To whom does speech belong?

In "The Problem of Speech Genres", Bahktin creates an interesting paradox. Although he reaffirms the "national unity of language" (60), positions language in the social arena by saying it "acquires different forms in the heterogeneous spheres of human activity and life" (72), and discusses "our speech" as if speech were a collectively owned action, he also believes speech belongs to the individual. Bahktin says that "speech is always cast in the form of an utterance belonging to a particular speaking subject, and outside this form it cannot exist" (71), meaning speech relies on an individual for its existence. So, to whom does speech belong? Is it the property of the language collective or the individual?

Bahktin writes that "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). So while language certainly does exist and the communal property of a nation, that relationship is not the one that truly  captures its essence.

The relationship which best captures the essence of language is the relationship between language and the individual. And, to be more specific, the individual's utterances. According to Bahktin, "Any utterance-- oral or written, primary or secondary, and in any sphere of communication-- is individual and therefore can reflect the individuality of the speaker" (63). So not only does language belong to the individual, it belongs to him to such an extent that he can assert his individuality through it. In fact, language compels the speaker to assert an almost sociopathic singularity. Bahktin believes "language is regarded from the speaker's standpoint as if there were only one speaker who does not have any necessary relation to other participants in speech communication" (67). The speaker perceives language as wholly his own. In a way this is correct, because although the national, collective language exists abstractly, it only becomes real when an individual stands in as the medium. This is because "speech can exist in reality only in the form of concrete utterances of individual speaking people, speaking subjects" (Bahktin, 71).

I would say, given this, that language belongs both to the person, and to the collective, and is shaped by both as well. Bahktin says that "both individual and general language styles govern speech genres" (66) and "Various genres can reveal various layers and facets of the individual personality, and individual style can be found in various interrelations with the national language" (63). So while language is tied to the social whole, it can be appropriated by the individual, and in fact only acquires meaning when it is being used by an individual.