Bakhtin and the BMV group: incongruências of an orthodox linguistics

Abstract

For these Russian authors, a sign has to be faithful to reality. But what is, in fact, “to be faithful”, what is “reality”? They also suggest that thinking structures itself only by means of signs - as Peirce, who denies the reality of dreams, as well - falling, in the aberration to say that the act of being hungry is an ideological expression and the cries of a newborn are already appreciative manifestations of this new human being. The authors that inspired structuralism say that a "semiodiscourse" structures men and there is nothing they can do. In spite of this instance, the word remains neutral, which appears to be an odd affirmation due to their Hegelian and Marxist roots; their paradigm, in contrast, can be Heideggerian, according to which, it does not have any difference between the natural being and the ideological being, only existing “the marked” being: looking at one determined thing, I “place” it, I fit it in its context. To place something is to attribute sense and that is more Stoic than, in fact, Marxist.