NARRATIVE, Vol 23, No. 1 (January 2015) Copyright 2015 by he Ohio State University Paul Dawson Ten heses against Fictionality It is well known that classical narratology derived its categories from narratives of prose iction. And it is largely accepted that to fully address the phenomenon of nar- rative, narratology needs also to account not only for narrative iction across media, but for non-ictional narratives, from conversational storytelling to political rheto- ric. A consequence of this transmedial, interdisciplinary expansion of the ield is the realization that narratologists have tended to take iction itself for granted and thus need to engage with the concept of ictionality as much as the concept of narrativ- ity. On the one hand, we have calls for a iction-speciic approach to narrative, which Dorrit Cohn once suggested could be called ictionology (“Signposts” 110). 1 On the other hand, we have calls for a general approach to ictionality across all narratives, ictional and non-ictional. At stake here is the broader question of the theoretical relation between ictionality and narrativity in the wake of the narrative turn across the humanities and social sciences. Fictionality as a nominal ield of study emerged in the 1970s and 1980s with- in philosophy of language and logic rather than literary theory, and was explicitly Paul Dawson is the author of two monographs, he Return of the Omniscient Narrator: Authorship and Authority in Twenty-First Century Fiction (2013) and Creative Writing and the New Humanities (2005), as well as a collection of poems, Imagining Winter (2006). He is currently Senior Lecturer in the School of the Arts and Media at the University of New South Wales. He can be reached at paul.dawson@unsw.edu.au.