Preview

Folklore: Structure, Typology, Semiotics

Advanced search

Emic commentary on belief narrative: oral tradition and the internetlore

https://doi.org/10.28995/2658-5294-2024-7-2-109-124

Abstract

The article discusses the problem of emic (“inner”) commentary on folklore texts as a text-producing strategy that continues and transforms the plot. In the materials of folklore and post-folklore, the author considers how emic commentary “works” in the case of mythological prose. For comparison, we take the oral tradition of Russian Old Believers of the Perm region and a particular segment of the internet lore – publications in communities specializing in “mystical stories”. The substantive commentary on belief narratives in both cases represents a new text – a narrative (a bylichka), a non-narrative explanation (a pover’e), or an instruction (how one should/should not act). A story agon usually occurs if a belief narrative is offered in response. In the oral tradition, such agons may cycle around mythological characters, motifs, actual loci and persons. In the case of internet lore, cyclization around characters, motifs, or the general theme of “mystical accident” is possible. At the same time, comments on belief narratives on the Internet exhibit greater diversity compared to those in the oral tradition. In addition to the common types of comments – belief narrative, non-narrative explanation, instruction, clarifying question, and emotional response – in internet lore, one can find doubts about the authenticity of the story, criticism of it, and evaluation of the performance.

About the Author

O. B. Khristoforova
The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation

Olga B. Khristoforova, Dr. of Sci. (Philology), Russian Presidential Academy for National Economy and Public Administration

 84, Vernadsky Av., Moscow, Russia, 119571



References

1. Alekseevskii, M.D. (2012), “Internet and folklore: Materials to the bibliography 1996–2011”, Traditsionnaya kul’tura, vol. 3, pp. 183–185.

2. Barthes, R. (1989), “The death of the author”, in Barthes, R. Izbrannye raboty: Semiotika. Poetika [Selected works: Semiotics. poetics], Progress, Moscow, USSR, pp. 384–391.

3. Braginskaya, N.V. (2009), “Commentary as a mechanism of innovation in traditional culture and not only”, in Ivanova, Yu.V., ed., Kul’tura interpretatsii do nachala Novogo vremeni [The culture of interpretation before the beginning of the Modern Era], Izdatel’skii dom Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta – Vysshei Shkoly Ekonomiki, Moscow, Russia, pp. 19–66.

4. Burlak, S.A. (2011), Proiskhozhdenie yazyka: Fakty, issledovaniya, gipotezy [The origin of language: Facts, studies, hypotheses], Astrel, Corpus, Moscow, Russia.

5. Chistov, K.V. (1967), Russkie narodnye sotsial’no-utopicheskie legendy XVII– XIX vv. [Russian folk socio-utopian legends of the 17th – 19th centuries], Nauka, Moscow, USSR.

6. Levkievskaya, E.E. (2006), “Pragmatics of the mythological text”, in Tolstaya, S.M., ed., Slavyanskii i balkanskii fol’klor, vyp. 10: Semantika i pragmatika teksta [Slavic and Balkan folklore, vol. 10: Semantics and pragmatics of the text], Indrik, Moscow, Russia, pp. 150–214.

7. Milchina, V.A. (2004), “Is commentary dead? Long live commentary! (Report on the XI Lotman Readings ‘Commentary as a historical and cultural problem’)”, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, vol. 66, pp. 121–133.

8. Neklyudov, S.Yu. (2016), Legenda o Razine: persidskaya knyazhna i drugie syuzhety [Legend of Razin: Persian princess and other plots], Indrik, Moscow, Russia.

9. Novik, E.S. (2019), “Modes of evidentiality and types of narrators in the archaic folklore of peoples of Siberia”, in Novik, E.S., Mif i ritual narodov Sibiri [Myth and ritual of the peoples of Siberia], Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia, pp. 307–329.

10. Radchenko, D.A. (2006), “Modern cinematographic anecdote in the conditions of network communication”, in Kargin, A.S., ed., Pervyi Vserossiiskii kongress fol’kloristov: Sbornik dokladov [First All-Russian Congress of folklorists: Collected papers], vol. 3, Gosudarstvennyi respublikanskii tsentr russkogo fol’klora, Moscow, Russia, pp. 307–317.

11. Zagidullina, M.V. (2015), “Theory of Internet folklore: Communication of folklore type and self-identification of participants of large forum”, Uchenye zapiski Kazanskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki, vol. 157, no. 4, pp. 86–96.


Review

For citations:


Khristoforova O.B. Emic commentary on belief narrative: oral tradition and the internetlore. Folklore: Structure, Typology, Semiotics. 2024;7(2):109-124. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2658-5294-2024-7-2-109-124

Views: 204


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2658-5294 (Print)