One of the ideas that I struggled with this week is in
Bahktin’s theory Discourse In The Novel.
In his work, he states, “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 instancing.” This was confusing to me
because the term “exploit” usually has a negative connotation. However, upon
realizing this I wondered why I felt the world “exploit” had a negative
connotation in the first place. What about our society feels the need to add a
negative connotation to that word. What about our collective experiences feels
the need to make us be wary of “exploit” and what it may mean for us. In Ong’s
“The author is always a fiction” Ong states that the author can only ever guess
who his reached audience will be. I found this to come into conflict with
Bakhtin’s theory of anti-signification because how can an author ever take into
account their intended audience’s experiences, which help shape, their
connotation of words. It seemed to be a lose-lose situation to me. If an author
places these fictive experiences on his intended audience, they’ll almost
always be wrong. It seems to me that we can never fully understand what the
author is intending to say based on our culture differences and how language
exploit those differences.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.