FORMALIST CRITICISM AND READER-RESPONSE THEORY (80,00 руб.)

УДК 8113:81′27 FORMALIST CRITICISM AND READERRESPONSE THEORY Mohammed Al Fuadi General and Russian Linguistics Department Philological Faculty Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia Miklukho-Maklaya str., 10a, Moscow, Russia, 117198 The article deals with the interaction of formalism as a trend in language and literature studies, on the one hand, and a teaching method, a technique of teaching to understand and investigate literary text proceeding from its structure and content, on the other hand. <...> One of the main principles is dialogism (M. Bakhtin) that creates the coeducation between the writer and reader. <...> Thus the process becomes bilateral, or even multilateral and it includes criticism on both parts — a teacher and a student-reader as they are interpreting a literary text. <...> I. INTRODUCTION TO FORMALISM While the later pedagogical programs established by some new critics suggest that New Criticism’s doctrinal lines for membership and practice were clearly delineated, the actual theoretical positions of many formalist critics with ties to this movement contradict such an idea. <...> The critics who debated about the shape and concepts of formalism in scholarly journals and groundbreaking monographs did not draw such boundaries as facilely or exclusively as many literary historians imply. <...> The influential work by I.A. Richards [11], for example, in developing a foundational theory of formalism found in such works as “Principles of Literary Criticism” (1924) and “Practical Criticism” (1929) is nuanced and perceptive, offering nothing as cross or authoritative as its later permutations in the classroom texts developed by such American New Critics as C. Brooks and R. Warren. <...> However, in taking Richards’s theory into the classroom via such texts, the theoretical underpinning of the various techniques was often omitted or ignored. <...> This instance brings to mind recent developments thought that call for a move away from our sole reliance upon the logos and suggest ways to ‘think’ with one’s body. <...> For example, Brooks was adamant about the exclusion of history 119 Вестник РУДН, серия Теория языка. <...> Nevertheless, “one may know what the poet ate and what he wore and what accidents to him and what books he read and yet not know his poetry” [8. <...> Gary Saul Morson and Gary Emerson astutely observe <...>