Bahktin's Antecedents as Represented by Heather & Jacob

Principles of Design

We approached this project in terms of connections, so the metaphor of a network seemed well-suited. Two kinds of things serve as nodes: theorists (black) and concepts (pink). The black line connect theorists directly, and the pink line serve as connections between concepts as common ground between multiple theorists. The green dotted line represents points of departure between rhetors and concepts.

Nodes

These nodes surfaced from our reading of Bahktin and the resulting conversation that we had about the reading. Our conversation was framed by the question, Bahktin and his antecedents, so the frame of that conversation made it possible for common points to emerge by comparing Bahktin with past readings. We thought about the difference between chronological antecedents and the order of readings. We circumvented that question through the network metaphor.

Nonverbal

Bahktin accounts for nonverbal utterances such a gesture, movement, and physical mass. We debated whether or not this shows up in other theorists. We decided that it does with a difference in kind. Other theorists describe a principle of delivery being intonation. Intonation (for our money) seems to rest on the boundary between the verbal and the nonverbal. It can only show up in verbal utterance, but it is not necessarily verbal all by itself. In other words, words are not the source of intonation. It is a choice of a different kind.

Dialogic/Dialectic

Bahktin bases his theory of language in verbal interaction. This hearkens back to Plato and his understanding of the dialectic as a method (the method) for meaning-making. The difference here is that Plato considers books as not being capable of being dialectic whereas Bahktin considers books part a secondary speech genre and dialectic. For Ramus, the dialectic outside of the range of rhetoric. It is a theory of the mind, not a theory of language.

Style

Bahktin suggests that style is a constituent part of speech genres (along with compositional and thematic). Gates foregrounds style as a method of meaning-making. Astell suggests that style differs from rhetor to rhetori (on the basis of gender). Ramus places style (ornamentation) as a central concern of rhetoric (theory of language), because it deals solely with language. These four conceptions of style are different. We see connections on the basis that style is a feature of all of these rhetoricians' theory of rhetoric.

Genre

Aristotle's theory of rhetoric is very occasional (as are his genres). Bahktin's genres are very different than Aristotle's, because his genres are inseparable from the whole of the utterance whereas Aristotle's genres are “overshadowed by their general linguistic nature” (1227). In other words, Aristotle's genres have boundaries based in purpose and occasion that separate them the message within those boundaries from the rest of the situation (ideologies and dialogue).

Totalizing

Plato totalizes meaing-making by basing it in metaphysics and philosophy. Burke's, Foucault's, and Bahktin's theories try to account for all language everywhere. Bahktin is different, because his theory is not encyclopaedic.

Systems over Individuals

Because Foucault and Bahktin's theories foreground the presence of ideology, their theories shift focus from the way that an individual uses language to the embeddednesss of langauge.

Units

Richards's, Bahktin's, Foucault's and Burke's theories include units of language. Their units are very different from one another. Richards is looking to the morpheme in his theory of misunderstanding. Bahktin is looking to the utterance in his dialogic theory. Foucault is looking at discourse in his theory of discursive formation. Burke is looking at the statement in his theory of definition. The way that these theorists construe the basic unit of language suggests the varying functions and scopes and multiple framings of their theories.

Boundary between rhetor and audience

Aristotle and Bitzer suggests a firm boundary in their occasional theories of rhetoric. This is not the case in Weaver, Foucault, and Bahktin. Weaver suggests that we are all practicing rhetoricians. Foucault places everybody in ideological power structures, so while someone may have an author function, they are still situated within and susceptible to the power structure. Bahktin suggests that all speech is dialectic. Audience and speaker are equal participants.