نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• سید محمد رضی مصطفوی نیا ¹
• الهام بابلی بهمه ²
• زینب محمدی ³

¹ دانشیار، گروه زبان و ادبیات عربی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران.

² دکتری زبان و ادبیات عربی، دانشکده ادبیات و زبان‌های خارجی، دانشگاه کاشان، اصفهان، ایران

³ کارشناسی‌ارشد زبان و ادبیات عربی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران.

چکیده

عنصر زمان به ­عنوان یک مؤلفة بنیادی در ساختار روایت، نه­ تنها بازنمای رویدادهای واقعی یا خیالی­­  ای بوده که نویسنده قصد بازآفرینی آنها را دارد، بلکه به­ مثابة یک نظام دلالت­گر، سازنده و معنادهنده جهان ذهنی نویسنده است. این عنصر در یک ساختار رابطه ­ای هویت بخش متن بوده که به­عنوان الگویی، دیگر عناصرِ داستان را مدیریت می­کند تاجایی­که گفته­ شده شناخت گفتمان روایی در پرتو تشخیص دقیق عنصر زمان است. در پژوهش پیش­رو رمان نیویورک80 اثر یوسف ادریس (1927) و داستان­های کوتاهِ از ‌نیستان‌ و دیگرستان اثر مهدی شجاعی (1339) با تمرکز بر مؤلفة زمان تحلیل تطبیقی می­شوند. دلیل انتخاب این دو اثر، پرداختن به موضوعاتی با درون­مایة اجتماعی در بافت فرهنگی متفاوت (مصر و ایران) است. حال، این جستار کوشیده­است با تکیه­بر مکتب ادبیات تطبیقی امریکایی و روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی (مضمونی) با  چارچوب تحلیلیِ مقایسة شاخصه­ های زمان ژرار زنت (1930) کارکرد هنری زمان را در بازنمایی مسائل اجتماعی واکاوی کند. نتایج نشان داده­است که به‌طور کلی روایت در این کتاب‌ها منظم است. شتاب روایت اغلب ثابت و همسان است. بسامد مفرد الگوی مسلط است که بر خطی بودن روند تجربه در جهان مدرن تأکید دارد. هر دو نویسنده از دستور زبان روایی مشترکی برای منعکس­کردن وضعیت بحرانی بهره برده­اند. با وجود اشتراک ساختاری، زمان در خدمت اهداف هنری و فکری متمایزی قرار گرفته ­است. در نیویورک 80 زمان فشرده و در از نیستان و دیگرستان زمان انعطاف ­پذیر و ذهنی است. در کل، در دو اثر، زمان یک مقوله ساختاری نیست، بلکه گفتمانی است که ایدئولوژی نویسنده در آن متجلی می­ شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• نیویورک 80
• از نیستان و دیگرستان
• گفتمان روایی
• زمان
• نقد اجتماعی

موضوعات

• ادبیات تطبیقی

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Comparative Analysis of Narrative Temporality in the Novel New York 80 by Yusuf Idris and the Short Stories of Az Neyestan va Digarestan by Seyed Mehdi Shojaei

نویسندگان [English]

• Seyyed Mohammad Razi Mostafavinia, ¹
• Elham Baboli Bahmeh ²
• Zeinab Mohammadi ³

¹ Associate Professor of Arabic Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and ‎‎Humanities, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.

² Ph.D. in Arabic Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Kashan, Esfahan, Iran.

³ M.A. in Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and ‎‎Humanities, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Time, as a fundamental component of narrative structure, is not merely a representation of real or imaginary events that an author seeks to recreate. Rather, it functions as a signifying system that constructs and imparts meaning to the author's subjective world. As a relational structure, time shapes a text's identity and serves as a framework governing other narrative elements. It is often asserted that understanding narrative discourse depends on accurately discerning the role of time. This study conducts a comparative analysis of the novel “New York 80” by Yusuf Idris (1927) and the short stories in “Az Neyestan va Digarestan” by Mehdi Shojaei (1960), focusing on the element of time. These works were selected for their shared social themes within distinct cultural contexts—Egypt and Iran.  Relying on the American school of comparative literature and qualitative content analysis, this essay employs Gérard Genette's (1930) analytical framework for comparing temporal features to examine the artistic function of time in representing social issues. The results indicate that the narratives in both works are generally orderly, with the narrative pace predominantly steady and consistent. The dominant pattern is a singular frequency, emphasizing the linear progression of experience in the modern world. Both authors employ a shared narrative grammar to depict a state of crisis. Despite structural similarities, time serves distinct artistic and intellectual purposes. In “New York 80,” time is condensed and intense, whereas in “Az Neyestan va Digarestan,” it is flexible and subjective.  Overall, in both works, time functions not merely as a structural element but as a discourse through which the author's ideology is expressed.
Introduction
Comparative study is a fundamental method in literary criticism that facilitates the analysis of similarities and differences between literary works across diverse cultural contexts. This approach is developed within various theoretical frameworks, with structuralist narratology being among the most influential. This approach, which assumes the structured nature of literary texts, analyzes systematic intra-textual relationships, including the arrangement of structural elements within the narrative. Among these elements, "time" holds a pivotal position. It not only forms the foundation of the narrative but also serves as a meaning-making tool that reflects the author's worldview, ideological concerns, and the aesthetic features of their style. Beyond its artistic function, the element of time plays a central organizing role: it structures the work, adds depth and dynamism to character development, and serves as a vehicle for conveying profound cultural, philosophical, and social themes to the audience. Within the domain of structuralist narratology, the French theorist Gérard Genette offers a powerful conceptual framework for critical narrative analysis through his three-dimensional examination of narrative time: order, duration, and frequency. For the present study, Yusuf Idris's novel “New York 80” and Seyyed Mehdi Shojaei's short story collections “Az Neyestan va Digarestan” have been selected.
Relying on Genette's theoretical framework, this research undertakes a comparative study of these two significant works from the Arabic and Persian literary spheres. Yusuf Idris, focusing on the representation of social issues, is recognized as a pioneering figure in Arabic critical realism. His works—both short stories and novels—employ a blend of sociological insight and symbolic language to analyze power structures, class conflicts, and the psychology of the Egyptian individual. Through a multi-layered realism, he probes both objective reality and collective consciousness, turning the lived experience of the marginalized into the focal point of literary-critical discourse. In contrast, within Iranian literature, Seyyed Mehdi Shojaei pursues social themes such as justice, hypocrisy, and the quest for truth through a critical approach expressed in an ethical-spiritual, allegorical-mystical style. By creating situations of moral testing and internal conflict, he invites the reader to re-evaluate values. Both authors view literature as an instrument for social critique. However, while Idris emphasizes material and class analysis, Shojaei focuses on inner insight and ethical reform. This contrast provides a suitable paradigm for a comparative study of social issue representation, centered on narrative elements—particularly time—within two distinct cultural contexts.
Method
This study, grounded in the American school of Comparative Literature, analyzes narrative temporality in Yusuf Idris's novel New York 80 and Seyyed Mehdi Shojaei's short story collection Az Neyestan and Digarestan. Utilizing a qualitative approach and content analysis method, data was collected via library research and note-taking. Concrete textual examples are analyzed and coded according to the three-dimensional model of narrative time in Gérard Genette's theory. Due to space constraints, examples for some components are omitted.
Conclusion
Comparing the findings of this research with the reviewed literature, it becomes evident that previous studies have often offered descriptive and one-dimensional analyses of the narrative elements in the works of these two authors. They have generally lacked a systematic theoretical framework and a comparative methodology to conduct an in-depth, structural analysis of narrative temporality. Existing research has primarily concentrated on characterization, themes, or stylistics, often neglecting the examination of "time" as an active meaning-making device that reflects the author's worldview. In contrast, this article, drawing on Genette's three-dimensional model, demonstrates that time in these two works transcends its role as a mere structural framework and transforms into an ideological discourse. The shared use of techniques such as singular frequency and a uniform pace indicates a common understanding of crisis and mundanity in the modern world. However, a fundamental divergence in the function of time reveals that Idris employs condensed, linear time as a stage for ideological confrontation and the alienation of the Eastern individual in the West, whereas Shojaei, using flexible, subjective time, engages in inner exploration and the clash of ethical values within the context of Iranian society. Therefore, by addressing the gap in structuralist comparative studies, this research demonstrates that analyzing the element of time is key to understanding formal convergences and ideological divergences in two distinct literary traditions.
Results
The study’s findings reveal significant and distinct patterns in the use of time as a meaning-making mechanism within two different cultural contexts. Both authors deliberately and systematically employ Genette’s three components—order, duration, and frequency. In both works, singular frequency is the dominant pattern, emphasizing the linear progression of experiencing crisis and disconnection in the modern world. Additionally, narrative pace is often consistent and uniform, creating a monotonous rhythm that reflects the daily routine and absurd repetition in the characters’ lives. This structural commonality indicates that, regardless of theme, both authors utilize a shared narrative grammar to represent a state of crisis.
Despite structural similarities, time serves distinct artistic and intellectual purposes. In “New York 80,” time is dense and acute—the entire narrative unfolds in a single night “New York 80” or a few hours “Wien 60.” This extreme temporal compression intensifies ideological confrontation and transforms dialogue into condensed philosophical debate. Time acts as a stage for the clash of ideas. Extensive retrospection places characters in a fragmented “present,” severed from their roots, reflecting the identity crisis and displacement of the immigrant in a pure, rootless now. The linear, monotonous time of cafes or Western streets is experienced as a temporal prison, trapping characters in repetitive dialogues or thoughts—thus, time functions as an agent of alienation.
In “Az Neyestan and Digarestan,” although the overall progression is linear, the author draws time into the characters' minds through brief, recurring retrospections. Time, rather than merely being a setting for events, becomes a stream of consciousness and memory, objectifying inner conflict and moral anguish—this is the flexible, subjective time. The integration of sacred and worldly time in stories like Mahjabin places ritual, cyclical time (e.g., bringing milk) in opposition to linear, mortal time. This contrast highlights the clash of two temporal systems (spiritual/material), which is a central theme. Narrative time is often oriented toward moments of moral reckoning or inner revelation. The pace occasionally slows through descriptive pauses to emphasize the symbolic significance of a scene, such as the depiction of a face in Santamaria. Here, time serves the awakening of both character and reader.
Overall, Idris employs time as a dramatic stage and a mold for transnational crises, narrating the absurdity and suspension of humanity in the face of Western civilization. In contrast, Shojaei transforms time into an instrument for inner exploration, examining conscience and showcasing the clash of values within a specific social context. This study demonstrates that a focused analysis of the element of time not only reveals deep similarities in modern narrative techniques within Arabic and Persian literature but also brings into sharper relief fundamental divergences in worldview, social concerns, and the literary project of each author. Thus, in these two works, time is not merely a structural category but a discourse in which the author’s ideology is manifested.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• New York 80
• Az Nistan va Digarestan
• Narrative discourse
• time
• social criticism

عنوان مقاله [العربیة]

الزمنیّة السردیة فی روایة نیویورک 80 لیوسف إدریس وقصص أز نیستان ودیغرستان للسّید مهدی شجاعی؛ دراسة تحلیلیة مقارنة

چکیده [العربیة]

عنصر الزمن، بوصفه مکونا أساسیا فی بنیة السرد، لا یقتصر دوره على إعادة تمثیل الأحداث الواقعیة أو المتخیلة التی ینوی المؤلف إحیاءها فحسب، بل یتعدی ذلک لیکون نظاما دلالیا یشکّل ویعطی معنى للعالم الذهنی للمؤلف. فهو، فی إطار بنیة علائقیة، یمنح النص هویته ویتحکم کمنوال فی بقیة عناصر القصة، إلى درجة أن فهم الخطاب السردی مرهون - کما یقال - بالإدراک الدقیق لعنصر الزمن. فی هذه الدراسة، یتم تحلیل روایة نیویورک 80 لیوسف إدریس (1927) ومجموعة القصص القصیرة أز نیستان ودیغرستان لمهدی شجاعی (1339ش) تحلیلا مقارنا مع الترکیز على عنصر الزمن. سبب اختیار هذین العملین هو تناولهما مواضیع ذات مضمون اجتماعی فی سیاقین ثقافیین مختلفین (مصر وإیران). تحاول هذه الورقة البحثیة، بالاعتماد على مدرسة الأدب المقارن الأمریکیة وأسلوب تحلیل المحتوى الکیفی، مع استخدام الإطار التحلیلی لجرار جینیت (1930) لمقارنة مؤشرات الزمن، استقصاء الوظیفة الفنیة للزمن فی تمثیل القضایا الاجتماعیة. أظهرت النتائج أن السرد فی هذین العملین منتظم بشکل عام. وتیرة السرد ثابتة ومتشابهة فی الغالب. النمط السائد هو التکرار المفرد الذی یؤکد على خطیة مسار التجربة فی العالم الحدیث. استخدم المؤلفان قواعد سردیة مشترکة لتمثیل الوضع الأزموی. ومع اشتراکهما فی البنیة، فإن الزمن یخدم أهدافا فنیة وفکریة متمیزة. فی نیویورک 80 الزمن مضغوط ومکثف، بینما فی أز نیستان ودیغرستان فهو مرن وذاتی. بشکل عام، الزمن فی العملین لیس مقولة بنیویة فحسب، بل هو خطاب تتجلى فیه أیدیولوجیة المؤلف.

کلیدواژه‌ها [العربیة]

• نیویورک80
• از نیستان ودیغرستان
• الخطاب الروائی
• الزمان
• النقد الاجتماعی