Unit I: Introduction, Formalism, Structuralism and Narratology

Welcome to the first unit of ENGL 504: Literary Theories and Practices. This unit lays the groundwork for understanding how theorists have conceptualized literature, language, and narrative. We begin with a broad inquiry into what “theory” means, then trace the historical development from Russian Formalism through Structuralism to contemporary Narratology.

1. What Is Theory?

Before diving into specific schools, we must clarify the term theory. Jonathan Culler opens his seminal work with the question:

“What is theory?”

He argues that theory is not a set of fixed doctrines but a critical practice that questions the assumptions underlying literary interpretation.

Terry Eagleton’s Introduction (in the same anthology) reinforces this view, suggesting that theory emerges when readers become aware of the conditions of possibility for meaning production.

In Theory Before Theory (Barry, pp. 1‑11), we encounter precursors to modern theory: philology, aesthetics, and early criticism that already hinted at the need for systematic methods.

2. Russian Formalism

The Formalist movement, centered in early‑20th‑century Russia, sought to isolate the literary device that makes language artistic. The section introduction (Rivkin & Ryan, p. 3) outlines two core ideas:

Defamiliarization (ostranenie): making the familiar strange to renew perception.
Autonomy of the literary work: literature follows its own laws, independent of sociological or psychological explanations.

2.1 Boris Eichenbaum – The Formal Method

Eichenbaum (Rivkin & Ryan, p. 7) Formalism’s methodological credo:

“Literary study must focus on the form of the work, not its content or authorial intention.”

He proposes a three‑step procedure:

Identify the device (e.g., rhyme, meter, narrative rhythm).
Describe its function within the system of the work.
Explain how the device contributes to the overall literary effect.

We can formalize this as a simple algorithm:

literaryEffect = Σ (device_i × function_i)

where each device_i is weighted by its functional contribution function_i.

2.2 Viktor Shklovsky – Art as Technique

Shklovsky’s essay (Rivkin & Ryan, p. 15) expands defamiliarization:

“The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived, not as they are known.”

He introduces the concept of the device as a technique that disrupts automatized perception. A illustrative example:

In Tolstoy’s Kholstomer, the narrator is a horse, forcing readers to see human society anew.

2.3 ‘Formalism’ (Ryan, p. 12)

Ryan’s overview article situates Formalism within the broader critical landscape, noting its influence on later Structuralist thought and its eventual decline due to perceived neglect of historical context.

3. Structuralism

Building on Formalism’s focus on form, Structuralism seeks the underlying structures that govern all human cultural products, especially language. The section introduction (Rivkin & Ryan, p. 53) highlights two premises:

Meaning arises from differences within a system (Saussurean linguistics).
Cultural phenomena can be analyzed as sign systems governed by rules.

3.1 Jonathan Culler – The Linguistic Foundation

Culler (Rivkin & Ryan, p. 56) argues that literary theory must adopt the linguistic model of Saussure:

“Literature is a system of signs; to interpret it we must uncover the codes that make signification possible.”

He distinguishes between langue (the abstract system) and parole (individual utterances), proposing that literary analysis should map the deep structure of a text.

3.2 Roman Jakobson – Two Aspects of Language

Jakobson’s classic essay (Rivkin & Ryan, p. 76) outlines six functions of language, emphasizing the poetic function:

Function	Focus
Referential	Context
Emotive	Sender
Conative	Receiver
Phatic	Contact
Metalingual	Code
Poetic	Message (the poem itself)

The poetic function foregrounds the message for its own sake, aligning with the Formalist focus on device.

Jakobson also introduces the notion of binary oppositions as a structural analytic tool. A simple representation:

meaning = f(opposition_A, opposition_B)

where each opposition (e.g., nature/culture, speech/writing) contributes to the overall semantic field.

3.3 ‘Structuralism’ (Ryan, p. 128)

Ryan’s encyclopedic entry summarizes the spread of Structuralism from linguistics to anthropology (Lévi‑Strauss), literary studies (Barthes, Genette), and psychoanalysis (Lacan). He notes the movement’s ambition to uncover universal grammars of human expression.

4. Narrative Theory (Narratology)

Narratology applies Structuralist principles specifically to narrative discourse. The section introduction (Rivkin & Ryan, p. 53) notes its dual heritage: Formalist concern with plot devices and Structuralist quest for narrative universals.

4.1 Vladimir Propp – Morphology of the Folk‑tale

Propp’s seminal work (Rivkin & Ryan, p. 72) analyzes Russian fairy tales and identifies 31 narrative functions that recur in a stable order. Example functions include:

Absentation
Interdiction
Violation
Reconnaissance
Delivery
Trickery
Complicity
Villainy
Lack
Mediation
Beginning Counter‑action
Departure
First Function of the Donor
Hero’s Reaction
Provision or Receipt of a Magical Agent
Guidance
Struggle
Branding
Victory
Liquidation
Return
Pursuit
Rescue
Unrecognized Arrival
Unfounded Claims
Difficult Task
Solution
Recognition
Exposure
Transfiguration
Punishment
Wedding

Propp’s model can be expressed as a finite‑state machine:

state_0 → state_1 → … → state_31 → terminal

where each transition corresponds to a narrative function.

4.2 Roland Barthes – Mythologies

Barthes (Rivkin & Ryan, p. 81) extends Structuralist analysis to cultural myths, arguing that myth is a second‑order semiotic system:

“Myth is a type of speech. It is a message, a system of communication.”

He distinguishes the denotative level (literal meaning) from the connotative level (cultural associations). In myth, the signifier of the first system becomes the signified of the second, producing ideological effect.

A concrete example: the image of a steak in a French advertisement.

Denotation: a piece of meat.
Connotation (first order): strength, masculinity.
Mythic sign (second order): the idea that consuming this steak confers virility, reinforcing bourgeois ideology.

5. Synthesis: From Formalism to Narratology

Although each school emerged in a distinct historical moment, they share a common methodological thread: the belief that literature can be dissected into repeatable, analyzable units.

Formalism isolates devices that make language artistic.
Structuralism locates those devices within larger sign systems governed by rules.
Narratology applies the structuralist lens to the temporal and causal organization of stories.

Together, they provide a toolkit for close reading that remains vital in contemporary literary study.

6. Key Takeaways

Theory is a critical practice that questions interpretive assumptions (Culler).
Russian Formalism introduced defamiliarization and the autonomy of the literary work.
Eichenbaum’s formal method emphasizes device, function, and effect.
Shklovsky’s art as technique shows how devices renew perception.
Structuralism transfers linguistic concepts (sign, code, binary opposition) to literature.
Jakobson’s poetic function highlights the message’s self‑referentiality.
Propp’s morphology offers a finite set of narrative functions observable across tales.
Barthes’ mythologies reveal how signs acquire ideological second‑order meanings.
These approaches can be combined: a formal device operates within a structural system that shapes narrative patterns.

Prepared for ENGL 504: Literary Theories and Practices – Masters of Arts in English.