A Multimodal Perspective on Applied Storytelling Performances: Narrativity in Context [1 ed.] 1138481653, 9781138481657

Table of contents :
Dedication
Contents
List of figures
List of tables
Acknowledgements
1 Introduction
2 Narrativity of oral storytelling
3 Contextualized multimodal framework
4 Application: illustrative examples
5 Insights and implications
6 Expanded application and conclusion
Index

Citation preview

i

A Multimodal Perspective on Applied Storytelling Performances

In this volume, Soe Marlar Lwin proposes a contextualized multimodal framework that brings together storytelling practitioners’ and academic researchers’ conceptions of storytelling. It aims to highlight the ways in which various institutions in contemporary society have been using live storytelling performances as an effective communicative, educative and meaning-making tool. Drawing on theories of narrative from narratology, as well as from related fields such as discourse analysis, multimodal analysis and communication and performance studies, the author proposes a contextualized multimodal framework to a b c

uncover the potential narrativity of a live storytelling performance through an analysis of narrative elements that constitute the story, capture the process of developing actual narrativity through a multimodal analysis of performance features in the storytelling discourse, and highlight the importance of context and the dynamics between the storyteller and audience for achieving optimal narrativity in a particular storytelling event.

The sample analysis shows how the framework not only describes the system governing institutionalized storytelling performances in general but also serves as a useful model to examine individual performance as a unique realization of the general system. The book also offers implications for possible applications of such contextualized multimodal frameworks more broadly across the disciplines. Soe Marlar Lwin is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics in the School of Humanities and Behavioural Sciences, Singapore University of Social Sciences.

ii

Routledge Studies in Multimodality

Edited by Kay L. O’Halloran, Curtin University

The Hermeneutic Spiral and Interpretation in Literature and the Visual Arts Michael O’Toole Multimodality Across Classrooms Learning About and Through Different Modalities Edited by Helen de Silva Joyce and Susan Feez Multimodality and Aesthetics Edited by Elise Seip Tønnessen and Frida Forsgren Multimodal Stylistics of the Novel More Than Words Nina Nørgaard A Multimodal Approach to Video Games and the Player Experience Weimin Toh Multimodal Semiotics and Rhetoric in Videogames Jason Hawreliak Pictorial Framing in Moral Politics A Corpus-​Based Experimental Study Ahmed Abdel-​Raheem Design Perspectives on Multimodal Documents System, Medium, and Genre Relations Edited by Matthew David Lickiss A Multimodal Perspective on Applied Storytelling Performances Narrativity in Context Soe Marlar Lwin For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/​ Routledge-​Studies-​in-​Multimodality/​book-​series/​RSMM

 iii

A Multimodal Perspective on Applied Storytelling Performances Narrativity in Context Soe Marlar Lwin

iv

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Soe Marlar Lwin The right of Soe Marlar Lwin to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Lwin, Soe Marlar, author. Title: A multimodal perspective on applied storytelling performances: narrativity in context / Soe Marlar Lwin. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019031355 (print) | LCCN 2019031356 (ebook) | ISBN 9781138481657 (hardback) | ISBN 9781351059992 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Storytelling. | Narration (Rhetoric) Classification: LCC PN4193.I5 L86 2020 (print) | LCC PN4193.I5 (ebook) | DDC 808.5/1–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019031355 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019031356 ISBN: 978-1-138-48165-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-05999-2 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Newgen Publishing UK

 v

To my dad, U Soe Lwin, and mom, Daw Shu Kyu

vi

 vii

Contents

List of figures  List of tables  Acknowledgements  1 Introduction 

viii ix x 1

2 Narrativity of oral storytelling 

15

3 Contextualized multimodal framework 

36

4 Application: illustrative examples 

58

5 Insights and implications 

118

6 Expanded application and conclusion 

134

Index 

159

viii

Figures

3.1 Contextualized multimodal framework 3.2 Parameters for a multimodal analysis of the storytelling discourse 4.1 The recurrent pattern in the dynamics of the storyteller and audience 4.2 Dynamics between the storyteller and audience 4.3 Interplay between the story and the storytelling discourse 4.4 Abstract pointing 4.5 Audience participation 6.1 Friends and feelings 6.2 Oral storyteller’s uses of metaphoric gestures 6.3 Oral storyteller’s uses of mimic gestures 6.4 Oral storyteller’s uses of gestures and facial expressions for different feelings 6.5 Three-​level narrative analysis for construction of identities

37 48 68 70 70 78 82 136 143 144 144 151

 ix

Tables

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4

Details of applied storytelling performances recorded 59 Transcription conventions 63 The abstract (Sample Analysis I) 76 Introducing the characters (Sample Analysis I) 77 The narrow frame (Sample Analysis I) 79 The main action (Sample Analysis I) 80 The resolution (Sample Analysis I) 81 Omission of verbal components (Sample Analysis I) 82 The coda (Sample Analysis I) 84 The abstract (Sample Analysis II) 96 The general frame (Sample Analysis II) 96 Introducing the characters (Sample Analysis II) 97 The orientation –​narrow frame (Sample Analysis II) 102 The main action (Sample Analysis II) 103 Additional problem (i) –​orientation (Sample Analysis II) 105 Additional problem (i) –​main action (Sample Analysis II) 105 Additional problem (i) –​resolution (Sample Analysis II) 106 Preliminary solution to the main problem (Sample Analysis II) 107 Additional problem (ii) –​orientation and main action (Sample Analysis II) 109 Additional problem (ii) –​resolution (Sample Analysis II) 111 Resolution to the main problem (Sample Analysis II) 112 The coda (Sample Analysis II) 112 The abstract and orientation 139 Comparison of words used in the print text and oral storytelling discourse 140 K1 to K8 words in the print text and oral storytelling discourse –​an example 142 Semiotic modes for stylistic features in oral storytelling and print text 146

x

newgenprepdf

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to many storytellers who kindly allowed me to observe their storytelling performances held at various institutions or community settings in Singapore. Although it was impossible for me to analyse every storytelling performance that I observed, they each gave me the inspiration in one way or another in the process of conceptualizing and developing this multimodal perspective on applied storytelling performances. I am grateful in particular to Jessie Goh, Kiren Shah, Linda Fang, Reneetha Rajaratnam, Roger Jenkins and Rosemarie Somaiah for their generous consent to my recording and analysis of their storytelling performances. Without their help, my work on applied storytelling performances would not have materialized. I am also thankful to

• • •

Associate Professor Ismail S. Talib, who first introduced me to narratology, for all his support in my studies of oral storytelling performances and for always encouraging me to make a theoretical contribution to the field. The examiners of my doctoral thesis for their perceptive comments, which made me realize that my work is in effect a study of multimodal storytelling with the potential to contribute to studies in multimodality. The two anonymous reviewers of my book proposal for their insightful and constructive feedback, which has been helpful in writing the actual chapters of the book.

Last, but in no way the least, my deepest gratitude goes to my dad, U Soe Lwin, and my mom, Daw Shu Kyu, for their unconditional love and support for every step I have taken in my life.

1

1

Introduction

Storytelling ranges from everyday social behaviour to theatrical performance. A  book on storytelling should, therefore, first define its scope by categorizing different types of storytelling. Different studies may categorize oral storytelling in different ways according to the focus of the study. For example, Labov (1997) classified storytelling into two broad categories to distinguish the type of oral narratives that he studied from the traditional trajectory of storytelling, such as tall tales and myths. To him, the traditional trajectory of storytelling gives the image of a storyteller as someone “who can engage our attention with a fascinating elaboration of detail that is entertaining, amusing, and emotionally rewarding”, while credibility is rarely an issue (Labov 1997, p.  396). The other category, which was the focus of his sociolinguistic studies of oral narratives (Labov and Waletzky 1967; Labov 1972, 1997), involved stories told by ordinary people in the course of an interview or in a spontaneous conversation as a way to convey an important life experience or merely to give casual, humorous or trivial accounts. Based on the varying nature of interactions between storytellers and recipients, I categorize oral storytelling into the following types: 1 2 3

spontaneous conversational storytelling elicited storytelling formal storytelling

The boundaries for these three types of oral storytelling may be fluid in some cases. In addition to these three, which normally occur in face-to-face situations, there is also a “removed” mode of storytelling (Toolan 2001), that is, through a media (e.g. radio, cassette or television), which does not usually allow for immediate interactions between tellers and audiences. Among the three types of face-to-face oral storytelling, this book focuses on the formal storytelling. Explanations of the three types and justification for the focus on the formal type of storytelling are given below.

2

2 Introduction

Types of storytelling Spontaneous conversational storytelling Stories embedded in or interleaved with ongoing conversations in ordinary social exchanges are regarded as the naturally occurring or spontaneous type of storytelling. Such conversational storytelling can be considered as the most interactive and relatively less serious than the other two. Moreover, conversational stories are often co-​constructed by the interlocutors, and their narrative structures do not always encompass a beginning, middle and end, depending on how interlocutors attempt to craft the plot (Ochs and Capps 2001). Although this type of oral story has traditionally been studied by sociolinguists and discourse analysts, it has recently drawn attention from some narratologists as well. For example, Fludernik (1996) and Herman (2001) examine some conversational stories in their attempts to prove the relationship between conversational storytelling and the literary genres of narratives. Elicited storytelling Stories told in this type are elicited with a question in a fairly non-​spontaneous setting such as in an interview format  –​for example, oral versions of personal experiences studied by Labov and Waletzky (1967). Labov and Waletzky analysed these oral stories largely as monologues; however, subsequent studies of elicited oral stories for different purposes have raised the issue of interviewers’ role in this type of storytelling (e.g. Riessman 1993). A number of assertions have also been made –​for example, the questions put forward by interviewers should be considered part of the storytelling process (Goodwin 1997); an initially tidy storyline may disintegrate due to the involvement of interviewers (Ochs and Capps 2001); and a peer group interview can lead to a more interactive context, thereby facilitating the process of storytelling (Lambrou 2003). Formal storytelling In this type of storytelling, stories are told by a professional or trained storyteller to an audience during a specially scheduled session or speech event that can be formally labelled storytelling. This kind of storytelling can be said to have its origin in the folkloristic type of storytelling. In contemporary society, folkloristic storytelling or telling stories from strictly oral sources, continues to exist only in certain cultures and communities. Instead, telling stories from various sources (i.e. oral, printed or visual) with contemporary messages to a live audience is commonly found in places like schools, libraries, community centres, hospitals, churches and museums. Among the three types of storytelling, many different forms of elicited and conversational storytelling have been studied within the subject of oral narrative

 3

Introduction 3 or oral storytelling, following the earliest and perhaps the most influential study by Labov and Waletzky (1967) on elicited oral narratives. The folktale tradition of storytelling or formal live storytelling performances are often excluded in these studies as they are considered to constitute a more literary form of storytelling. For example, in her redefinition of narrativity, Fludernik (1996) concentrates selectively on some features of conversational storytelling. On the other hand, studies of the literary form of storytelling have concentrated on the complex forms of written literary narrative rather than on the simple form of folk storytelling and its “descendant”, contemporary storytelling performances. Although it is the analysis of those conceptually oral stories, or oral-​derived simple tales, that has led to the development of many fundamental narrative theories (e.g. Lévi-​Strauss 1955; Propp 1968; Bremond 1977; Greimas 1996), the folktale tradition of oral storytelling is often played down in the later studies of literary narrative. Or else, some of the oral tales, in their written forms, are studied as part of children’s literature (e.g. Carpenter and Prichard 1984; Lynch-​Brown and Tomlinson 1999). At the same time, with their interest in stories from strictly oral sources, the folkloristic studies of oral narratives have given little attention to contemporary storytelling performances in which storytellers tell stories from various sources. As a result, contemporary storytelling performances seem to have eluded rigorous academic research, except for some educational studies with their focus on children’s storytelling performances or storytelling in a classroom and its pedagogic implications. As Greene (1996) has alleged, there is much anecdotal information about this kind of storytelling –​for example, in Language Studies, Theatre Studies, Performance Studies, Communication and Media Studies, Therapeutic Studies, Education and Child Psychology –​but scant “hard” research as such. This book, therefore, chooses to examine live storytelling performances which are still commonly found in contemporary society, and which have yet to be accorded the status they deserve in the research on oral narratives. To begin, some important characteristics of live storytelling performances in general, and applied storytelling performances in particular, need to be explained.

Live storytelling performances Perhaps two questions that can be raised to those who have an interest in live storytelling performances are: “Do we still have live storytelling performances in a digital age?” and “What differences can it make when a story is presented by an oral storyteller face-​to-​face?” Traditionally, a storyteller carried the images of not only an entertainer but also a sacred functionary, a historian, a teacher or a healer for both the young and old of a society (Pellowski 1977, 1990). Through their oral storytelling performances, they were considered to be fulfilling the need for entertainment, as well as the need to understand the past or the beginning of certain phenomena (Pellowski 1977, 1990; Spagnoli 1999, 2002). However, with the advent of the written word and the printing press, the need to share information face-​to-​face

4

4 Introduction was greatly decreased, and so did the favour for an oral storyteller. Consequently, such live storytelling performances in public were relegated to a simple form of folk art which is often associated with oral traditions of a society, as opposed to more sophisticated literary art forms and written literary stories which have become more popular among people of literate societies. Although there may be differences across cultures regarding the beginning and the history of oral storytelling, its long traditions and how its roles were affected by the advent of printing and other technological developments can plausibly be generalized for many cultures (Pellowski 1990; Greene 1996; Spagnoli 2002; Medlicott 2004). Nevertheless, traditional face-​to-​face oral storytelling has endured with certain features which are essentially different from technologically mediated forms of narrative –​such as in print, film or through other electronic media. In these technologically mediated forms of storytelling, the receiver is separated from the source in time and/​or by space (Bauman 1992). By contrast, live storytelling performances, especially those found in community venues, involve a small group of people who are co-​present and engaged in the event and moment of telling. Unlike written stories or oral storytelling through media such as radio or television, the real-​life storyteller is fully present throughout the telling process in face-​to-​face oral storytelling. Unlike the writer, the face-​to-​face oral storyteller “is not merely addressing a hypothetical future audience” (Tedlock 1983, p. 10). Likewise, as Benjamin (1968, p. 100) notes: “A man listening to a story is in the company of the storyteller”, unlike the reader of a novel, who is isolated. In live storytelling performances, audiences as well as circumstances that can influence the shaping and building of the story during the storytelling process are right there, together with the storyteller. Thus, one of the distinguishing features of live storytelling performances is the direct and immediate engagement of the audience, the story and the storyteller (Livo and Rietz 1986; Lipman 1999). This special convention often allows audience participation and renders them “the immediate, in-​context, situation-​embedded nature of the experience” (Livo and Rietz 1986, p. 103). At the same time, it makes it possible for an oral storyteller to respond to the needs of the audience or to adjust their telling to the demands of the moment during the telling process. It is incontestable that stories typically do not offer a single meaning but rather a set of meanings, and thus allow multiple interpretations. Nevertheless, when stories are told face-​to-​face, it becomes arguably more or less possible for storytellers to control their audience’s interpretations of the story to get to the intended interpretations, or to achieve the required relatively uniform emotional and evaluative responses. Besides immediacy, intimacy or a close connection between the storyteller and audience is another important characteristics of live storytelling performances. Commenting on the revived interest in this kind of storytelling in contemporary society in many parts of the world, Greene (1996) remarks that it fills the need for intimacy not easily found in our mobile society and not offered by the electronic storyteller. Therefore, in spite of the vast attention and emphasis that have been given to the developments of technologically mediated forms of storytelling, live storytelling performances persist in contemporary society with their

 5

Introduction 5 unique characteristics. While technologically mediated forms of storytelling are recognized for their impact on mass communication and mass culture, live storytelling performances have also proved their communicative and social efficacy through their small-​scale social interactions (Bauman 1992). Although they share some common characteristics, live storytelling performances should not be confused with the art of acting. During the course of telling a story, an oral storyteller interprets and expresses the ideas, moods and emotions of the characters, but they never identify with any character. Nor is the teller acting out the story per se. In other words, an oral storyteller plays various roles, not specifically the role of a particular character, in the course of delivering a story. For this reason, Tedlock (1983, p. 3) regards a live oral storytelling performance as “a complex ceremony in miniature” in which the storyteller not only “narrates what characters do, but speaks when they speak, chants when they chant, and sings when they sing”. It is also different from a recitation or story-​reading, that is, reading a story aloud from a printed form. Even when oral storytellers depend on the printed material for their story resource, in their actual telling, they make use of other features of oral language, such as interactions with the audience, tone of voice, gestures, postures and facial expressions, to create moods and images, or to evoke responses. Despite their similarities, there are several crucial differences between the process of story-​reading and storytelling. These include (i)  more opportunities for spontaneous audience participation in the process of unfolding the narrative (i.e. joining in spontaneously with both sounds and gestures), (ii) more use of voice modulations as well as elaborate gestures and/​or facial expressions by the storyteller to create moods and images or to evoke responses, and (iii) greater levels of eye contact with the storyteller (Isbell et al. 2004). To quote Isbell et al. (2004, p. 158), [w]‌hen a story is read, the primary reference for the communication event is the text, as fixed upon the page. In a storytelling event, the words are not memorized, but are created through spontaneous, energetic performance, assisted by audience participation and interaction. Similarly, Sawyer (1976, p. 59) remarked: “To take it from the page, to create it again into living substance, this is the challenge”. Therefore, a live oral storytelling performance is aptly described by Sobol, Gentile and Sunwolf (2004) as an artistic process that works with what we may call the technologies of the human mainframe –​memory, imagination, emotion, intellect, language, gesture, movement, expression (of face and of body) and, most crucially, relationship in the living moment –​ person-​to-​person or person-​to-​group. Together with the adaptations and development of new practices, some misperceptions of live oral storytelling performances have also become inevitable. Due to its frequent association with children, the term “oral storytelling” has been defined in some dictionaries as “the oral telling of stories to groups of children in libraries and other institutions” (Carpenter and Prichard 1984, p. 500).

6

6 Introduction Such misperceptions, which come along with the contemporary renewal of live oral storytelling, are said to be the result of factors such as the writing down of folk stories, which has led to a fixed choice of words for the child audience (Medlicott 2004), and the increased popularity of oral storytelling as a method of introducing children to literature (Agosto 2001). In actual fact, live storytelling performances in a much broader and richer sense are not limited only to the child audience. It is “an oral art form whose practice provides a means of preserving and transmitting images, ideas, motivations, and emotions that are universal across human communities”, regardless of the age of audience (Livo and Reitz 1986, p. 7). While a child audience may be attracted to certain forms and contents of the story, an adult audience can have a deeper level of thematic appreciation. The themes and issues raised in oral tales can be significant for all ages and all humanity. Differences will be in the ways a story is actually delivered to and perceived by a child audience, an adult audience or a mixed-​age audience. Contrary to the misperception which associates live oral storytelling restrictively to a child audience, there are a number of reasons for an adult audience to appreciate and participate in such oral storytelling. These may go beyond their own private enjoyment or remembrance of their childhood, to other adult tasks such as parenting. Indeed, adapting to the developments as well as the needs of a modern society, live storytelling performances have been revived in various new forms in different parts of the world. Contemporary oral storytellers are creating performances which not only carry traditional associations but also contemporary messages. In the words of Sobol (2008), “[c]‌ontemporary storytelling has constructed itself as a compound of tradition-​based performing art and a social agent in a variety of applied fields” (p. 122). In order to accommodate contemporary audiences, which tend to be multicultural in most cases, revivalist storytellers have also incorporated cross-​cultural practices, generating a set of new traditions for the practices of live storytelling performances (Livo and Rietz 1986). Attempts have been made to offer the definition of a contemporary live storytelling performance. For example, Pellowski (1990) drafted a new definition that could possibly cover a contemporary storyteller’s conception of storytelling, as well as that of the folklorist, the ethnographer, the semiotician and the linguistics scholar. She defines storytelling as the entire context of a moment when the oral narration of stories in verse and/​or prose is performed or led by one person before a live audience; the narration may be spoken, chanted or sung, with or without musical, pictorial and/​or other accompaniment, and may be learned from oral, printed or mechanically recorded sources; one of its purposes must be that of entertainment or delight and it must have at least a small element of spontaneity in the performance (Pellowski 1990).

Applied storytelling performances Due to their unique characteristics live storytelling performances have continued to subsist even in the digital age, and their roles have expanded from a traditional

 7

Introduction 7 form of entertainment to an effective communicative, educative and meaning-​ making tool in various communities, institutions and professional fields in contemporary society. Reasons such as to amuse, to bring excitement and to bring entertainment are no longer the sole purposes of contemporary live storytelling performances. As Sawyer (1976, p. 200) has envisaged, storytelling has become “an applied art as well as a wholly creative one”. Such increasing demand for storytelling as an applied art and social agent has led to the emergence of applied storytelling (Sobol 2008). With increasing applications and growing interest from various social contexts and professional fields, contemporary storytelling performances face new levels of challenges as well as opportunities (Sobol, Gentile and Sunwolf 2004). Specifically, applied storytelling is a kind of oral storytelling performance which is held with clearly defined purposes that go beyond entertainment. Applied storytelling performances have a clear educational dimension, which can be informative, instructional, correctional, religious or political nature. Most importantly, the purpose of storytelling is not limited to entertainment. Like folkloristic storytelling, contemporary applied storytelling also carries such characteristics as a performative and communal quality, narrative structures with similar repetitive forms, and some counterintuitive elements in narrative contents. However, unlike folkloristic storytelling, the settings, subject matter and purpose of applied storytelling performances are determined by factors related to the objectives of the specific community or interest group, institution or organization holding the storytelling event, rather than the culture. The source of stories told by storytellers can be oral, printed or visual. Storytellers may be professionals, but most of them do not necessarily have a professional status. In most cases, the storytelling is conducted by teachers, librarians or volunteers, who have some experience or training in storytelling in front of an audience. Although contemporary live storytelling performances are sometimes found to be performed in an elaborate theatrical style, applied storytelling is not necessarily theatrical. Theatrical storytelling can be classified as those performances which take place in a theatre where the storyteller, often wearing costumes, tells stories on a stage with greater dramatic movements and a broader range of voice manipulation than in applied storytelling (Pellowski 1990; Miller 1996). Applied storytelling, in contrast, is conducted in less formal settings of particular communities or institutions themselves. Usually, it is conducted in settings which “fall somewhere in between the theatrical and the freeform informal” (Lipman 1999, p.  126). Unlike theatrical storytelling, which is typically a monologue, applied storytelling performances can be rather interactive with the storyteller eliciting responses and encouraging participation and contribution from the audience in the process of telling the story. Unfortunately, applied storytelling performances are often criticized by folklorists for changing original tales and for the artificial manner in which stories are learned and told (Pellowski 1990). However, their positive effects on the audience’s social and psychological development have been widely recognized in studies from other fields. For example, Grugeon and Gardner (2000) argued

8

8 Introduction that applied storytelling performances are welcomed in many institutions and professional fields for the psychological and social power they have been found to have.

Multimodality in oral storytelling According to Kress and van Leeuwen (2001), multimodality is the use of several semiotic modes and their interactions within a sociocultural domain, which result in a semiotic product or event. In the case of oral storytelling, spoken words and the storyteller’s voice, that is, verbal and vocal features, are the primary means of communication. As Sawyer (1976, p. 131) notes: “our instrument is our voice” and “we work with, and by means of, the spoken language –​words”. At the same time, the physical presence of the storyteller allows them to use gestures, postures and facial expressions, and thus bring in one more semiotic channel –​that is, the visual. It is therefore important to note that oral storytelling involves more than one sensory level. In fact, it can be regarded as a “synaesthesic activity” (Miller 1996), that is, occurring at the same time on verbal (words), vocal (voice modulations) and visual (gestures and facial expressions) levels. Each of these levels represents a dimension of communication, and all these levels in combination lead to a characteristic called “multidimensionality” (Lipman 1999) in oral storytelling to help an oral storyteller increase the chances of engaging the audience and convey messages more efficiently. Traditionally studies of oral storytelling have focused on the collection and analysis of oral tales in their written forms (e.g. Propp 1968; Dundes 1971; Bremond 1977; Jason 1977). The perspective taken in those studies was mainly textual, and their focus was rarely on performance. Bauman (1986) commented that oral literature had been conceived of as “stuff” and was extracted from the context in which it had originally been performed. The later approaches developed by Bauman (1986), Hymes (1975) and others, therefore, call forth attention to oral storytelling as contextualized performance  –​that is, situated in a context and unfolding or arising within that context. The shift to a performance-​focused perspective on oral storytelling can be regarded as “a radical move which, amongst other things, revalued oral literature significantly”, for “what had seemed like fairly simple forms (with trite plots and limited characterization) were revealed as highly complex and creative performances” (Swann 2006, p. 158). For instance, Swann’s (2002, 2006) analysis of a storytelling performance by a British storyteller, Jan Blake, shows how the interplay between verbal and non-​verbal elements of narrator and character voices contributed to characterization and, accordingly, the literariness of the oral story. Considering performance as a contextualized model of literary creativity, these studies suggest that oral literariness is created in performance, and that performance is “not some simple ‘add-​on’ to a verbal literary text, but a range of multimodal dimensions and processes through which certain forms of literature come into being” (Swann 2006, p. 165). The book continues in this tradition by offering a performance-​ focused multimodal perspective on oral storytelling performances and reconsidering the

 9

Introduction 9 narrativity traditionally allocated for an oral tale in its decontextualized form. The concept of narrativity will be discussed in Chapter 2. The multimodal perspective on applied storytelling performance offered in this book will recontextualize the narrativity of storytelling to many different aspects of an actual storytelling performance, such as how, when, where, to whom, by whom and why. In other words, the concept of narrativity for oral stories specified in earlier studies will be expanded, so that contemporary storytelling performed for various applied purposes can be examined as a contextually situated practice and its narrativity can be specified in terms of the potential narrativity (manifested through the narrative elements constituting the story), actual narrativity (established through the interplay of multimodal performance features in the storytelling discourse) and optimal narrativity (achieved through the dynamics between the storyteller and audience in a particular storytelling event). Drawing on theories of narrative from narratology as well as from related fields such as discourse analysis, stylistics, multimodal communication and performance studies, the contextualized multimodal framework aims to comprehensively elucidate the system (story, storytelling discourse and storytelling events) which governs the execution of applied storytelling performances, as well as serves as a useful framework to examine individual storytelling performance held in a particular social context as a unique realization of the general system. Recognizing the multimodal nature of storytelling and the interdisciplinary expansion of narratology across the humanities and beyond, Page (2010) has similarly called for studies to re-​examine narrative theory and analysis so that verbal resources are understood as only one of many semiotic elements integrated with other semiotic resources such as gesture, movement, facial expressions and prosodic elements such as voice quality, pitch, pace and rhythm in the process of storytelling. In her words, “the multiple and integrated nature of semiotic resources used in storytelling is less simple to explain than to assert, and is long overdue for systematic and close attention in narrative theory” (Page 2010, p. 1). Therefore, it is timely “to provoke dialogue among analysts of narrative, on the one hand, and scholars who study the structures and affordances of multimodal discourse, on the other hand” (Herman and Page 2010, p. 217). Although studies of multimodality in storytelling have examined how narrative and non-​narrative elements work together in different forms of storytelling, such as comics (Connors 2016), graphic novels (Chu and Coffey 2015), hyperfiction (Fizek 2007), video games (Toh 2018) and theatrical performances (Tan, Wignell and O’Halloran 2016), a similar multimodal perspective has rarely  been taken for studies of applied storytelling performances conducted by trained or professional storytellers in contemporary society. Similar to those studies of multimodality in other forms of storytelling, the core question is: “how do disparate message components with potentially very different properties combine to produce ‘more’ than what can be achieved in isolation?” (Bateman 2016, p. 37).

10

10 Introduction

Aim and scope This book aims to be one of the attempts to bring together storytelling practitioners’ practice and views of live storytelling performances and academic researchers’ conceptualization of narrativity in oral narratives. The renewed and growing interest in storytelling performances has led to the publication of numerous “how-​to” manuals and collections of stories as materials or resources for storytellers (e.g. Pellowski 1990; MacDonald 1993; Lipman 1999; Spagnoli 1999). It has also led to what Sobol, Gentile and Sunwolf (2004) call the push and pull, the attraction and resistance between storytelling practitioners’ and academic researchers’ conceptions of oral storytelling. For example, researchers in most academic contexts would prefer using the terms “narrative” or “narrative discourse” to “storytelling” in their studies of oral storytelling. Many researchers within academic research environments would also predominantly link their definitions of storytelling and their focus of study to specific aspects of narrative form, function or structure  –​such as the concepts of a sequence of events. Storytelling practitioners, on the other hand, would put more emphasis on the process and components of performance features and face-​to-​face encounter with an audience. The two domains need to be brought together. Studies done so far in neither of the two domains have specifically examined and explained the system governing the execution of applied storytelling performances found in contemporary society as effective educative, communicative and meaning-​making tools, from a contextualized multimodal perspective. Adopting a multimodal perspective, the book proposes a framework that takes into account the significance of elements constituting a narrative (which has been the focus of academic researchers), as well as the important roles of various factors governing an actual storytelling process and performance (which has been the concern of storytelling practitioners). By bringing together academic researchers’ conceptualization of narrative and storytelling practitioners’ emphasis on performance, the contextualized multimodal framework can also be helpful to better understand narrativity in an applied storytelling performance. Since there is simply too much diversity of form, content and style under the term live oral storytelling performances, the scope of the book needs to be delimited. A  purist’s view of oral storytelling would be one using only spoken words with some voice manipulations, but without any props external to the storyteller and without any other dramatic movements besides the spontaneous habitual gestures and postures of the storyteller. However, in practice, live oral storytelling can nowadays incorporate songs, rhymes, dance and accompaniment of musical instruments or even multimedia props. With its long tradition and constant adaptations for contemporary applications and audiences, it is only possible to conclude that “storytelling style is not a matter of [the] absolute” (Lipman 1999, p.  16). There can only be preferred styles of storytelling depending on the circumstances of a storytelling event, such as the needs of

 11

Introduction 11 a particular audience or particular communal, organizational or institutional purposes. Thus the effectiveness of a live oral storytelling performance can only be said to depend on the relationship between features of the story, the multimodal storytelling process and the storytelling event. The analyses done in this book focus on those applied storytelling performances with no accompaniment of musical instruments or multimedia props. However, other incorporations  –​ such as verses, voice manipulations, dramatic movements and tangible props used by the teller during a storytelling process –​will be examined as the multimodal features of the storytelling discourse. Along with different styles of storytelling, there can also be different types of stories, which will lead to different kinds of audience responses. With regard to this, two broad distinctions are found to have been made by storytelling practitioners  –​leaning forward or participation stories versus leaning back or hypnotic stories (Miller 1988; Stallings 1988; Lipman 1999). Although it can be argued that all types of oral storytelling have a component of audience participation (at least by their presence and eye contact), in leaning forward or participation stories, the teller engages the audience directly in the telling by calling out for their outward responses or involvement. For that reason, those stories are sometimes referred to as call-​and-​response or participatory stories (e.g. Miller 1988). One example will be those which rely on humour or intellectual responses from the audience during the course of storytelling (Lipman 1999). The audience involvement in a participation story can be in the form of questions or answers to the storyteller, outward verbal predictions of story structure and content or slotting of content, laughter, back-​channelling, exclamations, responses to the storyteller’s invitation to make certain sounds or gestures or movements and so on (Miller 1988; Lipman 1999). Leaning back or hypnotic stories, on the other hand, are said to “transport” the audience to a “storylistening trance” (Stallings 1988). Certain genres of stories, such as fairy tales, religious stories, fantasy and dreamlike stories are claimed to produce this leaning back or trancelike response (Lipman 1999). For this type of stories, Stallings (1988) has done a pioneering study of what possibly contributes to storytelling’s special hypnotic power. In her study, the phenomenon of the storylistening trance is examined from the perspectives of the story, the teller and the listener. Stallings (1988) stressed that such a study needs to be substantiated further with a different type of study, for example, medical hypnosis and hypnotherapy, to fully understand the audience participation in entering into a storylistening trance in leaning back stories. Between these two types of stories, this book focuses on the telling of participation stories rather than on hypnotic stories, to investigate how narrativity in an applied storytelling performance is negotiated, developed and established between the storyteller and audience during a storytelling process in a storytelling event. In order to understand this process, detailed analyses need to be done on the actual telling processes of participatory stories, in which there are overt interactions between the storyteller and audience.

12

12 Introduction Chapter 2 unpacks the concept of narrativity and ways in which existing studies of narrative have attempted to specify it. It critiques the “simple” narrativity which has traditionally been allocated to oral tales, and proposes an alternative perspective which incorporates multimodal features in the actual storytelling discourse as well as many different but interrelated aspects of a storytelling event in order to specify the narrativity of an applied storytelling performance as potential, actual and optimal narrativity. Chapter 3 presents a contextualized multimodal framework, taking an interdisciplinary approach which combines methodological perspectives from different academic fields (such as narratology, stylistics, discourse analysis, performance studies and multimodal communication) as well as storytelling practitioners’ concern for establishing a connection with the audience for successful execution of a live storytelling performance. It provides the details of the framework and a clear exposition as to how the various elements fit together to form the framework. Chapter 4 provides illustrative examples of how the contextualized multimodal framework can be applied productively not only to describe the system governing the execution of applied storytelling performances in general but also to analyse individual storytelling performances held in different institutional contexts as unique realizations of the general system. Chapter 5 summarizes the insights gained from applying the contextualized multimodal framework to two sample analyses of live storytelling performances for the specification of their narrativity in context. It then discusses the implications in terms of two key aspects. Finally, Chapter 6 makes an extension to the application of the contextualized multimodal framework by adopting it for studies of oral storytelling in relation to other areas or disciplines, such as stylistics, language and literacy education, and identity construction. The chapter also offers suggestions for future research to probe further the efficacy of similar multimodal approaches by those who are interested in analysing narrative as live storytelling performances in different historical, cultural and sociopolitical contexts.

References Agosto, D. E. (2001). Storytelling. In: B. E. Cullinan and D. G. Person, eds., The continuum encyclopedia of children’s literature. New York: Continuum, pp. 756–​758. Bateman, J. A. (2016). Methodological and theoretical issues in multimodality. In: N. Klug and H. Stöckl, eds., Handbuch Sprache im multimodalen Kontext. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp.  36–​74. Bauman, R. (1986). Story, performance, and event: Contextual studies of oral narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauman, R. (1992). Introduction. In: R. Bauman, ed., Folklore, cultural performances, and popular entertainments: A communications-​centered handbook. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. xiii–​xxi. Benjamin, W. (1968). Illuminations. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Bremond, C. (1977). The morphology of the French fairy tale: The ethical model. In: H. Jason and D. Segal, eds., Patterns in oral literature. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 49–​76. Carpenter, H., and Prichard, M. (1984). The Oxford companion to children’s literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 13

Introduction 13 Chu, K., and Coffey, S. (2015). Multimodal analysis of graphic novels: A case study featuring two Asian women travellers. Intercultural Communication Studies, 24(1), pp. 145–​166. Connors, S. P. (2016). Designing meaning: A multimodal perspective on comics reading. In: C. Hill, ed., Teaching comics through multiple lenses: Critical perspectives. New York: Routledge, pp. 13–​29. Dundes, A. (1971). The making and breaking of friendship as a structural frame in African folk tales. In: P. Maranda and E. K. Maranda, eds., Structural analysis of oral tradition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 171–​185. Fizek, S. (2007). Multimodality in the context of cyberliterature: Have the new electronic media revolutionized a narrative? Online Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Poetics and Linguistics Association (PALA). www.pala.ac.uk/​uploads/​2/​5/​1/​0/​ 25105678/​fizek2007.pdf Fludernik, M. (1996). Towards a “natural narratology”. London: Routledge. Goodwin, M. H. (1997). Toward families of stories in context. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, pp. 107–​112. Greene, E. (1996). Storytelling: Art and technique (3rd ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited. Greimas, A. J. (1996). Reflections on actantial models. In: S. Onega and J. A. G. Landa, eds., Narratology: An introduction. London: Longman, pp. 76–​92. Grugeon, E., and Gardner, P. (2000). The art of storytelling for teachers and pupils: Using stories to develop literacy in primary classrooms. London: David Fulton. Herman, D. (2001). Story logic in conversational and literary narratives. Narrative, 9, pp. 130–​137. Herman, D., and Page, R. (2010). Coda/​ Prelude: Eighteen questions for the study of narrative and multimodality. In: R. Page, ed., New perspectives on narrative and multimodality. New York: Routledge, pp. 217–​220. Hymes, D. (1975). Breakthrough into performance. In: D. Ben-​Amos and K. Goldstein, eds., Folklore: Communication and performance. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 11–​74. Isbell, R., Sobol, J., Lindauer, L., and Lowrance, A. (2004). The effects of storytelling and story reading on the oral language complexity and story comprehension of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(3), pp. 157–​163. Jason, H. (1977). A model for narrative structure in oral literature. In: H. Jason and D. Segal, eds., Patterns in oral literature. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 99–​139. Kress, G., and van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, W. (1997). Some further steps in narrative analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, pp. 395–​415. Labov, W., and Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In: J. Helm, ed., Essays on the verbal and visual arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp. 12–​44. Lambrou, M. (2003). Collaborative oral narratives of general experience: When an interview becomes a conversation. Language and Literature, 12, pp. 153–​174. Lévi-​Strauss, C. (1955). The structural study of myth. Journal of American Folklore, 68, pp. 428–​444. Lipman, D. (1999). Improving your storytelling: Beyond the basics for all who tell stories in work or play. Little Rock, AR: August House. Livo, N. J., and Reitz, S. A. (1986). Storytelling: Process and practice. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

14

14 Introduction Lynch-​Brown, C., and Tomlinson, C. M. (1999). Essentials of children’s literature. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. MacDonald, M. R. (1993). The storyteller’s start-​up book: Finding, learning, performing and using folktales. Little Rock, AR: August House. MacDonald, M. R. (1999). Editor’s note. In: M. R. MacDonald, ed., Traditional storytelling today: An international sourcebook. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, pp. xiii–​xiv. Medlicott, M. (2004). Story-​telling. In: P. Hunt, ed., International companion encyclopedia of children’s literature (2nd ed.), vol. 1. London: Routledge, pp. 614–​621. Miller, E. (1996). Visuals accompanying face-​to-​face storytelling (Master’s thesis, Gallation School of New  York University). Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://​ccat.sas. upenn.edu/​~emiller/​MA_​essay.html. Miller, T. (1988). Preface. In: N. Livo, ed., Joining in: An anthology of audience participation stories & how to tell them. Cambridge: Yellow Moon Press, pp. Preface. Ochs, E., and Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Page, R. (2010). Introduction. In: R. Page, ed., New perspectives on narrative and multimodality. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–​13. Pellowski, A. (1977). The world of storytelling. New York: R.R. Bowker. Pellowski, A. (1990). The world of storytelling (exp. & rev. ed.). Bronx: H.W. Wilson. Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the folktale (2nd ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Sawyer, R. (1976). The way of the storyteller. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Sobol, J. (2008). Contemporary storytelling: Revived tradition art and protean social agent. Storytelling, Self, Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Storytelling Studies, 4(2), pp. 122–​133. Sobol, J., Gentile, J. S., and Sunwolf. (2004) Once upon a time: An introduction to the inaugural issue. Storytelling, Self, Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Storytelling Studies, 1(1), pp. 1–​7. Spagnoli, C. (1999). Telling tales from Asia: A resource book for all who love telling stories. Chennai: Tulika. Spagnoli, C. (2002). Storytelling. In: D. Levinson and K. Christensen, eds., Encyclopedia of modern Asia, vol. 5. New York: Charles Scribner’s, pp. 336–​338. Stallings, F. (1988). The web of silence: Storytelling’s power to hypnotize. National Storytelling Journal, Spring/​Summer, pp. 6–​19. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from www.healingstory.org/​articles/​web_​of_​silence/​fran_​stallings.html. Swann, J. (2002). A man amongst men: The intersection of verbal, visual and vocal elements in an oral narrative. In: I. Blayer and M. Sanchez, eds., Storytelling: Interdisciplinary and intercultural perspectives. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 145–​161. Swann, J. (2006). Text and performance. In: S. Goodman and K. O’Halloran, eds., The art of English: Literary creativity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan and the Open University, pp. 145–​194. Tan, S., Wignell, P., and O’Halloran, K. (2016). Multimodal semiotics of theatrical performances. In: M. G. Sindoni, J. Wildfeuer and K. L. O’Halloran, eds., Mapping multimodal performance studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 14–​38. Tedlock, D. (1983). The spoken word and the work of interpretation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Toh, W. (2018). A multimodal approach to video games and the player experience. New York: Routledge. Toolan, M. J. (2001). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

 15

2  Narrativity of oral storytelling

Narrativity Just as the interest in and applications of oral storytelling performances have grown over the last few decades, there has been an increasing interest in narrative as a concept that transcends disciplines and media. Herman, Jahn and Ryan (2005) call this phenomenon “the narrative turn”. Nevertheless, the relationship between oral narratives and literary narratives is often discounted in most narrative research. In spite of the shared term “narrative”, studies of literary narratives –​under the term “narratology” –​and those of elicited and conversational oral narratives –​often with a sociolinguistic approach –​have mostly been regarded as the “two traditions of narrative analysis that have evolved in parallel but without much cross-​fertilization” (Herman 1999, p. 218). Only a few studies, such as Fludernik (1996), Herman (1999, 2001), Norrick (2000) and Ochs and Capps (2001), have made some attempts to prove that these two types of narrative are related in some ways, or are the two ends of a continuum rather than a dichotomy. With an increasing interest in narrative as a transdisciplinary and transmedia concept and the expansion of the boundary of narrative studies to include the analysis of narratives in both literary and non-​literary genres, narrativity has become a concept which needs to be revisited, re-​examined and redefined from interdisciplinary perspectives. As a general rule, narrativity designates not only “the set of properties characterizing narratives and distinguishing them from non-​narratives” but also “the set of optional features that make narratives more prototypically narrative-​like, more immediately identified, processed, and interpreted as narratives” (Prince 2005, p. 387). In the study of narratives, more work has been done on the specificity of narrative than on the specification of narrativity, both by narratologists and by discourse analysts who have studied narrative as a type of discourse genre. Within the framework of narratology, narrative theorists attempt to answer the question of what makes a text narrative, through an examination of the formal characteristics which are claimed to be common to all and only narratives. A sequence of causally related events is often regarded as the most fundamental characteristic of a narrative in traditional narratological investigations. This has eventually led to minimalist definitions of narrative, such as “the representation of at least one event, one change in a state of affairs” (Prince 2001, p. 27).

16

16  Narrativity of oral storytelling Although most scholars would agree on the necessity of at least one event in a narrative (e.g. Genette 1988), some propose at least two –​one after the other (e.g. Rimmon-​Kenan 2002) –​and some emphasize the causal relation between the two events in order for the events to be considered narrative (e.g. Bal 1997). Toolan (2001), on the other hand, suggests taking the reader and the contextual implications of a statement into consideration and proposes his minimalist definition of narrative as “a perceived sequence of non-​randomly connected events” (Toolan 2001, p.  5, emphasis added). In spite of their disagreements, these minimalist definitions of narrative have been able to highlight some important differences between narrative and non-​narrative texts. However, the issue of what distinguishes different narrative texts to be more or less narrative is neither explored nor discussed in detail in most of these studies. To quote Prince (2001, pp. 27–​28), a minimalist definition of narrative does not capture the differences between narrativeness, that is, “what makes a text narrative, what all and only narrative have in common”, and narrativity, that is, “what in a text underlines its narrative nature, what emphasizes the presence and semiotic role of narrative structures in a textual economy”. In other words, with the focus on the identification of the components and their order within a text which make it a narrative, these studies have defined narrativeness as a generic term, referring to all narratives. Narrativity, on the other hand, is related to the factors reflecting an interpretative framework that storytellers and recipients might use to judge a text as more or less narrative. Narrativity, therefore, has more of its focus on the single narrative, and different narrative texts can be proved to constitute different kinds or different degrees of narrativity. The concept of narrativity has remained “a vexed issue”, “a disputed term” (Abbott 2002, pp.  22, 194)  or “a label admittedly opaque and in need of further elucidation” (Ryan 1992, p. 368). Pointing out the areas of indeterminacy in understanding narrativity, Prince (2001, p. 34) suggests further extensive empirical studies of narrativity, as he believes that, by shedding light on what in a text foregrounds its narrative potential, dimension, or thrust, the study of narrativity can clarify the nature and specificity of narrative semiosis, the functioning and meaning of the narrative moment. A few attempts which have been made thus far to conceptualize narrativity have focused on (i) plot structures; (ii) cognitive processes; and (iii) the combination of plot structures and cognitive processes. Narrativity and plot structures In formalist and structuralist approaches, the traditional narratological specification of narrativity has been based on the analysis of plot structures in determining what makes a story good as a story (Prince 1982). To Prince (1982), the specification of narrativity is related to the exploitation and underlining of formal features that can be claimed as characteristics of narrative, such as sequentiality

 17

Narrativity of oral storytelling 17 and causality in event descriptions, and the wholeness and coherence of the plot. In his discussion of comparative narrativity of various texts, Prince (1997, p. 42) claimed that the degree of narrativity in a text “depends on the extent to which the text is taken to constitute a (pointed) autonomous whole” that a b c d

represents an anthropomorphic project; involves some kind of conflict; is made up of discrete, particular, positive and temporally distinct actions that have logically unpredictable antecedents or consequences; and avoids inordinate amounts of commentary about them, their representation, or the latter’s context.

He also contended that “all other things being equal, the presence of disnarrated elements (representing what did not happen but could have) affected narrativity in a positive manner” (Prince 2001, p. 29). By incorporating these elements, a text is believed to fulfil receivers’ desire and to achieve its narrativity (Prince 1982, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2005). Prince’s specification of narrativity shows the influence of earlier narratological investigations and their emphasis on the concept of plot. At the same time, unlike these earlier studies, Prince gives some acknowledgement of the subjective and pragmatic components when he concludes that “[n]‌arrativity depends on the receiver and so does its value” (1982, p. 160). However, he does not elaborate further on how receivers react to the structural components of a text in specifying narrativity. Instead, these pragmatic factors are regarded as an area of indeterminacy which one should view as a feature of narrativity which needs more investigation. From a similar perspective, Sternberg (1978, 2001) asserts that for a better understanding of how narrative works, studies of narrative need to find out the differences narrativity can make to a text’s components which are otherwise shared by other discourse genres. In his theory, the interplay between told and telling/​reading sequence generates “suspense, curiosity, and surprise”, which he regards as “the three universal narrative effects” or “narrative master forces” which are narrativizing the components of a text and thus specifying the amount of narrativity a text has (Sternberg 2001, p. 117). The three universal narrative effects are defined as follows: Suspense arises from rival scenarios about the future: from the discrepancy between what the telling lets us readers know about the happening (e.g., a conflict) at any moment and what still lies ahead, ambiguous because yet unresolved in the world. […] for curiosity: knowing that we do not know, we go forward with our mind on the gapped antecedents, trying to infer (bridge, compose) them in retrospect. For surprise, however, the narrative first unobtrusively gaps or twists its chronology, then unexpectedly discloses to us our misreading and enforces a corrective rereading in late re-​cognition. (Sternberg 2001, p. 117, original italics)

18

18  Narrativity of oral storytelling Sternberg’s (1978, 2001) theory is acknowledged here for his explanations of the interplay between told and telling/​reading sequences, which according to him can intensify the degree of narrativity. On the other hand, such distinctions of told and telling/​reading sequence in specifying narrativity are questioned by Sturgess (1988, 1992). Sturgess argues that specifying narrativity based on the Formalist distinction between fabula and sjužet, or story and discourse, becomes problematic when it is applied to works in which fabula or story is difficult or impossible to reconstruct, such as some postmodern novels. Hence he proposes his own model in which he paid attention to the element of discourse or sjužet, rather than to the story or fabula, which has been regarded as the focus of analysis in earlier studies of narrativity. His theory specifies narrativity as a global effect contributed by every element of the text which makes a contribution. In other words, his work makes us consider how multimodal features of discourse in all its manifestations can develop and achieve a certain degree of narrativity even when the plot is unresolved or open-​ended. Plot-​based specification of narrativity has been under attack also by claims that everyday conversational storytelling, with its often open-​ended, incomplete or unresolved plot structures, is the prototype of the narrative activity (Ochs and Capps, 2001). For example, Fludernik (1996), who regards conversational storytelling as a prototype for the constitution of narrativity, redefines narrativity in terms of cognitive parameters and claims that human experientiality serves as the chief factor in deciding whether a text is more or less narrative. Her definition underplays the role of plot and shifts the emphasis to the receptional and creative aspect of narrativity (Fludernik 1996). Narrativity and cognitive processes Scholars of narrative from cognitive perspectives often regard stories as “mental objects” just as “sentences are text objects” (Wilensky 1982, p. 425). For them, the formal features such as the sequentiality and causality of events, which have been held by narratologists and discourse analysts as distinguishing characteristics of a narrative, are insufficient for understanding the nature of a story. For example, de Beaugrande (1982) observed how a recipient’s knowledge and expectations about a story line can be anticipated, and how certain affective elements can be achieved by having a story constituent deleted or moved. Such observations imply specifications of narrativity from the perspectives of a recipient’s cognitive, emotive or evaluative responses. However, the fact that it is the absence, rather than the presence, of certain features that may enhance narrativity, has actually complicated the concept. From a broader perspective of cognitive science, “storytelling and story comprehension are ultimately grounded in the general human capacity to conceptualize –​that is, to structure experiential elements into wholes” (Polkinghorne 1991, p. 142). Following such claims, human experientiality can be regarded as playing a crucial role in specifying narrativity. Fludernik (1996, 2003) has developed this

 19

Narrativity of oral storytelling 19 notion of experientiality into a proposal to redefine narrativity in terms of cognitive parameters. She argued that “narrativity is a function of narrative texts and centres on experientiality of an anthropomorphic nature” (Fludernik 1996, p. 26, original italics). She disqualifies the criteria of sequentiality and logical connectedness in a plot from playing the central role in defining narrativity. Instead, she focuses on the consciousness or experientiality of an actant, which she regards as an existent that is prototypically human. For Fludernik (1996, p. 30), experientiality combines a number of cognitively relevant factors, such as “the presence of a human protagonist”, “her experience of events as they impinge on her situation or activity”, and “the protagonist’s emotional and physical reaction to this constellation”. According to her, basic perspectives on human experience are related to the five cognitive frames: action, telling, experiencing, viewing and reflecting (Fludernik 2003). From this perspective, narrativity or the specific aesthetic effect of narrative need not rely on the teleology of plot, on how all the episodes and motives contribute to the final outcome, but can be produced also by the “mimetically motivated evocation of human consciousness and its experience of being in the world” (Fludernik 1996, p. 30). In her model, narrativity is not “a quality adhering to a text” but rather “an attribute imposed on the text” by readers in the course of the reading process by manifesting experientiality (Fludernik 2003, p.  244). In other words, when readers encounter a potentially inexplicable narrative, they attempt to recognize what they find in the text in terms of the natural telling or experiencing or viewing parameters, or they try to recuperate the inconsistencies in terms of actions and event structures at the most minimal level. Although Fludernik’s definition of narrativity in terms of experientiality can explain the narrativity in spontaneous and fragmented conversational storytelling, as well as in plotless experimental literary narratives, her proposal to equate narrativity with experientiality in every narrative genre has become a subject of dispute. For example, Alber (2002) has pointed out some problems caused by Fludernik’s rejection of all plot-​oriented definitions of narrativity. These problems include what in a text can account for the projection of experientiality which makes it narrative and not something else, and how one can specify different degrees of narrativity on the basis of experientiality. According to Alber, Fludernik’s “experientiality first, plot later” approach could make almost every text a narrative. Therefore, Alber (2002, p. 69) insists that for such a distinction, categories like plot, action, character and “real-​world” setting, all of which Fludernik attempts to play down in her paradigm, turn out to be crucial after all. Herman (2002) similarly points out that positing a direct proportion between experientiality and narrativity would make it harder to explain the genre-​specific patterning of different types of narrative. With the possibility of generalizing the experientiality criterion, almost every text seems to be able to qualify as a narrative. While experientiality is a problematic criterion in specifying narrativity, the fact that such cognitive processes do play a part seems undeniable. What is at issue then seems to be the identification of the interplay between these cognitive processes and the formal characteristics of a text in specifying narrativity.

20

20  Narrativity of oral storytelling Narrativity, plot structures and cognitive processes Leitch (1986) is an earlier work which recognizes the interplay between a text’s formal features and a recipient’s cognitive processes in specifying the degrees of narrativity. He follows Robert Scholes’s definition of narrativity as “the process whereby an audience constructs a coherent story from the fictional data (images, gestures and sentences) presented in a given discourse” (Leitch 1986, p. 34). He then distinguishes the audience’s narrativity from the discourse’s narrativity. The audience’s narrativity “fills in the connections required to make sense of agents and incidents by establishing the relations and imputing the motives which give them significance”; whereas the discourse’s narrativity “fills out a given series of states of affairs by providing the details that make the audience’s narrativity necessary and rewarding” (Leitch 1986, p. 40, original emphasis). To quote Leitch (1986, p.  34), the audience’s narrativity includes three skills: “the ability to defer one’s desire for gratification”, “the ability to supply connections among the material a story presents”, and “the ability to perceive discursive events as significantly related to the point of a given story or sequence”. The relationship between the audience’s narrativity and the discourse’s narrativity is emphasized with the claim that the narrativity of a given work is in a radical sense the enabling narrativity of its audience. But it suggests the need to emphasize that the audience’s narrativity is in turn enabled and constrained by the qualities a given text displays. (Leitch 1986, p. 40) Following the above claim, a successful narrative is defined as one which develops an appropriate degree of narrativity “by avoiding the extremes of over-​and underspecification” (Leitch 1986, p. 37). For overspecification, Leitch refers to those narratives which give too many connections by filling in too many gaps for the reader in reconstructing a story. Conversely, underspecification places so much demand on the part of the audience’s narrativity that it retards the reconstruction of the story. Leitch’s specification of narrativity is comparable to a more recent discussion on the concept of narrativity by Herman (2002). Herman reviews traditional narratological models of narrative sequences and complements them with the concepts of knowledge structures from cognitive science, variously termed as schemata, scripts and frames. He explains them as knowledge representations which store past experiences and form structured repertoires of expectations about current and emergent experiences. They can assume either a static (frame-​like) or dynamic (script-​like) form. In other words, a script represents “a sequence of events that take place in a time sequence” whereas a frame represents “a point in time” (Herman 2002, p. 89). According to Herman (2002, p. 85) “[a]‌s stereotyped sequences of events, scripts in particular, help explain the difference between a mere sequence of actions or occurrences and a narratively organized sequence”. Narrative must

 21

Narrativity of oral storytelling 21 anchor itself in and at the same time deviate from these experiential repertoires. Thus a sequence of actions, states and events is considered to be a narrative “by virtue of how it situates remarkable or tellable occurrences against a backdrop of stereotypical expectation about the world” (Herman 2002, p. 85). Consequently, specifying narrativity is defined as capturing the variable quality of the interplay between the stereotyped sequences of actions and events, and a particular sequence in a narrative. In his words, accounting for the way different kinds of narratives orient themselves differently towards stereotyped sequences of actions and events –​is tantamount to defining narrativity, or how readily a narrative can be processed as a narrative. (Herman 2002, p. 86, original emphasis) On this basis, narrativity is illustrated as a scalar predicate, with maximal narrativity correlating with “sequences whose presentation features a proportional blending of ‘canonicity and breach’, expectation and transgression of expectation” (Herman 2002, p. 91). A story’s narrativity decreases towards either end of the spectrum, with its telling in almost pure stereotypicality at one end and in extensive particularity at the other. In summary, the amount of narrativity a story has is claimed to be correlated with how richly it blends stereotypic and nonstereotypic knowledge, since such blends can determine if it can be more or less readily processed as a narrative (Herman 2002). For a fuller investigation of narrativity, Herman recommends the use of resources not only from narratology but also from language theory and cognitive science. Indeed, drawing on resources from narratology (a text’s plot structures) as well as cognitive science (recipients’ responses), Ryan (1992, pp. 369, 384) has examined the role of narrative structures in what she calls “the textual economy”, and “the mental operations necessary to retrieve and/​or to properly evaluate the narrative structure”. Ryan’s specification of narrativity is based on the analysis of narrative structures in a given text as well as the interpretation of these structures in the process of comprehending it. The semantic domain projected by a given text is regarded as a textual economy, and the role of the story is assessed with respect to the whole of the text, taking both narrative and non-​narrative elements into consideration. The three basic conditions of narrativity outlined by Ryan (1992, p. 371) can be summarized as follows. 1 A narrative text must create a world and populate it with characters and objects. 2 The narrative world must undergo changes of state that are caused by physical events: either accidents or deliberate human action. 3 The text must allow the reconstruction of an interpretative network of goals, plans, causal relations and psychological motivations around the narrated events.

22

22  Narrativity of oral storytelling On this basis, Ryan outlines an open-​ended taxonomy of different modes of narrativity manifested in various narrative texts. Among the twelve different modes of narrativity found in her analysis, the following are selected to illustrate the range of texts covered in her model (Ryan 1992, pp. 372–​381):

•

•

•

• • •

Simple narrativity, where the semantic content of the text is a plot and little else. The plot revolves around a single problem, punch line or point and ends when the problem is resolved, the punch line delivered or the point demonstrated (e.g. fairy tales, anecdotes, urban legends) Multiple narrativity, where the text consists of not just one but many self-​ sufficient narratives bearing no referential relation to each other: that is, each narrative creates its own semantic universe and concerns different characters (e.g. The Arabian Nights) Complex narrativity, where a narrative consists of a main plot line, and a number of semiautonomous “little stories” grafted upon this line expanding the universe of the main plot (e.g. well-​ constructed nineteenth-​ century novels) Braided narrativity, where the text presents no global plot but a number of parallel and successive subplots developing along the destiny line of characters (e.g. soap operas) Embryonic narrativity, where an environment is established for the development of a plot, but the plot machinery is never set in motion (e.g. annals, chronicles, diaries) Instrumental narrativity, where the narrative element is a self-​enclosed micro-​ level unit embedded in a non-​narrative macrostructure (e.g. a parable in a sermon)

Ryan regards simple narrativity, such as that found in fairy tales, as a point of reference for other parameters. Her modes of narrativity are “the games that the mind plays with narrative structures in the production and reception of texts” (Ryan 1992, p. 385). When the focus is to distinguish kinds rather than degree of narrativity, there seems to be fewer problems. In fact, Ryan’s illustration of different modes of narrativity is commented by Prince (2001, p. 30) as “the most systematic and promising work on narrativity”. “Simple” narrativity of oral tales Looking at those attempts which have been made thus far to specify narrativity, it can be deduced that an exploration of narrativity should examine the formal features of a narrative, as well as human cognitive responses and the interactions between these two components. Interestingly, however, the concept of narrativity has been theorized mostly based on the analysis of texts that have been disconnected from their producing agents and processes. In Ryan’s (1992) open-​ended taxonomy of different modes of narrativity, oral tales  –​such as fairy tales and folk tales  –​are considered in terms of “simple

 23

Narrativity of oral storytelling 23 narrativity”. Indeed oral tales which were collected and transferred into a written form have provided narrative theorists with data as “the simplest narrative” (Genette 1980). As a simple form of narrative, these stories are shown to have a plot which characteristically revolves around a single problem or a point or a lack; and which ends when the problem or the conflict is resolved, the point is demonstrated or the lack is liquidated (Propp 1968; Todorov 1977). Ryan’s specification of narrativity is based on the two levels of narrative: story as abstract narrative structures, and discourse as their textual realizations in various forms. She takes the story as a problematic meaning to be recovered from the discourse elements of a text in the process of reading or comprehending it. However, no reference is made to the actions of a producing agent or storyteller, nor to a storytelling process and occasion. Textual realization of an oral tale is examined as a product, like that of a finished written narrative, rather than as a process. Although it is possible to draw analogies between written narratives and oral storytelling, the same criteria may not be equally applicable to judge both. Oral discourse in general is much more variable and flexible compared to written language, which typically is “subject to a higher degree of normative rigidity” (Quasthoff and Nikolaus 1982, p.  16). It has many different and interrelated aspects, all of which can be regarded as part of the whole process of producing an oral story. Given that an oral story takes its “negotiated, situation-​specific, context-​embedded shape” only once during the process of telling (Livo and Rietz 1986, p. 127), its textural realization can be argued to be indispensable to the telling process, as well as to the multiplicity of ways in which it functions during a storytelling event. Simply put, when specifying narrativity in oral narrative, the telling process and occasion can be as significant as the product –​that is, the story. Hence, the simple narrativity allocated for an oral tale in its decontextualized form can be reconsidered in relation to many different aspects of a telling process, such as how, when, where, to whom, by whom and why. Analysing oral tales as contextualized performances –​that is, situated in a context and unfolding or arising within that context  –​may uncover narrativity in an oral narrative as an aggregate of properties which are related not only to elements of the story but also to features of the storytelling process and storytelling event.

Narrativity of live storytelling performances In comparison with other types of oral storytelling which typically occur in a more spontaneous manner (such as elicited storytelling or conversational storytelling), live storytelling performances held in relatively formal or institutional contexts constitute a more premediated form. Although some elements of spontaneity do occur during a live performance (e.g. the storyteller’s responses to the demands of the moment), there is usually a relatively high degree of preconception in this mode of storytelling. For instance, the time and place for an institutionalized storytelling performance are scheduled in advance, and storytellers can make some preparations before their actual performances. Consequently, stories told in this mode are often treated as a fixed form, and usually analysed as “self-​contained

24

24  Narrativity of oral storytelling packages” –​that is, “entities that can be cut out from its surrounding context and analyzed in isolation” (Goodwin and Duranti 1992, p. 11). Besides, traditional folkloristic views of stories seem to believe that the process of collecting an orally told story and removing it from the setting in which it is actually told does little damage to its features of narrative, such as the plot. While these views have led to valuable collections and fruitful analyses of oral tales, they have also cut off the stories from their contextual implications, the dynamic process of a live storytelling performance and participants of a storytelling event (Young 1987). In dynamic face-​to-​face oral storytelling contexts, the storyteller and audience have opportunities for immediate interactions with each other during the storytelling process. Moreover, since a story can be told orally and face-​to-​face only at a particular place and time, with someone telling it and someone else listening (Lipman 1999), it can be argued that the story in oral storytelling performances is inseparable from all other aspects of a storytelling event, such as participants and purposes of a storytelling performance. Hence, live storytelling performances are better understood as contextually situated practices, and should be examined in their surrounding discourse environment. To be able to do so, a perspective which recognizes the interactive aspects of the narrative process is timely for specifying the narrativity of a live storytelling performance. The perspective proposed in this book examines a storytelling performances as an activity to which both the narrator and the listener contribute, and views storytelling in its wider context by also asking about the function(s) of a narrative in a particular interaction. Accordingly, besides taking into account the development of plot structures and the audience’s responses, this perspective will specify the narrativity of live storytelling performances as an interactional accomplishment which is negotiated and established between the storyteller and audience in the course of a storytelling process. In this way, narrativity displayed by elements of the story (such as the plot structures, events and characters) can be specified as the potential narrativity, whereas narrativity established through the multimodal storytelling discourse during an actual process of telling can be specified as the actual narrativity. Optimal narrativity will be a successful narrative act, that is, the realization of a process that not only generates elements of a story but also engages the audience in the (co)construction of a storyworld and manifests the coherence between the narrative development and functions of a particular storytelling event. In summary, the narrativity of a live storytelling performance held for an applied purpose in an institution, organization or community will be specified as it is contributed by elements of the story as well as features of the actual storytelling discourse, and situational and functional aspects of the storytelling event. By incorporating the actual process of telling, including multimodal features of the storytelling discourse, the proposed perspective views narrativity in applied storytelling performances as a contextualized interactional accomplishment which is negotiated and established between the storyteller and the audience during a particular storytelling event. It aims to contribute an original and new holistic theory of narrativity useful for uncovering and understanding aesthetic

 25

Narrativity of oral storytelling 25 and communicative effectiveness of storytelling performances used in various professional contexts and applied fields in contemporary society. First, the concept of a textual economy, by which the narrativity of an oral tale (in its written form) is specified in earlier studies, needs to be expanded. It needs to incorporate different aspects of live storytelling performances, including the storytelling discourse (together with features from verbal as well as vocal and visual aspects), the real process of narrating and the occasion in which the storytelling performance takes place.

Expanding the textual economy for oral storytelling The term “textual economy” appears as an important concept in earlier discussions of narrativity (e.g. Prince 1982, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2005; Ryan 1992). According to Prince (2001, p. 28, emphasis added), an examination of narrativity highlights “what emphasizes the presence and semiotic role of narrative structures in a textual economy”. Ryan concurs with Prince when she claims that narrativity explains “the role of narrative structures in the textual economy” (Ryan 1992, p. 369, emphasis added). Subsequently, their discussions of narrativity focus on what they call “various textual realizations of plots” in a given text (Ryan 1992, p. 369). Individual texts are examined as finished products waiting for an interpretation by the reader, but with little reference to its producing agent or process. Various degrees or modes of narrativity are specified on the basis of different ways in which a text relies on a narrative structure (or plot) to claim that it suggests “a model of coherence” (Ryan 1992, p. 369), or that it “fulfills a receiver’s desire” (Prince 2003, p. 65). A textual economy in these discussions can be inferred to designate a fixed form, that is, a finished individual unit independent of its producing agent or process. Such configurations of textual economy work well, so long as we delimit our exploration of narrativity to those texts which have been disconnected from their production processes. However, if we accept the possibility of the interrelations between factors governing a storytelling process on the one hand, and elements of a story and features of a storytelling discourse on the other, the conceptual framework of a textual economy can no longer be restricted to the elements within a finished text that has been disconnected from its producing agent and process. Given that the story in a live storytelling performance is inseparable from all other aspects of the storytelling process, the storytelling process itself can become part of the textual realization and should be examined as one. Accordingly, the concept of a textual economy for a live storytelling performance should be expanded to be able to account for the process of story production by the teller and its reception by the audience during a particular storytelling event. From a semiotic perspective, such an expansion of textual economy for a live storytelling performance can have “the advantages of emphasizing the subordination of all contributory elements to a unified textual whole” (Elam 2002, p. 6). In other words, it would allow us to analyse a storytelling performance as a

26

26  Narrativity of oral storytelling macro-​sign whose meaning is constituted by the total effect of a network of semiotic units from different operative systems. In order to justify such an expansion of a textual economy for oral storytelling, some controversies over the original conceptualization which is restricted to intratextual confines of a text can be highlighted. To start with, the term “text” is somewhat problematic. On the one hand, it can specifically denote an aspect of narrative as a product, as in Rimmon-​Kenan’s (2002) and Toolan’s (2001) trichotonomous distinction of narrative. On the other hand, from a much broader post-​structuralist perspective, it denotes the product as well as the process of production and the process of reception (e.g. Barthes 1974). In the latter sense, the communicative process between the real storyteller and the recipient can become part of the concept of text. Considering such problems in dual understanding of the concept, O’Neill (1994) proposes the notion of “textuality” to designate a space or a realm for the interactive process between the real author and the real reader. He regards it as a communicative process “which is continually being woven” (O’Neill 1994, p. 24, original emphasis). In terms of hierarchical levels, it is considered to be a level superior to and respectively encompassing those of the narration (intratextual communicative process involving the implied author and the implied reader), the text (a concrete product or the words upon the page) and the story (an abstraction). According to him, theorists may limit the range of narrative theory to strictly intratextual concerns and exclude the real author and the real reader from the narrative transaction if they so choose; however, a much wider range of investigation on narrativity calls for an appropriate consideration of extratextual factors (O’Neill 1994). Only by going beyond the strictly “intratextual confines” of a text to the “extratextual realm” can we answer such a question as, “In what communicative contexts do the what and the how and the who of narrative operate?” (O’Neill 1994, p. 24, original emphasis). Although O’Neill’s discussion focuses on written narratives, his attempt to include the interactive process between the real storyteller and the recipient, as well as the extratextual factors affecting a narrative transaction between them, is also applicable to live storytelling performances. Given that various extratextual factors of a storytelling process can have a direct bearing on aspects of oral narrative, such as the story structure and discourse elements, the storytelling process itself can be part of the textual economy in which the narrativity of a live storytelling performance is to be specified. Therefore, when specifying the narrativity of a live storytelling performance, the concept of a textual economy goes beyond the intratextual confines to include the extratextual features, such as the dynamics of the teller and audience in initiating and executing a storytelling process, as well as the situational and functional factors of a storytelling event. With a move from a product-​centred to a process-​oriented conceptualization of a textual economy, the narrativity of a live oral storytelling performance can be seen as an attribute which is interactively contributed by (and which in return binds together) elements of a particular story and different aspects of that particular storytelling performance.

 27

Narrativity of oral storytelling 27

Story, storytelling discourse and storytelling event So far the story, the storytelling discourse and the storytelling event have been suggested as key components constituting the textual economy or boundary in which the narrativity of a live storytelling performance can be specified. The interrelationships among them and how they come together to form a unified framework for specifying the narrativity of a live storytelling performance need to be clarified before taking a closer look at each component to identify the detailed contributory elements. The distinction between story and storytelling discourse follows the narratological distinctions of “story” and “discourse” (Chatman 1978; Genette 1980; Rimmon-​ Kenan 1983, 2002). Following the Russian Formalists’ distinction between fabula and sjuzhet, and that of the French Structuralists between histoire and discours, Chatman (1978) describes narrative as having a binary structure: “story” (the formal content element) and “discourse” (the formal expression element). The story can be explained as a basic description of the fundamental events of a narrative with the possibility of “total” transfer from one medium to another, while the discourse denotes the varying manner of presentation of the story (Toolan 2001). In addition to these two levels of distinction, Genette (1980, p.  27) makes “narrating” a third distinction and defines it as “the producing narrative action and, by extension, the whole of the real or fictional situation in which that action take place”, showing an attempt to make a distinction for the process of narrating from the product of narrative discourse. Although such distinctions of the process of narrating as a separate layer of narrative have been questioned and regarded as unnecessary or unfeasible for written narratives, in which the real process of narrating (i.e. writing) is not accessible unless it becomes an object being narrated, such distinctions for the real process of narrating seem feasible, if not necessary, for oral storytelling. Unlike a written narrative, the real-​life storyteller is present throughout the storytelling process in a live oral storytelling performance. As a result, the real process of narrating is arguably available for study in oral storytelling. Therefore, besides following the narratological distinctions of story and discourse, to emphasize the process-​oriented conceptualization of a textual economy for oral narrative (i.e. to underline the significance of a storytelling process), the term “storytelling discourse”, rather than discourse, is used for the formal expression elements. With the attention given to a real process of telling, the role of a real storyteller, that of a real audience and the interactive process between them also come to light. In written narratives, the empirical process of communication between the real author and the real reader, who are separated by time and place, may be less relevant for discussion than the communication process between their fictional counterparts within the text, such as the implied author to the implied reader, and the fictional narrator to the fictional narratee. For example, the real flesh-​ and-​blood author/​writer and reader are left outside the narrative transactions proper in those narrative communication models (e.g. Chatman 1978; Martin

28

28  Narrativity of oral storytelling 1986; Rimmon-​Kenan 2002) that illustrate narration in written narrative fiction as a communication process. To quote Chatman (1978, p. 31), we must distinguish between real and implied authors and audience: only implied authors and audiences are immanent to the work, constructs of the narrative-​transaction-​as-​text. The real author and audience of course communicate, but only through their implied counterparts. For live storytelling performances, on the other hand, besides the fictional counterparts, the people who come together for a storytelling performance, of whom the primary partakers are those who play the roles of the storyteller and audience, can affect or contribute to the communication process. For example, the storyteller may address the audience directly in their real-​life identities and may subtly move in and out of the storyworld during a storytelling process. Thus, narrative communication in live storytelling performances can be more complicated. A storyteller may assume different stances during a storytelling process and communicate with the audience at correspondingly different positions, entailing a participation framework which establishes sets of participants and temporal axes (Cassell and McNeill 1991). With the real-​life storyteller being present throughout a storytelling event and the audience having direct access to the storyteller’s narrating process, the level of narration or the action and process of narrative can also function in a particular way for oral storytelling. The teller may dramatize or explain, and the audience may interact, participate or interrupt along the process of narrating. As Shen observes, with regard to oral storytelling, the storyteller’s tone, gestures, facial expressions, etc. interact with his/​her words, serving an important affective function. Whatever the storyteller does during the process of narrating may directly bear on the audience’s response to the narrative. (2001, p. 124) Interestingly, as Shen (2001) points out, no critics have bothered to distinguish the real teller from the implied teller, nor from the fictional narrator, in oral storytelling. Although such transitions may be too subtle to make a distinction, a careful observation of the different stances assumed by the storyteller and the audience during a storytelling process may enrich our understanding of the dynamics between them for the execution of a storytelling performance. These subtle shifts in dynamics can in turn be examined for their effects on the development of narrativity during a live storytelling performance. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 1, applied storytelling performances have clearly defined functions or purposes that go beyond entertainment. When a story or storytelling is regarded as a form of sheer entertainment, it does not seem to require interpretation; in fact, one can arguably claim that “stories are at best ambiguous” (Martin 1986, p. 155). However, once the purposes of storytelling

 29

Narrativity of oral storytelling 29 go beyond entertainment, issues such as communicating the preferred interpretation of story elements, achieving the intended emotive or evaluative responses from the audience and leading them to draw appropriate propositions regarding the narrative become significant. For that reason, the process of narration or narrative communication between the storyteller and the audience can function in a unique manner for live storytelling performance. It will involve not only the characteristics of narrative communication but also the conventions used in ordinary discourse to ensure relatively accurate transmission of meaning(s). Presumably, as a characteristic of narrative, the telling has to challenge the audience’s understanding to a certain extent and allow them to fill in some connections to make sense. At the same time, the storyteller has to draw on some pragmatics-​related factors of ordinary discourse to control the audience’s mental processing of the emerging narrative structure and elements, so as to make them arrive at the intended interpretation(s) and have relatively uniform emotional or evaluative responses. In short, narrative communication in oral storytelling can no longer be portrayed simply as a linear transaction, with an arrow from the left to the right or from the storyteller to the audience. The storyteller may make references to the real world to ensure intended interpretation(s) of the story elements by the audience as they move in and out of the storyworld during the storytelling process. At the same time, the audience may be invited or allowed to participate in the process of narration, making narrative production and interpretation a cooperative exercise. To understand how narrative communication works in face-​to-​face oral storytelling, it becomes important to look beyond the story and verbal discourse elements. Other factors which are in a way related to the storytelling process or the storytelling event to which the teller and audience come together as participants, need to be examined and acknowledged accordingly for their contribution to the successful execution of a storytelling performance. In this regard, live storytelling performances can be seen as a kind of “social experience within the network of social interrelationships among people” (Georges 1969). With an emphasis on the dynamic process of human communication and social interactions in oral storytelling, Georges (1969) puts forward a set of postulates as follows: i ii iii iv

Every storytelling event is a communicative event. Every storytelling event is a social experience. Every storytelling event is unique. Storytelling events exhibit degrees and kinds of similarities

With each postulate, Georges elaborates different aspects of oral storytelling and the interrelationships among them. For example, in his first postulate, Georges underlines certain distinctive characteristics of face-​to-​face oral storytelling, such as direct, person-​to-​person communication between encoder and decoder; paralinguistic and kinesic codes, in addition to linguistic; a combination of audio and visual channels; and continuous perceptual responses in the transmission and

30

30  Narrativity of oral storytelling reception of the message rather than a one-​way transaction from the teller to the recipient. Much emphasis is put on his second postulate, which regards oral storytelling as a social experience. He claims that participants in a storytelling event assume a specific set of identity relationships among multiple social identities of their social personas (Georges 1969). One participant is described as asserting the social identity of a storyteller, whilst at least one other participant assumes that of story listener(s). These assumed identities constitute a matching set, which is deemed important to make it possible for an oral story to be generated (Georges 1969). These assumed identities involve respective duties and rights for the participants to operate in accordance with a specific set of status relationships. An assertion of a storyteller identity renders the person an “authority” to tell, to take up the role of knower, or entertainer, or informer. However, that particular role is in relation to the adopted role designated to the other participant(s) who assume(s) the identity of story listener(s) in a storytelling event. Georges’s postulations on oral storytelling advocate a distinction for the assumed identities of a storyteller and audience (among multiple social identities of the participants’ social personas) in a face-​to-​face storytelling event. While one participant assumes the social identity of a storyteller and others assume that of story listeners, their other social identities remain relevant during the storytelling event and will even have important effects upon the event (Georges 1969). But in the course of a storytelling process, the social identities of a storyteller and story listeners become increasingly prominent, while their other social identities decrease in relative prominence. Thus, in order to come close to an understanding of live storytelling event, it should be examined as a dynamic phenomenon. For Georges (1969), the dynamic process of human communication and social interaction is the crucial nexus in oral storytelling, without which there would be no storytelling event and hence no story to analyse. It is unquestionable that Georges’s postulates have put forward an important observation on oral storytelling –​that is, the story in oral storytelling is inseparable from all other aspects of a storytelling process and storytelling event. In addition, his analysis of the interactions between a storyteller and story listeners during a storytelling process suggests the possibilities of bi/​multi-​directionality rather than a linear transaction, for narrative communication in oral storytelling. On the other hand, an analysis of the interactions among participants in a storytelling occasion is only one level of narrative analysis, which should complement (or be complemented by) the analyses at the other levels such as the story and its discourse elements (Young 1987; Bloome 2003). In other words, an account of narrative communication in oral storytelling as a dynamic process, and an analysis of narrative structure in an oral story as a finished product, should complement each other. If a text-​based analysis of oral stories has erred in ignoring dynamic aspects of a storytelling process and storytelling occasion, Georges’s postulates are flawed by his preoccupation with the communicative and social aspects of a storytelling process and storytelling event. By giving primacy to “the intersubjective world

 31

Narrativity of oral storytelling 31 of sociality and communication” (Young 1987, p. 16), Georges’s postulates have underplayed other formal and contextual features of the story and the storytelling discourse, which should also be recognized for their contribution to the meaning and significance of oral narrative.

Incorporating the product and the process Rising above the concern with the primacy of product or process in a study of oral storytelling, a framework which suggests an integration of the story, the storytelling discourse (as it is realized during a particular storytelling process) and the storytelling event is desirable. Only through employing an analytical framework which recognizes the fundamental elements of a story as well as key features of a storytelling discourse and a storytelling event, and the interrelationships among them during a particular storytelling process can we specify the narrativity of a live storytelling performance in its totality. Bauman (1986) has made some attempts to relate features of an oral story with aspects of an oral storytelling event, following the integrated view on the social and poetic aspects of storytelling. He proposes what he calls “a performance-​centered conception of oral literature” and claims that his performance-​centred perspective is founded on the realization that the essence of oral narrative, including its artfulness, “is not to be discovered in folklore texts as conventionally conceived, but in lived [sic] performances” (Bauman 1986, p. 8). He defines performance as a mode of communication, a way of speaking, the essence of which resides in the assumption of responsibility to an audience for a display of communicative skill, highlighting the way in which communication is carried out, above and beyond its referential content. (Bauman 1986, p. 3) Claiming that “performance calls forth special attention to and heightened awareness of both the act of expression and the performer” (p.  3), Bauman (1986) combines the formal analysis of oral stories as texts with ethnographic examinations of oral storytelling events as aspects of interactions enacted by storytellers. He takes the story, the act of storytelling and the storytelling event as the cornerstones of a framework that illustrates the reciprocal relationships which he claims to exist between the narrated events (i.e. events recounted in the narratives), the narrative texts and the narrative events (i.e. situations in which the narratives are told). In his words: “the structure of social roles, relations, and interactions; the oral literary text and its meaning; and the structure of the event itself are all emergent in performance” (Bauman 1986, p. 4). He focuses on the verbal devices used by a storyteller (such as reported speech) and regards them as connections that bind together events in the story and the storytelling event during an act of storytelling. Bauman’s performance-​centred conception advocates an integration of the story, the storytelling discourse and the storytelling event of an oral narrative.

32

32  Narrativity of oral storytelling However, his study of oral storytelling is based on his general interest in the investigation of the relationship between orally performed narratives and the conduct of social life. Therefore, his observations are on the aesthetic, social and cultural dimensions of oral storytelling in a particular speech community. The analyses in his 1986 study are specifically based on a corpus of Texan oral tales told in either the spontaneous conversational mode or the elicited mode, rather than in the formal type of storytelling used for applied purposes in various contemporary organizations or communities. Commenting on the performance theory of folklore (to which Bauman’s study is one of the major contributions), Young (1987) contends that these theories show a fine confusion of context and what she calls surround in its conceptualization of the relationships between a story and a storytelling event. To her, it is crucial to distinguish context from surround in oral storytelling, for “[n]‌ot all of what surrounds an event contextualizes it” (Young 1987, p. 70). She defines surround as “whatever is contiguous whether it bears on the event or not”; while context is “whatever bears on the event whether it is contiguous or not” (Young 1987, p.  70). Thus, context is “a matter of relevance, not proximity” (Young 1987, pp. 69, 70). In her words: Stories, that is to say, are never context-​free. The contexts for stories include the events the story is about as well as the occasion on which it is told; they include other stories told on the same occasion, the same story told on other occasions, and tellings and hearings of the same story on the same occasion; they include gestures, postures, orientations and relationships; distributions in space, time, and circumstance; analytical schemas and interactional strategies; the constancies of human communication and the ephemera of turns of mind. (Young 1987, p. 99) From this perspective, the number of possible contexts for an oral story can be considered limitless. However, Young maintains that the number of relevant contexts for understanding it is limited. Thus she proposes an integrated perspective, that is, the frame analysis of narrative, which she claims is able to “exclude some of what is in the surround as context” and, at the same time, “include as contexts some of what is not in the surround” (Young 1987, p. 70). Following the communication theory of Ray Birdwhistell and the frame analysis of Erving Goffman, Young (1987, p.  20) describes frames as “metacommunication, i.e. communication about communication”, or “the description-​ under-​ which an event is to be seen”. Based on this concept, Young illustrates the phenomenology of conversational storytelling as “narrative laminations” of the three realms: taleworld, storyrealm and realm of conversation. The taleworld, “the innermost or deepest realm”, is specified to be “a realm of unfolding events and enacting characters”; which is conjured up by the storyrealm, “the recounting of events and acts in narrative discourse”; which in turn is “an enclave” in the realm of conversation, that is, “the occasion of this recounting” (Young 1987, pp. viii, ix, 24).

 33

Narrativity of oral storytelling 33 Young (1987, p. 23) explains that frames “do not just enclose one realm” but orient one realm to another and specify a relationship between the two. In other words, for Young, frames are not enclosures or containers but perspectives on the relations between the realms. Young’s study provides another integrated perspective which advocates examining oral narrative in its totality. Her analyses show the usefulness of such an integrated approach for an investigation of the phenomenology of oral storytelling. To quote one of her observations: One of the differences between written and oral narrative is that written narrative closes down on the thresholds between realms, circumscribing its own horizons by separating storyteller from hearers, by withdrawing story from conversation, fixing its form, and enclosing it in a book. Oral narrative plays on, out, and through the continuities between realms, particularly between contiguous realms like the story and the conversation. (Young 1987, p. 14) Young’s concept of narrative laminations for the three realms (taleworld, storyrealm and realm of conversation) provides a basis for working towards a framework that integrates the story, the storytelling discourse and the storytelling event of a live storytelling performance. Like Bauman’s study, Young focused on oral narratives told in either the spontaneous conversational mode or elicited mode, rather than in the formal type of storytelling used for applied purposes in various institutions or organizations. Therefore, taking an interdisciplinary approach, the next chapter will propose a contextualized multimodal framework that integrates the story, the storytelling discourse (language as well as multimodal performance features such as elaborate gestures and voice manipulations) and the storytelling event (such as when, where, to whom, by whom and why) for specifying the narrativity of applied storytelling performances in context.

References Abbott, H. P. (2002). The Cambridge introduction to narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alber, J. (2002). The “moreness” or “lessness” of “natural” narratology: Samuel Beckett’s “lessness” reconsidered. Style, 36(1), pp. 54–​75. Bal, M. (1997). Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative (2nd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Barthes, R. (1974). S/​Z. New York: Hill and Wang. Bauman, R. (1986). Story, performance, and event: Contextual studies of oral narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bloome, D. (2003). Narrative discourse. In: A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher and S. R. Goldman, eds., Handbook of discourse processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 287–​319. Cassell, J., and McNeill, D. (1991). Gesture and the poetics of prose. Poetics Today, 12, pp. 375–​404. Chatman, S. (1978). Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

34

34  Narrativity of oral storytelling de Beaugrande, R. (1982). The story of grammars and the grammar of stories. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, pp. 383–​422. Elam, K. (2002). The semiotics of theatre and drama (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Fludernik, M. (1996). Towards a “natural narratology”. London: Routledge. Fludernik, M. (2003). Natural narratology and cognitive parameters. In: D. Herman, ed., Narrative theory and the cognitive sciences. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 243–​270. Genette, G. (1980). Narrative discourse: An essay in method. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Genette, G. (1988). Narrative discourse revisited. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Georges, R. A. (1969). Toward an understanding of storytelling events. Journal of American Folklore, 82, pp. 313–​328. Goodwin, C., and Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In: A. Duranti and C. Goodwin, eds., Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–​42. Herman, D. (1999). Toward a socionarratology: New ways of analyzing natural-​language narratives. In: D. Herman, ed., Narratologies: New perspectives on narrative analysis. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, pp. 218–​246. Herman, D. (2001). Story logic in conversational and literary narratives. Narrative, 9, pp. 130–​137. Herman, D. (2002). Story logic: Problems and possibilities of narrative. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Herman, D., Jahn, M., and Ryan, M. (2005). Introduction. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, pp. x–​xi. Leitch, T. M. (1986). What stories are: Narrative theory and interpretation. London: Pennsylvania State University Press. Lipman, D. (1999). Improving your storytelling: Beyond the basics for all who tell stories in work or play. Little Rock, AR: August House. Livo, N. J., and Reitz, S. A. (1986). Storytelling: Process and practice. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Martin, W. (1986). Recent theories of narrative. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Norrick, N. R. (2000). Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ochs, E., and Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. O’Neill, P. (1994). Fictions of discourse: Reading narrative theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1991). Narrative and self-​concept. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 1, pp. 135–​153. Prince, G. (1982). Narratology: The form and functioning of narrative. Berlin: Mouton. Prince, G. (1997). Narratology and narratological analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, pp. 39–​44. Prince, G. (2001). Revisiting narrativity. In: B. Nelson, A. Freadman and P. Anderson, eds., Telling performances: Essays on gender, narrative, and performance. Newark: University of Delaware Press, pp. 27–​38. Prince, G. (2003). Dictionary of narratology (rev. ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska  Press. Prince, G. (2005). Narrativity. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, pp. 387–​388. Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the folktale (2nd ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Quasthoff, U. M., and Nikolaus, K. (1982). What makes a good story?: Towards the production of conversational narratives. In: A. Flammer and W. Kintsch, eds., Discourse processing. Amsterdam: North-​Holland Publishing, pp. 16–​28.

 35

Narrativity of oral storytelling 35 Rimmon-​Kenan, S. (1983). Narrative fiction (1st ed.). London, New York: Methuen. Rimmon-​Kenan, S. (2002). Narrative fiction (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Ryan, M. (1992). The modes of narrativity and their visual metaphors. Style, 26, pp. 369–​387. Shen, D. (2001). Narrative, reality, and narrator as construct: Reflections on Genette’s “narrating”. Narrative, 9, pp. 123–​129. Sternberg, M. (1978). Expositional modes and temporal ordering in fiction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Sternberg, M. (2001). How narrativity makes a difference. Narrative, 9, pp. 115–​122. Sturgess, P. J. M. (1988). A logic of narrativity. New Literary History, 20, pp. 763–​783. Sturgess, P. J. M. (1992). Narrativity: Theory and practice. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Todorov, T. (1977). The poetics of prose. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Toolan, M. J. (2001). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Wilensky, R. (1982). Story grammars revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, pp. 423–​432. Young, K. G. (1987). Taleworlds and storyrealms: The phenomenology of narrative. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

36

3  Contextualized multimodal framework

The framework –​overview The contextualized multimodal framework (Figure  3.1) combines methodological perspectives from different academic fields such as narratology, stylistics, discourse analysis, performance studies and multimodal communication, as well as storytelling practitioners’ concern of establishing a connection with the audience for successful execution of a live storytelling performance. It acknowledges the significance of a story as well as that of a storytelling process and takes into account the fundamental elements of a story as well as multimodal features of storytelling discourse and situational and functional variables of a storytelling event. Incorporating storytelling practitioners’ concern of establishing connection with the audience for successful execution of a live storytelling performance, it also underlines the dynamics of the storyteller and audience for a more comprehensive examination of their roles and adoption of various stances for a particular storytelling performance. The three main components are illustrated as embedded and embedding realms with bidirectional relationships between them (i.e. each connecting and is connected with the other) as represented by the dotted lines. Each component entails certain key elements or features with relevance to the specification of narrativity in an applied storytelling performance. Importantly, the framework presents a description of the general system governing all applied oral storytelling performances on the one hand, and helps us examine individual performances as unique realizations of the general system on the other.

Elements of the story Following the narratological distinctions of story and discourse, the story in this framework designates the formal content element. It involves four fundamental elements: events, characters, temporality and spatialization. These elements have been claimed to be the four fundamental aspects of a story, or the basic narrative design principles, which are employed and sometimes exploited in different ways by various narratives (Kloepfer 1980; Cassell and McNeill 1991; Herman 1999, 2001, 2002). For the specification of narrativity in the applied storytelling performance, these four elements can be examined as the narrativity factors pertaining to the first component, that is, the story.

 37

Contextualized multimodal framework 37

Storytelling Event Institutional settings and purposes Storytelling Discourse Overall structures, Multimodal performance features

Real teller

Assumed teller (Narrator)

Story Events, Characters Temporality, Spatialization

Ideal audience (Narratee)

Real audience

Figure 3.1 Contextualized multimodal framework. An earlier working version of the framework and a summary of its features appeared in S.  M. Lwin (2017), Narrativity in an institutionalized storytelling performance: A contextualized model. Storytelling, Self, Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Storytelling Studies, 13(1), pp. 54–​75.

Events Events, as an essential part of any analysis of the plot, play an important role in a plot-​based specification of narrativity (e.g. Prince 1982, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2005). An event is defined as “the transition from one state to another state, caused or experienced by actors” (Bal 1985, p. 13) or “a change from one state of affairs to another” (Rimmon-​ Kenan 2002, p.  15). The earlier plot-​ based specifications of narrativity suggest that problems related to a specification of narrativity need to be addressed at the level of a series of events rather than individual events. For example, narrativity is specified on the basis of the ways in which, or the extent to which, a sequence of events allows readers to make inferences and to connect them into a coherent and psychologically plausible whole Prince 1982, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2005; Ryan 1992; Herman 2002). Therefore, as a narrativity factor, series of events can be examined as to a

how they lead from a certain initial state, through middle state(s), and eventually to a terminal state (Prince 1982; Herman 2002) and b how they answer to the same rules as those controlling human behaviour, human thought and action (Bal 1985). It is assumed that a series of events which entails an initial state, a middle state and a terminal state, and which follows logical and conventional restrictions, can

38

38  Contextualized multimodal framework facilitate the audience’s mental processing of it as a continuous, coherent and plausible whole. In other words, it is assumed that such a sequence of events will be more recognizably narrative, and thus can be considered to manifest the narrative potential. Regarding the claim about the same rules as those controlling human behaviour, human thought and action, Bal (1985) emphasizes that these rules are not to be taken as identical but rather similar. What is significant in such claims is that these rules are determined by logical (e.g. the effect succeeds the cause) and conventional restrictions (e.g. a worker is not rich). Bal (1985) suggests that examining a series of events according to this principle can uncover the relationships which connect one event to another. However, problems exist if an analysis of events as a narrativity factor is based only on whether a sequence of events follows logical and conventional restrictions. One of the conditions in a plot-​based specification of narrativity is that the plot is “made up of discrete, particular, positive and temporally distinct actions that have logically unpredictable antecedents or consequences” (Prince 2001, p. 29, emphasis added). Although narrative entails features such as coherence and teleological motivations, a certain degree of coherence and logicalness may be suspended under the appropriate circumstances (Leitch 1986). Through such “tactful or provocative omission” and deviation, the audience is given an opportunity to imply certain connections and to make certain speculations (Leitch 1986, p. 38). These observations imply that a certain degree of omission and deviation from logical and conventional restrictions can enhance the narrativity of a sequence of events, for it makes the event sequence more engaging for an audience to process. Therefore, one can only conclude that a sequence of events manifests its narrativity by means of its particular ways in orienting itself towards logical and conventional sequences of events (Herman 2002). Accordingly, the narrative potential in a sequence of events can only be specified insofar as they suggest a continuous, coherent and psychologically plausible (as well as engaging) whole with their particular combinations of stereotypical expectations and non-​stereotypical transgressions for a particular audience. Assessment for particular combinations of stereotypical expectations and non-​stereotypical transgressions will be based primarily on the analyst’s interpretations of the events and characters extracted from the story text. Interpretations will be made about their potential correspondence to or deviation from what are likely to be stereotypical expectations of a particular group of audience members. Wherever possible, these interpretations will be supported by observations of the audience’s outward responses (such as laugher, claps, murmurs, spontaneous comments etc.), as captured in the recording of the actual storytelling performance. Those outward responses from the audience may suggest that certain story contents correspond to or deviate from their expectations. Characters Another element which is closely related to events and reflected in the story component is characters. “Events were always seen in relation to the actors forming part of it, and the actors in relation to the events they initiate or suffer”

 39

Contextualized multimodal framework 39 (Bal 1985, p. 45). The word character designates a human or human-​like individual, and so characters are often discussed as constructs “modelled on a traditional view of man” and “put together by the reader from various indications dispersed throughout the text” (Rimmon-​Kenan 2002, pp. 29, 36). To understand characters, readers/​listeners tend to resort to their knowledge about real people (Jannidis 2018). That is to say, in the process of narrative communication, characters form a part of the storyworld construction and contribute to its thematic, symbolic or other constellations. Although the concept of characters is sometimes subsumed or left undefined in the earlier studies of narrative, its important role for a specification of narrativity is acknowledged in later studies. For example, Ryan (1992, p.  371) explicitly states that one of the basic conditions of narrativity is that a text “must create a world and populate it with characters and objects”. She regards participants involved in the events as a fundamental narrative feature. Likewise, Herman (1999, pp. 115, 224) holds that “to be processed as narrative, event-​ strings must also involve a specific configuration of participants or actants whose doings conform to known behavioral paradigms”. Therefore, characters can be examined as “constructs modeled on processors’ pre-​stored expectations about human beings and human behavior” (Herman 1999, p.  234). Specifically, an analysis of characters as a narrativity factor will be pertinently associated with the existence of a mind and participation in experiences which are meaningful to a human (Ryan 2006). For example, in Ryan’s proposal on the set of conditions for narrativity, the two conditions which are apparently related to characters state the following: •

•

Some of the participants in the events must be human or anthropomorphic agents who have a mental life and react emotionally to the states of the world. Some of the events must be purposeful actions by these agents, i.e. the agents must be motivated by conflicts and their deeds must be aimed towards the solving of problems. (Ryan 2006, p. 194)

Given that a sequence of events which follows the rules similar to those controlling human behaviour, human thoughts and actions will be more amendable to narrative, the involvement of humans or human-​like entities in these events becomes important for an understanding of the narrative potential manifested by such a sequence of events. Various mental states of the people or human-​ like entities that become involved in the events (such as their intents, emotions, feelings, desires, goals etc.) can serve as motivations for their actions, and thus can explain some of the forces that drive the series of events to play out in a particular sequence. From this aspect, it seems that particular configurations and relationships of characters can help the audience make inferences and understand the principles of organization or the connections between events. Consequently, this would facilitate the audience’s processing of a sequence of events as something plausible and coherent. Hence, along with sequences of events, configurations

40

40

Contextualized multimodal framework

and relationships of characters involved in the events should be examined as a narrativity factor pertaining to the story component. Temporality and spatialization Events, as a narrativity factor, happen somewhere during a certain period of time and in a certain sequence. Therefore, both the time span (regardless of its length) and the chronological connection for a series of events are significant elements as they determine whether that particular sequence of events forms one continuous whole (Bal 1985). Likewise, the spatial elements (although they may or may not be explicitly indicated) are considered important, since they are believed to help the spatial thinking of a reader, that is, the imagination of a scene while processing a sequence of events (Bal 1985). Thus, two other elements reflected in the framework as constituents of the story component are temporality and spatialization. If a narrative is to evoke not just a sequence of events but also the worlds in which these events take place (Ryan 2005), temporal and spatial anchorage or situatedness, as well as temporal and spatial distributions of events and characters, becomes important for a specification of narrativity as well. Herman (2002) similarly regards temporality and spatialization as the “two core properties” that help “constitute narrative domains” (Herman 2002, p. 296, original emphasis). Both Ryan and Herman maintain that a storyworld as a mental model in which the storyteller and audience engage are temporally as well as spatially structured. Therefore, to be constituents of a storyworld that is recoverable as well as coherent, events and characters have to be situated somewhere, within a certain time span, following a certain timeline. In other words, it is assumed that particular situatedness and distributions of events and characters in time and place can facilitate (or impede) the audience’s (re)construction of a storyworld while they are processing a sequence of events. A systematic temporal and spatial distribution of events and characters binds the story constituents together, and thus facilitates the (re)construction of a storyworld by a recipient – that is, the more systematically the temporality and spatialization of event constituents operate in a given story, the more “narrative-like” will it seem and the more narrativity will that story possess (Herman 2002). Hence, besides events and characters, temporality and spatialization can be regarded as the narrativity factors of the story component, and they can be examined as to how an anchorage and ordered distribution of events and characters in time and place facilitate the audience’s (re) construction of a storyworld while processing the sequence of events. Such an examination can also bring out the significance of any strategic deviations which could lead the audience to the (re)construction of a storyworld in a particular manner or with some particular effects. Examples of deviations can be a b c d

condensation or expansion of a timeline; interruption or the breaking of chronological order; indeterminate temporal and spatial anchorage or distributions; inexplicit indication of the time and location, leaving them for the audience’s deduction; etc.

41

Contextualized multimodal framework 41 The analysis of events, characters, temporality and spatialization will give one facet of narrativity in an applied oral storytelling performance, that is, the narrative potential manifested in the story elements. It is equally important to find out how the narrative potential manifested in the story elements is brought out to interact with the audience’s mental processes through features of the storytelling discourse during a live storytelling performance. Hence, the next component in the framework is the storytelling discourse.

Structures and features of the storytelling discourse Once again, following the narratological distinctions of story and discourse, the storytelling discourse will designate the formal expression elements. However, to emphasize the process-oriented conceptualization of a textual economy for oral narrative (i.e. to underline the significance of a storytelling process), the term storytelling discourse, rather than discourse, will be used. The storytelling discourse involves two key aspects: (1) overall structures and (2) multimodal performance features – that is, verbal, vocal and visual features emanating from the storyteller in the course of a storytelling process. Overall structures Studies of oral narrative by discourse analysts (or from the perspective of discourse analysis) have examined the structures of elicited or conversational storytelling for an understanding of certain social, cultural, developmental or interactional factors (e.g. Labov and Waletzky 1967; Tannen 1980; Polanyi 1985; McCabe and Peterson 1991; Holmes 1997; Norrick 2000; Ochs and Taylor 2001; Coates 2003). In most cases, these studies have adapted the earliest and perhaps the most influential framework, that is, the six-part structure of a fully formed oral narrative, proposed by Labov and Waletzky (1967) for an analysis of elicited oral narrative. The six-part structure of a fully formed oral narrative proposed by Labov and Waletzky (1967) consists of the following: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Abstract: What was the story about? Orientation: Who, when, what, where? Complication action: Then what happened? Evaluation: So what? Result or resolution: What finally happened? Coda: The sealing off of a narrative, which signals that the narrative is finished.

One of such adaptations was done by Norrick (2000). In his study of conversational storytelling, Norrick explores the overall structures of what he calls the original storytelling discourse by examining “how the teller has chunked the intonation units into narrative elements and sections” (2000, p.  29). Loosely following Labov and Waletzky, he identifies narrative elements in original storytelling as the abstract, main action, resolution and coda as well as various types

42

42  Contextualized multimodal framework of orientational information (background, general frame, narrow frame) and evaluation (general versus local) (Norrick 2000). By identifying these elements as they appear in the original storytelling, Norrick illustrates macrostructures and narrative units for story types. One of Norrick’s major modifications to Labov and Waletzky’s framework is the distinction of various types of orientational information, such as background, general frame and narrow frame. According to him, background information includes “the setting” as well as “all sorts of details, whether necessary for the point of a story or not”; a general frame gives “information about the place and time of the actions reported”; and a narrow frame leads “directly into the particular action of the story” (Norrick 2000, pp. 32–​33). To him, such distinctions are important for a better understanding of oral storytelling since they not only highlight the clues a hearer might use in understanding the story but also reveal teller strategies of recall and verbalization (Norrick 2000). Norrick also argues that the sequencing of constituents making up the macrostructure of a conversational storytelling discourse may not follow the “default” order as proposed by Labov and Waletzky for elicited oral narrative. With his emphasis on understanding the telling strategies and organizational functions of words and phrases in oral storytelling, Norrick’s principles for giving structural descriptions of the original storytelling discourse have been useful. His principles seem to support an analysis of the constituents forming an overall structure of storytelling discourse as they appear in a live storytelling process. In spite of being a typically preconceived narrative, a live oral storytelling performance can always have a sense of spontaneity employed by the storyteller for a particular audience and a particular storytelling event. As a result, for example, various types of orientational information may be required during a particular storytelling process. Moreover, elements shaping the overall structure of a storytelling discourse may not follow the “default” order, as they may occur or be put forward at any points wherever the storyteller figures they are needed for communicative or interactive purposes –​for example, for the understanding of certain story elements, or as a response to the needs of a particular audience or institutional settings and purposes. Therefore, elements constituting the overall structure of the storytelling discourse in an applied oral storytelling performance should be examined as they emerge during a live storytelling process. In this way, narrativity in an applied oral storytelling performance can be explored as it is developed through the interplay between elements of the story and each constituent shaping the overall structure of the storytelling discourse during a storytelling process. While following Norrick’s principles for illustrating the overall structures of the storytelling discourse, one thing to note is that Norrick (2000) seems to include evaluation or evaluative elements (i.e. features that take on an evaluative force, such as repetition) in his structural descriptions of the original storytelling discourse. Referring to their important role in verbalizing, understanding and remembering narrative, he underlines the potential as a structural unit in certain evaluative elements (Norrick 2000). The proposed contextualized multimodal

 43

Contextualized multimodal framework 43 framework will, however, examine evaluation and evaluative elements as performance features rather than as a structural unit proper of the storytelling discourse. In this way, evaluations and evaluative elements (along with other performance features from the verbal, vocal and visual aspects) can be examined, for example, as to how they help to foreground the emerging story elements and enhance the audience’s cognitive and emotive responses. Multimodal performance features In a live storytelling performance, how a story is told is as important as what the story relates. It is undeniable that storytelling involves a display of competence by the storyteller in the way a story is told. Often the audience derives enjoyment from a storytelling performance depending on the competence of the storyteller. From this perspective, verbal as well as non-​verbal features emanating from the storyteller during a storytelling process become an important aspect of the storytelling discourse in a live storytelling performance. Accordingly, to understand how the narrative potential manifested in elements of a story are brought out and foregrounded for the audience’s responses, an examination of the overall structure of a storytelling discourse needs to be complemented with a detailed analysis of verbal as well as non-​verbal features employed by the storyteller during a storytelling performance. First, the notion of performance needs to be clarified. The term “performance” has been used to suggest “an aesthetically marked and heightened mode of communication, framed in a special way and put on display for an audience” (Bauman 1992, p. 41). Used in this sense, performance involves an assumption of accountability by the performer to an audience for the way in which communication is carried out, above and beyond its referential content (Bauman 2001). Following Bauman’s performance-​centred conception of oral literature, the notion of performance as a specially marked mode of communication has been prevalent in studies of oral storytelling. Although the term was first introduced by folklorists in their studies of folkloristic storytelling, it has been adopted by some sociolinguists in their studies of conversational narratives as well (see Wolfson 1982). Central to an analysis of oral storytelling as a performance is an examination of how features of a storytelling discourse set up a special interpretive frame for the recipient(s) to understand the story and the act of storytelling. This in turn carries certain implications, such as performance limits and maximal effectiveness, that is, maintaining a keen engagement with the audience while the storytelling progresses. From a semiotic perspective, the notion of performance with such implications is said to entail “a multiplication of communicational factors” and lead to the description of “a performance text” “by its semiotic thickness or density” (Elam 2002, pp. 31, 33). No doubt the storytelling discourse in a live storytelling performance is often an infusion of features from the verbal, vocal and visual aspects. However, most of the vocal and visual features are usually left out in the studies of oral tales in their printed forms. Although the vocal and visual features may be mere peripheries

44

44  Contextualized multimodal framework of oral narrative, their contribution to meaning-​making or their role as contextualization cues, can be significant in a face-​ to-​ face storytelling performance. Together with verbal features, vocal and visual features can help the storyteller enhance or guide the audience’s responsiveness to the emerging narrative structure and elements. In fact, when vocal and/​or visual features are used by a storyteller in conjunction with spoken words in face-​to-​face storytelling, they seem to “add extra depth to story imagery as well as specificity of meaning to the language of the story” (Livo and Rietz 1986, p. 119). Therefore, to understand the role of performance features in developing narrativity during a live storytelling process, various verbal, vocal and visual features emanating from a storyteller can be examined as to how they appear to influence the audience’s cognitive, emotive and evaluative responses to the emerging narrative structure and elements. Since it seems possible for an oral storyteller to employ a wide range of verbal as well as vocal and visual performance features during a face-​to-​face storytelling process, it is important to outline how these features can be classified for an empirical analysis.

Verbal, vocal and visual performance features A number of studies have examined various verbal and/​or non-​verbal features used by a storyteller in different modes of oral storytelling as performance features. For example, in her study of conversational narrative, Wolfson (1982) points out several performance features, such as direct speech, asides, repetition, expressive sounds, sound effects, motions and gestures, and switches between past tense and conversational historic present. She claims that the degree to which a story may be said to be performed is determined by the number of performance features present in the story and the extent to which each of these features is used. Similarly, in his study of Texan oral narrative told in the elicited or conversational mode, Bauman (1986) highlights some verbal performance features such as expressive elaboration, evaluation, reported speech, episodes and initial particles, syntactic parallelism, thematic parallelism and metanarration. For folkloristic storytelling, Bauman (1992) proposes a list of performance features which include a special formula (e.g. Once upon a time), stylizations of speech or movement (e.g. rhyme), situational markers (e.g. a raised stage) and special paraphernalia (e.g. costumes or masks). Following Bauman, Fabb (1997) makes a similar list of features, such as certain kinds of beginnings (e.g. a particular fixed phrase); certain kinds of endings (e.g. direct address to the audience asking for evaluation); certain structural features of the text (e.g. a high degree of patterning); and certain contextual features (e.g. a special place or special time). Depending on the focus of an individual study, performance features of oral storytelling have been discussed under a variety of terms, such as, to enumerate a few of them,

•

a wide range of vocal registers, dialogues, stylized gestures and movements, inserted narratives, jokes and humorous asides (Bender 1999);

 45

Contextualized multimodal framework 45

• • • • •

imitative sounds, body language, teller positions and props (Mato 1999); tone of voice, facial expressions, gestures and postures, eye behaviour and orientation in space (Lipman 1999); prosodic and paralinguistic devices (Günthner 1999); concurrent gestures of the narrator (Cassell and McNeill 1991); and facial expressions and body movements (Miller 1996).

In general, these studies have claimed that performance features are employed for a range of narrative functions, including characterization, reaching and engaging the audience, persuading the audience to the narrator’s point of view, promoting certain kinds of interpretive and emotive responses, and creating a communicative context during a storytelling process. However, there seems to be little agreement among these studies on which term covers specifically which features of expression, especially when it comes to voice manipulations or gestural actions. Moreover, some of them have focused exclusively on features related to only one aspect of expression, for example, language or voice or movements or external visuals. Rather than trying to refine these terminologies, it will be more viable to generally classify performance features according to the three major aspects of expression: (1) verbal, (2) vocal and (3) visual, and to explore how features from different aspects of expression are employed in combination by a storyteller during a storytelling process to achieve proper and maximum effects on foregrounding the emerging narrative structure and elements. By verbal performance features, the study refers to those features related to the use of a specific form of language in storytelling, such as direct quotations from dialogues between characters, repetition of words or phrases, syntactic parallelism and so on. Admittedly, much research has been done on the use of verbal performance features in oral narrative, especially with regard to conversational storytelling, for example, Bauman (1986), Wolfson (1982), Tannen (1980) and Norrick (2000). These studies have illustrated the important roles of verbal performance features in oral storytelling. For example, Bauman (1986) and Norrick (2000) have discussed the feature of repetition in conversational storytelling and underlined its contribution to the coherence of narrative as well as to the dramatic effect of the telling. The observations made in these studies serve as a starting point for an analysis of verbal performance features used by a storyteller in an applied storytelling performance. Vocal features, on the other hand, denote manipulations of voice by a storyteller during a storytelling process. The six main facets of vocal expression include pitch, pace, volume, pause, inflection and tone (Müller 1992; Krummel 1998; Elam 2002):

• • • • • •

pitch, the relatively high or low note of voice pace, the relatively fast or slow speed of delivery volume, the relative loudness or softness pause, cessation or suspension of speech inflection, sliding (glide) of voice up or down tone, emotional connotations attached to vocal features.

46

46  Contextualized multimodal framework In addition, a feature often noted in studies of vocal expression is emphatic stress, that is, a syllable or word said with greater emphasis and made more prominent than the others (Fine 1984; Krummel 1998). Such prominence is often achieved through one or more features, such as pitch movement, louder volume, elongating vowel. Emphatic stress is noted on top of the foregoing six main features because it is often a mix of features and it also highlights the importance of a word on the basis of meaning. The use of these vocal features produces rhythmic and intonational cues that help create the suggested atmosphere for the representation of events in the course of a storytelling process (Müller 1992). To determine the contribution the vocal features make to the process of developing narrativity during a live storytelling performance, these vocal features should be examined as they appear in a storytelling discourse and how the use of these features (either singly or jointly) influences the audience’s responsiveness to the emerging narrative structure and elements. In order to reduce the technicality in the analysis, these terms will be used for the auditory or impressionistic, rather than instrumental, effects, that is, according to how a recipient hears the voice made for a particular word (or phrase), when he listens to a stretch of utterances made by a speaker (Cruttenden 1986). However, such descriptions are not to be taken as equivalent to arbitrary or purely personal, for research of this kind has emphasized the fact that the choice of vocal indicators is strongly rule bound or codified in most cases (Elam 2002). With regard to visual performance features, it has been established that “some visuals, if only the storyteller’s body and movements, always accompany storytelling” (Miller 1996). Therefore, visual performance features can be classified into a storyteller’s gestures, postures and facial expressions on the one hand, and external objects (e.g. props, painting or drawing if there is any accompanying the storytelling) on the other. As regards the external visuals, Livo and Reitz 1986 have contended that their accompaniment is never essential in face-​to-​face oral storytelling, although they can sometimes enhance the telling of a specific story or for a particular type of audience (see also Miller 1996). If any external visuals are used, they can be classified as external [visual] performance features so long as they integrate well with the storytelling process, that is, provided that they appear as emanations from and as an extension of the performer who is in direct control of the storytelling process (Miller 1996). The more fundamental visual performance features, which are inseparably linked to the presence of the storyteller in face-​to-​face oral storytelling, are their stylized and synchronized gestures (and postures and facial expressions). Gestures can be defined as (significant) movements of the speaker’s limb and/​or body used with or instead of speech (Cassell and McNeill 1991; Krummel 1998). It is undeniable that gestures actually accompany many types of speech, and not necessarily a storytelling discourse. However, illustrating how gestures add another dimension to the narrative and give the audience a more complete view of the elements of the story such as events and characters, Cassell and McNeill (1991) assert that when gestures occur during the course of a face-​to-​face storytelling

 47

Contextualized multimodal framework 47 process, they become as much a part of the narrative communication as speech is. Their analysis of gestural distinctions shows that synchronized gestures in the real-​time structuring of narrative makes the narrative language “a full, rounded 3-​ D structure”, “intersecting syntagmatic, paradigmatic, and imagistic axes” (Cassell and McNeill 1991, p. 376). They claim that these concurrent gestures not only help the storyteller present elements of a story but also help the listener understand them. Similarly, Elam (2002, p. 72) regards gestures as “kinesic markers” that regulate the flow of semantic information, vary the presentation of content according to the degree and kind of attention required, and ultimately can assist the audience in following and absorbing the discourse. To understand the gestural contribution to a storytelling process, Cassell and McNeill (1991) have suggested a semiotic method, which takes into account the relation of gesture form to meaning and function. Adapting Cassell and McNeill’s (1991, pp. 382–​385) typology, gestures can be classified as follows:

•

• • • •

Mimic gestures: movements of the hands and arms (and the rest of the body) that bear a close formal relationship to the semantic content of speech. (Although gestures typically refer to movements of the hands and arms, mimic gestures often involve the rest of the body, especially when the storyteller represents different characters by enacting or imitating their actions.) Metaphoric gestures: representational gestures like mimic gestures, but corresponding to an abstract idea, not to a concrete object or event (e.g. using two hands to depict the scales of justice when saying, “decide”). Propositional gestures: gestures that represent an approximate height, size and so on. Beats: rhythmical moves of the hand according to pulsations of speech, indexing the word or phrase it accompanies as being significant (not purely for its semantic content but for its discourse-​pragmatic content). Deictic gestures: points indicating objects around the teller, or abstract pointing (i.e. the gesture space may look empty, but to the teller it is filled with discourse entities).

The main features of analysis in each dimension are summarized in Figure 3.2. An analysis of features working at each dimension will be followed by an examination of how features from different dimensions interact with each other to represent elements of the story. Features from the verbal, vocal and visual aspects can be employed all at once during an oral storytelling process, and they may support each other for maximum effects on getting the intended responses from the audience; or may contradict each other and result in special effects such as an irony or humour. Hence, to understand the role of multimodal performance features in bringing out the narrative potential manifested in elements of the story during a live storytelling performance, an analysis of features working at each dimension needs to be followed by an examination of how features from different dimensions are employed in combination to help represent a story element. The aim is to understand how features from different semiotic modes

48

48  Contextualized multimodal framework

Figure 3.2 Parameters for a multimodal analysis of the storytelling discourse.

“are combined and integrated to form a complex whole which cannot be reduced to, or explained in terms of the mere sum of its separate parts” (Baldry and Thibault 2006, p. 18). Indeed, storytellers may differ significantly in the manner in which, and the degree to which, they make use of performance features. The best effects depend to a large extent on an individual teller’s personality and capabilities (Livo and Rietz 1986; Lipman 1999). Therefore, the analysis of performance features in relation to the specification of narrativity in an applied storytelling performance will be descriptive rather than prescriptive –​that is, performance features will be examined as they appear in the storytelling discourse of an individual performance. It is not to claim that an oral storyteller must use these performance features but rather to uncover how the narrative potential or thrust manifested in emerging elements of the story get foregrounded by a storyteller for the audience’s responses through the use of his/​her performance features during a storytelling process. In other words, the analysis of performance features will serve as part of the investigation to understand the interplay between elements of the story and features of the storytelling discourse during a live storytelling performance.

Situational and functional variables of the storytelling event The third component in the contextualized multimodal framework for analysing an applied storytelling performance is the storytelling event. The word “event” in the discussion of a storytelling event should not be confused with the event or sequence of events, which has been discussed as a key element of the story

49

Contextualized multimodal framework 49 component. In general, the word “event” in a storytelling event is to be understood in an ethnomethodological sense, that is, a set of circumstances which a member of a society can construe as a type of occasion (Polanyi 1985). In his study of oral storytelling as a performance event, Bauman (1986) also suggests that an event may be defined in terms of setting, institutional context, scheduling or occasioning principles, and so on. On this basis, the structure of a performance event is described as “a product of the systematic interplay of numerous situational factors”, including 1 2 3 4

participants’ identities and roles; the expressive means employed in performance; social interactional ground rules, norms and strategies for performance and criteria for its interpretation and evaluation; and the sequence of actions that make up the scenario of the event. (Bauman 1986, pp. 3–4)

The storytelling event in the contextualized multimodal framework of an applied storytelling performance is, therefore, made up of the following situational and functional aspects:

• • •

institutional/organizational/social settings (i.e. the place, the occasion, the programme etc. of a particular institution or organization for a storytelling performance to take place) institutional/organizational/social purposes (i.e. the functions that a storytelling performance is considered to perform for that institution, organization or social group) participants (i.e. people who come together for a storytelling performance, of which the primary partakers are those who play the roles of the storyteller and audience)

In most cases, public storytelling performances held in institutions, organizations or communities would appear as an entertainment supplement, even though it might appear in varying degrees. Although they may be held for certain communicative or educational purposes, these functions are usually made implicit under the label “entertainment”. With its root word “entertain”, meaning “to hold or to keep steady, busy, or amused”, the term “entertainment” often obscures the fact that it also has “informational content that usually cultivates conventional themes, outlooks, and perspectives” (Barnouw and Kirkland 1992, p. 50). Therefore, entertainment can be information for those who seek no information. Storytelling seems to work as the most effective, but least suspected, means of transmitting or reinforcing messages when it is associated with the innocuous label “entertainment” (Barnouw and Kirkland 1992). Similarly, an applied storytelling performance can serve specific social purposes (in addition to the recreational) and can actually play a significant role in the cultivation of values and beliefs of a particular institution, organization or community, while it appears as

50

50  Contextualized multimodal framework a form of entertainment. In other words, specific communicative, persuasive or educational purposes can exist together with or behind the recreational facade of an applied storytelling performance. When the functions of a particular storytelling performance go beyond recreational to other specific purposes, their possible influence on elements of the story and features of the storytelling process become an important factor to consider if we want to specify narrativity in the totality of an applied storytelling performance. For example, due to the situational and functional factors of a particular storytelling event, features of the storytelling discourse may lead the audience to process elements of the story along certain lines, so that their cognitive, evaluative and emotive responses to the emerging narrative will be in line with specific messages or purposes or storytelling. Moreover, elements of the story as well as performance features employed by the storyteller during the storytelling process may be governed by the type of audience, in addition to the settings and purposes of a particular storytelling event. Accordingly, the relevance of situational and functional factors to the specification of narrativity in the totality of an applied storytelling performance can be explored through the analysis of the dynamics of the storyteller and audience, and the compatibility between forms, functions and situations of a particular storytelling performance. Dynamics of the storyteller and audience Storytelling is an inherently dynamic activity, and it can be even more so in a face-​ to-​face delivery of the participatory type of story. The dynamics of the storyteller and audience in a live applied storytelling performance have been discussed by Lipman (1999) from the standpoint of a storyteller steering a storytelling event. He explains the four tasks of a storyteller during a live storytelling performance, namely, uniting, inviting, offering and acknowledging (Lipman 1999). In the first stage of uniting, the storyteller may apply various means to unite the audience, that is, “to stop behaving as individuals and begin responding as a group” (Lipman 1999, p. 126). Closely related to uniting is the stage of inviting, that is, introducing the audience to the upcoming story elements. Following the stage of inviting is the offering, the stage in which the storyteller and audience “enter” the world of the story along with the storyteller’s telling process. In the final stage of acknowledging, the storyteller indicates that the storytelling is over, and the audience once again becomes a collection of individuals instead of a unified group (Lipman 1999). In summary, participants in a storytelling event assume a specific set of identity relationships for such dynamics to take place. For example, while one participant assumes the identity of a storyteller, the rest assume that of story listeners, constituting a matching set. While these assumed identities become prominent in the course of a storytelling process, their other identities will remain relevant and have important effects upon the dynamics between them (Georges 1969). Storytellers “act as ‘other’ ” during a storytelling process and at the same time lend “very tangible dimensions of his or her real-​life personality to the making of the story” (Livo and Reitz 1986, p. 20). Importantly, “[t]‌he process of making

 51

Contextualized multimodal framework 51 a story during a storytelling performance requires that both teller and audience know what to do and enter into a mutual agreement to do it” (Livo and Reitz 1986, p. 184). For example, the audience has to agree to enter into the “other” reality that the storyteller brings with the story and the telling process to achieve some kinds of appropriate engagement frameworks between the storyteller and audience in executing a storytelling process. Based on the insights drawn from these earlier studies, the dynamics of the storyteller and audience during a live oral storytelling performance can be examined in terms of the shifts in the nature of engagement between them. The three major types of engagement involved in the successful execution of a storytelling process will be termed as (i)  the real teller and real audience, (ii) the assumed teller and ideal audience and (iii) the narrator and narratee. Although these terms are borrowed and adapted from those which have been used in the analysis of written fictional narratives (i.e. the real author and real reader, the implied author and implied reader, the narrator and narratee), they will be used with somewhat different meanings in the analysis of a live oral storytelling performance. It is noted that unlike a written fictional narrative, in which the flesh-​and-​blood author and the flesh-​and-​blood reader are practically separated by time and place, both the storyteller and audience members are fully present and accompanying each other throughout the storytelling process in a live storytelling performance. In the analysis of written fictional narratives, the term “implied author”, which was first introduced by Wayne C. Booth, refers to “an ideal, literary, created version of the real man” (Booth 1961, p. 75). The “real author”, on the other hand, refers to “the real living and breathing author” with a complex and multifaceted personality (Abbott 2002, p. 77). According to Booth, the implied author can be described as the author’s “second self”, “the official scribe” or “the core of norms and choices” of a narrative (Booth 1961, pp. 71, 74). Booth’s concept of implied author makes us aware of the literary masking of an author when he/​she writes. However, the concept of implied author has generated some debates among narrative theorists. For example, Rimmon-​Kenan (2002, p. 87) regarded it as a reader-​response phenomenon, that is, “a construct inferred and assembled by the reader from all the components of the text”. Nevertheless, the importance of recognizing the implied version(s) of an author has been reinforced by Booth when he relates the notion of implied author to “the universality of our daily, hourly, dependence on constructive and destructive role playing” (2005, p. 77). He contends that in almost all of our utterances, “[w]‌e wipe out those selves that we don’t like, or that at least seem inappropriate for the moment” (Booth 2005, p. 77). In his words: In every corner of our lives, whenever we speak or write, we imply a version of our character that we know is quite different from many other selves that are exhibited in our flesh-​and-​blood world. Sometimes the created versions of our selves are superior to the selves we live with day by day; sometimes they turn out to be lamentably inferior to the selves we present, or hope to present, on other occasions. (Booth 2005, p. 77)

52

52  Contextualized multimodal framework The concept of implied author as a persona which is assumed by an author for the creation of a work, and which is distinguishable from his/​her real-​life multiple personas, reinforces the need to acknowledge the “other” identity (Livo and Reitz 1986) that an oral storyteller is considered to assume for the telling of a particular story during a particular storytelling performance. In other words, to understand how an oral storytelling performance is initiated and executed, it becomes important to recognize the teller’s assumption of the particular identity of a storyteller (among his/​her real-​life multiple personas, e.g. personal or occupational identities) for that particular storytelling performance. Once the teller assumes the role of a storyteller for the telling of a particular story, he/​she can be referred to as the assumed teller of that particular storytelling performance in the analysis of the dynamics of the storyteller and audience. Similarly, the notion of implied reader, described as the “[communicational] counterpart to the implied author” (Chatman 1978, p.  149), reminds one to acknowledge the role that is supposed to be assumed by the audience during a live storytelling performance. This role, which is ideally considered to be assumed by the audience during a live performance, can be termed the ideal audience. In the analysis of written fictional narratives, the term “implied reader”, which was introduced by Wolfgang Iser, describes “the audience presupposed by the narrative itself” or “the desired audience stance” (Chatman 1978, p. 150). This concept of implied reader has been discussed under some related terms, for example, “model reader” (Eco 1979), “authorial audience” (Rabinowitz 1987), “intended, or ideal, reader” (Schneidfr 2005). Although some strands of post-​classical narratology have chosen not to focus on such ideal reader constructs (e.g. Diengott 2005), what is interesting in these discussions of implied reader and its related terms is the recognition for the reader’s assumption of a role in fulfilling the intention of a text. Moreover, these discussions have illustrated how such a role is distinguishable from a reader’s real-​life characteristics and dispositions. This seems to help us understand how the audience of an applied storytelling performance has to agree to enter into the “other” reality that the storyteller brings with the storytelling process (Livo and Reitz 1986). Thus, when the teller and audience members interact with each other as individuals in their real-​life identities (i.e. personal or occupational identities with which they initially come to be part of a storytelling event, for example, teacher and pupils), the type of engagement between them will be regarded as that of the real teller and the real audience. Once the teller assumes the role of a storyteller for the telling of a particular story, and when the audience members assume (or are encouraged to assume) the role of ideal recipients who are unified as a group and who are willing to enter into the “other” reality that the storyteller brings with the story, the engagement between them will be that of the assumed teller and the ideal audience. While the concepts of implied author and implied reader can help us understand the assumption of respective roles (i.e. the assumed teller and ideal audience)

 53

Contextualized multimodal framework 53 by the participants of an applied storytelling performance, it is also noted that these concepts are often regarded as an abstraction (Martin 1986), as constructs which do not have direct means of communicating (Chatman 1978) or which “do not have a direct textual presence” (Phelan and Booth 2005, p.  389). Therefore, another type of engagement has to be examined in the analysis of a narrative transaction, that is, the engagement between the narrator and narratee. To quote Phelan and Booth (2005, p. 388, emphasis added), the standard communication model of narrative posits that the transmission of narrative begins with a real author who creates an implied author who constructs a narrator who addresses a narratee; the implied author, through this construction and address, communicates with an implied reader; and the real author, through all of that, communicates with a real reader. The narrator may broadly be defined as the agent, or the agency, “that tells or transmits everything  –​the existents, states, and events  –​in a narrative to a narratee” (Phelan and Booth 2005, p.  388). Conversely, the narratee, a term introduced by Gerald Prince, may be defined as “the addressee to whom a narrator tells his/​her tale” (Diengott 2005, p. 338). Although it has remained contestable to regard the narrator as an agent who “engages in some activity serving the needs of narration” in written fictional narratives (Rimmon-​Kenan 2002, p.  90), this conceptualization seems acceptable for the analysis of a live storytelling performance, in which such an agent is identifiable and fully present. In fact, the concept of narrator has been used by Livo and Reitz (1986) in their discussion of oral storytelling performances. They define the narrator as “an omniscient presence that can look on and tell about the people and events in the tale” during a live oral storytelling performance (Livo and Reitz 1986, p. 97, original emphasis). Correspondingly, the narratee in a live oral storytelling performance can minimally be defined as the audience that not only listens to but also participates in the narrator’s telling about the people and events in the tale during a storytelling process. A distinction between the assumed teller and the narrator (and correspondingly between the ideal audience and the narratee) can be made in terms of a role versus a figure. That is to say, the assumed teller and the ideal audience will be regarded as the respective roles that the real teller and the real audience are considered to assume for the initiation of a particular storytelling performance, while the narrator and the narratee are the figures carrying out the activities related to the execution of that particular storytelling process. To sum up, for an analysis of the dynamics of the teller and audience during a live oral storytelling performance, it is held that when the participants interact with each other as individuals in their real-​life multiple identities, their engagement will be regarded as that of the real teller and the real audience. The real teller and the real audience engagement will shift to the engagement of the assumed teller and the ideal audience once the participants assume their respective roles of storyteller and audience for the telling of a particular story during a particular

54

54  Contextualized multimodal framework storytelling performance. Correspondingly, the engagement of the assumed teller and the ideal audience will shift to that of the narrator and the narratee, once the participants become the figures carrying out the activities of the storytelling process. An important point to note is that in a live storytelling performance, the shifts in the types of engagement between the teller and audience can be bi/​multidirectional. Unlike the narrative transaction in written stories, in which the dynamics can be outlined in a more or less linear model (e.g. Chatman 1978), the teller and audience of storytelling may “go in and out” of the storyworld. That is, they may (subtly) shift to and from different types of engagement during the storytelling process. When the teller abandons the role of “other” for the self-​ conscious demeanour of their real-​life identities, the audience will also shift to the identities of the real audience (i.e. a collection of individuals rather than a unified group). In any case, the dynamics which are generated through the shifts in the nature of engagement between the storyteller and the audience should be examined for their effects on the process of developing narrativity during a live applied storytelling performance. Compatibility between forms, functions and situations The processing and understanding of narrative involves not only being able to summarize or paraphrase it in certain ways or to answer questions about its content, but also making propositions out of events and characters constituting the story (Prince 1983). Hence, for a better understanding of the form and function of narrative, a framework for narrative analysis should ultimately include a contextual theory of interpretation and evaluation, or a pragmatic component, along with others such as syntactic, semantic and discursive components (Prince 1983, 1995). Should the union of sets of propositions result in inconsistencies, the story would be deemed incoherent. In the same way, depending on whether or not these propositions connect with the context in which the storytelling occurs, the narrative “will make its point and make it well or, on the contrary, it will seem poor, strange or incoherent” (Prince 1983, p. 533). Thus, in order for the story to be “good” as a story, the structures and functions have to be appropriate for the situation (Quasthoff and Nikolaus 1982). The term “situation” covers various aspects of language use, such as social context, spatiotemporal surroundings, personal and social relations between speaker and listener, their mutual knowledge and so on. From this perspective, pragmatic criteria such as the situational appropriateness and suitability of the story for the intended functions as well as a particular audience need to be followed in telling a “good” story. By extension, for a unified accomplishment of narrativity in an applied storytelling performance, elements of the story and features of the storytelling discourse need to correspond to situational and functional factors of a particular storytelling event such as the settings, purposes, types of audience and (assumptions about) their inferential capacity and knowledge. It can be assumed that the formulation and verbalization of narrative by a storyteller, as well as the

 55

Contextualized multimodal framework 55 processing and interpretation of it by the audience, can be positively affected by the compatibility between forms, functions and situations of a particular storytelling performance. Before moving on to illustrate the application of the framework, an important thing to note is the focus on the role of the audience as a group rather than as individuals with different sociocultural backgrounds, when examining the dynamics between the storyteller and audience. Such treatment of the audience members of a particular storytelling performance as a homogeneous group, rather than as different individuals with different perspectives, stems from my aim to explore the roles of the storyteller and audience (as a group), and the subtle shifts in their dynamics, as a factor contributing to the process of developing narrativity during a live storytelling performance. The concern here is to examine how the audience members have to agree to respond as a group, and so how a storyteller needs to establish this at the start of a storytelling performance, for example by “unifying” them. Subsequent illustrative application of the framework will examine some of the strategies used by storytellers to achieve this for successful execution of a storytelling process and for the establishment of actual narrativity during a live storytelling performance.

References Abbott, H. P. (2002). The Cambridge introduction to narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bal, M. (1985). Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Baldry, A., and Thibault, P. J. (2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis: A multimodal toolkit and coursebook. London: Equinox. Barnouw, E., and Kirkland, C. E. (1992). Entertainment. In: R. Bauman, ed., Folklore, cultural performances, and popular entertainments: A communications-​centered handbook. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 50–​52. Bauman, R. (1986). Story, performance, and event: Contextual studies of oral narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bauman, R. (1992). Performance. In: R. Bauman, ed., Folklore, cultural performances, and popular entertainments: A communications-​centered handbook. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 41–​49. Bauman, R. (2001). Verbal art as performance. In: A. Duranti, ed., Linguistic anthropology: A reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 165–​188. Bender, M. (1999). The Chantefable tradition of Suzhou. In: M. R. MacDonald, ed., Traditional storytelling today: An international sourcebook. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, pp.  85–​87. Booth, W. C. (1961). The rhetoric of fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Booth, W. C. (2005). Resurrection of the implied author: Why bother? In: J. Phelan and P. J. Rabinowitz, eds., A companion to narrative theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp.  75–​88. Cassell, J., and McNeill, D. (1991). Gesture and the poetics of prose. Poetics Today, 12, pp. 375–​404. Chatman, S. (1978). Story and discourse: Narrative structure in fiction and film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

56

56  Contextualized multimodal framework Coates, J. (2003). Men talk: Stories in the making of masculinities. Oxford: Blackwell. Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Diengott, N. (2005). Narratee. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, p. 338. Eco, U. (1979). The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Elam, K. (2002). The semiotics of theatre and drama (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Fabb, N. (1997). Linguistics and literature. Cambridge: Blackwell. Fine, E. (1984) The folklore text: From performance to print. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Georges, R. A. (1969). Toward an understanding of storytelling events. Journal of American Folklore, 82, pp. 313–​328. Günthner, S. (1999). Polyphony and the “layering of voices” in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, pp. 685–​708. Herman, D. (1999). Toward a socionarratology: New ways of analyzing natural-​language narratives. In: D. Herman, ed., Narratologies: New perspectives on narrative analysis. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, pp. 218–​246. Herman, D. (2001). Story logic in conversational and literary narratives. Narrative, 9, pp. 130–​137. Herman, D. (2002). Story logic: Problems and possibilities of narrative. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Holmes, J. (1997). Story-​telling in New Zealand women’s and men’s talk. In: R. Wodak, ed., Gender and discourse. London: SAGE, pp. 263–​293. Jannidis, F. (2018). Character. In: P. Hühn et al., eds., The living handbook of narratology. Hamburg: Hamburg University Press. Retrieved July 21, 2018, from www.lhn.uni-​ hamburg.de/​article/​character. Kloepfer, R. (1980). Dynamic structures in narrative literature: “The dialogic principle”. Poetics Today, 1, pp. 105–​114. Krummel, D. (1998). The art of speech (12th ed.). Moorooka, Qld: Boolarong Press. Labov, W., and Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In: J. Helm, ed., Essays on the verbal and visual arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp. 12–​44. Leitch, T. M. (1986). What stories are: Narrative theory and interpretation. London: Pennsylvania State University Press. Lipman, D. (1999). Improving your storytelling: Beyond the basics for all who tell stories in work or play. Little Rock, AR: August House. Livo, N. J., and Reitz, S. A. (1986). Storytelling: Process and practice. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Martin, W. (1986). Recent theories of narrative. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Mato, D. (1999). The art of storytelling: Field observations in Venezuela. In: M. R. MacDonald, ed., Traditional storytelling today: An international sourcebook. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, pp. 528–​535. McCabe, A., and Peterson, C. (1991). Getting the story: A longitudinal study of parental styles in eliciting narratives and developing narrative skill. In: A. McCabe and C. Peterson, eds., Developing narrative structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 217–​253. Miller, E. (1996). Visuals accompanying face-​ to-​ face storytelling (M.A.  thesis, the Gallation School of New York University). Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://​ ccat.sas.upenn.edu/​~emiller/​MA_​essay.html. Müller, K. (1992). Theatrical moments: On contextualizing funny and dramatic moods in the course of telling a story in conversation. In: P. Auer and A. di Luzio, eds., The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–​222.

 57

Contextualized multimodal framework 57 Norrick, N. R. (2000). Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ochs, E., and Taylor, C. (2001). The “father knows best” dynamic in dinnertime narratives. In: A. Duranti, ed., Linguistic anthropology: A reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 431–​449. Phelan, J., and Booth, W. C. (2005). Narrator. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, pp. 388–​392. Polanyi, L. (1985). Telling the American story: A structural and cultural analysis of conversational storytelling. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Prince, G. (1982). Narratology: The form and functioning of narrative. Berlin: Mouton. Prince, G. (1983). Narrative pragmatics, message, and point. Poetics, 12, pp. 527–​536. Prince, G. (1995). On narratology: Criteria, corpus, context. Narrative, 3, pp. 73–​84. Prince, G. (1997). Narratology and narratological analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, pp. 39–​44. Prince, G. (2001). Revisiting narrativity. In: B. Nelson, A. Freadman and P. Anderson, eds., Telling performances: Essays on gender, narrative, and performance. Newark: University of Delaware Press, pp. 27–​38. Prince, G. (2003). Dictionary of narratology (rev. ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska  Press. Prince, G. (2005). Narrativity. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, pp. 387–​388. Quasthoff, U. M., and Nikolaus, K. (1982). What makes a good story?: Towards the production of conversational narratives. In: A. Flammer and W. Kintsch, eds., Discourse processing. Amsterdam: North-​Holland Publishing, pp. 16–​28. Rabinowitz, P. J. (1987). Before reading: Narrative conventions and the politics of interpretation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Rimmon-​Kenan, S. (2002). Narrative fiction (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Ryan, M. (1992). The modes of narrativity and their visual metaphors. Style, 26, pp. 369–​387. Ryan, M. (2005). Narrative. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, pp. 344–​348. Ryan, M. (2006). Semantics, pragmatics, and narrativity: A response to David Rudrum. Narrative, 14, pp. 188–​196. Schneidfr, R. (2005). Reader constructs. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, pp. 482–​483. Tannen, D. (1980). A comparative analysis of oral narrative strategies: Athenian Greek and American English. In: W. L. Chafe, ed., The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 51–​87. Wolfson, N. (1982). CHP: The conversational historical present in American English narrative. Dordrecht: Foris.

58

4  Application Illustrative examples

Building the corpus Having proposed a contextualized multimodal framework and explained its elements and features contributing to the narrativity in an applied storytelling performance, the next step is to illustrate how the framework can be used productively to do rigorous and systematic analysis of applied storytelling performances. The illustrative examples will be taken from a small corpus of applied storytelling performances which constitutes live storytelling performances conducted in various social, organizational or institutional contexts of contemporary Singapore. These storytelling performances were captured as performed events rather than fixed objects on the page, using audio and video recording devices. For the recording of each applied storytelling performance, I  ensured the participants’ consent, which included advance permission from respective institutions or organizations and respective storytellers to allow me to do the recordings and to use the recorded performances for research, and not for commercial purposes. Audience members were also informed about the nature and purpose of recording before the start of the storytelling sessions. Their concern, if any, was attended to, and their consent was also ensured before the recording began in each case. The recordings were done as unobtrusively as possible. In most cases, the storytellers, who are trained/​professional and have experience in giving public performances, did not seem to be affected by the fact that recording was going on. As for the audience members, some of them initially appeared to be self-​conscious (and in the case of child audiences, distracted). However, in all cases, it can be seen that both the storytellers and audience members no longer appeared conscious about the recording as they became engaged in the storytelling process. Over a period of one year, I  observed more than thirty live storytelling performances told by different storytellers in different social contexts or institutional/​organizational settings which included a kindergarten, a primary school, a public library (children’s section), a Sunday school of a church, a national museum (children’s section), a park, the storytellers’ circle monthly meetings and the storytellers’ showcase at an Asian congress of storytellers. Among all the storytelling performances that I  observed, the following institutions and

 59

Application: illustrative examples 59 storytellers granted me their consent to do the audio and video recordings of storytelling performances and use them for my research (Table 4.1). As can be seen in the table, my corpus of applied storytelling performances represents not only different social contexts or institutional/​ organizational settings but also different storytellers (thus different styles of storytelling) and different audience types in terms of their age groups. What they have in common, however, are (i) the telling of participation stories (see Chapter 1) and (ii) the use

Table 4.1 Details of applied storytelling performances recorded Setting (Event)

Purpose

Audience Storyteller (Age-​group)

A kindergarten (Story Time)

• To support children’s learning of speech and drama, in particular voice modulations, facial expressions and words to express different kinds of emotions

4-​to 5-​year-​ olds

Jessie Goh

A public library (Story Hour)

• To develop a positive attitude for books and reading by making connections between stories and books as a source of pleasure

4-​to-​5-​year-​ olds

Reneetha Rajaratnam

The Singapore History Museum (Show n Tell)

• To facilitate children’s understanding of displayed artefacts • To arouse their curiosity and enhance their knowledge about the life and culture of early immigrants to Singapore

4-​to-​6-​year-​ olds

Rosemarie Somaiah

A primary school (Pyjama Night)

• To celebrate the end of a school 6-​to-​7-​year-​ term which coincided with olds Singapore’s Racial Harmony Day • To teach children lessons about moral and social behaviour as part of the school’s value education programme

Roger Jenkins

The Asian Congress • To revive the art of storytelling of Storytellers in Singapore by showcasing the (Storytellers’ talent of local and international Showcase) storytellers • To bring oral storytelling to a wide range of modern audiences • To contribute to the telling of Asian stories, which are an important part of Singapore’s cultural heritage

Mixed-​age audience (7-​and-​ above)

Linda Fang

Storytellers’ circle • To share stories and strategies (Monthly meeting among those who are interested and story swap) in learning how to tell stories

Adults only

Kiran Shah

60

60  Application: illustrative examples of English, the main language of administration and medium of instruction in multicultural Singapore, to tell stories. In what follows, I will provide full-​dress multimodal analyses of two storytelling performances –​one for a child audience by the storyteller Roger Jenkins and the other for a mixed-​age audience by the storyteller Linda Fang –​as illustrative applications of the contextualized multimodal framework proposed in Chapter 3. More sample analyses of applied storytelling performances from the above corpus can be found elsewhere (see Lwin 2010, 2012, 2016a, 2016b, 2017).

Analytical procedures The analyses will be done on the three main components: the story, the storytelling discourse and the storytelling event constituting the contextualized multimodal framework for examining the narrativity of an applied storytelling performance. Key elements and features in each component will be examined for their contribution to the development of narrativity in a particular storytelling performance. The first step in the analytical process will be an exploration of elements of a story and their narrative potential; in other words, the potential narrativity of an applied storytelling performance. Then, the structure and multimodal performance features of the actual storytelling discourse will be examined as to how a storyteller draws on these features for the construction and projection of a particular storyworld during an actual storytelling performance. These multimodal performance features will also be regarded as cues for the audience’s perception and reconstruction of the storyworld in the course of a storytelling process. A storyworld is defined as “a global mental representation” or a mental model of “who did what to and with whom, when, where, why, and in what fashion in the world to which interpreters relocate […] as they work to comprehend a narrative” (Herman 2005, p. 570). An analysis of elements of a story and features of a storytelling discourse will be complemented by an examination of situational and functional aspects of a storytelling event, and then their compatibility and interplay during a live oral storytelling performance. In this way, the actual narrativity of an applied storytelling performance will be specified as it is developed in the course of the storytelling process. By examining the interrelationships between the story, the storytelling discourse and the storytelling event, the illustrative examples will show how the narrativity of an applied storytelling performance can be specified in its totality, that is, in relation to elements of the story, features of the storytelling discourse and situational and functional aspects of the storytelling event. The analyses will be done in an interpretative way, in the sense that the interplay between features of the story, the storytelling discourse and the storytelling event of a live storytelling performance will not be taken as given or self-​evident but as requiring some kind of contextual interpretation. For the ease of discussion, the terms “teller” and “storyteller” will be used interchangeably in the following analyses. Similarly, “audience”, “listeners” and “recipients” will be used as more

 61

Application: illustrative examples 61 or less interchangeable. The term “participants”, on the other hand, will be used to refer to both the storyteller and the audience in a storytelling event. The application of the framework for each storytelling performance will be presented in the following aspects: 1 2 3 4 5

institutional settings and purposes dynamics of the storyteller and audience elements of the story overall structure and multimodal performance features of the storytelling discourse compatibility between forms, functions and situations

Capturing multimodal features Since performances are ephemeral, one of the challenges in analysing oral storytelling as a live performed event, rather than an object on the page, is to capture the dynamic interplay of semiotic resources. Audio and video recording of live performances is only the first step in capturing the different sign systems that work together during the storytelling process. The next step was to transcribe the performance as a multimodal interaction. Some form of transcription is a vital step in the process of analyzing the dynamic interplay of semiotic resources to analyse and interpret how they contribute to narrative meaning. To quote Page (2010, p. 8): Given that multimodal theory requires us to rethink the pre-​eminence of any single mode, it is vital that the transcription makes plain not just the verbal content of a narrative, but the wider ensemble of semiotic resources at work. Not only should the transcription be systematic and replicable in representing the verbal content of a narrative as well as the rich diversity of multimodal performance features from different semiotic resources, but it should also be flexible and clear enough for the reader to make sense of all that multimodality encompasses. Several scholars (e.g. Tedlock 1983; Fine 1984; Norris 2004; Baldry and Thibault 2005) have suggested some multimodal transcription systems, each reflecting its specific focus and aim. Tedlock’s (1983) transcription system, which uses typography (e.g. small type, large type, capitals etc.) to represent vocal features, records few gestures or body movements. Norris (2004), on the other hand, attempts to analyse human interaction in its vast complexity and suggests a fully fledged multimodal transcription system which uses not only typography for spoken words but also photos (with the time of each clip) for gestures, postures and proxemics. Baldry and Thibault (2005) have also suggested a comprehensive multimodal transcription system for features such as gestures, posture, movement, spatial relations, clothes, music, sound and so forth to examine multimodal texts in different media.

62

62  Application: illustrative examples However, as Fine (1984) has cautioned, considering the complexity of signals transmitted in performance and the limited channel capacity of print, it would be impractical and unproductive to mechanically record all the signals present in performance. To avoid “overloading the text with too much information”, Fine (1984, p.  149) suggests having some principles of selection when transcribing an oral storytelling performance. The principles of selection for my transcription will be based on the three major aspects of expression: (i) verbal, (ii) vocal and (iii) visual, which constitute the parameters for a multimodal analysis of the storytelling discourse (see Figure 3.2 in the preceding chapter). Through the use of typography, the verbal text and vocal features will be annotated. For those vocal and visual features that are not evident in the transcript, succinct descriptions will be given in a separate column. Besides the multimodal storytelling discourse, observations of the audience’s outward responses  –​such as laughter, claps, murmur, spontaneous comments, replies to the storyteller’s questions, movements or gestures made as asked by the storyteller and so on –​as captured in the recording during the actual storytelling process will also be included in the transcript. Transcription conventions First, the data will be presented in one intonation unit per line, instead of reorganizing them into sentences as in written texts to bring out the important characteristics of oral storytelling. Intonation units are explained in numerous terms, such as intonation group, sense-​group, breath-​group, tone-​group, tone-​ unit, phonological phrases, phonological clause, intonational phrase and so on. Although pause is the criterion most often mentioned to demarcate an intonation unit, it should be considered together with other external and internal criteria. Pauses alone “do not always mark intonation boundaries, nor are intonation boundaries always marked by pauses” (Cruttenden 1986, p.  39). Other grammatical as well as semantic information needs to be taken into account when defining an intonation unit. Norrick (2000, p. 20) aptly summarizes the various criteria as follows: Intonation units tend to be about five words long and to contain one new idea unit each, typically a subject and a predicate, according to Chafe (1986, 1994). In terms of prosody, intonation units are likely to begin with a brief pause and to exhibit a coherent intonation ending in a contour interpreted as clause-​final. […] In terms of function, intonation units typically identify some referent given in the foregoing discourse or the physical setting of the utterance and say something new about it. Besides presenting the data in intonation units, certain conventions are observed in transcribing the data for an analysis. Table 4.2 lists these conventions together with their descriptions, some examples and meanings.

 63

Table 4.2 Transcription conventions Descriptions

Examples

Meanings

Each line of transcription Indented words at the beginning of a line Words in square brackets on successive lines Three dots separating two successive lines

and they wait from where she was drinking [  ] [  ] line one … line two a … pause

a single intonation unit continuation of a preceding long intonation unit overlapping talk

Three dots within a line Word(s) in all capitals Word(s) in single round brackets double round brackets

LOUD (soft)

Word(s) in italics ~ in front of a word Word(s) in all capitals and italics Word/​syllable in bold Repeated letter(s)

high ~low HIGH N LOUD stress oooooh

One dot (period) at the end of an intonation unit

that’s the end.

Comma at the end of an intonation unit

a line,

Question mark at the end of an intonation unit

a line?

A single dash following segment(s) of a word Word(s) within curly braces

a wo-​word

word(s) within two slashes

/​tok tok/​

(( ))

{claps} {laughs}

marked (i.e. longer than regular) pause between two successive intonation units noticeable pause within an intonation unit loud volume soft volume enclose uncertain or untranscribable elements, e.g. inaudible or several speakers speaking at the same time high pitch low pitch loud volume and high pitch emphatic stress held vowel/​consonant or enlarged syllable final falling inflection/​ sentence-​final intonation (gradually falling inflection in the preceding element) continuing intonation/​clause-​ final intonation (slight upward inflection, drawling out the preceding element) final rising inflection/​ yes/​no question intonation (rising inflection in the preceding element) a cutoff with a glottal stop descriptions of audience response sounds (or) descriptions of other interruptions onomatopoeic/​non-​linguistic sounds

64

64  Application: illustrative examples Notations in word descriptions Still, there are certain features which are not covered in the above list of transcription conventions, for example, pace (the rate at which words are spoken), inflection (sliding of voice up or down) and tone of voice (to convey emotions). Therefore, succinct notations in word descriptions will be given for these performance features (e.g. slower pace, frightened tone, upward inflection, etc.). The principles for giving notations in word descriptions are adapted from the studies by Tedlock (1983), Müller (1992), Günthner (1999) and Elam (2002). Notations in brief word descriptions will also be used for verbal performance features (e.g. direct quotation, editorial aside, repetition etc.) and visual performance features (e.g. mimic, metaphoric, propositional, beats or deictic gestures; postures; facial expressions; and external visuals, if any tangible props are incorporated into the storytelling). Selections of features to be noted will depend on whether they appear to contribute to the creations of desired effects during the storytelling process, and how relevant they are to doing empirical analyses of multimodal storytelling discourse.

Sample Analysis I As the first illustrative application, I  will use the contextualized multimodal framework for an analysis of storytelling conducted in a primary school in Singapore. Schools are one of the places where live storytelling performances are commonly held nowadays. In this particular school, live oral storytelling performances are regularly scheduled for the schoolchildren to celebrate a special event, for example, in celebration of Racial Harmony Day, Teachers’ Day and so forth. Professional storytellers are often called in to tell the children stories with a theme related to a particular event. The following discussion will focus on the storytelling performances from an event called the Pyjama Night held for the Primary One pupils (six-​to-​seven-​year-​olds) of the school to celebrate the end of a school term, which coincided with Racial Harmony Day in Singapore. A professional storyteller, Roger Jenkins, was invited to the event to tell stories. The programme alternated between the storytelling performances by Roger Jenkins and presentations by the pupils during which several groups of children took turns to act out songs or poems. Institutional settings and purposes The Pyjama Night event was scheduled on an evening and held in the school setting itself, specifically in one section of the school’s cultural activities hall. The storyteller sat on a sofa facing the children, and the children sat on the floor forming a semicircle around the storyteller. According to the teachers and school administrators who organized the event, while the Pyjama Night programme was part of the celebrations at the end of a school term, it was also part of the school’s value education programme that teaches the children lessons about moral and

 65

Application: illustrative examples 65 social behaviour. With both recreational and instructional or education purposes, storytelling in this context can be examined as examples of applied storytelling performances. Dynamics of the storyteller and audience The dynamics of the storyteller and audience can be examined by analysing the interactions between them during this storytelling event. The following excerpt shows the transcription of the interactions at the beginning of the Pyjama Night event: T: Teacher;   S: Storyteller;   A: Audience (Children in chorus); A1: One of the children in the audience (not necessarily the same child responding) T: OK this evening we are very privileged to have with us a special guest his name is Mr Roger Jenkins {pointing to the storyteller} A: {claps} T: he is the founder of DramaPlus and he is also a winner of 1995 Singapore Literature prize A: wooooh S: {waving to the children} T: and he created a lot of ((filming)) scripts and for every Singapore Youth festival so tonight we are going to have lots of fun with him ok? so you must give him your full attention is that clear now? A: YES

Along with the introduction from the teacher, some forms of interaction can be seen between Roger Jenkins and the children (i.e. children’s interjection after hearing the words “Singapore Literature prize” and the storyteller’s hand gesture to the children in response). At this point, the engagement of Roger Jenkins and the children can be regarded as that of the real teller and the real audience, that is, between Jenkins with his real-​life multiple identities and some of his real-​life achievements, and the Primary One pupils of the school. Subsequently, Jenkins takes the floor and makes a direct address to the children: S : ok I’m going to tell you some stories tonight, and … in a lot of them you will get the chance to help me to tell the stories and in this very first one there is a little rhythm that we have to beat out ok? so … please join in knee hand clip clip

66

66  Application: illustrative examples not too fast otherwise we go very fast through this now the way that I tell you the story is I’m going to say a sentence or a phrase in the story, and I need you to repeat it back so let’s just try with the title the bear hunt A: the bear hunt S: very good ok here we go

Once Jenkins assumes the role of the storyteller for a particular storytelling performance and starts to give the children some directions for their participation in that particular storytelling process, their engagement begins to shift to that of the assumed teller and the ideal audience. By giving directions for audience participation, he cues the children to assume the role of the ideal audience, so that there is a matching set of identity relationship between them. When the children agree to follow the directions for participation, it seems that the engagement of the assumed teller and ideal audience has been established to begin a storytelling process. However, as shown in the following excerpt, the storyteller immediately takes up the role of a character, acts out the events as they happen to the character and speaks as the character throughout the process. Following his earlier directions, the audience repeats verbatim after him and also acts out the events as a character in the storyworld: S:  A: S: A: S: A: S: A: S: A: S: A: S: A: S: A: S: A:

we going on a bear hunt we going on a bear hunt we gonna catch a big one, we gonna catch a big one, I’m not scared, I’m not scared, it’s a beautiful day it’s a beautiful day we’ve come to a fence we’ve come to a fence a very high fence a very high fence we can’t go over it we can’t go over it we can’t go through it we can’t go through it we gotta go under it we gotta to go under it

In other words, the teller and audience take up the role of a specific character and act out the events from the beginning to the end of the process. This particular feature seems to diminish narration altogether, since it makes the unfolding of events appear to be “as unmediated as life itself” (Abbott 2005, p. 341). As a result, it becomes arguable whether this process can be regarded as an example of narration in its strict sense, until it is “rendered in retrospect” (Abbott 2005,

 67

Application: illustrative examples 67 p.  341). By definition, a storytelling performance is a coordination between narration and acting out, rather than an absolute acting out and identification of the teller with any specific character throughout the process of unfolding the event sequence (Baker and Greene 1977; Livo and Rietz 1986; Pellowski 1990). Thus, this particular process is best regarded as a role-​playing activity rather than a storytelling performance; it is an activity to bring the audience together and encourage their participation in the subsequent storytelling performance. A less arguable example of the shifts in engagement of the storyteller and audience for the initiation and execution of a storytelling performance is found in the following excerpt of interactions, which follow the above role-​playing activity and the students’ first presentation. S : er now I have another story, er I don’t know where the bear hunt comes from this story I was told … comes from Malaysia but I also know people say it comes from Africa and Canada but anyway I like to think that it comes from Malaysia, because Malaysia is our neighbour so this is the story called, why crocodile … doesn’t … eat … chicken A: aww this is the one now you know anything about crocodile? A: yes S: ok you know they are those

The teller again claims his assumption of the role of the storyteller (for another story) and gives a brief introduction that sketches the source of the story. At the same time, through a question which confirms their familiarity with a particular type of animal that is going to appear in the upcoming event sequence, the audience is cued to become the ideal audience for that storytelling performance. These interactions suggest that they have successfully established the engagement of the assumed teller and ideal audience for the initiation of a storytelling process. Along with the subsequent interactions, the teller and audience become the figures involved in the activities of the storytelling process. This indicates that the engagement between them has become that of the narrator and the narratee in a storytelling process. At the end of each storytelling performance, explicit moral and social instructions are given by the teller (and often subsequently by the teacher) to the children. For example, S : yeah so next time when you see someone, who is different from you, I like you to think like croc not because I want you to go and eat them hum? A: {laugh} S: I want you to think aah there is my little sister or if you see me,

68

68  Application: illustrative examples you say there is my little brother because that person may look different from you they may dress differently from you they may speak a different language from you or they may eat different food from you but aren’t we … all members of one big human family?

These explicit moral and social instructions mark the end of the storytelling process. Accordingly, it can be inferred that the engagement of the narrator and narratee moves back to that of the real teller and the real audience (i.e. individuals with their real-​life identities). On the whole, an examination of the dynamics of the storyteller and audience for each storytelling performance in this storytelling event shows that the shifts to different types of engagement for the initiation and execution of a storytelling performance follow a recurrent pattern, which can be outlined as in Figure 4.1. With the above recurrent pattern, the following stories, each with the institutional message of living harmoniously or in a harmonious society, are told by the storyteller. Each storytelling performance is followed by a performance/​presentation made by the children, which in turn is followed by another storytelling performance by the storyteller, during this particular Pyjama Night storytelling event held in the school context.

• • •

Telling of the story Why crocodile doesn’t eat chicken by the storyteller ○○ Presentation by the children –​Quarrel with our brother Telling of the story What kind of goat are you? by the storyteller ○○ Children’s performance Telling of the story Bread and honey by the storyteller

Figure 4.1 The recurrent pattern in the dynamics of the storyteller and audience.

 69

Application: illustrative examples 69 Eventually, as can be inferred from the following excerpt of interactions, the engagement between the storyteller and the children moves back one last time to that of the real teller and the real audience at the end of the last storytelling performance, that is, Jenkins making his final address to the children regarding certain moral issues (which is then followed by the teacher’s address to them). S:

now let me ask you why do you think annie’s mom said she likes it why do you think she said she likes it yeah? A1:  because she loves annie S: because she loves annie I think that’s a wonderful answer ok? this is not a right or wrong question I just like to know why you think she said she likes it yes? A1: because it’s her daughter’s drawing S: because it’s her daughter’s drawing I think that’s another very good answer ok? why do you think she said she likes it A1: because annie has drawn it S: absolutely that’s another very good answer that question I want you to think about it tonight it’s a very good question thank you very much A: {claps} T: alright let’s give Mr Jenkins another round of applause A: {claps} T: ok, did you enjoy yourself tonight? A: yes T: can you please sit down Ms Tan {the teacher} wants to speak to you now can you give me your attention

The analysis of the interactions between the teller and the audience during this storytelling event indicates that the dynamics for the initiation and execution of several storytelling performances are generated through these subtle shifts between “real teller” and “assumed teller (narrator)”, and correspondingly between “real audience” and “ideal audience (narrate)” (see Figure 4.2). Through these subtle shifts between matching sets of the teller and audience engagement at appropriate points of the interaction process, the context for storytelling or the development of narrativity in each storytelling performance is created. Thus far, the analysis has focused on illustrating the outermost frame of the contextualized multimodal framework –​the storytelling event –​to examine the setting and purposes of an applied storytelling performance, and the dynamics between the storyteller and audience for the development of the narrativity of a live storytelling performance. Next, detailed analyses of the story and the storytelling discourse will be discussed, and the interplay between them, to examine the potential and the actual narrativity of each storytelling performance (Figure 4.3).

70

70  Application: illustrative examples

Storytelling Event Institutional settings and purposes Storytelling Discourse

Real teller

Assumed (Narrator) teller

(Narratee) Ideal audience

Real audience

Figure 4.2 Dynamics between the storyteller and audience.

Storytelling Discourse Overall structures, Multimodal performance features Story Events, Characters Temporality, Spatialization Assumed teller (Narrator)

Ideal audience (Narratee)

Figure 4.3 Interplay between the story and the storytelling discourse.

As an example, one of the storytelling performances, Why Crocodile Doesn’t Eat Chicken, will be examined in detail. Elements of the story Event sequence The events making up the storyline of Why Crocodile Doesn’t Eat Chicken are listed below.

 71

Application: illustrative examples 71 (DAY 1)

Initial state The crocodile was waiting in the river for her prey. The chicken came to the river to drink water. Middle state The crocodile advanced towards the chicken. The crocodile opened her mouth to eat the chicken. The chicken saw the crocodile. The chicken pleaded with the crocodile not to eat her. The chicken told the crocodile that she was the crocodile’s sister. The crocodile was puzzled. The chicken ran away. Terminal state The crocodile remembered their different habitats –​water versus land. The crocodile reckoned that the chicken had tricked her. The crocodile was angry. The crocodile waited for the chicken to come again. (DAY 2)

Initial state The crocodile was waiting for the chicken to come again. The chicken came to the river to drink water. Middle state The crocodile advanced towards the chicken. The crocodile opened her mouth to eat the chicken. The chicken saw the crocodile. The chicken pleaded with the crocodile not to eat her. The chicken told the crocodile that she was the crocodile’s sister. The crocodile was puzzled. The chicken ran away. Terminal state The crocodile remembered their different features  –​scales versus feathers. The crocodile reckoned that the chicken had tricked her again. The crocodile was angry. The crocodile waited for the chicken to come again. (DAY 3)

Initial state The crocodile was waiting for the chicken to come again. The chicken came to the river to drink water.

72

72  Application: illustrative examples Middle state The crocodile advanced towards the chicken. The crocodile opened her mouth to eat the chicken. The chicken saw the crocodile. The chicken pleaded the crocodile not to eat her. The chicken told the crocodile that she was the crocodile’s sister. The crocodile was puzzled. The chicken ran away. Terminal state The crocodile reckoned that the chicken had tricked her again. The crocodile decided to chase the chicken. New initial state The crocodile came up from the river. She looked for the chicken in the jungle. Different middle state She met her old friend iguana, the lizard. The crocodile told the iguana how the chicken had tricked her. The iguana told the crocodile that the chicken was indeed her sister. The iguana told her that both the crocodile and the chicken were members of one big egg-​laying family. Different terminal state The crocodile accepted that the chicken was her little sister. The crocodile decided not to eat the chicken. The above outline shows that the event sequence follows a chronological pattern (i.e. Day 1, Day 2, Day 3), with some events repeated for each day. A  similar sequence of events repeats for the initial state, the middle state and the terminal state of the first two days. On Day 3, although the same sequence of events repeats for the first initial state and the first middle state, the event string starts to deviate from the repeated trajectory in the terminal state. This in turn leads to a new initial state, a different middle state and a different terminal state, which subsequently ends the storyline. The initial state in each day leads to the middle state with a conflict between the two characters (i.e. the crocodile trying to eat the chicken). For the first two days, the middle state subsequently leads to a terminal state in which the conflict is resolved in an unfavourable manner for the main character, the crocodile (i.e. the chicken escaped and the crocodile failed to eat the chicken). The unsatisfactory outcome (for the main character) in the terminal state of the preceding day brings about the continuity of the event sequence in the following day (i.e. the crocodile waited for the chicken and tried again to eat her).

 73

Application: illustrative examples 73 Only when the sequence of events deviates from the repeated trajectory in the first terminal state of Day 3, does it lead to a new initial state and different middle and terminal states that eventually end the storyline with an ultimate resolution to the conflict (i.e. the crocodile gave up her attempts to eat the chicken). Thus, besides the temporal and/​or causal relationship in the ordering of events for each day, a clear temporal and causal relationship is manifested between the terminal state of the preceding day and the initial state of the following day. Such close temporal and causal interconnectedness gives this particular event sequence the potential to meet the audience’s expectations for continuity and coherence. Moreover, the event sequence holds a particular combination of the typical and the unexpected. It involves certain typical actions and events, such as a crocodile preying on a chicken and a chicken coming to drink water from the river. But it also includes some “absorbing and entertaining breaches” (Toolan 2001, p.  197) from these typical actions and events. For example, the chicken escaped from being eaten by the crocodile by telling her that she was her little sister. Similarly engaging for the audience is the logically unexpected terminal state that ends the event sequence. That is, the crocodile was convinced that the chicken was indeed her sister and gave up her desire to eat the chicken. Thus it can be deduced that this particular event sequence exhibits the potential narrativity (i.e. potential to fulfil the audience’s desires for a coherent and pleasing whole) with its close temporal and causal relationships in the ordering of events, as well as with a particular combination of the typical and unexpected events. Characters The three characters that appear in the above sequence of events are 1 2 3

the crocodile, the chicken and the iguana.

They are all humanized animal characters, that is, animals with some human-​like qualities (Mathis 2001; Flynn 2004). In the configurations of these animals as the characters in the story, their basic animal characteristics (such as their physical features, their habitats and some of their instinctive behaviours) are retained. For example, the crocodile lived in the water and preyed on other animals, the chicken and the iguana live on the land, the crocodile had scales, the chicken had feathers, and so on. At the same time, certain human qualities (such as human speech and reason) are given to these animals, making them appear as human-​like individuals populating the storyworld. When the basic characteristics of animals that are familiar to the young audience are combined with human speech and

74

74  Application: illustrative examples reason, the characters seem to become more appealing to them. It seems to help engage the young audience’s interest in the event sequence when these events involve characters that appeal to them. Their familiarity with clearly distinctive features and behaviours of different animals also makes it easier for the young audience to figure out the various individuals populating the storyworld and involved in the events. For example, the audience’s knowledge about the contrasting traits between the two animals –​a crocodile and a chicken –​helps them understand the conflict between the two characters more clearly (i.e. when the crocodile preyed on the chicken, and the chicken tried to escape from falling prey to the crocodile). In the same way, when a common characteristic between a crocodile and a chicken is pointed out, the audience’s acknowledgement of this common characteristic (i.e. both crocodiles and chickens are members of an egg-​laying family) helps them realize that the ultimate and logically unexpected resolution to the conflict between the two characters is delightfully plausible. Thus, the potential narrativity of this particular storytelling performance is also seen in the specific configuration of characters as an element of the story. When the construction of characters is based on the young audience’s pre-​stored knowledge about the characteristics of some common animals, it not only engages their interest but also makes it possible for them to process the event string at their cognitive level. It allows them to establish some expectations as well as some necessary connections to understand the conflict in the event sequence and to appreciate the remarkable resolution which ends the storyline. Temporality and spatialization The story has a general anchorage for its temporality and spatialization. Except for the chronological timeline (i.e. Day 1, Day 2, Day 3), no precise time or period is specified. Similarly, except for the general locations (i.e. river, river bank and forest), no particular place or region is specified. Such general anchorage for temporality and spatialization evokes events which could happen almost anytime and anywhere (Toolan 2001). Although it is claimed by the storyteller in his opening words that he likes to think Malaysia as the place where the story comes from, he also admits that people may choose to think of other regions in the world as the source of the story. Elements of the story in the storytelling performance at this school setting are meant to represent events which can be claimed to entail “ ‘pansituational’ universality” (Toolan 2001, p. 91). Accordingly, the primary need to anchor the events in developing the narrativity is simply met by the general temporality and spatialization of this event sequence. Apart from the general anchorage, the events are orderly distributed one after another in a simple chronology, covering three consecutive days. Likewise, characters are distributed in their natural habitats which are strategically located next to each other in the storyworld. Therefore, despite the vague anchorage,

 75

Application: illustrative examples 75 the orderly and systematic distribution of events and characters in time and space seems to have facilitated the audience in their (re)construction of a lucid and conceivable storyworld. In what follows, how the narrative potential manifested in these elements of the story is turned into the actual narrativity through multimodal features of the storytelling discourse during a live storytelling performance will be examined. Overall structure and multimodal performance features of the storytelling discourse The constituents forming the overall structure of the storytelling discourse for Why Crocodile Doesn’t Eat Chicken can be outlined as follows: Abstract Orientation (Background information –​introducing the first main character) Orientation (General frame) Orientation (Background information –​introducing another main character) Orientation (Narrow frame) Main action Resolution    Orientation (General frame)      Repeated for Day 2 Orientation (Background information)  Repeated Orientation (Narrow frame)      Repeated Main action             Repeated Resolution              Repeated    Orientation (General frame)      Repeated for Day3 Orientation (Background information)  Repeated Orientation (Narrow frame)      Repeated Main action             Repeated Resolution              Repeated & New    Orientation (General frame)      New Orientation (Background information)  New Orientation (Narrow frame)      New Main action             New Resolution              New     Coda To find out how elements of the story are brought out for the audience’s cognitive, emotive and evaluative responses through multimodal features of the storytelling discourse, each constituent in the above overall structure can be examined as it emerges in the course of the storytelling process.1

76

76  Application: illustrative examples Table 4.3 The abstract (Sample Analysis I) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

S: SO this is the story called,   why crocodile … doesn’t … eat … chicken A(s): aww this is the one (())

Beats

Abstract The launch of the abstract is marked by a cluster of verbal, vocal and visual features, which are commonly associated with the function of drawing the recipient’s attention (Table 4.3). Discourse markers in oral narrative are said to have special organizational functions, for instance, to signal the beginning of a new episode or to mark the next step in the narrative structure (Norrick 2000). The discourse marker “so” and a louder volume at the beginning of this storytelling discourse draws the audience’s attention to the forthcoming storytelling process. Also helping secure the audience’s immediate interest are the vocal and visual features accompanying the verbal component. The relatively slow pace and noticeable pauses between words allow them time to speculate on the event sequence that lies ahead, while a shift to a higher pitch together with emphatic stress and a particular type of gesture (i.e. beats) underline the clues about the characters and events. Hence, features in the abstract appear to be working together to draw the audience’s attention as well as to trigger their expectations for the appearance of certain characters and events. Subsequent spontaneous responses from several audience members are noted as evidence of their immediate engagement and speculation about the upcoming story elements. Orientation –​background information (introducing the characters) Immediately following the instantaneous responses from some audience members, a transition is made from the abstract to the next constituent, namely, the orientation that gives some background information about the characters (Table 4.4). As noted in the transcriptions, the transition is signalled by a discourse marker “now”. A question is then directly addressed to the audience. The subsequent chorus response “yes” from the audience suggests that the direct question stimulates the audience’s prior knowledge about crocodiles and it seems to help engage them. A salient factor noted in the introduction of characters is how verbal, vocal and visual features work in concert to represent the distinctive behaviour of each character. The two characters, the crocodile and the chicken, are identified by their respective characteristic actions (i.e. the crocodile’s action of waiting with only its eyes seen above the water to prey on other animals, and the chicken’s

 77

Application: illustrative examples 77 Table 4.4 Introducing the characters (Sample Analysis I) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

S:  now you know anything about crocodiles? A(w): yes S:   ok you know they spend most of their time,   just sitting there in the water   with just their eyes sticking out

Mimic gesture, two hands (palms facing down) placed just below the eyes.

  and they  wait   and they wait … very patiently   and they  wait   for their next meal to come along.   now one day,

Progressively slower pace for the subsequent three lines.

  croc … she was just sitting there    in the water   when suddenly,

Mimic gesture, two hands (palms facing down) placed just below the eyes

  down the far bank of the river,

Abstract pointing.

  she saw a nice plump little chicken,    come waddling down to the river bank   /​ titi titi titi titi/​

Metaphoric gesture, two hands depicting roundedness for “plump”. Mimic gesture, the upper body miming waddling. Non-​linguistic sounds. Rhythmic up-​down inflection. Faster pace than the preceding lines.

waddling). These actions are verbally represented in similar manners, notably through expressive elaborations and repetition of words. Vocally, however, two different paces synchronize the two distinctive actions –​the progressively slower pace for the crocodile’s action of waiting as opposed to the faster pace with rhythmic up and down inflection matching the chicken’s action of waddling. From the visual aspect, their distinctive actions are clearly delineated by correspondingly distinctive mimic gestures. Through such coordination among features from verbal, vocal and visual aspects, clear images of the scenes with animated characters are evoked for the audience as the (re)-​construction of a storyworld begins. Orientation –​general frame The general frame gives the audience temporal and spatial orientation important for a storyworld (re)construction (Norrick 2000; Herman 2005). The time and location for the upcoming events are anchored generally as “one day”, “in the water” and “down the far bank of the river”. The information is, nevertheless, foregrounded for the audience’s awareness when it is visually complemented by the abstract pointing of the storyteller (Figure 4.4).

78

78  Application: illustrative examples

Figure 4.4 Abstract pointing.

Orientation –​narrow frame As the storytelling progresses, the general frame segues into the narrow frame, that is, the constituent which leads directly into the main action of the story in a narrative development (Norrick 2000). The key element represented is the chicken’s motivation in coming to the river, which is to quench her thirst (Table 4.5). The interplay between verbal, vocal and visual features is noted as the storyteller’s attempt to create a particular effect (i.e. suspense) at this point of the storytelling process. From the verbal aspect, the disnarrated “she didn’t look around”, which is an event that did not happen but, nonetheless, is referred to in a negative or hypothetical mode (Prince 1988), foregrounds the significance of the chicken’s action (i.e. going ahead to drink the water from the river following her failure to foresee the danger). When it is preceded by the representation of her thirst, intensified vocally by an emphatic stress on “so” and non-​linguistic sounds as well as visually by a metaphoric gesture for “thirsty”, the audience is encouraged to observe the chicken’s action as the preparatory steps leading the two characters into an eventful encounter. These well-​coordinated verbal, vocal and visual features thus potentially create a suspenseful atmosphere by heightening the audience’s speculation about the

 79

Application: illustrative examples 79 Table 4.5 The narrow frame (Sample Analysis I) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

S:   and this chicken was so thirsty,    /​o shruu o shruu o shruu/​   she didn’t look around,

Metaphoric gesture, one hand stroking the throat when saying “thirsty”and non-​linguistic sounds.

  to see if there was danger uh ah

Abstract pointing.

   she just stuck her little beak into the   water    and she started drinking    /​shrup shrup shrup shrup/​

Mimic gesture, miming the chicken drinking, the thumb touching the index finger for a pointed beak placed in front of the mouth.

(and while she was drinking,)

consequences of the character’s action. Subsequently, when a shift to a softer volume is made in saying “while she was drinking”, the audience appears to become more attentive to what lies ahead and the unfolding of events. Main action The main action constituent is marked by the detailed representations of the events. A  prominent verbal feature noted in this constituent is the expressive elaborations. Working together with them from vocal and visual aspects are the salient non-​linguistic sounds and a series of mimic gestures and facial expressions. When these features complement each other, the audience is given a zoomed-​in perspective on the climax, in other words, a detailed representation from all three dimensions for the crucial encounter between the two characters (Table  4.6). Noticeably contrastive qualities for both vocal and visual features in the representation of each character (i.e. loud volume and lower pitch complemented by the fearsome facial expressions for the crocodile vs. softer volume, higher pitch and frightened tone complemented by terrified and pleading facial expressions for the chicken) modulate an effect that seems to promote the audience’s appreciation of the conflict between the two characters at this point of the narrative development. At the same time, it appears that the initial suspense created earlier in the narrow frame is built up by various vocal features adeptly employed by the storyteller. The slow pace at the beginning synchronizes with the careful movements of the crocodile advancing towards her prey, the chicken. As the crocodile moves closer to the chicken, the pace becomes faster and the volume louder. The gradual increase in pace and volume modulates effects that seem to build up the audience’s excitement and anticipation for the climax. A sudden pause followed by a shift to a softer volume, however, signals the shift in the point of view to the other character: the chicken. This also leads the audience to the direct quotations of the chicken’s pleading words. The high pitch and emphatic stress in quoting the chicken’s claim that she was the crocodile’s little sister appear to be cuing the

80

80  Application: illustrative examples Table 4.6 The main action (Sample Analysis I) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

S:   croc … gave one flip of her long lazy tail   /​ shruuk/​    and she began to move … to the water    /​denden… denden … denden denden    denden denden denden denden denden/​

Metaphoric gesture, stretching one hand for “long”. Mimic gesture, the stretched hand makes a flip and represents the crocodile’s movement. From slow to fast pace and from soft to loud volume in the subsequent four lines.

  AND SHE OPENED WIDE   HER ENORMOUS MOUTH   ~ /​ GAAARRRH/​

Mimic gesture, one hand raised the other lowered and the mouth miming “open wide”. Fearsome facial expression.

  …    (and at that moment),

Sudden pause.

  little chicken … looked up    from where she was drinking

Mimic gesture, miming the chicken looking up.

   and she went /​aaarrrrh/​ A(w): {laughs}

Terrified facial expression.

S:   and she said please … please don’t eat me, Frightened tone. Pleading facial   please don’t eat your little … sister? expression. A(s): huh?

audience to watch these thought-​provoking utterances as the plot-​determining statements. Resolution The resolution comprises a series of events which result from the chicken’s thought-​provoking utterances (Table  4.7). An interesting verbal feature noted in this constituent is the incorporation of the spontaneous responses “huh?”, the sound of disbelief and surprise from some audience members, into the storytelling process. Such incorporations seem to compel the rest of the audience members to have a similar response to the event. The interplay between verbal, vocal and visual features becomes significant as it seems that the audience is exclusively led to the point of view of a particular character, the bewildered crocodile. Verbal quotations from the (interior) monologues of the confused crocodile are accompanied by corresponding vocal and visual features such as a puzzled tone and facial expression, followed by an angry tone and facial expression, and the abstract pointing originating from the crocodile’s position. It demonstrates the coordination of features from different semiotic channels in attempting to lead the audience exclusively to the perspective of the provoked crocodile. As a result, the chicken’s escape is presented to the audience as an unfavourable outcome, which justifies the continuation of the storyline, rather than a favourable one (from the

 81

Application: illustrative examples 81 Table 4.7 The resolution (Sample Analysis I) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

  she’s tricked me   how could she be my little sister hum? S:   and she said please … please don’t eat me,   please don’t eat your little … sister? A(s): huh? S:   and croc … just like you

Point to the audience.

   croc went … huh?   and while croc is thinking,    is it ok … for me to eat my little sister?   …    the little chicken goes

Puzzled tone and facial expression, continues for the subsequent two lines.

  /​ ti ti ti ti ti ti tit ZOOON/​   she runs away    and croc goes

Mimic gesture, using two fingers to mime the chicken running, followed by abstract pointing.

  ~/​ UUUM/

Angry tone and facial expression.

  she’s tricked me   how could she be my little sister hum?​   she … lives on the land   I live here … in the river   there is no way that she’s my little sister

Abstract pointing.

perspective of the relieved chicken), which could have suggested the end of the storyline. Representation of repeated sequence of events Having structured the audience’s expectation for the continuation of the storyline, the storytelling proceeds with the representation of a repeated sequence of events which is linked chronologically (i.e. Day 2, Day 3)  to the preceding events. At this point, the omission of verbal components becomes prominent. Instead of verbally repeating the same sequence of events, elements of the story are represented only through the vocal and visual features (Table 4.8). The omission encourages the audience to fill in the missing verbal components. As they contribute verbally by making out the vocal and visual features emanating from the storyteller, the audience appears to become directly involved in the storytelling process. The vocal and visual representations of repeated events allow the audience to follow the storyteller and join in with both sounds and gestures as the narrative progresses (Figure 4.5). At this point in the storyworld (re)construction, it seems that the audience’s mental prowess to process the story elements is essentially dependent on the vocal and visual features of the storytelling discourse. Specific vocal and visual features employed in representing the distinctive actions of the two characters seem to help reactivate the earlier context of the storyworld while reintroducing the characters (compare Emmott, 1997).

82

Table 4.8 Omission of verbal components (Sample Analysis I) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

S:

Mimic gesture, two hands (palms facing down) placed just below the eyes

A(w):   crocodile S:   /​ titi titi titi titi/​

Mimic gesture, the upper body miming waddling. Non-​linguistic sounds. Rhythmic up-​down inflection.

A(w):   chicken S:    /​o shruu o shruu o shruu/​ A(w):   thirsty

Figure 4.5 Audience participation.

Metaphoric gesture, hand stroking the throat. Non-​linguistic sounds.

 83

Application: illustrative examples 83 Representation of new sequence of events When the storyline starts to deviate from the repeated sequence of events, a spatial connection is made between new events and earlier events. It seems that the audience’s spatial awareness during this transition is facilitated both verbally by the paralleled prepositional phrases “out of the river, up to the river bank, into the jungle” encoding the crocodile’s point of view, and visually by the stepping-​ forward movements of the storyteller emulating the charging steps of the crocodile coming out of the river. The interplay between features from different semiotic channels again helps evoke vivid images of the crocodile’s meeting with the third character, the iguana, which is an important event for the remaining narrative development. For example, quotations from dialogues between the two characters are articulated in distinctive volume, pitch and tone, accompanied by distinct gestures and facial expressions, bringing the characters closer to the audience. Subsequently when the iguana’s words “I lay eggs; chicken…she lays eggs; you…croc…you lay eggs” are foregrounded by the syntactic parallelism and mimic gestures representing each animal, it seems the audience is encouraged to draw a parallel between different animals and acknowledge their common egg-​ laying characteristic. The slow pace and pauses from the vocal aspect also seem to allow the audience time to reflect upon this common characteristic, while it is repeatedly emphasized from the verbal aspect. In sum, the coordinated verbal, vocal and visual features appear to lead the audience to an alternative interpretative frame, which specifies different animals as members of one egg-​laying family. Through this alternative interpretative frame, the chicken’s claim about being the crocodile’s sister is suggested as something plausible. This seems to encourage the audience to perceive the coherence in the preceding event sequence. The audience’s desire for a complete whole seems to be fulfilled when the conflict, which has been keeping the narrative in progress, ends with the ultimate resolution, that is, when the crocodile decided not to eat the chicken. Coda Following the representation of characters no longer in conflict with each other, connections are made in the coda between events in the storyworld and those in the actual world through some overt moral comments, which also serve as the institutional messages (Table 4.9). The rhetorical question following the syntactic parallelism favours the audience’s evaluative responses to be in line with the institutional messages about fraternity or racial harmony. These messages are underlined not only by the direct address to the audience but also by a change in the type of gesture (i.e. from abstract pointing in the earlier constituents to beats and specific points to the audience and the storyteller self in the coda).

84

84  Application: illustrative examples Table 4.9 The coda (Sample Analysis I) Transcription S:   yeah SO next time   when you see someone,   who is different from you,   I like you to think like croc   I want you to think    ~ aah there is my little sister   or if you see me,    you say there is my little brother    because that person may look different from you   they may dress differently from you   they may speak a different language from you    or they may eat different food from you   but aren’t we … all members of   one big human family?

Notation in Word Description Point to the audience Beats Point to self Beats Point to self Point to the audience Point to the audience Metaphoric gesture, drawing a circle with a finger for “one big human family”

Compatibility between forms, functions and situations One of the aspects which indicate the compatibility between forms, functions and situations in this storytelling performance is the use of animal characters. Incidentally, all the storytelling performances in this Pyjama Night programme have various animal characters as an element of the story. It appears that this particular element of the story corresponds to the type of audience and the institutional purposes of this storytelling event. In particular, the young audience’s familiarity with the distinctive features of different animals seems to make a storyline that involves animal characters more appealing to them. Their familiarity with the characteristic behaviour of different animals seems to facilitate them in their processing and understanding of the event sequence when these animals appear as the characters in the story. It helps them easily identify different characters populating the storyworld, as well as supply connections and process the event sequence at their cognitive level. Thus, it is very likely that in this storytelling performance, the use of animal characters such as the crocodile and the chicken has made the emerging storyline more engaging for the young audience to process. These animal characters have also helped the storytelling performance carry out the institutional purpose of teaching the children lessons about moral and social behaviour. It is claimed that, by having animal characters as the “mouthpieces” of certain ideas and opinions, moral and social issues can be presented in an indirect manner, and instructions can be made more palatable. In other words, by embedding moral and social issues within the fabric of the characters and events that are appealing to the young audience, children can be led to understand these

 85

Application: illustrative examples 85 issues in a non-​threatening or non-​disturbing manner. Hence, it can be deduced that in this storytelling performance, the use of animal characters facilitates the young audience in their understanding of the values entailed by the narrative, for example, how everyone should regard each other with compassion, how everybody is fundamentally the same as “members of one big human family” although they may be different in some superficial ways. Differences in look, race and culture between two persons, and the conflict which can result from a thought that focuses on these differences are keyed to the interest and understanding of the young audience members by analogy with different features, habitats and the conflict between the two animal characters, the crocodile and the chicken. By combining the basic characteristics of the animals with some of human attributes in configuring them as the characters, the narrative which entails a lesson in human (rather than animal) nature has become more appealing to the young audience. Therefore, the use of animal characters in this storytelling performance can be pointed out as an instance of the compatibility between forms, functions and situations in this storytelling performance. Such compatibility has not only made the development of the storyline more engaging for the young audience but also helped them understand elusive moral and social lessons that fulfil the institutional purposes of the storytelling event. In this way, it has enhanced the audience’s receptiveness and appreciation of the narrative developed during the storytelling performance, and in turn enhanced the optimal narrativity of this particular storytelling performance. Another story element that manifests the correspondence between the forms and functions of this storytelling performance is the temporality and spatialization of the event sequence. As discussed in the analysis of the elements of the story, just as the characters are not specified by any particular names (thus not limiting them to any particular region or culture), the event sequence is not anchored to a specific time or place. Therefore, while the simple chronology and systematic location in the ordering of events helps the young audience in their (re)construction of the storyworld, the general temporal and spatial anchorage for the whole sequence of events suggests the timelessness and universality of the moral instructions that the institution aims to instil in the children through this storytelling performance. From the aspect of the storytelling discourse, the compatibility between forms, functions and situations can be found in the use of “copious” repetitions (Ong 1982) and parallelism in the representations of events. As discussed earlier, repetitions help the audience recognize the pivotal or plot-​determining narrative elements as well as the cohesion in the process of narrative development. They also play a part in persuading the audience into certain interpretations and responses corresponding to the moral and social values held by the institution. Likewise, parallelism helps the audience perceive the coherence in the event sequence, and find the thematic connection between elements of the story and features of the storytelling event. Thus the repetitions and parallelism in this storytelling performance manifest the correspondence between features of the storytelling discourse and functional aspects of the storytelling event. This correspondence in

86

86  Application: illustrative examples turn influences the ways the audience responds to the narrative development during this storytelling performance. Further evidence of compatibility can be found in the audience’s participation in the storytelling process. As shown in the earlier analysis, performance features such as omissions of verbal components, repetitions of onomatopoeic/​ non-​linguistic sounds and iconic gestures encourage the audience to anticipate the character’s actions and events. When invited by the storyteller, the audience members become directly involved in the storytelling process by contributing certain story elements such as the characters’ motivations, actions and repeated events. Such participation seems to make the audience feel that they are helping keep the narrative in progress, and thus encourages them to closely follow the unfolding of events. In other words, such participation engenders happiness and makes the audience feel more joyous while they are “harnessed” to the storytelling process (Simms 1988). Therefore, the participatory aspect of this storytelling performance should be noted as the correspondence between the form of storytelling and the recreational function of the storytelling event. This correspondence has accordingly enhanced the development of the actual narrativity during the storytelling process by engaging the audience’s interest in the progress of the storyline and by heightening the attractiveness of the storytelling performance. On the whole, it can be concluded that in the process of narrative development in this storytelling performance, elements of the story and features of the storytelling discourse correspond to the situational and functional aspects of the storytelling event. Such compatibility between forms, functions and situations contributes to the achievement of the optimal narrativity of this applied storytelling performance, for it promotes not only the entertainment and educational value of the narrative but also the audience’s responsiveness to the emerging narrative structure and elements.

Sample Analysis II As another example, a storytelling performance for a mixed-​age audience (i.e. an audience consisting mainly of adults, adolescents and some children) will be analysed. It is one of the performances from the Storytellers’ Showcase programme which forms part of the Asian Congress of Storytellers organized by the National Book Development Council of Singapore (NBDCS), and supported by institutions such as the National Library Board, Singapore (NLB) and the Asian Storytelling Network (ASN). Although the Congress and its programmes are primarily targeted at school teachers and librarians, they are open to the general public and to all those who have an interest in live oral storytelling performances. Each year, in addition to local professional storytellers, several renowned storytellers from different parts of the world are invited to the Congress to share their perspectives on oral storytelling performances in the contemporary context. The Congress usually includes a variety of programmes, for example,

 87

Application: illustrative examples 87

• • •

workshops on various topics related to face-​ to-​ face oral storytelling performances, the Storytelling Clinic, in which participants can ask professional storytellers questions about storytelling and the Storytellers’ Showcase, which presents live oral storytelling performances by local and international storytellers to mixed-​age audiences (seven and above).

Institutional settings and purposes Besides showcasing the talents and skills of professional storytellers, the Storytellers’ Showcase programme is said to have some specific institutional purposes, that is, the aims set by its organizer (NBDCS) for each year’s event. In most cases, these aims are related to the common interest of the NBDCS, the NLB and the ASN in promoting and encouraging the revival of live oral storytelling performance as a tradition and an art in the contemporary context. Specifically, the institutional purposes are stated in the programme booklet as follows:

• • •

to revive the ancient art of storytelling in Singapore to bring oral storytelling to a wide range of modern audiences to contribute to the telling of Asian stories, which are an important part of Singapore’s cultural heritage

As a general rule, the Storytellers’ Showcase programme is ticketed and held in an auditorium with a simple theatrical setting, that is, a stage for the storyteller, basic lighting and sound systems. Therefore, the storytelling performances in the Storytellers’ Showcase programme represent the type of oral storytelling which shares several features of a theatrical performance, such as a greater tendency toward dramatic movement on the part of the tellers; a much broad range of voice manipulation; some musical accompaniment; and costumes either of a distinctive character or of a type to suggest a given place and period. (Pellowski 1990, p. 156) In this particular Storytellers’ Showcase programme, performances by twelve different storytellers range from those which show most of the above features of a theatrical performance, to those which have only a few of these features corresponding to the simple theatrical setting of this storytelling event. As an example, the storytelling performance Dog Barks and Rooster Crows by one of the invited international storytellers, Linda Fang, will be analysed in detail. It is a participatory type of storytelling with no musical accompaniment. Although the storyteller wears a costume which suggests her country of origin and the source of the story, she does not stick to only one specific role of any one particular character in the course of the storytelling process.

88

88  Application: illustrative examples Dynamics of the storyteller and audience Similar to the first sample analysis (Sample Analysis I), the dynamics of the storyteller and audience in this storytelling performance can be observed by examining the interactions between them. The following is an excerpt from the transcription of the interactions that precede the particular storytelling performance in this storytelling event. (H: Host;  S: Storyteller;  A: Audience) H:  ok again for all this is this is a little introduction     especially for the teachers here     because our next teller Linda Fang {pointing to the storyteller}     from originally from Shanghai     and now from Washington, DC. United States     she shared this story with us {The summary of Linda Fang’s real-​life story, that is, how she became a storyteller} As noted in the above transcription, the engagement of the storyteller and the audience is initiated through the introduction from the host of the programme. The introduction from the host, which summarizes Linda Fang’s real-​life story of how she became a storyteller, is followed by Fang’s direct address to the audience: H:  this is when she was ten     how lucky … she knew at ten what she could do     with the rest of her life     some of us … we’re still searching A: {laughs} H:  please come Linda S:  wan shang hao    good evening     [wan shang hao] A:  [good evening]     [wan shang hao] S:  alright …er I want to tell you a story     but before I tell you the story     er I have to answer a question     I-​I know every storyteller will get that question     the question is how you get into storytelling     and why you tell stories     and my answer the long answer to that question is 45 minutes A: {laughs} S:  but the short answer is     because I didn’t know how to do anything else A: {laughs}

 89

Application: illustrative examples 89 S:             

I’m not like you smart people you know how to work on the computer and all kinds of things I just know … how to tell stories

Throughout the above introduction, Fang interacts with the audience in her real-​ life identity, explaining some aspects of her real-​life experience and personality to them. Thus the engagement of the teller and audience at this point of the interaction process can be seen as that of the real teller and the real audience. But immediately following the introduction, Fang announces her assumption of the role of the storyteller for a particular storytelling performance. At the same time, she begins to bring the audience together by giving them instructions and by preparing them for their participation in the upcoming storytelling process as follows: S:  but this is the story that I need you to help me    and it’s very simple    all I want you to do is to watch my finger    every time I point my finger at you    I want you to repeat the sound I make alright?    let’s try    /​tok/​ A:  /​tok/​ S:  /​tok/​ A:  /​tok/​ S:  /​tok  tok/​ A:  /​tok  tok/​ S:  /​tok  tok/​ A:  /​tok  tok/​ S:  if I point in this direction    you make the sound    if I point in this direction    you make the sound    when I go like this    everyone makes the sound    and when I go like this    no one makes the sound A: {laughs} S: alright?    I’m not going to make the same sound that I’m making now    I’m going to make some other sounds    and this is … a true story The above interactions indicate that the engagement of the real teller and the real audience has begun to shift to that of the assumed teller and the ideal audience.

90

90  Application: illustrative examples That is to say, along with Fang’s assumption of the role of the storyteller for a particular storytelling performance, the audience is led to the assumption of the role of the ideal audience for that storytelling performance. Livo and Reitz (1986, p. 184) observe that the process of “making a story” during a live oral storytelling performance requires that “both teller and audience know what to do and enter into a mutual agreement to do it”. They later add that, contrary to popular belief, adult audiences “generally have a better understanding of their role” in being part of the storytelling event, and thus have a greater willingness to enter into such mutual agreement with the storyteller than most child audiences (Livo and Reitz 1986, p.  216). Accordingly, when the audience (as a group) agrees on how to respond to the teller in the course of the storytelling process, a matching set of identity relationships between them (i.e. the engagement of the assumed teller and the ideal audience) has successfully been established for the initiation of a storytelling process. As the storytelling proceeds, the teller and audience become the figures carrying out the activities of the storytelling process, and the engagement between them has become that of the narrator and the narratee in a storytelling process. Corresponding to the theatrical setting, this storytelling performance has a particular kind of ending. The following is an excerpt from the transcription of the interactions at the end of the storytelling process. S:  that night Lord Meng Chang rewarded    dog barks and rooster crows    and he said … everyone … including the storyteller    has a talent that can be very useful at a time    {the storyteller gives a bow and leaves the stage} A:  {laughs} {claps} H:  well I think you love the story hur?    how many kids will now want to be a dog barks A: {laughs} As noted in the transcription, the storyteller gives a bow to the audience at the end of the storytelling process. As she leaves the stage, the audience claps for her performance. These non-​verbal interactions suggest that at the end of the storytelling process, the engagement between them shifts back to that of the real teller and the real audience. Subsequently, the host takes the floor and talks to the audience members about the story as well as about Fang and her performance. Elements of the story Event sequence The events making up the storyline of Dog Barks and Rooster Crows can be outlined as follows:

 91

Application: illustrative examples 91 Initial state Lord Meng Chang lived in China about two thousand years ago. He had many house guests who were scholars, artists and craftsmen. He gave them food, clothes and money. They did some work for him in return. He received two new house guests who had unique ways of earning a living –​one barked like a dog and the other crowed like a rooster. The rest of his house guests looked down on these two men and called them Dog Barks and Rooster Crows. Middle state Lord Meng Chang got a letter from the King of another state. The King asked Lord Meng Chang to go over to his state and be his prime minister. Lord Meng Chang went to see the King together with a few of his house guests, including Dog Barks and Rooster Crows. The King made him a prisoner instead. Lord Meng Chang’s house guests had to find a way to save him. A wise man in the group suggested approaching the King’s young wife. They needed a gift which was kept in the palace warehouse to give her. Dog Barks went to the palace warehouse. He barked like a dog. The dogs guarding the warehouse barked at him. He fought with the dogs. The soldier guarding the warehouse thought that his dogs were fighting with a wild dog. He called his dogs back to the house. He tied them in a different room. Dog Barks went into the warehouse. He took the gift for the King’s young wife. He gave it to the wise man. The wise man went to see the King’s young wife with the gift. The King’s young wife was pleased with the gift and promised to help them. The King came to see her. She persuaded the King to free Lord Meng Chang. Terminal state Lord Meng Chang was freed. He gathered his house guests and left immediately. They reached the border past midnight and the gates were closed. They had to wait until morning to cross the border. The King changed his mind. He sent his soldiers to catch Lord Meng Chang. The King’s soldiers were approaching the border.

92

92  Application: illustrative examples Rooster Crows began to crow like a rooster. The other roosters followed him and crowed. The soldiers guarding the border gate thought that it was morning. They opened the gate. Lord Meng Chang and his house guests crossed the border. They got home safely. Lord Meng Chang rewarded Dog Barks and Rooster Crows. The above outline shows that the event sequence begins with an initial state suggesting an equilibrium (Todorov 1977) (i.e. parity among the skills and talents of Lord Meng Chang’s house guests), only to be disturbed by a particular event –​(i.e. Lord Meng Chang receiving Dog Barks and Rooster Crows as his two new house guests). The initial state is then temporally succeeded by a middle state in which a series of events lead to a problem (i.e. Lord Meng Chang was kept as a prisoner by the King). The problem keeps the storyline in progress with the characters’ actions to work out a solution (i.e. his house guests had to find a way to save him). In the process of solving the main problem, the event string leads to an additional problem (i.e. they needed a gift for the King’s young wife in order to ask for her help) which needs to be solved before the main problem can be addressed. The solution to this additional problem (i.e. Dog Barks helped them get the gift for the King’s young wife) leads to the preliminary solution to the main problem (i.e. Lord Meng Chang was freed from the prison). Consequently, the preliminary solution to the main problem allows the storyline to move forward with the events initiating the terminal state (i.e. Lord Meng Chang and his house guests prepared to get back to their state). However, before arriving at the eventual solution to the main problem, the event string is again led to another additional complication (i.e. the border gates were closed, the King changed his mind, and Lord Meng Chang and his men had to cross the border before the King’s soldiers reached them). Therefore, the storyline is kept in progress with the actions of the characters trying to solve this additional complication. The solution to the second additional complication (i.e. Rooster Crows’s actions made the border gate open in time) consequently leads to the eventual solution to the main problem (i.e. Lord Meng Chang and his men got back to their state safely). Only then, the storyline ends with the restoration of equilibrium that has been disturbed at the beginning of the event sequence (i.e. parity among all of Lord Meng Chang’s house guests, including Dog Barks and Rooster Crows, who were recognized for their unique talents). The analysis of the event sequence shows that the storyline is kept in progress by means of problem-​solution processes until the equilibrium, which is disturbed in the initial state of the storyline, is restored (Todorov 1977). Also, by these problem-​solution processes, the peculiar traits of the two main characters (Dog Barks and Rooster Crows) are sensibly explicated. The unexpected solutions brought about by the actions of these two characters make the audience’s suspension of disbelief (in the peculiarity of the events) worthwhile and rewarded.

 93

Application: illustrative examples 93 Moreover, the sequencing of events in a chronological and step-​by-​step explicable order underlines the temporal and/​or causal relationships between each of the two events. These features accord this particular event sequence the potential narrativity (i.e. the potential to meet the audience’s expectations for continuity and coherence, and to satisfy their desires for a plausible and pleasing whole at the end of the event sequence). In addition, the event sequence holds a particular combination of conventional and unconventional elements. While some events conform to the conventional views about the behaviour of human beings, others defy such conformity and suggest uniqueness or oddness (e.g. the events involving the peculiar actions of Dog Barks and Rooster Crows). The combination of conventional and unconventional elements is noted as a factor that enhances the narrative potential of this particular event sequence. As discussed in the previous chapters, it has been claimed that stereotypical elements facilitate the audience in making necessary connections and inferences to process the event sequence, while non-​stereotypical transgressions trigger their mental stimulation and keep them attentive and interested (Herman 2002; Toolan 2001). Characters The characters involved in the events that make up the storyline can be listed as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Dog  Barks Rooster  Crows Lord Meng Chang The  King The King’s young wife Lord Meng Chang’s other house guests

Among all the characters, Dog Barks and Rooster Crows are specially configured to have some peculiar traits, for example, the skills to bark like a dog and crow like a rooster respectively. Thus their unconventional behaviour requires the audience to suspend their expectations about human beings and human behaviour to a certain extent. However, their other attributes, such as speech, thought, feeling and other fundamental actions which conform to the audience’s pre-​ stored expectations about human beings and behaviour, still help the audience relate to these two characters and appreciate their uniqueness. The audience’s reconstruction of these two characters is also facilitated by their specifically configured external/​physical traits which suggest certain features of the two animals whose behaviour each of them had the special skills to act like. For example, Dog Barks was a short and skinny man who was dressed in all black, and who looked like a skinny dog; while Rooster Crows was a tall and heavy man who was dressed in all red, and who looked like a rooster. Their names Dog Barks and Rooster Crows, as given to them by the other characters in the story, also

94

94  Application: illustrative examples signify their distinctive traits, and thus make it easier for the audience to identify them in relation to their involvement in the event sequence. The other two characters, Lord Meng Chang and the King, on the other hand, are modelled on stereotypical expectations about a wealthy and generous lord versus an ambitious and capricious king. The conflict between the two characters, Lord Meng Chang and the King, brings about the problems that keep the storyline going. In particular, the conflict between Lord Meng Chang and the King bring about the chances for the other two main characters, Dog Barks and Rooster Crows, to take action and prove their talents as something crucial and plot-​determining. Therefore, these four main characters and their relations to each other are carefully constructed for the development of a storyline. In addition to these four main characters, the storyline involves other minor characters, such as Lord Meng Chang’s other house guests and the King’s young wife. Configurations of these minor characters simply conform to the familiar behavioural paradigms of a wise man, a group of loyal friends, a beloved wife and so on, facilitating the audience’s reconstruction of these characters in relation to their involvement in the event sequence. Although these minor characters appear only in a few events, they instigate a series of events by serving as a springboard for the main characters to take action. For example, the wise man’s suggestion on approaching the King’s young wife for help leads the storyline to the first additional problem (i.e. to get a gift for her) that creates a chance for Dog Barks to take action. Consequently, the storyline moves forward with a series of events leading to a solution to that additional complication. Similarly, the King’s young wife’s manipulative actions lead the King into setting Lord Meng Chang free, which turns out to be an event that initiates the terminal state in the storyline. Moreover, the juxtaposition of obviously contrastive traits between the minor characters on the one hand (e.g. scholars, artists, craftsmen) and the two main characters on the other (i.e. one who earned a living by barking like a dog and the other by crowing like a rooster), foregrounds the disturbance of equilibrium in the initial state of the event sequence. This juxtaposition of characters can enhance the audience’s interest in the narrative development, since it makes the audience speculate on how the equilibrium will be restored. Temporality and spatialization Following the storyteller’s claim about “a true story”, the event sequence has a relatively specific temporal and spatial anchorage. The whole sequence of events is anchored to a certain period –​“about two thousand years ago” –​and to a relatively specific part of the world –​“in China”. However, by relating it to a time in the distant past, as opposed to a more recent one, such temporal anchorage seems to prepare the audience for a formulation and a processing of story elements which require them to adopt a suspension of disbelief to a certain extent (Pellowski 1990). Besides the anchorage, the event string appears to be following a simple chronological timeline, facilitating the audience in processing the event sequence. At the same time, the narrative potential, which may have been accorded by this sequential

 95

Application: illustrative examples 95 ordering of events, gets enhanced when certain narrative effects are created by having the chronological timeline affected by the character’s actions in the course of the problem-​solution processes. For example, the chronological timeline gets accelerated or condensed when Rooster Crows’s actions initiate the crows of other roosters, which in turn causes the soldiers’ untimely action of opening the border gate thinking that it was morning. The distortion in the chronological timeline brings about the unexpected solution to the problem, following a special temporal and causal path. This consequently produces an effect of humour or a delightful surprise, and makes the storyline more engaging and entertaining for the audience. As regards spatialization, the events and characters are located in more or less specific places (e.g. “in China”, “Lord Meng Chang’s house”, “another state –​the state of Ching”, “palace warehouse”, “the border” etc.). Moreover, plot-​determining elements of the story are strategically located in the crucial places, creating additional complications in the storyline and increasing the dramatic effects. For example, the gift for the King’s young wife was located in the palace warehouse, which was guarded by the soldiers (and dogs), and Lord Meng Chang and his house guests were held at the border gate, which would not be open until morning. These well-​structured temporal and spatial distributions of the events and characters can be regarded as a factor contributing to the narrative potential or the potential narrativity in this particular series of events. They bind the elements constituting the storyworld together and also help make the development of the storyline more engaging for the audience. The following discussion will examine how the narrative potential manifested in these story elements is actualized through multimodal performance features of the storytelling discourse in the course of the actual storytelling process. Overall Structure and Multimodal Performance Features of the Storytelling Discourse The constituents shaping the overall structure of the storytelling discourse for Dog Barks and Rooster Crows can be listed as Abstract Orientation (General frame) Orientation (Background information –​introducing the characters) Orientation (Narrow frame) Main action (Main problem) Resolution –​ Orientation (additional problem 1)    Main action (additional problem 1)    Resolution (additional problem 1)    Preliminary solution to the main problem    Orientation (additional problem 2)    Main action (additional problem 2)    Resolution (additional problem 2)    Eventual solution to the main problem Coda

96

96  Application: illustrative examples Multimodal performance features emanating from the storyteller can be captured by examining the interplay between elements of the story and features of the storytelling discourse in each of the above constituents. Abstract As seen earlier, this storytelling performance is preceded by a particular kind of opening that corresponds to a theatrical setting, for example, the host’s introductory remarks about the storyteller, an exchange of greetings between the teller and audience, the teller’s introductory address and instructions on audience participation. Following this opening, as noted in the transcription (Table 4.10), a transition is made from the preceding interactions to the storytelling proper with the launch of the abstract. The transition is initiated by the discourse marker “and”, and marked by a shift to louder volume and slower pace. The abstract carries the storyteller’s claim about “a true story”, which comes after a pause securing the audience’s attentiveness. The claim is reinforced vocally by the emphatic stress, and visually by the beats or rhythmical moves of the teller’s hand which are made along with the stress peaks of the accompanying speech (Cassell and McNeill 1991). It seems that the launch of the abstract prepares the audience for a narrative development by exciting their curiosity about “a true story”. Orientation (general frame) The abstract is followed by the orientation (general frame) which sets up the temporal and spatial anchorage for the upcoming event sequence (Table 4.11). The time “two thousand years ago” and the place “in China” are underlined by the emphatic stress and beats, ensuring the audience’s temporal and spatial awareness at the beginning of the storyworld (re)construction process.

Table 4.10 The abstract (Sample Analysis II) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

S: and THIS IS … a true story that took place some time ago

Beats

Table 4.11 The general frame (Sample Analysis II) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

S: about se-​about two thousand years ago in China

Beats

 97

Application: illustrative examples 97 Notwithstanding the earlier claim about “a true story”, the emphasis on the distant past, which can be inferred from the repetition of similar phrases –​“some time ago”, “two thousand years ago”, suggests a qualification that certain elements in the upcoming events would require the audience to adopt the suspension of disbelief to some extent. Orientation (background information –​introducing the characters) With a shift to a louder volume following a pause and the discourse marker “and”, the general frame segues into another step in the narrative development, that is, the orientation (background information). The introduction of the three main characters (i.e. Lord Meng Chang, Dog Barks and Rooster Crows) and some minor characters (i.e. Lord Meng Chang’s house guests) comes as the orientation (background information) in the development of the storyline (Table 4.12)

Table 4.12 Introducing the characters (Sample Analysis II) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

S: and … THERE WAS A LORD …

Beats

his name was Meng Chang lord Meng Chang was a wealthy man

Beats Beats

he had a big house, he had many servants, but he was also a very generous person. …

Beats

he invited a lot of people in his house and he treated them as his guests. he would give them food to eat, clothes to wear, and money to spend. and these people were mostly scholars, artists, and craftsmen they would do some work for him in return …

Beats Beats Beats Beats Beats Beats

one evening, when lord Meng Chang and his house guests were sitting down, in the dining hall, getting ready for dinner, a servant brought two men into the hall …

Beats

Beats (continued)

98

Table 4.12 (Cont.) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

one was a short and skinny man, all dressed in black … he looked like a skinny dog … the other was a tall and heavy man, all dressed in red … he looked like a rooster … A: {laughs} S: and the two men said they came to look for jobs …

Metaphoric gesture for “short and skinny”

very well said the lord, and he turned to the man who was dressed in black he said … my friend … tell me what kind of skill do you have how do you earn a living …

Iconic gesture for “turn”

and he said … (my lord … I bark like a dog for a living) A: {laughs}

Iconic gesture/​posture “a dog barking”

S: bark like a dog for a living? I’ve never heard about anyone who bark like a dog for a living tell me … how do you do it …

Puzzled facial expression

the man said (my lord … I used to be a thief) (every time I spot a house I want to break into,) (I go there at night) (and I put on a piece of dog’s skin) (and then I bark like a dog) (/​woof  woof/​) (/​woof  woof/​) there are always dogs in the house and they come out and they bark at me

Serious facial expression

/​woof woof /​ A: /​woof woof /​

Pointing to the right

S: /​woof woof /​ A: /​woof woof /​

Pointing to the left

S: /​woof woof woof /​ A: /​woof woof woof /​ S: /​woof woof woof/​ A: /​woof woof woof/​ S+A: /​ WO O F WO OF W OOF

Raising both hands

W OOF W OOF W OOF /​

Metaphoric gesture for “tall and heavy”

Beats

Iconic gesture “put on” Iconic gesture “bark”

Iconic gesture “bark”

 99

Table 4.12 (Cont.) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

S:   they come out   they bark at me   and I bark at them   they fight with me   I fight with them …

Abstract pointing

and when the owner of the house comes out, he thinks his dogs are fighting with a wild dog, he calls his dogs back into the house, he ties them up in a different room, and he goes back to bed. A: {laughs}

Iconic gesture “comes out”

S:   (when everything is quiet,)    (I go into the house)    (I take whatever I want)   and that’s how I make a living A: {laughs}

Pleased facial expression Iconic gesture “go into” Iconic gesture “take” Beats

S:   the lord said that’s interesting    interesting way to make a living A: {laughs}

Thoughtful facial expression

S: then he turned to the man all dressed in red and he said … well my friend … how about you? how do you earn a living

Iconic gesture “turned”

the man said … my lord … I crow like a rooster /​coo coo cooooo/​ A: {laughs}

Iconic gesture “crow”

S: how did you do that the man said … (my lord … I love to get up early) (every morning I go into the courtyard) (and I crow like a rooster) (/​coo coo cooooo/​) (/​coo coo cooooo/​) there are always roosters in the village and they crow after me /​coo coo cooooo/​ A: /​coo coo cooooo/​ S: and another rooster A: /​coo coo cooooo/​ S: and another rooster S+A: /​coo coo cooooo/​ /​C O O CO O   CO O O O /​ /​C O O CO O   CO O O O /​

Puzzled facial expression Serious facial expression

Abstract pointing Abstract pointing

Iconic gesture “ties” Iconic gesture “goes back”

Iconic gesture “go into” Iconic gesture “crow”

Pointing to the right Pointing to the left Raising both hands

/​C O O CO O CO O O O O/​

A: {laughs} (continued)

100

100  Application: illustrative examples Table 4.12 (Cont.) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

S:   all the roosters are crowing, and the people when they hear the roosters   crowing, they think it’s morning, and they get up early, and when they realize that they get up early, they are happy, and they pay me, and that’s how I make a living. A:   {laughs}

Metaphoric gesture “all”

S:   the lord said very good very good my friends   sit down and eat   sit down and drink   you each … have a job …

Beats

you can imagine how the scholars … artists … and craftsmen thought about these two men? …

Deictic gesture –​pointing to the audience Serious facial expression

this man can only BARK that man can only CROW and they are sitting down and eating and drinking just like one of us? … THAT IS NOT FAIR they should go somewhere else and beg for a living … so they gave these two men each a nick name the man who could bark, they called him … dog barks and the man who could crow they called him rooster crows …

Deictic gestures – abstract pointing “this” “that”

Iconic gesture “get up” Pleased facial expression

Beats

Displeased facial expression

Beats Deictic gesture –​abstract pointing Deictic gesture –​abstract pointing

Noticeable contrasts in vocal as well as visual performance features can be found in the ways the storyteller introduces relatively stereotypical characters on the one hand, and specially configured characters with some peculiar traits on the other. To elaborate, the introduction of Lord Meng Chang and his house guests (as characters modelled on conventional expectations about a wealthy and generous lord, scholars, artists and craftsmen) comes at a steady pace and in regular up and down inflection. It is also accompanied by a series of rhythmical beats that appear to give a summarizing effect while indexing the information important for the narrative development.

 101

Application: illustrative examples 101 In contrast, the introduction of the two characters with peculiar traits (i.e. Dog Barks and Rooster Crows) is marked vocally by a slow pace with several pauses, high pitch, emphatic stress and slight upward inflection. The slow pace with several pauses seems to encourage the audience to be attentive to the information being given about the two specially configured characters. Likewise, the high pitch and emphatic stress underline each distinctive trait of these two characters, while the slight upward inflection makes the audience expect more elaborations. Moreover, it can be seen that the audience becomes more involved in the process of introducing these two specially configured characters when they are roped in to produce onomatopoeic/​non-​linguistic sounds to accompany the direct quotations from the dialogues between characters. Such audience participation in noise-​making can help create an atmosphere which makes the audience feel as if they are “witnessing” the events and characters (Livo and Reitz 1986; Simms 1988). Specifically in this instance, through such audience participation, the storyteller makes them feel as if they are witnessing Dog Barks and Rooster Crows’s first interactions with Lord Meng Chang regarding their special talents and behaviour. From the visual aspect, the introduction of these two specially configured characters is marked by metaphoric and iconic gestures, as well as metaphoric or iconic postures, and corresponding facial expressions. These features seem to facilitate the audience in their visualization and (re)construction of Dog Barks and Rooster Crows with their peculiar behaviour. Differences in the ways of introducing Dog Barks and Rooster Crows, as the two characters distinct from the others, are also found in the verbal features of the storytelling discourse. While Lord Meng Chang and his other house guests are introduced to the audience simply by way of the expressive elaborations made in the words of the narrator, Dog Barks and Rooster Crows are introduced not only through the narrator’s expressive elaborations but also through the direct quotations from the dialogues between characters, which seems to bring the characters closer to the audience (Bauman 1986; Gülich and Quasthoff 1986; Günthner 1999). Together with the corresponding shifts in vocal (such as volume, pitch, pace) and visual features (such as iconic or metaphoric gestures, postures and facial expressions), these direct quotations make Dog Barks and Rooster Crows “appear” in front of the audience. The contrasting performance features, which apparently facilitate the audience in their reconstruction of different characters, also signify the equilibrium and the disturbance of equilibrium at the beginning of the event sequence. The steady pace, regular up and down inflection and rhythmical beats accompanying the introduction of Lord Meng Chang and his other house guests signify the initial equilibrium. On the other hand, the shift to a cluster of more varied and elaborate vocal as well as visual performance features for the introduction of Dog Barks and Rooster Crows suggests the disturbance to the equilibrium, caused by their appearance in the event sequence. This disturbance of equilibrium is emphasized further for the audience’s attention by an evaluative statement directly addressed

102

102  Application: illustrative examples to them: “you can imagine how the scholars, artists and craftsmen thought about these two men”. Subsequently, the shifts to loud volume, displeased tone and unhappy facial expressions that accompany the direct quotations from the words of Lord Meng Chang’s house guests modulate an effect that reflects their unhappiness. Hence, it is noted that, as the characters begin to appear in the event sequence, multimodal performance features employed by the teller help the audience discern the disturbance of equilibrium in the initial state of the narrative development. Orientation (narrow frame) Following the background information about the characters, a pause and a shift to a softer volume cue the audience to perceive the transition to another step in the narrative development, that is, the orientation (narrow frame). It begins with a transition in time –​“a few months later”, which links up the preceding events serving as the background information with the succeeding events leading to the main complication (Table 4.13). Also brought into the storyline through the narrow frame is the last main character, the King. The King’s character traits (e.g. ambitious, capricious) are disclosed through the words of a character introduced earlier, that is, through Lord Meng Chang’s contemplation. In reporting Lord Meng Chang’s contemplation Table 4.13 The orientation –​narrow frame (Sample Analysis II) Transcription (a few months later,) lord Meng Chang got a letter from the king of another state the state of Ching … the king invited him to go over to his state and be his prime minister … (but the lord didn’t want to go) because … he knew that the king of Ching was a very ambitious man and he would change his mind any minute. … but he also understood that … if he didn’t go, the king could use that as an excuse to invade his own state … so very reluctantly, he gathered a few of his house guests, including dog barks and rooster crows, and he went to the state of Ching. …

Notation in Word Description

Beats

Beats Serious facial expression Beats Serious facial expression Beats Beats Beats

 103

Application: illustrative examples 103 on the King’s invitation, the juxtaposition of a slow pace with a softer volume and a sudden shift to a high pitch with emphatic stress produce an effect that represents the feelings of the character (i.e. Lord Meng Chang) in a dilemma. The pause after that seems to allow the audience to reflect on this situation so that they understand Lord Meng Chang’s predicament and his motivation in taking the subsequent actions. Main action (main complication) As the storytelling proceeds, a transition in time and space “when they got there”, signals the transition from the narrow frame to the main action. As seen in the transcription (Table 4.14), the main action constituent which brings out the main complication, or the critical meeting between Lord Meng Chang and the King, is marked by the direct quotations from the utterances and thoughts of the two characters. These quotations are made together with the corresponding shifts in pitch, volume, pace, gestures and facial expressions. Similar to the earlier instances, direct quotations help evoke clear imagery of the critical meeting between the two characters as the focal event. The accompanying vocal and visual performance features not only facilitate the audience in identifying different

Table 4.14 The main action (Sample Analysis II) Transcription when they got there, the lord bowed deep to the king and said … ~your ~majesty I’m here to accept the position you offer me I’ll be your prime minister … (when the king of Ching saw the lord) (he said … ~I ~wonder ~why ~he ~is ~here) I never really expected that he will accept the  position I offer him I DON’T THINK HE WANTS TO SERVE ME I THINK HE WANTS TO BE A SPY FOR HIS OWN STATE I DON’T NEED A SPY GUARD … LOCK HIM UP … so instead of making the lord his prime minister, he made him a prisoner … you can imagine how shocked the house guests who went with the lord were …

Notation in Word Description Iconic gesture “bowed deep”

Unhappy facial expression

Deictic gesture –​Abstract pointing Beats

Beats

104

104  Application: illustrative examples speaking persona but also make them feel the intensity being built up by the conflict between the two characters. The increasing louder volume and faster pace in quoting the King’s thoughts and speeches modulate an effect that helps to build up the climax, that is, the King making Lord Meng Chang a prisoner instead of his prime minister. The pause after that allows the audience time to reflect upon this surprising situation, and thus seems to add to the dramatic effects. The subsequent evaluative statement “you can imagine how shocked the house guests who went with the lord were”, which is directly addressed to the audience in a slight upward inflection, seems to be leading them to have a uniform response to the King’s unexpected action. While the statement prompts the audience to identify with the characters’ feelings, the slight upward inflection leaves an impression which corresponds to the surprising situation the characters were in. The slight upward inflection also encourages the audience to think ahead and to anticipate the turn of events following that. Resolution A pause followed by a shift to a slower pace cues the transition from the main action to the resolution. However, the eventual resolution to the main problem (i.e. Lord Meng Chang’s safe return to his own state) is realized only through the resolutions to the two additional problems, that is, (i) getting a gift for the King’s young wife, and (ii) making the border gate open before morning. To introduce the first additional problem, the storytelling discourse once again turns to the orientation, which gives some background information in relation to the first additional complication (e.g. about the old man in the group, the King’s young wife, and the gifts that had been confiscated). When this orientational information for the additional complication comes in the form of the dialogues between the characters who were trying to work out a solution for the main complication, the cohesion between the additional complication and the main complication is ensured in the storytelling process. In other words, the preparatory events leading to the additional complication (i.e. getting a gift for the King’s young wife) are represented in the form of the direct quotations from the dialogues among Lord Meng Chang’s house guests who were trying to figure out a way to solve the main problem (i.e. to save Lord Meng Chang) (Table 4.15). As the event sequence leads towards the main action constituent of the first additional complication, a shift to a softer volume in saying “while they were talking” seems to make the audience become more attentive to the upcoming events. Details of the character Dog Barks’s actions, in relation to the development of the first additional complication, are represented in expressive elaborations complemented by a series of iconic gestures and some abstract pointing (Table 4.16). Through these features from different modes (i.e. verbal, vocal and visual), the storyteller gives the audience “a complete view” of the character’s discrete actions. At the same time, the gradual increase in volume and pace helps build up the tension while the storyline leads towards another climax. Moreover, in the process of representing Dog Barks’s actions, making the audience participate

 105

Table 4.15 Additional problem (i) –​orientation (Sample Analysis II) Transcription that night they gathered in the tavern trying to figure out a way to save their lord … there was a man in the group who was considered the wise man he said … nothing works better than a whisper on the pillow the king has a young wife he is very fond of if we can go and talk to the king’s young wife, maybe the king would let our lord go but another man said no no no no no you cannot just go and say please do us a favour you’ve got to give her a gift but everything we brought has been taken away from us and put in the palace warehouse we can’t get the things back …

Notation in Word Description Beats

Thoughtful facial expression

Beats

Table 4.16 Additional problem (i) –​main action (Sample Analysis II) Transcription (while they were talking,) (dog barks quietly left the tavern,) (he found his way to the palace warehouse,) (and when he got there,) he put on his piece of dog’s skin, and he began to bark like a dog /​WOOF  WOOF/​ /​WOOF  WOOF/​ A DOG CAME OUT OF THE WAREHOUSE AND STARTED TO BARK AT HIM /​WOOF  WOOF/​ A: /​WOOF WOOF/​ S: ANOTHER DOG CAME OUT AND BARKED AT HIM A: /​WOOF WOOF/​ S: ANOTHER DOG A: /​WOOF WOOF/​ S: ANOTHER DOG S+A: /​WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF WOOF/​ S: THEY BARKED AT HIM HE BARKED AT THEM THEY FOUGHT WITH HIM HE FOUGHT WITH THEM

Notation in Word Description Iconic gesture “left” Iconic gesture “put on” Iconic gesture “bark”

Deictic gesture –​Abstract pointing Pointing to the audience on her right Pointing to the audience on her left Pointing to the audience to her right Raising both hands Deictic gesture –​Abstract pointing Deictic gesture –​Abstract pointing

106

106  Application: illustrative examples Table 4.17 Additional problem (i) –​resolution (Sample Analysis II) Transcription and when the soldier guarding the warehouse came out, he thought his dogs were fighting with a wild dog he called his dogs back to the house, he tied them up in a different room, he went back to bed. (and when everything was quiet,) (dog barks went over to the other side of the   warehouse,) (he opened the door,) (and he went in) and on the top shelf of the closet, he found a white fur coat, it was a gift that they had brought, to give the king’s wife. so he grabbed the coat, went back to the tavern, gave it to the wise man, who went to see the king’s young wife. …

Notation in Word Description Iconic gesture “came out” Iconic gesture “called back” Iconic gesture “tied” Iconic gesture “went back” Metaphoric gesture “everything” Iconic gesture “went over” Iconic gesture “opened” Iconic gesture “went in” Deictic gesture –​Abstract pointing Beats Iconic gesture –​“grabbed” Iconic gesture –​ “went” Iconic gesture –​“gave”

once again in noise-​making ensures that they closely follow the narrative development. Also, by making the sounds in the storyworld reverberate in the real-​world environment of the storytelling performance, this activity leads the audience to feel as if they are witnessing the events. When their responses are incorporated into the storytelling process, the noise becomes part of the vocal performance features that help increase the intensity of the events being unfolded. The subsequent shift to a normal volume and steady pace signals the transition to the resolution (for the first additional complication). However, the representation of Dog Barks’s actions continues in expressive elaborations with a series of iconic gestures accompanying the words spoken by the storyteller (Table 4.17). These expressive elaborations in the resolution serve an additional function, besides putting a scene on stage, as they turn out to be step-​by-​step explications leading the audience to acknowledge Dog Barks’s peculiar talent as something plausible and something pivotal in resolving this particular complication. Preliminary solution to the main problem The resolution for the first additional problem is followed by the characters’ subsequent actions leading to a preliminary solution to the main problem (i.e. after getting a gift for the King’s wife, the house guests approached her for her help in persuading the King to free Lord Meng Chang). As noted in the transcription (Table 4.18), the end of the first additional problem is marked by a pause,

 107

Table 4.18 Preliminary solution to the main problem (Sample Analysis II) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

and the king’s young wife…(put on the coat) A:   {laughs} S:   (she was sooooo happy)    (she was sooooo beautiful)   she was willing to say anything she was asked to say A:   {laughs}

Iconic gesture “put on” with feminine posture

S:  so that night when the king came to see her,   she stopped him by the door    she said … (you cannot come in yet)    (you’ve got to grant me a wish) A:   {laughs}

Pleased facial expression

Iconic gesture “stopped” Feminine posture Playful facial expression

S:  AH WO DE XIN GAN    xin gan in Chinese means heart and liver    and that stands for darling A:   {laughs} S:   OH WO DE XIN GAN     HAVEN’T I GIVEN YOU EVERYTHING    YOU WANTED?     WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT NOW    ( if you don’t want lord Meng Chang to be   your prime minister)    (why not let him go home)

Change in posture and facial expression

  well the king was so eager to please his   heart and liver A:   {laughs} S:   so he let lord Meng Chang go

Beats

 as soon as lord Meng Chang got back to the tavern,    he gathered his house guests,     he said let’s leave right away     the king can change his mind any minute     but we cannot all go together    two of you stay behind     and the rest of us will meet you at the     border    …

Deictic gesture –​Abstract pointing

 

Beats

Contrast in postures and facial expressions for the King and the King’s wife

Anxious tone and facial expression Metaphoric gesture “gather” Beats Deictic gesture –​Abstract pointing

108

108  Application: illustrative examples whereas the continuation of the narrative development with the characters’ subsequent actions is cued by the discourse marker “and”. During the development of the preliminary solution to the main problem, certain delightful effects created through the use of multimodal performance features tactically employed by the storyteller are noted in the storytelling process. When the events involving the King’s young wife, her actions and her meeting with the King are represented in a manner that is delightfully entertaining, the audience’s responsiveness to the narrative development seems to get promoted. For example, as can be seen in the transcription of the storytelling process, the laughter indicates positive responses from the audience to the storyteller’s use of elaborate feminine postures, gestures and facial expressions, as well as a shift to a high pitch, soft volume, emphatic stress and some enlarged syllables while reporting the King’s young wife actions. These features seem to embellish the audience’s stereotypical expectations about a young and sophisticated woman. The delightful effects continue with the direct quotations from the dialogues between the King’s young wife and the King. In quoting the dialogues between these two characters, elaborate contrasts in vocal (e.g. volume, pitch) and visual features (e.g. posture, gesture, facial expression) again aggrandize the stereotypical interactions between a doting man and his witty wife. Thus, it becomes apparent that these exaggerated representations make the characters and their actions look amusing, and consequently draw joyful and positive responses from the audience to the narrative development. The subsequent aside “well the king was so eager to please his heart and liver”, sums up the series of events involving the King’s young wife. It paves the way for the narrative to move forward with the positive outcome of her meeting with the King (i.e. The King agreed to her request to free Lord Meng Chang). Accordingly, the unfolding of events continues with the preliminary solution to the main complication (i.e. Lord Meng Chang was freed from the prison). Additional problem (ii) –​orientation and main action However, instead of proceeding immediately to the eventual solution, the event sequence moves towards another additional complication, that is, the border gates were closed and the King changed his mind and sent his soldiers to catch Lord Meng Chang again. The storytelling discourse correspondingly continues by bringing out the orientational information for the second additional complication (i.e. Lord Meng Chang prepared to leave as soon as he was released from the prison, and he left two of his men behind). The representation of events leading to this second additional complication is marked by the fast pace, nervous tone and worried facial expressions, reflecting the character’s (i.e. Lord Meng Chang’s) anxious psychological states (Table 4.19). These features make the audience anticipate another complication, and help build up the suspense by creating a sense of urgency in the unfolding of events. Thus they help sustain the audience’s attentiveness to the narrative development.

 109

Table 4.19 Additional problem (ii) –​orientation and main action (Sample Analysis II) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

S: so they got on their horses and they rode towards the border …

Iconic gesture “got on” Iconic gesture “rode”

when they got to the border, it was past mid-​night THE GATES WERE TIGHTLY CLOSED AND THE SOLDIERS WERE HIGH IN THE   FORTRESS SOUND ASLEEP … lord Meng Chang said WE CAN’T CROSS THE BORDER TONIGHT BUT IF WE STAY HERE THE KING CAN SEND HIS SOLDIERS TO TAKE ME BACK WHAT CAN WE DO while they were talking they heard (/​cluck cluck cluck cluck/​) A MAN ON A HORSE WAS GALLOPING   TOWARDS THEM,

Beats Metaphoric gesture “tightly closed” Deictic gesture –​abstract pointing

Beats Anxious tone and facial expression

Iconic gesture “galloping”

HE WAS ONE OF THE HOUSE GUESTS WHO HAD BEEN LEFT BEHIND, HE SPRANG FROM HIS HORSE, HE CAME FORWARD, HE SAID LORD LORD AFTER YOU LEFT   THE TAVERN THE KING SENT HIS SOLDIERS TO LOOK   FOR YOU THEY FOUND THAT YOU’VE GONE THEY WENT BACK TO REPORT TO THE   KING I’M AFRAID THEY ARE NOW ON THEIR WAY TO CATCH YOU

Anxious facial expression

YOU’VE GOT TO CROSS THE BORDER

Beats

lord Meng Chang said I can’t the gate won’t be open until morning again they heard

Anxious tone and facial expression

Iconic gesture “came forward” Anxious tone and facial expression

(/​cluck cluck cluck cluck/​) Iconic gesture “galloping” ANOTHER HORSE WAS GALLOPING   TOWARDS THEM HE WAS THE OTHER HOUSE GUESTS WHO Beats HAD BEEN LEFT BEHIND HE SAID LORD LORD THE SOLDIERS ARE   ONLY TEN MINUTES AWAY YOU’VE GOT TO CROSS THE BORDER lord Meng Chang said WE CAN’T THE GATE WON’T BE OPEN UNTIL MORNING IF ONLY IF ONLY IT WERE MORNING A: {laughs}

Anxious tone and facial expression Anxious tone and facial expression Beats

110

110  Application: illustrative examples As the event sequence leads to another climax (i.e. Lord Meng Chang and his men were stranded at the border and the King’s soldiers were about to reach them), the storytelling discourse becomes marked with a series of direct quotations from the dialogues. Direct quotations from dialogues help bring the characters and the focal event closer to the audience. In this particular instance, these quotations are accompanied by a cluster of distinctive vocal and visual features –​such as the increasingly faster pace and louder volume, progressively higher pitch, emphatic stress, anxious tone and facial expressions, as well as a series of elaborate iconic gestures. These features work together in creating a tension-​filled atmosphere and making the narrative development more engaging for the audience. On top of that, the repetition of the utterance “you’ve got to cross the border”, which is made with the emphatic stress and beats, underlines the crucial situation the characters were in. Thus it seems to enhance the audience’s interest in the progression of the storyline. While accumulating the tension for the characters, the direct quotation from Lord Meng Chang’s plea “if only if only it were morning” comes as a clue for the audience to foresee how this complication is going to be resolved. For the audience, it triggers the background information about Rooster Crows’s peculiar talent (i.e. to crow like a rooster and make people think that it was morning). Thus while the characters were still in the tension-​filled situation, the audience seems to have inferred the eventual solution and felt relieved. This makes the subsequent representation of the characters’ apprehension delightful to the audience. Such effects are evidenced by their laughter, as noted in the transcription. Additional problem (ii) –​resolution As anticipated by the audience, the event sequence continues with the representation of Rooster Crows’s actions bringing about the solution to the second additional complication (Table 4.20). Multimodal performance features used in the representation of Rooster Crows’ actions in resolving the second additional complication are similar to those used in the representation of Dog Barks’s actions in resolving the first additional complication. For example,

• •

• •

Rooster Crows’s actions are elaborated in step-​by-​step explications leading the audience to acknowledge his peculiar talent as something plausible and something pivotal in this particular situation. The events are made to “appear” in front of the audience through direct quotations from dialogues between characters; these direct quotations are made together with corresponding vocal and visual performance features –​ such as shifts in pitch and volume, and iconic and deictic gestures. Onomatopoeic/​non-​linguistic sounds, the progressively louder volume and the increasing faster pace modulate the effects that mark the narrative development, so that it becomes more engaging for the audience. The audience’s participation in noise-​making keeps them involved in the storytelling process and makes them closely follow the narrative development.

 111

Application: illustrative examples 111 Table 4.20 Additional problem (ii) –​resolution (Sample Analysis II) Transcription S: all of a sudden rooster crows said GET ON TO YOUR HORSES THE GATE IS GOING TO BE OPEN IMMEDIATELY he sprang to the top of the tree and he began to crow like a rooster /​coo coo cooooo/​ /​coo coo cooooo/​ lord Meng Chang said what are you doing up there A: {laughs} S: come come come NO LISTEN TO ME THE GATE IS GOING TO BE OPEN /​C O O CO O CO O O O O/​ /​C O O CO O CO O O O O /​

Notation in Word Description Deictic gesture –​abstract pointing

Deictic gesture –​abstract pointing Iconic gesture “crow”

Deictic gesture –​abstract pointing

(all of a sudden … in a remote village) (a rooster began to crow) (/​coo coo coooo/​) (another rooster) A: (/​coo coo cooooo/​) S: another rooster A: /​coo coo cooooo/​

Deictic gesture –​abstract pointing

A+S: /​COO COO COOOO/​    /​COO COO COOOO/​    /​COO COO COOOO/​ S: all the roosters began to crow,

Deictic gesture –​raising both hands and pointing up

and when the soldiers when they heard the roosters crowing, they thought it was morning, they came down, they opened the gate, A: {laughs}

Deictic gesture –​pointing to the right Deictic gesture –​pointing to the left

Deictic gesture –​letting down both hands

Sleepy tone and facial expression Iconic gesture “open”

Eventual solution to the main problem The solution to the second additional problem (i.e. the opening of the border gates in time) consequently leads the storyline to the eventual solution to the main problem (i.e. Lord Meng Chang and his house guests got back to their state safely) (Table 4.21). The steady pace with normal volume in representing the events leading to the eventual solution cues the end of the problems that have been keeping the narrative in progress. Accordingly, the narrative development ends with the event in which Dog Barks and Rooster Crows were acknowledged for their talents and remarkable actions in resolving the complications.

112

112  Application: illustrative examples Table 4.21 Resolution to the main problem (Sample Analysis II) Transcription S: lord Meng Chang and his house guests crossed the border, and they got home safely. … that night lord Meng Chang rewarded … dog barks and   rooster crows

Notation in Word Description Beats Beats Beats

Table 4.22 The coda (Sample Analysis II) Transcription

Notation in Word Description

S: and he said … everyone … including … a   storyteller … has a talent that can be very useful … at a time A: {laughs & claps}

Beats Beats Beats

Coda Following the eventual solution to the main problem, a direct quotation from Lord Meng Chang’s utterance, which represents the restoration of the equilibrium among his house guests, wraps up the whole narrative development (Table 4.22). What makes it a notable coda is the incorporation of an aside from the storyteller into the quotation from the character’s utterance. By incorporating the editorial aside “including a storyteller” into the character’s statement, the character is explicitly turned into a “mouthpiece” for the message that the institution intends to send to the audience, that is, like any other talents, the talent of a storyteller can be very useful at a certain time. The accompanying emphatic stress and beats emphasize the verbal content, while the slow pace and pauses allow the audience time to absorb and reflect upon the verbal content of the statement. Thus it can be deduced that this particular coda not only reinforces the coherence in the preceding event sequence but also imposes the thematic coherence between the story and the storytelling event (i.e. the Storytellers’ Showcase). Next, the compatibility between elements of the story, features of the storytelling discourse and certain aspects of the storytelling event can be examined to find out how such compatibility contributes to the achievement of the optimal narrativity of this storytelling performance.

 113

Application: illustrative examples 113 Compatibility between forms, functions and situations One of the observations that can be made with regard to the compatibility between forms, functions and situations in this particular storytelling performance is the relatively more complicated story structure and content. Unlike the first example (i.e. Sample Analysis I), the event sequence making up the storyline of Dog Barks and Rooster Crows is relatively more complicated. Specifically, the event sequence in this example involves more than one problem (i.e. one main complication and two additional complications in the development of the storyline). Similarly, the configuration of characters and their relationships with each other are also relatively more multifaceted. The event sequence in this example involves four main characters as well as several minor characters. As a result, the relationships among the characters are relatively more complex. For example, following the conflict between Lord Meng Chang and the King, Dog Barks and Rooster Crows (Lord Meng Chang’s unusual house guests) took action and proved their talents. This subsequently repaired the disparity between Dog Barks and Rooster Crows and Lord Meng Chang’s other house guests. On the other hand, the King made Lord Meng Chang a prisoner, but freed him to please his young wife, who was delighted with the gift given to her by Lord Meng Chang’s house guests who approached her for her help. The relatively more complicated storyline and more multifaceted relationships among the characters in the story elements are compatible with the “audience narrativity” (Leitch 1986) of the more mature audience in this storytelling event. In this storytelling event, the audience is made up of mainly adults, adolescents and some older children (in comparison with the child audiences in the first ­example –​see Sample Analysis I). A more mature audience will have more extensive experience and knowledge in terms of story structures and contents (Livo and Reitz 1986). Such experience and knowledge can increase their “audience narrativity”, that is, their ability “to defer one’s desire for gratification”, “to supply connections among the material a story presents”, and “to perceive discursive events as significantly related to the point of a given story or sequence” (Leitch 1986, p. 34). Therefore, it can be assumed that the compatibility between elements of the story (i.e. a longer storyline with more multifaceted configurations of characters) and an aspect of the storytelling event (i.e. a more mature audience) has enhanced the narrativity of this storytelling performance. This compatibility seems to have made the processing of the emerging narrative structure and elements more rewarding and more appealing to such an audience. In terms of the multimodal storytelling discourse, several instances of the compatibility between forms of the storytelling discourse and situational as well as functional aspects of the storytelling event can be pointed out for their effects on the narrativity in this storytelling performance. First, a broader range of voice manipulations and more dramatized movements of the teller are noted in the storytelling discourse of this particular storytelling performance, for example, elaborate voice manipulations while representing an

114

114  Application: illustrative examples imminent complication and climax in the narrative development, and dramatized gestures, postures and facial expressions while representing the King’s young wife’s actions and her meeting with the King. These elaborate vocal and visual performance features can be regarded as factors corresponding to the theatrical setting of this storytelling event. At the same time, by producing certain engaging or entertaining vocal and visual effects (which are usually associated with theatrical performance), these features help to sustain the audience’s interest in the progress of the storyline during this storytelling performance. Hence, it is likely that the narrativity in this storytelling performance is optimized by the compatibility between more elaborate vocal and visual performance features in the storytelling discourse and the theatrical setting of the storytelling event. Secondly, the storytelling discourse shows fewer instances of digressions, except to translate the direct quotation from the King’s salutation to his young wife. This can be pointed out as another feature corresponding to the theatrical setting, which is typically associated with an uninterrupted delivery of the story in most cases. On the other hand, this feature can be discussed in terms of the influence of the type of audience on the form of narrative development. According to Livo and Reitz (1986), the more mature the audience, the less the teller needs to use concrete illustrations during the storytelling process to elicit the audience’s appreciation of the story elements. Similarly, from a pragmatic perspective, Quasthoff and Nikolaus (1982) claim that features of an emerging narrative correspond to factors such as listeners’ knowledge and their inferential capacity during a storytelling process. From these perspectives, fewer digressions for concrete illustrations from real-​life experience during this storytelling process can be noted as another instance of the compatibility between forms of the storytelling discourse and situational factors which include the theatrical setting as well as the knowledge and inferential capacity of a more mature mixed-​age audience in this storytelling event. Thirdly, the storytelling process is executed in such a way that the development of the storyline is engaging for the adults as well as the younger audience members in this storytelling event. In their observations on mixed-​age audiences, Livo and Reitz (1986) note that the variety of sophistication (i.e. experience and knowledge in story structures, contents, language, humour and interactions) in a mixed-​age audience makes the story and storytelling live through many different levels of appreciation. It is claimed that while the adults are appreciative of elements such as “editorializing, social commentary, and figurative-​language play”, children enjoy “interactions, repetitions and (physical) play” (Livo and Reitz 1986, pp.  217–​218). In this regard, the process of storytelling during this storytelling performance includes features that help engage both the adults and younger audience members constituting the mixed-​ age audience in this storytelling event. As seen in the detailed analysis, the storytelling discourse has features such as asides (or comments drawing on the audience’s expectations about certain stereotyped characters) and the use of figurative language. These features will appeal to the adults or a more mature audience. As they appreciate these editorial

 115

Application: illustrative examples 115 comments and humour (as evidenced in their laughter), they can become more engaged and receptive to the narrative development during the storytelling process. On the other hand, noise-​making that forms part of the storytelling discourse is an activity that makes the younger audience members especially become more involved in the storytelling process. This activity can engender happiness among the adults and children, bringing them together and making them closely follow the unfolding of events so that they can follow the teller’s cues and contribute to the storytelling process by making appropriate sounds whenever invited. Thus it is evident that features of the storytelling discourse that have helped engage both the adults and the children during the storytelling process have facilitated the development of the narrativity in this storytelling performance. Finally, a relatively larger portion of the resolution constitutes the overall structure of the storytelling discourse in this storytelling performance. By having more than one problem in the storyline, the characters Dog Barks and Rooster Crows had a chance each to take action to resolve a complication and “showcase” their remarkable talents as something pivotal in a certain situation. In order to persuade the audience into acknowledging the usefulness of such peculiar talents, their actions in solving respective problems are detailed in step-​by-​step explicatory elaborations during the storytelling process. This results in a larger proportion of events constituting the resolution in the overall structure of the storytelling discourse. Such features of the storytelling discourse can be seen as an effect on the forms of narrative by the communicative goals or functional aspects of the storytelling event. As discussed earlier, the institutional purposes of this storytelling event go beyond entertainment to include some specific aims, such as to showcase the talents of professional storytellers and to promote the practice of oral storytelling in the contemporary context. Therefore, the large portion of the resolution in this multimodal storytelling discourse actually leads the audience to draw the proposition that the narrative is getting at, that is, each talent, regardless of how unusual it is, can be very useful in a certain situation. When the narrative is formed in the context of the Storytellers’ Showcase, which has the aim of promoting the revival of oral storytelling; the audience is left to relate this proposition to an oral storyteller’s talent, which is often regarded as (if not relegated to) something archaic or unusual amidst all the technological and digital developments today. This message is further emphasized by the editorial aside in the coda, underlining the thematic relevance between the elements of the story and the institutional purposes of the storytelling event. Such correspondence between the elements of the story, the features of the storytelling discourse and the institutional purposes of the storytelling event seems to have heightened the audience’s receptiveness and appreciation of the narrative developed during the storytelling performance. Summing up, the two detailed sample analyses reinforce the fact that the actual narrativity of a live storytelling performance is governed by the interplays between elements of the story and multimodal features of the storytelling discourse, and can be optimized by the compatibility between forms, functions and situations of the particular storytelling performance.

116

116  Application: illustrative examples

Note 1 The sample analysis of the Abstract, Orientation –​Background information (introducing the characters), Orientation –​General frame, Orientation –​Narrow frame, Main action, Resolution, Representation of repeated sequence of events, Representation of new sequence of events, and Coda first appeared in Lwin (2010), Capturing the dynamics of narrative development in an oral storytelling performance: A multimodal perspective. Language and Literature, 19(4), pp. 364–​372.

References Abbott, H. P. (2005). Narration. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, pp. 339–​344. Baker, A., and Greene, E. (1977). Storytelling: Art and technique. New York: Bowker. Baldry, A., and Thibault, P. J. (2005). Multimodal transcription and text analysis. London: Equinox. Bauman, R. (1986). Story, performance, and event: Contextual studies of oral narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cassell, J., and McNeill, D. (1991). Gesture and the poetics of prose. Poetics Today, 12, pp. 375–​404. Cruttenden, A. (1986). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elam, K. (2002). The semiotics of theatre and drama (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Emmott, C. (1997). Narrative comprehension. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fine, E. (1984). The folklore text: From performance to print. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Flynn, S. (2004). Animal stories. In: P. Hunt, ed., International companion encyclopedia of children’s literature (2nd ed.), vol. 1. London: Routledge, pp. 418–​435. Gülich, E., and Quasthoff, U. M. (1986). Story-​telling in conversation: Cognitive and interactive aspects. Poetics, 15, pp. 217–​141. Günthner, S. (1999). Polyphony and the “layering of voices” in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, pp. 685–​708. Herman, D. (2002). Story logic: Problems and possibilities of narrative. Lincoln, London: University of Nebraska Press. Herman, D. (2005). Storyworld. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, pp. 569–​570. Leitch, T. M. (1986). What stories are: Narrative theory and interpretation. London: Pennsylvania State University Press. Livo, N. J., and Reitz, S. A. (1986). Storytelling: Process and practice. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Lwin, S. M. (2010). Capturing the dynamics of narrative development in an oral storytelling performance: A multimodal perspective. Language and Literature, 19(4), pp. 364–​372. Lwin, S. M. (2012). “Whose stuff is it?”: A museum storyteller’s strategies to engage her audience. Narrative Inquiry, 22(2), pp. 226–​246. Lwin, S. M. (2016a). Stories of (self)-​introduction for communicative effectiveness of an institutionalized storytelling performance. Narrative Inquiry, 26(1), pp. 64–​87. Lwin, S. M. (2016b). It’s story time!: Exploring the potential of multimodality in oral storytelling to support children’s vocabulary learning. Literacy, 50(2), pp. 72–​82. Lwin, S. M. (2017). Narrativity and creativity in oral storytelling: Co-​constructing a story with the audience. Language and Literature, 26(1), pp. 34–​53.

 117

Application: illustrative examples 117 Mathis, J. B. (2001). Animal stories. In: B. E. Cullinan and D. G. Person, eds., The continuum encyclopedia of children’s literature. New York: Continuum, pp. 36–​38. Müller, K. (1992). Theatrical moments: On contextualizing funny and dramatic moods in the course of telling a story in conversation. In: P. Auer and A. di Luzio, eds., The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–​222 Norrick, N. R. (2000). Conversational narrative: Storytelling in everyday talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. New York: Routledge. Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen. Page, R. (2010). Introduction. In: R. Page, ed., New perspectives on narrative and multimodality. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–​13. Pellowski, A. (1990). The world of storytelling (exp. & rev. ed.). Bronx: H.W. Wilson. Prince, G. (1988). The disnarrated. Style, 22, pp. 1–​8. Quasthoff, U. M., and Nikolaus, K. (1982). What makes a good story?: Towards the production of conversational narratives. In: A. Flammer and W. Kintsch, eds., Discourse processing. Amsterdam: North-​Holland Publishing, pp. 16–​28. Simms, L. (1988). Introduction. In: N. Livo, ed., Joining in: An anthology of audience participation stories & how to tell them. Cambridge: Yellow Moon Press, pp. Introduction. Tedlock, D. (1983). The spoken word and the work of interpretation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Todorov, T. (1977). The poetics of prose. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Toolan, M. J. (2001). Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

118

5  Insights and implications

Summary of observations The two sample analyses of applied storytelling performance in Chapter 4 show that each storytelling performance is unique and fits into its own institutional settings and purposes. Yet there are certain phenomena which can be observed in both, and thus can be discussed in relation to taking a multimodal perspective on the specification of the narrativity in applied storytelling performances. Following is a summary of these phenomena: i

An applied storytelling performance is held in certain institutional settings with specific institutional purposes for a particular audience. In general, there is a clearly defined “agenda” beyond entertainment that has brought the participants of an applied storytelling performance to the time and place of the storytelling event. Therefore, elements of the story (e.g. events, characters, temporality and spatialization) and features of the storytelling discourse (e.g. the overall structure and employment of multimodal performance features) are largely governed by the institutional settings and purposes, as well as the type of audience, in each storytelling performance. ii The storytelling proper is usually preceded and/​or succeeded by other types of activities and/​or interactions between the teller and the audience. In some cases, these interactions are initiated by a third party such as the host of the storytelling programme. Through subtle shifts in the types of engagement between the teller and the audience at appropriate points of the interaction process (i.e. from the engagement of the real teller and real audience to that of the assumed teller and ideal audience, and the narrator and narratee), the dynamics required for a successful production of narrative are generated and sustained until the storytelling process is well executed. iii In an applied storytelling performance, thematic coherence between the story and the surrounding discourse environment, that is, the preceding or succeeding activities or interactions, is always emphasized. Thematic connections between elements of the story, on the one hand, and situational and functional aspects of the storytelling event, on the other, are often put forward either implicitly or explicitly. Implicitly, such connections are put

 119

Insights and implications 119 forward through the words of a character, for example, during the storytelling process. Explicitly, such connections can be put forward through the real teller and real audience interactions at the beginning or end of the storytelling process. In a typical theatrical performance such explicit statements would appear as “unusual” or “likely unpopular” due to its primary function of entertainment. However, unlike a typical theatrical performance, thematic connections between elements of the story and institutional purposes of the storytelling event are often reinforced by the storyteller’s explicit statements in applied storytelling performances. iv In each storytelling performance, the narrative potential is manifested in the elements of the story, for example, the event sequence that suggests a form of continuity and coherence; the configuration of characters and their relationships with each other that instigate the forces or motivations leading to a series of actions and events which keep the storyline in progress; a systematic temporal and spatial distribution of events and characters that facilitates the (re)construction of a recoverable storyworld; and a particular combination of conventional and remarkable elements that promises to be rewarding to process the event sequence. v The potential narrativity manifested in the elements of the story is actualized and foregrounded for an interaction with the audience’s mental processes through the structure and features of the multimodal storytelling discourse during a storytelling process. In other words, in the course of a storytelling process, the structure and elements of narrative are brought out for the audience’s cognitive, emotive and evaluative responsiveness through the multimodal storytelling discourse, particularly through the performance features used by the storyteller via different semiotic channels (i.e. verbal, vocal and visual). vi Given that the audience responds to the elements of the story as they emerge through multimodal features of the storytelling discourse, the interplay between elements of the story and multimodal features of the storytelling discourse during the storytelling process determines the establishment of the actual narrativity of a storytelling performance and the manner in which the audience perceives the narrative development during an actual storytelling performance. vii Verbal, vocal and visual performance features employed by the storyteller during a storytelling process help make the narrative development more explicit and engaging for the audience. These features guide the audience through the emergence of one constituent or stage of the narrative structure to another, and help them follow the storyline closely as it progresses. They also help create certain effects and draw out relatively uniform responses from the audience to the emerging narrative structure and elements. viii The audience’s responsiveness to the narrative development during a live storytelling performance is also enhanced by the compatibility between elements of the story, features of the multimodal storytelling discourse, and situational and functional aspects of the storytelling event. Such compatibility

120

120  Insights and implications facilitates them in making appropriate inferences to process the emerging narrative elements and draw the propositions that the narrative is getting at. By helping them perceive the coherence between the story, the storytelling performance and the institutional settings and purposes, such compatibility establishes the optimal narrativity of an applied storytelling performance. In other words, such compatibility helps make the audience more receptive to and engaged with the narrative development during the storytelling process.

Implications Implications of the above observations can be seen in two aspects:

• •

understanding the narrativity of a live storytelling performance in its context and totality recognizing the exploitability of features made available by the medium and how these features contribute to the narrativity of oral storytelling

Narrativity in context and totality With regard to studies on narrativity, Ryan (2005, p. 346) has asked: “Can the feature of narrativity be isolated as a layer or dimension of meaning, or is it a global effect toward which every element of the text makes a contribution?” In her own responses to both positions, she indicates that the first position separates those features of a text which are related to the plot progression from those which are not, while the second treats narrativity as a combined effect of all elements in the text. Between the two positions, specifying narrativity in the context of an actual storytelling performance using the contextualized multimodal framework orients more toward the latter. By expanding the concept of a textual economy from a product-​ centred to a process-​ oriented conceptualization, the framework incorporates the process of story production by the teller, taking into account the structures and affordances of multimodal storytelling discourse, so that narrativity can be specified in its context and totality. The process-​oriented nature of a multimodal perspective “draws attention to matters of production, not least to the human body” (Page 2010, p.  10). While recognizing that narrativity results in part from elements of the story qua story, the contextualized multimodal framework helps uncover how the narrativity developed in the course of an actual storytelling process during a live performance is tied to its different but interrelated aspects, that is, the story, the storytelling discourse and the storytelling event. In this way, the multimodal framework illustrates how the narrativity of a live storytelling performance can be specified not only in the context but also in its totality, that is, in relation to elements of the story, features of the multimodal storytelling discourse and the interplay between them during the

 121

Insights and implications 121 storytelling process, as well as the compatibility between the forms, functions and situations of the storytelling performance. Therefore, unlike earlier studies of narrativity which have tried to examine it as a matter of degree or kind, the insights gained from applying the contextualized multimodal perspective proposed in this book imply that the narrativity of a live storytelling performance can be examined in terms of its potential narrativity, actual narrativity and optimal narrativity. That is to say, the elements of a story such as the event sequence that has the potential to satisfy the audience’s expectations for continuity and coherence; the configuration of characters that explains the motivation for a series of actions and events; the systematic distributions of events and characters in time and place that help evoke a recoverable storyworld and so on bring about the potential narrativity in a live storytelling performance. But such narrative potential is realized as the actual narrativity only when the storyteller is able to “make it live” (Sawyer 1976, p. 148) during an actual storytelling performance through a range of performance features employed from different semiotic channels. The narrativity is optimized when the audience is able to respond cognitively and emotively to the narrative structure and elements, and draw situationally and functionally appropriate inferences or propositions, realizing the entertainment as well as the educational value of the storytelling performance. The process of actualizing and optimizing narrativity involves certain fundamental phenomena which include

• • •

producing and sustaining appropriate dynamics of the storyteller and audience for the successful execution of a storytelling process; arousing relatively uniform cognitive, emotive and evaluative responses in the audience to the emerging narrative structure and elements; and engaging the audience in the (re)construction of a storyworld, and consequently in the drawing of the propositions along certain lines that are compatible to the institutional settings and purposes of the storytelling event (in other words, enabling them to establish connections between elements of the story and situational and functional aspects of the storytelling event to which they have come together as participants).

The actual narrativity, or narrativity as it is developed during a live storytelling performance, is, therefore, ultimately irreducible and cannot be limited to the elements of a story, nor the features of a storytelling discourse, nor the contextual dimensions of a storytelling event. The situation-​embedded and immediately interactive nature of an applied storytelling performance makes all these factors –​that is, the elements of a story, the features of a storytelling discourse (the overall structure as well as multimodal performance features) and the contextual dimensions of a storytelling event  –​important for the achievement of optimal narrativity during a storytelling performance. Specifying narrativity in context from a multimodal perspective underlines the characteristic which makes an applied storytelling performance a form of

122

122  Insights and implications entertainment in its own right as well as a “vehicle” used to disseminate institutional “messages”. Thus the specification of narrativity from this perspective relates narrativity to the poetic as well as the communicative functions of a narrative. In other words, the specification of narrativity is related to the narrative act, which can be successful only through the realization of a process that not only generates a story but also heightens the attractiveness of its entertainment value and fulfils the functional aspects of a particular storytelling event. Accordingly, to specify the narrativity of an applied storytelling performance in context and totality, the structure and affordances of multimodal storytelling discourse, as well as the situational and functional variables of a storytelling event, are taken into account, in addition to the narrative potential manifested in elements of a story. Specifically, both the discourse and contextual features of a live storytelling performance have to be examined for their contribution to the production of narrative and to the creation of certain aesthetic effects, as well as for their influence over the audience in processing the narrative elements to extract the propositions that the narrative is getting at. This way the actual narrativity of an applied storytelling performance is specified as a holistic, rather than atomistic, concept, that is, a combined effect of all different but interrelated elements that come into play during a storytelling process. The process-​oriented nature of a multimodal perspective and framework draws attention to matters of narrative production processes. While the emphasis is on how narrativity is actualized through the interplay of many features from different but interrelated semiotic channels (i.e. verbal, vocal and visual) during a storytelling process, the significance of narrative potential manifested in those elements of a story which are principally related to a plot development is also given due recognition. Ryan (2005) cautions that the inevitable consequence of treating narrativity as a global effect is that “narrativity becomes indistinguishable from aesthetic teleology”, and “[s]‌ince aesthetic teleology is unique to each text, so is narrativity, and it becomes undefinable” (p. 346). However, the contextualized multimodal framework has addressed this by making empirical analysis of live storytelling performances possible (as seen in the two sample analyses in Chapter 4) to specify the potential narrativity, which is manifested in those elements principally pertaining to the plot development, and the actual narrativity, which is globally realized through the interplay of features from many different but interrelated semiotic channels that contribute either to the plot development or the achievement of the intended aesthetic and communicative effectiveness of the storytelling performance. Understanding narrativity in an applied storytelling performance in terms of the potential, actual and optimal narrativity leads us to a better understanding of how features of the discourse or expression side of a narrative and those of the story or content side interact and complement each other for a successful or engaging live storytelling performance. At the same time, it leads us to acknowledge the respective roles of the storyteller and audience for the development of the optimal narrativity in an applied storytelling performance. It also advocates the relativity of narrativity, for example, how (different) storytellers actualize the

 123

Insights and implications 123 narrative potential of the same story elements differently in different institutional settings for different institutional purposes. Exploitability of features made available by the medium Insights from the sample analyses of applied storytelling performances using the contextualized multimodal framework also hold some implications for recognizing the exploitation of features which are made available by the oral medium and the face-​to-​face mode of storytelling, and their relevance and contribution to the narrativity of a live storytelling performance. In defining narrative media, Ryan (2003) claims that a medium is narratively relevant as long as it makes an impact on at least one of the three domains: namely, the plot or story, the discourse or narrative technique, and the performance or use of storytelling. In this respect, features made available by the oral medium and the face-​to-​face mode of storytelling can be seen as narratively relevant if they make an impact on one of these three domains. During a live oral storytelling performance, the storyteller is able to employ a number of devices to foreground the emerging narrative structure and elements, as well as to promote relatively uniform responses from the audience and to create various narrative effects so that the audience will become more engaged in the narrative development. These devices are derived from the exploitation of features associated with the oral medium and the face-​to-​face mode of storytelling, such as

• • •

co-​presence of the real-​life storyteller and real-​life audience, integration of emergent dimensions and preconceived elements and employment of performance features from different semiotic channels as contextualization cues during a storytelling process.

Each of these features will be examined in detail below.

•

Co-​presence of the real-​life storyteller and real-​life audience

Both the real-​life storyteller and the real-​life audience are fully present throughout the storytelling process in a live storytelling performance. Thus, it can be assumed that there is a direct and immediate engagement of the storyteller, the story and the audience throughout the process of developing the narrative. The sample analyses in the previous chapter illustrate how the teller and the audience become directly and immediately engaged in the development of a storyline during a storytelling process. Specifically, an examination of the dynamics of the storyteller and audience in a live storytelling performance has revealed that the co-​presence of the real-​life storyteller and the real-​life audience can facilitate their transitions to appropriate types of engagement (e.g. from the real teller and real audience engagement to that of the assumed teller and ideal audience) to initiate and carry out a storytelling process.

124

124  Insights and implications The co-​presence of the real-​life storyteller and real-​life audience also makes the negotiations between them more feasible to establish and sustain the appropriate dynamics until the storytelling process is well executed. Similarly, at the end of each performance, the real-​life storyteller’s presence makes it possible for him/​her to reinforce the thematic connections between the elements of the story and institutional settings and the purposes of the storytelling event, so that the audience will better appreciate the narrative development in connection with the functional purposes of that particular storytelling event. The storyteller’s presence throughout a storytelling process also enables him/​her to gauge the pre-​stored knowledge and expectations of the audience members who are co-​present with them. Consequently, it makes it possible for the storyteller to respond to the needs of the situation and moment, for example, to adjust their telling according to the responses from the audience. It also allows the storyteller to invite participation from the audience, to elicit and incorporate their responses into the storytelling process or to make references to real-​world events, people, places, times and so forth which are familiar to that particular audience during a storytelling process. Therefore, it seems that the real-​ life storyteller’s presence can be “exploited” to heighten the audience’s receptiveness to the narrative development, and also to facilitate their processing of the emerging narrative structure and elements. Likewise, the audience’s co-​presence with the storyteller enables them to be more responsive to the narrative development. It allows them to become directly involved in the storytelling process, if and whenever the teller invites them. As seen in the sample analyses, following the storyteller’s invitations and cues, the audience members can join in the process of unfolding the event sequence. For instance, the audience members are allowed to predict the story structure and slot in the story content, to participate in the production of repeated onomatopoeic/​ non-​linguistic sounds and gestures and to contribute to the noise-​making effects that help create the appropriate atmosphere for the representations of characters’ actions and events. In addition to such direct interactions with the storyteller, audience participation can also be in the form of laughter or involuntary responses, such as emotional screams and exclamations of surprise, spontaneous evaluation of a character’s action or an event that is being unfolded. The presence of the storyteller allows him/​her to hear these responses from the audience and incorporate them into the ongoing storytelling discourse. By incorporating them into the storytelling discourse, spontaneous responses from individual or several members of the audience are turned into devices to compel the rest of the audience members to have a relatively uniform interpretation of a narrative element, or to lead them to the point of view of a particular character and attain the intended emotive and evaluative responses to the character’s actions and events. To the storyteller who is fully present, these responses serve as evidence that the audience is engaged in the narrative development. Thus they become cues to the teller to proceed with the storytelling process or to adjust their telling according to the needs of the moment. As Zipes (1995, p.  225) notes, “the

 125

Insights and implications 125 genuine storyteller […] knows how to listen to the listeners and the environment”. Also, by inviting and incorporating the audience’s responses and participation into the storytelling discourse, the process of developing a storyline is turned into an interactive negotiation, or a mutual creation or co-​construction of an oral story (see Lwin 2017) rather than a mere recitation by the storyteller.

•

Emergent dimensions and preconceived elements

The realization that both the storyteller and the audience are fully present in a live storytelling performance brings out a related feature which is also often associated with the oral medium and the face-​to-​face mode of storytelling, namely, the integration of emergent dimensions and preconceived elements during a storytelling process. With the presence of the real-​life storyteller and the co-​presence of the audience, such storytelling performances entail an emergent dimension integrating with the preconceived elements, which in turn bears on the process of storyworld (re)construction (Herman 2005) or the actualization of narrativity in a live storytelling performance. When compared to other modes of oral storytelling (e.g. the conversational and elicited modes of storytelling, see Chapter 1), this type of live storytelling performances involves a relatively high degree of preconceived elements. Typically, this type of storytelling is performance of a narrative that has been prepared in advance since storytellers make preparations before an actual performance. An oral storyteller’s preparation and production of narrative is often facilitated by mnemonic aids or mnemonic devices (Garner 2005; Garuba 2005). In the two sample analyses, such mnemonic aids or devices can be found in the forms of simple chronological event sequence, characters’ names signifying their peculiar traits, repetitions of events as well as characters’ actions and pivotal utterances, parallelism, onomatopoeic/​non-​linguistic sounds and so on. However, also as seen in the sample analyses, during an actual storytelling performance, storytellers do not merely verbalize and act out the elements that have been prepared in advance. They adjust their telling to match the preconceived elements with the needs and responses of a particular audience as well as the demands of the moment or the institutional settings and purposes of the storytelling event, making it what Miller (1996) calls a “part memorized, part improvised” process. In the process of (re)producing the preconceived elements, storytellers regularly ensure their audience’s awareness of the emergence of a narrative element, as well as the progress in the storyline, by eliciting responses and encouraging the audience to participate in the storytelling process. Audience’s responses and participation are then incorporated into the storytelling discourse as the representation of repeated events, characters’ actions and utterances or as the creation of sound effects, for instance (see sample analyses in Chapter 4). Such integration can help promote the audience’s responsiveness to the emerging narrative elements as well as their awareness of the progress in the storyline and their engagement with the storytelling process. These insights imply that a storyteller can utilize, and “exploit”, this feature of integrating emergent dimensions and

126

126  Insights and implications preconceived elements to facilitate the process of actualizing narrativity in a live storytelling performance. The feature of integrating emergent dimensions and preconceived elements also draws our attention to the fact that attempts to integrate emergent features with preconceived elements can be fraught with risks to the integrity in the narrative development, or to the successful execution of a storytelling process. For instance, it is possible that the storyteller’s elicitations for the audience’s responses and participation meet with the audience’s refusal to collaborate, which will make the continuation of the storytelling process problematic. Thus while the integration of emergent dimensions and preconceived elements is a feature that is made available in storytelling by the oral medium, and that can be exploited for the achievement of the optimal narrativity, it also highlights the importance of collaborative participation from the audience during a storytelling process. Likewise, attending to involuntary responses from the audience members as they emerge during a storytelling process can lead to excessive digressions, and thus can affect the integrity of a storyline. While the insights from the process-​ oriented nature of a multimodal perspective on applied storytelling performances point out the exploitability of features made available by the medium, they also underline the importance of the storyteller’s control over the narrative development while integrating the emergent dimensions with the preconceived elements during a storytelling process. In other words, it highlights the hierarchically higher position of storytellers, who remain in control of the interactive process, even when they allow the audience to become directly involved in the process of generating a narrative in such live storytelling performances.

•

Performance features as contextualization cues

As shown in the two sample analyses in Chapter 4, the contextualized multimodal framework strives to capture the verbal, vocal and visual performance features emanating from a storyteller during a storytelling process when specifying the narrativity of an oral storytelling performance. Also illustrated in the sample analyses, the storyteller’s employment of these features can enhance the storytelling process and promote the audience’s responsiveness to the emerging narrative structures and elements. Thus the insights gained from the sample analyses suggest that performance features emanating from a storyteller during a storytelling process should be recognized for their contribution to the development of the narrativity in a live oral storytelling performance, since they serve as the contextualization cues which help foreground the narrative potential and attain the preferred responses from the audience during a live storytelling performance. To put it briefly, contextualization cues in oral storytelling are the empirically detectable signs sent off by the storyteller through verbal and/​or non-​verbal means, in addition to what they want to convey as a message, to help the inferential processes of the recipient (Gumperz 1992). For example, they help the recipient “understand the many voice and perspective shifts, and assess their significance for what the narrators intend to convey” (Gumperz 1992, p. 48).

 127

Insights and implications 127 In this regard, verbal, vocal and visual performance features emanating from a storyteller during a live storytelling performance facilitate the audience in their processing of the narrative elements (such as events, characters’ feelings, motivations etc.). Therefore, these performance features should be acknowledged for their role in leading the audience to particular cognitive, emotive and evaluative responses by

• • • •

foregrounding the emerging storyline, creating certain narrative effects, structuring the audience’s anticipation of the elements of a story, and persuading the audience into the preferred interpretations and responses during a storytelling process.

The perceived monomodality in existing theory about narrativity in oral storytelling has been highlighted by Page (2010) as she calls for new perspectives in narrative and multimodality. In this respect, the multimodal perspective on applied storytelling performances proposed in this book has made an advancement to the existing theory of narrativity in oral storytelling by recognizing the multimodal performance features as contextualization cues and by illustrating with empirical evidence how features from verbal, vocal and visual modes operate together to establish the actual narrativity, and potentially achieve the optimal narrativity, of an oral storytelling performance. Importantly, the two sample analyses of applied storytelling performances using the contextualized multimodal framework in Chapter  4 have revealed that vocal and visual features do not just complement but also extend or even replace the verbal component (e.g. omission of the verbal components when representing the repeated sequence of events). Vivid images of events as well as different narrative effects which may not be easily possible to achieve through verbal features alone are created by vocal features (e.g. non-​linguistic sounds, progressively slower/​faster pace) and visual features (such as mimic gestures and facial expressions). This shows that vocal and visual features play an integral, rather than a peripheral, role in the narrative development, whether through interaction with the verbal features or as an independent semiotic system. Therefore, only through an analysis of features from different semiotic channels can the unfolding dynamics of narrative development in this kind of live storytelling performance be captured. Hence, the proposed multimodal framework reconfigures narrative theory and analysis, in particular the specification of narrativity in oral storytelling, in such a way that “verbal resources are understood as only one of many semiotic elements integrated together in the process of storytelling” (Page 2010, p. 3, original emphasis) The sample application of the framework also reveals how the audience’s responses to the story elements can possibly be manipulated by the interplay between verbal, vocal and visual features of the storytelling discourse. Therefore, it is worth evaluating further and hypothesizing how desired cognitive, emotive and evaluative responses can be encouraged at appropriate points of the storytelling

128

128  Insights and implications process through the interplay between verbal, vocal and visual features of the storytelling discourse. Cognitively, it seems that synchronized features from verbal, vocal and visual aspects help maintain a keen engagement between emerging story elements and the audience’s mental processes. As they represent and foreground certain story elements (e.g. character motivations, actions and feelings), they seem to trigger the audience’s inferential processes and encourage them to anticipate the subsequent events. This possibly enhances the audience’s interest in the unfolding event sequence and makes them follow the storyline closely as it progresses. Such instances become most obvious when the verbal components are omitted in the representation of the repeated sequence of events (see Sample Analysis I). By making them work out the vocal and visual features in order to fill in the missing verbal components, the audience is encouraged to keep track of continuity and changes in their mental representation of the storyworld. As they join verbally, vocally and visually in representing the characters and events, their participation and responses suggest that their mental processes are kept active while they are “harnessed” to the storytelling performance. Features from verbal, vocal and visual aspects work in concert also to create various narrative effects that seem to promote emotive responses from the audience. For example, as the storyline approaches the climax, an increasingly detailed verbal representation of the character’s actions synchronizes with an increasingly faster pace and louder volume. When this is visually complemented by a series of mimic gestures representing moment-​by-​moment actions of the character (in both Sample Analyses I and II), the result is an effect that appears to promote a sense of urgency and excitement for the audience, creating what Stempel (1986, p.  209) calls “the impression of spatial proximity to the event”. When such movements are made together with corresponding facial expressions and non-​linguistic sounds with voice modulation reflecting the varied feelings of the characters, an effect that seems to intensify suspense is created. Expressive screams, laughter and so on from the audience following these features, as captured in the recordings and transcriptions, indicate how relatively uniform emotive responses can be achieved through the interplay between features from different semiotic channels. The interplay between verbal, vocal and visual features also seems to influence the audience’s evaluative responses. When features from different aspects work together, the audience is led towards a particular point of view on the event. For example, as seen in Sample Analysis I, in persuading the audience to initially observe the chicken’s escape from the point of view of a particular character, the crocodile, direct quotations from the (interior) monologues of the crocodile and the vocal and visual features exclusively corresponding to the crocodile’s feelings and position were presented to the audience, leading them to an interpretive frame which processes the chicken’s utterances as an implausible claim and the crocodile’s attempt to chase the chicken as a justified action. Eventually, however, through the words of another character, the iguana, which are foregrounded by the syntactic parallelism as well as the slow pace and pauses, an alternative

 129

Insights and implications 129 interpretive frame that encourages the audience to process the chicken’s claim as something plausible and to regard the crocodile’s decision not to eat the chicken as a morally appropriate action is suggested. The important role of performance features serving as contextualization cues during a storytelling process is applicable to both the storyteller and the audience in a live oral storytelling performance. On the part of the audience, Müller (1992, p. 200) suggests that [i]‌n listening to a narrative the listener has to do more than just understand “what went on” globally. He has to interpret small cues like choice of words, intonation, affective situations (as communicated by particles, elliptic sentences, exclamations, sobbing etc.) and other dimensions of the performance as well. On the part of the storyteller, for a successful telling of a story, the storyteller has to make sure that the appropriate frames for interpretation are established through the use of contextualization cues during a storytelling process. To quote Lipman (1999, p. 87, original emphasis): “Although your job as a storyteller is not usually to impose your interpretation on your listeners, it remains important for you to be clear about that interpretation”. Accordingly, a lack of clarity will impede the listeners in their processing of the narrative and in attaching their own interpretations of the narrative elements. Thus, performance features play an important role as contextualization cues in helping a storyteller regulate the flow of the storytelling process, so that the presentation of narrative elements will vary according to the degree and kind of attention required from the audience. Put another way, the storyteller can exploit the use of performance features as contextualization cues in order to encourage the audience to make certain connections, certain interpretations and certain speculations rather than others. Indeed, performance features serving as contextualization cues in oral narratives with overlapping poetic, didactic, explanatory and psychological functioning can be recognized as a central (rather than a marginal) feature and an important part of the emergent structure of a narrative (Basso 1992), a natural part of the anatomy of the oral story (Livo and Reitz 1986), or contributory factors of the one-​man multimedia show realized by a narrator in oral narrative (Stempel 1986). Admittedly, a number of studies have examined the performance features in oral narrative or storytelling under different terms. However, most of these studies have particularly focused on one aspect of expression: verbal or vocal or visual. Moreover, those studies which have examined the vocal and visual performance features in oral narrative are mainly interested in finding out how these features, which are usually associated with theatrical performance, can be found (to a lesser degree and in less elaborate forms) in the spontaneous conversational mode of storytelling. Due to its similarity to theatrical performance, the performance features in applied storytelling, on the other hand, are often taken as “default” and their role is considered to be self-​evident.

130

130  Insights and implications In this respect, the contextualized multimodal framework proposed in this book has shed some light on the nature of performance features employed by an oral storyteller through different semiotic channels for applied storytelling, which is a mode of oral storytelling that falls in between free-​form spontaneous conversational storytelling and formal theatrical performances (see Chapter 1 for the categorization of oral storytelling). At the same time, the framework highlights the fact that those multimodal performance features employed by a storyteller in this mode of oral storytelling have to be compatible with the institutional settings and purposes as well as the type of audience in each storytelling performance. In other words, it is implied that the multimodal performance features employed by a storyteller during a storytelling process are expected to correspond to the situational and functional aspects of the storytelling event, as well as to be appropriate for the particular audience. Only then can they help the storyteller promote the audience’s receptiveness to the emerging narrative structure and elements and persuade them to have the intended cognitive, emotive and evaluative responses. Unlike earlier studies of contextualization cues, the multimodal perspective proposed in this book examines different performance features in an integrated way, that is, how features from the verbal, vocal and visual aspects are employed almost at the same time and in coordination with each other to maximize the audience’s responsiveness to the emerging narrative structure and elements. In face-​to-​face oral storytelling, the full range of verbal, vocal and visual performance features are possible, and several of them are usually used almost at the same time and in coordination with each other during a storytelling process. Hence, not only is the correlation between the employment of certain performance features and the representation of certain narrative phenomena possible, but so too is the integration of performance features from the verbal, vocal and visual aspects of the narrative. The two sample analyses in Chapter 4 have shown several examples, including the following:

•

To underline the pivotal or salient events which constitute the main action component (i.e. the crucial encounter between the crocodile and the chicken in Sample Analysis I; and the critical meeting between Lord Meng Chang and the King Sample Analysis II), verbal  →  Expressive elaborations or details about the characters’ actions, Direct quotations from dialogues between characters that seem to bring the events closer to the audience by animating the characters involved in these events; vocal  →  Shifts between contrastive tones, different pitch and pace representing different speaking persona and modulating an effect that signifies different feelings and thoughts of individual characters involved in the events; visual  →  Shifts between contrastive facial expressions representing different speaking persona and reflecting different feelings of the characters involved in the events;

 131

Insights and implications 131

•

•

To persuade the audience to observe certain events from the point of view of a particular character, and to structure the audience’s expectation for the continuation of the storyline (e.g. to process the chicken’s actions and utterances from the point of view of the bewildered and provoked crocodile, in Sample Analysis I), verbal  →  Incorporating involuntary responses (that match the intended/​preferred interpretation or responses) from some audience members into the ongoing storytelling discourse, so that the rest of the audience members will be compelled to have similar interpretations and responses, Direct quotations from (interior) monologues of the chosen character vocal  →  Emphatic stress and tone corresponding to the feelings of the chosen character (e.g. puzzled tone for representing the thoughts and feelings of the bewildered character); visual  →  Complementing facial expressions reflecting the thoughts and feelings of the chosen character, Deictic gestures or points originating from the position of the chosen character; To build up the suspense or to create a tension-​filled atmosphere (e.g. Lord Meng Chang and his house guests trying to cross the border before the King’s soldiers reached them in Sample Analysis II), verbal  →  Expressive elaborations for details of the characters’ actions, Repetitions of words, Direct quotations from dialogues among characters (with corresponding shifts in vocal and visual performance features); vocal  →  Emphatic stress, progressively faster pace, increasingly louder volume and/​or higher pitch, anxious tone and noise-​making (i.e. features modulating an effect that represents urgency); visual  →  Emphasizing beats (made at a faster pace), Anxious facial expressions reflecting the nervous feelings of the characters, Iconic gestures for actions of different characters, Deictic gestures pointing to various directions as if the surrounding were filled with entities or actions.

While the two sample analyses show only those instances in which clusters of performance features from different dimensions complement each other in the representation of a narrative element or the creation of a narrative effect, it is important to note that these observations on clusters of performance features complementing each other do not rule out the possibilities of contrast or incongruity among them in other oral storytelling performances. Such incongruity may have its own significance in creating certain narrative effects, such as humour through contrasts. Likewise, the sample analyses focus only on how performance features from different semiotic channels are employed more or less simultaneously at one point in a storytelling process. That does not discount the possibility of a “gradual

132

132  Insights and implications transition” or changing performance features from one dimension before the others. Experienced storytelling practitioners (e.g. Stallings 1988; Lipman 1999) have claimed that the audience’s anticipation for the upcoming characters and events can be enhanced by gradual transitions or by leaking information about them through performance features from one dimension before the others at certain points in a storytelling process. Moreover, although the examples suggest correlations between clusters of performance features and certain narrative phenomena, they are not meant for making claims about a one-​to-​one relationship between each performance feature and the emergence of a particular narrative phenomenon. The aim is to only highlight the coordination and integration of different performance features from multidimensional aspects (i.e. through multichannels of communication available in the oral medium and the face-​to-​face mode of storytelling), as they are employed by a storyteller to help foreground the emerging narrative structure and elements. The overall structure of the storytelling discourse, besides the employment of multimodal performance features, should be taken into consideration as a factor which can be exploited for the achievement of the optimal narrativity in a live storytelling performance. Multimodal performance features as contextualization cues are one of the many factors contributing to the process of actualizing narrativity in a live storytelling performance. No doubt there still remain complexities in interrelationships among those performance features available for a storyteller in different semiotic channels during a storytelling process, as well as in associating the use of certain features with the emergence of a particular narrative phenomenon.

References Basso, E. B. (1992). Contextualization in Kalapalo narratives. In: A. Duranti and C. Goodwin, eds., Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 253–​269. Garner, L. A. (2005). Oral-​formulaic theory. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, pp. 410–​411. Garuba, H. (2005). Oral cultures and narrative. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, pp. 409–​410. Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization revisited. In: P. Auer and A. di Luzio, eds., The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–​53. Herman, D. (2005). Storyworld. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, pp. 569–​570. Lipman, D. (1999). Improving your storytelling: Beyond the basics for all who tell stories in work or play. Little Rock, AR: August House. Livo, N. J., and Reitz, S. A. (1986). Storytelling: Process and practice. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Lwin, S. M. (2017). Narrativity and creativity in oral storytelling: Co-​constructing a story with the audience. Language and Literature, 26(1), pp. 34–​53. Miller, E. (1996). Visuals accompanying face-​to-​face storytelling (M.A. thesis, Gallation School of New  York University). Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://​ccat.sas. upenn.edu/​~emiller/​MA_​essay.html.

 133

Insights and implications 133 Müller, K. (1992). Theatrical moments: On contextualizing funny and dramatic moods in the course of telling a story in conversation. In: P. Auer and A. di Luzio, eds., The contextualization of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 199–​222. Page, R. (2010). Introduction. In: R. Page, ed., New perspectives on narrative and multimodality. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–​13. Ryan, M. (2003). On defining narrative media. Image and Narrative, 6. Retrieved May 27, 2018, from www.imageandnarrative.be/​inarchive/​mediumtheory/​marielaureryan. htm. Ryan, M. (2005). Narrative. In: D. Herman, M. Jahn and M. Ryan, eds., Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London: Routledge, pp. 344–​348. Sawyer, R. (1976). The way of the storyteller. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Shen, D. (2005). Why contextual and formal narratologies need each other. Journal of Narrative Theory, 35, pp. 141–​171. Stallings, F. (1988). The web of silence: Storytelling’s power to hypnotize. National Storytelling Journal, Spring/​Summer, pp. 6–​19. Retrieved October 12, 2005, from www.healingstory.org/​articles/​web_​of_​silence/​fran_​stallings.html. Stempel, W. (1986). Everyday narrative as a prototype. Poetics, 15, pp. 203–​216. Zipes, J. (1995). Creative storytelling. London: Routledge.

134

6  Expanded application and conclusion

Expanding the application The application of a contextualized multimodal framework as a methodological approach can be extended for studies of oral storytelling across other disciplines. First, a fine-​grained analysis of the multimodal performance features used by professional oral storytellers can be useful for debating a stylistic notion of (in)authenticity in oral storytelling. Authenticity, and its antonym inauthenticity, can have various meanings. The term “authentic” may be used for something because it is “genuine”. That is, its origin or authorship is not in question, and it is not an imitation or a copy (Leeuwen 2001). Other uses of the term include the clearly recognizable style of an author (or speaker) conveying their identity; the stylistic features and devices characterizing a text-​type or period; an essential, unrefined style resulting in a text communicating clear, transparent and comprehensible messages; and so on (PALA 2016). These varied definitions and uses of the term go to show that the notion of authenticity has remained contestable. An analysis of multimodal performance features used by professional oral storytellers, through an application of the contextualized multimodal framework, can contribute some insights to these debates on (in)authenticity, pertaining specifically to oral storytelling.

(In)authenticity in oral storytelling As discussed in Chapter  1, contemporary storytelling performances which are held for specific applied purposes in different institutions or community settings are often criticized by folklorists for changing original tales and for the artificial manner in which stories are learned and told. In order to suit the particular institutional or social context and agendas, contemporary oral storytellers typically make some adaptations to original tales, which often results in variants of tales. This phenomenon often poses a problem in terms of the (mis)alignment of the storyteller with the author. Adaptations made by an oral storyteller can be in the form of the narrative contents or story elements (such as characters’ names, nature of activities and events which characters engage in, temporal and/​or spatial setting and so on), as well as the styles or discursive strategies and resources used in the process of producing the storytelling discourse.

 135

Expanded application and conclusion 135 For the adaptation made to the former, the first component in the contextualized multimodal framework suggests examining the potential narrativity of oral storytelling through the four key elements of the story (i.e. events, characters, temporality and spatialization). The contextualized multimodal framework allows for acknowledgement of the narrative potential manifested in these elements of the story with reference to a particular storytelling performance. Even though some adaptation may have been made to any of these four key elements, the first component (i.e. the story) in the contextualized multimodal framework allows for an examination and explanation of how the story elements in oral storytelling (regardless of whether they have been adapted or not) manifest the potential narrativity which is particularly relevant to a certain storytelling performance. Such potential narrativity is specified on the basis of a certain configuration of event sequence, characters, temporality and spatialization that are, most importantly, compatible with the institutional or communal setting and purpose of a particular storytelling event, and that can facilitate the process of storyworld reconstruction by a particular group of audience members who are present together with the storyteller throughout the storytelling process. Hence, the story elements in oral storytelling (regardless of whether they have been adapted or not) can and should be characterized as authentic or genuine in their own ways, so long as they manifest the potential of a narrative form that will be compatible with the other two components in the contextualized multimodal framework –​that is, the storytelling discourse and the storytelling event –​and contribute to the establishment of the actual narrativity and the optimal narrativity of the particular storytelling performance. Similarly, in terms of the adaption made to the discourse of storytelling, the contextualized multimodal framework recognizes that, even though oral storytellers may depend on the printed material such as published folktales for their story resource, in their actual telling for a live audience they make use of not only spoken words but also other semiotic modes or features made available by the oral medium, such as tone of voice, gestures, postures and facial expressions. As illustrated in the preceding chapters, an oral storyteller makes use of these multimodal performance features to create moods and images, to evoke desired and relatively uniform responses from the audience, and ultimately to guide the audience into making certain interpretations or inferences which are in line with the institutional settings and purposes of holding a particular storytelling event. Given that one of the characteristics of applied storytelling performances is their clearly defined purposes, which go beyond entertainment, an oral storyteller’s choices and adaptations of stylistic features to help achieve these specific purposes seem desired, if not required. Through such adaptations, the storytelling discourse produced by the storyteller will be able to facilitate the audience in making certain connections, inferences and interpretations which are in line with the institutional purposes or messages. In this regard, it can be argued that the stylistic features and multimodal devices employed by an oral storyteller in their storytelling discourse should be characterized as authentic in their own right. That is to say, instead of criticizing these stylistic features as inauthentic in

136

136  Expanded application and conclusion relation to the features used in the tales in print, the authenticity of style in oral storytelling should be characterized on the basis of whether these style choices were purposefully made by the oral storyteller to make his/​her storytelling discourse compatible for the audience, social function and context of a particular storytelling event. As an example, a comparative analysis will be carried out for the words and accompanying multimodal performance features used by a storyteller in her oral storytelling discourse during one of her live performances and those used in the well-​known printed folktale which was her story resource. The storytelling performance chosen for this sample comparative analysis was by a professional storyteller, Jessie Goh, for a group of 10 four-​to-​five-​year-​olds at a kindergarten during one of the Story Time sessions. Goh told a story adapted from a popular children’s story, The Ugly Duckling (a rewritten Hans Christian Andersen tale by Margaret Lamond, with pictures by Jonathan Bentley). The Story Time was held in a classroom of the kindergarten as part of the kindergarten’s speech and drama programme, which aimed to provide children with opportunities to develop skills necessary for effective oral communication and meaning-​making through the use of verbal and non-​verbal resources. For this particular Story Time session, the storyteller focused on one specific theme, “friends”, to provide opportunities for the children to express different types of feelings –​happy, sad, angry, surprised and scared. The children sat on the floor facing the storyteller and a wall on which the word “Friends” and some drawings representing the different facial expressions for different types of feelings were shown (see Figure 6.1)

Figure 6.1 Friends and feelings.

 137

Expanded application and conclusion 137 The session began with the storyteller asking each child to name a friend, followed by an activity in which the children were asked to represent different feelings through their facial expressions. The dynamics between the storyteller and the audience at this point can be regarded as that of the real teller and the real audience, as they interact in their real-​life multiple identities. S:

right so some of you have friends and you can name them straight away. some of you took some time. some of us have few friends and some of us have many friends. ok, when you play with your friends are you happy or sad? A: HAPPY S: HAPPY SO I’ve got some faces can you just look at the faces? I just want you to look at the faces I’ve drawn on the board I’ve got … how many faces have I got here? A: FIVE S: FIVE faces alright what face do you think this is A: HAPPY S: what’s this, A: SAD S: what’s this A(1): angry S: YES? A: angry S: ANGRY what’s this A(1): surprised S: that’s right Denver  SURPRISED  you didn’t know it’s going to happen  and it happens AHHH  like somebody is giving you a present    and you didn’t know.    alright what’s this A: scared S:   scared  could be worried too like you don’t know where mummy is you’re lost in a shopping centre

138

138  Expanded application and conclusion

               A(1):  S:        

alright I want to see these faces On YOUR face I want to see them on your face so if I say put on a happy face how would you look yes? now all of you must think of these faces we’re going to play a game Ms Jessie will play the music and when the music is playing you’re going to walk and your face is going to be blank blank means not happy not sad nothing of this and there’s no expression on your face you just walk and when the music stops I will say happy then you show me a happy face. stop like a (()) like a statue FREEZE ok? alright all stand let’s try

Following the above interaction and the storyteller’s instruction, the children tried making different facial expressions to represent different feelings. Subsequently, the dynamics between them began to shift to that of the implied teller and the ideal audience with the following interaction once Goh announced, “I’m going to tell you a STORY”. With this announcement, Goh assumed the role of the storyteller for the upcoming storytelling performance, and at the same time gave the children instructions to unify them as a group or ideal audience. S:                                  

ALright I want you to come close come all of you come closer turn around this side come close to me ok I’m going to tell you a STORY come come this side alright cross your legs come forward there is space remember attentive listening? look at Ms Jessie and listen to Ms Jessie I’m going to tell you a story and I want you to listen

 139

Expanded application and conclusion 139 Table 6.1 The abstract and orientation Transcription Abstract in this story you’re going to see that they’re going to feel saaad and happy and worried and ~scaaared … alright and then you’ll see whether YOU too have felt like this before Orientation S: mother duck SAT on six eggs FIVE of them were small but ONE egg was bigger than the rest. and mother duck wondered HOW this came to be?

Notation in Word Description Beats Sad and happy facial expressions Worried and scared expressions

Metaphoric gesture for six Metaphoric gesture for five Metaphoric gesture for one Beats Puzzled facial expression

As Goh began her storytelling discourse with the abstract and orientation (Table 6.1), the dynamics between them was established as that of the narrator and the narratee. As an attempt to extend the application of the contextualized multimodal framework for an exploration of (in)authenticity in oral storytelling, I will do a comparative analysis of the words and accompanying multimodal performance features used by Goh in her oral storytelling discourse and those used in the printed folktale “The Ugly Duckling”, instead of examining the verbal, vocal and visual performance features in each stage of the storyteller’s discourse as it developed with the storytelling process. For such examinations of the verbal, vocal and visual performance features in each stage of the storyteller’s discourse, see Sample Analyses I and II in Chapter 4. The printed text of the folktale “The Ugly Duckling” by Lamond contains a total of 1,142 words, while the transcript of Goh’s storytelling segment per se (i.e. excluding the interaction between the storyteller and children before and after the storytelling performance) contains 1,110 words. The total word counts of the print text and the oral storytelling discourse are, therefore, comparable. Using VocabProfiler computer software (Cobb n.d.; Heatley, Nation and Coxhead 2002), the printed folktale text and the transcript of Goh’s oral storytelling discourse were broken down by word frequencies into BNC (British National Corpus) based the most frequent first thousand words of English (K1) to twenty thousand (K20) levels, plus “offlist” (i.e. proper nouns or nonsense words). Words which carry similar meanings in the two texts but show the biggest difference in their frequency levels were selected for a close qualitative analysis and discussion of authenticity in relation to multimodality in oral storytelling.

140

140  Expanded application and conclusion Table 6.2 Comparison of words used in the print text and oral storytelling discourse

K1 words K2 words K3 words K4 words K5 words K6 words K7 words K8 words K9 words K10 words K11 and above Off-​list words

Print Text (1142 words)

Oral Storytelling Discourse (1110 words)

86.1% 8.1% 0.7% 1.2% 1.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0% 0.7%

94.2% 3.2% 0% 0.8% 0.4% 0% 0.4% 0% 0.5% 0.3% 0% 0.2%

Specifically, the analysis will focus on how the storyteller’s voice modulations, gestures and facial expressions accompany her spoken words for representation of events and characters, and how her choices of these stylistic features in her multimodal storytelling discourse help achieve the defined institutional purposes of her storytelling performance. First, Table 6.2 shows a summary of the comparison between the print text and the oral storytelling discourse. The comparison was done with the help of VocabProfiler computer software. As seen in the table, the oral storytelling discourse uses more K1 words and fewer K2 to K8 words than the print text. The slightly higher percentage for K9 words in the oral storytelling discourse is due to the storyteller’s use of an onomatopoeic/​non-​linguistic sound, “quack quack”, which is incorporated into the following representation of the ducklings’ utterances: the other ducks said they DON’T want the ugly duckling at the farm they said quack get out quack quack get out quack quack get out of here. The K9 words used in the print text, on the other hand, are “cackling” and “dabbling”, as appear in the following excerpt: The henhouse was dark and dusty. It smelled of feathers and there was no water for paddling in and no weeds to dive for. Worse still, the hens never stopped cackling. The grey ducking squeezed himself into a corner and dreamed about dabbling in the stream with his brothers and sisters.

 141

Expanded application and conclusion 141 The words are used without any accompaniment of an image or illustration representing their meanings, which suggests that some explicit explanations of their meanings would be needed for young children like the audience of this particular storytelling performance. Similarly, the K10 word in the print text is “waddled”, which is used without any accompaniment of an image or illustration representing its meaning. On the other hand, the slightly higher percentage of K10 words used in the oral storytelling discourse is due to the storyteller’s use of the word “turkeys”, and the word is used as a type of bird introduced together with other types such as “ducks” and “chickens”. By introducing these different types of birds, the storytelling discourse was able to include some repetition of a similar sequence of events, and the children were able to join the storyteller in acting out the representation of the ugly duckling being rejected by the other birds one after another. The following excerpt of the transcript shows the use of K10 words during the repetition of a particular sequence of events. S:

  the ducks didn’t want him,        so the duckling went to the chickens,       can I stay with  you? S & C(w):    NO… YOU ARE UGLY        GO AWAY AND DON’T COME BACK S:  the chickens didn’t want him,       So he went to the turkeys       can I stay with  you? S & C(w):    NO… YOU ARE UGLY        GO AWAY AND DON’T COME BACK S:  the turkeys didn’t want him,        so he went to the geese,       Can I stay with  you? C(W):  NO… YOU ARE UGLY        GO AWAY AND DON’T COME BACK S:  the geese didn’t want him.       nobody wanted  him. In general, it can be observed that the oral storytelling discourse contains more frequently used words, or words whose meanings young children in the audience are likely to be able to infer. Nation and Webb (2011, p. 115) explain that the “more often a word occurs, the more likely it is to be known by users of that language”. In this regard, the oral storyteller’s use of more K1 words and fewer K2 and K8 words than the print text can be seen as her attempt to make her storytelling discourse suitable for a young audience of kindergarten children. Table 6.3 shows an example of words used by the oral storyteller, in comparison with the excerpt from the print text representing the similar events at the beginning of the story.

142

142  Expanded application and conclusion Table 6.3 K1 to K8 words in the print text and oral storytelling discourse –​an example Print Text

Oral Storytelling Discourse

Once upon a time, a mother duck sat on a nest waiting for her eggs to hatch. Six of them were pale blue, just as they should be, but the seventh was big and white and covered in freckles.

mother duck SAT on six eggs FIVE of them were small but ONE egg was bigger than the rest. and mother duck wondered HOW this came to be? but she sat on it and kept it warm just the same and when ALL her eggs were hatched she had FIVE YELLOW DUCKLINGS and ONE BIIIG GREY duckling

One morning the sound of peep, peep came from under the duck’s wings. It was the sound of her ducklings starting to hatch –​and it wasn’t long before the duck was the proud mother of six ducklings, each as fluffy, yellow and bright-​eyed as the last. But there was no sound at all from the big freckled egg. This egg stayed silent for a whole two more days. When at last the shell cracked, an odd little creature struggled free. It looked nothing like the others. Instead of a cheerful yellow, it was a dirty grey. And instead of having a pretty pink beak, its beak was almost black. K8 words: freckles, freckled K7 words: peep, beak K6 words: fluffy K5 words: (goose, geese) Not in this excerpt K4 words: hatch K3 words: pale, silent K2 words: duck, nest, wings, ducklings, proud, shell, cracked, creature, struggled, cheerful, pink K1 words: all the remaining words

K8 word : Nil –​No K8 words are used K7 words: (swan) Not included in this excerpt K6 words: Nil –​No K6 words are used K5 words: (hen) Not included in this excerpt K4 words: hatched K3 words: Nil –​No K3 words are used K2 words: duck, duckling, ducklings K1 words: all the remaining words

It should be noted that the use of K8, K7 and K6 words in the print text is accompanied with an image or illustration showing a mother duck sitting in a nest among five ducklings with fluffy yellow feathers and pink beaks. Among them is a big grey egg covered in freckles. Unlike the print text, the oral storytelling discourse is accompanied only by the storyteller’s voice modulations, gestures and facial expressions. Words such as “freckles,” “freckled” and “fluffy” used in the print text are absent in the oral storytelling discourse. The meanings of these words are likely to be difficult to explain for an oral storyteller without the accompaniment of an image or illustration. Instead, the oral storyteller relies on her voice modulations, facial expressions and gestures to accompany the words she uses. Specifically, in this excerpt, metaphoric gestures accompany the words such as “six” and “five” (see Table 6.1 and Figure 6.2).

 143

Expanded application and conclusion 143

Figure 6.2 Oral storyteller’s uses of metaphoric gestures.

As the oral storytelling discourse continues to unfold, more words from the print text which are of the higher frequency levels (i.e. less frequent and thus less likely to be known by kindergarten children) are replaced in the oral storytelling discourse with those of the lower frequency levels such as K1 and K2 words. For example, words such as “waddled” (K10 word), “magnificent” (K4 word) and “miserable” (K4) words used in the print text are replaced with “walked” (K1 word), “beautiful” (K1 word) and “sad” (K1 word) or “lonely” (K2 word) respectively in the oral storytelling discourse. These replaced words have meanings that are similar to those used in the print text, but are more frequently used words and their meanings are likely to be known by the young children. Moreover, words are often accompanied by the oral storyteller’s mimic gestures and facial expressions as well as corresponding voice modulations. One particular type of gestures prominently used by the oral storyteller is the mimic gestures, which have a close formal relationship to the semantic content of the words they accompany. Figure 6.3 shows two examples of mimic gestures used by the storyteller accompanying her words “swim” and “flapping of wings”. By visually representing the meanings of the words they accompany, these mimic gestures (and postures) serve as visual context cues that have the potential to assist the children in their visualization of the character’s specific action in relation to the events and the storyline which is being unfolded. Besides the mimic gestures, the oral storyteller’s uses of metaphoric gestures and complementing voice modulations for representing different types of feelings are also worth highlighting. Like mimic gestures, metaphoric gestures are also representational gestures but they correspond to an abstract idea. Given that the theme chosen by Goh for this particular storytelling performance is “friends” and the purpose is to provide children with opportunities to develop skills in expressing different types of feelings in their oral communication, the storyteller’s representations of feelings, such as being happy, sad and scared, play a significant role in appraising the authenticity in stylistic features of her storytelling discourse. Figure  6.4 shows examples of the storyteller’s metaphoric gestures and facial expressions which accompany her words such as “lonely/​sad”, “scared”, “happy”.

144

144  Expanded application and conclusion

Figure 6.3 Oral storyteller’s uses of mimic gestures.

Figure 6.4 Oral storyteller’s uses of gestures and facial expressions for different feelings.

A sad facial expression can be seen as a metaphor for representing the idea of loneliness/​ sadness. This metaphoric gesture and facial expression was complemented with the storyteller’s softer volume and slower pace in saying, “(he was very lonely, he had no friends)”. In contrast, accompanying the scared facial expression as a metaphoric gesture for the feeling of fear was a higher pitch and faster pace in saying, “so he ran away, he was so scared, he ran and ran away”. Accompanying the metaphoric gesture of happiness, that is, the happy facial expression, was a higher pitch and louder volume in saying, “WHEE I AM A SWAN, and ALL the other swans came and swam up, and he had so many friends, and he was happy”.

 145

Expanded application and conclusion 145 Following the storytelling performance was the re-​enactment of the story with the children role playing the character Ugly Duckling. At the end of the storytelling performance, the storyteller led the children to the role play activity through the excerpt below: S:  so I want you now to be the ugly duckling just now Ms Jessie was the ugly duckling and when you told me “go away” because I was ugly I felt very sad. so now you’re going to be the ugly duckling and show how you feel. During the role-​play activity, the children were given opportunities to apply mimic gestures, metaphoric gestures and facial expressions, as well as corresponding voice modulations, as they expressed different types of feelings as the ugly duckling. Recall that the purpose of this storytelling performance, as part of the speech and drama programme, is to provide children with opportunities to develop skills necessary for effective oral communication and meaning-​making through the use of verbal and non-​verbal resources. In this regard, the storyteller’s strategic uses of gestures, facial expressions and voice modulations to express different types of feelings can be characterized as authentic stylistic features of her storytelling discourse, as they manifest a specific style of this particular oral storyteller in carrying out a storytelling performance that has its own actual narrativity and optimal narrativity in terms of achieving the defined purposes of this particular storytelling event. To elaborate, the storyteller’s gestures, facial expressions and voice modulations accompanying her spoken words for representation of events and characters can be considered authentic stylistic features of the oral storyteller, so long as they are used genuinely to contribute to communicating clear and comprehensible messages which are in line with achieving the defined institutional purposes of the particular storytelling performance for the specific group of audience. With the application of a contextualized multimodal framework, it can be argued that each storytelling performance is unique, as the stylistic features in the oral storytelling discourse have to be compatible and fit the audience, as well as the institutional settings and purposes of a particular storytelling performance. Thus, instead of criticizing oral storytelling discourse as inauthentic on the basis of the stylistic features used in the original tales in print, authenticity of style in oral storytelling should be characterized on the basis of whether the style choices in the use of verbal, vocal and visual performance features are purposefully made by the oral storyteller so that his/​her storytelling discourse will be compatible for a particular audience and a particular storytelling event. Hence, authenticity of oral storytelling discourse can be discussed in terms of how multimodal performance features emanating from the oral storyteller are genuine and purposeful uses of the semiotic modes available in the oral medium. Key semiotic modes available in the oral and written media for storytelling are outlined in Table 6.4.

146

146  Expanded application and conclusion Table 6.4 Semiotic modes for stylistic features in oral storytelling and print text Oral Storytelling

Written Storytelling

Lexical and syntactic devices (verbal) Intonational and rhythmic cues (vocal) Gestures and facial expressions (visual)

Lexical and syntactic devices (verbal) Graphic devices and images (visual)

Oral storytelling for language and literacy education A fine-​grained analysis of multimodal features in oral storytelling discourse, using the contextualized multimodal framework, can also be usefully extended to the studies of the benefits of oral storytelling for language and literacy education. Admittedly, the use of stories is not new in language and literacy education, and stories in various forms have been widely used to help students develop their listening, speaking, reading and writing skills. Especially for young children, read-​aloud or shared storybook reading with adults is often recommended as an important literacy practice both at home and in school for their language and literacy development (e.g. see Snow and Dickenson 1990; Speaker, Taylor and Kamen 2004; Kang, Kim and Pan 2009; Hepburn, Egan and Flynn 2010). Although there has been no shortage of studies which claim positive effects of read-​aloud or shared storybook reading on children’s language and literacy development, few studies have focused on the multimodal aspect of oral storytelling (such as the storyteller’s uses of well-​coordinated gestures, facial expressions and voice modulations) and the potential of these multimodal performance features to support language and literacy teaching/​learning. The contextualized multimodal framework can be applied for a close analysis of multimodal performance features in oral storytelling discourse and their potential to support children’s vocabulary learning. For example, in Lwin (2016a) I examined the storytelling discourse of two contemporary oral storytellers, and asked in what ways multimodal features in the storytellers’ discourse accompanying the spoken words which were unlikely to be known by the children show potential to support children’s inferring of word meanings. I first identified the words which were potentially unknown vocabulary for the children in the audience but used by the storytellers. Then the types of vocal and/​or visual features, if any, accompanying these words were captured for a discussion of how they manifest the potential to serve as context cues and support the children in noticing the word, as well as deducing the meanings of the words. My analysis of multimodal performance features in the two storytellers’ discourse in Lwin (2016a)show that the most commonly used visual features accompanying the words which are unlikely to be known by the children were mimic gestures. These gestures are also often accompanied by the corresponding voice modulations, which help draw the children’s attention to the words being used by the storyteller. Another type of gestures commonly used by the storytellers was deictic gestures, which point to actual or imaginary objects/​referents that

 147

Expanded application and conclusion 147 represent the meanings of the words. With evidence from a close multimodal analysis of oral storytelling discourse, I argue that during a storytelling session, the storyteller’s use of mimic gestures, deictic gestures and to a certain extent metaphoric gestures, complemented with corresponding voice modulations, provided children with the meanings of words in a visually and vocally salient, contextualized way (Lwin 2016a). Relating these findings to studies of children’s vocabulary learning, I  postulate that such multimodal performance features in oral storytelling discourse show the potential to facilitate children in making a connection between a word they encounter and a tentative meaning in the context of following the narrative being unfolded (Lwin 2016a). To claim that stories provide a language-​and-​word-​rich environment and an opportunity to make inferences about the meaning of new words, which are important characteristics of a good vocabulary learning condition (Blachowicz, Fisher and Ogle 2006), is indeed not a new finding. What an application of the contextualized multimodal perspective on oral storytelling can help to reveal is how, in the process of storytelling, a storyteller can strategically use specific types of voice modulations and gestures as important vocal and visual cues for children to make inferences about word meanings while they are harnessed to the unfolding storyline. Unlike read-​aloud or shared storybook reading events, which are more evidently seen as literacy teaching and learning contexts, oral storytelling conducted by a professional storyteller, especially with no accompaniment of a book, is typically held as an entertainment programme for children even though there are specific institutional purposes behind such a recreational facade. In read-​aloud or shared storybook reading events, more explicit instructional exchanges between the adult story-​reader and children, for example, providing definitions or synonyms, clarification and correction, are typically expected. In oral storytelling, in the actual sense of the word “telling”, there are few uses of verbal strategies to explain the meanings of words used in the oral storytelling discourse. Instead, the oral storyteller has to rely on various vocal and visual features to provide context cues so that the audience will be able to infer word meaning without interfering or disrupting their enjoyment of storytelling. An application of the contextualized multimodal perspective to applied storytelling performance can offer insights into deployment of multimodal performance features by an oral storyteller –​an area which has not received much research attention, as well as shed light on how certain types of gestures and voice modulations may have more potential than others to serve as visual and vocal cues for learners to infer word meanings. Such studies thus offer implications for language and literacy educators to explore possibilities of leveraging particular verbal, vocal or visual features in oral storytelling to enhance vocabulary teaching and learning using stories and storytelling. Another area of language and literacy education to which a multimodal perspective on oral storytelling can contribute is the development of learners’ sensitivity to and understanding of composing processes across different modalities of story creation, specifically oral storytelling and narrative writing. There has been interest in the use of stories to bridge young children’s oracy skills and

148

148  Expanded application and conclusion literacy skills or to support their emergent reading and writing development. But, for older learners, an understanding of multimodal performance features in oral storytelling and how these features from different modes are used strategically by an oral storyteller to create certain narrative effects and captivate the audience’s interest can also useful to help them develop a multimodal perspective on narrative writing and consequently to improve their meaning-​making ability for their own composing processes. Earlier chapters have shown how the contextualized multimodal framework can help uncover a variety of verbal, vocal and visual features strategically used by an oral storyteller to sustain audience interest and engagement with the unfolding narrative during a storytelling performance. Going a step further, this multimodal perspective on oral storytelling performances can be extended to explore the extent to which these discursive strategies and multimodal resources from oral storytelling can be applied or adapted by writing instructors to sharpen student writers’ awareness of the plethora of multimodal resources for meaning-​making that are potentially available them and how to take advantage of these resources in their own composing process to make the narrative they write more engaging. Using examples of oral storytelling discourse with systematic illustrations of how a cluster of vocal and visual features accompany the words used by the oral storyteller, student writers can be explicitly taught about the multimodal nature of storytelling and how similar effects can be created in narrative writing. For example, Lwin and Teo (2015) performed a multimodal analysis of oral storytelling discourse by three professional storytellers to examine how they move progressively and seamlessly from one structural component of a narrative to the next as they arouse, sustain and heighten audience interest throughout their storytelling performances. Based on the findings about the verbal, vocal and visual features used by the three oral storytellers, especially during the transitions from one component of the narrative to the next in the process of developing a storyline, they offer specific pedagogical applications for teachers to help the students develop an understanding of these multimodal features in story creation, and importantly support them in crossing from one storytelling mode to another. Although not all features in oral storytelling will be easily translatable to the written mode, Lwin and Teo (2015) have made an attempt to map the verbal, vocal and visual transitional cues in oral storytelling onto certain linguistic and orthographic devices in the written mode, and explored how similar narrative effects and rhetorical intents can be expressed in the context of story writing. The study by Lwin and Teo (2015) focuses on the main components (abstract, orientation, main action/​complication, resolution and coda) constituting the overall structure of the storytelling discourse. Clusters of multimodal performance features emanating from each of the three oral storytellers at the transition from one component to the next are identified through a close analysis of the storytelling discourse. Their analysis reveals how verbal cues, such as syntactic parallelism (“I saw … a little girl, I saw another little baby in the room, I saw … Paa … who was their father, and Maa … who was their mother”), are used to draw

 149

Expanded application and conclusion 149 the audience’s attention to the various characters one after another during the transition to the orientation. Besides highlighting this feature, they discuss how such parallel syntactic structures can also be used in the written mode to create a rhythmic structure and to cue a similar transition. For instance, in describing the setting of a story, a writer can write, To the east of the River Han lies a chain of dark mountains. Behind this chain of mountains hides an expanse of golden fields. Over on one end of the golden fields lies a tiny village. And in this tiny village lives … The effect of this Adverbial-​Verb-​Object structure is that of a camera lens that first affords the reader a panoramic vista of the storyworld and its various aspects, before wandering to and zooming in on a particular aspect, the village in which the characters are located (Lwin and Teo 2015, p. 221). While similar verbal cues can be used across the two modes of storytelling (in oral as well as written narratives), vocal cues such as pace and pitch, and visual cues such as gestures are less amenable to translating into writing. In this respect, Lwin and Teo (2015) suggest how certain linguistic and orthographic devices can be used to achieve similar effects, for example,

•

•

•

•

propositional gestures used by an oral storyteller (in saying “I saw … a little girl, about six years old”) to help the audience visualize different characters and/​ or various aspects of a place can be translated to the written mode in the form of comparative devices such as metaphors or similes (“The girl is as tall as someone who could look out from a window without climbing on a chair”) that paint a vivid picture of what is being described; mimic gestures used by an oral storyteller to make the imaginary (e.g. of a character’s action) come alive and to become concrete and real can be manifested in the written mode through the technique of “Show, not tell”, which hinges on the principle of using descriptively rich details to show readers what is happening in a story rather than simply telling; a deliberate slowing down of the pace in unfolding the events in order to build suspense and excitement, which is key in the transition to the complication component (“croc … gave one flip of her long lazy tail … and she began to move … to the water”), can be achieved in the written mode through the use of a longer, more complex syntactic structure with multiple embedded clauses (“Thinking about what to have for dinner while fumbling in her bag for the key, she stood in front of the door for a moment; then she noticed a strange pair of shoes lying about a meter from her”); progressive shifts in pitch and volume and, by association, various facial expressions of the storyteller, can be reflected in the written mode through the use of orthographic devices such as italics, bold face and capitalization in the same way as they are used in the transcription capturing the multimodal performance features of oral storytelling (“croc … gave one flip of her long

150

150  Expanded application and conclusion

•

lazy tail … and she began to move … to the water … AND SHE OPENED WIDE HER ENORMOUS MOUTH”); and sound effects (“/​shruuk/​”, “~ /​GAAARRRH/​”) used at strategic moments in an oral story to build up the suspense can be reproduced in the written mode in the form of words reinforced through orthographic emphasis to create the impression of multisensory appeals.

Recognizing the contemporary multimodal landscape where our daily lives are increasingly mediated by a multimedia, multimodal and multisensory experience, studies of writing pedagogy have explored the use of various modes of meaning-​ making to enrich story-​creation practices in schools. Movies, videos and games are among those popular narrative forms which have been explored for their potential to support student writers’ understanding of the composing process and improve the quality of their narrative writing (e.g. Choo and Chan 2008; Parry 2010; Teo and Kramer-​Dahl 2011). In this context, the contextualized multimodal perspective on oral storytelling can help uncover the rich repertoire of multimodal resources strategically used by oral storytellers and the potential of such oral storytelling performances as another popular narrative form that can be a useful pedagogic tool for writing instructors to help their students develop a multimodal understanding of the composing process across different modality of story creation. Identity construction through stories of (self)introduction More broadly, the application of the contextualized multimodal framework can be extended to studies of identity construction through oral narrative, which is a growing field in the social sciences following the increasing interest in narrative as a point of entry into understanding the construction of personal and social identities. Within this discipline, the different approaches to narrative inquiry have made a distinction between “big” versus “small” stories. Big stories are typically long narratives about the self and past events, such as those collected for biographical research, while small stories are typically short fragmented tellings about the self and past or ongoing/​future events, such as those embedded in casual conversations (Bamberg and Georgakopoulou 2008). While studies of big and small stories have contributed to the research on presentation of self through narratives, what seems to have escaped from the analytical lenses in narrative inquiry are those brief narratives (usually prepared by the speakers themselves but told by a host) as a way of introducing the speakers to the audience during relatively formal speech events. An example of such brief narratives is the self-​introduction by a professional storyteller to their audience or introduction to the professional storyteller by the host during a relatively formal storytelling events. These narratives of self-​introduction typically precede a storytelling performance, as can be seen in the following publicly available videos of a contemporary professional storyteller, Jan Blake: www.youtube.com/​watch?v=7MgpAG2sobk www.youtube.com/​watch?v=hPBjbW4L3ko

 151

Expanded application and conclusion 151 Recalling the three key components constituting the contextualized multimodal framework for specifying narrativity in oral storytelling (the story, the storytelling discourse and the storytelling event), the application of the framework can be helpful to examine the brief narrative told as an introduction to a professional storyteller (i.e. Narrative-​Intro) before her storytelling performance and the full-​length oral tale told during her performance (i.e. Narrative-​Folktale). The compatibility between the two narratives can then be discussed with reference to the storyteller’s construction of his/​her identity and a strategic way of opening and framing her telling of the oral tale which was inscribed with specific institutional messages. Such an attempt to expand the application of the contextualized multimodal framework is also made possible by the broad similarities between the three main components (the story, the storytelling discourse and the storytelling event) in the framework, and the three-​level framework for examining discursive practices for a teller’s construction of identities through the contextual properties of narrative first proposed by Bamberg (2005). The three-​level framework for examining discursive practices for a teller’s construction of identities (Figure  6.5) postulates that at Level 1, the position of characters vis-​à-​vis one another in the taleworld is examined through the linguistic configurations used for the narrative content such as characters, actions and events. At Level 2, positioning of oneself as the speaker with regard to an audience (i.e. positioning of the interlocutors with respect to each other during the interaction) was examined through their interactional behaviour. Level 3, finally, examines the “ideological orientation within which speakers are positioning a sense of self” as they “make claims that are held to be true and relevant above and beyond the local conversational situation” (Bamberg 2005, p.  225). To emphasize the links between the three levels, Bamberg (2005) explains Level 3 (ideological analysis) as an achievement of Levels 1 and 2. Through an analysis

SOCIOCULTURAL CONTEXT (Ideological Orientation – Claims, propositions) SITUATIONAL CONTEXT (Speech Event – Interactional behaviour) TALE-WORLD (Text – Linguistic configurations)

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1 Narrative Analysis

Figure 6.5 Three-​level narrative analysis for construction of identities.

152

152  Expanded application and conclusion of linguistic configuration of the narrative content and the interlocutors’ interactional behaviour or how they coordinate their actions to position themselves, we can come to understand claims about views and beliefs that tellers hold to be true and relevant above and beyond the occasion of telling (Bamberg 2005). Comparing Figure 6.5 and Figure 3.1, the innermost level or component is characterized by specific configuration of the taleworld or story elements such as events, characters, temporality and specialization. The next level or component is characterized by engagement between the teller and recipients/​audience through the storytelling discourse. However, it should be noted that this component in the contextualized multimodal framework focuses on the overall structure and multimodal performance features of the storytelling discourse, and thus a close analysis can be done on these features to uncover their contribution to the engagement of the storyteller and audience during a storytelling process. On the other hand, Level 2 in the narrative analysis for identity construction focuses on positioning of the teller with regard to an audience, and thus it allows for analysis of the teller’s interactional behaviour. Borrowing Schiffrin’s (1990) notions, positioning of a storyteller can be as “animator” (the aspect of self which physically produces talk), “author” (the aspect of self responsible for the content of talk), “figure” (the main character in the story), and “principal” (the self established by what is said and committed to what is said). Lastly, the outermost level or component is characterized by the wider institutional settings, purposes, messages and ideological orientation. Complementing the contextualized multimodal framework for specifying narrativity in oral storytelling with the three-​level narrative analysis for construction of identities, I performed an analysis of Narrative-​Intro and Narrative-​Folktales recorded at the storytelling performance by an international storyteller, Linda Fang, during a Storytellers’ Showcase programme in Lwin (2016b). In this example, the Narrative-​Intro, or the brief story about Fang told by the host when introducing her to the audience preceding her storytelling performance, configures Fang as someone who, through the help of her teacher, uncovered her talent in performing storytelling for an audience. The storyteller, as the main character in the Narrative-​Intro, is configured as one who was in an abject position for having to perform storytelling but who turned out to be a privileged one because of her discovery of a life-​long talent, storytelling. Below is an excerpt containing the Narrative-​Intro of Linda Fang. HOST:  ok again for all this is this is a little introduction especially for the teachers here because our next teller Linda Fong from originally from Shang Hai and now from Washington DC, United States she shared this story with us during the Asian storytelling congress which was on last week she said … how do I get involved with storytelling

 153

Expanded application and conclusion 153 when I was about ten she said she was a very shy … quiet person and one day the teacher said … here take this story go home and learn and she said why and the teacher said I want you to tell a story I am thinking wow what a great homework you know go home and learn the story better than this maths and {snore} what have you so anyway she went home she learned the story she came back and she told the story and the teacher said that’s good but you know you can be a little bit better she gave her some tips and some guidance and Linda went home practised came back and told the story and the teacher said wow that’s good now you’re ready and then she said … ready for what she said oh there’s a storytelling competition and you’re in it so poor Linda don’t laugh she found out that she had to tell the story and you know what she told the story and she came in first first prize this is when she was ten how lucky she knew at ten what she could do with the rest of her life some of us … we’re still searching please come ok Linda Following the above Narrative-​Intro was Fang’s storytelling performance, or the Narrative-​Folktale. A detailed multimodal analysis of the Narrative-​Folktale can be found in Chapter 4, Sample Analysis II. To recap, the two main characters in this Narrative-​Folktales are two men, Dog Barks and Rooster Crows, who possess unusual talents (one can bark like a dog, and the other can crow like a rooster). When the two men are accepted by a lord to render their services, others in the group who are scholars, artists and craftsmen look down on them. A  series of events follows in which the lord is imprisoned by the king and faces the danger

154

154  Expanded application and conclusion of being executed. By barking like a dog, Dog Barks helps to make it possible for the lord to escape from the prison. By crowing like a rooster, Rooster Crows makes the sleepy soldiers think that it is morning and opens the gate for the lord and his followers to cross the border in time. The storyline ends with the lord’s rewarding the two men, and other followers acknowledging that everyone has a talent that can be useful at a time. The noteworthy findings from the analysis of Narrative-​Intro and Narrative-​ Folktales, with the application of the contextualized multimodal framework and the three-​level narrative analysis for identity construction, are the striking similarities between the Narrative-​Intro and Narrative-​Folktales in terms of the institutional message or ideological orientation towards someone with the talent in storytelling. The propositions which can be deduced from the Narrative-​Intro include: a storyteller is someone who possesses a useful talent; the talent may be unnoticed until someone like a teacher takes the agentive role to guide them and help them uncover it; and a particular talent someone has may not necessarily be academic, but it can still be useful for them to make a living. The propositions which can be deduced from the Narrative-​Folktales are: possessing a specific talent is part of an individual’s identities; the talent an individual possesses may not be that of a conventional type (e.g. intellectual or academic) and may even appear peculiar to those around them; individuals with unusual talents may be ostracized in a society until eventually they have opportunities to prove the usefulness of their talents; and a particular talent someone has may not be conventional, but it can still be useful for them to make a living. Compatibility of Narrative-​Intro and Narrative-​Folktale can be seen in

•

• •

similar ideological orientations or propositions for recognizing any form of talent that an individual possesses –​even if it may not be the types which are conventionally associated with academic achievements  –​because such a talent may prove to be pivotal for the career or life of the person who possesses them; similar interactional behaviour of the teller and audience in agreeing (or at least assumed to be agreeing) to take up certain roles/​positions; and similar linguistic configuration of the main character(s), their talents and the shifts in their identities (i.e. from being unrecognized/​ostracized to being privileged/​acknowledged).

On the one hand, the Narrative-​Intro can be analysed as the storyteller’s construction of her identities through her brief self-​narrative preceding her storytelling performance. On the other hand, with closer analysis of both the Narrative-​Intro and Narrative-​Folktales, the similarities between them can be interpreted as the storyteller’s strategic use of stories of self-​introduction for the communicative effectiveness of her storytelling performance by positioning the audience and framing their interpretation of the story which is going to be unfolded. In other words, the Narrative-​Intro strategically serves to frame and

 155

Expanded application and conclusion 155 contextualize the Narrative-​Folktale so that the audience’s interpretation, justification, debate of the claims, and propositions in the Narrative-​Folktale is done in relation to those presented and constructed in the Narrative-​Intro. Such is an example of how an expanded application of the contextualized multimodal perspective on oral storytelling can enhance our understanding of the ways in which various institutions and communities in contemporary society have been using storytelling as an educative and ideological tool behind the innocuous label of “entertainment”.

Limitations and suggestions for future research As with any research studies, there are some limitations in the perspective and framework proposed in this book. One of the limitations is in the treatment of audience members of a particular storytelling performance as a homogeneous group, rather than as different individuals with different perspectives. The contextualized multimodal framework developed and used in this book only specifies different types of audience in relation to their general age group, and the institutional settings and purposes of a particular storytelling performance (e.g. Primary one pupils, seven-​and-​above mixed-​age audience, etc.). It does not address the issues such as a face-​to-​face storyteller’s unique relationship with each listener. This limitation stems from the book’s aim to find out the roles of the storyteller and audience (as a group) and, importantly, the subtle shifts in their dynamics as a factor contributing to the process of developing the actual narrativity during a live storytelling performance. With this aim, the multimodal perspective offered in this book has explored and outlined their respective roles and the shifts in the dynamics of the storyteller and audience (as a group) for the successful execution of a storytelling process. Future research could look into how individual audience members with their varied social/​cultural backgrounds and experiences respond differently, and how it affects the process of actualizing narrativity in a live oral storytelling performance. Alternatively, future research could focus on one particular storyteller and his/​her performances across different institutional settings for different institutional purposes. In this way, a storyteller’s preferred styles and the influence of his/​her social and cultural background on his/​her storytelling performances can be examined. Such studies could explore the effects of sociohistorical factors and discuss narrativity in an oral storytelling performance in a much wider context. The contextual factors examined and discussed in this book are limited to those of the situational and functional –​such as general age groups of the audience; institutional settings and purposes; compatibility between forms, functions and situation; and dynamics of the storyteller and audience during a storytelling process. In other words, the contextual factors are treated as “agendered and ahistorical” (Shen 2005, p.  155). Those factors related to the sociohistorical context  –​for example, social/​cultural background of the storyteller and audience members, the history of the institution and so

156

156  Expanded application and conclusion on –​are rarely discussed, due to the constraints set essentially for the focus of this book. Nonetheless, the book has taken the first step in an attempt to specify the narrativity of an applied storytelling performance from a multimodal perspective. Future studies could go a step further and examine the specific sociohistorical contexts of production and reception, including the particularities and social/​ cultural identities of different individuals in a storytelling event. By examining the sociohistorical factors and their narrative relevance, future research could aim to provide a more comprehensive specification of narrativity in oral storytelling and/​or to test the efficacy of a contextualized multimodal framework further. Within the scope and length of the book, only two detailed sample analyses could be given here as illustrative examples. Empirical analyses of more storytelling performances should also be welcome to verify the productiveness of the framework and its constituents. Future empirical analyses could also look into the storytelling performances for different types of stories leading to different types of audience’s responses. As outlined in Chapter 1, this book has focused exclusively on the telling of participation stories which bring about outward responses and participation from the audience. The analytical framework proposed still needs to be tested by the further analyses of a wider variety of storytelling performances with diverse forms, contents, styles and audience responses. Alternatively, future research could also find out whether the framework proposed here to illustrate the interrelationships between a particular story, the storytelling discourse and the storytelling event can be adapted for the specification of narrativity in other modes of oral storytelling, such as elicited or spontaneous conversational storytelling. Finally, the implications of this study  –​particularly for understanding the potential, actual and optimal narrativity, and recognizing the exploitability of features associated with the oral medium in the process of actualizing the narrativity –​could serve as a starting point to explore narrativity in relation to different media. By investigating how the narrative potential manifested in the same story elements is actualized differently in different media (e.g. face-​to-​face oral storytelling performances vs. films), future studies could investigate the possible exploitation of a specific medium for the achievement of the optimal narrativity in various narrative transformations.

Concluding remarks Given the elusiveness of narrativity and the complexity of modality, it is beyond the scope of just one book to address all the issues that can be related, in one way or another, to the specification of narrativity in applied storytelling performances. Nevertheless, the book has offered a contextualized multimodal framework as a viable perspective which can be applied to the specification of narrativity in the context of a live storytelling performance. It gives due recognition to the roles of the storyteller and audience, as well as to the intricate process of storytelling and its various performance features as employed by the storyteller, which question

 157

Expanded application and conclusion 157 the “simple” narrativity typically allocated for an oral story in the existing narrative theories. By showing some possibilities of specifying narrativity in oral stories in the context of actual storytelling performances, the insights offered in this book have made a useful contribution and advancement to the studies of narrativity and multimodal analysis of contemporary applied storytelling performances, which have regained a growing interest and applications within and beyond academia in contemporary society. As outlined in the first chapter, the theoretical exploration and practical analyses conducted in this book aim to bring together academic researchers’ and storytelling practitioners’ works and interests in oral storytelling. It is hoped that the framework and insights offered in this book will fuel further scholarship not just from narratologists and those working in multimodality but also from the wider academic community, including those in fields such as English Language and Literature, and Language and Linguistics or Applied Linguistics, particularly those whose interests focus on narrative or storytelling in different historical, cultural and sociopolitical contexts. There has been increasing interest in examining narrative and the popularity of storytelling as a form of political and socio-​ethical propaganda, and the methodical focus of this book, which combines different traditions of enquiry in proposing the contextualized multimodal framework, is in line with current academic trends towards interdisciplinarity.

References Bamberg, M. (2005). Narrative discourse and identities. In: J. C. Meister, M. Kindt and W. Schernus, eds., Narratology beyond literary criticism. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 213–​237. Bamberg, M., and Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28, pp. 377–​396. Blachowicz, C. L. Z., Fisher, P. J. L., and Ogle, D. (2006). Vocabulary: Questions from the classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, pp. 524–​539. Choo, S., and Chan, C. (2008). Reel world learning: Integrating media in the English language classroom. Singapore: McGraw-​Hill. Cobb, T. (n.d.). Web Vocabprofile, an adaptation of Heatley, Nation and Coxhead’s (2002) Range. Retrieved July 2015 from www.lextutor.ca/​vp/​. Heatley, A., Nation, I. S. P., and Coxhead, A. (2002). Range and frequency programmes. Retrieved from www.victoria.ac.nz/​lals/​staff/​paul-​nation.aspx. Hepburn, E., Egan, B., and Flynn, N. (2010) Vocabulary acquisition in young children: The role of the story. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 10, pp. 159–​182. Kang, J. Y., Kim, Y., and Pan, B. A. (2009). Five-​year-​old’s book talk and story retelling: Contributions of mother–​child joint book reading. First Language, 29, pp. 243–​265. Leeuwen, T. V. (2001). What is authenticity? Discourse Studies, 3(4), pp. 392–​397. Lwin, S. M. (2016a). It’s story time!: Exploring the potential of multimodality in oral storytelling to support children’s vocabulary learning. Literacy, 50, pp. 72–​82. Lwin, S. M. (2016b). Stories of (self)-​introduction for communicative effectiveness of an institutionalized storytelling performance. Narrative Inquiry, 26, pp. 64–​87. Lwin, S. M., and Teo, P. (2015). Crossing borders: A multimodal perspective on storytelling. Storytelling, Self, Society: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Storytelling Studies, 11, pp. 211–​245

158

158  Expanded application and conclusion Nation, I. S.  P., and Webb, S. (2011). Researching and analysing vocabulary. Boston: Cengage Learning. PALA –​Poetics and Linguistics Association Annual Conference. (2016). Call for Papers [online]. Cagliari, University of Cagliari. Retrieved March 10, 2019, from: http://​ convegni.unica.it/​pala2016/​call-​for-​papers/​. Parry, B. (2010). Moving stories: Exploring children’s use of media in their story telling and the implications for teaching about narrative in schools. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9, pp. 58–​72. Schiffrin, D. (1990). The management of co-​operative self during argument: The role of opinions and stories. In: A. D. Grimshaw, ed., Conflict talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 241–​259. Snow, C. E., and Dickenson, D. (1990). Social sources of narrative skills at home and at school. First Language, 10, pp. 87–​104. Spagnoli, C. (2002). Storytelling. In: D. Levinson and K. Christensen, eds., Encyclopedia of modern Asia, vol. 5. New York: Charles Scribner’s, pp. 336–​338. Speaker, K. M., Taylor, D., and Kamen, R. (2004). Storytelling: Enhancing language acquisition in young children. Education, 125, pp. 3–​14. Teo, P., and Kramer-​Dahl, A. (2011). Of monsters and mayhem: Teaching suspense stories in a Singapore classroom. Journal of Writing Research, 3, pp. 19–​49.

 159

Index

Note: The page numbers in bold refer to tables and the page numbers in italics refer to figures. applied storytelling: academic vs. practitioner perspectives on 10; agendas of 84–​85, 118, 121–​122, 135, 155; discourse environment of 118–​119; educational intent 7, 28–​29, 49, 121; emergent dimensions and preconceived elements 125–​126; entertainment 49, 121–​122; social benefits of 7–​8, 49–​50; theatrical performance vs. 7, 119, 129–​130 assumed teller and ideal audience 52–​54, 66, 67, 89–​90, 118, 124 audiences: child vs. adult 5–​6; heterogeneity of 155; mixed-​age  114; storyteller–​audience dynamics 4, 7, 24, 27–​28, 29, 50–​54, 121; see also assumed teller and ideal audience; real teller and real audience authenticity 134–​136, 139, 143, 145 characters 38–​40, 119, 121, 135 cognitive processes in narrativity 18–​19; characters and 39; multimodality and 128; plot structures and 20–​22, 37–​38, 119, 121 contextualized multimodal framework: audience heterogeneity and 155; educational uses of 146–​150; global perspective on narrativity 120–​123, 127; identity narratives and 150–​155; overview 36; process-​ oriented nature 120, 122, 126; story 36–​41; storytelling discourse 41–​47; storytelling event 48–​55; see also multimodality; verbal, vocal and visual performance features

context vs. surround 32 conversational storytelling 1, 2, 3, 15, 18, 19, 23, 32, 33, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 129, 130, 150 discours 27 discourse analysis 15, 18, 36, 41 discourse markers 48, 76, 96, 97, 108 disnarrated elements 17, 78 “Dog Barks and Rooster Crows” see Storytellers’ Showcase event emphatic stress 46, 48, 63, 76, 78, 79, 96, 101, 103, 108, 110, 112, 131 event sequences 37–​38, 119, 121, 124, 128, 135 expressive elaborations 44, 48, 77, 79, 101, 104, 106, 130, 131 fabula 18, 27 Fang, Linda see Storytellers’ Showcase event folkloristic storytelling 2–​3, 7, 22–​23, 24, 32, 43, 134 frame analysis 32–​33 gestures 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 20, 28, 32, 33, 44–​45, 46–​47, 48, 61, 62; beats 47, 64, 76, 83, 84, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 131, 139; deictic 47, 64, 100, 103, 105–​106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 131, 146, 147; metaphoric 47, 64, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 98, 100, 101, 102, 107, 109, 139, 142, 143–​144, 145, 147;

160

160 Index mimic 47, 64, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 127, 128, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149; propositional 47, 64, 149; spontaneous 5, 10 Goh, Jessie see Story Time event histoire 27 ideal audience see assumed teller and ideal audience identity construction: 150–​155; “big” vs. “small” stories 150; three-​level discursive practices framework 151–​152 implied author and implied reader 51–​52 inflection 48 intimacy 4–​5 Jenkins, Roger see Pyjama Night event “leaning back” vs. “leaning forward” stories 11 live storytelling: acting vs. 5; contemporary revival of 6; as contextually situated practice 24; narrativity of 23–​25; preconception of 23; recitation vs. 5; “simple” narrativity of 22–​23, 157; spontaneity of 42; technological mediation vs. 3–​5, 27; traditional studies of 8, 24; types of 1–​3 multiculturalism 6 multimodality 8–​9, 43–​48; live storytelling and 24; monomodal approaches vs. 8, 127; relevant theoretical fields 9; transcription of 61–​64; see also contextualized multimodal framework; verbal, vocal and visual performance features narrative composition learning 147–​150 narrativity: audience 113; degrees of 17, 20, 21, 121; dimensional vs. global 120–​123; everyday conversation 18, 19; experimental fiction 18, 19; minimalist definitions of 15–​16; modes of 22; multimodal features of 18; narrativeness vs. narrativity 16; oral vs. literary in studies of 15; overspecification 20; potential, actual and optimal 24, 85, 86, 93,

94–​95, 114, 115, 119, 120, 121, 122, 125, 126, 127, 132, 135, 145, 155, 156; relativity of 122–​123; underspecification 20 narratology 9, 12, 15, 21, 36, 52 narrator and narratee 53–​54, 67, 68, 90 oral storytelling see live storytelling pace 9, 45, 48, 64, 76, 77, 79, 80, 83, 96, 100–​101, 103, 104, 106, 108, 110, 111, 112, 127, 128, 130, 131, 144, 149 pansituational universality 74 pauses 45, 48, 62, 63, 76, 79, 80, 83, 96, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 112, 128 performance-​centred theory 31–​32, 43 performance studies 3, 9, 12, 36 pitch 9, 45, 46, 48, 63, 76, 79, 83, 101, 103, 108, 110, 130, 144, 149 plot structures 16–​18; cognitive processes and 20–​22; deviation from logic and convention 38, 93; stereotypical expectations 20–​21, 38, 93, 94, 108; see also event sequences Pyjama Night event 64–​86; characters 73–​74; compatibility of forms, functions and situations 84–​86; event sequences 70–​73; institutional setting and purposes 64–​65; repeated sequences of events 81, 85; storyteller–​audience dynamics  65–​70; temporality and spatialization 74–​75, 83, 85; verbal, vocal and visual features 76–​77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83 quotation from dialogues 45, 48, 64, 79, 80, 83, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 110, 112, 114, 128, 130, 131 real teller and real audience 52–​54, 65, 69, 89, 90, 118, 119, 123–​125, 137 role-​playing activity 67, 145 sjužet 18, 27 sociolinguistics 1, 2, 15, 43 spatialization see temporality and spatialization Storytellers’ Showcase event 86–​115, 152–​155; characters 93–​94; compatibility of forms, functions and situations 113–​115; event sequence

 161

Index 161 90–​93; institutional settings and purposes 87–​88, 115; stereotypical expectations 93, 108, 115; storyteller–​audience dynamics  88–​90; temporality and spatialization 94–​95; verbal, vocal and visual features 96, 97, 100–​112, 113–​114 storytelling discourse 27–​29, 48; multimodal features 43–​44; overall structures 41–​43; see also multimodality; verbal, vocal and visual performance features storytelling event 29–​31, 48–​50; compatibility of forms, functions and situations 54–​55, 119–​120, 121, 130, 135–​136, 145; storyteller–​audience dynamics 50–​54, 121 Story Time event 136–​145; authenticity 145; facial expressions 144; metaphoric gestures 143–​144; mimic gestures 143; vocabulary levels 139–​143 stylistics 9, 12, 36 syntactic parallelism 44, 45, 48, 83, 128, 148

textual economy 25–​26, 41, 120 theatre studies 3 theatrical elements 87, 90, 114 therapeutic studies 3 tone 5, 28, 45, 48, 62, 64, 79, 80, 81, 83, 102, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 130, 131, 135 transcribing multimodal features 61–​64

temporality and spatialization 40–​41, 119, 121, 135

“Why crocodile doesn’t eat chicken” see Pyjama Night event

“Ugly Duckling” see Story Time event verbal, vocal and visual performance features 45–​48, 119, 122; as contextualization cues 126–​132; see also discourse markers; emphatic stress; expressive elaborations; gestures; multimodality; pace; pauses; pitch; quotation from dialogues; syntactic parallelism; tone; volume vocabulary learning 146–​147 volume 45, 46, 48, 63, 76, 79, 80, 83, 96, 97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 108, 110, 111, 128, 131, 144, 149