دانشگاه بوعلی سینا پژوهش های زبان شناسی تطبیقی 2252-0740 15 30 2025 12 22 Comparative Analysis of the New and Previous Orthography Aprroved by Persian Academy of Language and Literature تحلیل تطبیقیِ دستور خطِ جدید و پیشینِ فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی 81 114 6495 10.22084/rjhll.2024.29126.2317 FA محمدامین ناصح استادیار گروه زبان‌شناسی دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه بیرجند 0009-0009-4666-7197 امیرحسین اخلاقی دانشجوی کارشناسی‌ارشد زبان‌شناسی دانشگاه بیرجند Journal Article 2024 03 16 Introduction According to Article 15 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Persian script is the official writing system of the country, and all official documents, correspondence, and textbooks must be written in this script (Persian Orthography, 2022, p. 7). Considering the ethno-linguistic diversity in Iran, Persian script is one of the most important factors in maintaining the unity of our society. However, its writing conventions have been subject to arbitrary preferences and inconsistency, which has created challenges for the country’s official script. One of the solutions to this issue is the adoption of a uniform method of writing in Persian texts. Nearly twenty years after the publication of the first edition of the Persian Orthography and in light of the extensive feedback received, as well as the challenges of Persian typesetting in computer environments and cyberspace, the Academy of Persian Language and Literature established a working group under the supervision of its Vice President for Science and Research, with the participation of a number of experts and specialists, to revise the orthography. After nearly seventy sessions, a new edition of the Persian Orthography was prepared, approved, and made ready for publication (Persian Orthography, 2022, p. 18). However, the orthographic dictionary of Persian based on the new guidelines has not yet been edited and published. The new edition of the orthography approved by the Academy (2022) has more advantages and fewer shortcomings compared to the previous version. It seems that the working group paid relative attention to the published critiques; nevertheless, some issues remain that are expected to be addressed in future editions. It must be acknowledged that preparing an orthographic system for Persian, given the multiplicity of views in this field, is a challenging task, and thus the efforts of the working group cannot be overlooked. Even so, a critical examination of the new orthography will contribute to its improvement. The present article aims to offer a comparative analysis of the new edition and the previous version of the orthography, highlighting not only the advantages of the revised guidelines but also some of their shortcomings. Literature Review In the contemporary period, several linguists and literary scholars have expressed their views on considerations regarding Persian orthography. Among them are Bahmanyar (1942), Nātel Khanlari (1945), Behruz (1890–1971), Haqshenas (1977), Sadeqi (2006), Najafi (2008), Bateni (2009), Ashuri (2009), Safavi (2012), Kazazi (2012), Dabirmoghaddam (2012), Simai Gilani (2016), Fotouhi (2020), and others, who voiced their critical perspectives on the state of Persian script. Following the publication of the orthography approved by the Academy of Persian Language and Literature, a number of critiques also appeared. For example, Gholamhosseinzadeh (2000), prior to the final approval of the Academy’s earlier orthography (2001), criticized its draft version in an article. Masoumi Hamadani (2002), in an article entitled “Persian Script and Computers”, discussed the unification of Persian orthography for use with spellcheckers. Majd (2008), in his article, criticized the section on the spacing or concatenation of compound words in the Academy’s orthography. Ahmadi-Nasab and Siamak (2015), in their study, examined seven top journals indexed in the Islamic World Science Citation Database across seven subject areas, focusing on the extent to which the approved orthographic guidelines of the Academy (2001) were followed. Similarly, Sinaifar (2015), in his master’s thesis, analyzed the points of convergence and divergence between the publishing guidelines of Payame Noor University and the Academy’s approved orthography (2001). Modarres Khiabani (2018), in his article, studied the writing system used in the subtitles of the IRIB “News” and “Ifilm” channels. Ranjbar and et. al (2019) investigated the degree of conformity of the writing practices of authors and users of Persian scientific information databases with the Academy’s approved guidelines (2001). Finally, Khalilipour (2023), in his article entitled “A Review of Orthography”, critiques two issues in the Academy’s newly approved orthography (2022): the use of the ezafe marker and the spacing of compound clitics and conjunctions. Methodology The first edition of the Academy’s Persian Orthography (2014) was compared with its second edition (2023) in terms of writing and editing guidelines. Some of the editorial considerations that were expected to be included in the first edition but had no place in its structure were presented independently in the second edition, accompanied by examples. However, when comparing the examples of the first edition with those of the revised edition, certain frequently used instances still appeared to be omitted in the new version. Nevertheless, the word tables at the end of the book (common spelling mistakes) showed a notable improvement in the revised edition. It should be noted that in the writing style of the present article, an contrastive approach has been adopted so that some rules and annotations under discussion are recalled. This enables the reader to understand the subject matter without the need for repeated reference to the “previous orthography” and its “new edition.” Discussion and Conclusion Compiling Persian orthography, given its various complexities, is by no means an easy task, and success in this field is regarded as one of the lasting achievements of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature (Persian Grammar and Orthography Committee), which will remain as a legacy in the area of Persian language planning. Clearly, the practical adoption of such an orthography is directly linked to users’ understanding of its rules and, subsequently, their cooperation. As noted in the section on the advantages of the “new edition,” this guideline has improved over the “previous edition” in certain areas such as spacing, the addition of new rules, and the provision of necessary explanations. Considering and implementing the suggestions mentioned in the section on shortcomings, along with attention to other critiques presented, can shed light on the qualitative enhancement of the “new edition” and contribute to its greater usability for the general public. In this regard, the role of the national media (IRIB) and the Ministry of Education in helping to cultivate and promote the “Academy-approved orthography” should not be overlooked. Aligning the writing of textbooks with that guideline, as well as holding training workshops and providing in-service courses for relevant teachers, are important points that have been neglected. It is hoped that continued bilateral meetings between the Academy of Persian Language and Literature and the Ministry of Education will lead to closer coordination and greater alignment between these two institutions. Moreover, given its vast audience, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) can play a crucial role in promoting the Academy’s approved orthography by presenting a correct model of Persian writing in subtitles and other written sections. References Academy of Persian Language and Literature (2015). Persian Orthography. Tehran: Publishing Department of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature. [in Persian] Academy of Persian Language and Literature (2022). Persian Orthography. Tehran: Publishing Department of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature. [in Persian] Ahmadi-Nasab, Fatemeh & Siamak, Marzieh (2015). “An Examination of the Use of the Academy-Approved Persian Orthography in Leading Journals Indexed in the Islamic World Science Citation Database”. Dastoor, 11: 167–188. [in Persian] Alinezhad, Siros & Roshan, Simin (2009). “A Conversation with Mohammad-Reza Bateni.” Bukhara, 72: 23–45. [in Persian] Bahmanyar, Ahmad (1943). “Persian Spelling: A Proposal to the Academy.” Nameh-ye Farhangestan (Old Series), 4: 42–66. [in Persian] Fars News Agency Website (2008). “Abolhassan Najafi: Today’s Orthography Is a Real Chaos”. [in Persian] https://www.farsnews.ir/amp/8704250387 Gholamhosseinzadeh, Gholamhossein (2000). “A Critique of Persian Orthography.” Journal of Humanities, Alzahra University, 10(34): 125–153. [in Persian] Ghorbanzadeh, Farhad (2021). Right and Wrong from the Perspective of Linguistics. Tehran: Ketab-e Bahar Publications. [in Persian] Haqshenas, Ali-Mohammad (1977). Phonetics. Tehran: Agah Publications. [in Persian] ISNA News Agency Website (2012). “Cyrus Safavi's controversial words about Persian calligraphy”. [in Persian] https://www.isna.ir/news/91110703827 ISNA News Agency Website (2012). “Mir Jalaluddin Kazazi's proposal to solve the difficulties of Persian script.” [in Persian] https://www.isna.ir/news/91110100197 ISNA News Agency Website (2012). “Mohammad Dabir Moghaddam: Any interference with Persian script is flawed”. [in Persian] https://www.isna.ir/news/91113018330 Jabbari, Hagh & Jowadi, Pasha (2009). “A Conversation with Dariush Ashuri.” Bukhara, 72: 46–53. [in Persian] Khalilipour, Nazanin (2023). “A Review of the Orthography Issue.” Jahan-e Ketab, 28(3): 48–51. [in Persian] Majd, Omid (2008). “A Critique of the Concatenation or Separation of Compound Words Based on the Academy’s Orthography and New Proposals for Their Simplification and Unification.” Bahar-e Adab, 1(1): 84–87. [in Persian] Masoumi Hamadani, Hossein (2002). “Persian Script and Computers.” Nashr-e Danesh, 19(2): 2–6. [in Persian] Modarres Khiabani, Shahram (2018). “A Writing System Pathology of Subtitles in the News and iFilm Television Channels: A Corpus-Based Study.” Journal of Audiovisual Media, 11(27): 32–61. [in Persian] Nasseh, Mohammad-Amin (2004). “A Review of University Theses on Persian Orthography”. Nameh-ye Farhangestan, 23: 47–50. [in Persian] Nātel Khanlari, Parviz (1945). “The Issue of Reforming Persian Script.” Sokhan Monthly, 2(4): 242–247. [in Persian] Ranjbar, Ayoub; Abbaspour, Javad; Sotoudeh, Hajar; & Moloudi, Amir-Saeed (2019). “An Examination of the Conformity of the Writing Practices of Authors and Users of Persian Scientific Information Databases with the Academy-Approved Guidelines on Word Concatenation, Close Writing, and Separation.” Library and Information Science, 87: 165–187. [in Persian] Roustayi, Mohsen (1993). “Word Changes and the Law of Establishing the Academy of Iran”. Ganjineh-ye Asnad, 3(12): 29-45. [in Persian] Sadeqi, Ali-Ashraf & Zand-Moqaddam, Zahra (2015). Orthographic Dictionary of Persian Script. Tehran: Publications of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature. [in Persian] Sadeqi, Ali-Ashraf (1974). “On Arabic Compounds with the Element al- in Persian.” Journal of the Faculty of Literature and Humanities, 362: 129–136. [in Persian] Sinaifar, Somayeh (2015). A Critical Review of the Orthography of Undergraduate Prose Textbooks at Payame Noor University. Master’s Thesis in Persian Language and Literature, Payame Noor University of Ahvaz. [in Persian] Website of Bulletin News (2020). “The thirst for changing the Persian script”. [in Persian] https://www.bultannews.com/fa/news/692569 Website of Tasnim News (2023). “Haddad Adel's explanation about stubbornness with Persian calligraphy”. [in Persian] https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1402/02/18/2891613 Website of the Center for the Great Islamic Encyclopedia (2016). “Linguistics, Editing, and Persian Orthography in Conversation with Master Ahmad Samii Gilani”. [in Persian] https://www.cgie.org.ir/fa/news/128670 Website of the Center for the Great Islamic Encyclopedia (2017). “Interview with Cyrus Safavi on the Idea of Changing Persian Script”. [in Persian] https://www.cgie.org.ir/fa/news/212625 Zabih, Behruz (1984). Script and Culture (2nd ed.). Tehran: Forouhar Publications. [in Persian] در دهه‌های اخیر کتاب‌های چندی با موضوع آیین نگارش و ویرایش فارسی از برخی استادان و صاحب‌نظران زبان فارسی منتشر شده است. در این‌میان تنها شیوه‌نامه‌ای که منعکس‌کننده اجماع نظرات متخصصین حوزه‌های زبان و ادبیات فارسی، زبان‌شناسی و علوم مرتبط بوده است، دستور خط مصوب فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی است که نخستین ‌بار در سال 1380 همسو با یکی از وظایف مهم آن سازمان انتشار یافت و «ویراست جدید» آن نیز در اواخر سال 1401 منتشر شد. در پژوهش حاضر سعی بر آن است که با مقایسۀ «نسخۀ پیشین» دستور خط مصوب با «ویراست جدید» آن ضمن بیان برخی امتیازات ویراست جدید بر مواردی از کاستی‌های آن نیز پرتو افکنده شود. نتیجۀ این بررسی‌ تطبیقی نشان داد گرچه ویراست جدید نسبت به نسخۀ پیشین آن در موارد چندی بهبود یافته است، بررسی چند پیشنهاد ارائه شده، موجب کاربردی‌تر شدن آن و انتظار همراهی بیشتر کاربران با آن شیوه‌نامه خواهد شد.

https://rjhll.basu.ac.ir/article_6495_49ef08ad6e7f26d7f200e1b2b9e6e4ac.pdf