Analyzing narrative : discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives

119 Pages·2012·17.59 MB·English

by  Georgakopoulou

Analyzing Narrative
Discourse and Sociolinguistic Perspectives
Mna De Fina and AlexandraGeorgakopoulou
SONO DI TUTn,TRAUAMI BENE
Se dconsegnl II libro danneggiato
0 sottollneato, dovrai dcompmrlo.
CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
40(
I
PLO’? Contents
CAMBRIDGE
UNTVERSTYPRESS
32AvenueoftheAmericas,NewYorkNY 10013-2473,USA
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
Acknowledgments page vii
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learningandresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence. Preface ix
Noteon transcriptionconventions xiv
wwwcambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:wwwcambridge.org1978o521715133 Narrative definitions, issues andapproaches
©AnnaDeFinaandAlexandraGeorgakopoulou2011 1.0 Introduction
1.1 Narrativeastext-type
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception 1.2 Narrativeasaspecialtext-type II
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements, 1.3 Narrativedevelopmentandsocialization 12
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten 1,4 Narrativeasmode IS
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress. 1.5 Analyzingnarrative 23
Firstpublished aoii,2012 2 Narrative as text and structure 26
SecondEdition2012
Reprinted2013 2.0 Introduction 26
2.1 Labov’smodel 27
Acataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefront theBritishLibrary 2.2 Ethnopoetics,stanzaandverseanalysis 36
LibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationdata 2.3 Narrativestructureandconversationanalysis 43
DeFina,Anna. 2.4 Conclusions 50
Analyzingnarrative:discourseandsociolinguisticperspectives/ 3 Narrative and sociocultural variability 52
AnnaDcFina,AlexandraGeorgakopoulou.
3.0 Introduction 52
p. cm.
3.1 Fromtextstoculturalcontexts 53
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex,
3.2 Narrativeasperfonnance 56
ISBN978-0-521-88716-8—IsBN 978-0-521-71513-3 (pbk) 3.3 Narrativeasculturalgrammar 64
i. Narration(Rhetoric) 2. Discourseanalysis—Socialaspects. 3.4 Narrativeinvolvementandtellingstyles 68
3. Sodolingusilics. 1. Georgakopoulou,Alexandra. II. Tide. 3.5 Narrativeandculturalvalues:anappraisal 73
PN212.D4 2012 3.6 Locatingculture:adataanalysis 75
8o8.o36—dca3
3.7 Conclusions 83
2011040409
tSBN 978-0-521-88716-8 Hardback 4 Narrative as interaction 86
ISBN 978-0-521-71513-3 Paperback 4.0 Introduction 86
4.1 Fmmtellertoco-tellership 87
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof 4.2 Audienceparticipation 91
URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication, 4.3 Cooperationandconflictinnarrative 95
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,accurate 4.4 Tellingtights 107
orappropriate. 4.5 Typesofstories:beyondtheprototype 108
4.6 Frombigstoriestosmallstories 115
4.7 Conclusions 123
V
vi Contents
5 Narrative power, authority and ownership 125
5.0 Introduction 125
5.1 Narrativeandpower 126 Acknowledgments
5.2 Controllingstoriesininstitutionalcontexts 128
5.3 Authorityandtellingrights 136
5.4 “MysLory”: storiesas“whollyowned”bytheirtellers 147
5.5 Conclusions 153
6 Narrative and identities 155
6.0 Introduction 155
6.1 TheintemcLioflislparadigm 156
6,2 Thestoriedsell:identitieswilhinbiographicalapproaches 159
6.3 Shifttonarrativeandidentities-in-interaction 166 Thisbook istheresultofmanyyears ofcollaborationbetweenus, butourwork
6.4 Sampleanalysis 183 has also benefitedimmenselyfrom the opendialogue thatwe haveestablished
throughouttheyearswithcolleaguesandstudents.Wewouldliketoextendour
Notes 191 thanks for theirparticipation and critical insights to colleagues and audiences
References 197 inthe variousconferencepanels thatwehaveorganized in bothcontinentsover
Index 220 the years. We are particularly grateful to Molly Andrews, Michael Bamberg,
Mike Baynham, Jan Blommacrt, Arnuif Deppennann, Mark Freeman, Maui
Hyvärinen, Cathy Riessman, Deborah Schifrrin, Stef Siembrouck, Corinne
Squire and StantonWortham for many a constructive exchange. We also want
tothankall ourstudentsatGeorgetown andatKing’s CollegeLondon, particu
larly those on the MA course in LinguisticApproaches to Narrative Analysis
(King’sCollegeLondon)fortheircriticalengagementandenthusiasm.Forhelp
with the editing ofthis volume, special thanks to Leslie Cohran (Georgetown
University) and to Anna Charalambidou (King’s College London). HeJen
Barton from Cambridge University Press showed much encouraging enthu
siasm at the initial stages ofthis book, and we are indebted to herforthat. To
Inder,EmilianoandSilvioRuprah, andtoAlex,ElianaandChristopherNunes,
we continue tobe grateful forunfailinglyenriching ourlives and making itall
worthwhile.
vtt
Preface
Writing this book has been a wonderful, even though somewhat humbling
experience.The ideaforthe volume was born outofaneed fora language and
discourse-oriented introduction to the field that we had identified as scholars
and, more importantly, as teachers of narrative. We both felt that, although
scholars from sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, linguistic anthropology,
social and discursive psychology, just to name some of the fields covered in
this book, had produced a vast body ofresearch and theoretical reflection on
narrative, a comprehensive and critical evaluation of their work was lacking.
This was in stark conu-ast to the proliferation oftextbooks and resource books
that present sociological, cultural studies and literary approaches to narrative.
Our aim was to redress the balance by highlighting the specificities ofa lan
guage and discourse-focused perspective on narrative but also its important
place within the narrative turn in the social sciences.
Thejourney ofwriting this book involved agreatdeal ofdiscussion, reflec
tionandrethinkingaswenavigatedourway withinabodyofresearchthattends
to be fragmented anddispersedand as, in theprocess, we had tomakedifficult
decisions of selection, representation and even “construction” of coherence.
Most ofourtransatlantic exchanges were made possible by the affordances of
new technologies (withskyping playing amajorrole!),butthis distance factor
made the occasional face-to-faceinteractions evenmorerewardingandhugely
anticipated. In the process ofthis intense intellectual engagement, notonly did
we need to rethink issues and questions posed by the book’s organization, but
we also needed to explore meeting points in terms of our dissimilar “narra
tive” experiencesandbackgrounds, which had shaped ourviews abouthow to
conceive ofand analyze narratives.Attheendofthis process,we feel we have
fundamentallygrown together.
This bookdoes not attemptto be exhaustive. Instead, itreflects our interest
intwooverarching themesthatwebelievehaveinadvertentlyshapedthedevel
opmentoflanguageanddiscourseapproachestonarrative: ontheonehand, we
focuson the investigation ofnarrative as textuallyand discursively constituted
and organized. On the other hand, we highlight the analysis ofstorytelling as
a social practice shaped by and shaping multiple social contexts. The later
ix
x Preface Preface xi
leads us to questions ofpower, ideology and identity both in institutional and narrative units and in keeping a balance between a focus on local phenomena
everyday environments and in the research context. The separation between and an interest in possible generalizations about the nature ofnarrative organ
these twoareasis in many waysartificial,andindeed oneofthemostimportant ization. In particular, we underscorethe foundational natureofLabov’s model
questions thatwediscussinthisbookisthetensionbetween textandcontextin and its continuing influence on the linguistic study of narrative, but we also
narrative andthe difficultiesofreconcilinga focus on narratives as structurally point to its limitations: the lack ofattention to the interactional dynamics of
defined texts and a focus on narratives as discourse embedded in micro- and storytelling, the ambiguity ofthe coding categories and therefore the difficul
macro-contexts.Thepresenceofthese twothemescanbetracedinthedifferent ties ofapplying it.
chapters thatcompose the book. While Chapters I and 2 are more concerned In reviewing ethnopoetics, we highlight the importance of this movement
with issues related to definitions, units ofanalysis and structural components, in uncovering the poetic quality ofstorytelling, its significance in shaping and
Chapters 3 to 6 are centered on different aspects of the relationship between reflecting cultural forms ofexpression and culturally shared values. However,
narrative and social life. Anothercentral concern ofthe volume is interaction. we also point to some shortcomings in the ethnopoetic movement: the diffi
We emphasize the study oforal narratives told in interactional contexts at the culty ofapplying it to narratives produced in modem literate societies and the
expense ofliterary narratives, as we feel that the latterhave been amply repre highly interpretive nature ofthe analysis.
sented in the expansive narratological literature. In reviewing the contribution ofconversation analysis to the study ofstory
telling, we underscore the centrality ofthis movement in proposing a view of
narrative as talk-in-interaction that is now prevalent in discourse studies. But
Overviewofchapters
we also point to its neglect ofthe in-between part ofa story versus its begin
In Chapter I we introduce some ofthe most debated questions related to the nings and endings, its narrow focus on the here-and-now ofconversation and
definition of narrative and some of the methodological differences between its rejection of any interest in textual structure. We conclude with our own
approaches.We review attempts atformalizing the study ofnarrative based on arguments forthedevelopmentofapproaches thatrecognizetheimportance of
structural dimensions. In particular, we critically discuss the criteria that have structure in linguisticanalysis,togetherwith agreaterattention tointeractional
beenproposed within narratologyandstorygrammars and the debates overthe roles anddynamics.
nature of“narrativityY We also discuss attempts to look at narrative as a par In Chapter 3 we shift attention to research that centers on the relationships
ticulartext-type and to distinguish itfrom othertext-types. We then extend the between narrative and contextand on theembedding ofnarrative in social life.
overview toconceptions ofstorytelling that go beyond the search forpunctual In particular, we focus onresearch that has investigated sociocultural variabil
criteria but regard narrative as a mode, a frame for apprehending reality. We ity distinguishingbetween:
reflect on the narrative turn in the social sciences and on conflicting views of
a. approaches that conceptualize the relationship between narrative and cul
narrative as amode ofexpression andknowledge, as an epistemology andas a
ture in terms ofcontexts ofnarrative activity;
method ofinquiry. In the lastsection ofthe chapter, we review typologies that
b. approaches that see narrative as connected to culture through values and
attempt to capture the different methodologies used in narrative research and
ideas;
we propose parameters thatcan be useful to distinguish between differentori
c. approaches that focus on communicative styles.
entations while also providing a guide forourreaders in the classification and
criticalevaluation ofthe authors andtrends presented in the book. In discussing work that we situate within the first category, we emphasize the
In Chapter 2 we review linguistic approaches to narrative structure that importance oftheresearchonoralstorytelling in preliterateculturesconducted
focus on ordinary storytelling, and that analyze the linguistic and discursive byanthropologistsbetween the 1960sandthe I980sastheirworkconstituteda
means through which structural organization is achieved. In particular, we breakwith thestructuralistorientationofstudiesoffablesandmythsproduced
discuss three approaches to narrative that have been particularly influential in before then, for example by Levi-Strauss and Propp. We review the concept
discourse-oriented narrative perspectives: Labov’s model of analysis of nar ofperformance as proposed within the anthropological tradition, paying par
ratives of personal experience, ethnopoetics and conversation analysis. We ticular attention to the work ofHymes and to Bauman’s framework for ana
describe the assumptions and criteriaforidentifying structural units employed lyzing narratives as emergentwithin communicative events. In the second and
in each ofthese traditions and assess theirstrengths and weaknesses.The dis third categories, we include sociolinguistic studies ofcultural variability that
cussion shows the difficulties involved in the definition and identification of have focused on the differences in story content and storytelling styles among
xii Preface Preface
XIII
national and ethnic groups. We conclude with a reflection in which we prob the relationships between researchers and researched and the analysis oftheir
lematize a viewofculture as asetofvalues andstylescharacterizinganational role in data collection and analysis.
community, and argue that such conception may result in oversimplification In Chapter 6 we discuss how connections between narrative and identities
and in a neglect of the multiple ways in which local contexts shape and are have been conceptualized within different research paradigms and the kinds
shaped by narratives. ofproblems that research in this field raises. We analyze biographical, socio
In Chapter4 we look at stories as interactional achievements and we there linguistic and conversation-analytic work and explore similarities and differ
fore stress the significance ofparticipation structures andofthe conversational ences amongst them, using key concepts such as positioning, categorization,
workdone inthe momentby momentunfoldingofa story’s telling. Wediscuss self-presentation and indexicality. In the first part of the chapter, we discuss
how studies ofstorytelling have gradually shifted from an exclusive focus on theoretical developments in differentdisciplines within the social sciences that
tellers toward the analysis of tellership and from story as a product to story have constituted the basis foran importantshiftinthe study ofidentity toward
telling as a process. In the first pan ofthe chapter, we analyze ways in which an interactionist and social contructionistparadigm. We thenreview biograph
storytellers open, sustain and close narratives in interaction, and we illustrate ical approaches, discussing the division within this camp between orientations
the role ofboth storytellers andaudiences in the unfolding ofstories. Thus, we thatconnect identity to the expression ofthe selfin acoherent and unitary life
review workonstoryopenings andclosings, audience participation and telling story and orientations that focus on the positionality ofidentity as aprocess of
roles. We illustrate how even though narratives are often cooperative achieve production ofidentities vis-à-vis specific interlocutors and circumstances.
ments, they may as often be used by interactants as strategic tools in situations In the secondpartofthechapter,weturn tosociolinguistically orientedstud
ofconflict and/oras argumentative devices to back up controversial positions. ies. In particular, early studies on self-presentation and more recent research
We also engage with the notion of telling rights as central to an understand that has developed around the concept of indexicality. We assess the impact
ing ofdifferent participant configurations in specific storytelling contexts. In ofrecent frameworks for the study of identity, such as conversation-analytic/
the second part ofthe chapter, we illustrate the variability ofstorytelling for ethnomethodology-oriented(Antaki and Wtddicombe l998a) and sociocultur
mats presentingdifferentkinds ofstorytypes suchas counterfactual narratives, allyorientedmodels (Bucholtzand Hall 2005).Weconcludebyarguing forthe
habitual narratives, second stories, argumentative narratives.Weconcludewith advantages ofamiddleground between more macro-and more micro-oriented
a review ofsmallstories research as an attempt to unify efforts at broadening approaches.
the scope ofnarrative analysis.
In ChapterS we turn tothe relationship between narrativesandpower, illus
trating how narratives can be sites for the imposition of forms ofdomination
by powerful individuals and institutions, but also how they may be used to
negotiate new roles and norms by members ofsociety. Westart from a general
review of the concept of power, to then illustrate its relation to storytelling
in concrete social encounters: we focus on institutional contexts, and in par
ticularon legal settings. We discuss strategies forthe exercise and negotiation
of power in storytelling and highlight the role of processes ofcontextualiza
tion and entextualization.We then turn to a discussion ofhow narrative power
involves questions ofauthority and legitimation and to an analysis ofways in
which the latter are negotiatedin storytelling.As we argue, the study ofnarra
tive and power also implies a consideration ofthe relations between narrative
and truth. In connection with the themes oftruth, authority andcredibility, we
examine work that has linked narratives with ideologies and research that has
underscored the central role that storytelling has in shaping public opinion
through the news. In the last pan of the chapter, we extend these questions
about truth, ideology and power in storytelling to story ownership. We con
clude with a consideration ofthe implications of our reflection on power for
___________________________________________________________
Note on transcription conventions xv
(0) stage directions
(.) micro-pause,not timed
Note on transcription conventions (I.) approximate length ofapause in seconds
> < fasterthan normal speech
extended speech
7 Question
11 RisingFalling Intonation
The following two systems of transcription conventions were used in the
examples
System 1
((smiling)) Non-linguistic actions
(...) Inaudible
(.) Noticeable pause
• Falling intonation followed by noticeable pause (as at end of
declarative sentence)
7 Rising intonation followed by noticeable pause (as at end of
interrogative sentence)
• Continuing intonation may be a slight rise or fall in contour
(less than or “7”); may be not followed by a pause
—
(shorterthan “:‘ or “7”)
word-. Listing intonation
Self-interruption
-
Latched utterancesby the same speakerorby different speakers
Emphatic stress
CAPS Very emphatic stress
Vowel orconsonant lengthening
Overlap between utterances
(line) Highlights key phenomena
Laughter
System2
II the point in a turn where the utterance of the next speaker
begins to overlap
= two utterances closely connected withouta noticeable overlap
() speech thatcan’t be deciphered
(text) analyst’s guess at speech that’s hard to decipher
xiv
1 Narrative definitions, issues and approaches
1.0 Lntmduction
More than numerous objects of inquiry, narrativeresists straightforward and
agreed-upon definitions and conceptualizations. Instead, its study tends to be
a minefield ofmultiple and at timescompeting perspectivesin a wide array of
humanities and social science fields. This is a sign ofrichness and refreshing
pluralism for some, while a sign of deplorable fragmentation for others; but
the fact remains that any attemptto presentand pull togetherdifferentstrands
in the area involves delicate issues of selection and representation. It is with
this acute awareness that an exhaustiveand evenly balanced overview is close
to impossible that we will approach in this chapterthe complicatedyetfunda
mental issues of“Whatis narrative’?” and “How is it studied?’ That said, two
principleshave guided our selection ofmaterials in the discussion to follow:
a. The inclusion ofapproaches that in more or less explicit ways have influ
enced the assumptions and tools of what will form the main focus of this
book, namely socially minded linguistic approachestonarrative.
b. The need to extract and bring to the fore aspects ofconvergence and even
overlapping interests from traditions that on the face of it may have devel
oped separately.
In this attempt to pull threads together, we have seen it fit to pose a working
distinction, by no means dichotomous, between views ofnarrative as atype of
textand views ofnarrative as a mode, epistemologyandmethod. We will thus
mapeachofthepoles ofthisdistinction with specific approachesandwhatwe
see as distinctassumptions and ways ofanalyzing narrative in them.
1.1 Narrativeas text-type
Seeing narrative as a text-type inevitably involves a commitment to clear-cut
definitionalcriteriacoupledwithabeliefintheverbaL/linguisticaspects ofnar
rativeasholdingthekeytothosecriteria.Thismainassumption leadsalmostby
implication to otherviews too: for instance, a view ofnarrative as a structured
2 Narrativedefinitions, issuesand approaches Nanmiveastext-type 3
activity withabeginning, middle andanend,and withclearlyidentifiable units a distinction between what is told in a story (its basic events) and the way it
thatare amenable to analysis. Itis thus no accident thatstructuralism hasbeen is told. The Russian formalists named the events represented in the story, the
closely associated with approaches to narrative as atext-type.The assumption fabula,andthestoryasitisputtogetherand narratedbythe author,thesyuzher.
thatstrict textual criteria arc the main guide to defining narrative and setting it This distinction was later revisited by narratologists who, based on Genette
apart from other types of text also goes hand in hand with a belief in the uni (1980), adopted a distinction between narration as the act of narrating, dis
versal properties ofnarrative.Very simply put, narrative isseen as having text course (discours or rent) as the narrative textand story (Instoire) as the basic
ual properties thatapply across contexts, and the task for the analyst is both to sequence ofevents (see Toolan 2001: 15 on this point).
uncoverthose andtoshedlightonwhatmay beculture-specific.Anotheraffili The distinction between story and discourse is designed to capture the fact
ated focus is on the ways in which the knowledge ofhow to tell a (good) story that there are some basic stories that do not change even ifthe circumstances
is acquired and in turn how stories are understood and processed: this makes ofthe telling and the medium through which they are told change. Itcould be
some ofthe approaches here cognitive in epistemological orientation. But let said, forexample, thatSnow Wiutehas abasicsetofelements thatmake itlook
us examine the main approaches to narrative as text-type in moredetail. likethesamestorynomatterwhetheritis writtenortold inthe formofamovie
oraseriesofnewspaperstrips.2Theseelementsconstitute itsplot,butthe ways
in which the plot is told will vary according to authors, media and contexts of
1.1.1 Narratologyandthe issue ofdefining a story performance. Ofcourse, the basic tenet that the plot ofa story is represented
by a set oftemporally ordered andcausally connectedevents is in itselfhighly
Narratology is one ofthe most importantapproaches to narrative as text-type.
debatable, but let us take it at face value for the moment. The point is that the
Below we presenta typical definition:
distinction between story and discourse also reflects a basic conception, pre
Narratology is the study of narrative as a genre. Its objective is to describe the con sent in manyscructuralisttreatments, thatposits theexistenceofasurface level
stant variables and combinations typical ofnarrative and to clarify how the character (the levelofthe textas itis accessedbyareader)andadeepstructure (themost
istics ofnarrativetextsconnectwith theframeworkoftheoretical models (typologies). basic level ofactions and roles from which the story is derived).
(Rudemik2009: 8) As we discuss in detail in section 3.1, structuraliststudies ofliterary works
As isevident from theabove, the focus is on the story as atype oftext thatcan (see Banhes 1977; Bremond 1973; Greimas [1966] 1983;Todorov 1969)con
be set apart from othergenres. Itis therefore hardly surprising that the issue of stituted the immediate precursors not only of narratology, but also of story
defining what a story is should lie at the center ofnarratology. Narratologists grammars, and for this reason an analysis ofstories based on a rigid division
also generally assume that the definitional criteria ofnarrative are universally between levels iscommon to those laterdevelopments as well,
applicable and that narrative can be theorized as such. Narratology is. for the Following Vladimir Propp (1968), who had attempted to capture the fun
most pan, devoted to the study ofliterary texts, but its influence on linguistic damental structure of Russian folk tales in terms of basic roles and action
studies ofnarrative is undeniable. In the light ofthis, ourdiscussion here will functions, literary structuralists tried to describe the deep structure offictional
mainly concern itselfwith issues within narratology which are relevant to the works as a very abstract model from which the narrative was derived. Indeed,
linguistic study ofnarrative as well, stntcturalists werenotso much interested inthe surface level oftexts asintheir
Most ofthe classical narratologistst (Bal 1985; Genette 1980; Prince 1973) deep structure. The latter was described in differentways by differentauthors.
conceived of the story as their object of study and basically defined it as a For example, some characterized it in temis of the basic relations between
series of temporally and causally ordered events. Specific definitions varied, a few concepts such as “love” and “prohibition” (see Greimas 1983), while
butthe basic idea thatevents are the stuffofwhich astory is made was shared otherssaw itasasystem ofrelations between actions,rolesandfunctions(as in
by most researchers in the field. Such a predominance of the action aspects Propp 1968 orBarthes 1977). But the common ideal was to find certain basic
overother story elements in the theorizations about narrative can be traced as elements that wouldallow researchers toreduce thedeepstructureofstories to
farback as Aristotle. The Greek philosopher stated in his Poetics (52, VI.14): a minimal set of universal elements in order to derive from them any surface
“The plot, then, is the first principle and, as it were, the soul of a tragedy: realization of narratives in any language. In this sense, structural studies of
character holds the second place?’ But the succession of events that a reader narrativesresembled structurallinguistics in its questforminimal unitsofana
encounters in a story constitutesjust one level ofanalysis ofastory. Classical lysis, in its rigid separation oflevels and in its attemptto distinguish between
narratologists inherited from Russian formalists such as Shklovsky and Propp competence andperformance.Butofcourse,everytimeanalyststried todefine
4 Narrativedefinitions, issues andapproaches Narrativeas text-type 5
the basic elements of deep structure, they ended up proposing symbols that as on the comprehensionandprocessingofnarratives. Researchers in the field
were not devoid of meaning but were semantically and culturally loaded (e.g. look at narrating as a cognitive activity and their main interest is discovering
“life;’ “death,” “love’ “prohibition’ etc.). how people understandand rememberstories and whatcriteriadeterminetheir
As noted by Herman and Vervaeck (2005), there are significant problems judgments about story well-formedness.According to de Beaugrande (1982),
with structuralistnarratology. These have to do with the ambiguity ofthe cat although at the beginning of the story-grammar movement it was difficult to
egoriesusedintheanalysis ofstories, therigidseparation betweenlevels(such distinguish amongst different trends, later on two approaches became identi
as deep and surface structure) and the lack of specificity on how transitions fiable: the story-schema approach (Rumelhart 1975) and the story-grammar
between them work. The authors conclude (p. 100) that approach (Mandler and Johnson 1977, 1980; Mandler 1984). In the story-
schemaapproach astory is defined in cognitive terms as an abstractrepresen
thecreationofunambiguousandgenerallyacceptedcategoriesremainsautopianenter
tation about story structure and content or, in Mandler’s terms, as: “a mental
prise. Any classification proposed by stntcturalistnarratology gives rise to borderline
cases andproblemsthathave yet tobe andprobably neverwill be solved. In many structure consisting of sets of expectations about the way in which stories
cases the structuralist is forced to ackn—owledge that concrete stories—always upset the proceed” (1984: 18).
theoreticaldemarcalions. Story-schematheoriesderive from cognitive models oftextprocessing (see,
for example, Schank and Abelson 1977) that regard text comprehension as a
Ofparticularinteresthere is the problemofthedefinition ofastoryas atext,
process ofdecoding new information based on previous knowledge. The latter
which has occupied narratologists for decades and which has been inherited
is stored in memory through schemas, frames and scripts representing either
by all text-based approaches to narrative.As already mentioned, for narratolo
constellations ofmeaningrelations (schemas and frames) orstereotypical situ
gists, a story has to comprise a series of related events. Chatman (1990: 9)
ations (scripts). Such schemas allow people to make inferences about what
pointed to chronological ordering as the main criterion to distinguish stories
theyarereadingorhearing. Inthecase ofstories,accordingtostorygrammars,
from othertextsor, to putthis more specifically, proposed the criterion ofdou
they are formed by sets of basic components (such as SEflING, THEME,
ble chronology. For a text to qualify as narrative, it has to entail movement
PLOT, etc.) and sets ofrelationships amongst them.
through time, not only externally (i.e. through its telling, cf. discourse time)
For some (see Stein and Policastro 1984), story schemas are prototypes
but also internally (through the duration ofthe sequence ofevents thatconsti
(Rosch andMervis 1975), i.e. kindsofgeneral models withstereotypicalchar
lute its plot,ci. story time). In hisDictionary ofNarratology, Prince proposed
acteristics thaL people keep in mind whenjudging whethera text is a story. In
instead that such a link was not only chronological, but also causal. He thus
this view, stories may be closerorfurtheraway from the prototype, and in that
characterized a minimal story as a set of “two states and one event” that are
sense nanativity may be amatterofdegree.
chronologically ordered and causally connected in that the second state is a
Story-grammarmodels focusmore than story schemas on the description of
“revemal”or“modification”ofthe firststate. Thus, the following was classified
the internal structure ofa story and presenta type ofsyntax ofstory organiza
as aminimal story:
tion basedon the combinationofthe basic story components and theirinternal
John was happy, then he saw Peter, then, as a result, he was unhappy. (Prince [1987] ordering. Thus, for example, a story would consist ofa combination ofelem
2003: 53) entssuchasSETflNG+INITIATINGEVENTtREACTION+ENDINGand
would specify theposition andcontentofeachofthoseelements.According to
As isevidentfrom thesedefinitions, structuralists and narratologistsalike have de Beaugrande, however, these two approaches are compatible as:
had little interest in storytelling contexts, given their focus on the text-internal
propertiesofnarrative.Thislackofinterestinthecontextis not sharedbymore A comparison ofthe literature indicates thatastory grammarcanbe viewedas arule-
recentnarratological approaches as we will discuss below. set for relating the ordering of surface-text categories to the underlying schema (cf.
1.13). Thus, the grammar is a theoretical formalization that operates upon the know
ledge organized within the schema, with majorfocus onthearrangement ofcategories
1.1.2 Narrative andcognition insequences. (1982: 410)
The basic idea that the story is a series oftemporally and causally connected Thus, there is no contradiction between the conception ofa story as a mental
events is echoedin story grammars, anothersetofapproaches to narrative as a schema and its conception as a grammatically well-formed string, since the
text-type.Suchapproaches,however,arenotsomuchfocusedontheproduction grammar is a concrete realization ofthe mental prototype that we have about