Russian-FormalismRussian-Formalism Formalism in the broadest sense refers to a type of criticism that emphasizes the "form" of a text rather than its content. Formalist critics also tend to avoid discussion of any elements deemed external to the text itself (history, politics, biography). More narrowly, Formalism refers to the critics and theorists working in Russia (actually, the Soviet Union) in the 1910s and 1920s. Major figures include Victor Shklovsky, Boris Eichenbaum, Vladimir Propp (Morphology of the Folktale), Yuri Tynianov ("On Literary Evolution"), and Roman Jakobson ("Linguistics and Poetics") and Jan Mukarovsky. Russian Formalists emphasized the "literariness" of artistic texts, which they found in the linguistic and structural features of literature (as opposed to its subject matter). For example, Victor Shklovsky, in his famous essay "Art as Technique," offers his notion of defamiliarization as the defining feature of literary texts. Art takes that which is familiar and "makes it strange," slowing down the act of perception and making the reader see the world in new ways. The Formalists also introduced the distinction between what they called "story" and "plot". The Formalists, understandably enough, often emphasized those texts that had complex and sophisticated plots and language, features that show their "literariness" (Tristram Shandy). Russian formalism exerted a major influence on thinkers such as Mikhail Bakhtin and Yuri Lotman, and on structuralism as a whole. The movement's members are widely considered the founders of modern literary criticism. Under Stalin it became a pejorative term for elitist art. Russian formalism was a diverse movement, producing no unified doctrine, and no consensus amongst its proponents on a central aim to their endeavours. In fact, "Russian formalism" describes two distinct movements: the OPOJAZ (Society for the Study of Poetic Language) in St. Petersburg and the Linguistic Circle in Moscow. Therefore, it is more precise to refer to the "Russian Formalists", rather than to use the more encompassing and abstract term of "Formalism". Important ideas Russian formalism is distinctive for its emphasis on the functional role of literary devices and its original conception of literary history. Russian Formalists advocated a "scientific" positivistic method for studying poetic language, to the exclusion of traditional psychological and cultural-historical approaches. Two general principles underlie the Formalist study of literature: First, the literary features that distinguish it from other human activities must constitute the object of inquiry of literary theory; second, 'literary facts' have to be prioritized over the metaphysical commitments of literary criticism (whether philosophical, aesthetic or psychological). To achieve these objectives several models were developed. Their main endeavour consisted in defining a set of properties specific to poetic language (be it poetry or prose) recognisable by their "artfulness" and consequently analysing them as such. Mechanistic Formalism The OPOJAZ (the Society for the Study of Poetic Language) group headed by Viktor Shklovsky was primarily concerned with the Formal method and focused on technique and device. "Literary works, according to this model, resemble machines: they are the result of an intentional human activity in which a specific skill transforms raw material into a complex mechanism suitable for a particular purpose. This approach strips the literary artifact from its connection with the author, reader, and historical background. A clear illustration of this may be provided by the main argument of one of Viktor Shklovsky's early texts, "Art as Technique": art is a sum of literary and artistic devices that the artist manipulates to craft his work. Shklovsky's main objective in "Art as Technique" is to dispute the conception of literature and literary criticism common in Russia at that time. It is generally agreed that literature was considered, on the one hand, to be a social or political product, whereby it was then interpreted as an integral part of social and political history. On the other hand, literature was considered to be the personal expression of an author's world vision, expressed by means of images and symbols. In both cases, literature is evaluated on a broad socio-political or a vague psychologico-impressionistic background. The aim of Shklovsky is therefore to isolate and define something specific to literature (or "poetic language"): these, as we saw, are the devices which make up the "artfulness" of literature. Formalists do not agree with one another on exactly what a "device" is, nor how these devices are used or how they are to be analyzed in a given text. The central idea, however, is more general: poetic language possesses specific properties, which can be analyzed as such. Some OPOJAZ members argued that poetic language was the major artistic device. Shklovsky insisted that not all artistic texts de-familiarize language, some of them achieve defamiliarization by manipulating composition and narrative. Organic FormalismDisappointed by the constraints of the mechanistic method some Russian Formalists adopted the organic model. They utilized the similarity between organic bodies and literary phenomena in two different ways: as it applied to individual works and to literary genres. An artifact, like a biological organism, is not an unstructured whole; its parts are hierarchically integrated. Hence the definition of the device has been extended to its function in text. "Since the binary opposition – material vs. device – cannot account for the organic unity of the work, Zhirmunsky augmented it in 1919 with a third term, 'the teleological concept of style as the unity of devices'" (Steiner, "Russian Formalism" 19). The analogy between biology and literary theory provided the frame of reference for genre criticism. "Just as each individual organism shares certain features with other organisms of its type, and species that resemble each other belong to the same genus, the individual work is similar to other works of its form and homologous literary forms belong to the same genre" (Steiner, "Russian Formalism" 19). The most widely known work carried out in this tradition is Vladimir Propp's Morphology of the Folktale (1928).Having shifted the focus of study from an isolated technique to a hierarchically structured whole, the organic Formalists overcame the main shortcoming of the mechanists. Still, both groups failed to account for the literary changes which affect not only devices and their functions but genres as well. Systemic FormalismThe diachronic dimension was incorporated into the work of the systemic Formalists. The main proponent of the "systemo-functional" model was Yury Tynyanov. "In light of his concept of literary evolution as a struggle among competing elements, the method of parody, 'the dialectic play of devices,' becomes an important vehicle of change" (Steiner, "Russian Formalism" 21). Since literature constitutes part of the overall cultural system, the literary dialectic participates in cultural evolution. As such, it interacts with other human activities, for instance, linguistic communication. The communicative domain enriches literature with new constructive principles. In response to these extra-literary factors the self-regulating literary system is compelled to rejuvenate itself constantly. Even though the systemic Formalists incorporated the social dimension into literary theory and acknowledged the analogy between language and literature the figures of author and reader were pushed to the margins of this paradigm. Linguistic FormalismThe figures of author and reader were likewise downplayed by the linguistic Formalists (e.g. Lev Jakubinsky, Roman Jakobson). The adherents of this model placed poetic language at the centre of their inquiry. As Warner remarks, "Jakobson makes it clear that he rejects completely any notion of emotion as the touchstone of literature. For Jakobson, the emotional qualities of a literary work are secondary to and dependent on purely verbal, linguistic facts" (71).The theoreticians of OPOJAZ distinguished between practical and poetic language. Practical language is used in day-to-day communication to convey information. In poetic language, according to Lev Jakubinsky, "'the practical goal retreats into background and linguistic combinations acquire a value in themselves". When this happens language becomes de-familiarized and utterances become poetic'" (Steiner, "Russian Formalism" 22). The Formalist movement attempted to discriminate systematically between art and non-art. Therefore its notions are organized in terms of polar oppositions. One of the most famous dichotomies introduced by the mechanistic Formalists is a distinction between story and plot. Story is a chronological sequence of events, whereas plot can unfold in non-chronological order. The events can be artistically arranged by means of such devices as repetition, parallelism, gradation, and retardation. The mechanistic methodology reduced literature to a variation and combination of techniques and devices devoid of a temporal, psychological, or philosophical element. Linguistic Formalism The adherents of the linguistic Formalists (e.g. Roman Jakobson) placed poetic language at the centre of their inquiry. Jakobson makes it clear that he rejects completely any notion of emotion as the touchstone of literature. For Jakobson, the emotional qualities of a literary work are secondary to and dependent on purely verbal, linguistic facts。
This estrangement serves literature by forcing the reader to think about what might have been an ordinary piece of writing about a common life experience in a more thoughtful way. A piece of writing in a novel versus a piece of writing in a fishing magazine. At the very least, literature should encourage readers to stop and look closer at scenes and happenings they otherwise might have skimmed through uncaring. The reader is not meant to be able to skim through literature. When addressed in a language of estrangement, speech cannot be skimmed through. "In the routines of everyday speech, our perceptions of and responses to reality become stale, blunted, and as the Formalists would say 'automatized'. Literature by forcing us into a dramatic awareness of language, refreshes these habitual responses and renders objects more perceptible (Eagleton 'What Is Literature')." The theoreticians of OPOJAZ distinguished between practical and poetic language. Practical language is used in day-to-day communication to convey information. In poetic language the practical goal retreats into background and linguistic combinations acquire a value in themselves. When this happens language becomes de-familiarized and utterances become poetic (Steiner, "Russian Formalism" 22). Sound Patterns in PoetryRussian Formalists were the first to study the function of sound patterns in poetry systematically and objectively. In their first collective work Anthologies on the Theory of Poetic Language (1916), the contributors (Shklovsky, Jakubinsky, Polivanov, and Kushner) assigned sound a central role in poetic speech. In addition, they argued that in poetry, words are selected on the basis of their sound, not their lexical meaning. This line of criticism detached poetic language from practical language. Linguistic Analysis of the Text In "A Postscript to the Discussion on Grammar of Poetry," Jakobson redefines poetics as "the linguistic scrutiny of the poetic function within the context of verbal messages in general, and within poetry in particular" (23). He fervently defends linguists' right to contribute to the study of poetry and demonstrates the aptitude of the modern linguistics to the most insightful investigation of a poetic message. Russian formalism was not a uniform movement, it comprised diverse theoreticians whose views were shaped through methodological debate that proceeded from the distinction between poetic and practical language to the overarching problem of the historical-literary study. “The contribution of the Formalist School to our literary scholarship lies … in the fact that it has focused sharply on the basic problems of literary study, first of all on the specificity of its object, that it modified our conception of the literary work and broke it down into its component parts, that it opened up new areas of inquiry, vastly enriched our knowledge of literary technology, raised the standards of our literary research and of our theorizing about literature … effected, in a sense, a Europeanization of our literary scholarship…. Poetics, … once a sphere of unbridled impressionism, became an object of scientific analysis, a concrete problem of literary scholarship” ( quoted in Erlich, "Russian Formalism: In Perspective" 225). The Russian Formalists are widely considered as the founders of modern literary criticism. 结束语结束语谢谢大家聆听！！！谢谢大家聆听！！！38 。