NARRATIVEANALYSIS.docx

1、NARRATIVEANALYSISNARRATIVE ANALYSISORAL VERSIONS OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE William Labov Columbia University and Joshua Waletzky Harvard University Most attempts to analyze narrative have taken as their subject matter the more complex products of long-standing literary or oral traditions. Myths, folk t

2、ales, legends, histories, epics, toasts and sagas seem to be the result of the combination and evolution of simpler elements; they contain many cycles and re-cycles of basic narrative structures; in many cases, the evolution of a particular narrative has removed it so far from its originating functi

3、on that it is difficult to say what its present function is. In our opinion, it will not be possible to make very much progress in the analysis and understanding of these complex narratives until the simplest and most fundamental narrative structures are analyzed in direct connection with their orig

4、inating functions. We suggest that such fundamental structures are to be found in oral versions of personal experiences: not the products of expert story tellers that have been retold many times, but the original production of a representative sample of the population. By examining the actual narrat

5、ives of large numbers of unsophisticated speakers, it will be possible to relate the formal properties of narrative to their functions. By studying the development of narrative technique from children to adults, and the range of narrative techniques from lower class to middle class speakers, it will

6、 be possible to isolate the elements of narrative In the present paper, we will present an analytical framework for the analysis of oral versions of personal experience in English. We will first introduce definitions of the basic units of narrative, and then outline the normal structure of the narra

7、tive as a whole. Finally, we will present some general propositions about the relation of formal properties to narrative functions, based on our examination of a moderate body of data. The analysis will be formal, based upon recurrent patterns characteristic of narrative from the clause level to the

8、 complete simple narrative. We will be relying upon the basic techniques of linguistic analysis, isolating the invariant structural units which are represented by a variety of superficial forms. From this analysis it is possible to derive a considerable amount of information on the syntax and semant

9、ics of English below the sentence level; but this direction of research will not be exploited here. We will be concerned primarily with the characteristics of the narrative itself. The analysis will be functional: narrative will be considered as one of constructing narrative units which match the te

10、mporal sequence of that experience, in particular, a technique of constructing narrative units which match the temporal sequence of that experience. Furthermore, we will find that narrative which serves this function alone is abnormal: it may be considered empty or pointless narrative. Normally, nar

11、rative serves an additional function or personal interest determined by a stimulus in the social context in which the narrative occurs. We therefore distinguish two functions of narrative: (1) referential and (2) evaluative. In most previous studies of folk narrative, the basic unit for analysis has

12、 been a substantial piece of thematic material, defined at various levels of abstraction by the type of action referred to. Thus the work of Propp (1958) was devoted to the formal structure of such large semantic units. The present study has assumed as a basic task the analysis of narratives which m

13、ight appear as fundamental, unanalyzable units in Propp=s scheme. We will be concerned with the smallest unit of linguistic expression which defines the functions where phrases and words are relevant to evaluative function. Colby=s work (1996) takes as data the frequencies of individual words accord

14、ing to a semantic subcategorization; a linguistic approach is quite opposite in direction, focusing upon the syntagmatic structure of words and phrases operating in clauses and higher levels of organization. Schatzman and Strauss (1955) studied class differences in narrative technique by informal me

15、ans; it is hoped that the methods developed in the present discussion will permit a more reliable and objective approach to studies of this type. We will be dealing with tape-recorded narratives taken from two distinct social contexts. One is a face-to-face interview where the narrator is speaking o

16、nly to the interviewer, a person not a member of a narrator=s primary group. In the second situation, the narrators recorded in interaction with his primary group; he is speaking in margins of the group who provides only a part of the stimulus for the narrative. The following pages provide fourteen

17、examples of the data on hand drawn from about 2600 interviews gathered in the course of four linguistic studies. The narrators include speakers from Negro and white communities, rural and urban areas, and they range in age from 10 to 72 years old. In one respect the range is limited: there are no hi

18、ghly educated speakers represented here; in fact, none of the narrators finished high school. The ultimate aims of our work will require close correlations of the narrator=s social characteristics with the structure of their narratives, since we are concerned with problems of effective communication

19、 and class and ethnic differences in verbal 3behavior. In this paper, however, we are concerned with the narratives themselves, and so example 1-14 appear as anonymous narrations, arranged in descending order of the speakers= ages. 1 (Were you ever in a situation where you thought you were in seriou

20、s danger of getting killed?) I talked a man out of - Old Doc Simon I talked him out of pulling the trigger. (What happened?) Well, in the business I was associated at that time, the Doc was an old man. He had killed one man, or - had done time. But he had a - young wife, and those days I dressed wel

21、l. And seemingly she was trying to make me. I never noticed it. Fact is, I didn=t like her very well, because she had-she was a nice looking girl until you saw her feet. She had big feet. Jesus, God, she had big feet! Then she left a note one day she was going to commit suicide because he was always

22、 raising hell about me. He came to my hotel. Nice big blue 44, too. I talked him out of it; and says, AWell, we=ll go look for her, and if we can=t find her, well you can-go ahead, pull the trigger if you want to. I was maneuvering. So he took me up on it. And we went to where they found her handker

23、chief - the edge t find anything. And of a creek - and we followed down a little more, and we couldn=got back - it was a tent show - she was laying on a cot with an ice bag on her head. She hadn=t committed suicide. But - however - that settled it for the day. But that night the manager, Floyd Adams

24、, said AYou better pack up and get out because that son of a bitch never forgives anything once he gets it in his head. And I did. I packed up and got out. That was two. That was two. After I came out from New York. 2 I had dogs that could do everything but talk. And by gorry, sir, I never licked em

25、. (When you have small kids, they=re always asking for one more thing, like a drink of water, to keep from going to bed at night. I wonder if you had that problem, and what you did about it?) Yeah, but - a lot of the children I=ve seen, that their excuse they=ve got to go to the bathroom, and they d

26、on=t have to go at all. (How do you cope with it. You can=t-you never know.) No. I don=t remember how we coped with it. I never believed a whole lot in licking. I was never - with my children, and I never - when it was with my animals, dogs; I never licked a dog, I never had to. A dog knew what I me

27、ant; when I hollered at a dog, he knew the - what I meant. I could-I had dogs that could do everything but talk. And by gorry, sir, I never licked em. I never come nearer bootin= a dog in my life. I had a dog-he was a wonderful retriever, but as I say he could do everything but talk. I could waif hi

28、m that way, I could waif him on, I could waif him anywhere. If I shot a crippled duck he went out after it; he didn=t see it in the water, he=d always turn around look at me, and I=d waif him over there, if the duck was there, or if it was on the other side of where we=re on, I could waif him straig

29、ht ahead, and he=d turn and he=d go. If he didn=t see me, he=d turn around, he=d look at me, and I=d keep a-waifin= him on. And he=d finally catch sight of him, and the minute he did, you know, he would bee-line and get that duck. I was gunnin= one night with that dog - we had to use live decoys in

30、those days - a fellow named Jack Bumpus was with me; I was over at a place called Deep Bottom, darker than pitch. And - uh - heard a quackin= off shore. And, I said to Jack, AKeep quiet. There=s one comin= in. And - uh - finally Jack said to me, AI think I see im. I said, AGive im a gun. Give im a g

31、un. Try it. So he shot, and this duck went for the shore with his wings a-goin= like that for the shore. Went up on the shore. Well this dog never lost a crippled duck on shore, he=d take a track just the same as a hound would take a rabbit track. And I sent him over. I said, AGo ahead. So he went o

32、ver there. And - gone a while and come back and he didn=t have the duck. And that was unusual-I said, AYou git back there and get that duck! And he went back there; and he stayed a little while longer, longer than he did the first time, and he come back and he didn=t have that duck. And I never come nearer shootin a dog. By gorry, I come pretty near. You git back there and get that duck! And that dog went back there, and he didn=t come back. And he didn=t come back. By gorry, we went over there - I walked over there, and here he was; one of my t