Cover not available
Part of
Experiencing Fictional Worlds
Edited by Benedict Neurohr and Lizzie Stewart-Shaw
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 32] 2019
► pp. 97–117

Chapter 6
Framing the narrative

The “fictive publisher” as a bridge builder between intra- and extratextual world

Drawing on cognitive linguistic and narratological conceptualisations of “frames” and “framing” (notably Quendler 2008, 2010) and taking up Grishakova’s (2009: 188) notion of frames as “a link between the ‘real-life’ and ‘fictional’ experience”, this chapter aims to elucidate the phenomenon of paratextual framing and in particular the “fictive publisher” frame as a transitional device that can blend fictional storyworlds and extratextual “reality” and thus act as a bridge between the text and the reader. In the context of fantastic literature, this potential of blending can be seen working at its best. By means of an analysis of the multilayered “fictive publisher” frame in the definitive edition of Adelbert von Chamisso’s fantastic Romantic novella The Wonderful History of Peter Schlemihl, the chapter examines the inherent ontological and perspectival ambivalence and shifting capacity of the “fictive publisher” frame. In the course of this, it sheds light on the dynamics of distance and proximity created by the paratextual frame and – in the case of the specific arrangement in Chamisso’s definitive edition – the utilisation of framing strategies and familiarity to appeal to re-readers.
Keywords: paratext, blending, fictionality, reader engagement, Romanticism, fantastic literature
Article outline
  • 6.1Commencing at the frame
    • 6.1.1Cognitive frames and textual framings
    • 6.1.2The “fictive publisher” frame
  • 6.2Chamisso’s Peter Schlemihl and the dynamics between “storyworld”, “fictive publisher” frame and extratextual reference space
    • 6.2.1Creating the distance between intra- and extratextual world(s)
    • 6.2.2Building the bridge and a stepping stone to re-engage the reader
  • 6.3Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 21 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.32.06igl
References (54)
References
Böhm, E. and Dennerlein, K. (eds). 2016. Der Bildungsroman im literarischen Feld. Neue Perspektiven auf eine Gattung. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Butler, M. 2008. Explanatory Notes. In Mary Shelley: Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus. The 1818 Text, M. Butler (ed.), 252–261. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
von Chamisso, A. 1843. The Wonderful History of Peter Schlemihl. Translated by William Howitt. New York: Burgess and Stringer. Facsimile available online, <[URL]> (31 October 2017).Google Scholar
1975. Peter Schlemihls wundersame Geschichte. In Sämtliche Werke in zwei Bänden: Nach dem Text der Ausgaben letzter Hand und den Handschriften von Adelbert von Chamisso, V. Hoffmann (ed.), Vol. 1, 13–67. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. and Vandelanotte, L. 2009. Judging distances: Mental spaces, distance, and viewpoint in literary discourse. In Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps, G. Brône and J. Vandaele (eds), 319–370. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. 1980. Text, Discourse, and Process: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science of Text. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX.Google Scholar
Emmott, C. 1999. Narrative Comprehension. A Discourse Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. and Turner, M. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame Semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222–254.Google Scholar
Fricke, H. and Müller, R. 2010. Cognitive poetics meets hermeneutics. Some considerations about the German reception of cognitive poetics. Mythos Magazin 6, <[URL]> (31 October 2017).Google Scholar
Gaiman, N. 2005. Neverwhere. London: Headline.Google Scholar
Galbraith, M. 1995. Deictic shift theory and the poetics of involvement in narrative. In Deixis in Narrative. A Cognitive Science Perspective, J. F. Duchan, G. A. Bruder and L. E. Hewitt (eds), 19–59. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gavins, J. 2007. Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gawron, J.-M. 2011. Frame Semantics. In Semantics [HSK 33(1)], C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner (eds), 664–687. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Genette, G. 1987. Seuils. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Gomel, E. 2014. Narrative Space and Time. Representing Impossible Topologies in Literature. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, M. C. and Carpenter, J. M. A. 2011. Transporting into narrative worlds. New directions for the scientific study of literature. Scientific Study of Literature 1(1) [Special Issue: The Future of Scientific Studies in Literature]: 113–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grishakova, M. 2009. Beyond the Frame: Cognitive Science, Common Sense and Fiction. Narrative 17(2): 188–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Igl, N. 2016a. Romantische Rahmen-Binnen-Konstruktionen als ‘mapping’ von inner- und außertextuellen Räumen. In Schlüsselkonzepte und Anwendungen der Kognitiven Literaturwissenschaft, R. Mikuláš and S. Wege (eds), 81–100. Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
2016b. The double-layered structure of narrative discourse and complex strategies of perspectivization. In Perspectives on Narrativity and Narrative Perspectivization [Linguistic Approaches to Literature 21], N. Igl and S. Zeman (eds), 91–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. 1980. Mental Models in Cognitive Science. Cognitive Science 4: 71–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983. Mental Models. Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. 1988. The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehension: A Construction-Integration Model. Psychological Review 95(2): 163–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ljungberg, C. 2012. Creative Dynamics: Diagrammatic Strategies in Narrative. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellmann, K. 2007. Biologische Ansätze zum Verhältnis von Literatur und Emotionen. Journal of Literary Theory 1(2): 357–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minsky, M. 1974 [1975]. A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In The Psychology of Computer Vision, H. P. Winston (ed.), 211–277. New York: McGraw-Hill. First published as MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306, June 1974, <[URL]> (31 October 2017).Google Scholar
Nielsen, H. S., Phelan, J. and Walsh, R. 2015. Ten Theses about Fictionality. Narrative 23(1): 61–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orosz, M. 1999. Raumsemantik und Modalität. KODIKAS/CODE. Ars Semeiotica 22(1–2) [Special Issue: Räume, Grenzen, Grenzüberschreitungen]: 13–24.Google Scholar
Pascual, E. 2014. Fictive Interaction. The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse [Human Cognitive Processing 47]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E. and Sandler, S. 2016. Fictive interaction and the conversation frame. An overview. In The Conversation Frame. Forms and functions of fictive interaction [Human Cognitive Processing 55], E. Pascual and S. Sandler (eds), 3–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quendler, C. 2008. Novel Beginnings: Initial Framings as a Historical Category of American Fiction. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 56(4): 337–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Interfaces of Fiction. Initial Framings in the American Novel from 1790 to 1900. Wien: Braumüller.Google Scholar
Rapaport, W. J. et al. 1989 [1994]. Deictic Centers and the Cognitive Structure of Narrative Comprehension. Center for Cognitive Science State University of New York at Buffalo, 26 May 1994 [slightly updated version of Technical Report 89–01, SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science, 1989], <[URL]> (31 October 2017).Google Scholar
Ryan, M.-L. 1991. Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence, and Narrative Theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
2004. Introduction. In Narrative across Media. The Languages of Storytelling, M.-L. Ryan (ed.), 1–39. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Segal, E. M. 1995. Narrative comprehension and the role of Deictic Shift Theory. In Deixis in Narrative. A Cognitive Science Perspective, J. F. Duchan, G. A. Bruder and L. E. Hewitt (eds), 3–17. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Seibel, K. 2014. “Read, friend, and enter!” Generic world construction in fantastic texts. In Writing Worlds. Welten- und Raummodelle der Fantastik, P. Klenke, L. Muth, K. Seibel and A. Simonis (eds), 225–240. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Shelley, M. 1818 [2008]. Frankenstein or The Modern Prometheus. The 1818 Text. Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Marilyn Butler. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. 2000 [2014]. The Poetics of Science Fiction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tobin, V. 2014. Readers as overhearers and texts as objects: joint attention in reading communities. SCRIPTA (Belo Horizonte) 18(34): 179–198.Google Scholar
Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. 2001. Does Beauty Build Adapted Minds? Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Aesthetics, Fiction, and the Arts. SubStance 30(94/95): 6–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. 1996. The Literary Mind. The Origins of Thought and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015. Blending in Language and Communication. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. E. Dąbrowska and D. Divjak (eds), 211–232. Boston: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Utell, J. 2016. Engagements with Narrative. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wirth, U. 2009. Paratext und Text als Übergangszone. In Raum und Bewegung in der Literatur, B. Neumann and W. Hallet (eds), 167–180. Bielefeld: Transcript. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Die Geburt des Autors aus dem Geist der Herausgeberfiktion: Editoriale Rahmung im Roman um 1800: Wieland, Goethe, Brentano, Jean Paul und E. T. A. Hoffmann. München: Fink. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolf, W. 1998. Paratext. In Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie, A. Nünning (ed.), 413–414. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
1999. Framing Fiction: Reflections on a Narratological Concept and an Example: Bradbury, Mesonge. In Grenzüberschreitungen: Narratologie im Kontext / Transcending Boundaries: Narratology in Context, W. Grünzweig and A. Solbach (eds), 97–146. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2006. Frames, Framing and Framing Borders in Literature and Other Media. In Framing Borders in Literature and Other Media, W. Bernhart and W. Wolf (eds), 1–40. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Young, K. 2004. Frame and Boundary in the Phenomenology of Narrative. In Narrative Across Media. The Languages of Storytelling, M.-L. Ryan (ed.), 76–107. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Zeman, S. 2016. Perspectivization as a link between narrative micro- and macro-structure. In Perspectives on Narrativity and Narrative Perspectivization [Linguistic Approaches to Literature 21], N. Igl and S. Zeman (eds), 17–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar