<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>Iranian Persian Language and Literature Promotion Society</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Research on Mystical Literature</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>HTTPS://JP</Issn>
				<Volume>17</Volume>
				<Issue>2</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2024</Year>
					<Month>08</Month>
					<Day>12</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>A Review of the Ontological Analysis of Symbol</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>A Review of the Ontological Analysis of Symbol</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>81</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>93</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">28639</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22108/jpll.2024.140619.1817</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Masoud</FirstName>
					<LastName>Algooneh</LastName>
<Affiliation>Associate Professor, University of Isfahan, Iran</Affiliation>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2024</Year>
					<Month>02</Month>
					<Day>04</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>Research on the topic of symbols generally falls under two major traditions. The first tradition considers meaning to be a priori, flowing from the context of language rooted in Platonic ontology. This perspective is referred to as the ontological tradition of symbol analysis. The second tradition views meaning as fundamentally enabled through the symbol itself. This perspective encompasses both realistic and idealistic approaches. Language dominated by symbols, such as poetic, allegorical, or mystical language, has long been a subject of discussion and investigation. The present study adopted a diachronic, historical approach to provide a concise overview of the ontological tradition of symbol analysis. It examined the dominant features of this tradition and the historical periods, in which it had been prevalent. In doing so, the research clarified the position taken by the ontological tradition regarding the concept, placement, and function of symbol.</Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">Research on the topic of symbols generally falls under two major traditions. The first tradition considers meaning to be a priori, flowing from the context of language rooted in Platonic ontology. This perspective is referred to as the ontological tradition of symbol analysis. The second tradition views meaning as fundamentally enabled through the symbol itself. This perspective encompasses both realistic and idealistic approaches. Language dominated by symbols, such as poetic, allegorical, or mystical language, has long been a subject of discussion and investigation. The present study adopted a diachronic, historical approach to provide a concise overview of the ontological tradition of symbol analysis. It examined the dominant features of this tradition and the historical periods, in which it had been prevalent. In doing so, the research clarified the position taken by the ontological tradition regarding the concept, placement, and function of symbol.</OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">symbol</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Tradition of Ontological Analysis of Symbols</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Symbolic and Romantic Approaches</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Religious and Mystical Approaches</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://jpll.ui.ac.ir/article_28639_63f3a1114436e500a41ab8a6a81e832e.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
