Signposts of Fictionality: A Narratological Perspective

Cohn, Dorrit

doi:10.2307/1773077

Cited by 124 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is not wrong, but we propose delving deeper to explore the truth of the narrative-what Booth (2004) calls the original purpose of rhetorical study. There is neither need nor justification for restricting narrative analysis to fiction; the rhetoric of librarianship and of legal scholarship each present "narrative situations" (see Cohn 1990). We contend that those professions' narratives about free speech have much more in common than not, and demonstrate that there is, without question, no totalizing (i.e., elimination of alternatives) rhetoric regarding freedom of expression.…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

What We Talk about When We Talk about Free Speech

Bossaller¹,

Budd²

2015

The Library Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy. A B S T R A C TAmerican law is unique among Western nations in its protection of hate speech (defined as speech against groups of people). Limits to any legal speech are viewed as potential encroachments on First Amendment rights. The profession of librarianship has formally embraced and defended a strict interpretation of the First Amendment in The Freedom to Read Statement and in court. However, individual librarians and scholars of law are not unanimous in defending hate speech. This article offers a rhetorical analysis of the defense of hate speech in these fields in order to illustrate a paradox: speech that intimidates is designed to silence others' voices. Good speech does not necessarily offer an antidote to bad speech when bad speech is loud and spoken often. The consequences of allowing all speech in public forums should be regularly evaluated so public spaces remain places where everyone is free to enter and be heard without fear. T he professions of librarianship and law speak about, and urge action regarding, freedom of expression. Free speech is guaranteed under the US Constitution and is a hallmark of American democracy and liberty. This includes the protection of hate speech as political speech, which is unique among Western nations (Braman 2006; Council of Europe 2012). Likewise, librarians, especially under the auspices of the American Library Association(ALA), defend free speech (including, by default, hate speech) in order to protect against ideological exclusions in both the library's space and its collection. A challenge that exists in law and librarianship, though, is that there is not unanimity among individual voices speaking about the topic. Sometimes the message is that there should be no limits to expression, but sometimes speakers say that there should be some boundaries. This article will address the paradoxes inherent in the messages of each field and will explore the nature of those paradoxes. In part, the differences can be said to be rather straightforward disagreements, but the foundations of the disagreements and the rhetoric of the statements of dispute are not always straightforward. Rhetoric and ArgumentationThis article presents contraindications to the First Amendment in rhetoric within librarianship and law. Wayne Booth (2004) defined rhetoric as "the entire range of resources that human beings Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, vol. 85, no. 1,

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 84%

What We Talk about When We Talk about Free Speech

Bossaller¹,

Budd²

2015

The Library Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Material. While a nonfictive historiographical narrative usually has "a stable univocal origin" (Cohn 1990: 792), a fictive literary narrative has not. At the same time, the latter can present even past events by a constructed narrator and/or through the eyes of fictive characters, including "a historical figure present on the scene", again the former one only can do it "through the eyes of the forever backward-looking historian-narrator" (Cohn 1990: 786).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological differences of reception between literary (fictive) and historiographical (nonfictive) texts

2001

Jlse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies are presented about the reception of the relationship between a literary and a historiographical text, especially focusing on judging genre relations (literary or historiographical) not only between different (autobiographical, dramatic literary, psychohistorical, biographical, expository) text-types but within each text-type as well, moreover focusing on judging genre relations when the representatives of both genres are exceptionally homogeneous: they are "purely" narrative. Although the texts were unfamiliar for the naive subjects, their standard worked well without knowledge of theoretical considerations about the literariness of a historiographical monograph. They found literary characteristics -to a different degree -not only in the obviously fictive dramatic-dialogic text, but in the autobiographical documentary, the psychohistorical and biographical-historiographical texts, too. And they did not regard the most definitely historiographical text as sharply different from literature as they could expect it in abstracto (based on their genre stereotypes). At the same time, even if the texts belonged to the same narrative text-type family, the subjects distinguished one genre from the other. ArticlesPsychological differences of reception between literary (fictive) and historiographical (nonfictive) texts 1 LÁSZLÓ HALÁSZ

show abstract

“…Prototypically encountered in literature and other fictional media, fiction is commonly seen as a genre of discourse (Searle 1975) characterized by its "as if" truth or reality status (Zipfel 2001). Authors have variously distinguished fictionality (Cohn 1990) -the syntactical, formal properties that allow us to tell apart a fiction film from a documentary; fictiveness, the semiotic, logical, or ontological status of propositions expressed in a work of fiction; and fiction as a pragmatic institutional practice: the running agreement between fiction producers and receivers to cointentionally treat them "as if" (Lamarque and Olsen 1994). Works of fiction involve a fictional world -e.g., J.R.R.…”

Section: Make-believementioning

confidence: 99%

Make-Believe in Gameful and Playful Design

Deterding

2016

Human–Computer Interaction Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Signposts of Fictionality: A Narratological Perspective

Cited by 124 publications

References 15 publications

What We Talk about When We Talk about Free Speech

What We Talk about When We Talk about Free Speech

Psychological differences of reception between literary (fictive) and historiographical (nonfictive) texts

Make-Believe in Gameful and Playful Design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About