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 formulaic
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
"deconstruct” 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, greenstriped
computer sheets, all in capitals, full of symbols which should have been suppressed
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 reordering 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 concordance-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
understanding 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 understanding 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 embellished
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 bookshelf 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 recording 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 criteria 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 proportion 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
representative 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 accessible 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 prolonged 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 boundaries 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 demarcated 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 concordance 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 boundaries 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 difference
between literary and folkloristic problems in representing the text. The concordance-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. However, 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 semiconsciously , 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 accurate 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 understanding 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. Unconsciously, 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 audience 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 present 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. Reverse
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 capitalized
"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 Computer
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 RL315 is the catalogue number
for the album. For the code to long-playing album abbreviations, 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 |