CC BY
29
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20534/EJLL-16-4-68-73
Mark.ovsk.aja Elena Vladimirovna, Institute of Language, Literature and History of Karelian Research Centre Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia E-mail: [email protected]
On the experience of creating genre classification of folkloric materials for electronic catalog of folkloric archival depository of ILLH, KarRC, RAS
Abstract: The research into and the various concepts of genre classification at different stages of Soviet and Russian folkloristics development were reflected in the research paper of scholars working at Institute of Language, Literature and History (ILLH) of KarRC, RA.S. The analyzed materials are basically samples recorded in different languages (Russian, Karelian, Veps, Lappish, Ingrian, Finnish). The recordings are stored at Institute's Scientific Archival Depositary and Phonogram Archival Depositary, the chronological framework being from 1930 to the present day. In the study, the peculiarities of genre classification of folklore samples in the process of creating an electronic archive were analyzed.
Keywords: folklore, genre classification, archive.
The study has been carried out as a part of a research work. Study's topic: "Scientific systematization and preservation of folklore artifacts" № 115022540012
Genre classification still remains one of the main arguable points in the systematization of folkloric materials. Folklore is a reflection oflife, and current social phenomena generate new folkloric forms. Some genres become obsolete and disappear, others undergo transformations and hybridizations. As a result, researchers must at all times conceive the everchanging genre systems, enlarge the conceptual framework of folklore and also correct principles of folkloric materials classification, which is required, in particular, for their archival arrangement.
In our opinion, B. N. Putilov was the one who characterized the object field of folkloristics to the fullest extent. He defined five principal viewpoints of researchers on folklore in domestic folklore studies of the 20th century: "Folklore includes the entire complex and the the great variety of forms of traditional culture; to folklore belongs the whole complex of traditional intellectual culture, which is embodied in words, ideas, notions, sounds, motions, actions; folklore only includes the complex of phenomena of intellectual culture that belong to art; folklore is primarily the sphere of oral lore and oral tradition; the sphere of folklore includes phenomena and facts of verbal intellectual culture in all their diversity" [16, 23-24]. V. Y. Propp by folklore meant "only intellectual creation, or even more narrowly, only written word, verbal, poetical works" [5, 18], which means that
his opinion coincides with viewpoint four of the list. B. N. Putilov himself believed that the last assertion defines the sphere of folklore most precisely of all.
It is important to provide the 'final' definition of folklore, fully formed by the end of the 20th century and given in the 'Guidelines for the protection of traditional culture and folklore' — a document, adopted by the 25th UNESCO conference: "Folklore (or traditional folklife culture) represents all the diversity of traditional folk art, characteristic of particular social-ethnical culturally homogeneous environment. The actual carriers of folklore are representatives of that society — individuals and groups. Folklore is a reflection of their social and cultural selfconsciousness and self-identification; it serves to communicate their principles and values through verbal texts, by means of imitation or other tools. The forms of folklore existence and expression are language, literature, music, dance, games, mythology, rituals and customs, crafts, architecture and other types of artistic creation" [cited by: 11, 42].
At the present time, the boundaries between sciences are dissolving and folklorists are working at the junction of object fields of different humanitarian subjects. B. N. Putilov noted the importance of creating interdisciplinary communities of researchers and enhancing the professional development of folklorists in the modern scientific community: "A folklorist shouldn't be afraid that expanding the field of folklore he will inevitably invade the spheres belonging to actual linguis-
tics, dialectology, ethnonymics, etc. The intersection of fields is unavoidable, whereas a strict observance of the boundaries may lead to 'blank spaces', overlooked by science. At the intersection of materials, representatives of different disciplines do not enter into conflict, but come into contact with each other. Ideally, we all should work for multidisciplinary specialization, to combine in one person professional experts in various fields" [16, 25].
In the last decades, the subject area of folkloristics has enlarged considerably, which is confirmed by the publication of materials and studies of urban folklore [18] and school folklore [19], oral history and family narratives [17], semantics and pragmatics ofvarious everyday practices [3]. The authors are certain, that many phenomena of contemporary culture are folkloristic and need thorough description and a deep semantic analysis. The abovementioned studies and treatises in some degree summarize the changes in domestic folkloristics at the turn of 20th-21st centuries and mark out the course and subject matter of further studies.
The problem of classification of folkloric genres resides in the fact that scientists have to adhere to both scientific and practical principles of classification (the latter must be comprehensible and user-friendly for other specialists). A number of genres still do not have an unambiguous definition. We will give just a few examples of such 'problematic' genre definitions. For instance, this is the case of the definition of chastushka (a two-line or four-line rhymed poem or ditty on some topical or humorous theme). So, for example, according to A. A. Banin and N. S. Burmistrov, the genre definitions of chastushka do not include its cumulative character, which is considered by the authors to be the key characteristic of this genre [2, 49-51]. Also, there is no clear genre distinction between bylichki (short stories about supernatural mythological creatures) and poveriya (folk beliefs). L. N. Vino-gradova believes that the main distinctive feature in this case is either the presence or the absence of a narrative development (storyline). Studying the structure of these narrative genres, the author draws the conclusion that the texts of poveriya can hardly be considered an independent folkloric genre. They can be defined as a special type of verbal genres occupying a transitional position between non-fairytale prose (bylichki) and mythological ideas [4, 10-11]. The question of distinguishing a lubochnaya (simple popular) fairytale as an independent genre also needs additional argumentation. So, for example, according to V. Y. Propp, among genres which are "adjacent with a folk fairytale there are 'folk books', which are commonly called lubochnyye. V. Y. Propp distinguished
between two levels of the hierarchy of genres — the folk (lubochnaya) book along with the texts that constitute it, which are closer to literary genres (zhitiye (biography), povest (a short novel)), and folkloric genres (legend, fairytale) [14, 53]. The idea of distinguishing a lubochnaya fairytale as a genre is supported in the work by K. Y. Ko-repova [9, 21-23]. The author studies the particularity of a lubochnaya fairytale as a genre and comes to the conclusion that a lubochnaya fairytale is one of the genres of folklife culture 'after folklore'.
One of the new phenomena of folklife culture attracting attention of Russian folklorists in the 20th century was the so called 'naïve literature'. According to the collector S. Y. Nekludov, those texts do not belong either to literature in a narrow sense of the word, neither to written folklore [13]. A special issue of the magazine 'Live antiquity' contained autobiographies, personal diaries, rhymes, poems, elegies, love letters, skits, prison manuscripts giving an idea of 'naïve literature' [6, 2-27].
The problem of the systematization of works under the common name of 'urban folklore' also needs further elaboration. So, for example, in 1999, a representative collection of urban folklore texts was published [5], which included 600 works of 17th-20th centuries, diverse in terms of their genesis and genre distribution. In the review of the publication, Y. A. Kostyukhin emphasizes the need for clear chronological boundaries of the term 'urban folklore' and suggests that the word 'urban' should refer to the modern city which was formed after the abolition of serfdom. With this more precise definition in mind, urban folklore is to be classified as a phenomenon of postfolklore, produced not by old folklore traditions, but by a 'third culture' [10, 51-53].
In Soviet folkloristics, genre classification mostly retained links to literary studies and based itself upon similar principles of genre classification. In 1976, V. Y. Propp published a topical article 'Genre composition of Russian folklore' [15, 35-39], in which he suggested a hierarchical classification: kinds ('rody') > fields > forms ('vidy') > genres > types > storylines > versions > variants. The most general classification category was kinds (Rus. 'rody') of folk art: epic poetry, lyric poetry and dramatic poetry. Kinds are composed of fields. So, for examples, epics is composed of the fields of epic prose and epic poetry. The fields are made of forms (Rus. 'vidy'). The fairytale belongs to the field of folk prose, it is one of its forms. This form falls into genres: magical fairytales, cumulative fairytales, fairytales about animals, about people, etc. As a further more narrow term V. Y. Propp suggests the word 'type'; types are composed of storylines,
the storylines are made of versions and variants. This classification provided the basis for many later studies devoted to the problem of folkloric genre classification [7, 21-42; 16, 155-172; 1, 239-251; 20; 12] and others.
It is necessary to dwell upon the term 'genre' and particularize its meaning. So, for example, V. Y. Propp defined the genre as an "assemblage of literary monuments, united by the similarity of their poetical system" [15, 36]. Later on, in the works by I. I. Zemtsovsky and B. N. Putilov the attitude towards the term 'genre' changes. I. I. Zemtsovsky dwells upon this issue and asserts that "the genre is not only an assemblage of this type of works, but it is also a production of a certain type of works according to certain models on the basis of particular social and creative incentives" [7, 24]. B. N. Putilov drew the line between genres in literature and genres in folkloristics [16, 155]. The definition of the term 'genre' still remains a topical problem in folkloristics, and sys-tematization versions to a certain degree depend on the way researchers deal with the problem.
The changes in the perception of the folkloric realm and classification principles of folkloric materials at various stages of the history of folkloristics were reflected in the research of ILLH staff members. In the first phase of folkloric genre systematization, in the Scientific Archival Depositary (1930-40s) the collectors only made a most general division: song, bylina (Russian heroic epic song) (antiquity), fairytale, 'zagovor' (exorcism), 'plach' (lamentation, lament), chastushka, or the genre was not indicated at all. So, for example, in the description ofone ofthe items of collection 4 (dep. item 25), only the sample name was specified — 'Of Ivan, the son of a merchant' and the genre 'fairytale' was not stated. In the recording of the fairytale text in collection 5 (dep. item 11), only the name given by the presenter was indicated: "From the life of a soldier.
Later on, in the 1950s, the genre of each sample was clearly stated, but the problems connected with the classification of materials remained. In the late 1970s, Institute's staff members decided to make an inventory of each collection, which required new elaborations of genre classification. It proved to be impossible to apply any of the existent classifications, because in the archival deposit there were not only materials on Russian folklore and ethnography, but also collections of Finnish-Ugric materials. B 1978, N. F. Onegina suggested a functional genre-topical classification of folkloric-ethnographic materials for archival deposits of KarRC, ^AS, which has been used up to the present time [8, 13-21]. It was used both in the Scientific Archival Depositary and the Phonogram Archival Depositary, which made it pos-
sible to make a complex systematization of expedition materials according to their common features. Due to the fact that the materials are basically samples written in different languages, the catalog was divided into three sections — Russian folklore, Folklore of Finnic peoples and Ethnography. The numbering of the subsections was consecutive throughout the whole classification scheme.
The section 'Russian folklore' included five subsections: 'epic and folk prose' ('byliny' (Russian heroic epic songs); spiritual poetry; historical songs; ballads; magical fairytales; fairytales about animals; daily life fairytales; legendary fairytales; novelistic fairytales; anecdotes (including fairytales about the stupid imp and wild tales); 'predaniya' (tales); 'bylichki' (stories about mythological creatures), 'byvalschiny', 'pobyvalschiny' (true stories); legends (dreams); 'zagovory' (exorcisms); parables, prayers; 'noviny' (new crop songs)); 'lyric poetry (songs)' (love songs; family and daily life songs; play songs, 'khorovod' (round dance) songs, dancing songs; recruiting songs, soldiers' songs, war songs, marching songs; barge haulers' songs; robbers' songs; prison songs, tramps' songs; bourgeois songs, urban songs; 'rabochiye' (workmen's) songs; revolutionary-patriotic songs; lyrical sentimental songs ('romances'); jocose (joky) songs, satirical songs; chastushki; songs of literary origin; 'trudovyye' (work) songs; other songs without any particular theme line); 'ritual poetry' (calendar (agricultural) ritual poetry; hymeneal (wedding) songs; 'prigovory druzhki' (bridesman wedding songs), 'zdravstvovaniya' ('greetings'); 'plachi', 'zaplachki' (wedding lamentations, laments); funeral wailings; recruiting lamentations, military (soldiers') lamentations; daily life lamentations and others); 'small genres of folklore and children's folklore' (riddles; proverbs, adages; sayings, jokes; folklore for children (lullabies (tales), nursery rhymes, 'pestushki' (children's songs and rhymes) and others); children's folklore (stories, bogeyman stories, tongue twisters, taunts, counting-out rhymes, games, play rhymes, 'prigovorki', 'zaklichki' (chidlren's rhymes addressed to animals or plants), poems, songs, fairytales, etc.); superstitious beliefs connected with housekeeping, the weather, etc.; 'priskazki' (embellishments of a story, a story-teller's introduction), 'prislovyya' (folk-say, household word); nicknames; other small genres); 'semi-folkloric texts' (stories based on personal recollections; humorous stories; stories about the existence of different folklore genres; hearsay and rumors; rendering of what was learned directly from literary sources, motion pictures, radio programs, etc. (prose, poetry, songs, etc.); other semifolklore texts).
A different principle of classification was used when forming the section 'Folklore of Finnic peoples', in which the peculiarities of Finnic materials were taken into consideration. So, for example, when describing the songs of this section, the author of the classification considered an additional characteristic — metrical foot. Five subsections were distinguished: 'songs of Kalevala metrics' (epic songs, lyrical-epical songs; hymeneal (wedding) songs; calendar ritual songs; incantations and exorcisms, etiological runes; cumulative songs (ketjulaulut); lullabies; 'noviny' (new crop songs); other ritual songs); 'lamentations' (funeral wailings; wedding lamentations; recruiting lamentations, war (soldiers') lamentations; daily life lamentations and others, joiku); 'strophical rhymed songs' (lyrical poly-strophical songs; new ballads, lyrical sentimental songs (romances); round dance songs (piirileikkilaulut), rontyskat, mono-strophical Finnish songs (rekilaulut), other dancing songs; chas-tushki; satirical songs; recruiting songs, soldiers' songs, war songs; robbers' songs, prison songs, tramps' songs; work and revolutionary-patriotic songs; songs of literary origin; other songs not belonging to any particular theme group); the subsections 'prosaic genres' and 'small genres and children's folklore' copy those of 'folk prose' and 'small genres and children's folklore' in the classification of Russian folklore.
In addition to the two abovementioned big sections, there is a separate group of 'supporting materials of collectors and other individuals', which present general characteristics of folklore material; biographical and autobiographical information about the presenters; various materials and additional information obtained from the population of the study area (albums, dream-books, etc.); documentation of the expeditions (reports, collectors' diaries and others); illustrations (photographs, drawings, drafts, geographical maps and others); top-onyms; anthroponyms; ethnonyms; other data (linguistic, historical).
The third section 'Ethnography' includes such subsections as: household and daily activities, material culture, the family and their daily life, community daily life, religious beliefs and rituals.
With the help of this classification, all the collections of the Scientific Archival Depositary have been rearranged and inventories have been made. Each collection is accompanied by a separate inventory containing the following information about each depositary item: the number of the depositary item, the first line or the name of the work, the genre and the page numbers in the collection. In the majority of the inventories, there is
a summary record where all the genres included in the collection are listed and their total number is given. The presence of inventories in the collections facilitates the work of researches looking for a particular genre or even a specific work. In some collections, there is also a list of presenters attached to the inventory.
These major efforts invested into the systematization of materials made it possible in the 1970-90s to work out card-registers, catalogs and indexes of the existing folklore foundations.
Since 1998, in ILLH under the supervision of head of Phonogram Archival Depositary V. P. Kuznetsova, a digitalization of sound and manuscript archives began alongside with the creation of information systems, e-catalogs and data bases on folkloric materials. As a result, there emerged a necessity to revise the existing classification of archival materials with due regard for the modern scientific concepts of genre classification and the nuances of entering materials into the e-catalog. The staff members of ILLH (V. P. Kuznetsova and I. A. Razumo-va) developed an applicative multilevel genre system, at the heart of which lies B. N. Putilov's genre and theme classification, which made it possible to expand the list of genres in the light of the modern understanding of folklore. Consequently, the following sections were distinguished: folklore, ethnography, linguistics, history. We are going to elaborate on the section 'folklore'. Taking cue from Putilov, the following folklore fields were determined: non-ritual prose, non-ritual song poetry, folklore of ritualized forms (ritual folklore), folklore of speech situations (paramiology), dramatic forms (non-ritual). This list is supplemented by fields distinguished on the basis of the materials deposited in the archive: written folklore forms (a collection of exorcisms; a collection of prayers; a collection of recipes; a dream-book; a songbook; a maid's album; a soldier's album (notebook); graffiti; a handwritten exorcism (prayer) — an averter; 'a holy letter', 'a luck chain letter'; a talisman text (not an exorcism); hand lettering, inscriptions on pictures, postcards, books), specialized subculture genres ('poteshki' (nursery rhymes), 'pes-tushki' (children's first short songs and rhymes), 'prib-autki' (sayings), poverku; children's songs, lapsien laulu, pajo; 'dokuchmyye' (irksome) fairytales; 'perevyortyshi' (palindromes); sadistic verselets; 'strashilki' (bogeyman stories), 'antistrashilki' (anti-boogeyman stories); children's jokes; children's games), non-ritual non-song poetry (rhymes), dance, game (except children's games) (a circle ('khorovod') and its versions ('with a wreath' and others); Russian dance; quadrille; pas
d'Espagne; 'kizha'; 'portyanka'; 'bolvan'; cracovienne (krakowiak); polka), instrumental music (shepherd's horn; accordion; balalaika; mandoline; guitar; bara-banka; brass band), supporting materials (a story of the existence of folklore genres; rendering of what was learned from literary sources, motion pictures, radio programs, etc.; general characteristics of folklore materials; bibliographical remarks on the presenters, elamakerrat; materials and additional information obtained from the population of the study area (amateur literary compositions, remakes); an informant's letter; documentation of the expeditions (field reports, a collector's diary and others); illustrations (photographs, drawings, drafts, geographical maps, etc.); an essay; autobiographical stories. Such important for any researcher materials oftentimes remained unrecorded.
After determining the field of the sample, at the next stage of this applicative classification, the folklore text is attributed to a particular genre. This is necessary both to facilitate the filling out of the catalog and to search for the materials in the data base. Moreover, for sample description in the catalog both the form definition (e. g., 'a
fairytale about animals' or 'a fairytale joke'), or the genre definition of a particular genre (e. g., 'a fairytale') are used. The double attribution is connected with the fact that in old registers collectors did not always pinpoint the exact genre.
In the newly developed genre classification, researchers did not have to rearrange materials according to the language, because when entering into the e-catalog, for each particular work, the language of the recording is specified, and Finno-Ugric folklore genres are included into the general list of genres. So, for example, in the folklore field 'non-ritual song poetry', bylina is found side by side with eepillinen runo, a dancing song — with pi-irileikkiaulu, rontyska, etc.
Computer technology is spreading and now it significantly facilitates the search for materials in separate archives. However, the problem of creating an integrated inter-archive electronic system is still acute, because it would make it possible for researchers to work with materials in different archival catalogs. Perhaps, a further development of electronic systems and cataloguing software will enable scientists to combine data bases.
References:
1.
Adonyeva, S. B. Our own speech - a stranger's speech: folklore in the light of pragmatics//Folklore and folklife culture. In memoriam/B. N. Putilov; compiled by Y. O. Putilova; editor-in-chief A. N. Anfertyev; introduction by Y. A. Kostukhin; ^S. Peter the Great museum of anthropology and ethnography (the Kunstkamera). - S.Petersburg.: St.-Petersburg Oriental Studies, - 2003. - P. 239-251.
Banin, A. A., Burmistrov, N. S. Revisiting the problem of the definition and origin of chastushka//Live antiquity. - 1997. - № 3. P. 49-51.
Bogdanov, K. A. Everyday routine and mythology: Research into the semiotics of folklore reality. St.-Petersburg: Art - St.-Petrsburg, - 2001.
Vinogradova, L. N. Bylichki and demonological beliefs: the boundaries of a folkloric text//Live antiquity. -2004. - № 1. P. 10-14.
Urban songs, ballads, romances/Compiled, edited and commented by A. V. Kulagina, F. M. Selivanova. - Moscow: MSU Publishing House, - 1999. Live antiquity. - 2000. - № 4.
Zemtsovsky, I. I. Revisiting the theory of genre in folklore.//Artes populares 14, Edited by Vilmos Voigt. Budapest, - 1985. - P. 24-30.
8. Cataloguing of folkloric and ethnographic archival materials on punch cards/Compiled by N. F. Onegina. -Petrozavodsk, - 1978.
9. Korepova, K. Y. An old song to a new tune ...//Live antiquity. - 1997. - № 4. P. 21-24.
10. Kostyukhin, Y. A. A review of the book [Urban songs, ballads, romances/Compiled, edited and commented by A. V. Kulagina, F. M. Selivanova. - Moscow, - 1999.]//Live antiquity. - 2001. - № 4. - P. 51-53.
11. Krawczyk-Wasilewska, V. In defense of folklore, or a dialog between tradition and modernity//Live antiquity. -1996. - № 4. P. 42-43.
12. Levinton, G. A. Observations on the genre realm of Russian folklore//The fortunes of traditional culture. Collection of articles and materials in memory of Larisa Ivleva, St.-Petersburg: Dmitry Bulanin, - 1998. P. 56-71.
13. Naive literature: studies and texts/Compiled by S. Y. Nekludov. Moscow: Moscow Public Science Foundation, -2001.
English borrowed interjections and their semantics, role and expressive function in colloquial Russian and Macedonian languages
14. Propp, V. Y. Russian fairytale. Leningrad: LSU Publishing House, - 1984.
15. Propp, V. Y. Folklore and reality. Moscow: Nauka, Chief editorial board of Eastern Literature, - 1976.
16. Putilov, B. N. Folklore and folklife culture. St.-Petersburg: Nauka, - 1994.
17. Razumova, I. A. The innermost knowledge of the Russian family. Daily life folklore. History. - Moscow: Indrik, -2001.
18. Contemporary urban folklore/editorial board A. F. Belousov, I. S. Veselova, S. Y. Nekludov. - Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities, - 2003.
19. Contemporary school folklore: a textbook and a reading book/compiled by S. M. Loiter, Y. M. Neyelov. Petrozavodsk: Petrozavodsk State University, - 1995.
20. Schurov, V. M. The genres of Russian musical folklore: an educational aid for conservatories and academies of music. Part 1: History, usage, musical and poetical peculiarities. - Moscow: Music, - 2007.
D OI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20534/EJLL-16-4-73-77
Trendevska Sandra, Belgorod National Research University
PhD student,
The Institute of Cross-cultural Communications and International Relations E-mail: [email protected]
English borrowed interjections and their semantics, role and expressive function in colloquial Russian and Macedonian languages
Abstract: The article demonstrate the expressive function of borrowed interjections in colloquial Russian and Macedonian languages. The given research covers English interjections and their consistency based on a discourse analysis of the context. Work attempts have been made to point the importance of the cross-language influence on a lexical norm. The research include comparative analysis as a method to identify the reasons of using English interjections in contemporary Russian and Macedonian languages.
Keywords: Interjections, English borrowings, Russian language, lexicology, Macedonian language.
Трендевска Сандра, Белгородский Государственный Национальный Исследовательский Университет Институт Межкультурной коммуникации и Международных отношений, аспирант E-mail: [email protected]
Англоязчные заимствованные междометия и их семантика, роль и экспрессивная функция в разговорной речи русского и македонского языков
Аннотация: В статье показана экспрессивная функция заимствованных междометий в русском и македонском языках. Данное исследование охватывает англоязычные междометия и их системность, основанную на контекстуального анализа речи. В работе сделана попытка показать важность межязыкового влияния на лексическу норму. Исследование включает сравнительный анализ
