---

The anonymous Persian poet, Seif-e-Esfarangi was probably born in the 6^th century (lunar year). His hometown according to the biographers' dictum, was Sfarang, one of the environs of Samarqand. With regard to this point, his poetry-book (divān) enjoys a special importance for the evaluation of the language of Māwarā-e-Nahr, just like those of Am'aq-e-Bokhāri, Mawlavi-e-Balkhi and Suzani-e- Samarqandi. Although it is needless to say that Seif is not leading in poetry. Seif has considered lots of his contemporaries and predecessors and has patterned their odes; Among these, one can note to Mas'ud-e- Sa'd, Amir Moe'zi, osmān-e- mokhtāri, Am'aq-e-Bokhāri, Sanāyi, Anvari, mojir and khāqāni, but the influence of khāqāni on Seif is more striking.

In this article, attempts are made to show some of the verbal and semantic similarities between the lines of Seif and khāqāni. These similarities could provide clues to the point that  Seif has viewed khāqān'is poetry-book.

---

This study attempts to indicate that ‘exclusivity’ is not organized adequately in semantic books. In these books, there is not a clear- cut boundary between different kinds of literary exclusivity; moreover its categorizations are based on the reader^,s’ mastery over the speakers or the addressees’ intentions. After analyzing and categorizing the three groups cited in semantic books, the author concludes that the real non- claiming exclusive sentences should be analyzed in the realm of language studies, and unreal daiming sentences in the realm of literature. Furthermore, a change in the tone of reading or the stress in pronunciation determines the adjective and noun or the noun and adjective. In order to clarify exclusivity of ‘singularity, metamorphosis and identification’, accurate identification of the addressee is highly necessary. Finally, the position of exclusive sentences and implications is not clarified. It is suggested that when teaching or analyzing ‘exclusivity’, the five fields of discourse analysis, literature, knowing the addressee, sentence recognition and implicatures must be taken into account.

---

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.

---

Communication includes all the ways that human beings can influence others. This involves not only speaking or writing, but also all human behavior in various ways, so there are two types of communicational signs that human beings use: verbal and non-verbal signs. In communication science, special attention has been paid to how non-verbal signs influence message transmission. The research has shown that a large proportion of messages are transmitted to others through non-verbal signs. In poetry, the poet uses both verbal and nonverbal signs to be more effective in relation to the audience, but often in the analysis of poetry, the focus is on the verbal signs. Mehdi Akhavan-Sales is one of the most remarkable poets of contemporary narrative poetry whose specific characteristic of his poetry makes it suitable to use the non-verbal signs. In this study, the use of non-verbal communicational signs has been discussed to answer the following questions: Which non-verbal signs did Mehdi Akhavan-Sales use in his poetic images? What induces non-verbal signs in his poetry? Is there a significant relationship between the signs of non-verbal communication and the dominant thought of Akhavan in his poems? This study shows that Akhavan transmitted some of the concepts and messages in his poetry by depicting non-verbal signs related to the eyes, hands, feet, head and neck, lips, mouths, etc. The frequency of using these signs is higher in poems that have narrative features. The messages conveyed by these signs are often sadness, fear, concern, anxiety, uncertainty, and despondency. The high frequency of false smiles and the frequent use of phonetic messages of silence indicate that duplicity, and improbity made his poetic atmosphere full of despair. The use of these signs shows that instead of explaining a feeling or trying to convey a message, he presents an effective poem to the audience in a succinct manner.