Performativity | the living handbook of narratology

1The terms “performativity” and “performance” derive from the verb “to perform.” They denote the capacity to execute an action, ... PrimarytabsView(activetab) Revisions Performativity UteBernsCreated:19.December2012Revised:22.April2014 DefinitionTheterms“performativity”and“performance”derivefromtheverb“toperform.”Theydenotethecapacitytoexecuteanaction,tocarrysomethingoutactuallyandthoroughly,aswellastodoaccordingtoprescribedritual.“Toperform”mayalsobeusedinthesenseof“toperformanartisticwork,”i.e.toactinaplay,toplayaninstrument,tosingordance.Innarratology,performativitydenotesmodesofpresentingorevokingaction.Aperformance,i.e.theembodiedlivepresentationofeventsintheco-presenceofanaudienceataspecificplaceandtime,isperformativeinthenarrowsense:performativityI.Heretheaudienceexperiencestheactorsandtheactiondirectly,i.e.visuallyandacousticallyataminimum.Performancecantakeplaceintherealworld(asinaweddingceremonyoracourttrial)oritcandepictfictionalevents(asinatheaterperformance).Verbalorvisualscriptscanpreparetheperformanceinplaytextsandstagedirections,filmscriptsandchoreographicsketches.Thesemayalsodetailgestures,facialexpressionsandvoice.Inawidersense,thetermperformativitycanalsobeappliedtonon-corporealpresentations,e.g.inwrittennarratives:performativityII.Hereperformativityreferstotheimitationorillusionofaperformance.Inthiscase,readersreconstructtheperformancedimensionintheirminds―theperformanceisimagined.Insystematicterms,actionscanbeconveyedontwodifferentlevelsofthepresentationalprocess.Theycanbelocated,first,onthelevelofhistoire(thestorythatispresented).Thisaspectofperformativityiscalled“performativityI.iorII.i.”Herethespectator’sorreader’sattentionisdirectedtotheactionstakingplaceinthestory,actionsthatcanbeconveyedwithvaryingdegreesofimmediacy.Secondly,theactionscanbelocatedonthelevelofthenarration(thenarrator’sactofmediation).Thisiscalled“performativityI.iiorII.ii.”Inthiscase,thereader’sorspectator’sattentionisdirectedtotheactofnarrationitself,ortotheactionsofthenarrator,whichcanbeforegroundedtoagreaterorlesserdegree.Whentheperformativityoftheactofnarrationisconsideredinawiderpragmaticandculturalcontext,aspectsoftheempiricalauthor(e.g.gender)canalsobecomepertinenttothereceptionandappreciationofnarrativeasaformofculturalagency.ExplicationPerformativityandperformanceareinterdisciplinaryconceptsthathaveemergedinlinguisticsandthephilosophyoflanguage,inperformance,theaterandliterarystudies,aswellasinethnology,sociologyandculturalstudies(Loxley2007).Althoughtheterms“performative,”“performance”and“performativity”arefrequentlyreferredtoacrossabroadrangeofnarratologicalinvestigations,theyhavereceivednosystematictreatmentinthisfieldtodate.Therefore,thisarticlewillaimabovealltoprovideasystematicaccountofhowtheconceptofperformativitycurrentlypertainstonarratology.PerformativityIreferstotheperformanceofanarrative,i.e.toitsfullyembodied,liveenactmentinfrontofanaudienceinarealworldcontextoronstage.Theaudience,co-presentwiththepresentersoractors,canexperiencethisperformancevisually(asinapantomime)orbothvisuallyandacoustically(asinmosttheatrical,musicalandreal-worldperformances);theremaybephysicalcontactbetweenaudienceandpresenters,andsomeperformancesevenaffecttheaudience’solfactorysense.PerformativityIIreferstotheillusionofaperformancecreatedinnon-corporealpresentationsofanarrative(Wolf→Illusion(Aesthetic)),e.g.inwriting,cartoonsorfilm.Thesepresentationsofnarrativesevokeaperformanceinthemindofthereaderorspectator.Innarrative,performativitycanbelocatedontwolevels:thelevelofthestory,orhistoire(i);theleveloftheactofnarrationornarrator’saction(ii).PerformativityI.ireferstothelevelofhistoire(thestorythatispresented)intheperformance,i.e.inthefullyembodiedenactmentofanarrative.Thespectatoroftheperformanceperceivestheunfoldingofastoryinascenictransmission,bodilypresentedbyoneormoreactors.PerformativityII.ireferstothelevelofhistoire(thestorythatispresented)inthenon-corporealpresentationofactionsnotmediatedbyanarrator(Alber&Fludernik→MediacyandNarrativeMediation).Inthestrictestsense,thisdenotesdirectspeechonly,asindramaticwriting,dialoguequotedverbatim,etc.(McHale→SpeechRepresentation).Yetperformativitycanalsorefertothelevelofthenarrator’sagencyoractofnarration(ii).InthecaseofperformativityI.ii,thespectatorofaperformanceperceivesanactofnarrationtakingplace.Heretheperformanceconsistsinthepresentationofastorybyanarratororpresenter,e.g.inthefigureoftherhapsodistvis-à-visanaudience.Thestoryismediatedinaplurimedialmannerbyasinglenarrator/presenter.Hisorhervoice,bodyoractionsratherthanthoseofindividuallyembodiedpersonsorcharactersformthecoreoftheperformance,whichallowsfordifferentdegreesofimpersonation.PerformativityII.ii(e.g.inwrittennarratives)referstothenarrator’sself-thematizations,tohisorherexplicitcommentsonthestoryortheactofnarrationandtoaddressestothereader(Neumann&Nünning→MetanarrationandMetafiction).Thetwolevelsofperformativity(histoire[i]andactofnarration[ii])thusintroducearelationofpartialcongruitybetweenliveperformancesandevocationsoftheillusionofperformativityinpurelyverbalnarrative―acongruitythatcanalsobeinvestigatedinahistoricalperspective(Fludernik→ConversationalNarration–OralNarration).Theperformativityoftheillusionofdramaticpresentationinwrittennarrativecorrespondstoorappearstobemodeledonscenicperformances.Likewisetheperformativityoftheactofpresentationornarration,especiallyinfeignedoralityorskaznarration,correspondstoorappearstobemodeledonperformancesbyanembodiedstoryteller.Understoodasthecapacitytogenerateinthereader’smindthenotionofaperformance,performativityonbothlevels(histoireandactofpresentation)canbegradedaccordingtoascaleofgreaterorlesserperformativity.Directpresentationonthestorylevel(II.i)canbemoreorlessabsolute(e.g.mentalprocessescanbepresentedasaninteriormonologueorasfreeindirectspeech).Analogously,mediationoftheactofnarrationonthelevelofthenarration(II.ii)canbeeithermoreobviousorlessso(overtvs.covert).Whenperformativityevokesactioninthemindofthereaderorviewer,thedemandsitmakesontheaudience’simaginationvaryaccordingtothemediainwhichthatactionispresented.Arguably,theperformativityoffilmsandcartoons,thankstotheimmediacyoftheimaginedactionstowhichtheygiverise,isgreaterthanthatofpurelyverbalnarratives,exceptwhenmentalactionssuchasthoughtsarepresented(Ryan→NarrationinVariousMedia).InthecaseofbothperformativityI.iiandII.ii,theactualorimpliedactofnarrationcanitselfpresentastoryor“storyofnarration”(Erzählgeschichte,Schmid2005).Thisstorytellsofchangesinthesituation,attitudeorbehaviorofthenarrator.Somecriticsherealsoapplytheterm“mimesis”whentheyspeakofthe“mimesisofstorytelling”(MimesisdesErzählens,Nünning2001),orwhentheydistinguishbetween“processmimesis”and“productmimesis”(Hutcheon1984:36–47).Onthislevel,theactofnarrationisthematizedinaself-reflexivemanner.Performativeinthissenseisoftenusedsynonymouslywithself-consciousandreflexiveorwithmetanarrativeandmetafictional.Thetwobasiclevelsofperformativitycanalsobere-conceptualizedinspeechactterminologythatdescribesutterancesasamodeofaction.AccordingtothephilosopherAustin([1962]1975),utterancesnotonlyhaveapropositionalcontent―theydonotonlysaysomething―buttheydosomethingaswell,providedthattheyfulfillspecificconventions.Searle([1969]1995)furtherformalizesthefelicityconditionsofutteranceswhileforegroundingthesuccessfulcommunicationofthespeaker’sintentionagainstacomplexandcontingentbackground.Inthecontextofnarratology,theperformativityofspeechactsisrelevantontwolevels.First,speechactsdirectlyprecipitateactiononthestory-level(promises,threats,wooing,etc),whetherincourt-roomsordramaticdialogue(Pfister[1977]1993:118–19).Second,thenarratordeploysspeechacts(toidentifyandreport,generalizeandpromise,etc.)onthelevelofnarration(Chatman1978:161–66).Onthislevel,wholenarrativescanalsobetreatedasmetaphorical“utterances”or“complexspeechacts”(e.g.Pratt1977;Todorov[1978]1990);inthisperspective,anovel,too,isaspeechact.Analysesoftheactofnarrationinthissensetendtoemphasizethenarrative’sperformativityinalargerpragmaticandculturalcontext,possiblytakingaccountoftheempiricalauthororofparatextualmatterandstressingthenarrativeactasamodeofculturalagencythatengageswithculturalconventionsandshapescollectiveidentities.Sincespeechacttheoryremainslanguage-based,itappliesonlytoverbalnarratives.Yetothermedia,e.g.paintingorfilm,relyonvisualoronvisualandacousticperformativity,whichmayinvolvepointerornarratorfigures.Thespecificdemandperformativitymakesonthespectator’simaginationthusvariesaccordingtothemedium.Thoughusedprimarilytodenotetheco-presenceandliveinteractionbetweenthepresenter(s)ofanarrativeandtheaudience,thenotionofperformanceissometimesdeployedinaloosersense.Withaviewtomediainwhichthenarrativeisencounteredasalreadygivenandcomplete,asinanovel,filmorpainting,thetermperformanceisalsousedtodescribetheprocessofrealizationormentalperformanceoftherecipient.Inthiscase,thetermbecomessynonymouswiththeindividualreadingorviewingprocess.ConceptsandtheirStudyPerformativityI:CorporealPresentationofActionWhenperformativityisrealizedinaperformance―performativityI―actionsarepresentedinalltheirplurimedialdimensions(McAuley2007).Nevertheless,theintensitywithwhichtheyareexperiencedmayvary.Thespatialproximitybetweenperformanceandaudienceaswellasthepossiblemanipulationoflightandsoundbearonthisexperience.Theimpactofstylesofactingorritualizedbehaviorwithingivenconventionsofpresentingandviewingmayalsoenhanceorlessentheimpactofperformativityinaperformance.Disciplinesthatstudytheperformativityofnarrativesinculturalortheatricalperformancesrarelydrawonnarratology,althoughtheydofocusontheperformativityofnarrativesinawider,communicationalandcontext-sensitiveframework.Ethnographicandanthropologicalwork(Turner1982)investigatesthewayinwhichasocietyperformativelyconstructs,preservesorchangesitstraditions,identityandculturalmemory.Theaterandperformancestudies(Auslandered.2003)complementthisresearchastheyanalyzetheprocessualnatureandliminalityoftheseperformativeconstructions,i.e.theircapacitytodramatizemomentsoftransitionandchange.Thesestudiesemphasizethesignificanceofmaterialembodimentandre-contextualization,payingattentiontotheimpactofforegroundedtheatricality,audienceinteractionandthetransitorinessoftheperformance(Fischer-Lichte2004).However,studiesoforalnarrativespresentedbyacorporealtellertendtofocusonperformativityI.ii,i.e.onthelevelofthenarrator’sagencyratherthanonthestorylevel,astheyinvestigatehownarrativesproduce―inaperformativeandinteractivemanner―individualandgroupidentityonapragmaticandculturalplane.SinceLabov(1972),researchonoralnarrativeandface-to-facenarrationinlinguisticdiscourseanalysisandsociolinguisticshasbeenconcernedwithspecificcharacteristicsoftheoralformat.Morerecentinvestigationshavebecomeincreasinglysensitivetoculturalcontexts,analyzinghownarrativeperformancesconstituteorindexindividual,socialandculturalidentities(Georgakopoulou1997:123–97),aswellasroles,relationships,stancesandactivities(Bamberg→IdentityandNarration).Moreover,someanalysesoftheprovisionalcharacterofnarratives-in-performanceindicatethattheactofnarration,understoodasasocial,communicationalevent,acquirescollaborativeaspects.Fromanethnologicalperspective,Bauman(1986)looksatnarratorsinclosely-knitcommunalsettingsandshowshowthenarratedeventsareshapedinthenarrativeevent.AndthesociolinguistsOchs&Capps(2001)analyzehowperformancesofprovisionalnarrativesnegotiatetheteller’sdesireforcoherenceandidentitywhileacknowledgingcontradictoryhumanexperiencesinopencollaborativeformsofnarration.ThisfocusonoralnarrativesasperformativemodesofembodiedsocialcommunicationandinteractionhassparkedinterdisciplinaryworkwhichHerman(1999:219)describesas“socionarratological.”Performancescanbescriptedaswellasmediatized.Someaspectsoftheperformativityactualizedinaperformancemaybescriptedinaplay-orfilmscriptorinvisualsketchesorevenincommunity-basedguidelinesfortheperformanceofritualacts.Inplay-orfilmscripts,numerousaspectsoftheperformanceareencodedthroughdeicticreferencestothehicetnuncofthedramaticsituationinthemaintext,butalsothroughstagedirectionsdetailingspaces,bodilymovements,lightandsounds(Elam1980;DeMarinis[1978]1993).DrawingontheworkofElam,Fludernikhasrecentlyexploredtheimplicationsoflocatingdiscourseeitherattheleveloftheplaytextorattheleveloftheperformance.Shealsosuggeststhatwerevisethegeneralnarrativecommunicationmodelforallwrittennarrativessothatitincludesperformanceasanadditionaloptionallevel(Fludernik2008:365).Inlyricalpoetry,performativitycanbetracedinthevisuallayout(lengthoflines,stanzas)thatservestostructuretheoralperformanceofthepoemaswellasintheforegroundedacousticpotentialor“musicality”ofthelanguage(Wolf2003:78;Hühn&Sommer→NarrationinPoetryandDrama).However,performancesarenotonlypreparedinvariousways.Theycanalsoberecordedormediatized.Thisagaininflectsthedegreeoftheirperformativityinthenewmediumandinvolvesmodificationsofmeaning(Auslander[1999]2005).PerformativityII:Non-corporealPresentationofActionPerformativityII.i:HistoireorStoryPerformativityasperformativityIIisalsomanifestinnon-corporealrepresentationsofaction.Thetermperformativeinthewidesenseofdramaticorunmediatedroughlycoincideswiththeterm“mimetic”asopposedto“diegetic.”InbookIIIofPlato’sTheRepublic,Socratesspeaksofpurediegesiswhenthepoetrepresentstheactioninhisownvoiceonly.Inthemixedmodeoftheepic,thepoetcombineshisauthorialdescriptionsandcommentswithmimeticelements,i.e.directspeechrepresentingthecharacters’speech.Andwhenthepoetcompletelyeffaceshisownvoiceandrepresentstheactionintheimitatedvoicesofthecharactersonly,thisiscalledpuremimesis,tobefoundindrama(Plato1997:394c).PlatothusconfineshisnotionofmimesistothelevelofhistoireasspecifiedbyGenetteandsinglesoutdramaasthemimetic(orperformative)genreparexcellence.However,Plato(395c–398b)attacksanddevaluesthemimeticmodeforitscorruptingeffectsonastrictlyorderedsociety.Aristotle(1995:1448a,20),too,distinguishesbetweenpurenarrative,mixednarrativeanddialogue,andpuredialogue.IncontrasttoPlato,however,Aristotle(1448b,5–20)endorsesthemimeticmodespecifiedbyPlatoonaccountofitsstrongimitativeforce,which,heargues,givespleasureandispedagogicallyvaluable.Onthisaccount,helaudsHomer’sepicwritingforitsgeneroususeofthemimeticmode(1460a,5–10).Themajorclassicalauthoritiesthusdescribethedramaticgenreasperformativebecauseitpresentsthestoryinanunmediatedordirectmanner.Thisdescriptionhasbeenrepeatedthroughoutcriticalappreciationsofthegenre,leadingPfister([1977]1993:4)todrawattentiontothe“absolutenature”orunmediatedpresentationasanecessarycriterioninhisclassicmodelofdramaticcommunication.YetPfisteradmitsthatunmediatedor“absolute”presentationisanidealization,andinfactresearchonformsofmediationtobefoundindramahasgreatlyexpanded(seebelow).Performativityinthesenseofdirectormimeticperformativitycanalsobecomeafeatureofnarrativesthatareregardedasmediatedsuchasshortstoriesornovels.Inthe18thcentury,readersjuxtaposedthe“dramaticillusion”(performativityII.i)attributedtoRichardson’snovelsandthe“epic”impact(performativityII.ii)ascribedtotheworkofFieldingwhoforegroundsthenarrator.In19th-centurydefinitions,narrativerealismhadtobe“dramatic,”“impersonal,”or“objective.”Andintheearly20thcentury,themimeticmodeof“showing”asopposedtothediegeticmodeof“telling”turnsintoawell-nighobligatoryanddefiningcharacteristicofmodernistwritingandpoetics.HenryJames([1909]1986:45–51)givesexplicitprioritytomodesofimmediacysuchasrenderingthecharactersintheirownvoicesorportrayingtheeventsthroughtheireyesandmindsinordertoachieveempathy(Keen→NarrativeEmpathy)anda“scenic”impressionoflife.Ataboutthesametime,Lubbock([1921]1957:200)attemptedanextensiveanalysisofthemethodsofpresentationinvolvedinthecreationofthisillusionofanimmediateencounterwith“life,”which“givesvalidity,givesdirectforcetoastory.”Historicizingthemodernistera’snormativeaesthetics,Lodge(1996)suggeststhatitsadherencetoamimeticmannerofrepresentationhasgivenway,inpostmodernistfiction,toapreferenceforthemediated,diegeticmode.Withoutusingtheterm,BoothandGenettebothtakeacloserlookattheconceptofperformativityunderlyingthesenormativeassumptions.Thoughopposingshowingandtelling,Boothpointsoutthatauthorialagencyisnotconveyedmerelyinaddressestothereaderorincommentsanddirectjudgments,butalsothroughthedirectspeechofreliablecharacters,theorderingofthenarrativediscourseorthroughanyshiftingofthepointofview.“Everythinghe[theauthor]showswillservetotell”([1961]1983:29).Yet,asGenettepointsout,thisdoesnotimpairtheperformativityof“showing.”WhiledrawingonBooth,Genette([1972]1980)neverthelessdistinguishestherepresentationofactionandofspeech.Hearguesthatwithinthediegeticmode,mimeticordirectspeechdoesnotrepresentspeechatall,butratherrepeatsspeechor,inliterarynarrative,directlyconstitutesit:“narrativewilleffaceitselfbeforethedirectquotationswhereallrepresentationalfunctionhasbeenabolished,justaswhenajudicialoratorinterruptshisdiscoursetoallowthetribunalitselftoexamineanexhibit”([1972]1980:5).Genettetreatsthephenomenonofperformativityundertheheadingof“mood”and“distance”(161–64),wherehereferstothe“illusionofmimesis”(164)thusconveyed.Othertheoristspursuethequestionastowhetherperformativitycanbegradedonthestorylevel.Inhisearlywriting,Chatman(1978)distinguishesbetween“non-narratedstories”andstoriesdeployingacovertoranovertnarrator,arguingfortheexistenceofconventionstotheeffectthatthenarratorshouldbeconsideredasabsent.Heclaimsthatconventionsofnon-narrationholdfortheepistolarynovel,forgradablepossibilitiesofrepresentingacharacter’sspeechandthought,fortheneutralreportingofaction,orfordescriptionsthatseemtoemergethroughacharacter’sinternalfocalization(Niederhoff→Focalization;1978:146–96;foralinguisticconstructionofthisargument,seeBanfield1982).StandardexamplesofnarrativeswithanabsentnarratorareHemingway’s“TheKillers”orsomeofDorothyParker’sstoriescontainingonlydialogueandactionnotcommentedupon.Chatmanlaterdropstheconceptofthenon-narratednarrative,arguingthateverynarrativeisbydefinitionnarratedorpresentedbyeitheranagentoraninstrumentwhichneednotbehuman(1990:115–16).WhereasChatman’sargumentsuggeststhatperformativity,especiallyintherepresentationofspeech,canbegradedinafairlystraightforwardway,Sternberg,focusingonspeech,arguesthatthecommunicativefunctionsofreporteddiscourse,suchase.g.theimpressionofgreaterorlesserimmediacyorliveness,cannotbecorrelatedstraightforwardlywithspecificlinguisticfeaturessuchasdirect,freeindirect,orindirectspeech.Afterall,theunmediatedrepresentationofuntaggeddirectdialogueinwrittennarrativedoesnotnecessarilyconveyagreaterdegreeofimmediacythanreporteddialoguewithanarratorspecifying,forinstance,thefacialexpressionsandgesturesaccompanyingtheutterancesorthetoneofthevoices.Sternbergthusabandonsgradedcorrelationsoflinguisticformandperformativeeffectinfavorofanaccountofthefullrangeofthecommunication.Itstranspositionintowrittenlanguagealwaysremainsselectiveandimplieschoices;quotingalwaysinvolvesmediation(1982:145).Thisinsightcanbeextendedfromtherepresentationofspeechtothatofvisualdetail(Chatman1978:28–31).Whereaswrittendescriptionsofcharacters(“awoman”)andsettings(“aroom”)havetobe“builtfromnothing,”cinematicdescriptionsofcharactersorsettingsstartwithaplethoraofdetailwhichthecameramayreduceinmanyways.Asaconsequence,thereisalwaysmorethanoneapproachtocreatingtheillusionofimmediacy,andtheconventionsdeterminingwhatcountsasasuccessfulachievementofthisillusionmayvary(Wolf1993).Theoppositionofshowingandtellingisparticularlyrelevanttothediscussionoffilm(Kuhn&Schmidt→NarrationinFilm),wherelanguageandcameramayoperateindependentlyfromeachother(Chatman1990:124–60).PerformativityII.ii:NarratorandActofNarrationAsfarasdiscourseleveloractofnarrationareconcerned,theconceptofperformativityII.iireferstothenarrator’sagencyortheactofpresentationandtothepragmaticcontextofthisact.Thecapacityatissuethusinheresinallmodesoftheactorprocessofpresentingthestory.WritingaboutBaudelaireandSternerespectively,MacLean(1988)andPfister(2001)emphasizethattheforegroundingoftheactofnarrationcanfeignaperformanceinwhichnarratorandaudienceareconceivedasfullyembodied,co-presentandinteractive.Moreover,Schmid(2005:268–70)arguesthattheactofnarrationimpliesboththestorynarrated(dieerzählteGeschichte)andthestoryofnarration(Erzählgeschichte).This“storyofnarration”usuallyremainsafragment,butinsomecasesitoffersagreatmanydetailsandmayeventakeprecedenceoverthestoryproper,asinTristramShandy.Theperformativitythatreferstotheactofpresentingincludesformsofself-reflexivitysuchasmetanarrationandmetafictionalitythateffectivelydramatizeorforegroundtheactofnarration.AsNünningandFludernikpointout,theaccumulationofalargenumberofmetanarrativecommentsresultsina“deliberatemeta-narrativeactofcelebrationoftheactofnarration”(Fludernik1996:275)ora“mimesisofnarration”(MimesisdesErzählens,Nünning2001).Thenotionoftheabsolutenatureofdrama,asindicatedabove,amountstoanidealization,sincetheactofpresentingcanbetracedindramaticwriting,too.TheplaywithintheplayandothermetatheatricaldevicesinHamlet,ortheheightenedintertextualityofStoppard’sTravestiesdirectourinteresttothenarrativeact.Pfisterdiscusseschorus,prologueandepilogueasnarratorialdevicesalongwithBrecht’suseofsongandmontage,hisdeploymentofapresenterfigureaswellashisanti-illusionistapproachtothetheaterapparatus([1977]1993:69–84).Recentstudiesfocusononstagenarratorsinmemoryplaysoronnarrativeinsetsincludingthetellingofanecdotes,jokesanddreams,buttheyalsothematizethenarratorasanabstractstructuralagency.Jahn(2001)evenassimilatestheconceptofovertorcovertnarratorialagencyinplaystothenarratorialagencyweassociatewiththenovel,thussketchingatransgenericperspectivefordramaandnovelthatisfurtherelaboratedbyNünning&Sommer(2008)andFludernik(2008).Allofthisworkstronglysuggeststhattheperformativityofdramaisamuchmore“mixed”affairthanhaspreviouslybeenthought.Conversely,formsofpoetrythatdisplaygreatimmediacyofconsciousnessorachievescenicpresentationsindifferentvoicesdonotsquarewiththenotionofpoetryaspurediegesis(Wolf2003;Pfister2005).Performativityisatstakealsowhennarrativediscourseasawholeistreatedasaspeechact,orwhentheattentionshiftstothepragmaticrelationswithinwhichthenarrativeitselfturnsintoanact.Pratt(1977:2,86)treatsliteratureasa“speechcontext”inwhichtheindividualworkorspeechactisdecipheredaccordingto“unspoken,culturally-sharedknowledgeoftherulesandconventions.”Incidentally,heralignmentofnaturalandliterarylanguageisdiametricallyopposedtoAustin’sandSearle’sposition,notoriousfordescribingwhatSearlecalls“fictionaldiscourse”as“parasitic”onordinarylanguage(Austin[1962]1975:22),orasaseriesofpretended,make-believespeechacts(Searle[1969]1995).Pratt(1977:152–224)andlaterTodorov([1978]1990)focusontheperformativityofgenreconventionsinparticular.Andinahistoricalperspective,Petrey(1988)tracesthespecificconventionsofthe“realistspeechact”in19th-centuryFrenchnovels,whileEsterhammer(2000)investigatestheshapeofthe“Romanticperformative”inBritainandGermany.TakingPratt’sconsiderationsintoadifferenttheoreticalarena,Rudrum(2008)positsthattheconceptofnarrativityitselfshouldbede-essentializedandrethoughtasconvention-andcommunity-basedperformativity(Abbott→Narrativity).Iser([1972]1974)andKearns(1999)theorizethereader’sresponseingeneraltermswhentheyarguethatliterarynarratives,byperformingillocutionaryactsandimplicatures,triggerinterpretivechoicesintheactofreading.Moreover,Iser([1991]1993:281–96)alsodiscussesthenarrativeactor“fictionalizingacts”inananthropologicalperspective.HepointsoutthattheAristoteliannotionofmimesisalreadyimpliesateleologicalthrustexceedingmereimitation,whichisincreasinglycomplementedinthecourseofhistorybyaperformativedimensionintheprocessofreception.Heretheconceptofperformativityseemstocombinetheformalizedfeaturesofperformativityinspeechacttheorywiththecontingentaspectsof(mental)performancesinthereader’srelationtothetext(Prince→Reader).Finally,anumberofcriticshaveexploredhowgenderbearsontheperformativityofthenarrativeactanditspragmaticrelations.Lanser(1981)drawsonspeechactconceptsofperformativitytoreappraisethegenderedrelationbetweenauthor,narratorandpointofview.Shelaterarguesforacontextualistnarratologythataimstoinvestigatehow“texts,likebodies,performsex,genderandsexuality”([1999]2004:127).Page(2006:94–142)complementsthisapproachbyinsistingthattheperformativityofgenderinnarrativespossessesanideologicaldimensionthatcannotbeappreciatedwithoutattendingtothespecificsocialfunctionsofthesenarratives.TopicsforFurtherInvestigationAsthisbriefsurveyhasshown,thenotionofperformativitycutsacrossawidespectrumoffruitfulresearchinnarratologythatcallsformoresystematicinvestigation.Ratherthanaimingtoreplacethecategoriesthathaveservedtolabelsomeofthisresearchsofar(“mimesis,”“aestheticillusion,”“metanarrativity,”etc.),suchinvestigationscouldfurtherexploretherelationsbetweenthem.Forinstance,thissurveysuggeststhattheconceptofperformativitycouldserveasanidealsiteforstudyingtheinterrelationbetweenthedegreeofnarrativeperformativityinvisualorverbalformsofpresentationandthemoreorlessdeterminatevisualandkinestheticmentalperformancetakingplaceinthemindofthereaderorspectator.Howdodifferentmediaorspecificculturalenvironmentsaffectthisinterrelation?Furthermore,thesurveyindicatesthattheconceptofperformativityandthetwolevelsofnarrativetowhichitrefersprovideadistinctinroadintoresearchonwrittennarratives.Inthisperspective,investigationintothetextualillusionofscenicpresentationandthetextualillusionoforalitycanbepursuedasaccountsofcomplementarytypesoftextualperformativity.Atthesametime,thecapacityofspeechactstoshapegenderedaswellassocialorculturalidentities(Butler1997)seemstomeritcloseranalysisinwrittennarratives,too.Yettheconceptofperformativityalsointroducesatheoreticalquery.Innarratology,thenotionofperformativityisindebtedbothtotheconceptofthespeechactandtotheconceptofperformance.Speechactanalysis,whenrestrictedtoverbalnarratives,demandsacertaindegreeofidealizedformalization,whiletheanalysisofperformancedealswithhighlycontingentandembodiedinteractionsasprocesses.Therelationbetweenthesetwopointsofreferenceandtheirintegrationintonarratologicalresearchneedstobedevelopedfurther.Consideringthefullyembodiedandspecificallysituatedperformanceofutterances,wemustaskwhatpreciselytheabstractionsofspeechacttheoryinvolveandhowtheyshapenarratologicalanalysisdrawingonspeechacttheory.Inanycase,thestudyofperformativityinnarratologysupplementstheanalysisofperformativityinnarrativewiththeanalysisoftheperformativityofnarratives.Onthisaccount,thenarratologicalstudyofperformativityoffersthepotentialofcomplementingstructuralanalysisofnarrativewithanalysisofitscommunicationsituationthatisculturallyandhistoricallyspecific.BibliographyWorksCitedAristotle(1995).“Poetics.”TheCompleteWorksofAristotle:TheRevisedOxfordTranslation.Vol.2.Ed.J.Barnes.Princeton:PrincetonUP.Auslander,Philip([1999]2005).Liveness:PerformanceinaMediatizedCulture.NewYork:Routledge.Auslander,Philip,ed.(2003).Performance:CriticalConceptsinLiteraryandCulturalStudies.4vols.London:Routledge.Austin,JohnL.([1962]1975).HowtoDoThingswithWords.Cambridge:HarvardUP.Banfield,Ann(1982).UnspeakableSentences:NarrationandRepresentationintheLanguageofFiction.Boston:Routledge&KeganPaul.Bauman,Richard(1986).Story,PerformanceandEvent:ContextualStudiesofOralNarratives.Cambridge:CambridgeUP.Booth,WayneC.([1961]1983).TheRhetoricofFiction.Chicago:UofChicagoP.Butler,Judith(1997).ExcitableSpeech:APoliticsofthePerformative.NewYork:Routledge.Chatman,Seymour(1978).StoryandDiscourse:NarrativeStructureinFictionandFilm.Ithaca:CornellUP.Chatman,Seymour(1990).ComingtoTerms:TheRhetoricofNarrativeinFictionandFilm.Ithaca:CornellUP.DeMarinis,Marco([1978]1993).TheSemioticsofPerformance.Bloomington:IndianaUP.Elam,Keir([1980]1987).TheSemioticsofTheatreandDrama.London:Methuen.Esterhammer,Angela(2000).TheRomanticPerformative:LanguageandActioninBritishandGermanRomanticism.Stanford:StanfordUP.Fischer-Lichte,Erika(2004).ÄsthetikdesPerformativen.Frankfurta.M.:Suhrkamp.Fludernik,Monika(1996).Towardsa‘Natural’Narratology.London:Routledge.Fludernik,Monika(2008).“NarrativeandDrama.”J.Pier&J.Á.GarcíaLanda(eds.).TheorizingNarrativity.Berlin:deGruyter,355–83.Genette,Gérard([1972]1980).NarrativeDiscourse:AnEssayinMethod.Ithaca:CornellUP.Georgakopoulou,Alexandra(1997).NarrativePerformances:AStudyofModernGreekStorytelling.Amsterdam:Benjamins.Herman,David(1999).“TowardaSocionarratology:NewWaysofAnalyzingNatural-LanguageNarratives.”D.Herman(ed.).Narratologies:NewPerspectives.Columbus:OhioStateUP,218–46.Hutcheon,Linda(1984).NarcissisticNarrative:TheMetafictionalParadox.NewYork:Methuen.Iser,Wolfgang([1972]1974).TheImpliedReader:PatternsofCommunicationinProseFictionfromBunyantoBeckett.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUP.Iser,Wolfgang([1991]1993).TheFictiveandtheImaginary:ChartingLiteraryAnthropology.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUP.Jahn,Manfred(2001).“NarrativeVoiceandAgencyinDrama:AspectsofaNarratologyofDrama.”NewLiteraryHistory32,659–79.James,Henry([1909]1986).“PrefacetotheNewYorkEdition.”H.James.TheAmbassadors.London:Penguin.Kearns,Michael(1999).RhetoricalNarratology.Lincoln:UofNebraskaP.Labov,William(1972).LanguageintheInnerCity:StudiesintheBlackEnglishVernacular.Philadelphia:UofPennsylvaniaP.Lanser,SusanSniader(1981).TheNarrativeAct:PointofViewinProseFiction.Princeton:PrincetonUP.Lanser,SusanSniader([1999]2004).“SexingNarratology:TowardaGenderedPoeticsofNarrativeVoice.”M.Bal(ed.).NarrativeTheory:CriticalConceptsinLiteraryandCulturalStudies.London:Routledge,vol.3,123–39.Lodge,David(1996).“MimesisandDiegesisinModernFiction.”M.J.Hoffman&P.D.Murphy(eds.).EssentialsoftheTheoryofFiction.Durham:DukeUP,348–71.Loxley,James(2007).Performativity.London:Routledge.Lubbock,Percy([1921]1957).TheCraftofFiction.London:Viking.MacLean,Marie(1988).NarrativeasPerformance:TheBaudelaireanExperiment.London:Routledge.McAuley,Gay(2007).“StateoftheArt:PerformanceStudies.”SemiotiX10.Nünning,Ansgar(2001).“MimesisdesErzählens:ProlegomenazueinerWirkungsästhetik,TypologieundFunktionsgeschichtedesAktsdesErzählensundderMetanarration.”J.Helbig(ed.).ErzählenundErzähltheorieim20.Jahrhundert:FestschriftfürWilhelmFüger.Heidelberg:Winter,13–47.Nünning,Ansgar&RoySommer(2008).“NarrativeandDrama.”J.Pier&J.Á.GarcíaLanda(eds.).TheorizingNarrativity.Berlin:deGruyter,331–54.Ochs,Elinor&LisaCapps(2001).LivingNarrative:CreatingLivesinEverydayStorytelling.Cambridge:HarvardUP.Page,RuthE.(2006).LiteraryandLinguisticApproachestoFeministNarratology.Basingstoke:Palgrave.Petrey,Sandy(1988).RealismandRevolution:Balzac,Stendhal,Zola,andthePerformancesofHistory.Ithaca:CornellUP.Pfister,Manfred([1977]1993).TheTheoryandAnalysisofDrama.Cambridge:CambridgeUP.Pfister,Manfred(2001).LaurenceSterne.Horndon:NorthcoteHouse.Pfister,Manfred(2005)“‘Asanunperfectactoronthestage’:NotesTowardsaDefinitionofPerformanceandPerformativityinShakespeare’sSonnets.”E.Müller-Zettelmann&M.Rubik(eds.).TheoryIntoPoetry:NewApproachestotheLyric.Amsterdam:Rodopi,207–28.Plato(1997).“Republic.”CompleteWorks.Ed.J.M.Cooper.Indianapolis:Hackett.Pratt,MaryLouise(1977).TowardaSpeechActTheoryofLiteraryDiscourse.Bloomington:IndianaUP.Rudrum,David(2008).“NarrativityandPerformativity.FromCervantestoStarTrek.”J.Pier&J.Á.GarcíaLanda(eds.).TheorizingNarrativity.Berlin:deGruyter,253–76.Schmid,Wolf(2005).ElementederNarratologie.Berlin:deGruyter.Searle,JohnR.([1969]1995).SpeechActs:AnEssayinthePhilosophyofLanguage.Cambridge:CambridgeUP.Sternberg,Meir(1982).“ProteusinQuotation-Land:MimesisandtheFormsofReportedDiscourse.”PoeticsToday3,107–56.Todorov,Tzvetan([1978]1990).GenresinDiscourse.Cambridge:CambridgeUP.Turner,Victor(1982).FromRitualtoTheater:TheHumanSeriousnessofPlay.NewYork:PAJ.Wolf,Werner(1993).ÄsthetischeIllusionenundIllusionsdurchbrechunginderErzählkunst.Tübingen:Niemeyer.Wolf,Werner(2003).“TheLyric―AnElusiveGenre:ProblemsofDefinitionandaProposalforReconceptualization.”ArbeitenausAnglistikundAmerikanistik28,59–91.FurtherReadingButler,Judith(1990).“PerformativeActsandGenderConstitution:AnEssayinPhenomenologyandFeministTheory.”S.-E.Case(ed.).PerformingFeminisms:FeministCriticalTheoryandTheater.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUP,270–83.Felman,Shoshana([1980]2003).TheScandaloftheSpeakingBody:DonJuanwithJ.L.Austin,or,SeductioninTwoLanguages.Stanford:StanfordUP.Fishelov,David(1989).MetaphorsofGenre:TheRoleofAnalogiesinGenreTheory.UniversityPark:PennsylvaniaStateUP.Gaudreault,André([1990]2004).“ShowingandTelling:ImageandWordinEarlyCinema.”M.Bal(ed.).NarrativeTheory:CriticalConceptsinLiteraryandCulturalStudies.London:Routledge,vol.4,359–67.Haesenbrouck,Karelvan,ed.(2004).“Performance.”Online-JournalImage&NarrativeNo.9.Nünning,Ansgar(2004).“OnMetanarrative:TowardsaDefinition,aTypologyandanOutlineoftheFunctionsofMetanarrativeCommentary.”J.Pier(ed.).TheDynamicsofNarrativeForm.Berlin:deGruyter,11–57.Wirth,Uwe,ed.(2002).Performanz:ZwischenSprachphilosophieundKulturwissenschaften.Frankfurta.M.:Suhrkamp. Addnewcomment Yourname Subject Comment* feedme Topreventautomatedspamsubmissionsleavethisfieldempty. CAPTCHAThisquestionisfortestingwhetheryouareahumanvisitorandtopreventautomatedspamsubmissions. Whatcodeisintheimage?* Enterthecharactersshownintheimage. Contents Definition Explication ConceptsandtheirStudy PerformativityI:CorporealPresentationofAction PerformativityII:Non-corporealPresentationofAction PerformativityII.i:HistoireorStory PerformativityII.ii:NarratorandActofNarration TopicsforFurtherInvestigation Bibliography WorksCited FurtherReading AuthorInfo UteBerns UteBernsisprofessorofEnglishLiteratureattheUniversityofHamburg.Shehaspublishedmonographsondramaandtheatreofthe19thand20thcentury(1997,2012)andsheco-... readmore ArticleRevisions Performativity 22.April2014 VoyantWordCloud Howtocontribute Thelivinghandbookofnarratologyinvitesyoutobecomeactivelyinvolvedinfurtherdevelopingandenhancingourhandbook–youcandosobydiscussingexistingentriesandmakingsuggestionsastohowtheymightbeenhanced,orbypointingoutemergingfieldsofnarratologicalinterestthatmightwarrantanewentryinourhandbook. readmore Howtocite Tocreateanautomaticcitationreferencefortheentirearticle,copyandpastethereferencefromthetextbox.Tocreateanautomaticcitationreferenceforaparagraph,selecttherelevantpassageinthearticlewithyourmouse,thencopyandpastethereferencefromthistextbox:Berns,Ute:"Performativity".In:Hühn,Peteretal.(eds.):thelivinghandbookofnarratology.Hamburg:HamburgUniversity.URL=http://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/article/performativity[viewdate:12Feb2019]