Narrative discourse : an essay in method
TL;DR: Cutler as mentioned in this paper presents a Translator's Preface Preface and Preface for English-to-Arabic Translating Translators (TSPT) with a preface by Jonathan Cutler.
Abstract: Foreword by Jonathan Cutler Translator's Preface PrefaceIntroduction 1. Order 2. Duration 3. Frequency 4. Mood 5. VoiceAfterword Bibliography Index
Citations
More filters
Journal Article•
TL;DR: A Narratological Approach for Narrative Discourse: Implementation and Evaluation of the System based on Genette and Jauss and results of the system’s evalua- tions are presented, which focuses on the correctness of structure transfor- mation and the control mechanism based on the interaction between narrator and narrate inside the system.
20 citations
Cites background or methods from "Narrative discourse : an essay in m..."
...By reference to the comparatively vague description about effects of discourse techniques by Genette (1972), we originally defined discourse parameters including p1:supplement, p2:complexity, p3:suspense, p4:length, p5:hiding, p6:descripttiveness, p7:repetition, p8:diffuseness, p9:implication, and p10:temporal-independency....
[...]
...However, as we provided a common method for implementing discourse techniques, we can directly use it to extend the range of covering Genette based techniques and other categories. Previously, we have been developing several elemental systems for discourse techniques including order, distance, focalization, and other categories (Ogata et al. (2004) shows their overviews)....
[...]
...By reference to the comparatively vague description about effects of discourse techniques by Genette (1972), we originally defined discourse parameters including p1:supplement, p2:complexity, p3:suspense, p4:length, p5:hiding, p6:descripttiveness, p7:repetition, p8:diffuseness, p9:implication, and…...
[...]
...Gérard Genette (1930-, France) is a representative literary theorist and narratologist mainly associated with structuralism. The discourse theory by Genette (1972) comparatively clearly categorizes various types of discourse techniques through the analysis of a novel....
[...]
...As a fundamental standpoint, we use the discourse theory of Genette (1972)....
[...]
01 Jan 2012
TL;DR: A history of key journals and institutions that have shaped the contours of the field of postcolonial studies can be found in this paper, where the origins of post-colonization studies are usually located without much dispute around the late 1970s.
Abstract: This chapter furnishes a history of key journals and institutions that have shaped the contours of the field of postcolonial studies. Although controversy and debate characterize discussion on the definition, scope and duration of the ‘postcolonial’, the origins of the field are usually located without much dispute around the late 1970s. Customary accounts of the beginnings of postcolonial studies index the cultural, postmodern, literary and textual turn in a line of enquiry which began and developed much earlier in history, political science, and anthropology. The emergence of the ersatz ‘Third World’ in the wake of the 1955 Bandung conference constitutes some of the prehistory of the field, although admittedly under the nametag of ‘Third World’ rather than ‘postcolonial’, and largely within disciplines other than literary studies. Beginnings are notoriously provisional, but even so, the field of what Aijaz Ahmad calls ‘literary postcoloniality’ is not without its own prehistory, one that goes by the name of Commonwealth literary studies (CLS), and has been poorly integrated into usual accounts of the rise of postcolonial studies. Enmeshment in the scope, definition and task of postcolonial studies and contemporary interest in the ‘beyond’ of postcolonial studies – often conceived in terms of the future or as transcending historical colonialism altogether – sometimes displaces a more thorough understanding of its complex origins, its multiple strands and regional dimensions. In each of these areas, key journals and institutions have been instrumental in the development of a rich set of resources for a study of the literature, culture and theoretical insights associated with the experience of colonialism and its aftermath. It is the aim of this chapter to tell that story.
20 citations
TL;DR: In this article, Gonzalez-Inarritu and Cuaron's Amores perms and Y tu mama tambien (both Oscar-nominated movies) are analyzed.
Abstract: Woman is... the Enigma. Octavio Paz' The recent success of some foreign films in the American art-house exhibition circuit could be interpreted as a sign of the crisis of national specificity in commercial World cinemas. The apparent neutralization of culturally specific topics, the globalization of cinematic language, and the hybridization of genre configurations may have aided the popular acceptance in the U.S. of such films as Life is Beautiful (Roberta Benigni, Italy 1998), All About My Mother (Pedro Almodovar, Spain 1999), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee, Hong Kong, Taiwan 2000), Amelie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, France 2001) and "Talk to Her" (Almodovar, Spain 2002).2 The Mexican films Amores perms (Alejandro Gonzalez-Inarritu, 2000) and Y tu marna tambien (AIfonso Cuaron, 2002) seem to have followed this trend by becoming not only available through commercial if limited US exhibition venues, but also accessible to the U.S. public as products of a new kind of global film language that is non-nationally specific. In these two films the language of violence and sexuality, and a postmodern generic malleability overtake the details and nuances of national topics as treated regularly in Mexican films, so they become "universal," while being allowed to keep their original Spanish titles. A closer look, however, reveals the inherent Mexicanness/Mexicanidad of these films present in the treatment of women and violence and the development of historical Mexican cinema topics in the narrative. Amores perms and Y tu mama tambien (both Oscar nominees) capitalize on their emphasis on violence and sexuality respectively (the lingua franca of contemporary cinema) to "pass" internationally, but in the context of contemporary Mexico and Mexican cinema in general both films continue the historical trajectory of Mexican cinema when it comes to the presence and meaning of female characters and the treatment of national politics, class relations, and the economy. Gender, Class, and the Nation in Mexican Cinema Mexican cinema has evolved greatly in its one hundredyear history. It has developed from the constitution of a "national" cinema in the 1920s and 1930s, to the mythmaking "foundational fictions" of Carlos Navarro, Emilio Fernandez, and Fernando de Fuentes in the 1940s, to the myth-shattering realism of Luis Bunuel's Los olvidados? and the exploitation "cabaretems" and nightclub films of the 1950s and 1970s. Its most enduring iteration is the "Golden Age" of Mexican Cinema (from the 1930s through the 1950s), in which the mythification of national history, characters, and imagery was cemented in the widely seen films of Emilio Fernandez, Fernando de Fuentes, and a few other directors. In this "Golden Age" the idea of a national fiction was well articulated, and with the economic support of the State, Mexican cinema created a vision of the nation that became consistently multiplied in films of various genres. This image of Mexico emphasized the celebration of a status quo of gentle patriarchs governing their estates and families with a stern hand, macho charms singing their way into the hearts of fair maidens and through honor matters, and in the case of Fernandez's films, the creation of an idealized, romantic view of the Indians who were in reality, largely marginalized.4 These constant topics were present in the underlying celebration and affirmation of machismo and the values of the (mostly Creole) Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920. Joanne Hershfield deftly summarizes these ideas under the concept of the madre patria or "Motherland" as: [ A]n attempt to forge a national solidarity among the diverse elements of the Mexican population despite differences of language, ethnic and cultural traditions, class, race, gender, and regional affiliation... By privileging a common (if invented) history, the Spanish language, a national system of education, and the mestizo as the quintessential Mexican, Ia madre patria (sic) came to signify a united Mexican nation. …
20 citations
TL;DR: The distinction between the two types of narrators is discussed in this article, where the authors present a list of possible narratorial standpoints based on the one hand on the involvement of the narratorial instance in the narrated world and on its involvement in the story.
Abstract: Full-length article in: JLT 8/2 (2014), 368–396. In describing the position of the narrator, research in literary studies generally follows Gerard Genette’s pioneering theory of narrative in distinguishing between the homo- and heterodiegetic type of narrator. This categorization is not sufficient to allow the position of the narrator to be described properly. The different ways in which the terms are used in literary studies reveal a shortcoming in the distinction behind them. Even in Genette’s work, there is a contradiction between the definition and the names of the two categories: Genette defines homo- and heterodiegesis with reference to the narrator’s presence in the narrated story, whereas he elsewhere states that the diegesis (in the sense of French diegese) is »auniverse rather than a train of events (a story)«: it »is therefore not the story but the universe in which the story takes place« (Genette 1988, 17; italics in original). The definition and the names do not match up in Genette’s theory of narrative; the expressions ›homo-‹ and ›heterodiegesis‹ would appear to rest on an understanding that is different from what Genette sets out explicitly. Once Genette has described ›diegesis‹ in terms of the universe of the story, the only possible interpretation of the terms ›homo-‹ and ›heterodiegetic‹ is that they are to be understood in relation to the narrated world. This in turn means that a homodiegetic narrator does not, as in Genette’s original definition, have to be part of the story: what is now essential is belonging to »the universe in which the story takes place«. Distinguishing between diegesis as universe and as story is significant because it reveals two different criteria for describing the position of the narrator: (i) the ontological status of the narratorial instance, which depends on whether it is part of the spatio-temporal universe of the narrative (the narrated world), and (ii) the degree to which the narratorial instance is involved in the story. The former criterion is clearly a question of ontology; the latter alternates between ontological and thematic criteria. As these two possible definitions of homo- and heterodiegesis are often not distinguished, the various writers who use the terms do so to refer to aspects of narrative that are not necessarily the same. Analytic practice in narrative theory would benefit considerably from keeping them apart. There is therefore a case to be made for using both possible aspects in the analysis of narrative texts while also keeping them separate by definition. The present article aims to do just that, starting from a theoretical standpoint. Thus, the different types of narrator that are possible are sketched in outline, and then explained with the help of examples. I begin by exposing the problems that result from using the terms in Genette’s manner (1), in order then to develop a list of possible narratorial standpoints based on the one hand on the involvement of the narratorial instance in the narrated world and on the other on its involvement in the story. By establishing separation of the two aspects as a ground rule in this way, a number of misunderstandings that are due to the varied ways in which the terminology has been used to date can be overcome.
20 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the avoidance of narration is no guarantee of egalitarianism or objectivity, that "showing" is really just another and more covert form of "telling", about which one might have more political/moral squeamishness.
Abstract: We are currently in the midst of a theoretical re-examination of thirdperson voice-over narration. Rejected by documentarians and critics alike as authoritarian, elitist, oppressive, and offensive, the technique has been in disfavor for two decades, while other structures-cinema verite, the interview film-have held sway. Critical opinion has now come to the conclusion (presaged by Wayne Booth's Rhetoric of Fiction [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961]), that the avoidance of narration is no guarantee of egalitarianism or objectivity, that "showing" is really just another and more covert form of "telling," about which one might have more political/moral squeamishness. Mary Ann Doane, following Pascal Bonitzer,' believes that documentaries which eschew narration actually promote: the illusion that reality speaks and is not spoken, that the film is not a constructed discourse. In effecting an "impression of knowledge," a knowledge which is given and not produced, the film conceals its own work and posits itself as a voice without a subject. The voice is even more powerful in silence. The solution, then, is not to banish the voice but to construct another politics.2
20 citations
References
More filters
Book•
01 Jan 1954
TL;DR: Deuxieme tirage de cet essai critique de Georges Blin sur Stendhal, publie aux editions Jose Corti en 1954 as mentioned in this paper, et les images, une description a completer, une bibliotheque
Abstract: Deuxieme tirage de cet essai critique de Georges Blin sur Stendhal, publie aux editions Jose Corti en 1954.Deux images, une description a completer, une bibliotheque.
22 citations