ABSTRACT
There should be no doubt that Bakhtin and Lotman have effectively distanced themselves and their theories from any and all theories which are oriented towards the centrality of the so-called aesthetic function and which are based on the notion that poetics is a part of linguistics. They have sought to strengthen the ties of literature: with external reality, including other cultural systems; and with the individual personality of author and reader. At the same time they affirm the centrality of the text without fetishizing it
Just as there is no single explanation why Bakhtin's essay on content, material and form has received so little attention even though it has been familiar at least in name to practically all Bakhtin scholars so there is no single explanation why Bakhtin and Lotman have not previously been studied together. Part of the explanation inheres in the character of the dominant trends in literary scholarship. Bakhtin tends to be seen as an "anti-systematist" theorist, the guru of carnival and dialogue, while Lotman is seen as a formalistic, rigorously systematic thinker, and the camps line up behind those two poles. I have, I believe, demonstrated that despite differences in their positions and styles, no such genuine polarity separates them. Indeed, the notion of literature as communication and cognition underlies a bond between them which is much stronger than any points separating them. This was also demonstrated in the context of Bakhtin's conflicting and seemingly problematic comments on Lotman.
