تطبیق نظام‌های خنده‌معنایی ادبیات عامه و ادبیات کودک: از منظر نشانه‌معناشناسی اجتماعی

گِرمَس در نشانه شناسی روایی خود دو نظام معنایی »برنامه مدار « و »مُجابی « را مطرح می کند. لاندوفسکی، علاوه بر این دو نظام، قائل به دو نظام معنایی تعاملیِ »تطبیقی « و »تصادفی « نیز هست. نظام های چهارگانۀ مذکور (برنامه مدار، مجابی، تطبیقی، و تصادفی) به ترتیب مبتنی بر نظم، نیت مندی، تعامل حسی، و شانس هستند. با توجه به اینکه نشانه معناشناسی اجتماعی نظریۀ تولید و دریافت معنا در کاربرد است، پژوهش پیشِ رو بر آن است که در چارچوب نظام های چهارگانۀ لاندوفسکی، با شیوۀ تحلیلی توصیفی نشان دهد که قصه های طنز کودکِ معاصر به مثابۀ خرده بافت های موقعیتیِ خنده داری هستند که راهبردهای معناسازِ بیناسوژه ایِ خود را از کلان بافت های تاریخی فرهنگی ای مانند قصه ها، مثل ها و لطیفه ها به ارث می برند. مسئلۀ پژوهش چگونگی کاکرد روابط بیناسوژه ای (روابط میان شخصیت ها) در تسرّی این شگردهای خنده معنایی است. منظور از »شگردهای خنده معنایی « راهبردهای شکل گیری فرایند خنده در چارچوب یک نظام معنایی است. این پژوهش برای نخستین بار نظام های معنایی طنز را معرفی و رده بندی می کند.

A Comparison of the Laughter-Semantics Systems in Folk Literature and Children Literature: From the Perspective of Social Semio-Semantics

Greimas #39; square divides semantic systems into two classic types of programmaticism and persuasion ; Landowski, besides the classical semantic systems, believes in two semanticinteractive systems: adjustment and accident . The four systems of programming, persuasion, adjustment, and accident are based on order, intent, sensory interaction, and chance. The present study, employing an analyticaldescriptive method, identifies and classifies the common laughter semantics techniques in Folklore (tales, jokes, and parables), and the contemporary stories for children. The techniques of laughter semantics in the strategies of forming the process of laughter are meant within the framework of a semantic system. In this study, the basis for the classification of strategies in classical semantic systems is the connection between the value object and also the change in the modal power of the actors. In the system of adjustment, the basis is adaptability disorder, and in the system of accident, the basis is the definition of accident. This study aims to show that the contemporary humor stories for children as funny situational subcontexts inherit the meaningmaking strategies among their subjects, from large historicalcultural contexts, such as stories, parables, and jokes. The research question is how the social interactions of the tale characters play a role in the spread of these laughter semantics processes. For the first time, this research introduces and classifies the semantic systems of humor.IntroductionSocial semiosemantics examines the role of social reflections and behaviors in the process of producing and receiving meaning. The text is not only the construction of its internal constituent elements, but also the product of its sociocultural context. Sasani (2010, p. 192). calls the immediate spatial and temporal context as microcontext , and in contrast, the historical spatial and temporal context as the macrosociocultural context . Folk literature is humor as a macro context that indirectly plays a role in the formation of microcontexts, such as children #39;s humor stories.BackgroundLandowski, in Reflective Society (1989), deals with the sign of social semantics and the role of the other in the formation of the meaning of I , and in Khatari Interactions (2005), introduces his four systems. Moein, in Meaning as Lived Experience (Moein, 2015), and The Lost Dimensions of Meaning in Classical Narrative Semiotics (Moein, 2017), as well as in his numerous articles introduces Landowski to the Iranian semioticians. In Iran, semiosemantics research in the field of children #39;s literature can be summarized in a study by Zanjanbar and Abbasi (2020).Aims, significance, and questionsThis research, in practice, can inspire satirists and creative writing workshops, and theoretically provide a classification of the narrative techniques of humor in which, based on the frequency of a type of special semantic laughter system, can compare the humorous style of children story writers. This provides a comparison of the style of satirists for comparative literature scholars.The study seeks to compare and classify the sharing of meaningmaking techniques of humorous stories, jokes, and parables as macrotextures with the techniques of meaningmaking contemporary humor stories for children as microtextures. It also classifies them based on Landowski #39;s four semanticinteractive systems.The research questions include:1. In the context of Landowski #39;s semantic systems, how is the process of laughter formation in the discourses of popular humor (stories, jokes, and allegories)?2. What are the common strategies between the popular humor and humorous stories for children to create laughtersemantics conditions?It should be noted that the laughtersemantics conditions refers to the process of laughter formation within a semantic system.Research MethodologyThe research method is analyticaldescriptive and the statistical population of this article is the written and oral texts of folk literature satire and fictional texts of children #39;s satire. The sample group is selected by targeted sampling method. To complete the sampling, the data saturation method was used. The sample size obtained from the saturation consists of fifty works, a few of which will be mentioned because of certain limitations.Conclusion According to Landowski #39;s social semiosemantics, the humorous semantic systems (laughtersemantics systems) consist of four systems: pivotal, persuasive, adaptive, and accidental. Each system has substrategies, which are made first in the macrocultural contexts, and then extend the situational subcontexts in the contemporary children stories. These strategies are differentiated and categorized based on whether the character achieves a value object, as well as how the characters #39; modeling ability changes. Modal ability refers to the four modality verbs to want, to know, to be able, and must , which govern each character before performing the action.ReferencesLandowski. E. (1989). Reflective society (in French). Seuil.Landowski. E. (2005). Khatari interactions (in French). PULIM.Moin, M. B. (2015). Meaning as lived experience (in Farsi). Sokhan.Moin, M. B. (2017). The missing dimensions of meaning in classical narrative semiotics (in Farsi). Scientific and Cultural.Sasani, F. (2010). Meaning: towards social semiotics (in Farsi). Science.Zanjanbar, A. H., Abbasi, A. (2020). Stylistics of physical metamorphosis in children stories based on the tensive regime of discourse. Journal of Language Related Research, 11(4), 4974.