Re-defining Plurality of Autonomous,Unmerged Voices and Consciousnesses in Bakhtin’s Theory of the Novel

Introduction

Bakhtin's works on novels are spread across several volumes and articles and this creates a primary issue in examining them. Bakhtin wrote most of this works between the late 1920s and early 1940s, while he was in domestic isolation and lacked access to traditional scholarly materials. Furthermore, he was politically suspicious and had little hope of his works published. Many articles and novels discussed in this paper may not always integrate as methodical works of explanation due to these unfavorable conditions. Bakhtin, not being a methodical writer, desired to develop his writings by receiving suggestions, accumulating material, and repeating identical material in several situations. Consequently, the Bakhtinian explanations regarding the novel are multifarious. All his explanations, however, share certain core viewpoints, although varying significantly in their emphasis. The present approach is not a distinct from the recommended dimension of cultural psychology. As a scientific inquiry it is rather at the intersection of several fields and sub-disciplines of psychology-such as social, developmental, psychology, philosophy, sociology, cultural anthropology, and linguistics. Collectively, the present study on Bakhtin’s Dialogism emphasizes bringing out the existence and development of self through the language of the novel and the correlation between culture and the psychology of the self. It presents the conceptualization of the psyche or the self from a modernist standpoint which implies that the self can only communicate to other entities via physical determinism. It also urges to conceptualize the scientific methods to elucidate the nature and activities of the psyche. Though dialogism has several potential ramifications for social science research, this paper intends to discuss the plurality of autonomous, unmerged multi-voices and classify consciousnesses in Bakhtin's theory of the novel.

The dialogical self-theory (e.g., Hermans, 1999), in which the self is conceived as a matter of dialogue between different I-positions; this theory has been the object of several debates inside theoretical psychology (Dimaggio et al., 2003; Raggatt, 2010; Stam, 2010); in social psychology, dialogism has been a central idea in understanding the development and change of social representations (Castro & Batel, 2008; Marková, 2003a) and in social dynamics (Grossen & Salazar Orvig, 2011; Grossen & Salazar Orvig, 2011; Jensen & Wagoner, 2009); to those in cultural psychology, the richness of this tradition and its significance within the Vygotskian heritage has been quite obvious (see Valsiner, 2007, 2009; Werstch, 1991); and for those favouring a discursive or narrative perspective, Bakhtin has also become an appealing figure (Shotter, 1993; Wortham, 2001), even when dealing with issues such as the unconscious (Burkitt, 2010). (Salgado and Clegg, 2011)

Rationale

Bakhtin identified two genres of European fiction from ancient times to present in terms of style (Bakhtin, 1997: 367–415). In the first genre, the reading of a novel is in a context born in a multidisciplinary situation. Even if it is communicative, it does not give importance to polynomial or diverse realities. The second genre emphasizes on the multi-dimensional aspects of the society. He wanted to present the discourse of others in the language of others by preserving the differences of character. Bakhtin's inclination was, however, towards the second genre. As the most important representative of this genre, his generous favor goes to Dostoevsky's novels. His assertion remained intact in Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (1929) and he asserted Dostoevsky as the inventor of the multilayered novel. The organization of Dostoevsky's novels is entirely different from that of his predecessors in the sense that the writer does not take the opportunity to say the last word while the characters can speak their terms with full and equal opportunity.

A plurality of independent and unmerged voices and consciousnesses, a genuine polyphony of fully valid voices is the chief characteristic of Dostoevsky's novels. (Bakhtin, 1997: 6).

In Dostoevsky's novels, no additional art-consciousness controls the formation and outcome of the characters. Instead, the voices of the characters and the narrators are engaged in an unfinished dialogue. It is not that failure is a symptom of different discourses of different characters. Instead, the prerequisite for the success of a multilayered novel is the reciprocity of the various discourses, where one can penetrate deeply into oneself and the other (Bakhtin, 1997: 288).

According to Dentith (1996), Bakhtin in his book Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (1929) places “Rabelais' work in the tumultuous festive life of the Renaissance carnival.” By the 1930s, however, Bakhtin had grown preoccupied with the carnival and folklore foundations of many modern forerunners of novels, and carnival elements had crept into several of his other works, including the book on Dostoevsky. It is a crucial aspect of Bakhtin's philosophy and one of the primary topics of current research. The book’s central argument, albeit in a different context in the new revision, is the idea that the polyphonic novel is devised by Dostoevsky. His works are structurally and fundamentally different than those that came before them. The narrator relinquishes the final word in favor of full and equal authority to the characters' words. The chief characteristic of Dostoevsky's novels, Bakhtin writes, is a plurality of independent and unmerged voices and consciousnesses, a genuine polyphony of fully valid voices (PDP 6). Unlike Tolstoy's writings, these works have “no ‘surplus’ of artistic vision beyond the characters' knowledge, which organizes and finally explains them” (Dentith 1995).On the one hand, the polyphonic novel must separate the implicitly authoritarian novelistic systems in which the narrator is the final authoritative figure. On the other hand, polyphony does not entail relativism and gives life to the characters' multiple discourses simply by refusing to connect with them. The conversation in the polyphonic novel is genuine only insofar as it depicts an engagement in which the psychology of the self and other discourses interpenetrate each other in various ways.

Polyphony and aesthetics

Everything that Bakhtin says about polyphony is evaluative, and the concerns highlighted in the evaluation go much beyond Dostoevsky's works alone. Polyphony is an aesthetic description that distinguishes one aesthetic item from another and serves as the basis for evaluating those aesthetic items. Problem of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (1929) provides a useful tool to identify flaws in the ideas of many other writers. In Bakhtin's peculiar tones, polyphony also reintroduces several of Plato's critical aesthetic difficulties. “Showing” rather than “telling” has been revived in the twentieth-century English criticism, like the “discursive hierarchy,” which asserts that realist novels have a hierarchical system of discourses, with the author's context of unquestionable truth. Authorship illuminates how to approach the multiculturalism that is part of postmodernist critique and how commonly experienced tensions over being faithful to oneself can be understood. (Cresswell & Baerveldt, 2011) As a consequence, the issues posed by polyphony are far-reaching. According to this theory:

To confirm someone else's “I” not as an object but as another subject—this is the foundation driving Dostoevsky's worldview. (PDP 10)

Consequently, Dostoevsky is more interested in discovering his characters than explaining them in socio-historical terms. Bakhtin's moral concerns define how novels are made, determining how Dostoevsky links nature to the narrative, or how dialogue and character speech enter the book. Dialogic relations, as Bakhtin argued

Must cloth themselves in discourse, become utterances, become the positions of various subjects expressed in discourse, in order that dialogic relationships might arise among them.(1963/1984a, p. 183)

This ethical need underpins Bakhtin's reading of Dostoevsky and polyphony in general. However, it is not the same as liberal individualism, which Bakhtin and Dostoevsky both oppose. While the fundamental moral position of a specific human being remains, that human being's awareness is absent in isolation. Individual consciousness is inter-subjective (Habermas, 1970), just as language is inter-subjective. As Bakhtin phrased it in his comments on rewriting Dostoevsky's work, a single awareness is a contradiction in words. Bakhtin writes, “A single consciousness is a contradiction in terms consciousness is in essence multiple” (PDP 288). Further, Voloshinov's concept of “inner speech” states the creation of consciousness of numerous words containing traces of many previous consciousnesses. So, rather than the myriad independent individuals of classical liberalism, Dostoevsky's writings are packed with characters whose truth derives solely through “contact with, or anticipation of, another's truth, two voices are the minimum for life, the minimum for existence” (PDP 252).

Polyphony's aesthetics has significant implications for developing a book, namely how that portion ties to the whole in any book. It is easier to think about these issues in the monophonic book's polar opposite, the polyphonic novel. To conclude a novel, the author's overarching consciousness must be able to see through and “position” the characters' consciousnesses, reconcile their conflicts, and bring them to a conclusion. These prerequisites are not satisfied in Bakhtin's polyphonic novel. In this view, the realization of work is a series of unresolved occurrences. So, instead of explaining the past, it asks the reader to ponder about the future. In this sense, Dostoevsky's works exhibit a kind of writing that refuses to accept the ultimate word.

It is an appealing explanation in many respects, both in terms of the organization of Dostoevsky's works and generalized aesthetics. It aligns with other well-known twentieth-century or modernist perspectives on the novel, which have similarly and dismissed many nineteenth-century authors' so-called objective narrative techniques. However, it is worth analyzing if this is true of Dostoevsky or any author, for that matter. Moreover, it is worth questioning whether or not it should be true; in other words, whether polyphony is as faultless as it seems. Furthermore, Bakhtin's ambivalence on this subject poses some significant problems to his idea of the dialogic (Bakhtin, 1997). The answer claims that no one voice, especially the narrator's, is given prominence throughout Dostoevsky's writings.

Monologic versus dialogic and epic versus novel

Bakhtin’s conception of dialogue has been used directly or indirectly to study a great variety of topics, such as memory (Brockmeier, 2010), symbolic resources (Gillespie & Zittoun, 2010), self-identity (Guimarães, 2010), immigration (e.g., Cresswell, 2009; O’Sullivan-Lago & de Abreu, 2010), multiculturality (König, 2009), phenomenological experience (Cunha & Gonçalves, 2009), child development (Lyra, 1999), and narrative development (Cross, 2010). At the same time, this tradition has also been influential among practitioners. Clinical psychologists have found in Bakhtin not only a way of fostering the understanding of the change process (Hermans, 1999; Dimaggio et al., 2003; Ribeiro et al., 2010; Ribeiro & Gonçalves, 2011/in press; Stiles, 1999) but also a way of fostering alternative practices (see Leiman, in press; Seikkula & Olson, 2003). Educational psychology has also been exploring dialogical processes involved in learning situations (e.g., Ligorio, 2010) and the connection between Bakhtin and Vygotsky has been highlighted by different developmental psychologists (e.g., Lyra, 1999). (Salgado and Clegg, 2011)

Bakhtin analyses the short novel in Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics (1929, demonstrating the utility of the analyses offered by his theory of novelistic discourse. In this domain of double-voiced discourses, some of the most exciting problems are addressed by Bakhtinian criticism that relate the most minute local analysis of prose to the most fundamental aesthetic difficulties. These debates center on how different styles of double-voiced speech indicate narrative authority beyond the character. It enables the reader to take a position of confident knowledge independent of the character whose speech marks an ironical projection. So, parody and other types of irony may be the local forms of speech that ensure only one kind of speech are monologic. Different sorts of double-voiced discourse, on the other hand, create a far more incredible feeling of disquiet in the reader since the reader can see that the character's remarks are dialogized and have no ultimate authority. Still, they cannot identify the point from where the dialogization emanates. There is no steady position of knowledge in this circumstance and no secure resting area from which to evaluate the word, attitude, or thinking. These are some of the most well-known impacts of modernist literature. Still, Bakhtin's contribution is that he places them in the concrete connections that govern author, character, and interlocutor, rather than some ideological concept of “textuality” (as some forms of post-structuralism do).

At the junction of psychology of the self and the dialogical school of Mikhail Bakhtin, the suggested approach questions the notions of a basic, fundamental self and culture.

In apparent contradiction with such a view, the present viewpoint proposes to conceive self and culture as a multiplicity of positions among which dialogical relationships can be established. Particular attention is paid to collective voices, domination and asymmetry of social relations, and embodied forms of dialogue. Cultures and selves are seen as moving and mixing and as increasingly sensitive to travel and translocality. (Hermans, 1999)

When looking at passages in Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, one can detect a similar change in Marxism and Philosophy of Languages from Voloshinov's linguistics. Bakhtin analyzes language in his essay “Discourse in the Novel.” The use of language's inter-subjectivity appropriately denotes the sociality of speech in both contexts. On the contrary, a more substantive socio-historical analysis shows that speakers of the word are socially defined in terms of social status, generation, occupation, and area, whether in life or art. It is partly due to Bakhtin's efforts to divert attention away from Dostoevsky, who, of all the great nineteenth-century Russian writers, is possibly the least concerned in setting his characters in social and historical contexts. However, this change in emphasis is indicative of a more significant movement, one that may have occurred from Bakhtin's whole career of underground conflict (“hidden polemic”) with Marxism. These essays, on the contrary, are currently collected in English in The Dialogic Imagination (1981). They do not constitute a coherent framework, and instead, give numerous histories of the novel's narrative while simultaneously pointing to diverse aesthetic emphases.

Dialogic relationships, therefore, are extralinguistic. But at the same time, they are not to be separated from the realm of discourse, that is, from language as a concrete integral phenomenon. . . These relationships lie in the realm of discourse, for discourse is by its very nature dialogic; they must therefore be studied by metalinguistics, which exceeds the limits of linguistics [as the science of the structure of speech] and has its own independent subject matter and tasks. (Bakhtin, 1997/1984a, p. 183, original emphasis)

Bakhtin presents the notion of “metalinguistic” and “extra-linguistic” dialogue in the following manner:

Dialogic relationships are a much broader phenomenon than mere rejoinders in dialogue, laid out compositionally in the text; they are an almost universal phenomenon, permeating all human speech and all relationships and manifestations of human life – in general, everything that has meaning and significance. (1963/1984a, p. 40)

Bakhtin makes several startling and contentious differences between the poetry and the novel. Epic and Novel (1941) shows that the novel's linguistic and stylistic variety and accessibility to the contemporary world contrast with epic poetry's exalted monologic style and concentration with the past. Its ongoing polemics with fixed genres that seek to fix and monologize the phrase characterize it as an anti-genre. So we have another axis of divergence, pitting the epic—elevated, aesthetically immovable, devoid of laughter. For this discussion, monoglossic and heteroglossic languages refer to the historical and social processes that unite and divide a language.

The novel has unquestionably supplanted the epic as the most representative contemporary genre. The dilemma remains for individuals like Homer or Milton; the compelling feature of an essay like “Epic and Novel” is its substantive historical aspect, which situates the history of nations in the same way as that of the development of language. Indeed, in history the epic is one of those forces connected with the power of language. The epic had been the best embodiment of ancient literary traditions for a long time. Essentially the epic has three primary characteristics:

1. The subject of the epic is the national past.

It is interesting to see that memory, not experience, was the source of creative inspiration in ancient writing, particularly epics. The tradition is immutable—sacred. It has no scope for change. The subject of epic is absolute past, sacred national memory, and its language is also traditional. In contrast, the novel is a product of experience, knowledge, and future life.

The three characteristics of the epic are mainly relevant to various ancient and medieval literary genres, which, however, do not have much in common. Even if current events or people are acknowledged, they present the certainty of the past. The sphere of the novel, on the other hand, is a genuine, unpredictable current reality that may mix diverse levels of experience, language, ideology, and many different types of views. There are numerous non-literary aspects in the partnership at this meeting point—everyday life and diverse ideological elements—for instance, moral confessions, philosophical essays, political manifestos, and other works. During its growth, the novel was getting its hands on such non-literary forms of personal and societal reality. The next stage was to employ letters, diaries, confessions, and court declarations, among other things.

Literature and non-literary works and definitions of diverse genres of literature emerge from a unique historical context. Change occurs as part of a more significant societal shift, and several forms are defined. The novel, as an evolving form, captures change better than any other form. For the same reason, the novel's movement might anticipate the uncertain future of literature. The character is the finest example of this transformation. In an epic or a tragedy, the individual who is determined as the protagonist is the wellspring of all talents and skills from the beginning, and is also able to make the most of them. His sense of view reflects that of his people. His objective is perfection. He does not even need to conduct an ideological–ideological quest. The epic universe is a single coherent worldview. It is similar for the poet, the audience, and the protagonist. These qualities characterize tremendous beauty, perfection, clarity, and creative excellence, like other literary genres from the distant past. They, however, are unable to recognize the transformed human life and experience.

The narrative of novels begins to take form only when the epic loses its accuracy. When the world has adopted the well-known comic style, and a literary–artistic entity has dropped to the level of modern reality, the reality wants to include everything. The novel has evolved into a responsive picture of daily life rather than a distant past image. Individual experience and unfettered creative imagination are at the center of the novel. From the outset, the novel is a lump of dirt unlike any other literary form—a distinct type of seedbed from which all future writing will sprout.

By digging into Rabelais' chronotope, Bakhtin brings to a close his investigation of various chronotopes. According to more recent publications, variations in the chronotope, or people's fundamental concepts of time and space, are explained by historical changes in their way of life. In his article “Dialogic Imagination,” Bakhtin devotes a significant portion to the Rabelaisian chronotope, which he views as rooted in folklore ideas of time. This idea of time, which Bakhtin characterizes as the “pre-class, agricultural stage in the development of human society” (DI 206), is inherently generative, producing, and dissolving in nature's creative forces. In response to the dissolution of medieval society, Rabelais rediscovers this chronotope. It performs like the foundation for extraordinarily grotesque images. However, elements of this chronotope, which arises from the earliest reaches of social existence as it is existent to us in writing, are present in reduced and shortened forms throughout the historical record of the novel after Rabelais. The history of class society links inextricably to these shifts.

Unmerged voices: humor/laughter, consciousness

The novel originated in this particular era of European language history. Humor and heteroglossia paved the way for modern novels. The origin of the novel is not just a matter of literary style; it is not a matter of fighting literary tendencies or abstract outlook on life. It is a reminder of the complex battle of culture and language for centuries. As the novel is still evolving, its possibilities have not been exhausted. Most literary forms, such as epics or tragedies, are not only archaic but also archeological. Most of these have appeared and developed writing styles before the advent of books. Before modern times, they fixed their form. The novel is the only exception. Other literary forms are like static language. Novel reading is not just a living language; it is a language that is still young.

The new age adapted to the rewritten forms of old literary tradition. For example, other literary forms have also been dialogized and laughter and jokes have been added. Most importantly, under the influence of the novel, these literary forms have been given an “indeterminate” feature, where meanings are not confined and the contemporary reality—an ongoing reality that has not yet come to an end—has been accepted. In this quest to become the leading literary form of the age, novels have renewed all other states, especially in their writing process and reality assimilation. However, academic historians have narrowed the battle between the novel and the literary form developed in antiquity by tagging them as “genre” or “trend.”

There are no such specific rules and regulations of the novel. Due to its characteristics, it is not particular to the custom. The novel is ever-observable. It tests itself and puts any of its established traditions to the test. There is no substitute for a literary form having direct relation to the evolving reality. As a result, the novelization of other literary forms does not mean being under a different category of the novel; instead, being novel liberates them from their statutory origins, from the features that kept them isolated from the current era.

The novel's elements continued to be present from the distant past. However, other forms did not develop due to weaker ancient and contemporary senses regarding society. The novel presents both; the continuity of the former and the starting of a new thing. The present manifests human consciousness that begins to feel more intimacy and kinship with the future than epic as the most representative contemporary genre the past.

Bakhtin appreciates the novel for representing the heteroglossia—human life of different levels of society. According to Bakhtin, the two most essential elements practiced in ancient times were laughter and polyglossia. Parody has existed since time immemorial. Greek comics such as Odysseus and Hercules prove that humorous or satirical representations of national mythology were not forbidden or punishable. Direct discourses, such as epics, tragedies, lyric poems, or philosophical compositions were parodied. This essential paradox proves that direct discourses are one-sided, closed, and unable to express the subject endlessly.

Medieval parody, humor, and carnival dams are as diverse in number as they are in style. It is clear from the signs that they also had social acceptance. During the decline of the Middle Ages, such writings practically broke down the existing walls of tradition. During the Renaissance, the bilingual status of the old scriptural language and spoken language also came to an end. This genre got accomplishment in the works of the great Renaissance writers Rabelais and Cervantes. Scattered elements of the novel have been practiced since the Middle Ages or even earlier. The writings of these two were used together to the ultimate extent, and a new linguistic–literary consciousness was born. In the Renaissance era, innumerable compositions in mixed language became the vehicle of the newly awakened public consciousness and vision. Written in a mixture of Latin and colloquial speech, these writings presented a new reality and a product of the age-conscious effort. They prove that language and perspective are inseparable. Further, their respective languages could only depict the old and the new world. It is a moment when ancient and contemporary languages faced each other. However, the passage to the next step was not possible in the dialogue of abstract reasoning, not even in the dramatic dialogue. It was possible only in the complex dialogue hybridization.

In this way, the searching for the novel takes place much earlier than how scholars view in the history of literature. Bakhtin at least went as far as the ancient Greeks. He almost proved Socrates as the mastermind of dramatic dialogue, thus the first novelist, as the novel does more or less the same thing. Bakhtin's keen interest in unconventional forms such as confessions, utopia, letters, Menippean satire is also due to the assimilation of the dialogue. In modern dramas or long poems, he sees only disguised novels. Due to the anti-literary nature of the novel, these old established forms have lost their purity and have become “novel.”

This aesthetics of pluralism is also crucial for the composition of the novel. In the monologue, the writer determines the character's consciousness and, in the end, decides who will win. The author's authority thus determines the final word. According to Bakhtin, Dostoevsky's novels do not contain such conclusions. The novel's author does not take responsibility for directing any solution to the existing conflict. It is open to the future, not the past. Thus, Dostoevsky also rejected the dialectical method, because, in this way, the conflict is presented only for the final solution. It is a feature of the monologue novel. To illustrate this point, Bakhtin differentiates between the novelist Dostoevsky and the journalist–intellectual Dostoevsky (Dentith, 1996: 45).

Elsewhere, he uses Pushkin's Eugene Onegin (Bakhtin, 1997: 48–49) as a model for the novel, saying that different languages ​​and genres coexist in the novel and, that is why, one cannot narrow down the novel's language on a single plane or a line. Instead, it is a field where intersecting surfaces or lines coexist, termed heterogeneous linguistic and stylistic forms. It is not easy to find a word in Onegin used directly as the author's word. It does not rule out the possibility of ideological control in the fiction.

Belinsky considered Pushkin's novel in “the encyclopedia of Russian life” (The Russian Review, 1989). In his novels, Russian lives speak in all tones, in all languages ​​and styles of the age. The novel does not prefer such literary language, which is linear or complete or non-controversial. Instead, the language of a novel is a mixture of contradictory tones. The voices gradually build themselves up and innovate each other. In this, the language of the writer is constantly fighting. This struggle is for liberation from the “literature” of the dying language of the epoch-making movement: the struggle to innovate oneself by absorbing vitality from the language introduced by the people. It is not a vile conflict between the vernacular and the established language. There are different levels of the literary language of Pushkin's novel such as the everyday language or those from various literary forms. It has given a new life to the language of the current fashion. One language has enlivened the other by becoming one with the other. Different types of languages ​​are not separate from the respective life perspectives. The man who thinks, speaks, and acts has socio-historical embedment. In terms of style, in the novel, we find the complex structure of the language of the age and the diversity of life-complexity in the dialogical text, where different “languages” or “tones” also maintain their distinct positions from the novel's aesthetic focus. The same is true of all novels like Onegin's.

“Discourse in the Novel,” a collection of articles by Bakhtin (and Voloshinov) from the 1930s and early 1940s, illustrates the deepest and wealthiest links of both Bakhtin and Voloshinov from their perspective of linguistics and the novel. Like the chronotope essay, this one is not an essay but a little book that serves many purposes. In this story, the notion of “heteroglossia” is fully developed, and it starts to constitute an essential role in the novel's aesthetics. In conclusion, the novel emerges as the most effective form for exploiting language's heteroglossic tendencies, and the words novelistic and heteroglossic become synonymous. Bakhtin examines specific passages from novels to explain how the many varieties of double-voiced speech they provide emerge from their heteroglossic roots. Nevertheless, like Dostoevsky's discourse typology, this is much more than a collection of neutral categories that allow undertaking stylistics in a new way. Bakhtin sees the novel not only as fluid, linguistically diverse, and anti-dogmatic but also as a relativizing and dialogistic form representing the power of language.

One method to recognize a “polyphonic” novel from the way it appears in the chapter of “Discourse in the Novel” is to observe how the status of the characters' word changes. The character assumes the role of a language carrier, one of the many languages vying for recognition for a national language. Consequently, characters and their languages are dragged into the active conflict that characterizes linguistic competition in every heteroglossia. Bakhtin expresses it as follows:

The novel can be defined as a diversity of social speech types (sometimes even diversity of languages) and a diversity of individual voices, artistically organized (262). And those compositional unities help heteroglossia enter the novel: “These distinctive links and interrelationships between utterances and languages, this movement of the theme through different languages and speech types, its dispersion into the rivulets and droplets of social heteroglossia, its dialogization–this is the basic distinguishing features of the stylistics of the novel” (DI 263).

The novel best utilizes heteroglossia. Bakhtin may use this as an opportunity to contrast novels with other forms of writing. An example of non-artistic prose is like scholarly writing, like everyday contentions. It is not that such forms are not dialogized; they must engage in language's countless and conflictual back and forths. To engage in a language's life, they must be outwardly dialogized. However, the book is also dialogized, with the dialogization occurring inside the novel's discourse. Unlike the inert and given dialogization of strictly poetry genres, the novel actively and creatively lives the already dialogized word.

In a fascinating passage from “Discourse in the Novel,” Bakhtin approaches these issues from the perspective of the individual's own “ideological becoming,” or, to use more common terminology, the growth of the individual's belief system. Authoritative speech, like taboo, seeks to withdraw from the discussion, creating an impenetrable area. Bakhtin's favorite example is religious dogma, although authoritative scientific truth or political dogmas are also exemplified. Unlike internally persuasive speech, which is always renegotiated, fluxed, and extended, such discourse can only enter consciousness entirely. By bringing these many words into touch, they totally become one's own, albeit never entirely and so always staying, in some sense, double-voiced. “These forces are the forces that serve to unity and centralize the verbal-ideological world” (Bakhtin, 1997: 270).

No living word has a singular relationship to the object: the “other” ranges widely between the word and the object and between the word and the person who utters it. There are other words related to the same object. There are different semantic tensions or tendencies. When an utterance refers to something, the indicated object or subject is not found as a value or quality-neutral subject. It is already marked in various ways, and as a result, pointing to a pronounced instruction that engages in a dialogue with several ideas already related to that instruction. Some of it is excluded, some are accepted as helpful, and some may coexist. That is to say, every utterance is compelled to take part in a continuum of innumerable dialogues existing in a particular historical–ideological reality. Continuation or addition of ongoing dialogue is not possible in a neutral position:

Every word is directed toward an answer and cannot escape the profound influence of the answering word that it anticipates. Such is the situation in any living dialogue. (Bakhtin, 1997: 280)

When language is used in literature, it becomes a distinct dialect. Its format is different. The way different languages ​​are interconnected is not similar. Bakhtin explained the matter with an example. A farmer in the village uses several languages: of his prayers, of songs, of worldly conversation, of writing letters to the authorities. He uses these without mixing. He is not particularly careful when using it separately. When the language is used as the national literary language, transformation occurs. In the case of poetry, this transformation takes place so that the poet can use one of the words or the language of that farmer; but he will use it to distinguish it from the real perspective. The word can also warn us about the original perspective through poetry, as the poet's discourse. The more practical success can distinguish the “real” perspective. It is mainly true in the case of poetry because of the dedication to rhyme. Novels and other prose essays value the real perspective or moment of utterance more. Words are presented there as the utterance of the person speaking. It is, according to Bakhtin, the primary basis of the novel.

Conclusion

The novel is an artistic text of various social and personal utterances. National languages ​​include social dialects, group languages, professional linguistic currencies, and different literary forms. It incorporates languages ​​of different generations, purposeful languages, languages ​​of authority, current languages, various forms of fashion, and languages of every day and even every hour. The language was created for a socio-political purpose—all such language levels of the special moment are elements of the novel. Preserving the various verbal variations created in a particular moment ensures different personal pronunciation levels. The novel adjusts to those variations by marking the whole world of its desired subject matter. The author's words, the words of the narrators, the various literary forms embodied, and the characters' pronunciation are the basic structural elements of the novel, in which heteroglossia is maintained. Each of these elements ensures the presence and interrelationship of diverse social tones. Each part is more or less dialogized. Distinguished connections and interrelationships between pronunciation and language, cultural nuances of self and identity, thematic links between different languages ​​and accents, transmission of diverse branches of social heteroglossia, and communicative features are the main features of the novel.

The fundamental condition that which makes a novel a novel, that which is responsible for its stylistic uniqueness, is the speaking person and his discourse. (Bakhtin, 1997)