Sameness, difference, or continuity?

IF 0.1 3区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM
M. Hyvärinen
{"title":"Sameness, difference, or continuity?","authors":"M. Hyvärinen","doi":"10.1515/fns-2019-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Three claims are advocated in this article. Firstly, the article suggests that there is no relevant “sameness approach,” which would advise reading fiction and non-fiction similarly. Secondly, it argues that both fiction and non-fiction exhibit multiple functions and cannot be reduced to the binary setting of informing or entertaining. Thirdly, it suggests that the continuity thesis does not imply sameness. By applying the fundamental logical distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions, one can accept major similarities between the resources of reading fiction and non-fiction without ever presuming their sameness. These claims are considered by first revisiting the histories of narratology and the narrative social research and then discussing M. A. K. Halliday’s systemic-functional language theory.","PeriodicalId":29849,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers of Narrative Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers of Narrative Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/fns-2019-0005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract Three claims are advocated in this article. Firstly, the article suggests that there is no relevant “sameness approach,” which would advise reading fiction and non-fiction similarly. Secondly, it argues that both fiction and non-fiction exhibit multiple functions and cannot be reduced to the binary setting of informing or entertaining. Thirdly, it suggests that the continuity thesis does not imply sameness. By applying the fundamental logical distinction between necessary and sufficient conditions, one can accept major similarities between the resources of reading fiction and non-fiction without ever presuming their sameness. These claims are considered by first revisiting the histories of narratology and the narrative social research and then discussing M. A. K. Halliday’s systemic-functional language theory.
相同,差异,还是连续性?
摘要本文提出了三个主张。首先,文章认为不存在相关的“同一性方法”,即建议将小说和非小说相似地阅读。其次,小说和非小说都具有多重功能,不能被简化为告知或娱乐的二元设置。第三,它表明连续性论题并不意味着同一性。通过应用必要条件和充分条件之间的基本逻辑区别,人们可以接受小说和非小说阅读资源之间的主要相似性,而不必假定它们是相同的。本文首先回顾叙事学和叙事社会研究的历史,然后讨论韩礼德的系统功能语言理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信