[ List of Selected Content of CD-ROMs | Multimedia Project ]
[ Home | Search | Contact Us | Index ]
|
Home > Cultural Informatics > Devnarayan > The Rajasthani Oral Narrative of Devnarayan > Exploration Mode > The Rajasthani oral narrative of Devn¡r¡ya¸ |
|
|
| Exploration Mode |
|
Verbal Narrative...
Repetition Finnegan (1977:9O) states that "the most marked feature of poetry is surely repetition"25 furthermore, she observes that :
The oral style of Devn¡r¡ya¸'s narrative is repetitive on many levels. One obvious form of repetition is the verbatim declamation of sung sections. Then there is the refrain at the end of each verse section, and the use of certain stock descriptions to mark "battle scenes". In addition there is repetition in the case of certain passages where a specific action is repeated by different people. Thus for example in the search for Bh£¸¡, each family member, in consecutive sung sections entrust Choch£ Bh¡¶ with a latter for Bh£¸¡ Here we find a degree of repetition in the phrases used, which describe, as mentioned, the same act carried out by different persons, The use of repetition here adds to the emotional and poetic quality of the moment which in terms of the narrative bears the promise of reunion with a family member. Whereas these examples relate to the poetic structure of the narrative, the kind of repetition mentioned above involving the singers, can be said to relate to the style of delivery. In this case it is not that lines from the sung sections are repeated in the declamed section, but that lines in declamed sections are repeated by the lead singer's partner. "Internal" repetition is thus paralleled by "external" repetition. And the "internal" dialogue of the narrative as a series of spoken encounters between different characters is paralleled by the "external" dialogue of the singers. But repetition even in this case is quite varied and may involve a wide range of possibilities. However, given the nature of repetition itself as something that is not necessarily produced but "reproduced", this would mean that even though there may be many options available to the singer, the ultimate choice of utterance is determined by the first singer's speech. Creativity on the part of the second singer then lies in choosing from a range of given responsive modes. But the second singer's response is not limited to repetition. He also may bring in his own text, which is either a commentary on the foregoing line or an addition that propels the narrative forward. Examples of Repetition In the context of conversational discourse Tannen (1994: 54) distinguishes between different forms of repetition:
Before turning to the function of repetition in the narrative I would like to first present some examples of different forms of repetition as a subcategory of rejoinders offered by the second singer. In discussing the repetition involved in the second singer's utterances, I am primarily focusing on what Tannen calls "allo-repetition" or the repetition of others (in this case of the first singer). Example 1: exact repetition In the cases of exact repetition, most frequently only a part of the phrase is repeated verbatim by the second singer.27 It is apparent that the second singer uses verbatim repetition almost always to emphasize the last one, two, or even three words spoken by the lead singer. Rarely is a whole line repeated unless this itself is fairly short. Once the words are repeated by the second singer, he may extend the phrase on his own, thereby either adding new information, or again, re-emphasizing the foregoing line through a reformulation. mh¡rai kannai h¢ hai (h¡ "mh¡rai kannai hai" k¢yo) Aur£ m¡vo ba¶hai hi kar¡ (h¡ "ba¶hai h¢ kar¡ c¡lo s¡ge h¢ c¡l£) sy¡l t£ hviyo ("sy¡l t£ hai" k¢yo) pa·ih¡r ko n¡v liyo jar¡ bh¡¶ ke e·¢ k¢ c¡¶¢ ja½ l¡g¢ j¡ j¡½¡ (h¡ "l¡g¢" k¢yo) ¡b¡ dey bh¡¢ dev k¡ ghar k¢ bajar¿il¡ m¡th¡ par ¡·i hai ("¡·i hai k¢yo") jiy¡n j£ja½o nai marai jat¢ ¶aim h¢ koni lag¡vai h¡thi nai m¡rt¡ ("i h¡thi nai m¡rt¡" k¢yo) tanai cir ¡vai k¡i (h¡ "cir ¡vai" k¢yo" o b¡b¡ bha¶") ¡panai darb¡r ke m¡yanai ek s£¸i rahavai (h¡ "s£¸i rahavai" k¢yo) Example 2: In the following examples there is a transposition of words while the meaning of the phrase is retained. In some cases words have been replaced by their synomyns producing a different phrase with the same semantic content. In these case, where the second singer does not just identically repeat the lead singer's lines, the phrases are longer, spanning more than only a few words as is the case in the examples provided above. Apparently, the freedom the second singer has in reproducing the lines in "his own words" also facilitates the production of more text than does faithful reproduction.
Monosyllabic Rejoinders In addition to the two recurrent kinds of repetition mentioned above, there is the repetition of particular monosyllabic words or interjections which the second singer uses as a response. These words are repeated extensively during a recitation at those intervals where the second singer does not repeat, reformulate or add phrases or words to the first singer's lines. In a sense they amount to an almost formless or meaningless kind of response. ár¢ Mo¶¡r¡m, the second singer, uses "v¡h v¡h" and "mhe" as a "formless" response. It is diflcult to determine a structure in the instrumentation of this kind of response. "mhe" which is much shorter than "v¡h v¡h" is used at times like an exclamation mark or interjection or even for the kind of spacing provided by the use of a comma. Thus for example:
In the above examples we can see that "mhe" appears regularly after a person's name has been spoken out at the beginning of direct speech. It functions as a form of punctuation used after one person has been addressed by another. But this is not the only placement of "mhe". The other placements are varied, and a pattern is difficult to discern. Some examples are given below to illustrate its varying usages:
In the above examples we see that "mhe" is used interchangeably at the end of a section of direct speech or even at the end of a section which does not involve direct speech. Let us now examine some extended examples of the narrative to determine where "mhe" and "v¡h v¡h" are used:
The passage cited above involves a conversation between Choch£ Bha¶ and R¡j¡ N¢mde, the R¡¸¡'s younger brother. Choch£ Bh¡¶ begins the dialogue with "are amald¡r ¡dam¢ h£". This is followed by "mÅe" which is followed by a further remark spoken by Choch£ Bh¡¶. Choch£ Bh¡¶'s speech continues till "m® dekh£ bhagav¡n kharco de mhanai". The end of his speech is marked by " v¡h v¡h". With the exception of one instance where "mhe" is used [me dekh£ (mhe)], Choch£ Bh¡¶'s speech is not punctuated by ár¢ Mo¶¡r¡m. On the contrary the lines spoken by ár¢ Hukam¡r¡m are supplemented and extended by ár¢ Mo¶¡r¡m in his response. After the first occurrence of "v¡h v¡h" N¢mde begins his section of the dialogue. Here again "mhe" is used as a punctuation mark after N¢mde addresses Choch£ Bh¡¶: "re m£gt¡ (mhe)". "v¡h v¡h" is inserted after Choch£ Bh¡¶ has ended his speech "r¡j¡v° ko ba¢ ko bh¡¶ h£" (v¡h v¡h)/. In the passage quoted above we find that "mhe" is used as a form of punctuation within a single character's speech. "v¡h v¡h" on the other hand is used to mark the end of one character's speech, and the beginning of another character's speech. "mhe" and "v¡h v¡h" in these examples thus mark off elements of speech belonging to one character and the speech of different characters. However, while this description may give the impression of a patterned usage, there are also examples in which "v¡h v¡h" is used internally within a series of spoken lines belonging to one character in the same way as "mhe" is. In such examples we find that "v¡h v¡h" is placed as a punctuation within a particular character's speech. Conversely "mhe" is placed at the end of a character's speech. On the whole, however, there is a greater frequency with which "mhe" is used within speech and "v¡h v¡h" to mark its end. In addition "v¡h v¡h" is used regularly at the end of the sentence introducing the person who speaks a g¡v section. thus for example:
Here it is apparent that "v¡h v¡h" is not being used to induce a pause in speech, but as an interjection involving the original sense of the word v¡h which may be translated as "great", "wonderful", or "splendid". Samcar The above lines also make it clear that the g¡v passages always consist of "packets" of direct speech spoken by a particular character usually in response to another character's speech. These "packets" of direct speech are referred to as "samc¡r", a word translatable as "news, message, report, or information."/ It can also have the sense of "dialogue" (saÆv¡d). In the content of the narrative tradition of Devn¡r¡ya¸, "samc¡r" has an almost "technical" status as a dialogue marker within the narrative. Thus singers or listeners may inquire of a given passage "whose samc¡r is it?" or simply "which samc¡r is it?" in order to determine up to which point the narrative has progressed or from which point it should be taken up. Sometimes the singer may also ask "who said this samc¡r?" immediately after he has sung the samc¡r. This sort of question (and its answer) reinforces the samc¡r speaker's identity in the singer's and audience's mind. Thus, the narrative progresses not only through interchanges between song (g¡v) and declamatory prose (arth¡v) but also through a series of "messages", "reports", "newses" or "dialogues" which constitute the content of the sung passages. The meaning of the term "samc¡r" as a concept used to describe fundamental units of the narrative, once again highlights the "dialogic" conception of the narrative. Not only is the narrative in its declaimed sections built up of dialogues between characters, the sung sections too are understood as being units of direct speech that constitute a "reply" within the parameters of a foregoing dialogue. In addition to the concept of "samc¡r" which is most frequently used before beginning the four-lined verse section of the g¡v, the singer ár¢ Hukam¡r¡m also variously uses the term "v¡rt¡" which means "story", "conversation", "occurrence/truth/reality/fact, "speech", "talk", "short tale" "narration", "report". The pre-verse line in this case is usually "k¡¢ v¡rt¡ ban j¡vai dekh¡." This does not, as in the case of "samc¡r" imply that someone is speaking, rather that an event or a scene is about to be described in the following song sections. The song sections that fall under the category of v¡rt¡ are considerably longer than the sections described as samc¡r. Thus a v¡rt¡ may contain 9 lines [of which the last words of the second and third lines rhymej. Each line itself also contains more syllables than the line belonging to the "samc¡r" sections. Besides the nine line v¡rt¡s there are also long sung sections describing a preparation for battle or a clash between two parties. These descriptions are fairly standardized and contain 1O or 18 sung lines. Here too each individual line contains more syllables than the verse sections characterized as "samc¡r". The Function of Repetition Tannen (1994:47f.) while analyzing repetition in conversation asks the following fundamental question:
In the case of production she points out that "repetition enables a speaker to produce language in a more efficient, less energy-draining way. It facilitates more language, more fluently." (ibid., p. 48). Comprehension is facilitated by repetition "by providing semantically less dense discourse. If some of the words are repetitions, comparatively less new information is communicated than if all words uttered carried new information."(ibid., p. 49). Connection is established through repetition because "it serves a referential and tying function. Repetition of sentences, phrases, and words show how new utterances are linked to earlier discourse, and how ideas presented in the discourse are related to each other."(ibid., p. 50) Tannen continues to point out that the function of repetition in relation to production, comprehension, and connection "refer(s) to the creation of meaning in conversation. But repetition also functions on the interactional level of talk: accomplishing social goals, or simply managing the business of conversation." (ibid., p. 51). Having so far discussed the various possibilities of repetition within the narrative, let us now turn to the function and role of repetition under the four headings stated above. The first category is that of "production". Repetition in this case facilitates "more language, more fluently". Certainly this feature is apparent in the arth¡v sections where the second singer repeats parts of the first singers lines. Undoubtedly "more language" is created here by using more of the same words while providing information. As a whole the narrative is enlarged and extended through repetition And, the production of "more language" does actually also contribute to its lengthy "epic" dimension. However, the production of more language here, is closely linked to the second category, namely comprehension. Thus the repetition of the g¡v passages in the arth¡v sections facilitates a better understanding of the sung verses. In fact the term arth¡v which means "explanation", "meaning", "commentary", itself implies that the repetition of verse in declamed prose is meant to provide a clearer comprehension of the former. Here again we find that a term is used that suggests a conceptual, meta-level perception of the narrative and its narration from within the tradition. Thus the passages following the g¡v sections are not called "prose" as against "song", but significantly "meaning" or "explanation". This distinction enables us to again visualize how the narrative is conceptualized. According to the terms used, the narrative of Devn¡r¡ya¸ in this case consists of sung sections, which are then laid out and "explained".29 Of course this form of "explanation" does not involve answers to "how and why" questions. It does not "explain" the sung sections in different words. Rather it explains by repeating the same words in a different mode of delivery. It is repetition itself, as Tannen observes that lays bear the meaning of the words and sentences, since in the initial lines of the arth¡v practically no new information is supplied. New information is supplied in subsequent lines. But here too there is repetition, as a consequence of which it is easier to comprehend the import of the first singer's utterance. But more than facilitate simple semantic comprehension, repetition within the arth¡v - which often involves only some, select words - functions as an instrument of emphasis. Thus the few words that are repeated (sometimes the whole line in transposed form) carry within them the core of what the first singer intended to mean in his speech. Thus repetition involving the arth¡v and sections within it, facilitate/serve not only comprehension, but also emphasis.30 Tannen's third category is "connection": "Repetition of sentences, phrases, and words show how new utterances are linked to earlier discourse, and how ideas presented in the discourse are related to each other."(ibid., p. 50). This category it would appear is more linked to everyday conversation than it is to the situation relating to the narration of Devn¡r¡ya¸, in which there are less of ideas and more of scenes and events that are presented and linked with one another. The linkage of scenes and events is of course partially created through repetition, but more so this is afforded by the structure of plots and subplots in the narrative. As Tannen points out, theses three functions ultimately relate "...to the creation of meaning in conversation [and] accomplishing social goals, or simply managing the business of conversation." (ibid., p. 52). It is quite evident that repetition in the special case of the narrative, also relates to the production of meaning. The creation of meaning is guided in this case not towards the singers themselves, but towards the audience who listens to the performance of the narrative. However, meaning does not emerge only at a purely linguistic or semantic level. It emerges here also at an "experiential" level through the "bringing-forth" of the content of the narrative which revolves about the life and deeds of Devn¡r¡ya¸, and the devotees' participation in the evocation of his power. Thus the various forms of repetition inherent to the narrative and its telling, are transformed from being literary features to partaking in the realm of praxis. Together with the various other aspects of the whole performance they too take on a causal character in the production of meaning as an interplay of semantic, sensory, cultural and religious elements. As pointed out above, the narrative is "repetitive" on (at least) two levels: the level of form (verse and prose etc.) and the level of delivery (lead singer and second singer). Furthermore it became clear, that the narrative is also "dialogic" in two senses: the sense in which dialogue between characters occupies a central position as a narrative strategy and the sense in which the singers are engaged in a dialogue with one another (and of course also with the audience producing a third sense of dialogue). Thus as indicated previously, a full understanding of the narrative as a communicative event would not only involve an understanding of its language, but also an understanding of the nature and relationship of utterances as a vehicle for constructing oral narrative structure,31 and, as will be shown in the second half of the study, also for the dialogic structure of the world represented in the narrative. Given the centrality of the fact that the narrative delivery of Devn¡r¡ya¸ is essentially constituted by two voices who spin out the narrative content through an exchange of utterances, it is worthwhile to examine the nature of this dialogue. As pointed out above, it is possible to locate this form of dialogue within the umbrella category of speech genres we call conversation. Naturally the kind of conversational dialogue which occurs during a narration of Devn¡r¡ya¸ is contextually distinct from the kind of conversational dialogue which may occur in "everyday life". Whereas conversations of everyday life are centered around a variety of subjects and may develop in a variety of forms, the conversation occurring during a narrative of Devn¡r¡ya¸ is focused and determined by the content of the narrative. Also the form of the conversation or exchange between the singers is quite regularized. It is to be limited to a set of options which have been discussed above.32 Above all, however, the conversational nature of the exchange between the singers has a distinguishing feature that "everyday" conversation (fortunately) does not possess. Whereas in everyday conversation there is always the possibility that the respondent will become speaker, and the speaker take the place of respondent, in the case of the narrative, the identity of the respondent is always fixed. The second singer is the one who provides the rejoinder to the first singer's utterances and not vice versa. The role of listener and speaker is therefore predetermined by the narrative style. Although the dialogue between the singers thus involves a certaint level of inflexibility, it does provide a set of options in terms of which the second singer's rejoinder may be expressed. At this point it should be noted that the narrative tradition of Devn¡r¡ya¸ itself has a notion of "rejoinder". This is called h£k¡ro (h£k¡riyo is the person) and means a verbal expression of assent or of comprehension and agreement, of urging the narrator to carry on speaking. Thus there is conceptual awareness here of the fact that a speaker always requires a listener. In other words human communication is considered to be essentially "dialogic" rather than monologic. The speaker or singer cannot express himself in a vacuum. It is the active comprehension of the listener expressed through the h£k¡ro that draws out the singer's lines and ultimately facilitates the progress of the narrative. This notion of the active listener or respondent comes close to Bakhtin's understanding of speech communication:
Given the importance of a response for all "live speech", it is not surprising that the narrative tradition of Devn¡r¡ya¸ with its focus on orality should involve a lead singer and his respondent. It is remarkable that such a notion should in fact be formalized (institutionalized) to such a degree.33 So far we have pointed out the role of the dialogue, and of speaker and respondent in relation to the actual narration of the narrative. But what implications, if any, does such a narrative form have on the structure of the text? How is a text constructed through a series of utterances (and not "sentences")? What kind of text emerges in this way? Thus given the spoken nature of the narration as a series of utterances, the text is composed of a body of sometimes complete and sometimes only partially complete sentences, (in the case of arth¡v) of exclama1tions, of monosyllabic rejoinders etc. The text as a whole is thus made up of grammatically fragmented linguistic units (such as the sentence). These broken units only make sense due to the fact that they are utterances in an oral narrative and not written sentences in prose. The oral nature of the narrative allows for the "incompleteness" of the grammatical structure of the text. And, as has been pointed out above, within the chain of "incomplete" sentences there is a chain of grammatically incomplete repetitive utterances created through the second singer's response to the lead singer's words. Thus the text contains within itself a repetition of itself. As a series of dialogic utterances, it responds to and imitates itself. Thus the "text" created by the second singer does not lay importance on being "autonomous" or "original". It is caught up in a perfect "intertextual" flow with the text of the first singer. In other words it exists on the boundaries of the lead singer's text by referring to and in fact reproducing it.34 Reported Speech It was mentioned above that the delivery of the narrative and the narrative itself are dialogic in two different senses. The first sense is in which the recitation proceeds on the basis of an interchange between the two singers. This interchange - a communicative event situated in a performance setting - is directed at setting up and establishing a corpus of meaning for the audience who listens (and also interacts) with the singers. The second sense of dialogue involves the construction of the narrative in terms of dialogues between characters of the story. Thus it was shown that the central sections of the story (g¡v) are units of speech or conversation uttered by one character and directed towards another character. Given these two senses of dialogue one could state that the "inner" dialogue of the narrative occurs within the "outer" dialogue of the singers, which in fact provides the frame for the narration. But in what sense are we to understand the relationship between the "outer" and "inner" dialogues? How is the inner dialogue part of or built into the outer dialogue? Once again the line of inquiry I will take up here rests on the assumption that the recitation of the narrative is a particular speech genre that comes closest to that of "everyday" conversation following an interchange between two speakers. But before proceeding with this inquiry, I shall refer to an understanding of what in linguistic terms can be called a dialogue. A dialogue, in the sense Bakhtin refers to, arises from the fact that all utterances are in fact polyphonic in nature: "Utterances are not indifferent to one another, and are not self-sufficient; they are aware of and mutually reflect one another. ... Each utterance is filled with echoes and reverberations of other utterances." (Bakhtin 1986: 91). A special form of dialogic utterance is an interchange which involves the reporting of another's speech. "Reported speech" can have two forms.35 One which involves a direct quotation such as "He/she said: "I did that." The other which involves an indirect quotation such as "He/she said that he/she did that/had done that." The assumption behind reported speech as "direct quotations" is that the utterance of one person can be faithfully repeated by someone else in a content other than the original one in which the utterance was spoken. Thus there is the belief that the utterance and its meaning content can remain untouched regardless of speaker and spoken content. However, as Tannen (1994:133) points out:
From the point of view of the narrative of Devn¡r¡ya¸, we find that what the singers are doing - at least on the surface - is to continuously "report" what characters in the narrative said (to one another). By inserting the name of the person who speaks before each dialogue the singer identifies his/her voice. The singers do not, for example, personify characters or speak in the first person as characters might do in theatre. On the contrary they are involved in reporting to the audience or listeners what went on or what was spoken. In this sense it is the singer who claims access to the scenes and events of the narrative, just as a third person who witnesses a conversation between two people, and the reports the conversation to a fourth. However, as Tannen points out "reported speech" is not just repetition but also construction. How does the singer's activity of reporting dialogue involve construction? If it does involve construction is this the same as saying that the singers "improvise" while narrating? What consequences follow if we begin to view the "constructed" nature of the narrative rather than its "improvisational" nature? Supposing we were to perceive the singers' task not as "recitation" but as "reporting"? How would our understanding of the communicative event alter from this perspective? Would our search for fixity (formula, repetition) and free play ("creativity/improvisation") be altered? Thus for example, as Tannen argues "...the construction of dialogue represents an active, creative, trausforming move which expresses the relationship not between the quoted party and the topic of talk but rather the quoting party and the audience to which the quotation is delivered." In other words it is the context in which the act of reporting is done that determines the sense which the "quoted" speech is to take. If reported speech does involve the creative and transforming aspect Tannen refers to, then it would seem obvious that singers alter what they say according to who they perceive the audience to be, and the relationship they have to the audience. A simple example of this alteration or, in fact, choice in telling can be seen in terms of the episode a singer "reports" to the audience. He does not always "report" episodes of his own choice, but also those wished for bv the audience. By placing the communicative act of singer and audience within the framework of "reported speech" we can conceptualize the process of selectivity involved in a different way. Selectivity in reporting is not just a question of desires or wants, but also of being in rapport with the "listening" of the audience, just as a speaker reports what he/she has heard selectively depending on the intention he/she has in "reproducing" an utterance in a specific social or interpersonal context. But what exactly is meant by "listening"? How is listening different from verbal response? Listening, we may state, is an internal state of the listener that provides the context for the speaker's utterence to unfold and make sense. Therefore, it is a non-verbal activity that engenders speech.36 Thus the activity of singing and speaking is not solely bound to the singer' agency, but to the audience's particular agency evoked through listening. Thus depending on this interrelationship between audience and singer, the singer would tend to "report" the narrative in varying ways. This would explain why performances are never exactly the same. However, it would also shift the emphasis from "improvisation", i.e., an explanation of variation in term of a singer's individual capability, to "construction", or the creative building up of narrated dialogue in a specifically interactive situation in which listening plays a vital role. In such a situation it would be natural that there is a movement between fixity, i.e., the use of "formula" and "free play" (or creativity?). Thus the problem of formulaic language and improvisation during a performance need not refer solely to the phenomenon of "memorization", and "improvization" etc. but to the question of "construction", and the "interaction" based on listening. By viewing a performance or recital of the narrative as an example of extended "reported" speech, we can also begin to appreciate the nature of the singer's work. The singer's work is thus not simply to sing, recite or perform the narrative, rather it is to mediate or report what happened and what was said to the audience. Thus implicit in the singer's work is a knowledge of past events which are then passed on as in a specific content as dialogue in the present to the audience. It is the singer's privilege then to have "overheard" or gained knowledge about Devn¡r¡ya¸ that is then communicated to his devotees. Examples of Reported Speech The phenomenon of reported speech is found in a number of other textual examples. Amongst written genres, the most common use of reported speech is in epics and pur¡¸as. In many pur¡¸as (and m¡h¡tmyas) it is the bard or s£ta who reports what has happened to group of interested listeners (mostly ¤Àis). The bard's reporting of what has happened invariably follows questions that have been put to him from the "audience". Thus, in pur¡¸ic (and epic) texts, the bard is very explicitly asked to narrate or report on what he has seen or knows. In a sense by inserting the voice of the bard and the audience into the text, the text in fact describes both the "performance" (narrational) situation and that which is narrated or reported. The text is thus a "report" on both: the setting and that which is being reported. Both levels are in a sense inscribed into the written text. In the oral narrative situation of Devn¡r¡ya¸, the first level of "reporting", i.e., about the setting itself is not existent. This is because the setting involves an event that occurs in the present. The reporting is, like in the case of pur¡¸as and epics, of events or dialogues that have occurred in the past. However, there are other basic differences in the construction of dialogue between written texts and the narrative of Devn¡r¡ya¸. Thus for example, the dialogues contained in epic and pur¡¸ic texts are frequently quite lengthy, bordering on monologues. Moreover, they are placed within the parameters of Sanskrit poetic conventions, appearing in verse form. The dialogues reported in the narrative of Devn¡r¡ya¸, are, on the other hand, short. Excepting for the g¡v sections, they are formulated in the language of everyday situations, lacking poetic or literary embellishments. Their shortness coupled with the frequency with which voices change give the overall impression of a dialogue as we may encounter it in everyday conversation. The simplicity of language and the rapidness of exchange all heightens the sense of an actual dialoguewith its dramatic overtones:
In this short example there are two main voices: Choch£ Bh¡¶ and Devn¡r¡ya¸. The interchanges are rapid, one person's part not lasting more than a maximum of two sentences. Often the speaker's name is not even explicitly referred to. The speaker's identity is deduced from the context. Sometimes only "said" is used to convey that one of the persons is about to speak. Otherwise one utterence follows the other without being interrupted by any markers from which to judge the speaker's identity. There is a vivid sense conveyed of the Bh¡¶'s fear of the lion, and the irony and sceptical tone of his response to Devn¡r¡ya¸ The singer himself adds only a single line at the end of the passage, which steps out of the dialogic situation (by adding a descriptive sentence in his own voice). The dramatic character of the interchange in the oral delivery is, however, watered down, for example, in the printed version of the narrative. In one case of the printed text, the narrative begins to assume a form similar to a pur¡¸ic text. The major difference, is of course, that the dialogues are now composed of grammatically "complete" sentences rather than simply utterances which may or may not entail complete sentences. The dialogues are lengthier and have the form of spoken passages, rather than spoken lines. Besides this, the element of repetition, so crucial to the oral rendering, is virtually absent from the printed text:37
In the above passage there are a number of evident differences to the passage from the oral rendering. First there are longer sections inserted in the narrator's voice which describe a situation leading up to the actual dialogue between characters. The dialogues themselves are on the whole relatively lengthy, giving one more of the sense of an idea being expressed in the form of a dialogue, rather than an exchange between two parties as in everyday life. Moreover, the speakers are introduced in a commented form. Thus for example, "Hearing this ....replied" or "perplexed áa´kar said" or "Then áa´kar exclaimed" In the oral rendering we simply learn whose voice it is, without commenting on the inner state of the speaker. The inner state of the speaker is left wholly to the utterance he speaks and not to a comment on part of the singer. Later on in the written text we also encounter passages that have the character of prophecies:
This form of lengthy dialogue embodying a prophecy is virtually absent from the oral rendering. In fact the idea of different time cycles coupled with the birth of mythic-religious figures like R¡ma and R¡va¸a does not arise. The only exception is in the prose beginning of the narrative in which the circumstances of the rebirth of 24 sages in the form of the 24 Baga¤¡vats is described. Once again in the "reported" speech of the written text, the dialogue tends to convey the sense of an idea being expressed, rather than living conversational interchange. The reported speech of the oral rendering through its short, simple dialogues similar to those of everyday situations, heightens a sense of being present at the actual event for the audience. Whereas the singers might engage in presenting what they know or have "overheard", the audience experiences "hearing" the event in the present. |
|
[ Previous Page | Next Page ] [ Content List of Exploration Mode | Content List of Presentation Mode ] |
|
[ List of Selected Content of CD-ROMs | Multimedia Project ] |
|
[ Home | Search | Contact Us | Index ] |
© IGNCA and Dr. Aditya Malik