چکیده:
It can also cause many transformations, provide a suitable platform for new research, and create a specific dynamism and movement in this science. In this article, the symbol is defined as one of the forms of expression that goes beyond the forms of imagination, and its position in the field of Bayan (eloquence) is identified as a form of manifestation. It also refers to its position in the science of Ma'ani (semantics) as a form that transcends truth and metaphor, and transcends brevity and prolixity. The traditional structure of Persian rhetoric has limitations that make reform and revision necessary. Predecessors usually divided rhetoric into three fields: Ma'ani, Bayan, and Badi', and divided each of them into limited sections and provided definitions for them. Later scholars of rhetoric have also often followed them and accepted these same divisions and definitions. The application of this division and its instantiation in various literary works faces problems and limitations; in these works, examples and cases are seen that do not fit into traditional structures and classifications and require new fields and categories, which reminds us of the necessity of revising the science of rhetoric. One of the topics that is effective and useful in this regard is specifying the position of the symbol in rhetoric and providing a suitable definition for it within this field. Symbol and symbolism, just as they have been defined in mythology, psychoanalysis, art, sociology, mysticism, and other fields and have created many transformations, in rhetoric...
خلاصه ماشینی:
(See: Amouzegar, 1983:3; Esmailpour, 1731:31; Shaygan, 1731:301; Rastegar Fasaei, 1737:42; Bahar, A, 1984:114 and Bahar, 1747: 57) Careful attention to these views and their analysis and comparison shows that these multiple and even sometimes contradictory meanings and definitions are evidence that the mode of expression in myth is symbolic and cryptic; therefore, it has a different surface structure from its deep structure and is interpretable and explainable in different times, places, and schools.
, 64) Of course, this limitation also has a specific reason, which is that rhetoricians, due to the specific circumstances in which they engaged in discussion and research in the fields of metaphor, truth, and forms of imagination, and also because of their subject matter, which was mostly the qasida and earthly concepts, and also because of their approach to speech, considered speech to be the result of conditions of consciousness and awareness, and saw the purpose of using various forms of imagination as stimulating emotions and feelings, the beauty of speech, and creating wonder and prominence; what the writer and poet expressed with the help of forms of imagination could also be expressed through words in their literal meaning without using those forms, but since the code relates to the unconscious and the discovery and intuition of the intangible, unknown, ambiguous world that is beyond ordinary and common experiences, it has remained far from the perspective of rhetoricians.
(
, 
, 
)
