Submitted by Neil Foxlee (not verified) on Fri, 11. April 2014
My thanks to the author and translator for this article. However, I am bothered by two minor points:
1. The description of Voloshinov as "Baxtin’s pupil and successor". Although the relationship between the works of Voloshinov and Bakhtin has been the subject of controversy in the past, it is increasingly recognized that Bakhtin learnt as much if not more from Voloshinov as/than Voloshinov did from Bakhtin. To quote Ken Hirschkop, for example, "Bakhtin's contacts with Voloshinov while the latter was working on Marxism and the Philosophy of Language were crucial in bringing about his ‘linguistic turn’". It also seems wrong to describe Voloshinov (who died in 1936) as the successor of Bakhtin (died 1975).
2. I find the transliterations (Baxtin, Čechov etc., rather than Bakhtin, Chekhov etc.) used here and elsewhere a little off-putting.
Heteroglossia article
Submitted by Neil Foxlee (not verified) on Fri, 11. April 2014My thanks to the author and translator for this article. However, I am bothered by two minor points:
1. The description of Voloshinov as "Baxtin’s pupil and successor". Although the relationship between the works of Voloshinov and Bakhtin has been the subject of controversy in the past, it is increasingly recognized that Bakhtin learnt as much if not more from Voloshinov as/than Voloshinov did from Bakhtin. To quote Ken Hirschkop, for example, "Bakhtin's contacts with Voloshinov while the latter was working on Marxism and the Philosophy of Language were crucial in bringing about his ‘linguistic turn’". It also seems wrong to describe Voloshinov (who died in 1936) as the successor of Bakhtin (died 1975).
2. I find the transliterations (Baxtin, Čechov etc., rather than Bakhtin, Chekhov etc.) used here and elsewhere a little off-putting.