Between interpretation and the subject: Revisiting Bakhtin’s theory of polyphony
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it