‘Everyday creativity is always dialogical in Bakhtin’s sense’.
To what extent do you agree or disagree wit this perspective?
Traditional definitions of language have often categorised creative activity in the ‘canonical’ literary uses we see in artistic works. However, contemporary definitions no longer confine creativity with language to the work of the novelist or poet. It is a well argued point that the seeds of such literary language reside in what may be described, as the mundane, practical uses of ‘everyday’ talk and writing. This shift in opinion and approach to language study may be largely attributed to the work of Mikhail Bakhtin, who developed a social theory of language. Bakhtin’s main argument was that there should…show more content… For example one student switches to a different language style in order get his own back on a teacher. (2006)
Bakhtin would argue that it is exactly this responsive and addressive, dialogic nature of interaction and communication that stimulates creativity in language use, affecting the form and meaning on all levels. (2006) With this in mind, it may seem surprising that this can also be exemplified in what is ordinarily considered to be the very private activity of keeping a diary or journal. Many diaries draw considerably on literary uses of language, such as parallelism, metaphor, rhythm and imagery. Janet Maybin (2006) explains that this use of language may help to express strong emotions in a way that more prosaic language could not communicate as effectively. Maybin relates diary writing to identity work, the literacy process “..providing a kind of backstage for the self, or a launching pad for an improved self..”.(Maybin, 2006, p.264) She highlights that whilst at one level diaries provide scope for very personal and intimate thoughts, in the writings of a diary “.. there is always [..] a sense of addressing someone else”; an absent