Funcionalidad de Reservar cita en una Clínica

the viewpoint of the discourse is the key issue for categorisation. The central aim of this section is to establish a new criterion for categorisation of discourse. Subsection 3.2.1 explores the criteria proposed by Kai and Noguchi; subsection 3.2.2 proposes the new criterion.

35 _{Prince 1987, p.34.}

36_Ibid.

3.2.1 Examination of the Criteria Proposed by Kai and Noguchi

Kai examines the first six sentences in chapter 3 of the tale (“Utsusemi”) and categorises the discourse into eight categories, according to the ratio of activity of the narrator and that of the character concerned. His results are summarised in in Figure 4:38

Figure 4. Categorisation of Discourse by Kai

Activity of a character Activity of the narrator

2 Narratised discourse (a) 1 Sōshiji 3 Narratised discourse (b) 4 An expression from a character’s viewpoint 5 A close expression of interior monologue 6 Interior monologue 8 A poem 7 Conversation (A letter)

The domains on either side of the diagonal line in the figure show, on the left, the degree of activity of the narrator and, on the right, the degree of activity of the character. Columns 1-8 indicate the eight categories of discourse. Kai’s criterion for categorisation is the ratio of these two activities. For example, the degree of activity

38 _{Kai 1980, p.37.}

He also defines the categories as follows: (Kai 1980, pp.17-38.)

1. Sōshiji is defined as the expression presented by the narrator at the place of the world narrating differentiated from the world narrated. It does not reflect a characters’ mind at all.

2. Narrative (a) is defined as expression that describes the situation of the world narrated and the relation of representation. This expression rarely reflects a characters’ mind.

3. Narrative (b) is defined as expression in which the narrator is reproduces a character’s consciousness and interior monologue. This expression reflects the narrator’s acceptance/adoption of characters’ mind. 4. An expression/discourse from the viewpoint of a character is defined as description in which the

viewpoint of the narrator identifies with that of the character.

5. A close expression of interior monologue is defined as the expression/discourse presented by the narrator, who identifies with the character. This discourse can betransformed into interior monologue by merely adding ‘he/she thinks that’.

6. Interior monologue is defined as the expression in which the narrator logically constructs characters’ states of mind, omitting or adopting a part of them.

7. Conversation is defined as expression in which the narrator’s activity becomes less than in other expressions.

8. A poem is defined as the expression in which the ratio of the narrator’s activity is lowest of all; in contrast the character’s activity is highest.

of the narrator reaches a maximum in sōshiji and a minimum in a poem; on the other hand, the degree of activity of a character reaches a maximum in a poem.

This criterion is essentially reasonable. When the narrator’s activity is more active than the character, the discourse can be categorised as ‘discourse belonging to the narrator’. When the activity of each is equal, the discourse can be categorised as ‘discourse belonging to both the narrator and a character’. In ‘discourse belonging to a character’, the narrator is less active than the character.

Seen from this standpoint, Kai’s categories 1-3 come under the heading of discourse belonging to the narrator, and categories 6-8 come under that of discourse belonging the character. His category 4 comes under that of discourse belonging equally to each. Significantly, he defined category 4 on the basis of viewpoint (see footnote 38, Kai’s definition (4)). Moreover, his category 5 can be categorised as the free direct discourse defined in subsection 3.1.3. Thus Kai’s criterion for categorisation closely resembles one based on viewpoint.

Noguchi Takehiko focuses on the narrator’s voice to categorise discourse, because he claims that a distinctive feature of the tale is that it paradoxically contains an oral narrative voice, even though it is from the start a written work.39 _{Therefore, he}

continues, sōshiji resounds with the author’s real voice; in other words the author’s voice becomes maximum in sōshiji and, conversely, minimum in conversation between characters, and, furthermore, interior monologue is paradoxically intimate with the author’s voice.40 _{He concludes that there is a basic presence of the}

author/narrator’s voice, ranging from minimum to maximum, in the discourse of the tale.41

Noguchi’s categorisation of discourse is based on greater or lesser audibility of the author/narrator’s voice. He applies his criterion to the terms interior monologue, conversation, narrative, the author’s words and sōshiji. He does not newly categorise

39 _{Noguchi 1987, p.216.}

40_{Ibid., pp.230-231. Noguchi does not distinguish the author from the narrator.} 41_{Ibid., p.230.}

discourse but explains that the author/narrator’s voice is always present to some degree in any discourse in the tale. His point is significant, since any type of discourse is bound to be affected to a greater or lesser extent by the narrator’s voice.

3.2.2 A Proposal of the Criterion for Categorisation of Discourse

Following on this discussion of the criteria for categorisation of discourse proposed by Kai and Noguchi, this subsection proposes that viewpoint is the most appropriate criterion for such categorisation.

That is so because the narrator not only depicts characters and incidents from her viewpoint but also quotes directly characters’ thoughts and emotions. Thus discourse in the tale can be categorised according to three viewpoints: (1) that of the character, (2) that of the narrator and (3) that shared by both.

Viewpoint (1) can be distinguished from the others because of the pattern of direct quotation involving the quotation markers to/nado, and suitable verbs (sometimes omitted). Although the viewpoint is the character’s, the discourse still contains a degree of narrative representation by the narrator, Noguchi observed.42

This representation appears, for example, in summarisation by the narrator, conveyed by such expressions as kōkō no koto (‘so and so’), nanigashi (‘a certain place/person’) and ko so a (‘this and that’).43 _{These words can be thought of as}

42_Ibid.

43 _{An example of kōkō no koto:}

人の御有様のいとらうたげに、見放たむは又口惜しうて、入道の宮にぞ聞え給ひける。「かうかうの 事をなむ思う給へ煩ふに…」と聞え給へば、(NKBZ 2: 310) (SNKBT 2: 125)

----but she was very attractive, and he was so reluctant to let her go that he broached the subject to Her Cloistered Eminence.

“I hardly know what to do about it, you see,” he said. (T: 296) (Chapter 14 “Miotsukushi”) An example of nanigashi:

ある人、「北山になむ、なにがし寺といふ所に、かしこき行ひ人はべる。去年の夏も世におこりて、 人々まじなひわづらひしを、やがてとどむるたぐひあまたはべりき。ししこらかしつる時はうたては べるを、疾くこそこころみさせたまはめ」など聞こゆれば (NKBZ 1: 273) (SNKBT1: 152)

interventions of the narrator;44 _{however, the discourse that includes them should be}

categorised not as narratised discourse but discourse from the viewpoint of the character, because of the pattern of the quotation. Additionally, discourse contained within the quotation and including honorific words conveying the viewpoint of the narrator, can also be categorised into category (1). The pattern of the quotation has priority over the narratorial intervention. On the other hand, indirect discourse (indirect interior monologue and indirect conversation) should be regarded as narratised discourse, because these types are presented from the viewpoint of the narrator and are not accompanied by the quotation marker to/nado.

Every rule has its exceptions, however. Free direct discourse not accompanied by a quotation marker, and defined as discourse from the viewpoint of the character in section 3.2.2, is also included in category (1). When the narrator shifts her viewpoint to that of the character and identifies with the character, the discourse has dual viewpoints, both that of the narrator and that of the character. Therefore this discourse belongs in category (3). Remaining sentences can be categorised as discourse from the viewpoint of the narrator, category (2).

Someone then said, “My lord, there is a remarkable ascetic at a Temple in the Northern Hills. Last summer, when the fever was widespread and spells failed to help, he healed many people immediately. Please try him soon. It would be dangerous to allow your fever to become any worse.” (T: 83) (Chapter 5 “Wakamurasaki”)

An example of ko so a:

あれたる家の、木立いと物ふりて、木暗う見えたるあり。例の御供に離れぬ惟光なむ、「故按察大納 言の家に侍り。一日物の便りにとぶらひて侍りしかば、『かの尼上いたう弱り給ひにたれば、何事も 覚えず』となむ、申して侍りし」と聞揺れば、(NKBZ 1: 310) (SNKBT 1: 179)

----when he caught sight of an unkempt house amid the darkness of ancient trees.

“That is the house of the late Inspector Grand Counselor,” explained Koremitsu, whowas with him as always. “ I happened to call there the other day, and they told me that my lady the nun is very weak now, and they hardly know what to do.” (T: 98-99) (Chapter 5 “Wakamurasaki”)

44 _{Saeki Umetomo 佐伯梅友 (1966: 34-37) mentions this phenomenon and points out that ‘direct narration’} becomes ‘indirect narration’.

3.3 Analyses of ‘Free Indirect Discourse’ and