---

This article attempts to show the similarities and differences between epideictic genre in ancient western rhetoric, and the principles of praising and blaming in Islamic rhetorical textbooks. Epideictic genre is one of the three main rhetorical genres – along with deliberative and forensic genres- and its basic features may be traced in two kinds of textbooks: 1- Official rhetorical textbooks such as Aristotle’s, Cicero’s, Quintilian’s and others; 2- Sophistical textbooks such as Progymnsmata and Menander’s “Division of Epideictic Speeches”, and the treatise falsely attributed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, namely “On Epideictic Speeches”. The aim of this article is to show that both of these approaches have some counterparts in the Muslim world. The rhetorical Islamic textbooks are somehow the counterpart of official approach, and anthologies such as “Al-yavighit fi ba’z al-mavaghit”, “Tahsin al-ghabih va taghbih- al hasan” and many others reflect the sophistical approach to praising and blaming. Finally, the article concludes that although western and Islamic cultures differ fundamentally from each other, however, when it comes to praising/blaming, they are mostly on the same track.    

---

This article attempts to show the fundamental shortcomings of phenomenology-based researches in persian literary articles. The phenomenology- based research articles in the last decade has been collected and their definition of phenomenology has been compared to that of the founders of phenomenology, specially Edmund Husserl. These articles are divided in to three groups: 1- Those which attempt to "interpret" a literary work according to phenomenological approach 2- Those which compared phenomenological concepts with some poetic themes and viewpoints of some poets (specially Sohrab Sepehri and Nima Yushij) 3- Those which used "Phenomenology" as a completely useless concept, which has no crucial role in the whole research. The article concludes that these kind of researches are full of misunderstanding, because of 1- mixing the true meaning of phenomenology with poetic inventions,2- the misuse of phenomenological approach in reading literary works, and 3- not having an appropriate recognition of what a "Theoretical Framework" should be.

---

This essay aims to explore the drawbacks and fundamental deficiencies of studies that claim to apply or discuss the concept of defamiliarization in the realm of Persian language through a critical analysis of published academic research articles. A review of 30 articles published in prestigious Iranian journals during the period of 1996 to 2016 illustrates that many researchers in Iran have serious misperceptions regarding the concept of defamiliarization.
These common misconceptions in appreciation and application of the term defamiliarization can be categorized as follows: 1) disregard for the methodological principles of the Russians formalists; 2) presentation of concocted definitions of defamiliarization, and 3) confusion of the concept of defamiliarization with similar terms, in particular reducing it to the basic and traditional principles of rhetoric. On the one hand, these drawbacks have given rise to a plethora of studies that intend to examine truisms and on the other hand, it has reduced this concept to a mere embellishment in academic circles. As a consequence, a fertile ground has been prepared for researchers to churn out articles that disseminate analogous misconceptions in this area.