User:Taragui/Heteroglossia

In linguistics, the term heteroglossia describes the coexistence of distinct varieties within a single linguistic code. The term translates the Russian raznorechie (literally "different-speech-ness"), which was first introduced by the Russian linguist Mikhail Bakhtin in his 1934 paper Slovo v romane, published in English as "Discourse in the Novel."

Langue and Linguistic Variation
Bakhtin developed the notion in contrast with the structuralist account of language, which was centered in the notion of langue, that is, the systematic set of rules determining the well-formeddness of an expression or utterance. This concept, introduced by Saussure, emphasised the notion that the code conformed by the linguistic norms must be common to all speakers for communication to be possible. This was seen as a dangerous simplification by Bakhtin, who asserted that languages are internally divided, not simply into regional dialects, but also into many different strata, corresponding to all possible axes of social division; he thus posited a minutely nuanced variety of class-, ethnia-, profession-, age- and gender-specific languages within the same code.

Languages, however, do not coexist peacefully, but are rather in a permanent state of competition; Bakhtin distinguishes centripetal linguistic forces, exerted by official forms backed by the cultural or administrative establishment, from centrifugal forces intent on preserving the existence of unofficial, dialectal forms; he identifies the former with the social processes of political, cultural and ideological centralization.

Ideological Content
The normalization of linguistic forms (or monoglossia) is perceived as an important cause as language is, for Bakhtin, not simply a formal system of grammatical categories, but also the highly charged medium of verbal-ideological thought. The imposition of a standard form, thus, carries with it the strong ideological conventions of the dominant class.

Bakhtin views language as not neutral, even when not explicitly charged with ideological meaning. The categories of language &mdash;especially semantics, but also the notions of appropriateness ingrained through the patterns of prosody, and the pragmatic conventions of conversation&mdash; articulate a particular world-view. A certain word, for example, can be marked as distinctive by the common usage of a given group; this is sometimes the explicit function of in-group jargon.

Diachronic Evolution
This state of affairs, however, is not definitive; lexical, syntactic and phonological elements are adopted and discarded in the course of time in the different languages. The exact meaning of a word &mdash;not simply what is, in conventional lingustics, standardised as its denotation, but the full range of contents the word transmits, including its adscription to a specific dialect and the evaluative connotations it contains&mdash; is strongly dependent on the context in which it has been uttered. It is important to notice that not even the denotation can be taken as a neutral, generic value; even an explicitly aseptic usage carries the connotations of academicism and formalist associated with exclusively denotative discourse.

Meaning is therefore not produced according to a unitary, disembodied system expressed in formal norms, but rather emerges from the deployment of these norms by specific users, in specific settings, for specific purposes. Each specific utterance adds to the preexisting context and may change the rules according to which its hearers will subsequently understand and employ language.

This influence should not be overstated; the actual weight of individual, private utterances may be minute. However, in connection with a given social practice it may lead to the development of a speech genre, which stabilises the trend and pits it agains competing usages and perspectives. Heteroglossia is present at the microlinguistic scale, which means that the interpretation of any speech event requires close analysis of those preceeding and succeeding it; however, it becomes stable only at a macrolinguistic level. The degree of context-dependence varies according to the dialect, the situation and the historical moment. In any case, all three must be avaluated to understand the specific act.

Heteroglossia in Literary Criticism
Bakhtin viewed the modernist novel as a literary form best suited for the exploitation of heteroglossia, in direct contrast to epic poetry (and, in a lesser degree, poetry in general). The linguistic energy of the novel was seen in its expression of the conflict between voices through their adscription to different elements in the novel's discourse.

Influence of the Concept
Bakhtin's view of heteroglossia has been often employed in the context of the postmodern critique of the perceived teleological and authoritarian character of modernist art and culture. In particular, the latter's strong disdain for popular forms of art and literature &mdash;archetypally expressed in Adorno and Horkheimer's analysis of the Culture Industry&mdash; has been criticised as a proponent of monoglossia; practitioners of cultural studies have used Bakhtin's conceptual framework to theorise the critical reappropriation of mass-produced entertainment forms by the public.

Embeddedness
"At any given time, in any given place, there will be a set of conditions - social, historical, meteorological, physiological - that will insure that a word uttered in that place and at that time will have a meaning different than it would have under any other conditions" (Bakhtin: 1981, p. 428).

"the authentic environment of an utterance, the environment in which it lives and takes shape, is dialogized heteroglossia" (Bakhtin: 1981, p. 272).

"language ... lies on the borderline between oneself and the other. The word in language is half someone else's. It becomes &apos;one's own&apos; only when the speaker populates it with his [sic] 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..., but rather it exists in other people's mouths, in other people's contexts, serving other people's intentions: it is from there that one must take the word, and make it one's own." (Bakhtin: 1981, p. 294)

It has been claimed to be synonymous with the post-structuralist concept of discourse.

Heteroglossia in the novel
The discursive site in which the conflict between different voices is at its most concentrated is the modern novel (q.v.). One way of representing heteroglossia in the novel is by a hybrid construction, which contains within it the trace of two or more discourses, either those of the narrator and character(s), or of different characters (q.v. "quasi-direct discourse"). "Heteroglossia" should not be confused with "polyphony." The latter term is used by Bakhtin primarily to describe Dostoevsky's multi-voiced" novels, whereby author's and heroes' discourses interact on equal terms.

(Morris: 1994. pp. 248-49).

Dialogism
If heteroglossia is the context-dependence of particular utterances, then dialogism is the overall state of affairs, or epistemological mode, created by heteroglossia.

"Everything means, is understood, as part of a greater whole - there is constant interaction between meanings, all of which have the potential of conditioning others. Which will affect the other, how it will do so and in what degree is what is actually settled at the moment of the utterance" (Bakhtin: 1981, p. 426).

(Bakhtin 1986: 668) 'The centripetal forces of the life of language, embodied in a "unitary language", operate in the midst of heteroglossia. At any give moment of its evolution, language is stratified not only into linguistic dialects in the strict sense of the word ... but also-- and for us this is the essential point-- into languages that are socio-ideological: languages of social groups, "professional" and "generic" 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... And this stratification and heteroglossia, once realized, is not only a static invariant 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 uninterupted work; alongside verbal-ideological centralization and unification, the uninterrupted processes of decentralization and disunification go forward'.

(Bakhtin 1986: 668) 'Linguistics, stylistics and the philosophy of language that were born and shaped by the current of centralizing tendencies in the life of language have ignored this dialogized heteroglossia, in which is embodied the centrifugal forces in the life of language'.

(Bakhtin 1986: 667) 'A common unitary language is a system of linguistic norms. But these norms do not constitute an abstract imperative; they are rather the generative forces of linguistic life, forces that struggle to overcome the heteroglossia of language, forces that unite and centralize verbal-ideological thought... What we have in mind here is not an abstract linguistic minimum of a common language, in the sense of a system of elementary forms (linguistic symbols) guaranteeing a minimum level of comprehension in practical communication. We are taking language not as a system of abstract grammatical categories, but rather language conceived as ideologically saturated, language as a world view, even as a concrete opinion, insuring a maximum of mutual understanding in all spheres of ideological life. Thus a unitary language gives expression to forces working toward concrete verbal and ideological unification and centralization, which develop in vital connection with the processes of sociopolitical and cultural centralization'.

(Bakhtin 1986: 668) 'Heteroglossia, as organized in these low genres, was not merely heteroglossia vis-á-vis the accepted literary language (in all its various generic expressions), that is, vis-á-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'.

"At any given time, in any given place, there will be a set of conditions - soc