PI~TER NIEDERM6TLLER

F O L K N A R R A T I V E R E S E A R C H

(J. Pentik~iinen - - T. Juurikka eds., Studia Fennica, 20. Helsinki, 1976.)

The International Society for Folk Narrative Research held its 6th congress in June 1974. Some of the lectures and contributions delivered there were published independently as the 20th volume of Studia Fennica in 1976. The editors selected the treatises according to a definite point of view, thus the volume gives a more or less complete survey of the prob- lems and trends of modern research in folklore. The essays in the volume were divided into four sections and these tematic groups reflect well the investigational aims and approaches in new folkloristics. So it seems reasonable to follow the same division when reviewing it.

There was a very important reversal in the history of folklore both in Europe and America in the second part of the sixties. Folkloristics made an attempt both in theory and in practice to make use of the methods and views of some interdisciplinary sciences (theory of communication, theory of information, semiotics.) Naturally these endeavours brought about changes in the object of research, too. New notions (communi- cations, communicative act, narratives, context, performance, speech- act, etc.) appeared in folkloristic analysis. The starting-point of the new endeavours and new methods is the recognition that the primary object of research is folklore action in its context.

The most mature attempts of "new folkloristics" are in connection with research in folklore literatures, and for several reasons. On one hand, the scholars can rely on important historical antecedents (Russian for- malism and structuralistic theory of literature, Propp's morphology of tales, von Sydow's remarks on the theory of genre, etc.); on the other hand, the results of the researches in the theory of text which were born and began to develop fast in the sixties could be used most directly in this aspect. One of the basic principles of this new attitude towards research in folklore is defined by J. Pentik/iinen in the preface of the volume, as The narrative event is a communicative happening. Explicitly or implicitly the treatises is the volume are built on this foundation.

Genre Theory in Folkloristics, The first of the four sections of the volume concentrates on the genres and characteristics of the narrative event mentioned above. According to D. Hymes folklore researches

300 PI~TER NIEDERMULLER

have two tasks: analysis of genres and communicative behaviour forms on the level of expression, stylistics, and aesthetics. L. Honko in his essay (Genre Theory Revisited) expounds tha t modern folkloristics analyses and examines the speech-acts and other manifestations of the community. The folklore actions of individuals and groups can become known only in this way. The question arises, what can we consider genre, what phenomena can be described with the term genre. D. Ben-Amos, who in his essay (The Concepts of Genre in Folklore) gives a summary of the history of folkloristic genre-theory emphasizes that the definition has to answer the basic question whether t h e n o t i o n of genre is a realistic or a nominalistic notion. In the course of ' the history of folkloristics the not ion of genre has been interpreted in four different ways. Genre has been examined as a category o f classificatio~i, a permanent form, as form of expression and as a form of speech. ARhough in his historical survey D. Ben-Amos admits the arguments of the" various interpretations and their effect on the development of folklore, he is firmly convinced that the notions of genre must be redefined on the basis of new folkloristics. In the au thor ' s opinion genres must be interpreted as the cognitive categories of culture. Genres can be considered only in the course of folklore communicat ion and performance. At the same time the cultural structure of genres implicitly contains the grammar of folklore commu- nication and folklore performance. The cultural function of genres is defined by the meaning of the structure of distinguishing marks, and we can distinguish the operative, cognitive, pragmatical and expressive levels of this function. R. D. Abrahams is much of the same opinion in his writing (Genre Theory and Folkloristics). In his words genres are "culturally learned, context-specific devices which are token by the partic- i p a n t s into an aesthetic encounter". Abrahams especially emphasizes the need for the study of performance-process. According to him folklor- istics must be primarily a performance-centred discipline. R. Schenda's remark can also be ment ioned in this place, as he reminds us tha t the process and not ion of performance denote not only the nar ra tor and the setting of the narra t ion but all those socio-economic conditions and cultural pat terns upon which folklore communicat ion depends. Stressing the analysis of performance-process makes it necessary to reinterpret the not ion of t radi t ion, L. Honko emphasizes the themes of repetition and t ime in connection with this expression. As for R. Schenda in his point of view tradi t ion must be considered a cultural structure, a s tructure which is always the result of a historical process. Research and statements never refer to static structures but to dynamic processes the three most impor tan t components of which are text, context, and community.

Structural Analysis in Folklore. I t is A. Dundes ' scientific and theoreti- cal essay (Structuralism and Folklore), and E. Meletinsky's critical one (Perspectives et limites de l'~tude structurale de folklore) which are

FOLK NARRATIVE RESEARCH 301

especially worth mentioning among the chookes in this section. The structural tendency of analysis in folklore literature are marked by the names of the two scholars V. J. Propp and CI. L6vi-Strauss. These two names represent two possible structural tendencies. Propp's examinations are syntactical (morphological) while those of L6vi-Strauss try to eluci- date semantical features and the process of performance. Apart f rom these two tendencies there are two possible starting-points for every structural analysis: 1. folklore phenomena have an inherent, inner structure which must be re,Cealed in the course of the analysis; 2. structure is a model and nothing more, which is created by the researcher as a means for studying aspects of folklore. It is evident that choosing between the two ways of approach means a basic difference not so much in the methodology but rather on the theoretical level.

Structural folkloristics is especially significant with regard to genre theory. The aim of analysis is to find out whether the structure of folklore genres is that of discovering-describing of inventive-creative. The final aim of structural genre theory is to describe the structural patterns of folklore genres. By means of this description we can learn the nature o f culture, cognitive categories, ideological content, and the behaviour of the people creating the culture. Or, more exactly, the most important aim of structural analysis of folklore is to offer insight into cultural world- concept. The structural patterns mentioned before, however, help us to learn not only the world-concept of a given culture, but make it possible to compare our own world-concept with that of other peoples and thus to understand Man better.

Another trend of research is represented by the writings which consid- er structural analysis as a methodology in folkloristics. From this point of view E. Meletinsky emphasizes that one of the most important tasks o f tale-research is to construct the structural system of tales on the pattern of type-and-motif indexes. I. Oprisan's essay (Eini#e Bemerkungen zur Untersuchun# und Aborenzung der Volksprosa vom iisthetischen Stand- punkt), which characterizes prose texts on the basis of "artistical struc- ture" and tries to distinguish the genres (primarily tale and saga), is impor- tant for similar reasons. His aim is to define the forms in which the general structural units (introduction, the story itself, ending formula) of these texts are realised and individualized. These points of view and approaches underline one of the basic differences between structural folkloristics and new folkloristics. Structural analysis is always concerned with a text, a structure, a state, while new folkloristics always examines processes.

Tradition Requested in Folklore. The essays published under this title cover a wide field of problems. K. (~istov's work (Zur Frage der theoreti- schen Unterschiede zwischen Folklore und Literatur) makes an attempt to divide the phenomena of folklore and literature upon communication- theoretical grounds. The author distinguishes two forms of communi-

302 PI~TER NIEDERMIJLLER

cat ion: a natural form characteristic of folklore and a technical one characteristic of literature. With regard to t ransmission and bequest of t radi t ion the difference between these two communicat ive acts has a decisive influence. Naturally folklore and literature diverge in several other aspects, too, as in the spheres of "art ist ic structures", the aesthetics .of communicat ion, the usage of signes, metalanguage, the restriction to situations, and the realization of the whole communicative act. Similarly R. A. Georges put the problem of transmission and bequest of t radi t ion into the focus of his essay (From Folktale Research to the Study of Narrating). The main idea of his essay is tha t the story, connected to its situational, national, cultural, communal, and social contexts, gives a new turn tO the research. The examination of tale or story is replaced by the examination of narrat ion, the process, and the analysis of context is par t of the job. The author examines one of the levels of this context, the wandering of stories f rom group to group. R. Schenda's essay (Prinzipien einer sozialgeschichtlichen Einordnung yon Volkserzlihlungsinhalten), he reminds us that from earlier times it is only texts, i.e. the products of litera- ture which are available for folkloristics. Thus only one level of these folk-narratives can be known, whereas several other aspects are lost. D. R. Moser's writing ( Kritik der oralen Tradition) along with some other essays mentioned above a l though to elucidate whether oral tradition, bequested t rad i t ion is really a specific feature, a distinguishing trait of folklore. In connection with the notion of t radi t ion the au thor stresses the problem of time above all. Besides he attaches special importance to the process of spreading and accommodation. According to D. R. Moser 3 possible forms of individual adopt ion can be distinguished : early adopt- ers, late adopters, and laggards. In his view the process of the bequest of t radi t ion is best reflected by the following pat tern:

a a~ a 2 a 3 U ~ AK1 �9 AK 2 �9 AK a �9 etc.

primary secondary communicat ion

M1 M2 M3 M4

U = Original elaborder A = adressed, K = intermediary, a = address

The summary of his study is: bequest of oral t radit ion as a possible form o f the transmission of cultural information is always given, even in industrial societies. On the basis of this statement the role, and bequest of oral t radi t ion in folklore must be thoroughly reconsidered.

One of the most impor tant writings on this subject is B. Abrahams Babcock's essay (The Story in the Story).

FOLK NARRATIVE RESEARCH 303

Metanarration in Folk Narrative. He starts out f rom the statement tha t the prevating opinion about folkt tales being simple is no t true, it is simply mistaken, as these phenomena are very complex. He illustrates one of the most impor tan t basic specialities of research in folk narrat ive with the aid of an ant inomy (histoire-discours or narrated event-speech event). In each case the object of modern research is the second member of the antinomy. The examination of discours or speech event, however, always includes the analysis of context, - - a process in which the not ion of metacommunication has an impor tan t part . This not ion denotes the communicat ive complex of means, or ra ther the speaker-listener rela- t ionship, which exists in every single speech-event. On the other hand, the term metanarration refers primarily to the narrat ive performance, or to the means which include the narrator , the course of narration, and the narrat ive itself as message and code. The two most impor tant elements of metanarration are the metalinguistical and the metacommunicat ive components . More exactly, metanarration can be defined as the combina- t ion of metalinguistical, fatical and poetical functions. In the metanarra- tive forms the subject of speech is the narrative itself, or rather the ele- ments building up the narrative. The theory of metanarration has a considerable importance not only in folklore literature, but also in the case of other verbalised texts which originally were not verbal.

Folklore in Human Mind, Society and Culture. If we emphasized the complexity of the previous topic, we can do so even more in connect ion with this section. The common idea connecting the essays is indicated by the title of E. K6ng~ts-Maranda's writing (Individual and Tradition). The authors of the essay call our at tent ion to the definition of the terms individual, community, tradition. One of the researchers defined the aim of their research in this way: "The object of study: the formation of tradition in a human mind or society." Folkloristical research of this kind is closely related to the cultural and/or socio-anthropological examina- tions which aim at clearing up the connections between individuum and culture. I t is not by chance tha t yon Sydow's research in bearers of tradi- tion is closely related to the development of functionalism. J. Pentik/iinen points out the fact (Repertoirs Analysis) tha t analysing the communi- cation of the bequest of oral t radi t ion as a social behaviour, the bearer of t radi t ion acts not only as the individual medium of t radi t ion but as the possessor of certain social roles who answers the requirements of the communi ty related to these roles. I t is easy to discover the influence of S. E. Nadel 's statements in this chain of thought which is a further p roof of the connection between folkloristics and cultural-social anthropology mentioned before.

E K6ng~is-Maranda in his above-mentioned essay defines and describ- es specifically the factors promoting or retarding individual composition. The limits of performance/composit ion are always related to the deep

304 PI~TER NIEDERMOLLER

structure of the story and their aim is to make the story well-formed. Change, individual alteration can never modify this level, only the sur- face. This fact, however, does not mean that Propp was mistaken when he wrote about every "new tale" being more than the reconstruction or the combination of certain elements of an earlier one. The super-structure, the form, motif, and construction of the story do change and "new tales'" actually come about. But the course of the narration, the general rules o f the story's build-up and construction do not change. These facts are demonstrated by concrete data in the subsequent articles of the volume. (R. Gwyndaf: The Prose Narrative Repertoire era Passive Tradition Bearer in a Welsh Rural Community: Genry Analysis and Formation; H. W. Jansen: A Narrator: His Repertoire in Memory and in Performance.)

To sum up a collection of essays nearly 400 pages long containing theoretical writings, and to draw a final conclusion could be a hopeless enterprise. Presently the task is even more difficult, because folkloristics is changing, it is characterized by new aims and perspectives and not by final results. Still with the help of O. Lehtipura and L. Saressalo's sum- mary we may attempt to place in relief some tendencies which characterize folkloristics of today in general. One of the most typical features of re- search is that stress has been shifted from historical view on to the study of acts of folklore taking place here and now. Simultaneously, the notion of text has been extended and the aim of examinations has become the union of text and context. At the same time, instead of the idealized and abstract figures of the bearers of tradition the individuum which can be observed empirically, and the groups, have come into the limelight. Consequently the traditional character of th e phenomena of folklore is no longer the most important focus of research. The problems of the actual usage of phenomena and the manifestations of meaning have become increasingly conspicuous. Finally we also have to emphasize that folklor- istics has become a performance-centred discipline which places stronger stress on certain forms of folklore performance-course (narration, artistic communication, etc.). Folkloristics, "new folkloristics" seems to be able to accommodate to the changed situations and requirements and though its traditional methodology has become obsolete it can say something new and important about the relationship of man and culture.