The Diverse Discourses that Sorround Us

Get nearer and contemplate the words.

Each one of them has a thousand secrete faces under a neutral one and asks you, without interest in the answer, poor or terrible, that thou shalt give:

“Thou hast brought the key?”¹

Carlos Drummond de Andrade

This issue of Bakhtiniana (17.4) presents the analysis of quite diverse objects, under different theoretical perspectives. In it, the reader will find twelve texts: besides an eminently theoretical study, there is also the analysis of literary, dramatic, religious discourses, the analysis of discourses on social networks, ethical reflections, scientific reflections on bilingual speech, theoretical retrospective... And three reviews. When observing this important set, it is impossible not to remember that all objects of analysis are constituted of discursive genres from different spheres of human activity. Retrieving the Circle’s sayings, they refer to science, literature, religion, morals, etc. and “are more closely bound up with the problems of the philosophy of language” (VOLOŠINOV, 1973, p.9).² Our task as scholars of discourse is to understand them.

Medvedev tells us that each genre of social communication “is only able to control certain definite aspects of reality, (...) definite principles of selection, definite forms for seeing and conceptualizing reality, and a definite scope and depth of penetration” (MEDVEDEV, 1978, p.131).³ Reading the articles and reviews allows the reader to observe how these genres are oriented in the reality in which they take place, the dialogues they propose, how they are completed, how they can be understood from the theoretical perspective that underlies the analyses, what interactions they establish with their responsive contemplators, which speeches they mobilize.

The notion of discourse genre, undoubtedly one of the fundamental contributions of Bakhtin and the Circle, implies, among several other concepts, a reflection on the context lived by the scholars who were the proponents of the dialogic perspective, and also dialogues, sometimes polemic, established with other theories and scholars, especially at the time of production of the Circle’s works. This reflection has been the object of research by many intellectuals in various parts of the world. Bakhtiniana has actively participated in this reflective investigation, thanks to the important contributions the journal receives, as it can be seen in this issue. Therefore, contrary to the order in the Table of Contents, we started the presentation of the texts of this 17.4 issue with a review from Russia, written by Oleg Osovsky, Svetlana Dubrovskaya and Ekaterina Chernetsova, the first two from Saransk (M. E. Evsevyev Mordovian State Pedagogical University and National Research Mordovia State University), home to the university where Bakhtin had taught for many years, and the third, from Moscow (National Research University Higher School of Economics). The three authors, who have contributed to Bakhtiniana on other occasions, have taken on the well-accepted task of bringing important publications on Bakhtin and the Circle in their country of origin to Brazilian readers.

The text is an excellent review of The Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought (814 p.), edited by Marina F. Bykova, Michael N. Forster and Lina Steiner, which exposes philosophical and Russian literature from the end of 18th century until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, that is, over almost three centuries. The authors highlight the depth of the work, stating that the work is far from being a handbook, implied by the title, as it aims at “showing each of the characters of Russian intellectual history in the context of their relationships to their predecessors and contemporaries, with the full range of philosophical and social influences in ideological, political, social, and cultural contexts” (p.266). After an overview of the work, Osovsky, Dubrovskaya and Chernetsova expose how the book introduces Mikhail Bakhtin’s work by means of the evaluation that Michael Forster brings

(...) of the entire nineteenth-century circle of the Sixties, which includes Herzen, Bakunin, and many other thinkers who opposed the Nikolai regime but did not agree with the version of socialism proposed by the enlightened West of that time.

This is the context, the thinking background against which the reader perceives the two chapters on Mikhail Bakhtin (p.270). From then on, the authors focus on the chapters dedicated to Bakhtin, written by well-known specialists in the legacy of the thinker: the historian of philosophy Vitaly Makhlin and the historian and literary theorist Galin Tihanov. According to them, the chapters “embody the two poles of Bakhtin’s interpretation, which can be conventionally called Russian and European” (p.271). The review is thorough, critical and well done. It should be read by all scholars of Bakhtinian thought, who will certainly look for the work on the web.⁴

As for the articles, the first is essentially theoretical. Entitled “Body and Transgression in Bakhtin and Bataille: A Debate of Excesses,” this article was written by Anderson Lopes da Silva (Researcher at GP/USP and NEFICS/UFPR). Researcher in communication sciences, Lopes da Silva puts in dialogue the ideas of Mikhail Bakhtin and Georges Bataille about the body. By approaching the thinking of both philosophers, Lopes da Silva’s argument allows the reader to observe commonalities regarding the body, especially those issues related to ephemerality, ambiguity, and the ambivalence of excess. According to the author, “ephemerality makes it possible that what is excessive in a given time-space is no longer so in the course of the temporality that surrounds it” (p.31). This work has the potential to expand knowledge in the area.

The second article, “The Disputes Regarding Meanings of the Homosexual Male Body Characterized as Bear: An Example of Dialogic Analysis,” by Rafael Lira Gomes Bastos (UFC), also has the body as a research focus, but from a different perspective. At a time of experiencing broad debates on identity issues, the text shows the reader wellfounded possibilities for analyzing homosexual discourse based on Bakhtinian thought. It is also the work of the Circle that supports the next article: “Participatory ethics in Bakhtin. Pandemic and Pansemic,” signed by Pampa Arán and Ariel Gomez Ponce, both from Universidad de Córdoba, Argentina. In the text, the authors deepen their reading of the essay Toward a Philosophy of the Act (BAKHTIN, 1993),⁵ to suggest ethical and participatory readings of current discourses during the pandemic, involving fear, humor and optimism in a difficult historical moment.

The article “Analysis of the Short Story ‘The Lady with the Dog.’ Parallels in the Author - Character Relations in Mikhail Bakhtin and Chekhov,” deals with literary discourse. Authors Maria Gluskova and Elena Vasilevich (USP) present the reader with letters by Anton Chekhov, in which the writer discusses literary theory, bringing them closer to Bakhtin’s thought as presented in the essay “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity” (1990).⁶ From this perspective, in an enriching work, they analyze aspects of the short story “The Lady with the Dog” and put it in dialogue with The “Lady of the Camellias,” by Alexandre Dumas. Next, we find the text by Débora Luciene Porto Boenavides (PUC-RS), who makes a retrospective of the reception of the Circle among us in “Publication and Reception of the Works of the Bakhtin Circle in Brazil: Consolidation of Dialogic Discourse Analysis.” Through detailed research, the author divides the Brazilian reception of the Circle’s works into four phases, justifying them.

A drop of classical studies, allied to discursive ones, is brought by Dolores Puga (UFMS) in the article “The Athenian Theater as the Stage for Political Factions: A Political Dispute in the Comedy The Frogs by Aristophanes (405 BC).” Puga contextualizes Aristophanes’ comedy, showing how it responds to the moment in which it was written and presented, how dramatic works were financed, and how theater acted persuasively in favor of determined political factions. In the analysis, she uses concepts developed by Orlandi, based on French Discourse Analysis, and Roger Chartier, a historian of books and reading. In the following article, “Formal and Multimodal Approach to Hard News as Genre, Structure and Metalanguage in Social and Digital Media Contexts,” Jan Alyne Barbosa Prado (UFBA) presents an important study based on the semantics of multimodal discourse and on the theory of representation of segmented discourse (SDRT), with a view to amplifying transversal knowledge of digital literacy, in particular, the tweets.

Gabriel Fernandino (UFMG), author of “Enunciative Postures in Deus Caritas Est (2005): An Analysis of The First Encyclical Signed by Benedict XVI According to Theoretical Formulations by Alain Rabatel,” resorts to the studies of the French professor, especially recognized for his research in the area of textual linguistics, regarding points of view and enunciative responsibility, to thoroughly and efficiently analyze the introduction of a Papal Encyclical.

The last of the articles is a contribution that comes to us through Sandra Madureira (PUC-SP) and Anna Smirnova (PUC-SP), who dedicated themselves to bringing together a group of researchers who work with the Russian language in its various interfaces. The first of these articles to appear in this issue is “Creating a Large-Scale Audio-Aligned Parsed Corpus of Bilingual Russian Child and Child-Directed Speech (BiRCh): Challenges, Solutions, and Implications for Research,” signed by Alex Lưu (Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA), Pasha Koval (New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates), Sophia A. Malamud (Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA), and Irina Y. Dubinina (Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) . It is about the construction of a bilingual corpus under naturalistic conditions, which can shed light on language acquisition, constituting an important tool for research on the acquisition of syntax, morphology and their interactions with semantics and pragmatics.

The issue also includes three reviews, the first of which has already been presented. The second is written by Vanessa Fonseca Barbosa (USP) and deals with the work Analyse du discours et comparaison: enjeux théoriques et méthodologique [Discourse Analysis and Comparison: Theoretical and Methodological Questions], organized by Sheila Grillo (USP), Sandrine Reboul-Touré (Université Sorbonne Nouvelle - Paris 3), Maria Glushkova (USP). The review offers the reader an overview of the published work, which focuses on the theoretical and methodological principles of Comparative/Contrastive Discourse Analysis and its dissemination in Brazil, France and Russia. According to Barbosa, the texts “are theoretically addressed through three perspectives: contrastive/comparative analysis of discourse, Bakhtin, Medvedev, Vološinov’s dialogism, and Russian linguoculture” (p.13).⁷ It is an especially relevant reading for anyone interested in discourse analysis. Finally, the last of the three reviews is about the book Além da tese: percursos de pesquisa em ciências humanas [Beyond Thesis: Routes for Research in Human Sciences] by Carlos Gonçalves et al. In the review, Cláudia Garcia Cavalcante (UFPR) approaches the work from a personal and sensitive perspective, highlighting authors and essays, and showing the academic production during the difficult pandemic period we have been experiencing. Significantly, the review bears the title of “Midway to the Thesis, There are (us) People and the Pandemic.”

We emphasize that Bakhtiniana continues to advance in the path of open science, as the reader can attest in this issue through the publication of several good evaluations. There were more interactions between authors and reviewers; sometimes, the same reviewer revised the text that authors rewrote according to their requests or suggestions. The reader can thus see that academic production is a continuous learning process, a productive dialogue among researchers. But there are still anonymous reviewers whom Bakhtiniana respects and thanks for their contribution to the good quality of the published articles.

Finally, we invite everyone - readers, authors and collaborators - to actively respond to these texts, savoring and including this issue in their research. As readers can see, this is a number that brings together ten Brazilian researchers from seven different Brazilian universities (USP, UFPR, UFC, PUC-RS, UFMS, UFBA, UFMG), and ten researchers from foreign universities (located in Córdoba, Argentina; Waltham, Massachusetts, USA; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; Saransk, Moscow, Russia).

We are once again greatly indebted to the valuable and constant support, help and recognition from CNPq, by means of Chamada CNPq Nº 15/2021 - Programa Editorial, Proc. 402109/2021-0 [Call CNPq 15/2021 - Editorial Program, Process 402109/2021-0], and from PUC-SP by means of Plano de Incentivo à Pesquisa (PIPEq)/ Edital 11913/2022 Publicação de Periódicos (PubPer-PUCSP), Solicitação 22883 [Incentive Research Plan (PIPEq)/ Publication Notice 11913/2022 Academic Journal Publication (PubPerPUCSP), Request 22883].

• 1
  In Portuguese: Chega mais perto e contempla as palavras. / Cada uma tem mil faces secretas sob a face neutra / e te pergunta, sem interesse pela resposta, / pobre ou terrível, que lhe deres: / “Trouxeste a chave?”
• 2
  VOLOŠINOV, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trad. Ladislav Matejka and R. Titunik. Translator’s Preface. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.
• 3
  BAKHTIN, M. /MEDVEDEV, P. N. The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship. A Critical Introduction to Sociological Poetics. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978 [1928].
• 4
  https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm:978-3-030-62982-3/1.pdf
• 5
  BAKHTIN, M. M. Toward a Philosophy to the Act. Translation & notes by Vadim Liapunov. Edited by Vadim Liapunov & Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1993.
• 6
  BAKHTIN, M. Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity (ca. 1920-1923). In: BAKHTIN, M. Art and Answerability. Early Philosophical Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Translated by Vadim Liapunov. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990, pp.4-256.
• 7
  In French: “[...] s’inscrivent, sur le plan théorique, dans une triple perspective: l’analyse des discours contrastive/comparative, le dialogisme de Bakhtine, Medvedev, Volóchinov et la linguoculturologie russe.”
• Translated by Paulo Rogério Stella – [e-mail]; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4494-6319

REFERÊNCIAS

• BAKHTIN, M. O autor e a personagem na atividade estética. In: BAKHTIN, M. Estética da criação verbal Introdução e tradução do russo de Paulo Bezerra. Prefácio à edição francesa de Tzvetan Todorov. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2003. p.3-192.
• BAKHTIN, M. Para uma filosofia do ato responsável Tradução aos cuidados de Valdemir Miotello & Carlos Alberto Faraco. São Carlos, SP: Pedro & João Editores, 2010.
• MEDVIÉDEV, 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.
• 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.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  28 Oct 2022
• Date of issue
  Oct-Dec 2022