User talk:Ken ENGL612/sandbox

Hello, your potential changes seem to add a lot of good information on the topic. I would suggest considering how you could make this article more digestible/understandable to the general reader of wikipedia. A person who stumbles upon this article likely knows nothing about it. How could you make it knowable for them? Juniper Branchflower (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ken. Ok, now that I have had a chance to look over the page in question and to refresh myself on deixis, I have to say I agree with much of what you observe. The existing explication of Deixis is not progressive, but reads rather like a melange of articulations at very different levels of explicitness. Deictic narration is a problematic term since, as you say, focalization must be contemporaneous with narrational utterance. Deictic field would seem even more primary - certainly prior to narrative even if only accessible through it. The Labov reference is particularly misleading as it implicates him in a narratological program for which he may have had little sympathy. I think you would do well to completely reorganize the information in this article, and to redress its incoherence. Your own writing is manifestly superior to the existing prose, and your handling of terms is far more lucid. I am not sure that the article as named should exist as such, even allowing for your improvements. Deictic Field or Diectic Shift Theory should have their own pages, and discussion of Deixis in these pages should be tailored respectively, not cropped in as an unwieldy preamble or interlude. "Narration," at least in the Deictic Field article, would the become a subheading in my mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erflanders (talk • contribs) 01:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)