You are on page 1of 16

“Estraingement”, or the Twists and Turns of Defamiliarization Essay by Vasily Lvov Defamiliarization, estrangement, or ostranenie (in Russian, the term

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.

1

Though outwardly similar, these words have different etymology. “Art as Device” in other translations

2

As Shklovsky phrased it later. they cannot exclude each other since the first one emphasizes unfamiliarity and the second concentrates on strangeness. 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. is the same thing as the distancing or alienation effect. or better to say the range of estrangement that has expanded. Defamiliarization. However. Lemon and Marion J. gives “the sensation of things”3. In this article. The purpose of this article is to circumscribe the range of estrangement and to comprehend its relationship with the process of automation. 1965 . we will use them as synonyms. Russian Formalist Criticism. O-stranenie is translated as defamiliarization or estrangement. Reis. University of Nebraska Press. possessed the two meanings. while ot-stranenie. As for defamiliarization and estrangement. as originally described. on the contrary. 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.Yet in English there is no problem with it. overcomes the stereotypes of thinking. or rather automation. defamiliarization shows an object “outside the habitual sequence”. one should always remember that Shklovsky’s “ostranenie”. in the sixties. when a person gets used to things surrounding him so much that he is no longer able to see their uniqueness. Four Essays. thus. presents them from a new angle and. 3 Art as Technique. an event as if it were happening for the first time”. translated and with an introductory by Lee T. This additional explanation blurs the boundaries of the notion that seemingly has just been formulated and raises the problem of the limits of defamiliarization. The Range of Estrangement Shklovsky opposed defamiliarization to the process of habitualization. both terms are felicitous. The question is what it comprises and what it does not.

defamiliarizes it. In such a way. As for ideological defamiliarization. pp. by Novalis. 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”. Carlo Ginzburg5 finds its origins6 in “The Thoughts” of Marcus Aurelius. 8-28 Late Shklovsky criticized the idea of defamiliarization. All the words are correct. Like Marcus Aurelius whom he admired. Let us give one more definition to this technique. 6 . Defamiliarization is used as mean for ideological ends in this case. 1996). The first one. i. 56. A simple example: instead of the narrow concept of war. The other kind is artistic. 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. is concentrated in philosophical works.e. selfflagellation of Shklovsky is a tricky problem that goes beyond the topic of this article. for example. Tolstoy depicts an object through general words – hyperonymes. wipe away the false impressions of these things.Ideological Defamiliarization There are two kinds of defamiliarization. It looks as if the purple robe were described by a stranger. Special 5 Issue: The New Erudition (Autumn. and Leo Tolstoy also inherited this tradition. stereotypes. However. thus. a person unfamiliar with what it is. No. Carlo Ginzburg rightfully notes that the same device was actively used among writers of the Enlightenment. Making Things Strange: The Prehistory of a Literary Device – Representations. the writer speaks of the broader notion of killing. 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. but we hardly recognize an object seen through a stranger’s eyes. and that estranges this object. Tolstoy uses defamiliarization to unveil a false impression. To achieve his aim. let us call it ideological. who tried to contemplate things in their true light and. Tolstoy often exploits it both in his literary works and philosophical 4 See chapter “Arrangement of Estrangement”. for instance. including philosophical essays.

10 Save for some defamiliarizing devices like deliberate word-contamination (politics + entertainment = politainment. 9 In Russian there is a special term for it – “publitsistika”. there is almost no defamiliarization in journalism11. that is practical language of everyday life. and defamiliarization may turn out a destructive weapon instead of a practical tool. but also as a device. and suddenly Bolkonsky reappraises his own existence and is “seized by an unreasoning spring-time feeling of joy and renewal”. “Christianity and Patriotism”. Journalism is an apt example. but sometimes also to emphasize good ones9. At the same time. “Patriotism or Peace?”. 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”. 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”). 11 . this kind of social journalism may be likened to a speech of on orator. But later when Prince Andrew finds the same old oak again. For that reason a reporter’s language is simple and sometimes pedestrian. namely. or “Daily Acts”. one of the first mass media in history. When Prince Andrew Bolkonsky encounters the oak for the first time. A reporter has to transmit some message to audience as fast. no wonder “journalism” stems from the French word “jour” and originates in Roman “Acta Diurna”. Even a good journalist who shuns For instance. briefly and clearly as possible. 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”. So “dailiness” is the essence of journalism and a reporter is constricted in means of expression. or publicism to make it sound English. Bill Plympton + cartoons = Plymptoons) and puns (false start – about the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that is still not ratified).essays7 – usually to gainsay various phenomena he thinks vicious8. spreading out a canopy of sappy dark-green foliage”. according to Shklovsky. Retardation in Definition Sometimes defamiliarization is even undesirable. 7 In this case. However. it turns out to be “quite transfigured. “Patriotism and Government”. and others. a kind of newspaper. In distinction from philosophical essays10. Leo Tolstoy’s articles on patriotism. art may be regarded not only as a device.

the number one newspaper of the USSR. No. No. let us compare the language of “Pravda”. 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. 2008. but. the Soviet Union could not afford destroying Russian and other languages of its republics. or using economy as a metaphor13. especially in totalitarian regimes. That is the language that we hear each day watching news. It was called “novoyaz” which is the exact translation of Orwell’s neologism into Russian. Such kind of journalism speaks the language of ideological clichés – not to save time for communication. it is even more practical than the one we speak in everyday life. by deflation of language. In fact. The language of the Soviet press illustrates it well. the washing-out of sense was attained with the help of hyperinflation of language14 and consequently meaning. Newspeak was going to achieve its objective by the destruction of words. to think so would be unrealistic. or closed societies by Karl Popper’s expression. 209-219. 3. That is why an inclination towards excessive automation is a peril for journalism. 36. Instead. clearly declared its dogmata. 3 (Summer. it had not only to “provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc. but to exclude any. It was part of the propaganda which. 14 . Vol. However. 1984).stock phrases frequently resorts to fixed forms that are easily perceived because they do not require time for consideration. Duke University Press. To prove that. “Viktor Shklovskij: Différance in Defamiliarization”. but to make all other modes of thought impossible (italics mine)”. pp. The purpose of Newspeak was elimination of thinking. 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. on the one hand. 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. with Newspeak12 in George Orwell’s “1984” and outline the conclusions. “cutting the language down to the bone”.

Imagine two people talking as usual.) artillery troops. you can understand whatever they say.). Sunday 24 of November 1946. 279 (10361). as well as some funny slip-ups: «For five and a half centuries of the existence of Russian artillery.). on the reverse.L.for dialogue by the redundancy of its language15. following the instructions of Comrade Stalin. “Pravda”. Defamation of Defamiliarization It does not by any means imply that everyone who wrote and spoke this language was aware of its effects. No. but admit there is a thousand of them speaking simultaneously – you will not be able to hear a word except meaningless buzz.L. This is only one of the sixteen paragraphs of which the article consists. Orwell also delineates such a person named Syme who worked on the Newspeak Dictionary in “1984”. 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. and that is why logical mistakes escape from the reader’s attention. 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.L. 16 . This paragraph is so overburdened that the ridiculous word combination to forge caringly remains unnoticed. only the few understood them and among them even the fewer apparently admired. Just like this. the language of “Pravda” is cumbersome and impassable. For many years the Bolshevik party and the Soviet government. has it been accompanied by battle victorious glory (redundancy – V. have been developing and rearing (redundancy – V.L. 15 “The Celebration of the Stalin’s Artillery”. have daily and caringly (italics mine) been forging the power of the Soviet artillery industry.) on the fields of battles against the hordes of German-Fascist aggressors and Japanese imperialists”16. This yielded its victorious results (redundancy – V.

automatize. Boris Eikhenbaum and others17. 17 The translation is mine. belonged along with Yuri Tynyanov. he does not simply object to the formal (or morphological) method saying that it overestimates the role of material in art (for example. he treats formalists quite ambiguously. Medvedev P. Even though they are better known as the Russian formalists. make it habitual. Significantly.N. chapter 1 – Poetic language as the object of poetics). (M. It merely compels one to sense a construction already created. Bakhtin) The Formal Method in the Study of Literature (Part 3. Russian publishing house “Labyrinth” printed the abovementioned work of Pavel Medvedev in the book series called “Bakhtin under the Mask”. according to the teaching of formalists. Material and Form in Verbal Art”. will deign to create a new verbal construction. 18 Many scholars believe that the author of the “Formal Method” is an alter ego of Bakhtin. and only then poetic language appears on the scene and triumphantly extricates this construction from automatization. the Society for the Study of Poetic Language to which Viktor Shklovsky. following its purposes and intentions. of course. scolded Russian Formalism that did not approach literature in terms of what later became known as socialist realism in 1932. It does not itself create new constructions. There was a great thinker at the same time who debated with them – it was Mikhail Bakhtin. the “formalists” themselves did not like the word “formalism” so much. but an insensible. linguistic aspects in literature).M. Labyrinth 1993. 19 . To such parasitic existence poetic language is doomed by the formalists”. Marxists. However. not just Marxists were critical of formalists. poetic language can only “defamiliarize” and extricate from automatization solely what has already been created in other systems of language. In “The Problem of Content. A representative of the Bakhtin circle Pavel Medvedev18 was much more consistent and caustic in his critics. The word “formalism” was used by their adversaries from different ideological camps. and it indeed is quite abusive in Russian and signifies a pedant or a bureaucrat.Many used to castigate defamiliarization among the ideas of OPOYAZ. but also acknowledges some of its theoretical breakthroughs. Moscow. It has to wait till life’s practical language. The same thing is asserted about another opponent of formalists. its founder. Valentin Voloshinov. In “The Formal Method in the Study of Literature” he writes19: “Indeed. an automatized one.

Indeed. we can now turn to the the problem of context. may be regarded as an act of defamiliarizing certain objects described with the help of unanticipated words. On the other. 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. like light on a negative. . if some part of text A is used in text B for the purpose of defamiliarization. yet they deserve a separate analysis. one can elicit from Medvedev’s words a major challenge to the idea of defamiliarization. Even when a writer is not thinking of defamiliarization. However. the fact that Pushkin used either “vulgar” Russian words. it is very debatable whether the unique style of Pushkin is defamiliarized. Taking this and what Pavel Medvedev says into consideration. text A does not necessarily contain defamiliarization. However. for instance) that will show up later. as well as some other devices (zeugma. Theorem.There are many other counterarguments in Medvedev’s book that touch upon poetic language and other important issues. Here is my attempt to solve it presented in the form of a theorem and proving. The following statements may seem evident and trite. Yet it is obvious that in different epochs the same text can sound differently: either strange and unexpected or hackneyed. Let us call it the problem of context. 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. or French and English ones in their original transcription. on the one hand. 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”.

A deer is an animal. they are shown “outside the habitual sequence” according to Shklovsky. are in one row with a tree. It has been proven that the epigraph to “The Gift” is a display of defamiliarization.Proving. for example. One may disagree with the second point of the proving and say that he or she sees defamiliarization in these clauses of Smirnovsky anyway. Languages of Russian Culture. page 13 21 . To begin with. though there are simpler examples than the one discussed above. even taken together A certain mistake can be used for defamiliarization. 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.g. these grammatical examples of Smirnovsky should be taken separately because they were not intended to constitute a text. A sparrow is a bird. Russia. Aage A. and a deer. But it is questionable whether there was any defamiliarization in Smirnovsky’s textbook itself. and about death that is inevitable in spite of our hopes stand together with the axioms of life that are irrefutable. Romashko – Moscow. but still is a fatherland. creative misspelling of words or folk etymology. a rose. 2001. Can it be called defamiliarization? Certainly: Russia and death. Smirnovsky: “An oak is a tree. Hansen-Love Russian Formalism” Methodological Reconstruction of its Development on the basis of the Principle of Defamiliarization / Translated from German by S. Aage A. the main topics of the novel. To prove that. and death are related to the novel and the relation of discordance transforms into a device that defamiliarizes an object or several objects. a tower and a fish. in Nabokov’s case the words about a deer.A. they could fairly be regarded as a logically erroneous 20 relation of discordance. which is taken from “The Textbook of Russian Grammar” written by P. A rose is a flower. let us consider the epigraph to “The Gift” of Nabokov. Death is inevitable”. in such a way statements about Russia and death also become irrefutable. or “he is a good man and has been into politics for a while”). However. 2. when the volumes of notions A & B totally do not coincide (e. Russia is our fatherland. Secondly. 20 The translation is mine. 1.. bitter judgments about Russia that is lost. even if we took them together without context and presented as a statement.

e. However. or in a textbook.apart from Nabokov. phrase. we should not speak of defamiliarization. As for the term itself. 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. In other words. not only Pavel Medvedev was against such approach. economics. defined it. Author of the Quixote”. because all these phenomena of perception were described in psychology a long time ago. Thus. or in a poster seen either by an ancient man or an alien (a device used by science-fiction writers). In fact. but deleterious because it washes up the notion of defamiliarization/estrangement. politics. because in this case defamiliarization. or history. there are two different situations. so anything can become defamiliarized one day. In point b. a) Suppose an author uses an archaic word. the notion of defamiliarizing effect is not needed. scholars preferred to discuss literature through psychology (as in the case with perception). Eikhenbaum wrote in “Theory of the Formal Method” that before formalists literature had been nobody’s land. yet a beautiful one. and so on. One might derive that everything depends on perception and history then. such a term would be not only superfluous. . or an excerpt from another (con)text to achieve defamiliarization. as Alexander Veselovsky. instead of the literariness of literature. It was also the Russian formalists themselves who struggled with it. So this brings us to the way he or she sees something. perception. by Roman Jakobson’s term. the father of the historical poetics. To sum it up. “res nullis”. Borges’s experiment with modernization of an old text can easily be turned into a sophism. Conclusion. can be anywhere – in a book of recipes. culture. The difficult question of perception is analyzed by Jorge Luis Borges in his “Pierre Menard. Borges writes that the words from “Don Quixote” literally repeated by the 20th century writer acquire a new sense. 3. In fact. we should distinguish defamiliarization itself from the defamiliarizing effect. i. The latter can be determined exclusively by peculiarities of the recipient’s consciousness. to solve the problem of context. once again.

Defamiliarization always deals with what is already known. We will not dwell on this rebuke but will rather provide our own definition. <…> The concept of attitude arises from attempts to account for observed regularities in the behaviour of individual persons. a cognition. save for the cases with obvious clichés. Arrangement of Estrangement Let us attempt our own definition of defamiliarization/estrangement. It is impossible to defamiliarize what has just been created because it already is perceived as a strange and unfamiliar thing..” The problem is that it is almost impossible to detect automation in a text. verbal reports. they are inferred but not objectively observable). already exists. As a result. they are manifested in conscious experience. This is an answer to Pavel Medvedev’s (or Mikhail Bakhtin’s) criticism. anew or otherwise. in social psychology. While attitudes logically are hypothetical constructs (i. Here is the way Britannica describes attitude: “attitude. often with some degree of aversion or attraction (emotional valence). Pavel Medvedev also reproached Viktor Shklovsky and formalists for not defining automation to which defamiliarization is opposed. Usually automation is neutral and relative. can be automated two years later. Automation (or automatization) is such state of an object that makes one perceive it with certain attitude. Paraphrasing Oscar Wilde. and physiological indicators. A fresh idea. e.. to limit is to define. defamiliarization belongs to the field of literature and art and shows itself in different devices depending on the kind of actualization of an object. that reflects the classification and evaluation of objects and events.e. Automation belongs to the domain of psychology. Defamiliarization (estrangement) is a technique of actualizing an object represented in art.Now it is time to circumscribe the range of defamiliarization/estrangement as promised in the beginning.g. overt behaviour. a given object is reconsidered or revised. However. .

Automated defamiliarization reflects a widely spread tendency when an artist defamiliarizes an object mechanically. parables. also can be regarded as a device that also is defined as defamiliarization (by Shklovsky and others). i. It has just been said that defamiliarization “shows itself in different devices depending on the kind of actualization of an object”. it is a working tool for literary criticism and is connected with perception of a text rather than a text itself. In distinction from Marcus Aurelius and Leo Tolstoy. description of one thing with the help of another. as in Tolstoy’s writings. that is why Proust depicted things as an impressionist who conveys emotions. Let us briefly name some of them: folk etymology. but it is deprived of efficacy. this is only one of the ways in which artistic defamiliarization can be used.Artistic Defamiliarization This brings us two the second type of defamiliarization – the artistic one. word-contamination. and the defamiliarizing effect is not . metaphor (especially symphora (συμφορά).e. Ideological defamiliarization. However. To sum it up. but in fact is part of defamiliarization as a general principle of actualization of objects represented in art. Ginzburg says. hence. a metaphor where the link between two objects compared is omitted). was to keep the fresh appearance of them untouched. when he portrayed things as if unfamiliar. Automated Defamiliarization The term automated defamiliarization suggested by the author of this article does not pretend to be accurate and scientific. the purpose of Proust. artistic defamiliarization is a term for a number of devices primarily used to pursue artistic goals rather than ideological. it is admissible to add parallelism. enigmas. Carlo Ginzburg discovered it in Marcel Proust’s “In Search of Lost Time”. using a template: nominally there is defamiliarization.

Lemon and Marion J. There you have a moonlight night before your eyes”.attained. it is superfluous: there is no need to spend time on what one can manage without. and after that these new and fresh things are absorbed by mundane world. 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. He writes that the neck of a broken bottle lying on the bank glittered in the moonlight. The automated world is utilitarian. Defamiliarization is the enemy of general notions. and descriptions are easy for him. Chekhov probably was among the first ones who laid bare the phenomenon of automated defamiliarization. Russian Formalist Criticism. That is its main task or condition. The task here is absolutely pragmatic – to make everything work. He describes it through Constantine Treplieff’s words in “The Seagull”. Without them. University of Nebraska Press.e. The unrestrained perception of the world reveals new and fresh things. 1965 . Defamiliarization rescues things from there. the mechanism of the society would not function. the objects “enveloped in a sack”22 as Shkovsky wrote. Reis. 22 Art as Technique. translated and with an introductory by Lee T. act IV: “Trigorin has worked out a process of his own. And here is its heresy for it withstands the social mechanism with its norm. Four Essays. In the automated world a person deals with the fixed notions of various phenomena. Let it go and the mankind will once again find itself in unawareness face to face with the universe. Defamiliarization is dangerous. by vanity. the difference between knowledge. information about a thing and its comprehension should not occupy a person who thinks in normal (i. mediocre and ossified) terms. Comprehension is unprofitable. The way everything is created should be questioned only as much as practically applicable. it makes the world sparkle with one more facet. and that the shadows lay black under the mill-wheel.

The Conclusion In the past several decades. interest in the ideas of the Russian formalists revived. Being suffers. for nearness does not consist in a small measure of distance. That is why defamiliarization/estrangement gives us a chance to return to contemplation 23 Ostranenie magazine. Something that stands closest to us in terms of distance – through images in film. deformation. Defiant defamiliarization defeated its adversaries. it became to a considerable degree automated. When life is being mechanized and simplified. for example. through sound on the radio – can remain remote from us. the avant-garde magazine published in Connecticut is called “Ostranenie”23. Defamiliarization. Something that is ungraspably far away from us can be close. – URL: http://www. Yet today it not merely is of theoretical importance.edu/wsa/ostranenie/ The Heidegger Reader. Indiana University Press. when it became a notion itself and was thus enveloped and absorbed by the world. it survived and stimulated a further development of literary theory.all these ideas of OPOYAZ are still attractive thanks to their boldness and originality. Short distance is not already nearness. 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. A very well-aimed riposte of the world. They put great distances behind themselves. a great master of defamiliarization. the hasty elimination of all distances does not bring about nearness. Hansen-Love).But when defamiliarization was discovered in literature. pages 253-254 24 . and thus put everything at a short distance from themselves. Martin Heidegger. And that makes a writer defamiliarize the way he or she defamiliarizes and vary his or her style. translated by Jerome Veith. poetic language… . Defamiliarizatin is essential as a “noetic principle” (Aage A. However. named and defined. Thus. Today it is even more relevant than in the beginning of the 20th century.wesleyan. Great distance is not yet remoteness”.

3 (Summer. Russian Formalist Criticism. Labyrinth 1993 4. translated by Jerome Veith.instead of generating standard intellectual processes where we compute rather than think.M. Moscow. “The Problem of Content. and that already is not so little.N. The Heidegger Reader. 209-219. Aage A. Special Issue: The New Erudition (Autumn. translated and with an introductory by Lee T. Martin Heidegger. Reis. Hansen-Love Russian Formalism” Methodological Reconstruction of its Development on the basis of the Principle of Defamiliarization / Translated from German by S. “Viktor Shklovskij: Différance in Defamiliarization”. Boris Eikhenbaum. (M. Lemon and Marion J. 56. Indiana University Press. 2001 2. pp. George Orwell. No.M. “Patriotism or Peace?”. 36. pages 253-254 8. Defamiliarization does not answer questions. 1965 6. Bakhtin) The Formal Method in the Study of Literature. Four Essays. Carlo Ginzburg. 1975 3. Bibliography 1. Politics and the English Language . 1996). Lawrence Crawford. published in different issues of Russian magazine “Tolstoy’s paper/Forbidden Tolstoy” . University of Nebraska Press. Leo Tolstoy. 8-28 5. 1984). But it helps us to see better. pp. No. Romashko – Moscow. Making Things Strange: The Prehistory of a Literary Device – Representations. “Insight into That Which Is”. Duke University Press. “Christianity and Patriotism”.George Orwell's Library (http://orwell. Languages of Russian Culture. 9. Bakhtin M. “Patriotism and Government”. Theory of the Formal Method. Vol. Material and Form in Verbal Art” // Moscow. Medvedev P.ru/library/) 7.A. Voprosy literatury I estetiki.

No.B. reminiscences. Reis. Hamburg Account: articles. 1983 16. 1983 15. Sarnov B. “The Celebration of the Stalin’s Artillery”. “The Monument to the Scientific Mistake. Our Soviet newspeak. Stories about Prose: Contemplations and Analyses // Shklovsky V.B. Moscow. The Bow-String: On Incompatibility of the Compatible // Shklovsky V.” Literaturnaya Gazeta.B. 2nd volume. essays (1914 – 1933). Art as Technique. 12.B. Moscow. Selected works in 2 volumes. “Pravda”.M. Republished in New Literary Observer. University of Nebraska Press. Soviet Writer. 1990 13. 44 .10. 1st volume. 2002. 14. Shklovsky V. 1965 Shklovsky V. Shklovsky. 1930. 11. Lemon and Marion J. A Small Encyclopedia of Real Socialism. Shklovsky. translated and with an introductory by Lee T. – Мoscow. Sunday 24 of November 1946. Khudozhestvennaya literatura. Four Essays. Khudozhestvennaya literatura. No. 2000. Moscow. 279 (10361). Materik. Shklovsky. Selected works in 2 volumes. Russian Formalist Criticism.