This article revisits the limits of non-communicational understandings of narrative though an apprehension of narrative grounded in utterance. If it is a fact that a “he” narrator doesn’t manifest himself in discourse in the same way as an “I”, nonetheless this means neither that the concept of narrator is inconsistent, nor that one can therefore be authorized to conclude, because of the narrator’s supposed absence, that there can be a noncommunicational narratology. In its second part, the article makes the case for redefining a communicational apprehension of narration and shows that literary texts of fiction share a great deal of characteristics with ordinary texts, among other things strategies to erase utterance, whose interpretation requires a dialogical and dialogal process which doesn’t renege on the communication frame, even if the destination of the communication is no longer clearly articulated. Finally, the article concludes on the limits of the opposition between “communicational” and “non-communicational”, which is too narrow to account for the complexity of linguistic phenomena.