Tuesday, January 19, 1999

Of Language and Discourse: de Saussure and Bakhtin

When analysing a text, critics usually attempt to determine its symbolic importance, frequently in terms of literary theme A representing concept B. Such symbolism occurs at a macro level however; the study of linguistics seeks to ascertain the origins of symbolism at the micro level of linguistic structure. Fundamental to the discipline is the work of de Saussure, who defined linguistics in such terms, and posited it at the base of all humanist studies. Mikhail Bakhtin’s Discourse in the Novel argues that the importance of any given speech is determined by the social context in which it is given.

One of the principles of de Saussure’s work is that linguistic structure is based on two facets of language. Simultaneously, language contains both the physical attributes of phonetic “facts” as well as the conceptual attributes of words and phrases. De Saussure models the interaction between these two elements by means of a speech circuit. A concept within an individual’s brain, termed psychological by de Saussure, triggers a corresponding physiological response allowing the transmission of the concept as a pattern of sound waves, which then enters into the ear of another individual and is changed from a physical pattern into a physiological one, and finally into a psychological concept. The words themselves do not contain the whole nature of language however, as it has both a social context (langue) and an individual one (parole).Concepts of language are defined collectively, but the differences in an individual’s expression of them are determined by their own ‘psychological speech-circuits’. De Saussure quickly points out that the concepts themselves are not naturally ordained, but instead are more or less arbitrary. While some terminology such as exclamations and onomatopoeic words are somewhat determined by their complimentary physical sound patterns, most terminology is collectively determined for other reasons (which he does not define, but leaves to future scholars of semiology). He defines a sign as an underlying psychological signification (concept) which is triggered by a physical signal (sound pattern). De Saussure calls for the new discipline of semiology to be established, which would study the social significance of sings. It is in this manner that literary critics have contributed to linguistic study by applying de Saussure’s principles to their own field.

In his Discourse in the Novel, Mikhail Bakhtin further analyses the social influence on an individual’s understanding and usage of language. Fundamentally, Bakhtin concerns himself with the ‘Other’ of discourse; one virtually defines one’s identity based on what is said by the Other. This can be viewed in the common social context of daily life, as expressed by the gossip and rumour of public opinion, which can have a profound psychological influence upon an individual. More importantly however, the social context in which a conversation is had is of crucial importance. The transmission of speech determines its understanding, and any manipulation can thus alter the meaning of discourse: “thus it is...very easy to make even the most serious utterance comical” (p. 531). It is thus of critical importance to determine the nature of the speaker and the context in which they are speaking. As an example, one would understand that any medical advice given by a doctor would be almost sacrosanct in relation to the same advice given by a plumber. Similarly, if the aforementioned doctor had given his advice to an individual with whom he had earlier scuffled, one would be naturally more sceptical of the validity of the advise. Furthermore, if such advise had been published and utilised for a lengthy period, it would become almost a dead argument, or a relic. If one were to adopt it, such must be done wholly, as there could be no refusal of the validity of certain parts of the argument. Such forms of discourse Bakhtin terms authoritative. On a more personal level, any discourse which finds a resonance within an individual is coined internally persuasive. In general it is more contemporaneous with the receiver of the discourse than the artefactual transmission of concepts within authoritative discourse, and can be viewed as part of their own ideology, and not the textual ideology of the Other. There can however be a interplay between the two forms of discourse, but Bakhtin acknowledges that such is rare. The importance of Bakhtin’s work can be seen in light of narration, as it can be used to examine the relationships between two characters engaged in discourse. Furthermore, it is possible to use his ideology to analyse the relationship between the author and the reader.