Genres,TextTypes,orDiscourseModes? NarrativeModalitiesandGeneric Categorization.

Print

Author: Fludernik,Monika Date: Jun22,2000 Words: 8472 Publication: Style ISSN: 00394238

InComingtoTerms(1990),SeymourChatmaninitiatedanenquiryintothe delimitationofthenarrativetexttypeasagainstthetexttypesofargumentand description.Thisrevolutionarystepwasamajorlandmarkforliteraryscholars linguists,bycontrast,hadbeenbattlingwiththesameproblemsfortwodecades, tryingtodistinguishbetween,ontheonehand,thelargertexttypesthatare constitutiveofourunderstandingofnarrativeversusexpositoryor exhortativediscourse(inoralorwrittenformats),and,ontheotherhand,the surfacetextualsequencesofreport,dialogue,argument,descriptipn,andsoon.In narrativestudies,too,therearosesomerecognitionthatanarrativetextdoesnot exclusivelyconsistinnarrativesentencesbutincludesalargenumberof supposedlynonnarrativeitems(thespeechandthoughtrepresentationofthe characters,forinstance)aswellasmetanarrativefeatures(e.g.,thenarrator's evaluation,readeraddress)andsomestrictlyspeakingnonnarrativeelements,s uchasdescription,thatare,however,constitutiveofhowmostnarrativeshandle thesetting.Allofthesesupposedlynonnarrativeelementsarebasicingredientsof anynarrativesurfacestructure.Fromtheclassicdefinitionofnarrativeasa"mixed" genre(combiningmimesisanddiegesis)toHelmutBonheim'sTheNarrative Modes(1982),whichanalysesnarrativetextsassequencesofreport,speech, description,andcomment,narratologistsandliteraryscholarshavebeenkeenly awareofthefactthatnovelsorshortstoriesorevenhistoricalworksarenot uniformly"narrative."Noteverysentenceinanarrativetext,thatis,qualifiesas "narrative"bythestandardsofnarratologicalnarrativity.ItwasChatman'sunique achievementtofocusonthisimpurityofthenarrativesurfacestructurewith renewedcriticalattentionandtotackletheprobleminamanneranticipatedbytext linguistics.

Iwouldliketoreturntotheproblemofnarrative'svariegatedtextualsurface structure,pickingupwhereIleftthisissueofgenericclassificationandtexttypesin Towardsa'Natural'Narratology(1996).Inaverybriefsectionofchapter8ofthat book(section8.4,esp.35658),Ihadproposedarevisionandextensionof Chatman'striadwhichImodelledontextlinguisticworkfoundinLongacre'sThe GrammarofDiscourse.Iwouldnowliketoexpandthisproposalevenfurther, linkingitmorecomprehensivelywiththestructureofnaturalnarratology.In particular,Iwishtodiscusssomeofthetheoreticalimplicationsofatexttype approachtothedefinitionofnarrative.Iwillstartbyintroducingafewmodelsfrom textlinguistics,especiallythemodelofVirtanenandWarvikwithwhichIwasnot familiarwhenwritingTowardsa'Natural'Narratology. 1.TextTypes Linguistshaverealizedforsometimethattextualsurfacestructuresdisplayawide spectrumofformsthatvarywiththerespectivetypeofdiscourse.Sincetext linguistics,unlikeliteraryscholarship,doesnotfocusprimarilyonliteraryoreven onwrittentexts,linguistshavehadtodevelopagreatnumberofconceptsto accountforvarietyinlanguageuse(registere.g.)orfortheuseoflanguagein specificsituations(e.g.telephoneconversationsnaturalnarrativedoctorpatient discourseinstructionmanualscookbooks,etc.).Theterm"texttype"intext linguisticsreferstoanumberofquitedistinctphenomenaonavarietyofdifferent levels.In"TextTypeasaLinguisticUnit,"forinstance,Esserdefinestexttypeas "languagevariationaccordingtouseasopposedtovariationaccordingtouser" (142).[1]Hedistinguishesbetweenextensionaldefinitions(texttypesasgenres) definitionsbasedonexternalcriteriaofproductiononstructurallydefined schemataorsuperstructures(cf.vanDijk)anddefinitionsderivingfrom"abstracted corpusnorms"establishedbymeansofstatisticalanalysis(e.g.,intheworkof Biber).Noneofthesedefinitionsconcernthesentenceorparagraphlevel,although theterm"texttype"isfrequentlydeployedwiththatreference,too.Whereasliterary scholarsnaturallyfocusonliterarygenres(synchronicallyanddiachronically)and subdividethemajorgenreslyric,epic(fiction),anddramaintoevermore specifictypes(thenovel,thedetectivenovelmetaphysicalpoetry,thesonnet),text linguistshavebeenconcernedwithfindingequivalentstothegenericdistinctions betweenthelyric/epic/dramaintheirmostlynonliterarycorpora,andhavebeen subdividingtheir"big"texttypesintoevermorespecific"typesoftexts" (Textsorten). AgoodexampleofsuchatypologyisprovidedbyKinneavyinATheoryof Discourse(1971).Kinneavydistinguishesbetweenfour"aimsofdiscourse"(61),

modelledonJakobson'scommunicativefunctions("ClosingStatement"),i.e.the expressive,referential,literaryandpersuasivetexttypes(aswewouldsay).The category"literaryaimsofdiscourse"focussesonthesignal(Jakobson's"poetic function")andincludesthejoke,themovie,theTVshowbesidesdrama,ballads, thelyric,theshortstory,andthelike.Kinneavy'sexpressivecategorysplitsinto(a) individualand(b)socialtypes,includingunder(a)conversation,journals,and prayers,andunder(b)manifestos,contracts,myths,aswellasreligiouscredos. Thereferentialaimofdiscourseencompassesexploratorytexts(dialogues, seminars)scientifictexts("provingapointbyarguingfromacceptedpremises"or "bygeneralizingfromparticulars"itthereforebestfitswhatmightbecalled argumentation)andinformativetexts(newsarticles,textbooks).Thepersuasive categoryincludesreligioussermons,editorials,andpoliticalorlegaloratory. Onecannoticeimmediatelyhowtheseaimsofdiscourseopenupmorequestions thantheyanswer.Forone,writtenandoralmodesarementionedindiscriminately veryspecificsituations(theseminardiscussion)cometostandbesideverygeneral andvoluminoustextualcorpora(legaloratory,scientificdiscourse).Some prominenttexttypesaremissingfromthelist,e.g.,instructionmanualsor guidebooks:arethesepersuasive?Also,whyisaneditorialapersuasivetexttype andnot,rather,expositoryorexpressive?Inotherwords,Kinneavy'scourageous attemptatatypology,whichheestablishesbyaligninganumberoftextual categorieswithacommonpurpose,despiteitsobviousmeritsfailstoseethatmost textsofagiven"genre"arereferentialaswellaspersuasiveorexpressive.Real textscombineanumberofdiscourseaimswithavarietyoflocalrealizationsthat maydeviatefromtheseoverallaimsorstraddleandintegratethemwitheach other. WhatisimportantaboutKinneavy'smodel,though,isthebasicdistinctionbetween aglobaltexttypeontheonehand(hisreferential,expressive,persuasive,and literaryaimsofdiscourse),and,ontheother,itsspecificrealizationinanempirical textbelongingtoagenre(somethingthatlinguistsalsocallatexttypeandthat EgonWerlichcallsatextform[TextGrammar46]).Werlich'stypology(Typologie derTexteATextGrammarofEnglish)distinguishesbetweenfivetexttypes description,narration,exposition,argumentation,andinstruction.Thesefivetext typesareconceivedas"anidealizednormofdistinctivetextstructuringwhich servesasadeepstructuralmatrixofrulesandelementsfortheencoder"(Text Grammar39).Werlich'smodeldistinguishesbetweenthreelevelstheidealtype (whichisofaglobalprototypicalnatureandexistsonlyasanabstractmatrixin languageusers'minds)thetextform,i.e.,thespecifictexttype(e.g.,theselfhelp manual)andtherealmanifesttextaslanguagesentences,paragraphs, chaptersthatincludesrealizationsoftheabstractordersoftexttypeandtextform.

Werlichcallsthisthirdlevelthetextidiom. Werlich'stypologymakesiteasytoanalyzetextsonasentencebysentencelevel. Itdoesraisesomequestions,however,regardingtheidealtypes.Aswith Chatman'striadofdescriptive,argumentative,andnarrative,thecategory descriptionfallssomewhatflatonthelevelofWerlich'sidealtexttypesinceithas fewrealizationsonthetextform(i.e.,genre)level.Descriptionsarearegular constituentofmosttexts,buttextsthatareexclusivelydescriptiveincharacterdo notoccurwithgreatfrequency.Infact,onecanarguethatdescriptivepassages serveacrucialexpositoryfunctionwithinnarrative,inprocedural(instructional)and inargumentativetextssincetheydefineandintroducethephenomenawithwhich thereaderthenengagesnarratively,procedurally,orargumentatively.Itisno coincidencethatthesentenceWerlichusestoexemplifyexposition(Onepartof thebrainisthecortexorrind)caneasilybepartofadescriptionofthebrain(Text Grammar40).Indeed,itishardtoseehowdescriptioncouldworkwithout conceptualclarification,ortheotherwayround. Althoughtheseconceptualdrawbackspersistinallmodels(includingmyown), whatisextremelyimportantinWerlich'sproposalsisthealignmentoftextidiom withtextualfunction.Werlichdoesnotspellthisout,butitisimplicitinhisremarks. Whereastexttypesserveacommunicativefunction(onedeploysanarrativetext typeinordertopresentphenomenaintime),empiricallinguisticsurfacestructure sentencesserveafunctionwithinthisspecificdiscourse.Onecanthusbeginto comprehendhowadescriptivepassageinanarrativetextsetsthescenefor imminentevents,orhowargumentationbythenarratorevaluatestheactionforthe benefitofthenarratee. InowturntotheexcellentpaperbyTuijaVirtanenandBritaWarvik,"Observations surlestypesdetexte."TheirtypologyintegratesthemodelsofKinneavy,Werlich, Longacre(TheGrammarofDiscourse)andJeanMichelAdam("Quelstypesde textes?")andpresentsaverycomplexmultilevelstructure.Briefly,Virtanenand WarvikadoptfromLongacretheemphasisonoraldiscoursetypes,andfromAdam theideaofincludingcriteriafromspeechacttheory. Longacrehaddistinguishedfourtexttypes(basedonthecombinationsoftwo binaryoppositions:textswithorwithouttemporalsuccessionandtextswithor withoutan"agentorientation").Hisfourcategoriesarenarration,procedural discourse,behavioraldiscourse,andexpositorydiscourse.Longacrethus eliminatesdescriptionasaglobaltexttype,andheintroducesacategoryofthe behavioralthatrelatestospeechactorienteddiscourses(theprayer,political speeches).Thus,inLongacre'sschema,whereasargumentisnotatexttypebut

subtendsexpository(scientific)andbehavioral(persuasive)discourses,the conceptoftheproceduralcansubsumedescriptionandexpositioninthe instructionalfunctionthatunderliesthistype.Themajordifferencebetween LongacreandWerlichliesinLongacre'sconcentrationonoralmodes.Moreover, Longacreismoreinterestedintheidealtexttypethaninthesentencebysentence categorizationoftextualsurfacestructure. AdamexpandsWerlich'stypologytoproposeeighttexttypes.Heisnotinterested insurfacestructurephenomenabutinglobalordeepstructurequalitiesoftext. Adam'seighttexttypesare: letypetextuelnarratifspeechact:assertion letypetextueldescriptifspeechact:assertion letypetextuelexplicatifspeechact:assertion letypetextuelargumentatifspeechact:convince letypetextuelinjonctifspeechact:directive letypetextuelpredictifspeechact:prophesy letypetextuelconversationnelspeechacts:questionexcusepromisegenres: interviewdialogue letypetextuelrhetoriquegenres:poetrysongsproverbsgraffiti Aswewillsee,thisschemaanticipatesmyargumentforaconversationaltexttype andareflectivetexttype,Adam's"rhetorical"texttype.Adamisquiteoriginalin aligningtexttypeswithspeechacts,butashisschemademonstrates,suchan alignmentdoesnotyieldawellstructuredsymmetry,forwhilethreetexttypes correlatewithassertivespeechactsalone,othertexttypesconjoinseveraldifferent speechacts.Thepositingofpredictionasaseparatetexttypealsoseems somewhatdetrop:afterall,thistexttypecannotclaimalargenumberoftextsand genresasitsprovince.Thiscriticism,however,isnotmeanttoderogatethemodel whatitattemptstopointoutisthatareallyconvincinglistoftexttypesisextremely difficulttocomebyandthatsuchlistingisfraughtwithatheoreticalminefield (speechactsversusdiscoursefunctionsversuscognitiveparametersas constitutivecategoriesofthetypology).

VirtanenandWarvik'smodel(cf.figure1)extendsthethreelevelsofWerlich's schema.Moreover,theauthorsprofferimportanttheoreticaldiscussionsofthe (non)adequationbetweentexttypesandsurfacestructurephenomena.Virtanen andWarvikfirstofallproposetheexistenceofanoveralllevelofcognitive processes,therebyextractingfromWerlich'stexttypesthosefeaturesthat,froma cognitivepointofview,allowustoestablishcategoricallywhatourdiscoursesare aboutfromaconceptualpointofview.[2]VirtanenandWarvikthenproposea secondlevelrelatingtothefunctionsofdiscourse(Kinneavy'scriterion)that enablesencodersthentopickadiscoursetype("typesdediscours"),i.e.,what Werlichandotherscallatexttype.VirtanenandWarvikdonotlistanyofthese discoursetypesinacomprehensivemanner,butintheirdiscussionrefertoan argumentativediscoursetypeandtoanarrativediscoursetype.InVirtanen'smore explicit"IssuesofTextTypology"(1992),thelistincludesnarrative,description, instruction,exposition,andargument. Thenextlevelistakenupbytexttypes("typesdetextes").Thesearesubdividedin accordancewithmultipleparameters(spokenoralformalinformalfictional nonfictionalmonologicdialogic).Thesecorrespondtothegenresinmymodelor toWerlich'stextforms.Onyetanotherlevel,VirtanenandWarvikintroducetextual strategiesthatallowonetoorganizethetext:"Surunplanplusconcret,onchoisit unestrategietextuellepourorganiserletexte"(107).["Onamorespecificlevel, onechoosesatextualstrategywiththepurposeoforganizingthetext."]These levelsarefurtherextendedtopdowntoincludegrammaticalchoiceand,finally,the actualtextitself,the"texteactualisee." ItisnotquiteclearfromVirtanenandWarvik'sessaywhethertheir"strategies textuelles"concernthechoiceoftextidiomslaWerlich,i.e.,sentencesofnarration, description,andthelike.In"Observationssurlestypesdetexte,"theexample providedtonotethefactthatmosttextsarenot"unitypal"suggeststhatthisis indeedthecase: Pourdonnerunexample,nouspouvonspartirduprocessuscognitifdujugementet notrebutseraalorsdeconvaincredoncnouschoisissonsletypedediscours argumentatif.Maiscetypen'estpasnecessairementactualiseparl'argumentation nouspouvonstresbienchoisir,parexemple,lanarrationetyajouterunpeude descriptionetunmorceaud'evaluation.(10708)["Togiveanexample,wecan takethecognitiveprocessofjudgmentasastartingpoint,andourgoalwillthenbe toconvincesomeone.Hence,wechoosetheargumentativediscoursetype. However,thisdiscoursetypeisnotnecessarilyactualizedbymeansof argumentationwecouldjustaseasilychoosenarrationandaddalittlebitof descriptionandabitofevaluativecommentary."]

ButinVirtanen's"IssuesofTextTypology"theselevelsarereducedtotwolevels, discoursetypesandtexttypes,whichareconstitutedbydiscoursefunctionand textstrategy,respectively.Inthismodel,thegenerictypesagaindisappear,and whatisreferredtoastexttypesareargumentativeordescriptivesentences. In"IssuesofTextTypology,"Virtanenadditionallydiscussesthecombinability betweentexttypesanddiscoursetypesforanumberoftexts.Thus,thenarrative texttype,sheargues,canbeusedinanydiscoursetype,whereasargumentation mostlyservestoconstitutetheargumentativediscoursetype.Themodelalso stipulatesthatnarrativeisleastabletooccurwithouttheactualizationofthe narrativetexttype,whereasargumentcantakeanyshapeonthetexttypelevel (seefigure3in"IssuesofTextTypology").Thisschemathereforepositsa symmetrybetweendiscoursetypesandtexttypes:thereisforeachdiscoursetype oneprototypicaltexttype,andtheotherwayround,evenifintherealizationof idealtypesinempiricaltextsnoneatcorrelationcanbeobserved. Sofar,thelinguisticmodelshaveattemptedtoplacenarrativewithinabroad spectrumofothertexttypes.Themostimportantinsightsfromthesecontributions canbesummarizedasfollows:(1)Onehastodistinguishbetweenglobaltext typesthataredefinedasidealtexttypes,ontheonehand,andrealizationsof thesetexttypesonthelinguisticsurfacestructure,ontheother.(2)Onthe linguisticsurfacestructureacombinationofdiscoursetypesisfoundtointeract. Theirchoicedependsonthediscoursestrategies(VirtanenandWarvik)that speakersorwritersdeploy.(3)Genericexpectationshaveagreatinfluenceonthe constitutionoftexttypeandonthechoiceofdiscoursestrategies.(4)Form(i.e., typeoftexttypeordiscoursetype)andfunction(thespecificdiscoursepurposeto beachieved)mustbedistinguished.Aonetoonerelationshipbetweenformand functioncannotnecessarilybeassumedtoexist. Bearingtheseinsightsinmind,letmenowturntomyownproposalsasdiscussed inTowardsaNatural'Narratology. 2.MacrogenericTextType,GenreandDiscourseMode:ANarratologicalModel InthewakeofHelmutBonheim,bothSeymourChatman,inComingtoTerms,and JonAdams,inNarrativeExplanation,havedistinguishedthreenarratologically relevanttextordiscoursetypes:narrative,description,andargument(Chatman) narrative,description,andexposition(Adams).Thesethreecategoriesquite obviouslyreflectonelementsobservableinnarrativediscourse:thenarrator's diegeticnarration(exclusiveoftherepresentationofcharacters'discourse)clearly

conjoinssentencesthatrefertoplot,sentencesthatdescriptivelysetthescene, andsentencesthatareargumentative(evaluative,readeraddressed,presenting anargumentaboutthefictionalworldoracommentarybythenarratoronit). Delimitingthesethreetypesofsentencesmaybeproblematic,however.Thus, expositionmaybeevaluativeanddescriptiveandevenrefertoevents.Evenmore problematicistheexclusionofdialogue(andthoughtrepresentation)fromthelist sincedialogueoftentakesupalargeproportionofthesurfacetext,andthese modelspretendtoworkonthebasisofabottomupmethodology.Perhapsmost suspectofallisthatbothmodelsposittheexistenceofdescriptionasageneral texttype,sincedescriptionisveryrarelyaunitypetexttype,i.e.,thereare extremelyfewpurelydescriptivetextsaround. InTowardsa'Natural'Narratology,Ithereforeproposed(a)todistinguishbetween threelevelsoftexttypesand(b)tostartoutfromafunctionalapproachthattakes theorallanguageasitsprimarymodel.Mypresuppositionisthatthecategoryof genrealsopertainsinnonliterarydiscourse(cf.Weinrich1972).[3]Mymodelhas manysimilaritiestoVirtanenandWarvik'sschema.ThethreelevelsIproposed were: (1)Thelevelofthemacrogenre,VirtanenandWarvik'sdiscoursetype.Thislevel isconstitutedbythefunctionsofcommunication. (2)Thelevelofgenre.Traditionalgenreexpectationsareoperativehere. (3)Thelevelofdiscoursemodeonthesurfaceleveloftexts.Onthislevel,the function,forinstanceofanargumentativeordescriptivepassage,withinthe schemaofthespecificgenreisatissue. Ifonestartsoutfromtheorallanguage,anumberofadditionalmacrogenres suggestthemselvesforconsideration.ExtendingwhatIsaidinTowardsa'Natural' Narratology,onecouldpositthemacrogenreconversationbesidesnarrative, argument,andinstruction,andonemightevenwanttoaddametalinguistic category(thereflectivetexttype).Beforearguingforthisparticularsetofmacro genres,letmefirstpresenttherestoftheschema.Onthespecificlevelof empiricaltexts,thesemacrogenresarerealizedastextualgenres(written language)andtexttypes(Textsortenorallanguage).Thediversityofthesegenres arisesfromthemultiplicityoftheircontextsofusethecategorizationintogenres withinamacrogenreiseffectedonthebasisofthediscoursefunctionsconstitutive ofthemacrogenres. Onthethirdlevel,whichIseeasentirelydistinctfromthetwogenericlevels,the

surfacestructureoftextsandthespecificfunctionalcorrelateswithinspecific genresortexttypesdeterminethediscoursemodesthatIhaveenumeratedin figure2.Forinstance,descriptionwithinnarrativeservesanorientationalfunction (expositioninthesenseofprovidingbackgroundinformationforthebetterreliefing ofnarrativeforeground),butwithinscientificprose,forexample,descriptionmaybe partofanexpositionorpartofadirectivesequenceinaguidebook.Likewise,what isusuallyconsideredtobenarrativereport(thepresentationofeventsequences) correspondstotheargumentativebackboneinhistoriographyandtotheprocedural coreofinstructionaldiscourse.Somediscoursemodes,liketheoralmodeof phaticexpressions(mmh,right,good,whatever),donothaveequivalentsinother texttypesbecausetheyarespecifictoconversationalexchange.Thelistof discoursemodesisthereforeopen,andindividualdiscoursemodesperform entirelydifferentfunctionsintheirvariousgenericcontexts. Beforegoingintothemodelinmoredetail,letmestartbyemphasizingthatthe proposalIampresentingforconsiderationisnotmeanttobethelastwordonthis issueoftexttypesandrelatedconcepts.Asaliteraryscholarwithagreatdealof interestinlinguistics,whatIamdoinghereisofferingafewsuggestionsfroma narratologicalperspective.Itisuptotextlinguisticstoaddfurthercategories,orto reconceptualizetheschemainanywaythatlinguistsfindcorrespondswiththeir material.Themodelinfigure2isnotmeanttobeasolutiontowhatareclearly quiteintractableproblemsforliteraryscholarsandlinguistsalike,buttentativelyto redresswhatIhaveseenassomeshortcomingsinpreviousmodels,particularly fromanarratologicalperspective. Afterthesecaveats,allowmetoproceedintomoredetail.Ihaveproposedtwonew macrogenres,conversationandreflectivediscourse,amovethatrequiressome justification.Muchoftheorallanguagecannotbealignedexclusivelywithan argumentativepersuasiveordidacticorinstructionalpurpose,nordoesitserveto expressthespeaker'sexperience(narrative).Muchconversationalexchange merelyservesthepurposeofwhatJakobsoncalledthephaticfunctionstayingin touch,establishingandpreservingcontact,furtheringsocialinteraction.Most conversationisinfactseeminglypurposeless,doesnothavepredeterminedaims orclearproceduralroutines,oratbestmovesfromoneshorttermgoaltothe other.Indeed,muchofconversationalnarrativecanbeidentifiedasanexchange ofnews,haveyouheardthelatest?typeofdiscourse,ratherthananinstanceof fullblownnarrativeexperientialityandtothisextentmuchconversationalnarrative hasalowdegreeofnarrativityintermsofnaturalnarratology.Conversationhas beenproposedasamacrogenretoaccountfortheprominenceofinteractivityin theorallanguage.Inwrittentexts,therearenotmanysuchinteractivegenres.On thelevelofdiscoursemode,thetextualmanifestationthatmostclosely

correspondstointeractionisdialogue,aprominenttextualsurfaceelementin narrative.ThereaderwillhavenotedthatIhaveplaceddramaamongthenarrative genres.Ididthistomarktheexperiential,narrativestructureofdramaticliterature. Inliterarydramatheinteractionisbetweenthecharactersonstagetheir interactionbelongswiththeconversationalmacrogenre.Theplayasawhole, however,isanarrative,andthatnarrativeisrepresentedbyanenactmentofit. Thisinteractionbetweencharactersshouldnotbeidentifiedwithinteraction betweencommunicativepartnersonthediscourselevel(intheirdialogue)indeed, dramaisoneoftheliteraryformsthathasleastdirectpersuasiveforcesinceits modeofrhetoricisforthemostpartanindirectone(tobedecodedbythe audience).Theconversationalformofdramathereforeservesarepresentational (mimetic)andmediumrelatedfunction. Mysecondnewcategoryrequiringsomeexplanationisthemetalinguisticgenre, whichIhavecalled"reflective."Inasensesuchacategoryisthedescendentof Jakobson'spoeticandmetalinguisticfunctionsorofKinneavy'sliteraryaimof discourse.Moreover,initsreflectivegarb,thismacrogenrehasmuchto recommenditselfasaquitegeneraldiscoursefunction.Alldiscourse,writtenand oral,narrativeorexpository,isusuallyframedbytwoadditionaldiscourselevels: anorientational,backgroundlevelaswellasacommentatorylevel.Inotherwords, whatevertypeoftextwearewriting,wealwaysaddcommentstoitorfillin additionalinformation.Thus,inahistoricaltext,commentsbythehistoriographer onthepurposesofhisendeavororevaluativeasidesoccurasfrequentlyas explanatorycommentsontheantecedentsofcertaindevelopments.Likewise,ina cookbooksomegeneralcommentsmaybefound,forinstanceadviceonhow importantitistohaveanadditionalteneggsonhand,andspecificinstructions maybeexpandedbyexplanatoryasidesonhowpreciselytofoldintheeggsor whipthecream.Furthermore,discoursesinavarietyofwaysreflectonthemselves orstepawayfromcommunicativepurposestoindulgeinabstraction,speculation, andplay.Suchusesofdiscourseneednotbeliteraryassuch,buttheycanbe alignedwithanumberofhistoricalgenresortexttypes,someofwhichsuchas jokesarefrequentlydiscussedaspotentiallyliterarytexts.Mymainintentionin addingthecategoryofreflectivediscourse,however,wastofindaslotforthe genreofpoetry(inthesenseoflyricpoetry).Apoemrepresentsperhapsthemost perfectexampleofaliterarytextwithoutaclearlydeterminablecommunicative purpose.Evenwherethemoodofthespeakerisatissue,apoemseemstoconsist inanexpressionoffeelingforitsownsake.Itisforthisreasonthatthereflective categoryhasbeenaddedtothelistofmacrogenres.Iwillcomebacktothegenre ofpoetryanditsnarratologicalrelevanceinsection3below. Thesecondmostcrucialreorientationapparentfromfigure2concernsthe

introductionandnamingofalevelofdiscoursemodes.AsIalreadynoted,these donotdirectlycorrelatewithgenresormacrogenresbut,instead,constitutetext linguisticunitswithingenrespecificschemata.AdamandEsseralreadygestured inthisdirectionwhentheysawthetexttypenarrativeasstructuredbyasplitinto storyandevaluation,withstorysubdividingintoorientationandstory,andstoryinto narrativeepisodesthatconsistofrecursiveeventresolutionsegments.Inthewake ofmyproposalsinTowardsa'Natural'Narratology,onecanspecifythestructureof narrativeevenfurther.Thus,forconversationalstorytelling,itcanbedemonstrated thatthediscoursemodereportoccursinnarrativeclausesinsideepisodesaswell as(lessconsistently)insomeflashback(delayedorientation)sectionsdescription occursprototypicallyinorientationanddelayedorientationsectionsargumentation innarratorialcommentandinthefinalevaluation(thecoda)andtheabstractcould bearguedtobelongtotheexpositionaldiscoursemode,withinteractional discourse(readeraddress)alsoconfinedtotheframingnarratorialsegments (abstract,coda,narratorialcomment).Dialogue,acentralfeatureofnarrative episodes,isanotherprominentdiscoursemode. Inthecaseofothergenres,thestructuralpatternsandfunctionallyrelevant discoursemodesvarygreatly.Rhetoricalgenres,forinstance,couldbeanalyzedin termsofclassicalrhetoriccategoriessuchasdispositio(cf.Adam'streatmentofa commercialforadishwashingliquid42)conversationmightrequireaquite differentanalysisthatwouldhavetorecurtostructuralpatternssuchasturns, feedback,ortopicchangingandattentionpreservingmechanismsand argumentativeprosecouldbestructuredintermsoflogicalproceduralprogression withmechanismsforcompletion,thematicexpansionandsequenceformation(cf. Werlich,TextGrammar2438).MulcahyandSamuelsquoteatypologybyB.J.F. Meyer(1985)inwhichdifferenttypesofexpositorywritingareoutlined: Meyerclassifiestextaccordingtofivetypes:collection(listlike),causation, response(problemsolution),comparison,anddescription.Eachofthese classificationsprescribesaspecifictypeoflogicalrelationship.Forinstance, causationspecifiesacausalrelationshipinwhichoneideaisthecauseandthe relatedideaistheconsequence.[...]Meyer&Freedle(1979)notedtheeffectsof fourtypesoftopleveldiscoursestructuresonrecall.Theynotedthatsubjectswho listenedtoadversative(contrastive)andcovariance(causeeffect)structures rememberedmorethansubjectswholistenedtoattribution(listlike)andresponse (problemsolution)structures.(251) Suchglobalstructuresforexpositorywritingalsoallowforfunctionalsubdivisionin paralleltothatofepisodeelementsinnarrative.ThepointIwanttomakehere concernsthevariabilityofdiscoursemodes(thereareagreatnumberofdiscourse

modes,quiteafewofwhicharepeculiartoonlyoneortwogenres)andtheir functionalmultivalence:Reportordescription,forinstance,haveanentirely differentstatusandfunctioninnarrativesthantheydoinexpositorywriting.Again, asaliteraryscholarIamhereturningthejobovertolinguiststodomorewithsuch amodel.Myconcern,basically,isanarratologicallyfruitfulapproachtotheissueof texttypes,i.e.,macrogenres. WhatisnewaboutthemodelIhaveproposedrelatesprimarilytothefunctional alignmentofdiscoursemodeswithingenres.AsinVirtanenandWarvikand Kinneavy,themacrogenresareidealtypes,andsoaregenresandtexttypes.My mainconcerninproposingthemodelhasbeentoexplicatethemacrogenre narrativeasanidealtypeandtorelateitsmultiformtextualsurfacestructureonthe sentencelevel(i.e.,thediscoursemodes)totheabstracttexttypecategory(here splitintomacrogenreandspecificgenericmoulds).Ithereforenowreturntomy narratologicaloriginsinspellingoutwhatthismodelmightdoinpractical narratologicalterms. 3.ConsequencesforNaturalNarratology InthisfinalsectionofthepaperIwanttooutlineafewconsequencesofmy conceptionofmacrogenresfornarratology. Theprovisionalmodelofmacrogenrespresentedhereis,firstofall,onethattakes naturallyoccurringdiscoursesasitsprototypes.Therefore,allmacrogenres correspondtodiscoursefunctionsobservedinorallanguage.Nevertheless,some discoursefunctionshaveintermsofactualizedgenresdevelopedmorestrongly inthewrittenlanguage,whereasothers(theconversationalmacrogenre)continue tobeconstitutiveoforalityeventhoughtheyareadaptabletowrittendiscourse.As aconsequenceofthehistoricalmovefromoralitytoliteracy,thesurfacestructure oftextsbeginstoevolveindifferentways.Asfarasthenarrativemacrogenreis concerned,forinstance,thediscoursemodesobservableinnaturalnarrative increasinglylosetheiroriginalfunctionswithinthestructureofthe(oral)narrative episodeandentailchangesinnarrativestructurethatrequireconcomitant functionalrealignmentsandmodifications.Thus,theoriginaryepisodicpatternof oralnarrativedevelopstowardsareportplusscenestructureconstitutiveofthe novelasagenre.Asimilartypeofdevelopmentcanbeobservedforsuchmacro genresasargumentativeorinstructionaldiscoursebecauseeachwrittentexttype tendstoevolveatraditionofitsowninwhichquitespecificstructuresand techniquesestablishthemselvesascoreelementsofthegenre.Oneneedonly thinkofthetopicsentenceinessaywritingtorealizethatsuchfeaturesareboth structurallycentralandhistoricallyrelativetopicsentencesarenotthenormin

FrenchorGermanargumentativeprose,andthesedaystheyseemtohavegone outoffashiontosomeextenteveninEnglishlanguagecomposition.Mymodelis thereforeopentoadiachronicperspective. Asecondimportantconsequenceofintegratingnarrativewithothermacrogenres isthereposingofthedefinitionalquestionofnarrative.Ifnarrativeisdefinablein relationtoaspectrumoffiveorseventexttypes(macrogenres),thenoneis temptedtosetnarrativeincontrasttoinstructionorreflectioninaquiteessentialist manner,or,relationally,topositsystematicallycomplementarydiscoursefunctions foreachmacrogenre.Hereitisextremelyimportanttorememberthatmacro genresareabstractionsanddonotexistinfact,they"exist"muchlessconcretely thandogenresmanifestedinahugenumberofactualtextsanddoseemto influencecompositionbytheweightoftradition(thebulkofformersuchtexts)and thehypostacized"genre"conceptemanatingfromthattraditionorpractice. Moreover,bycontrastingmacrogenericfeatures,oneisactuallycontrasting idealizedconcretizationsofdiscoursefunctions. Itmight,infact,evenbepossibletoeliminatethelevelofmacrogenresbyaswift slashwithOccam'srazor.Afterall,thepurposethatmacrogenresserveisthatof orderinggenresintomanageablegroupsorcategories.Despitesomebasic distinctionsthatapparentlyformpartofspeakers'linguisticcompetence(Faigley andMeyer),thetraditionalcategorizationsreposeonveryarbitrarygroupings,as thecomparisonofdifferentmodelsoftexttypes(includingmyown)hasnodoubt illustrated.Itisbecausewewanttofindacommondenominatoramongtextsthat weregardasnarrative,expository,orinstructionalthatwebegintosearchfora discoursefunctionthatmightunitetheverydisparategenreswithinthese categories.Thus,topositthatreadersfirstchooseadiscoursefunctionbeforethey decideonatexttypeorgenreseemstometoinverttheorderinwhich,cognitively speaking,textualizingprocessesactuallyevolve.Speakers,Iwouldargue,startout fromauniverseofdiscourses,andwithinthatuniversepickoutthegenrethat seemsmostappropriatetotheircurrentconcerns.Iwouldpresumethattheyalso tacticallychooseonegenreoveranotherbecauseofthetextualstrategies availableinaspecificgenre. Havingdeconstructedtheideaofthemacrogenreandrevealedittobeamerered herringintextlinguisticsandliterarytheory,wheredowegofromhere? Whereastextlinguisticscanperhapsaffordtoshrugitsshouldersandsimplyturn totheanalysisofindividualgenres(cookbooks,instructionmanuals,TV commercials),postponingtheorizationtothestagewhenitcansafelybeperformed inaninductivemanner,literaryscholarsfindthemselvesintheunenviableposition

ofhavingtosearchthroughtheirownrubbishbin:evenifoneagreesthat "narrative"asamacrogenremaybeanillusionaryconcept(and,evenmoreso,an elusiveone),thefactremainsthatthereexisthugenumbersofnovels,poems, plays,histories,andbiographies,andthatonehastomakecategoricaldistinctions amongthem.Sinceliterarycriticsdonotregularlyconcernthemselveswith scientificproseorinstructionmanuals,theyfocusonaverynarrowsetoftexts,so calledliterarytexts,thatis.Asaconsequence,distinctionsamongthemloomlarge, andtheconstrainttosetapartwhatreadersintuittobedifferentgroupsofgenres resultsintheoreticaldisciplinessuchaspoetics,genretheory,narratology,drama theory,orthetheoryofpoetry.Whyisitsomuchmoreimportanttoliterary scholarsthattheycan"prove"atexttobenarrativeratherthan,say,lyric?Perhaps thisisthecasebecausetherearesomanypoemsorprosetextsthatdefy categorization,thatforcereaderstodecidewhethertoreadthemasnarrative ratherthanaspoetry?Becausewereadliterarytextsquitedifferentlywhenwe readthemasnarrativesratherthanaspoemsoressays.Whenweencountera commercial,wereadthisasacommercial,andtheproblemofwhethera commercialisaninstructionaltext(goandbuythis)oranargumentativetext(this articleisgoodbecause...)arisesforthetextlinguistbutpresumablynotforthe consumer.Bycontrast,readingapassagefromGertrudeStein'slaterworkas narrativewillyieldaquitedifferentreadingexperiencefromitsbeingreadas poetry. Whichbringsusbacktothemuchvexedquestionofthedistinctionsbetweenthe narrativeandpoeticgenres,anissuerecentlytakenupagainbyWernerWolfin "AestheticIllusioninPoetry."(Thedistinctnessofdramainanydiscussionmakesit amootpointinthiscontextevenifnarratologistslayclaimtodramaasanarrative genre,dramawillalwaysbeclearlydefinedonaccountofitsdialogueformand performativeandvisualnature.) Wolfdoesnotcreateaninviolablebarrierbetweenpoetryandwhathecalls aestheticillusion(whichcorrelateswithmimesisasprototypicallyconstitutiveof narrative,drama,painting,film).AccordingtoWolf,Keats's"GrecianUrn"canbe readasanillusionistictextinwhichthe"perceptionoftheurn,"ratherthanbeinga merelystaticdescription,turnsinto"adynamicimaginativeactivity"(28283)and thereforefulfillsarequirementofexperientiality(Fludernik)thatforWolfconstitutes aestheticillusionism.[4]Inotherwords,bypositingtheviewerasengagedina specificactofperception,onespecificinspaceandtime,Wolfisabletomovefrom thedisplacement,abstraction,andgeneralityofpoetrytoaestheticillusion.But Wolfdoesnotalignthispoemwithnarrativity.[5]Wolf'sproposals,whichareavery interestingreworkingofhisearlierpositionsinAsthetischeIllusion(1993),also introducingthepossibleworldsaspectsofaestheticillusion,arelocatedonthe

levelofinterliteraryanalysis.Theysplittheliteraryfieldintoillusionistic, antiillusionistic,andnonillusionistictexts.ForWolf,thegenrenarrativeisdistinctly illusionistic,evenifcombinablewithsomeantiillusionisticelements.Poetry,by contrast,isprototypicallyconceivedofasnonillusionisticbutmayassume illusionisticfeaturesifreadnarratively(thenarrativepoem)orexperientially,asin thecaseofKeats's"GrecianUrn." Problemsarise,however,ifoneattemptstointegrateWolf'smodelwithtexttype theory.ThemainoneisthatbecauseWolfverylaudatorilyattemptstodefine aestheticillusionaswellaspoetryonthebasisofaclusteroffeaturespartlyin binaryopposition,hedeploysfeaturesthatdonoteasilycomparewithinstructional proseorwithscientifictexts.Thus,Wolfslistofthecharacteristicsofpoetry ("AestheticIllusion"26163)combines(1)brevityandreduction(versusthenovel? butthisisafeaturealsotypicallyadducedfortheshortstory)(2)thepresenceof alyricpersona(fiction,too,usuallyissupposedtohaveaspeaker)(3)the "emphasisontheutteranceastheproductofconsciousnessratherthanonthe contentoftheutterance(asinnarrativefiction)"(4)dereferentialization(i.e.,lackof specificity,afeaturethatisprominentinnarrative)(5)foregroundedself referentiality(i.e.,Jakobson'spoeticfunctionthisisafeaturesharedwithanti illusionisticnarrative)(6)musicality(i.e.,therhythmicandacousticfeaturesof poetry)and(7)artificiality(i.e.,theforegroundingofformalfeaturesofpoetrysuch asversification).Itisinterestingtonotethatanarrativethatisparticularlyanti illusionistic,havingqualities(3),(4),(5)and(7),wouldaccordingtothismodel appeartobemore"lyrical"thanprototypicallynarrative. Wolf'sessayisaparticularlynoteworthyattempttosetupadefinitionofpoetryin contradistinctiontonarrative,therebyredefiningnarrativeinoppositiontopoetry. Thismoveconstitutesadeparturefromthetraditionalconstitutiveoppositionof narrativeversusdramathatisthebasisofF.K.Stanzel'snarrativetheoryand implicitinGenette'sformulations.Wolfisastuteinnotsettingupclearbinary oppositionsbetweennarrativeandpoetryoneachandeverycount.What immediatelyemergesasacrucialconsequenceofthismodel,however,isitslack ofcommongroundwithsuchtexttypeoppositionsasChatman'snarrative, argument,anddescription,andexpositoryandinstructionalwritinginsomeother typologies.NordoesWolfaddressthequestionoffictionality,althoughhis alignmentofaestheticillusionquaexperientialitywithpossibleworldstructure suggeststhatlyricpoetryisonlypartlyafictionalgenre.Butthequestionof fictionalityasaqualifyingcategorydoesnotreallyarisebecausehisemphasisis exclusivelyontheliteraryrealm.InWolf'sveryinterestingmodel,theliteraryrealm isentirelycutofffromthatofothernonliterarytexts.Thequestionwhether,orto whatextent,hiscategoriesmightapplyto,orcomparewith,historicalwriting,

instructionalproseorexpositorydiscoursesimplydoesnotfigure.Thevery strengthofthemodelliespreciselyinitsconcentrationontheliteraryfield,and withinthatitsuppliesexcellentdistinctions. Naturalnarratology,bycontrast,hassetitselfthetasktoencompasstheentire rangeofliteraryandnonliterarytexts,andlikeChatmantointegratenarrativewith othermacrogenres.Ihavenowmodifiedmyearlierproposalstoaddthereflective macrogenretothemoretraditionallist,anditmightthereforebeofusetoshow morepreciselyhownaturalnarratologycombinesthelinguisticframeworkoftext typeswiththerequirementsofnarratologicalandpoeticanalysis.Comparing narrativewithothermacrogenres(includingthereflective)putstheemphasison thediscoursefunction(s)ofnarrativethatinnaturalnarrativeconsistinthe discursivemasteringofexperience.Experientialitywasdefinedastheconjunction oftellabilityandpoint(Towardsa'Natural'Narratology29),thatis,inrelationtothe narrativedynamicsofembodiedexperienceandhumanconsciousness. Reflectivity,bycontrast,althoughitisalsoanexpressivediscoursefunction,seems tooperatelikeakindofequivalentof"artforart'ssake"intherealmofdiscourse. AsWolfpointsout,whereastheselfreferentialstrainofpoetrycanbetreatedas anindicatorofdereferentialization,narrative(andallothermajormacrogenres)are inherentlyreferential(whethertheyrefertoapossibleworldortheaddressee'sand speaker'ssharedworld). Whatisthestatusofaestheticillusionandofconsciousnessinthesemodels? Aestheticillusion,intheframeworkofnaturalnarratology,correspondstoa naturalizationofatextasmimetic.ForthoseunfamiliarwithTowardsa'Natural' Narratology,naturalizationistheprocessbymeansofwhichreadersdecodeatext asnarrative.Oneofthemajorconsequencesofthemodelofnaturalnarratology hasbeentheintegrationoftwentiethcenturytextsthataccordingtotraditional narratologicalaccountswereonlymarginallynarrativeintotherealmofnarrativity. Thus,suchplotlessModernisttextsasVirginiaWoolf's"TheMarkontheWall" displayahighdegreeofexperientialityandarethereforeprototypicallynarrative. Notonlyisthespeakerin"TheMarkontheWall"representedasanexperiencer,a consciousness,butthetextisalsoanexampleofextensivereflectivityand thereforeevenmorecloselyboundupwithhumanconsciousness.Suchtextsare narrativizedaccordinglyasinstancesofrepresentedconsciousness.Other,more metafictionalexercises,suchasthetextsofB.S.Johnson,likewisecanbe narrativizedasexercisesinnarratorialreflectivity:thespeaker'sreflectiveand criticalconsciousnessconstitutestheexperientialityofthetext. Thequestionhereistowhatextentmimesisinterrelateswithconsciousness. Mimesiscertainlycomprisestherepresentationofconsciousnessaspartofour

everydayworldexperience.Itdoesnotnecessarilyentailconsiderationsof temporalandspatialanchoringoroftemporality,bothofwhicharecentraltothe notionofnarrativeexperientialityandthereforeconstitutiveofnarrativity.Wolf's aestheticillusion,whichItaketobeacognitivelyupdatedversionofmimesis(and, possibly,realism),correlateswiththeillusionoflifelikeness.Sincenarrative experientialityispartofthegeneralhumanexperience,itcanbecomeasignifiedof aestheticillusionism.Narrativity,whichisestablishedbytheprojectionof experientialconsciousness(asagent,patient,viewer,orsimplyasreflectivemind) withinspecificspatiotemporalparameters,thereforeparticipatesinillusionism,but illusionismisnotnecessarilyconstitutiveofnarrative.Keats's"OdetoaGrecian Urn"canbediscussedasaninstanceofaestheticillusion,ofekphrasis.Itisnotan instanceofnarrative,however,sincethespeakerremainstooabstracttofigureas anarrativepersona.Ontheotherhand,apoemlikeMarlowe's"ThePassionate ShepherdtohisLove"("Comelivewithme,andbemylove")isarguablymore narrativesinceitinvokesanentiresituationofwooingthatmightbespecificin placeandtime.Coleridge's"KublaKhan"isperhapsevenmoreeasily recuperableasnarrative,eitherasamarginallynarrativeaccountofKublaKhan's specificexperienceofomens("And'midthistumultKublaheardfromfar/ Ancestralvoicesprophesyingwar!"),ormuchmoreconvincinglyastheaccount ofthespeaker'sdreamvision,i.e.,hisconsciousness.Narrativepoems,suchas ThomasGray's"OdeontheDeathofaFavouriteCat"("'Twasonaloftyvase'sside [...]ThepensiveSelimareclined[...]Shetumbledheadlongin.")orColeridge's "AncientMariner,"neednoadditionaleffortatnarrativizationtheirnarrativityis easilyassuredonthebasisofaproperplotandcorrelativeexperientiality. Poetrycan,therefore,bothinWolf'smodelandinmyown,shareillusionisticand evennarrativefeatures.Butprototypicalpoetrytendstobebothnonnarrativeand nonillusionistic.Withinatexttypeapproachtoliterarygenres,however,aesthetic illusion(whetherinconjunctionwith,orasareplacementof,narrativity)haslittle usefulnessasadefiningfeatureofnarrativeincontrasttoinstructionor conversationorothermacrogenres.Infictionalnarratives,preciselyonaccountof theirfictionality,aestheticillusionismcanlayclaimtoanimportantstatusinthe criticalvocabulary.Whenoneextendsthestudyofnarrativetotherealmofall discourses,differentdistinctionsbecomeoperative. But,asinthediscussionaboutmacrogenres,thisanalysisisactuallydetrop. Whatreadersreallydowhentheyreadatextlargelydependstostartwithonthe observablegenericalignmentofthattext.Insofarasatextisreadasnarrative (andpoemswilllesseasilygiverisetosuchareading),itisreadasaspecific instantiationofexperientialityintime,andthisreadingwillimplyagoodmeasureof mimeticillusionism.Narrativization,moreover,managestoexplainhow

experimentaltextsthatareplainlyantiillusionisticneverthelessallowthemselvesto bereadinaccordancewithnarrativeframes.Poems,whichareprototypically conceivedofasnonillusionistic,canalsobereadasnarratives,butonlytothe extentthattheyengagewithspecificity[6]andtemporality,andwiththediscursive masteryofexperience. Atthispointwehave,however,leftbehindourlinguisticmodeloftexttypesbased oninductiveabstractionsandhavemovedinsteadtoareceptionorientedmodelof thedynamicdecodingprocess,amodelthatopensitselftodiachronicanalysis. Withintheconfinesofthemimeticlanguagegame,thepurelyliteraryconceptions ofWolf'smodelpertainwhenexpandedtoincludetheorallanguage,nonfiction andadiachronicperspective,narrativityifwearetocreateabstractentitiesatall needstobeconceivedinabroaderandmoredurableshape.Itmustoperateasa texttypeconstituentaswellasacategoryofliteraryproduction,anditmustbe flexibleenoughtoallowforreaders'orspeakers'appropriations,modifications,or revaluations.Itisfromthisbroad,inclusiveperspectivethatnaturalnarratologycan fruitfullyengagewithtextlinguisticsandbecomeapartnerinalively crossdisciplinaryexchange.Afterall,genreispotaconceptconfinedtoliterary criticism,butatermrelatingtocategorialanalysis.Andcategoriesofthemindare sharedamongusall. MonikaFludernik(fluderni@ruf.unifrieburg.de)isprofessorofEnglishliteratureat theUniversityofFreiburg/Germany.SheistheauthorofTheFictionsofLanguage andtheLanguagesofFiction(Routledge,1993)andTowardsa'Natural' Narratology(Routledge,1996),whichwasawardedthePerkinsPrizebythe SocietyfortheStudyofNarrativeLiterature(SSNL).Shehaseditedaspecialissue onsecondpersonfiction(Style28.3,1994),aspecialissueofTheEuropean JournalofEnglishStudieson"LanguageandLiterature"(EJES2.2,1998),and (coeditedwithDonaldandMargaretFreeman)aspecialissueofPoeticsToday 20.3(1999)on"MetaphorandBeyond:NewCognitiveDevelopments."Further publicationsincludetwocollectionsofessays(HybridityandPostcolonialism: TwentiethCenturyIndianLiterature,Tubingen:Stauffenburg,1998andDas18. Jahrhundert,Trier:WYT,1998).Forthcomingaretwofurthercollections,Romantik (Trier:WVT,2000)andFindesiecle(Trier:WVT,2001),andamonographon GabrielJosipovici(NewYork:Lang,2000). Notes (1.)SeedeBeaugrande(19799)foracomprehensiveuserorientedtypology. (2.)AccordingtoFaigleyandMeyer's"RhetoricalTheory,"readersareableto

recognizetexttypesaspartoftheirlinguisticcompetence. (3.)"WenndieLiteraturwissenschaft,auBerdenTextenderschonenLiteraturoder Dichtung,auchnichtpoetische('expositorische')Texteuntersuchenwill,istder historischliterarischeGattungsbegriffohnebesondereSchwierigkeitenaufdiesen Untersuchungsbereichubertragbar"(Weinreich161).'Ifliterarycriticismanalyzes nonpoetic('expository')textsbesidesbelleslettresorpoetry,itcandosowithout anydifficultyandcanemploytheconceptofgenre(atermfromliteraryhistory) alsoinreferencetosuchnonpoetictexts." (4.)Wolf'soriginaldefinitionofaestheticillusioninAsthetischeIllusionund IllusionsdurchbrechunginderErzahlkunstdidnotyetreposeonacriterionof experientiality.IintroducedtheterminTowardsa'Natural'Narratologytodefine narrativityandtolinknarrativewithaconsciousnessfactorwhetherofmediationor participation. (5.)Wolfcontinuestolinknarrativitywithplotdensity("Ereignishaftigkeitpersonal communication). (6.)ComparealsoPfister1214. (7.)Thisisfigure6("Lesniveauxd'analysetypologiquedestextes")inVirtanen andWarvik106. WorksCited Adam,JeanMichel."Quelstypesdetextes?"LefrancaisdansleMonde192 (1985):3943. Adams,JonK.NarrativeExplanation:APragmaticTheoryofDiscourse.Aachen BritishandAmericanStudies7.FrankfurtandBerlin:Lang,1996. deBeaugrande,Robert.Text,DiscourseandProcess:TowardaMultidisciplinary ScienceofTexts.AdvancesinDiscourseProcesses4.Norwood,NJ:Ablex,1980. Biber,Douglas.VariationacrossSpeechandWriting.Cambridge:CambridgeUP, 1995. Bonheim,Helmut.TheNarrativeModes:TechniquesoftheShortStory. Cambridge:Brewer,1982.

Chatman,Seymour.ComingtoTerms:TheRhetoricofNarrativeinFictionand Film.Ithaca,NY:CornellUP,1990. Clark,Robert,andThomasHealy,eds.TheArnoldAnthologyofBritishandIrish LiteratureinEnglish.London:Arnold,1997. Coleridge,SamuelTaylor."KublaKhan."ClarkandHealy71718. ___."TheRimeoftheAncientMariner."ClarkandHealy699717. vanDijk,TeunA.Textwissenschaft:EineinterdisziplinareEinfuhrung.Munich: DeutscherTaschenbuchverlag(dtv),1980. Esser,Jurgen."TextTypeasaLinguisticUnit."Anglistentag1990Marburg. Proceedings.Ed.ClausUhligandRudigerZimmermann.Tubingen:Niemeyer, 1991.14253. Faigley,Lester,andPaulMeyer."RhetoricalTheoryandReaders'Classificationsof TextTypes."Text3.4(1983):30525. Fludernik,Monika.Towardsa'Natural'Narratology.London:Routledge,1996. Gray,Thomas."OdeontheDeathofaFavouriteCat."ClarkandHealy62526. Jakobson,Roman."ClosingStatement.LinguisticsandPoetics."1958.Roman Jakobson:LanguageinLiterature.Ed.KrystynaPomorskaandStephenRudy. Cambridge,MA:TheBelknapPressofHarvardUP,1987.6294. Keats,John."OdeonaGrecianUrn."ClarkandHealy76466. Kinneavy,JamesL.ATheoryofDiscourse.TheAimsofDiscourse.Englewood Cliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall,1971. Longacre,RobertE.TheGrammarofDiscourse.NewYork:PlenumPress,1983. Marlowe,Christopher."ThePassionateShepherdtohisLove."ClarkandHealy l68. Meyer,B.J.F."ProseAnalysis:Purposes,Procedures,andProblems." UnderstandingExpositoryText.Ed.B.BrittonandJ.Black.Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence EribaumAssociates,1985.

___,andR.Freedle.TheEffectsofDfferentDiscourseTypesonRecall.Princeton, NJ:EducationalTestingService,1979. Mulcahy,PatriciaI.,andS.JaySamuels."ProblemSolvingSchemataforText Types:AComparisonofNarrativeandExpositoryTextStructures."Reading Psychology:AnInternationalQuarterly8(1987):24756. Pfister,Manfred."ThePhilosophicalandtheDramaticDialogue."Comparative Criticism20(1998):315. Stanzel,FranzKarl.ATheoryofNarrative.Cambridge:CambridgeUP.1984. Virtanen,Tuija."IssuesofTextTypology:NarrativeA'Basic'TypeofText?"Text 12.2(1992):293310. ___,andBritaWarvik."Observationssurlestypesdetexte."Communications.8 RecontredesprofesseursdefrancaisdeI'enseignementsuperieur.Ed.Juhani HarmaandIrisMakinenSchwanck.Helsinki:PublicationsduDepartementdes LanguesRomanes6,1987.91114. Weinrich,Harald."ThesenzurTextsortenLinguistik."Textsorten: DifferenzierungskriterienausIinguistischerSicht.Ed.ElisabethGulichand WolfgangRaible.Frankfurt:Athenaum,1972.16169. Werlich,Egon.TypologiederTexte:EntwurfeinestextlinguistischenModellszur GrundlegungeinerTextgrammatik.Heidelberg:Quelle&Meyer,1975. ___.ATextGrammarofEnglish.2nded.Heidelberg:Quelle&Meyer.1983. Wolf,Werner.AsthetischeIllusionundIllusionsdurchbrechunginderErzahlkunst: TheorieundGeschichtemitSchwerpunktaufenglischemillusionsstorenden Erzahlen.Tubingen:Niemeyer,1993. ___."AestheticIllusioninLyricPoetry?"Poetica30.34(1998):25189. Woolf,Virginia."TheMarkontheWall."AHauntedHouse,andOtherShort Stories.NewYork:HarcourtBraceJovanovich,1972.3746.
COPYRIGHT2000NorthernIllinoisUniversity

Copyright2000Gale,CengageLearning.Allrightsreserved.