Skip to main content

discourse in dostoevsky

«We have entitled our chapter "Discourse in Dostoyevsky," for we have
in mind discourse, that is, language in its concrete living totality,
and not language as the specific object of linguistics, something
arrived at through a completely legitimate and necessary abstraction
from various aspects of the concrete life of the word. But precisely
those aspects in the life of the word that linguistics makes abstract
are, for our purposes, of primary importance. Therefore the analyses
that follow are not linguistic in the strict sense of the term. They
belong rather to metalinguistics, if we understand by that term the
study of those aspects in the life of the word, not yet shaped into
separate and specific disciplines, that exceed -- and completely
legitimately -- the boundaries of linguistics. Of course,
metalinguistic research cannot ignore linguistics and must make use of
its results. Lingustics and metalinguistics study one and the same
concrete, highly complex, and multi-faceted phenomenon, namely, the
word -- but they study it from various sides and various points of
view. They must complement one another, but they must not be
confused. In practice, the boundaries between them are very often
violated.»

M. Bakhtin, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, p. 181

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Metacommunicative cues

In the previous post on Extra channels I finished with a distinction between diachronic and synchronic metacommunication. In this post I'd like to respond to some comments by the co-author of this blog, Joe, in some of his previous posts, by invoking Jurgen Ruesch's concept of metacommunication . Gregory Bateson was interested in thinking about cybernetics, but didn't seem to feel constrained to think about it using a strictly computational or information-theoretic paradigm, while still being informed by the ideas. This gave him the freedom to talk about ideas like "context", "relationship", "learning", and "communication" without needing to define them in precise computational terms. Nevertheless, he handles the ideas fairly rigorously. (Joe, Phatic Workshop: towards a μ-calculus ) Gregory Bateson and Jurgen Ruesch, among many other notable thinkers, were part of the Palo Alto Group of researchers tasked to apply new methods (a

Extra channels

In the following, I would like to clarify the connection between channel and context and concomitantly the difference between metachannel and parachannel . Paul Kockelman urges us "to notice the fundamental similarity between codes and channels" (2011: 725) but instead of that purported fundamental similarity points out the contrast between them. I argue that context , or objects and states of affairs (Bühler 2011[1934]: 35), demonstrate a closer relationship to channel than to code. This is largely because the first three fundamental relations, sender or subject , context or object , and receiver or addressee , belong to Bühler's original organon model while code , contact and message , which were previously implicit in the organon model, are made explicit as additions to the model by Jakobson (1985[1976c]). Thus the most productive approach would be to pair a component from the original organon model with an additional component in the language functions model.