Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:30:52.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Livestock auctions, oral poetry, and ordinary language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Koenraad Kuiper  and
Douglas Haggo
Koenraad Kuiper
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Literature, University of Canterbury
Douglas Haggo
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Literature, University of Canterbury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A description of the verbal and nonverbal characteristics of the language of stock auctioneers and a comparison with oral poetry show that these auctioneers use an oral formulaic technique. It is suggested that this technique is a response to performance constraints which place a heavy load on short term memory. This hypothesis accounts for features of stock auction speech which are not recognized as characteristically oral formulaic as well as those which are. It also sheds light on two problems that have exercised students of oral literature: the effect of literacy and the role of memorization. These findings support the view that the difference between traditional oral formulaic and ordinary spoken language is one of degree, not kind. (Oral literature, register, stylistics, situational constraints, psychological constraints, formulae)

Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 205 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bauman, R., & Sherzer, J. (eds.) (1974). Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brosnahan, L. F., & Malmberg, B. (1970). An introduction to phonetics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D., & Davy, D. (1969). Investigating English style. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dennis, A., Foot, P., & Perkins, R. (trans.) (1980). Laws of Early Iceland. Grāgās I.Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1979). On fluency. In Fillmore, C. J.. Kempler, D.. & Wang, W. S. Y. (eds.). Individual differences in language ability and language behaviour. New York: Academic. 85–101.Google Scholar
Finnegan, R. (1981). Literacy and literature. In Lloyd, B & Gray, J. (eds.). Universals of human thought. Cambridge University Press. 234–55.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychology of language. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Fónagy, I. & Magdics, K. (1960). Speed of utterance in phrases of different lengths.Language and Speech 4: 179–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, G. M. (1980). Some wherefores of English inversion. Language 56: 582–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haggo, D., & Kuiper, K. (in press). Review of Coulmas, F. (ed), Conversational routine Linguistics 21.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51: 639–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1976). Oral poetry: Some linguistic and typological considerations. In Stolz. & Shannon, 1976. 73–106.Google Scholar
Kirk, G. S. (1965). Homer and the epic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuiper, K., & Tillis, F. (in press). The chant of the tobacco auctioneer. American Speech.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. R. Jr, (1978). Stylized intonation. Language 54: 517–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, J. (1970). The production ot speech. In Lyons, J. (ed). New horizons in linguistics.Harmondsworth: Penguin. 54–75.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, A. (1960). The singer of tales. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, A., & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human prohlem solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. (eds.). Communicative competence. London: Longman. 191–225.Google Scholar
Russo, J. A. (1976). Is “oral” or “aural” composition the cause of Homer's formulaic style? In Stolz & Shannon, 1976. 32–54.Google Scholar
Salmond, A. (1974). Rituals of encounter among the Maori: Sociolinguistic study of a scene. In Bauman & Sherzer, 1974. 192–212.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolz, B.A., & Shannon, R. (eds.) (1976). Oral literature and formulae. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Center for the Co-ordination of Ancient and Modern Studies.Google Scholar