Discourse analysis

This article aims to indicate how Akhavān-Sāles- the greatest defender of Nimāei poetry- introduced Nimāei poetry as the superior poetry and norm against the rival and sometimes contradictory poetic currents of his period. Our approach is based on the theory of discourse analysis by Laclau and Mouffe. By analyzing how discourses are articulated in literary works, we examine the influence of broader social, political, and cultural elements on the creation and reception of literature. This approach will enrich our understanding of critical literary works and demonstrate the power of interdisciplinary research to provide a deeper understanding of the social and political contexts that influence literary texts. The results show that Akhavān, with his mastery and sufficient knowledge of Persian poetry and a tendency towards socially committed literature, deconstructed and rejected other poetic discourses by expressing their structural (aesthetics) and content flaws. By introducing Nimā’s method as a mythical approach, free from other poetic discourses’ defects and shortcomings, Akhavān endeavored to convince Nimā’s opponents and revealed the superiority of his poetic style and its distinction from other poetic currents. Akhavān’s embracing of classical poetry and thought and his attempt to adapt the intellectual and formal themes and roots of Nimā’s innovations with classical poetry’s style is the secret of his success in reconciling the traditional and modern thought in the world of poetry.

Israel’s foreign policy at times diverges from prevailing realist expectations, specifically rational considerations and prudence. This article argues that this is the result of what Ernst Cassirer calls mythical thought or what can be called a myth-based discourse that constructs the mindset of policy makers and has made the emergence of non-realist elements in Israel’s foreign policy possible. In this discourse, quantity, quality, similarity, space, and time acquire specific characteristics and, in the field of foreign policy, this primarily leads to maximalist aspirations, volunteerism, reactiveness, lack of proportionality between capabilities and actions, and at times refraining from diplomatic engagements. However, we encounter a state's identity as a modern ruling state which, to gain international recognition and acceptability, must abide by the norms and laws that define statehood. On the other hand, we face an identity stemming from a mythical discourse, encompassing non-modern, irrational elements and self-definitions based on rules that often contradict legal discourse. Relying on discourse analysis, the texts produced by Israeli foreign policymakers are analyzed to show how this specific way of thinking has made non-realist elements in Israeli foreign policy possible.

Iranian exceptionalism has been a major factor in preventing rapprochement between the US and Iran. There are two major factions within the foreign policy establishment of the Islamic Republic representing “reconciliation discourse” and “resistance discourse”. These two can be seen as sub-discourses within the Islamic Revolution discourse engaged in a struggle over its “correct” interpretation. The reconciliation discourse emphasizes on “prudence”, while the resistance discourse emphasizes upon “conscientiousness”, both signifiers within the Islamic Revolution discourse. Both movements agree that these signifiers exist within the discourse, but they disagree about the primacy and centrality of one over the other. The “reconciliation discourse” seeks development as the main goal of Iran’s foreign policy, and, hence, considers reconciliation with the US to be a precondition to that goal. Its arguments imply that Iran is not an exceptional country. The resistance discourse, on the other hand, is deeply exceptionalist and deems resistance against the US and maximalist independence to be the main objectives of Iran’s foreign policy. This discourse strongly opposes mending ties with the US because such a move would be understood as a threat to Iran’s exceptionalism. These sub-discourses also perceive the US differently; the reconciliation discourse considers US to be dynamic and heterogenous, while the resistance discourse considers US to be unchanging and monolithic, and this disagreement also contributes to their policy toward the US, and this understanding is also closely intertwined with exceptionalism. Overall, the dispute over Iranian exceptionalism has made relationship with the US the main issue of contention within Iranian foreign policy discourses.

Van Leeuwen's (2008) discourse-semantic approach is a method of discourse analysis that, employing socio-semantic categories and emphasizing the importance of social actors in discourse, investigates the hidden layers of language in both oral and written texts, revealing the underlying relationships within each discourse. In Van Leeuwen's (2008) method, anyone playing a role in the discourse is considered a social actor. This branch of analysis can find a special place in Quranic studies; for, upon reflection on certain Quranic narratives, it becomes evident that these texts, overtly and covertly, contain many of these discourse systems. This research aims to analyze the discourse system of Surah Yūsuf using a descriptive-analytical method, employing the socio-semantic components of Van Leeuwen's (2008) analytical model. Given that the Surah Yūsuf, while narrating a concise account of the life of Prophet Yūsuf, features significant social actors and noteworthy speech acts, a discourse analysis using Van Leeuwen's theory reveals beneficial insights that enhance the wonder of this heavenly book.  Studies show that in this Surah, discourse components based on overtness (frequency 758) have a higher frequency compared to those based on covertness (frequency 322). This signifies that God, in a stylistic innovation, familiarizes the audience with the names of individuals, groups, places, and times in which social actors play active roles.  Furthermore, role attribution (frequency 195), reference type specification (frequency 302), and nature specification (frequency 88) show the highest representation in the various overt expressions of social actors in this Surah

This study examines a recent letter by Ayatollah Khamenei addressed to university students in the United States who are actively participating in protests against U.S. foreign policy and its support for the Zionist regime. The central research objective is to analyze the discourse structures within the letter to determine how they function in advancing specific messages within a defined ideological framework. Additionally, the study explores how the letter constructs notions of power and identity, and how these constructions may influence public perception. Employing James Paul Gee’s discourse analysis methodology (2014, 2018), the study investigates both the textual and ideological dimensions of the letter. The findings highlight several key themes: the dichotomy between political entities (e.g., the Zionist regime versus Palestine), the praise of American students for supporting the people of Gaza, and the advocacy for Palestinian human rights in the pursuit of peace and independence. These themes are embedded within the broader context of global political conflict. The analysis also identifies multiple identity constructs, including the U.S. government and its political allies, American youth and student activists, Muslims, the Axis of Resistance, and the oppressed, particularly women and children, in occupied Palestine. Through this discourse, the letter seeks to persuade, commend, and galvanize American students, urging them to remain on what is portrayed as “the right side of history”.

Due to the major political and economical changes in the world, international relations have expanded significantly, and English is widely recognized as a global language by many countries. Hence, in order to succeed in international relations, the non-native writers should be proficient in using English in different types of discourses including their letter writings. The purpose of this study was to analyze features of complaint letters written by native English speakers and explore the politeness strategies of those letters which learners of English may fail using appropriately. For this purpose, thirty authentic letters were chosen from the book “How to write better letters” edited by Chappell (2006). Through Halliday’s notion of lexical density, Cook’s expressed features of genre identification and Brown and Levinson’s model of politeness strategies, the collected data were analyzed. The analysis of the results showed that the native complaint letter writers mostly relied on ‘personal references’, ‘conjunction cohesion’, ‘repetition’, ‘substitution cohesion’, and ‘indirect negative politeness strategies’ in their writings. Language teachers and syllabus designers can use these results to make the foreign learners of English learn about social aspects of language and direct them to use the pragmatic elements in their letters.