saintadatha

Mikhael Bakthin, ostensibly a Soviet Marxian linguist, wrote that all language is culturally defined, specifically through use. This spoken language, equivalent to what Saussure called parole, stands in opposition to langue which is the theoretical system of language which Sausseurian theory deems 'more central'. So language is not defined by rules, but the rules of language are defined, implicitly, through use.

Bakhtin describes spoken words (including grammatical formations) as utterances, and all utterances are defined by two relationships:
1. to preceding utterances - i.e. when you learn a turn of phrase, in any language, it is through hearing it in a particular practical context (when someone is saying it), which was itself learned in an earlier context, which was... etc. And:
2. to the context in which they are likely to be received: who's listening, etc.

And this is the interesting bit (and I promise there is one... if you made it this far), because from this premise, or rather, simultaneously with this premise, Bakhtin takes all utterances as dialogic. That is, 'in dialogue with...'

He shifts the established (at least here) notion of parole as constructed through the individual's creativity, even if the individuals langue - or language system - is culturally sculpted, and moves it away from bring a tool of the present and solely of the individual. Language is shaped by the past and by the other.

He reasons that if language is about communication, then even when we talk to ourselves, write books, sculpt, dance solo in private, or paint (all means of communication), we are doing so before an imagined audience. Always.

It has sociopolitical importance also, as a theory... Like Marxism, it sees language as relating to issues of class and heirarchy (hence street slang, technical jargon (like this!) or formal speech), but more like Gramsci than Marx, it holds that it can be coercive, not strictly, mundanely subjugating. Its other break from traditional Marxist linguistic discourse is that it doesn't take language as being merely a tool of society (superstructure), but elevating it to the status of society itself (means of production). Remember: he said that language is not shaped by predetermined, somehow concrete rules, but that language is society, is culture.

I wonder about personal creativity, then. There is more to him than merely this (and much of him, probably contradicting what I think I understand , that I haven't read). And more problems besides. But, on the whole, I think that much of his work may be applicable. It's certainly seen a lot of use in the area of non-verbal performative theory (his concept of language is sometimes referred to as 'performative' because, obviously, of his emphasis), which is rather up my street.

And why have I told you all this?
1. This is what I did today.
2. It's fucking with my brain a little, and I though a rant would ease the burden and perhaps solve a few of the issues I have. Mission accomplished. Kinda.
3. Maybe someone reading this understands him better than me, and can nudge me back onto the road of truth and perfection (ahem).
4. You are my invisible audience. But you get to speak back!
5. No. It's really number 2, all the way on this one.

My apologies for boring you senseless.
If you're still there... erm... I promise to stop hiding anonymously behind other people's art. Or mine.
A photo, so you can no just how a man looks before knowledge pushes him over the edge...

Turning the analysis off can be hard. And the girl likes me. But she's still with her boyfriend. And sometimes I still want to fall in love with the inappropriate crush. Which might be my way of saying that I am. Or that I am not, but would like to be, at some almost-logical level.

Must sleep. This is what happens if I don't get to express often enough.
Grrrrrr!!! (but more like tigger, t - i - double-'g' - errrrrrr...)

Dream beautiful tales, one and all,
ads
x