Personal experience narratives typically contain an evaluation which emphasizes the
importance of the result and answers the question of ‘What’s the point?’ In other words, it gives meaning to the narrative. The evaluation often precedes the resolution, but it may be
seen in other parts of a story. Peterson and McCabe (1983, p 60 quoted in Cortazzi, 1993, p
48) argue that ‘[n]arratives do not merely inform: they convey the importance of the narrated events and tell how those events should be interpreted and weighed by the listener’. Thus, the evaluation plays a key role in a narrative; Riessman (1993, p 21) calls it ‘the soul of the
narrative’ and Labov calls it the ‘raison d’être’ (Labov, 1972a, p 366).
Occasionally, the evaluation is represented by a series of events that could have
occurred which are said in conjunction with the actual events that happened which Labov
(1972a) terms comparators. As Labov (2013) explains, ‘[n]egatives, comparators and irrealis
modals like would, might, could are recruited for this purpose [evaluation of the narrative]’ (p
30, emphasis in the original). Other evaluative elements commonly present in personal
narratives which are considered commonplace are: (1) intensifiers such as gestures,
expressive phonology, quantifiers, and repetition, (2) correlatives such as the progressive
tense, which can suspend the action in the evaluation, and (3) explicatives which provide
explanations (Labov, 1972a).
The evaluation is almost always present in a TPN; 90 out of 97 TPNs contain an
evaluation. As mentioned in section 5.2, the evaluation is a typical component of a TPN.
5.2.5.1 Typical Evaluation
To continue the discussion of J-sensei’s The Shinkansen (see appendix P for full
transcript) in which the abstract (see section 5.2.2.3), orientation (see section 5.2.3.1), and
complication (see section 5.2.4.1) have already been discussed, it is now time to turn to its
evaluation. The evaluation is in two parts; the first part appears after the complication and
135
sandwich effect, EVA-RES-EVA. The Shinkansen is told to the whole class towards the end
of the extensive reading activity.
Extract 5.14 (Evaluation 1: The Shinkansen, J-C-100212-2-2)
Part I.
EVA T so (-) BUt that was good, (-)
78
EVA I didn't (-) I didn't a::h (-) mind it. (-)
79
EVA I didn't mind it,
80
EVA it was OK (-)
81 Part II.
EVA T I was so lucky:, (-) ((laughing))
102
EVA so I could enjoy thi:s (-) on the shinkanse:n. (-)
103
EVA when it was, you kno:w? i- i- it was ah stopping, (-)
104
EVA for a long time I didn't mind, (-)
105
EVA gre:at. (-) yeah, great chance to read this
106
In the evaluation, which appears with the TPN’s resolution (see section 5.2.6.2 for further analysis of the resolution), J-sensei describes why she did not mind her lengthy time on the
shinkansen: she had a book to read; this is the ‘raison d’être’ of the TPN. In line 102, she says
‘I was so lucky:,’ followed by laughter which may be a sign that she realizes the irony of this particular statement.
Labov (1972a) presents two types of evaluation: external evaluation and embedded
evaluation. External evaluation occurs when narrators step out of the story to provide the
evaluation to the listeners. However, in an embedded evaluation, narrators quote themselves
at the moment in the story by either quoting what they were thinking, what they said to
someone else, or how a third person was evaluating them at that time. When reading the
entire TPN, it is clear that J-sensei has stepped out of her TPN in this two-part evaluation; she
has interrupted the flow of the narrative, which is an example of external evaluation. In this
case, she is clearly emphasizing the reason for telling the story, and by making it explicit to
students there is no question about her pedagogical motives for telling this TPN.
Repetition is a type of intensifier, which is often used in evaluations, and its role is to
intensify a particular action (Labov, 1972a). J-sensei uses repetition in lines 79, 80, and 105
136
comprehension (Wong-Fillmore, 1985; Chaudron, 1988; VanPatten & Benati, 2010). Line
106 is an explicative; J-sensei is explaining why she was so lucky and why she did not mind
being on the shinkansen. Thus J-sensei’s use of intensifiers and an explicative may aid in
student learning.
Labov (2013) discusses the ideas of objectivity and credibility in relation to the
evaluation, which is part of the social activity framework presented in Chapter 2. He claims,
‘[t]he general principle is that the more objective the evaluation, the more it contributes to the credibility of the narrative’ (p 31). The subjective emotions of the speaker can decrease the objectivity of a story, whereas the notion of objectivity as seen in third-party witnesses or
silent objects, such as an empty cup on the table or a damaged car sitting on the side of the
road, in a story can increase a story’s objectivity. Labov (ibid.) terms this the ‘scale of
objectivity’. J-sensei uses a variety of subjective emotional words and phrases in the
evaluation of The Shinkansen such as ‘good’ in line 78, ‘didn’t mind’ in lines 79, 80, and 105,
‘OK’ in line 81, ‘so lucky’ in line 102, ‘enjoy this [the book]’ in line 103, and ‘great’ used twice in line 106. Based on Labov’s scale of objectivity, this evaluation would be more
towards the subjective and unbelievable end of the spectrum. It is clearly J-sensei’s personal
opinion that being stuck on the shinkansen for two and a half hours was a great happening.
Other people may have interpreted the unfortunate situation differently as Takashi reveals in
his diary:
The more interesting thing in her story was that she was not bored during that waiting time on Shinkansen, for two and a half hours!! I must have gotten tired from reading books if I was in her situation.
(Takashi, Diary, 10/02/12)
J-sensei’s evaluation is a typical evaluation in that various evaluative elements are
present such as intensifiers and an explicative. Also, this evaluation shows much subjective
emotion which is present in other TPNs. Generally, the TPNs in the dataset are on the
subjective end of the evaluation spectrum and this can be considered unsurprising since
137
5.2.5.2 Implicit and Explicit Evaluation
Overall, the four teachers in this study had explicitly stated evaluations. However, in
some cases, the evaluation may have dual roles and it may be both implicit and explicit. Out
of the four teachers, M-sensei had the most cases of this dual purpose type of evaluation.
In this exemplary evaluation, Keep my Schedule Flexible (see appendix Y for full
transcript), M-sensei is commenting on being a teacher, not only on one’s responsibilities in
the classroom, but also those which teachers may have outside of the classroom. This TPN is
said during M-sensei’s teaching demonstration lesson to the whole class. In the lesson’s
handout, there is the expression ‘pressed for time’ and other words associated with being
busy. Here, M-sensei is attempting to show students how a teacher can explain its meaning by
telling a story. In this TPN, he talks about how he sometimes goes to observe students
practice teaching in elementary, junior high, or high school English language classrooms. He
suggests going early to the observation appointment so as not to be pressed for time.
Extract 5.15 (Evaluation 2: Keep my Schedule Flexible, M-C-102111-4-10)
EVA T this, (-) makes a difference. (-) ok? (-)
11
EVA do:n't go (-) >ten minutes
12
EVA before the appointment< (-) ok? (-) 13
EVA get there, (-) if you could, (-)
14
EVA thirty minutes before the appointment (-)
15
EVA and then (-) you have your own time. (-)
16
EVA enjoy nice cup of coffe:e, (-) etcetera. (-) ok? (-)
17
In this evaluation, M-sensei provides a comparator ‘don’t go ten minutes before the
appointment ok get there if you could thirty minutes before the appointment’ which utilizes linguistic markings such as the negative ‘don’t go’ in line 12, and in line 14, the irrealis modal ‘could’. A comparator is used to compare the events which did occur to those which did not (Labov, 1972a). His repeated use of ‘ok’ followed by a pause in lines 11, 13, and 17 may
indicate M-sensei’s method of showing the ‘raison d’être’ of his TPN as well as confirming
that students are indeed listening. However, there is no student interaction evident in the
138
It seems in this evaluation that the raison d’être is to go to planned meetings allowing
plenty of time beforehand which can be termed the explicit evaluation; however, Hiro notes
the true raison d’être, that is, the implicit evaluation, in his diary:
Taking into consideration that he was explaining the meaning of a word “hectic”, I think the reason for this personal talk is to add an explanation of it as well as to demonstrate how to explain it. He talked this story, or did demonstration, to show his seminar students the way he would teach a word. Eventually I think M-sensei wants his seminar students to immitate or at least to get the essence of teaching techniques of how to explain the meaning of a word.
(Hiro, Diary, 10/21/11, emphasis mine)
A little more than half of M-sensei’s TPNs had both implicit and explicit evaluations. In these
dual purpose evaluations, the explicit evaluation was almost always in reference to self, while
the implicit evaluation was about education. This seems reasonable since his class is about
English language education and how to be an effective teacher and he often used himself as
an example to show how to teach grammatical features or vocabulary.
5.2.5.3 Recipient Design in Evaluations
Considering the social activity framework, evaluations may also show particular
features of recipient design, as evident in Mr. H’s TPN, The New Model (see appendix K for
full transcript) which was discussed in section 5.2.1. Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998, p 134)
claim that ‘stories are designed in numerous ways ‘for’ their particular recipients, and the telling provides opportunities for recipients to react to, display understanding of, or otherwise
become involved in the telling’ (see for example Jefferson, 1978; Polanyi, 1989; Sacks,
1992). As seen in this TPN’s evaluation in Extract 5.16, students are interacting with Mr. H. Extract 5.16 (Evaluation 3: The New Model, H-C-050712-2-11)
EVA T I don't buy the (-) the (-) n- (-) <ne:w mode:l cycle> (-) 21
EVA S ((says she understands))
22
EVA T and there's lots of people like me. (-)
23
EVA but there's lots of people also
24
EVA that (-) that buy on that (-)
25
EVA they’ll line-up outside the store, (-)
26
EVA even though that's working just fi:ne (-)
27
EVA they'll buy a new one just because. (-)
28
EVA S ((mentions he likes the looks of it))
139
EVA T I think it's kind of cool yeah
30
In this example, two different students are participating in the TPN. In line 22, one student is
displaying understanding of the point of the story and in line 29, a second student becomes
involved in its telling. As one of the few examples of student interaction in the telling of
TPNs, this extract suggests a few possibilities. One idea may be that students feel more
comfortable interacting in smaller groups with the teacher. Another possibility may be that
more proficient students find it easier to interact. Lastly, the theme of the TPN can greatly
influence whether students will interact or not. In this case, the discussion was about cell
phones and smartphones, an item that all students have and sometimes use in class and which
Mr. H keeps nearby when teaching since he uses it as a timer.
5.2.5.4 Summary
Some final observations of the evaluation narrative structure element are: (1) they are
almost always evident in a TPN which suggests that teachers often provide a reason why they
are telling stories, (2) they are almost always recognized by students in either the diaries9 or
interviews (see Chapter 7 on learner reaction and student learning opportunities), (3)
evaluations may have a dual purpose of being explicit and implicit, (4) evaluative elements
such as intensifiers, comparators, correlatives, and explicatives (Labov, 1972a) exist in TPNs
which may aid students in better comprehension of the story, and (5) they allow for recipient
design which can increase instances of classroom interaction.