Mukarovsky's Non-Literary Criticism

According to Widdowson et. al, the non-literary assumptions motivation employed by writers of poetry is but a dependence to formal devices in their poetic narratives. Motivation is therefore and mostly epitomized or recognized as ‘realism’. Then literature is a ‘life-like’ presentation of events violated by characters’ displaying, absurdities and improbabilities.
The structural approach was highly perpetuated and revolutionized by the Prague linguistic circle after its foundation in 1926. Yet, Mukarovsky worked on the formalist model of ‘defamiliarization’ into “a more systematic foregrounding” and defined it as “the aesthetically intentional distortion of the linguistic components”(ibid). He also stressed “the folly of excluding extra-literary factors from critical analysis” (idem). Mucarovsky overlapped “the dynamic view of aesthetic structures” (idem), and emphasized on “the dynamic tension between literature and society in the artistic product”(idem).
He rather strongly argued the “aesthetic function”. Moreover, “to endow an object or artifact with the dignity of aesthetic value is a social act, ultimately inseparable from prevailing ideologies”(ibid), and it is legitimate to deem that “modern social changes have resulted in certain

In fact, Mikhail Bakhtin, Pavel Medvedev and Valentin Voloshinov rose in the ultimate lap of Formalism. Medvedev frustrated the views of formalists, being an anti-formalist in his early career, he wrote in the vain, ‘The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship: A Critical Introduction to Social Poetics (1929). Notwithstanding that the Bakhtin School is more formalist. In this way, Voloshinov considered “the linguistic structure of the literary work, in spite of his Marxist slippery found in his writings at the level of sharing the conviction that language is bound to ideology and separating one from the other is not