Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics

Mieke Bal's Concept of Focalization: A Critical Note Author(s): W. Bronzwaer Reviewed work(s): Source: Poetics Today, Vol. 2, No. 2, Narratology III: Narration and Perspective in Fiction (Winter, 1981), pp. 193-201 Published by: Duke University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1772197 . Accessed: 06/01/2013 07:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Duke University Press and Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Poetics Today.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 07:23:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CONTROVERSY

MIEKE BAL'S CONCEPT OF FOCALIZATION A Critical Note*

W. BRONZWAER
Nijmegen

The theory thethreelevelswhichis characteristic Mieke Bal's narratological of of model can be summarized follows:a fable(histoire) transformed a story as is into (sujetor rdcit) which in turnis changed into a narrative text(N, 5).' This second operationneed not be suchas one; thestory necessarily a linguistic mayalso be "told" in othersignsystems, the film.Thereforethe outcome of the second operationcannot be equated withthe text,whichis composed of linguistic signs. the Looking at thismodel from otherend, we maysay thatthenarrator narrative (or in is this instance;theterm"narrator" alwaysused with abstract meaning thispaper)does not emita fable but a fablethathas undergone certain The fable operations a story. itselfis the signifie the story(N, 4). Between the levels of fable and textwe must of therefore level on whichthesignifit the narrative and of text postulatean intermediate the signifiant the fableare situated.This is thelevel of thestory. of The operations that take place at this level are called focalizationby Mieke Bal. We might the represent model in the following diagram: narrative text narration story focalization fable signifi6 signifiant signifi6 signifiant

In thismodel we see clearly thattheconceptof focalization, whichMieke Bal derived fromGdrardGenette's "Discours du rdcit"(1972), but whichshe has givena new and
*Paper presented at Synopsis2: "NarrativeTheory and Poetics of Fiction," an international held at the PorterInstitute Poetics and Semiotics, Aviv University, theVan of and Tel symposium Leer JerusalemFoundation, 16-22 June 1979. 'N, in thispaper, refersto Bal, 1977. ? Poetics Today, Vol. 2:2 (1981), 193-201

This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 07:23:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

194

W. BRONZWAER

is it specific significance, assigned its precise role in her narratology: denotes the transformations whichthe fable undergoesin orderto become a story. Mieke Bal then liststhreetransformations callingthem"operations"in orderto avoid unwantedChomskianconnotations of (N, 7). If we leave aside the fifth these or of connections suchas symbolic operations- theapplication certain meaning indices in the sense of Barthes(1966), whichare clearlyattributable to the focalizer nor to not but the narrator onlyto theimpliedauthor- we are struck thefactthatthefirst four by naturethanthe sixth.The first fourare concernedwiththe different are of an entirely materialor contentsof the fable: the eventsare arrangedin a certain,not necessarily of take up is chronologicalorder; the relativelength timewhichthe eventsin the story in intocharacters determined withrespectto theirduration the fable; actorsare turned and place is turnedinto concretespace.The sixthoperation,however,is of a different on whichthe material elements the level nature. It concernsthe "angle of vision"from of the fable are presented. This sixth operation contains a hidden communicative This sixthoperation N, element,as the word "present"(presenter; 8) alreadysuggests. a lends the concept of focalization communicative therefore meaning.The questionis toleratesthiscommunicative whetheror not the notionof focalization meaning. Colette'snovelLa Chatte 42), "'Elle sentencefrom In heranalysisof thefollowing (N, to est jolie', raisonnaitAlain," Mieke Bal ascribesthe choice of theverbraisonner the to considerit as within compass of her theory, the focalizer.It is therefore, impossible the "narrator'sdiscourse."2For, ifthe wordshouldbe assignedto the focalizer, lexical from fableto story choice is made at the levelof thetransition and notat thelevelof the takes in enunciationof the story a narrative text,the level at whichthe act of narration she withthe theory proposes. Now, thisanalysisseems to me to be incompatible place. one - selectinga certainword fromthe here is a linguistic The focalizer's activity are activities to be localized as lexicon. The theory, we have seen, tellsus thatlinguistic our thatthesixth This at the otherlevel of transformation. confirms suspicion operation does in fact invest the focalizerwith linguistic-communicative powers: he is able to the he choose words. Accordingly, is able to make decisionsthatdetermine semiotic systemin whch the storyis goingto be encoded at the second level of transformation. The theoryhowever,as we have summarized reservesthe choice of the semiotic it, who acts at the otherlevel of transformation. forthe narrator, system is It seems to me thatthisdouble capacitywithwhichthe focalizer endowed undera is the level of transformation focaliser able to perform mines the theory.If at the first to case - it is impossible naturein thisparticular act communicative - of a linguistic understandwho will be the addresserand the addressee of thissign. For the theory has chainbeforethestory been impliesthattherecan be no questionofa communicative Neitherfable nor storycan be looked encoded at the second level of transformation. and chain;forthatan addresser an addresseeare upon as "messages"in a communicative indispensable. If we accept Mieke Bal's view thatthe focalizeris responsibleforthe for and thenarrator theones thatencode the operationsthatturnthe fableintoa story to the into a text,we have to restrict specific competences thenarrator's linguistic story to can only be attributed an instancewith activity.The choice of the verb raisonner to powers. It is myview thatthe conceptof "impliedauthor"is indispensable linguistic and thatit willnotdo so to assignthe factsof a narrative account forthe linguistic text3
21

of use the terminology Dolezel, 1973. to 3See myarticle(Bronzwaer,1978),whichMieke Bal attacksin hercontribution thissymposium.

This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 07:23:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BAL'S CONCEPT OF FOCALIZATION

195

ultimatelinguistic However, sense) to a narrator. (in responsibility thepragmalinguistic in a novel of thetypeof La Chatte implied authorand theextradiegetic the narrator need not be distinguished froma purelynarratological pointof view. Her analysisof the verb raisonner havingbeen chosen by the focalizertherefore as shows up a contradiction withinher own theory,which she summarizes follows: as "Chaque instance realise le passage d'un plan 'a un autre: I'acteur,utilisant l'action comme materiaux, faitI'histoire; focalisateur, s6lectionne actionset choisit en le les qui en met l'angle sous lequel il les presente, faitle recit,tandisque le narrateur le reciten (N, parole: il en faitle textenarratif" 32). If we take Mieke Bal at her own word and attribute the encodingof the story to of we thatthe exclusively the authority the narrator, are in a positionto understand level of transformation, process thatshe calls the operation takingplace on the first mustitself considered no less and no morethana particular be as focalization, aspectof the object of the narrative process. What is being told is not just the fablebut also its transformation a story.In otherwords,the focalizations into themselves object of are the narration.This way of seeing things does justice to the time-honored notionthat narrativetexts are not concerned merelywith a what but also with a how. More we texts thathave in factmade thetransformation of specifically might pointto narrative theirfable into theirstorytheirprincipal concern.Flaubert'swell-known dictum about the novel about nothing4 such a novel as Gide's Les Faux-monnayeurs obvious or are instances.We might also pointto MarkTwain's Huckleberry Finn,of whichit wouldbe reasonable to say that it is not about what happens to Huck but about how Huck what in constantly focalizations, misinterprets happensto him- aboutHuck's mistaken other words. In such stories- some of HenryJames'far-reaching witha experiments "centralconsciousness"are also cases in point- thereis a fableonlybecause therecan be consciousnessonlyifthereis something be consciousof; because, ifthereis to be to thatis focalized. focalization,therehas to be something in whereits merits and StatingMieke Bal's theory these termswe can see precisely demeritsare. The concept of focalization and large replaces the old notionof the by this pointof view but has theadvantageof assigning to itsdue place in thenarratological structure. the of Also, it refines theory thepointof viewnotinconsiderably allowing by such derivativeconcepts as "focalizer" and "focalizedobject." Thirdly, can now, we Genette and Bal, once and forall put an end to the confusion caused by the following factthatthe point-of-view-type traditional of failedto distinguish between narratology "who sees" and "who talks": who sees is the focalizerand who talksis the narrator. Her effort, to author-narrator"thepair"narratorhowever, replacethepair"implied by focalizer" is mistaken. In Mieke Bal's writings, the focalizershows a tendencyto and as to can emancipatehimself to function an instance whomthenarrator delegatehis (N, 32) so thathe becomes endowedwiththe narrator's and authority properfaculties can, forinstance,determine wordsthatfigure the narrative the in text.In opposition to this I would insist that the focalizer'sactivitiesare an aspect of the object of the narration. Focalization is an aspectual but not a pragmalinguistic category.In this contextwe should remindourselvesthatGenette considersfocalization a "mode." as What we have to do, therefore, to determine is how to accountforfocalization precisely in pragmalinguistic communication-theoretical and terms. It is myview thatthe focalizer cannottake linguistic decisions,thathe does not have the statusof a pragmalinguistic instance.Of course,we can speak of focalization each in letter LouiseColetof 16January to 4See Flaubert's 1852.

This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 07:23:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

196

W. BRONZWAER

case where a textis reported.In a sentencelike John said: "Peter went a walk." for we may say, and in factMieke Bal does say, thatJohnis bothspeaker(let us call himN fornarrator, we The following supposing are dealingwitha narrative text)and focalizer. sentence fromLa Chatte Camilleregarda Alain can be analyzed as follows: N narrates: Camille Alain regarda which shows N to be the narrator. Mieke Bal's view he is the focalizer the same In at time.This seems reasonable:in hernarratological model,wherethefablepasses through a process of focalization itsway to becominga narrative on in text,nothing the textcan be left"unfocalized."As a result,she calls theN in thesentencejust quoted "narratorfocalizer" (NF). In thiscase, then,thereis an NF as well as a PF (personalfocalizer), Camille, who at a lowerlevel focalizesAlain. The two focalizedobjects, however,are in different status.The focalizedobject of the NF is a sentence, focalized the entirely of thePF is Alain. This second focalizedobject is notnecessarily object linguistic one can imagine a scene in a filmshowingAlain being watchedby Camille. The former focalized object is, however,linguistic definition. This we can onlyaccount forby by in thatit is brought about by an operationon thefirst levelof transformation, assuming act. the about the otherwordsby a narrative Within NF, then,it is nottheF thatbrings of narrativetext but the N. The decision to telescope the functions N and F into one has to be accounted forby havingrecourseto a narrator, instance, the extradiegetic should not the narratology higherpragmaticauthority, impliedauthor.A satisfactory his who presents factsfrom own the merelytell us thatin thissentenceit is the narrator point of view, but should also be able to tell us who makeshimdo so. Everyempirical to thatbearsthepragmalinguistic phenomenonin thetexthas to be attributed an instance is his from perspective his the of forit. A narrator notfreeto present story responsibility a that own focalization;thereis a higher authority makeshimdo so. Similarly, character who makes him do so in is not free to adopt the role of focalizer;it is the narrator of view. Thirdly, actoris not the an to presenta scene from character's point choosing into a character:it is the free to see thingsin a certainway and thusto turnhimself focalizerwho makes himone. in Mieke Bal goes astray a waythat La In her analysisof anotherpassage from Chatte reveals preciselywhere her theorybreaks down: "Elle le regardaboire et se troubla a brusquement cause de la bouche qui pressaitles bords du verre.Mais il se sentaitsi a a fatiguequ'il refusade participer ce trouble" (N, 41). "Participer quelque chose" without chose" - one cannotpartakeof anything perceiving implies"percevoirquelque the he it. This means that Alain mustperceiveCamille'sconfusion; is therefore focalizer is to at the second level. Yet, according Mieke Bal, thesecondsentence focalizedbythe is is NF. The contradiction resolvedif we say thatAlain's focalization reported by is Alain's focalization an aspect narrator. in thiscase - by the extradiegetic implication is act. of the object of thenarrative The focalizer notendowedwithnarrative powersbut simplyintroducedin his role as focalizerby the narrator. In Bal's theory,focalizationdoes not only referto the actual process of seeing or of proximity observing,which can only take place in a situationof spatio-temporal

This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 07:23:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BAL'S CONCEPT OF FOCALIZATION

197

focalizer and focalized object, but also to such processes as thinking, deliberating, (N, remembering 37). These two kindsof focalization us (let judgingand, in particular, call them physicaland psychological)cover two modes of perceptionthatare in my in of different a number respects crucialto narrative the First, theory. opinion essentially conditionof spatio-temporal focalizaproximity rigorously appliesin thecase ofphysical focalization. The question,then,is tion, whereas it does not apply forpsychological whetherit is acceptable to use the term"focalization"fortwo such entirely different concepts. In her extensiveand important articlesabout freeindirect style(1973, 1978), Ann Banfield aims to demonstrate thatindirect (indirect reporting speech) is notexpression but reporting. She followsPartee, who statesthatthe complement a reporting of verb that introducesindirect of is speech (in short:the complement an inquit-phrase) not a but It sentence a proposition. is notthewordsof thespeakerquoted thatare reproduced, but the propositional contentof his words.The speech act quoted is onlyreported and not mimetically this: reproduced.A fewexamplesmayillustrate be Helen reminded that me damn him, Jack, might lateagain. was Momma beautiful. Oedipussaidthat Because the words in italicsare expressiveand reproductive, theycannotbe ascribed to the speakerquoted but are to be attributed thespeakerof theentire to sentence- in Mieke Bal's terms,theyare focalizedby NF. There is, according Banfield,onlyone to allows us to imitate anotherspeaker'slinguistic habits:direct way the grammar speech. In the following the sentence,therefore, wordMomma does reproduce Oedipus' actual utterance: is Oedipussaid: "Momma beautiful." If we assignthissentenceto itsproperpragmatic in framework a narrative context see we that the roles of N and F are clearlyapart: N narrates: is Oedipus(F) said:"Momma beautiful." If we transform this into indirectspeech accordingto Banfield'srules,the functions remaindistinct: N narrates: his was Oedipus(F) saidthat mother beautiful. If we now return theoriginal to version see thatMommaderives we from and not N fromF: N narrates: Momma wasbeautiful Oedipus(F) saidthat (N) which is in accordance withDoleiel's and Schmid'stheories about textualinterference (Doleiel, 1973; Schmid, 1973), and that there is no reason to accept Mieke Bal's correction Doleiel and Schmidto theeffect of thatthereis interference betweentext and discourseand character's focalizationratherthanbetweennarrator's discourse(N, 11). These examplesshow thatfocalization thepsychological in sense behavesexactly like enunciationin a situationof indirect quoting.Thereforethe conceptcan be analyzed with the help of a linguistic narratologically such as theoryabout textualreporting proposed by Banfield. Focalization in the physicalsense - implying condition the of Let spatio-temporal proximity behaves quite differently. us take the following sentence as a starting-point:

This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 07:23:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

198

W. BRONZWAER on said that there a finch thebranch. was John

Following Banfield we read this sentence in such a way that the embedded clause containsa proposition whose truth correctness speakerquoted is responsible for or the and not the N. The N answersonly forwhether whathe imputesto Johndoes in fact it to said something about conform whatJohnactuallysaid, whether is trueor not. John a finch,even if it was actuallya titmouse thathe saw. So we can extendthissentence witha complementthatcomments the correctness the proposition on of quoted: John said that there a finch thebranch itwasactually titmouse. was on but a On the otherhand, a sentencewhichcontainsa clear case of physical like focalization, saw on John a finch thebranch cannot be extendedin thisway: *John a finch thebranch, itwasa titmouse saw on but he of unless, of course,we read saw like thought saw, in whichcase we have a situation It is clear thata quoted proposition be commented can focalization again. psychological on by the N in a way a case of physicalfocalizationcannot. This means that N is and correctness a focalization. of not Focalizationis therefore responsibleforthe truth at In like reporting all. It has no propositional significance. otherwords,in the first in for sentence the speaker quoted is responsible thefinch, thesecond sentence,theN. without himself. He cannot deny the finch contradicting The analysis shows, first, that focalizationis not a pragmalinguistic categoryand, to of attributable the performer the second, that focalizationis pragmalinguistically this act of whichit is an aspect. We can substantiate in yetanotherway. speech but he on said that sawa finch thebranch, itwasa titmouse. John level. The The two partsof thissentencemustbe localized on the same propositional correctstructure is on he A: said proposition John that sawa finch thebranch B: proposition butitwasa titmouse is a on in whichB constitutes comment A. The structure not as follows: : *N narrates John said on A that sawa finch thebranch he B butitwasa titmouse

we the If we now use theverbsee, changing sentenceintoa case ofphysical focalization, that may say on was there a finch thebranch sawthat *N narrates .John butitwasa titmouse with would be identical a which clearlyrepresents mistaken analysis, N narrates on John a finch thebranch saw , on John a titmouse thebranch saw

This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 07:23:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BAL'S CONCEPT OF FOCALIZATION

199

The only correct where the mistakeis visibleas a contradiction. analysisis therefore: John that saw there a finch thebranch was on *N narrates< John mistakenly:wasactually titmouse. saw it a

where the comment applied on thelevelofN's linguistic is activities noton thelevel and of focalization. The focalization, a factabout John, an indisputable taking as is fact place on the level of the story,but its narrativization N is open to comment:the correct by linguisticmeans by which the focalizationmust be narratedis not the verb see but This distinction somethinglike see mistakenly. actuallyseems to be recognizedby the focalization like grammar.If we take a case of psychological He remembered was a finch thebranch there on we cannot, as we have seen, extendit as follows *He remembered wasa finch thebranch itwasa titmouse. there on but But we can say He remembered wasa finch thebranch, ithadbeena titmouse there on but where the rules of concord of tense forceus to read remembered withanteriorpast so reference, thatwe may paraphrasethissentencein thisway He had thought hadseena finch thebranch, ithadbeena titmouse he on but wherewe see theN changing words.Remember, his here,is readas "have remembered" or even "rememberfalsely." Mieke Bal's correction the notionof textualinterference interference of as between narrator'sdiscourseand character's discourse,and its replacement the view thatin by freeindirect of textwiththecharacter's vision stylewe have interference the narrator's or focalization,has already been mentionedin passing. In our view, Wolf Schmid's need not be corrected any such way, since what we in concept of textualinterference have is really interference between two textsand not between a text and a vision. thisseems obviousbecause thetextual level as suchcannotinterfere with Theoretically, the level of focalization; beforea focalization competewithelements thetextual can on level it willfirst have to be encoded in a text;forthis,as we have seen, an instance with facultiesis needed. In Kate Hamburger's classicalexample "Morgen pragmalinguistic war Weinachten"(1957:33) it seemsentirely reasonableto speak of textual interference, and to say that Morgen is an element out of the character'sdiscourseand war an element out of the narrator'sdiscourse,the preterite tense. This being the narrative means thatfreeindirect can styleis one of themeansthatthenarrator employto report characters'discourse.The focalization the character's of discourseis alreadycomplete before it is worded, let alone transformed any of the possiblemodes of director into indirectreporting. There are, however,otherforms textualinterference. the case of freeindirect of In certainadvantagesin viewof the factthatthe style,Mieke Bal's analysisseems to offer to dividingline between what is attributable the narrator's discourseand what to the character'sdiscourse is generallyrecognizedto be vague and fluctuating more a and matterof interpretation of linguistic than her analysis.In othercases, however, solution Der Zauberberg.In thechapter appears quite illogical.Let us take a keyexamplefrom "Das Thermometer"we have Dr. Behrens, in direct speech, using the expression

This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 07:23:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

200

W. BRONZWAER

idiolectical variant of "Gesegnete "Gesegnete Nahrungsaufnahme,"as a strongly in Mahlzeit" (Mann: 209). This expressionis commented upon and interpreted a way that leaves no room formisunderstanding: symbolizes, ratherindicates,the fatal it or confusionbetween physiological experienceand eroticexperiencewhichplays such a menacingrole in Hans Castorp's education.Later in the novel,we findthe expression as for discourse a synonym "Mahlzeit." "Nahrungsaufnahme" beingused in thenarrator's we withironic In Schmid'sterms, see thatthenarrator's quotes thecharacter's text text, has even withtheconsequencethatthenarrator come to identify consequences; possibly withHans Castorp to such a degree thathe is exposed to the same moral dangersas in of of resists explanation terms Mieke Bal's correction an Castorp. This case, I think, directspeech,it is, wheretheexpression occurswithin Schmid. In the originalsituation it of in her theory, Dr. focalizedbythecharacter, Behrens- or rather, is theexpression his focalization.In the second case, it is focalizedby NF, and musttherefore the by thisfact,thatthe by expressionof NF's focalization a superiorinstance.It is precisely identifiable a quotationof the character's by changingperspectiveis made empirically discourse by the narrator'sdiscourse, that makes it impossibleto account for this is instance that only.The higher pragmalinguistic phenomenonby means of focalization materialthatwe of the implied author,who is responsibleforthe play withlinguistic of observe. In thisview,we can also accountfortheinterpretation thecase. The relation and and character(the narrator between narrator say makingthe character something relation betweenimpliedauthorand is matchedbya similar him) characterizing thereby assumea particular the narrator behavior, linguistic (the impliedauthormaking narrator The narrator that of quoting the character'stextand thereby himself). characterizing then acquires the statusof a "character,"whichexplainshow he can be drawnintothe The storyby being presentedas exposed to the same moraldangersas is the character. in to relevance of thisinterpretation Der Zauberbergwill be obvious: the narrator this and explicit to whichrefers narrator novel uses a highly ambiguous"wir" throughout, at and characters othertimes.In the lattercases, the reader at timesand to narrator to narratormore or less reduceshimself, identification, the level of the characters. by used forthispurposeis thephrase"uns hieroben." verbalLeitmotiv The moststriking is the As an interpretive instrument, conceptof focalization not powerful enoughto account for such cases. We have seen earlier that the theoryof focalization implies with invested intoan instance make thefocalizer whichsometimes certaincontradictions in for powers. We should, of course, be grateful Mieke Bal's achievement linguistic model and thus the notion of focalizationa precise place in a narratological giving between"qui parle" and "qui voit," but where helpingto put an end to the confusion thanit withpragmalinguistic thisconceptis invested capacities,it is givenmorefreedom beast of preythatmustbe kept firmly deserves and tends to behave like a devouring locked up in its cage.
REFERENCES Narrativedans Quatre Romans BAL, MIEKE, 1977. Narratologie: Essais sur la Signification Modernes (Paris). BANFIELD, ANN, 1973. "Narrative Style and the Grammar of Direct and IndirectSpeech," Foundationsof Language 10, 1-39. The Development 1978 "Where Epistemology, History: Styleand GrammarMeet in Literary 9. of RepresentedSpeech and Thought,"New Literary History a des 8, BARTHES,R., 1966. "Introduction l'analyse structurale r6cits,"Communications 1-27.

This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 07:23:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BAL'S CONCEPT OF FOCALIZATION

201

Narratorand Public Reader: Gerard BRONZWAER, W., 1978. "Implied Author, Extradiegetic

Genette's Narratological Model and the Reading Version of Great Expectations," Neophilologus62, 1-18. Modes in Czech Literature DOLEZEL, L., 1973. Narrative (Toronto). GENETTE,G., 1972. FiguresIII (Paris: Seuil). HAMBURGER, K., 1957. Die logikder Dichtung(Stuttgart). MANN,T., 1967. Der Zauberberg(FischerSonderausgabe). in SCHMID, WOLF., 1973. Der Textaufbau den Frziihlungen Dostoevskijs.(Miinchen).

This content downloaded on Sun, 6 Jan 2013 07:23:33 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions