I think your student would benefit from some clarification or problematization of the pair oral-literary -- especially if she understands the phrase "textual sources" as referring to the same things as "written texts". Her last question shows she is aware of the possibility of nuances and cultural differences.

In the South Asian context, orally transmitted texts can have greater prestige, and be more stable, than written texts. This is true of Vedic texts, and perhaps also the Pali canon. The technique of memorization applied to such texts is very time-consuming and laborious, so it depended on a body of people whose status depended on applying it. I've discussed this, with some reference to theories about oral and written literature, in ‘Svadhyaya: An Ancient Way of Using the Veda’, Religions of South Asia, 8.1 (2014), pp. 109‑130.

I have an undergraduate student who is interested in writing a paper on questions of oral and literary traditions. I would like to solicit your opinions on potential sources for her. Please see her message below for a more detailed delineation of her questioning.

I read through a little more of the Pollock book last night to get a better feel for some questions. I think generally this is what I'm thinking:

What is the difference and relationship between the oral and literary tradition? How has that relationship evolved with the emergence of written texts, vernacularization, and the subsequent privileging of textual sources by the colonial West and the Academy? Who is excluded and/or included by the privileging of one kind of knowledge over the other? For scholars, what kind of nuanced understanding of literacy should be sought or acknowledged given that "to be literate" can mean different things in different cultures?

Mark McLaughlin
Visiting Assistant Professor of South Asian Religions
Department of Religious Studies
College of William and Mary
Williamsburg, VA