An Analogical Analysis of “Khosrow and Riddack” and “Asoorik Tree” based onMichael Bakhtin’s Theory of Dialogism
Based on Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism, any speech can potentially be bilateral, i.e. produced by one party and listened to by another one. Essentially an anti-Stalinist and anti-formalist theory, it focuses its attention on prose, especially the novel genre. This theory can, however, be applied to...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman
2017-03-01
|
| Series: | مجله مطالعات ایرانی |
| Online Access: | https://jis.uk.ac.ir/article_1627_e246de2d22f9ed9056a989b0f716e031.pdf |
| Summary: | Based on Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism, any speech can potentially be bilateral, i.e. produced by one party and listened to by another one. Essentially an anti-Stalinist and anti-formalist theory, it focuses its attention on prose, especially the novel genre. This theory can, however, be applied to different forms of Persian literature (e.g. narratives, epic, mystic mathnavis, and love poems). Bakhtin puts dialogue in front of monologue and divides it into different forms, such as internal, external, direct, indirect, hidden argument. This study attempts to compare and contrast the Asoorik Tree, a debate between a goat and a palm tree, and Khosrow and Riddack, a debate between Khosrow II and a boy called Vas Pooher. Both works belong to Pre-Islamic Iranian literature and are based on dialogue; however, the forms and the contents of the dialogues differ. Besides introducing these works, it has been tried to give a clear picture of the characteristics of each one of them through Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism. The results show that Khosrow and Riddak is a dialog for trial: one side (Khosrow) asks questions and the other side replies in order to prove himself and the desires belonging to the fathers’ class. There is no imperative and exclusive voice in any of the two works. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1735-0700 2980-8766 |