This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
stems from the word “stranny”, strange1) has always existed in art, but Viktor Shklovsky was the first one to define and name it in his 1914 brochure “The Resurrection of the Word”. Shklovsky later elaborated the early definition in the famous article “Art as Technique”2 written in 1917. Ostranenie (defamiliarization, estrangement) remains faithful to itself and, thus, avoids a stiffed interpretation. It had scarcely appeared when it set off for a strange journey. To explain, I will need to turn to Russian language here. At first the term of Shklovsky was printed with a mistake, one letter “n” in the word “ostrannenie” got lost, and since then the term has even more likely been taken for an error. Another landmark in its history is connected with Bertolt Brecht who borrowed this term from Shklovsky for his epic theatre theory. Brecht translated it into German as “die Verfremdung”, which in its turn was rendered into Russian as “otchuzhdenie” (stemming from “chuzhoy”, different, unfamiliar, strange), or “alienation”, – a term used in Marxism and appealing to a completely different philosophical teaching. Several transformations of the word followed to get rid of this disambiguation, but suddenly Shklovsky’s “Stories about Prose” appeared with a new term - “otstranenie”. This misprint was an unintentional crossing of two words: “ostranenie” and “otzhuzhdenie”. Some scholars, as a modern Russian philosopher Grigory Tulchinsky for example, believe that this confusion has been to no good and that there is no sense in comparing the many variations of the same term with each other. However, there is a subtle verge between “o-stranenie” and “ot-stranie”, which is perhaps thinner that the letter “t” that separates them, but still important, like when we distinguish metonymy from synecdoche.
Though outwardly similar, these words have different etymology. “Art as Device” in other translations
In this article. gives “the sensation of things”3. both terms are felicitous. However. presents them from a new angle and. possessed the two meanings. Reis. or rather automation. as originally described. Russian Formalist Criticism. The purpose of this article is to circumscribe the range of estrangement and to comprehend its relationship with the process of automation. or better to say the range of estrangement that has expanded. thus. overcomes the stereotypes of thinking. an event as if it were happening for the first time”. on the contrary. The Range of Estrangement Shklovsky opposed defamiliarization to the process of habitualization. Four Essays. 3 Art as Technique. in the sixties. which is used in Russian to designate “Verfremdung”. In the article “Art as Technique” Shklovsky explains how defamiliarization functions in Leo Tolstoy’s literary works and articles where the writer “describes an object as if he were seeing it for the first time. As Shklovsky phrased it later. translated and with an introductory by Lee T. defamiliarization shows an object “outside the habitual sequence”. 1965 . we will use them as synonyms. As for defamiliarization and estrangement. Defamiliarization. University of Nebraska Press. is the same thing as the distancing or alienation effect. while ot-stranenie. Lemon and Marion J. when a person gets used to things surrounding him so much that he is no longer able to see their uniqueness. O-stranenie is translated as defamiliarization or estrangement. Right after that Shklovsky declares the technique of defamiliarization as the principle of poetic language where perception is hindered by roughening and retardation of form – in distinction from practical language of the everyday life. one should always remember that Shklovsky’s “ostranenie”. The question is what it comprises and what it does not.Yet in English there is no problem with it. they cannot exclude each other since the first one emphasizes unfamiliarity and the second concentrates on strangeness. This additional explanation blurs the boundaries of the notion that seemingly has just been formulated and raises the problem of the limits of defamiliarization.
However. stereotypes. No. for instance. but also regretted he had written of defamiliarization as a unique thing because he found out it had been detected a long time before him. a person unfamiliar with what it is. Like Marcus Aurelius whom he admired. Carlo Ginzburg5 finds its origins6 in “The Thoughts” of Marcus Aurelius.e. for example. The first one. Defamiliarization is used as mean for ideological ends in this case. Let us give one more definition to this technique. Making Things Strange: The Prehistory of a Literary Device – Representations. Special 5 Issue: The New Erudition (Autumn. Carlo Ginzburg rightfully notes that the same device was actively used among writers of the Enlightenment. including philosophical essays. instead of saying “a purple robe” (it is well-known that purple was worn by the higher classes) Marcus Aurelius defines it as “sheep's wool dyed with the blood of a shell-fish”. As for ideological defamiliarization. Tolstoy often exploits it both in his literary works and philosophical 4 See chapter “Arrangement of Estrangement”. by Novalis. The other kind is artistic. pp.Ideological Defamiliarization There are two kinds of defamiliarization. 56. A simple example: instead of the narrow concept of war. i. 1996). but we hardly recognize an object seen through a stranger’s eyes. let us call it ideological. who tried to contemplate things in their true light and. selfflagellation of Shklovsky is a tricky problem that goes beyond the topic of this article. and that estranges this object. wipe away the false impressions of these things. All the words are correct. In such a way. the writer speaks of the broader notion of killing. thus. 6 . Tolstoy uses defamiliarization to unveil a false impression. To achieve his aim. He did not only reject his previous words about art as “a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object” when “the object is not important”. it reveals itself in various devices and will be analyzed below4. Tolstoy depicts an object through general words – hyperonymes. 8-28 Late Shklovsky criticized the idea of defamiliarization. is concentrated in philosophical works. defamiliarizes it. It looks as if the purple robe were described by a stranger. and Leo Tolstoy also inherited this tradition.
art may be regarded not only as a device. no wonder “journalism” stems from the French word “jour” and originates in Roman “Acta Diurna”. But later when Prince Andrew finds the same old oak again. In distinction from philosophical essays10. or publicism to make it sound English. it turns out to be “quite transfigured. namely. Retardation in Definition Sometimes defamiliarization is even undesirable. “Patriotism or Peace?”. briefly and clearly as possible. At the same time. Journalism is an apt example. For that reason a reporter’s language is simple and sometimes pedestrian. a kind of newspaper. A reporter has to transmit some message to audience as fast. spreading out a canopy of sappy dark-green foliage”. and suddenly Bolkonsky reappraises his own existence and is “seized by an unreasoning spring-time feeling of joy and renewal”. and defamiliarization may turn out a destructive weapon instead of a practical tool. Leo Tolstoy’s articles on patriotism. but sometimes also to emphasize good ones9. However. When Prince Andrew Bolkonsky encounters the oak for the first time. in journalism and also in advertising these devices are used merely to attract attention while in belles-lettres they truly defamiliarize certain objects (see the chapter “Artistic Defamiliarization”). there is almost no defamiliarization in journalism11. it is obvious that defamiliarization should be used accurately because a thing can be mechanically unmasked without deep insight in its nature. according to Tolstoy 8 A good example is the two scenes with the same oak in “War and Peace”. this kind of social journalism may be likened to a speech of on orator. one of the first mass media in history. So “dailiness” is the essence of journalism and a reporter is constricted in means of expression. or “Daily Acts”. he compares his life to that of the oak: he sees the oak as “a scornful monster” that contrasts with “the smiling birchtrees” and refuses “to yield to the charm of spring”. according to Shklovsky. “Patriotism and Government”.essays7 – usually to gainsay various phenomena he thinks vicious8. 9 In Russian there is a special term for it – “publitsistika”. Even a good journalist who shuns For instance. Bill Plympton + cartoons = Plymptoons) and puns (false start – about the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that is still not ratified). “Christianity and Patriotism”. but also as a device. 10 Save for some defamiliarizing devices like deliberate word-contamination (politics + entertainment = politainment. 11 . 7 In this case. that is practical language of everyday life. and others.
36. pp. “Viktor Shklovskij: Différance in Defamiliarization”. However. To prove that. Such kind of journalism speaks the language of ideological clichés – not to save time for communication. with Newspeak12 in George Orwell’s “1984” and outline the conclusions. The purpose of Newspeak was elimination of thinking. especially in totalitarian regimes. by deflation of language. 12 Lawrence Crawford believes Shklovsky elaborated an economic theory of literature when speaking of the law of economizing the reader’s attention in “Art as Device” – Lawrence Crawford. it is even more practical than the one we speak in everyday life. In fact. the number one newspaper of the USSR. or using economy as a metaphor13. but. 13 An essay called “Hyperinflation of Word” has been dedicated to this problem by the author of this article – published in “Journalism and the Culture of Russian Language” magazine issued at the Moscow State University. it had not only to “provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc. 209-219. Vol. the washing-out of sense was attained with the help of hyperinflation of language14 and consequently meaning. It was called “novoyaz” which is the exact translation of Orwell’s neologism into Russian. 3. to think so would be unrealistic. but to make all other modes of thought impossible (italics mine)”. That is the language that we hear each day watching news. but to exclude any. 2008. It was part of the propaganda which. That is why an inclination towards excessive automation is a peril for journalism. 1984). 3 (Summer. Duke University Press. “cutting the language down to the bone”. or closed societies by Karl Popper’s expression. on the other either suppressed ideas inimical to the regime or covered the pettiness of its own postulates and incapacity It is essential to note that in the 1920’s in Russia there was a society of linguists who tried to devise a new language adapted to the necessities of the Revolution. The language of the Soviet press illustrates it well. on the one hand. Instead. Newspeak was going to achieve its objective by the destruction of words. the Soviet Union could not afford destroying Russian and other languages of its republics. let us compare the language of “Pravda”. clearly declared its dogmata. No. 14 .stock phrases frequently resorts to fixed forms that are easily perceived because they do not require time for consideration. No.
It is evident from this example that roughened and retarded form is not always a sign of defamiliarization and of poetic language – despite what Shklovsky said. only the few understood them and among them even the fewer apparently admired. have been developing and rearing (redundancy – V.).). on the reverse.) on the fields of battles against the hordes of German-Fascist aggressors and Japanese imperialists”16. you can understand whatever they say. 279 (10361). This is only one of the sixteen paragraphs of which the article consists. 15 “The Celebration of the Stalin’s Artillery”. Sunday 24 of November 1946. following the instructions of Comrade Stalin. This yielded its victorious results (redundancy – V. Orwell also delineates such a person named Syme who worked on the Newspeak Dictionary in “1984”. 16 . For many years the Bolshevik party and the Soviet government.L. has it been accompanied by battle victorious glory (redundancy – V. Imagine two people talking as usual.L. “Pravda”. No. Defamation of Defamiliarization It does not by any means imply that everyone who wrote and spoke this language was aware of its effects. but admit there is a thousand of them speaking simultaneously – you will not be able to hear a word except meaningless buzz. Just like this. Not only during the days of the Great Patriotic War did its power and juggernaut destructive force display itself in full scale and scope hitherto unseen (redundancy – V. This paragraph is so overburdened that the ridiculous word combination to forge caringly remains unnoticed.for dialogue by the redundancy of its language15. and that is why logical mistakes escape from the reader’s attention. as well as some funny slip-ups: «For five and a half centuries of the existence of Russian artillery. the language of “Pravda” is cumbersome and impassable.L.L.) artillery troops. have daily and caringly (italics mine) been forging the power of the Soviet artillery industry.
(M. 18 Many scholars believe that the author of the “Formal Method” is an alter ego of Bakhtin. In “The Formal Method in the Study of Literature” he writes19: “Indeed. Material and Form in Verbal Art”. the “formalists” themselves did not like the word “formalism” so much. 17 The translation is mine. belonged along with Yuri Tynyanov. scolded Russian Formalism that did not approach literature in terms of what later became known as socialist realism in 1932. its founder. Labyrinth 1993. Bakhtin) The Formal Method in the Study of Literature (Part 3. Valentin Voloshinov. he does not simply object to the formal (or morphological) method saying that it overestimates the role of material in art (for example. There was a great thinker at the same time who debated with them – it was Mikhail Bakhtin. It does not itself create new constructions. according to the teaching of formalists. Moscow. linguistic aspects in literature). the Society for the Study of Poetic Language to which Viktor Shklovsky. following its purposes and intentions. It has to wait till life’s practical language. automatize. an automatized one. will deign to create a new verbal construction. 19 . chapter 1 – Poetic language as the object of poetics). Boris Eikhenbaum and others17. To such parasitic existence poetic language is doomed by the formalists”. However.Many used to castigate defamiliarization among the ideas of OPOYAZ. not just Marxists were critical of formalists. Marxists. but an insensible. The same thing is asserted about another opponent of formalists. and it indeed is quite abusive in Russian and signifies a pedant or a bureaucrat. of course. he treats formalists quite ambiguously. Even though they are better known as the Russian formalists.N. Significantly. It merely compels one to sense a construction already created. poetic language can only “defamiliarize” and extricate from automatization solely what has already been created in other systems of language. A representative of the Bakhtin circle Pavel Medvedev18 was much more consistent and caustic in his critics. Russian publishing house “Labyrinth” printed the abovementioned work of Pavel Medvedev in the book series called “Bakhtin under the Mask”. In “The Problem of Content. The word “formalism” was used by their adversaries from different ideological camps. but also acknowledges some of its theoretical breakthroughs. and only then poetic language appears on the scene and triumphantly extricates this construction from automatization.M. Medvedev P. make it habitual.
Indeed. on the one hand. Even when a writer is not thinking of defamiliarization. Here is my attempt to solve it presented in the form of a theorem and proving. To this Shklovsky adds that there was “the consternation of Pushkin's contemporaries over the vulgarity of his expressions” because he allegedly “used the popular language as a special device for prolonging attention”. However. On the other. yet they deserve a separate analysis. Taking this and what Pavel Medvedev says into consideration. like light on a negative. Theorem. Yet it is obvious that in different epochs the same text can sound differently: either strange and unexpected or hackneyed. one can elicit from Medvedev’s words a major challenge to the idea of defamiliarization. may be regarded as an act of defamiliarizing certain objects described with the help of unanticipated words. it is very debatable whether the unique style of Pushkin is defamiliarized.There are many other counterarguments in Medvedev’s book that touch upon poetic language and other important issues. text A does not necessarily contain defamiliarization. or French and English ones in their original transcription. . The Problem of Context In “Art as Technique” Shklovsky asserts that facile language of Alexander Pushkin that is nowadays pleasant to the ear was uneasily perceived by the poet’s contemporaries at the background of a more intricate style of the 18th century. we can now turn to the the problem of context. Let us call it the problem of context. if some part of text A is used in text B for the purpose of defamiliarization. as well as some other devices (zeugma. for instance) that will show up later. the fact that Pushkin used either “vulgar” Russian words. and would be superfluous only if there were no confusion over the problem of context. he or she can unknowingly implement it in his or her text. However. The following statements may seem evident and trite.
creative misspelling of words or folk etymology.. A sparrow is a bird. when the volumes of notions A & B totally do not coincide (e. even if we took them together without context and presented as a statement. To prove that. a rose. But it is questionable whether there was any defamiliarization in Smirnovsky’s textbook itself. but still is a fatherland. Russia is our fatherland. Secondly. Romashko – Moscow. 20 The translation is mine. or “he is a good man and has been into politics for a while”).A. A rose is a flower. One may disagree with the second point of the proving and say that he or she sees defamiliarization in these clauses of Smirnovsky anyway. To begin with. It has been proven that the epigraph to “The Gift” is a display of defamiliarization. and a deer.g. Russia. though there are simpler examples than the one discussed above. which is taken from “The Textbook of Russian Grammar” written by P. 2. 2001. a tower and a fish. However. Hansen-Love is absolutely right when he says that in one literary work a certain device “can be used and perceived as the device of defamiliarization” 21 and in another situation it cannot. let us consider the epigraph to “The Gift” of Nabokov. Aage A. they are shown “outside the habitual sequence” according to Shklovsky.Proving. page 13 21 . even taken together A certain mistake can be used for defamiliarization. the main topics of the novel. Smirnovsky: “An oak is a tree. and death are related to the novel and the relation of discordance transforms into a device that defamiliarizes an object or several objects. Can it be called defamiliarization? Certainly: Russia and death. bitter judgments about Russia that is lost. they could fairly be regarded as a logically erroneous 20 relation of discordance. Languages of Russian Culture. these grammatical examples of Smirnovsky should be taken separately because they were not intended to constitute a text. Hansen-Love Russian Formalism” Methodological Reconstruction of its Development on the basis of the Principle of Defamiliarization / Translated from German by S. A deer is an animal. are in one row with a tree. in such a way statements about Russia and death also become irrefutable. in Nabokov’s case the words about a deer. and about death that is inevitable in spite of our hopes stand together with the axioms of life that are irrefutable. Death is inevitable”. for example. Aage A. 1.
because all these phenomena of perception were described in psychology a long time ago. the notion of defamiliarizing effect is not needed. but deleterious because it washes up the notion of defamiliarization/estrangement. defined it. One might derive that everything depends on perception and history then. In fact. can be anywhere – in a book of recipes. i. Thus. there are two different situations. In fact. It was also the Russian formalists themselves who struggled with it. 3. economics. so anything can become defamiliarized one day. perception. Borges writes that the words from “Don Quixote” literally repeated by the 20th century writer acquire a new sense. once again. Conclusion. Borges’s experiment with modernization of an old text can easily be turned into a sophism. because in this case defamiliarization. In other words. as Alexander Veselovsky. scholars preferred to discuss literature through psychology (as in the case with perception). or an excerpt from another (con)text to achieve defamiliarization. The difficult question of perception is analyzed by Jorge Luis Borges in his “Pierre Menard. we should not speak of defamiliarization. or in a poster seen either by an ancient man or an alien (a device used by science-fiction writers). by Roman Jakobson’s term. phrase. yet a beautiful one. instead of the literariness of literature. such a term would be not only superfluous. a) Suppose an author uses an archaic word. To sum it up. not only Pavel Medvedev was against such approach. “res nullis”. Author of the Quixote”. to solve the problem of context. or in a textbook. . the father of the historical poetics. or history.e. In point b. Eikhenbaum wrote in “Theory of the Formal Method” that before formalists literature had been nobody’s land. we should distinguish defamiliarization itself from the defamiliarizing effect. So this brings us to the way he or she sees something. politics. However. As for the term itself. The latter can be determined exclusively by peculiarities of the recipient’s consciousness.apart from Nabokov. and so on. b) Suppose the author’s descendants take his text as archaic in general. since its vocabulary and the way it approaches life is unfamiliar to them. culture.
verbal reports. Defamiliarization always deals with what is already known.Now it is time to circumscribe the range of defamiliarization/estrangement as promised in the beginning.e. Automation (or automatization) is such state of an object that makes one perceive it with certain attitude. Pavel Medvedev also reproached Viktor Shklovsky and formalists for not defining automation to which defamiliarization is opposed. Here is the way Britannica describes attitude: “attitude. a given object is reconsidered or revised. they are inferred but not objectively observable). This is an answer to Pavel Medvedev’s (or Mikhail Bakhtin’s) criticism.. Usually automation is neutral and relative. Automation belongs to the domain of psychology. As a result. already exists. . that reflects the classification and evaluation of objects and events. overt behaviour. can be automated two years later. A fresh idea. anew or otherwise. defamiliarization belongs to the field of literature and art and shows itself in different devices depending on the kind of actualization of an object.” The problem is that it is almost impossible to detect automation in a text. While attitudes logically are hypothetical constructs (i. It is impossible to defamiliarize what has just been created because it already is perceived as a strange and unfamiliar thing. save for the cases with obvious clichés. However.. Arrangement of Estrangement Let us attempt our own definition of defamiliarization/estrangement. in social psychology. a cognition. and physiological indicators. <…> The concept of attitude arises from attempts to account for observed regularities in the behaviour of individual persons. to limit is to define. Defamiliarization (estrangement) is a technique of actualizing an object represented in art. often with some degree of aversion or attraction (emotional valence). We will not dwell on this rebuke but will rather provide our own definition. they are manifested in conscious experience.g. e. Paraphrasing Oscar Wilde.
However. Ideological defamiliarization. enigmas. Carlo Ginzburg discovered it in Marcel Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time”. hence. word-contamination. and the defamiliarizing effect is not . Automated Defamiliarization The term automated defamiliarization suggested by the author of this article does not pretend to be accurate and scientific. it is a working tool for literary criticism and is connected with perception of a text rather than a text itself. that is why Proust depicted things as an impressionist who conveys emotions.e. the purpose of Proust. In distinction from Marcus Aurelius and Leo Tolstoy. a metaphor where the link between two objects compared is omitted). as in Tolstoy’s writings. Automated defamiliarization reflects a widely spread tendency when an artist defamiliarizes an object mechanically. was to keep the fresh appearance of them untouched. Ginzburg says.Artistic Defamiliarization This brings us two the second type of defamiliarization – the artistic one. also can be regarded as a device that also is defined as defamiliarization (by Shklovsky and others). but it is deprived of efficacy. this is only one of the ways in which artistic defamiliarization can be used. but in fact is part of defamiliarization as a general principle of actualization of objects represented in art. It has just been said that defamiliarization “shows itself in different devices depending on the kind of actualization of an object”. parables. Let us briefly name some of them: folk etymology. it is admissible to add parallelism. description of one thing with the help of another. To sum it up. i. artistic defamiliarization is a term for a number of devices primarily used to pursue artistic goals rather than ideological. when he portrayed things as if unfamiliar. using a template: nominally there is defamiliarization. metaphor (especially symphora (συμφορά).
Let it go and the mankind will once again find itself in unawareness face to face with the universe. translated and with an introductory by Lee T. the objects “enveloped in a sack”22 as Shkovsky wrote. University of Nebraska Press. Defamiliarization is dangerous. In the automated world a person deals with the fixed notions of various phenomena. act IV: “Trigorin has worked out a process of his own. The automated world is utilitarian. 1965 . by vanity. The task here is absolutely pragmatic – to make everything work. Reis. the mechanism of the society would not function. and descriptions are easy for him.e. it is superfluous: there is no need to spend time on what one can manage without. Russian Formalist Criticism. and that the shadows lay black under the mill-wheel. mediocre and ossified) terms. Defamiliarization is the enemy of general notions. Comprehension is unprofitable. it makes the world sparkle with one more facet. Chekhov probably was among the first ones who laid bare the phenomenon of automated defamiliarization. 22 Art as Technique. and after that these new and fresh things are absorbed by mundane world. He describes it through Constantine Treplieff’s words in “The Seagull”. There you have a moonlight night before your eyes”. Lemon and Marion J.attained. And here is its heresy for it withstands the social mechanism with its norm. The way everything is created should be questioned only as much as practically applicable. Defamiliarization rescues things from there. Four Essays. That is its main task or condition. the difference between knowledge. information about a thing and its comprehension should not occupy a person who thinks in normal (i. He writes that the neck of a broken bottle lying on the bank glittered in the moonlight. The unrestrained perception of the world reveals new and fresh things. It would be interesting to analyze the works of contemporary writers from this point of view in order to descry unoriginality often concealed in the shade of intertexuality. Without them.
it survived and stimulated a further development of literary theory. Indiana University Press. Something that is ungraspably far away from us can be close. a great master of defamiliarization. When life is being mechanized and simplified. Hansen-Love). And that makes a writer defamiliarize the way he or she defamiliarizes and vary his or her style. interest in the ideas of the Russian formalists revived. and thus put everything at a short distance from themselves. deformation. A very well-aimed riposte of the world. Defamiliarization.all these ideas of OPOYAZ are still attractive thanks to their boldness and originality. Defiant defamiliarization defeated its adversaries. named and defined. Something that stands closest to us in terms of distance – through images in film. However. for example. the hasty elimination of all distances does not bring about nearness. Great distance is not yet remoteness”. The Conclusion In the past several decades. That is why defamiliarization/estrangement gives us a chance to return to contemplation 23 Ostranenie magazine. when it became a notion itself and was thus enveloped and absorbed by the world. Today it is even more relevant than in the beginning of the 20th century. – URL: http://www. Short distance is not already nearness. pages 253-254 24 . They put great distances behind themselves. Yet today it not merely is of theoretical importance. Martin Heidegger. it became to a considerable degree automated. poetic language… . Defamiliarizatin is essential as a “noetic principle” (Aage A. wrote in “Insight into That Which Is”24: “All distances in time and space are decreasing… Humans cross the longest stretches in the shortest time. Thus.wesleyan. through sound on the radio – can remain remote from us. the avant-garde magazine published in Connecticut is called “Ostranenie”23.edu/wsa/ostranenie/ The Heidegger Reader. translated by Jerome Veith.But when defamiliarization was discovered in literature. Being suffers. for nearness does not consist in a small measure of distance.
University of Nebraska Press. translated by Jerome Veith. No. Russian Formalist Criticism.A. George Orwell. Reis. Bakhtin) The Formal Method in the Study of Literature. 2001 2. Vol.George Orwell's Library (http://orwell. Medvedev P. “Patriotism or Peace?”. Duke University Press. 1996). Bakhtin M. 1984). Labyrinth 1993 4. Hansen-Love Russian Formalism” Methodological Reconstruction of its Development on the basis of the Principle of Defamiliarization / Translated from German by S.instead of generating standard intellectual processes where we compute rather than think.ru/library/) 7. pages 253-254 8. Moscow. “Insight into That Which Is”. Aage A. Special Issue: The New Erudition (Autumn. 8-28 5.M. Making Things Strange: The Prehistory of a Literary Device – Representations. “The Problem of Content. 56. Lemon and Marion J. Politics and the English Language . Romashko – Moscow. Four Essays. Leo Tolstoy. published in different issues of Russian magazine “Tolstoy’s paper/Forbidden Tolstoy” . Carlo Ginzburg. Voprosy literatury I estetiki.N. “Christianity and Patriotism”. 209-219. The Heidegger Reader. Languages of Russian Culture. Theory of the Formal Method. “Viktor Shklovskij: Différance in Defamiliarization”. pp. “Patriotism and Government”. Material and Form in Verbal Art” // Moscow. 9. Defamiliarization does not answer questions. Lawrence Crawford. pp. translated and with an introductory by Lee T. (M. 1975 3. and that already is not so little. 36. 1965 6. Boris Eikhenbaum. Martin Heidegger. 3 (Summer. No. Indiana University Press. But it helps us to see better.M. Bibliography 1.
Stories about Prose: Contemplations and Analyses // Shklovsky V.M. The Bow-String: On Incompatibility of the Compatible // Shklovsky V. “The Celebration of the Stalin’s Artillery”. “The Monument to the Scientific Mistake. University of Nebraska Press. Sunday 24 of November 1946. 1st volume. 14. 44 . Hamburg Account: articles. Russian Formalist Criticism. 1983 16. Lemon and Marion J. 1930. – Мoscow. Our Soviet newspeak. 2002. Selected works in 2 volumes. A Small Encyclopedia of Real Socialism. essays (1914 – 1933). 11. No. “Pravda”. Shklovsky V. reminiscences.B. Moscow. 1983 15. Republished in New Literary Observer.B. Materik. Art as Technique. Shklovsky. Shklovsky.” Literaturnaya Gazeta. Khudozhestvennaya literatura. 2000.10. translated and with an introductory by Lee T. Moscow. Khudozhestvennaya literatura. Moscow. Reis.B. 12. Selected works in 2 volumes. 1965 Shklovsky V. Four Essays. 1990 13. 2nd volume. No. Shklovsky.B. 279 (10361). Sarnov B. Soviet Writer.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.