Analyzing the Discourse Oriented Propositions of the novel Ahle Ghargh Written by Moniro Ravanipour basedApproach of Norman Fairclough

As a theoretical and methodological tool, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) provides insight into the authors' worldviews and how they utilize language to convey a deep, multifaceted understanding of their world. This research employs the CDA approach as advocated by Fairclough (2000) to analyze the novel Ahle Ghargh by MoniroRavanipour, out of various CDA methods. At the level of description, the high frequency of words, collocations, sentence fragments, swear words, color words, pronouns and passivization, binary oppositions, and sentential moods, have been interpretated in terms of the depletion of native traditions of their meaning and the collapse of social conventions based on native customs, which have the highest conceptual and empirical affinity with the discourse of "returning to oneself", in the intertextuality and historical context. At the level of explanation, the author has invested considerable effort to portray modernity as inappropriate by showing the ravages of modernity that have drained the native societies of meaning as well as the lack of power to oppose this dominance. Moreover, the author has taken a valid critical position by explaining hegemony in various aspects of the discourse. As a result, at the level of explanation, one can witness the hegemony of modernity at the expense of tradition.
Introduction:
Since modern elements and ideas were first introduced into Iran, they have encountered many ups and downs, and since their acceptance to their full development, they have always faced many agreements and oppositions. Meanwhile, fiction and narrative literature have also been influential in representing modern objectivity and mentalities and how they dominate society. Ahle Ghargh, a novel by Muniro Ravanipour, illustrates some structural contradictions in Iranian society in the face of modernity. In favoring Iranian culture and lifestyle and the social context of southern Iran in particular, this novel opposes the ruling modernity. It is possible to explain such attitudes in general because modern societies seek integration, which can be achieved through tradition. Typically, modernization is viewed as a Western process that non-Western societies cannot accept unless they abandon their traditional cultures (Galland and Lamel, 2008: 153).The works of many literary authors reflect this view, which can be observed in several ways. It is possible to use discourse analysis to effectively understand these positions at their core and dimensions.
It is possible to demonstrate the connection between the novel and discourse as follows, since the novel reflects the views and thoughts of the author. In other words, the reader reads it like a document, a statement that is precisely made and discussed, and the author as a document of his creativity and skill, writing a statement of his views, thoughts, and ideas and reporting the reality of the world, as he sees it himself  (Mahmoudian, 1382: 12). As a result, this article examines the hidden and underlying layers of the text and the relationship between power and ideology using the critical discourse analysis model advocated by Norman Fairclough in the context of contemporary Iranian history.
Methodology:
The discourse analysis model proposed by Fairclough is on the basis of the interaction between power and language. In his view, discourse is a combination of text and social knowledge that contributes to the production and interpretation of texts. In addition, he believes that these social pieces of knowledge are related to three different levels of social organization: social conditions or the immediate social environment in which the discourse occurred; the level of the social institution that includes the discourse in a wide range; and the level of society as a whole. Fairclough examines discourse on three levels: discourse as text, discourse as discourse acts and the interaction between text production and interpretation, and finally, discourse as the context of the text, in the sense of relations between discourse actions and social, political, historical and cultural contexts (Fairclough, 1379: 24-19). The purpose of this article is to critically analyze the discourse of the novel Ahle Gharq on the three general levels of description, interpretation, and explanation, following Fairclough's method.
Results and Discussion:
At the level of the description, Ravnipour aims to challenge the strains of modernity. For this purpose, he uses words to criticize the identity crisis caused by the imposition/acceptance of modernity, which threatens his intended society (Jafra). The high frequency of words such as "death" and its derivatives, "fear" and its synonyms, and "stranger" and its derivatives indicate the collapse of the foundation of traditional order and its transformation into an "unpleasant new thing." For example, the use of the word "dead" in the ideology of Ravanipour is intended to show people who have rejected the traditions and do not intend to return to the pre-modern era. The use of native words and expressions common in the coastal areas of southern Iran in Ahle Ghargh as a stylistic feature is remarkable in making tangible what the author considers to be the aspects of the authenticity of the native culture (the inhabitants of Jafra). The introduction of technology and elements of Western culture (mainly England) is represented in Ahl-e Ghargh with indicative mood. Subjunctive mood expressions are commonly used in Ahle Ghargh to convey regrets, desires, and doubts, whereas indicative mood expressions represent unpleasant transformations and developments threatening native communities. In Ahle Ghargh, people and groups under colonization, always under the influence of natural and human conditions and situations, are forced to be subservient; for this reason, Ravanipour has taken advantage of the imperative mood in the narrative and the interrogative mood in Ravanipour's nativistic discourse is associated with the expression of doubt.
The title of this novel is a metaphor forthe annihilation of meaning and identity, which has deteriorated the social and philosophical existence of the native inhabitants due to the displacement of modernity. In Ahle Ghargh, where the traditions become ineffective, such a situation becomes more tangible, and one can understand the author's ideology, which is embedded in the use of similes and metaphors. Among the contrasts in Ahle Ghargh, we can mention the contrast between tradition/modernity, death/life, domination/resistance, self/other, and government/people.
At the level of interpretation and in the situational context of this level, Ravanipour speaks of people utterly alien to the appearances of the modern world. This situation affects the conditions so that it denies the existence of a native hero or does not allow the birth of a personality with the characteristics of a liberating hero. Intertextuality in Ahle Ghargh is placed as a cultural discourse under the general title of return to self. The rejection of modernity in the thinking of Pahlavi II intellectuals has been heavily influenced by the political literature of the European leftists. Disillusioned with modernity and modernization, these intellectuals, believing that the identity and existence of Iranian society had been forgotten in the face of modernity and modernization, wanted to return to themselves.
At the explanatory level, it can be acknowledged that the discourse of returning to oneself and resistance to modernity played a central role in drawing the main lines of the novel. Therefore, given that the novel was written during the first decade following the 1979 Revolution, the struggle against colonialism and Western tyranny, which was regarded as the birth of the Pahlavi government, was psychologically aligned with the political structure (or the thought supported by the political structure).; an orientation is portrayed throughout the novel in various ways.
Conclusion:
In the novel Ahle Ghargh, the hegemonization of modernity, terrifying as it is, is viewed by the author due to having enormous power and energy for subordination and necessitating resistance against it. Thus, calling for the "historical self" in this text allows any kind of endurance and struggle to be included as a moral virtue. Ravanipour presents the dominance of modernity elements as so oppressive that it causes the story's central character (Meh-Jamal) to be involved in structural conflicts and associated with an unwanted order. Furthermore, the initial awkward handling of Radio by the Jafara people and their later adaptation of it, the registration of ownership documents, and the issuance of birth certificates for the people of Jafrah have made the hegemonization of modernity seem to be an inevitable wide-ranging process, inevitable. The author's purpose is to show the destructive aspects of modernity on native societies and the demeaning impacts it has on their image. Moreover, the author makes a meaningful effort to show the unfairness of modernityby representing the lack of power to confront this hegemony. Thus, by examining the hegemony of power in various dimensions of discourse, the author offers a critical perspective on modernity.