Relationship Between Formalism and Structuralism

1234 Words5 Pages
Introduction Russian formalism is an influential school of literary criticism in Russia from the 1910s to the 1930s. It includes the work of a number of highly influential Russian and Soviet scholars such as Viktor Shklovsky, Vladimir Propp, Boris Eichenbaum, Roman Jakobson, Boris Tomasheksky who revolutionized literary criticism between 1914 and the 1930s by establishing the poetic language and literature. The Russian formalists give importance on not only subject matter but also the form. Russian Formalism and American New Criticism both are concerned with the privacy of language in understanding literary text. Structuralism is a movement that is given to a wide range of discourses that study underlying structures of signification. From structural point of view all texts; all meaningful events can be analyzed for their underlying structures. Structuralism begins in France in the 1950s. It first comes to prominence as a specific discourse with the work of a Swiss Linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. In his essay “The Course in General Linguistics” the major issues of structuralism are introduced in a scholarly way. The 19th century linguistic scholars had mainly been interested in historical aspects of language. Saussure concentrates instead on the patterns and function of language in use today with the emphasis on how meanings are maintained and established and on the function of grammatical structures. This essay has three parts: first, the discussion of formalism with its distinctive features and the views of some prominent figures; second, the features and beliefs of structuralism and its relation with formalism. Finally, the ways how a literary text should be analyzed according to these schools of criticism will be discussed with an example. Part I Russian formalism is based on Edmund Husserl’s scientific idea of isolating an object from its surroundings.
Open Document