradox. New
York: Methuen.
Iser, Wolfgang ([1972] 1974). The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in
Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
– ([1991] 1993). The Fictive and the Imaginary: Charting Literary Anthropology.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
Jahn, Manfred (2001). “Narrative Voice and Agency in Drama: Aspects of a Narrato
logy of Drama.” New Literary History 32, 659–79.
James, Henry ([1909] 1986). “Preface to the New York Edition.” H. J. The Ambassa-
dors. London: Penguin.
Kearns, Michael (1999). Rhetorical Narratology. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P.
Labov, William (1972). Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Ver
nacular. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P.
Lanser, Susan Sniader (1981). The Narrative Act: Point of View in Prose Fiction.
Princeton: Princeton UP.
– ([1999] 2004). “Sexing Narratology: Toward a Gendered Poetics of Narrative
Voice.” M. Bal (ed). Narrative Theory: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural
Studies. London: Routledge, vol. 3, 123–39.
Lodge, David (1996). “Mimesis and Diegesis in Modern Fiction.” M. J. Hoffman &
P. D. Murphy (eds). Essentials of the Theory of Fiction. Durham: Duke UP, 348–
71.
Loxley, James (2007). Performativity. London: Routledge.
Lubbock, Percy ([1921] 1957). The Craft of Fiction. London: Viking.
MacLean, Marie (1988). Narrative as Performance: The Baudelairean Experiment.
London: Routledge.
McAuley, Gay (2007). “State of the Art: Performance Studies.” SemiotiX 10.
[http://www.semioticon.com/semiotix/semiotix10/sem-10-05.html]
Nünning, Ansgar (2001). “Mimesis des Erzählens: Prolegomena zu einer Wirkungsäs
thetik, Typologie und Funktionsgeschichte des Akts des Erzählens und der Me
tanarration.” J. Helbig (ed). Erzählen und Erzähltheorie im 20. Jahrhundert: Fest
schrift für Wilhelm Füger. Heidelberg: Winter, 13–47.
– & Roy Sommer (2008). “Narrative and Drama.” J. Pier & J. Á. García Landa (eds).
Theorizing Narrativity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 331–54.
Ochs, Elinor & Lisa Capps (2001). Living Narrative: Creating Lives in Everyday
Storytelling. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Page, Ruth E. (2006). Literary and Linguistic Approaches to Feminist Narratology.
Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Petrey, Sandy (1988). Realism and Revolution: Balzac, Stendhal, Zola, and the Per
formances of History. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
383 Performativity
Pfister, Manfred ([1977] 1993). The Theory and Analysis of Drama. Cambridge: Cam
bridge UP.
– (2001). Laurence Sterne. Horndon: Northcote House.
– (2005) “‘As an unperfect actor on the stage’: Notes Towards a Definition of Per
formance and Performativity in Shakespeare’s Sonnets.” E. Müller-Zettelmann &
M. Rubik (eds). Theory Into Poetry: New Approaches to the Lyric. Amsterdam:
Rodopi, 207–28.
Plato (1997). “Republic.” Complete Works. Ed. J. M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Pratt, Mary Louise (1977). Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse. Bloom
ington: Indiana UP.
Rudrum, David (2008). “Narrativity and Performativity. From Cervantes to Star Trek.”
J. Pier & J. Á. García Landa (eds). Theorizing Narrativity. Berlin: de Gruyter, 253–
76.
Schmid, Wolf (2005). Elemente der Narratologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Searle, John R. ([1969] 1995). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
– (1975). “The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse.” New Literary History 6, 319–
32.
Sternberg, Meir (1982). “Proteus in Quotation-Land: Mimesis and the Forms of Re-
ported Discourse.” Poetics Today 3, 107–56.
Todorov, Tzvetan ([1978] 1990). Genres in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Turner, Victor (1982). From Ritual to Theater: The Human Seriousness of Play. New
York: PAJ.
Wolf, Werner (2003). “The Lyric―An Elusive Genre: Problems of Definition and a
Proposal for Reconceptualization.” Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 28,
59–91.
5. 2 Further Reading
Butler, Judith (1990). “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phe
nomenology and Feminist Theory.” S.-E. Case (ed). Performing Feminisms: Fem
inist Critical Theory and Theater. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 270–83.
Felman, Shoshana ([1980] 2003). The Scandal of the Speaking Body: Don Juan with
J.L. Austin, or, Seduction in Two Languages. Stanford: Stanford UP.
Fishelov, David (1989). Metaphors of Genre: The Role of Analogies in Genre Theory.
University Park: Pennsylvania State UP.
Gaudreault, André ([1990] 2004). “Showing and Telling: Image and Word in Early
Cinema.” M. Bal (ed). Narrative Theory: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultur
al Studies. London: Routledge, vol. 4, 359–67.
Nünning, Ansgar (2004). “On Metanarrative: Towards a Definition, a Typology and an
Outline of the Functions of Metanarrative Commentary.” J. Pier (ed). The Dynam
ics of Narrative Form. Berlin: de Gruyter, 11–57.
van Haesenbrouck, Karel, ed. (2004). Performance. Online-Journal Image & Narrative
No 9 www.imageandnarrrative/performance/performance.htm.
Wirth, Uwe, ed. (2002). Performanz: Zwischen Sprachphilosophie und Kulturwissen
schaften. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Perspective/Point of View
Burkhard Niederhoff
1 Definition
2 Explication
the following example: “A long time ago, little Stephen Dedalus, an in
habitant of Dublin, was eagerly listening to a story told to him by his
father.” But a narrator may also tell the story from the point of view of
a character, as is shown by Joyce’s A Portrait of the Artist as a Young
Man; the Joycean narrator adopts the perspective of little Stephen: “His
father told him that story: his father looked at him through a glass: he
had a hairy face” ([1916] 1926: 7). The point of view of a small child is
indicated by the simple, repetitive syntax and by the periphrases
“glass” for monocle and “hairy face” for beard.
Perspective is a complex and controversial concept, as is attested by
the proliferation of rival metaphors such as “reflector” (James [1908]
1972: 247), → “focalization” (Genette 1972), “slant,” “filter,” and “in
terest-focus” (Chatman 1990), or “window” (Jahn 1996; Fludernik
1996). One source of confusion and controversy, which is related to the
spatio-visual origin of the term, is the ambiguity of the attributes “ex
ternal” and “internal,” pointed out by a number of scholars (e.g. Edmis
ton 1991: 155) but ignored by many more. In narratology, these terms
are not used with reference to well-defined spaces (inside or outside a
box) but with reference to minds (inside or outside a character’s con
sciousness). However, the boundaries of a mind are less easily deter-
mined than those of a box. A character’s consciousness can be direct-
ed inwards, as in meditation, but it can also be directed outwards, as in
perception. In the latter case, the “internal” perspective pulls us straight
back into the “external” world. A further difficulty is that the terms
may refer both to points from which the action is viewed and to re
gions that are viewed from these points. Describing a point of view as
“external,” for example, suggests that we are viewing a character from
the outside, from a spatial and possibly from an emotional and ideolo
gical distance. But this does not tell us how far our vision extends. In
the case of the so-called camera perspective, it is extremely limited: we
only learn what a newcomer to the scene might observe and thus have
no way of knowing what the character feels or thinks. In the case of so-
called omniscient narration, our vision is not limited at all. We have ac
cess to the character’s thoughts and feelings, including subconscious
ones, as well as to every other conceivable region of the storyworld.
Thus it is important, in analyzing perspective, to indicate not only a
point or position from which the events are viewed, but also the kind of
mind located at this position and the kind of “privilege” (Booth [1961]
1983: 160–63) this mind enjoys, i.e. its access, or lack of such, to the
different regions of the storyworld.
A second reason why perspective is a difficult concept has been
pointed out by Lanser. “Unlike such textual elements as character, plot,
Perspective/Point of View 386
telling them what to think about it. Booth delivers a trenchant critique
of such claims in The Rhetoric of Fiction (1961), arguing that the eli-
mination of ideology envisaged by the advocates of showing is a delu
sion. Narrative has, as the title of his book implies, a rhetorical dimen
sion: it communicates views and values. Doing so in an overt way, with
a visible narrator making explicit comments, is just as legitimate as do
ing so in a covert way, by opting for a first-person narrator or adopting
the point of view of a character. In a similar vein, Weimann (1962)
traces the historical development from narrators who speak their minds
to narrators who adopt the point of view of a character; to Weimann,
this development is a story of decadence and decline. Twenty years
after these critics, Lanser (1981) restates their arguments with some
new inflections. While Weimann argues from a Marxist standpoint,
Lanser is inspired by feminism, and where Booth draws on rhetoric to
situate the techniques of fiction within a broader framework, Lanser re
lies on speech act theory. Furthermore, she is no longer concerned with
repudiating Lubbock and Friedman, but rather responds to structural
ists such as Chatman and Genette. These differences notwithstanding,
Lanser continues the case made by Booth and Weimann in that she en
dorses a study of point of view that includes its socio-political implica
tions and the writer’s ideological agenda.
A model that has been highly influential in the German-speaking
world is Stanzel’s typological circle, which was first proposed in 1955
and presented in its most elaborate form in 1979 (tr. 1984). In this ver
sion, the circle is organized around three diametrical lines (see illustr.).
They represent three criteria, each of which results in a binary opposi
tion yielding two terms: mode (narrator vs. reflector); perspective (in
ternal vs. external); person (identity vs. non-identity of the narrator’s
and the characters’ realms, i.e. first person vs. third person). The six
terms resulting from the three criteria are placed at equidistant points
on the typological circle. Three of them define the “narrative situa-
tions” that are privileged in that, empirically speaking, most extant nar
ratives cluster around them. The external perspective corresponds to
the authorial situation, the reflector mode to the figural situation, and
the identity of the realms of existence of narrator and characters to the
first-person situation. Thus each narrative situation is defined by one of
the poles in the binary opposition resulting from the three criteria and
also, to a lesser extent, by the two adjacent poles. The figural situation,
for example, consists in the dominance of the reflector mode and is ad
ditionally characterized by an internal perspective and by the non-iden
tity of the worlds of narrator and character ([1979] 1984: 55).
389 Perspective/Point of View
Stanzel has always been given credit as an eloquent critic; his typo
logical system, however, has not won much approval. Cohn, for ex
ample, points out that the criteria of mode and perspective are so close
that they can be regarded as equivalent: a reflectorial mode implies an
internal perspective, a narratorial mode an external one (1981: 176–80;
cf. Genette [1983] 1988: 78–9). Cohn and other critics, such as Leib
fried (1970: 246), have also suggested that Stanzel should allow for a
free combination of his oppositions instead of enclosing them in a
circle. This is especially obvious in the case of first-person narration,
which comes in two different forms: an authorial one, in which narra-
tors tell the story as they see it at the time of the narration, i.e. with
hindsight; and a figural one, in which they render it the way they expe-
rienced it as characters in the story. In the typological circle, these two
forms can be accommodated only as intermediate cases between the
narrative situations, which is awkward. While it makes sense to posit a
range of transitional cases between the authorial and the figural situa-
tion, no such range exists between the I-situation and the two other
situations. A narrative may be a perfect example of both first-person
and figural narration. Cohn, for one, has shown that free indirect
thought, a form of thought presentation associated with the figural nar
rative situation, occurs in first-person narrative (1978: 166–72).
Perspective/Point of View 390
reveal them, rendering the story in the camera mode, the reader will at
tribute thoughts and feelings to him or her in the process of reading
(Fludernik 2001a: 103).
A comprehensive treatment of focalization or perspective in first-
person narrative is given by Edmiston, who comes to the following
conclusions (1991: 168): zero focalization is possible (but has to be re
garded as an infraction of a literary norm); internal focalization is also
possible, with the experiencing I as the point-of-view character; extern
al focalization in the Genettean sense is not an option, but there is the
additional option of telling the story from the point of view of the nar
rating I (for which Edmiston enlists the now-unemployed term of ex
ternal focalization). While these conclusions do not precisely confirm
the homological model suggested by Genette, they would appear to
corroborate his general stance of allowing for a relatively free combi-
nation of narrator and point-of-view options. It should also be kept in
mind that the case for a restriction of point of view or focalization in
first-person narrative is always based on the knowledge of the narrator.
This, however, is only one facet or parameter of point of view. Further
more, this case rests on rather commonsensical or realistic assump
tions. Since most of us are willing to abandon such assumptions when
it comes to narrative content, it is hard to see why we should be less
broad-minded about narrative discourse. If we are willing to be enter
tained by invisibility cloaks, we should not demur at first-person nar
rators who are omniscient.
In addition to the debate about the applicability of Genette’s classi
fication of focalizations to first-person narration, there has also been a
more general debate about the triple nature of this typology. Most nar
ratologists seem to prefer a dual model to a triple one: see, e.g., Bal
([1985] 1997: 148), Vitoux (1982), Rabatel (1997) or Schmid ([2005]
2008: 137–38), all of whom distinguish, in different terms, between a
narratorial and a figural perspective. What is eliminated from these
dual typologies is the camera mode (Genette’s external focalization),
which, however, has been defended by Broich (1983). Interestingly,
even some of those who are skeptical about the camera mode make
subordinate concessions or distinctions which would appear to indicate
that this mode is not a figment of the narratological imagination. While
Bal compensates for the elimination of Genette’s external focalization
by introducing the concept of the focalized object, Vitoux grants the
narrator a “play of focalization” (359), which includes external focal-
ization as one of its options. Finally, Rabatel allows for an external vi-
sion both within narratorial and figural focalization (101–02).
Perspective/Point of View 392
(a) It has been observed that camera narration alias external focaliza
tion is employed only for part of a text, very often the beginning. It
395 Perspective/Point of View
5 Bibliography
1 Definition
2 Explication
In the Western tradition, concern with the reader has a long history. It
goes back to Plato (e.g. the attack against the negative influence of po
etry) and Aristotle (the concept of catharsis), famously manifests itself
in Horace, Longinus, the Greco-Roman rhetoricians and their descend
ants, is found throughout the Renaissance, and persists in the modern
period. In fact, though it decreased with the New Criticism’s focus on
the text itself and denunciation of the intentional and affective fal
399 Reader
3.1 Precursors
whose views and beliefs s/he must agree in order to enjoy that text. By
emphasizing the rhetorical dimension of fiction, Booth departed from
the New Critical formalist stance and its attention to texts severed from
their authors and readers. Ingarden belonged to a very different tradi
tion, since it is as a phenomenologist that he considered questions of
poetics and esthetics. As early as 1931, he studied the ways in which
readers (adequately) realize or concretize a work of art, the ways in
which they transform a text or mere series of sentences into an esthetic
object by filling gaps or places of indeterminacy in that text. As for
Sartre, in seeking to define literature and the necessary commitment it
constitutes and entails, he argued that writers write for their time, for
real, historical readers whose freedom they address and depend upon
rather than for universal, eternal, ideal readers. He further argued that
writing and reading are intimately connected and that the literary object
results from their combined action. Indeed, he insisted that, while every
text contains the image of the reader toward whom it is directed, every
concrete reader is a creator, necessary for the renewed emergence of
the literary object and situated between what is given by the writer and
what is not.
While Iser was more interested in narrative fiction than in narrative and
drew mainly on phenomenology to elaborate his implied reader, Eco
(1979) explicitly claimed to be interested in narrativity (12) and drew
primarily on semiotics to develop the model reader (7–10). Paradoxi-
cally, the latter resembles the Iserian figure in many ways. According
to Eco, a text is the result of two components, the information which
the author supplies and the information which the model reader adds
and which is more or less strictly determined by the author’s input
(206). The model reader, which corresponds to the set of felicity condi
tions that must be satisfied for the text’s potential to be actualized (11),
removes indeterminacies. It fills in blanks with (modifiable and re
placeable) sets of propositions or “ghost chapters” (214–15) that derive
from codes, conventions, interpretive procedures, and knowledge shar-
ed with the author. Though Eco may not always succeed in distinguish
ing clearly between the model reader and actual readers (including
himself as reader), between description, interpretation, and prescrip
tion, his analysis, like that of Iser, directs attention to the play of narra-
tive semiosis. More notably, through its characterization of “ghost
chapters” and the “possible worlds” they constitute, it underlines the
role of virtuality in narrative and foreshadows significant developments
in narrative semantics (Ryan 1991: 169–74).
whom s/he assigns various characteristics and abilities) and from such
interpretive notions as superreaders, informed readers, or competent
readers (inscribed in the text, it may, in fact, prove incompetent and un
informed). It is constituted and signified by textual signs of the “you”
narrated to (just as the narrator is constituted and signified by textual
signs of the “I” narrating): second-person pronouns and other forms of
address designating that “you” as well as signs functioning in more in
tricate ways, such as negative passages explicitly contradicting its
stated beliefs or correcting its mistakes and metanarrative explanations
emphasizing the gaps in its understanding or knowledge. Analyzable
along the same lines as narrators, narratees can prove more or less
(temporally, intellectually, morally, emotionally) distant from the latter
and more or less prominent, dramatized, familiar with the situations
and events narrated, or changeable. As part of the makeup of any nar
rative—and in addition to representing a fundamental link and relay
between real author and real reader, calling attention to the communi-
cation circuits within texts, and allowing for a more precise typology of
narrative based on the kind of audience they constitute—they always
help to characterize narrators through their links with them and can
contribute to plot development as well as underscore various themes.
Besides the narratee, Prince (1982: 103–43) discussed the real readers
of narratives and the act of reading narratively—stressing not only the
constraints imposed by the text, but also the ways in which the readers’
nature, interests, and goals partly determine the assumptions they make
about texts, the questions they ask of them, the answers they formulate
—and he also discussed how (narrative) texts partly read themselves,
as it were, by commenting explicitly on some of their constituents
(1980).
audience for whom the narrator (rather than the real author or the im
plied author) wishes s/he were narrating, and the narrative audience for
whom s/he is narrating. As opposed to the actual audience and the au
thorial audience, the narrative audience considers the represented char
acters and events to be real and believes that the fiction narrated is a
history. As opposed to the narratee, it is not so much a figure “out
there” in the text as a role that the text asks (or requires) the real reader
to play. Rabinowitz’s model was largely adopted by Booth ([1961]
1983: 422–31) and clarified by Phelan (1996: 135–53). It not only con
stitutes a tool for discussing various kinds of mimetic effects, various
types of narrative ambiguity, various sources of misreading, but also
captures the interplay of different belief systems at work in the act of
reading narrative fiction.
Alhough the prominence of reader-oriented criticism began to abate
by the mid-1980s, partly because many of its views of texts, their inter
pretation, and their evaluation became commonplace, interest in read
ers and reading continues to be significant (cf. Nardocchio ed. 1992;
Machor & Goldstein eds. 2001; Schweickart & Flynn ed. 2004; Schmid
2007). In the area of narrative study, in particular, second-person nar
rative (and its blurring of distinctions between, say, the protagonist, the
narratee, and the narrative audience) has been further explored
(Fludernik ed. 1994), different manifestations of textual audiences have
been further examined (Richardson 1997), and the reader’s gradual
construction of narrative meaning has been further investigated (Ka
falenos 2006). Through the integration of research in cognitive science
and discourse processing, “natural” narratology has linked readers’ nar
rativization of texts with parameters derived from their real-life experi
ence (Fludernik 1996); psychonarratology has studied the psychologi-
cal factors and operations underlying readers’ immersion in and under
standing of narrative (Gerrig 1993; Bortolussi & Dixon 2003); → cog
nitive narratology has aimed to analyze and characterize narrative sit-
uations and moves in terms of scripts, → schemata, and preference-rule
systems activated during the reading process (Jahn 1997); and, in gen
eral, postclassical narratology has paid considerable attention to the in
terface between narratives and their readers (Herman 2002).
5 Bibliography
1 Definition
2 Explication
The terms used in this area have historically been highly variable and
differ across disciplines. The term “schema” is often used as a super-
ordinate label for a broad range of knowledge structures, including
frames, scenarios, scripts and plans, as described below. “Schema” is
also used as a synonym for “frame” (Minsky 1975) to refer to mental
repre-sentations of objects, settings or situations. A restaurant
schema/frame, for example, would contain information about types of
restaurants, what objects are to be found inside a restaurant, and so on.
The term “scenario” is also sometimes used for situational knowledge
(Sanford & Garrod 1981). A “script” (Schank & Abelson 1977) is a
temporally-ordered schema; it describes a reader’s knowledge of ste
reotypical goal-oriented event sequences “that define a well-known
situation” (422), so that a restaurant script would contain knowledge of
412 Schemata
the actions and sequence of ordering food, paying bills, and so on. In
addition to a sequence of events, most scripts have further “slots” to
describe the “roles” (customers, waiters, chefs, etc.), “props” (menu,
table, food, money, bill, etc.), “entry conditions” (customer is hungry,
restaurant has food, etc.) and “results” (customer is no longer hungry,
restaurant has less food, etc.) within the script. A “plan” (Schank &
Abelson 1977) consists of knowledge about sets of actions needed to
accomplish objectives and is used in non-stereotypical situations where
there is no adequate script available.
Linguists, psychologists and narrative scholars employ schema the
ory to account for the interpretation of a text where the discourse itself
does not provide all the information necessary for the discourse to be
processed. Consider the following example: “John went to a restaurant
for lunch. He ordered a salad, had a coffee and then went to the park
for a walk.” This short text cannot describe all the actions, activities
and situational information which a reader requires to comprehend it.
Schemata and scripts supply the gaps in reader knowledge (that, for ex
ample, a restaurant is a place which serves food, that food once ordered
is supplied, and that one must pay before leaving). The general notion
of gap-filling has long been recognized in literary studies. Ingarden
(1931) refers to “spots of indeterminacy,” an idea later adopted by Iser
(1976), and Sternberg (1978, 1985) discusses “expositional gaps.” Re
search in Artificial Intelligence on schemata adds a detailed explana
tion of how inferences are made by utilizing generic knowledge in pro
cessing specific parts of a text. As schemata are situational and so
cioculturally dependent, some readers may supply more information
from their schemata than others.
Schemata are therefore essential for establishing the → coherence
of a text. Furthermore, schemata are dynamic (Schank 1982) to the ex
tent that they accumulate details and are altered in the course of experi
ence. If changing circumstances and new events contradict existing
schemata or make them appear inadequate in a relatively minor way,
they can be “tuned” (Rumelhart 1980: 52) to accommodate new gener
alizations. The relationship between texts and schemata is two-way:
while schemata tend to lay the ground rules for how a discourse will be
interpreted, discourses themselves may prompt readers to “tune” exist
ing schemata and create new ones (Rumelhart & Norman 1978; Cook
1994: 182–84).
Schemata 413
Some schema researchers (e.g. Cook 1994; Semino 1997) trace the
philosophical notion of schemata back to Immanuel Kant. Another
antecedent is Gestalt theory in psychology (Wertheimer 1923, 1925;
Köhler 1930; Koffka 1935). Also in psychology, Bartlett (1932) used
the term (which he credits to the earlier work of the neurologist Sir
Henry Head) to explain speakers’ unknowing alteration of folktale de
tails during retellings, with such alterations being made in line with the
speakers’ schemata. In literary theory in the 1930s, Ingarden (1931) ar
gued that there was a stratum of “schematized aspects” in the percep
tion of literary works of art. After a lull of many years, schema theory
re-emerged in the 1970s and 1980s, when schemata were refined within
Artificial Intelligence as mental constructs of knowledge derived from
an individual’s experience and learning (in this sense often called
“frames,” e.g. Minsky 1975). While scripts were first identified by
Schank & Abelson (1977), the focus of their work was mainly on com
putational aspects of comprehension. Bower et al. (1979) then provided
evidence within cognitive psychology that readers employed scripts
during their processing of a discourse. Later, Schank (1982) employed
scripts in more detail as dynamic tools for discourse processing, break
ing scripts down into component parts (Memory Organization Packets,
MOPs) which could be combined into larger structures when required.
In narrative studies, schema theory has been important not only for
its role in explaining gap-filling in reading, as discussed above, but also
in relation to a reader’s knowledge of the overall structure of stories,
termed “story schemata” (e.g. Rumelhart 1975; Mandler & Johnson
1977; Mandler 1984), the cognitive equivalent of text-based story
grammars. According to their proponents, story schemata contain sets
of expectations about how stories will continue, although some psy-
chologists (e.g. Black & Wilensky 1979; Johnson-Laird 1983) have
questioned whether special cognitive structures are required beyond
general reasoning. Knowledge of the form of texts has also been stud
ied in the analysis of “super-coherence,” de Beaugrande’s (1987) term
for thematic awareness, in postulating schemata for specific genres
(Fludernik 1996; Herman 2002) and in the examination of knowledge
of intertextual links (Eco 1984; Genette 1982).
Schema theory has also been used to construct new theories about
the nature of narrative. Fludernik (1996) employs it to redefine nar
rativity (→ narrativity), suggesting that cognitive parameters which are
“constitutive of prototypical human experience” (12) are the main cri
teria for what makes a story a story, not action sequences as tradition
414 Schemata
5 Bibliography
Bordwell, David (1989). Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpreta
tion of Cinema. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Bower, Gordon, John B. Black & Terrence J. Turner (1979). “Scripts in Memory for
Text.” Cognitive Psychology 11, 177–220.
Branigan, David (1992). Narrative Comprehension and Film. London: Routledge.
Bruner, Jerome (1991). “The Narrative Construction of Reality.” Critical Inquiry 18,
1–21.
Cook, Guy (1994). Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind. Ox
ford: Oxford UP.
de Beaugrande, Robert (1987). “Schemas for Literary Communication.” L. Halász (ed).
Literary Discourse: Aspects of Cognitive and Social Psychological Approaches.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 49–99.
Eco, Umberto (1984). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts.
Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Emmott, Catherine (1997). Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective. Ox
ford: Oxford UP.
– (2006). “Reference: Stylistic Aspects.” K. Brown (ed). Encyclopedia of Language
and Linguistics, 2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier, vol. 10, 441–50.
– Anthony J. Sanford & Marc Alexander (forthcoming). “Scenarios, Role Assump
tions, and Character Status: Readers’ Expectations and Writers’ Manipulations of
Expectations in Narrative Texts.” F. Jannidis, R. Schneider & Jens Eder (eds).
Characters in Fictional Worlds: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ferguson, Heather J. & Anthony J. Sanford (2008). “Anomalies in Real and Counter
factual Worlds: An Eye-Movement Investigation.” Journal of Memory and Lan
guage 58, 609–26.
Fludernik, Monika (1996). Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London: Routledge.
Fowler, Roger ([1986] 1996). Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Genette, Gérard ([1982] 1997). Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Lincoln:
U of Nebraska P.
Gerrig, Richard J. (1993). Experiencing Narrative Worlds: On the Psychological Acti-
vities of Reading. New Haven: Yale UP.
Herman, David (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln:
U of Nebraska P.
Hidalgo-Downing, Laura (2000). Negation, Text Worlds, and Discourse: The Pragmat
ics of Fiction. Stamford: Ablex.
Hühn, Peter & Jens Kiefer (2005). The Narratological Analysis of Lyric Poetry: Stu-
dies in English Poetry from the 16th to the 20th Century. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ingarden, Roman ([1931] 1973). The Literary Work of Art: An Investigation on the
Borderlines of Ontology, Logic and Theory of Literature. Evanston: Northwestern
UP.
Iser, Wolfgang ([1976] 1978). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Jeffries, Lesley (2001). “Schema Theory and White Asparagus: Cultural Multilingual
ism among Readers of Texts.” Language and Literature 10, 325–43.
Johnson-Laird, Philip (1983). Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
418 Schemata
Koffka, Kurt (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trubner.
Köhler, Wolfgang (1930). Gestalt Psychology. London: Bell.
Lotman, Jurij ([1970] 1977). The Structure of the Artistic Text. Ann Arbor: U of Michi-
gan P.
Mandler, Jean M. (1984). Scripts, Stories and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
– & Nancy S. Johnson (1977). “Remembrance of Things Parsed: Story Structure and
Recall.” Cognitive Psychology 9, 111–51.
McCabe, Allyssa & Carole Peterson, eds. (1991). Developing Narrative Structure.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Miall, David S. (1989). “Beyond the Schema Given: Affective Comprehension of Lite-
rary Narratives.” Cognition and Emotion 3, 55–78.
Mills, Sara (1995). Feminist Stylistics. London: Routledge.
Minsky, Marvin (1975). “A Framework for Representing Knowledge.” P. H. Winston
(ed). The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill, 211–77.
Nieuwland, Mante S. & Jos J. A. van Berkum (2006). “When Peanuts Fall in Love:
N400 Evidence for the Power of Discourse.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
19, 1098–111.
Palmer, Alan (2004). Fictional Minds. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P.
Rumelhart, David E. (1975). “Notes on a Schema for Stories.” D. G. Bobrow & A. Col-
lins (eds). Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New
York: Academic P, 211–35.
– (1980). “Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition.” R. Spiro, B. Bruce & W.
Brewer (eds). Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Hillsdale: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 33–58.
– & Donald A. Norman (1978). “Accretion, Tuning and Restructuring: Three Modes
of Learning.” J. W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (eds). Semantic Factors in Cognition.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 37–53.
Sanford, Anthony J. & Simon C. Garrod (1981). Understanding Written Language:
Explorations in Comprehension Beyond the Sentence. Chichester: Wiley.
Schank, Roger C. (1982). Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
– & Robert P. Abelson (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Semino, Elena (1997). Language and World Creation in Poems and Other Texts. Lon
don: Longman.
– (2006). “Mind Style.” K. Brown (ed). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics,
2nd edition. Oxford: Elsevier, vol. 8, 142–8.
Simpson, Paul (2003). On the Discourse of Satire: Towards a Stylistic Model of Satir
ical Humour. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sternberg, Meir (1978). Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction. Bal
timore: Johns Hopkins UP.
– (1985). The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of
Reading. Bloomington: Indiana UP.
Schemata 419
Stockwell, Peter (2003). “Schema Poetics and Speculative Cosmology.” Language and
Literature 12.3, 252–71.
Werth, Paul (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. Lon
don: Longman.
Wertheimer, Max ([1923] 1938). “Laws of Organization in Perceptual Forms.” W. D.
Ellis (ed). A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 71–88.
– ([1925] 1938). “Gestalt Theory.” W. D. Ellis (ed). A Source Book of Gestalt
Psychology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1–11.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the Arts and Humanities Research Council
for funding for this work, which was conducted as part of the STACS
Project (Stylistics, Text Analysis and Cognitive Science: Interdisciplin
ary Perspectives on the Nature of Reading).
Space
Marie-Laure Ryan
1 Definition
Kantian philosophy regards time and space as the two fundamental cat
egories that structure human experience. Narrative is widely recog
nized as the discourse of human experience (Fludernik 1996); yet most
definitions, by characterizing stories as the representation of a se
quence of events, foreground time at the expense of space. Events,
however, are changes of state that affect individuated existents, which
are themselves bodies that both occupy space and are situated in space.
Representations of space are not necessarily narratives—think of geo
graphical maps, landscape paintings, etc.—but all narratives imply a
world with spatial extension, even when spatial information is withheld
(as in Forster’s: “The king died, and then the queen died of grief”). The
inseparability of space and time in narrative is suggested, among other
ideas, by Baxtin’s (1938) polysemic concept of chronotope, by Werth’s
(1999) “text world,” by Herman’s (2005) “storyworld,” and by Ge-
nette’s (1972) “diégèse.” All of these concepts cover both the space-oc
cupying existents and the temporally extending events (→ event and
eventfulness) referred to by narrative discourse.
When speaking of space in narratology and other fields, a distinc
tion should be made between literal and metaphorical uses of the
concept. As an a-priori form of intuition, space is particularly difficult
to capture in its literal sense. The OED defines it, somewhat tautologi-
cally (since it uses the spatial concept “within”), as “the dimensions of
height, width and depth within which all things exist.” The Cambridge
Dictionary of Philosophy’s more mathematical definition avoids tautol-
ogy, but its greater abstraction does not capture our intuitive sense of
space as the universal container of things: “An extended manifold of
several dimensions, where the number of dimensions corresponds to
the number of variable magnitudes needed to specify the location in the
manifold” (DiSalle [1996] 1999: 866–67).
Many of the spatial concepts developed in literary and cognitive
theory (→ cognitive narratology) are metaphorical because they fail to
421 Space
2 Explication
All of these levels are described here from a static perspective as the
final products of interpretation, but they are progressively disclosed to
the reader through the temporal unfolding of the text. We may call the
dynamic presentation of spatial information the textualization of space
(cf. Zoran’s “textual level” of space). This textualization becomes a
narrativization when space is not described for its own sake, as it
would be in a tourist guide, but becomes the setting of an action that
develops in time.
2.3 The Space that Serves as Context and Container for the Text
Narratives are not only inscribed on spatial objects, they are also sit-
uated within real-world space, and their relations to their environment
go far beyond mimetic representation. When a nonfictional story is told
where it happened, gestures and deictic elements may be used to point
to the actual location of events. By telling us how certain striking land
scape features came into being or what happened on certain sites, nar
ratives of myth, legend and oral history build a “spirit” of place, what
the Romans called genius loci. In aboriginal Australia, stories, known
as song lines, marked salient landscape features and helped people re
member routes through what may look to outsiders as a monotonous
desert. Another form of spatial situatedness for narrative are museum
commentaries transmitted though earphones: each part of the text
relates to a certain object, and users must coordinate playing the tape
with their own progression through the space of the exhibit. With his
torical landscapes, memorial areas or heritage sites, the spatial situation
of the narrative corresponds to the real-world location of the commem
orated events, and the design of the visitor’s tour must take into consid
eration the constraints of historical reality (Azaryahu & Foote 2008).
More recently, GPS and wireless technology have made it possible to
create stories on mobile phones, attach them to particular geographic
locations, upload them on the Internet, and make them accessible only
to people who happen to be in the right place (Ryan 2003a). Whereas
ordinary print narratives are nomadic texts that can be taken anywhere
because they describe absent objects, the new digital technologies re
connect stories with physical space by creating texts that must be read
in the presence of their referent.
The term “spatial form” was introduced by the literary critic Frank
(1945) to describe a type of narrative organization characteristic of
modernism that deemphasizes temporality and causality through com
positional devices such as fragmentation, montage of disparate ele
ments, and juxtaposition of parallel plot lines. The notion of spatial
form can be extended to any kind of design formed by networks of se
mantic, phonetic or more broadly thematic relations between non-adja
cent textual units. When the notion of space refers to a formal pattern,
425 Space
of the body, up and down are the most prolific sources of metaphors:
e.g. happy is up, sad is down; more is up, less is down; etc. Front and
back are mainly used as metaphors of time: in our culture, the future is
ahead and the past is behind. Other spatial schemata that provide im
portant sources of metaphors are the conduit, the journey, the path, and
the container (space as a whole can be seen as a container). Though
these approaches are not specifically narratological, they can be ap
plied to narrative texts as well as to poetry or to language in general. A
case in point is Dannenberg’s (2008) study of the spatial schemata of
the portal and the container in narrative scenes that involve the recogni
tion of identity. On a meta-narrative level, the blending of two common
metaphors, “life is a story” and “life is a journey,” produces a wide
spread spatial conceptualization of narrative as a journey (Mikkonen
2007).
rator, or it may move across a certain area that contains several charac
ters as the focus of the discourse alternates between different individu
als. In film (→ narration in film), the presentation of space encounters
the problem of giving the spectator a sense of what lies beyond what is
framed by the current screen, and of how the individual frames are in
terconnected. This can be done through techniques such as panning and
zooming, mounting a camera on a moving support, providing a shot es
tablishing a general location before zooming in, or showing the same
location in a shot-reverse shot sequence from the perspective of differ
ent characters.
On the macro-level, spatial information can be organized according
to two basic strategies: the map and the tour (Linde & Labov 1975),
also known as the survey and the route. In the map strategy, space is
represented panoramically from a perspective ranging from the disem
bodied god’s eye point of view of pure vertical projection to the pano-
ramic view of an observer situated on an elevated point. In this mode of
presentation, space is divided into segments and the text covers them in
systematic fashion, e.g. left to right, north to south, front to back. The
tour strategy, by contrast, represents space dynamically from a mobile
point of view. Thus an apartment will for instance be described room
by room, following the itinerary of somebody who is showing the
apartment. In contrast to the pure vision of the map view, the tour sim
ulates the embodied experience of a traveler. Of the two strategies, the
tour is the more common in narrative fiction, although some postmod
ern texts have experimented with the map view: e.g. Georges Perec’s
La Vie mode d’emploi describes the parallel lives of the inhabitants of
an apartment building by jumping across the building as if the narrator
were a knight on a chessboard—a strategy that presupposes a map-like
vertical projection—rather than creating a natural walkthrough.
As readers or spectators progress through the narrative text, they
gather spatial information into a cognitive map or mental model of nar
rative space (Ryan 2003b). Through a feed-back loop effect, these
mental models, which are built to a large extent on the basis of the
movements of characters, enable readers to visualize these movements
within a containing space. Mental maps, in other words, are both dy
namically constructed in the course of reading and consulted by the
reader to orient himself in the narrative world. The various landmarks
shown or mentioned in the story are made into a coherent world
through an awareness of the relations that situate them with respect to
each other. To understand events, the reader may for instance need to
know that the hero’s house is located on the town square and close to
the harbor. But media that temporalize the release of information, such
Space 428
tain house is bigger on the inside than on the outside, and the inside is
the gateway to a seemingly infinite alternative space where horrific
events occur; even so, readers can still draw on their normal experience
of space in some regions of the narrative world, despite its topological
heterogeneity.
5 Bibliography
DiSalle, Robert ([1996] 1999). “Space.” R. Audi (ed). The Cambridge Dictionary of
Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 866–67.
Fauconnier, Gilles (1985). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural
Language. Cambridge: MIT P.
– (1997). Mapping in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Fludernik, Monika (1996). Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London: Routledge.
Frank, Joseph ([1945] 1991). “Spatial Form in Modern Literature.” J. F. The Idea of
Spatial Form. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP.
Friedman, Susan Stanford (1993). “Spatialization: A Strategy for Reading Narrative.”
Narrative 1, 12–23.
Genette, Gérard ([1972] 1980). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca: Cor
nell UP.
Herman, David (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln:
U of Nebraska P.
– (2005). “Storyworld.” D. Herman et al. (eds). Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative
Theory. London: Routledge, 569–70.
Hofstadter, Douglas (1979). Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New
York: Vintage Books.
Jenkins, Henry (2004). “Game Design as Narrative Architecture.” N. Wardrip-Fruin et
al. (eds). First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Cambridge:
MIT P, 118–30.
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: U of Chica
go P.
Linde, Charlotte & William Labov (1975). “Spatial Networks as a Site for the Study of
Language and Thought.” Language 51, 924–39.
Lotman, Jurij M. ([1970] 1977). The Structure of the Artistic Text. Ann Arbor: U of
Michigan P.
McCloud, Scott (1993). Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: Harper
Perennials.
Mikkonen, Kai (2007). “The ‘Narrative is Travel’ Metaphor: Between Spatial Sequence
and Open Consequence.” Narrative 15, 286–305.
Pavel, Thomas (1986). Fictional Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Ronen, Ruth (1986). “Space in Fiction.” Poetics Today 7, 421–38.
Ryan, Marie-Laure (1991). Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence and Narrative The
ory. Bloomington: U of Indiana P.
– (2003a). “Cyberspace, Cybertexts, Cybermaps.” Dichtung Digital.
[http://www.dichtung-digital.org/2004/1-Ryan.htm]
– (2003b). “Cognitive Maps and the Construction of Narrative Space.” D. Herman
(ed). Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford: CLSI, 214–42.
– (2006). “From Parallel Universes to Possible Worlds: Ontological Pluralism in
Physics, Narratology and Narrative.” Poetics Today 27, 633–74.
Schneider, Ralph (2001). “Towards a Cognitive Theory of Literary Character: The Dy
namics of Mental-Model Construction.” Style 35, 607–40.
Steiner, Wendy ([1988] 2004). “Pictorial Narrativity.” M.-L. Ryan (ed). Narrative
across Media: The Languages of Storytelling. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 145–77.
Turner, Mark (1996). The Literary Mind. New York: Oxford UP.
433 Space
1 Definition
2 Explication
3.1 Genealogy
Lips 1926). In English, FID has also been called “narrated monologue”
(Cohn) and “represented speech and thought” (Banfield); Israeli schol
ars call it “combined discourse.” A prescient critique of grammar-based
descriptions of FID was mounted as early as 1929 by Vološinov, Bax
tin’s collaborator and/or alter ego. However, Vološinov’s contribution
dropped out of sight until the “rediscovery” of the Baxtin circle in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, and in the meantime the forms of speech
representation continued to be treated less as narratological than as
grammatical phenomena, whether according to traditional models of
grammar (e.g. Ullmann 1957) or in terms of the transformational-gen
erative paradigm (Banfield 1982).
Over the course of the 20th century, scholars of FID gradually ex
panded the range of what had initially been perceived as a rather local
and specialized phenomenon limited to third-person (heterodiegetic)
literary narratives. It was identified in first-person, second-person, and
present-tense contexts as well as in non-literary prose and oral narra-
tive (Todemann 1930; Cohn 1969; Fludernik 1993: 82–104), and its
historical roots were pushed back to the Middle Ages and earlier. Apart
from the Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages, it has been attested
in Hungarian, Finnish, Japanese, and Chinese, among others (Steinberg
1971; Coulmas ed. 1986; Hagenaar 1992; Tammi & Tommola eds.
2006). Above all, it has come to be recognized not only as a tool for
regulating distance from a character―from empathetic identification at
one extreme to ironic repudiation at the other―but also as one of the
primary vehicles of what modernist poetics taught us to call the stream
of consciousness.
Stream of consciousness is best thought of not as a form but as a
particular content of consciousness, characterized by free association,
the illusion of spontaneity, and constant micro-shifts among percep
tion, introspection, anticipation, speculation, and memory (Humphrey
1954; Friedman 1955; Bickerton 1967). It can be realized formally by
first-person “autonomous” interior monologue (as in Molly Bloom’s
soliloquy from Ulysses, or the first three sections of Faulkner’s The
Sound and the Fury), or by FID (as in Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as
a Young Man,or Virginia Woolf’s Mrs.Dalloway and To the Light
house), or indeed by a combination of means. Modernist innovations in
stream of consciousness technique seemed to monopolize the agenda of
scholarly investigation of the representation of consciousness for much
of the 20th century, at least until Cohn (1978) reasserted the importance
and ubiquity of less “glamorous” techniques, such as psycho-narration.
Since then, cognitive narratologists in particular have taken up the
challenge of investigating the presence of consciousness in fiction out
Speech Representation 438
3.2 Mimesis
3.3 Voices
ID) the voice of the narrator is combined with that of the character
(hence “combined discourse”) or superimposed on it. “It partook, she
felt, helping Mr. Bankes to a specially tender piece, of eternity”: in this
famous sentence from To the Lighthouse, the parenthetical clause (“she
felt, helping Mr. Bankes,” etc.) introduces a plane of narratorial com
ment that ironizes Mrs. Ramsay’s experience of eternity. (Or does it?
This is actually an interpretative crux in the novel.) Irony of this kind
seems best accounted for in terms of the dual-voice hypothesis (Uspen-
skij 1973: 102–5).
With the rediscovery of the Baxtin circle, the dual-voice analysis of
FID, already anticipated by Vološinov (1929), came to be viewed in the
light of wider phenomena of dialogue in the novel. According to Bax
tin and his school, the text of the novel is shot through with more or
less veiled dialogues between voices that “speak for” social roles, ide-
ologies, attitudes, etc. The forms of dialogue range from outright par
ody and stylization to implicit rejoinders and veiled polemics (Baxtin
1929). FID is folded in among these categories, reflecting as it does
(according to the dual-voice hypothesis) the internal dialogization of
the sentence of speech representation itself.
Related to the Baxtinian approach, but less ideologically driven, and
capable of much finer-grained analyses, is Schmid’s model of Textin-
terferenz (1973, 2005: 177–221; see also Doležel 1973; de Haard
2006). The Textinterferenz approach treats speech representation as a
matter of interference or interaction between two texts, the narrator’s
text and the character’s text. Textual segments display varying kinds
and degrees of interaction between these two texts, depending upon
how various features are distributed between the narrator’s and the
character’s voices. These features include thematic and ideological (or
evaluative) markers; grammatical person, tense and deixis; types of
speech acts (Sprachfunktion); and features of lexical, syntactical and
graphological style. In DD, all the markers point to the character’s
voice. In ID, person, tense and syntax can be assigned to the narrator’s
text, while thematic and ideological markers, deixis, and lexical style
point to the character’s voice; the speech-act level points both direc
tions. Finally, in FID, person and tense evoke the narrator’s text, while
all the other features can be assigned to the character’s text.
In the light of dialogism and Textinterferenz, speech representation
comes to be reconceived as only more or less discrete instances of the
pervasive heteroglossia of the novel, its multiplicity of voices (Bax
tin 1934/35). According to the Baxtinian account, samples of socially-
inflected discourse―styles, registers, regional and social dialects, etc.
with their associated attitudes and ideologies―are dispersed through
441 Speech Representation
3.4 Minds
This is a far cry from the carving up of blocks of prose into discrete
units labeled DD, ID, FID. Nevertheless, it is not as unprecedented a
development as some cognitive narratologists have claimed. For in
stance, the analysis of informational gaps and gap-filling, as practiced
by exponents of the Tel Aviv school (Perry & Sternberg 1968; Perry
1979), is every bit as finely attuned to characters’ ventures in mind-
reading and the thought-action continuum as anything to be found in
the new cognitivist narratology (Palmer 2004: 182). But if cognitive
narratology sometimes overestimates its own novelty and underrates its
precursors, this does not prevent it from standing at the cutting edge of
research into the representation of fictional mind at the present time.
5 Bibliography
Kalepky, Theodor (1899). “Zur französischen Syntax.” Zeitschrift für romanische Phi
lologie 2, 491–513.
– (1913). “Zum ‘style indirect libre’ (‘verschleierte Rede’).” Germanisch-Romani
sche Monatsschrift 5, 608–19.
Kenner, Hugh (1978). Joyce’s Voices. Berkeley: U of California P.
Koževnikova, Natal’ja A. (1971). “O tipax povestvovanija v sovetskoj proze.” Voprosy
jazyka sovremennoj russkoj literatury. Moskva: Nauka, 97–163.
LaCapra, Dominick (1982). Madame Bovary on Trial. Ithaca: Cornell UP.
Leech, Geoffrey N. & Michael H. Short (1981). Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduc
tion to English Fictional Prose. London: Longman.
Lerch, Eugen (1914). “Die stylistische Bedeutung des Imperfektums der Rede (‘style
indirect libre’).” Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 6, 470–89.
Lips, Marguerite (1926). Le Style indirect libre. Paris: Payot.
Lorck, Etienne (1914). “Passé defini, imparfait, passé indefini I, II et III.” Germanisch-
Romanische Monatsschrift 6, 43–57, 100–13, 177–91.
Mäkelä, Maria (2006). “Possible minds: Constructing―and reading―another con
sciousness as fiction.” P. Tammi & H. Tommola (eds). FREE language INDIRECT
translation DISCOURSE narratology. Tampere: Tampere UP, 231–60.
McHale, Brian (1978). “Free Indirect Discourse: A Survey of Recent Accounts.” PTL:
A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 3, 249–78.
– (1983). “Unspeakable Sentences, Unnatural Acts: Linguistics and Poetics Revi-
sited.” Poetics Today 4, 17–45.
– (1994). “Child as Ready-Made: Baby-Talk and the Language of Dos Passos’s Chil
dren in U.S.A.” E. Goodenough et al. (eds). Infant Tongues: The Voice of the Child
in Literature. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 202–24.
Page, Norman (1973). Speech in the English Novel. London: Longman.
Palmer, Alan (2004). Fictional Minds. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P.
Pascal, Roy (1977). The Dual Voice: Free Indirect Speech and Its Functioning in the
Nineteenth-Century European Novel. Manchester: Manchester UP.
Perry, Menakhem (1979). “Literary Dynamics: How the Order of a Text Creates its
Meaning.” Poetics Today 1.1–2, 35–64, 311–61.
– & Meir Sternberg ([1968] 1986). “The King Through Ironic Eyes: Biblical Narra-
tive and the Literary Reading Process.” Poetics Today 7, 275–322.
Ron, Moshe (1981). “Free Indirect Discourse, Mimetic Language Games and the Sub
ject of Fiction.” Poetics Today 2.2, 17–39.
Schmid, Wolf ([1973] 1986). Der Textaufbau in den Erzählungen Dostoevskijs. Am-
sterdam: Grüner.
– (2005). Elemente der Narratologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Spitzer, Leo ([1922] 1961). “Sprachmengung als Stilmittel und als Ausdruck der
Klangphantasie.” L. S. Stilstudien II. München: Hueber, 84–124.
Stanzel, Franz K. ([1979] 1984). A Theory of Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Steinberg, Günther (1971). Erlebte Rede: ihre Eigenart und ihre Formen in neuerer
deutscher, französischer und englischer Erzählliteratur. Göppingen: Kümmerle.
Sternberg, Meir (1982). “Proteus in Quotation-Land: Mimesis and the Forms of Re-
ported Discourse.” Poetics Today 3, 107–56.
Speech Representation 446
Tammi, Pekka & Hannu Tommola, eds. (2006). FREE language INDIRECT transla
tion DISCOURSE narratology: Linguistic, Translatological and Theoretical En
counters. Tampere: Tampere UP.
Thomas, Bronwen (2002). “Multiparty Talk in the Novel: The Distribution of Tea and
Talk in a Scene from Evelyn Waugh’s Black Mischief.” Poetics Today 23, 657– 84.
Tobler, Adolf (1887). “Vermischte Beiträge zur französischen Grammatik.” Zeitschrift
für romanische Philologie 11, 433–61.
Todemann, Friedrich (1930). “Die erlebte Rede im Spanischen.” Romanische For
schungen 44, 103–84.
Toolan, Michael (1987). “Analysing Conversation in Fiction: The Christmas Dinner
Scene in Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.” Poetics Today 8, 393–
416.
– (2006). “The ‘irresponsibility’ of FID.” P. Tammi & H. Mommola (eds). FREE
language INDIRECT translation DISCOURSE narratology. Tampere: Tampere
UP, 261–78.
Ullmann, Stephen (1957). “Reported Speech and Internal Monologue in Flaubert.” St.
U. Style in the French Novel. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 94–120.
Uspenskij, Boris (Uspensky, Boris) (1973). A Poetics of Composition: The Structure of
the Artistic Text and Typology of a Compositional Form. Berkeley: U of California
P.
Vološinov, Valentin (Voloshinov, Valentin) ([1929] 1973). Marxism and the Philoso-
phy of Language. New York: Seminar P.
Zunshine, Lisa (2006). Why We Read Fiction: Theory of Mind and the Novel. Colum
bus: Ohio State UP.
1 Definition
2 Explication
bizarre, unfortunately does not suffice to make them so” (Prince 2008:
24).
Based on studies such as Ochs & Capps (2001) and Norrick (2000,
2005), topics calling for additional research on tellability are descrip
tions of untellable or low-tellable stories, i.e. the dark side of narrati-
vity or its progressive elaboration during the narrative performance.
The distinction between low and high tellability also suggests that the
concept should be more clearly associated with generic and pragmatic
parameters of narrative discourse. It is clear that parameters defining
tellability differ completely when a story is told to captivate the audi
ence, explain a fact, justify a behavior, reflect on a life trajectory, or as
sert one’s identity. The breach of a canonical order is more relevant in
popular fiction or in personal anecdotes told to amuse than in experi
mental literature or in testimony before a judge (see Baroni 2009: 66–
Tellability 453
5 Bibliography
Rigney, Ann (1992). “The Point of Stories: On Narrative Communication and Cogni-
tive Functions.” Poetics Today 13, 263–83.
Ryan, Marie-Laure (1986). “Embedded Narratives and Tellability.” Style 20, 319–40.
– (1991). Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative Theory. Blooming
ton: Indiana UP.
– (2005). “Tellability” D. Herman et al. (eds). Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative
Theory. London: Routledge, 589–91.
Sternberg, Meir (2001). “How Narrativity Makes a Difference.” Narrative 9, 115–22.
– (2003). “Universals of Narrative and Their Cognitivist Fortunes.” Poetics Today
24, 517–638.
van Dijk, Teun A. (1975). “Action, Action Description, and Narrative.” New Literary
History 6, 273–94.
The index refers only to those passages in the various entries of the
Handbook where the terms and concepts or their listed synonyms are
discussed in some detail or are central to their respective contexts.
Bolter, Jay David 267, 423, 425 Capps, Lisa 58, 67, 299, 306, 374,
Booker, M. Keith 77 449, 451–52
Booth, Wayne C. 2, 7, 161, 164–65, Carr, David 184, 246, 249
167, 169, 182–83, 185, 206, 220, Carter, B.A.R. 384
332, 337, 356, 362, 376–77, 385, Carter, Ronald 68
388, 399, 400, 402, 404–06, Cassirer, Ernst 76
Boothe, Brigitte 248 Černov, Igor’ 285
Bordwell, David 183, 212, 218, 220– Červenka, Miroslav 163, 169
21, 224, 266, 276, 316, 340, 415 Chafe, Wallace 67, 69
Bortolussi, Marisa 36, 50, 156, 353, Charolles, Marc 57
406 Chatman, Seymour 8, 21, 36, 45, 52,
Bosse, Heinrich 6 88, 120–21, 164–66, 168, 174–75,
Bower, Gordon 413 178–81, 183, 213, 216, 220, 236–
Brandist, Craig 76 38, 266, 288, 302, 323, 331–32,
Branigan, David 415 336, 339–40, 355–56, 366, 373,
Branigan, Edward R. 220, 222–23, 377–78, 385, 388, 405, 423
340 Chomsky, Noam 106, 337
Bremond, Claude 63, 68, 87, 233, Cohen, Annabel J. 145, 147
266, 287, 297, 314, 331–32, 338, Cohen, Keith 212, 314, 317, 320
341 Cohn, Dorrit 36, 38, 100, 109–10,
Bringsjord, Selmer 334 178, 181, 183, 198–99, 320–21,
Brinker, Klaus 69 336, 389–90, 434–35, 437
Brinker, Menachem 154 Cook, Guy 34, 412–14
Brinton, Laurel 442 Cordesse, Gérard 390
Brockmeier, Jens 250 Cornils, Anja 194, 252, 336, 343
Broich, Ulrich 391 Coste, Didier 303–04, 352, 362
Bronzwaer, Wilhelmus J. M. 166, Coulmas, Florian 437
168 Coupland, Nikolas 64
Brooks, Cleanth 286 Courtés, Joseph 312
Brooks, Peter 254, 324, 339 Couturier, Maurice 8
Brown, Gilliam 47–8 Crittenden, Charles 17, 110
Browning, Robert 94 Čudakov, Aleksandr 162
Brütsch, Matthias 213 Culler, Jonathan 32, 46, 54, 58, 88,
Bruner, Jerome 82, 89–90, 136–37, 283, 320, 331, 339, 401, 404
246–47, 253, 316, 318, 324, 414, Culpeper, Jonathan 16, 52
447–49 Currie, Gregory 112
Bublitz, Wolfram 48 Currie, Mark 244
Buchholz, Sabine 421 Cutter, Martha J. 207
Bühler, Karl 76, 161 Cutting, Douglass 343
Bühler, Willi 442 Dällenbach, Lucien 199, 306
Burgoyne, Robert 221 Dannenberg, Hilary 426
Burke, Kenneth 139, 400 Danto, Arthur C. 245, 249, 255
Burke, Seán 4, 8 Dautenhahn, Kirsten 270
Burkhardt, Armin 194 David, Jacques-Louis 273
Butler, Judith 380 de Beaugrande, Robert 44, 47, 413
Campbell, Joseph 20 de Haard, Eric 440
Index: Names 461
Pratt, Mary Louise 53, 84, 373, 379, Roth, Paul A. 255
450 Roussin, Philippe 194
Prince, Gerald 46, 54, 74, 77, 81, 87– Rudrum, David 379
88, 120–21, 169, 174, 195, 205, Rüsen, Jörn 245
207–08, 243, 288, 310–11, 315, Rumelhart, David E. 334, 412–13
317, 321, 323–24, 329–31, 334, Russell, Bertrand 104
338, 340, 357, 398, 404–05, Ryan, Marie-Laure 4, 22, 35–7, 52,
447–50 84, 86–8, 104–05, 107, 112, 134,
Propp, Vladimir 19, 45–6, 63, 68, 145, 149–50, 152, 156, 183, 191–
233, 276, 283, 285, 287, 334, 337 93, 196–97, 200, 237–38, 270,
Proust, Joëlle 111 299–305, 310–11, 315–17, 321–
Psathas, George 64 22, 324, 329, 332, 339–41, 343,
Pudovkin, Vsevolod 217 362, 365, 403, 422, 424, 427, 430,
Punday, Daniel 136 447–49, 451
Putnam, Hilary 102 Rymar’, Nikolaj 162, 169
Quasthoff, Uta 67–9 Sacks, Harvey 66–7
Rabau, Sophie 199 Sacks, Oliver 324
Rabatel, Alain 391 Sager, Sven F. 69
Rabinowitz, Peter J. 243, 276, 316, Sanford, Anthony J. 411, 416
405–06 Sarbin, Theordore R. 137, 246–47
Radway, Janice 401 Sartwell, Crispin 138
Rajewsky, Irina O. 237–38 Saussure, Ferdinand de 266, 287
Rathmann, Thomas 82, 85–6 Schafer, Roy 248
Ravenscroft, Ian 112 Schaeffer, Jean-Marie 107, 145, 149,
Reinhart, Tanya 57 176, 193, 200
Renner, Karl Nikolaus 92 Schaff, Barbara 4
Resnais, Alain 217 Schank, Roger C. 20, 33, 411–13
Richards, Ivor Armstrong 399 Schapp, Wilhelm 248–49, 252
Richardson, Alan 35 Schegloff, Emanuel A. 64, 67–8
Richardson, Brian 184, 235, 237, 316, Scheffel, Michael 100, 207, 244, 283,
340, 354–55, 364, 376, 406 288–89
Ricœur, Paul 133, 136, 243, 245–46, Schenk-Haupt, Stefan 237–38
249–51, 276, 284, 291–93, 311, Scherer, Wilhelm 21
313–14 Schernus, Wilhelm 336, 343
Riessman, Catherine Kohler 139 Schiffrin, Deborah 67–8
Riffaterre, Michael 398, 401 Schlaffer, Hannelore 82
Rigney, Ann 450 Schlickers, Sabine 195, 197, 199,
Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith 26, 117, 221–23, 341
164–66, 168, 190, 288, 296, 302, Schmid, Wolf 50, 65, 86, 89, 93, 107,
358, 392 125, 127–28, 130, 165–66, 169–
Roberts, Glenn 58 70, 180–81, 198, 282–84, 290,
Ron, Moshe 439 292, 300–01, 303–04, 311, 315,
Ronen, Ruth 104–05, 421 317, 323, 335, 342–43, 352, 372,
Rosch, Eleanor 50 378, 391–92, 394, 406, 434, 440
Rosenblatt, Louise M. 399 Schmidt, Siegfried J. 7, 332
Rosenthal, Gabriele 137 Schneider, Jost 398
Index: Names 467