Relationship Between Formalism and Structuralism

3736 Words15 Pages
Eng- 502 Literary Theory Assignment [pic] Written by: Md. Mahbubul Alam Roll: 07112212 Submitted to: Md. Kamrul Hasan Lecturer Dept. of English Language & Literature Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University 29 January 2013 Relationship between Formalism and Structuralism Introduction Establishing relationship between Formalism and Structuralism is not so straightforward and available, though their successive historical existence can be taken into consideration. The dominance of Formalism in literary field prevailed from the 1920s to the 1060s (We will mean Formalism as a combined word of Russian Formalism and American New Criticism) and the main flourishing of structuralism occurred in the 1950s and for the next two decades (Webster 112). Generally, we can set up their relationship based on legacy and similarities and contrasts in their literary concepts and techniques of textual analysis. In so doing sometimes it seems that Structuralism is complementary to Formalism (Das 34). Historical Link Though Formalism and Structuralism developed in different times and places, asked different questions and made different assumptions, there was historical link between them. The interests of Formalism are much closer to the developments in literary theory beginning in the 1960s (Webster 37). Formalist criticism became prominent in Prague in the late 1920s, when there was a repressive political climate in the Soviet Union. Then, after the Second World War, Formalist criticism emerged in France, where it bloomed in the 1960s and began drawing widespread international attention. However, in France, Formalist criticism also provoked a new critical movement called Structuralism that still has a dominant presence in literary and cultural studies.
Open Document