| چکیده انگلیسی مقاله |
Poets had used two important narration structures in narration systems to create an attractive narration – narrative and description. Theorists as Tomasheveskey, Bart and Genette considered contrast of these two structures from the perspective of text item and narrative. According to this view, every narration is the representation of an event or series of events that contain the time of text and the word. This paper analyzed the contrast of description and narrative with relying on the views of three theorists and answered this question that what type relationship is between description and narrative and the Jamie’s Leyly and Majnun system is considered as the base to better understanding of this relationship. In this system, descriptions that are used for characterization and atmosphere-creating are the free and static motif of text based on the Tomasheveskey view and become special index and informant according to the Bart view. According to theGenette view, description comprises of existence statements, so description of this system has a kind of ornamental and manifesting function.According to the categories of these three theories,description hasn’t any effect on the plot and in the narration – especially narration of Leyly and Majnun- leads to the formation of deceleration in narration. Keywords: Description; Narration Duration; Leyly and Majnun; Tomasheveskey; Genette. Introduction Description is a kind of narrator’s language skill in the literature for imagining and incarnation of experience and sometimes narrator’s inspiration during facing with the around world. The prominent poets of Persian poem had been used the description instrument for meeting different aims in their works. Our intended description in this study is not type because we can find the trace of type in all literal kinds. Difference between the descriptive poem as the type and the description absolutely depends upon the aim of the descriptive poem – expressing the miracle sense against the nature - while the aim of our intended description is the depiction of the festivity party, the depiction of the lover and the beloved one’s “external and internal” characteristics, the depiction of relationship between the lover and the beloved one, the depiction of love, the depiction of poet’s mood and his/her personality or……and has special function in the collections. Furthermore the vertical axis of the descriptions of storied collections with epical, lyrical and mystical topics which had been composed in the figure of Mathnavi (couple poems) has a strong link - according to it’s narration and story characteristics. For this reason we want to consider the answers of these questions with the aid of viewpoints of literal critics as Thomashefsky, Bart and Gent: 1.According to the viewpoints of these three theorists, what is the effect of description on the story and narration? 2.Where is the place of description on the classifications of these three theorists? 3.What is the effect of description on the Jami’s Leili and Maj noon collection? 2-Research Method Tis paper considers the contents of Jami’s Leili and Maj noon collection analytically and descriptively. The theoretic bases of study are selected with the reliance on the viewpoints of Thomashefsky, Bart and Gent in the description domain. At first, the descriptions are extracted that had been used in the intended collection. Then the function of descriptions are evaluated and analyzed according to the three pronounced viewpoints. 3-Discussion According to the Thomashefsky viewpoint, any description in the Jami’s Leili and Maj noon collection that has atmosphere and characterization function is counted among the free and static motife. Descriptions that are served in the athmosphere include the description of place (lawn, mountain, plain and …. ), the description of time (morning, night and ….), the description of lover’s mood (desperation, happiness resulting from the beloved one’s attainment, turmoil resulting from the separation, love and affection for the beloved and…..), the description of non-human (crow, palm, tornado, dog and….), the description of scene or arena (happiness of guests in the wedding, the death of Maj noon) and good reasone (the description of morning and night, fall). We consider special and informant indexes in the narrative viewpoint of Bart because this part of theory had grafted with the description i.e. any description that is used for atmosphere and characterization is counted as a special and informant index. According to the Bart theory that the description is counted as a special and informant index, part of this story which two families disagree with the marriage of Leili and Maj noon is considered a real function. Or in another place, the death of Maj noon is a real function because after this event Leili too become ill and passed away. In contrast, the descriptions that depict and evaluate the characters and their static dimensions are that very same index; for example the description of Leili’s beauties, Maj noon, status and dignity of Maj noon’s father, expressing the disappointments and lover hopes, calenture resulting from the separation and ….. all are included in this group. According to the viewpoint of Gent the description has three functions – ornamental (traditional eloquence), symbolic and explanatory (two last functions are used in the new texts for laying the ground) (Emami and Qasmipoor, 2008:145).When the poet depicts the beauties of Leili in 19 verses or in another place allocates the description to the suitor of Leili and a camleer man, such a descriptions have eloquence function because this kind of illustrations haven’t any effect on the plot and it is relevant to the surface of narration’s speech. But sometimes the aim of character or animal description has another function beside it’s eloquence and aesthetics dimension. In addition to the description of main characters and sometimes subordinate characters, poem in this collection depicts the animals that are related to the main characters or a special animal. These instances haven’t any effect on the story flow and plot but have function for making dignity sense and the magnificence of the character in the mind of story reader and eventually the characterization or making infelicity sense or luckiness. In fact this kind of descriptions usually have symbolic function in the narration, for example the description of Maj noon’s camel expresses his wealth. Crow is a lucky bird and after watching this bird happened a sweet event for Maj noon, in contrast the description of old woman in the way of Maj noon promises a terrible event.There is an inverse relationship between the description and the time. In fact the creator of literal work includes a static and timeless frame for characterization and atmosphere with inserting the description in his/her text during narration and thereby he/she can brings his/her text near the lyrical indexes and depicts his/her intended pictures in the mind of audience with the aim of conducting his/her intended effect to the audience.There is two kinds of statement in the speech or the superstructure of every narration. The first group includes statements or the statements about the acts and the incidents and and the second group includes statement about external specifications of characters, places and different things. The second group is considered among the descriptions. .In spite of viewpoint of literal critics who believe description hasn’t any effect on plot, it seems that some descriptions are necessary in a narrative text for the explanation of effect and cause relationships and in this basis the descriptions haven’t merely symbolic or ornamental function and in a way relates with the plot. For example before the entrance of poet to the story in the Leili and Maj noon collection, we face with the description of Maj noon’s dynasty and tribe and his father’s status; that all Arab and Ajam great men like him and he is a generous man and …..based on this, the existence of intended descriptions seems necessary in the narration. 4.Conclusion Thomashefsky put the description in the free and static index. Bart interprets the descriptions as a special and informant special index and Gent believes the description consists of essence all existing statements and has ornamental and symbolic or explanatory function. According to these theories, the descriptions haven’t any effect on the plot and the static dimension of text is narrative. So the description in the narrative texts only comprises the speech’s time but it can be found jointly in the narration of speech’s time and text’s time and for this reason the description leads to the negative acceleration of narration. As a result these two main structures of narration contrast with each other. Jami had paid attention to the use of description for composing fiction in the Leili and Maj noon collection. According to Thomashefsky theory, all descriptions that are used in the Leili and Maj noon collection – instrument for characterization and atmosphere – are among the free and static motifs. According to Bart theory, the descriptions that are used for characterization are among the special indexs and the descriptions that are used for atmosphere are among the informant indexs. For example the description of Leili and Maj noon’s beauties, the description of dignity and status of Maj noon’s father, expressing disappointments and hopes of lover, turmoil resulting from the separation, the description of lawn, the description of mountain and plain, the description of night and day, the description of fall and ….. are included in the group of special and informant indexs. The descriptions of this collection consist of essence existing statements and has a symbolic and ornamental function. For example the description about the Maj noon’s camel and the descriptions of crow, old woman and fall are included in the symbolic group instead the descriptions about the leili,s beauty has an ornamental function. On the other hand, this kind of descriptions lead to the negative acceleration and this is the resulting of hesitation in the narration. 5.References 1-Bameshki, Samira, Reporting Masnavi stores :Tehran, Hermes, 1391. 2-Barthes, Roland, Introduction to the structural analysis of Narrative, [Translation] Raqheb, M . Farhang, Saba, Tehran, 1387. 3 Barthes, Roland, Tzvetan, Todorov, Jerald Prince, Description on reporting. Translated by Hooshang Rahnama, Tehran Hermes, 1394. 4-Dehghani, Nahid, Analyzing speed of reparting the miadflow in Persian novels, the thesis of PH.D, Persian literature faculty Isfahan university, 1392. 5-Emami, Nasrollah, Qassemipoor, Qodrat, Encountering reporting and description in Nezames Haftpeykar: literature criticism, number 1, pages 162-145, Tehran, Bahar, 1387. 6-Heydari, Fahime, The structure and meaning analysis Soovashoon, by Simin daneshvar, the thesis for M.A, Persian literature faculty Isfahan university, 1389. 7-Jami, nooroldin Abdoll rahmanebn e Ahmad, Haft oorang, Jabolgha Dad Ali Shah, …,Tehran, Miras e Maktoob, 1378. 8-Jorkesh, Shapoor, Bootighay e sher e no, Tehran, ghoghnoos, 1383. 9-Martin,vallace, Recent theories of narration, translated by Shahba Mohamad, Tehran, Hermes, 1393. 10-Mastoor, Mostafa, The bases of short stores, Tehran, central publishers, 1379. 11-Manoochehri, koorosh, To analysis Qenae subjects national poems, the thesis of PH.D, Persian literature faculty Isfahan university, 1394. 12-Okhovat, Ahmad, Rules of story language: Isfahan, Farda, 1371. 13Peyghambarzade, Leila sadat, Mirhashemi, Morteza, To analysis free and bound motifs in Gonbad e siyah va Gnbad e meshkin, researches of literature, twelveth year, no9, pages 109-124, 1394. 14-Safa, zabiollah, The history of literature in Iran, the first cover Tehran, Tehran university, 1352. 15-Scholes, Robert, An introduction in literature structuralism: Translated by Farzane Taheri, Tehran, Agah, 1383. 16-Shafiei, Kadkani, Mohammad reza, Sovar e khiyal dar sher e farsi, Tehran, Agh, 1391. 17-Shafiun, saed, Sarapa is on of the Persian literature kinds, literary search, fall, no 770, pages 147-174, 1389. 18-Talaei, Molud, To analysis the bares in romantic poem in 10th and 11th centuries, The thesis for PH.D, Persian literature faculty Isfahan university, 1394. 19- Todorov, Tzvetan, Literature, Translated by Atefe Tahayi, Tehran, Dat, 1392. 20- Todorov, Tzvetan, poetique de la prose, Translated by Anooshiravan Ganjipoor, Tehran, Ney, 1388. 21-Zohrevand, saeid, Masoudi, Marziye, Rahimi, Mansoor, To analysis appearance of Leyli o Majnoon story, the research of Qenae literature, fall and winter, the twelveth year, no 23, pages 169-190, 1393. |