Volume 28, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1387-6740
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9935
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article examines the concept of experientiality in conversational storytelling from an ethnomethodological perspective, introducing a case in which the narrative mediation of experience fails. The recipient misses the experiential point of the story in the flow of interaction, which stems from other reasons than a failure in sense-making or cognitive comprehension. I discuss my findings with Monika Fludernik’s influential theory of Natural Narratology, according to which all narratives concern experiential exchange between the teller and the recipient, which travels from one consciousness to the other through natural cognitive parameters grounded in real life schemata. Applying conversation analysis, I focus on scrutinizing the details of the turn-by-turn unfolding activities of the participants. My analysis demonstrates that Fludernik’s conception of naturality falls short in capturing the relevancies of naturally occurring storytelling. Ignoring the reflexive intentionality of telling and reception makes Natural Narratology ill-equipped to grasp the dynamics of experientiality in everyday narration.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alber, J.
    (2002) The “moreness” or “lessness” of natural narratology. Style, 36(1), 54–75.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alber, J. , Iversen, S. , Nielsen, H. S. & Richardson, B.
    (2010) Unnatural narratives, unnatural narratology: Beyond mimetic models. Narrative, 18(2), 113–136. doi: 10.1353/nar.0.0042
    https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.0.0042 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arminen, I.
    (2005) Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Aldershot: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bamberg, M.
    (1997) Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1–4), 335–342. doi: 10.1075/jnlh.7.42pos
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.42pos [Google Scholar]
  5. (2004) Narrative discourse and identities. In J. C. Meister , T. Kindt , W. Schernus , & M. Stein (Eds.), Narratology beyond literary criticism (pp.213–237). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2011) Who am I? Narration and its contribution to self and identity. Theory & Psychology, 21(1), 3–24. doi: 10.1177/0959354309355852
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309355852 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blackman, L.
    (2012) Immaterial bodies. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Caracciolo, M.
    (2014a) Experientiality. In: P. Hühn , et al. (Eds.): The living handbook of narratology. Hamburg: Hamburg University. URL = www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/article/experientiality [view date: 7 Feb 2017].10.1515/9783110316469.149
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110316469.149 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2014b) The experientiality of narrative. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Davies, B. , & Harré, R.
    (1990) Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1990.tb00174.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1990.tb00174.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Day, D. , & Kjaerbeck, S.
    (2013) Positioning in the conversation analytic approach. Narrative Inquiry, 23(1), 16–39. doi: 10.1075/ni.23.1.02day
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.23.1.02day [Google Scholar]
  12. Clayman, S. & Heritage, J.
    (2002) The news interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  13. Deppermann, A.
    (2013) Editorial. Positioning in narrative interaction. Narrative Inquiry, 23(1), 1–15. doi: 10.1075/ni.23.1.01dep
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.23.1.01dep [Google Scholar]
  14. Drew, P. & Heritage, J.
    (1992) Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.) Talk at work (pp.3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fludernik, M.
    (1996) Towards a ‘natural’ narratology. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203432501
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203432501 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2012) How natural is “unnatural narratology”; Or what is unnatural about unnatural narratology?Narrative, 20(3), 357–370. doi: 10.1353/nar.2012.0019
    https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2012.0019 [Google Scholar]
  17. Garfinkel, H.
    (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (2002) Ethnomethodology’s program. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Georgakopoulou, A.
    (2006) Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry, 16 (1), 122–130. doi: 10.1075/ni.16.1.16geo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.16.1.16geo [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodwin, C.
    (1984) Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action (pp.225–246). London: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1986) Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 205–217. doi: 10.1007/BF00148127
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148127 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2007) Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society, 18(1), 53–73. doi: 10.1177/0957926507069457
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507069457 [Google Scholar]
  23. Goodwin, M. H.
    (1997) Byplay: Negotiating evaluation in storytelling. In G. R. Guy & C. Feagin & D. Schiffrin & J. Baugh (Eds.) Towards a social science of language, Vol2. (pp.77–102). John Benjamins Publishing. doi: 10.1075/cilt.128.08goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.128.08goo [Google Scholar]
  24. Hatavara, M.
    (2015) Documenting everyday life. In M. Hatavara , M. Hyvärinen , M. Mäkelä & F. Mäyrä (Eds.), Narrative theory, literature and new media (pp.278–294). London: Routledge10.4324/9781315722313
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315722313 [Google Scholar]
  25. Heritage, J.
    (1985) Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis Vol. 3 (pp.95–117). London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2011) Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers & L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp.159–183). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008 [Google Scholar]
  27. Herman, D.
    (2002) Story logic. Lincoln, Neb.: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hyvärinen, M.
    (2017a, forthcoming). Expectations and experientiality: Jerome Bruner’s ‘canonicity and breach.’ Storyworlds.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2017b) Foreword: Life meets narrative. In B. Schiff , A. E. McKim , & S. Patron (Eds.) Life and narrative (pp.IX–XXV) New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Karttunen, L.
    (2015) The hypothetical in literature: Emotion and emplotment. Doctoral Dissertation (Literary Studies): University of Tampere, The School of Language, Translation and Literary Studies.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Labov, W. & Waletzky, J.
    (1967) Narrative analysis. In J. Helm (Ed.) Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp.12–44). Seattle: U. of Washington Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Mandelbaum, J.
    (1991) Conversational non-co-operation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 25, 97–138. doi: 10.1080/08351819109389359
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351819109389359 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2013) Storytelling in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.). The handbook of conversation analysis (pp.492–507). Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Pickering, M.
    (2004) Experience as horizon: Koselleck, expectation and historical time. Cultural Studies, 18(2–3), 271–289. doi: 10.1080/0950238042000201518
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0950238042000201518 [Google Scholar]
  35. Pomerantz, A.
    (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action (pp.57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rautajoki, H.
    (2012) Membership categorization as a tool for moral casting in TV discussion. Discourse Studies, 14(2), 243–260. doi: 10.1177/1461445611433637
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611433637 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rautajoki, H. & Toikkanen, J. & Raudaskoski, P.
    (in review). Embodied ekphrasis of experience: Bodily rhetoric in mediating affect in interaction. Semiotica, x–xx.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Riessman, C. K.
    (1990) Divorce talk. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sacks, H.
    (1972) On the analyzability of the stories by children. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp.329–345). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (1984) On doing “being ordinary”. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action (pp.413–429). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. (1995) Lectures on conversation: Volumes I & II. Edited by Gail Jefferson . Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444328301
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E. A. , & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1995) Introduction. In H. Sacks . Lectures on conversation: Volumes I & II. (Ed.) Gail Jefferson (pp.ix–lxii). Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (1997) Narrative analysis’ 30 years later. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1–4), 97–106. doi: 10.1075/jnlh.7.11nar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.11nar [Google Scholar]
  45. Stivers, T.
    (2008) Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on language and social interaction, 41(1), 31–57. doi: 10.1080/08351810701691123
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error