---

One of the steps of a research is hypothesizing that have been argued about its necessity and method in humanities. With investigating literary studies, it may be said that hypotheses haven’t any function in the research process. Critiquing the position and concept of hypotheses in literary researches, in this paper, we trace answers to these questions: why don’t hypotheses have any function in solving literary problems? Can we define a type of the hypotheses for these studies? There is a methodological difference between the concept of literary theory and theory in empirical methods. This different cause hypothesis in literary researches to lacks some properties such as Testability. In other words, due to dependence of literary researches and theories on reading, hypothesizing in literary studies is a useless and, sometimes, impossible task. Considering the implicit hypotheses instead of explicit and conventional one, maybe, we can produce a difference treatment of hypotheses for literary studies. Implicit hypotheses are not presented in the shape of a sentence, relate to step of text selecting and knot at the whole of research process.

---

Non-methodological applying literary theory is one of the more important weakness’ of the literary studies in the Persian language. This weakness is more related to methodological wrongs of applying literary theory than to correct understanding of the one theory. Investigating the scientific research papers in the field of structural narratology, in this article, we aim to introduce and analyze the major drawbacks in applying to these theories and the causes and consequences of these drawbacks. The results of this research indicate that the nonchalance in applying to these theories lead to methodological wrongs in these articles. The most important of these wrongs are the educational and superficial approach to these theories, inattention to the basis of the theories, reductive approach to them. A Statistical investigating 90 scientific research papers, published from 2011 to 2017, in the end, we indicate these articles have no effective role in the process of forming the following ones.

---

Some of the results of this paper are: various processes of thematising and making theme can be categorized in two main groups: direct processes and indirect processes. The first and prevailing process obtains themes through the evident signs and explicit meanings of a text. Three of these evident signs include the direct utterances of the narrator or fictional characters in the text, elements of fabula (events and persons presented in the deep structure of text), and literary conventions (genre, schools, theories, or some current conventions in literary or artistic institutions). This process usually displays familiar, canonical and traditional themes. Because of their familiarity, these themes don’t need to be explained or justified by critics. In contrast, the indirect process achieves the theme of a work by relying on implicit and constructed meanings, using strategies such as the concepts of literary theories (like sexual or political concepts), formal devices and their meanings (like focalization, metalepsis, or parody), extracting non-objective motifs (like reflection or pretense), or even combining these strategies. The second type of themes, due to their strangeness, must be justified by a critic precisely and for this reason, they display that the critic is aware of his/her strategies. Finally, relying on the second process of theme making and thematising, I introduced the themes of some of the literary and cinematic works such as Hafiz’s poems, Birds by Alfred Hitchcock, and Invasion by Sharam Mokri.

---

The new fields of Persian language and literature have fundamental drawbacks besides their benefits. The lack of theoretical foundations in defining these fields is the most important drawback. The lack of specific, methodical theoretical foundations has caused the involvement of some unconscious presuppositions in the targeting and definition of these fields and their curriculums. In this article, by reviewing some of the subfields, these non-methodical foundations and their blind spots have been discussed. The most important of these items are (1) traditional and theme-oriented view of classification and definitions, (2) lack of problematic and methodical view in the definition of subfields and curricula, (3) reductionism in selecting the texts and subjects because of superficial focusing on localization, and (4) lack of interdisciplinary approach. These drawbacks are in close relation to each other. The greatest impact of these drawbacks is the lack of research findings in the academic literature. In this paper, we have focused attention on the interdisciplinary approach for methodological and research expansion of the field of Persian language and literature.
Extended Abstract
The most important of these blind spots are: traditional and theme-oriented view of classification and definitions; lack of problematic and methodical view in the definition of subfields and curricula; reductionism in selecting the texts and subjects because of superficial focusing on localization; lack of interdisciplinary approach. The view based on a common and conventional understanding of literature, literary works, the meaning of texts, genre classifications, and the like has determined the formation of most of these areas. It has also influenced the definition of teaching. In addition, the tendency toward localization has, first, made it difficult to use the critical view, and second, with directional and non-academic definitions, has removed many texts from the topics covered in postgraduate courses.
By marginalizing the importance of theoretical foundations, problem thinking, and the critical view, these features have led to a shift away from research-based approaches in new fields. The explicit or implicit avoidance of addressing new topics in courses and curricula has resulted in papers and dissertations that benefit from new approaches being written independently of course topics, without taking advantage of the courses passed and official intentions of the field. The lack of theoretical foundations in the definition of these areas and the recourse to some non-specialized foundations and presuppositions has led to the fact that the objectives introduced in the formation of most of these areas have non-literary motives (ideological, social, religious, mystical, etc.).
Some of the aspects of non-methodological planning and lack of theoretical and problem-oriented foundations in the course headings: a topic-oriented approach (in the traditional sense) to texts, a non-methodological approach to theories and their transformation into fixed patterns for implementation and adaptation to texts, a non-methodological approach to research methods and their transformation into historiography, literary history, and bibliography. However, an important point overlooked by planners is to use the capacity of interdisciplinarity to develop the field of literature instead of using intradisciplinary, text- and topic-oriented divisions based on the conventional criteria of literary types. Because of its problem-oriented and innovative nature, interdisciplinarity helps to open new perspectives on academic literature. By highlighting new topics, interdisciplinarians also contribute their methodology. For this reason, they contribute to the development of literary research without analyzing and categorizing literary texts by drawing perspectives and approaches.
The purpose of this article is to remind that there is a lack of adequate theoretical foundations in new areas of Persian language and literature and that the presentation of corrective proposals requires a separate article as an independent writing topic. It seems that in order to solve the existing problems, instead of relying on the current criteria, one can rely on criteria such as interdisciplinarity, diversity of approaches (instead of diversity of texts and conventional genres) and even historical divisions related to intellectual and linguistic developments in defining new areas and literary topics in class preparation. All this will lead to the desired result if any action towards introducing the subjects of literature or attempting to design new areas is based on firm and sound theoretical foundations and far from conventional understanding.
Using the experience of other countries' in developing academic literature is also a measure to revise and reform the fields of Persian language and literature. These reforms will help expand the frontiers of literary knowledge and strengthen research and critical faculties rather than relying on local, political and ideological affiliations.