Between interpretation and the subject: Revisiting Bakhtin’s theory of polyphony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper affords a critical and historical reappraisal of Bakhtin’s theory of polyphony. It addresses the issue of the subjectivity of interpretation in the reception and formulation of this highly influential theory in literary semiotics. Following a revaluation of three major patterns of interpretation of polyphony that have emerged in the global field of literary theory since 1929, as well as Bakhtin’s shift in emphasis in 1963, we find that Bakhtin’s theorizing of polyphony, based on his seemingly inconsistent interpretation of Dostoevsky’s novels, was defined by his own subjectivity as well. An obvious consequence of such subjective predispositions in both the reception of Bakhtin’s theory and his own treatment of Dostoevsky’s polyphonic novels is that they have instigated a type of perpetuating availability bias in approaching the theory of polyphony. This revelation is key to understanding the wholeness of the theory of polyphony from a diachronic perspective. By tracing the cultural and intellectual sources of Dostoevsky’s polyphonic creation, this paper attempts to reframe and restore the Bakhtinian idea of polyphony to its fullness, which we believe can be encapsulated in one phrase: harmony without uniformity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".