The structural framework for the riddle definition

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The structural framework for the riddle definition

Структурний аспект у визначенні загадки

Luchechko T.M.,

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor at the Department of English Language Practice and Teaching Methods

The article deals with the analysis of a riddle as a two-component structural unit with interdependent constituent elements. The issue of the riddle definition vagueness is studied considering its genre characteristics within different cultures. The evolution of the riddle definition is analysed within the cognitive and structural aspects of its research.

At the initial stage of its evolution, when riddles served as a means of identifying the social status of the addressee, the answer was more independent of the descriptive part. The decoding procedure then depended not on the mental abilities of the recipient, but on his experience, that is, on knowing the correct answer in advance. The mechanism of formation of a "modern" riddle is considered from the standpoint of the relationship between the descriptive part and the answer. Such a mechanism is determined by specific encoding strategies, as well as clue tactics. To guess the riddle, one must analyse these interactive ways of encoding and decoding the image.

The paper aims at investigating the specificity of the riddle revealed in the deliberate concealing of the relationship between the descriptive component and the answer. Therefore, paroemias under analysis convey information about the environment, which is firstly encoded in the descriptive part, and later decoded in the answer. The paradoxical nature of the riddle structure is advocated within the two reference points (question and answer). The riddling process advances in two opposite directions: the riddle image formation develops from the object of the riddling to its encoded description and guessing the answer involves the reverse process: from the descriptive part to the answer.

The riddle is also considered a question-and-answer dialogic unity with the obligatory interaction of the addresser and the addressee of the riddling. The interrogative nature of the riddle question is analysed with a distinction between it as a syntactic structure and as the main intention of the riddle.

Key words: riddle, descriptive part, answer, question, two-component structure.

Статтю присвячено аналізу загадки як двокомпонентної структурної одиниці зі взаємозалежними складовими елементами. Проблему дефінітивної розмитості загадки розглянуто з урахуванням її жанрових характеристик у межах різних культурних просторів. Еволюцію визначень загадки проаналізовано з урахуванням когнітивного та структурного аспектів її дослідження.

На початковому етапі своєї еволюції, коли загадки слугували засобом ідентифікації соціального стану адресата, відгадка мала більш незалежний статус у стосунку до дескриптивної частини, позаяк відгадування залежало не від ментальних умовиводів реципієнта, а від його набутого досвіду, тобто від знання правильної відповіді заздалегідь.

Механізм утворення «сучасної» загадки розглянуто з позиції взаємозв'язку образної частини та відгадки, який визначається певними стратегіями шифрування інформації, а також тактиками підказки. Щоб відгадати загадку, необхідно проаналізувати ці інтерактивні способи кодування і декодування образу.

У розвідці досліджено специфіку загадки, яка полягає у навмисному приховуванні взаємозв'язку описового компонента з відгадкою. Відтак паремії аналізованого типу передають інформацію про довкілля, яка спочатку завуальовується в описовій частині, а згодом розшифровується у відгадці.

Доведено парадоксальність структури загадки, яка, маючи лише два опорні пункти (запитання та відповідь), розвивається у двох протилежних напрямах: механізм утворення загадки полягає в переході від об'єкта загадування до його кодованого опису, а відгадування передбачає зворотній процес: від образної частини до відгадки. Загадку розглянуто також як питально-відповідну діалогічну єдність з обов'язковою взаємодією адресанта та адресата загадування.

Питальну сутність описової частини загадки проаналізовано з розмежуванням її як синтаксичної конструкції та як основної інтенції загадки.

Ключові слова: загадка, дескриптивна частина, відповідь, запитання, двокомпонентна структура.

Riddles figuratively describe an object requiring the riddlee to provide the decoded answer. The rid- dler does not ask a direct question but tries to outwit the riddlee providing a sophisticated description of the object, which he has then to decode.

The riddle as a folk literature genre has been defined variously since 400 AD when according to Ch. Scott, Cledonius Pompeius Julianus attempted a definition [1, p. 135].

In the classical tradition, the riddle was defined as a “not commonly used metaphor or a group of metaphors that do not possess self-evident meaning” [2, p. 111].

Ch. Scott considers that previous riddle definitions only described some main genre characteristics. They did not provide any distinguishing features of the genre within cultures [1, p. 138].

The problem of genre definition vagueness may source from the polythetic nature of riddles. The characteristics that seem to be important in the genre definition in one culture do not appear to be so crucial for the definition of the same genre in a different culture. This may have led to the defining some riddles as “true riddles”, some as “proverb riddles”, others as conundrums, fixed formulae riddles, nonsense riddles, etc. [3, p. 38].

Riddles have been researched in oral tradition primarily in terms of the structural and cognitive studies which have provided the framework for their definition. Within this framework, riddles have been studied regarding either their grammatical structure or in terms of thematic units, or their psychological, sociological, and intellectual functions performed in the context [4, p. 3].

The project aims at investigating the issue of the definition vagueness of riddles and their two- component structure.

Perhaps the earliest attempts at studying the structure of a riddle were those of Robert Petsh, who distinguished five key elements: an introductory frame, a denominative kernel, a descriptive kernel, a block element, and a concluding frame [5].

A.Taylor, when researching the riddle within the cognitive framework, seeks to define it as a comparison of one object to another one, distinguishing two opposing constituents in its structure: a positive and a negative one [6, p. 1]. Thus, the classification of riddles as images, phrases, or sentences of interrogative nature depends on the identification of general lexical models in the descriptive part of the riddle. The paremiologist also identifies and analyses the general lexical models when grouping the riddles of English oral tradition.

R. Georges and A. Dundes study morphological characteristics of the riddle, considering it to be the best way to arrive at its definition since definitions based on content and style have proved to be inadequate. In order to define the riddle structurally, it is necessary to delineate a minimum unit of analysis, which they termed as a “descriptive element”, following R. Petsch and A. Taylor. The referent of the element is to be guessed by a riddle. [2, p. 113].

Ch. Scott defines the riddle as “a unit of discourse consisting of an obligatory proposition slot filled by an utterance p and an obligatory answer slot filled by an utterance a” [7, p. 69], studying the stylistic devices exploited in its form. Later Ch.Scott treats the riddle structure in terms of immediate constituent and topic-comment analysis.

Roger D. Abrahams considers both the structural and cognitive aspects of the riddle. He analyses the Gestalt based on the relationship between the riddle description and the referent [8, p. 137]. He also studies the social meaning of riddling considering the relationship between riddle texts, the manner of riddling performance, and social context [9, p. 180].

E. Kongas-Maranda also studies the riddle structure focusing on the relationship between the riddle image and the riddle answer in Finnish folklore [10, p. 50]. She considers the riddle as a two- component structural unit containing a term common to both components (a question and an answer). The main concerns of the special issue of the Journal of American Folklore edited by E. Kongas-Maranda are manifested in the attempts to apply some analytical schema (used in other contexts) to the description of riddle corpora [11]. However, some cultural contexts revealed by the riddles are also researched in the anthropologically-based studies by Jack and Phyllis Glazier and Michel Lieber [12; 13].

T. Green and W. Pepichello, emphasizing the relationship between humor and ambivalence, see the central focus of the riddle in the integration of three components: the code, the message, and the context [14, p. 5].

Yu.Sokolov considers the riddle as a tricky question, usually in the form of a metaphor [15, p. 217]. V. Anikin, R. Abrahams, V. Vasylenko, A. Gursky, M. Lanovyk, Z. Lanovyk, considering both the form and the nature of the genre, define the riddle as a poetic figurative description of an object or phenomenon aimed at outwitting the riddlee and developing his poetic world view [16, p. 56]; “a question formed to puzzle the recipient or test the level of intelligence of those who do not know the answer” [17, p. 130]; a poetic wit aimed at encoding an object in order to test the intelligence, sagacity, and poetic world view of the riddle” [18, p. 11]; “a short essay based on a witty metaphorical question that requires the answer to it” [19, p. 558]. The Ukrainian paremiologist I.Berezovskyy, developing the ideas of A.Taylor, points to the kinship and similarity of the object and the subject of the image association. The latter depicts the subject of a riddle in a concealing manner in the structure of a maxim [20, p. 7].

Riddle poses a real mystery that needs to be solved. The answer serves as the clue to this mystery.

The riddle often distinguishes between two utterances: the riddle question offered by the riddler and the riddle answer attempted by the riddlee. Most researchers, studying the riddle as a folklore genre, single out two components in its structure and focus on the question as a dominant constituent in this opposition (Yu. Sokolov, A. Gurski, V. Anikin, R. Georges). Others emphasize the importance of the analysis of both riddle parts considering it to be a two-component structural unit (W. Pepicello, V. Mitrofanova, E. Kongas-Maranda).

E. Kongas-Maranda claims that “the riddle image is always conceptually a question, be it syntactically interrogative or not.” [10, p. 54]. While most researchers tend to analyze the riddle image separately from the answer, E. Kongas-Maranda highlights the importance of their interrelation. She defines the riddle image as “a question which contains the answer” [10, p. 59]. This idea was developed by R. Georges who insists that the riddle consists of a question and an answer, [2, p. 54], T. Green and W. Pepicello who claim that “riddles cannot exist as unanswered questions” [21, p. 32].

The riddle question and the riddle answer together form a unity, called the riddle. The reasoning behind this is two-fold. Firstly, the act of riddling is thought to be of cooperative nature, since it involves two participants. Therefore, it is correct to define the riddle in terms of both participants. Secondly, the special ambiguity of folk riddles can be empoyed either within the riddle question or within the riddle answer. The cultural aim of riddling is to incorporate ambiguity seamlessly into the riddle structure, which includes both the question and the answer [22, p. 37].

The term riddle question seems to be quite vague, for it appears to suggest exclusively the interrogative format of the descriptive part. However, this term is sometimes applied to utterances of affirmative nature as well:

Look into my face and I'm everybody, scratch my back and I'm nobody (Mirror) [6, p. 57]; Goes over all the hills and hollows, bites hard, but never swallows (Frost) [6, p. 89];

Без рук, без ніг, в сорочку вбирається (Подушка) [20, р. 211]; Плету хлівець на п'ятеро овець (Рукавиця) [20, p. 170].

Prosody, as well as the words, contributes greatly to image constitution in riddling. Therefore, in writing down or printing the texts, the riddle collectors sometimes nullify the role of rhythm, stress, and intonation (which are known to be suprasegmentals of prosody) as crucial contributors to the riddle image:

Daffy-down-dilly has come to town, in a yellow petticoat and a green gown (А dandelion) [6, p. 46]; My first drives a horse, my second is needy, my third is a nickname, my whole is a bird (Whip-poor-will) [6, p. 36]; It is always round, it can jump and fall, in the air, on the ground, we can see a rubber... (Ball) [6, p. 17];

Тріщі виочило, шкіри визубило, вертом хво- стить (Кіт) [20, p. 115]; Кут розбив макут і побіг на плут (Кіт, макітра, пліт) [20, p. 306]; В хаті сорок, а на дворі триста (В хаті сволок, а на дворі призьба) [20, p. 306].

The terms riddle image and riddle question used synonymously do not refer exclusively to syntactic questions but to all ways and techniques of an object's ambiguous description. Likewise, one can use riddle answer and referent interchangeably.

A riddle is thought to be a short utterance represented in the speech employing either “literal” or “poetic language.” Such a statement calls for the answer which may contain a single word, an utterance, or a sentence that accords with the syntactic pattern of the riddle question. The answer is meant to be deducted either from the clue provided in the text or more often the riddlee is expected to remember the standard or customarily approved answer or else to concede his ignorance and wait to be told the answer [15, p. 39].

A lot of riddle definitions set stress on the fact that true riddles provide the riddlee with the clue to guess the answer. Thus, descriptive riddles or “true riddles” (Taylor's term) can usually be solved without taking much effort. Such a key in the riddle question may provoke the variability of both the descriptive element and the answer:

Go all the way round the house, don't make any tracks (Smoke) [6, p. 65]; What goes all the way around the house and doesn't make any track? (The wind) [6, p. 65]; Ревнув віл на сто гір, за сто річок, за сто пічок, за сто миль ( грім і дзвін) [20, p. 64].

Though the correspondent is usually expected to know and remember the correct answer to the riddle, nevertheless there exists a relationship between the riddle question and the riddle answer. The variation in the answers proves that the relationship between the riddle image and the referent may be either well-thought-out or result from pure conjecture. Sometimes the semantic vagueness may suggest several suitable answers. This relationship derives from metaphor and metonymy, as various scholars since Aristotle have claimed. A. Awedoba comments: “...riddle is an exercise in the association of ideas based on observation of reality” [3, p. 39]. Such an association is not confined only to nature but applies also to ideas about the supernatural and invisible objects and ideas. For most riddles there exist a semantic fit between the riddle question and the answer. Some of the key elements involved in image creation are straightforward enough for all to focus on [15, p. 40]. In English riddles for wind and smoke the key element is making no tracks. The riddle asks what people know of the object that goes around the house and doesn't make any track. The correct answer is the wind, although it may not be only the wind that can leave no tracks being referred to. The figurativeness of the expression differs from riddle to riddle, being more transparent in ones and less so in others.

Different answers to the same riddle question may also have their origins in different riddling communities. By studying riddle variants in different traditions it is possible to prove that each riddle image, even those that seem most senseless, in most cases has only one acceptable answer in its context. Riddle collectors appear to be hardly ever informed of the variable riddle answers to the same question in one tradition [22, p. 30].

Regardless of what one defines as the riddle image, various cultures will tolerate great flexibility concerning the structural and semantic constituents of a riddle question in the context of folk riddling [23, p. 8].

The associations between riddle images seem to be always out of the ordinary. The metaphoric relationships established by riddles appear to be of a “conditional” nature and “the riddle image states the condition under which the metaphor holds true.” [10, p. 53] The riddle offers a temporary context that simulates and establishes the validity of an extraordinary relationship. Yet from within the terms of reference of the riddle, this hypothetical relationship can exist in and of itself. Although the elements of such image associations prove to be widely known and explicit in everyday life, the extraordinary relationship between them is not. Therefore the riddle cannot be comprehended merely as an affective reflection or expression of reality. Instead, the viability of the riddle depends on its relative autonomy from the everyday world of cognitive categories and the usual links among them [2, p. 120].

The answer to the riddle image misleads the riddlee focusing on the weird relationship. In this regard, the structure of the riddle can be considered as a reversible one, containing feedback: the answer satisfies the conditions of the riddle image, while this imaging may be considered teleological (following the ritual of transformation). The riddle image is of interrogative nature that contains its own goal, the answer to the puzzle offered in the descriptive part. According to E. Kongas-Maranda, “the riddle image is a question which contains the answer.” [10, p. 49]. As such it is also containing not only its own goal but also its own source of motivation, the question- answer format.

In conclusion, when studying riddles, one should consider a question-and-answer serried, the riddle text, and the figurative description of an object or natural phenomenon. E. Kongas-Maranda's definition has proved to be among the most valuable folk- loristic definitions to the study of the interrelationship of riddle components. The question-and-answer sequence as a focal point of this definition is suggestive of a process of inquiry and investigation, initiated either by the riddle image, or the riddle question. All the forms of the riddle are apt to partake in the process of inquiry into the identity of an object, real or imaginary, and its appropriate definition. Alternatively, various riddle forms serve to express a question offered to the riddlee. The answer might be a complete poetic description or a complete definition of an object, the initial riddle image being a partial description or definition. The question-and-answer sequence of riddling thus serves as a schematic pattern for a poetic riddling process that differs from the ordinary one in that a poet asks questions and finds answers usually within a protracted procedure.

Bibliography

riddle definitions structural evolution

1. Scott Charles. On Defining the Riddle: The Problem of Structural Unit. Genre, 1969. Vol. 2. № 2. P. 129-142.

2. Georges Robert and Dundes Alan. A. Toward a structural Definition of the Riddle. Journal of American Folklore, 1963. Vol. 76. № 300 (Apr. - Jun.). P. 111-118.

3. Awedoba A. K. Social Roles of Riddles, with Reference to Kasena Society. Research Review New Series, 2000. Vol. 16. №2. P. 35-51.

4. Thomas A. Green and W. J. Pepicello. The folk riddle: A Redefinition of terms. Western Folklore, Vol. 38. No. 1 (Jan., 1979). P. 3-20.

5. Robert Petsh. Neue Beitrage zur Kenntnis des Volksratsels. Palaestra IV, Berlin, 1899. 152 p.

6. Taylor Archer. English Riddles from Oral Tradition. Los Angeles: Berkeley, 1951.959 p.

7. Charles Scott. Persian and Arabic Riddles: A Language-Centered Approach to Genre Definition. The Hague: Mounton, 1965. 136 p.

8. Abrahams Roger D. and Dundes Alan. Riddles, Folklore and Folklife: an Introduction, ed. Richard Dorson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972. P. 129-143.

9. Abrahams Roger D. The Literary Study of the Riddle. Texas Studies in Literature and Language XIV, 1972. P. 177-197.

10. Кёнгес-Маранда Э. Теория и практика анализа загадок. Паремиологические исследования: сб. ст. / сост. и ред. Г. Л. Пермяков. Moc^: Наука, 1984. С. 47-60.

11. Kongas-Maranda Elli, ed. Riddles and Riddling, special issue of Journal of American Folklore. #89. 1976.

12. Jack Glazier and Phyllis Glazier. Ambiguity and Exchange: The Double Dimension of Mbeere Riddles. Journal of American Folklore. #89, 1976. P. 189-238.

13. Michel Lieber. Riddles, Cultural Categories, and World View. Journal of American Folklore. #89, 1976. P. 255-265.

14. Pepicello William J., Green Thomas A. The Language of Riddles. New Perspectives. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1984. 170 p.

15. Соколов Ю. M. Загадки. Русский фольклор. Москва: Учпедгиз, 1941. С. 217-222.

16. Аникин В. П. Русские народные пословицы, поговорки, загадки и детский фольклор. Москва: Учпедгиз, 1957. 240 с.

17. Abrahams Roger. D. And Dundes A. Riddles. Folklore and Folklife : An Introduction / Richard M. Dorson. Chicago: Un-ty of Chicago Press, 1982. P. 129-144.

18. Аристотель. Об искусстве поэзии / пер. В. Г. Аппельрота. Москва: Гослитиздат, 1957. 183 с.

19. Лановик М. Б., Лановик З.Б. Українська усна народна творчість: підручник [2-е вид.], Київ : Знання - Прес, 2003. 591 с.

20. Березовський І.П. Загадки. Київ: Вид-во АН УРСР, 1962. 511 с.

21. Kaivola-Bregenhoj A. Riddles and Their Use. Untying the Knot/ ed. by Hasan-Rokem G., Shulman D. Oxford University Press, 1996. P. 10-36.

22. Hasan-Rokem G. Introduction. Untying the Knot / ed. By Hasan-Rokem G., Shulman D. Oxford Un-ty Press, 1996. P. 3-9.

23. Handelman D. Traps of Trans-formation: Theoretical Convergences between Riddle and Ritual. Untying the Knot / ed. By Hasan-Rokem G., Shulman D. Oxford Un-ty Press, 1996. P. 37-61.

Размещено на Allbest.ru