possible world semantics

8/12/2019 Possible World Semantics

1/25

POSSIBLE-WORLD SEMANTICS, FRAME TEXT, INSERT TEXT, AND UNRELIABLE NARRATION: THE

CASE OF THE TURN OF THE SCREW ,

By: Amoros, Jose Antonio Al,

Style, 0039-4238, March 1, 1991, Vol. 2, !ss"e 10.0.

It is well known that the theory of unreliable narration was formulated by Wayne C.Booth in his book The Rhetoric of Fiction (191!" and since then it has been recei#ed and

circulated in similar terms by a $reat number of critics and theorists. The basic criterion

that allows the identification of this ty%e of narration in the te&t is the de$ree ofconfidence attributable to the words of the narrator and his #ersion of the story. Chatman"

for instance" %uts the matter this way'

What makes a narrator unreliable is that his #alues di#er$e strikin$ly from that of the

im%lied authors. That is" the rest of the narrati#e))*the norm of the work*))conflicts withthe narrators %resentation. and we become sus%icious of his sincerity or com%etence to

tell the true #ersion.*

In *unreliable narration* the narrators account is at odds with the im%lied readers

surmises about the storys real intentions. The story undermines the discourse. Weconclude by readin$ out between the lines. that the e#ents and e&istents could not ha#e

been *like that"* and so we hold the narrator sus%ect. +nreliable narration is thus an ironic

form.

(,tory and -iscourse 19" /00!

The narrator may %ro#oke distrust for se#eral different reasons" such as the limitation of

his knowled$e due to his youth" immaturity" or mental deficiency (Beny in The ,oundand the Fury!" his %ersonal in#ol#ement in the story with the ine#itable absence of

obecti#ity brou$ht about by such an in#ol#ement" and his incoherent #alue scheme"which can result in %sycholo$ical or moral flaws" innocence" or an e&cessi#e $ood faith.

For some of these reasons" the information obtained by readin$ between the lines of the

te&t contradicts the narrators assertions" thus e&citin$ the readers mistrust throu$hout thenarrati#e work (Rimmon)2enan 133)31!.

4s one can see" this traditional notion of unreliable narration" which I ha#e ado%ted on

%re#ious occasions (4l#are5 4moros" -iscurso narrati#o 16)9" 16/)60!" does not

describe the referential and constructional %rocedures of a te&t endowed with this ty%e of

narration either formally or from the %ers%ecti#e of a te&t)lin$uistics theory of thenarrati#e fact. In %articular" I consider es%ecially disturbin$ the indiscriminate a %riori

allocation of human features to the narrati#e a$ent" a %erce%tible fact in the fra$ments byChatman 7uoted abo#e (*his #alues"* *sincerity"* *com%etence"* *narrators account*! and

in my own %ara%hrase of Rimmon)2enans sources for narrati#e unreliability. This

circumstance %recludes the consideration of the narrati#e a$ent as an immanent de#ice ofmicrostructural $eneration that can ac7uire such human features only a %osterior! and in

the e#ent of findin$ embodiment in a character. 8e#ertheless" modern literary theory has


2/25

hi$hly de#elo%ed tools" such as te&t lin$uistics and %ossible)world semantics" that allow

the inter%retation of Booths intuition and all the 7ualifications a%%ended to it later to be

included within the framework of an o#erall model of the narrati#e te&t.

The obect of these %a$es is" therefore" to form a theory of unreliable narration based on

the world structure of the narrati#e te&t and on its relations to the ideas of frame te&t andinsert te&t" as well as to offer a brief illustration of such a theory with reference to The

Turn of the ,crew (19!. This no#ella by :enry ;ames has been widely celebrated for itsunresol#ed ambi$uity" an outstandin$ feature that it shares with other narrati#es %ublished

by the same author at the turn of the twentieth century and that has attracted continual

attention from ;amesian criticism.


3/25

the construction of the cate$ory of world model by the cate$ory of common te&t

%roducer" while the second subcom%onent allows and e&%lains the construction of the

cate$ory of referential set structure by the)cate$ory of common te&t %roducer (4lbaladeo>ayordomo" *Com%onente %ra$matico* /!. 4lon$ the lines %ro%osed by this te&t)

lin$uistics model" it seems im%ossible to account for the or$ani5ation of the te&tual

referent" or referential set structure" without ha#in$ recourse to the cate$ory of worldmodel and to the subcom%onent of world)model constitution. The reason for this is that

the te&t %roducer must necessarily find the semantic elements he wants to communicate

in one of these three domains of his intellectual or #ital e&%erience' in the domain of whatis true and can be #erified em%irically" in the domain of what is fictional but #erisimilar"

or in the domain of what is fictional and non#erisimilar.

This means that there are three ty%es of world model" whose functions are to rule the

constitution of the referential set structure of a te&t at the discretion of its %roducer" e#enthou$h he may be limited by a set of constrictions of a %ra$matic nature (4lbaladeo

>ayordomo" Teoria )? Aetofi" *Re%resentacion del te&to*!. Ty%e I is the model of

what actually ha%%ens in our real world" and" in accordance with its rules" the referentialset structure of a te&t such as the minutes of the meetin$ of a faculty board can be

constituted. Ty%e / is the model of what ha%%ens within the #erisimilar fictional domain.

Its rules are not the same as those that hold in our real world" but they are con$ruent with

them" so that this world model is res%onsible for the constitution of the referential setstructure of realistic no#els. Finally ty%e 0 is the model of those e#ents that are fictional

but not #erisimilar? the rules of this model are not only different from those that a%%ly in

our real world" but also #iolate them" as is the case in ,ir Dawain and the Dreen 2ni$ht orin Dulli#ers Tra#els. The $reat difficulty in#ol#ed in constitutin$ referential set structures

entirely ruled by one and only one of the three ty%es of world model so far mentioned

$i#es rise to the e&istence of mi&ed referential set structures' for instance" those ruled by

a #erisimilar fictional world model" but with semantic elements taken from our realworld? those ruled by a non#erisimilar fictional world model" but with #erisimilar

semantic elements" and so forth. In such cases" it is im%erati#e to a%%ly the law of

semantic ma&ima formulated by 4lbaladeo >ayordomo (Teoria 1)! in order todetermine the ty%e of world model that has ultimately ruled the constitution of the

referential set structure of a %articular te&t. 4ccordin$ to this law" one can ascribe a

certain referential set structure to a ty%e of world model sim%ly by findin$ out whatsemantic elements contained in that referential set structure are remotest from our real

world. If a te&t denotes a referential set structure constituted by three classes of semantic

elements that belon$" res%ecti#ely" to our real world" to a #erisimilar fictional world" andto a non#erisimilar fictional world" then the o#erall constitution of the referential set

structure must ha#e been ruled by a ty%e 0 world model. @#idence for the #erification of

this law can be found in the em%irical fact that if the narrator relates se#eralnon#erisimilar fictional e#ents within an otherwise realistic story" the final effect of the

narration on the reader is no lon$er realistic.

Thou$h the remarks so far made on the te&tual referent a%%ly to e#ery natural lan$ua$e

te&t" we are aware that the theoretical and critical reflection on the narrati#e te&t" and%articularly on the narrati#e te&t endowed with artistic intention" can benefit $reatly from


4/25

the notion that the te&tual referent" or referential set structure" is arran$ed as a com%le& of

%ossible worlds. In my #iew" the referential set structure is made u% by the $lobal te&t

world and constituted" as we already know" in accordance with a certain ty%e of worldmodel. By *world* I understand a set of bein$s" states" %rocesses" and actions" alon$ with

all the %ro%ositions relati#e to them endowed with lo$ical #alues of

e&istenceEnone&istence or of truthEfalsehood (4lbaladeo >ayordomo" Teoria )6!.This definition of the conce%t of *world* $i#es us the key to its or$ani5ation within the

field of the narrati#e referent accordin$ to the followin$ criterion' *+na estructura de

conunto referencial tendra tantos submundos como indi#iduos formen %arse de ella*(4lbaladeo >ayordomo" Teoria 63! (*4 referential set structure will ha#e as many

subworlds as characters are com%rised in it*!. In this way" a narration with three

characters will %resent the $lobal te&t world that makes u% its referential set structure

di#ided into three sections" that is" into three subworlds. We must not for$et that when thenarrati#e stance is embodied in a character and the *first)%erson* or homodie$etic

narration (Denette" 8arrati#e -iscourse /0)/! emer$es as a result" the narrator" in so far

as it is an indi#idual within the referential set structure" has its own subworld on a %ar

with the other characters.

4 second criterion for the subdi#ision of the narrati#e world runs as follows' *Cada uno

de los mundos de indi#iduo (submundos! de la estructura de conunto referencial es

susce%tible de ser di#idido en submundos de acuerdo con las diferentes actitudes dee&%eriencia de dichos indi#iduos en cone&ion con la tem%oralidad * (4lbaladeo

>ayordomo" Teoria 61 ! (*@#ery characters world 1subworld= within the referential set

structure can be di#ided into subworlds accordin$ to the different attitudes ado%tedtowards e&%erience by such characters in relation to the tem%oral de#elo%ment of the

narrati#e*!. Therefore" e#ery characters world can be se$mented into ima$ined" belie#ed"

feared" wished" and so forth subworlds and" ob#iously" into a real subworld. 4ll worlds or

subworlds that are not actuali5ed become %ossible worlds" and when their semanticelements are made effecti#e followin$ the tem%oral course of the narration. they become

%art of the real subworld. The lo$ical union of e#ery characters real subworld

(R,W


5/25

syntactic)semantic le#el" e7ui#alent to the 4ristotelian fable or to the Russian Formalists

fabula (4ristotle 13a" )? Tomase#ski /6)!" has both an e&tensional and an

intensional nature" since it is a %roection into the te&t of the or$ani5ation of its referent.,econd" the macrocom%ositional o%erations also $i#e rise to the transformational

macrosyntactic structure" a te&tual le#el fully %laced within the intensional domain. Its

obect is the final artistic arran$ement of the semantic elements contained in the basemacrosyntactic structure as they a%%roach their lin$uistic manifestation on the surface of

the te&t. The transformational macrosyntactic structure can be #iewed both as an acti#e

transformational le#el and as the final outcome of such transformations? in the second ofthese senses it is e7ui#alent to the conce%t of su5et as %ro%osed by the Russian

Formalists (Tomase#ski /6)!. The microstructure or te&t)linear manifestation is the

result of the microcom%ositional o%erations that ma% the semantic elements of an already

transformed le#el" or su5et" onto a lin$uistic code or s%ecific substance of e&%ression"thus endowin$ them with the a%%ro%riate sentential or$ani5ation.

There are ob#ious affinities between the %rocess ust described and the functionin$ of the

three fundamental com%ositional o%erations of classical rhetoric' in#entio" dis%ositio" andelocutio (4lbaladeo >ayordomo" Teoria 110)0? Darcia Berrio" *Retorica*? Darcia

Berrio and 4lbaladeo >ayordomo!. By means of the first of these three o%erations"

which has both an e&tensional and an intensional dimension" the te&t %roducer finds the

semantic elements he wants to communicate alon$ with the world system that theresultin$ te&t will ha#e to denote. The second o%eration is res%onsible for the artistic

arran$ement of the intensionali5ed semantic materials" while the third finally #erbali5es

these materials in order to obtain a te&t)linear manifestation.

It should be noted" howe#er" that the com%ositional le#els of a narrati#e te&t ha#e been%resented and described in the same order as they a%%ear in the so)called direction of

te&tual synthesis or %rocess of te&t %roduction. In the %rocess of te&tual rece%tion oranalysis" the reader will ha#e to $o throu$h all these le#els in the o%%osite direction" thatis" from the te&t)linear manifestation to the referential set structure" in order to disco#er

by com%arison the world model that has ruled the constitution of the referential set

structure.

1./. @arlier I used the $eneral framework %ro#ided by the %ossible)world te&tual theorysketched in section 1.1 of this essay to %ro%ose a model of the narrati#e te&t es%ecially

suited to account for the whole ran$e of o%erations of literary 7uotation" or e&tended

interte&tuality (4l#are5 4moros" +lysses como %aradi$ma de interte&tualidad!. In thede#elo%ment of this model" howe#er" my focus shifted from the e&tensional to the

intensional domain" and instead of em%hasi5in$ the referent and the %rocess by which it

becomes %art of the te&tual construction" I %aid %articular attention to the functionin$ ofthe transformational macrosyntactic structure and the influence it e&erts on the %rocesses

of literary 7uotation. This model" re%resented in Fi$ure 1./.a" hel%s to define the key

ideas of frame te&t and insert te&t" whose relations to the world structure of the narrati#e

te&t are fundamental to the formulation of a theory of unreliable narration.


6/25

In my #iew" the $lobal world that constitutes the referential set structure" and also the

base macrosyntactic structure insofar as the latter is an accurate %roection of the former

into the te&t" consists of a set of e#ents and e&istents (Chatman" ,tory and -iscourse 19)/? -ole5el" *8arrati#e >odalities* 9!. The e#ents can be actions or ha%%enin$s" and if

they ha#e a #erbal nature (for instance" say rather than run! they $i#e rise to te&ts" which I

shall call obect)te&ts. The e&istents are classified into characters and settin$. This settin$can be s%atial" tem%oral" or cultural" and its obect is to %ro#ide the coordinates of the

narrated e#ents. The cultural settin$ is a sort of te&tual back$round a$ainst which the

narrati#e de#elo%ment takes %lace" and in this sense it is e7ui#alent to a literary conte&t(Darcia Berrio" *Gin$uistica*!. This settin$ is made u% of countless obect)te&ts whose

%roduction is entirely inde%endent of the referent of the te&t that incor%orates them into

its structure' that is" they are the result of a #erbal acti#ity that is not denoted. This

cultural settin$ is" thus" the basis for the restricted conce%t of interte&tuality as classicallyunderstood.


7/25

alle$ed authorial intrusions in the form of narrati#e comments or e&%licit metate&ts

(Todoro#" Aoetics of Arose 1/0!. Incidentally" it should be said that my model accounts

for the immanent $eneration of these comments or metate&ts by means of the functionin$of an autonomous com%onent re%resented at the left in Fi$ure 1./.a.

The res%ecti#e sco%es of the frame te&t and insert te&t" so clearly distin$uished in theory"become fre7uently confused in the microstructural le#el of a s%ecific narrati#e te&t. In

order to discriminate between them one has to resort to certain indicators that si$nal thetransfer from the frame te&t to the insert te&t or #ice #ersa" what >ieke Bal has called

connotateurs de trans$ression in the %articular field of narrati#e focali5ation (*8arration

et focalisation* 11!. These indicators can be classified into three ty%es' e&%licit(attributi#e discourse both as #erba dicendi and as #erba sentiendi" $ra%hic features"

syntactic structures" and su%rase$mental %atterns" the latter only a%%licable to oral

narrati#es!" im%licit (stylistic" $rammatical" and other microstructural features of theinsert te&ts in contrast with the frame te&t!" and e&trinsic or nonte&tual (not encoded

within the te&tual structure" but %laced in the conte&tual domain!. These indicators %lay

an essential role in the microstructural descri%tion of the different modes of thou$ht ands%eech 7uotation throu$h which the obect)te&ts are manifested on the te&tual surface.

4ccordin$ to the relations established between the frame te&t and the insert te&t under the

control of the transformational macrosyntactic structure and the narrator)7uoter" the

followin$ modes of 7uotation can be defined' free direct 7uotation" direct 7uotation" freeindirect 7uotation" indirect 7uotation" and narrated 7uotation. These fi#e modes ha#e been

arran$ed from the mimetic %ole to the die$etic %ole" that is" from the modes that" it is

a$reed" re%roduce the obect)te&ts most faithfully" to those that allow the introduction of aconsiderable amount of mani%ulation (see 4l#are5 4moros" +lysses como %aradi$ma de

interte&tualidad chs. " " " 6" and !.

1.0. Hnce I ha#e established the bases for the or$ani5ation of the narrati#e referent as acom%le& of worlds and for the ideas of frame te&t and insert te&t" I can formulate ahy%othesis as to the relations between them that will su%%ort my theory of unreliable

narration. :owe#er" it will be best to be$in with a brief discussion of the criteria for the

#erification of the semantic elements that make u% the world structure of the narrati#ete&t" since I am aware that the nature and the sco%e of this #erification will decisi#ely

affect the de#elo%ment of my hy%othesis.

In those te&ts whose referential set structures are ruled by a ty%e I world model" or real

world model" the articulatory world" concei#ed of as the lo$ical union of e#ery charactersreal subworld" will be our real em%irical world. The #erification or falsification of the

semantic elements that make u% such an aniculatory world will then be carried out sim%ly

by com%arin$ them to the state of affairs in our obecti#e world. Therefore" the statementscontained in the minutes of the meetin$ of a faculty board will be true or false accordin$

to what ha%%ened at that meetin$" and this should not be difficult to establish. Hn the

contrary" in those te&ts whose referential set structures are ruled by a ty%e / or ty%e 0

world model" all worlds or subworlds that make u% these structures will be %ossible inrelation to our real em%irical world. Hne of these %ossible worlds or subworlds then will

ha#e to ac7uire the status of an articulatory world" always concei#ed of as the lo$ical


8/25

union of e#ery characters real subworld" and it will stand as the reference that will allow

the assi$nment of #alues of e&istenceEnone&istence or of truthEfalsehood to the semantic

elements of the other worlds or subworlds of the $lobal te&t world. It is in this way thatthe notion of fictionality with its semantic and %ra$matic as%ects becomes fully

%rominent (see Routley? Walton? >anine5 Bonati 0)1? ,chmidt" *Fictionality""?

,chmidt" *Towards a Ara$matic Inter%retation*? Denette" *,tatus %ra$mati7ue*!. Thearticulatory world of a fictional te&t cannot be #erified with reference to our em%irical

world" since it is but a set of *fictional truths* (Walton 1! that we are forced to acce%t as

a readin$ %remise for any work whose referential set structure is ruled by a ty%e / or ty%e0 world model If a reader of The Turn of the ,crew refused to acce%t the fictional

e&istence of the $o#erness or of Thy" this no#ella would ob#iously come to nothin$ in his

hands. 8e#ertheless" it is %ossible to assi$n #alues of e&istenceEnone&istence or of

truthEfalsehood to the semantic elements of the characters %ossible sub)worlds" takin$ asa reference a synchronic sta$e of the %ossible world))%ossible only in relation to our real

em%irical world))that has ac7uired the status of an articulatory world" that is" that has

become authenticated. We must note" howe#er" that a reader may obect to the status of

fictional truths* a%%arently $ranted to certain semantic elements in an articulatory worldunder the s%ecial circumstances discussed later in section 1. of this essay.

The issue naturally de%ends on the %rocess of authentication of the semantic elements" or"

in other words" in the way a %ossible world ac7uires the status of an articulatory world sothat its #erification with reference to the real em%irical world is no lon$er %ertinent. To

ar$ue this %oint" I shall focus on the followin$ e&am%le written ad hoc'

(1! The bomb was buried ten feet dee%. (/! lan thou$ht that the bomb would ne#er

e&%lode. (0! 8o" no" it could not e&%lode? too wet for such a thin$ to ha%%en. (! 4ll of asudden. there was a #iolent e&%losion" and a dense cloud of smoke and dust darkened the

mornin$ sunli$ht. (! The bomb had e&%loded.


9/25

my frame te&t" is not subect to ud$ments of truth or falsehood" whereas the characters

discourse" closely related to my idea of insert te&t" is liable to such ud$ments (Banfield"

+ns%eakable ,entences /1)/? -ole5el" *Truth and 4uthenticity* 10)1!. This %assa$eby Feli& >artine5 Bonati $i#es a useful summary of the differences between the two

kinds of discourse thou$h in terms of his mimetic model of narrati#e semantics'

Aara la co m%ren sid n basica de toda narracion " hay 7ue to mar las frases m i meticas del

narrador como #erdaderas" y las de los %ersonaes" ustamente" no. ,i hay conflicto(diferencia" o%osicion" contradiccion! entre las afirmaciones sin$ulares del narrador y de

al$unos de los %ersonaes" con res%ecto a la confi$uracion del mundo narrado" el

%ersonae es com%rendido inmediatamente como al$uien 7ue))con su #oluntad o sin ella))ha caido en falsedad. Gas afirmaciones sin$ulares del narrador tienen %reeminencia

lo$ica. (>artine5 Bonati !

In order to understand the essence of any narration" one must take the narrators mimetic

sentences as true" and the characters" %recisely" as not true. If there is a conflict

(disa$reement" o%%osition" contradiction! between the narrators sin$ular statements andthose by some characters with reference to the confi$uration of the narrated world" the

character is immediately #iewed as somebody who))intentionally or not))has la%sed intofalsehood. The narrators sin$ular statements enoy lo$ical %reeminence.

Therefore" the authentication of a %ossible world de%ends entirely on microstructural

factors consolidated by centuries of literary con#ention' a %ossible world is authenticated

sim%ly if it is denoted by the frame te&t.


10/25

that all the notions brou$ht u% below are strictly %sycholo$ical" and they can only be

taken as constructs of narrati#e theory from a secondary and mar$inal %ers%ecti#e.

There are two definite %ositions as to the #erbal or non#erbal nature of thou$ht" oneclaimin$ *that thinkin$ consists of #erbali5ation" that the thou$ht and the words in which

it is e&%ressed are one and the same thin$"* and another considerin$ *that thou$ht takessha%e inde%endent of lan$ua$e and that lan$ua$e is merely the #ehicle" the container of

an already accom%lished thou$ht* (Cohn 69!. The %ublication of +lysses (19//! furtheradded to the contro#ersy surroundin$ these two e&treme %ositions" thou$h they had been

familiar and had become a talkin$ %oint because im%ortant disco#eries had been made in

the field of %sycholo$y at that time. These %ositions were reconciled by %ro%osin$ thee&istence of two different and successi#e le#els of mental beha#ior. The first one can be

found in the nei$hborhood of the Freudian subconscious' its nature is %re#erbal and

consists of conce%ts" ima$es" and feelin$s not yet associated with lin$uistic form" for"accordin$ to C. -. 2in$" *the nearer to the subconscious they lie" the less likely they are

to ha%%en in words* (1/0/!. The second le#el comes theoretically after the first" and

within it conce%ts" ima$es" and feelin$s ha#e already ac7uired lin$uistic form. Thisdichotomy has been widely acce%ted by critics and theorists with only minor

modifications as to its formulation and the denomination of its two members (:um%hrey

0? +llmann 13? Banfield" *Reflecti#e and 8on)Reflecti#e*!.

There is" howe#er" a mode of 7uotation already referred to that is ideally suited to e&%ressmicrostructurally those non#erbal semantic elements contained in a characters %ossible

worlds' that is" those semantic elements that ha#e not $one beyond the limits of the

%re#erbal le#el of thou$ht. This mode is naturally the narrated 7uotation. Its most

outstandin$ feature is the considerable))occasionally absolute))lack of balance betweenthe res%ecti#e acti#ities of the #erbali5in$ and the 7uotin$ functions of the narrator)7uoter

in fa#or of the former and to the detriment of the latter" which may e#en be canceledalto$ether.


11/25

those narrati#e works whose microstructural le#els ha#e been $enerated by an unreliable

narrator)7uoter ha#e fictitious rather than authentic frame te&ts. Thou$h these fictitious

frame te&ts retain their ty%ical $rammatical and stylistic features" it is %ossible toestablish their lack of narrati#e authority" and this fact %uts them on a %ar with the insert

te&ts.

+nreliable narration has been fre7uently associated with *first)%erson* or homodie$etic

narrati#e te&ts not only e&%licitly in theoretical statements" but also im%licitly ine&am%les of this ty%e of narration or in analyses of s%ecific works. ,uch a %osition can be

easily understood" since homodie$etic narration has always been considered the locus of

subecti#ity' it is conducted throu$h a narrator endowed with human characteristics" andreaders tend to assume that such a narrator may not be wholly reliable. While acce%tin$

this fact without reser#ation" I think that the usual e&%lanation $i#en abo#e should be

com%lemented in the theoretical terms %ro%osed in this essay. 4s stated in section 1.1 thehomodie$etic narrator()7uoter!" insofar as it becomes an e&istent within the referential set

structure of the narrati#e te&t" is entitled to a characters world on the same conditions as

the rest of the characters. This world is di#ided into subworlds accordin$ to the differentattitudes ado%ted towards e&%erience" a circumstance ob#iously im%ossible with

heterodie$etic or *third)%erson* im%ersonal narration. This allows the homodie$etic

narrator()7uoter! to ha#e a wide choice of %ossible subworlds (belie#ed" ima$ined"

feared" wished subworlds! at hand in order to authenticate them fictitiously followin$ the%rocess described abo#e. 8ow under %articular circumstances heterodie$etic narration

can also be unreliable. This is the case when the narrator()7uoter! denotes a characters

%ossible subworld in the frame te&t" thus $rantin$ it an a%%arent narrati#e authority.8aturally" the heterodie$etic narrator()7uoter! cannot authenticate his *own* %ossible

subworlds" since such %ossession is con#entionally forbidden to an anonymous te&tual

fi$ure de#oid of all human features.

I shall conclude with a remark about the notable affinities between unreliableheterodie$etic narration and Denettes combination of radical internal focali5ation and

heterodie$etic narration (8arrati#e -iscourse 19)9!. The former is clearly a %articular

case of the latter" for e#ery instance of unreliable heterodie$etic narration worksine#itably throu$h a radical internal focali5ation due to the fact that the %ertinent

#erbali5ation bears only on the noneffecti#e #ision of e#ents held by the character. Hn the

contrary" not e#ery internally focali5ed narrati#e te&t is under the com%ositional influenceof unreliable narration' for this to ha%%en" it is necessary to #erbali5e a %ossible world

that contradicts the inferred articulatory world on at least one %oint. This circumstance is

ob#iously su%erfluous in Denettes internal focali5ation.

The main %roblem raised by unreliable narration is to identify it in the actual te&t. 4s it isa narrati#e %rocedure that $enerates doubt" uncertainty" and irony" its su%erficial

distincti#e features" thou$h not its macrostructural functionin$" are rather difficult to

a%%rehend. We must bear in mind that if a characters %ossible subworld is con#entionally

authenticated throu$h its denotation in the frame te&t" it ac7uires the status of anarticulatory world" and thus it must be acce%ted as the locus of narrati#e authority. There

are" howe#er" certain clues that %ermit us to break out of this #icious circle and disco#er


12/25

that a %ossible world lacks the solidity of an articulatory world e#en in the case of its

re%resentation by means of the frame te&t" which" under such circumstances" becomes a

fictitious frame te&t. These clues can be classified into internal" or cote&tual" and e&ternal"or conte&tual.

The internal or cote&tual clues will be briefly illustrated in my final references to TheTurn of the ,crew. These clues indicate the a%%arition of inconsistencies" of %arts that do

not fit into each other. The identification of such inconsistencies is founded on the a&iom"deri#ed from our notion of the world structure of the narrati#e te&t" that the semantic

elements of the characters %ossible subworlds" as well as their #alues of

e&istenceEnone&istence or of truthEfalsehood" need not coincide" whereas the $lobal realworld" or articulatory world" is" by definition" the same for all the characters. Get us

su%%ose that in a %ossible subworld of a narrati#e te&t" raised to the cate$ory of an

articulatory world" 4W" throu$h its manifestation in the frame te&t" the %ro%osition % *& isa #illain"* which we will hold crucial to the narrati#e de#elo%ment" is true? now in the

other characters %ossible subworlds A,W1" A,W/" A,W0. . . A,Wn" denoted throu$h

insert te&ts" % is false' & is %resented as a kind" $ood)natured bein$. If this is the case" wewill ha#e to a$ree that the authority $ranted to 4W is seriously 7uestioned" since 4W

lacks the necessary reliability to constitute a solid articulatory world. The e&istence of

this contradiction leads us to belie#e that the true articulatory world of the te&t in

7uestion" 4Wt" is sur%risin$ly e7ui#alent to the lo$ical union of e#ery characters %ossiblesubworlds in which % is false" in such a way that these %ossible subworlds become real

subworlds. It follows from all this that the frame te&t that e&%resses 4W is merely a

fictitious frame te&t. Finally" we may notice that the fore$oin$ 7uestion has beendiscussed with reference to only one %ro%osition" %? if the number of %ro%ositions were

increased" the illustration would become more com%le&" but the conclusions would be

more reliable.

The e&ternal" or conte&tual" clues are far more difficult to determine. They are stillfounded on inconsistencies" but they are no lon$er ori$inated within the te&tual domain.

These inconsistencies $o beyond the limits of the te&t" and" as the reference re7uired to

brin$ them to li$ht lies in the readers criteria of #erisimilitude" they can only bedisco#ered in #erisimilar fictional te&ts. The followin$ e&am%le by 4mbrose Bierce will

clarify our ideas'

>y name is Boffer Bin$s. I was born of honest %arents in one of the humbler walks of

life my father bein$ a manufacturer of do$)oil and my mother ha#in$ a small studio in theshadow of the #illa$e church" where she dis%osed of unwelcome babes.... It had been my

custom to throw the babes into the ri#er which nature had thou$htfully %ro#ided for the

%ur%ose. but that ni$ht I did not dare to lea#e the oilery for fear of the constable. *4fterall"* I said to myself" *it cannot $reatly matter if I %ut it into this cauldron. >y father will

ne#er know the bones from those of a %u%%y" and the few deaths which may result from

administerin$ another kind of oil for the incom%arable ol.can. are not im%ortant in a

%o%ulation which increases so ra%idly.*


13/25

If we consider this a #erisimilar fictional te&t" we will ha#e to admit that its narration is

unreliable" since no articulatory world constituted in accordance with the rules that

$o#ern our real em%irical world will tolerate the contradiction between the honesty ofBoffer Bin$ss %arents and the dis$ustin$ %rofession of his mother" confessed"

furthermore" with the $reatest indifference. Gikewise" there is a #iolent clash between the

fa#orable e%ithet $i#en to nature for ha#in$ %laced a ri#er in the surroundin$s and theabsolute abhorrence the reader feels" led by his criteria of #erisimilitude" for the

characters hideous occu%ation. 4t the end of the 7uoted fra$ment there is a similar

circumstance' Boffer Bin$s does not care for the deaths his mani%ulations may %ro#oke?he is only concerned about his father findin$ out what he has done. It is %lain that" in this

case" unreliable narration is not identified throu$h cote&tual inconsistencies" but throu$h

the contradictions between the semantic elements denoted by the te&t and the information

the reader sensibly deri#es from his criteria of #erisimilitude. We can ar$ue that BofferBin$s" in his role of homodie$etic narrator" #erbali5es his thou$ht or belie#ed subworld

as thou$h it were the articulatory world. Therefore" all the horrors described so frankly in

the abo#e %assa$e belon$ to the characters subworld" and if this characters #alue scheme

is %roblematic" he will not be sensiti#e to the se#ere inconsistencies of his world #iew.

:owe#er" if the te&t by Bierce is non#erisimilar" we need not %osit the e&istence of

unreliable narration" since we can ima$ine a %ossible non#erisimilar world in which the

e%ithet *honest* can be naturally a%%lied to a woman whose ob is to dis%ose of*unwelcome babes* and who tells her son to throw them into a ri#er *thou$htfully

%ro#ided by nature.* The reader who" in analy5in$ this te&t" may come to a referential set

structure ruled by a non#erisimilar fictional world model will easily acce%t that thearticulatory world contains the semantic elements ust mentioned" e#en thou$h the clash

between such elements and his criteria of #erisimilitude be %atently ob#ious.

In my #iew unreliable narration re7uires a te&t)lin$uistics descri%tion that wouldcontribute towards a better a%%reciation of its nature. +nreliable narration" with its ty%icaldestruction of the authentication ca%acity of the frame te&t" deser#es careful attention"

since" accordin$ to -ole5el" such destruction *is one of the most fascinatin$

de#elo%ments in the e#olution of fictional narrati#e* (*Truth and 4uthenticity* /1!.

/.1. The second %art of this essay will illustrate my theoretical %osition with reference toThe Turn of the ,crew" and the core of this illustration will be to e&amine the role %layed

by unreliable narration in the settin$ u% of the no#ellas ambi$uous nature. First" howe#er"

I shall comment briefly on the trends followed by ;amesian criticism in the analysis ofthis no#ella. The dia$ram re%resented in Fi$ure /.1.a shows the subdi#isions that ha#e

become established in the critical cor%us. 8otably" I ha#e not encountered a sin$le

mono$ra%hic study in which the 7uestion of ambi$uity is not referred to either e&%licitlyor im%licitly.

In adherin$ to %osition 4" most critics try to resol#e the ambi$uity of The Turn of the

,crew by takin$ sides for o%tion a or b. The %roblem raised by the adherence to this

%osition is that the critic finds it necessary to $o beyond the te&tual boundaries in order tocollect data and conte&tual inferences in su%%ort of his o%tion" either a or b. This critical


14/25

%rocedure has been conclusi#ely reected by Christine Brooke)Rose" who transfers to the

s%ecific field of criticism on The Turn of the ,crew one of the fundamental tenets of the

immanent study of literature whereby the e&tension can only be considered an obect ofliterary analysis insofar as it becomes intension" that is" insofar as it is denoted by the

te&t.


15/25

Rimmon makes two fundamental contributions. Hn the one hand" she defines with $reat

%recision the conce%t of ambi$uity in terms of formal lo$ic" statin$ that it e&ists when

*two hy%otheses are mutually e&clusi#e" and yet each is e7ually coherent" e7uallyconsistent" e7ually %lenary and con#incin$" so that we cannot choose between them* (13!"

or" in other words" when we find the lo$ical conunction of two mutually e&clusi#e

hy%otheses. :ence the contradiction brou$ht about by the ambi$uity in The Turn of the,crew' both o%tions a and b e&clude each other" but still they coe&ist in the same work?

furthermore" their %arallel occurrence calls for the reader to take sides and"

simultaneously" cancels the %ossibility of ultimate election. Hb#iously" this strict conce%tof ambi$uity does not corres%ond to the #ery wide notion William @m%son" for instance"

holds of it. In his #iew" ambi$uity com%rises %lurisi$nification" #a$ueness" and the

com%le&ity of the %oetic lan$ua$e" where one can find o#erla%%in$ of meanin$s but no

basis for the necessary e&clusion of any. Hn the other hand" Rimmon both acknowled$esand systemati5es the macrostructural dimensions of ambi$uity" thus sur%assin$ the

microstructural boundaries of this %henomenon"y %osition towards the ambi$uity in The Turn of the ,crew ob#iously coincides with b.

I also acce%t Rimmons e&%lanation of it as the conunction of mutually e&clusi#e trends.8e#ertheless" I am not entirely satisfied either with her conce%t of narrati#e ambi$uity or

with her descri%tion of the way such ambi$uity works in The Turn of the ,crew. In my

#iew" Rimmons thesis" whereby narrati#e ambi$uity s%rin$s from the conunction in thesame sa5et of two mutually e&clusi#e fabulas" builds on a lack of de%th in the analysis of

the conce%t of fabula as an underlyin$ syntactic)semantic le#el. 4s Rimmon considers the

fabula an atomic unit" she cannot tolerate contradictions within it (e&istence of $hosts #s.

none&istence of $hosts!" and" in order to sol#e this %roblem" she resorts to a %air ofinde%endent fabulas" f


16/25

as an intensionali5ed com%le& of worlds allows me to describe units smaller than such

fabula that ultimately com%ose it (the characters worlds alon$ with their %ossible

subworlds!. This circumstance makes it %ossible to lod$e e&cludin$ semantic elements indifferent sections of the world structure of the same fabula" thus %recludin$ its becomin$

self)contradictory and also %recludin$ the necessity of %ositin$ the e&istence of two

fabulas. This %rocedure seems hi$hly con#enient" since it %reser#es the conce%tual unityof the underlyin$ syntactic)semantic le#el and" abo#e all" offers a more accurate

descri%tion of the narrati#e te&t itself and of its constructional %rocess.

I belie#e that there are not two fabulas" or base macrosyntactic structures" and only one

su5et" or transformational macrosyntactic structure" in The Turn of the ,crew. I wouldar$ue" rather" that the ambi$uity in this work arises from the simultaneous microstructural

manifestation in the frame te&t and" conse7uently" from the authentication of two

incom%atible sections of the $lobal world that make u% the referential set structure' thatis" the $lobal real world" or articulatory world" and the $o#ernesss ima$ined subworld.

@m%hasis should be laid on the fact that the occurrence of *first)%erson"* or

homodie$etic" narration in The Turn of the ,crew does not destroy the authenticationca%acity of its frame te&t. 4lthou$h the canonical conce%t of the frame te&t has

traditionally been associated with heterodie$etic narration" there is no doubt now that

*first)%erson* narration is fully inte$rated within the o#erall narrati#e framework

(Banfield" +ns%eakable ,entences 11)3!. Finally" statements such as the followin$ canbe cited in su%%ort of my %ro%osal' *In se#eral %laces in the $o#ernesss narration" words

can be inter%reted either as assertions (re%orts of what actually ha%%ened! or as e&cuses

or e&%lanations (re%orts or a%olo$ies for what she ima$ined!* (@aton 009? my italics!. Inthis sentence" @aton draws an e&cludin$ %arallel between reality and ima$ination 7uite

similar to mine" but intuiti#e and de#oid of any reference to the world structure of the

narrati#e te&t.

8e&t I will consider se%arately the two incom%atible sections of the $lobal worlde&%ressed by The Turn of the ,crew on the assum%tion that each of them was

authenticated in different inde%endent works. In the case of o%tion a" the frame te&t

denotes and authenticates a %ossible world" raisin$ it to the status of an articulatory worldwithout any inconsistency that mi$ht %oint to the e&istence of unreliable narration. The

a%%aritions thus belon$ to the articulatory world" and one mi$ht conclude with reference

to section d of the law of semantic ma&ima" mentioned earlier" that the constitution of thereferential set structure of the work in 7uestion is ruled by a non#erisimilar fictional

world model in s%ite of the fact that this referential set structure contains fictional

#erisimilar elements such as the e&istence of >iles" Flora" or >rs. Drose. It follows from

this inter%retation that the $o#erness does not suffer from hallucinations" but %lays therole of a sa#ior who endea#ors to rescue her youn$ %u%ils from the de#ilish influence

e&erted by the a%%aritions of >iss ;essel and Aeter Juint. In this way" all her actions"

e#en those that are a%%arently cruel" are morally ustified. Hn the other hand" in the caseof o%tion b" the frame te&t denotes and authenticates fictitiously a %ossible world" the

$o#ernesss ima$ined subworld" which cannot be acce%ted as a solid articulatory world

because one can %ercei#e se#eral inconsistencies that undermine its narrati#e authority.+nder these circumstances" the a%%aritions are ascribed to the $irls ima$ination and not


17/25

to the $enuine articulatory world" so that the constitution of the referential set structure of

this hy%othetical work can indeed be ruled by a #erisimilar fictional world model in

#irtue of the fourth restriction of the law of semantic ma&ima (4lbaladeo >ayordomo"Teoria 6/)6!. Conse7uently" the $o#ernesss mental health is sus%ect. ,he ine#itably

becomes a fi$ure of damnation" since the children are innocent and %ure" and she destroys

them (>iles in the literal sense of the term! under the influence of her hallucinations.

The inde%endent de#elo%ment of each of the two hy%otheses sketched abo#e would $i#erise to an unambi$uous narrati#e work' one with reliable narration and a frame te&t

endowed with narrati#e authority and another with unreliable narration and a fictitious

frame te&t. The %roblem with The Turn of the ,crew is that both hy%otheses coe&ist"contradictory as they are" and they $enerate a frame te&t of a %arado&ically hybrid kind'

authentic and fictitious" endowed with" and de#oid of" narrati#e authority. This

o#erla%%in$ is manifested on the surface of the te&t by means of cote&tual clues of $reatcom%le&ity that can be assimilated to the sin$ly directed or doubly directed clues referred

to by Rimmon in her analysis.

In order to brin$ to li$ht the com%le&ity of these clues" it seems useful to %osit the

e&istence of three successi#e sta$es in the readin$ of The Turn of the ,crew. ,uch a%ro%osal is substantiated by the course ;amesian criticism has followed since this no#ella

was %ublished in 19" for it faithfully %roects the fundamental milestones of that course

onto the indi#idual readin$ %rocess. The first sta$e corres%onds to a su%erficial readin$ ofthis work" throu$h which one can only a%%rehend o%tion a. remainin$ unaware of the

te&ts ambi$uous nature and e#en of the %ossibility of o%tion b. In this case" the narrator)

7uoter embodied in the $o#erness is fully reliable" since it denotes a solid articulatory

world by means of the frame te&t" and" therefore" the no#ella is read as a mere $host storywithout any hidden meanin$.

In a second readin$ sta$e" one can %ercei#e clues in the form of inconsistencies that

%ro#oke serious doubts as to the $o#ernesss reliability. Thus the reader reali5es the%ossibility of o%tion b and can e#en take sides for it.6 The disco#ery of such clues is

founded on the a&iom formulated abo#e" whereby the semantic elements of the %ossible

subworlds as well as their #alues of e&istenceEnone&istence or of truthEfalsehood need not

coincide" whereas the $lobal real world or articulatory world" is by definition the same forall the characters. If the real subworlds" whose lo$ical union makes u% the articulatory

world" contradict one another" at least one of them is not real but %ossible" and thus the

narrators reliability is decisi#ely challen$ed. Get us decom%ose the articulatory world ofThe Turn of the ,crew as follows' $o#ernesss R,W rs. Droses R,W iless R,W rs. Drose e&ists? 0! Bly e&ists? ! >iles

e&ists? ! Flora e&ists? ! it is true that the $o#erness teaches >iles and Flora" and so

forth.


18/25

>rs. Droses R,W' 1! >rs. Drose e&ists? /! the $o#erness e&ists? 0! Thy e&ists? ! >iles

e&ists' ! Flora e&ists? ! it is true that >rs. Drose is housekee%er at Thy" and so forth.

>iless R,W' 1! >iles e&ists? /! the $o#erness e&ists? 0! >rs. Drose e&ists? ! Thy e&ists?! Flora e&ists? ! it is true that Flora is >iless sister" and so forth.

Floras R,W' 1! Flora e&ists? /! the $o#erness e&ists? 0! >rs. Drose e&ists? ! Thy e&ists?

! >iles e&ists? ! it is true that >iles is Floras brother" and so forth.

4s one can see" there are no contradictions amon$ the characters real subworlds" and this

is a necessary re7uirement for the articulatory world of The Turn of The ,crew to becom%osed by the sum total of all these elements in addition to their indis%ensable

denotation in the frame te&t. 8e#ertheless" if we add the %ro%osition *the a%%aritions e&ist

at Thy* endowed with #alues of e&istenceEnone&istence accordin$ to what is %ro%osed bythe ad#ocates of o%tion b" we notice that contradictions immediately arise'

Do#ernesss R,W' ... 6! the a%%aritions e&ist at Bly

>rs. Droses R,W' . . . 6! the a%%aritions do not e&ist at Bly

>iless R,W' . . . 6! the a%%aritions do not e&ist at Bly

Floras R,W' . . . 6! the a%%aritions do not e&ist at Bly

The scene that best re#eals such contradictions takes %lace in cha%ter /3. While the$o#erness actuali5es microstructurally the %ro%osition *the a%%aritions e&ist at Thy* of

her real subworld'

>iss ;essel stood before us on the o%%osite bank e&actly as she had stood the other time"

and I remember" stran$ely" as the first feelin$ now %roduced in me" my thrill of oy atha#in$ brou$ht on a %roof ,he was there" so I was ustified? she was there" so l was

neither cruel nor mad. ,he was there for %oor scared >rs. Drose. but she was there most

for Flora. ... (6/!

>rs. Drose does likewise with the contrary %ro%osition'

>y elder com%anion rs. Drose=" the ne&t moment" at any rate" blotted out e#erythin$

but her own flushed face and her loud shocked %rotest. a burst of hi$h disa%%ro#al. What

a dreadful turn" to be sure" >issK Where on earth do you see anythin$L* (6/!

*,he isnt there" little lady" and nobodys there))and you ne#er see nothin$" my sweetK:ow can %oor >iss ;essel))when %oor >iss ;essels dead and buriedL We know" dont we

lo#e.L*))and she a%%ealed" blunderin$ in" to the child. *Its all a mere mistake and a worry

and a oke))and well $o home as fast as we canK* (6/!


19/25

>iles" for his %art" ne#er o#ertly denies the e&istence of the a%%aritions" since he is ne#er

asked such a direct 7uestion as the $o#erness %uts to Flora (*Where" my %et" is >iss

;esselL* 63!" althou$h the su%%orters of o%tion b infer from his beha#ior and from the$eneral narrati#e thrust of the no#ella that the %resence of $hosts is not an element of his

real subworld.

If the characters real subworlds %resent contradictions" their lo$ical union cannot

constitute the articulatory world for the sim%le reason that it cannot tolerate internalcontradictions.rs. Drosesand Floras o%inions are e&%ressed become the true locus of narrati#e authority thou$h

they also retain their own microstructural features. In this way" unreliable narration %uts

in an a%%earance.

,o far I ha#e described the second readin$ sta$e of The Turn of the ,crew" whichculminates in the acknowled$ement and %ossible acce%tance of o%tion b. If the frame te&t

%roduced by the $o#ernesss narratin$ were systematically undermined by the other

characters insert te&ts" the narration would sim%ly be unreliable. 8e#ertheless" the cluesthat su%%ort o%tion b a$ainst the su%erficial readin$ of o%tion a are counteracted in a

%erfect balance by many other clues in su%%ort of o%tion a. This is the third readin$ sta$e

of The Turn of the ,crew" which com%rises the acknowled$ement and %ossible

acce%tance of this works radical ambi$uity' that is" of the e&cludin$ coe&istence of botho%tions a and b. ,ome of these counter clues ha#e been adduced by the critics in

unilateral su%%ort of o%tion a" rather than as a means of answerin$ the obectionsre%resented by o%tion b" so as to obtain a conscious a%%rehension of this works $enuineambi$uity. This is %recisely the case with the $o#ernesss accurate descri%tion of Aeter

Juint" so faithful to his true a%%earance that >rs. Drose encounters no difficulty in

identifyin$ him'

*:e has no hat.* Then seein$ in her face that she had already" in this" with a dee%erdismay" found a touch of %icture" I 7uickly added stroke to stroke. *:e has a red hair" #ery

red" close)curly" and a %ale face" lon$ in sha%e" with strai$ht $ood features and little

rather 7ueer whiskers that are as red as his hair. :is eyebrows are somehow darker? theylook %articularly arched and as if they mi$ht mo#e a $ood deal. :is eyes are shar%"

stran$e))awfully? but I only know clearly that theyre rather small and #ery fi&ed. :is

mouths wide" and his li%s are thin" e&ce%t for his little whiskers hes 7uite clean)sha#en.:e $i#es me a sort of sense of lookin$ like an actor.* (/0)/!

If the a%%aritions are only effecti#e in the $o#ernesss ima$ined subworld" there is no

reason for such a detailed %icture" unless it is a #ery odd coincidence. Gikewise" Floras

%resumed foul lan$ua$e" thus described by >rs. Drose"
http://web18.epnet.com/#bib18http://web18.epnet.com/#bib18


20/25

,he rs. Drose= shook her head with di$nity. MI#e heard)K*

*:eardL*

*From that child))horrorsK ThereK* she si$hed with tra$ic relief. *Hn my honour" >iss"

she says thin$s))K* But at this e#ocation she broke down . . . (66!

can only be ustified in such a nice $irl as a si$n of her corru%tion under the %ernicious

influence of the a%%aritions" %articularly when this lan$ua$e only shows u% after the

$o#erness has denounced this influence to Flora" so that her %retense is no lon$er

necessary. Finally" we must not for$et that >iles" ust before his death (!" %ronouncesAeter Juints name" thou$h he has ne#er heard it from the $o#erness or from >rs. Drose

in relation t)o the a%%aritions. This circumstance clearly su%%orts the claim that the child

has an effecti#e knowled$e of these a%%aritions.

It is con#enient to e&%lain" howe#er" that the three readin$ sta$es %osited to account for

the com%le& or$ani5ation of the clues to the ambi$uity in The Turn of the ,crew are but atheoretical construct. In the actual readin$ %rocess" these sta$es can o#erla%" alter their

order" or be incom%lete" and this feature de%ends on the %ra$matic as%ects of te&tualrece%tion and" %articularly" on the cultural attributes of the recei#er himself.

4s a final remark" I must touch u%on the relations of The Turn of the ,crew to the

conce%t of the fantastic de#elo%ed by T5#etan Todoro# (Todoro#" Introduction? see also

Rimmon 116)19 and ,iebers!. 4ccordin$ to him" the fantastic is a middle term betweenthe stran$e))that is" what can be e#entually e&%lained in s%ite of its non#erisimilar

a%%earance))and the mar#elous" only ustifiable if we admit the contra#ention of rules

con$ruent with those of our real em%irical world. Therefore" those who su%%ort o%tion b

will ascribe The Turn of the ,crew to the realm of the stran$e" since the %roblem of thea%%aritions can be sol#ed by assi$nin$ them to the $o#ernesss ima$ination. Hn the other

hand" those in fa#or of o%tion a will classify The Turn of the ,crew within the realm ofthe mar#elous" for they refuse to acce%t a #erisimilar e&%lanation of the %resence of the

a%%aritions. The fantastic" or rather the %urely fantastic" whose main distincti#e feature is

the irresolution it %ro#okes in the reader" %artakes both of the stran$e and the mar#elous'

that is" both of o%tions a and b in the case of The Turn of the ,crew without inclinin$ ustowards either of them. This hesitation" sustained throu$hout the te&t in the terms

illustrated abo#e" is what $i#es The Turn of the ,crew its alle$edly fantastic nature.

Notes

[1]See for instance Norrman; Rimmon; Krook, "Madness of Art"; Samuels; Cixous; andBlackall

[!]Most of te critics #ose #orks $ cite adere eiter ex%licitl& or im%licitl& to one of

tese t#o %ositions; amon' te former $ sould mention Boot (11)1(; *ones; Krook,+rdeal 1-)(.; /aid 0)1!!; Bontl&; and Screro; amon' te latter oddard, Kenton,

2ilson, and Cranfill and Clark are #ort& of note
http://web18.epnet.com/#tochttp://web18.epnet.com/#bib1uphttp://web18.epnet.com/#bib2uphttp://web18.epnet.com/#tochttp://web18.epnet.com/#bib1uphttp://web18.epnet.com/#bib2up


21/25

[(]See Boot3 "4ou' most of te %otential contro5ersies [in 4e 4urn of te Scre#]

a5e %resuma6l& ne5er come to li't, te 'o5erness is onl& one of te 'reat num6er of

indeterminatel& unrelia6le narrators #o a5e led readers into %u6lic contro5ersies"7(189

[.]$n section 1 1, $ consistentl& dra# on 4omas Al6alade:o Ma&ordomos researc into

te narrati5e referent; see Al6alade:o Ma&ordomo, 4eoria[8]As far as te standard 4eS2eS4 is concerned, see


22/25

a%%ear, ten #e are inesca%a6l& confronted #it different sections of tis com%lex of

#orlds 7for instance, a #ised su6#orld 5s a feared su6#orld or a real su6#orld9

>u6omir @oleel does admit te existence of suc contradictions, and e descri6es tose#orlds tat tolerate tem as im%ossi6le 7"Mimesis" .01)0(9

-I4DR4>' Fi$ure 1./.a

-I4DR4>' Fi$ure /.1.a Works Cited

4lbaladeo >ayordomo" Tomas. *4s%ectos del analisis formal de te&tos.* Re#ista

@s%anola de Gin$uistica 11 (191!' 116)3.)))))))). *Com%onente %ra$matico" com%onente de re%resentacion y modelo lin$uistico)

te&tual.* Gin$ua e ,tile 1 (190!' 0).

)))))))). Teoria de los mundos %osibles y macroestructura narrati#a. analisis de las no#elas

cortas de Clarin. 4licante' ,ecretariado de Aublicaciones de la +ni#ersidad de 4licante"19.

4l#are5 4moros" ;ose 4ntonio. @n torno al discurso narrati#o de -ubliners. 4licante'

,ecretariado de Aublicaciones de la +ni#ersidad de 4licante" 19.

)))))))). +lysses como %aradi$ma de interte&tualidad' la hi%otesis del narrador)citador.>adrid' Aalas 4tenea" 1993.

4ristotle. Aoetics. Trans. Derald F. @lse. 4nn 4rbor' + of >ichi$an A" 196.Bakhtin" >ikhail. Aroblems of -ostoe#skys Aoetics. >anchester' >anchester +A" 19.

Bal" >ieke. *8arration et focalisation' %our une theorie des instances du recit.* Aoeti7ue

/9 (1969!' 136)/6.))))))). Teoria de la narrati#a. >adrid' Catedra" 19.

Banfield" 4nn. *Reflecti#e and 8on)Reflecti#e Consciousness in the Gan$ua$e of

Fiction.* Aoetics Today / (191!' 1)6.

)))))))). +ns%eakable ,entences' 8arration and Re%resentation in the Gan$ua$e of Fiction.Boston' Routled$e" 19/.

Beau$rande" Robert de" and Wolf$an$ -ressler. Introduction to Te&t Gin$uistics. Gondon'

Gon$man" 191.Ben#eniste" @mile. *Ges relations de tem%s dans le #erbe francais.* Aroblemes de

lin$uisti$ue $enerale. / #ols. Aaris' Dallimard" 19)6. 1' /06)3.

Blackall" ;ean Frant5. ;amesian 4mbi$uity and The ,acred Fount. Ithaca' Cornell +A"19.

Blackmur" Richard A." ed. The 4rt of the 8o#el' Critical Arefaces by :enry ;ames.

Boston' 8ortheastern +A" 19.

Bontly" Thomas ;. *:enry ;amess Deneral ision of @#il in The Turn of the ,crew.*,tudies in @n$lish Giterature 133)1933 9 (199!' 6/1)0.

Booth" Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chica$o' + of Chica$o A" 191.

Brooke)Rose" Christine. 4 Rhetoric of the +nreal. Cambrid$e' Cambrid$e +A" 190.Chatman" ,eymour. The Gater ,tyle of :enry ;ames. H&ford' Blackwell" 196/.

)))))))). ,tory and -iscourse' 8arrati#e ,tructure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca' Cornell +A"

190.Ci&ous" :elene. *:enry ;ames' Iecriture comme %lacement ou de lambi$uite de

linteret.* Aoeti$ue 1 (1963!' 0)3.

Cohn" -orrit. Trans%arent >inds' 8arrati#e >odes for Aresentin$ Consciousness in

Fiction. Arinceton' Arinceton +A" 196.


23/25

Cranfill" Thomas >." and Robert G. Clark" ;r. 4n 4natomy of The Turn of the ,crew.

4ustin' + of Te&as A" 19.

Culler" ;onathan. *Aresu%%osition and Interte&tuality.* >odern Gan$ua$e 8otes 91(196!' 103)9.

-ik" Teun 4. #an" ed. Ara$matics of Gan$ua$e and Giterature. 4msterdam' 8orth)

:olland" 196.-ole5el" Gubomir. *>imesis and Aossible Worlds.* Aoetics Today 9 (19!' 6)9.

)))))))). *8arrati#e >odalities.* ;ournal of Giterary ,emantics ( 196!' ) 1.

)))))))). *Truth and 4uthenticity in 8arrati#e.* Aoetics Today 1 (193!' 6)/.@aton" >arcia >. *;amess Turn of ,%eech 4ct.* British ;ournal of 4esthetics /0 (190!'

000).

@del" Geon. *The Aoint of iew.* The Turn of the ,crew. @d. Robert 2imbrou$h. 8ew

ork' 8orton" 19. //)0.@m%son" William. ,e#en Ty%es of 4mbi$uity. :armondsworth' Aen$uin" 191.

Darcia Berrio" 4ntonio. *Gin$uistica del te&to y ti%olo$ia lirica (Ga tradicion te&tual

como conte&to!.* Aetofi and Darcia Berrio 039).

)))))))). *Retorica como ciencia de la e&%resi#idad (Aresu%uestos %are una retorica$eneral!.* @studios de Gin$uistica / (19!' 6)9.

)))))))). ,i$nificado actual del formalismo ruso. Barcelona' Alaneta" 1960.Darcia Berrio" 4ntonio" and Tomas 4lbaladeo >ayordomo. *@structura com%osicional'

macroestructuras.* @studios de Gin$uistica 1 (190!' 1/6)3.

Denette" Derard. 8arrati#e -iscourse. H&ford' Blackwell" 193.)))))))). Aalim%sestes' la litterature au second de$re. Aaris' ,euil" 19/.

)))))))). *Ge status %ra$mati7ue de la fiction narrati#e.* Aoeti7ue /3 (199!' /0)9.

Doddard" :arold C. *4 Are)Freudian Readin$ of The Turn of the ,crew.* 8ineteenth

Century Fiction 1/ (196!' 1)0.:ambur$er" 2ate. The Go$ic of Giterature. Bloomin$ton' Indiana +A" 1960.

:um%hrey" Robert. ,tream of Consciousness in the >odern 8o#el. Berkeley' + of

California A" 19.;ames" :enry. The Turn of the ,crew. @d. Robert 2imbrou$h. 8ew ork' 8orton" 19.

;ones" 4le&ander @. *Aoint of iew in The Turn of the ,crew.* A>G4 6 (199!' 11///.

2enton" @dna. *:enry ;ames to the Ruminant Reader' The Turn of the ,crew.* The 4rts (19/!' /).

2in$" C. -. *@douard -uardin" Inner >onolo$ue" and the ,tream of Consciousness.*

French ,tudies 6 (190!' 11)/.

2ooi" ;. D. 4mbi$uity in 8atural Gan$ua$e. 4msterdam' 8orth):olland" 1961.2riste#a" ;ulia. Ge te&te du roman' a%%roche semiolo$i7ue dune structure discursi#e

transformationnelle. The :a$ue' >outon" 1969.

2rook" -orothea. *Intentions and Intentions' The Aroblem of Intention and :enry ;amessThe Turn of the ,crew.* The Theory of the 8o#el' 8ew @ssays. @d. ;ohn :al%erin. 8ew

ork' H&ford +A" 196. 00)6/.

)))))))). *The >adness of 4rt' Further Reflections on the 4mbi$uity of :enry ;ames.*:ebrew +ni#ersity ,tudies in Giterature and the 4rts 1 (1960!' /)0.

)))))))). The Hrdeal of Consciousness in :enry ;ames. Cambrid$e' Cambrid$e +A" 19/.

2uroda" ,. . *Reflections on the Foundation of 8arrati#e Theory from a Gin$uistic Aoint

of iew.* an -ik 136)3.


24/25

>artine5 Bonati" Feli&. Ga estructura de la obra literaria' una in#esti$acion dei5losofa del

len$une y estetica. Barcelona' ,ei& Barral" 196/.

>atthiessen" F. H." and 2enneth >urdock" eds. The 8otebooks of :enry ;ames. 8ework' H&ford +A" 196. >eyer" :erman. The Aoetics of Juotation in the @uro%ean

8o#el. Arinceton' Arinceton +A" 19.

>ur%hy" 2e#in. *The +nfi&abale Te&t' Bewilderment of ision in The Turn of the,crew.* Te&as ,tudies in Giterature and Gan$ua$e /3 (196!' 0)1.

8orrman" Ralf. Techni7ues of 4mbi$uity in the Fiction of :enry ;ames with ,%ecial

Reference to In the Ca$e and The Turn of the ,crew. 4bo' 4bo 4kademi" 1966.HDorman" -onal. *:enry ;amess Readin$ of The Turn of the ,crew.* The :enry ;ames

Re#iew 1 (193!' 1/)0" //).

Aetofi" ;anos ,. @structura y funcion del com%onente $ramatical de la teoria de la

estructura del te&to y de la estructura del mundo.* Aetofi and Darcia Berrio 16)9.)))))))). *Ge&ico" conocimiento enciclo%edico" teoria del te&to.* Aetofi and Darcia Berrio

191 )/10.

)))))))). *Ga re%resentacion del te&to y el le&ico como red semantica.* Aetofi and Darcia

Berrio /1)/.)))))))). *Ga teoria lo$ico)semantica de las len$uas naturales como teoria te&tual.* Aetofi

and Darcia Berrio 99)1/.)))))))). *+na teoria te&tual formal y semidtica como teoria inte$rada del len$uae

natural.* Aetofi and Darcia Berrio 1/6).

)))))))). *Towards an @m%irically >oti#ated Drammatical Theory of erbal Te&ts.*,tudies in Te&t Drammar. @d. ;anos ,. Aetofi and :. Rieser. -ordrecht' Reidel" 1960.

/3)6.

)))))))). ers une theorie %artielle du te&te. Aa%iere 5ur Te&tlin$uistik 9. :ambur$' Buske"

196.Aetofi" ;anos ,." and 4ntonio Darcia Berrio. Gin$uistica del te&to y critica literaria.

>adrid' 4lberto Cora5on)Comunicacion" 196.

Rimmon" ,hlomith. The Conce%t of 4mbi$uity' The @&am%le of ;ames. Chica$o' + ofChica$o A" 1966.

Rimmon)2enan" ,hlomith. 8arrati#e Fiction' Contem%orary Aoetics. Gondon' >ethuen"

190.Routley" Richard. *The ,emantical ,tructure of Fictional -iscourse.* Aoetics (1969!' 0)

03.

Rubin" Gouis -." ;r. *Hne >ore Turn of the ,crew.* >odern Fiction ,tudies 9 (19!'

01)/.,amuels" Charles Thomas. The 4mhi$uity of :enry ;ames. +rbana' + of Illinois A" 1961.

,chmidt" ,ie$fried. *Towards a Ara$matic Inter%retation of Fictionality.* an -ik 11)

6.)))))))). *Fictionality in Giterary and 8on)Giterary -iscourse.* Aoetics 9 (193!' /).

,chrero" @lliot >. *@&%osure in The Turn of the ,crew.* >odern Ahilolo$y 6 (191!'

/1 )6.,hort" R. W. *The ,entence ,tructure of :enry ;ames.* 4merican Giterature 1 (19!'

61).

,iebers" Tobin. *:esitation" :istory" and Readin$' :enry ;amess The Turn of the ,crew.*

Te&as ,tudies in Giterature and Gan$ua$e / (190!' )60.


25/25

,il#er" ;ohn. *4 8ote on the Freudian Readin$ of The Turn of the ,crew. * 4merican

Giterature /9 (196!' /36)11.

,ternber$" >eir. *Aroteus in Juotation)Gand' >imesis and the Forms of Re%orted-iscourse.* Aoetics Today 0 (19/!' 136).

Tamir" 8omi. *Aersonal 8arrati#e and Its Gin$uistic Foundation.* ATG I (196!' 30)/9.

Todoro#" T5#etan. Introduction a la litterature fantasti7ue. Aaris' ,euil" 1963.)))))))). The Aoetics of Arose. H&ford' Blackwell" 1961.

Tomase#ski" Boris. *Themati7ue.* Theorie de la litterature. @d. T5#etan Todoro#. Aaris'

,euil" 19. /)036.To%ia" 4ndre. *The >atri& and the @cho' Interte&tuality in +lysses.* Aost),tructuralist

;oyce' @ssays from the French. @d. -erek 4ttrid$e and -aniel Ferrer. Cambrid$e'

Cambrid$e +A" 19. 130)/.

+llmann" ,te%hen. ,tyle in the French 8o#el. H&ford' Blackwell" 19.aid" 2rishna Balde#. Techni7ue in the Tales of :enry ;ames. Cambrid$e' :ar#ard +A"

19.

Walton" 2endall G. *:ow Remote 4re Fictional Worlds from the Real WorldL* ;ournal of

4esthetics and 4rt Criticism 06 (196!' 11)/0.Weinstein" Ahili% >. *The @&%loitati#e and Arotecti#e Ima$ination' +nreliable 8arration

in The ,acred Fount.* The Inter%retation of 8arrati#e' Theory and Aractice. @d. >ortonW. Bloomfield. Cambrid$e' :ar#ard +A" 1963. 19)/39.

Wilson" @dmund. *The 4mbi$uity of :enry ;ames.* The Tri%le Thinkers' Twel#e @ssays

on Giterary ,ubects. 8ew ork' H&ford +A" 19. )10/.NNNNNNNN

By ;ose 4ntonio 4l#are5 4moros

possible world semantics

Documents