Book Review| November 01 2018 Review: Mikhail Bakhtin: Rhetoric, Poetics, Dialogics, Rhetoricality, by Bialostosky, Don Bialostosky, Don. Mikhail Bakhtin: Rhetoric, Poetics, Dialogics, Rhetoricality. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, LLC, 2016. 191 pp. ISBN 9781602357259 Frank Farmer Frank Farmer Frank Farmer English Department, The University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas 66045 USA farmerf@ku.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2018) 36 (4): 434–437. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.4.434 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Frank Farmer; Review: Mikhail Bakhtin: Rhetoric, Poetics, Dialogics, Rhetoricality, by Bialostosky, Don. Rhetorica 1 November 2018; 36 (4): 434–437. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.4.434 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2018 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints.2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

434 RHETORICA The conclusion of this work is quite substantive. Zali takes up the question of Herodotus' authority as an author as it has been positioned and debated by scholars. He brings in the question of the extent to which Bakhtin's theory of dialogism can inform our understanding of Herotodus and the openness or closedness of the work for the reader. Zali presents and supports the view that Herodotus constructed an open text for readers through the strategic inclusion of Greek and Persian voices in multiple forms. That is, the Histories persistently calls the reader into conversation with historical figures and events. In addition, Zali places his study of the Histories in the context of the recent scholarly trend of interpreting the text metahistorically. Zali sees his treatment of Herodotus as consistent with this interpretive trend and even pushing that trend further in terms of its eluci­ dation of Herodotus' "stance towards current oratorical practices, for his method of writing history, and for how readers are supposed to approach his work" (312). While this is already a lengthy study, the effort would have been stronger had the author better and more fully situated the main study within contemporary and historical studies of Herodotus. More specifi­ cally, given that the author's main claim concerns the significance of Herodotus' Histories in the development of rhetoric in the 5th Century, this work needed to situate the reader within the extensive scholarship of this development which has been generated over the last several decades in the fields of Rhetoric, English, Philosophy, and Communication Studies. Nevertheless, I enjoyed this meticulous and well-presented study of Hero­ dotus and the argument made concerning its role in the development of rhetoric, and I highly recommend it to others. David M. Timmerman Carthage College Bialostosky, Don. Mikhail Bakhtin: Rhetoric, Poetics, Dialogics, Rheto­ rically. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, LLC, 2016. 191 pp. ISBN 9781602357259 In the centerpiece essay to the collection entitled Speech Genres & Other Late Essays, Mikhail Bakhtin takes upon himself the task of distinguishing between linguistics and metalinguistics. To illuminate this distinction, he argues that linguistics is best exemplified by the sentence, and that metalin­ guistics is best exemplified by the utterance. Bakhtin then proceeds to cata­ logue the differences between these two units of analysis, and it is clear that his interests lie with the latter. In charting out these differences, Bakhtin makes a claim that is particularly germane to the work reviewed here— namely, that while the sentence is endlessly repeatable (because as decontextualized linguistic matter," it neither answers nor addresses anyone), Reviews 435 the utterance, being thoroughly situated in dialogic contexts, can never be repeated. It is in this sense that Don Bialostosky's Mikhail Bakhtin: Rhetoric, Poet­ ics, Dialogics, Rhetoricalitp ought to be regarded—that is, as a gathering of utterances, published at various junctures over the course of a distinguished career by one of the pre-eminent Bakhtin scholars in literary and rhetorical studies. As utterances, these essays are addressed to varied and specific audiences, in diverse scholarly contexts, in response to what others have said and in anticipation of what still others may yet say. If Bakhtin is right, even though all of these utterances (save one) have been previously publis­ hed, each may be considered simultaneously old and new. It is not possible, then, to read or hear these essays in the same way they were received at the time of their original publication, but it is possible to hear them as newly uttered, as saying something different in the context in which they are now reread, or heard again. I want to complicate things a bit more. Instead of looking upon this collection as a gathering of juxtaposed utterances, what if it were to be regarded an utterance in its own right? In fact, the author anticipates this possibility, and indeed, desires that his collection be read this way. At the close of his introduction, Bialostosky says of his earlier essays that they "stand here as a whole utterance re-articulated by my arrangement and re-affirmation of them." It is up to readers, those co-constitutive "outsi­ ders," to bring to them what they will (15). As...

In reading through Bruce Horner’s Rewriting Composition: Terms of Exchange, it occurred to me that an entire history of our field could be written through our unceasing attempts to explain ourselve...

This article examines the dialectical nature of Mikhail Bakhtin’s developmental understanding of language learning. In particular, the author discusses the pedagogically illuminating relationship between literary style and everyday style, especially as the latter emerges from and returns to lived life. Drawing parallels with other related oppositions, such as Vygotsky’s spontaneous and scientific concepts, as well as Bakhtin’s early antithesis of life and art, the author emphasizes Bakhtin’s interest in relational (dialogical) rather than formal understandings of grammar, style, and literature. The author concludes with three possible implications of Bakhtin’s pedagogical essay for writing teachers: (a) that we acknowledge the creative expression already present in the everyday speech of our students, (b) that we reconsider the specifically dialogical use of linguistic and literary models, and (c) that we attend to the performative aspect of style and the teaching of style.

The three authors writing on Bakhtin’s essay, “Dialogic Origin and Dialogic Pedagogy of Grammar”—Farmer, Halasek, and Williams—respond to one another, and Bazerman provides a summative comment in the paragraphs that follow. The responses explore further some of Bakhtin’s thoughts concerning rhetoric and its relation to stylistics and his use of the concept of hero as a grammatical category. The discussion of Bakhtin leads to more general questions of the relation between spontaneous utterance and situationality and the implications for the possibility of a systematic grammar of style. Nonetheless, the commentators agree on Bakhtin’s explicit pedagogy and the interanimation of everyday speech with literary examples. The editor’s final comment notes a tension that informs all these responses, that is, between explicit teaching, on one hand, and avoiding formulaic writing, on the other. Bakhtin’s changing view of the relation of dialectics and dialogue is discussed as well.

Contents: Part I:Theory, Language, Rhetoric. C. Schuster, Mikhail Bakhtin as Rhetorical Theorist (1985). R.A. Harris, Bakhtin, Phaedrus, and the Geometry of Rhetoric (1988). J. Klancher, Bakhtin's Rhetoric (1989). T. Kent, Hermeneutics and Genre: Bakhtin and the Problem of Communicative Interaction (1991). K. Halasek, Feminism and Bakhtin: Dialogic Reading in the Academy (1992). M. Bernard-Donals, Mikhail Bakhtin: Between Phenomenology and Marxism (1994). M. Cooper, Dialogic Learning Across Disciplines (1994). K. Halasek, M. Bernard-Donals, D. Bialostosky, J.T. Zebroski, Bakhtin and Rhetorical Criticism: A Symposium (1992). Part II:Composition Studies, Pedagogy, Research. J.S. Ritchie, Beginning Writers: Diverse Voices and Individual Identity (1989). J.J. Comprone, Textual Perspectives on Collaborative Learning: Dialogic Literacy and Written Texts in Composition Classrooms (1989). G.A. Cross, A Bakhtinian Exploration of Factors Affecting the Collaborative Writing of an Executive Letter of an Annual Report (1990). D.H. Bialostosky, Liberal Education, Writing, and the Dialogic Self (1991). T. Recchio, A Bakhtinian Reading of Student Writing (1991). M. Middendorf, Bakhtin and the Dialogic Writing Class (1992). N. Welch, One Student's Many Voices: Reading, Writing, and Responding With Bakhtin (1993). H.R. Ewald, Waiting for Answerability: Bakhtin and Composition Studies (1993).

I began this essay by setting forth a problem that too often, I believe, accompanies a cultural studies approach to writing instruction-namely, the perception among students that cultural critique is a privileged, elitist mode of inquiry, one that is largely indifferent to, if not contemptuous of, those it presumably seeks to enlighten or liberate. I then argued that a dialogic, specifically Bakhtinian approach to response could help us address this problem, and offered a discussion of how two Bakhtinian concepts-anacrisis and the superaddressee-might be applied to our writing classrooms. Underlying what I have attempted here is my belief that cultural critique needs dialogue to restrain its tendencies for authoritarian pronouncements, for "last word" truisms and disabling certainties… . (Farmer 204).

Preview this article: Comment & Response, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/55/5/collegeenglish9298-1.gif

Preview this article: Reviews, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/40/4/collegecompositionandcommunication11116-1.gif