菲利普·罗斯,米哈伊尔·巴赫金,和对话教学法

IF 0.5 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
STYLE Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.5325/style.57.2.0141
Antonio J. Ferraro
{"title":"菲利普·罗斯,米哈伊尔·巴赫金,和对话教学法","authors":"Antonio J. Ferraro","doi":"10.5325/style.57.2.0141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"abstract:This article uses Philip Roth's final novel Nemesis to explore and challenge long-held assumptions about the incommensurability of the Bakhtinian concept of the \"dialogic\" and didactic storytelling. Many critics have traditionally dismissed didacticism as an unproductive \"monologic\" or \"univocal\" discourse in which one voice—the author's—is dominant. In this dismissal, critics contend that didacticism silences all other perspectives and restricts interpretive possibilities to craft a single moral truth. But this dismissal fails to account for the complexity and ambiguity of Bakhtin's idea of dialogism and for works like Roth's, in which the ultimate moral commitments in fact arise out of, rather in spite of, layered dialogic exchanges. Roth's narrative of a polio outbreak in 1940s New Jersey therefore not only functions effectively on its own terms but also opens up new possibilities for understanding didacticism and the unexplored formal variety of dialogism.","PeriodicalId":45300,"journal":{"name":"STYLE","volume":"57 1","pages":"141 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Philip Roth, Mikhail Bakhtin, and the Dialogic Didactic\",\"authors\":\"Antonio J. Ferraro\",\"doi\":\"10.5325/style.57.2.0141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"abstract:This article uses Philip Roth's final novel Nemesis to explore and challenge long-held assumptions about the incommensurability of the Bakhtinian concept of the \\\"dialogic\\\" and didactic storytelling. Many critics have traditionally dismissed didacticism as an unproductive \\\"monologic\\\" or \\\"univocal\\\" discourse in which one voice—the author's—is dominant. In this dismissal, critics contend that didacticism silences all other perspectives and restricts interpretive possibilities to craft a single moral truth. But this dismissal fails to account for the complexity and ambiguity of Bakhtin's idea of dialogism and for works like Roth's, in which the ultimate moral commitments in fact arise out of, rather in spite of, layered dialogic exchanges. Roth's narrative of a polio outbreak in 1940s New Jersey therefore not only functions effectively on its own terms but also opens up new possibilities for understanding didacticism and the unexplored formal variety of dialogism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"STYLE\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"141 - 162\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"STYLE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5325/style.57.2.0141\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"STYLE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/style.57.2.0141","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文运用菲利普·罗斯的最后一部小说《复仇女神》来探索和挑战长期以来关于巴赫金“对话”和说教式讲故事概念不可通约性的假设。许多评论家传统上认为说教是一种非生产性的“独白”或“单口”话语,其中一个声音——作者的声音——占主导地位。在这一驳回中,批评者认为,说教压制了所有其他观点,并限制了解释的可能性,以创造一个单一的道德真理。但这种否定并没有解释巴赫金对话思想的复杂性和模糊性,也没有解释像罗斯这样的作品,在这些作品中,最终的道德承诺实际上是从分层的对话交流中产生的,而不是尽管如此。因此,罗斯对20世纪40年代新泽西州脊髓灰质炎爆发的叙述不仅有效地发挥了作用,而且为理解说教和未经探索的正式对话开辟了新的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Philip Roth, Mikhail Bakhtin, and the Dialogic Didactic
abstract:This article uses Philip Roth's final novel Nemesis to explore and challenge long-held assumptions about the incommensurability of the Bakhtinian concept of the "dialogic" and didactic storytelling. Many critics have traditionally dismissed didacticism as an unproductive "monologic" or "univocal" discourse in which one voice—the author's—is dominant. In this dismissal, critics contend that didacticism silences all other perspectives and restricts interpretive possibilities to craft a single moral truth. But this dismissal fails to account for the complexity and ambiguity of Bakhtin's idea of dialogism and for works like Roth's, in which the ultimate moral commitments in fact arise out of, rather in spite of, layered dialogic exchanges. Roth's narrative of a polio outbreak in 1940s New Jersey therefore not only functions effectively on its own terms but also opens up new possibilities for understanding didacticism and the unexplored formal variety of dialogism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
STYLE
STYLE Multiple-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Style invites submissions that address questions of style, stylistics, and poetics, including research and theory in discourse analysis, literary and nonliterary genres, narrative, figuration, metrics, rhetorical analysis, and the pedagogy of style. Contributions may draw from such fields as literary criticism, critical theory, computational linguistics, cognitive linguistics, philosophy of language, and rhetoric and writing studies. In addition, Style publishes reviews, review-essays, surveys, interviews, translations, enumerative and annotated bibliographies, and reports on conferences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信