The description you quote seems to fit some of the school social
studies textbooks I have seen pretty accurately.
Gordon Wells, gwells who-is-at oise.on.ca
OISE, Toronto.
On Fri, 2 Feb 1996 BPenuel who-is-at aol.com wrote:
> Jay wrote on Feb. 1 "A text can maintain a consistent voice or frame and so
> make that frame seem to disappear, not to be 'at stake'. Or it can
> orchestrate multiple voices so that frame becomes negotiated and contingent
> and highly visible."
>
> And Ellice asked, "Can you provide some references for that position--in
> addition to Lotman? Did you find some of these ideas in Bakhtin (in his
> distinction between
> monologic and heteroglossic texts) or elsewhere?"
>
> One place Bakhtin writes about this sort of distinction is in his essay
> "Discourse in the Novel" in the Dialogic imagination, in his distinction
> between "authoritative discourse" and "innerly-persuasive discourse":
>
> "The authoritative word demands that we acknowledge it, that we make it our
> own; it binds us, quite independent of any power it might have to persuade us
> internally; we encounter it with its authority already fused to it" (Bakhtin,
> 1981, p. 342).
>
> It is quite different from the kinds of "transformative" or "dialogic"
> functions of texts that might characterize Function II in Lotman's analysis.
> In fact, authoritative discourse precludes change and play in discourse:
> "authoritative discourse permits no play with the context framing it, no play
> with its borders, no gradual and flexible transitions, no spontaneously
> creative stylizing variants on it" (1981, p. 343).
>
> Ref.
> Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). _The dialogic imagination_. Ed. M. Holquist, Trans.
> C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P.
>
> Bill Penuel
> _______________________
> PreventionInventions
> PO Box 40692
> Nashville, TN 37204
> (615) 297-5923
>
>