Tracing of the Principles of Writing Methods and Orthography in Rhetoric

Document Type : Research Article

Author

• mahbuobe hemmatiyan

Associate Professor, Department of Persian Literature and Language, Faculty of Humanities, Isfahan University

10.22067/jls.2020.39340

Abstract

Extended abstract

Introduction

In every language, there is a set of principles and rules concerning orthography, which are regulated on different levels for word selection, word formation and sentence making. These rules are fluid considering the nature of different languages and are compiled entirely in accordance with the characteristics of each language. In facing these rules, the question that comes to mind pertains to deliberation over the background and history of these rules in the foregoing literary knowledge. By pondering upon the knowledge, it becomes clear that the principles which are upheld to make speech articulate and eloquent in traditional rhetoric are, in term of nature, most consistent and harmonious with the principles and rules of writing.
Many of the subjects discussed in rhetorical sciences, especially semantics, have similarities with other topics of literary sciences, including grammar, stylistics, and writing methods. It is possible to address and pursue some of the viewpoints of literary criticism and even some of the issues posed under the themes of plot elements in the field of semantics as well. Some literature on the commonalities between semantics and other sciences has been published so far; however, reflection on the topics of semantics and its theoretical foundations reveals that the most similarities and commonality of this science is related to syntax or grammar, and the theoretical foundations that shape Jurjani’s semantics are essentially focused on syntax.

Literature Review

There is an article titled “Application of Word Eloquence Pattern in the Process of Word Selection through Writing” which has been written by Sayyedan (2019). Focusing on the questions presented regarding the deficiencies in the eloquence of word, she has sought to find a new method for word selection. No other research has been undertaken to clarify the commonalities between semantics and writing methods, aside from this article.

Method

In the present study, an attempt has been made to explain the appropriateness and similarity between rules of writing and other subjects in the field of rhetorical sciences and to determine their nature in rhetorical books. Moreover, the purpose of this analysis is to understand the related theoretical foundations between writing and editing rules and some rhetorical discussions. A thorough topic that can be discussed in another analysis is creating a template and applying it to rhetoric for editing the texts.

Finding and Discussion

Two problems were contemplated in this research: Firstly, since the science of writing and editing is one of the later sciences and is not so old among literary sciences, what kinds of debate through the previous literary sciences were presented to them? Secondly, is it feasible to use the subjects of writing to complete the laws of eloquence and rhetoric and remove their shortcomings and shortcomings, given the similarities of the subjects of this science with certain subjects of rhetoric?
Findings indicate that almost all of the subjects that are defined today in the form of the writing method, were discussed previously in the set of rhetorical sciences, the concepts of eloquence and rhetoric values, and explicitly in the form of speech and word eloquence defects and some semantic topics.
On the other hand, there are generally critiques of the shortcomings in the word's eloquence and the word that can be used to complete this subject and fix its deficiencies with certain writing values.
It is possible to research and clarify the commonalities of semantics and writing subjects at four levels: phonetic, lexical, morphological and syntactic.
The phonetic synchronization of the letters of the word is one of the concepts explained in terms of word selection. In terms of word rhetoric, these topics are close to the subjects of "aversion to hearing" and "hate of letters".
Based on the principles of word selection, we mention the rules and principles in the lexical section that is about the need to consider the audience's time and location and their taste to choose the word in each period. Among rhetorical subjects, such rules for word use are analogous to one of the requirements of word eloquence, which is referred to as "usage strangeness".
The similarity of several other concepts in the word selection to rhetorical issues is discussed in the morphology section. It is about the proper usage of vocabulary, terminology and meanings, and explains more about the morphological structure of the words themselves. The topic of avoiding the opposition of analogy in the construction of words is quite familiar with certain laws in the concepts of word use, above all the rhetorical concerns.
The most detailed similarities between writing methods and rhetorical topics are discussed in the syntactic section. Avoiding the weakness of authorship, verbal and spiritual attachment are purely syntactic issues among the principles of eloquence and are similar to some writing rules in sentence structures. Discussions on the concepts of long-writing avoidance are comparable to discussions of brevity in conventional semantics, and some of the principles of punctuation in writing and editing are identical to the topic of chapter and relation in semantics as well.
The essence of these issues today, of course, is related to the area of writing science, and these comparative studies demonstrate the role of semantics in the rules of spelling and proper reading;
In the context of rhetorical philosophy, all these laws are a sufficient requirement for the eloquence of words and speech; but they are not enough. Depending on the circumstances, such eloquent expression must be structured and organized so that it can be considered articulate or eloquent. Often subjects such as the length or brevity of the expression or the precedence and latency of a sentence's components are considered as rhetoric, It seems, however, to be contradictory to the standards of language writing.

Conclusion

In describing the principles and rules of writing, it seems important to pay attention to the alignment of the word with the conditions of the forces that generate it. In other words, according to the principles of logic, the relationship between the principles of rhetoric and the laws of public and private, and the observance of the collection of rules of writing and the principles of word selection is a sub-set and one of the essential issues to accomplish the key purpose of rhetoric.

Keywords

• writing and editing
• word selection
• Eloquence and rhetoric semantic

20.1001.1.20087187.1399.53.3.5.4

---

References

آقاحسینی، حسین؛ میرباقری فرد، سیدعلی‌اصغر. (بهار 1387). «نقد و تحلیل مقدمه کتاب‌های بلاغی (فصاحت کلمه)». مجله دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان. ش 23. صص 1-18.

اصول و ضوابط واژه‌گزینی. (1388). مصوب فرهنگستان زبان و ادبیات فارسی. ویرایش سوم.

باطنی، محمدرضا. (1377). نگاهی تازه به دستور زبان فارسی. چ 7. تهران: آگه.

تفتازانی، سعدالدین مسعود بن عمر. (1383). مختصرالمعانی. چ 8. قم: دارالفکر.

‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌تقوی، سیدنصراله. (1363). هنجار گفتار. چ 2. اصفهان: فرهنگسرای اصفهان.

جاحظ، ابی‌‌عثمان. (1998م.). البیان ‌‌و‌‌التبیین. حققه و شرحه حسن السندوبی. بیروت: دارالفکر.

حجتی‌زاده، راضیه. (1394). «بوطیقای کاربردشناختی شباهت‌ها و تفاوت‌های علم معانی (بلاغت) و نظریۀ کاربردشناسی زبانی». فصلنامه مطالعات نظریه و انواع ادبی. دانشکده ادبیات دانشگاه حکیم سبزواری. سال 1. ش 1. صص 91-115.

خطیب قزوینی، جلال‌‌الدین. (1405ه.). الإیضاح. قم: دارالکتاب الإسلامی.

. (1350ه). التلخیص. الطبعه‌‌الثانی. ضبط و شرح عبدالرحمن البرقوقی. دارالفکرالعربی.

خفاجی، ابن‌‌سنان. (1953م.). سرّالفصاحه. صححه و علق علیه: عبدالمتعال الصعیدی. مصر: مکتبه و مطبعه محمدعلی صبیح و اولاده.

ذوالفقاری، حسن. (1398). آموزش ویراستاری و درست‌نویسی. چ 4. تهران: علم.

. (1395). آیین نگارش و ویرایش. تهران: فاطمی.

روستایی، حسین. (پاییز 1392). «فصاحت کلام از منظر بلاغت فارسی و عربی (نگاهی انتقادی به دو مقوله «تنافرکلام» و «تتابع اضافات»)». لسان مبین. دورۀ 5. ش 13. صص 40-57.

سارلی، ناصرقلی. (زمستان 1390). «بازاندیشی چهارچوب نظری فصاحت». نقدادبی. سال 4. ش 14. ص 31-50

. (1387). زبان فارسی معیار. تهران: هرمس.

سیدان، الهام. (1397). «کاربست الگوی فصاحت کلمه در فرایند واژه‌گزینی در نگارش». فنون ادبی. سال 10. شماره 3 (پیاپی 24). صص 1-16.

سیدی، سیدحسین. (بهار 1378). «نقد مبانی فصاحت (رویکرد زبان‌شناختی)». مجله دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی مشهد. ش 160. صص 125-136.

سمیعی (گیلانی)، احمد. (1389). نگارش و ویرایش. ویراست دوم. چ 11. تهران: سمت.

سید قاسم، لیلا. (1396). بلاغت ساختارهای نحوی در تاریخ بیهقی. تهران: هرمس.

شمیسا، سیروس .(1386). معانی. ویراست دوم.تهران: میترا.

صدقی، حامد و همکاران. (1391). «رابطه علم معانی با سبک‌شناسی». لسان مبین. سال سوم. دوره جدید. ش 8. صص 159‑177.

صلح‌جو، علی. (1398). نکته‌های ویرایش. ویراست دوم. چ 6. تهران: مرکز.

عبدالقادر حسین. (1405ه.). فن‌‌البلاغه. الطبعه الثانیه. عالم‌‌الکتب.

عسکری، ابی‌‌هلال. (1371ه). الصناعتین. تحقیق علی محمدالبجاوی. محمدابوالفضل ابراهیم. دارالاحیاء الکتب‌‌العربیه.

فرشیدورد، خسرو. (1387). مسئله درست و غلط، نگارش و پژوهش در زبان فارسی. تهران: سخن.

القیروانی، ابن‌‌رشیق. (1424ه). العمده. تحقیق دکتر عبدالحمید هندوانی. صیدا. بیروت: المکبته العصریه.

میرعمادی، سیدعلی. (1379). مجموعه مقالات چهارمین کنفرانس زبان‌شناسی نظری و کاربردی. تهران: دانشگاه علامه.

محمدی‌فر، محمدرضا. (1386). شیوه‌نامه ویرایش؛ نقطه‌گذاری. چ 4. تهران: وزارت فرهنگ و ارشاد اسلامی.

میهنی، محمدبن عبدالخالق. (1389). آیین دبیری. تهران: نشر دانشگاهی.

ناتل خانلری، پرویز. (1377). تاریخ زبان فارسی. چ 6. تهران: فردوس.

نیکوبخت، ناصر. (1395). مبانی درست‌نویسی زبان فارسی معیار. چ 5. تهران: چشمه.

وحیدیان کامیار، تقی. (1384). «آیا پاسخ موسی کلام بلاغی است؟». نامه فرهنگستان. سال 7. ش 2 (پیاپی 26). صص 46-58.

هاشمی، احمد. (1383). جواهرالبلاغه. قم: انتشارات اسماعیلیان.

همایی، جلال‌‌الدین. (1373). معانی و بیان. چ 2. به کوشش ماهدخت‌بانو همایی. تهران: نشر هما.