Analysis of Signs of Wandering in the Two Novels "Wandering lsland" and " Wandering Cameleer" based on the Theories of Griemas and Tarasti

Subject Areas : Persian Language & Literature

Fahime Golnar ¹ (PhD. Student. Department of Persian Language & Literature, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.)
Ahmad Zakeri ² (Associate Professor, Department of Persian Language & Literature, Karaj Branch, Islamic Azad University, Karaj, Iran.)

Received: 2021-04-25 Accepted : 2021-07-03 Published : 2021-10-23

Keywords: Wandering Island, Wandering Cameleer, Semiotics, Semantic hole, Wandering, Negative-Assertion system,

Abstract :

In wandering island and wandering cameleer, simin daneshvar confronts the audience with a discourse in which "action" is subjected to unusual circumstances.  In this situation, the actor is always confronted with feelings such as anxiety, wandering, fear, challenging himself, insecurity, escaping the past and feeling insecure and rejecting one situation into another. For him every situation is a semantic hole that requires a jump energy to pass through. In such a situation, the actor loses the power of any action and becomes an emotional subject that wanders between too states of staying and not staying, becoming and not being. In this essay examines the existential conditions of the two wandering island novels and the wandering cameleer in order to find out what factors interfere with the process of action and passage into the existential state. In this descriptive-analytical  study, this research has been attemped  with regard to Griemas and tarasti’s theories, we examine the signs and functions of wandering, the conditions of meaning production in the wandering island and wandering cameleer and shows how wandering through the negative-assertion process causes the novel’s first character to break from his personal ‘I’. The result of this rupture is self-recovery and abstract congnition of oneself and those around oneself, and this cognition causes the first character of the story to be in a positive state, which is self-knowledge and domination, and the  ‘I’  realizes and transcends the unit of its existence.

References:

احمدی، بابک (1392)، ساختار و تأویل متن، تهران: نشر مرکز، چاپ پانزدهم.

اسحاقیان، جواد (1393)، داستان شناخت ایران (نقد و بررسی آثار سیمین دانشور)، تهران: نشر نگاه.

بابک معین، مرتضی (1392)، معنا به مثابه تجربۀ زیسته (گذر از نشانه‌شناسی کلاسیک به نشانه‌شناسی با دورنمای پدیدارشناختی)، تهران: سخن.

پاینده، حسین (1381)، «سیمین دانشور: شهرزادی پسامدرن»، متن‌پژوهی ادبی، شمارۀ 15، صص 57-82.

دانشور، سیمین (1395)، جزیرۀ سرگردانی، تهران: خوارزمی، چاپ پنجم.

ــــــــــــــ (1380)، ساربان سرگردان، تهران: خوارزمی.

شعیری، حمیدرضا (1396)، تجزیه وتحلیل نشانه‌-معناشناختی گفتمان، تهران: سمت، چاپ ششم.

ـــــــــــــــــ(1395)، نشانه-‌معناشناسی ادبیات (نظریه و روش تحلیل گفتمان ادبی)، تهران: نشر دانشگاه تربیت  مدرس.

ــــــــــــــــــ؛ اسماعیلی، عصمت (1392)، «تحلیل نشانه-‌معناشناختی شعرباران»، ادب‌پژوهی، شمارۀ 25، سال هفتم، صص 59-90.

ــــــــــــــــــ؛ کریمی‌نژاد، سمیه (1391)، «تحلیل نظام بوشی گفتمان (بررسی موردی داستان داش آکل صادق هدایت)»، مطالعات زبان و ترجمه، شمارۀ 3، صص 24-47.

گریماس، آلژیر داس ژولین (1389)، نقصان معنا، ترجمۀ حمیدرضا شعیری، تهران: نشر علم.

میرصادقی، جمال (1394)، عناصر داستان، تهران: سخن، چاپ نهم.

یان، منفرد (1397) روایت شناسی (مبانی نظریۀ روایت)،ترجمۀ محمد راغب، تهران: ققنوس.

Ahmadi. B. (2013). Structure and interpretion of the text. Fifteen edition. Tehran:MARKAZ [in Persian[.

Babak Moein, M. (2014). signification as lived experience, the transition from classical semiotics to semiotics with phenomenological perspective. Tehran: SOKHAN [in Persian[.

Daneshvar, S. (2017). The wandering island. (5ed). Tehran: KHARAZMI [in Persian[.

----------------. (2002). The wandering cameleer. Tehran: KHARAZMI [in Persian[ .

Eshaghian, J. (2015). The story of knowing iran. Tehran: NEGAH [in Persian[ .

Greimas, A. (2011). Of imperfection. Tehran: ELM [in Persian[ .

Mirsadeghi, J. (2016). Story elements. (9ed). Tehran: SOKHAN [in

Payande,H. (2003). Simin Daneshvar: postmodern shahrzad. Matnpazhuhiye adabi. (15).57-82 [in Persian[ .

Persian[ .

Shaieri, H. (2018). Semio-semantic analysis of discourse. (6 ed). Tehran: SAMT [in Persian[.

-------, H. Esmaeili, E. Kanani, E. (2014). Semiotics analysis of rain poetry. Adabpazhuhi. 7(25). 59-90 [in Persian[ .

--------, H. Kariminezhad, S. (2013). Analysis of the existential systemof discourse,  case study story of hedayat. Motaleate zaban va tarjome. (3). 24-47 [in Persian[ .

------------. (2017). Semiotics of literature theories and practices of literary discourse regimes. Tehran: TARBIAT MODARES [in Persian[ .

Yan, M. (2019). Narrative science, foundations of narrative theory. Tehran: ghoghnus