RUSSIAN FORMALISM VERSUS ANGLO-AMERICAN NEW CRITICISM

THE LINK BETWEEN RUSSIAN FORMALISM AND ANGLO-AMERICAN NEW CRITICISM IN RESPECT OF CONSIDERATIONS OF THE NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF LANGUAGE.

Language is the major material ONH analyzer of literature, which reflects certain features that define the literariness of a literary text. The purpose of language is to convey idea and experience. Language is the instrument of thought and imagination. The existence of a literary text stems from the fact that the writer aesthetically uses language as a tool to produce the text, which the reader reads and everything is enclosed I a social reality.

Both Russian Formalism and New Criticism apply more to poetry than to any other genre of literature. They draw attention to the fact that literature is nothing but the use of language, that is, language is what makes literature and that, literature entails practices in language.

The Russian formalists consider the text irreducible; that is, they maintain that the text is indeed itself and not another thing. They believe that literary evaluation must do away with the socio-historical referentiality. Therefore, the Russian formalists prioritize the use of empirically verifiable processes of literary criticism. They accord great importance to the fabric of the literary text which includes the ONH analyzer structure, texture, language, and so on.

Russian Formalism claims that literature uses language more distinctively than any other discourse. To Russian formalists, language is used to create reality of fact. Language is used in literature to engender shock with something new. This is done through the concepts of defamiliarisation and foregrounding formulated by Viktor Shklovsky and Tvnyanov respectively. Defamiliarisation involves making the language strange through the use of metaphors and imagery. Foregrounding, on the other hand, involves giving prominence to the functions of the devices formed by defamiliarisation.

On the other hand, New Criticism as a modified version of Russian Formalism focuses or concentrates on the text, that is, it draws attention to the words or language on the page. The New Critics consider a text self-contained and autonomous. To them, a literary text does not need any reference outside to arrive at the meaning of the text. This implies that a text is nothing but a set of complex experiences in the verbal term (language). The task of the author is merely to use the language to organize the real life experience and incorporate it into the text. This can only be appreciated if language is experimented. The complexity of experience expressed through language is achieved through such linguistic structures as irony, paradox, iconic sign, metaphor and so on. This provides the critics with a close study or scrutiny of the text, and consequently enables the text to yield itself to a close analytical reading objectively and scientifically.

New Critics believe that the evaluation of a literary text squarely depends on language, that is, a literary text is evaluated based on the aesthetic use of language. They seem to claim that it is the language that determines how a literary text is to be interpreted and evaluated.

Both Russian Formalism and New criticism reject the criticism that is based on socially reality. They concentrate on the text. They see the text as an object that is independent of the author and the historical context. They both base their claims on the aesthetic use of language. That is, it is language that is used as a tool to create fact or reality.?