A Critical Discourse Analytic Investigation into Legitimatory Strategies in Onsori’s Panegyric Odes on Mahmud of Ghazni

Since the panegyrical poet sees the actions and words of the powerful lord as impeccable and free from any atrocity in the genre of panegyric and ode in particular, researchers in language studies could reflect on the genre and identify justificatory strategies and their linguistic realization and expose them to the public. Employing Critical Discourse Analysis, the investigation has examined Onsori’s odes lionizing Sultan Mahmud as a coherent text with socio-cultural layers. To this end, and assuming Onsori, Mahmud’s poet-laureate and confidant, has acted as his mouthpiece, the texts have been analyzed on two levels: First, in line with the (de)legitimation model of van Leeuwen, one of the greatest theorists of Critical Discourse Analysis, realizations of the four strategies, namely authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization, and mythopoesis, were identified. Subsequently in terms of the strategy of repetition, the frequency of the said legitimatory strategies was revealed. It was found the data had not been intended as entertaining and praising Mahmud; rather, Onsori, while composing panegyrics, had aimed to render Mahmud’s Establishment as legitimate using van Leeuwen’s framework, and he had sought to reinforce his own intensions in the reader’s mind using repetition, one of the most effective ways of meaning reinforcement.
Key Words: Critical Discourse Analysis; (de)legitimation; van Leeuwen; Onsori; Mahmud of Ghazni
 
Introduction
The genre of panegyric, in literature in general and in Persian literature in particular, legitimates the deeds and words of the powerful elites being praised and delegitimates those of his rivals. In such a genre, the role language plays in legitimation can be probed, too.
Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni has been among the ‘praised’ ones whose proclivity for panegyric has resulted in the composition of excellent instances of the genre of ode in Persian literature. Given his excessive materialism, pointed out by the historical accounts, it seems that all his expenditure on setting up such a system of panegyric writing has not been for the sole purpose of entertainment or satisfaction of his will to power; instead, it appears that, on account of his lacking social provenance (i.e., his being a slave) from a religious and national viewpoint, he has considered himself as lacking in sufficient legitimacy to rule Islamic Iran, and that the presence of skillful poets has acted as media at the service of giving voice to his views.
Materials and Methods
Since, in addition to his being a poet laureate in the court of Mahmud, Onsori has also been his confidant, study of his collection of poetry could lead us to the discourses he has been trying to promote. Therefore, in the present investigation, 39 panegyric odes attributed to Sultan Mahmud in Onsori Divan have been analyzed at two levels as instances of legitimation of Mahmud’s deeds. As for the first stage of analysis, based on van Leeuwen’s Legitimation Strategies framework, linguistic realizations of legitimation were collected from the text. With regard to the second phase, since repetition, especially of a semantic subtype, is among the most influential tools for conveying and reinforcing worldviews, the frequency of repetition of legitimizing propositions was compared; that is because Onsori’s odes, mixing legitimizing propositions and repetition, have been turned into efficient media serving Mahmud.
Regarding the first phase, it should be borne in mind that Critical Discourse Analysis is a kind of applied research normally scrutinizing texts produced by the powerful elite to illuminate the role of language in creating inequality, exercise of power, etc. The research, using Critical Discourse Analysis, lays bare the mediational role of language in foregrounding ideologies as a way of achieving legitimacy. Legitimation is the creation of “us versus them” false dichotomy, and language possesses resources that could promote the position of the powerful elite and legitimates their deeds and words. Within van Leeuwen’s framework, four legitimation strategies of authorization, moral legitimation, rationalization, and mythopoesis have been put forward for the analysis of language. Such processes can act individually or in unison and, through descriptive and prescriptive expressions, not only intensify temporary feelings but also reinforce deeply rooted beliefs.
In the second phase, repetition as an efficient linguistic tool, can double the impact of the aforementioned elements. This research has used semantic repetition, from among its subtypes, which refers to repeating words which could replace each other. The poet often chooses key words to strengthen his thoughts and, to do this, benefits from words which could take the place of those key words.
In this investigation, authorization is the first to be analyzed used to legitimate governmental discourses. Authorization justifies the actions of a powerful elite based on the authority of a reliable person, knowledge and expertise, laws, norms, customs and traditions, policies, and habits. In the same way, Onsori uses the two provenances of religion and Iranian ethnicity to give legitimacy to Mahmud with roots as a slave in a different land. The next element is moral legitimation which highlights moral values and is based on justification more than authorization. The panegyric poet, Onsori, praises Mahmud using various attributes, but a discourse analytic procedure shows that he legitimates the ruling body via the process of moral legitimation. The attributes have been examined in two major categories of those based on authority and those based on the spiritual superiority.
The third strategy is rationalization in which moral evaluation is implied. In a text, where the means or end or both are mentioned, we have a case of rationalization. Thus, all the battles fought by Mahmud to accomplish a goal could be taken as an instance of it to legitimate and naturalize his deeds. The last strategy giving legitimacy to an establishment is mythopoesis which is achieved through telling stories. Narratives are essential to the survival of a discourse, and Onsori has sought, through allusions to Iranian kings or religious accounts, to legitimate Mahmud’s rule among Iranians and Muslims.
Discussion & Results
Following the selection of realization of the elements in the text, the frequency of their repetition has been examined. From among the four legitimation strategies, moral legitimation has the highest frequency being congruent with the laudatory nature of the poems. The attributes of “valor in war” and “magnanimity” are repeated more than the rest. Given the Sultan’s constant involvement in war, it makes sense that he craves to be known by this property. “Magnanimity” is also an attribute that appears to have been taken advantage of by Onsori in its repetitions.
With regard to authorization, findings show that the highest frequency of attributing Persian king titles to Mahmud has been for the purpose of giving legitimacy to the originally Turkish monarch among the Iranians. Subsequently, his deeds have been rendered legitimate by the repetition of the religious titles bestowed on him by the Caliph. The third statement is rationalization in which Onsori has naturalized Mahmud’s actions via the means of war helping Mahmud to achieve more land and wealth under the guise of religion. Finally, with regard to mythopoesis, the poet has used Iranian and religious and secular myths.
Conclusion
Considering the entirety of Onsori’s panegyric odes about Sultan Mahmud as a coherent and unified text, it appears that he has employed the genre and has presented legitimization strategies and the Sultan’s intended meanings. Then, using the tool of semantic repetition, he has dealt with its reproduction throughout the text and has not only legitimated the slave-born king but also has immortalized him in history and in the reader’s mind through repetition.