Speech acts of female animal characters in the female animal of Kalila and Dimna and Marzban-nameh based on John Searle's theory

Document Type : Grammatical-rhetorical

Authors

1 Associate Professor of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature , Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.

2 PhD in Persian Language and Literature , Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.

10.22091/jls.2026.15329.1784

Abstract

The use of animal characters is a creative and educational method that has been used in most ancient Persian tales. Animals serve as character types to represent different classes and groups in society, including men and women. The most important part of the tales, namely the dialogue between the characters, is purposeful, and by analyzing them, information about the processing of these characters can be obtained. In the tales of Kalileh and Demneh and Marzban Nameh, one can observe the dialogue between male and female animals, which are human parables. This article emphasizes tales from the two books Kalileh and Demneh and Marzban Nameh, in which female animals play a central role. By examining the sentences of the dialogues based on Searle's theory of language acts, it was concluded that the speech of female animal characters differs in certain aspects. Female animals are lions, ducks, monkeys, ravens, partridges, and mice. The social class of these allegorical animals causes differences in their use of language. Analysis of the samples shows that this difference exists both in the type of sentences (reporting, imperative, and prohibition) and in the type of linguistic act. Declarative act has the highest frequency among the acts, and persuasive act is in second place. Ordinary women use persuasive act more and powerful women use declarative act more in speech.
Introduction
In literary works, including allegorical works, as in the real world, women are rarely mentioned. The roles that female animals play in fables include wife, daughter, and mother. Of these three roles, the role of mother is common in both political and social fables. Dialogue is one of the important elements of the story that, in addition to conveying the message in the primary layer, also conveys the second and hidden layer to the audience. The question is whether these female allegorical characters create a difference in their narrative role by using words. And which language acts do they use?
Materials and Methods
The method is that the stories of these two books, Kalileh and Demneh and Marzban Nameh, were studied and nine stories were produced and examined with the focus on female animals. The stories include Duck and Fox, Baby Crow with Crow, Mouse and Snake, azadchehr va Ira from the books of Marzban Nameh and the stories of Lion and Cow, Lion and Jackal, seagull and Sea Advocate, Monkey and Bakhe, Mother's lion and Shooting from the book Kalileh and Demneh. The sentences of the characters were examined with Searle's theory. He divides speech acts in his intention act into five groups: declarative, persuasive, emotional, declarative and divisive.
Research Findings
Women are portrayed in two opposite poles in terms of personality traits: some women are far-sighted, resourceful and wise. Others are naive or clever and blunt. The roles they play also include social and political roles. From their conversations and linguistic actions, it is clear that female animals in the political role are conscious and resourceful mothers who manage events with wisdom; they do not get confused and confused; they try to advise their children indirectly. Female animals, who reflect middle-class women, are in the role of an ordinary mother or wife or daughter. From her verbal actions in conversations with other characters, it is clear that she is concerned about protecting her husband and children. This type of women is weak and impatient and obedient to religious and jurisprudential orders, whether by hire or desire.
Discussion of Results and conclusion
Although in the past we have been dealing with more types, linguistic identification occurs both in the superficial layers and in secondary meanings, and unconsciously creates specific characteristics for the characters. This difference is also in the type of sentences (report, imperative, and prohibition) and also in the type of their linguistic actions.
The results show that powerful women are present in fewer stories than middle-level women, but have a higher frequency of sentences. They help resolve political crises with their rational and logical attitude. Therefore, their language act is declarative. They express emotions and feelings less. The powerful always use statements with secondary meanings to gain more influence. In accordance with the requirements of female emotions and the role of motherhood, in some cases her emotions are also expressed. Middle-class female animals are present in more stories. Their concern is to protect the family and children; therefore, their speech is more emotional. These women are more obedient and obedience to the laws of Sharia is institutionalized in their minds. Compared to powerful women, they use declarative actions much less and more emotional, persuasive, and commitment actions. The social and political situation in which these stories are narrated has a direct effect on how women reflect.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

منابع  

استرول، اورام. (1392). فلسفۀ تحلیلی در قرن بیستم. ترجمۀ فریدون فاطمی. تهران: مرکز.
امامی، سعید و صحرایی، قاسم. (1402). «بررسی رابطة طبقة اجتماعی با اخلاق زنان در حکایات کلیله‌ودمنه و مرزبان‌نامه». مجلۀ پژوهش‌های نوین ادبی. شمارۀ 1. صص: 153ـ139.
بی‌من، ویلیام. (1400). زبان، منزلت، قدرت در ایران. ترجمۀ رضا مقدم­کیا. تهران: نی.
پایا، علی. (1383). فلسفۀ تحلیلی، مسائل و چشم‌اندازها. تهران: طرح نو.
پورنامداریان، تقی. (1391). رمز و داستان‌های رمزی در ادب فارسی. تهران: فرهنگ معاصر.
تیموری، سمیرا؛ کزازی، میرجلال‌الدین و بیک‌زاده، خلیل. (1400). «نقد و تحلیل کنش‌های گفتاری جملات پرسشی در قصاید سلمان ساوجی». پژوهش‌های دستوری و بلاغی. شمارۀ 20. صص: 348ـ317.
حیدری، علی. (1385). سیمای زن در کلیله‌ودمنه نصرالله منشی. «علوم انسانی». شمارۀ 57ـ56. صص: 65ـ51.
 خسروی، نوشین. (1396). بررسی کنش‌های گفتاری در دو رمان فارسی «چراغ‌ها را من خاموش می‌کنم» و «سمفونی مردگان» براساس نظرات آستین (1963) و سرل (1969). پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. رشتۀ زبان­شناسی همگانی. دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی. دانشگاه ایلام.
رضوانی‌نیا، اسماعیل. (1397). نقد و تحلیل درون‌مایه و ساختار حکایت‌های تمثیلی (نمایشی) در ادب فارسی در قرن ۶ و ۷ بر پایۀکلیله‌ودمنه، سمک عیار، چهارمقاله، مرزبان‌نامه و گلستان سعدی. رسالۀ دکتری. دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی. سبزوار.
زرقانی، سیدمهدی و اخلاقی، الهام. (1391). «تحلیل ژانر شطح بر اساس نظریه کنش گفتار». ادب عرفانی دانشگاه الزهرا. شمارۀ 6. صص: 80ـ61.  
سرل، جان. آر. (1380). نگرش‌های نوین در فلسفه، فلسفۀ تحلیلی. ترجمۀ محمد سعیدی‌مهر. قم: مؤسسۀ فرهنگی طه. ­
سرل، جان. آر. (1385). افعال گفتاری جستاری در فلسفۀ زبان. ترجمۀ علی عبداللهی. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم و فرهنگ اسلامی.
سرل، جان. آر. (1387). فلسفۀ ذهن. ترجمۀ محسن ایزدی. تهران: نوید.
سمائی، زهرا؛ عرفانی، محمدجواد و بساک، حسن. (1398). «تحلیل متن نامۀامیر مسعود به آلتونتاش خوارزمشاه از تاریخ بیهقی براساس نظریة کنش گفتارِ جان راجرز سرل». کاوش‌نامه زبان و ادبیات فارسی. شمارۀ 43. صص: 184-159.
صفوی، کوروش. (1387). فرهنگ توصیفی معناشناسی. تهران: فرهنگ معاصر.
عبداللهی، منیژه. (1381). فرهنگ‌نامۀ جانوران. تهران: پژوهنده.
عبداللهیان، حمید و باقری، علی­اصغر. (1۳94). «کنش‌های گفتاری پنج‌گانه در شعر «صدای پای آب» سپهری». مجلۀ زبان و ادبیات فارسی. شمارۀ 82. صص: 285-241.
کراچی، روح‌انگیز. (1395). «چگونگی تأثیر جنسیت بر ادبیات». زن در فرهنگ و هنر. شمارۀ 2. صص: 242-223.
مکاریک، ایرما. (1393). دانش‌نامۀ نظریه‌های ادبی معاصر. ترجمۀ مهران مهاجر و محمد نبوی. تهران: آگه.
ملایی، ماه نظر؛ تاج‌نیا، کیمیا و اصفهانی عمران، نعمت. (1400). «تحلیل گفتار شخصیت‌های زن و مرد در پادشاهی گشتاسب براساس نظریۀ گفتار سرل». جستارنامۀ ادبیات تطبیقی. شمارۀ 17. صص: 81ـ60.
ملکی‌سروستانی، فرناز؛ جوکاری، مهناز و روحانی، علی (1397). «بازنمایی اجتماعی کنش‌های گفتاری زنان (مورد مطالعه: رمان‌های هوشنگ مرادی کرمانی)». فصلنامۀ پژوهشی زن و جامعه. شمارۀ 1. صص: 80ـ61.
منشی، نصرالله. (1387). کلیله‌ودمنه. به تصحیح مجتبی مینوی و زهرا کشاورز. چاپ سوم. تهران: بهزاد.
میرصادقی، جمال. (1395). عناصر داستان. تهران: سخن.
نظام الملک. (1340). سیاست‌نامه. تهران: بنگاه نشر و ترجمه.
نیازی، سعیده و ساکی انتظامی، سعیده. (1403). «ساختارهای تمثیلی و انواع آن در کلیله‌ودمنه». تحقیقات تمثیلی در زبان و ادب فارسی». شمارۀ 60. صص: 75ـ56.
وبر، ماکس. (1367). مفاهیم اساسی در جامعه‌شناسی. ترجمۀ احمد صدراتی. تهران: نشر مرکز.
Barber, A & Stainton Robert J. (2010). Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language & Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Richards, J & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary O‌f Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. London: Longman.
Searle. J. R. (1999) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, New York and Melbourne.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford university press.

References

Abdollahi, M. (2002). Farhang-nameh-ye Janavaran. Tehran: Pazhouhandeh. [In Persian]
Abdollahian, H & Bagheri, A.A. (2015). Konsh-haye Goftari-ye Panjganeh dar She'r-e "Sedaye Pay-e Ab" Sepehri. Majalleh-ye Zaban va Adabiyat-e Farsi, 82, 241-285. [In Persian]
Barber, A & Stainton Robert J. (2010). Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language & Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Beeman, W.O. (2021). Zaban, Manzelat, Qodrat dar Iran. Tarjome-ye Reza Moghaddam Kia. Tehran: Ney. [In Persian]
Emami, S & Sahraei, Q. (2024). Barrasi-ye Rabeteh-ye Tabaqeh-ye Ejtema'i ba Akhlaq-e Zanan dar Hekayat-e Kalila va Dimna va Marzban-nameh. Majalleh-ye Pazhouhesh-haye Novin-e Adabi, 1, 139-153. [In Persian]
Heydari, A. (2006). Sima-ye Zan dar Kalila va Dimna-ye Nasrollah Monshi. Olum-e Ensani, 56-57, 51-65. [In Persian]
Karachi, R. (2016). Chegunegi-ye Tasir-e Jensiyat bar Adabiyat. Zan dar Farhang va Honar, 2, 223-242. [In Persian]
Khosravi, N. (2017). Barrasi-ye Konsh-haye Goftari dar Do Roman-e Farsi "Cheragh-ha ra Man Khamoosh Mikonam" va "Symphony-ye Mordegan" bar Asas-e Nazarat-e Austin (1963) va Searle (1969). Payan-nameh-ye Karshenasi-ye Arshad, Reshteh-ye Zaban-shenasi-ye Homgani, Daneshgah-e Ilam. [In Persian]
Searle. J. R. (1999) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, New York and Melbourne.
Makaryk, I.R. (2014). Danesh-nameh-ye Nazariyeh-haye Adabi-ye Mo'aser. Tarjome-ye Mehran Mohajer va Mohammad Nabavi. Chap-e Panjom. Tehran: Agah. [In Persian]
Malaei, M.N & Tajnia, K & Esfahani Omran, N. (2021). Tahlil-e Goftar-e Shakhsiyat-haye Zan va Mard dar Padshahi-ye Goshtasp bar Asas-e Nazariyeh-ye Goftar-e Searle. Jostar-namehye Adabiyat-e Tatbiqi, 17, 60-81. [In Persian]
Maleki-Servestani, F & Jokari, M & Rouhani, A. (2018). Baznamayi-ye Ejtema'i-ye Konsh-haye  Goftari-ye Zanan (Mored-e Motale'eh: Roman-haye Hooshang Moradi Kermani). Faslnameh-ye Pazhouheshi-ye Zan va Jame'eh, 1, 61-80. [In Persian]
Mirsadeghi, J. (2016). Anaser-e Dastan. Tehran: Sokhan. [In Persian]
Monshi, N. (2008). Kalila va Dimna. Be Tashih-e Mojtaba Minovi va Zahra Keshavarz. Chap-e Sevvom. Tehran: Behzad. [In Persian]
Nezam al-Molk. (1961). Siyasat-nameh. Tehran: Bongah-e Nashr va Tarjomeh. [In Persian]
Niazi, S & Saki Entezami, S. (2024). Sakhtar-haye Tamsili va Anva'-e An dar Kalila va Dimna. Tahghighat-e Tamsili dar Zaban va Adab-e Farsi, 60, 56-75. [In Persian]
Paya, A. (2004). Falsafeh-ye Tahlili: Masa'el va Cheshm-andazha. Tehran: Tarh-e Now. [In Persian]
Pournamdarian, T. (2012). Ramz va Dastan-haye Ramzi dar Adab-e Farsi. Tehran: Farhang-e Mo'aser. [In Persian]
Rezvani-Nia, E. (2018). Naqd va Tahlil-e Darun-mayeh va Sakhtar-e Hekayat-haye Tamsili (Namayeshi) dar Adab-e Farsi dar Qarn-haye 6 va 7 bar Payeh-ye Kalila va Dimna, Samak-e Ayyar, Chahar Maqaleh, Marzban-nameh va Golestan-e Sa'di. Resaleh-ye Doktora. Daneshgah-e Azad-e Eslami, Sabzevar. [In Persian]
Richards, J & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman Dictionary O‌f Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. London: Longman.
Safavi, K. (2008). Farhang-e Towsifi-ye Ma'nashenasi. Chap-e Chaharom. Tehran: Farhang-e Mo'aser. [In Persian]
Samaei, Z & Erfani, M.J & Basak, H. (2019). Tahlil-e Matn-e Nameh-ye Amir Mas'ud be Altuntash-e Khwarazmshah az Tarikh-e Beyhaqi bar Asas-e Nazariyeh-ye Konsh-e Goftar-e John Rogers Searle. Kavosh-nameh-ye Zaban va Adabiyat-e Farsi, 43, 159-184. [In Persian]
Searle, J.R. (2001). Negaresh-haye Novin dar Falsafeh: Falsafeh-ye Tahlili. Tarjome-ye Mohammad Saeidi-Mehr. Qom: Mo'asseseh-ye Farhangi-ye Taha. [In Persian]
Searle, J.R. (2006). Af'al-e Goftari: Jostari dar Falsafeh-ye Zaban. Tarjome-ye Ali Abdollahi. Tehran: Pazhouheshgah-e Olum va Farhang-e Eslami. [In Persian]
Searle, J.R. (2008). Falsafeh-ye Zehn. Tarjome-ye Mohsen Izadi. Tehran: Navid. [In Persian]
Searle. J. R. (1999) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, New York and Melbourne.
Stroll, A. (2013). Falsafeh-ye Tahlili dar Qarn-e Bistom. Tarjome-ye Fereydoun Fatemi. Tehran: Markaz. [In Persian]
Teymouri, S & Kazzazi, M.J & Bikzadeh, K. (2021). Naqd va Tahlil-e Konsh-haye Goftari-ye Jomalat-e Porseshi dar Qasa'ed-e Salman Saveji. Pazhouhesh-haye Dastouri va Balaghi, 20, 317-348. [In Persian]
Weber, M. (1988). Mafahim-e Asasi dar Jame'eh-shenasi. Tarjome-ye Ahmad Sadrati. Tehran: Nashr-e Markaz. [In Persian]
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford university press.
Zarghani, S.M & Akhlaghi, E. (2012). Tahlil-e Zhanr-e Shath bar Asas-e Nazariyeh-ye Konsh-e Goftar. Adab-e Erfani-ye Daneshgah-e Alzahra, 6, 61-80. [In Persian]
 
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Rhetoric and Grammar Studies
Volume 16, Issue 29
March 2026
Pages 102-118

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics