عنوان مقاله [English]
Referral theory addresses the intertextual and transactional reading texts. Based on his theory, the literary works refer to other texts and transcripts. Or the audience can the understand and receive the texts by referring to objective instances, or by referring to other texts. In this study, the allegories of Saeb have been chosen from the perspective of this theory.Because in each allegory; Saeb has referred the audience to a text or an external. The authors have tried to describe and the texts and transcriptions that Saeb has used in making allegories in a descriptive-analytical way؛ the results of this research show two important points. First, the allegory has a referential basis; the poet has refereed the reader to a parable in order to support each claim. The other is that these parables are based on intertexttual or translated text referrals.The Quran, hadiths, and prophets the prophets of the most important texts ,social and natural are also the main transcripts that Saeb has used in his paraphrasing.The selection method is to collect and categorize the Saeb allegories based on types of referrals.
Cross-referencing in literary texts is the central idea in the intertextual approach to literary criticism which has its roots in the works of Saussure and Bakhtin. For Saussure, “a sign can be imagined as a two-sided coin combining a signified (concept) and a signifier (sound-image)” (Allen, 2016 : 21). Bakhtin, however, believes that “the abstract linguistics of Saussure strips language of its dialogic nature, which includes its social, ideological, subject-centred and subject-addressed nature” (ibid.: 36). In this context, two general views were formed in intertextual criticism about cross-referencing in literary texts: “reading” and “referencing”. The main difference between these two is that reading takes place when the reader, whom Barthes considers as “a collection of texts” (Modarresi, 2011: 68), reads a text in the context of his previous knowledge of texts. In this definition, language “refers to other texts instead of the reality and society” (Namvar-motlagh, 2016: 166). This can be illustrated by the use of literary tropes like metaphor, metonymy, and analogy which do not conform to ordinary language usage; that is, their signs cannot refer to the objective and conventional instances. To understand literary language, therefore, one should seek instances other than ordinary reality and significance. This is why Riffaterre developed his ‘theory of reading’ and proposed two types of reading: mimetic and semiotic. “Mimetic reading refers to the formal comparison of the text with external, real sources” (Namvar-motlagh, 2016: 236). In this type of reading, the text represents the real world and its linguistic instances can be interpreted by reference to the reality. According to Riffaterre, the problem of this type of reading is that only the superficial meaning is noted, thereby reducing a poem to unrelated bits and leaving its usually ungrammatical aspects unresolved (Selden and Widdowson, 1392: 85). Semiotic reading, however, is defined on the basis of the associations of the text with itself and other texts (ibid.). In other words, the text is perceived and understood by referring to instances in the world of texts rather than in the real world. It is only at this level that the reader can surmount the mimesis hurdle (Allen, 2016: 16) and analyze as well as understand the ungrammatical mysteries of the text. This second type of referencing is the one that is prevalent in academic research and makes use of both visible and hidden devices in the text to refer the reader to the absent texts.
Analogy, which is a kind of intertextuality, has always been widely used by literary authors for the purpose of providing evidence, argumentation, and persuasion. In analogy, a similar experience that is often rooted in the reader’s knowledge is referred to for proving an epistemological, intellectual, moral, or any other claim. Importantly, the realistic nature of analogy readily lends itself to an interpretation based on mimetic reading. In addition, it can also be approached through semiotic reading due to its poetic manner of expression. The present study intends to analyze the analogies of Sa’eb Tabrizi, which are of a great number and variety, from the viewpoint of both types of referencing. Sa’eb has both made extensive use of analogies to create texts and hypertexts and referred the reader to numerous texts and hypertexts to persuade, witness, and argue on a more solid basis. There are three research questions: 1) Can we analyze Sa’eb’s analogies on the basis of the theory of referencing? 2) What are the main texts and hypertexts which Sa’eb has referred to in his analogies? 3) Should the reading of these analogies be mimetic or semiotic?
2. Research Method:
Based on a descriptive-analytical method, this study seeks to introduce and analyze the texts and hypertexts that are the point of departure in Sa’eb’s analogies. For this purpose, analogies were extracted from Sa’eb’s ghazals and classified according to their religious, intellectual, cultural, social, and natural background. The analogies were then analyzed in terms of intratextual and extratextual references as well as mimetic and semiotic reading.
Sa’eb’s skill in creating analogies lies in his use of numerous texts and hypertexts which is manifested in intertextual and hypertextual modes of referencing. In terms of intertextual referencing, which denotes “one text referring to another” (Namvar-motlagh, 2016: 51), Sa’eb mainly touches upon four sources, i.e. the Quran, hadith, religious law, and historical anecdotes (usually those of the life of prophets). These types of analogy can be analyzed through three approaches. The first one is intertextual referencing which means that these analogies link the text to other texts. The second one is mimetic reading because texts like the Quran, hadith, and historical anecdotes tend to put emphasis on the reality instead of imaginary aspects. The third one is semiotic reading because the analogies are narrated within a poetic context. In terms of hypertextual referencing, which denotes “one text referring to the world outside the text” (Namvar-motlagh, 2016: 52), two umbrella hypertexts which form the basis of a large number of Sa’eb’s analogies are society and nature. He has made use of the capacity of nature and society to create relevant analogies and support his claims. These types of analogy can be interpreted with reference to both mimetic and semiotic reading because they chiefly rely on the realities of the nature and society. Furthermore, due to the poetic expression of these realities, a deep understanding of the analogies requires semiotic reading.
Sa’eb pays so much attention to analogy and is so skillful at creating analogies that some scholars consider it as the dominant technique in his poetry. With the help of his dynamic imagination and creativity, this famous poet of Hindi school has made extensive use of intertextual and hypertextual contexts to create analogies. There is a realistic tendency in his analogies in a way that he moves from depth to surface in an attempt to objectify abstract concepts by translating them into their sensual equivalents. These sensual equivalents, or analogies, are mostly based on shared religious and historical knowledge and collective experience which is concrete and noticeable the context of nature and society. References, therefore, are mostly made to objective instance in the real world, or to categories that are taken for granted among the audience groups. Thus, they can be approached through mimetic reading. On the other hand, since all these realistic notions are expressed in a poetic language, their mysteries should be discovered by semiotic reading. The main sources involved in Sa’eb’s analogies are the Quran, prophet’s hadith, and historical anecdotes. The main hypertexts are the realms of society and nature. Being aware of these sources, the reader can come to an understanding of the cultural and intellectual roots of Sa’ed’s analogies and interpret them at a mimetic or semiotic level. Furthermore, this awareness can also act as an inspiration for other literary authors because the great variety in Sa’eb’s poems is due to his effective use of major religious, intellectual, and cultural sources as well as his close examination of the nature and society.
The Hoy Quran, translated by Makarem Shirazi.
Barani, M., Khalili Jahan-tigh, M., and M. Hakimifar. (2016). “Conceptual metaphors in the qasidas of Naser-khosrow”. Journal of Adab-e Ghenaee [Lyric Literature], 14(27), pp. 41-62. Zahedan: University of Sistan-va-Baluchestan Press.
Esfandiyari, A. (1989). Darbare-ye She’r va Sha’eri [On Poetry and Poet]. Collected by S. Tahbaz. Tehran: Daftar-haye Zamaneh.
Fotoohi, M. (2000). Naghd-e Khial [A Critique of Imagination]. Tehran: Roozegar.
Fotoohi, M. (2005). “Tamsil (mahiyat, aghsam, karkard)” [Analogy: Nature, typology, functions]. Journal of Zaban va Adabiyat-e Farsi [Persian Language and Literature], 47-49, pp. 141-178.
Fotoohi, M. (2014). Balaghat-e Tasvir [Rhetoric of Image]. Tehran: Sokhan.
Gholamreza, A.A. (2010). “Sakhtar-e revayat dar ghesse-haye Ghor’an-e majid” [Narrative structure in Quranic stories]. Journal of Pazhouhesh-haye Ertebati [Communication Research], 64, pp. 31-59. Tehran: Islamic Republic of Iran’s Broadcasting Organization.
Graham, A. (2016). Beynamatniyat [Intertextuality] (P. Yazdanjoo, Trans.). Tehran: Markaz. (Original work published 2000).
Ha’eri, M.H. (2011). Sa’eb va Sha’eran-e Tarz-e Tazeh [Sa’eb and the Poets of the New Style]. Tehran: Nasl-e Aftab.
Kafafi, M.A. (2003). Adabiyat-e Tatbighi [Comparative Literature] (H. Seyyedi, Trans.). Mashhad: Astan-e Ghods-e Razavi. (Original work published 1972).
Modarresi, F. (2011). Farhang-e Tosifi-ye Naghd va Nazariye-haye Adabi [A Descriptive Dictionary of Literary Theory and Criticism]. Tehran: Institute of Humanities and Literary Studies.
Mortezaee, J. (2011). “Tamsil, tasvir ya san’at-e badi’i” [Analogy: imagery or literary trope?]. Journal of Matnshenasi-ye Adab-e Farsi [Textology in Persian Literature], 12, pp. 29-38. Isfahan: University of Isfahan Press.
Namvar-motlagh, B. (2015). Daramadi bar Beynamatniyat [Intertextuality: An Introduction]. Tehran: Sokhan.
Namvar-motlagh, B. (2016). Beynamatniyat [Intertextuality]. Tehran: Sokhan.
Pooyandeh, M.J. (2013). Daramadi bar Jame’eh-shenasi-ye Adabiat [An Introduction to the Sociology of Literature]. Tehran: Naghsh-e Jahan.
Rahmdel Sharafshadehi, G. (2005). “Baran va ta’vil-e neshaneh-shenakhti-ye padidar-ha dar Ghor’an” [Rain and the Semiotic Interpretation of Phenomena in the Quran]. Journal of Andishe-ye Dini [Religious Thought], 14, pp. 75-98. Shiraz: University of Shiraz Press.
Sa’eb Tabrizi, M.A. (2004). Divan [Divan of Poems]. Edited and annotated by M. Ghahreman. Tehran: Elmi va Farhangi.
Sadrinia, B. (2009). Farhang-e Ma’surat-e Motoon-e Erfani [A Dictionary of Folklore in Mystic Texts]. Tehran: Sokhan.
Sasani, F. (2005). “Ta’sir-e ravabet-e beynamatni dar khanesh” [The Effect of Intertextual Relations on Reading]. Journal of Zaban va Zabanshenasi [Language and Linguistics], 2, pp. 39-56. Tehran: Iran’s Linguistics Association.
Selden, R., and P. Widdowson (2013). Rahnama-ye Nazariyeha-ye Adabi [A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory] (A. Mokhber, Trans.). Tehran: Tarh-e No. (Original work published 2005).
Shafi’i Kadkani, M.R. (1993). Sovar-e Khiyal dar She’r-e Farsi [Imagery in Persian Poetry]. Tehran: Agah.
Shafi’i Kadkani, M.R. (2012). Rastakhiz-e Kalamat [Resurrection of Words]. Tehran: Sokhan.
Shayeganfar, H.R. (2005). Naghd-e Adabi [Literary Criticism]. Tehran: Dastan.
Shiri, G. (2010). “Tamsil va Tasviri No az Karkard-haye An” [Revisiting the functions of analogy]. Journal of Kavosh-name-ye Zaban va Adabiyat-e Farsi [Investigations into Persian Language and Literature], 20, pp. 33-54. Yazd: Yazd University Press.
Shiri, G. (2012). Ebham-e Faryad-e Natamam [Ambiguity of the Unfinished Cry]. Hamedan: Bu-Ali Sina University Press.
Soleimani, Z. (2012). “Jelve-haye amsal-e Tazi dar ash’ar-e ta’limi-ye Parsi” [Manifestations of Arabic proverbs in Persian pedagogical poetry]. Journal of Tahghighat-e Ta’limi va Ghenaee-ye Zaban va Adab-e Farsi [Pedagogical and Lyric Research in Persian Language and Literature], 12, pp. 56-84. Bushehr: Islamic Azad University of Bushehr Press.
Zarrinkoob, A. (1984). Seyri dar She’r-e Farsi [A Study of Persian Poetry]. Tehran: Novin.