MARCUS HARTNER

Narrative Theory Meets Blending:

Multiperspectivity Reconsidered

There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective ‘knowing’; the more affects we
allow to speak about a thing, the more eyes, various eyes we are able to use for the
same thing, the more complete will be our ‘concept’ of the thing, our ‘objectivity’.
(Nietzsche, On the Genealogy III 12)1
Nietzsche’s words might once have been epistemologically stimulating; to
the scholar today, however, they rather appear intellectually commonplace
and yawn-inducing. The idea of a fundamental plurality or polyphony of
voices in text, society and comprehension has become a constant companion
in the 21st century. Particularly in the humanities we honour what the phi-
losopher Wolfgang Welsch has called “aesthetic competence”(“aisthetische
Kompetenz”), i.e. the ability to perceive differences, to sense plurality and
detect disparities in the seemingly homogeneous (36).
In this context it is not surprising that much of narrative theory has been
dedicated to discussing the finer points of narrative perspective over the last
few decades. What is surprising, however, is the 'paradoxical' fact that de-
spite the extensive debate in this field one essential aspect of literary perspec-
tives has been largely overlooked. Following Vera und Ansgar Nünning, I
believe that the literary phenomenon – one might also call it the stylistic de-
vice2 – of “multiple perspectives” or “multiperspectivity” has been strikingly
under-theorized (cf. Nünning/Nünning 4f).
In a spirit of methodological multiperspectivity I therefore suggest that
Conceputal Integration Networks, or Blending Theory, as developed by Fau-
connier/Turner (“Conceptual Integration”; The Way We Think), may remedy
this particular narratological shortcoming. By linking multiperspectivity with
blending this paper shall illustrate how concepts from cognitive studies and
linguistics can trigger a cross-disciplinary re-conceptualization of theoretical
concepts.

1 "Es gibt nur ein perspektivisches Sehen, nur ein perspektivisches 'Erkennen'; und je mehr
Affekte wir über eine Sache zu Worte kommen lassen, je mehr Augen, verschiedne Au-
gen wir uns für dieselbe Sache einzusetzen wissen, umso vollständiger wird unser 'Be-
griff' von dieser Sache, unsre 'Objektivität' sein." (Nietzsche, Kritische Studienausgabe,
Vol.5: 365); the English translation is taken from Nietzsche (On the Genealogy 92).
2 See, for example, Simpson.
182 MARCUS HARTNER

Multiperspectivity, Character-Perspectives, and Perspective

Structures

Throughout literary history, writers have stylistically juxtaposed the subjec-

tive worldviews of characters, thus foregrounding the significance of indi-
vidual perspectives.3 The most prototypical cases of multiperspectivity can
be found in repeated, successive renderings of one and the same event from
different character’s points of view.4 Although scope, style and shape of this
literary phenomenon do vary significantly, multiperspectivity characteristi-
cally foregrounds some form of ‘tension’ or ‘dissonance’ that emerges from
the clash of the staged perspectives. A classic example can be found in Tobias
Smollett’s epistolary novel Humphry Clinker (1771). Here, inter alia, a journey
to the city of Bath is successively rendered in letters by the old squire Mat-
thew Bramble and his young niece Lydia. Though both relate their impres-
sions of the same trip to the famous health resort, their descriptions could
hardly differ more drastically. While Bath for Bramble has become “the very
centre of racket and dissipation” (63), Lydia is sure she has found “an earthly
paradise” (68). Her fascination with “the splendour of dress and equipage”
(68) is countered by the squire’s biting condemnation of the “mob of impu-
dent plebeians” (66); and what she believes to be a pleasant and “good-
humoured” mingling of social classes in the pump rooms, her uncle per-
ceives as an outrageous insult to the genteel people (cf. 68; 66).
Given this disparity, it is easy to conceive why literary critics have em-
phasized that such juxtapositions of perspectives create “effects of friction”
or “dissonance” (“Reibungseffekt”; “Dissonanzeffekt”) (Lindemann 51; 53).5
Lydia’s youthful enthusiasm and Bramble’s misanthropically bad humour
oppose each other; focussing on this opposition, Wolfgang Iser (108f), for
example, has argued that Smollett’s novel directs the reader’s attention to the
individual nature of perception.6 Such foregrounding of what Graumann &
Sommer (35) call the “inevitable relativity of human knowledge” can be
found in similar fashion in novels from Richardson to George Elliot and Ian
McEwan ─ a foregrounding that in turn creates a wide range of secondary
effects including dramatic irony, epistemological doubt, or simply suspense.7

3 The phenomenon of “multiperspectivity” as such has so far been mainly addressed by

German scholars. For an overview on past research see Suhrkamp (2003: 9-18); a general
outline of the use of the term perspective in art, philosophy and literary criticism can be
found in Wood or Guillén.
4 For a comprehensive and useful account of multiple perspectives in literary texts, in-
cluding a distinction between different basic forms of multiperspectivity, see the two in-
troductory chapters by Vera and Ansgar Nünning in Nünning/Nünning (3-77).
5 Such effects are not necessarily restricted to the juxtaposition of character-perspectives.
Tension between other individual textual perspectives could be constituted, for example,
by narrator-perspectives or implied-reader-perspectives (cf. Suhrkamp 36-49).
6 Cf. Nünning/Nünning 19f.
7 Multiperspectivity generally leads to a semantization of narrative form on the level of
discourse (cf. Nünning/Nünning 31).
 Narrative Theory Meets Blending: Multiperspectivity Reconsidered 183

Yet despite the ubiquity of this literary phenomenon, narrative theory has
only recently addressed multiperspectivity as a topic in its own right. Tradi-
tional approaches to point of view (particularly those in the wake of Genette)
were more interested in literature as an act of narrative transmission.8 Yet, in
order to grasp the more deeply semantic content of character-perspectives,
this vantage point appears to be inadequate. Consequently, yet without de-
nying the apparent validity of the “communicative level of narrative trans-
mission”, it seems to be necessary to adopt what Ansgar Nünning calls a
“different perspective on perspectives” when analyzing multiperspectivity
(207). Nünning defines a character-perspective as the constructed worldview
of an individual.
A character-perspective could thus be defined as an individual’s fictional system
of preconditions or subjective worldview – the sum of all the models he or she has
constructed of the world, or others, and of herself. A character-perspective is gov-
erned by the totality of an individual’s knowledge and belief sets, intentions, psy-
chological traits, attitudes, ideological stance, and system of values and norms that
have been internalized […] (211).9
Interestingly, this definition of perspectives bears striking resemblance to the
more recent understanding of characters as mental models. Such character
models, as described in the works of Margolin, Culpeper or Schneider, de-
scribe characters as “mental files” (Margolin, “Character” 76).10 These 'files'
provide the cognitive structure “in which all further information about the
corresponding individual will be continually accumulated, structured and
updated as one reads on […]” (ibid.). Linking Nünning’s constructivist idea
of character-perspectives with the concept of mental character models, allows
us to conceive of perspectives as complex mental representations, incremen-
tally constructed and bearing the respective character’s name. Since most
novels, however, feature a number of characters the reader usually has to
process not only one but several perspectives simultaneously. Thus, in a text
like Humphry Clinker, a complex network of distinct, individual character-
perspectives emerges during the reading process – a network that Nünning
labels the “perspective structure of narrative texts”.
The ‘perspective structure of narrative texts’ is a concept equally rooted in
the tradition of constructivism and structuralism. It thus models the “world-
making activity” (Ryan 110) of the recipient, while simultaneously aiming at
a taxonomical description of the structures emerging during the reading
process. In this way, Nünning's approach not only investigates the con-
structed nature of fictional characters, but also attempts a systematic depic-

8 Most influential works in narratology, like, for example, Genette; Rimmon-Kenan; Bal;
Chatman; or Stanzel do not feature discussions of multiple character perspectives.
9 Nünning's definition draws on the concept of the "communicative system of precondi-
tions" developed in Schmidt’s Foundation for the Empirical Study of Literature (30f).
10 See, for example, Margolin “Cognitive Sciences”; Culpeper; Schneider “Towards a Cog-
nitive Theory” and Grundriß. For an overview of cognitive approaches to character, see
Schneider “Cognition”.
184 MARCUS HARTNER

tion of the interconnected net of character-perspectives that is mentally “real-

ized in the reading process” (Nünning 215). The combination of both aspects
results in a powerful heuristic tool that serves as an ideal conceptual starting
point for an investigation of narrative character- perspectives.11
Yet unfortunately, the taxonomic advantage of modelling perspectives as
stable networks also limits the concept’s ability to account for the dynamic
nature of text- processing.12 Following Pfister (60ff), Nünning construes the
relationships between character-perspectives as “pattern[s] of contrasts and
correspondences” (216), thereby adhering to the fundamental structuralist
differentiation between paradigmatic and syntagmatic dimensions of lan-
guage and literature.13 Consequently, in this framework the relationship
between, for example, Bramble’s and Lydia’s viewpoints is conceived of as a
static connection that can be broken down into a number of fixed relations.
However, in light of the dynamic nature of the reading process such an
analysis seems to be incomplete. As a basic cognitive mode of operation that
also accounts for "dynamic aspects of meaning construction" (Evans/Green
400), Conceptual Integration Networks may help to surmount the structural-
ist limitations of the perspective structure of narrative texts. By ‘blending’
Nünning’s concept with Blending Theory, a more adequate framework for
the interaction of contrasting perspectives can be developed.

11 A typology of perspective configurations is only one of the many findings that result
from investigating the perspective structure of narrative texts. For a more detailed dis-
cussion and further possible applications, see Nünning; Suhrkamp; and the contribu-
tions in Nünning/Nünning.
12 The importance of dynamic aspects during the mental construction of characters has
been pointed out by Helmut Grabes as early as 1978 (cf. Grabes).
13 Nünning’s notion of perspective structures of narrative texts draws on Pfister’s concept
of perspective structures in drama, which in turn has been heavily influenced by the
structuralist credo that selection and combination constitute “the two basic modes of ar-
rangement” in language and literature (Jakobson 37).
 Narrative Theory Meets Blending: Multiperspectivity Reconsidered 185

Blending and Multiperspectivity in Smollett’s Humphry Clinker

:
GENERIC SPACE

INPUT SPACE CROSS-

INPUT SPACE
SPACE
MAPPING

BLENDED SPACE

Fig. 1: Basic Setup of Conceptual Integration Networks

Conceptual Integration Networks consist of at least four mental spaces

(see Fig. 1).14 Two, or more, input spaces, a generic space and a blended
space. If the notion of ‘mental spaces’ is extended to include mental models
of character-perspectives, Bramble's perspective on Bath, e.g., could be con-
ceived as such an input space; his niece’s point of view would then, in anal-
ogy, constitute a second input space.
Input spaces in general are connected by ‘cross-space mapping’ which is
responsible for identifying comparable components in the input spaces.
Based on such cross-space connections the ‘generic space’ provides “informa-
tion that is abstract enough to be common to both (or all) the inputs” (Ev-
ans/Green 404). In relation to narrative character-perspectives, this means
that the generic space can, for example, contain the abstract general setting of
a story that the character's share. In the case of Humphry Clinker this encom-
passes, for instance, ‘time’, ‘place’ and ‘social status’: Lydia and Bramble
travel together; they visit the same places at the same time, and belong to the
same family, i.e. the same social class.

14 A large number of publications on blending has appeared during the last decade. Given
its academic proliferation I will forgo an introductory synopsis of this concept. For a full
account see Fauconnier/Turner “Conceptual Integration”; The Way We Think; general in-
troductions can be found in Evans/Green; Ungerer/Schmid or Coulson/Oakley. For a
discussion of various aspects of blending see also the special issues in Language and Lit-
erature 15 (2006); Journal of Pragmatics 37.10 (2005); and Cognitive Linguistics 11.3-4 (2000).
186 MARCUS HARTNER

Connected to the generic space are the input spaces, i.e. the character-
perspectives. From Lydia’s letters the reader learns that Bath is “an earthly
paradise” for the young woman. In her eyes “gayety, good humour, and
diversion” characterize this fashionable place where “the merry bell rings
round, from morn to night” (68). Her uncle on the other hand complains
about “the noise, tumult & hurry” plaguing the city (63). He is enraged by
the way class distinctions are blurred and the new buildings that Lydia
praises as “enchanted castles”, Bramble scorns as architectural absurdities (cf.
65, 68).
It becomes apparent that these contrasts create an effect of friction or dis-
sonance between both input spaces. Yet, the reader does not cognitively stop
at perceiving this dissonance. Neither is he or she likely to mentally decide
for one of the perspectives, discarding the other. Instead an additional mental
space is constructed: Lydia’s and Bramble’s descriptions are blended into a
mental image of Bath.
By merging both inputs, a new structure emerges that is more than just
the sum of its parts. Dialectically embracing the element of dissonance, an
image of Bath is mentally constructed that is based on information from the
input spaces but also transcends this information. In the blend Bath becomes
a city buzzing with people, change and entertainment; a place that is fascinat-
ing, especially to the young and pleasure seeking, but also pompous and
shallow in its pleasures; a health resort that, on another level, mirrors the
changes of late 18th century British society in its many faceted architectural,
cultural and economic developments.
Many aspects of this blend do not originate from ‘construction’, i.e. the in-
tegration of information from the input spaces, but arise from the so-called
processes of ‘completion’ and ‘elaboration’ (cf. Fauconnier/Turner, The Way
We Think 42-44; 48f). In order to think about Bath, for example, as a place of
social change, a considerable amount of background knowledge has to be
recruited to the blend. But once the reader starts to complete the mental im-
age of Bath with knowledge of English history he/she can not only increas-
ingly refine the mental blend of the city but also elaborate on it. This means
the reader can “run the blend” (44; 49) and, e.g. picture the hustling and bus-
tling of countless maids and servants preparing food, running errands and
thus ensuring that “the merry bell” keeps “ringing”. Likewise, it is possible
to project a detailed mental image of Bramble and his family on a sightseeing
tour through the resort in a carriage – although this tour only features as a
passing remark in one of Lydia’s letters.
Another crucial feature of Blending Theory is the so-called ‘backward
projection’ from the blend to the input spaces. Earlier theories of meaning
construction have largely overlooked the fact that many inferences essen-
tially require the prior existence of a blended space. Lydia’s youthful naivety
and Bramble’s misanthropic irritability do not directly spring from the con-
trasts between their respective perspectives, nor can they be traced solely to
the information provided in their letters. In fact, inferences about the charac-
 Narrative Theory Meets Blending: Multiperspectivity Reconsidered 187

ters arise from the interaction of input and blend and are projected back-
wards, thereby refining and expanding the mental character models of Lydia
and her uncle. Consequently, it is only by comparing Bramble’s descriptions
with the more balanced blend of Bath that the reader can infer a connection
between his ill-humoured judgements and the chronic bad health he is suf-
fering from.
GENERIC SPACE
INPUT SPACE INPUT SPACE
: general setting
time, place, social
status, etc.

Lydia's character- CROSS- Bramble's character-

perspecitve SPACE perspective
MAPPING
 dissonance
BLENDED SPACE

BACKWARD
PROJECTION
Bath

COMPLETION CONSTRUCTION  ELABORATION

Fig. 2: Conceptual Integration Networks Applied to the Character-

Perspectives in Humphry Clinker.

Many more examples could be found, but it may have become apparent that
blending theory provides a framework that is able to conceptualize multiper-
spectivity in a much more detailed way than previous approaches (cf. Fig. 2).
Obviously, there is a number of possible objections to my application of Con-
ceptual Integration Networks to multiperspectivity.15 Nevertheless, applying
Ockham’s razor, blending provides the most comprehensive and at the same
time parsimonious conceptualization of multiperspectivity to date. More
importantly, the outlined approach also offers the possibility of going be-

15 For a short summary of potential problems with Blending Theory see Coulson/Oakley
(191-94). On a general level one could also object that my approach does not sufficiently
take into account the full complexity of reception processes. Jürgen Schutte, however,
has argued that any serious reception oriented analysis of literary texts ultimately has to
take the form of a retrospective hermeneutic reflection (cf. 181f). As such, investigations
into character-perspectives necessarily involve a schematized narratological treatment
that for methodological purposes has to focus on select elements.
188 MARCUS HARTNER

yond modelling narrative competence. In this context I would like to suggest

that a revised concept of multiperspectivity can inspire new interpretations
by shifting the focus of attention from the contrasts between perspectives to
their correspondences.

Postmodernism and Multiperspectivity in Penelope Lively's Moon

Tiger

Blending theory vividly demonstrates that meaning construction is a dy-

namic process involving multiple stages and mental spaces. Dissonance in
consequence is not an immediate effect but the product of a prior matching
and blending of structures. Effects of tension cognitively require the recogni-
tion of correspondences between the inputs. Contrast, more generally speak-
ing, dialectically implies similarity. This insight might not necessarily lead to
a new reading of Humphry Clinker but it has interesting consequences for
many so-called postmodern texts. In the last part of this paper, I will analyze
Penelope Lively’s novel Moon Tiger as an example of how considering cross-
space matches between perspectives can lead to stimulating revisions of criti-
cal readings.
Lively’s Booker Prize winning novel Moon Tiger is a classic example for
what has come to be associated with postmodern fiction. Metafictionally
charged, it presents the life of 76-year old protagonist, Claudia, in an achro-
nological kaleidoscope of shifting perspectives. Homodiegetic and retrospec-
tive contemplations by the protagonist, who is in hospital dying from cancer,
alternate with passages related by a covert heterodiegetic narrator. Com-
pletely receding into the background, this narrator renders the viewpoints of
various characters, including Claudia, by use of internal focalization. The
respective passages, often only a few paragraphs in length, are usually not
linked chronologically or causally, but instead interconnect by association,
and thereby amplify the perplexing effect created by the narrative situation.
The most striking feature, however, is the pronounced multiperspectivity of
the novel. Several scenes are rendered successively from up to three different
character-perspectives, providing a vivid display of the incommensurable
nature of individual experience. Some of these contrasts, e.g. a series of mis-
understandings between Claudia and her daughter Lisa are developed and
emphasized over a number of chapters. What in Humphry Clinker is, accord-
ing to Angus Ross (12), “only sketched out, rather than thoroughly ex-
ploited” becomes a full-fledged and dominant characteristic in Moon Tiger.
Accordingly, the protagonist herself proclaims that history and biography
are “composite” and decides to tell her story in a polyphonic way:
Many voices; all the voices that have managed to get themselves heard. Some
louder than others, naturally: My story is tangled with stories of others – Mother,
Gordon, Jasper, Lisa, and one other person above all; their voices must be heard
also […]. So since my story is also theirs, they too must speak […]. (Moon Tiger 5f)
 Narrative Theory Meets Blending: Multiperspectivity Reconsidered 189

Lively’s skilful synthesis of experimental narrative form and historiographic

metafiction has led reviewers quite naturally onto the well-trodden path of
postmodern analysis and rhetoric. Taking up the novel's salient metaphor of
the kaleidoscope, literary scholars have insisted that the text destabilizes the
concepts of history, biography and identity. “Shake the tube and see what
comes out”, says the protagonist, and critics have dutifully argued that Moon
Tiger offers a kaleidoscopic disarrangement of narratives; instead of provid-
ing a complete and coherent account of Claudia’s life, Moon Tiger allegedly
presents a fragmentary, associative, and often dissonant jigsaw puzzle that in
the best tradition of postmodernism denies a traditional understanding of
memory and personality. In this spirit, Mary Moran, for instance, argues that
“Lively’s kaleidoscope technique […] suggests the lack of an objective mean-
ing to reality” (104f). Along the same lines, Tony Jackson (174) perceives a
provisional rejection of “the conventional idea of cause and effect”, and
Debrah Raschke finds a “poststructuralist decentring” with the reader being
stuck “between a multitude of perspectives” and confronted with “polymor-
phic identities” that “create the means for escaping fixed identities (125).”
Without question, the novel does arrestingly and stylistically foreground
the limitations and deficiencies of individual perception and storytelling. Yet
in the light of blending theory, this assessment itself must seem limited and
deficient. From the dynamics of blending it has become apparent that differ-
ence and dissonance build on the cognitive attempt to identify similar struc-
tures. Undoubtedly, there are experimental texts that effectively obstruct and
frustrate the attempt to create narrative meaning.16 But can the supposedly
'experimental' Moon Tiger – and many other so-called postmodern texts – be
counted among them? And if not, might it not be worth while to shift the
focus of attention from difference to sameness for a change? In the case of
Moon Tiger, this question can definitely be answered in the affirmative.
In my opinion the jigsaw-puzzle setup of the novel does not deny the
creation of meaning but rather activates the process of cognitively reassem-
bling the pieces in a causally and chronologically coherent manner. As in
Humphry Clinker, differences between character-perspectives do not so much
leave the reader stranded ‘between a multitude of perspectives’ but contrib-
ute to a complex blend of perspectives. Thus, the novel evokes a richer and
more colourful picture of Claudia’s life than a single perspective could ac-
complish. By foregrounding, for example, the differences between the view-
points of Claudia and her daughter, the text allows us to make inferences that
go beyond either of the character-perspectives. From a number of scenes in
the novel it becomes apparent that from Lisa’s childhood on, mutual expecta-
tions of mother and daughter remain unfulfilled. For that reason, both char-
acters also refrain from communicating their innermost feelings, and, conse-
quently, keep important key events in their lives a secret hidden from each

16 For example, Beckett's "Ping" (1968); Christina Brooke-Rose’ Thru (1991) or Textermina-
tion (1992); B.S. Johnson’s The Unfortunates (1969), or the novels by Raymond Federman.
190 MARCUS HARTNER

other. Drawing on these correspondences, backward projection enables us to

draw psychological profiles of mother and daughter, which are based on folk-
psychology and are not experimental at all. In this way, by focussing on cor-
respondences across various input-spaces, it becomes possible to arrive at an
interpretation that reads the relationship of Claudia and Lisa in a fundamen-
tally different way: as the troubled product of mutually unfulfilled expecta-
tions and a lifelong lack of communication – an interpretation that in my
opinion neither requires a particularly 'polymorphic' notion of identity nor
disposes of 'cause and effect'.
Undoubtedly, Mary Moran is right in saying that the novel voices “con-
temporary epistemological and ontological concerns” (117). Nevertheless, I
believe that despite its unconventional narrative style Moon Tiger does not
destabilize meaning. Rather, I think that while putting the narrative pieces
together an increasingly complex but ultimately causally and temporally
commonplace understanding of the protagonist’s psyche, identity and biog-
raphy emerges. Only through considering all character-perspectives can one
realize, for example, that none of her friends, lovers, or relations knows about
Claudia’s experiences as a war correspondent. Though her story keeps cir-
cling back to wartime Egypt, where she fell madly in love, got pregnant, and
lost both lover and child, nobody knows about these crucial events. The emo-
tional intensity with which her love of the soldier Tom is depicted further
enhances the inferential significance of Claudia’s apparent decision to keep
this episode a secret. Thus, it not only stands in sharp contrast to the aloof-
ness that characterizes all of her post-war relationships, but also adds a new
interpretive dimension to these relations. In this way, by blending a complex
set of mental spaces, an elaborate mental model of Claudia takes shape. Ul-
timately, it becomes apparent that the romantic love-of-a-lifetime experience
during the war and the ensuing unbearable pain of death and miscarriage
provide the interpretive key to the protagonist’s life; her subsequent behav-
iour and all of her relationships are affected by the emotional trauma she
experiences during the war – a trauma from which she never recovers, and a
reading that, again, does not explode or decentre common concepts of iden-
tity!17

Methodological Multiperspectivity

“[Life] has its core; its centre”, Claudia says, and her relation to the soldier,
Tom constitutes the heart of her biography and the semantic and structural
core of the novel. Though not all postmodern texts necessarily have a similar
centre, blending theory may inspire revised readings of many texts that play

17 Margaretta Jolly arrives at a similar conclusion when analysing Moon Tiger from a femi-
nist perspective: “Moon Tiger […] represents the superficiality of much other mainstream
fiction’s take up of feminist plot and aesthetic. […] Lively’s playful style and rejection of
the marital plot turn out to be, underneath, the same old romance.” (67)
 Narrative Theory Meets Blending: Multiperspectivity Reconsidered 191

with character-perspectives. Instead of solely focussing on differences, cross-

space matches and blends should also demand the interpretive attention of
the literary scholar. In this way, a bridge can be build between the descriptive
and taxonomic18 undertaking of a cognitively inspired narratology and the
more creative activity of interpreting literature.
Returning to the opening quote, Nietzsche probably knew very well why
he put ‘objectivity’ in inverted commas. Being a forerunner of postmodern
philosophy he knew that final knowledge is fundamentally elusive. But he
also understood that perceiving ‘a thing’ from different perspectives often –
not logically but phenomenologically – does “complete our ‘idea’ of this
thing”. Following this line of thought, the humanities should not be afraid of
training “more eyes, various eyes” from different disciplines (I might add) to
our objects of research; for there is little to lose and perhaps much to gain
from a careful and critical engagement with the perspective of the cognitive
sciences. My attempt to reconceptualise multiperspectivity by means of
blending is intended to serve as an example for how ideas from cognitive
studies may serve as a source of inspiration for the literary scholar. By ex-
panding rather than invalidating previous narratological approaches (cf.
Nünning/Nünning; Suhrkamp) I have tried to demonstrate how ideas from
other disciplines can become valuable assets for literary analysis and theory.

Works Cited
Bal, Mieke. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1985.
Chatman, Seymour B. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 1978.
Coulson, Seana, and Todd Oakley. “Blending Basics.” Cognitive Linguistics 11 (2000):
75-196.
Culpeper, Jonathan. Language & Characterisation: People in Plays & Other Texts. Harlow:
Longman, 2001.
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. “Conceptual Integration Networks.” Cognitive
Science 22.2 (1998): 133-187.
—, and Mark Turner.The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden
Complexities. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univer-
sity Press, 1980.
Grabes, Herbert. “Turning Words on the Page Into ‘Real’ People.” 1978. Style 38.2
(2004): 221-235.
Graumann, Carl F., and Carlo M. Sommer. “Perspective Structure in Language Pro-
duction and Comprehension.” Speakers: The Role of the Listener. Ed. Carl F.
Graumann. Clevedon [et. al.]: Multilingual Matters, 1989. 35-54.

18 Cf. Herman’s discussion of the aims of narratology (28).

192 MARCUS HARTNER

Guillén, Claudio. “On the Concept and Metaphor of Perspective.” Literature as System.
Essays Toward the Theory of Literary History. Claudio Guillén. Princeton, NJ: Prince-
ton UP, 1971. 283-371.
Herman, David. “Histories of Narrative Theory (1): A Genealogy of Early Develop-
ments.” A Companion to Narrative Theory. Eds. James Phelan and Peter J. Rabi-
nowitz. Malden [et al.]: Blackwell, 2005. 19-35.
Iser, Wolfgang. Der implizite Leser. München: Fink, 1972.
Jackson, Tony E. “The Desires of History, Old and New.” CLIO: A Journal of Literature,
History, and the Philosophy of History 28.2 (1999): 169-187.
Jakobson, Roman. “Linguistics and Poetics.” 1960. Modern Criticism and Theory: A
Reader. Ed. David Lodge. 2nd ed. London [et al.]: Longman, 2000. 31-55.
Jolly, Margaretta. “After Feminism: Pat Barker, Penelope Lively and the Contempo-
rary Novel.” British Culture of the Postwar. Eds. Alistair Davies and Alan Sinfield.
London; New York: Routledge, 2000. 58-82.
Lindemann, Uwe. “Die Ungleichzeitigkeit des Gleichzeitigen: Polyperspektivismus,
Spannung und der iterative Modus der Narration bei Samuel Richardson, Choder-
los de Laclos, Ludwig Tieck, Wilkie Collins und Robert Browning.“ Perspektive in
Literatur und bildender Kunst. Eds. Kurt Röttgers and Monika Schmitz-Emans. Es-
sen: Die blaue Eule, 1999. 48-81.
Lively, Penelope. Moon Tiger. 7th ed. London: Deutsch, 1987.
Margolin, Uri. “Cognitive Science, the Thinking Mind, and Literary Narrative.” Narra-
tive Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Ed. David Herman. Standford: CSLI Publica-
tions, 2003. 271-294.
—. “Character.” The Cambridge Companion to Narrative. Ed. David Herman. Cambridge
[et. al.]: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 66-79.
Moran, Mary Hurley. “The Novels of Penelope Lively: A Case for the Continuity of
the Experimental Impulse in Postwar British Fiction.” South Atlantic Review 62.1
(1997): 101-120.
Nünning, Ansgar, and Vera Nünning, eds. Multiperspektivisches Erzählen: Zur Theorie
und Geschichte der Perspektivenstruktur im englischen Roman des 18. bis 20. Jahrhun-
derts. Trier: WVT, 2000.
—. “On the Perspective Structure of Narrative Texts: Steps Toward a Constructivist
Narratology.” New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Eds. Willie van Peer and
Seymour Chatman. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001. 207-224.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden. Eds. Giorgo Colli and
Mazzino Montinari. München: DTV, 1988.
—. On the Genealogy of Morals. Trans. Carol Diethe. Ed. Keith Ansell-Pearson. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Pfister, Manfred. The Theory and Analysis of Drama. 1977. Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1988.
Raschke, Debra. “Penelope Lively’s ‘Moon Tiger’: Re-envisioning a ‘History of the
World’”. ARIEL 26.4 (1995): 115-132.
Rimmon-Kennan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London & New
York: Methuen, 1983.
Ross, Angus. “Introduction.” The Expedition of Humphry Clinker. 1967. Tobias Smollett.
London [et. al.]: Penguin, 1985. 7-19.
Ryan, Marie-Laure. Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence and Narrative Theory. Bloom-
ington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991.
Schmidt, Siegfried J. Foundations for the Empirical Study of Literature: The Components of a
Basic Theory. Trans. Robert de Beaugrande. Hamburg: Buske, 1982.
 Narrative Theory Meets Blending: Multiperspectivity Reconsidered 193

Schneider, Ralf. Grundriß zur kognitiven Theorie der Figurenrezeption am Beispiel des vikto-
rianischen Romans. Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verlag, 2000.
—. “Towards a Cognitive Theory on Character.” Style 35:4 (2001): 607-40.
—.”Cognition and the Reading of Literary Character: Approaches – Problems – Per-
spectives.” MLA Session 539 – Cognitive Approaches to Literary Character. 29 Dec.
2006. 18 April 2008 <http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/herman145/ Schnei-
der%20Paper.pdf>.
Schutte, Jürgen. Einführung in die Literaturinterpretation. 5th ed. Stuttgart [et. al]: Metz-
ler, 2005.
Simpson, Paul. Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. London [et al.]: Routledge, 2004.
Smollett, Tobias. The Expedition of Humphry Clinker. 1771. Ed. Angus Ross. London [et
al.]: Penguin, 1985.
Stanzel, Franz K. A Theory of Narrative. 1978. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1984.
Surkamp, Carola. Die Perspektivenstruktur narrativer Texte: Zu ihrer Theorie und Geschich-
te im englischen Roman zwischen Viktorianismus und Moderne. Trier: WVT, 2003.
Ungerer, Friedrich, and Hans-Jörg Schmid. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. 2nd
ed. Harlow [et al.]: Pearson Longman, 2006.
Welsch, Wolfgang.“Postmoderne – Pluralität als ethischer und moralischer Wert.”
Aufklärung und Postmoderne. Ed. Jörg Albertz. Berlin: Freie Akademie, 1991. 9-44.
Wood, Christopher S. “PERSPECTIVE: An Overview.” Encyclopaedia of Aesthetics. Ed.
Michael Kelly. Vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. 477-481.