Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Bakhtinian Dialogue Revisited: A (Non-biosemiotic) View from Historiography and Epistemology of Humanities

  • Chapter
Biosemiotic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics

Part of the book series: Biosemiotics ((BSEM,volume 13))

  • 704 Accesses

Abstract

One of the key concepts and categories of Bakhtin’s philosophy, that of the dialogue, was perceived by Bakhtin in different ways. Even if this category acquires its typically “Bakhtinian” sense in his works beginning the 1950s, already Bakhtin’s early writings contained some germs of his future “dialogical” thoughts, the category of dialogue being connected with other important notions of Bakhtin’s theories.

Everything […] can be reduced to a dialogue.

(Baxtin 1929b [1997–…, vol. II, p. 157]).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Extracts from Bakhtin’s work are translated by ourselves. They are far from being as distinguished as already existing texts of Bakhtin’s translations into English; here we give preference to the fidelity of translation, sometimes at the expense of language or stylistic elegance (it also concerns the titles of Bakhtin’s translated works in the References).

  2. 2.

    Among the latest studies, let us refer to the article Petrilli and Ponzio 2013 (cf. also Ponzio 2004; Kull 2007; Ponzio 2012 and the corresponding bibliographical references in these articles, especially in the first and in the third ones).

  3. 3.

    Similar attempts have also been undertaken in the past. However, the range of reliable sources that one can use, increases with time, that is why returning to this issue does not seem superfluous.

  4. 4.

    The article which follows was published in French for the first time (Cahiers de praxematique, 2011, 57, pp. 31–50), as the text of our plenary paper presented at the Conference “Dialogisme: langue, discours” (Université Montpellier-III/CNRS), organized in Montpellier in September 2010. The English translation is a slightly revised version of the original text. – E.V.

  5. 5.

    Though some of these works contain certain ideas connected with the subject of our article.

  6. 6.

    In general, Bakhtin did not like definitions and was the first to recognize it, emphasizing his “love for variations and for a multitude of terms referring to one and the same phenomenon” (Baxtin 1971–1974 [1997–2012, vol. VI, p. 431]).

  7. 7.

    Some of Bakhtin ’s studies (or their parts) have been lost forever.

  8. 8.

    In this study, we shall not distinguish sense and meaning.

  9. 9.

    Baxtin 1959–1960 [1997–2012, vol. V, p. 325], etc.

  10. 10.

    Baxtin 1961 [1997–2012, vol. V, p. 332, etc.].

  11. 11.

    Unless otherwise stated, speaking of dialogue in this article we shall refer to this broad sense.

  12. 12.

    Baxtin 1961 [1997–2012, vol. V, p. 338 sq.].

  13. 13.

    Baxtin, early 1920s–1974 [1986, p. 515].

  14. 14.

    The content of Bakhtinian dialogue does not allow to define any exact number of these levels. On the other hand, Bakhtin ’s “dialogic” concerns were not limited to his theoretical researches, cf. for instance Bakhtin’s criticism of the “monological” direction in the teaching of Russian at school (Baxtin 1945 [1997–2012]).

  15. 15.

    Cf. Baxtin 1963 [1997–2012, vol. VI, p. 51].

  16. 16.

    The absence of terminological strictness in the case of Bakhtin and his “conceptual plasticity” (cf. Brès and Rosier 2007, p. 437 sq.) do not allow such a formulation.

  17. 17.

    In Bakhtin ’s intellectual activity several phases could be distinguished. During the 1920s, Bakhtin was interested in the problems of general (especially literary) aesthetics, seen through the prism of philosophy. In the 1930s, he studied, first of all, historical poetics of literary genres. Finally, in his research of the 1950s–1970s, the scholar came back to a number of subjects of his philosophy of aesthetics in the 1920s, such as the problem of text in general, the study of utterances, of speech genres, etc.

  18. 18.

    Let us note, however, that Bakhtin , who did not like definitions, did not like references to particular sources either: there are not many references in his work for at least three important reasons. First, some of his works (especially his early texts), anyway, remained unfinished (including at the level of references). Secondly, Bakhtin always counted on a sufficiently high level of his potential readers (sapienti sat) and sometimes consciously refused to give precise references. Finally, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, there existed a particular genre of philosophical treatise that did not involve references in general.

  19. 19.

    Baxtin 1929b [1997–2012, vol. II, p. 60].

  20. 20.

    This note disappeared from the second edition of the book (Baxtin 1963 [1997–2012]).

  21. 21.

    Cf. for instance Baxtin 1923–1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 125], etc.

  22. 22.

    Baxtin 1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 285].

  23. 23.

    Ibid., p. 318.

  24. 24.

    Baxtin 1923–1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 246 sq.].

  25. 25.

    Ibid., p. 246, etc. It is also the deep Bakhtinian antipsychologism (cf. for instance Baxtin 1918–1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 15 sq.]) that brings him closer to Husserl; as for the dialogue, it has never been studied by Bakhtin on a purely psychological level.

  26. 26.

    Baxtin 1929b [1997–2012] and 1963 [1997–2012].

  27. 27.

    For Bakhtin , aesthetic implied phenomena related to the humanities, unlike natural sciences. In this opposition a reference to Wilhelm Dilthey (cf. Baxtin 1966–1967 – ? (a) [1997–2012, vol. VI, p. 403, 407]) and to Heinrich Rickert (ibid., p. 407) could be distinguished, even though, for Bakhtine, the boundaries between these two types of knowledge were not always impenetrable (ibid.).

  28. 28.

    In the early twentieth century, the reception in Russia of the theory of Einfühlung ‘empathy’ (immediately associated with the name of Theodor Lipps, to whom Bakhtin referred several times [Baxtin 1923–1924 (1997–2012, vol. I, p. 94, 138, 140), etc.]), took place to a large extent through Lapshin; in the 1910s, the concept of Einfühlung was already widespread in the Russian humanities.

  29. 29.

    Baxtin 1923–1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 159].

  30. 30.

    The Russian word slovo refers not only to the ‘word’, but also to the ‘discourse’, to the ‘speech’, etc. (cf. in Bakhtin ’s work [Baxtin 1953–1954 (1997–2012, vol. V, p. 171)]) and sometime has religious connotations (In the beginning was the Word …).

  31. 31.

    Baxtin 1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 280].

  32. 32.

    Baxtin 1919 [1986].

  33. 33.

    Ibid., p. 3.

  34. 34.

    Ibid.

  35. 35.

    Cf. similar ideas connected with the metaphors of reverberation and reflection in the works of other Russian philosophers in the early twentieth century (in particular, Lapshin and Shpet who analyzed, among others, Paul Natorp’s related ideas).

  36. 36.

    Baxtin 1923–1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 111].

  37. 37.

    Baxtin 1918–1924 [1997–2012].

  38. 38.

    Baxtin 1959–1960 [1997–2012, vol. V, p. 306 sq.].

  39. 39.

    In the broad sense of the word, Bakhtin understood the text as a “coherent whole complex of signs” (ibid., p. 308), that is, as a semiotic unit par excellence (on this subject cf. Ponzio 2007).

  40. 40.

    Baxtin 1959–1960 [1997–2012, vol. V, p. 308].

  41. 41.

    Baxtin 1940 [1997–2012], 1940/1970 [1997–2012] and 1965 [1997–2012].

  42. 42.

    Baxtin 1940 [1997–2012, vol. IV(1), p. 489 sq.].

  43. 43.

    Baxtin 1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, pp. 278–279 sq.].

  44. 44.

    Ibid .

  45. 45.

    Cf. Baxtin 1918–1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 51] and especially Baxtin 1970 [1997–2012, vol. VI, p. 455].

  46. 46.

    Baxtin 1970 [1997–2012].

  47. 47.

    Baxtin, early 1920s–1974 [1986, p. 514].

  48. 48.

    In his early studies, Bakhtin also touches upon the problem of dialogues (in the narrow sense of the word) in literary works – for example, speaking about dialogue in drama (Baxtin 1923–1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 75 sq.]), etc.

  49. 49.

    Baxtin 1923–1924 [1997–2012].

  50. 50.

    Cf. also Baxtin 1953–1954 [1997–2012, vol. V, p. 170].

  51. 51.

    Baxtin 1929a [1997–2012] and 1929c [1997–2012].

  52. 52.

    Baxtin 1929b [1997–2012] and 1963 [1997–2012].

  53. 53.

    Baxtin 1929b [1997–2012, vol. II, p. 59].

  54. 54.

    Ibid., p. 60.

  55. 55.

    Baxtin 1963 [1997–2012, vol. VI, p. 7].

  56. 56.

    Ibid., Chapter 5, Part 4. Cf. at the same time the notion of “microdialogue” which implies, on the contrary, the internalization of dialogic replicas (ibid ., p. 51). This way, Bakhtin insisted on the dialogic nature of even interior “monologues”, emphasizing their importance in his book on Dostoevsky.

  57. 57.

    Cf. in particular Baxtin 1966–1967 – ? (b) [1997–2012, vol. VI, p. 413] and early 1920s–1974 [1986, p. 528]. In his book on Dostoevsky, dialogue is also opposed to the (Hegelian) dialectics, the latter implying the process of formation and growth (Baxtin 1963 [1997–2012, vol. VI, p. 33 sq.]). This opposition is also present in Bakhtin ’s other works (including in Baxtin 1959–1960 [1997–2012]).

  58. 58.

    Cf. Baxtin 1929b [1997–2012, vol. II, p. 99] vs 1963 [1997–2012, vol. VI, p. 225].

  59. 59.

    In addition to those mentioned above, this book also contains reflections on some other aspects of dialogues in literature.

  60. 60.

    Baxtin 1937–1938 [1986, p. 272].

  61. 61.

    Ibid., pp. 203–204.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., p. 239.

  63. 63.

    Baxtin 1965 [1997–2012, vol. IV(2), p. 25].

  64. 64.

    The same thing would be true in case of individuals (Baxtin 1961 [1997–2012, vol. V, p. 344]).

  65. 65.

    Baxtin 1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 282]. Here Bakhtin echoes philosophy of Rickert who was well known in Russia at that time. For Rickert, the main methodological problem of philosophy concerned the distinction between different fields of culture, and the boundaries between them. In general, Bakhtin uses the word boundary in different contexts – in particular, reflecting in his early works on philosophical problems, with references to Friedrich Schleiermacher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Paul Natorp, Arthur Schopenhauer.

  66. 66.

    Baxtin 1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 267 sq.].

  67. 67.

    Baxtin 1940 [1986, p. 385].

  68. 68.

    It is speaking of dialogue (among others) that Bakhtin opposes the official culture (which reflects only the “small experience” of a particular society) to folk culture (reflecting a “great experience” of humanity), unlimited and infinite, in which everything is alive, everything speaks, everything is dialogical (Baxtin, early 1920s–1974 [1986, pp. 518–520]).

  69. 69.

    Baxtin 1937–1938 [1986, p. 194 sq.].

  70. 70.

    Baxtin 1923–1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 86].

  71. 71.

    Already in Bakhtin ’s early works, namely in “Author and hero in aesthetic activity”, his thoughts on the literary works serve as a pretext for him to talk about philosophy: there are very few examples from literature in this work; even the word author here refers not only to writers, but also to the creative acts always being in need of the Other. This way, Bakhtinian ideas about the relationship between author and character are transformed into thoughts about the relationship I (Self) vs the Other in general. In the work about the “philosophy of the act”, some examples from literature seem to be lost in Bakhtin’s philosophical reflections. Afterwards, in his book on Dostoevsky, it is philosophy that Bakhtin blames for its monological nature, discussing polyphony and dialogism in literature (Baxtin 1929b [1997–2012, vol. II, p. 59 sq.]). Similarly, in some of his later texts, it is not always easy to understand whether Bakhtin discusses literature or philosophy, dialogues in literary works or dialogical relations in a much broader sense. Apart from Bakhtin, many other Russian scholars of the early twentieth century also pondered the problems of relationship between author and character not only in literary, but also in philosophical contexts: among them, were Ivan Lapshin, Alexander Lappo-Danilevsky, Timofey Rainov, Lev Pumpyansky, etc.

  72. 72.

    Baxtin 1959–1960 [1997–2012, vol. V, p. 306]. In his dialogues with Victor Duvakin Bakhtin defines himself in the following way: “[I am] a philosopher, rather than a philologist. […] I am a thinker” (Besedy 1973 [1996, p. 42]). Recorded two years before his death, these dialogues can now serve as Bakhtin’s memoirs not only of his own life, but also of his contemporaries and of a whole era.

  73. 73.

    One of the inspirations of Bakhtin ’s reflections was certainly Buber, with his discovery of the domain of das Zwischenmenschliche.

  74. 74.

    Baxtin, early 1950s [1997–2012]. Several issues discussed in this article by Bakhtin are also present in his preparatory texts, eloquently titled “Dialogue (s)”, even if in one of these texts appears a seemingly unexpected, for Bakhtin’s work, topic, that of the relative character of the opposition dialogue vs monologue (ibid., p. 209).

  75. 75.

    The notion of utterance [vyskazyvanie] in the linguistic sense of the word appears in Bakhtin ’s work as from 1924 (Baxtin 1924 [1997–2012]), visibly under the influence of Lev Yakubinsky. In some other Bakhtin’s texts (Baxtin 1918–1924 [1997–2012], 1923–1924 [1997–2012], etc.), the word utterance is, in addition, used as a synonym of judgment.

  76. 76.

    As early as the 1920s, Bakhtin spoke about utterances as very heterogeneous units, which made them particularly difficult to be studied (Baxtin 1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, pp. 300–301]).

  77. 77.

    The idea of metalinguistics as a particular discipline is already outlined in 1929, in Bakhtin ’s book on Dostoevsky, even if this word is still not used there (cf., on the contrary, Baxtin 1963 [1997–2012, vol. VI, p. 203]).

  78. 78.

    That is why, in particular, no translated text would be completely adequate to its original (Baxtin 1959–1960 [1997–2012, vol. V, p. 310]).

  79. 79.

    Baxtin 1961 [1997–2012, vol. V, p. 338].

  80. 80.

    Baxtin 1953–1954 [1997–2012, vol. V, p. 193]. This thesis allows to raise the problem of the author of texts in a new way and can explain, in part, the complicated situation around the authorship of certain works composed by the members of the so-called “Bakhtin ’s circle” (cf. Ivanov 1973 vs Ivanov in Velmezova and Kull 2011).

  81. 81.

    Baxtin 1923–1924 [1997–2012, vol. I, p. 182].

  82. 82.

    Baxtin, early 1920s–1974 [1986, p. 531].

  83. 83.

    Baxtin 1961 [1997–2012, vol. V, p. 351].

References

Primary Sources

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1918–1924 [1997–2012]). K filosofii postupka. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. I, pp. 7–68. [Towards a philosophy of the act].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1919 [1986]). Iskusstvo i otvetstvennost’. In Baxtin 1986, pp. 3–4. [Art and answerability].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (early 1920s–1974 [1986]). Zametki. In Baxtin 1986, pp. 509–531. [Notes].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1923–1924 [1997–2012]). Avtor i geroj v èstetičeskoj dejatel’nosti. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. I, pp. 69–263. [Author and hero in aesthetic activity].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1924 [1997–2012]). K voprosam metodologii èstetiki slovesnogo tvorčestva. I. Problema formy, soderžanija i materiala v slovesnom xudožestvennom tvorčestve. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. I, pp. 265–325. [Towards the methodology of aesthetics of verbal creation. I. The problem of form, content and material in verbal artistic creation].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1929a [1997–2012]). Ideologičeskij roman L.N. Tolstogo. Predislovie. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. II, pp. 185–204. [Tolstoy’s ideological novel].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1929b [1997–2012]). Problemy tvorčestva Dostoevskogo. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. II, pp. 5–175. [The problems of Dostoevsky’s works].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1929c [1997–2012]). Tolstoj-dramaturg. Predislovie. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. II, pp. 176–184. [Tolstoy the playwright. Preface].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1937–1938 [1986]). Formy vremeni i xronotopa v romane. Očerki po istoričeskoj poètike. In Baxtin 1986, pp. 121–290. [Forms of time and of the chronotope in the novel].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1940 [1986]). Iz predystorii romannogo slova. In Baxtin 1986, pp. 353–391. [Of the prehistory of the novelistic Word]

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1940 [1997–2012]). Fransua Rable v istorii realizma. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. IV(1), pp. 11–505. [François Rabelais in the history of realism].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1940/1970 [1997–2012]). Rable i Gogol’ (Iskusstvo slova i narodnaja smexovaja kul’tura). In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. IV(2), pp. 509–521. [Rabelais and Gogol (The art of the Word and the folk culture of laughter)].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1945 [1997–2012]). Voprosy stilistiki na urokax russkogo jazyka v srednej škole. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. V, pp. 141–156. [Questions of stylistics in teaching the Russian language at secondary school].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (early 1950s [1997–2012]). Iz arxivnyx zapisej k rabote “Problema rečevyx žanrov”. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. V, pp. 207–286. [From the archive notes to the work “Problem of speech genres”].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1953–1954 [1997–2012]). Problema rečevyx žanrov. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. V, pp. 159–206. [The problem of speech genres].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1959–1960 [1997–2012]). Problema teksta. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. V, pp. 306–326. [The problem of text].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1961 [1997–2012]). 1961 god. Zametki. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. V, pp. 329–360. [1961. Notes].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1963 [1997–2012]). Problemy poètiki Dostoevskogo. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. VI, pp. 5–300. [The problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1965 [1997–2012]). Tvorčestvo Fransua Rable i narodnaja kul’tura srednevekov’ja i Renessansa. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. IV(2), pp. 7–508. [The work of François Rabelais and folk culture of the Middle Ages and Renaissance].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1966–1967 – ? (a) [1997–2012]).“Rabočie zapisi 60-x – načala 70-x godov. Tetrad’ 2. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. VI, pp. 385–410. [Working notes made in the 1960s – early 1970s. Notebook 2].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1966–1967 – ? (b) [1997–2012]). Rabočie zapisi 60-x – načala 70-x godov. Tetrad’ 3. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. VI, pp. 411–416. [Working notes made in the 1960s – early 1970s. Notebook 3].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1970 [1997–2012]). Otvet na vopros redakcii “Novogo mira”. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. VI, pp. 451–457. [Answer to the question of “Novyj mir” editors].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1971–1974 [1997–2012]). Rabočie zapisi 60-x – načala 70-x godov. Tetrad’ 4. In Baxtin 1997–2012, Vol. VI, pp. 416–431. [Working notes made in the 1960s – early 1970s. Notebook 4].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1986). Literaturno-kritičeskie stat’i. Moskva: Xudožestvennaja literatura. [Literary criticism. Articles].

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxtin, M. M. (1997–2012). Sobranie sočinenij v semi tomax: Vol. I (2003), II (2000), III (2012), IV(1) (2008), IV(2) (2010), V (1997), VI (2002). Moskva: Russkie slovari (vol. I, II, V, VI)/Jazyki slavjanskix kul’tur (vol. I, III, IV [I], IV [II], VI). [Collected works in seven volumes].

    Google Scholar 

  • Besedy. (1973 [1996]). Besedy V.D. Duvakina s M.M. Baxtinym. Moskva: Izdatel’skaja gruppa “Progress”. [V.D. Duvakin’s conversations with M.M. Bakhtin].

    Google Scholar 

Secondary Sources

  • Brès, J., & Rosier, L. (2007). Réfractions: polyphonie et dialogisme, deux exemples de reconfigurations théoriques dans les sciences du langage francophone. In B. Vauthier (Ed.), Bakhtine, Volochinov et Medvedev dans les contextes européen et russe [Slavica Occitania, 25], pp. 437–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanov, V. V. (1973). Značenie idej M.M. Baxtina o znake, vyskazyvanii i dialoge dlja sovremennoj semiotiki. Trudy po znakovym sismemam, 6, 5–44. [The significance of M.M. Bakhtin’s ideas on sign, utterance and dialogue for modern semiotics].

    Google Scholar 

  • Kull, K. (2007). Biosemiotic conversations: Ponzio, Bakhtin, Kanaev, Driesch, Uexküll, Lotman. In S. Petrilli (Ed.), Philosophy of language as the art of listening: On Augusto Ponzio’s scientific research (pp. 79–89). Bari: Edizioni dal Sud.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrilli, S., & Ponzio, A. (2013). Modelling, dialogism and the functional cycle: Biosemiotic and philosophical insights. Sign Systems Studies, 41(1), 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponzio, A. (2004). Dialogism and biosemiotics. Semiotica, 150, 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponzio, A. (2007). Dialogue, intertextualité et intercorporéité dans l’œuvre de Bakhtine et du Cercle. In B. Vauthier (Ed.), Bakhtine, Volochinov et Medvedev dans les contextes européen et russe [Slavica Occitania, 25], pp. 181–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponzio, A. (2012). Alterity. In D. Favareau, P. Cobley, & K. Kull (Eds.), A more developed sign: Interpreting the work of Jesper Hoffmeyer (pp. 21–24). Tartu: Tartu University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velmezova, E., & Kull, K. (2011). Interview with Vjačeslav Vsevolodovič Ivanov about semiotics, the languages of the brain and history of ideas. Sign Systems Studies, 39(2–4), 290–313.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Linguistics and Language Sciences / Department of Slavic and South Asian Studies, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Ekaterina Velmezova

Authors
  1. Ekaterina Velmezova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ekaterina Velmezova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Slavic and South Asian Studies, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Ekaterina Velmezova

  2. Professor in biosemiotics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

    Kalevi Kull

  3. Dept. of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark, Slagelse, Denmark

    Stephen J. Cowley

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Velmezova, E. (2015). The Bakhtinian Dialogue Revisited: A (Non-biosemiotic) View from Historiography and Epistemology of Humanities. In: Velmezova, E., Kull, K., Cowley, S. (eds) Biosemiotic Perspectives on Language and Linguistics. Biosemiotics, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20663-9_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation