f,e $l g$

*i.$u # $s*;
$ $ $
#
\: $l.s"e"$. $ $

Discourse in the Novel

Mikhoil Bakhtin

Mikhail Bakhtin was one of the most influential thinkers of the late twentieth century fo
literary and cultural studies. Bakhtin drew atter'ition to the way literature weaves discourses
together from disparate social sources. Bakhtin also helped reconceptualize literary languagu
According to the theory, all words exist in dialog with other words. The theory shifb
emphasis away from individual literary works and toward the intertextual world in whiti
individual literary works are set. This selection dates from 1934-5.

The novel can be defined as a diversity of social speech types, sometimes even direr-
sity of languages and a diversity of individual voices, artistically organized. Thc
internal stratification of any single national language into social dialects, characteristh
group behavior, professional jargons, generic languages, languages of generations and
age groups, tendentious languages, languages of the authorities, of various circles and
of passing fashions, languages that serve the specific sociopolitical purposes of tha
day, even of the hour (each day has its own slogan, its own vocabulary, its our
emphases) - this internal stratification present in every language of its historicJ
existence is the indispensable prerequisite for the novel as a genre. The novel orches-
trates all its themes, the totality of the world of obiects and ideas depicted and
expressed in it, by means of the social diversity of speech types lraznoreciel arrd fi
the differing individual voices that flourish under such conditions. Authorial speecl"
the speeches of narrators, inserted genres, the speech of characters are merely thm
fundamental compositional unities with whose help heteroglossia lraznorecief a
enter the novel; each of them permits a multiplicity of social voices and a ni&
variety of their links and interrelationships (always more or less dialogized). Thes
distinctive links and interrelationships between utterances and languages, this mor-e
ment of the theme through different languages and speech types, its dispersion iar
the rivulets and droplets of social heteroglossia, its dialogization - this is the basi
distinguishing feature of the stylistics of the novel.
Such a combining of languages and styles into a higher unity is unknorm xo
traditional stylistics; it has no method for approaching the distinctive social dialogr
among languages that is present in the novel . . .
Language - like the living concrete environment in which the consciousness of th
verbal artist lives - is never unitary. It is unitary only as an abstract grammaticJ
system of normative forms, taken in isolation from the uninterrupted process of histr-
ical becoming that is characteristic language. Actual social life and
of all living
historical becoming create within an abstractly unitary national language a multitudc
of concrete worlds, a multitude of bounded verbal ideological and social belief systerns
 Discourse in the Noael 675

filled
within these various systems (identical in the abstract) are elements of language
own different sound'
with various semantic and axiological content and each with its
Literary language - both spoken and written - although it is unitary not only in its
shared, ,Lrt.".t, Iinguistic markers but also in its forms for conceptualizing
these

abstract markers, is itself stratified and heteroglot in its aspect as an expressiYe

system, that is, in the forms that carry its meanings'
This stratification is accomplished first of all by the specific organisms called
genres. Certain features of language (lexicological, semantic, syntactic) will knit
to-
system inherent in one
letne. with the intentional aim, and with the overall accentual
or another genre: oratorical, publicistic, newspaper and iournalistic genres, the genres
of low literature (penny dreadfuls, for instance) or, finally, the various genres of high
literature. Certain features of language take on the specihc flavor of a given genre:
they knit together with specific points of view, specific approaches, forms of think-
ing, and accents characteristic of the given genre'
-innuances
addition, there is interwoven with this generic stratification of language a profes'
sional stratlfication of language, in the broad sense of the term "professional": the
language of the lawyer, the doctor, the businessman, the politician, the public
educa-
with, and sometimes depart
tion teacher and so forth, and these sometimes coincide
from, the stratification into genres. It goes without saying that these languages differ
from each other not only in their vocabularies; they involve specific forms for mani-
And
festing intentions, for-s fo, making conceptualization and evaluation concrete'
ih" very language of the writer (the poet or novelist) can be taken as a profes-
"r"n
sional iargon on a par with professional iargons'
But the situation is far from exhausted by the generic and professional stratification
of the common literary language. Although at its very core literary language is fre-
quently socially hornog"r"o.rs, as the oral and written language of a dominant social
grorp, trr.." is nevertheless always present, even here, a certain degree ofsocial differ-
a social stratification, that in other eras can become extremely acute'
Social
"ntiuiiorr, stratification,
stratification may here and there coincide with generic and professional
to itself'
but in essence it is, of course, a thing completely autonomous and peculiar
is also and primarily determined by differences between the
Social stratification
forms used to convey meaning and between the expressive planes of various belief
systems - that is, stratification expresses itself in typical differences
in ways used to
clnceptualize and accentuate elements of language, and stratification may not violate
the abstractly linguistic dialectological unity of the shared literary language'
what is more, all socially significant world views have the capacity to exploit the
intentional possibilities of language through the medium of their specific
concrete
journals, particular
instancing. various tendencies (artistic and otherwise), circles,
persons are all
newspapers, even particular signif,rcant artistic works and individual
.uprbl.'of stratifying larrguage, in proportion to their social significance; they
means of their own
are capable of attracting its words and forms into their orbit by
characteristic intentionJ and accents, and in so doing to a certain extent alienating
parties, artistic works and persons'
these words and forms from other tendencies,
Every socially significant verbal performance has the ability - sometime for a long
period tf ,ir.r", ,rrd fo, a wide circle of persons - to infect with its own intention
ce.tai., aspects of language that had been affected by its semantic and expressive
over-
impulse, imposing on-them specific semantic nuances and specific axiological
to.res; thus, it slogan-words, curse-words, praise-words and so forth'
"r.r "r"rt.
j. j
 676 pohtical Criricism

,""1, iH.ffi ,:':ffiii,il:;:H.:#:i'"ideorogicar rife, each seneration at each

own tanguage, irs own uocabura.y,
turn' vary depending on sociar
ir, ;;:;;ll.1f,:il:l,ff:X#:Til1filf
t.*t, ,.rd.rrri. institutio,
the high school studenr, ,rr"
,.ra.'rffir i;#i;rrrre
of the cadet,
student ,.. }i'lirr"rent ranguages)
other stratifying factors. and
Alr this i, urrrgh, about by
ma*er how narrow the sociar *.irir, ,roirring languages, no
ur.r. ;, ,itt.i. r"n;.;:;il:-'i,
have a fam,v jargon define is even possibre m
the r""i.rri'r;-,,, * ;id;*o'Jr,
the Irtenevs in Tolstoy, *iri fo, insrance, rtrc
l].:',n." lr, special vocaburary and unique accennrel
And finally, at any given moment,
ranguages of various epochs
socio-ideorogicar rife cohabit and periods of
*i,n on.'."o;,:::-pri ;rr;.'r?
could say that today's and- yesterdair the day exist: ooe
*.rr-ia.otog.i.rt ,;J
a certain sense' share "language; r""i,lr, ,,day,, do noq in
every day represents
,rrri., li-i.r-L., uo"ruJrrr,'ri'rrr,* another socie
.'hr
"srare of^rrr:
ideological semanric
with its own stogans. ,j, ,*1r..*r;, accenruar system-
,'r rrril"irr. uru_. ,ni;;;;;.
izes "days" in laneuage, ;".r.y depersonal-
while irose,;;" shalr see, ,rr., a.iiu*ately
intensifics
.tHT:",:'jfffJ:t:T'ci*'.rh."T;;u.ai.a ,.p..,.*,iio, ,,i'a,"r,ricary oppoecs
,#JililH ?Ir#H:r,;: [.fi:llb r*,,.,,,, ;,;;. is he,er. gr., rim
tween the presenr u.rd
th. contradictions be
past, betweerr
ent socio_ideof"ni.uf rrrrl-lt-tlcio-ideological
epochs of the past,
_:]rrerrng between ditrcr_
"-,;"T,;"^,:::l
,".',,,r,,;";,;il:f,::il",JJi'r'r::Ti:i,[ffi
other in a variery of ways, :1.:1rru,.",'nl#il.,*:H
forming r.* ,*irilriroiir,* l1'..,*;r.:,,...
In^actual fact,
. however,
justifi es ou, juxiaposing
thereioer;;;
underlying them and making
them: 11 irrrr*., ir.ffiffi J*;=:.H3',..,IH
forms for concepruarizing
.r.t,.,.ffi"r.. ":Iil or ui"w on
,p..ifi. po;.,i,
th"e ilJ;;rlr, rhe worrd.
ized by its own objects, meanings r.ra
,p..ifi" worrd views, each charactcr-
u"tu.r. As such.they may juxtaposed
another' mutua'y supprement;;
;J#;, be to (E
contradi* one anorher and
retared dialogica,y. As
such ,r,.y .n.orn,;;;r. be inr-
ness of real people anorher und rn the conscious-
- fir,st ,nd foremorr, i. ,rr" creative .orr.iorrr.rs
"o"*irt
Iffi1ilffi };:* ,l;j:*:1r.._*
of people rto
environmentorsociair,."."ri"""iiH;i:'.;T:i:'J,'Tf,t"JffJ:i:.r,-;
unitarv ptane of the nover,
a rear rife, they struggre
and evorve in r
which ca;;;;i" i,
itr"tr
languages, various forms
of styrizations lra imr,.rrio; ;r;oil
,-rrirru,ro* of generk
bound languages, the ranguage; ;i;r#rlio.,ur und perioil.
(as occurs, for example,
;i;r.d;.generarions, of sociar
;l ;. Edil;i. ,ou.r,.
diarects and otherr
ir,i; ;;;,;,
:li.:,'.[l'] #J,ii.'J:::::rufui i'"'",n",,., il be drawn in b,r
;l','# i.r.,.,"a (i nairecrr
As a resurt of the work done
by
not "neutral,' words and forms : "tt'rt.r. stratifying"rfrr,
forces in language, there
*rJ, ,ra frr_, ..no
erc

H:::T,lt#::,'"'#*.t.tv iut * o"u'.f Jio,.,r,.o.,gr, *r* l,*,,i,ns and accetrrr,

"r";;", to ooca

normadve..,",i,i,LTllT::Ll:1,."fl
#.:h*":#:;;,:Tfi Jrj::?Ir;,H
have the ,,raste,, of a professi;;;;;;;.,"u"r"r,d..r.y
particular person, a generation,; , a party,a particurar *orrq r
r;;;;r|, th. a"y andhour. Eich word tasrcsd
 Discourse in the Nooel 677

the context and contexts in which it has lived its socially charged life; all
words and
forms are populated by intentions. Contextual overtones tendentious,
lgene-ric, indi-
vidualistic) are inevitable in the word.
As a living, socio-ideological concrete thing, as heteroglot opinion, language,
for
the individual consciousness, lies on the borderline between oneself and
the other.
The word in language is half someone else's. It becomes ,,one,s own,, only
when the
speaker populates it with his own intention, his own accent, when
he appropriates
the word, adapting it to his own semantic and expressive intention. prior io
this
moment of appropriation, the word does not exist in a neutral and impersonal
lan-
guage (it is not, after all, out of a dictionary that the speaker gets
his words!), but
rather it exists in other people's mouths, in other p"opl",, .oir.*,r, serving
other
people's intentions: it is from there that one must take the word,
and make it one,s
own. And not all words for just anyone submit equally easily to this appropriation,
to
this seizure and transformation into private property; many words strrtboirly
.e.ist,
others remain alien, sound foreign in the mouth of the one who appropriated
them
and who now speaks them; they cannot be assimilated into his context
and fall out of
it; it is as if they put themselves in quotation marks against the will of the speaker.
Language is not a neutral medium that passes freely and easily into
the private
property of the speaker's intentions; it is populated
- overpopulated - with the
intentions of others. Expropriating it, forcing it to submit to one,s own intentions
and accents, is a difficult and complicated process.
Concrete socio-ideological language consciousness, as it becomes creative
as it becomes actiYe as literature
- that is,
- discovers itselfalready surrounded by heteroglossia
and not at all a singly, unitary language, inviolable and indisputable. The actively
literary linguistic consciousness at all times and everywhere (that is, in all epochs
of
literature historically available to us) comes upon ,,languages,,, and not language.
Consciousness finds itself inevitably facing the necessity o,f haoing to choose n
loiguigr.
With each literary-verbal performance, consciousness must actively orient itself
amidst heteroglossia, it must move in and occupy a position for itself within it, it
chooses, in other words, a "language." only by remaining in a closed environment,
one without writing or thought, completely off the maps of socio-ideological becom-
ing, could a man fail to sense this activity of selecting a language and rest assured in
the inviolability of his own language, the conviction that his language is redetermined.
Even such a man, however, deals not in fact with a single language, but with
languages - except that the place occupied by each of these languages is fixed
and
indisputable, the movement from one to the other is predetermined and not a
thought process; it is as if these languages were in different chambers. They do not
collide with each other in his consciousness, there is no attempt to coordinate them,
to look at one of these languages through the eyes of another language.
Thus an illiterate peasant, miles away from any urban center naively immersed in
an unmoving and for him unshakeable everyday world, nevertheless lived in several
language systems: he prayed to God in one language (church Slavonic), sang songs
in another, spoke to his family in a third and, when he began to dictate petitions to
the local authorities rhrough a scribe, he tried speaking yet a fourth language (the
official-literate language, "paper language"). All these are d,ffirent ln gingri,
"nrn
from the point of view of abstract socio-dialectological markers. But these languages
were not dialogically coordinated in the linguistic consciousness of the peasant;1e
passed from one to the other without thinking, automatically: each was indisputably
 polttical
Criticism
m its own place, and
the place of each
regard one lansuage was indisputable.
runa ,r,.-r..;;,;:i,J::.1i1lYlb,.. He H was nor yer abre
another
the
Ianguage
ranguage,i,.l:yl'; * ;;"Jir::?i,'.",#:l:'lir",il,
to
through i* .^ ;;
^A,,;",,;:il1fi,n::f;[Ji.:J;",)
of our peasant,
'
or languages began
-ru' evrvdn] worrd with

,t roon-rr'i, to occur in rhe

r, guus.r-b;;;:.t:"1 as it ffi#
became clear ihat"th.r.";;
;:',
consciousness

approaches ," ,n.

X,#l'il11'lJ#,,.,?,'r.r*,r,ngrug.r,',h;';:i:fiyrffiHr:#:.#
dicted each other connected with these
and in no way .outa ranguages conrra-
tirlYy
rn peace and quiet
the inviolability
and pr"a.r.*ir.ffi"" with one;rl.i;:',h;
nec,essitv
ch"rr,;-;;l-;ffi1'J.,:t tnese Ianguases came to an end. and the
oraciuety
The Ianguage and among them began.
worl.l nf ^.^.,^- -, ",o'
;ll, Tl i ."I' Lo;^' "";;' ;' ;'d, ;# : ;!!,I # ii,,Til,'[ i XXil :?:
,r,.'" i,,r,,;J',',TT# j, tJff":l::
i::,H Fili;,i ffilrXn,.o to the ci ty _ rr
i',:1.:
moribund equilibrium;;;;;;;J::" emersed from a srare a
and rer.ealed the speech of p"r..ru u,iJ
The prose *.i,., I dir;;;r;;';;:'

ltif,',f t:[xil!3:'i:'":'::ip4l;*:**:;l:.,1x,'::rJ,T
:#fl
*.t.o_.r.it?;;;;l. wortds) rhar open up-t.r,;na-r,..t.lost;.;,r";rrrr",
fr
_ rather,
popurated
-* il,::Jill;,IHX:T"",I""'
t;',:::'#'ililf others *,r.., u..-oi*[, he
new i n renrio,;: ; ;.ff a second
d compers, an
;;;o:"t:::,Til':fJ
l"
,r,. ers;;;".;"JYt novel master ' ' '
t.u"t, oi ffiri',ilIrc we find a corl
trme. Armost .u..r.:ulfl,
t"rr, ."r".*#1,:-f;*ilH:,r'r':,:g orarmost arr the
crassrc representativ"
,rr ,rru,u
,r,.,,o,yrirJ
lrJ ;;# ,,^ language: dep :: jll,
,;"..,t';r#;r:f:fiTfi,.::r,:;
;;;;ili,'"rarY
i:'",ffi *"ilfl*{}Til:Iii,',i{,fi:iF'**i#fr
;f. ;."ri;;'urrrewsPaPer articres'
tr};i{',,ffi
d.r' ;;;;;;
ff:i:1::;iffi,r?'1,:' "'th'
sermon or finary "''t' " Bilii;rir,ilttut"ots' or the pedantic"t;;;;
,n. i.ll

:iir#il [**"ir;*'ffi;:--:::::ljtr# "^ffi

gqage
Suage is somedmes '--?s,vrr
somedmes iinro*_,._-- ,,
ur gnerlc, professional
and other sfata of r

:*,1[ :::iflii-l l t"::r *'J

lan_
,'.ffi i :a;#.;3# " ",,,, * ;; ;;,;;,li; t

*1'#"'ffi ffi ilif|]:t jliixi[":Td

,[fi#:,'..1'=::#i#fiIanguage"
,r;it*" *?--:n
irrrgrrr" u.u.tty, - tt ;:;;;; ;jff Tr"lrJ:f T;
co:non oi,,, is*",i,t#?;HlrTflo-,i, ,,k.n u, ,r",.".,,r,,
;;r";;;r poinr of aiew,rr.rnX,j^i:o
,n1r,_"r.,,;i'[.oi.i,:i:3;ili:
.r1'*,;,r,",.,
the a.uthor distances gorrg oalue.
himself f-,n if,;r.Jrurc To on. d.g."."o;;#;.;,
fres it, forcing his
intention s''",..,d:[{t;,'fi;J:;:m,o,i*
m ed um'r ir'
ar
i
i"'
o
;::
w^ars',;;il ;ffi:r'J:X,,f
; ..,u"a.i'i il;il" ;H?T[
ilfi:,ffi,T: ih,t
(a view ;s
rhis same backdrop
^^,l?:,nr,one can arso isorate
opinion, ,a,,iI"r# ransuase," of the i
;r;i;-;;#T:lr"
,.r,noJ" p?.1#
ff ,L'":T,,1*f:;l:
 Discourse in the Noael 679

professional and other languages we have mentioned, as well as compact masses of

iirect authorial discourse - pathos-filled, moral-didactic, sentimental-elegiac or
idyllic. In the comic novel the direct authorial word is thus realized in direct, un-
qualified stylizations of poetic genres (idyllic, elegiac, etc.) or stylizations of rhetorical
g..rr", (the pathetic, the moral-didactic). Shifts from common language to parodying
If g"n".l. a.rd othe. languages and shifts to the direct authorial word may be gradual,
o, Lry be on the contrary quite abrupt. Thus does the system of language work in
the comic novel.
We will pause for analysis on several examples from Dickens, from his novel Little
Dorrit.

(l)

the conference was held at four or five o'clock in the afternoon, when all the region of
Harley Street, Cavendish Square, was resonant ofcarriage-wheels and double-knocks. It
had reached this point when Mr. Merdle came home y'om his d,ailY lccupatiln of causing
the British narne to be more respected, in all part of the ci,tilized globe capable of appreciation
of wholewid,e commercial enterprise and gigantic combinations of skill and capital. Fot,
though nobody knew with the least precision what Mr. Merdle's business was, except
that it was to coin money, these were the terms in which everybody defined it on all
ceremonious occasions, and which it was the last new polite reading of the parable
of
the camel and the needle's eye to accept without inquiry' (Book 1, ch' 33)

The italicized portion represents a parodic stylization of the language of ceremonial

speeches (in parliaments and at banquets). The shift into this style is prepared
for by
the sentence's construction, which from the very beginning is kept within bounds by
a somewhat ceremonious epic tone. Further on - and already in the language of
the
aurhor (and consequently in a different style) - the parodic meaning of the ceremoni-
ousness of Merdle's labors becomes apparent: such a charactetization turns
out to be
were the terms in
"another's speech," to be taken only in quotation marks ("these
which everybody defined it on all ceremonious occasions")'
Thus the sp"ich of another is introduced into the author's discourse (the story) in
such
c4ncealedf4rrn,that is, without any of theformal markers usually accompanying
speech, whether direct or indirect. But this is not
just another's speech in the same

"language" - it is another)s utterance in a language that is itself "other" to the

authlr as well, in the archaicized language of oratorical genres associated with hypo-
critical official celebration.

(2)

In a day or two it was announcedto all the town, that Edmund Sparkler, Esquire, son-
in-law of the eminent Mr. Merdle of worldwide renown, was made one of the Lords of
the Circumlocution Office; and proclamation was issued, to all true believers, that this
admirable a?pointment pas to be hailed, as a graceful and, gracious marh of homage,
rendered

b7 the graceful and, gracious Decimus, t0 tha't clmmercial interest which must eoer in a greot
so, by this mark
commercial c\untry- and all the rest of it nith blast of trumpef. bolstered
of Government homage, the nonderful Bank and all the other wonderful undertakings
went on and went up; and gapers came to Harley Street, cavendish Square, only to
look at the house where the golden wonder lived' (Book 2, ch' 12)
ri
:

680 pobticat Criticism

Here, in the itaricized portion, another,s sp.eech in another,s (officiar_ceremonial)

language is openly introduced as indirect discourse. But
hidden, diffused speech.of another (in the
it is surrounded by thc
same official-ceremonial language) that
clears the way for the introduction of
a form more easilf p.r."ir"a as another,s
speech and that can reverberate more
fuily as such. The clearing of the way comes
with the word "Esquire," characteristic oiofficial
speech, sparkler,s namq
the final confirmation that this is another's "aJ.J?o
ful."
speech *itr, trr" ffi;;#;
This epithet does not of course belong to the "o*""
author but to that same,,generrl
opinion" that had created the commotio., arou.rd
Merdle,s inflated enterprises.
(3)

It was a dinner to provoke an appetite, though he had

not had one. T.he rarest dishes,
sumptuously cooked and sumptuously
served; the choicest r.rirr, ,rr" most exquisite
wines; marvels of workmanship in gold
and silver, china i-nnumerable things
delicious to the senses of ""a srrr;;
smell, arrd sight, were insinua"ted
.,1r-"r
o' what a wontlerful man this Merdle, what a irra i,, composition.
[reat man, what a master man, how blessedly
and enoiablv endctwed in one word whar '
- a .ilh man! (Book 2, ,ni, ti1

The.beginning is a parodic-stylization of high

epic style. what follows is an enthusiastic
glorification of Merdle, a chorus of his
ad#rers in the form of the conceared speech
(the italicized portion). The whole point of
To'.ltt
glorification, which is to unmask the
here is to expose the real basis for such
chorus's hypocrisy: ,,wonderfur,,, ,,great,,,
"master," "endowed" can all be replaced by the
single word ,,rich.,, This act of author_
ial unmasking, which is openly accomplishea
within the or, singre simple
boundari",
sentence, merges with the unmasking
of another,s speech. The ceremonial emphasis
glorification is complicate{ on
ur., s.clnd emphasis that is indignant, ironic, and
thatultimately predominates in the irnal this is
'h::":
we have before us a typical double-accented,
unmasking words of the senrence.
double-s,rrca iiiri construction.
what we are calling a hybrid construction is
an utterance- that belongs, by its
grammatical (syntactic) and compositional
markers, to a ,ingt. ,p;k.r, but that
ally contains mixed within it two utte.arrces, actu_
two speech manners) two styles, two
"languages," two semantic- and axiologicar belief
systems. we repeat, there is no
i bounda.y-u.,*.", J*.,i,,.*,ces, sryres,
ffffj;T:1,:?:::T1^iil'll,T,ic
languages, belief systems; the division
of voiles and language,
limits of a single syntactic whole, often ,ro.r'oijilTlJ:T:
within the liriits of , ,i-pr" sentence. It
frequently happens that even one and
the same word wil belong simurtaneousry to
two languages, two berief systems that intersect
in a hybrid .o.rrrr,i.rion and, conse_
quently, the word has two contradictory
meanings,.two u....rr,
-
we shall see, hybrid construction, ,r" f.*"-pres berow). As
of .nor*ous significance in novel stvle.
(4)

But Mr' Tite Barnacle was a buttoned-up

man, and consequentrjt a weighty one. (Book
2, ch. 12)

The above sentence is an exampl e of pseudo_objectit;e

motitLation,one of the forms for
concealing another's speech
judged by the formal markers
- in_this exampre, the speech i,"ur."r,
or opinion.,, If
above, the iogic motivating the sentence
seems to
 Discourse in the Noael 681

belong to the author, i.e., he is formally at one with it; but in actual fact,
the
motivation lies within the subjective belief system of his characters, or general of
opinion.
Pseudo-obiective motivation is generally characteristic of novel
style,2 since it is
one of the manifold forms for concealing another's speech in hybrid
constructions.
Subordinate conjunctiols and link words (,.thus,,, ,,because ,,ior the reason
,,, that,,,
"in spite oP' and so forth), as welr as words used to maintain a logical sequence
("therefore," "consequently," etc.) lose their direct authorial intention,
take on the
flavor of someone else's language, become refracted or even completely
reified.
Such motivation is especially characteristic of comic style, in *hi"h
*o-"one else,s
tpl...h. is dominant (the speech of concrete persons, or, more often,
a collective
vorce).-

(s)

fill the air to a great distance with its roar, so the sacred flame which
As a vast fire will
the mighty Barnacles had fanned caused the air to resound more
and more with the
name of Merdle. It was deposited on every lip, and carried into
every ear. There never
was, there never had been, there never again should be, such a
ma, as Mr. Merdle.
Nobody, as aforesaid, knew what he had done, but eaerybody hnep
him to be the greatest
that had appeared. (Book 2, ch. 13)

Here we have an epic, "Homeric" introduction (parodic, of course) into

whose frame
the crowd's glorification of Merdle has been inserted (concealed speech
of another in
another's language). we then get direct authorial discourse; howeuer,
the author
gives an objective tone to this "aside" by suggesting that .,everybody
knew,, (the
italicized porrion). It is as if even the author himself did not doubt the
fact. . . .
Heteroglossia, once incorporated into the novel (whatever the forms
for its incorp-
oration), is another's speech in another's language, serving to express authorial
inten_
tions but in a refracted way. Such speech constitutes a-rpeciai type of
double-ooiced
discourse...
From this follows the decisive and distinctive importance of the novel as
a Benre:
the human being in the novel is first, foremost and always a speaking human
Leing;
the novel requires speaking persons bringing with them their own .rrriqu.
ideologicli
discourse, their own language.
The fundamental condition, that which makes a novel a novel, that which is
responsible for its stylistic uniqueness, is the speabing person and, his discourse.
The topic of a speaking person has enormous importance in everyday life. In real
life we hear speech about speakers and their discourse at every step. iVe can go
so far
as to say that in real life people talk most of all about what others talk
about - they
transmit, recall, weigh and pass judgment on other people,s words, opinions,
asser-
tions, information; people are upset by others, words or agree with -them, contest
them, refer to them and so forth. were we to eavesdrop on sratches of raw
dialogue
in the street, in a crowd, in lines, in a foyer and so forth, we would hear how often
the words "he says," "people say," "he said... " are repeated, and in the
conversa-
tional hurly-burly of people in a crowd, everything oiten fuses into one bi! ..he
says...yousay...Isay..."Reflecthowenormousistheweightof.,everyonesays,,
and"it is said" in public opinion, public rumor, gossip, slander and so forth. one
 rl
i'i

682 pohtical Criticism

must also consider the psychological importance in our

lives of what others say abr
us, and the importance, for us, of understanding and interpreting
these words d
others ("living hermeneutics,,).
The importance of this motif is in no way diminished in the
higher and betur_
organized areas of everyday communication. Every conversation
is full of transrnb
sions and interpretatiols of other people's words. At
every step one meets a ..qum-
tion" or a "reference" to something that a particular p".roa said,
a reference i
"people say" or "everyone saysr" to the words of the person one
is tarkinB with r
to one's own previous words, to a newspaper, an official decree,
a document, a bo*
and so forth' The majority of our informaiion and opinions
is usually not commrd
cated in direct form as our own, but with referen.. to
,orn" indefinite and gencr:d
source: "I heard," "ft's generally held that. . . ,,It is thought that. . ,,
,,, . and tr
forth. Take one of the most widespread occurrences in our
rife, conr-ersr-
tions about some official meeting: they are all constructed"rJ.yday
on the transmission,
interpretation and evaluation of various tinds of verbal performance
resolutions, sc
rejected and accepted corrections that are made to
them and so forth. Thus talk gu*
on about speaking peopre and their words everywhere
again; it either accompanies the development of the
- this motif returns "gain"ud
other topics in everyday life, c
directly governs speech as its leading theme. . .
. The topic of a speaking person takes on quite another significance in the orrlinrrr
ideological workings
9f 9ur consciousness, in rhe process of ^rmilra"f;;;
sciousness to the ideological world. The ideorogicai
j
becoming of a human being, ir
i! this view, is the process of selectivery assimilating the
,J
words # oth..r.
,l when verbal disciplines are taught in school, two basic modes
ri _ are recognized fa
the appropriation and transmission
- simultaneously - of another,s words (a terq r
rule, a model): "reciting by heart" and "retelling in
one,s own words.,, The rrttr*
mode poses on a small scale the task implicit i.,
all p.ose stylistics: retelling a text L
one's own words is to a certain extent a double-voiced
narration of another,s wordsr
for indeed "one's own words" must not compretely dilute
the quarity that matcs
another's words unique; a retelling in one's own
words should have a mixed charr-
ter, able when necessary to reproduce the style and expressions
of the transmircd
text' It is this second mode used in schoors fo, t.rrrr-ittrrrg
u.rot}r.r,s discour*,
"retelling in one's own words," that includes within it an
entire series of forms fr
the appropriation while transmitting of another,s
words, depending upon the charr_
ter,of the text being appropriated and the pedagogicai
..rriror-""rr, in which it fo
i
understood and evaluated.
The tendency to assimilate others, discourse takes
on an even deeper and mre
;
basic significance in an individual's ideological
becoming, in the most fundamentt
sense. Another's discourse performs here nt ronger
", the very dir."tiorrr, .rd
irr"fo.*rtior,
models and so forth but strives rather to deirmine
- brr.. of our ido
Iogical interrelations with the world, the very basis
of o.r, b.h"uio.; it performs he,e
as authoritatioe discourse, and an internaily peisuasioe
d,iscourse.
Bgth the authority of discourse and iis lnternal persuasiveness
. may be united in e
single word - one that is simuhaneously authoriiative
and internally persuasire
despite the profound differences betweln these two -
categories of alien discourse-
But such unity is rarely a given it happens more frequentry
- that an individual's
becoming, an ideological process, is characterized precisely
by a sharp gap betw,etn
these two categories: in one, the authoritative word
(rehjious, poritical, moral; thc
 Discourse in ilte lVotLel
683
word of a father, of
ad.urts and of teachers,
etc.) that does not know

ilH':,t:J,*;ther
intern',v p"",^i"J *;.;;;,;:#;internal persua_
backerr arr priv,ege,
uv.p,ur;. ;ffi;:'"::tl ."." 1.1,"*,"rr.d in society
:*,:r?esuentry ",, (not
code. rhe strugsre
,,aai,r,si.:,i,",.il1,'i;,lilJffi:::?,:^,_.:l*.il.,r,i r.s,i
drscourse are whar
-rat usually
,, rhese caregories of ia"otoeilri
determine trr. H.tory "ri"rr"tror"rduar
usually ;"1;;;;.",1.i":rl]-l
consciousness.
ideorolical
The authoritati,
it u;,a, ,,, i,i*i;1:il*"#]r,"r;J:ff1ffir,.f,:#,,;n:'*. make it our own;

l[,}:i:'f ii:J:'I':Hj'#,,Jj:*avr,,.i,o';';;"',T:;::;fi :'[:T,1;

hierarchicarry n,un..j,_,,
alreadv acknowte:dged
;;;"
1,, past' #;i: ;:ffi:.iJ,ill
that is r.r,,"-u"
;,fl:,, ro rr,to.iry"*],
the fathers.
i" ,** o*r."r,iJi.;#i-Y"':,:l
tt is a prior o'*rr.*.'i,
"r.i.'"rirr'i:';;:;'^: "e ,, ,n,
::.,,d:l,.,rn^0i,il;^iJ,lrH:T**,*"::*il1#i::,:"r,[Ti;
*' u' o"*"0 ,, r,,ii"'i,
{i!.1T:l:l'i:,t:'* " "uil:fl::iiliffi1lf:J
We cannot embark here
on a survey of the
many and varied
d isco
;i";'";# * iil.,,r.r,
urse (for exam pre, t.r
il, T:_.ir* ffi::.,r,:,r.T:
jffi#:*;:ra cu*entty arnio,,uil."f,",.l, *l ;iJ*_;r, Juru,"r,o,r*.enr
degrees or
represenrario, ,,,?lJ.[1,i":'i:::ilI',3'T] *,,",.' t".'i,,. transmission
and
4re lmportant, those
and degrees of such
discourse. common to all types
The degree to which
u *o.a may be conini-o.r
conjoined .--:.r
authority is recognized
b; with authoriry
#'_i: - whether the
"r-;;
Hl,' "'*';; ;;':"' )T:'1''::I:,' t.;l Af ***x;
;;
llFlJ'.l"i:
,r,.,i. .. r,"',;i.;il;:fl,1i"lTllJi;#';,' our attjrude,o*,.d
,,r,*,yp.,,i';1#:L'Jl';il:r', ff:H:. T,, or sanize u.. I *I| il:l HJ,:r:; un o
,r,. uu,i,i,i,J;;;J:JXlJ,l#TT#1,,j, ,*i:.. i,, ,orrr'li i,ju*iou, ways), but
transitions); i, with these (by means
;H;::":"ge of say,;;;;i
'"-ri.,r-.#;;
;;;';ffiii";til|jn,iT'JT"*_:::pact and in..t, it demands,
:,; instance.a
:l_:,1, for
scnpt,
so to
Ir
*:t ## rffi l,:j'.##i:'#if:'.,
il:Tl' i;.';'.',t'* :Hg
r,rry .,rn.ll#;#:J,: r,,, uu i J*il *.,1,,,r,
#i,:i:,?:i:::,,, the retter is
a free appropriation r"J rrrmifr..
,,.r^r^:r.-"o,
iscou rse seeks
d
ro .i i.i i,r,o', ;;.;,;;,, l:,,;ft::;1.:X:.:
;,j*,,ff ::: J,"fl if:
ff;ff,f*::t":"':"':i:',"ry'
plav with its borders,
stylizing
;;*; .j,
J#"ri'.'i,J"
,r,
plav with the conrexr r.u-irg"d
no
rramino i, ,;
-^
It spontaneousry ...utiu"
ible mass;"r.ir"ir ""1r. enrers our verbal lt^i::L'-t:*,
one must
";the.
tot,,y'*;';ff::''il:il:1i: i,::Tlfi:;lt,,ifr*t
%i;,;* j.,,1,. e" i ; ;.., ".' o i,
l',.
dlilJ,l,'1";h,ff :',::i'il;li
;r
s d s, a n d a n
t:'J
fft"fl J T"'"t""Hl" "';; " ;;;' ::;l! 1"'" l li' '?;#""
;'ff : T;:#il:
clansed,; ;,i il;;'..:,'",,__, "' remai ns un_
wtth approach and retrear, i:fi ;";|i'.'x;j|;:;,ffi and
ir
"u
i.i. o?*iur.. dissolution,
 68+ Political Criticism

All these functions determine the uniqueness of authoritative discourse, borh as r

concrete means for formulating itself during transmission and as its
distinctive msrtrtr
for being framed by contexts. The zone of the framing context must likewise
bc
distanced - no familiar contact is possible here either. The one perceiving
and under.-
standing this discourse is a distant descendant; there can be no arguing
witrr nim.
These factors also determine the potential role of authoritative
discourse in prm-
Authoritative discourse cannot be represented it is only transmitted. Its inerth
-
semantic finiteness and calcification, the degree to which it is hard-edged,
irr
a thing il
i11 own right, the impermissibility of any free stylistic development in relation
to it
all this renders the artistic representation of authoritative discourse impossible. -
role in the novel is insignificant. It is by its very nature incapable of
h
being doubh-
voiced; it cannot enter into hybrid constructions. If completely deprived
of its a6.
thority it becomes simply an object, a relic, a thing. It enters the artistic
context as
alien body, there is no space around it to play in, no contradictory -
emotions - it fo
not surrounded by an agitated and cacophonous dialogic life, and the
context arord
it dies, words dry up. For this reason images of officiar-authoritative truth, imagc
virtue of any sort: monastic, spiritual, bureaucratic, morar, etc., have never
d
bo
successful in the novel. It suffices to mention the hopeless
attempts of Gogol ad
Dostoevsky in this regard. For this reason the authoriiative text
always ,.-rirq i
the novel, a dead quotation, something that falls out of the artistic
context (fu
example, the evangelical texts in Tolstoy at the end of Resurrection).s
Authoritative discourses may embody various contents: authority
as such, or &
authoritativeness of tradition, of generally acknowledged truths,
of the official rir
and other similar authorities. These discourses may have a variety
of zones (de6'-
mined by the degree to which they are distanced irom th" zone
of contact) witi e
variety of relations to the presumed listener or interpreter (the
apperceptive bect-
ground presumed by the discourse, the degree of reciprocation
between the two d
so forth).
In the history of literary language, there is a struggle constantly being waged
overcome the offrcial line with its tendency to distance itself
r
from the zone d
contact, a struggle against various kinds and degrees of authority.
In this procrs
discourse gets drawn into the contact zone, which results in
semantic and emotionelr
expressive (intonational) changes: there is a weakening
and degradation of the ep
acity to generate metaphors, and discourse becomes mor. ,.|fi.d,
more conc,-q
more filled with everyday elements and so forth. All of this
has been studied tr
psychology, but not from the point of view of its verbal
formulation i. pr;;; ;;
monologues of developing human beings, the monologue
that lasts a whole life. rth
confronts us is the complex problem presented by forms capable
of expressing sucfi r
(dialogized) monologue.
when someone else's ideological discourse is internally persuasive for us
acknowledged by us, entirely different possibilities op.r, ,p.
d
Such discourse is d
decisive significance in the evolution of an individuai .onr.io.,rrress:
conscioume$
awakens to independent ideological life precisely in a world of alien discourses sur-
rounding it, and from which it cannot initially separate itself; the process
of di*ir
guishing between one's own and another's discourse, betw".rr'
one,s osl emd
another's thought, is activated rather late in development. when
thought begi$ o
work in an independent, experimenting and discriminating way, what
first occurs b r
separation between internally persuasive discourse and authoritarian
enforc-ed db.
 Discourse in the Noztel
6g5
rejection of those conseries
ffii,, X':}|,-r,jH of discourses rhar do
nor matter ro
Internally persuasive
discourse _ as oD
- is, a9 it-is affirmed ,h.;;;;#il,:ll*o:o.o:t that is externaily authoritative
word."6In the everyday ryhtlv interwoven- with ,,one,s
rr;;;'";;;, .l'lll;
is half_ours and haiEsom;;;;. r ronscrousress, the internally
own
cisety in the ract ,hr;;;;; and productiu.r.r,
,"*r^r". #O
organizes ,nrrr.r'oln"
such a ;::r' i::.*eativitv ]il i##denr ;;;';;":
word awakenr
words from withrn, i"i words, that it
statjc condjtion. ltt.^our and does not ,.mai

ffifif,;J'J,,fl i:::_#t!i:T:1.T#JL:i1i**itr,:li!1?i.,#+:
i
j.*f ;'1,".Hffi?ffi il';y;::,*TJ*:,::,#il:,uilr*'j#
jrrrT:ih1*i;:};Ht#1.:,:TH.jrd"lfi
:;1 u:::';1'r'j:#?#
new conrexrs that diarosr^
ri, ,i" ;_::,,* :::ff!:{,;":":i:o*, in each
mean. roc ru ?Dle to reveal ever "r;;fu
newer Days

Notes
I We are of course deli
beratery
simplifying: the rear_Iife
exrent. peasanr courd and did do this
to a certain
1 l:.1 a device is unrhinkable in the epic.
i 31"'l:fJ:T'*T;':;,.,:o*'b,";;; ;;;;*tions in Gogol
l,'il*ii,*:gnranguage(crr.r
'l,Hl'".i1,',i#r;il[Iff;1:iill#il,;;lli:ffi
the ract that purery
rr*r,ir*,#a*."Jjl]"_r:*:urse in a nover, it
.

:l:,:q
srve; this is especiallv r, ,r.ri..'.0*n]T;:fiil il*::
6 one,s own discourr"
t rue where .,n,.. *. ."r.fiJ:.
u...,,.r*o*riffi'h':,.ffflI:"t
perceptible. #
--' *.u d:T:1"ffi::^r,",;::,1.o*,
urc uouloorres between *o.r. that have
the fivo are at first
,.r...i,