KRISTEVA POLYLOGUE PDF
June 24, 2020 | by admin
Reader Q&A. To ask other readers questions about Polylogue, please sign up. Be the first to ask a question about Polylogue. Title, Polylogue Collection “Tel Quel” · Tel quel. Author, Julia Kristeva. Publisher, Seuil, Length, pages. Export Citation, BiBTeX EndNote RefMan. In “The Ethics of Linguistics”, for France Kristeva points to Mallarmé and Artaud, . Through Bakhtin Kristeva (see Polylogue, ) shows how dialogue and.
|Published (Last):||21 September 2011|
|PDF File Size:||14.33 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.45 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
She compares the Cartesian ego, the transcendental ego theorized by Husserlian phenomenology and the self of enunciation linguistics with the doubling of the subject thematized by Freud and his theory of the unconscious.
To focus on the unconscious means to modify the object of linguistics given that it implies describing signification as a heterogeneous process.
Kristeva’s Biography & Bibliography
Beginning from such topics addressed in this framework, Kristeva reflects on poetic language considering its implications for the question of the speaking subject. Nor will it suffice, she continues, to simply add a few supplementary notions on the role of ideology in language. No doubt the concept of speaking subject needs to be questioned in light of the Cartesian subject as thematized by authors like Marx, Nietzsche and Freud cf.
The problem of the truth of discourse in linguistics requires that we verify whether there exists a correspondence between such discourse and effective speaking, that is, speaking not of the abstract speaker, but of the concrete, individual, singular speaker. The speech practice that should be its object is one in which signified structure sign, syntax, signification is defined within boundaries that can be shifted by the advent of a semiotic rhythm that no system of linguistic communication has yet been able to assimilate b: The field of language where rhythm emerges best is the poetic.
The task is not to study poetic language separately from ordinary language langage courantebut rather to reach a better understanding of how ordinary language functions. To obtain this requires that we explore the boundaries of language, its margins, those areas where language is exposed to upheaval, dissolution, and transformation: An important contribution to poetic language comes from twentieth century avant-garde movements.
For the Russian avant-garde Kristeva names Mayokovsky and Khlebnov. She perceives such an orientation in the path taken by Roman Jakobson: But all this is based first and foremost on his listening to poetic language. He reaches phonology through his studies on poetic language, rhythm, the poetic verse with a special interest for the writings of Mayakovsky and Khlebnikov.
His early studies are dedicated to both these poets. In the words of Kristeva:. To understand the real conditions needed for producing scientific models, one should listen to the story of their youth, of the aesthetic and always political battles of Russian society on the eve of the revolution and during the first years of victory, of the friendships and sensitivities that coalesced into lives and life projects.
From all this, one may perceive what initiates a science, what it stops, what deceptively ciphers its models.
Nonetheless, Kristeva claims that. Generative semantics, for example, tends to neglect such phenomena as elision, metaphor, metonym, parallelism which Jakobson experimented in his studies on biblical and Chinese verse.
She also mentions music as the material of intonation, that body in which intonation consists and takes shape. Instead of serving as the upper limits of enunciation, the sentence-meaning-significance here acts as its lower limits.
It is necessary to go beyond the sentence: The live word is never less, but always more. Kristeva points out that to rediscover the relationship with rhythm and sound means to rediscover the relationship that each speaker had with its mother, as a child and before that as an in-fant.
We might add that this approach helps recover mother sense as described by Victoria Welby see her papers on the topic collected in Petrilli In fact, in this same essay Kristeva critiques the dominant conception of the subject, of the self as it has been described through three central authors in Western philosophical reflection on the problem: Descartes, Kant and Husserl.
Once again this is a matter of the heterogeneousness that is traced in rhythms and intonations and in the glossalalias in psychotic discourse. And the examples that Kristeva gives on this account are particularly significant: To return to the question of the speaking subject, Kristeva thus points out that to correspond to this heterogeneity of language the notion of speaking subject as theorized by the sciences of language must concern the subject-in-process Ibid.: The speaking subject, dialogue, otherness, strangeness to self.
Kristeva had already turned her attention to Bakhtin earlier. This essay is also available in Italian translation in a volume entitled Michail Bachtin. Semiotica, teoria della traduzione and Marxismedited by Augusto Ponzio ; see also Bachtin e il suo Circolo In her essay, Kristeva observes that Bakhtin evidences the dynamic character of the literary text, in which literary writing is elaborated, is in becoming in relation to another structure.
The literary word emerges from dialogue among different writings, that of the writer, the receiver, the heroe or charactercurrent or antecendent cultural context, etc. Through Bakhtin Kristeva see Polylogueshows how dialogue and polyphony function in the literary text.
Dialogism characterizes writing though it is manifested to different degrees in differet literary genres. For example, by comparison to Dostoevsky, Tolstoj would seem to be a monological author.
The book was republished by Seuil in signed Julia Kristeva. The Italian translation by A. Ponzio appeared in and included an interview with Kristeva. Dominant identity is national identity that cuts across and surpasses social contradictions in the name of kriisteva superior concern: She maintained that from Plato’s time politics prescribes a common measure and in this way gives rise to a community.
The common measure is language. Linguistics, including generative transformational linguistics contributes to this krisetva by considering language as an object that can be measured, by evidencing its logical order, its character as a system, its manageability, its controllability, and all this in spite of Freud and of literary writing. The regression Kristeva registered at the polyolgue and which today is worsening is the constitution of systems that dominate practice: The polyligue inflation of national identities is pushed to closure, to monologism.
But Kristeva did not limit her discourse to national identity. She directed her critique at other forms of kriisteva in identities such as belonging and difference, or better, difference that is exclusive and excluding. Kristeva criticized the tendency to search for one’s identity in some form of system, a closed unit, organization Ibid.: A strong connection emerges in Kristeva’s work between her theoretical interests and kristevs and political commitment.
In her own words: Linguistics during the s became a guide science. This was a consequence of its functionality to the social order. To understand this we need to look at the connection between linguistics and a tradition that developed in terms of generative grammar, defined with Chomsky as Cartesian grammar. In her book ofLe language, cet inconnuKristeva outlines the field of linguistics, indicating limits, its incapacity to include and consider certain aspects of language.
These limits are due to the history itself of linguistics kirsteva of its relations to European culture, with phonocentrism, with the priority or exclusivity attributed to alphabetical writing, etc. Instead, Kristeva reserves an important place for non alphaetical writing systems in this book. Subsequently, in the years that followed, linguistics enriched its analyses with reference to reflection on language in the fields of philosophy of language and semiotics.
There is an epistemological orientation in linguistics today that to an extent can be reconducted to Kristeva among others. This epistemological orientation polyllogue developed at the same pace as the linguistics of the utterance.
Linguistics of the utterance emerges alongside linguistics of language langue and keeps kristevz of discourse as an act, and therefore of the speaker, the receiver, their explicit and implicit intentions, of the implied, the unsaid.
However, in an pollylogue with Kristeva by Ponzio, included as an introduction to the Italian edition of Le langage, cet inconnuas in other places of her writings, she observes that though there have been developments, we have not gone far on an epistemological level from a philosophical tradition that witnessed the rise of linguistics.
SEMANALYSIS AND LINGUISTICS IN JULIA KRISTEVA. LITERARY WRITING, DIALOGUE, STRANGENES
Though the linguistics of the utterance implies the notion of the subject, it does not question it nearly thoroughly enough.
To focus on the unconscious means to modify the object of linguistics given that this implies to describe signification as a heterogeneous process. Consideration of the unconscious fundamentally modifies pollogue object of linguistics leading to a description of signifying processes in terms of heterogeneity.
But Saussure had already claimed as much in his own terms, and in spite of his interpreters who searched for the system in his writings: In the second edition of Le language, cet inconnu Writing is inherent to language langagepolyloguw the phonetic plylogue can be considered as writing. Derrida responds as follows:. What in terms of Freudian theory may be identified as drives unfolding on the margins between the biological and the symbolic. The text, through its rhythm even, vehicles messages that are heterogeneous with respect to what it expresses explicitly.
This approach explains Kristeva’s dual interest for writing and psychoanalysis where the latter is developed at both a theoretical-methodological and a therapeutic level. Polyylogue and analysis both address the limit-states of language. The semiotic defers to primary processes and drives that enter into contradiction with the symbolic.
Writing thus described is associated with the semiotic in search of its verbal translation into the symbolic. Writing is a completion of the semiotic; it invests the semiotic with the word. Its value consists in enhancing the experience of polulogue, of the heterogeneous in the process of signification.
The literary text, in its very own rhythm, vehicles heterogeneous messages with respect to what it expresses explicitly. From this point of view, literary writing extends the horizon of questions about kristev.
Polylkgue these questions engage the dynamics of the speaking subject. Kristeva develops the distinction between semiotic and symbolic on the level of psychoanalysis. In analytical encounter we face the difficulties of the word or sense which testify to the difficulty of living. From this point of view, understanding the semiotic in a kriateva where it is suffocated or neutralized by the symbolic, is a way for the analyst polyylogue listen to the word of the other.
Literary writing aside, when a question of analytical listening, intonation and listening are as important as they are in writing. Soleil noir offers examples of attention, of listening toward the mad word, at a suprasegmental level of language — as the linguists would say — this is not the level of the signs of the symbolic but of the pre or trans-verbal which for Kristeva constitutes the semiotic.
Writing and Freudian analysis share the propensity for listening to the word of the other: Thanks to such practices, we escape the perspective of a civilization that no doubt has produced the rights of individual, the Human rights. But polykogue civilization is not capable of overcoming these abstractions.
Prior to recognizing human rights is recognition of the rights of singularity.
Julia Kristeva : Biography and Bibliography / Signo – Applied Semiotics Theories
Singularity manifests itself to differing degrees in two types of encounter among words, in two types of listening: We are dealing with a word that calls for listening whether a question of writing and reading a literary text or of analytical practice. According to Kristeva this is a question of the relation of hospitality and welcome.
When in Le Vieil Homme et les loups she writes that our times recall the end of the Roman empire, Kristeva as she says in her interview with A. Ponzio is not thinking only about the moral crisis, but also the loss of values in linguistics and cultural tradition characteristic of western culture. She believes that the task of intellectuals, humanists and above all of linguists and semioticians is to recover the past in order to rianimate and renew it, and certainly not to transform and deposit it in polylogud museum for the sake of identity kriwteva.