Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jakobson Folcklore As A Special Form of Creation PDF
Jakobson Folcklore As A Special Form of Creation PDF
2
d i s t i n c t i o n between f o l k l o r e and l i t e r a t u r e . I t i s emphasized
t h a t f o l k l o r e i s o r i e n t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t o u a r d l a n g u e and l i t e r a t u r e t o w a r d p a r o l e . An i t e m o f f o l k l o r e b e g i n s i t s e x i s t e n c e
o n l y a f t e r i t has been a d o p t e d and s a n c t i o n e d by t h e community.
As i n t h e development o f l a n g u e , t h e e n v i r o n m e n t p r u n e s a c r e a t e d work t o f i t i t s t a s t e ; i f t h e community r e j e c t s i t , i t
s i m p l y d i e s o u t . A community r e t a i n s o n l y t h o s e i t e m s o f f o l k l o r e w h i c h have a f u n c t i o n a l v a l u e f o r i t .
L i k e l a n g u e , t h e work o f f o l k l o r e i s e x t r a p e r s o n a l and
l e a d s o n l y t o a p o t e n t i a l e x i s t e n c e ; i t i s o n l y a complex o f
c e r t a i n norms and i m p u l s e s , t h e canvas o f t h e a c t u a l t r a d i t i o n ,
which t h e t e l l e r s r e v i v e w i t h t h e embellishment o f t h e i r
i n d i v i d u a l c r e a t i o n . Should t h e bearers o f a f o l k l o r e t r a d i t i o n
d i e o u t , t h e r e i s no p o s s i b i l i t y f o r r e a c t i v a t i o n o f t h e t r a d i tion.
The a r t i c l e t o u c h e s upon numerous o t h e r q u e s t i o n s : Hans
Naumann's c o n c e p t of "Gesunkenes K u l t u r g u t f t ; f o l k l o r e as an
expression o f i n d i v i d u a l or c o l l e c t i v e c r e a t i v i t y ; genetic autonomy and o r i g i n a l i t y o f f o l k l o r e , and o t h e r s .
W h i l e t h e J a k o b s o n - B o g a t y r e v a r t i c l e has a r o u s e d much
i n t e r e s t i n t h e West, and t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t i n t h e E a s t , i t
has t o m y knowledge had no echo i n t h e S o v i e t U n i o n . The r e a s o n
for t h i s i s the difference i n the interpretation o f folklore,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n r e g a r d t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between f o l k l o r e
and l i t e r a t u r e . Whereas Jakobson and B o g a t y r e v make e v e r y e f f o r t
t o u n d e r s c o r e t h e p r o f o u n d d i s t i n c t i o n between f o l k l o r e and
l i t e r a t u r e , S o v i e t F o l k l o r i s t s have a d v o c a t e d t h e i d e n t i t y o f
t h e t w o d i s c i p l i n e s . The l i t e r a r y approach was c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
of S o v i e t f o l k l o r e r e s e a r c h i n t h e 1920s and ' 3 0 s , l e a d i n g t o
t h e encouragement o f i n d i v i d u a l a a s t e r s i n g e r s t o c r e a t e new,
o r i g i n a l works ( n o v i n y o r Itnew e p i c songs," e t c . ) i n t h e ' 3 0 s
and ' 4 0 s . S i n c e t h e ' 4 0 s t h i s t r e n d has a s s e r t e d i t s e l f i n t h e
f a v o r a b l e a t t i t u d e t a k e n t o u a r d t h e use o f l i t e r a r y models f o r
mass v e r b a l c r e a t i o n s . [ F o r d e t a i l s see F.J. O i n a s , "The P r o b l e m
o f t h e N o t i o n o f S o v i e t F o l k l o r e . 1 ' F o l k l o r e Today: A F e s t s c h r i f t
f o r R i c h a r d W. D o r s o n ( ~ l o o m i n ~ t o n I:n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 6 ) ,
pp. 379-97. I
The
naive
realism
which
particularly
c h a r a c t e r i z e d the m i s g u i d e d t h e o r e t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n of thought d u r i n g the second h a l f o f
the
nineteenth c e n t u r y h a s a l r e a d y been superseded
b y the newer d i r e c t i o n s i n s c i e n t i f i c thought.
Only i n the areas of those h u m a n i s t i c d i s c i p l i n e s
whose proponents were so preoccupied w i t h t h e
c o l l e c t i o n of m a t e r i a l s a n d b y s p e c i f i c concrete
problems t h a t they were d i s i n c l i n e d to r e v i s e
phi Iosophical
assumpt ions,
and
thus
were
n a t u r a l ly conservative i n t h e i r theoretical p r i n ciples,
d i d n a i v e r e a l i s m c o n t i n u e to e x p a n d
in
the
and
frequently
even
gain
momentum
b e g i n n i n g of t h i s c e n t u r y .
However
strange
the
p h i losophical
perspective
of
naive
r e a l i s m may seem to t h e
modern i n v e s t i g a t o r ( a t least where t h i s p e r spect i v e h a s not become catechism o r i r r e f u t a b l e
dogma), nevertheless a whole series of f o r m u l a tions,
r e p r e s e n t i n g a d i r e c t o u t g r o w t h of t h e
phi losophical assumptions o f science d u r i n g t h e
second h a l f of the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y , c o n t i n u e
to l i v e on i n many f i e l d s of c u l t u r a l s t u d y a s
smuggled b a l l a s t , a v e s t i g e r e s t r i c t i n g s c i e n t i f i c
development
A t y p i c a l p r o d u c t of n a i v e r e a l i s m was
the widespread thesis of t h e neogrammari a n s t h a t
the l a n g u a g e of the i n d i v i d u a l i s the one a n d
only
real
language.
Epigrammatically
stated,
t h i s thesis asserts t h a t , i n the f i n a l a n a l y s i s ,
o n l y the speech of a p a r t i c u l a r person a t a
p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t i n time represents a n a c t u a l
r e a l i t y , w h i l e e v e r y t h i n g else i s merely a theoretical-scientific
a b s t r a c t i o n . However, n o t h i n g
i s q u i t e so f o r e i g n to contemporary e f f o r t s in
l i n g u i s t i c s as t h i s thesis, w h i c h became one o f
the cornerstones of the neograrnrnarian school.
a d o p t e d b y a g i v e n community,
a n d only in
those o f i t s aspects w h i c h t h e c o m m u n i t y h a s
accepted
L e t u s suppose t h a t a member o f a comm u n i t y h a s composed something. S h o u l d t h i s o r a l
work,
created b y
the
individual,
b e unacc e p t a b l e to t h e community f o r one r e a s o n o r
another,
s h o u l d t h e r e m a i n i n g members o f t h e
community n o t a d o p t i t , t h e n i t i s condemned
t o f a i l u r e . O n l y t h e c h a n c e t r a n s c r i p t i o n of a
collector c a n rescue i t b y t r a n s f e r r i n g i t from
the
sphere
of
oral
composition
to
that
of
l it e r a t u r e .
The F r e n c h poet of t h e 1860s, Comte d e
L a u t d a m o n t , o f f e r s a t y p i c a l e x a m p l e o f t h e socalled
pohtes
maudits,
i .e.,
poets
who
are
r e j e c t e d , s i lent1y i g n o r e d , a n d u n r e c o g n i z e d b y
their
contemporaries.
He
pub1 i s h e d
a
smal l
volume w h i c h a t t r a c t e d n o a t t e n t i o n a n d f o u n d
n o r e a d e r s h i p , a s was t h e case w i t h h i s o t h e r
works,
w h i c h r e m a i n e d u n p r i n t e d . At t h e a g e
of
twenty-four
h e was
overtaken
by
death.
Decades p a s s . I n l i t e r a t u r e t h e r e a r i s e s t h e soc a l led surrealist
movemen t,
in m a n y r e s p e c t s
in
concordance
with
Lautr&amontls
poetry.
L a u t r g a m o n t i s r e h a b i l i t a t e d - - h i s w o r k s a r e published, he i s celebrated a s a master a n d g a i n s
influence.
But
what
would
have
become o f
L a u t r 6 a m o n t i f h e h a d o n l y been t h e composer
of w o r k s of o r a l p o e t r y ? Upon h i s d e a t h h i s
works would have disappeared without a trace.
Here we h a v e c i t e d t h e most e x t r e m e case,
i n w h i c h e n t i r e w o r k s a r e r e j e c t e d . Yet i t i s
possible that single t r a i t s only,
peculiarities
o f form, o r s i n g l e m o t i f s m a y b e r e j e c t e d o r n o t
adopted b y contemporaries.
I n these i n s t a n c e s
the environment p r u n e s the created work to i t s
own t a s t e . And,
again, everything rejected b y
t h e e n v i r o n m e n t s i m p l y does n o t e x i s t a s a f a c t
of f o l k l o r e ; i t fa1 I s f r o m use a n d d i e s o u t .
One of Goncharov ' s h e r o i n e s t r i e s , b e f o r e
r e a d i n g a n o v e l , to a s c e r t a i n t h e outcome o f t h e
become of
Leskov's
linguistically
daring and
innovative output,
which has r e q u i r e d several
decades to become a p r o d u c t i v e l i t e r a r y f a c t o r
i n the l i t e r a r y e f f o r t s of Remizov a n d subsequent
Russian
prose
writers?
Leskov s
environment
would h a v e p u r g e d h i s w o r k s of h i s b i z a r r e
s t y l i s t i c techniques.
I n a word, t h e r e r e m a i n s
a p r o f o u n d d i s t i n c t i o n between l i t e r a r y a n d f o l k l o r i c t r a n s m i s s i o n . I n the f i e l d of f o l k l o r e t h e
p o s s i b i l i t y of r e a c t i v a t i n g p o e t i c f a c t s i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y smaller.
I f the
b e a r e r s of a g i v e n
poetic t r a d i t i o n s h o u l d d i e out,
this tradition
c a n no l o n g e r b e r e s u s c i t a t e d , w h i l e i n l i t e r a t u r e phenomena w h i c h a r e a h u n d r e d o r even
several h u n d r e d y e a r s o l d may r e v i v e a n d become p r o d u c t i v e once a g a i n !
From the above d i s c u s s i o n i t c l e a r l y f o l lows t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e of a work of f o l k l o r e
r e q u i r e s a g r o u p to accept a n d s a n c t i o n i t f o r
i t s continuation.
I n f o l k l o r e r e s e a r c h t h e prev e n t i v e censure of t h e community must b e k e p t
i n mind constantly as a fundamental p r i n c i p l e .
W e del ib e r a t e l y use the term " p r e v e n t i v e ,
for
i n c o n s i d e r i n g a f o l k l o r i c f a c t we a r e concerned
not w i t h t h e moments p r i o r to i t s b i r t h , n o r
w i t h i t s "conception,"
n o r w i t h i t s embryonic
l i f e , b u t w i t h the " b i r t h " of the f o l k l o r e f a c t
a s such a n d w i t h i t s subsequent f a t e .
Folk lore
researchers,
the
Slavs
in
p a r t icular--who
have a t their disposal perhaps
the
liveliest and richest folklore material i n
Europe--f requent l y p r o p o u n d the thesis t h a t t h e r e
i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between o r a l p o e t r y
a n d l i t e r a t u r e , a n d t h a t , i n both cases, we a r e
dealing
with
the
unmistakeable
products
of
individual
creation.
This
thesis
traces
its
o r i g i n s d i r e c t l y to t h e i n f l u e n c e of n a i v e r e a l i s m : we a r e u n a b l e to v e r i f y
communal c r e a t i o n b y means of e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n , theref o r e i t i s necessary to p o s t u l a t e a n i n d i v i d u a l
c r e a t o r o r i n i t i a t o r . Vsevolod M i l l e r , a t y p i c a l
I t i s c l e a r t h a t , when d e a l i n g w i t h a r i t u a l song, i f we
do n o t know who t h e c r e a t o r o f t h e r i t u a l was o r who composed
t h e f i r s t song, t h i s does n o t , however, c o n t r a d i c t t h e i d e a
of i n d i v i d u a l c r e a t i o n , b u t t e s t i f i e s s i m p l y t h a t t h e r i t u a l
i s so o l d t h a t we can d e t e r m i n e n e i t h e r t h e composer n o r
t h e o r i g i n a t i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s a n c i e n t song, so c l o s e l y bound up w i t h t h e r i t u a l ; and, f u r t h e r m o r e , t h a t i t a r o s e
i n a s i t u a t i o n where t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f t h e a u t h o r h a d
a r o u s e d no i n t e r e s t , f o r w h i c h r e a s o n t h e memory o f h i s p e r s o n a l i t y has n o t been p r e s e r v e d . I n t h i s manner t h e i d e a
o f "communallt c r e a t i o n n e e d n o t be i n v o k e d .
&
.
I
r.
'--.
.
I
'cr
p o i n t . We b e l i e v e , however, a s f o l l o w s f r o m t h e
above discussion, t h a t t h i s thesis must b e subjected to serious r e v i s i o n .
Does t h i s r e v i s i o n
necessarily
mean
rehabilitating
the
Romantic
conception of f o l k l o r e w h i c h was a t t a c k e d so
s h a r p l y b y the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of t h e aforementioned
doctrine.
Without
a
doubt,
yes.
The
d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e d i f f e r e n c e between o r a l p o e t r y
a n d l i t e r a t u r e o f f e r e d b y t h e Romantic theoret i c i a n s c o n t a i n e d a number of correct t h o u g h t s ,
a n d t h e Romantics were r i g h t i n e m p h a s i z i n g
the " h e r d n a t u r e " of o r a l poetic c r e a t i v i t y a n d
c o m p a r i n g i t to l a n g u a g e . But a l o n g w i t h these
c o r r e c t theses, t h e Romantic concept i o n a l s o cont a i n e d a series of
assertions which can no
longer b e s u p p o r t e d b y contemporary s c i e n t i f i c
c r i ticism.
Furthermore,
the
Romantics
placed
too
great
a
v a l u e on t h e genetic autonomy a n d
o r i g i n a l i t y of f o l k l o r e . Only the e f f o r t s of t h e
succeeding
generations
of
scholars
have
demonstrated the enormous r o l e p l a y e d i n f o l k l o r e b y the phenomenon w h i c h i s d e s i g n a t e d a s
"gesunkenes Ku I t u r g u t " b y modern German f o l k l o r i s t i c ~ . T h i s may g i v e t h e impression t h a t t h e
r o l e of c o l l e c t i v e c r e a t i o n i n f o l k l o r e i s cons i d e r a b l y d e l i m i t e d b y t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e
important,
sometimes
even
exclusive
position
w h i c h t h i s "gesun kenes K u l t u r g u t " assumes i n
the f o l k r e p e r t o i r e . B u t t h i s i s not t h e case.
Works of a r t w h i c h a r e borrowed b y f o l k p o e t r y
from the h i g h e r l e v e l s of society may be, i n a n d
of
themsel ves,
typical
examp Ies of
personal
initiative and individual creativity.
But
the
question i t s e l f c o n c e r n i n g the sources of f o l k l o r e
lies, b y i t s very nature, outside the boundaries
of f o l k l o r i s t i c s . Any q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g heterogeneous sources becomes a t a r g e t f o r s c i e n t i f i c
interpretation
only
when considered from
the
p o i n t of v i e w of t h e system i n w h i c h i t i s
formulated--in
t h i s case t h a t of f o l k l o r e . What
i s i m p o r t a n t f o r f o l k l o r i s t i c science i s not t h e
o r i g i n a n d existence of sources, w h i c h l i e outs i d e of f o l k l o r e , b u t t h e f u n c t i o n of b o r r o w i n g
a n d the selection a n d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of t h e b o r rowed m a t e r i a l s . From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e t h e we1 lknown a s s e r t i o n t h a t " t h e f o l k does not create,
i t re-createstt loses i t s edge, s i n c e we h a v e n o
r i g h t to d r a w a n i m p e n e t r a b l e b o u n d a r y between
p r o d u c t i o n a n d r e p r o d u c t i o n a n d to c o n s i d e r t h e
latter
as
h a v i n g somehow
lesser v a l u e .
Rep r o d u c t i o n does not mean p a s s i v e a p p r o p r i a t i o n ;
a n d i n t h i s sense t h e r e i s no f u n d a m e n t a l d i f ference between Mol i g r e , who r e w o r k e d t h e p l a y s
of
antiquity,
and
the
folk
which,
to
use
Naumannt s expression,
" u n s i n g s a n a r t song .It
The
transformation
of
a
work
of
so-cal l e d
monumental a r t i n t o a so-called p r i m i t i v e one
i s e q u a l l y a n a c t of c r e a t i v i t y .
Creativity i s
expressed h e r e as much a s i n t h e selection of
a p p r o p r i a t e d works a s i n t h e i r a d a p t a t i o n f o r
o t h e r conventions a n d e x p e c t a t i o n s . E s t a b l i s h e d
I i t e r a r y forms,
following t h e i r transference to
f o l k l o r e , become the r a w m a t e r i a l f o r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . A g a i n s t t h e b a c k g r o u n d af d i f f e r e n t p o e t i c a l
circumstances, a d i f f e r e n t t r a d i t i o n , a n d a d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p to a r t i s t i c v a l u e s , t h e work
i s i n t e r p r e t e d i n a new manner; a n d even those
formal s t r u c t u r e s w h i c h a t f i r s t g l a n c e seem to
h a v e been p r e s e r v e d i n t h e b o r r o w i n g shou I d
not b e r e g a r d e d a s i d e n t i c a l , a s to a p r o t o t y p e .
I n these a r t forms, a c c o r d i n g to the e x p r e s s i o n
of the Russian l i t e r a r y c r i t i c T y n i a n o v , a n exchange of f u n c t i o n s t a k e s p l a c e . From t h e standp o i n t of f u n c t i o n ,
without which understanding
of the a r t i s t i c f a c t s i s impossible, t h e work of
a r t o u t s i d e of f o l k l o r e ,
a n d the same work of
a r t a s a d a p t e d b y f o l k l o r e , a r e two d i s t i n c t l y
different things.
The h i s t o r y of P u s h k i n ' s poem "The Huss a r " f u r n i s h e s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c example of t h e
way i n w h i c h a r t forms change t h e i r f u n c t i o n s
i n p a s s i n g from f o l k l o r e to l i t e r a t u r e a n d , v i c e
...
"They a r e a l l d r i v e n b y a s i n g l e impulse," a d d s
Naumann concerni n g t h e b e a r e r s of communal
culture;
"they
are a l l
i n s p i r e d b y t h e same
thoughts a n d purposes."
I n t h i s concept t h e r e
lies a hidden danger, inherent i n any inference
d r a w n d i r e c t l y from a s o c i a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n to
e.g.,
from
the
properties
of
a
mentality;
linguistic
feature
to those of
thought.
(The
d a n g e r of a s i m i l a r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n h a s been adm i r a b l y exposed b y Anton M a r t i . ) We f i n d t h e
same t h i n g i n t h e f i e l d of e t h n o g r a p h y ; t h e u n c h a l Ienged dominance of c o l l e c t i v e m e n t a l i t y i s
o f a work of f o l k l o r e ; f o r a t r a n s c r i p t i o n i n transposing i t to
e v i tab1 y d i s t o r t s t h i s w o r k ,
a different category.
It
would
be
ambiguous
to
speak
of
identical
forms
with
I it e r a t u r e .
Thus,
for
"verse,"
which on the
t h e same m e a n i n g i n
actual ly
represents
e n t i t i e s in f u n c t i o n a l
s e n s i t i v e researcher of o r a l m e t r i c a l s t y l e ( s t y l e
oral
rhythmique),
regards this distinction as
o f s u c h i m p o r t a n c e t h a t h e r e s e r v e s t h e terms
"verse" a n d " p o e t r y " f o r l i t e r a t u r e a l o n e , subs t i t u t i n g t h e d e s i g n a t i o n s " m e t r i c a l schema" a n d
"oral
sty let' respectively
in t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n
respect
to f o l k l o r e
and
example,
t h e concept of
s u r f a c e appears to have
literature as in folklore,
two
r a d i c a l ly
different
terms. M a r c e l Jousse,
a
to o r a l c r e a t i o n s , i n o r d e r t o a v o i d r e a d i n g i n t o
these concepts t h e u s u a l l i t e r a r y c o n t e n t . Jousse
h a s b r i l l i ant1 y d e m o n s t r a t e d t h e mnemotechnical
f u n c t i o n o f these " m e t r i c a l schemata." He i n t e r p r e t s o r a l m e t r i c a l s t y l e i n a " s e t t i n g o f spontaneous n a r r a t o r s " i n t h e f o l l o w i n g m a n n e r :
Imagine a language i n which t h e two o r t h r e e hundred rhymed
phrases, t h e f o u r o r f i v e hundred t y p e s of m e t r i c a l schemata
are f i x e d f o r a l l t i m e and t r a n s m i t t e d w i t h o u t m o d i f i c a t i o n
by o r a l t r a d i t i o n . From t h a t t i m e f o r t h p e r s o n a l i n v e n t i o n
would c o n s i s t o f t a k i n g t h e s e m e t r i c a l schemata as models
and c r e a t i n g i n t h e i r
image,
b a l a n c e d by t h e use o f
s t r u c t u r a l c l i c h e s , o t h e r analogous m e t r i c a l schemata h a v i n g
t h e same r h y t h m , t h e same s t r u c t u r e
and, as f a r a s
p o s s i b l e , t h e same m e a n i n g .
. . .
poetry
is
clearly
defined.
The
verse,
the
s t r o p h e , a n d t h e s t i l l more c o m p l i c a t e d composit i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s i n f o l k l o r e c o n s t i t u t e a powerf u l s u p p o r t of t r a d i t i o n o n t h e one h a n d , a n d
on t h e o t h e r ( c l o s e l y b o u n d u p w i t h t h e f i r s t )
an
effective
resource
for
improvisational
technique.
Any t y p o l o g y of f o l k l o r e s t r u c t u r e s m u s t
b e c o n s t r u c t e d i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f t h a t o f l it e r a r y
structures.
One of t h e most p r e s s i n g p r o b l e m s
of l i n g u i s t i c s i s the e l a b o r a t i o n of a phonetic
a n d morphological typology.
I t i s r e a d i l y apparent t h a t there e x i s t general s t r u c t u r a l r u l e s
which
l a n g u a g e s do n o t v i o l a t e ,
and evident
t h a t t h e v a r i e t y o f p h o n o l o g i c a l a n d morphol o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e s i s l i m i t e d , a n d may b e t r a c e d
to a c o m p a r a t i v e l y s m a l l n u m b e r o f b a s i c t y p e s ;
from
which
it
follows
that
the
variety
of
structures
of
communal
creativity
is
also
bounded.
Parole p e r m i t s a r i c h e r v a r i e t y o f
m o d i f i c a t i o n s t h a n langue. These c o n c l u s i o n s o f
comparative l i n g u i s t i c s c a n be contrasted to the
r e m a r k a b l e v a r i e t y of l i t e r a r y themes o n t h e one
hand,
and
the
limited
s e l e c t i o n of
Marchen
themes o n t h e o t h e r . T h i s l i m i t a t i o n c a n b e e x p l a i n e d b y t h e c o m m o n a l i t y of n e i t h e r sources,
p s y c h e , n o r e x t e r n a l c i reumstances. The o c c u r r e n c e of
similar
themes
i s founded
in
the
g e n e r a l l a w s of p o e t i c composition;
and
like
t h e s t r u c t u r a l r u l e s o f l a n g u a g e , these l a w s a r e
more u n i f o r m a n d s t r o n g e r i n t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n
to c o l l e c t i v e t h a n to i n d i v i d u a l c r e a t i o n .
The
next
task
facing
synchronic
folkloristics
i s the systematic characterization of
the a r t forms which c o n s t i t u t e the c u r r e n t repert o i r e of a g i v e n community--village,
region, o r
ethnic group--taking
i n t o account s u c h f a c t o r s
as
the
reciprocal
relationship
of
systematic
structures,
t h e h i e r a r c h y o f these s t r u c t u r e s ,
a n d t h e d i f f e r e n c e between p r o d u c t i v e s t r u c t u r e s
and
those
which
have
lost
their
productive
capacity
F o l k l o r e r e p e r t o i r e p r o v i d e s a means
o f d i s t i n g u i s h i n g n o t o n l y e t h n o g r a p h i c a n d geo g r a p h i c groups, b u t a l s o groups c h a r a c t e r i z e d
by
sex
(male
and
female
folklore),
age
( c h i I d r e n , adolescents, o l d p e o p l e ) , a n d occupat ion
(herdsmen,
fishermen,
soldiers,
thieves,
etc.).
To t h e e x t e n t
that
these o c c u p a t i o n a l
g r o u p s m e n t i o n e d c r e a t e f o l k l o r e f o r themsel ves,
and
t r a n s i t i o n a l zones.
Yet t h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e
does not a l l o w u s to deny e i t h e r t h e e x i s t e n c e
of
two d i s t i n c t
types,
o r the usefulness o f
k e e p i n g them separate.
When i n d u e course t h e g a p between f o l k l o r e a n d l i t e r a r y h i s t o r y h a s n a r r o w e d to t h e
p o i n t of a l l o w i n g a number of q u e s t i o n s of a
genetic n a t u r e t o b e answered, then t h e separat i o n of b o t h d i s c i p l i n e s a n d the r e e s t a b l i s h i n g
of
the autonomy of f o l k l o r i s t i c s i s l i k e l y t o
f a c i l i t a t e t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e f u n c t i o n s o f
folklore,
a n d t h e d i s c o v e r y of i t s s t r u c t u r a l
p r i n c i p l e s a n d special features.