The Signification of Speech and Writing in the Work of Charles Dickens
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Open Research Online The Open University’s repository of research publications and other research outputs The signification of speech and writing in the work of Charles Dickens Thesis How to cite: Littlewood, Derek George (1990). The signification of speech and writing in the work of Charles Dickens. PhD thesis The Open University. For guidance on citations see FAQs. c 1989 The Author https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Version: Version of Record Link(s) to article on publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21954/ou.ro.0000dfbe Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies page. oro.open.ac.uk \h>< g 2 )52- UN 12.Es-r12.)C-TE1 n Derek George Littlevood, M.A. The Signification of Speech and Writing in the Work of Charles Dickens Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Literature Faculty of Arts The Open University July 1989 AvvAor 406118r : M1 022e, a o bare_ of Lobmt,ssi.ozt : lbGLI A arst 19 89 Late.. 05 416.10a-A : / I c).1 "3-upele._ 1190 Contents Abstract 1 References to Dickens' Works 3 Chapter 1 Language, Text and History 4 Chapter 2 Communication and Negative Linguistics 46 Chapter 3 Heteroglossia and Negative Linguistics in Dickens 73 Chapter 4 Names and Name-Calling in Dickens 154 Chapter 5 Literacy and, Writing 192 y. Chapter 6 Conclusion 259 Notes 270 Bibliography 308 EIMER DEGREES OFFIM LIBRARY AUTHORISATION FORM STUDENT: .12)--K" SERIAL NO: DEGREE: PA_D TITLE OF THESIS 1-1( S c FE-Cc A-1 --r- 6- /1\1 oF I confirm that I am willing that my thesis be made available to readers and maybe photccopied, subject to the discreticn of the Librarian. SIGNED: DATE: Tbe Open University De-7.-P:Psk.p:!Le 1-11gIner • 1 8 OC.1- i9t;0 AcK Pass to Discos.al The Signification of Speech and Writing in the Work of Charles Dickens Abstract Drawing upon the work of Mikhail Bakhtin and Jacques Derrida, this study examines the representation of speech and writing in selected novels and journalism of Charles Dickens. The initial chapter describes the differing attitudes of Bakhtin and Derrida to language, writing and literature. A purely literary history is rejected, in favour of asking socially and historically grounded questions about the workings of language in selected texts. Then, the communication model of language, proposed by Roman Jakobson is examined. The theories of Derrida and Bakhtin are probed as alternative conceptualisations of the social process of language and textuality. The Jakobsonian model of language as a code common to all is rejected, and language is seen as 'heteroglossia' a collection of diverse voices. Bakhtin's focus on dialogue and the social context of utterance is balanced by Derrida's stress on writing as a textuality in which there is no dialogue of voices. Informed by these ideas, the remaining chapters explore the diversity of languages and ways of representing speech and writing in Dickens. The social shibboleths of language, the misspellings, bad grammar, puns, misunderstandings and non- communication found in Dickens are explored. Several varieties of language are examined, thieves' cant, legal language, boxing and that of grammar itself. Each is represented and parodied by Dickens. Heteroglossia is then seen to have penetrated the most personal aspect of language, that of human names. Finally, reading and writing themselves are explored as themes within Dickens' work. The historical context of literacy in Victorian England is related to Dickens's concerns. Dickens is shown to have closely observed the transition from oral to literate culture in which writing communicates in the absence of the author. His frequently humourous ways of signifying speech and writing was also a means of social comment. References to Dickens' Works All references are indicated in the text by the abbreviated title, followed by page number, both enclosed by square brackets. Thus: [BH 11-12]. In the case of David Copperfield, Dombev and Son, Edwin Drood, Martin Chuzzlewit, Oliver Twist and The Pickwick Papers, I have used the Clarendon Dickens (Oxford, 1966 -), which is clearly the best scholarly text with critical apparatus. All other references are to the Oxford Illustrated Dickens (London and New York, 1948- 1958). While this edition lacks any indication of the provenance of the texts, and contains many minor corruptions, it is a reasonably comprehensive edition which is generally available. Further description of the editions used will be found in the bibliography. ABBREVIATIONS BR Barnaby Rudge MC Martin Chuzzlewit BH Bleak House NN Nicholas Nickleby CS Christmas Stories OCS The Old Curiosity Shop DC David Copperfield OMF Our Mutual Friend DS Dombey and Son OT Oliver Twist ED Edwin Drood PP The Pickwick Papers GE Great Expectations SB Sketches12i Boz HT Hard Times TTC A Tale of Two Cities LD Little Dorrit UT The Uncommercial Traveller 3 Chapter 1 Language, Text and History The central argument of this thesis is that theory cannot effectively be separated from practice. Any literary study, analysis or interpretation will perforce involve theoretical questions, even if these are unacknowledged. Sustained reflection on the rich language of Dickens' writings should lead to social and historically grounded questions about the workings of language, its power and authority in human life. The impetus for such a study began with considerable dissatisfaction with much of the existing work on Dickens' language and style. G. L. Brook's The Language of Dickens (1970), still the most wide-ranging of such studies, is content to catalogue the deviations of Dickens' language from the norms of standard English, with little attempt to explain either the deviations or the formation of the standard. More recent studies, for example, Robert Golding's Idiolects in Dickens (1985) continue this trend. With some notable exceptions much Dickensian scholarship remains stubbornly tied to Victorian aesthetics of realism- arrested like the stopped clock of Satis House. 1 The relations of language and consciousness have long been recognised as central to the concerns of later novelists, such as Joyce and Proust, and there is now a clear need to read Dickens in this European tradition, rather than a purely English novelist. The puns _ 4 and non-standard formations in Dickens should not be seen as childish folly or mere deviation from proper usage, but as phenomena worthy of investigation since they are involved with issues of consciousness, sexuality, identity and class. During the process of writing the present study in the latter half of the 1980's a historical turn was increasingly discernible in Anglo-American literary studies. One could plausibly argue that the dominant paradigm in literary theory, deconstruction, which flourished in the first half of the last decade, is now tempered with a new historical awareness, which has been dubbed 'New Historicism.' J. Hillis Miller's 1986 Presidential Address to the Modern Languages Association of America recognises this call to history. 2 The discovery and translation in the West of the work of Mikhail Bakhtin coincides with the demand for historically grounded literary studies that show an awareness of the workings of language. At the same time social historians are increasingly examining the role of language. A recent collection of essays The Social History of Language (1987) urges that historians should acquaint themselves with the methods of sociolinguistics. 3 There is a renewed interest in discourse in British Sociology. The influential journal Economy and Society has carried much material on Foucault and Bakhtin. 4 Undoubtedly this is a timely moment to re-examine the writing of literary history after the post- structuralist cataclysm. However one should beware of the trend towards a simplistic 'return to history' after the death of Levi-Strauss, Lacan, Barthes and Foucault and the mental breakdown of Althusser. Any return to history must 5 take account of the important reconceptualisations of language undertaken by the Parisian thinkers. Accordingly, while I share the general appreciation of Bakhtin, 5 I do not see his work as necessarily opposed in all respects to deconstruction, nor do I regard the work of Jacques Derrida as an irrationalist philosophy, or as a mere irrelevance to literary studies. 5 In the work which follows, I attempt to move between Bakhtin and Derrida, drawing upon aspects of their thought. Naturally, my account will be selective, since it is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to serve as a ground for the understanding of Dickensian linguistics which follows. Both Bakhtin and Derrida are critical of the communication model of language in which a message is sent from one autonomous human being to another. The communication model of language was set out in a famous drawing of two (male) heads in Saussure's Course in General Linguistics and elaborated in one of the most important papers describing the relations between literature and language: Roman Jakobson's 'Closing Statement' given at a conference on style held at Indiana in 1958 and published in the proceedings. I shall devote an entire chapter to the Jakobson diagram and its critique, since the issues it raises are important, perhaps nowhere more so than in studying Dickens and because the communication model, despite the work of Bakhtin and Derrida still dominates much linguistic and literary thought.7 Bakhtin, Jakobson, and Derrida all develop their thought from the matrix of German idealist philosophy. Rant, Hegel, Husserl and Heidegger are all crucial to their work, although _ 6 - each reacts against these philosophers in different ways.