A Dialogue (of Sorts)

Bruce:

Talking with Jacob the other day, we had an intriguing discussion about Bakhtin and his influence on other scholars.  Although I see Bakhtin’s influence on many postmodern rhetoricians, I find it difficult to distinguish which rhetoricians Bakhtin might have had an influence on due to the problem of translation.  I know that Bakhtin did not get translated into English until the mid 1980s—hence, his work took prominence during our field’s “social turn.”  Jacob and I discussed other translation issues historically and found it fascinating what different scholars have access to at different times.  Jacob even mentioned that he had heard that when Hemingway lived in France, the texts he had access to in English were primarily Russian texts translated into English.  The fact he was reading from one country while in another fascinated me.

Having delved into genre theory a great deal for my masters’ project, I was already quite familiar with Bakhtin’s influence on various scholars specializing in genre theory, yet, as far as rhetoricians are concerned, I’m struggling as I see his presence in many rhetoricians but cannot be sure which of them had access to them.  Going off of what Jacob and I discussed, in theory, it might have been quite possible that Foucault (living in France) had access to Bakhtin’s work earlier than many American scholars.  I’d have to say that the same goes for Derrida as well. I hesitate to include Richards since timelines do not seem to mesh rather well; however, his fascination with ambiguity seems to derive from some of Bakhtin’s concepts.  

In “The Problem of Speech Genres,” Bakhtin notes:

Language is realized in the form of individual concrete utterances (oral and written) by participants in the various areas of human activity.  These utterances reflect the specific conditions and goals of each such area not only through their content (thematic) and linguistic style, that is, the selection of the lexical, phraseological, and grammatical resources of the language, but above all through their compositional structure.  All three of these aspects—thematic content, style, and compositional structure—are inseparably linked to the whole of the utterance and are equally deterimined by the specific nature of the particular sphere of communication.  Each separate utterance is individual, of course, but each sphere in which language is used develops its own relatively stable types of the utterances.  These we may call speech genres. (1227)

I quoted this passage in its entirety since various aspects of it seem to connect to Foucault, Derrida, and, quite possibly, Richards.  Bakhtin’s notion of “individual concrete utterances” being formed by “participants in the various areas of human activity” seems to connect somewhat to Foucault.  Foucault’s notion of discourse as being inherently related to power within the various discourses would appear to link to this notion.  Thus, these utterances would be significantly influenced by power and the will to truth in various discourses and, perhaps, become “relatively stable types” as a result.  

The theories of Derrida, especially his chain of signification, would reflect the concept of the three aspects being “inseparably linked to the whole of the utterance.”  Essentially, Derrida rejected the notion that individual signifiers each had a concrete and specific signified.  For Derrida, the signifier was always modified by the signifiers and the respected signifieds they generated in the mind of the listener.  The context of the entire linguistic phrase was always contingent on the context and the words surrounding each individual signifier.  Meaning could not be made in isolation.

Both of these discussions seem to relate to Richards as well.  Richards, as we know, thrived on context and ambiguity.  Obviously, the work of Bakhtin is highly reliant on context and, because of this, would seem to result in ambiguity.  However, the concept of speech genres, those “relatively stable types,” would possibly explain how we are able to lessen ambiguity in our communication.  These speech genres lessen the possibility for ambiguity since, if we are familiar with the speech genre and the discourse(s) it is a part of, we can most likely begin to find some stability in meaning through those “relatively stable types.”

Although it is difficult to directly attribute the work of Bakhtin to other rhetoricians, commonalities can still be demonstrated that at least suggest a possible influence.  Even if these rhetoricians were not directly aware of Bakhtin, his work did have correlations with their own.  They might not have necessarily been antecedents who directly relied on the work of Bakhtin, yet it appears apparent that even if they were not antecedents they were at least contemporaries, grappling with the same issues even if they never came into contact with Bakhtin’s theories.

Jeff:

While reading Bakhtin, I noticed a lot of connections with the authors that we’ve read earlier in class. I saw connections between Bakhtin and Burke, Richards, Foucault, and even Gates. Though I’m not sure some of these theorists would be considered historical antecedents to Bakhtin, they are certainly antecedents in my understanding of rhetorical theory.

I think that theorist most like Bakhtin would have to be Burke. In the excerpt from Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, I could see similarities to Burke’s terministic screen, his theory of identification, and of course his interest in ambiguity. In Language as Symbolic action, Burke asserts that “any given terminiology is a reflection of reality” (1341). This is similar to Bakhtin’s assertion that “a sign does not simply exist as part of reality--it reflects and refracts another reality” (1211). Though both theorists are discussing the interpretation of signs, Bakhtin seems to also be discussing the use of signs. Bakhtin’s discussion of “verbal interaction” and his metaphor of the “bridge” shared by the addresser and addressee, seemed very similar to Burke’s idea of identification. Bakhtin says that the addressor assumes that the “addressee [is] a contemporary of our literature, our science, our moral and legal codes” (1215), in essence, that they would identify with us. Finally, Bakhtin, like Burke, is very interested in ambiguity’s role in making meaning. For Bakhtin, meaning is made in the ambiguous intersection of a listener’s active interpretation of the speaker.

Bakhtin also shared a lot of similarities with Richards, though it seemed as though Bakhtin had more of a macroscopic view than Richards. Bakhtin, like Richards, believes that words are inherently neutral, and are “a two-sided act”(1215) between speaker and interpreter; meaning, they argue, is made not by the words themselves, but in their interpretation. Unlike Richards though, Bakhtin believes that words can and often do become imbued with meaning through past utterances, and then are used in new utterances where the meaning is reinforced. Bakhtin also gave room for words to be utterances on their own, which I don’t think Richards accounted for at all. This neutrality gives way for words’ meanings to change over time, which Richards, I think, would agree with.

Though my understanding of Foucault is quite elementary, I think his and Bakhtin’s theories share some similarity; mainly in regards to the idea that language is informed by ideology. I think that Foucault’s belief is certainly more hardline, in that language could not exist without ideology and power, but I think that Bakhtin believes that although language could exist without ideology, it would be meaningless. Nothing more than the animalistic noises.

Although this connection is quite superficial, I think that Bakhtin’s discussion of the “two-way act” (1215) of words and that “an utterance is a link in a very complexly organized chain of other utterances” (1233), shares some similarities with Gates’ theory of “Signifyin’.” Though different from “Signifyin’,” I think that Bakhtin’s idea that the listener takes what was said and reshapes it, and that an utterance is imbued with meaning from all utterances before and after it work very well with Gates’ ideas.

A Dialogue (of sorts):

J:  Let's get started...

B:  sounds like a plan

So, I totally missed Burke in my discussion--why do you think he merges with Bakhtin so well?

J:  Initially, I was struck by the fact that Bakhtin used the words "reflects" and "reality"

Which, as I'm sure you remember, is really similar to what Burke says when he's talking about Terministic Screens.

I think noticing that connection caused me to look through the "screen" of how Burke and Bakhtin connected

Not just in terms of the terministic screen, but I noticed a connection between Bakhtin's "two-way act" of the word, and Burke's identification. And of course, their love of ambiguity...

I liked your connection between Bakhtin and Derrida. I'm not very familiar with Derrida, outside of deconstruction.

J:  Can you expand more on Derrida's connection to Bakhtin?

B:  You might have been fortunate missing out on Derrida so far (hehehehe).  Anways, Derrida pushed back at Saussure's notion of every signifier having a concrete and specific signfied (the mental representation created in the mind).  For Derrida (at least to the best of my understanding), this signified relied heavily on context--thus dog in two separate conversations might create drastically different signifieds.  For example, if I said dog in relation to dog fighting, you might begin to imagine a pit bull; however, I say Paris Hilton, you most likely see a chihuahua.  The signfied was always contingent on the entire "chain of signfication."  Hence, this chain for me resembled Bahktin's idea of the utterance, especially how the utterance needed to be taken as a whole to make meaning.  This contextualization also made me think of Richards--it seemed like "speech genres" might explain how we can communicate effectively in spite of the inherent ambiguities of language.  Thoughts?

J:  I can definitely see the Bakhtin/Derrida connection; I think Bakhtin even used the chain of signification metaphor. I wonder if that was as a result of his translator, or if he actually used it.

I also noticed a connection to Richards, but I think it's interesting that we both talked about too similar, but different, aspects of Richards.

J:  You focused on the "speech genres," and how they contribute to meaning making, while I focused on the utterance bringing meaning to the neutral word.

But I do think you're on to something with the speech genres contributing to us to make meaning with ambiguities.

As an aside, I really liked Bakhtin's assertion that a socially awkward person isn't actually socially awkward, he just doesn't understand genres that well.

B:  Yeah, that resonated with me as well.  I think of that constantly when in social situations.  It's funny how we all have certain blind spots.  For me, I know if I'm around wine and cheese people, I'm entirely socially awkward.  I never developed an affinity for these types of gatherings, so I never know how to enter myself into the conversation to contribute and, half the time, I'm confused as to what people saying because different terms seem to have context specific meanings.  However, I can talk art all day--these two would seem to be mutually learned, so I'm not sure why I feel comfortable in one genre as opposed to another.  What genres do you feel you do not have aptitude in?

J:  I am unable to participate in the genre of sports conversations. I know most of the rules, and teams, and basic things, but I don't watch sports at all, so I can't participate in any discussions related to current players, or controversies, or things like that. It puts me at a real disadvantage in elevator conversations, and especially during the sports category at trivia.

I think I might fall into your classification of "wine and cheese" people though-- well, maybe more of a beer and cheese person.

B: Alas, we can't be experts at everything.  I wonder how knowledge of one speech genre might help in others.  Do you think we make connections between varying speech genres, and perhaps that causes much ambiguity?

J:  I think our knowledge of varying genres can definitely cause us to import ambiguity into new genres.

I think it's especially evident when we're teaching our freshman, haha.

B:  I wonder if Dr. Yancey feels the same way...