معنازایی در عدول از پیش متن؛ خوانش بینامتنی داستان هابیل و قابیل و رمان های هابیل سانچت (میگل د. اونامونو) و سمفونی مردگان (عباس معروفی)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی.

نویسندگان

تربیت مدرس

چکیده

بینامتنیت نظریه ای ادبی است که بر پایۀ نظریۀ گفت‏وگومندی باختین، نخستین بار توسط ژولیا کریستوا ارائه شد. بر طبق این نظریه، هر متن در گفت‏وگو با متن های دیگر تولید و خوانش می شود. خوانش بینامتنی، خوانشی است که متن را به جای جهان واقعی به جهان متنی تأویل می کند. پیش متن هابیل و قابیل که در کتب مقدس ادیان الهی آمده ، الهام بخش بسیاری از متون ادبی بوده است. امّا همان طور که کریستوا تصریح می کند، منبع شناسی غایتِ نظریۀ بینامتنیت نیست. کشف روابط بینامتنی و بینانشانه ای است که منجر به نفوذِ خوانشگر به لایۀ دوم متن یا همان لایۀ نشانه ای می شود. با تحلیل بینامتنی می توان معانیِ مختلفِ مستتر در متن را دریافت. بینامتنیت متضمن گفت‏وگوی بین متن-هاست. این گفت‏وگو موجب تغییر و معنازایی در هر دو طرف گفت‏وگو می گردد. ما در این پژوهش، دو متن هابیل سانچت نوشتۀ میگل د. اونامونو و سمفونی مردگان نوشتۀ عباس معروفی را خوانش کرده و با توجه به میزان دگرگونی و عدول این دو متن از پیش متن اصلی- داستان هابیل و قابیل در کتب مقدس- معنازایی را در طرفین مکالمه بررسی می کنیم. در این راه، «شاخص گفت‏وگومندی» را برای سنجش میزان تأثیر و تأثرات متون معرفی می کنیم. ماحصل این پژوهش در سطح بینامتنیت خوانشی، استفاده از شاخص گفت‏وگومندی در طبقه بندی متون و در سطح بینامتنیت تولیدی، راهکاری عملی برای تولید متون جدید در گفت‏وگو با متون پیشین است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Significance of Deviation from Hypotext: Intertextual Study of Abel Sanchez (Miguel de Unamuno) and Symphony of Death (Abbas Maroofi)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Amir Najafi
  • Habib Lezgee
  • Mohammad Jafar Yousefian Kenari
Tarbiat Modares University
چکیده [English]

1. Introduction
Intertextuality is a literature theory which has been based on Bakhtine’s Dialogism theory. It was firstly stated by Juliet Kristova. According to this theory each text is produced and read in a dialogue with other texts. Intertextual criticism is a way of reading texts which signifies texts to each other rather than the real world. The hypotext, Habil (Abel) and Qabil (Cain), which hascome in different holy books is inspiring. Kristova specifies that intertextuality is not studying the references. Discovering theintertextual and inter-semiocity relations led to the penetration into the second layer of the text (sign layer). Thus,we can find hidden purports of a text through intertextual criticisms. I read tow texts (Abel Sanchez by Miguel de Unamuno and Symphony of Death by Abbas Maroofi) in dialogue with hypotext (Habil and Qabil). The signifianceof the process differs according to the quality and quantity of deviation from hypotexts. Thus, the dialogue factor to estimate the level of influence of dialogue on both textswill be defined. Inconclusion, this paper proposes a practical method for creating new texts in relation to any other text to introduce an applied factor for categorizing intertextualitis.
2. Methodology
In this paper, we’re dealing with three texts: first, the story of Cain and Abel in holy books and then two other books namedAbel written by Miguel D. Unamuno, and finally Samphoni-e Mordegan by Abbas Maroufi. The story of Able and Cain in Holy books is considered as the default text in this paper.Using the deviation method, the meaning is being analyzed in these two texts. In other words, in this research, a different method of discourse analysis with a default text is being approached and the way the meaning has been created through the dialogue will be discussed. This practical approach needs a specific criterion to show the interrelatedness of the texts in dialogue terms. A survey of other researches in the same field will be provided beforehand.
3. Results and Discussion
Any attempts to makea theory more practical leads to establishing somewhat quantitative criteria for organizing the data. Structuralists have followed the same rule in most cases. Intertextuality, like any other literary theory, was a sort of discovery in the beginning. Studying Dostoyevski’s works, Bakhtin noticed different voicesfrom that of the author. Kristeva considered the production and reading of a text as a result of the connection of that text to others of the same sort. Gradually, this discovery was polished by Barth, Jenie, Rifater, and others which resulted intoachanged, more clear and definitive literary theory. Jenie and Rifater analyzed various texts in attempt to apply this new theory and defined several criteria for intertextuality categorization. Comparing Abel Sanchez written by Unamuno withSamphoni-e Mordegan by Abbas Maroufi, this paper tries to introduce a new index to the intertextuality. It revealed that contrary to the form of Unamuno’s text, he hasdeviated more in his default text than Maroufi. The deviation has not been apparent to the extent of removing the footprints of the default text but has doubted Cain’s sinfulness. This creation of meaning is an advantage of Unamuno’s text. He not only creates new meaning by changing the characterization, but also creates meaning for the default text by using the same names and other direct references throughout the story. Having finished the story, the reader finds himself thinking about Abel and Cain rather than Abel Sanchez and Joaquin Munger. This is one of the features of dialogue which causes both texts to promote to a new level.
Thus, in intertextual readings, the use of dialogue factor can be named as a criterion to evaluate the meaning-creation. Furthermore, the manner of Unamuno’s dialogue with the default text of Abel and Cain in Holy Books could influence the creation of meaning in the new text. This type of generation of meaning, which has been done before, urges the writers to doubt the decency of the characters in other stories. Did Othello have the right to kill his wife? Is it acceptable for Hamlet’s uncle to betray him? Did Abel deserve to be killed by Cain?

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • intertextuality
  • Hypotext
  • Signifiance
  • Dialogism
  • Dialogue Factor
قرآن کریم.
آلن، گراهام. (1389). بینامتنیت. ترجمۀ پیام یزدانجو. تهران: مرکز.
احمدی، بابک. (1391). ساختار و تأویل متن. تهران: مرکز.
اونامونو، میگل د. (1369). هابیل و چند داستان دیگر. ترجمۀ بهاء‌الدین خرمشاهی. تهران: امیرکبیر.
تئودوروف، تزوتان. (1377). منطق گفت‏وگویی. ترجمۀ داریوش کریمی. تهران: مرکز.
معروفی، عباس. (1380). سمفونی مردگان. تهران: ققنوس.
مک‌آفی، نوئل. (1384). ژولیا کریستوا. ترجمۀ مهرداد پارسا. تهران: مرکز.
نامور مطلق، بهمن. (1390). درآمدی بر بینامتنیت. تهران: سخن.
Riffaterre, Michael. (1978). Semiotics of Poetry, Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press,
Culler, Jonathan. (1975). Structuralist Poetics: structuralism, linguistics and the study of literature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Jenny, Laurent. (1982). ‘The strategy of forms’ in French Literary Theory Today: a reader. T. Todorov (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kristeva, Julia. (1998). ‘Towards a semiology of Paragrams’ French and Lack (eds.). Routledge Press.