Developing and Validating the Cognitive Model of Resistance Culture in the Post-Revolution Poetry based on Structural Equation Modeling and Strategic Structural Interpretation

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Persian Literature, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar Branch, Sabzevar, Iran

2 Department of Persian language and Literature, Islamic Azad University, Sabzevar Branch

3 Department of Persian Language and Literature, Sabzevar Branch, Islamic Azad University

Abstract

Among the manifestations of language as a strong instrument of mind, literature has an outstanding agency due to its stylistic, semantics and emotional capacities. Also, Islamic revolution has laid the theoretical and intellectual groundwork for the interaction of the literature which resulted in reflection of its assumptions, values, expectations and ideology through a fine language. Among these instances is the resistance poetry which has resulted in perception and internalization of the culture. Despite these capacities, a comprehensive study which encapsulate this ideational atmosphere and enjoys policy and cultural management potentials is not carried out. Thus, the current research is an attempt to employ a new mixed design and cognitive poetics to develop a validated model of the variables involved in the construct of resistance culture in revolutionary poetry. Findings from structural equation modeling in SPSS revealed that in the cognitive model of resistance culture in revolutionary poetry four components of ontology, epistemology, anthropology, and methodology are involved which entail 17 different variables with acceptable factor loading values. Also, findings from structural interpretation in MicMac showed that these variables are categorized into strategic, regulatory, bi-dimensional, critical, risk, and target groups with distinct strategic potential for cultural management, and cultural policy-making.

Keywords

References

  1. اسدی، حیدر و رجبی، هادی (1396)، نقش فرهنگ مقاومت در امنیت داخلی جمهوری اسلامی ایران، فصلنامه سیاست، 16، 88-104.
  2. پسندی، فائزه و اژه‌ای، تقی (1396)، جلوه‌های پایداری و تعهّد در شعر سلمان هراتی و سمیح القاسم، کاوش‌نامه ادبیات تطبیقی، 7(27), 23-44.
  3. صالحی مرزیجرانی، ابوالفضل و ملکی، سپیده (1396)، فرم و هدف در ادبیات پایداری؛ نقش ادبیات پایداری در ایجاد فرهنگ مقاومت. همایش همایش ملی ادبیات مقاومت، دوره.
  4. فلاحی، کتایون؛ باوان‌پوری، مسعود و کاظم علیلو، سهیلا (1399)، اشتراکات شعر مقاومت سمیح القاسم و حسین اسرافیلی، فصلنامه مطالعات ادبیات تطبیقی، 14(54)، 313-333.
  5. محمدزاده، مرضیه (1395)، بررسی ساختاری نماد در ادبیات عاشورایی، ادبیات پایداری، 8(14)، 171-194.
  6. میرقادری، سید فضل‌الله و کیانی، حسین (1391). بن‌مایه‌های ادبیات مقاومت در قرآن. فصلنامه مطالعات ادبی متون اسلامی، 01(1)، 69-97.
  7. Creswell, J. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: Sage.
  8. Crisp, P. (2003). Conceptual metaphor and its expressions. In J. Gavins & G. Steen (Eds.), Cognitive poetics in practice (pp.99-113). London: Routledge.
  9. Dornyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction, Administration and Processing (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
  10. Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
  11. Fontana, D. (1981). Psychology for Teachers London: Macmillan.
  12. Freud, S. (2009). On creativity and the unconscious: The psychology of art, literature, love, and religion. Haper: Collins.
  13. Gavins, J & Steen, G. (2003). Cognitive Poetics in practice. London, Routledge.
  14. Harlow, B. (1987). Resistance literature. New York: Methuen.
  15. Harlow, B. (1991). Sites of struggle. Studies in Chicano literature, culture, and ideology criticism in the Borderlands, 149-64.
  16. Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago: Chicago University Press.

 

  1. Langacker, R.W. (1991) Foundations in Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  2. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage, Naturalistic inquiry.
  3. Mattelart, Armand (1979) Multinational Corporations and the Control of Culture, trans. Michael Chanan (New York, Humanities Press/Brighton, Harvester Press).
  4. Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS Survival Manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS, 4th edition. Allen & Unwin. Australia.
  5. Sjostrom, B., & Dahlgren, L. O. (2002). Nursing theory and concept development or analysis: Applying phenomenography in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(3), 339–345.
  6. Stockwell, P. (2009). The cognitive poetics of literary resonance. Language and Cognition, 1 (1), 25-44.
  7. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Concept structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  8. Turner, M. (1991) Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  9. Walsh, C. (2007). Schema poetics and crossover fiction. In M. Lambrou & P. Stockwell (Eds.), Contemporary stylistics (pp.l06-15). London: Continuum.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics