English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Pro

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents AI Discovery search usage as a premium feature

AI Discovery

Presents AI Discovery explain and summary usage as a premium feature

Content Analysis

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

1500 Top-up

3000 Top-up

Zendy Basic

2500 Top-up

Zendy Unlimited

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Typology of differentiation between oral and literary eposes developed according to different traditions and was based on a variety of materials (M. Parry, A. Lord, A.N. Veselovsky, V.M. Zhirmunsky, M.I. Steblin-Kamensky, E.M. Meletinsky and others). Formulaicity remains one of the indicators of similarities and distinctions between the two types of epos – oral and written. The term was introduced by M. Parry and A. Lord; however, the problem of the nature and characteristics of formulaicity remains arguable under traditions which vary in their origins. Olonkho by one of the first Yakut authors, P.A. Oyunsky allows one to trace the process of creation and producing of formulae within the space of an epic text of written origin. The author’s epos includes the types of formulae in which narrator’s personal name becomes a key element in not only creating alliteration, but also for unfolding the poetic meaning of the entire epic phrase. The analysis shown in the article indicates that despite the similarity in structure, each time the formula re-creates characteristic feature of a certain narrator’s performance. This is an evidence of the name formulae of the type considered here being the symbol of the rising outside (“outside” of the culture) outlook from the writer on formulaicity in oral tradition. It is also shown that a written-origin epos is also characterized by formulaicity while the rules and mechanisms of its producing visibly differ from formulaicity of oral epos. The type of formulae considered presents author’s poetic expression of their attitude to the preceding tradition of narrating. These formulae also allow (within their limits) a reconstruction of the epic environment. It is concluded that the distinction of the naming formula is not only limited to alliterating narrator’s personal name. It also gives meaning to a trope (periphrasis, metaphor, simile) linked to the characteristics of narrator’s unique manner.

From Oral Epic to the Written One: on One Type of Formulae in P. A. Oyunsky’s Olonkho “Nyurgun Bootur the Swift”