CLASSIFICATION IN ORAL LITERTURE

Introduction
Classification is useful in any scholarly investigation, and especially in a discipline like Oral Literature
with a wide range of materials. It helps set up a well-defined frame of reference within which samples
of Oral Literature materials can be identified.

There are three basic approaches to the classification of Oral Literature materials:
1. Generic classification
2. Sociological or situational classification
3. Stylistic classification.

1. Generic Classification
The term genre is normally used to refer to a class or form of literary expression. In written literature,
there are three basic genres – i.e. prose fiction (novels, short stories), drama and poetry.

The generic classification when applied to Oral Literature attempts to group oral compositions and
performances into genres and sub-genres according to their characteristics. This mode of classification
can be quite extensive and detailed. The following categories make up the generic classification:
Prose narrative Short formulaic forms Oral poetry
a. Myths a. Proverbs a. Epics
b. Legends b. Sayings b. Panegyrics
c. Folk-tales c. Riddles c. Lyrics
d. Fables d. Tongue-twisters d. Satirical verses
e. Fairy tales e. Similes e. Elegiac poetry
f. Personal experience f. Metaphors f. Religious poetry
narratives g. Topical and Political songs
g. Gossip h. Special purposes songs
(e.g. war and hunting
songs)

The generic mode of classification of Oral Literature materials is quite popular. It refers to the
performance by “name” and this usually gives the user of this system of classification a certain amount of
confidence and familiarity with the materials to be handled.

However, there are some shortcomings in adopting this mode of classification. For example, it lacks
comprehensiveness. The list of oral items would hardly cover all the genres in any one tradition or
culture i.e. there can never be a standard generic classification that is comfortably applicable to the Oral
Literature produced by different cultural groups. As one considers one cultural group after another, the
number of terms required to describe the genres may vary because some groups have genres which are
peculiar to them that may not be found among other groups. Below are some examples:
• Ebyegugo - The heroic recitation of the Bahima.
• Ntsomi - The dramatic folk narrative of the Xhosa
• Ibisigo - The dynastic poetry of the Tutsi

Thus, generic classification can only be meaningfully applied to a specific and clearly defined oral
tradition. It is impossible to set up a “generic” list that would take into account all forms of oral
composition and performance.
When using the generic classification, the oral literature scholar (or researcher) must first define the oral
tradition he/she is dealing with. He/she can then adopt the known generic terms from that tradition or
culture and use them where particular forms of oral literature cannot be adequately labeled with any of
the popularly known terms.

Whether one uses popularly known terms, or adopts terms from a particular tradition or culture, or coins
new terms, it is important to clearly define all the terms used and apply them consistently throughout.

2. Sociological or Situational Classification

When using this mode of classification, the oral performances are divided according to their functions in
society i.e. the social purposes they are intended to serve, the situation of their performance, or the
occasions on which they are performed. For example;
Worship
Marriage
Rites of passage
Games/Recreation
Funeral ceremonies; etc.
One of the shortcomings of the sociological or situational classification is that it lacks
comprehensiveness. For example, the rites of passage may vary in number and significance from one
cultural group to the other. Among the Bamasaba (Bagisu) and the Sebei the initiation rites into manhood
and womanhood respectively are of great significance. There are myths justifying these rites and there
are elaborate oral performances accompanying them. But among the Acholi, Iteso and Madi these rites
of initiation into manhood or womanhood are absent. In the same vein, some ethnic groups do not have
an elaborate funeral ceremony like the Acholi do, accompanied by songs and dance. Thus, we can never
have sociological or situational classification that embraces all cultural groups. Hence the need to clearly
specify which society this system of classification is being applied to.

The second shortcoming is the variability of the situations or occasions at which a performance may be
used. For example, a song that is meant to be a spirit possession dance or divination dance may be
performed at a leisure gathering for entertainment. Or a war song identified as occupational performance
may be sung at the funeral of a soldier.

It is also worth noting that different “genres” of Oral Literature may be used to perform the same
sociological function or to make the same social occasion.

Therefore, we can say the sociological or situational classification seems to be too inclusive to meet the
demands of what we could call a viable productive system of classification.

3. Stylistic Classification
When using this mode of classification, the oral performances are classified according to their style of
performance. Since oral literature involves oral production, stylistic classification uses ordinary speech as
a basis to grade oral performances i.e. their degree of stylization as compared to ordinary speech. Below
is a sample of stylistic classes:
i. Spoken work – e.g. myths, legends, folk tales, fables
ii. Short fixed forms (fixed and invariable in execution) – e.g. proverbs, riddles
iii. Recitations – Epic, Court poems, Panegyrics. (Here there is a marked departure from ordinary
speech in its elevation of pitch, quickened pace and definite metric pattern).
iv. Declamation (certain musical features may be detected, although not sufficient enough to qualify it
as a song).
v. Sung forms – songs (here music plays an equally important role as verbal utterances).
In stylistic classification, ordinary speech is taken as degree ‘zero’ of stylization.

However, this system of classification is still not as comprehensive as one would like it to be. For
example, only one extra-linguistic feature “music” has been used to determine which category an oral
performance belongs to. Why not gesture or body-movement? These could have been equally plausible.
The arbitrary nature of this classification system may also be seen in the way in which oral performances
are placed into various classes. Suppose one tells a tale in a tone that sounds more of a recitation than
ordinary speech, would the class change? Or, if one performed a song in such a way that it is nearer to a
declamation than a sung form, would that song shift from one category to the other? These are some of
the shortcomings of this mode of classification.

Conclusion
The above are the three major approaches to the classification of Oral Literature.
• The generic classification grades oral performance according to their content.
• The sociology or situational classification grades them according to their social functions and
occasions of performance.
• And the stylistic classification grades them according to their degree of stylization.
The scholar ( or researcher) has to determine which system of classification to use for his study of Oral
Literature, and this has to be the system that is most viable and productive for his/her nature of study.
However, generic classification is the most popular and widely used by scholars of Oral Literature.

It is important to be aware of overlaps of forms in oral performance. For example, there are folk tales
and fables that within them have songs; just as there are songs that within them have narratives. In the
generic system of classification which relies on content, it is possible for one to find overlaps among the
genres and sub-genres.