热奈特 叙事话语(专业教育)
小说《卡门》文章结构的叙事艺术特色
小说《卡门》文章结构的叙事艺术特色摘要：法国现实主义作家梅里美的代表作《卡门》虽然是一部中篇小说,但是其结构巧妙、情节紧凑,堪称法国文学史上的里程碑之作。
基于此,运用法国叙事学家热拉尔•热奈特的叙事学理论,对《卡门》的文章结构进行深刻的剖析和解读。
关键词：《卡门》；热奈特;叙事学;结构主义；中篇小说《卡门》是现实主义作家梅里美的代表作,它融汇了作者对于当时社会和人性的思考。
这部作品具有较强的社会影响力与文学艺术魅力。
自问世起,《卡门》便吸引了法国乃至国外学者的广泛关注和热烈研究。
经资料搜寻整合发现,学者大都致力于从作品内容出发,来讨论小说的现实意义、伦理意义和精神内涵,而本文打破以往对文章内涵的分析,而是从叙事学的角度出发,对《卡门》的叙事特色进行文本分析。
梅里美在法国中短篇小说的发展史上具有举足轻重的地位,堪称法国中短篇小说的第一位大师。
因此对于《卡门》叙事手段的研究具有重要的学术价值。
本文依据法国叙事学家热拉尔•热奈特的叙事学理论,采用文本细读的方法,从语态中的叙述层和叙述者这两个方面,对小说《卡门》进行了尝试性的分析研究,以得出《卡门》文章结构的叙事艺术特色。
一.热奈特的《叙事话语新叙事话语》热奈特的叙事学理论全部都收录在《叙事话语新叙事话语》这本书中。
在《叙事话语新叙事话语》中,热奈特首先提出的重点问题就是,叙事有长期被人忽视的三层含义:故事、叙事和叙述。
故事是所指,是叙述的内容;叙事是能指,是本意上的叙事;叙述是叙述行为和该行为所处的总情境。
这是这本书中最基本也是最重要的概念,它奠定了热奈特叙事学理论的基础。
之后,热奈特从语法范畴出发,在此书中把叙事理论分为了三大类,分别是时间、语式和语态。
他认为时间、语式和语态与叙事的三层含义,是以一种复杂方式交叉在一起的,前者实际上表示的是故事、叙事和叙述之间的多种关系。
于是,热奈特从叙事理论的三大类出发,在后文中对其进行更为详细和清晰的划分与定义,以研究出更深刻、更准确的叙事学理论。
热奈特叙事话语理论下的综艺真人秀
热奈特叙事话语理论下的综艺真人秀【摘要】热奈特叙事话语理论下的综艺真人秀是当下流行的一种娱乐形式，本文通过分析热奈特叙事话语理论揭示了综艺节目在其中的角色定位和影响。
真人秀节目中的叙事手法也得到了深入探讨，并探讨了热奈特叙事话语理论在综艺真人秀中的运用方式。
文章还探讨了综艺真人秀节目的创新与发展，并从热奈特叙事话语理论的角度出发，提出了对综艺真人秀的启示和未来发展方向的展望。
通过这篇文章的研究，可以更加深入地了解现代综艺真人秀节目的制作与发展，为相关行业提供思路和借鉴。
【关键词】关键词：热奈特叙事话语理论、综艺真人秀、角色定位、影响、叙事手法、运用、创新、发展、启示、理论意义、未来发展方向。
1. 引言1.1 热奈特叙事话语理论下的综艺真人秀热奈特叙事话语理论对综艺真人秀的影响体现在节目的叙事方式上，如何通过镜头语言和故事叙述来塑造不同的人物形象和故事情节，如何引导观众在节目中产生情感共鸣和思考，都是热奈特叙事话语理论对综艺真人秀产生的重要影响。
综艺真人秀节目的创新与发展也离不开热奈特叙事话语理论的指导和启示，通过不断创新叙事方式和主题内容，综艺真人秀节目能够更好地吸引观众的注意和参与，推动节目形式的不断进步与发展。
2. 正文2.1 综艺节目在热奈特叙事话语理论中的角色定位热奈特叙事话语理论认为，一个故事的叙述者（narrator）和角色（character）之间的关系至关重要。
在综艺真人秀中，这一关系同样非常重要，影响着节目的叙事效果和观众的情感体验。
综艺节目中的参与者既是角色，又是叙述者，扮演着叙述者和角色之间的双重角色。
参与者作为角色，承担着表演和展示自己的责任。
他们在节目中展现真实的自我，通过行为和言语展示自己的特点和个性，塑造出一个个具有鲜明个性和特点的角色形象。
这些角色形象可以是搞笑幽默的喜剧角色，也可以是温暖感人的励志角色，可以是勇敢坚强的挑战者，也可以是聪明机智的策略家。
参与者通过在节目中的表现塑造了自己的角色形象，赢得了观众的喜爱和支持。
热奈特叙事理论下的《夜色温柔》叙事时间研究
2021年4月第34卷第2期山西能源学院学报Journal of Shanxi Institute of EnergyApr.，2021Vol.34No.2·社会科学研究·热奈特叙事理论下的《夜色温柔》叙事时间研究（安徽文达信息工程学院大学外语教学部，安徽合肥231201）王琳【摘要】美国作家弗·斯科特·菲茨杰拉德以自身经历为素材创作了最后一篇长篇小说《夜色温柔》，表达对“爵士乐时代”的绝望。
菲茨杰拉德在这部作品中所使用的独特叙事话语展现了他娴熟的写作能力。
这部小说也因其叙事时间的独特性成为叙事学学者们研究的对象。
“混乱的”叙事时间体现了作者的独具匠心。
文章以法国叙事学家热奈特提出的叙事话语理论为参照，从叙事时间的三个方面对《夜色温柔》展开分析研究，探讨作者如何通过叙事时序、时距和频率来影射人物思想的混乱、社会的无序和主人公梦想的崩溃，以期为欣赏菲茨杰拉德的写作艺术提供一个新的角度。
【关键词】叙事理论；叙事时间；菲茨杰拉德；《夜色温柔》【中图分类号】J905【文献标识码】A【文章编号】2096-4102（2021）02-0068-03弗·斯科特·菲茨杰拉德不仅是20世纪伟大的作家，也是一位将现实生活反映在小说作品中的高手。
菲茨杰拉德的最后一篇长篇小说《夜色温柔》发表于1934年。
小说以衰败为主题，大量融入了菲茨杰拉德的个人经历——酗酒、生活潦倒、妻子的精神疾病等。
菲茨杰拉德在作品中娴熟地运用叙事技巧表达主人公从抗争超越到屈服沉沦的心路历程。
法国叙事学家热奈特通过对故事时间和叙事时间的研究，提出了叙事时序、时距和频率三个概念。
一、叙事时序《夜色温柔》中的倒叙是小说特有的叙事风格。
小说第二部分前三章讲叙迪克在1917年前往苏黎世取得学位随后与妮可儿相遇的故事。
其中有一段对迪克的叙述：1917年，迪克·戴弗医生初到苏黎世时，年方二十六岁。
热奈特叙事理论
热奈特叙事理论热奈特在《叙事话语》中从时序（order），时长（duration）和频率（frequency）三个方面讨论了叙事话语时间和故事时间的关系，但是他提出的叙事时间理论并不完善。
本文从时序、时长和频率三个方面剖析西方叙事时间理论未能覆盖的理论盲区，论证中国古典叙事时间理论如何填补这些空缺。
在探讨中西叙事时间理论的差异性和互补性的同时，挖掘中西叙事时间理论的文化思想渊源和美学涵义，并提议建构一种融合中国文学叙述特点和西方叙事理论的叙事学。
关键词：叙事时间理论；“隔年下种”与时序；“趁窝和泥”与时局；“草蛇灰线”与频率西方叙事文学经历了“史诗-浪漫传奇-长篇小说”这样的演变，构成一个一脉相承的叙事系统。
叙事以严密的逻辑关系在时间中进行和发展，时间是逻辑叙事的起点和终点。
浦安迪认为，“叙事的统一性和完整性是通过叙事情节的‘因果律’和‘时间化’的标准而言的”（浦安迪，56）。
也就是说，西方小说体式的基本模式是时间的。
时间在西方文学上的地位和意义使学者对这一问题格外关注，话语时间由此进入了叙事批评的视野。
托多洛夫在《文学作品分析》中率先讨论故事时间和话语时间的相关问题，他指出，“使话语转变为故事的信息的一个形态是时况，时况问题之所以存在是因为有两种相互关联的时间关系：一是被描写世界的时间性，另一个则是描写这个世界的语言的时间性。
”（托多洛夫，1987: 61）受其启发，法国叙事学家热拉尔·热奈特在《叙事话语》一书中就故事时间和话语时间的关系问题展开讨论，提出叙事时间的三大要素----时序（order）、时长（duration）、频率（frequency），使时间理论日臻成熟。
作为一种理论工具，结构主义叙事学自上世纪80年代传播到中国以来，受到中国学界的广泛关注，叙事时间是学者们关注的焦点之一。
研究者或是利用文本证实热奈特叙事时间理论模式的合理性和可操作性，或是借用叙事时间理论来研究中外文学作品的叙事时间策略，探讨其中体现的文化意蕴和思想内涵，取得了丰硕成果。
法国叙述学的叙事话语研究(下)
法国叙述学的叙事话语研究(下)王鍾陵【摘要】热奈特的<叙述话语>对<追忆逝水年华>一书的分析有不少可足思考之处.并且也能够引申开来增强我们对西方现代小说的认识.它构建了一套研究叙事话语即叙事文本的概念体系,但比较生涩.这一体系有不少重要的范畴、概念取自语言学,有的概念科学性不足,有的概念则是隐喻,还有的概念完全是作者故意的花样翻新.概念的生涩,在俄国形式主义中就存在,但到了法国叙述学中,则十分触目了.巴尔特在<叙事作品结构分析导论>中就曾用过三个生涩的概念:迹象、催化、情报.托多罗夫在<文学作品分析>中,还沿用了"迹象"这个生涩的概念.生涩的概念多,这种情况,当然同法国结构主义在兼取语言学与符号学上表现了更大的热情有关,同时也表明了以科学主义为目的的结构主义思潮,在其理论构建中对科学性的要求并不严谨.问题还在于,热奈特所建构的这一套概念体系中的许多概念对于分析叙事话语用处不大,一定要加以运用的话,只有徒增繁冗,它们对于叙事作品的思想与艺术的理解,都并非必要.当然,热奈特这本书中也有一些概念对于分析叙事作品是很有用的.比如省略、停顿、概要、场景是构成叙述节奏的四种运动形式以及时问倒错亦即组织叙述话语的种种方式,还有对于故事内外的叙述主体与受述者的区分等等,这一些内容都是值得肯定的.从方法上说,作者写得好的,基本上都是从文学传统、传统标准出发,以对照<追忆逝水年华>,来揭示后者的独特性的章节.也就是多少体现一些宏观眼光与历史感的章节.然而这些章节,采用的大体都是从一般到个别的方法,作者所说"我必须承认在寻找特殊性时我发现了普遍性"的话是不符合他这本书的实际的,他所说"我在此提出的主要是一种分析方法"的主要目的,远未达到.作为一个结构主义者,重视共时,忽视历时,是必然的,但由于作了大量的实际的文本分析,使得作者多少具有了一些小说史感,但总的来说,热奈特的历史感还是薄弱的.同其他结构主义者一样,他的兴趣在理论的构建上,一切结构主义者所不明白的是,没有深刻的历史研究,就不会有正确而比较全面的理论建构.【期刊名称】《学术交流》【年(卷),期】2010(000)002【总页数】6页(P147-152)【关键词】法国叙述学;叙事话语;热奈特;俄国形式主义【作者】王鍾陵【作者单位】苏州大学文学院,江苏,苏州,215021【正文语种】中文【中图分类】I0六《叙事话语》的第四章为《语式》,这个范畴因借用自语言学,因此显得生硬。
热奈特叙事理论
热奈特叙事理论热奈特在《叙事话语》中从时序(Order),时长(duration )和频率(frequency )三个方面讨论了叙事话语时间和故事时间的关系，但是他提出的叙事时间理论并不完善。
本文从时序、时长和频率三个方面剖析西方叙事时间理论未能覆盖的理论盲区，论证中国古典叙事时间理论如何填补这些空缺。
在探讨中西叙事时间理论的差异性和互补性的同时，挖掘中西叙事时间理论的文化思想渊源和美学涵义，并提议建构一种融合中国文学叙述特点和西方叙事理论的叙事学。
关键词:叙事时间理论；"隔年下种"与时序；"趁窝和泥"与时局；”草蛇灰线”与频率西方叙事文学经历了〃史诗•浪漫传奇•长篇小说"这样的演变，构成一个一脉相承的叙事系统。
叙事以严密的逻辑关系在时间中进行和发展，时间是逻辑叙事的起点和终点。
浦安迪认为，"叙事的统一性和完整性是通过叙事情节的’因果律’和’时间化’的标准而言的" (浦安迪,56 X也就是说，西方小说体式的基本模式是时间的。
时间在西方文学上的地位和意义使学者对这一问题格外关注，话语时间由此进入了叙事⅛评的视野。
托多洛夫在《文学作品分析》中率先讨论故事时间和话语时间的相关问题，他指出，"使话语转变为故事的信息的一个形态是时况，时况问题之所以存在是因为有两种相互关联的时间关系：一是被描写世界的时间性，另一个则是描写这个世界的语言的时间性（托多洛夫，1987:61 ）受其启发，法国叙事学家热拉尔•热奈特在《叙事话语》一书中就故事时间和话语时间的关系问题展开讨论，提出叙事时间的三大要素一一时序（Order ）、时长（duration Y频率（frequency ）,使时间理论日臻成熟。
作为一种理论工具Z结构主义叙事学自上世纪80年代传播到中国以来，受到中国学界的广泛关注，叙事时间是学者们关注的焦点之一。
研究者或是利用文本证实热奈特叙事时间理论模式的合理性和可操作性，或是借用叙事时间理论来硏究中外文学作品的叙事时间策略Z 探讨其中体现的文化意蕴和思想内涵，取得了丰硕成果。
论-影视文学-的叙事特色
论”影视文学”的叙事特色摘要：随着世界影视行业的不断发展，影视文学应运而生，有别于传统文学形式，影视文学具有其独特的特点，极强的画面感、蒙太奇结构、文字的简约和强烈的叙事性等等，本文从影视文学的叙事性特点入手，对比传统文学叙事和影视文学叙事，进而探讨分析影视文学的叙事特色。
关键词：影视文学特点叙事性特色随着世界影视行业的不断发展，影视文学应运而生，影视文学是影视作品的基础、灵魂和支架，决定着影视作品的命运。
从本质上来说，影视文学首先是文学，与其他的文学体裁有着相同的特点和规律，同时它又与现代的影视媒介紧密相连，具有与其他文学体裁不同的独特特征：主题突出的叙事性、鲜明的动作性和画面感、蒙太奇结构的运用、文字的简约性和丰富的潜台词。
文学是人类思想和智慧的结晶，但是在如今信息时代，信息资讯日新月异，快速的生活节奏往往让人们很难空闲下来静心阅读。
影视行业为满足人们日益增长的精神文化需求而生，影视作品的出现改变了文化界乃至文学界的格局。
现在，大多数人会选择观看影视作品而非阅读纸质文字，有时还会出现人们因为观看了影视作品才激起了阅读文学作品的兴趣。
一、传统文学叙事与影视文学叙事的异同1.传统文学叙事的内涵其实叙事功能并不是文学所特有的，许多其他的表达方式都包含了叙事功能，比如我们所熟悉的新闻、报刊杂志，乃至人与人之间的对话等等。
但是文学里的叙事更为系统、详尽具体，因此显得更为突出。
对于文学的叙事特点，我们可以从法国著名叙事学家热奈特的理论来进行分析。
热奈特在《叙事话语》中指出了叙事一般有三层含义：“叙事的第一层含义，如今通用的最明显、最中心的含义，指的是承担叙述一个或一系列事件的叙述陈述，口头或书面的话语。
”“叙事的第二层含义不大普遍，但为今天叙述方面的分析家和理论家所常用，它指的是真实或虚构的、作为话语对象的接连发生的时间，以及事件之间连贯、反衬、重复等等不同的关系。
”“叙事的第三层含义看来最古老，指的仍然是一个事件，但不是人们讲述的事件，而是某人讲述某事（从叙述行为本身考虑）的事件。
热奈特叙事理论
热奈特叙事理论作者：程瑶来源：《群文天地》2009年第05期上世纪六七十年代，当代叙事理论迅速发展并走向成熟，在其中起关键作用的是法国结构主义批评家热拉尔·热奈特。
他在吸纳前人研究成果的基础上建构出了自己的叙事理论。
其理论渊源主要包括：索绪尔语言学、结构主义、俄国形式主义及新批评派等。
索绪尔将语言看成是一个完整的符号系统，组成此系统的各成分在性质和意义上都受制于该系统本身的一套规范。
结构主义以索绪尔理论为基石，将文学视为一个基于其内在叙事语法规则的符号系统，重点关注其内部各成分间的关系。
结构主义叙事学家托多洛夫参照语言学模式总结文学叙事的规则，建构起一套新的叙事结构模式。
热奈特不仅受到了索绪尔结构主义语言学的影响，更直接接受了托多洛夫从时间、语式、语态三个语法范畴出发来分析叙事问题的方法。
俄国形式主义者认为文学的特性不在于写什么而在于如何写，文学叙事主要包括“故事”和“情节”，且“情节”决定“故事”。
基于这种形式主义观念，普洛普在他的研究中将重心放到了作品的形式结构上。
但他只注意到了故事表层的句法关系，后来的格雷马斯、列维·斯特劳斯、布雷蒙等对故事的深层与表层结构关系进行了系统研究，总结出了各式各样的故事语法模式，这些叙事结构模式虽显得大而空泛，却为热奈特的研究提供了借鉴。
新批评派的代表人物布鲁克斯和沃伦在《理解小说》中提出了小说中“谁说”的问题，由此引出了“叙事聚点”这一概念，为热奈特的“叙述聚焦”理论奠定了基础。
而且，在叙事程式的研究上，热奈特明显受到了美国芝加哥学派韦恩·布斯的《小说修辞学》的影响，而布斯在叙事形式上的看法与新批评派则颇为类似。
博览众家之长的热奈特于1972年发表了《叙事话语》一书，详尽地阐述了他的叙事理论。
其理论核心包括：在对叙事本质的认识上，热奈特认为，叙事是以具体叙事话语为基础的。
因此，他对叙事的研究主要集中在叙事话语上。
在《叙事话语》中，他先指明了“叙事”包含的三层概念：“叙事”（即叙事话语，指陈述一个或一系列事件口头或书面的话语）、“故事”（叙事话语陈述的真实或虚构的事件）、“叙述”（讲述话语产生的叙述行为），然后以“叙事”为核心，重点研究了“叙事”和与其相关的另外两个层面——“故事”和“叙述”间的复杂关系。
热奈特叙事理论
叙事学：叙事学理论发源于西方，以形式主义批判而闻名于世。
20世纪的叙事学诞生于法国。
叙事学是由拉丁文词根narrato 加上希腊文词尾logie构成的。
顾名思义，叙事学应当是研究叙事作品的科学。
然而这种定义经不起深究。
因为叙事学研究对象——“叙事作品”的界定并不是轻而易举的事情。
新版《罗伯特法语词典》对“叙事学”所下的定义是：“关于叙事作品、叙述、叙述结构以及叙述性的理论。
”而七卷本的《大拉鲁斯法语词典》对“叙事学”的解释是“人们有时用它来指称关于文学作品结构的科学研究”，显然，这里的“文学作品”并不只包括叙事作品一种。
两种定义颇有出入，但有一点却是共同的，即：它们都重视对文本的叙述结构的研究。
简单说来，叙述学就是关于叙述本文的理论，它着重对叙事文本作技术分析。
罗兰·巴特认为任何材料都适宜于叙事，除了文学作品以外，还包括绘画、电影、连环画、社会杂闻、会话，叙事承载物可以是口头或书面的有声语言、固定或活动的画面、手势，以及所有这些材料的有机混合。
而实际上，叙事学的发展并没有完全遵循这种设想，它的研究对象局限于神话、民间故事、尤其是小说这些以书面语言为载体的叙事作品中。
即使是进入到非语言材料构成的叙事领域中，也是以用语言作载体的叙事作品的研究为参照进行的。
连巴特撰写的《时装体系》一书，也是在研究报刊杂志上关于时装的文字符号。
单就神话，民间故事，小说而言，叙事学早期关注的是前二者，主要研究的是“故事”；叙事学发达以后主要研究后者，关心的是“叙事话语”。
所以它们是不能同日而语的。
这样，从实际发展情情况来看，叙事学是对主要以神话、民间故事、小说为主的书面叙事材料的研究，并以此为参照研究其它叙事领域。
“叙事学”一词最早是由托多罗夫提出的。
他在1969年发表的《〈十日谈〉语法》中写道：“……这部著作属于一门尚未存在的科学，我们暂且将这门科学取名为叙事学，即关于叙事作品的科学。
”实际在此之前，叙事学的研究设想和理论轮廓已经相当完整。
文艺学硕士专业阅读参考书目
文艺学硕士专业阅读参考书目（古希腊）柏拉图：《文艺对话录》，朱光潜译，人民文学出版社，1983年。
（古希腊）亚里士多德：《诗学》，陈忠梅译，商务印书馆，1996年。
（德）鲍姆嘉通：《美学》，王旭晓译，文化艺术出版社，1987年。
（法）狄德罗：《狄德罗美学论文选》，张冠尧等译，人民文学出版社，2008年。
-中国在职研究生招生网官网（德）莱辛：《拉奥孔》，朱光潜译，人民文学出版社，1979年。
（德）康德：《判断力批判》，邓晓芒译，人民出版社，2004年。
（德）席勒：《美育书简》，徐恒醇译，中国文联出版公司，1984年。
（德）黑格尔：《美学》，朱光潜译，商务印书馆，1979年。
（德）叔本华：《作为意志和表象的世界》，石冲白译，商务印书馆，1982年。
（德）尼采：《悲剧的诞生》，周国平译，上海人民出版社，2009年。
（德）马克思：《1844年经济学哲学手稿》，中央编译局译，人民出版社，2000年。
（意）克罗齐：《美学原理美学纲要》，朱光潜译，人民文学出版社，2008年。
（英）鲍桑葵：《美学史》，张今译，广西师范大学出版社，2009年。
朱光潜：《西方美学史》，人民文学出版社，2004年。
（英）伊格尔顿：《二十世纪西方文学理论》，伍晓明译，北京大学出版社，2007年。
曹顺庆主编：《东方文论选》，四川人民出版社，1996年。
曹顺庆主编：《中外比较文论史》，山东教育出版社，1998年。
朱立元主编：《当代西方文艺理论》，华东师范大学出版社，1997年。
赵毅衡编译：《新批评文集》，中国社会科学出版社，1988年。
（英）燕卜荪：《朦胧的七种类型》，周邦宪等译，中国美术学院出版社，1996年。
（俄）什克洛夫斯基等著：《俄国形式主义文论选》，方珊等译，三联书店，1989年。
（比）布洛克曼：《结构主义：莫斯科-布拉格-巴黎》，李幼蒸译，中国人民大学出版社，2003年。
（俄）巴赫金：《巴赫金全集》，河北教育出版社，1998年。
视角概念的发展对文学阅读教学的启示
视角概念的发展对文学阅读教学的启示章志萍第二军医大学摘要：热拉尔热奈特（G éra rd Gene tte,1930—）是法国著名文学批评家、修辞学家以及结构主义叙事学的代表人物。
本文以热奈特《叙事话语》（Narra tive Disc ours e ）为对象分析了聚焦概念的贡献和不足。
关键词：热奈特聚焦概念文学《叙事话语》是热奈特1972年发表的《修辞三》的主要部分，以普鲁斯特（Marce l Proust,）的著名小说《追忆逝水年华》（la recherche du temps perdu ）为研究对象，从时间、语式、语态等语法范畴出发分析叙事作品。
本文出自《叙事话语》第四章第五、六小节。
选文中，热奈特提出了自己的聚焦（f ocaliz a tion ）概念，即所谓零聚焦、内聚焦和外聚焦。
应该说，聚焦概念是对叙事理论的一大贡献，但是依旧存在一些盲点。
视角概念的发展与混乱自西方现代小说理论诞生以来，从什么角度观察故事一直是学界关注的一个焦点，出现了纷呈不一的名称以及各种界定和分类。
①选文开篇，热奈特就指出，关于“视角”问题的大部分理论著述，混淆了语式和语态。
接着，热奈特按时间顺序回顾了对“视角”这一问题的划分，及各方的优劣。
1955年，F.K.斯坦策尔（Franz Ka rl Stanz el ）将小说的“叙述情境”分为三种类型。
热奈特认为，斯坦策尔的各个分类之间不存在“视角”的差别。
同年，诺曼弗里德曼（Norman Friedman ）提出了更加复杂的八项分类法。
热奈特指出：“弗里德曼把第六类（《一个青年艺术家的肖像》）描述为‘由一个人物用第三人称讲述的故事’，这一提法表明他显然混淆了焦点人物和叙述者。
”②在热奈特看来，韦恩布思（W ayne C.Booth ）显然也有意识的把这两者等同起来。
最后，热奈特总结了贝蒂尔龙伯格（Bertil Romberg ）于1962年采用的分类法，热奈特认为，龙伯格在斯坦策尔的基础上补充的第四种类型显然与前三类的分类原则不一致。
热奈特叙事话语理论下的综艺真人秀——以《明星大侦探》为例
113 第2卷第3期传媒论坛我国的真人秀节目发展至今，随着竞争的日益激烈，各类综艺真人秀层出不穷。
一个节目创造出高收视，同类型节目便迅速被复制生产，如过江之鲫。
在博取眼球的过程中，节目内容庸俗娱乐与滑稽盛行。
此中，推理类综艺真人秀《明星大侦探》异军突起，受到社会文化热点的广受关注。
《明星大侦探》是芒果TV推出的大型明星角色扮演推理网络综艺节目，节目以30%跌宕剧情+40%综艺搞笑+30%智能推理，吸引观众参与其中，侵入式体验探案全过程。
它凭借独特的叙事话语，避免节目落入同质化的窠臼，使节目保持在强烈的娱乐性与严肃文化价值观建设之间的平衡。
从第一季到最新上线的第四季，始终热度不减，保持强大的生命力。
一、《明星大侦探》的时间语言叙事时间的“变形”是叙事的基础。
李显杰在《电影叙事学：理论与实例》提出，“雕塑”时间，控制好时间流程，是电影讲好故事的关键。
“对时间畸变的富于匠心的营构，直接奠定了影片文本对故事重心的选择，对情节与结构的编织和情感意图的取向。
”故事时间进行变形与重构，叙述者把最有价值的部分呈现给受众，把故事时间改造重塑成叙述时间。
通过这样的时间加工，故事变得更加紧凑，事件逻辑变得更加简单明了，受众也更容易进入情境。
热奈特在《叙事话语》中把“时距”分为停顿、场景、概要以及省略。
叙事的重要功能之一就是把一种时间兑换成另一种时间，此处“时距”是指故事时间与屏幕时间之间的关系。
“时距”可以分为三种方式：时间的膨胀、时间的省略以及时间的复原。
我们从“时距”的角度来看《明星大侦探》中时间的“变形”（一）时间的膨胀时间的膨胀是指屏幕时间大于故事时间，刻意的把某一情节的时间延长或扩大。
《明星大侦探》的第一个重要环节，就是各位玩家说出自己的不在场证明，还原自己的时间线。
一整天的行为就在这个介绍中交代清楚，需要观众自行在脑海中补充完整。
节目中，线索牵扯出的事情，通常是几个月前几年前甚至几十年前的事情。
通过线索的还原和玩家的复述，往往一个案情涉及的时间跨度长达十几年。
热奈特_叙事话语
其次，视角还规定了声音该叙述什么，不该叙述什么，当视角 没有落在某一人的身上，声音就无法表现这一人物的感觉。
《喧哗与骚动》中，凯蒂这个康普生家的唯一的女儿，可说是 全书的关键，书中人物的所作所为，都与她密切相关。班吉的脑子 里不断触发出凯蒂的印象，昆丁爱凯蒂并因她的失贞而投河自尽， 杰生也因她的失贞而失掉了本应得到的职位，由此对她充满仇恨， 并迁怒于她的女儿。我们从书中人物的回忆、表白中，逐渐了解了 凯蒂的行为，她与一男子私通后有了身孕，不得不与另一男子结婚， 婚后丈夫发现了隐情，抛弃了她。她只得把私生女寄养在母亲家里， 自己到大城市去闯荡。但全书没有以她的视角为中心设一章，因此， 我们无从了解她的内心世界。她偷情时的感觉，她被丈夫抛弃后的 心境，她对昆丁的死有何想法等等，都是作品中的空白。而这些未 被表达的东西，正是声音（语言）受到视角限制的结果。
（即如此刻，宝玉的心内想的是）‚别人不 知我的心，还可恕；难道你就不想我的心里眼里 只有你？……可见我心里时时刻刻白有你，你心 里竟没我了。‛宝玉是这个意思，只口里说不出 来，那黛玉心想着：‚你心里自然有我，虽有 ‘金玉相对’之说，你岂是重这邪说不重人的 呢？……” …… 看官，你道两个人原是一个心，如此看来， 却都是多生了枝叶，将那求近之心，反弄成疏远 之意了。
认知性视角，指人物和叙述者的各种意识活
动，包括推测、回忆以及对人、对事的态度和看 法，它属于知觉活动。认知性视角在现代小说中 占有很大的比重，‚我是谁？‛‚在这个世界上 我的位置在哪里？‛这些揭示人物广袤内心世界 的思索，只能由认知性视角来完成（感觉活动、 感知性视角是难以描述的）。
在叙事文中，感知性视角与认知性视角常常 以不易觉察的方式交融在一起。古人见落叶而悲 秋，观蚁穴而叹无常，这种触景生情，实际上就 是一种感知与认知的融合。
以热拉尔·热奈特的叙事学理论分析《琅琊榜》
以热拉尔·热奈特的叙事学理论分析《琅琊榜》作者：麻玥来源：《今传媒》2016年第03期摘要：2015年一部《琅琊榜》，在同期的电视剧中，可谓一压群雄。
但有一现象，也是不容忽视的。
该剧自上线以来，豆瓣上的评分呈下滑趋势。
笔者认为该剧在影像视听艺术上的突破，对中国电视剧来说确是一次大胆且较为成功的尝试，但在叙事上，仍存有漏洞。
虎头蛇尾的计谋阐释和过于拖沓的叙事节奏，无疑成为了该剧优于吸引观众却困于留住观众的关键。
本文将以法国结构主义叙述学代表：热奈特，所提出的叙事学理论，对该剧的叙事进行分析，力图从中找出该剧叙事力度不足的理论依据，供之后影视作品在叙事结构构建时，不单单关注镜语的发展，也着手于“叙事”的艺术琢磨，以期给以后的电视剧创作提供借鉴。
关键词：《琅琊榜》；叙事学；权谋剧；热拉尔·热奈特中图分类号：J905 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1672-8122（2016）03-0087-02一、引言《琅琊榜》的热播使得“江左梅郎，麒麟之才，得之可得天下”成为了人们茶余饭后的小谈。
这部良心之作，以国画墨色的浓淡相宜，儒家古训的低眉谦逊、琴曲合鸣的高山仰止、帝王家觥筹独奏的悲鸣、文人墨客推杯换盏的游移为影像气质，在画面色彩、叙事节奏、音乐渲染和镜头运用等视听语言方面，都唤起了观众的心理认同。
在个人主义、快餐文化盛行的今天，导演所构造的这样一个似曾相识的“架空时代”，无疑唤起了受中国传统文化熏陶的观众们深藏心底的“江湖情怀”。
这也是该剧上线后，迅速得到追捧的原因之一。
不过在好评连连的背后，我们不能忽视其作为一部“权谋剧”在叙事上却显得单薄。
二、故事梗概与叙事线索和权谋剧的叙事模式《琅琊榜》整部剧以诡术多变、又重情重义的梅长苏作为主线，重在展现他以谋士的新身份重回朝堂后，通过自己的才智和权术，使谜案昭雪、新君登基，最终完成复仇的整个过程。
在这个过程中，编剧重在展现朝堂之上夺嫡之战中的尔虞我诈、悬念迭起，朝野之下兄弟之间的有情有义，群臣之间的精忠报国。
热奈特叙事话语重点概念精简
热奈特叙事话语重点概念精简版————————————————————————————————作者：————————————————————————————————日期：目录Narrative Discourse (4)Chapter One order (7)Chapter Two Duration (11)Chapter Three Frequency (15)Chapter Four Mood (17)Chapter Five V oice (21)Narrative DiscourseBy Gerard Genette Pbed in 1980 Narratology denotes both the theory and the study of narrative and narrative structure and the ways that these affect our perception. As a matter of fact, this word is an anglicisation of French word narratologie, coined by Tzvetan Todorov (Grammaire du Décaméron, 1969). Since the 1960’s, the contemporary narrative theory has been rapidly developing towards maturity, in which French structuralist critic Gerard Genette plays a pivotal role. On the basis of absorbing the other s’ research results, he constructs his own narrative theory, whose origin mainly includes Saussure Linguistics, Structuralism, Russian Formalism, and New Criticism.Russian formalists argue that the literary characteristic is not what to write but how to write. Literary narrative mainly includes “sjuzhet” (plot) and “fa bula” (usually refers to story. Fabula and sjuzhet (also syuzhet, sujet, sjužet, or suzet) are terms originating in Russian Formalism and employed in narratology that describe narrative construction. Sjuzhet is an employment of narrative and fabula is the order of retelling events. They were first used in this sense by Vladimir Propp and Shklovsky.). And the plot determines the story. On the basis of this formalist concept, Propp places emphasis on form and structure of works in his Morphology of the Folktale (1928). But he only takes note of the syntactic relationship of the surface of the story. Later Gremas, Levi Strauss, and French narratologist Bremond carry out a series of comprehensive researches on the relationship between the surface and deep structures of the story, and sum up a wide variety of grammatical patterns of the story. Though large and vague, these narrative structure models provide a great reference for Genette. New Criticism representatives Brooks and Warren collaborate on Understanding Fiction(1979), put forward the question of “who speaks”, and hence draw forth the concept of “focus of narration”, which lays a solidfoundation for Genette’s "focalization" theory. Moreover, as far as the study of the narrative formula, it is obvious that Genette is influenced by Wayne Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction (1983). However, in terms of the narrative form, Booth has a similar view to New Critics.Accepting and absorbing the above-mentioned scholars’advantages and strengths, Genette published Narrative Discourse in 1972, which makes Marcel Proust’s In search of Lost Time the research object and proposes his own unique narrative outlook. In the book, at first he indicates that narrative contains three distinct notions, namely, narrative, story and narrating, and further distinguishes them. Narrative refers to narrative discourse, which means “the narrative statement, the oral or written discourse that undertakes to tell of an event or a series of events”(Genette, 1980: 25). Story means an event or a series of events told in narrative discourse, real of fictitious. Narrating is the act of someone recounting something. To analyzing narrative discourse is, essentially, to study the relationship between narrative and story, between narrative and narrating, and between story and narrating.Excluding Introduction and Afterword, Narrative Discourse is divided into five chapters, which are Order, Frequency, Duration, Mood, and V oice in turn. In the five chapters, Genette at length analyzes the artistic techniques of In search of Lost Time, and hence summarizes and establishes a set of his own narratology. Genette incorporates French structuralist narrative theories, constructs rather comprehensive and systematic narrative theory, and thus lays a solid foundation for contemporary narratology. It is under the influence of his narrative discourse that many subsequent scholars and experts such as Miede Bal, Gerald Prince, and Rimmon-Kenan further explore and deeply dig the narrative theories. These scholars speak highly of his narrative discourse, and in the meantime put forward some doubts and challenges, in view of which Genette also published Nouveau discours du récit (new narrative discourse) in 1983 as a response. In this new narrative discourse, he discusses such questions as the classification of person, the application of the present tense, the interrelation betweenmood and voice, and focalization, and consequently interprets and perfects his narrative theory.In short, Genette presents a lot of concepts which has become the standard terms of classic in the narrative field. Besides, the publication of his Narrative Discourse has aroused strong reaction and sensation in the literary theory circle. According to his narrative theory, many analyze and interpret the specific works and bear great fruit.Chapter One orderTime is thought of as a uni-directional and irreversible flow, a sort of one-way street, just as Heraclitus said early in western history: “You cannot step twice into the same river, for other waters and yet other waters go ever flowing on.” However, as far as narrative activity is concerned, “the time of even the simplest story escapes the ordinary notion of time conceived as a series of instants succeeding one another along an abstract line oriented in a single direction” (Ricoeur, 1980: 169). Narrative is the art of TIME, which is the main subject that the majority of structuralist narratological works dwell on. In narratives, TIME can be defined as the relations of chronology between story and text, possessing the duality, namely, the time of the thing told and the time of the narrative. German theoreticians refers to this kind of temporal duality as the opposition between “erzählte Zeit” (story time)and Erzählzeit (narrative time). In Les catégories du récit littéraire, Todorov divides the narrative into three categories: tense, aspect, and mood. Here the tense means the relationship between the story time and the discourse time.In Narrative Discourse, Genette spends almost half of the book researching TIME( from p.33 to p.160). According to Genette, time can be viewed in three respects: order, duration and frequency, under which he sets out to examine the relations between the story time and the text time.Definition of OrderAccording to Genette, to “study the temporal order of a narrative is to compare the order in which events or temporal sections are arranged in the narrative discourse with the order of succession these same events or temporal segments have in the story” (Genette, 1980: 35).Actually, the order is intended for exploring the relations between the story time and the narrative time. In Genette’s terms, the main types of discrepancy between them are called anachronies, which mainly include three types: analepsis, prolepsis, and achrony.An analepsis is “any evocation after the fact of an event that took place earlier than the point in the story where we are at any given moment” (Genette, 1980: 40). That is to say, it is a narration of story-event at a point in the text after later events have been told. This narration goes back to a past point in the story. A prolepsis is “any narrative maneuver that consists of narrating or evoking in advance an event that will take place later”(Genette, 40). It is a narration of story-event at a point before earlier events have been mentioned. The narration takes an excursion into the future of the story. In order to determine the anachrony, Genette introduces two concepts:reach and extent. The former refers to the temporal distance far from the “present” moment, when an anachrony appears, whether analeptic or proleptic. The latter means the duration of story covered by the anachrony. If reach and extent of an (or mainly isolated) event can not be clearly determined, the event is dateless and ageless. This kind of anachrony deprived of temporal connection is called an achrony.According to Genette, every anachrony is made up of a narrative that is temporally second, namely, “second narrative”. With respect to the anachrony, “the totality of the context can be taken as first narrative”(Genette, 1980: 49). Based on the differences between an analepsis and the first narrative in reach an extent, Genette classifies analepses into three types: external analepsis, internal analepsis and mixed analepsis.External analepsis means its “entire extent remains external to the extent of the first narrative” (Genette, 1980: 49). The second analepsis is, in Genette’s terms, internal analepsis, whose temporal departure and extent are within the first narrative. The third analepsis referred to by Genette is called mixed analepsis, whose “reach goes back to a point earlier and whose extent arrives at a point later than the beginning of the first narrative” (Genette, 1980: 49). Inothers words, if the period covered by the analepsis begins before the starting point of the first narrative but at a later stage either joints it or goes beyond it, then the analepsis is considered “mixed”. On the whole, analepses can add the narrative capacity in unit of time. It, more often than not, contains the rich and long train of thoughts and the diverse and confused past. world.Apart from analepses, the second common form of anachronies is prolepses, which can be defined as “any evocation after the fact of an event that took place earlier than the point in the story where we are at any given moment”(Genette, 1980: 40). Prolepses are a kind of anticipation or a hint at the future event. Like analepses, prolepses are also divided into external prolepses and internal prolepses.The limit of the temporal field of the first narrative is clearly marked by the last non-proleptic scene and some events take place after this scene. As opposed to external prolepses, internal prolepses can be designated as some episodes told earlier than the last non-proleptic scene of the story.AchronyIn such anachronies as analepses and prolepses, their reach and extent can essentially be confirmed. However, in the achrony, the events “express the narrative’s capacity to disengage its arrangement from all dependence on the chronological sequence of the story it tells.”(Genette, 1980: 84) From the context, readers cannot obtain any inference. It is an anachrony deprived of every temporal connection. In achronies, the most outstanding way is “synchrony”, which brings the story time upon the same plane, blurs the linear relation of time and highlights the spatiality of the event. Genette insists, “Proleptic analepses and analeptic prolepses are so many complex anachroies, and they somewhat disturb our reassuring ideas about retrospection and anticipation…some events not provided with any temporal reference whatsoever, events that we cannot place at all in relation to the eventssurrounding them…they need only be attached not to some other event but to the (atemporal) commentarial discourse that accompanies them.” (Genette, 1980: 83)Another form of achronies is the atemporal commentarial discourse. Expounding the achronies in Marcel Proust’s In search of Lost Time, Genette points out that the narrative order of the story has no connection to the temporal order of the events, or only a partially coincidental connection. “The truth is that the narrator had the clearest of reasons for grouping together, in defiance of all chronology, events to be connected by spatial proximity, by climatic identity, or by thematic kinship; he thus made clear, more than anyone had done before him and better than they had, narrative’s capacity for temporal autonomy.” (Genette, 1980: 85)Chapter Two DurationDefinition of DurationDuration refers to the relations between the time the events are supposed to have taken to occur and the amount of the text devoted to their narration in the novel. According to Genette, there are totally four basic forms of narrative movements, which are two extremes, namely, ellipsis and descriptive pause, and two intermediaries: scene and summary. All these four narrative movements signify the narrative speed or pace. Genette proposes to employ constancy of speed to examine the degrees of duration. The maximum speed is ellipsis, where there is zero textual space corresponding to some story duration. On the other hand, the minimum speed is indicated as a descriptive pause, in which a certain segment of the text corresponds to zero story duration. In theory, there are infinite possibilities of speed between the two extremes while in practice all of them can be conventionally reduced to summary and scene. In summary, the speed is accelerated through a textual “condensation”or “compression” of a given story-period into a relatively short statement of its main features. The degree of condensation can, of course, vary from summary to summary, producing multiple degrees of acceleration. In scene, story duration is conventionally equal to text duration. The purest scenic form is dialogue, in which story time is identical to narrative pseudo-time. In addition, a detailed narration of an event can also be regarded as scenic.Genette schematizes the temporal values of such four movements as Pause, Scene, Summary and Ellipsis with the following formulas, with ST designating story time and NT the pseudo-time or conventional time, of the narrative:Ellipsis: NT=0, ST=n. Thus: NT＜∞STSummary: NT＜STScene: NT=STPause: NT=n, ST=0. Thus: NT∞＞ST(Genette,1980: 94-95)Here, ＞means longer than＜means shorter than∞ means infiniteEllipsisAn ellipsis can be called “omission”. Here, it refers to temporal ellipses. As far as temporality is concerned, “the analysis of ellipses comes down to considering the story time elided” (Genette, 1980: 106). The first question that should be known is whether duration is indicated or not. If duration is clearly indicated, it is definite ellipses. If not, it is indefinite ellipses. Generally speaking, from the formal point of view, according to Genette, ellipses can be distinguished as the following three types: Explicit ellipses, Implicit ellipses, and Hypothetical ellipses.Generally speaking, explicit ellipses mainly arise from two forms of the lapse of time. The former refers to the indication (definite or not) of the lapse of the time they elide, which, by and large, is equal to the quick summaries to be mentioned hereinafter of the “some years passed” type. Implicit ellipses are “those whose very presence is not announced in the text and which readers can infer only from some chronological void or gap in narrative continuity”(Genette, 1980: 108). Hypothetical ellipsis is the most implicit form of ellipsis, which is “impossible to localize, even sometimes impossible to place in any spot at all, and revealed after the event by an analepsis” (Genette, 1980: 109).SummaryAmong the four basic forms of narrative movements, summary is only second to ellipsis in narrative rhythms. It is a “narration in a few paragraphs or a few pages of several days, months, or years of existence, without details of action or speech” (Genette, 1980: 95-96). In the tradition of the novel, insignificant events which do not greatly influence the course of the plot are quickly summarized, while the turning points or the dramatic climaxes which have a strong influence on the course of the plot are presented extensively in scenes. Generally speaking, summary is the most usual transition between two scenes, the basic background which makes scenes stand out, and thus the most excellent connective tissue of novelistic narrative. The narrative speed is accelerated through a textual “condensation”or “compression”of a story time into a relatively short statement. The degree of compression can, of course, vary from summary to summary, which will contribute to different degrees of acceleration.In addition to accelerating the narrative, summary is also a suitable instrument for presenting background information, or for connecting various scenes. Another function of summary is to connect different scenes.SceneIn a scene, story time and narrative time are conventionally considered identical. In this situation, an event is described in detail, almost in extenso. Thus it gives us a feeling of participating in the scene in person. As mentioned in the last section, the fundamental rhythm of the novelistic narrative is defined by the alternation of summary and scene. Obviously, in so doing, the aim is neither to overtire readers with too rapid a tempo nor to bore them with one that was too slow. According to Genette, the purest scenic form is dialogue, which basically realizes the equality of time between story and narrative. Of course, a detailed description of an event is also considered scenic. Thus, what characterizes a scene is the quantity of narrative information and the relative effacement of the narrator.PauseAs mentioned above, compared to ellipses, pause is the minimum speed in these two extremes of the narrative movements. In a pause, some segment of the text corresponds to zero story time while the narrative time can infinitely go on. There appear two kinds of pauses: the descriptive pause and the commentary pause.Chapter Three FrequencyDefinition of FrequencyNarrative frequency is one of the main aspects of narrative temporality. It refers to, according to Genette, “the relations of frequency (or, more simply, of repetition) between the narrative and the diegesis”(Genette, 1980:113). An event is not only capable of happening; it can also happen again, or be repeated. The “repetition” is in fact a mental construction that is attained by the elimination of the peculiar aspects of each occurrence itself, and a preservation of only those qualities shared by all the others of the same class. From the multiplication of the two possibilities given on both sides: the event repeated or not, the statement repeated or not, we can reduce the system of relationships between the narrated events of the story and the narrative statements of the text to three virtual types: singulative narrative, repeating narrative and iterative narrative.Singulative NarrativeSingulative narrative is far and away the most ordinary and normal form in the three kinds of frequency, and it means “narrating once what happened once (or, if we want to abbreviate with a pseudo-mathematical formula: 1N/1S)” or “narrating n times what happened n times (nN/nS)” (Genette, 1980: 114-115).Repeating NarrativeIn repeating narrative, the recurrences of the statement do not correspond to any recurrence o f events, and it refers to “narrating n times what happened once” (Genette, 1980: 115). On the one hand, the same event can be told several times with stylistic variations; on the other hand, it can also repeat with variation in “point of view”.Iterative NarrativeIterative narrative is a type of narrative, where a single narrative utterance takes upon itself several occurrences together within the same event, and it means “narrating one time (or rather: at one time) what happened n times (1N/nS)” (Genett e, 1980:116). Every iterative narrative is a synthetic narrating of the events that occur and reoccur in the course of an iterative series that is composed of a certain number of singular units (Genette, 1980:127).Chapter Four MoodDefinition of MoodThe term “mood” invokes a grammatical category in a metaphorical way. To be more strictly, it categorizes verb forms into indicative, imperative, interrogative and subjunctive according to whether they state a fact, give an order, tell a possibility or express a wish. Metaphorically, Genette defines mood from “degrees of affirmation” and “the different points of view from which the life or action is looked at” (Genette, 1980:161). Narrative mood aims at the capability of telling things from whose point of view. Narrative representation, or narrative information, has its degrees according to Genette. He believes that “the narrative can furnish the reader with more or fewer details, and in a more or less direct way, and can thus seem (to adopt a common and convenient spatial metaphor, which is not to be taken literally) to keep at a greater or lesser distance from what it tells” (Genette, 1980:162). The narrative can also choose to regulate the information it delivers according to the capacities of knowledge of one of another participant in the story, with the narrative adopting or seemingly adopting the participant’s vision or point of view. Thus narrative mood involves two aspects, in which way the narrative information is regulated and the different degrees of its provision. The word “mood” in French is the same as the word for “music”. Genette said that narrative mood is dependent on the “distance” and “perspective” of the narrator, and like music, narrative mood has predominant patterns.MoodDistanceBefore we come to the analysis of distance in this novel, it is necessary to have a lookat when the term of “distance” was addressed for the first time and its essential meaning. In Book III of The Republic, Plato contrasts two narrative modes. They include whether the poet “himself is the speaker and does not even attempt to suggest to us that anyone but himself is speaking”, which Plato calls pure narrative, or the poet “delivers a speech as if he were someone else”, which is called imitation or mimesis(Genette, 1980:162). Indirection and condensation are two distinctive features of pure narrative, and it is more distant than imitation: it says less, and in a more mediated way. At the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth in the United States and England, the contrast surged forth in novel theory, in the barely transposed terms of showing vs. telling. Showing in a novel, with little or no narratorial meditation, allows readers to experience the story through a character’s action, words, thoughts, senses and feeling, while in a telling mode, the narrator controls the action, the characterization and the point-of-view arrangement as well as readers instead through the narrator’s exposition, summarization and description. To study distance, there are other two terms that should be distinguished: narrative of events and narrative of words.Narrative of events is a narrative in which the nonverbal is transcribed into the verbal. It involves mimesis and diegesis (or we can say “showing” and “telling”). The mimetic factors come down to those two data: the large quantity of narrative information and the effacement of the narrator. Generally speaking, mimesis leaves no trace of the narrator telling. On the other hand, diegesis can be defined by a minimum of information and a maximum of the informer. That is, the quantity of information and the presence of the informer are in inverse ratio. Actually, the verbal “imitation” of nonverbal events is just an illusion of mimesis, not a real mimesis. It is not realistic that in the narrative of events there is no interference of the narrator or no traces of the narrator telling.Narrative of words involves the distance between the narrator and the character s’ speech. According to Genette, it can be divided into three types: narrated speech, transposed speech,and reported speech. Among them, narrated speech is the most distant, and the most reduced; transposed speech is more mimetic and capable of exhaustiveness; the most “mimetic” form is reported speech.PerspectiveGenette defines narrative perspective, after distance, “the second mode of regulating information” (Genette, 1980:185) in narrative fictions. It is also called “focalization”. According to Mieke Bal, focalization refers to “the elements presente d and the vision through which they are presented” (Bal, 1997:100). Focalization, then, becomes a matter of whose point of view orients the narrative perspective. Since the end of the nineteenth century, among all the questions related to narrative techniq ues, “point of view” is the one most frequently studied, with indisputable critical results. Genette’s replacement of it to the slightly more abstract term “focalization” makes an attempt to avoid the specifical visual connotations of the terms “vision”, “field” and “point of view”.Each narrative has both a narrator and a focalizer. A narrator is the speaker of the narrative, the agent who establishes communication with a narratee and decides what and how the story will be told. The narrator tells what the focalizer sees. A focalizer is the agent whose point of view orients the narrative text. A text is anchored on the point of view of a focalizer when it presents (and does not transcend) the thoughts, reflections and knowledge of the focalizer, his or her actual and imaginary perceptions, as well as his or her cultural and ideological orientation. It goes without saying that the narrator and the focalizer do not always overlap within the same person or narrative agent, and hence the different kinds of narrative situations. Genette divides focalization into three kinds: zero focalization, external focalization and internal focalization.Zero focalization has the same features with the traditional omniscient point of view, where the narrator knows more than the character, or to be more exact says more than any ofthe characters knows. It can be symbolized by the formula: Narrator＞Character by Todorov.Internal focalization takes place when events or thoughts are mediated through the point of view of the focalizer, and it can be symbolized by Narrato r＝Character, signifying that the narrator says only what a given character knows. It is always employed by modern narrators to see an event or to experience a feeling from a character’s perspective, emphasizing the description of the thoughts, feelings of characters, as well as analysis and interpretation of their actions. This narrative type includes three sub-types: fixed internal focalization, referring to that the presentation of narrative facts and events from the constant point of view of a single focalizer, variable internal focalization, which means the presentation of different episodes of the story as seen through the eyes of several focalizers, and multiple internal focalization, a technique of presentation of an episode repeatedly, each time through the eyes of a different focalizer.External focalization occurs when the narrator presents the aspects of the story using solely observable, external information, and it denotes a focalization that is limited to what the observer could actually have observed from the outside. This focalization has the narrator focusing on some visible and external aspects of the events and characters in the narrative, and the narrator merely relates physically ascertainable facts to the reader. It could be formulated as: Narrator＜Character.Chapter Five VoiceDefinition of VoiceThe term “voice” easily reminds readers of its grammatical definition that refers to a verb either active or passive. More generally, it indicates the relation of the subject of the verb to the action which the verb expresses. On the narrative level, the subject is not only the person who carries out or submits to the action, but also the person (the same one or another) who reports it, and, if needed, all those people who participate, even though passively, in this narrating activity (Genette, 1980:213). In narratology, the basic question involving voice is “Who speaks?” It means that who narrates this story. V oice has a great deal to do with characterization and consciousness of the narrator or narrators. According to Genette, narrative voice concentrates on the study of the narrating instance from three aspects: time of narrating, narrative levels and person.V oiceTime of NarratingTime of narrating i n a text can’t be avoided, since a writer must necessarily tell the story in a tense, no matter whether it is present, past, or future, and it can keep various temporal relations with the events of the story. The narrator is always in a specific temporal position relative to the story he or she is telling. From the point of view of temporal position, Genette describes four types of narrating.The most frequently used one far and away is called subsequent narrating, which is the classical position of the past-tense narrative, telling readers the events after they happen; the second type is a kind of predictive narrating, which is called prior narrating that is generally in。
热奈特叙事话语重点概念精简版
热奈特叙事话语重点概念精简版目录Narrative Discourse (3)Chapter One order (6)Chapter Two Duration (10)Chapter Three Frequency (14)Chapter Four Mood (16)Chapter Five Voice (20)Narrative DiscourseBy Gerard Genette Pbed in 1980 Narratology denotes both the theory and the study of narrative and narrative structure and the ways that these affect our perception. As a matter of fact, this word is an anglicisation of French word narratologie, coined by Tzvetan Todorov (Grammaire du Décaméron, 1969). Since the 1960’s, the contemporary narrative theory has been rapidly developing towards maturity, in which French structuralist critic Gerard Genette plays a pivotal role. On the basis of absorbing the other s’ research results, he constructs his own narrative theory, whose origin mainly includes Saussure Linguistics, Structuralism, Russian Formalism, and New Criticism.Russian formalists argue that the literary characteristic is not what to write but how to write. Literary narrative mainly includes “sjuzhet” (plot) and “fa bula” (usually refers to story. Fabula and sjuzhet (also syuzhet, sujet, sjužet, or suzet) are terms originating in Ru ssian Formalism and employed in narratology that describe narrative construction. Sjuzhet is an employment of narrative and fabula is the order of retelling events. They were first used in this sense byVladimir Propp and Shklovsky.). And the plot determines the story. On the basis of this formalist concept, Propp places emphasis on form and structure of works in his Morphology of the Folktale (1928). But he only takes note of the syntactic relationship of the surface of the story. Later Gremas, Levi Strauss, and French narratologist Bremond carry out a series of comprehensive researches on the relationship between the surface and deep structures of the story, and sum up a wide variety of grammatical patterns of the story. Though large and vague, these narrative structure models provide a great reference for Genette. New Criticism representatives Brooks and Warren collaborate on Understanding Fiction(1979), put forward the question of “who speaks”, and hence draw forth the concept of “focus of narration”, which lays a solid foundation for Genette’s "focalization" theory. Moreover, as far as the study of the narrative formula, it is obvious that Genette is influenced by Wayne Booth's The Rhetoric of Fiction (1983). However, in terms of the narrative form, Booth has a similar view to New Critics.Accepting and absorbing the above-mentioned scholars’ advantages and strengths, Genette published Narrative Discourse in 1972, which makes Marcel Proust’s In search of Lost Time the research object and proposes his own unique narrative outlook. In the book, at first he indicates that narrative contains three distinct notions, namely, narrative, story and narrating, and further distinguishes them. Narrative refers to narrative discourse, which means “the narrative statement, the oral or written discourse that undertakes to tell of an event or a series of events” (Genette, 1980: 25). Story means an event or a series of events told in narrative discourse, real of fictitious. Narrating is the act of someone recounting something. To analyzing narrative discourse is, essentially,to study the relationship between narrative and story, between narrative and narrating, and between story and narrating.Excluding Introduction and Afterword, Narrative Discourse is divided into five chapters, which are Order, Frequency, Duration, Mood, and Voice in turn. In the five chapters, Genette at length analyzes the artistic techniques of In search of Lost Time, and hence summarizes and establishes a set of his own narratology. Genette incorporates French structuralist narrative theories, constructs rather comprehensive and systematic narrative theory, and thus lays a solid foundation for contemporary narratology. It is under the influence of his narrative discourse that many subsequent scholars and experts such as Miede Bal, Gerald Prince, and Rimmon-Kenan further explore and deeply dig the narrative theories. These scholars speak highly of his narrative discourse, and in the meantime put forward some doubts and challenges, in view of which Genette also published Nouveau discours du récit (new narrative discourse) in 1983 as a response. In this new narrative discourse, he discusses such questions as the classification of person, the application of the present tense, the interrelation between mood and voice, and focalization, and consequently interprets and perfects his narrative theory.In short, Genette presents a lot of concepts which has become the standard terms of classic in the narrative field. Besides, the publication of his Narrative Discourse has aroused strong reaction and sensation in the literary theory circle. According to his narrative theory, many analyze and interpret the specific works and bear great fruit.Chapter One orderTime is thought of as a uni-directional and irreversible flow, a sort of one-way street, just as Heraclitus said early in western history: “You cannot step twice into the same river, for other waters and yet other waters go ever flowing on.”However, as far as narrative activity is concerned, “the time of even the simplest story escapes the ordinary notion of time conceived as a series of instants succeeding one another along an abstract line oriented in a single direction” (Ricoeur, 1980: 169). Narrative is the art of TIME, which is the main subject that the majority of structuralist narratological works dwell on. In narratives, TIME can be defined as the relations of chronology between story and text, possessing the duality, namely, the time of the thing told and the time of the narrative. German theoreticians refers to this kind of temporal duality as the opposition between “erzählte Zeit” (story time) and Erzählzeit (narrative time). In Les catégories du récit littéraire, Todorov divides the narrative into three categories: tense, aspect, and mood. Here the tense means the relationship between the story time and the discourse time.In Narrative Discourse, Genette spends almost half of the book researching TIME( from p.33 to p.160). According to Genette, time can be viewed in three respects: order, duration and frequency, under which he sets out to examine the relations between the story time and the text time.Definition of OrderAccording to Genette, to “study the temporal order of a narrative is to compare the order in which events or temporal sections are arranged in the narrative discourse withthe order of succession these same events or temporal segments have in the story” (Genette, 1980: 35). Actually, the order is intended for exploring the relations between the story time and the narrative time. In Genette’s terms, the main types of discrepancy between them are called anachronies, which mainly include three types: analepsis, prolepsis, and achrony.An analepsis is “any evocation after the fact of an event that took place earlier than the point in the story where we are at any given moment” (Genette, 1980: 40). That is to say, it is a narration of story-event at a point in the text after later events have been told. This narration goes back to a past point in the story. A prolepsis is “any narrative maneuver that consists of narrating or evoking in advance an event that will take place later” (Genette, 40). It is a narration of story-event at a point before earlier events have been mentioned. The narration takes an excursion into the future of the story. In order to determine the anachrony, Genette introduces two concepts:reach and extent.The former refers to the temporal distance far from the “present”moment, when an anachrony appears, whether analeptic or proleptic. The latter means the duration of story covered by the anachrony. If reach and extent of an (or mainly isolated) event can not be clearly determined, the event is dateless and ageless. This kind of anachrony deprived of temporal connection is called an achrony.According to Genette, every anachrony is made up of a narrative that is temporally second, namely, “second narrative”. With respect to the anachrony, “the totality of the context can be taken as first narrative” (Genette, 1980: 49). Based on the differences between an analepsis and the first narrative in reach an extent, Genette classifies analepses into three types: external analepsis, internal analepsis and mixed analepsis.External analepsis means its “entire extent remains external to the extent of thefirst narrative” (Genette, 1980: 49). The second analepsis is, in Genette’s terms, internal analepsis, whose temporal departure and extent are within the first narrative. The third analepsis referred to by Genette is called mixed analepsis, whose “reach goes back to a point earlier and whose extent arrives at a point later than the beginning of the first narrative” (Genette, 1980: 49). In others words, if the period covered by the analepsis begins before the starting point of the first narrative but at a later stage either joints it or goes beyond it, then the analepsis is considered “mixed”. On the whole, analepses can add the narrative capacity in unit of time. It, more often than not, contains the rich and long train of thoughts and the diverse and confused past.world.Apart from analepses, the second common form of anachronies is prolepses, which can be defined as “any evocation after the fact of an event that took place earlier than the point in the story where we are at any given moment” (Genette, 1980: 40). Prolepses are a kind of anticipation or a hint at the future event. Like analepses, prolepses are also divided into external prolepses and internal prolepses.The limit of the temporal field of the first narrative is clearly marked by the last non-proleptic scene and some events take place after this scene. As opposed to external prolepses, internal prolepses can be designated as some episodes told earlier than the last non-proleptic scene of the story.AchronyIn such anachronies as analepses and prolepses, their reach and extent can essentially be confirmed. However, in the achrony, the events “express the narrative’s capacity to disengage its arrangement from all dependence on the chronological sequence of the story it tells.”(Genette, 1980: 84) From the context, readers cannot obtain any inference. It is an anachrony deprived of every temporal connection. Inachronies, the most outstanding way is “synchrony”, which brings the story time upon the same plane, blurs the linear relation of time and highlights the spatiality of the event. Genette insists, “Proleptic analepses and analeptic prolepses are so many complex anachroies, and they somewhat disturb our reassuring ideas about retrospection and anticipation…some events not provided with any temporal reference whatsoever, events that we cannot place at all in relation to the events surrounding them…they need only be attached not to some other event but to the (atemporal) commentarial discourse that accompanies them.” (Genette, 1980: 83)Another form of achronies is the atemporal commentarial discourse. Expounding the achronies in Marcel Proust’s In search of Lost Time, Genette points out that the narrative order of the story has no connection to the temporal order of the events, or only a partially coincidental connection. “The truth is that the narrator had the clearest of reasons for grouping together, in defiance of all chronology, events to be connected by spatial proximity, by climatic identity, or by thematic kinship; he thus made clear, more than anyone had done before him and better than they had, narrative’s capacity for temporal autonomy.” (Genette, 1980: 85)Chapter Two DurationDefinition of DurationDuration refers to the relations between the time the events are supposed to have taken to occur and the amount of the text devoted to their narration in the novel. According to Genette, there are totally four basic forms of narrative movements, which are two extremes, namely, ellipsis and descriptive pause, and two intermediaries: scene and summary. All these four narrative movements signify the narrative speed or pace. Genette proposes to employ constancy of speed to examine the degrees of duration. The maximum speed is ellipsis, where there is zero textual space corresponding to some story duration. On the other hand, the minimum speed is indicated as a descriptive pause, in which a certain segment of the text corresponds to zero story duration. In theory, there are infinite possibilities of speed between the two extremes while in practice all of them can be conventionally reduced to summary and scene. In summary, the speed is accelerated through a textual “condensation” or “compression” of a given story-period into a relatively short statement of its main features. The degree of condensation can, of course, vary from summary to summary, producing multiple degrees of acceleration. In scene, story duration is conventionally equal to text duration. The purest scenic form is dialogue, in which story time is identical to narrative pseudo-time. In addition, a detailed narration of an event can also be regarded as scenic.Genette schematizes the temporal values of such four movements as Pause, Scene, Summary and Ellipsis with the following formulas, with ST designating story time and NT the pseudo-time or conventional time, of the narrative:Ellipsis: NT=0, ST=n. Thus: NT＜∞STSummary: NT＜STScene: NT=STPause: NT=n, ST=0. Thus: NT∞＞ST(Genette,1980: 94-95)Here, ＞means longer than＜means shorter than∞ means infiniteEllipsisAn ellipsis can be called “omission”. Here, it refers to temporal ellipses. As far as temporality is concerned, “the analysis of ellipses comes down to considering the story time elided” (Genette, 1980: 106). The first question that should be known is whether duration is indicated or not. If duration is clearly indicated, it is definite ellipses. If not, it is indefinite ellipses. Generally speaking, from the formal point of view, according to Genette, ellipses can be distinguished as the following three types: Explicit ellipses, Implicit ellipses, and Hypothetical ellipses.Generally speaking,explicit ellipses mainly arise from two forms of the lapse of time. The former refers to the indication (definite or not) of the lapse of the time they elide, which, by and large, is equal to the quick summaries to be mentioned hereinafter of the “some years passed” type. Implicit ellipses are “those whose very presence is not announced in the text and which readers can infer only from some chronological void or gap in narrative continuity”(Genette, 1980: 108). Hypothetical ellipsis is the most implicit form of ellipsis, which is “impossible to localize, even sometimes impossible to place in any spot at all, and revealed after the event by an analepsis”(Genette, 1980: 109).SummaryAmong the four basic forms of narrative movements, summary is only second to ellipsis in narrative rhythms. It is a “narration in a few paragraphs or a few pages of several days, months, or years of existence, without details of action or speech” (Genette, 1980: 95-96). In the tradition of the novel, insignificant events which do not greatly influence the course of the plot are quickly summarized, while the turning points or the dramatic climaxes which have a strong influence on the course of the plot are presented extensively in scenes. Generally speaking, summary is the most usual transition between two scenes, the basic background which makes scenes stand out, and thus the most excellent connective tissue of novelistic narrative. The narrative speed is accelerated through a textual “condensation” or “compression” of a story time into a relatively short statement. The degree of compression can, of course, vary from summary to summary, which will contribute to different degrees of acceleration.In addition to accelerating the narrative, summary is also a suitable instrument for presenting background information, or for connecting various scenes. Another function of summary is to connect different scenes.SceneIn a scene, story time and narrative time are conventionally considered identical. In this situation, an event is described in detail, almost in extenso. Thus it gives us a feeling of participating in the scene in person. As mentioned in the last section, the fundamental rhythm of the novelistic narrative is defined by the alternation of summary and scene. Obviously, in so doing, the aim is neither to overtire readers with too rapid a tempo nor to bore them with one that was too slow. According to Genette, the purest scenic form is dialogue, which basically realizes the equality of time between story and narrative. Of course, a detailed description of an event is also considered scenic. Thus,what characterizes a scene is the quantity of narrative information and the relative effacement of the narrator.PauseAs mentioned above, compared to ellipses, pause is the minimum speed in these two extremes of the narrative movements. In a pause, some segment of the text corresponds to zero story time while the narrative time can infinitely go on. There appear two kinds of pauses: the descriptive pause and the commentary pause.Chapter Three FrequencyDefinition of FrequencyNarrative frequency is one of the main aspects of narrative temporality. It refers to, according to Genette, “the relations of frequency (or, more simply, of repeti tion) between the narrative and the diegesis”(Genette, 1980:113). An event is not only capable of happening; it can also happen again, or be repeated. The “repetition” is in fact a mental construction that is attained by the elimination of the peculiar aspects of each occurrence itself, and a preservation of only those qualities shared by all the others of the same class. From the multiplication of the two possibilities given on both sides: the event repeated or not, the statement repeated or not, we can reduce the system of relationships between the narrated events of the story and the narrative statements of the text to three virtual types: singulative narrative, repeating narrative and iterative narrative.Singulative NarrativeSingulative narrative is far and away the most ordinary and normal form in the three kinds of frequency, and it means “narrating once what happened once (or, if we want to abbreviate with a pseudo-mathematical formula: 1N/1S)” or “narrating n times what happened n times (nN/nS)” (Ge nette, 1980: 114-115).Repeating NarrativeIn repeating narrative, the recurrences of the statement do not correspond to any recurrence of events, and it refers to “narrating n times what happened once” (Genette, 1980: 115). On the one hand, the same event can be told several times with stylisticvariations; on the other hand, it can also repeat with variation in “point of view”.Iterative NarrativeIterative narrative is a type of narrative, where a single narrative utterance takes upon itself several occ urrences together within the same event, and it means “narrating one time (or rather: at one time) what happened n times (1N/nS)” (Genette, 1980:116). Every iterative narrative is a synthetic narrating of the events that occur and reoccur in the course of an iterative series that is composed of a certain number of singular units (Genette, 1980:127).Chapter Four MoodDefinition of MoodThe term “mood” invokes a grammatical category in a metaphorical way. To be more strictly, it categorizes verb forms into indicative, imperative, interrogative and subjunctive according to whether they state a fact, give an order, tell a possibility or express a wish. Metaphorically, Genette defines mood from “degrees of affirmation” and “the different points of view from which the life or action is looked at” (Genette, 1980:161). Narrative mood aims at the capability of telling things from whose point of view. Narrative representation, or narrative information, has its degrees according to Genette. He believes that “the narrat ive can furnish the reader with more or fewer details, and in a more or less direct way, and can thus seem (to adopt a common and convenient spatial metaphor, which is not to be taken literally) to keep at a greater or lesser distance from what it tells” (Genette, 1980:162). The narrative can also choose to regulate the information it delivers according to the capacities of knowledge of one of another participant in the story, with the narrative adopting or seemingly adopting the participant’s vision or poi nt of view. Thus narrative mood involves two aspects, in which way the narrative information is regulated and the different degrees of its provision. The word “mood” in French is the same as the word for “music”. Genette said that narrative mood is depende nt on the “distance” and “perspective” of the narrator, and like music, narrative mood has predominant patterns.MoodDistanceBefore we come to the analysis of distance in this novel, it is necessary to have a look at when the term of “distance” was addr essed for the first time and its essential meaning. In Book III of The Republic, Plato contrasts two narrative modes. They include whether the poet “himself is the speaker and does not even attempt to suggest to us that anyone but himself is speaking”, which Plato calls pure narrative, or the poet “delivers a speech as if he were someone else”, which is called imitation or mimesis(Genette, 1980:162). Indirection and condensation are two distinctive features of pure narrative, and it is more distant than imitation: it says less, and in a more mediated way. At the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth in the United States and England, the contrast surged forth in novel theory, in the barely transposed terms of showing vs. telling. Showing in a novel, with little or no narratorial meditation, allows readers to experience the story through a character’s action, words, thoughts, senses and feeling, while in a telling mode, the narrator controls the action, the characterization and the point-of-view arrangement as well as readers instead through the narrator’s exposition, summarization and description. To study distance, there are other two terms that should be distinguished: narrative of events and narrative of words.Narrative of events is a narrative in which the nonverbal is transcribed into the verbal. It involves mimesis and diegesis (or we can say “showing”and “telling”). The mimetic factors come down to those two data: the large quantity of narrative information and the effacement of the narrator. Generally speaking, mimesis leaves no trace of the narrator telling. On the other hand, diegesis can be defined by a minimum of information and a maximum of the informer. That is, the quantity of information and the presence of the informer are in inverse ratio. Actually, the verbal “imitation”of nonverbal events is just an illusion of mimesis, not a real mimesis. It is not realistic that in the narrative of events there is no interference of the narrator or no traces of thenarrator telling.Narrative of words involves the distance between the narrator and the character s’speech. According to Genette, it can be divided into three types: narrated speech, transposed speech, and reported speech.Among them, narrated speech is the most distant, and the most reduced; transposed speech is more mimetic and capable of exhaustiveness; the most “mimetic” form is reported speech.PerspectiveGenette defines narrative perspective, after distance, “the second mode of regulating information” (Genette,1980:185) in narrative fictions. It is also called “focalization”. According to Mieke Bal, focalization refers to “the elements presented and the vision through which they are presented” (Bal, 1997:100). Focalization, then, becomes a matter of whose point of view orients the narrative perspective. Since the end of the nineteenth century, among all the questions related to narrative techniques, “point of view” is the one most frequently studied, with indisputable critical results. Genette’s replacement of i t to the slightly more abstract term “focalization” makes an attempt to avoid the specifical visual connotations of the terms “vision”, “field” and “point of view”.Each narrative has both a narrator and a focalizer. A narrator is the speaker of the narrative, the agent who establishes communication with a narratee and decides what and how the story will be told. The narrator tells what the focalizer sees. A focalizer is the agent whose point of view orients the narrative text. A text is anchored on the point of view of a focalizer when it presents (and does not transcend) the thoughts, reflections and knowledge of the focalizer, his or her actual and imaginary perceptions, as well as his or her cultural and ideological orientation. It goes without saying that the narrator and the focalizer do not always overlap within the same person or narrative agent, andhence the different kinds of narrative situations. Genette divides focalization into three kinds: zero focalization, external focalization and internal focalization.Zero focalization has the same features with the traditional omniscient point of view, where the narrator knows more than the character, or to be more exact says more than any of the characters knows. It can be symbolized by the formula: Narrator＞Character by Todorov.Internal focalization takes place when events or thoughts are mediated through the point of view of the focalizer, and it can be symbolized by Narrato r＝Character, signifying that the narrator says only what a given character knows. It is always employed by modern narrators to see an event or to experience a feeling from a character’s perspective, emphasizing the description of the thoughts, feelings of characters, as well as analysis and interpretation of their actions. This narrative type includes three sub-types: fixed internal focalization, referring to that the presentation of narrative facts and events from the constant point of view of a single focalizer, variable internal focalization, which means the presentation of different episodes of the story as seen through the eyes of several focalizers, and multiple internal focalization, a technique of presentation of an episode repeatedly, each time through the eyes of a different focalizer.External focalization occurs when the narrator presents the aspects of the story using solely observable, external information, and it denotes a focalization that is limited to what the observer could actually have observed from the outside. This focalization has the narrator focusing on some visible and external aspects of the events and characters in the narrative, and the narrator merely relates physically ascertainable facts to the reader. It could be formulated as: Narrator＜Character.Chapter Five VoiceDefinition of VoiceThe term “voice” easily reminds readers of its grammatical definition that refers to a verb either active or passive. More generally, it indicates the relation of the subject of the verb to the action which the verb expresses. On the narrative level, the subject is not only the person who carries out or submits to the action, but also the person (the same one or another) who reports it, and, if needed, all those people who participate, even though passively, in this narrating activity (Genette, 1980:213). In narratology, the basic question involving voice is “Who speaks?” It means that who narrates this story. Voice has a great deal to do with characterization and consciousness of the narrator or narrators. According to Genette, narrative voice concentrates on the study of the narrating instance from three aspects: time of narrating, narrative levels and person.VoiceTime of NarratingTime of narrating in a text can’t be avoided, since a writer must necessarily tell the story in a tense, no matter whether it is present, past, or future, and it can keep various temporal relations with the events of the story. The narrator is always in a specific temporal position relative to the story he or she is telling. From the point of view of temporal position, Genette describes four types of narrating.The most frequently used one far and away is called subsequent narrating, which is the classical position of the past-tense narrative, telling readers the events after they happen; the second type is a kind of predictive narrating, which is called prior narrating。
典型博文的热奈特叙事理论分析——以《当大清帝国遇上大英帝国》为例
研究交流典型博文的热奈特叙事理论分析——以《当大清帝国遇上大英帝国》为例文/胡小燕摘要：热奈特叙事理论是法国结构主义学说的重要组成部分，对叙事策略分析有着深远的影响。
随着信息技术的发展和手机等互联网终端的应用，网络语言和网络用语成为人们叙事、阅读的重要媒介，本文试图用经典理论解读地瓜熊老六的博文《当大清帝国遇上大英帝国》，探索网络语言特殊魅力背后的结构组成，为自媒体时代的典型叙事模式找寻优势与缺陷。
关键词：热奈特；叙事理论；微博；大清帝国杰拉尔·热奈特是法国著名的叙事学理论家，他在其早期学者作为先声的普罗普的故事形态学和作为范式的索绪尔的结构语言学的[1]基础上，形成自己的研究，在其1972年发表的《叙事话语》中指明了“叙事”包含的三层概念：“叙事”(即叙事话语，指陈述一个或一系列事件口头或书面的话语)、“故事”(叙事话语陈述的真实或虚构的事件)、“叙述”(讲述话语产生的叙述行为)，以“叙事”为核心重点研究了“叙事”和与其相关的另外两个层面——“故事”和“叙述”间的复杂关系[2]。
同时，他主张将叙事策略从时序、语式、语态三个层面来衡量。
博客，英文Blogger，为Web Log的混成词英译而成。
它的正式名称为网络日记；是使用特定的软件，在网络上出版、发表和张贴个人文章的人，或者是一种通常由个人管理、不定期张贴新的文章的网站。
一个典型的博客结合了文字、图像、其他博客或网站的链接及其它与主题相关的媒体，能够让读者以互动的方式留下意见，是许多博客的重要要素。
微博同微信、客户端一起成为网络媒体“两微一端”重要形式。
“当大清帝国遇到大英帝国”，是网络博客地瓜熊老六的一篇博文，针对中国企业在英国造核电站，引起英国舆论的争议，对此英国BBC电视台采访中国驻英大使刘晓明的一段录像，引发热议，在此基础上，网络写手，用网络语言叙述了这个事情的背景和相关外延。
(下文将该网络博文简写为《当》)。
一、博文中的叙事时序热奈特在法国的结构主义叙事研究中研究的重点是叙事作品中的叙事时间，在他的长篇论文《论叙事文话语》中，他以普鲁斯特的《追忆似水年华》中的叙事为特定的研究对象，区分了作为故事发生的自然时间状态的故事时况和作为叙事文本中具体体现出来的时间状态的叙事文时况，具体研究了叙事文时况中的时序、时长、频率等叙事问题[3]。
热奈特的叙事理论分析及运用——以《叙事话语新叙事话语》为主
的延续 时问指 的 是故 事 时 间 可能 小 于 、等 于 或大 于 叙 事 时 间。 它 描写停 顿 ” 、“ 概要 ” 、“ 省 略” 、“ 场 景” 。作 在２ ０世纪 这个 充满挑 战 和变 革 的时 代 ，各种 学 派 和理 论 都 以 的叙述 主要方 式有 “ 反 叛性 的文 学宣 言和标 新 立 异 的理 论 而 称 雄 一 时 ，叙 事 学 也 是 在 者 把 《 追忆 》 分 为 １ １ 个 大 的叙 述单 位 ，还计 算 出每 个单 位故 事 延 这 样 的时代 中涌 现 出来 的 。对 于 叙 事 学 的定 义 目前 没 有 一 致 的 意 续 的时 间和 在小说 中占的篇 幅 。
同时叙 述和插 入 叙 述 。 同时把 叙 述 层 次分 为 ：外 故 事 叙 事层 、内 方 面 的研究 。为 了避免 混乱 ，把 “ 能指 ” ，陈述 ，话 语 或叙 述 文 本 故 事叙 事层 和元故 事 叙 事层 。叙 述 者 则 分为 处 于 故事 之 外 的 “ 异 称 作本 义 的叙事 ，把 “ 所 指 ” 或叙 述 内容 称作 故 事 ，把 该 行 为 所 故 事叙 述者 ” 和处 于故事 之 内的 “ 同故 事叙述 者 ” 。并 提 出 了叙述 处 的或 真或 假 的总情境 称作 叙述 。 者 的职 能 ：叙 述 职能 、管 理 职 能 和交 际 职 能 。受 述 者 与 叙 述 者 一 在 文学 叙事 中 ，特 别 是 虚 构叙 事 的领 域 ，文 本 分 析 是 我们 掌 样 是叙述 情境 的 组 成部 分 ，二 者 必然 处 于 同 一个 故 事 层 ，也 就是 握 的 唯一研 究工 具 。而 对 其 他二 者 的 了解 只能 是 间 接 的 ，不 可 避 说 ，受述 者并 不先 天 地 与读 者 想 混 ，正 如叙 述 者 并不 与 作 者 相 混 样。 免 要 以叙事话 语 为 媒 介 ，因 为事 件 是 话语 的对 象 ，而 叙 述 行 为 在
西方叙事学经典与后经典（申丹）
西方叙事学：经典与后经典第一章故事与话语1.若同一故事可由不同的媒介表达出来则可证明故事具有相对的独立性，它不随话语形式的变化而变化。
2.里蒙-凯南在《叙事性虚构作品》一书中提出故事从三个方面独立于话语：一是独立于作家的写作风格；二是独立于作者采用的语言种类；三是独立于不同的媒介或符号系统。
3.承认故事的独立性实际上也就是承认了生活经验的首要性。
无论话语层次怎么表达，读者总是依据生活经验来建构独立于话语的故事。
4.不少现代派作家受象征美学影响很深，刻意利用语言的模糊性，广泛采用晦涩离奇的象征和比喻。
5.如果说在传统现实主义小说中，话语和故事只是偶有重合，那么在现代派小说中，话语与故事的重合则屡见不鲜。
读者常常感到不能依据生活经验来建构独立于话语的故事，有些段落甚至是无故事内容可言的纯文字“游戏”。
6.消解叙述就是先报道一些信息，然后又对之加以否定。
7.真正发生了的事（故事）；叙述者告诉我们的（话语）。
8.热奈特在《叙事话语》这一经典名篇中，探讨了话语的五个方面：⑴顺序(是否打破自然时序)，⑵时距（用多少文本篇幅来描述在某一时间段中发生的事），⑶频率（叙述的次数与事件发生的次数之间的关系），⑷语式（通过控制距离或选择视角等来调节叙事信息），⑸语态（叙述层次和叙述类型等）。
9.人物话语的表达涉及两个声音和两个主体（人物的和叙述者的），同时也涉及两个具有不同“发话者—受话者”之关系的交流语境（人物—人物）（叙述者—受述者）。
10.倘若叙述者选择了“叙述化的人物话语”这样概述性的表达方式，人物的话语或想法就会被叙述者的言辞所覆盖，就很可能会发生对人物看法的各种歪曲。
11.“人物视角”指的是叙述者采用人物的感知来观察过滤故事事件。
12.是哪位人物的视点决定了叙述视角?13.这种向人物有限视角的转换可以产生短暂的悬念，读者只能跟着苔丝一起去发现走出来的究竟是谁，从而增强了作品的戏剧性。
14.在意识流小说中，作品往往自始至终都采用人物视角。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
特备参考
5
*关于叙事声音
如福楼拜以来，很多西方作家宣称必须限制作 者主观思想情感的介入，追求所谓纯粹客观呈 现，但是即使是像《包法利夫人》这样的小说， 我们也能从中察觉道德的、思想的或审美的倾 向和判断存在。
体现在叙事过程中的种种意图、价值以及各种 权力和意识形态因素，我们通常称之为叙事声 音。叙事声音的内涵类似于通常说的主题。
如文学叙事、广告、影视作品、商业宣传画册、特写照片 或模特形象中，可读出了男性与女性、精英与大众，甚至 东方与西方之间控制与被控制的关系。
后殖民批评家赛义德在分析福楼拜游记时指出了福楼拜叙 述视角背后所隐含的西方中心主义意识：“东方总是被 看……而欧洲人则是看客，用其感受力居高临下地巡视着 东方，从不介入其中，总是与其保持着距离……东方成了 怪异性活生生的戏剧舞台。”
特备参考
14
（3）文化差异（视角与声音）
莫言的《红高梁》中，叙述者用现代的 充满文学色彩的语言，表达生活在过去的普 通人的思维与感觉。
如父亲眼中“半凝固半透明的雾气”， 父亲想到那“秀丽的骡子”，“子弹的飞行 和枪声的飞行，同时被我父亲感知”等等， 这些话语的“视角”，是我父亲这个“十四 岁多的土匪种”，“声音”却来自具有现代 意识的文化人。正是这种视角与声音的反差， 造成了《红高梁》文体风格的特殊。
“当女性外观被物化为芙蓉、弱柳或软玉、春 葱、金莲之美时，其可摘之采之、攀之折之、弃之 把玩之的意味隐然可见。”（孟悦、戴锦华：《浮出 历史的地表》第15页，中国人民大学出版社2004）
特备参考
9
因此，叙事文本对说与被说、看与被看关 系的调度与转换，往往体现为不同权力与意 识形态的冲突或对话。丁玲《莎菲女士的日 记》一改爱情文学的叙述常规，采用了女性 叙述人视角，并内聚焦于莎菲女士的内心世 界，用女人的眼光、语气观看和叙述男人和 身边的世界，对男性文化权力进行了一次大 胆的挑衅。
叙事话语
特备参考
1
1、视角与声音；2、视角承担者与构成； 一、视角 3、视角的基本类型；4、视角变异。
1、叙述者与真实作者；2、叙述者类型；
叙 事
二、叙述 3、叙述者的人物； 三、故事 3、环境；4、叙事语法。
四、阅读
1、文本类型；2、理想读者； 3、叙述阅读；4、符号阅读； 5、结构阅读。
特备参考
8
*例说叙事声音
有时这种视角是隐蔽的存在，往往体现为叙事 文学中的一些习惯化用语。在这种用语的修辞特征 背后，可以看到一种包含着特定文化、意识形态意 味的视角存在。如传统文学中的关于女性身体的习 惯性用语：弱柳扶风、软香如玉、三寸金莲，等等。 这些常用语背后无疑隐含着一个男性叙述人，用包 含着男性欲望的眼光玩赏着女性：
这表明，简是在和罗切斯特结婚多年后讲 述她的故事的。
特备参考
13
（2）智力差异（视角与声音）
福克纳《喧哗与骚动》的第一部分， 是从班吉这个白痴的角度（视角）讲述的， 当时班吉已30岁，但智力仍停留在3岁阶 段，他没有思维能力，脑子里只有感觉与 印象，而作者中的“声音”是有理智的， 是一个正常人在讲述白痴的感觉。
到现在为止，我已经详细记载了我的微不足道的生 活中的一些事件，我花了差不多十章的篇幅来写我 生命中的最初十年。
显然，作者叙述的是她往日的经历。
特备参考
12
再看第三十八章的结局（视角与声音的
时间差异）：
我的故事快讲完了，再说一句关于婚后的 经历的话，再瞥一眼这个叙述中最常出现的 几个人的命运，我就可以结束了。现在我已 经结婚十年了。我知道……
特备参考
10
五四以来，农村文学通常聚焦于某个有着新文化背景的人
物，用他(她)的视角叙述和观看农民。这些文本中的叙述人通 常是居高临下地观看“被看者”。这种叙述视角无疑隐含着精 英与大众、传统与现代之间的文化等级区分。鲁迅对这种不平 等关系表示过怀疑。《祝福》中的“我”无力回答祥林嫂问的 有没有阴间的问题，“我很悚然，一见她的眼钉着我的，背上 也就遭了芒刺一般”。在祥林嫂的紧盯下，“我”支支吾吾， 这时文本事实上是把有文化背景的“我”放置于一种被看的地 位。
如果说《莎菲女士的日记》对叙述视角的转换挑衅了男性文 化权力，那么《祝福》这一段叙述则对启蒙精英所习惯的居高 临下的说话方式进行了一次颠覆。
特备参考
11
*视角与声音差异的表现形式
（1）时间差异 时间上的差异是绝对的，如《简爱》中，视角是当 时的简，而叙述者，则是故事发生若干年后的简。 小说第十章开头是这样写的：
认为，谁是叙事文中的观察者（谁看），谁是叙述者 （谁讲），是有区别的——谁看与谁讲之间是不能混 淆的：
（1）视角是研究谁看的，即谁在观察故事； （2）声音是研究谁说的，指叙述者传达给读者的语 言。
——视角不是传达，只是传达的依据。也就是说， 视角是人物的，声音则是叙述者的，叙述者只是转述 和解释人物看到和想到的东西，视角、声音呈分离状 态。
特备参考
2
一、视角
特备参考
3
(1) 视角：谁看（谁观察故事）
1、差异*
（2）声音：谁说（叙述者的语言）
（
一
(1)时间差异
）
视 角
2、差异表现形式*
(2)智力差异
与
声
(3)文化差异
音
（1）视角靠声音表现
3、视角与声音的关系*
（2）声音受制于视角
特备参考
4
*（视角与声音差异）热奈特在《叙事话语》中却
特备参考
6
*例说叙事声音
比如《水浒传》第八回到第九回，从高 衙内调戏林冲、设计陷害林冲到火烧草料 场，前后因果相联，一步步把林冲逼上梁 山。通过这种情节因果关系，显示了官逼 民反的主题，批判了黑暗的政治现实。而 高衙内的身份设置，更加强化了这一叙事 声音。
特备参考
7
*例说叙事声音
叙事视角、聚焦和语态等方面与叙事声音的关系则相对比 较隐蔽。如文本选择谁来说，谁来看（看与被看之间的地 位不平等），在这种形式选择当中隐含着丰富的意味。
特备参考
15
*视角与声音的关系
视角与声音既有区别又有联系，它们互相依 存，互相限制。 （1）从视角方面看，作为无声的视角，必须 依靠声音（语言）来表现（也就是说，只有通 过叙述者的话语，读者才能得知叙述者或人物 的观察和感受）。 （2）从声音（语言）方面看，声音则受制于 视角。