مقایسۀ صورت‌های شکسته در خط فارسی و انگلیسی

This article first discusses common terminology in colloquial writing and its related concepts, particularly in scientific and applied sources in English (e.g., Oxford Dictionary 2015; Chicago Manual of Style 2017). It then examines the similarities and differences between contractions or short forms in English, on one hand, and Persin contractions (صورت‌های شکسته) in Persian, on the other. The discussion notes that Iranian grammarians have historically referred to colloquial and informal forms such as "اگه" (for اگر = if), "بوم" (for بام= roof), "بِشه" (for بشود= if possible), "بِهِش" (for به او= to him), "خونه" (for خانه= house), "رو" (for را= object marker), and "میرم" (for می‌روم= I will go) as contracted forms. However, some of these cannot be precisely considered shortened forms, as they are not shorter than their standard, formal full counterparts. Nonetheless, this article examines contracted forms alongside shortened forms collectively, as they share other characteristics. It is important to note that most Persian contracted forms are phonemically shorter than their intact forms (e.g., "بِشه" / "بشود"; "میرم" / "می‌روم"). However, in some cases, Persian contracted forms are the same length as the intact form (e.g., "اگه" / "اگر"; "بوم" / "بام"; "خونه" / "خانه"; "رو" / "را"), and in rare cases, they are even longer (e.g., "بِهِش" / "به او"). In fact, Persian contracted forms include both shortened forms and other colloquial forms for which there is no exact equivalent or counterpart in English grammatical terminology. The relatively high number of such forms in Persian, and their absence in English, indicates a kind of diglossia in Persian and the lack of such a phenomenon in English.
 
Extended Abstract

Introduction

This article first discusses common terminology in colloquial writing and its related concepts, particularly in scientific and applied sources in English (e.g., Oxford Dictionary 2015; Chicago Manual of Style 2017). It then examines the similarities and differences between contractions or short forms in English, on one hand, and " contracted forms" in Persian, on the other. Iranian grammarians have historically referred to informal spoken forms as “broken forms” (صورت‌های شکسته), though not all are strictly "shortened." This study treats them together due to shared functional characteristics. A key point is that the prevalence of such non-shortened colloquial variants in Persian, contrasted with their general absence in English, suggests a diglossic situation in Persian not present in English.

Theoretical Framework

The core concepts are "colloquial writing" (گفتاری‌نویسی‌) and " contracted forms." Colloquial writing is a general term for a writing style used to represent spoken language in text. It is not synonymous with writing contracted forms. It has subtypes: lexical, phonetic, and morpho-syntactic colloquial writing. Phonetic colloquial writing is equivalent to what is called writing broken forms. Examples in English include using aren't for are not and 'cause for because. Examples in Persian include using "رو" for "را", "میتونم" for "می‌توانم", "دیگه" for "دیگر", and the enclitics "ـمون"/"ـتون" for "ـمان"/"ـتان".

Methodology

The study employs a descriptive-analytical method, comparing linguistic forms across two languages. Data consists of standard and colloquial/broken form pairs collected from Persian literary, dramatic, and conversational texts from the last century, as well as standard English and its common contractions. The forms are analyzed based on three parameters: 1) Stylistic level (formal vs. informal), 2) Phonetic form and semantic equivalence, and 3) Length (number of syllables/phonemes).

Results & Discussion

The comparison of English contractions and Persian broken forms reveals similarities and key differences.
Similarities: 1) Stylistic Level: Both English contractions (e.g., aren't, 'cause) and Persian broken forms (e.g., "بگم", "رو") belong to an informal, colloquial style, while their full forms belong to a formal style. This is their primary distinguishing feature. 2) Semantic Equivalence: Both are phonetically different but lexically and grammatically identical to their full forms (e.g., because / 'cause; "اگر" / "اگه").
Differences: 1) Length: While English contractions are invariably shorter than their full forms, Persian broken forms can be shorter (e.g., "بشه"/"بشود"), the same length (e.g., "خونه"/"خانه"), or, rarely, longer (e.g., "بِهِش"/"به او"). 2) Scope and Diglossia: The term "broken forms" in Persian encompasses a wider range of colloquial variants, including many that are not shortened. The significant number of these non-shortened colloquial variants in Persian, absent in English, points to a diglossic relationship between formal and informal Persian, a phenomenon not characteristic of modern English.

Conclusions & Suggestions

The term " contracted form" in Persian is broader than "contraction" in English. It covers not only shortened forms but also other colloquial variants that may be equal or even longer than their standard counterparts. The most critical shared feature between English contractions and Persian contracted forms is their register: they mark informal, spoken style versus formal, written style. The existence of numerous non-shortened colloquial variants in Persian supports the notion of diglossia in Persian, distinguishing it from English in this aspect. For a comprehensive understanding, further research could quantify the frequency of different contracted form types across various Persian genres and periods.
Select Bibliography
Jamalzadeh, Mohammad Ali. Yeki Bud Yeki Nabud. Berlin, 1921. [In Persian].
Khanlari, Parviz. "Zabān-e Fasih." Sokhan, Majale-ye Adabiyāt va Danesh va Honar, 1974, 24(2): 1135-1139. [In Persian].
Dastur-e Khatt-e Farsi. Tehran: Farhangestan-e Zabān va Adab-e Farsi, 2022. [In Persian].
Samiei, Ahmad. Negāresh va Virāyesh. 12th ed, Tehran: SAMT, 2012. [In Persian].
Sadeghi, Ali Ashraf. "Zabān-e Mi'yār." Nashr-e Danesh, 1983, 3(16): 16-21. [In Persian].
Sadeghi, Ali Ashraf & Zandi Moghaddam, Zahra. Farhang-e Emlāyi-ye Khatt-e Farsi. Tehran: Farhangestan-e Zabān va Adab-e Farsi, 2015. [In Persian].
Solhjoo, Ali. "Beshkanim ya Nashkanim; Paskhī be Nazar-e Manouchehr Anvar dar Namāyeshname-ye Aroosak-khāne." Motarjem, 2007, 17(45): 9-22. [In Persian].
Solhjoo, Ali. Osul-e Shekaste-nevisi (Rāhnemā-ye Shekastan-e Vāzhe-hā dar Goftogu-hā-ye Dāstān). Tehran: Nashr-e Markaz, 2012. [In Persian].
Tabibzadeh, Omid. Mabāni va Dastur-e Khatt-e Shekaste-ye Farsi; Bar Asās-e Sad Sāl Asār-e Dāstāni va Namāyeshi (1298-1397). Tehran: Pajuheshgah-e Olum-e Ensāni va Motāle'āt-e Farhangi, 2019a. [In Persian].
Tabibzadeh, Omid. Farsi-ye Shekaste; Dastur-e Khatt va Farhang-e Emlāyi. Tehran, Bahar, 1019b. [In Persian].