具体而言，在荷马史研究中，洛德的The Singer of Tales几乎影响了此后所有的关于荷马以及公式化口头作品的文章。它着重讨论将口头公式化理论应用于有问题的文字材料，如伊利亚特，奥德赛，甚至貝奧武夫所产生的一连串的疑惑和问题。作为对洛德的回应，杰弗瑞·柯克（Geoffrey Kirk）出版了“The Songs of Homer”，质疑洛德将塞尔维亚和克罗地亚文学的口头形式化的性质（该理论最初发展的领域）扩展到了荷马史诗。柯克认为，荷马史诗与“严格的韵律”“公式化的系统”以及创造力有着不同的传统。换句话说，柯克争辩说，荷马史诗是在一种不同的系统下吟诵的，这使得吟诵者可以更自由地选择文字和段落来达到相同的效果，不同于与仅仅以“繁殖”为目的的塞尔维亚 - 克罗地亚诗人。此后不久，埃里克·海弗洛克（Eric Havelock）的“Preface to Plato”彻底革新了学者们对荷马史诗的看法，他不仅争辩说它是口头传统的产物，而且其中所含的口头形式也是古希腊人跨世代地保存文化知识的一种方式。佩里在他1966年的作品“Have we Homer's Iliad?”中，将当时最完备发展的口头诗人的存在理论化，即一个人可以（根据他的判断）创造性地和智慧地在被接受的，传统的故事中创造出细致入微的人物。事实上，他将塞尔维亚 - 克罗地亚的传统忽略到几乎“不幸”的程度，而选择将希腊口头传统模式提升到所有其他模式之上。洛德在1968年出版的“Homer as Oral Poet”的文章中对柯克和佩里的散文做出了回应，该文重申了洛德对南斯拉夫诗歌的相关性及其与荷马的相似性的信念，并淡化了荷马史诗朗诵者的知识和文学角色。
^ 1.01.1简·万思那（英语：Jan Vansina）: Oral Tradition as History, 1985, James Currey Publishers, ISBN 0-85255-007-3, 9780852550076; at page 27 and 28, where Vasina defines oral tradition as "verbal messages which are reported statements from the past beyond the present generation" which "specifies that the message must be oral statements spoken, sung or called out on musical instruments only"; "There must be transmission by word of mouth over at least a generation". He points out that "Our definition is a working definition for the use of historians. Sociologists, linguists or scholars of the verbal arts propose their own, which in, e.g., sociology, stresses common knowledge. In linguistics, features that distinguish the language from common dialogue (linguists), and in the verbal arts features of form and content that define art (folklorists)."
^Ki-Zerbo, Joseph: "Methodology and African Prehistory", 1990, UNESCO International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa; James Currey Publishers, ISBN 0-85255-091-X, 9780852550915; see Ch. 7; "Oral tradition and its methodology" at pages 54-61; at page 54: "Oral tradition may be defined as being a testimony transmitted verbally from one generation to another. Its special characteristics are that it is verbal and the manner in which it is transmitted."
^Henige, David（英语：David Henige）. "Oral, but Oral What? The Nomenclatures of Orality and Their Implications" Oral Tradition, 3/1-2 (1988): 229-38. p 232; Henige cites Jan Vansina (1985). Oral tradition as history. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press
^Degh, Linda. American Folklore and the Mass Media. Bloomington: IUP, 1994, p. 31
^Dundes, Alan, "Editor's Introduction" to The Theory of Oral Composition, John Miles Foley. Bloomington, IUP, 1988, pp. ix-xii
^Henige, David. "Oral, but Oral What? The Nomenclatures of Orality and Their Implications" Oral Tradition, 3/1-2 (1988): 229-38. p 232; Henige cites Jan Vansina (1985). Oral tradition as history. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press
^Ong, Walter, S.J., Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. London: Methuen, 1982 p 12
^The history of the theory of oral tradition was first reported byJohn Miles Foley; the following overview draws upon Oral-Formulaic Theory and Research: An Introduction and Annotated Bibliography, (NY: Garland Publishing, 1985, 1986, 1989); additional material is summarized from the overlapping prefaces to the following volumes: The Theory of Oral Composition: History and Methodology, (Indiana University Press, 1988, 1992); Immanent Art: From Structure to Meaning in Traditional Oral Epic (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991);The Singer of Tales in Performance (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1995) and Comparative Research on Oral Traditions: A Memorial for Milman Parry(Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers, 1987).
![[icon]](File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}