-

Russian Formalism, early in twentieth century, insisted that the subject of literary study is not literature but"literariness,"i.e.that which makes a given work a literary work. It put forward the concept of "defamiliarisation." Prague Structuralism was in continuity with Russian Formalism. Modern Structuralism, like Prague school, is founded on Saussurian linguistic principle that language as a system is governed by two relationships: the syntagmatic, and the paradigmatic. Common to all of these is a concern for structures or systems which can be studied
synchronically. They concentrate upon a system capable of generating meanings, rather than meaning itself. It is as if the work is written by the "grammar" or system of transformations that preexists its creation. Language,
according to structuralists, is a self-enclosed system which is not affected (or caused) by extra structural pressures (the
"real world"). The movement of Post - Structuralism whose chief manifestation is Deconstruction is either reviewing or


developing structuralist concepts. According to Derrida, meaning can never be fully present since it is always deferred. Since meaning does not reside in signifier, the play of signification is a never ending process which can never reach a definite signified.
This article argues that literary criticism, In its development from Russian Formalism to Post-structuralism, attempted to reveal not meanings, but systems and
conventions that generate form and meaning. The devices and strategies of these movements, such as
"defamiliarisation",
and"
deconstruction",
have
all
concentrated on FORM at the expence of overlooking or even downgrading the meaning.