In this article, we use Jacques Derrida’s deconstructive method to study the influence of Mikhail Bakhtin in Vietnam in the 1990s and 2000s. By using evaluations of Bakhtin by researchers in Vietnam and around the world, we argue that he is not the only owner of the theory of dialog and polyphony. His friends, Pavel Medvedev and Valentin Voloshinov, also played important roles in defining these concepts. The Bakhtin Circle’s dialog theory is related to the sense of democracy in society. The work of Bakhtin was introduced to Vietnam in the 1980s and led to a “Bakhtin fever” throughout Vietnam. However, he has been less overrated recently. We also discover a mistake in the dialogic theory of the Bakhtin Circle. The members of the Circle said that the nature of language is dialogic, which means that whenever language is used, either in literature or in common life, it is always polyphonic. Based on this claim, novels use language to tell stories, so novels are polyphonic. The Bakhtin Circle was mistaken when labeling Dostoevsky’s novels as polyphonic and Tolstoy’s novels as monologic. In the same vein, the Bakhtin Circle strongly believed that language in poetry is always monologic. We think this claim is also wrong. Dialogicality appears in all kinds of poetic languages.

在本文中，我们使用雅克·德里达的解构方法来研究米哈伊尔·巴赫金在 1990 年代和 2000 年代对越南的影响。通过使用越南和世界各地的研究人员对巴赫金的评价，我们认为他并不是对话和复调理论的唯一拥有者。他的朋友 Pavel Medvedev 和 Valentin Voloshinov 在定义这些概念方面也发挥了重要作用。巴赫金圈的对话理论与社会民主意识有关。巴赫金的作品在 1980 年代被引入越南，并在整个越南引发了“巴赫金热”。然而，他最近没有被高估。我们还发现巴赫金圈的对话理论存在错误。圈子的成员说语言的本质是对话性的，这意味着无论何时使用语言，无论在文学还是在日常生活中，它总是和弦的。基于这种说法，小说是用语言来讲述故事的，所以小说是复调的。巴赫金圈错误地将陀思妥耶夫斯基的小说标记为复调，将托尔斯泰的小说标记为独白。同样，巴赫金派坚信诗歌中的语言总是独白的。我们认为这种说法也是错误的。对话性出现在各种诗歌语言中。