ساختار روایی داستان عامیانۀ «کرهاسب سیاه» از دیدگاه نشانه‌معناشناسی گفتمانی
نوع مقاله : پژوهشی اصیل
نویسندگان
1
عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه پیام نور
2
دانشگاه پیام نور
چکیده
داستانهای عامیانه بازتاب هویت فرهنگی هر ملت هستند که ایدئولوژی حاکم و پس‌زمینههای ذهنی آن جامعه را منعکس میکنند. مطالعۀ حاضر با استفاده از دیدگاه نشانه‌معناشناسی گفتمانی به لایههای زیرساختی نظام روایی در داستان عامیانۀ «کرهاسب سیاه» نفوذ کرده و عوامل گفتمانی کنش و شوش را در شش مرحله در فرایند معناسازی تحلیل کرده است. شوش و کنش متقابل بین شاهزاده و کرهاسب و تعامل بین این دو نظام حسی ـ ادراکی و هوشمند، مهمترین عامل شکلگیری و ایجاد تغییر از وضعیتی به وضعیت دیگر و حالتهای پس از تغییر در این داستان هستند. در این نظام روایی گاهی احساس و ادراک با تأثیر بر عوامل معنایی، معنا را بهوجود میآورد و گاهی نیز کنش، شوشزا میشود. همچنین، در این پژوهش مراحل ارتقای توانشهای مادی و معنوی اسب بهعنوان موجودی غریزی و مادی به موجودی اسطورهای و کنشگری آسمانی و بهعبارتی سازوکار استعلایافتگی کرهاسب تبیین میشود.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
• Abbasi, A. & Mohamadi, M. (2001). Samad: The structure of a myth. Tehran: CHISTA. [In Persian].
• Adam, J. M & F. Zarvar (2006). L’ analyse des recite. Translated by: Hossein zadeh, A. & K. Shahparrad. Tehran: Qatreh.[ In Persian].
• Anscomber, J. Cl. Et Ducrot O., (1976). L' Argumoentation dans la langue, in language. Paris: Larousse.
• Bertrand, D. (1999). Precis de la semiotique litteraire. Paris: Nathan.
• Dehghan, M. (2011). “Analytical review of the Kashf al-Mahjub Hjvyry narrative structure modeled on narrative semiotics Greimas”. Matn-e-Pajoohesi-e-Adabi. No. 48. Pp 9-32. [In Persian].
• Grimas, A. J. (2009). De l'imperfection. Translated by: Shairi, H.R. First Edit. Tehran: ELM. [In Persian].
• HasanZadeh Mirali, A. & E. Kanani (2011). “The Study of Discursive Sign-Semantics’ Pattern of Gheisar Aminpour Poetry”. Adab-e- Erfani Research Journal. Vol. 5. No.2. Pp 115-136. [In Persian].
• Hedayat, S. (1991). Scattered writings. Tehran: AMIR KABIR.
• Karimi Firouz Jaei, A. (2017). “Exploring the Narrative Status of Horse in Chinese, Japanese and Iranian Civilizations, from the View point of Semiotics of Discourse”. Jostarhay-e-Zabani Two month Journal.Vol. 8. No. 6(41). Pp 327-351. . [In Persian].
• Koopa, F. et. al. (2016). “Common literature and an in-depth analysis of the position that religious and moral teachings have in some Chi Chi Ka of Hormozgan province”. Hormozgan Cultural Research Journal. No.11. [In Persian].
• Lintvelt, J. (2011). Essai de typologie narrative : le "point de vue" : theorie et analy. Translated by:Hejazi, N. & Abbasi, A. Tehran: Scientific & Cultural publishing. [In Persian].
• Moin, B. (2000). “Narrative Semantics”. Human Sciences Research Journal. No. 34. Pp 17- 132. [In Persian].
• Motahari, S.M. & Nazerzadeh Kermani, F. (2014). Narrative in Morshed & Margarita from the view point of Grimas Semiotics of Discourse. Research in Contemporary World Literature.Vol. 19. No.1. Pp 123-143. [In Persian].
• Montazerpanah, Z. (2012). “ The study of narrative structure in Masnavi stories from the view point of Grimas and Propp”. Qom: The university of literature and human science. [In Persian].
• Nasihat, N. et. al. (2012). “Semiotic analysis of structural narrative of “ Va matashaoon” Short Story” from the View point of Grimas”. Naqd-e- Adab-e- Moaser- Arabi Scientific & Cultural Journal. No.3. Year. 2.[In Persian].
• _____________. (2013). “Semiotic analysis of structural narrative of “ Hablon Kalvarid” Short Story”. Arabic Language & Literature of Iranian association Research Journal.No. 28. Pp 89-110. [In Persian].
• Savab, F. et. Al. (2015). “The Narrative Structure of Nezami’s Khosrow-va-Shirin”. Adab -e-Qanaee Research Journal. Sistan Balochestan University. No. 24. Pp. 37-58. [In Persian].
• Shairi, H. R. (2002). Foundations of Modern Semantics. First Edit. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian].
• _________. (2008). “From Structural Semiology until Semiotics of Discourse”. Naqd-e-Adabi. No.8. [In Persian].
• _________. (2016). Analyzes of Semiotics of Discourse. Fifth Edit. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian].
• Sharifnasab, M. (2017). “The moral meta-narrative and Iranian folktales” RavayatShenasi Season Research. Vol. 1.Year. 1.
• Vatanpour, A. & Namiriyan, K. (2012). “ The structure and mythical analyze of “Girl and Lotus” folktale”. Anthropology Researches. VOL.2. No. 1. Pp 167-187. [In Persian].
• Adam, J. M & F. Zarvar (2006). L’ analyse des recite. Translated by: Hossein zadeh, A. & K. Shahparrad. Tehran: Qatreh.[ In Persian].
• Anscomber, J. Cl. Et Ducrot O., (1976). L' Argumoentation dans la langue, in language. Paris: Larousse.
• Bertrand, D. (1999). Precis de la semiotique litteraire. Paris: Nathan.
• Dehghan, M. (2011). “Analytical review of the Kashf al-Mahjub Hjvyry narrative structure modeled on narrative semiotics Greimas”. Matn-e-Pajoohesi-e-Adabi. No. 48. Pp 9-32. [In Persian].
• Grimas, A. J. (2009). De l'imperfection. Translated by: Shairi, H.R. First Edit. Tehran: ELM. [In Persian].
• HasanZadeh Mirali, A. & E. Kanani (2011). “The Study of Discursive Sign-Semantics’ Pattern of Gheisar Aminpour Poetry”. Adab-e- Erfani Research Journal. Vol. 5. No.2. Pp 115-136. [In Persian].
• Hedayat, S. (1991). Scattered writings. Tehran: AMIR KABIR.
• Karimi Firouz Jaei, A. (2017). “Exploring the Narrative Status of Horse in Chinese, Japanese and Iranian Civilizations, from the View point of Semiotics of Discourse”. Jostarhay-e-Zabani Two month Journal.Vol. 8. No. 6(41). Pp 327-351. . [In Persian].
• Koopa, F. et. al. (2016). “Common literature and an in-depth analysis of the position that religious and moral teachings have in some Chi Chi Ka of Hormozgan province”. Hormozgan Cultural Research Journal. No.11. [In Persian].
• Lintvelt, J. (2011). Essai de typologie narrative : le "point de vue" : theorie et analy. Translated by:Hejazi, N. & Abbasi, A. Tehran: Scientific & Cultural publishing. [In Persian].
• Moin, B. (2000). “Narrative Semantics”. Human Sciences Research Journal. No. 34. Pp 17- 132. [In Persian].
• Motahari, S.M. & Nazerzadeh Kermani, F. (2014). Narrative in Morshed & Margarita from the view point of Grimas Semiotics of Discourse. Research in Contemporary World Literature.Vol. 19. No.1. Pp 123-143. [In Persian].
• Montazerpanah, Z. (2012). “ The study of narrative structure in Masnavi stories from the view point of Grimas and Propp”. Qom: The university of literature and human science. [In Persian].
• Nasihat, N. et. al. (2012). “Semiotic analysis of structural narrative of “ Va matashaoon” Short Story” from the View point of Grimas”. Naqd-e- Adab-e- Moaser- Arabi Scientific & Cultural Journal. No.3. Year. 2.[In Persian].
• _____________. (2013). “Semiotic analysis of structural narrative of “ Hablon Kalvarid” Short Story”. Arabic Language & Literature of Iranian association Research Journal.No. 28. Pp 89-110. [In Persian].
• Savab, F. et. Al. (2015). “The Narrative Structure of Nezami’s Khosrow-va-Shirin”. Adab -e-Qanaee Research Journal. Sistan Balochestan University. No. 24. Pp. 37-58. [In Persian].
• Shairi, H. R. (2002). Foundations of Modern Semantics. First Edit. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian].
• _________. (2008). “From Structural Semiology until Semiotics of Discourse”. Naqd-e-Adabi. No.8. [In Persian].
• _________. (2016). Analyzes of Semiotics of Discourse. Fifth Edit. Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian].
• Sharifnasab, M. (2017). “The moral meta-narrative and Iranian folktales” RavayatShenasi Season Research. Vol. 1.Year. 1.
• Vatanpour, A. & Namiriyan, K. (2012). “ The structure and mythical analyze of “Girl and Lotus” folktale”. Anthropology Researches. VOL.2. No. 1. Pp 167-187. [In Persian].
