Abstract

Typology of differentiation between oral and literary eposes developed according to different traditions and was based on a variety of materials (M. Parry, A. Lord, A.N. Veselovsky, V.M. Zhirmunsky, M.I. Steblin-Kamensky, E.M. Meletinsky and others). Formulaicity remains one of the indicators of similarities and distinctions between the two types of epos – oral and written. The term was introduced by M. Parry and A. Lord; however, the problem of the nature and characteristics of formulaicity remains arguable under traditions which vary in their origins. Olonkho by one of the first Yakut authors, P.A. Oyunsky allows one to trace the process of creation and producing of formulae within the space of an epic text of written origin. The author’s epos includes the types of formulae in which narrator’s personal name becomes a key element in not only creating alliteration, but also for unfolding the poetic meaning of the entire epic phrase. The analysis shown in the article indicates that despite the similarity in structure, each time the formula re-creates characteristic feature of a certain narrator’s performance. This is an evidence of the name formulae of the type considered here being the symbol of the rising outside (“outside” of the culture) outlook from the writer on formulaicity in oral tradition. It is also shown that a written-origin epos is also characterized by formulaicity while the rules and mechanisms of its producing visibly differ from formulaicity of oral epos. The type of formulae considered presents author’s poetic expression of their attitude to the preceding tradition of narrating. These formulae also allow (within their limits) a reconstruction of the epic environment. It is concluded that the distinction of the naming formula is not only limited to alliterating narrator’s personal name. It also gives meaning to a trope (periphrasis, metaphor, simile) linked to the characteristics of narrator’s unique manner.

Highlights

  • The analysis shown in the article indicates that despite the similarity in structure, each time the formula re-creates characteristic feature of a certain narrator’s performance

  • Formulaic character and presence in an oral epos of one of the regular, recurrent word-combinations marked by metric determination is one of the distinctions of oral tradition (Lord, 1994, p.72)

  • Formulae containing name of the olonkhosut are quite similar and includes: (1) personal name + (2) comparative construction expressed by the post-position “kurduk”, + (3) word combination or word

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The most productive among these appears to be the approach linked to the notion of formulaicity. The latter was elaborated within Parry-Lord’s theory of oral tradition (Lord, 1994). Significant from the perspective of the given work’s objective is the theory by A.N. Zhirmunsky (1962), and further elaborated in the works by E.M. Methodologically significant from the perspective of the given work’s objective is the theory by A.N. Zhirmunsky (1962), and further elaborated in the works by E.M Meletinsky and his advocates and focusing on epos classification (2004; 1968; 1998b) and on distinctions of oral and literary types of epos, (Landmarks of literary epos, 1978; Meletinsky, Neklyudov, & Novik, 2010, pp.11-41)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call