敘說方法論的再反思（一）：如果在雨天一個客人／敘述方法論的再反思（二）：敘事、意識與事事之法

（一）如果在雨天一個客人：以卡爾維諾的小說《如果在冬夜，一個旅人》為對象，我們可以作出許多可能的擬仿版本。由此，我們即可問：「擬仿」在敘說方法論中有何意義？甚至在敘說或說故事之中，是否必須包含某種道理（可道之理）？這是敘事法本身最基本的問題，但在新興的心理學敘說方法論中，卻似乎成為某種經常為人視而不見的問題，於是，作者意圖從這些基本的範疇，如「論述／話語」、「敘事／故事」等問題與「能不能說」的關係開始，展開一場重述。譬如討論「好故事／爛故事」的區別；故事中出現的「詭異」是什麼語言現象等等，並在這場討論和重述中採用信手拈來的材料，互相編織出某種敘事關聯，強調敘事手藝才是真正的關鍵所在，而不在於材料的特殊性與異常性。（二）敘事、意識與事事之法：既然我們要討論的問題屬於「敘事學」，那麼，敘事的根本元素，「事」，究竟是什麼？何謂「一事」？而我們在生事、起事、事發、事件之中的處境，不也是「事」本身嗎？是故，人與事的動態關係就應稱為「事事」，而敘事法也取得方法論上的一個新位置，叫做「事事之法」。漢語的古代語言學中本有「象事」、「指事」的概念，這和現代心理學概念中的「意識」究竟有何關聯？把「意識」的問題重新置入日常生活中，我們會發現：我們經常處於事態之中，卻也常不知其為何事。有事而無名（無象、無指）的情況成為心理學必須面對的新問題。在挑起俗民語言、心理語言等問題之後，我們在意識上更有問題的應是「後設語言」。這問題可用現象學來開啟討論，但作者要利用現象學的一個旁支，即Garfinkel 的「俗民方法論」，來作為結合意識與敘事問題的新方法論，然後引接到Garfinkel 同僚之一的Harvey Sacks 及其「談話分析」，雖然只取用這兩者理論中的一點吉光片羽，但已經可造成心理學上的震撼：我們可曾意識到，這就是我們所謂的「敘事心理學」中，早應討論的問題，卻不知為何經常溜出我們的問題意識之外？

關鍵字

事；故事；敘事法；敘事學；敘說方法論

並列摘要

Part One: In literary theory, the concept of parody is not anything new, but what about its status in the recently developed and alleged ＂narrative psychology?＂ It is challenging to ask psychologists such a question, yet we as psychologists may not be well prepared to give a satisfying answer. Our methodology is still in a very crude state which is obviously not quite able to face the challenge coming from the tradition of literary study. But it’s always not too late if psychologists are willing to start again from such initial categories as ＂discourse,＂＂narrative,＂ and even ＂story.＂ In Chinese language, there are already many different conceptual counterparts of the aforementioned categories, the problem in our academic community is, for example, the very basic negligence of differentiating what constitutes a good (or a bad) story, or a full enough discussion of a more sophisticated linguistic phenomenon of ＂paradox.＂ We tend to keep our use of language in epistemological naiveté. The author thus shows a little bit of necessary craftsmanship in how to tell a simple story, and how not to lose its possibility of getting into the very state of the art. Part Two: In narratology, the basic element is not just ＂narrative,＂ but must go right down to more elementary units such as ＂an episode,＂＂an occurence,＂＂an event,＂＂an instance,＂＂a thing＂ and the like. In Chinese language, there are also many words carrying such meaning of narrative units, such as ＂shih＂（事）. Interesting is that this unit can also be used as a verb, so that when we are talking about doing a thing, or engaging a thing, it becomes ＂shih shih＂ in Chinese. A methodology deriving from such conception of ＂shih shih＂ will be quite different from its English counterpart. Every shih must first of all be indicated or signified, and to indicate or to signify means there preexist a sign, a meaning which does not mean anything yet. This is a methodological reduction that the Chinese language users must relearn, especially from ancient Chinese words. Or call it a philology that is especially needed for Chinese narratology. This kind of reduction will necessarily meet ethnomethodology in headway or in the halfway. The consciousness of this meeting will further build up its meta-theoretical connection with conversation analysis. To be conscious of a thing is to be in the state of ＂shih shih,＂ and also of doing the very thing. Narrative of a thing, doing the thing, and being conscious of the thing, become one thing. The conception of this unity can hardly be constructed outside Chinese language.