Journal of Academic Research for Humanities (JARH) is a double-blind peer-review, Open Free Access, online Multidisciplinary Research Journal
Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2023)
The International "Journal of Academic Research for Humanities"

Research Articles

Bakhtin’s and Jakobson’s Poetics: An Intersection of Phenomenology and Formalism

Published 05-05-2023

  • Shaista Malik
    • ,
  • Wajid Riaz
    • ,
  • Hafiz Muhammad Salman

Shaista Malik
, Assistant Professor, English, Hazara University, Mansehra.

Wajid Riaz
Assistant Professor, English, The University of Lahore, Sargodha Campus.

Hafiz Muhammad Salman
M. Mphil Scholar, English, The UoL, Sargodha Campus.

Abstract

The present study aims to prove that Roman Jakobson and Michael Bakhtin tried to provide the Carrefour between hazy abstractions of philosophy and exclusively descriptive and positivistic formalism of linguistics.  The research seeks parallels between Bakhtin’s and Jakobson’s theoretical positions regarding language and literary devices. It purports to use phenomenology as a framework to see the formalist positions of both. It proves, however, that these writers shared certain commonalities as well as differences. Although they both contributed towards developing a Formalist literary and linguistic tradition, they diverged in significant ways about phenomenological positions. The research paper proves that Jakobson enriched Formalist literary criticism by adding Structuralism flavour to it, whereas Bakhtin refurbished Formalism by conjugating it with the sociological conception of literary criticism.

Keywords

Phenomenology, , Formalism, , Dialogism, , Dominant, , Bakhtin, , Jakobson

PDF

References

  1. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). “The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays”. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin University of Texas Press, 1981.
  2. Dolezel, L. (2008). “Structuralism of the Prague School”, in The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism. Vol. 8. Ed. Raman Selden, pp 33-58. UK: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, trans. David Carr (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970), III A, Sect. 43, p. 154; hereafter 'C.
  4. Hegel, G. W. F. (1970). “Differenz des Fichteschen und Schellingschen Systems der Philosophie.” In Jenaer Schriften (1801–1807), Werke II, edited by Eva Moldenhauer and Karl Markus Michel, 9–138. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
  5. Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press
  6. Habib, M.A. (2005). A History of Literary Criticism: From Plato to the Present. USA: Blackwell Publishing.
  7. Holenstein, E. (1976). Roman Jakobson’s Approach to Language: Phenomenological Structuralism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  8. Jakobson, R. (1987). “Language in Literature”. Ed. Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy. Cambridge, MA and London: Haward University Press.
  9. Minnis, A., & Johnson, I. (Eds.). (2005). the Cambridge History of Literary Criticism (The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Doi: 10.1017/CHOL9780521300070
  10. Steiner, P. (2008). “Russian Formalism” in the Cambridge History of Literary Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism. Vol. 8. Ed. Raman Selden, pp. 11-33. UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008.