Dynamic Coherence in the Dialogue of Subjects

3.2.1 The existence of dialogicity in coherence

Coherence is the result of the exchange of ideas between the creator and recipient of discourse, which does not exist before the occurrence of discourse, but is created in the dialogue between discourse subjects. The existence of dialogicity in coherence can never be ignored. Language is the symbol of human communication; any communication of discourse transmits and exchanges the dual information of individual ideology and the hidden concept or values of the social universality. The coherence of discourse reflects the existence of negotiation and a dialogue relationship between the individual and society (or discourse creators and recipients). According to Bakhtin, “Everything in life is dialogue, that is, the antagonism of dialogue […] [E]xistence means the communication of dialogue […] When the dialogue ends, it is also the day of all ends [...] A single voice, nothing can be done, nothing can be solved, two voices is the minimum condition of life” ( Bakhtin 1998 [Vol. 5]: 340; our translation). In Bakhtin’s view, “dialogue” has become an ontological concept, people live in dialogue, and dialogue is indispensable in people’s life. In a word, dialogue is the way in which coherence exists, and coherence is the product of dialogue; the existence of coherence is revealed through its dialogicity.

Generally, discourse cohesion can be determined by a certain criterion, which may be syntactic, semantic, logical, or other. The degree or level of discourse cohesion can be measured on these criteria. Discourse coherence, however, is completely different. It is “the compound of cognition, psychology, feeling in the subjective world of human minds, it’s a very abstract concept” (Du and Cummings 2011). Cohesion is one-dimensional, determined only by objective or static means, belonging to a “monologue” type of concept. In this concept, researchers measure the cohesion of discourse and explain its causality according to certain objective criteria. Coherence is two-way dialogue, or even multi-dialogue of human beings. The construction of coherence is accomplished in the interaction between discourse subjects, which embodies the orientation of values and the relationship between subjects or the individual and the society. Coherence exists in the dialogue:

When I try to understand the meaning of the author's concentration in the text as a reader, and when I try to understand the purpose of human activity as a historian, I want to enter into a dialogue with a subject ‘you’. Physicians would not understand such an encounter with the object, because their object is lifeless and has no consciousness. Such a mutual communication between subjects forms our experience; This form of experience can only be obtained by conscious us－human beings－but not stones, stars or atoms.” (Bakhtin 1998[Vol. 4]: 311; our translation)

In other words, the coherence of discourse and the subject of interpretation are closely linked. Coherence exists in the dialogue relationships produced by the discourse subjects, that is, the existence of coherent dialogue lies in its intersubjectivity.

Bakhtin's Theory of Dialogue holds that there are two or more potential interlocutors in the discourse. As far as coherence is concerned, the identity and content of the main interlocutors can make up for the lack of cohesion at the level of language form, so that seemingly incoherent texts can be accepted because of the existence of potential dialogue, or even more coherent than the discourse at the formal level because it achieves some kind of pragmatic meaning. In the following, we analyze the poem written by the poet Du Fu of the Tang Dynasty entitled “The six Jueju” (Peng 1986: 556):

(original Chinese text:)

戏为六绝句

(之二)

杨王卢骆当时体，轻薄为文哂未休。

尔曹身与名俱灭，不废江河万古流。

（之三)

纵使卢王操翰墨，劣于汉魏近风骚。

龙文虎脊皆君驭，历块过都见尔曹。

(English translation:)

Yang Wang Lu and Luo, their poems at that time were constantly criticized as being too shallow,

To Er Cao (You): your names are extinguished, their poems flow as the eternal river,

Even though Lu and Wang’s poems are inferior to those in the Han and Wei dynasty,

They are appreciated by emperors, memorized by people as Clydesdale horses, unlike you, scrub horses fall in the long run.

In this poem, the poet Du Fu, in potential dialogue with “Er Cao” (you) and the readers in general, comments on the opinions of the literati concerning the Four Poets (Yang Jiong, Wang Bo, Lu Zhaolin, and Luo Binwang in the early Tang Dynasty). The first two lines read: You who scoff at Yang, Wang, Lu, and Luo's style are already disappearing into oblivion, while the poems of the Four Poets flow as the long streams of the Yangtze River. The third line beginning with "even though" is Du Fu's voice; “Lu and Wang’s poems are inferior to those in the Han and Wei dynasty” is the literati’s opinions on the Four Poets (in the poem, Lu and Wang are an abbreviation for the Four Poets). Du Fu cites their words to refute this. Then, the last two lines are a turning point – even so, the Four Poets’ works are able to stand the test of time, and, unlike the “scrub horses,” they do not “fall in the long run” –that is, the “Four Poets” are sturdy and enduring like Clydesdale horses, whereas over time “Er Cao” fall like scrub horses (Zhou 1988).

The author uses “Er Cao” not only to retain the original point, but also to add a new meaning, which is the language that Bakhtin points out to accommodate the words of others – double voice: “a language actually contains two different semantic points, containing two kinds of voices” (Bakhtin 1998 [Vol. 5]: 250; our translation). Chinese classical poetry is usually regarded as the monologue of the author in expressing emotion and ambition, but this poem is very subtle and representative because of its potential dialogue and the existence of double voice language. Despite there being only one formal cohesion word, “even though,” in this poem, the seemingly incoherent text can be accepted for the existence of dialogue. To achieve coherence, if readers can understand the potential dialogue between Du Fu and “Er Cao” as different identity roles in this poem, and understand Du Fu's affirmation and praise of the Four Poets’ style in the dialogue with “Er Cao,” readers can establish a dialogue with the author, Du Fu, and construct a coherent space of intention from the seemingly incoherent text.

3.2.2 The dynamicity of dialogicity in coherence

In his book Marxism and the philosophy of language, Volosinov (1986) points out that the “individualistic subjectivism” of Humboldt views language as the psychological phenomenon of the individual. Bakhtin agrees with this view and points out that the inner symbol is completely psychological, and the discourse completely loses its own ideological nature, so that it cannot explain the essential characteristics of language communication. On the contrary the “abstract objectivism” represented by Saussure and his “Geneva School” takes language as an abstract conceptual system and a consistent formal system of rules, so that language cannot explain the rich and varied phenomena of speech, and it separates them from the ideology of language and the content of social life (Qian 1998: 28). As Bakhtin criticizes “abstract objectivism” and “individualistic subjectivism,” "the true reality of language is not an abstract system of linguistic form, or an isolated monologue expression, nor is it the psychological biological behavior it realizes, but a social event of verbal interaction, it is realized by the Statement and Group of Statement” (Bakhtin 1998 [Vol.2]: 447; our translation). Language is not a closed, self-contained and stable abstract symbology, nor a personal psychological phenomenon, but is the most important ideological creation and communication symbol of humans in social life. Therefore, discourse coherence should not be static cohesion on the surface structure, nor should it be the inner, secretive, and vague psychological operation of human beings, but rather the communication of thoughts and rationality between discourse subjects. It is the process of constructing the online meaning of two-way dynamics based on understanding, dialogue, and reasoning between subjects. The coherence of discourse is determined by the interaction between ideology and values among discourse subjects, which has bidirectional dynamics and uncertainty. It cannot be measured simply or quantitatively. What we call “bidirectional” here refers to the encounter of intentions between the subjects of discourse and the interaction between the two “voices,” rather than the two-way model of discourse coherence (internal and external unity) proposed by Zhang 2003). The dynamic nature of coherence is embodied in the exchange and dialogue of the ideological consciousness of discourse subjects, which is a dynamic process that changes with the subjective consciousness of human communications.

In the above poem, as an example, in dialogue with the author Du Fu, the reader stimulates and extracts information from his own cognitive background; his subjective consciousness and emotion flow with the author's comments on the Four Poets (Yang, Wang, Lu, and Luo) and the dialogue with the “Er Cao,” and is directed by Du Fu's comments and interwoven into a river of coherence. This overall process of understanding established the image of “Four Poets” as Clydesdale Horses and “Er Cao” as scrub horses. In this process, the reader fully mobilizes his own consciousness and emotion to respond positively to the author Du Fu's comments – sometimes consenting, rebutting, judging, or supplementing – to form a dynamic symbolic dialogue in the ideological confrontation between the two sides, thus constructing the intricate coherence space of the text symbols.

3.2.3 The plasticity of dialogicity in coherence

Bakhtin's Theory of Dialogue is embodied in the text analysis as “text personification […] [T]he events about the text are always carried out in the interaction of two consciousnesses and two subjects, manifested as the confrontation of two texts, one of which is out there, one is latent, and the manifestation of dialogue is realized through the contact point, that is, the dialogicity of discourse” (Ling 2007: 138–139; our translation). Coherence is the result of dialogue between discourse subjects based on the symbolic network of the text relationship. In the process of dialogue, readers and authors coordinate and interact with each other – sometimes independent from or interdependent on each other – in the discussion of the theme and consultation to reach a consensus. As the result of the interactive and coordinated dialogue construction of ideological consciousness among discourse subjects, coherence has the intrinsic plasticity, which is embodied in the unity of “Theme-Subject-Whole” (TSW) structure of the discourse. The “Theme” here is the contact point of the content manifestation of the dialogue subjects, which is the carrier of the dialogue between the subjects; the “Whole” refers to the social situation, including the social and cultural environment the discourse exists in. The coherence of any discourse is manifested as the unity of the TSW structure. The operation mechanism is basically like this: the two (or more) subjects of the discourse communicate on the conceptual framework of themes in the dialogue, seek universal connection across time and space, and construct coherence space dynamically through the integration of the whole social and cultural environment.

In Du Fu's poem above, the theme is the style of the Four Poets, while the comments on the theme between the subjects are three-dimensional dialogue, including the reader, the author Du Fu, and another voice of “Er Cao.” The dialogue relationship among the reader, Du Fu and “Er Cao” is open and dynamic. The reader continues to have dialogue with words and thoughts from the other two sides and forms self-subjective consciousness because of the confrontation with the two sides. The reader interacts with two sides while maintaining his own independence. He communicates with and penetrates these two sides – sometimes affirming, sometimes refuting – and finally the reader puts the potential dialogue between Du Fu and “Er Cao” in the whole social and cultural environment and establishes the coherence space. According to Chinese literary history, the literati’s evaluation of the “Four Poets” is consistent with Du Fu’s evaluation, and “Er Cao” is like a wave of sand disappearing into general oblivion, so the reader is able to construct the coherent space – “Four Poets” as Clydesdale Horses and “Er Cao” as scrub horses. In this way, with the establishment of the TSW structure, the reader transforms “other people's words” into “his own words of others,” that is, “the words of others are comprehended by the reader and taken as his own words, consciousness is monologized.” This process of monologization is very important because “subsequently, the monologue of consciousness would join in the dialogue with the new voice of other subjects” (Bakhtin 1998 [Vol.4]: 382; our translation). The transformation from “dialogue” to “monologue” fully illustrates the intrinsic plasticity nature of coherence. Moreover, the coherence space constructed on the basis of discourse comprehension is just one link in the endless chain of dialogues with different subjects, with the connection of countless links being able to lead humans to a broader thinking space.

3.3.1 Existence, dynamicity, and plasticity of dialogicity in an English poem

Despite there being only one cohesive word “and” in this poem, the seemingly incoherent text can be accepted for the existence of dialogue. The first and third lines of this poem are actually the invitation from the author William Blake. The writer invites the potential readers to “see” and “hold” some subjects together with himself. From the perspective of Bakhtin's Theory of Dialogue, with the invitation of the author William Black, the two-way dynamic dialogue unfolds between the reader and the author. The dialogue between both sides of the discourse exists and transcends the limitation of time and space to help readers achieve coherence. If readers can establish a dialogue with the author William Blake, presumably they could comprehend and sort out the relationship of the first four lines from the seemingly incoherent text. The existence of dialogicity makes it possible for readers to construct coherence space.

In dialogue with the author William Blake, readers stimulate and extract information from their own cognitive background to understand the symbolic meaning of the first four lines. In this process, readers fully mobilize their own consciousness and emotion to respond positively to the author William Blake's invitation. They are invited and directed by Blake to see the relatively “little” things of sand and wildflower in the “big” world and heaven; then to hold the abstract concepts of infinity and eternity in the concrete carriers of palm and hour. Through this dynamic dialogue, the readers’ comprehension flows with the author’s ideas and they could possibly sort out the symbolic relationship between the little things and the big world, or between the abstract concepts and concrete carriers. That is, any little things in the world contain some sort of greater cosmic truth; any abstract concepts lie in and are embodied by the concrete carriers. If potential readers can set up the dynamic dialogue and look at these subjects with enough energy and imagination, they can generate understandings of such symbols and achieve coherence. The dynamicity of dialogicity lies in the continuous ideological confrontation between the two sides and helps the readers to construct coherence space of the text symbols.

Based on the symbolic network of the text relationships built through the dynamic dialogue, readers and authors coordinate and interact with each other in the discussion of the theme and consultation to reach a consensus. According to William Blake, every person and other living thing is a miniature of the Divine Human or “Human form Divine,” which he identified with Jesus. For potential readers in the Western world, this is correspondent to their social and cultural environment, since most of them are cultivated in the Christian culture. For readers in the Eastern world, this seems to be difficult to understand. But if they can set up a dynamic dialogue with the author and correlate with their own social and cultural environment, they can find a matching philosophy in Buddhist ethics. At this point, readers achieve coherence and the dialogue between both sides is monologized. The plasticity of dialogicity lies in the crucial integration of the whole social and cultural environment of the two sides and the crux is the monologization of the readers.

3.3.2 TSW analysis of an English poem

In the above analysis, we proposed the TSW structure of coherence and analyzed a Chinese poem. In this English poem, at first glance, there are many themes involved in the first four lines, such as the world, sand, heaven, wildflower, palm, and hour. There are also two abstract concepts, infinity and eternity. But when the readers establish a dialogue with William Blake and think about it with enough energy and imagination, they discover that there is a symbolic relationship between the former and the latter: just as the sand symbolizes the world, the wild flower symbolizes the heaven, the palms symbolizes infinity, and the hour symbolizes eternality. With this symbolic relationship of the first four lines, the author has created an intentional space for the potential readers with the metaphor and philosophy of “Greatness in trivialness.” In the TSW analysis, the theme of the first four lines of this poem is the symbolic metaphor of “Greatness in trivialness.” The dialogue between the two subjects (potential readers and the author William Blake) is open and dynamic. Readers continue to have dialogue with words and thoughts from the author and develop self-subjective consciousness in the process of confrontation with the other side. They interact with William Blake and extract information from their own cognitive backgrounds. Finally, readers put the potential dialogue with William Blake in the whole social and cultural environment and establish the coherence space. In this process, the key issue lies in the integration of the social and cultural environment between the two subjects. That is, if readers can understand the symbolic meaning of the theme and put it into their own social and cultural environment, it is not difficult to correlate with the Christianity in the Western world or the matching Buddhist ethics in the Eastern world, i.e. “to see a world in a wild flower, and a bodhi in a leaf.” Then the coherence space is established with the unity of TSW structure.