Marxism and the Philosophy of Language: The Reception of Bakhtin and the Circle in Brazil / Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem: a recepção de Bakhtin e o Círculo no Brasil

This article aims to analyze and evaluate a number of texts called frame-texts (paratexts or texts for clarification) found in the works of Bakhtin and the Circle, which have been translated in Brazil since 1979. Our objective is to offer a critical overview of the context of the reception of their work nationwide and highlight some of its specific features, apprehended in the dialogues established with social, historical and cultural aspects. We also intend to contribute to deepening the dialogical studies and its undeniable interdisciplinary dimension. In addition to the dialogic perspective, these reflections rely on theories of translation, especially those that discuss the “relationship between a text and its context of reception” or “a certain way of reading a text in a given context.” This discussion is part of a larger research study, and the results presented herein are related to one of the works of the Circle, namely, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language and its two translations into Brazilian Portuguese (1979 and 2017).

All content of Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type CC-BY 4.0 Bakhtin's (1986, p. 106) 5 words, and show "the complex interrelations between the text (the object of study and reflection) and the created, framing context (questioning, refuting, and so forth) in which the scholar's cognizing and evaluating thought takes place" (BAKHTIN, 1986, pp.106-107;our emphasis). 6 Therefore, they can be conceived of as constitutive of meaning production in relation to the main text and not as accompanying texts that can be discarded. As they present the text to the readers, frame-texts operate as an argument of authority and often as an authoritarian argument that signals and circumscribes the reading in advance. In the case of the translations of the Circle's work in Brazil, they play a fundamental role to the understanding of the motivations behind the translations or re-translations and reveal how they were done, which includes the original source-text; in other words, they show the relationship between the text and its context of reception. The frame-texts of the translations or re-translations, which include their authorship, point to internal and external elements of the translations, which dialogically delineate fundamental aspects of the reception of Bakhtin and the Circle in Brazil.
Much has been written about the reception of the Bakhtinian works. However, we find that the existence or nonexistence of frame-texts, as in A cultura popular na Idade Média e no Renascimento: o contexto de François Rabelais [Rabelais and his World], 7 8 which brings unsigned flaps and a sentence by Boris Schnaiderman on the back cover, not only clarifies but also enriches the understanding of the reception context of those works and the chronotropic need to translate and/or re-translate them. Our research began by establishing some theoretical and methodological criteria to guide its development and set the boundaries of how these texts would be analyzed: initially observed in each translation or re-translation and later on in their totality.  Press, 1986. pp. 103-131. 6 For reference, see footnote 5. 7 TN. The Brazilian Portuguese version of this book does not bring any preface or foreword, as happens in the American English version of the work. The American edition brings a foreword by Krystyna Pomorska and a prologue by Michael Holquist. 8 BAKHTIN, M. Rabelais and his World. Translated by Helene Iswolsy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984. translation as "the relationship between a source text and a target context" or yet as "a certain way of reading a text in a given context." In this sense, we can argue, for example, that […] re-translation is every rewriting of a source-text that coexists and relates to the other rewritings of the same source-text. It establishes with them a network of multiple ways of (re)reading and (re)writing it, which is, after all, an act of criticism.
[…] the (re)translation […] seeks to make evident that a (re)translation is an act of addition: an addition of new ways of reading and writing that text in the sphere of (re)translation (MATOS;FALEIROS, 2014, p.54). 9 These reflections, which are more directly related to the study of literary (re)translation, may serve, mutatis mutandis, as reference to the analysis of the reception of Bakhtin and the Circle through frame-texts.
To understand a frame-text as part of a concrete utteranceunderstood as the translated main text and the other texts that comprise the volume -, the theoretical basis grounded on the dialogical theory refers especially to the idea that "[a] dialogue of languages is a dialogue of social forces perceived not only in their static co-existence, but also as a dialogue of different times, epochs and days, a dialogue that is forever dying, living, being born" (BAKHTIN, 1981, p.365;our emphasis). 10 This means, as we seek to show in this article, that translations and retranslations do not exclude each other; to the 9 In the original: "retradução é toda reescritura de um texto-fonte, que coexiste e se relaciona com outras reescrituras desse mesmo texto-fonte, estabelecendo com elas uma rede de modos plurais de (re)lê-lo e (re)escrevê-lo, gesto que é, finalmente, uma crítica. [...] a (re)tradução [...] procura evidenciar que uma (re)tradução é um gesto de acréscimo: acréscimo de novos modos de ler e escrever aquele texto no espaço da (re)tradução." 10  The corpus of analysis is composed of all (re)translations that have been published so far. This set of texts comprises almost a hundred frame-texts and implies that there certainly are important aspects to be considered in each text and in their translations or re-translations. This certainty occurs when they are considered part of a concrete utterance represented by the work to which they belong and the context of production and reception that encompasses and motivates them.
The general objective of this research is to design a critical overview of the reception of the translated works of Bakhtin and the Circle in Brazil. We take into consideration their indisputable contribution to dialogic studies from an interdisciplinary perspective. Regarding the project in its entirety, the first step of our analysis will always be the understanding of the context that prompted/promoted/motivated the (re)translation of a specific work of the Circle, as the choice to do it is directly connected to the time of its publication. Thus, the circumstances that constitute that context may be reflected upon from at least four complementary dimensions: the social, historical and political context; the academic-scientific context; the editorial market, and the presumed readers. These dimensions are important as they outline evaluatively the context of reception, which is composed of the source-text and the reasons for choosing it; the role of both author and translator in the knowledge area; possible readers who are located in specific spheres.
Other aspects of the work in its totality, which include the frame-texts, such as the characteristics of the translator and his/her team, consultants, foreword and introduction writers, publishers, among others, are certainly taken into consideration because they may unveil elements related to the understanding of the context of the work's reception.
In this article, such issues are centered on two translations of Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (MPL), which are 38 years apart from one another. From a political standpointthis is an extremely brief explanation -, in 1979 Brazil was governed by João Figueiredo, the 30th president and the last one from the military regime. His motto was to continue the "slow, gradual and safe" political openness that started in the previous presidential government. Some events attest to it: the founding of the Associação Nacional de Jornais [National Newspaper Association], intended to defend freedom of press; the sanction of the general and unrestricted Amnesty Law, which was applied to everyone who had committed political crimes or had had their political rights revoked during the military dictatorship; the return of political exiles, and a severe political and economic crisis.
In light of this, it is necessary to point out how the names of Bakhtin and Voloshinov were already known in the academy and to observe the role of the universities  (VOLOSHINOV, 1976), signed by Valentin N. Voloshinov and translated into Spanish in Argentina (cf. Brait, 2012, p.216-243), as well as Ornellas's (1998;2010)  the Communication and semiotics program, broadening the scope of interest in the works of the Circle at the time when the first translation of MPL was released.

The Translation and its Specific Features
The translation team (translators and consultants) is comprised of teachers/researchers from UNICAMP [University of Campinas]: Michel Lahud (1949Lahud ( -1992, the author of a work on deixis (LAHUD, 1979)    This feature of the French version is reiterated in the Brazilian translation in the use of upper and lower case letters on the title page. It produces an authorship effect that fosters 15 The different spellings of the author's name (Volochinov/Voloshinov) as well as the presence or not of accent marks are found in the different editions. 16 The English version is different (VOLOŠINOV, 1973). The author's name is on the cover and the title page. The information in the CIP Data Block includes the title of the book in Russian and the sole name of Vološinov as the author.
All content of Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type CC-BY 4.0 the belief that has been held until today, as we see in the bibliographic references of the book: MPL was undoubtedly written by Bakhtin. Volochínov is the second name, the one who is imprisoned by the parentheses or made different by the absence of bold print, which leads less specialized readers to ignore or omit him in bibliographic references.
Composing the frame-texts are the book flaps, the translator's notes, Roman Jakobson's foreword, Marina Yaguello's introduction, and the text on the back cover.
How do these frame-texts approach, among other aspects, the authorial issue drawn on the cover? Do they confirm and/or add elements that shed light to this question or others related to the production context of the Brazilian translation?
The flap, which is divided and inlaid as a fold in the front and back cover, is titled Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. It is not signed, but displays information about the author and the original work. From the perspective of the reception context of the Brazilian translation, it is very meaningful. The first sentence offers two important explanations: the first is about the year the book was published in Russia, viz., 1929, and the second refers to authorship (V. N. Volochínov, but later on ascribed to Bakhtin). If the first piece of information widens the perspective to understand the issue of authorship of the disputed works, the second clause settles the issue, as it confers on Bakhtin the decision to "choose the name of one of his friends and disciples to subscribe the book's authorship." 17 It thus reinforces the existence of "common elements" found in other works whose authorship has never been questioned.
The following paragraph brings information on Voloshinov and emphasizes that he and Medvedev were intellectuals who "inquired and researched on the so-called sociological method" 18 and fell victims to the Stalinist purges in the early 1930s (sic theoretical aspects when compared to other trends of language studies, and concluding that the book by Bakhtin (Volochínov) [in the 1920s] dealt with the problems of the relationship between language and ideology in an original manner.
As little was known about the specific bio-bibliography of the thinkers we today call the Circle, it is quite understandable why the flap carries several inaccurate pieces of information. In fact, the flap's addition to the cover and the title page is that it makes no difference between Voloshinov and Bakhtin, thus contributing to the use, in many  (BAKHTIN/VOLOCHINOV, 1979, p.ix), 30 Jakobson declares that " Bakhtin (1895Bakhtin ( -1975 [is] the author of important works on Dostoyevsky's and Rabelais's poetics" (BAKHTIN/VOLOCHINOV, 1979, p.ix). 31 Therefore, readers are informed that Jakobson had contact with other works of Bakhtin and knew his work. Consequently, they are given the information, which is presented as indisputable, that Voloshinov was a "[…] scrupulously observed pseudonym" (our emphasis). 32 This information, given by an expert and authority, is connected to the context of production of the Circle's oeuvre, which is described in the following paragraph. It stresses the need for "mandatory improvements" to the book and the disciples' "commitment" to protecting the "great work," produced in a period of historical obscurantism that led to the "utter disappearance of the name of this eminent researcher from the whole Russian press for almost a quarter of a century (until 1963 an integral part of linguistics, presents itself as Bakhtin's essential concern" (BAKHTIN/ VOLOCHINOV, 1979, p.8). 39 It is interesting to realize that, from this detailed introduction, what was really cemented in Brazilian readers' minds was her statement on the "indisputable" authorship.
The important observations made at the end of the section go unnoticed, which is the case of the relationship between grammar and stylistics as "Bakhtin's essential concern." In fact, this is an essential aspect of MPL, also found in Bakhtin's and Medvedev's works, that poses difficulties, even today, for some readers who are less accustomed to the specifics of the language conception developed throughout the Circle's oeuvre.
The back cover completes the set of frame-texts. It reiterates the issue of authorship, emphasizing that the work is Bakhtin's. It is a two-paragraph text that brings a brief biography of the author, including his participation in a "small circle of intellectuals, among whose members are Marc Chagall, P. N. Medvedev e V. N.
Voloshinov." 40 It highlights the fact that the latter two "sign his first works" and disappear Voloshinov, the one who is simply a temporary and circumstantial signature of Bakhtin.
As they precede and envelop the main text, the frame-texts prepare readers for the reading 39  Since then, seven presidents have taken office; freedom of press has been secured, considerably expanding freedom of expression, which now has the virtual place of the web as a meaningful place for interaction; technological development and, by extension, the development of social networks have become an insurmountable reality; a general level of political consciousness has risen albeit criticisms against a political-ideological polarization are justified; and social issues have been tackled more aggressively.
Although political and economic crises have occurred throughout these years, it is not possible to state that they have (minimally) been tackled. Education has become the focus of investments especially in the last 20 years; therefore, it is important to

The Translation and its Specific Features
The The cover (Fig.04)   The blue stripe continues on (or comes from?) the back cover (Fig.05) At the present stage of Bakhtinian studies, the (re-)translations in Brazil and abroad owe to the awareness that the dialogical thinking demands the knowledge about the contexts of production and reception in order to better situate the works, their originality, their polemic dialogue (or not) with other trends of knowledge. 51 She then highlights the fact that this new translation was done based on research on the original texts in Russian, documents, files and libraries, as well as on the indispensable fact that these (re-)translators are "experts who have delved into the primary sources, not aiming to divulge authors and works only." As this book is already known, respected and publicized, they aim to "clarify the genesis and the reach of their thought." 52 The text still underscores its "pertinence and necessity," and recovers aspects that the frame-texts may add to that first "mode of reading": clarifications on the change of the work's attribution of authorship, the inclusion of an "encouraging essay" signed by Sheila Grillo, and two other "interventions" of the translators, namely, an outline of She informs that she will not focus on issues related to the Marxist sociology (Bukhárin and Plekhánov) as they have already been discussed in other texts and have been available to the Brazilian public since the 1970s; nor will she discuss the issue of authorship, a theme she addressed in the Foreword of Medvedev's The formal method in literary scholarship (GRILLO, 2012, p.19-38). She then explains why she chose the authors of 53 In the original: "resposta à ciência da linguagem do séc. XIX e início do século XX." 54 In the original: "a reconstrução do 'macrocontexto' ou do contexto intelectual geral da época do autor desempenha um papel primordial na interpretação de sua obra." 55 In the original: "acesso a novas camadas de sentido." All content of Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type CC-BY 4.0 this virtual library, whose works were studied in their primary sources, found in the Russian State Library in Moscow. Her selection was based on two criteria: […] first, the authors were central to the understanding of the sociological method developed in MPL due to their influence and polemic interlocution. Second, the authors and schools were connected to linguistics and language philosophy, our area of research (p.8; p.10). 56 With a few exceptions, the works of these authors have not been translated into Portuguese. They It is then that the essay adds questions that enrich the understanding of MPL: in the beginning, Grillo clarifies the very expression "philosophy of language," its little "resonance" among us, Brazilians, and its importance and meaning to the members of the verbal language and the relations between thought and language. These themes were in tune with the 20th century linguistics.
Grillo's next concern is to show why Humboldt's thought is very influential to the Russian linguistics of that time: in the history of Russian linguistics, he is known as the "founder of theoretical linguistics, the creator Karl Vossler's language philosophy is the following topic. It is interesting to note that Grillo takes a more critical position as the essay develops: "the way we see it"; "to us, this position does not seem faithful to Vossler's thought,"; "to us, Vossler's thought seems much more balanced and multifaceted than the way it is presented in the Russian manual of the history of linguistics"; "Here we see one of the origins of the concept of 58 The next frame-text is the glossary, which was also crafted by the translators. It is As we can see, the frame-texts of the 2017 translation of MPL also prepare the reader to read the book. First, there is a hidden polemic (BAKHTIN, 1984, p.195) 68 with the previous translation in terms of the issue of authorship, now explicitly accredited to Valentin Voloshinov (Bakhtin Circle). Moreover, a dialogue with the context of its production is also established. Therefore, even if the frame-texts address an addressee that is in contact with the work for the first time, they clearly mirror the scholars that already know the work and its great value for language studies.
The number of texts that frame the main text deepens and explains a mode of reading and interpreting the (re-)translated work, mobilizing methodological principles that are demanded for the analysis of an utterance, according to the dialogical perspective. 67 In the original: "[…] conhecimento do processo de produção da obra e a observação de diferenças significativas entre o projeto e a obra final publicada." 68 For reference, see footnote 21.
The focus of this new mode of reading is, according to Voloshinov's (2017, p.220) teachings, on "the forms and types of discursive interaction in its relation with the concrete conditions in which they occur." 69 This implies an understanding of the context in which the work was produced and the ways it has been chronotopically received: in the space-time of its genesis in Brazil and the world. Therefore, the explicative texts place translation and (re-)translation into the great time, establishing a dialogue between time periods. The (re-)translations erase nothing; to the contrary, they add new meaning to one another, offering, in both cases, meaningful contributions to dialogical studies in particular, and to language studies in general.

Final Considerations: On Dialogical Resistances
Both Brazilian translations of Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (1979 and 2017) play a fundamental role in language studies in Brazil. If the first translation starts the dialogical perspective of language and the innovative way of approaching language studies, giving rise to discourse studies, the second, published almost four decades later, shows the consolidation of the dialogic research in the academic sphere, linguistics, and discourse analysis, embracing the Humanities in general. Both sets of frame-texts focused on this article showcase this language event, its historicity and productivity.
Understood as a second voice, whose main role is to adopt the compliment discourse, which is editorially necessary and justified, the frame-texts are an academic and scientific invitation to read MPL, bringing the presumed reader closer to the work through their explanation, argumentation and authority status, which is supported by their signatures. The explicit utterer of these texts set themselves in a discursive place that is different from the author's, for the utterer is not only knowledgeable but also obliged to adopt a clarifying and convincing discourse. Such discourse can justify, for example, a translation or retranslation that conveys a mode of reading that evinces the context of production, dissemination, and reception.
All content of Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type CC-BY 4.0 As the (re-)translation is framed, the set of explicative texts assume a place that is constitutively dialogical, which includes the translation or re-translation as an active participant of a dialogical-discursive network that encompasses the source-text and its (re-)readings. Concerning the translations of the Circle's texts in Brazil and, in this article, of the two translations of MPL, it is the moment of the reception/translation of the work and the knowledge about its author(s) that define the choice of signatures of the frametexts, which assume the authority recognized by the (re-)translators and, consequently, by their presumed readers.
In the reading of 1979, the researchers that chose the work to be translated and the translators themselves were in contact first with the source-text via France and then with the knowledge of other translations that existed at the time and could be consulted.
Therefore, they were involved in the dissemination and reception of a work that, albeit published at the end of the 1920s, was considered unique and essential to new paths of language studies. This context explains, among other things, the set of frame-texts and the reiteration of two prominent names, such as Roman Jakobson and Marina Yaguello, to the Brazilian public. In fact, no one had access to the forms of production of MPL at that time and, therefore, could only investigate it based on the little information available. Finally, we note that throughout the 40 years that separate us from the first Brazilian translation of MPL, according to extensive research carried out around the Circle, its members and their works, the Brazilian editions, with rare exceptions, have been more careful about frame-texts. This is certainly due to the current "need for greater linguistic, theoretical, epistemological and even ideological rigor in the face of the complex whole called 'Bakhtinian thought'" (BRAIT, 2012, p.217) 70 and his studies in full development. They are, after all, utterances of resistance, which means that they do not depend on an international reception; to the contrary, they reveal a Brazilian identity in terms of the dialogical perspective, derived from research done directly with source texts and the new research contexts.