Investigating Fictional Dialogue: Speech and Conversation in the Palestinian Resistance a Case Study of al-Tantoryeh by Radwa Ashour

زبان و ادبیات عربی

Article 9, Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2019, Pages 231-251   

Document Type: research article

DOI: 10.22067/jall.v11i2.65713

Authors

Nasrin Abbasi; Salahuddin Abdi^*

Bu-Ali Sina University

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

Narratology is based on narration with structural analysis and description of the rules and by analyzing the totality of texts and divide it into smaller units; they are going to achieve narrative grammar. This scope of human knowledge has advanced to the extent that nowadays it is studied as a scientific branch. This research focuses on analyzing speech and thought presentation in the story by means of stylistic approach proposed by Leech and Short. They are known to have five levels of discourse: 1- Indirect Speech/Indirect thought. 2-Indirect Speech/Indirect thought. 3- Free Indirect Speech/Free Indirect Thought. 4- Direct Speech/Direct Thought. 5-Free Direct Speech/Free Direct Thought.
 The method of this study is descriptive-analytic with narrative cognitive approach. Tantura novel by Radwa Ashour, due to the complexity and specific narrative techniques is the suitable option for studies of narration's tense. The research findings show: the Egyptian author, Radwa Ashoura, has tried to present the whole story from the point of view of the protagonist. The novel uses a variety of direct, indirect, free and indirect free speech and narrative reporting to express the belief in resistance and instill a Palestinian sense of war.

Review of Literature

A dialogue is a literary technique in which writers employ two or more characters to be engaged in conversation with one another. In literature, it is a conversational passage, or a spoken or written exchange of conversation in a group, or between two persons directed towards a particular subject. Generally, it makes a literary work enjoyable and lively.
Leech and Short (1981) have classified speech and thought presentation in fiction into five categories. They are:
1-The Narrative Report of Speech Act (NRSA): It is more indirect than indirect speech. Here the narrator does not reproduce the actual words uttered by the person, whose speech is being reported. When a writer reports the speech made by a person without actually quoting the words uttered by him, we see the event entirely from the writer’s perspective (Jayal, 2013)
2 Indirect Speech/Indirect thought: Indirect Speech (IS): The words of the speaker are reproduced in the third person with a reporting verb and the speech is presented from the point of view of the narrator. (Leech, G., and M. Short. 1981).
3 Free Indirect Speech/Free Indirect Thought: free Indirect Speech (FIS): It occupies a place between DS and IS. In FIS, the reporting verb is omitted but the function of the ‘tense’ is similar to that of its function in IS. FIS is neither a verbatim reproduction of the original speech nor is it a mere indirect rendering of the original. Leech and Short (1981) remark that FIS involves some kind of a distancing effect in the sense that due to the intervention of the authorial voice between the reader and the words of the character the reader is distanced from the character’s words. (Jayal, 2013)

Direct Speech/Direct Thought: Direct Speech (DS): The words uttered by the speaker are quoted within inverted commas. A narrator uses the direct speech to report verbatim what a character said in a particular context. (Todorov, 2003)
Free Direct Speech/Free Direct Thought: free Direct Speech (FDS): In DS, the narrator reports what the character uttered in a particular context. But in Free Direct Speech (FDS) the character speak directly without the intermediacy of the narrator, and, consequently the reporting clause is omitted in the presentation of such a speech. (Jayal, 2013)
Method

The present study by using the descriptive-analytical method within the Speech and Thought Representation Theory, seeks to answer the following questions: What concepts constitute the speech acts present in these novel? In which of these writer speech acts, details are of more importance?
4 . Results and Discussion
Narrative dialogues refer to all the conversations in a narrative text cited by the narrator. These dialogues are altered by the narrator in different ways. Representing the narrative conversations can be revealing in reviewing a story especially in narrative discourse analysis through which one can gain more awareness of narrative methods, writers’ style and the relationship between the narrator and character. Character. (Jayal, 2013( This research focuses on analyzing speech and thought presentation in the story by means of stylistic approach proposed by Leech and Short (2007)  In speech presentation, there are five techniques as proposed by Leech & Short: Direct Speech (DS), Indirect Speech (IS), Free Direct Speech (FDS), Free Indirect Speech (FIS), and The Narrative Report of Speech Act (NRSA). Below are the examples of speech presentation taken from Leech & Short (1981, pp.255-256-.
 The author, Radwa Ashour, used these techniques in an artistic way in her novel Al-Tantoryeh to convey the current reality in her occupied country in all its details. The narrator chose the direct and free direct of the subject to the audience so that the reader can see a clear statement of their living conditions under the Intifada.
5 . Conclusion
The author, Radwa Ashoura, has tried to present the whole story from the point of view of the protagonist. It helped the author to gain sympathy and concern for the protagonist and to bring the theme properly before the audiences
The novel uses a variety of direct, indirect, free and indirect free speech and narrative reporting to express the belief in resistance and instill a Palestinian sense of war, and the author used direct speech to convey his literary experience.
Using thought presentation shows that author has given importance to the inner thought process of the characters. To bring out the theme of the story, it was crucial for the author to make proper use of the thought presentation. With the proper use of speech and thought presentation, Radwa Ashoura was able to present the theme of the story successfully in front of the audiences and was able to gain sympathy and concern for his character.
 

Keywords

Narratology; Storytelling; Radwa Ashour; altantoryeh.leech& short

References

1.ابراهیم، السیّد. (1998). نظریة الروایة دراسة لمناهج النقد الأدبی فی معالجة فن القصة. جامعة قاهرة. کلیة الآداب. دارقبا للطباعة و النشر و التوزیع.

2. اخوت، احمد. (1371). دستور زبان داستان. اصفهان: نشر فردا.

3. تایسن، لیس. (1378). نظریه‌های نقد ادبی معاصر. ترجمه مازیار حسین‌زاده و فاطمه حسینی. تهران: نگاه امروز، حکایت قلم نوین.

4. تودوروف، تزوتان (1382). بوطیقای نثر. ترجمه انوشیروان گنجی پور. تهران: نی.

5. جنیت، جیرار (1997). خطاب الحکایة (بحث فی المنهج). ترجمة محمد معتصم و آخرون. الطبعة الثانی. الرباط، المجلس الأعلی للثقافة. الهییة العامة للمطابع الأمیریة.

6. زیتونى، لطیف. (2002). معجم مصطلحات نقد الروایة. بیروت: مکتبة لبنان ناشرون / دارالنهار للنشر

7. الشلمی، لطف الله. (2007)."تحلیل الخطاب الروایی: المفاهیم و التشاکلات". مجلۀالراوی. العدد 1. صص 7 – 23.

8. عاشور، رضوی. (1386). تجربه‌ نویسندگی من. مترجم یاسمین احمدی. فصلنامه سمرقند. سال پنجم. شماره 17: صص 255-261.

9. --------- (2008). أطیاف. مصر. القاهرة: دار الشروق.

10. ---------. (2010). الطنطوریة. مصر. القاهره: دارالشروق.

11. ---------. (2013). أثقل من رضوی. مصر. القاهرة. دارالشروق.

12. عمر، أحمد مختار. (2008). معجم اللغة العربیة المعاصرة. القاهرة: عالم الکتب.

13. الفیصل، سمر روحی. (1995). بناء الروایة العربیة السوریة. دمشق: اتحاد کتاب العرب.

14. لحمدانی، حمید. (1991). بنیة النص السردی (من منظور النقدالعربی). بیروت: المرکزالثقافی العربی.

15. کادن، جان آنتونی. (1380). فرهنگ توصیفی ادبیات و نقد. ترجمه کاظم فیروزمند. تهران: شادگان.

16. کالر، جاناتان (1985). نظریه ادبی. ترجمه فرزانه طاهری. تهران: نشر مرکز.

17. الکردی، عبدالرحیم. (2006). السرد فی الروایة المعاصرة، القاهرة: مکتبۀ الآداب.