Literature as Communication and Cognition in Bakhtin and Lotman

Allan Reid

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315530277
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

This title, first published in 1990, argues for the existence of a significant connection between the theories of literature and culture of Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin (1895-1975) and Iurii Mikhailovich Lotman (1922-1993). There is general agreement in the academic or scholarly community that there is such a connection; however, it is generally held to refer to Bakhtin's influence on Lotman which he expressed late in his life. The major aim of this study, meanwhile, is to demonstrate that the critical theories of Lotman and Bakhtin are highly compatible independent of and prior to any direct influence. This title will be of interest to students of literature and literary theory.

III Literature, Language, and Linguistics

In this chapter I will examine relationships among the key notions of literature, language and linguistics in the theories of Russian formalism, Prague school structuralism, Roman Jakobson, Bakhtin, and Lotman. I will attempt to demonstrate that these are the notions which more than any others separate the theories of Bakhtin and Lotman from those of their immediate predecessors. Insofar as "logocentrism" has been characteristic of so much of twentieth-century criticism and literary theory--formalism, structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstructivism, etc.--this must be seen as a crucial area for detecting and understanding differences and similarities. The decision concerning which theoretical positions were to be examined was motivated by two primary considerations. First, both Lotman and Bakhtin made serious and significant efforts to clarify their positions and define a stance relative to Russian formalism, while the Prague school is obviously closely related to the latter. The historical-genetic and geographical link is therefore manifest. Secondly, other major traditions such as the French schools of Kristeva, Barthes, Todorov, and the deconstructivists, for example, as mentioned above, simply do not have a great deal in common with the theories of Lotman and Bakhtin. Thus a principle of exclusion applies here.

The characterization of each school or position will necessarily be somewhat general, however, it is hoped that the points of primary significance will emerge with sufficient clarity so as to illuminate the crucial differences upon which my argument rests.

III.1 Russian Formalism and the Question of Literariness

Russian formalism arose as a movement or school in the middle of the second decade of the twentieth century.¹ It was in effect a hybrid of two separate groups of young scholars, the Moscow Linguistic Society, founded in 1915, and the

(OPOIAZ), founded in St. Petersburg (Petrograd) in 1916. They considered the current state of literary studies to be, in general, unsatisfactory, especially insofar as it did not seem to be an independent field of inquiry and study.² - They perceived a need to establish a branch of learning with its own principles, methods and object of study. With this end in mind they set out to discover and establish the specificity of literature and literary studies, i.e. what they called literariness or

Current theories of literature were found seriously wanting. In particular, the young formalists rejected the popular theories of Aleksander Potebnia (1835-1891), especially his insistence on the notion of poetry as thinking in images,³ while, as Erlich points out, they owe a large and largely unacknowledged debt to his—Potebnia's--affirmation of the need to align poetry with linguistics and see it as a special form of verbal behaviour;⁴ they also took issue with the position of Aleksander Veselovskii (1838-1906), especially his genetic approach, although his recognition of the need to define a science of literature and his interest in identifying constant motifs and 'formulae' in literature were very important stimuli for the formalists;⁵ and they rejected sociological, utilitarian, and ideologically oriented theories of all varieties. At the same time it should be noted that they found the theoretical studies of Russian symbolists--which were strongly influenced by the theories of Potebnia-almost totally unacceptable, objecting in particular to the emphasis of the symbolists on inspiration, transcendentalism, the image, 'impressionism,' and so on.⁶

Under the influence of the linguistic theories of Bauduoin de Courtenay⁷ and Ferdinand de Saussure,⁸ the philosophical impetus of Husserlian phenomenology as presented especially by Gustav Spet,⁹ and to a great extent the poetic practice of Russian futurism, especially of Velimir Khlebnikov and Vladimir Maiakovskii, with whom some of the formalists had close personal contacts,¹⁰ they identified literature as a linguistic activity with a specifically aesthetic function.¹¹ In this way, they sought to rid literature of the burdens of religious, philosophical and other ideological trappings,¹² as well as relieving its study of the need to pursue causal or genetically oriented studies. Literature was seen as a specially organized linguistic activity,¹³ which was to be distinguished by its formal,¹⁴ and not its ideational or cognitive aspects. It was deemed important in this respect to study literature not in relation to other systems of ideas or other social and historical processes or series, but immanently, in terms of its own particular formal organization and linguistic functioning,¹⁵ i.e. in terms of its devices.¹⁶ It needed to be freed from its subjugation to other disciplines and interests. A colorful analogy put forward by Roman Jakobson in 1921 illustrates the formalists' view of the prevailing situation and why it was in need of being overcome.

While the so-called Formal school evolved significantly from its maximalist...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Dedication
• Original Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• I Introduction
• II The State of the Question
• III LITERATURE, LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS
• IV BAKHTIN AND LOTMAN LITERATURE AS COMMUNICATION AND COGNITION
• V CONCLUSION
• VI BIBLIOGRAPHY