March 4, 2012
Communicating Language
One of the most interesting aspects of Bakhtin's essay on speech genres is this notion of the units of language becoming realized in communicated language. When I say "realized" I don't mean that language is contingent upon it's ability to be communicated, but rather that language is able to be demonstrated through communication because the units of language exist independently of communication. He writes "the language collective, the plurality of speakers, cannot be ignored when speaking of language, but when defining the essence of language this aspect is not a necessary one that determines the nature of language" (68). He divides the way we communicate language into active (speaker) and passive (listener) roles. But these roles are insufficient because all speakers are respondents to one degree or another. "An he presupposes not only the existence of the language system he is using, but also the existence of preceding utterances - his own and others' - with which his given utterance enters into one kind of relation or another" (69). Thus all speech is reaction, and in relation, to another set of utterances attributed to various individuals. This seems contradictory to the notion that the essence of language is not contingent upon a plurality of speakers because the relationships between utterances and individuals is inescapable when discussing speakers (and even speakers who have no listeners; internal language meant for reflection). While it is true that the things which language signify exist independently of language, does language itself exist independent of speakers and the plurality of voices that give it shape? Or is language a tool, with a defined essence, that speakers use in order to signify and communicate objects and things? Can we understand language outside of communication, if even our internal communication is inevitably a response to a series of individual utterances?
1 comment:
One thing I think you should note here is that I think the idea that the claim that Bakhtin is saying that a multiplicity of voices don't matter to the individual is incorrect. I mean, first of all, it is obviously not true. Slang will tell you that instantly. Secondly, I think what he means is that the units are individual, which means that the units themselves exist outside of the "other." That does not meant that they cannot be impacted by others' utterances, but only that the unit may be considered by itself without fear of losing an aspect of the unit. That is, it can exist synchronically without an issue.
So, to illustrate what I mean: At this moment, I am using my own individual style and voice to speak to you, my imagined audience. My speech patterns within this post are unlikely to change because the words I am using are mine. Thus, synchronically, everything works as a seamless unit. However, over time my style and voice will change. For instance, ten years ago I would never have used the word "synchronic" at all. However, as the individual word systems of others have interacted with my own, I have added it. This illustrates a diachronic concept. That is, the development of my style of utterance over time. This must be at least partially impacted by other people's utterances, but it is not necessarily dependent on them, which I think is the key bit you're seeing contention in.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.