Semiotic Analysis of Discursive Functions of Resistance and Appeasement in Taj-o-Saltaneh's Confessions

Authors
M. Jowkar 1
G. Ghasemipour 2
E. badili 3
1 Associate Professor of Persian Language and Literature, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran
2 Associate professor of Persian Language and literature, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz .Iran
3 PhD Candidate in Persian Language and literature, Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran
Abstract
Discursive semiotic approach with considering the body-centered subject to create meaning and assert an emotional, sensitive-perceptive and aesthetic dimensions can be an appropriate method to analyze and gloss the confessional texts. According to the teachings of this theory, researchers can resist or appease with the “other” by making inter-discourse challenges and create correspondence or different flows, also try to authenticate or reconstruct their identity. The subject of study in Taj-o-Saltaneh’s Memories as a confessional text, gets converted into a gravitational discursive center in order to gain identity and be set free from meaning crisis; so it can play its significant role in interaction and confrontation with other.

Based on the nature of confessional discourse and emotion-oriented positioning of the subject in Taj-o-Saltaneh’s Memories, it is the emotional dimension of discourse which overcomes the action and cognitive dimension of discourse and influences different levels of syntax validity, intensity-extensity relationships and discursive values by supplying power to the narrator to take positions and limits against discursive competitors. According to the point of view and the position of narrator, the otherness process receives different shapes and creates different identical forms for the subject.

The current research aims to answer the question of how the orientation of the enunciator -subject determines its resistance or appeasement against the realm of rival, and how by referring to semiotic components, these attributions can be achieved. The authors suppose that the subject resist the prevailing discourse with intensity-extensity relationships, symbolization, rhythmic thinking and referring to the phenomenological form of the presence, then with a persuasive appeasement, accepts and surrenders herself. The category of space ties with the identity of subject and finds discursive function and include three features: critical, intermediate, and uncritical all being able to find in Taj-o-Saltaneh discourses which guarantees the presence of the subject.

Keywords

Subjects

• Bertrand, D. (2000). Précis de Sémiotique Littérature. Paris: Nathan.
• Fontanille, J. (1998). Sémiotique de Discourse. Limoges: PULIM.
• Fontanille, J. (1999). Sémiotique et Littérateur. Paris: PUF.
• Fontanille, J. (2008). Pratiques Sémiotiques. Paris: PUF.
• Griemas, A. J. (1983). Du Sens II. Paris: Seuil.
• Ahmadi Khorasani, N. (1999). “Tajo- o- Saltaneh thoughts about the criticism of royal harems”. Baya Journal. No.4-5. Pp-91-92. [In Persian].
• Ayati, A. (2015). “Encounter of me” and "other" in poem of Nima Youshij”, poem to Shahriar. Lauguage Related Research Periodical. Vol 6. No 1.Pp 21- 39. [In Persian].
• Babak Moien, M. (2015). Signification as Lived Experience, the Transition from Classical Semiotics to Semiotics with Phenomenological Perspective. Tehran: Sokhan. [in Persian].
• Babak Moien, M. (2013). “Examining the creation of poetic language using the adjustment- based system and the confined slips of Eric Lewandowski” Language and Translated Studies. Vol. 4. Pp.121-134. [In Persian].
• Bertrand, D. (2000). An Inroduction to Literary Semiotics. Paris: Nathan. [In French].
• Fontanille. J. (1998). Semiotics of Discourse. Limoges: PULIM. [In French].
• Fontanille. J. (1999). Semiotics and Literature. Paris: PUF. [In French].
• Fontanille. J. (2008). Semiotic Practices. Paris: PUF. [In French].
• Greimas, A.J. (2011).On Imperfection .Translated by : H.R.Shairi.Tehran: Elm. [In Persian].
• Fontanille. J. (1983). On Meaning .Paris: Seuil. [In French].
• Kan`ni, E. (2017). “The analysis of discourse Resistance system in Moniru Ravanipor’s Ahle Ghargh”. Language Related Research. Vol.8.No. 6. Pp. 301-326
• Milani, F. (1996). “You are your own veils: women and self-development in Iran”. Irannameh. No.56. Pp. 611- 638. [In Persian].
• Pakatchi, A. (2000).“ Introduction to contemporary semiotic schools”. Culture-Communication studies. No.3. Pp.89-119. [In Persian].
• Pakatchi, A. ; H.R. Shairi & H. Rahnama ,(2015), “ Semiotic analysis of discourse proocesses in Surah Al- Qariah based on tensive semiotics”. Language Related Research. Vol.6. No.4 (Tome 25). September, October & Nomeber. Pp. 39- 68. [In Persian].
• Shairi, H.R. (2010). Semiotics of Literature: Literary Theory and Discourse Analysis. Tehran:Tarbiat Modares University. [In Persian].
• Shairi, H.R. (2015). “Resistance, insistence and discursive appeasement: “Discursive realms and its semiotic functions”. Iranian Sociological Journal. Vol 16.No 1. Pp 110-128. [In Persian].
• Shairi, H.R. & T. Vafayi, (2009), Phoenix: Toward the Fluid Semiotics. Tehran: Elmi- Farhangi. [In Persian].
• Shairi, H.R. (2011).Semiotic Analysis of Discourse. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian].
• Shairi, H.R. (2012). “Semiotics analysis of ecstasy in literary discourse”. Literary Research. No. 36. Pp.129- 146. [In Persian].
• Shairi, H.R.; H.A. Qobadi & M. Hatefi (2009). “Meaning in the interaction of text & image, visual semiotics of Tahereh Saffarzadeh poems ”. Journal of Literary Studies. Vol.6. No.25. Pp. 39-70. [In Persian].
• Tajo-o–Saltaneh, (1982), Tajo-o-Saltaneh Memories. Compiled by :Etehadiyeh, Mansoreh and Sadvandian, Sirous. Tehran: Tarikh-e Iran.[In Persian].
Language Related Research
Volume 9, Issue 1 - Serial Number 43
March and April 2018
Pages 31-56