Özet:

At the beginning of the twentieth century, natural sciences came out of the disorders brought by both traditional concepts and the fact that they were unable to offer new approaches to scientific knowledge. In the 19th century, the evolutionary thought, which was recognized, left its place to structuralism. It is really difficult to make a clear definition of structurality. Structuralism has sometimes not had a general-transitional recognition of the opinions of some writers who defended the stream and who do not hold each other, sometimes because of the misunderstandings that the reader did not know the topic in depth. However, in the most general sense, as Scholes said, the truth is the method of searching in the relations between objects, but not in objects, can be said Today the practicers who are unable to reach an opinion on the definition and method of structuralism, which has gained applicability in a wide range such as theology, psychoanalysis, philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, psychology, literature, cinema, and even theology, are unlikely to come together on the sources of the stream. These sources are Saussure, Russian Formalism and Prague School. By the 1960s in France, it is observed that structuralism has seen a rapid development in the literary field. The structurers are not interested in the formations of the stories, their historians, their comments. What’s important for them is the structural layout of the work, which elements are in compliance with the narrative layout rules, and how a composition diagram is shown. The stream that raised widespread rashes during the time it appeared, was also exposed to intense criticisms. Some critics have evaluated the flow, based on the political and ideological environments of the period when structuralism emerged, from the point of view of an unseen background. Some have also criticized the perspective of history, the language methods, the style of use, the approach to works, the values given to man.

Anahtar Kelimeler: