P. 1
Bakhtin

Bakhtin

|Views: 114|Likes:
Published by Scott Read

More info:

Published by: Scott Read on Apr 12, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/12/2013

pdf

text

original

William E.

Cain
MARY JEWETT GAISER PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN STUDIES
WELLESLEY COLLEGE
Laurie A. Finke
PROFESSOR OF WOMEN'S AND GENDER STUDIES
KENYON COLLEGE
Barbara E. Johnson
PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE
FREDRIC WERTHAM PROFESSOR OF LAW AND PSYCHIATRY IN SOCIETY
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
John McGowan
PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH AND COMPARATIVE LITERATURE
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL
Jeffrey J. Williams
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
Il!lliil\ilii!i-_........._......-
-$-
The Norton Anthology
of Theory and Criticism
Vincent B. Leitch, General Editor
PROFESSOR AND PAUL AND CAROL DAUBE SUTTON CHAJR IN ENGLISH
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
W' W . NORTON & COMPANY· New York· London
1186 / MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
drops incendiaqr bombs over cities; and through gas warfare the aura is abol-
ished in a nfw way.
"Fiat ars-pereat mundus,"4 says Fascism, and as Marinetti admits, expects
war to supply the artistic gratification of a sense perception that has been
changed by technology. This is evidently the consummation of ''l'art pour
l'art." Mankind, which in Homer's time an object of contemplation for
the Olympian gods, now is one for itself. Its self-J3.lienation has reached such
a degree that can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure
of the first order. This is the situation of politics which Fascism is rendering
aesthetic. Communism responqs by politicizing art. .
1936
4. Let art be made, let the world perish (Latin).
MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
1895-1975
Pro,claimed by 1ZVETAN TODOROV as perhaps the greatest twentieth-century theorist
of literature, M. M. Bakhtin, since his discovery in the 1970s, has been acclaimed by
literary critics across a wide theoretical and political spectrum. He has been called a
formalist, a Marxist, a Christian humanist, a conservative, and a radical; because his
work intersects in eccentric ways with so many of the critical orthodoxies of twentieth-
century literary criticism, it resists easy classification.
Almost everything about Bakhtin's life and writing is colored by the fact that his
greatest period of productivity coincided with the Russian Revolution, the ensuing
civil war (1918-21), and the repressive Soviet regime under Joseph Stalin. Lacking
Communist Party credentials, he labored most of his adult life in obscurity, a circum-
stance that probably saved his life at a time when his close-and better connected-
friends were disappearing into death camps. The circumstances of Bakhtin's life make
it sometimes difficult to verify the authorship and chronology of his writings. Certain
works written during his youth in the 1920i; were not published until late in his life
or after his death, and controversies continue over three disputed books from the
1920s that appeared under the names of his colleagues Valentin Volosinov and Pavel
Medvedev, held by some to be the works of Bakhtin himself. Yet these clifficulties in
separating Bakhtin's voice from those of others are of a piece with his own philo-
sophical beliefs about the dialogic nature of language. As he wrote in a note that was
later published in his Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, "Quests for my own words
are quests for a word that is not my own."
Born in the Russian town of Orel, Bakhtin grew up in Vilnius and later Odessa.
He earned a degree in classics and philology from the University of Petrograd in 1918.
Working as a schoolteacher in Nevel in western Russia during the civil war between
the Red Army and the anti-Bolshevist White armies, he first met the group of intel-
lectuals who would become part of his circle and within whose wide-ranging discus-
sions Bakhtin would formulate the critical concepts that were to dominate his
thinking for the rest of his life. In 1920 Bakhtin settled in Vitebsk, where his circle,
which by now included Volosinov and Medvedev, continued to meet. In 1924 BakhtiI)
moved back to Petrograd (or St. Petersburg), now renamed Leningrad; there in Jan-
uary 1929 he was arrested and imprisoned for alleged activity and
the Socratic crime of "corrupting the young." In prison he suffered from health
MIKHAIL M. BAKHTlN / 1187
lems caused by chronic osteomyelitis, a painful inflammation of the bone marrow.
He was sentenced to ten years in a labor camp, but on the intervention of friends,
the sentence was commuted to six years' internal exile in Kazakhstan. In 1936, his
exile over, he taught at Mordovia Pedagogical Institute in Saransk until new purges
forced him to resign. He moved to a small town outside of Moscow where his wors-
ening osteomyelitis led to the amputation of his right leg. Mter that surgery, Bakhtin
had difficlj.lty finding permanent employment, though he occasionally delivered lec-
tures at the Gorky Institute of World Literature.
In the and 1940s Bakhtin began to W!ite a dissertation on the French writer
Franc;ois Rabelais (1490-1553), as well as a book on novels that chronicle the main
ch,aracter's maturation and education (the bildungsrOlpan). World War II inter-
rupted his work on the dissertation, and a shortage of cigarette paper led Bakhtin to
sacrifice pages from the book on the bildungsroman to his nicotine habit; only frag-
ments of this book survive. Following the war, Bakhtin was allowed to return to his
university position in Saransj<, and to his unfinished dissertation on Rabelais.
Although he was finally granted the doctoral degree, he could not publish his disser-
tation; it remained unread until it was discovered in the Gorky Institute's archives
by graduate studeI].ts in the early 1960s. Mter Stalin's death in 1953, Bakhtin's
scholarly fortunes began to rise even as his health began to decline. In addition to
osteomyelitis, he also suffered from emphysema caused by his heavy smoking. By
the time of his death from complications of emphysema, he had become something
of a cult figure in Russia. In the 1970s his reputation spread to Paris through the
work of Eastern European emigres such as JULIA KRISTEVA and Tzvetan Todorov;
from there in the 1980s it reached North America and England, where his work had
significant impact.
Bakhtiri's earliest writings, in such essays as "Towards a Philosophy of the Act"
(1919, published 1986) and "Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity" (1919, published
1975), are densely philosophical and heavily indebted to IMMANUEL KANT (1724--
1804). Although these lengthy essays exhibit a keen interest in phenomenology and
the intersubjective nature of language, the publications of the Bakhtin Circle from
the late 1920s defined the problems of language that would occupy Bakhtin for, the
rest of his life. In 1926 Volosinov published Freudianism: A Marxist Critique, and
Medvedev followed in 1928 with The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship. In 1929
Volosinov's Marxism and the Philosophy of Language appeared and also Bakhtin's
Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, the only book to be published under his own name
before Stalin's death. Critics wary of Marxism have attempted to distance Bakhtin
from the work of his circle, arguing that he did not share the Communist sympathies
of Volosinov and Medvedev (both members of the Communist Party; both disap-
peared during the political purges of the 1930s). But regardless of whether Bakhtin
actually wrote the books ascribed to his two colleagues, as some have claimed, the
influences among the members of the circle were undoubtedly strong and indelible.
Bakhtin's words became inextricably and dialogically intertwined with those of his
collaborators, whose thought influenced the key concepts he later developed in his
celebrated writings on the novel.
Bakhtin's theory of the novel relies on three key concepts. The carnivalesque-an
idea first introduced in Rabelais and His World (written in the 1930s and 1940s,
published 1965)-is Bakhtin's term for those forms of unofficial culture (the early
novel among them) that resist official culture, political oppression, and totalitarian
order through laughter, parody, and "grotesque realism." In "Forms of Time and
Chronotope in the Novel" (1937-38), he develops the influential term chronotope to
describe the intrinsic connectedness of time and space and their central role in con-
stituting literary genres. Finally and most significantly, the dialogism of language, the
"intense interanirnation and struggle between one's own and another's word," would
come to dominate Bakhtin's thinking about language after 1926. This concept of the
multivoiced nature of discourse received its fullest treatment in "Discourse in the
1188 / MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
Novel" (1934-35), a key text for narrative, linguistic, and literary theory, from which
we have taken our selection.
Bakhtin here addresses the limitations for literary studies of the abstract and for-
mal analyses of literary technique widespread among critics during the interwar
period. Traditional linguistics, stylistics, and literary theory-including the theory of
the Russian formalists, represented by critics like BORIS EICHENBAUM-as well as
contemporary Marxist philosophy of language (see LEON TROTSKY) and the new
structural linguistics indebted to FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE, all fail to articulate an
adequate account of the novel because they have not pursued a properly "sociologi-
cal stylistics." The philosophy of language on which these inadequate critical meth-
ods are based posits, on the one hand, a unitary system of language-a system of
more or less absolute norms that govern speech-and, on the other hand, an individ-
ual who is seen as the controlling "author" of discourse. Bakhtin calls such a view of
language "monologic," and he argues that it is alien to the dynamics of the novel
because it describes not real, living language but an abstraction created through self-
conscious deliberation about language and cut off from the daily ideological activi-
ties of social life. Living language exhibits heteroglossia, the term Bakhtin famously
uses· to describe the "internal stratification" of language: the interplay among its
social dialects, class dialects, professional jargons, languages of generations and
groups and of passing fads, "languages that serve the specific sociopolitical purposes
of the day, even of the hour." Heteroglossia, which Bakhtin hails as the characteris-
tic stylistic feature of the novel, celebrates not, as structuralism does, the systematic
nature of language but the multiplicity of all those "centrifugal" forces at work in
language, the variety of social speech types, and the diversity of voices interacting
with one another.
Central to Bakhtin's theory of the novel is his belief that language is fundamentally
dialogic. "Discourse in the Novel" offers his most elaborate analysis of "dialogism"
and its relationship to style in the novel. Between any word and its object, between
any word and its speaking subject, between any word and its active respondent(s),
Bakhtin argues, there exists "an elastic environment of other, alien words about the
same object"; and this "dialogically agitated and tension-filled environment of alien
words, value judgments and accents" that weaves in and out of discourse in complex
patterns finds its most artistic expression in the novel. Bakhtin celebrates the dialogics
of the novel while criticizing the monologism of poetry, which characteristically aims
for a unified and pure discourse. Although conflict, contradiction, and doubt may be
present in the subject matter of poetry, they do not, according to Bakhtin, enter into
the language of the poem itself, as they consistently do in the novel.
Bakhtin's theories can sometimes appears confusing and vague because his critical
terminology often seems at once evaluative and descriptive; he regularly establishes
his critical vocabulary by defining certain terms positively against related terms given
negative valences. Thus the novel is opposed to poetry, the carnivalesque to official
discourse, the dialogic to the monologic. These judgments have posed problems for
critics who value those genres that Bakhtin most frequently derogates as monologic,
especially poetry, the epic, and drama. Other critics object that it is not clear to what
degree Bakhtin espouses a mimetic theory of literature, insofar as language for him
seems less to represent or reflect reality than to refract and rework it.
Nevertheless, Bakhtin's work has been much admired and extended by scholars in
many fields. Those in cultural studies have found two major contributions particularly
useful. First, Bakhtin focuses on "language" as the utterances of speaking subjects:
that is, as spoken "discourse" and not the impersonal, prevocal signifiers or rhetorical
tropes posited by the influential structuralist and poststructuralist traditions. Second,
he insists that discourse unfolds in a heteroglot, dialogic force field of conflicting
interests and ideologies-with literary language being only one of many discursive
strata and itself divided by generic, stylistic, professional, and other special features.
MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN / 1189
These Bakhtinian views, widely advocated by cultural studies scholars promote a
complex sociopoetics suited to a contemporary globalized world of peoples
languages, and cultural forms. '
BIBLIOGRAPHY
standard Russian-language edition of Bakhtin's works, Sobranie sochinenii,
edIted by S. G. Bocharov and L. A. Gogotishvill (1996-), is projected to include seven
The earliest works survive only in fragments, collected and translated into
English by Vadim Liapunov as Art and Answerability (1990) and Taward a Philosophy
ofthe Act (1993). Problems ofDostoevshy's Poetics, first published in 1929 was revised
and reissued in Russian in 1963; Caryl Emerson translated it into Enalish in 1984
Bakhtin's dissertation of the 1930s and1940s, finally published in 1965 was
lated by Helene Iswolsky as Rabelais and His World (1968). The import;nt aroup of
lengthy essays Bakhtin wrote between 1934 and 1941-includina "Discour;e in the
not in Russia until 1973; they were by Caryl Emer-
and MIchael HolqUlst as The Dialogic Imagination (1981). Fragments of Bakh-
tm
s late-and largely unfinished-works were collected in a Russian volume and
translated into English as Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (1986). Works attrib-
uted to by some scholars though their title pages list other authors include
V. N. Volosmov, Freudianism: A Marxist Critique (1926; trans. 1976); P. N. Med-
vedev, T1,e Fonnal Method in Literary Scholarship (1928; trans. 1978); and Volosinov
Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (1929; trans. 1973). '
The standard biography is Katerina Clark and Michael Holquist, Mihhail Bahhtin
(.1984). Gary Sau! Morson edited one of the first English collections of essays, Bahh-
tm: Essays and Dmlogues on His Worh (1981), still valuable for its critical readinas.
Tzvetan Todorov, who, with Julia Kristeva, was instrumental in brincina
work to the attention of the West, provides a useful brief introduction"'to Bakhtinian
dialogics in Mihhail Bahhtin: The Dialogic Principle (1984). Two collections of
essays-Bahhtin Cultural Theory, edited by Ken Hirschkop and David Shepherd
(1989), and Rethtnbng Bahhtin: Extensions and Cl,allenges, edited by Gary Saul Mor-
son and Caryl Emerson (1989)-offer readings of Bakhtin across a ranae of theoret-
ical and poli.tical positions. For the feminist reception of Bakhtin, see D;le Bauer and
F Bal<htin, and the Dialogic (1991). Michael Holquist's
Balthtmand Hts World (1991) provides a comprehensive overviewof Bakh-
tin s ,:"ork. Gary. Saul and Caryl Emerson's Mihhail Bahhtin: Creation of a
IS the smgle most thorough and authoritative book-length study of
Bakhtm wrItmg and should be the starting point for more advanced study of his
work. MIchael F. Bernard-DonaIs, in Mihhail Bahhtin: Between Phenomenology and
Marxism (1994), examines Bakhtin in relation to these two influential of
twentieth-century theory. With the end of the cold war in 1989, the work of Russian
scholars on Bakhtin has become available for the first time, notably in Face to Face:
Bahhtin in Russia a:zd the West, e?ited by Carol Adlam (1997), which collects essays
from a 1995 Bakhtm m Moscow. Sue Vice's Introducing Bahhtin (1997)
may be a more accessIble introduction than Todorov's for students new to Bakhtin's
thought. For a retrospective on Bakhtin's works that places him in the context of
twentieth-century Russian thought, see Caryl Emerson The First One Htmdred Years
of Mihhail Bahhtin (1997), as well as Critical Essays of Bahhtin, edited by Emerson
(1999). Joan Nordquist has compiled two useful bibliographies, Mihhail Ba7<htin
(1988) and Mihhail Bahhtin II: A Bibliograpl,y (1993).
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL I 1191
Toward the end of the last century, as a counterweight to this abstract
ideological way of viewing things, interest began to grow in the concrete
problems of artistic craftsmanship in prose, in the problems of novel and
short-story technique. However, in questions of stylistics the situation did
not change in the slightest; attention was concentrated almost exclusively
on problems of composition (in the broad sense of the word). But, as before,
the peculiarities of the stylistic life of discourse in the novel (and in the short
story as well) lacked an approach that was both principled and at the same
time concrete (one is impossible without the other); the same arbitraryjudg-
mental observations about language-in the spirit of traditional stylistics-
continued to reign supreme, and they totally overlooked the authentic nature
of artistic prose.
There is a highly characteristic and widespread point of view that sees
novelistic discourse as an extra-artistic medium, a discourse that is not
worked into any special or unique style. After failure to find in novelistic
discourse a purely poetic fonnulation ("poetic" in the narrow sense) as was
expected, prose discourse is denied any artistic value at all; it is the same as
practical speech for everyday life, or speech for scientific purposes, an artis-
tically neutral means of communication.
2
Such a point of view frees one from the necessity of undertaking stylistic
analyses of the novel; it in fact gets rid of the very problem of a stylistics of
the novel, permitting one to limit oneself to purely thematic analyses of it.
It was, however, precisely in the 1920s that this situation changed: the
novelistic prose word began to win a place for itself in stylistics. On the one
hand there appeared a series of concrete stylistic analyses of novelistic prose;
on the other hand, systematic attempts were made to recognize and define
the stylistic uniqueness of artistic prose as distinct from poetry.
But it was precisely these concrete analyses and these attempts at a prin-
cipled approach that made patently obvious the fact that all the categories
of traditional stylistics-in fact the very concepfof apoetic artistic discourse,
which lies at the heart of such categories-were not applicable to novelistic
. discourse. Novelistic discourse proved to be the acid test for this whole way
"'of conceiving style, exposing the narrowness of this type of thinking and its
inadequacy in all areas of discourse's artistic life.
All attempts at concrete stylistic analysis of novelistic prose either strayed
into linguistic descriptions of the language of a given novelist or else limited
themselves to those separate, isolated stylistic elements of the novel that
were includable (or gave the appearance of being includable) in the tradi-
tional categories of stylistics. In both instances the stylistic whole of the novel
and of novelistic discourse eluded the investigator.
The novel as a whole is a phenomenon multiform in style and variform in
the communicative function, directing our atten-
tion to thematic aspects quite abstracted from
purely verbal considerations. We cannot call such
a literary worlt a work of verbal art or, in any case,
J?ot in the sense that .the term is used for lyrical
poetry" ["On the Problem of the Formal Method,"
in an anthology of his articles, Problems ofa T7teoTy
of Literature (Leningrad, 1928, p. 173); Russian
edition: "K voprosu 0 Iformal' nom metode'," in
Voprosy teorii literatury (L., 1928) (trans.) Bakh-
tin's note]. Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910), Russian nov-
elist and moral philosopher.
2. As recently as the 1920s, V. M. Zirmunskij
fellow traveler oflhe Formalists (trans-
lators' note)] was writing: "When lyrical poetry
appears to be authentically a work ofverbal art, due
to its choice and corribination of words (on seman-
tic as well as sound levels) all of which are com-
pletely subordinated to. the aesthetic project,
Tolstoy's novel, by co:qtrast, which is free in its ver-
bal composition, does not use words as an artisti-
cally significant element of interaction but as a
neutral II!edium or as a system of significations
subordinated ('IS happens in practical speech) to
1190 I MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
I. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, who occasionally retain the original Russian words
or add information in brackets.
From Discourse in the Novell
Modem Stylistics & the Novel
Before the twentieth century, problems associated with a of the
novel had not been precisely formulated-such a formulation could
have resulted from a recognition of the stylistic uniqueness of novehstic
(artistic-prose) discourse. .
For a long time treatment of the novel l!mited to little more than
abstract ideological examination and pubhCIstIc
questions of stylistics were either not treated at all or m passmg and
in an arbitrary way: the discourse of artistic prose was.eIther as
being poetic in the narrow sense, and had the of styl-
istics (based on the study of tropes) uncritically applied to It, or such
q
uestions were limited to empty, evaluative terms for the charactenzatIOn of
". " "f "" I .ty" a d so on-
language, such as "expressiveness," Imagery, c n
without providing these concepts with any StyhStIC sIgmficance, however
vague and tentative.
The principal idea of this essay is that the study of verbal art can and must
overcome the between an abstract "formal" approach and an equally
abstract "ideological" approach. Form and content in discourse are one,
we understand that verbal discourse is' a social phenomenon-soCIal
throughout its entire range and in each and every of its factors, from the
sound image to the furthest reaches of .. "
It is this idea that has motivated our emphaSIS on the styhstI
cs
of genre.
The separation of style and language the of has been
largely responsible for a situation in whIch only mdiVIdual
overtones of a style are the privileged subjects of study, whIle ItS baSIC socIal
tone is ianored. The areat historical destinies of genres are overshadow.ed by
the pett; vicissitudes"of stylistic modifications, which their turn .lmked
with individual artists and artistic movements. For thIS reason, StyhStICS h.as
been deprived of an authentic philosophical approach to ItS
problems; it has become bogged down in styhstIC trIVIa; It IS not able to
behind the individual and period-bound shifts the great and anonymous des
tinies of artistic discourse itself. More often than not,
as a stylistics of "private craftsmanship" and ignores the SOCIal life of
course outside the artist's study, discourse in the open of public
streets, cities and villages, of social groups, epochs.
Stylistics is concerned not with living but a spec-
. e made from it with abstract linguistic dIscourse m the serVIce of an
individual powers. But these individual and
tones of style, cut off from the fundamentally social modes m whIch
course lives, inevitably come across as flat and abstract in such a fonnulatIO.n
and cannot therefore be studied in organic unity with a work's semantic
components.
1192 / MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
. . . 'nvestiaator is confronted with several
speech and vOIce. In It the II °d d'fferent linguistic levels and subject
neous stylistic unities, often ocate on I
to different stylistic controls. f 'f aI-stylistic unities into which
We list below the basic types 0 composl IOn
the novelistic whole usually breaks down:
., ation (in all its diverse variants);
(1) Direct authorial literary-artistic n;rr I everyday narration (slwz);3
(2) Stylization of the fr
ms
0 t
ra
iliterary (written) everyday nar-
(3) Stylization of the orms.o sem
ration (the letter, the diaryb' etc.), ti' ti'c authorial speech (moral, phil-
(·4) . f f l"terary ut extra-ar s . .
Vanous orms 0 I t ethnoaraphic descnptlOns,
osophical or scientific statements, ora ory, 0
memoranda and so forth); f h t
d"d I' d speech 0 c arac ers. (5) The stylistically in IV! ua Ize
li . unities upon entering the novel, combine
These heterogeneous. sty StlC dare subordinated to the higher styl-
to form a structured artIstIc an.ty that cannot be identified with any
istic unity of the work as a who e, a um .
f h 't' s subordinated to It. I' h
single one 0 t e um Ie h I a genre consists precise y m t e
h I" . ueness of t e nove as 't'
Testy IStlC umq . d et still relatively autonomous, um les
combination of these subordmate , YI ). to the higher unity of the
. d f d'ff rent anauaaes m .
(even at times compnse 0 I e I' °b fund in the combination ohts
work as a whole: the style of a nove IS to e "Ianauaaes" Each separate
I f ovel is the system 0 ISo 0 . b
styles; the anguage 0 an. d '. d first of all by one such su or-
element of a novel's language,l.s e.termme d' ctly-be it the stylistically
I·· 'ty . to whIch It enters Ire
dinated sty IStIc um m th d to-earth voice of a narrator
I· d h f a character e own- f .
individua lZe speec 0 The and stylistic profile 0 a
in slcaz, a letter or whatever. . o. . h ed by that subordinated umty
I . I fc syntactic) IS s ap . I
element ( eXIca , seman I '. . t At the same time thIS e ement,
to which it is most immedIately . to the style of the whole,
.. t' mediate umty, guresm
toaether WIth ItS mos 1m f h h I and participates in the process
o If t the accent 0 t e woe did
itse suppor s . f th hole is structured an revea e .
whereby the unified meamng 0 d.
e
w . f ocial speech types (sometimes
The novel can be defined as a Sf individual voices, artistically
. f I aes) and a Iversl 0 .
even diverSIty 0 angua
o
'fi' f sinale national language mto
d Th . t al strati catIon 0 any 0 .
organize. e m ern .. behavior, rofessional jargons, genenc
social dialects, charactenstlc gr.oup d tendentious languages,
I of aeneratlOns an age 0' f h' I
languages, anguages .0. f arious circles and of passing as IOns, an-
languages of the 0 v. 0 olitical urposes of the day, even of the
auaaes that serve the speCIfic SOCI P abulary its own emphases)-
o 0 h d h 't wn sloaan ItS own voc, f
hour (eac ay as ISO 0 '. I aae at any aiven moment 0
I 'fi t' resent In every angu 0 0 I
this interna stratI ca IOn p d bl erequisite for the nove as a
I · .s the in ispensa e pr Id f
its historica eXIstence I II its themes, the totality of the w?r .0 .
genre. The novel orchestrates ad' .t by means of the social dIverSIty
d 'd d 'cted and expresse m I, h fl
objects an leas epI v.] db h d'fferin
a
individual voices t at our-
of speech types [raznorecte an {t. I h
0
the speeches of narrators,
ish under such conditions. Aut ona speec ,
3 This term has no precise in
. . d f narratIon t at lffil-
slwz is a techlmquehor of an individualized
tates the ora speec or
. Mark Twain's "Celebrated]umping
narrator, as In C ty" (1865). Slwz was the
Frog of Calaveras oun ...
subject of much Russian formalist CrItICIsm.
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL / 1193
inserted genres, the speech of characters are merely those fundamental com-
positional unities with whose help heteroglossia [raznoreeie] can enter the
novel; each of them permits a multiplicity of social voices and a wide variety
of their links and interrelationships (always more Or less dialogized). These
distinctive links and interrelationships between utterances and lanauaaes
o 0 , this movement of the theme through different languages and speech types,
its dispersion into the riVUlets and droplets of social heteroglossia, its dia-
logization-this is the basic distinguishing feature of the stylistics of the
novel.
Such a combining of languages and styles into a higher unity is unknown
to traditional stylistics; it has no method for approaching the distinctive
social dialogue among languages that is present in the novel. Thus stylistic
analysis is not oriented toward the novel as a whole, but only toward one or
another of its subordinated stylistic Unities. The traditional scholar bypasses
the basic distinctive feature of the novel as a genre; he substitutes for it
another object of study, and instead of novelistic style he actually analyzes
something completely different. He transposes a symphonic (orchestrated)
theme on to the piano keyboard.
We notice two such types of substitutions: in the first type, an analysis of
novelistic style is replaced by a description of the language of a given novelist
(or at best of the "languages" of a given novel); in the second type, one of
the subordinated styles is isolated and analyzed as if it were the style of the
whole.
In the first type, style is cut off from considerations of genre, and from
the work as such, and regarded as a phenomenon of language itself: the unity
of style in a given work is transformed either into the unity of an individual
language ("individual dialect"), or into the unity of an individual speech
(parole). It is precisely the individuality of the speaking subject that is rec-
ognized to be that style-generating factor transforming a phenomenon of
language and linguistics into a stylistic unity.
We have no need to foIIow where such an analysis of novelistic style leads,
whether to a disclosing of the novelist's individual dialect (that is his vocab-
liIary, his syntax) or to a disclosing of the distinctive features ;f the work
taken as a "complete speech act," an "utterance." Equally in both cases, style
is understood in the spirit of S
a
ussure:
4
as an individualization of the general
language (in the sense of a system of general language norms). Stylistics is
transformed either into a curious kind of linguistics treating individual lan-
guages, or into a linguistics of the utterance.
In accordance with the point of view selected, the unity of a style thus
presupposes on the one hand a unity of language (in the sense of a system
of general normative forms) and on the other hand the unity of an individual
person realizing himself in this language.
Both these conditions are in fact obligatory in the majority of verse-based
poetic genres, but even in these genres they far from exhaust or define the
style of the work The most precise and complete description of the individual
language and speech of a poet-even if this deScription does choose to treat
the expressiveness of language and speech elements-does not add up to a
4. Specifically, the emphasis by the French linguist FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE (1857-1913) on lang,," (a
language system) and parole (individual speech).
most characteristic of literary prose [Bakhtin's
rote] .. (1886-1959), Russian
cntic. Vlktor ShldovskJ (1893-1984)
RUSSIan formalist writer and critic. '
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL / 1195
might select elements of vernacular e al-
aspects that prOvide the in£ _ xtr Iterary narration (sh.az) or those
might do, for example in nedcessary to further the plot (as one
fi II 'yzIngan a venture novel) 5 And - .
na y, to select those purely dram ti I - It IS possible,
narrational aspect to the I I fa c e ements of the novel that lower the
I
, h eve 0 a commentary on th d- I
nove s c aracters. But the syste fIe la ogues of the
I I di m 0 anauaaes in dram' -'
comp ete y -fferent principles d th f; b. a IS orgamzed on
different than do the 'th ere oreI ItS languages sound utterly
- b 0 e nove. In drama th .
encompassIna languaae t'hat dd _ ere IS no all-
. b b, a resses ItS If d' I . II
guages, there is no second all-en ' _ e la OgIca y to separate lan-
outside that of the plotless (nondramatic) dialogue
All these types of analysis are inade h
elistic whole but even of that I to t e style not only of the nov-
I
. e ement ISO ated as funda tIC
nove -Inasmuch as that element re ". men a lor a given
changes its stylistic meaning and' movedbfro
m
h
ItS Interaction with others,
in the novel. ceases to e t at which it in fact had been
The current state of questions posed bal' .
fully and clearly that all the c t _ Yd sty IStICS of the novel reveals
- ' , a egones an methods of tr diti I I '
remaIn incapable of dealina ef£ ti I . h ' a ona sty iStics
COurse in the novel or withbth ec the artistic uniqueness of dis-
"p . ' espeCI c fe that d' 1 d .
oetlc lan,QUaae" "ir:idl-VI-d lity fl ISCOurse ea s In the novel.
b b' ua 0 anguaoe·""· 0 "" b I""
and other general categories worked t b d sym 0, epic style"
the entire set of concrete styli ti d an applIed by stylistics, as well as
matter how differently .by these categories (no
ented toward the sinale-l d y Inddn:dual cntIcs), are all equally ori-
b anguaae an SInal tyl d
poetic genres in the narrow of th b e-s : genres, toward the
orientation explains a number Th:lr connection with this
tations of traditional styliSti . t e particular features and limi-
hi
'l' c categones_ All these c t a' d
P osophical conception of po t' d' a ebones, an the very
are too narrow and cramped IC ISCourse in which they are grounded,
novelistic discourse. ,cannot accommodate the artistic prose of
Thus stylistics and the ph'l h f d'
1:ither to acknowledge the lOS? YJ ISCourse indeed confront a dilemma:
in that direction) an (an all artistic prose tending
-d ' IC or quasI-artistIc gen t di 11
Sl er that conception of p t- d' _ re, or 0 ra ca y recon-
, oe IC IScourse In whi h t di' I
grounded and which determines ll't . c ra tIona stylistics is
Th' d'l ' a I s categones_
IS I emma, however, is by no means' II "
ars are not inclIned to undertake a rad' y recognIZed. Most schol-
o,sophical conception ofpoetl'c d' IcaMreVIslon of the fundamental phil-
th ' . ISCourse any do t
e philosophical roots of the stylistics (- d 1" _ e:en or recognize
and shy away from any fu d . , I an IngUIstIcs) III whIch they work
, ' . n amenta philosophic I . Th '
to see behirid their isolated ' d fr ' ,.Issues. ey utterly fail
guistic descriptions any theo:ic I stylIstIC observations and lin-
Others-rriore principled- ak a £ems by novelistic discourse.
understanding of languaae or individualism in their
styliStic phenomenon a direct a' d e_ adn, oremost they seek in the
n unme late expression of authorial indi-
5. prose has been studied in Russia
the. Forn:'ahsts largely on these two last Jevels
. at IS,. eIther skaz JEichenbaum) or
mformatlOnal aspects (ShkIovsky) were studiId as
stylistic analysis of the work, inasmuch as these elements relate to a system
of language or to a system of speech, that is, to various linguistic unities and
not to the system of the artistic work, which is gover.ned by a completely
different system of rules than those that govern the linguistic systems of
language and of speech.
But-we repeat-in the majority of poetic genres, the unity of the lan-
guage system and the unity (and uniqueness) of the poet's individuality as
reflected in his language and speech, which is directly realized in this unity,
are indispensable prerequisites of poetic style. The novel, however, not only
does not require these conditions but (as we have said) even makes of the
internal stratification of language, of its social heteroglossia and the variety
of individual voices in it, the prerequisite for authentic novelistic prose.
Thus the substitution of the individualized language of the novelist (to the
extent that one can recover this language from the "speech" and "language"
systems of the novel) for the style of the novel itself is doubly imprecise: it
distorts the very essence of a stylistics of the novel. Such substitution inev-
itably leads to the selection from the novel of only those elements that can
be fitted within the frame of a single language system and that express,
directly and without mediation, an authorial individuality in language_ The
whole of the novel and the specific tasks involved in constructing this whole
out of heteroglot, multi-voiced, multi-styled and often multi-languaged ele-
ments remain outside the boundaries of such a study_
Such is the first type of substitution for the proper object of study in the
stylistic analysis of the novel. We will not delve further into the diverse var-
iations of this type, which are determined by the different ways in which
such concepts as "the speech whole," "the system of language," "the individ-
uality of the author's language and speech" are understood, and by a differ-
ence in the very way in which the relationship between style and language
is conceived (and also the relationship between stylistics and linguistics). In
all possible variants on this type of analysis, which acknowledge only one
single language and a single authorial individuality expressing itself directly
in that language, the stylistic nature of the novel slips hopelessly away from
the investigator.
The second type of substitution is characterized not by an orientation
toward the language of the author, but rather toward the style of the novel
itself-although style thus understood is narrowed down to mean the style
of merely one out of the several subordinated unities (which are relatively
autonomous) within the novel.
In the majority of cases the style of the novel is subsumed under the
concept of "epic style," and the appropriate categories of traditional stylistics
are applied to it_ In such circumstances only those elements of epic repre-
sentation (those occurring predominantly in direct authorial speech) are iso-
lated from the novel for consideration_ The profound difference between
novelistic and purely epic modes of expression is ignored. Differences
between the novel and the epic are usually perceived on the level of com-
position and thematics alone.
In other instances, different aspects of novelistic style are selected out as
most characteristic of one or another concrete literary work. Thus the nar-
rational aspect can be considered from the point of view not of its objective
descriptive mode, but of its subjective expression mode (expressiveness)_ One
1194 / MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
1196 / MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
.. such an understanding of the problemis least likely of to
VIduahty, and . . f b . tylistic categories in the proper dlrec-
encourage a reconsIderation 0 aSlC s
tion. l' f r dilemma that does take basic
However, there is another SOdUti°1n 0 o.u
d
oft-ne<71ected rhetoric, which
. t· one nee on y conSI er 0 d
concepts mto accoun . .. .. urview Once we have restore
for centuries has included artistic prose m Idths
P
e to th'e old concept of poetic
11 ' . t '<7hts we maya er
rhetoric to a ItS ancIen no .' 1f " rythin<7 in novelistic prose that
. 1 <7 f <7 to "rhetonca orms eve 0
dlscourse
fi
, re m
o
tean bed of traditional stylistic categories. 6 • h
does not t t e 7 . osed such a solution to the dilemma, WIt
Gustav Shpet, m hlsdtIme, He utterly excluded artistic prose and
all due an chonsls the realm of poetry, and assigned
its ultimate reallzatIOn-:-t e nove om
h f rely rhetorical forms.
8
it to t e category 0 pu b h 1. "The reco<7nition that contem-
Here is what Shpet says a out t .e . l-do ;ot spring from poetic
pora?, of moral is an admission, and a con-
creat1Vlty but are purely rheton . h t' mediately confronting a for-
. h tly cannot anse WIt ou 1m . .
ceptIOn, t at apparen f f h . al reco<7nition despite everything,
midable obstacle in the onn 0 t e al ";'9 '
d h t 'n aesthetIc vue.
that the novel oes . ave a cer all thetic significance. The novel is an
Shpet utterly the any ates ora form of moral propaganda";
extra-artistic rhetoncal genre, the J.m
p
ry ("n the sense we have indi-
artistic discourse is exclusively poetic Iscourse I
cated above). I {oint of view in his book On
Viktor Vinogradov
1
adopted an p rose to rhetoric. While agree-
Artistic Prose, assigning the problemlo
d
afir p f the "poetic" and the "rhe-
' b . h'l ophica e ill IOns 0
ing with Shpet s aSlC p I os t aradoxically consistent: he
torical," Vinogradov was, nOd fSO p ("a hybrid formation") and
d h I a syncretic mIKe orm I
considere t e. nove . d 1 ' 'th rhetorical elements, some pure y
admitted that It contame , a ong WI
poetic 2 • I I excludes novelistic prose, as a rhetorical
The pomt of VIew that comp ete y. . t f VI'ew that is basically false-
. fr h I of poetry-a pom 0 .
formatIOn, om t e rea m .. d' t ble merit There resides in It an
does nevertheless have a .certam
d
I.n ISPbuta ce of inadequacy of all con-
I d .. clple an In su s an .
aclmowe gment m pnn . h' h'l hical and lin<7uistic base, when It
temporary stylistics, along of prose. And
comes to defining the spec.lfic IS n h t . I forms has a <7reat heuristic
what is more, the very relIance on r e onca 0
6 Such a solution to the problem was especial.ly
t' tina- to adherents of the formal method .In
in fact, the re-establishment of
P'th II its rights oreatly strengthens the FormalIst
rhetoric is a
io Formalist poetics. Our FormalIsts were bello
completely consistent when they spoke of t(he
necessity of reviving rhetoric alongside
this see B. NI. Eichenbaum, Literature
Len'inorad, 1927], pp. 147-48) [Bakhtin s.note].
7 Shpet (1879-1937), outstandmg,rlt;
of the neo-Kantian and (especla y
Husserlian traditions in Russia; as Ahe
University of Moscow for many years eRIn u-
enced many (among others, the young oman
Jakobson) [translators!
(1724-1804), German IdealIst ph,losophe.
Edmund Husser! (1859-1938),
enologist. JAKOBSON ,o8?6-1982), RussIan- om
literary theorist and lingUIst. .
8 Originally in his Aesthetic Fragme1tts
Id.e fraomentJ']; in a more complete aspect In .t .e
book TIte Inner Fonn of the [VnutrennJaJa
Jonna s!ova] (M., 1927) [BaklItin s note]'Balchti 's
9. Vnutrennjaja fomta slova1 p.215 [ n
note]. ) tand'ng
I Viktor Vinogradov (1895-1969, outs. I
and student of style in a
critic of the Formalists, and Important
in his own right (especially hIS work on slw... tee
nique) [translators' note]. [0 d-
2 V V _Vinogradov, On Artistic Prose Xtt oz-
proze) , Moscow-Leningrad, 1930,
pp. 75-106 [Bakhtin's note].
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL / 1197
significance. Once rhetorical discourse is brought into the study with all its
living diversity, it cannot fail to have a deeply revolutionizing influence on
lingUistics and on the philosophy of language. It is precisely those aspects of
any discourse (the internally dialogic quality of discourse, and the phenom-
enarelated to it), not yet sufficiently taken into account and fathomed in all
the enormous weight they carry in the life of language, that are revealed with
great external precision in rhetorical forms, prOvided a correct and unprej-
udiced approach to those forms is used. Such is the general methodological
and heuristic significance of rhetOrical forms for lingUistics and for the phi-
losophy of language.
The special significance of rhetorical forms for understanding the novel is
equally great. The novel, and artistic prose in general, has the closest genetic,
family relationship to rhetorical forms .. And throughout the entire develop-
ment of the novel, its intimate interaction (both peaceful and hostile) with
living rhetorical genres (journalistic, moral, philosophical and others) has
never ceased; this interaction was perhaps no less intense than was the
novel's interaction with the artistic genres (epic, dramatic, lyric). But in this
uninterrupted interrelationship, novelistic discourse preserved its own qual-
itative uniqueness and was never reducible to rhetOrical discourse.
The novel is an artistic genre. Novelistic discourse is poetic discourse, but
one that does not fit within the frame provided by the concept of poetic
discourse as it now exists. This concept has certain underlying presupposi-
tions that limit it. The very concept-in the course of its historical formu-
lation from Aristotle
3
to the present day-has been oriented toward the
specific "official" genres and connected with specific historical tendencies in
verbal ideological life. Thus a whole series of phenomena remained beyond
its conceptual horizon.
Philosophy of language, Jinguistics and stylistics [i.e., such as they have
come down to us] have all 'postulated a simple and unmediated relation of
speaker to his unitary and singular "own" language, and have postulated as
well a simple realization of this language in the monologic utterance of the
individual. Such diSCiplines actually know only two poles in the life of lan-
;,. guage, between which are located all the linguistic and stylistic phenomena
they know: on the one hand, the system of a unitary language; and on the
other the individual speaking in this language.
Various schools of thought in the philosophy of language, in lingUistics
and in stylistics have, in different periods (and always in close connection
with the diverse concrete poetic and ideological styles of a given epoch),
introduced into such concepts as "system of language," "monologic utter-
ance," "the speaking indiViduum," various differing nuances of meaning, but
their basic content remains unchanged. This basic content is conditioned by
the specific sociohistorical destinies of European languages and by the des-
tinies of ideological discourse, and by those particular historical tasks that
ideological discourse has fulfilled in specific social spheres and at specific
stages in its own historical development.
These tasks and destinies of discourse conditioned specific verbal-
ideological movements, as well as various specific genres of ideological dis-
course, and ultimately the specific philosophical concept of discourse itself-
3. The Greek philosopher (384-322 B.C.E.) discusses poetic discourse in his Poetics (see above).
4. Topical, of pressing current importance
(German), 'h Humboldt (I767-1835),
5, Wilhelm Fre', and philologist, AUGUS-
German humamst wn Ch .stian philosopher and
TINE early,cs "The poetics
theologIan;. on hlShPoeh". 1 e HUGH OF ST. VICTOR
of the medIeval cure . se
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL I 1199
project of centraliZing and unifying the European languages. The victory of
one reigning language (dialect) over the others, the supplanting oflanguages,
their enslavement, the process of illuminating them with the True Word, the
incorporation of barbarians and lower social strata into a unitary language
of culture and truth, the canonization of ideological systems, philology with
its methods of studying and teaching dead languages, languages that Were
by that very fact "unities," Indo-European linguistics with its focus of atten-
tion, directed away from language plurality to a single proto-Ianguage_all
this determined the content and power of the category of "unitarylanguage"
in linguistic and stylistic thought, and determined its creative, style-shaping
role in the majority of the poetic genres that coalesced in the channel formed
by those same centripetal forces of verbal-ideological life.
But the centripetal forces of the life of language, embodied in a "unitary
language," operate in the midst of heteroglossia, At any given moment of its
evolution, language is stratified not only into linguistic dialects in the strict
sense of the word (according to formal linguistic markers, especially pho-
netic), but alSo-and for us this is the essential point-into languages that
are socio-ideolOgical: languages of social groups, "professional" and "genetic"
languages, languages of generations and so forth, From this point of view,
literary language itself is only one of these heteroglot languages-and in its
turn is also stratified into languages (generic, period-bound and others). And
this stratification and heteroglossia, once realized, is not only a static invar-
iant of linguistic life, but also what insures its dynamics: stratification and
heteroglossia widen and deepen as long as language is alive and developing.
Alongside the centripetal forces, the centrifugal forces of language carry on
their uninterrupted work; alongside verbal-ideological centralization and
unification, the uninterrupted processes of decentralization and disunifica-
tion go forward;
Every concrete utterance of a speaking Subject serves as a point where
centrifugal as well as centripetal forces are brought to bear. The processes
of centralization and decentralization, of unification and disunification,
intersect in the utterance; the utterance not only answers the requirements
of its own language as an individualized embodiment of a speech act, but it
answers the requirements of heteroglossia as well; it is in fact an active
participant in such speech diversity. And this active participation of every
utterance in living heteroglossia determines the linguistic profile and style
of the utterance to> no less a degree than its inclusion in any normative-
centralizing system of a unitary language.
Every utterance participates in the "unitary language" (in its centripetal
forces and tendencies) and at the same time partakes of social and historical
heteroglossia (the centrifugal, stratifying forces),
Such is the fleeting language of a day, of an epoch, a social group, a genre,
a school and so forth. It is possible to give a concrete and detailed analysis
of any utterance, once having exposed it as a contradiction-ridden, tension-
filled unityof two embattled tendencies in the life oflanguage,
The authentic environment of an utterance, the environment in which it
lives and takes shape, is dialogized heteroglossia, anonymous and Social as
language, but simultaneously concrete, filled with specific content and
accented as an individual utterance..
At the time when major divisions of the poetic genres were developing
1198 I MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
h' h h d been at the heart . . I the concept of poetic discourse, w IC a
m partIcu ar, li f
of all concepts of style. time the limitations of such basic s
The strength and at the same uch cate<>ories are seen as
cate<>ories become apparent when s the task that an ideological dIscourse
b
'" I'fic historical destinies and by d haped by the historically
y spec . fr m an were s 'al
assumes. These .;:rose evolution of specific
aktuell
4
forces at work m t ehver . I expression of actualizing forces t at
. ed the t eoretIca
<>roups; they compns . l"fe for lanQUage. b 1
'" 'n the process of creatmg a 1 '" ify nd centralize the ver a _
were 1 h fi ' es that serve to Unt a
These forces are t e OIC , • ,
ideological world. , the theoretical expression of the.
Unitary language d tralization, an expreSSIOn 0 • t e
I
, 'f unificatIon an cen th' g mven
processes of mgUIs IC A 'tary lan<>uage is not some ill of
centripetal forces of language. [zadanJ-and at every moment 0 its
[dan] but is always in essence posItef-ties of heteroglossia. But at.the same
lin<>uistic life it is opposed to 1 'a force for overcoming hetero
f
tir:e it makes its real e ,as aranteeing a certain 0
I
' I'mposin<> specific lImIts to It, I althou<>h still relatIve,
g OSSIa, '" d 1" . <> mto a rea, "', 1
mutual understanding an. Izm", tiona! (everyday) and literary an-
. h 'ty of the reI<>nmg conversa
unIty-t e unI " '"
<>ua<>e, "correct language. , stem of lin<>uistic norms. But th:se
'" A'"common unitary language IS sy rative' the; are rather the
norms do not constitute an abstract ImP:<>le to the heteroglossIa of
forces of linguistic life, forces strii;e verbal-ideological thought, creat-
lan<>uage, forces that unite. an the firm, stable .linguistic nucleus
' '" 'thin a hetero<>lot natIOnallan",u '" lse defending an already
mg WI '" , d literary lan<>uage, or e ,
of an officially recognIze f "'rowing heteroglossia. .
fonned language from the 0 gn abstract linguistic mimmum
What we have in mind here IS tot a t of elementary forms (lingUIstIc
common language, in the 0 a sYf in practical
symbols) guaranteeing mtmmum as a system of abstract grammatIcal
munication. We are taking languagenceived as ideologically lan
f
cate<>ories, but rather language co rete 0 inion, insuring a max:
mum
0
<>ua:e as a world view, even as a concf 'deofOl!icallife. Thus a umtary lan-
understanding in all tow;rd concrete verbal id:o-
<>ua<>e gives expression to hich develop in vital connectIOn WIth
'" '" 'fi' nd centralIZatIOn, w ,
logical um catIon a , 1"tical and cultural centralizatIon: f th dieval
the processes of SOCIOpO 1 , f Augustine the poetIcs 0 . e me. '
' the poetIcs 0 , 'f oclassI-
Aristotelian poetics, f tr th" the Cartesian poetics 0 ne " .
h rch
of "the one language 0 u '1' f Leibniz (the idea of a um-
c u , , 1 niversaIsmo II h
' the abstract grammatIca u, , the concrete-a t ese,
grammar"), to the centripetal
whatever their differences they serve one arid the same
'1' 't' an 1 eo O<>IC . , forces in SOCIO mgUIs IC . '"
) "The Cartesian poetics of neo-
(ca, 1097-1141 ' d . Ii ti . (from the French
classicism
ll
: on 4I
ese
s I\96-1650)poetics
t
philosopher Rene Descar Gottfried
see PIERRE phi,
Wilhelm von Lei mz ,.
Iosopher and mathematicIan.
1200 ! MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
under the influence of the unifying, centralizing, centripetal forces ofverbal-
ideological life, the novel-and those artistic-prose genres that gravitate
toward it-was being historically shaped by the current of decentralizing,
centrifugal forces. At the time when poetry was accomplishing the task of
cultural, national and political centralization of the verbal-ideological world
in the higher official socio-ideological levels, on the lower levels, on the
stages of local fairs and at buffoon spectacles, the heteroglossia of the clown
sounded forth, ridiculing all "languages" and dialects; there developed the
literature of the fabliaux and Schwiinhe
6
of street songs, folksayings, anec-
dotes, where there was no language-center at all, where there was to be found
a lively play with the "languages" of poets, scholars, monks, knights and
others, where all "languages" were masks and where no language could claim
to be an authentic, incontestable face.
Heteroglossia, as organized in these low genres, was not merely hetero-
glossia vis-a.-vis the accepted literary language (in all its various generic
expressions), that is, vis-a.-vis the linguistic center of the verbal-ideological
life of the nation and the epoch, but was a heteroglossia consciously opposed
to this literary language. It was parodic, and aimed sharply and polemically
against the official languages of its given time. It was heteroglossia that had
been dialogized.
Linguistics, stylistics and the philosophy of language that were born and
shaped by the current of centralizing tendencies in the life oflanguage have
ignored this dialogized heteroglossia, in which is embodied the centrifugal
forces in the life of language. For this very reason they could make no pro-
vision for the dialogic nature of language, which was a struggle among socio-
linguistic points of view, not an intra-language struggle between individual
wills or logical contradictions. Moreover, even intra-language dialogue (dra-
matic, rhetorical, cognitive or merely casual) has hardly been studied lin-
guistically or stylistically up to the present day. One might even say outright
that the dialogic aspect of discourse and all the phenomena connected with
it have remained to the present moment beyond the ken of linguistics.
Stylistics has been likewise completely deaf to dialogue. A literary work
has been conceived by stylistics as if it were a hermetic and self-sufficient
whole, one whose elements constitute a closed system presuming nothing
beyond themselves, no other utterances. The system comprising an artistic
work was thought to be analogous with the system of a language, a system
that could not stand in a dialogic interrelationship with other languages.
From the point of view of stylistics, the artistic work as a whole-whatever
that whole might be-is a self-sufficient and closed authorial monologue,
one that presumes only passive listeners beyond its own boundaries. Should
we imagine. the work as a rejoinder in a given dialogue, whose style is deter-
mined by its interrelationship with other rejoinders in the same dialogue (in
the totality of the conversation)-then traditional stylistics does not offer an
adequate means for approaching such a dialogized style. The sharpest and
externally most marked manifestations of this stylistic category-the
ical style, the parodic, the ironic-are usually classified as rhetorical and not
as poetic phenomena. Stylistics locks every stylistic phenomenon into the
monologic context of a given self-sufficient and hermetic utterance, impris-
oning it, as it were, in the dungeon of a single context; it is not able to
6. Medieval comic folktales (German). Fabliaux: medieval short tales in verse (French).
.. __.._-----------
DISCOURSE I
N THE NOVEL / 1201
with other uttera ."
ImplIcations in a relationship IS able to realize its own
m t.s hermetic context. em; It IS obliged to exhaust itself
mgUIstIcs, stylistics a d h .
service of th n t e phIlosophy of lana a
life-h e great centralizing tendencies of E "ua"e-as forces in the
". sought first and foremost £ '.uropean verbal-ideoloaical
onentation toward unity" in th or Untty m diversity. This excl" .
centrated the attention of of languages has

most stable, least chanaeabl ca adn mgUIstlC thought on the firm-
ISCourse_o th 1. '" e an most m .
from the h n . e pnonetic aspects first of all-th ono-semlC aspects of
saturated angmg sOcio-s.emantic spheres of disco
at
are removed
al' language conscIOusness" one th t . Real Ideologically
? OSSIa and multi-languaaedness h' . a partICIpates in actual hetero-
precisely this orientation outside its field of vision It
Ignore a.ll the verbal genres ( uotidi UllIty t a.t has compelled scholars' to
the of the decentralizing artistic-prose) that were
Chase too fundamentally or that
IS etero- as well as 01 al . e erog OSSIa. The expres-
and phenomena of verballI'£e r
P
y? ot conSCIOusness in the specific £orm
e 1" l' emamed utte I . h l' S
nce on mgUIstics and stylistic thouah r y WIt out determinative influ-
Therefore pr h " t.
£ oper t eoretical recom' . .
fo.r the specific feel for lanwa"e
ltIOn
a?d Illumination could not be
m slUlz, in parodies and i:: that one gets in styli-
a g straight," and in the more s 0 verbal masquerade "not
of contradiction, forms that forms for the organn'ation
all characteristic and rae t elr themes by means of lan-
Cervantes, sof novelistic prose, in
o ers. , Ie mg, mollett, Sterne7 and
problem of stylistics for the '.
engagmg a series of fundamental novel. meVItably leads to the necessity of
:scohurs
e
, questions connected the philosophy of
. at ave had no light cast on them b l?se m the life of discourse
IS, we deal with the life and .and stylistic thought-that
and multi-languaged world. VIor of dIscourse in a contradictory
Discourse in Poet nd D'
For the h'l ry a ZSCOurse in tl1-e Novel
p I osophy of lanauaae £ 1" '.
on base, a whole seri:s of mgUIS%cs and for stylistics structured
entIrely beyond the realm of remained almost
that are present in discourse on. t ese mclude the specific phe-
onentatIOn, first amid oth' and that are determined by its d' I .
d
· 1 ' ers utterance . 'd Ia oaIC
mor Ia dialoaism of disco . s mSI e a single lanauage (th ".
. " urse) amId oth " . 1 " e pn-
natzonal language and finally diff er languages" within a sinale
same culture' that is the . . erent natIOnal lanauaaes with' th
' ,same socIO-Ideoloaical "" In e
" conceptual hOIizon.8
7. All important early novelists -
Jakob Christoffel von G . I h-German: Hans 8 L' .
167 ) nmme s aus (1 . mguIstics acknowledo I
6; Spanish' Migu Ide en ca. 621- reciprocal infIuencincr odes. on y mechanical
1616); French- F : R e ervantes (1547- guages (that is, one thbat of lan-
1533)', and a.bela.is (ca. 1490-ca. IS uncon d d
... Henry F Id ( mined by social conditio . SCI?US an eter-
(Scottish·born)Tobias lrf21707-1754), abstract linauistic I ns) WhICh IS reflected in
Laurence Sterne (1713-1768). ( 1-1771),and phological) (phonetic and mor.
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL ! 1203
opinion, by an alien word about them.
9
And into this complex play of light
and shadow the word enters-it becomes saturated with this play, and must
determine within it the boundaries of its own semantic and stylistic contours.
The way in which the word conceives its object is complicated by a dialogic
interaction within the object between various aspects ofits sOcio-verbal intel-
ligibility. And an artistic representation, an "image" of the object, may be
penetrated by this dialogic play of verbal intentions that meet and are inter-
woven in it; such an image need not stifle these forces, but on the contrary
may activate and organize them. If we imagine the intention of such a word,
that is, its directionality toward the object, in the form of a ray of light, then
the living and unrepealable play of colors and light on the facets of the image
that it constructs can be explained as the spectral dispersion of the ray-word,
not within the object itself (as would be the case in the play of an image-as-
trope, in poetic speech taken in the narrow sense, in an "autotelic word"),
but rather as its spectral dispersion in an atmosphere filled with the alien
words, value judgments and accents through which the ray passes on its way
toward the object; the social atmosphere of the word, the atmosphere that
surrounds the object, makes the facets of the image sparkle.
The word, breaking through to its own meaning and its own expression
across an environment full of alien words and variously evaluating accents,
harmonizing with some of the elements in this environment and striking a
dissonance with others, is able, in this dialogized process, to shape its own
stylistic profile and tone.
Such is the iJnage in artistic prose and the image of novelistic prose in
particular. In the atmosphere of the novel, the direct and unmediated inten-
tion of a wOJ;d presents itself as something impermissably naive, something
in fact impossible, for naivete itself, under authentic novelistic conditions,
takes on the nature of an internal polemic and is consequently dialogized
(in, for example, the work of the Sentimentalists, in Chateaubriand
1
and in
Tostoy). Such a dialogized image can OCcur in all the poetic genres as well,
even in the lyric (to be sure, without setting the tone).2 But such an image
can fully unfold, achieve full complexity and depth and at the same time
• artistic closure, only under the conditions present in the genre of the novel.
In the poetic image narrowly conceived (in the image-as-ttope), all activ-
ity-the dynamics of the image-as-word_is completely exhausted by the play
between the word (with all its aspects) and the object (in all its aspects). The
word plunges into the inexhaustible wealth and contradictory multiplicity of
the object itself, with its "virginal," still "unuttered" nature; therefore it pre-
sumes nothing beyond the borders of its own context (except, of course, what
can be found in the treasure-house of language itself). The word forgets that
its object has its own history of contradictory acts of verbal recognition, as
well as that heteroglossia that is always present in such acts of recognition,
briand (I 768-1848), French novelist.
2. The Horatian lyric, Villon, Heine, Laforgue,
Aonenskij and others-despite the fact that these
are extremely varied instances [BakhtinI s note]. All
lyric poets: HORACE (65-8 B.C.E.), Roman; Fran-
90is Villon (I43 l-oa. 1463), French; Heinrich
Heine (1797-1856), German; Jules Lafargue
(I 860-1887), French; and Innokenty Aonenskij
(I 855-1909), Russian.
9. Highly significant in this respect is the struggle
that must be underta1<en in such movements as
Rousseauism, Naturalism, Impressionism, Acme-
ism, Dadaism, Surrealism and analogous schools
with the "qualified" nature of the object (a struggle
Occasioned by the idea of a return to primordial
consciousness, to original consciousness, to the
object itself in itself, to pure perception and so
forth) [Bakhtin's note].
1. vicomte de Chateau-
1202 ! MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
. . these henomena have begun to attract the
In recent decades, It IS true, d
P
I' ti' but their fundamental and
f h I . I guaae an sty IS cs, f
attention 0 sc 0 ars m r h f th life of discourse is still ar
wide-ranging significance m al sp eres 0 e
from aclmowledged. d a other words (of all kinds and
'I' . t f on of a wor amon
o
. di
The dla OgIC onen a I d . ificant artistic potential m s-
degrees of otherness) new art of prose, which has found
course creates the potentIa or a IShInc I
' . . t e nove. .
its fullest and deepest expressIhon In 'sforms and dearees of dialogIc
t f ere on vanou 0
We will focus our at en IOn h 'I otential for a distinctive prose-
orientation in discourse, and on t e speCla p
art. . , ., hou ht the word aclmowledges only
As treated by tradItIonal stylIstIC. t g 'b' t I'tS own direct expression
I . text) ItS own 0 , d
itself (that is, on y ItS own ,con I I' It aclmowledges another wor ,
' d SInaU ar anQUaae.
and its own umtary an 0 ]' 0 the neutral word of language, as
one lying outside its own on y. as I the potential for speech. The
d f ' particu ar as SImp y ,. .
the wor 0 no one m . .' d tands it encounters m ItS onen-
direct word, as traditional sltylIhstIcs u.n
t
ercs
e
of obiect itself (the impos-
' d h b' t on y t e reSIS an J •• II)
tatIOn towar teo d b d the impossibility of saymg It a ,
sibility of its being y the object the fundamental and
but it does not encounter m ItS d No one hinders this word, no one
richly varied opposition of anot er s wor .
argues with it. , b' t'n asinaularway: between the word
But no living word relates to ItS 0 1
d
ec
hI b
kina
there exists an
'b the word an t e spea 0 J' h
and its object, etween I' d bout the same object, t e same
. t f ther a len wor sa. I '
elastic enVIronmen 0 0, h" ft difficult to penetrate. t IS
th' . , nment t at It IS 0 en .
theme and IS IS an envrro , , 'th this specific enVIronment
' . h f livina mteractIOn WI
precisely m t e 0,. ': d and !riven stylistic shape.
that the word may be mdiVIdualIze ( 0 ) finds the object at which it
' t discourse utterance d'
Indeed, any concre e. I 'n with qualifications, open to Ispute,
was directed already as It were over , obscuring mist-or, on the con-
charged with value, enveldope
h
Itnhan already been spoken about it.
h "I' ht" f lIen wor s t a ave li
trary, by t e Ig 0 a with shared thoughts, points of view, a en
It is entangled, shot throughThe word directed toward its object, enters a
value judgments and accents., fill d ' 'ronment of alien words, value
dialogically agitated and e denVIt of complex interrelationships,
d t weaves In an ou d
judgments an accen s; h s intersects with yet a third group:
meraes with some, reCOIls from ot er , I ve a trace in all its semantic
all this may crucially shape its entire stylistic pro-
layers, may complicate its expreSSIOn an m
file. . anina and shape at a particular his-
The living utterance, haVIng me, 0 e t cannot fail to brush up
, ,all speCl c enVIronm n ,
torical moment m a SOCI y . h d oven by socio-ideological con-
d fl" d'aloaIC t rea s w
aaainst thousan SOlVIng I b'
o
f t'terance. it cannot fail to become
o d h a'ven 0 0 an u, 'f
sciousness aroun t e 0
1
, 'I Aft II the utterance anses out 0
., t . oClal dla oaue. er a ,
an active partIcipan m.s , f'=: d as a rejoinder to it-it does not
this dialogue as a 0 . It an
approach the object from the sIdelmes, I' 'ts ob,iect is a complex act-all
. h' h h d conceptua Izes I J fr
The way m w IC t e wor . h 'th qualifications, are om
d' d verlam as t ey are WI , I
objects, open to Ispute an 0 h h .d dimmed by heteroglot SOCIa
one side highlighted while from t e ot er SI e
1204 ! MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
For the writer of artistic prose, on the contrary, the object reveals first of
all precisely the socially heteroglot multiplicity of its names, definitions and
value judgments. Instead of the virginal fullness and inexhaustibility of the
object itself, the prose writer confronts a multitude of routes, roads and paths
that have been laid down in the object by social consciousness. Along with
the internal contradictions inside the object itself, the prose writer witnesses
as well the unfolding of social heteroglossia surrounding the object, the
Tower-of-Babel mixing of languages
3
that goes on around any object; the
dialectics of the object are interwoven with the social dialogue surrounding
it. For the prose writer, the object is a focal point for heteroglot voices among
which his own voice must also sound; these voices create the background
necessary for his own voice, outside of which his artistic prose nuances can-
not be perceived, and without which they "do not sound."
The prose artist elevates the social heteroglossia surrounding objects into
an image that has finished contours, an image completely shot through with
dialogized overtones; he creates artistically calculated nuances on all the
fundamental voices and tones of this heteroglossia. But as we have already
said, every extra-artistic prose discourse-in any of its forms, quotidian, rhe-
torical, scholarly-cannot fail to be oriented toward the "already uttered,"
the "already known," the "common opinion" and so forth. The dialogic ori-
entation of discourse is a phenomenon that is, of course, a property of any
discourse. It is the natural orientation of any living discourse. On all its
various routes toward the object, in all its directions, the word encounters
an alien word and cannot help encountering it in a living, tension-filled inter-
action. Only the mythical Adam, who approached a virginal and as yef ver-
bally unqualified world with the first word, could really have escaped from
start to finish this dialogic inter-orientation with the alien word that occurs
in the object. Concrete historical human discourse does not have this priv-
ilege: it can deviate from such inter-orientation only on a conditional basis
and only to a certain degree.
It is all the more remarkable that linguistics and the philosophy of dis-
course have been primarily oriented precisely toward this artificial, precon-
ditioned status of the word, a word excised from dialogue and taken for the
norm (although the primacy of dialogue over monologue is frequently pro-
claimed). Dialogue is studied merely as a compositional form in the struc-
turing of speech, but the internal dialogism of the word (which occurs in a
monologic utterance as well as in a rejoinder), the dialogism that penetrates
its entire structure, all its semantic and expressive layers, is almost entirely
ignored. But it is precisely this internal dialogism of the word, which does
not assume any external compositional forms of dialogue, that cannot be
isolated as an independent act, separate from the word's ability to form a
concept [lwncipirovanie] of its object-it is precisely this internal dialogism
that has such enormous power to shape style. The internal dialogism of the
word finds expression in a series of peculiar features in semantics, syntax
and stylistics that have remained up to the present time completely unstud-
ied by linguistics and stylistics (nor, what is more, have the peculiar semantic
features of ordinary dialogue been studied).
The word is born in a dialogue as a living rejoinder within it; the word is
3. See Genesis 11.1-9.
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL I 1205
shaped in dialogic interaction with an aI' 0
A word forms a concept of its own b' that IS already in the object.
B h' 0 In a alo 0
ut t IS does not exhaust the internal d' I' grc way.
an alien word not only in th b' . lf
la
ogrsm of the word. It encounters
e 0 Itse . every d' d'
anSWer and cannot escape th £ d' fl wor IS Irected toward an
it anticipates. e pro Oun In uence of the answering word that
The word in living conversation is direc 1 bl
future answer-word. it provok t y, atantly, oriented toward a
' . es an answer a to . .
In the answer's direction Form' . If' n IClpates It and structures itself
k
. Ing Itse in a t h
spo en, the word is at the same t' d . n a mosp ere of the already
been said but which is needed dI:n
e
f
by that which has not yet
S h
0 h an In act antICIpated b th . .
uc IS t e situation in any 1" d' 1 Y e answenna word
Ivrng Ia ogue b '
All rhetorical forms, monolo!!ic in their . , . .
ented tOward the listener and·h·
b
T structure, are ori-
. 11 IS answer hIS onent ti d
IS usua y considered the boo 0 a on towar the listener
I 0 • • aSlC constitutive £ t f h .
ot IS highly significant for rhetOric that thO o. r etoncal discourse.4
listener, taking him into account i r:e toward the concrete
internal construction of rh t "ISd
a
, re atronshlp that enters into the very
e onca ISCourse Th' . .
answer is open blatant and . IS onentatIon toward an
, ' concrete.
ThIS open orientation toward the liste .
logue and in rhetorical Dorm h ner and hIS answer in everyday dia-
s as attracted the tt f f I'
even where this has been the c 1" ' h a en ron 0 rnguists. But
further than the compositional by. and lar!5e gotten no
account; they have not so ht' fl Y IC the lIstener IS taken into
. ug . In uence sprin' fr
meanrng and style They have tak . grng om more profound
style determined by' demand £ en Intohcons,id.e:ation only those aspects of
, l' s LOr compre enslbIlIt d l' h
Clse y those aspects that are d . d f ' yan c anty-t at is, pre-
listener for a person who pas °d any Internal dialogism, that take the
SIve y un erstands b t £
answers and reacts, u not LOr one who actively
The listener and his response are 1 1
comes to everyday dialorue a d h ar y taken into account when it
11
' , b n r etonc ut every th f d'
we. IS onented toward an underst di 'h ." 0 er sort 0 ISCOurse as
. , an nat at IS res '" I h
onentatron is not particulariz d . . b d ponsIve -a tough this
tionally marked. Responsive e dIn an act and is not composi-
. . un erstan Ing IS a fu d I £
partICIpates in the formulatI'on f d' n amenta lorce, one that
d
o ISCourse and 't '
un erstandina one that dI' ,lISmoreover an active
b' scourse senses a ' t
the discourse, s reSlS ance or support enriching
Linguistics and the philoso h f 1
understandina of discourse anPd y 0 anguahge acknowledge only a passive
h 1
b ,moreover t is tak 1 b
t e evel of common language th t' '. es pace y and large on
I
0 • , a IS, It IS an understand' f
neutra stgnification and not I't t I 0 rng 0 an utterance's
Th' " 0 s ac ua meamna,
e lIngUIstIC SIgnificance of a aiven t '" .
background of lanauaae whI'le 't b t IU terance IS understood against the
b k
b b' I S ac ua mean' . d
ac ground of other concrete utt h
rng
IS un erstood against the
d
erances on t e sa th b
rna e up of contradictory opini 0 0 me erne, a ackground
that is, precisely that of VIew and value judgments_
any word toward its object. Onl a
h
,. as we se:, complicates the path of
y now t IS contradIctory environment of alien
4: .cr. v. Vinogradov's book 012 Artistic Pro II
moons taken from the older rhetorics are and Poetics," pp. 75ff., where defi-
InS note.
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL / 1207
detetmined by an encounter with an alien word within the object itself: here
it is not the object that serves as the arena for the encounter but rather the
subjective belief system of the listener. Thus this bears a more
subjective, psychological and (frequently) random ch:racter, sometimes
crassly sometimes provocatively polemical. Very often,
espeCIally m the rhetoncal fonns, this orientation toward the listener and
the related internal dialogism of the word may simply overshadowthe object:
the strong point of any concrete listener becomes a self-sufficient focus of
attention, and one that interferes with the word's creative work on its ref-
erent.
Altho,ugh, they differ in their essentials and give rise to varying stylistic
effects m discourse, the dialogic relationship toward an alien word within
the object the relationship toward an alien word in the anticipated
answer of the lIstener can, nevertheless, be very tightly interwoven with each
other, becoming almost indistinguishable during stylistic analysis.
Thus, discourse in Tolstoy is characterized by a sharp internal dialocrism
and this discourse is moreover dialogized in the belief systeII)- of the
whose peculiar semantic and expressive characteristics Tolstoy acutely
senses-as well as in the object. These two lines of dialocrization (havincr in
b b
most cases polemical overtones) are tightly interwoven in his style: even in
th t"l'al" . dh ""d
e mos ync expreSSIOns an t e most epic escriptions, Tolstoy's
discourse harmonizes and disharmonizes (more often disharmonizes) with
various aspects of the heteroglot socio-verbal consciousness ensnarincr the
object, while at the same time polemically invading the reader's belief and
evaluative system, striving to stun and destroy the apperceptive backQTound
of the reader's active understanding. In this respect Tolstoy is an hei:of the
eighte:nth century, of Rousseau.
s
This propagandizing impulse
sometImes leads to a narrOWIng-down of heteroglot social consciousness
(against which Tolstoy polemicizes) to the consciousness of his immediate
contemporary, a contemporary of the day and not of the epoch; what follows
from this is a radical concretization of dialogization (almost always under-
taken in the service of a polemic). For this reason Tolstoy's dialogization, no
how acutely we sense it in the expressive profile of his style, some-
times requires special historical or literary commentary: we are not sure with
what precisely a given tone is in hannony or disharmony, for this dissonance
or consonance has entered into the positive project of creating a style.6 It is
true that such extreme concreteness (which approaches at time the feuille-
ton)7 is present only in those secondary aspects, the overtones of internal
dialogization in Tolstoy's discourse.
In those examples of the internal dialogization of discourse that we have
chosen (the internal, as contrasted with the external, compositionally
marked, dialogue) the relationship to the alien word, to an alien utterance
enters into the positing of the style. Style organically contains within itself
indices that reach outside itself, a correspondence of its own elements and
the elements of an alien context. The internal politics of style (how the ele-
topical context of I<FamiIy Happiness" [Bakhtin's
note]. Tolstoyfamously observed in Anna Karenina
(1875-77) that "Happy families are all alike: every
unhappy family is unhappy in its Own way."
7. Light, popular piece of newspaper writing.
5. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), Swiss-
born French philosopher and author.
6. Cf, B. M. Eichenbaum's book Lev Tolstoj, book
I (Leningrad, 1928), which contains much rele-
vant material; for example
J
an explication of the
words is present to the speaker not in the object, but rather in the conscious-
ness of the listener, as his apperceptive background, pregnant with responses
and objections. And every utterance is oriented toward this apperceptive
background of understanding, which is not a linguistic background but
rather one composed of specific objects and emotional expressions. There
occurs a new encounter between the utterance and an alien word, which
makes itself felt as a new and unique influence on its style.
A passive understanding of linguistic meaning is no understanding at
it is only the abstract aspect of meaning. But even a more concrete passwe
understanding of the meaning of the utterance, an understanding of the
speaker's intention insofar as that understanding remains pass.ive,
purely receptive, contributes nothing new to the word under
only mirroring it, seeking, at its most ambitious, merely the full
of that which is already given in the word-even such an understandmg
never goes beyond the boundaries of the word's context and no way
enriches the word. Therefore, insofar as the speaker operates WIth such a
passive understanding, nothing new can be introduced into his discourse;
there can be no new aspects in his discourse relating to concrete objects and
emotional expressions. Indeed the purely negative demands, such as could
only emerge from a passive understanding (for instance, a need for greater
clarity, more persuasiveness, more vividness and so forth),' leave the
in his own personal context, within his own boundanes; such negatIve
demands are completely immanent in the speaker's own discourse and do
not go beyond his semantic or expressive self-sufficiency. ., ._
In the actual life of speech, every concrete act of understandmg IS actIve:
it assimilates the word to be understood into its own conceptual system filled
with specific objects and emotional expressions, and is indissolubly merged
with the response, with a motivated agreement or disagreement. To some
extent, primacy belongs to the response, as the activating principle: it,creates
the ground for understanding, it prepares the ground an and
encraged understanding, Understanding comes to frUItIOn only m the
Understanding and response are dialectically merged and mutually
condition each other; one is impossible without the other.
Thus an active understanding, one that assimilates the word under con-
sideration into a new conceptual system, that of the one striving to under-
stand establishes a series of complex interrelationships, consonances and
with the word and enriches it with new elements. It is precisely
such an understandincr that the speaker counts on. Therefore his orientation
toward the listener isban orientation toward a specific conceptual horizon,
toward the specific world of the listener; it introduces totally new elements
into his discourse; it is in this way, after all, that various different of
view, conceptual horizons, systems for providing expressive accents,
social "languages" come to interact with one another. The speaker stnves to
get a reading on his own word, and on his own conceptual system that det,er-
mines this word within the alien conceptual system of the understandmg
receiver; he into dialogical relationships with certain aspects of this
system. The speaker breaks the of the
tener, constructs his own utterance on ahen terntory, agamst hIS, the hs-
tener's, apperceptive background.
This newform of internal dialogism of the word is different from that form
1206 / MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN

DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL / 1209
orner, mathematician, and geographer, the sun,
planets, and stars revolve around the earth.
merely one of many languages in a heteroglot world) is foreign to poetic
style-as is a related phenomenon, the incomplete commitment of oneself,
of one's full meaning, to a given language.
Of course this relationship and the relationship to his own language (in
greater or lesser degree) could never be foreign to a historically existent poet,
as a human being surrounded by living hetero- and polyglossia; but this rela-
tionship could not find a place in the poetic style of his work without destroy-
ing that style, without transposing it into a prosaic key and in the process
turning the poet into a writer of prose.
In p·oetic genres, artistic consciousness-understood as a unity of all the
author's semantic and expressive intentions-fully realizes itself within its
own language; in them alone is such consciousness fully immanent, express-
ing itself in it directly and without mediation, without conditions and without
distance. The language of the poet is his language, he is utterly immersed in
it, inseparable from it, he makes use of each form, each word, each expres-
sion according to its unmediated power to assign meaning (as it were, "with-
out quotation marks"), that is, as a pure and direct expression of his own
intention. No matter what "agonies of the word" the poet endured in the
process of creation, in the finished work language is an obedient organ, fully
adequate to the author's intention.
The language in a poetic work realizes itself as something about which
there can be no doubt, something that cannot be disputed, something all-
encompassing. Everything that the poet sees, understands and thinks, he
does through the eyes of a given language, in its inner forms, and there is
nothing that might require, for its expression, the help of any other or alien
language. The language of the poetic genre is a unitary and singular Ptole-
maic worldS outside of which nothing else exists and nothing else is needed.
The concept of many worlds of language, all equal in their ability to concep-
tualize and to be expressive, is organically denied to poetic style.
The world of poetry, no matter how many contradictions and insoluble
conflicts the poet develops within it, is always illumined by one unitary and
indisputable discourse. Contradictions, conflicts and doubts remain in the
'object, in thoughts, in living experiences-in short, in the subject matter-
but they do not enter into the language itself. In poetry, even discourse about
doubts must be cast in a discourse that cannot be doubted.
To take responsibility for the language of the work as a whole at all of its
points as its language, to assume a full solidarity with each of the work's
aspects, tones, nuances-such is the fundamental prerequisite for poetic
style; style so conceived is fully adequate to a single language and a single
lingUistic consciousness. The poet is not able to oppose his own poetic Con-
sciousness, his own intentions to the language that he uses, for he is Com-
pletely within it and therefore cannot turn it into an object to be perceived,
reflected upon or related to. Language is present to him only from inside, in
the work it does to effect its intention, and not from outside, in its objective
specificity and boundedness. Within the limits of poetic style, direct uncon-
ditional intentionality, language at its full weight and the objective display
of language (as a socially and historically limited lingUistic reality) are all
8. That is, the stationary center of the universe.
In the system of the universe postulated by Ptol-
emy (active 127-148 C.E.), theAlexandrianastron_
1208 / MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
. . ed b its external politics (its relationship
ments are put together) IS e on the boundary between its
to alien discourse). Discourse Ives, as I wer ,
own context and another, alien, I I ds such a double life: it is
In any actual dialogue the er a St
O
teaof the dialogue as a whole,
d d
tualized m t e con ex f th
structure an concep ("" from the point of view 0 e
which consists of its own partner) One cannot excise
speaker) and of alien. utteran.ces
d
t o:e up of own words and
the rejoinder from thIs combm
l
e . ex m and tone. It is an organic part
the words of another without osmg ItS sense
of a heteroglot unity. 1 d' I . t' as we have said is present to
f' talaoOIza IOn, ,
The phenomenon 0 realms"of the life of the word. But if in extra-
a srreater or lesser extent m . I h I I) dialooization usually stands
" . (d rhetonca sc 0 ar y" .
artistIc prose every ay, . 1ki d f t of its own and runs its course m
apart, crystallizes into a speCla n 11 clearly marked fonns for mix-
. I . th r compOSI IOna y .
ordinary dla ogue or moe, d' f ther-then in artisttc prose,
. . . 'th the Iscourse 0 ano
ing and polemlclZmg WI .. I . ti n enetrates from within the very
and especially in the novel, thIS dIa t
o
Xits means for expressingitself,
way in which the word its of discourse. Here dia-
reformulating the semantIcs and ac Ica event of discourse itself, ani-
. . b es as It were an
logic inter-onentatIon ecom '.. in all aspects.
mating from within and f in the narrow sense), as we have
In the majority of poetIC genres IC. t pu.t to artistic use, it does
1 d· 1 . f of dIscourse IS no
said, the interna Ia IOn
h
. ob' ect " and is artificially extinguished in
not enter into th.e works aest
lh
etIc t'h's I'nternal dialooization becomes
. I th nove owever, I " ill
poetic dIscourse. n e , f e style and undergoes a spec c
one of the most fundamental aspects 0 pros
artistic elaboration. . b h a crucial force for creating
1 d· 1 . ti n can ecome suc h d b
But interna Ia oglZa 0 'ff d contradictions are enric e y
h . d' .d 1 dl erences an th
form only were m IV! ua .. b ti'ons do not sound in e
1 . he e dlaloOlc rever era
social heterog ossIa,.w r ( h ens in the rhetorical genres) but pen-
semantic heights of as aPJralooize language itself and the world
etrate the deep strata of dlscourshe, . " I form of discourse)-where the
. 1 I aoe has (t e mterna "
view a partlcu ar angu " f' 1 dialogue of "languages,
. . d' ectly out 0 a SOCIa
dialogue of VOIces anses d l"ke a socially alien language, where
where an alien utterance begms to I tterances chanoes into an orien-
. f th ord amono a len u " f
the orientatIOn 0 e w. 1'" 1 ° within the boundaries 0 one
tation of a word among SOCIally a len angua"es
and the same national language.
se the natural dialogization of the h f . the narrow sen , d
In genres t at are poe IC mId' fficI'ent unto itself and oes not
. f e t le wor IS su
word is not put to artls IC us, d' b dan'es Poetic style is by con-
. beyon ItS own oun .
presume allen utterances al interaction with alien discourse, any
vention suspended from any mutu
allusion to alien discourse.. l' 1 QUaoes to the possibility of
Any way whatever of alludmg to. a forms and so forth,
another vocabulary, 0 f .ew is equally foreign to poetic
to the possibility of other the historicity, th.e social
style. It follows that any sense Of t, 1 nguaoe is alien to poetic style,
.. d .ficity 0 one s own a " (
determmatIon an l'fi d relationship to one's own language as
and therefore a cntIcal qua I e
1210 I MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
simultaneous, but incompatible. The unity and singularity of language are
the indispensable prerequisites for a realization of the direct (but not objec-
tively typifying) intentional individuality of poetic style and of its monologic
steadfastness.
This does not mean, of course, that heteroglossia or even a foreign lan-
guage is completely shut out of a poetic work. To be sure, such possibilities
are limited: a certain latitude for heteroglossia exists only in the "low" poetic
genres-in the satiric and comic genres and others. Nevertheless, hetero-
glossia (other socio-ideological languages) can be introduced into purely
poetic genres, primarily in the speeches of characters. But in such a context
it is objective. It appears, in essence, as a thing, it does not lie on the same
plane with the real language of the work: it is the depicted gesture of one of
the characters and does not appear as an aspect of the word doing the depict-
ing. Elements of heteroglossia enter here not in the capacity of another lan-
guage carrying its own particular points of view, about which one can say
things not expressible in one's own language, but rather in the capacity of a
depicted thing. Even when speaking of alien things, the poet speaks in his
own language. To shed light on an alien world, he never resorts to an alien
language, even though it might in fact be more adequate to that world.
Whereas the writer of prose, by contrast-as we shall see-attempts to talk
about even his own world in an alien language (for example, in the nonliterary
language of the teller of tales, or the representative of a specific socio-
ideological group); he often measures his own world py alien linguistic stan-
dards. .
As a consequence of the prerequisites mentioned above, the language of
poetic genres, when they approach their stylistic limit," often becomes
authoritarian, dogmatic and conservative, sealing itself off from the influence
of extraliterary social dialects. Therefore such ideas as a special "poetic lan-
guage," a "language of the gods," a "priestly language of poetry" and so forth
could flourish on poetic soil. It is noteworthy that the poet, should he not
accept the given literary language, will sooner resort to the artificial creation
of a new language specifically for poetry than he will to the exploitation of
actual available social dialects. Social languages are filled with specific
objects, typical, socially localized and limited, while the artificially created
language of poetry must be a directly intentional language, unitary and sin-
gular. Thus, when Russian prose writers at the beginning of the twentieth
century began to show a profound interest in dialects and shaz, the Symbol-
ists (Bal'mont, V. Ivanov) and later the Futurists dreamed of creating a spe-
cial "language of poetry," and even made experiments directed toward
creating such a language (those ofV. Khlebnikov).!
The idea of a special unitary and singular language of poetry is a typical
utopian philosopheme
2
of poetic discourse: it is grounded in the actual con-
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL I 1211
and demands of poetic style, which is alw
Iced by one directly intentional I fr ays a style adequately serv-
I
anguao-e om whose . t f .
anguages (conversational bu . d'" pom 0 VIew other
. , sIness an prose lano-uag h
perceIved as objects that are' . '" es, among ot ers) are
language" is yet another equal.' The of a "poetic
the lingUistic and stylistic world. a same PtolemaIC conception of
Lano-uao-e lik th I' .
'" '" - e e Ivmg concrete environm . h'
of the verbal artist lives I'S n . ent m w Ich the consciousness
- ever ullltary It i 't I
grammatical system of normative £ t k .s ary on y as an abstract
ideological conceptualizations I.solati.on from the concrete,
rupted process of historical b . 'h . m IsolatIOn from the uninter-
1
econung t at IS a ch t" f
anguage. Actual SOCI'al liE d h" arac enstic 0 all livino-
Ie an· Istoncal b . '"
abstractly unitary nationallano-uao- . ecommg create within an
titude of bounded verbalI'de I'" . ",el a mdultitude of concrete worlds, a mul-
. - 0 OO-Ica an social b l' f . .
vanous "systems (identical I'n th'" b ) e Ie systems; WIthm these
. h . e a stract are elem t f I
WIt vanous semantic and axiol . al en s 0 anguage filled
sound. OgiC content and each with its own different
Literary language-both spoken and writt I h "
only in its shared abstract II'ngu' t' k enb-a tough It IS unitary not
, , IS IC mar ers ut 1 . . E
ceptualizing these abstract marker . 't If 'fia so m ItS IOrms for con-
s, IS I se strati ed and h t I . .
aspect as an expressive system that' . h £ e .erog ot m ItS
This stratification is that ItS meanings.
called genres. Certain features of 1 . y speCIfic organisms
tic) will knit too-ether WI'th th . t (leXlcological, semantic, syntac-
'" em entiona aIm a d 'th h
system inherent in one or anoth ' n. WI t e overall accentual
er o-enre' oratonc I bI""
and journalistic genres the o-enre '" fl' I" a ,pu ICIStiC, newspaper
instance) or finally the' var' '" s 0 oW
f
Iterature (penny dreadfuls, for
, , IOUS o-enres 0 high l't C'
of languao-e take on thespe ifi "'fl f I erature. ertam features
. '" c c avor 0 a o-iven . h kn'
WIth specific points of view spec'fi h'" Egenre. t ey It together
d
' I Capproac es IOrm f thO kin
an accents characteristic of th . ,s0 In g, nuances
I . . e gIven genre.
n addItIOn, there is interwoven with this 0- • • •
•& professif1.nal stratification of lano- . hen,;:nc stratrficatIOn oflanguage
fessional": the languao-e of th I e road of the term "pro-
itician, the public t ted octor, the busmessman, the pol-
coincide with, and sometimes so forth,. and. sometimes
goe.s without saying that these ili:t
e
mto genres. It
theIr vocabularies; they involve s "'ectfic fo er £om eac? only in
forms for making and ev:;ns . or malllfestmg mtentions,
very lano-uao-e of the writer (th concrete. And even the
. . '" '" e poet or novelIst) ca b t k
sIOnal Jargon on a par with pr E . al' n e a en as a profes-
. . OIeSSIOn Jargons.
What IS Important to us here is the intentional di .
denotative and expressive dimension of th "h "mensIOns, that is, the
It is in fact not the neutrallino- . f e s ared language's stratification.
and differentiated, but rather of being stratified
of lano-uao-e are beino- e' m whIch the mtentIOnal pOSSibilities
direction: filled with these possibilities are realized in specific
, speCI c content, they are made concrete, particular,
3. Such was the point of view taken b L . .
note]. y atin toward nationallancruacres in the Middle A [B kh' •
l:> <b ges a tms
Vyacheslav Ivanov (1866-1949), Russian poet and
philologist. Symbolism, a poetic movement that
began in France in the last third of the 19th cen-
tury, emphasized the evocation of subjective erno;'
tion, via symbol and metaphor, rather than
objective description. Futurism, a revolutionary
movement in art and literature begun in Italy in
1909, stressed speed, modernity, and rebellionj it
quickly found adherents in Russia.
2. In an argument, an inference or assumption.
9. It goes v.rithout saying that we continually
advance as typical the extreme to which poetic gen-
res aspire; in concrete examples of poetic works it
is possible to find features fundamental to prose,
and numerous hybrids of various generic types
exist. These are especially widespread in periods of
shift in literary poetic languages [Bahktin's note].
1. Velimir Khlebnikov (1885-1922), Russian
experimental poet and playwright. Konstantin Bal-
mont (1867-1943), Russian symbolist poet.
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL I 1:213
5, Follower of FRIEDRICH NIElZSCHE (1844-
1900), German philologist and philosopher,
the Irtenevs
4
in Tolstoy, with its special vocabulary and unique accentual
system,
And finally, at any given moment, languages of various epochs and periods
of socio-ideologicallife cohabit with one another. Even languages of the day
exist: one could say that today's and yesterday's socio-ideological and political
"day" do not, in a certain sense, share the same language; every day repre-
sents another socio-ideological semantic "state of affairs," another vocabu-
lary, another accentual system, with its own slogans, its own ways of
assigning blame and praise. Poetry depersonalizes "days" in language, while
prose, as we shall see, often deliberately intensifies difference between them,
gives them embodied representation and dialogically opposes them to one
another in unresolvable dialogues.
Thus at any given mOment of its historical existence, language is heteroglot
from top to bottom: it represents the co-existence of socio-ideological con-
tradictions between the present and the past, between differing epochs of
the past, between different socio-ideological groups in the present, between
tendencies, schools, circles and so forth, all given a bodily fonn, These "lan-
guages" of heteroglossia intersect each other in a variety of ways, forming
new socially typifying "languages."
Each of these "languages" of heteroglossia reqUires a methodology very
different from the others; each is grounded in a completely different prin-
ciple for marking differences and for establishing units (for some this prin-
ciple is functional, in others it is the principle of theme and content, in yet
others it is, properly speaking, a socio-dialectological principle). Therefore
languages do not exclude each other, but rather intersect with each other in
many different ways (the Ukrainian language, the language of the epic poem,
of early Symbolism, of the student, of a particular generation of children, of
the run-of-the-mill intellectual, of the Nietzschean5 and so on). It might even
seem that the very word "language" loses all meaning in this process-for
apparently there is no single plane on which all these "l.anguages" might be
juxtaposed to one another.
In ,actual fact, however, there does exist a common plane that methodo-
l<;!gidllly justifies Our juxtaposing them: all languages of heteroglossia, What-
ever the principle underlying them and making each unique, are specific
points of view on the world, forms for conceptualizing the world in words,
specific world views, each characterized by its own objects, meanings and
values, As such they all may be juxtaposed to one another, mutually supple-
ment one another, contradict one another and be interrelated dialogically.
As such they encounter one another and co-exist in the consciousness of
real people-first and foremost, in the creative consciousness of people who
write novels. As such, these languages live a real life, they struggle and evolve
in an environment of Social heteroglossia, Therefore they are all able to enter
into the unitary plane of the novel, which can unite in itself parodic styli-
zations of generic languages, various forms of stylizations and illustrations
of professional and period-bound languages, the languages ofparticular gen-
erations, of Social dialects and others (as occurs, for example, in the English
comic novel). They may all be drawn in by the 'novelist for the orchestration
4, Family in Tolstoy's short story "The Devil"
(J91I),
1212 I MIKHAIL M, BAKHTIN
, al 'udgments' they knit together with t d th concrete v ue J, ,
and are permea e WI li f f certain genres of expreSSIOn
b' d 'th the be e systems 0 , f
specific 0 Jects an WI 'I fessI'ons Within these pomts 0
f ' r to partIcu ar pro, , I
and points 0 VIew pecu Iar f the lanouaoe themselves, these genenc an-
view, that is, for the speakers 0 d'''' t"'l I'ntentional-they denote and
d f ' I J'argons are Irec y , h
ouages an pro eSSIOna bl f expressin
o
themselves WIt out
b 'I d full and are capa eo", ,
express dIrect y an, y, , for those not participating in the gIVen pur-
mediation; but outsIde, that IS, d b' t as typifactions as local color,
I
Y
be treate as 0 Jec s, ,
view, these anguages rna, ti'no these lanouages become
'd th 'ntentIOns permea '" '" ,
For such OUtSI ers, e I, d " they attract to, or eXCIse
' , d' h' anlnO an expreSSIOn, d
thinos, lImIte In t elr me, '" d ki 0 it difficult for the wor to
b h I 0 oe a partIcular wor -rna n", ,
from, suc an",ua", , 'I 'thout any qualificatIOns.
be utilized in a directly mtentIOnexhaway, WId b the oeneric and professional
' , 'far from auste y '" I'
But the SItuatIOn IS I Althouoh at its very core It-
h l'terary anouaoe. '"
stratification of t e common I'll h '" g:neous as the oral and written
erary language is frequently, y is always present,
language of a socla
f
diJ::entiation, a social stratification,
even here, a certain degree 0 mel acute. Social stratification may here
that in other eras can become, extre
d
Yf ' al stratification but in essence
' 'd 'th enenc an pro eSSIOn ,
and there comCI e WI g t ous and peculiar to itself.
it is, of course, a tlling c,ompletely il detennined by differences
Social stratification IS also an y d between the expressive
f d to convey meanmg an f'
between the orms ,use h t' tratification expresses itsel m typ_
P
lanes of various belIef systems-t a IS, s I' d accentuate elements of
' ed to conceptua lZe an , I
ical differences m ways ,us , I t the abstractly linguistic dla ec-
languaoe and stratificatIOn may not VIO a e
'" , f h h d l'terary lanouaoe,
tolooical unity 0 t e s are I ifi "'t "'old VI'ews have the capacity to
'" all 'all sion can w r h '
What is more, SOCI y '" th ugh the medium of t elI
' I 'bTt' of lanouage ro ,
exploit the intentIOna II d'" 'es (artistic and otherwise), Clr-
' t c no Vanous ten enCI , ,
specific concrete ms an I "" tI' cular significant artIstIc
'I wspapers even par
cles, journals, partlcu ar ne _ II ' pable of stratifying language, in pro-
works and individual persons ale a cha pable of attracting its words
h ' , I ionificance; t eyare ca "
P
ortion to t elr SOCIa s '" f h . n characteristic mtentIOns
h ' b't b means 0 t elr ow d
and forms into t elr or I. Y t ' tent alienatino these words an
d ' domo to a cer am ex '"
and accents, an m so ,'" , artistic works and persons,
forms from other tendenCIes, partles'rf h the ability-sometimes
' 'fi t rbal pe ormance as , h '
Every socially SIgnI can ve 'd' I of persons-to infect WIt ItS
' d f ' d for a WI e CIrc e b '
for a long peno 0 tIme, an f I that had been affected y ItS
' cts 0 anguaoe .
own intention certam aspe ,"', them specific semantIC
' . pulse Imposmg on d
semantic and expreSSIve , ,thus it can create slogan-wor s,
d specific axioloolCal overtones, ,
nuances an '" f th
curse-words, praise-words and so °fr 'b lI'deolooicallife, each generation
' I . t ' I moment 0 ver a - l:Y' h
In any Olven l1S onca every age group as as
'" I h' lanouaoe' moreover,
at each social leve as ItS own "'. '" , b lary its own particular
' I ouage ItS own voca u , ,
a matter of fact ItS own an", , d ding on social level, academIC
accentual system that, in theirhturn, dvaryt school student, the trade
' , (th I uage of t e ca e, e '" "f All
instItutIOn e ang ) d other stratIfyin
o
actors.
II cliff t lanouaoes an '"
school student are a eren ": ,'" I n uaoes no matter how narrow
this is brought about by socially typt
ng
, gev;n ;ossible to have a family
the social circle in which arefspo
l
en, oIS as for instance, the jargon of
' define the societal lImIts 0 a angua",e, , prgon
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL I 1215
As a living, socio-ideological concrete thing, as heteroglot opinion, lan-
guage, for the individual consciousness, lies on the borderline between one-
self and the other, The word in language is half someone else's, It becomes
"one's own" only when the speaker populates it with his own intention, his
own accent, when he appropriates the word, adapting it to his own semantic
and expressive intention, Prior to this moment of appropriation, the word
does not exist in a neutral and impersonal language (it is not, after all, out
of a dictionary that the speaker gets his words!), but rather it exists in other
people's mouths, in other people's contexts, serving otherpeople's intentions:
it is from there that one must take the word, and make it one's own, And
not all words for just anyone submit equally easily to this appropriation, 'to
this seizure and transformation into private property: many words stubbornly
resist, others remain a).ien, sound foreign in the mouth of the one who appro-
priated them and who now speaks them; they cannot be assimilated into his
context and fall out of it; it is as if they put themselves in quotation marks
against the will of the speaker, Language is not a neutral medium that passes
freely and easily into the private property of the speaker's intentions; it is
populated-overpopulated-with the intentions of others, Expropriating it,
forcing it to submit to one's own intentions and accents, is a difficult and
complicated process,
We have so far proceeded on the assumption of the abstract-linguistic
(dialectological) unity of literary language, But even a literary language is
anything but a closed dialect, Within the scope of literary language itself
there is already a more or less sharply defined boundary between everyday-
conversational language and written language. Distinctions between genres
frequently coincide with dialectological distinctions (for example, the high-
Church Slavonic
6
-and the low-conversational-genres of the eighteenth
century); finally, certain dialects may be legitimized in literature and thus to
a certain extent be appropriated by literary language.
As they enter literature and are appropriated to literary language, dialects
in this new context lose, of course, the quality of closed socio-linguistic sys-
tems; they are deformep and in fact cease to be that which they had been
simply as dialects. On the other hand, these dialects, on entering the literary
language and preserving within it their own dialectological elasticity, their
other-languagedness, have the effect of deforming the literary la:qguage; it,
too, ceases to be that which it had been, a closed socio-linguistic system.
Literary language is a highly distinctive phenomenon, as is the linguistic
consciousness of the educated person who is its agent; within it, intentional
diversity of speech [raznorecivost'] (which is present in every living dialect as
a closed system) is transformed into diversity of language [raznojazycie]; what
results is not a single language but a dialoglle of languages.
The national literary language of a people with a highly developed art of
prose, especially if it is novelistic prose with a rich and tension-filled verbal-
ideological history, is in fact an organized microcosm that reflects the macro-
cosmfiot only of national heteroglossia, but of European heteroglossia as
}Vell, The unity of a literary language is not a unity of a single, closed language
$ystem; bllt is rather a highly specific unity of several "languages" that have
established contact and mutual recognition with each other (merely one of
(826-885) and still used as a liturgical language by
all Slavic Orthodox Christian Churches.
6. The South Slavic used in the standard
9th century translation of the Bible done by the
brothers Sts. Cyril (827-869) and Methodius
1214 / MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
of his themes and for the refracted (indirect) expression of his intentions
and values. d the referential and expressive-that
This is why we constantly put t t f fies and differentiates the com-
is, intentional-factors as the force
h
a
l
. s I
t
.
C
markers (lexical coloration,
1
d not t e maUIS I
mon literary anguage, an . 1 '=' ages professional jargons and so
. tc ) of generIc angu , . 1
semantIc overtones, e . ak h 1 tic deposits of an intentIOna
k h
t e so to spe ,t e sc ero .'
ers t a a: ' he ath ofthe real living project of an mtention,
process, sIgns left behmd on t p . t aenerallinguistic norms, These
'1 't 'mparts meamng 0 '=' 1
of the partlcu ar way I I b bl d fu able cannot in themse ves
k I
, ' tically 0 serva e an x , I'
external mar ers, mgUIs d di the specific conceptua 1-
be understood or studied without, un ng
h b
' en by an mtentIOn, I
zation they ave een ,gIV b d 't lf 'n a living impulse [naprav en,-
Discourse lives, as It were, eyo
n
h
I se l' I completely from this impulse
d h b
' t· 'f we detac ourse ves
nost'] towar teo Jec ,I f h d from which we can learn
1 f
' h ked corpse 0 t e wor , 'f
all we have e t IS t e na , " the fate of a given word in li e,
nothing at all about the SOCIal or he that reaches out heyond it, is
To study the word as i
g
no
J
ri1
r
1.
g
:herunpu 'ence outside the context of that
r
st dy psyc '/.0 Oa1ca expen
just as sense ess as t? " ct:d and by which it is determined,
real life toWal'd wbch 1t :vas an , f t atification in literarylanguage,
By stressing the intentional 0 s series such methodologi-
we are able, as has been said, to oca e Ifn a :on'='al and social dialects, world
h omena as pro eSSI ,
cally heterogeneous P , ks f ' th ir: intentional dimenSIOn one
views and individual artIstIC w?r
h
'h or In lIebe' ]'uxtaposed and juxtaposed.
1 on whIC t ey can a ,
finds that common pane " th fact that there may be, between
dialogically. The whole no matter howthese languages
"languages," highly speCI c a ak°
gIC
re a t" lar points of viewon the world.
, d h 11 be t en as par ICU f
are conceIve , t ey maY,a f doin the work of stratification-a pro es-
However varied the SOCIal orces g 'di'dual personality-the work
fcular tendency, an III VI , 11
sion, a genre, a par I d to the (relatively) protracted and SOCIa y
itself everywhere comes own 1 Wl'th specific (and conse-
, ) t fon of anauaae
meaningful (collectIve sa ura I T'='h '='1 ger this stratifying satura-
, " )' t f ns and accents, e on , d
quently hmltmg m en 10 h ' 1 cI'rcle encompassed by It an
th broader t e SOCIa h
tion goes on, e b f 1 the social force bringing about suc a
consequently the more su stan h
la
harply focused and stable will be
, f 1 age then t e more s , ,
stratificatIOn 0 angu. .' h 'the language markers (lingUIstic sym-
those traces, the lingUIstIC c anges'm It of this social force's activ-
1 ft b h
' d' lanauaae as a resu ,
boIs), that are e e m m '=' I'=', 1) mantic nuances to authentIC
ity-from stable (and y 1 and others), which permit
dialectoloaical markers (phonetIC, morp 0 ogI
'='k f f lar social dialects, , 1
us to spea 0 par ICU k d b 11 these stratifying forces m anguag
e
,
As a result of the wor a ds and forms that can belong
" I" rds an lorms-
wor
'th
there are no neutra WhO b letely taken over, shot through Wl
" ", 1 guaae as een comp li' ' 't 1 -
to no one , . an '=' , d' 'd 1 consciousness VIng m I, an
intentions and accents, For any m
f
IVI ua
t
, forms but rather a concrete
b
t t system 0 norma Ive f '
guage is not an a s rac d All d h ve the "taste" of a pro eSSIOn, .
. ftheworl wor s a
heteroglo
t
conceptIOn 0 a work, a particular person, a gen-
a aenre, a tendency, a party, Pd h E h word tastes of the context and
'=' the day an our, ac d f
eration, an age group, , ' '11 harged life' all words an orms
, hi h 't has lived ItS SOCIa y c , d '
contexts In w c I , C t 1 vertones (aeneric, ten entIOuS,
are populated by intentIOns" ontex ua 0 '='
individualistic) are inevitable m the word,
1216 I MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
which is poetic language in the narrow sense). Precisely this constitutes the
peculiar nature of the methodological problem in literary language.
Concrete socio-ideological language consciousness, as it becomes crea-
tive-that is, as it becomes active as literature-discovers itself already sur-
rounded by heteroglossia and not at all a single, unitary language, inviolable
and indisputable. The actively literary linguistic consciousness at all times
and everywhere (that is, in all epochs of literature historically available to
us) comes upon "languages," and not language. Consciousness finds itself
inevitably facing the necessity of having to choose a language. With each
literary-verbal performance, consciousness must actively orient itself amidst
heteroglos
sia
, it must move in and occupy a position for itself within it, it
chooses, in other words, a "language." Only by remaining in a closed envi-
ronment, one without writing or thought, completely off the maps of socio-
ideological becoming, could a man fail to sense this activity of selecting a
language and rest assured in the inviolability of his own language, the con-
viction that his language is predetermined.
Even such a man, however, deals not in fact with a single language, but
with languages-except that the place occupied by each of these languages
is fixed and indisputable, the movement from one to the other is predeter-
mined and not a thought process; it is as if these languages were in different
chambers. They do not collide with each other in his consciousness, there
is no attempt to coordinate them, to look at one of these languages through
the eyes of another language. ,-
Thus an illiterate peasant, miles away from any urban center, naively_
immersed in an unmoving and for him unshakable everyday world, never-
theless lived in several language systems: he prayed to God in one language
(Church Slavonic), sang songs in another, spoke to his family in a third and,
when he began to dictate petitions to the local authorities through a scribe,
he tried speaking yet a fourth language (the official-literate language, "paper"
language). All these are different languages, even from the point of view of
abstract socio-dialectological markers. But these languages were not dialog-
ically coordinated in the linguistic consciousness of the peasant; he passed
from one to the other without thinking, automatically: each was indisputably
in its own place, and the place of each was indisputable. He was not yet able
to regard one language (and the verbal world corresponding to it) through
the eyes of another language (that is, the language of everyday life and the
everyday world with the language of prayer or song, or vice versa).?
As soon as a critical interanimation of languages began to occur in the
consciousness of our peasant, as soon as it became clear that these were not
only various different languages but even internally variegated languages,
that the ideological systems and approaches to the world that were indissol-
ubly connected with these languages contradicted each other and in no way
could live in peace and quiet with one another-then the inviolability and
predetermined quality of these languages came to an end, and the necessity
of actively choosing one's orientation among them began.
The language and world of prayer, the language and world of song, the
language and world of labor and everyday life, the specific language and
7. We are of course deliberately simplifying: the real-life peasant could and did do this to a certain extent
[Bakhtin's note].
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL ! 1217
world of local authorities the new lana
immigrated to the these and world of the workers freshly
emerged from a state of peaceful d '" and worlds sooner or later
the speech diversity in each. an mOrIbund equilibrium and revealed
Of course the actively litera limm' . .
even more varied and profound comes upon an
as well as outside it Any fu d 1'" d
SIa
WIthm lIterary language itself
. n amenta stu y of th I" lif '
must begin with this basic fact Th f e sty IStiC e of the word
d h
. e nature 0 the h t 1 .
an t e means by which' e erog OSSla encountered
I
, one OrIents oneself in 't d t . h
sty Istic life that the word will lead. 1 e ermme t e concrete
The poet is a poet insofar as he acce ts th .d f .
and a unitary, monoiogicall 1 .ea 0 a umtary and, singular
Immanent in the poetic <>enres with h off utterance. These Ideas are
contradiction these are'"what d t W. IC th
he
works. In a condition of actual
h
' e ermIne e mea f' .
t e poet. The poet must assu l' ns 0 OrIentatIOn open to
h
. me a comp ete sm<>le d h
IS own lanauage he must '" -persone egemonyover
"" assume equal re 'bT f
aspects and subordinate them t h' dsponsl 1 Ity or each one of its
d
o IS own an only h' . .
wor must express the poet's . d" tl IS own, mtentIOns. Each
lrec yand 'th di'
must be no distance between th 0 d hi WI out me ation; there
e poet an .s wo d Th .
emerge from lanauage as a sin<>le inte ti r. e meanmg must
its speech diversity to say noth"'. fr: °lnal whole: none of its stratification
. ,Ina0 Its anaua<> d' . '
m any fundamental way I'n hI' '" ti' k '" ",e Iverslty, may be reflected
. s poe c wor ,
To achIeve this, the poet strips the word f h ,.
such words and forms (and onI' hoot ers mtentions, he uses only
concrete intentional levels of a ,,;y) they the!r link with
contexts Behind the d f '" ",e an theIr connectIOn With specific
. wor s 0 a poetic w k h Id
or reified images of genres (exce t for o?e s ou . not sense any typical
sions, tendencies, directions t th d' poetic genre), nor profes-
self), nor world views (exce t for p e, IrectlOn .chosen by the poet him-
poet himself) nor typical an
P
d' and smgularworld view of the
, m IV! ua ImaOes of s ki
speech mannerisms or typical I' t . E'" pea ng persons, their
.. n onatlOns. verythi 0 tl t h
tmmerse itself in Letlne B dfi' no Ul enters t e worh
>' " ,an orget us prev' Z;"" h
Janguage 11Uly remember only its llfi . . tauS HZ any ot er contexts:
ever, even concrete reminiscence: (in such contexts, how-
Of course there always exists a limited h
contexts, and a connection with th sp ere of .more or less concrete
poetic discourse. But these contextse:emust lbe evidenced in
accented in the abstract; in their y sen:antlc and, s? to speak,
or at least no particularly concret 1- ,. ImensI.on, they are Impersonal
them, no particular manner of s e mgUlstlc specifiCIty is sensed behind
guistic face (the possible so forth, no socially typical lin-
behind them. Everywhere th . l
o
t e narrator) need peek out from
author, answerin
a
for every weredis one face-the linguistic face of the
. 0 or as 1 It were his N
tlple and varied these semant' d own. 0 matter how mul-
hi
IC an accentual thread .,
nts, correlations that emerge fr s, aSSOCIatIOns, pointers,
conceptual horizon, is sufficient ",:ord, one language, one
social contexts. What is mo th ' ere IS no need of heteroglot
re, e very movement of the poetic symbol (for
8. A mythological river throuah H d (li ll" memory. b a es tera y, forgetfulness";, Greek). All who drink from it lose their
1218 I MIKHAIL M. BAKHTIN
example, the unfolding of a metaphor) presumes precisely this lan-
auaae an unmediated correspondence with its object. Social dIversIty of
:pe:ch were it to arise in the work and stratify its language, would make
impossible both the normal development and the activity of symbols within
it.
The very rhythm of poetic genres does not promote any appreciable degree
of stratification. Rhythm, by creating an unmediated involvement between
every aspect of the accentual system of the whole (via the most immediate
rhythmic unities), destroys in embryo those social worlds of speech and of
persons that are potentially embedded in the word: in any cas:, puts
definite limits on them, does not let them unfold or materIalIZe. Rhythm
serves to strenathen and concentrate even further the unity and hermetic
quality of the :urface of poetic style, and of the unitary language that this
style posits. . .
As a result of this work-stripping all aspects of language of the mtentIOns
and accents of other people, destroying all traces of social and
diversity of language-a tension-filled unity of language .is achIeved m the
poetic work. This unity may be naive, and present only m those extremely
rare epochs of poetry, when poetry had not yet exceeded the lin:its of a
closed, unitary, undifferentiated social circle whose language and Ideology
were not yet stratified. More often than not, we experience a profound
conscious tension through which the unitary poetic language of a work rIses
from the heteroglot and language-diverse chaos of ,the literary language con-
temporary to it. .
This is how the poet proceeds. The novelist working in prose (and almost
any prose writer) takes a completely different path. He V;elcomes the het:ro-
alossia and lanauaae diversity of the literary and extrahterary language mto
his own work ;ot ;nly not weakening them but even them
he interacts with their particular self-consciousness). It is in fact of
stratification of language, its speech diversity and even
that he constructs his style, while at the same time he maintams the
of his own creative personality and the unity (although it is, to be sure, umty
of another order) of his own style.
The prose writer does not purge words of intentions and to.nes that are
alien to him, he does not destroy the seeds of social heterogiossla embedded
in words he does not eliminate those language characterizatior1s and speech
(potential narrator-personalities) glimmering behind the words
and fonns, each at a different distance from the ultimate semantic nucleus
of his work, that is, the center of his own personal intentions. .
The lanauaae of the prose writer deploys itself according to degrees of
greater or proximity to the author and to his semantic
tiation: certain aspects of language directly and unmedlatedly express (as III
poetry) the semantic and expressive intentions of the refract
these intentions; the writer of prose does not meld completely WIth any of
these words, but rather accents each of them in a particular way-humor-
ously, ironically, parodically arid so forth;9 yet another g;roup IP:ay stand even
further from the author's ultimate semantic still more
oughly refracting his intentions; and there are, finally, those words that are
DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL I 1219
completely denied any authorial intentions: the author does not express him-
selfin ther.n (as the author of the word)-rather, he exhibits them as a unique
speech-thmg, they function for him as something completely reified.
Therefore the stratification of language-generic, professional, social in the
narrowsense, that ofparticular world views, particular tendencies, particular
individuals, the social speech diversity and language-diversity (dialects) of
language-upon entering the novel establishs its own special order within
it, and becomes a unique artistic system, which orchestrates the intentional
theme of the author.
Thus a prose writer can distance himself from the language of his own
work, while at the same time distancing himself, in varying degrees, from
the different layers and aspects of the work. He can make use of language
without wholly giving himself up to it, he may treat it as semi-alien or com-
pletely alien to himself, while compelling language ultimately to serve all his
own intentions. The author does not speak in a given language (from which
he distances himself to a greater or lesser degree), but he speaks, as it were,
thmugh language, a language that has somehow more or less materialized,
become objectivized, that he merely ventriloquates.
The prose writer as a novelist does not strip away the intentions of others
from the heteroglot language of his works, he does not violate those socio-
ideological cultural horizons (bigandlittle worlds) that open up behindhetero-
glot languages-rather, he welcomes them into his work. The prose writer
makes use of words that are already populated with the social intentions of
others and compels them to serve his own new intentions, to serve a second
master. Therefore the intentions of the prose writer are refracted, and
refracted at different angles, depending on the degree to which the refracted,
heteroglot languages he deals with are socio-ideologically alien, already
embodied and already objectivized.
The orientation of the word amid the utterances and languages of others,
and all the specific phenomena connected with this orientation, takes on
artistic significance in novel style. Diversity of voices and heteroglossia enter
th.e novel and organize themselves within it into a structured artistic system.
Tliis constitutes the distinguishing feature of the novel as a genre.
Any stylistics capable of dealing with the distinctiveness of the novel as a
genre must be a sociological stylistics. The internal social dialogism of nov-
elistic discourse requires the concrete social context of discourse to be
exposed, to be revealed as the force that determines its entire stylistic struc-
ture, its "form" and its "content," determining it not from without, but from
within; for indeed, social dialogue reverberates in all aspects of discourse, in
those relating to "content" as well as the "formal" aspects themselves.
The developl)lent of the novel is a function of the deepening of dialogic
essence, its increased scope and greater precision. Fewer and fewer neutral,
hard elements ("rock bottom truths") remain that are not drawn into dia-
logue. Dialogue moves into the deepest molecular and, ultimately, subatomic
levels. _
Of course, even the poetic word is social, but poetic forms reflect lengthier
social processes, i.e., those tendencies in social life requiring centuries to
unfold. The novelistic word, however, registers with extreme subtlety the
tiniest shifts and oscillations of the social atmosphere; it does so, moreover,
while registering it as a whole, in all of its aspects.
When heteroglossia enters the novel it becomes subject to an artistic
ited and so foith, that is, as words that are tin?cr-
stood from the distaI1ces appropriate to humor,
irony, parody, etc. [Bakhtin's note]:
9. Tliatis to say, the words are not his ifwe hnder-
stand them as direct words, but they ate his as
things that being transmitted ironically, exhib-
* * *
1220 '/ MAX HORKHEIMER AND THEODOR W. ADORNO
king The social and historical voices populating language, all its words
its' forms, which provide language its
of amid
the heteroglossia of his epoch.
MAX HORKHEIMER AND THEODOR W. ADORNO I 1221
Adorno was particularly talzen with Benjamin's Origin of German Tragic Drama
(1928), whose reflections on antisystematic philosophy helped Adorno develop his
"atonal" philosophy, which, as he would explain in his Negative Dialectics (1966),
avoids fixed concepts, much as modernist autonomous art shuns any kind of didactic
or affinnative statements. With the help of Benjamin and Kracauer, Adorno's circle
of associates later widened to include Ernst Bloch, whom Adorno regarded as the
leading philosopher of expressionism, and Bertolt Brecht, the foremost Marxist dram-
atist. DUring this time Adorno began studying various materialist approaches to cul-
ture, falling under the influence of unorthodox Marxian texts such as Bloch's Spirit
of Utopia (1918) and GY6RGY LUKAcs's History and Class Consciousness (1922).
Bloch's utopian notion of art influenced Adorno's understanding of autonomous art,
and Lukacs's conception of reification infonned his theory of the "mass deception"
wrought by the modern culture industry.
At the University of Frankfurt, Adorno also met Max Horkheimer, a member of the
now famous interdisciplinary Institute for Social Research (the so-called Frankfurt
School), which was founded in 1924 and concerned initially with Marxist political
economy, labor-movement history, and Marx-Engels scholarship. Born near Stuttgart
to an upwardly mobile Jewish family, Horkheimer as a young man resisted his father's
plans for him to run the family textile business because he could not accept the
exploitation of labor on which it was based. Mter World War I, Horkheimer began
his studies in Munich and then moved to the University of Frankfurt, which offered
an exciting environment for those interested in social philosophy. He studied with
the neo-Kantian philosopher Hans Cornelius, submitted his Habilitationsschrift (dis-
sertation) in 1925, and became a regular lecturer in the history of philosophy. Like
Adorno, Horkheimer moved away from idealist philosophy and its unhistorical
approaches to Marxist materialist views. When Horkheimer assumed the directorship
of the institute in 1930, he shifted its focus to cultural studies and so-called Critical
Theory, a term he coined for the emerging mode of theoretical and empirical social
analyses of modern culture typical of Adorno, Berbert Marcuse, and other members
of the Franl<furt School.
Through his relationship with Borkheimer, Adorno would publish in the institute's
journal, become a member in 1938, and ultimately succeed Borkheimer as director
in 1964. Even more important,.in the mid-I 930s Borkheimer invitedAdorno to Amer-
ica to do sociological work for the institute, which had been forced to relocate after
being closed by the Nazis in 1933. Adorno himself had been denied the right to teach
• aethe universitylevel because he was Jewish. Consequently, in 1938Adorno accepted
Borkheimer's invitation and moved to New York and then, in 1941, to Los Angeles.
There Adorno and Borkheimer collaborated on Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947),
their major critique of modern culture, in which they interrogate the notion that the
Western world has been progressing since the Enlightenment. In this dense polemical
work, they claim that the modern \iVest has not fulfilled the utopian promise of the
Enlightenment, becoming instead a rationalized, administered world that dominates
individuals through instrumental reason, monopoly capitalism, and political totali-
tarianism.
Appearing as a long chapter in Adorno and Borkheimer's Dialectic of Enlighten-
ment, "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass, Deception" argues that the
administered modern world is sustained in part by technologically reproduced mass
art. In contrast to Benjamin, who on occasion was optimistic about the emancipatory
potential of mass art, Adorno and Borkheimer contend that the culture industry
serves the totalitarian impulses of modern capitalist society, not least because the
interests of leading broadcasting finns, publishing companies, and motion picture
srudios are economically interwoven with those of all other capitalist industries. In
its attempt to produce and reproduce the social relations of a homogenized society,
the culture industry contributes to the liquidation of the individual and the mainte-
nance of the status quo. It transforms art into commodities and people into compla-
1934-35
THEODOR W. ADORNO
1903-1969
. hiloso her and social criticTheodor Wiesen-
In a celebrated aphonsm, the Pt ft r Auschwitz is barbaric." This
I' d that 'To wnte poe ry a e
grund Adorno proc alme ulates Adorno's bitterly melancholic understan.d-
terse and austere s,tatement encaps f d' hl'S hiohly influential
d . ty hich he 0 ten expresse m 0
ing of modem art an SOCle , w h t' F Adorno as for some other members
. . I gy and aest e lCS. or, . d
writings on musIc, SOClO 0
0
'. e roduction of consumable, styIlZe
of the celebrated Institute for SOCIal th
f
oP l'ety that permits social atrocities
. li" th d' sintereste Vlew 0 s c ' ,
mass art IS comp CIt WI . aId .de to 00 unchecked. The production
such as Nazi concentratlOn ahn Agednocl d °hl's fellow German social critic
., I' 't WIth w at orno an
of such art IS alSO comp lCl" I . d t " meaning the constellation of enter-
Max Horkheimer called the cu ture m us lry,. . adio magazines and popular
. th t oduce film te eVlSlOn, r, ,
tainment busmesses a pr , h I 'n which the lines between art,
II h reated by mass tec no ogy 1
music-a p enomena c I h' ld f manipulation and carefree amuse-
d .. d paoanda blur. ntIs wor 0 .
a vertismg, an pro 0 As Ad would assert on many occaslOns,
ment, mass art serves the status quo. d orneoJ'usti'ce to the immense suffering in
I .. f f art that can 0 som h
the only egltlmate orm 0 f d . which throuoh its apparent detac _
the world is the autonomous art 0 mlo
d
h up the promise of a better
ment from reality, critiques the wor as It IS, 0 0
future. . t wealthy and assimilated Jewish wine
Adorno was born in Frankfurt am h
O
a
l
. 'fe Maria Calvelli-Adorno, whose
O I \iXl' nd and hIS at 0 lC WI , ,
merchant, s zar 'vlesengru, db h fl' ted with embracin
o
his mothers
Ad a have assume ecause e lr o. ..
last name orno m. y Ad' . t llectual development was hIS trammg
faith. An impo.rtant mfluence enabled him to meet and study with
in music, partIcularly because I, n the h Arnold Schoenbero and his dis-
. . t omposers suc as 0
famous Viennese expresslOllls b 1'h atonal compositions of Schoenberg
ciples Alban Berg and Anton . e
h
em
d
· I fe
or
the unsystematic methodology of his
. . d Ad .ding him WIt mo e s . d
msplre orno, proVl . d th ti s and for what art m the mo em
critical work in philosophy, soclOlogy, an aes e. cfl e ce on Adorno was the noted
world should be. Another co.ntemporary m introduced him to earlier
film critic and social theonst Krahcauer, ld become well-known for his
h'l h A an antl-l ea 1St w 0 wou h
German p 1osop y. s I It re Kracauer tauohtAdorno ow
groundbreaking sociological analyses 0: and documents,
to read the works of IMMANUEL KANT a d ymp t d the autonomous artworks of
which is how Adorno would later rea mass ar an
modernism. kfu . th 1920s KracauerintroducedAdornotoWALTER
At the University of Fran rt m
d
. e . I' . I nalyses of contemporary culture.
BENJAMIN, who was also intereste m SOClO oglca a
MAX HORKHEIMER
1895-1973

Finally and most significantly. now renamed Leningrad. This concept of the multivoiced nature of discourse received its fullest treatment in "Discourse in the .lty finding permanent employment. Bakhtin's theory of the novel relies on three key concepts. . Following the war. He earned a degree in classics and philology from the University of Petrograd in 1918. from there in the 1980s it reached North America and England. and "grotesque realism. arguing that he did not share the Communist sympathies of Volosinov and Medvedev (both members of the Communist Party. But regardless of whether Bakhtin actually wrote the books ascribed to his two colleagues. He moved to a small town outside of Moscow where his worsening osteomyelitis led to the amputation of his right leg. He was sentenced to ten years in a labor camp. Although these lengthy essays exhibit a keen interest in phenomenology and the intersubjective nature of language. Bakhtin had difficlj. Communism responqs by politicizing art. the sentence was commuted to six years' internal exile in Kazakhstan. and to his unfinished dissertation on Rabelais. the ensuing civil war (1918-21). Certain works written during his youth in the 1920i. he labored most of his adult life in obscurity. he develops the influential term chronotope to describe the intrinsic connectedness of time and space and their central role in constituting literary genres. He has been called a formalist. expects war to supply the artistic gratification of a sense perception that has been changed by technology. the dialogism of language. where his work had significant impact. a circumstance that probably saved his life at a time when his close-and better connectedfriends were disappearing into death camps. but on the intervention of friends. the publications of the Bakhtin Circle from the late 1920s defined the problems of language that would occupy Bakhtin for. Yet these clifficulties in separating Bakhtin's voice from those of others are of a piece with his own philosophical beliefs about the dialogic nature of language. and controversies continue over three disputed books from the 1920s that appeared under the names of his colleagues Valentin Volosinov and Pavel Medvedev. This is evidently the consummation of ''l'art pour l'art. Its self-J3. because his work intersects in eccentric ways with so many of the critical orthodoxies of twentiethcentury literary criticism. In the 1970s his reputation spread to Paris through the work of Eastern European emigres such as JULIA KRISTEVA and Tzvetan Todorov. BAKHTIN 1895-1975 Pro. Bakhtiri's earliest writings. Bakhtin. the rest of his life. parody.lienation has reached such a degree that ~t can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order. BAKHTIN MIKHAIL M." In "Forms of Time and Chronotope in the Novel" (1937-38). In 1929 Volosinov's Marxism and the Philosophy of Language appeared and also Bakhtin's Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics. and the repressive Soviet regime under Joseph Stalin. Bakhtin's scholarly fortunes began to rise even as his health began to decline. the only book to be published under his own name before Stalin's death. and a radical. Bakhtin's words became inextricably and dialogically intertwined with those of his collaborators.aracter's maturation and education (the bildungsrOlpan). MIKHAIL M. Critics wary of Marxism have attempted to distance Bakhtin from the work of his circle. as well as a book on novels that chronicle the main ch. In 1936. 1936 4. "Quests for my own words are quests for a word that is not my own. which by now included Volosinov and Medvedev. The circumstances of Bakhtin's life make it sometimes difficult to verify the authorship and chronology of his writings.ts in the early 1960s."4 says Fascism. are densely philosophical and heavily indebted to IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804). World War II interrupted his work on the dissertation. Petersburg). M." In prison he suffered from health prob~ lems caused by chronic osteomyelitis. Although he was finally granted the doctoral degree. a conservative. held by some to be the works of Bakhtin himself. In the 19~Os and 1940s Bakhtin began to W!ite a dissertation on the French writer Franc. As he wrote in a note that was later published in his Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. the "intense interanirnation and struggle between one's own and another's word. Bakhtin grew up in Vilnius and later Odessa. The carnivalesque-an idea first introduced in Rabelais and His World (written in the 1930s and 1940s. his exile over. published 1986) and "Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity" (1919. whose thought influenced the key concepts he later developed in his celebrated writings on the novel. as some have claimed. By the time of his death from complications of emphysema. which in Homer's time yva~ an object of contemplation for the Olympian gods. a Marxist. were not published until late in his life or after his death. the influences among the members of the circle were undoubtedly strong and indelible. he first met the group of intellectuals who would become part of his circle and within whose wide-ranging discussions Bakhtin would formulate the critical concepts that were to dominate his thinking for the rest of his life. Let art be made. and as Marinetti admits. it remained unread until it was discovered in the Gorky Institute's archives by graduate studeI]. "Fiat ars-pereat mundus. In 1920 Bakhtin settled in Vitebsk. This is the situation of politics which Fascism is rendering aesthetic. since his discovery in the 1970s. political oppression. and through gas warfare the aura is abolished in a nfw way. in such essays as "Towards a Philosophy of the Act" (1919. Lacking Communist Party credentials. Mter that surgery. there in January 1929 he was arrested and imprisoned for alleged ~ntigovernment activity and the Socratic crime of "corrupting the young. only fragments of this book survive. a painful inflammation of the bone marrow. published 1975). and totalitarian order through laughter. where his circle. let the world perish (Latin). continued to meet. both disappeared during the political purges of the 1930s). Bakhtin was allowed to return to his university position in Saransj<. he taught at Mordovia Pedagogical Institute in Saransk until new purges forced him to resign. he could not publish his dissertation.claimed by 1ZVETAN TODOROV as perhaps the greatest twentieth-century theorist of literature. In 1924 BakhtiI) moved back to Petrograd (or St.ois Rabelais (1490-1553). published 1965)-is Bakhtin's term for those forms of unofficial culture (the early novel among them) that resist official culture.1186 / MIKHAIL M. In 1926 Volosinov published Freudianism: A Marxist Critique. M. has been acclaimed by literary critics across a wide theoretical and political spectrum. BAKHTlN / 1187 drops incendiaqr bombs over cities. he had become something of a cult figure in Russia." Born in the Russian town of Orel." would come to dominate Bakhtin's thinking about language after 1926. he also suffered from emphysema caused by his heavy smoking." Mankind. In addition to osteomyelitis. though he occasionally delivered lectures at the Gorky Institute of World Literature. and Medvedev followed in 1928 with The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship. Working as a schoolteacher in Nevel in western Russia during the civil war between the Red Army and the anti-Bolshevist White armies. a Christian humanist. Almost everything about Bakhtin's life and writing is colored by the fact that his greatest period of productivity coincided with the Russian Revolution. it resists easy classification. now is one for itself. and a shortage of cigarette paper led Bakhtin to sacrifice pages from the book on the bildungsroman to his nicotine habit. Mter Stalin's death in 1953.

Gary Sau! Morson edited one of the first English collections of essays. Central to Bakhtin's theory of the novel is his belief that language is fundamentally dialogic. First. which collects essays from a 1995 Bakhtm ~onference m Moscow. he regularly establishes his critical vocabulary by defining certain terms positively against related terms given negative valences. provides a useful brief introduction"'to Bakhtinian dialogics in Mihhail Bahhtin: The Dialogic Principle (1984). as they consistently do in the novel. all fail to articulate an adequate account of the novel because they have not pursued a properly "sociological stylistics. languages of generations and ag~. With the end of the cold war in 1989. professional jargons.tical positions. examines Bakhtin in relation to these two influential sch~ols of twentieth-century theory. an individual who is seen as the controlling "author" of discourse. trans. Bakhtin celebrates the dialogics of the novel while criticizing the monologism of poetry. and Volosinov Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (1929. the variety of social speech types. and the diversity of voices interacting with one another. Saul ~orson and Caryl Emerson's Mihhail Bahhtin: Creation of a ProSat~Si (19~~) IS the smgle most thorough and authoritative book-length study of Bakhtm ~ wrItmg and should be the starting point for more advanced study of his work. Works attributed to Ba~tin by some scholars though their title pages list other authors include V. "languages that serve the specific sociopolitical purposes of the day. and doubt may be present in the subject matter of poetry." and he argues that it is alien to the dynamics of the novel because it describes not real. between any word and its speaking subject. insofar as language for him seems less to represent or reflect reality than to refract and rework it. from which we have taken our selection. who.y (1993). collected and translated into edIted by S. according to Bakhtin. linguistic. there exists "an elastic environment of other. which characteristically aims for a unified and pure discourse. widely advocated by cultural studies scholars promote a complex sociopoetics suited to a contemporary globalized world of dive~se peoples languages. enter into the language of the poem itself. 1973). Joan Nordquist has compiled two useful bibliographies. Gary. finally published in 1965 was trans~ lated by Helene Iswolsky as Rabelais and His World (1968). as structuralism does. Gogotishvill (1996-). Medvedev. Volosmov. prevocal signifiers or rhetorical tropes posited by the influential structuralist and poststructuralist traditions. especially poetry.:"ork. see Caryl Emerson The First One Htmdred Years of Mihhail Bahhtin (1997). the systematic nature of language but the multiplicity of all those "centrifugal" forces at work in language. first published in 1929 was revised and reissued in Russian in 1963. Bakhtin's work has been much admired and extended by scholars in many fields. and this "dialogically agitated and tension-filled environment of alien words. the epic. a unitary system of language-a system of more or less absolute norms that govern speech-and. Michael Holquist's I?t~logtsm: Balthtm and Hts World (1991) provides a comprehensive overview of Bakhtin s . notably in Face to Face: Bahhtin in Russia a:zd the West. Bakhtin here addresses the limitations for literary studies of the abstract and formal analyses of literary technique widespread among critics during the interwar period. is projected to include seven English by Vadim Liapunov as Art and Answerability (1990) and Taward a Philosophy ofthe Act (1993). Those in cultural studies have found two major contributions particularly useful. as spoken "discourse" and not the impersonal. 1978). . volu~es. stylistics.1188 / MIKHAIL M. even of the hour. the term Bakhtin famously uses· to describe the "internal stratification" of language: the interplay among its social dialects. N. Between any word and its object. between any word and its active respondent(s). and literary theory. Freudianism: A Marxist Critique (1926. Traditional linguistics. Bahhtm: Essays and Dmlogues on His Worh (1981). still valuable for its critical readinas. celebrates not. These judgments have posed problems for critics who value those genres that Bakhtin most frequently derogates as monologic. on the other hand. see D. dialogic force field of conflicting interests and ideologies-with literary language being only one of many discursive strata and itself divided by generic. Fragments of Bakhtm s late-and largely unfinished-works were collected in a Russian volume and translated into English as Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (1986).McKins~. edited by Gary Saul Morson and Caryl Emerson (1989)-offer readings of Bakhtin across a ranae of theoretical and poli. living language but an abstraction created through selfconscious deliberation about language and cut off from the daily ideological activities of social life. Two collections of essays-Bahhtin ~n~ Cultural Theory. on the one hand.e in the Novel"-w~s not publis~ed in Russia until 1973." Heteroglossia. professional. N. ' BIBLIOGRAPHY T~e standard Russian-language edition of Bakhtin's works. For the feminist reception of Bakhtin. For a retrospective on Bakhtin's works that places him in the context of twentieth-century Russian thought. and the Dialogic (1991). Bakhtin focuses on "language" as the utterances of speaking subjects: that is. with Julia Kristeva. a key text for narrative. 1976). BAKHTIN / 1189 Novel" (1934-35). Other critics object that it is not clear to what degree Bakhtin espouses a mimetic theory of literature. Tzvetan Todorov. "Discourse in the Novel" offers his most elaborate analysis of "dialogism" and its relationship to style in the novel. he insists that discourse unfolds in a heteroglot. These Bakhtinian views. Nevertheless. the carnivalesque to official discourse. P. A. contradiction. stylistic. and drama. T1. Sue Vice's Introducing Bahhtin (1997) may be a more accessIble introduction than Todorov's for students new to Bakhtin's thought. in Mihhail Bahhtin: Between Phenomenology and Marxism (1994). value judgments and accents" that weaves in and out of discourse in complex patterns finds its most artistic expression in the novel. and other special features. class dialects. edited by Ken Hirschkop and David Shepherd (1989). MIchael F.e Fonnal Method in Literary Scholarship (1928. trans. represented by critics like BORIS EICHENBAUM-as well as contemporary Marxist philosophy of language (see LEON TROTSKY) and the new structural linguistics indebted to FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE. Bakhtin calls such a view of language "monologic." The philosophy of language on which these inadequate critical methods are based posits.1984). they do not.le Bauer and S~san . G. Thus the novel is opposed to poetry. they were transl~ed by Caryl EmerS?~ and MIchael HolqUlst as The Dialogic Imagination (1981). Sobranie sochinenii. The earliest works survive only in fragments. and Rethtnbng Bahhtin: Extensions and Cl. the work of Russian scholars on Bakhtin has become available for the first time. Bocharov and L. Mihhail Bahhtin (. Problems ofDostoevshy's Poetics. Bernard-DonaIs. groups and of passing fads. e?ited by Carol Adlam (1997). BAKHTIN MIKHAIL M. Bal<htin.allenges. Although conflict. as well as Critical Essays of Bahhtin. and literary theory-including the theory of the Russian formalists. edited by Emerson (1999). alien words about the same object". Mihhail Ba7<htin (1988) and Mihhail Bahhtin II: A Bibliograpl. ' The standard biography is Katerina Clark and Michael Holquist. Bakhtin argues. Second. trans. was instrumental in brincina Bakhti~'s work to the attention of the West. Bakhtin's theories can sometimes appears confusing and vague because his critical terminology often seems at once evaluative and descriptive. Caryl Emerson translated it into Enalish in 1984 Bakhtin's dissertation of the 1930s and 1940s. the dialogic to the monologic. The import. F emin~sm. Living language exhibits heteroglossia.nt aroup of lengthy essays Bakhtin wrote between 1934 and 1941-includina "Discour. and cultural forms. which Bakhtin hails as the characteristic stylistic feature of the novel.

c~ol~gi. which ~n their turn a~e . But it was precisely these concrete analyses and these attempts at a principled approach that made patently obvious the fact that all the categories of traditional stylistics-in fact the very concepfof a poetic artistic discourse.eIther un~~rstood as being poetic in the narrow sense. Problems ofa T7teoTy of Literature (Leningrad.lmked with individual artists and artistic movements. exposing the narrowness of this type of thinking and its inadequacy in all areas of discourse's artistic life. however vague and tentative. But these individual and teiI~entio~sov~r­ tones of style. cut off from the fundamentally social modes m whIch ~s­ course lives. Stylistics is concerned not with living discours~ but WIt~ a histolog~cal spec. . 1928) (trans. whIle ItS baSIC socIal tone is ianored. . The separation of style and language f~om the . of social groups. and they totally overlooked the authentic nature of artistic prose. We cannot call such a literary worlt a work of verbal art or. The areat historical destinies of genres are overshadow. vicissitudes"of stylistic modifications. the aesthetic project. In both instances the stylistic whole of the novel and of novelistic discourse eluded the investigator. interest began to grow in the concrete problems of artistic craftsmanship in prose. prose discourse is denied any artistic value at all. 173). g~neratI~nsan~ epochs. evaluative terms for the charactenzatIOn of "" ." in Voprosy teorii literatury (L. who occasionally retain the original Russian words or add information in brackets. J?ot in the sense that . precisely in the 1920s that this situation changed: the novelistic prose word began to win a place for itself in stylistics. Russian novelist and moral philosopher. Novelistic discourse proved to be the acid test for this whole way "'of conceiving style. For thIS reason. which is free in its verbal composition.ed by the pett. an artistically neutral means of communication. . such q uestions were limited to empty. and had the catego~Ies of ~raditional stylistics (based on the study of tropes) uncritically applied to It. the same arbitraryjudgmental observations about language-in the spirit of traditional stylisticscontinued to reign supreme. inevitably come across as flat and abstract in such a fonnulatIO. e made from it with abstract linguistic dIscourse m the serVIce of an ~~i~'S individual cr~ative powers. Toward the end of the last century. As recently as the 1920s.n and cannot therefore be studied in organic unity with a work's semantic components. All attempts at concrete stylistic analysis of novelistic prose either strayed into linguistic descriptions of the language of a given novelist or else limited themselves to those separate. it is the same as practical speech for everyday life. There is a highly characteristic and widespread point of view that sees novelistic discourse as an extra-artistic medium. discourse. Form and content in discourse are one. or speech for scientific purposes. as before. 1928. M. such as "expressiveness. It was. On the one hand there appeared a series of concrete stylistic analyses of novelistic prose. however. " "f~r~e. For a long time treatment of the novel ~a: l!mited to little more than abstract ideological examination and pubhCIstIc comment~. in the problems of novel and short-story technique. a discourse that is not worked into any special or unique style. Imagery.) Bakhtin's note]. which lies at the heart of such categories-were not applicable to novelistic .1190 I MIKHAIL M. . cities and villages. Modem Stylistics & the Novel Before the twentieth century.. The novel as a whole is a phenomenon multiform in style and variform in 2. isolated stylistic elements of the novel that were includable (or gave the appearance of being includable) in the traditional categories of stylistics.as been deprived of an authentic philosophical ~n. Zirmunskij [import~nt fellow traveler oflhe Formalists (translators' note)] was writing: "When lyrical poetry appears to be authentically a work of verbal art. " It is this idea that has motivated our emphaSIS on the styhstI cs of genre. it has become bogged down in styhstIC trIVIa." in an anthology of his articles. subordinated ('IS happens in practical speech) to the communicative function. StyhStICS h. in any case. p. by co:qtrast.cal approach to ItS problems. problems associated with a s~listics of the novel had not been precisely formulated-such a formulation could ~n!y have resulted from a recognition of the stylistic uniqueness of novehstic (artistic-prose) discourse. It IS not able to sens~ behind the individual and period-bound shifts the great and anonymous des tinies of artistic discourse itself. More often than not.the term is used for lyrical poetry" ["On the Problem of the Formal Method. discourse in the open ~paces of public squares~ streets. stylistic~ de~nes its~lf as a stylistics of "private craftsmanship" and ignores the SOCIal life of dI~­ course outside the artist's study. the peculiarities of the stylistic life of discourse in the novel (and in the short story as well) lacked an approach that was both principled and at the same time concrete (one is impossible without the other)." ". permitting one to limit oneself to purely thematic analyses of it. BAKHTIN DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL I 1191 From Discourse in the Novell The principal idea of this essay is that the study of verbal art can and must overcome the div~rce between an abstract "formal" approach and an equally abstract "ideological" approach. I. c I~n without providing these concepts with any StyhStIC sIgmficance. on~e we understand that verbal discourse is' a social phenomenon-soCIal throughout its entire range and in each and every of its factors. directing our attention to thematic aspects quite abstracted from purely verbal considerations. Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910).. on the other hand.peno~-bou~d overtones of a style are the privileged subjects of study. as a counterweight to this abstract ideological way of viewing things. attention was concentrated almost exclusively on problems of composition (in the broad sense of the word). C~ncrete questions of stylistics were either not treated at all or tre~ted m passmg and in an arbitrary way: the discourse of artistic prose was. 2 Such a point of view frees one from the necessity of undertaking stylistic analyses of the novel. After failure to find in novelistic discourse a purely poetic fonnulation ("poetic" in the narrow sense) as was expected. in questions of stylistics the situation did not change in the slightest.ty" a n d so onlanguage.d so. or ~lse.qu~s?on of genr~ has been largely responsible for a situation in whIch only mdiVIdual ~nd. from the sound image to the furthest reaches of abstrac~ mea~ing. But. V. it in fact gets rid of the very problem of a stylistics of the novel. does not use words as an artistically significant element of interaction but as a neutral II!edium or as a system of significations tic as well as sound levels) all of which are completely subordinated to. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. However. systematic attempts were made to recognize and define the stylistic uniqueness of artistic prose as distinct from poetry. due to its choice and corribination of words (on seman- Tolstoy's novel. Russian edition: "K voprosu 0 Iformal' nom metode'.

. one of the subordinated styles is isolated and analyzed as if it were the style of the whole.] db h d'fferin a individual voices t at our0 of speech types [raznorecte an {t. behavior.o sem 1193 t inserted genres. f arious circles and of passing as IOns. °b fund in the combination ohts (even at times compnse 0 I e I' work as a whole: the style of a nove IS to e f~t "Ianauaaes" Each separate I b f ovel is the system 0 I S o 0 . h ed by that subordinated umty I . .). ~ I h the speeches of narrators.. Both these conditions are in fact obligatory in the majority of verse-based poetic genres.oup d ar~ups tendentious languages. its dialogization-this is the basic distinguishing feature of the stylistics of the novel. ish under such conditions. d f d'ff rent anauaaes m .termme d' ctly-be it the stylistically 'ty . 'fi' f sinale national language mto even diverSIty 0 anguao d Th . t' mediate umty. o. .?ya." (a language system) and parole (individual speech). We have no need to foIIow where such an analysis of novelistic style leads. . d element of a novel's language. d li~aUistic glV~n 3 This term has no precise equivale~t in Ehng~is~. d f narratIon t at lffilslwz is a techlmquehor n. Specifically. an. f f l"terary ut extra-ar s . In the first type. Stylistics is transformed either into a curious kind of linguistics treating individual languages. its dispersion into the riVUlets and droplets of social heteroglossia. The traditional scholar bypasses the basic distinctive feature of the novel as a genre. 0 I osophical or 0 memoranda and so forth).. and regarded as a phenomenon of language itself: the unity of style in a given work is transformed either into the unity of an individual language ("individual dialect"). but only toward one or another of its subordinated stylistic Unities. YI ). (·4) ration (the letter. BAKHTIN DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL / . .. f hour (eac ay as ISO 0 '. whereby the unified meamng 0 d. . a um . I' h h I a genre consists precise y m t e single oneI 0 t e um Ie h 't' " . anguages . . ueness of t e nove as Testy IStlC umq . . guresm toaether WIth ItS mos 1m f h h I and participates in the process o If t the accent 0 t e woe did itse suppor s . its historica eXIstence I genre.n~' of an individualized tates the ora speec or narrator. . charactenstlc gr. and from the work as such. Slwz was the Frog of as In . or into a linguistics of the utterance. f h t IV! Ize (5) The stylistically in d"duaI' d speech 0 c arac ers. I of aeneratlOns an age 0 ' f h' I languages. to the style of the whole. Mark Twain's "Celebrated]umping . (1) Direct authorial literary-artistic n. or into the unity of an individual speech (parole).ty0 Sf individual voices. ation (in all its diverse variants). it has no method for approaching the distinctive social dialogue among languages that is present in the novel. and instead of novelistic style he actually analyzes something completely different. ethnoaraphic descnptlOns. even of the auaaes that serve the speCIfic SOCI ~ P abulary its own emphases)o 0 h d h 't wn sloaan ItS own v o c .Calaveras C ounty" (1865). t al strati catIon 0 any 0 .3 ms ra (2) Stylization of the vari~us fr 0 iliterary (written) everyday nar(3) Stylization of the vano~s orms. to the higher unity of the . a letter or whatever. in the second type.s the in ispensa e pr II its themes." Equally in both cases. 0 v. combine These heterogeneous.rr I everyday narration (slwz). Vanous ormsscientific statements. . I aae at any aiven moment 0 I resent In every angu 0 0 I 'fi t' this interna stratI ca IOn p d bl erequisite for the nove as a I · Id f . These distinctive links and interrelationships between utterances and lanauaaes o 0 this movement of the theme through different languages and speech types.0 .0.t by means of the social dIverSIty d 'd d 'cted and expresse m I. e m ern . style is understood in the spirit of S a ussure: 4 as an individualization of the general language (in the sense of a system of general language norms). w .. seman I '. the totality of the w?r . The novel orchestrates a d ' . . rofessional jargons.0 olitical urposes of the day. anlanguages of the authontI~s. artistically . each of them permits a multiplicity of social voices and a wide variety of their links and interrelationships (always more Or less dialogized). d et still relatively autonomous. We notice two such types of substitutions: in the first type. t At the same time thIS e ement. f th e hole is structured an revea e . fI aes) and a Iversl 0 . d first of all by one such su orstyles. the emphasis by the French linguist FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE (1857-1913) on lang. In It the II °d d'fferent linguistic levels and subject neous stylistic unities.1192 / MIKHAIL M. orat ory. the speech of characters are merely those fundamental compositional unities with whose help heteroglossia [raznoreeie] can enter the novel.l. It is precisely the individuality of the speaking subject that is recognized to be that style-generating factor transforming a phenomenon of language and linguistics into a stylistic unity. He transposes a symphonic (orchestrated) theme on to the piano keyboard. the diaryb' etc. Such a combining of languages and styles into a higher unity is unknown to traditional stylistics.s e. Aut ona speec . style is cut off from considerations of genre. organize. genenc social dialects.ty that cannot be identified with any istic unity of the work as a who e. he substitutes for it another object of study. to whIch It enters Ire I· · dinated sty IStIc um m th d to-earth voice of a narrator I· d e ownf . '.. h f a character individua lZe speec 0 The and stylistic profile 0 a in slcaz. li . whether to a disclosing of the novelist's individual dialect (that is his vocabliIary. f h 't' s subordinated to It. I fc syntactic) IS s ap . sty StlC are subordinated to the higher stylto form a structured artIstIc sys~em. f ocial speech types (sometimes The novel can be defined as a IVd~rslty. the anguage 0 a n . h fl objects an leas epI v. an analysis of novelistic style is replaced by a description of the language of a given novelist (or at best of the "languages" of a given novel). 'nvestiaator is confronted with several heter~gespeech and vOIce.. ti' ti'c authorial speech (moral. Thus stylistic analysis is not oriented toward the novel as a whole. um les combination of these subordmate . the unity of a style thus presupposes on the one hand a unity of language (in the sense of a system of general normative forms) and on the other hand the unity of an individual person realizing himself in this language." an "utterance. unities upon entering the novel. often ocate on I f 'f aI-stylistic unities into which to different stylistic controls. I element ( eXIca . We list below the basic types 0 composl IOn the novelistic whole usually breaks down: . phil. but even in these genres they far from exhaust or define the style of the work The most precise and complete description of the individual language and speech of a poet-even if this deScription does choose to treat the expressiveness of language and speech elements-does not add up to a 4. . In accordance with the point of view selected.f the work taken as a "complete speech act. subject of much Russian formalist CrItICIsm. his syntax) or to a disclosing of the distinctive features . to which it is most immedIately pro~mafie.

.ned by a completely different system of rules than those that govern the linguistic systems of language and of speech." and the appropriate categories of traditional stylistics are applied to it_ In such circumstances only those elements of epic representation (those occurring predominantly in direct authorial speech) are isolated from the novel for consideration_ The profound difference between novelistic and purely epic modes of expression is ignored. Thus the substitution of the individualized language of the novelist (to the extent that one can recover this language from the "speech" and "language" systems of the novel) for the style of the novel itself is doubly imprecise: it distorts the very essence of a stylistics of the novel. b. which are determined by the different ways in which such concepts as "the speech whole.. are all equally orib anguaae an SInal tyl d poetic genres in the narrow sens~ of th b e-s : genres. e ement ISO ated as funda tIC noveI-Inasmuch as that element re ".d 1" and shy away from any fu d . But-we repeat-in the majority of poetic genres. the unity of the language system and the unity (and uniqueness) of the poet's individuality as reflected in his language and speech. In other instances.I noveI s c aracters. directly and without mediation. oremost they seek in the n unme late expression of authorial indi5. is by no means' II " ars are not inclIned to undertake a rad' rmv~r~a y recognIZed. Vlktor ShldovskJ (1893-1984) ' .ak a p~o £ems po~ed by novelistic discourse. however. which is directly realized in this unity. ' espeCI c fe that d' 1 d ." "the individuality of the author's language and speech" are understood. toward the ex~lusive orientation explains a number :. II guages. In the majority of cases the style of the novel is subsumed under the concept of "epic style. however. epic style" the entire set of concrete styli ti d ~u an applIed by stylistics. na y. a IS different than do the languaa~sanf 'th ere oreI ItS languages sound utterly e _nove. an authorial individuality in language_ The whole of the novel and the specific tasks involved in constructing this whole out of heteroglot. h eve 0 a commentary on th d..cannot accommodate the artistic prose of d Thus stylistics and the ph'l h f d' 1:ither to acknowledge the lOS? Y ISCourse indeed confront a dilemma: in that direction) an unart~~:e (an c?ns~q~entlyall artistic prose tending -d ' IC or quasI-artistIc gen t di 11 Sl er that conception of p t. a resses ItS If d' I . ~tistic prose st~le has been studied in Russia these two last Jevels . most characteristic of literary prose [Bakhtin's rote] . ceases to e t h at which it in fact had been The current state of questions posed b a l ' . to various linguistic unities and not to the system of the artistic work. In all possible variants on this type of analysis. I an IngUIstIcs) III whIch they work . c ra tIona stylistics is Th' d'l ' a I s categones_ IS I emma. a egones an methods of tr diti I I ' remaIn incapable of dealina ef£ ti I . inasmuch as these elements relate to a system of language or to a system of speech. there is no second all-en ' _ e la OgIca y to separate lanoutside that of the (nondramatic)o~t~SSIng plotless (nondramatic) dialogue All these types of analysis are inade h q~atle to t e style not only of the novelistic whole but even of that I .by these categories (no ented toward the sinale-l d y Inddn:dual cntIcs). Most scholo. novelistic discourse. for example in an~~m~tion nedcessary to further the plot (as one fi II ' y z I n g an a venture novel) 5 And . Russian orm~hst cntic.az) or those might do. are indispensable prerequisites of poetic style. at IS. Thus the narrational aspect can be considered from the point of view not of its objective descriptive mode. Forn:'ahsts largely on RUSSIan formalist writer and critic.on comp f. or 0 ra ca y recon.h ' a ona sty iStics COurse in the novel or withbth ec ~fie Yli~t the artistic uniqueness of dis"p . oetlc lan.~d_ Th:lr connection with this tations of traditional styliSti . of its social heteroglossia and the variety of individual voices in it. ' . narrational aspect to the I I fa c e ements of the novel that lower the . that is. . ISCourse any do t _ ~o e:en s~e or recognize e philosophical roots of the stylistics (. but rather toward the style of the novel itself-although style thus understood is narrowed down to mean the style of merely one out of the several subordinated unities (which are relatively autonomous) within the novel. multi-voiced. n amenta philosophic I . BAKHTIN DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL / 1195 stylistic analysis of the work.sophical conception ofpoetl'c d' IcaMreVIslon of the fundamental philth ' . The second type of substitution is characterized not by an orientation toward the language of the author. understanding of languaae ~ndes~~as~_or cO~I~tent individualism in their styliStic phenomenon a direct a' d e_ Idr~t adn.BORI~ EICH~NBAUM (1886-1959). ey utterly fail guistic descriptions any theo:ic I agm~rted stylIstIC observations and linOthers-rriore principled. But the syste f I e la ogues of the IeteIy di-fferent principles m d0 th anauaaes in dram' orgamzed' .1194 / MIKHAIL M. and by a difference in the very way in which the relationship between style and language is conceived (and also the relationship between stylistics and linguistics). as well as matter how differently unders~o~d ~VI~es_s~bsume?. Th ' to see behirid their isolated ' d fr ' ~ . b b' ua 0 anguaoe·""· 0 "" b I"" and other general categories worked t b Im~be.. fully and clearly that all the c t _ Yd sty IStICS of the novel reveals ' . which is gover. but of its subjective expression mode (expressiveness)_ One might select elements of vernacular e alaspects that prOvide the in£ _ xtr Iterary narration (sh. the prerequisite for authentic novelistic prose. oe IC IScourse In whi h t di' I grounded and which determines ll't . not only does not require these conditions but (as we have said) even makes of the internal stratification of language. the stylistic nature of the novel slips hopelessly away from the investigator. The novel. multi-styled and often multi-languaged elements remain outside the boundaries of such a study_ Such is the first type of substitution for the proper object of study in the stylistic analysis of the novel.Issues. to select those purely dram ti I It IS possible.QUaae" "ir:idl-VI-d lity fl ISCOurse ea s In the novel. men a lor a given m ItS Interaction with others. Differences between the novel and the epic are usually perceived on the level of composition and thematics alone. encompassIna languaae t'hat b dd 0 . In drama th ere IS no all. We will not delve further into the diverse variations of this type. b b." "the system of language. t e particular features and limi'l' c categones_ All these c t a ' d a ebones. eIther skaz JEichenbaum) or lot~ mformatlOnal aspects (ShkIovsky) were studiId as J ~ the.. an the very Phi osophical conception of po t' d' are too narrow and cramped an~ IC ISCourse in which they are grounded. changes its stylistic meaning and' movedbfro in the novel. sym 0.d' _ re. Such substitution inevitably leads to the selection from the novel of only those elements that can be fitted within the frame of a single language system and that express. different aspects of novelistic style are selected out as most characteristic of one or another concrete literary work. which acknowledge only one single language and a single authorial individuality expressing itself directly in that language.

dramatic." various differing nuances of meaning. And comes to defining the spec. Eichenbaum. a frien~y critic of the Formalists..e book TIte Inner Fonn of the ~o.cs o~ this see B.' 1f " rythin<7 in novelistic prose that .In :~~cs:in fact. Thus a whole series of phenomena remained beyond its conceptual horizon. l-do . how~ver. for centuries has included artistic prose m Idths P e to th'e old concept of poetic . [0 d2 V V _ Vinogradov. 6 • h does not t t e 7 . 7 Gu~tav Shpet (1879-1937). "The reco<7nition that contemHere is what Shpet says a out t . . . 8 it to t e category 0 pu b h 1. a 1ong WI poetic on~s. when It temporary stylistics. cated above). Husserlian traditions in Russia. osed such a solution to the dilemma. ~~op He utterly excluded artistic prose and all due rigorous~es~ an chonsls e~cYfr the realm of poetry.u oft-ne<71ected rhetoric. and on the other the individual speaking in this language. some pure y admitted thate. nOd fSO p ("a hybrid formation") and d h I a syncretic mIKe orm I considere t It contame ' 'th rhetorical elements. along ~t ~~ ~ ~~~~Pfeatures of n~velistic prose. fr h I of poetry-a pom 0 . and by those particular historical tasks that ideological discourse has fulfilled in specific social spheres and at specific stages in its own historical development. d .. 147-48) [Bakhtin s. this interaction was perhaps no less intense than was the novel's interaction with the artistic genres (epic. guage. Vnutrennjaja fomta slova 1 p.1196 / MIKHAIL M.ot spring from poetic pora?. VIduahty. . family relationship to rhetorical forms . Literature ~L.rlt. in lingUistics and in stylistics have.d [VnutrennJaJa Jonna s!ova] (M. such an understanding of the problem is least likely of ~ll to . Moscow-Leningrad. moral. These tasks and destinies of discourse conditioned specific verbalideological movements. not yet sufficiently taken into account and fathomed in all the enormous weight they carry in the life of language.. and ~n Important t~eorh~ in his own right (especially hIS work on slw. there is another SOdUti°1n 0 o. G~rman ~henbom­ enologist. The novel is an artistic genre.mp ry ("n the sense we have indiartistic discourse is exclusively poetic Iscourse I ~o~ ~ocr~s significance. The special significance of rhetorical forms for understanding the novel is equally great. JAKOBSON ." "monologic utterance.. I d aclmowe gment m pnn . extra-artistic rhetoncal genre. and encourage a reconsIderation 0 f b aSlC s tylistic categories in the proper dlrection. On Artistic Prose Xtt oze~tve~n~11t proze) . as profes~or~t University of Moscow for many years eRIn uenced many (among others. in different periods (and always in close connection with the diverse concrete poetic and ideological styles of a given epoch). clple an d In su s an .] ~MMAN~EL KA~ Len'inorad. Our FormalIsts were bello completely consistent when they spoke of t(he necessity of reviving rhetoric alongside p~etJ. it cannot fail to have a deeply revolutionizing influence on lingUistics and on the philosophy of language. t at apparen f f h . German IdealIst ph. p rose to rhetoric. RussIan. But in this uninterrupted interrelationship. 1 <7 f o to "rhetonca orms eve <7 0 dlscoursefi re . ~orms of moral propaga~~:I:"~. outs. t f VI'ew that is basically false.o8?6-1982).. al reco<7nition despite everything. NI. This concept has certain underlying presuppositions that limit it. and ultimately the specific philosophical concept of discourse itself3. in a more complete aspect In . nove . P'th II its rights oreatly strengthens the FormalIst ':sit~on. d' t ble merit There resides in It an does nevertheless have a .e n~e .E. introduced into such concepts as "system of language." "the speaking indiViduum. The very concept-in the course of its historical formu3 lation from Aristotle to the present day-has been oriented toward the specific "official" genres and connected with specific historical tendencies in verbal ideological life. ~ h t' mediately confronting a for. and assigned its ultimate reallzatIOn-:-t e nove om h f rely rhetorical forms. .. the c~n J. and a concreat1Vlty but are purely rheton . such as they have come down to us] have all 'postulated a simple and unmediated relation of speaker to his unitary and singular "own" language. the system of a unitary language. as a rhetorical The pomt of VIew that comp ete y. BAKHTIN DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL / 1197 . which d er . prOvided a correct and unprejudiced approach to those forms is used. m hlsdtIme. I forms has a <7reat heuristic what is more.ly t' tina. h'l ophica d e ill IOns 0 ing with Shpet s aSlC p I os t aradoxically consistent: he torical. the very relIance on r e onca 0 6 Such a solution to the problem was especial. om t e rea m . the young oman Jakobson) [translators! no~e. t '<7hts we maya er 11 ' rhetoric to a ItS ancIen no . 1927) [BaklItin s note]'Balchti 's 9. ) tand'ng I Viktor Vinogradov (1895-1969. pp. The Greek philosopher (384-322 B. philosophical and others) has never ceased.om literary theorist and lingUIst." Vinogradov was. has the closest genetic. but one that does not fit within the frame provided by the concept of poetic discourse as it now exists.e. r~sentative of the neo-Kantian and (especla y Ahe (1724-1804). Such is the general methodological and heuristic significance of rhetOrical forms for lingUistics and for the philosophy of language.~ 8 Originally in his Aesthetic Fragme1tts [Est~twh­ Id. And throughout the entire development of the novel.n ISPbuta ce of th~ inadequacy of all con. urview Once we have restore concepts mto accoun .e fraomentJ']. outstandmg. WIt Gustav Shpet.to adherents of the formal method . between which are located all the linguistic and stylistic phenomena they know: on the one hand.note].. l' f r dilemma that does take basic However.) discusses poetic discourse in his Poetics (see above). It is precisely those aspects of any discourse (the internally dialogic quality of discourse. h' h'l hical and lin<7uistic base. . While agreeArtistic Prose.lfic IS n h t . Once rhetorical discourse is brought into the study with all its living diversity. pp. is an admission. .IC p f the "poetic" and the "rhe' b . Formalis~ rhetoric is a ne~essary addi~o~ io Formalist poetics. m tean bed of traditional stylistic categories. 75-106 [Bakhtin's note].certam I.t:teratura. Novelistic discourse is poetic discourse. I {oint of view in his book On 1 Viktor Vinogradov adopted an an~ o~~~. but their basic content remains unchanged. formatIOn. assigning the problemlo afir ~St. This basic content is conditioned by the specific sociohistorical destinies of European languages and by the destinies of ideological discourse.. and artistic prose in general. .losophe. midable obstacle in the onn 0 t e uillver~ al ". The novel. d h that the novel oes .. Philosophy of language.. that are revealed with great external precision in rhetorical forms. the re-establishment of rhetor~c. novelistic discourse preserved its own qualitative uniqueness and was never reducible to rhetOrical discourse.. h tly cannot anse WIt ou 1m ceptIOn. The novel is an Shpet utterly de~Ies the no~e any ates ora form of moral propaganda".215 [ n note]. 1927]. 1930. its intimate interaction (both peaceful and hostile) with living rhetorical genres (journalistic.C. .'os~~~:. Edmund Husser! (1859-1938). Various schools of thought in the philosophy of language. and the phenomenarelated to it). tee nique) [translators' note]. .2 • I I excludes novelistic prose. . t· one nee on y conSI 0 d . and have postulated as well a simple realization of this language in the monologic utterance of the individual.t . lyric). Such diSCiplines actually know only two poles in the life of lan. I li~ouist and student of style in li~erature.'9 ' t 'n aesthetIc vue. ave a cer all thetic significance. as well as various specific genres of ideological discourse. Jinguistics and stylistics [i.

But th:se '" A'"common unitary language IS sy rative' the. ' IC cen processes of mgUIsf unificatIon an'tary lan<>uage is not some th' g mven A ill centripetal forces of language. The processes of centralization and decentralization. of unification and disunification. 1097-1141 ' ese d . . the tion go forward. . forces that unite. but it answers the requirements of heteroglossia as well." Indo-European linguistics with its focus of attention.e verbal-ideological thought. At any given moment of its evolution.~::r and philologist. "correct language. filled with specific content and accented as an individual utterance. forces ~at strii. ~ " still 1 mutual understanding an.. 0 II the abstract grammatIca u. especially phonetic). Wilhelm von Lei mz . G~rman phi. 1"tical and cultural centralizatIon: f th dieval logical um catIon a . a school and so forth. Such is the fleeting language of a day.. they compns . These . tiona! (everyday) and literary an. in the ~e~se 0 a sYf o~~omprehension in practical c~m­ symbols) guaranteeing ~ mtmmum le:~t as a system of abstract grammatIcal munication. directed away from language plurality to a single proto-Ianguage_all this determined the content and power of the category of "unitary language" in linguistic and stylistic thought. the theoretical expression of the. "professional" and "genetic" languages. languages of generations and so forth. And this stratification and heteroglossia. stem of lin<>uistic norms.. fonned language from the press~re 0 g n abstract linguistic mimmum ~f... creatlan<>uage. AUGUSGerman humamst wn Ch .. ' the poetIcs 0 th" the Cartesian poeticsf ne oclassI. . the utterance not only answers the requirements of its own language as an individualized embodiment of a speech act. . of an epoch. once realized. stable . an expreSSIOn 0 • t e I. the centrifugal forces of language carry on their uninterrupted work. embodied in a "unitary language. see 1 HUGH OF ST. the supplanting oflanguages. of pressing (German). rch u '1' c u . . We are taking languagenceived as ideologically satura~ed. even as a concf 'deofOl!icallife. And this active participation of every utterance in living heteroglossia determines the linguistic profile and style of the utterance to> no less a degree than its inclusion in any normativecentralizing system of a unitary language. fr m 'al assumes. errv. the concept of poetic discourse. w .as aranteeing a certain 0 I ' lImIts to It. Ii ti .~ s I~ The strength and at the same uch cate<>ories are seen as con~tione cate<>ories become apparent when s the task that an ideological dIscourse b '" y specI'fic historical destinies and by an d were s haped by the historically . w h' h h a d been at the heart li f catego~Ies b~-ideolOgical so~ ideological world. ' grammar"). time the limitations of such basic s.linguistic nucleus ' '" 'thin a hetero<>lot natIOnallan". period-bound and others). is not only a static invariant of linguistic life. . 'ty unIty-th e unI of the reI<>nmg conversa " '" hlstor~l of pres:n~e maxImu~ f <>ua<>e. alongside verbal-ideological centralization and unification.a What we have in mind here IS at of elementary forms (lingUIstIc common language. of an officially recognIze f "'rowing heteroglossia. once having exposed it as a contradiction-ridden. uninterrupted processes of decentralization and disunificaEvery concrete utterance of a speaking Subject serves as a point where centrifugal as well as centripetal forces are brought to bear. But the centripetal forces of the life of language. • . Wilhelm Fre'. But at. a social group. VICTOR ) "The Cartesian poetics of neo(ca. At the time when major divisions of the poetic genres were developing ~u~al spheresr~n~ a~d f ~~sr~~l Humb~ldt's5 mSI=~~~~e r~~sion current importance ~ame 4. on hlShPoeh". Topical. f Augustine the poetIcs 0 . the process of illuminating them with the True Word. relatIve. Iosopher and mathematicIan. e me.the same lin<>uistic life it is opposed to th~ ~~a 1 'a force for overcoming thI~ hetero tir:e it makes its real e . The victory of one reigning language (dialect) over the others. BAKHTIN DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL I 1199 of all concepts of style. language is stratified not only into linguistic dialects in the strict sense of the word (according to formal linguistic markers." operate in the midst of heteroglossia. but also what insures its dynamics: stratification and heteroglossia widen and deepen as long as language is alive and developing. or e .1198 I MIKHAIL M. a genre.u '" lse defending an already mg WI '" . the environment in which it lives and takes shape. I'mposin<> specific d '" 1" . are rather the norms do not constitute an abstract ImP:<>le to ~~ercome the heteroglossIa of forces of linguistic life. 'h Humboldt (I767-1835). Unitary language cons~tute~ d tralization.:' they serve one arid the same '1' 't' . 5. Thus a umtary lanunderstanding in all tow. . ed the eoretIca <>roups. to the centripetal whatever their differences md~udanlce""'alli. "The poetics of the medIeval cure theologIan. Alongside the centripetal forces. intersect in the utterance.rd concrete verbal id:o<>ua<>e gives expression to for~es ~o hich develop in vital connectIOn WIth '" '" 'fi' nd centralIZatIOn. but alSo-and for us this is the essential point-into languages that are socio-ideolOgical: languages of social groups. It is possible to give a concrete and detailed analysis of any utterance. From this point of view. anonymous and Social as language. I g OSSIa. stratifying forces). literary language itself is only one of these heteroglot languages-and in its turn is also stratified into languages (generic.54-430)~ early. their enslavement. <> mto a rea. tensionfilled unity of two embattled tendencies in the life oflanguage. althou<>h ' . l"fe for lanQUage. and determined its creative. IC m partIcu Iar. ' 0 ' f tr " . Every utterance participates in the "unitary language" (in its centripetal forces and tendencies) and at the same time partakes of social and historical heteroglossia (the centrifugal. I expression of actualizing forces t at . the incorporation of barbarians and lower social strata into a unitary language of culture and truth.:rose evolution of specific 4 aktuell forces at work m t tehver . it is in fact an active participant in such speech diversity. but rather language co rete 0 inion.cs ~eeabove. (from the French ll classicism : on 4I u~ s I\96-1650)poetics t philosopher Rene Descar (~s606-1684) Gottfried see PIERRE CORNbE~LL(~646_1716). of "the one language 1 niversaIsmo f Leibniz (the idea of a hum. is dialogized heteroglossia. d literary lan<>uage. '" forces in SOCIO mgUIs IC an 1 eo O<>IC ~ gener~tIve tot project of centraliZing and unifying the European languages. the concrete-a t ese. style-shaping role in the majority of the poetic genres that coalesced in the channel formed by those same centripetal forces of verbal-ideological life. but simultaneously concrete. lan cate<>ories. hAristotelian poetics. the canonization of ideological systems. ~m [zadanJ-and at every moment 0 its [dan] but is always in essence posItef-ties of heteroglossia. c~sta Izm".stian philosopher and TINE (3. insuring a max: 0 mum <>ua:e as a world view. The authentic environment of an utterance. . languages that Were by that very fact "unities. b 1 '" 'n the process of creatmgthat serve to '" ify and centralize the ver a _ were 1 forces are t he fiOICes a 1 ' Unt These . philology with its methods of studying and teaching dead languages. an cen~aa<>e the firm. the processes of SOCIOpO 1 .

." ~ty!~StIC ImplIcations in a relationship .l?ects m the life of discourse IS. meVItably leads to the necessity of :scohurs e . where there was to be found a lively play with the "languages" of poets. in the dungeon of a single context.. Ra~l~~~u~~ ~?delssof novelistic prose. and En':II'shr~nl'oIs a. I h-German: Hans nmme s aus ( 1 167 ) 6. Fabliaux: medieval short tales in verse (French). - . first amid oth' and that are determined by its d' I . e pnonetic aspects first of all-th ono-semlC aspects of at saturated ~ angmg sOcio-s. that is. a~e sought first and foremost £ ' . . monks.l. or that mgUIstIcs. one that presumes only passive listeners beyond its own boundaries.s o~ ~ingle hermetic context.- . o~nd fo. least chanaeabl ca adn mgUIstlC thought on the firmISCourse_o th 1. Stylistics locks every stylistic phenomenon into the monologic context of a given self-sufficient and hermetic utterance. the parodic. '" e an most m . . which was a struggle among sociolinguistic points of view. One might even say outright that the dialogic aspect of discourse and all the phenomena connected with it have remained to the present moment beyond the ken of linguistics. The sharpest and externally most marked manifestations of this stylistic category-the polem~ ical style. there developed the literature of the fabliaux and Schwiinhe 6 of street songs.h~~omgUIS%cs and for stylistics structured entIrely beyond the realm of consider:~na.ll the verbal genres ( uotidi UllIty t a. where all "languages" were masks and where no language could claim to be an authentic. centrated the attention of philo::. Medieval comic folktales (German). a whole seri:s of . centralizing. SCI?US an eter- 8 L' .n~t m IS etero. cognitive or merely casual) has hardly been studied linguistically or stylistically up to the present day. national and political centralization of the verbal-ideological world in the higher official socio-ideological levels.h l' S nce on mgUIstics and stylistic thouah r y WIt out determinative influ" £ Therefore proper t h eoretical recom't. in which is embodied the centrifugal forces in the life of language. This excl" . centripetal forces ofverbalideological life. From the point of view of stylistics. e erog OSSIa. Should we imagine. 1-1771). on the stages of local fairs and at buffoon spectacles.bela.is (ca. Stylistics has been likewise completely deaf to dialogue. Cervantes. Linguistics.r the specific feel for lanwa" eltIOn a?d Illumination could not be ~alY:::s. Moreover. . scholars.1200 ! MIKHAIL M. and aimed sharply and polemically against the official languages of its given time.. as organized in these low genres. · 1 ' ers utterance . It was heteroglossia that had been dialogized.-vis the linguistic center of the verbal-ideological life of the nation and the epoch. but was a heteroglossia consciously opposed to this literary language. stylistics a d h . imprisoning it. mollett. rhetorical. most stable. m slUlz.~:e~ta~dtast!if~ of languages has ~~~~ e~t. whose style is determined by its interrelationship with other rejoinders in the same dialogue (in the totality of the conversation)-then traditional stylistics does not offer an adequate means for approaching such a dialogized style. we m~st deal with the life and behaI~gulstlc. 1490-ca.. on the lower levels.. questions connected withu~tIOns conce~ing the philosophy of . at ave had no light cast on them b l?se ~s. on y ~ mechanical guages (that is.x~I~tIC forms for the organn'ation gu~ges-in all characteristic and r a e t elr themes by means of lan~~mmelshausen... . The expresand phenomena of verballI'£e r P y? ot conSCIOusness in the specific £orm e 1" l' emamed utte I . ( F : abstract linauistic I ns) WhICh IS reflected in phological) rBakhti:':~oet~]~ (phonetic and mor.emantic spheres of disco are furth~st removed al' language conscIOusness" one th t . Real Ideologically ? OSSIa and multi-languaaedness h' . uropean verbal-ideoloaical onentation toward unity" in th or Untty m diversity. the artistic work as a whole-whatever that whole might be-is a self-sufficient and closed authorial monologue. French1533)'. For this very reason they could make no provision for the dialogic nature of language. r~et~ncal.. the ironic-are usually classified as rhetorical and not as poetic phenomena. A literary work has been conceived by stylistics as if it were a hermetic and self-sufficient whole.same socIO-Ideoloaical "" In e " conceptual hOIizon. was not merely heteroglossia vis-a. where there was no language-center at all. ~rse. Heteroglossia. Ie mg. centrifugal forces. forms that orc~~:. . t ese mclude the specific pheonentatIOn. Henry F Id ( (Scottish·born)Tobias SmoIl~~t lrf21707-1754). It IS obliged to exhaust itself d Discourse in Poet nd D' For the h'l ry a ZSCOurse in tl1-e Novel p I osophy of lanauaae £ 1" '. s mSI e a single lanauage (th ". The system comprising an artistic work was thought to be analogous with the system of a language.and Laurence Sterne (1713-1768)..-vis the accepted literary language (in all its various generic expressions). VIor of dIscourse in a contradictory :~~e~~ ~~y Chase too fundamentally im~7i~::e~ni~~~fe oflla~guage. vis-a. __ . able to realize its own em. engagmg a series of fundamental novel. on ~heir base. Sterne 7 and Th~ problem of stylistics for the '. in parodies and i:: v~o~n~ disco~rse that one gets in stylia g straight. incontestable face. stylistics and the philosophy of language that were born and shaped by the current of centralizing tendencies in the life oflanguage have ignored this dialogized heteroglossia. a system that could not stand in a dialogic interrelationship with other languages. N THE NOVEL / 1201 exc~a~g~ m~ssages with other uttera . ridiculing all "languages" and dialects. not an intra-language struggle between individual wills or logical contradictions. 621Re ervantes (15471616). the heteroglossia of the clown sounded forth. .. Spanish' Migu I d e en ca. a partICIpates in actual hetero~s precisely this orientation to~ar~s re~aI~ed outside its field of vision It Ignore a. in o ers. " urse) amId oth " .:~~s~hlt IS . knights and others.8 7.. artistic-prose) that were t. erent natIOnal lanauaaes with' th ' . it is not able to 6. BAKHTIN DISCOURSE I under the influence of the unifying. ~ve t~erefore remained almost n~mena. anecdotes. mguIstics acknowledo I reciprocal infIuencincr odes. one thbat ~n Inten~mdng of lanIS uncon dd mined by social conditio ." and in the more s o~~ 0 verbal masquerade "not of contradiction.and stylistic thought-that and multi-languaged world. It was parodic.. even intra-language dialogue (dramatic. the novel-and those artistic-prose genres that gravitate toward it-was being historically shaped by the current of decentralizing. service of th n t e phIlosophy of lana a life-h e great centralizing tendencies of E "ua"e-as forces in the ". 1 " e pnnatzonal language and finally ~mid' diff er SOCI~ languages" within a sinale same culture' that is the . that are present in discourse on.as well as 01 al . folksayings. no other utterances. All important early novelists Jakob Christoffel von G . 'd Ia oaIC mord Ia dialoaism of disco . one whose elements constitute a closed system presuming nothing beyond themselves._ . as it were. the work as a rejoinder in a given dialogue.. At the time when poetry was accomplishing the task of cultural.t has compelled scholars' to the c~mers of the decentralizing ten~n. from the h n . .

the direct and unmediated intention of a wOJ. SI~e art of prose. to shape its own stylistic profile and tone. French novelist. attention 0 sc 0 ars m a~ al sp h eres 0 f th e life of discourse is still ar wide-ranging significance m ! 1203 r from aclmowledged. I guaae an sty IS cs. value judgments and accents through which the ray passes on its way toward the object. d No one hinders this word. to pure perception and so forth) [Bakhtin's note]. 0 e t cannot fail to brush up . is able. . breaking through to its own meaning and its own expression across an environment full of alien words and variously evaluating accents. I d verlam as t ey are WI objects. what can be found in the treasure-house of language itself).1202 ! MIKHAIL M. h 'th qualifications. d fl " aaainst thousan SOlVIng I b' o f t'terance. 1463). that the word may be mdiVIdualIze ( 0 ) finds the object at which it ' t discourse utterance d' Indeed. I 'n with qualifications. . anina and shape at a particular hisThe living utterance.d presents itself as something impermissably naive. I' 'ts ob. an "image" of the object. no one richly varied opposition of anot er s wor .n ercs of th~ obiect itself (the impos' d h b' t on y t e reSIS t an e J •• II) tatIOn towar teo ~ec d b d the impossibility of saymg It a . not within the object itself (as would be the case in the play of an image-astrope. these P henomena have begun to attract the In recent decades. the utterance anses out 0 . in Chateaubriand 1 and in Tostoy). an active partIcipan m. d d t weaves In an ou judgments an accen s. Impressionism.iect is a complex act-all . .all speCl c enVIronm n .. BAKHTIN DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL . . reCOIls from ot er .. and 'I orientationfocus our at en IOnon t h e speCla p otential for a distinctive proseart.' d tands it encounters m ItS onendirect word. h' h h d conceptua Izes I J fr The way m w IC t e wor . The word plunges into the inexhaustible wealth and contradictory multiplicity of the object itself.. it cannot fail to become 1 o d h a'ven 0 ~ect 0 an u . In the poetic image narrowly conceived (in the image-as-ttope). 2. hou ht the word aclmowledges only g 'b' t I'tS own direct expression As treated by tradItIonal stylIstIC. its directionality toward the object. a en It is entangled. After a II . Highly significant in this respect is the struggle that must be underta1<en in such movements as Rousseauism. points of view. in this dialogized process.. 9 And into this complex play of light and shadow the word enters-it becomes saturated with this play. . French. . the atmosphere that surrounds the object. etween I' d bout the same object. The Horatian lyric. to the object itself in itself. with its "virginal. b' ec t'n asinaularway: between the word But no living word relates to ItS 0 1 hI b ~ubiect there exists an 'b the word an d t e speakina 0 J' h and its object.. . value dialogically agitated and tensIOn~ e denVIt of complex interrelationships. Fran~ois-Auguste_Rene. . th' . that is. alrea~y enveldope Itnhan already been spoken about it. any concre e. harmonizing with some of the elements in this environment and striking a dissonance with others. . fill d ' 'ronment of alien words. open to Ispute an 0 h h . itself (that is. t f on of a wor amon o .'~. Villon. h s intersects with yet a third group: a~ meraes with some. Heinrich Heine (1797-1856). t e nove. . on y ItS own . open to Ispute.con I I' It aclmowledges another wor . may complicate its expreSSIOn an m opinion. d a other words (of all kinds and 'I' . . . ' d SInaU ar anQUaae. Roman. ' f sciousness aroun t t e 0 oClal dla oaue. haVIng ta~efin me. Such a dialogized image can OCcur in all the poetic genres as well. are om d' . f livina mteractIOn WI this specific enVIronment precisely m t e proce~s 0. I ' elastic enVIronmen 0 0 . only under the conditions present in the genre of the novel. 'I . which has found course creates the potentIa or a IShInc I ' . The word forgets that its object has its own history of contradictory acts of verbal recognition. Jules Lafargue (I 860-1887). Dadaism. m~y' ~uence file. in an "autotelic word"). and its own umtary an 0 ]' 0 the neutral word of language. . ' s forms and dearees of dialogIc its fullest and deepest expressIhon In t f ere on vanou 0 We will in discourse. The d f . Russian. t IS at It . d I' ti' but their fundamental and f h I f . y ~h~~~~d the object the fundamental and but it does not encounter m ItS ~a. disco~rse. something in fact impossible. makes the facets of the image sparkle. takes on the nature of an internal polemic and is consequently dialogized (in. then the living and unrepealable play of colors and light on the facets of the image that it constructs can be explained as the spectral dispersion of the ray-word. for naivete itself. And an artistic representation. by t e Ig 0 a with shared thoughts. for example. argues with it. In the atmosphere of the novel. German. t I . It an approach the object from the sIdelmes. but rather as its spectral dispersion in an atmosphere filled with the alien words. Laforgue. under authentic novelistic conditions. 1. in poetic speech taken in the narrow sense. Fran90is Villon (I43 l-oa.s . t f ther a len wor s a .C.). such an image need not stifle these forces. achieve full complexity and depth and at the same time • artistic closure. ' particu ar as SImp y the wor 0 no one m . torical moment m a SOCI d'aloaIC t h rea d s w oven by socio-ideological cony . in the form of a ray of light. as I the potential for speech. The way in which the word conceives its object is complicated by a dialogic interaction within the object between various aspects ofits sOcio-verbal intelligibility. 9. shot through The word directed toward its object.E. and must determine within it the boundaries of its own semantic and stylistic contours. French. I ve a trace in all its semantic all this may crucially shape its entire stylistic prolayers. sibility of its being exhau~te. as one lying outside its own c~ntelxt. of course." still "unuttered" nature. t e same . as traditional sltylIhstIcs u. 'th . Acmeism. on the conwas directed already as It were over a~ . all activity-the dynamics of the image-as-word_is completely exhausted by the play between the word (with all its aspects) and the object (in all its aspects). If we imagine the intention of such a word. The word. Heine. It IS true. as well as that heteroglossia that is always present in such acts of recognition. di The dla OgIC onen a I d .d dimmed by heteroglot SOCIa one side highlighted while from t e ot er SI e . . Such is the iJnage in artistic prose and the image of novelistic prose in particular. Surrealism and analogous schools with the "qualified" nature of the object (a struggle Occasioned by the idea of a return to primordial consciousness. d text) ItS own 0 ~ec .2 But such an image can fully unfold. obscuring mist-or. nment t h " IS 0 ft en difficult to penetrate. and Innokenty Aonenskij (I 855-1909). charged with value. vicomte de Chateaubriand (I 768-1848). by an alien word about them. All lyric poets: HORACE (65-8 B. f'=: d as a rejoinder to it-it does not this dialogue as a contmuatIO~ 0 . ificant artistic potential m sdegrees of otherness) cre~telsf new. on y. without setting the tone). Naturalism. h "I' ht" f lIen wor s t h a ave li trary. enters a value judgments and accents. ': d and !riven stylistic shape. even in the lyric (to be sure. Aonenskij and others-despite the fact that these are extremely varied instances [Bakhtin I s note]. the social atmosphere of the word. theme ' and hIS IS an envrro . may be penetrated by this dialogic play of verbal intentions that meet and are interwoven in it. therefore it presumes nothing beyond the borders of its own context (except. but on the contrary may activate and organize them. to original consciousness. the work of the Sentimentalists.

where defiInS note. ot IS highly significant for rhetOric that thO ~a ~re o. a property of any discourse. scholarly-cannot fail to be oriented toward the "already uttered. It is all the more remarkable that linguistics and the philosophy of discourse have been primarily oriented precisely toward this artificial. and without which they "do not sound." pp. la an alien word not only in th b' . the object reveals first of all precisely the socially heteroglot multiplicity of its names. separate from the word's ability to form a concept [lwncipirovanie] of its object-it is precisely this internal dialogism that has such enormous power to shape style. It is the natural orientation of any living discourse. is not particulariz d . Only the mythical Adam. they have not so ht' fl Y IC the lIstener IS taken into . b n r etonc ut every th f d' we. Dialogue is studied merely as a compositional form in the structuring of speech. . have the peculiar semantic features of ordinary dialogue been studied).cr. as we se:.IIt IS an understand' 0 f an utterance's neutra rng Th' " s ac ua meamna. e lIngUIstIC SIgnificance of a aiven t '" . complicates the path of y now t h IS contradIctory environment of alien 0 0 0 • • r 0 • . in all its directions. re atronshlp that enters into the very . shaped in dialogic interaction with an aI' A word forms a concept of its own b' Ie~ wordi~ that IS already in the object. . Responsive e dIn an Id~ e~endent act and is not composiun erstan Ing IS a fu d I£ . ' concrete. the word encounters an alien word and cannot help encountering it in a living. es an answer a to . rhetorical. the Tower-of-Babel mixing of languages 3 that goes on around any object.. is almost entirely ignored. . The internal dialogism of the word finds expression in a series of peculiar features in semantics. atantly. tension-filled interaction. lf ogrsm of the word. the word is at the. every d' d' anSWer and cannot escape th £ d' wor IS Irected toward an it anticipates." The prose artist elevates the social heteroglossia surrounding objects into an image that has finished contours. are ori. If' n IClpates It and structures itself In the answer's direction Form' k en. he creates artistically calculated nuances on all the fundamental voices and tones of this heteroglossia. ug . but the internal dialogism of the word (which occurs in a monologic utterance as well as in a rejoinder). IS answer hIS onenta ti on toward the listener IS usua11y considered the b o o I aSlC constitutive £ t f h . on the contrary. But further than the compositional ~~. Instead of the virginal fullness and inexhaustibility of the object itself. The word is born in a dialogue as a living rejoinder within it. the word is 3. IS onentatIon toward an . ThIS open orientation toward the liste . one that o ISCourse and 't ' un d erstandina one that dI' . For the prose writer. . On all its various routes toward the object. the dialogism that penetrates its entire structure.and lar!5e gotten no account. that cannot be isolated as an independent act." 0 er sort 0 ISCOurse as '" h .:U:1u:~. Onl a . h' 0 ~ect In a alo B ut t IS does not exhaust the internal d' I ' grc way. monolo!!ic in their .4 listener.1-9. what is more. b ented tOward the listener and·h· T ~om~osItIonal structure. e pro Oun In uence of the answering word that 0 0 fl The word in living conversation is direc 1 bl future answer-word. logue and in rhetorical Dorm h ner and hIS answer in everyday dias as attracted the tt f even where this has been the c 1" ' h a en ron 0 f I'rnguists. outside of which his artistic prose nuances cannot be perceived. BAKHTIN DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL I 1205 For the writer of artistic prose. of course. an nat at IS responsIve -aI tough this onentatron . the prose writer witnesses as well the unfolding of social heteroglossia surrounding the object. grng om more profound style determined by' demand £ en Intohcons. could really have escaped from start to finish this dialogic inter-orientation with the alien word that occurs in the object. the object is a focal point for heteroglot voices among which his own voice must also sound. Along with the internal contradictions inside the object itself. a word excised from dialogue and taken for the norm (although the primacy of dialogue over monologue is frequently proclaimed). l ' s LOr compre enslbIlIt d l' h Clse y those aspects that are d . r etoncal discourse. Concrete historical human discourse does not have this privilege: it can deviate from such inter-orientation only on a conditional basis and only to a certain degree. the prose writer confronts a multitude of routes.moreover t is tak 1 b th e 1 evel of common language th t' ' . same Ing Itse in .11 IS onented toward an underst di ' h . Suc h IS th e situation in any 1" an d' f1 antICIpated bY th e answenna word Ivrng Ia ogue b ' All rhetorical forms. l I S moreover an active b' scourse senses a ' t the discourse. ." the "already known. .. . v.a n a t mosp h ere of the already spo t' d e been said but which is needed dI:n etern:I~ed by that which has not yet In act . s reSlS ance or support enriching Linguistics and the philoso h f1 understandina of discourse anPd y 0 anguahge acknowledge only a passive b . It encounters e 0 ~ect Itse . But as we have already said. the dialectics of the object are interwoven with the social dialogue surrounding it. . preconditioned status of the word. quotidian. roads and paths that have been laid down in the object by social consciousness.b d tionally marked. 0 0 0 0 4: . d f ' yan c anty-t at is.1204 ! MIKHAIL M. taking him into account i :e ati~nshlp toward the concrete a internal construction of rh t "IS d . e onca ISCourse Th' answer is open blatant and . background of other concrete uttS ac ua mean' IS un d erstood against the h rng d e up of contradictory opini erances on t e same th erne. In uence sprin' fr meanrng and style They have tak . .e:ation only those aspects of . every extra-artistic prose discourse-in any of its forms. 75ff. es pace y and large on I stgnification and not I't a t IS. who approached a virginal and as yef verbally unqualified world with the first word. all its semantic and expressive layers. ~ve by. that take the SIve y un erstands b t £ answers and reacts. an image completely shot through with dialogized overtones. partICIpates in the formulatI'on f d' n amenta lorce. But it is precisely this internal dialogism of the word. . definitions and value judgments.id. See Genesis 11. prelistener for a person who pas ~pnlve °d any Internal dialogism. background of lanauaae whI'le 't b t IU terance IS understood against the b b' I . The dialogic orientation of discourse is a phenomenon that is. a b ackground rna that is.int:~d~ceedh[aBPathekrt' ~hetoric] and Poetics." the "common opinion" and so forth. Vinogradov's book 012 Artistic Pro II moons taken from the older rhetorics are . oriented toward a ' . u not LOr one who actively The listener and his response are 1 1 comes to everyday dialorue a d h ~egub ar y taken into account when it ' . it provok t y. syntax and stylistics that have remained up to the present time completely unstudied by linguistics and stylistics (nor. these voices create the background necessary for his own voice. which does not assume any external compositional forms of dialogue. precisely that backarou:~ih P~Ints of VIew and value judgments_ any word toward its object.

after all. Thus. and on his own conceptual system that det. that various different poin~s of view. book I (Leningrad. the hstener's. sometimes crassly ac~ommodating: sometimes provocatively polemical. Light. and one that interferes with the word's creative work on its referent. The speaker stnves to get a reading on his own word. for this dissonance or consonance has entered into the positive project of creating a style. only mirroring it. merely the full reproduc~on of that which is already given in the word-even such an understandmg never goes beyond the boundaries of the word's context and ~n no way enriches the word. as his apperceptive background. a need for greater clarity. that of the one striving to understand establishes a series of complex interrelationships. popular piece of newspaper writing. he ent~rs into dialogical relationships with certain aspects of this system. These two lines of dialocrization (havincr in b b most cases polemical overtones) are tightly interwoven in his style: even in th e mos t"l'al" expreSSIOns an dh e most " " descriptions. It is precisely such an understandincr that the speaker counts on. there can be no new aspects in his discourse relating to concrete objects and emotional expressions. Tolstoy's . And every utterance is oriented toward this apperceptive background of understanding. The speaker breaks throug~ the al~en con~eptualh~rizon. For this reason Tolstoy's dialogization. be very tightly interwoven with each other. consonances and disso~ances with the word and enriches it with new elements.1206 / MIKHAIL M. it is only the abstract aspect of meaning. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). discourse in Tolstoy is characterized by a sharp internal dialocrism and this discourse is moreover dialogized in the belief systeII). Tolstoy famously observed in Anna Karenina (1875-77) that "Happy families are all alike: every unhappy family is unhappy in its Own way. nevertheless. The internal politics of style (how the ele5. it is in this way. insofar as the speaker operates WIth such a passive understanding. as the activating principle: it. which makes itself felt as a new and unique influence on its style. which is not a linguistic background but rather one composed of specific objects and emotional expressions. more vividness and so forth). pregnant with responses and objections. which contains much relevant material. A passive understanding of linguistic meaning is no understanding at ~ll.creates the ground for understanding. BAKHTIN DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL / 1207 words is present to the speaker not in the object. 6 It is true that such extreme concreteness (which approaches at time the feuilleton)7 is present only in those secondary aspects. within his own boundanes._ In the actual life of speech. compositionally marked. as contrasted with the external. but rather in the consciousness of the listener. primacy belongs to the response. But even a more concrete passwe understanding of the meaning of the utterance.of the reader~ whose peculiar semantic and expressive characteristics Tolstoy acutely senses-as well as in the object. it introduces totally new elements into his discourse. more persuasiveness. To some extent.f~r an actI~e and encraged understanding. In this respect Tolstoy is an hei:of the eighte:nth century.ive.ugh. they differ in their essentials and give rise to varying stylistic effects m discourse. this orientation toward the listener and the related internal dialogism of the word may simply overshadow the object: the strong point of any concrete listener becomes a self-sufficient focus of attention. what follows from this is a radical concretization of dialogization (almost always undertaken in the service of a polemic). B. toward the specific world of the listener. nothing new can be introduced into his discourse. striving to stun and destroy the apperceptive backQTound of the reader's active understanding. psychological and (frequently) random ch:racter.. espeCIally m the rhetoncal fonns. Thus an active understanding." 7. Altho. to an alien utterance enters into the positing of the style. such as could only emerge from a passive understanding (for instance. There occurs a new encounter between the utterance and an alien word. Therefore his orientation toward the listener isban orientation toward a specific conceptual horizon.ermines this word within the alien conceptual system of the understandmg receiver. one is impossible without the other. sometimes requires special historical or literary commentary: we are not sure with what precisely a given tone is in hannony or disharmony. . such negatIve demands are completely immanent in the speaker's own discourse and do not go beyond his semantic or expressive self-sufficiency. apperceptive background.of the ~s­ tener. seeking. agamst hIS. especiall~ of Rousseau. In those examples of the internal dialogization of discourse that we have chosen (the internal. Style organically contains within itself indices that reach outside itself. an understanding of the speaker's intention insofar as that understanding remains purel~ pass. with a motivated agreement or disagreement. for exampleJ an explication of the topical context of I<FamiIy Happiness" [Bakhtin's note]. contributes nothing new to the word under conSIderatI~n. at its most ambitious. every concrete act of understandmg IS actIve: it assimilates the word to be understood into its own conceptual system filled with specific objects and emotional expressions. purely receptive. Understanding comes to frUItIOn only m the res~onse. conceptual horizons. . and is indissolubly merged with the response. a correspondence of its own elements and the elements of an alien context. v~nous social "languages" come to interact with one another. Cf. s This propagandizing impulse sometImes leads to a narrOWIng-down of heteroglot social consciousness (against which Tolstoy polemicizes) to the consciousness of his immediate contemporary.' leave the spea~er in his own personal context. Eichenbaum's book Lev Tolstoj. 1928). Very often. systems for providing expressive accents. a contemporary of the day and not of the epoch. Swissborn French philosopher and author. no ~atter how acutely we sense it in the expressive profile of his style. Thus this dialocris~ bears a more subjective. dialogue) the relationship to the alien word. it prepares the ground . ync t epic discourse harmonizes and disharmonizes (more often disharmonizes) with various aspects of the heteroglot socio-verbal consciousness ensnarincr the object. while at the same time polemically invading the reader's belief and evaluative system. Therefore. Understanding and response are dialectically merged and mutually condition each other. one that assimilates the word under consideration into a new conceptual system. the dialogic relationship toward an alien word within the object an~ the relationship toward an alien word in the anticipated answer of the lIstener can. Indeed the purely negative demands. M. the overtones of internal dialogization in Tolstoy's discourse. ----~---------- . constructs his own utterance on ahen terntory. This new form of internal dialogism of the word is different from that form detetmined by an encounter with an alien word within the object itself: here it is not the object that serves as the arena for the encounter but rather the subjective belief system of the listener. becoming almost indistinguishable during stylistic analysis. 6.

as I wer . the sun.ac 11 clearly marked fonns for mix. in thoughts. where where an alien utterance begms to sOUI~ I tterances chanoes into an orienord amono a len u " f . Everything that the poet sees.. ti n can ecome suc h db But interna Ia oglZa 0 1 dl'fferences an d contradictions are enric e thy h .). nuances-such is the fundamental prerequisite for poetic style. f e style and undergoes a spec c one of the most fundamental aspects 0 pros merely one of many languages in a heteroglot world) is foreign to poetic style-as is a related phenomenon. theAlexandrianastron_ orner. Of course this relationship and the relationship to his own language (in greater or lesser degree) could never be foreign to a historically existent poet. moe.ces t o:e ~ a~e up of o~e's own words and d the rejoinder from thIs combm e .t to artistic use. . the stationary center of the universe. The concept of many worlds of language. anot~er s~~antI~S't0 f . and geographer. something allencompassing. Contradictions. each word. ani. It is an organic part the words of another without l osmg ItS sense of a heteroglot unity. a Ie~h:. b es as It were an logic inter-onentatIon ecom '. The world of poetry. b ti'ons do not sound in e he e dlaloOlc rever era 1 . in its inner forms. that is. Here diareformulating the semantIcs and s~ ac Ica event of discourse itself.. . ~o. IC mt I wor ' su fficI'ent unto itself and oes not f e le d IS word is not put to artls IC us. he makes use of each form.w r ( ens in the rhetorical genres) but pensemantic heights of discou~se as aPJralooize language itself and the world etrate the deep strata of dlscourshe. the natural dialogization of the d In genres t at are poe. in its objective specificity and boundedness.E.~~O~~:n~e~ne. d' 'th the Iscourse 0 f ano ther-then in artisttc prose. a ' . But if in extraa srreater or lesser extent m . f' t a ld' IoOIzat' 1 a . ed b its external politics (its relationship ments are put together) IS deterl~m ~ e on the boundary between its to alien discourse).ew is equally foreign to poetic to the possibility of other Imguls. language at its full weight and the objective display of language (as a socially and historically limited lingUistic reality) are all 8. in the work it does to effect its intention. 1 nguaoe is alien to poetic style. Language is present to him only from inside. In poetry. style so conceived is fully adequate to a single language and a single lingUistic consciousness.. without transposing it into a prosaic key and in the process turning the poet into a writer of prose. he is utterly immersed in it. I0 one s own a " and therefore a . reflected upon or related to. as a human being surrounded by living hetero. . any allen utterances vention allusion to alien discourse. direct unconditional intentionality. something that cannot be disputed. own context and another.yn~C. fully adequate to the author's intention. for its expression. In the system of the universe postulated by Ptolemy (active 127-148 C. The language in a poetic work realizes itself as something about which there can be no doubt. the incomplete commitment of oneself. and not from outside. dialogue of VOIces anses I~ d l"ke a socially alien language. even discourse about doubts must be cast in a discourse that cannot be doubted. d' b dan'es Poetic style is by con. t pu. angu " d' ectly out 0 fSOCIa1 dialogue of "languages. mating from within and ~ramatlZmg f in the narrow sense). " I form of discourse)-where the . . "without quotation marks").d form only were m IV! ua . utteran. To take responsibility for the language of the work as a whole at all of its points as its language. That is. the help of any other or alien language. It follows that any sense Of t . h h f . conflicts and doubts remain in the 'object. apart.. all equal in their ability to conceptualize and to be expressive. 1 I aoe has (t e mterna " ar view a partlcu .n~xt. co~ ex m and tone. mathematician. thIS dIa o~~a t its means for expressing itself. No matter what "agonies of the word" the poet endured in the process of creation. Discourse Ives. th r compOSI IOna y ordinary dla ogue . his own intentions to the language that he uses. I I ds such a double life: it is O In any actual dialogue the r~Jomh er a St tea the dialogue as a whole. tones. .e social style. The language of the poetic genre is a unitary and singular Ptolemaic worldS outside of which nothing else exists and nothing else is needed.. social heterog ossIa. I h I I) dialooization usually stands " . planets. 1'" 1 ° within the boundaries 0 one tation of a word among SOCIally a len angua"es and the same national language. crystallizes into a speCla n ~t. f th the orientatIOn 0 e w. the interna Ia O~I~~ IOn . In p·oetic genres. is organically denied to poetic style. inseparable from it. in living experiences-in short.e works aest etIc ~ t'h's I'nternal dialooization becomes . d' . Within the limits of poetic style. . I~ e:~l d X artistic elaboration. or ing and polemlclZmg WI . . d . in them alone is such consciousness fully immanent. to assume a full solidarity with each of the work's aspects. I " ill poetic dIscourse. expressing itself in it directly and without mediation. without conditions and without distance. beyon ItS own oun . way in which the word co~ceives its ~ ~~~ ~~tructure of discourse. another vocabulary. . in the subject matterbut they do not enter into the language itself. I th novelh owever. each expression according to its unmediated power to assign meaning (as it were. as we have said. is always illumined by one unitary and indisputable discourse.iC forms and so forth. presumesuspended from any mutu al interaction with alien discourse. of d d tualized m t e con ex f th structure an concep ( " " from the point of view 0 e which consists of its own uttera(c~s o~h partner) One cannot excise speaker) and of alien. 1 ki f t of its own and runs its course m artistIc prose every ay. l' 1 QUaoes to the possibility of Any way whatever of alludmg to. as we have In the majority of poetIC genres ~poe IC. The poet is not able to oppose his own poetic Consciousness. to a given language.and polyglossia. and stars revolve around the earth. of one's full meaning. he does through the eyes of a given language. n e . I .ficity ( determmatIon an cntIcal qual'fi e d relationship to one's own language as ~~ecl. understands and thinks.. IOn. I . for he is Completely within it and therefore cannot turn it into an object to be perceived.the historicity. b h a crucial force for creating 1 d · 1 . but this relationship could not find a place in the poetic style of his work without destroying that style.. ob'ect " and is artificially extinguished in h not enter into th. alien. . th. it does of dIscourse IS no 1 d· 1 . the narrow sen se . BAKHTIN DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL / 1209 . disco~rse in all aspects. and there is nothing that might require. (d rhetonca sc 0 ar y " . is present to The phenomenon 0 realms"of the life of the word. The language of the poet is his language.s. ti n enetrates from within the very o and especially in the novel. no matter how many contradictions and insoluble conflicts the poet develops within it. as a pure and direct expression of his own intention. artistic consciousness-understood as a unity of all the author's semantic and expressive intentions-fully realizes itself within its own language. f said.1208 / MIKHAIL M. in the finished work language is an obedient organ.

s0 In g. Elements of heteroglossia enter here not in the capacity of another language carrying its own particular points of view.rithout saying that we continually advance as typical the extreme to which poetic genres aspire. or the representative of a specific socioideological group). ent m w Ich the consciousness ever ullltary It i 't I grammatical system of normative £ t s ~lll ary on y as an abstract ideological conceptualizations tha~~Sitaa~~ ~n I. . '" c c avor 0 a o-iven . the polcoincide with. note]. The unity and singularity of language are the indispensable prerequisites for a realization of the direct (but not objectively typifying) intentional individuality of poetic style and of its monologic steadfastness. As a consequence of the prerequisites mentioned above. a poetic movement that began in France in the last third of the 19th century. while the artificially created language of poetry must be a directly intentional language. IS IC mar ers ut 1 . h' of the verbal artist lives I'S n . '" abstractly unitary nationallano-uao. as a thing. Ianguages (conversational bu . Nevertheless. Social languages are filled with specific objects. Whereas the writer of prose. syntac'" em entiona aIm a d 'th h system inherent in one or anoth ' n. This does not mean.~n ~ e road sens~ of the term "proitician. an inference or assumption. ecommg create within an titude of bounded verbalI'de I'" . What IS Important to us here is the intentional di . h kn' WIth specific points of view spec'fi h'" E genre. even though it might in fact be more adequate to that world. or malllfestmg mtentions. . they are made concrete. shift in literary poetic languages [Bahktin's note].fi~s that car~ ItS meanings. ." often becomes authoritarian. . and differentiated. ertam features . called genres. Vyacheslav Ivanov (1866-1949). y atin toward nationallancruacres in the Middle Ages [B akh' • l:> <b tms . dogmatic and conservative. by contrast-as we shall see-attempts to talk about even his own world in an alien language (for example. newspaper instance) or finally the' var' '" s 0 oW Iterature (penny dreadfuls. '" es. Symbolism. . nuances I . Khlebnikov).1210 I MIKHAIL M. But in such a context it is objective. Russian experimental poet and playwright. It is noteworthy that the poet. for IOUS o-enres 0 f high l't C' . such possibilities are limited: a certain latitude for heteroglossia exists only in the "low" poetic genres-in the satiric and comic genres and others. e a stract are elem t f I WIt vanous semantic and axiol . . but rather in the capacity of a depicted thing. .solati. and rebellionj it quickly found adherents in Russia. ted octor. To shed light on an alien world. the Symbolists (Bal'mont. vanous "systems (identical I'n th'" b ) e Ie systems. Therefore such ideas as a special "poetic language. the language of poetic genres. Thus. OIeSSIOn Jargons. but incompatible. aspect as an expressive system that' . 1. modernity. should he not accept the given literary language.a~I~S equal. n addItIOn. and numerous hybrids of various generic types exist. when they approach their stylistic limit.uage. To be sure.. . . and. that heteroglossia or even a foreign language is completely shut out of a poetic work. the poet speaks in his own language. WI t e overall accentual er o-enre' oratonc I bI"" and journalistic genres the o-enre '" fl' I" a ." a "priestly language of poetry" and so forth could flourish on poetic soil. OgiC content and each with its own different k .pu ICIStiC. Actual SOCI'al liE econung t at IS a ch arac t" d h" enstic 0 all livinoIe an· Istoncal b . Velimir Khlebnikov (1885-1922)." a "language of the gods. . al en s 0 anguage filled sound. he never resorts to an alien language. Futurism. about which one can say things not expressible in one's own language. speCI c content. and sometimes deeacar~rfr:: so forth. f e s ared language's stratification. It theIr vocabularies. it does not lie on the same plane with the real language of the work: it is the depicted gesture of one of the characters and does not appear as an aspect of the word doing the depicting. ".s without saying that these la~o-uao-es ~ratrficatIOn mto genres.el a mdultitude of concrete worlds. in essence. a same PtolemaIC conception of Lano-uao-e lik th I' . Russian symbolist poet. that is. Konstantin Bal- Literary language-both spoken and writt Ih " only in its shared abstract II'ngu' t' k enb-a tough It IS unitary not . rupted process of historical b . typical. sealing itself off from the influence of extraliterary social dialects. V. anguao-e om whose pom t 0 f VIew other d'" . but rather =~~~~~t~~:pone~tsof l~ngua~e being stratified of lano-uao-e are beino." and even made experiments directed toward creating such a language (those ofV. a revolutionary movement in art and literature begun in Italy in 1909. in the nonliterary language of the teller of tales.. These are especially widespread in periods of ~tions and demands of poetic style. particular. 0 OO-Ica an social b l' f . stressed speed. Ivanov) and later the Futurists dreamed of creating a special "language of poetry. t ey It together ' I C approac es IOrm f thO kin an d accents characteristic of th . emphasized the evocation of subjective erno.' tion. hen. 2. "mensIOns. h £ e . the busmessman. . of languao-e take on thespe ifi "'fl f I erature. E ceptualizing these abstract marker . heteroglossia (other socio-ideological languages) can be introduced into purely poetic genres.. m IsolatIOn from the uninterf 1anguage. when Russian prose writers at the beginning of the twentieth century began to show a profound interest in dialects and shaz. . via symbol and metaphor. very lano-uao-e of the writer (th u~tIOn concrete.! The idea of a special unitary and singular language of poetry is a typical utopian philosopheme 2 of poetic discourse: it is grounded in the actual con9. BAKHTIN DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL I 1211 simultaneous. Even when speaking of alien things. t a~gualg~ (leXlcological. the denotative and expressive dimension of th "h It is in fact not the neutrallino. WIthm these .e ' m whIch the mtentIOnal pOSSibilities direction: filled with xpr~~nated: these possibilities are realized in specific . Certain features of 1 . ili:t mont (1867-1943). there is interwoven with this 0• • • •& professif1. socially localized and limited. he often measures his own world py alien linguistic standards.. Such was the point of view taken b L . semantic. th~se sometimes e goe. in concrete examples of poetic works it is possible to find features fundamental to prose. will sooner resort to the artificial creation of a new language specifically for poetry than he will to the exploitation of actual available social dialects. 3. e gIven genre. rather than objective description. In an argument.h .ns . y ~he speCIfic organisms tic) will knit too-ether WI'th th . sIness an prose lano-uag h perceIved as objects that are' . Russian poet and philologist.on from the concrete.:nc stratrficatIOn oflanguage fessional": the languao-e of th I ". which is alw Iced by one directly intentional I fr ays a style adequately serv. the public ed~cationet awy~r. IS I se strati ed and h t I . '" '" e poet or novelIst) ca b t k sIOnal Jargon on a par with pr E . of course. It appears.nal stratification of lano.erog ot m ItS This stratification is accom~lishe~'~~: o~ ::. among ot ers) are language" is yet another expre~~i~~. a mul. 't If 'fia so m ItS IOrms for cons. al' n e a en as a profes. they involve s "'ectfic fo er £om eac? ot~er ~ot only in forms for making conceptualizatio~and ev:. unitary and singular. 'h . And even the . '" '" e e Ivmg concrete environm . It goes v.' The i~ea of a "poetic the lingUistic and stylistic world. primarily in the speeches of characters.

. And finally. (th I uage of t e ca e. . nuances an d specific axioloolCal overtones. in the creative consciousness of people who write novels. the trade ' . As such they all may be juxtaposed to one another.n . Y t ' tent alienatino these words an d ' domo to a cer am ex '" and accents. Whatever the principle underlying them and making each unique. Thus at any given mOment of its historical existence.!gidllly justifies Our juxtaposing them: all languages of heteroglossia.actual fact.thus it can create slogan-wor s.ompletely ~u o~om il detennined by differences Social stratification IS also an pnm~r y d between the expressive f d to convey meanmg an f' between the orms . accentual system that. I and points 0 VIew pecu Iar f the lanouaoe themselves. a socio-dialectological principle). and there comCI e WI g t ous and peculiar to itself. share the same language. d thinos. diJ::entiation. y. language is heteroglot from top to bottom: it represents the co-existence of socio-ideological contradictions between the present and the past. . Poetry depersonalizes "days" in language. In . these genenc anview. are specific points of view on the world. them specific semantIC d ' . oIS as for instance. of the Nietzschean5 and so on). of a particular generation of children. . Therefore they are all able to enter into the unitary plane of the novel. gives them embodied representation and dialogically opposes them to one another in unresolvable dialogues. d " they attract to. I .'" I n uaoes no matter how narrow ng this is brought about by socially typt I~ . it is. in theirhturn. '" stratification of t e common I'll h '" g:neous as the oral and written erary language is frequently. German philologist and philosopher.th concrete val ue J . its own ways of assigning blame and praise. but rather intersect with each other in many different ways (the Ukrainian language. I . ca n characteristic mtentIOns '" f h h ' b't b means 0 t elr ow d and forms into t elr or I. from. mutually supplement one another. with its special vocabulary and unique accentual system. I t the abstractly linguistic dla ecical differences m ways . '" . . Follower of FRIEDRICH NIElZSCHE (18441900). another accentual system. I 1:213 4 the Irtenevs in Tolstoy. these languages live a real life. d'" 'es (artistic and otherwise). in others it is the principle of theme and content.use h t' tratification expresses itsel m typ_ Planes of various belIef systems-t a IS.anguages" might be juxtaposed to one another. each characterized by its own objects. 5. however. there does exist a common plane that methodol<." another vocabulary. circles and so forth. of Social dialects and others (as occurs. forms for conceptualizing the world in words. Social stratification may here that in other eras can become. an f I that had been affected y ItS ' cts 0 anguaoe . but outsIde. b lary its own particular ' I ouage ItS own voca u . between differing epochs of the past. Family in Tolstoy's short story "The Devil" (J91I). between different socio-ideological groups in the present. they knit together with . for example.h ' Every socially SIgnI can ve ' d ' I of persons-to infect WIt ItS ' d f ' d for a WI e CIrc e b ' for a long peno 0 tIme. ti'no these lanouages become view. a certain degree 0 mel acute. contradict one another and be interrelated dialogically. an m so . these anguages r n a . the language of the epic poem. t ' I moment 0 ver a l:Y' h In any Olven l1S onca every age group as as '" I h' lanouaoe' moreover. 'far from auste y '" I' But the SItuatIOn IS I Althouoh at its very core Ith l'terary anouaoe. . f 'I specific 0 Jects an WI f ' r to partIcu ar pfessI'ons Within these pomts 0 ro. while prose. '" d ki 0 it difficult for the wor to b h I 0 oe a partIcular wor -rna n". SOCI y '" th ugh the medium of t elI ' I 'bTt' of lanouage ro . tI'cular significant artIstIc specific concrete ms an I "" 'I wspapers even par cles. of the student. journals. d ding on social level. they struggle and evolve in an environment of Social heteroglossia. '" f th curse-words." Each of these "languages" of heteroglossia reqUires a methodology very different from the others.:~~. WId b the oeneric and professional w ' . for the speakers 0 d'''' t"'l I'ntentional-they denote and d f ' I J'argons are Irec y .'" . that is. the languages of particular generations. the jargon of ' prgon define the societal lImIts 0 a langua". each is grounded in a completely different principle for marking differences and for establishing units (for some this principle is functional. tolooical unity 0 t e s are I ifi "'t "'old VI'ews have the capacity to '" all 'all sion can w r h ' What is more. Therefore languages do not exclude each other. s~cla y ~:o is nev~rtheless always present. . various forms of stylizations and illustrations of professional and period-bound languages. for those not participating in the gIVen purmediation. artistic works and persons. in proworks and individual persons ale a cha pable of attracting its words " ' . each generation ' I . which can unite in itself parodic stylizations of generic languages. language of a do~inant socla . partlcu ar ne _ II ' pable of stratifying language. a social stratification. often deliberately intensifies difference between them. in yet others it is. f h h d l'terary lanouaoe. s I' d accentuate elements of ' ed to conceptua lZe an . at each social leve as ItS own "'.h pro d full f expressin o ouages an I eSSIOna and are capable o " . of course. P ortion to th elr SOCIaI s ionificance. pulse Imposmg on semantic and expreSSIve I~ . partles'rf h the ability-sometimes ' 'fi t rbal pe ormance as . every day represents another socio-ideological semantic "state of affairs. d b' t as typifactions as local color.1212 I MIKHAIL M. Clrexploit the intentIOna P~SSI II I~S ' t c no Vanous ten enCI . . or eXCIse ' . a tlling c. specific world views. meanings and values.e. themselves WIt out b ' . For such OUtSI ers. of the run-of-the-mill intellectual.ua". e I. in a certain sense. at any given moment. properly speaking. . all given a bodily fonn. Ybe treate as 0 Jec s. of early Symbolism. express dIrect y an. as we shall see. 'I 'thout any qualificatIOns. BAKHTIN DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL 'udgments' t d . schools. . As such they encounter one another and co-exist in the consciousness of real people-first and foremost. extre Yf ' al stratification but in essence ' 'd 'th enenc an d pro eSSIOn . be utilized in a directly mtentIOnexha ay. . suc an". It might even seem that the very word "language" loses all meaning in this process-for apparently there is no single plane on which all these "l."'. e '" "f All instItutIOn e angII ) d other stratIfyin o actors. They may all be drawn in by the 'novelist for the orchestration 4.gev. 'd th 'ntentIOns permea '" '" . that IS. t eyare. academIC a matter of fact ItS own an". between tendencies. forms from other tendenCIes. languages of various epochs and periods of socio-ideologicallife cohabit with one another. d' h' anlnO an expreSSIOn.ossible to have a family the social circle in which t~e~ arefspo en. with its own slogans. dvaryt thep~oh school student. own intention certam aspe . As such. forming new socially typifying "languages. lImIte In t elr me. and are permea e dWI 'th the be li e f systems 0 f certain genres of expreSSIOn b' . in the English comic novel). Even languages of the day exist: one could say that today's and yesterday's socio-ideological and political "day" do not.us languaoe and stratificatIOn may not VIO a e '" . f even here. cliff t lanouaoes an '" school student are a eren ": . These "languages" of heteroglossia intersect each other in a variety of ways. praise-words and so °fr 'b lI'deolooicallife.

process. is in fact an organized microcosm that reflects the macrocosmfiot only of national heteroglossia. what results is not a single language but a dialoglle of languages. intentional diversity of speech [raznorecivost'] (which is present in every living dialect as a closed system) is transformed into diversity of language [raznojazycie]. The word in language is half someone else's. d quently hmltmg m en 10 h ' 1 cI'rcle encompassed by It an th broader t e SOCIa h tion goes on. I b d 't lf 'n a living impulse [naprav en. a genre.t e sc ero k ers th a a: ' forth-m~r he ath ofthe real living project of an mtention. 11 sion. they cannot be assimilated into his context and fall out of it. 1) mantic nuances to authentIC boIs). . is To study the word as s~£ch. shot through Wl 1 ' 't '=' . t aenerallinguistic norms. semantIc overtones. ' tically 0 serva e an x . socio-ideological concrete thing. ak h 1 tic deposits of an intentIOna . C t 1 vertones (aeneric. Within the scope of literary language itself there is already a more or less sharply defined boundary between everydayconversational language and written language. a party. their other-languagedness. dialects in this new context lose. certain dialects may be legitimized in literature and thus to a certain extent be appropriated by literary language. " )' t f ns and accents. The South Slavic la~guage used in the standard 9th century translation of the Bible done by the brothers Sts. in other people's contexts. 1 us to spea 0 par ICU k d b 11 these stratifying forces m anguage .0 rOa1ca expen just as senseress as t? ~ " ct:d and by which it is determined. Literary language is a highly distinctive phenomenon. forms but rather a concrete t t system 0 f norma t Ive f ' guage is not an ab.I f h d from which we can learn ' h ked corpse 0 t e wor . Language is not a neutral medium that passes freely and easily into the private property of the speaker's intentions. 11 be t en as par ICU f . nothing at all about the SOCIal SItuatiO~ or he that reaches out heyond it. f1 age then t e more s . As a living. ImgUIs d di the specific conceptua 1be understood or studied without. 1an to "no one". It becomes "one's own" only when the speaker populates it with his own intention.' h those traces. We have so far proceeded on the assumption of the abstract-linguistic (dialectological) unity of literary language. world h omena as pro eSSI . ' '11 harged life' all words an orms hi h 't has lived ItS SOCIa y c . language. eyo ' t· 'f we detach ourse ves h nost'] towar d teobJec . morp 0 ogI '='k f f lar social dialects.ien. d the referential and expressive-that This is why we constantly put for~rt t f fies and differentiates the comis. un e~stan ng ' en by an mtentIOn. on entering the literary language and preserving within it their own dialectological elasticity.DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL 1214 / MIKHAIL M. Distinctions between genres frequently coincide with dialectological distinctions (for example. sIgns left behmd on t p . these dialects. an . the word does not exist in a neutral and impersonal language (it is not. ~O~SISt. intentional-factors as the force a. The unity of a literary language is not a unity of a single. finally. '=' I'='. closed language $ystem. adapting it to his own semantic and expressive intention. 1 " th fact that there may be. d' VIng m I. heteroglo t conceptIOn 0 a a~ticular work. . e b f la1 the social force bringing about suc a consequently the more su stan h harply focused and stable will be . Expropriating it. contexts In w c I . as has been said. markers (lexical coloration. ten entIOuS. an . Prior to this moment of appropriation. real life toWal'd wbch 1t :vas ~ f t atification in literary language. . s r~ I . out of a dictionary that the speaker gets his words!). are populated by intentIOns" ontex ua 0 '=' individualistic) are inevitable m the word. as heteroglot opinion. serving otherpeople's intentions: it is from there that one must take the word. as It were. to oca e Ifn a :on'='al and social dialects. it is as if they put themselves in quotation marks against the will of the speaker. for the individual consciousness.s racftheworl d All word s h a ve the "taste" of a pro eSSIOn. t ey maY. .gIV n I se l' I completely from this impulse Discourse lives. For any m IVI ua . .g :herunpu 'ence outside the context of that st dy psycJ'/. and make it one's own. they are deformep and in fact cease to be that which they had been simply as dialects. the highChurch Slavonic6-and the low-conversational-genres of the eighteenth century). between finds that common pane dialogically. " the fate of a given word in li e. 'f all we have 1ef t IS t e na . But even a literary language is anything but a closed dialect. Cyril (827-869) and Methodius (826-885) and still used as a liturgical language by all Slavic Orthodox Christian Churches. ac df eration. ) t fon of anauaae meaningful (collectIve sa ura I T'='h '='1 ger this stratifying satura. d ' . . a gena aenre. e on . it. 1 '=' ages professional jargons and so tc ) of generIc angu . have the effect of deforming the literary la:qguage. that are 1eft b e h m m ity-from stable (and consequ~nty soc~ 1 s~cal and others). BAKHTIN I 1215 of his themes and for the refracted (indirect) expression of his intentions and values. especially if it is novelistic prose with a rich and tension-filled verbalideological history.' t e so to spe . These '1 't 'mparts meamng 0 '=' 1 of the partlcu ar way I I b bl d fu able cannot in themse ves . a par I d to the (relatively) protracted and SOCIa y itself everywhere comes own 1 Wl'th specific (and conse. of course. 'the language markers (lingUIstic symstratificatIOn 0 angu. a particular person. but rather it exists in other people's mouths. On the other hand. after all. the quality of closed socio-linguistic systems. The whole ~~tt. As a result of the wor oned~ a ds and forms that can belong " I" rds an lorms-wor 'th there are no neutra WhO b letely taken over. igno ri11. Pd h E h word tastes of the context and '=' the day an our. . within it. ceases to be that which it had been. And not all words for just anyone submit equally easily to this appropriation. sound foreign in the mouth of the one who appropriated them and who now speaks them. a closed socio-linguistic system. others remain a).zation they h ave b een . The national literary language of a people with a highly developed art of prose. 1 . ks f ' th ir: intentional dimenSIOn one cally heterogeneous P e~ . which permit dialectoloaical markers (phonetIC. when he appropriates the word.I~on~' no matter how these languages gIC "languages. as is the linguistic consciousness of the educated person who is its agent. forcing it to submit to one's own intentions and accents. but of European heteroglossia as }Vell. d h are conceIve . lies on the borderline between oneself and the other. an age group. views and individual artIstIC w?r 'h or In lIebe' ]'uxtaposed and juxtaposed. . the lingUIstIC c anges'm It of this social force's activ' d' lanauaae as a resu . too. bllt is rather a highly specific unity of several "languages" that have established contact and mutual recognition with each other (merely one of 6. an III VI . on whICh t ey can a . By stressing the intentional dIll~enSltO~0 s ~nale series such methodologiwe are able. d not t h e l maUIS t IC mon literary 1anguage. is a difficult and complicated process. e .a f doin the work of stratification-a pro esHowever varied the SOCIal orces g 'di'dual personality-the work fcular tendency. 'to this seizure and transformation into private property: many words stubbornly resist. his own accent.." highly speCI c a ak° re a t" lar points of view on the world. I' external mark ers. a tendency. As they enter literature and are appropriated to literary language. an guaae as een comp 'd 1 consciousness li' intentions and accents. it is populated-overpopulated-with the intentions of others.

:ord. They do not collide with each other in his consciousness.~t. the conviction that his language is predetermined. A mythological river throuah H ades (li tera ll"forgetfulness". Each . sang songs in another. may be reflected . IC th works. automatically: each was indisputably in its own place. nor profese. even concrete reminiscence: :r:~p~~::~fe)~ntexts (in such contexts. is sufficient t~U:h::~tf~~iC ". . when he began to dictate petitions to the local authorities through a scribe. e of the word e t 1 an t e means by w h i c h ' e erog OSSla encountered d. Consciousness finds itself inevitably facing the necessity of having to choose a language. miles away from any urban center. These Ideas are he contradiction these are'"what d t W.y sen:antlc and. there 0 . .. no particular manner of s e mgUlstlc specifiCIty is sensed behind guistic face (the possible perso:~. In a condition of actual ' e ermIne e mea f' . s? to speak. h one OrIents oneself in 't d t . world of local authorities the new lana immigrated to the city~all these I:n:~: and world of the workers freshly emerged from a state of peaceful d '" ~es and worlds sooner or later the speech diversity in each." Only by remaining in a closed environment. each . in other words. IrectlOn .on. the language and world of labor and everyday life. one without writing or thought. the movement from one to the other is predetermined and not a thought process.co~sc~ou~ness comes upon an SIa as well as outside it Any fu d 1'" d WIthm lIterary language itself . that the ideological systems and approaches to the world that were indissolubly connected with these languages contradicted each other and in no way could live in peace and quiet with one another-then the inviolability and predetermined quality of these languages came to an end. a umtary and. I n a 0 Its anaua<> d' . But these languages were not dialogically coordinated in the linguistic consciousness of the peasant. he uses only concrete intentional levels of k~:~~~ a . wor s 0 a poetic w k or reified images of genres (exce t for t~e o?e s ou . 'th di' d must be no distance between th e poet an d hi wo d out me ation. emerge from lanauage as a sin<>le inte ti r. verythi 0 tl t n~u~t tmmerse itselfin Letlne. one language. no socially typical lino behind them. m any fundamental way I'n hI' '" ti' k '" ". he passed from one to the other without thinking. Greek). the language of everyday life and the everyday world with the language of prayer or song. But these contextse:emust lbe delIbe~ately evidenced in accented in the abstract. All these are different languages. nor world views (exce t for p P poet himself) nor typical an d' d~:dunIlt~ry and smgularworld view of the . the poet strips the word f h . an mOrIbund equilibrium and revealed Of course the actively litera limm' . howOf course there always exists a limited h sp ere of . and a connection with th poetic discourse. completely off the maps of socioideological becoming. and the place of each was indisputable. it is as if these languages were in different chambers. E'" pea ng persons. Concrete socio-ideological language consciousness. The actively literary linguistic consciousness at all times and everywhere (that is. he tried speaking yet a fourth language (the official-literate language.e an theIr connectIOn With specific h Id . in all epochs of literature historically available to us) comes upon "languages. nts..DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL ! 1217 1216 I MIKHAIL M." and not language. such words and forms (and onI' hoot ers mtentions. nevertheless lived in several language systems: he prayed to God in one language (Church Slavonic). the language and world of song. s poe c wor . n onatlOns. ea 0 The poet is a poet insofar as he acce ts th . 8. ' . 1 e ermme t e concrete ~anguage and a unitary.e Iverslty. one of its IS only wor must express the poet's 1nean~no d"lrec tlyand IS own. could a man fail to sense this activity of selecting a language and rest assured in the inviolability of his own language. With each literary-verbal performance. however. as it becomes creative-that is. What is mo th ' ere IS no need of heteroglot re. not sense any typical sions. answerin for every weredis or:f~ one face-the linguistic face of the a . to look at one of these languages through the eyes of another language.. fr: °lnal whole: none of its stratification . naively_ immersed in an unmoving and for him unshakable everyday world..y) t~tat they lo~e the!r link with contexts Behind the d f '" ". their . the specific language and 7. . b y. e meanmg must its speech diversity to say noth"'. All who drink from it lose their memory. aSSOCIatIOns. tendencies. there is no attempt to coordinate them. correlations that emerge fr s.. Even such a man. it sia chooses. inviolable and indisputable."" Ul enters t he worh B fi no >' " Janguage 11Uly remember only its llfi .chosen by the poet himself). a "language. even more varied and profoundheter~a. it must move in and occupy a position for itself within it. one social contexts. . We are of course deliberately simplifying: the real-life peasant could and did do this to a certain extent [Bakhtin's note]. as it becomes active as literature-discovers itself already surrounded by heteroglossia and not at all a single. unitary language.h ~n~ so forth. l t e narrator) need peek out from author.d . 0 matter how mulIC . t e poet. Th e nature 0 f the h sty IStiC . n amenta stu y of th I" lif ' must begin with this basic fact . consciousness must actively orient itself amidst heteroglos . deals not in fact with a single language.. h off utterance. m IV! ua ImaOes of s ki speech mannerisms or typical I' t . or vice versa). Precisely this constitutes the peculiar nature of the methodological problem in literary language. directions (exc~ t th d' gIv~n poetic genre). in their lin<>uisd~r. 0 or as 1 It were his N tlple and varied these semant' an d accentual thread own. hi conceptual horizon. spoke to his family in a third and.more or less concrete contexts. singular Immanent in the poetic <>enres with ~. Everywhere th . pointers. e very movement of the poetic symbol (for f 1- . BAKHTIN which is poetic language in the narrow sense).Thus an illiterate peasant. He was not yet able to regard one language (and the verbal world corresponding to it) through the eyes of another language (that is. or at least no particularly concret ImensI.andorget'us prev' Z.c. monoiogicall ~ealed~ 1 . but with languages-except that the place occupied by each of these languages is fixed and indisputable. "paper" language).. and the necessity of actively choosing one's orientation among them began.? As soon as a critical interanimation of languages began to occur in the consciousness of our peasant.s WI Th . tauS ~Je HZ any oth er contexts: ever. To achIeve this. even from the point of view of abstract socio-dialectological markers. The language and world of prayer. h styI Istic life that the word will lead... as soon as it became clear that these were not only various different languages but even internally variegated languages. me a comp ete sm<>le dh IS own lanauage he must '" -persone egemonyover h "" assume equal re 'b T f aspects and subordinate them t o h' own an dsponslh'1 Ity or.they are Impersonal them. mtentIOns. The poet must assu l' ns 0 OrIentatIOn open to h.

in varying degrees. that is. in those relating to "content" as well as the "formal" aspects themselves. The internal social dialogism of novelistic discourse requires the concrete social context of discourse to be exposed. and becomes a unique artistic system. The prose writer as a novelist does not strip away the intentions of others from the heteroglot language of his works. and refracted at different angles. that he constructs his style. while registering it as a whole. registers with extreme subtlety the tiniest shifts and oscillations of the social atmosphere. a language that has somehow more or less materialized. the unfolding of a metaphor) presumes precisely this u~ty o~ lanauaae an unmediated correspondence with its object. but poetic forms reflect lengthier social processes. The lanauaae of the prose writer deploys itself according to degrees of greater or fess~r proximity to the author and to his u1ti~ate semantic insta~­ tiation: certain aspects of language directly and unmedlatedly express (as III poetry) the semantic and expressive intentions of the autho~. undifferentiated social circle whose language and Ideology were not yet stratified.e novel and organize themselves within it into a structured artistic system. social dialogue reverberates in all aspects of discourse. particular individuals. The orientation of the word amid the utterances and languages of others.1218 I MIKHAIL M. in all of its aspects. As a result of this work-stripping all aspects of language of the mtentIOns and accents of other people.n (as the author of the word)-rather. he welcomes them into his work. Rhythm serves to strenathen and concentrate even further the unity and hermetic quality of the :urface of poetic style. its "form" and its "content. destroying all traces of social heter?gloss~aand diversity of language-a tension-filled unity of language . when poetry had not yet exceeded the lin:its of a closed. we experience a profound ~nd conscious tension through which the unitary poetic language of a work rIses from the heteroglot and language-diverse chaos of . He can make use of language without wholly giving himself up to it. and present only m those extremely rare epochs of poetry. parody. umty of another order) of his own style. Therefore the stratification of language-generic. destroys in embryo those social worlds of speech and of persons that are potentially embedded in the word: in any cas:. but from within. from the different layers and aspects of the work. . i. social in the narrow sense. Rhythm. ultimately. heteroglot languages he deals with are socio-ideologically alien. become objectivized.9 yet another g. The author does not speak in a given language (from which he distances himself to a greater or lesser degree). The prose writer makes use of words that are already populated with the social intentions of others and compels them to serve his own new intentions. as it were. but they ate his as things that a~e being transmitted ironically. _ Of course. still more thor~ oughly refracting his intentions. Diversity of voices and heteroglossia enter th.e. the writer of prose does not meld completely WIth any of these words. each at a different distance from the ultimate semantic nucleus of his work. that he merely ventriloquates. irony. The developl)lent of the novel is a function of the deepening of dialogic essence. Thus a prose writer can distance himself from the language of his own work. The novelistic word. It is in fact ou~ of t~IS stratification of language. would make impossible both the normal development and the activity of symbols within it. he exhibits them as a unique speech-thmg. those words that are 9. ~hythm puts definite limits on them. Dialogue moves into the deepest molecular and. exhibited and so foith. he does not violate those socioideological cultural horizons (big and little worlds) that open up behindheteroglot languages-rather. it does so. the social speech diversity and language-diversity (dialects) of language-upon entering the novel establishs its own special order within it. ironically. its speech diversity and even langu~ge dIversI~. . moreover. More often than not. while at the same time he maintams the un~ty of his own creative personality and the unity (although it is. Social dIversIty of :pe:ch were it to arise in the work and stratify its language. that is. which orchestrates the intentional theme of the author. unitary. and all the specific phenomena connected with this orientation. thmugh language. those tendencies in social life requiring centuries to unfold. Any stylistics capable of dealing with the distinctiveness of the novel as a genre must be a sociological stylistics. parodically arid so forth. subatomic levels.t he literary language contemporary to it.elcomes the het:roalossia and lanauaae diversity of the literary and extrahterary language mto his own work .. . but he speaks. while at the same time distancing himself. oth~rs refract these intentions. The prose writer does not purge words of intentions and to. Tliis constitutes the distinguishing feature of the novel as a genre.nly not weakening them but even intens~fying them (f~r he interacts with their particular self-consciousness).is achIeved m the poetic work. by creating an unmediated involvement between every aspect of the accentual system of the whole (via the most immediate rhythmic unities). hard elements ("rock bottom truths") remain that are not drawn into dialogue. finally. the center of his own personal intentions.nes that are alien to him.. takes on artistic significance in novel style. Tliatis to say. When heteroglossia enters the novel it becomes subject to an artistic . professional. and of the unitary language that this style posits. .ot . for indeed. to be revealed as the force that determines its entire stylistic structure." determining it not from without. ~ This is how the poet proceeds. however. The very rhythm of poetic genres does not promote any appreciable degree of stratification. The novelist working in prose (and almost any prose writer) takes a completely different path. He V. he does not destroy the seeds of social heterogiossla embedded in words he does not eliminate those language characterizatior1s and speech manneri~ms (potential narrator-personalities) glimmering behind the words and fonns. [Bakhtin's note]: completely denied any authorial intentions: the author does not express himself in ther. Fewer and fewer neutral. does not let them unfold or materIalIZe. as words that are tin?crstood from the distaI1ces appropriate to humor. its increased scope and greater precision. that of particular world views. etc. Therefore the intentions of the prose writer are refracted. but rather accents each of them in a particular way-humorously. to be sure.roup IP:ay stand even further from the author's ultimate semantic instantiati~n. and there are. to serve a second master. even the poetic word is social. he may treat it as semi-alien or completely alien to himself. BAKHTIN DISCOURSE IN THE NOVEL I 1219 example. they function for him as something completely reified. already embodied and already objectivized. while compelling language ultimately to serve all his own intentions. particular tendencies. This unity may be naive. the words are not his if we hnderstand them as direct words. depending on the degree to which the refracted.

Bloch's utopian notion of art influenced Adorno's understanding of autonomous art. of the celebrated Institute for SOCIal Resdea~ch. At the University of Frankfurt. 0 0 future.ding him WIth mo d e s or . which. DUring this time Adorno began studying various materialist approaches to culture. h I 'n which the lines between art. Born near Stuttgart to an upwardly mobile Jewish family. who on occasion was optimistic about the emancipatory potential of mass art. in which they interrogate the notion that the Western world has been progressing since the Enlightenment. The production such as Nazi concentratlOn ca~ps ahn Agednocl d °hl's fellow German social critic .tatement encaps d . which offered an exciting environment for those interested in social philosophy. There Adorno and Borkheimer collaborated on Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947). Like Adorno. e em · I fe the unsystematic methodology of his . Through his relationship with Borkheimer. In contrast to Benjamin. Adorno would publish in the institute's journal. whose nd and hIS at 0 llC WI . th t oduce film te eVlSlOn. th 1920s KracauerintroducedAdornotoWALTER At the University of Fran rt m . d e roduction of consumable. gy . labor-movement history. they claim that the modern \iVest has not fulfilled the utopian promise of the Enlightenment. tainment busmesses a pr . d t " meaning the constellation of enterMax Horkheimer called the cu ture m us lry. submitted his Habilitationsschrift (dissertation) in 1925. Adorno also met Max Horkheimer. d th ti s and for what art m the mo em critical work in philosophy. Berbert Marcuse. ADORNO I 1221 :~~o:ll ~th ta~~~~~rsc~~~~~~~~t~: ~~~:~~:::~~:~h:r~i~:~:~:~=~1ns~~~o~~:~1~~~~a~. falling under the influence of unorthodox Marxian texts such as Bloch's Spirit of Utopia (1918) and GY6RGY LUKAcs's History and Class Consciousness (1922). With the help of Benjamin and Kracauer. d a vertismg. which was founded in 1924 and concerned initially with Marxist political economy. th oP l'ety that permits social atrocities li" th d'sintereste Vlew 0 f s c ' . a term he coined for the emerging mode of theoretical and empirical social analyses of modern culture typical of Adorno. king The social and historical voices populating language. whom Adorno regarded as the leading philosopher of expressionism. Consequently. Deception" argues that the administered modern world is sustained in part by technologically reproduced mass art. e . and Marx-Engels scholarship. . f f art that can 0 som h the only egltlmate orm 0 f d . enabled him to meet and study with h Arnold Schoenbero and his disin music. the culture industry contributes to the liquidation of the individual and the maintenance of the status quo. When Horkheimer assumed the directorship of the institute in 1930. all its words its' forms. II h reated by mass tec no ogy 1 music-a p enomena c h' . Horkheimer as a young man resisted his father's plans for him to run the family textile business because he could not accept the exploitation of labor on which it was based. monopoly capitalism. which throuoh its apparent detac _ the world is the autonomous art 0 mlo em. t llectual development was hIS trammg faith. avoids fixed concepts. whose reflections on antisystematic philosophy helped Adorno develop his "atonal" philosophy. . to read the works of IMMANUEL KANT a d ymp t d the autonomous artworks of which is how Adorno would later rea mass ar an 0: modernism. Another for~ati:e co. . d paoanda blur. Horkheimer moved away from idealist philosophy and its unhistorical approaches to Marxist materialist views. mass art serves the status quo. which provide language its * * * 1934-35 Adorno was particularly talzen with Benjamin's Origin of German Tragic Drama (1928). . SOClO 0 ' . h ldi~o up the promise of a better ment from reality. hiloso her and social critic Theodor WiesenIn a celebrated aphonsm. publishing companies. s I It re Kracauer tauohtAdorno ow groundbreaking sociological analyses ~opu t~:::~ti:hi~torical and so~ial documents. d Ad .. Horkheimer began his studies in Munich and then moved to the University of Frankfurt.ntemporary m :h~ introduced him to earlier film critic and social theonst S:~gdfnel~ Krahcauer.. and became a regular lecturer in the history of philosophy.de to 00 unchecked. c fl e ce on Adorno was the noted world should be. I 0 and aest e lCS. to Los Angeles.. a have assume ecause e lr last name orno m. Adorno's circle of associates later widened to include Ernst Bloch. 'fe Maria Calvelli-Adorno. critiques the wor d as It IS.in the mid-I 930s Borkheimer invited Adorno to America to do sociological work for the institute. Appearing as a long chapter in Adorno and Borkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment. . soclOlogy. in 1938 Adorno accepted Borkheimer's invitation and moved to New York and then. d msplre orno. t omposers suc as 0 famous Viennese expresslOllls ~ b 1'h atonal compositions of Schoenberg ciples Alban Berg and Anton . and motion picture srudios are economically interwoven with those of all other capitalist industries. an aes e.. a member of the now famous interdisciplinary Institute for Social Research (the so-called Frankfurt School). and Lukacs's conception of reification infonned his theory of the "mass deception" wrought by the modern culture industry. Mter World War I. In this dense polemical work. an pro 0 As Ad would assert on many occaslOns. ld become well-known for his h'l h A an antl-l ea 1St w 0 wou h German p 1 osop y. as he would explain in his Negative Dialectics (1966).1220 '/ MAX HORKHEIMER AND THEODOR W. o r . and Bertolt Brecht. styIlZe writings on musIc. administered world that dominates individuals through instrumental reason. partIcularly because I. . and political totalitarianism. mass art IS comp CIt WI . Adorno himself had been denied the right to teach • aethe university level because he was Jewish. db h fl' ted with embracin o his mothers Ad o. much as modernist autonomous art shuns any kind of didactic or affinnative statements. become a member in 1938. and ultimately succeed Borkheimer as director in 1964. he shifted its focus to cultural studies and so-called Critical Theory. ADORNO 1903-1969 . r .. t O wealthy and assimilated Jewish wine Adorno was born in Frankfurt am ~aCm h a. kfu . not least because the interests of leading broadcasting finns. d orneoJ'usti'ce to the immense suffering in I . . and other members of the Franl<furt School.ls~. Adorno and Borkheimer contend that the culture industry serves the totalitarian impulses of modern capitalist society.o:~tion of th~authoramid the heteroglossia of his epoch. In its attempt to produce and reproduce the social relations of a homogenized society. the foremost Marxist dramatist. ty hich he 0 ten expresse m 0 ing of modem art an SOCle . I nalyses of contemporary culture. An impo. s zar 'vlesengru. which had been forced to relocate after being closed by the Nazis in 1933. I' 't WIth w at orno an of such art IS alSO comp lCl" I . I' . who was also intereste d m SOClO oglca a . Even more important. in 1941. w h t' F Adorno as for some other members . "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass.. O I \iXl' merchant. y A d ' . a I d . .df d' hl'S hiohly influential terse and austere s. It transforms art into commodities and people into compla- MAX HORKHEIMER 1895-1973 THEODOR W. adio magazines and popular . proVl . BENJAMIN.rtant mfluence o~ or~~~Ol~i.n the . He studied with the neo-Kantian philosopher Hans Cornelius. ment. I ntIs world 0 f manipulation and carefree amuse. ADORNO MAX HORKHEIMER AND THEODOR W. their major critique of modern culture." This I' d that 'To wnte poe ry a e grund Adorno proc alme ulates Adorno's bitterly melancholic understan. becoming instead a rationalized. the Ge~an~ Pt ft r Auschwitz is barbaric. .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->