One of the texts I was reading at that time was Lotman's (1988) "Text
within a text" (Soviet Psychology, 26(3): 32-51). He distinguishes two
functions of text: "in an overall cultural system, texts fulfill at least
two basic functions: to convey meanings adequately and to generate new
meanings" (p.34). These functions he terms the "univocal" (text as conduit)
and the "dialogic" (text as "thinking device"). He goes on to describe
the text, in the second function, as "a generator of meaning" (p.40).
Obviously, most of those who have responded are more interested in the
dialogic function. Russ Hunt evenseemed to be suggesting that this is the
_only_ function for him - or did I misunderstand? (Presumably, though, to
ask about misunderstanding is to recognize the importance of the univocal
function?)
As a teacher, I have been concerned about the appropriate balance between
these two functions in students' reading. The traditional reading lesson
(e.g. as described in Heap's "Discourse in the production of classroom
knowledge" (Curriculum Inquiry, 15(3):245-79, 1985)) is mainly concerned
with students' ability to uptake the author's meanings (the univocal
function) and this seems to continue to be the main emphasis when
students read most texts in high school. Very little attention, if any,
is given to the dialogic function - at least in the official business of
the classroom, according to the lesson extracts quoted in articles that
I have read. In the reading of "literature", on the other hand, reader
response theory has sanctioned a much greater valuing of students'
responses to what they read - sometimes, it seems, to the point where
there is little concern that they engage with what the author might have
intended.
With the M.Ed. students I teach (all full-time educators), I have noticed
that, when they are engaged in group discussion of a text, they too tend
to emphasize the dialogic function rather than the univocal. And
sometimes, I confess, it worries me that they don't seem to be too
concerned about whether or not they have understood the author's meaning.
At the same time, I am sympathetic to Russ's point that meaning is a
process and that it is therefore problematic to talk about the
author's meaning, as if it were a fixed thing that could be got from the
text. And yet, as a writer, I know that I try to construct a text so that
it will "convey [my] meanings adequately"; I also hope that my reader
will attempt to understand those meanings and respond to _them_ (rather
than to quite different ones) when dialoguing with my text.
I see I have now written myself into a state of considerable uncertainty
about the relationship between the univocal and dialogic functions. Can
anyone come to my assistance?
Gordon Wells, gwells who-is-at oise.on.ca
OISE, Toronto.