چكيده لاتين :
Extended Abstract
Authors: Neda Nourpisheh Ghadimi - Ph.D. Student, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Islamic Azad University, Firoozabad, Iran
Ahmad Tahan - Assistant Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Islamic Azad University, Firoozabad, Iran
Farzaneh Mozafarian - Assistant Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Islamic Azad University, Firoozabad, Iran
Introduction
A narrative is created only through oppositions hence, the characters and their actions must be studied in terms of binary oppositions in it. The conceptual structures in this study are binary oppositional ones, including the confrontations of good and evil, which can be seen in the whole discourse of Persian literature. In general, one of the most fundamental issues in explaining the similarities and differences between the works of Iranian and non-Iranian authors is the comparison of their conceptual structures, including ‘binary’ and ‘oppositional’ structures. Literary structuralism is a method of analyzing literary texts that are rooted in linguistic studies. Structuralism and its general orientation are based on the analysis of binary oppositions and the relationship between them, and structuralism itself origins from the linguistic studies of Ferdinand de Saussure, and the structuralists have been significantly influenced by his thoughts.
Method, background, and purpose of research
The method in this research is theoretical, which is either descriptive or analytical. First, books on binary oppositions by structuralist authors have been studied and from which notes have been taken. and then, the biographies of both authors have been reviewed to obtain information about their social, cultural, and political status for analysis. The purpose of this study is to explain the similarities and differences between the binary oppositions in the works of an Iranian and a non-Iranian author basically to find out which oppositions can be universal. There has been no independent research on binary oppositions in children’s and adolescent literature. However, research has been done on binary oppositions in other areas of literature, some of which include:
The binary oppositions of war and reconciliation and love and hatred in Ferdowsi's Shahnameh (Razmjooei, Tahan 2016) and the result of this research is that although love and reconciliation are superior to war, its superiority is not ‘absolute’.
A study of binary oppositions in Nima Yushij’s ‘Sarivili house’ collection of poems (Mohseni 2014) This study shows that Nima has used binary oppositions to express the most important differences, similarities, and conflicts of his thoughts against those in power.
Discussion
Binary opposition is an English term. Binary in English means dual. Stars that are placed next to each other in pairs are called binary stars. Of course, the understanding of binary oppositions as the basis of linguistic knowledge was discussed much earlier in the views of Plato and Aristotle. However discussing essence, accident, form, etc. goes back to Aristotle's ideas who himself was the founder of a dualistic view of human knowledge and later influenced literature and other areas. The term was first coined by phonologist Nikolai Trobetsky when he introduced it as the main foundation of a value rooted in cultural history. This term is one of the key concepts in the field of linguistics theories, semiotics, and literary criticism. Roland Barthes believes that semiotics is based on binary oppositions. In literary criticism, this term is one of the fundamental concepts of structuralism and post-structuralism (deconstruction). Jacobson believed that children learn these oppositions in the first place. In his view, the speech’s concentration is generally on binary oppositions, and the difference between consonant and vowel is the most fundamental element of phonology. Structuralism and its general orientation are based on the analysis of binary oppositions and the relationship between them, and structuralism itself is rooted in the linguistic studies of Ferdinand de Saussure, and the structuralists have been significantly influenced by his thoughts. Each text is a set of contrasts that encompass confrontations of good and evil, rich and poor, black and white.
Conclusion
Examining the oppositions and analyzing their relationship in the stories by Houshang Moradi Kermani and Roald Dahl, shows that the common consequence of poverty in Iran and British society is children’s forced labor and also, their confrontation with the realities of life. A child, at an age when he should be enjoying his childhood, is struggling with economic problems, illness, and hunger. In the works of both writers, these poor children’s neighbors or classmates are from the rich class of society. and that creates problems; the children either escape or start to protest against the wealthy class. The use of force, violence and insults by the wealthy is another issue addressed by these two authors. The poor class’s captivity and slavery are among other common themes employed by both authors. There are differences between the binary oppositions in the works by these two authors;
In Moradi Kermani's, the poor adults mainly believe in fatalism and superstitions, and the poor children are realistic. While, in Roald Dahl's, the poor adults and children are both realistic.
In Moradi Kermani's, the poor are harmless, while in Roald Dahl's, the poor cause harassment.
In Moradi Kermani's, the poor are not advocated by the people, while, in Roald Dahl's, the poor have supporters such as doctors or priests.
