Literary Discourse and the Formal Articulation of Meaning: Possibilities and Boundary Conditions of Computational Modeling (A Case Study of the Story of Bīzhan and Manīzha)

Document Type : Persian Research Article

Author

Senior Environmental Researcher from the Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University and an expert in Applied Physics with a focus on Atomic Physics from Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

The traditional opposition between literary discourse and mathematical thought has largely rested on the assumption that formal and computational formulations are inherently incompatible with the polysemy that governs the production, persistence, and interpretation of meaning in literary discourse. Seen through this angle, literary studies confront phenomena in which ambiguity and interpretability take precedence over unique answers, whereas mathematics and the formal sciences—conceived as systems founded on precision, clarity, and generalizability—are deemed incapable of engaging with meaning. Drawing on the concept of “semantic inertia” and identifying “inertial worlds” within the conceptual structures of literary narrative, this article shows that this dichotomy is neither a theoretical necessity nor methodologically warranted. The central problem lies not in the use of mathematical tools as such, but in the claim that they offer explanatory adequacy for meaning. By introducing the notion of “boundary conditions,” it is argued that, alongside irreducible interpretive domains, there are spheres in which formal models can legitimately help clarify structural constraints, patterns of continuity, and the internal organization of narrative. Finally, a case study of the prologue to the story of Bīzhan and Manīzha in the Shāhnāma demonstrates that formal modeling, without claiming to replace or reduce the interpretation of meaning in literary discourse, can be rethought as one mode of intra-discursive articulation of meaning.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Abello, J., Broadwell, P., & Tangherlini, T. R. (2012). Computational folkloristics. Communications of the ACM, 55(7), 60–70.
Damiano, R., & Lieto, A. (2013). Computational models of narrative. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative (pp. 76–93). Dagstuhl Publishing.
de Mont, P. (1923). Vingt-cinq ans de littérature française (Vol. 1, pp. 61–63). Librairie Armand Colin.
Djurišin, D. (1979). Teorija sravnitelʹnogo izučenija literatury [Theory of comparative literature]. Moskva. (pp. 65 ff.)
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Ferdowsi, Abolqasem (2006). Shahnameh, edited by Abbas Eqbal Ashtiani, Mojtaba Minovi, and Saeed Nafisi, under the supervision of Bahman Khalifeh, Tehran: Talayeh Publications. [In Persian]
Fernando, T. (2008). Branching from inertia worlds. Journal of Semantics, 25, 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffn002
Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and method (2nd rev. ed., pp. 37–39, 153–154). Continuum.
Gavin, M. (2023). Literary mathematics: Quantitative theory for textual studies (pp. 1–23). Stanford University Press.
Gębuś, S. (2023). Mathematics and literature: Allies, not enemies. Orbis Linguarum, 57, 731–734. https://doi.org/10.23817/olin.57-52
Greimas, A. J. (1987). On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory (P. J. Perron & F. H. Collins, Trans.; Vol. 38). University of Minnesota Press. (Chapter 6)
Gruber, T. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(5–6), 907–928. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1995.1081
Heravi, H. A. (1984). Majmūʿeh maqālāt-e naqd va naẓar darbāreh-ye Ḥāfeẓ va chand maqāleh-ye digar [Collection of essays on criticism and perspectives on Hafez and other articles] (pp. 4–5). Amir Kabir.
Heravi, Hossein Ali (1984). A Collection of Critical Essays on Hafez and Other Articles, Tehran: Amirkabir Publications. [In Persian]
Kant, I. (1987). Critique of judgment: Including the first introduction (W. S. Pluhar, Trans.; M. J. Gregor, Foreword). Hackett.
Koehler, D. O. (1982). Mathematics and literature. Mathematics Magazine, 55(2), 81–95.
Learner, M. (2023, April). Review of Literary mathematics: Quantitative theory for textual studies, by M. Gavin. H-Net Reviews.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology (C. Jacobson & B. Grundfest Schoepf, Trans., pp. 1–33, 55–82, 202–283). Basic Books.
Lewis, D. (1973). Causation. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(17), 556–567.
Lotman, Y. M. (1985). La semiosfera: L’asimmetria e il dialogo nelle strutture pensanti. Marsilio Editori.
Piper, A., & Bagga, S. (2022). A quantitative study of fictional things. In Computational Humanities Research Conference (CHR 2022) (pp. 268–279).
Preece, D. A. (2012). Mathematics in literature. Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, 2(1), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.5642/jhummath.201201.05
Rashed Mohassel, M. T. (2006). Dāstān-e Bīzhan va Manīzhe az zāviyeh-ī dīgar [The story of Bijan and Manijeh from another perspective]. In Shāhnāmeh-pazhūhī (Vol. 1). Ferdowsi Cultural Center Press.
Rashed Mohassel, Mohammad Taghi (2006). "The Story of Bijan and Manijeh from Another Perspective." In Shahnameh Studies (Vol. 1), Mashhad: Ferdowsi Cultural Center. [In Persian]
Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative (K. McLaughlin & D. Pellauer, Trans., pp. ix–xii). University of Chicago Press.
Song, M.-Y. (2012). The semantics of the progressive in English. Language Research, 48(3), 533–572.
Syamili, C., & Rekha, R. (2018). Developing an ontology for Greek mythology. The Electronic Library, 36(1), 119–132.
Tubbs, R., Jenkins, A., & Engelhardt, N. (Eds.). (2021). The Palgrave handbook of literature and mathematics. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55478-1
Tynjanov, Y. N. (1977). Poetika. Istorija literatury. Kino [Poetics. History of literature. Cinema]. Moskva. (pp. 257 ff.)
van Peer, W. (1989). Quantitative studies of literature: A critique and an outlook. Computers and the Humanities, 23, 301–307.
Vedad, F. (2015). Decoding the secrets in the story of Bizhan and Manizhe in the Shāhnāme by using the methods of astronomy. In Proceedings of the International Shahnameh Conference: The Second Millennium. Uppsala University.
Žirmunskij, V. M. (1979). Izbrannye trudy: Sravnitelʹnoe literaturovedenie. Zapad i Vostok [Selected works: Comparative literary studies. West and East]. Leningrad. (p. 20)

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 18 October 2025
  • Revise Date: 26 January 2026
  • Accept Date: 14 February 2026
  • Publish Date: 06 March 2026

Share

How to cite

Statistics