Dialogism

David Shepherd

Chapter

Requires Authentication

Dialogism

David Shepherd
David Shepherd

Search for this author in:

De Gruyter De Gruyter Brill | Google Scholar

or

Purchase Chapter PDF

$42.00

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Explore this Subject How to publish with us

This chapter is in the book Handbook of Narratology

DialogismDavid Shepherd1 DefinitionThe term “dialogism” is most commonly used to denote the quality ofan instance of discourse that explicitly acknowledges that it is definedby its relationship to other instances, both past, to which it responds,and future, whose response it anticipates. The positive connotations ofdialogism are often reinforced by a contrast with “monologism,” de-noting the refusal of discourse to acknowledge its relational constitution and its misrecognition of itself as independent and unquestionablyauthoritative.2 ExplicationDialogism is overwhelmingly associated in accounts of literary theoryin general, and of narratology in particular (e.g. Prince [1987] 2003:19–20; Phelan 2005; Williams 2005), with the work of the Russianthinker Baxtin and the Baxtin Circle. Although Baxtin first used thewords dialogizm and dialogičnost’ (literally “dialogicality” or “dialog-ical quality”) in his 1929 study of Dostoevskij, the locus classicus of his understanding of dialogism is found in his 1934/35 essay “Slovo vromane,” translated as “Discourse in the Novel”: “Directed toward itsobject, a word enters a dialogically agitated and tense environment ofalien words, evaluations and accents, is woven into their complex interrelationships, merges with some, recoils from others, intersects withyet a third group: and all this may in an essential manner shape theword, may leave a trace in all its semantic layers, may complicate itsexpression and influence its entire stylistic profile. / The living utterance, having taken meaning and shape at a particular historical momentin a socially specific environment, cannot fail to brush up against thousands of living dialogic threads, woven by socio-ideological consciousness around the given object of the utterance; it cannot fail to becomean active participant in social dialogue. Indeed, the utterance arises outof this dialogue as a continuation of it and as a rejoinder to it—it does

You are currently not able to access this content.

Not sure if you should have access? Please log in using an institutional account to see if you have access to view or download this content.

Purchase Chapter PDF

$42.00

DialogismDavid Shepherd1 DefinitionThe term “dialogism” is most commonly used to denote the quality ofan instance of discourse that explicitly acknowledges that it is definedby its relationship to other instances, both past, to which it responds,and future, whose response it anticipates. The positive connotations ofdialogism are often reinforced by a contrast with “monologism,” de-noting the refusal of discourse to acknowledge its relational constitution and its misrecognition of itself as independent and unquestionablyauthoritative.2 ExplicationDialogism is overwhelmingly associated in accounts of literary theoryin general, and of narratology in particular (e.g. Prince [1987] 2003:19–20; Phelan 2005; Williams 2005), with the work of the Russianthinker Baxtin and the Baxtin Circle. Although Baxtin first used thewords dialogizm and dialogičnost’ (literally “dialogicality” or “dialog-ical quality”) in his 1929 study of Dostoevskij, the locus classicus of his understanding of dialogism is found in his 1934/35 essay “Slovo vromane,” translated as “Discourse in the Novel”: “Directed toward itsobject, a word enters a dialogically agitated and tense environment ofalien words, evaluations and accents, is woven into their complex interrelationships, merges with some, recoils from others, intersects withyet a third group: and all this may in an essential manner shape theword, may leave a trace in all its semantic layers, may complicate itsexpression and influence its entire stylistic profile. / The living utterance, having taken meaning and shape at a particular historical momentin a socially specific environment, cannot fail to brush up against thousands of living dialogic threads, woven by socio-ideological consciousness around the given object of the utterance; it cannot fail to becomean active participant in social dialogue. Indeed, the utterance arises outof this dialogue as a continuation of it and as a rejoinder to it—it does

You are currently not able to access this content.

Not sure if you should have access? Please log in using an institutional account to see if you have access to view or download this content.

Purchase Chapter PDF

$42.00