---

Manُ s natural inclination towards rational detection of the surrounding realities, which has been manifested in the forms of oral and visual storytelling about his physical and intellectual experiences throughout history, was allegedly studied in a systematic way by Russian, in tandem with, Anglo- American formalists for the first time ever at the outset of the twentieth century. Then their intellectual legacies passed on to the francophone narratologists through the works of the Prague school structuralists and from the mid- twentiethe century on, were embodied under the rubric of Narratologie and fostered in a very broadr sense including modern literary narratives. However, reviewing certain binary, taxonomic, and typological concepts underlying the structural – narrotological outlook, in this article we have followed up the diverse genealogical lines of the "morphological narrative studies"- especially those based on the linguistically oriented theories- a little bit further beyond their very well acknowledged formalist ones, into the German tradition. We could not have started the venture, had we not drawn briefly on the most fundamental ideas put forward by such outstanding figures in the discipline as Barthes, Genette, Stanzel, Bremond, Ball, Chatman, Prince, Todorov, as well as many others. Finally, we have touched upon the recent developments brought about in the field of narrative studies, directly under the impact of cognitive linguistic pragmatics.

---

In the present article, after reviewing the classical typologies of focalization and considering discoursal markers of focalization identified by traditional narratologists, we will turn our attention to a kind of focalization which entails hypothesizing about what might have been perceived/conceived through a perspective never adopted by the focalizer; thus “hypothetical focalization”. For this kind of focalization to be described (ahead of any explanation), we need to apply some linguistic and philosophical insights gained either after, or out of, the ensemble of conventional narratology. The ideas specifically at issue here will be those first developed within the frameworks of the possible-worlds and intensional semantics. The due conceptual framework will serve to spotlight the intensional aspects (or the sense) of narrative well beyond the structural narratologists’ and logical semanticists’ formal accounts. Therefore, the present study not only will specify the most usual modes of verbal focalization in a number of Persian extracts, but will also examine some lesser known semantic dimensions of narrative discourse, drawing on those virtual aspects of focalization inherently refraining from the logical or formal investigations pertinent to structural narratology.

---

The ‘diachronic approach to narrative studies’ may take different directions, one of them being a typological research on narrative texts, and the other, a genealogical enquiry into the modern ways of storytelling as to see how they have historically originated from a certain group of folktales. Assuming, in the same vein, that some relics of Persian formulaic oral narration should have survived—through functional modification, or even obliteration— into the Iranian literary fiction, this article introduces just one instance of these Persian-folktale-specific formulae, drawn out from a bulk of more than 270 texts whose inscription dates back at least to 70 years ago. Then the question is whether the formula has completely vanished away, or simply alternated between a number of functions.

---

Narrative, like Language, is a concept abstracted from various representations of a semiotic system in the name of “narrative poetics”, i.e. a kind of grammar which maintains structural cohesion within a narrative text and provides such a text with the features necessary for its narrativehood. For the concept of narrativehood to be defined more clearly in this article, the bi-stratal mechanism of narrative system is investigated, after structural narratology, just at the story level. Focusing on narrative structure at this level, the article holds that the mere chronological sequence of events in a discourse is quite sufficient for it to be judged as narrative - whether logically consistent or not. Also, comparing narrative with linguistic semiosis and analyzing it within the frameworks of structural linguistics, the article points up the indispensability of poetics and its key concepts (including narrativehood) from narrative studies, however outmoded they may appear long after the scientific credibility of poetics was deluded by traditional narratologists. These objectives are achieved through a structuralist analysis of Pagard (Shahsavari, 2005), seeking the novel for the major constituents of narrative and the hierarchical relations among them. In spite of structuralists, thus, narrativehood is defined both as a function of one specific superstructure, and an attribute common to all narrative texts.

---

It is traditionally maintained in structural linguistics that by cutting verbal signs off each other paradigmatically, and enchaining some of them against the others syntagmatically, language system makes a body of text signify a certain meaning which is sustainable through contextual fluctuations. In line with this Saussurian assumption, and in an attempt to ascertain the authorial intention in literary works, many literary scholars have been mistaken rhetorics for criticism, albeit under the rubrics of structural poetics. This article, however, dismisses the futile attempt to pull certain meanings out of literary masterpiecesfor the purpose of investigating the origins of textuality in any work—let it not be shelved as great literature or literary at all. It aims to demonstrate why such mechanical procedures, prevalent in rhetorical studies, cannot account for textuality beyond the question of the thematic unity of a work; wherein textuality and plurality of text are suppressed in favor of the integrity and entirety required for works of verbal art. To account for the extensive significance of text and the abundance of its possible readings, a seemingly heterogeneous body of texts (including a piece of a poem, an extract from an article, and a vignette) has been analyzed within a reader-oriented framework. Drawing on Roland Barthes (1981), Asgari Pashaei (1995) and Christian Metz (1982), I have tried to move away from rhetorics toward a more proper notion of literary criticism.     

---

Aim
The textbook as the most important educational tool in the country has a significant role in the curriculum content. Therefore, textbook revision, adding to conceptual richness and avoiding their shortcomings are the main necessities of continuous textbook content analysis. The present article aims at determining the degree of attention of elementary Farsi Reading and Farsi Writing textbooks in Iran to different meanings of a semantic frame.
Questions
The article tries to answer the following questions: ‘in the elementary school Farsi Reading and Farsi Writing textbooks which kind of explicit, collocational, associative, stylistic, grammatical, pragmatic, and implicit meanings are thought?’ And ‘How much each type of meanings is come to notice?’
Research Method
 Research has carried out by qualitative method. The statistical population of the study includes all the assignments, texts and exercises of the Farsi Reading and Writing textbooks in the primary school curriculum. The assessment has been conducted, through content analysis method particularly Check-list. The Unit of analysis is ‘word’. The evaluation of curriculum has been done on the basis of Fillmore’s Frame Semantics (1975) and the content of the textbooks is analyzed and described based on the amount of usage of various meanings in a semantic frame.
Innovation
The efficacy of parameters taken from cognitive linguistics especially frame semantics and content analysis interacting as a system in this research is more significant than those elements operating separately. This convergence into an interdisciplinary field would culminate in a fresh and penetrating view of parameters related to language and education which would not be realized by delving into any of these disciplines alone.
Conclusion
The findings of the research reveal that in the first-grade Farsi Reading Textbook, 38.7% of meanings are designated to explicit, 51.6% to collocational and 9.7% to associative meanings. In terms of grammatical categories, all the meanings belong to the category of noun. In addition, ten semantic frames are instructed. Regarding the literacy level of students, most of the presented drills to teach explicit meanings are pictorial. Since the unit of study in this research is word, such cases are ignored. No glossary is appended to this textbook. The first-grade Farsi writing Textbook emphasizes the writing exercises.  
The semantic frames of the second-grade Farsi Reading Textbook include 70.2% explicit, 10.6% collocational, 14.9% associative and 4.3% stylistic meanings. Among all the Elementary Farsi Reading and Writing Textbook, the second-grade book is the only one which contains four exercises relating to stylistic meaning. The distribution of noun category is 60.6% in comparison with adjective 30.9%, pronoun 4.25% and onomatopoeia 4.25% respectively. No glossary is appended to the second-grade Farsi Reading Textbook. Considering various types of meanings in the Writing Textbook, 70.2% are designated to explicit, 9.6% to collocational and 20.2% to associative meanings. In terms of grammatical category, 66.7% are dedicated to nouns, 26.3% to adjectives, 5.3% to onomatopoeia and1.7% to verbs.
The third-grade Farsi Reading Textbook contains 60.8% explicit, 33.3% collocational and 5.9% associative meaning of which 56.9% are nouns and 43.1% are adjectives. There is no direct indication to any semantic frames, but students have access to a glossary at the appendix. In the third-grade Farsi Writing Textbook, Percentage of distribution of meanings are 78.3% for explicit and 21.7% for associative ones of which 91/3% are dedicated to nouns and 8.7% to adjectives.
In the fourth-grade Farsi Reading Textbook, there is a glossary which gives the explicit meaning of each term. 82.7% exercises are designated to the indirect instruction of explicit and 17.3% to the collocational meanings. In terms of grammatical category, 75.9% are nouns and 24.1% are adjectives. In the fourth-grade Farsi Writing Textbook, the distribution of categories of noun and adjective are equal and each of them has 50% portion. There are no signs of any other meanings like collocational or associative ones.
The fifth-grade Farsi Reading Textbook includes the indirect construction of explicit (88.2%) and collocational (11.8%) meanings. There is a glossary containing 292 terms which introduces explicit meaning. Percentage of distribution of grammatical categories are 41.2% nouns, 44.1% adjectives, 5.9% infinitives, 5.9% prepositions and 2.9% verbs. In the fifth-grade Farsi Writing Textbook, the explicit meaning rate is 67.6%, being higher than collocational and associative by 20.6% and 11.8% respectively. The distribution of nouns and adjectives take up the same portion of total grammatical categories, 50% for each. 
In the sixth-grade Farsi Reading Textbook, instruction is at the service of explicit meaning and 100% of which is dedicated to adjectives. The glossary of this book in comparison with other grade textbooks contains more terms, 312 ones. The sixth-grade Farsi Writing Textbook includes 59.2% explicit, 11.1% collocational and 29.7% associative meanings. The ratio of noun to adjective distributions are 51.8% to 48.2%. There is no direct instruction of semantic frame in this textbook.
The content analysis of elementary Farsi Reading and Writing Textbooks from cognitive semantic point of view indicates that the books give the pupils the instruction both directly and indirectly. The students are provided with training of explicit, collocational and associative meanings through reading and writing exercises, the majority of which is dedicated to explicit (67.4%) and the minority to stylistic (0.8%) meanings. Collocational (18.6%) and associative (3.2%) meanings are in between. there is no teaching either directly or indirectly of grammatical, pragmatic, and implicit meanings.

---

Perspective is one of the factors involved in the diversification of schema. The viewpoint from which one looks at a scene somehow affects the process of semantic representation of that scene. Every sentence has its special schema drawn upon the scene in question, and adopting different points of view towards the same event will result in the speakers’ choosing different linguistic structures to express the event. Therefore, perspective is one of the most salient structure-formation processes that has received much attention from cognitive linguists. Cognitivists interested in linguistic impacts of perspective, following Langacker (), have laid their study on the assumption that the relative status and the angle of vision influence what language is used in describing certain situations. However, the question in this regard is whether or not the two parameters meet the adequacy required both for describing and for explaining different scenes linguistically. The answer seems to be that the specific perspective taken by the speaker is itself very much based on some further elements as animacy, dynamicity, size, and speaker. Present article is therefore written in order to question the problem of perspective, and the elements that are likely to bear upon its linguistic representation in Persian. Furthermore, it will also be taken into question if, according to what cognitive linguists argue for, there is such a universal cognitional framework common to all the human beings. For this purpose, a body of Persian written and spoken data, gathered from narrative dialogues and everyday talks, is to be examined inductively. Although this is an unprecedented study on some fundamental cognitive-semantic issues, the results would pretty hopefully apply in much more detailed semantic analyses of sentence perspective as well.