Jerome Bruner Actual Minds, Possible Worlds
These notes (a mess to a certain degree) focus on description and implies its importance for narration.
Burner introduces his analysis via a discussion of primitive syntax (topic + comment) from the more general form (given + new).
He discusses metaphor substitution from (given + new). Of course he is attempting to point out the flaws in verificationist theories of meaning. He forgets his simple or elementary expression (topic + comment). What strikes me is that topic + comment is not so simple i.e. topic implies a field or isotopy [topos or place]. Already one is caught up in coordinates. The comment is a selection among possible coordinates. It reverberates along the “hidden” structure of force fields (c.f. Arnheim on balance)
Notes which later become an overt challenge to downgrading description in favour of story:
There is slippage between mood (subjunctive) and mode (subjectivization). He has moved the question from one of reference to one of intuition. “Narrative deals with the vicissitudes of human intentions.” His arguments are going to rely heavily on verbs ∴ nomination + narration almost unexamined + establishes a distance between narration & report. B presupposes (yes I’m using his vocab in a verb form) transformation as core of narrative (No surprise since he relies heavily on Iser). Description as core of narration would come closer to Pavel’s extensive use of travel metaphors.
So tempted to restate: Narrative deals with the vicissitudes of human attention.
And so for day 1845