Date: Fri, 03 Nov 95
From: Joan Kelly Hall (JKHALL@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU)
Subject: review, Chapter 8

Review of Chapter 8:
Cazden, C. 1993. Vygotsky, Hymes and Bakhtin: From Word to Utterance. in E. Forman, N. Minick, & C.A. Stone. Contexts for Learning. pp.197-212 New York: OUP.
Joan Kelly Hall, University of Georgia, Department of Language Education

Part One: Summary
Cazden first offers a brief comparison of Hymes and Bakhtin's perspectives on language use. This is followed by a discussion of some of the educational implications that follow from a (primarily) Bakhtinian perspective.

As a preface to the comparison, Cazden notes Vygotsky's claim that mind is socioculturally mediated by the use of semiotic systems - most especially language - which themselves are sociohistorically constituted. Unfortunately, she points out, Vygotsky does not provide units of analysis that are in Vygotsky's words "at one and the same time units of mind and units of social interaction"(p.198 from Minick, 1986, p. 122). In attempt to define such a unit Cazden looks to the work of Bakhtin and offers his term 'voice' as a possibility. 'Voice', Cazden explains, is "the person acting-that is, speaking or writing in a particular time and place to known or unknown others" (p. 198). She draws upon and compares the work of Hymes and Bakhtin (hereafter H and B) in further developing this concept.

Among the similarities , Cazden notes:
1. Both are fundamentally interested in language variation. For H it is contained in his Ethnography of Speaking paradigm and for B in his focus on speech genres and 'heteroglossia.'

2. Both argue against essentialism. They each see speech as being both structured and emergent, and the language user as being in a continual state of tension between constraint and choice.

3. Both view the process of language acquisition similarly, as a process of becoming (multi)voiced. For H we learn to appropriate and use 'ways of speaking' and for B, we take on 'utterances' which themselves are part of 'speech genres.'

Among the differences, Cazden notes:
1. While both acknowledge differential communicative competence, for H it is an issue of commanding more repertoires than others. B, in contrast, makes more visible the differential voice and competence within repertoires (that some may command more powerful voices _within_ speech genres).

2. Relatedly, for H, the process of using language in a valued community practice is seen to be consensual and relatively painless. The impossibility of assuming a voice is generally explained as the denial of access to the resources. B's notion of heteroglossia, on the other hand, makes visible the conflict involved in language use, i.e., the intrapersonal struggle one undergoes in using language and attempting to create one's own voice.

Cazden discusses several educational implications stemming from B's work. She states, for example, that his notions of voice and heteroglossia can make visible the tensions in students' use of language, and she provides several examples of their struggles in coming to terms with written academic discourse. One story tells of a student's struggle with the word 'discourse', the initial use of which for this person was like having to speak a different language. According to this student, until she felt like she bought into the meaning embedded in the word, until she owned it, she felt inhibited in her use of it.

This and other similar examples, argues Cazden, force us to confront some significant issues in teaching. If, as B claims, all language comes to us already imbued with voice, for example, and if learning another way of speaking is explained as appropriating others' discourse, i.e., making another's words our own, then what sense are we to make of the concept of "plagiarism?"

While acknowledging the tension and struggles that are inherent in language use, and in this particular case, writing academic discourse, in the end Cazden leaves the reader with optimistic belief in the individual's ability to create her own voice from the myriad possibilities. She concludes with the voice of a black woman writer who, while acknowledging the pain that taking on academic language has had for her, emphasizes the promise: "...Writing and rewriting...I came to comprehend more fully the generative power of language. I discovered...that through writing one can continually bring new selves into being, each with new responsibilities and difficulties, but also with new possibilities. Remarkable power indeed. I write to continually give birth to myself" (pp. 209-210).

Part Two: Commentary
Being an avid fan of both Hymes and Bakhtin, I read this piece with great interest and enjoyment. And while I found that much of what Cazden wrote closely paralleled my own thinking, there are a few places where we differ. I offer some very brief comments on these here in hopes of building upon and expanding the discussion she's begun.

First, I find it interesting that the concept of 'voice' was offered as a unit of analysis. In my own readings of B, I have come to favor the term 'utterance' the understanding of which includes, for me, taking into account its history (conventional meaning, typical contexts of use etc.), the locally occasioned moment of its use, and the users' social identities. The choice between 'utterance' and 'voice' is perhaps predicated by our personal and/or investigatory interests. My primary preoccupation is with understanding moments, the words by which they are created, and the consequences these have for those involved. Cazden's focus on voice seems to make the understanding of people and their personal development a more central concern.

A second comment deals with the claim made by Cazden that writing is a more self-conscious activity than speaking (p. 205). Although Cazden's statement is clearly peripheral to the purpose of the article, the claim made is of great sociopolitical importance, at least to me, as it reasserts the differential positioning of the activities of writing and talking. This is certainly not the place to go into a prolonged discussion on the sociocognitive complexities of engaging in f2f interaction. However, I suggest that it would be fruitful at some point to do so.

A final reflection centers on Cazden's underlying optimism about the individual's ability and power to revoice and thus change herself and her world through writing. Two concerns: whether and how words are made one's own is not always just a matter of individual intention or motivation. In a discussion on these matters, a doctoral student -- an 'older' black male -- pointed out to me that discourse ownership at least in the world of academics is a far more sociopolitically powerful enterprise than we sometimes let on. He said something like (I quote liberally) "Just wanting to use their words isn't enough. You have to be invited into the discourse, and if they don't want you talking their talk, you aren't going to be able to, no matter how hard you try." I agree. There are other similar concerns related to the malleability of words that are not brought up in the article. For example, some words and discourses are easier to appropriate and remake into one's own than others are, not so much due to the (un)willingness of those whose words they are, but more because of the history -- what B refers to as 'authoritative meaning' -- of use embedded within them. In talking about voicing and repositioning, these ought to given some consideration.

Secondly, as Lensmire so eloquently points out in his book _When Children Write_ (and recently reviewed here by Angel Lin), language use and discourse appropriation have an equally powerful dark side, which Cazden does not address. But Bakhtin's work does, or at least it allows us to consider it, and it may be useful for us to do so. Postscript: As a child I used to smugly taunt my neighborhood adversaries who attempted to call me names: "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Now an adult, having lived - and still living - through several wars of words, I'm struck by how naive my world view was. These days, my stance is far more cautious -- I am continually reminded (with the help of Bakhtin) that while "sticks and stones may break my bones"...words can (re)create me.