جناس نما (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
در مطالعه متون ادبی گاه با واژه هایی مواجه می شویم که در شکل ظاهری خود مشابه انواعی از جناس هستند، اما چون تمام ویژگی های جناس را ندارند، نمی توان آن ها را ذیل این صنعت قرار داد و از فروع جناس برشمرد. از طرفی این واژه ها در شکل غیرظاهری خود مشابه «تکرار» هستند، اما باز به دلیل نداشتن برخی از ویژگی های صنعت تکرار، نمی توان آن ها را جزو این صنعت ادبی دانست. نمود دووجهی این واژه ها اگرچه گمان حضور صنایع جناس و تکرار را برای مخاطب ایجاد می کند، در حقیقت ظهور هیچ یک از آن ها را محقّق نکرده است. به عبارت دیگر، این واژه های دوگانی که به مثابه ارکان جناس یا تکرار مقابل یکدیگر می ایستند، نه جناس هستند و نه تکرار. هدف نگارندگان از این پژوهش، بررسی ارتباط این نوع واژه ها با یکدیگر است و این که بنا به چه دلایلی این واژه ها، باوجودِ داشتن شباهت بسیار به جناس و تکرار، نمی توانند ذیل این دو صنعت قرار بگیرند؛ همچنین به دلیل شناسایی بهتر، عنوانی برای این جفت واژه های سرگردان تعریف می کنند. روش پژوهش در این مقاله کتابخانه ای و مبتنی بر تحلیل داده هاست و این داده ها از اسناد و متون استخراج شده اند. نتایج حاصل از تحلیل داده ها نشان می دهد که شاعران گاه بنابر ضرورت هایی از تکرار واژه ها در ابیات پرهیز کرده و با شگردهای متنوعی شکل های دیگر همان واژه را در بیت به خدمت می گرفته اند که این استخدام دو شکل از یک واژه، سبب بروز جناس نما شده است.Pseudo-Paronomasia
In the study of literary texts, one sometimes encounters words that, in their outward form, resemble certain types of paronomasia (jinas). However, since they do not fulfill all the required conditions of paronomasia, they cannot be classified under this rhetorical device or considered among its subcategories. On the other hand, in their non-visual or underlying form, these words also resemble another rhetorical figure in badīʿ, namely repetition; yet again, because they lack some of the defining criteria of repetition, they cannot be subsumed under that category either. The dual manifestation of these words may create the impression of the presence of paronomasia or repetition for the reader; nevertheless, in reality, neither device is fully realized. In other words, these paired words, which stand opposite one another as if they were the structural elements of paronomasia or repetition, are in fact neither paronomasia nor repetition. In this study, the authors examine the relationship between such word pairs and explain the reasons why, despite their strong resemblance to paronomasia and repetition, they cannot be classified under either rhetorical device. For clearer identification, they also propose a specific term for these ambiguous word pairs. The research method adopted in this study is library-based and relies on data analysis, with data extracted from documents and literary texts. The results of the analysis indicate that, at times, men of letters deliberately avoided direct word repetition in poetic verses due to stylistic necessities, instead employing different forms of the same word within a single verse. The use of two forms of a single word in this manner ultimately gives rise to what is termed pseudo-paronomasia. Keywords: Pseudo-paronomasia, Paronomasia, Repetition, Rhetorical Device, Badīʿ. Introduction Paronomasia (pun) and repetition are two frequently occurring badīʿ devices in literary texts and, within traditional classifications of badīʿ, are regarded as branches of verbal ornamentation. The formation and application of each device are governed by specific conditions and rules; the absence of any of these conditions compromises the integrity of the device and renders it invalid. The present study focuses precisely on such partial deficiencies and the resulting disruption in the full realization of the two devices—paronomasia and repetition—which may create the mistaken impression that a paronomasia has been formed on a formal level, or that repetition has been achieved on a semantic level. In reality, however, neither device is genuinely realized. Instead, such word pairs require a distinct designation, so that readers—made aware of both their similarities to and differences from paronomasia and repetition—can correctly identify them and avoid misclassification. Materials and Methods The research methodology adopted in this study is descriptive–analytical, grounded in data analysis and argumentative reasoning. Initially, by consulting classical and modern badīʿ treatises in Arabic and Persian, the study presents established definitions of paronomasia and repetition in order to recall their conceptual foundations and provide a theoretical framework for the analysis. Subsequently, the proposed designation—pseudo-paronomasia—is defined and explicated. The study then examines selected textual evidence, analyzes representative examples, and finally presents its findings and conclusions. Research Findings The findings of this study demonstrate that certain word pairs in literary texts exhibit a distinctive dual relationship: formally—both phonologically and orthographically—they closely resemble the rhetorical device of paronomasia, while semantically they do not display the semantic divergence required for paronomasia and instead resemble repetition. This formal resemblance often leads readers to misidentify such word pairs as instances of paronomasia. To prevent this confusion, these word pairs are designa
تبلیغات
