Bakhtin definitely managed to generate quite a bit of confusion last class, and I have to admit I am not exactly innocent of this confusion myself. So in an effort to understand a bit more, I am going to try to focus on only a small concept within the essay.
The part of the essay I am most interested in is when he writes, "The wealth and diversity of speech genres are boundless because the various possibilities of human activity are inexhaustible, and because each sphere of activity contains an entire repertoire of speech genres that differentiate and grow as the particular sphere develops and becomes more complex." (Bakhtin 60) I really like this idea that speech genres are essentially endless because human activity is inexhaustible. I think that this is a kind of complex way of saying that with so much potential for activity, there must be equal outputs. Thus, we have developed many speech genres to fit our needs.
It also seems that Baktin believes that an individual should have an understanding of all speech genres. That is to say, one should be well-versed in areas from daily dialogue to the most complex form of writing, and one should also understand the differences between the two (simple and complex) forms of speech genres.
I guess that what I don't understand is how we can be expected to develop and understanding of all of these genres, when Bakhtin himself calls them "boundless?"
1 comment:
This is a pretty good interpretation of Bakhtin in my opinion, with two minor exceptions. First, I think human activity is exhaustible in that we are fully capable of ending human life on this earth. Second, I don't think Bakhtin expected or wanted all individuals to have an understanding of all genres. But these are quibbles, and I thought it might be more fun to discuss in my comment the biological foundations of language.
Language exists because of what our bodies are capable of doing, including primarily (for our purposes) the ability to make sound vibrations. This ability, like all of our abilities and like all abilities of all life forms, developed to fit a need as you have suggested speech genres have developed. I hardly think, however, that anything is ever truly needed, only beneficial for the sake of flourishing. For example, the flowery parts of language like 'lliteration likely only exist for levity sake, or flourishing. Alliteration allows language to flow smoothly and pleasingly, but it's difficult to see it as a need. It is only a component of flourishing, just like the feathers on a peacock, advantage through exception. HA
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.