enuntiation and narration

Upload: marco-antonio-rivera-gtz

Post on 03-Jun-2018

241 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    1/28

    Enun c i a t i o n a n d n a r r a t i on Wor ld a n dt xt

    O S M R I N D L

    The semiotic phenomena called herenarrations(i.e., the explicit or ellipticdescriptions an utterance provides of its production, of that which th eutterance states explicitlyor ellipticallyis itsproduction) are mo re oftencalled enunciations. I have made such an uncommon lexical distinctionbetween these terms though in line for instance with studies of theimportance of Barthes for reasons of clarity. By starting with thedistinction between enunciation and narration, I will try to shed newlightonsomeof the main issues intextual semiotic studies:referentiality,discursive typology, the manipulation of the implicit enunciator, andother issues whichwewill mention briefly toward the end of this paper.W hyis it that semioticians indiscriminatelyuse theterm enunciationtodescribe two clearly different processes? Why consider what is actuallythe study of narrations to be the study ofenunciations

    Firstpart TheWorldProduction and itsrepresentationIn order to avoid these inadequacies, Iwould liketoconsider anenuncia-tion as the production of meaning in the natural world. If wesemioticallyanalyze processes or transformations such as a conversation, apoliticalmeeting,theworkof anartist infront of hiseasel,th etask of a photogra-phe r w ith his instru m en ts or a writer w ith his society, w e will be dealingwith enunciations. On the other hand, when we analyze how traces orsub-utterances appear in the texts resulting from these activities, tracesor sub -utterances of wh at the texts state as their own production, wewillbe dealing withnarrations.Anen unciation is the production of a text in the natural world:it is aspeech act. A narration is the explicit or elliptic uttered representation ofa production, being the text its product, according to thetext.Semiotica 81-3/4 357-384 0037-1998/90/0081-0357 2.00

    WalterdeGruyterrought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    2/28

    358 J M NadalAn enunciation cannot be fictitious in itself; nor can a narration.Fiction arises when there is no credible correspondence or at leastjudged as such between (A) the discursive syntactic and semanticstructures of the enunciation s content form and the natural world inwhich it is produced, and (B) the narration and the part of the utterancewhich does not describe the na rrator s role. Th e natu ral w orld in w hichenunciation is produced is also known as non-enunciation. Enunciation th e speech act and non-enunciation are creative structures of thetext. The narrator is the discursive actant whose syntactic discursivevalues are /Ego/-/Now/-/Here/. The utterance which does not describeth e role of the narrator is called the narrated or the non-narration.For the effective enunciatee, th e iconicity of a text also depends on apossible intersemioticity betw een the text and the na tural w orld. Toobtain this intersemioticity, the actual enunciator will have to utter histext in accordance with th e semantic universe of the enunciatee i.e.,according to how the receiver conceives tha t the na tural w orld should beenunciated with a certain type of discourse, persuading him to believethat th e utterance and his natural world are analogous.W e believe that w hat h as been know n as the study of enu nciations has

    been erroneously named for over twenty-five years, for the analysis ofthe way in w hich narrator and narratee present utterances, of the circum-stances surrounding a narration, of the m anner in w hich th e meaning ofa text is actually connected with the narration, etc. is the study ofnarrations.On the other hand, w e might consider that while different culturesdefine them to be art, enunciations are generally the object of the studyof Sociology and Pragmatics. These disciplines deal with the artisticinstitution , history of arts, artists biograph ies, th e relationship betweendiscourse acts and artistic genres etc.For the last twenty-five years, nar rations hav e been called enun ciations.From the very beginning, when the first articles of this modern studywere published, the authors proceeded from defining w ha t th ey consideredto be an enunciation to analyzing narrations, without realizing theircontradiction. This is an additional reason to be precise in referring toeach item by its proper name.Jakobson and thepaper enunciatorJakobso n (1957) distinguished between a speech act or enunciation pro-cess and its protagonists, and the acts narrated in the utterance and itsprotagonists. But his article m akes obvious that w hat h e meant by enunci-

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    3/28

    Enunciationandnarration 3 59ation and enunciator were in fact narrat ion and narrator . Let us take alookat Jakobson s w ell-know n text in order to pinpoint the oversight wehave been referring to:2.1 In order to classify the verbal categories tw o basic distinctions are to beobserved:

    1) speech itself s), and its topic, the narrated matter ( n) ;2) the event itself (E), and any of its participants (P), whether performer orundergoer .Consequently four items are to be distinguished: a narrated event (E n) , a speechevent Es),a participan t of the narrated event Pn),and a pa rticipant of the speechevent Ps),w hether addresser or addressee. (1957: 3) .Up to this point, w e f ind no contradictions in the definitions. Let ustake a closer look at w ha t is meant by enunciation and by protagonistofthe enunciation.For example, in the definition of the category of person:

    2.21 Pn/P) PERSON characterizes th e participants of the narrated event withreference to the participants of the speech event. Thus first person signals theidentity of a participant of the narrated event w ith the performer of the speechevent, and the second person, the iden tity with the actual or p oten tial undergoerof the speech event. (1957: 4)

    Thus,processof utterance means non-enunciative actions that is tosay, those actions in the story (thus described in the utterance) which arenot the actions (also described in the utterance) by which the narratorclaims to tell that story. Process of enunciation means precisely thoseotheractions(the enunciative, know n as enunciatedenunciation or groupof actions which, following Barthes, I have proposed to call narration.The category of person thus indicates the relationship of identity oralterity betw een the syntactic actorw ho plays the d iscursive actantialroleof narrator and the actor about whom he is talking a t a certain point inthe story. Thus, the first person refers not to the enunciator a beingbelonging to the natural world but instead to the narrator (but notethat this is only true when w e are referring to a first person w hich impliesthe /Ego /-/Now /--/Here/ as sy ntactic discourse values of signification i.e., the first person associated to a /Now/-/Here/, and not to a /Notnow/) .This narrator is a discursive actantof the utterance, abeingmadeout of paper Nadal 1985a).It may seem that I am overly immanent that, for example, in m ydiscourse, the second person refers to you, dear readers, and the firstperson to myself, J . M. Nadal. This is obviously true, but it is due to theexistence of an enunciative illusion and to intersemioticity. In my text,

    the second person refers to the narratee, nonexistent anywhere else but

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    4/28

    360 J.M.Nadalhere. Th is narratee is the signification o f a l inguistic sign. Yo u, the reader,are unique, unrepeatable, a n tur l being. Tomorrow, a different readercan read this same text, somewhere else perhaps, and feel as implied inth e communicat ion as you yourself, thanks to an enunci tivee f f e t andto intersemioticity(Greim as and Courtes 1979: 312-313; 1986: 110-113,119; Sebeok 1986: 354-384, 790-792).Furthermore: suppose we were to attend the same conference. Sinceyou do no t know who I am, I co uld have sent ano ther person a friend,for instance with my text, and you would never have been aware o fit. Let ussuppose I had ac tually done it. The truth is that one may neverknow. Since the text claims to have been written by J . M . Nadal , w ho isthus narrator of the text, you, fooled by an enunciative illusion, wouldundoubtedly believe that the actual physical person reading the text toyou is J. M. Nadal . But this would not be the case. The person readingth e text to you wo uld not be J . M . Nadal, but instead h is friend, a secretsubstitute.Thus, either the first person o f a text, its name, or its signature candesignate the ac tor w ho plays th e par t o f actant narrator . The /Ego/-/Now/- /Here / values or its sign ature ex clusively designate the discursiveactant narra to r. Because of the enunciative effect, yo u interpret this actantof textual semiotics to be a simulated enunciator, actor of the referentresulting from the utterance; and because of the subsequent process o fintersemioticity, the simulated enunciator is identified with the natural o rphysical enunciator who is actually reading the words of the narrator atth e co nferenc e. This intersem iotic process could be altered by informat ionth e enunciatees (the audience at the conference) m ay have, or by thecharacteristics or doings of the enunciator: his accent, his/her sex, etc. Icould no t have sent a woman o r a person f rom Japan, because m y nameis easily recog nizable as belong ing to a E urop ean male.

    Jakobson nd the pprec i tion of thenon narratorAllow m e to con tinue w ith the imaginary co nference. From th e speaker splatform, I say:You will discover (and not all will approve) that I do not hold with certain o fmy colleagues w ho tell us that literature, in its most valuable and in t r iguingmoments , is fundamental ly non-referential . I may come before you in my jacketand my tie, I may address you as madam and sir, but I am going to requestnonetheless that you restrain yourselves f rom ta lking about structure , f o rm ,and symbols at least during my speech. It seems to me that many of you havebeen intim idated sufficiently by yo ur professions and should be allowed to recover

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    5/28

    nunciationandnarration 361and restore to respectability those interests and enthusiasms that m ore than likelydrew you to reading fiction to begin w ith and w hich you oughtn t to be ashamedof n o w . As an experiement you might even want during th e conference to tryliving wi thout any classroom terminology at all, to relinquish utterances andactors right along with those very exalted words with which not a few of youliketo solemnize yo ur observ ations, such as process , paradigm , and, of course,semiotics as a modifier of everything existing und er th e sun.

    Whilethis example may be a bit too baroque, I hope it seemed credibleto you. M y intention was not to fool anyone. The sentences I have justpresented to you correspond to the words of David Kepesch, a youngprofessor of Comparative Literature, the homodiegetic actor who isan /Ego/-/Now/ ( j e narranf) discursive actan t and an /Ego/-/Not now/( j e narre ) discursive actant as well and simulated enunciator of thenovel by Philip Roth ( Philip Roth are the graphics or substance of theexpression of a series of signs w hose mean ing is a person from the naturalworld; in this case, the effective enunciator of the novel) entitled TheProfessor of Desire (1985: 183). As you can see, the first person indicatesthe actor who plays the role of the syntactic-discursive narrator actant,w ho simulates the enunciator and generates intersemioticity, in this w ayconnecting textual semiotics to the n atural w orld; how ever, this does notassure you tha t the enun ciator simulated by the n arra tor actually corres-ponds to the enunciator who has written the text.In Ja kobso n s paper (1957), the confu sion betw een enunciator andnarrator is continuous: 2.31 EnEs) TENSE characterizes the narratedevent w ith referen ce to the speech event. Thus the preterit in fo rm s usthat the narrated event is anterior to the speech event (1957: 4).But Jakobson w as mistaken. Once again, the moments related by thediscursive-syntactic category of time are the narrated (the non-enuncia-tive utterance) and the narration (the enunciative utterance), which m ayor may not coincide with that of enunciation, a coincidence for whichthe time category provides no information whatsoever.After this initial mistake, Jakobson does not return to enunciations;rather, he focuses on the shifters of the utterance a certain type oflinguistic sign which, contrary to the general belief, and to Jakobson inparticular, refers not to the situation of enunciation, but instead to thatof narration. This statement is valid in any type of semiotics: graphicverbal, oral verbal, iconographic, or of any genre; not only for fiction orfor literary semiotics.W e hav e given a different m ean ing to the term enunciated enunciat ion ,which Jako bson coined in the above-mentioned article (1957). H e under-stood the enunciated enunciation to be not the narra tion, but rather, interms of semiotic narratolo gy ,a non-nan atonal app rec iation , an apprecia-

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidaAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    6/28

    362 J M Nadaltion of an appreciates that, for Jakobson, was 'the alleged source ofinformation about the narrated event' (1957:4). This source ofinform a-tion is sometimes what Jakobson refers to as the protagonist of theprocess of enunciation (i.e., the narrator), although thenarrator may bedisassociated from it at times. Jakobson illustrates this disassociation:To our question, what happened to the steamer Evdokija, a Bulgarianfirstanswered: zaminala it isclaimed to havesailed , and then added:zamina I bear witness; itsailed' (1957: 4-5). Jako bson claims tha t in'It is claimed to have sailed' (1957: 5), the enunciated enunciation isseparated from the enunciation. Ac tually, this is not exactly wha t occurs.In Jakobson's example there isonlyonenarrator, who in thebeginningof his utterance detaches himself from the appreciator, who is then animpersonal actant ('It is claimed') whose opinion is quoted in indirectspeech(That the steamer Evdokija hassailed').For further readings onthe questions of mode and voice you may refer to an article by J. M .Nadal (1985b) and to thesection of this paper titled 'Utteranceyieldingoperations'.

    Language speech and enunciationfutteranceBenveniste was correct whenhe wrote in 1970 that the enunciation wasnot the discourse, that one should differentiate between the use of formsof language and the usage of language (1981c: 80):Tout autre chose est l'emploi de la langue. IIs'agit icid'un mecanisme total etconstantqui,d'unem aniereoud'uneautre, affecte lalangueentiere....L'enoncia-tion est cette m ise en fon ctionn em ent de la langue par un acte individueld 'utilisa-tion....IIfa ut prendre gardea lacondition specifiquedeF enonciation:c'estTactememe de produire un enonceet non letexte del'enonce qui estnotre objet.Unfortunately, theconfu sion Benveniste tried toavoid i.e., to confusedeictics and certain verbal morphemes with enunciation, which, as hehimself claimed, is a discrete, individual, unique, unrepeatable act, etc. is widespread among his studies. Because of this, Benveniste's mostfamous levelsof enunciation are, infact, nothingbut levelsof utterance.In any case, Benveniste (1981 a, b, and c) and Jakobson (1957) werethe first to approach enu ncia tion, and their studies are evidence of un sur -passed insight and intelligence. This can be seen by the fact that thisisstillone of them ain preoccupations inlingu isticsand indiscoursetheory,regardless ofw hether it issemiotic or not.

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    7/28

    Enu nciation and narration 363The Greimasians, or the theory smashes its objectGreimas and his disciples have also devoted themselves for several yearsto the task of elaborating a semiotic theory of enunciation (Nadal 1986).I would argue that the Greimasian studies on this subject commit andeven augment th e defects in the work of the pioneers. Thus, enunciationis usually mistaken for narration, th e enunciator for the narrator, enuncia-tion for the enunciative text, and the enunciator for the signs of thenarration.Another frequent confusion among Greimasians is that they confuseenunciation with elliptic narration i.e., with an objectivist narrationin w hich no ex plicit enunc iative indicators are m eant to be left. Theenunciation which is implicit in a text is also confused by Greimasianswith a natural or effective enunciation, which is simply enunciation. TheParis School wron gly m akes the im plicit enun ciator responsible for semio-sis, and does not often distinguish between th e subject effect created byth e text and the subject who created the text. Greimasians also err whenthey take the implicit enunciator and its activity to be the narrator andhis. They identify, in a partial, arbitrary way, the utterance with theenuncive text, and they even affirm that th e enuncive does not positionitself with regard to the narrative situation.In general, they tend to confuse the process considered as a discourseact and not as the syntagmatic core of the language with the productth e process creates and with the system that governs it. The term ornotion of enuncive linking (embrayage enoncif), necessary in order toestablish a reference for the enuncive text, is restricted to the effect ofnarration homodiegetique* formally camouflaged. They limit, withoutjustification, the enunciation, making i t a theoretical instance at the mostsuperficial level of the generative trajectory of signification, while it seemsevidentth at to enun ciate implies the actualization o f t h a t w hole generativetrajectory of signification. Due to these misunderstandings, Greimasiansdo not value m any impo rtant contributions made by other schools to thetheory of enun ciation and narration.There are several reasons for these shortcomings. The first is theambiguity of the term s engagement or connection and disengagementor disconnection (embrayage and debrayage). Sometimes these opera-tions are understood as the breaking or reestablishment of an actantial,timely, or spatial isotopy, and sometimes as the effects of deploymentover the utterance of the syntactic-discursive enu ncive and enunciativevalues and of the simulacrum of linkin g w ith the enun ciator of thosesame categories.The second cause of confusion is the need for a clearer definition, in

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    8/28

    364 J M NadalGreimasian studies,of the subjects w hich participate in the different levelsof communication. The enunciator, the implicit enunciator, the logicallypresupposed, and the narrator are actually all subjects, but not al l ofthem have the same semiotic existence, because each of them is relatedto objects and functions which are semiotically different.The third reason, and undoubtedly the one behind the majority ofthese misunderstandings, is the confusion of the semiotic object (o r objectsemiotics) with the semiotic theory. Enunciations in the macrosemioticsof the natural world or narrations in textual semiotics are objects ofanalysis on many occasions; to mistake them for it is a major error.Enunciation, as an object of study, is not at al l the instance of thegenerative trajectory of signification which has been called enunciation.In the publications o f Greimas and his disciples, the semiotic theoryof enunciation is hypertrophied, and it often smashes its objective, theanalysis of an enunciation and of a narration, both of which are virtuallymade to disappear.W e cannot go into fu rther detail . W e will compromise w ith three shortexamples. As Greimas and Courtes say:U ne confu sion regrettable est souven t entretenue entre Feno nciation proprementdite, dont le mode d existence est d etre le presuppose logique de Penonce, et enonce (o u rappo itee) q ui n esi que le simu lacre im itant, a Finterieurdu discours, le faire enonciatif: le je , F icF ou le main tenant que rencontredans le discours enonce, ne represented au cunem ent le sujet, Fespace ou le tempsde Tenonciation. (1979: 128)

    But only a few pages earlier, Greimas and Courtes (1979: 123-124)have comitted precisely th e regrettable confusion:. ..Fenonce com porte souv ent des elements qui renvoient a Finstance de Fenoncia-tion: ce sont, d une par t , les pronoms personnels et possessifs, les adjectifs etadverbes appreciatifs,les deictiques spatiaux et temporeis, etc. (dont Feliminationpermet d obtenir un texte enoncif considere comme deporvu des marques deFenonciation), et, de autre, les verbes performantifs (qui sont des elementsdescriptifs de Fenonciation, enonces et rapportes dans Fenonce, et qui peuventetre egalement consideres comme des m arques aidant concevoir et construireFinstance de Fenonciation).

    This confusion between the implicit (or implied) enunciation and thenarration is w idely illustrated by Greimas and Courtos (1979), and it alsoappears in the w orks of some of G reim as s closest disciples. One of them,fo r example, referring to the same elicitation of the enunciative text, addsto the former confusion that o f a natural o r effective enunciation. H estates (Bertrand 1984: 30):Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    9/28

    Enunciation and narration 365La semiotique, dans sa demarche initiale, s est explicitement desinteressee de laproblematique du sujet enonciateur et de sa reference obligee, la s i tuation decommunicat ion . Elle a choisi de proceder, selon la formule de A. J. Greimas, Tobjectivation du texte (Semantique structural Paris, Larousse, 1966): con-formement a ce choix eile a elimine les coordonnees specifiques du locuteur, c est-a-dire la categoric de la personne, celle du temps, celle de la d eixis, ainsi que tousleselements p hatiques.

    Contrary to what Bertrand states the situation de communication hedescribes is simply the situation of narratio n formed by the /Ego/-/Now/-/Here/ of the utterance; this sujet enonciateur is not an enunciatoreither, or even an implicit addresser of the communication, but insteada discursive actant immersed in the utterance a narrator .This brief and harsh criticism does not mean that the Greimasiantheory of enunciation is not interesting; on the contrary, we f ranklybelieve that it is. H owever, in our opinion, it needs a radical revision.W e will not analyze psychoanalytic theory here; nor will we analyzeth e theories of Culioli, D ucro t, Peirce, or the language philosophers. Thiswill be dealt with elsewhere. Our purpose now is to outline a clear basiswhich will allow a simple and coherent study of enunciation and narra-tion. To meet this purpose, we will be working with textual semiotics,analyzing the possibility of a m acrosem iotics of the n atural w orld, study-ing the distinction between textual semiotics and macrosemiotics of thenatural world, and also between th e macro-levels of text and the world.

    Textual semioticsSince th e world is a discourse as much as any other text the realproblem consists in know ing when a discourse is textual semiotics in theusual restricted sense.A sem iotic object may be considered textual sem ioticswhen it is the result of an enunciation. The defining feature of textualsem iotics is itsm etasem iotic nature, as an utterance in another utterance,an utterance in the world. It is also th e value of wha t is being constructed,of what does not belong to the natura l wor ld . If the system whichproduces the objects of textual semiotics is natural (for example, naturallanguage), the products of such systems, textual semiotics, are charac-terized as being created, whether they be verbal texts, pictorial, etc.Discourses of textual semiotics are self-limited in their form. Thisallows us to distinguish an oral utterance, a film , a theatrical representa-tion, a picture, or a traffic sign from the natural w orld to which i t belongs.The self-limiting form of such objects entails discontinuity, and thereforethe establishment of time or space limits for every textual semiotic dis-

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    10/28

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    11/28

    Enunciationand narration 367mean ing fu l . Rain, reproduction, theoutburst ofSpring thesefacts arevery m ean ingfu l tom an kind . Theyareoften farm oredefiningthan m anyof the articulate m ea nin gs produced by a case of textual semiotics.Greimas'ssem iotic theorymay bepe rfectly transformed into th em eta-semioticswhich an alyze s the na tural-world m acrosem iotics. Greim as an dCourtesclaim they areready toinitiate this task:On voit, deslors,queles modeles narratifsconstantspour rendre compte descom portem entspragmat iques en papier , peuvent etretransposesen vued'un e semio-tique pragmatique naturel le ' (1979: 166).Eric Landowski insisted upon th e same idea (Greimas and Landowski1983: 12):il n 'y a pas de fremderes du semiotique, mais tout au plus des semiotiquesdifferentes, les unes se manifestan t a travers la diversite des langues naturel les,le sau tres apprehensibles seulemen t en tan t que sem iotique du monde naturel . . . .notre formule revient s implement ,on le voit, redefinir le soidisant contexte,au trem en t di t, le m onde dereference (ou encore le'reel'),comm e un langage: unlangageparm id'autres ....

    At this stage, we feel obliged to mention Kant and phenomenology,theories of knowledge to which semiotic theory owes a great deal. Thequestion of method, the independence of a discipline in relation to itsobject of study, pure descriptions, antigenetism, the desire to determinewhat their object ofknowledg e actually is, the subject ofknowledge, theapprehension of the object, the relationships of existence, etc., and allthiswithou t preten ding to discover the n atu re of the object or the subject,or of any other reality previous to them or what might be their merginginto one, the effort oftrying not to fall into idealism or into realism, etc. aution s vice

    In spite of its proposal, the semiotic theory has hardly started the studyof the n atural world. M ostsem ioticiansconfuse the na tural world m acro-semiotics, ordiscoursethatou rconsciencebuildsupaboutthereal world,withthe realworld itself, and, fearingthesubstantialismthatmight existif they engaged themselves with the study of the real world, which isreally noncognizable, they pu t aside th e natural world and limit them-selvesto textual semiotics strictly speaking. Acting accordingly, Bertrandwrites (1984: 32):la prudence du semioticien, soucieux, pour preserver la coherence desmethode,de prevenir toute incursion inopinee du 'mondeexterieur' (dont le Statut releve

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidaAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    12/28

    368 J M Nadald une decision philosophique) dans le champ de Fanalyse du discours, veut qu onn accorde a Tenonciation veritable que le Statut d une pure et simple presuppo-sit ion.

    These statements, which might be permissible if they were proposedonly for theimmanent studyoftextual semiotics,areunfortunate becausethey presume the arbitrary exclusion of the natural world as a semioticobject and its identification with the real world. In fact,we can chooseto make the text our sole object of study; in thiscase,it seems reasonableto forget about enunciation and to stick to the study of implied enuncia-tion,of thepresupposed and of thenarration among many other items).But our semiotic object may be the natural world or one of its manytransformations; in this case, enunciation acquires i ts fullrights, likea nyother semiotic object.

    It is not thatit isless dangerous to confuse thenatural world withthereal world as inexperienced thought may do) than it is to confuse thereal world with the natural world as hypercautious semioticians do).Substantialism is impossible unless considered as ideal reasoning or as anightmare Eric Landowski Greimas and Landowski 1983: 3-4, 9-17;Landowski 1983, 1989) is right when he says that the natural world isbut anutterance in a nonverbal language.

    This utterance is not natural in the proper sense of the term. Culturalepisteme imposes a distorted vision on us Greimas and Courtes 1979:78,250). It is not necessary to believe that nonverbal language might beone of a kind either; it is a compound of superimposed languages 1979:203); in this sense we speak ofmacrosemiotics and syncretic semiotics1979: 166).

    Both semiotics, textualandnatural, mustbeimmanently studied. Natu-ral-world semiotics embodies textual semiotics. We can distinguish inboth typesan implied intentionality natural in the former, ar t i f icialoriented) in the latter. As far as the boundaries between natural worldmacrosemiotics and textual semiotics are concerned, Barthes said (1966:28):au-dela du niveau narrationnel, commence le monde, c est-a-dire d autr es sys-temes (sociaux, economiques, ideologiques).... analyse du discours s arrete audiscours: il faut ensuitepasser une autre sem iotique.

    Semiotics and God: acrolevels of significationInorder todescribe therelationship between natural-world macrosemio-ticsandtextual semiotics we canimagineascriptasfollows:let usadmit

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    13/28

    nunciation and narration 369that in a first m acrolevel there is(sem iotically, beware ) a real narrator.W e could address him as God by convention. This real narrator wouldbe located in areal statem ent w hich would only consist of the real world.There would be a series of original beings in it. The perception thosebeingsmigh t have,as far asoriginal enunciators, of the real w orld w ouldproduce an utterance (or several utterances) which would be consideredoriginal.Having reached this point, we leave hypothetical grounds and go onto semioticsof scientificv ocation. This original utterance, prod uct of theindividual mind , will be understood as being deprived of psychologism t h a t is, we put the real world in parenthesis without deciding aboutits nature. Each man's conscience, the utterance we have agreed to calloriginal, is the one which constitutes nothing other than natural worldmacrosemiotics. We suppose that this natural world is the real worldimage.W e could speak of ameaningeffect of this macrosemiotics wh ichwouldconsisto f theelaboration ofw h a tw emig ht call, forexample, G odimplied in the natural world .The term is what matters less.The idea ofabsurd or of the senseless would actually be valuable in shaping thisinstance created by na tural inten tionality derivingfrom the world to eachand every one of us.As in any other utterance, we have discursive actants, narrators andnon-narrators, in the consciousness understood as the original utterance,at a level which corresponds to discursive syntax of signification. Theoriginal narrator of each conscience is the /Ego/-/Now/-/Here/. Thisoriginal n arra ting subject con fron ts the original narra ted subject, w hichis the /Ego-/NotN ow /- /Here/ and the /Not Ego/.The /Ego in Itself/ isthe original enunciator whichm y conscience simulates: not the originalenunciator,but the onesimulated by myconscience an /EgoIn Itself/to have a m eaning effect from an external subject to my conscience andits creator whom I cannot have access to . I only have access to myconscience. Icannotget rid o f it, and come to an understandingofmyselfas a real being that produces this consciousness. We have the illusionthat we see ourselves through that /Ego In Itself/, which is only thesimulation of theoriginal enun ciator tha t hasbeen builtfrom the /Ego/--/Now/- /Here/ of my conscience. Th e o riginal enun ciator wh o reads m yconscience, and who stands outside of it, can only read , can onlyunderstand itself through it, simulating itself from its original narrator.The opposition between the /Ego In Itself/ and the/Ego/-/Now/-/Here/isone of the internal/ego /, 'subjective ', facing the external /Ego/, Objec-tive', in relation with the rest of the natural world.The two non-simulated /Ego/s the ego-narrator (/Ego/-/Now/-/Here/) and theego-narrated (/Ego/-/Not Now/) could be compared

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    14/28

    370 J M Nadalto Spitzer s dichotom y (from which w e borrow the term), and also toGenette s extradiegetic/intradiegeticness. It is impossible to con fuse theterminology, since Spitzer and Genette speak of textual semiotics, whilew e are describing what refers to the natural world.It looks as though Saint Thomas conceived an intentional species forthe /Ego/, alternatively understood as subject and object. Kant referredto the unifying transcendental conscience of /Ego In Itself/, and he calledthe em pirical conscience/Ego/-/Now/-/Here/. Transcendental conscienceis,then, only conscience: an illusion of reality, of transcending my consci-ence, which produces the interpretation of my empirical conscience.In textual semiotics, in the discursive syntax of signification, theseconcepts might be expressed by the same syntactic actormade up of twodiscursive actants, one being the narrator and the other a non-narrator,which would be semantically co-referential. That is, a similar type ofcharacter to the one who plays the role of narrator in a homodiegeticdescription, according to Genette s theory. In the macrosemiotics of thenaturalw orld, w hich is w h at w e are dealing w ith no w , comparisons aside,it would be necessary to speak about a homodiegetic natural syntacticactor i.e., a homodiegetic actor instead of an imaginary actor of thereal world: the simulated original enunciator.Conscience as macrosemiotics of the natural world, from which the/Ego/ takes part was for Husserl the text of intentionality, of an inten-tional experience, of a m ovement toward an object, which would for usbe nothing other than the natural narrator is in this utterance taken as/Ego/-/Now/-/Here/. Husserl believed this intentional conscience to bethe one that supplied us w ith time reference points as well as with spatialpoints to locate ourselves and inversely locate the /Non-Ego/.In every original u tterance, there w ould be an intradiegetic partformedby the /Ego/ in the /Non-Ego/, and by the /Non-Ego/ in itself. Amongthenatural intradiegetic actants some become natural or effective enunci-ators: w e ourselves or others. Our conscience som etimes presents us w ithrepresentations of natural beings, thus producing textual utterance.Anenunciation consists, then, of a process of a natural enunciator whichoriginates textual semiotics or, in other words, of an act happening inthe macrosemiotics of the n atura l w orld w hich produces textual semiotics.This interaction enunciator-utteranceis the semiotic object we call enun-ciation .In this sense, a textual utterance is a hypo-utterance of the naturalworld. In textual utterances w e find an a rticulated and oriented intention -ality w hich createsthe effect of the implicit enunciator, which is obviouslyneither the enunciator of the natural world nor the implicit enunciatorof the natural world, but rather the idea of the enunciator which creates

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    15/28

    nunciationandnarration 371textual semiotics, an idea in agreement or disagreement with that of theactant narrator of the same text and with his discursive semantic attri-butes. Likewise,we can distinguish in textual semiotics, as in any otherutterance, an extradiegetic level as well as an intradiegetic one. Inagreement w ith w hat happens in natural-world macrosemiotics, narratorsof textual semiotics are the /Ego/ /Now/ /Here/ of a text; the non-narrators are the /Ego/ /Not Now/ and the /Non-Ego/. A narrationconsidered as a process is, in consequence, the relationship betweenextradiegetic and intradiegetic sub-utterances, the interactive process bywhich a narrator claims to produce the utterance in which he appears.This entire presentation may be illustrated by Figure 1.

    Aneffective orna tural enu nciatee tends, even wh en dealing withfiction,to produce a simulated enunciator originating from the textualn arra tor.This simulated enunciator is the meaning effect the textual narratorproduces on the effective enunciatee due to the enunciative illusion an effect called engagement orembrayage by Greimasians. On occasion,Real u t terance: R EA L W O R LD wh at ac tual ly exis ts)real narration/real r

    Originalenunciators eachpar t icu larperson inth e real wo rld)

    larrated Individual perception or conscienceof the real world)Original utteranceM A C R O S E M I O T I C SO F T H E N A T U R A L W O R L DImplicit e nun ciator: God, the Absurd or C hance .. .original / original narratn /EGO/-/NOT/NOW/- /NON-EGO// H E R E / effective ornatu ra lenunciators

    edN O W /

    ThetextsUtterance: TextualS.Implicitenunciatortextual /textualnarrat ion narrated/ego/- /ego/-/now/- /not now//here/ /no t ego/

    Figure 1. acrolevels of signification

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    16/28

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    17/28

    nunciation and narration 373belongs. Nevertheless, according to the discourse, this text is his pro-duction. W e could give countless exam ples, but we find them unne cessaryat this po int . A t the sem ionarrative level, each instance indep end entlyorganizes and hierarchizes its narrat ive programs and ant iprograms.Objects of value and subjects differ. At the discursive level, th e situationof enunciat ion may vary, not always correlat ing to the si tuat ion ofna rrat ion , w hich is a stated si tuat ion of an ut terance. Eve ry instance sisotopies m ay be different. Iconicity and figurativization differ accordingtowhether we are dealing w ith a narrator or w i th an effective enunciator;in the case of an implicit enunciator, they are nonexistent, because weare dealing not with a figurat iveactor, but with intentionali ty (Nadal1986: 379; 1988b: 19).The same can be claimed about the distinction between extradiegeticand intradiegetic sub-utterances: different semantic categories, differentprograms, different isotopies. In reality, th e proper reader of a picture orof a verbal discourse articulates the meaning of the text intuitively andunconsciously without mistaking its instances.It has taken a long time for poetics and general semiotics to separatethe enunciator from the narrator Nadal 1986). The distinction betweenenunciation and narration is a consequence of this differentiation. Toforget these differences often means to omit or ignore signification.

    Secondpart Thetext

    tterance yielding operationsPredication, appreciation, narration, and textualization are four opera-tions on which the semiotic existence of any utterance is based.(A ) To predicate involves: (a) producing narrative utterances aseries of logically linked Utterances of State or Doing (Greimas andCourtes 1979: 124 n.4 and 5,297-298); and (b) semanticizing them (in arestrictive sense, since th e predication of narrative utterances is also asemantic operation, though of a syntactic type), by means o f the creationoffigures out of figurative and n onfigurative semes (Greimas and Courtes1979: 328 n.8,378-379 n.4, 5 and 6, 149 n.3, 146-148).The sem iotic the ory of the Paris School (Coq uet 1982; Pa rret andRup rech t 1985) accounts for adequate, rigorous, and coh erent descrip-tionsof this, under th e following headings: (a ) narrative syntax (Greimasand Courtes 1979:381-383; 1986:231-232), and (b) discourse semantics(1979: 328-330; 1986:196-197).

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    18/28

    374 J M NadalThe production of both the narrative-syntactic and the discursive-semantic components of the theoretical model that simulates the genera-tive trajectory of signification is only partial, being inadequate by itselfto generate the structures that will be discursivized. Therefore, due to theneed of discursivizing the appreciation (or point of view or focaliza-tion ), we shall consider predication to be of a basic or nar rativ e type namely, what the utterance tells us.(B )To app reciate invo lves assigning the /knowing/ resulting from thenarrative predication to an actant in the utterance. It means turning anactant into the support of the mentioned enunciated /knowing/,transforming it into an actant an d basing the production and sem anticiza-

    tion of the na rrativ e utterances on this /knowing/. This very appreciationis in itself a semanticized narrativ e utterance which relates one actant toanother narrative utterance (that of predication), which is considered asthe Object of Value. In this sense, appreciation is a narratological kindof predication; it is not so closely connected to what is narrated (eventhough it fully determines it), since it is the way in which narration takesplace.(C) Narration is the act (an act of the utterance) through which anactant discursivizes both narrative predication and narratological predica-tion tha t is to say, by m eans o f which the semantic-syntactic discursivecategories of person, space, and time are added to the semanticizednarrative utterances, which are the outcome of predication and apprecia-tion. This actant (narrator) discursivizes the text, thus becoming theorigin of the above categories, which are produced using the narrator asa point of reference. In other words, narration is the action of an enunci-ated actant (expressed morphemically or not; capable of being expressedmorphemically),which tells or displays not only the story , but also theOpinion or point of view to which the story refers.(D) Textualization decides the order in which the narrative utterancesare linearized and the num ber of times theyaretextualized (including thepossibility of their lack of surface manifestation or ellipsis), as well asthe semantic density of the predication, which is wha t determines n arra-tion speed and duration . Ordering gives rise to analepsis, prolepsis,achrony, sylepsis, etc., and the density and frequency of textualizationset up scenes, instances of ellipsis, summaries, pauses, iterations, and soon. Two excellent w ork s by Genette (1972, 1983) analyze these questionsstructurally.The semanticization of narrative utterances, which is carried out bythe semantic-discursive component ofpredication and not b y textualiza-tion, is what-determines temporalization, spatialization, and actorializa-tion strictly speaking i.e., of what does not depend on the narrator

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    19/28

    nunciationand narration 375fo r temporal , spatial or personal or igin, but simply on the semanticmicrouniverse , which is a par t of the nar rato r s semiotic com petence.Suppose a text says In 1919 o r Dur ing the Renaissance or In Pariso r Chr is tophe r Co lum bu s . Besides establishing a situation (Spanish:posicionam iento , French: reperage 9), those signs enta il depending o ntheir coincidence o r no t w i th the na r r a to r s person, time, o r space some sem antic values w hich concern the nar rative u tterances themselves(that is, their discursive semantics) and not the relationship they bearwith that which predicates them (narrator). Greimas and Courtes (1979,1986) and m any o thers do not distinguish the essentially different charac-te r o f ei ther category. The same thing happens in relation to the tempo raland spatial relative posit ions of the different narrat ive utterances. Thetempora l and spatial relationships o f anter ior i ty, poster ior i ty, concomi-tance, inclusion, limitation, etc. o f every narrative utterance with regardto the other s ar e the results o f discourse semantics, and no t o f discursiviza-t ion o r textual ization .

    For instanceA n example would help us to differentiate the f ou r operations easily:M a r ia gave bir th to a ch ild, accor ding to her sister . T he basic predicationconsists of a narrative Utterance of Doing by which an init ial State in w hich the so-called Subject o f State actant (M aria) is no t in co njunctionwith the so-called Object of Value actant (her baby) is transformedinto a final State, in w hich the State Subject (Mar ia) has o r is in conjunc-t ion w i th the Object o f Value (her child). The actant involved in thischange in State will be called Subject o f Doing (also Maria): a Subject-type actant, whose funct ion is also carried out in our utterance by theactor who plays the Subject of State Maria), because it is she who carriesout the action (giving b i r th to a child).This utterance belong ing to the narr ative sy ntax of signif ication issemanticized, in the sense o f discourse semantics, by means o f the isoto-pies of what is /human/ and /maternal / , and by the sememes whichrepresent the graphics or substance of the expressions Maria , give b ir thto , and chi ld . These f igures are liable to be b roken down into severalclasses of semes.Th is pred ication, co nsidered to be a / know ing /, presents itself attached,as an Object o f Value, to a Subject o f State (syntactic-narrative) actant(M aria s sister) who is the discursive-actant-appreciator, t hus fo rming anarrative Meta-utterance o f State. Quite commonly, once the meta-utter-ances w e call ap preciation are semanticized, they tend to be of State, no t

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    20/28

    376 J M Nadalof D oing, and, as we can see, they are a predication abo ut the iden tityof the appreciator that is, about the support of the /knowing/ whichpredication involves.Following Greimas and Courtes (1979: 297), we shall represent thenarrative or basic predication as follows:

    whereby:51 = Subject of Doing actant (Maria, the subject of give birth to )52 = S ubject of State actant (Maria, the subject of Doing in relation with

    the Object of Value the child)01 = Object of Value acta nt (the child)// = Narrative U tterance o f Doing() = Narrative U tterance o f State Function of Doing (giving birth to )fl = Re lation (junction) of conjunction(J = Relation (junction) o f disjunctionW e shall represent appreciation or narratological predication as:

    (8302)wherein:53 =Subject of State actant (Maria s sister)02 = Object o f Value actant (the narrative o r basic predication) thatis to say,

    Impossibility of an indirect orfree indirect discourse when the appreciatoris th enarratorAppreciation is an operation which, like predication, narra tion , and textu-alization, is necessary to form an utterance, even though i t may notalwaysshow on the surface of the text by m eans o f m orphemes o r specificminimal signs. A ll narrative predications have at least one discursive-actant-appreciator.On the left of the room you could see the door of a bedroom and on the r ightwas th e kitchen and another door which w as shut. I t m ight have been a bedroom

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    21/28

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    22/28

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    23/28

    nunciationand narration 379tor ( Mar i a s sister: /She/-/Now and Then/-/Hereand There/). The latteris t em porall y and spa tially hom oextradiegetical with regard to the fo rmer ,dueto the (par tial) agreem ent between the values of the above-mentionedcategories.

    The u t terance shows us a non-narra tor ia l type of appreciation, exceptfo r the subut terance according to her sister , whose narrator is, at thesame t ime, i ts appreciator: here we have the same discursive actant withtwo different functions.

    The real and apparent presence of the manifestable subject of theutteranceIf we m ade up a scale (Figure 2: H istoire/D iscours according to discourselevel)with the different types o f utterances according to degree o f partici-pation in them of the explicit subject o f the utterance (who is the narratorbut not the implicit enunciator who always participates in the samedegree as the subject implied by the entire text, thus being meaninglessto differentiate the degress of an implied presence which is quantitativeand qualitatively necessary and invariable), it would follow that leavingaside secondary utterances in which a subnarra tor o r second narratorap pe ars, and leaving aside the disto rtion it would create in the scale bythe p ossible m anife stat ion in the sign s level of the narra tor or of itsperson, time, and spatial values (a sort of explicitation which affects theappearance of the text i.e., which is relevant from the point o f viewof textualization and of the signification apprehended by the effectiveenunciatee, but which is not pertinent from the po int of view of discursivi-

    HistoirejDiscours according to discourse levelDiscoursNarra tor s m axim um discursiviza t ionA ll values are enunciat iveN=A pprecia tor , N = S. of Doing, N =S. o f StateN =O bject o f Va lueHistoireNarra tor s m in im um discurs iv iza t ionA ll values are enuncive App reciator , S.ofDoing, NS.ofState Object ofValue

    Figure 2.

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    24/28

    380 J M Nadalzation), we w ould find a type of utterance with the m aximum degree ofparticipation on the narrator s be half. This narrator w ould be the appreci-ator, besides being both the Subject of Doing and the Subject of Stateof what was predicated, as well as the Object of Value look at myhand ) W e would also encounter a type of utterance with the m inimumdegree of participation on behalf of the narrator, in which the narratoris neither the appreciator nor any type of actant in the basic narrativeutterance, and in w hich there are no enu nciative values, except the narra-tor s ( She w anted him now ). Note that the morphem e represented bythe graphics now does not have a /Now/ value which agrees with th eeventof narration on the content of form level, but rather a /Then/ valuewhich disagrees with it (Banfield 1982). This reminds us once again thatin the kind of semiotics we are practicing, we do not care abou t signs ortheir form of expression, but about figures belonging to the plane ofcontent (Nadal 1986; 1985b: 537-538; 1985c; 1988a and b).In the scale in Figure 2, the subutterance Maria gave birth to a child ,which depends on the other subutterance where its appreciator is indi-cated, is situated in an intermediate place. The other subutterance,according to her sister , involves a greater degree of participation onbehalf of the narrator. Not only does th e appreciator coincide with th eanonymous narrator, but the Subject of State (Maria s sister) in theUtterance of State which is the appreciation; see above has combinedperson and time values which are in partial agreement with those of thenarrator. The whole utterance would obviously be placed on the leveloccupied by according to her sister .The dichotomy Histoire/Discours established by B enveniste makes thepresent interpretation possible; it also allows an interpretation not onlyon the discursive level, but on the textual one as well (Figure 3). Thus,no enunciative values are textualized in our utterance, which increases,with respect to its discursive form, the degree of objectivity (o r histoire

    Histoire Discours ccording to textu l levelDiscours

    Maximum textualization of the narratorM a x i m u m presence of explicit enu nciative values

    HistoireMinimum textualization of the narratorAbsenceof explicit and elliptic enunciative values

    Figure 3.

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    25/28

    Enunciation and narration 381f o l l ow ing Ben venis te s t e rmino logy) . In any case, i f we accept th e scalewhich corresponds to the textual level, w e have to bear in mind tha t i tis relative to every cultural episteme. Most certainly, at the beg inn ing o fthis century, a t ravel in g used to be a trace o f the explicit sender o f theutterance; whereas i t is n o l onger so, for the same European, at present.The n o n -n arrato r s appreciat ion (Maria sister s) is directed to w hat isdifferent personally, temporally, and spatially (her sister having delivereda child); that is, it appreciates a narrat ive utterance to w h ich i t does n o tcontribute, and which takes place neither in the moment nor in the placethis appreciation is exerted. It appears as indirect discourse (which isusually n o t recognized by the theory as such According to X ), w h ichmakes ev ident the c lassic dissociation among the syntactic-discursivevalues def ining the narra tor an d those def ining the appreciator.Since our example i s no t part o f a large discourse, it is only possiblefo r a part ial analysis of i ts textualization (see above): n o enunciat ivevalues are made explicit in the ut terance, even though w e ma y catalyzethose values. The appearance of the text disguises i ts discursive reality:itconceals th e narrator, it conceals its introductory appreciation and thecombined nature o f the non-narra tor ia l appreciation (the sister s).

    The implicit enunciator s and the e f f e t i v e enunciated s appreciationSometimes it is useful to consider n o t o n ly the opposi t ion between th etime an d place o f n a r ra t ion and the t ime an d place o f w h at i s predicatednarrat ively, but also the opposi t ion between these tw o t imes an d placesand the moment and place of appreciation. Notice, for instance, thedifference between:a.Maria gave birth to a child, according to w h at her sister said shortlyafterwards.b.M aria gave bir th to a child, accordin g to w h at her sister i s s ay ing no w .c.Maria w as g iv ing birth to a ch ild, accordin g to w h at her sister told us.d. Maria is g iv ing b i r th to a child , according to her sister.Writers take advantage o f the syntactic-discursive interplay o f c on fo r -mity an d d isconformity between the four operations which yield utter-ances basic predication, appreciation, narration (or discursivization),an d textual ization to simplify o r enrich the n arrat ive surface syntaxand the discourse semantics of the fo rm of contents in the discourses theyproduce; that is, they use it to simplify o r enrich a s tory and the themesit conveys. We mustalso consider the fact that many textual effects suchas irony, dialogism, pol iphony, and so on are based on the opposit ionbetw een n arrat ive predication s assigned to several actants-appreciators.

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    26/28

    382 J M NadalThese predications must be the same or a similar basic predication: avirtual and hypothetical predication. The contrast is sometimes verysubtle, occurring not only between the predications assigned to severalactors ( X thought A / Y thought B or think A / X thought B ), butbetween the appreciations made by an actor s different discursive actants thinkA /hadthought B / I thought C).Narratology deals with appreciation, narration, and textualization;narrativity and discourse semantics study predication that is , theirobject of s tudy is the story and the themes of a discourse. Withoutnarratological analysis, narrativity and discourse semantics are describedas having a lot of deficiencies. A non-contradictory, exhaustive, andsimple analysis of the form of content (Hjelmslev 1963: Chapter 3)demands a rigorous narratological description. If the structure of thedifferent discursive actants is not reconstructed, (A) it will be very difficultto distinguish th e similarities and differences among the different discur-sive actants /knowings/ or the views of the virtual and hypo thetical storyattributed to them; and (B) it will be very difficult to understand theimplicit intentionality which semiotic theory attributes to the instancecalled implicit enunciator.

    On the other hand, we can speak of the hypothetical and virtual storytheutterance tells , inasmuch as that story is the one the implicit enuncia-tor transmits to the implicit enunciatee. That virtual and hypotheticalstory does not coincide exactly with any of the versions discursive actan ts(including th e narrator) provide about i t . We must not forget that th eimplicit enunciator is not a discursive actant.When we speak about the different versions o f th e same story suppliedby the utterance, and when we say that it is a virtual and hypotheticalstory, we mean that it is implicit in the utterance. The stories manifestedin th e utterance according to the different opinions of the discursiveactants allow us to reconstruct the implicit story if we keep to theimplicit receptive doing indicated by the text. Semiotic theory embodiesthis implicit receptive do ing in a type of instance it calls im plicitenunciateeFree indirect discourse responds to the need to free the surface of theutterance of the farrago of the continuous and explicit indirect apprecia-tion. This type of ellipsis affects the utterance from both the textual andthe syntactic-discursive level of na rration , since it eliminates the introduc-tory narratorial appreciation (see above), but it does not modify th eappreciation of the basic predication, which rem ains indirect.Letus remem ber, however, that in the vast m ajority of cases, the mostinteresting situation is the one shown by the contrast between the predica-tions assigned to the narrators and non-narrators and what the implicitenunciator actually thinks. This is not a discursive actant, as we have

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    27/28

    Enunciation and narration 383said;consequ e n t l y ,it is no t likely to be inves ted wi ththevaluesofpe r son ,t ime , an d space categories. Or, to put i t a n o t h e r way , i t is not liable tobe discursivized, to reveal itself, to be designated , or to self-designatewhich does n o t pr e ve n tthe effective enunc ia tee ( the reader , fo rexam ple )from rece iv ing the im pl ic i t en un c ia tor 's apprec ia t ion s , wi th wh o mall themani fes ted or m an ifes tab le d iscursive ac tan ts ' apprec ia t ion s are con-t ras ted. A s weha ve sa id , it is the na r r a t o r w ho at t r ibu tes the / k n o w i n g /o f the pr e d i c a t i ons to discurs ive ac tants i.e., w ho says he is theapprecia tor .As a m a t t e r o f fact , th i s vas t ne twork o f relat ionships se t up a m o n gthe / k n o w i n g / of the ins tances of the text , which is reflected by i tsapprecia t ions , goes bey on d u t te ranc e and i s ne wly enr iched by receptiveen un c i a t i o n in adec is ive m ann er wherethe im pl ic i t ( no t m ani fe s tab le )an d the m a n i f e s t a b l e(o r liable to be made mani fe s t ed) pred ica t ions o fthe apprecia tors of the u t te rance and those of the effective enunc ia tee(the reade r , the spec ta tor) m ee t . This e n co un ter be tween the wo r ld of thetextand the m an o f thev/orldredef ines once again theind iv idua l sem ant icmicro-universe .To a c c o u n t for the syntact ic processes which make possible the exis-tence of prope r them at ic or n ar ra t ive d issonanc es i s one of the objec t ivesofna r r a to l ogy .eferen es

    Banf ie ld , Ann (1982). Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Languageof Fiction. Bos ton an d L o n d o n : Routledge an d KeganPaul.

    Bar thes , Roland (1966). Introduct ion a Tanalysestructural d esrecits. Communications 8 ,1-27.Benveni s te , Emi l e ( 1 9 8 la ) . Structure de srelations d e personned a n s le verbe. In Problemesde linguistique generate,vol. 1 = Tel 7),225-236.Paris:Gallimard.(1981b) . Les re l a t i on s d e t e mp s dans le verbe fran a is . In Problemes de linguistiquegenerate,vol . 1 ( = Tel 7),237-250.Paris: Gallimard. ( 1 9 8 l c ) . L'apparei l formel de I ' enonc i a t i on . In P roblem es d e linguistique generate(= Tel 7),79-88.Paris: Gal l imard .Bertrand, Denis (1984). Narrativite et discursivite (=Actes Sem io t iques . Do cum ents V I,59).Paris: E.H.E.S.S.Cohn, Dorri t (1978). Transparent Minds. Princeton,NJ: Prince ton Univers i tyPress.Coquet , Jean-Claude (ed.) (1982). Semiotique. L Ecole de Paris.Paris: Hachet te .

    Genette,Gerard (1972). Figures III. Paris: Seui l .(1983) . Nouveau discours du recit.Paris: Seuil .Greimas, Algirdas Jul ien an d Courtes,Joseph (1979). Semiotique. Dictionnaire raisonne dela theorie d u langage.Paris: Hachette.(1986) .Semiotique. Dictionnaire raisonne de la theorie du langage,vol. II .Paris: Hachet te .

    Greimas, Alg irdas Ju l ien an d La ndow sk i , Eric 1983). Pragmatique et semiotique ( =Actess emi o t i ques . D o c u m e n t s V, 50).Paris:E.H.E.S.S.S.

    Brought to you by | Universidad Industrial de Santander UniversidAuthenticated | 172.16.1.226Download Date | 3/9/12 8:24 PM

  • 8/12/2019 Enuntiation and Narration

    28/28

    384 J.M.NadalHjelmslev, Louis (1963). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. M adison, W I: Unive rsity

    of Wisconsin Press.Jakobson, Roman (1957). Shifters, Verbal Categories, and the Russian Verb. Cambridge,M A: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, H arvard University.Landowski, Eric (1983). Simulacres en construction. Langages 70,73-81.Nadal, Jose Maria (1985a). La narracion en 'La voluntad de Jose Martinez Ruiz. Cahiers

    de l Universite de Pau 8 ,33-47.(1985b).Tipologiade losdiscursos narrativesdeRosaliadeCastro.InAdasdoCongreso

    internacional de estudios sobre R osalia de Castro e o seu tempo, 529-547. Santiago deCompostela: Consello da Cultura Galega y Universidad de Santiago.(1985c). H istoria/discurso , ve inticinco anos despues. Estudios Semioticos (Barcelona)3/4, 13-25.(1986). La enunciacion narrativa. In Investigaciones Semioticas I: Adas del I SimposioInternacionalde la A.E.S. Toledo, 1984, A.E.S. (ed.),367-390.Madrid: Consejo Superiorde Investigaciones Cientificas.

    (1988a).Las oberturas I. Agerkaria (Bilbao) 14,19-22.(1988b). Las oberturas II. Agerkaria (Bilbao) 15,17-21.(for thcoming a). Semiotic narratology: The question of 'point of view . In HispanicLiterary Theory (=H ispanic Issues), J. Talens and D. Villanueva (eds.). Minneapolis:The Prisma Institute.(forthcoming b). Les sujets destinateurs et destinataires du discours dans les textesd expression verba l et plastique, et le regard a la camera. In L homme et ses signes:Proceedings of the IV Congress of A.I.S. Berlin: Mo uton de Gruyter.

    Parret, Herman and Ruprecht, Hans-George (eds.) (1985). Exigences et perspectives de lasemiotiquejAims and Prospects of Semiotics, 2 vols. The Hague: John Benjamins.Roth, Philip (1985). The Professor of Desire. New York: Penguin Books.Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.) (1986). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics, 3 vols. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.Verdu,Vicente (1988). Bautizo. El Pais Semanal 13 (567), 8 .

    Jose Maria Nadal (b. 1956)is Associate Professor of Audiovisual Communication at theBasque Co un try U nive rsity in Bilbao, Spain. His principal research interests include verbaland graphic narratology of publicity and literature, theory of verbal and graphic narratol-ogy, and semiotics of persuasion. Among his publications are 'La enunciacion narrativa'(1984), 'La narracion en La voluntad' (1985), 'Tipologiade losdiscursos n arrative s derosalia (1985), Histoire/discours (1988), and Innerarios de la persuasion. Analisis de spotsde TV (1990, with S. Zunzunegui).