MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2030191124 · doi:10.1353/mdr.2011.0010

Storytelling and Drama: Exploring Narrative Episodes in Plays (review)

2011· article· en· W2030191124 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susan Mandala

Notice bibliographique

RevueModern Drama · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDramaStorytellingNarrativeConversationCreativityLiteraturePsychologyLinguisticsSociologyAestheticsArtSocial psychologyPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Storytelling and Drama: Exploring Narrative Episodes in Plays Susan Mandala Hugo Bowles . Storytelling and Drama: Exploring Narrative Episodes in Plays. Linguistic Approaches to Literature (LAL) Volume 8. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2010. Pp. ix + 216. $143.00 (Hb) [End Page 101] . Hugo Bowles's Storytelling and Drama offers a thought-provoking account of "what tellers and listeners do with stories in plays" (196). Dissatisfied with the relatively static models of stories in the tradition of Vladimir Propp's Morphology of the Folktale, Bowles proceeds along linguistic lines, analysing stories in plays as part and parcel of the represented talk that is dramatic dialogue. His chosen method is an adapted form of conversation analysis (CA). Recognizing that, while CA is well suited to the study of actual conversation, it is handicapped when it comes to the study of created dialogue in plays, he integrates from Erving Goffman the idea that pieces of talk can be multiply "owned," from Willie van Peer a systematic method for identifying what is deviant in dramatic discourse, and from Deborah Tannen the notion of involvement and spontaneous linguistic creativity. By expanding on CA in this way, he seeks to develop a method of analysis that can cope with represented talk as interactional behaviour. For the most part, Storytelling and Drama achieves its aims. While a few analyses end up in too obvious places (e.g., stories in drama can provide background information), a lot of the work, here, takes the criticism of drama in a much-needed new direction. Bowles's account of turn-taking patterns in dramatic narratives, for example, shows that this often taken-for-granted aspect of plays can be a powerful means of demonstrating how social relationships between characters develop and change. Similarly, his work on the linguistic analysis of various kinds of memory narratives sheds new light on the way dramatists exploit "[t]he subjectivity of memory and its relation to truth about the past" (120). Of particular note are the revealing analyses that are the subject of chapter seven. Here, Bowles shows to good effect that stories in drama are often an arena for power struggles. "[N]arrators are vulnerable" (3), he observes and then puts this observation to good use in, for example, a compelling account of how one narrator's story in Eugene O'Neill's The Iceman Cometh is rendered "untellable" by one of its listeners (160). As Bowles points out, the challenge to the story is also a challenge to the reason for telling it, and this leads to a loss of status for the narrator. My only two complaints, if complaints they can be called, are to do with Bowles's application of his method and his engagement with drama criticism. While several chapters of the book are devoted to an exposition of his adapted CA framework, many of his analyses move beyond this. Observations and findings from psychology, cognitive science, politeness theory, and Birmingham-school discourse analysis (DA) are usefully, indeed, insightfully applied, but these approaches are not sufficiently integrated into the method formulated at the start of the work. Given Bowles's expressed commitment to CA models, the incorporation of insights from DA (in, for instance, the identification of discourse moves and the [End Page 102] classification of challenges) is a particular surprise. While CA and DA are sometimes synthesized (as in Amy Tsui's English Conversation [1994]), they are more typically identified as opposed approaches to talk. As Bowles himself notes in his acknowledgements, he is "a linguist approaching a literary topic" (ix), and it is, perhaps, for this reason that there are relatively few explicit and specific engagements with work in drama criticism. More often, Bowles treads the traditional path in literary stylistics in this respect, speaking of what is "generally" said or done in literary-critical accounts and not going much further. This could be viewed as a missed opportunity, especially since many of Bowles's findings, particularly with respect to hesitations, false starts, repetition, and story retellings, constitute a direct and welcome challenge to many of the literary-critical accounts of dramatic language thus far offered. His work demonstrates, for example, that narrators who repeat themselves are...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,191
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,887

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,150
Tête enseignante GPT0,283
Écart entre enseignants0,134 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueModern DramaMême sujetLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesTravaux en français237 207