Jump to content

Oral tradition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DavidOaks (talk | contribs) at 20:45, 13 May 2008 (Lawd, jest lookit all them cites!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Oral tradition, oral culture and oral lore is a way for a society to transmit history, literature, law and other knowledges across generations without a writing system; one set of criteria specifies material held in common by a group of people, over several generations, and thus distinct from testimony or oral history[1] In a general sense, "oral tradition" refers to the transmission of cultural material through vocal utterance, and was long held to be a key descriptor of folklore (a criterion no longer rigidly held by all folklorists).[2] As an academic discipline, it refers both to a method and the objects studied by the method.[3] The study of oral tradition is distinct from the academic discipline of oral history,]][4] which is the recording of personal memories and histories of those who experienced historical eras or events.[5] It is also distinct from the study of orality, which can be defined as thought and its verbal expression in societies where the technologies of literacy (especially writing and print) are unfamiliar to most of the population.[6]

History of the study of Oral Tradition

Oral tradition as a field of study had its origins[7] in the work of the Serb scholar Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic (1787-1864), a contemporary and friend of the Brothers Grimm. Vuk pursued similar projects of "folklore salvage" in the cognate traditions of the Southern Slavic regions which would later be gathered into Yugoslavia, and with the same admixture of romantic and nationalistic interests (he considered all those speaking Serbo-Croat as Serbs). Somewhat later, but as part of the same scholarly enterprise of nationalist studies in folklore,[8] the turcologist Vasily Radlov (1837-1918) would study the songs of the Kara-Kirghiz in what would later become the Soviet Union.

Milman Parry and Albert Lord

Shortly thereafter, Milman Parry (1902-1935), pursuing a degree in Classics at Harvard, would begin to grapple with what was then called the "Homeric Question," usually framed as "who was Homer?" and "what are the Homeric poems?" [9]The Homeric question actually consists of a series of related inquiries, and Parry's contribution, which drew upon and synthesized the insights of previous scholars including Marcel Jousse, Matija Murko and Arnold van Gennep, was to reconsider the foundational assumptions which framed the inquiries, a re-ordering that would have consequences for a great many literatures and disciplines.[10]

Parry's work under Antoine Meillet at the Sorbonne led to his crucial insight into the "formula," which he originally defined as "a group of words which is regularly employed under the same metrical conditions to express a given essential idea."[11] Formulas were not individual and idiosyncratic devices of particular artists, but the shared inheritance of a tradition of singers. They were easily remembered, making it possible for the singer to execute an improvisational composition-in-performance. "The meaning of the Greek term 'rhapsodize', rhapsoidein, 'to stitch song together' could then be taken in a negative sense: Homer stitched together pre-fabricated parts."[12]

The idea met with immediate resistance,[13] because it seemed to make the fount of Western literary eloquence the slave of a system of clichés, but it accounted for such otherwise inexplicable features of the Homeric poems as gross anachronisms (revealed by advances in historical and archaeological knowledge), the presence of incompatible dialects, and the deployment of locally unsuitable epithets ("blameless Aegisthos" for the murderer of Agamemnon, or the almost comic use of "swift-footed Achilles" for the hero in conspicuously sedentary moments).[14][15]

Parry was appointed to a junior professorship at Harvard, and during this time became aware of living oral traditions in the Balkan region. In two field expeditions with his young assistant Albert Lord (1912-1991) he would record thousands of songs on aluminum disks. [16] The collection would provide the basis for an empirical documentation of the dynamics of composition of metrical narrative in traditional oral performance. This analysis included the patterns and types of variation at lexical and other levels which would yield a structural account of a work's multiformity. This phenomenon could only be accounted for in standard literary methodology by concepts of “corruption” and “distortion” of a pristine, original “ur-text” or hypothetical “lost Q" ("Quelle", German for "source"). Thus the work of Parry and Lord reduced the prominence of the historic-geographic method in folkloristics.[17]

Tragically, Parry was killed in a pistol-accident. His work was posthumously published by his son Adam Parry as The Making of Homeric Verse (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971). Lord, however, had meanwhile published The Singer of Tales (1960)[18], a work which summarized both Parry's response to the Homeric Question, and the joint work he had done with Parry in the Balkans. The Parry-Lord work exercised great influence on other scholars, notably Francis P. Magoun, whose application of their model to Anglo-Saxon traditions demonstrated the explicative and problem-solving power of the theory[19] – a process that would be repeated by other scholars in numerous independent traditions.

Walter Ong

In a separate development, the media theorist Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980) would begin to focus attention on the ways that communicative media shape the nature of the content conveyed.[20] He would serve as mentor to the Jesuit, Walter Ong (1912-2003), whose interests in cultural history, psychology and rhetoric would result in Orality and Literacy (Methuen, 1980) and the important but less-known Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality and Consciousness (Cornell, 1981)[21] These two works successfully and accessibly articulated the contrasts between cultures defined by primary orality, writing, print, and the 'secondary' orality of the electronic age.[22]

I style the orality of a culture totally untouched by any knowledge of writing or print, 'primary orality'. It is 'primary' by contrast with the 'secondary orality' of present-day high technology culture, in which a new orality is sustained by telephone, radio, television and other electronic devices that depend for their existence and functioning on writing and print. Today primary culture in the strict sense hardly exists, since every culture knows of writing and has some experience of its effects. Still, to varying degrees many cultures and sub-cultures, even in a high-technology ambiance, preserve much of the mind-set of primary orality.[23]

Ong's works also made possible an integrated theory of oral tradition which accounted for both production of content (the chief concern of Parry-Lord theory) and its reception.[24] This approach, like McLuhan's, kept the field open not just to the study of aesthetic culture but to the way physical artifacts of oral societies are used to store, manage and transmit knowledge.

The most-often studied section of Orality and Literacy concerns the “psychodynamics of orality” This chapter seeks to define the fundamental characteristics of 'primary' orality and summarizes a series of descriptors which might be used to index the relative orality or literacy of a given text or society.[25]

John Miles Foley

In advance of Ong’s synthesis, John Miles Foley, who studied with Robert Creed (who had in turn studied with Magoun), began a series of papers based on his own fieldwork on South Slavic oral genres, emphasizing the dynamics of performers and audiences. [26] Foley effectively consolidated oral tradition as an academic field[1] when he compiled Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research in 1985. The bibiography gives a summary of the progress scholars made in evaluating the oral tradition up to that point, and includes a list of all relevant scholarly articles relating to the theory of Oral-Formulaic Composition. He also both established both the journal Oral Tradition and founded the Center for Studies in Oral Tradition (1986) at the University of Missouri–Columbia. Foley developed Oral Theory beyond the somewhat mechanistic notions presented in Oral-Formulaic Theory by drawing attention to the agency of the bard and by describing how oral traditions bear meaning.

The bibliography would establish a clear underlying methodology which accounted for the findings of scholars working in the separate Linguistics fields (primarily Ancient Greek, Anglo-Saxon and Serbo-Croatian). Perhaps more importantly, it would stimulate conversation among these specialties, so that a network of independent but allied investigations and investigators could be established.[27]

Foley’s key works include The Theory of Oral Composition (1988);[28] Immanent Art (1991); Traditional Oral Epic: The Odyssey, Beowulf and the Serbo-Croatian Return-Song (1993); The Singer of Tales in Performance (1995); Teaching Oral Traditions (1998); How to Read an Oral Poem (2002). His Pathways Project (2006-) draws parallels between the media dynamics of oral traditions and the Internet.

An Expanding Discipline

The theory of oral tradition would undergo elaboration and development as it grew in acceptance.[29] While the number of formulas documented for various traditions proliferated.[30] The concept of the formula remained lexically-bound. However, numerous innovations appeared, such as the “formulaic system” with structural “substitution slots” for syntactic, morphological and narrative necessity (as well as for artistic invention).[31] Sophisticated models such as Foley’s “word-type placement rules” followed. [32] Higher levels of formulaic composition were defined over the years, such as “ring composition,”[33] 

“responsion”[34]
and the “type-scene” (also called a "theme" or "typical scene"[35]

). Some of these characteristic patterns of narrative details, (like “the arming sequence;” “the hero on the beach;” “the traveler recognizes his goal”) would show evidence of global distribution.[36]

At the same time, the fairly rigid division between oral and literate was replaced by recognition of transitional and compartmentalized texts and societies, including models of diglossia (Brian Stock, Franz Bäuml, Eric Havelock). Perhaps most importantly, the terms and concepts of “orality” and “literacy” came to be replaced with the more useful and apt “traditionality” and “textuality.”[37] Very large units would be defined (The Indo-European Return Song)[38] and areas outside of military epic would come under investigation: women’s song,[39] riddles]].”[40] and other genres.

The methodology of oral tradition now conditions an enormous variety of studies in literature, literacy, communication theory,Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[41][42] and aesthetics[43][44] 

specific to oral traditions.

Criticisms & Current Debates

Some scholars outside the field of oral traditon [45][46][47][48] represent (either dismissively or with approval) this body of theoretical work as reducing the great epics to children’s party games like “telephone” or “Chinese whispers”. While games provide amusement by showing how messages distort content via uncontextualized transmission, Parry’s supporters argue that the theory of oral tradition reveals how oral methods optimized the signal-to-noise ratio and thus improved the quality, stability and integrity of content transmission. [49][50][51][52]


References

  1. ^ Henige, David. Oral, but Oral What? The Nomenclatures of Orality and Their Implications Oral Tradition, 3/1-2 (1988): 229-38. p 232; Henige cites Jan Vansina (1985). Oral tradition as history. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press
  2. ^ Degh, Linda. American Folklore and the Mass Media. Bloomington:IUP, 1994, p. 31
  3. ^ Dundes, Alan, “Editor’s Introduction” to “The Theory of Oral Composition,” John Miles Foley. Bloomington, IUP, 1988, pp. ix-xii
  4. ^ Henige, David. Oral, but Oral What? The Nomenclatures of Orality and Their Implications Oral Tradition, 3/1-2 (1988): 229-38. p 232; Henige cites Jan Vansina (1985). Oral tradition as history. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press
  5. ^ http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/oral_history.html
  6. ^ Ong, Walter, S.J., “Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word.” London: Methuen, 1982 p 12
  7. ^ The history of the theory of oral tradition was first reported as such by John Miles Foley; the following overview draws upon Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography, (NY: Garland Publishing, 1985, 1986, 1989); additional material is summarized from the overlapping prefaces to the following volumes: The Theory of Oral Composition: History and Methodology, (Indiana University Press, 1988, 1992); Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991); The Singer of Tales in Performance (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995) and Comparative Research on Oral Traditions: A Memorial for Milman Parry (Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, 1987).
  8. ^ http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/5i/5_radloff.pdf Early Scholarship on Oral Traditions: Radloff, Jousse and Murko "Oral Tradition" 5:1 (1990) 73-90
  9. ^ Foley, John Miles. The Theory of Oral Composition. Bloomington: IUP, 1991, Chapters 1 & 2
  10. ^ Milman Parry. Studies in the epic technique of oral verse-making. I: Homer and Homeric style. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 41 (1930), pp. 118ff.
  11. ^ Adam Parry (ed.). The Making of Homeric Verse: The Collected Papers of Milman Parry. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971, p. 272.
  12. ^ Walter J. Ong. Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the word. Routledge, London & New York, 1982, 2002; p. 22.
  13. ^ Foley, John Miles. The Theory of Oral Composition. Bloomington: IUP, 1991, pp. 57 ff.
  14. ^ Foley, John Miles. The Theory of Oral Composition. Bloomington: IUP, 1991, Chapters 1 & 2
  15. ^ Foley, John Miles. Immanent Art. From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic." Bloomington: IUP, 1991. 3, 52
  16. ^ The work is reviewed and analyzed in Lord, Albert, "The Singer of Tales." Cambridge: Harvard UP 1960.
  17. ^ Foley, John Miles. Immanent Art. From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic." Bloomington: IUP, 1991. 100, 100n11, 102, 119
  18. ^ Albert B. Lord. The Singer of Tales. Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature, 24. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1981
  19. ^ Francis P. Magoun, Jr. The oral-formulaic character of Anglo-Saxon narrative poetry. Speculum Vol. 28 (1953), pp. 446-67.
  20. ^ See for example Marshall McLuhan, The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1962.
  21. ^ Walter J. Ong. Fighting for Life: Context, Sexuality and Consciousness. Cornell University Press, Ithaca & London, 1981.
  22. ^ Foley, John Miles. The Theory of Oral Composition. Bloomington: IUP, 1991, pp. 57 ff.
  23. ^ Walter J. Ong. Orality and Literacy, p. 11.
  24. ^ Foley, John Miles. The Theory of Oral Composition. Bloomington: IUP, 1991, pp. 57 ff.
  25. ^ Walter J. Ong. Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the word, pp. 31-76.
  26. ^ Foley, John Miles. The Theory of Oral Composition. Bloomington: IUP, 1991, p 76.
  27. ^ Foley, John Miles. "Oral Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography." NY: Garland, 1985.The Theory of Oral Composition. Bloomington: IUP, 1991, pp. 64-66.
  28. ^ John Miles Foley. The Theory of Oral Composition: History and Methodology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1988.
  29. ^ Foley, John Miles. "Oral Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography." NY: Garland, 1985.The Theory of Oral Composition. Bloomington: IUP, 1991, p. 70
  30. ^ A. Orchard, 'Oral Tradition', Reading Old English Texts, ed. K O'Brien O'Keeffe ( Cambridge, 1997), pp. 101-23
  31. ^ Davis, Adam Brooke “Verba volent, scripta manent: Oral Tradition and the Non-Narrative Genres of Old English Poetry.” Diss. Univ. of Missouri at Columbia. DAI 52A (1991), 2137 pp. 202, 205
  32. ^ Foley, John Miles. Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic. Bloomington:IUP, 1991. 30, 31, 202n22, 207 n36, 211n43
  33. ^ Foley, John Miles. "The Singer of Tales in Performance. Bloomington: IUP, 1995. 55, 60, 89 108, 122n40
  34. ^ Olsen, Alexandra Hennessey. "Oral -Formulaic Research in Old English Studies:II" "Oral Traditon" 3:1-2 (1988) 138-90, p. 165) Olsen cites Foley's "Hybrid Prosody and Old English Half-Lines in Neophilologus 64:284-89 (1980).
  35. ^ Foley, John Miles. "The Singer of Tales in Performance. Bloomington: IUP, 1995. 2, 7, 8n15, 17 et passim.
  36. ^ Armstrong, James I. The Arming Motif in the Iliad. The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 79, No. 4. (1958), pp. 337-354.
  37. ^ Davis, Adam Brooke. “Agon and Gnomon: Forms and Functions of the Anglo-Saxon Riddles" in De Gustibus: Essays for Alain Renoir. Ed John Miles Foley. NY: Garland, 1992 110-150
  38. ^ Foley, John Miles. “Immanent Art” Bloomington:IUP, 1991. 15, 18, 20-21, 34, 45, 63-64, 64n6, 64-68,, 74n23, 75, 76, 77n28, 78, 80, 82, 82n38, 83, 87-91, 92, 93, 94, 102, 103, 104n18, 105, 109, 110n32
  39. ^ Weigle, Marta. “Women’s Expressive Forms” in Foley, John Miles, ed. “Teaching Oral Traditions” NY:MLA 1998. pp. 298-
  40. ^ Davis, Adam Brooke. “Agon and Gnomon: Forms and Functions of the Anglo-Saxon Riddles" in De Gustibus: Essays for Alain Renoir. Ed John Miles Foley. NY: Garland, 1992 110-150
  41. ^ Kelber, Werner H. “The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Writing and Speaking in the Synoptic Tradition” Philadelphia: Fortress P 1983.
  42. ^ Swearingen, C. Jan. Oral Hermeneutics during the Transition to Literacy: The Contemporary Debate. Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 1, No. 2, The Dialectic of Oral and Literary Hermeneutics (May, 1986), pp. 138-156
  43. ^ Foley, John Miles. The Theory of Oral Composition: History and Methodology. Bloomington: IUP, 1988. 55, 64, 66, 72, 74, 77, 80, 97, 105, 110-111, 129n20,; artistic cp to mechanistic, 21, 25, 38, 58, 63-64, 65, 104, 118-119n20, 120-121n16, 124n31, 125n53, oral aesthetic cp to literate aestetics, 35, 58, 110-11, 121n26.
  44. ^ Foley, John Miles. Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic. Bloomington:IUP, 1991. 245
  45. ^ Botstein, Leon. “Hearing Is Seeing: Thoughts on the History of Music and the Imagination.” The Musical Quarterly 1995 79(4):581-589
  46. ^ http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_folklore_research/v043/43.3oring.html Elliot Oring cites Bruchac, Joe Storytelling: Oral History or Game of 'Telephone'?" American Folklore Society Newsletter 19/2:3–4.
  47. ^ http://christopherbutler.wordpress.com/2006/04/28/scriptural-transmission-inspiration-and-inerrancy/ Christopher Butler cites Bart Ehrman, ‘Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why,’
  48. ^ http://www.valdosta.edu/folkwriting/pdf/chapter4.PDF
  49. ^ Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Great Britain: Bantam, 2006 p. 118 -- Dawkins contradicts this view, however, on p. 227)
  50. ^ http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/gospelsreliable-more.htm#jul2106
  51. ^ http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/telephone.html
  52. ^ http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/orality01.html

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oral_tradition&oldid=212196066"