کاربردهای زبانی-روایی جمع های قراردادی در داستان پردازی
آرشیو
چکیده
از صورت ضمیر اول شخص جمع همیشه معنای جمعی افاده نمی شود. ماحصل موقعیت هایی که این ضمیر به شکل مجازی برای ارجاع به اول شخص مفرد به کار می روند، پدید آمدنِ شبه -جمع ها است. این شبه -جمع ها که به ضمیر "ما" حالتی قراردادی می دهند در پرداخت روایی کاربردهای گوناگونی دارند. به شکل عمده می توان بر مبنای اتّکای ارجاعیِ ضمیر جمع به درون یا بیرون متن، آن را به دو دسته "انحصاری" و "فراگیر" تقسیم کرد. گونه های شاخص "ما"ی منحصر، جز کاربرد صورت متواضعانه آن به صورت عمومی، سه شکل های "ملوکانه"، "صوفیانه" و "مؤلفانه" دارد که تشکیل هر یک تابع زمینه های ذهنی-اجتماعی منحصر به فردی است و در پرداخت های روایی به انواع گوناگونی چون شخصیت پردازی و ایجاد سبک روایی از آن ها بهره برده می شود. از سوی دیگر "جمع عالمانه" صورتی از دسته فراگیر است که امروزه در داستان نویسی به عنوان تمهیدی برای بازنمایی از آن بهره برده می شود و ظرفیت های جالب توجهی به روایت می افزاید. پژوهش حاضر تلاش می کند زمینه های ذکر شده را با استفاده از پارادایم های مترتبی چون روان شناسی و جامعه شناسی بکاود و سپس ظرفیت های روایی ذکرشده را با استفاده از نمونه های داستانی معاصر تبیین کند.The Linguistic-Narrative Applications of Conventional Plurals in Storytelling
The modern concept of the story is considered a relatively new structural innovation. However, narrative elements have always been present in various forms of traditional tales and ancient narratives. These elements often reflect capacities that storytelling borrows from existing structures within everyday language. For example, the structural resemblance between sentence syntax and plot composition illustrates how linguistic frameworks influence narrative design. Another noteworthy example is the use of pronouns to create narrative suspense or ambiguity. In this way, linguistic patterns from both historical and contemporary contexts can provide the foundation for storytelling. This study focuses on linguistic patterns, particularly those derived from spoken language, which have undergone functional transformations and are now employed in modern storytelling. These patterns, originally serving communicative purposes in oral traditions, highlight the adaptability of language and its evolving narrative roles. To illustrate the narrative potential of these linguistic features, it is essential first to investigate their origins and initial applications. Understanding how these patterns were historically employed helps trace their evolution into contemporary usage. The study also examines how these patterns differ in their application across modern texts, shedding light on the changes they have undergone. For better clarity, the linguistic patterns discussed are categorized systematically, and each category is paired with contemporary narrative examples. These examples illustrate the practical manifestations of these patterns in modern storytelling. By highlighting these transformations, the study demonstrates how linguistic conventions adapt to meet the demands of evolving narrative forms, enriching our understanding of the interplay between language and storytelling across time and contexts.
Introduction
The plural first-person pronoun does not always convey a collective meaning. Instances where this pronoun is metaphorically used to refer to a singular first person result in the formation of pseudo-plurals. These pseudo-plurals, which lend a conventional aspect to the pronoun “we,” serve various narrative functions. Broadly, based on the referential reliance of the plural pronoun either within or outside the text, it can be categorized into two types: exclusive and inclusive. The primary forms of the exclusive “we,” apart from its general usage as a humble form, include three distinct types: Royal, Sufi, and Authorial. In the humble form, the exclusive “we” is used as a plural first-person pronoun to refer to oneself out of respect for the audience. This usage is evident in the tone of fictional characters. Conversely, the Royal plural is a more rare application of the exclusive plural pronoun, characterized by its emphasis on self-aggrandizement. In this case, the singular speaker uses the plural pronoun to elevate and honor themselves. Historically, this usage has been less common due to its restriction to individuals holding high governmental positions or belonging to aristocratic families. On the other hand, the "Academic" plural represents an inclusive category in which the author considers themselves in alignment with the audience. This inclusive narrator constructs a discursive position that implies the existence of at least two narrative levels, one of which includes the narrator and “the other.” If “the other” refers to an entity outside the story, the resulting situation is termed Academic plural in this study. The Academic plural is a key subset of the inclusive narrator, reflecting the narrator’s knowledge and access to the story’s data. In other words, the narrator’s omniscience suggests a narrative authority that is well-suited to this form. This type of plural is employed in various ways, creating a platform for certain narrative forms. It constitutes a rhetorical strategy widely used in classical literature, where the narrator actively intervened in the text.
Literature Review
Nastaran Shahbazi and Hossein Bayat (2020), in their article titled “‘We’ Narrator Linguistic Potentials: First-person Plural Practicality in Narration”, examine the functional components of the logical definition of the first-person plural pronoun in storytelling. Mehrdad Naghzguy-Kohan (2017), in his article “The Formation of New First- and Second-Person Pronouns in Modern Persian from a Grammaticalization Perspective”, explores various forms of Persian pseudo-plurals under the subsection “Pseudo-Pluralization,” providing textual examples from Persian literature. Hossein Safi Piralujeh (2013), in his article “Explaining Boundary-Crossing in Modern Persian Fiction”, touches on a type of we-narration discussed in the present study, namely the scholarly plural, analyzing it from a narratological perspective. The same author, in his earlier work “Narrative Transformation in Folktales and Modern Persian Fiction” (2012), examines the Authorial plural discussed in the current study, focusing on its narrative applications. Nader Jahangiri, in his 1999 article “Forms of Respect, Dominance, and Solidarity in Contemporary Persian”, dedicates a section to the use of various types of conventional plurals and provides examples from spoken Persian. In addition to these limited studies, which sporadically touch on the subject under consideration, other related research has been utilized where relevant. However, no study with a similar alignment and focus on the present issue has been identified.
Methodology
By adopting a narratological framework and revisiting the underlying structures that gave rise to certain types of exclusive plurals, it becomes apparent that the assumption of their singular reference is not always definitive. The conventional nature of some of these forms might warrant reevaluation. In this regard, a hybrid approach can be utilized to investigate the underlying patterns. The sociological domain proves useful for examining contexts related to the regal plural, while the psychological domain aids in explaining the contexts of the Sufi plural. All conclusions stem from an analysis of the proposed concepts through the lens of the pragmatics of the first-person plural pronoun in Persian, within the broader framework of narratological studies. In this analytical study, textual samples from the corpus of contemporary literature, with a focus on fiction, are selected and their contextual foundations are individually examined. Using layered paradigms, such as psychology and sociology, this study aims to elucidate the multifaceted dimensions of the issue.
Discussion
The primary aim of this study is to demonstrate the impact of exclusive and inclusive first-person plural narrators on narrative elements. It appears that the function of the inclusive plural narrator introduces a distinct narrative level within the story, as the narrator aligns themselves with an extratextual audience. This technique, rooted in oral discourse traditions, has been integrated into written narratives, distinguishing the narrator’s role from other forms. Specifically, this research seeks to explore the mechanisms through which these forms, prevalent in classical Persian literature, employed the plural pronoun instead of the singular. Furthermore, it examines whether pseudo-plurals have potential applicability in contemporary fictional literature.
Conclusion
Unlike authentic we-narratives, which reflect the modern era’s inclination toward collectivism, conventional we-narratives have a long-standing history in literature and appear across various narrative genres. Specifically, four types of these narratives, with varying frequencies and adapted forms, are also present in contemporary fiction. Based on the exclusive/inclusive framework, three of these types (Royal we, Sufi we, and Authorial we) belong to the exclusive category, while one (Academic we) falls into the inclusive category. The Royal we and Sufi we originate from specific characters and contexts. Even today, these types enhance or strengthen character development, atmosphere, and narrative style in stories. The third type, the Authorial we, as its name suggests, refers to the author’s presence in the text, presenting themselves as “we.” This narrator may be one of the characters in the story who acknowledges their authorial role. Although this type is more common in academic writing, it can also be employed in fiction when the narrator seeks to impart an archaic tone to the narrative. The Authorial we can signify humility and adherence to a tradition or specific ideology, indicating the author’s alignment with a particular intellectual or cultural lineage. This is especially relevant in texts with didactic elements, where the genre and thematic markers allow interpretations of the author’s affiliations. For example, in mystical instructional texts, the author’s use of “we” may signify adherence to a particular school of thought or spiritual tradition. Finally, the Academic we represents an omniscient narrator who addresses the audience throughout the narrative, establishing a shared hypothetical space. This type of we-narrator resembles the oral storytelling tradition, assuming the role of a storyteller. By breaking narrative boundaries, it creates a dual structure: one level where the narrator is present and another comprising the narrated story itself.
تبلیغات
