Menu

Tools Submit Materials Pricing About Contact Login Register

Unit I: Introduction, Formalism, Structuralism and Narratology

[ENGL 504] Literary Theories and Practices - Masters of Arts in English

This chapter surveys the origins and development of Russian Formalism, Structuralism, and Narrative Theory, highlighting how each approach redefines literary analysis through concepts such as defamiliarization, binary oppositions, mythemes, and narrative functions. Key works by Culler, Barry, Eichenbaum, Shklovsky, Jakobson, Propp, and Barthes are examined to illustrate the shift from surface features to deep structural patterns in literature.

[ENGL 504] Literary Theories and Practices No MCQ questions available for this chapter.

Unit I: Introduction, Formalism, Structuralism and Narratology

Summary

Unit I introduces the foundational theories that have shaped modern literary study. Beginning with Russian Formalism, the chapter explores how early twentieth‑century scholars such as Viktor Shklovsky and Boris Eichenbaum redirected attention from authorial intention and historical context to the intrinsic devices that make language literary. Central to this shift is the concept of defamiliarization (ostranenie), which argues that literary art renews perception by rendering the familiar strange.

The discussion then moves to Structuralism, a broader intellectual movement that seeks underlying systems governing cultural phenomena. Drawing on the linguistics of Roman Jakobson and the semiotic insights of Roland Barthes, Structuralism treats literary works as sign systems governed by rules analogous to grammar. The chapter emphasizes binary oppositions (e.g., nature/culture, self/other) as the deep structures that generate meaning, and introduces the notion of mythemes as the minimal units of mythic narrative.

Finally, the unit surveys Narrative Theory (Narratology), focusing on the formal analysis of plot, time, and focalization. Vladimir Propp’s Morphology of the Folk‑tale provides a model of thirty‑one invariant functions that underlie fairy‑tale plots, while Roland Barthes’ Mythologies demonstrates how everyday cultural objects become carriers of ideological myths through narrative codes. Together, these approaches illustrate a progression from attending to surface features to uncovering the deep, universal grammar that structures narrative across media and historical periods.

Characters

Although this unit is theoretical rather than fictional, its “characters” are the seminal thinkers whose ideas drive the narrative of literary theory:

  • Viktor Shklovsky – Formalist critic who coined defamiliarization and emphasized the device as the essence of literariness.
  • Boris Eichenbaum – Fellow Formalist who elaborated on the concept of literary evolution and the role of genre.
  • Roman Jakobson – Linguist‑structuralist who defined the poetic function of language and contributed the model of communication.
  • Claude Lévi‑Strauss (implicitly referenced) – Anthropologist whose structural analysis of myths informed literary structuralism.
  • Vladimir Propp – Folklorist who identified the thirty‑one narrative functions that compose folk‑tale plots.
  • Roland Barthes – Semiotician whose Mythologies reveals how cultural signs produce ideological meaning.
  • Jonathan Culler – Contemporary theorist who synthesizes Structuralist and Post‑Structuralist insights for literary studies.
  • Barry (likely referring to Peter Barry) – Author of introductory texts that map the landscape of literary theory for students.

Plot

The “plot” of this unit traces a logical progression through three theoretical movements, each building on the previous:

  1. Formalism’s Emergence (1910s‑1930s) – The chapter opens with the Russian Formalists’ reaction against biographical and historical criticism, introducing defamiliarization as the literary device that makes perception fresh.
  2. Structuralism’s Synthesis (1950s‑1970s) – Building on Formalist attention to form, Structuralism seeks universal codes. The discussion highlights Jakobson’s linguistic model, Lévi‑Strauss’s binary oppositions, and Barthes’ semiotic analysis of myths.
  3. Narratology’s Focus (1970s‑present) – The final segment narrows to narrative structures, presenting Propp’s invariant functions and Barthes’ exploration of how narrative codes in‑depth mythic meaning in contemporary culture.

Each section includes illustrative examples: Shklovsky’s analysis of Tolstoy’s Kholstomer, Jakobson’s six‑factor model of communication, Propp’s functions applied to Cinderella, and Barthes’ reading of wrestling as a mythic spectacle.

Themes

Several recurring themes unite the theories covered in this unit:

  • Defamiliarization vs. Automation – The tension between literary devices that disrupt habitual perception and language that operates automatically in everyday communication.
  • Search for Invariant Structures – Whether through Formalist devices, Structuralist binary oppositions, or Propp’s narrative functions, theorists aim to uncover constants beneath surface variation.
  • Language as a System of Signs – The shift from viewing language as a transparent medium to understanding it as a structured sign system governed by rules.
  • Ideology and Myth – Barthes’ work reveals how narratives naturalize ideological assumptions, turning cultural practices into seemingly universal myths.
  • Media Transcendence – Narratology’s claim that narrative structures operate across media (literature, film, folklore) underscores the universality of the deep grammar of story.

Analysis

From a critical perspective, the unit demonstrates how each theoretical wave both builds upon and reacts to its predecessors. Formalism’s focus on the “device” offered a rigorous, text‑centric method but was criticized for isolating literature from social and historical forces. Structuralism responded by locating literary meaning within larger cultural codes, yet it too faced accusations of being overly synchronic and neglecting change and agency.

Narratology, especially as articulated by Propp and later refined by Gérard Genette, attempts to balance formal precision with cultural breadth. By isolating narrative functions, Propp provides a toolkit for comparing tales across cultures, while Barthes’ semiotic approach shows how those functions are invested with ideological significance. The unit’s analysis highlights that the strength of these theories lies not in their claim to final truth but in their capacity to generate productive questions about how meaning is produced, reproduced, and contested.

Moreover, the chapter invites students to consider the limitations of seeking universal grammars. Post‑Structuralist critiques (though beyond the scope of this unit) remind us that any claim to invariant structures risks erasing difference and historicity. Nevertheless, the formal tools introduced here remain indispensable for close reading, comparative analysis, and the interpretation of narrative strategies in diverse media.

Conclusion

Unit I establishes a conceptual foundation for the remainder of the course: literature is best understood not merely as a reflection of authorial intent or historical moment, but as a system of formal devices, underlying structures, and narrative codes that shape and are shaped by cultural practice. By mastering the concepts of defamiliarization, binary oppositions, mythemes, narrative functions, and mythic signification, students acquire a versatile analytical toolkit applicable to poems, novels, films, and digital narratives alike. The unit thus equips learners to move beyond surface interpretation and to engage with the deep, often invisible, grammar that makes storytelling a fundamental human activity.

Next