Abstract:
بدون شک تشبیه، قلب ادبیات است. ازآنجاکه آرایۀ «تشخیص» زیرساختی تشبیهی دارد، پرداختن به ابعاد گوناگون این آرایۀ ادبی همواره ارزشمند است. بلاغیون گذشته و معاصر همواره به گونهای و هریک بهاندازهای دربارة «تشخیص» بحث کردهاند؛ اما چنانکه خاصیت علوم ادبی است، هرگز نمیتوان بر در این پژوهشها قفل اختتام زد و ادعا کرد آخرین نظر کاملترین نظر است؛ ازاینرو نگارنده نیز دانستههای اندک خود را دربارة آرایۀ تشخیص گردآوری کرده و در مقالۀ حاضر به چند موضوع تازه در این باب پرداخته است؛ موضوعاتی چون: اشکال در نامگذاری واژۀ «تشخیص»، شمولناپذیری واژۀ «تشخیص»، تقسیمبندی جدیدی از عناصر این آرایه، انتخاب نامی تازه برای این آرایه، خطای بلاغیون در انتخاب واژۀ دارای «تشخیص»، تعریفی جدید از آرایۀ تشخیص و در آخر یک مبحث تازه در ارتباط آرایۀ «تشخیص» و اسناد مجازی.
Literatue is a company of unrestricted and unlimited re-creation of duplicate and limited facts. This re-creation makes our small world more inspiring, imaginative, and more appealing. The means of producing these reincarnations are three literary sciences: Imaginary, literary figures and Meaning .To keep our speach informed and comprehensive, the science of prosody and rhymes can also get related to this recreation with some negligence. Despite this classification, the boundaries of these four sciences are sometimes so intertwined that the separation of them is fraught with difficulties. The imaginary is one of the most widely used speech arts. Meknia methapore is one of the subgroups of literary arts. The relationship between meta-methane and personificationis like the relationship between rounding and walnuts; That is, every personification is a Meknia methapore. But every meknia methapore is not a personification.
The personification is one of the most used expressions in the form of a literary power in the words of poets and writers. Because the infrastructure of this array ultimately leads to methapore, and as we know, the heart of literature is methapore. Other names have also been identified for personification array: objects animation, humanoid, perdonification, and so on. This article deals with topics and debates about the pattern of personification: Literally, it seems to be false and forgery, to choose the term "personification" for the animating industry for objects or to be human beings; Because in Arabic, the "person" in the sense of the body and the temple (the words of Dehkhoda and Almundhad following the word of the person) and the fabrication of a seminal term of the term, in the metaphysical state ultimately finds the meaning of "flesh", and not "divine" .In the assumption that the word is literally verbally correct, in terms of inclusiveness and inclusiveness of this industry, it is inefficient and incomplete.
After analyzing the shortcomings of the various names that have been chosen for this industry, Rickman believes that the combination of "naturalism" is the most appropriate and clear name for the replacement of the term "personification," and it is better to make it almost the same ("animism" and "no" (personification). For types of anomalies, we have identified six types: 1. Personifacation animism. 2. Animalistic animism. 3. Subjectve animism. 4. Divine animism. 5. Dead man animism. 6. Combined animism.
In the story of Hazrat Solomon and Heddah (a bird), what is interesting is that Hedda speaks; speaking like human.the question is that: Does Hodhod really look like a human being who speaks? No ther is no methapre here. It is really speaking while it is not human. For this specific case in which the imagination is mysteriously
connected with the truth, the writer chooses the name of “combinatorial animism". The author for this industry has a definition that, in his own point of view, is largely complete and includes six features: "The personification array is a subgroup of Meknia methapore, is a combination that can be put into similar place, and then this combination stimulates our imagination so quickly and uncontously so that we accept life for that object " So far, all the eloquent scholars have agreemnt on the personification in literal word.
However, in practice it in not true. In other words, the author, in his opinion, has a comprehensive definition of the industry. "The personification array is a subgroup of Meknia methapore, is a combination that can be put into similar place, and then this combination stimulates our imagination so quickly and uncontously so that we accept life for that object " Today, in a well-defined and accepted definition, they often describe virtual documents with little constraint as: "The virtual documents attribute the verb to the non-real subject that is also allowed to rational, such as the cry of the cloud, which we have cursed (mosand) to the cloud, and we do not believe rationally and mystically such documents" (Shamsa 1383: 141). According to this definition, in the sentence "cloud crys", which is also an example of Shamsa, crying is the true action that we attribute to the non-real subject, the cloud.
The very important form that have been mentioned, and the way in which this definition breaks down, is that, firstly, it is "not real"; because it is symbol of raining; it means that the cloud rains. Second, as mentioned before, the "cloud", which is the main meaning, in any case, and until the last moment, when all the mechanisms of this similitude are arranged, is only a cloud, and it is completely real; it does not perform any role other than cloud; Even when, in our minds, it gets like humans, it is still a cloud, and is not human being. To clarify these statements, let's put the analogy of the metaphor under construction without any array, with the four main components being composed, so that we can see that the word "cloud" is not at all unreal. However, now it gets obvious that so far in the definition of virtual documents, the actual and non-real places are being replaced and fitted, and we need to redefine the virtual documents as follows: "Virtual documents; means, attributing a non-realistic feature to a real institution".