نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری زبان و ادبیات فارسی دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران
2 استاد گروه زبان و ادبیات فارسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
3 دانشیار گروه زبان و ادبیات فارسی دانشگاه رازی، کرمانشاه، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
The present study has investigated the speech acts in the interrogative sentences in Salman Savoji's poetry in a descriptive-analytical method. The research findings show that there is a coherent link between Salman's language and his thought i.e. the poet uses language appropriate to his audiences’ position and social status. Salman has used the most questions in his expressive acts. First, he seeks to convince the audience and attract their participation and approval. Salman uses these questions to express his views and gain the approval of the person who is eulogized. Second, he seeks to exaggerate, highlight, and emphasize the content of the speech which corresponds to the texture of the ode, the descriptions, exaggerations and imaginative praises of a eulogy. To observe the didactic aspect of his poetry, and also to maintain the high dignity of the eulogized person, Salman, in the persuasive acts, avoids the direct asking of his request. Doing so, he lowers the obligatory and reprimanding connotation of his words resulting in the audience’s lack of willing to oppose him. Expressive acts usually have close and intertwined meanings. This conceptual affinity creates a vast network of intertwined concepts or "conceptual auras." Therefore it becomes possible to engage the audience's feelings in reading the text and strengthen the desired effect by reinforcing the emotional richness of the words. The speaker's words are explicit and unambiguous in commissive acts, so due to the multi-layered nature of literary texts, this act has little place in poetry.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Acheoa, J.E. (2017). "Searle’s Speech Act Theory: AIntegrative Appraisal". Department of European Languages. Faculty of Arts. Management and Social Sciences. Federal University. Birnin-kebbi. Nigeria. Vol. 2017. Issue. 1. Pp. 1-13.
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.
Botha, J.E. (1991). "The potential of speech act theoryfor New Testament exegesis: Some basic concepts". University of South Africa. South Africa. Vol. 47. No. 2. Pp. 277-293.
Cutting, j. (2002). Pragmatics and Discourse. London: Routledge.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meijers, a.w.m. (2007). "Collective Speech Acts". Dordrecht. vol 41. Pp. 93-110.
Miller, S. (2000). "Speech acts and conventions. School of Humanities and Social Sciences". Charles Sturt University. Wagga Wagga. Australia. Elsevier Science. Pp. 155-166.
Peregrin, J. (1998). "Linguistics and Philosophy". De Gruyter. vol. 24. No. 2-3. Pp. 1-31.
Searle. J.R. (1983). Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, Q. (2015). "Conventions and the Understanding of Speech Acts". The Philosophical Quarterly. Oxford University Press. Vol. 20. No. 79. Pp. 118-138.
Streeck, J. (1980). "Speech acts in interaction: Acritique of Searle". University of Berlin. West Germany. Vol. 3. Pp. 133-153.
Yule, G. (1996). Principles Of Progmatics. New York: Longman.
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله