{1} Klauk and Köppe present an intriguing list of questions and examples, and it will be interesting to see what the authors come up with by way of answers eventually. Having pursued the subject over many years, I'd like to contribute some incidental observations.
{2} As regards definition, it is always a good idea to hark back to Genette's original conception of internal focalization (not a neologism by the way), which, as everybody knows, took the form of the question Who sees? What's often forgotten is that the spelled-out version of this was Who is the character whose point of view orients the narrative perspective? Every single word in this longer phrasing deserves scrutiny and challenge, as does the companion question Who speaks? Both, it is prudent to remind oneself, were originally intended to distinguish between narration and internal focalization, even though Genette knows full well that everything is connected with everything else. Without entering into the terminological battleground of focalization (not that I am wholly averse to it, but you won't find me mentioning focalizers or prepositions, or imperceptible focalizeds, hell now I already have) let me simply suggest a possible process for getting at the core (Klauk and Köppe) of the phenomenon.
{3} First, like many other narratologists, I want to get rid of Genette's emphasis on "character", so that the formula truncates to Whose point of view orients the narrative perspective? The implication is that the "Whose" slot can be filled by a character or a narrator (actually, one or several characters, one or several narrators). Admittedly, this edit comes at the cost of muddying the distinction between narration and focalization. Then again, perhaps focalization should be taken as being part of narration, as I will indeed argue below. At any rate what does not get muddied is the distinction between narrators and characters, Genette's main point in rubbishing the Boothian fallacy. Second, since we are so happy editing things out, let us also get rid of "point of view" and "narrative perspective", mainly because these terms stand in need of definition themselves (as suggested by Klauk and Köppe, even though no-one can do without them, I certainly can't). Anyway, let us replace "narrative perspective" by a lesser compromised "narrative text". That gives us the as yet incomplete formula Whose ____ orients the narrative text?
{4} In case you are wondering, I am not suggesting to get rid of all the other items in like manner, even though some may think it might not be such a bad idea: Whose ___ ___ ___ ___? Anyway, following our tack so far, what can best be inserted into the gap? Well, I'll submit "perception" -- much, I fear, to the disappointment of Niederhoff, who takes this to be a misrepresentation of Genette's scalar system of "restrictions". Indeed, Klauk and Köppe, I notice, do not mention perception at all. Genette does, frequently: he speaks of "seeing" and vision, of "fields", of "point of view"; ultimately, he even phrases The Question as Who perceives? in Narrative Discourse Revisited (1988, 64).
{5} Now that we have Whose perception orients the narrative text? I would like to stress that perception can be given a rather wider definition than is common in ordinary language use. Because, not only do we have common-or-garden perception triggered by sensual input ("online perception"), we also have the imaginary perception of recollection, hallucination, vision, and dream ("offline perception"). Among other things, offline perception is a concept that allows us to grasp that a narrator writes (or speaks, or performs) from her imaginary perception of story events and existents. Neither online nor offline perception are my own terms, and it is fair to say that offline perception is not wholly uncontroversial in cognitivist circles. Be that as it may, the notion of online and offline perception will not only alert us to a host of textual perception markers, indicators, signals, and clues, all of relevance in a reader's model-making of a text's focalization patterns, it will also allow us to tackle the complex shapes of what is known as apperception. Apperception is a person's (hence, a narrative agent's) specific way of understanding a percept in terms of previous experience, knowledge and preference. Apperception becomes recognizable when I realize that somebody sees X as Y where I see X as Z.
{6} At this point I usually cite William James's anecdotal account of four men touring Europe:
{7} Let four men make a tour in Europe. One will bring home only picturesque impressions -- costumes and colors, parks and views and works of architecture, pictures and statues. To another all this will be non-existent; and distances and prices, populations and draining arrangements, door- and window-fastenings, and other useful statistics will take their place. A third will give a rich account of the theatres, restaurants, and public balls, and naught beside; whilst the fourth will perhaps have been so wrapped in his subjective broodings as to tell little more than a few names of places through which he passed. (Principles of Psychology, vol. 1 (New York: Dover, 1950), 286-7)
{8} The notion of subjectivity that rears its head here is well worth exploring in its impact on focalization, and the focalization question might well be re-worded once more as Whose subjectivity orients the narrative text? (possibly related to Klauk and Köppe's idea of an intentionality operator). Subjectivity markers are not only inherent in apperception but also in deixis, diction, and conceptualization (Klauk and Köppe mention speech -- including thought?), and can thus fruitfully become part of focalization theory.
{9} It's all getting a bit vague and fuzzy here, but by adding a sprinkle of deictic shift theory (Duchan et al) and a pinch of transposition theory (Bühler) I believe we can finally come up with a recipe on what focalization is, and what it does. Focalization is part of the How of narration; it is the part that is concerned with a narrator's handling of point of view (that word again); it is a technique that invites the reader to make a mental model of a narrative agent's system of apperceptions (yes to Klauk and Köppe's ideas on "cause" and "reason"); and in its strongest realization - internal focalization - it is a technique that allows readers to transpose to a character's point of view without relinquishing their own.
{10} Anyone interested in more of the same, including gradients, mixtures, embeddings (iterations, Klauk and Köppe?), indeterminacies and such, click here: http://www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/jahn99b.htm
Comment on Klauk and Köppe
Submitted by Manfred Jahn on Tue, 17. April 2012{1} Klauk and Köppe present an intriguing list of questions and examples, and it will be interesting to see what the authors come up with by way of answers eventually. Having pursued the subject over many years, I'd like to contribute some incidental observations.
{2} As regards definition, it is always a good idea to hark back to Genette's original conception of internal focalization (not a neologism by the way), which, as everybody knows, took the form of the question Who sees? What's often forgotten is that the spelled-out version of this was Who is the character whose point of view orients the narrative perspective? Every single word in this longer phrasing deserves scrutiny and challenge, as does the companion question Who speaks? Both, it is prudent to remind oneself, were originally intended to distinguish between narration and internal focalization, even though Genette knows full well that everything is connected with everything else. Without entering into the terminological battleground of focalization (not that I am wholly averse to it, but you won't find me mentioning focalizers or prepositions, or imperceptible focalizeds, hell now I already have) let me simply suggest a possible process for getting at the core (Klauk and Köppe) of the phenomenon.
{3} First, like many other narratologists, I want to get rid of Genette's emphasis on "character", so that the formula truncates to Whose point of view orients the narrative perspective? The implication is that the "Whose" slot can be filled by a character or a narrator (actually, one or several characters, one or several narrators). Admittedly, this edit comes at the cost of muddying the distinction between narration and focalization. Then again, perhaps focalization should be taken as being part of narration, as I will indeed argue below. At any rate what does not get muddied is the distinction between narrators and characters, Genette's main point in rubbishing the Boothian fallacy. Second, since we are so happy editing things out, let us also get rid of "point of view" and "narrative perspective", mainly because these terms stand in need of definition themselves (as suggested by Klauk and Köppe, even though no-one can do without them, I certainly can't). Anyway, let us replace "narrative perspective" by a lesser compromised "narrative text". That gives us the as yet incomplete formula Whose ____ orients the narrative text?
{4} In case you are wondering, I am not suggesting to get rid of all the other items in like manner, even though some may think it might not be such a bad idea: Whose ___ ___ ___ ___? Anyway, following our tack so far, what can best be inserted into the gap? Well, I'll submit "perception" -- much, I fear, to the disappointment of Niederhoff, who takes this to be a misrepresentation of Genette's scalar system of "restrictions". Indeed, Klauk and Köppe, I notice, do not mention perception at all. Genette does, frequently: he speaks of "seeing" and vision, of "fields", of "point of view"; ultimately, he even phrases The Question as Who perceives? in Narrative Discourse Revisited (1988, 64).
{5} Now that we have Whose perception orients the narrative text? I would like to stress that perception can be given a rather wider definition than is common in ordinary language use. Because, not only do we have common-or-garden perception triggered by sensual input ("online perception"), we also have the imaginary perception of recollection, hallucination, vision, and dream ("offline perception"). Among other things, offline perception is a concept that allows us to grasp that a narrator writes (or speaks, or performs) from her imaginary perception of story events and existents. Neither online nor offline perception are my own terms, and it is fair to say that offline perception is not wholly uncontroversial in cognitivist circles. Be that as it may, the notion of online and offline perception will not only alert us to a host of textual perception markers, indicators, signals, and clues, all of relevance in a reader's model-making of a text's focalization patterns, it will also allow us to tackle the complex shapes of what is known as apperception. Apperception is a person's (hence, a narrative agent's) specific way of understanding a percept in terms of previous experience, knowledge and preference. Apperception becomes recognizable when I realize that somebody sees X as Y where I see X as Z.
{6} At this point I usually cite William James's anecdotal account of four men touring Europe:
{7} Let four men make a tour in Europe. One will bring home only picturesque impressions -- costumes and colors, parks and views and works of architecture, pictures and statues. To another all this will be non-existent; and distances and prices, populations and draining arrangements, door- and window-fastenings, and other useful statistics will take their place. A third will give a rich account of the theatres, restaurants, and public balls, and naught beside; whilst the fourth will perhaps have been so wrapped in his subjective broodings as to tell little more than a few names of places through which he passed. (Principles of Psychology, vol. 1 (New York: Dover, 1950), 286-7)
{8} The notion of subjectivity that rears its head here is well worth exploring in its impact on focalization, and the focalization question might well be re-worded once more as Whose subjectivity orients the narrative text? (possibly related to Klauk and Köppe's idea of an intentionality operator). Subjectivity markers are not only inherent in apperception but also in deixis, diction, and conceptualization (Klauk and Köppe mention speech -- including thought?), and can thus fruitfully become part of focalization theory.
{9} It's all getting a bit vague and fuzzy here, but by adding a sprinkle of deictic shift theory (Duchan et al) and a pinch of transposition theory (Bühler) I believe we can finally come up with a recipe on what focalization is, and what it does. Focalization is part of the How of narration; it is the part that is concerned with a narrator's handling of point of view (that word again); it is a technique that invites the reader to make a mental model of a narrative agent's system of apperceptions (yes to Klauk and Köppe's ideas on "cause" and "reason"); and in its strongest realization - internal focalization - it is a technique that allows readers to transpose to a character's point of view without relinquishing their own.
{10} Anyone interested in more of the same, including gradients, mixtures, embeddings (iterations, Klauk and Köppe?), indeterminacies and such, click here: http://www.uni-koeln.de/~ame02/jahn99b.htm