جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « relationship conflict » در نشریات گروه « ادبیات و زبان ها »

Semiotic is taken of the word "semion" and it is a fieldof knowledge that studies signs and their applications on the text. We can name it "semiondoctorian". In the studies on the semiology, linguists present the different theories about "semion". One of the theories is semiology on the basis of a couple of contrasts that search method to analyze. This method is a good opportunity to study the state of the meaning production on the way a relation on the semion system.
Gaston Bachelard (June 27, 1884 - October 16, 1962), French epistemologist and theorist of the imagination, who influenced key figures in the structuralism and literary criticism asserts that the truth can be discovered through discourse, representation, and delineation of words. From his point of view, substances and classical elements as constituents of material imagination are deeply dualistic. The dualism of images is stronger than a conflict of thoughts since to capture the whole spirit, the material element must arouse dualistic emotions in a human while creating somewhat of fixity and homogeneity in mind. According to Bachelard, this deals with relationships and requires somewhat of a division. Bachelard’s approach which often acts as a dualistic relationship is of the paramount importance in the context of imagination. These relationships such as life/death, light/darkness, Anima/Animus, water/ earth, wind/ fire, attempt/ comfort, etc. as pure signs are imaginable.
Based on this approach, three factors play a significant role in the semiotic analysis of textual significations: 1. Determination of semiotic-contrary components, 2. Determination of fixed and variable semantic deep structures, 3. Analysis of the signification-based relationship of these structures on collective memory network which results in a different reading of literary works particularly dramatic texts including Shahnameh. Here, two questions are posed to complete our theoretical 1. what does the collective memory of signs mean?
Primarily signs make sense due to the reference they give to other elements in a string or system. Collective memory is a concept relevant to a collection of data to deliver or receive messages.
2. On what basis are signification-based relationships defined?
Generally, this narrative utilizes three dualistic relationships (contrary, dialectical, synthetic) and significant relationships exist between human and non-human, culture and non-culture, human and nature, and nature and industry. Accordingly, structural components of text, contrast relationships and collective memory in analyzing signs are of the utmost importance. The findings resulted from the criticism of the selected narrative are as follows:The prevailing significant relationship in this story is of contrary and the rest of relationships act in a dialectical way to create a linear network of text.
Time and place, as the main basis for the emergence of signs, are effective in subjective and objective contexts.
Audiovisual signs, pictorial signs, and object, each with its related position in the story space, encompass a wide range of cultural significations such as identity, power, wealth, hegemony and intelligence in contrast with lack of identity, powerlessness, unintelligence and so on. Major fixed core signs: Iran (with a sign of high power, politics, and culture) / Touran (with a sign of powerlessness, chaos, and lack of high culture).
The major variable core signs are victory/ defeat and separation/alliance and the minor variables are mobility/immobility, motivation/mediation, forgiveness/ vengeance, lie/ disclosure of lie, reward/punishment, etc.
Last, it’s worth noting that regarding the regular network of collective memory, the main contrary relationship in this story is the opposition between culture and non- culture.