Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:40:39.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Western Influence In Contemporary Persian: A General View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Mohammad Ali Jazayery
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1.1.1. It has been said that ‘the interrelation of language and other aspects of culture is so close that no part of the culture of a particular group canproperly be studied without reference to the linguistic symbols in use’.1 One manifestation of cultural change in the language is seen in ‘linguisticborrowing’, which, both as a general linguistic and cultural phenomenon, andas a process related to particular languages, has attracted the attention of a great number of scholars, including many linguists.2

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 1966 , pp. 79 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hoijer, H., ‘Linguistic and cultural change’, Language, XXIV, 4, 1948, 336.Google Scholar

2 See, for example, Whitney, W. D., The life and growth of language, New York, 1883, ch. vii, esp. pp. 114–20Google Scholar; Jespersen, O., Language, New York, 1923, ch. xiGoogle Scholar; Sapir, E., Language, New York, 1927, ch. ixGoogle Scholar; Bloomfield, L., Language, New York, 1933, ch. xxv–xxviiGoogle Scholar. In recent years, in the United States, Einar Haugen has published extensively on the subject, developing, and from time to time refining, a theoretical and terminological framework. His many publications on the subject include: ‘The analysis of linguistic borrowing’, Language, xxvi, 2, 1950, 210–31;Google ScholarThe Norwegian language in America: a study in bilingual behavior, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1953; Bilingualism in the Americas: a bibliography and research guide, [Tuscaloosa], University of Alabama, 1956; and ‘Language contact’, Proceedings of the eighth International Congress of Linguists, Oslo, 1958, 771–85Google Scholar. Another American scholar, Uriel Weinreich, has discussed the theoretical aspects of ‘language contact’, and has proposed a rather elaborate methodology. His major published work is Languages in contact: findings and problems, second printing, The Hague, 1963, which includes a 658-item bibliography. In Europe, books and articles have been published on the subject by Deroy, Betz, Gneuss, and others. See, for example, Deroy, Louis, L'emprunt linguistique, Paris, 1956. This book contains a very extensive bibliography, in which references to other European scholars can be found.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Haugen, E., Proceedings, 774.Google Scholar

4 We shall not include Afghan or Tajik Persian in our discussions. The recent linguistic developments in these dialects have not been identical with those in ‘Tehrani’ Persian. Nor will we attempt to cover other Persian dialects of Iran, such as those of the south (formerly the area of the operations of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company) and the north (where Russian has had more influence than elsewhere in the country).

5 Haugen, E., Language, XXVI, 2, 1950, 212.Google Scholar

6 The terms ‘model’ and ‘replica’ are often used by scholars to refer both to the languages involved and to the items borrowed. Here we use them only with reference to the latter. The corresponding terms for the languages are, as indicated, ‘source’ and ‘recipient’.

7 Hockett, C. F., A course in modern linguistics, New York, 1958, 123.Google Scholar

8 Bloomfield, L., Language, 160.Google Scholar

9 These definitions of general linguistic terms are not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, they are given as working definitions.

10 Haugen, E., ‘Problems of bilingualism’, Lingua, II, 3, 1950, 288.Google Scholar

11 The terminology of linguistic borrowing used here, and the definitions of the terms, are based on the works of Haugen cited in p. 79, n. 2, p. 81, n. 10, and p. 82, n. 14. Deviations from his terminology are negligible.

12 In what follows, we shall use the conventional orthographies for representing the foreign (i.e. non-Persian) forms cited. The Persian forms, however, will be represented in phonemic transcription as well as conventional orthography. The following symbols are used to represent the Persian consonant and vowel phonemes: /p b t d k g š ž c j f v x q h r l m n y w ie æu o a/. The symbols /ž š/ stand for pre-palatal fricatives, voiceless and voiced respectively ( and in Persian orthography). /c j/ are pre-palatal affricated stops, voiceless and voiced respectively ( and ). /x q/ are voiceless and voiced post-velar fricatives respectively ( and or . /9/ is the glottal stop (the hamza or ). /w/ occurs only as the second member of certain diphthongs (in the literary style only in /ow/) and there it corresponds to the letter (wāw) when the latter symbolizes a diphthong. /v/ is a voiced labial fricative, written as (wāw) in Persian orthography. /i e æ/ are the front vowels, from high to low, and correspond, respectively, to the Persian letter, (in one of its uses), the kasra, and the fatha. /u o a/ are the corresponding back vowels; /u/ is represented by the letter, (wāw); /o/ by ẓamma in some cases, and by, (wāw) in others; /a/ by the letter |(alef). The Persian stress phonemes are //, primary (or strong), secondary, and tertiary (or weak); this last will be left unmarked. On the phonemes of Persian see G. E. Nye, ‘The phonemes and morphemes of Modern Persian: a descriptive study’, doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1954; Hodge, C. T., ‘Some aspects of Persian style’, Language, XXXIII, 3, Pt. 1, 1957, 355–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Lazard, G., Grammaire du persan contemporain, Paris, 1957. In book titles, authors' names, etc., transliteration is used throughout; when an item has been published with a title-page in roman characters, the author's own roman-character rendition will be used. The following abbreviations will be used: P(ersian), F(rench), E(nglish), R(ussian).Google Scholar

13 Haugen, E., Language, XXVI, 2, 1950, 219.Google Scholar

14 E. Haugen uses the terms ‘borrowed’ and ‘native’ respectively where we use ‘dependent’ and ‘independent’. See his review of Gneuss, H., Lehnbildungen and Lehnbedeutungen im Altenglischen, Berlin, etc., 1955Google Scholar, in Language, XXXII, 4, Pt. 1, 1956, 761–9.Google Scholar

15 This writer made such an attempt for a small segment of recent Western loan-words in his unpublished doctoral dissertation, ‘English loanwords in Persian: a study in language and culture’ (University of Texas, Austin, 1958), and is currently engaged on a book on the same subject.

16 Examples are Naficy, S. in the introduction to his Dictionnaire francais-persan, 2 vols., Tehran, 1930–1931Google Scholar; Bahar, M. T.in his Sabk-shenāsī, second edition, III, Tehran, 1959, 403–7;Google Scholar Mohammad Qazwīnī, in Nathr-e Fārsī-ye mo'āṣer, ed. by I. Afshar, Tehran, 1951, 59–63; Kasrawi, A., in Zabātn-e pāk, Tehran, 1943, 2–12Google Scholar; Taqizādeh, S. Ḥ.in Hefz-e zabān-e fāsih-e Fārsī, Tehran, 1947Google Scholar; M. A. Foroughi, in the work cited under Massé in p. 83, n. 18; and Klanlari, P. N., Dar bāre-ye zabān-e Fārsī, Tehran, 1961, 107–25 (a reprint of articles published earlier).Google Scholar

17 Foroughi (Zokaol Molk),‘L'influence exercée par les langues étrangerès sur le persan’, Revue Bleue, No. 21, 1908, 364–68Google Scholar; Shirazi, M. K., ‘A list of 138 new words, chiefly European, that constantly occur in modern Persian newspapers…’, Journal and Proceedings, Asiatic Society of Bengal, NS, III, 1, 1907, 9–13Google Scholar; Paul Horn, ‘Neupersische Schriftsprache’, in Geiger, W. and Kuhn, E. (ed.), Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, I, 2, Strassburg, 1898–1901ar, 1–8Google Scholar; Bouvat, L., ‘L'évolution modern des langues musulman’ Revue du Monde Musulman, X, 1910, 47–69Google Scholar; Wilson, C. E., '‘Contributions to the Modern Persian-English vocabulary’, Islamic Culture, VIII, 4, 1934, 560Google Scholar–84; IX, 1935, 80–106, 308–34, 493–518, 580–602; X, 1936, 63–87, 280–98, 451–70, 610–32; 1, 1939, 82–97; Bahār, M. T., Sabk-shenāsī;, second edition, III, Tehran, 1959, 404–06Google Scholar; Ishaque, M., Modern Persian poetry, Calcutta, 1943, ch. iii;Google ScholarDutt, C., ‘Loan-words in Persian’, Indian Linguistics, XVII, 1955–1956, 114–20;Google ScholarGiese, W., ‘Französische Lehnwörter im modernen Persischen’ Zeitschrift für Franzōsische Sprache and Literatur, LXVII 1, 1956, 69–77Google Scholar; Kār, F., Farhang-e emrūz, Tehran, 1958Google Scholar; Razi, H., Farhang-e eṣṭelāḥāt-e khāreji dar zabāin-e Fāirsī, Tehran, 1961Google Scholar. A few other articles have been published on the subject in Persian, and are listed in Iraj Afshar, Index Iranicus, I, 1910–1958 Tehran, 1961.Google Scholar

18 See, for example, Lescot, R., ‘La reforme du vocabulaire en Iran’, Revue des études Islamiques, 1939, Cahier 1, 75–96;Google Scholar H.Massé, ‘La lettre a l'Académie Iranienne de S. A. Mohammed Ali Foroughi’, ibid., 17–74; Hinz, W., ‘Neue Formen des persischen Wortschatzes’ ZDMG, XCI 3, 1937, 680–98Google Scholar; Rossi, E., ‘La riforma linguistica nell'Iran’, Oriente Modern, XIX, 9, 1939, 516–19.Google Scholar

19 The last of these was Vāizhehā-ye now ke tā pāyān-e sāl-e 1319 dar Farhangestān-e īrān pazīrofteh shodeh ast, Tehran, 1941. The Academy discontinued its word-coining activities after the abdication of Reẓā Shāh in 1941.

20 In a revised version of an earlier list, S. Naficy enumerates 188 monolingual dictionaries, including glossaries, etc., in ‘Farhanghā-ye fāirsī’, in A. A. Dehkhodā, Loghat-nāma, ed. M. Mo in, Tehran, 1946-, fasc. 40 (introduction by a group of scholars to the whole work), 178–86. The figure given in the text above includes works not in the Naficy list.

21 For a list of the dictionaries of Persian into European languages, and vice versa, see Loghat-nāma, fasc. 40, 373–8.

22 For some detailed observations on the sources see my dissertation (cited in p. 82, n. 15 above), 5–15. Matters are not helped by the lack of an etymological dictionary of Modern Persian. Loghat-nitma and a new dictionary now in preparation under the editorship of M. Minovi (cf. p. 86, n. 27 below) will be helpful when completed.

23 For a list and descriptions of the newspapers published in Iran since the earliest times, see Hāshemī, M. Sadr-e, Tārīkh-e jarā'ed wa majallāt-e Irān, 4 vols., Isfahan, 1949–1954.Google Scholar For journals, see also Iraj Afshar, Index Iranicus (cited in p. 83, n. 17), I, 15–38. A list and descriptions of Persian yearbooks is given in the latter work, pp. 39–42. On Persian books published since the introduction of printing in Iran see Bāhā, Moshār, Khān, A bibliography of books printed in Persian, 2 vols., Tehran, 1958–1963; and the annual Bibliography of Persia, comp. Iraj Afshar, Tehran, 1955. It is true that, for more complete results, all the publications of the period since 1800 should be examined. Such a gigantic task, however, would involve too many participants, and too long a period of time, to be feasible in the near future. The major aspect of the work which would suffer from using only a selection of sources is the establishment of the date of the first occurrence of each borrowed item.Google Scholar

24 Steingass, F., A comprehensive Persian-English dictionary, fourth impression, London, 1957 (first edition, 1892)Google Scholar; Naficy, S., Dictionnaire francais-persan, 2 vols., Tehran, 1930–1931Google Scholar; Boyle, J. A., A practical dictionary of the Persian language, London, 1949Google Scholar; Miller, B. V., Persidskorusskij slovar', third edition, Moscow, 1953Google Scholar; Haïm, S., New Persian-English dictionary, 2 vols., Tehran, 1934–1936,Google Scholar and The one-volume Persian-English dictionary, Tehran, 1961Google Scholar; 'A., S. M.Dāi'i-ol Eslām, Farhang-e Neẓām, 5 vols., Hyderabad, 1927–1939Google Scholar; Kātūzīyān, M. 'A., Farhang-e Kātūtziān, Tehran, 1932Google Scholar; 'Nafisī, A. A., Farnūdsār yāfarhang-e Nafīsīdotbl;, Tehran, 1939–1945Google Scholar; Khalīlī, M. 'A. and 'Shamīm, A. A., Farhang-e Amīr Kabīr, Tehran, 1955Google Scholar; 'Amīd, H., Farhang-e 'Amīd, fourth edition, Tehran, 1962.Google Scholar

25 For further details on this work and its historical development see fast. 40 of the work itself, cited in p. 84, n. 20 above.

26 Ḥosayn, Moḥammad ebn-e Khalaf de Tabrīz, Borhān-e qāṭe', ed. Moḥ. Mo'in, 4 vols., Tehran, 1951–1956. A fifth volume, containing addenda and corrigenda was later issued (Tehran, 1963).Google Scholar

27 To the above list we may add several now in preparation. One is a dictionary to cover Modern Persian up to the end of the nineteenth century. Under the editorship of M. Minovi, this work is based on selected primary sources representative of each century, from the ninth to the nineteenth. This work, which should prove very valuable, is expected to be published before long. Mo'īn, also, has promised four dictionaries, of various sizes and levels, which, according to advanced descriptions on p. 8 of the foreword to the fourth volume of his edition of Borhān, should solve many, if not all, of the problems in Persian lexicology.

28 A general survey of Iran/s major cultural relations in pre-Islamic times may be had in Ghirshman, R., Iran from the earliest times to the Islamic conquest (Penguin Books, A 239), 1954Google Scholar; and Frye, R. N., The heritage of Persia, Cleveland and New York, 1963.Google Scholar

29 Th. Nöldeke, as quoted in Sykes, P., A history of Persia, third edition, London, 1930, 536.Google Scholar

30 On Iran's history in Islamic times, Sir Sykes, Percy, A history of Persia, third edition, 2 vols., London, 1930, or, for a more up-to-date account, the relevant volumes of Handbuch der Orientalistik, may be consulted.Google Scholar

31 See Sykes, op. cit., II, 298 to the end of the book; and Lenczowski, G., Russia and the West in Iran, Ithaca, N.Y., 1949.Google Scholar

32 On the Treaty of Torkmānchāy see Sykes, op. cit., II, 319–32. For a list of the countries with which Iran signed treaties on the basis of Torkmānchāy see Siassi, A. A., La Perse au contact de l'Occident, Paris, 1931, p. 124, and n. 1.Google Scholar

33 See Siassi, op. cit., on Iran's cultural contacts with the West.

34 See Siassi, op. cit.; Arasteh, R., Education and social awakening in Iran, Leiden, 1962; and for a brief factual outline, my dissertation (cited in p. 82, n. 15), ch. ii.Google Scholar

35 On the Reẓā Shāh period see Banani, A., The modernization of Iran, 1921–1941, Stanford, Calif., 1961.Google Scholar

36 There is no complete study of Arabic influence on Persian. Some examples, however, may be found, among others, in Paul Horn's work cited in p. 83, n. 17 above. Examples of loan-words from other old sources are found in the same work as well as in the following: Nöldeke, Th., Persische Studien, Wien, 1892Google Scholar; Horn, P., Neupersische Etymologie, Strassburg, 1893Google Scholar; Lagarde, P. de, Persische Studien, Göttingen, 1884; and Borhān-e gate', cited in p. 86, n. 26, where an extensive bibliography is given in the introduction to vol. 1, and supplements in the other three volumes.Google Scholar

37 See Bahār's work (cited in p. 82, n. 16 above), Ill, 343.

38 For a brief discussion of this subject, see Taqizādeh, cited in p. 82, n. 16 above; and Bahār (also cited there).III, 404.

39 We use transliteration here and in the next paragraph, rather than transcription, since our concern is the orthography of the Persian words cited. Note that the phoneme / /, which appears as the initial consonant of /emkā / is represented by the letter alef in the Persian spelling, and by E in the transliteration of that letter. Furthermore, the last phoneme of /emkā/, i.e., the vowel /a/, represents the initial letter alef in , where it is part of the diagraph (alef + ye) which is pronounced /i-/, though this pronunciation does not affect the pronunciation of the final alef in /emkā/. This is somewhat akin to the problem of the pronunciation of the letter c in UNICEF, where it is pronounced /s/, although in the original word c is part of the diagraph ch, which is pronounced as in ‘church’.

40 Note that in the second example, where reference is made to an action which is to take place in the future, we have in the passive voice used the ‘definiteluture’, which, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, is not a very common form. In the active voice, the ‘definite future’ is even less common, especially when a pronominal suffix (here /-eman/) is involved.

41 See Lazard (p. 81, n. 12 above), 18; and Rastorgueva, V. S., A short sketch of the grammar of Persian, translatedGoogle Scholar by S. P. Hill, ed. by H. H. Paper (Bloomington, Indiana, 1964; published also as International Journal of American Linguistics, xxx, 1, Pt. II, 1964), 8.Google Scholar

42 V. S. Rastorgueva, loc. cit.