Journal of the stylistic of Persian poem and prose
volume Number 15، number In Volume 9، December 2022 ، issue Number 79

Critical discourse analysis of oppositional discourses in Shahname Ferdowsi

Mostafa Eslami Sanjbad , Homeira Zomorrodi (Author in Charge)

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: opposition has always been debated in Shahname, the greatest Iranian epic work. Considering its mythological nature, most of the studies in this literary work have focused on the opposition of good and evil forces. This point of view is so frequent in the studies of Shahname that all the characters of the stories are presented as the symbols of good and evil forces. In this research, contradiction in Shahname is considered by a completely different angle.

METHODOLOGY: our theoretical framework in the present article is critical discourse analysis. In critical approach, Identity is defined as the opposition of self-other relation. Based on this method, classification of self-other happens following the presence of oppositional discourses in the text.

FINDINGS: by analyzing stories of Shaname in critical view, we found that tension and conflict (whether internal or external) in the flow of stories occur as the the result of oppositional discourses in the narration and these discourses provide the ground for the construction of “self-other” or “we-us” relation. Also, as the mythological texts are symbolic in nature, by critical look on the narratives, new undiscovered aspects have revealed which were hidden underneath the stories.

CONCLUSION: considering the stories in critical view, we reached at some micro discourses that all of them can be placed under one macro discourse and that is deconstruction discourse versus adherence to structure. This means, the political-social system of ancient Iran with its manifestation in Shahname, has always been dependent on the former traditions and structures and any kind of deconstruction leads to conflict. Heros have always been loyal to the former structures and any change in the system would not be tolerable by them.

Keyword
opposition , self-other , critical discourse analysis , discourse

• Amuzgar, zh. (1992). Devils were not Devil first. Kelk, 30, pp 16-24.
• Amuzgar, zh. (2017). Language, culture and myth. 5th ed. Tehran: Mo’ein, p. 342.
• Aqagolzade, F. (2007). Critical Discourse Analysis and Literature. Adab pazhuhi, 1(1). pp. 17-28.
• Aqagolzade, F. (2015). Critical Discourse Analysis. 3rd ed. Tehran: Elmi Farhangi publication, p. 121.
• Bahar, M & Dadegi, F. (1990). Bondahesh. Tehran: Tus, p. 47.
• Bamberg, M., De Fina, A., & Schiffrin, D. (2011). Discourse and identity construction. In Handbook of identity theory and research. Springer, New York, NY. pp. 177-199.
• Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parlerveut dire (what speaking means), Paris: Fayard.
• Chaharmahali, M. (2016). Analysis of Binary Opposition in Jamshid, s tale based on Levi Strauss, Theory.
• David, O., & Bar-Tal, D. (2009). A sociopsychological conception of collective identity: The case of national identity as an example. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(4), pp. 354-379.
• Domhoff, N.W. (1978). The powers that be: process of rulling class domination in America. New York: Random House (vintage books)
• Dustkhah, J. (2002). Avesta, Heavenly epistle of Zoroastrian religion. Tehran: Morvarid.
• Fairclough, N & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse and Social interaction, (eds) by.T. Van Dijk, sage, P. 258-284.
• Fairclough, N. (1989). Language & Power. United States of America: Longman Group UK.
• Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change: Cambridge: polity press.
• Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis/Fairclough N. London: Lohgman.
• Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Psychology Press.
• Fairclough, N. L. (1985). Critical and descriptive goals in discourse analysis. Journal of pragmatics, 9(6), pp. 739-763.
• Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks, edited and translated by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith.
• Hall, S., Lumely, B. and Mclennan, G. (1977) Gramschi on ideology in center for contemporary cultural studies (eds) Politics and Ideology: Gramschi, pp. 45-46. London: Hutchinson.
• Herman, E.S. and Chomskey, N. (1988) Manufacturing consent: the political economy of mass media. New York: Pantheon books.
• Hosseini, R & Mohammadzade, A. (2006). Analysis of Opposition in Rostam and Esfandijar tale in Shahname based on Levi Strauss, s Oppostion Theory. Foreign language studies, 13, pp. 43-64.
• Jäger, S. (2004). Kritische Diskursanalyse. Eine Einführung, 4, 89.
• Kasrayi, M. (2007). Political idea of Ferdowsi. Political Science, 7, pp 213-234.
• Kazzazi, J. (1989). Of other kind. Tehran: Center publication, p.82.
• Kazzazi, J. (1997). Dream, Epic, Myth. Tehran: Center publication.
• Levi.Strauss, Claude. (1978). Myth and meaning. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Locke, T. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Moharrami, R & Mamizade, R. (2011). Oppositional Symbols of Good and Evil Forces in the Mythical Period of Shahname. Matnpazhuhi Adabi, 15(49), pp127-143.
• Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Routledge.
• Rajabi, M. (1999). Myth, Kelk, 12 (106). pp. 36-38.
• Refayi, R & Qavam, R. (2015). System of linguistic Oppositions, basic reason to form meaning in Fereydoon and Zahhak tale in Shahname. Epic literature studies, 15(20), pp. 57-71.
• Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 31-48). Routledge.
• Segal, R. (2007). Introduction to Myth: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies. In Myth: Critical Concepts in Literary and Cultural Studies (pp. 1-20). Routledge.
• Shahname Ferdowsi. (2014). Khaleqi Motlaq, J. Tehran: The Cemter of Great Islamic Encyclopedia.
• Tahmasbi, F. (2019). Opposition and Interaction with other based on Cultural Semiotics (from Kumars to Fereydoon), Epic literature studies, 2(28), pp. 255-277.
• Textual criticism of Persian Language, 11(41). Pp. 14-35.
• Van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Episodic models in discourse processing, in R. Horowitz and S.J. Samuels(eds) Comprehending oral and written language.pp. 161-196. New York: Academic Press.
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 1, 95-120.
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Studies in Critical Discourse, From Text Grammar to Critical Discourse Analysis, transltors: Izadi & etal, Edited by Mohajer & Nabavi, Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.
• Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as structure and process (Vol. 1). Sage.
• Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse analysis. In Critical discourse analysis. Palgrave Macmillan, London. pp. 1-32.
• Wodak, Ruth., & Reisigi, M. (2001). Discuorse and discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism, Routledge.