I was rather fascinated with Bakhtin's thoughts on heteroglossia in terms of what it does, or rather what it means as far its connection to words and language. It can prove to act as somewhat of a powerful weapon in the arsenal of the author while using language while writing compared to using language verbally. I especially thought his notion of "double-voiced discourse" was interesting as well with regards to the same idea on language.Bakhtin describes double-voiced discourse in his essay as "another speech in another's language, serving to express authorial intentions, but in a refracted course (p. 324)." In writing, especially in the form of a novel, the author has the ability to mimic or even set the tone of the normal language used by the characters in the society of the text. The reader follows along with this normal or "common language(p. 301)" represented in the text in order to blend in with that society of the novel. Once this action has been set in motion, and the reader falls in line with the common language in the novel, then this thought of double-voiced discourse can really come into effect. Through the text, the author is able to get across multiple ideas to the reader with the same set of words and language in an almost subliminal fashion, thus creating this discourse.
It's strange to try to decipher how this could or could not be possible with verbal language. It honestly probably is not possible. The novel actually allows the author the ability to create society. They are in charge of how the language is used in the novelistic society. This isn't possible in verbal language in comparison to written.
Heteroglossia is also quite interesting with regards to Derrida's thoughts of differance and the fragility and instability of language. Heteroglossia in some sense works with the ideas of Derrida. Heteroglossia suggests that words are easily manipulated in the hands of the author. The meanings of words can bend to produce a double meaning, which is basically what Derrida was driving at in his discussion on Differance, that words can be performative taking on different roles. In the case of heteroglossia, the roles of words are assigned by the author. Language has almost been designed as it would seem to boast the author into this seat of ultimate power, giving him the ability to assign a role not only to the reader, but also the the words that are being used. It's difficult to completely comprehend, but thought provoking nonetheless.
I think it is interesting how you note the relation between heteroglossia and Derrida’s view of language being instable. I found that this term could also be used when looking at Locke’s opinion of language and the imperfections surrounding it throughout his Essay on Human Understanding. As it is defined in the Bedford Glossary, heteroglossia is “translated from the Russian razhorechie, meaning ‘different speech-ness’” (224). Therefore, it is essentially a representation of words or ideas having different meanings despite the author or speaker’s intention. You mention above that, “the meanings of words can bend to produce a double meaning,” and this idea can clearly be seen as one of the primary flaws of language that Locke argues. For example, like you, he recognizes how some words do not have a set definition but can hold many meanings in respect to individual people.
ReplyDeleteThe only place I would disagree with your understanding is your claim that the author has the most power in a situation like this. By applying Locke’s theory to the idea of heteroglossia, it seems that he would argue that the audience has a greater power for they have the ability to interpret what it is being said, and it may not be the interpretation the author intended. As Locke mentions, in order for an author to properly convey his message, he must use words that “excite in the hearer exactly the same idea they stand for in the mind of the speaker” (818). This brings us back to the flaw you presented earlier in regards to words bending in order to mold to a certain meaning, because of this, it seems it would be very challenging for an author to use words and assign roles that will be carried out exactly as he plans.
I am interested in your question about the existence of heteroglossia in speech acts and find that I am referring back to Aristotle’s On Rhetoric to contend that heteroglossia can exist here. In his work, recall Aristotle’s statement that both speaker’s character and audience’s emotions contribute to persuasion within the discourse realm (26). Thus, at least three “languages” – as understood by Bahktin – can be identified within speech: the unvoiced language of the speaker’s intent that underlies the spoken word, the language he actually uses (to manipulate others to submit to the intent) that references the worldviews of a variety in the voice of the majority, and the auditor’s language (either the mental language of one, or the interaction of many interpretations within a crowd).
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, heteroglossia seems fundamental to effective persuasion. Recall Aristotle’s idea that all speakers produce logical persuasion by means of rhetorical syllogism (enthymeme) and rhetorical induction (paradigm) (40). Many worldviews must be imitated and called upon in the controlled attempt to shape a single voice from the many languages of a stratified audience. Here, heteroglossia exists.