10.6092/issn.2532-8816/7253
How can we study, present and teach complex cultural phenomena such as the Russian philological culture of the 1920s? To achieve this goal, we elaborated a knowledge representation that facilitates scientific collaboration, enables distant reading, improves the navigation of scholarly literature, links classical texts to rich international scholarship, and provides a basis of effective visualization. Digital Humanities offer an ideal framework for the intense human-computer collaboration required to carry out such a project. We focus on the network of relations both within and between three key communities of the early Soviet philological milieu – the Formalists, the Marrists and the Bakhtinists – approaching them through the optics of two major philological romans à clef of the period. To this end, we (1) prepared a collection of primary texts; (2) built a repository of secondary literature; (3) using this research literature, enriched primary texts with both general and ad locum annotations; (4) adapted the nano-publications method as a comprehensive approach for representing this scholarly knowledge in the Semantic Web. We make use of the quantitative methods toolkit of the VicoGlossia  system, which was developed as part of an international and inter-institutional collaboration.
application/pdf
2532-8816
7253
2
en
Michael Piotrowski
Umanistica Digitale
critical digital editing
VICOGLOSSIA: Annotatable and Commentable Library as a Bridge between Reader and Scholar (a proof of concept study: Early Soviet Philological Culture)
Text.Serial.Journal
https://umanisticadigitale.unibo.it/
Articles
2018-05-22
2017-09-25
2018-05-22
2019-03-05
Um. Dig.
Michael Piotrowski
2018/05/22
10.6092/issn.2532-8816/7253
University of Lausanne
2532-8816
2
critical digital editing
en
Zenkin S. (2006) Veshch’, forma i energija (russkie formalisty i Durkheim) / Kalinin I. ed., Filosofskie traektorii russkogo formalizma, NLO, 80.
VICOGLOSSIA: Annotatable and Commentable Library as a Bridge between Reader and Scholar (a proof of concept study: Early Soviet Philological Culture)
https://umanisticadigitale.unibo.it/article/download/7253/7835
   Umanistica Digitale - ISSN:2532-8816 - n.2, 2018
M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2532-8816/7253




      VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library
       (a proof of concept study: Early Soviet Philological
                             Culture)

     Michail Maiatsky1 , Alexey Boyarsky2 , Natalia Boyarskaya3 , Ekaterina Velmezova4 ,
                          Michael Piotrowski5 , e Andrii Magalich6
                  1
                  SLAS, Faculté des Lettres, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
                             2
                                Lorentz Center, Leiden University
                                   3
                                      LSIR, EPFL, Lausanne
                      4
                        SLAS, Faculté des Lettres, University of Lausanne
                         5
                           Digital Humanities, University of Lausanne
                    6
                       Lorentz Institute, Leiden University, the Netherlands
               michail.maiatsky@unil.ch, alexey.boyarsky@epfl.ch,
            natalia.boyarskaya@epfl.ch, ekaterina.velmezova@unil.ch,
             michael.piotrowski@unil.ch, andrew.magalich@gmail.com



        Abstract. How can we study, present and teach complex cultural phenomena such
        as the Russian philological culture of the 1920s? To achieve this goal, we elaborated a
        knowledge representation that facilitates scientific collaboration, enables distant read-
        ing, improves the navigation of scholarly literature, links classical texts to rich interna-
        tional scholarship, and provides a basis of effective visualization. Digital Humanities
        offer an ideal framework for the intense human-computer collaboration required to
        carry out such a project. We focus on the network of relations both within and be-
        tween three key communities of the early Soviet philological milieu ? the Formalists,
        the Marrists and the Bakhtinists ? approaching them through the optics of two major
        philological romans à clef of the period. To this end, we (1) prepared a collection of
        primary texts; (2) built a repository of secondary literature; (3) using this research
        literature, enriched primary texts with both general and ad locum annotations; (4)
        adapted the nano-publications method as a comprehensive approach for represent-
        ing this scholarly knowledge in the Semantic Web. We make use of the quantitative
        methods toolkit of the VicoGlossia1 system, which was developed as part of an inter-
        national and inter-institutional collaboration.


        Abstract. Questo contributo vuole rispondere alla seguente domanda di ricerca:
        come presentare e insegnare i complessi fenomeni culturali della “cultura filolog-
        ica” russa degli anni ‘20 del secolo scorso? Per raggiungere tale obiettivo, abbiamo
        realizzato una rappresentazione della conoscenza di dominio che consenta la col-
        laborazione scientifica, permetta il distant reading, migliori l’esperienza dell’utente
 1
     http://vicoglossia.sciencewise.info/


                                                   161
                   M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library

        nell’esplorazione della letteratura, assicuri l’interconnessione tra letteratura “classica”
        e quella accademica e, infine, fornisca una visualizzazione efficace. Il framework of-
        ferto dalle Digital Humanities, i.e. la collaborazione tra umanisti e informatici, ha
        permesso la realizzazione di questo progetto. Il focus è sulle relazioni tra comunità
        del milieu filologico sovietico. Pertanto, (1) è stato realizzato un corpus di testi, (2)
        creato un repository di letteratura secondaria, (3) arricchita la letteratura classica con
        con annotazioni, (4) adattata la metodologia delle nanopublications alle esigenze della
        rappesentazione della conoscenza accademica.


Keywords: Digital library, collaborative knowledge, critical digital editing, semi-automatical
annotation, translation alignment


1 Introduction

How to study, to present, to teach complex cultural phenomena such as the Russian “philo-
logical culture” of the 1920s? To a large extent, early Soviet intellectual scene owes its fasci-
nation to the intense and fruitful cross-fertilization of humanities, literature, and arts, often
with fuzzy borders between them.
     Such a task requires an approach that goes beyond the study of individual authors, texts
motifs, connections, or communities, in order to take into account the multiplicity and
complexity of the relations between the texts and between the actors, which acted as nodes
in a wide network, and to make evident the variety and density of the context. We need
to examine systematically not isolated relations, but their interference and juxtaposition,
to follow their evolution, and to assess their intensity and their mutual impact. To achieve
this goal, we have to elaborate a proper knowledge representation that facilitates scientific
collaboration, enables distant reading, improves navigation in the scholarly literature, as-
sures the linking between “classical” texts and the large international scholarship dealing
with them, and provides a basis of effective visualization. Digital Humanities offer an ideal
framework for an intense collaboration of Humanist and Computer knowledge required
for the realization of such a project.
     We focus on the network of relations both within and between three key communi-
ties of the philological milieu of this crucial period in the Russian intellectual history – the
Formalists, the “Marrists” and the “Bakhtinists” – approaching them through the optics of
two major philological romans à clef of the period... For this purpose we (1) prepare a col-
lection of primary texts relevant for a better understanding of these novels as well as those
referred to by them; (2) build an as complete as possible repository of secondary literature
focused on those primary texts and interconnected with concepts and objects in them; (3)
using this research literature, enrich primary texts with both general and ad locum annota-
tions, in both human- and machine-readable form; (4) adapt the nanopublications method
(originally developed in bioinformatics) as a comprehensive approach for representing this
scholarly knowledge on the Semantic Web.
     We make use of the toolkit of quantitative methods of the system VicoGlossia2 developed
in an international and inter-institutional collaboration (EPFL, UNIL, Leiden University,
 2
     http://annotator.sciencewise.info/


                                                   162
   Umanistica Digitale - ISSN:2532-8816 - n.2, 2018

the Higher School of Economics, and the Yandex School of Data Analysis (both Moscow)).
Based on Semantic Web technologies, VicoGlossia complements “traditional” methods of
literary analysis and intellectual history with modern tools of quantitative research and vi-
sualization.


2 Current state of research in the field

2.1 Early Soviet linguistics and humanities as an object of recent research

The theoretical and practical heritage of the period is a long-lasting source of inspiration
and a thrilling object of research. An important part of this heritage is “philological” in that
– today partly obsolete – sense that embraced linguistic, literary, historical, philosophical,
and psychological studies. The novels we use as testimonies of the Soviet intellectual scene
of the 1920s – Veniamin Kaverin’s The Troublemaker, or Evenings at Vasilievsky Island and
Konstantin Vaginov’s The Goat Song (both 1928) – show in a “performative” way the im-
portance of taking into account the relations between texts, persons and communities of
the period.
     There is an extensive literature where have been revealed the participants of circles as
prototypes of the characters in Vaginov’s ([105]; [18]; [104]; [137]; [53]; [78]; [23]) and
Kaverin’s ([112]; [127]; [42]; [30]; [79]; [117]; [112]) novels, although many implicit quo-
tations, hidden references to various discussions and theories spread out through their texts
still remained undetected. Other relations (and their interplay) are to be discovered in the
course of our study.
     The scholarly communities described in the novels in a fictionalized form – the For-
malists, the Bakhtin Circle, linguists (E. Polivanov, L. Jakubinskij and implicitly N. Marr)
– were of very different types. The Formalists acquired very early a self-identity as a com-
munity (in spite of big variety of positions and itineraries), and initiated their own histori-
ography. Later several major studies showed the importance of this movement per se ([46];
[115]; [62]; [129]; [7]; [42]; [87]), as well as for the genesis of the European and American
structuralism ([38], [130]), its international roots ([89]; [47]; [43]; [136]), its philosophical
presuppositions ([131]; [77], esp. [161]), its appraisal [94], particular weight of some key
concepts, like ostranenie ([83]; [15]), and its interconnections with other movements [146].
     Much more complex is the history of what only later was baptized “the Bakhtin Circle”.
The oeuvre of M. Bakhtin is now well edited and accompanied by detailed commentaries
by S. Bocharov, S. Gogotishvili, I. Popova, V. Ljapunov, M. Makhlin ([8]; [9]) and offers
the basis for any research on the author and on his circle. Major contributions into the
Bakhtin studies have been done since decades ([70]; [88], [138]; [91]; [102]; [65]; [69];
[68]; [116]; [139]; [24]). Some important studies were devoted to certain members of this
nebulous community – P. Medvedev, L. Pumpianskij, V. Voloshinov, I. Sollertinskij, M.
Yudina, M. Kagan – who remained for a while in the shadow of the “master” ([54]; [104];
[143]; [97], etc.). We also build upon several studies that treat the Bakhtin circle as an
intellectual unity ([140]; [123]; [143]; [40]; [45]; [16]; [20], [21]; [32];) and upon research
that retracts its interconnection with the whole Russian intellectual context of the period
([140]; [16]; [20]; [96]; [144]), including specifically with linguistic ideas ([145]; [133];
[13]; [22]; [65]; [128]; [120]; [17]; [24]; [25]) and with the Russian Formalists’ theory


                                              163
                  M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library

([119]; [66]; [68]; [139]; [85]; [76]; [92]). Digitizing all Bakhtin’s texts and packaging the
complete bibliography of Bakhtin studies is the mission of the Analytical Database project
of the University of Sheffield’s Bakhtin Centre.
     As to the history of linguistics, by contrast to periods with one clearly dominant linguis-
tic paradigm (“linguistique cartésienne” in France in the 2nd half of the 17th century or
“Junggrammatiker” in Germany in the 1870–80s), there were several coexisting currents in
Russia in the 1920s, interacting with each other, and further human and social sciences as
well as arts, under the banner of “the search of Marxist linguistics”, and forming a captivat-
ing intellectual polyphony (drastically reduced soon after). Some important contributions
to the history of linguistic ideas of this period have been made during the last decades ([19];
[2]; [135], etc.; Cahiers de l’ILSL on R. Jakobson, on N. Marr, on the period 1920–30s and
beyond). In particular, the light has been shed on the decisive role of E. Polivanov in the
genesis of phonology [150]. On the linguistic context of the Bakhtin circle see several works
of P. Sériot, then [157], [153]; [160]; [147]; [142]; [126].
    Several studies concerning the period were carried out recently, with a clear tendency
to overcome an individualistic (or nominalistic) approach to separate authors and/or works
and to show the contextual density and multiplicity of relations between them, with a special
attention to relations between both individuals and various creative communities which
are thus presented not as autarkic unities, but as nodes in a wide tissue, with blurred and
permeable boundaries between disciplines, corporations, and circles (cf. new approaches to
“intellectual history”, [82]). Some studies stressed the interaction between different thinkers
and between various arts ([67]; [135]; [42]; [44]; [29]; [59]).
    Nevertheless, until now it remains still insufficiently explored how linguistic debates
of the period could profit from the intense circulation of ideas between linguistics, on the
one hand, and philosophy, other human sciences, and literature, on the other hand. The
development of linguistic ideas is still often considered as “endogenous”. The boundaries of
linguistics as such were, however, rather blurred. The object of linguistics was not clearly
delimited, it was not yet a “language in itself and for itself ”; linguists cooperated widely with
geographers, psychologists, and literary critics, e.g. P. Bogatyrev, L. Vygotsky, P. Savitsky, O.
Frejdenberg, V. Vernadskij ([154], [151], [156]).
     In spite of growing awareness of the importance of structured corpora (or digital text
collections3 ), there are only few attempts of digitization of collections related to the period
of our interest: see the valuable collection Open Commons of Phenomenology, directed by
P. Flack and hosted by the Publishing House “sdvig4 ” (Geneva-Lausanne), which represents
the literature on Phenomenologists as well as Formalists and Structuralists related to them.
    New steps in the exploration and understanding of the richness and complexity of
the intellectual scene of the period require new ways of research and knowledge presen-
tation, and they can be obtained only through close collaboration with digital humanists
and through the use of their tools.


 3
     http://ride.i-d-e.de/reviewers/call-for-reviews/special-issue-text-
     collections/
 4
     http://sdvigpress.hypotheses.org/.


                                              164
     Umanistica Digitale - ISSN:2532-8816 - n.2, 2018

2.2 Digital collections, annotation, and intertextual linking
The meaning of most texts is partly constructed by explicit and implicit references to other
texts (intertextuality) and to tacit knowledge common to authors and their first readers. In
order to fully understand a text, a reader has to be aware of and understand these refer-
ences, which means that authors and readers must share knowledge of a certain “canon” of
texts and of cultural concepts and practices. This is especially true when considering texts
that were produced in a close-knit historical milieu like that of Soviet Russia in the 1920s
described above. These texts contain numerous implicit references to other texts or cul-
tural realities that were self-evident for contemporaries but may not even be recognizable
for today’s readers. Mass digitization of textual heritage has made access to sources easier
than ever before, but their context and intertextuality remain the domain of specialized re-
searchers. Despite their importance for scholarly research, intertextual relations are generally
not documented systematically. The available documentation is often spotty and scattered
over the scholarly literature, often hidden in footnotes, and generally hard to find. A sus-
tainable preservation of insights gathered by research is generally still not ensured and the
time-consuming and challenging work of reconstructing the references has to be done over
and over again. In spite of large-scale digitization of texts, the methods for organizing, ana-
lyzing, evaluating, annotating, and otherwise processing findings about these sources have
not kept up with this development.
     Digital scholarly editions (like their paper predecessors) typically only contain a single
work (e.g., Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales5 , Flaubert’s Bouvard et Pécuchet6 ), an author’s œuvre,
(e.g. Dante Gabriel Rossetti, R. Tagore, L. Tolstoy, F. Nietzsche, V. Woolf, L. Wittgen-
stein), or some closely delimited corpus. They are also scattered over the Web, constructed
according to different principles, and permit no interconnections – so, like paper books,
they present œuvres as isolated textual monads and not at as nodes in a network of World
Literature ([28]; [36], [35], [34]). Intertextuality in digital editions is usually documented
in the same way as in printed editions: by free-text comments. Consequently, scholars’
insights about intertextual relations cannot be processed – i.e. searched, linked, analyzed,
transformed, visualized – automatically. In spite of continuing research in information ex-
traction, automatic or semantic textual annotation ([95]; [159]), there are only few projects
that have attempted to go further. In the Orlando Project intertextual relations were marked
up in the text and annotated with one of eleven categories, such as “Quotation” or “Interpre-
tation” [26], but all other information was only given in natural language. For the edition of
the writings of Wittgenstein an ontology was developed with one of the goals being the doc-
umentation of the intertextual relations within and between his works, and the secondary
literature [109]. For our research, the most pertinent digital humanities project is probably
“Sharing Ancient Wisdoms” (SAWS) which analyzed traditions of the wisdom literature (in
particular the reception of classical Greek wisdoms in Arabic). SAWS used the approach of
embedding RDF into TEI documents [74] and developed an ontology to formally describe
various types of relationships between text fragments (e.g., isLongerVersionOf or isVariant-
TranslationOf ).
     Most work on intertextuality in the digital humanities is primarily concerned with the
automatic detection of intertextuality, not with its documentation; examples of tools are
 5
     https://hridigital.shef.ac.uk/canterbury-tales/.
 6
     http://www.dossiers-flaubert.fr/.


                                             165
                  M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library

TRACER [27], Tesserae ([32]; [50]; [118]), Janus, and Phœbus [51]). However, such tools
can only detect intertextuality that is manifest on the surface level.
     The difficult accessibility of research results on intertextuality may also be considered
a problem of publishing research results in a way that allows for discovery. In natural sci-
ences there is ongoing research aiming to develop alternatives to the traditional publication
model, which is increasingly seen as inadequate by the scientific community. Nanopublica-
tions [60] have been proposed as a common framework for describing scientific statements
together with their context (e.g., original publication, authors, organisms involved), so that
central scientific results can be unambiguously referenced and connected to their authors,
and to support discovery and automatic aggregation and analysis. In the humanities, noth-
ing comparable exists until now; however, the potential of nanopublications in the human-
ities has already been demonstrated by several researchers ([57]; [64]; [110], [111]; [107];
[106]).
     Such tools do not abolish, but efficiently complement and digitally “reload” the century-
old tradition of “manual” annotation: marginalia ([72]), footnotes ([58]) and particularly
comments ([108]; [10]; [103]; [6]; [93]; [55]; [90]). The reflection on the articulation of
the philological and hermeneutical tradition with the new digital culture begins to develop
([33]; [73]). Distant and close reading now are considered not as antagonists, but as nec-
essary complementary aspects of the same research ([99], [100], [101]). According to D.
Apollon, “however, recent digital technologies for encoding texts are still enigmatic black
boxes for most researchers working in the field of philology and textual criticism” ([3],
Introduction).
     To summarise, further steps in understanding the phenomenon of the early Soviet
“philological culture” can only be done in a digitally-assisted knowledge representation al-
lowing to retrace not only multiple relations, but also their interference, evolution, and
intensity. These questions can only be answered by making use of digital methods that en-
able scientific collaboration, facilitate navigation in scientific literature, assure the linking
between “classical” texts and large scholarship focused on them, and provide efficient visu-
alization. Such task is rather new in humanities and, as far as we know, it has been never
applied to the Russian domain.


3 Exposition of research

3.1 Problem addressed and the goal of the research

As we argued above, the analysis of the phenomenon of “Russian philological culture” of
the 1920s suffers from the same drawback that is typical for historical research in the hu-
manities as a whole – it remains mostly focused on individual authors, works, or relations.
At the same time further progress in understanding “Russian intellectual revolution” [162]
requires an approach that goes beyond the study of individual authors, texts motifs, con-
nections, or communities, in order to take into account the multiplicity and complexity
of the relations between the texts and between the actors, which acted as nodes in a wide
network, and to make evident the variety and density of the context. We need to exam-
ine systematically not isolated relations, but their interference and juxtaposition, to follow
their evolution, and to assess their intensity and impact. Such analyses immediately hit the


                                              166
   Umanistica Digitale - ISSN:2532-8816 - n.2, 2018

so-called “dimensionality curse” problem – large studies quickly become unfeasible due to
the number of connections to consider and the complexity of the resulting networks of
citations, concepts, and ideas.
    Our main goal is to elaborate a proper knowledge representation enabling scientific col-
laboration, to complement close reading with distant reading, to facilitate navigation in the
scholarly literature, to assure the linking between “classical” texts and the large international
scholarship focused on them, and to provide effective visualization. We are exploring the
network of relations both within and between three key communities of the philological
milieu of the period: (i) the Formalists, (ii) Nikolaï Marr and his school, and (iii) Mikhaïl
Bakhtin and his circle, approaching them through the optics of two important philological
romans à clef of the period, Veniamin Kaverin’s The Troublemaker and Konstantin Vaginov’s
The Goat Song.

3.2 Methodology
We achieved the goal outlined above, whilst pursuing the following objectives (partly achieved
at the moment):
 1. To prepare a representative corpus of primary texts, relevant for better understanding of
    these novels; retrace thematic, typological, institutional, private and other influences,
    borrowings, impacts and other types of transfer; convert them into digital form;
 2. To build a collection of secondary literature focused on primary texts; Structure this
    collection by interconnecting it with concepts and objects in primary texts; Ensure
    maximal possible completeness of the collection
 3. To retrace a multiplicity and variety of relations between actors to follow their evolution
    and measure their intensity and impact of their interplay;
 4. To enrich primary texts with a network of annotations (both related to the whole text
    and ad locum), building upon existing research texts and using both automated tools
    of semantic analysis and manual curation.
 5. To adapt the nanopublications approach (that has been already successfully applied in
    the natural sciences), to the new domain.

Preparation of the corpus The perspective of our team on the theoretical, philological
atmosphere of the 1920s is that of the fiction, or rather of a particular genre, roman à
clef, that underwent an apparent revival during this period. Both works that we adopt as
starting points are also “philological novels”. Each of them is a specific literary “speech-act”
and at the same time a precious testimony of cultural and theoretical events, and a living
proof of an intense exchange between literates and scholars within a common “philological”
context. They quote (but also elucidate, advertise, mock or parody) numerous theses, ideas
and theories of contemporary philosophers, literary theoreticians, critics, linguists, etc. In
fact, fiction and nonfiction, practice and theory shed a reciprocal light on each other. To
make it evident, a large amount of secondary literature should be brought to the primary
(fiction or nonfiction) text.
     [150] has already demonstrated that these two novels give quite a seminal access to the
philological context of the period and encompass a big variety of relations connecting their
personages (and persons who inspired them). Personal, professional, cultural, generational,


                                              167
                 M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library

conceptual, and other relations are densely interwoven in Konstantin Vaginov’s roman à
clef The Goat Song (1928) and his three further texts, Works and Days of Svistonov, Bamboc-
ciada & Harpagoniada (1929-34), the whole is often considered as one metatext. Various
problems – like unity of science (and of the world), literary vs. everyday language, prose vs.
poetry, conscious vs. unconscious, “inner form of the word”, nature of the sign, method-
ology of humanitarian knowledge – are discussed within a very interdisciplinary (and very
“imaginary”) community, which will later be known as “the Bakhtin Circle”. We consider
Vaginov’s text with and through the multiplicity of references to the real and dubious inspi-
rations of the novel (L. Pumpianskij, M. Bakhtin, P. Medvedev, P. Luknickij, M. Yudina,
M. Kagan) and to various philological and cultural ideas, such as the famous Bakhtin’s
concepts of carnival, menipea and dialogue, life vs. art, the unconscious, social aspects of
language, and other echos of the contemporary language policy, etc.
     The connections of the Vaginov’s novel are presented on its page in VicoGlossia:




                             Fig. 1. Vaginov’s novel in VIcoGlossia


    Veniamin Kaverin’s novel The Troublemaker (Scandalist), or Evenings on Vasilievsky Is-
land(1928), also both a “philological novel” and a roman à clef, can be understood only
in the context of “professional communication” and intertextual battle of the author with
the key figure of the intellectual scene of the period, V. Shklovsky, the inspiration of the


                                             168
   Umanistica Digitale - ISSN:2532-8816 - n.2, 2018




                    Fig. 2. Connections of the Vaginov’s novel in VicoGlossia




principal character, and consequently with the whole Formalist movement. This important
literary testimony of intense linguistic and literary debates sets up numerous cultural and
linguistic issues: relations between university and non-academic world; conflicts between
old and new theories of language, between philologi vs lingvisty (resp. Anciens vs Modernes),
thus imbrications of generational and philological debates; the social nature of language;
questions of language policy and planning (with evident allusions to O. Vinokur, L. Yaku-
binskij); the heritage of A. Potebnja, etc. The novel is also an homage paid to E. Polivanov
whom Kaverin admired all his life. Besides, N. Marr’s “new doctrine of the language” is
present in the novel, amalgamated with Polivanov’s views. In a tacit way, the outset of de
Saussure’s glory is also to be retraced (The Course in general linguistics will only be translated
(by A. Sukhotin), commented and edited in 1933 by R. Shor, another shadow figure of the
novel, but de Saussure’s influence and controversies around started earlier).
    See below the collection related to “The Troublemaker”.
    These two novels are intertextually related to a huge number of other texts, ideas, and
debates (mostly the Formalists and Marr’s school, for V. Kaverin; the Bakhtin circle, the
Akmeists, for K. Vaginov). Furthermore, these novels can be regarded as performative re-
sponses to certain discourses of the mid-1920s (e.g. The Troublemaker is Kaverin’s credo in
the debates on “sujet prose”). Finally, these novels have engendered certain texts – critics,
polemics, authors’ answers to them – also to be discovered and to be included in the corpus.
Some of these connections (mostly linguistic ones) have been analysed in [150] and other
studies, many other relations remain to be established and explored. We adopt here the iter-


                                              169
                 M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library

ative approach – we study and systematize research literature, extracting new connections,
and this way completing the corpus.
    Although this work is not finished yet, the initial collection can be found at the screen
shot below.
    We assembled a collection of texts that form a “community” where the interconnec-
tions between texts within this collection are tighter than with the other texts. Already this
minimal collection allows to demonstrate the viability of our approach. In the course of the
constitution of the corpus, all fiction and nonfiction works pertinent for understanding or
explicitation of novels – and vice versa – have been stored in the VicoGlossia database ac-
cording to the TEI guidelines. Where necessary, the original Russian texts, as well as their
translations into English, French, and German are digitized. We edit and curate the texts
according to the appropriate philological standards (with canonical pagination, meta-data,
variance, etc). The VicoGlossia platform allows to align translations automatically at the
sentence level and upload facsimiles (when available).




                               Fig. 3. Goat Song in VicoGlossia




Structured repository of secondary literature We started the collection of secondary lit-
erature from the bibliography of [150] and expanded it in conjunction with primary texts,
in order to present the history of debates and cartography of interpretations concerning
Russian philology of the 1920s. The full-text collection is being formed by downloading
available texts, then by scanning and digitizing further publications. Using automated tools
of text analysis, available in the VicoGlossia platform, we identify main named entities (per-
sons, places), periods of time, events, etc., and we build a consistent graph representing re-
lations between these entities and multiple semantic links between primary and secondary
texts. We curate and extend this data manually, producing a high-quality structured bibliog-
raphy of the field. As a result, research literature is connected in multiple ways with primary
texts through text elements and comments to them, named entities, and document meta-
data: citations are identified and linked to corresponding texts; personalia and events are


                                             170
   Umanistica Digitale - ISSN:2532-8816 - n.2, 2018

linked throughout the texts with biographies and/or historical references. Where appropri-
ate, connections are established across available translations and editions. All annotations
are available for future additions and amendments. Modern initially digitized secondary lit-
erature is Zotero-compatible, and linked to Academia, Google Scholar, and other resources.
It is structured in the Resource Description and Access (RDA) standard, allowing research
from any metadata or any combination of them.


Retracing connections, assessment of the interference of relations Scholar and literary
works of the period were interwoven in various relations of intertextuality [80], or transtex-
tuality, and both novels offer a rather complete array of them. Some authors, in their texts,
were not that remote, as one might pretend (Kaverin / Vaginov). Some texts, considered
as pioneering, have important predecessors (allegedly “revolutionary” in linguistics, Marr
was deeply rooted in the context of the epoch: [151]). Relations could be not only “connec-
tive”, but also “disruptive”: some disciples’ and “followers”’ texts were loyal to their mentors
only on the surface (Marr / Frejdenberg: [154], [151]; Marr / Shor: [148]); some insights
could be produced through “productive misunderstanding” (erroneous “ontological char-
acter of the phoneme” in Eurasians, that led to the phonology, [135]); some ideas were
more “successful” when transplanted onto other field (theory of hybridisation transferred
from linguistics to analysis of ethnographic facts and other types of transfers).
    But relations to take into account were by far not only textual. We have already estab-
lished following types of relations (connections followed by transfers):

 1. conceptual: ideas or concepts discussed during the period (language vs. literature; prose
    vs. poetry; “holistic paradigm” of knowledge; “new man” resp. “new reader”; role of
    subject/sujet; art as ensemble of devices/techniques; (Marr’s) “popular linguistics”);
 2. institutional-collaborative: a variety of communities and institutions with various de-
    gree of freedom and coerciveness for their members: Bakhtin’s Circle, Serapion Broth-
    ers, M. Yudina’s salon, OPOYaZ, Moscow Linguistic Circle, LEF...);
 3. personal: various personal (or even family: Pasternak / Frejdenberg, Kaverin / Tynjanov)
    relations might be important for the circulation of ideas;
 4. disciplinary: scientific schools and teacher-student continuity (Marr & Piotrovskij,
    Meshchaninov, Frejdenberg; Polivanov & Kaverin) in spite of intense “negotiation
    phase” about the borders between scientific disciplines;
 5. generational: many disciples combined debt and criticism towards their mentors (Bau-
    douin de Courtenay, Shklovsky or Marr);
 6. professional-communicative: various forms of “speech acts” articulating the profes-
    sional communication: manifests, book reviews, letters, dialogues/quarrels by means
    of literary texts, play of reciprocal dedications, romans à clef, etc.;

    Some relations were marked by clearly disruptive or transgressive features:

 1. competitive-agonal: some actors were connected through their opposition (holistic para-
    digm vs. mechanistic paradigm; Marr / Polivanov).
 2. inter- and transdisciplinary: transgressions of discipline borders (importance of “mi-
    lieu”: Bakhtin / Lysenko / Mandelstam, quest of the language of cinema: Eizenshtejn /
    Marr / Vygotskij / Lurija, holistic paradigm: Marr / Vernadskij / Berg)


                                             171
                  M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library

 3. inter-genre: intense quest of genre renewal, letters/treatises/novels in Formalists, theo-
    retical diary in L. Ginzburg etc.
 4. inter-communitarian: relations between communities and institutions (Moscow Lin-
    guistic Circle & GAKhN), continuity between them (MLC & Prague linguistic circle);
    simultaneous membership or conversion from one to another (Shklovskij, Vaginov).
 5. international and -lingual: Husserl vs. Shpet and other phenomenologists; Saussure vs.
    Shor and other linguists; Humboldt / Potebnia / Shklovskij; Meillet / Marr; Cassirer /
    Frank-Kameneckij / Frejdenberg; in general neokantianism and its Russian reception.
 6. intermedial: fruitful passages literature / cinema in Shklovskij, Tynjanov et al.; literature
    / theatre in Bulgakov; arts / literature in O. Forsh.
 7. real-fictional: Shklovskij, Polivanov, Pumpianskij et al. as inspirations of fictional rep-
    resentations.
 8. artistic-scientific: exchange between literature and literary science (Khlebnikov / Jakob-
    son, Shklovskij as both artist and scholar), but also in other domains (Vygotskij / Man-
    delstam).
 9. genetic-receptive: sometimes reception of a work is radically different from the context
    of its creation (Bakhtin’s “rediscovery” and his “productive” mis-evaluations in Europe).
     All these relations evolved in time and change their importance. Besides, each of them
did not exist separately; the interplay between them was not an exception but a rule, and
they did not only coexist, but impacted each other, modified, augmented, or diminished the
common effect. To follow their evolution, to examine their interference, and to assess their
intensity, their mutual and joint impact we use digital tools offered the VicoGlossia platform.
In a methodological sense, the work must result in the discovery of numerous gaps which
were left without due attention during the work conducted with more “traditional” methods
[150]. E.g., speaking in his The Troublemaker about A. Meillet, V. Kaverin evidently meant
another linguist, F. de Saussure: it was he (and not Meillet) who failed to write “a book on
general linguistics”, that is, the famous Course in general linguistics. This (conscious?) substi-
tution (Saussure instead of Meillet) allows to analyze a whole cluster of topics and problems
connected with the reception of the Course in Russia. Even if the early stages of its reception
seem to have been already well studied (by M. Chudakova, E. Toddes, C. Genty-Depretto,
I. Ageeva-Tylkowski, I. Ivanova), no detailed research has been done yet about very rich
comments provided by R. Shor to her first Russian edition of the Course. We are translating
these comments in English and French, commenting and analyzing them through the prism
of the whole context of the studied epoch from a historico-epistemological point of view,
starting with the names and research problems explicitly mentioned in these comments.
Additionally, this research constitutes another step forward in the study of the intellectual
heritage of R. Shor, the study which has only recently begun in a detailed way [148] and
future potential directions of which have already been listed. Further gaps and lacunas to
fill will become manifest in the course of our research.

Annotation for semantic and contextual network We supply primary texts with a variety
of general and ad locum annotations referring to secondary literature or to respective passages
in it. The annotations can concern lexical, phrasal, sub- and supra-phrasal text units, and
are of different type: biographic, historical, theoretical, treating influence and impact, etc.
This information is structured according to the following scheme.


                                              172
    Umanistica Digitale - ISSN:2532-8816 - n.2, 2018




                              Fig. 4. Relations in VicoGlossia


    Metadata & Explanatory notes for each work
    Metadata

–   Author
–   Title
–   Genre / Domain
–   Further features/tags
–   Language
–   Dates of creation
–   Date of publication
–   Volume (number of characters)
–   Editions: year, place, number of copies
–   Bibliometric indicators

    Explanatory notes

1. Textuality
   (a) Material evidences (eventual available documentary forms (facsimilé of manuscripts,
        of the 1st edition)
   (b) Principal textual variants
   (c) Critical editions of the text
   (d) Existing digitized versions
   (e) Reason of the choice of the given variant
   (f ) Design (format, handwriting, typography, etc.)
2. Contextuality
   (a) Chronology of the creation
   (b) Textual genetics (composition, revision, production, censorship, etc.)
   (c) Evidences (personal diary, letters, memoirs of contemporaries)


                                              173
                 M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library

     (d) Social, political and intellectual milieu.
 3. Intratextuality
     (a) Linguistic analysis (lexique, style, syntax, etc.)
     (b) Literary (genre, narrative or poetological) analysis
     (c) Fictional chronology
     (d) Structure/composition
     (e) Dramatic framework
     (f ) Principal personages
     (g) Other personages
     (h) Central problematic
      (i) Motives, topics, themata
      (j) Ideological analysis
     (k) Cultural analysis
      (l) Tradition vs. novelty of the work
    (m) Peculiarities of the work
     (n) Literary (philosophical, political, scientific, etc.) appraisal of the work
 4. Intertextuality
     (a) a. Relations with the author’s other works
     (b) Influence or inspiration (positive or negative) by other authors’ works (past)
     (c) Interconnections with contemporaries (present)
     (d) Interdisciplinarity – intermediality
     (e) Impact on other authors’ works (future)
     (f ) Translations
     (g) Adaptations (literary abridgements, adaptations in theatre, cinema, radio, music,
          dance, comics, etc.)
 5. Interpretation
     (a) Self-evaluation
     (b) First reactions (reception by contemporaries)
     (c) History of interpretation
     (d) Current trends in interpretation of the work
     (e) Current controversies

Adapting the nanopublications approach As outlined above, an understanding of the
intricate relations and interactions between persons, texts, places, events, and of the inter-
ferences of such relations is crucial for understanding the phenomenon of Russian philolog-
ical culture in the 1920s. To make full use of the extracted information concerning it, more
than just free-form text is needed; in particular, it is important to document its provenance.
Scholars have an opportunity to contest a result, to propose their hypothesis without erasing
the contested one; the solution may come later, when new information becomes available.
It is possible to integrate the results of automatic processing, e.g., named entity extraction,
as preliminary annotation that can be validated later by researchers.
     Our approach to this issue is to uniformly represent annotations as self-contained enti-
ties on the Semantic Web, as inspired by nanopublications, which are already successfully
being used in bioinformatics. Within our platform, we adapt and extend nanopublications
for applications in the humanities, in particular for the representation of intertextual rela-
tionships. Our work in this field thus concerns three main areas: (I) the extension of the


                                             174
   Umanistica Digitale - ISSN:2532-8816 - n.2, 2018

nanopublications concept to the needs of humanities research. We build on the work by
[81] and [31], but handling uncertainty and vagueness which play a much bigger role in the
humanities than in natural sciences and is therefore be an important research topic; in this
particular area, ORCA (Ontology of Reasoning, Certainty and Attribution) [37] could be a
good starting point, but needs to be extended; (ii) the development of ontologies and con-
trolled vocabularies required for formally representing intertextual references and scholars’
findings about them; this research builds on existing ontologies from other fields, such as
the FaBiO, CiTO [106], and SAWS [74] ontologies mentioned above; (iii) the integration
of tools necessary for collaboratively creating, browsing, searching, and generally managing
annotations represented as nanopublications into the VicoGlossia platform. Since nanop-
ublications are based on the same Semantic Web technologies as VicoGlossia (in particular,
RDF), it can seamlessly integrate them into the system.

3.3 Implementation of the toolkit
The current version of the VicoGlossia platform presents a web application that consists of
the library of primary texts, repository of secondary literature and tools that allow users
of the platform to comfortably navigate, read and annotate the texts. The main approach
to visualization of the intertextual connections chosen in VicoGlossia is the integration of
the semantic links directly into the reading flow: additional information and links appear
directly in text, allowing for natural discovery as well as directed search based on the con-
tents. We believe this implementation is the most suited both for the public willing to put
the books into broader context and for the scholars that need to examine large corpuses of
literature and generally have a specific interest in doing so.




                              Fig. 5. VicoGlossia Web Interface


    Nanopublications are implemented as annotations attached to the entities (characters,
locations, specific recurring words) or arbitrary chunks of the text (events, phrases). Each


                                            175
                  M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library

annotation is a virtual post-it note containing necessary information — explanation or de-
scription, categorization, information about author and links through which the text is em-
bedded into the intertextual network. A number of natural language processing algorithms
are used to create guesses for entities (using named entity recognition, keyphrase extraction)
as well as automatically align the translations and editions of texts for parallel examination
(using statistical dictionary- and machine translation-based algorithms).
    Users contribute by uploading the primary and secondary texts, supplying metadata
and, most importantly, by creating nanopublications inside the system. VicoGlossia is a
crowdsourcing platform where scholars are motivated to contribute by uploading and link-
ing their own research. Their well-interlinked studies become immediately visible in con-
nection to the primary texts and other publications.


4 Relevance and impact

4.1 Scientific relevance

With our structured text collection, scholars and students obtain a valuable sustainable re-
search tool devoted to the Russian philology of the 1920s involved in the transdisciplinary
circulation of ideas and approached through the fictional optics of its contemporaries. The
collection offers the state of historical textual and interpretative research on the text corpus,
mapping international and interlingual debates about it, it combines quantitative and qual-
itative tools that allows not only to retrace relations, but also to study and measure their
dynamic, their mutual juxtapositions and interferences. Such a collection adapts the possi-
bilities of distant reading to the need of scholars in intellectual history. It gives the user access
to secondary literature in a tight connection with the analyzed primary texts. The collection
establishes the genealogy of various interpretations of texts by reconstructing the history
of their exegesis. The platform can be used easily in the learning process. The collaborative
work on it initiates students not only to important texts, but also to various practices like
digital editing and quantitative analysis. In a nutshell, our work is a response to the invoca-
tion: “the edition should be an environment for study and research and a receptacle for new
knowledge. We need to find ways to create live connections from our scholarship into the
data that support it, and our present publishing system is not equipped to do that” ([12],
p. 15; cf. [124] in line with P. Boot).


4.2 Broader impact

Simultaneously, we consider this structured text collection a proof of concept of the sustain-
able new type of a digital library extendable to further domains and periods, and aim at both
successful collaboration between specialists, and intense communication between special-
ists and interested readers. On an intermediary phase, the use of the platform for university
learning can be assessed. The nature of our research presupposes that, besides the concrete
results in the study of the early Soviet linguistics and humanities, we are developing “best
practices” for other researches beyond the language and the period concerned. The platform
VicoGlossia we are about to construct can become a “missing link”, a bridge between uni-
versity/academia and society. In fact, it renders scientific results in the humanities accessible


                                                176
    Umanistica Digitale - ISSN:2532-8816 - n.2, 2018

for the public, and involves the reader in assessment and production of humanistic knowl-
edge and interpretation. One of the problems of contemporary humanities studies is that
the academic knowledge remains hidden from “laymen”. The democratization of knowl-
edge is a real challenge, and new technologies can contribute to this process much more
largely than they do it now. The structure of paper storage stressed the insular character
of the texts, hiding the multiple ties that united them and connected them to each other
and to scholarly literature. Web technologies have already elaborated solutions to overcome
these limits. A lot of digital projects are aiming at the preservation of the textual heritage of
humanity (e.g., through multiple storage). But texts that nobody reads or understands form
just a dead heritage. An important responsibility of academic humanists towards “laymen”
consists in facilitating to the latter the access and understanding of the “classical” literary
and non-fictional heritage, through communication around it. The value of such a platform
consisting in allowing participation in the accumulated academic knowledge for people not
belonging to the educated urbans, living far from universities or good libraries, for migrants
and/or indigent persons, should not be overlooked. Today, we are witnessing huge progress
in “citizen science”, that is in involving “simple users” in knowledge production. There is
no reason that humanities remain condemned to the archaic elitism. With the help of plat-
forms like VicoGlossia social and human sciences are turning towards the Society in a new
and mutually beneficial way.


References
1. Alpatov, Vladimir Mikhaïlovich. Istorija odnogo mifa: marr i marrizm. Moskva: Nauka, 1991.
   https://slavistik-portal.de/datenpool/ebsees-db.html?data=19360.
2. Alpatov, Vladimir Mikhaïlovich. Voloshinov, Bakhtin i lingvistika. Studia philologica (Moscow,
   Russia). Moskva: IAzyki slavianskikh kultur, 2005.
3. Apollon, Daniel, Claire Bélisle e Philippe Régnier, a cura di. Digital critical editions:exploring the
   interweaving of traditional and digital textual scholarship. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2014.
4. Archibald, Samuel. “Le texte et la technique: la lecture à l’heure des nouveaux médias.” Thèse ou
   essai doctoral accepté, Université du Québec à Montréal, 2008. https://archipel.uqam.ca/
   902/.
5. Ashnin, Fedor Dmitrievich e Vladimir Mikhaïlovich Alpatov. Delo Slavistov: 30-e Gody. Moskva:
   Nasledie, 1994.
6. Assmann, Jan e Burkhard Gladigow. Text und Kommentar. München: Verlag Wilhelm Fink, 1995.
7. Aucouturier, Michel. Le formalisme russe. Presses universitaires de France, 1994.
8. Bakhtin, Michail Michailowitsch. Sobranie sochinenii.V 6-ti tomakh. Moskva: Russkie slovari,
   Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, 1996.
9. Bakhtin, Michail Michailowitsch. Sobranie Sochinenij v 6-Ti Tomakh. Moskva: Russkie slovari,
   Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury, 1996.
10. Baron, Naomi S. Words onscreen: the fate of reading in a digital world. Oxford, New York: Oxford
   University Press, 2015.
11. Belous, Vladimir. Petrogradskaja vol’naja filosofskaja associacija] 1919-1924. Moskva: Modest
   Kolerov & Tri kvadrata, 2005.
12. Boot, Peter. Mesotext: digitised emblems, modelled annotations and humanities scholarship. Amster-
   dam: Pallas publications, 2009.
13. Bostad, Finn, Craig Brandist, Lars Sigfred Evensen e Hege Charlotte Faber, a cura di. Bakhtinian
   perspectives on language and culture - meaning in language, art and new media | F. Bostad | Palgrave
   Macmillan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.


                                                   177
                   M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library

14. Boyarskaya, Natalia. “Roman et théorie, Boulgakov et Bakhtine: éclairages réciproques: Le maître
   et Marguerite, le carnaval, la ménipée = Roman i teoriia, Bulgakov i Bakhtin: vzaimnoe osveshche-
   nie: master i Margarita, karnaval, menippeia.” Université de Lausanne, Faculté des lettres, 2015.
15. Boym, Svetlana, a cura di. “‘Estrangement revisited. Part II’ ?”Poetics today 27, no. 1 (2006).
16. Brandist, Craig e Galin Tihanov, a cura di. Materializing Bakhtin - the Bakhtin circle and social
   theory. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. www.palgrave.com/de/book/9780333746646.
17. Brandist, Craig e Katya Chown, a cura di. Politics and the theory of language in the USSR 1917-
   1938: the birth of sociological linguistics. London: Anthem press, 2011.
18. Brandist, Craig. “A note on Vaginov: a novel as compensatory realm.” In carnival culture and
   soviet modernist novel. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1996.
19. Brandist, Craig. “bakhtine, la sociologie du langage et le roman.” In le discours sur la langue en
   URSS à l’époque stalinienne (épistémologie, philosophie, idéologie), a cura di patrick sériot, 59–83.
   Lausanne: Université de Lausanne, 2003.
20. Brandist, Craig. The Bakhtin circle: philosophy, culture and politics. Pluto press, 2002.
21. Brandist, Craig. The dimensions of hegemony: language, culture and politics in revolutionary Russia.
   Leiden: Brill, 2015. https://brill.com/abstract/title/21874.
22. Bres, Jacques, a cura di. Dialogisme, polyphonie: approches linguistiques. Bruxelles: de Boeck, Ducu-
   lot, 2005. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00445259.
23. Bresler, D. Prosa K. Vaginova: pragmaticheskie aspekty khudozhestvennogo vyskazyvania v kontekste
   literaturnogo protsessa 1920-1930-Kh Godov. Sankt-Peterburg: SPbGU, 2015.
24. Bronckart, Jean-Paul e Cristian Bota. “Bakhtine démasqué. Histoire d’un menteur, d’une escro-
   querie et d’un délire collectif.”Questions de communication, no. 30 (2011): 382–84.
25. Bronckart, Jean-Paul. “Le langage au coeur du fonctionnement humain. Un essai d’intégration
   des apports de Voloshinov, Vygotski et Saussure.”Estudos linguisticos, no. 3 (2009): 31–62.
26. Brown, Susan, Isobel Grundy, Patricia Clements, Renée Elio, Sharon Balazs e Rebecca Cameron.
   “Intertextual encoding in the writing of women’s literary history.”Computers and the humanities
   38, no. 2 (2004): 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CHUM.0000031173.25446.37.
27. Büchler, Marco, Philip R. Burns, Martin Müller, Emily Franzini e Greta Franzini. “Towards a his-
   torical text re-use detection.” In Text Mining, 221–38. Theory and applications of natural language
   processing. Springer, Cham, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12655-5_11.
28. Casanova, Pascal. La république mondiale des lettres. Paris: Seuil, 1999.
29. Chubarov, Igor. Kollektivnaja chuvstvennost- teorii i praktiki levogo avangarda. Moskva: HSE,
   2014.
30. Chudakova, Marietta Omarovna e Evgeny Abramovich Toddes. “Prototipy Odnogo Romana.”
   In Al’manakh bibliofila, 10:172–90. Moskva: Kniga, 1981.
31. Clark, Tim, Paolo N. Ciccarese e Carole A. Goble. “Micropublications: a semantic model for
   claims, evidence, arguments and annotations in biomedical communications.”Journal of biomedical
   semantics 5 (2014): 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-5-28.
32. Coffee, Neil, Jean-Pierre Koenig, Shakthi Poornima, Christopher W. Forstall, Roelant Osse-
   waarde e Sarah L. Jacobson. “The tesserae project: intertextual analysis of latin poetry.”Literary and
   linguistic computing 28, no. 2 (2013): 221–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqs033.
33. Coggins, Richard. “A Future for the commentary?” In The open text: new directions for biblical
   studies?, a cura di Francis Watson. London: SCM Press, 1993. https://trove.nla.gov.au/
   version/29373692.
34. Damrosch, David, a cura di. World literature in theory. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014.
35. Damrosch, David. How to read world literature. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
36. Damrosch, David. What is world literature? Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.
37. De Waard, Anita e Jodi Schneider. “formalising uncertainty: an ontology of reasoning, certainty
   and attribution (orca).” In Proceedings of the joint 2012 international conference on semantic tech-
   nologies applied to biomedical informatics and individualized medicine - volume 930, a cura di Ale-
   jandro Rodríguez Gonzàlez, Jyotishman Pathak, Mark Wilkinson, Nigam Shah e Robert Stevens,


                                                  178
    Umanistica Digitale - ISSN:2532-8816 - n.2, 2018

   10–17. Aachen: CEUR-WS.org, 2012. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2887630.
   2887634.
38. Degeorge, Fernande M. “From russian formalism: to french structuralism.” Comparative literature
   studies 14, no. 1 (1977): 20–29.
39. Dennes, Maryse. Gustave Chpet et son héritage aux sources russes du structuralisme et de la sémiotique.
   Toulouse: Association Slavica Occitania, 2008. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/
   halshs-00358202.
40. Depretto, Catherine, a cura di. L’héritage de Mikhaïl Bakhtine. Héritage de Bakhtine. Bordeaux:
   Presses universitaires de Bordeaux, 1997.
41. Depretto, Catherine. Les sources réelles du roman de Venjamin Kaverin Skandalist. L’enseignement
   du russe 26. Paris, 1979.
42. Depretto-Genty, Catherine. Le Formalisme en Russie. Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves, 2009.
43. Dmitriev, Aleksander. “Le contexte européen (français et allemand) du formalisme russe.”Cahiers
   du monde russe. Russie - Empire russe - Union soviétique et États indépendants 43, no. 43/2-3 (2002):
   423–40.
44. Dobrenko, Evgeni Aleksandrovich e Galin Tihanov. A history of russian literary theory and criti-
   cism: the soviet age and beyond. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011.
45. Emerson, Caryl. The first hundred years of Mikhail Bakhtin. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
   1997.
46. Erlich, Victor. Russian formalism. history. doctrine. Gravenhage: Mouton, 1955.
47. Espagne, Michel, Ekaterina Dmitrieva e Valerij Zemskov, a cura di. Evropejskij Kontekst russkogo
   formalizma (k probleme ėstetičeskih peresečenij: Francija, Germanija, Italija, Rossija. Moskva: Imli
   Ran, 2009.
48. Espagne, Michel. L’ambre et le fossile. Transferts germano-russes dans les sciences humaines (xixe-xxe
   siècle). Paris: Armand Colin, 2015.
49. Fesenko, E. K voprosu o prototipax geroev romana V. A. Kaverina “Skandalist, Ili vechera na
   Vasil’evskom Ostrove.” Problemy kul’tury, jazyka i vospitanija. arkhangel’sk: Izd-vo PGU, 1998.
50. Forstall, Christopher, Neil Coffee, Thomas Buck, Katherine Roache e Sarah Jacobson. “Modeling
   the scholars: detecting intertextuality through enhanced word-level n-gram matching.”Literary and
   linguistic computing 30, no. 4 (2015): 503–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu014.
51. Ganascia, Jean-Gabriel, Peirre Glaudes e Andrea Del Lungo. “Automatic detection of reuses and
   citations in literary texts.”Literary and linguistic computing 29, no. 3 (2014): 412–21. https:
   //doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu020.
52. Gardiner, Michael. The dialogics of critique: M.M. Bakhtin and the theory of ideology. New York:
   Taylor & Francis, 2002.
53. Gerasimova, Anna. “Trudy i dni Konstantina Vaginova.” In Kozlinaja Pesn’. Romany.
   stikhotvorenija i poemy, a cura di K. Vaginov. Moskva: Eksmo, 2008.
54. Ghidini, M.C. Tekushchie zadachi i vechnye problemy: Gustav shpet i ego shkola v gosudarstvennoj
   akademii nauk. Vol. 91. NLO, 2008.
55. Gibson, Roy K. e Chris Shuttleworth Kraus. The classical commentary: histories, practices, theory.
   Leiden: Brill, 2008.
56. Glanc, Tomáš. “The russian formalists as a community.” in Theoreticals schools and circles in the
   twentieth-century humanities. Literary theory, history, philosophy, a cura di Marina Grishakova e Silvi
   Salupere, 1–22. New York, USA; London, UK: Taylor & Francis, 2015. http://www.zora.
   uzh.ch/id/eprint/116705/.
57. Golden, Patrick e Ryan Shaw. “Period assertion as nanopublication the periodo period gazetteer.”
   In WWW 2015 Companion - Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web.
   ACM, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1145/2740908.2742021.
58. Grafton, Anthony. The footnote: a curious history. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
   1997.


                                                   179
                    M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library

59. Grishakova, Marina e Silvi Salupere, a cura di. Theoretical schools and circles in the twentieth-century
   humanities: literary theory, history, philosophy. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2015.
60. Groth, Paul, Andrew Gibson e Jan Velterop. “The anatomy of a nanopublication.”Information
   services and use 30, no. 1–2 (2010): 51–56.
61. Haardt, Alexander. Husserl in Rußland. Kunst- und sprachphänomenologie bei Gustav Špet und
   Aleksej Losev. München: Fink, 1993.
62. Hansen-Löve, Aage A. Der russische formalismus: methodologische rekonstruktion seiner entwicklung
   aus dem prinzip der verfremdung. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen akademie der wissenschaften,
   1978.
63. Heller, L. “des signes et des fleurs, ou Victor Chklovski, broder christiansen et la ‘sémiologie
   formaliste.”’ In De la littérature russe. Mélanges offerts à Michel Aucouturier, a cura di Catherine
   Depretto. Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves, 2005.
64. Heßbrüggen-Walter, Stefan. “Tatsachen im semantischen web: nanopublikationen in den dig-
   italen geisteswissenschaften?” In Historyblogosphere, a cura di Peter Haber e Eva Pfanzelter.
   München: De Gruyter, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1524/9783486755732.149.
65. Hirschkop, Kenneth. Mikhail Bakhtin: an aesthetic for democracy. Oxford: Oxford University
   Press, 1999.
66. Hogan, Patrick Colm. “Philosophy of language and linguistic autonomics: formalism, bakhtinian
   dialogism, structuralism, deconstruction.” in Philosophical approaches to the study of literature.
   Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000.
67. Holenstein, Elmar. Linguistik, semiotik, hermeneutik. Plädoyers für eine strukturale phänomenolo-
   gie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1976.
68. Holquist, Michael. Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. London: Routledge, 2002.
69. Isupov, Konstantin G., a cura di. M.M. Bachtin: Pro et contra: antologija. Sankt-Peterburg: Izdat.
   Russkogo Christianskogo Gumanitarnogo Inst., 2001.
70. Ivanov, Viach Vs. “The significance of M. M. Bakhtin’s ideas on sign, utterance, and Dialogue for
   modern semiotics.” In Semiotics and structuralism: readings from the Soviet Union, a cura di Henryk
   Baran, Vol. 11. New York: International arts and science press, 1976.
71. Jaccard, Jean-Philippe. Daniil harms et la fin de l’avant-Garde Russe. Slavica Helvetica. Bern: Peter
   Lang, 1991.
72. Jackson, Heather J. Marginalia: Readers writing in books. New Haven: Yale University press, 2001.
73. Jockers, Matthew. Macroanalysis: digital methods and literary history. Topics in the digital human-
   ities. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2013.
74. Jordanous, Anna, Alan Stanley e Charlotte Tupman. “Contemporary transformation of ancient
   documents for recording and retrieving maximum information: when one form of markup is not
   enough.” In Proceedings of balisage: the markup conference, 2012. https://doi.org/10.4242/
   balisagevol8.jordanous01.
75. Kagan, Yu. “People not of our time.” in The context of Bakhtin: philosophy, authorship, aesthetics,
   a cura di David Shepherd. London: Routledge, 1998.
76. Kaiser, M. “P.N. Medvedev’s ‘The collapse of formalism.”’ In Language and literary theory: in
   honour of ladislav matejka, a cura di Benjamin A. Stolz, I. R. Titunik e Lubomír Doležel, 405–41.
   Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1984.
77. Kalinin, I. Filosofskie Traektorii Russkogo Formalizma. Vol. 80. NLO, 2006.
78. Kibalnik, Sergei. “Velimir khlebnikov v ‘kozlinoj pesni’ Konstantina Vaginova (k voprosu o krip-
   tografii v russkom avangarde 1920-kj godov).”Novyj filologicheskij vestnik 2, no. 29 (2014).
79. Kostandi, Oleg. Rannee tvorchestvo V. Kaverina Kak literaturnyj i kul’turnyj fenomen. Tallinn: TPÜ
   Kirjastus, 2001.
80. Kristeva, Julia. Sèméiotikè. Recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Seuil, 1969.
81. Kuhn, Tobias, Paolo Emilio Barbano, Mate Levente Nagy e Michael Krauthammer. “Broadening
   the scope of nanopublications.” In The semantic web: semantics and big data, 487–501. Lecture


                                                   180
    Umanistica Digitale - ISSN:2532-8816 - n.2, 2018

   notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/
   978-3-642-38288-8_33.
82. LaCapra, Dominick. Rethinking intellectual history: texts, contexts, language. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
   University press, 1983.
83. Lachmann, Renate. “Die ‘verfremdung’ und das ‘neue sehen’ bei Viktor Šklovskij.”Poetica 3, no.
   1–2 (1970): 226–49.
84. Ladokhina, O. filologicheskij roman: tantom ili real’nost’. Moskva: Vodolej, 2010.
85. Lesic-Thomas, Andrea. “Behind Bakhtin: russian formalism and Kristeva’s intertextual-
   ity.”Paragraph 28, no. 3 (2005): 1–20.
86. Levchenko, Jan e Igor Pilschikov, a cura di. Vtoroe stoletie russkogo formalizma. Vol. 139. NLO,
   2016.
87. Levchenko, Jan. Drugaja Nauka: formalisty v poiskah biografii. Moskva: HSE, 2012.
88. Lotman, Jurij. “Bachtin – sein erbe und aktuelle probleme der semiotik.” In roman und
   gesellschaft: internationales Michail-Bachtin-colloquium, a cura di Hans-Günter Hilbert. Jena:
   Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, 1984.
89. Maigné, Carole e Céline Trautmann-Waller, a cura di. Formalismes esthétiques et héritage herbar-
   tien: Vienne, Prague, Moscou. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2009.
90. Majofis, M., a cura di. Kommentarij: social’naja i istoriko-kul’turnaja refleksija. Vol. 66. NLO,
   2004.
91. Makhlin, V. “Nasledie Bakhtina v sovremennom zarubezhnom literaturovedenii.” In izvestija AN
   SSSR. Serija literatury i jazyka 4, 1986.
92. Makhlin, V. Nasledie i retseptsija, ili R. Jakobson o Bakhtine. Vol. 6. Voprosy literatury, 2016.
93. Mathieu-Castellani, Gisele e Michel Plaisance, a cura di. Les commentaires et la naissance de la
   critique litteraire: France/Italie (XIVe-XVIe siècles). Paris: Fonds aux amateurs de livres, 1990.
94. Matonti, Frédérique. “L’anneau de Mœbius: la réception en France des formalistes russes.”Actes
   de la recherche en sciences sociales 176–177 (2009): 52–67.
95. Maynard, Diana. “Benchmarking textual annotation tools for the semantic web.” In proceedings
   of the 6th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC). Marrakech, 2008.
96. Medvedev, Iuri Pavlovich e Daria Aleksandrovna Medvedeva. Bakhtin circle as a ‘Thought collec-
   tive.’ Vol. 7. Zvezda, 2006.
97. Medvedev, Iuri Pavlovich, Daria Aleksandrovna Medvedeva e David Shepherd. “The polyphony
   of the circle.”Bakhtiniana: revista de estudos do discurso 11, no. 1 (2016): 99–144. https://doi.
   org/10.1590/2176-457324397.
98. Misler, Nicoletta, a cura di. RaKhN: The russian academy of artistic sciences. Los Angeles: Institute
   of modern russian, 1997.
99. Moretti, Franco. Atlas of the european novel, 1800-1900. London: Verso, 1998.
100. Moretti, Franco. Distant reading. New York: Verso, 2013.
101. Moretti, Franco. Graphs, maps, trees: abstract models for a literary history. London: Verso, 2005.
102. Morson, Gary Saul e Caryl Emerson. Mikhail Bakhtin: creation of a prosaics. Stanford: Stanford
   university press, 1990.
103. Most, Glenn W., a cura di. Commentaries - kommentare. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
   1999.
104. Nikolaev, N. “Entsiklopedija Gipotez.” In Klassicheskaja traditsija: sobranie trudov po istorii
   russkoj literatury, a cura di L. Pumpjanskij. Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury, 2000.
105. Nikol’skaya, T. “Konstantin Vaginov, ego vremja i knigi.” In Kozlinaja Pesn’. Romany, a cura di
   Konstantin Vaginov, 3–11. Moskva: Sovremennik, 1991.
106. Peroni, Silvio e David Shotton. “FaBiO and CiTO: ontologies for describing bibliographic
   resources and citations.”Web semantics: science, services and agents on the World Wide Web 17 (2012):
   33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2012.08.001.


                                                  181
                    M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library

107. Peroni, Silvio. “The semantic publishing and referencing ontologies.” In Semantic web technolo-
   gies and legal scholarly publishing, 121–93. Law, governance and technology series. Springer, Cham,
   2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04777-5_5.
108. Pfersmann, Andréas. Séditions Infrapaginales: poétique historique de l’annotation littéraire (XVIIe
   –XXIe Siècles). Genève: Droz, 2011.
109. Pichler, Alois e Amélie Zöllner-Weber. “Sharing and debating wittgenstein by using an on-
   tology.”Literary and linguistic computing 28, no. 4 (2013): 700–707. https://doi.org/10.
   1093/llc/fqt049.
110. Piotrowski, Michael. “Early modern european peace treaties online. final report.” DM2E Open
   humanities award, 2015.
111. Piotrowski, Michael. “Natural language processing for historical texts.”Synthesis lectures
   on human language technologies 5, no. 2 (2012): 1–157. https://doi.org/10.2200/
   S00436ED1V01Y201207HLT017.
112. Piper, Donald George Burland. V. A. Kaverin; a Soviet writer’s response to the problem of commit-
   ment. The relationship of skandalist and khudozhnik neizvesten to the development of soviet literature
   in the late Nineteen-Twenties. Duquesne studies. Philological series 11. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Duquesne
   university press, 1970.
113. Plotnikov, Nikolaj, a cura di. Esteticheskie diskussii 1920-Kh godov: iz istorii GAKhN. Vol. 134.
   NLO, 2015.
114. Plotnikov, Nikolaj, a cura di. Kunst als sprache - sprachen der kunst: russische ästhetik und kunst-
   theorie der 1920er jahre in der europäischen diskussion. Hamburg: Meiner, 2014.
115. Pomorska, Krystyna. Russian formalist theory and its poetic ambiance. The Hague: Mouton, 1968.
116. Popova, I. L. Kniga M.M.Bakhtina o fransua rable i ee znachenie dlja teorii literatury. Moskva:
   IMLI, 2009.
117. Razumova, Angelina e Mikhail Sverdlov. Shklovskij – personazh v proze V. Kaverina i L. Ginzburg.
   Vol. 2. Voprosy literatury, 2005.
118. Scheirer, Walter, Christopher Forstall e Neil Coffee. “The sense of a connection: automatic
   tracing of intertextuality by meaning.”Literary and linguistic computing 31, no. 1 (2016): 204–17.
   https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu058.
119. Shajtanov, I. “Bakhtin i formalisty v prostranstve istoricheskoj poetiki.” In Bakhtin i perspektivy
   gumanitarnykh nauk: materialy nauchnoi konferentsii, Moskva, RGGU, 1-3 Fevralia 1993 goda, a
   cura di Vitalii L’vovich Makhlin. Vitebsk: Izdatel’ V.L. Makhlina, 1993.
120. Shapir, Maksim. “Contra philologiam: lingvisticheskoe i ideologicheskoe v knige bakhtina i
   voloshinova ‘marksizm i filosofija jazyka’. Prim. i podgotovka teksta I.A. pil’schikova.”Russian lit-
   erature 62, no. 2–4 (2008): 231—258.
121. Shchedrina, T., a cura di. Gustav shpet i ego filosofskoe nasledie: U istokov semiotiki i strukturalizma.
   Humanitas. Moskva: Rosspėn, 2010.
122. Shepherd, David, a cura di. Bakhtin: carnival and other subjects: selected papers from the fifth In-
   ternational Bakhtin conference university of Manchester, july 1991. Amsterdam: Brill Rodopi, 1993.
   https://brill.com/view/title/28706.
123. Shepherd, David, Craig Brandist e Galin Tihanov. The Bakhtin circle: In the master’s absence.
   Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004.
124. Shillingsburg, Peter L. From Gutenberg to Google: electronic representations of literary texts. Cam-
   bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
125. Shindina, Olga. Tvorchestvo K.K. Vaginova kak metatekst. Saratov: SGU, 2010.
126. Simonato, Elena. “Marxisme, phonétique et phonologie: Vološinov, Polivanov, Jakovlev,” 191–
   210. Cahiers de l’ILSL 20. Lausanne: ILSL, Faculté des lettres, 2008.
127. Sokologorsky, Irène. “Post-face de la traduction du roman”. In Kaverine, Veniamine. Le Faiseur
   de Scandales. Paris: Champ Libre, 1974.


                                                    182
    Umanistica Digitale - ISSN:2532-8816 - n.2, 2018

128. Spronck, Stef. “Bakhtin and current issues in linguistic theory.” In Proceedings of the XII in-
   ternational Bakhtin conference: jyväskylä, Finland, 18-22 july, 2005. Department of Languages,
   University of Jyväskylä, 2006.
129. Steiner, Peter. Russian formalism: a metapoetics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell university press, 1984.
130. Striedter, Jurij. Literary structure, evolution, and value, russian formalism and czech structuralism
   reconsidered. 1989th a cura di. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989. https://doi.
   org/10.4159/harvard.9780674418677.
131. Svetlikova, Ilona. Istoki russkogo formalizma: tradicija psihologizma i formal’naja škola. Moskva:
   NLO, 2005.
132. Sériot, Patrick, a cura di. Contributions suisses Au XIVe congrès mondial des slavistes à ohrid,
   Septembre 2008. Bern: Peter Lang, 2008.
133. Sériot, Patrick, a cura di. Le discours sur la langue en URSS à l’époque stalinienne : (Épistémologie,
   philiosophie, idéologie). Cahiers de l’ILSL 14. Lausanne: ILSL, Faculté des lettres, 2003. https:
   //serval.unil.ch/notice/serval:BIB_89E7B795584C.
134. Sériot, Patrick. “Bakhtin en contexte: dialogue des voix et hybridation des langues (le problème
   des limites).” in La quadrature du cercle de Bakhtine. Traductions, influences et remises en contexte, a
   cura di Karine Zbinden e Irene Weber-Henking, 203–25. Lausanne: centre de traduction littéraire,
   2005. https://serval.unil.ch/notice/serval:BIB_6BEB205E2A0D.
135. Sériot, Patrick. Structure et totalité: les origines intellectuelles du structuralisme en Europe sentrale
   et orientale. Paris: PUF, 1999.
136. Tchougounnikov, Sergueï. Du «proto-phénomène» au phonème: le substrat morphologique alle-
   mand du formalisme russe. Kaliningrad: KGU, 2002.
137. Tichomirova, Elena. “Zur evolution der prosa konstantin vaginovs in den zwanziger und
   dreißiger jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts.”Zeitschrift für slawistik 45, no. 2 (2000). https://doi.
   org/10.1524/slaw.2000.45.2.129.
138. Tihanov, Galin. The master and the slave: Lukács, Bakhtin, and the ideas of their time. Oxford
   modern languages and literature monographs. Oxford, New York: Oxford university press, 2000.
139. Todorov, Tzvetan. “Jakobson et Bakhtine.” In La signature humaine. Essais (1983-
   2008). Paris: Seuil, 2009. http://www.seuil.com/ouvrage/la-signature-humaine-
   tzvetan-todorov/9782020993265.
140. Todorov, Tzvetan. Mikhaïl Bakhtine. Le principe dialogique. Suivi de : Ecrits du Cercle de Bakhtine.
   Paris: Seuil, 1981.
141. Troubetzkoy, Nikolaï Sergueevitch, Patrick Sériot e M. Schönenberger. Correspondance avec Ro-
   man Jakobson et autres écrits. Lausanne: Payot, 2006. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.
   fr/halshs-00093253.
142. Tylkowski, Inna. Vološinov En contexte: essai d’épistémologie historique. Limoges: Lambert-Lucas,
   2012.
143. Vasil’ev. “Tvorchestvo i lichnost’ V. Voloshinova v Otsenke Sovremennikov.” In Dialog. Kar-
   naval. Khronotop, Vol. 2. Moskva: Iazyki slavianskoi Kul’tury, 2000.
144. Vauthier, Bénédicte, a cura di. “Bakhtine, Voloshinov, Medvedev dans le contextes européen et
   russe.”Slavica occitania 25 (2007).
145. Vauthier, Bénédicte. “‘Bakhtine et / ou Saussure?’ Ou, de l’histoire du malentendu des ‘malen-
   tendus saussuriens.”’Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure, no. 55 (2002): 241–66.
146. Vekšin, Georgij Viktorovič, a cura di. Metodologia i praktika russkogo formalizma. Moskva:
   Azbukovnik, 2014.
147. Velmezova, Ekaterina e Alexander Schwarz, a cura di. Fripon, bouffon, sot: pour une relecture de
   M. Bakhtine. Lausanne: centre de traduction littéraire de Lausanne, 2008.
148. Velmezova, Ekaterina e Sébastien Moret, a cura di. “Rozalija Šor (1894–1939) et son envi-
   ronnement académique et culturel.” Cahier du centre de linguistique et des sciences du langage 47
   (2016).


                                                    183
                   M. Maiatsky et al. - VicoGlossia: Annotatable and Commentable Library

149. Velmezova, Ekaterina, a cura di. “L’interjection et le problème du signe linguistique chez R.O.
   Šor; Touches Historico-Épistémologiques Au Portrait Intellectuel de Rozalija Šor.”Cahier du centre
   de linguistique et des sciences du langage 47 (2016).
150. Velmezova, Ekaterina. Istorija lingvistiki v istorii literatury [l’histoire de la linguistique dans
   l’histoire de la littérature]. Moskva: Indrik, 2014.
151. Velmezova, Ekaterina. Les lois du sens: la sémantique marriste. Bern: Peter Lang, 2007.
152. Velmezova, Ekaterina. “L’Histoire de La Linguistique Dans l’histoire de La Littérature: Exposé
   d’ une méthodologie pour l’enseignement de l’histoire des idées linguistiques.”Cahier de l’ILCL 31
   (2011).
153. Velmezova, Ekaterina. “Mikhail Bakhtin, Nikolaj Marr i paradigma ‘celostnoj nauki.”’ In Pro-
   ceedings of the XII International Bakhtin conference: Jyväskylä, Finland, 18-22 July, 2005. Depart-
   ment of Languages, University of Jyväskylä, 2006.
154. Velmezova, Ekaterina. “O.M. Frejdenberg à la recherche d’une science intégrale.” cahier de
   l’ILCL 14 (2003): 265–80.
155. Velmezova, Ekaterina. “Semantika vs. semiotika Gustava Shpeta i Nikolaja Marra (k postanovke
   problemy).” In Gustav shpet i ego filosofskoe nasledie: u istokov semiotiki i strukturalizma, a cura di
   T. Shchedrina. Humanitas. Moskva: Rosspėn, 2010.
156. Velmezova, Ekaterina. “Synchronie vs diachronie vs panchronie vs achronie en linguistique et
   en ethnographie: P. Bogatyr�v lecteur de F. de Saussure.” In Pëtr bogatyrëv et les débuts du cercle
   de prague: recherches ethnographiques et théâtrales, a cura di Céline Trautmann-Waller e Sergueï
   Tchougounnikov, 35–49. Paris: presses Sorbonne nouvelle, 2012.
157. Velmezova, Ekaterina. “The Bakhtinian dialogue revisited: a (non-biosemiotic) view from histo-
   riography and epistemology of humanities.” in biosemiotic perspectives on language and linguistics,
   275–90. Biosemiotics. Berlin: Springer, Cham, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
   319-20663-9_15.
158. Velmezova, Ekaterina. “The ‘social semantics’ of Mikhail Pokrovskij and Nikolaj Marr.” Studies
   in east european thought 60, no. 4 (2008): 349–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-
   008-9066-7.
159. Wilcock, Graham. Introduction to linguistic annotation and text analytics: synthesis lectures on
   human language technologies. Vol. 2. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool, 2009.
160. Zbinden, Karine e Irene Weber-Henking, a cura di. La quadrature du cercle de Bakhtine. Tra-
   ductions, influences et remises en contexte. Lausanne: centre de traduction littéraire, 2005.
161. Zenkin, S. “Veshch’, Forma i energija (russkie formalisty i durkheim).” in Filosofskie traektorii
   russkogo formalizma, a cura di I. Kalinin, Vol. 80. NLO, 2006.
162. Zenkin, S., a cura di. Russkaja intellektual’naja revolucija 1910–1930-Kh godov. Moskva: NLO,
   2016.
163. Zenkin, S., a cura di. Russkaja teoria. 1920 - 1930. Moskva: RGGU, 2004.




                                                  184
