بررسی فرضیه شناخت بنیاد نوآوری بهینه در «شعری برای جنگ» قیصر امین‌پور

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار زبان‌شناسی مرکز آموزش عالی کاشمر

2 استادیار زبان‌شناسی مرکز آموزش عالی کاشمر

چکیده

فرضیه نوآوری بهینه که در زبان­شناسی شناختی مطرح‌شده است بر این فرض است که محرکی که تا حدودی جدید است و البته مقداری آشنایی نیز در آن وجود دارد، بیشـترین لذت هـنری را منـتقل می­کند. این فرضیه شبیه به هنجارگریزی و برجسته­سازی در ادبیات است و بر اساس آن، این تحقیق به بررسی این فرضیه می­پردازد که لذت ادبی در عبارات هنجارگریز شعر قیصر امین­پور به‌دلیل نوآوری همراه باکمی آشنایی در این عبارات است و نه به‌دلیل نوآوری محض. به نظر می­رسد تاکنون در زبان فارسی، محققی از دیدگاه این فرضیه به بررسی آثار ادبی نپرداخته باشد و بنابراین، برای اولین بار محقق به بررسی این فرضیه در شعر «شعری برای جنگ» از قیصر امین­پور پرداخت. عبارات هنجارگریز «شعری برای جنگ» بر اساس الگوی لیچ استخراج شد و روایی آن به‌صورت صوری و محتوایی مورد تأیید دو کارشناس ادبیات فارسی قرار گرفت. سپس پرسشنامه­هایی تهیه شد و از شرکت­کنندگان خواسته شد میزان آشنایی با این عبارات را روی محور مشخص کنند. نتایج توسط آزمون آماری «تی» بررسی شد و این نتیجه حاصل شد که عبارات هنجارگریز شعر مذکور، کاملاً نو نیستند و میزانی آشنایی در آن‌ها وجود دارد و فرضیه مورد تأیید قرار گرفت.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Study of the Optimal Innovation Hypothesis in "a Poem for the War" from Qeisar Aminpur

نویسندگان [English]

  • Leila Erfaniyan Qonsuli 1
  • Mostafa Bahraman 2
1 Assistant Professor. Kashmar Higher Education Institute
2 Assistant Professor. Kashmar Higher Education Institute
چکیده [English]

According to optimal innovation hypothesis, pleasure hinges on recognizing the familiar in the novel. This is like deviation and foregrounding in the literature and language. This research is to test the hypothesis that pleasure in "a Poem for the War" by Qeisar Aminpur is due to innovation and familiarity not mere innovation. First, deviated samples of this poem were extracted according to Leach's template and two Persian literature experts adjusted reliability in form and content. Then, using questionnaires, the participants were asked to rate the familiarity of each expression on a 1-7 familiarity scale. The results showed that deviated expressions in the mentioned poem are not fully innovative and have some shades of familiarity. Therefore, the hypothesis was adjusted.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Deviation
  • foregrounding
  • optimal innovation
  • salience
  • familiarity
صفوی، کوروش (1390). از زبانشناسی به ادبیات، جلد اول، تهران: شرکت انتشارات سوره مهر.

شفیعی کدکنی، محمدرضا، (1368)، موسیقی شعر، تهران: آگاه.

ملاح، حسینعلی (1367). پیوند موسیقی و شعر، تهران: نشر فضا.

Amanzio, M., Geminiani, G., Leotta, D., & Cappa, S. 2008. Metaphor  comprehension in Alzheimer’s disease: Novelty matters. Brain and Language, 107(1), 1-10.

Arzouan,Y., Goldstein, A., & Faust, M. 2007. Brain waves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension. Brain Research, 1160, 69–81.

Austerlitz, R., Parallelismus.1961. Poetics, Warsaw and the Hague.

Berlyne D. E. 1971. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Century Psychology Series.

Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A. M. 2012. Old proverbs in new skins - an fMRI study on defamiliarization. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(204).

Bornstein, R. F., & D'Agostino, P. R. 1992. Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 545-552.

Bottini, G., Corcoran, R., Sterzi, R., Paulesu, E., Schenone, P., Scarpa, P., Frackowiak, R. S. J. & Frith, C. D. 1994. The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomography activation study. Brain, 117, 1241–1253.

Brône, G., & Coulson, S. 2010. Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: double grounding. Discourse Processes, 47(3), 212 -236.

Cardillo, E. R., Watson, C. E., Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A., & Chatterjee, A. 2012. From novel to familiar: Tuning the brain for metaphors. NeuroImage, 59(4), 3212–3221.

Eviatar, Z. and Marcel J. 2006. Brain Correlates of Discourse Processing: An fMRI Investigation of Irony and Metaphor Comprehension. Neuropsychologia 44:2348-2359.

Faust, M. and Nira M. 2007. The Role of The Right Cerebral Hemisphere in Processing Novel Metaphoric Expressions Taken From Poetry: A Divided Visual Field Study. Neuropsychologia 45: 860-870.

Giora, R. 1997, Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis,cognitive linguistics,8-3, 183-206

ــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2002c. Optimal innovation and pleasure. In O. Stock, C. Strapparava &A.Nijholt (Eds.), Proceedings of The April Fools’Day Workshop on Computational Humour, April 2002, ITC-itst, Trento (pp. 11–28).

ــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2003. On Our Mind:Salience, Context, and Figurative Language, Oxford University Press.

ـــــــــــــــــــــ. 2008. Is Metaphor Unique? In R. Gibbs, (Ed.),  The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.

ـــــــــــــــــــــ. 2009. Irony. In: L Cummings (ed.) Pragmatics Encyclopedia (pp. 265-267).  London: Routledge.

ـــــــــــــــــــــ. (in press) Literal vs. Nonliteral Language-Novelty Matters. In T. Holtgraves (ed.),Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. New york: Oxford University Press.

ـــــــــــــــــــــ., Ofer Fein, Ann Kronrod, Idit Elnatan, Noa Shuval, Adi Zur. 2004a. Weapons of Mass Distraction: Optimal Innovation and Pleasure Ratings, Metaphor and Symbol,19(2),115-141.

ـــــــــــــــــــــ., Gazal, O., Goldstein, I., Fein, O., & Stringaris, K. A. 2012. Salience and context: Interpretation of metaphorical and literal language by young adults diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(1), 22-54.

ـــــــــــــــــــــ, Kronrod, A., Elnatan, 1., & Fein, O. 2001. The role of salience in aesthetic creativity. Paper presented at the Eleventh Annual Meeting of The Society for Text and Discourse. The University of California, Santa Barbara.

ـــــــــــــــــــــ,Nurit Kotler, Noa Shuval. 2004/2. Metaphor, Coherence, Optimal Innovation, and Pleasure,In: J. Andor and P. Pelyvas (eds) Empirical, Cognitive-Based Studies in Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Giora, R. & Stringaris, K. A. 2010. Neural substrates of metaphor. In: P. C. Hogan (ed.),  The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences (pp. 489-492). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

Giora, R., Zaidel, E., Soroker, N., Batori, G., Kasher, A. 2000. Differential effects of right and left hemisphere damage on understanding sarcasm and metaphor. Metaphor Symb. 15, 63–83.

Gibbs, R. 1980. Spilling the beans on understanding and memory for idioms in conversation. Memory & Cognition, 8, 149-156.

 Halliday, M. A. K. et al. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching, London.

Harrison, A. A. 1977. Mere exposure. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 610-646). New York: Academic Press.

Hekkert, P., Snelders, D. & van Wieringen, P. C. W. 2003. Most advanced, yet acceptable: Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 111-124.

Kana, R. K., Murdaugh, D. L. Wolfe, K. R. & Kumar, S. L. 2012. Brain responses mediating idiom comprehension: Gender and hemispheric differences. Brain Research, 1467, 18-26.

Keats, J. 1820. Ode on a Grecian urn. http : // www.eecs. harvard. Edu /~ keith / poems / urn.html

Leach, G. N. 1969. A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry, Longman, London.

Kronrod, A., Giora, R, & Fein, O. 2000. Creative writing: The optimal creative innovation in fixed expressions. The EARLI special interest group writing conference 2000. University degli Studi di Verona.

Kunst-Wilson, W. R & Zajonc, R B. 1980. Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 1019-1024.

Mashal, N., & Faust, M. 2008. Right hemisphere sensitivity to novel metaphoric relations: Application of the Signal Detection Theory. Brain and Language, 104, 103–112.

Mashal, N., Faust,M., & Hendler, T. 2005. The role of the right hemisphere in processing nonsalient metaphorical meanings: Application of Principal Components Analysis to fMRI Data. Neuropsychologia, 43, 2084–2100.

Mashal, N., Faust,M., Hendler, T. & Jung-Beeman, M.  2007. An fMRI Investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and Language, 100, 115–126.

Mashal, N., Gavrieli, R., & Kavé, G. 2011. Age-related changes in the appreciation of novel metaphoric semantic relations. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 18(5), 527–543.

Mashal, N. & Kasirer, A. 2012. Principal component analysis study of visual and verbal metaphoric comprehension in children with autism and learning disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 274–282.

Mashal, N., and M. Faust. 2009. Conventionalization of novel metaphors: A shift in hemispheric asymmetry. Laterality, 14.6: 573-589.

Maslow A. H. 1937. The influence of familiarization on preference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 536–552.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R. A.,&Lowell, E. L. 1953. The achievement motive.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Mukarovsky, J. 1932-1964. Standard language and poetic language. In P. L. Garvin (Ed.), A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style (pp. 17-30). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Mukarovsky, J. 1978. Structure, sign and function. Yale University Press.

Pobric, G., Mashal, N., Faust, M., & Lavidor, M. 2008. The causal role of the right cerebral hemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressions taken from poetry: A TMS study. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 20, 170-181. 

Sampson, G. 1980. Schools of Linguistics, Stanford University Press.

Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Tomer, R., & Aharon-Peretz, J. 2005. The neuroanatomical basis of understanding sarcasm and its relationship to social cognition. Neuropsychology, 19, 288–300.

Shklovsky, V. 1917-1965. Art as technique. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Eds. and Trans.),Russian formalist criticism: Four essays, 3-57. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Shuval, N., & Giora, R. 2005. Beyond figurativeness: Optimal innovation and pleasure.  In S. Coulson & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), The literal and nonliteral in language and thought (pp. 239–254). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2009. Figurativeness, optimal innovation and pleasure. Oryanut ve'Safa, 2, 111-127.

van Mulken, M., Burgers, C., & van der Plas, B. 2010. Wolves, confederates,  and the happy few: The influence of comprehension, agreement, and group membership on the attitude toward irony. Discourse Processes, 48(1), 50-68.

 van Peer, W., Hakemulder, J., & Zyngier, S. 2007. Lines on feeling: foregrounding, aesthetics and meaning. Language and Literature, 16(2), 197-213.

Winner, E.& Gardner, H. 1977. The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients.  Brain, 100, 719-727.  

Wundt, W. M. 1874. Grundzung der physiologischen Psychologie. Leipzig, Germany: Engelmann.

Zajonc, R. B. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1-27.

Zajonc, R. B. 1980. Feeling and thinking: Preference need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ. 2000. Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 31-58). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.