- 277 -
6.7 Foregrounding
Labov does not mention foregrounding at all in “The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax” and so we have to look elsewhere for any discussion on the topic.
Clearly, the simple foreground – background distinction suggested by Labov and Waletzky 1967 is inadequate, for it equates the foreground of a narrative directly with the sequence
of temporally ordered main clauses; but, as Fleischman 1990 points out, “not all temporally ordered events are of equal importance” p. 170. Hasan 1989 states simply
that “a foregrounded element is one that is highlighted” p. 33 and that “by being itself highlighted, foregrounding also brings to attention that against which it is highlighted” p.
95. So what we have seems to be a three-way distinction:
rather than a binary view of grounding. Hasan 1989 discusses three specific foregrounding devices: logical relations, grammatical subordination, and tense-aspect
contrasts; while Fleischman deals with various criteria for identifying foregrounded material in a narrative, one of which is “whether or not a clause serves to advance the plot
Kalmár 1982 or move narrative time forward Dry 1981, 1983” p. 175. Table 6.13 below shows examples from the data which seem to have, in most cases, both of these functions:
Table 6.13. Forgrounding devices continues overleaf Temporal Subordinate Clauses:
Totals When-cl + simple past preterit tense
Suddenly + when-cl + simple past Whenever-cl + simple past tense
Every time-cl + pastpresent tense 23
1 2
2 28
Temporal Phrases Totals
After two days After that
After a while 1
1 1
background information
non-important events
salient important events
- 278 - Temporal Phrases
Totals At 12 o’clock in the afternoon
In Christmas night In the morning
In the end Next time
One day On Christmas
That night The first thing
The next day Then, at the end of the day
Then, at night Then, in the night
Then, in the morning 1
1 1
1 1
8 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
1 25
Temporal Adverbs Totals
First Now
Once Suddenly
Tomorrow 2
1 1
1 1
6 Grand Total
59
Dry 1983 points out that the distinction between references to points or spans of time is crucial here; only time adverbs or phrases that refer to points e.g. “suddenly”, “at 12 o’clock
in the afternoon”, not those that refer to spans e.g. “after a while”, can be used to move narrative time. This holds true, also, for the above examples of subordinate when-clauses; as
Dry 1983 indicates, only perfective when-clauses are on the time line and generate a sense of temporal progression. However, all the foregrounding types displayed in table 6.13 serve
to advance the plot in some way by indicating that what follows is of particular importance
- 279 - to its outworking. For example the following passage from Shvinder’s Story A, where we
have several examples of foregrounding: 19
AND Father Christmas SAID, 20
“WILL you HELP me
21
to FIND the WORSest TEAM of EVer?”
22 The lady just LA-AUGHED, “
HA, ha, ha.”
23 AND FAther Christmas SAID, “
OH, PLE-EASE”
24 So she said, “
O.K.
25
The worsest team of ALL is MY team.
267
WHENever I see THEM THEY NEVer WIN.”
INTFor 289
SO they went
to have a DRINK.
30 And, at TWELVE O’clock in the AFterNOON,
INTFor they watched the FOOTball players
31 THEY WERE WO-ORSE.
32 SO FAther Christmas gave them the SIX
BLACK and WHITE MAGic BALLS 33
and they said, “
THANKyou.”
34 So they started to PLAY aGAIN.
35 And
WHEN they kicked IT,
INTFor 367
it WENT
ANywhere IT LIKED.
38 And they WINNED.
39
Because, in the END, the BOY was JUST
INTFor
going to KICK it
40 and the WORSest TEAM of EVer WO-ONNED.
In number 267 we have an example of foregrounding which does not move narrative time forward; yet the fact that the team in question “never win” is the whole point of the
story, and the Whenever-cl highlights this for the hearer. The precise time reference in number 30 clearly does move narrative time and, also, advances the plot by pinpointing the
exact time that the team’s fortunes began to change because, unknown to them, one spectator already had the matter in hand. Number 35 highlights the point at which the
- 280 - magic football took the initiative and overruled the players’ lack of skill, and also how the
desired outcome was achieved. In number 39 Shvinder fails to spell out exactly what happened at the end of the game, because she failed to understand the force of the original.
However, her version seems to suggest that the other team were just about to score when the match was terminated, and we are left to imagine the referee’s whistle. “In the end”
contrasts with the unspecified time span of the course of the match as a whole and focuses on the end-point, wrapping the story up and bringing it to a successful conclusion.
Number 39 is marked by a whole battery of evaluative devices: expressive phonology, the emphasizer “just”, progressive aspect, and the causative “because”, as well as the
terminating “in the end”.
6.8 Quantifiers
Kategori