Oral stories about Aesopian language in the literary and artistic community: Folkloristic and anthropological approach
https://doi.org/10.28995/2658-5294-2020-3-2-88-109
Abstract
Firs-person narratives involve constructing of self, conceptualization of reality, analysis of one’s personal experience, and moral implications. Folkloristic methods help discover all these implications by underlining textual parallels, speech genres, formulas, motifs, etc. The article explores the mechanisms that help to form the image of Aesopian language in interviews with urban dwellers of different generations. Each interview corresponds to reality in a complex and indirect way. For instance, the article gives examples of anecdotes and anecdote-like stories, comical and didactic stories about communicative gaps, and formulas, such as “Sofia Vlasievna, the name for Soviet regime”, used in interviews, but also in press and literature. Basing on the material of interviews, we can explore not so much the practices of Aesopian language in late Soviet time, but the complex of motifs that form the image of this phenomena. It is important for the worldview of both those who lived in late Soviet times and the younger generation – those who were children at that time.
Keywords
Supporting agencies: This article was written with the support of the RFBR grant, project no. 20-09-00318а “The strategies of generation and tactics of reception of poetic text in rural and urban cultures”.
About the Author
E. F. Yugai
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena F. Yugai, Cand. of Sci. (Philology)
bld. 82, Vernadskii Av., Moscow, 119606
References
1. Arkhipova, A.S., Kirzyuk, A.A. and Yugai, E.F. (2017), “To hide a dangerous name: Poetics of political formula”, RSUH Bulletin. Series History. Philology. Cultural Studies. Oriental Studies, no. 12, pp. 102–119.
2. Bakhtin, M.M. (1996), “The problem of speech genres”, in Bakhtin, M.M., Sobranie sochinenii [Сollected works. In 7 vols.], vol. 5: Works from the 1940s – early 1960s, Russkie slovari, Moscow, Russia, pp. 159–206.
3. Baiduzh, M.I. (2013), “The ‘money brownie’ and its functions in modern mythological believes”, in Arkhipova, A.S. (comp.), Mifologicheskie modeli i ritual’noe povedenie v sovetskom i postsovetskom prostranstve [Mythological models and ritual behavior in the Soviet and post-Soviet space], RGGU, Moscow, Russia, pp. 275–283.
4. Clements, W.M. (1980), “Personal narrative, the interview context, and the question of tradition”, Western Folklore, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 106–112.
5. Izmozik, V.S. (2015), “Chernye kabinety”: istoriya rossiiskoi perlyustratsii: XVIII – nachalo XX v. [“Black cabinets”: A history of Russian perlustration. The 18th – early 20th c.], Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, Moscow, Russia.
6. Koven, M. (2011), “Comparing stories told in sociolinguistic interviews and spontaneous conversation”, Language in Society, vol. 40, issue 1: Narratives in interviews, Interviews in narrative studies, pp. 75–89.
7. Lakoff, G. (2011), Zhenshchiny, ogon’ i opasnye veshchi: Chto kategorii yazyka govoryat nam o myshlenii. Kniga 1: Razum vne mashiny [Women, fire and dangerous things: What language categories reveal about the mind, book 1: Mind outside of the machine], Gnozis, Moscow, Russia.
8. Peacock, J.L. and Holland, D.C. (1993), “The narrated self: Life stories in process”, Ethos, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 367–383.
9. Ries, N. (2005), “Russkie razgovory”: Kul’tura i rechevaya povsednevnost’ epokhi perestroiki [“Russian talks”: Culture and conversation during Perestroika], Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, Moscow, Russia.
10. Stahl, S. (1977), “The personal narrative as folklore”, Journal of the Folklore Institute, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 9–30.
11. Yugai, E.F. (2018), “The ethnography of Aesopian language in late Soviet time”, Novyi mir [New World], no. 5, pp. 141–155.
12. Zinik, Z. (1980) “The interlinear”, Syntaxis, no. 8, pp. 73–109.
Review
For citations:
Yugai E.F. Oral stories about Aesopian language in the literary and artistic community: Folkloristic and anthropological approach. Folklore: Structure, Typology, Semiotics. 2020;3(2):88-109. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2658-5294-2020-3-2-88-109
Views:
334
Email this article 