handbooknarratology_modelarticle_impliedauthor

7/27/2019 handbooknarratology_modelarticle_impliedauthor

1/7

Model article: Wolf Schmid. Implied author (English version, 2006)

Implied Author

1. Definition

The concept of the implied author refers to the author-image contained in a work and constituted by the

stylistic, ideological, and aesthetic properties for which indexical signs can be found in the text. Thus, theimplied author has an objective and a subjective side: it is grounded in the indexes of the text, but theseindexes are perceived and evaluated differently by each individual reader. We have the implied author inmind when we say that each and every cultural product contains an image of its maker. The implied au-thor is therefore not a category specific to verbal narration; it is, however, most often discussed in relationto linguistic texts, particularly in narratological contexts.

2. Explication

Implied author has, after being introduced by Booth (1961), become a widespread term for a conceptreferring to the author contained, but not represented, in a work. This concept presents itself in variousforms. Many users treat it as a term for an entity positioned between the real author ( author) and thefictive narrator ( narrator) in the communication structure of narrative works. Those adopting a critical

stance, on the other hand, use it as a term for a reader-generated construct without an equivalent prag-matic role in the narrative work. In neither of these usages is it claimed that authors have the intention ofcreating an image of themselves in their works. Instead, the image is understood as one of the by-productsthat, in the sense of Karl Bhlers expressive function of language (1918/20), necessarily accompany eachand every symbolic representation. Any of the acts that produced a work can function as an indexical signbearing this indirect form of self-expression. In particular, these acts include the fabrication of a repre-sented world; the invention of a story (story) with situations, characters (character), and actions (action); the selection of a particular action logic with a more or less pronounced world-view; the deploy-ment of a narrator and his or her perspective (perspective); the transformation of the story into a narra-tive with the aid of techniques such as flattening simultaneous events into a linear progression and rear-ranging the order of episodes; and finally, the presentation of the narrative in particular linguistic (orvisual) forms.

The concept has provoked questions above all because it has two dissimilar aspects. On the one hand,it has an objective component: the implied author is seen as a hypostasis of the works structure. On theother hand, it has a subjective component relating to reception: the implied author is seen as a product ofthe readers meaning-making activity. The relative importance of these two aspects varies depending onhow the concept is used: essentialists insist on the importance of the works structure in defining the im-plied author, whereas constructivists highlight the role played by the freedom of interpretation. At anyrate, it must be remembered that, like the readings of different recipients, the various interpretations of asingle reader are each associated with a different implied author. Depending on the function a work isbelieved to have had according to a given reading, the implied author will be reconstructed as havingpredominantly aesthetic, practical, or ideological intentions.

3. History of the Concept and its Study

3.1.Russian Formalism, Czech and Polish Structuralism

The concept of the implied author was first formulated systematically against the background of Russianformalism. The formalist Jurij Tynjanov (1927; trans. 1971, 75) coined the term literary personality,which he uses to refer to a works internal abstract authorial entity. Viktor Vinogradov, a scholar of lan-guage and style with links to the formalist movement, began developing the concept of the authors image(obraz avtora) in 1926 (udakov 1992, 23742; Glz 2008). He later defined this image as the concen-trated embodiment of the essence of the work, as drawing together the entire system of the linguisticstructures of the characters in their correlation with the narrator or narrators, and thereby being the con-ceptual stylistic centre, the focus of the whole (Vinogradov 1971, 118).

In the 1970s, Russian thought on the idea of the author in the text was taken further by Boris Korman(see Rymar and Skobelev 1994, 60102). Drawing on Vinogradovs concept of the authors image andMikhail Bakhtins theory of dialogic interaction between different points of meaning, Korman (1977)

developed a method that he described as systemically subject-based. At its centre lies the study of the


2/7

2

author as the consciousness of the work. Kormans approach differs from the theory of his predecessorsin two ways. In Vinogradovs writings, the authors image is described stylistically and presented as theproduct obtained when the different styles brought into play in a work are drawn together; Korman, onthe other hand, concentrates primarily on the relations between the various centres of consciousness in thework. And whereas Bakhtins interest in the problem of the authors image is primarily philosophical and

aesthetic in nature, Kormans deliberations are dominated by poetics. For Korman, the author in theworkwhich he calls the conceived authoris realized in the correlation of all the constituent textualelements of the work in question with its subjects of speech, i.e. those subjects to whom the text is attrib-uted, and the subjects of consciousness, i.e. those subjects whose consciousnesses are expressed in thetext (Korman 1977, 120).

In the context of Czech structuralism, Jan Mukaovsk (1937, 353) spoke at an early date of the au-thor in the work as an abstract subject that, contained in the structure of the work, is merely a point fromwhich it is possible to survey the entire work at a glance. In any given work, Mukaovsk adds, it ispossible to find indications pointing to the presence of this abstract subject, which must never be identi-fied with an actual individual such as the author or the recipient. He writes that the subject of the work inits abstraction [] merely makes it possible to project these personalities into the internal structure of thework (Mukaovsk 1937, 353).

Taking the ideas of his teacher as his starting point, the second-generation Czech structuralist Miro-slav ervenka suggested that the subject of the work, or personalitythe entity that Muka ovskcalled the abstract subjectis the signified, the aesthetic object of the literary work, the work itselfbeing treated as an index in the Peircean sense (ervenka 1969). Forervenka, the personality thusdefined embodies the principle by which all the semantic levels of the work are dynamically united, with-out forcing us to suppress the inner richness and personal colour that points back to the concrete author.

At the beginning of Polish research on the subject of the work we find Janusz Sawiski (1966; 1967),whose writings reflect the ideas of Vinogradov and Mukaovsk. Where Vinogradov introduces the con-cept of the authors image, Sawiski refers to the subject of the creative acts or the maker of the rulesof speech. Edward Balcerzan (1968) uses the term internal author to refer to the same entity. Subjectof the work is the name given to the authorial entity in the work in the framework of literary communica-tion outlined by Alexandra Okopie-Sawiska (1971). Rolf Fieguth (1975, 16), Okopie-SawiskasGerman translator and commentator, describes it as the subject of the use of literary rules in the work.

3.2.Approaches in the West

In Western narratology, the introduction of the implied author concept was linked to work on the notionof the unreliable narrator, in other words, the axiological disconnection of the narrator from the horizon ofvalues against which a work operates. The paradigmatic form of the concept was developed by Wayne C.Booth (1961), an American literary scholar belonging to the Chicago school (see Kindt and Mller 1999;2006a; 2006b). Since Flaubert, there had existed a view according to which authors should be objective,that is to say neutral and impassionate; Booth, in contrast, underlined the inescapable subjectivity of theauthor: As he writes, [the real author] creates not simply an ideal, impersonal man in general, but animplied version of himself that is different from the implied authors we meet in other mens works. []the picture the reader gets of his presence is one of the authors most important effects. However imper-

sonal he may try to be, his reader will inevitably construct a picture of the [author] who writes in thismanner (Booth 1961, 7071). These words have been understood by some as referring to a self-imageintentionally created by the author. However, it is more likely that Booths rather imprecise formulationwas meant to capture the idea that the creator of every product is inevitably and involuntarily representedindexically in it.

Booth, who subscribed to the criticism of the intentional fallacy presented by Wimsatt and Beardsley(1946), hoped to sidestep two tenets of the New Criticism with the help of the implied author concept: thedoctrine of autonomy and the insistence on the need to concentrate solely on the work itself. As Booth(1968, 11213) objected, the New Criticisms fight against a string of fallacies and heresies served to ruleout not just the author but also the audience, the world of ideas and beliefs, and even the narrative in-terest itself. The concept of authorship in the work was meant to provide a way round these obstacles, tomake it possible to talk about a works meaning and intention without falling foul of the criminal here-

sies.


3/7

3

Booths approach has subsequently been taken up and refined on many occasions (see in particularIser 1972; Chatman 1978, 14749; Rimmon-Kenan 1983, 8687). Equivalent concepts have also beenintroduced, some closely associated with Booths, other less so. Eco (1979), for example, speaks of themodel author, which he treats as an interpretive hypothesis of the empirical reader, and Anthony Easthope(1983, 3072) draws on the linguistic work of mile Benveniste in suggesting the term subject of enun-

ciation. Building on the Slavic origins of the concept, Schmid (1973) introduced the term abstract au-thor (taken up by, for example, Link 1976, 40; Lintvelt 1981, 1722; Hoek 1981), which he has subse-quently defended against criticism (Schmid 1986, 300306; see also the revision in Schmid 2005, 4965).

3.3. The Implied Author Dispute

The concept of the implied author has given rise to heated debate. Hempfer (1977, 10) passed categoricaljudgement over the concepts of the implied (in his words implizit, that is, implicit) author and reader,writing that the two entities not only seem to be of no theoretical use but also obscure the real fundamen-tal distinction, that between the speech situation in the text and that outside it. Over two decades later,Zipfel (2001, 120) presented a similar indictment of the implied author, condemning the concept as su-perfluous to narrative theory, hopelessly vague, and terminologically imprecise. Mieke Bal has estab-lished herself as a bitter opponent of Booths implied author and Schmids abstract author. These super-fluous concepts (Bal 1981a, 2089), she believes, have fostered the misguided practice of isolating au-thors from the ideologies of their works. The implied author, she believes, is a deceptive notion thatpromised to account for the ideology of the text. This would have made it possible to condemn a textwithout condemning its author and vice versaa very attractive proposition to the autonomists of the60s (Bal 1981b, 42).

More balanced criticism has been put forward in many forms; the objections raised can be summa-rized as follows:

1. Unlike the fictive narrator, the implied author is not a pragmatic agent but a semantic entity (Nnning1989, 33; 1993, 9).

2. The implied author is no more than a reader-created construct (Rimmon-Kenan 1983, 86; Toolan 1988,78) and as such should not be personified (Nnning 1989, 3132).

3. Despite repeated warnings against an overly anthropomorphic understanding of the implied author,Seymour Chatman (1978, 151) puts forward a model in which the implied author functions as a partici-pant in communicationwhich is, according to Rimmon-Kenan (1983, 88), precisely what the impliedauthor is not.

4. In so far as it involves a semantic rather than a structural phenomenon, the concept of the implied au-thor belongs to the poetics of interpretation rather than the poetics of narration (Diengott 1993, 189).

5. Booth and those who have used the concept after him have not shown how to identify the implied au-thor of any given text (Kindt and Mller 2006b, 167-168).

These criticisms are perfectly legitimate, but they are not sufficient to justify excluding the impliedauthor from the attention of narratology. Many critics continue to use the concept, clearly because nobetter term can be found for expressing that authorial element whose presence is inferred in a work.

It is also striking that those who advocate abandoning the implied author have put forward few con-

vincing alternatives. Nnning, for example, who believes that it is terminologically imprecise, theoreti-cally inadequate, and unusable in practice, suggests replacing it with the totality of all the formal andstructural relations in a text (1989, 36). In a chapter In Defense of the Implied Author, Chatman (1990,7489) suggests a series of alternatives for readers uneasy with the term implied author: text implica-tion, text instance, text design, or simply text intent. Finally, Kindt and Mller (1999, 28586) iden-tify two courses of action. We should, they suggest, either replace the term implied author with that ofauthor itself (which would attract familiar objections from anti-intentionalistic quarters); or, if a non-intentionalistic concept of meaning is to be retained, we should speak instead of text intention. (Sincetexts as such do not have intentions, the latter term brings with it an undesirable metonymic shift frommaker to product.)

The case of Grard Genette sheds light on the double-sided view of the implied author concept heldby many theorists. Genette did not cover the implied author in hisNarrative Discourse (1972), which led

to a certain amount of criticism (e.g. Rimmon 1976, 58; Bronzwaer 1978, 3); he then devoted an entire


4/7

4

chapter to it in Narrative Discourse Revisited (Genette 1983/88, 13554). The detailed analysis in thelatter work leads to a conclusion that is not at all unfavourable to the implied author. Genette observesfirst that, because it is not specific to the rcit, the auteur impliqu is not the concern of narratology. Hisanswer to the question is the implied authora necessary and (therefore) valid agent between the narratorand the real author? (139) is ambivalent. The implied author, he says, is clearly not an actual agent, but is

conceivably an ideal agent: the implied author is everything the text lets us know about the author (148).But we should not, Genette warns, turn this idea of the author into a narrative agent. This places Genettein a position not so different from that of the proponents of full-blown models of narrative communica-tion to which he refers (Schmid 1973; Chatman 1978; Bronzwaer 1978; Hoek 1981; Lintvelt 1981), noneof whom intend to make the implied author a narrative agent.

3.4. Towards an Impartial Definition

The implied author can be defined as the correlate of all the indexical signs in a text that refer to the au-thor of that text. These signs mark out a specific world-view and aesthetic standpoint. The implied authoris not an intentional creation of the concrete author and differs categorially in this respect from the narra-tor, who is always an explicitly, or even implicitly, represented entity. The implied author belongs to adifferent level of the work; the implied author stands for the principle behind the fabrication of a narratorand the represented world in its entirety, the principle behind the composition of the work (note hereHhns subject of composition [1995, 5], a development of Easthopes subject of enunciation [1983]).It has no voice of its own, no text. Its word is the entire text with all its levels, the entire work as a createdobject. Its position is defined by both ideological and aesthetic norms.

The implied author has only a virtual existence in the work; it can be grasped only by turning to thetraces left behind in the work by the creative acts of production, and takes concrete shape only with thehelp of the reader. The implied author is a construct formed by the reader on the basis of his or her read-ing of the work. If the process of construction is not to simply confirm the meanings that readers want tofind in the first place, it must be based on the evidence in the text and the constraints this places on thefreedom of interpretation. It would therefore be more appropriate to speak of reconstruction instead ofconstruction.

The implied authors of various works by a single concrete author display certain common features and

thereby constitute what we might call an oeuvre author, a stereotype that Booth (1979, 270) refers to as acareer author. There are also more general author stereotypes that relate not to an oeuvre but to literaryschools, stylistic currents, periods, and genres.

Contrary to the impression given by the term authors image, the relation between the implied authorand the real author should not be pictured in such a way that the former becomes a reflection or copy ofthe latter. And despite the connotations of the German impliziter Autor (implicit author, which bringswith it a shift from the reception-based orientation of implied to an ontologizing concept), the impliedauthor cannot be modelled as the mouthpiece of the real author. It is not unusual for authors to experimentwith their world-views and put their beliefs to the test in their works. In some cases, for example, authorsuse their works to depict possibilities that cannot be realized in the context of their real-life existence,adopting in the process standpoints on certain issues that they could not or would not wish to adopt inreality. In such cases, the implied author can be more radical than the real author ever really was or, to put

it more carefully, than we imagine him or her to have been on the basis of the evidence available. Suchradicalization of the implied author is characteristic, for example, of Tolstoys late works. The late Tol-stoy was much less convinced by many of his ideas than his implied authors; the latter embodied, andtook to extremes, one particular dimension of Tolstoys thought. Conversely, it is also possible for theideological horizons of the implied author to be broader than the more or less markedly ideologicallyconstrained ones of the real author. An example of this is Dostoevsky, who in his late novels developed aremarkable understanding of ideologies that he vehemently attacked as a journalist.

3.5.Relevance to Narratology

Why should a semantic entity that is neither a pragmatic participant in communication nor a specificcomponent of the narrative work be the concern of narratology at all? Recall here Rimmon (1976, 58),who points out that without the implied author it is difficult to analyze the norms of the text, especially

when they differ from those of the narrator. Similarly, Bronzwaer (1978, 3) notes that we need an in-


5/7

5

stance that calls the extradiegetic narrator into existence, which is responsible for him in the same way ashe is responsible for the diegesis. Chatman (1990, 76) points out another advantage of the concept whenhe writes that positing an implied author inhibits the overhasty assumption that the reader has directaccess through the fictional text to the real authors intentions and ideology.

The concept of the implied author is particularly useful in textual interpretation because it helps us de-

scribe the layered process by which meaning is generated. The existence of the implied author, not part ofthe represented world but nonetheless part of the work, casts a shadow over the narrator, who often ap-pears as master of the situation and seems to have control over the semantic order of the work. The pres-ence of the implied author in the model of epic communication highlights the fact that narrators, theirtexts, and the meanings expressed in them are all represented. Only on the level of the implied author dothese meanings acquire their ultimate semantic intention. The presence of the implied author in the work,above the characters and the narrator and their associated levels of meaning, establishes a new semanticlevel arching over the whole work: the authorial level.

4. Related Terms

4.1.Implied Reader

In many discussions, the implied author is paired with a recipient entity occupying a supposedly equiva-lent position on the opposite side of the communication situation: the implied reader (as in Booth 1961),to be distinguished from the addressee of the fictive narrator, known as the narratee (Prince 1971) orfictive reader (Schmid 1973).

Among the theorists who have worked on the implied reader, Wolfgang Iser (1972; 1976) deservesspecial mention. In the first, German version ofThe Act of Reading, Iser describes the implied reader (orimpliziter Leser,as he calls it) as a structure inscribed in the texts, as not having any real existence(Iser 1976, 60). He then goes on, to quote his subsequent English version of the text, to say that the im-plied reader embodies all those predispositions necessary for a literary work to exercise its effectpredispositions laid down, not by an empirical outside reality, but by the text itself. Consequently, theimplied reader as a concept has his roots firmly planted in the structure of the text; he is a construct and inno way to be identified with any real reader (Iser 1978, 34).

ervenka (1969, 13839) characterizes the addressees personality, by which he means the impliedreader, with the statement that if the subject of the work was the correlate of the totality of the acts ofcreative choice, then the overall meaning of the works addressee is the totality of the interpretive abilitiesrequired: the ability to use the same codes and develop their material analogously to the creative activityof the speaker, the ability to transform the potentiality of the work into an aesthetic object. In Russia,following on from Korman, Rymar and Skobelev (1994, 11921) use the term conceived reader. Kor-man (1977, 127) himself had paired the author as bearer of the works concept with the correspondingentity of the reader as postulated addressee, ideal principle of reception. Similarly, Umberto Eco (1979)pairs the model author with the model reader, defined by him as a hypothesis formed by the empiricalauthor.

It is tempting to assume, as several theorists have indeed done, that the relationship between impliedauthor and implied reader is a symmetrical one. If the implied author is an image of the real author cre-ated by the real reader, then, we might be inclined to conclude, the implied reader must be the image of

the real reader envisaged by the real author. The true state of affairs, of course, is more complicatedthere is no symmetry between the ways in which the two abstract entities are formed. The implied readeris ultimately one of the attributes of the concrete readers reconstructed implied author. It follows that theimplied reader is no less dependent on the readers individual acts of reconstruction than the impliedauthor whose attribute it is.

Two hypostases of the (re)constructed implied reader should be distinguished on the basis of the func-tions it can be thought to have. First, the implied reader can be seen as an assumed addressee at whom thework is directed and whose linguistic codes, ideological norms, and aesthetic ideas must be taken accountof if the work is to be understood. In this function the implied reader bears the factual codes and normsthat it is assumed the audience will use. Second, the implied reader can be seen as an image of the idealrecipient who understands the work in a way that optimally matches its structure and who adopts theinterpretive position and aesthetic standpoint put forward by the work (Schmid 2005, 6571; 2007).


6/7

6

author

narrator

5. Topics for Future Research

(1) Where systematic considerations and practical applications are concerned, there is a pressing need toidentify the indexical signs that refer to the implied author, and to distinguish between author- and narra-tor-specific indexes. (2) The manifestation of the implied author in different periods, cultural spheres, texttypes, and genres has yet to be examined in detail.

6. Bibliography

6.1. Works Cited

Bakhtin, Mikhail (1929).Problems of Dostoevskys Poetics (Minneapolis: Minnesota UP, 1984).Bal, Mieke (1981a). The Laughing Mice, or: on Focalisation, in:Poetics Today, 2, 202210.Bal, Mieke (1981b). Notes on Narrative Embedding, in:Poetics Today, 2, 4159.Balcerzan, Edward (1968). Styl i poetyka twrczoci dwujzycznej Brunona Jasiskiego, in:

Z zagadnie teorii przekadu (Wrocaw: Zakad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich), 1416.Booth, Wayne C. (1961). The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: Chicago UP).Booth, Wayne C. (1968). The Rhetoric of Fiction and the Poetics of Fictions, in:Novel: A Forum on

Fiction, 1, 105117.Booth, Wayne C. (1979). Critical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism (Chicago: Chi-

cago UP).Bronzwaer, Wilhelmus J. M. (1978). Implied Author, Extradiegetic Narrator and Public Reader, in:

Neophilologus,62, 118.Bhler, Karl (1918/20). Kritische Musterung der neueren Theorien des Satzes. In: Indogermanisches

Jahrbuch, 4, 120.ervenka, Miroslav (1969). Das literarische Werk als Zeichen, in: M. ., Der Bedeutungsaufbau des

literarischen Werks (Mnchen: Fink, 1978), 163183.

Chatman, Seymour (1978). Story and Discourse. Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca/London:Cornell UP).Chatman, Seymour (1990). Coming to Terms. The Rhetoric of Narrative in Fiction and Film (Ithaca:

Cornell UP).udakov, Aleksandr (1992). V. V. Vinogradov i ego teorija potiki, in: A. P. ., Slovo ve mir

(Moskva: Sovremennyj pisatel), 219264.Diengott, Nilli (1993). Implied Author, Motivation and Theme and Their Problematic Status, in: Orbis

Litterarum, 48, 181193.Easthope, Antony (1983).Poetry as Discourse (London: Methuen).Eco, Umberto (1979). The Role of the Reader(Bloomington Indiana UP).Fieguth, Rolf (1975). Einleitung, in: R. Fieguth (ed.),Literarische Kommunikation (Kronberg: Sciptor),

922.Genette, Grard (1972).Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method, trans. by Jane E. Lewin (Ithaca: Cor-

nell UP, 1980).Genette, Grard (1983). Narrative Discourse Revisited, trans. by Jane E. Lewin (Ithaca and New York:

Cornell UP, 1988).Glz, Christine (2008). Autortheorien im slavischen Funktionalismus, in: W. Schmid (ed.), Slavische

Narratologie (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter) (in print).Hempfer, Klaus (1977). Zur pragmatischen Fundierung der Texttypologie. In: W. Hinck (ed.), Textsorten-

lehre Gattungsgeschichte (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer), 126.Hoek, Leo H. (1981).La marque du titre (La Haye: Mouton).Hhn, Peter (1995). Geschichte der englischen Lyrik, vol. 1 (Tbingen: Francke).Iser, Wolfgang (1972). The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to

Beckett(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1974).Iser, Wolfgang (1976). Der Akt des Lesens: Theorie sthetischer Wirkung(Munich: Fink, 1976).


7/7

7

Iser, Wolfgang (1978) The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUP, 1978).

Kindt, Tom; Mller, Hans-Harald (1999). Der implizite Autor. Zur Explikation und Verwendung einesumstrittenen Begriffs, in: F. Jannidis et al. (eds), Rckkehr des Autors (Tbingen: Niemeyer), 273287.

Kindt, Tom; Mller, Hans-Harald (2006a). The Implied Author. Concept and Controversy (Berlin/NewYork: de Gruyter).

Kindt, Tom; Mller, Hans-Harald (2006b). Der implizite Autor. Zur Karriere und Kritik eines Begriffszwischen Narratologie und Interpretationstheorie. In:Archiv fr Begriffsgeschichte, 48, 163-190.

Korman, Boris (1977). O celostnosti literaturnogo proizvedenija, in: B. K., Izbrannye trudy po teorii iistorii literatury (Ievsk: Izd. Udmurtskogo un-ta), 119128.

Link, Hannelore (1976).Rezeptionsforschung(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).Lintvelt, Jaap (1981).Essai de typologie narrative. Le point de vue (Paris: Corti).Mukaovsk, Jan (1937). Lindividu dans lart, in: Deuxime congrs international desthtique et de

la science de lart, tome 1 (Paris: F. Alcan), 349354.Nnning, Ansgar (1989). Grundzge eines kommunikationstheoretischen Modells der erzhlerischen Ver-

mittlung(Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier).

Nnning, Ansgar (1993). Renaissance eines anthropomorphisierten Passepartouts oder Nachruf auf einliteraturkritisches Phantom? berlegungen und Alternativen zum Konzept des implied author, in:Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, 67, 125.

Okopie-Sawiska, Alexandra (1971). Die personalen Relationen in der literarischen Kommunikation,in: R. Fieguth (Hg.),Literarische Kommunikation (Kronberg: Scriptor, 1975), 127147.

Prince, Gerald (1971). Notes toward a Characterization of Fictional Narratees. In: Genre, 4, 100106.Rimmon, Shlomith (1976). A Comprehensive Theory of Narrative: Genettes Figures III and the Structu-

ralist Study of Fiction, in:PTL, 1, 3362.Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith (1983).Narrative Fiction (London: Methuen).Rymar, Nikolaj; Skobelev, Vladislav (1994). Teorija avtora i problema chudoestvennoj dejatelnosti

(Vorone: Logos-Trast).Schmid, Wolf (1973). Der Textaufbau in den Erzhlungen Dostoevskijs (2nd edn, Amsterdam: Grner,

1986).Schmid, Wolf (1986). Eine Antwort an die Kritiker. Nachwort zu: Der Textaufbau in den Erzhlungen

Dostoevskijs, 2nd edn (Amsterdam: Grner), 299-318.Schmid, Wolf (2005).Elemente der Narratologie (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter).Schmid, Wolf (2007). Textadressat, in: Th. Anz (ed.), Handbuch Literaturwissenschaft, vol. 1 (Stutt-

gart/Weimar: Metzler) (in print).Sawiski, Janusz (1966). O kategorii podmiotu lirycznego. Tezy referatu, in: Jan Trzynadlowski (ed.),

Wiersz i poezja (Wrocaw: Zakad Narodowy im. Ossolinskich), 5562.Sawiski, Janusz (1967). Die Semantik der narrativen uerung, in: J. S., Literatur als System und

Proze (Mnchen: Nymphenburger 1975), 81109.Toolan, Michael J. (1988).Narrative. A Critical Linguistic Introduction (London/New York: Routledge).Tynjanov, Jurij (1927). On Literary Evolution, trans. C. A. Luplow, in: Readings in Russian Poetics:

Formalist and Structuralist Views, ed. by Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska (Cambridge: MIT

Press, 1971), 6678.Vinogradov, Viktor (1971). Problema obraza avtora v chudoestvennoj literature, in: V. V., O teorii

chudoestvennoj rei (Moskva: Izd. Vysaja kola), 105211.Wimsatt, William K.; Beardsley, Monroe C. (1946). The Intentional Fallacy, in: D. Newton-de Molina

(ed.), On Literary Intention (Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1976), 113.Zipfel, Frank (2001).Fiktion, Fiktivitt, Fiktionalitt(Berlin: Schmidt).

6.2.Further Reading

Kahrmann, Cordula; Rei, Gunter; Schluchter, Manfred (1977): Erzhltextanalyse (Weinheim:Beltz/Athenum 1996).

Schnert, Jrg (1999) Empirischer Autor, Impliziter Autor und Lyrisches Ich. In: F. Jannidis et. al. (eds):Rckkehr des Autors (Tbingen: Niemeyer), 289-294.

Suleiman, Susan R.; Crosman, Inge (eds) (1980), The Reader in the Text(Princeton UP).

handbooknarratology_modelarticle_impliedauthor

Documents

Transcript of handbooknarratology_modelarticle_impliedauthor