KAJIAN TEORI FORMALISME DAN STRUKTURALISME
Fadlil Munawwar Manshur(1*)
(1) Dosen Sastra, Fakultas Ilmu Budaya Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
From the perspective of formalism theory, this study aims to reveal that a research on literary texts does not only pay attention to textual facts existing in literary works, but also needs to pay attention to what exists outside the text. In the literary works, the element of defamiliarization holds that literary language is able to express facts of stories using unfamiliar languages. From the perspective of structuralism theory, this study aims to reveal that structuralism is conceptually a continuation of formalism which largely depends on language. Structuralism theory has a close relationship with linguistics, especially in analyzing the functions of the language used. The analysis of language function can help understanding language semiotics that views literature as a sign that then led to literary semiotics. Therefore, functioning to examine a phenomenon, the concept of semiotic structuralism emerged as a social fact. Critical approach was deemed suitable to be used in this study because formalism theory and structuralism theory are part of a social construction and part of a discursive formation in the formation of subject and reality. As a result, it could be seen the position of formalism theory and structuralism theory in literary research of which raw material is language. The findings in this study are that the formalism theory in its development is dynamic and its language construction stimulates readers to respond. In principle, literary work is not autonomous because it contains author’s feelings and society’s mind. Literary research should exceed the boundaries of formalism and be able to create new vocabularies in writing novels. In the novel, there is intertextual polyvalence, which is a series and intensive dialogic linkages that are capable of giving birth to new novels. Another finding is that structuralism theory has a close relationship with linguistics, for example phonological elements in linguistics which can help literary theory in analyzing sound levels in oral literary works. This theory has also developed a study of poetry to the aesthetic level so that this study has shifted from its original aspects of verbal art only to all art and artistic aesthetics in the present time. This shift distinguishes the views between formalism and structuralism in relation to norms and values inherent in language.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Bann, Stephen. 2004. “Semiotics”, dalam Raman Selden (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1995. Language (Bahasa). Jakarta: P.T. Gramedia.
Castle, Gregory. 2007. The Blackwell Guide to Literary Theory. Malden USA: Blackwell Publishing.
de Saussure, F. 1983. Course in General Linguistics, trans. by Harris, R. Chicago, IL: Open Court Classics
Eagleton, Terry. 1986. Literary Theory, An Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ehrmann, Jacques. 1970. Structuralism. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Erlich, Victor. 1964. Russian Formalism, History-Doctrine. Fourth Edition. Paris, New York: Mouton Publishers-The Hague.
------------. 1980. Russian Formalism: History-Doctrine. New York: Mouton Publisher
Faruk. 1988. Strukturalisme Genetik dan Eipstemologi Sastra. Yogyakarta: P.D. Lukman.
--------- 2012. Metode Penelitian Sastra, Sebuah Penjelajahan Awal. Cetakan pertama. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Harris, R. (1983), “Translator's Introduction”, in de Saussure, F. (Ed.), Course in General Linguistics, trans. by Harris, R. Chicago, IL: Open Court Classics
Holquist, Michael. 2002. Dialogism, Bakhtin and his World. Second Edition. Routledge, London and New York.
Holub, Robert. 2004. “Reception Theory: School of Constance”, dalam Raman Selden (ed.), The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jefferson, Ann, David Robey. 1987. Modern Literary Theory. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.
Keraf, Gorys. 1989. Argumentasi dan Narasi. Jakarta: P.T. Gramedia.
Kridalaksana, Harimurti. 1984. Kamus Linguistik. Jakarta: P.T. Gramedia.
Luxemburg, Jan van, Mieke Bal, Willem G. Weststeijn. 1986. Pengantar Ilmu Sastra. Jakarta: P.T. Gramedia.
Martinet, Andre. 1987. Ilmu Bahasa : Pengantar. Yogyakarta: Kanisius.
Petrilli, Susan & Ponzio, Augusto. 2005. Semiotics Unbounded: Interpretive Routes Through the Open Network of Signs. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Scholes, Robert. 1977. Structuralism in Literature, An Introduction. New Haven dan London: Yale University Press.
Segers, Rien T. 2000. Evaluasi Teks Sastra. Diterjemahkan oleh Suminta A. Sayuti dari The Evaluation of Literary Texts. Yogyakarta: Adicita.
Sherwood, Richard. 1973. : “Victor Shklovsky and the Development of Early Formalist Theory on Prose Literature” dalam dalam Russian Fornmalism, A Collection of Articles and Texts in Translation. Edinburg: Scottish Academic Press.
Todorov, Tzvetan. 1973. ‘Some Approaches to Russian Formalism” dalam Russian Fornmalism, A Collection of Articles and Texts in Translation. Edinburg: Scottish Academic Press.
______________. 1985. Tata Sastra. Jakarta. Penerbit Djambatan.
Watten, Barrett. 2010. The Constructivist Moment: From Material Text to Cultural Poetics. Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press
Wilden, Anthony. 1972. System and Structure, Essays in Communication and Exchange. London: Tavistock Publications.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/sasdayajournal.43888
Article Metrics
Abstract views : 61363 | views : 185855Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2019 SASDAYA: Gadjah Mada Journal of Humanities
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Registered number ISSN 2549-3884 (online)