Formalism (Russian Formalism and New Criticism in America) focuses strictly on form and structure, analyzing the internal mechanics of a literary text—such as imagery, syntax, meter, and symbols—without considering external factors like historical context, authorial intent, or reader response.
A key Formalist belief:
There is a sharp and definable boundary between literary language and ordinary language.
Now, let’s evaluate options B, C, and D:
✅ B. Reader-Response Criticism
Rejects the Formalist idea that a text's meaning is fixed within the structure.
Asserts that meaning is created through the act of reading, involving reader's emotions, experiences, and context.
Blurs the line between literary and ordinary language because it emphasizes reader interaction, not the text’s formal features.
✔️ Opposes Formalism strongly
✅ C. Speech-Act Theory
Based on J.L. Austin and later John Searle, this theory argues that language does things, not just describes.
It views literature as one of many uses of language, with no strict boundary between literary and non-literary utterances.
Dismantles the Formalist idea of a unique literary language.
✔️ Directly rejects the literary/ordinary language divide
✅ D. New Historicism
Emerged as a reaction against New Criticism (American Formalism).
Insists that texts are embedded in cultural, political, and historical contexts.
Views literary texts as part of a larger discourse, using ordinary language and ideologies of the time.
Completely undermines the Formalist separation of the literary and the ordinary.
✔️ Explicitly anti-Formalist
❌ Why Not A, E, or 1, 2, 4?
A. Marxism
Though Marxist critics critique the limitations of Formalism, traditional Marxism does not always reject the literary/ordinary divide outright.
Some Marxist critics, especially early ones, still maintained aesthetic hierarchies, which means they may not fully reject the Formalist division.
Later Marxists (like Althusserian critics) move more in that direction, but it's not as central.
E. Postcolonialism
Challenges Eurocentric narratives and dominant ideologies, but its primary focus is not linguistic distinctions between literary and ordinary language.
While it critiques Formalist isolation of texts, it doesn't centrally oppose the language divide the way Reader Response, Speech Act Theory, and New Historicism do.
🔚 Final Justification
Correct Answer: 3. BCD
Year-wise PYQs
