Oral Tradition, 3/1-2 (1988): 229-38 Oral, but Oral What? The Nomenclatures of Orality and Their Implications

When I fi rst noticed the announcement of the impending appearance of a journal to be named Oral Tradition, I was intrigued and gratifi ed. As a historian I looked forward to welcoming a scholarly journal which would be devoted entirely to addressing issues of interest to students of oral societies, be they of the present or the past. When I later saw a list of the members of the Editorial Board, I was disappointed and disquieted to fi nd not a single historian among them. But as I contemplated what seemed an unwelcome turn of events, I realized that my fi rst reaction had been refl exive and had been based on a perception which was neither mainstream nor necessarily beyond cavil. It seemed in fact that the issue had two distinct levels: one was that of nomenclature, the other a matter of attitude and operation. The two levels are hardly discrete, however; a great deal of osmosis takes place between them. On these grounds perhaps a few words on each might be in order, if only to initiate what could be a useful (and, I woul