Word dialogue and the novel

Julia Kristeva escribi World Dialogue and Novel en 1966 tan
pronto lleg a Paris

Introduccin crtica

Julia Kristeva escribi World Dialogue and Novel en 1966 tan
pronto lleg a Paris. En este ensayo desarrolla las ideas de Mikhail
Baktins. . Este texto es un texto dividido; es un texto fronterizo
entre el estructuralismo alto o complejo y post-estructuralismo. Es
post estructuralista porque intenta demostrar como las rgidas
categoras pueden romperse frente a la presin del otro lado del
lenguaje. En este contexto la insistencia de Kristeva en la
importancia del sujeto hablante como el objeto principal para el
anlisis lingstico parece tener sus races en el concepto de
dialogismo de Bahktin. Entendiendo dialogismo como un juego abierto
cerrado entre el texto del sujeto y el texto del destinatario
(ddressee) anlisis que crea al concepto de Intertextualidad de
Kristeva.

Ensayo

Presenta un recuento de las propuestas de Bahktin. Su mayor
acierto es un modelo que propone que la estructura literaria no
existe simplemente sino que se genera en relacin a otra estructura.
Le da dinamismo a los conceptos del estructuralismo. Concibe la
palabra literaria como una interseccin de superficies
intertextuales mas que de un punto (un significado especfico), es
un dilogo entre diversos escritos; el del escritor, el destinatario
(o personaje) y el contexto cultural contemporneo o
anterior.Bahktin al introducir el concepto status of the word como
unidad estructural mnima situa el texto dentro de la historia y la
sociedad que son vistos como textos ledos por el escritor y que el
mismo se inserta y los reescribe. Bahktin estudia el discurso
carnavalesco porque rompe las leyes del lenguaje censurado por la
gramtica y la semntica al mismo tiempo es una protesta social y
poltica.

La palabra dentro del espacio de los textos

Definir es estatus especfico de una palabra como significante
para los distintos modos de la intelectualidad (literarios) dentro
de los gneros o textos pone al anlisis potico en el centro sensible
de las ciencias humanas contemporneas. La interseccin del lenguaje
(la practica verdadera del pensamiento) con espacio (e volumen
dentro de la significacin que a travs de la unin de las diferencias
se articula as mismo.). Investigar el estatus de una palabra es
estudiar sus articulaciones (como complejo smico) con otras
palabras en la oracin y entonces observar las si las mismas
funciones o relaciones en el nivel articulatorio de secuencias ms
grandes. :As dimensiones del espacio textual son del dilogo son
escritura. Tema o sujeto, destinatario, y textos exteriores. La
palabra status se define horizontalmente (la palabra en el texto
que pertenece tanto al sujeto que escribe como al destinatario) y
asimismo verticalmente ( (la palabra en el texto orientada a un
corpus literario anterior o sincrnico)Como el eje horizontal (
sujeto-destinatario) y el eje vertical (texto-contexto) coinciden
lo que presenta un hecho importante: cada palabra(texto) es una
interseccin de palabra (texto) donde al menos otra palabra (texto)
puede ser leda. Estos dos ejes que Bahktin llama dilogo y
ambivalencia.

Cada texto esta construido como un mosaico de citas; cualquier
texto absorbe y transforma a otro. Kristeva propone el concepto de
Intertextualidad que remplace el de intersubjetividad, y el
lenguaje potico se lee al menos doble.

La palabra como unidad mnima textual entonces ocupa el estatus
de mediador, uniendo modelos estructurales a ambientes culturales
(histricos) asimismo funciona como regulador, controlando
mutaciones de ;a diacrona a la sincrona. ( a la estructura
literaria) Kristeva plantea que los gneros literarios son sistemas
semiolgicos imperfectos que significan bajo la superficie del
lenguaje pero nunca sin este. Descubrir relacione entre unidades
narrativas grandes como oraciones, preguntas-contestaciones, dilogo
setc. No necesariamente con la base de modelos lingusticos
justifica el principio de la expansin semntica. Plantea la
siguiente hiptesis cualquier evolucin en los gneros literarios es
una exteriorizacin inconsciente de las estructuras lingsticas en
sus distintos niveles. La novela exterioriza en particular el
dilogo.

Palabra y dilogoDiscurso el lenguaje del cal se apropia el
individuo como prctica. Bakhtin no ve el dilogo solo como el
lenguaje que asume el sujeto el lo be como escritura asi uno lee al
otro. El dialogismo de Bakhtin identifica la escritura como
subjetividad y comunicacin o mejor intertextualidad.

Ambivalencia

El trmino ambivalencia implica la insercin de la historia
(sociedad) en el texto y la del texto en la historia; para el
escritor son una y la misma. Bahktin considera la escritura como
lectura del un corpus literario anterior y el texto como una
absorcin de y una respuesta a otro texto.

Clasificacin de las palabras dentro de la narrativa

Segn Bakhtin menciona tres categoras de palabras en la
narrativa.

Primero, la palabra directa, que se refiere de nuevo a su
objeto, expresa el ltimo grado posible de significacin por el
sujeto del discurso dentro de los lmites de un contexto especfico o
dado. Es la palabra enunciativa y expresiva del escritor, la
palabra denotativa, la cual se supone le provea una comprensin
directa y objetiva.

La segunda el la palabra orientada al objeto es el discurso
directo de los personajes. Tiene un significado directo y objetivo
pero no se sita al mismo nivel que el discurso del escritor, se
distancia del primero. Esta est orientada al objeto y es objeto de
la orientacin del escritor. Es la palabra extranjera, subordinada a
la palabra narrativa como objeto de la comprensin del escritor.La
tercera el escritor puede usar otra palabra dndole un nuevo
significado mientras retiene el significado que ya tena. El
resultado es una palabra con dos significados: que se convierte en
ambivalente. Esta palabra ambivalente es el resultado de la unin de
dos sistemas de signos.The inherent dialogism of denotative or
historical wordsEl acto mismo de narrar presupone que el sujeto de
la narracin se refiere a otro, la narracin se estructura en relacin
a este otro.

La narracin debe considerarse como un dilogo entre el sujeto de
la narracin y el destinatario. (el otro). Este receptor, sujeto
lector, representa una entidad dual, significante en su relacin con
el texto y significado en la relacin entre el sujeto de la narracin
y l.

Towards a typology of discourses

Discurso monolgico: pica

Discurso histrico:

Discurso cientfico:

Tipo pico historia y ciencia

Menippean carnavalesco y de la novela que transgred
prohibicionesDiscurso dialgico incluye el carnavalesco y Menippean
asimismo la novela polifnica/

Epic monologismEn la pica el hablante o sujeto de la pica no usa
el habla del otro.

The Carnaval: a homology between the body, dream, linguistic
structure and structures of desire

La estructura carnavalesca es como el residuo de la cosmogona
que ignora la substancia, causalidad o identidad afuera es su
enlace con el todo, el cual existe solo en o a travs de relaciones.
Dos textos se encuentran se contradicen y relativizan uno con el
otro.Dilogo Socrtico: dialogismo como destruccin de la persona

Menipean discourse: the texto f social activity

Este discurso es cmico y trgico

The subversive novel

Dialogismo puede se la base de la estructural intelectual de
nuestro tiempo.

INCLUDEPICTURE
«http://biblioteca.uprrp.edu:2067/Consulta/images/Consulta_fill_in.gif»
* MERGEFORMATINET

within

(Diccionario English-Spanish)

1

prep. dentro de (gen)

2

dentro de (distancia)

3

adv. dentro

4

internamente

Bottom of Form

Article citationsMore>>

Kristeva, J. (1980). Word, Dialogue and Novel. In L. S. Roudiez (Ed.), Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art (pp. 64-91). New York, NY: Colombia University Press.

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE:

  Critical Perspective to Genre Analysis: Intertextuality and Interdiscursivity in Electronic Mail Communication

  AUTHORS:
  Mohammad Awad AlAfnan

  KEYWORDS:
  Critical Genre Analysis, Email Communication, Intertextuality, Interdiscursivity, Hybrid Genres

  JOURNAL NAME:
  Advances in Journalism and Communication,
  Vol.5 No.1,
  March
  7,
  2017

  ABSTRACT: This study examined intertextuality and interdiscursivity in email exchanges in an Institute in Malaysia. Intertextuality observed how and why the discourse community repeatedly used certain forms to respond to reoccurring rhetorical situations and how they used their professional knowledge to identify the authority of certain texts on other text. Interdiscursivity examined how and why the employees of the Institute appropriated the generic resources of a genre to create another. This study found that the discourse community skillfully used three types of intertextuality to achieve similar and contradicting communicative purposes. They also appropriated generic resources of a genre to create another.

Part One: Section-by-Section Summary

Bakhtin may be one of the central figures of contemporary literary criticism since he was unknown until Kristeva formally introduced him into the Western intellectual field. (34) Carnivalism, the most famous creation of Bakhtinian literary criticism, inspires the permanent discussion on modern literary or theatrical works, and presents a complexity among the polysemic voices haunted in different texts, that could be, politics.

As the topic of this essay discloses, Kristeva first situates Bakhtinian explanations of the words within history and society. One reads a text (a text is assumed to have a history, of course.), and simultaneously this “one” is rewriting the text as well, that is, the “one” inevitably has his or her reaction to the text in various contexts. Thus, a text is written and read inside the infrastructure of texts, in which history is no longer linear but in the mosaic consisted of diverse voices which could be found in Carnivalesque.

Literature obviously provides a profound arena for Carnivalesque to exert its influence. “[…] any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another. The notion of intertextuality replaces that of intersubjectivity, and poetic language is read at least double.” (37) From my quotation, one can look into Kristeva’s deep digestion of Bakhtin’s theory of carnivalism since she not only observes the hybrid phenomena within literary writing from Bakhtin’s analysis, but also develops a term “intertextuality” to designate the vanishing of intersubjectivity existing among the writing subject, the addressee and the text. According to this logic, these three subject-in-motion could transcribe each other freely without any restrictions in literature; thus the meaning breeds on another in the non-sequential order. Kristeva also posits that any evolution of literary genres is an unconscious exteriorization of linguistic structures at their different levels (37), which the sentence could be ambivalent in the usage “unconscious exteriorization”. This unconscious linguistic procedure, briefly, is the interplay among the three subjects I mentioned above, and particularly, this procedure exists in fictions.

“[…] dialogue is the only sphere possible for the language” (39) This sentence remarks different levels of language, which are langue/parole dyad and syntagmatic/systematic, and it brings about Bakhtin’s idea of regarding language assumed by a writing where one reads the other. (39) Here one gradually sees clearly this arena where Carnivalesque demonstrates itself without a concrete configuration but a hidden, interwoven and complicated ambivalence.

The part of ambivalence represents a complicated understanding from Russian formalism to structuralism. First, Kristeva defines the term ambivalence as “the insertion of history (society) into a text and of this text into history” (39), in which she argues that Bakhtin’s study of polyphonic novels situates in its absorption of the carnival and the monological novel. Paradox, or, ambivalence appears here with “another law” (41) since polyphonic novels transgress the notion of “subject-OTHER” and develops another narrative. Here Kristeva starts to explain and distinguish “dialogism” from monologism and carnivalism since dialogue could be monological either. From this point of view, one can observe a paradigm shift from formalism to structuralism from what Kristeva calls “typology of discourse”. (43)

Classification of words within the narrative thus becomes important. Kristeva lists three categories of words according to Bakhtin: the direct word, the object-oriented word, and the third, the ambivalent word. Ambivalent words also have three categories: the writer’s exploitation of another’s speech, the writer’s opposing introduction of the other word, and the last is characterized by the active (modifying) influence of another’s word on the writer’s word. (44) Kristeva locates the positions where ambivalent words would appear, i.e., within the novel.

Kristeva further gives the structuralist analysis of the inherent dialogism within the narrative. First, the writer, in dialogism, is split into subject of utterance and subject of enunciation, in which a dialogue is formed through narration because reflectively the narration is the dialogue between the subject of narration and the addressee. (45) However, a “writer” thus shows him/herself up to demonstrate the emptiness, which, according to Kristeva, doesn’t exist because characters and proper names are produced to dissolve the emptiness in this situation. This proper name, in diagram 1 (46) transforms itself into a subject that may be a writing subject, i.e., a writer. This subject therefore fells into a recurrence to become either the subject of utterance (S or Sr) or subject of enunciation (A or Sd).

I’ve mentioned “typology of discourse” in my former summary. Kristeva here indicates two types of narrative: monological and dialogical. Monological discourse has three representative mode: epic, history and science; all three submits to the rule of God, of a prohibition, and of a censorship. Nevertheless, dialogical discourse is to transgress, to destruct, so as to have a “genesis”(47).

This “genesis” is the carnival. Carnival participants lose their sense of individuality, so the subject is reduced to nothingness, “while the structure of the author emerges as anonymity that creates and sees itself created as self and other, as man and mask.” (49) Here I am reminded by Pierce’s semiotic triangle notion since author-self-other is constructed to designate each other, to see each other in different ways. A signifier could be the signified; prohibitions would be transgressions, or they “coexist”. (49) The carnivalism clarifies itself clearly in modern fictions like Joyce and Kafka’s works. Both of them represent an extent of readability and unreadability that just as what Kristeva mentions that they are comic and tragic simultaneously to avoid becoming law or its parody, and— to become the scene of its other, to detach from it. From this point of view, Kristeva designates two genres—Socratic dialogue and Menippean discourse.

Socratic dialogue and Menipean discourse demonstrate the destruction to social constraints and literary tradition. “According to Bakhtin, Socratic dialogues are characterized by opposition to any official monologism claiming to possess a ready-made truth.” (51) Follow what Kristeva cites from Bakhtin, Kristeva further explains that the subjects of discourse are “non-persons”, which represents the void and paradox in this space that one cannot get the access to Socratic truth without approaching the emptiness where is supposed nothing there. However, Kristeva indicates this exclusive situation liberates the word from any univocal objectivity, and develops a speech could challenge death, in which the “person” is absent. (52) Menippean discourse has almost the same logic with Socratic dialogue; it frees speech from historical constraints with a special narrative that is both comic and tragic in its phantasmagorias. Rooted values cease to exist in Menippean discourse because the distinction between virtue and vice vanishes through the process of narrative. The pathological states of the soul occupy the narrative and become the dominant signifying system. In brief, it’s transgression. Menippean discourse includes all the genres to express a styling distance from the reader-writer-text structure so as to designate a deeper (usually evanescent) epiphany. This epiphany comes from its cruelty, political intentions and its consciousness as both literature and the sign system. Thus, when Kristeva indirectly cites Jakobson’s famous invention of similarity-contiguity pattern in her following discussion, I find her argument thus transits from literary “realism” to a political “justification”, which is both metaphor and metonymy in Jakobson’s theoretical framework. Under such an interweaving discussion, Kristeva turns to the last part: The subversive novel.

Modernity liberates the Menippean force of the novel from traditional restrictions of epic narrative. The whole new dialogism within polyphonic novel breeds several significant but isolated writers, such as Sade, Kafka and Bataille. They present what Kristeva declares about the possibility or impossibility of reading and rewriting history. (56) The transition here is analyzed by a close reading of narration inside Menippean discourse: “The one who writes is the same as the one who reads.” (56) Kristeva raises two models: (1) Subject—Addressee, and (2) Subject of enunciation—Subject of utterance. Since I’ve summarized a little in the previous paragraph, I’d like to mention the four possibilities in page 57, especially the fourth one. The fourth one indicates that the subject of utterance coincides “both” with the subject of enunciation and the addressee, in which the text becomes the criticism of exterior literary existence.

In the end of this essay, Kristeva reassesses the notion of poetic language that both destructs the situated linear knowledge and gives birth to the space and infinity. (58) Her claim is obvious that dialogism actually poses the philosophical positions in the flowing motion of internal (but external as well) communication through texts, through the transition of the subject and interpretative authority. Thus, Kristeva finally take carnivalesque narrative as a political act, and suggests it could be the intellectual structure of our time.

Part Two: Afterthoughts

Kristeva deals with the heavy theoretical framework of Bakhtin’s carnivalism through a close reading of ancient and modern literary texts. Among those texts, I am attracted by Joyce’s “deliberate unreadability” in his fictions, which himself once claimed that Ulysses was written to disturb critics.

Take the last part of Ulysses as the example, one may find this section has no punctuation mark at all. Some critics acclaim that this literary invention is to follow the real functioning apparatus of human mind—when one is thinking, in his or her mind, there would not be any punctuation mark. I believe in this argument since it sounds convincing in some way; however, what fascinates me more is the evocation of unconsciousness and various expression forms in literature.

Writing is no longer to communicate, since the communicative subject is transiting all the time through the rupture of knowledge and fragments of texts. In Joyce’s so-called stream of consciousness fictions, we discover “human” is not the speaking subject but the consciousness, or the unconscious. Under such a special form, a writer could discuss the deepest essence of human existence, the virtue and the vice, life and death, or, love and hatred. However, the most charming part is still the ambivalent elements of narrative, which evokes both writers and readers to explore for some distant epiphany—which is like Derrida indicates that the signified is ultimately deferred.

Turn back to the issue of writing/speaking subject; one must notice that poetic language is constructed through a complicated not only internal but also external process. This process is perhaps Bakhtinian dialogism, which exerts itself through internal self-interrogations and external absorption of various stimulations. Voice is supposed to be plural in modern texts since writing and reading is no longer “pure”, but represents their faces with special intentions to satisfy a flowing subject.

————————————————-

Work Cited

Jakobson, Roman & Halle, Morris. Fundamentals of language. Netheland: The Hugue, 1956. 55-82

Kristeva, Julia. Intimate Revolt. Trans. Jeanine Herman. New York: Columbia UP, 2002. 63-80.

@inproceedings{Mikhailovich2010JuliaK,
  title={Julia Kristeva ' s essay " Word , Dialogue , and Novel " in Desire in Language : A Semiotic},
  author={Mikhail Mikhailovich},
  year={2010}
}

© 2023 Prezi Inc.
Terms & Privacy Policy