1. Because I draw on different traditions in different languages, I have made no attempt to be consistent when transcribing from Russian to English. Instead, I have chosen to follow the particular systems adopted in the various sources I cite. I have read Mikhail Bakhtin, Jurij Lotman and other sources in Russian, German, Swedish, Danish, English, and French, depending on accessability.
5. Cf. Deborah J. Haynes (1995). In this book Haynes focuses on Bakhtin's early essays and their ideas of 'answerability', 'outsideness', 'unfinalizability', and argues that these ideas are especially relevant to history and theory of art.
6. The interesting relationship between Bakhtin and the Tartu-Moscow School began to be explored during the 1990s. Allan Reid (1990) provides a thorough analysis of the relationship based on an in-depth examination of Bakhtin's and Lotman's work (with the exception of The Universe of the Mind which appeared almost simultaneously), as well as careful consideration of earlier critical literature on the subject. Reid shows very convincingly that Bakhtin and Lotman in many ways share views, concepts, and major ideas, especially concerning literature as communication and cognition. In "Logosphere and Semiosphere" (1995) Amy Mandelker gives another account of the relationship, focusing on the central concepts of 'logosphere' (Bakhtin) and 'semiosphere' (Lotman). In so doing she stresses the common source of inspiration in Vernadsky and his concept of the 'biosphere'. What is more, she suggests an organicist way of thinking organized by close conceptual analogies between a semiotics of culture and biophysics/cell biology (Mandelker 1995:185). However, these organicist notions are not necessarily implied by the original context of analysis. As Mandelker attempts to unfold her arguments, her key concepts tend to become somewhat obscure. The opposite is the case for Reid.
7. For examples of the role played by rupture in attempts to grasp continuity, see the works of great comparativists such as Georg Brandes (Hovedstrømninger i det nittende Århundredes Litteratur) and Ferdinand Brunetière (L'évolution des genres dans l'histoire de la littérature).
10. The auteur theory offers another solution to this in cinema studies and involves comparing the role of the director to the role of the author. Many arguments support this point of view, but it is often overstated at the expense of manuscript writing, photography, scenography, music, acting, and so on.
11. For an examination of these and other problems related to the work of Bakhtin as a whole, see the by now classic works by Michael Holquist (Dialogism, originally published in 1990) and Gary Saul Morson and Caryl Emerson (Mikhail Bakhtin, originally published in 1990). They disagree on the range of the authorship (cf. note below), and as a result their accounts of various phases and forms of influence are quite different.
12. The question of authorship does, however, deserve a comment, as it has implications for the theory's application. Some researchers assume that the books published by V.N. Voloshinov (Frejdizm, Moskva-Leningrad 1927, Marksism i filosofija jasyka, Leningrad 1929) and P.N. Medvedev (Formal'nyj metod v literaturovedenie, Leningrad 1928) were originally written by Bakhtin. Tzetan Todorov, Catherine Clark, Michail Holquist, and Jostein Børtnes, among others, lend such credibility to this assumption that they tend to include the disputed texts in Bakhtin's authorship. Other researchers, among them Caryl Emerson, Gary Morson, Allan Reid, and I.R. Titunik, doubt the legitimacy of this approach for several reasons. The evidence seems too insubstantial to them and there is counter-evidence to be considered having to do, for example, with style and the fact that Bakhtin seemed evasive about the authorship of the relevant books. In the only letter that exists on the matter he says that V.N. Voloshinov and P.N. Medvedev were his close friends, and that they worked on "a common idea about language and communication" during the period in question (quoted by Nina Møller Andersen, 1998). Bakhtin thus affirms the existence of the circle as a forum for the discussion and exchange of ideas. Having studied Marksism i filosofija jasyka and Formal'nyj metod v literaturovedenie, I share the view that the disputed texts probably find an origin in this 'common idea'. Yet, the debate cannot be readily settled as arguments for and against the two dominant positions keep appearing.
14. The title was revised in the 1963 edition. In the 1929 edition it was Problemy tvorchestva Dostoevskogo. The emphasis on genre and the development of the carnival were also new elements in the 1963 edition.
16. The discussion of simulated television audiences was first begun by Donald Horton and Richard Wohl already in the 1950s. See "Mass Communication and Parasocial Interaction" (1956). Discourse analysis inspired by Norman Fairclough and others has already made a fair contribution to our understanding of what happens in mediated discourse.
21. Questioning Fiske's original distinction, Klaus Bruhn Jenson suggests that another is useful for analytical purposes: the distinction between «structured» and «thematic» intertextuality (Jensen 1995: 120).
23. Cf. Børtnes (1993) for a survey of the ways in which Lotman's thinking developed. Børtnes' essays were written before Lotman's Universe of the Mind was published, but he is nonetheless able to trace interesting developments up until the mid-eighties.