Pages: 18

As the introduction to the first book focusing on the relation between narratology’s “discourse” and stylistics’ “style,” this chapter offers a preliminary discussion of the necessity and the value of synthesizing narratological and stylistic approaches in investigating narrative presentation. It starts with revealing the superficial similarity and essential difference between “discourse” and “style,” pointing out that they are very much complementary to each other. This chapter then shows that narratology and stylistics are related to each other in many ways, especially in theoretical origins. Moreover, with a comparison between the academic milieus in the West and in China, it addresses the relation between formal narrative poetics and postclassical narratology, trying to clear up relevant confusions and misunderstandings in terms of contextualization. Finally, it introduces the basic layout of this book with a brief outline of each chapter that follows.

Pages: 14

In narratology, the terms “story” and “discourse” are commonly used to refer to two basic narrative levels, whose interaction and joint functioning largely account for the significance of a text. Some narratologists have tried to replace the story-discourse dichotomy with trichotomous distinctions. Such revisions, however, have caused theoretical confusion. This chapter clarifies the picture and probes into the relation between story and discourse. An important task of this chapter is to ascertain, with examples taken from both English and Chinese fiction, whether the distinction between story and discourse can always be maintained. As the relation between narratology’s discourse and stylistics’ style forms the central concern of this book, this chapter paves the way for the interdisciplinary study in the following chapters.

Pages: 14

Narratology distinguishes between story and discourse and fictional stylistics between content and style. This chapter argues that although narratology’s “discourse” and stylistics’ “style” seem to be interchangeable concepts, both concerned with the level of presentation, they in effect differ greatly from each other. The chapter reveals, with ample exemplification, how “discourse” primarily refers to structures and techniques that go beyond language, and how “style,” by contrast, refers to language choices that alone are amenable to literal linguistic analysis. The chapter brings to light basic factors underlying the divergence and shows that the divergence not only leaves room for but also calls for the interdisciplinary study between narratology and stylistics.

Pages: 22

Although up to now, no monograph focusing on the relation between narratology and stylistics has emerged, there have come out, from time to time, books or essays in narratology and stylistics that draw on the theory and methods of the other discipline. Because of the difference and complementarity between narratology’s discourse and stylistics’ style, interdisciplinary studies have been more or less fruitful, able to interpret more comprehensively the formal aspect of narrative fiction. This chapter discusses existing interdisciplinary studies, respectively, in the narratological and stylistic fields, pointing out their strengths and advantages and trying to clear up certain confusion involved. In order to show the benefit of doing interdisciplinary study, this chapter will also analyze a short story by Ernest Hemingway with a narratological-stylistic approach.

Pages: 29

This chapter draws attention to two most notable overlapping areas between narratology’s discourse and fictional stylistics’ style, one being point of view and the other modes of presenting character’s speech and thought. In terms of the former, narratologists and stylisticians take different approaches, with distinctive focuses and concerns. This results in two partial pictures of point of view: perception (primarily structural observing position) and narratorial attitude, which are very much complementary to each other. Both the partiality and the complementarity call for a redefinition of point of view to facilitate more comprehensive investigation. As regards modes of presenting characters’ words, stylistic and narratological discussions, with different aims and concerns, also display different characteristics, which somewhat supplement each other.

Pages: 20

In this chapter, I start by addressing the distinction between the focalizer’s perception and the narrator’s voice. On the one hand, I show that the focalizing-character’s voice may sometimes subtly infiltrate that of the narrator to a certain extent. On the other, I clear up some confusion due to the lack of differentiation between focalizing-characters and non-focalizing characters, as well as that between the narrator’s voice and the focalizing-character’s perception. Then I proceed to discuss how to come up with a more comprehensive and adequate classification of point of view or focalization by offering five modes of external point of view (taking into account both structural perspective and narratorial attitude) and four modes of internal focalization.

Pages: 12

In the past few decades, narrative theorists have increasingly come to realize the essential similarity in focalization between third-person center of consciousness and first-person retrospective narration. Despite their fundamental similarity, we should not neglect the different features and effects between the two modes. This chapter tries to reveal these differences: (1) in the first-person mode, the retrospective narrating self’s external focalization constitutes the norm, forming a contrast with the reflector-character’s fixed internal focalization in the third-person mode; (2) the use of the experiencing self’s focalization in the first-person mode will generate certain rhetorical effects that the third-person mode will not; (3) the unique play of dual focalization in the first-person mode; and (4) the flexibility of focalization in the third-person mode that the first-person mode does not share.

Pages: 21

In what precedes, I argued that in investigating point of view, we need to consider both the focalizer’s perception and the narrator’s evaluative voice where applicable. Of the different modes classified, the omniscient is the one that foregrounds the necessity as such. This chapter starts with addressing this traditional mode, paying particular attention to the functions of the narrator’s implicit commentary and how the narrator modulates the omniscient focalization for various purposes. Although stylistics attaches importance to the omniscient narrator’s commentary, attention tends to be confined to the explicit type. On the narratological side, hardly any attention is paid to the manipulation of omniscience. The first two sections of this chapter aim at amending these deficiencies. Then the chapter will proceed to a narratological-stylistic analysis of the functions and effects of four different modes of point of view in four versions of the same mini-narrative.

Pages: 14

In this chapter, I will likewise take a narratological-stylistic approach but to address a different issue, namely, the transgression of the boundary between different modes of point of view or focalization for various effects. Although, as discussed, narratologists and stylisticians have put much effort into classifying different modes, they seem on the whole to have operated on the assumption that an author, when adopting a given mode, will not transgress its boundary. But transgressions as such are not uncommon, and are, as I will argue, not only distinguishable among themselves, but distinguishable in nature from both variable focalization and shifts in focalization within a given mode. This chapter will show how Anderson, Proust, James, and Hemingway, among others, purposefully transgress the conventional boundaries of adopted modes for thematic and aesthetic effects.

Pages: 19

This chapter explores the respective functions and effects of different modes of presenting character speech (spoken and inner). It points out that the free direct mode can well convey the subconscious quality of character’s inner thoughts or the effect of speaking in a low voice. As for the direct mode, the auditory impact associated with its inverted commas can be made good use of in characterization and in reinforcing thematic significance. The indirect mode can form a background-foreground contrast with the direct mode and can better integrate with the narrator’s words and quicken the narrative pace. The free indirect one is able to effectively convey irony and/or empathy, generate semantic density, and preserve character’s subjectivity while connecting quite smoothly with narration. The mode of narrative report of speech act has the advantage of achieving great narrative economy and concealing what a character has said.

Pages: 12

This chapter focuses on the peculiarities of modes of presenting character speech (both spoken and inner) in Chinese, a language that differs from Western languages not only in terms of being pictographic, ideographic, and pictophonetic, but also in terms of the absence of tense, the frequent omission of subjects and determiners, as well as the use of the unmodified “self.” The latter results in various peculiar “blend” modes that are ambiguous between direct and indirect forms. Moreover, in Chinese literature, there are some interesting cases of subtle or conspicuous slipping that are closely linked with characteristics of the Chinese language and/or narrative conventions. Whether a Chinese mode is a blend or a slipping as such, it will post a challenge to the translator who is hard put to preserve the peculiar advantages of the original when rendering it into a Western language like English.

Pages: 7

The conclusion summarizes each chapter’s main points, further clarifies some relevant issues, and reiterates the book’s arguments and contributions. It stresses, from a historical and international perspective, the continuing importance of narrative poetics and the complementarity between narratology’s discourse and stylistics’ style. It also emphasizes the benefit of paying attention to the complementary relation between discourse and style both in theory and in practice. Moreover, the conclusion discusses potential areas for further narratological-stylistic investigation.