Document Type : علمی- پژوهشی


1 Assistant Professor, Department of French Language and Literature, University of Tabriz, Iran

2 PhD Student in French Language and Literature, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran


تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی شاخه‌ای جدید و بین رشته‌ای در علوم انسانی و بالاخص در حوزه نقد زبان‌شناختی است که در سال‌های اخیر توسعه بیشتری پیدا کرده و در تحلیل مسائل مختلف سیاسی- اجتماعی و البته متون ادبی خودنمایی می‌کند. نورمن فرکلاف نظریه پرداز و بنیان‌گذار این جریان فلسفی-زبان‌شناختی در اواخر قرن بیستم میلادی با دریافت و گذر از نظریات نشانه‌شناسی، تأویل‌گرایی گادامر، دیرینه‌شناسی میشل فوکو و با رد آراء صرفا اقتصاد‌گرایانه‌ی نئوکمونیست‌ها و با نگاهی به پسا‌ساختار‌گرایی دریدایی توانست مفهوم گفتمان قدرت و مردم را از طریق ساخت‌های ایدئولوژیک به دست‌آمده از صورت‌های زبانی تازگی ببخشد.

مقاله‌ی حاضر می‌کوشد با رویکردی تطبیقی، مفهوم کلیدی و کلان مدرنیته را در بافت موقعیتی رمان‌های مدیر مدرسه از جلال آل احمد و سفر به انتهای شبِ لویی-فردینان سِلین فرانسوی، که اصطلاح مدرنیته به عنوان گفتمان قدرت در رمان‌های نیمه اتوبیوگرافیک (خود زندگی‌نامه) مذکور در تضاد با گفتمان رسمی قهرمان‌های داستان است، بر اساس رویکرد نظری نورمن فرکلاف تحلیل و بررسی‌ کند. باید گفت که آل احمد در مدیر مدرسه قصد انتقاد از عواقب جامعه‌ای را دارد که غرب‌زده شده و به تقلید از مدرنیته‌ی غربی اخلاق، معنویات و فرهنگ سنتی را به فراموشی سپرده‌است. سِلین نیز در سفر به انتهای شب با دنیای پست مدرن غرب و گفتمان مدرنیته که در جایگاه گفتمان قدرت قرار دارد، رسم و رسوم جاری بین افراد جامعه را، که تحت تاثیر پدیده‌ی مدرنیزاسیون دولتی و ظهور بیش از پیش ماشین‌های صنعتی هویت انسانی خود را باخته‌اند، در قالب جملات قصار و لحن عامیانه به دیده‌ی تحقیر می‌نگرد.


Critical Discourse Analysis of Modernity in Modir-e Madrese of Jalâl Âl-e-Ahmad and Voyage au bout de la nuit of Louis-Friednand Céline, Based on Norman Fairclough Approach[1]





The category of discourse is beyond of sentences-statement and any simple conversation. It is a belief which formed as ideology and faith and appears in behavioral reactions. The influence of dominant discourse on the society, in particular, while is applied by the policy (power discourse), become inevitable on actions, thought and discourse of people (formal discourse) and these two groups, (power & people) could be aligned or in conflict. James Paul Gee (1999) believes that, “discourse entails something more than language. Discourses always entail coordination of language with method, interaction, valuation, believing, feeling, bodies, clothes, non-verbal symbols, objects, tools, technologies, time and location.”

Michel Foucault, the famous philosopher and reviewer of French literature also claims that discourse is an area (verbal-linguistic) in which various verbal interactions and relations are described simply. He doesn’t consider discourse as a set of symbols but regard them as the practices which form the subjects that speak about them. The discourse analysis tries to analyze the correlation between content and one beyond it which could be affected by society, other contents and/or cultural-political-social events and be inferred as pluralistic, consciously and/or unconsciously ideologies from tongue of characteristics, through lingual forms. The critical discourse analysis which is a new and interdisciplinary branch in humanities and particularly in area of linguistic critique, in recent years, especially in scientific and philosophic circles, has been developed and manifest in analysis of different social-political problems and indeed literal contents. Norman Fairclough the theorist and founder of Philosophy-linguistic stream could refresh the power and people discourse concept through ideological structures obtained from lingual forms at the end of 20th century through reviewing theories of semiotics, Gadamer’s hermeneutics, Michel Foucault’s paleontology and also by rejecting solely economist views of the neo-communists and meanwhile by looking at post-structuralism of Derrida. In fact, the approach of critical discourse analysis tries to show how one discourse affected by other social factors and how could be productive by relying on lingual forms and other social factors and replicate consistent ideas and reproduce formal and/or power discourse.



Previously, different researches have been conducted in field of both studied works of the present article. Some of these researches also have been performed comparatively. What is considered an innovation in the present research and authors motivated to research is that up to now none research has involved Fairclough’s theory in review of Modir Madrese and Journey to the end of the night stories. The authors hope that, the present research could take a step in this course.

The infrastructure of this article would be to answer to the following two questions:

1) What role does modernity play in formation of discourse in given two stories?

2) How does Norman Fairclough’s theory, explain this main role?



Norman Fairclough, believes that in review of literal context of one work, only the lingual-grammar structure and the created actions in the sentences of the text are not effective, but different cultural, social and political factors play role and therefore in the analysis of the text, the role of situational content should be considered. In fact, the critical discourse analysis tries to recognize and review the ideological structures which are created during time through power discourse and is considered as axiom and natural beliefs by the author consciously and unconsciously and transferred to reader through linguistic cores as well as to evaluate their origin. Therefore, in the present article the parallel discourses of given two stories is analyzed as descriptive-analytical form and by applying Fairclough’s theory the critical relation of power and people is evaluated on three levels. Therefore, the analysis of discourse in the present research, firstly relies on lingual substructures and reviews the brevity, question marks, exclamation marks and new words which totally include the description level and linguistic dimension of discourse analysis. The second step of discourse analysis (level of interpretation) applies to situational texture and intertextuality and evaluates the social-historical fields and also ideological influence of the texts. In third, and final step of discourse analysis (level of explanation), the three cases of reproduction of formal discourse, impact of power on the society and influence of formal discourse and power relations on future of the society are reviewed. Therefore, critical discourse analysis on give three levels, reviews language and ideology and studies discourse generality of works which include form and content.



Based on  critical discourse analysis of Norman Fairclough’s theory, two stories of school principal and Journey to the end of the night on three levels (description, interpretation and explanation) is reviewed and the explicit result which obtained is that both contexts, in  their formal-narrative discourse criticized dominant discourse (power) on total levels, especially in hidden and underlying layers of context, directly and indirectly and tried through it, to help for culture and public discourse. The major characteristics of both stories also by resort to slang language which sometimes appears ridiculous and has its specific ideological mechanisms, display the contemporary tragedy under subject of modernity as well as criticize it seriously. The study of these two novels shows that the greedier modern man is towards science, materialism and profiteering rationalism, the more he feels lonely. The last and more important point is that autobiographic feature of both stories, has aided well to narrative matching of situational context and this matter would be more rich by different references to other contexts in intertextuality context.  

Keywords: Âl-e-Ahmad, Céline, Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis, linguistic criticism, Modernity.



Âl-e Ahmad, J. (1396), Modir-e Madrese, Qom, Entešârât-e Ketâb-e Sa’di.

Âqâgolzâde, F. (1386), “Tahlil-e goftemân-e enteqâdi”, Adab-pažuhi, šomâreye 1, safahât-e 17-27.

Céline, L-F. (1932), Voyage au bout de la nuit, Gallimard, Paris.

Fairclough, N. (1379), Tahlil-e goftemân-e enteqâdi, tarj. Šâyeste Pirân va hamkârân, Tehran, Markaz-e Motâle’ât va Tahqiqât-e Rasâne-hâ.

------------ (1989), Language and Power, New York, Longman.

------------ (1993), Discourse and Social change, New York, Longman.

------------ (1995), Critical Discourse Analysis, New York, Longman.



[1] Mohammad Mohammadi-Âqdâš (Responsible Author), Assistant professor of French language and literature, University of Tabriz;

 Behnâm Moharramzâde, Ph.D. student of French literature, Islamic Azad University, Sciences and Research Unit of Tehran;



Main Subjects




    • Aqâgolzâdeh, Ferdos (1391), «Tosif va Tabyine-e sâxt-haye zabani-e Ideolozhik dar Tahlil-e Goftmân-e Enteqâdi», Faslnâme-ye Pazhuhesh-haaye Zabân va Adabiyat-e Tatbiqi, D3, sh 2, pp. 1-19.
    • Aqâgolzâdeh, Ferdos (1386), «Tahlil Goftemân-e Enteqâdi», Adab pazhuhi, shomare 1, pp.17-27
    • Aqâgolzâdeh, Ferdos (1386), «Ruykardhaaye qâleb dar Tahlil-e Goftmân-e Enteqâdi», Zabân va Zbânshenasi, sh 5, pp. 39-54
    • Aqâgolzâdeh, Ferdos (1385), Tahlil Goftmân-e Enteqâdi, Tehran. Elmi va Farhangi.
    • Aal-e Ahmad Jalal (1398), Modir-e Madrese, Tehran. câp-e Haftom, Enteshârât-e Majid.
    • Aal-e Ahmad Jalal (1394), Arzyaabi-ye Shetâbzadeh, Tehran. Enteshârât-e Majid.
    • Aal-e Ahmad Jalal (1373), Qarb Zadegi, Tehran. câp-e dovvom. Enteshârât-e Ferdos.
    • Aal-e Ahmad Jalal 1369), Modir-e Madrese, Qom, Enteshârât-e Saadi.
    • Ile-i, Ahmad Yahya (bedun-e ta), «Tahlil-e Goftmân Cist? », Noxostin Nashriyye-e Beinolmelali-e Ravâbet Omumi/Elmi/Amuzeshi : Tahqiqat-e Ravâbet Omumi, pp.58-64.
    • Bâxtin, Miaail (1929-1970), Adabiyât-e Dâstayofski va Zibaayishenâsi-e Modern.
    • Basir, Hasan (1385), Tahli-e Goftman Daricei Baraye Kashfe Nagofteha. Tehran. Enteshârât-e Emam-e Sâdeq.
    • Bahrampur, Shaabânali (1379), «Darâmadi bar Tahlil-e Goftmân», dar Goftmân va Tahlil-e Goftmân (majmue maqâlat), be ehtemam-e Mohammad Reza Tajik. Tehran. Farhang-e Goftmân. pp.21-64.
    • Pâyaa, Ali (1387), «Molâhezâti Enteqâdi Darbâreye Tajrobe-ye Modernite-ye Irâni», Hekmat va Falsafe, sâl-e caahaarrom, shomâre-ye 3. pp.63-89. 
    • Deridâ, Zhâk, Fuko, Mishel, Kogito va Târix-e Jonun (Majmue Maqâlat), Tarjome-ye Fâteme Valiyaani (1394). Tehran. Hermes.
    • Dreyfus Hiyubert, Rabinho, Pol (1398), Mishel Fuko Farâsuye Sâxtârgerâyi va Hermenotik, Tarjome-ye Doktor Hasan Boshriye. Tehran. Nashr-e Ney.
    • Dorpar, Maryam (1391), «Sabkshenâsi-ye Enteqâdi, Ruykardi Novin dar Barrasi-ye Sabk bar Asâs-e Tahlil Goftmân-e Enteqâdi», Faslname-ye Naqd-e Adabi. Sh 17. pp.37-62.
    • Horri, Abolfazl (1388), «Kârkard-e Tasrif dar do Sure-ye Qorâni Nâzer be Dâstan-e Aafarinesh, dar Partov-e Farâkârkard-e Helidi», Nashriyye-ye Pazhuhesh-e Zabânhaaye Xâreji, shomâre-ye 55. pp.101-116.
    • Soltâni, Seyyed Ali Asqar (1384), Qodrat-e Goftmân va Zabân, Sâzokârhaaye Jarayân-e Qodrat dar Jomhuri-ye Eslâmi-ye Irân. T4ehran. Nashr-e Ney.
    • Selin, Lui-Ferdinân, Goftoguhaayi bâ profosor Iqreq, Tarjome-ye Eftexar Nabavinezhâd, (1397), Tehran. Nashr-e Farhang-e Jâvid.
    • Selin, Lui-Ferdinân, Safar be Entehaaye Shab, Tarjome-ye Farhaad Qebrâyi, (1373). Tehran. Nashr-e Jaami.
    • Zamirân, Mohammad (1378), Mishel Fuko : Dânesh va Qodrqt, Tehran. Nashr-e Hermes.
    • Fotuhi, Mahmud (1390), Sabkshenâsi, Nazariyehaa, Ruykardhaa va Raveshhaa. Tehran Nashr-e Soxan.
    • Froyd, Zigmond, Zamir-e Nâaagâh, Tarjome-ye Ali Fulâdi va Hamkârân, (1392). Tehran. Moasse-ye Farhangi Honari-ye Pezhvâk-e Honar va Andishe. 
    • Ferkelâf Norman, Tahlil-e Goftmân-e Enteqâdi, Tarjome-ye Shâyeste Pirân va Hamkârân, (1379), Tehran. Markaz-e Motâleaat va Tahqiqât-e Resânehaa.
    • Makârik, Inârimâ, Dâneshnâme-ye Nazariyehaa-ye Adabi-ye Moaaser, Tarjome-ye Mehrân Mohaajer va Mohammad Nabavi, câp-e Avval, Tehran. Nashr-e Aagâh.
    • Mak Danel, Dâyân, Mogaddame-i bar Nazariyyehaa-ye Goftmân, Tarjome-ye Hossein Ali Nozari, (1380), Tehran, Nashr-e Farhang-e Goftmân.
    • Milz, Sârâ, Goftmân, Tarjome-ye Fattâh Mohammadi, câp-e Avval. Zanjân. Nashr-e Hezâre-ye Sevvom.
    • Haaydeger, Mârtin, Hasti va zamân, Tarjome-ye Mahmud Navâli, (1388), Tabriz. Enteshârât-e Dâneshgâh-e Tabriz.
    • Yaarmohammadi, Lotfollâh, Goftmânshenâsi-ye Râyej va Enteqâdi, câp-e Avval. Tehran. Nashr-e Hermes.
    • Vitgeneshtâyn, Lodvik, «Negâhi be Jahaan-e Dâstân-e Lui Ferdinân Selin», Tarjome-ye Mehdi Yazdânixorram (1385), Majalle-ye Boxârâ, shomâre-ye 51. pp.171-178
    • Yorgensen, Mâryaan, Filips Luyiz, Nazariyye va Ravesh dar Tahlili-e Goftmân, Tarjome-ye Haadi Jalili, Tehran. Nashr-e Ney.
    • Accame, Giano, (2009), « Céline, prophète de la décadence, traduit par Michel Thélia », Paris.
    • Anglard, Véronique, (2004) Céline, Gallimard, Paris.
    • Austin, John, (1962), How to Do Things With Words, Oxford University Press.
    • Beaujour Michel, (1993), Profil de Voyage au bout de la nuit, Nathan, Paris.
    • Camus, Albert, (1942), L’Etranger, Gallimard, Paris.
    • Céline, Louis-Ferdinand, (1932), Voyage au bout de la nuit, Gallimard, Paris.
    • Connelle, Ian and Galasinski, Dariousz, (1996), Cleaning up its act: The CIA On the Internet, Discourse and Society, V.7 (2).
    • Derrida, Jacques, (1982), Margins of Philosophy. Alan Bass, University of Chicago Press.
    • De Roux, Dominique, Beaujour, Michel et Thélia, Michel, (1972), Cahier de L’Herne, Louis Ferdinand Céline, L’Herne, Paris.
    • Domenach, Jean-Marie, (1967), Le retour du tragique, Seuil, Paris.
    • Fairclough, Norman, (1989), Language and Power, New York, Longman.
    • Fairclough, Norman, (1993), Discourse and Social change, New York.
    • Fairclough, Norman, (1995), Critical Discourse Analysis, New York, Longman.
    • Foucault, Michel, Foucault, Michel, (1969), Archéologie du savoir, Paris, Gallimard /The Archaelogy of Knowledge, Translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith, (1972), New York, Harper Colophone.
    • Gee, James Paul, (1999), An introduction to discours analysis: Theory and Methode, London, Routledge.
    • Godard, Henry, (1999), Voyage au bout de la nuit de Louis Ferdinand Céline, Paris, Gallimard.
    • Hammersley, M., (1997), « On the foundation of Critical Discourse Analysis », Language and communication, 17: 237-248.
    • Harris, S. Zellig, (1951), Methodes in structural linguistics, The University of Chicago Press.
    • Heidegger, Martin, (1927/1962), Being and Time, New York, Harper and Row.
    • Jaworsky, Adam and Coupland, Nicolas, (1999), The Discourse Reader, Routledge.
    • Jorgensen, M. and L. Phillips, (2000), Discourse Analysis as Theory. Sage Publications.
    • Paul Gee, J. (1999), An Introduction to Discourse Analysis Theory and Method, New York and Lodon: Routledge publication.
    • Van Dijk, T.A., (1994), Discourse structures and ideological structures, Papers presented at the international ALLA Congress, Amsterdam.
    • Weiss, G. and R. Wodak, (2003), Critical Analysis Theory and interdisciplinary, Palgrave Mac Millan Ltd.