It has been noted (Perkins, 2009; Zwaan, 1999; Zwaan & Radvansky, 1998) that causality, character, location, and time are the four main aspects of narrative discourse, even if not attended to by listeners or readers in equal ways. For example, character is highly ranked, and the locational/spatial components have often been underestimated for English narratives (see Perkins, 2009, for a review). Relative to the ranking, there is no inherent reason why character needs to be highly ranked, and locational/spatial information is in fact important in English narrative discourse (Perkins, 2009). I instead suggest that there are linguistic and cultural factors in the ranking of these aspects of discourse. Specifically, I suggest that causality is (probably) the highest ranked component, in languages that have a ranking, with the other three elements being linked to causality more or less strongly, depending on linguistic and cultural factors; it is possible that some languages do not rank narrative elements or that some elements are ranked as highly as others. In English, the strongest link is between causality and character. However, this is not universal.In a survey of fifty-eight languages from thirty language families, including an in-depth study of Hobongan, an Austronesian language spoken by approximately two thousand people on the island of Borneo that I am in the process of describing, it is found that there is a great deal of cross-linguistic variation, to the extent that it is possible that each logically possible combination of narrative elements is present in the world’s languages.

In a partial report on field work conducted among the Hobongan in Indonesia during 2012–2015, I note that the language has very few idiomatic politeness routines (a couple of greetings with which to send people on their travels are notable exceptions). However, the language has many other ways to indicate politeness and impoliteness. One such strategy is lexical items to indicate curses; there are three lexical items that often combine with other terms to form idiomatic curses in the language, which suggests, in comparison to the idiomatic expressions of farewell, that impoliteness is more important than politeness, at least with regard to idiomatic expressions. Another strategy to maintain politeness is to participate in social rituals that can be observed but that do not necessarily co-occur with politeness routines. Although there are incantations, often associated with social rituals, they are too extensive to be considered politeness routines in the usual sense; impoliteness is indicated by a refusal to participate in the rituals. These rituals thus provide a fully pragmatic way to conduct politeness and impoliteness, not requiring stated terms. Perhaps the most common way to indicate politeness is through the use of many euphemisms, including ways to talk to and about people without using their given names (the use of given names is avoided in order to prevent evil spirits from being able to identify individuals); such euphemisms also include terms to avoid speaking directly about bodily functions and sexual activity that are not considered acceptable for polite Hobongan society. It has been noted that although a range of possibilities exist for politeness, including behavioral and pragmatic possibilities (

This study examines strategies that authors can use in texts to keep readers active and accurate participants in the literary conversation and sets forth a taxonomy of those strategies: initiating the literary conversation, anticipating, preventing and correcting possible misunderstandings, and keeping readers engaged as interlocutors. A case study onBurmese Days,by George Orwell, reveals a pattern of interactions between stated information and assumed knowledge. Orwell’s strategies indicate that he assumes that readers are competent, participatory readers (literary conversants), and he uses that assumption to convey locational information. Among these strategies are the following main categories: emphasizing closed-class semantics over open-class implicatures; providing more detail about more important information and less detail about less important information; reviewing the most important information from multiple perspectives; and perhaps most importantly, leaving some information for readers to infer. All of Orwell’s strategies assume the best about readers’ knowledge and willingness to participate and leave room for a pragmatically productive give-and-take that closely resembles conversation.

As noted by Teske, 2015, contradictions are used intentionally and systematically to convey various types of meaning in works of narrative fiction. I consider ways in which these strategies might also contribute to guiding (or misguiding) readers through narratives and some possible aesthetic considerations toward the uses of contradictions in fiction. It is also suggested that evaluations of the applications of contradictions and other rhetorical strategies for conveying meaning and/or aesthetics in narrative could lead toward a clearer understanding of what makes a given text literary or not.