تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی شاخه ای جدید و بین رشته ای در علوم انسانی و بالاخص در حوزه نقد زبان شناختی است که در سال های اخیر توسعه بیشتری پیدا کرده و در تحلیل مسائل مختلف سیاسی- اجتماعی و البته متون ادبی خودنمایی می کند. نورمن فرکلاف نظریه پرداز و بنیان گذار این جریان فلسفی-زبان شناختی در اواخر قرن بیستم میلادی با دریافت و گذر از نظریات نشانه شناسی، تأویل گرایی گادامر، دیرینه شناسی میشل فوکو و با رد آراء صرفا اقتصاد گرایانه ی نئوکمونیست ها و با نگاهی به پسا ساختار گرایی دریدایی توانست مفهوم گفتمان قدرت و مردم را از طریق ساخت های ایدئولوژیک به دست آمده از صورت های زبانی تازگی ببخشد.مقاله ی حاضر می کوشد با رویکردی تطبیقی، مفهوم کلیدی و کلان مدرنیته را در بافت موقعیتی رمان های مدیر مدرسه از جلال آل احمد و سفر به انتهای شبِ لویی-فردینان سِلین فرانسوی، که اصطلاح مدرنیته به عنوان گفتمان قدرت در رمان های نیمه اتوبیوگرافیک (خود زندگی نامه) مذکور در تضاد با گفتمان رسمی قهرمان های داستان است، بر اساس رویکرد نظری نورمن فرکلاف تحلیل و بررسی کند. باید گفت که آل احمد در مدیر مدرسه قصد انتقاد از عواقب جامعه ای را دارد که غرب زده شده و به تقلید از مدرنیته ی غربی اخلاق، معنویات و فرهنگ سنتی را به فراموشی سپرده است. 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 پدیده ی مدرنیزاسیون دولتی و ظهور بیش از پیش ماشین های صنعتی هویت انسانی خود را باخته اند، در قالب جملات قصار و لحن عامیانه به دیده ی تحقیر می نگرد.

Utilizing new research tools is a methodical reflection that can be used to better understand of religious texts. Fairclough’, s critical discourse analysis model is an interdisciplinary method in the texts qualitative analysis that examines linguistic and metalanguage elements at three levels: description, interpretation and explanation. This study intends to apply discourse analysis model to understand the Qur'anic hypocrisy verses. The research results indicate that at description level, the divine discourse has introduced the identity of the hypocrites by choosing appropriate words and phrases. Semantic contrast, omission, de-personalization and empirical value of words are the most important levels in description level of hypocritical verses. The verses' situational context and the psychological component are among the metalanguage elements in the hypocrisy verses study, the attention to which has an effect on the objectivity of the critical discourse of the hypocrites. At the level of explanation, which is the reproduction of description and interpretation levels, the divine discourse has expressed the corrective methods in the face of the hypocrites. Giving insight, condemning counter-values, warning and tolerance and coexistence with hypocrites are the most important Qur'anic amendatory methods in the face of hypocrisy, which have a fundamental place in education.

Norman Fairclough's critical discourse analysis is an important theory of discourse analysis. While expressing the relationship between the internal and external evidences of the text and relying on linguistic forms and signs, this theory seeks to examine the dominant power of society and the space in which the literary work is formed through the three axes of description, interpretation and explanation, and to read through some kind of ideological concept beyond the text. Using a descriptive-analytical approach and based on the analysis of Fairclough's critical discourse analysis, the present study concluded that at the «description» level, the key words used to describe and critique the speech and behavior of the polytheists with varying frequency in the context of Al-Tahaddi Ayahs have played a central role in the representation of the ideology governing the society, and serve as a comprehensive and accurate reflection of the circumstances of the society in the era of the coming down of the Qur’ an. The level of «interpretation» is a combination of textual content and contextual knowledge, consistent with historical mutual action that shows how social structures describe and define discourse as social action. At the level of «explanation», the Qur’ anic rhythmical order and rhetoric are the most important factors in people's trying to emulate the Qur’ an. However, the social relations of the era of the descent and the extratemporal dimensions of the Qur’ an have also been influential in the revelation of the ayahs.

Critical discourse analysis is a branch of linguistics that examines the relationship between text and the production of ideology. In his proposed model for text analysis, Norman Fairclough considers three levels of description, interpretation, and explanation. The present article tries to examine Rumi's view on the stages of mystical journey through descriptive-analytical method. At the level of description, this study examined the use of nuclear words and semantic lexical relations and processes in Masnavi. At the level of interpretation of discourses of abandonment, the superiority of discovery and intuition, the denial of partial reason and the gradual nature of behavior and the need to obey the guide were identified as dominant discourses. At the level of explanation, it was concluded that Rumi reproduced the dominant discourses of his time in this regard and his view in this regard is in line with the prevailing ideology of his time.

Critical discourse analysis, as a modern interdisciplinary approach, attempts to read the text beyond words, sentences, and the text itself. It deems the context necessary to understand the semantics of a text from a critical point of view. Its aim is to clarify the structures of power, domination, and political, social, and cultural inequalities. These structures are criticized through rhetoric, syntax, pragmatics, and intertextuality. This paper adopts a descriptive-analytical method to examine the tenth letter of Nahj al-Balagha, which is addressed to Muawiyah, based on Norman Fairclough’ s critical discourse pattern. This model, theorized in the book Language and Power, redefines asymmetrical social relations. It considers three layers for discourse analysis: description, interpretation, and explanation. In Fairclough’ s opinion, the social action is shaped by the interaction of these layers. This essay, on the layer of description, studies the text from a formalistic point of view. On the layer of interpretation, it deals with the interaction of text and its context, and explores the elements of power and ideology. It is noteworthy that these elements are reflected in the use of pronouns. The pronoun I, for instance, indicates professional and social responsibility while the pronoun you indicates the differences between Imam Ali’ s personality and that of his counterparts, namely the Umayyads. The letter mentions the same motives that troubled the Islamic society from the first battle to the Battle of Siffin. Critical discourse analysis reveals the ideological differences between Imam Ali and the Umayyads reflected in its use of elements such as metaphors and pronouns. Furthermore, the article tries to demonstrate that in this letter, the purpose of Imam Ali as the religious and legitimate ruler of the Islamic world was to disrupt the domination and inequality in the structure of tribalism of the Umayyad Caliphate, for otherwise Muslims would face grave difficulties.

The book Maʿārif by Bahāʾ al-Walad, as a prominent mystical work, possesses distinctive structural and content-related features that set it apart from other similar texts due to its specific literary genre. This work, employing the language and rhetorical style of religious preachers, expounds upon intellectual, theological, and mystical doctrines, and in doing so, maintains a profound connection with Qur'anic teachings and the Islamic law of Muhammad. In the critical discourse analysis of this work using Norman Fairclough’s approach—at the three levels of analysis (description, interpretation, and explanation)—various layers of language and power in the text can be examined. The main objective of this research is to conduct a critical discourse analysis of Maʿārif by Bahāʾ al-Walad through the lens of Norman Fairclough's framework. The research method employed in this study is descriptive–analytical. The results of the analysis indicated that the critical discourse analysis of Maʿārif using Fairclough's model demonstrates that this mystical text not only conveys religious and mystical teachings but also interacts with the sociocultural and ideological contexts of its time. Bahāʾ al-Walad, by employing a distinctive language and a discourse rooted in spiritual and divine authority, forges a deep connection between mysticism and Islamic law. At the descriptive level, the use of religious and mystical vocabulary and terminology, emphasis on the definitiveness of verb forms, and the influence of Ashʿarite theology in his expression are evident. At the interpretive level, the relationship between the text and the historical-cultural context of the period is analyzed, reflecting the intellectual and social perspectives of the era. Finally, at the explanatory level, Bahāʾ al-Walad’s discourse is introduced as a social practice shaped by spiritual and ideological power, emphasizing individual spirituality and the Islamic identity of the community.

Critical discourse analysis is a new approach to discourse analysis that integrates both social and linguistic approaches. In the social approach to discourse, the situational context and in the linguistic approach, the contextual context are described. Norman Fairclough's theory of critical discourse analysis is one of the most popular theories in the field of discourse analysis. While seeking to express the relationship between the internal and external criteria of the text, this theory explores the dominant power of societies where a given literary work has been formed via three dimensions of description, interpretation, and explanation. Taking a descriptive-analytical approach, this article aimed to analyze the discourse of Surah Al-Qasas using Fairclough's approach and answer the following questions: How has the effect of hypertext occurred in Surah Al-Qasas? Has the formal discourse of Surah Al-Qasas been reflected in the social strata? What are the results of the hypertext and formal discourse in this surah? The results show that at the level of description, ideology has been explained by discussing the textual structure such as words and sentences. At the level of interpretation, it is the dominance of the divine discourse that is most clearly seen in the face of arrogant discourses. At the level of explanation, the influence of the hypertext and formal discourse on society, public figures and their future are reflected.

A quintessential element in Nizami’s oeuvre is the correspondence between the characters’ articulation and discursive features. In other words, one can explore different layers of their subjectivity in light of their articulation. In this respect, this study investigates Nizami’s Iqbal-Nameh. When Alexander instructs his three advisors, Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates, to compile “Kherad-Nameh,” their individual formulation echoes their position and personality. This study aims to investigate the three advisors’ divergence of discourse in light of Fairclough's 3D model. He analyses the discourse in three levels: description, interpretation, and explanation. The description level is a textual analysis, the interpretation level is a contextual and intertextual analysis, and the explanation level is a socio-cultural analysis. This study concludes that in formulating “Kherad-Nameh,” Plato’s discourse is informed by his position beneath the king, Aristotle’s assertive discourse is informed by equating his position with the king, and Socrates’ authoritative/degrading discourse is informed by positioning himself above the king.   Extended Abstract 1.Introduction Influenced by ancient Greek philosophers, Nizami’s IskandarNameh highlights Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle as three advisors. Though historically inaccurate, their importance becomes vivid in light of a change in Alexander’s status in contrast with SharafNameh and other IskandarNamehs. A quintessential element in Nizami’s oeuvre is the correspondence between the characters’ articulation and discursive features. In other words, one can explore different layers of the advisors’ discourse in light of their articulation.   2. Methodology This descriptive-analytical study employs Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis.   3.Theoretical Framework Fairclough analyses the discourse in three levels: description, interpretation, and explanation. The description level is a textual analysis, the interpretation level is a contextual and intertextual analysis, and the explanation level is a socio-cultural analysis.   4.Discussion and Analysis Description: The philosophers’ perspectival divergence is evident in their positive or negative articulation. There is no praise in Aristotle’s discourse. Plato, on the other hand, frequently praises the world and the king. Socrates describes the grotesque side of the world. Aristotle employs contradictions to address obligations, Plato does so to describe generalities, and Socrates encounters two contradicting phenomena to highlight his mindset. Plato is the only advisor who incorporates euphemism. While Plato and Aristotle’s rhetoric is formal, Socrates addresses the king informally. Their value system is influenced by their ideological orientation toward the king. Interpretation: by distancing himself from the court, Socrates becomes more authoritative in formulating “KheradNameh.” Their functional language is in writing, and they do not engage the king in a dialogue. Nizami’s account of Alexander is affected by the ancient Greek culture. Although Alexander is depicted unfavourably, Nizami defamiliarises his image and gives him a positive one. The incorporation of “which,” to extend an explanation, allegory, and explicit denial are points of departure in Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. Explanation: As a subject of authority, Plato’s account of KheradNameh is formed by power relations. Socrates, on the other hand, aims to dismantle these relations. Regarding individual and social orientations, Aristotle tilts toward the social, Plato toward the individual, and Socrates highlights both. In this respect, what Aristotle and Plato failed to realise was the importance of individual change in social issues.   5. Conclusion Nizami’s unique rhetoric and characterisation create discursive differentiations. The point of departure in the discourse of the three advisors is in their teachings. For Aristotle and Plato, Alexander is the king/prophet, and they formulate their ideologies accordingly. For Socrates, on the other hand, Alexander is only a king. The incorporation of advisors is a powerful/genius tool to re-present Alexander as a benevolent king. While Ferdowsi’s account is historically accurate, Plato’s account of KheradNameh is affected by power relations; Socrates, on the other hand, aims to dismantle these relations. Regarding individual and social orientations, Aristotle tilts toward the social, Plato toward the individual, and Socrates highlights both.   Bibliography Arberry, A. J. 1336 [1957]. Mir’ath-e Iran. Ahmad, B. et al (trans.). Tehran: Ketab. [In Persian].    (The Legacy of Persia) Fairclough, N. 1379 [2000]. Tahlil Gofteman-e Enteqadi. Fatemeh, Sh. et al (trans.). Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. [In Persian].       (Critical Discourse Analysis) Ferdowsi, A. 1375 [1996]. Shahnameh. New York: Farda. [In Persian]. Kraus, P. et al. 1391 [2012]. Farhang-e Irani va Andisheh-e Jounani. Seyed Mahdi, H (trans.). Tehran: Elm. [In Persian].            (Iranian Culture and Greek Thought) Mohammadi, M. 1374 [1995]. Farhang-e Irani-e Pish az Islam. Tehran: Toos. [In Persian]. Nizami, E. Y. 1394 [2015]. Iqbal-Nameh. Hassan Vahid, D (ed.). Tehran: Qatreh. [In Persian]. Plutarch. 1380 [2001]. Iranian va Jounanian. Ahmad, K (trans.). Tehran: Jami. [In Persian].   (Plutarch) Radfar, A. 1387 [2008]. “Pazoohesh-I Tatbiqi dar Vojooh-e Moshtarak-e Farhang va Adabiyat-e Farsi va Jounani.” Adabiyat Tatbiqi. No. 5. [In Persian]. Safa, Z. 1370 [1991]. “Molahezat-I darbareh-e Da’stan-e Eskandar-e Maqdooni vs EskandarNameh-ha-e Ferdowsi.” Iran Shenasi Journal. Year 3. No. 11. [In Persian]. Soleyman Heshmat, R. 1390 [2011]. “Barrasi-e Tatbiqi Mian-e Hekmat-e Iran-e Ba’stan va Falsafeh-e Jounan.” Ta’rikh-e Falsafeh Journal. Year 2. No. 4. [In Persian].

Critical analysis of discourse is a method of clarifying the ideology of power discourse in political-social affairs And it has many linguistic and descriptive tools Which can be useful in many sciences including ahadith like translating and recognizing unfamiliar and dark terms. But because the needs and methods vary in different sciences, It is therefore necessary to identify, localize, or remove some of the foundations that affect the analysis tools. One of these basics is “, order of discourse”,That relates to the topics of the day and the analyst is familiar with the discourse. And this feature does not exist in the hadith texts for the scholar. Therefore, by choosing the method Identification nodel paint and find a presupposition and dynamic synehronic study and find a paradigmatic axis and syntagmatic axis and find a old information and new information…, . this research has proposed methods for discourse recognition. And at the same time correcting or removing issues related to this basis.