Article published In:
Narrative InquiryVol. 28:1 (2018) ► pp.181–197
A story more real than reality
The interactional organization of experientiality
This article examines the concept of experientiality in conversational storytelling from an ethnomethodological perspective, introducing a case in which the narrative mediation of experience fails. The recipient misses the experiential point of the story in the flow of interaction, which stems from other reasons than a failure in sense-making or cognitive comprehension. I discuss my findings with Monika Fludernik’s influential theory of Natural Narratology, according to which all narratives concern experiential exchange between the teller and the recipient, which travels from one consciousness to the other through natural cognitive parameters grounded in real life schemata. Applying conversation analysis, I focus on scrutinizing the details of the turn-by-turn unfolding activities of the participants. My analysis demonstrates that Fludernik’s conception of naturality falls short in capturing the relevancies of naturally occurring storytelling. Ignoring the reflexive intentionality of telling and reception makes Natural Narratology ill-equipped to grasp the dynamics of experientiality in everyday narration.
Keywords: ethnomethodology, experientiality, positioning, social interaction, storytelling, tellability
Article outline
- Introduction
- Methodology
- Experientiality in action
- Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
-
References
References (45)
Alber, J. (2002). The “moreness” or “lessness” of natural narratology. Style, 36(1), 54–75.
Alber, J., Iversen, S., Nielsen, H. S. & Richardson, B. (2010). Unnatural narratives, unnatural narratology: Beyond mimetic models. Narrative, 18(2), 113–136. 
Arminen, I. (2005). Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bamberg, M. (1997). Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1–4), 335–342.
(2004). Narrative discourse and identities. In J. C. Meister, T. Kindt, W. Schernus, & M. Stein (Eds.), Narratology beyond literary criticism (pp. 213–237). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
(2011). Who am I? Narration and its contribution to self and identity. Theory & Psychology, 21(1), 3–24.
Blackman, L. (2012). Immaterial bodies. London: Sage.
Caracciolo, M. (2014a). Experientiality. In: P. Hühn, et al. (Eds.): The living handbook of narratology. Hamburg: Hamburg University. URL = [URL] [view date: 7 Feb 2017].
(2014b). The experientiality of narrative. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.
Day, D., & Kjaerbeck, S. (2013). Positioning in the conversation analytic approach. Narrative Inquiry, 23(1), 16–39.
Clayman, S. & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deppermann, A. (2013). Editorial. Positioning in narrative interaction. Narrative Inquiry, 23(1), 1–15.
Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.) Talk at work (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fludernik, M. (1996). Towards a ‘natural’ narratology. London: Routledge.
(2012). How natural is “unnatural narratology”; Or what is unnatural about unnatural narratology? Narrative, 20(3), 357–370.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
(2002). Ethnomethodology’s program. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2006). Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry, 16 (1), 122–130.
Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action (pp. 225–246). London: Cambridge University Press.
(1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 205–217.
(2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73.
Goodwin, M. H. (1997). Byplay: Negotiating evaluation in storytelling. In G. R. Guy & C. Feagin & D. Schiffrin & J. Baugh (Eds.) Towards a social science of language, Vol 21. (pp. 77–102). John Benjamins Publishing.
Hatavara, M. (2015). Documenting everyday life. In M. Hatavara, M. Hyvärinen, M. Mäkelä & F. Mäyrä (Eds.), Narrative theory, literature and new media (pp. 278–294). London: Routledge
Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis Vol. 3 (pp. 95–117). London: Academic Press.
(2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers & L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 159–183).
Herman, D. (2002). Story logic. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press.
Hyvärinen, M. (2017a, forthcoming). Expectations and experientiality: Jerome Bruner’s ‘canonicity and breach.’ Storyworlds.
(2017b). Foreword: Life meets narrative. In B. Schiff, A. E. McKim, & S. Patron (Eds.) Life and narrative (pp. IX–XXV) New York: Oxford University Press.
Karttunen, L. (2015). The hypothetical in literature: Emotion and emplotment. Doctoral Dissertation (Literary Studies): University of Tampere, The School of Language, Translation and Literary Studies.
Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis. In J. Helm (Ed.) Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). Seattle: U. of Washington Press.
Mandelbaum, J. (1991). Conversational non-co-operation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 251, 97–138.
(2013). Storytelling in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.). The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 492–507). Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell.
Pickering, M. (2004). Experience as horizon: Koselleck, expectation and historical time. Cultural Studies, 18(2–3), 271–289.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rautajoki, H. (2012). Membership categorization as a tool for moral casting in TV discussion. Discourse Studies, 14(2), 243–260.
Rautajoki, H. & Toikkanen, J. & Raudaskoski, P. (in review). Embodied ekphrasis of experience: Bodily rhetoric in mediating affect in interaction. Semiotica, x–xx.
Riessman, C. K. (1990). Divorce talk. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of the stories by children. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 329–345). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
(1984). On doing “being ordinary”. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action (pp. 413–429). New York: Cambridge University Press.
(1995). Lectures on conversation: Volumes I & II. Edited by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 501, 696–735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Introduction. In H. Sacks. Lectures on conversation: Volumes I & II. (Ed.) Gail Jefferson (pp. ix–lxii). Oxford: Blackwell.
(1997). Narrative analysis’ 30 years later. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1–4), 97–106.
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on language and social interaction, 41(1), 31–57.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Rautajoki, Hanna, Jarkko Toikkanen & Pirkko Raudaskoski
2020. Embodied ekphrasis of experience: Bodily rhetoric in mediating affect in interaction. Semiotica 2020:235 ► pp. 91 ff. 
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.