MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030191124 · doi:10.1353/mdr.2011.0010

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Drama · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaStorytellingNarrativeConversationCreativityLiteraturePsychologyLinguisticsSociologyAestheticsArtSocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from 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...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.134 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern DramaSame topicLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFrench-language works237,207