- 355 - We stare at the narrator rather than interacting with him as we would if we were in
conversation with him; and, in literary narratives especially, that narrator is often ‘dehumanized’, attended to merely as a disembodied voice. Toolan 1988:3
The narratives we have been describing in this thesis are seen as intermediate points on a continuum between two extreme points: everday discourse on the one hand and the
literary, decontextualized, unspeakable narrative on the other. Those that are nearest to pure monologue are closer to the decontextualized, preferred ideal.
8.1.2 Retelling versus Performance
At the beginning of chapter 4, pages 106–108, we were looking at Wolfson’s 1982 performance features and, at the beginning of chapter 6, pages 204–205, we referred to
Leith’s 1992 observations on what makes a good performance, mentioning features such as confidence and rapport with the audience. We now want to take up the whole issue of
what turns a retelling into a performance. Fleischman 1990 in referring to Wolfson’s performance features states:
My own probings into this matter suggest that with regard to performed stories the crucial opposition is not the one she invokes between “spoken” and “literary” language where
does “oral literature” fit in? - but between narrative designed as absent-author communication most varieties of written narrative and narrative designed for interactive
oral performance. Fleischman 1990:90 But what does she mean by “interactive”? In the last section we were describing the
prompting of an incompetent narrator by his hearers, which is one kind of interaction. Here we are talking about something different, a particular telling for a particular audience,
where the narrator dramatizes the story by using some of the following devices: direct speech, asides, repetition, expressive phonology, motions and gestures, or tense
alternations for special effect. If we relate Wolfson’s performance features to Labov’s evaluative devices, we get the following parallels:
- 356 - Figure 8.1
And so we can see that a successful performance will involve the use of a whole battery of evaluative devices. This raises another question, posed in chapter 1, concerning whether
the good narrator makes a conscious decision to use a particular set of evaluative devices or whether the selection is largely subconscious. Clearly, as we have said above, the good adult
narrator is sensitive to the audience’s needs and reactions and is, therefore, perhaps more aware of all the possible audience reactions than young children are. She has more to fear
from the dreaded, “So what?” If this is so, hisher creative decisions are certainly reasoned, and could even be described as calculating and manipulative. For example, in
writing the model stories, our two main objectives were to create characters that would appeal to young children and to weave around them stories which would not only hold
their attention but also amuse and entertain them. For, the whole purpose of the exercise would be defeated if the subjects did not enjoy the stories in the first place
As far as young children are concerned, we would expect their decisions to be, initially at least, more of an instinctive feel for what might be appropriate, based on their current
knowledge and experience; this is why we introduced the storytelling task by the phrase “You are to pretend to be the teacher”. Peterson and McCabe 1983, in talking about
some of their best narratives, mention the following characteristics, which are relevant to direct speech
intensifiers external evaluation
asides explicatives
repetition intensifiers
expressive sounds expressive phonology
sound effects motionsgestures
intensifiers
CHP comparator
- 357 - the discussion: the child has “a good sense of his listener’s knowledge” p. 203; “the first
narrator colors the facts” p. 165; “she sprinkles it [her account] with striking imagery such as the smell of the pine trees” p. 202; “it epitomizes an important aspect of narration that
appeals to people - how well the participants in an experience are portrayed” p. 204. Kernan 1977 mentions a significant difference between the assumptions behind the
narratives of his younger and older subjects, which also has a direct bearing on this issue: The younger children seem to assume that the communication of the events themselves will
result in the same understanding and appreciation on the part of the audience that they themselves have. The older children, on the other hand, realize that the interpretation and
appreciation of the narrative events will depend, at least in part, upon knowledge that is external to the narrative events themselves. Kernan 1977:102
Thus, as children mature they become increasingly aware of the implications of their roles as narrators. Shvinder, whose Story B has already been referred to in the previous section,
accepts the invitation to assume the role of ‘teacher’ and, using her present knowledge of the way teachers tell stories, performs her own story accordingly, that is until the very end,
when she forgets the new name of the football team and promptly relinquishes her assumed role. Aqeel, on the other hand, does not have the confidence to assume the role
of teacher at all, except perhaps briefly for the first six clauses. He seems to be to some extent intimidated by the more confident and articulate Kenneth and even lets him take
over at points in the story where he is not actually at a loss for words see p. 353. The other side of our dichotomy, therefore, is not a written absent-author narrative but a
prompted retelling where the teller is reluctant to perform the assigned task and muddles through it somehow, often assisted by his addressees. We will look at our two examples
again from this point of view, starting with Shvinder’s ‘performed’ narrative, where the situation between teller and addressees is that depicted in figure 2.2, page 15.
- 358 - Figure 8.2
Here both teller and addressees have immediate access to the tale. Aqeel’s prompted retelling, however, has some features in common with the decontextualized written
narrative in that there is no narrative contract between teller and addressees: the teller does not actively involve the addressees in the tale, instead the addressee intervenes
unilaterally without the consent of the teller. Figure 2.3, page 15 represents the situation of the teller, but not that of the addressee whose role is clearly NOT one of passive listener.
The addressee also has a tale, although it is not the same tale, and hisher intervention consists of excerpts from this tale. The situation can be depicted as follows:
Figure 8.3 Shvinder’s ‘performed narrative’ is delivered in an authoritative ‘storybook’ style which
commands the addressees’ attention see p. 217; it has been coded with 90 internal evaluation devices 2.25 per clause. 73 percent of all the clauses are evaluated, 52 percent
being coded for expressive phonology, and 9 percent of all the clauses are additionally coded for external evaluation. There are no discontinuities and she makes good use of
conjunctions, temporal expressions and other cohesive devices. Other performance features noted are 16 instances of direct speech 36 percent of all clauses and several
strategically placed repetitions.
TELLER
TALE ADDRESSEE
TALE
2
TELLER
TALE ADDRESSEE
- 359 - In Aqeel’s retelling, 40 percent of the clauses are coded for expressive phonology, but this is
more indicative of an appropriate use of phonological features than a performance style as such. He has a total of thirty-one internal evaluation devices coded 1.15 per clause, twenty-
six of which are intensifiers. 59 percent of all clauses are evaluated and there are six instances of direct speech 22 percent of all clauses. There are four clear breaks in continuity, some of
the details are muddled, and there are a few cases of unclear pronominal reference. So in looking at the dichotomy retelling versus performance we have, in effect, answered a
question, posed in chapter 3, as to what makes a good story, and given one reason why a particular story may be judged to be “better”, or more pleasurable and meaningful to the
hearers, than others in the set. However, we will be looking for other factors which make a good story when we specifically focus on Labov’s model in our final section.
8.1.3 The Relationship between Story Structure and Story Content
