A Comparative Study of Gender Language in the Romantic Letters of Four Lyrical Poems (Vis and Ramin, Khosrow and Shirin, Leili and Majnun, Shirin and Khosrow)

جستارهای نوین ادبی

Article 2, Volume 49, Issue 3 - Serial Number 194, November 2016, Pages 19-44   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jls.v49i3.60745

Authors

Farzane Amirpour^* ; Maryam Rozatian; Hosein Aghahoseini

University of Isfahan

Abstract

1. Introduction
The phenomenon of language and factors affecting that have long been the subject of extensive research. In general, in all the languages, there are differences between speakers in terms of pronunciation of vocabulary and grammar. These differences include both individual and group differences. "The group differences depend on non-linguistic factors such as geographic region, age, gender, educational level, social class, religion, occupation, etc." (Bateni, 1984, pp. 78-79). Gender, from among the social factors affecting language, plays an important role in development of linguistic differences and leads to emergence of different linguistic characteristics in men and women. Moreover, the linguistic differences between men and women in different social situations can be attributed to their different social position in the society (Noushinfar, 2002, p. 185). In the present research, the Romance letters in four Lyric poetry collections have been studied using different linguistic theories, and Robin Lakoff’s theory in particular. Robin lakoff believes that female language is inferior to male language because female language includes signs of weaknesses as well as emphasis on meaningless, non-serious points and emotional responses. In his opinion, male language is more robust, and women seeking social equality with men must acknowledge their language "(Selden & Woodson, 1998, p. 263). All four poems that are to be investigated in the present study are composed by male poets, but some parts of these poems that mainly cover romance letters include words that are uttered by the female and male characters. Therefore, the main goal of the present research is to study the extent to which male poets have managed to represent gender language in these works.

2. Methodology
According to the main hypothesis of the study, the language used in all four poetry collections correspond to the gender language, and all the poets have been able to represent the female language in letters from the female character of the story. The research question is: which of the poets has been more successful in representing the gender language and what is the reason for the lack of consistency between some poems and the gender language? The letters contained in the Khosrow and Shirin, Leili and Majnun and Shirin and Khosrow poetry collections have been thoroughly investigated in terms of conformity with gender language, as for Vis and Ramin poem collection, two letters from Vis and two letters from Ramin have been selected for content analysis. Documentary method and descriptive statistics have been used in this research. First, some gender language criteria based on linguistic theories, as well as some examples of the texts associated with the subject of the study are presented, and the application of each variable in the letters from male and female characters are analyzed at the end of each section.

3. Discussion
In this section, the linguistic theories, especially Robin Lakoff’s theory have been drawn on to specify the most important differences between male and female language. The results obtained from this investigation are then used to analyze the romance letters in the above-mentioned poems collections according to Lakoff, the most important features of female language are:
1) Hedges: hedges are words that represent a sense of hesitation and anxiety. He believes that women use such words to avoid definite comments and sometimes refrain from answering; 2) more frequent use of adverbs such as “many”; 3) more frequent use of empty adjectives, i.e. adjectives that describe nouns, just like other adjectives, but cannot be defined explicitly; 4) direct quotation; 5) specific vocabulary, women use vocabularies that relate to their particular interests in different domains; 6) avoiding coarse or masculine language; 7) the use of indirect speech to make requests (Lakoff, 1975, p. 52-54) and 8) Lakoff also believes that the declarative statements are mostly made into questions in the female language (Cameron, 2005, p. 490).
According to Lakoff theory, another difference between women and men is that women allow the addressee dominate over the conversation. Women use expressive linguistic forms more frequently, while men mostly use rational linguistic forms. Adverb and adjective are emotional expressions, but noun and verb have rational implications. The frequency of adjectives is much higher in female language. Women adhere to linguistic standards more than men do and send confirmation marks more frequently. The vocal patterns used by women are similar to questions and need confirmations. Moreover, women do not act as magisterial as men do. Lakoff believes that women use high sentence intonation and intensifiers to emphasize their speeches. They use "intensifiers" to emphasize on sentences and boost semantic load and consequently make their speech important. They describe things more intensely while men provide simple descriptions (Fotohi, 1391, p. 398-399). Therefore, the difference between the male and female languages are usually related to the frequency of specific linguistic elements. Therefore, using linguistic features derived from the views of Robin Lakoff and other linguists, romantic letters have been investigated within a framework of Persian semantics.

4. Conclusion
Vis and Ramin, Shirin and Khosrow by Amir Khosrow Dehlavi, proved to be more consistent with the principles of gender language. Based on the findings:
- The highest frequency of imperative sentences in the romantic letters of Vis and Ramin and Shirin and Khosrow poems is seen in the male language, in Khosrow Shirin and Leili and Majnoun of Nezami, however, such sentences are mostly seen in the letters from the female characters of the story; therefore, the language of romantic letters in these two poetry collections are not consistent with the linguistic principles of gender.
- The question sentences that characterize female language in Vis and Ramin and Shirin and Khosrow are more frequently used in the letters from the female character, in Khosrow and Shirin and Leili and Majnoun, however, these sentences are most commonly used more by the male character of the story.
- Swearing sentences: In the Vis and Ramin, Khosrow and Shirin and Shirin and Khosrow poetry collections, the prayer sentences are consistent with the linguistic principles of gender and are more frequently used in the letters from female characters. In Leili and Majnoun, however, such sentences are most commonly used in the letters from the male characters of the story.
- As for proto-declarative and performative declarative sentences, all the poetry collections except for Leili and Majnoun, are consistent with the linguistic principles of gender.
- In all of the letters, except for Leili and Majnoun, the secondary roles of the sentences and declarative sentences are more frequently used in the letters from female characters.
According to the findings, the gender language, especially the variables that show the weakness of this language, are less evident in Nezami’s "Leili and Majnoun" and "Khosrow and Shirin" than the other two poetry collections. The reasons for the inconsistency between the gender language and Nezami’s words should be sought in the personal perspective of Nezami towards the woman character, the cultural and social conditions of the region where the story was created, personal perspective of Nezami towards Shirin as well as his interest in this character. Cultural differences and the historical and social status of Arab women can be considered as one of the causes of inconsistency between Leili and Majnoun's letters and the principles of gender language. Moreover, Leili and Majnoun are among the first works with a mystical background, in which Nezami depicts mystical journeys with weakness and subjugation of Majnoun.

Keywords

Gender Language; Romantic Letters; Lyrical Poems

References

ارسطو. (1371). ریطوریقا (فن خطابه). ترجمۀ پرخیده ملکی. تهران: اقبال. چاپ اول.

اصلانی، محمدرضا. (1383). تعامل زبان و جنسیت و کارکردهای آن در ادبیات معاصر فارسی. پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد زبان‌شناسی همگانی. دانشگاه پیام نور.

باطنی، محمدرضا. (1363). چهار گفتار دربارۀ زبان. تهران: آگه.

برتلس، یوگنی ادواردویچ. (1350). نظامی شاعر بزرگ آذربایجان. ترجمۀ حسین محمدزاده صدیق. تهران: پیوند.

برنارد، جسی شرلی. (1384). دنیای زنان. ترجمۀ شهرزاد ذوفن. تهران: اختران.

بهمنی مطلق، یدالله؛ باقری، نرگس. (1391). «مقایسۀ زبان زنانه در آثار سیمین دانشور و جلال آل‌احمد». زن و فرهنگ. شمارۀ 11. صص 43-59.

بهمنی مطلق، یدالله؛ مروی، بهزاد. (1393). «رابطۀ زبان جنسیت در رمان شب‌های تهران». زبان و ادبیات فارسی. شمارۀ 76. صص 7-26.

ترادگیل، پیتر. (1395). زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی (درآمدی بر زبان و جامعه). ترجمۀ محمد طباطبایی. تهران: آگاه.

جان‌نژاد، محسن. (1380). زبان و جنسیت؛ تفاوت‌های زبانی میان گویشوران مرد و زن ایرانی در تعامل مکالمه‌ای. پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد زبان‌شناسی همگانی. دانشگاه تهران.

حسینی، مریم. (1384). «روایت زنانه در داستان‌نویسی زنانه». کتاب ماه ادبیات و فلسفه. شمارۀ 93. صص 94-101.

خواجه‌نوری، بیژن؛ زاهد، سعید. (1382). «بررسی و تحلیل اجمالی نقش اجتماعی زنان در تاریخ ایران». فرهنگ. شمارۀ 48. صص 138-151.

داوری اردکانی، نگار؛ عیار، عطیه. (1387). «کنکاشی در پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی جنسیت». مطالعات راهبردی زنان. شمارۀ 42. صص 162-181.

دهلوی، امیرخسرو. ( 1962م.). شیرین و خسرو. با مقدمۀ غضنفر علی‌اف. مسکو: ادارۀ نشریات ادبیات خاور.

رپیکا، یان. (1354). تاریخ ادبیات در ایران. ترجمۀ عیسی شهابی. تهران: بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب.

رضوی، فاطمه؛ صالحی نیا، مریم. (1394). «سبک زبان زنانه در خاطرات تاج‌السلطنه». ادب پژوهی. شمارۀ 31. صص 65-90.

ریاحی، لیلی. (1358). قهرمانان خسرو و شیرین. تهران: امیرکبیر.

زیدان، جرجی. (1372). تاریخ تمدن اسلام. جلد اول. ترجمۀ علی جواهرکلام. تهران: امیرکبیر.

ساپیر، ادوارد. (1376). زبان. ترجمه علی‌محمد حق‌شناس. تهران: سروش.

ستاری، جلال. (1373). سیمای زن در فرهنگ ایران. تهران: مرکز.

سعیدی سیرجانی، علی اکبر. (1377). سیمای دو زن. تهران: پیکان.

سلدن، رامان؛ ویدوسون، بیتر. (1377). راهنمای نظریۀ ادبی معاصر. ترجمۀ عباس مخبر. چاپ دوم. تهران: طرح نو.

شمیسا، سیروس. (1385). نقد ادبی. تهران: میترا.

شمیسا، سیروس. (1373). انواع ادبی. تهران: فردوس. چاپ هشتم.

شمیسا، سیروس. (1379). بیان و معانی. تهران: فردوس. چاپ ششم.

صفا، ذبیح الله. (1370). تاریخ ادبیات در ایران. جلد سوم. تهران: فردوس. چاپ هفتم.

صادقی تحصیلی، طاهره. (1374). ویژگی‌های شعر زنان و تفاوت آن با شعر مردان (در دورۀ معاصر). پایان نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

طاهری، قدرت‌الله. (1388). «زبان و نوشتار زنانه؛ واقعیت یا توهم؟». زبان و ادب پارسی. شمارۀ 42. صص 87-107.

عسگری، معصومه. (1375). تفاوت‌های تلفظی زنان و مردان در فارسی تهرانی. پایان نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.

علی‌نژاد، بتول. (1381). «بررسی نسبی‌گرایانۀ مقولۀ جنس در راستای تحول زبان فارسی». مجموعه‌ مقالات نخستین همایش ملی ایران شناسی. تهران.

فتوحی، محمود. (1391). سبک‌شناسی، نظریه‌ها، روش‌ها و رویکردها. تهران: سخن.

فخرالدین اسعد گرگانی. (1389). ویس و رامین. تصحیح مجتبی مینوی. تهران: هیرمند.

فروزان‌فر، بدیع‌الزمان. (1350). سخن و سخنوران. تهران: خوارزمی.

کراچکوفسکی، ایگنانی اولیانویچ. (1373). پژوهشی در ریشه‌های تاریخی لیلی و مجنون. ترجمۀ کامل احمدنژاد. تهران: زوار.

محمودی بختیاری، بهروز؛ دهقانی، مریم. (1392). «رابطۀ زبان و جنسیت در رمان معاصر فارسی». زن در فرهنگ و هنر. دورۀ پنجم. شمارۀ 4. صص 543-556.

مدرسی، یحیی. (1368). درآمدی بر جامعه‌شناسی زبان. تهران: مؤسسۀ مطالعات و تحقیقات فرهنگی.

نجم‌آبادی، افسانه. (1377). «دگرگونی زن ومرد در زبان مشروطیت». مجموعه مقالات نگاه زنان. تهران: توسعه.

نظامی، الیاس بن یوسف. (1376). لیلی و مجنون. تهران: قطره.

نظامی، الیاس بن یوسف. (1391). خسرو و شیرین. تهران: قطره. چاپ سیزدهم.

نوشین‌فر، ویدا. (1381). «زبان و جنسیت». نشریۀ دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه بیرجند. شمارۀ 2. صص 181-188.

نیکوبخت، ناصر؛ بزرگ بیگدلی، سعید. (1391). «روند تکوین سبک زنانه در آثار زویا پیرزاد». نقد ادبی. شمارۀ 18.صص 323-333.

Allen, R. (2000). An introduction to Arabic literature. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baron, N. (1986). Language, sublanguage, and the promise of machine translation. Computers and Translation, 1(1): 3-19.

Brend, R. (1975). “Male, Female: Intonation Pattern in American English”. In Thorne and Hanley. Language Study. Amesterdam: Bjamin. pp. 866- 870.

Cameron, D. (2005). "Language, gender, and sexuality". Applied Linguistics. 26 (4): 482–502.

Dubois, B. & Crouch, I. (1975). "The Question of Tag Questions in Women's Speech: They Really Don't Use More of Them". Language in Society. 4: 289-294.

Erickson, T. A., & Matteson, M. E. (1981). “From words to meaning: A semantic illusion”. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior. 20: .

Fishman, J. (1971). Sociolinguistique. . Paris-Bruxelles: Nathan-Labor. p. 159.

Hayward, M. (2003). “Are Texts Recognizably Gendered? An Experiment and Analysis”. Poetics (31): pp. 87-101.

Johnson, D. M. & Roen, D. H. (1992). “Complimenting and Involvement in Peer Reviews: Gender Variation”, Language In Society, 21 (1): pp. 27-57.

Labov, W. (1972). "Contraction, Deletion, and Inherent Variability of the English Copula". Language. 45. pp.715-762.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.

O'Barr, W. M., & Atkins, B. K. (1980). “Women's language” or “powerless language”? In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society. New York: Praeger.

Rubin, D. & Greene, K. (2001), “Gender-typical style in written language”. Research in the Teaching of English. 26 (1): 7-40.

Wodak, R; Benke, G. (1998). “Gender as a Sociolinguistic Variable: New Perspectives on Variation”. In The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. By Florian Coulmas. (pp. 88-103). Blackwell.