PREFACE
to
Blues lyric poetry: A Concordance
by
Michael Taft
(
The history of this
concordance is a long one. The present volumes have grown� - perhaps
"evolved" is a better word - out of fifteen years of studying and
thinking about the lyrics of commercial "race record" blues. Over the
years of listening to and reading blues lyrics, I came to realize that the
blues singers employed a type of formulaic structure in the composition of
their songs which was somewhat similar to that of epic singers far removed in
space and time from these Afro-American artists. While I understood this
formulaic system in an intuitive way, I found it difficult to describe in a
concrete, quantitative fashion the extent and nature of the blues for�mulaic
system. My problem was that in order to discover those linguistic forms which
were semantically or syntactically close to each other, I had to re-order or
"decon�struct� lines and phrases in the blues texts. While my auditory
sense sparked my intuitive understanding of the blues, I had to be able to
visualize the songs in a form different from that printed in anthologies or
transcribed from records if I was to find a concrete basis for my intuition.
My first attempt at
deconstruction was manual. I laboriously wrote down phrases from the songs -
one phrase to a separate sheet of paper. After two hundred songs, I amassed a
collection of sheets which filled seven loose-leaf binders. I had succeeded in
deconstructing a small portion of the corpus, but it was apparent that I had
not succeeded in making these re-ordered texts accessible or
"visible" for the kind of analysis in which I was interested.
However, in 1974 I met Michael Preston when he passed through Newfoundland. The
result of our discussions convinced me that the only
way to re-order a massive corpus of texts was to use a computer. This revelation could not have come at a better time,
for I was in danger of suffering the same fate as poor Alexander Cruden, the
eighteenth-century compiler of a concordance to the Bible, who worked on his
magnum opus between bouts in the madhouse (see the life of Cruden in Cruden,
pp. 5-10).
Thus it was that I
began preparing blues texts for concording; a process which involved
keypunching each line of each song onto a card, labelling that card with a code
for the singer and song, and shipping the cards to
The
word "generations" accurately reflects the growth of this project.
The very first blues concordance was an ugly child: printed on large,
cumbersome, green�striped computer sheets, all in capitals, full of symbols
which should have been sup�pressed in the print-out, and of course full of
typographical errors which I never bothered to correct in my keypunching
frenzy. In addition, this first generation was split into three unequal parts,
since the concordance-generating program, at that time, could not handle more
than one thousand texts and my corpus contained over two thousand separate
songs.
As ugly as this
child was, it was usable, and led to the completion of a formulaic analysis of
blues lyrics (Taft, "Lyrics"). But further, more useful generations
followed. The fascinating thing about
working with computers in the humanities is that as one works, the computer
hardware and computer programs become more and more sophisticated. For example,
during the course of this project, the keypunch machine, once so ubiquitous on
college campuses, became a technological dinosaur (I worked with the last one
to be found on the University of Saskatchewan campus) as it was replaced by the
terminal. The
concordance program also evolved from a difficult, jury-rigged affair to a
sophisticated, multifaceted and flexible system for the re�ordering of texts.
Thus, I have had the opportunity to race along on a parallel path with a
technology whose advancement must be timed in months rather than decades.
But at some point
one must cross paths with that technology and decide that the state of the art
has reached a stage which comes up to one's expectations. This
work, then, is the once-ugly child of years past, now matured and ready for
public scrutiny. In other words, the
present state of computer hardware and software allows texts to be re-ordered
so that structures once invisible can be clearly seen and understood even by a
reader who has had no experience with print-outs, terminals or computer
language.
The present work
re-orders over two thousand commercially recorded blues lyrics of the
"race record" era; that is, blues sung by Afro-Americans and produced
in special series by the major recording companies in the
But what are these
problems? The
first questions which the compiler of a folkloristic concordance must ask are
what is the definition of the text and, of all possible folklore texts, which
should be included in the corpus? The literary concor�dance-maker
can more simply demarcate his textual boundaries by stating that �this
concordance will include all works by author X" or "this concordance
will include a sub-set of works (poems, essays, a
single novel) by author X." There might be certain problems with texts of
"questionable authorship" or "attributed authorship" in
literary concordances, but for the most part the corpus is well defined by its
author and literary form.
The folklorist,
however, has a much harder time defining his corpus. His texts will most likely
have been performed by a number of people, perhaps from several generations or
from different cultures and geographical areas (imagine, for example, a
concordance to ghost legends). In addition, folk-literary forms such as ballad,
legend and proverb defy clear definition. Indeed, over the last century, one of
the major preoccupations among folklorists has been the definition and
redefinition of terms, and the battle is far from over. Inevitably, the
folklorist must rely on what Utley called "operational definitions�; that
is, the folklorist must set rather arbitrary criteria for inclusion or
exclusion of a text from his concordance. One hopes, of course, that the
arbitrariness is not random, but carefully considered and based upon a clear
under�standing of the folk-literary tradition from which the texts have been
culled. In short, although the folklorist must make fundamentally etic
decisions in defining his corpus, we must be aware of emic classifications (see
Dundes).
Therefore,
the texts included in this concordance represent a specific under�standing of the
term "blues." From at least 1850, the word has been used to define
many different forms of popular song (Taft,
"Lyrics," pp. 60-61). I have already explained some of the narrowing
criteria which I have chosen for this study: Afro-�American songs, commercially
recorded between the years 1920 and 1942. As well, the songs must be of a certain
form which seems to define "the blues" from the point of view of the
singers themselves. Because I have
already discussed the form and structure of the blues in some detail in the
companion volume to this study (Taft, Blues),
I will only summarize the operational definition here: the blues is a secular
song composed of rhyming couplets in which one or both lines of the couplet may
be repeated one or more times and in which the couplet itself might be embel�lished
with refrains. These refrains may take either the blues-couplet form or any
other form, but it is the blues couplet itself which is the defining feature of
this song form.
If a song fits all
of the above criteria- then it is eligible for inclusion in the concordance. But
the problem of criteria raises another question which plagues the folklorist
more than the literary concordance-maker: how large should the corpus be? The literary scholar has the luxury of a limited
"bookshelf" - the complete works of
an author are finite and knowable. But
this cannot be said of folk literature, for the folklorist's bookshelf is
either infinite or only partially accessible. How many ballads have been sung?
How many jokes have been told? Even if one limits
the folkloristic bookshelf through an operational definition - texts performed
by certain people at a certain time and having a certain form - chances are
that much of this limited book�shelf would still remain inaccessible.
This is certainly
the case with the blues. My operational definition limits the number
of texts which I might choose for the concordance. But despite the fact that I
have eliminated the thousands of non-commercial blues, white blues, post-war
blues, and songs called "blues" which do not conform to the couplet
structure outlined
above, I have still left myself with a huge corpus of texts
- perhaps in the order of ten thousand songs. Although ideally this concordance
should include all pre-war, Afro-�American commercial blues, only about one
fifth of� the
"bookshelf'� was available to me. Because race records are a part of the
ephemera of American popular culture, many have completely vanished, leaving
only a trace in the ledger books of recording companies. Other texts survive on
only a handful of discs which may be too scratchy to reissue or which belong to
collectors who have not been canvassed by reissue record�ing company officials.
Because I have
relied upon long-playing albums of the blues reissue trade (see the
Discography) rather than on the original 78rpm discs for my research, my corpus
is not only limited to those songs available on modern phonodiscs but is
somewhat distorted by the particular biases of these reissue recording
companies. In
short, some blues singers have been reissued many times over while others have
been ignored. Historically,
reissue companies have favored the more "traditional" blues over the
more "sophisticated" big-city and vaudeville blues in their reissue
schedules. Of course, I purposely searched for albums which contained the
less-known (or less popular) blues singers in order to counterbalance this
unwanted overlay on my crite�ria for the corpus, but despite my search, there
are no examples from such prolific artists as Leothus Green, Viola McCoy or
Lucille Hegamin. Other singers, such as Buddy Moss, Mamie Smith or Charlie
Spand, are not represented in proper propor�tion to the number of songs they
recorded. Still
others, such as Tommy Johnson and John Hurt, are probably over-represented (if
that is possible) because of their great popularity in the reissue market.
The only solution
to this unwanted selectional restriction was to include enough songs in the
corpus so that the inclusion or exclusion of any one song or any one artist for
that matter would not be significant. Over two thousand songs sung by about 350
singers representing the wide range of race record blues from vaudeville blues
to downhome blues ensures that this corpus is, if not complete, then at least
representa�tive My decision to limit the corpus to two thousand blues reissued
on albums was also based on certain practical considerations. A reissued song
is, at least ideally, an acces�sible song; the inclusion in the concordance of
some rare, unreissued recording would not help the scholar who wished to check
my printed text against his own copy in his collection of blues albums. The
time involved in tracking down and transcribing unreissued recordings from
record companies and private collectors would have pro�longed a project which
has already stretched beyond a decade. Then too, the addition of one or two
thousand extra songs would have made this concordance even more cumbersome than
it already is. At some point the
very size of a reference work becomes a hindrance to its usefulness.
A
further problem confronts the folkloristic, concordance-maker: In what form
should the oral texts be transcribed and entered into the computer data bank?
Just as the boundaries and definitions of folklore genres are vague, so, too,
are the bound�aries of any given text. What is part of the oral text and what is "peripheral�,
where does an oral text begin and end, and how many performers are actually
presenting the oral text? These folkloristic questions have no set or
agreed-upon answers (see, for example, Georges). Even after one has decided upon the boundaries of the given
texts, one must decide how these oral texts are to be presented on the printed
page and how they are to be electronically stored. The
ethnopoetic struggles of scholars such as Dennis Tedlock, who has tried to
reproduce Zuni texts in a form which captures their expressiveness, is
indicative of the folklorist's problem. By contrast, the literary
concordance-maker has his texts already printed, his boundaries already de�marcated
by the limits of the printed page. The author he is analyzing has chosen the
form of the text for him. I do not mean to suggest that the literary scholar
has no problems in this area (see Bender's discussion), but his problems are
more mechanical and less philosophical than those of the folklorist.
My choices in this
matter have again been based upon my operational definition of the blues and
upon practical matters. As I stated above, the essence of the blues
is the blues couplet. Indeed, the nature
of this type of song is such that one might very well define the genre as one
big blues composed of a large but finite number of couplets, lines and
formulaic phrases; each individual text is but a sub-set of these couplets.
Therefore, this concordance, like its companion anthology, analyzed
"stripped-down" texts (see Taft, Blues)
in which spoken asides, interjections by other performers and parts of the
songs which do not conform to the blues couplet structure have been excluded from
analysis.� Like its companion work, this
concor�dance is more a study of the blues couplet than of the blues song. I
would be the first to admit that these stripped-down versions do not represent
the true nature of the performed text but in order to visualize the
compositional-structural components of the blues couplet - the original intent
of this work - such a redefinition of the bound�aries of the text was
necessary. Indeed, these texts have been stripped down in another way: despite
the number of times a line has been repeated within the couplet, I have
analyzed only one singing of that line. In this way, the concordance reveals
formulaic and linguistic repetitions in the corpus but not the stylistic
repetitions of lines within couplets. From a practical point of view, to have
included every repetition of every line would have burdened the concordance with
duplicate entries and ballooned its size, thereby hiding the more subtle
details of blues lyric structure.
The method of
transcription which I used for this concordance reveals the dif�ference between
literary and folkloristic problems in representing the text. The con�cordance-maker
of printed texts is bound by the orthography and spelling variations used by
the author under analysis; this is especially troublesome for analyses of
medieval and Renaissance works where there might be several spellings for the
same word (see the problem discussed in
Some might argue
that a computer concordance does violence to the text, that its deconstruction
distorts literature and dehumanizes the humanities. But
as computers become more common tools in humanistic research, these worries
will lessen. How�ever, the violence and deconstruction of texts should not be
taken lightly. I have already
stated that the purpose of a concordance is to re-order a text so that the
analyst might visualize it in a new way, but in the case of folklore this
jumbling of the text also reveals the way the singer and his audience see the
text. Once again, the etic and emic properties of this kind of study come to
the fore. Because of the formulaic nature of the blues, there is every
likelihood that when a singer sings a phrase or line, both he and his audience
recognize that particular part of� the song. Perhaps semi�consciously
, they compare this specific singing of the phrase with other singings
of that phrase and phrases similar to it. In an instant, the singer and his
audience compare the way the sung phrase is juxtaposed with others, both in the
song being sung and in other songs which include that phrase. Thus every phrase
in the blues has the potential of literary richness far beyond its specific
usage in one song. Pete Welding has been one of the few to discuss this
property of the blues lyric:
The blues is most
accurately seen as a music of re-composition. That is,
the creative bluesman is the one who imaginatively handles traditional elements
and who, by his realignment of commonplace elements, shocks us with the
familiar. He makes the old newly meaningful to us. His art is more properly
viewed as one of providing the listener with what critic Edmund Wilson
described as "the shock of recognition" a pretty accu�rate
description, I believe, of the process of re-shaping and re-focusing of
traditional forms in which the blues artist engages.
If one were to
illustrate how the audience undergoes this "shock of recognition,"
how the mental processes of the listener bring about this shock, one would
construct something like a concordance. Each word and each phrase would be lined up
against all other words and phrases which are similar to it in all the songs in
which the phrase occurred. By looking down a
page in the concordance one sees in an instant what must occur for the listener
at the moment of "shock." Both the singer and his audience
automatically re-order and deconstruct the text as it is being sung; that
constitutes their method of appreciation and the basis of their understand�ing
of the blues.
That the blues
concordance is fundamentally emic in its format should come as no surprise. I
stated earlier that after listening to and reading thousands of blues lyrics, I
gained an intuitive understanding of the structure and meaning of blues lyrics;
I could sense the formulaic structure even if� I could not explain it. Uncon�sciously,
I was constructing a mental concordance of the lyrics I had heard � adding more
and more texts to that concordance as I listened to more and more blues - so
that I began to sense the same "shock of recognition" that the
traditional blues au�dience must have felt. The computer concordance is simply
a concrete representation of this intuitive process.
I
suspect that literary concordances are similarly emic. After all, Edmund Wilson
was not referring to folk literature
when he wrote of "shock." Current theories of reader-response critics
would seem to indicate that concordances in general reveal something of how we
read. For example, Stanley Fish asks of an utterance, "what does it
do?" (p. 75). One thing it does
is evoke a series of contexts for that utterance and usages of that utterance
which extend beyond the reader's encounter with it in a specific context.
Fish sees literature as existing in the temporal flow of the reader's
experience:
In short, something
other than itself [the written passage], something existing outside its frame
of reference, must be modulating the reader's experience of the sequence. In my
method of analysis, the temporal flow is monitored and structured by everything
the reader brings with him, by his competences; and it is by taking these into
account as they interact with the temporal left to right reception of the
verbal string, that I am able to chart and project the developing
response. (p.
85)
A
concordance would help Fish to chart this response, for it reveals not only the
one-dimensional "left to right" context of a verbal string, but the
three-dimensional place of that string within a body of literature. Of course,
for proper reader-response analysis, one would need a concordance of all the
linguistic experiences of a given reader in order to chart his response. But
even the limited concordances of specific authors and works show the mental
processes at work of author and reader.
It is interesting
that the computer-stored concordance of which this work is only one
manifestation is even more emic than the printed concordance. Just as the blues
listener expands his understanding of the song form with every new blues he
hears, and just as the listener is capable of several different re-orderings
and comparisons at the same time, so, too, the computer concordance has the
same capability. The pres�ent study is only one possible way of
re-ordering a set number of texts. But the data in computer storage can be
expanded by the inclusion of yet more texts, just as a new blues text will be
stored in the memory of the listener. As well, old texts in storage can be
emended to clear up transcription errors. But more importantly, the concordance-�generating
system allows many different kinds of re-orderings. For
example, the words under analysis can be listed according to their sequential
order in the corpus or according to the alphabetical order of the context which
follows the words; they can be presented randomly down the page as they appear
in their line contexts or they can be centered and aligned so that they appear
in a column. The words can be
presented without any context (a simple word index), within the context of
their line, or in a more extended context which makes use of as much space on
the page as possible.
Phrase concordances
analyze repeated strings of three, four or five words. Re�verse concordances
analyze words backwards, producing lists of rhyme-words. Letter concordances
deconstruct the words themselves and re-order the corpus by frequency of
letters. The
corpus itself can be altered so that single singers or specific groups of
singers can be pulled from the data bank for smaller comparative concordances.
Sample page I of the Concordance on PC
The first sample
page shows one possibility: a phrase concordance which lists all four-word
strings in the corpus. This sample also shows the option of listing the phrases
in the order they appear in the corpus as well as placing these strings in a
center-column alignment. This sample shows the strings within the
context of their poetic lines, rather than in the more extended context of as
much of the song as would fit on a line of the concordance page.
Sample page II� of the Concordance on PC
The second sample
page chooses some of the same options as the first - an unextended,
center-aligned context -�
but it is a selected concordance of the repertoire of only one
singer in the corpus, Blind Lemon Jefferson. In addition, the words under analysis are
listed alphabetically according to the context which follows the words. (Preston and Pfleiderer give further possibilities for
re-ordering texts on pp. 409 -� 423.)
Each type of
concordance allows one to visualize the texts in a new way. The
present work is only one manifestation, only one possibility, among many. In deciding which manifestation to use for this work,
I chose one which most clearly shows the structure of blues lyrics. Rather than
being a form of poetry in which innovative words and phrases are the norm, the
blues relies on formulas, idioms and well-recognized semantic units to convey
its meaning and artistry. An "extended KWIC (key word in context)
concordance" such as the one chosen for this work presents the blues most
clearly as the type of poetry which "schocks" us with repeated and
recoignized phrasing. My choice of this type of format was undoubtedly based
on the same principles as Duggan, who chose a similar KWIC concordance in his
exploration of the formulaic nature of the Chanson
de Roland.
The reader will
notice that the extended KWIC format comprises a list of cap�italized
"head-words" running down the left-hand margin of the page under
which are listed specific contexts for this head-word. The
word under analysis appears in the center of the page, preceded and succeeded
by as much poetic context as will fit on the line of the page. The instances of
the analyzed word are listed in alphabetical order according to the succeeding
context of the song in which it is found. Thus, on the third sample page hollering about is
followed by hollering and; hollering
and crying is followed by hollering
and screaming.
Sample page III� of the Concordance on PC
Sample page III� of the Concordance on the� Web
Clicking on the
second instance of� hollering and crying� brings up the
complete transcription of the lyrics, in this case Blind Blake�s Depression�s Gone from Me Blues.�
Sample page III� of the Concordance on the� Web, with the�
Concordance-frame scrolled to the right
Every word under
analysis is identified according to its place in the corpus. Thus, to the right
in the Concordance-frame of the second instance of� hollering and crying appears:
the name of the singer: ����� Blind Blake
the title of the song:���������� Depression Gone from Me Blues
recording place:���������������������������������������
date:����������������������������������� c. June 1932��������������������������������������������
record number:���������������������������������������� (L-1476-2) Pm-13137 Bio BLP-12023
On the bottom frame
the lyrics for this song are shown.
In general, the
word-forms in this concordance correspond to single words as found in a
standard American dictionary. The numbers following the head-words give the
reader the number of occurrences of that word in the corpus; thus, there are
forty-three occurrences of hollering
(or 0,017 % of all occurances), but only two occurrences of hollers. Hyphenated word-forms are
listed under their individual components; for example, a-hollering�, will be found under a in� the
concordance.
For the sake of a
clear, uncluttered page I have included very little punctuation.
The colon (:)
indicates the approximate place of the half-line caesura, which is
characteristic of the blues form (see Taft, Blues,
for a more detailed explanation of the caesura). This mark also helps the
reader's eye to catch the first and second halves of lines. Asterisks (*)
enclose parts of the transcriptions which are questionable: that is, passages
which are only educated guesses at what is actually being sung. These
hypothetical passages may be one word, as in Them Smoky Hollow women:sure
put a *method* on you or phrases, as in *Hollering for a good long-legged man*.
Passages which I have not been able to decipher at all are marked by three
question marks (???) regardless of how long or short these passages might be;
see, for example, hollering (??? you fall).
On occasion, I can only decipher a part of a word, which I then mark with three
question marks and that part of the word which I can decipher; see, for
example, hollering don't you murder me/I'm down in the bottom ???ing for Johnny Rye.
The reader will
notice some words and phrases in brackets ([ ]). These passages occur in one repetition of a
line but not in another. For example, the
phrase, I'm like a [drunk] man �represents the following
repeated line:
Most
times when I get hungry: I'm like a drunk man acting a clown
Most times when I get hungry: I'm like a man acting a
clown
In other instances,
the brackets enclose two or more passages separated by commas, as in hollering: People is [raving, hollering]
about hard times. Here the singer has substituted one word for another in
the repetition of the line:
People
is raving about hard times:tell me what it's about
People is hollering about hard times:tell
me what it's all about
The value of this
new way of visualizing a text is revealed not so much in the use of the
concordance to look up a specific word or phrase, but in browsing through the
work. By browsing, by randomly flipping through the pages and letting one's eye
"be caught" by a particular pattern, one makes discoveries. And these
discoveries are all the more significant because they do not grow out of
preconceived notions about the texts. The concordance forces one to see what
could not be seen before. For this reason, I have not followed the practice of
some concordance-makers who omit certain overly common words (a, the, in, I) from analysis. By
browsing through those parts of the concordance which analyze these less
substantive words, one often finds especially interesting linguistic patterns
and congruencies; for example, prepositions such as in and to reveal patterns
of� phrasing common in the blues.
For each word in
the concordance the percentage of� the total number of� its occurances in the corpus is shown. As one
might expect from lyric poetry, the most common word is I, which occurs 9.887 times in the corpus and makes up a total of
4.229 % of the 233.775 words in the entire corpus.
This may appeal mostly
to the statistician, but it does tell something of the kind of corpus under
analysis. That the blues song is highly repetitive (or formulaic) and that the
blues singer chose to limit the themes of his song to a relatively few and use
only a limited, idiomatic vocabulary in his compositions is evident from these
statistics. The recent concordance to Meredith (Hogan, Sawin and Merrill), by
comparison, reveals a corpus which is less structured and repetitive: 188.440
words compared with the blues corpus�s 233.775, yet 17.967 head-words compared
to only 6.422 for the blues corpus. (These statistics for Meredith will not be
found in the printed concordance but are available from the
electronically-stored Meredith concordance at the Center for Com�puter Research
in the Humanities at the
The information for
each song in the Anthology and Concordance is structured as follows:
Name of singer����������������������������������������
Title ���������������������������������� Long Lonesome
Days Blues
Place and date������������������� ���������������������
Record numbers���������������� (81213-A) OK-8511 Rt RL-315
Name of singer
Where a song is
attributed to a group by Godrich and
Title
The title of the song� as given in
Godrich and
Place
and date
Information on
place and date of recording also comes from Godrich and
Record numbers
The line marked
"record numbers" contains four pieces of information. First the
matrix or master number of the recording is given in parentheses. This number pinpoints
the location and sequence in the daily recording sessions of the record
companies and is important in identifying the relationship of the song to the
entire output of the race record era. In the above example, the master number
is 81213. Within the parentheses following this number is the "take"
number or letter which indicates which version of the song sung in the
recording studio has been transcribed.
Thus, this was the
first (and perhaps only) version of the song recorded by Alexander, since it is
marked "take A." Note, however, that the first and second song by
Luke Jordan are different takes of the same song sung by Luke Jordan and
recorded in succession; they have the same master number but different take
numbers (1 and 2). All master and take numbers are from Godrich and
The next
information on this line is the original catalogue number for the 78rpm
recording of the song. The letters before the dash are an abbreviation for the
record company or label on which the song was recorded (see Abbreviations for
Race Record Labels) and the alphanumerical designation after the dash is the
catalogue number. In the above example, OK-8511 indicates record number 8511 in
Okeh Record Company catalogue. Where a song was recorded on two or more
race record labels, I have indicated only the first label and catalogue number
listed in Godrich and Dixon. In some cases the
recording was never issued, but remained a test pressing or a master in the
possession of the record company. The word "unissued" replaces the
non-existent catalogue number in these cases.
The final
information on this line is the label and catalogue number of the long-playing
album from which the song was transcribed. The label appears as either a two�
or three-letter abbreviation followed by an alphanumerical catalogue designation,
or where the catalogue designation contains no letters, as an abbreviation
attached by a dash to the catalogue number. In the above example, Rt is the label,
Roots, and RL�315 is the catalogue number for the album. For the code to long-playing album abbre�viations, see
the Discography and Abbreviations for Long-Playing Album Labels in the preface
to the Anthology.
***
The Center for
Computer Research in the Humanities and the
References
���������������������
|
Bender, Todd K. |
"Literary
Texts in Electronic Storage: The Editorial Potential", Computers in the Humanities, 10
(1976), 193-99. |
|
Cruden, Alexander. |
A Complete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament. New York: Dodd, Mead,
n.d. [First ed., 1737] |
|
Duggan, Joseph J. |
A Concordance of the Chanson de Roland. � |
|
� -� �� - |
The Song of Roland: Formulaic Style and Poetic Craft. |
|
Dundes, Alan. |
"From Etic
to Emic Units in the Structural Study of Folktales", Journal of American Folklore, 75
(1962), 95-105. |
|
Fish, Stanley E. |
"Literature
in the Reader: Affective Sylistics." New Literary History (1970). Rpt. Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism. Ed. Jane P. Tomkins.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1980, 70-100. |
|
Georges, Robert A |
"Do
Narrators Really Disgress? A Reconsideration of `Audience Asides' in
Narrating." Western Folklore, 40 (1981), 245-52. |
|
Godrich, John,
and |
Blues & Gospel Records 1902-1942. Rev. Ed. London: Storyville, 1969. |
|
Hogan, Rebecca
S., |
A Concordance to the Poetry of George Meredith. New York: Garland, 1982 |
|
Preston, Dennis R. |
"`Ritin'
Fowklower Daun 'Rong: Folklorists' Failures in Phonology." Journal of American Folklore, 95 (1982), 304-26. |
|
Preston, Michael J., and |
A KWIC Concordance to the Plays of theWakefield
Master. Contextual Concordances. |
|
Taft, Michael. |
Blues Lyric Poetry: An Anthology. New York: Garland, 1983. |
|
� -� �� - |
The Lyrics of Race Record Blues, 1920-1942: A
Semantic Approach to the Structural Analysis of a Formulaic System. Diss.
Memorial Univ. of |
|
Tedlock, Dennis, trans |
Finding the Center: Narrative Poetry of the Zuni
Indians. |
|
Utley, Francis L. |
"Folk
Literature: An Operational Definition." Journal of American Folklore (1961). Rpt. The Study of Folklore.
Ed. Alan Dundes. |
|
Welding, Peter J. |
"Big Joe and
Sonny Boy: The Shock of Recognition." Record notes to Big Joe Williams and Sonny Boy Williamson. Blues Classics BC-21. One
twelve-inch 33 1/3rpm phonodisc. |
|
Wilson, Edmund, ed. |
The Shock of Recognition: The Development of
Literature in the |
���������������������