Bahtkin an Shoaps Response

The Utterance and Communicative Forms (Bahtkin)
"The plan of the utterance as a whole may require only one sentence for its implementation, but it may also require a large number of them," (81) Bakhtin also states that the expected number of sentences or units of language required for an utterance depend upon the type of speech genre it is. In addition to this, however, states that the study of linguistics ignore utterances because they are so varied in form, length and category. Following these statements he concludes that "speech genres appear incommensurable and unacceptable as units of speech" (81-82). Although the conclusion is a little ambiguous to me, I think Bahtkin is saying that instead of utterances being ignored, which they should not be, that speech genres should not be used as a way to define units of speech, but should be regarded as a separate category all their own.

What does Bahtkin mean when he says "Only after becoming a complete utterance does the individual sentence acquire this ability"? By ability he is referring to its ability to determine "the directly active responsive position of the speaker"(82). If this is so, why is it that sentence lack the ability to determine the next speaker in the conversation? Whether or not conversation is between one person. Bahtkin states that the reason why the sentence lacks this ability is due to the fact that the utterance within the sentence is augmented by nongrammatical aspects, changing it significantly. By this I think he is referring to the context of the speech as well as the way it was spoken and its intention. To put it simply, I am taking it that the sentence is divided as so in syntax due to the nongrammatical aspects inferred above.

The utterance is further emphasized in linguistics when it is almost described by Bahtkin as the original frame of communication forms such as sentences. He is saying that like a poet, we use specific words in context in order to bring forth an idea, actually an utterance, that was originally in mind. This goes back to what he said initially which was, the idea "that language enters life through concrete utterances, and life enters language there as well" (63). Actually, life enters language by forming the framework for the communicative unit, which is the original idea of the utterance.

Questions:
How is speech genre correlated with utterances? Do they represent the same thing?

Shoaps and Judas

One particularly notable portion of the description of Judas testament was the fact that one man referred to the text as "poetic" in its vulgarities. The reason why this is so significant to me is because of what was said in the Bahtkin article about utterances and how they shape the communicative unit much like how a poet uses words to convey the utterance using words that are only relative in that context. The diction in poetry can be used in other context and mean something else, but it is the complete utterance that is the result of communicative units in a text such as sentences and words.

How this relates to the Judas Testament is interesting because the separate pieces of gossip and misconducts of the townspeople are parts within the text, the actual message of the text, or utterance, is that these embarrassing stories are done with once they are mentioned. The actual purpose of the Testament (which appears to be catharsis of sin) represents the utterance, or is the utterance, and the personal stories are just the "sentences," (diction) as described in Bahtkin's article or merely part of the syntax that composes the true content of the speech.

In addition, the document is so effective because the authors are unknown, therefore, the text is attributed to Judas, in a type of mystical unspoken type of way.

Interesting definition
"communicative ecology" is the study of the relationships between social interactions and the way people communicate. Or another way to look at it is the way that communication of social interactions is perpetuated throughout the culture.

In response to this definition, some types of speech genres, such as the Judas Testament, simultaneously refer to "moments of speaking as well as cultural values"(465 Shoaps). In reference to the Judea Testament the "moments of speaking" are the actual, literal speech and "content" is the utterance, the reason for the text to exist.


Questions:
Is the cultural context the specific cultural values such as infidelity, human character, ect.?