English 531: Seminar on Folklore in Culture: Studies of Narrative
Stories feature prominently in our lives and in discourses about our lives. Children ask parents to tell them a story; we swap stories as adults in order to get to know each other; and, increasingly, doctors and lawyers describe the work they do in terms of stories. This seminar is designed to familiarize participants with the wide range of scholarship and science that treats stories. Our goal will be to refine our own working definition of narrative both to understand its nature but also, for those interested in creative projects, to refine our practice. It should be clear from this description that this seminar is open to a wide range of interests: creative, literary, folkloristic, rhetorical, and linguistic.
Pr. John Laudun. Office: HLG 356, 482-5493, email@example.com. Hours: Tuesdays 9-12 and by appointment.
Two texts, one classical and one synthetic, are listed below, but I hope to conduct much of the course through PDFs that are generally available (e.g., PLoS ONE), are available through a university subscription (e.g., JSTOR), or that I make available through the Moodle site. (The usual caveats to using Moodle apply: connections can be flaky; don’t wait until the last minute to download an essay.)
Herman, David. 2009. Basic Elements of Narrative. Wiley-Blackwell. (Please do not purchase until we decide to use this text.)
Propp, Vladimir. 1968. Morphology of the Folktale. Tr. Laurence Scott. University of Texas Press.
In addition to (or over and against) scholarly/scientific considerations of narrative, the seminar will develop its own corpus of texts which we will use as a place to apply theories and models, as a vehicle for furthering/deepening our discussion about various theories and models, and as a well from which we can draw our own ideas. For more on the corpus, see below.
Seminar participants are expected to comport themselves as, well, as if they were in a seminar:
A seminar is, generally, a form of academic instruction, either at an academic institution or offered by a commercial or professional organization. It has the function of bringing together small groups for recurring meetings, focusing each time on some particular subject, in which everyone present is requested to participate actively. This is often accomplished through an ongoing Socratic dialogue with a seminar leader or instructor, or through a more formal presentation of research. The idea behind the seminar system is to familiarize students more extensively with the methodology of their chosen subject and also to allow them to interact with examples of the practical problems that always occur during research work. It is essentially a place where assigned readings are discussed, questions can be raised and debates can be conducted. (Thank you, Wikipedia.)
Participation includes a wide variety of forms: active listening, thoughtful speaking, short presentations, involvement in in-class and out-of-class individual and group assignments. Some of these may include, as seems fitting for a seminar led by a folklorist, the occasional exploration of the world beyond campus in the form of observations you make in places like book stores, coffee shops, and other places where people gather to talk or read/write. There is no set list of assignments in this regard: this is something that must arise out of a sense of the seminar as a particular historical group of individuals. (Again, you would expect no less an assertion from a folklorist.)
In addition to the assumed active participation, which includes a number of projects and/or assignments as well as active listening and talking, this seminar also requires the preparation and presentation of a conference paper ( >= 2500 words) and a seminar paper ( >= 7500 words). The idea behind this particular arrangement is that the conference paper will be due before the seminar paper, giving participants an advanced deadline that makes it possible to test the viability of an idea and to have time to expand the paper into something of consequence that we call the seminar paper and we often imagine as leading to an article. That is, both the written assignments in this seminar are designed to match conventional scholarly outputs. (We will have more to discuss – e.g., how sometimes expanding a conference presentation is harder than shrinking a research paper or what to do when a project implodes at the presentation stage – during the course of the seminar.) (See the project description below for more information.)
The weighting of grades will be as follows: participation in the seminar, which includes short in-seminar presentations and activities, makes up one half of a participant’s evaluation. The conference paper and the seminar paper make up the other half. I hold out any weighting of the two for the following reason: it is entirely possible that the conference paper goes nowhere. If that is the case, first, good. Failure is one way to learn, and it is better to have a project blow up in the smaller form of the conference paper than to fall apart halfway through the seminar paper. Hence, should the conference paper go awry, it should matter less in any final evaluation. The same goes for the seminar paper. This is an educational setting: failure must be an option. (Not trying is not.)
Because time is not infinite, each of you is constrained by a limit of 10,000 words: this can be one text or several. A further constraint is that we will need to balance our text between those items that are obviously or conventionally narrative and those which test boundaries.
My somewhat informed guess is that many of you already have possible sources, which could range as wildly from the tried and true of Project Gutenberg or An Archive of Our Own to sites and sources which I cannot imagine. Just in case, here are some lists drawn from rambling around the “intarwebs” that might help you when you get stuck:
For most participants, writing a seminar paper in a course focused on intellectual history is fairly difficult: usually the moment of person syntehsis, that ah-hah! moment, comes in the latter half of the term. That is not terrible timing for a seminar paper, but for attempting anything earlier, it does make things difficult. Based on past experience, I would like to propose that you begin with a research proposal with the following contents:
Single-spaced and citations in whatever formatting your prefer, but used consistently. (For the record, folklore studies uses Chicago B, which makes far more sense than MLA and has not changed in decades.)
Let’s make the proposals due next Wednesday, March 20.
Our own interests, expertise, and discoveries will determine more clearly how we will actually spend our time. For those reasons, I prefer to establish an agenda for a course, with the proviso that how much we dwell on a topic or gloss it will effect the timing of matters. While the sequencing of topics should remain fairly stable, the fulfillment of those topics through various readings will be determined by the content of our conversations.
The first task in any course with some dimension of intellectual history as its focus is to try to understand the overall history of the domain. Narrative, however, is a relatively recent locus for organizing scholarly and scientific investigation. Prior to its development as a subject of study in the twentieth century, narrative was largely viewed through a lens of other objects – tragic plays, novels, myths. While a seminar of this nature could spend a considerable amount of time in the period prior to the formalist-structuralist articulation of narrative as an object in its own right, we are going to bounce around a bit, hoping, in some shadow of Bayes, to locate ourselves through apparent random pings in the great depths of intellectual history.
We begin with two readings, one a narrative, and one a scholarly examination:
McConnell, Richard. 1924. The Most Dangerous Game. Collier’s. [Moodle].
For those interested in the sheer volume of adaptations of the story, the Wikipedia entry for the short story has a decent, if not complete (because impossible), list.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 2009. Crossing Boundaries: The Nexus of Time, Space, Person, and Place in Narrative. Language in Society 38 (4): 421–45. DOI:10.1017/S0047404509990212. JSTOR.
Burke, Kenneth. 1973/1941. Literature as Equipment for Living. In The Philosophy of Literary Form, 293-304. University of California Press. [Moodle].
Finally, before we leap into our own exploration of the development of narrative studies, it won’t hurt to read some surveys and develop some sense of the larger landscape. For this, there are two encyclopedias, one you know and one you are less likely to know. The first entry for “Narratology” is in Wikipedia, and the second in the Living Handbook of Narratology. The former is short; the latter long.
Before we examine Propp’s work, it’s important to understand the larger dialogue in which he is engaging. Specifically, early in Morphology, Propp notes that “the study of the tale has been pursued for the most part only genetically, and, to a great extent, without attempts at preliminary, systematic description” (5). Genetic references the great philological collection projects of the nineteenth century that were, for the most part, focused on origins and originals. In the twentieth century, that focus would become what is now known as the historic-geographic method, and its most noted accomplishment are the great indices of folklore studies: the tale-type index and the motif index. The best way to understand them is to use them. (More on genetic matters below.)
In preparation for actually using the two iconic folklore indices, I would suggest the following reading:
Again, Wikipedia is not a terrible place to start. And there are two other online sources that are worth your time:
Richard Kuehnel and Rado Lencek. What is a Folklore Motif?
This seminar would be remiss if you did not read about the idea of motif from the compiler himself, Stith Thompson. I have also included Angela Maniak’s short introduction to the role of the role of indexes, or indices, and bibliographies in classical forms of scholarship for those less acquainted with them. Finally, the long essay by Dan Ben-Amos is for those committed to understanding the nuances of folklore studies’ intellectual history.
Thompson, Stith. 1949. Motif. In Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend, 753. Eds. Maria Leach and Jerome Fried. Funk and Wagnalls. [Moodle].
Maniak, Angela. 1983. Bibliographies and Indexes in American Folklore Research. In Handbook of American Folklore, ed. Richard Dorson, 447-451. Indiana University Press. [Moodle].
Ben-Amos, Dan. 1980. The Concept of Motif in Folklore. In Folklore studies in the Twentieth Century: Proceedings of the Centenary Conference of the Folklore Society, ed. Venetia Newall, 17-36. Rowman and Littlefield. [Moodle].
A slightly different approach to unitizing narrative, but proceeding along the same lines as the historic-geographic school, can be found in the work of Jamshid J. Tehrani, who has parsed narratives into traits that look a lot like motifs and then attempted phylogenetic analysis on variations on a text to see which are more closely related. His analysis takes place against a backdrop of history and cultural geography.
Graça da Silva, S. & Tehrani, J. J. 2016. Comparative phylogenetic analyses uncover the ancient roots of Indo-European folktales. Royal Society Open Science 3(1): 150645. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150645. URL
Tehrani, J. J. 2013. The Phylogeny of Little Red Riding Hood. PLoS ONE 8(11): e78871. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078871. URL.
The intertwined, and yet not intersecting, history of motifs and functions is not one on which I can comment. Structuralists outside folklore studies never took up the motif, and folkorists, while fascinated with function, never developed the idea much. Propp’s Morphology, however, has enjoyed a renaissance of late. (It is perhaps because the kinds of data and analysis needed for structuralism has finally come to be – see Miranda for more.)
Propp, Vladimir. 1968. Morphology of the Folktale. Tr. Laurence Scott. University of Texas Press. [Moodle].
Contemporary considerations of Propp include:
Fisseni, Bernhard, Aadil Kurji, and Benedikt Löwe. 2014. Annotating with Propp’s Morphology of the Folktale: Reproducibility and Trainability. Literary and Linguistic Computing 29(4): 488-510. [Moodle].
Hansen, Gregory. 2015. Computerizing Propp’s Morphology: A Forward-Thinking Retrospect on Structuralism. New Directions in Folklore 13(1/2): 3-43. [Moodle].
The motif is one of those things that seems old-fashioned and yet has renewed interest in the era of data science (for a variety of reasons). In computer science, Mark Finlayson has done some remarkable work – see his profile page for a complete bibliography – but those works directly related to Propp are below. (Please note that computer science, like the sciences in general, is really good about making their work easily accessible: the obsession with tying any work up with protections is the best path to obscurity, literal and figurative.) The 2009 paper was my introduction to his work, but please note that the first publication listed is in the Journal of American Folklore:
Finlayson, M. A. 2016. Inferring Propp’s Functions from Semantically Annotated Text. Journal of American Folklore, 129(511) 53–75. PDF.
Yarlott, W. V. H. & Finlayson, M. A. 2016. ProppML: A Complete Annotation Scheme for Proppian Morphologies. In The 7th International Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative (CMN‘16), Krakow, Poland. 8:1–8:19. DOI:10.4230/OASIcs.CMN.2016.8. PDF.
Yarlott, W. V. H. & Finlayson, M. A. 2016. Learning a Better Motif Index: Toward Automated Motif Extraction. In The 7th International Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative (CMN‘16), Krakow, Poland. 7:1–7:10. DOI:10.4230/OASIcs.CMN.2016.7. PDF.
Eisenberg, J. D., Yarlott, W. V. H., & Finlayson, M. A. 2016. Comparing Extant Story Classifiers: Results & New Directions. In The 7th International Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative (CMN‘16), Krakow, Poland. 6:1–6:10. DOI:10.4230/OASIcs.CMN.2016.6. PDF.
Finlayson, M. A. 2011. Corpus Annotation in Service of Intelligent Narrative Technologies. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Intelligent Narrative Technologies (INT4), Stanford, CA. 17–20. PDF.
Finlayson, M. A. 2010. Learning Narrative Morphologies from Annotated Folktales. In Proceedings of the 1st Automated Motif Discovery in Cultural Heritage and Scientific Communication Texts Workshop (AMICUS), Vienna, Austria. 99–102. PDF.
Finlayson, M. A. 2009. Deriving Narrative Morphologies via Analogical Story Merging. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Analogy (published as “New Frontiers in Analogy Research”, New Bulgarian University Press), Sofia, Bulgaria. 127–136. PDF.
And, finally, there is a cognitive dimension:
Gervás, P. (2016). Computational Drafting of Plot Structures for Russian Folk Tales. Cognitive Computation, 8(2), 187–203. DOI: 10.1007/s12559-015-9338-8. URL.
If you’re interested in Markov models, there is a good description and walk-through on HackerNoon as well as the example of the efficacy of the Chomskybot – be sure to read “how it works.” If you want to see how Markov models are a part of contemporary science and scholarship, check out these ScienceDirect search results.
For those familiar with Claude Lévi-Strauss, it might surprise you to learn that while his early work on kinship had established him in the academy, his rise to star status actually emerged from his memoir, Tristes Tropiques, published in the same year, 1955, as “The Structural Study of Myth” (below). The essay was one stepping stone – others are collected in Structural Anthropology – to his longer treatment of myth in La Pensée Sauvage (1964, translated as The Savage Mind in English, which, as is usual for translations of Levi-Strauss, and later Derrida, misses the linguistic play often at the heart of his writing).
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1959. Course in General Linguistics. Tr. Wade Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library. [Moodle].
Levi-Strauss, Claude. 1955. The Structural Study of Myth. Journal of American Folklore 68 (270): 428–44. DOI: 10.2307/536768. JSTOR.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1978. Harelips and Twins: The Splitting of a Myth. Myth and Meaning, 25-33 University of Toronto Press. [Moodle].
For those interested, Lévi-Strauss addresses Propp’s work directly in the essay below – the first 8 pages are essentially his summary of Morphology before he begins to offer his own views.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1984. Structure and Form: Reflections on a Work by Vladimir Propp. In Theory and History of Folklore (Theory and History of Literature, Volume 5), eds. Ariadna Y. Martin, and Richard P. Martin, 167-189. Tr. Monique Layton. University of Minnesota Press. [Moodle].
While we will return to the idea that narratives are a distinct form of discourse, or a particular mode of discursive production, if you prefer, Barthes’ “Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives” captures some of the spirit of one of the pivotal moments in the shaping of narrative as a subject of study and will, for many participants, give some hint of what the formalist-structuralist paradigm looks like. Barthes’ “Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives” first appeared in Communications 8 in 1966. (We are reading the translation published in NLH in 1975. Another translation (into English) can be found in Image Music Text, published in 1977.) Communications was a pathbreaking French journal, and this issue featured essays by Greimas, Bremond, Metz, Todorov, and Genette, all of whom were well on their way to becoming some of the more important figures in structuralism and/or narrative studies. They are typically grouped together for their combined debts to a variety of sources which are easily confused for readers otherwise unfamiliar with the broader intellectual history of the twentieth century. Greimas et al. drew upon structural linguistics (as articulated by Saussure and Benveniste), the Prague School (most notably the work of Roman Jakobson), Russian formalism (particularly Propp but also Bakhtin, Medvedev, among others), structural anthropology (as advanced by Claude Levi-Strauss but also found in the work of Mauss).
Barthes, Roland, and Lionel Duisit (tr). 1975. An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative. New Literary History 6(2): 237–72. DOI: 10.2307/468419. JSTOR.
Bremond, Claude, and Elaine D. Cancalon. 1980. “The Logic of Narrative Possibilities.” New Literary History 11(3): 387–411. DOI: 10.2307/468934. JSTOR.
Greimas, Algirdas Julien. 1996. “Reflections on Actantial Models.” In Narratology, edited by Susan Onega, and José Ángel Garcia Landa, 76–89. Longman. Reprinted from 1983. Structural Semantics: An Attempt at a Method. Tr. Daniele McDowell, Ronald Schleifer, and Alan Velie. University of Nebraska Press. [Moodle].
Colby, Benjamin N. 1966. “The Analysis of Culture Content and the Patterning of Narrative Concern in Texts.” American Anthropologist 68 (2, Part 1): 374–88. JSTOR.
Genette, Gérard, and Ann Levonas. 1976. “Boundaries of Narrative.” New Literary History 8 (1): 1–13. DOI: 10.2307/468611. JSTOR.
Todorov, Tzvetan. 1971. “The 2 Principles of Narrative.” Diacritics 1(1): 37–44. DOI: 10.2307/464558. JSTOR.
Bal, Mieke. 1981. The Laughing Mice: Or: On Focalization. Poetics Today 2 (2): 202–10. DOI: 10.2307/1772198. JSTOR.
For more on the nature of her response, read:
Bronzwaer, W. 1981. Mieke Bal’s Concept of Focalization: A Critical Note. Poetics Today 2 (2): 193–201. DOI: 10.2307/1772197. JSTOR.
Ricoeur, Paul. 1980. Narrative Time. Critical Inquiry 7(1): 169–90. JSTOR.
For more on timelines upon/against/within which narratives are situated, there is All Timelines and The Movie Timeline. In addition to the visualization of a timeline within a narrative that we discussed from XKCD, there is 16 Complicated Movie Plots Explained With Infographic Timelines.
Jakobson, R., Ju. Tynjanov, & Eagle, H. 1980. Problems in the Study of Language and Literature. Poetics Today 2(1a), 29-31. doi:10.2307/1772349. JSTOR.
Bakhtin, M. M. 1987. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (University of Texas Press Slavic Series). University of Texas Press. [Moodle as well as Archive.org, where it is available as an epub, html, etc.]
Bakhtin, M. M. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (Theory and History of Literature). University of Minnesota Press. [Moodle].
Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (University of Texas Press Poetry Series, No. 5). University of Texas Press. [Moodle].
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1971. Discourse Typology in Prose. In Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views, 176-196. Ed. Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska. Cambridge, Mass.
Jakobson, Roman. 1988. Language in Literature. Belknap Press. [Moodle].
We are reading “Poetics and Linguistics” which first appeared in print in Style in Language (edited by Thomas Sebeok and published by MIT Press in 1960. As the beginning of the essay makes clear, it was written to be presented at a conference of the same title that took place at Indiana University - Bloomington in 1958. Most page references you will see elsewhere are usually to the version published in SiL, which I is also available on Moodle, but the advantage of the larger collection of Jakobson’s work is that it also contains his essay on “The Dominant” and the essay he co-wrote with Yuri Tynjanov on “Problems in the Study of Language and Literature.”
Herman, David. 2009. Basic Elements of Narrative. Wiley-Blackwell. [Moodle].
Ryan, Marie-Laure. From Narrative Games to Playable Stories: Toward a Poetics of Interactive Narrative. Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies 1 (2009): 43-59. JSTOR.
One of the reasons for this course is the immense amount of discourse focused on stories and storytelling that takes places outside the academy. Some of it, as we have seen, is just that story is the current buzzword, much like paradigm and/or box were in a previous moment. There is, however, a lot of very smart thinking about the shapes of stories taking place. TVTropes is one venue, but writers, readers, and critics of genre fiction also have some very interesting, and often quite compelling things to note about the nature of narrative. One place to start is this analysis of the final battle in the middle movie of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, aka Helms Deep. The Nerdwriter’s analysis includes the notion of beats, something you will find used elsewhere.
The lists below are by no means comprehensive, only suggestive. If you find something that should be added here, please let me know.
Please note that the hyperlinks for JSTOR and Project Muse take you directly to the journal’s main page and not the home page of those two services.
The Journal of Narrative Theory appears to be the oldest journal focused specifically on narrative. Founded in 1971 as the Journal of Narrative Technique, JNT “has provided a forum for the theoretical exploration of narrative in all its forms. Building on this foundation, JNT publishes essays addressing the epistemological, global, historical, formal, and political dimensions of narrative from a variety of methodological and theoretical perspectives.” JNT is available on-line through Project Muse.
Narrative is “the official journal of the International Society for the Study of Narrative. Narrative’s broad range of scholarship includes the English, American, and European novel, nonfiction narrative, film, and narrative as used in performance art.” The Society’s website is: http://narrative.georgetown.edu/. Online access to articles is available through Project Muse (2002-present). Issues prior to 2002 are available through JSTOR.
Storyworlds is a new, interdisciplinary journal of narrative theory. It features research on storytelling practices across a variety of media, including face-to-face interaction, literary writing, film and television, virtual environments, historiography, journalism, and graphic narratives, studied from perspectives developed in such fields as narratology, discourse analysis, jurisprudence, philosophy, cognitive and social psychology, Artificial Intelligence, medicine, and the study of organizations.” Current journal contents and contact information are available at http://storyworlds.osu.edu. The journal is available on-line on Project Muse.
In addition to these journals focused narrowly on narrative, there are journals that address narrative specifically but from a particular perspective. Obviously most, if not all, of the journals with which you are familiar in the fields of composition, folklore, or literary studies will include narrative as part of their purview, but you may also want to take a look at a few other journals that you, perhaps, would not normally encounter, such as Discourse Processes or Genre.
In Autumn 1980, Critical Inquiry 7(1) released a special issue entitled simply: On Narrative. (URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/i257724.) The table of contents reads like a who’s who of scholars from the era:
Front Matter: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343172
W. J. T. Mitchell, Editor’s Note: On Narrative (1-4): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343173
Hayden White , The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality (5-27): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343174.
Roy Schafer, Narration in the Psychoanalytic Dialogue (29-53): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343175.
Jacques Derrida and Avital Ronell , The Law of Genre (55-81): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343176.
Frank Kermode, Secrets and Narrative Sequence (83-101): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343177.
Nelson Goodman, Twisted Tales; Or, Story, Study, and Symphony (103-119): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343178.
Seymour Chatman, What Novels Can Do That Films Can’t (And Vice Versa) (121-140): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343179.
Victor Turner, Social Dramas and Stories about Them (141-168): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343180.
Paul Ricoeur, Narrative Time (169-190): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343181
Ursula K. Le Guin, It Was a Dark and Stormy Night; Or, Why Are We Huddling about the Campfire? (191-199): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343182
Afterthoughts on Narrative
Paul Hernadi, On the How, What, and Why of Narrative (201-203): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343183
Robert Scholes, Language, Narrative, and Anti-Narrative (204-212): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343184
Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Narrative Versions, Narrative Theories (213-236): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343185.
In addition to the special issue of Critical Inquiry, there was also a special issue of Poetics published in 1986 (Volume 15, Numbers 1-2). (URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0304422X/15/1-2):
Elisabeth Gülich, UtaM. Quasthoff, An interdisciplinary dialogue, 1-3. F.-J. Brüggemeier, Sounds of silents: History, narrative and life-recollections, 5-24.
Rainer Münz and Monika Pelz, Narration in social research, 25-41.
Peter M. Wiedemann, Don’t tell any stories: Theories and discoveries concerning story-telling in the therapeutic setting, 43-55.
D. Baacke, Narration and narrative analysis in education and educational science, 57-72.
P. Bange, Towards a pragmatic analysis of narratives in literature, 73-87. Christof Hardmeier, Old testament exegesis and linguistic narrative research, 89-109.
Christopher Habel, Stories – An artificial intelligence perspective (?), 111-125. Harvey Sacks, Some considerations of a story told in ordinary conversations, 127-138.
Wallace Chafe, Beyond bartlett: Narratives and remembering, 139-151.
Ruth Wodak, Tales from the Vienna woods: Sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic considerations of narrative analysis, 153-182.
Charlotte Linde, Private stories in public discourse: Narrative analysis in the social sciences, 183-202.
Wolf-Dieter Stempel, Everyday narrative as a prototype, 203-216. Elisabeth Gülich, Uta M. Quasthoff, Story-telling in conversation: Cognitive and interactive aspects, 217-241.
Some of these texts are more central to the scholarly study of narrative; some are not. Make of the two categories what you will:
Bal, Mieke. 1985. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Tr. Christine van Boheemen. University of Toronto Press.
Bauman, Richard. 1986. Story, Performance, and Event. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Benveniste, Emile. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics. Tr. Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.
Booth, Wayne. 1961. The Rhetoric of Fiction. University of Chicago Press. Chatman, Seymour. 1978. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Cornell University Press.
Borges, Jorge Luis. 1962. Labyrinths: Selected Stories and Other Writings. Ed. Donald A. Yates and James E. Irby. New York: New Directions. “The Garden of Forking Paths” (19-29). Tr. Donald A. Yates.
Coles, Robert. 1989. The Call of Stories: Teaching and the Moral Imagination. Houghton Mifflin.
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Onega, Susana and José Ángel García Landa. 1996. Narratology: An Introduction. Longman.
Prince, Gerald. 1987. A Dictionary of Narratology. University of Nebraska Press. More Central
Sternberg, Meir. 1978. Expositional Modes and Temporal Ordering in Fiction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Less Central
Briggs, Charles and Richard Bauman. 1992. Genre, Intertextuality, and Social Power. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 2(2): 131-172.
Clifford, James. 1986. On Ethnographic Allegory. In Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, 98-121. Ed. James Clifford and George Marcus. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kramer, Mark and Wendy Call (ed). 2007. Telling True Stories: A Nonfiction Writers’ Guide from the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University. New York: Plume. Roemer, Michael. 199. Telling Stories: Postmodernism and the Invalidation of Traditional Narrative. Rowan and Littlefield.
As noted elsewhere, prior to the twentieth century, interested commentators were more focused on narrative’s manifestations in various forms of discourse, as is the case with Aristotle’s concern with the nature of tragedy in the plays of his day. Aristotle’s Poetics are available in a number of locations: Project Perseus has an authoritative edition of Aristotle’s Poetics which is generously annotated but requires you to be online and Project Gutenberg has a variety of formats which can easily be downloaded for offline viewing.
Nevins, Jake. 2018. In the golden age of television, can narrative podcasts compete? The Guardian (May 2018). Link.