Marxism and the Philosophy of Language: The Reception of Bakhtin and the Circle in Brazil

ABSTRACT

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).

KEYWORDS:
Marxism and the Philosophy of Language; The Bakhtin Circle; Brazilian context of the reception; Translations; Frame-texts

RESUMO

O objetivo deste artigo é analisar e avaliar um conjunto de textos aqui denominados textos-moldura (paratextos ou textos de esclarecimento) presentes nas obras de Bakhtin e do Círculo traduzidas no Brasil desde 1979, com vistas a traçar um panorama nacional crítico do contexto de recepção da obra bakhtiniana e evidenciar algumas de suas especificidades, indiciadas nos diálogos que empreendem com os aspectos sociais, históricos e culturais. Pretende-se, ainda, contribuir para o aprofundamento dos estudos dialógicos e sua incontestável dimensão interdisciplinar. Além da perspectiva dialógica, as reflexões apoiam-se, também, em teorias da tradução, caso específico da que discute a “relação entre um texto de partida e um contexto de chegada”, ou ainda “um modo de ler um texto em dado contexto”. Parte de uma pesquisa maior, os resultados aqui apresentados dizem respeito unicamente a uma das obras do Círculo: Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem. Problemas fundamentais do método sociológico na Ciência da linguagem e suas duas traduções brasileiras (1979 e 2017).

PALAVRAS-CHAVE:
Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem; Círculo de Bakhtin; Contexto brasileiro de recepção; (Re)traduções; Textos-moldura

Initial Considerations

This article is one of the products of the research project/CNPq¹⁸ titled Fundamentos e desdobramentos da perspectiva dialógica para a análise de discursos verbais e verbo visuais [Fundamentals and Developments of the Dialogic Perspective for the Analysis of Verbal and Verbal-Visual Discourses] (2015-2018).¹⁹ The research project/CNPq titled Discursos de resistência: tradição e ruptura [Discourse of Resistance: Tradition and Rupture] (2019-2024)²⁰ continued the previous project with the aim to clarify some of the specific features of the Bakhtinian thought. It takes into account the number of frame-texts (paratexts or texts for clarification) that we find in the translated works of Bakhtin and the Circle in Brazil.²¹ These frame-texts are considered elements that, as they become part of the whole, either become part of the tradition of an international academic and scientific moment or emerge as resistance, exposing the specific features of the Brazilian language science in the present.

In an initial theoretical approach, paratexts were characterized as frame-texts, that is, in Bakhtinian fashion, as a constitutive element of a concrete utterance. For meaning production, this implies not only the main text but also all the texts that present it and surround it verbally and/or visually. They foster a “special kind of dialogue,” using Bakhtin’s (1986, p. 106)²² 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).²³

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],²⁴,²⁵ 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.

Therefore, a branch of the theories of translation was selected in order to guide the analysis of the corpus as it had to dialogue with the dialogical perspective of discourse (Dialogical Analysis of Discourse, ADD), our theoretical and methodological basis. Such relationship is special in terms of the concepts adopted, viz., concrete utterance, text, discourse, spheres of circulation and reception. It is the branch that understands 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).²⁶

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 utterance - understood 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).²⁷ This means, as we seek to show in this article, that translations and retranslations do not exclude each other; to the contrary, understood in the great time, they imply networks created by them and by the needs that motivate their existence.

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. The first one was published in 1979. It was a secondary translation from the French edition (with consultations to the American and Russian editions): BAKHTIN, M. (VOLOCHÍNOV). Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem. Problemas fundamentais do método sociológico na ciência da linguagem. Trad. Michel Lahud e Yara Frateschi Vieira. São Paulo: HUCITEC.²⁸ This translation was re-edited many times and doubtlessly supported, for nearly four decades, the mobilization and establishment of the dialogical perspective in language studies, not only in Languages and Literature, but also in the Humanities in general. The second Brazilian Portuguese translation, directly from Russian, was published in 2017: VOLOCHÍNOV, Valentin (Círculo de Bakhtin). Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem. Problemas fundamentais do método sociológico na ciência da linguagem. Trad. Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina V. Américo. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2017. Henceforth, MPL will be used to refer to both works.

1 The Concrete Utterance Represented by Frame-Texts in MPL (1979)

1.1 Brazil at the End of the 1970s: Inside and Outside the Academy

What was Brazil like at the end of the 1970s? This question is posed from a general and a scientific-academic perspective, as in Brazil Marxism and the Philosophy of Language was translated into Brazilian Portuguese from French and not from Russian or English.

From a political standpoint - this 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 in this broad historical context. The first contact, in 1976, between UNICAMP [University of Campinas] researchers and El signo ideológico y la filosofia del lenguaje (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) master’s thesis and articles, for example, conveyed important elements for the first translation of MPL to become known in the academic and scientific sphere, specifically in three large Brazilian universities, namely, USP [University of São Paulo], UNICAMP [University of Campinas], and PUC-SP [Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo].²⁹

That first contact with a work by the Circle (VOLOSHINOV, 1976) involved currently renowned researchers, such as Sírio Possenti, João Wanderley Geraldi, Carlos Alberto Faraco and Carlos Vogt, who were either professors or graduate students from UNICAMP. At that time, when the first translation of MPL was published in the collection Linguagem e cultura [Language and Culture], published by HUCITEC Publishing House, the editor of the collection was linguist and poet Carlos Vogt. Among his academic titles, earned in 1971, he boasts a Master’s degree at the Université de Besançon and two specialization certifications, one from the Université de Besançon and the other from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales/EHESS. The connection between the academic and editorial spheres and France, at that time, is an important factor to understand the first translation of MPL into Brazilian Portuguese, whose source text was the French version of the work. Studies by Ornellas, who holds graduate degrees from USP [University of São Paulo], evince two important aspects: at USP at the time, only Bakhtin was mentioned in courses related to literature, comparative literature and literary theory, which may point to the genesis of the idea that Bakhtin’s studies are exclusively related to literature. This idea is, to some extent, still held in some places. The second aspect refers to courses at PUC-SP [Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo], in which bibliographic references to Bakhtin and Voloshinov were seen in courses from 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.

1.2 The Translation and its Specific Features

The translation team (translators and consultants) is comprised of teachers/researchers from UNICAMP [University of Campinas]: Michel Lahud (1949-1992), the author of a work on deixis (LAHUD, 1979) and a specialist on Pier Paolo Pasolini; Yara Frateschi Vieira, a specialist in literature and the translator of Rabelais and his World into Brazilian Portuguese (BAKHTIN,1987);³⁰ Lúcia Teixeira Wisnik, graduated in Languages from USP [University of São Paulo] and is the translator of several works in the area; Carlos Henrique D. Chagas Cruz, a holder of a master’s degree in Social Sciences from IFCH/UNICAMP [Institute of Philosophy and Human Sciences/University of Campinas]; and Luci Seki, a specialist in native languages and a holder of a master’s degree (1969) and a PhD (1973) in Philology from the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow. Except for the latter two, the others authored articles in the first issue of Remate de males, the journal of the Department of Literary Theory of UNICAMP’s Language Studies Institute, in 1980.³¹

In the first Brazilian edition of MPL (Fig.01), the cover’s illustration was attributed to Olimpio Pinheiro. There is no other reference to him as this information in not displayed in the later editions. Olimpio Pinheiro’s name is displayed on the top of page iv, at the end of the copyright information: © 1977 of the Agência de Direitos de Autor da União das Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas (VAAP) [Copyright Agency of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]. Publishing copyrights were held by the Editora de Humanismo, Ciência e Tecnologia “Hucitec” Ltda. The address of the publishing house follows this information. As we can see, the image is an open white hand, which, on a white cover, accentuates five spread-out fingers over a green circle. Each fingertip and the wrist break the border line of the circle. The thin red line contours the hand and finishes each fragment of the circle. Thus, this circle is not complete as it leaves gaps through which the hand is placed onto the background and the fingers cross the border line. In the following editions, the image is deformed and warped (Fig.03), due to an apparent editorial neglect. This very “neglect” occurs again when presenting the name of the author(s). The first translation brings the name of Mikhail Bakhtin and, between parentheses, the name of Voloshinov in uppercase letters: MIKHAIL BAKHTIN (VOLOSHINOV). The names on the book’s title page (Fig.02) are a little different: MIKHAIL BAKHTIN (V. N. Volochinov).³²

Fig. 01

Fig. 02

Fig. 03

This feature, which resembles a simple editorial inattentiveness, unveils two important aspects that can merge together concerning the existent controversies around MPL’s authorship. On the one hand, the French source (1977) of the Brazilian translation³³ brings, in lowercase letters, mikhail bakhtine (v. n. volochinov) on the cover and mikhail bakhtine (v. n. volochinov) on the title page. From a visual perspective, we notice that the bold is used to emphasize/mark the dominant authorship. 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 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.”³⁴ 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”³⁵ and fell victims to the Stalinist purges in the early 1930s (sic). In the end of the paragraph, Bakhtin and Voloshinov are mentioned as if they were the same person: “[He] disappeared and for many years the book was relegated to official oblivion […].”³⁶ The other paragraphs focus on the time when MPL was published, highlighting “the author’s effort to develop a Marxist philosophy of language,”³⁷ summarizing specific 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 academic works, of Bakhtin as the author of MPL and Voloshinov as one of the pen names of the author of Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics.³⁸

The rather brief Translator’s Notes explain the main source text (the French translation in 1977) and the consultation to the American translation (1973) - in order to solve some translation issues - and to the original text in Russian through Lucy Seki (UNICAMP). As to the passages in German, Modesto Carone Netto (UNICAMP) was consulted. The authorship of the book, whether in the original in Russian or in the American translation, is not mentioned.

The Foreword, signed by Roman Jakobson (1896-1982),³⁹ is a translation of the Préface (BAKHTINE/VOLOCHINOV, 1977) of the French version and was very influential regarding the authorship of the Circle’s works in Brazil. For this reason, this frame-text must not be understood as an automatic transposition from the French version to the Brazilian translation although it is very likely that this was a contingency at the time. It must be acknowledged that the Foreword worked as a certificate of quality of the book that was being translated and published, as it was signed by renowned Roman Jakobson, “the poet of Linguistics.” In 1979, Jakobson was largely well-known by linguists and literature theoreticians in Brazil: two of his books had been published in Portuguese: Linguística e comunicação [Linguistics and Communication]⁴⁰ (1969) and Linguística. Poética. Cinema [Linguistics. Poetry. Cinema]⁴¹ (1970) and were widely used in the teaching of linguistics and poetry in higher education institutions. In general, his works - even the ones that had not been translated into Portuguese - were used by Brazilians, whether linguists (ALTMAN, 2004) or literature theoreticians (SIMON, 1974).

Jakobson was a contemporary of Bakhtin and the other members of the Circle. At the time of the Circle’s first publications (1919), he was on his way to Prague (1920), where in 1926 he would found the Prague Linguistic Circle, along with V. Mathesius, N. Trubetzkoy, René Wellek and Jan Mukařovský. Mattoso Câmara Junior, whose works are marked by Jakobson’s thinking, established significant exchange with him in New York between 1943 and 1944. Many documents attest that Jakobson’s relationship with Brazil still owes to the influence of French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, who was in Brazil between 1935 and 1939. In addition, Jakobson was invited to come to Brazil in 1968 by the University of São Paulo (USP), as detailed by Izidoro Blikstein (ORLANDI, 2000). The program of his visit was organized by Augusto de Campos and Haroldo de Campos, in association with Boris Schnaiderman, Ataliba de Castilho, and other important intellectuals connected to USP (cf. Machado, 2001, pp.87-106).

Although Jakobson never met Bakhtin, according to his wife, Krystina Pomorska, their studies focused on the defense of sense:

[...] the struggle for a functional approach to language ultimately boils down to the defense of sense, which, in its turn, leads to the defense of the value element. In this regard, the only of his Russian contemporaries to share this position at the time was the late Mikhail Mikhailovitch Bakhthin (JAKOBSON; POMORSKA, 1985, p.56).⁴²

If we take into consideration Jakobson’s significance to language studies in 1979, we can state that the beginning of the foreword of the first translation is very meaningful to readers:

In the book published under the name of V. N. Volochínov in Leningrad, 1929-1930, in two successive editions under the title of Marksizm i filossófia iaziká (Marxism and the Philosophy of Language), everything, from the title page, is surprising.⁴³

He immediately emphasizes the author’s name and points to the date and place of publication, stating that “everything, from the title page, is surprising” (BAKHTIN/VOLOCHINOV, 1979, p.ix-x).⁴⁴ The novelty - related to authorship and the “surprising” discoveries that Jakobson explains in the following paragraphs - starts with his statements on authorship: “It was found that this book and several others […] under the name of Voloshinov […] were actually written by Bakhtin (BAKHTIN/VOLOCHINOV, 1979, p.ix; our emphasis).⁴⁵ This indetermination is striking, and readers are not told who made such discoveries regarding the book’s author. They are taken aback by the fact that the book - “and several others published in the late 1920s and early 1930s” - bring Voloshinov’s name first. For Jakobson, Voloshinov was one of “the researcher’s supporters and disciples” (BAKHTIN/ VOLOCHINOV, 1979, p.ix).⁴⁶

After making reference to “[…] a volume on the doctrine of Freudianism (1927), some essays on language in life and in poetry as well as on the structure of the utterance” (BAKHTIN/VOLOCHINOV, 1979, p.ix),⁴⁷ Jakobson declares that “Bakhtin (1895-1975) [is] the author of important works on Dostoyevsky’s and Rabelais’s poetics” (BAKHTIN/VOLOCHINOV, 1979, p.ix).⁴⁸ 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).⁴⁹ 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)” (BAKHTIN/VOLOCHINOV, 1979, p.ix).⁵⁰

These relevant declarations made by Jakobson reveal how much was known about the Circle’s works at that time and are perfectly appropriate to the context in which the translation was done and to the way Bakhtin and the Circle were read in the 1970s. According to this brilliant author of the foreword, the value of the work should be measured by its content, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the production and dissemination of the work, because content precedes contemporary research on language (in relation to the 1970s):

Despite the singularity of the book’s and the author’s biography, the work surprises the reader of an open spirit because of the novelty and originality of its content. This volume […] anticipates the current inquiries in sociolinguistics and can, above all, precede current semiotic research and assign it far-reaching tasks (p. x; our emphasis).⁵¹

This reading, which is coherent with the chronotope of the translation, is still found and resounds in works of Brazilians, commentators, or users of the Circle’s works. Based on the perspective of the foreword, some readers continue to reduce Voloshinov to a pseudonym, making him invisible in terms of authorship. This can be attested in some current Brazilian bibliographic references in official documents, theses, dissertations, and scientific articles. This is not necessarily Jakobson’s fault - he knew its context of production and history, as well as other writing of Bakhtin -, but it was due to the strong belief in a Bakhtin who was capable of writing every single work of the Circle. Although the authorship issue has not yet been fully explained, today we know Voloshinov’s biography and his academic performance,⁵² which prevents us from seeing him as a simple pseudonym.

Marina Yaguello’s Introduction reiterates the issue of authorship and, consequently, the context of its French and Brazilian reception. Paris-born Yaguello, a renowned linguist and professor of the Université Paris VII, translated MPL directly from Russian into French (BAKHTINE/VOLOCHINOV, 1977). At that time, she was still known by her work titled Les mots et les femmes [Words and Women] published by Payot in 1978. It was an innovative work, which showed that our relationship with language necessarily goes through society and works as a cultural mirror. One of her most well-known works is Alice au pays du langage: Pour comprendre la linguistique,⁵³ an efficient and creative manual that was published in France only in 1981. It was translated into Portuguese in Portugal many years later (YAGUELLO, 1997). Differently from Jakobson, her fame did not precede her introduction⁵⁴ - except among specialists. However, her declarations help readers to “be prepared to read” and to face the issue of “authorship.”

Her Introduction is divided into two sections. The first is titled Bakhtin, o homem e seu duplo [Bakhtine, l’homme et son double/Bakhtin, the Man and his Double]. It summarizes Bakhtin’s biography, based on information given by V. V. Ivanov, and details what Jakobson had already written, including the information on the small Circle of which Voloshinov and Medvedev were part and the notion that the latter two lent their names to Bakhtin so that he could publish his first works. A peremptory statement is eternalized in the work’s reception: “There is no doubt about the paternity of his works” (BAKHTIN/VOLOCHINOV, 1979, p.2).⁵⁵ Other details are related to Voloshinov’s e Medvedev’s disappearance and to Bakhtin’s trajectory until his death in 1975.

The second section, titled Marxismo e a filosofia da linguagem [Le marxisme et la philosophie du langage/Marxism and the Philosophy of Language], still relying explicitly on Ivanov, declares that it is difficult to accredit parts of the book to Voloshinov. Thus, a thorough description of the work confers on Bakhtin the paternity of the book. Similar to Jakobson’s line of thinking, Yaguello stresses the qualities of the book and Voloshinov’s innovative conception of language. These are demonstrated through a detailed description in which she presents the main aspects of the three parts of MPL. This description includes the work with the social nature of the sign and the utterance, the relationship with consciousness, mental activity, and ideology. For Yaguello, one of the most original contributions the book makes is the fact that “[t]here are no clear borders between grammar and stylistics. […]. The stylistic analysis, which is an integral part of linguistics, presents itself as Bakhtin’s essential concern” (BAKHTIN/VOLOCHINOV, 1979, p.8).⁵⁶

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.”⁵⁷ It highlights the fact that the latter two “sign his first works” and disappear “in the thirties do to the Stalinist purges” while Bakhtin “moves to the border between Siberia and Kazakhstan, where he works as a teacher and starts writing his text on Rabelais, published in Moscow in 1965.”⁵⁸

In Bakhtinian terms, the set of frame-texts from the first translation of MPL, as a concrete utterance, points to the dialogue established between the source text and the context of reception. It reveals an original way of reading and (re-)reading a text, an author, a thought, and similarly the text’s translation or re-translation. As regards the translation, besides the flap, covers, and the translator’s notes, Roman Jakobson’s Foreword and Marina Yaguello’s Introduction, above all, portray the image of a ghost 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 of the main text and induce them to erase one of the signatures. The explanatory texts - even the one on the back cover - are placed before the reading of the main text, when the reader is very open or even vulnerable to explanations, compliments, pleas, and justifications for the existence of a work previously unknown in Portuguese. In a way, this reader is willing to be guided to this reading, which, whether we like it or not, is carefully woven by the utterers of the textual frame. The purpose of these texts is to anticipate (present, introduce, argue) briefly what the reader is about to read and to show a clear reading path, a mode of reading.

2 The Concrete Utterance Represented by MPL’s (2017) Frame-Texts

2.1 The Brazil of 2017: Inside and Outside the Academy

The Brazil of 1979, the year of the first edition of MPL, is very different from the Brazil of 2017, the year of the first edition of the translation of MPL directly from Russian into Brazilian Portuguese. As we recover the social and political context of its publication - once again, in a radically simplified manner - we see that Brazil’s process of re-democratization, which started in 1985, right after João Figueiredo’s presidential government, is implemented especially after the promulgation of the 1988 Constitution. 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 highlight the fact that illiteracy has decreased significantly in the country⁵⁹ and that new federal universities have been created.

The academic sphere has totally changed: research grows; bibliographical references are expanded and the call to internationalization and visibility of national research is a fact; greater rigor is required from scientific publications. In terms of language studies, the dialogic theory of discourse is widely (re-)known, disseminated and respected in the Humanities in general and in Languages and Education (also in official documents) in particular. One example is the academic journal titled Bakhtiniana. Revista de Estudos do Discurso [Bakhtiniana. Journal of Discourse Studies], which aims to promote and disseminate research in the field of discourse studies, highlighting studies from the dialogical perspective.

In the 38 years that separate both translations of MPL, the Circle’s works were published by different publishing houses in Brazil, such as Hucitec - sometimes in cooperation with other publishing houses -, Martins Fontes, Forense, Perspectiva, and Pedro & João. Editora 34 [34 Publishing House] has specialized in publishing translations of the rich Russian literature directly from Russian. Some translators stand out, such as Boris Schnaiderman and Paulo Bezerra. At the same time, Editora 34 [34 Publishing House] has been publishing (re-)translations⁶⁰ of the Circle’s works (some are well-known and others are not),⁶¹ which are carefully organized and based on the Russian editions. This is the case of the MPL translation in 2017: it was done from the original Russian edition, with corrections and small additions found in the second edition of the book in 1930.

2.3 The Translation and its Specific Features

The translators. The new translation of MPL was done directly from the original in Russian and is signed by Sheila Vieira de Camargo Grillo and Ekaterina Vólkova Américo. The former is a professor, researcher, translator and advisor in the Department of Classical and Vernacular Languages and Literatures of the University of São Paulo. She was a researcher at the Gorky Institute of World Literature in Moscow, among other international institutions, and is currently the coordinator of the research group called Diálogo [Dialogue] (USP/CNPq) as well as a member of other research groups that focus on Bakhtin and the Circle, such as Linguagem, Identidade e Memória/PUC-SP/CNPq [Language, Identity and Memory] and Estudos Bakhtinianos/ANPOLL [Bakhtinian Studies]. Sheila Grillo and Ekaterina V. Américo co-translated two other works of the Circle: O método formal nos estudos literários: introdução crítica a uma poética sociológica [The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship: A Critical Introduction to Sociological Poetics], by P. N. Medvedev (2012)⁶² and Questões de estilística no ensino da língua [Stylistics in Teaching Russian Language in Secondary School], by M. Bakhtin (2013).⁶³ Grillo is a vigorous Bakhtinian with international reach. The latter, Ekaterina Vólkova Américo, is a professor of Russian language and literature at Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) [Fluminense Federal University]. She completed her graduation and master’s degree at the Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow, 2001), and holds a master’s degree and a PhD in Russian Literature and Culture from the University of São Paulo (USP). She is a member of the research groups Diálogo [Dialogue] (USP) and Estudos Contemporâneos da Tradução [Contemporary Translation Studies] (UFF).

The cover (Fig.03) displays a white background and highlights in blue, on the upper half, the name of Valentin Volóchinov,⁶⁴ below which, between parentheses in smaller font and written in black, is ‘Círculo de Bakhtin’ (Bakhtin Circle). On the lower half, on a blue stripe (the same blue of Volóchinov’s name), we find the title of the work Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem [Marxism and the Philosophy of Language] and below it, in smaller font, the subtitle: Problemas fundamentais do método sociológico na ciência da linguagem [Fundamental Problems of the Sociological Method in Language Science]. On the same stripe and below the subtitle, we still find, Tradução, notas e glossário Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina Vólkova Américo [Translation, Notes and Glossary Sheila Grillo and Ekaterina Vólkova Américo] and below it, Ensaio introdutório Sheila Grillo [Introductory Essay Sheila Grillo]. At the bottom of the blue stripe, the name of the publishing house is displayed.

As the blue stipe does not cover all the lower half of the cover, the right margin of the cover has the same white background, thus making its visual effect highlight the name of the author and his membership to the Bakhtin Circle, a piece of information that is strategically placed between parentheses. This reference to the Circle, although not displayed between parentheses, is also found in the title page of the Brazilian translation of O método formal nos estudos literários: introdução crítica a uma poética sociológica [The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship: A Critical Introduction to Sociological Poetics] (BAKHTIN, 2012), by the same translators. It confers on Medvedev membership to the Bakhtin Circle.

The blue stripe continues on (or comes from?) the back cover (Fig.04), literally connecting the covers of the book; however, it displays only the name of the publishing house. On the white upper half, which mirrors the place given to the author’s name on the front cover, a two-paragraph text summarizes the characteristics of the re-translation done directly from the original in Russian and points out that this is “one of the fundamental works of modern linguistics.” The second sentence of the first paragraph clarifies the original context: “Written by Valentin N. Volóchinov (1895-1936), within the Bakhtin Circle, it was at times attributed to Bakhtin himself.”⁶⁵ The following sentence well summarizes the content of the book, which includes the author’s proposal of a sociological method and his emphasis on everyday genres. The second paragraph makes explicit the fact that the translation is a product of an ample research study and lists some of the paratexts included in the book. Although it is not signed, it is possible to recognize, in this text, the context of translation, in which the knowledge about Bakhtin and the Circle is based on research and on the translators’ expertise. They are not language scholars only, but researchers who investigate the forms of production, circulation and reception of the dialogical perspective in Brazil.

Fig. 04

Fig. 05

The effects related to authorship produced by these covers are totally different from those by the covers of the first translation. This fact allows us to claim, even before the analysis of the other paratexts, that this new translation adds new modes of reading and (re-)writing the source text and “that the space of the (re-)translation is a space of the coexistence of translations and not a space of substitutions […] that form and conform a complex of relations, such as accord, divergence, resonance, intertext, complementarity” (MATOS; FALEIROS, 2014, p.54);⁶⁶ at the same time, new modes of reading and writing the same text are also forms of criticism.

If the reader has already been notified about the book’s authorship on the front cover, which brings the author’s name, surname and the fact that he belongs to the Bakhtin Circle, differently from the 1979 translation, the frame-texts are exclusively signed by researchers from the Brazilian academic context: the flap by Beth Brait/PUC-SP/USP/CNPq; the Introductory essay by Sheila Grillo/USP/CNPq; the Translator’s notes, Appendix (Voloshinov’s outline of the book), with the translators’ Introductory note, and Glossary by Sheila Grillo and Ekaterina Vólkova Américo/UFF. However, the texts About the author, About the translators and the text on the back cover are not signed.

The flap. Beth Brait signs the flap of this “splendid and important edition.” She starts reminding readers of the opportunity that this new translation offers to those who are interested in the “dialogical perspective,” since MPL is undoubtedly “one of the most renowned and quoted works of the Bakhtin Circle.”⁶⁷ She then points out that the new translations are important to dialogism itself:

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.⁶⁸

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.”⁶⁹ 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 Voloshinov’s work and a “valuable glossary,” with entries used in the work in Portuguese and Russian.

The Introductory essay. The first emphasis to be added in relation to Sheila Grillo’s essay that introduces the new translation of MPL, titled Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem: uma resposta à ciência da linguagem do séc. XIX e início do século XX [Marxism and the Philosophy of Language: A Response to the Language Science of the 19th and early 20th Centuries], is the clear identification of its addressee: a Brazilian reader who is introduced to a new translation of MPL directly from the original in Russian. This becomes a new mode of reading the text as it was produced in the national contemporary context, an academic space-time that is very familiar with Voloshinov’s work, has extensively discussed his ideas, recognizes his undeniable importance and has somehow overcome the endless debate over the authorship of the work - one of the crucial elements in Jakobson’s Foreword and Marina Yaguello’s Introduction in 1979. If the essay shows us that the work is “a response to the language science of the 19th and early 20th centuries,”⁷⁰ it also responds to the new context of reception in so far as many readings and reflections were done during the 38 years that separate both translations.

Addressing a new public that has little access to the Russian language, Grillo’s essay explains the language science of the 19th and early 20th in the Russian intellectual context, based on Tylkovski’s (2012) thinking that “the reconstruction of the ‘macrocontext’ or the general intellectual context of the author’s time plays a fundamental role in the interpretation of his work” (2017, p.8).⁷¹ This perspective becomes the guiding principle of the essay. Grillo rebuilds Voloshinov’s “virtual library” through the texts he quoted, aiming to offer Brazilian readers “access to new layers of sense” (2017, p.8).⁷² 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 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).⁷³

With a few exceptions, the works of these authors have not been translated into Portuguese. They

[…] represent the beginnings of Russian linguistics from the late 19th century to the first half of the 20th century and important interlocutors of Bakhtin, Medvedev and Voloshinov in the fields of language philosophy and grammar, linguistics, literary theory and stylistics (2017, p.10).⁷⁴

To complement the “virtual library” of the Circle’s members, Grillo adds conceptual data from German authors, such as W. Humboldt, E. Cassirer, and Karl Vossler. She takes two different paths to understand their theoretical position at that time-space of Russian linguistics: (1) the reading of linguistics manuals and of Russian contemporary history of linguistics (how Russian linguists interpreted the period); (2) the observation of the dialogue between these authors, the texts quoted in MPL, and Voloshinov’s position.

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 Circle who, at that time, sought to base their position on approaches to the philosophy of language and arts, opposing Russian formalism. She places the reader in dialogue with authors, such as Cassirer and Humboldt, indicating the way they discuss the genesis of 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 of a system of the 19th century language philosophy and the precursor of almost every position of Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics” (2017, p.18).⁷⁵ Wilhelm Humboldt enjoyed a prestige that was very different from the one he had here in Brazil. This type of information guarantees possibilities of dialogue between the reader and MPL, especially because Grillo gradually reaches conclusions on the common elements of the theorization on language that both elaborated.⁷⁶ After presenting Humboldt’s thought, she turns to Russian-Ukrainian philologist A. A. Potebniá, Humboldt’s “closest representative in Russian lands” (2017, p.23).⁷⁷ In that context, both “are the most important representatives of the speculative analysis of language” (2017, p.28).⁷⁸

She then presents the semiotics and philosophy of language in G. G. Chpiet, observing that in so far Voloshinov and Chpiet sought to respond to Humboldt’s theory of language and Husserl’s phenomenology, the way the latter responds to the posed issues allows “the understanding of many of MPL’s formulations” (2017, p.35),⁷⁹ in terms of points of approximation and distancing.

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 dialogue in MPL […]” (2017, p.40);⁸⁰ “the Russian readings of this author [Vossler], which includes the one found in MPL, are a little partial because they stress only one side of artistic and individual creativity” (2017, p.40).⁸¹ Afterwards, Grillo presents the authors that were devoted to the question of dialogue, namely, Yakubinsky and Vinográdov - texts by the former have already been translated into Portuguese. After that, she presents the representatives of abstract objectivism, namely Baudouin de Courtenay and Nikolai Kruchiévski, and then makes some remarks about the influence they exerted on the philosophy of language developed in MPL.

In the section O método sociológico de MFL em diálogo com o contexto intelectual [The Sociological Method of MPL in Dialogue with the Intellectual Context], Grillo proposes what she considers the main topics related to the dialogue between MPL and its intellectual context: “[...] the dialectical synthesis between neo-Kantian ideologism and Marxist sociology; the question of dialogue as an essential form of language; the relationship between language, sense and subject; the contrast between language system and philological tradition” (2017, p.52).⁸² She then returns to and analyzes the way MPL dialogues with the authors she presented before, sometimes establishing a critical dialogue with other translations and justifying (or even criticizing) their choices. She seeks to show that Voloshinov “[…] did a critical reading of tradition, as the sociological study of the concrete utterance was constituted in a close dialogue with tradition” (2017, p.71).⁸³

The authority of the essay stems from the knowledge Grillo has both of her audience - whose references about language are very different from those of the Russian audience at the time of MPL’s production and reception - and especially of the research that she carried out and produced the essay. The Brazilian reader, who now comes into contact with a spatially and temporally distant context, can now have access to layers of meaning of MPL hitherto only foreseen. The proposed mode of reading the essay responds to the contemporary academic context; the Circle’s concepts acquire dimension and specificities that reminds us more clearly of its origin, allowing new dialogues to begin.

The appendix, titled Plano de trabalho de Volóchinov [Voloshinov’s Work Plan], already published in Brazil (VOLOCHÍNOV, 2013, p.269-263), is now explained by the translators, who make clear that this document is part of Valentin Nikoláievitch Voloshinov’s personal archives, found in the State Archive of the Russian Federation in Moscow. They add that this is the third report produced by Voloshinov between 1925 and 1933, which refers to his participation in the Institute for Comparative Study of Literatures and Languages of West and East (ILIAZV). It allows the reader to acquire the “[…] knowledge of the process of the work’s production and the observation of the meaningful differences between the project and the published work” (2017, p.326).⁸⁴

The next frame-text is the glossary, which was also crafted by the translators. It is comprised of 44 entries in Russian and Portuguese. The glossary explains the meanings of notions that are used repeatedly in the volume, establishing a dialogue between the entries and the authors quoted by Voloshinov and presented to the reader in the Introductory essay. At the end of the book, the reader knows more about the life of MPL’s author and the translators in About the author and About the translators.

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)⁸⁵ 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. 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.”⁸⁶ 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.

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 frame-texts, 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.

In regard to the (re-)reading of 2017, the individuals that chose and translated the text are the ones who were educated with the 1979 edition. This involves almost 40 years of extensive production of knowledge about MPL in Brazil and abroad, made concrete in the form of different academic genres, such as articles, theses, dissertations, books, new translations, interinstitutional circulation of researchers, among others. Moreover, during this significant moment, many other works of the Circle were translated, and scientific events as well as research and work groups were created, focusing on the “Bakhtinian thought.”

If all these elements solidified the undeniable importance of MPL to language studies in general and of its translation for the dialogic perspective to settle and disseminate in Brazil, the different element to be added to the (re-)reading of 2017 is, among the conditions of production involved in a (re-)translation, the fact that the translators (a Russian and a Brazilian) are experts in the Russian language and in the Circle’s oeuvre. Through research in archives and libraries in Russia and the work with the primary source text - MPL in Russian -, the (re-)translation makes concrete a new context of the Brazilian reception. In this context, the dialogical analysis of discourse (DAD), with singular contours, is a reality in the academic and scientific sphere. And this is certainly the reason why the frame-texts were signed only by national (women!) researchers. The voice of authority that leads the reader to a new mode of reading MPL stems from the academic tradition around the Circle, developed in Brazil since the 1970s. Although there are important international voices, the national ones resist them and show the knowledge that has been produced here and not only reproduced. It is undoubtedly a form of dialogical resistance.

Therefore, in Bakhtinian fashion, the frame-texts of MPL (1979 and 2017) are a constitutive part of the concrete utterance represented by the singularity of each translation. They point to the dialogue that is established between the source-text and the context(s) of reception, unveiling unique modes of (re-)reading a text, a theoretician, a thought.

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)⁸⁷ 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.

• Statement of Authorship and Responsibility for Published Content We declare that the authors had access to the research corpus, participated actively in the discussion of the results, and conducted the review and approval process of the paper’s final version.
• Translated by Orison Marden Bandeira de Melo Júnior - [e-mail]
• 1
  TN. CNPq is the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, under the Ministry of Science and Technology.
• 2
  Beth Brait is the coordinator and Maria Helena Cruz Pistori is a member of Project CNPq/Proc. 303643/2014-5.
• 3
  Beth Brait is the coordinator and Maria Helena Cruz Pistori is a member of Project CNPq/Proc. 307028/2018-6.
• 4
  In a joint scientific event, namely, Encontro Anual Nacional GT/ANPOLL/Estudos Bakhtinianos and XI Jornada do Grupo de Pesquisa/PUC-SP/CNPq Linguagem, Identidade e Memória, held at UNICAMP from June 29th to July 1st of 2016, we presented an oral communication entitled Recepção de Bakhtin e o Círculo: modos de ler [The Reception of Bakhtin and the Circle: Ways of Reading]. It started our discussion on frame-texts in work and research groups.
• 5
  BAKHTIN, M. The Problem of the Text in Linguistics, Philology, and the Human Sciences: An Experiment in Philosophical Analysis. In: BAKHTIN, M. Speech Genres & Other Late Essays. Translated by Vern W. McGee. Austin, TX: University of Texas 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.
• 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
  BAKHTIN, M. Discourse in the Novel. In: BAKHTIN, M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Edited by Michael Holquist; translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1981. pp.259-422.
• 11
  TN. This is the reference of Marxism and the Philosophy of Language in Portuguese. The year is not presented as the book was re-edited several times. The reference of the English version of MPL is in References.
• 12
  It is important to remember that the number of institutions of higher education in Brazil increased significantly in the time period between the two translations of MPL: in 1980 there were 882 federal, state, city and private institutions; in 2015, there were 2.364. Cf. http://download.inep.gov.br/download/ censo/1998/superior/evolucao_1980-1998.pdf ; https://repositorio.ufsc.br/bitstream/handle/123456789/ 181204/101_00125.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Access July 10, 2019.
• 13
  The reference of the English version of Rabelais and his World is on footnote 8.
• 14
  See https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/remate/issue/view/388 Access on July 10, 2019.
• 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.
• 17
  In the original: “escolher o nome de um de seus amigos e discípulos para subscrever a autoria do livro.”
• 18
  In the original: “participavam das indagações e pesquisas sobre o chamado método sociológico.”
• 19
  In the original: “Desapareceu desde então, ficando o livro, por muitos anos, relegado ao esquecimento oficial [...]”.
• 20
  In the original: “o esforço do autor para desenvolver uma filosofia da linguagem de fundamento marxista”
• 21
  BAKHTIN, M. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Translated by Cayl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
• 22
  See MACHADO, I. Comunicação e estudos enunciativos: a contribuição de Roman Jakobson. In BRAIT, B. (Org.). Estudos enunciativos no Brasil. Histórias e perspectivas. Campinas, SP: Pontes/FAPESP, 2001, and by the same author the excellent book titled O filme que Saussure não viu: o pensamento semiótico de Roman Jakobson (MACHADO, 2007).
• 23
  TN. Most essays that comprise Linguística e comunicação are in the essay collection titled Selected Writing II: Word and Language. [JAKOBSON, R. Selected Writing II: Word and Language. The Hague; Paris: Mouton de Gruyter, 1971.]
• 24
  TN. Most essays that comprise Linguística. Poética. Cinema [Linguistics. Poetry. Cinema] are in the essay collection Selected Writing III: Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry. [JAKOBSON, R. Selected Writing III: Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry. Edited, with a preface, by Stephen Rudy. The Hague; Paris; New York: Mouton Publishers, 1981].
• 25
  In Portuguese: “a luta por uma abordagem funcional da língua resume-se, em última análise, na defesa do sentido, o que por sua vez, leva à defesa do elemento de valor. A esse respeito, o único dos seus contemporâneos russos a partilhar a sua posição naquela época era o falecido Mikhail Mikhailovitch Bakhthin.”
• 26
  In Portuguese: “No livro publicado com a assinatura de V. N. Volochínov em Leningrado, 1929-1930, em duas edições sucessivas sob o título de Marksizm i filossófia iaziká (Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem), tudo, desde a página de título, só pode surpreender.” In the original: “Dans le livre publié sous la signature de V. N. Volochinov à Leningrad en 1929-30 dans deux éditions successives sous le titre Marksizm i filosofija jazyka (“Marxisme et philosophie du langage”), tout, depuis la page de titre, ne peut que surprendre” (BAKHTINE/VOLOCHINOV, 1977, p.7). For reference of the French edition, see footnote 14.
• 27
  In other editions, the Foreword is on pages 9 and 10.
• 28
  In Portuguese: “Acabou-se descobrindo que o livro em questão e várias outras obras [...] com o nome de Volochínov [...] foram, na verdade, escritos por Bakhtin.” In the original: “On finit par découvrir que le livre en question et plusieurs autres ouvrages [...] furent en vérité composés par Bakhtine” (BAKHTINE/VOLOCHINOV, 1977, p.7). For reference of the French edition, see footnote 14.
• 29
  In Portuguese: “adeptos e discípulos do pesquisador.” In the original: “adeptes et disciples du chercheur” (BAKHTINE/VOLOCHINOV, 1977, p.7). For reference of the French edition, see footnote 14.
• 30
  In Portuguese: “[...] um volume sobre a doutrina do freudismo (1927), alguns ensaios sobre linguagem na vida e na poesia, assim como sobre a estrutura do enunciado.” In the original: “[...] un volume sur la doctrine du freudisme (1927) et quelques essais sur le langage dans la vie et dans la poésie, ainsi que sur la structure de l'énoncé” (BAKHTINE/VOLOCHINOV, 1977, p.7). For reference of the French edition, see footnote 14.
• 31
  In Portuguese: “Bakhtin (1895-1975) [é] autor de obras determinantes sobre a poética de Dostoiévski e de Rabelais.” In the original: “Bakhtine (1895-1975) [est] l'auteur d'oeuvres déterminantes sur la poétique de Dostoïevski et de Rabelais” (BAKHTINE/VOLOCHINOV, 1977, p.7). For reference of the French edition, see footnote 14.
• 32
  In Portuguese: “[…] pseudônimo escrupulosamente observado.” In the original: “pseudonyme scrupuleusement gardé” (BAKHTINE/VOLOCHINOV, 1977, p.7). For reference of the French edition, see footnote 14.
• 33
  In Portuguese: “completo desaparecimento do próprio nome desse eminente pesquisador de toda a imprensa russa durante quase um quarto de século (até 1963).” In the original: “la disparition complète du nom même de ce chercheur éminent dans toute la presse russe pendant presque un quart de siècle (jusqu'à 1963)” (BAKHTINE/VOLOCHINOV, 1977, p.7). For reference of the French edition, see footnote 14.
• 34
  In Portuguese: “Apesar de toda a singularidade da biografia do livro e de seu autor, é pela novidade e originalidade de seu conteúdo que a obra mais surpreende todo leitor de espírito aberto. Esse volume [...] antecipa as atuais explorações realizadas no campo da sociolinguística e, principalmente, consegue preceder as pesquisas semióticas de hoje e fixar-lhes novas tarefas de grande envergadura.” In the original: “Malgré toute la singularité de la biographie du livre et de son auteur, c'est par la nouveauté et l'originalité de son contenu que le volume surprend encore le plus tout lecteur à l'esprit ouvert. Ce volume dont le sous-titre porte: “Les problèmes fondamentaux de la méthode sociologique dans la science du langage” anticipe sur les exploits actuels accomplis dans le domaine de la sociolinguistique, et surtout réussit à devancer les recherches sémiotiques d'aujourd'hui et à leur assigner de nouvelles tâches de grande envergure” (BAKHTINE/VOLOCHINOV, 1977, p.8). For reference of the French edition, see footnote 14.
• 35
  See, for example, Grillo and Américo (2017) and the 2019 translation of a collection of Voloshinov’s writings, done directly from Russian by Grillo and Américo, titled A palavra na vida e a palavra na poesia [Word in Life and Word in Poetry] (VOLÓCHINOV, 2019).
• 36
  TN. An updated version of this book is titled Language Through the Looking Glass: Exploring Language and Linguistics. It was translated into English by Trevor Harris and published by the Oxford University Press in 1999.
• 37
  This is made evident by the fact that the Foreword is signed by Jakobson, but the name of the Introduction writer is not shown.
• 38
  In Portuguese: “Não há dúvidas quanto à paternidade de suas obras.” In the original: “Le doute n’est pas permis quant à la paternité de ses oeuvres” (BAKHTINE/VOLOCHINOV, 1977, p.10). For reference of the French edition, see footnote 14.
• 39
  In Portuguese: “Não há fronteira clara entre gramática e estilística [...] A análise estilística, parte integrante da linguística, aparece como a preocupação essencial de Bakhtin.” In the original: “Il n'y a pas pour lui de frontière nette entre grammaire et stylistique. [...] L’analyse stylistique, partie intégrante de la linguistique, apparaît comme la préoccupation essentielle de Bakhtine” (BAKHTINE/VOLOCHINOV, 1977, p.17). For reference of the French edition, see footnote 14.
• 40
  In Portuguese: “pequeno círculo de intelectuais frequentado, entre outros, por Marc Chagall, P. N. Medvedev e V. N. Voloshinov.”
• 41
  In Portuguese: “assinarão suas primeiras obras”; “nos anos trinta, por obra dos expurgos estalinistas”; “na fronteira da Sibéria com o Casaquistão, onde atua como professor e começa a escrever o texto sobre Rabelais, publicado em Moscou em 1965.”
• 42
  Brazil still has 11.3 million illiterate people aged 15 or older. This number corresponds to 6.8% of the population. This figure corresponds to what was identified in 2018 and shows a decrease of 0.1% in relation to 2017. This accounts for fewer illiterate people (121 thousand) in relation to 2017, when 6.9% of the population were illiterate. These data were released by the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) [Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics] on Thursday and are part of the supplement in education of the Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicílios Contínua (Pnad Contínua) [National Continuous Household Sample Survey]. https://oglobo.globo.com/sociedade/educacao/brasil-ainda-tem-113-milhoes-de-analfabetos-23745356 Access on October 25th, 2019.
• 43
  See Bakhtin (2015; 2016; 2017; 2018).
• 44
  See Bakhtin (2013).
• 45
  TN. In the English version, the book is authored by Bakhtin/Medvedev: BAKHTIN, M.; MEDVEDEV. The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship: A Critical Introduction to Sociologial Poetics. Translated by Albert J. Wehrte. Baltimore; London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.
• 46
  Publication in English: BAKHTIN, M. Dialogic Origin and Dialogic Pedagogy of Grammar: Stylistics in Teaching Russian Language in Secondary School. Translated by Lydia Razran Stone. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, vol. 42, no. 6, pp.12-49, November-December 2004.
• 47
  In this edition, Voloshinov’s name has an accent on the second ‘o’ - Volóchinov.
• 48
  In the original: “uma das obras fundamentais da linguística moderna” [...] “Redigido no âmbito do Círculo de Bakhtin por Valentin N. Volóchinov (1895-1936), foi por vezes atribuído ao próprio Bakhtin.”
• 49
  In the original: “que o espaço da (re)tradução é um espaço de coexistência de traduções, e não de substituições; [...] que formam e conformam um complexo de relações de aliança, divergência, ressonância, intertexto, complementaridade etc.”
• 50
  In the original: “primorosa e importante edição” [...] “perspectiva dialógica” [...] “um dos mais conhecidos e citados trabalhos advindos do Círculo de Bakhtin.”
• 51
  In the original: “No estágio atual dos estudos bakhtinianos, as (re)traduções, no Brasil e no exterior, devem-se à consciência de que o pensamento dialógico exige o conhecimento dos contextos de produção e de recepção, para melhor situar os trabalhos, sua originalidade, seu diálogo polêmico ou não com outras vertentes do conhecimento.”
• 52
  In the original: “especialistas que se debruçam sobre as fontes primárias não apenas para divulgar obras e autores” - a obra já é conhecida, respeitada e divulgada, “mas para esclarecer a gênese e o alcance do pensamento”. [...] “mas para esclarecer a gênese e o alcance do pensamento.”
• 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.”
• 56
  In the original: “primeiramente, autores centrais para a compreensão do método sociológico desenvolvido em MFL, tanto pela influência quanto pela interlocução polêmica; e, em segundo lugar, autores e escolas ligados à linguística e à filosofia da linguagem, nossa área de atuação.”
• 57
  In the original: “representam os primórdios da linguística russa do final do século XIX à primeira metade do século XX e importantes interlocutores de Bakhtin, Medviédev e Volóchinov tanto no terreno da filosofia da linguagem quanto no da gramática, da linguística, da teoria da literatura e da estilística.”
• 58
  In the original: “fundador da linguística teórica, criador de um sistema da filosofia da linguagem do século XIX e precursor de quase todas as posições do Curso de linguística geral, de Ferdinand de Saussure.”
• 59
  We need to point out the important reflections done by Carlos Aberto Faraco, a great Brazilian scholar of the Circle. In his work titled Linguagem e diálogo: as ideias linguísticas do Círculo de Bakhtin [Language and Dialogue: The Linguistic Ideas of the Bakhtin Circle], published in 2003 and republished in 2009, he specifies the relations there are between Voloshinov and Humboldt. See the section Voloshinov and Humboldt in chapter III, titled Language Philosophy.
• 60
  In the original: “representante mais próximo em terras russas.”
• 61
  In the original: “os mais importantes representantes da análise especulativa da linguagem.”
• 62
  In the original: “compreender muitas das formulações de MFL.”
• 63
  In the original: “a nosso ver...”; “essa posição não nos pareceu fiel ao pensamento de Vossler”; “O pensamento de Vossler nos pareceu muito mais equilibrado e multifacetado do que é apresentado no manual russo de história da linguística”; “Vemos aqui uma das origens do conceito de diálogo em MFL [...].”
• 64
  In the original: “[...] as leituras russas desse autor [Vossler], aí incluída a presente em MFL, são um tanto parciais, pois acentuam apenas o polo da criatividade artística e individual.”
• 65
  In the original: “[...] a síntese dialética entre idealismo neokantiano e sociologia marxista; a questão do diálogo como forma essencial da linguagem; a relação entre língua, sentido e sujeito; o contraponto entre sistema linguístico e tradição filológica.”
• 66
  In the original: “[...] operou uma leitura crítica das tradições, uma vez que o estudo sociológico do enunciado concreto se constituiu em diálogo estreito com a tradição.”
• 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.
• 69
  In the original: “as formas e tipos de interação discursiva em sua relação com as condições concretas em que se realizam.”

REFERÊNCIAS

• ALTMAN, C. A conexão americana: Mattoso Câmara e o círculo linguístico de Nova Iorque. DELTA, São Paulo , v. 20, n. spe, p.129-158, 2004. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-44502004000300010 Acesso em 24 janeiro de 2019.
  » http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-44502004000300010
• BAKHTIN, M. Teoria do romance II: As formas do tempo e do cronotopo. Tradução, posfácio e notas Paulo Bezerra. Organização da edição russa Serguei Botcharov e Vadim Kójinov.São Paulo: Editora 34, 2018.
• BAKHTIN, M. Notas sobre literatura, cultura e ciências humanas Organização, tradução, posfácio e notas Paulo Bezerra. Notas da edição russa Serguei Botcharov. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2017.
• BAKHTIN, M. Os gêneros do discurso Organização, tradução, posfácio e notas Paulo Bezerra. Notas da edição russa Serguei Botcharov. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2016.
• BAKHTIN, M. Teoria do romance I: A estilística. Tradução, prefácio, notas e glossário Paulo Bezerra. Organização da edição russa: S. Botcharov e V. Kójinov. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2015.
• BAKHTIN, M. Questões de estilística no ensino da língua Tradução, posfácio e notas Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina Vólkova Américo. Apresentação Beth Brait. Organização e notas da edição russa Serguei Botcharov e Liudmila Gogotichvíli. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2013.
• BAKHTIN, M. O método formal nos estudos literários: Introdução crítica a uma poética sociológica. Tradução e Nota das tradutoras de Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina Vólkova Américo. Apresentação Beth Brait. Posfácio Sheila Camargo Grillo. São Paulo: Contexto, 2012.
• BAKHTIN, M. Problemas da poética de Dostoievski Tradução direta do russo, notas e prefácio Paulo Bezerra. 4. ed. revista e ampliada. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2008.
• BAKHTIN, M. A cultura popular na Idade Média e no Renascimento: o contexto de François Rabelais. Tradução Iara Frateschi Vieira. São Paulo: HUCITEC, 1987.
• BAKHTIN, M. (VOLOCHINOV). Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem Problemas fundamentais do método sociológico na ciência da linguagem. Tradução Michel Lahud e Yara Frateschi Vieira com a colaboração de Lúcia Teixeira Wisnik e Carlos Henrique D. Chagas Cruz. Prefácio Roman Jakobson. Apresentação Marina Yaguello. São Paulo: Hucitec, 1979.
• BAKHTINE (VOLOCHINOV, V. N.). Le marxisme et la philosopie du langage: essai d’application de la méthode sociologique en linguistique. Traduit du russe et presenté par Marina Yaguello. Préface de Roman Jakobson. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit,1977.
• BRAIT, B. A chegada de Voloshinov/Bakhtin ao Brasil na década de 1970. In: ZANDWAISS, A. (Org.). História das ideias Diálogos entre linguagem, cultura e história. Passo Fundo: Ed. Universidade de Passo Fundo, 2012. p.216-243.
• FARACO, C. A. Linguagem e diálogo: as ideias linguísticas do Círculo de Bakhtin. Curitiba: Criar Edições, 2003. São Paulo: Parábola, 2009.
• GRILLO, S. Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem: uma resposta à ciência da linguagem do século XIX e início do XX. In: VOLÓCHINOV, V. Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem Problemas fundamentais do método sociológico na ciência da linguagem. TraduçãoSheila Grillo ; Ekaterina Vólkova Américo . São Paulo: Editora 34, 2017. p.7-80.
• GRILLO, S. V. C.; AMÉRICO, E. V. Valentín Nikoláievitch Volóchinov: detalhes da vida e da obra encontrados em arquivos. ALFA, São Paulo, v.61, n.2, p.255-281, 2017. https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/alfa/article/view/8962/6735 Acesso em 20 de março de 2019.
  » https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/alfa/article/view/8962/6735
• GRILLO, S. V. C. As traduções brasileiras de Bakhtin, Medviédev e Volóchinov. In: BRAIT, B.; MAGALHÃES, A. S. Dialogismo - teoria e(m) prática. São Paulo: Terracota, 2014. p.75-90.
• GRILLO, S. V. C. A obra em contexto: tradução, história e autoria. In: MEDVIEDEV, P. O método formal nos estudos literários Introdução crítica a uma poética sociológica. Tradução e Nota das tradutoras de Sheila Grillo eEkaterina Vólkova Américo . Apresentação Beth Brait. Prefácio Sheila Vieira de Camargo Grillo. São Paulo: Contexto, 2012. p.19-38. p.19-38.
• JAKOBSON, R. Linguística. Poética. Cinema Tradução Boris Schnaiderman, Haroldo de Campos et al São Paulo: Perspectiva, 1970.
• JAKOBSON, R. Linguística e comunicação Tradução Izidoro Blikstein e José Paulo Paes. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1969.
• JAKOBSON, R.; POMORSKA, K. Diálogos Tradução Elisa A. Kossovitch. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1985.
• LAHUD, M. A propósito da noção de dêixis São Paulo: Ática, 1979.
• MACHADO, I. O filme que Saussure não viu: o pensamento semiótico de Roman Jakobson. São Paulo: Editora Horizonte, 2008.
• MACHADO, I. Comunicação e estudos enunciativos: a contribuição de Roman Jakobson. In: BRAIT, B. (Org.). Estudos enunciativos no Brasil Histórias e perspectivas. Campinas: Pontes/FAPESP, 2001. p.87-106.
• MATOS, T.; FALEIROS, A. A noção de retradução nos estudos da tradução: um percurso teórico. Revista Letras Raras, vol.3, n.2, p.35-57, fev. 2015. http://revistas.ufcg.edu.br/ch/index.php/RLR/article/view/307/241 Acesso em 18 de maio de 2016.
  » http://revistas.ufcg.edu.br/ch/index.php/RLR/article/view/307/241
• MEDVIEDEV, P. O método formal nos estudos literários Introdução crítica a uma poética sociológica. Tradução e Nota das tradutoras de Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina Vólkova Américo. Apresentação Beth Brait. Prefácio Sheila Vieira de Camargo Grillo. São Paulo: Contexto, 2012.
• ORLANDI, E. História das ideias linguísticas no Brasil, Publicações. Relatos N. 06. http://www.unicamp.br/iel/hil/publica/relatos_06.html Acesso em fevereiro de 2019.
  » http://www.unicamp.br/iel/hil/publica/relatos_06.html
• ORNELLAS, C. A. A presença de Mikhail Bakhtin em dissertações de mestrado e teses de doutorado, em Letras, da USP e PUC/SP. 1998. 151f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Linguística) - Universidade de São Paulo.
• ORNELLAS, C. A. Mikhail Bakhtin no Brasil: primeiras repercussões. Espéculo. Revista de estudios literarios Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Madri, n. 43, nov. 2009- fev. 2010. Disponível em: https://webs.ucm.es/info/especulo/numero43/brabaj.html Acesso em 13 de fevereiro de 2019.
  » https://webs.ucm.es/info/especulo/numero43/brabaj.html
• SIMON, I. M. Roman Jakobson. Questions de poétique Dir. de Tzvetan Todorov. Paris Éditions du Seuil, 1973. 508 p. Revista Trans/Form/Ação, vol.1, Marília, 1974, p.267-275. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-31731974000100016 Acesso em 3 de janeiro de 2019.
  » http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-31731974000100016
• VOLÓCHINOV, V. (Círculo de Bakhtin). A palavra na vida e a palavra na poesia Ensaios, artigos, resenhas e poemas. Organização, tradução, ensaio introdutório e notas Sheila Grillo e Ekaterina Vólkova Américo. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2019.
• VOLÓCHINOV, V. (Círculo de Bakhtin). Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem Problemas fundamentais do método sociológico na ciência da linguagem. Tradução, Notas e Glossário Sheila Grillo ; Ekaterina V. Américo. Ensaio introdutório Sheila Grillo. São Paulo: Editora 34, 2017.
• VOLOCHÍNOV, N.V. (Do Círculo de Bakhtin). A construção da enunciação e outros ensaios Organização, tradução e notas João Wanderley Geraldi. Edição e supervisão da tradução Valdemir Miotello. São Carlos: Pedro e João, 2013.
• VOLOSHINOV, V. N. El signo ideológico y la filosofía del lenguaje Tradução do inglês Rosa Maria Rússonovich. Buenos Aires/Argentina: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1976.
• VOLOSHŠINOV, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language Tranlated by Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge/Massachusetts/London: Harvard University Press, 1973.
• YAGUELLO, M. Alice no país da linguagem: Para compreender a linguística. Tradução Maria José Figueiredo. Lisboa: Editorial Estampa, 1997.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 Apr 2020
• Date of issue
  Apr-Jun 2020

History

• Received
  22 Aug 2019
• Accepted
  29 Nov 2019