BDSL-Klassifikation: 03.00.00 Literaturwissenschaft > 03.06.00 Literaturtheorie
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (13)
- Article (8)
- Report (3)
- Review (3)
- Book (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (30)
Keywords
- Erzähltheorie (30) (remove)
Institute
- Extern (2)
We may consider narratology - the structural study of narratives - in two ways, each of them implying a slightly different 'before' and 'after'. First, this important endeavor in 20th century literary studies may be regarded as the study of a specific narrative 'logic', the formal structures that unite all narratives, fictional and factual, literary and non-literary. Secondly, narratology may be regarded as the study of specific 'texts' with specific cultural functions - storehouses of 'memory' on the one hand and, on the other, 'meaning-generating devices' integrating human action with time and place, ending up in cognition, identity, values, pragmatic norms, etc. In spite of the fact that both trends diminish the role of the specific medium of a given narrative, focusing instead on a general logic or on general functions, both of them refer 'de facto' to literature as a primary field of study; moreover, they are both children, twins one might argue, of the linguistic turn at the turn of the last century, and they both 'de facto' constantly refer to language as a primary field of study. This paradigmatic shift emphasized a specific medium and its specific logic in a general perspective without losing grip of the specificity. A lesson may be learned if we quickly repaint the history and perspective of this turn in a few broad strokes.
Eine Konstante der Diskussion zur Bestimmung von "Narrativität" ist der Versuch, Narrativität als kennzeichnendes Merkmal des erzählenden Textes funktional zu bestimmen: nämlich als eine spezifische Form der symbolischen Ereignisrepräsentation. Dieser Beitrag entwickelt dagegen die These, daß Narrativität keine Frage des Entweder/Oder ist, sondern eine der graduellen Realisation spezifischer logischer Bedingungen, die sich in Form einer sog. "Ereignis-Matrix" definieren lassen. Alles, was die Bedingungen der Ereignis-Matrix erfüllt, taugt zum "Ereignis-Konstrukt" – aber nur jene Ereignis-Konstrukte und damit auch die ihnen zugrundeliegenden Texte sind in sich selbst narrativ, in denen die temporale Ordnung sich nicht auf die reine Sequentialität der symbolischen Zeichen reduziert.
Der wesentliche Grund, aus dem auch die neueren Theorien der Erzählanalyse, genauer: die Konzepte zu Perspektive oder 'Fokus', letztlich und d. h. insbesondere in ihrer Anwendung unbefriedigend bleiben, scheint mir darin zu liegen, dass sie immer noch dem Erzähler Prädikate statt dem Autor Strategien zuschreiben. Es ist hier nicht der Ort, mit einer akribischen Revision der Forschung zu beginnen, ich beschränke mich daher auf einige hoffentlich exemplarische Beobachtungen, um so mehr Zeit für meine eigentliche Aufgabe, nämlich die Präsentation meiner Vorstellungen, zu haben.
In his book "Fiction and Diction", Gerard Genette bemoans a contradiction between the pretense and the practice of narratological research. Instead of studying all kind of narratives, for Genette, narratological research concentrates de facto on the techniques of fictional narrative. Correspondingly, Genette speaks of a "fictional narratology" in the pejorative sense of a discipline that sets arbitrary limits on its area of study. In his objection, the narratology that literary scholars practice considers fictional narrative to be at least the standard case of any narrative. In other words, what is merely a special case, within a wide field of narratives, is here elevated to narrative par excellence. According to Genette, narratology does not omit the domain of non-fictional narratives from its investigations with any justification, but rather annexes it without addressing its specific elements.
What are possible ways in which this perspective, which Genette criticizes as truncated, can be set right? Can the problem, as outlined, simply be solved by expanding the area of study in narratological research? Or are there not, perhaps, important differences between fictional and nonfictional narratives which seem to encourage narratological research, understood as a fundamental discipline of literary study, under the heading of "fictional narratology"?
In order to come to an answer here, we will first discuss the problem of differentiating between fictional and non-fictional narratives, as well as the possibility of a connection between narrative and fictionality theory. Second, we will expand our considerations to encompass pragmatic and historical aspects of narratives in order to delineate the scope of our proposal.
I shall take a look at a cluster of problems: the relation between fictional and actual worlds, between fictionality and narration, between action and rationality, between action and agent or subject, and between world, enunciation and subject in light of two important theoretical works, both from 1991. My choice of references is not entirely arbitrary: their basic approach shows certain similarities that underline the shortcomings of both in dealing with literature, in spite of the stimulating arguments they unfold. But they also show marked differences that allow us to develop their argument further. The books are Paisley Livingston's 'Literature and Rationality' and Marie-Laure Ryan's 'Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative Theory'.
Allwissendes Erzählen
(2004)
›Allwissendes Erzählen‹ und ›allwissender Erzähler‹ gehören zu den literaturwissenschaftlichen Begriffen, die viel gebraucht, aber selten definiert werden. Wer in den einschlägigen erzähltheoretischen Hand- und Einführungsbüchern nach diesen Stichworten sucht, tut es häufig vergebens. [...] Einerseits wird der Begriff des allwissenden Erzählens im literaturwissenschaftlichen Sprachgebrauch offenbar in einem erkenntnistheoretischen Sinne verwendet – es geht um ein durch keine empirischen Bedingungen begrenztes Wissen. Wenn allwissendes Erzählen aber in systematischer Verknüpfung (oder gar synonym) mit auktorialem Erzählen gebraucht wird, dann steht in der Regel ein anderer Aspekt im Vordergrund […]. Der Ausdruck ›auktorialer Erzähler‹ bezeichnet seit Stanzel einen persönlichen heterodiegetischen Erzähler, d.h. 'einen Erzähler, der zwar nicht der erzählten Welt angehört, aber eine individuelle Einschätzung und Bewertung des Erzählten zum Ausdruck bringt und dadurch ein bestimmtes ideologisches oder moralisches Profil gewinnt.' […] Trotz [einer] zeitweisen historischen Koppelung von allwissendem und auktorialem Erzählen handelt es sich jedoch um zwei systematisch voneinander unabhängige Aspekte, die in der Literaturgeschichte keineswegs immer gemeinsam auftreten. Im folgenden gehe ich nicht auf die moralischen Aspekte auktorialer Erzählerfiguren ein, sondern beschränke mich auf die erkenntnistheoretischen Besonderheiten allwissenden Erzählens.
These […] stories are chosen from anthologies with texts called 'urban legends' (sometimes they are also referred to as 'contemporary legends', or 'urban myths'). Bearing this name in mind, we tend to read these texts as 'Iegendary' narratives that relate ficticious stories of events which never happened. But what if somebody told you these stories as factual accounts of events that really happened to the friend of a friend: wouldn't you believe them to be true – or at least consider seriously the possibility of their truthfulness? Before entering in a discussion of this question, I want to introduce in more detail the kind of narrative I am seeking to analyze.
Wissen und Spannung
(2005)
Im folgenden Beitrag soll das Thema 'Wie erzählt der Erzähler?' wesentlich im Blick auf die Relation Erzähler - Adressat behandelt werden. Grundlegend sind hier der Aspekt des im Erzählen zu vermittelnden Wissens und die Frage der zeitlichen Verfasstheit dieser durch die Narrationsinstanz vorgenommenen Vermittlung von Wissen.
This article combines a brief introduction into a particular philosophical theory of "time" with a demonstration of how this theory has been implemented in a Literary Studies oriented Humanities Computing project. The aim of the project was to create a model of text-based time cognition and design customized markup and text analysis tools that help to understand ‘‘how time works’’: more precisely, how narratively organised and communicated information motivates readers to generate the mental image of a chronologically organized world. The approach presented is based on the unitary model of time originally proposed by McTaggart, who distinguished between two perspectives onto time, the so-called A- and B-series. The first step towards a functional Humanities Computing implementation of this theoretical approach was the development of TempusMarker—a software tool providing automatic and semi-automatic markup routines for the tagging of temporal expressions in natural language texts. In the second step we discuss the principals underlying TempusParser—an analytical tool that can reconstruct temporal order in events by way of an algorithm-driven process of analysis and recombination of textual segments during which the "time stamp" of each segment as indicated by the temporal tags is interpreted.