Heteroglossia - Langue and Linguistic Variation
Heteroglossia - 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-formedness 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.
Heteroglossia - 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 — especially semantics, but also the notions of appropriateness ingrained through the patterns of prosody, and the pragmatic conventions of conversation — articulate a particular world-view. A certain word, for example, can be
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-formedness 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.
Heteroglossia - 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 — especially semantics, but also the notions of appropriateness ingrained through the patterns of prosody, and the pragmatic conventions of conversation — articulate a particular world-view. A certain word, for example, can be