The article explores the heuristic potential of Bakhtin’s theory of polyphony for analyzing the multiplicity of voices in the novel and reveals its productive intersections with contemporary narratology, rethinking the distinction between voice as a bearer of sovereign consciousness and voice as a formal narrative instance. The aim of the work is to propose an integrative analytical framework that combines the philosophical and ethical depth of dialogism with the high formal resolving capacity of the narratological apparatus. The empirical and theoretical material comprises key texts by M. M. Bakhtin (“Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics,” “Discourse in the Novel,” works on chronotope) and the corpus of classical and postclassical narratology (G. Genette, W. Schmid, S. Chatman, J. Phelan, M. Bal), which make it possible to compare the categories of voice, authorial position, focalization, narrative levels, modes of speech representation, and ideological organization of the text. Methodologically, the study employs comparative conceptual analysis, hermeneutic interpretation, and elements of deconstruction; the procedure includes the operationalization of Bakhtin’s basic concepts, step-by-step comparison with narratological categories, and modeling points of synthesis, supplemented by analytical tables that record differences and equivalences of notions. The results demonstrate a fundamental divergence of epistemological frameworks: for Bakhtin, the voice possesses the ontological status of consciousness and cannot be reduced to a structural function, whereas narratology describes the mechanisms by which voices are constructed in the text. The distinction between polyphony and heteroglossia, as well as the role of carnivalization as a catalytic principle of equal dialogue, is clarified. It is shown that modes of focalization, free indirect discourse, and the organization of narrative levels may serve as technical carriers of both polyphonic and monologic effects; criteria are proposed for assessing the degree of a character’s subjectivity and the nature of the implied author as the architect of dialogical space. The discussion substantiates the complementarity of the approaches: narratology answers the question “how is the text made?”, whereas the Bakhtinian perspective explains “why is it made this way?”, opening the ethical and existential dimension of narrative. The conclusion emphasizes the enduring relevance of polyphony as both a principle and a methodological resource that sets the direction for further operationalization and application in corpus and digital studies.