Talk:Oral literature

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 15 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Akandrews.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"not plausible"
It is written that it is not plausible that oral literature is frequently consistent, on the basis of ONE counter example (Malian 'text'). That is equivalent to saying it is implausible that apples are frequently green, since I have seen a single red apple.

Not only is it a nonsense statement, it is not even cited, so is probably original research. DELETE please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.68.140 (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"Orature" vs. "Oral literature"
"Orature" strikes me as a horrible neologism, but I see it gets 31,000 Google hits, so I guess it has passed into the language. I suppose oral literature, which seems more natural to me, is oxymoronic, but it gets 269,000 Google hits, so isn't that where our article should be, with "orature" as a redirect? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur. 'Oral literature' is not only more natural, it's more common also in academic literature. &mdash; mark &#9998; 11:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Oxymoronic?
How is the term "oral literature" oxymoronic? Bruxism 04:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If one understands literature to be something that is written (see, for example, the definition "collection of texts" in the corresponding article), then the qualification of oral signifying unwritten may create an oxymoronic juxtaposition. Man vyi 06:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. But even while the etymology of the term would imply "letters" (i.e. alphabets) and "writing," there is nothing in "collection of texts" to imply those are written texts.  As it stands, I find the corresponding entry ethnocentric, and I'm going to try to make it more NPOV.  See what you think and let me know.  Thanks for answering.  Bruxism 01:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * One reason why I was quite content with the article's previous location at Orature (not that I'm suggesting that it need go back). Man vyi 07:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The description "oral literature" is in fact "oxymoronic", or perhaps more straightforwardly: It is a contradiction in terms. Literature indicates writing, words, text. The term "text", in its etymology is "from Medieval Latin textus 'the Scriptures, text, treatise,' in Late Latin 'written account, content, characters used in a document'. (See the Online Etymology Dictionary.) The entry should be merged with "Oral Tradition" since that is what spoken stories are and because "orature" is a grotesque invention, well-intended, but seems a work-around that does not quite work. Sych (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The following is most confusing: "Oral literature or folk literature operates in the sphere of the spoken (oral) word as literature operates in the domain of the written word." What is meant here by "literature"? the article "Literature" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica has this: "To use the word writing when describing literature is itself misleading, for one may speak of “oral literature” or “the literature of preliterate peoples”. I am currently along with James343e trying to improve the literature article. I came here seeking clarity. Rwood128 (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge
It all depends on how one defines tradition, but I think the distinction can be drawn between orature (as an artistic genre) and oral tradition (as a medium) and that keeping the articles distinct is helpful. Oppose merge. Man vyi 10:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What? No. Merger of any of the three topics is a very bad idea. These are distinct topics. Just because they both include the word "oral" and relate to the past in (different) ways ... oral history is people's individual personal histories and recollections of the past. It's an academic discipline.  Oral tradition or oral culture is the social tradition of transmission of cultural knowledge within a particular group of people.  It's a social practice, not an academic discipline.  Oral literature can include recitations of oral culture, but is also about performance art, the art of storytelling, etc.  --lquilter 13:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Removing the merge tag. Clearly distinct categories and merge-proposer never bothered to explain or articulate a proposal or justification. --lquilter 13:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In talk pages (User_talk:Dbachmann and User_talk:Lquilter), the editor who proposed the merge explained that he was proposing the merge because the articles are not clearly written now and appear to have some subject overlap. I looked through these articles and am making the following changes in response to this problem:
 * Oral history contained a lot of stuff about oral culture, presumably because "oral transmission of history" is one type of oral tradition and "oral history" is an old term for that. I deleted extraneous material from Oral history, moved it to Talk:Oral tradition, explained the distinction on Oral history and linked to Oral tradition.
 * Added a clarifying sentence to the top of Oral tradition that explained that it was different from oral history.
 * Oral literature seems fine to me; I don't see how it would be confused with oral tradition or oral history. The editor who suggested merger said "that's an oxymoron" but it's clearly explained in the brief entry. The article could do with some fleshing out, though.
 * (cross-posted to all 3 article talk pages) --lquilter 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oral literature is part of oral tradition, but not the same! I am going to remove the merge tag.Nannus 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oral literature is not necessarily "folk" literature
The article uses the word "folk" severla times. But oral literature is not always folk literature. I don't have all the references for the following at hand now (hope to come back to this later) but: in several cultures, there where experts for it who had to memorize large texts. In celtic culture, the druids had to memorize thousands of verses of sacred texts (all lost now because it was forbidden to write them down). The works of Homer are thought to have been transmitted oraly for a long time before being written down, something only possible with experts. The poetry of the Icelandic edda was memorized and orally transmitted by a group of experts for poetry called skalds. The culture of Mali had the griots, professional Poets and singers. The Tibetans had the sGrund mkhan, the masters of tradition etc. So there were professional keepers of the oral literatures. Oral literature developed and passed on by such experts is not flok culture. the contrary, it must be equated to classical literature.Nannus 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good point -- there is definitely a "professional" oral transmission distinct from informal folk transmissions. --lquilter 21:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will argue with this. "Folk," according to scholars, does not necessarily mean informal or poor in quality.  So the implication that "experts for it who had to memorize large texts" were not folk does not make sense, from a scholarly point of view.  If as you suggest, Nannus, that "oral literature developed and passed on by such experts is not f[ol]k culture," then why are the people who study that literature as oral performance - rather than as classical texts - called "folklorists?" Classical epic poetry is but one genre of folklore.  Myth is another.  Bruxism 03:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to argue with most of this, but accurate transmission does not necessarily imply a special class of experts. Unless I'm very much mistakent, the Australian aborigines famously passed down their songlines for centuries without a special class of experts, and apparently verbatim because verses are found verbatim in different parts of the continent. - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the term oral literature
The discussion in the article is quite confused, but as far as the origins of the English phrase go, but by early 19th cent. it is not unusual (for example, "Essay on American Language and Literature," North-American Review 1:3 [1815] 307-314, uses the phrase twice). By the 1880s it is frequent in scholarly journals, and in the 20th cent. it is a normal term of art. There is a whole chapter on it in the Cambridge History of English and American literature (1907–21); not necessary, or possible, to attribute it to Chadwick or Parry. Rgr09 (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)