Passage

(1)Representation

1．Representation is the most traditional term used to refer to symbols(words，pictures，musical notes)invented by humans to stand for or represent real-world things．It is a classical construct derived from aesthetics—the criticism of art objects．Aristotle applied the term to the symbol systems of verbal(and，by implication，musical and visual)art，considered the repository of determinate or finite meaning．The values of accuracy(Aristotle's“imitation of life”)，fixed meaning，and universally correct comprehension stem from the classical assumption that human superiority resides in the ability to devise，manipulate，and understandsymbols．Aristotlepraisedsymbol-creationasthe characteristic that distinguishes humans from lower animals:“From childhood，men have an instinct for representation，and in this respect man differs from the other animals in that he is far more imitative and learns his first lessons by representing things”(Poetics^[1]，Ⅳ:2)．From classical times to the modern era，the language of representation dominated the scientific tradition of rationalism，which presumes that accurate representation gives rise to universal and singular meaning．Modern literary criticism，notably that of the American New Critics and the Russian formalists^[2]，follows this tradition．

2．The time-honored legacy of representation as a foundational concept facilitates its adaptation to disciplines other than aesthetics，including semiotics and political theory．In the latter，the notion of symbolic representation(things that stand for other things)is extended to political representation(peoplewhoactforotherpeople)．Although representation is“an extremely elastic notion which extends all the way from a stone representing a man to a novel representing a day in the life of several Dubliners”，its use is often limited to language．

(2)Discourse

1．Discourse is fundamentally antithetical to“representation”．Whereas the latter treats a verbal outcome as a closed product(a“work”or“object”)，the former treats it as an open process．Since the 1970s，when“discourse analysis”became influential in the social sciences，the term has been used to refer to language as an open-ended dynamic interaction among speakers(or writers)and listeners(or readers)in situation-specific contexts．However，poststructuralists^[3]use“discourse”more broadly as a generic referent to all communicative events in life and art rather than more narrowly as a specific referent to spoken interchanges between literary characters．Generalized usage rests on the postmodern blurring of boundaries between literature and non-literature，between one medium and another，and between one set of genre conventions and another．Blurring challenges such modernist hierarchies as the superiority of art versus science，of literary discourse versus nonliterary discourse，and of poetry versus prose．

2．Postmodern critics expose the implicit empowerment in hierarchical ranking and use“discourse”as a synonym for the power struggle encapsulated in the fluidity of language-in-use．Language is viewed as the expression of“linkages between power，knowledge，institutions，intellectuals，the control of populations，and the modern state as these intersect in the functions of systems of thought”．These linkages are arenas of conflict among various parties jockeying for power，which is always beingnegotiatedandrenegotiated．Inpostmodernwork，“discourse”is the term of choice to describe communication that is fluid rather than fixed—an ensemble of voices，attitudes，and values activated by participants in the process．

(3)Dialogue

1．Dialogue is a related concept，originally referring to verbal interchanges among literary characters(as did discourse)—that is，characters'spoken words，given written form in a dramatic script or a novel．The term acquired a postmodern flavor via the dialogic criticism of Mikhail Bakhtin^[4]，a Russian formalist whose major works were written in the inter-war period，but were not influential in English until the 1980s．Bakhtin defined dialogue as a polyphonic interchange among divergent voices，with each individual voice taking“shape and character in response to and in anticipation of other voices”．He conceived of the“dialogic”novel as the opposite of the“monologic”one．In monologic novels such as Tolstoy's，the author attempts to subordinate the characters'voices to his controlling purpose，whereas in dialogic novels such as Dostoevsky's，the author relinquishes control，allowing a multiplicityofindependentandunmergedvoices—histermis“polyphony”—to be heard．

2．Bakhtin extended the concept of dialogic interaction from the novel to all language，viewed as a polyphonic conversation rather than as a series of univocally pronounced propositions．As such，“dialogue”has now come to mean an open-ended exchange among numerous voices(often called“polyvocality”in the social science literature)，each having its own characteristic manner of expression．Although Bakhtin's theory elevates“dialogue”as the primary socio-verbal component of a work，the totality is not a determinate product of the medley of voices，social attitudes，and values that are articulated．Rather，the various voices and modes of communication are oppositional，contradictory，and irreconcilable．

3．To sum up so far，“representation”refers to the existence of a finished product in any media whose ostensibly“correct”meaning is accessible to all．“Discourse”and“dialogue”refer more narrowly to the transactive process in language whereby meaning is socially constructed by readers，writers，and those written about．

Questions for Understanding

1．According to Aristotle what marks off human beings from animals?

2．In paragraph 1 of“Representation”，for what has language been charged from the classical times to the modern era?

3．What is the poststructuralist definition of discourse?

4．What is the“generalized usage”of discourse?

5．According to a quote(paragraph 2，“Discourse”)what does discourse do?

6．In what way(s)does Tolstoy(托尔斯泰)differ from Dostoevsky(陀思妥也夫斯基)in literary creation?