The Linguistic Differences between Literary Language and Standard Language for Teaching Persian to Non-Persian Speakers

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD. Candidate, Persian Language and Literature, Shahid Beheshti University

2 Professor, Persian Language and Literature, Shahid Beheshti University

3 Associate Professor, Linguistics, Shahid Beheshti University

Abstract

In this research, we aimed to find out the structural differences between the two linguistic languages, namely standard language and literary language. First, based on the contrastive analysis of the grammar books of the literary works with the standard grammar books, the differences between these two languages were extracted and then, based on the prevalence of these differences in literary works, we divided the less common language differences into six categories:1. Obsolete language components 2. Local language components 3. Linguistic components involved with low use 4. Newborn linguistic components 5. Linguistic errors, and 6. components of colloquial, slang and broken language. Then, based on the interference theory and also relying on the syntactic principles, we categorized the more commonplace language differences into three classes: 1. Elements of the literary language with the identical appearance relative to the standard language but with a different function 2. Components of the literary language with a different appearance from the standard language but with the same function 3. Elimination or displacement of sentence elements. Then, we presented a literary example in twelve language domains including phonetic system, nouns, adjectives, numbers, pronouns, relative pronouns, verbs, adverbs, letters, interjections, word formation (referring to neologism), and sentences.
 
1. Introduction
The differences between standard language and literary language, despite similarities, are fairly remarkable. Standard language is a common type that is public, recognized among most orators of a language community, used in the press, public media and schools, and considered to be a kind of linguistic norm. In a contrasting manner, literary language is actually a departure from linguistic norms, and is considered as a kind of riot against the standard linguistic structures. In the discussion of Teaching Persian to non-Persian Speakers (AZFA) whose primary purpose is teaching a standard language, the use of literary works can be a difficult task and a kind of defeating the purpose; however, given the importance and validity of Persian literature in cultural, social, and international grounds, as well as, its unbreakable link to Persian language, its educational importance cannot be overlooked. In this study, we aimed to extract the linguistic differences between standard language and literary language. In doing so, we compared Dari's literary works with standard grammar books, and we tried, by precisely classifying these differences, to assist the authors of Persian language learning textbooks in selecting an appropriate and efficient literary work for non-Persian speakers.
 
2. Theoretical Framework
According to the findings of researchers in the field of language education such as Nation (2016), one of the main criteria for selecting texts in the discussion of language teaching is the rate of occurrence or the frequency of a linguistic component. The more inclusive a linguistic component is, the more necessary its education is. In contrast, the less inclusive a linguistic component is, the less necessary it is in the discussion of education. For this reason, and through a careful scrutiny regarding magnitude of differences in literary and standard genres in literary works, we divided the set of differences into two general categories including less common and more common differences.
 
3. Methodology
In this study, we first investigated the linguistic features of Dari-Persian literature from the dawn to contemporary era by library research, with works such as "The History of Persian Language" by Parviz Natel-Khanlari (3 volumes), "The Historical Grammar of Persian Language" by Mohsen Abolghasemi (2002), "The Language Structure of Today's Poetry" by Alipour (1999).  Consequently, comparing to standard grammar books such as "Today's Grammar" by Farshidvard (1969) and "Persian Grammar 2" by Anvari and Givi (2003), we identified their differences in twelve domains of “phonetic system, nouns, adjectives, numbers, pronouns, relative pronouns, verbs, adverbs, letters, interjections, vocabulary, and sentences”. Finally, by theories of language education, we categorized and rated these differences.
 
4. Results & Discussion
We divided each of the two extracted groups into different types; the less common differences are: 1. Obsolete components with no performance in today's standard Persian. 2. Components that belong to local dialects. 3. Low use foreign linguistic components 4. Newfangled components of contemporary poets and writers 5. Components considered as linguistics errors. 6. Components bearing conversational, slang, and broken expression words. We sectioned the remaining linguistic components, which were interestingly inclusive and frequent, into three categories, as more common differences based on language teaching theories. .According to the balanced type of confrontational analysis, less distinction in form and content will lead to more difficult  learning processes ; therefore, in order to avoid interference effects, among the common differences and high-frequency differences; we have achieved two categories; one is "The elements of the literary language which exists in today's standard Persian but is used differently", and "The components of literary language which exists in today's standard Persian with a slight difference in form but with the same function”. We also introduced the remaining components in this group based on non-compliance with the rules of language syntax in literary works and disrupting the regular linguistic pattern entitled “Components that have been either removed from the sentence structure or have moved inside the sentences”. Eventually, we presented examples of literary works for each category.
 
5. Conclusions & Suggestions
Investigating the data and carefully classifying the differences between literary language  and standard language in this research, we found that the first six groups of the less common differences group are less essential for teaching to non-Persian speakers; on the other hand, and since the second three categories from groups of more common differences have been assigned as the most frequent occurrences of the two linguistic differences, they are more necessary from the educational point of view. In the other words, since the less common group, have the lowest level of similarity to today's standard language, which means creating the least overlap with it (except for the last, slang, colloquial, and broken linguistic components that can be useful and effective for teaching spoken language), they can be removed from educational texts and make language learning less difficult. Needless to say, since the more common group is rather similar to today's Persian language, this makes it difficult to be learnt and impossible to be removed due to its pervasiveness. Therefore, whilst the more common group, has great educational value, it is equally difficult to be learnt. According to the aforementioned remarks, it is obligatory for the authors of AZFA books to recognize the differences between two literary and standard genres of Persian. It is suggested that instead of eliminating or simplifying the literary works, ............. the authors should make the most appropriate choice of original literary texts, in order to familiarize Persian learners with the valuable themes of Persian literature, and to introduce the vast linguistic and artistic capacities of these works to them.
 
Select Bibliography
Abolghasemi, M. 2002. Farsi Historical Grammar. 3rd edition. Tehran: SAMT Publications. [in Persian]
Alipour, M. 1999. Language structure of today's poetry. Tehran: Ferdows publications. [in Persian]
Brumfit, C.& Carter, R. 2000. Literature and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Farshidvard, Kh. 1969. Today's Grammar. Contains New Researches in Contemporary Persian Syntax. Tehran: Safi AlishahPublications. [in Persian]
Mackey, V. 1991. Language teaching analysis. Trans. Moridi, H. Mashhad: Publication Cultural Deputy of Astan Quds Razavi. [in Persian]
Natel-Khanlari, P. 1969. History of the Persian language. Volume I. Tehran: Iran Cultural Foundation Publications. [in Persian]
Saffar Moghaddam, A. 2012. Spoken and Written genres in Persian and English Languages. Iranian journal of applied linguistics, 3 (2), 45-68. [in Persian]
Shafiee Kadkani, M. 1993. Whips of spiritual journeying (Selected Sanai’s Poems).  Tehran: Agah publications. [in Persian]
Shamisa, S. 2011. Meanings and expressions (1). 18th Edition. Tehran: Payame Noor publications. [in Persian]
Zia Hosseini, M. 2007. Dr. Zia Hosseini’s selected articles. Tehran: Rahnama Publications. [in Persian]
 

Keywords


آتشی، م. 1369. گزینۀ اشعار، تهران: مروارید.
ابوالقاسمی، م. 1381. دستور تاریخی زبان فارسی، تهران: سمت.
اخوان ثالث، م. 1356. در حیاط کوچک پاییز در زندان، تهران: توس.
اخوان ثالث، م. 1363.  آخر شاهنامه، تهران: مروارید.
اخوان ثالث، م. 1368.  از این اوستا، تهران: مروارید.
اعتصامی، پ. 1389. دیوان پروین اعتصامی، براساس طبع ابوالفتح اعتصامی، تهران: جلوه نگار.
افلاکی، ش. 1386. مناقب‌العارفین، تصحیح ف. اقبال، تهران: اقبال.
امین­پور، ق. 1363. تنفس صبح، تهران: حوزۀ هنری.
انوری. 1337. دیوان انوری، به‌اهتمام مدرس رضوی،تهران:بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب.
انوری، ح و احمدی گیوی، ح. 1382. دستور زبان فارسی2، تهران: فاطمی.
باباچاهی، ع. 1379. عقل عذابم می‌دهد، تهران: همراه.
بلعمی، ا. 1353.  تاریخ بلعمی، تصحیح پروین گنابادی، تهران: زوار.
بهار، م.ت. 1382. دیوان ملک‌الشعرای بهار، تهران: نشر آزادمهر.
بیهقی، ا. 1350. تاریخ بیهقی، به اهتمام ع.ا. فیاض. مشهد: دانشگاه فردوسی.
تاریخ سیستان. 1314. تصحیح م.ت. بهار، تهران: زوار.
 ترجمۀ تفسیر طبری. 1339. تصحیح ح. یغمایی، تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
جلابی هجویری. 1336. کشف المحجوب، براساس نسخۀ ژوکوفسکی، تهران: امیرکبیر.
جمالزاده، م. بی­تا. یکی بود یکی نبود، تهران: کانون معرفت.
حافظ.1370. دیوان حافظ، تصحیح غنی و قزوینی، تهران: جامی.
خاقانی شروانی. 1338. دیوان خاقانی، تصحیح ض. سجادی، تهران: زوار.
خانلری ناتل، پ. 1348. تاریخ زبان فارسی، تهران: بنیاد فرهنگ ایران.
خانلری ناتل، پ. 1382. تاریخ زبان فارسی، تهران: فرهنگ نشرنو.
خویی، ا. 1349. زان رهروان دریا، تهران: زر.
خیام نیشابوری. 1334. ترانه‌های خیام، به­کوشش ص. هدایت، تهران: امیرکبیر.
دانشور، س. 1392. سووشون، تهران: خوارزمی.
رودکی.1392. دیوان شعر رودکی، شرح جعفر شعار، تهران: قطره.
سارلی، ن. 1387. زبان فارسی معیار، تهران: هرمس.
سپهری، س. 1358. هشت کتاب، تهران: کتابخانۀ طهوری.
سعدی شیرازی. 1385. کلیات سعدی، تصحیح م.ع. فروغی، تهران: هرمس.
سنایی . 1329. حدیقه­الحقیقه، تصحیح مدرس رضوی، تهران: سپهر.
سنایی . 1341. دیوان سنایی، تصحیح مدرس رضوی، تهران: کتابخانۀ ابن­سینا.
شاملو، ا. 1345. ققنوس در باران، تهران: نیل.
شاملو، ا. 1351. مرثیه‌های خاک، تهران: امیرکبیر.
شاملو، ا. 1353. هوای تازه، تهران: نیل.
شاملو، ا. 1372. آیدا، درخت، خنجر و خاطره، تهران: مروارید.
شفیعی کدکنی، م. 1372. تازیانه‌های سلوک (برگزیده شعرهای سنایی)، تهران: آگاه.
شمیسا، س. 1390. معانی و بیان (1)، تهران: پیام نور.
صفارمقدم، ا. 1391. «گونه‌های گفتاری و نوشتاری در زبان‌های انگلیسی و فارسی». زبان­شناخت، پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی. 3(2): 45- 68.
ضیاءحسینی، م. 1386. گزیدۀ مقاله‌های دکتر ضیاءحسینی، تهران: رهنما.
عطار نیشابوری. 1366. منطق­الطیر، تصحیح محمدجواد مشکور، تهران: الهام.
علی‌پور، م. 1378. ساختار زبان شعر امروز، تهران: فردوس.
عنصرالمعالی. 1345. قابوسنامه، تصحیح غ.ح. یوسفی، تهران: بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب.
فتوحی، ف. 1398. «تعیین و تبیین شاخصه‌های آثار ادبی برای آموزش به غیرفارسی زبانان». رسالۀ دکتری زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.
فرامرزبن خداداد. 1343. سمک عیار، تصحیح پ. خانلری ناتل، تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
فرخزاد، ف. 1370. ایمان بیاوریم به آغاز فصل سرد، تهران: مروارید.
فرخی سیستانی. 1349. دیوان فرخی سیستانی، تصحیح م. دبیرسیاقی، تهران: زوار.
فردوسی. 1966- 1971. شاهنامه فردوسی، 9 جلد. مسکو: نشر دانش.
فرشیدورد، خ. 1348. دستور امروز، شامل پژوهش‌های تازه‌ای در صرف و نحو فارسی معاصر، تهران: طهوری.
قائم مقام فراهانی. 1358. نامه‌های قائم مقام فراهانی، به­اهتمام ج. قائم مقامی، تهران: دانشگاه ملی ایران.
قطران تبریزی. 1333. دیوان قطران تبریزی، تصحیح م. نخجوانی. تبریز: کتاب­فروشی حقیقت.
کشاورز، م. 1372. زبانشناسی مقابله‌ای و تجزیه و تحلیل خطاهای زبانی، تهران: رهنما.
گانیه، ر. 1393. شرایط یادگیری و نظریۀ آموزشی، مترجم: ج. نجفی زند، تهران: رشد.
گرگانی، ف. 1314. ویس و رامین، تصحیح م. مینوی.کتابخانۀ بروخیم.
منوچهری. 1326. دیوان منوچهری، تصحیح م. دبیرسیاقی، تهران: پاکتچی.
منور، م. 1332.  اسرارالتوحید فی مقامات الشیخ ابی سعید، به اهتمام ذ. صفا، تهران: امیرکبیر.
مولوی بلخی. 1336. مثنوی معنوی، براساس چاپ نیکلسون، تهران: امیرکبیر.
مه‌‎کی، و. 1370. تحلیل روش آموزش زبان، ترجمه: ح. مریدی، مشهد: آستان قدس.
میبدی. 1357. کشف الاسرار، تصحیح ع.ا. حکمت، تهران: امیرکبیر.
میردهقان، مهین‌ناز و همکاران. 1395. چارچوب مرجع آموزش زبان فارسی به غیرفارسی‌زبانان، تهران: خاموش.
میرصادقی، ج. 1368. برگزیدۀ داستان‌های کوتاه، تهران: ماهور.
ناصرخسرو. 1389. دیوان اشعار، مصحح ع. علیزاده، تهران: فردوس.
نصرالله منشی. 1345. کلیله و دمنه، تصحیح م. مینوی، تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
نیشابوری، ع. 1347. قصص قرآن، تصحیح ی. مهدوی، تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
نیشن، پ و مکالیستر، ج. 1395. طراحی برنامۀ آموزشی، ترجمۀ: م. میردهقان و دیگران، تهران: خاموش.
هدایت، ص. 1333. علویه خانم و ولنگاری، تهران: امیرکبیر.
یوشیج، ن. 1392. کلیات اشعار، تهران: سپهر ادب.
Brumfit, Christopher and Carter, Ronald. 2000. Literature and language teaching .Oxford university press.
Mirjalili, Forough. 2012. “The Effect of semantic and thematic clustering of words on Iranians vocabulary learning”. American International Journal of contemporary Research. Vol .2. No.2.
Tinkham, T. 1993. “The effect of semantic clustering on the learning of second language vocabulary.” System.  Vol. 21. 371-380.