Minds Palmer defines the thought-action continuum as follows: “Talk of decoding action statements into consciousness statements can, however, be misleading if it gives the impression that, notwithstanding the intimate and complex connection between the two, thought and action are easily separable. They are not, and many of the statements in fictional narratives inhabit the large gray area between the two. I shall refer to this phenomenon as the thought-action continuum” (2004: 212).
2 This brief summary of Palmer’s ideas is mainly based on his article “Universal Minds” (Palmer 2007) and his Fictional Minds (Palmer 2004).
3 The concept of Theory of the Mind and how characters are dealt with as if they were real, is further explored in Chapter Two when I elaborate on Lisa Zunshine’s work.
4 See Palmer (2004: 206–7), and Prince (1987: 10).
5 Interaction leading to intermentality in drama is mainly based on communication, since quite obviously, most of the interaction takes place in the speech acts of and between the characters. The whole dynamics of a play emerge when the characters interact and communicate. It is important to add here that communication does not just entail “what is said” in dialogues, monologues, soliloquies, and other speech forms of drama. The gaps and silences are also significant semantic communication tools in drama.
6 “Competitive action is intermental in the sense that the individuals are united in recognizing the need to engage in this action” (Palmer 2004: 223).
7 For further examples see Palmer (2004: 225).
8 Palmer describes these different types of groupings, though not in specific categories, in his Fictional Minds (2004: 228–30).
9 Most characterisation techniques are taken roughly from Pfister (1991b), chapter 5, subchapter 5.4.2: 1 83–239.
10 I am regarding speech and action as closely related and almost inseparable in drama. Hence what is meant here is that on the surface level the reader only sees the speech and the action of the characters and has to infer their thoughts from these two.
11 For a more elaborate discussion on popular subjects of late-Victorian drama see also Powell (1998) and Mazer (2004).
12 This play is usually known as A Doll’s House. However, the edition I am using and referring to in this book uses a translation titled A Doll House and hence I will use the latter title as well.
←32 | 33→
Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
Abstract: This chapter traces the development of narrative studies from its early stages – classical narratology – to modern branches collectively called postclassical narrative studies. It points out the shortcomings of classical narratology and the merits of postclassical narrative study, especially the contribution of one of the branches, cognitive narrative studies. Then the chapter explores the place of Palmer's theory within the framework of cognitive narrative studies. At the end of the chapter the status of drama in this theory is discussed.
2.1 From Classical Narratology to Postclassical and Cognitive Narrative Studies
This study is based on an application of Alan Palmer’s work to drama analysis. In this chapter, I will, therefore, place Palmer in the context of narratological thinking before using his insight to analyse playscripts. In order to understand Palmer’s position within narrative studies, to comprehend his criticism of what is missing in these studies, and also his presentation of what has been achieved so far, it is important to trace the development of narrative studies from its early stages, that is from classical narratology to the modern branches collectively referred to as postclassical narrative studies. In this chapter, I will briefly sketch the premises of classical narratology and its shortcomings and explain how these led to the rise of newer more dynamic approaches towards narrative. Next, I will sum up the merits of contemporary “postclassical” narrative work has undergone, and focus on one of its branches, namely cognitive narrative theory. Against this background, I will present Palmer as a cognitivist, explaining the main concepts of his theoretical framework and discussing his approach. I will conclude the chapter with an account of the status of drama in narrative studies and the possible application and adaptation of Palmer’s theory to this genre.
Classical Narratology was heavily influenced by structuralist theories;14 it aimed at a (universal) grammar of narrative and attempted to reduce narrative to its basic principles and significant textual features. Within the framework of classical narratology, the requirements of a narrative are (1) the presence of a narrator; (2) that (the narrator) narrates; (3) a sequence of events. This insistence on defining narrative in a systematic way still remains the predominant definition ←33 | 34→of narrative. Consequently, this foregrounding of the presence of a narrator figure, the systematics of narrating and, most importantly, the plot makes the novel still the most prominent and preferred genre to work with for (classical) narratologists. As a result, this foregrounding limits the applicability of the theory to different genres, as well as to the application of analytical tools other than the very textual structuralist ones. It is true that classical narrative theory provides an impressive collection of frameworks for narrative analyses in the form of different categorisations of textual features. One can mention Greimas’ “semiotic square” and his typology of functional roles attributed to characters ([1973] 1987); Barthes’ ideas on the development of the plot with regard to the notion of “kernels” and “satellites” ([1966] 1975) and Bremond’s work on the representation of the logic of action/non-action (1973), to name a few. These frameworks, as mentioned before, deal with the universals of narrative, and hence are concerned with “how” narrative works. As a result, classical narratology has a descriptive nature and tends to leave out the elements that deal with components of the narrative that do not relate to the way in which a narrative is constructed. In her remarks on the limitation of classical narratology, Marie-Laure Ryan aptly states that the focus is “not on interpretation but on description, comparison, and classification” (
