2 wg IN SS sy pe ate Deictic SHIFT THEORY pos ake AND THE POETICS OF INVOLVEMENT p ore an IN NARRATIVE E put ) gute Bel eds Mary Galbraith i Gol ete ca we a © susccrvy wwatramve 1995" What teat he oe of sie in he Ingsge a? Fhemmenok Tangient ey ti objet be wn bo toe cy Recent approaches 1 fkion in the hams and sci) sciences have wade Foon insect featiy an jt rane Tes20 ousearn teen an overall eo rom the aivete of Herary analysis but on simp ‘quations between the subjectivity of the autor andthe intent found in is ‘rer wrk, o eter Iirary and histaveal wos. New Cis demetded thatthe analysis of iterature be grounded in the work itself" whereas tructuratism | ‘spy bracketed questions of subjectivity and eerentaliy 2 eleva Posrtraisthory bas ben moe actively hose to tral notions ‘of sjectvy and reference. TE calls Sno question the while notion of + tal ord ant tanscendent subject, finding insteat that refeentality alee ‘vig at eects of lngunge. AS Call (1982) nats “the sjcet rom only 4 skleton ofits former sel 8a Fonction af language” (p15), and, “tis totisebpet consis ofthe rales of the game the vs which govern the ‘pereaton ofa ext (p17. “Two thoreial approaches that woek fora cet bt positive an sue ‘enti of the role of subjectivity in naratve are herent so the phe romenology of eadig. These connate on he sbjectiviy or ncmjestey ofthe auhoeaser or reeset eins. aly, arative theorists hve argued about he stats of ftoalsubjciviy fd its relationship to naratvetctiiges, Most them assume a pia ‘mal of fltoalsujptviy that sets a mualr a6 mia jet Been Tn what follows, T approwth the ise of subjectivity in nanaive wing a linguistcaty based rion Teely reject or ignored by naaie theorists masige > alresso"paatigm Gakobson, 19, .353-The consequoncs of his mel tue that every sentence of language mt be pity famed follows he Mlessr or nara] do assert 1 you Ue adessee or ear ht.” Kuroda (4976) commie on te way ths model has bos extend i models tonal Tangusge: “Tten sou, ool thn a hor of nan a on hematin of ‘the a any a) mel at ca see ry {orth tine ting etn encarta —Iy 2 menage ome ‘bythe marty ech nee sth produto a tof using nara tnscioumes (9.200) omnturger, Koro, rd Banfield all agued inter own ways tat in tb cx ‘oni langage of writen Fictional naraive, the iso abessor and n> ‘sesso FYOU-and ha paradigmatic, language in native esc ‘red eiter bythe model “set of consciousness > representation of com. sciousness,” of “objective naaton > representation of the sory world” Tho former ofthese meses gives us the sit ofthe dite Hil rom the ken ce writen UYOUAERE/NOW of communion to the moment of a chrats ‘onsciouess within a story Wer, where the chute i experiencing des ‘of consciousness ha may Or ay nol have communicative inten, Bu tha cee 2 DST AND THE POaMCS CF INVOLVEMENT 3 taaky do wot “inten” toward the rear (exept, fection, in some of the ele unsgresions of posenodem ition. Ad, as Kurds (1976) ponte ‘out even saraive that soc a a commanicalive act premised onthe same eistermologial sit ‘Tanks tothe fcc of imagination one can igi & commuting ‘mses a emence wich imaged be arid i ta ty ‘oemancaon! sting The sone hen ees th ca sme iin concious hat fhe ib (ps 23) But the concusive enpreal evince for his sit comes fom the language of onoartl ove, that ifr npr ways fon conta lang: ‘in German, panes, English an French, as Hantorge, Kuroda, and Banik Pointed ou. This model does mt deny the pragmatic rei of the autor amd the reader, but asserts tat he language of toma aration is ot deity [rol inthis eaiy, i inthe Tngusge of YOU communication. "Hamburger, Koro ad Bails challenge to th Jaobeanian me nt deconsrcive in the sease of challenging the tation of sujet oi the sense of claiming that subjectivity i an sat of Language ested Tey ‘eich sa language a capa of being usd into adcllyeiferet ways for fubjecs. Astmed by their theories Isa pheaomenologcl subject wh fakes language in lifrent ways Language taken 2s historical statement has one Ki fenton logis lingge taken a Rona ation has nate con ‘eotions of language suet us 1 tke parc Texts one way oF the ce, two can au choot wo conexlie sentencer historical trent ora Seton maaton fr purposes of play, pervert, c piksophiel thought ex » permen. For example can read the following Sctence wi were pst of {py aovel or scenic observation “The dor pened sow.” Noe, however hi recomextaiza sentence thats ingustcally make ss Nstvel (ep "saw he oun wan”) a sonal mast teat ta fig realy ttn, aif Trecomtextoaie a sentence thot smh as Petoal ("HOW stupid she ‘boca sial,Imustconsiot a SPEAKER to whom t atria he expressiveness sted of refering itt the SELF of "she" "The tsi of two diferent modes of naan of curs, not new. Begin ng with Ast and Plat, tee ave been theories ofthe diference between Speating in o's own person an feo natating But Hamorger, Kono, And Banfield pinpoint specific epistemological and syouctiediecoces te "cen U'YOU communication and tration tha 5 thei ies apt fom those of oter narrate theorists: thi: peson subject, the wane of the eitic fei, the excsion ofthe second person, the possiity of ebjetive comets (tai, contests witout « SPEAKER or even 4 SELF). Ea o those tse "eo founda ink between the language of maatve and is logical slats. Unie other tevin, thay cane that hr ae a nly pragma ifleences