Към
въпроса за наративните преходи в българската проза
Обект на изследване в статията е проблемът за
стилистичния потенциал на наративните преходи в българската проза. Уводната
част има теоретичен характер. В нея са дефинирани основните оперативни понятия ‘наративен план’ и ‘наративна
сфера’; накратко са характеризирани специфичните за
българския език разказвателни системи, употребявани в разказ за минали събития.
Обърнато е специално внимание върху яркия експресивен ефект при употребата на
т. нар. “план на нагледността” и особено при редуването му с “плана на
спомена”. Потърсени са причините за избора на подобна повествователна
стратегия.
Публикувано в: Научни трудове на
Съюза на учените - Пловдив. Серия Б. Естествени и хуманитарни науки, том IV,
Пловдив, 2004, стр. 187-195.
Taking these views into consideration, the
present article aims at analyzing the stylistic potential of the narrative
transitions in Bulgarian fiction. Certainly the choice of this topic is not
accidental, in view of the fact that the problem of “narrative systems in
Bulgarian language”/Ivanchev 1988:121/ still remains “insufficiently explored”/Kutzarov
1994:96/. Yet, on the other hand, this choice challenges any young and “tempted”
scholar by inevitably involving him/her in the context of an old, intense
discussion[1],
where in Jakobson’s words, ‘‘divergent opinions are more prolific than the
general agreement” /Jakobson 1975: 193/, and ‘‘staying neutral’‘ is practically
unthinkable.
II. For the purposes of our argument, we
have to elaborate on the meaning of the concept narrative variation. According to us, this is the transition from one narrative plane to another in the structure of
the prose text. As an example we
might quote Yovkov’s short story “Koshuta”, where the narrative is situated
mainly in the plane of the aorist (also called “plane of reminiscence” by R.
Mutafchiev /Mutafchiev 1964a/). However, at times, the plane of the
aorist is replaced by the author with the plane of praesens historicum (also
called “plane of visualization” by Mutafchiev). Cf. Дойна
излезе на двора, погледна месеца, послуша кориите, после мина в градината и
спря на онова място, гдето се срещаха със Стефана (plane of reminiscence). Не се
чуват стъпки, не иде никой (plane of
visualization). Тогава тя излезе
навън (plane of reminiscence). Целият Боцур се белее, като че е постлан с
бели платна (plane of visualization).
As we can see from the extract above, the alternation of the narrative planes occurs
in three places in the text; consequently, we are fully justified to speak
about the realization of three narrative transitions. In this line of thoughts,
it is only natural that the following question would arise: what possibilities
does the Bulgarian language have in the implementation of narrative
alternations, in other words, which narrative planes allow this type of dynamic
transition? Clearly, the answer to this question would, most of all,
necessitate a definition of the term narrative
plane and then an enumeration of the Bulgarian narrative planes (as one would expect, as far as this problem
is concerned, there is a wide spectrum of linguistic decisions).
III. Our starting point is the notion that a narrative plane is a well-established linguistic
system of tenses, which are always used together and are organized along the
logical line of the narrative. Some of these tenses are the building
elements of the central storyline of the narrative, and others express such
temporal relationships as simultaneity with a given moment from the development
of the event (there is a description of the surroundings or characterization of
the personage). Still others focus on the verbalization of anterior and
posterior activities.
At that, as R. Mutafchiev points out
/Mutafchiev 1968/, analogical systems (narrative planes, respectively), which
express relationships of sequence, simultaneity, anteriority and posteriority
can also be used to narrate present
(happening in front of the person narrating, at the moment of speaking) or future events. Cf.: “...an event,
placed in a narrative in the sphere of the past, present or future, is
characterized with various linguistic structures in respect of the verbal
forms. As a result, the temporal relations are the same, only their linguistic
realizations in the narrative (the narrative planes – my note K. Ch.) are
different” /Mutafchiev 1968:589/.
Though we will not question R. Mutafchiev’s
observations and conclusions, we think it is necessary to elaborate a bit
further on his statements. First, we will focus on the terminology he uses.
According to us, it is appropriate to introduce the concept of temporal sphere (instead of S.
Ivanchev’s term temporal plane
/Ivanchev 1988: 122/, which coincides with another term we have been using so
far, narrative plane), standing for
the respective sector of time in which the given plane is situated. As far as
the three temporal spheres, corresponding to the three tense aspects, are
concerned – present, past and future – we suggest that they be called sphere of the praesens, sphere of the preterit and sphere of the futurum.
At this stage, due to the limited scope of
the survey, we will not elaborate on the narrative systems that are to be found
in the sphere of the praesens and the futurum. We consider Mutafchiev’s
observations in this direction thorough and well-grounded /see Mutafchiev
1968/. We find much more interesting the sphere of the preterit, not so much
for the fact that all “its subdivisions, which actually took place” make it the
most natural “territory” for the narrative, but mainly because of the richness
of narrative planes, which can be found in that sphere. (According to Ivanchev
‘‘in the preterit plane of the Bulgarian language, we differentiate between a
whole sequence of narrative categories (planes – my note, K.Ch.) and this
places the Bulgarian language in the front rank of languages /Ivanchev
1988:123/.) Against the background of a narrative synonymy of this kind, it
would be extremely important to figure out the potential of the various
transitions, occurring between the separate narrative (preterit) synonyms in
the course of the narration. Before that, however, we are obliged to make an
essential addition.
IV. According to us, among the narrative
systems in the sphere of the preterit, accepted unconditionally by almost all
Bulgarian linguists[2],
there is one more noteworthy narrative plane, which has been neglected for a
long time in Bulgarian linguistic tradition /see Ivanchev 1988; Kutzarov 1994/
and which we, using Ivan Kutzarov’s idea, will call plane of the inference /PI/.
This plane narrates events from the sphere of the past, which are being
inferred by the speaker/narrator by means of a system of deductive forms /for
more details see Kutzarov 1994 and also, Chakarova 1990/. The main narrative
tense here is the so-called conclusive
aorist, relations of simultaneity are expressed by means of the conclusive
imperfect, whereas those of anteriority and posteriority - respectively be
means of the conclusive plusquamperfect and futurm preteriti. As one can see,
the plane of inference, as far as temporal relations are concerned, is a
complete analogue of the plane of reminiscence[3],
but in the context of the narrative its functions are totally different. It renders
the event indirectly, in contrast to the plane of reminiscence, which
actualizes it from the standpoint of the eyewitness, though in a conventional
sense. Consider the following examples from the Bulgarian prose: Аз съм сигурен, че той е носил
/cf. носи/
със себе си шофьорска книжка и паспорт на
името на Недьо Недев и за това не се е боял /cf. не се
боеше/ от подменения номер на
колата си /.../ Без друго той е имал /cf. имаше/ ключ от външната порта. Влязъл е
/cf. влезе/, скрил е /сf. скри/ някъде стъкленицата и вече с много
по-спокойна душа се е оттеглил /сf. се оттегли/ по Беловодския път. /A. Gulyashky,
“Poslednoto priklyuchenie na Avakum Zahov”/; Снощните ми действия целяха да прикрият връзката с Шмитхаген, обаче те
не можеха да прикрият напълно и самия мене (plane of reminiscence). В
случай че американецът е установил наблюдение, пристигането ми в хотела е
било засечено, а заедно с туй е била идентифицирана и колата -
марка, цвят, номер (plane of
inference) /B. Raynov, ‘‘Denayt ne si lichi ot zaranta’‘/.
Svetomir Ivanchev emphasizes that the usage
of the plane of inference (which he calls conclusive) varies widely : “ from
the essentially conclusive (inferential) narrative, for instance, when we are
reconstructing a given event on the basis of certain evidence, or investigating
an accident, to events, which we could not attend since they were quite remote
in time, but which we believe to have truly happened and to be undoubtedly real for we have internalized
them as our own experience from other people’s experience or from literature –
it is valid for all kind of historical narratives and the like” /Ivanchev
1988:126/[4].
Ivanchev continues the article by presenting his idea for unification of all
conclusive forms, which eventually will include the perfect and the
re-narrative forms in “a uniform morphosemantic-functional complex”/127/. He
expands his idea further by stating that there exists an insufficient difference
between the two types of forms: “ the third person pronoun, singular and plural,
is present in some of the forms, and absent in the others” /127/.
V. We consider the cited opinion not to be
convincing enough. Despite the presence of a “semantic component”, which we
might call “the inferential/non-eyewitness standpoint” (Kutzarov insists on the
term “oposredstvani”, or mediated), unifying the conclusive and re-narrative
forms, the plane of inference possesses specific characteristics and should be
considered as an independent system from the system of re-narrative tenses,
which is often used in the narrative practices as well. The latter system lacks
actualization, the event is distanced not only by the narrator (s/he relays it by means of someone else’s
words), but also by the reader. Consider the following extract from a fairytale,
where the conventional genre features are replaced by inferential/conclusive
ones: Имало е /instead of имало/ едно време един цар. Той е имал /instead of имал/ чудно хубава дъщеря, по която
са въздишали /instead of въздишали/
много момци, но никой не се е
осмелявал /instead of не се
осмелявал/ да поиска ръката ó. The result of this change is the loss of the
legendary overtones and the fairytale atmosphere.
Hence, we can fully accept K. Chvani’s
opinion that the re-narrative complex in Bulgarian is a separate narrative
plane, which the author calls a re-narrative
plane/ Chvani 1990/. And though this narrative plane (the fourth one as it
happened to be) is analogous to the plane of reminiscence (probably this is the
reason why R. Mutafchiev interprets it as a variant of the plane of the
reminiscence[5]
/Mutafchiev 1964: 123-138/), it is namely in that narrative sense that it is
viewed as independent; using it we may express “the narrator’s peculiar viewpoints
towards the event ” – he is neither an observer from “above”, nor an observer
or listener from “within” the described reality /Andreychin 1985: 140/. It is
clear that a narrator’s position like this one is different from his/her
perspective in the plane of the reminiscence
(PR). (There the narrator is in the position of an eyewitness, s/he informs
the reader about the event, s/he is close to that event. “His/Her special
standpoint” /Gorelikova’s term – see Gorelikova, Magomedova 1983:11/ is narrowed
down and the reader (listener, respectively) is just a passive observer. This
is the territory of the “omniscient” narrator, who stands between the recipient
and the event.) The attitude of the narrator in the plane of the visualization (PV) is completely different (here the
author distances himself from the event /often intentionally/, “s/he hides”, disappears
from the microcosmos of the work; meanwhile the reader comes closest to the
event, s/he “observes” it directly).
Should we summarize all the facts, we would
emphasize that the availability of synonymous narrative variants in the
preterit sphere gives the narrator an opportunity to choose between various
narrative strategies and, hence, achieve the desired effect on the recipient.
Another possibility could also be viewed – namely that the narrator’s demand
for narrative systems, which can express diverse temporal and spatial points of
view and his/her desire to be capable of changing the focus of the event at a
given moment in the course of the narrative have turned into that mighty
generator, which helped the formation and establishment of an abundance of
narrative planes in the preterit sphere.
VI. We can assume that those
transpositions, which gravitate towards the plane of the aorist and whose narrative
functions are broadly applicable, should be analyzed as temporal planes. A
convincing example of the above-mentioned statements is the fate of one of the
most popular narrative planes in Bulgarian – the plane of visualization. It has come into existence as a
narrative transposition (a transposition of present tense from the sphere of
the praesens to that of the preterit), and eventually found its sphere of
realization in colloquial style (the so-called “lively hisorical present” by A.
Bondarko). This narrative system has gradually established itself as a unique
(stylistic) rival of the plane of reminiscence.
VII.
Predictably, almost all examples in which the plane of reminiscence is replaced
by the plane of visualization are stylistically marked. By means of that
narrative alternation, the writer is capable of signaling “the change of
his/her observer’s position and also of the subject of perception” /Lilov 1964:
14/. Moreover, it is used whenever it is essential to give a shade to or to
bring to the fore some psychologically burdened moment, which will enable us to
comprehend the work itself; it is used to highlight habitual activities and
events, to draw nature and last, but not least, to make “speech livelier and more
picturesque” /Stankov 1985:134/. In M. Lilov’s words when the plane of reminiscence
varies with the plane of visualization, the transit is not always determined
psychologically (so as to express “ the variation of the distance between the
objective standpoint of the author and the subjective experience of the
character” /Lilov 1964: 20/). The transit may be due to the narrator’s search
for graphic effects, to his intention to pinpoint the key moments in the
development of the compositional frame or to present the characters’ agitation
as an inseparable and organic part of the pictures, which s/he sees and
draws”/Lilov 1964: 21/. Consider the following example from Yovkov’s “Shibil”: Но Шибил ясно виждаше две очи, които го
гледат, една усмивка, която го мами. Той стана, тръгна подир тези очи и тази
усмивка и повече не се обърна назад (PR).
Три предпазливи удара, тихо пошепнато:
“Аз съм, Мустафа, вратата се отваря и той влиза в бащината си къща (PV). На огнището гореше огън, сенки играеха по стените (PR). По главите на пищовите на Шибил, по паласките и пискюлите на вулията му
блясват отражения (PV). Висок и снажен, къщата сякаш беше тясна за
него (PR).
The frequent narrative variations in the
quoted example leaves the reader with the feeling that Shibil’s time passes in
a different way from the time of everyday life (of his father’s house, the
fire, the shadows, his mother). This a different, legendary time, the time of a
man in love, not of the outlaw. The truth about Shibil’s identity is hidden
here, in the episode of his return, between the gasping temporal pulsations.
That is why Yovkov finds it crucially important to deliberately slow the action
via the transition towards the plane of visualization and as a consequence he
can outline every single detail from his character’s appearance. The reader
must take one last look at the “hilts of the pistols”, “the pouches”, “the
tassels of the knapsack” – all the articles of violence, and primal instincts,
which would soon be “a heavy and unnecessary burden” for Shibil[6].
We could have continued with the illustrative examples, but this is not the aim
of the present study. (Furthermore, in our linguistic tradition, there are
numerous examples like this one – see Mutafchiev 1961, 1964b;
Stankov 1985; Lilov 1964; Petrova 1979). Bearing in mind that the variation PR à
PV is not the only one in Bulgarian narrative practice, and yet undoubtedly
stylistically the most marked one, we are faced with a question that should be
answered: why is it that in some cases the narrative transposition is stylistically
marked, whereas there are other instances when there are no picturesque and
vivid shades of meanings.
VIII. According to us the answer to this
question is directly related to the notion of the narrative norm. The narrative norm is a component of the so-called neutral norm in Bulgarian, which
includes all communicative means with neuter-informational characteristics /for
further details see Hovanska 1984: 88-90/. It demands all narrative systems to
be used in accordance with their main functions, namely in the respective
temporal sphere (plane of the real/referential/present tense – in a narrative of present events /sphere
of the praesens/; plane of the future tense – in a narrative of future events /sphere of the futurum/). As far as
the sphere of the preterit is concerned, where as already mentioned, various
narrative systems are functioning, the narrative norm allows that all these
systems be used as the grounds for building the narrative. However, there is a
certain condition that determines the choice of the narrative plane - it should
be in compliance with the specific features of the given style and genre. In
other words the author’s position in the preferred plane (whether s/he is an eyewitness
of the event or narrates it indirectly) should be justified in the context of a
given genre – consider, for example, the quoted extract from a fairytale when
instead of the plane of re-narrative
(PRN) we used, quite unsuccessfully, the plane of inference (PI)[7].
The transitions between the alternative
planes are natural provided that they
are objectively justified – for instance, the use of the plane of
reminiscence for the introduction of flashbacks in the plane of the real
present tense or the plane of visualization /Cf. Mutafchiev, 1968/, or the use
of the plane of the re-narrative when the narrator retells events, which s/he
him/herself has heard from someone else, etc. Cf.: И когато срещнах човека, не познах дали е мюсюлманин или християнин.
Разбрах, че е българин. Говореше български език, носеше българска дреха,
кладеше огън в българска къща (PR). А когато турците го повели да бастисва
българските села, човекът ми не тръгнал, защото се боял да не заколи брата си.
(PRN) /A. Donchev, “Vreme razdelno’’/;
Докато птицата кръжеше горе и изписваше
кръгове и спирали в небето (PR),
то кръвта ó
на едри капки е падала върху снега и е очертавала върху него същите
кръгове и спирали (PI). Не посмях да пристъпя в снега. Някакво
особено чувство ме възпря още при първия кръг (PR) /Y. Radichkov “Nezhnata spirala’’/.
But if the narrative transit is not
objectively motivated and is the result of the narrator’s subjective decision
(the narrator, in the course of the narrative, wants to change his spatial and
temporal vantage point, to outline the separate episodes, etc.), then we can
speak about a conscious[8]
violation of the narrative norm, and hence we can look for a stylistic
effect.
The vividness of this effect depends almost
entirely upon the regular occurrence of one or another violation of the
narrative norm. The high frequency of a given deviation from the narrative norm
may possibly “automatize” it [the deviation] by depriving it from its stylistic
potential and it may eventually become a constituent of the norm itself. (We
think that the ensuing transit is a similar case: PRà
PV (and PV à PR); it is
used to create a contarst between the author’s words and the represented
speech. Cf.: Нямаше ли край тази нощ? Да
беше се разденило поне.../PR/. Ето, пак негде плаче малко дете вън, на
двора. До стълбата или в градината. Колко жално плаче, с какъв слаб гласец.
Дано не го чува Катерина /PV/. /D.
Talev, “Zhelezniyat svetilnik’’/. In this occasion the narrative transposition
seems to serve as a formal marker of the represented speech.)
The intensity of the stylistic effect is
determined to a great extend by the narrator’s flair and his ability to manipulate
the rich variety of narrative planes in Bulgarian. And last, but not least –
this intensity depends on the recipient’s ability to grasp the poetic
expressiveness and on the potential of his/her mechanism for autocorrection
/Dewboa et al. 1986/.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Аndreychin 1944 - Л. Андрейчин. Основна българска граматика.
София, 1944.
Аndreychin 1985 - Л. Андрейчин. Към въпроса за ролята на
граматическите елементи в художественото творчество /Употреба на българските
разказвателни наклонения в художествения разказ/.
- Помагало
по стилистика на българския книжовен език, София, 1985.
Chakarova 1990 - Кр. Чакърова. Към морфологичната
характеристика на умозаключителните форми. - Научни трудове на Пловдивския
университет “Паисий Хилендарски’’, т. 28, кн. 1, 1990 - Филологии.
Chakarova, Kostova 1999 - Кр. Чакърова, П. Костова. Феноменът
стилистична грешка (Как да откриваме и редактираме коварните сателити на нашата
реч). Пловдив, 1999
Chvani 1990 - К. В. Чвани. Оппозиции /+ дейксис/, /+
дистанция/ и /+ дискретность/ в морфологии болгарского и английского глаголов.
- Съпоставително
езикознание, 1990, кн. 6.
Dewboa et al. 1986: Ж. Дюбуа, Ф. Эделин, Ж.-М. Клинкенберг,
Ф. Мэнге, М. Пир, А. Тринон. Общая риторика. Москва,
1986
Gorelikova, Magomedova 1983 - М. И. Гореликова, Д. М. Магомедова. Лингвистический анализ художественного
текста. Москва, 1983.
Hovanska 1984 - З. И. Хованская. Стилистика фанцузского языка.
Москва, 1984.
Ivanchev 1988 - Св. Иванчев. Миналите разказвателни
системи в българския език. - Св. Иванчев.
Български език - класически и
екзотичен. София, 1988.
Kutzarov 1994 - Ив. Куцаров. Едно екзотично наклонение на
българския глагол. София, 1994.
Lilov 1964 - М. Лилов. Художествената изразителност
на глаголните времена. - Български език и литература, 1964, кн. 2.
Мutafchiev 1961 - Р. Мутафчиев. Смяна на глаголните
времена в разказ за минали събития. - Български език, 1961, кн. 4.
Мutafchiev 1964а - Р. Мутафчиев. Сегашно историческо време в
съвременния български език. София,
1964.
Мutafchiev 1964b - Р. Мутафчиев. Стилната роля на
глаголните времена в разказ за минали събития. - Български език и литература, 1964, кн. 1.
Мutafchiev 1968 - Р. Мутафчиев. Система на глаголните
имена в разказ за минали сегашни и бъдещи действия. - Известия на Института за
български език, 1968, № 16.
Petrova 1979 - Ст. Петрова. Сегашно историческо време у
Ал. Константинов. - Български език и литература,
1979, кн. 2.
Popov 1968 - К. Попов. Българският повествователен
императив. - Известия на Института за български език, 1968, № 16.
Stankov 1985 - В. Станков. Стилистични особености на
сегашно историческо време’’ - Помагало по стилистика на българския
книжовен език, София, 1985.
Jakobson 1975 - Р. О. Якобсон. Лингвистика и поэтика. - Структурализм:
“за’’ и “против’’, Москва, 1975.
Jakobson 1987 - Р. О. Якобсон. Вопросы поэтики
/Постскриптум к одноименной книге/. - Работы по поэтике, Москва,
1987.
[1] Among the participants that have taken
part in this fruitful discussion, there are a few names worth mentioning: L.
Andreychin 1944; R. Mutafchiev 1961, 1964а, 1964b, 1968; V. Stankov 1985; Sv.
Ivanchev 1988; K. Popov 1968; M. Lilov 1964 , etc.
[2] Here we mean the already mentioned ‘‘plane
of reminiscence’‘ and ‘‘plane of visualization’‘.
[3] Actually, Kutzarov’s idea is that the narrative
function of the analyzed forms is not conclusive, it belongs to the aorist
/Kutzarov 1994:147/.
[4] The narrative of inference is so
functionally overloaded that it allows Ivan Kutzarov to make the following
original statement: “It is highly possible for the conclusive plane as well as
the independent taxis to have come into existence for the needs of the
narration” /Kutzarov 1994/
[5] In addition we must say that beside the
re-narrative variants of the tenses found in the plane of reminiscence, there
are other re-narrative analogues of the verbal forms from the plane of
inference used in the re-narrative plane (their conclusive semantics is not
preserved, however), and also the so-called “usileno”, or strong re-narrative
forms of the indicative tenses (here we may include an additional semantic
feature, “sema” [+] “dubitativnost”, or
uncertainty). /For more details see Chakarova 1990: 185-7; Kutzarov 173-6./
[6] The stylistic effect is also emphasized by
the fact that all the narrative alternations take place within this
comparatively short passage, not between separate extracts in the short story.
[7] Recently in the journalistic practice,
there has been an unjustified normalization of the mentioned switching: instead
of presenting the information, received from an outside source, in the
objective re-narrative manner, the writer forces his subjective conclusion on
the reader and hence makes the authenticity of his facts dubious /see
Chakarova, Kostova 1999: 132-3/.
[8] If the violation of the narrative norm is
subconscious, mechanical, it may often be viewed as a stylistic mistake – Cf.: *Тогава той влиза в гората, върви
по пътеката, бърза. Гората беше мрачна etc. /for further details see
Chakarova, Kostova 1999/.