An Analysis of Meaning Transformation of Rhetorical Figures of Ambiguity from Linguistic Perspectives

مطالعات زبان و ترجمه

Article 6, Volume 50, Issue 4, February 2018, Pages 113-137   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/lts.v50i4.65407

Authors

Seyyed Javad Mortezaei^{* 1}; Farzad Ghaemi¹; Davood Emarati Moghaddam²; Gholam Reza Kazemi¹

¹Department of Persian Language and Literature, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

²Department of Persian Language and Literature, Neishabour University, Neishabour, Iran

Abstract

1. Introduction
Ambiguity has been the point of difference between scholars in linguistics and those in literary rhetoric from long ago, and there are various theories in this regard; however, no serious attempt has been made to clarify how ambiguity is signified in this rhetorical category and to represent how it can be employed based on human unconscious. Previous research seems to have addressed a unique but superficial definition for ambiguity offering some examples. In this paper, the position of equivocal figures as a system of semiotics was studied with reference to decoding of aesthetics. Moreover, the study investigated the nature of communication techniques and how words signified meaning in the semiotic science. The present study, initially, addressed the understanding of rhetorical figures of ambiguity and the domains of its meanings; furthermore, it investigated the artistic and aesthetic values of rhetorical figures of ambiguity. Having confirmed the rising of the norms for meaning representation in rhetorical figures, the researchers employed the framework of decoding in semiotics to analyze ambiguity. Most literary scholars and literary critics agree unanimously that ambiguity deserves to be taken into consideration as a rhetoric trick with aesthetic value. However, so far, researchers have just contented themselves with superficial definitions of ambiguity which are not satisfactory. Therefore, it is important and necessary to analyze ambiguity deeply and more systematically.
Ambiguity or ambiguity is one of the most practical figures in rhetoric knowledge which deals with the spread of meaning in speech. Ambiguity (creating illusion and making supposition) or ambiguity (speaking unclearly and indirectly) is a way of interpretation since it is represented in a word including two meaning: one which is clear as it is the denotative meaning of the word and the other which is hidden in the word (Hamooy, 2005; Syooti, 2000; Matloob, 2000). Speech is the most fundamental and important tool in expressing thought, and it is the cornerstone of the emergence of human worldview. Ambiguity challenges human mind and imagination and makes him think about the intended meaning of the speaker. This psychological state makes speech attractive, and the reader can comprehend the equivocal ornaments when he is aware of the different meanings of words and expressions. The purpose of the speaker’s meaning is the speech that carries a message and conveys a meaning that is inherently a structure. Of the relevant issues that are germane to the issue of the present study is the function of word when there is more than one meaning and this has been the point of difference among scholars (Tayeb Hosseini, 2008). Literature benefits from creating multiple significations, as the natural abilities of language, and it represents ambiguity. It can be said that any type of ambiguity includes multiple significations, but any multiple signification does not mean ambiguity. In any particular literary works, we can create to an imaginative image of reality by means of signs. What is important in this type of communication is the conveyance of internal and personal experience, and other communicative signs help linguistic signs in conveying internal experience and aesthetic sense.

2. Discussion
A word does not consist of multiple significations just because of having multiple concepts, even if it has the potentiality for multiple significations. The real multiple signification emerges provided that a particular relation is established between the concepts and this happens in occasions that the word or sentence is, firstly, positioned in linguistic context (or paralinguistic context) and secondly, multiple meanings can be considered for it based on the context. Scholars in rhetoric science in Islam have expanded the discussion of form and meaning with the titles of word and meaning, and among this expertise in literature, some authenticate words, others authenticate meaning, and yet others authenticate both of them. The present paper focuses on the theories and voices of one of the eminent figures named Jacques Lacan (1989) who is a physician, psychoanalyst, and philosopher does not believe that there is no meaning. He (1989) believes that there may be many signifieds for a signifier; therefore, it would be useless to search for one single meaning, and the more we search for meaning, the less we can get to it. As a result, Lacan (1989) does not believe in the lack of meaning, but he believes in the existence of multiple meanings that can be confusing and his idea challenges the attempts made by the analysts to delve into the text (Clement, 1983). Another issue that should be analyzed is the way poets and writers deal with language categories. Poets deal with language differently. Some choose to utilize words with the existing clichés and accepted meanings of them, others try to avoid that, and yet others go beyond that. Avoiding the use of accepted meanings of words needs devices and tools and ambiguity is one of the most important tools for fulfilling this aim. As many different meanings can be understood from a word if writers employ ambiguity, ambiguity is used to a great extent and it provides writers with the necessary tool. A complicated form of signification exists in which the relationship between the sign and its meaning is even more indirect. Ambiguity belongs to this category. At this level, the meanings of words and signs are associated with the hidden meanings indirectly and the meaning is far from the sign or the form, and it is independent of the sign or the form (Sadowski, 2001).

3. Conclusion
If we want to study ambiguity only with reference to the definitions provided by the predecessors in rhetoric books, we have to mention that ambiguity, in either words or in meaning, doesn’t bring a single meaning to the mind of the reader. We cannot decide which meaning comes to the mind of the reader.  Moreover, there are ample cases in which we cannot prefer one meaning to another in principle, but there are various reasons that may influence the meaning, and the mind of the reader has a fundamental role in meaning-making. The more the addressee is familiar with the various meanings, the more he can appreciate the employed ambiguity. That is the reason why the definition of this figure has been proposed and attempts have been made to get familiar with it. This will the reader in terms of vocabulary and awareness and will assist them in understanding the text (Mortezaee, 2014). All great poets, at one point in their literary lives, have unconsciously followed the accepted language norms at some period of time. They have been able to cope with this issue by means of gaining knowledge and literary insight and getting access to expertise in the domain of linguistics. This has enabled them to coin new words and use language creatively. Gaining expertise in the field could help in understanding meaning and responding to the signs. This ability is accessible to those who possess interpretive systems which are equipped with the power of information processing. Indeed, at this level, the physical signs become the semiotic signs, and the association between the meaning and the sign becomes the evidence for proximity, analogy or arbitrariness. Aesthetic decoding which is more pertinent to the given category of the present paper, i.e. ambiguity, can be employed to express the internal feelings and the whole mental experiences of human facing reality; therefore, aesthetic signs are the images of reality.

Keywords

Novice; Amphibology; Typology; Beyond Norm; Aesthetic

References

ابن‌اسکندر، ع. (1368). قابوس‌نامه. به‌اهتمام و تصحیح غلام‌حسین یـوسفی. تهران: علمی و فرهنگی.

احمدی، ب. (1372). سـاختار و تـأویل متن. ج ۲. تهران: مرکز.

اصغری، ع. (1368). شرح فارسی بر «اصول‌الفقه» اثر محمدرضا مظفر. ج ۱. قم: ناصر.

آخوند خراسانی، م. (1409). کفایة‌الاصول. قم: مؤسسة آل‌البیت.

آهنی، غ. (1357). معانی بیان، تهران: مدرسة عالی و ادبیات و زبان‌های خـارجی.

تقوی، س. (1363). هنجار گفتار. اصفهان: فرهنگ‌سرا.

تولستوی، ا. (1357). رسالت زبان و ادبیات. تـرجمة م. روحانی. تهران: توکا.

جرجانی، ا. (1404). دلائل الاعجاز. تصحیح السید محمدرشید رضا. بیروت: دارالمعرفة للطباعة و النـشر.

حسینی سـیستانی، س. ع. (بی‌تا)‌. الرافـد فی علم الاصول. قم: مکتب آیت‌الله العظمی السید السیستانی.

حق‌شناس، ع. (1370). در جستجوی زبان علم»، برگرفته از مجموعه مقالات ادبی و زبان‌شناختی. زبان‌شناسی، ۷(۲)، ۲-۲۳.

حموی، ا. ح. (1426). خزانة‌الأدب و غایة‌الأدب. به‌اهتمام عصام شعیت. بیروت: دارالمکتبة الهلال.

راسـتگو، س. م. (1370). ایهـام در شعر فارسی. تهران: سروش.

سیوطی، ج. (1421). الاتقان فی علوم‌القرآن. تحقیق فواز احمد زمـرلی. ج ۲. بیروت: دارالکتاب العربی.

شیخ امـین، ب. (1991). البلاغة‌العربی فی ثوبها الجدید؛ علم البدیع. بیروت: دارالعلم للملایین.

طـیب حـسینی، س. م. (1388). چند معنایی در قرآن کریم، قم: پژوهشگاه حوزه و دانشگاه.

عدنان، س. (1376). گرایش‌های فـلسفی در نـقد ادبی. ترجمة نصرالله امامی. اهواز: انتشارات دانشگاه شهید چمران.

قزوینی، م. (بی‌تا). ایضاح و تلخیص، ضمیمة شروح‌التلخیص. بیروت: دارالصادر.

مرتضوی، س. ج. (1394). بدیع از بلاغت. تهران: زوار.

مطلوب، ا. (2000). معجم مصطلحات البلاغی و تطورها. بیروت: مـکتبی لبـنان، نـاشرون.

ناتل‌خانلری، پ. (1361). زبان‌شناسی و زبان فارسی. تهران: توس.

واعظ کاشفی، م. (1369). بدایع‌الافکار فی صنایع‌الاشعار. ویراسته و گزارة میرجلال‌الدین کزازی. تهران: مرکز.

ولک، ر. (1365). مفاهیم ساخت و صورت در نقد قرن بیستم. تـرجمة محمدرضا شفیعی کدکنی. تهران: توس.

 

Clement, C. (1983). The lives and legends of Jacque Lacan (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Dean, T. (2003). Lacan and queer theory. In J. M. Rabate (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Lacan. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. London: The Macmillan Press.

Guiraud, P. (1975). Semiology (G. Gross, Trans.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hammavand, Z. (2003). The construal of atemporalisation in complement clauses in English. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 59-85.

Lacan, J. (1989). Sience and truth from Ecrites. Newsletter of the Freudian Field, 3, 12-34.

Sadowski, P. (2001). Control, information, and literary meaning: A systems model of literature as communication. European Journal of English Studies, 5(3), 289-301.

Sadowski, P. (2003). From signal to symbol: Towards a systems typology of linguistic signs. In W. G. Muller & O. Fischer (Eds.), From sign to signing: Iconicity in language and literature 3 (pp. 411–424). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Sampson, G. (1999). The tree planes of language. Language Sciences, 21, 1-30.

Soon, P. S. (1994). Lexical ambiguity in poetry. London & New York: Longman.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thinking and speaking (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.