Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Propp
Narrative structure
Propp broke up fairy tales into sections. Through these sections he was able to define the
tale into a series of sequences that occurred within the Russian fairytale. Usually there is an
initial situation, after which the tale usually takes the following 31 functions. Propp used this
method to decipher Russian folklore and fairy tales. First of all, there seems to be at least
two distinct types of structural analysis in folklore. One is the "syntagmatic" manner of
assessment (as termed following Lévi-Strauss 1964: 312), covering Propp's Morphology
among others in which the structure of a piece folklore is described in the chronological
order of the linear events it comprises. If a tale consists of elements A to Z, the structure of
the tale is thus delineated in the same sequence. The other type of analysis is termed
"paradigmatic" (cf. Sebag 1963:75), and describes instead the underlying pattern (usually
based upon a priori binary principle of opposition) of the folkloric text, independent of
chronology. Elements of the plot may be taken out of their "given" order and regrouped in
various analytic schemes.
Respectively equivalent to syntagmatic and paradigmatic are the terms "diachronic" and
"synchronic". Diachronic covers the sort of analysis that conveys a sense of traversing the
highs and lows of a story, like riding the pattern of a sine wave.[2] The second term,
synchronic, is where the story is instead absorbed as a whole, like the pattern of a circle.
Most literary analyses are synchronic, offering a greater sense of unity among the
components of a story. Although both structural analyses convey partial information about
the story, each angle of analysis delivers a different set of information.[3]
Functions
After the initial situation is depicted, the tale takes the following sequence of 31 functions:[4]
Some of these functions may be inverted, such as the hero receives an artifact of power
whilst still at home, thus fulfilling the donor function early. Typically such functions are
negated twice, so that it must be repeated three times in Western cultures. [5]
Characters
Main article: Actant
He also concluded that all the characters could be resolved into 7 broad character functions
in the 100 tales he analyzed:
1. The villain — an evil character that creates struggles for the hero.
3/4
2. The dispatcher — any character who illustrates the need for the hero's quest and
sends the hero off. This often overlaps with the princess's father.
3. The helper — a typically magical entity that comes to help the hero in their quest.
4. The princess or prize, and often her father — the hero deserves her throughout the
story but is unable to marry her as a consequence of some evil or injustice, perhaps
the work of the villain. The hero's journey is often ended when he marries the
princess, which constitutes the villain's defeat.
5. The donor — a character that prepares the hero or gives the hero some magical
object, sometimes after testing them.
6. The hero — the character who reacts to the dispatcher and donor characters, thwarts
the villain, resolves any lacking or wronghoods and weds the princess.
7. The false hero — a Miles Gloriosus figure who takes credit for the hero's actions or
tries to marry the princess.[6]
These roles could sometimes be distributed among various characters, as the hero kills the
villain dragon, and the dragon's sisters take on the villainous role of chasing him.
Conversely, one character could engage in acts as more than one role, as a father could
send his son on the quest and give him a sword, acting as both dispatcher and donor.[7]
Criticism
Propp's approach has been criticized for removing all verbal considerations from the
analysis, even though the folktale's form is almost always oral, and also all considerations
of tone, mood, character, and anything that differentiates one fairy tale from another. One of
the most prominent critics of Propp is the French structuralist Claude Lévi-Strauss, who
used Propp's monograph on the morphology of the folktale to demonstrate the superiority
of the structuralist approach, and the shortcomings of the formalist approach.[8] Propp
responded to this criticism in a sharply-worded rebuttal: he wrote that Lévi-Strauss showed
no interest in empirical investigation.[9]
4/4