---

Most traditional grammarians in describing conjunctive make use of metaphoric genitive construction. However, one can see that there is a great difference between the two genitive constructions. The most important difference is the analogical structure which exists in the metaphoric genitive construction but it does not exist in conjunctive. Unlike grammarians who consider that the adjunct in this genitive construction is the main goal in conjunctive, what is considered here is the combination of the adjunct and the governed word and not just either of them alone. In most of the sentences in which there is a conjunctive, if we omit the adjunct or the governed word, the sentence will have a figurative meaning, a meaning which derives from the genitive construction.The strategy that traditional grammarians have suggested for identifying the characteristics of conjunctive is incorrect. Grammarians who have studied the subject from a linguistic perspective also did not explain this properly and they have only paid attention to the appearance of the compound and have neglected the meaning differences. This study concludes that in explaining the conjunctive we should not make a comparison between conjunctive and metaphoric genitive construction. The only resemblance of these two genitive constructions is in the structure “core + e + dependent.” If in examining genitive constructions only the structure is considered, all of the genitive constructions will be put in one group.  But paying attention only to the form of the compound does not complete the grammatical concepts. In grammatical investigations, it is better to consider the structure and meaning at the same time. Having said that the purpose of conjunctive is the figurative meaning of this kind of genitive construction and is not the adjunct or the governed word alone.

---

Irony is one of the important and at the same time complex terms in rhetoric, philosophy and literary criticism that Persian texts have employed its potentialities under various headings such as satire, asterism, etc. In the meantime, one of the rhetorical basesofMasnavi isMawlawi's artistic and skillful use of humor and its various types. Mawlawi's specific skill in recognizing his  audience  and his dedication to explicate grand concepts of religion, mysticism and morality led him tochoosehumor as an indirect way of expression because of its high functionality, and great power to attract and persuade the audience.This paves the way for different types of irony to appear in the entire Masnavi, especially in its Fifth Book. Among different types of ironythat are present in Masnaviare verbal, situational and dramatic ironies. In this article, which is library-based and is done through descriptive-analytic method, the authors will investigate different modes of irony in Mawlawi’sMasnavi. It concludes that because of Masnavi’s allegorical and diegetic character, dramatic irony has a special standing in Masnavi.

---

Boasting (Mofakhereh in Persian) as a poetic theme or as a sub-genre has a strong presence in the books of poems of classical Persian poets. Adopting an analytical approach, this research attempted at analyzing ‘boasting’ in poems of Manouchehri Damghani, Sanaei Ghaznavi, and Khaghani Shervani based on Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory. To do so, after extracting instances of their ‘boasting’ odes and considering the historical and social issues of their times and their different habitus and mindsets, we tried to analyze the poems based on Bourdieu’s four literary field principles (habitus, capital, struggle, and disinterestedness). The results showed that Manouchehri, due to his inclination to the power filed, and to make a name and a living and to stabilize his position, used his art and poetry for boasting. He did not observe the principle of disinterestedness in the literary field which attempts at purifying literature from personal intentions. As a result, he was pushed to the margin. But as the power field changed during the second Ghaznavid and Seljuk periods and some new problems and instabilities affected poets’ conditions, poets such as Sanaei and Khaghani distanced themselves from the power field, due to their specific habitus, and attempted at purifying literature and fighting the power field. From the two poets, Khaghani was more successful due to his disinterestedness and observance of the rules of the literary field.