درآمدی به نظریه نثر

کاربرد فراگیر نثر در زبان گفتار و نوشتار باعث نشده‌است تا صاحب‌نظران عملاً آن را هم‌ارز نظم تلقی کنند. براین‌پایه، هنوز یک تعریف مشخص از نثر در اختیار نداریم. شاید دلیل این کاستی، دشواری تعریف این نوع سخن یا بداهت وجودی آن باشد؛ اما فیلسوفان، بلاغیان، عروضیان، سبک‌شناسان، منتقدان و زبان‌شناسان، ضمن بحث‌های عام‌تر یا خاص‌تر، کمابیش به توصیف و گاه تعریف نثر تمایل نشان داده‌اند. مقاله حاضر با روش توصیفی تحلیلی کوشیده‌است پس از واکاوی تعریف‌های پیشین نثر به تعریف منطقی آن بپردازد این مقاله به دنبال نقد دیدگاه‌های پیشینیان، سرانجام نتیجه می‌گیرد که نثر عبارت است از «کلام متّصل»، ولی مشخصه ممیّز بارز نثر در مقابل نظم، این است که در نثر، قوانین آوایی نحوی زبان بر چیدمان سخن حکم می‌راند و در نظم، قوانین وزنی موسیقایی از بیرون روی آن قوانین بار می‌شود و چیدمان سخن را دگرگون می‌کند. همچنین نثر موزون، شعر منثور، نثر ادبی و نثر مسجع از جهت عوامل نثریت و نظمیت آنها مورد بحث قرار گرفته‌اند.

درآمدی به نظریه نثر

The widespread use of prose in written and spoken language has not led experts to regard it as an equivalent of verse. On this basis, we do not yet have a specific definition of prose. Perhaps the reason for this shortcoming is either the difficulty of defining this kind of speech or its existential selfevidence. But philosophers, rhetoricians, orators, stylists, critics, and linguists have, more or less, tended to describe, and sometimes define, prose. Adopting a descriptiveanalytical method, the present article has tried to offer a logical definition for prose after introducing the existing definitions. Having assessed the views of the predecessors, the article concludes that prose is “connected speech”, but the feature that distinguishes prose from verse is that in prose only the phoneticsyntactic rules of language dictate the order of the discourse, whereas in verse, meter and rhythm are loaded with rules that determine the arrangement of words. Moreover, the paper discusses rhythmic prose, prose poetry and rhyming prose in terms of their prosaic and verse properties. Extended Abstract IntroductionAlthough we speak in prose and most written works are in prose, the need for a definition of prose is still critical. Without a definition of prose, it is impossible to understand it or other forms of verbal communication. The present paper tries to examine the existing definitions of prose and offer a more comprehensive one. Attempt is made here to investigate the nature of prose as an important issue in the theory of prose.  Theoretical FrameworkDifferent definitions and descriptions of prose by numerous scholars have been studied closely in the present paper in an attempt to offer a more comprehensive definition of the prose. MethodologyThe preset paper applies the descriptiveanalytical method to the study of the main ideas in the theory of prose in order to come up with a new definition for prose.  Discussion and AnalysisTo define the prose, its nature and distinctive features are of importance. It can be concluded that prose is “connected speech”, but the feature that distinguishes prose from verse is that in prose only the phoneticsyntactic rules of language dictate the order of the discourse, whereas in verse, meter and rhythm are loaded with rules that determine the arrangement of words. In this study, rhythmic prose and prose poetry have been also discussed in terms of their specific features.  ConclusionThe results of our investigation into the ideas of scholars from the past and present show that prose is connected speech, while poetry is disconnected speech. In other words, prose follows phoneticsyntactic rules and poetry is based on rhythm and meter. And while connection in prose is the ordinary form of speech, in poetry disconnection is intentional in order to achieve poetical purposes. Moreover, rhythmic prose can be defined as prose combined with rhetorical meter, and prose poetry emerges when poetry and rhetorical prose are combined.  BibliographyAlRazi, Sh. 1373 [1994]. AlMo’jam fi Ma’air AlAsh’ar AlAdjam. S. Shamisa (ed.). Tehran: Ferdowsi.Aristotle, 1392 [2003]. Khetabeh. E. Sa’adat. Tehran: Hermes.Haqshenas, A. M. 1383 [2004]. “Seh Chehrehye Yek Honar: Nazm, Nasr va She’r dar Adabyat.” Motale’at va Tahqiqate Adabi 1 & 2/1: 4769.Khatibi, H. 1366 [1987]. Fanne Nasr dar Adabe Parsi. Tehran: Zavvar.Plato, 1398 [2019]. Dowrehye Asare Aflatun. M. Lotfi va R. Kaviani. Tehran: Kharazmi.Sartre, J. P. 1348 [1969]. AdabyatChist? A. Nadjafi and M. Rahimi (trans.). Tehran: Zaman.Shafi’ieKadkani, M. R. 1370 [1991]. Mousiqie She’r. Tehran: Agah.Shklovsky, V. 1385 [2006]. “Honar Hamchon Farayand.” Nazaryehye Adabyat: Matnha I az Formalisthaye Rous. A. Tahayi (trans.). Tehran: Akhtaran.Todorov, T. 1377 [1998]. Manteqe Goftegoui Mikhail Bakhtin. D. Karimi. Tehran: Markaz.Zarrinkoub, A. 1382 [2003]. Arastou va Fanne She’r. Tehran: Amirkabir.