به‌سوی زبان‌شناسی انتقادی جابه‌جایی: استعاره‌های مفهومی و سازوکارهای گفتمانی در شکل‌دهی آیندۀ دوچرخه‌سواری شهری در تهران

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

پژوهشگر دکتری شهرسازی، گروه شهرسازی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران

چکیده

این پژوهش به واکاوی استعاره‌های مفهومی و سازوکارهای گفتمانی مسلط پیرامون امکان‌های توسعه دوچرخه‌سواری شهری در تهران می‌پردازد. چارچوب نظری تحقیق در تقاطع تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی، مطالعات انتقادی استعاره و ادبیات نوظهور روایت‌های جابه‌جایی قرار دارد. پرسش اصلی این است که چگونه گزاره‌های رایج در گفتمان محاوره‌ای از جمله «دوچرخه‌سواری در تهران پروژه‌ای شکست‌خورده است»، «شیب تهران مناسب نیست»، «اینجا آمستردام نیست» و «دوچرخه‌سواری در آلودگی مضر است» از طریق الگوهای زبانی و استعاره‌های مفهومی، به تثبیت گفتمان خودرومحور و محدودسازی افق‌های بدیل کمک می‌کنند.

روش تحقیق مبتنی بر خودمردم‌نگاری و تحلیل تفسیری گزاره‌های پرتکرار در تجربه زیسته پژوهشگر طی بیش از یک دهه فعالیت تحقیقاتی و کنشگری مستقیم در حوزه توسعه و ترویج دوچرخه‌سواری شهری در تهران است. نتایج این پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که گزاره‌های رایج در گفتمان محاوره‌ای پیرامون دوچرخه‌سواری شهری در تهران را نمی‌توان مجموعه‌ای از استدلال‌های علمی، ملاحظات فنی یا حتی نظرات شخصی دانست بلکه این گزاره‌ها در قالب منطق‌های گفتمانی نسبتاً منسجم و از طریق راهبردهایی چون طبیعی‌سازی، سیاست‌زدایی، فردی‌سازی، پروژه‌سازی و استثناءسازی عمل می‌کنند. این راهبردها به‌طور هم‌زمان وضعیت موجود جابه‌جایی خودرومحور را واقع‌گرایانه و طبیعی جلوه می‌دهند و به تثبیت گفتمان مسلط کمک می‌کنند؛ و از سوی دیگر، بدیل‌های غیرخودرومحور و مشخصا دوچرخه‌سواری را تضعیف می‌کنند و به‌حاشیه می‌رانند. نوآوری این پژوهش در ترکیب این چارچوب‌های تحلیلی در قالب حوزه‌ای تقاطعی و نامگذاری آن با عنوان «زبان‌شناسی انتقادی جابه‌جایی» و کاربست آن در زمینه ایران است. نتایج نشان می‌دهد گذار به نظام‌های جابه‌جایی انسان‌محور، مستلزم مداخله انتقادی در سطح زبان، واسازی استعاره‌های مسلط، از کار انداختن گفتمان مسلط خودرومحور و تقویت روایت‌های بدیل جابه‌جایی است؛ جایی که زبان، تصور جمعی و چارچوب‌های سیاستی به‌طور هم‌زمان باز روایت می‌شوند.

تازه های تحقیق

  • معرفی و نام‌گذاری «زبان‌شناسی انتقادی جابه‌جایی» به‌عنوان یک حوزۀ نوظهور در مطالعات جابه‌جایی شهری
  • بررسی چگونگی شکل‌گیری تصورات جابه‌جایی توسط گزاره‌های محاوره‌ای دربارۀ دوچرخه‌سواری در تهران
  • شناسایی سازوکارهای گفتمانی منجر به تضعیف دوچرخه‌سواری و تقویت رژیم خودرومحور در تهران
  • برجسته‌سازی نقش زبان در محدودسازی آینده‌های دوچرخه‌سواری شهری در تهران
  • تأکید بر ضرورت مداخله در سطح زبان برای گذار به نظام‌های جابه‌جایی پایدار

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Towards Critical Mobilinguistics: Conceptual Metaphors and Discursive Mechanisms Shaping Urban Cycling Futures in Tehran

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohammad Nazarpoor
PhD Researcher in Urban Planning, Department of Urban Planning, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Movement in the city is not merely a functional activity aimed at traveling from point A to point B, as conceived within transportation engineering. Rather, it is a fluid, multidimensional, and entangled practice that acquires meaning through its embeddedness in environmental, cultural, social, economic, and political contexts within the fabric of everyday life and through individuals’ lived mobile experiences.
In urban studies and urban design, research exploring individuals’ lived experiences of mobility in the city is an emerging field situated at the intersection of urbanism, anthropology, phenomenology, and mobility studies. From this perspective, inquiries into the lived experience of urban cycling address a fundamental question: how do individuals experience cycling in different urban contexts and spaces?
Within this framework, the present study seeks to understand and describe the role of the body in the lived experience of urban cycling in a specific urban context, continuing a line of inquiry in the phenomenology of movement and the phenomenology of the body. Using mobile autoethnography, the study examines the first author’s embodied experience of cycling in Amsterdam, a bicycle-friendly city, across different temporal and spatial conditions.
The findings reveal seven interrelated themes that, through autoethnographic description and analysis, illuminate the entanglement of the body, the bicycle, and the urban environment in lived experience. These themes demonstrate that the body, as the medium of experience, plays an active and constitutive role in shaping one’s interaction with space, self, and others. Such relations are mediated by environmental and climatic characteristics, mobility systems and planning policies, cultural dimensions, and both formal and informal norms, producing diverse lived experiences of urban cycling across different urban contexts. In the final section, this research provides recommendations for future Iranian urban design studies.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Critical Mobilinguistics
  • Urban cycling futures
  • Discourse analysis
  • Metaphor
  • Mobility narratives

مراجع

  • ایسنا (آبان ۱۴۰۱). مسیر دوچرخه در تهران به استخوان لای زخم تبدیل شده، isna.ir/xdMJSh.
  • ایمنا (شهریور ۱۴۰۰). دوچرخه‌سواری در تهران سیاست شکست‌خورده است، imna.ir/x6t6J.
  • سازمان کنترل کیفیت هوای شهر تهران (۱۴۰۴). گزارش کیفیت هوا و صدای شهر تهران در سال ۱۴۰۳، www air.tehran.ir.
  • مرادی، حمید. (۱۴۰۲). تحلیل، ارزیابی و آسیب‌شناسی پیشرفت سند توسعۀ دوچرخه‌سواری در کلان‌شهر تهران، گزارش مدیریتی: مرکز مطالعات و برنامه‌ریزی شهر تهران.
  • Adams, J. (1999). The social implications of hypermobility. OECD Proceedings: Social Sciences. OECD.
  • Agamben, G. 2014. “What Is a Destituent Power?” Environment and Planning. D, Society & Space32 (1): 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1068/d3201tra.
  • Aldred, R., Croft, J., & Goodman, A. (2019). Impacts of an active travel intervention with a cycling focus in outer London: A longitudinal study. Journal of Transport & Health, 12, 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.01.004
  • Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449
  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.
  • Böhm, S., Jones, C., Land, C., & Paterson, M. (2006). Against automobility. The Sociological Review, 54(s1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2006.00619.x
  • Bonham, J., & Cox, P. (2010). The disruptive traveller? A Foucauldian analysis of cycleways. Road & Transport Research, 19(2), 42–53.
  • Braun, B., & Randell, S. (2022). Political economies of automobility. Environment and Planning A.
  • Braun, R. 2019. “Autonomous Vehicles: From Science Fiction to Sustainable Future.” In Mobilities, Literature, Culture, edited by M. Aguiar, C. Mathieson, and L. Pearce, 259–280, Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Brugman, B. C., Burgers, C., & Vis, B. (2019). Metaphorical framing in political discourse through words vs. concepts: a meta-analysis. Language and Cognition, 11(1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.5
  • Buehler, R., & Dill, J. (2016). Bikeway networks: A review of effects on cycling. Transport Reviews, 36(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2015.1069908
  • Caimotto, M. C. (2020). Discourses of cycling, road users and sustainable mobility: An ecolinguistic investigation. Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse, Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Caimotto, M. C. (2023). “Cycling is good” but “cyclists are reckless.” Journal of Language and Discrimination, 7(1), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.1558/jld.24428
  • Cass, N., & Manderscheid. (2018). “The Autonomobility System: Mobility Justice and Freedom under Sustainability.” In Mobilities, Mobility Justice and Social Justice, edited by N. Cook and D. Butz, 101–115. London, New York: Routledge.
  • Copenhagenize Index. (2025). The Copenhagenize index of bicycle-friendly cities. Copenhagenize Design Company.
  • Cox, P. (Ed.). (2015). Cycling Cultures. Chester: University of Chester Press.
  • Cresswell, T. (2006). On the move: Mobility in the modern Western world. Routledge.
  • Cresswell, T. (2010). Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1068/d11407
  • De Hartog, J. J., Boogaard, H., Nijland, H., & Hoek, G. (2010). Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks? Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), 1109–1116. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901747
  • Doughty, K., & Murray, L. (2016). Discourses of mobility: Institutions, everyday lives and embodiment. Mobilities, 11(2), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2014.941257
  • Egan, R ., & Caulfield, B. (2024). Driving as essential, cycling as conditional: how automobility is politically sustained in discourses of everyday mobility, Mobilities, 19(4), 789-805, https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2024.2325370
  • Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 12(1).
  • Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse. Discourse & Society, 6(2), 133–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006002002
  • Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. Sage.
  • Fairclough, N. 2013. “Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Policy Studies.” Critical Policy Studies 7 (2): 177–197.
  • Fischer, F. (1993). Evaluating public policy: Toward a post-positivist approach. Sage Publications.
  • Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press.
  • Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2018). War metaphors in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1407992
  • Foucault, M. 1969. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock Publications.
  • Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Allen Lane.
  • Freudendal-Pedersen, M. (2009). Mobility in daily life. Ashgate.
  • Freudendal-Pedersen, M. (2015). Mobility and sustainable transitions. Journal of Transport Geography, 46, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.05.001
  • Gamson, W. A. (1989). News as framing. American Behavioral Scientist, 33(2), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764289033002006
  • Geels, F. W. (2012). A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions. Research Policy, 41(6), 991–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.01.015
  • Giallouros, G., et al. (2020). The long-term impact of restricting cycling and walking during high air pollution days on all-cause mortality. Environment International, 140, 105679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105679
  • Gössling, S., & Cohen, S. (2014). Why sustainable transport policies fail. Journal of Transport Geography, 39, 197–206.
  • Haas, Tobias. (2020). “Cracks in the Gearbox of Car Hegemony: Struggles over the German Verkehrswende between Stability and Change.” Mobilities 15 (6): 810–827. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2020.1817686
  • M. (1993). Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalization of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Great Britain. In: Fischer. F. & Forester, J. (eds). The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Duke University Press, London.
  • Hawkes, T. (2018). Metaphor. London & New York, Routledge.
  • Heinen, E., van Wee, B., & Maat, K. (2010). Commuting by bicycle: An overview. Transport Reviews, 30(1), 59–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640903187001
  • Hickman, R. 2025. Discourses on Sustainable Urban Mobility. London: UCL Press.
  • Illich, I. (1974). Energy and equity. Harper & Row.
  • (2021, September). Cycling in Tehran is a failed policy. Retrieved from https://www.imna.ir/x6t6J [In Persian]
  • (November 2022). Bicycle lanes in Tehran have become a persistent problem. Retrieved from https://www.isna.ir/xdMJSh [In Persian].
  • Kębłowski, W., & Bassens, D. (2018). “All transport problems are essentially mathematical”: The uneven resonance of academic transport and mobility knowledge in Brussels. Urban Geography, 39(3), 413–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1336320
  • Kong, H., Wu, J., & Li, P. (2024). Impacts of active mobility on individual health mediated by physical activities. Social Science & Medicine (1982. Print), 116834–116834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116834
  • Lakoff, G. (2010). Why It Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 70–81.
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Conceptual metaphor in everyday language. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(8), 453–486. https://doi.org/10.2307/2025464
  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
  • Lees, L. (2004). Urban geography: discourse analysis and urban research. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 101-107. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph473pr (Original work published 2004)
  • Lupton, D. (2013). Risk and everyday life. Health, Risk & Society, 15(1), 1–10.
  • Lyons, G., & Davidson, C. (2016). Guidance for transport planning. Transport Policy, 47, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.01.002
  • MacArthur, J., Dill, J., & Person, M. (2018). E-bike adoption. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 63, 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.06.002
  • McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2011). Mobile urbanism. University of Minnesota Press.
  • Miner, P., Smith, B. M., Jani, A., McNeill, G., & Gathorne-Hardy, A. (2024). Car harm: A global review of automobility’s harm to people and the environment. Journal of Transport Geography, 115(0966-6923). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2024.103817
  • Mizdrak, A., Tatah, L., Mueller, N., Shaw, C., & Woodcock, J. (2023). Assessing the health impacts of changes in active transport: An updated systematic review. Journal of Transport & Health, 33, 101702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2023.101702
  • Mögele, B., & Rau, H. (2020). Framing sustainable mobility transitions. Mobilities, 15(3), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2019.1698203
  • Moradi, H. (2023). Analysis, evaluation, and assessment of the progress of the urban cycling development plan in Tehran metropolis (Management report). Tehran Urban Planning and Research Center. [In Persian]
  • Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization (Updated Edition of the International Bestseller). Sage, Thousand Oaks
  • Mueller, N., Rojas-Rueda D., Cole-Hunter T., De Nazelle A., Dons E., Gerike R., Goetschi T., Panis LI., Kahlmeier S., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2015). Health impact assessment of cycling. Environment International, 85, 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.08.007
  • Nikolaeva, A., Adey, P., Cresswell, T., Lee, J. Y., Nóvoa, A., & Temenos, C. (2019). Commoning mobility: Towards a new politics of mobility transitions. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 44 (2), 346–360 .
  • Norton, P. D. (2011). Fighting traffic: the dawn of the motor age in the American city. MIT Press. Cambridge
  • Packer, J. (2008). Automobility and the public sphere. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 5(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420802192423
  • Paterson, M. (2007). Automobile politics. Cambridge University Press.
  • Pedersen, O. C. (2025). Placing futures in regimes of im/mobilities. Mobilities, 20(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2024.2394525
  • Popan, C. 2020. “Beyond Utilitarian Mobilities: Cycling Senses and the Subversion of the Car System.” Applied Mobilities1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2020.1775942
  • Portugali, J., & Alfasi, N. (2008). An Approach to Planning Discourse Analysis. Urban Studies, 45(2), 251-272. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098007085962 (Original work published 2008)
  • Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2012). City cycling. Urban and industrial environments. MIT Press.
  • sCharteris-Black, J. (2004). Corpus approaches to critical metaphor analysis. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Sheller, M. (2004). Automotive emotions. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(4–5), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0263276404046068.
  • Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2000). The city and the car. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(4), 737–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00276
  • Soza-Parra, J., & Cats, O. (2024). The role of personal motives in determining car ownership and use: a literature review. Transport Reviews, 44(3), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2278445
  • Stibbe, A. (2014). Ecolinguistics and the stories we live by. Language Sciences, 41, 117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.08.002
  • Tainio, M., de Nazelle, Audrey J, Götschi, T., Kahlmeier, S., Rojas-Rueda, David., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Hérick de Sá ,T., Kelly, P., Woodcock, J . (2016). Can air pollution negate the health benefits of cycling and walking? Preventive Medicine, 87, 233–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.02.002
  • Te Brömmelstroet, M., Nikolaeva, A., Glaser, M., Nicolaisen, M. S., & Chan, C. (2017). Travelling together alone and alone together: mobility and potential exposure to diversity. Applied Mobilities, 2(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2017.1283122.
  • Tehran Air Quality Control Company. (2025). Air quality and noise report of Tehran, year 2024. Retrieved from http://air.tehran.ir [In Persian].
  • Toner, A., Lewis, J. S., & Stanhope, J. (2021). Prescribing active transport as a planetary health intervention. Physical Therapy Reviews, 26(1), 25–33. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2021.1876598
  • (n.d.). In Etymonline. Retrieved February 27, 2026, from https://www.etymonline.com/word/transportation
  • (n.d.-b). In Etymonline. Retrieved February 27, 2026, from https://www.etymonline.com/word/transportation
  • Urry, J. (2004). The ‘system’ of automobility. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(4–5), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276404046059
  • Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Polity.
  • Van Dijk, T. (1997). Principles of critical discourse analysis. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp. 300-317). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2016). Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (3rd, pp. 62–85). London: Sage.
  • Willson, R. (2001). Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm. Transportation, 28(1), 1-31.
  • Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.
  • Zittoun, T., et al. (2020). Imagination in transitions. Culture & Psychology, 26(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X19888169

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 23 اسفند 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 06 اردیبهشت 1405
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 20 اردیبهشت 1405
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 20 اردیبهشت 1405
  • تاریخ انتشار: 31 خرداد 1405

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار