نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانشیار گروه زبان و ادبیات فارسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی (نویسنده مسئول)

10.22111/jllr.2020.21744.2113

چکیده

    از جمله ابزارهای فهم معنا، واکاوی متون ادبی از دیدگاه نشانه- معناشناسی است. در پژوهش پیش­رو، بر آنیم با مطالعۀ موردی و ضمن بهره­گیری از روش تحلیل کیفی، به واکاوی مثنوی «خموش­ خاتون» رعدی، بر اساس نظام­ های گفتمانی گرمس بپردازیم. پرسش بنیادین پژوهش این است که کدام یک از نظام ­های گفتمانی گرمس در مثنوی خموش­ خاتون فرصت بروز و ظهور می­یابند؟ چرا؟ گرمس با ایجاد نظام­های گفتمانی منسجم، زمینه­ای فراهم کرد تا دریابیم که در وضعیت اولیۀ داستان، معنا نقصانی دارد که وجود عوامل شوشی و کنشی و به تبع آن، ایجاد نظام­ های گفتمانی سبب می ­شود آن معنای ناقص سیر تکاملی در پیش گرفته، در وضعیت ثانویه به معنایی استعلایی تبدیل گردد. داستان خموش ­خاتون نیز، از جمله روایت­ هایی است که با عوامل شوشی و کنشی همراه است و در میان نظام ­های گفتمانی، سه نظام گفتمانی اخلاقی- مرامی، القایی و تجویزی که زیر مجموعۀ نظام گفتمانی هوشمند هستند، در آن قدرت بروز و ظهور می­ یابند. خلق این نظام­ ها را می­ توان دالّ بر این نکته دانست که راوی آگاهانه و با شناخت جزئیات و عناصر گوناگون داستان­، روایت خود را پیش می ­برد و هوشمندانه، نقصان معنای اولیۀ خود را با خلق نظام­ گفتمانی هوشمندانه، به وضعیتی استعلایی تبدیل می­کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Critique of Sign-semantics of Khamush Khatoon Masnavi (With emphasis on Garms discourse systems)

نویسنده [English]

  • Shirzad Tayefi

Associate professor of Persian Language and Literature Dept, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

 
Introduction
One of the ways to critique literary texts in modern times is to use knowledge of sign-semantics, which allows the critic to identify the style and analysis of texts without interfering with their personal opinions and using this knowledge. And in this way they become familiar with the various dimensions of a text. However, in semiotics and semantics, due to the wide range of methods and goals and increasing progress, we cannot consider a single and final definition for them; but here we are forced to make a brief reference to the theoretical and historical background of this knowledge before analyzing the text.
Research Methods .In this study, data collection is a library method and data analysis is a qualitative method.
Discussion
The goal of semiotics is to identify and analyze signs and symbols, whether they are spoken or written, or those that have non-linguistic forms, including physiological signs. Biological, semantic systems, value systems, symbolic symbols, various worldviews and even all forms of movement, state, conscious or unconscious position, tactical, strategic, thought or not and so on (Fakoohi, 1383, 299-300). In order to identify the symptom and its causes, it is necessary to have a systematic structure, which was proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure and at the same time Charles Sanders Pierce.To discover the connection between the word and the meaning and to examine the meanings derived from it, we will deal with semantics. Semantics is "a part of the semiotics science that examines the meaning of signs and the relationship between the sign and the mental reference (Dadvar, 1387, 148-149); Thus, the background of the theoretical and practical foundations of sign-semantic critique is rooted in Saussure's general linguistics. Saussure called semiotics "a combination of signifier and signified;" According to Saussure, the signifier is the same as the phonetic image, and in his opinion the signified is the same as the mental image” (Shairi, 2009: 37). Saussure considers the relation of signifier and signified as a function of value and calls it “symbol”, and interprets it in such a way that in the relation between signifier and signified, a signifier and signified are always in opposition to signifier and other signifieds. » (Shairi, 2009: 38).
    Garms in completing this theory introduced the level of expression as external symbol, the level of content as internal symbol and called the abstract position of discourse attachment in relation to symbols as a subject-symbol or physically. It is from here that the world of semiotics goes from structuralist and classic semiotics to discourse semiotics or a sign of semantics.
    Discourse semiotics has discourse systems that can be defined and divided as follows.
 




 
 
 
 
Discourse systems


A.      Smart


1.        Prescription
2.        Induction
3.        Intent-based




B.       Emotional


1.        Stress-emotional
2.        Emotional-perceptual
3.        Aesthetic




C.       Episodic


1.        Destination and luck
2.        Providence
3.        impulse




 
One of the key words in semiotics is the word “shavesh and konesh”. “Shavesh” is derived from “be”, describing the state that in which the agent is located and “konesh” is a practice that can accomplish a program and at the same time lead to a status change from one situation to another (Shairi and Vafaee, 1388: 12). Action factors are divided into three categories: active, actor and passive (Shairi and Vafaee, 1388: 13). Also, anxiety factors are divided to three categories: “worry maker, worrisome and worrier”.
The beginning of story analysis
In the early literature of the story, the narrator attributes good qualities to the king in the field of morality and governance, which the listener, subconsciously, has a positive and worthy image of the king in his mind by reading the early literature of the story; But suddenly, one of the characteristics and traits of the king (concupiscence and lust) causes an action to occur and the audience's mentality to be shattered.
    In the continuation of the literature, all those around the king who were dissatisfied with the situation, expressed their dissatisfaction with the king in a special language, and it can be seen from this part of the story that the meaning seems to be defected (lack of a girl in the kingdom). That state of worrying (Concupiscence and lust) has led to such actions (such as dissatisfaction announcement of attendants to the king).
    All the advice and sermons of those around him were useless, and the king remained in the same mood. An informant and eavesdropper person came to see the king and mentioned a girl who lives in another country and is unique in beauty.
    Seductive explanations of the informant prompted the king to write a letter to Ray and asking his daughter to marry him. If we look more closely, another action has taken place, and of course the basis of the action is the case of making worry. In the story examination, some discourse systems are formed based on these functional and worrying situations of narration, which we will analyze below.

Prescriptive discourse system: In a part of the story, the daughter of Ray, in order to save her husband's life, demands four Gabriel to obey her, which is a sign of the establishment of a prescriptive discourse system.
Inductive discourse system: The basis of this system is based on the interaction between the active and the actor. In the Khamush Khatoon Masnavi, at the beginning, the father is not satisfied with marrying his daughter to the king; but the girl convinces her father with her intelligence and speech.
Intent-based discourse system: an interaction in which one of the parties performs an action based on the moral-intentional duty. [In this discourse system, we] deal with fundamental beliefs (Shairi and Vafaee, 1388: 19). In the Khamush Khatoon Masnavi, when the king cannot force the Silent Lady to speak, the king forces her to work with Jevaazgar (a person who do oil extraction). Jevvazgar chooses the middle path towards the king and becomes creator of the moral-intentional discourse system.

 
Conclusion
The critique results of Khamush Khatoon Masnavi from the point of view of Garms discourse system:
This story has a high capacity that can be examined and analyzed from the perspective of various discourse systems; However, it should be noted that not all systems have the capability and opportunity to appear, and only a few of them are formed, and with the aim of completing the defect at the beginning of the narration, they promote the story. Among the discourse systems, the two ethical and inductive systems are in the first and second positions, they have the highest frequency, and the prescriptive system is in the third place. In addition, all three cases are subsets of the intelligent discourse system, which means that the narrator consciously and intelligently conveys the narration, the narrator overlooks the events of the story and helps to reduce the lack of meaning.
    By examination of the sayings and actions of the characters in the story from the perspective of sign-semantics, it can be said that three important characters play in the Khamush Khatoon Masnavi and each of them is the main factor in creating the unique discourse system. The first character is the capricious king, as usual wherever discourse is formed and the king is active, the prescriptive discourse system is being formed. Ray`s daughter is the more important character, who by convincing her opponent, creates an inductive discourse system (flattery, temptation and provocation), finally the silent lady, who is considered as a creator of an ethical discourse system.
 
References

Benveniste, E, L’Appareil Formal de Nonciation in Language, Paris: Larousse, 1970.
Chandler, Daniel, Fundamentals of Semiotics, translated by Mehdi Parsa, Tehran: Sureye Mehr, 2015.
Dadvar, Elmira, Vocabulary of Semiotics - Semantics, Tehran: Morvarid, 2008.
Davoodi Moghadam, Farideh, Analysis of Sign-Semantic Analysis of Discourse in the Story of Yusuf (PBUH), Quranic teachings, Razavi University of Islamic Sciences, No. 20, pp.175 - 192, Mashhad, Razavi University of Islamic Sciences: Fall-Winter.2015.
Fakuhi, Nasser, Urban Anthropology, Tehran: Ney, 2004.
Griemas. A.J, Noqsān-e Maˈ , Translated to Persian by H.R. Shaˈ iri. Tehran: ˈ Elm Publication.
Khorasani, Fahimeh, A study of the narrative structure of Siavash's story based on the theory of sign-semantics of Griemas narrative, M.Sc. Thesis in Persian Language and Literature, under the guidance of Gholamhossein Gholamhosseinzadeh, Tehran, Tarbiat Modares University, Faculty of Humanities, 2010.
Johansen, Jorgen and Sean Eric Larsen, what is semiotics? translated by Ali Mir Emadi, Tehran: Varjavand, 2006.
Nasihat, Nahid and others, Sign - Semantics of the narrative structure of our story Collaboration based on Griemas's theory, two scientific-research journals reviewing contemporary Arabic literature, second year, third issue, pp. 40-63, Yazd University: Winter, 2013.
Peirce, C.S. Collected Writngs, (8 Vols.), Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss & Arthur W Burks (Eds.), Cam, (1931-58).
Raadi, Masnavi Khamoush Khatoon, edited by Mehdi Gharavi, Islamabad: Persian Research Center of Iran and Pakistan, 1996.
Saussure, Ferdinant de, Course in General /linguistics: Trans, Roy Harris, London: Duckworth, (1916/1983).
Shairi, Hamidreza, A Study of Types of Discourse Systems from a Semiotic-Semantic Perspective, Researches of Allameh Tabatabai University, pp. 106-119, Tehran: 2007.
Shairi, Hamidreza, From Constructivist Semiotics to Discourse Semantics, Journal of Literary Criticism, Second Year, No. 8, pp.33-51, Winter. 2009.
Shairi, Hamidreza, Fundamentals of Modern Semantics, Tehran: Samt, 2002.
Shairi, Hamidreza and Vafaee, Taraneh, a way to the sign-semantics of fluid; with a case study of "Phoenix" by Nima, Tehran: Elmi va Farhangi,2009.
Tajik, Mohammad Reza, Discourse, Anti-Discourse and Politics, Tehran: for Research and Development of Humanities Institute,2004.
Zimiran, Mohammad, Semiotics of Art, Tehran: Ggesse, 2003.

 
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Khamush Khatoon
  • sign - semantics
  • discourse systems
  • Greimas
  • Partial concept
  • Transcendental concept
  1. تاجیک، محمدرضا، گفتمان، پادگفتمان و سیاست، تهران: مؤسسۀ تحقیقات و توسعۀ علوم انسانی، 1383.
  2. چندلر، دانیل، مبانی نشانه­شناسی، ترجمۀ مهدی پارسا، تهران: سورۀ مهر، 1394.
  3. خراسانی، فهیمه، بررسی ساختار روایی داستان سیاوش بر پایه نظریۀ نشانه- معناشناسی روایی گرمس، پایان­نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد زبان و ادبیات فارسی، به راهنمایی غلامحسین غلامحسین­زاده، تهران، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس ، 1389.
  4. دادور، المیرا، واژگان نشانه- معناشناسی، تهران: مروارید، 1387.
  5. داودی مقدم، فریده، تحلیل نشانه- معناشناختی گفتمان در قصۀ یوسف(علیه­السلام)، آموزه­های قرآنی، دانشگاه علوم اسلامی رضوی مشهد، شمارۀ 20، صص 175-192، پاییز- زمستان.1393.
  6. رعدی، مثنوی خموش­خاتون، به تصحیح سیدمهدی غروی، اسلام آباد: مرکز تحقیقات فارسی ایران و پاکستان، 1375.
  7. شعیری، حمیدرضا، از نشانه­شناسی ساختگرا تا نشانه- معناشناسی گفتمانی، فصلنامۀ تخصصی نقد ادبی، سال دوم، شمارة8، صص 33- 51، زمستان 1388.
  8. شعیری، حمیدرضا، بررسی انواع نظام­های گفتمانی از دیدگاه نشانه- معناشناختی، مجموعه مقالات دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، صص 106-11۹، تهران: 1386.
  9. شعیری، حمیدرضا، مبانی معناشناسی نوین، تهران: سمت، 1381.
  10. شعیری، حمیدرضا و وفایی، ترانه، راهی به نشانه- معناشناسی سیال؛ با بررسی موردی «ققنوس» نیما، تهران: علمی و فرهنگی، 1388.
  11. ضیمران، محمد، نشانه­شناسی هنر. تهران: قصه، 1382.
  12. فکوهی، ناصر، انسان­شناسی شهری، تهران: نی، 1383.
  13. گریماس، آلژیرداس ژولین، نقصان معنا، ترجمة حمیدرضا شعیری، تهران: علم، 1379.
  14. نصیحت، ناهید و دیگران، نشانه- معناشناسی ساختار روایی داستان ما تشاؤون بر اساس نظریۀ گریماس، دوفصلنامۀ علمی-پژوهشی نقد ادب معاصر عربی، سال دوم، شمارة سوم، صص40-63، دانشگاه یزد: زمستان1391.
  15. یوهانسن، یورگن و سون اریک لارسن، نشانه­شناسی چیست؟، ترجمۀ سیدعلی میرعمادی، تهران: ورجاوند، 1385.
  16. Benveniste, E, L’ Appareil Formal de Nonciation in Language, Paris: Larousse, (1970).
  17. Peirce, C.S. Collected Writngs (8 Vols.), Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss & Arthur W Burks (Eds.), Cam, (1931-58).
  18. Saussure, Ferdinant de (1916/1983) Course in General /linguistics: Trans. Roy Harris. London: Duckworth.