---

This research studies the form and approach of Iranian-Egyptian literary relations in contemporary periods. In order to more comprehensive and complete views, the historical, cultural and political conditions affecting the literary relations of the two countries are also studied. The importance of the issue is that despite the lack of continuous and direct relations in this periods and the high ups and downs in relations, Iranian and Egyptian scholars have created literary relations between Persian language and literature and those of Arabic in order to Maintain and develop cultural interaction of these two nations.
In this essay, the descriptive analytical method was used, first by referring to the Persian and Arabic literary works of the two countries in the field of translation, essays, thesis and book, and the attention to Persian and Arabic languages teaching, the importance amount and form of Persian literature in Egypt, and Arabic literature in Iran has been found, and then the activity type has been studied.
The results of this study indicate that despite the attempts of Colonial westernization trend in Islamic countries; and the existence of numerous divisions influenced by political disputes in the official relations between the two countries in recent decades (before and after the Islamic Revolution of Iran); the interest and attention to Persian And Arabic literature by the scholars of both countries have been done, and moreover, the accuracy and research that has been carried out by Egyptian literary scholars and writers on Persian literature has been more than what was done in Iran in relation to Arabic literature and in particular the Egyptian literature.

---

A Bibliography of Contemporary Persian Fiction was published in 2011 in 686+18 pages and large lectern size, with three attachments by the endeavour of The Department of Contemporary Literature of The Academy of Persian Language and Literature, under the supervision of Farideh Razi and collaboration of Ozra Shoja Karimi and Azadeh Golshani. This book covers 7069 entries and the bibliographic information of 14,046 books from the time of Constitutional Movement to 2010. Regarding the reputation of the publisher in publishing reference books, this book was expected to be free of errors (especially egregious errors must have been avoided); however, against all expectations, it turned out that the book was loaded with all kinds of errors and shortcomings to the extreme that the publisher later prepared an errata in the spring of 2012 titled Mostadrak which was launched with the book. Unfortunately, despite showing a lot of errors of the book, the errata itself suffered from other shortcomings and mistakes. We show some mistakes of both sources here and thus avoid the viewers of bibliography from being

---

  Critical thinking is the integration of knowledge, attitude, and practical skill. Today the scholars of education believe that one of the most important aims of academic learning is critical thinking. After an introduction on this subject, our study presents a short history of the scholarship on critical thinking along with the five principals of any act of critical thinking, namely: (1) Inference, (2) Recognition of assumption, (3) Deduction (4) Interpretation, and finally (5) Evaluation of argument. Critical thinking, unfortunately, has no place in the educational system for Persian. Using Watson-Glaser’s questionnaire, we have evaluated the evolution of critical thinking amongst the students of Persian (2009-2013) at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Based on our statistics, we have concluded that the critical thinking has not improved in those years.

---

Numerous studies in the last decade that have investigated the stylistic features of literary works in morphological layer do not help much in advancing stylistic studies and historical behavior of Persian language.
In the present study, which evaluates the literature of stylistics in morphological layer, twenty-seven research papers and dissertations written in the Iranian departments of Persian language and literature of academia have been reviewed and critiqued.

Numerous studies in the last decade that have investigated the stylistic features of literary works in morphological layer do not help much in advancing stylistic studies and historical behavior of Persian language. In the present study, which evaluates the literature of stylistics in morphological layer, twenty-seven research papers and dissertations written in the departments of Persian language and literature in Iran have been reviewed and critiqued. The findings indicate that these studies suffer several shortcomings, including: misunderstanding the basic morphological concepts, defining overlapping morphological categories, misreading texts and misidentifying the grammatical role of words, neglecting the diachronic behavior of Persian language, confusing research strategies and introducing unnecessary and redundant models and some other common mistakes. These problems are serious hurdles in the way of stylistic studies in morphological layer and also understanding Persian language changes. Finally, some suggestions have been made to address the aforementioned problems.

Introduction:

Studies on literary stylistics would seemingly lead to weak theoretical and applied literary research if linguistic theories and tools were not considered. Although in recent years, some researchers have paid attention to this important issue and inspected stylistic studies, they haven't considered linguistic theories. Literary stylistics as an interdisciplinary field studies literary styles with the help of linguistic tools. It is argued that the goal of literary stylistics is to find linguistic data for critical judgment of literary texts (Wales, 2006: 213). Studying the stylistic research related to morphological layer, the authors tended to investigate the attitude of researchers toward morphology.
Materials and Methods:
Investigating 18 research articles, 7 MA dissertations and 2 PhD theses in the field of Persian literature, this paper studies and evaluates the studies in field of stylistics and morphology, employing Spencer and Zwicky (2001) and Shaghaghi (2010). Morphology studies the internal structure of words and its rules and relations. The goal of the studies in the field of morphology is to identify words from non-words, morphemes and their types, types of words and word-formation processes. Also, inflection and derivation are considered as two distinct areas in morphology.  
Results: 
This paper found that although these studies open a way toward stylistic study of morphology, they suffer some shortcomings, such as:
A) Misunderstanding the basic morphological concepts: It is obvious that stylistic researchers who focus on morphology and lexical layer should use the terminologies and specialized words of this field, so that avoid using unrelated terminologies. Any violation of this principle will lead to the confusion and misunderstanding of the readers, and finally not transferring the knowledge. Investigating the corpus of the present study, the authors find that there exists chaos in the use of terminologies and specialized words in the field of morphology. The most prominent misunderstanding of linguistic concepts was related to two key concepts of derivation and compounding. Stylistic researchers utilize "derivational compounding" and "derivational compound" to indicate the processes of derivation and compounding, and this shows the inattention and carelessness of these researchers in the use of standard terminology in the field of morphology. 
B) Defining overlapping morphological categories: Investigating the corpus clearly shows that the authors didn't consider homogeneity principle in analyzing the Persian word-formation system. For instance, "affixed and semi-affixed compounds" is, in fact, the same as "derivation" in Persian which is formed by affixation. Furthermore, the concepts of "infinitive compounds", "adjective compounds", nominal compounds" and "truncated compounds of agentive and accusative adjectives" are overlapping and obviously shows the misunderstanding of researchers in identifying and differentiating the fields of morphology, syntax and semantics and also indicates their carelessness in methodology and in defining the categorization of concepts in a scientific and systematic way. 
C) Misreading texts and misidentifying the grammatical role of words: some research, although few, didn't correctly identify the grammatical role of words, for example Abedi and Ali Jola (2015).
D) Neglecting the diachronic behavior of Persian language: One instance of neglecting the historical changes of language is incorrect usage of words like "archaic" and "obsolete".
E) Confusing research strategies and introducing unnecessary and redundant models.
F) Neglecting the application of coinage and neologism: In one of the studies (Golizadeh and Gorooyi, 2012), some words were regarded as coinage which were used long before that date.
G) Neglecting foundations and principles of corpus linguistics: Neglecting foundations and principles of corpus linguistics is one of the important shortcomings of the investigated studies. Most of these studies were done to investigate linguistic innovations and word-formation skills in Persian literary works.
Conclusion:
The negligence of researchers in choosing the corpus, linguistic norms and its frequency hurdles in the way of stylistic studies. In addition, the analysis showed that the researchers didn't consider linguistic knowledge. Stylistic linguistics uses linguistic theories in description and interpretation of literary texts, so the stylists in the field of literature should know linguistics and apply it in research. In order to satisfy this goal, there are some suggestions in stylistic studies in the field of morphology: a) choosing one linguistic element or concept in research, b) determining a definite goal for stylistic research, c) using linguistic theories for understanding the basic concepts of research and designing a purposeful structure for the research, d) studying the existing linguistic corpus.  
References:
Abedi, M., & Ali Jola, E. (2015). Tarkibsazi va Hamayi Vazhegani dar Shaer-e Enghelab-e Eslami va Paydari. Adabiyat-e Paydari, 13, 205-226. [in Persian]
Golizadeh, P., & Gorooyi, R. (2012). Tahlil-e Sabkshenasi-e Tarikh-e Beyhaghi bar Mabna-ye Tarkibat-e Eshteghghi. ­ Sabkshenasi Nazm va Nasr-e Farsi (Bahar-e Adab), 5(6), 275-292. [in Persian]
Shaghaghi, V. (2010). Mabani-y-e Sarf. Tehran: Samt. [in Persian]
Spencer, A., & Zwicky, A. M. (Eds.). (2001). The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wales, Katie. (2014). A Dictionary of Stylistics. 3rd Edition. Routledge.
 
 

---

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.