A Study of Persian Speakers’ Perception of Stylistic Variation in Persian Language

Authors
A. Saffar Moghaddam 1
A. Rostambeik Tafreshi 2
1 Professor of Linguistics in Institute for humanities and cultural studies
2 Assistant professor, Linguistics Department, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies
Abstract
Focusing on Persian language continuum of styles, this research aims at studying the stylistic variation of Persian language according to the native speakers’ judgment of the formality of some Persian sentences that are related semantically, and conveys the same proposition, but considered to be different regarding the number of formal or informal and colloquial words, phrases, and syntactic features in them. Therefore, this research is categorized as a research in perceptual dialectology. The main goal is to analyze the relation between the lexical and structural features of formality with the native speakers’ perception of the degree of formality of the sentences.The main questions this research tries to answer are as follows: Is it possible to define the degree of formality of a sentence according to the linguistic features? And, which phonetic, lexical and structural features exert more influence on Persian speakers’ judgments?
The research hypotheses are as follows: It is possible to define the degree of formality according to some linguistic features like how close the pronunciation of a word is to standard language, the use of some formal or informal words and expressions. And, the use of some lexical items and expressions or taboo words affects the native speakers’ judgment more than other features.
A researcher-made questionnaire consisting of 15 sentences which communicate the same proposition was used for gathering data on speakers’ judgments. Informants were 70 men and women in three different age-groups, 20-30 (n=35), 30-40 (n= 20)and 40-50 (n=15) who analyzed and graded the sentences, according to the degree of formality, on a continuum from the most to the least formal, based on their intuition. A descriptive – analytic method was used to analyze the data quantitatively and qualitatively. The topic and theoretical frame work of the research are the innovative features of the study.
The results show that it is possible to measure the approximate degree of formality of a sentence by counting the stylistically marked linguistic features. Nevertheless, the speaker’s judgment on the degree of formality does not necessarily depend on the number of these features, and some lexical items and terms that are marked due to observing politeness will affect their judgment. In general, lexical choices and some phonetic changes seem to have more influence on the speakers’ judgments than structural features.

Keywords

  • ·      اسمعیلی، اصغر (1394). « الگوهای زبانی غیر معیار فارسی در مکاتبات اداری». جستارهای زبانی. د6، ش 7 (پیاپی 28)،  صص1-32.

  • ·      افخمی، علی و ضیاءالدین قاسمی (1388). «سبک­های زبانی در فارسی و نمود ادبی». پژوهش­های زبان­های خارجی. ش 55. صص 5-17.

  • ·      ترادگیل، پیتر (1376). زبان­شناسی اجتماعی، درآمدی بر زبان و جامعه. ترجمۀ محمد طباطبایی. تهران: آگه.

  • حاجی­کاظمی، ندا (1383). «بررسی رعایت ادب در کنش­های بیانی زبان فارسی از دیدگاه زبان­شناسی». پایان­نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد. تهران: دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تهران مرکزی.

  • ·      رضایی، والی (1383). «زبان معیار چیست و چه ویژگی­هایی دارد؟».  نامۀ فرهنگستان. ش23. د 6. ش 3. صص 20- 35.

  • صفارمقدم، احمد (1388). «مقایسۀ عنصر ادب در زبان­های کره­ای و فارسی». تحقیقات فرهنگی. د 2. ش 1. صص 77-97.

  • عباسی، مجید (1390). «مقایسۀ فرایندهای واژه­سازی در گونۀ علمی و محاورۀ زبان فارسی». پایان­نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد. اصفهان: دانشکدۀ زبان­های خارجی.

  • غفارثمر، رضا و الهام یزدان­مهر (1391). «تحلیل گونه­های واژگانی- نحوی بیان آینده در زبان فارسی زیر تأثیر عوامل اجتماعی». زبان و زبان­شناسی. د 8. ش 16. صص 95-114.

  • ·      مدرسی، یحیی (1391). درآمدی بر جامعه­شناسی زبان. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.

  • ·      وارداف، رولاند (1393). درآمدی بر جامعه­شناسی زبان. ترجمۀ رضا امینی. تهران: بوی کاغذ.


 



  • Abbassi, M. (2011). Comparison of Lexical Formation Processes in Scientific and Colloquial Varieties of Persian Language. M.A. Thesis, Foreign Languages Department, Isfahan University.  [In Persian].

  • ·       Afkhami, A. & S. Z. Ghasemi (2009), “Language styles in Persian and their literary representation”. Foreign Language Studies. No. 55. Pp. 5-17. [In Persian].

  • Baker, P. (2010). Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.online: http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/staff/paulb/socioling.htm.

  • Bayard, D. (1995). Kiwitalk. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.

  • Crystal, D. (2008).Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Sixth edition.USA: Blackwell.

  • Dabagh, A. & A. Mirzaian (2010). “Patterns of speech accommodation and lexical formality in telephone conversations of Persian native speakers”. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, 10(2).

  • Eco, U. (1977). A Theory of Semiotics. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

  • Esmaeli, A. (2016). “Non-standard patterns in Persian business correspondence”. Language Related Research. Vol.6, No.7 (Tome 28), pp. 1-32. [In Persian].

  • Evans, Betsy E. (2002). “Attitudes of montreal students towards varieties of French”. In Long and Preston (eds) The Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology. Vol 2. Pp. 71-94.

  • Fromkin, V. R R. & N. Hyams (2013), An Introduction to Language. Cengage Learning

  • ·       Gelas, N. (1988).“Dialogues authentiques et dialogues romanesques”, in: Echanges sur la conversation, Editions du CNRS. Paris.Pp.323-333.[In Persian].

  • ·       Ghaffar Samar, R. & E. Yazdan Mehr (2012), “Analyzing morpho-syntactic variants of future expression influenced by social factors In Persian”, Language and Linguistics. Vol. 8. No 16. Pp. 95-114. [In Persian].

  • ·       Haji Kazemi, N. (2004). Linguistic Analysis of  Politeness In Persian Speech Acts. M.A. Thesis, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Unit. [In Persian].

  • Hasan, R. (1973). “Code, register and social dialect”. Class, Codes and Control. Vol 2, Applied Studies towards a Sociology of Language. by Basil Bernstein. Pp. 224-254.

  • Heylighen, F. & J. M. Dewaele (1999), “Formality of language: definition, measurement and behavioral determinants”. Interner Bericht, Center “Leo Apostel”, Vrije Universiteit Brüssel.

  • Himmelmann, N. P. (2005). Documentary and Descriptive Linguistics (full version). Available online:


 http://www.hrelp.org/events/workshops/eldp2005/reading/himmelmann.pdf.



  • Hodge, C. T. (1957). “Some aspects of Persian style”. Language. 33(3).Pp. 355-369.

  • Holmes, J. & A. Bell (1988). "Learning by experience: notes for New Zealand social dialectologists". Te Reo: Journal of the Linguistic society of New Zealand. 31. Pp. 33-41.

  • Holmes, J. & A. Bell (1988). “Learning by experience: notes for New Zealand social dialectologists”. Te Reo: Journal of the Linguistic society of New Zealand. 31. Pp. 33-41.

  • http://profdoc.um.ac.ir/paper-abstract-1045721.html

  • Jakobson, R. (1987). “Linguistics and poetics. In R. Jakobson”. Language in Literature. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Pp. 62-94.

  • Joos, M. (1967). The Five Clocks (Vol. 58). New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

  • Kerswill, P. (2004). “Social dialectology/Sozial dialektologie. In Klaus Mattheier”. Ulrich Ammon & Peter Trudgill (eds.) Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, 2nd ed.Vol 1. Berlin: De Gruyter. Pp.22-33.

  •  )www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/.../Kerswill2004socialdialectologypdf.pdf).

  • Khojasteh, A. B. & V. Nadernia (2016), “A Comparative study of colloquial language utterances in three Persian translations of English novel by McCrimmon’s model”. Journal of Exploratory Studies in Law and Management, 3(1).

  • Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

  • Lahiri, S.; P. Mitra & X. Lu (2011, February). “Informality judgment at sentence level and experiments with formality score”. In International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics (Pp. 446-457). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Louwerse, M. M. (2004). “Semantic variation in idiolect and sociolect: Corpus linguistic evidence from literary texts”. Computers and the Humanities, 38(2).Pp. 207-221.

  • McCrimmon, J. (1963).Writing With a Purpose (third ed.) New York: Houghton. pp 137-138.

  • ·       Modarresi, Y. (2012). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Tehran: Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies. [In Persian].

  • Moore, R. (2012). “On swear words and slang”. American Speech. 87(2).

  • ·       Platt, H.; H. Platt & J. C. Richards (1992), Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Essex: Longman.

  • Preston D. R. (ed.) (1999). A Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [A bibliography of works devoted principally to perceptual dialectology.]

  • ·       Rezaei, V. (2004). “What is standard language and what are its features?”. Nameyeh Farhangestan. No. 23, 3/6. Pp. 20-35. [In Persian].

  • ·       Saffar Moghaddam, A. (2009). “Comparison of  politeness in Persian and Korean”. Iran Journal of Cultural Research. Nol. 2. No. 1. Pp. 77-97. [In Persian].

  • Starks, D. & Z. McRobbie-Utasi (2001), “Collecting sociolinguistic data: Some typical and some not so typical approaches”. New Zealand Sociology. 16(1).Pp. 79-92.

  • ·       Trudgill, P. 9 (1997). Sociolinguistics, an Introduction to Language and Society, translated by M. Tabatabaei. Tehran: Agah .[In Persian].

  • Wardhaugh, R. (2014). An Intoduction to Sociolinguistics. Tranlated by Reza Amini, Tehran: Bouye Kaghaz. [In Persian].

  • Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.

  • Wolfram, W. (1969). A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.


 

Language Related Research
Volume 8, Issue 7
March and April 2017
Pages 291-314