بررسی ساختار معنایی روایت های حماسی و اساطیری ایران، هند، یونان و بین النهرین بر پایه نردبان معنایی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
الگوی «نردبان معنایی» که از مربع های معنایی متوالی تشکیل شده است، مراحل تولید معانی موجود در ژرف ساختِ روایت را از معنای اولیه تا معنای نهایی، به تصویر می کشد؛ به گونه ای که این معانی از حالت ایستایی در مربع معنایی گریماس عبور کرده و شکلی پویا یافته اند. در این مقاله برای اثبات این مسئله، به تجزیه وتحلیل چند روایت در ژانر حماسی و اساطیریِ ایران، هند، یونان و بین النهرین پرداخته شده است تا با بررسی معانی موجود در ژرف ساختِ روایت ها، ویژگی پویایی معنا در نردبان معنایی و ساختار معنایی این روایت ها بررسی شود. پس از تجزیه وتحلیل روایت های «ضحاک»، «فرود»، «رامایانا»، «گیل گمش» و «اودیسیوس»، مشخص شد که فرایند نردبان معنایی به کمک مربع های معنایی متوالی، معانی موجود در ساختار روایت را به شکلی پویا و سیال به نمایش می گذارد و در ژانرهای مختلف، قابل تطبیق و اجراست. همچنین با نردبان معنایی می توان الگوی طرحِ حرکت فاعلِ روایت در مسیر دستیابی به هدف را به وضوح مشاهده کرد و ساختار معنایی این روایت ها را بررسی و ترسیم کرد.Investigating the Semiotic Structure of Epic and Mythological Narratives of Iran, India, Greece and Mesopotamia Based on the “Semiotic Ladder”
The “semiotic ladder” model, which is composed of consecutive semiotic squares, illustrates the stages of meaning production within the deep structure of a narrative—from the initial meaning to the final meaning—in such a way that these meanings transition from a static state in Greimas’ semiotic square and acquire a dynamic form. In this study, to validate this issue, several narratives in the epic and mythological genres from Iran, India, Greece, and Mesopotamia were analyzed so that by examining the meanings embedded in the deep structure of the narratives, the dynamic nature of meaning in the semiotic ladder and the semiotic structure of these narratives could be investigated. After analyzing the narratives of “Zahhak,” “Foroud,” “Ramayana,” “Gilgamesh,” and “Odysseus,” it became evident that the process of the semiotic ladder, aided by consecutive semiotic squares, dynamically and fluidly displays the meanings present within the narrative structure and is adaptable and applicable across different genres. Moreover, with this model, it is also possible, while examining the semiotic structure of the narratives, to outline the pattern of the protagonist’s movement in the path toward achieving the goal. IntroductionSemiotics is an appropriate tool for analyzing texts, examining data that generates meaning in the deep structure of a text through patterns. One of these semiotic patterns is Greimas' “semiotic square.” This theorist, in his studies on semiotics, searches for “the underlying and constructive grammar of narratives” (Green & LeBihan, 2003: 110). For this purpose, “among structural forms, he introduces the 'narrative structure' as the center of semiotic processes” (Robichaud, 2002: 130), and extracts the general grammar of the plot language from among narrative texts. Hence, with the help of semiotics, he identifies the deep-structural meanings of narratives, places them in binary oppositional structures, and analyzes them. Then, by examining the meanings produced by the narrative's subject in the process of achieving its goal, he demonstrates the dynamic nature of these meanings within the framework of the “semiotic square,” which he refers to as the “elementary structure of meaning” (Greimas, 1987b: 49).Narrative texts can be summarized in several sentences and expressions and, ultimately, in several semiotic squares. To this end, this study focuses on the mythological and epic narratives of Iran, India, Greece, and Mesopotamia (including: the tales of Zahhak, Foroud, Ramayana, Odysseus, and Gilgamesh), demonstrating the most important and influential meanings in producing these narratives. In this analysis, individual meanings of each square are not presented separately. Instead, the meanings produced within the narrative, in light of the main story's shifts and following the subject's action trajectory, are depicted in a comprehensive pattern known as the “semiotic ladder,” which shows the fluidity of meaning through a series of sequential semiotic squares.1.1. Research MethodologyThis theoretical study employs a library-based method with a descriptive-analytical approach. Initially, relevant theoretical material and necessary data were collected from various sources. Following that, the “semiotic ladder” pattern was introduced, and several epic and mythological narratives from Iran and around the world were identified and studied. After gathering the required data, they were analyzed, and the semiotic ladder for each narrative was designed DiscussionThe process of producing and receiving meaning, from the initial to the final meaning of the narrative, unfolds as meaning is generated right from the beginning when the subject's initial situation is identified, continuing through the subject's journey towards or away from the goal/object. Thus, multiple meanings can be considered for the structures of a narrative.Analyzing the semiotic squares of the narratives leads to the conclusion that this pattern only depicts the final meanings of each narrative based on the subject's final action or the fate of the semiotic agent. These meanings, on their own, are static and isolated, unable to fully display all the meanings produced by the narrative. However, the “semiotic ladder” pattern, which is designed by stacking several “semiotic squares,” can continuously and fluidly represent the narrative's meaning from its initial to final stages.In this study, the semiotic structure of the mythological and epic narratives of Iran, India, Greece, and Mesopotamia (Zahhak, Foroud, Ramayana, Odysseus, and Gilgamesh) was mapped using the semiotic ladder pattern, showcasing the structural similarities and differences of these narratives. ConclusionAfter analyzing the narratives of Zahhak, Foroud, Ramayana, Gilgamesh, and Odysseus, it appears that the semiotic ladder is a comprehensive model applicable to all literary genres, including epic and mythological narratives. It portrays the stages of meaning transformation in a narrative by following the subject's action trajectory. The longer the narrative and the more actions the subject undertakes in pursuit of the goal, the taller the semiotic ladder, with the taller ladder indicating the numerous meanings within the narrative's structure.Considering the semiotic structures of the analyzed narratives and their structural similarities and differences, it can be concluded that there is diversity in the way subjects achieve their goals and in how new meanings are produced in narratives. Each narrative, with its unique semiotic structure, reflects human experiences and the complexities of life. This diversity in narrative structures demonstrates their depth and intricacy. For example:Narratives that reach a final outcome or fail (such as Odysseus) emphasize the importance of struggle and effort to achieve a goal.Narratives that generate new meanings after reaching the goal (such as Zahhak) highlight the dynamic and ever-changing nature of life and its meanings.Narratives that achieve the goal from the beginning and then strive to maintain it (such as Foroud and Gilgamesh) stress the importance of preserving and stabilizing achievements.Narratives like Ramayana, which combine all three patterns, represent the complexity and multilayered nature of meanings in life, where goals and meanings shift over time, and each stage of the subject's journey adds a new meaning to the narrative.Research funding: Supported by “Iran National Science Foundation (INSF)- Code: 98029253”. ReferencesAssaf, D., Cohen, Y., Danesi, M., & Neuman, Y. (2015). Opposition theory and computational semiotics. Sign Systems Studies, 43(2/3), 159-172.Ferdowsi, A. (2012). Shahnameh (Based on the Moscow Edition). Edited by Yevgeny Eduardovich Bertels, 4th Edition, Tehran: Payam-e Edalat.Green, R. L. (2013). Greek Myths, translated by Abbas Aghajani, 6th Edition, Tehran: Soroush.Greimas, A. J. (1987a). De l'imperfection. Publisher: p. Fanlac.Greimas, A. J. (1987b). On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Greimas, A. J. (1988). Maupassant: The semiotics of text. Practical exercises. Tradução de Paul Perron (Semiotic Crossroads 1). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamin.Greimas, A. J., & Courtés, J. (1982). Semiotics and language: An analytical dictionary (Vol. 10). Indiana University Press.Greimas, A. J., Ricoeur, P., Perron, P., & Collins, F. (1989). On narrativity. New Literary History, 20(3), 551-562.Mahmoodi, M. A., & Savab, F. (2022). Narrative and Semiotic Structure of Literary Texts (Greimas' Narrative Semiotics), Zahedan: University of Sistan and Baluchestan.Mahmoodi, M. A., & Savab, F. (2023). Semiotic ladder: the schema of producing meanings in narrative. Semiotica, 2023(253), 51-70.Martin, B. & F. Ringham (2000). Dictionary of Semiotics. London and New York: Cassell.Mcquillan, M. (2002). The Narrative Reader. London and Newyork: Taylor & Francis e-Library.Nöth, W. (1990). Handbook of semiotics. Indiana University Press.Robichaud, D. (2002). Greimas' Semiotics and the Analysis of Organisational Action. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Rosenberg, D. (1999). World Mythology: An Anthology of the Great Myths and Epics. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Pub. Group.Saidova, R. A. (2020). semiotic square and binary opposition. theoretical & applied science, (2), 201-205.Savab, F. (2015). A Study of the Narrative Structure of Lyric Poems Based on Greimas’ Theory (Veis and Ramin, Khosrow and Shirin, Jamshid and Khorshid, Homay and Homayoun, Leyli and Majnun), Supervisor: Dr. Mohammad Ali Mahmoodi, PhD Dissertation in Persian Language and Literature. University of Sistan and Baluchestan.Savab, F., & Mahmoodi, M. A. (2015). Transcending Greimas' Semiotic Square and Ascending the Semiotic Ladder. Specialized Literary Criticism Quarterly, 8(31): 41-63.Valmiki. (1999). Ramayana, translated by Mohsen Abayi, Tehran: Alast Farda.
تبلیغات
