The following passage is from a 1979 essay by a Native
American writer.
An understanding of any national literature depends
very much on an awareness of the larger cultural context.
Without some knowledge of language, of history, of
inflection, of the position of the storyteller within the
group, without a hint of the social roles 5 played by males
and females in the culture, without a sense of the society’s
humor or priorities—without such knowledge, how can
we, as reader or listener, penetrate to the core of meaning
in an expression of art?
10 The difficulty of gaining access to the literature of a
different culture may be illustrated by an exemplary folktale
(in translation) from the Tanaina (Athabaskan) culture
of south-central Alaska. It would typically be told to a
general audience within the society, including the full range
15 of ages from young children to grandparents; it would be
recounted with gesticulation and exaggeration by a performance
specialist. It would be expected to have different
meanings to the various categories of listeners— instructive,
entertaining, reinforcing, or all three. Here is a brief version
20 of the story:
“Once upon a time there was a porcupine woman who
decided to do some hunting on the far side of the river. She
went to the bank, where she met a beaver.
‘Hello,’ she said to him. ‘I need to do some hunting over
25 there. Will you ride me across on your back?’
‘I’d be glad to,’ replied the beaver. ‘Hop on.’
So the porcupine woman climbed on his back, and he
started swimming for the other side. When he had almost
made it, the porcupine woman said, ‘Oh my! I’ve forgotten
30 to bring my sack. I’ll need to go back to the other bank and
get it.’
‘All right,’ said the beaver, and swam back. He was
panting while the porcupine woman went to get her sack.
‘Okay,’ she said. ‘Let’s go.’ So they started across
35 again. The beaver was swimming much more slowly. When
they had practically reached the other side, she said, ‘Oh
my! I’ve forgotten to bring my needle. We’ll have to go
back and get it.’
This time the beaver didn’t say anything—he didn’t
40 have enough breath! But he turned around and pulled them
back to the shore and nearly passed out while she got her
needle.
‘Hurry up, now,’ the porcupine woman said as she
climbed back on his back. He could hardly keep his nose
45 above water, but he had almost made it to the far bank
again when she said, ‘Oh my! I’ve forgotten my staff.
We’ll have to . . . .’
Before she had finished her sentence the beaver had
flipped over in the water and dragged himself onto the
50 bank, where he lay half dead. The porcupine woman
managed to make the shore too, and climbed up onto a bear
path. When she had caught her breath, she turned on the
beaver and quilled him to death.”
The Tanaina live in an environment that could euphe55
mistically be described as “difficult.” Survival, especially
in the wild, is always precarious. Further, they were, in the
precontact period, a nonliterate people. Oral communication
was therefore the method of cultural transmission,
legal understanding, and meaningful communication. It is
60 also necessary to know that a “staff,” as mentioned in the
story, functions as both a walking stick and a weapon, and
that in the Tanaina symbol system, porcupines were
supposed to be rather ponderous, dull-witted creatures, and
beavers were thought to be energetic and industrious but
65 overly spontaneous and erratic.
For the reader armed with these data, the story becomes
more accessible as a lesson in contract law, with several
additional minor themes. A culturally attuned listener
would notice, for instance, that when the porcupine woman
70 proposed passage to the beaver, he agreed without any
stipulations or clarifications of the terms. He gave a
basically open-ended agreement—made a contract—and
hence the porcupine woman was perfectly within her rights
both in demanding that he return three times and in quilling
75 him to death when he reneged.
The story is not, however, without its moral for the porcupine
women of this world. Her stated aim is to go
hunting, and yet she sets out without the three essentials of
that endeavor: a sack in which to carry home her game, a
80 needle with which to sew up the intestines, and, most
important, an implement with which to hunt and defend
herself. True, she had an open-ended contract, but where
does she wind up at the conclusion of the story? Sitting,
exhausted, quills used up, weaponless, and not only on the
85 wrong side of the river from her home but on a bear path!
The hunter is about to become the hunted, and all because
of her own improvidence.
- As a commentary on legal relations, this folktale is best described as (A) an example of traditional practices (B) an outline for social behavior (C) a warning about ill-conceived assent (D) a criticism of obsolete customs (E) a parody of actual situations
- Which statement is most consistent with the author’s argument? (A) Translating a literary text requires formal linguistic training. (B) Tales transmitted by a nonliterate society elude transcription in later eras. (C) Listening to a skilled storyteller is more instructive than entertaining. (D) Simple enjoyment of a tale is incompatible with scholarly analysis. (E) To read a text is not necessarily to understand it.
p.s. sorry it’s really long but it would help you review the CR section too 
help is very much appreciated x