تحلیل داستان خسرو و بهرام چوبین شاهنامه بر اساس مربع ایدئولوژیک ون دایک

The “ideological square model” is one of Van Dijk’s innovations in the field of critical discourse analysis. According to this model, power institutions, as so-called self-groups, employ four principles to conceal the truth and impose ideology: positive self-advertisement, propaganda regarding the other group, de-emphasizing the negative attributes of the self, and de-emphasizing the positive attributes of the other. Informed by Van Dijk’s analytical model (at three levels: semantic, linguistic, and action), the present study investigates the tale of Khosrow Parviz and Bahram-e Chowbin in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh. The results of this study show that the power group (Khosrow) incorporates techniques such as analogy, fallacy, evasion and ambiguity, exaggeration and dramatisation, metaphorisation, deception, self-advertisement, and propaganda. As a representative of the power group, Khosrow, echoing elements of ideological domination such as race, religion, and hereditary kingship, highlights his silver linings and denies his mistakes. On the other hand, he downgrades Bahram by highlighting his shortcomings. The present study argues that the main compilers of this narrative have tried to tip the scales in his and the power group’s favor in various ways, such as highlighting Bahram’s negative traits, downplaying Khosrow’s mistakes, and allocating more time to Khosrow during the debate. Ferdowsi, as a later narrator of this story, sides with the main compilers.
 
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
One can employ critical discourse analysis to uncover concealed truths. According to discourse analysis, ideology is a set of false beliefs and propaganda promoted by the dominant group. Critical discourse analysis, meanwhile, aims to uncover the truth, so that by textual analysis, these false beliefs can be brought to lights and publicised. In the same light, the “ideological square,” coined by Van Dijke, aims to strategically recognise the implicit ideology in the text and uncover the truth. Informed by Van Dijke’s theory, the present study aims to investigate one of the canonical tales in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, namely, “Bahram-e Chowbin and Khosrow Parviz.” In this tale, a long conversation (304 verses) between Bahram and Khosrow precedes their battle. Echoing Van Dijk’s ideological square, the present study seeks to answer the following question: What techniques do the insider group (Khosrow and his associates) use to impose their ideology on the other group (Bahram and his associates), and what intentions in both sides are exposed?
2. Methodology
Informed by Van Dijk’s theories, this descriptive-analytical study examines the dialogue between Khosrow and Bahram and examines its components.
3. Theoretical Framework
To identify the concealed ideologies and recover the truth, Van Dijk suggests analysing texts at different levels, such as meaning and content, formal structure, sentence syntax, rhetoric, and action and interaction, all of which can be analysed in three main categories: semantic-content level, linguistic-structural level, and finally behavioral-action level. The first level examines issues such as evasion, ambiguity, and fallacy; the second level explores rhetorical devices such as metaphor, hyperbole, and euphemism; and the third level investigates behaviors and emotions of the power group, such as threats, ridicule, and physical gestures. Semantic, linguistic, and behavioral arrangements are a prelude to the “ideological square.” In fact, by employing these tools, the power group seeks to achieve these four goals: positive self-advertisement, propaganda distribution of the other group, de-emphasizing the negative attributes of the self, and de-emphasizing the positive attributes of the other. Accordingly, in the discourse of power, by polarizing society and creating a distance between loyalists and opponents, the authority tries to highlight all the positive points about itself and hide its weaknesses. On the other hand, by expressing the negative points of the opposing group and downplaying their positive points, it tries to manipulate public opinion.
4. Discussion and Analysis
As a representative of the power group, Khosrow, echoing elements of ideological domination such as race, religion, and hereditary kingship, highlights his silver linings and denies his mistakes. On the other hand, he downgrades Bahram by highlighting his shortcomings and presenting him as an ingrate toward the Sassanid dynasty.
5. Conclusion
The results of this study show that in his debate with Bahram, Khosrow employs hegemony, domination, race, religion, and hereditary kingship to hide his own weakness and downgrade Bahram’s merits. The present study suggests that the main compilers of this narrative have tried to tip the scales in his and the power group’s favor in various ways, such as highlighting Bahram’s negative traits, downplaying Khosrow’s mistakes, and allocating more time to Khosrow during the debate. Ferdowsi, as a later narrator of this story, sides with the main compilers.
Bibliography
Ferdowsi, Abolqasem. 1382 [2003]. Shāhnāmeh (Chāp-e Moscow). Tehran: Qatreh. [In Persian].
Shahri, Bahman. 1391 [2012]. “Peyvand-e Miān-e Este’āreh va Ideology.” Naqd-e Adabi. 5 (19): 59-76. [In Persian].
Shamisa, Sirous. 1397 [2018]. Shāh-e Nāmeh-hā. Tehran: Hermes. [In Persian].
Tabari, Mohammad bin Jarir. 1375 [1996]. Tārikh-e Tabari. Abolqasem, P (trans.). Tehran: Asatir. [In Persian].
Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. 1993. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse and Society Journal. Vol. 4 (2): 249-283. [In English].
Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. 1998. Ideology. London: Sage Pub. [In English].
Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. 2003. “Discourse, Power, and Access.” In Rosa, C et.al. Texts and Practices. London: Routledge. 84-107. [In English].
Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. 2009. Society and Discourse. New York: Cambridge University Press. [In English].
Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. 1394 [2015]. Ideology va Goftemān. Mohsen, N (trans.). Tehran: Siyahrood. [In Persian].