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 1 0.0.
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 of
confidence 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 author(s. That is" the rest of the narrati#e))*the norm of the work*))conflicts with
the narrator(s %resentation. and we become sus%icious of his sincerity or com%etence to
tell the (true #ersion.*
In *unreliable narration* the narrator(s account is at odds with the im%lied reader(s
surmises about the story(s real intentions. The story undermines the discourse. We
conclude 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 1.9" /00!
The narrator may %ro#oke distrust for se#eral different reasons" such as the limitation of
his knowled$e due to his youth" immaturity" or mental deficiency (Ben1y in The ,ound
and the Fury!" his %ersonal in#ol#ement in the story with the ine#itable absence of
ob1ecti#ity brou$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 narrator(s assertions" thus e&citin$ the reader(s mistrust throu$hout the
narrati#e work (Rimmon)2enan 133)31!.
4s one can see" this traditional notion of unreliable narration" which I ha#e ado%ted on
%re#ious occasions (4l#are5 4moros" -iscurso narrati#o 16)9" 16/)60!" does not
describe the referential and constructional %rocedures of a te&t endowed with this ty%e of
narration either formally or from the %ers%ecti#e of a te&t)lin$uistics theory of the
narrati#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 by
Chatman 7uoted abo#e (*his #alues"* *sincerity"* *com%etence"* *narrator(s account*! and
in my own %ara%hrase of Rimmon)2enan(s sources for narrati#e unreliability. This
circumstance %recludes the consideration of the narrati#e a$ent as an immanent de#ice of
microstructural $eneration that can ac7uire such human features only a %osterior! and in
the e#ent of findin$ embodiment in a character. 8e#ertheless" modern literary theory has
hi$hly de#elo%ed tools" such as te&t lin$uistics and %ossible)world semantics" that allow
the inter%retation of Booth(s 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 ob1ect of these %a$es is" therefore" to form a theory of unreliable narration based on
the world structure of the narrati#e te&t and on its relations to the ideas of frame te&t and
insert te&t" as well as to offer a brief illustration of such a theory with reference to The
Turn of the ,crew (1999!. This no#ella by :enry ;ames has been widely celebrated for its
unresol#ed ambi$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.<1= The ambi$uous nature of The Turn of the ,crew has
crystali5ed into two mutually e&clusi#e inter%reti#e trends" which ha#e attained uni#ersal
diffusion amon$ ;ames(s readers. They ha#e established themsel#es as standard critical
o%inions to such an e&tent that" $i#en their cons%icuous incom%atibility" %ractically all
commentaries on this work both turn on them and are manifested throu$h an endless
succession of acts of dissent or a$reement. I am ob#iously referrin$ to the mode of
e&istence of the human a%%aritions that" accordin$ to the $o#erness)narrator" are #isible at
Thy or in its surroundin$s. >any trustworthy critics maintain that the a%%aritions are real"
thus $i#in$ credit to the $o#erness(s #ersion with all the moral o#ertones that this fact
entails? other e7ually re%uted critics belie#e" howe#er" that the $hosts only e&ist in the
ima$ination of the $irl" who suffers from a se#ere mental disorder. :er hallucinations can
be e&%lained in accordance with the recei#ed Freudian hy%othesis as a result of the
re%ression of the erotic fantasies aroused in her by the handsome owner of Bly.</= In this
res%ect" it is usually claimed that the ambi$uity in The Turn of the ,crew" that is" the
im%ossibility of o%tin$ on solid and definiti#e te&tual $rounds for one of the two
inter%reti#e trends already mentioned" lies in the narrator(s lack of authentication
authority" which turns her into an unreliable fi$ure.<0= In my final references to The Turn
of the ,crew" I shall sur#ey the #iews critics ha#e held on the ambi$uity in this narrati#e
work" and I will e&amine the role %layed by unreliable narration in the settin$ u% of its
radical ambi#alence.
1.1. The e&%lanation of the world structure of the narrati#e te&t is founded on %ossible)
world theory" a de#elo%ment of te&t)lin$uistics literary theory from %ositions of
%hiloso%hical semantics.<.= @#ery natural)lan$ua$e te&t and" therefore" e#ery narrati#e
te&t e&%ress a com%le& of worlds (Aetofi" Bers une theorie 16!" which is the te&tual
referent. 4s far as the or$ani5ation of this te&tual referent is concerned" my theory of
unreliable narration will draw on the Te,We,T e&tended / (Te&t),truktur Welt),traktur
Theorie <*te&t)structure world)structure theory*=!" a semiotic" %ra$matically oriented"
te&t)lin$uistics model de#elo%ed by 4lbalade1o >ayordomo from ;anos ,. Aetofi(s
standard Te,We,T" with the intermediate sta$e of the Te,We,T e&tended 1.<C= In the
nonformal section of the Te,We,T e&tended / one can find a third)de$ree com%onent of
te&tual e&tension that includes two fundamental cate$ories" the cate$ory of world model
and the cate$ory of referential set structure" as well as two subcom%onents" the fourth)
de$ree subcom%onent of world)model constitution and the fourth)de$ree subcom%onent
of referential constitution. In the %rocess of te&t %roduction" that is" in the so)called
direction of te&tual synthesis" the first of these two subcom%onents allows and e&%lains
the construction of the cate$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$ory of common te&t %roducer (4lbalade1o
>ayordomo" *Com%onente %ra$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$ory of world
model and to the subcom%onent of world)model constitution. The reason for this is that
the te&t %roducer must necessarily find the semantic elements he wants to communicate
in one of these three domains of his intellectual or #ital e&%erience' in the domain of what
is true and can be #erified em%irically" in the domain of what is fictional but #erisimilar"
or in the domain of what is fictional and non#erisimilar.
This means that there are three ty%es of world model" whose functions are to rule the
constitution of the referential set structure of a te&t at the discretion of its %roducer" e#en
thou$h he may be limited by a set of constrictions of a %ra$matic nature (4lbalade1o
>ayordomo" Teoria C9)C? Aetofi" *Re%resentacion del te&to*!. Ty%e I is the model of
what actually ha%%ens in our real world" and" in accordance with its rules" the referential
set structure of a te&t such as the minutes of the meetin$ 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$ruent with
them" so that this world model is res%onsible for the constitution of the referential set
structure of realistic no#els. Finally ty%e 0 is the model of those e#ents that are fictional
but not #erisimilar? the rules of this model are not only different from those that a%%ly in
our real world" but also #iolate them" as is the case in ,ir Dawain and the Dreen 2ni$ht or
in Dulli#er(s 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
$i#es rise to the e&istence of mi&ed referential set structures' for instance" those ruled by
a #erisimilar fictional world model" but with semantic elements taken from our real
world? those ruled by a non#erisimilar fictional world model" but with #erisimilar
semantic elements" and so forth. In such cases" it is im%erati#e to a%%ly the law of
semantic ma&ima formulated by 4lbalade1o >ayordomo (Teoria 1)C! in order to
determine the ty%e of world model that has ultimately ruled the constitution of the
referential set structure of a %articular te&t. 4ccordin$ to this law" one can ascribe a
certain referential set structure to a ty%e of world model sim%ly by findin$ out what
semantic 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$" res%ecti#ely" to our real world" to a #erisimilar fictional world" and
to a non#erisimilar fictional world" then the o#erall constitution of the referential set
structure must ha#e been ruled by a ty%e 0 world model. @#idence for the #erification of
this law can be found in the em%irical fact that if the narrator relates se#eral
non#erisimilar fictional e#ents within an otherwise realistic story" the final effect of the
narration on the reader is no lon$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 $reatly from
the notion that the te&tual referent" or referential set structure" is arran$ed as a com%le& of
%ossible worlds. In my #iew" the referential set structure is made u% by the $lobal te&t
world and constituted" as we already know" in accordance with a certain ty%e of world
model. By *world* I understand a set of bein$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 (4lbalade1o >ayordomo" Teoria C)C6!.
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
con1unto referencial tendra tantos submundos como indi#iduos formen %arse de ella*
(4lbalade1o >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 the
narrati#e stance is embodied in a character and the *first)%erson* or homodie$etic
narration (Denette" 8arrati#e -iscourse /.0)C/! emer$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 con1unto referencial es
susce%tible de ser di#idido en submundos de acuerdo con las diferentes actitudes de
e&%eriencia de dichos indi#iduos en cone&ion con la tem%oralidad * (4lbalade1o
>ayordomo" Teoria 61 ! (*@#ery character(s world 1subworld= within the referential set
structure can be di#ided into subworlds accordin$ to the different attitudes ado%ted
towards e&%erience by such characters in relation to the tem%oral de#elo%ment of the
narrati#e*!. Therefore" e#ery character(s 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 semantic
elements are made effecti#e followin$ the tem%oral course of the narration. they become
%art of the real subworld. The lo$ical union of e#ery character(s real subworld
(R,W<sub1= F(This character cannot be con#erted to 4,CII te&t! R,W<sub/= F(This
character cannot be con#erted to 4,CII te&t! R,W<sub0= . . . F(This character cannot be
con#erted to 4,CII te&t! R,Wn! taken at a synchronic sta$e of the narrati#e de#elo%ment
leads to the $lobal real world" or articulatory world" at that %articular moment (4lbalade1o
>ayordomo" Teoria 69!.
,o far I ha#e entirely focused on the or$ani5in$ %rinci%les of the e&tensional domain. that
is. of the conte&t as an e&ternal s%ace where the te&tual referent is %laced. 8e#ertheless"
inasmuch as a natural)lan$ua$e te&t denotes a referent" there must be a %ath between
e&tension and intension" a %rocess by which the former is inte$rated into the latter. This
%rocess has been called intensionali5ation" and it consists of re%roducin$ the referential
set structure alon$ with its world system in the te&t" or more accurately" in its dee%
structure or macrostructure.<= This macrostructure is the outcome of the
macrocom%ositional o%erations" which work at two different su%erim%osed le#els. First"
they brin$ about the constitution of the base macrosyntactic structure by means of the
syntactic arran$ement of the intensionali5ed semantic elements. This underlyin$
syntactic)semantic le#el" e7ui#alent to the 4ristotelian fable or to the Russian Formalists(
fabula (4ristotle 1.C3a" .)C? Tomase#ski1 /6)9!" has both an e&tensional and an
intensional nature" since it is a %ro1ection into the te&t of the or$ani5ation of its referent.
,econd" the macrocom%ositional o%erations also $i#e rise to the transformational
macrosyntactic structure" a te&tual le#el fully %laced within the intensional domain. Its
ob1ect is the final artistic arran$ement of the semantic elements contained in the base
macrosyntactic structure as they a%%roach their lin$uistic manifestation on the surface of
the te&t. The transformational macrosyntactic structure can be #iewed both as an acti#e
transformational le#el and as the final outcome of such transformations? in the second of
these senses it is e7ui#alent to the conce%t of s1u5et as %ro%osed by the Russian
Formalists (Tomase#ski1 /6)9!. The microstructure or te&t)linear manifestation is the
result of the microcom%ositional o%erations that ma% the semantic elements of an already
transformed le#el" or s1u5et" onto a lin$uistic code or s%ecific substance of e&%ression"
thus endowin$ them with the a%%ro%riate sentential or$ani5ation.
There are ob#ious affinities between the %rocess 1ust described and the functionin$ of the
three fundamental com%ositional o%erations of classical rhetoric' in#entio" dis%ositio" and
elocutio (4lbalade1o >ayordomo" Teoria 110)0? Darcia Berrio" *Retorica*? Darcia
Berrio and 4lbalade1o >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 the
resultin$ 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 or
analysis" the reader will ha#e to $o throu$h all these le#els in the o%%osite direction" that
is" 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 $eneral framework %ro#ided by the %ossible)world te&tual theory
sketched in section 1.1 of this essay to %ro%ose a model of the narrati#e te&t es%ecially
suited to account for the whole ran$e of o%erations of literary 7uotation" or e&tended
interte&tuality (4l#are5 4moros" +lysses como %aradi$ma de interte&tualidad!. In the
de#elo%ment of this model" howe#er" my focus shifted from the e&tensional to the
intensional domain" and instead of em%hasi5in$ the referent and the %rocess by which it
becomes %art of the te&tual construction" I %aid %articular attention to the functionin$ of
the 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.
In my #iew" the $lobal world that constitutes the referential set structure" and also the
base macrosyntactic structure insofar as the latter is an accurate %ro1ection of the former
into the te&t" consists of a set of e#ents and e&istents (Chatman" ,tory and -iscourse 19)
/? -ole5el" *8arrati#e >odalities* 9!. The e#ents can be actions or ha%%enin$s" and if
they ha#e a #erbal nature (for instance" say rather than run! they $i#e rise to te&ts" which I
shall call ob1ect)te&ts. The e&istents are classified into characters and settin$. This settin$
can be s%atial" tem%oral" or cultural" and its ob1ect 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 ob1ect)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 classically
understood.<6=
Aroceedin$ towards the surface of the te&t in the direction of te&tual synthesis" we come
to the transformational macrosyntactic structure" which is the crucial le#el of my model
since" amon$ other functions" it controls the modifications introduced in the ob1ect)te&ts
as they a%%roach their micro)structural manifestation. 4t this macrosyntactic le#el"
character traits" tem%oral relations" and focali5ation are de#elo%ed. The first of these
contributes to the indi#iduali5ation of the e&istents)actants" turnin$ them into full)blown
characters (Tomase#ski1 /9? Bal" Teoria 96)136!? the second modifies the lo$ical and
#erisimilar se7uence of the e#ents within the base macrosyntactic structure (Denette"
8arrati#e -iscourse 0)13!? and the third controls from both a 7uantitati#e and
7ualitati#e %oint of #iew the information that can ultimately reach the te&t linear
manifestation. The tem%oral and focali5in$ facets ha#e s%eciali5ed 7uotin$ mechanisms
that modify the e&ternal a%%earance of the ob1ect)te&ts in ways that may on occasions be
#ery radical.
8e&t to the transformational macrosyntactic structure I %osit the e&istence of a le#el of
narration or #erbali5ation that $enerates the microstructure and ma%s onto it all the
information that can be deri#ed from lower te&tual le#els. The distinction between the
transformational macrosyntactic structure on the one hand and this le#el of narration or
#erbali5ation on the other is moti#ated by Derard Denette(s widely acce%ted delimitation
between narration and focali5ation (8arrati#e -iscourse 19C)99!. This se%aration leads
me to %ro%ose a new theory of the narrator" an a$ent situated on the le#el of narration or
#erbali5ation 1ust mentioned" which can be called narrator)7uoter in #iew of the two
functions it fulfills' #erbali5in$ and 7uotin$. The #erbali5in$ function ma%s onto the
microstructure all the semantic elements that were not intensionali5ed as te&ts into the
base macrosyntactic structure" while the 7uotin$ function %erforms the same o%eration
with those elements that were. From this distinction I obtain the two fundamental ideas of
frame te&t and insert te&t"<9= since they are the microstructural se$ments ori$inatin$"
res%ecti#ely" with the #erbali5in$ function and the 7uotin$ function. The hy%othesis of
the narrator)7uoter allows the %ro%osal of a unitary field of narration for e#ery narrati#e
work" thus a#oidin$ the fra$mentation of the microstructural source into many %roducers
(usually more than one narrator! or into %roducers beyond the te&tual domain" such as the
alle$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$nal the
transfer from the frame te&t to the insert te&t or #ice #ersa" what >ieke Bal has called
connotateurs de trans$ression in the %articular field of narrati#e focali5ation (*8arration
et focalisation* 119!. 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" $rammatical" and other microstructural features of the
insert te&ts in contrast with the frame te&t!" and e&trinsic or nonte&tual (not encoded
within the te&tual structure" but %laced in the conte&tual domain!. These indicators %lay
an essential role in the microstructural descri%tion of the different modes of thou$ht and
s%eech 7uotation throu$h which the ob1ect)te&ts are manifested on the te&tual surface.
4ccordin$ 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" free
indirect 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$reed" re%roduce the ob1ect)te&ts most faithfully" to those that allow the introduction of a
considerable amount of mani%ulation (see 4l#are5 4moros" +lysses como %aradi$ma de
interte&tualidad chs. ." C" " 6" and 9!.
1.0. Hnce I ha#e established the bases for the or$ani5ation of the narrati#e referent as a
com%le& of worlds and for the ideas of frame te&t and insert te&t" I can formulate a
hy%othesis as to the relations between them that will su%%ort my theory of unreliable
narration. :owe#er" it will be best to be$in with a brief discussion of the criteria for the
#erification of the semantic elements that make u% the world structure of the narrati#e
te&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$ical union of e#ery character(s
real subworld" will be our real em%irical world. The #erification or falsification of the
semantic elements that make u% such an aniculatory world will then be carried out sim%ly
by com%arin$ them to the state of affairs in our ob1ecti#e world. Therefore" the statements
contained in the minutes of the meetin$ of a faculty board will be true or false accordin$
to what ha%%ened at that meetin$" and this should not be difficult to establish. Hn the
contrary" in those te&ts whose referential set structures are ruled by a ty%e / or ty%e 0
world model" all worlds or subworlds that make u% these structures will be %ossible in
relation to our real em%irical world. Hne of these %ossible worlds or subworlds then will
ha#e to ac7uire the status of an articulatory world" always concei#ed of as the lo$ical
union of e#ery character(s 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 $lobal te&t world. It is in this way that
the notion of fictionality with its semantic and %ra$matic as%ects becomes fully
%rominent (see Routley? Walton? >anine5 Bonati C0)91? ,chmidt" *Fictionality""?
,chmidt" *Towards a Ara$matic Inter%retation*? Denette" *,tatus %ra$mati7ue*!. The
articulatory 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 1C! 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%e
0 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$n #alues of e&istenceEnone&istence or of
truthEfalsehood to the semantic elements of the characters( %ossible sub)worlds" takin$ as
a 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 ob1ect to the status of(
fictional truths* a%%arently $ranted to certain semantic elements in an articulatory world
under the s%ecial circumstances discussed later in section 1.. of this essay.
The issue naturally de%ends on the %rocess of authentication of the semantic elements" or"
in other words" in the way a %ossible world ac7uires the status of an articulatory world so
that its #erification with reference to the real em%irical world is no lon$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 a
sudden. there was a #iolent e&%losion" and a dense cloud of smoke and dust darkened the
mornin$ sunli$ht. (C! The bomb had e&%loded.<9=
It is %lain that this fra$ment e&%resses two facts that are true in the %ossible world
endowed with the function of an articulatory world within this brief fictional narrati#e'
there is a buried bomb" and the bomb e&%lodes. These two facts are fictional truths" and
they are not #erifiable with reference to our ob1ecti#e world. Hn the contrary" the
information su%%lied by the micro)structural se$ments (/! and (0! is indeed sub1ect to
#erification with reference to the synchronic sta$e of the articulatory world re%resented
by (.! and (C!" and if we attem%t such #erification" we notice that this information is
clearly false? in %oint of fact it deri#es from the character(s thou$ht or belie#ed sub)world.
We reali5e" howe#er" that (1!" (.!" (C!" and the first %art of (/! (*Ian thou$ht that*! are
frame)te&t se$ments" whereas (0! and the second %art of (/! (*the bomb would ne#er
e&%lode*! are insert)te&t se$ments of different modes of thou$ht 7uotation' free indirect
7uotation and indirect 7uotation" res%ecti#ely. The obser#ation of this fact leads me to
formulate my basic hy%othesis' the articulatory world of the referential set structure of a
narrati#e te&t is e&%ressed microstructurally by means of the frame te&t" while the
characters( %ossible subworlds are denoted microstructurally by means of insert te&ts of
different modes of thou$ht and s%eech 7uotation. This hy%othesis is indirectly backed u%
by the well)known statement that the narrator(s discourse" a%%ro&imately e7ui#alent to
my frame te&t" is not sub1ect to 1ud$ments of truth or falsehood" whereas the characters(
discourse" closely related to my idea of insert te&t" is liable to such 1ud$ments (Banfield"
+ns%eakable ,entences /1)/? -ole5el" *Truth and 4uthenticity* 10)1.!. This %assa$e
by 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 %ersona1es" 1ustamente" no. ,i hay conflicto
(diferencia" o%osicion" contradiccion! entre las afirmaciones sin$ulares del narrador y de
al$unos de los %ersona1es" con res%ecto a la confi$uracion del mundo narrado" el
%ersona1e es com%rendido inmediatamente como al$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 narrator(s mimetic
sentences as true" and the characters(" %recisely" as not true. If there is a conflict
(disa$reement" o%%osition" contradiction! between the narrator(s sin$ular statements and
those by some characters with reference to the confi$uration of the narrated world" the
character is immediately #iewed as somebody who))intentionally or not))has la%sed into
falsehood. The narrator(s sin$ular statements en1oy 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.<13= This frame te&t has stylistic and $rammatical
features of its own))the im%licit indicators mentioned in section 1./)that hel% to
differentiate it from the insert te&t. The e&act in#entory of such features" howe#er" has
raised len$thy contro#ersy in the field of narrati#e theory" which cannot be continued
here (see :ambur$er? Ben#eniste? 2uroda? Tamir? Banfield" +ns%eakable ,entences!. 4s
a mere e&am%le" we may take the features that characteri5e Ben#eniste(s histoire (third)
%erson %ronominal references" %ast tense" and absence of si$ns of the s%eaker(s
e&%ressi#ity! in contrast with his discours (first)%erson %ronominal references" %resent
tense" and %resence of si$ns of the s%eaker(s e&%ressi#ity!. 4%art from these im%licit
indicators" the frame te&t and the insert te&t can be discriminated throu$h the occurrence
of e&%licit or e&trinsic indicators" as was e&%lained abo#e.
>y hy%othesis %resents" ne#ertheless" an a%%arent difficulty that must be dealt with
before $oin$ on. The insert te&t denotes e#ery character(s %ossible worlds" besides bein$
the result of re%roducin$ microstructurally" throu$h the s%eciali5ed 7uotin$ mechanism of
the transformational macrosyntactic structure and the 7uotin$ function of the narrator)
7uoter" an ob1ect)te&t intensionali5ed in the base macrosyntactic structure. 8ow there is
no reason why a character(s %ossible worlds should be inesca%ably #erbal" that is" why
they should constitute te&ts liable to intensionali5ation in the form of ob1ect)te&ts. If the
%ro%osition % *I am #isitin$ Westminster 4bbey* is true within a character(s ima$ined
subworld" this does not mean that such an act of his ima$ination should be necessarily
clothed in lan$ua$e and thus constitute an ob1ect)te&t. This %roblem calls for a brief
discussion of the ontolo$ical nature of mental acti#ity. We must bear in mind" howe#er"
that all the notions brou$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$ht" one
claimin$ *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$ht takes
sha%e inde%endent of lan$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//! further
added 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$y at that time. These %ositions were reconciled by %ro%osin$ the
e&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. This
dichotomy 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&%ress
microstructurally those non#erbal semantic elements contained in a character(s %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 between
the 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 canceled
alto$ether.<11= It is an ob#ious fact that a non#erbal semantic element contained in a
character(s thou$ht subworld must be #erbali5ed and not 7uoted as a %re#ious ste% to its
manifestation on the lin$uistic surface of the te&t. I am aware that this mode of 7uotation
is situated at the #ery limit between #erbali5ation and 7uotation" so that e#en the
denomination I $i#e it (*7uotation*! mi$ht seem im%ro%er. 8e#ertheless" it is the only
mode that can offer the reader a %sycholo$ical o#er#iew of the character and" therefore"
of his %ossible worlds" e#en if such an o#er#iew does not crystali5e into a #erbal
construction. In this way" the mode of narrated 7uotation of thou$ht sol#es the %roblem
%osited by the formulation of my hy%othesis.
1... Hn the basis of the theoretical e&%osition made in sections 1.1" 1./" and 1.0 of this
essay and with the intention of su%ersedin$ traditional notions" I shall assume that
unreliable narration e&ists when the narrator)7uoter authenticates a character(s %ossible
subworld instead of the articulatory world))the latter concei#ed of as the lo$ical union of
e#ery character(s real subworld))in a fictitious manner and $rants it an a%%arent narrati#e
authority solely deri#ed from its manifestation in the frame te&t. The disco#ery of this
de#iation of the authentication ca%acity of the frame te&t is made throu$h certain clues
that will be dealt with later. The %rocess 1ust described $i#es su%%ort to the claim that
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 $rammatical and stylistic features" it is %ossible to
establish their lack of narrati#e authority" and this fact %uts them on a %ar with the insert
te&ts.
+nreliable narration has been fre7uently associated with *first)%erson* or homodie$etic
narrati#e te&ts not only e&%licitly in theoretical statements" but also im%licitly in
e&am%les of this ty%e of narration or in analyses of s%ecific works. ,uch a %osition can be
easily understood" since homodie$etic narration has always been considered the locus of
sub1ecti#ity' it is conducted throu$h a narrator endowed with human characteristics" and
readers 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 $i#en abo#e should be
com%lemented in the theoretical terms %ro%osed in this essay. 4s stated in section 1.1 the
homodie$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 character(s world on the same conditions as
the rest of the characters. This world is di#ided into subworlds accordin$ to the different
attitudes 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 character(s
%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 unreliable
heterodie$etic narration and Denette(s combination of radical internal focali5ation and
heterodie$etic narration (8arrati#e -iscourse 199)9.!. The former is clearly a %articular
case of the latter" for e#ery instance of unreliable heterodie$etic narration works
ine#itably throu$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 influence
of 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 Denette(s internal focali5ation.
The main %roblem raised by unreliable narration is to identify it in the actual te&t. 4s it is
a narrati#e %rocedure that $enerates doubt" uncertainty" and irony" its su%erficial
distincti#e features" thou$h not its macrostructural functionin$" are rather difficult to
a%%rehend. We must bear in mind that if a character(s %ossible subworld is con#entionally
authenticated throu$h its denotation in the frame te&t" it ac7uires the status of an
articulatory 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
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 The
Turn 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 $lobal real
world" or articulatory world" is" by definition" the same for all the characters. Get us
su%%ose that in a %ossible subworld of a narrati#e te&t" raised to the cate$ory of an
articulatory world" 4W" throu$h its manifestation in the frame te&t" the %ro%osition % *& is
a #illain"* which we will hold crucial to the narrati#e de#elo%ment" is true? now in the
other characters( %ossible subworlds A,W1" A,W/" A,W0 . . . A,Wn" denoted throu$h
insert te&ts" % is false' & is %resented as a kind" $ood)natured bein$. If this is the case" we
will 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$ical union of e#ery character(s %ossible
subworlds in which % is false" in such a way that these %ossible subworlds become real
subworlds. It follows from all this that the frame te&t that e&%resses 4W is merely a
fictitious frame te&t. Finally" we may notice that the fore$oin$ 7uestion has been
discussed 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 still
founded 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$ht lies in the reader(s criteria of #erisimilitude" they can only be
disco#ered in #erisimilar fictional te&ts. The followin$ 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 the
shadow 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. *4fter
all"* 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.*<1/=
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
$o#ern our real em%irical world will tolerate the contradiction between the honesty of
Boffer Bin$s(s %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$s and the
absolute abhorrence the reader feels" led by his criteria of #erisimilitude" for the
character(s hideous occu%ation. 4t the end of the 7uoted fra$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$ue that Boffer
Bin$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 character(s subworld" and if this character(s #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$ine a %ossible non#erisimilar world in which the
e%ithet *honest* can be naturally a%%lied to a woman whose 1ob is to dis%ose of
*unwelcome babes* and who tells her son to throw them into a ri#er *thou$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 the
articulatory world contains the semantic elements 1ust 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 would
contribute towards a better a%%reciation of its nature. +nreliable narration" with its ty%ical
destruction 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 to
The 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#ella(s ambi$uous nature. First" howe#er"
I shall comment briefly on the trends followed by ;amesian criticism in the analysis of
this no#ella. The dia$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&%licitly
or 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 $o beyond the te&tual boundaries in order to
collect data and conte&tual inferences in su%%ort of his o%tion" either a or b. This critical
%rocedure has been conclusi#ely re1ected by Christine Brooke)Rose" who transfers to the
s%ecific field of criticism on The Turn of the ,crew one of the fundamental tenets of the
immanent study of literature whereby the e&tension can only be considered an ob1ect of
literary analysis insofar as it becomes intension" that is" insofar as it is denoted by the
te&t.<10=
This withdrawal from the intrinsically te&tual s%ace takes two courses' the critic resorts
on the one hand to authorial intention and on the other to different ty%es of conte&tual
inferences. :enry ;ames(s intentions concernin$ The Turn of the ,crew can be found in
his notebooks or in the %reface to the 8ew Iork edition of his collected works.<1.=
4ccordin$ to critics like -orothea 2rook (*Intentions*!" determined to e&%lain away the
ambi$uity of The Turn of the ,crew at all costs" ;ames(s intention must be taken into
consideration" since no te&tual clues can enable us to make a final choice between o%tions
a and b (0C!. 8e#ertheless" if we turn to the critical works that ha#e studied The Turn of
the ,crew on the basis of authorial intention" we immediately find two em%irically
#erifiable 7uestions that are sufficient in themsel#es to annihilate the inter%reti#e #alue of
this intention. First" the ad#ocates of both o%tion a and o%tion b ha#e collected data in
su%%ort of their res%ecti#e hy%otheses from the notebooks and from the %reface" and this
circumstance cons%icuously re#eals the ambi$uity of the author(s intention" or rather the
mani%ulatin$ ability of the critics who mana$e to confuse ;ames(s statements with the
metalan$ua$e of their own comments" thus obtainin$ the su%%ort they need. ,econd" it is
easily o#erlooked that the author(s intention mi$ht well ha#e been to write a $enuinely
ambi$uous work" in which neither o%tion a nor o%tion b could %re#ail" hence the lack of
definition of his reflections on The Turn of the ,crew.
When we s%eak of inferences alien to the author(s intention" we mo#e into the field of
conte&tual su%%ositions. In this sense" ;ohn ,il#er(s article *4 8ote on the Freudian
Readin$ of (The Turn of The ,crew( * is %aradi$matic. Its author" findin$ himself in
difficulties to reconcile o%tion b with the accurate knowled$e the $o#erness has of Aeter
Juint(s true a%%earance (,crew //)/.!" lea#es the te&tual domain and makes the baseless
claim that the $irl has sou$ht her information about Juint(s a%%earance in a nei$hborin$
#illa$e. Hb#iously no reliable conclusion can be drawn from the a%%lication of this
method.
Aosition B has attracted notice recently" and" in my #iew" it is founded on more solid
$rounds. The critics who adhere to it do not attem%t to resol#e the ambi$uity of The Turn
of the ,crew" but rather in7uire into its ori$in and hi$hli$ht it as an essential feature of
this work. If nothin$ in the te&t $i#es full su%%ort to o%tions a or b" the te&t itself becomes
ambi$uous" and the reader will only be able to take sides in an e&ternal and a %osterior!
manner by %ro1ectin$ onto the te&t his own education" culture" beliefs" #alue scheme" and
so forth. In s%ite of the fact that authors such as Gouis -. Rubin" Ahili% >. Weinstein" and
2e#in >ur%hy ha#e ado%ted this %osition" it is ,hlomith Rimmon who has skillfully
de#elo%ed it in her book The Conce%t of 4mbi$uity' The @&am%le of ;ames (1966! to
such an e&tent that she mana$es to formulate a theory of ambi$uity in the narrati#e te&t.
<1C=
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" e7ually
consistent" e7ually %lenary and con#incin$" so that we cannot choose between them* (13!"
or" in other words" when we find the lo$ical con1unction 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%t
of 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$s but no
basis for the necessary e&clusion of any. Hn the other hand" Rimmon both acknowled$es
and systemati5es the macrostructural dimensions of ambi$uity" thus sur%assin$ the
microstructural boundaries of this %henomenon"<1= by means of a three)le#el theory of
the narrati#e te&t conce%tually e7ui#alent to the model e&%osed in section 1./ of this
essay. ,he s%eaks of three le#els)fabula" s1a5et" and discourse)which broadly corres%ond
to the base macrosyntactic structure" the transformational macrosyntactic structure" and
the microstructure or te&t)linear manifestation (Rimmon 0C!. Takin$ as a basis her idea of
the narrati#e te&t" she defines narrati#e ambi$uity *as the coe&istence of mutually
e&clusi#e fabulas in a s1u5et" a (constructional homonymity( whereby the same surface
s1u5et deri#es from e&clusi#ely dis1uncti#e fabulas* (Rimmon .1!. 4ccordin$ to this" the
macrostructural dimension of ambi$uity in The Turn of the ,crew lies in the e&istence of
a fabula f" in which the a%%aritions are true (o%tion a! and a fabula f<sub/= in which the
a%%aritions are false (o%tion b!? both of them con#er$e on only one s1u5et whose
ambi$uity is re%resented microstructurally by means of mutually e&clusi#e sets of clues.
These clues can be doubly directed when the same scene" con#ersation" or #erbal
e&%ression contributes towards the simultaneous su%%ort of both o%tions a and b or sin$ly
directed when this su%%ort only affects one of the two o%tions and is balanced somewhere
else in the no#ella by su%%ort in fa#or of the o%%osite o%tion (Rimmon C/)C0!. Finally"
one must not for$et that other critics such as Thomas ;. Bontly and >arcia >. @aton
a$ree with the formulation of the conce%t of ambi$uity offered by Rimmon" e#en thou$h
their terminolo$y is much more rudimentary and is far from %ossessin$ the de#elo%ed
coherence of an o#erall systematic theory of the narrati#e te&t.
>y %osition towards the ambi$uity in The Turn of the ,crew ob#iously coincides with b.
I also acce%t Rimmon(s e&%lanation of it as the con1unction of mutually e&clusi#e trends.
8e#ertheless" I am not entirely satisfied either with her conce%t of narrati#e ambi$uity or
with her descri%tion of the way such ambi$uity works in The Turn of the ,crew. In my
#iew" Rimmon(s thesis" whereby narrati#e ambi$uity s%rin$s from the con1unction in the
same s1a5et of two mutually e&clusi#e fabulas" builds on a lack of de%th in the analysis of
the conce%t of fabula as an underlyin$ 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 $hosts!" and" in order to sol#e this %roblem" she resorts to a %air of
inde%endent fabulas" f<sub1= and f<sub/=" or$ani5ed in accordance with o%tions a and b"
res%ecti#ely. Hn the contrary" my notion of the fabula" or base macrosyntactic structure"
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 in
different 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$hly con#enient" since it %reser#es the conce%tual unity
of the underlyin$ 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
s1u5et" or transformational macrosyntactic structure" in The Turn of the ,crew. I would
ar$ue" rather" that the ambi$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' that
is" the $lobal real world" or articulatory world" and the $o#erness(s ima$ined subworld.
@m%hasis should be laid on the fact that the occurrence of *first)%erson"* or
homodie$etic" narration in The Turn of the ,crew does not destroy the authentication
ca%acity of its frame te&t. 4lthou$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 1.1)93!. Finally" statements such as the followin$ can
be cited in su%%ort of my %ro%osal' *In se#eral %laces in the $o#erness(s narration" words
can be inter%reted either as assertions (re%orts of what actually ha%%ened! or as e&cuses
or e&%lanations (re%orts or a%olo$ies for what she ima$ined!* (@aton 009? my italics!. In
this sentence" @aton draws an e&cludin$ %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 $lobal world
e&%ressed by The Turn of the ,crew on the assum%tion that each of them was
authenticated in different inde%endent works. In the case of o%tion a" the frame te&t
denotes and authenticates a %ossible world" raisin$ it to the status of an articulatory world
without 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 the
referential 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 $o#erness does not suffer from hallucinations" but %lays the
role of a sa#ior who endea#ors to rescue her youn$ %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 1ustified. Hn the other hand" in the case
of o%tion b" the frame te&t denotes and authenticates fictitiously a %ossible world" the
$o#erness(s ima$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 $irl(s ima$ination and not
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 (4lbalade1o >ayordomo"
Teoria 6/)6.!. Conse7uently" the $o#erness(s mental health is sus%ect. ,he ine#itably
becomes a fi$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 $i#e
rise to an unambi$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 $reat
com%le&ity that can be assimilated to the sin$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 1999" for it faithfully %ro1ects the fundamental milestones of that course
onto the indi#idual readin$ %rocess. The first sta$e corres%onds to a su%erficial readin$ of
this work" throu$h which one can only a%%rehend o%tion a. remainin$ unaware of the
te&t(s 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 $host story
without any hidden meanin$.
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#erness(s 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 $lobal real world or articulatory world" is by definition the same for
all the characters. If the real subworlds" whose lo$ical union makes u% the articulatory
world" contradict one another" at least one of them is not real but %ossible" and thus the
narrator(s reliability is decisi#ely challen$ed. Get us decom%ose the articulatory world of
The Turn of the ,crew as follows' $o#erness(s R,W <This character cannot be con#erted
to 4,CII te&t= >rs. Drose(s R,W <This character cannot be con#erted to 4,CII te&t=
>iles(s R,W <This character cannot be con#erted to 4,CII te&t= Flora(s R,W. 8ow let us
enumerate some of the %ro%ositions that constitute these real subworlds'
Do#erness(s R,W' 1! the $o#erness e&ists? /! >rs. Drose e&ists? 0! Bly e&ists? .! >iles
e&ists? C! Flora e&ists? ! it is true that the $o#erness teaches >iles and Flora" and so
forth.
>rs. Drose(s R,W' 1! >rs. Drose e&ists? /! the $o#erness e&ists? 0! Thy e&ists? .! >iles
e&ists' C! Flora e&ists? ! it is true that >rs. Drose is housekee%er at Thy" and so forth.
>iles(s R,W' 1! >iles e&ists? /! the $o#erness e&ists? 0! >rs. Drose e&ists? .! Thy e&ists?
C! Flora e&ists? ! it is true that Flora is >iles(s sister" and so forth.
Flora(s R,W' 1! Flora e&ists? /! the $o#erness e&ists? 0! >rs. Drose e&ists? .! Thy e&ists?
C! >iles e&ists? ! it is true that >iles is Flora(s brother" and so forth.
4s one can see" there are no contradictions amon$ the characters( real subworlds" and this
is a necessary re7uirement for the articulatory world of The Turn of The ,crew to be
com%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 by
the ad#ocates of o%tion b" we notice that contradictions immediately arise'
Do#erness(s R,W' ... 6! the a%%aritions e&ist at Bly
>rs. Drose(s R,W' . . . 6! the a%%aritions do not e&ist at Bly
>iles(s R,W' . . . 6! the a%%aritions do not e&ist at Bly
Flora(s 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 1oy at
ha#in$ brou$ht on a %roof ,he was there" so I was 1ustified? she was there" so l was
neither cruel nor mad. ,he was there for %oor scared >rs. Drose. but she was there most
for Flora. ... (6/!
>rs. Drose does likewise with the contrary %ro%osition'
>y elder com%anion <>rs. Drose=" the ne&t moment" at any rate" blotted out e#erythin$
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 isn(t there" little lady" and nobody(s there))and you ne#er see nothin$" my sweetK
:ow can %oor >iss ;essel))when %oor >iss ;essel(s dead and buriedL We know" don(t we
lo#e.L*))and she a%%ealed" blunderin$ in" to the child. *It(s all a mere mistake and a worry
and a 1oke))and we(ll $o home as fast as we canK* (6/!
>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 internal
contradictions.<19= This lack of coincidence allows the hy%othesis that the $o#erness(s
real subworld should actually be an ima$ined %ossible world" whereas the lo$ical union
of the other characters( real subworlds should $i#e rise to the true articulatory world" 4Wt.
Conse7uently" the frame te&t that denoted the $o#erness(s world #iew becomes a fictitious
frame te&t? it retains" howe#er" its ty%ical microstructural attributes in s%ite of its loss of
narrati#e authority. Reci%rocally" the insert te&ts of direct 7uotation whereby >rs. Drose(s
and Flora(s o%inions are e&%ressed become the true locus of narrati#e authority thou$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$e of The Turn of the ,crew" which
culminates in the acknowled$ement and %ossible acce%tance of o%tion b. If the frame te&t
%roduced by the $o#erness(s narratin$ were systematically undermined by the other
characters( insert te&ts" the narration would sim%ly be unreliable. 8e#ertheless" the clues
that 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 work(s radical ambi$uity' that is" of the e&cludin$ coe&istence of both
o%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 ob1ections
re%resented by o%tion b" so as to obtain a conscious a%%rehension of this work(s $enuine
ambi$uity. This is %recisely the case with the $o#erness(s accurate descri%tion of Aeter
Juint" so faithful to his true a%%earance that >rs. Drose encounters no difficulty in
identifyin$ him'
*:e has no hat.* Then seein$ in her face that she had already" in this" with a dee%er
dismay" 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 $ood features and little
rather 7ueer whiskers that are as red as his hair. :is eyebrows are somehow darker? they
look %articularly arched and as if they mi$ht mo#e a $ood deal. :is eyes are shar%"
stran$e))awfully? but I only know clearly that they(re rather small and #ery fi&ed. :is
mouth(s wide" and his li%s are thin" e&ce%t for his little whiskers he(s 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 $o#erness(s ima$ined subworld" there is no
reason for such a detailed %icture" unless it is a #ery odd coincidence. Gikewise" Flora(s
%resumed foul lan$ua$e" thus described by >rs. Drose"
,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 1ustified 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$et that >iles" 1ust before his death (99!" %ronounces
Aeter Juint(s name" thou$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$uity in The Turn of the ,crew are but a
theoretical construct. In the actual readin$ %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&tual
rece%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 between
the stran$e))that is" what can be e#entually e&%lained in s%ite of its non#erisimilar
a%%earance))and the mar#elous" only 1ustifiable if we admit the contra#ention of rules
con$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$e" since the %roblem of the
a%%aritions can be sol#ed by assi$nin$ them to the $o#erness(s ima$ination. Hn the other
hand" those in fa#or of o%tion a will classify The Turn of the ,crew within the realm of
the 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$e and the mar#elous'
that is" both of o%tions a and b in the case of The Turn of the ,crew without inclinin$ us
towards 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; and
Blackall
[!] Most of t"e critics #"ose #orks $ cite ad"ere eit"er ex%licitl& or im%licitl& to one of
t"ese t#o %ositions; amon' t"e former $ s"ould mention Boot" (11)1(; *ones; Krook,
+rdeal 1,-)(.; /aid 0,)1!!; Bontl&; and Sc"rero; amon' t"e latter 1oddard, Kenton,
2ilson, and Cranfill and Clark are #ort"& of note
[(] See Boot"3 "4"ou'" most of t"e %otential contro5ersies [in 4"e 4urn of t"e Scre#]
"a5e %resuma6l& ne5er come to li'"t, t"e 'o5erness is onl& one of t"e '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&ordomo;s researc" into
t"e narrati5e referent; see Al6alade:o Ma&ordomo, 4eoria
[8] As far as t"e standard 4eS2eS4 is concerned, see <etofi, "4o#ards [a] 4"eor& of
/er6al 4exts"; <etofi, /ers une t"eorie, <etofi, "4eoria lo'ico)semantica"; <etofi, "4eoria
textual formal & semiotica"; <etofi, "=structura & funcion"; <etofi, ">exico"; <etofi,
"Re%resentacion del texto" 4"e 4eS2eS4 extended $ "as 6een de5elo%ed in Al6alade:o
Ma&ordomo, "As%ectos"; t"e 4eS2eS4 extended ! can 6e found in Al6alade:o
Ma&ordomo, "Com%onente %ra'matico"
[-] 4"is is Al6alade:o Ma&ordomo;s term for t"is %rocess t"rou'"out 4eoria
[?] Se5eral more or less de5elo%ed and ex%licit models of intertextualit& can 6e found in
Bak"tin; Kriste5a; 4o%ia; Culler; Beau'rande and @ressler 1A!)!,A; 1enette,
<alim%sestes; and Me&er
[A] 4"e denomination of t"e conce%ts of frame text and insert text deri5es from Stern6er'
1,A, t"ou'" t"e ori'in and o5erall im%lications of suc" conce%ts #it" res%ect to t"e
construction of t"e narrati5e text are different from t"ose %ro%osed 6& t"is aut"or
[0] $ "a5e %referred to #rite t"is 6rief fra'ment m&self so as to %ro5ide a sufficientl& full
instance; ne5ert"eless, one can easil& find discre%ancies in an& narrati5e #ork 6et#een a
certain s&nc"ronic sta'e of t"e articulator& #orld and t"e c"aracters; %ossi6le
su6#orlds, alt"ou'" t"e Buotation s"o#in' suc" disa'reement #ill "ardl& 6e as com%act
as t"e one %ro%osed
[1,] @oleCel3 "A motif is aut"enticated if it is introduced in t"e s%eec" act of an
anon&mous =r)form narrator, a ;source; #it" aut"entication aut"orit& 4"is is done in
suc" a #a& t"at t"e sentence ex%ressin' t"e corres%ondin' motif is 'i5en in t"e context of
t"e narrator;s utterance, in t"at %art of t"e narrati5e text #"ic" is inter%reted as
ori'inatin' from t"e aut"oritati5e source" 7"4rut" and Aut"enticit&" 1!9
[11] 4"is mode of Buotation is descri6ed in Al5areC Amoros, Dl&sses como %aradi'ma de
intertextualidad c" ?
[1!] 4"is fra'ment is cited and discussed in Rimmon)Kenan 1,!),(
[1(] Brooke)Rose 1.?)81; from a t"eoretical %ers%ecti5e, see Al6alade:o Ma&ordomo,
4eoria .?)8,, and 1arcia Berrio, Si'nificado actual (!).!
[1.] Matt"iessen and Murdoc" 1?A)?0, Blackmur 1-0)??; see also +;1orman
[18] See Ru6in; also 2einstein 10, in #ords %erfectl& a%%lica6le to 4"e 4urn of t"e
Scre# "An& inter%retation t"at dis%els t"e am6i'uit& is doomed to su%erficialit&; and $
am interested "ere in ex%lainin' t"e confusion rat"er t"an ex%lainin' it a#a&"; see also
Mur%"& 8(03 "$n contrast, #"at $ %ro%ose is to discuss t"e tale;s ultimate o%acit&"
[1-] Se5eral as%ects of microstructural am6i'uit& from a t"eoretical %ers%ecti5e can 6e
found in Kooi:; in relation to t"e *amesian st&le, see S"ort and C"atman >ater St&le
[1?] =del3 "4"e 'o5erness;s account of "er sta& at 4"& is riddled #it" inconsistencies
#"ic" t"e man& critics #"o "a5e discussed t"e stor& "a5e ne5er sufficientl& %ercei5ed"
7!,(; m& italics9
[1A] $ 6elie5e t"at t"e same section of a com%lex of #orlds, #"et"er t"e articulator&
#orld or an& %ossi6le #orld, cannot contain contradictions; if suc" contradictions
a%%ear, t"en #e are inesca%a6l& confronted #it" different sections of t"is com%lex of
#orlds 7for instance, a #is"ed su6#orld 5s a feared su6#orld or a real su6#orld9
>u6omir @oleCel does admit t"e existence of suc" contradictions, and "e descri6es t"ose
#orlds t"at tolerate t"em as im%ossi6le 7"Mimesis" .01)0(9
-I4DR4>' Fi$ure 1./.a
-I4DR4>' Fi$ure /.1.a
Works Cited
4lbalade1o >ayordomo" Tomas. *4s%ectos del analisis formal de te&tos.* Re#ista
@s%anola de Gin$uistica 11 (1991!' 116)3.
)))))))). *Com%onente %ra$matico" com%onente de re%resentacion y modelo lin$uistico)
te&tual.* Gin$ua e ,tile 19 (1990!' 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"
199.
4l#are5 4moros" ;ose 4ntonio. @n torno al discurso narrati#o de -ubliners. 4licante'
,ecretariado de Aublicaciones de la +ni#ersidad de 4licante" 199.
)))))))). +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#sky(s Aoetics. >anchester' >anchester +A" 199..
Bal" >ieke. *8arration et focalisation' %our une theorie des instances du recit.* Aoeti7ue
/9 (1969!' 136)/6.
))))))). Teoria de la narrati#a. >adrid' Catedra" 199C.
Banfield" 4nn. *Reflecti#e and 8on)Reflecti#e Consciousness in the Gan$ua$e of
Fiction.* Aoetics Today / (1991!' 1)6.
)))))))). +ns%eakable ,entences' 8arration and Re%resentation in the Gan$ua$e of Fiction.
Boston' Routled$e" 199/.
Beau$rande" Robert de" and Wolf$an$ -ressler. Introduction to Te&t Gin$uistics. Gondon'
Gon$man" 1991.
Ben#eniste" @mile. *Ges relations de tem%s dans le #erbe francais.* Aroblemes de
lin$uisti$ue $enerale. / #ols. Aaris' Dallimard" 19)6.. 1' /06)C3.
Blackall" ;ean Frant5. ;amesian 4mbi$uity and The ,acred Fount. Ithaca' Cornell +A"
19C.
Blackmur" Richard A." ed. The 4rt of the 8o#el' Critical Arefaces by :enry ;ames.
Boston' 8ortheastern +A" 199..
Bontly" Thomas ;. *:enry ;ames(s (Deneral Bision of @#il( in The Turn of the ,crew.*
,tudies in @n$lish Giterature 1C33)1933 9 (199!' 6/1)0C.
Booth" Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chica$o' + of Chica$o A" 191.
Brooke)Rose" Christine. 4 Rhetoric of the +nreal. Cambrid$e' Cambrid$e +A" 1990.
Chatman" ,eymour. The Gater ,tyle of :enry ;ames. H&ford' Blackwell" 196/.
)))))))). ,tory and -iscourse' 8arrati#e ,tructure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca' Cornell +A"
1990.
Ci&ous" :elene. *:enry ;ames' I(ecriture comme %lacement ou de l(ambi$uite de
l(interet.* Aoeti$ue 1 (1963!' 0C)C3.
Cohn" -orrit. Trans%arent >inds' 8arrati#e >odes for Aresentin$ Consciousness in
Fiction. Arinceton' Arinceton +A" 1969.
Cranfill" Thomas >." and Robert G. Clark" ;r. 4n 4natomy of The Turn of the ,crew.
4ustin' + of Te&as A" 19C.
Culler" ;onathan. *Aresu%%osition and Interte&tuality.* >odern Gan$ua$e 8otes 91
(196!' 1093)9.
-i1k" Teun 4. #an" ed. Ara$matics of Gan$ua$e and Giterature. 4msterdam' 8orth)
:olland" 196.
-ole5el" Gubomir. *>imesis and Aossible Worlds.* Aoetics Today 9 (1999!' .6C)9.
)))))))). *8arrati#e >odalities.* ;ournal of Giterary ,emantics C ( 196!' C) 1..
)))))))). *Truth and 4uthenticity in 8arrati#e.* Aoetics Today 1 (1993!' 6)/C.
@aton" >arcia >. *;ames(s Turn of ,%eech 4ct.* British ;ournal of 4esthetics /0 (1990!'
000).C.
@del" Geon. *The Aoint of Biew.* The Turn of the ,crew. @d. Robert 2imbrou$h. 8ew
Iork' 8orton" 19. //9)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 / (199.!' 6)C9.
)))))))). ,i$nificado actual del formalismo ruso. Barcelona' Alaneta" 1960.
Darcia Berrio" 4ntonio" and Tomas 4lbalade1o >ayordomo. *@structura com%osicional'
macroestructuras.* @studios de Gin$uistica 1 (1990!' 1/6)93.
Denette" Derard. 8arrati#e -iscourse. H&ford' Blackwell" 1993.
)))))))). Aalim%sestes' la litterature au second de$re. Aaris' ,euil" 199/.
)))))))). *Ge status %ra$mati7ue de la fiction narrati#e.* Aoeti7ue /3 (1999!' /09).9.
Doddard" :arold C. *4 Are)Freudian Readin$ of The Turn of the ,crew.* 8ineteenth
Century Fiction 1/ (19C6!' 1)0.
:ambur$er" 2ate. The Go$ic of Giterature. Bloomin$ton' Indiana +A" 1960.
:um%hrey" Robert. ,tream of Consciousness in the >odern 8o#el. Berkeley' + of
California A" 19C..
;ames" :enry. The Turn of the ,crew. @d. Robert 2imbrou$h. 8ew Iork' 8orton" 19.
;ones" 4le&ander @. *Aoint of Biew in The Turn of the ,crew.* A>G4 6. (19C9!' 11///.
2enton" @dna. *:enry ;ames to the Ruminant Reader' The Turn of the ,crew.* The 4rts
(19/.!' /.C)CC.
2in$" C. -. *@douard -u1ardin" Inner >onolo$ue" and the ,tream of Consciousness.*
French ,tudies 6 (19C0!' 11)/9.
2ooi1" ;. D. 4mbi$uity in 8atural Gan$ua$e. 4msterdam' 8orth):olland" 1961.
2riste#a" ;ulia. Ge te&te du roman' a%%roche semiolo$i7ue d(une structure discursi#e
transformationnelle. The :a$ue' >outon" 1969.
2rook" -orothea. *Intentions and Intentions' The Aroblem of Intention and :enry ;ames(s
(The Turn of the ,crew(.* The Theory of the 8o#el' 8ew @ssays. @d. ;ohn :al%erin. 8ew
Iork' H&ford +A" 196.. 0C0)6/.
)))))))). *The >adness of 4rt' Further Reflections on the 4mbi$uity of :enry ;ames.*
:ebrew +ni#ersity ,tudies in Giterature and the 4rts 1 (1960!' /C)09.
)))))))). The Hrdeal of Consciousness in :enry ;ames. Cambrid$e' Cambrid$e +A" 19/.
2uroda" ,. I. *Reflections on the Foundation of 8arrati#e Theory from a Gin$uistic Aoint
of Biew.* Ban -i1k 136).3.
>artine5 Bonati" Feli&. Ga estructura de la obra literaria' una in#esti$acion dei5losofa del
len$un1e y estetica. Barcelona' ,ei& Barral" 196/.
>atthiessen" F. H." and 2enneth >urdock" eds. The 8otebooks of :enry ;ames. 8ew
Iork' H&ford +A" 19.6. >eyer" :erman. The Aoetics of Juotation in the @uro%ean
8o#el. Arinceton' Arinceton +A" 199.
>ur%hy" 2e#in. *The +nfi&abale Te&t' Bewilderment of Bision in The Turn of the
,crew.* Te&as ,tudies in Giterature and Gan$ua$e /3 (1969!' C09)C1.
8orrman" Ralf. Techni7ues of 4mbi$uity in the Fiction of :enry ;ames with ,%ecial
Reference to In the Ca$e and The Turn of the ,crew. 4bo' 4bo 4kademi" 1966.
H(Dorman" -onal. *:enry ;ames(s Readin$ of The Turn of the ,crew.* The :enry ;ames
Re#iew 1 (1993!' 1/C)09" //9)C.
Aetofi" ;anos ,. ( @structura y funcion del com%onente $ramatical de la teoria de la
estructura del te&to y de la estructura del mundo.* Aetofi and Darcia Berrio 1.6)99.
)))))))). *Ge&ico" conocimiento enciclo%edico" teoria del te&to.* Aetofi and Darcia Berrio
191 )/10.
)))))))). *Ga re%resentacion del te&to y el le&ico como red semantica.* Aetofi and Darcia
Berrio /1C)./.
)))))))). *Ga teoria lo$ico)semantica de las len$uas naturales como teoria te&tual.* Aetofi
and Darcia Berrio 99)1/C.
)))))))). *+na teoria te&tual formal y semidtica como teoria inte$rada del len$ua1e
natural.* Aetofi and Darcia Berrio 1/6).C.
)))))))). *Towards an @m%irically >oti#ated Drammatical Theory of Berbal Te&ts.*
,tudies in Te&t Drammar. @d. ;anos ,. Aetofi and :. Rieser. -ordrecht' Reidel" 1960.
/3C)6C.
)))))))). Bers une theorie %artielle du te&te. Aa%iere 5ur Te&tlin$uistik 9. :ambur$' Buske"
196C.
Aetofi" ;anos ,." and 4ntonio Darcia Berrio. Gin$uistica del te&to y critica literaria.
>adrid' 4lberto Cora5on)Comunicacion" 1969.
Rimmon" ,hlomith. The Conce%t of 4mbi$uity' The @&am%le of ;ames. Chica$o' + of
Chica$o A" 1966.
Rimmon)2enan" ,hlomith. 8arrati#e Fiction' Contem%orary Aoetics. Gondon' >ethuen"
1990.
Routley" Richard. *The ,emantical ,tructure of Fictional -iscourse.* Aoetics 9 (1969!' 0)
03.
Rubin" Gouis -." ;r. *Hne >ore Turn of the ,crew.* >odern Fiction ,tudies 9 (19.!'
01.)/9.
,amuels" Charles Thomas. The 4mhi$uity of :enry ;ames. +rbana' + of Illinois A" 1961.
,chmidt" ,ie$fried. *Towards a Ara$matic Inter%retation of Fictionality.* Ban -i1k 11)
69.
)))))))). *Fictionality in Giterary and 8on)Giterary -iscourse.* Aoetics 9 (1993!' C/C)..
,chrero" @lliot >. *@&%osure in The Turn of the ,crew.* >odern Ahilolo$y 69 (1991!'
/1 )6..
,hort" R. W. *The ,entence ,tructure of :enry ;ames.* 4merican Giterature 19 (19.!'
61)99.
,iebers" Tobin. *:esitation" :istory" and Readin$' :enry ;ames(s The Turn of the ,crew.*
Te&as ,tudies in Giterature and Gan$ua$e /C (1990!' CC9)60.
,il#er" ;ohn. *4 8ote on the Freudian Readin$ of The Turn of the ,crew.( * 4merican
Giterature /9 (19C6!' /36)11.
,ternber$" >eir. *Aroteus in Juotation)Gand' >imesis and the Forms of Re%orted
-iscourse.* Aoetics Today 0 (199/!' 136)C.
Tamir" 8omi. *Aersonal 8arrati#e and Its Gin$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#ski1" Boris. *Themati7ue.* Theorie de la litterature. @d. T5#etan Todoro#. Aaris'
,euil" 19C. /9)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$e +A" 199.. 130)/C.
+llmann" ,te%hen. ,tyle in the French 8o#el. H&ford' Blackwell" 19..
Baid" 2rishna Balde#. Techni7ue in the Tales of :enry ;ames. Cambrid$e' :ar#ard +A"
19..
Walton" 2endall G. *:ow Remote 4re Fictional Worlds from the Real WorldL* ;ournal of
4esthetics and 4rt Criticism 06 (1969!' 11)/0.
Weinstein" Ahili% >. *The @&%loitati#e and Arotecti#e Ima$ination' +nreliable 8arration
in The ,acred Fount.* The Inter%retation of 8arrati#e' Theory and Aractice. @d. >orton
W. Bloomfield. Cambrid$e' :ar#ard +A" 1963. 199)/39.
Wilson" @dmund. *The 4mbi$uity of :enry ;ames.* The Tri%le Thinkers' Twel#e @ssays
on Giterary ,ub1ects. 8ew Iork' H&ford +A" 19.9. 99)10/.
NNNNNNNN
By ;ose 4ntonio 4l#are5 4moros