The Angel and the Path: Dissonance with Hyperbolic Sections of Kazakh Proverbs Paper Presented at the American Folklore Society Conference October 19, 2013 Dr. Erik Aasland Independent Researcher In my five years of field research about Kazakh use of oral tradition, I learned a great deal about rhetoric. As a result, I am surprised and record any times Kazakh proverb masters or scholars miss what I consider to be the rhetorical mark. I will explore two instances when Kazakh scholars have shown a dissonance with a proverbial statement utilizing hyperbole. Both scholars are fluent in multiple languages, understand literary as well as rhetorical technique, and have shown themselves adept in adapting Kazakh and other proverbs to specific contexts. I argue that we can see the grounds of their responses to the hyperbolic sections in the two linked aspects of proverbs as text and performance. What is Hyperbole? Before we go further, I want to describe what constitutes hyperbole, so that we are all on the same page. A hyperbole uses exaggeration to more effectively get the point across in terms of both understanding and emotion (Clinton 2007: 61). This rhetorical device does not seek to provide referentially accurate data, but is rather used to pursue an emotional connection with the audience. For example, let’s say that I wanted to tell you a fish story: “I caught a fish that was so big ‐‐ it nearly sank the boat.” Fish stories are characterized by exaggeration with the fish increasing in size with each retelling. Here we have an example of simple hyperbole. If you miss the exaggeration, you are still on the right track in thinking that I am talking about a fish (Clinton 2007: 62). In contrast, the “mixed hyperbolic figure” (Clinton 2007: 61)uses figurative language, describing one thing while referring to something else. Clinton conflates the results of missing both simple hyperbole and mixed hyperbolic figure, saying that you will still be on track concerning the topic at hand (Clinton 2007: 62). If you miss the point of these mixed figure hyperboles, you won’t realize what the speaker/author is talking about. Here is a discursive example of a fish metaphor used in a mix hyperbolic figure: ‐‐Context: Discussion of contemporary political situation; Speaker #1 Comment: “The fish always rots from the top down” Speaker #2 Felicitous thought: She is not really talking about “fish”, this is about the political situation (rotting=corruption). ‐‐Result: Continued discussion about politics Fauconnier and Turner refer to who we saw with speaker #2 above as the “unpacking principle” (Fauconnier 2002: 332‐333). The incongruity of the phrase with the overall discussion indicates that the hearer or reader needs to think outside of this phrase or image to the wider meaning of the proverb. In this case, they need to match up “fish” as a metaphor used in discourse concerning politics rather than the unmarked use of the term to refer to a member of the paraphyletic group of organisms. If this does not happen, then Speaker #2 will completely miss the point of Speaker #1. Next, we will consider two situations in which Kazakh scholars short‐circuit the process. The writer/hearer refuses to acknowledge the figurative nature of the statement in question. In both cases, this ends any opportunity for further discussion. Situation #1: Abai Kunanbayulı1 Abai Kunanbayulı wrote during the classic period of Kazakh literature from the 1850’s to the beginning of the 20th century. He was familiar with Turkish, Persian, Kazakh, Russian and Western literature. His father was a ruler of his people (bay) and Abai was trained as an orator and leader. In his writings, he frequently quotes or adapts proverbs. Kazakhs consider him as their poet laureate based on his songs, poems, and essays (Paltore 2012). When I met with three Kazakh students at USC this week, they commented on how Abai’s writings are as relevant to contemporary Kazakhs as they were when he penned his thoughts. The offensive proverb: “Altın körse, perishte joldan tayadı.” [seeing gold, even the angel will deviate from the path.] Abai’s 29th Black Word (Kunanbayulı 1918) Here I have decided to go with the Kazakh version of Abai’s surname rather than the Russian form (Kunanbayev). 1 Abai scoffs at the proverb, declaring that angels have no need for gold. Abai’s main concern is that Kazakhs will use this proverb to excuse their own greed. If we recognize the segment about the angel as hyperbolic and follow Fauconnier and Turner’s unpacking principle, then we will affirm that the proverb is not about gold per se. Instead, the proverb is to be understood as an affirmation of human proneness to err (Kaz. pendeshilik). Abai concentrates on the possible performative impact and rejects the proverb in question. The proverb’s use among Kazakhs gives it standing and could be used to justify wrong actions. Situation #2 The Truncated Proverb There is a well‐known Kazakh that is recorded one way in proverb collections and then used in shortened form in everyday speech. From proverb collections “Jılı‐jılı söyleceŋ, jılan ininen shıġadı, qattı‐qattı söylese, musılman dininen shıġadı”. [if you speak gentle words, the snake will be drawn out; if you speak harsh words, it will drive the Muslim from faith.] Version commonly heard in daily conversation: “Jılı‐jılı söyleceŋ, jılan ininen shıġadı.” [if you speak gentle words, the snake will be drawn out.] The proverb about the snake, as included in proverb collections, follows a common pattern in Kazakh proverbs of contrasting the bad and the good person (Qaidar 2004: 139). Here it recommends fitting speech based on the individual being addressed. If you address someone who is a hard person, then use gentle words to draw them out. If you address someone who is kind, then be careful not to drive him away with harsh words. A Kazakh colleague of mine and I discussed the “snake proverb”. She had a doctrinal concern about the person driven from their faith. Although she was a literary scholar, she could not get beyond the doctrinal issue. Here is the segment of our conversation based on my best recollection: Erik: Can you explain the proverb about the snake (the version from the proverb collection) to me? Kazakh scholar: A Muslim cannot lose their faith permanently! This must refer to the temporary loss of faith described in the Quran. Erik: I think the “loss of faith” is meant figuratively. Kazakh scholar: A Muslim cannot lose their faith. Erik: That is not the point. This is clearly a hyperbolic proverb following the Kazakh proverb pattern of contrasting the bad and good person. Kazakh: It is just not right. ‐‐ End of discussion – Summary and Conclusion The proverbs being disputed address foundational topics for the Kazakhs such as human proneness to err and living at peace with others. I will argue that they are challenged for two reasons. First, each of the scholars I describe attacks the proverb in question because they view it deviating from the truth. Proverbs as text have standing. Kirschenblatt‐ Gimblet points out that proverbs from their structure, tone, and history of use in a group come across as authoritative (Kirshenblatt‐Gimblett 1981: 111). Kazakhs in particular are hesitant to use hyperbolic proverbs that they question out of respect for the power of words. Second, there are perceived dangers of application by average Kazakhs. Abai stresses this concern directly. Abrahams looks at folklore as a problem‐solving resource (Abrahams 1971) ; Abai fears the disputed proverbs will serve as a source of problem‐generation. Abai’s primary concern with the angel proverb is that Kazakhs will implement it as an excuse for greed. The second power of mixed figure hyperbolic proverbs is the possibility for “narrative imagining” (Turner 1996: 20) that aids people in thinking differently. What is the significance of these two aspects, textual and performative, that come out through interaction with Kazakh proverbs? For both scholars, the textual and performative aspects are linked. Abai’s expressed concerns about the angel proverb address both factual and emotive significance. The contemporary Kazakh proverb scholar can’t get beyond the textual/factual issue to even consider the snake proverb as hyperbolic. This treatment of the text and the impact as linked stands in contrast to the haste with which those from the West can work around a textual issue by simply declaring the statement in question to be “figurative”. Proverbs are not designed to transmit plain data. They can have a flare for the dramatic that is sometimes misunderstood, but nevertheless makes the proverbs memorable, helping preserve them for future generations. Those who come after will continue to peruse, posit, and perhaps pontificate against proverbs. Still the proverbs will continue to have both textual and performative influence in society. References Used Abrahams, Roger D. 1971. "Personal Power and Social Restraint in the Definition of Folklore." Journal of American Folklore (84):16‐30. Clinton, J. Robert. 2007. Figures and Idioms. Revised ed, Interpreting the Scriptures. Original edition, 1977. Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books. Kirshenblatt‐Gimblett, Barbara. 1981. "Toward a Theory of Proverb Meaning." In The Wisdom of Many: Essays on the Proverb, edited by Wolfgang Mieder and Alan Dundes, 111‐121. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Kunanbayulı, Abai. Qara Sözderi [black words] 1918. Available from http://www.abay.nabrk.kz/index.php?page=content&id=115. Paltore, Y.M., B.N. Zhubatova, and A.A. Mustafayeva. 2012. "Abai Kunanbayev's Role in Enrichment of the Kazakh Language." International Science Index no. 67:1142‐1145. Qaidar, Äbduäli 2004. Halıq Danalıġı [Wisdom of the people]. Almaty: Toġaniy T. Turner, Mark. 1996. The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. New York: Oxford University Press.