شناسایی دوره‌های‌ روایی رساله‌الطیرها براساس چهار نسل روایت

نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
2 استاد زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
3 استاد زبان و ادبیات فرانسه، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
4 دانشیار زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
چکیده
داستان­سرایی در رساله­الطیرها به‌عنوان آثاری تعلیمی- ارشادی جایگاهی ویژه دارد. در هر داستانی، ارزش/ارزش­هایی تعریف می­شوند که کنشگران به‌دنبال دستیابی به آن‌ها هستند. راوی برای رساندن کنشگران به نظام ارزشی داستان،­ دوره­های روایی را خلق می­کند. منظور از دورۀ روایی این است که از دهۀ شصت (اوج ساختارگرایی) تاکنون، روایت­ها بر الگوهایی منطبق هستند که هر دوره را از دورۀ دیگر از بُعد نظریه و نگرش نشانه‌معناشناختی متمایز می­کند. کشف و شناسایی دوره­های روایی رساله­الطیرهای فارسی و عربی با تمرکز بر بررسی نظام ارزشی گفتمان باعث می‌شود که به الگویی برای دوره­بندی روایی بخشی از متون ادبی دست یابیم و زمینه­ برای خلق شیوه­های تحلیل متون فراهم شود. هدف اصلی این پژوهش بررسی دوره­های روایی براساس منطق­الطیر عطار به‌منظور تبیین الگویی مناسب برای مطالعۀ نظام­های روایی است. دوره­های روایی ما را با سیر تحول تفکر روایت مواجه می­کند. نتایج این تحقیق نشان می‌دهد که رساله­الطیرها درمجموع از هفت دورۀ روایی «کنش­محور برنامه­مدار»، «تعاملی مبتنی‌بر مذاکرۀ گفت‌و‌گومحور»، «کنشی مبتنی‌بر توانش»، «تنش منفعلانه»،­ «دورۀ شوشی مبتنی‌بر تطبیق سوژه با هستی»، «انجذاب و هم­آمیختگی» و «ارزیابی» تشکیل شده­اند. دوره­های اول و دوم با عنوان توانش مطرح شده‌اند و مقدمه­ای برای دوره­های کنش، تنش، شوش، استعلا و ارزیابی هستند. تنها در منطق­الطیر عطار، همگی این دوره­ها به‌صورت بارز دیده می‌شود. در باقی ­رساله­ها، تنها بعضی از این دوره­ها حضور دارند. در سه مرحلۀ اول و مرحلۀ ارزیابی، ارزش چیزی خارج از کنشگران و در دوره­های تنش، شوش و انجذاب، ارزش در درون سوژه است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Recognizing Narrative Periods of Risalat Al Tayrs Based on Four Generations of Narrative Analysis

نویسندگان English

Samira Shafiee 1
gholamhosein gholamhoseinzade 2
Hamidreza Shairi 3
saeed Bozorgh Beigdeli 4
saeed Bozorgh Beigdeli 4
1 Ph.D. Candidate in Persian Language and Literature, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor of Persian Language and Literature, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 Professor of French Language-Literature and Semiotics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
4 Associate Professor of Persian Language and Literature, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده English

Narration of the Risalat al-tayr (TREATISE OF THE BIRDS) has an important place among the educational works in Persian Literature. In each story, value/s are defined by means of actors trying to achieve them. The narrator makes an attempt to get the actor to the axiological system of story and create narrative periods. By Narrative periods we mean that from the 1960s (the peak of structuralism till now), narrations have been based on a model, each period is different from the other in terms of theoretical and semeiotic and semantic aspects. Semiotics and semantics tries to categorize the narrative periods of classic and modern literature. Identification and exploration of narrative periods of Farsi and Arabic Risalat al-tayr with focus on investigation of axiological system of dialogue allows us to move beyond this generation and provide a model for narrative division of the literary texts.

In this regard, the purpose of this research is to investigate the narrative periods based on Manṭiq al-ṭayr (conference of birds) by Attar in order to explain the related model to study the narrative systems. Narrative periods make us encounter with the transformation of the narration. For this purposes, one of the research goal is to provide the narrative periods based on Manṭiq al-ṭayr in order to provide a comprehensive method to literary text analysis. It is assumed that in Manṭiq al-ṭayr this function has a multiple concept. In other words, the actor experiences different periods to reach the value. Other questions are also as follows: what are the underlying components of the axiological system in Risalat al-tayr? How these components are organized? With investigation of Risalat al-tayr, which is the suitable method to measure the effect of the stories on each other. Risalat al-tayr uses a unique similitude in storytelling, for this reason, it benefits from a special kind of narration. So, by investigating the narration of this text, it is possible to understand the mentality of the narrator and depict the effect of these stories based on their narrative style in order to reach a model of studying the narrative transformation. To this end, the authors have adopted Paris school Semiotic approach. The findings of the present research indicate that the Risalat al-tayr is totally composed of narrative periods including “Programmed Actional Regime, “Interactional system based on dialogue and negotiations” “ Actional regime based on competence” , “ Passive tension” , “ Sensible paradigm based on subject adjustment to the existence”, and “ attraction- correlation and assessment”. First and second periods are called tension periods and are an introduction to the periods of action, sensation, and assessment. Only Manṭiq al-ṭayr by Attar contains all these periods. In other treatises, only some of these periods are observed. In the first three periods and the period of assessment, the value of thing is outside the actors and in the periods of tension, sensation and attraction, the value is in the subject. In all of these texts, the value is added one by one to the text.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Keywords: Risalat al-tayr
Axiological System
Narrative Periods
Manṭiq al-ṭayr
semiotics
• Bertrand, D. (2000). Précis de la Sémiotique Littéraire. Paris: Nathan.
• Courtés J. (1991). Analyse Sémiotique du Discours. De l’énoncé à l’énonciation. Paris: Hachette.
• Fontanille J. (1998). Sémiotique du Discours. Limoges: PULIM.
• Fontanille J.(1999). Sémiotique et Littéraure. Paris: P. U. F.
• Greimas J. (1983). Du sens II. Essais Sémiotiques. Paris: Seuil.
• Greimas A.J. et J. Courtés (1993). Sémiotique. Dictionnaire Raisonné de la Théorie du Langage. Paris : Hachette.
• Zilberberg, Cl. (2012). La Structure Tensive. Belgique: Presses Universitaires de Liége.
• Attar, M. (2004). Mantegh-Al-Teyr, Introduction. Correction & Postscripts of Mohammadreza Shafiee Kadkani. 9th, Tehran: Sokhan. [In Persian].
• Bertrand, D. (2000). An Introduction to Literary Semiotics. Paris: Nathan. [In French].
• Chachi Khamraki, A. (1980). Rozat-Al-Farighain. Compiled by Abdolhay Habibi, Tehran: Tehran University Press .[In Persian].
• Courtés, J. (1991).Semiotics of Discours, from Utterance to Enunciation . Paris: Hachette .[In French].
• Monzavi, A. & A. Asiran (1969). Einolghozzat Hamedani`s Letters Beyrouth: Iran Foundation of Culture .[In Persian].
• Fontanille, J. (1998). Semiotics of Discourse. Limoges: PULIM .[In French].
• Fontanille, J. (1999). Semiotics and Literature. Paris: P. U. F. [In French].
• Gerimas, J. (1983). On Meaning II: Extract of Semiotics. Paris: Seuil. [In French].
• Fontanille, J. (2010).Imperfection. Translation & commentary by: Hamidreza Shairi, Tehran: ELM. [In Persian].
• Fontanille, J. & J. Courtés (1993). Reasonable Dictionary of Theory of Language. Paris: Hachette .[In French].
• Khayatian, Gh. (2000). An Introduction to Risalat-Al-Teyrs & Mantegh-Al-Teyrs of philosophers & mystics. Semnan: Semnan University press. [In Persian].
• Maghdasi, E. (1280). Kashf-Ol-Asrar. Cairo: Dar-ol-Etesam .[In Arabic].
• Moin, M. (2017). Lost Aspects of Meaning in the Classical Narrative Semiotics: Meaning System of Comparison or Dance in Interaction. Tehran: Scientific & Cultural Publications [In Persian].
• Pakatchi, A. & H. Rahnama (2013). “Discourse processes analysis in Qarea Surah based on tensive semiotics”. Language Related Research.Pp. 1-20 . [In Persian].
• Pourjavadi, N. (1956). Morghan story (Persian Text of khajeh Ahmad Ghazali`s Risalat-Al-Teyr). Tehran: Anjoman Shahanshahi Falsafe Iran .[In Persian].
• Shairi, H. & T. Vafaei (2002). A Path to Fluid Semiotics. Tehran: Scientific & Cultural publications [In Persian].
• Shairi, H. (2002). Basics of Modern semantics. Tehran: SAMT .[In Persian].
• Shairi, H. (2006). Semiotics of Discourse Analysis. Tehran: SAMT .[In Persian].
• Shairi, H. (2009). “From structural semiotics to discursive semiotics”, Literary Criticism Journal, 2th year.on. 8.Pp. 33-51.
• Shairi, H. (2012). “Ecstasy semiotics Analysis in Literary Discourse”. Literary Research Journal. Year 9th, No. 36-37. Pp. 129-146.
• Shairi, H. (2012). “Literary Discourse Value System: Semiotics Approach”. A collection of papers of the second national conference on literary criticism with the literature semiotics Approach. Second notebook, First edition, Tehran: Khane Ketab. Pp. 509-520.
• Shairi, H. (2016). Semiotics of Literature. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University press [In Persian].
• Sohrevardi, Sh. (1996). Sheikh Eshragh Tales. Text Edition: Jafar Modares Sadeghi, first Edition. Tehran: Markaz. [In Persian].
• Sojodi, F. (2004). Applied Semiotics. 2th edition. Tehran: Ghesse. [In Persian].
• Zilberberg, CI. (2012). Tensive Structure. Belgique: Liege University Publication. [In French].