Social Minds in Drama. Golnaz Shams
to in this book uses a translation titled A Doll House and hence I will use the latter title as well.
←32 | 33→
Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
Abstract: This chapter traces the development of narrative studies from its early stages – classical narratology – to modern branches collectively called postclassical narrative studies. It points out the shortcomings of classical narratology and the merits of postclassical narrative study, especially the contribution of one of the branches, cognitive narrative studies. Then the chapter explores the place of Palmer's theory within the framework of cognitive narrative studies. At the end of the chapter the status of drama in this theory is discussed.
2.1 From Classical Narratology to Postclassical and Cognitive Narrative Studies
This study is based on an application of Alan Palmer’s work to drama analysis. In this chapter, I will, therefore, place Palmer in the context of narratological thinking before using his insight to analyse playscripts. In order to understand Palmer’s position within narrative studies, to comprehend his criticism of what is missing in these studies, and also his presentation of what has been achieved so far, it is important to trace the development of narrative studies from its early stages, that is from classical narratology to the modern branches collectively referred to as postclassical narrative studies. In this chapter, I will briefly sketch the premises of classical narratology and its shortcomings and explain how these led to the rise of newer more dynamic approaches towards narrative. Next, I will sum up the merits of contemporary “postclassical” narrative work has undergone, and focus on one of its branches, namely cognitive narrative theory. Against this background, I will present Palmer as a cognitivist, explaining the main concepts of his theoretical framework and discussing his approach. I will conclude the chapter with an account of the status of drama in narrative studies and the possible application and adaptation of Palmer’s theory to this genre.
Classical Narratology was heavily influenced by structuralist theories;14 it aimed at a (universal) grammar of narrative and attempted to reduce narrative to its basic principles and significant textual features. Within the framework of classical narratology, the requirements of a narrative are (1) the presence of a narrator; (2) that (the narrator) narrates; (3) a sequence of events. This insistence on defining narrative in a systematic way still remains the predominant definition ←33 | 34→of narrative. Consequently, this foregrounding of the presence of a narrator figure, the systematics of narrating and, most importantly, the plot makes the novel still the most prominent and preferred genre to work with for (classical) narratologists. As a result, this foregrounding limits the applicability of the theory to different genres, as well as to the application of analytical tools other than the very textual structuralist ones. It is true that classical narrative theory provides an impressive collection of frameworks for narrative analyses in the form of different categorisations of textual features. One can mention Greimas’ “semiotic square” and his typology of functional roles attributed to characters ([1973] 1987); Barthes’ ideas on the development of the plot with regard to the notion of “kernels” and “satellites” ([1966] 1975) and Bremond’s work on the representation of the logic of action/non-action (1973), to name a few. These frameworks, as mentioned before, deal with the universals of narrative, and hence are concerned with “how” narrative works. As a result, classical narratology has a descriptive nature and tends to leave out the elements that deal with components of the narrative that do not relate to the way in which a narrative is constructed. In her remarks on the limitation of classical narratology, Marie-Laure Ryan aptly states that the focus is “not on interpretation but on description, comparison, and classification” (2007:475).15 This lack of interpretive potential, resulting from the abstract nature of the classical approach, is also problematic when it comes to the practical application of narratology to narratives. Bal, Jahn and Genette, in Narrative Discourse ([1972] 1980) and Narrative Discourse Revisited ([1983] 1988), address these problems and shortcomings and offer some concepts as solutions. These concepts (which deal with more functional features of narrative in comparison to the stricter forerunners of the theory), such as mode of narration and communication, the temporal structure of narration, and focalisation, helped pave the way for more contemporary postclassical narrative studies.16
←34 | 35→
The diversity of concepts and approaches in this postclassical trend, expanding on or finding fault with its classical precursor, is intriguing. J. Hillis Miller argues that a proper narratological reading or approach is one that will suggest a new, different way of reading.17 Wayne Booth further explores the implications of the implied author and the concept of unreliability paving the ground for a plethora of different texts and readings of not only the classic narrative form but also of different genres, like poetry, and of real-life communication.18 Ansgar Nünning, one of the theorists not convinced by the “implied author” concept, while dealing with instances of unreliability, discusses the idea of cognitive frames that readers bring into their reading in narratives.19 Brian Richardson provides postclassical narratology with many new ideas about a different logic on the sequence of the plot, a different approach to character or time in narrative and focalisation in narratives that have not been considered narrative by the classical theorists. He is one of the theorists who writes most about genres other than the novel, like drama and theatre. Dan Shen’s focus lies in narrative and stylistics, while Richard Walsh’s (2010) is the nature of fiction and how it operates exactly. These are only a few of the theorists and concepts that have been flourishing in the advent of postclassical narratology and I have limited myself to only the literary/linguistic domain. Valuable work has been done on narratology and music, law, psychology, feminism and political discourse to name, again, only a selection.20
In order to overcome the problems resulting from the limiting effects of the abstract theory in classical narratology, postclassical narrative studies combine a classical structuralist concern for systematicity with a new interest in ideological, historical, philosophical and cultural contexts. This context-bound nature shifts the focus from a purely descriptive theory to various interpretive disciplines. Since postclassical narrative studies are more concerned with the pragmatic functions of narrative, their emphasis shifts from “how” narrative works to “what” narrative does. Thus the interpretation and reception of the narrative move to the foreground. Postclassical theorists do not regard the strictly structural textual elements of narrator, plot and the narrating process as the most important elements of narrative. Other textual elements (e.g. character, temporal features, space, etc. …) or supplementary features, which are neither ←35 | 36→linked to the discourse nor histoire (e.g. experientiality, reader response, cognitive features, communicational parameters, etc. …) are seen as important, if not more important than those regarded by the structuralist forerunners. Inevitably the definition of narrative changes; it becomes broader, not restricted by a narrator figure, or sequence of events, it more readily embraces different genres, text-types and media that were ignored before, such as poetry, drama, music, dance, film, painting and computer