earticle

영어

Researches of Oral Literature are increased very much in quantity, but at a stand-still in quality. Causes of it can be searched in many aspect, but I think that there is an important cause in the negligence of method. Specially method is the first essential in oral literary study. But it is hard to find a notable interest in method at recent researches. It is due to doing not exist of issues in researches. Structuralism played an important part in bringing out many literary characters of oral literature. But recently it is criticized because it cannot bring oral literature's distinct characters into relief, that is to say 'orality'. Performance-centered approach or field-contextual study was started as a criticism of structuralism. But it is criticized because it doesn't have a firm theoretical base. That is, field work is not field-contextual study. Semiotic theory was also started as a criticism of structuralism. But it has difficulty in describing the latent dynamic structure of oral literature. Recently, the comparative method is brought to the fore. But it is criticised because it is not based on the complete understanding of cultural context. And I don't think that feminism is rewarded with good fruits based on the theoretical interest. Contemporary oral literature study is the same. It is criticised because it is not based on the theoretical consideration about the recent information-oriented society. In conclusion, these many methods does not play the role effectively. I think that it must be mere satisfied with territorial expansion of oral literature. The heart of these questions at issue is 'orality'. Therefore, I think that we must develope the methods that can show efficiently the distinct orality of oral literature.