I did some reading over the Christmas break that got me thinking about genre distinctions. In the process of reading Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice I had something of an epiphany. It significantly clarified some issues that have troubled me about NT discourse analysis. But first, a little background.

Basic Genre Distinctions

Robert Longacre used two different parameters as a heuristic for better understanding what separates one genre from another. The two parameters are agent orientation and contingent temporal succession.  He essentially claims that genres can be differentiated based on how they place a higher or lower value on the particular parameter; this differs from the absolute claim that it is completely absent. Agent orientation concerns how large a role participants play in the discourse; they are essentially either primary or not in his view. Contingent temporal succession has to do with the organization of the discourse; it either plays a strong organizational role, or it does not. For more of an introduction see my earlier post on the topic.

(5) Broad categories of genre (from Robert E. Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, Second ed., Topics in Language and Linguistics (New York: Plenum Press, 1996), Chapter 1.)

+ Agent orientation – Agent orientation
+ Contingent temporal succession NARRATIVE PROCEDURAL
– Contingent temporal succession BEHAVIORAL EXPOSITORY

One of the most striking things about reading the discourse analysis (DA) literature has been the  treatment of genres like narrative or procedural as though they were monolithic. For instance,  since narrative is agent oriented and values contingent temporal succession, one might expect to find both in equal measure or always present. I know that if I were to question the authors on these matters they would agree that genre distinctions are not as tidy as their general assertions suggest. Therefore my criticisms should be seen as clarifying more than correcting.

What are some examples of narrative breaking from these parameters? Well, it is not uncommon for writers to report events out of temporal sequence for various reasons, such as Mark’s delayed reporting of  John the Baptist’s beheading in Mark 6. We first learn of his death in Herod’s speech in v. 14, but it is only in vv. 17-29 that what actually happened is reported.

Another case where the temporal sequence may be broken is where two parallel plots are progressing simultaneously. Written and spoken discourse preclude the “screen within a screen” option used with video. Discourse demands that one plot be disclosed before switching to the other, and then perhaps back again. We see this kind of switching back and forth in the lead up to Jesus’ passion in Judas betrayal of Jesus. Judas purposes to betray Jesus before the last supper (e.g. Jn13:2), but then he leaves in the midst of it (Jn 13:26-30). Jesus and the remaining disciples then finish the dinner and move to Gethsemane (Jn 18:1). Then comes a “meanwhile, back at the ranch” kind of switch to the Judas plot in v. 2, which is reported in many translations as a parenthetical statement. The parenthesis ends at v. 3 where the two plot lines merge again with the arrival of Judas with the soldiers to arrest Jesus.

These examples illustrate that although temporal sequence is the norm in narrative, there are regularly occurring instances that depart from this norm. This does not invalidate Longacre’s assertions, it merely illustrates that they are not absolute claims. The same holds true for the other parameter of agent orientation. In many instances, the background information that one finds in narrative quite often does not concern participants or characters, but states of affair and other non-agentive things. Consider, for example, the description of the storm in Mk 4:37 just before Jesus calms it; no agents are involved, though some might argue the storm itself is agent-like. Again, these parameters are general rather than absolute. There are many instances where agents are not directly involved, yet narrative nonetheless tends to be agent-oriented.

So while narrative tends to be agent-oriented and to value temporal succession, there will be times when one or the other will be missing. Valuing temporal succession generally translates into a greater focus on events than other genres. After all, events are the things that happen in the close temporal succession.

So to summarize, narratives prototypically focus on agents/participants and events, but even these parameters are not equally balanced. Some (portions of) narratives are more agent-oriented than event-oriented, and vice versa. They may be thought of as endpoints on a continuum. In my next posts I’ll take a look at the effects of focusing more on one than the other. This was my great epiphany, though it might be old news to you.

These two parameters also make up a continuum, in that some discourses will place a higher value on the agent orientation than on the events themselves. In my next post I’ll take a look at the effects of placing more emphasis on agents than events.