Warum die Aussage »Text T ist unzuverlässig erzählt« nicht immer interpretationsabhängig ist. Zwei Argumente

Thomas Petraschka

doi:10.1515/jlt-2018-0007

Article

Warum die Aussage »Text T ist unzuverlässig erzählt« nicht immer interpretationsabhängig ist. Zwei Argumente

Thomas Petraschka

Published/Copyright: March 1, 2018

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Journal of Literary Theory Volume 12 Issue 1

Abstract

This essay asks whether the attribution of unreliability to the narrator of a literary text is always dependent upon interpretation. The bulk of narratological research answers with »yes«. Yet the content of the term »interpretation-dependent« is understood in radically different ways. As a minimal consensus, it is commonly accepted that the attribution of unreliability cannot be described as »interpretation-neutral«, in the way that, for instance, the statement »The narrator in text T is a homodiegetic narrator« is interpretation-neutral. Following a few preliminary explanatory remarks on terminology, I propose two arguments for why this majority opinion is false. I argue that the statement »Text T is unreliably narrated« is not always interpretation-dependent.

Within the framework of the first argument, I attempt to show that the criterion of »interpretation neutrality« depends upon some meta-theoretical assumptions. If one assumes that basic linguistic characteristics are valid independent of their interpretation and argues that a sentence such as »Call me Ishmael« establishes a homodiegetic narrator because the word »me« signals that he belongs to the narrated story, then one implicitly excludes as inadequate certain idiosyncratic theories of meaning that would ascribe a different meaning to »me«. That is not problematic in and of itself. But it shows that there are conditions of adequacy for theories of meaning that are fundamentally negotiable. And the set of statements which can be attributed the attribute of being »interpretation-neutral« can vary depending upon how these conditions of adequacy are defined. In a corresponding adaptation of the conditions of adequacy for theories of meaning and interpretation, it is therefore inherently possible that even statements about the reliability of a narrator could be granted the status of being interpretation-neutral.

The second argument focuses on the praxis of interpretation. I seek to reconstruct how exactly the qualification of a narrator as homodiegetic (an attribute that is usually considered as interpretation-neutral) and as unreliable (an attribute that is usually not considered as interpretation-neutral) can come about in a process of interpretation. There appear to be cases in which criteria commonly cited to qualify a statement as an interpretation-neutral description of a text are also applicable for the attribution of narrative unreliability. Such cases are literary texts like Agatha Christie’s The Murder of Roger Ackroyd or Ambrose Bierce’s An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, in which the unreliability of the narrator is apparent. The knowledge that the narrators in these texts at least temporarily withhold facts relevant to the plot, tell lies, make mistakes, hallucinate, etc. can just as much be attained on the basis of an unreflective understanding of the linguistic meanings of words as can the knowledge that the narrators are part of the stories they tell. If one wishes to not relinquish the interpretation-neutral status of statements about the ontology of a narrator (the qualification, that is, of a narrator as homo- or heterodiegetic) to a relativism that includes linguistic interpretations, then one is forced in principle to also retain the status of interpretation neutrality for statements about the reliability of a narrator.

Both arguments lead me to conclude that the universal quantification that all determinations of the reliability of a narrator are dependent upon interpretation is false. I propose that we limit ourselves to more modest existential quantifications and that we do not attribute the attributes »interpretation-dependent« and »interpretation-neutral« to entire literary categories or types of statements in general, but rather to individual statements. Moreover, I give a short and tentative definition of the criterion »interpretation neutrality« that follows from these considerations.

Schlagworte: Narratologie; unzuverlässiges Erzählen; Interpretationstheorie; Deskription

Acknowledgement

Abstract translated by Charlton Payne.

Literatur

Allrath, Gaby, »But why will you say that I am mad?« Textuelle Signale für die Ermittlung von unreliable narration, in: Ansgar Nünning (Hg.), Unreliable Narration. Studien zur Theorie und Praxis unglaubwürdigen Erzählens in der englischsprachigen Erzählliteratur, Trier 1998, 59–79.Search in Google Scholar

Bichsel, Peter, Ein Tisch ist ein Tisch, in: P.B., Kindergeschichten, Frankfurt a. M. 2015, 21–30.Search in Google Scholar

Bierce, Ambrose, An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge [1891], in: A.B., The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce, Vol. 2, New York 1966, 27–45.Search in Google Scholar

Carroll, Lewis, Through the Looking-Glass [1871], in: L.C., Alice in Wonderland. Authoritative Texts of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Through the Looking-Glass, The Hunting of the Snark, Backgrounds, Criticism [1971], hg. von Donald J. Gray, London/New York ³2013, 99–208.Search in Google Scholar

Christie, Agatha, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, London 1965.Search in Google Scholar

Currie, Gregory, Interpretation in Art, in: Jerrold Levinson (Hg.), The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics, Oxford 2003, 291–306.Search in Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald, A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs, in: Ernest Lepore (Hg.), Truth and Interpretation. Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, Oxford 1986, 433–446.Search in Google Scholar

Dimpel, Friedrich Michael, Der Computerphilologe als Interpret – ein Teilzeit-Empiriker?, in: Jan Borkowski et al. (Hg.), Literatur interpretieren. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Theorie und Praxis, Münster 2015, 339–359.10.30965/9783957438973_018Search in Google Scholar

Dummett, Michael, A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs. Some Comments on Davidson and Hacking, in: Ernest Lepore (Hg.), Truth and Interpretation. Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, Oxford 1986, 459–476.Search in Google Scholar

Fludernik, Monika, Unreliability vs. Discordance. Kritische Betrachtungen zum literaturwissenschaftlichen Konzept der erzählerischen Unzuverlässigkeit, in: Fabienne Liptay/Yvonne Wolf (Hg.), Was stimmt denn jetzt? Unzuverlässiges Erzählen in Literatur und Film, München 2005, 39–59.Search in Google Scholar

Hacking, Ian, The Parody of Conversation, in: Ernest Lepore (Hg.), Truth and Interpretation. Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, Oxford 1986, 447–458.Search in Google Scholar

Heyd, Theresa, Understanding and Handling Unreliable Narratives. A Pragmatic Model and Method, Semiotica 162:1/4 (2006), 217–243.10.1515/SEM.2006.078Search in Google Scholar

Heyd, Theresa, Unreliability. The Pragmatic Perspective Revisited, Journal of Literary Theory 5:1 (2011), 3–18.10.1515/jlt.2011.003Search in Google Scholar

Jacke, Janina, Is There a Context-Free Way of Understanding Texts? The Case of Structuralist Narratology, Journal of Literary Theory 8:1 (2014), 118–139.10.1515/jlt-2014-0005Search in Google Scholar

James, Henry, Preface to the Aspern Papers, in: H.J., The Art of the Novel. Critical Prefaces, New York 1969, 159–179.Search in Google Scholar

Kafka, Franz, Die Verwandlung, in: F.K., Schriften, Tagebücher, Briefe. Kritische Ausgabe, Bd. 6.1: Drucke zu Lebzeiten, hg. von Wolf Kittler/Hans-Gerd Koch/Gerhard Neumann, Frankfurt a. M. 1994, 115–200.Search in Google Scholar

Kindt, Tom, Deskription und Interpretation. Handlungstheoretische und praxeologische Reflexionen zu einer grundlegenden Unterscheidung, in: Marie Lessing-Sattarie et al. (Hg.), Interpretationskulturen. Literaturdidaktik und Literaturwissenschaft im Dialog über Theorie und Praxis des Interpretierens, Frankfurt a. M. et al. 2015, 93–112.Search in Google Scholar

Kindt, Tom/Hans-Harald Müller, Wieviel Interpretation enthalten Beschreibungen? Überlegungen zu einer umstrittenen Unterscheidung am Beispiel der Narratologie, in: Fotis Jannidis et al. (Hg.), Regeln der Bedeutung. Zur Theorie der Bedeutung literarischer Texte, Berlin/New York 2003, 286–304.10.1515/9783110907018.286Search in Google Scholar

Kindt, Tom/Hans-Harald Müller, Zum Verhältnis von Deskription und Interpretation. Ein Bestimmungsvorschlag und ein Beispiel, in: Jan Borkowski et al. (Hg.), Literatur interpretieren. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Theorie und Praxis, Münster 2015, 73–90.10.30965/9783957438973_005Search in Google Scholar

Köppe, Tilmann/Tom Kindt, Erzähltheorie. Eine Einführung, Stuttgart 2014.Search in Google Scholar

Nünning, Ansgar, Unreliable Narration zur Einführung. Grundzüge einer kognitiv-narratologischen Theorie und Analyse unglaubwürdigen Erzählens, in: A.N. (Hg.), Unreliable Narration. Studien zur Theorie und Praxis unglaubwürdigen Erzählens in der englischsprachigen Erzählliteratur, Trier 1998, 3–39.Search in Google Scholar

Stecker, Robert, Interpretation and Construction. Art, Speech, and the Law, Oxford 2003.10.1002/9780470776186Search in Google Scholar

Stühring, Jan, Unreliability, Deception, and Fictional Facts, Journal of Literary Theory 5:1 (2011), 95–107.10.1515/jlt.2011.008Search in Google Scholar

Yacobi, Tamar, Package Deals in Fictional Narrative. The Case of the Narrator’s (Un)Reliability, Narrative 9:2 (2001), 223–229.Search in Google Scholar

Zerweck, Bruno, Historicizing Unreliable Narration. Unreliability and Cultural Discourse in Narrative Fiction, Style 35:1 (2001), 151–178.Search in Google Scholar

Zipfel, Frank, Unreliable Narration and Fictional Truth, Journal of Literary Theory 5:1 (2011), 109–130.10.1515/jlt.2011.009Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-3-1

Published in Print: 2018-3-26

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/jlt-2018-0007