In Bakhtin’s essay Discourse In The Novel, Bakhtin’s discusses how language has the power start social discourse. Bakhtin also states that style is language. These two key factors and many others correspond with Burke’s explanation of, Hitlers Mein Kampf, and why it was such a powerful speech, in his essay The Rhetoric of Hitler’s “Battle”. To understand how Burke connects Bakhtin’s theory of language and style, one must understand how Bakhtin’s thought of language.
Bakhtin first starts off by discussing how style and language differ and create a form of language. In Schuster’s essay he claims that Bakhtin states that “to create a style is to create a language for oneself “ (Schuster 598). In other words Bakhtin thinks that if you can create you own style of speaking or conveying some sort of discourse/language to an audience, that person will be able to use it effectively in different ways. Bakhtin also wants us to understand that one can combine form and content. Basically Bakhtin wants us to know that styles in novels is not only projected the way the author wants to portray it. We can look at a novel through multiple different lenses. We don’t have to follow the authors point of view but we can develop our own point of view based on our own social or ideological point of views.
In Schuster’s essay he says that “for Bakhtin written language creates a dialogue between speaker and listener.” (Schuster 595). After reading this line I thought of how the spoken and written language differ based on how they connect with the audience. For instance one might be more inclined to argue or disagree with something while reading it. Where as the spoken language is harder to keep up with and fully contemplate the discourse involved.
Bakhtin also wants us to understand that language is generational. Over time language changes or evolves to fit in with the socio-ideological beliefs of the current generation. In other words, what one word may have meant 50 years ago, it might have a different meaning today based on the evolution of social acceptances or norms. Take into account the word “gay”. A hundred years ago the definition of “gay” was to be happy, merry or in high spirits. In to days social context the word means to have an attraction for the same sex. Bakhtin states that “language is totally socially embedded; it embodies the common view” (Bakhtin 302). Bakhtin is saying that language is going to change based of a common social understand or belief.
Bakhtin has many strong points of how language is used. In Burkes essay, he tries to explain to use how the use of style and language that Hitler used corresponds with Bakhtin’s theory that style effects language and how powerful it is. Burke talks about how the style of language that Hitler used for his speeches and essays, including Mein Kampf, was able to motivate his listeners to rise up or follow his anti-semitic ways. For this you have to take into account Bakhtin’s other theories about language being generational and how language creates a dialogue between the speaker and listener. For Hitler having an audience was everything. The stylistic language that Hitler used, allowed him to connect with the generation, and influence a new socio-ideological belief of the Aryan race.
I think your comment about the difference between spoken and written language is incredibly interesting and thought provoking. Though it may seem obvious, you hit on a subject that I think may be overlooked in both Bahktin and Schuster's pieces; mainly, because they aim to solely talk about the written word, yes, however the discourse between spoken word and written word is a discourse in itself, is it not? If all discourse is a dialogue between other discourses within language systems, then oral and written discourse must have a social and ideological interplay as well. When we think about oral conversation, the pre-meditated version of our words is less apparent; an oral speech utterance is fleeting, hanging in the air for a mere moment before it disappears into the abyss of our histories of oral communication and dialogue. Therefore, a speech utterance is not expected to solely come from the individual; heteroglossia is more assumed in the oral context, as the physical body is seen as more of an outlet of the expression/utterance rather than the "Author-God" of one. In writing, the utterance is heavily thought upon; this type of heteroglossia is inherent to language even though the creator pre-meditates upon his utterance before he utters. Bahktin alludes to this when he discusses the more prominent pre-meditation and intention of style in poetry rather than in novel discourse; intent IS his style, and style is his intent. Intended heteroglossia and double voiced discourse is both implicit and explicit in writing, whereas I would venture to say that the explicitness of heteroglossia in speech is less pre-meditated, though explicit and implicit on both ends as well. To each type of discourse, oral and written, style is inseparable from from the form, but inseparable in different ways.
ReplyDelete