Summary:
In Vološinov’s book, he first establishes that ideology is intricately connected to language and that they influence one another (9). Then he uses the first chapter to set up definitions or fluid understandings of core concepts, such as sign, tool, consumer goods, consciousness, word, and inner speech. From here he argues how words influence ideology when he says, “The word is the medium in which occur the slow quantitative accretions of those changes which have not yet achieved the staus of a new ideological quality, not yet produced a new and fully-fledged ideological form” (19). In addition, ideologies affect words and their context and meaning. Thus, as he claims that “Existence reflected in sign is not merely reflected but refracted. … Sign becomes an area of the class struggle” (23). These signs can occur as both inner and outer signs, and they continue to interact throughout life, but consciousness is connected to the inner signs (33). Response:“Each word, as we know, is a little arena for the clash and criss-crossing of differently oriented social accents. A word in the mouth of a particular individual person is a product of the living interaction of social forces” (41). This quotation was one that I kept coming back to because it encapsulates so many of the new ideas to me Vološinov introduces. I can see what he means when he compares a word to an arena, where meanings collide and people who have different contexts and stakes in the word’s mean want their interpretation of the word to win. Or that they assume when they speak a word that their meaning is the one being conveyed in the arena. In some ways this analogy makes sense when people argue; for example, with the debate around marriage and who should be able to marry whom. Sometimes it is clear that a person is arguing for the meaning of the word (like “marriage”), or arguing for a change of the meaning of the word. Other times a person is arguing not for the meaning, because he or she presumes that the definition is one they both agree on, but he or she is arguing about the ideology behind the meaning of the word as he or she uses it. Neither one can understand the other because although they are using the same word, the ideology connected to the word is different. It is almost like they are speaking different languages that share a common word. There doesn’t seem a discussion about language and ideology, so they just keep shouting at each other in the arena, fighting so that their meaning is preserved or the cultural winner. Connections/Questions:As I alluded to in the summary, it seems to make sense when he claims that the words we use have different connotations depending upon the context that use use them in. A simple example of this is when I moved here and would order a pop, waiters would ask if I wanted a Coke. The first few times I thought that these restaurants only supported Coca-cola, until I saw someone else get a Pepsi and realized that Coke was the common name for pop. This suddenly opened up beverage choices for me. So when Vološinov writes about how ideologies affect our words and vice versa, I started to see how the words we use or do not use can have an impact beyond just the variety of vocabulary, but it can influence accessibility in a culture as well. After reading this, I’m curious as to why the ideology of Marxism is referenced in the title, but it didn’t seem as closely discussed in the text. I’m wondering if this is connected to historical period and place that Vološinov is writing in. Part three felt quite different from the previous sections, and I’m wondering how that section would have been read in the context of his originally intended audience (i.e. someone who knows Russian, and or French). |
Quotations:“Existence reflected in sign is not merely reflected but refracted.… Sign becomes an area of the class struggle” (23). “We repeat: every outer ideological sign, of whatever kind, is engulfed in and washed over by inner signs—by the consciousness. The outer sign originates from this sea of inner signs and continues to abide there, since its life is a process of renewal as something to be understood, experienced, and assimilated, i.e., its life consists in its being engaged ever anew into the inner context” (33). “Each word, as we know, is a little arena for the clash and criss-crossing of differently oriented social accents. A word in the mouth of a particular individual person is a product of the living interaction of social forces” (41). “Each person’s inner world and thought has its stabilized social audience that comprises the environment in which reasons, motives, values, and so on are fashioned” (86). “Moreover, it is even impossible to convey the meaning of a particular word (say, in the course of teaching another person a foreign language) without having made it an element of theme, i.e., without having constructed and “example” utterance. On the other hand, a theme must base itself on some kind of fixity of meaning; otherwise it loses its connection with what came before and what comes after—i.e., it altogether loses its significance” (100). |
