Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
5.Thedevelopmentoforal-formulaicstudiesfromthe1970s
27
ofallaspectsrelatedtotheoralmodeinpoetry,hadalwaysbeeninasense
relatedtoOng’s,but,whileOng’sstudieshadalwaysfocusedonthe
psychologicalandphilosophicaldimensionoftheanalysedphenomena,
Zumthorlaystressprimarilyontheliteraryandsocialcontextoforality.
Amonghismanycontributionstooral-formulaicstudies,developedmostly
inhisIntroductionàlapoésieorale(1983)andLalettreetlavoix:Dela
“littérature”médiévale(1987),onemaymentionthedevelopmentofkey
terms,suchasGvocality’,whichhaveprovedtostimulateothercritics.This
term(cf.Zumthor1987andSchaefer1992)referredtothespecificityof
theculturalsituationinwhichverbalcommunicationisoralanditwasthe
effectofthecritic’simportantnormativeworkonthesocialdimensionof
oralperformancewherehedistinguisheditsaspectsrelatingtothefive
stagesofproduction,transmission,reception,conservationandrepetition
(cf.Zumthor1983:32).Throughdefiningtheuniqueholisticspatio-
temporalorientationoftheoralmind,inherentinthenotionofvocality,
thecriticsoughttocreateamodeloforalculturewhichwouldmakeit
possibletoanalyseoralliteratureinamoreorganicconnectionwithits
culturalbackground.
ThusZumthor’sworkseemstohaveconnectedwiththatofOngin
thesensethatitalsowidenedtheperspectiveinwhichoral-formulaic
studiescouldhenceforthpositionthemselves.
ZumthoralsodiscussedtheimplicationsoftheLordandParrytheory
formedievaltexts,beingforinstancethefirsttotacklethedifference
betweentheinternalformulae,specifictooneliteraryworkandtheexternal
ones,commontomanytexts(cf.Zumthor1983:118).Anotherimportant
contributionwashisdistinctionbetweenprimaryandsecondaryorality,
whichexistssidebysidewithliteratemodesofverbalcommunication(cf.
Zumthor1983:36).
Alltheabovetermsanddistinctionsareexplicitlyorimplicitlypartof
theconceptualbasisonwhichthefollowingargumentrests.
EquallyimportantwasZumthor’sstancewithregardtodetermining
thepreciserelationshipbetweenthenotionsofpopularandhighculture
inthecontextoftheMiddleAges.Itseemsthatthecriticmaybeseenas
theforerunnerofthemorerecenttendency,exemplifiedby,forinstance,
BetsyBowdenorEvelynBirgeVitz,whichstressedtheinadequacyof
acriticalstancewherebyacleardemarcationbetweenthetwoispresup-
posed.Instead,Zumthorarguesforamorecomplexandsensitivetreatment
oftheissue,andagainstautomaticallyassociatingfloral”withflpopular”
andhencewithflvulgar”(cf.Zumthor1983:21-24).
