‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺟﺎﻥ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺗﺎ ﻛﺎﻭﺷﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻱ ﺩﺭﺍﻡ‬

‫‪‬‬
‫ﺑﻬﺮﻭﺯ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩﻱ ﺑﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫‪‬‬
‫ﻧﺮﮔﺲ ﻓﺮﺷﺘﻪ‌ﺣﻜﻤﺖ‬
‫ﭼﻜﻴﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻮﻳﻨﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻧﻴﺎﻱ ﻧﻘﺪﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﻭ ﺩﺭﺍﻣﺎﺗﻴﻚ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻛﺮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ 1‬ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺗﺨﺼﺼﻲ‌ﺗﺮ ﺑﻪ‌ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﺭﺳﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﺎﺧﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮﻧﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ‪ 2‬ﻣﻲ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺩ )ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﭘﺎﺭﻩﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﻓﺖ‪ 3‬ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺘﻲ‌ﺷﺎﻥ(‪ .‬ﺁﺭﺍﻱ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺍﻧﻲ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ‪ 4‬ﻭ ﺳﺮﻝ‪) 5‬ﺑﺎ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺳﺨﻦ‪ ،(6‬ﮔﺮﺍﻳﺲ‪) 7‬ﺑﺎ ﻃﺮﺡ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﺻﻮﻝ ﻫﻤﻜﺎﺭﻱ‪ (8‬ﻭ ﻟﻴﭻ‪) 9‬ﺑﺎ ﻃﺮﺡ ﺍﺻﻞ ﺍﺩﺏ‪ (10‬ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺷﺎﺧﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻬﻢ‌ﺗﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺳﺮﻓﺼﻞ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺸﻜﻴﻞ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻭ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺶ‬

‫* ﺩﺍﻧﺸﻴﺎﺭ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻫﻨﺮﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻲ‌‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ ‪  [email protected]‬‬

‫** ﻛﺎﺭﺷﻨﺎﺱ ﺍﺭﺷﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ ‪  [email protected]‬‬
‫‪1. pragmatics‬‬
‫‪2. discourse analysis‬‬
‫‪3. texture‬‬
‫‪4. Austin‬‬
‫‪5. Searl‬‬
‫‪6. speech acts‬‬
‫‪7. Grice‬‬
‫‪8. cooperative principle‬‬
‫‪9. Leech‬‬
‫‪10. politeness‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫‪ □ 204‬ﻧﺎﻣﺔ ﻧﻘﺪ‪ /‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ‌ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺩﻭﻣﻴﻦ ﻫﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﻣﻠﻲ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‬

‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﻭ ﺩﺭﺍﻣﺎﺗﻴﻚ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﻱ ﻣﻨﺴﺠﻢ ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺭ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻱ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﺔ‌ ﻭﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻐﻠﻮﺏ )‪(1349‬‬
‫ﺍﺛﺮ ﻏﻼﻣﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺳﺎﻋﺪﻱ )‪ (1346-1314‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻔﻲ‪-‬‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﭘﺮﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺳﺮﻝ ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺩﺭﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﭘﺎﺭﻩﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﺬﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻭﺭ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺔ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ‬
‫)ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ‪ -‬ﺗﺮﻏﻴﺒﻲ( ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺷﺎﺧﺺ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍژﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﻠﻴﺪﻱ‪ :‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻱ ﺩﺭﺍﻡ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﺔ‌ ﻭﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻐﻠﻮﺏ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .1‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬
‫ﻧﺤﻮﺓ ﺷﻜﻞ‌ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺩﻧﻴﺎﻱ ﺩﺭﺍﻡ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ‌ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﻋﺮﺻﺔ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ‬
‫ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻫﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﻲ‪ ،‬ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻫﻤﻮﺍﺭﻩ ﺫﻫﻦ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻣﺸﻐﻮﻝ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻧﻴﺎﻱ ﺩﺭﺍﻡ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ‪ ،‬ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﻫﺴﺘﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺣﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺍﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﭘﻴﺮﺍﻣﻮﻧﻲ ﻭ ﻣﺎﺩﻱ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﭼﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﺩﺭﻭﻧﻲ ﻭ ﻣﺨﺘﺺ‬
‫ﺧﻮﻳﺶ ﺭﺍ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﭼﻴﺪﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﭘﺎﺯﻝﮔﻮﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻱ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺳﺎﻣﺎﻥ ﺑﺨﺸﻴﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺁﻓﺮﻳﻨﻨﺪﺓ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺧﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﻭ ﻓﺎﺭﻍ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﺯﻛﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻧﻴﺎﻱ ﺭﺋﺎﻝ ﭘﻴﺮﺍﻣﻮﻧﻲ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﭘﺎﺳﺦ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮﻧﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﻭ ﺳﺆﺍﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ‌ﺩﺳﺖ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺏ ﺧﻠﻖ ﺍﺛﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺧﺼﻠﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺁﻧﺎﻥ‪ -‬ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻛﻼﻡ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻲ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪ‪ -‬ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ؛‬
‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺦ‌ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺩﺭ ﺣﻴﻄﺔ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‪ .‬ﺩﺭﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‌ِ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺍﻧﻲ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻻﺝ‬
‫)‪(1‬‬

‫ﺑﻴﺘﺴﻦ‪ 1‬ﻛﻪ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﻩﺷﺎﻥ ﺑﺮ ﺳﺎﺯﺵﻧﺎﭘﺬﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻋﺪﻩﺍﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻭ ﻓﺎﻟﺮ‪ 2‬ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺣﻴﻄﺔ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪،‬‬ ‫)‪(2‬‬
‫ﻳﺎﻛﻮﺑﺴﻦ‬

‫‪1. F. W. Bateson‬‬
‫‪2. Roger Fowler‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺟﺎﻥ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺗﺎ‪ /...‬ﺑﻬﺮﻭﺯ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩﻱ ﺑﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﺮﮔﺲ ﻓﺮﺷﺘﻪ‌ﺣﻜﻤﺖ □ ‪205‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻳﻲ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻗﻠﻤﺪﺍﺩ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻓﺎﻟﺮ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﻪ‌ﻣﻨﺰﻟﺔ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻱ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻲ‌ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ‌ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻭ ﻏﻨﻲ‌ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﺮﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻤﺮﺩ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻒ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺘﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﻱ ﺁﻥ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻲ ﺑﻪ‌ﺩﺳﺖ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺏ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻔﺮﻭﺽ )ﺩﺭ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ( ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻨﻲ ﺑﻪ‌ﺩﺳﺖ ﺩﻫﺪ؛ ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻱ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﺷﻜﻞ‌ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺫﻫﻦ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﻩ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ )ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻱ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻠﻴﺪﻱ‪ 1‬ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩ »ﺍﻧﮕﺎﺭﺳﺎﺧﺘﻲ« ﻣﻲ‌ﻧﺎﻣﺪ(‪ .‬ﺝ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺗﺼﺪﻳﻖ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪ )ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻠﻴﺪﻱ »ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ« ﻣﻲ‌ﻧﺎﻣﺪ( )ﻓﺎﻟﺮ‪ .(26 :1386 ،‬ﺳﭙﺲ ﻓﺎﻟﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺕ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺷﺎﻛﻠﻪ‌ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻣﻨﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻮﻳﺪ‪» :‬ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻧﻈﺎﻡﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺘﻪ‌ﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﻏﻨﺎﻱ ﻫﺮﭼﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺟﺒﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻫﻤﮕﺎﻣﻲ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﻣﻲ‌ﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪) «.‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥﺟﺎ(‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺮﻭﺯﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺷﺎﺧﺔ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻲ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﺎﻡﺑﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺳﺮﻓﺼﻞ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻤﻲ‌ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺷﺎﻛﻠﻪ‌ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﺮﺻﺔ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ‬
‫ﺑﻪ‌ﻛﺎﺭﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﮕﻮ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ‌ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪» :‬ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ‬
‫ﺳﺨﻦ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ‌ﮔﺮﻣﻲ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪ‪«.‬‬
‫)‪ Culler, 1997‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻗﺎﮔﻞ‌ﺯﺍﺩﻩ‪ 20 :1389 ،‬ﻭ ‪ .(26‬ﻛﺎﻟﺮ ﺍﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺘﻪ‌ﺍﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻮﻳﺪ‬
‫)ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‪ .(18 ،‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻬﻲ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﻭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻳﺪﻩ ﻓﺮﺍﻫﻢ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺳﺘﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ‌ﻫﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻘﺪﻡ ﺑﺮ ﻫﺮﭼﻴﺰ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﮔﻔﺘﺔ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻛﻨﺶ‬
‫ﺳﺨﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺘﻲ ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻦ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻧﻤﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺻﺪﻕ ﻭ ﻛﺬﺏﭘﺬﻳﺮ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻏﻠﻂ‬
‫ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﮔﻔﺘﺔ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺟﻨﺒﻪ‌ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺩ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ‌‪ ،‬ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺪﻩﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ‌ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ‌ﻛﺎﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻲ‌ﺁﻭﺭﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺁﻥ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺎﺷﻴﻪ ﺭﺍﻧﺪﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﺮﻛﺰ ﺻﺤﻨﻪ ﻭ ﺑﺤﺚ ﻣﺤﻮﺭﻱ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ‌‪،‬‬
‫ﺁﻥ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻭ ﺟﻬﺎﻥﺁﻓﺮﻳﻦ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺷﺒﻴﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻛﻤﻚ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ‬

‫‪1. Halliday‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫‪ □ 206‬ﻧﺎﻣﺔ ﻧﻘﺪ‪ /‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ‌ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺩﻭﻣﻴﻦ ﻫﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﻣﻠﻲ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‬

‫ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻨﺶ ﻳﺎ ﺭﺧﺪﺍﺩ ﺑﻴﻨﮕﺎﺭﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻪ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺑﺪﺍﻧﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻧﻴﺰ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺎ ﺁﺳﺎﻥﺗﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ؛ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﮕﺮﺵ‪ ،‬ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﺸﺘﻲ ﺍﺯ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﻴﻬﻮﺩﻩ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ؛‬
‫ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺩﺭﻭﻥ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺟﺎﻱ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻴﺮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺘﺤﻮﻝ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪ؛ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻛﻪ ﻫﺮﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻣﻲ‌ﺑﺮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻲ‌ﺁﻭﺭﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﺭﺳﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺻﻞ ﺭﺍ ﺷﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ‌ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻡ‪ (141 :1382) 1‬ﺍﺻﻞ ﺑﺎﺯﺗﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﺩﻧﻴﺎﻱ ﺩﺭﺍﻣﺎﺗﻴﻚ ﺍﺳﺖ‌‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺖ؛ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﺳﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﻭ ﺧﺼﻮﺻﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻟﺸﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺩ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﺧﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﻤﺎﺷﺎﮔﺮِ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻭ‬
‫ﺷﻜﻞ ﺁﻥ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺎً ﺗﻤﺎﺷﺎ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ‌ﺩﺳﺖ ﻣﻲ‌ﺁﻭﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ‌‪ ،‬ﺩﻧﻴﺎﻱ ﺩﺭﺍﻣﺎﺗﻴﻚ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺩﺵ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﻭ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺛﺎﻟﺚ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻟﺮ ﻧﻜﺘﺔ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪:‬‬
‫ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﮔﺴﺴﺘﻦ ﭘﻴﻮﻧﺪ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻭ ﻗﺼﺪ ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ؛‬
‫ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻗﺼﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ ﺑﺎ ﻭﺍژﻩﻫﺎﻳﻤﺎﻥ ﭼﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﻫﻴﻢ‌؛ ﺑﻠﻜﻪ‬
‫ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺩﺍﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﻣﻘﺘﻀﻲ ﻳﺎ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻮﻳﻴﻢ‪» :‬ﻗﻮﻝ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﻢ«‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻗﻮﻝ ﺩﺍﺩﻩﺍﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﻣﻬﻢ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻟﺤﻈﺔ ﺍﺩﺍ‬
‫ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻭﺍژﻩﻫﺎ ﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺫﻫﻦ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﺬﺭﺩ؛ ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻴﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺭﺧﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎﻳﻲ‬
‫ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻗﺼﺪ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪﺓ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﻧﺒﺎﺷﺪ )‪.(1997: 131‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﮔﺮﭼﻪ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺍﺛﺮ )ﻭ ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﻳﮋﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻦ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻲ( ﻣﺨﻠﻮﻕ ﺫﻫﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﻘﻲ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﻏﻴﺮﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﻳﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻬﺮﻩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ )ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺷﻜﻞ‌ﺩﻫﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ( ﭘﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻲ‌ﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻋﻴﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﺳﺮﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺷﺎﻛﻠﻪ‌ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻓﺎﺭﻍ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺭﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﺍﻳﺪﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﺎﻟﻖ‬
‫ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻛﺎﻭﺵ ﺭﻳﺰﺑﻴﻨﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﻕ ﻣﻬﻤﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺘﻤﺎﻳﺰ‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ‌ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﻪ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﻓﺖ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺘﻲ‬
‫ﭘﺎﺭﻩﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻜﻞ‌ﺩﻫﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪﻩﺍﻱ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ‌ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺓ ﺭﻳﭽﺎﺭﺩﺯ‪ ،2‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﻓﺖ »ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ]ﺭﺍ[ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻭ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻳﻚ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﻳﺎ ﺣﺘﻲ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ‌ﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﻃﻮﻻﻧﻲ‌ﺗﺮ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻳﻚ ﻣﺘﻦ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ« )‪ (1985: 122‬ﺩﺭﺑﺮﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﻮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﻳﺎﺩﺁﻭﺭ‬

‫‪1. Elam‬‬
‫‪2. Richardz‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺟﺎﻥ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺗﺎ‪ /...‬ﺑﻬﺮﻭﺯ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩﻱ ﺑﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﺮﮔﺲ ﻓﺮﺷﺘﻪ‌ﺣﻜﻤﺖ □ ‪207‬‬

‫ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﻓﺖ ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﺩﻩﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺴﺘﺮﻱ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﻢ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻛﻼﻡ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻓﺮﺩﻱ ﻭ ﺟﻤﻌﻲ‪ ،‬ﺁﺭﺯﻭﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺍﻣﻴﺎﻝ ﻓﺮﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﺟﻬﺎﻥﺑﻴﻨﻲ ﻃﺮﻑﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻔﺖ‌ﻭﮔﻮ‪ ،‬ﻧﻬﺎﺩ ﻳﺎ ﺳﺎﺯﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺗﻌﻠﻖ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﻭ‬
‫ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻓﺮﺍﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﺑﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ )‪.(Ibid‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ ﻣﻮﺷﻜﺎﻓﺎﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ‌ﺍﻱ )ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﺔ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ‌‪ ،‬ﺩﻳﺎﻟﻮﮔﻲ( ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ‌ﻋﻠﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻧﮕﻴﺰﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﻲ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺍﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻣﻲ‌ﺑﺨﺸﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺁﺷﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻣﻬﻢ‌ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻧﻜﺎﺕ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻳﻢ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .2‬ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻧﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻲ ﻭ ﺑﻪ‌ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﺭﻭﺵﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺑﺎ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻓﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺳﻦ‪ ،1‬ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﮔﺮﺍﻳﺲ ﻭ ﺳﺮﻝ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ‬ ‫)‪(3‬‬
‫ﻭﻳﺘﮕﻨﺸﺘﺎﻳﻦ ﻣﺘﺄﺧﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺫﻫﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﭘﻲ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﺑﺮﺁﻣﺪﻩﺍﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﻤﺎﻝ ﻳﺎ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻅ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﻣﻘﺎﺻﺪ ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﺓ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻅ ﭼﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻓﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻛﺮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻇﻬﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻃﺒﻘﺔ ﻣﻬﻤﻲ‌ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﺒﺮﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ؛‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ ﻧﻪ ﺻﺎﺩﻕﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﺫﺏ؛ ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﻗﺼﺪ ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺩﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻤﻼﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻳﺎ‬
‫ﺣﺎﻝ ﻳﺎ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺘﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ؛ ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻳﻚ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺟﻤﻼﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﻛﺴﻲ‬
‫ﺑﮕﻮﻳﺪ‪» :‬ﻗﻮﻝ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﻢ ﺷﻤﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺒﻴﻨﻢ«‪ ،‬ﻗﺼﺪ ﺍﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻤﻠﺔ ﺧﺒﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﻭﻋﺪﻩ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺣﻜﺎﻳﺖ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻭﻋﺪﻩ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ؛ ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﻭﻋﺪﻩ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ ﻭ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻭﻋﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻲ‌ﺑﺨﺸﺪ )ﺳﺮﻝ‪:1387 ،‬‬
‫‪ .(29‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺘﻲ »ﺍﻟﻒ« ﺑﻪ »ﺏ« ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻮﻳﺪ‪» :‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﻮﻝ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﻢ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻓﺮﺩﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﻴﺎﻭﺭﻡ«‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻚ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ‪» ،‬ﺍﻟﻒ« ﻭﺍﻗﻌﺎً ﻗﻮﻝ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ ﻭ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﻌﻞ‬
‫ﺍﺟﺮﺍﻳﻲ‌ِ »ﻗﻮﻝ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ« ﺷﻜﻞ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ )‪.(Short, 1996: 184‬‬

‫‪1. Strawson‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫‪ □ 208‬ﻧﺎﻣﺔ ﻧﻘﺪ‪ /‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ‌ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺩﻭﻣﻴﻦ ﻫﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﻣﻠﻲ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‬

‫ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺳﻌﻲ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻤﺎﻳﺰ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺳﻪ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﺳﺨﻦ ﮔﻔﺘﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﺟﺎﻣﻊ ﻋﺮﺿﻪ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﻤﺎﻳﺰﻫﺎﻱ ﻳﺎﺩﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺍﺳﺖ ) ‪Austin,‬‬
‫‪:(1962: 94‬‬
‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ :1‬ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻓﻌﻞ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻜﺮﺩ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﻧﻮﻉ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻭﺍژﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺩﺍﺭ‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﺗﻠﻔﻈﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻓﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﺎﺭ ﺧﺎﺻﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍژﻩﻫﺎ‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺨﻦ‬
‫ﭘﺪﻳﺪ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻥ ﻋﻜﺲ‌ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﻭ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺨﻦ‬

‫ﺩﺭ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻴﺮﻳﻢ‪ :‬ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺒﺶ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻮﻳﺪ »ﭘﻨﺠﺮﻩ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺑﺒﻨﺪ«‪ .‬ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﻭﺍژﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻮﻳﺪ؛ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻓﻌﻠﻲ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺗﻠﻔﻆ ﻭﺍژﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻇﻬﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻣﺮ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﻇﻬﺎﺭ ﺍﻭ ﺣﺎﻭﻱ ﺑﺎﺭ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﻳﻲ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﺑﻪ‌ﮔﻮﻧﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻇﻬﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺟﻤﻠﻪ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻗﻴﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺷﺮﻭﻃﻲ‪ (4) -‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻓﻌﻞ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺟﻤﻠﺔ ﻳﺎﺩﺷﺪﻩ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﺭﺍ ﻭﺍﺩﺍﺭ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﭘﻨﺠﺮﻩ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺑﺒﻨﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺳﻮﻣﻲ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﻛﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﮔﺬﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺍﻭ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺭﺍ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺨﻦ ﻣﻲ‌ﻧﺎﻣﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ‌ﺷﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺫﻛﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻜﺘﻪ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ »ﻣﺤﻮﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ‬
‫ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻧﻪ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺨﻦ‪) «.‬ﺳﺮﻝ‪ .(33 :1387 ،‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‌ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﭘﺎﻳﺔ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﻮﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺳﻄﺢ ﺳﻮﻡ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺑﺮ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻧﻤﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ‌ﺯﻋﻢ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺘﻦ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻲ ﻭ ﺑﻪ‌ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻧﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﻴﺮﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻧﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺨﻦ ﻧﻴﺰ‪ -‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺟﺎﺑﺖ ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺪﻧﻈﺮ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ‪ -‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﺮﭼﻨﺪ ﺍﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ »ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻏﻴﺮﺑﻴﺎﻧﻲ )ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺨﻦ(‬

‫‪1. locutionary act‬‬

‫‪2. illocutionary act‬‬
‫‪3. perlucutionary act‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺟﺎﻥ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺗﺎ‪ /...‬ﺑﻬﺮﻭﺯ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩﻱ ﺑﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﺮﮔﺲ ﻓﺮﺷﺘﻪ‌ﺣﻜﻤﺖ □ ‪209‬‬

‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ‌ﭘﻴﺶ ﻣﻲ‌ﺑﺮﺩ‪) «.‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻻﻡ‪ .(200 :1382 ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻫﻤﺎﻥﻃﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺷﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ‪ -‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﻫﺪﻑ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﻫﺮ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ‬
‫ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ -‬ﻟﺰﻭﻡ ﺩﻗﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺭﺍ ﺁﺷﻜﺎﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﮔﻔﺘﻨﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﻪ‌ﺷﻜﻞ ﺟﻔﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺠﺎﻭﺭﺗﻲ‪ 1‬ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻴﺮﺩ؛‬
‫ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ‪ -‬ﺗﺮﻏﻴﺒﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺣﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺨﻦ‬
‫ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺩﻭ ﻃﺮﻑ ﮔﻔﺖ‌ﻭﮔﻮ ﭘﻲ ﺑﺮﺩ؛ ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﻟﺰﻭﻣﺎً ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ‌ﮔﻮﻧﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻛﻨﺸﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻞ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺩﺭﭘﻲ‌ِ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﻧﻤﻲ‌ﺍﻓﺘﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩﺍﻱ ﺍﺟﺎﺑﺖ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﻣﻼ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﻛﺮﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺟﺮﺍ ﺩﺭﻧﻴﺎﻳﺪ؛ ﻳﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﺟﺎﺑﺖ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻭ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﮔﺬﺷﺖ ﻣﺪﺗﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺩﻭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻧﺸﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺭﺍﻫﻜﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﺸﻒ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻱ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﻫﻤﺎﻥﻃﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﺍﻧﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﻛﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ؛ ﺣﺎﻝ ﭼﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺩﺭ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﺑﻴﻔﺘﺪ ﻳﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻪ‌ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﻲ ﻓﻴﺰﻳﻜﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺻﺤﻨﻪ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺑﺒﻨﺪﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻮﻝ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ‌ﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﻜﺎﻟﻤﻪ ﻳﺎ ﻫﺮ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺗﺒﺎﺩﻝ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻣﻨﺎﻇﺮﻩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺒﻪ ﻭ ﺍﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺷﻨﻮﻧﺪﻩ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺷﻨﻮﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﻣﺎﺑﻴﻦ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺷﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺁﻳﺎ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻳﺎ ﻏﺮﻳﺒﻪ؟ ﭘﻴﺮ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻳﺎ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ؟ ﺍﺯﻟﺤﺎﻅ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮﻧﺪ ﻳﺎ ﻧﺎﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ؟ )‪.(159 :1388‬‬
‫ﻫﻤﺔ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ‌ﺷﺪﻩ ﻭ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﻲ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺛﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﺬﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺻﺮﻑ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺘﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻛﻨﺶ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺗﻜﺐ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺖ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻤﻨﺪﺗﺮ ﺍﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﻣﻜﺎﻟﻤﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ؛ ﺑﻠﻜﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﻤﺠﻮﺍﺭِ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪ -‬ﻛﻪ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﺍﻛﻨﺶ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ )ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥ( ﺍﺳﺖ‪ -‬ﻧﻴﺰ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻃﺎﻋﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﭼﻨﺪﺑﺎﺭ ﻫﻢ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻭﺭﺕ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﺷﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ‌ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻳﻲ ﻧﻬﺎﺩﻳﻨﻪ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ‌‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺎﺯﻩ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺘﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺸﻒ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻳﻲ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﻭ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭﺷﻮﻧﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻮﺍﻟﻲ ﺟﻔﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺠﺎﻭﺭﺗﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ‬

‫‪1. adjacency pairs‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫‪ □ 210‬ﻧﺎﻣﺔ ﻧﻘﺪ‪ /‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ‌ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺩﻭﻣﻴﻦ ﻫﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﻣﻠﻲ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‬

‫ﻣﺮﺣﻠﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﻱ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﮕﺮ ﺑﻪ‌ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﻧﻘﺾ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﻴﺶ‌ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺘﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﺮﺩﺩ ﻭ ﺑﻪ‌ﻛﻤﻚ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺯﻩﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺑﻪ‌ﺩﺳﺖ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﻧﺪ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﺳﺎﺯﻱ ﻭ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﻧﻘﺾ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ‌ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻛﻪ ﭘﻴﻮﺳﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻳﺪﻱ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﺗﺎﺯﻩﺍﻱ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﺭﺍﻣﺎﺗﻴﻚ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻴﺮﺩ؛ ﺳﭙﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩﻱ ﻧﻘﺾ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ‌‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﺩﭼﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ‌‪ ،‬ﺷﻮﺭﺕ‪ (1996) 1‬ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻱ ﻛﻨﺶ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻧﻤﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ ﺑﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ؛ ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺑﺎﻓﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﮔﻔﺖ‌ﻭﮔﻮﻫﺎ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻭ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺷﻨﻮﻧﺪﻩ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻪ‌ﺍﻧﺪ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻛﻨﻴﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺘﻦ‬
‫ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻲ ﻓﺮﺩﻱ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﻛﻨﺶ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﻋﺬﺭﺧﻮﺍﻫﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﻃﺮﻑ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻘﻴﺐ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺳﭙﺲ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻭ ﺩﺭﮔﻴﺮ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻬﺪﻳﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺮگ‪ ،‬ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﺑﻴﻨﺪﺍﺯﺩ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻭ‬
‫ﻋﺬﺭﺧﻮﺍﻫﻲ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺪﻳﻬﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻄﻲ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻝ ﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻛﻨﺶ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺬﺭﺧﻮﺍﻫﻲ ﻛﺎﻣﻼً ﺑﻪ‌ﻫﻢ ﻣﻲ‌ﺭﻳﺰﺩ؛ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺖ ﻣﻨﻔﻌﻞ ﻭ ﻛﻢ‌ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺷﺨﺺ ﻋﺬﺭﺧﻮﺍﻩ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‬
‫ﭘﺎﺑﺮﺟﺎ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ؛ ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺩﺭﻋﻮﺽ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻨﺶ ﻋﺬﺭﺧﻮﺍﻫﻲ ﺩﻻﻟﺖ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻫﻢ ﺧﻮﺭﺩﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﻣﺎ ﺭﺍﺟﻊ‌ﺑﻪ ﻛﻨﺶ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﻋﺬﺭﺧﻮﺍﻫﻲ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ ﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﻓﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺘﻦ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﻣﻲ‌ﺍﻓﺘﺪ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .3‬ﺍﻧﻮﻉ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ‬

‫ﺑﻪ‌ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﺮﭘﺎﻳﺔ ﻓﺮﺽ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻬﻤﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﻮﺍﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ‪» :‬ﺳﺨﻦ ﮔﻔﺘﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻳﻚ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻮﻋﻲ ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﻩﻣﻨﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ‌ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ‌ﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﺳﺨﻦ ﮔﻔﺘﻦ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻟﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺑﺎ ﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪) «.‬ﺳﺮﻝ‪ .(117 :1387 ،‬ﻳﻮﻝ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺡ »ﻛﻨﺶ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ« ﺭﺍ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻟﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﺍﻧﺪ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﻣﺮ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺎﺿﺎ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﻗﻮﻝ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﻭ‪ . ...‬ﻫﻤﻮ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ »ﺻﻮﺭﺕﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺰﻳﺔ ﻧﺤﻮﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻛﺮﺩ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺶ‌ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪) «.‬ﻳﻮﻝ‪،‬‬
‫‪ .(149 :1387‬ﻫﺮﭼﻨﺪ ﺍﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺗﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ‌ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺳﺮﻝ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﭘﻨﺞ ﺑﺨﺶ‬
‫ﻃﺒﻘﻪ‌ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻻﻡ‪:(206 :1383 ،‬‬

‫‪1. Short‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺟﺎﻥ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺗﺎ‪ /...‬ﺑﻬﺮﻭﺯ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩﻱ ﺑﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﺮﮔﺲ ﻓﺮﺷﺘﻪ‌ﺣﻜﻤﺖ □ ‪211‬‬

‫‪ .1‬ﺍﻇﻬﺎﺭﻱ‪ :1‬ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺻﺪﻕ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩﺍﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻣﺘﻌﻬﺪ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪» :‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻮﻳﻢ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻧﻴﺎ ﺁﻣﺪﻡ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﻟﺮﺯﻳﺪ«‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻜﺘﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ‌ﮔﻴﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻜﺘﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﻣﻲ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .2‬ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭﻱ ﻳﺎ ﺗﺮﻏﻴﺒﻲ‪ :2‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎ ﻛﻮﺷﺸﻲ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻭﺍﺩﺍﺷﺘﻦ ﺷﻨﻮﻧﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﻋﻤﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺗﻲ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﻭ ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ‌ﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ‌ﻫﺎ ﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬ﺗﻌﻬﺪﻱ‪ :3‬ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻴﺮ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺁﺗﻲ ﻣﺘﻌﻬﺪ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻗﻮﻝﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳﻮﮔﻨﺪﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺩﺍﺩﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ؛ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺟﻤﻼﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﻀﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻴﻢ‪» :‬ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻡ ﻭ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﻡ« ﻳﺎ »ﺛﺒﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻨﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ«‪.‬‬
‫‪ .4‬ﻋﺎﻃﻔﻲ‪ :4‬ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﻋﺬﺭﺧﻮﺍﻫﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﺒﺮﻳﻚ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﺳﺰﺍ ﻭ‪ ...‬ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .5‬ﺍﻋﻼﻣﻲ‪ :5‬ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺗﺎﺯﻩﺍﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪» :‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻟﺤﻈﻪ ﺧﺎﺗﻤﺔ ﺟﻨﮓ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻋﻼﻡ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻢ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻫﻤﺔ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ‌ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺘﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ‌ ﻭ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻮﻝ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻪ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﺔ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺻﺤﺒﺖ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪:‬‬
‫‪ .1‬ﺷﻤﺎ ﻛﻤﺮﺑﻨﺪ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲ‌ﺑﻨﺪﻳﺪ‪) .‬ﺧﺒﺮﻱ(‬
‫‪ .2‬ﺁﻳﺎ ﺷﻤﺎ ﻛﻤﺮﺑﻨﺪ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲ‌ﺑﻨﺪﻳﺪ؟ )ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻲ(‬
‫‪ .3‬ﻛﻤﺮﺑﻨﺪ ﺍﻳﻤﻨﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺒﻨﺪﻳﺪ‪) .‬ﺍﻣﺮﻱ( )‪.(76 :1387‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﺔ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺒﺤﺚ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻳﻚ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺣﻜﺎﻳﺖ ﻭ ﺣﻤﻞ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ)‪ (5‬ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﻓﺖ ﭘﺎﺭﻩﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺨﻦ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺗﻲ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩﺑﺮ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩﻳﻨﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ‌ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺁﻣﻮﺯﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﻧﻴﺰ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﻭ ﻏﻴﺮﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺭﺍ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺳﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ )ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻲ‪ -‬ﺧﺒﺮﻱ‪ -‬ﺍﻣﺮﻱ( ﻭ ﺳﻪ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩ‬

‫‪1. representative‬‬
‫‪2. directive‬‬
‫‪3. co mmissive‬‬
‫‪4. expressive‬‬
‫‪5. declaration‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫‪ □ 212‬ﻧﺎﻣﺔ ﻧﻘﺪ‪ /‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ‌ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺩﻭﻣﻴﻦ ﻫﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﻣﻠﻲ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‬

‫ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﻲ )ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩ‪ -‬ﭘﺮﺳﺸﻲ‪ -‬ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺸﻲ( ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﻫﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ‌ﺁﺳﺎﻧﻲ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻭ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻤﻲ‌ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻨﺶ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﻣﻲ‌ﻧﺎﻣﻨﺪ‪:‬‬

‫‪A. It’s cold outside.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻒ‪ .‬ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﻫﻮﺍ ﺳﺮﺩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺏ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﻪ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﺓ ﻭﺿﻌﻴﺖ ﻫﻮﺍ ﺷﻤﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺁﮔﺎﻩ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻢ‪.‬‬
‫‪B. I hereby tell you about the weather.‬‬
‫ﺝ‪ .‬ﻣﻦ ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺷﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﺎﺿﺎ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺒﻨﺪﻳﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪C. I hereby request of you that you close the door.‬‬
‫ﺟﻤﻠﺔ »ﺍﻟﻒ« ﺧﺒﺮﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺘﻲ ﺑﻪ‌ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤﻲ )ﺏ( ﺑﻪ‌ﻛﺎﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﺭﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻨﺶ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ‌؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭﻱ ﻳﺎ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺸﻲ ﺷﻮﺩ )ﺝ(‪ ،‬ﻛﻨﺶ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ‌ ﻏﻴﺮﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﺗﻠﻘﻲ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ‬
‫)‪.(Yule, 2000:54‬‬

‫‪ .4‬ﻧﻤﻮﻧﺔ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﻤﻠﻲ‬

‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺑﻬﺮﻩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻣﻮﺯﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺟﺎﻥ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻴﻢ ﺗﺎ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻛﺎﻭﻱ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺑﻪ‌ﻃﻮﺭ ﻋﻤﻠﻲ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﻫﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺮ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻗﺴﻤﺖ‌‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺏ ﻛﺸﻒ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻱ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﺓ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻳﻲ ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻭﻧﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﺮ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻳﻢ؛ ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺭﺍﻫﺒﺮﺩﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ‬
‫ﭘﻴﺶ‌ﺭﻭﻱ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﮔﺴﺘﺮﻩﺍﻱ ﻭﺳﻴﻊ ﻣﻲ‌ﻃﻠﺒﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺳﻠﻴﻦ‪ 1‬ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺍﺻﻠﻲ‌ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﺰﻳﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﺎﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﻚ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺸﻒ ﻭ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺖ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺁﻥﻫﺎﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺠﺎ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭﺍﻡ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﻡ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻧﺨﺴﺖ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﻭﺍژﻩﻫﺎ ﻛﻤﺘﺮ ﺩﺭﮔﺮﻭ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﻱ ﻧﺤﻮﻱ ﻭ ﻗﺎﻣﻮﺳﻲ ﺁﻥﻫﺎﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺴﺘﮕﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﺓ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺷﻨﻮﻧﺪﻩ ﻳﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻚ‌ﮔﻮﻳﻲ‌ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﺓ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ )ﺍﺳﻠﻴﻦ‪.(48 :1382 ،‬‬

‫‪1. Esslin‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺟﺎﻥ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺗﺎ‪ /...‬ﺑﻬﺮﻭﺯ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩﻱ ﺑﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﺮﮔﺲ ﻓﺮﺷﺘﻪ‌ﺣﻜﻤﺖ □ ‪213‬‬

‫ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺷﺶ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﺔ‌ ﻭﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻐﻠﻮﺏ ﺳﺎﻋﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺭﺍ‪ -‬ﻛﻪ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‬
‫ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﺳﻪ ﭘﺮﺩﻩ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﭘﺮﺭﻧﮓ‌ﺗﺮ ﻭ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﮔﺬﺍﺭﺗﺮﻱ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ -‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ‬
‫ﺳﺨﻦ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ‪ ،‬ﻛﻨﺶ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ‪ -‬ﺗﺮﻏﻴﺒﻲ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻪ ﭘﺮﺩﻩ ﺫﻛﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻴﻢ ﺗﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻫﮕﺬﺭ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﭘﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻗﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﺭﮔﻴﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻭ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺳﺮﻝ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺶ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺟﻔﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺠﺎﻭﺭﺗﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺩﺓ ﺍﻭﻝ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺩﺭﻧﻈﺮ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﻳﺪ‪:‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ ...:‬ﻣﻲ‌ﺧﻮﺍﻡ ﻣﻨﻮ ﻗﻠﻢ‌ﺩﻭﺵ ﺑﮕﻴﺮﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻗﻠﻢ‌ﺩﻭﺵ؟ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﺎً ﺍﻳﻦ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺭﻭ ﺑﻠﺪ ﻧﻴﺴﺘﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ :‬ﭘﺲ ﻳﻪ ﺩﻗﻪ ﺑﻴﻔﺖ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺑﻴﻔﺘﻢ ﺯﻣﻴﻦ؟‬
‫ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ :‬ﺁﺭﻩ‪ .‬ﭼﺎﺭ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻭ ﭘﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺁﺧﻪ‪...‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ :‬ﻫﺮﭼﻲ ﻣﻴﮕﻢ ﮔﻮﺵ ﻛﻦ! ]ﺟﻠﻮ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻭﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﺗﺮﺳﻴﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻭ ﭘﺎ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺯﻣﻴﻦ ﻣﻲ‌ﺍﻓﺘﺪ‪ .‬ﭘﻴﺮﺯﻥ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻚ ﺧﻴﺰﺵ ﺳﻮﺍﺭﺵ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻣﻲ‌ﺯﻧﺪ‪ [.‬ﻫﻲ! ﺭﺍﻩ ﺑﺮﻭ! ]ﻣﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻭ ﭘﺎ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺻﺤﻨﻪ ﺭﺍﻩ ﻣﻲ‌ﺍﻓﺘﺪ‪ .‬ﭘﻴﺮﺯﻥ ﭼﻮﺏ ﺭﺍ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺳﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﭼﺮﺧﺎﻧﺪ ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩ ﻣﻲ‌ﺯﻧﺪ[ ﭘﺴﺮﻋﻤﻮ ﺟﺎﻥ ﺭﺍﻩ ﺑﺮﻭ! ﻫﻲ! ﻫﻲ! ﻫﻲ! ﭘﺴﺮﻋﻤﻮ ﺟﺎﻥ! ﭘﺴﺮﻋﻤﻮ ﺟﺎﻥ! ﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﺴﺮﻋﻤﻮ ﺟﺎﻥ! )ﺳﺎﻋﺪﻱ‪.(45 :1349 ،‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﺔ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺷﻨﻮﻧﺪﻩ )ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺑﺴﺘﮕﺎﻥ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻫﻤﺴﺮ ﻣﺘﻮﻓﺎﻱ ﺍﻭﺳﺖ( ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻣﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ‌ﺗﺎﺯﮔﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺁﺷﻨﺎ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺑﺪﻭ ﺍﻣﺮ ﻧﺎﺑﺠﺎ ﻭ ﻧﺎﻣﺘﻌﺎﺭﻑ ﺑﻪ‌ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﺭﺳﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻬﺮﻩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ‌ﺩﺳﺖ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺻﻮﻝ ﺍﺩﺏ )ﺑﺮﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ ﻟﻴﭻ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻴﻦ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺻﻮﻝ ﻣﻬﻢ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﻪ‌ﺷﻤﺎﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﺁﻳﺪ( ﺭﺍ ﻧﻘﺾ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻧﺎﺩﻳﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﮕﺎﺷﺘﻦ ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻤﻲ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺶ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻬﺮﻩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﻓﺘﻲ ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻲ‌ﺁﻳﺪ؛ ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻄﻲ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ )ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻄﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻃﺮﻓﻴﻦ ﺩﺭﮔﻴﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻣﺮ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﻧﺰﺩﻳﻚ ﻭ ﺻﻤﻴﻤﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ(‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫‪ □ 214‬ﻧﺎﻣﺔ ﻧﻘﺪ‪ /‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ‌ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺩﻭﻣﻴﻦ ﻫﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﻣﻠﻲ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‬

‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ِ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﺩﺭﭘﻲ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻً ﺑﻪ‌ﻣﻨﺰﻟﺔ ﻛﻨﺸﻲ ﻧﺎﺑﺠﺎ ﺗﻠﻘﻲ‬
‫ﻧﻤﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻫﺮ ﺣﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ِ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺍﺟﺎﺑﺖ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ‪ -‬ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻠﻪ ﺑﺎ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺘﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﺳﺖ‪ -‬ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﺭﻭﺷﻦ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﭘﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﻱ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ‌‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻋﻢ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﺩﺭﺍﻣﺎﺗﻴﻚ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﻩ ﺩﺭﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﺮﺩ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺘﻲ ﻣﻨﻔﻌﻞ ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺭﺍ ﺟﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻲ‌ﭘﻮﺷﺎﻧﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺩﺓ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺑﻪ‌ﺷﻜﻞ ﺑﺎﺭﺯﻱ ﺷﺎﻫﺪ ﺍﻓﻮﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻫﺴﺘﻴﻢ‌‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺩﻩ ﺁﺷﻜﺎﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ‌ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﮔﺬﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ‬
‫ﺑﻪ‌ﻣﺮﻭﺭ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺲ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺘﻲ ﺑﻴﻤﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﻥﭘﺮﻳﺶ ﺭﻭﺑﻪ‌ﺭﻭﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺑﻲ‌ﺍﻋﺘﻨﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﻭ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺷﻨﻮﻧﺪﺓ ﭘﻴﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻛﻨﺶ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻤﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺮﺩﺓ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺩﺭﻙ ﺑﻬﺘﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻭ ﺟﺎﺑﻪ‌ﺟﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺖ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮﻡ‬
‫ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ‌ﺩﺳﺖ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ‪:‬‬
‫ﺻﺪﺍﻱ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ :‬ﺁﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﺪﻳﺠﺔ ﻭﺭﭘﺮﻳﺪﻩ!‬
‫ﺧﺪﻳﺠﻪ‪ :‬ﭼﻪ ﻣﺮﮔﺘﻪ؟‬
‫ﺻﺪﺍﻱ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ :‬ﺁﺧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺩﺍﺭﻡ ﻣﻲ‌ﻣﻴﺮﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﻜﻴﻨﻪ‪ :‬ﻧﺘﺮﺱ‪ .‬ﻣﺮگ ﺑﺮﺍﺕ ﻋﺮﻭﺳﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺻﺪﺍﻱ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ :‬ﺣﺎﻻ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻜﻲ‌ﺑﻪ‌ﺩﻭ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻴﻦ؟ ﻛﺎﺭﺗﻮﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﺭﺳﻴﺪﻩ؟ ﺩﻋﺎ ﻛﻨﻴﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻠﻨﺪ ﻧﺸﻢ ﻭﺍﻻ ﭘﺪﺭﻱ ﺍﺯﺗﻮﻥ ﺩﺭﺑﻴﺎﺭﻡ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻮﺩﺗﻮﻥ ﺍﻱﻭﺍﷲ ﺑﮕﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﮔﻪ ﺳﮓ ﺁﺗﺸﺘﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﺯﻧﻢ‪ .‬ﺁﺧﻲ ﭘﺪﺭ! ﺁﺧﻲ ﻣﺎﺩﺭ! ]ﻧﺎﻟﻪ ﻭ ﮔﺮﻳﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ[ ﺍﻱ ﺧﺎﻧﻮﻡ ﺑﺎﺟﻲ‪ .‬ﺳﻮﺧﺘﻢ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﺩﻡ ﺁﺧﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﭘﺪﺭﺳﮓ‌ﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﭘﺪﺭﺳﻮﺧﺘﻪ‌ﻫﺎ! )ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‪.(54 ،‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﮔﻔﺖ‌ﻭﮔﻮ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ )ﺩﺭﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻭﻟﻴﻦ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ( ﻭ ﺩﻭ ﺧﺪﻣﺘﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻭ )ﺩﺭﻣﻘﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻓﺮﻭﺩﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻛﻢ‌ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ( ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‌‪ ،‬ﻧﻜﺎﺗﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﺑﺎ ﭘﺮﺩﺓ ﺍﻭﻝ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥﻃﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺷﺎﻫﺪﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﺳﻜﻴﻨﻪ ﻭ ﺧﺪﻳﺠﻪ ﻛﻪ ﻃﺒﻖ ﺭﻭﺍﻝ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﻲ‌ِ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺗﻲ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺍﺟﺎﺑﺖ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺷﻜﺴﺘﻦ ﻫﻨﺠﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻌﻤﻮﻟﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺩﺓ ﺍﻭﻝ ﻫﻢ ﺷﺎﻫﺪ ﺁﻧﻴﻢ‌‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺩﺳﺘﺨﻮﺵ ﺩﮔﺮﮔﻮﻧﻲ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ‌ﺑﺎﺭ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺘﻲ ﻣﻨﻔﻌﻞ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﺳﺮﻝ‪ ،‬ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺨﻦ ﻫﺮ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ ،‬ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺭﻭﺩﺭﺭﻭ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻧﻤﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﮕﻴﺨﺘﻦ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺮﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩ‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺟﺎﻥ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺗﺎ‪ /...‬ﺑﻬﺮﻭﺯ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩﻱ ﺑﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﺮﮔﺲ ﻓﺮﺷﺘﻪ‌ﺣﻜﻤﺖ □ ‪215‬‬

‫ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻧﻴﺎﺯﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻭ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷﺘﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻱ ﺑﺎﻓﺘﻲ ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺭﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎ ﺻﺤﻨﺔ ﻗﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺶ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺯﻧﮕﺮﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﺤﻨﻪ‪ ،‬ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﻢ‌ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺩﺭﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺑﻴﻤﺎﺭﮔﻮﻧﺔ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ )ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ)‪ (6‬ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺗﻌﺪ‪‬ﺩ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ ﺍﻭ‪ ،‬ﺑﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﺶ ﺑﺎ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﻣﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ ،‬ﺟﻠﻮﻩﮔﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ( ﺍﻳﺴﺘﺎﺩﮔﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺍﻳﻦ‌ﺑﺎﺭ ﺩﺭ ﭘﻠﻜﺎﻥ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﻣﻜﺎﻥ ﭘﺴﺖ‌ﺗﺮﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺹ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻴﺰ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻤﻨﺪ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﻳﺴﺘﺎ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ؛ ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺍﻭ ﺑﻪ‌ﺳﺮﻋﺖ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺩﺓ ﺳﻮﻡ‪ -‬ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺷﻮﺭﺷﮕﺮ ﻭ ﺳﺮﻛﺶ ﺻﺤﻨﺔ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ -‬ﺩﺭﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺎﺯﻫﻢ ﺩﺭﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺑﻴﻤﺎﺭ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻤﻨﺪﻱ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﺪﻩﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺍﻣﻴﺎﻟﺶ ﻭ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺮﻩﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻧﺎﺑﺠﺎ‪ ،‬ﻫﻴﭻ ﺳﺪﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻳﺴﺘﺎﺩﮔﻲ ﻧﻤﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ‌ﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺻﺤﻨﺔ ﺳﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ ﺻﺤ‪‬ﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﺬﺍﺭﺩ‪:‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ :‬ﻏﻠﻂ ﻛﺮﺩﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺳﻴﺮ ﺳﻴﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﺑﺨﻮﺭ! ﺑﺨﻮﺭ! ]ﻛﺘﻜﺶ ﻣﻲ‌ﺯﻧﺪ[‬
‫ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﭼﺸﻢ‪ ،‬ﭼﺸﻢ‪] .‬ﻗﺮﺹ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﻣﻲ‌ﺧﻮﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺑﻘﻴﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﺭﻳﺰﺩ[‬
‫ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ :‬ﺑﺎﺯﻡ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺯﻡ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺯﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ‪] :‬ﺩﺳﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﺎﻟﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﺶ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ[ ﺩﻳﮕﻪ ﺗﻤﻮﻡ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﻳﮕﻪ ﺗﻤﻮﻡ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ :‬ﻧﻤﻴﺸﻪ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺨﻮﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺨﻮﺭﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﭼﻲ ﺭﻭ ﺑﺨﻮﺭﻡ؟ ﺩﻳﮕﻪ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻡ‪ .‬ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﺭﻭ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻡ ﻧﻤﻲ‌ﺗﻮﻧﻢ ﺑﺨﻮﺭﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ :‬ﺣﺎﻻ ﻛﻪ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﻳﻨﻮ ﺑﺨﻮﺭ ]ﻟﮕﺪ ﻣﺤﻜﻤﻲ‌ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻬﻴﮕﺎﻩ ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻲ‌ﺯﻧﺪ[ ﭘﺪﺭﺳﮓ‬
‫ﺑﻲ‌ﻫﻤﻪ‌ﭼﻴﺰ! )ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‪.(95-94 ،‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻧﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺎﻟﻮگﻫﺎ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﺤﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺩﻳﺪﻩ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺗﺮﻱ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﻣﻜﺎﻟﻤﻪ‌ﺍﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ‌ﺭﻭﺷﻨﻲ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺭﻫﮕﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥﻃﻮﺭ ﻛﻪ ﺷﺎﻫﺪﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﻛﻨﺶ ﻛﺎﻣﻼً ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻢ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ‪ -‬ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺢ‬
‫ﻓﻌﻞ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺨﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺘﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ ﺟﺎﻱ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪ -‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﺩﺭﺍﻣﺎﺗﻴﻚ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺎﺭﻩﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﮔﺬﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ‌ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺨﻦ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ‌ﻃﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﺿﺢ ﻳﻜﻪ‌ﺗﺎﺯﻱ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺪﺍﻥ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺍﻭ ﺑﺎﺯﻫﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻴﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻳﺮﻩﻭﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺍﻭﻝ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺑﻪ‌ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺟﻔﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺠﺎﻭﺭﺗﻲ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻳﺎﻟﻮگﻫﺎ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﻗﺎﺩﺭ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺭﻭﻳﺎﺭﻭﻳﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺧﺎﻧﻤﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻲ‌ﭘﻨﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﺑﻪ‌ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻭ ﺑﺮﺗﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺑﻪ‌ﺟﺰ‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫‪ □ 216‬ﻧﺎﻣﺔ ﻧﻘﺪ‪ /‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ‌ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺩﻭﻣﻴﻦ ﻫﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﻣﻠﻲ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‬

‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭ‪ ،‬ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺻﺤﻨﻪ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻴﺰﺑﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ‬
‫ﻣﺜﺒﺖ ﻣﺮﺩ ﺟﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺻﺮﺍﺭ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﻣﺒﻨﻲ‌ﺑﺮ ﺧﻮﺭﺍﻧﺪﻥ ﻗﺮﺹﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﻴﻤﺎﺭﺍﻥ ﺭﻭﺍﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺿﻊ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﻔﻌﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺘﺔ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﻭ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺍﻭ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ؛ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺗﻦ‌ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎﺑﻮﺩﻱ ﻭ ﻣﺮگ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﺸﺎﻧﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .5‬ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ‌ﮔﻴﺮﻱ‬
‫ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﭘﺮﺩﻩ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻭ ﺍﺯ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ‪-‬‬
‫ﺗﺮﻏﻴﺒﻲ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺳﺘﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﺑﺮﺍﻧﮕﻴﺨﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺍﻭ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺟﺎﺑﺖ ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﺓ ﭘﻴﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﺩﺍﺭ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‌‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﺔ‌ ﻭﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻐﻠﻮﺏ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﭘﺮﺩﻩ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ :1‬ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﺔ ﻭﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻐﻠﻮﺏ‬

‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺳﺎﻋﺪﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺤﻮﺭﻳﺖ ﻣﺸﻜﻼﺕ ﺭﻭﺍﻧﻲ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﺵ ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪،‬‬
‫ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﮔﺮﻭﻩ ﺑﺮﺗﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪﮔﻲ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﺳﻴﻨﻮﺳﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ؛‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻭ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺩﺓ ﺍﻭﻝ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺭﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻣﺮﻱِ‬
‫ﻧﺎﺑﺠﺎ ﻭ ﻧﺎﻣﻌﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻳﺶ ﺗﻦ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﺑﺮﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲ‌ﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺪﻟﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺩﺓ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻭ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻲ‌ﻛﻪ ﻃﺮﻓﻴﻦ ﺩﺭﮔﻴﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺟﺎﺑﺖ ﻧﻤﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﺴﺘﺎﻳﻲ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺁﺷﻜﺎﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻣﻲ‌ﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺩﻩ‪،‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺟﺎﻥ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﺗﺎ‪ /...‬ﺑﻬﺮﻭﺯ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩﻱ ﺑﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﺮﮔﺲ ﻓﺮﺷﺘﻪ‌ﺣﻜﻤﺖ □ ‪217‬‬

‫ﺣﺘﻲ ﺩﺧﺘﺮﺍﻥ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ )ﺳﻮﺩﺍﺑﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻮﺳﻦ( ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ )ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺴﺒﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻭ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻭﺍﺑﺴﺘﮕﻲ‌ﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻃﻔﻲ( ﺩﺭﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻳﺶ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺟﺎﺑﺖ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎﻳﻲ )ﺳﻜﻴﻨﻪ ﻭ ﺧﺪﻳﺠﻪ( ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺳﺘﻢ‌ِ ﺭﻭﺍﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺁﮔﺎﻩ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺗﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﻧﻤﻲ‌ﺩﻫﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺿﻌﻲ ﺑﻪ‌ﺗﻨﻬﺎﻳﻲ ﺭﻫﺎ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ‌ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﭘﺮﺩﺓ ﺳﻮﻡ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ )ﺭ‪ .‬ﻙ ﺷﻜﻞ ‪ (1‬ﻫﺮﭼﻨﺪ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺩﻩ ﻫﻢ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺰﺍﻥ ﻛﻨﺶ ﺍﻣﺮﻱ ﺑﺎﻻﻳﻲ ﺑﺮﺧﻮﺭﺩﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺘﻲ ﻣﻘﺘﺪﺭ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﻧﻤﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺸﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺭﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻓﺖ ﭘﺎﺭﻩﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ‪ -‬ﺍﻋﻢ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﻓﺖ ﺧﺮﺩ ﻭ ﻛﻼﻥ‪ -‬ﺣﺎﺻﻞ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺩﺓ ﺳﻮﻡ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺘﻲ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻪ‌ﺳﺒﺐ ﺿﻌﻒ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺯﻫﻢ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺎﺗﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺘﻲ ﻣﻨﻔﻌﻞ ﺗﺎ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﺛﺮ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺭﻭﺍﻥﭘﺮﻳﺶ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻩ ﻣﻲ‌ﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺍﺯﺩﺳﺖ‌ﺭﻓﺘﺔ ﺍﻭ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺮﺩﺓ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻭ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺯﻣﻲ‌ﮔﺮﺩﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻫﺎ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻳﺎ ﻧﺎﺗﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻭﺿﻊ ﭘﻴﺶ‌ﺁﻣﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻱ ﺑﻴﻤﺎﺭ ﻣﻘﺘﺪﺭ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎﺑﻮﺩﻱ ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﺸﺎﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻗﺎﺑﻠﻴﺖ ﺍﻧﻄﺒﺎﻕ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻘﺪ‬
‫ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻛﺸﻒ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﺷﻜﻞ‌ﺩﻫﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ؛ ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺩﺭﺍﻡ ﺍﺯ ﻳﻚ‌ﺳﻮ‬
‫ﺑﻪ‌ﻭﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺑﻨﺎﺷﺪﮔﻲ‌ﺍﺵ ﺑﺮﭘﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﻫﺎ ﺑﺎ ﻳﻜﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻧﻴﺎﺯﻣﻨﺪ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺸﻒ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁﻫﺎ ﻳﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫ﺭﺳﺎﻧﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺳﺮﻓﺼﻞ ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﻛﻼﻣﻲ ﺁﺳﺘﻴﻦ ﻭ ﺳﺮﻝ ﺑﺎ ﻃﺒﻘﻪ‌ﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﭘﻨﺞ‌ﮔﺎﻧﺔ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ‬
‫ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ )ﻛﻨﺶ‌ﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻇﻬﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭﻱ ﻳﺎ ﺗﺮﻏﻴﺒﻲ‌‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﻬﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻋﺎﻃﻔﻲ ﻭ ﺍﻋﻼﻣﻲ( ﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻣﺘﻦ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﻓﺖ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺘﻲ ﭘﺎﺭﻩﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻲ‌ﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻛﺎﺭﺁﻣﺪ ﻭ ﺭﺍﻫﮕﺸﺎ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﭘﻲ‌ﻧﻮﺷﺖ‌ﻫﺎ‬
‫‪1. David Lodge, Language of Fiction (London, 1966), P. 57.‬‬
‫‪2. Roman Jakobson, "Concluding Statement: Linguistics and Poetics" in T. A.‬‬
‫‪Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), P. 350.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬ﺗﺤﻮﻟﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻜﺮ ﻭﻳﺘﮕﻨﺸﺘﺎﻳﻦ ﭘﺪﻳﺪ ﺁﻣﺪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ‌ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭ‬
‫ﺣﻮﺯﺓ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺫﻫﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻭ ﻧﺘﺎﻳﺠﻲ ﺑﻪ‌ﺑﺎﺭ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺗﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﺍﻭ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻜﺘﻪ ﻛﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﻮﻟﺔ ﻓﻌﻞ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺻﻮﺭﺕﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺖ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺣﻮﺯﺓ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺗﻠﻘﻲ‬
‫ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬
‫‪Archive of SID‬‬

‫‪ □ 218‬ﻧﺎﻣﺔ ﻧﻘﺪ‪ /‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ‌ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﺩﻭﻣﻴﻦ ﻫﻤﺎﻳﺶ ﻣﻠﻲ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‬

‫‪ .4‬ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺏ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﻻﺯﻡ ﻭ ﻛﺎﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﻘﻖ ﻳﻚ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺭ‪.‬ﻙ‪ :‬ﺳﺮﻝ‪194,-168 :1387 ،‬‬
‫‪ .5‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ »ﻋﻠﻲ ﺁﻣﺪ«‪ ،‬ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺣﻜﺎﻳﺖ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻓﻌﻞ »ﺁﻣﺪﻥ« ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮ ﺍﻭ ﺣﻤﻞ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻃﻼﻉ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺏ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﺭ‪.‬ﻙ‪ :‬ﺳﺮﻝ‪.126-117 :1387 ،‬‬
‫‪ .6‬ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﻧﻘﺾ ﺍﺻﻮﻝ ﻫﻤﻜﺎﺭﻱ ﮔﺮﺍﻳﺲ‪ -‬ﻛﻪ ﻳﻜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻬﻢ‌ﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﺻﻮﻝ ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ -‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‌ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻱ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺍﻥﭘﺮﻳﺸﻲ ﺧﺎﻧﻢ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺸﻲ ﺍﻭ ﺟﻠﻮﻩﮔﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‌‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﻣﻲ‌ﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﺭﺯﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﺭ‪.‬ﻙ‪ :‬ﻣﻌﺼﻮﻣﻪ ﺳﻠﻤﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻬﺮﻭﺯ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩﻱ ﺑﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﻓﻴﺮﻭﺯﻩ ﺭﺋﻴﺴﻲ‌‪» ،‬ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻛﻼﻡ ﺑﻴﻤﺎﺭﺍﻥ ﺍﺳﻜﻴﺰﻭﻓﺮﻧﻴﻚ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻨﺒﺔ ﺍﺻﻞ‬
‫ﻫﻤﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﮔﺮﺍﻳﺲ«‪ ،‬ﻣﺠﻠﺔ‌ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﺒﺨﺸﻲ‌‪ ،‬ﺩ‪ ،9‬ﺵ‪ ،(1387) 2‬ﺻﺺ‪.34-28‬‬

‫ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ‬
‫‪ -‬ﺁﻗﺎﮔﻞ‌ﺯﺍﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺩﻭﺱ )‪ .(1389‬ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ‌ ﻭ ﺩﻭﻣﻴﻦ‌ ﻫﻢ‌ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻲ‌ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‌ ﻭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻦ‌ﺭﺷﺘﻪ‌ﺍﻱ‪ :‬ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻭ ﻧﺸﺮ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ »ﻣﺘﻦ«‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﻻﻡ‪ ،‬ﻛﺮ )‪ .(1383‬ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‌ ﺗﺌﺎﺗﺮ ﻭ ﺩﺭﺍﻡ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻓﺮﺯﺍﻥ ﺳﺠﻮﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻗﻄﺮﻩ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺍﺳﻠﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻴﻦ )‪ .(1382‬ﺩﻧﻴﺎﻱ ﺩﺭﺍﻡ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺷﻬﺒﺎ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻫﺮﻣﺲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺳﺎﻋﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻏﻼﻣﺤﺴﻴﻦ )‪ .(1349‬ﻭﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻐﻠﻮﺏ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻧﻴﻞ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺳﺠﻮﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﺯﺍﻥ )‪ .(1384‬ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪ‌ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‌ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻛﺎﻭﺵ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﺳﺮﻝ‪ .‬ﺟﺎﻥ ﺁﺭ‪ .(1387) .‬ﺍﻓﻌﺎﻝ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻣﺤﻤﺪﻋﻠﻲ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻠﻬﻲ‪ .‬چ‪ .2‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻧﺸﺮ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺎﻩ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﺔ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﻓﺎﻟﺮ‪ ،‬ﺭﺍﺟﺮ ﻭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﺍﻥ )‪ .(1386‬ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‌ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻣﺮﻳﻢ ﺧﻮﺯﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﭘﺎﻳﻨﺪﻩ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﻧﺸﺮ ﻧﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ﻳﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺟﻮﺭﺝ )‪ .(1387‬ﻛﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‌ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﻤﻮﺯﺍﺩﻩ ﻣﻬﺪﻳﺮﺟﻲ ﻭ ﻣﻨﻮﭼﻬﺮ ﺗﻮﺍﻧﮕﺮ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﺳﻤﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬ـــــــــــ )‪ .(1388‬ﻧﮕﺎﻫﻲ‌ ﺑﻪ‌ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻧﺴﺮﻳﻦ ﺣﻴﺪﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺳﻤﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪- Austin, John (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press.‬‬
‫‪- Derrida, Jacques (1982). Margins of Philosophy. Tr. Alan Bass. University of‬‬
‫‪Chicago Press.‬‬
‫‪- Culler, Jonathan (1997). Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford‬‬
‫‪University Press.‬‬
‫‪- Richards, Jack et al. (1985). Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Essex: Longman.‬‬
‫‪- Short, Mick (1996). Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose. New‬‬
‫‪York: Longman.‬‬
‫‪- Yule, georg (2000). Pragmatics. 5th imp. Oxford University Press.‬‬

‫‪www.SID.ir‬‬