RUSSIAN FORMALISM
AT A PRESENT TIME
Akhmetova N., Makhanbet A.,
RUSSIAN FORMALISM
1. Russian Formalism, a movement of literary criticism and
interpretation, emerged in Russia during the second decade of the
twentieth century and remained active until about 1930.
2. The Russian Formalist movement was championed by philologists
and literary historians, e.g. Victor Shklovsky, Roman Jakobson,
Boris Eichenbaum, Boris Tomashevsky and Yuri Tynyanov.
■ the Moscow Linguistic Circle,
founded by the Roman
Jakobson in 1915 and included
Grigorii Vinokur and Petr
Bogatyrev, and the
Petersburg OPOJAZ (Obščestvo
izučenija POètičeskogo JAZyka,
“Society for the Study of Poetic
Language”), which came into
existence a year later and was
known for scholars such as
Viktor Shklovsky, Iurii Tynianov,
Boris Eikhenbaum, Boris
Tomashevskii, and Victor
Vinogradov.
■ Although the Symbolists had
partially succeeded in redressing
the imbalance of content over
form, they “could not rid
themselves of the notorious theory
of the ‘harmony of form and
content’ even though it clearly
contradicted their bent for formal
experimentation (Eikhenbaum,
“Theory” 112).
■ they were united in their attempt to
move beyond the psychologism
and biographism that pervaded
nineteenth-century Russian literary
scholarship.
● «The subject of literary scholarship is not literature in its totality but
literariness, i.e., that which makes of a given work a work of literature.»
Roman Jakobson
● «The literary scholar ought to be concerned solely with the inquiry into
distinguishing features of the literary materials.»
Boris Eichenbaum
● To study literature is to study poetics, which is an analysis of work’s
constituent parts – its linguistic and structural features – or its form.
Form, they asserted, included the internal mechanics of the work
itself, especially its poetic language. These internal mechanics, or
what the Formalists called devices, comprise the artfulness and
literariness of any given text, not a work’s content.
According to Shklovsky narrative prose has two
important aspects:
fabula (story)
syuzhet (plot)
Fabula is the raw material of the story and can be
be considered close to the writer’s working outline.
This contains the chronological series of events of
the story.
The syuzhet is the literary devices the writer uses
to transform a story into a plot.
● As a group, The Russian Formalists were suppressed and disbanded in
1930 by the Soviet government because they were unwilling to view
literature through the Stalinist regime’s political and ideological
perspectives. Their influence, however, continued to flourish in
Czechoslovakia through the work of Prague Linguistic Circle (founded in
1926, its leading figure being Roman Jakobson) and through the Russian
folktale scholar Vladimir Propp and the Bakhtin Linguistic Circle.
1. In the United States, the Formalist approach found a sympathetic
cousin in New Criticism, which emphasized, though in organic
forms actually reminiscent of Russian Symbolism, the literary
text as a discrete entity whose meaning and interpretation need
not be contaminated by authorial intention, historical conditions,
or ideological demands. (1970s-1980s)
2. American New Criticism. Figures as diverse as Roland
Barthes , Paul de Man, Juia Kristeva, and Fredric Jameson are all
heavily indebted to the aims and strategies of Russian
Formalism.
CREDITS: This presentation template was created by
Slidesgo, including icons by Flaticon, and infographics
& images by Freepik
Russian Formalism was without a doubt a
transitional and transitory period in the
history of literary study. But insofar as the
literary-theoretical paradigms it
inaugurated are still with us, it stands not
as a mere historical curiosity but a vital
presence in the critical discourse of our
day.
Research
Formalism research involves studying the ways in
which students present their writing.
Allowing the text to
speak to the readers
Unintended meaning in
a written piece
these two methods deal with language as the “master” writer
versus a teacher as the “master” writer.

RUSSIAN_FORMALISM_.pptx

  • 1.
    RUSSIAN FORMALISM AT APRESENT TIME Akhmetova N., Makhanbet A.,
  • 2.
    RUSSIAN FORMALISM 1. RussianFormalism, a movement of literary criticism and interpretation, emerged in Russia during the second decade of the twentieth century and remained active until about 1930. 2. The Russian Formalist movement was championed by philologists and literary historians, e.g. Victor Shklovsky, Roman Jakobson, Boris Eichenbaum, Boris Tomashevsky and Yuri Tynyanov.
  • 3.
    ■ the MoscowLinguistic Circle, founded by the Roman Jakobson in 1915 and included Grigorii Vinokur and Petr Bogatyrev, and the Petersburg OPOJAZ (Obščestvo izučenija POètičeskogo JAZyka, “Society for the Study of Poetic Language”), which came into existence a year later and was known for scholars such as Viktor Shklovsky, Iurii Tynianov, Boris Eikhenbaum, Boris Tomashevskii, and Victor Vinogradov. ■ Although the Symbolists had partially succeeded in redressing the imbalance of content over form, they “could not rid themselves of the notorious theory of the ‘harmony of form and content’ even though it clearly contradicted their bent for formal experimentation (Eikhenbaum, “Theory” 112). ■ they were united in their attempt to move beyond the psychologism and biographism that pervaded nineteenth-century Russian literary scholarship.
  • 4.
    ● «The subjectof literary scholarship is not literature in its totality but literariness, i.e., that which makes of a given work a work of literature.» Roman Jakobson ● «The literary scholar ought to be concerned solely with the inquiry into distinguishing features of the literary materials.» Boris Eichenbaum
  • 5.
    ● To studyliterature is to study poetics, which is an analysis of work’s constituent parts – its linguistic and structural features – or its form. Form, they asserted, included the internal mechanics of the work itself, especially its poetic language. These internal mechanics, or what the Formalists called devices, comprise the artfulness and literariness of any given text, not a work’s content.
  • 6.
    According to Shklovskynarrative prose has two important aspects: fabula (story) syuzhet (plot) Fabula is the raw material of the story and can be be considered close to the writer’s working outline. This contains the chronological series of events of the story. The syuzhet is the literary devices the writer uses to transform a story into a plot.
  • 7.
    ● As agroup, The Russian Formalists were suppressed and disbanded in 1930 by the Soviet government because they were unwilling to view literature through the Stalinist regime’s political and ideological perspectives. Their influence, however, continued to flourish in Czechoslovakia through the work of Prague Linguistic Circle (founded in 1926, its leading figure being Roman Jakobson) and through the Russian folktale scholar Vladimir Propp and the Bakhtin Linguistic Circle.
  • 8.
    1. In theUnited States, the Formalist approach found a sympathetic cousin in New Criticism, which emphasized, though in organic forms actually reminiscent of Russian Symbolism, the literary text as a discrete entity whose meaning and interpretation need not be contaminated by authorial intention, historical conditions, or ideological demands. (1970s-1980s) 2. American New Criticism. Figures as diverse as Roland Barthes , Paul de Man, Juia Kristeva, and Fredric Jameson are all heavily indebted to the aims and strategies of Russian Formalism.
  • 9.
    CREDITS: This presentationtemplate was created by Slidesgo, including icons by Flaticon, and infographics & images by Freepik Russian Formalism was without a doubt a transitional and transitory period in the history of literary study. But insofar as the literary-theoretical paradigms it inaugurated are still with us, it stands not as a mere historical curiosity but a vital presence in the critical discourse of our day.
  • 11.
    Research Formalism research involvesstudying the ways in which students present their writing. Allowing the text to speak to the readers Unintended meaning in a written piece these two methods deal with language as the “master” writer versus a teacher as the “master” writer.