THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF

SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION AND

PEDAGOGY OF PERSIAN

The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pedagogy of Persian offers a
detailed overview of the field of Persian second language acquisition and pedagogy.
The Handbook discusses its development and captures critical accounts of cutting-edge
research within the major subfields of Persian second language acquisition and pedagogy,
as well as current debates and problems, and goes on to suggest productive lines of future
research.
The book is divided into the following four parts: I) Theory-driven research on second
language acquisition of Persian, II) Language skills in second language acquisition of Persian,
III) Classroom research in second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian, and IV)
Social aspects of second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian.
The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pedagogy of Persian is an
essential reference for scholars and students of Persian SLA and pedagogy as well as those
researching in related areas.

Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi is Senior Faculty Lecturer in Persian Language and Linguistics and
Head of the Persian Language Program at the Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University.
She holds a PhD in linguistics from the University of Ottawa (2012) and a PhD in applied lin-
guistics from Tehran Azad University (2004). She has taught Persian language and linguistics
as well as Persian literature and translation at McGill University, the University of Oxford, the
University of Chicago, and Tehran Azad University since 1997. She served as President of the
American Association of Teachers of Persian in 2018–2020.
 THE ROUTLEDGE
HANDBOOK OF SECOND
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
AND PEDAGOGY OF PERSIAN

Edited by Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi

 First published 2020
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2020 selection and editorial matter, Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi; individual
chapters, the contributors
The right of Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi to be identified as the author of the
editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN: 978-1-138-33305-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-429-44622-1 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

by Apex CoVantage, LLC
For Arian
 CONTENTS CONTENTSCONTENTS

List of tables xi
List of figures xiv
List of abbreviations xvi
List of contributors xxi
Acknowledgments xxix

 1 Introduction 1
Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi

PART I
Theory-driven research on second language acquisition of Persian 7

 2 The acquisition of segmental and suprasegmental features in second

language Persian: A focus on prosodic parameters of politeness 9
Reza Falahati

 3 Heritage versus second language phonology 36

Yasaman Rafat

 4 Linguistic competence of Persian heritage versus second

language speakers 53
Karine Megerdoomian

 5 Negative forms of Persian progressive tenses: Evidence from

monolingual, second language learners and heritage speakers
of Persian 100
Azita H. Taleghani

vii
 Contents

 6 Second language morphology: Case of idiomatic expressions 122

Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi

 7 Some unique semantic properties of Persian 134

Masoud Jasbi

 8 Second language acquisition of the semantics of focus-sensitive

operators in Persian 147
Marzieh Mortazavinia

PART II
Language skills in second language acquisition of Persian 181

 9 Second language vocabulary acquisition: Persian resources and

teaching and learning strategies 183
Michael Craig Hillmann

10 Second language grammar: Challenges in grammar for English-

speaking learners 220
Behrooz Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari

11 Second language listening in Persian 235

Yass Alizadeh

12 Second language speaking in Persian 257

Musa Nushi

13 Second language reading in Persian 277

Nahal Akbari and Ali Reza Abasi

14 Second language writing in Persian 293

Ali Reza Abasi

PART III
Classroom research in second language acquisition and pedagogy
of Persian 309

15 Teaching Persian for proficiency in American colleges

and universities 311
Mehdi Marashi

viii
 Contents

16 Communicative, task-based, and content-based approaches to

Persian language teaching: Second language, mixed, and heritage
classes at the university level 328
Latifeh Hagigi and Michelle Quay

17 The Persian language educator’s role in developing effective

blended language learning: From principles to practice 347
Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

18 Using technology to develop instructional materials for Persian:

Based on task-based language teaching 370
Peyman Nojoumian

19 Teaching Persian through short stories with parallel elaboration 388

Anousha Shahsavari

20 Teaching Persian literature in Persian: A content-based approach 410

Asghar Seyed-Gohrab

21 Development of a standard Persian language proficiency test for

speakers of other languages 431
Amirreza Vakilifard

22 Second language assessment in Persian 456

Nahal Akbari

PART IV
Social aspects of second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian 469

23 Persian as a national language, minority languages and multilingual

education in Iran 471
Negar Davari Ardakani

24 Teaching Persian varieties and dialects: A Persian reference framework 494

Mahinnaz Mirdehghan and Saeed Reza Yousefi

25 The acquisition of Persian pragmatic competence: A case study

about the comprehension of conversational implicature and
presupposition in the learners of Persian as a second/foreign
language (LOP) 524
Zahra Hamedi Shirvan

ix
 Contents

26 Persian as an interlanguage 546

Mahbod Ghaffari

27 Interlanguage and beyond: Persian-English codeswitching 567

Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

28 Language learning strategies and beliefs about language learning:

A study of university students of Persian in the United States 591
Azita Mokhtari

29 Utilization of neologisms in teaching and assessment of advanced

Persian: A sociolinguistic approach 631
Ramin Sarraf

Index 651

x
 TABLES TABLESTABLES

2.2.1 Hierarchy of difficulty for English (L1) and Persian (L2) sound systems 12
2.2.2 Persian phonemes selected based on overdifferentiation level for English,
French, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, and Turkish languages as L1 12
2.2.3 Potential areas of problem for Italian, French, and Spanish speakers
learning Persian as an L2 14
2.6.1 Mean number of utterances produced by each Persian native speaker (and
standard deviations) for different lexical and morpho-syntactic markers in
the two formality conditions 23
2.6.2 Mean number of utterances produced by each Persian L2 speaker (and
standard deviations) for different lexical and morpho-syntactic markers in
the two formality conditions 23
2.6.3 Mean F0 and standard deviation for four pitch measures (overall pitch,
reference line, baseline, and top line) for Persian native speakers in the
two formality conditions 24
2.6.4 Mean F0 and standard deviation for four pitch measures (overall pitch,
reference line, baseline, and top line) for Persian L2 speakers in the two
formality conditions 24
2.6.5 Mean and standard deviations for the prosodic measures related to voice
quality and intensity in the two formality conditions for Persian
native speakers 25
2.6.6 Mean and standard deviations for the prosodic measures related to voice
quality and intensity in the two formality conditions for Persian
L2 speakers 25
2.6.7 Averages and standard deviations of four speech rate dependent variables
in the two formality conditions for Persian native speakers 26
2.6.8 Averages and standard deviations of four speech rate dependent variables
in the two formality conditions for Persian L2 speakers 26
4.1 Tests targeted per linguistic subdomain 58
4.2 Breakdown of test subjects 59
4.3 Non-past verbal stems 68
4.4 Negative lexeme examples used in grammaticality judgment test 69

xi
 Tables

4.5 Sample items for the Arabic root and pattern morphology test 72
4.6 Sample items for the causation subtest of argument structure 76
4.7 Relative clause test items 84
4.8 Sample items for the preposition subcategorization subtest of
argument structure 86
4.9 Sample items for the conjunction choice test 87
4.10 Sample items for sequence of tenses subtest 89
5.1 Information about the heritage speakers 114
5.2 Information about the second language learners 116
6.1 L1 and L2 idiomatic expression processing 126
6.2 L1 and L2 idiomatic expression ranges 127
6.3 Language proficiency and idiomatic expression comprehension 128
6.4 Language proficiency and idiomatic expression acquisition and production 129
8.1 Expression of [SCAL] and [ADD] in scalar additive contexts in English
and Persian 162
8.2 Summary of effects of syntax, context, presenceToo, and their interactions
data: felicity rating from English NSs 167
8.3 Summary of effects of syntax 168
8.4 Summary of effects of syntax, context, presenceToo, and their interactions
data: felicity rating from Persian NSs 170
8.5 Summary of effects of syntax, context, presenceToo, proficiency group,
and their interaction. Data: felicity rating from L2 learners of English 172
8.6 Summary of effects of syntax, context, presenceToo, and L1 and their
interactions 174
10.1 Pronominal clitics in Persian 226
15.1 Definitions of speaking proficiency levels in Persian 315
17.1 The f2f pre-task cycle preparing students for the main input 355
17.2 Survey form for survey activity in small groups 355
17.3 The online task cycle 361
17.4 The f2f post-task cycle 363
18.1 Available technology to language learning, teaching and SLA to date 374
18.2 Apartment listing A and B 381
19.1 Parallel elaboration 399
25.1 Respondents’ country of origin 529
25.2 Textbooks used as the sources of data in the second phase of analysis 529
25.3 The frequency of exercises related to conversational implicature 539
25.4 Comparing the results of Group (1) and Group (2) 540
25.5 Frequency of the answers to each question (both groups) 542
25.6 Percentage of correct and wrong answers to each question (both groups) 543
25.7 Comparing the percentage of correct and wrong answers to each question
in both groups 544
27.1 Past tense verbal suffixes 570
27.2 Present tense verbal suffixes 570
27.3 Infinitive, past and present roots of some common Persian verbs 571
27.4 Switching by age and context. YS=speakers < 35 yrs, OS=speakers > 35 yrs 584
28.1 Individual background questionnaire 596
28.2 Age 598
28.3 Sex 599

xii
 Tables

28.4 Mother tongue 599

28.5 Are you second generation Iranian-American? 600
28.6 Number of months studying Persian 601
28.7 How important is it for you to become proficient in Persian? 602
28.8 So far how do you compare your overall proficiency in Persian to other
students in your class? 602
28.9 So far how do you compare your overall proficiency in Persian to native
speakers of Persian? 603
28.10 By the end of this course what do you expect your proficiency level
to be? 604
28.11 After two years of instruction what do you expect your proficiency
level to be? 604
28.12 BALLI categories and frequencies 606
28.13 Descriptive statistics for the variables and mean difference of the beliefs 606
28.14 Differences in mean and standard deviation of overall beliefs among the
five categories 606
28.15 Reported beliefs categorized by high mean range (M: 3.5 or above) 607
28.16 Reported beliefs categorized by medium mean range (M: 2.5–3.4) 607
28.17 Reported beliefs categorized by low mean range (M: 2.4 or below) 608
28.18 SILL categories and frequencies 609
28.19 Descriptive statistics for the variables and mean difference of the
strategy use 610
28.20 Differences in mean and standard deviation of overall strategy use among
the six categories 610
28.21 Reported strategy use categorized by high usage (M: 3.5 or above) 611
28.22 Reported strategy use categorized by medium usage (M: 2.5–3.4) 611
28.23 Reported strategy use categorized by low usage (M: 2.4 or below) 612

xiii
 FIGURES FIGURESFIGURES

2.1 Waveform and F0 contour of a request (formal register) followed by

orthographic, pragmatic, and prosodic annotations (tiers 1–4). 21
4.1 Phoneme monitoring tasks for /G/ (left) and /x/ (right). Accuracy scores
across speakers with orange bars indicating heritage speaker output.
Native speakers shown to the left of graph provide the baseline. Solid
line within the bar indicates average accuracy score for that subject group. 62
4.2 Phoneme naturalness judgment task for alveolar flap /ɾ/. 62
4.3 Lexical decision task to measure awareness of constraints on clusters. 63
4.4 Grammaticality judgment task to study awareness of derivational
formation of negative lexemes. 70
4.5 Lexical decision task to explore awareness of derivational formation of
agentive nouns in Persian. 70
4.6 Grammaticality judgment task to measure awareness of derivational
formation of plural nouns in Persian. 71
4.7 Arabic roots multiple-choice test results. 73
4.8 Arabic roots results: effect of Arabic training. 73
4.9 Elicited imitation task to test awareness of classifier choice. 74
4.10 Grammatical judgment test for causative constructions. 76
4.11 Causatives results per speaker group, breakdown of grammaticality judgment. 77
4.12 Grammaticality judgment based on condition types. 77
4.13 Causative test response times. 78
4.14 Grammaticality judgment test on subject-verb agreement. 81
4.15 Grammaticality judgment on Negative Polarity Items in Persian. 83
4.16 Grammaticality judgment on relative clauses in Persian. 85
4.17 Fill-in-the-beep test for preposition subcategorizaton task. 86
4.18 Multiple-choice test for choice of conjunction task. 88
4.19 Grammaticality judgment task for sequence of tenses. 89
4.20 Sequence of tenses scores. 89
4.21 Sequence of tenses response time. 90
5.1 Aspectual oppositions. 102

xiv
 Figures

8.1 Test item from the English experiment. Condition non-additive context,
prenominal even, NoToo. 164
8.2 Felicity rating for the NSs of English by syntax, context, presenceToo. 166
8.3 English NSs. Felicity rating for the non-additive subset of the data by
syntax and presenceToo. 168
8.4 Felicity rating for the NSs of Persian by syntax, context, and presenceToo. 170
8.5 Felicity rating for the L2 learners of Persian by group, syntax, context,
presenceToo. 172
17.1 Visual representation of the components of the input back-loading
blended sequence. 350
17.2 Visual representation of the components of the input front-loading
blended sequence. 351
17.3 The three cycle-blended sequence: “What do we know about Iran’s
contemporary history?” 354
17.4 Activating background knowledge with the help of key pictures related
to the topic. 356
17.5 Drag and drop activity. 359
17.6 General questions related to the basic idea and the key words of the input. 360
17.7 Detailed comprehension questions on the video input. 360
17.8 Language focus activity (1). 363
17.9 Language focus activity (2). 363
17.10 Language focus activity (3). 364
18.1 Family tree chart A. 382
18.2 Family tree chart B. 383
18.3 A sample of students’ comic strip project using Pixton technology.
Speech bubbles show recorded role-plays (slides are ordered from
left to right). 384
21.1 Key elements of validation framework. 433
21.2 Core processes in language test development. 437
24.1 Languages in Iran. 495
27.1 Acceptability of Persian-English codeswitching by age and context. 583
28.1 Age. 598
28.2 Sex. 599
28.3 Mother tongue. 599
28.4 Second generation Iranian-American. 600
28.5 Number of months studying Persian. 601
28.6 Importance of being proficient in Persian 602
28.7 Comparison of overall proficiency in Persian to other students. 603
28.8 Comparison of overall proficiency in Persian to native speakers. 603
28.9 Expected level of proficiency by the end of the course. 604
28.10 Expected level of proficiency by the end of the two-year instruction. 605
29.1 The word “‫( ”پاس‬/paas/) as defined in Mohammad Moin’s
Persian dictionary. 643
29.2 Screenshot of webpage showing the neologism “‫( ”زورافزایی‬doping) and
its definition. 647

xv
 ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONSABBREVIATIONS

1 First Person
1s. First Person Singular
1st First Person
2 Second Person
2nd Second Person
2s. Second Person Singular
3 Third Person
3rd Third Person
AAPPL Assessment of Performance toward Proficiency in Languages
AATP American Association of Teachers of Persian
ACC Accusative
ACIE American Councils for International Education
ACTFL American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages
Add Additive Presupposition
Adj Adjective
Adv Adverb
AFF Affective Strategies
AGENT Agentive
AI Artificial Intelligence
ASLPR Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings
BALLI Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory
BL Blended Learning
BLL Blended Language Learning
CA Contrastive Analysis
CAH Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
CAI Computer-Assisted Instruction
CALL Computer-Assisted Language Learning
CAP Computerized Assessment of Proficiency
CASL Center for Advanced Study of Language
CAUS Causative

xvi
 Abbreviations

caus Causative
CBI Content-based Instruction
CEFR Common European Framework of Reference for Languages
CL Classifier
CLB Canadian Language Benchmarks
CLT Commonly Taught Languages
CLT Communicative Language Teaching
CMC Computer Mediated Communication
COG Cognitive Strategies
COM Compensation Strategies
CSTR Center for Speech Technology Research
CTL Commonly Taught Languages
DCT Discourse Completion Task
DEF Definite
Diff Different
DLI Defense Language Institute
DLIFLC Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center
DLL Difficulty of Language Learning
DLPT Defense Language Proficiency Test
DO Direct object
DPM Declarative/Procedural Model
DUR Durative
Dur Durative
EFL English as a Foreign Language
ELT English Language Teaching
ESL English as a Second Language
EZ Ezafe
F Feminine
F0 Fundamental Frequency
f2f Face-to-face
FE Formal Education
FL Foreign Language
FLA Foreign Language Aptitude
FRH Features Reassembly Hypothesis
FSI Foreign Service Institute
H-variety High variety
L-variety Low variety
IELTS International English Language Testing System
HL Heritage Language
HLL Heritage Language Learner
HS Heritage Speaker
HTML Hypertext Markup Language
IBQ Individual Background Questionnaire
IC Indefinite Clitic
ID Indefinite Determiner
IELTS International English Language Testing System
ILR Interagency Language Roundtable

xvii
 Abbreviations

IMP Imperfective
Incl Inclusive
INDEF Indefinite
INT Interpretive
IP Interpersonal
IP Intonational Phrase
IPA Integrated Performance Assessment
ISLA Instructed Second Language Acquisition
IT Information Technology
JLU Joint Language University
L1 First Language
L2 Second Language
LARC Language Acquisition Resource Center
LCS Learning and Communication Strategies
LCTL Less Commonly Taught Languages
LMS Learning Management System
LOP Learners of Persian as a Second/Foreign Language
M Masculine
M Mean
MALL Mobile-Assisted Language Learning
Max Maximum
MEM Memory Strategies
MET Metacognitive Strategies
Min Minimum
ML Minority Language
MOT Motivation and Expectations
MSRT Iranian Ministry of Science, Research and Technology
MT Machine Translation
MTB-MLE Mother-tongue-based Multilingual Education
N Name
N Noun
NEG Negation
NFE Non-Formal Education
NL National Language
NLL Nature of Language Learning
NLP Natural Language Processing
NLU Natural Language Understanding
Nom Nominative
Non-caus Non-causative
NP Noun Phrase
NPI Negative Polarity Item
NS Native Speaker
NYU New York University
OM Object Marker
OPI Oral Proficiency Interview
OPIc Oral Proficiency Interview by Computer
P Presentational
PART Participial

xviii
 Abbreviations

PAST Past tense

PC Personal Computer
PERF Perfective
PL Plural
PLPT Persian Language Proficiency Test
PLPT-AV Persian Language Proficiency Test- Academic Version
POS Part of Speech
Poss Possessive
PP Prepositional Phrase
Prep Preposition
PRES Present tense
PRF Persian Reference Framework
Prt Past Participle
PSLL Persian as a Second Language Learner
PST Past Tense
PT Pedagogical Task
SĀMFĀ (SAMFA) Standard Persian Language Proficiency Test
SBU Shahid Beheshti University
SCAL Scalar Presupposition
SD Standard Deviation
SG Singular
SILL Strategy Inventory for Language Learning
Sing. Singular
SLA Second Language Acquisition
SOC Social Strategies
SOV Subject-Object-Verb
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
STAMP Standards-based Measurement of Proficiency
Stm Stem
SUBJ Subjunctive
SVC Serial Verb Constructions
TBLA Task-based Language Assessment
TBLT Task-Based Language Teaching
TELL Technology-Enhanced Language Learning
TL Target Language
TOEFL Test of English as a Foreign Language
Top Topic
TPFL Teaching Persian as a Foreign Language
TPSOL Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages
TTS Text-to-speech
UC University of California
UCB University of California at Berkley
UCLA University of California at Los Angeles
UM Uniqueness Marker
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
US United States
UT University of Texas (at Austin)
UTA University of Texas at Austin

xix
 Abbreviations

V Verb
VOT Voice Onset Time
VR Virtual Reality
WELL Web-Enhanced Language Learning
WPT Writing Proficiency Test

xx
 CONTRIBUTORS CONTRIBUTORSCONTRIBUTORS

Ali Reza Abasi is Associate Professor of Persian Applied Linguistics at the School of Lan-
guages, Literatures, and Cultures at the University of Maryland. He has research interests in
second language writing, language and power, and conversation analysis. His publications
have appeared in various applied linguistics journals, including Journal of Second Language
Writing, Language and Politics, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, English for Aca-
demic Purposes, and English for Specific Purposes.

Nahal Akbari is a clinical assistant professor and the Director of the Persian Language Pro-
gram at the University of Maryland. She holds a PhD in second language education from
the University of Ottawa, Canada. She has been leading and contributing to various teacher
training workshops and materials development, assessment, and language program evalua-
tion projects across the U.S. with NMELRC, CARLA, CASLS, and study abroad programs
with American Councils for International Education. She has co-authored articles on Persian
pedagogy and discourse analysis. Her research interests include intercultural rhetoric, second
language writing, and teacher education.

Yass Alizadeh is a lecturer in Persian and the Coordinator for the Persian Program at MEIS,
NYU. She has a PhD in comparative literary and cultural studies from the University of Con-
necticut with a focus on the interplay of politics and metaphor in the rewritten oral tales of
modern Iran. She has been in charge of the Persian Program at the Department of Critical
Languages at UConn, and the Department of Languages at the University of New Haven.
Her research focuses on Persian oral tales and how auditory immediacy serves or escapes the
established rules of the authority.

Negar Davari Ardakani is an associate professor in Shahid Beheshti University (SBU) and
has been an honorary Persian lecturer at CAIS/ANU during 2018–2019. She received her
PhD in linguistics from the University of Tehran in 2007. Her doctoral research was a survey
of overt and covert Persian language policy in Iran. She has also assessed the status of the
Persian as a symbol of Iranian identity among different social groups of Persian speakers in
Tehran, Isfahan, Kurdistan, Zahedan, and Azerbaijan. Her works scrutinize linguistic purism
towards Persian and the relationship between the overt and covert language policy in Iran. She

xxi
 Contributors

is a co-author of “Persian evaluative morphology” in the Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative

­Morphology (2015), and her review of Hamid Dabashi’s Persophilia (2014) has been pub-
lished in AJISS. She has been the Assistant Dean of Research in the faculty of Literature and
Humanities at Shahid Beheshti University from 2011 to 2014.

Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari
­ is Academic Coordinator of the Middle Eastern languages program
(Arabic and Persian) at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies
(Washington, DC). He has taught Persian and Spanish since 1998 at Georgetown University,
Middlebury College, Catholic University of America, the Middle East Institute, Diplomatic Lan-
guage Services, and most recently at the University of Maryland’s Roshan Center for Persian
Studies. He has served as Persian linguistics informant at the University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill. He received the Provost’s Award for Excellence in Teaching at Catholic University
of America in 2005.

Reza Falahati is a lecturer of academic and professional English at Leiden University and
Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences. He completed his PhD in Linguistics at the Uni-
versity of Ottawa in 2013 and then worked as a postdoctoral research fellow in Italy, SNS,
for two years. His master’s thesis from the University of Victoria entitled “Contrastive Study
of Hedging in English and Farsi Academic Discourse” received the 2005-2006 ISG/SUTA
Outstanding Thesis Award by MIT & Sharif University. He has taught a wide range of Persian,
English, and (Applied) Linguistics courses in different universities located in Canada, Iran,
and the Netherlands. His research is published by the Routledge and Palgrave Macmillan, and
in journals such as ESP across Cultures and Journal of the Canadian Acoustical Association.

Lewis Gebhardt is Associate Professor of Linguistics at Northeastern Illinois University in

Chicago. His research interests include the syntax and semantics of determiner phrases of Per-
sian and other languages. He also studies aspects of Crow and has worked with the Language
Conservancy in maintaining and reviving the language. His work includes “Accounting for
*yek-ta in Persian” (2018), “Revisiting the Functions of Enclitics in Persian” (with Shahrzad
Mahootian) (2018), “The Crow Determiner Phrase in a Mostly Configurational Language,
Crow Has No Incorporation” (with Chris Golston and John Boyle) (2017), “Classifiers Are
Functional and a Constraint on Preposition Sequences in English Complex Predicates” (2013).

Mahbod Ghaffari is Associate in Persian Language and Culture at the University of Cambridge.
He received his master’s in teaching Persian and PhD in linguistics in Iran and a certificate in
“Leadership in Higher Education” from the University of Oxford. He has taught linguistics,
methodology, translation, and Persian language and culture at different universities since 1998
and joined the Department of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge as an asso-
ciate in Persian in 2013. Mahbod has written several books and articles on teaching Persian and
presented many papers at conferences. He has published Fārsi Biyāmuzim/Let’s Learn Persian
series in 5 levels (first edition: 2000–2003 and second edition 2017–2021) and Persian for Dum-
mies (2018) and developed www.persianlanguageonline.com, which is a three level interactive
online Persian programme (2013–2015) as well as an interactive multimedia on teaching Per-
sian named alefbā-ye Iran (2007–2008). He has gained extensive experience in writing Persian
coursebooks and developing course content and interactive online and offline materials.

Latifeh Hagigi is Senior Lecturer of Persian Language and Culture in the Program of Iranian
Studies at UCLA, where she teaches the elementary and intermediate language courses. Her

xxii
 Contributors

innovative approaches in teaching won her the UCLA Academic Senate Distinguished Teach-
ing Award. She has co-authored the four-volume multimedia language series of Proficiency
in Persian, Persian Handwriting, and Applied Persian Grammar. She received a grant from
UCLA to digitally convert classwork material. She received her BS in economics from the
National University of Iran. She received her MA in Iranian Studies and her PhD in Middle
East Studies from the University of Utah.

Zahra Hamedi Shirvan is an Adjunct Professor of Linguistics at the Linguistics Department

and also the Center of Teaching Persian to the speakers of other languages at Ferdowsi Univer-
sity of Mashhad. She received her PhD and M.A in general linguistics and her B.A in English
Language and Literature at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. For the 2019- 2020 academic
year she has been sent by Iran’s Ministry of Education to Lebanese University, Beirut, to teach
Persian and Linguistics at The Persian Language Department of Lebanese University. Her
main fields of study and interest are critical discourse analysis, linguistic typology, Iranian dia-
lects, cognitive linguistics, error analysis and second language writing research. Moreover, she
has also contributed as the main author of a three-volume series for teaching Persian speaking,
which is under publication by Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.

Michael Craig Hillmann is Professor of Persian at The University of Texas at Austin. He is

a Persianist whose chief academic interest lies in the nature of lyric poetry and who writes on
Ferdowsi, Khayyām, Rumi, Hāfez, and several modernist Persian poets, on art as culture, and
on autobiography. He also has a career-long interest in Persian instructional materials develop-
ment, for example, his Persian Listening (2008), Persian Reading and Writing (2010), Persian
Grammar and Verbs (2012), and Persian Conversations (2018), with special attention to Per-
sian vocabulary acquisition and maintenance, the subject of Persian Vocabulary ­Acquisition:
An Intermediate Reader and Guide to Word Forms and the Arabic Element in Persian (2003,
2nd edition) and Basic Tajiki Word List (2003).

Masoud Jasbi is a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard University. He received his PhD in linguistics,
with a cognitive science designation, at Stanford University. He studies language acquisition,
semantics, pragmatics, and their interfaces. His research on Persian has focused on modeling its
semantic properties using tools from formal logic. His research on this topic is published in the
proceedings of the Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory. His research on first language
acquisition has focused on the cues that allow the acquisition of abstract logical concepts such as
disjunction. His work in this area is published in the proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society.

­
Behrooz Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari is Associate Professor of Linguistics and Persian at the Fac-
ulty of Fine Arts at the University of Tehran. He received his PhD in Linguistics from Allameh
Tabatabaee University in 2004. His major fields of work are Persian linguistics and Iranian
dialectology, as well as discourse analysis of drama and fiction. He is the author of the books
Tense in Persian (2002), Fārsi Biyāmuzim/Let’s Learn Persian (2003), Persian for Dummies
(2015), Pande Pārsi/Listening Comprehension of Persian (2016), and Salām Doktor/Dialogue
Activities of Persian, together with several articles in journals and reference books, such as
World’s Major Languages (2006), Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics (2018), Encyclo-
pedia Iranica (2003), and The Encyclopedia of Islam, 3rd Ed. (2015).

Shahrzad Mahootian is Professor Emerita of Linguistics at Northeastern Illinois University

in Chicago. In addition to her work on aspects of Persian linguistics, her research interests

xxiii
 Contributors

include topics in language contact, bilingual language acquisition, structural, cognitive, and
social aspects of codeswitching, language, and identity, and language documentation. Recent
publications include “Bilingualism” (2020, Routledge Guides to Linguistics), “Language con-
tact and multilingualism in Iran” (2018, in The Handbook of Persian Linguistics), “Revisiting
the functions of enclitics in Persian” (2018, with Lewis Gebhardt, in Trends in Persian and
Iranian Linguistics) and a co-authored volume, Language and Human Behavior: Topics in
Linguistics (2017).

Mehdi Marashi, Professor Emeritus, received his PhD from the University of Texas at Aus-
tin. He founded the Persian language program at the University of Utah, where he taught
for 23 years. He also taught in summer intensive programs at Princeton, NYU, University of
Pennsylvania, Oregon State University, University of Washington, University of Texas, and in
Peace Corps Programs. After his early retirement, he accepted a position as the University of
California, Berkeley’s Mellon Lecturer in Persian. He then moved on to work at Monterey’s
Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center. He is the author of several publications
related to Persian language and culture, a certified Persian tester for the American Council on
the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL), and a member of the American Association of
Teachers of Persian (AATP). Most recently, he was recognized at the 44th Annual Middle East
Studies Association (MESA) conference by the American Association of Teachers of Persian
(AATP) for four decades of service in the fields of Persian language and literature.

Karine Megerdoomian is Principal Computational Linguist in the Human Language Technol-

ogy Department at the MITRE Corporation, where she specializes in artificial intelligence, social
media analytics, and lexical semantics. Karine has expertise in linguistically informed computa-
tional approaches for less commonly studied languages, with a strong specialization on Persian.
Her past research includes investigation of the linguistic characteristics of Persian Heritage Lan-
guage learners. More recently, Karine’s work explores the applications of linguistic analysis in
the legal domain. Karine has served on various conference and workshop program committees
and has taught courses in social media and narrative analysis at Georgetown University.

Mahinnaz Mirdehghan is Associate Professor of General and Applied Linguistics at the

Department of Linguistics at Shahid Beheshti University (SBU) of Iran. She has mainly pub-
lished on teaching Persian to speakers of other languages and has guided main projects as:
SBU-MIT OCW joint project (2006–2009), PERSIAN FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE for
Teaching Persian (2017), Professional Series of PARFA (2018) [the series of which includes
Student’s Book, Work Book, and Teacher’s Book for three levels of Elementary, Intermediate,
and Advanced], as well as Professional Series for Teaching Persian to CHINESE Speakers.
Her most recent research is on designing PARFA mobile App for Persian language learning.
She has several publications which is taught around the world, and is a member of the Policy
Making Council of Linguistics committee as well as Virtual Teaching committee of Persian
in MSRT.

Daria Mizza received her PhD from the University of Warwick (U.K.). Currently she is Head
of Language Instructional Technology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced
International Studies (Washington, DC), where she also directs the French and Italian language
programs. Her expertise includes the instructional design and implementation of online, face-
to-face, and blended/hybrid learning solutions. Her research interests focus on second language
acquisition, language teaching methodology, and instructional technology for language teaching.

xxiv
 Contributors

She has published books and articles in international journals on current perspectives and the
future direction of foreign language teaching using new technologies, emphasizing the develop-
ment of writing skills and focusing on language instruction in blended environments. Among her
recent book publications is the coauthored book Creating Effective Blended Language Learning
Courses (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2020).

Azita Mokhtari received her PhD in foreign language education from the University of Texas
at Austin in 2007; she joined National University the same year. Currently, she is an Associate
Faculty, Associate Professor at National University, where she has been designing and teaching
courses related to linguistics, applied linguistics, foreign language methodology, and culture and
intercultural communication. Additionally, she has been teaching English as a second language
and Persian as a foreign language at National University and the University of Texas at Aus-
tin. Dr. Mokhtari is an experienced subject matter expert, degree plan developer, and course
developer, having completed such projects for the Central Texas College, University of Texas at
Austin, Monterey Institute of International Studies, and National University in San Diego, Cali-
fornia. She was the Co-applicant and Co-director on the highly successful National University
Summer StarTalk Language Programs (2009–2011), funded through external grants. In addition,
she served as the Lead Faculty for the MA in Applied Linguistics Program from 2010 to 2014.
Dr. Mokhtari has been serving in the National University Faculty Senate since 2013.

Marzieh Mortazavinia received her PhD in linguistics from McGill University. She holds
a master’s degree in linguistics from Tehran University and a bachelor’s degree in English
language and literature from Shiraz University. Her research focuses on the second language
acquisition of semantic features. In particular, she is interested in the acquisition of sub-
tle semantic phenomena in L2, such as presuppositions and how they are triggered cross-
linguistically. Besides that, she works on pronoun interpretation in L2 and how it interacts with
prosodic cues, specifically in pro-drop languages.

Peyman Nojoumian is Associate Professor (Teaching) of Persian at the University of South-

ern California. He holds a PhD in linguistics from the University of Ottawa, Canada and two
masters, one in speech and language technology from KULeuven, Belgium and one in teach-
ing Persian as a foreign language from Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran. He has pub-
lished the Persian Learner series and developed Persian Learner’s Dictionary, a smartphone
app for elementary Persian learners. He has been teaching Persian for more than a decade. Dr.
Nojoumian is a certified ACTFL OPI & WPT tester and trainer and registered with the Lan-
guage Testing International.

Musa Nushi is Assistant Professor of TEFL at Shahid Behehsti University. He obtained his
PhD in TEFL from Allameh Tabataba’i University and an MA in the same field from the
University of Tehran. He has been teaching English to Iranian EFL learners and teachers for
almost 15 years. Musa spent the 2005–2006 academic year teaching Persian at Portland State
University, Oregon, USA. He has also cooperated with the SAMT Institute in the development
of the new generation of English for Specific Purposes textbooks. He is the co-author of Eng-
lish for Students of Sociology and has published in international journals.

Michelle Quay is Lecturer of Persian Language at Columbia University. She defended her
PhD in Asian and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Cambridge, where she also
supervised undergraduate Persian students. Prior to her studies at Cambridge, she obtained

xxv
 Contributors

her BA from the University of Chicago and her MA from the University of California, Los
Angeles in Iranian studies. She has experience developing audio and online Persian teaching
materials and has taught in the STARTALK intensive summer program for Persian heritage
speakers at UCLA. In addition to the practice of second-language acquisition, her research
interests include Persian and Arabic Sufi literature, Persian metrics, comparative hagiography,
and feminist literary theory.

Yasaman Rafat is currently an Assistant Professor at the Department of Modern Languages

and Literatures at Western University in Canada. She completed her PhD in Hispanic linguis-
tics at the University of Toronto. She works on second language speech learning, bilingualism,
and language change. Her work on second language speech learning has mainly focused on
auditory-orthographic interactions. She has also published on language change and contact in
Persian, Arabic, and Spanish speakers.

Ramin Sarraf is Assistant Professor at National University where he started the BA in Per-
sian Studies Program in Fall 2007. In addition, he served as the Lead Faculty for the Arabic
BA program from 2008–2012. He received his PhD (with Honors) in Persian studies and
linguistics in 2008, from the University of Texas at Austin. He worked as a head Persian
language curriculum designer and course developer at the Monterey Institute of International
Studies. Dr. Sarraf has two master’s degrees, one in linguistics and one in Middle Eastern
studies. Dr. Sarraf’s main areas of teaching and research are: 1) language and linguistics,
2) area studies, with focus on the Middle East and the connections between society, language,
culture, arts, and history, 3) diversity and multiculturalism in a global environment. In addi-
tion, Dr. Sarraf has served as Co-applicant and Co-director for the highly successful National
University Summer Persian Programs made possible through federal grants ($100K per year)
from 2009–2011. He is actively involved with peer-reviewing for publication (manuscripts
and chapters), refereeing panels, and chairing them at peer-reviewed conferences related to the
field. His most recent research is in neologism in Persian as a language teaching tool.

Asghar Seyed-Gohrab
­ received his PhD from Leiden University where he has been teaching
since 1997. He is Associate Professor of Persian at the Department of Middle Eastern Studies and
is the track-leader of the Persian and Iranian Studies program. In addition to many articles, and
chapters, he has authored, edited, and translated several books on Persian literature and culture,
cinema, Sufism, and manuscript tradition. His recent publications include The Layered Heart:
Essays on Persian Poetry (2019); The True Dream: Indictment of the Shiite Clerics of Isfahan,
(2017 together with S. McGlinn); Soefism: Een levende traditie, (2015, third print); Literature of
the Early Twentieth Century: From the Constitutional Period to Reza Shah (ed., 2015); Mirror of
Dew: The Poetry of Ālam-Tāj Zhāle Qā’em-Maqāmi, (2015); Conflict and Development in Ira-
nian Film, (ed. together with K. Talattof, 2013); Metaphor and Imagery in Persian Poetry, (ed.,
2012); The Great Omar Khayyam: A Global Reception, (ed., 2012); Courtly Riddles: Enigmatic
Embellishments in Early Persian Poetry, (2010); One Word: A 19th-Century Persian Treatise
Introducing Western Codified Law (2010, together with S. McGlinn); The Treasury of Tabriz,
(ed. together with S. McGlinn, 2007); Laylī and Majnūn: Love, Madness and Mystic Longing in
Niẓāmī’s Epic Romance, (2003). He has translated several volumes of modern Persian poetry into
Dutch, including the poetry of Sohrāb Sepehri, Forugh Farrokhzād, Mohammad-Rezā Shafi’i-
Kadkani, and (together with J.T.P. de Bruijn) Ahmad Shāmlu, Nāder Nāderpur, and Hushang
Ebtehāj. He is the founding general editor of the Iranian Studies Series at Leiden University Press
and Chicago University Press and the Modern Persian Poetry Series (15 volumes).

xxvi
 Contributors

Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi
­   is Senior Faculty Lecturer of Persian Language and Linguistics and
Coordinator of the Persian Language Program at McGill University. She holds a PhD in lin-
guistics from the University of Ottawa (2012) as well as a PhD in applied linguistics from
Tehran Azad University (2004). She has taught Persian language and linguistics as well as Per-
sian literature and translation at McGill University, the University of Oxford, the University of
Chicago, and Tehran Azad University since 1997. She has published a series of proficiency-
based textbooks for Persian, namely The Routledge Introductory Persian Course (2010, 2nd
edition 2020) and The Routledge Intermediate Persian Course (2012), both with Dominic
Brookshaw. She has also published What the Persian Media Says (Routledge, 2015) and
The Routledge Advanced Persian Course (2020). She has published several articles in peer-
reviewed journals and book chapters on morphology, psycholinguistics, translation, teaching
Persian as a second language, and second language acquisition. She is the author of two mono-
graphs, Processing Compound Verbs in Persian: A Psycholinguistic Approach to Complex
Predicates (2014), and Translation Metacognitive Strategies (2009). She is co-editor of The
Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics (2018). She is also the translator of The Thousand
Families: Commentary on Leading Political Figures of Nineteenth Century Iran, by Ali Sha-
bani (Peter Lang, 2018) and Hafez in Love: A Novel (Syracuse University Press, 2020), both
with Patricia Higgins. In addition, she serves as reviewer for International Journal of Iranian
Studies, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Sage Open Journal, Frontiers in Psy-
chology, International Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, and LINGUA. She served as
president of the American Association of Teachers of Persian (2018–2020).

Anousha Shahsavari is Lecturer in Persian and Persian Language Coordinator at the University
of Texas. She holds both an MA in applied linguistics–teaching Persian to the speakers of other
languages from Shiraz University and an MA in Second Language Acquisition and Application
from the University of Maryland at College Park. She began teaching Persian at Shiraz University
and has since taught at various institutions including the University of Maryland and the Univer-
sity of Texas. She has over 15 years’ experience developing curricula and materials for Persian
learners at all levels. Her multimedia textbook, Persian of Iran Today, is taught around the world.

Azita H. Taleghani is Associate Professor of Persian at the University of Toronto. She has a
PhD degree in linguistics from the University of Arizona. She teaches Persian language, litera-
ture, and linguistics, and she is the Undergraduate Coordinator of Languages. Her research has
focused on morphology, semantics, and syntax of Persian, web-based and second-language
pedagogy, and linguistics approaches in literature. She published a monograph on “Modality,
Aspect and Negation in Persian”, and her new manuscript focuses on the grammar of Persian
verbs for second language learners. She has several refereed articles. Her most recent articles
are “Archaism: From Aesthetic Technique to Linguistics Process” and “Foregrounding and
Its Role in Persian Modern Poetry”.

Amirreza Vakilifard is the Director of the Persian Language Center at the Imam Khomeini
International University IKIU since 2013. He received his PhD in education sciences (second
languages didactics) from the University of Montreal. He has been teaching Persian language
to foreign students since 1995 at the Imam Khomeini International University. In 2011, he
established the “Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages”, Iran’s first
academic periodical in the field, in which he serves as Director-in-Charge and Editor-in-Chief.
He is member of the Policy Making Council of SAMFA (Standard Assessment of Persian
Language Skills) and Head of its Scientific Committee.

xxvii
 Contributors

Saeed Reza Yousefi is a PhD candidate in linguistics from Shahid Beheshti University. He
received his MA in linguistics from the same institute. His research area is mainly on the
syntactic constructions, case marking, and comparative typology of Iranian languages and
dialects, especially Vafsi, on which, along with his MA thesis entitled “Case marking in Vafsi
within the OT Framework”, he has co-authored several articles and two books both in Eng-
lish and in Farsi. Case Marking in Iranic and Indic Languages: Vafsi, Tati, Taleshi, Pashto,
Balochi & Hindi/Urdu is the title of his last co-authored book, published in February 2018.

xxviii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTSACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Editing a book such as this one has been my long-lasting passion and aspiration – a book in
which linguistic intricacies and applied linguistics subtleties are put together to provide a more
holistic view of the field.
For helping to make this aspiration become a reality, I am indebted to the contributors to
this volume, each of whom acted as an anonymous reviewer for several other chapters. Thank
you all for your patience and collegiality, as well as your scholarly contributions. I would also
like to thank Clinton Parker, Javid Fereidoni, and Patricia Higgins for their constructive com-
ments on some of the chapters.
Andrea Hartill, the Senior Publisher at Routledge, has been very supportive and extremely
collegial since the very beginning of the journey of editing and publishing this book. Thank
you, Andrea, for answering my numerous emails immediately and graciously. I would also
like to thank Ellie Auton, the Editorial Assistant at Routledge, whose competence and effec-
tiveness led the manuscript forward from the time it was submitted to the time it went for
publication. I am also grateful to Autumn Spalding, the Project Manager at Apex CoVantage,
who helped me in every step in the production stage. Thank you, Autumn, for your positive
emails and reassuring words throughout the production process.
My students at McGill have been most valuable and helpful in the inception of this project.
Research ideas are often formed in discussions with students, and for that I am grateful to them.
In addition, I owe my love for and knowledge in linguistics to a number of very important
influential professors and colleagues that I have been fortunate to work with closely, including
Simin Karimi, Ali Miremadi, Lydia White, Ana Arregui, Nina Kazanina, Eric Mathieu, Ian
Mackay, and Paul Hirschbuhler. I am forever grateful to all of you.
On a personal note, I would like to express my everlasting gratitude to my late father, Ali
Shabani, and my mother, Simin Shabani, for their love, inspiration, and support from my earli-
est years, as well as my husband Marc des Jardins for his love, patience, and support. Thank
you, Marc, for always encouraging me in my research and for believing in me in whatever I
do, be it writing a book or painting. Last but not least, I am dedicating this work to my lovely
son, Arian Mirhashemi, who brings boundless joy and love into every day of my life. Thank
you, Arian, for making me a proud mom.

xxix
 1
INTRODUCTION POUNEH SHABANI-JADIDIINTRODUCTION
­

Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi
­

The aim of the present volume is to offer a bird’s-eye view of the most recent, cutting-edge
research on second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian. To this end, top scholars
from around the world have come together to share with us their expertise and the most recent
research on heritage language and second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian. Dif-
ferent subfields of second language acquisition of Persian, Persian heritage language learning,
Persian language pedagogy, and social aspects of second language acquisition and pedagogy
of Persian are each pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that, put together, make a whole and comprehensive
view of the field.
Linguistic research on the Persian language has previously centered around historical
linguistics, especially study of the ancient languages of greater Iran, including Old Persian,
Avestan, Pahlavi, and also Middle Persian. Over the last few decades, Persian linguistics,
including Modern Persian, has been an active topic of research, and many noteworthy volumes
on different subfields have been published both in Iran and in the West. The latest single-
volume surveys of Persian linguistics are Trends in Iranian and Persian Linguistics (Eds.
Korangy, A. and C. Miller, 2018) and The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics (Eds.
Sedighi, A. and P. Shabani-Jadidi, 2018).
Today, there is a high need for a comprehensive handbook of second language acquisition
and pedagogy of Persian, as there are numerous new positions in teaching Persian, and there
are continuous efforts made by universities to develop programs in Persian language and cul-
ture. Although there have been several articles written on various topics of second language
acquisition and pedagogy of Persian, they have been somewhat fragmented. The Routledge
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pedagogy of Persian connects these loose
fragments by bringing together into one cohesive volume research on various topics in the
domain of second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian.
Recent works on Persian linguistics include The Iranian Languages (Routledge, 2010,
edited by Gernot Windfuhr), Aspects of Iranian Linguistics (Cambridge Scholars Publishing,
2008, edited by Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Donald Stilo), Topics in Iranian Linguistics
(Reichert Publishers, 2011, edited by Agnes Korn), Trends in Iranian and Persian Linguistics
(Mouton De Gruyter, 2018, edited by Alireza Korangy and Corey Miller), and The Oxford
Handbook of Persian Linguistics (Oxford University Press, 2018, edited by Anousha Sedighi
and Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi). The first volume provides a comprehensive typological study of

1
 ­
Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi

Iranian languages and functions as a resource for the study of the entire family of Iranian
languages. However, that book does not cover many aspects of Persian linguistics such as
psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, second language acquisition, and pedagogy. The next two
volumes comprise selected articles from the proceedings of the International Conference on
Aspects of Iranian Linguistics (2005 and 2009). While both books contain cutting-edge arti-
cles authored by renowned scholars, the articles have been picked from conference presenta-
tions and therefore do not cover the entire spectrum of the subfields of Persian linguistics. The
choice of subject matter in these volumes depends on what papers were accepted, and there
is no attempt to systematize subjects, make them accessible to non-specialists, or provide a
general overview. The two last books contain state-of-the-art research on various subfields of
Iranian and Persian linguistics. Although they are both very helpful to a linguistics connoisseur
audience, they can be too technical for the growing number of second language specialists in
charge of teaching in Persian language and culture programs the world over.
The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pedagogy of Persian offers
a detailed overview of the field, discusses its development, and captures critical accounts of
cutting-edge research within the major subfields of the acquisition and pedagogy of Persian
as a second language. The handbook also discusses current debates and issues in the field and
suggests productive lines of future research.
The book is divided into the following four parts: I) Theory-driven research on second
language acquisition of Persian, II) Language skills in second language acquisition of Persian,
III) Classroom research in second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian, and IV)
Social aspects of second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian. Throughout the vol-
ume, transliterations and transcriptions have been based on the focus and topic of each chapter
as well as the choice of each writer.
Part I investigates the heritage language and second language acquisition of Persian from a
linguistics lens, through linguistics and second language acquisition theories. This part forms
the building blocks of the field and contains fundamental discussions of the topics that are
discussed later on in the book. In the following parts of the book, the focus is more on the prac-
tical and applied aspects of heritage language and second language acquisition of Persian in
the classroom and in society. Topics relevant to the theory-driven research on second language
acquisition of Persian are found in Chapters 2–8.
In Chapter 2, Reza Falahati begins with a review of the past and current state of research
in Persian second language phonological acquisition, followed by a discussion of an experi-
ment that he conducted, including the methodology used as well as the results. Yasaman
Rafat in Chapter 3 discusses some of the different ways in which Persian heritage phonetics
and phonology have been analyzed and compares them with some of the previously reported
patterns in second language speech learning. In Chapter 4, Karine Megerdoomian reviews
the research previously conducted on Persian heritage linguistics, with a focus on the domains
of phonology, morphology, and syntax. The author compares the linguistic competence of
Persian heritage language learners with that of second language learners of Persian to identify
similarities and differences between the two groups. Azita H. Taleghani in Chapter 5 focuses
on the structural description of Persian progressive tenses, followed by the morpho-syntactic
analysis of these tenses. In the empirical study presented in this chapter, the acquisition of Per-
sian negative progressive tenses in monolingual, second language learners and heritage speak-
ers of Persian is discussed and compared. The acquisition of second language morphology is
investigated in Chapter 6 by Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi,
­ who presents a series of experimental
studies on second language learners of Persian and the way they process, comprehend, and
acquire morphologically complex idiomatic expressions in Persian. In Chapter 7, Masoud

2
 Introduction

Jasbi presents some semantic features and markers specific to the Persian language and high-
lights the core semantic contribution of each marker in the process of second language acqui-
sition of Persian. In Chapter 8, Marzieh Mortazavinia investigates to what extent English
second language learners of Persian succeed in the acquisition of the system that the target
language has for the expression of the additive presupposition associated with their first lan-
guage, hattā, ‘even’.
Part II examines the acquisition and teaching of the four language skills of listening, speak-
ing, reading, and writing, as well as the subskills of grammar and vocabulary. This section
will be particularly useful to instructors and material developers, since it includes specific
studies carried out on each of these skills and subskills. This part of the book encompasses
Chapters 9–14.
In Chapter 9, Michael Craig Hillmann gives a personal account of his journey learning
Persian and discusses the most effective ways to teach Persian vocabulary. The chapter con-
tains many sample exercises that can be used by instructors. Behrooz Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari ­
in Chapter 10 examines a series of grammatical complexities of Persian that instructors of
English-speaking learners of Persian encounter and offers some suggestions as to how to
tackle them in class. Yass Alizadeh in Chapter 11 focuses on improving the listening skill
of second language learners of Persian by introducing various audio models, such as the
instructor’s voice, audio stories, songs, movies, speeches, interviews, and conversations, in
class or at home via the internet and other media outlets. The author gives some examples of
such material and discusses their effectiveness. In Chapter 12, Musa Nushi concentrates on
the development of speaking skills by introducing some features of spoken Persian that may
make acquiring the skill a challenge for non-Persian speakers, followed by the most effective
ways to teach the speaking skill. The chapter ends with assessment criteria and procedures for
evaluating performance on speaking activities. The development of reading skills in Persian
is discussed in Chapter 13 by Nahal Akbari and Ali Reza Abasi, who examine the nature of
reading, orthographic demands, textual authenticity and accessibility, vocabulary knowledge,
frequency of reading, reading literature, and the specific challenges these topics pose to sec-
ond language learners of Persian. In Chapter 14, Ali Reza Abasi focuses on the development
of writing skills in Persian language classes and the pivotal role it plays in Persian language
curricula. The chapter also discusses the integration of writing with other skills as well as the
interaction between language proficiency and writing expertise.
Part III examines different teaching methodologies and suggests which methodologies
and techniques work best for Persian language classrooms. This part is focused on class-
room research in second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian, and it encompasses
Chapters 15–22.
In Chapter 15, Mehdi Marashi focuses on the development of teaching Persian for pro-
ficiency in academia. The chapter starts by presenting a series of teaching methodologies
that were adopted in the past in Persian language classes in the U.S., followed by its gradual
development to proficiency-based teaching of Persian. Then the guidelines for proficiency-
based teaching and testing of Persian as a second language are proposed and discussed. In
Chapter 16, Latifeh Hagigi and Michelle Quay highlight some of the ways in which recent
advances in the communicative approach, task-based learning, and content-based instruction
can be applied to Persian language teaching. The tenets of each of these approaches are dis-
cussed, followed by a discussion of how these approaches can be adopted for Persian heritage
language learners, second language learners of Persian, and mixed classes. Some hands-on
techniques that the authors have found most effective are also presented. In Chapter 17, Daria
Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari ­ present a series of practices supporting effective

3
 ­
Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi

blended language learning experiences, which has proven challenging for language educators.
Throughout the chapter, the more traditional face-to-face approach is compared and combined
with the on-line component. The authors of this chapter present their argument for this kind of
blended teaching for Persian, and they give clear examples for an advanced Persian class that
is taught using a blended teaching approach. Examples of efficient and inefficient multimedia-
based instructional materials for the Persian language are presented by Peyman Nojoumian
in Chapter 18, followed by guidelines for the development of efficient instructional materials
using modern technology, based on pedagogical principles of task-based language teaching.
Some hands-on examples of such tasks are also presented in this chapter.
Also in Part III, Anousha Shahsavari discusses the development of reading skills through
literature for Persian language courses in Chapter 19. This is followed by a description of the
materials for such a course and the specific methodology that can be adopted in an intermedi-
ate level Persian language university class. The author gives an example of adopting Persian
short stories in a reading course to help students improve their reading skill while acquiring the
rich idiomatic forms of Persian literature. In Chapter 20, Asghar Seyed-Gohrab­ focuses on
teaching Persian literature through a content-based approach. This chapter introduces the most
important materials to be included in a Persian literature course whose language of instruc-
tion is Persian. The author of this chapter provides guidelines for material developers for a
Persian literature course, with a focus on Persian poetry. In Chapter 21, Amirreza Vakilifard
concentrates on Persian language assessment and the standard Persian language test developed
in Iran that is widely used in different universities both within and outside Iran to measure
students’ Persian proficiency level. The author of this chapter first gives some general criteria
for standard tests and then introduces the step-by-step development of the standard test he
has devised, namely, SAMFA. Nahal Akbari in Chapter 22 also focuses on Persian language
assessment and critically reviews different kinds of tests that have been devised for Persian
language proficiency, such as the ACTFL’s Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) and the Foreign
Service Institute (FSI) test for Persian.
Part IV moves away from the specific linguistic features of the language, skills, and sub-
skills of language acquisition, and teaching methodologies and techniques employed in Per-
sian language classrooms, to the society where the language is spoken, acquired, and taught.
This part, entitled ‘Social aspects of second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian’,
includes Chapters 23–29.
In Chapter 23, Negar Davari Ardakani gives an overview of Iran’s language landscape
by presenting the Iranian languages and dialects spoken in Iran, with special attention to the
most prominent ones. The author also discusses language minorities in Iran in the context
of the dominant standard national language, Persian. This chapter also investigates multi-
lingual education strategies in contrast to the dominant discourse of language planning and
education in Iran. Mahinnaz Mirdehghan and Saeed Reza Yousefi in Chapter 24 discuss
core and peripheral dialectal varieties of Persian. The chapter also gives a world-wide list of
Persian teaching centers. Though not exhaustive, the list presents some useful information
about the extent to which the Persian language is taught all over the world. The authors of this
chapter highlight the necessity for a well-structured framework for teaching Persian to speak-
ers of other languages. Then the authors introduce the Persian Reference Framework that they
have developed and which is widely used in Iran. According to the authors, this framework
has been developed based on the Common European Framework of Reference for teaching
languages. The effect of learning context on the pragmatic competence of second language
learners of Persian is investigated in Chapter 25 by Zahra Hamedi Shirvan. The author of
the chapter also examines the extent to which the prevailing teaching materials have dealt with

4
 Introduction

and paid attention to pragmatic competence, whether implicitly or explicitly. Finally, a survey
is presented and discussed, in which a questionnaire is used to assess the knowledge of con-
versational implicature and presupposition of second language learners of Persian. In Chap-
ter 26, Mahbod Ghaffari discusses the phonological, morphological, semantic, and syntactic
characteristics of Persian interlanguage of English native speakers who are learning Persian
as a second language. Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt in Chapter 27 examine
second language acquisition of Persian with special attention to Persian-English interlanguage
and codeswitching. The chapter investigates the phonological and grammatical interlanguage
phases of Persian second language acquisition and discusses the status of codeswitching vis-
à-vis interlanguage. Learning strategies and learners’ attitudes toward learning the language
in several U.S. universities is investigated in Chapter 28 by Azita Mokhtari. Finally, Ramin
Sarraf in Chapter 29 focuses on the importance of teaching the neologisms developed by the
Academy of Persian Language and Literature in Persian language classes, especially in the
advanced levels. The chapter begins with an overview of the activities of this academy and
ends with some techniques and some sample lessons designed to teach neologisms in Persian
language courses.
The goal of the editor of this volume has been to create connections between the various
topics and subtopics of heritage and second language acquisition and pedagogy of Persian.
Furthermore, she aims to highlight the research done inside Iran, in Europe, and in North
America so that the specialists of heritage and second language acquisition and pedagogy of
Persian working throughout the world may be informed of the research carried out beyond
their immediate geographical locations. This is especially important for research done in Iran,
as many studies are written in Persian and published only in Iran. It is hoped that by showcas-
ing the cutting-edge works of top scholars of the field throughout the world, this volume will
provide a platform for future research in the field of heritage and second language acquisition
and pedagogy of Persian.

5
 PART I

Theory-driven research on second

language acquisition of Persian
 2
THE ACQUISITION
OF SEGMENTAL AND
SUPRASEGMENTAL FEATURES
IN SECOND LANGUAGE
PERSIAN REZA FALAHATISEGMENTAL AND SUPRASEGMENTAL FEATURES

A focus on prosodic parameters of politeness

Reza Falahati

2.1 Introduction
Studies in the field of second language phonology and prosody are relatively new, and few
date back more than 50 years. In the case of Persian as a second language (L2), both the
spread and timeframe for such research is more limited. The lack of studies on the sound
system of L2 Persian contrasts sharply with the wealth of research that has been conducted
on other aspects of the language. In fact, the literature is quite rich on many topics, includ-
ing, but not limited to, morpho-syntax (Hung 2011; Shokri 2017; Tāherzādeh 2017; Dehqāni
2019), writing (Eslāmi 2014; Zandi 2016), verbal voice and aspect (Ahmadbeygi 2011; Hos-
seyni 2018), and prepositions (Kalāntari 2010; Alshāʻer 2015). The goal of this chapter is
twofold. First, it reviews and discusses studies concerning the acquisition of L2 segmental
and suprasegmental features in Persian. Next, it presents the findings of an original research
on the acquisition of prosodic parameters related to the expression of politeness by Persian
L2 speakers as well as native Persian speakers. It is hoped that this study will encourage other
scholars in the field to consider applying their own methodology to topics related to phonet-
ics, pragmatics, and their interface.
This chapter is composed of two major sections and its outline is as follows. The first sec-
tion contains a review of the past and current state of research in Persian L2 phonological
acquisition. The next section will introduce a new study by reviewing the research related to
the experiment that was conducted in the study. The methodology used in the experiment will
be presented next. The general discussion and conclusions will make up the last two parts of
this chapter.

9
 Reza Falahati

2.2 Previous studies on Persian L2 phonological acquisition

The earliest studies on the Persian sound system either were not motivated by pedagogical
purposes or did not consider Persian as the target for L2 acquisition. The first group of studies
were mainly aimed at providing a description and comparison between the consonants and
vowels in Persian versus other languages such as English (Āfāri 1978; Ghāderpour 1993),
French (Mohseni Shabestari 1977; Kuhi 2000), Italian (Sālehi 2000), Azeri Turkish (Maryami
1997), and Japanese (Moghadam Kiyā 2006). These studies were primarily interested in find-
ing cross-linguistic similarities and differences in the sound systems of languages. The sec-
ond group of studies were conducted with some pedagogical goals. The main target of these
researchers was finding the potential areas of difficulty for Persian native speakers learning
other languages. The methodology adopted by this group was similar to that of the previous
group in making a one-to-one comparison between the sounds in Persian as an L1 with those
of other languages; however, the main drive of the research by the second group was present-
ing a list of phonemes that could be challenging for Persian native speakers learning other
languages (e.g., Yarmohammadi 1969; Khalili 1995 [English]; Homāyounfard 1975 [Russian];
Rajabi Zargāhi 2001 [German]; Vakilifard 2003 [French]). Yarmohammadi (1969), for exam-
ple, used a comparative method in order to predict the pronunciation errors Persian speakers
make when learning consonants in American English. He used the manner of articulation as the
starting point for classifying the sounds of the two languages. He divided the types of errors
made by Persian learners of American English into four types: phonemic, phonetic, allophonic,
and distributional. Phonemic errors happen when there are some phonemes in English such
as /θ/ and /ð/ which are absent in Persian. An L2 learner of English might replace these two
consonants by /s, t/ or /z, d/, respectively. In contrast to phonemic errors, the second type of
errors (i.e., phonetic errors) happens when there is a mismatch between some of the features in
English and Persian sounds. For example, the coronal stops /t/ and /d/ are alveolar in English
while they are dental-alveolar in Persian. The phonetic errors happen when the Persian phonetic
habits are transferred into English. This means that a Persian native speaker will pronounce the
English phonemes /t/ and /d/ as dental-alveolar consonants. The third type of errors happens
when the allophonic features of a Persian sound are being transferred into English. The voice-
less plain stops /p, t, k/, for example, are unaspirated word-finally and medially after /s/, and
before unstressed vowels in English, whereas these consonants are strongly aspirated (i.e., pʰ,
tʰ, kʰ) in all positions in Persian. The Persian native speaker learning English will produce the
English voiceless unaspirated stops /p, t, k/ with aspiration in all positions. According to Yar-
mohammadi, the errors of the last type are due to phonotactic constraints where some sequences
of sounds are not allowed in either language. For example, Persian does not allow consonant
clusters in syllable onset position, word-initially. So an English word like “student” will be
rendered as “es.tu.dent” by a Persian speaker. The author considers such contrastive studies as
guidelines for those who teach English to Persian native speakers to predict what pronunciation
errors students may make. These studies were mainly interested in comparing the sound system
of Persian as an L1 with that of other major languages as the L2. For an overview of some of
the previously reported patterns in second language (L2) speech learning and different ways in
which Persian heritage phonetics and phonology are analyzed, refer to Chapter 3.
In the past two decades or so, scholars have gradually shifted their attention to Persian as the
target of L2 acquisition. However, they are still mainly under the influence of their predecessors
by choosing goals similar to those of the earliest studies. This means that, similar to the authors
of previous studies, they have set their main goal as finding the potential problem areas for
Persian L2 learners. These studies have investigated L2 learners of Persian with a wide range

10
 Segmental and suprasegmental features

of L1 backgrounds such as English (Majd 2002); Russian (Bābāyi 2014); French (Osati 2015);
Chinese (Sām 2011); Turkmen (Qarebāqi 2005); Italian (Osati 2015); Arabic (Sām 2011);
Kurdish (Dārābi 2001; Mehdi Zādeh 2008); Danish (Ābediyān Kāsegari 2016); Azeri Turk-
ish (Morādkhāni 2008); Spanish (Osati 2015); and Urdu (Mirdehghān 2009; Najafi Eskandari
2016). Most of these studies have used the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (Lado 1957) as
the theoretical framework in their analyses. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) as a
theory of phonological acquisition was quite dominant in the 1960s and 1970s. According to
this theory, which was heavily inspired by Behaviorism, language learning is a process of habit
formation. The fundamental accepted hypothesis in CAH is that the errors made by language
learners during their language learning process are from the influence of their mother tongue.
Researchers were supposed to systematically compare language learners’ L1 and L2 in order
to find the similarities and differences between them. The wide application of this theory led to
three different versions of CAH: strong, weak, and moderate versions. According to the strong
version of contrastive analysis, we could predict all the areas of problems for language learners
by systematic comparisons of L1 and L2. Greater differences between L1 and L2 would cause
bigger problems for language learners. The strong version of CAH soon proved to be not very
realistic and practical. One problem was overprediction in the sense that it predicted errors that
did not happen. The second problem with the strong version of CAH was that some of the errors
made by L2 learners could not be attributed to their L1. This made scholars like Wardhaugh
(1970) to propose the weak version of CAH, where one should study the errors made by L2
learners and try to come up with an explanation for such errors. This approach still depends on
the errors that are due to the influence of language learners’ L1. It differs from the strong ver-
sion in the way that it tries to account for an error once it has happened, while the strong version
tends to predict errors before their occurrence. According to the weak version, and contrary
to the strong version, which assumes that mother tongue always interferes with the process
of second language learning, language learners’ L1s could function as facilitators in L2 com-
munication. Both strong and weak versions of CAH were challenged by Oller and Ziahosseiny
(1970), who argued that these two are either too extreme or too weak and proposed a moderate
version of CAH. They believed that the theory should not be simply based on comparing and
contrasting languages. Scholars should also include the process of language learning and the
nature of language in their analyses. They stated that where a precise and fine distinction is
needed between the two languages, the acquisition of the new item would prove to be difficult.
L2 learners would have less difficulty with very new structures or sounds in the L2 compared
with structures or sounds that are somehow similar to those in their L1. Minor differences might
be missed by language learners while major differences are easily noticed. In this approach,
intralingual errors are as important as interlingual errors.
In addition to CAH, the majority of the more recent studies cited previously focusing on
the acquisition of the Persian sound system by L2 learners have also used the hierarchy of
difficulty proposed by Prator (1967). This ranking suggests a level of difficulty for the acquisi-
tion of both phonological and syntactic elements in L2 learning. In this classification, the first
level (i.e., zero) is the easiest, and the last level (i.e., five) is the most difficult level. Second
language learners are expected to find elements belonging to level zero the easiest and the
categories designated as level five the most difficult to learn. The six levels in the hierarchy of
difficulty as suggested by Prator (1967) are presented in the following with some examples.

1 Level zero or transfer: The phonemes in the L1 and the L2 are the same. Language
learners can transfer their L1 knowledge to the L2 with no interference. Examples are the
labio-dental phonemes /f/ and /v/ in English and Persian.

11
 Reza Falahati

2 Level one or coalescence: Two phonemes in the L1 merge into one in the L2. For exam-
ple, English speakers learning Persian merge the two English phonemes /ʊ/ and /u/ into
one phoneme /u/ in Persian.
3 Level two or underdifferentiation: A phonemic distinction existing in the L1 is absent
in the L2. This could be like interdental fricatives /θ/ and /ð/ in English, which are absent
in Persian.
4 Level three or reinterpretation: Some of the features of a phoneme in the L1 need to be
changed in L2. For example, English speakers learning Persian should replace the alveo-
lar feature of /t/ and /d/ with a dental feature in order to achieve native-like production for
these two phonemes in Persian.
5 Level four or overdifferentiation: A number of phonemes existing in the L2 are absent
in the L1. Examples are the glottal stop /ʔ/, uvular stop /ɢ/, and uvular fricative /χ/ in Per-
sian which are absent in English.
6 Level five or split: One phoneme in the L1 is split into two in the L2. For instance, the
phoneme /b/ in Arabic could be split into /p/ and /b/ in Persian and English.

The hierarchy of difficulty based on a comparison of Persian and English sound systems is pro-
vided in Table 2.2.1 following with some examples from English as an L1 and Persian as an L2.
According to the hierarchy of difficulty presented in Table 2.2.1, some sounds such as /p,
b, f, v/ are the easiest for English native speakers learning Persian, and /χ, ɢ, ʔ/ are the most
challenging Persian sounds for them. Sām (2011) investigated the potential areas of difficulty
for English, French, Russian, Turkish, Chinese, and Arabic native speakers learning Persian
as a second language. In her research, she used CAH, as the theoretical framework, and the
hierarchy of difficulty to determine which Persian sounds are the most challenging for these
native speakers. Level four (i.e., overdifferentiation) was determined as the basis for selecting
the target phonemes in her research. Table 2.2.2 following presents the phonemes selected
based on level four of the hierarchy of difficulty for these six languages.

Table 2.2.1 Hierarchy of difficulty for English (L1) and Persian (L2) sound systems

Level 0: Transfer p, b, f, v, s, z, ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ, m, n, l, j, i, ɑ, o, u, e, ɛ, ɔ

Level 1: Coalescence ........
Level 2: Underdifferentiation θ, ð, ŋ, w, ɪ, ʊ, ʌ
Level 3: Reinterpretation t, d, k, g, ɹ, ŋ, h
Level 4: Overdifferentiation χ, ɢ, ʔ
Level 5: Split ........

Source: adapted and modified from Sām (2011)

Table 2.2.2 Persian phonemes selected based on overdifferentiation level for English, French, Russian,
Chinese, Arabic, and Turkish languages as L1

Language Level four: overdifferentiation

English χ, ɢ, ʔ
French h, r, ʔ, tʃ, dʒ, ɑ, ɢ, χ
Russian h, ʔ, dʒ, ɑ, ɢ
Chinese b, d, v, r, z, h, dʒ, ɢ, ʔ, j
Arabic j, p, v, ʒ, ɑ, tʃ
Turkish χ, ɢ, ʔ

12
 Segmental and suprasegmental features

The first goal in Sām’s study was to determine challenging and target sounds for all six of
these groups of language learners in Persian. As the second goal, she developed some teaching
lessons and incorporated these sounds into that material. Then she applied a specific teach-
ing methodology (i.e., communicative language teaching) using the developed materials to
see the effectiveness of the teaching method used in language learning. In a similar research,
Ābediyān Kāsegari (2016) studied the sound systems in Danish and Persian in order to provide
a descriptive analysis regarding the similarities and differences between vowels and conso-
nants in these two languages. Following the same methodology as in Sām, she classified the
Persian sounds based on their level of difficulty for Danish learners of Persian. Vowel /ɑ/ and
uvular fricative /χ/ (out of seven phonemes absent in Danish /tʃ, dʒ, ɢ, χ, z, ʔ, ʒ/) were selected
as the target phonemes for the experiment in the study. Vowel /ɑ/ belongs to level three (i.e.,
reinterpretation) in the hierarchy of difficulty since this phoneme is a back vowel in Persian,
whereas it is central in Danish, while the uvular fricative /χ/ belongs to level four. The primary
goal of most of such studies was to provide pedagogical guidelines for L2 Persian teachers by
presenting a list of challenging sounds in the language as well as giving feedback to syllabus
designers and curriculum developers. The approach (i.e., CAH) adopted in these studies has
received some criticisms in the field. Some argue that there is no fixed criterion for compari-
son across languages in this approach. Classifying sounds based on the hierarchy of difficulty
is very shallow. For example, Dutch has only voiceless velar stop /k/ and lacks voiced velar
stop /ɡ/ in its inventory. Native Dutch speakers should split the voiceless velar stop in their
language into /k/ and /ɡ/ when learning English or Persian. According to the classification
in the hierarchy of difficulty, this would be a good example for the level five difficulty level.
However, assigning the same level of difficulty to /k/ and /ɡ/ in English and Persian as an L2
and Dutch as an L1 could be quite superficial in this classification. The phonemes /k/ and /ɡ/
are palatal in Persian, while these two phonemes in English and /k/ in Dutch are velar. English
and Dutch share the same place of articulation for the voiceless velar stop, while the place of
articulation for this sound in Persian is different. According to the hierarchy of difficulty, the
acquisition of /k/ and /ɡ/ in Persian for a Dutch native speaker can be both the difficulty levels
three and five at the same time. The theoretical framework used in most of these studies does
not allow one to correctly capture all the fine and allophonic distinctions across languages.
The hierarchy of difficulty also predicts that unfamiliar sounds which are absent in the
L1 will be the most difficult to learn and the sounds which exist in both L1 and L2 are easy
to learn. In fact, research in the acquisition of L2 phonology has shown that this claim is not
quite viable. Elliot (1997) found that English native speakers learning Spanish made a major
improvement in their pronunciation of the voiced alveolar trill (a sound which is absent in Eng-
lish) versus the voiced stop and nonfricative continuant allophones. It seems that the acquisi-
tion of allophones requires more time and instruction than the acquisition of new phonemes.
In addition to the weaknesses in the theoretical framework (i.e., CAH) adopted in most of
the recent studies on the acquisition of the Persian sound system, the research in this area is
mainly limited to the segmental level. The number of studies that have included the supraseg-
mental features in their analyses is quite low. Osati (2015) investigated the sound systems of
French, Italian, and Spanish versus Persian and included syllabification, phonotactics, and
stress patterns in her comparative study. She considered the syllable types in Persian as CV,
CVC, and CVCC.1 Persian onsets can have a maximum of one consonant, and codas can have
two consonants. Italian shows bigger variety with eight syllable templates (i.e., CV, CVC, V,
VC, CCV, CCVC, CCCV, CCCVC). This language can have a maximum of three consonants
in the onset position and one consonant in the coda position. A single vowel can make an inde-
pendent syllable in Italian. French with twelve syllable templates (i.e., CV, CVC, CVCC, V,

13
 Reza Falahati

VC, VCC, CCV, CCVC, CCVCC, CCCV, CCCVC, and CCCVCC) shows the biggest variety
among the four languages. French can have a maximum of three consonants in the onset and
two consonants in the coda position. The syllable templates in Persian are just a small subset
of French. Spanish has nine syllable templates (i.e., CV, CVC, CVCC, V, VC, VCC, CCV,
CCVC, CCVCC), which is three times bigger than Persian. In Spanish, a syllable can start and
end with zero to two consonants. Osati states that only Italian speakers will have problems
with CVCC syllables in Persian since it is absent in their L1 language. The Persian words with
consonant clusters in the coda position will be challenging for Italian speakers. French and
Spanish learners of Persian will face no problem with Persian syllabification since they have
all three of the syllable types in their languages. Stress in Persian, as the second supraseg-
mental feature investigated in this research, tends to fall on word-final position. But if the
word contains negative, imperative, or present continuous prefixes, then stress falls on those
prefixes. In Italian and Spanish, most words have stress on the penultimate syllable. Stress in
French is quite predictable and falls on the last syllable of any syntactic group. Based on the
stress patterns in these three languages, Osati predicts that the speakers of all three of these
languages learning Persian should have problems with this prosodic feature in Persian. As for
phonotactics, the combinations of /ml/ and /mr/ in the codas of Persian words are expected to
be the most difficult for Italian speakers. Spanish learners are also expected to have problem
with {r/dʒ/b} + /d/ and s+{k/t} combinations in coda position. Table 2.2.3 summarizes the
potential areas of problems that speakers of Italian, French, and Spanish may have when learn-
ing Persian as an L2. These phonemes are selected based on level four (i.e., overdifferentia-
tion) in the hierarchy of difficulty.
In a similar study, Bābāyi (2014) pursued the same research questions as Osati did with
Russian as the L1 and found Persian consonants /G, h, ʔ, dʒ/ and vowel /ɑ/ the most challeng-
ing sounds for Russian speakers learning Persian. Syllabification in Persian was not found
to be an issue for Russian learners of Persian. All these studies have only tried to predict the
potential problem areas of L2 Persian learners, and there is no attempt made to collect data
from L2 learners to investigate the actual errors made by them. There are two studies, how-
ever, that have tried to provide a classification of error types by collecting data from Persian
L2 speakers. They used three different tasks for data elicitation, such as reading a short story,
retelling a story, and reciting a memory. Najafi Eskandari (2016) has reported that the errors
of female Urdu speakers in her study were due to vowels (92.6%), consonants (0.09%), and
syllabification (6.5%). Vowels /æ, e, ɒ, o/ and consonant /ɢ/ had the highest rate of errors
among Urdu speakers learning Persian as an L2. In another study on Iraqi Arabic students
learning Persian, Vāsegh (2009) stated that students’ errors could be classified into three dif-
ferent groups: interlingual (97.5%), intralingual (1.9%), and educational (0.6%). The highest
rate of interlingual errors was due to using alveolar trill /r/ rather than alveolar tap /ɾ/ and also

Table 2.2.3 Potential
 areas of problem for Italian, French, and Spanish speakers learning Persian as
an L2

Language Phonemes Syllable Stress Phonotactic

Italian h, ʔ, ʒ, ɢ, χ, ɑ CVCC Penultimate stress /ml/, /mr/

French h, r, ʔ, tʃ, dʒ, χ ...... No specific stress ......
Spanish v, z, h, dʒ, ɢ, ʔ, j, ʃ, ʒ, æ ...... Penultimate stress {r/dʒ/b} + /d/
s+{k/t}

14
 Segmental and suprasegmental features

producing pharyngeal fricative /ħ/ in place of glottal fricative /h/. The intralingual errors were
mainly due to overgeneralization, such as adding /h/ before definite marker /-e/ where it was
not needed, such as /muʃe-h-e/, and devoicing coronal stop /d/ where it is not allowed, such as
/kilit-o/ rather than /kilid-o/. Missing some common alternations such as changing /ɑ/ to /u/ in
words such as /goldɑn/ were considered to be educational errors. These two studies were either
limited to having impressionistic analysis of data or using very young students as participants,
which does not allow cross-study comparison.
In more recent years, there have been some studies that have used other theoretical frame-
works to test the Persian L2 data against different approaches. Falahati (2015), for example,
investigated the acquisition of rhotics by Mandarin speakers learning Persian. The major goal
of his study was to test one of the predictions made by the Speech Learning Model (Flege
1995). According to this approach, sounds in L1 and L2 are related perceptually to one another
at a position-sensitive allophonic level, rather than at a more abstract phonemic level. A new
phonetic category can be established for an L2 sound that differs phonetically from the closest
L1 sound. This is conditioned by the fact that language learners detect at least some of the pho-
netic differences between L1 and L2 sounds. Falahati in his study examined whether Mandarin
speakers learning Persian as a non-native language acquire all position-sensitive variants of
the phoneme /r/ in Persian. This sound has four allophonic variants in Persian: tap, trill, frica-
tive, and approximant. According to Samareh (2002), rhotics in Persian could be realized as
either trills or fricatives word-finally, depending on the preceding vocalic environment, and
as taps or approximants intervocalically. Mandarin lacks trill, one of the allophonic variants
of Persian rhotics, and this is considered to be a new sound for Mandarin speakers learning
Persian. Falahati ran a series of casual interviews to collect data, resulting in 1252 tokens.
He reported that all speakers produce the trill allophonic variant, which exists in Persian but
is absent in Mandarin. However, their contextual distribution did not show the same pattern
as that produced by native speakers. He suggested that extra-linguistic factors should also be
considered in order to get a fuller picture of non-native allophonic production (see Rafat 2010,
for a similar study on Persian native speakers). You can read more about Rafat’s research on
Persian heritage and second language phonology in this volume in Chapter 3.
The research on Persian L2 phonological acquisition is quite limited in its use of existing
theoretical frameworks in the field. Besides, most of the L2 studies on the Persian sound sys-
tem have focused on the acquisition of segments. Studies directed toward the phonetic realiza-
tion of stress and prosody in Persian L2 are quite few. Sadeghi and Mansoory Hararehdasht
(2016) conducted the first study on the acquisition of sentence stress in Persian by Mandarin
native speakers. Persian uses the F0 contour as the primary acoustic correlate of stress fol-
lowed by duration and intensity, which serve as other acoustic cues to distinguish stress con-
trast in this language. The main goal in this study was to see whether Mandarin native speakers
learning Persian will use the three most reliable acoustic correlates in Persian in a similar way
to that of native speakers. The results showed that despite the fact that the two groups (i.e.,
Mandarin speakers of Persian and native speakers of Persian) use F0 variation in Persian to
differentiate stressed from unstressed words, Mandarin speakers produced stressed words with
a significantly higher F0 than did Persian native speakers. The two groups similarly produced
stressed words with longer durations; however, Mandarin speakers showed significantly less
difference between the duration of stressed versus unstressed words than did Persian native
speakers. The results of this study also showed that intensity is the most comparable acoustic
measure across stressed and unstressed words in the two groups. In addition to this study on
the acquisition of L2 stress, Hosseyni, Bijan Khān, and Moqadamkiyā (2009) also conducted
one of the earliest studies comparing Persian and Japanese at the suprasegmental level using

15
 Reza Falahati

the Autosegmental-Metrical Phonology framework. The main goal of their study was to see
whether language learners will transfer the prosodic features of their L1 to the target lan-
guage. Persian has an intonational property in which nuclear pitch accent is followed by the
deaccentuation of the upcoming elements in WH-questions. In contrast, Japanese does not
show such a behavior, and all the accentual phrases in this language keep their pitch accent in
interrogatives. The findings of this study showed that Japanese speakers learning Persian and
Persian native speakers learning Japanese are influenced by the intonational properties of their
L1, and the accentuation of their read utterances and words in the target language follows the
same rules and constraints as their L1.
In this section, we presented a historical overview of second language (L2) phonological
acquisition in Persian. A large number of studies working on Persian L2 segmental acquisition
have followed a similar methodology and adopted the same theoretical framework. Among the
work reviewed in this section, there is a notable bias toward using CAH as the research paradigm
as well as using Prator’s hierarchy of difficulty. This has both advantages and disadvantages.
Using a similar methodology allows one to control for methods of elicitation, data coding, and
analysis. This is good since the researchers can explore how much the findings across studies are
generalizable. However, the field of Persian L2 phonological acquisition can benefit from a vari-
ety of frameworks for second language speech (e.g., Markedness Differential Hypothesis (Eck-
man 1977), Perceptual Assimilation Model (Best 1995), Speech Learning Model (Flege 1995),
Perceptual Interference Model (Brown 1998)), and each research study can provide insights into
a better understanding regarding the true nature of L2 phonological attainment.2 Learners’ char-
acteristics such as language aptitude, motivation, attitude, and age of acquisition can contribute
to individual variation and have an impact on the acquisition of segmental and suprasegmental
features (see, for example, Gardner (1968), Flege, Munro, and MacKay (1995), Piske, MacKay,
and Flege (2001), Rafat and Stevenson (2018)). Contextual factors such as learning a language
as a second or foreign language could also open another window to research in the growing field
of Persian L2 phonological acquisition (see Moyer (2009) for the role of L2 input).
The field of Persian L2 phonological acquisition could also expand more by the initia-
tion of studies on the perception of speech. Research has shown that the lack of native-like
competency for producing L2 sounds is mostly related to the loss of perceptual sensitivity to
non-native sounds in childhood. The L1 sound system acts as a filter that affects the perception
of L2 sounds, and this is specifically reflected in the ones that are acoustically different from
L1 sounds. Different models of speech perception such as the Perceptual Assimilation Model
(Best and Strange 1992; Strange 1995; Tyler et al. 2014) can be explored to see how their
predictions can explain different aspects of phonological acquisition in Persian.
The studies reviewed in this section showed that the field of L2 phonological acquisition
in Persian is growing, but areas such as L2 prosody still remain underinvestigated. There is
a pressing need for further investigation on this aspect of Persian L2 phonology. The follow-
ing section presents an original study that aims at exploring the interaction between prosodic
parameters and pragmatic strategies used by Persian L2 speakers as well as those used by
native speakers of Persian.

2.3 Present study

Language, as one of the most complex communication systems in the world, requires the
interaction of different linguistic aspects such as syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology,
and pragmatics. In order to produce an acceptable and native-like sentence, L2 learners need
to have a good command of these linguistic aspects. Pragmatics, as a subfield of linguistics,

16
 Segmental and suprasegmental features

deals with how context and interlocutors would affect the meaning that is being communicated
between speaker and listener. This aspect of language is normally the most challenging part
for L2 learners (Taguchi 2011). Knowing the appropriate way of saying things requires an
interplay among different levels of linguistic knowledge. The current study aims at exploring
the phonetics-pragmatics interface by looking at how L2 learners of Persian have acquired
different levels of formality used in formal and informal registers. This research, more specifi-
cally, explores the interaction between prosodic measures and the expression of politeness.
Despite the fact that research on the interface between prosody and politeness is fast growing,
the number of empirical studies investigating this area is still quite limited (Orozco 2008,
2010; Winter and Grawunder 2012). There is an even larger scarcity of studies exploring the
contribution of prosodic features to the expression of politeness in an L2 setting. To the best
of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the acquisition of prosodic features used
in politeness strategies among Persian L2 learners. Because of this, it is necessary to include
a review of work conducted outside the field of L2 Persian since certain important issues and
topics have not yet been covered in Persian L2 acquisition. In the following, a review of the
theory on politeness and then a review of the studies showing the interaction between phonetic
parameters and pragmatic strategies for showing politeness are presented.

2.4 Politeness and phonetic features

Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory on politeness is certainly the most influential in the field.
The primary aim of this model is to account for politeness in face-to-face interaction. Accord-
ing to this theory, some speech acts will threaten the face of the hearer (e.g., advice and
orders), the speaker (e.g., confession and apologies), or both (e.g., requests and offers). The
extent of the threat in a speech act depends on three variables: the social distance between
the interlocutors, the relative power of the speaker and hearer, and the cost of imposition.
For example, if a student is making a request like asking for a recommendation letter from
his professor, the socio-pragmatic level of his/her speech is different from the level when s/he
asks for a dictionary from a peer. The earliest reference on the interaction between pragmat-
ics and phonetics dates back to Pike (1945), who attributed rising contours to polite and
cheerful contexts. Ohala (1984), in an in-depth study on cross-species unrelated phonologi-
cal and phonetic facts, stated that the biologically determined Frequency Code is responsible
for a number of disparate phenomena including the expression of politeness. This approach
explained the similarities and differences for using pitch across languages and cultures. Ohala
said that high and/or rising fundamental frequency (i.e., F0) is associated with politeness
and other sociopragmatic meanings such as submission, lack of confidence, and deference,
while speech with low pitch and/or falling F0 is connected with authority, dominance, and
assertion. There are also other studies that have emphasized the interplay between high pitch
and polite speech (Brown and Levinson 1987; Pike 1945; Gussenhoven 2004). Higher pitch
range is also reported to be correlated with perceived politeness in British English and Dutch
(Chen, Gussenhoven, and Rietveld 2004) as well as for a number of Spanish varieties in
Latin America (Nadeu and Prieto 2011). The universal nature of the Frequency Code and
pitch range was used later, in other studies, to explain other sociopragmatic meanings such
as different degrees of surprise and emphasis (e.g., Chen, Gussenhoven, and Rietveld 2002,
2004). Additionally, there have been some studies that have proposed a correlation between
politeness and segmental alternation. Basque speakers, for example, palatalize some con-
sonants when they talk to good friends, children, or people with whom they want to show
solidarity (Corum 1975). The palatalization rule is also applied in Japanese, where words

17
 Reza Falahati

such as Taro-san­ are changed to Taro-chan.

­ Brown and Levinson (1987, 267) consider the
application of such a phonological rule as a strategy that “the language provides specifically
for positive-politeness usage”. In addition to such phonetic alternations, there are also other
suprasegmental features that are stated to have an interaction with the realization of polite-
ness. Features such as creaky voice in Tzeltal and breathy voice in Japanese (for females) are
two examples (Brown and Levinson 1987).
The universality of the Frequency Code has been questioned in recent years. Also, research
has shown that there are other acoustic cues which contribute to the expression of socioprag-
matic meanings such as politeness in speech. To pursue such a goal, Winter and Grawunder
(2012) investigated the phonetic profile of Korean formal and informal speech registers. The
formal register is characterized as a normative form of politeness in this language. Contrary to
the predictions made by the Frequency Code, the authors found that in formal speech, Korean
speakers lowered their average fundamental frequency and pitch range. Additionally, this
study showed that low intensity and breathiness as well as a bigger number of hesitation mark-
ers and filled pauses are other peculiar acoustic characteristics of formal register. Grawunder,
Oertel, and Schwarze (2014) tested the findings of Winter and Grawunder’s (2012) research in
a new experiment collecting both acoustic and electroglottographic data with participants from
Germany and Austria. While both groups showed lower speaking rates as well as higher rates
of filled pauses and hesitation markers in polite (i.e., formal) conditions, it was only the Ger-
man group that revealed lower pitch, intensity, and harmonics-to-noise ratio in formal register.
In a more recent study, Hübscher, Borràs-Comes, and Prieto (2017) examined the prosodic
components of politeness in Catalan in both formal and informal registers. In addition to F0,
the authors included other prosodic parameters such as duration, voice quality, and intensity
in their analyses. The results of their study showed a slower speech rate, a lower mean pitch,
less intensity, less shimmer and less jitter, and an increase in H1–H2 in the formal register. The
authors state that the Frequency Code appears not to hold for Catalan. Rather, they suggest that
the speakers of this language use a phonetic mitigation strategy involving various prosodic
correlates. Despite the growing literature on the interaction between prosody and politeness,
there is still a gap in this field. The universal nature of the Frequency Code hypothesis is not
settled yet. The current study aims at adding to the body of literature in this field by exploring
this hypothesis in L1 and L2 and a language pairing that is novel (i.e., Persian and Russian).
Research has shown that L2 learners may transfer linguistic and pragmatic knowledge from
their first language to their new language (Félix-Brasdefer 2004; Wannaruk 2008; Allami and
Naeimi 2011). The current study aims at exploring the interaction between prosodic features
and the realization of politeness among Persian native speakers and L2 learners. This study
aims at addressing the following six research questions:

Q1: Is there a correlation between the usage of lexical and morpho-syntactic markers and
the application of formal register among Persian native speakers?
Q2: Is there a correlation between the usage of lexical and morpho-syntactic markers and
the application of formal register among Persian L2 speakers?
Q3: Is there a correlation between the higher pitch and the application of formal register
among Persian native speakers?
Q4: Is there a correlation between the higher pitch and the application of formal register
among Persian L2 speakers?
Q5: Is there a correlation between other prosodic parameters (i.e., intensity, jitter, shimmer,
and H1–H2) as well as duration and the application of formal register among Persian
native speakers?

18
 Segmental and suprasegmental features

Q6: Is there a correlation between other prosodic parameters (i.e., intensity, jitter, shimmer,
and H1–H2) as well as duration and the application of formal register among Persian
L2 speakers?

In order to address our research questions, we analyze a wide range of syntactic (e.g., verbal
endings and personal pronouns) and acoustic cues related to the expression of politeness such
as F0, intensity, voice quality, breathiness, pitch contour, and duration. The formal speech
register is used on a daily basis when speaking to strangers or people belonging to a higher
echelon of society. Therefore, the formal register is associated with expressing politeness in
our study. Our prediction is that Persian L2 speakers should show similar syntactic and pro-
sodic features in formal situations as native speakers. The methodology adopted in our study is
very similar to Winter and Grawunder (2012) and Hübscher, Borràs-Comes, and Prieto (2017).
However, this study departs from previous work by considering a new language (i.e., Persian)
and including L2 speakers in the analyses. Our findings will help to see how the predictions
made by the Frequency Code and other studies supporting this hypothesis are borne out. They
also reveal whether other syntactic and phonetic factors have any interactions with formality
levels. Finally, we discover whether L2 speakers exhibit patterns similar to those of native
speakers regarding the adjustments made to morpho-syntactic markers and phonetic cues in
formal and informal situations.

2.5 Methodology

2.5.1 Participants
Four Russian native speakers learning Persian as an L2 (two male and two female), aged
22–24, volunteered to participate in our experimental task. They were all at the advanced level
and had started learning Persian three years ago as a requirement for their program. They were
studying either linguistics at the University of Moscow or humanities at the University of
Russia. They all knew some English at the time of this study. Additionally, six female native
speakers of Persian, aged 21–26, also participated in our study. They were all living in the
Iranian capital city and had Tehrani Persian accents. None of the subjects were aware of the
objectives and the questions of the study.

2.5.2 Materials
In our experiment, we elicited semispontaneous speech data using Discourse Completion Tasks
(DCT, henceforth). DCT has been widely used for pragmatic and phonetic studies with great
success (Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989; Billmyer and Varghese 2000; Félix-Brasdefer
2010; Winter and Grawunder 2012; Hübscher, Borràs-Comes, and Prieto 2017, among others).
The advantage of using DCTs is that such tasks provide participants with a situational prompt
and control for a set of contextual factors at the same time. As a result, DCTs provide data that
is comparable, systematic, and quantifiable. According to Hübscher, Borràs-Comes, and Prieto
(2017, 149), “[a]lthough spontaneous, naturally-occurring data would be ideal, when record-
ing spontaneously-produced speech data, it is very difficult to control for social variables such
as gender, age, social distance and power and create fully comparable situations”. DCTs have
proved to be an ideal method of examining the pragmatic speech data in a controlled way.
The speech acts “making a request” and “information-seeking” were incorporated into five
formal situations and five informal situations in our DCT (three “making a request” and two

19
 Reza Falahati

“information seeking”). These speech acts both require certain degrees of face-threat. They
served as an initiation for collecting close-to-natural speech data (see Appendix for full scripts
of DCTs in Persian and English translations). These situations allowed for controlling the
three variables (i.e., social distance, relative power, and cost of imposition) that affect the
extent of face-threat in an interaction. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), interlocutors
mitigate their level of formality (i.e., degree of politeness) based on these three factors. Since
the participants in our study were all university students, the interlocutors in the formal con-
text were well-established professors versus students. The interlocutors in the informal setting
were students versus a peer or a roommate. The following examples provide two prompts used
in formal (1) and informal (2) situations.

(1) Formal situation

Shomā beh daftar-e ostād Alavi miravid tā yek moʻarrefi nāmeh begirid. Shomā qasd dārid dar
Āmrikā beh edāmeh tahsil bepardāzid va in nāmeh joz'-e mohemmi az darkhāst-e bursiyeh-ye
shomā ast. Cheguneh az ostādetān in darkhāst rā mikonid?
Suppose that you go to the office of Professor Alavi to ask for a recommendation letter.
You are going to continue your studies in the U.S. and this letter is an important part of your
scholarship application. How do you make such a request from your professor?

(2) Informal situation

Shomā bā seh ham otāqi-ye Irāni dar khābgāh-e dāneshjuyi zendegi mikonid. Sen-e tamām-e
ānhā kamtar az shomāst. Yeki az ānhā ke Mohsen nām dārad farhang-e loghat-e elekteroniki-
ye shomā rā qarz gerefteh ast. Fardā āzmun-e engelisi dārid va emshab ān rā bāyad pas begirid.
Beh Mohsen cheh miguyid tā farhang-e loghat rā pas begirid?
Suppose you live with three Iranian roommates in a dormitory. They are all younger than
you. One of them named Mohsen has borrowed your electronic dictionary. You have an Eng-
lish exam tomorrow and must take your dictionary back tonight. What do you say to Mohsen
to have your dictionary back?
In order to stimulate more natural data, participants were presented with a picture for each
situation illustrating the location and the interlocutors involved in that setting. This could be
like a professor and a student in an office or a few young university students in a dormitory
room (this method is similar to what Winter and Grawunder (2012) have used).

2.5.3 Procedure
The acoustic data for L2 speakers was collected in the Center of Teaching Persian to Speak-
ers of Other Languages located at Allame Tabataba’i University. Each participant was
recorded individually using the digital tape recorder Zoom H4n. Data was recorded at the
sampling rate of 44.1 KHz/16 bits. Participants first received instructions about the experi-
ment. A native speaker of Persian (i.e., the author of this chapter) explained the whole pro-
cedures to the participant. Then they received 10 cards in a sequence describing the prompt
contexts, five for formal situations and five for informal situations. They were given one
formal card followed by one informal card. Participants were asked to imagine that the
situations were quite real between them and one of their professors/peers and were asked
to do their best to perform the tasks as naturally as possible. This led to them producing 40
utterances (4 participants × 5 situations × 2 conditions). Of this total, five of them had to be

20
 Segmental and suprasegmental features

discarded since they did not contain the intended speech acts due to misunderstanding of the
prompt by L2 speakers.
All the native speakers of Persian were recorded individually in a sound-attenuated booth
located at the Linguistic Laboratory in Alzahra University. Microphone Roland DR-80C was
used on a fixed stand for recording acoustic data with 44.1 kHz/16-bit sampling. The proce-
dure for eliciting data for native speakers was similar to that of L2 speakers except for the fact
that a research assistant helped to run the experiment. The data collection for the native speak-
ers resulted in 60 utterances (6 participants × 5 situations × 2 conditions).

2.5.4 Labelling and data coding

The annotation and labelling procedure was conducted with Praat (Boersma and Weenink
2019). Two research assistants annotated and labelled the data in the study. The author of this
chapter then selectively checked a subset of annotated data for accuracy. Figure 2.1 following
shows an example of the annotation scheme used in this study (this procedure is mainly based
on Hübscher, Borràs-Comes, and Prieto 2017).
The first tier in the annotation contains the orthographic transcription of utterances, sepa-
rated by words. The second tier marked the boundaries between syllables. Four different
categories were indicated on this tier: regular and fluent syllables marked with the letter “s”,
filled pauses due to breath intakes marked with the letter “b”, silent pauses marked with the
letter “p”, and syllables that were prolonged due to hesitation, etc. marked with “es”. Such
a coding allowed us later to calculate the mean duration of words, syllables, and pauses. In
the third tier, intonational phrases (IP) were marked first. The pragmatic category of each IP

Figure 2.1 Waveform and F0 contour of a request (formal register) followed by orthographic, pragmatic,
and prosodic annotations (tiers 1–4)

21
 Reza Falahati

was then determined based on their functions. The sentences that were the actual realization
of the speech acts were labelled as “head acts”. This could be a sentence like “can I borrow
your dictionary for my exam tomorrow?”. The other strategies used along with head acts
such as preparators, precursors, reason, and appreciators were marked in tier three as well
(for more information on this classification, see Félix-Brasfeder 2005). In this chapter, for
some of the analyses, the head acts in the IPs are distinguished from the other strategies. The
next piece of information annotated in tier three was the grammatical structure of head acts
(e.g., imperative, declarative, direct question, and indirect question) as well as their mood
(e.g., imperative, indicative, conditional-imperative, and conditional-indicative). This coding
scheme was based on the classification presented by Mahootian (1997). You can read more
about Mahootian’s work in Chapter 27 in this volume, where she talks about interlanguage
and code-switching.
In tier four, three landmarks were manually indicated in each IP. The start time of the pitch
contour in each IP was marked with the letter “R”, the lowest F0 in each IP marked with the
letter “L”, and the highest F0 within each IP marked with the letter “H”. A script was used to
extract the means of F0, intensity, jitter, and shimmer in annotated syllables.3 Moreover, the
amplitude difference between the first and second harmonics (i.e., H1–H2) was obtained auto-
matically using a separate script.

2.6 Results
In this section, the results of different syntactic and phonetic measures for Persian L2 speak-
ers are presented along with the corresponding results for Persian native speakers. The results
should be interpreted by comparing the informal condition versus formal condition in the same
group (i.e., Persian L2 speaker group and Persian native speaker group). No attempt is made
here to compare the absolute values and measures across the two groups. The results related to
lexical and morphological marking in the two groups are presented first followed by the results
for the pitch measures. Next, the results for voice quality and intensity measures are reported.
In the last part of this section, the speech rate dependent variables are reported. The statistical
package R (R Core Team 2016) was used for data analysis in our study.
Persian uses a number of lexical and morpho-syntactic markers to tease apart the formal
(i.e., polite) from informal (i.e., casual) registers. We extracted the information for such a
distinction from tier one (i.e., orthography). This included the verbal endings and personal
pronouns. The plural verbal endings [id] or [in] and personal pronoun shomā were classified as
formal register, while singular verbal endings [i] and the personal pronoun to were treated as
informal register.4 Only head acts were used for this analysis (see Table 2.6.4). The number of
head acts in the L2 group (N = 37) and native group (N = 71) were higher than the total num-
ber of approved utterances in each group, since participants sometimes used more than one
head act within the same utterance. Tables 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 present the mean number of utter-
ances produced by each speaker containing different lexical and morpho-syntactic markers in
native and L2 groups, respectively. These tables also contain the results of a series of t-tests for
dependent samples. Persian L2 learners use singular verb morphology in informal conditions
more than in formal conditions. This is very similar to the results from native speakers; how-
ever, the native participants use the singular and plural verb morphology in a very categorical
way. This means that they use singular verb morphology in all informal conditions and plural
verb morphology in all formal conditions. Contrary to native speakers, L2 learners use singu-
lar verb morphology in formal conditions as well. The native group displayed more indicative
and conditional-subjunctive moods in formal register conditions, whereas L2 learners used

22
 Segmental and suprasegmental features

 Mean number of utterances produced by each Persian native speaker (and standard devia-
Table 2.6.1 
tions) for different lexical and morpho-syntactic markers in the two formality conditions.
The table also includes the results of a series of t-tests. The degrees of freedom for the t-tests
are 5

Measure Informal Formal ­

t-Test results

M SD M SD t p

Singular verb morphology 5.50 0.83 0.00 0.00 −16.102 0.00

Plural verb morphology 0.00 0.00 6.33 1.21 −12.810 0.00
Imperative 1.50 1.87 0.00 0.00 1.964 0.10
Indicative 1.16 1.47 2.16 1.33 1.732 0.14
Conditional indicative 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA
Conditional subjunctive 2.83 0.98 4.16 0.98 2.169 0.08
Indirect questions 1.05 1.03 3.66 1.03 5.398 0.00
Declaratives 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA
Direct questions 2.83 1.60 2.50 0.55 −0.598 0.58
Imperatives 1.66 1.75 0.16 0.41 −1.964 0.11

 Mean number of utterances produced by each Persian L2 speaker (and standard deviations)
Table 2.6.2 
for different lexical and morpho-syntactic markers in the two formality conditions. The table
also includes the results of a series of t-tests. The degrees of freedom for the t-tests are 3

Measure Informal Formal ­

t-Test results

M SD M SD t p

Singular verb morphology 5.00 0.82 0.75 1.50 −8.878 0.00

Plural verb morphology 0.00 0.00 3.50 1.00 7.000 0.00
Imperative 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.00 −1.000 0.39
Indicative 1.50 1.73 1.75 1.71 1.000 0.39
Conditional indicative 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 NA NA
Conditional subjunctive 3.25 0.96 2.50 1.29 −1.567 0.21
Indirect questions 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.96 1.566 0.21
Declaratives 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 −1.000 0.39
Direct questions 4.25 0.50 3.50 1.29 −1.192 0.32
Imperatives 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.00 −1.000 0.39

more conditional-subjunctive mood in informal conditions. Imperative mood is only used in

informal conditions by the two groups. Indirect questions are the most frequent form used by
native speakers in formal register while direct questions are used the most by L2 speakers in
this register. Imperatives are used in informal conditions more often than formal conditions in
two groups.
Tables 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 display the means and standard deviations of four pitch measures in
the study for the two groups in both hertz and semitones. Average pitch was extracted automat-
ically for all fluent syllables in utterances. Three other measures, namely reference line, top
line, and baseline, were marked manually (see Table 2.6.4). These two tables also present the
results of a series of t-tests for dependent samples. For the native speakers, all the values for
the four pitch measures were lower in the formal condition than in the informal condition. The

23
 Reza Falahati

Table 2.6.3 Mean F0 and standard deviation for four pitch measures (overall pitch, reference line, base-
line, and top line) for Persian native speakers in the two formality conditions. The table also
includes the results of a series of t-tests. The degrees of freedom for the t-tests are 5

Measure Informal Formal t-Test

­ results

M SD M SD t P

Average pitch (Hz) 242.08 52.46 234.00 55.84 −2.727 0.04

(st) 14.80 3.73 14.08 0.09 −3.431 0.01
Reference line (Hz) 240.14 47.06 233.58 54.57 −0.449 0.67
(st) 14.83 3.39 14.24 3.96 −0.804 0.45
Top Line (Hz) 295.60 52.17 282.37 52.94 −2.607 0.04
(st) 18.49 3.05 17.66 3.25 −2.613 0.04
Baseline (Hz) 207.32 54.68 186.47 53.84 −4.556 0.00
(st) 18.49 3.19 9.96 5.64 −3.984 0.01

Table 2.6.4 Mean F0 and standard deviation for four pitch measures (overall pitch, reference line, base-
line, and top line) for Persian L2 speakers in the two formality conditions. The table also
includes the results of a series of t-tests. The degrees of freedom for the t-tests are 3

Measure Informal Formal t-Test

­ results

M SD M SD t P

Average pitch (Hz) 170.47 49.61 174.73 54.51 −0.507 0.64

(st) 8.50 4.66 8.77 4.78 −0.850 0.45
Reference line (Hz) 171.59 47.98 166.90 49.93 −0.528 0.63
(st) 8.68 4.84 8.13 5.06 −0.603 0.59
Top Line (Hz) 202.67 52.56 193.24 51.65 −1.849 0.16
(st) 11.67 4.40 10.81 4.76 −1.703 0.18
Baseline (Hz) 148.45 41.00 146.53 40.63 −0.896 0.43
(st) 6.18 4.82 5.96 4.76 −0.739 0.51

results of the t-tests showed that such differences, except for reference line values, were statis-
tically significant. The Persian L2 speakers do not show a similar pattern across the four pitch
measures. While the values for reference line, top line, and baseline were slightly lower in the
formal condition than in the informal condition, the value for average pitch was a bit higher in
the formal register. The results of a series of t-tests proved that none of these differences were
statistically significant. The results of L2 speakers for pitch measures are very different from
the results displayed by native speakers. The pitch range (i.e., the distance between the lowest
and highest F0 mean values) was much bigger for native speakers in both formal and informal
conditions than for L2 speakers. Native speakers showed a bigger pitch range in formal condi-
tions than in informal conditions, while this was reversed for L2 speakers.
Tables 2.6.5 and 2.6.6 present the results of measures of voice quality in each syllable for
the two groups. These include intensity (in dB), H1–H2 in dB (i.e., the difference in amplitude
between the first and second harmonics), jitter (i.e., perturbation by F0 period), and shimmer
(i.e., perturbation by amplitude). The results of a series of t-tests for dependent samples are

24
 Segmental and suprasegmental features

Table 2.6.5 Mean and standard deviations for the prosodic measures related to voice quality and inten-
sity in the two formality conditions for Persian native speakers. The table also includes the
results of a series of t-tests. The degrees of freedom for the t-tests are 5

Measure Informal Formal t-Test

­ results

M SD M SD T p

Intensity (dB) 66.40 7.30 65.85 6.93 −2.110 0.08

H1–H2 (dB) 4.64 6.96 4.95 7.58 −1.420 0.21
Jitter 0.019 0.02 0.021 0.02 2.218 0.07
Shimmer 0.099 0.06 0.105 0.06 1.678 0.15

Table 2.6.6 Mean and standard deviations for the prosodic measures related to voice quality and intensity
in the two formality conditions for Persian L2 speakers. The table also includes the results of
a series of t-tests. The degrees of freedom for the t-tests are 3

Measure Informal Formal t-Test

­ results

M SD M SD T p

Intensity (dB) 60.66 4.12 60.26 4.03 −0.580 0.60

H1–H2 (dB) 6.16 7.75 5.16 8.85 −0.084 0.93
Jitter 0.026 0.02 0.026 0.02 −0.656 0.56
Shimmer 0.160 0.05 0.157 0.06 −1.108 0.34

also presented in these two tables. Table 2.6.5 shows a near-significant difference for both
intensity and jitter across the two conditions for native speakers. Native speakers tend to
lower their voice (loudness) in the formal register. H1–H2 voice quality measure is higher
in the formal register than in the informal register for the native speakers. While L2 speak-
ers, similar to native speakers, employ a lower voice in formal conditions, this does not
come close to a significant difference with the informal register. The other measures of
voice quality do not show significant differences across formal and informal conditions for
L2 speakers.
Tables 2.6.7 and 2.6.8 display the results of different measures related to speech rate. This
includes the average duration of words, regular syllables, (silent) pauses, and elongated syl-
lables (in seconds). The elongated syllables are the ones produced with a hesitation. The native
speakers show a similar speech rate measured by the average duration of words, fluent sylla-
bles, and elongated syllables across the two conditions. However, the mean duration of pauses
in the formal condition is much shorter than in the informal condition. This is quite unexpected
since research has shown that the rate of speech in a formal register is usually slower than
in an informal register (e.g., Ofuka et al. 2000). This peculiar feature made us dig more into
our data and calculate the proportion of the number of pauses and elongated syllables to the
total number of syllables in the two registers separately. The results show that the proportions
of pauses in formal and informal conditions were 0.785 and 0.677, while these values for
elongated syllables in formal and informal registers were 3.954 and 1.869, respectively. This
means that the native speakers make up for the duration of pauses and elongated syllables
in formal condition by increasing their number. The results for L2 speakers in Table 2.6.8

25
 Reza Falahati

Table 2.6.7 Averages and standard deviations of four speech rate dependent variables in the two formal-
ity conditions for Persian native speakers. The table also includes the results of a series of
t-tests. The degrees of freedom for the t-tests are 5

Measure Informal Formal ­

t-Test results

M SD M SD t p

Mean duration of words 0.38 0.20 0.38 0.19 −0.123 0.90

Mean duration of fluent syllables 0.18 0.09 0.18 0.08 −1.355 0.23
Mean duration of pauses 0.50 0.55 0.37 0.53 −0.771 0.47
Mean duration of elongated syllables 0.40 0.18 0.42 0.23 0.773 0.47

Table 2.6.8 Averages and standard deviations of four speech rate dependent variables in the two formal-
ity conditions for Persian L2 speakers. The table also includes the results of a series of t-tests.
The degrees of freedom for the t-tests are 3

Measure Informal Formal t-Test

­ results

M SD M SD t p

Mean duration of words 0.42 0.18 0.43 0.18 0.414 0.71

Mean duration of fluent syllables 0.22 0.12 0.21 0.12 −2.049 0.13
Mean duration of pauses 0.57 0.39 0.56 0.51 −0.434 0.69
Mean duration of elongated syllables 0.52 0.38 0.61 0.44 6.173 0.00

show similar speech rate across the two conditions, except for elongated syllables. The speech
rate for elongated syllables in formal register is slower than in informal register. This agrees
with the findings of previous studies regarding the slower speech rate in formal register (e.g.,
Winter and Grawunder 2012; Hübscher, Borràs-Comes, and Prieto 2017).

2.7 Discussion
This experiment investigated the different strategies Persian native speakers and Persian L2
speakers use in confrontation with formal and informal situations. This study provided new
insights into the complexities of the realization of politeness via prosodic measures for both
native and L2 speakers in a new language. The findings showed that in addition to morpho-
logical and syntactic devices, speakers use a combination of prosodic variables to express the
appropriate level of formality. From the diverse list of variables examined in this study, it was
only lexical and morpho-syntactic markers that were used in a similar way by native and L2
speakers to express politeness. Both groups more often used verbs with singular person end-
ings and the personal pronoun to in informal situations and plural person endings and the per-
sonal pronoun shomā in formal situations. This is consistent with our predictions regarding the
similar patterns for expressing politeness in formal register across the two groups. As for F0
measures, the results showed that three out of the four pitch parameters (i.e., overall pitch, top
line, and baseline) were significantly lower in the formal register of native speakers compared
to informal situations. This is in contrast with the predictions made by the Frequency Code
hypothesis (Ohala 1984) and some other studies that have made an association between polite-
ness and high F0 (e.g., Brown and Levinson 1987; Ofuka et al. 2000). The results of pitch
in our study mainly support the findings on Korean (Winter and Grawunder 2012), Catalan

26
 Segmental and suprasegmental features

(Hübscher, Borràs-Comes, and Prieto 2017), and German (Grawunder, Oertel, and Schwarze
2014), which have reported a lower F0 in formal situations. In contrast to native speakers
who used lower F0 to increase the formality level in their speech, L2 speakers did not make
major phonetic adjustments across the two conditions to signal different levels of formality.
This could be surprising since L2 learners in our study have acquired the distinction between
formal and informal registers at least at lexical and morpho-syntactic levels (see Tables 2.6.1
and 2.6.2). One explanation for finding different results across the two groups could be the
influence of L1. This means that Russian native speakers, in contrast to Korean, Catalan, Ger-
man, and Persian speakers, do not lower their F0 in a formal setting, and the L2 speakers in
our study transfer this feature from their L1. In fact, research shows that this should not be the
case. Brown et al. (2014) found that Russian native speakers, similar to Korean and German
speakers, used a lower F0 for formal register than for informal register speech. They found this
result quite unexpected since Russian, contrary to Korean, does not have a morphological hon-
orific system. The different results among the two groups for pitch patterns in our study could
be also due to a small sample size or the not-high proficiency level of the L2 speakers. The
accurate adjustments of prosodic cues reflecting expressive sociopragmatic meanings are quite
demanding and require a native-like competence. It is possible that such advanced pragmatic
and prosodic knowledge is acquired only during the last stages of L2 learning. The L2 learners
in our study who were at an intermediate stage require more competency in the language to
reach these fine-tuned stages in phonetics-pragmatics interplay.
The two groups also showed differences regarding the use of the lowest and the high-
est F0 values. The pitch range (i.e., top line value minus baseline value) used by the native
speakers in informal and formal conditions were 88 Hz and 96 Hz, while these values for L2
speakers were 54 Hz and 47 Hz, respectively. Native speakers used a wider range of pitch
than did L2 speakers. This difference was noticeably larger in the formal condition. Brown
and Levinson (1987) have emphasized that increasing the pitch range contributes to a higher
degree of politeness. Cross-linguistic studies of the expression of politeness have also found
that expanding pitch range in certain parts of intonation contours will trigger a higher degree
of politeness (e.g., Chen, Gussenhoven, and Rietveld 2004, for British English and Dutch;
Orozco 2008, 2010, for Mexican Spanish). However, the results of the pitch range in our study
contradict the results found for Korean and Catalan. In these two languages, the formal condi-
tion shows a lower pitch range than in the informal condition.
It is hard to explain the interaction between politeness and acoustic variables. One of the
challenges regarding such interplay is that some of the notions existing in the literature are not
still very clear. Hübscher, Borràs-Comes, and Prieto (2017) have pointed out that the number
of theories for politeness in the field is more than one and no agreement has yet been reached
regarding a stable definition for politeness. A complex social phenomenon like politeness
has a number of dimensions that make it really hard to capture within a single framework.
This challenge is not limited to politeness, and other concepts in the field such as “modality”
and “hedging” also have such complexity (see Falahati (2004) for further discussion on this
topic). A comprehensive framework of politeness should include finer nuances that could
be added as various dimensions to politeness. For example, the realization of phonetic cues
associated with politeness could be different when a student asking for a recommendation
letter from a well-established scholar is not sure whether his/her request will be accepted
versus the time that the same student is certain about his/her request being accepted by the
same professor or when s/he wants to raise the chance of his/her request being accepted
through adding different emotional moods (e.g., being eager or enthusiastic). All these situ-
ations could be described as polite or formal, but the implication hidden in each situation is

27
 Reza Falahati

different. This implicational meaning that is concealed in the text could trigger the realization
of different phonetic features.

2.8 Conclusion
This chapter started by reviewing the past research on the acquisition of L2 phonology in Per-
sian. The main goal was to display how much this area of research has grown and shed light on
the domains which need further work. It was shown that the field of Persian L2 phonological
acquisition is growing, but a great deal more still needs to be done in order to generate sufficient
literature to allow a cross-linguistic comparison on different aspects of Persian L2 phonology.
The original experiment presented in this chapter made an empirical contribution to the
field by examining the expression of politeness by L2 speakers as well as native speakers from
a language pairing that is novel. Moreover, it showed that Persian, similar to Korean and Cata-
lan, uses lower F0 in a formal register but contrary to these two languages uses a wider pitch
range in formal condition. The interaction between overall pitch and pitch range and its contri-
bution to the expression of politeness is a topic that remains to be explored in future research.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the participants in my Discourse Completion Tasks. I also appreciate the
help and support by Shohreh Sajjadi and Mahnaz Talebi for all the arrangement made for data
collection. I am also very grateful to Nima Sadat-Tehrani, Amalia Arvaniti, Etske Ooijevaar,
Bodo Winter, Iris Hübscher, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments
and feedback on different aspects of this chapter. Last but not least, my gratitude goes to Pegah
Ziyaei and Ashkan Sahba for coding the data of this study.

28
 Appendix
Discourse Completion Task (Persian version)
Formal (1). Shomā beh daftar-e ostād Alavi miravid tā yek moʻarrefi nāmeh begirid. Shomā
qasd dārid dar Āmrikā beh edāmeh tahsil bepardāzid va in nāmeh joz’-e mohemmi az
darkhāst-e bursiyeh-ye shomā ast. Cheguneh az ostādetān in darkhāst rā mikonid?
Informal (1). Shomā bā seh ham otāqi-ye Irāni dar khābgāh-e dāneshjuyi zendegi mikonid.
Sen-e tamām-e ānhā kamtar az shomāst. Yeki az ānhā ke Mohsen nām dārad farhang-e
loghat-e elekteroniki-ye shomā rā qarz gerefteh ast. Fardā āzmun-e engelisi dārid va
emshab ān rā bāyad pas begirid. Beh Mohsen cheh miguyid tā farhang-e loghat rā pas
begirid?
Formal (2). Tasavvor konid dar hāl-e qadam zadan dar rāhrow-ye dāneshkadeh-ye
khodetān hastid keh ostād-e 50 sāleh-ye khod rā mibinid. Shomā ru-ye mozuʻi kār miko-
nid va qasd dārid barāye rowshan shodan-e barkhi sowālāt sāʻat-e 2 baʻd az zohr-e fardā
dar daftar-e kārash hozur dāshteh bāshid. Ebtedā bā ishān salām va ahvālporsi konid
va sepas vazʻiyyat rā tozih dahid va bebinid āyā ishān dar sāʻat-e mored-e nazar vaqt
dārand?
Informal (2). Tasavvor konid dar rāhrow-ye dāneshgāhetān hastid keh beh surat-e ettefāqi
yeki az hamkelāsi-hā-yetān rā mibinid. Diruz ostād dar ghiyāb-e dustetān beh shomā
gofteh ast keh mikhāhad har dow-ye shomā rā molāqāt konad va dar mored-e porowz-
hehi bā shomā sohbat konad. Ostād ruz-e chahārshanbeh sāʻat-e 10 va nim rā pishnahād
midahad. Bā hamkelāsi-ye khod salām va ahvālporsi konid. mowqeʻiyyat rā barāyash
sharh dahid va az u beporsid keh āyā sāʻat-e pishnahād shodeh tavassot-e ostād monāseb
ast?
Formal (3). Beh tāzegi bā khabar shodehid keh yeki az behtarin dustānetān qarār ast
hafteh-ye āyandeh dar Shirāz ezdevāj konad. motma’ennan dust dārid keh dar jashn-e
ʻarusi-ye u sherkat konid vali az ānjāyi keh in marāsem dar shahr-e digari ast va shomā
koll-e hafteh rā kelās dārid bāyad chand ruz az kelās-hā-ye khod rā bezanid. Pas beh
molāqāt-e yeki az asātid keh bishtarin kelās rā bā ishān dārid miravid va az u mikhāhid
dar surat-e emkān hafteh-ye āyandeh sar-e kelās-hā naravid. Shomā cheguneh in mozuʻ
rā bā u matrah mikonid?
Informal (3). Beh dalil-e bimāri dar kelās-e tārikh ghāyeb budid. Beh hamin khāter
mikhāhid yāddāsht-hā-ye dust-e samimi-yetān rā qarz begirid tā az kelās ʻqab namānid.
Cheh chizi beh dustetān miguyid tā yāddāsht-hā-yash rā beh shomā qarz bedahad?
Formal (4). Shomā dar kelās-e sokhanrāni keh dar āmfi te’ātr-e bozorgi tashkil sho-
deh ast neshastehid. Az ānjā keh beh emtehānāt-e pāyān term nazdik shodehid, ostād
miguyad keh emtehān ruz-e sehshanbeh 28 om-e bahman bargozār mishavad. Ammā
shomā qablan dar portāl didehid keh dar barnāmeh-ye emtehāni, emtehān-e in dars
ruz-e chahārshanbeh 29 om-e bahman ast va hamchenin dar ānjā eʻlām shodeh bud keh
emtehān beh surat-e ketāb bāz ast va mitavān az farhang loqat-hā-ye gheyr-e elekter-
oniki estefādeh kard. Ostād chizi rājeʻ beh in joz'iyyāt nagofteh ast. Shomā mikhāhid
ruz, tārikh va chiz-hā-yi keh dāneshju mitavānad beh hamrāh dāshteh bāshad rā rowshan
konid. Cheguneh bā ostādetān goftogu mikonid keh in mozuʻāt barāye shomā rowshan
shaved?

29
 Reza Falahati

Informal (4). Shomā dar kāfishāp bā hamkelāsi-ye khubetān dar hāl-e goftogu hastid. In
term shomā va dustetān vāhed-e moshtaraki bardāshtid va qarār ast beh surat-e moshta-
rak erā’ehi dāshteh bāshid. Shomā mikhāhid qarār-e digari bogzārid tā darbāreye erā’eh
bahs konid. U baʻd az zohr-e ruz-e chahārshanbeh dahom-e ābān rā pishnahād midahad.
Ammā ān ruz gerdehamāyi-ye dāneshjuyān ast keh az qabl taʻyin shodeh bud. Shomā
mikhāhid bā u hamāhang konid keh āyā gerdehamāyi rā farāmush kardeh va yā man-
zurash chahārshanbeh budeh ast. Beh u cheh miguyid?
Formal (5). Hafteh-ye avval-e kelās-hā ast va ostād Hayāti darbāreye bārembandi-ye
nomarāt nazir-e emtehān-e miyān term, pāyān term, va erā’eh-ye Kelāsi tozih mida-
had, vali u darbāreye bārembandi-ye hozur va faʻʻāliyyat-e Kelāsi sohbati nemikonad.
Shomā mikhāhid bedānid keh hozur va faʻʻāliyyat-e Kelāsi chand dar sad az nomreh rā
beh khod ekhtesās midahad. Barāye hamin manzur beh daftar-e ostād Hayāti miravid.
Shomā cheguneh bā ostādetān sohbat mikonid tā in mas’aleh barāyetān rowshan shavad?
Informal (5). Shomā qarār ast keh ruz-e jomʻeh bā dustān-e khod barāye havākhori
va piknik be bustān-e shādi beravid. Mohsen, dust va hamkār-e samimi-ye shomā,
hamāhangi-ye hameh-ye kār-hā rā beh ʻohdeh dārad. U az tariq-e payāmak beh har kas
gofteh keh cheh chizi bāyad biyāvarad. Mobāyl-e shomā dochār-e moshkel shode va
shomā beh tor-e kāmelan tasādofi Mohsen rā dar khiyābān mibinid. Az u beporsid keh
shomā cheh chiz-hā-yi qarār ast barāye ruz-e jomʻeh biyāvarid.

Discourse completion task (English version)

Formal (1). Suppose that you go to the office of Professor Alavi to ask for a recommen-
dation letter. You are going to continue your studies in the U.S. and this letter is an
important part of your scholarship application. How do you make such a request from
your professor?
Informal (1). Suppose you live with three Iranian roommates in a dormitory. They are all
younger than you. One of them named Mohsen has borrowed your electronic dictionary.
You have an English exam tomorrow and must take your dictionary back tonight. What
do you say to Mohsen to have your dictionary back?
Formal (2). Walking along the corridor in your faculty, you meet your 50-year-old profes-
sor. You are working on a project and in order to clarify some points, you want to meet
with him in his office tomorrow afternoon at 2:00 p.m. First greet your professor and
explain the situation. Then see whether your proposed time is a good timing for him?
Informal (2). Being in the corridor of your faculty, you meet one of your classmates quite
by chance. Yesterday, in your friend’s absence, your professor said to you that he wants
to meet both of you and talk to you about a project. The professor suggested Wednesday
at 10:30. Greet your classmate and explain the situation. Ask him whether the proposed
time by the professor is a good timing for him or not.
Formal (3). Recently, you have been informed that one of your best friends is going to get
married in Shiraz next week. Surely, you would like to participate in his wedding. Since
this ceremony is held in another city and you have classes for the whole week, you have
to miss some of them. So you meet one of your professors with whom you have the
most classes and ask to be away for a few days. How do you make such a request and
explain this issue?
Informal (3). You missed your history class due to being sick. Because of this, you want to
borrow the notes of a very close friend so that you do not fall behind. How do you ask
such a request and what do you say to your friend to borrow his notes?

30
 Segmental and suprasegmental features

Formal (4). You are at a lecture being held in a big auditorium. Final exams are approaching
and the professor says that the exam will be on Tuesday, February 17. But, according to
the university calendar, the exam of this course is scheduled for Wednesday, February 18.
Besides, the website says that the exam will be open book and non-electronic dictionaries
are allowed to be used. The professor has not talked about these details. You want to be
sure about the exam date and the things that students could have with them on the exam
day. How do you speak to your professor to ask about these pieces of information?
Informal (4). You are speaking with one of your classmates at a coffee shop. This semester,
you and your friend have a course together and you are supposed to have a joint presenta-
tion. You want to make another appointment with him to discuss about your presentation.
He proposes the afternoon of Wednesday, November 1. But the student’s association is
scheduled to have their gathering on the same day. You want to ask your friend whether
he has forgotten the gathering or he really meant Wednesday. What do you say to him?
Formal (5). It is the first week of the course. Although Professor Hayati talks about the
distribution of score for midterm exam, final exam, and class presentation, he does not
refer to the weight of the scores for students’ presence and class activity. You want to
know what percentage of score is dedicated to the presence and class activity. So you
go to the office of Professor Hayati. How do you speak to your professor and ask about
this information?
Informal (5). You and your friends are going to have a picnic in Boustan Shadi on Friday.
Mohsen, your close friend and colleague, is responsible to organize everything. He has
sent messages to people regarding what they should bring for the picnic. Your cell phone
has a problem and accidentally you see Mohsen on the street. Ask him about what you
are supposed to bring on Friday.

Notes
1) Some linguists believe that syllables in Persian can also start with a vowel. This will change the
number of syllable types in Persian to six: V, CV, CVC, VC, VCC, and CVC. For further discussion
on this topic see Samareh (2002).
2) See Colantoni, Steele & Escudero (2015) for a full review of these models.
3) We would like to thank Iris Hübscher, John Borràs-Comes, and Pilar Prieto for sharing their script
with us.
4) The to and shomā distinction in Persian is similar to tu and vous in French.

References
Ābediyān Kāsegari, S. 2016. “Barresi-ye Moqābelehi-ye Nezām-e Āvāyi-ye Zabān-e Fārsi bā Zabān-e
Dānmārki va Rāhkār-hā-ye Āmuzeshi [A Contrastive Analysis of Persian and Danish Phonology and
Teaching Strategies].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Allāmeh Tabātabāi.
Āfāri, J. 1978. “Moqāyeseh-ye Āvāyi-ye Zabān-e Engelisi va Zabān-e Fārsi bā dar Nazar Gereftan-e
Mavāred-e Ekhtelāf [A Comparative Study of Persian and English Sounds with a Focus on Differ-
ences].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Tehrān, Iran.
Ahmadbeygi, S. 2011. “Barresi-ye Moqābelehi-ye Nezām-e Zamān, Nemud va vajh-e Feʻl dar Fārsi va
Itāliyāyi [A Contrastive Study of Tense, Aspect, and Mood of Verbs in Persian and Italian].” Pāyān
Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Allāmeh Tabātabāi.
Allami, H., and A. Naeimi. 2011. “A Cross-Linguistic Study of Refusals: An Analysis of Pragmatic Com-
petence Development in Iranian EFL Learners.” Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1): 385–406.
Alshāʻer, M. 2015. “Moqāyeseh-ye Horuf-e Ezāfeh dar Zabān-e Fārsi va Zabān-e Arabi [A Comparison
Between Prepositions in Persian and Arabic].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e
Allāmeh Tabātabāi.

31
 Reza Falahati

Bābāyi, E. 2014. “Barresi-ye Moqābelehi-ye Nezām-e Āvāyi-ye Zabān-e Fārsi va Zabān-e Rusi [A
Contrastive Study of the Sound Systems in Persian and Russian].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye
Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Allāmeh Tabātabāi.
Best, C.T. 1995. “A Direct Realist View of Cross-Language Speech Perception.” In Speech Percep-
tion and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research, edited by W. Strange, 171–204.
Timonium, MD: New York Press.
Best, C., and W. Strange. 1992. “Effects of Phonological and Phonetic Factors on Cross Language Per-
ception of Approximants.” Journal of Phonetics, 20: 305–331.
Billmyer, K., and M. Varghese. 2000. “Investigating Instrument-Based Pragmatic Variability: Effects of
Enhancing Discourse Completion Tests.” Applied Linguistics, 21(4): 517–552.
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, and G. Kasper. 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies.
Norwood: Ablex Publishing.
Boersma, P., and D. Weenink. 2019. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 6.0.45) [Computer
program]. www.praat.org
Brown, C. 1998. “The Role of the L1 Grammar in the L2 Acquisition of Segmental Structure.” Second
Language Research, 14(2): 136–193.
Brown, L., B. Winter, K. Idemaru, and S. Grawunder. 2014. “Phonetics and Politeness: Perceiving Korean
Honorific and Non-Honorific Speech Through Phonetic Cues.” Journal of Pragmatics, 66: 45–60.
Brown, P., and S.C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Chen, A., C. Gussenhoven, and T. Rietveld. 2002. “Language-Specific Uses of the Effort Code.” In Pro-
ceedings of the Speech Prosody ’02 (Aix-en-Provence, April 2002), 215–218.
Chen, A., C. Gussenhoven, and T. Rietveld. 2004. “Language-Specificity in the Perception of Paralin-
guistic Intonational Meaning.” Language and Speech, 47(4): 311–349.
Colantoni, Laura, Jeffrey Steele, and Paola Escudero. 2015. Second language speech, Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Corum, C. 1975. Basques, Particles, and Baby Talk: A Case for Pragmatics. In Proceedings of the First
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 90–99.
Dārābi, Kh. 2001. “Barresi-ye Moshkelāt-e Āvāyi-ye Guyeshvarān-e Kord Zabān-e Kermānshāhi dar
Yādgiri-ye Zabān-e Fārsi [An Investigation of Pronunciation Problems of Kermanshahi Kurd-
ish Speakers in Learning Persian].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Shahid
Beheshti-ye Tehrān, Iran.
Dehqāni, M. 2019. “Barresi va Tahlil-e Khatā-hā-ye Nahvi va Vāzhegāni-ye Dānesh Āmuzān-e Kord
Zabān-e Bijāri (Guyesh-e Gorusi) dar Āmuzesh-e Zabān-e Fārsi [An Investigation and Analysis of
Syntactic and Lexical Errors of Bijari Kurdish Speakers in Learning Persian].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye
Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Tarbiyyat Modarres.
Eckman, F.R. 1977. “Markedness and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis.” Language Learning, 27(2):
315–330.
Elliot, A.R. 1997. “On the Teaching and Acquisition of Pronunciation within a Communicative
Approach.” Hispanica, 80(1): 96–108.
Eslāmi, M. 2014. “Tahlil-e Khatā-hā-ye Neveshtāri-ye Rusi Zabānān-e Fārsi Āmuz dar Sath-e Miyāni
[An analysis of writing errors made by Russian speakers learning Persian at intermediate level].”
Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Ferdosi-ye Mashhad.
Falahati, R. 2004. A Contrastive Study of Hedging in English and Farsi Academic Discourse. MA Thesis,
University of Victoria, Canada.
Falahati, R. 2015. “The Production of Persian Rhotics by Native Mandarin Speakers.” In Proceedings of
the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, edited by The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS
2015. Glasgow: The University of Glasgow.
Félix-Brasdefer, C.J. 2004. “Interlanguage Refusals: Linguistic Politeness and Length of Residence in
the Target Community.” Language Learning, 54: 587–653.
Félix-Brasfeder, C.J. 2005. “Indirectness and Politeness in Mexican Requests.” Proceedings of 7th His-
panic Linguistic Symposium, Somerville, MA, 66–78.
Félix-Brasdefer, C.J. 2010. “Data Collection Methods in Speech Act Performance: DCTs, Role Plays,
and Verbal Reports.” In Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical, and Methodological Issues,
edited by A. Martínez-Flor and E. Usó-Juan, 41–56. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.
Flege, J.E. 1995. “Second Language Speech Learning Theory, Findings, and Problems.” In Speech Per-
ception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research, edited by Winifred Strange,
233–273. Timonium, MD: New York Press.

32
 Segmental and suprasegmental features

Flege, J.E., M. Munro, and I. MacKay. 1995. “Effects of Age of Second-Language Learning on the Pro-
duction of English Consonants.” Speech Communication, 16: 1–26.
Gardner, R. 1968. “Attitudes and Motivation: Their Role in Second-Language Acquisition.” TESOL
Quarterly, 2(3): 141–150.
Ghāderpur, M. 1993. Moqāyeseh-ye Nezām-e Āvāyi-ye Zabān-hā-ye Fārsi va Engelisi [A Comparison of
Persian and English Sound Systems]. Tabriz: Mehrān.
Grawunder, S., M. Oertel, and C. Schwarze. 2014. “Politeness, Culture, and Speaking Task – Paralin-
guistic Prosodic Behavior of Speakers from Austria and Germany.” Proceedings of the international
conference on Speech Prosody, Dublin, Ireland, 159–163.
Gussenhoven, C. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. The Netherlands: Katholieke Universiteit
Nijmegen.
Homāyunfard, M.S. 1975. “Barresi-ye Moshkelāt-e Zabān-e Rusi Barāye Fārsi Zabānān dar Zamineh-
ye Nezām-e Āvāyi va Dasturi [Investigating the Phonological and Syntactic Problems of the Rus-
sian Language for Persian Native Speakers].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e
Tehrān.
Hosseyni, S.A., M. Bijan Khān, and R. Moqadamkiyā. 2009. “Barresi-ye Moqābelei-ye Nezām-e
Āhang-e Fārsi va Jāponi bā negāhi Be Tekyeh va Zir va Bami-ye Hastei Dar Do Zabān [A Contras-
tive Analysis of Persian and Japanese Intonation Systems].” Nashriyye-ye Pazhuhesh-e Zabān-hā-ye
Khāreji, 54: 5–26.
Hosseyni, S.J. 2018. “Khatā-hā-ye Neveshtāri-ye Fārsi Āmuzān-e Chini Zabān-e Sath – e Miyāni:
Tahlili Bar Pāyeh-ye Dastur-e Maquleh va Mizān dar Sath-e Goruh-e Feʻli [The Writing Errors of
Chinese Speakers Learning Persian at Intermediate Level: An Analysis Based on Scale and Cat-
egory Grammar].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Beyn Olmelali-ye Emām
Khomeyni.
Hübscher, I., J. Borràs-Comes, and P. Prieto. 2017. “Prosodic Mitigation Characterizes Catalan Formal
Speech: The Frequency Code Reassessed.” Journal of Phonetics, 65: 145–159.
Hung, H.S. 2011. “Barresi-ye Khatā-hā-ye Nahvi-ye Viyetnāmi Zabānān dar Yādgiri-ye Zabān-e Fārsi
[An Investigation of Syntactic Errors Made by Vietnamese Students Learning Persian].” Pāyān
Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Allāmeh Tabātabā’i.
Kalāntari, R. 2010. “Horuf-e Ezāfeh: Barresi-ye Khatā-hā va Shiveh-ye Āmuzesh [Prepositions: The
Study of Errors and Teaching Methodology].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e
Allāmeh Tabātabāi.
Khalili, H. 1995. “Moqāyeseh-ye Talaffoz-e Engelisi va Fārsi va Moshkelāt-e Fārsi Zabānān dar
Talaffoz-e Zabān-e Engelisi [A Comparison Between English and Persian Pronunciation and the
Problems of Persian Speakers in English Pronunciation].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad,
Dāneshgāh-e Tehrān.
Kuhi, A. 2000. “Moqāyeseh-ye Nezām-hā-ye Āvāyi-ye Fārsi va Farānseh [A Comparative Study of
French and Persian Sound Systems].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Esfahān.
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teacher. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Mahootian, S. 1997. Persian, Descriptive Grammars. London and New York: Routledge.
Majd, N. 2002. “Barresi-ye Moqābelehi-ye Dastgāh-e Vākehi-ye Engelisi va Fārsi [A Contrastive Analy-
sis of English and Persian Vowels].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Tehrān.
Maryami, M.E. 1997. “Barresi-ye Moqābelehi-ye Nezām-e Āvāyi-ye Zabān-hā – ye Torki-ye Āzarbāyjāni
va Fārsi [A Contrastive Study of Azerbaijani Turkish and Persian Sound Systems].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye
Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Tarbiyyat Modarres.
Mehdi Zādeh, N.O. 2008. “Tahlil-e Khtā-hā-ye Goftāri-ye Zabān Āmuzān-e Kord Zabān-e Ilāmi-ye
Shahrestān-e Shirvān-e Chardāvol dar Yādgiri va Kārbord-e Zabān-e Fārsi [An Analysis of Pronun-
ciation Errors of Ilami Kurdish Speakers Learning Persian].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad,
Dāneshgāh-e ʻAllāmeh Tabātabā’i.
Mirdehqān, Mahinnāz. 2009. Āmuzesh-e Zabān-e Fārsi beh Ordu Zabānān va Zabān-e Ordu beh Fārsi
Zabānān [Teaching Persian to Urdu speakers and Urdu to Persian speakers]. Tehrān: Enteshārāt-e
Beyn Olmelali-ye Alhodā.
Mohseni Shabestari, R. 1977. “Contrastive Analysis-e Zabān-hā-ye Fārsi va Farānse [A Contrastive
Analysis of Persian and French].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Tehrān.
Moqaddam Kiyā, R. 2006. “Moqāyeseh-ye Janbeh-hā-yi Az Sākht-e Soti-ye Zabān-e Fārsi va Zhāponi
[A Comparative Study of Aspects of Sounds Systems in Persian and Japanese].” Pazhuhesh-e Zabān-
hā-ye Khāreji, 25: 133–155.

33
 Reza Falahati

Morādkhāni, M. 2008. “Barresi-ye Khatā-hā-ye Āvāyi-ye Fārsi Āmuzān-e Tork Zabān Hengām-e Sokhan
Goftan beh Zabān-e Fārsi Az Didgāh-e Āvāshenāsi-ye Ākowstik [An Investigation of Pronuncia-
tion Errors Made by Turkish Speakers Learning Persian].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad,
Dāneshgāh-eʻAllāmeh Tabātabā’i.
Moyer, A. 2009. “Input as a Critical Means to An End: Quantity and Quality of Experience in L2 Phono-
logical Attainment.” In Input Matters in SLA, edited by Thorsten Piske and Martha Young-Scholten,
159–174. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Nadeu, M., and P. Prieto. 2011. “Pitch Range, Gestural Information, and Perceived Politeness in Cata-
lan.” Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3): 841–854.
Najafi Eskandari, E. 2016. “Tahlil-e Khtā-hā-ye Āvāyi-ye Fārsi Āmuzān-e Ordu Zabān-e Pākestāni jā
me’ye Almostafā [Analysis of Pronunciation Errors of Urdu-Speaking Learners of Persian at Al-
Mustafa International University].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e ʻAllāmeh
Tabātabā’i.
Ofuka, E., D.J. McKeown, M.G. Waterman, and P. Roach. 2000. “Prosodic Cues for Rated Politeness in
Japanese Speech.” Speech Communication, 32: 199–217.
Ohala, J.J. 1984. “An Ethological Perspective on Common Cross-Language Utilization of F0 of Voice.”
Phonetica, 41: 1–16.
Oller, J.W., and S.M. Ziahosseiny. 1970. “The Contrastive Analysis Hypotheses and Spelling Errors.”
Language Learners, 20: 183–189.
Orozco, L. 2008. “Peticiones corteses y factores prosódicos.” In Fonología instrumental. Patrones
fónicos y variación, edited by Z.E.Z.E. Herrera and P.M. Butragueño, 335–355. México, DF: El Cole-
gio de México.
Orozco, L. 2010. Estudio sociolingüístico de la cortesía en tratamientos y peticiones. Datos de Guada-
lajara. México, DF: El Colegio de México.
Osati, S. 2015. “Moqāyeseh-ye Nezām-e Āvāyi-ye Zabān-e Fārsi va Zabān-hā-ye Itāliyāyi/ Farānseh/
Espāniyāyi va Rāhkār-hā-ye Āmuzeshi [The Comparison of Persian Sound System with Italian/
French/Spanish Sound System and Pedagogical Strategies].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad,
Dāneshgāh-e ʻAllāmeh Tabātabā’i.
Pike, K.L. 1945. The Intonation of American English. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Piske, T., I.R.A. MacKay, and J.E. Flege. 2001. “Factors Affecting Degree of Foreign Accent in an L2:
A Review.” Journal of Phonetics, 29: 191–215.
Prator, C. 1967. “Hierarchy of Difficulty.” Unpublished Classroom Lecture, University of California,
Los Angeles.
Qarehbāqi, N. 2005. “Barresi-ye Moqābelehi-ye Āvā-hā-ye Zabān-e Fārsi va Torkamani va Ta'sir-e Ān
dar Mahārat-e Shenidan [A Contrastive Study of Persian and Turkmen Sounds and Its Influence on
Listening Comprehension].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Shahid Beheshti-
ye Tehrān.
R Core Team. 2016. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foun-
dation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org/.
Rafat, Y. 2010. “A Sociophonetic Investigation of Rhotic in Persian.” Iranian Studies, 43: 667–682.
Rafat, Y., and R. Stevenson. 2018. “Auditory-Orthographic Integration at the Onset of L2 Speech Acqui-
sition.” Language and Speech. doi:10.1177/0023830918777537.
Rajabi Zargāhi, M. 2001. “Moshkelāt-e Yādgiri-ye Nezām-e Vāji-ye Zabān-e Ālmāni Barāye Fārsi
Zabānān [The Problems of Learning German Phonology for Persian Speakers].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye
Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Tehrān.
Sadeghi, V., and N. Mansoory Hararehdasht. 2016. “Persian Sentence Stress Production by Mandarin
Chinese Speakers.” Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 5(1): 95–119.
Sālehi, A. 2000. “Tahlil-e Moqābelehi-ye Nezām-hā-ye Āvāyi-ye Fārsi va Itāliyāyi [A Contrastive Analy-
sis of the Persian and Italian Sound Systems].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e
Ferdosi-ye Mashhad.
Sām, N. 2011. “Moshkelāt va Rāhkār-hā-ye Āmuzesh-e Talaffoz-e Zabān-e Fārsi beh Gheyr – e Fārsi
Zabānān-e Khāreji [Teaching Persian Pronunciation to Foreign Non-Native Speakers: Challenges
and Approaches].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e ʻallāmeh Tabātabā’i.
Samareh, Y. 2002. Āvā Shenāsi-ye Zabān-e Fārsi [Persian Phonology]. Tehrān: Markaz-e Nashr-e
Dāneshgāhi.
Shokri, A. 2017. “Tahlil-e Khatā-hā-ye Neveshtāri-ye Fārsi Āmuzān-e sath-e Miyāni-ye Tork Zabān-e
Jāmeʻeh Almostafā [An Analysis of the Writing Errors Made by Turkish Speakers Learning Persian
at Intermediate Level].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e ʻallāmeh Tabātabā’i.

34
 Segmental and suprasegmental features

Strange, W. 1995. “Phonetics of Second-Language Acquisition: Past, Present, Future.” In Proceedings

of the 1995 International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, edited by K. Elenius and P. Branderud.
Stockholm: Arne Stomberg.
Tāherzādeh, M. 2017. “Barresi-ye Khatā-hā-ye Neveshtāri-ye Fārsi Āmuzān-e Arab Zabān-e Yamani
Dar Sath-e Miyāni [An Analysis of the Writing Errors Made by Yemini Arabic Speakers Learning
Persian at Intermediate Level].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Ferdosi-ye
Mashhad.
Taguchi, Naoko. 2011. “Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues”. Annual Review of Applied Linguis-
tics, 31, 289–310.
Tyler, M.D., C.T. Best, A. Faber, and A. Levitt. 2014. “Perceptual Assimilation and Discrimination of
Non-Native Vowel Contrasts.” Phonetica, 71(1): 4–21.
Vakilifard, A. 2003. “Vākāvi-ye Khatā-hā-ye Āvāyi-ye Fārsi Zabānān dar Farāgiri-ye Zabān-e Farānse
[Exploring the Pronunciation Errors Made by Persian Speakers Learning French].” Pazhuhesh-hā-ye
zabān-hā-ye Khāreji, (13): 177–186.
Vāseq, E. 2009. “Barresi-ye Khatā-hā-ye Āvāyi-ye Arabzabānān-e Arāqi Dar Kārbord va Yādgiri-ye
Zabān-e Fārsi [Investigating the Pronunciation Errors Made by Iraqi Arabic Speakers Learning Per-
sian].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi Arshad, Dāneshgāh Allāmeh Tabātabāyi.
Wannaruk, A. 2008. “Pragmatic Transfer in Thai EFL Refusals.” RELC Journal, 39(3): 318–337.
Wardhaugh, R. 1970. “The Contrastive Analysis Hypothses.” TESOL Quarterly, 4(2): 123–130.
Winter, B., and S. Grawunder. 2012. “The Phonetic Profile of Korean Formal and Informal Speech Reg-
isters.” Journal of Phonetics, 40: 808–815.
Yarmohammadi, L. 1969. “English Consonants and Learning Problems for Iranians: A Contrastive
Sketch.” TESOL Quarterly, 3(3): 231–236.
Zandi, B. 2016. “Tahlil-e Khatā-ye Neveshtāri-ye Fārsi Āmuzān-e Chini Zabān [Analyzing the Writ-
ing Errors Made by Chinese Native Speakers Learning Persian].” Pāyān Nāmeh-ye Kārshenāsi-ye
Arshad, Dāneshgāh-e Alzahrā.

35
 3
HERITAGE VERSUS SECOND
LANGUAGE PHONOLOGY YASAMAN RAFATHERITAGE VERSUS SECOND LANGUAGE PHONOLOGY

Yasaman Rafat

3.1 Introduction
This chapter will focus on discussing some of the different ways in which Persian heritage
phonetics and phonology have been analyzed, and will draw parallels with some of the pre-
viously reported patterns in second language (L2) speech learning. Although there is a rich
body of literature on L2 speech learning (e.g., Best and Tyler 2007; Brown 1998; Colantoni
and Steele 2007; Flege 1995), less is known about heritage speech. The need to expand on
the scarce research on heritage speech also applies to Persian heritage and L2 speech. Chap-
ter 4 in this volume is an overview of the research previously conducted on Persian heritage
linguistics, with a focus on the domains of phonology, morphology and syntax. It compares
the linguistic competences of Persian heritage versus the second language learners of Persian.
The rest of this chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 offers various definitions of herit-
age speakers and calls for a need for a definition that depicts heritage speech as a more transient
phenomenon. Section 3 provides a more holistic approach to viewing both L2 speech learning
and heritage speech as a multimodal event, highlights the role of orthography in L2 speech
learning, and points out some of the differences in the different modalities with respect to Per-
sian and English. Heritage speech is analyzed from a more diachronic and sociophonetic lens
in Section 4, where Persian heritage speech is considered in the context of language change
across generations. This section also draws parallels between heritage and L2 speech. Section 5
discusses heritage speech from a developmental point of view and discusses Persian-English-
speaking children. Section 6 concludes the chapter and provides future research directions.
This chapter reviews evidence on characteristics of heritage speech and L2 speech in order to
contextualize the existing studies on two infrequently studied topics: Persian heritage speech
and L2 speech. For further research on the Persian heritage learners versus second language
learners of Persian, read Chapter 4 in this volume, where there is an elaborate comparison made
between these two groups of learners in the domains of phonology, morphology and syntax.

3.2 Heritage speakers

There is currently no consensus on what constitutes a heritage speaker. The definition of herit-
age speaker and heritage language (HL) started to be developed during the ’70s in Canada, but

36
 Heritage versus second language phonology

it gained the attention it deserves only twenty years later. Regardless of the definition chosen,
it is important to remember that typically heritage speakers have a first and a second language
(order of acquisition), a primary and a secondary language (functional dimension), a majority
and a minority language (sociopolitical dimension; Montrul 2012).
Draper and Hicks (2000) state that a heritage speaker is someone who has been exposed to
a non-English language outside the formal educational schooling setting. They also included
speakers who grow up speaking a different language at home and speakers with a strong in-
depth exposure to another language. This definition is a very broad description of heritage
speakers.
While Campbell and Peyton’s (1998) definition of a heritage speaker as an individual who
speaks a first non-English language at home or who is born in a different country is widely
accepted, they seem to have overlooked an important connection made later by Valdés (2001).
That is the individual’s personal connection with the language. Valdés (2001) suggested that
heritage speakers are individuals who have a historical and/or personal connection to a lan-
guage that is not normally taught at school, e.g., indigenous or minority. She added that herit-
age speakers are individuals who grow up speaking a non-English language at home, with all
levels of proficiency in the heritage language and all levels of bilingualism. Valdés’ (2001)
main goal however is strictly pedagogical.
Recently, Montrul (2012) proposed that heritage speakers are early bilinguals, because of
the exposure they have had to both the heritage and the majority language. As bilinguals, herit-
age speakers can be simultaneous when they grow up speaking both languages, or sequential
when they learn the second language after the age of five or six. She suggested that regardless
of when a heritage speaker starts learning both languages, by the time they enter adulthood,
the heritage language is weaker.
Recently a new debate has ensued about whether heritage speakers should be considered
native speakers (Rothman 2006, 2009; Rothman and Treffers-Daller 2014; Kupisch and Roth-
man 2018). Rothman’s definition for heritage speakers starts where Montrul’s ended: heritage
speakers are bilinguals, but not all bilinguals are heritage speakers. According to his studies,
heritage speakers are on the continuum between monolingual and bilinguals, as they have
been naturally exposed to a multilingual environment since childhood, if not even birth, and
have competence in both languages. Rothman (2009) suggested the idea that the essential
condition for heritage speakers is the naturalistic environment in which they need to learn the
language. Rothman (2006) has suggested that heritage speakers can present different levels of
proficiency, depending on personal and social factors. More recently, Kupisch and Rothman
(2018) divided heritage speakers into two categories: early bilinguals, who have been exposed
to the language in a naturalistic environment outside of the school setting and have strong
personal connection to the language such as family, culture and intrinsic motivation, and those
who learned the language as adults and therefore lack the naturalistic environment. In their
opinion, the former and the latter can also be considered native speakers of the home language
(Rothman and Treffers-Daller 2014; Kupisch and Rothman 2018), regardless of the level of
proficiency or the hypothesized incomplete acquisition that Valdés (2000) and Benmamoun
(2013) have proposed.
Although there is not a single definition on what constitutes a heritage speaker, these defi-
nitions show that heritage speakers are at some point in their lives exposed to two different
languages although their degree of proficiency of each language, the order of acquisition of
the two languages, and their affinity with the two cultures might vary. However, these defini-
tions present a static rather than a more dynamic picture of what a heritage speaker might be.
For example, all parents of heritage speakers know that their children’s proficiency in both

37
 Yasaman Rafat

their heritage (e.g., Persian) and the majority language (e.g., English) may vary at a given
time. This is highly dependent on the amount and kind of exposure that heritage speakers may
have to both languages. To present an extreme situation, child heritage speakers, who barely
speak their heritage language, if and when they go back to their country of origin for a summer
visit, may become fluent in their heritage language and forget their other language. However,
they might start becoming more dominant in English after a couple of weeks of exposure to it
again in school. Moreover, Choi, Boersma, and Cutler (2017) found that adoptees, who have
been exposed to a home language in infancy for a very short period of time (e.g., 3–5 months),
exhibit an advantage in the ability to relearn the language as adults in comparison with con-
trols. The authors concluded that early exposure to spoken language, even in the first half-year
of life, may leave traces that can facilitate later relearning. Although adoptees are not typically
considered heritage speakers, a more dynamic definition of a heritage speaker and a model
of heritage speech, which contextualizes heritage speakers and heritage speech learning and
change across the lifespan, are called for.
In the past decade, the body of evidence has been growing on heritage speakers, although
more has been done on morpho-syntax (e.g., Montrul 2005, 2006, 2007a, 2007b) and less on
phonetics or phonology (e.g., Au et al. 2002; Rafat, Mohaghegh, and Stevenson 2017). How-
ever, as Kupisch and Rothman (2018) wisely pointed out, definitions do matter and there is
an urge to continue examining heritage languages, the same way scholars have focused on L2
learners. This chapter considers heritage speakers to be speakers who, very early on in life or
as children, have had some exposure to a home language that is different from the dominant
language in the societ(ies) that they grew up in, and have some passive or active knowledge of
their home language. Similarly to L2 learners, heritage speakers may differ in their proficiency
level and exhibit individual differences. Furthermore, their proficiencies in their heritage and
dominant languages may differ across their lifespan. The degree of their proficiency in their
heritage language may be driven by both linguistic and extra-linguistic factors. The latter
includes the amount of input, the degree to which they may identify with their heritage culture
at any given time in their life, and other social factors such as age, gender, education, socio-
economic background and the density of their network.

3.3 L2 and heritage speech learning as a multimodal event: the role of

orthography
Currently, there are a number of models of the acquisition of L2 phonetic and phonological
acquisition (e.g., Best and Tyler 2007; Brown 1998; Colantoni and Steele 2007; Flege 1995).
However, no specific models explain heritage speech learning. Instead, the Speech Learning
Model (SLM; Flege 1995) has been applied to heritage speech learning. Flege’s SLM is a
perception-based model that predicts that the degree of acoustic difference between the L1 and
L2 sounds will determine whether the L2 sound will be mapped on to the L1 sound. In other
words, the more dissimilar the sound or the larger the acoustic-phonetic distance between the
L1 and the L2, the higher the possibility that this sound will be acquired. On the other hand, the
smaller the acoustic-phonetic distance between the L1 and the L2 sounds, the more likely that
equivalence classification will take place and the L2 will not be perceived as distinct. For fur-
ther discussions on the Speech Learning Model, read Chapter 2 in this volume, which employs
the theoretical framework of the SLM to test the Persian L2 data against different approaches.
Another well-known model is Best and Tyler’s (2007) PAM-L2, a revised version of Best’s
(1995) Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM). PAM-L2 is based on the premise that sounds
are perceived in terms of articulatory gestures (e.g., Browman and Goldstein 1989, 1990,

38
 Heritage versus second language phonology

1992, 1995). Moreover, the patterns of assimilation to L1 categories determine the accuracy of
the discrimination of target language (TL) contrasts and subsequent category formation. Very
good to excellent discrimination is predicted for Two Category assimilation, in which two TL
phones are perceived as acceptable exemplars of two different L1 phones; poor discrimination
is predicted when two TL sounds are perceived as equally good or poor exemplars of the same
L1 phoneme; and Single Category assimilation and intermediate discrimination is predicted
when two TL sounds differ in the extent to which they are good exemplars in relation to a
single L1 phoneme. Of all the formal models of (perceptual) speech learning, this model is the
only one that briefly mentions the effect of orthography on the categorization of TL sounds.
Whereas both the SLM and the other models of L2 speech learning have been mostly
perception-based, Colantoni and Steele (2007) consider both perception and production. They
argue that because previous L2 speech learning models do not consider the degree of difficulty
involved in the simultaneous mastery of multiple phonetic parameters across prosodic posi-
tions, they do not account for the full range of variability nor for the developmental sequences
attested.
Despite our understanding that many aspects of speech processing are multimodal, includ-
ing speech perception (e.g., Sumby and Pollack 1954; McGurk and MacDonald 1976; Mas-
saro 1987; Soto-Faraco, Navarra, and Alsius 2004), speech learning (Vigliocco, Perniss, and
Vinson 2014), and second language (L2) speech learning (Hardison 1999; Ortega-Llebaria,
Faulkner, and Hazan 2001; Erdener and Burnham 2005, 2013), the earlier-mentioned models
of L2 speech learning are for the most part based on auditory-input only. One of the most
salient examples of the multimodal nature of speech is the McGurk effect (e.g., McGurk and
MacDonald 1976; Welch and Warren 1980; Sekiyama and Tohkura 1991; Munhall et al. 1996;
Sekiyama 1997). The McGurk effect is elicited by the synchronous or simultaneous presenta-
tion of incongruent auditory (e.g., /ba/) and facial/visual cues (e.g., /ga/). The listener often
integrates the auditory and visual information leading to either (a) a combination percept,
such as /bga/ (McGurk and MacDonald 1976; Green and Norrix 1997) suggesting a strong
influence of vision; or (b) a fused percept, such as /da/, where the syllable perceived is not
contained in either the auditory or the visual information (e.g., Green and Kuhl 1989; Green
et al. 1991; MacDonald and McGurk 1978; Manuel et al. 1983; Massaro 1987; Sekiyama and
Tohkura 1991; Summerfield and McGrath 1984; Stevenson et al. 2014). Both combination
and fused perceptions are different from the individual original sounds presented separately in
each modality, not only in that they are different phonemes, but that they result from an inter-
action between sensory modalities.
There is also an abundance of research that has provided evidence for the orthographic
(writing) channel interacting with auditory input in L1 speech processing (Dijkstra, Roelofs,
and Fieuws 1995; Jakimik, Cole, and Rudnicky 1985; Montant et al. 2011; Seidenberg and
McClelland 1989; Seidenberg and Tanenhaus 1979; Van Orden and Goldinger 1994; Ranbom
and Connine 2011; Taft 2006; Treiman and Cassar 1997; Ziegler and Ferrand 1998; Ziegler
and Muneaux 2007, among others). For instance, Seidenberg and Tanenhaus (1979) claimed
that orthographic knowledge can affect spoken word processing. They conducted a rhyme
judgment task and found that participants’ responses were faster in a rhyme when the pairs
of words shared spellings (e.g., <toast> – <roast> vs. <toast> – <ghost>). Similarly, Jaki-
mik and colleagues (1985) conducted priming tasks and found that the participants responded
faster to the auditory target with the prior presentation of a phonologically similar prime that
overlapped with the spelling of the target (e.g., message – mess) than to a prime with non-
overlapping spellings (e.g., <definite> – <deaf>). Orthography has also been shown to affect
underlying representations (Ranbom and Connine 2007, 2011). Ranbom and Connine (2007),

39
 Yasaman Rafat

for example, provided some evidence that orthographic information affects mental representa-
tions of speech, specifically, the representation of lexically stored allophonic representations.
They conducted a corpus analysis and found that the nasal flap realization in the /nt/ clus-
ter of the word gentle is dominant in spoken American English, even though the production
frequency of the nasal flap may vary within individual words. They then conducted a lexi-
cal decision task and showed that the highly frequent nasal flap was identified more quickly
and accurately than the less frequent flap, but, crucially, [nt] productions resulted in faster
and more accurate lexical decisions compared with the nasal flaps. The results of the lexical
decision task demonstrated that orthographic information influences spoken word processing.
There is also some evidence to suggest that orthography may exert an influence on spoken
word production (Bentur 1978; Ravid and Shlesinger 2001; Temkin Martinez and Müllner
2015; Han and Choi 2016). For example, Han and Choi (2016) investigated the role of orthog-
raphy in production and storage of spoken words by Korean speakers. The participants learned
novel Korean words with different variants of /h/ including [ɦ] and [ø]. They were provided
with the same auditory stimuli but different exposures to orthography. There were two ortho-
graphic groups and an auditory-only group. One orthographic group was presented the letter
for [ɦ] (<ᄒ>) and the other with the letter for [ø] (<ᄋ>). The auditory group was presented
with auditory input only. In picture-naming tasks, the participants presented with <ᄋ> pro-
duced fewer words with [ɦ] than those presented with <ᄒ>. In a spelling recall task, the par-
ticipants who were not exposed to spelling displayed various types of spellings for variants,
but after exposure to spelling, they began to produce spellings as provided in the task. These
results were attributed to orthographic input influencing production because of its potential to
restructure phonological representations. For further research on priming tasks and processing
in Persian, read Chapter 6, which delves into the processing of idiomatic expressions in L1 and
L2 Persian speakers and discusses the role of morphology and orthography on the processing
of such expressions.
The body of literature has also been expanding with respect to how orthography may inter-
act with acoustic-phonetic input in L2 speech learning. Notably most research has focused on
the Roman alphabet. When the learner’s L1 and L2 share the same alphabet, learners are faced
with two main challenges. First, they have to learn that the L1 and the L2 mappings might be
different. The correspondence of one grapheme to different L1 and the L2 sounds often leads to
L1-based transfer (Rafat 2011, 2015, 2016). Second, learners may need to learn one-to-many
mappings (e.g., <x> in Spanish may map on to [ks] in the word <taxi> but to [x] in <México>
and to [gz] in <examen>) or many-to-one mappings in the L2 (e.g., <x>, <gi>, <ge> and <j>
correspond to [x] or its other variants in Spanish). The orthographic depth hypothesis (ODH;
Katz and Frost 1992) postulates that speakers of languages with shallow/regular/transparent
orthographies tend to be more affected by orthographic input than speakers of languages with
deep/irregular/opaque orthographies. However, we still do not know the extent to which L1
orthographic depth may modulate orthographic effects in L2 learners whose L1 orthographic
system is alphabetic (e.g., Erdener and Burnham 2005; Rafat 2015; Escudero 2015).
English and Spanish both have a Roman alphabetic system. Whereas the English ortho-
graphic system is characterized by one-to-many grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences
and is therefore considered an irregular/deep orthography, the Spanish orthographic system
is mainly characterized by one-to-one mappings. However, L2 speech learning by English-
speaking learners of Spanish exhibits orthographic effects due to the differences between Eng-
lish and Spanish grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences (e.g., Rafat 2011, 2015, 2016).
Orthographic effects have also been shown in several L2 perception and production studies.
These studies have demonstrated that orthographic input may interact with auditory input and

40
 Heritage versus second language phonology

may promote (e.g., Erdener and Burnham 2005; Steele 2005; Showalter and Hayes-Harb 2013;
Bassetti, Escudero, and Hayes-Harb 2015; Rafat 2015), or hinder (e.g., Bassetti 2007; Erdener
and Burnham 2005; Hayes-Harb, Nicol, and Baker 2010; Young-Scholten 2000; Young-
Scholten, Akita, and Cross 1999; Bassetti, Escudero, and Hayes-Harb 2015; Nimz 2016; Rafat
2011, 2015, 2016; Bassetti 2017; Shea 2017) the target-like production or correct perception
of the target L2 sounds, or have no effect (Escudero 2015; Showalter and Hayes-Harb 2013).
Young-Scholten, Akita and Cross (1999) conducted one of the first studies on the effect of
orthography on L2 speech production. They examined the effect of exposure to orthographic
input on the production of Polish clusters by adult English-speaking L2 learners. They found
that exposure to orthography results in less omission and more epenthesis as in older learners.
Hayes-Harb, Nicol, and Baker (2010) examined the interfering effect of orthographic input
in novel word learning by English-speaking participants when the grapheme-to-phonemes
in the target language do not match. Participants were assigned to three different conditions
at training: auditory-only, congruent, and congruent/incongruent orthography. The incongru-
ent stimuli consisted of items spelled with a “wrong” letter (e.g., < faza> – [faʃə]) and items
with an extra letter (e.g., < kamand> – [kaməd]). During testing, participants were shown an
image and heard a word, and then asked whether the auditory word was the correct word for
the image. The results yielded a significant effect of training condition on performance on
the wrong-letter items, in which participants had a lower rate of accuracy in the incongruent/
congruent orthography condition.
Mathieu (2016) also examined the effect of orthography at the onset of the acquisition of an
L2. He reported the effects of three L2 scripts on the early acquisition of an Arabic consonantal
contrast word-initially (e.g., /ħal/ – /χal/), showing that foreign written input can inhibit learn-
ers’ ability to encode an L2 phonological contrast. He tested monolingual native speakers of
English with no prior knowledge of Arabic. Participants took part in a word-learning experi-
ment and were assigned to one of four learning conditions: no orthography, Arabic script,
Cyrillic script or Roman/Cyrillic blended script. The results showed that the degree of script
unfamiliarity does not in itself seem to significantly affect the successful acquisition of the
phonological contrast tested. However, the presence of certain foreign scripts in the phono-
logical acquisition yielded significantly different learning outcomes in comparison to having
no orthographic representation available. Specifically, the Arabic script exerted an inhibitory
effect on L2 phonological acquisition, while the Cyrillic and Roman/Cyrillic blended scripts
exercised different inhibitory effects based on whether grapheme-phoneme correspondences
triggered L1-based phonological transfer. Mathieu (2016) proposed that L2 speech learn-
ing may be multimodal and subject to instantaneous and automatic processing similar to the
McGurk effect. Specifically, the processing of the visual input at the early stages of acquisition
may prompt the auditory system to strengthen activation of the L1 phonological categories, in
turn hindering the accurate perception of the novel L2 sounds.
The effect of orthographic input has also been shown in more advanced learners. Bassetti
(2007) investigated the effect of orthographic inconsistency within the L2 on the production
of triphthongs by Italian-speaking learners of Mandarin studying at a university in Italy. Par-
ticipants used the alphabetic pinyin writing system and on average had studied Mandarin for
33 months. Although the participants had not been exposed to pinyin orthography during the
character-reading task, the results yielded a 100% target-like realization of the vowel /o/ in the
triphthong /iou/ when it was written with three graphemes as in <you>. However, erroneous
productions were attested when the triphthongs were spelled with only two graphemes in pinyin
(e.g., <iu> for /iou/). The author explained the results by proposing that pinyin generally is a
transparent orthographic system, and the learners had overgeneralized this aspect of pinyin.

41
 Yasaman Rafat

There is considerable evidence that when the L1 and L2 grapheme-to-phoneme relation-

ships are incongruent, exposure to orthographic input may result in L1-based phonetic or
phonological transfer (e.g., Young-Scholten 2002; Rafat 2011, 2015, 2016; Bassetti 2017).
An example can be observed in the production of digraphs (two graphemes such as <tt> in
<kitty>) by highly proficient Italian-speaking learners of English. These learners produce
digraphs as long/geminate consonants with a significant difference between their CC vs. C
productions in English (Bassetti 2017). The authors attributed this to transfer of L1 phonologi-
cal rules, in this case gemination.
Although several studies have provided evidence of transfer effects, this effect is not cat-
egorical and may be modulated by various factors. For example, transfer in English-speaking
learners’ devoicing of syllable-final consonants is argued to be modulated by the amount of
exposure to orthographic input in German (Young-Scholten 2000). In German, obstruents are
devoiced in syllable-final position, although this is not cued in the orthography. For example,
the word /bʊnd/ “federation” is written as <bund> but is realized as [bʊnt] creating a homo-
phone with [bʊnt] “coloured,” which is written as <bunt>. When students learn German as an
L2, greater exposure to written text is related to a reduction in the acquisition of this obstruent
final devoicing rule (Young-Scholten 2000). Evidence has also been found for orthography-
induced transfer in the word initial /z/ production of the same group of learners, where they
produced <s>, which corresponds to /z/ in German as [s] (e.g., [siː] for <sie> “she” /ziː/)
(Young-Scholten and Langer 2015). An acoustic analysis of the results also revealed evidence
for some partially voiced versions of /z/, which the authors suggested is a reflection of the vari-
ability in the auditory input that the learners had been exposed to.
Other factors such as type of grapheme-to-sound correspondence, position in the word, and
condition of training and testing have been reported to control the rate of orthography-induced
transfer in naïve English-speaking learners of Spanish (e.g., Rafat 2011, 2016). Exposure to
orthographic input at the time of learning yielded a significantly higher rate of transfer com-
pared to when orthographic input was presented at production or testing only. Additionally, dif-
ferent grapheme-to-sound correspondences resulted in significantly different rates of transfer.
For example, whereas <ll>-[j] resulted in the lowest rate of transfer (0.01%), <v>-[b] and <d>-
[δ] resulted in the highest rates of transfer (99% and 92%, respectively) in the orthography at
training condition. The results suggested that the relative degree of acoustic-phonetic salience
between an L2 and an L1 sound determines the rate of L1-based transfer (Rafat 2011, 2016).
Rafat (2011) also reported that combination productions for <ll>-[j] had been attested in the
data, and attributed this to a process akin to the McGurk effect, although a quantitative analysis
of this type of error was not conducted.
A different type of acoustic-orthographic integration related to the effect of orthography
has been found during the production of Spanish assibilated rhotics ([r] with a sibilant qual-
ity/hissing sound), when naïve English-speaking learners are exposed to both auditory and
orthographic input at training (Rafat 2015). Participants were assigned to two groups based on
input: auditory only and auditory-orthographic. At training, participants in both groups heard
auditory stimuli produced by a Mexican speaker of Spanish, whose rhotics were assibilated
(e.g., <ahitar> [aitař]. While the auditory-only group participants were exposed only to audi-
tory words accompanied by their images at training, participants in the auditory-orthographic
group were exposed to both auditory and orthographic stimuli. Auditory stimuli and their
corresponding images were accompanied by written words, which included the grapheme <r>
(e.g., <ahitar>) in the auditory-orthographic group. At testing, participants in both groups were
shown images of the words and asked to name them. Whereas assibilated rhotics were for
the most part produced as sibilants such as [s] and [ʃ] (e.g., [aitas] and [aitaʃ]) when learners

42
 Heritage versus second language phonology

were only exposed to auditory L2 speech, exposure to the grapheme <r> in the auditory-
orthographic group promoted both the production of assibilated rhotics [aitař] and approxim-
ant rhotics [aitaɹ]. The acoustic and orthographic cues thus interact in different ways, resulting
either in the production of assibilated rhotics or English approximant rhotics. First, rhoticity
is the less salient feature compared to assibilation in assibilated rhotics, and exposure to the
grapheme <r> enhances the less salient feature in the input, leading to target-like productions.
Based on an acoustic analysis of the degree of assibilation of the individual tokens in the input,
together with the results in the auditory-orthographic condition, the author proposed that the
degree of robustness of assibilation in the input modulates orthographic effects. That is, the
more salient the degree of assibilation in the input, the more likely exposure to the grapheme
<r> at training will lead to the production of an assibilated rhotic by the learners at testing.
In the absence of strong assibilation in the auditory input, exposure to orthography at training
may override the input and result in transfer, or it might create a “perceptual illusion” of rhotic
features, leading to approximant rhotic productions.
That orthography can lead to perceptual illusion has previously been proposed with respect
to L1 processing (Hallé, Chéreau, and Segui 2000). Using a phoneme-monitoring task in
French, the authors examined the effect of orthographic and phonological incongruence on the
perception of [b] and [p] in French-speaking adults. Because of voicing assimilation in French
in words such as <absurd> (/bs/ and /bt/ words), the underlying /b/ written as corresponds
to [p] rather than [b] in the prefix {ab-} (e.g., /absyʀd/ written as <absurde> is realized as
[apsyʀd]). The authors found that the presentation of words whose orthographic representa-
tion and phonetic realizations were incongruent yielded a higher detection rate of [b] than [p]
in <absurd>-[apsyʀd]. Hallé, Chéreau and Segui (2000) attributed the results to a “perceptual
illusion” effect which overrides the input.
Auditory-orthographic interaction may also result in the production of a sound that is not
identical to either the L1 or the L2 sound but rather exhibits characteristics of the L1 sound
and approximates the L2 sound. A study on Polish-speaking learners’ perception and produc-
tion of German vowels found that learners produced the German /e:/, which is written in
German as <e>, as a different sound, namely a diphthong [ɛe] (Nimz 2016). The grapheme
<e> corresponds to /ɛ/ in Polish, but it is acoustically closer to /i/. The author explained the
diphthongization by proposing that the learners incorporate both the orthographic and percep-
tual interferences by starting with an orthography-induced /e/ and satisfy the auditory input by
moving towards the quality of the higher vowel /i/ (e.g., [ɛe]).
Rafat (2011, 2015, 2016) and Rafat and Stevenson (2018) provided evidence for the effect
of orthography on L2 speech learning of naïve English-speaking learners of Spanish and at
the same time proposed that L2 speech learning is a multimodal event despite the fact that
previous L2 speech learning models have been based on auditory input only. Although the
body of literature has expanded on the effect of orthography on L2 speech learning, there is
not much on the effect of orthography on either the L2 speech learning of Persian or heritage
speech learning of the Persian language. Persian is an alphabetic language whose script is writ-
ten from right to left. The modern Persian alphabet is based on the Arabic alphabet with four
additional letters. Persian orthography can be considered deep/irregular because some vowels
are not marked in writing. These vowels are only marked with diacritics in order to help chil-
dren learn to read in primary school. Another difficult aspect of the orthography is that several
graphemes can map on to the same phoneme. Moreover, Persian orthography is difficult to
learn at the initial stages of acquisition because of its particular features such as the number of
dots cuing differences in sounds. Therefore, the Persian orthographic system lends itself well
to studies on orthographic effects in L2 and heritage speech. L2 learners heavily rely on text

43
 Yasaman Rafat

in the classroom setting. As for heritage speakers, a subset of them may not have knowledge
of the Persian orthographic system because of lack of instruction, and as a result this may lead
to their speech processing, perception and production exhibiting parallels with the migrant
L2 learners of English with low or no literacy in their L1 (see Haznedar, Peyton, and Young-
Scholten 2018). On the other hand, it is predicted that heritage speakers who receive instruc-
tion in Persian will not be immune to auditory-orthographic effects in their speech processing,
perception and production.
It still remains a question as to how exposure to two or more orthographic systems, such
as the Persian and English orthographies in the case of North Americans, may affect the L2
acquisition and development of heritage phonology. It is predicted that exposure to two or
more different orthographic systems may affect the heritage speakers’ processing, perception
and production in complex ways.
In addition to the effect of orthography, heritage language learning should be considered a
multimodal event and the effect of facial cues should also be taken into account when examin-
ing the acquisition Persian as an L2 and Persian as a heritage language. In the case of English
and Persian, these two languages differ in terms of the degree of lip rounding and jaw aper-
ture. Moreover, there are different cultural norms around gazing at the interlocutor. Therefore,
in addition to perceptual and articulatory constraints previously discussed in models of L2
speech learning, it would be crucial to determine the degree of influence of and reliance on
auditory, facial and orthographic cues on how Persian is learned as an L2 or a heritage lan-
guage or may evolve over time across different generations. Although we have discussed L2
and heritage speech learning from a cognitive perspective, future models can also consider
integrating social factors (Swiderski and Rafat 2019).

3.4 Heritage speech, language change across generations, and

parallels with L2 speech learning
Although heritage speech has been mostly considered from a synchronic point of view and
been compared to L2 speech, some studies have also looked at it from a more diachronic
perspective, where they have examined sound change across generations in contact situations.
This view has been adopted in light of the fact that languages change as a result of contact and
thus phonetic and phonological categories merge in bilingual speakers. There is abundant evi-
dence on the attrition of different aspects of the L1 as a result of contact with another language
(for a more detailed discussion see Köpke and Schmid 2004). Specifically, the research focus-
ing on L1 phonetic attrition in bilinguals has been growing (e.g., Celata and Cancila 2010;
Flege 1987; Guion 2003; Major 1992; Mayr, Price, and Mennen 2012). Phonetic drift in L1
towards the L2 sounds is evidenced in temporal (e.g., Chang 2012; Flege 1997; Major 1992)
and spectral aspects of consonant production (Chang 2012; Peng 1993; Ulbrich and Ordin
2014), vowel production (Chang 2012; Baker and Troimovich 2005; Flege 1987; Guion 2003),
consonant perception (Celata and Cancila 2010), and intonational features (Mennen 2004).
Flege (1997) was one of the first studies to provide evidence of assimilation of the L1 and
L2 phonetic categories. He found changes in the Voice Onset Time (VOT) of French-English
and English-French adult bilinguals, where VOT values for French /t/ for both groups were
longer than those of their monolingual counterparts. On the other hand, VOT values for Eng-
lish /t/ were shorter than their average native values, again for both groups. Likewise, the sec-
ond formant frequency (F2) for the vowel /u/ was lower than their native French counterparts
for the French group but not for the English group. However, /y/ was produced in a native-
like manner by the participants. The results confirmed the predictions that /u/ and /t/ would

44
 Heritage versus second language phonology

be classified as sounds in phonetic categories that already exist in the L1 and /y/ as a sound
that is different from an existing category in the L1. Major (1992) also examined VOT values
in Brazilian-English bilinguals in the U.S. and similarly to Flege (1997) found evidence of
mutual L1-L2 interaction, supporting Flege’s (1995) Speech Learning Model.
VOT drifts in /p,t,k/ in L1 of bilinguals have also been examined from a sociolinguistic
point of view in Hrycyna, Lapinskaya, Kochetov and Nagy (2011). A drift towards English
VOT values was reported in successive generations (first, second and third generation) of Ital-
ian-, Russian-, and Ukrainian-English bilingual communities. They also reported differences
between the language groups and suggested that social factors, such as (i) the cohesiveness of
a community, which would suggest having enough opportunity for casual speech, (ii) the size
of a community, and (iii) attitude towards a particular variety of a language may be respon-
sible for the between-group differences. For detailed information about the characteristics of
Persian-English interlanguage and code-switching, read Chapters 26 and 27 in this volume.
Although VOT remains one of the best-studied phenomena in studies that have examined
the bidirectionality of language influence on speech production, recently there has been a
growing interest in examining a phonetic shift in other aspects of L1 in bilingual speakers.
De Leeuw, Mennen and Scobbie (2012) examined the change in the production of the lateral
phoneme /l/ in the L1 German of late German-English bilingual speakers living in Canada.
They found that the F1 and F2 values of the German /l/ of their bilinguals differed from their
native German counterparts and showed a shift towards English. Furthermore, there was a
high degree of variability both within and between bilinguals, and not all the participants
exhibited this change. They proposed a dynamic system theory: maturational constraints can-
not be the only cause of attrition, and various predictors which influence language develop-
ment in individuals must be considered.
Celata and Cancila (2010) investigated the perception of the geminate-singleton contrast in
native speakers of Lucchese Italian and among first generation late Lucchese Italian-English
bilinguals (those who emigrated to the U.S.) and second generation/heritage speakers of Luc-
chese Italian bilinguals (those who were born in the U.S.). The results of a real word and a
nonce word identification task revealed that bilingual speakers are significantly worse than the
control Lucchese monolingual speakers at the perception of the geminate-singleton contrasts.
In particular, the second-generation group exhibited a higher degree of attrition than the first-
generation group. Therefore, the authors concluded that the perception of the length contrast
has become progressively impaired in their bilingual groups. Given the scarcity of evidence
of attrition in bilingual speech at the phonological level, and the fact that gemination had not
been previously examined in production studies of phonetic or phonological attrition in these
languages, Rafat, Mohaghegh and Stevenson (2017) examined the attrition of L1 geminate-
singleton length contrast in Persian-English speaking bilinguals living in Canada. The main
goal of their study was to determine whether the geminate-singleton consonant length con-
trast attrites across three different generations of Persian-English-speaking bilinguals living in
Canada. The secondary aim of the study was to draw parallels with L2 speech and shed light
on the role of universal phonetic factors on the process of geminate-singleton length contrast
attrition in the same population. Previously, Sorianello (2015) had examined the effect of man-
ner/class and voicing on the production of Italian geminates by L2 learners. Rafat, Mohaghegh
and Stevenson (2017) examined the effect of manner/class of sounds and voicing as predictors
of geminate attrition in eight Persian-English-speaking bilinguals living in Toronto forming
three categories of generations: first generation, 1.5 generation and second generation. The 1.5
generation category distinguishes children of Iranian immigrants who had acquired Persian
as their first language and came to Canada between the ages of five to fourteen from second

45
 Yasaman Rafat

generation heritage speakers of Persian. The productions of the bilinguals were compared with
the productions of three homeland variety controls. A word-naming task was conducted. Using
Praat software, data were acoustically analyzed. Attrition was defined in terms of changes in
mean duration of geminates relative to their singleton counterparts, percentage of geminate-
singleton degemination, and category overlap. Results showed that geminates attrite across
different successive generations. Moreover, there was some evidence to suggest that geminate
realization across generations patterns with typological patterns previously reported, showing
that universal phonetic principles such as aerodynamic constraints/articulatory difficulty and
acoustic/perceptual salience also constrain geminate realization in bilingual Persian-English
speakers. However, there was no evidence to suggest that more marked geminates suffer a
higher degree of attrition. This was the first study to examine the attrition of a typologically
marked contrast, which considers the role of universal phonetic principles, and markedness
in an understudied bilingual community across different generations. This study was later
replicated by Alkhudidi, Stevenson, and Rafat (2020), where they examined the phonologi-
cal attrition of the Arabic geminate-singleton contrast (e.g., /ħama:m/ “pigeon” vs. /ħamːa:m/
“bathroom”) in the speech of native speakers of Arabic who acquired English after puberty
with late bilinguals and heritage speakers. Similarly, another goal of the study was to investi-
gate whether universal phonetic/acoustic factors had an effect on the degree of attrition across
generations. Participants performed a delayed word repetition task, which tested the produc-
tion of geminate and singleton words. Results show that late bilinguals and heritage speakers
exhibit reduction in duration in their production of geminate consonants when compared with
the monolingual group. Similar to the findings of Rafat, Mohaghegh, and Stevenson (2017)
no effect of manner of articulation was found, yet there was an effect of voicing, where more
voiced geminates showed a higher degree of attrition across both groups. It is plausible that
with a larger sample size, an effect of both manner and voicing could be found with respect to
geminate attrition, and the authors recommended further investigation of the effect of univer-
sal phonetic factors on phonetic and phonological change in immigrant communities, includ-
ing heritage speech and across generations.
Apart from the potential effects of voicing and manner of articulation, if the same factors
that constrain L2 speech learning also constrain heritage speech, then position in the word
should also impact heritage speech production. That equivalence classification is position-
sensitive as previously mentioned was first proposed in Flege’s SLM. This has also been
shown for Mandarin-speaking learners of Persian (e.g., Falahati 2015) and Persian-speaking
learners of Spanish (Rafat 2008). Falahati (2015) investigated the non-native production of
rhotics by Mandarin speakers learning Persian as a third language. A series of informal inter-
views were conducted to collect the data. This resulted in 1252 tokens used for the analysis.
The results of an acoustic analysis showed that all speakers produced the allophonic variant
trill, which exists in Persian but is absent in both Mandarin and English as their L1 and L2.
However, their contextual distribution differed from the native speakers. For more research
on the acquisition of segmental and suprasegmental features in Persian as a second/third lan-
guage, read Chapter 2 in this volume.
Although there are currently no studies that have examined the effect of position in heritage
speech in Persian, Cornwell and Rafat (2016) investigated the effect of position in the word on
the production of /θ/ and /ð/ by three groups of English speakers in the community of Norwich,
Ontario, Canada: English monolinguals, heritage Dutch speakers (early bilinguals), and L1
Dutch/L2 English speakers (late-learning bilinguals). /θ/ and /ð/ productions were measured
in both naturalistic and reading tasks. Heritage Dutch speakers produced [θ] and [ð] at simi-
lar rates to Monolingual English speakers, but the two groups exhibited different allophonic

46
 Heritage versus second language phonology

realizations, especially when /ð/ was word-initial and /θ/ was word-medial. The findings sug-
gested that despite their ability to produce [θ] and [ð], Dutch heritage speakers may manipulate
the inherently variable English /θ/ and /ð/ production to communicate their Dutch cultural
identity. This was the first study to examine both heritage Dutch bilinguals in Canada.
Although the studies reviewed previously are important because they highlight the fact that
languages change as a result of contact and show parallels between heritage and L2 speech,
they also show that heritage speech can be studied in the context of sound change across gen-
erations. Therefore, the study of heritage speech production or perception can be conducted
from a variationist point of view in order to better gain an understanding of sound change in
immigrant communities. That is, in addition to the fact that similarly to L2 speech, universal
phonetic factors may constrain heritage speech production, it is important to consider that
both individual extra-linguistic factors may also play a role in heritage speech production and
language change.

3.5 Child heritage phonology

Very little work has been done on child heritage phonology in comparison with adult L2
speech learning or adult heritage phonology. This is partly due to the difficult nature of elic-
iting speech from children. Some of the questions that received attention in child bilingual
phonology have been acceleration, deceleration, transfer, and whether bilingual phonology
develops as one or two separate systems.
With respect to Persian-English bilingual child phonological development, Keshavarz and
Ingram (2002) have also addressed the issue of whether bilingual children begin phonologi-
cal acquisition with one phonological system or two. Analyses of data from a longitudinal
study of a Persian-English bilingual infant, Arsham, supported the hypothesis that the child
had acquired two separate phonologies with mutual influence; that is, he made occasional use
of phonological features of Persian in English words and vice versa. They suggested that this
was due to the pattern of exposure to the two languages, and that other children may show a
different pattern, depending on their exposure to the two languages and the role of language
dominance.
Fakoornia (2017) is another study that is novel in its approach because it considers the
development of both the Persian and English phonology of a newly arrived child heritage
speaker from Iran to Canada. This study addresses L1 phonetic attrition, and L2 phonetic
acquisition of a 9-year-old Persian-English bilingual child. The study aimed to investigate
how the manner of articulation of the rhotics, and the two correlates of stress, F0 peak and syl-
lable duration, may change in both the L1 and L2 speech of a Persian-speaking newcomer to
Anglophone Canada within a period of one month. A picture-naming task in both Persian and
English was carried out in two sessions. Whereas rhotics are approximants in English, in Per-
sian they have a number of different allophonic realizations in different positions. English and
Persian also differ in terms of stress realization (Rafat, 2010). In English, stress in bi-syllabic
nouns is often on the first syllable, whereas in Persian stress in nouns is on the final syllable.
The results of the acoustic analysis revealed that in the second session the number of approxi-
mants in Persian in most positions increased, providing evidence for L1 attrition in Persian,
and the stress in Persian words was misplaced on the first syllable, providing evidence for
influence of English. Yet, as opposed to syllable duration, the F0 peak was not a consistent fac-
tor in determining the change in stress pattern. With respect to English, the majority of rhotics
was realized as approximants in both sessions. Moreover, accuracy on the duration of syllables
and the location of F0 peak in English increased, resulting in producing more English-like

47
 Yasaman Rafat

tokens. Thus, it was concluded that the child was acquiring English L2 phonology at the same
time that her Persian was attriting. The findings of this study are novel and contribute to our
understanding of attrition and L2 acquisition in child phonology.
These two studies are unique because they consider heritage child phonology as opposed to
adult heritage phonology, which is most commonly reported. Particularly, they are longitudi-
nal studies. Longitudinal studies are generally rare because they are more difficult to conduct.
For further research on child language acquisition, read Chapter 4 in this volume.

3.6 Conclusion and recommendations

This chapter has contextualized some of the studies on the L2 acquisition and development
of Persian as a heritage language by considering previous work on heritage speech, second
language speech learning patterns, and sound change across generations. In particular, it has
attempted to provide both a multimodal and a sociophonetic perspective on heritage speech
learning, drawing parallels with L2 speech learning. Moreover, it has pointed out the absence
of a model for heritage speech and highlighted some of the issues that have been investi-
gated with respect to heritage and L2 speech. Given the scarcity of literature on this topic,
future work can focus on a variety of issues. Namely, the segmental and prosodic aspects of
Persian as a heritage language in addition to contact with English is important. Other work
can examine other contact situations such as contact with tone languages and languages that
have a non-alphabetic orthographic system such as Mandarin. Moreover, given that speech
learning including L2 speech learning is a multimodal event, it is advisable to consider all
different modalities of speech when investigating the acquisition and development of Persian
as a heritage speech. Furthermore, future studies can focus on both production and percep-
tion. The field would also immensely benefit from longitudinal studies that would shed light
on how heritage language evolves over time and investigate the role of individual differences,
social factors and attitudes, and the type of input heritage speakers are exposed to. Finally,
we would gain a better understanding of how heritage speakers’ phonetics and phonology
develop and may change if we examine both the heritage speakers’ Persian and the majority
language at the same time.

References
Alkhudidi, A., Stevenson, R. A., & Rafat, Y. 2020. Geminate attrition in the speech of Arabic–English
bilinguals living in Canada. Heritage Language Journal, 17(1), 1–37.
Au, T., L. Knightly, S-A. Jun, and J. Oh. 2002. “Overhearing a Language During Childhood.” Psycho-
logical Science, 13(3): 238–243.
Bassetti, B. 2007. “Effects of Hanyu Pinyin on Pronunciation in Learners of Chinese as a Foreign Lan-
guage.” In The Cognition, Learning and Teaching of Chinese Characters, edited by Andreas Guder,
Jiang Xin, and Wan Yexin, 1–13. Beijing, China: Beijing Language and Culture University Press.
Bassetti, B. 2017. “Orthography Affects Second Language Speech: Double Letters and Geminate Pro-
duction in English.” Journal of Experimental Psycholigy Learning Memory and Cognition, 43(11):
1835–1842.
Bassetti, B., P. Escudero, and R. Hayes-Harb. 2015. “Second Language Phonology at the Interface
Between Acoustic and Orthographic Input.” Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(1): 1–6.
Baker, W., and P. Troimovich. 2005. “Interaction of Native- and Second-Language Vowel System(s) in
Early and Late Bilinguals.” Language and Speech, 48: 1–27.
Benmamoun, E., S. Montrul, and M. Polinsky. 2013. “Heritage Languages and Their Speakers: Opportu-
nities and Challenges for Linguistics.” Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3/4): 129–181.
Bentur, E. 1978. “Orthography and the Formulation of Phonological Rules.” Studies in the Linguistic
Sciences, 8(1): 1–25.

48
 Heritage versus second language phonology

Best, C. 1995. “A Direct Realist View of Cross-Language Speech Perception.” In Speech Perception and
Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research, edited by Winifred Strange, 171–204.
Baltimore: New York Press.
Best, C., and M. Tyler. 2007. “Non-Native and Second Language Speech Perception: Commonalities
and Complementarities.” In Second Language Speech Learning: The Role of Language Experience
in Speech Perception and Production, edited by Murray Munro and Ocke-Schwen Bohn, 13–34.
Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.
Browman, C., and L. Goldstein. 1989. “Articulatory Gestures as Phonological Units.” Phonology, 6(2):
201–251.
Browman, C., and L. Goldstein. 1990. “Representation and Reality: Physical Systems and Phonological
Structure.” Journal of Phonetics, 18(3): 411–424.
Browman, C., and L. Goldstein. 1992. “Articulatory Phonology: An Overview.” Phonetica, 49(3–4):
155–180.
Browman, C., and L. Goldstein. 1995. “Dynamics and Articulatory Phonology.” In Mind as Motion,
edited by Tim van Gelder, 175–193. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, C. 1998. “The Role of the L1 Grammar in the Acquisition of Segmental Structure.” Second Lan-
guage Research, 14: 139–193.
Campbell, R., and J. Peyton. 1998. “Heritage Language Students: A Valuable Language Resource.” ERIC
Review, 6(1): 38–39.
Celata, C., and J. Cancila. 2010. “Phonological Attrition and the Perception of Geminate Consonants in
the Lucchese Community of San Francisco (CA).” International Journal of Bilingualism, 14: 1–25.
Chang, C. 2012. “Rapid and Multifaceted Effects of Second-Language Learning on First-Language
Speech Production.” Journal of Phonetics, 40: 249–268.
Choi, J., M. Boersma, and A. Cutler 2017. “Early Phonology Revealed by International Adoptees’ Birth
Language Retention.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28).
Colantoni, L., and J. Steele. 2007. “Acquiring /R/ in Context.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
29: 381–406.
Cornwell, S., and Y. Rafat. 2016. “Heritage Dutch Interdental Fricative Production.” Paper presented
at the 8th International Symposium on the Acquisition of Second Language Speech (New Sounds).
Aarhus University, Denmark.
De Leeuw, E., I. Mennen, and J. Scobbie. 2012. “Dynamic Systems, Maturational Constraints and L1
Phonetic Attrition.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 17: 683–700.
Dijkstra, T., A. Roelofs, and S. Fieuws. 1995. “Orthographic Effects on Phoneme Monitoring.” Canadian
Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 49(2): 264–271.
Draper, J., and J. Hicks. 2000. “Where We’ve Been; What We’ve Learned.” In Teaching Heritage Lan-
guage Learners: Voices from the Classroom, edited by John Webb and Barbara Miller, 15–35. Yon-
kers, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Erdener, D., and D. Burnham. 2005. “The Role of Audiovisual Speech and Orthographic Information in
Non-Native Speech Production.” Language Learning, 55(2): 191–228.
Erdener, D., and D. Burnham. 2013. “The Relationship Between Auditory – Visual Speech Perception
and Language-Specific Speech Perception at the Onset of Reading Instruction in English-Speaking
Children.” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2): 120–138.
Escudero, P. 2015. “Orthography Plays a Limited Role When Learning the Phonological Forms of New
Words: The Case of Spanish and English Learners of Novel Dutch Words.” Applied Psycholinguis-
tics, 36(1): 7–22.
Fakoornia, N. 2017. “L1 Persian Attrition in Contact with L2 Canadian English: A Focus on Rhotics
and Stress Pattern.” In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Monolingual and Bilingual
Speech 2017, edited by Elena Babatsouli, 120–126. Greece: Institute of Monolingual and Bilingual
Speech Chania.
Falahati, R. 2015. “The Production of Persian Rhotics by Native Mandarin Speakers.” In Proceedings of
the 18th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, edited by The Scottish Consortium for ICPhS
2015, 13–18. Glasgow, UK: The University of Glasgow.
Flege, J.E. 1987. “The Production of ‘New’ and ‘Similar’ Phones in a Foreign Language: Evidence for
the Effect of Equivalence Classification.” Journal of Phonetics, 15: 47–65.
Flege, J.E. 1995. “Second Language Speech Learning: Theory, Findings, and Problems.” In Speech Per-
ception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross- Linguistic Research, edited by Winifred Strange,
233–277. Timonium, MD: York Press.

49
 Yasaman Rafat

Flege, J.E. 1997. “Amount of Native-Language (L1) Use Affects the Pronunciation of an L2.” Journal
of Phonetics, 25: 169–186.
Green, K., and P. Kuhl. 1989. “The Role of Visual Information in the Processing of Place and Manner
Features in Speech Perception.” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 45(1): 34–42.
Green, K., P. Kuhl, A. Meltzoff, and E. Stevens. 1991. “Integrating Speech Information Across Talkers,
Gender, and Sensory Modality: Female Faces and Male Voices in the McGurk Effect.” Attention,
Perception, & Psychophysics, 50(6): 524–536.
Green, K., and L. Norrix. 1997. “Acoustic Cues to Place of Articulation and the McGurk Effect the Role
of Release Bursts, Aspiration, and Formant Transitions.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 40(3): 646–665.
Guion, S. 2003. “The Vowel Systems of Quichua – Spanish Bilinguals: Age of Acquisition Effects on the
Mutual Influence of the First and Second Languages.” Phonetica, 60: 98–128.
Hallé, P., C. Chéreau, and J. Segui. 2000. “Where Is the/b/in “absurde” [apsyrd]? It is in French listeners’
minds.” Journal of Memory and Language, 43(4): 618–639.
Han, J-I., and T-H. Choi. 2016. “The Influence of Spelling on the Production and Storage of Words with
Allophonic Variants of /h/ in Korean.” Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(4): 757–780.
Hardison, D. 1999. “Bimodal Speech Perception by Native and Non-Native Speakers of English: Factors
Influencing the McGurk Effect.” Language Learning, 49(S1): 213–283.
Hayes-Harb, R., J. Nicol, and J. Baker. 2010. “Learning the Phonological Forms of New Words: Effects
of Orthographic and Auditory Input.” Language and Speech, 53(3): 367–381.
Haznedar, B., J.K. Peyton, and M. Young-Scholten. 2018. “Teaching Adult Migrants: A Focus on the
Languages They Speak.” Critical Multilingualism Studies, 6(1): 155–183.
Hrycyna, M., N. Lapinskaya, A. Kochetov, and N. Nagy. 2011. “VOT Drit in 3 Generations of Heritage
Language Speakers in Toronto.” Canadian Acoustics, 39: 166–167.
Jakimik, J., R. Cole, and A.I. Rudnicky. 1985. “Sound and Spelling in Spoken Word Recognition.” Jour-
nal of Memory and Language, 24(2): 165–178.
Katz, L., and R. Frost. 1992. “The Reading Process Is Different for Different Orthographies.” In Orthog-
raphy, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning: Advances in Psychology, edited by R. Frost and L.
Katz, 67–84. Oxford, UK: North Holland.
Keshavarz, M., and D. Ingram. 2002. “The Early Phonological Development of a Persian-English Bilin-
gual Child.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(3): 255–269.
Köpke, B., and M. Schmid. 2004. “Language Attrition: The Next Phase.” In First Language Attrition:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Methodological Issues, edited by M.S. Schmid, B. Köpke, M. Kei-
jzer, and L. Weilemar, 1–43. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.
Kupisch, T., and J. Rothman. 2018. “Terminology Matters! Why Difference Is Not Incompleteness and
How Early Child Bilinguals Are Heritage Speakers.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5):
564–582.
MacDonald, J., and H. McGurk. 1978. “Visual Influences on Speech Perception Processes.” Attention,
Perception, & Psychophysics, 24(3): 253–257.
Major, R. 1992. “Losing English as a First Language.” The Modern Language Journal, 76(2):
190–208.
Manuel, S., B. Repp, M. Studdert-Kennedy, and A. Liberman. 1983. “Exploring the ‘McGurk effect’.”
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 74(S1): 1–66.
Massaro, D. 1987. “Categorical Partition: A Fuzzy-Logical Model of Categorization Behavior.” In Cat-
egorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition, edited by S. Harnad, 254–283. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Mathieu, L. 2016. “The Influence of Foreign Scripts on the Acquisition of a Second Language Phonologi-
cal Contrast.” Second Language Research, 32(2): 145–170.
Mayr, R., S. Price, and I. Mennen. 2012. “First Language Attrition in the Speech of Dutch – English
Bilinguals: The Case of Monozygotic Twin Sisters.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15:
687–700.
McGurk, H., and J. MacDonald. 1976. “Hearing Lips and Seeing Voices.” Nature, 264: 746–748.
Mennen, I. 2004. “Bi-Directional Interference in the Intonation of Dutch Speakers of Greek.” Journal of
Phonetics, 32: 543–563.
Montant, M., D. Schön, J-L Anton, and J. Ziegler. 2011. “Orthographic Contamination of Broca’s Area.”
Frontiers in Psychology, 2: 2–378.
Montrul, S. 2005. “Second Language Acquisition and First Language Loss in Adult Early Bilinguals:
Exploring Some Differences and Similarities.” Second Language Research, 21(3): 199–249.

50
 Heritage versus second language phonology

Montrul, S. 2006. “On the Bilingual Competence of Spanish Heritage Speakers: Syntax, Lexical-
Semantics and Processing.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 10(1): 37–69.
Montrul, S. 2007a. “Interpreting Mood Distinction in Spanish as a Heritage Language.” In Spanish
in Contact Policy, Social and Linguistic Inquiries, edited by K. Potowski and R. Cameron, 23–40.
Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.
Montrul, S. 2007b. On the (Incomplete) Acquisition of Object Expression in Spanish: How Similar Are
L2 Learners and Spanish Heritage Speakers. Urbana and Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.
Montrul, S. 2012. “Is the Heritage Language Like a Second Language?” In EUROSLA, edited by L. Rob-
erts, C. Lindqvist, C. Bardel, and N. Abrahamsson, 1–29. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.
Munhall, K., P. Gribble, L. Sacco, and M. Ward. 1996. “Temporal Constraints on the McGurk Effect.”
Perception & Psychophysics, 58(3): 351–362.
Nimz, K. 2016. “Sound Perception and Production in a Foreign Language: Does Orthography Matter?”
Potsdam Cognitive Science Series, 9: 1–236.
Ortega-Llebaria, M., A. Faulkner, and V. Hazan. 2001. “Auditory-visual L2 Speech Perception: Effects
of Visual Cues and Acoustic-Phonetic Context for Spanish Learners of English.” In Speech, Hearing,
and Language; Work in Progress, 31: 39–50.
Peng, S. 1993. “Cross-Language Influence on the Production of Mandarin /f/ and /x/ and Taiwanese /h/
by Native Speakers of Taiwanese Amoy.” Phonetica, 50: 245–260.
Rafat, Y. 2008. “The Acquisition of Allophonic Variation in Spanish as a Second Language.” In Pro-
ceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, edited by S. Jones, 1–15.
Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia.
Rafat, Y. 2010. A Socio-phonetic investigation of rhotics in Persian. Iranian Studies, 43(5), 667–680.
Rafat, Y. 2011. Orthography-Induced Transfer in the Production of Novice Adult English-Speaking
Learners of Spanish. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto.
Rafat, Y. 2015. “The Interaction of Acoustic and Orthographic Input in the L2 Production of Assibilated/
Fricative Rhotics.” Applied Psycholinguistics, 36: 43–64.
Rafat, Y. 2016. “Orthography-Induced Transfer in the Production of English-Speaking Learners of Span-
ish.” The Language Learning Journal, 44(2): 197–213.
Rafat, Y., M. Mohaghegh, and R. Stevenson. 2017. “Geminate Attrition Across Three Generations of
Persian -English Bilinguals Living in Canada: An Acoustic Study.” Ilha do Desterro, 70(3): 151–168.
Rafat, Y., and R. Stevenson. 2018. “Auditory-Orthographic Integration at the Onset of L2 Speech Acqui-
sition.” Language and Speech, 1–25.
Ranbom, L., and C. Connine. 2007. “Lexical Representation of Phonological Variation in Spoken Word
Recognition.” Journal of Memory and Language, 57(2): 273–298.
Ranbom, L., and C. Connine. 2011. “Silent Letters Are Activated in Spoken Word Recognition.” Lan-
guage and Cognitive Processes, 26(2): 236–261.
Ravid, D., and Y. Shlesinger. 2001. “Vowel Reduction in Modern Hebrew: Traces of the Past and Current
Variation.” Folia Linguistica, 35(3–4): 371–398.
Rothman, J. 2006. “Heritage Speaker Competence Differences, Language Change, and Input Type: Inflected
Infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 11(4): 359–389.
Rothman, J. 2009. “Understanding the Nature and Outcomes of Early Bilingualism: Romance Languages
as Heritage Languages.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2): 155–163.
Rothman, J., and J. Treffers-Daller. 2014. “A Prolegomenon to the Construct of the Native Speaker: Her-
itage Speaker Bilinguals Are Natives Too!” Applied Linguistics, 35(1): 93–98.
Seidenberg, M., and J. McClelland. 1989. “A Distributed, Developmental Model of Word Recognition
and Naming.” Psychological Review, 96(4): 523–568.
Seidenberg, M., and M. Tanenhaus. 1979. “Orthographic Effects on Rhyme Monitoring.” Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(6): 546–554.
Sekiyama, K. 1997. “Cultural and Linguistic Factors in Audiovisual Speech Processing: The McGurk
Effect in Chinese Subjects.” Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 59(1): 73–80.
Sekiyama, K., and Y.I. Tohkura. 1991. “McGurk Effect in Non-English Listeners: Few Visual Effects for
Japanese Subjects Hearing Japanese Syllables of High Auditory Intelligibility.” The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 90(4): 1797–1805.
Shea, C. 2017. “L1 English/L2 Spanish: Orthography – Phonology Activation without Contrasts.” Sec-
ond Language Research, 33(2): 207–232.
Showalter, C., and R. Hayes-Harb. 2013. “Unfamiliar Orthographic Information and Second Language
Word Learning: A Novel Lexicon Study.” Second Language Research, 29(2): 185–200.

51
 Yasaman Rafat

Sorianello, P. 2015. “Italian Geminate Consonants in L2 Acquisition.” In Consonant Gemination in First

and Second Language Acquisition, edited by Lidia Costamagna and Chiara Celata, 25–46. Pisa, IT:
Pacini Editore.
Soto-Faraco, S., J. Navarra, and A. Alsius. 2004. “Assessing Automaticity in Audiovisual Speech Inte-
gration: Evidence from the Speeded Classification Task.” Cognition, 92(3): 13–23.
Steele, J. 2005. “Assessing the Role of Orthographic Versus Uniquely Auditory Input in Acquiring New
L2 Segments.” Paper presented at the 7èmes recontre internationals du réseau français de phonologie.
Aix-en Provence, France.
Stevenson, R., J. Siemann, B. Schneider, H. Eberly, T. Woynaroski, S. Camarata, and M. Wallace. 2014.
“Multisensory Temporal Integration in Autism Spectrum Disorders.” Journal of Neuroscience, 34(3):
691–697.
Sumby, W.H., and I. Pollack. 1954. “Visual Contribution to Speech Intelligibility in Noise.” The Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 26(2): 212–215.
Summerfield, Q., and M. McGrath. 1984. “Detection and Resolution of Audio-Visual Incompatibility in
the Perception of Vowels.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36(1): 51–74.
Swiderski, N., and Y. Rafat. 2019. “Investigating the Acquisition of Mexican Spanish Rhotics by Haitian
Creole Speakers: A Socio-Phonetic Approach.” The International Symposium on Bilingualism. Cal-
gary: University of Alberta.
Taft, M. 2006. “Orthographically Influenced Abstract Phonological Representation: Evidence from Non-
Rhotic Speakers.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35(1): 67–78.
Temkin Martinez, M.T., and I. Müllner. 2015. “Specific Exceptions Driving Variation: The Role of
Orthography in Modern Hebrew Spirantization.” Paper presented at the 2015 Annual Meeting on
Phonology, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Treiman, R., and M. Cassar. 1997. “Can Children and Adults Focus on Sound as Opposed to Spelling in
a Phoneme Counting Task?” Developmental Psychology, 33(5): 771–780.
Ulbrich, C., and M. Ordin. 2014. “Can L2-English Influence L1-German? The Case of Post-Vocalicr.”
Journal of Phonetics, 45: 26–42.
Valdés, G. 2000. “Introduction.” In Spanish for Native Speakers, Volume I, edited by AATSP Profes-
sional Development Series Handbook for Teachers K-16, 1–29. New York: Harcourt College.
Valdés, G. 2001. “Heritage Language Students: Profiles and Possibilities.” In Heritage Languages in
America: Preserving a National Resource, edited by J.K. Peyton, D.A. Ranard, and S. McGinnis,
37–77. Washington, DC and McHenry, IL: Center for Applied Linguistics/Delta Systems.
Van Orden, G., and S. Goldinger. 1994. “Interdependence of form and Function in Cognitive Systems
Explains Perception of Printed Words.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 20(6): 1269–1291.
Vigliocco, G., P. Perniss, and D. Vinson. 2014. “Language as a Multimodal Phenomenon: Implications
for Language Learning, Processing and Evolution.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
London B Biological Sciences, 369: 1–7.
Welch, R., and D. Warren. 1980. “Immediate Perceptual Response to Intersensory Discrepancy.” Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 88(3): 638–667.
Young-Scholten, M. 2000. “Is There a Fundamental Difference Between Adults’ and Children’s Metalin-
guistic Awareness?” Paper presented at AAAL, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Young-Scholten, M. 2002. “Orthographic Input in L2 Phonological Development.” In An Integrated
View of Language Development: Papers in Honour of Henning Wode, edited by P. Burmeister, T.
Piske, and A. Rohde, 263–279. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Young-Scholten, M., M. Akita, and N. Cross. 1999. “Focus on Form in Phonology: Orthographic Expo-
sure as a Promoter of Epenthesis.” Pragmatics and Pedagogy: Proceedings of the Third PacSLRF,
2: 227–233.
Young-Scholten, M., and M. Langer. 2015. “The Role of Orthographic Input in Second Language Ger-
man: Evidence from Naturalistic Adult Learners’ Production.” Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(1):
93–114.
Ziegler, J., and L. Ferrand. 1998. “Orthography Shapes the Perception of Speech: The Consistency Effect
in Auditory Word Recognition.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(4): 683–689.
Ziegler, J., and M. Muneaux. 2007. “Orthographic Facilitation and Phonological Inhibition in Spoken
Word Recognition: A Developmental Study.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1): 75–80.

52
 4
LINGUISTIC COMPETENCE OF
PERSIAN HERITAGE VERSUS
SECOND LANGUAGE SPEAKERS KARINE MEGERDOOMIANLINGUISTIC COMPETENCE

Karine Megerdoomian

4.1 Introduction
Research in bilingual acquisition has identified important characteristics distinguishing the
linguistic competence of Heritage Language (HL) speakers and second language (L2) learn-
ers. Heritage speakers (HS) have been defined as unbalanced bilinguals whose home or herit-
age language is their first language (L1) but is severely restricted because of insufficient input.
As a result, heritage speakers can understand the home language and may speak it to some
degree but are more comfortable in the dominant language of their society. In contrast, L2
speakers have only been exposed to the language later in life, typically in a classroom envi-
ronment, and lack traditional L1 acquisition in the language of study. Research findings have
shown that the linguistic characteristics of heritage speakers are distinct from those of both a
monolingual speaker of the language and a balanced bilingual who is at ease in both the herit-
age language and the dominant language of the society. These differences can be seen in the
areas of phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, lexicon and pragmatics. The divergences
in the linguistic competence of heritage speakers, L2 learners and monolingual speakers of the
language are of interest on theoretical grounds since they can provide insight into the role of
age, input and attrition in bilingual language acquisition. But in addition, the investigation of
heritage speakers’ linguistic competence may shed light on areas in formal theories of linguis-
tics and universal principles of grammar. Furthermore, understanding the distinct character-
istics of HL and L2 speakers can inform pedagogical practices to appropriately address each
group’s linguistic and cultural needs.
This chapter investigates the linguistic knowledge of heritage language learners of Persian
in the domains of phonology, morphology and syntax, and contrasts heritage speakers’ lin-
guistic competence with that of L2 learners. Building on previous research on Persian herit-
age language and second language acquisition, the chapter provides a contrastive picture of
the phonological and morphosyntactic knowledge of the heritage speaker and the L2 learner
of Persian, and discusses the results in the context of findings in the general field of heritage
language linguistics. For further discussion on Persian heritage versus second language pho-
nology, read Chapter 3 in this volume. In addition, refer to Chapter 5 in this volume for a dis-
cussion on the acquisition of the functional category of negation in Persian progressive tenses
in monolingual, second language learners and heritage speakers of Persian.

53
 Karine Megerdoomian

The chapter is organized as follows: Section 4.2 defines the heritage speaker and discusses
what constitutes the baseline in studying heritage language. Section 4.3 provides an over-
view of past approaches and methodologies in investigating Persian heritage language in the
domains of phonology, morphology and syntax. The results of these investigations form the
basis for Sections 4.4 through 4.6: Section 4.4 describes the phonological features of heritage
language, including phonemic perception and awareness of phonological patterns; Section 4.5
reviews the heritage speaker’s knowledge of morphological and morphosyntactic features of
Persian; and Section 4.6 presents the syntactic patterns of heritage language. In each section,
the results of the studies are compared with findings on second language learners of Persian,
when available. Section 4.7 sets the research findings on Persian HL within the larger context
of the field of heritage linguistics and provides directions for further research. Section 4.8
summarizes the findings and concludes the chapter.

4.2 Persian heritage language

4.2.1 Heritage speakers

Heritage speakers have been described as the children of immigrants born in the host coun-
try or immigrant children who arrived in the host country some time in childhood (Montrul
2012). These speakers may be considered simultaneous bilinguals who grow up speaking the
heritage and the majority language since birth, while others may be sequential bilinguals since
they become exposed to the majority language when they start school. Adult heritage speak-
ers, however, may have failed to develop full linguistic competence in the heritage language
as they began using the majority language more frequently in childhood and did not receive
schooling in the heritage language (Long and Doughty 2009). Thus, heritage speakers are
bilinguals (simultaneous or sequential) whose weaker language corresponds to the minority
language of the host country, i.e., the home language, and whose stronger language is the
dominant language of that society (Polinsky 2010).
Much research on heritage language acquisition has focused on understanding the potential
causes for the linguistic patterns exhibited by heritage speakers: (1) language change in progress
and transfer of the features of the dominant language to the HL (Silva-Corvalán 1994); (2) incom-
plete or interrupted acquisition whereby certain grammatical aspects of the language are not fully
acquired due to insufficient input (Montrul 2008, O’Grady et al. 2011, Silva-Corvalán 2018);
(3) a process of attrition of acquired knowledge and gradual loss of the heritage language in a
bilingual environment (Polinsky 2011); and (4) changes in the input grammar, the language of the
immigrant community that provides the input to the heritage language learner (Rothman 2007).
In recent years, there has also been increasing research on identifying the specific linguistic
abilities of heritage speakers and how their abilities compare to those of fully fluent speakers
of the language as well as the linguistic characteristics of the L2 speakers. Findings suggest
that heritage speakers tend to lie on the continuum between the L2 speaker and the monolin-
gual native speaker, sharing properties with both groups (Benmamoun, Montrul and Polinsky
2013). In contrast with heritage speakers, it is generally agreed that native speakers can be
differentiated due to their fluency in their linguistic system, having attained relatively com-
plete acquisition of their native or L1 language. Benmamoun, Montrul, and Polinsky (2013)
describe the prototypical native speaker as a speaker who

lives in a monolingual environment, or in a bilingual environment in which his/her

original native language has not undergone attrition, [having] ‘native’ pronunciation

54
 Linguistic competence

and a sizable, comprehensive vocabulary (about 20,000 words). . . . The speaker will
speak in grammatical sentences (except for the occasional slip of the tongue), will
not omit or misplace morphemes, will recognize ambiguity and/or multiple interpre-
tations and pragmatic implications of words and sentences, and will be attuned to his
or her sociolinguistic environment (social class, social context, gender, register, etc.).

Second language learners or L2 speakers, on the other hand, are native speakers of their domi-
nant L1 language and have been exposed to the second language later in life, typically in a
classroom setting. L2 speakers exhibit non-targetlike acquisition in various linguistic areas of
the second language such as phonetics, phonology, inflectional morphology, semantics, syntax
and discourse/pragmatics.

4.2.2 Characteristics of heritage Persian

Research on Persian heritage language is still in its infancy and the emphasis has often been on
sociolinguistic issues and discussions relevant to language maintenance. A handful of schol-
ars, however, have conducted studies on the morphophonological and syntactic properties of
Persian heritage speakers among university level students and among child bilinguals. Results
of these studies parallel the findings in the general heritage literature, suggesting that Persian
heritage speakers have a number of advantages over non-heritage learners who are learning
Persian as a second language. Heritage speakers often demonstrate native-like pronunciation,
are typically able to carry out conversations on everyday topics in Persian, can understand
rapidly spoken conversational language, and are familiar with the sociocultural behavior of
the heritage language community. These speakers have successfully developed core aspects
of the HL such as phonological alternations, the verbal morphological paradigm, and tense
dependencies in complex clauses. But in most cases, they are unable to read and write Persian,
make use of simplified or overregularized morphological patterns, employ a restricted word
order, and have developed new linguistic features as a result of reanalysis or contact with the
dominant language. In addition, heritage speakers are typically not familiar with idiomatic
expressions or high level vocabulary and have difficulty moving from one register or variety
of the language to another in order to use contextually appropriate language.
Empirical experiments contrasting Persian heritage language and second language features
have shown that heritage speakers often outperform the L2 learners but do not reach native
speaker competence. Overall, HL speakers perform significantly better in areas such as argu-
ment structure and formation of complex conversational sentences. The studies have identi-
fied, however, specific areas where L2 speakers perform better – these include features that are
not frequent or salient in conversational language such as Arabic root and pattern morphology.
Interestingly, transfer effects from the dominant language seem to play a larger role on the
competence of heritage speakers than second language learners.

4.2.3 The baseline

In order to investigate the linguistic characteristics of heritage Persian, it is important to first
determine the appropriate baseline for comparison. Should the heritage language be compared
with the linguistic knowledge of a native speaker, a first-generation immigrant, or a second-
language learner? Should we consider the formal variant of the language or the conversational
variant? The choice of the baseline, of course, will depend on the research question being
considered.

55
 Karine Megerdoomian

If the goal is to provide an understanding of the differences between L2 speakers and her-
itage speakers, and to shed light on pedagogical methodology and curriculum for the two
groups, then a comparison of both L2 and HL characteristics against the standard variety of the
language being taught in the classroom would be appropriate. As the standard variety is often
represented by the language spoken in the homeland, the focus of study could be a comparison
with the language features of the monolingual speaker or of a recently emigrated bilingual
speaker. On the other hand, if the research goal is to provide an assessment of heritage lan-
guage acquisition and whether the bilingual child has successfully learned the language he or
she was exposed to, the linguistic features to study should be those of the input language. In
other words, the linguistic competence of the heritage speaker should not be contrasted with
that of the monolingual speaker but rather with the language of first-generation immigrants
who provide the input to the heritage speaker or the diaspora language (cf. Polinsky 2010, 31).
In the case of Persian, the diaspora language differs in a number of ways from the language of
the homeland since both languages have undergone change independently and the immigrants
tend to experience transfer effects from the language of their new community. Thus, even if
research is conducted with the native speaker or monolingual speaker as the baseline of the
study, it is important to consider whether divergences seen in the heritage language have been
influenced by variation in the diaspora language.
The characteristics of heritage Persian, however, cannot be fully understood outside of the
diglossic context of Persian in Iran. Diglossia refers to situations where the language spoken
by the people in a society differs considerably from the traditional written variant (Ferguson
1959). Diglossic situations have been documented in many languages where two distinct vari-
ants of a language, a High variant and a Low variant, coexist in society. In the case of Persian,
the conversational variant of the language has undergone linguistic modifications throughout
the years, affecting phonological properties, lexical choice, morphological paradigms, word
order and syntactic patterns in the language and resulting in a situation where it is now quite
distinct from the literary or formal variant.
In societies where diglossia exists, as in Persian, the literary or High variant maintains a
more valuable position in society, while the conversational language or the Low variant is
often looked upon as the incorrect and bastardized form of the High variant. Feelings about
languages can run high and sometimes obscure the real facts behind the usage and proper-
ties of the two varieties. What is important to realize is that both variants of the language are
equally valid but there is typically a very clear distinction in the functions of the two varieties
corresponding to register variation. The literary variant is used almost exclusively in writing
and in newscasts while the conversational variant is used in daily conversations.1 Even in
university and political lectures and in interviews on radio and television, the presenters often
use the conversational word forms in their speech but may incorporate many literary variants
such as more high-level vocabulary. The language that native speakers acquire as a child is
therefore the conversational variant, but educational instruction allows the speaker to gain
knowledge of the High variant’s morphology, syntax and lexicon.
To establish the baseline for any study of Persian heritage language, one therefore needs
to consider the conversational (Low language) variant rather than the High level language
characteristics. In addition, even if the language spoken in the home country is taken as the
baseline of study, the characteristics of the dialect or variant spoken by first-generation immi-
grants should be examined.
In the discussion that follows, we consider the conversational variant of the Tehran dialect
of Persian as the baseline and refer to it as the native speaker language against which the lin-
guistic characteristics of Persian heritage speakers and L2 learners of Persian are contrasted.

56
 Linguistic competence

4.3 Studies in Persian heritage linguistics

This section provides an overview of past linguistic investigations of Persian heritage speakers,
describing the methodology used in each study, the subjects of the experiments, and the stimuli
used.2 The results of these studies are presented in more detail in Sections 4.4 through 4.6.

4.3.1 Learner performance in the classroom

Moore and Sadegholvad (2013) perform a study on heritage learners’ errors in the classroom,
as compared to the knowledge of native speakers. This study was conducted on twenty-six
undergraduate university students enrolled in the lower-level Heritage Persian course at the
University of California, San Diego. The participants are speakers who report moderate to good
speech and comprehension, along with little or no literacy. Students were asked to complete a
questionnaire on their background and proficiency assessment. Participants’ proficiency level
is homogenous: based on a five-point scale (5 high), their mean spoken proficiency score is 3.3
(SD .63), accent assessment is 2.73 (SD .59), comprehension is 3.92 (SD .89), and reading and
writing are 1.58 (SD .88) and 1.5 (SD .69), respectively. The lower reading and writing scores
are due to the fact that most students come to the class with little or no literacy. The authors
identify transfer effects, simplification and register features in the speech of heritage speakers.
Sedighi (2010) studies the characteristics of Persian heritage speakers by collecting data through
questionnaires, recorded spontaneous speech prior to entering the language classes, and class per-
formance in a mixed class setting with second language learners. The subjects of this study are
second- and third-generation immigrants. Sedighi compares heritage speakers’ features to those
of native speakers to identify areas where heritage speakers perform at near-native levels vs. areas
where their knowledge of the language differs from the language of the homeland. She highlights
the differences between heritage language learners and second language learners of Persian to be in
the areas of language style, polite/honorific form, phonetics, phonology, orthography, lexicon and
code-switching, relative clauses, passive construction, prepositions, broken plural formation, and
some tenses, such as past continuous tense, present perfect tense and future tense.
Megerdoomian (2009) is an error analysis study conducted at the University of Califor-
nia, San Diego, based on a collection of exercises and essays by eighteen students in low-
proficiency heritage language classrooms over six months. The study distinguishes between
linguistic patterns that have been acquired by heritage speakers especially in the area of pho-
nology and structures that are not fully acquired and may require instruction in the classroom.
Shabani-Jadidi (2018) conducts an error analysis study on heritage speakers’ errors in an
advanced Persian classroom and compares them to those of L2 learners. The results of the
study suggest that there is no significant difference between the number of errors made by
heritage learners versus second language learners, but the sources of these errors are often dif-
ferent. The subjects of the study are seven students of advanced Persian at McGill University,
three of whom are non-native speakers of Persian (one with French L1 and two with English
L1), and four are heritage speakers of Persian. All participants completed the three levels of
the Persian language program where instruction was provided on higher level vocabulary,
Arabic root and pattern morphological forms, idiomatic expressions, paraphrasing and use of
conjunctions in complex constructions, and writing practice. The task involved subjects writ-
ing on a media topic using the expressions learned throughout the year. The author conducts
error analysis on the writings and finds that, at a higher proficiency level, heritage speakers and
L2 learners of Persian tend to make similar errors due to transfer from the dominant language,
especially in syntactic structures such as word order and tense choice in embedded clauses,

57
 Karine Megerdoomian

and in morphosyntactic constructions involving valency such as passive voice or unaccusative

verb formation. However, there are certain errors that are mainly found in the heritage speak-
ers’ writings such as neologisms (creation of new words following the morphosyntactic pat-
terns of Persian), use of the wrong part of speech within a sentence, errors in register by using
conversational language in formal writing, and erroneous selection of light verbs in compound
constructions. L2 speakers are more alert to certain grammatical rules and paradigms and
therefore produce less errors in these categories.

4.3.2 Experimental studies

Rafat, Mohaghegh and Stevenson (2017) study phonological attrition in heritage Persian by
investigating whether the geminate-singleton length contrast undergoes attrition across differ-
ent generations of bilinguals living in Canada. The participants consist of three first-generation
bilinguals, five heritage speakers and three monolingual controls, ranging in age from 30–66.
The participants are provided with 108 bi- and tri-syllabic frequent Persian words, containing
geminates and singletons, in a word-naming task. The stimuli also include fourteen distracters
to divert participants’ attention from the main goal of the experiment. Acoustic data analysis
results confirm the existence of geminate consonant attrition across generations, with gemi-
nates becoming shorter in each successive generation.
The most comprehensive empirical study on Persian HL to date is Cagri, Jackson and Meg-
erdoomian (2007), which investigates a wide range of features designed to assess the linguistic
knowledge of Persian heritage speakers via a comparative analysis of the results with both L2
learners of Persian and native speakers. The research was part of a larger study carried out at
the University of Maryland, College Park, with the goal of building a diagnostic battery of
tests to examine the underlying linguistic knowledge of L2 and heritage language speakers
on a series of languages, including Russian, Korean and Persian. The experiment separately
targets fifty-six distinct linguistic features in the areas of phonology, morphology, syntax,
collocation and lexis, presented in an oral-aural format (see Table 4.1) and employs a set of
distinct perception and production tasks, such as paradigm elicitation, phoneme monitoring,

Table 4.1 Tests targeted per linguistic subdomain

Phonology Stress shift Syntax Tense dependency

Assimilation Conjunct choice
Cluster constraints Verbal aspect and telicity
Knowledge of Persian sound inventory Verbal subcategorization of
Ability to perceive non-English phones prepositions
Ability to pronounce non-English phones Simple versus complex sentences
Transfer effects from English Classifiers
Morphology Negation Relative clauses
Compounding morpheme Negative polarity items
Pluralization and animacy Causation
Plural allomorphy Uses of the accusative case
Arabic templatic forms marker
Subject-verb agreement Existential versus stative copula
Causative morpheme Pronominal binding
Pronominal clitics
Deverbal nouns

58
 Linguistic competence

Collocation Persian complex predicates and light verbs Lexis Vocabulary of different registers
Features Persian idioms Specialized vocabulary
Persian proverbs Arabic loan words
Holistic Accent detection Translation
Features Register Classifiers
Speech perception in noise Agentive nouns
Guided narrative Nominal and adjectival negative
Sentence translation lexemes
Noun-noun compounds
Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2007

Table 4.2 Breakdown of test subjects

Subject category Number of Age mean Gender ILR levels

subjects (range)
M F 1 1+ 2 2+ 3 3+ 4

Native speakers 14 30 (23–46) 7 7 1 1 1

Heritage speakers 17 26 (18–33) 9 8 2 3 2 1
L2 learners 12 31 (22–57) 3 9 4 3 1 1
Total 43 29 (18–56) 19 24

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2007

and lexical decision, while controlling for length of utterance, frequency, stylistic variation,
number of morphemes, background of the subjects and other interfering factors.
The forty-three subjects in the study are monolingual or bilingual native speakers, English-
speaking learners of Persian, and heritage speakers, with the native speakers serving as the
baseline3 (Table 4.2). The Persian Test Battery is computer-based, projecting audio or visual
stimuli and automatically recording subject responses. The results are verified for statistical
significance.
Overall, the experiment found that heritage speakers are faster than L2 learners across the
board. While a number of features do not show a robust difference between HL and L2 error
rates, the researchers detected significant differences in certain linguistic features that will be
discussed in more depth in the following sections.

4.4 Phonetics and phonology

4.4.1 Perception and production of phonemes

According to the literature on HL, heritage speakers have knowledge of the phonetic and sound
patterns of the language at levels that L2 speakers might never attain. The phonetic compe-
tence, in both perception and production, is in fact one of the most significant features that
separate heritage speakers and L2 learners (Au et al. 2008). In some instances, heritage speak-
ers are mistaken as native speakers because of their target-like pronunciation. Closer study,
however, has shown that hearers often detect a ‘heritage accent’ as speakers of HL do not fully
pattern like native speakers (Kupisch et al. 2014). Overall, the literature has demonstrated

59
 Karine Megerdoomian

that HL speakers perform better than L2 learners in both perception of sound contrasts and
production of phonemes. In perception, heritage speakers are quite close to native speakers,
and even relatively short exposure to the HL in childhood gives heritage speakers an advan-
tage in distinguishing sound contrasts that may be difficult for an L2 learner (Polinsky 2010).
And despite displaying an accent in the HL, they sound closer to a native in the production of
language sounds than L2 learners. There seems to be more variation and loss in non-segmental
phonology (e.g., intonation, stress, speed of speaking) which tend to contribute to the herit-
age accent, especially with lower proficiency speakers. For a discussion on the acquisition
of segmental and suprasegmental features in Persian second language, read Chapter 2 in this
volume.
With the exception of Rafat, Mohaghegh and Stevenson (2017), systematic phonetic stud-
ies in the perception and production of sound systems among the Persian heritage population
are still lacking. Many of the reported results tend to emerge from examination of student
errors in writing, where the orthography indicates missing sound contrasts. In addition, con-
siderable research has been carried out on Persian L1 speakers acquiring English as a second
language, but there exists scant second language acquisition research on English L1 speakers’
acquisition of Persian L2.
Nevertheless, one of the common issues noted by researchers of Persian HL in countries
where English is the dominant language is the substitution of the velar/uvular obstruents that
do not exist in English by their corresponding stops. The uvular-velar place distinction is
phonemic for voiced stops in standard Persian speech, but this contrast does not occur distinc-
tively in English. Moore and Sadegholvad (2013) provide examples from writing samples,
shown in (1), where the voiced uvular stop/fricative allophone /G/ (gh) is substituted by the
velar voiced stop /g/ (g) in heritage language.4

(1) Standard orthography Heritage orthography

a ‫قشنگ‬ /Gašaŋ/ ‘pretty’ ‫گشنگ‬ /gašaŋ/
b ‫بشقاب‬ /bošGāb/ ‘plate’ ‫بشگاب‬ /bošgāb/
c ‫نقاش‬ /naGāš/ ‘painter’ ‫نگاش‬ /nagāš/

Moore and Sadegholvad (2013) find that heritage speakers with lower language proficiency
tend to also substitute the velar voiceless fricative /x/ (kh) by the velar voiceless stop /k/ (k),
as shown in (2).

(2) Standard orthography Heritage orthography

a ‫خانم‬ /xānom/ ‘lady, Mrs.’ ‫کانم‬ /kānom/
b ‫خون‬ /xun/ ‘blood’ ‫کون‬ /kun/

Khanzadi (2013) examines production in adult English-speaking learners of Persian using

a combination of contrastive analysis (CA), error analysis and learner language analysis, and
discovers a similar phenomenon where L2 learners have difficulty with the pronunciation of
the two fricative phonemes /G/ (gh) and /x/ (kh). The participants in this study were two
female English L1 speakers at different stages of acquisition of Persian as a second language.
The subjects were video recorded over a period of three and a half hours while engaging in six
unrehearsed communication tasks. Based on CA, Khanzadi expects the English voiceless and
voiced velar stop consonants /k/ and /g/ to replace the corresponding Persian velar fricatives
since the latter are not part of the English phonemic inventory. Interestingly, Khanzadi finds
that both participants of the study tended to replace the voiced velar fricative with the English

60
 Linguistic competence

voiceless /k/ rather than the voiced velar /g/, suggesting that English speakers may perceive
the Persian voiced fricative as voiceless. More importantly, Khanzadi finds that the position of
the fricatives within the structure of Persian syllables appeared to affect the two learners’ pro-
duction, providing support for variationist theory. Overall, both learners were most accurate
when producing /x/ in syllable-initial position, whether that syllable was open or closed (CV,
CVC, CVCC). In comparison, the accuracy rate was much lower for initial /G/ in the same
types of syllables. Neither speaker was able to produce /x/ as accurately when it occurred in
final position in CVC, or CVCC syllables (e.g., */bebakšid/ instead of /bebaxšid/ ‘excuse me,
forgive’). The voiced fricative phoneme /G/ was much more challenging for both learners than
the voiceless velar fricative /x/, regardless of syllabic position or phonemic context.
The inability to perceive the /G/ and /x/ fricatives has also been noted among Russian
speaking learners of Persian as a second language as shown in (3) (Eslami, Estaji and Elyasi
2014).

(3) Standard orthography Heritage orthography

a ‫رعدوبرق‬ /raɁd-o-barG/ ‘thunder’ ‫رعدوبرگ‬ /raɁd-o-barg/
b ‫قبال‬ /Gablan/ ‘previously’ ‫گبال‬ /gablan/
c ‫فرق‬ /farG/ ‘distinction’ ‫فرک‬ /fark/

These findings suggest a parallel between heritage speakers and L2 learners demonstrating
the significance of dominant language transfer in the perception and production of the /G/ and
/x/ sounds. In the case of Russian learners of L2 Persian, one cannot conclude that the substi-
tution seen in orthography is because these fricative sounds are absent in the L1’s phonemic
inventory since /x/ is part of the Russian sound system. This suggests that the interference
effect seen is due to the fact that the uvular-velar place contrast does not occur distinctively
in Russian or English. More research is needed, however, to delineate the role of syllabic and
phonemic context.
Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2007, 2012) conducted phoneme monitoring experi-
ments on both /x/ and /G/ in various word positions: word-initial position (e.g., /Geymat/ ‘price’,
/Gorub/ ‘sunset’), medial position at onset of syllable (e.g., /rowGan/ ‘oil’), medial position but
at coda of syllable (e.g., /naGme/ ‘melody’), word-final position (e.g., /bāG/ ‘garden’) and
word-final cluster (e.g., /morG/ ‘hen’). The phoneme /G/ was contrasted with /g/ appearing
in similar positions: word-initial (/gorosne/ ‘hungry’), medial (/zendegi/ ‘life’, /ragbār/ ‘light-
ning’), word-final (e.g., /sag/ ‘dog’) and word-final cluster (/jaŋ/ ‘war’5). Similar conditions are
used for the /x/ phoneme-monitoring task which is contrasted with the /k/ phoneme.
Twenty participants are provided with audio recordings for the words and are asked to
press a button when they hear the phoneme of interest. The results show that heritage speakers
tend to perform close to native speakers in discerning the phonemes, with perception errors
occurring mostly among low-proficiency heritage speakers (see Figure 4.1). Test results also
show that L2 speakers with higher proficiency (ILR 3 and above) perform at the level of native
speakers (not shown in figure). These results suggest that the interference effect from English
documented in other studies significantly affects low-proficiency heritage speakers whereas
HL speakers who have been exposed to Persian longer perform at near-native levels.
Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2012) also found that heritage speakers have difficulty
discerning the Persian alveolar flap /ɾ/ from the English /r/ but still perform better than L2
learners on average on a naturalness judgment task where subjects heard the same Persian
word recorded once with a native accent and once with the segment pronounced by an Ameri-
can speaker with an accent.

61
 Karine Megerdoomian

Persian phoneme Persian phoneme

monitoring Q_MAIN_F monitoring X_MAIN_F
1.0 1.00

0.9 0.95
Accuracy rate

0.8 0.90

0.7
0.85
0.6
0.80

native non-native native non-native

Subject condition

Figure 4.1 Phoneme monitoring tasks for /G/ (left) and /x/ (right). Accuracy scores across speakers
with light gray bars indicating heritage speaker output. Native speakers shown to the left of
graph provide the baseline. Solid line within the bar indicates average accuracy score for
that subject group.
Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

0.95
Accuracy rate

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.2 Phoneme naturalness judgment task for alveolar flap /ɾ/.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

Findings from this task are illustrated in Figure 4.2, showing accuracy score across speak-
ers. In this figure and all similar figures in this chapter from Cagri, Jackson, and Megerdoom-
ian (2007, 2012), native speakers shown to the left of graph provide the baseline, while among
the non-native population results, the light gray bar indicates heritage speaker output and the
darker gray bar to the right of graph indicates L2 speaker output. A solid line within the bar
indicates average accuracy score for that subject group. The results for this phoneme natu-
ralness judgment task suggest minor interference effect from the dominant language on the
perception of approximants in Persian HL. The variation among L2 learners is due to high-
proficiency speakers who obtain accuracy scores slightly above 90%.
In contrast to English, Persian does not allow consonant clusters in onset position as can
be seen in words that have been borrowed from English or French, such as /kelās/ ‘class’, /
peranses/ ‘princess’, and /kerem/ ‘cream’, where a vowel is inserted in the initial consonant

62
 Linguistic competence

sequence. In coda position, Persian allows certain word-final consonant clusters that would be
impossible in English, as in the words /Gofl/ ‘lock’, /saxf/ ‘ceiling’ and /babr/ ‘tiger’. Persian
does not allow segments /t/ and /p/ as a cluster sequence, however, nor the familiar English
codas -sts and -sks (as in lists and asks). Anecdotal observation suggests that Persian heritage
speakers tend to allow consonant clusters, especially word-initially, as in the pronunciation of
‫‘ برای‬for’ as /brāye/ rather than /baɾāye/, presumably influenced by consonant cluster features
in English.
Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2012) assess whether speakers have internalized con-
straints on word-initial and word-final clusters in a Lexical Decision task. Subjects are pro-
vided with either a word containing a cluster pattern that will not occur in the Persian language
or a pseudoword which contains an onset or coda pattern that is possible in the language.
Examples of the illicit words are livubx, hatp, qosks, skap and šraptun, while examples of
pseudowords include barātor, botran, saxurak, and eskām. Results show HL speakers per-
forming close to native speakers and slightly better than L2 learners (see Figure 4.3), while
interference effects are noted only for heritage speakers with low proficiency in the language.
Once again, L2 learners with high proficiency perform on a par with heritage speakers.
Ghadessy (1998) conducts a study on the production of stops and vowels among ten
English-speaking L2 learners of Persian in the United States, using ten native speakers of
the Tehran dialect as baseline, and concludes that L2 speakers pronounce stops /p/, /t/ and /k/
with shorter Voice Onset Time (VOT) than do native speakers of Persian and produce a longer
duration of the vowel /a/ in Persian words than native speakers do. Unfortunately, there are
no equivalent acoustic studies of the quality of heritage speaker production, and the results of
tests targeting vowel quality and laterals in perception and production conducted by Cagri,
Jackson and Megerdoomian (2007) were not statistically significant.

4.4.2 Phonological patterns

Although there have been several studies on the perception and production of phonological
sounds and prosody, the research on the acquisition of phonological rules in heritage linguis-
tics is barely nascent. In the domain of Persian heritage phonology, researchers have identified
a number of phonological patterns that seem to have been internalized by heritage speakers by
studying errors in writing samples. Since heritage speakers typically do not receive instruction

1.0
0.9
Accuracy rate

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.3 Lexical decision task to measure awareness of constraints on clusters.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

63
 Karine Megerdoomian

in reading and orthography, once they learn the Persian alphabet, they tend to write the words
as they pronounce them. This is particularly salient among heritage speakers with low profi-
ciency in Persian. These orthographic ‘errors’ provide a window into the phonology of Persian
HL and suggest potential areas for future study.6 Many of the features discussed in this section
have been obtained from an examination of heritage students’ writing samples.

4.4.2.1 Nasal place assimilation

In Persian, an anterior nasal assimilates to the following consonant in the place of articulation
but remains unchanged before laryngeals. One of the more common assimilation patterns
is bilabial assimilation where the sound /n/ assimilates to the place of articulation of the
following bilabial sound (e.g., /b/, /p/ and /m/) and is pronounced as the labial /m/ (Bija-
nkhan 2018). Since Persian orthography represents the historical sounds of the language,
these words are written with ‘n’ despite the pronunciation pattern in contemporary language.
Hence, the word written in Persian as ‫[ شنبه‬literally: šanbe] is actually pronounced /šambe/.
Other examples include /jombeš/ ‘movement’, /pambe/ ‘cotton’, /javāmmard/ (/javummard/
in spoken Persian) ‘chivalrous’, among others. Heritage students typically write these words
with the letter ‘m’ as they hear them, as in ‫ شمبه‬/šambe/ ‘Saturday’, ‫ پمبه‬/pambe/ ‘cotton’,
‫ دمبال‬/dombāl/ ‘after, following’, ‫ تمبل‬/tambal/ ‘lazy’ and ‫ زمبور‬/zambur/ ‘bee’ (Megerdoomian
2010; Sedighi 2018). These ‘errors’ in writing by heritage speakers are highly consistent and
suggest that the phonological pattern of bilabial assimilation has been acquired in Persian
heritage language.
It should be emphasized that, despite claims in the literature (cf. Sedighi 2010), this pattern
of assimilation is not a characteristic of Low (conversational) versus High (literary or edu-
cated) language, since a newscaster will not pronounce the word for ‘movement’ as /jonbeš/
despite the orthography but will pronounce it as /jombeš/. Thus, this is an established property
of modern Persian regardless of register or prestige.

4.4.2.2 Devoicing
The voiced consonant /G/ appears in words such as ‫ قند‬/Gand/ ‘sugar cube’, ‫ باغ‬/bāG/ ‘garden’
and ‫ اقیانوس‬/oGyānus/ ‘ocean’. This consonant has a voiced uvular fricative variant in inter-
vocalic position as in ‫ آقا‬/Ɂāʁā/ ‘sir, Mr.’ and ‫ فقیر‬/faʁir/ ‘poor’. The consonant has a voiceless
velar fricative allophone in the context of voiceless consonants in words such as ‫ باغچه‬/bāxče/
‘small garden’ and ‫ وقت‬/vaxt/ ‘time’ (Modarresi Ghavami 2018). This pattern of devoicing can
also be seen in the writing of Persian heritage speakers as shown in (4), suggesting an acquired
phonological rule (Megerdoomian 2009). This pattern has also been reported in the writings of
L2 speakers (Eslani, Estaji and Elyasi 2014).

(4) Standard orthography Heritage orthography

a ‫وقتی که‬ [vaGti ke] ‘when’ ‫وختی که‬ /vaxti ke/
b ‫نقشه‬ [naGše] ‘map, plan’ ‫نخشه‬ /naxše/
c ‫اقتصاد‬ [eGtesād] ‘economy’ ‫اختصاد‬ /extesād/
d ‫سقف‬ [saGf] ‘ceiling’ ‫سخف‬ /saxf/

In Persian, obstruents also become voiceless in word-final position and before or after
a voiceless consonant (Bijankhan 2018). Examples include ‫( ربط‬written rabt) /rapt/ ‘rela-
tion’, ‫( سبک‬written sabk) /sapk/ ‘style’, ‫( لفظ‬written lafz) /lafs/ ‘pronunciation’. Although less

64
 Linguistic competence

frequent, this devoicing rule is sometimes reflected in heritage speakers’ writings who tran-
scribe the words as they hear them (e.g., ‫ اسپ‬/asp/ ‘horse’ instead of the standard written form
of ‫اسب‬, written asb).

4.4.2.3 Deaspiration
In Persian, voiceless stops lose their aspiration after voiceless fricatives or before obstruents
(Bijankhan 2018). In such instances, if the unaspirated voiceless stop is followed by a vowel,
it is sometimes perceived as voiced, and this phonological alternation can be seen in heritage
speakers’ writing samples as shown in (5) (Megerdoomian 2009).

(5) Standard orthography Heritage orthography

a ‫مشکل‬ /moškel/ ‘difficult’ ‫مشگل‬ /mošgel/
b ‫مشکی‬ /meški/ ‘black’ ‫مشگی‬ /mešgi/
c ‫رفتم‬ /raftam/ ‘I went’ ‫رفدم‬ /rafdam/
d ‫بستم‬ /bastam/ ‘I closed’ ‫بسدم‬ /basdam/

4.4.2.4 Glottal stop deletion

The glottal consonant is often deleted syllable-finally in spoken Persian, which results in the
lengthening of the preceding vowel. This can be seen in words such as ‫ بعد‬/ba:d/ ‘after, then’,
‫ شعر‬/še:r/ ‘poem’, ‫ معنی‬/ma:ni/ ‘meaning’ and ‫ صبح‬/so:b/ ‘morning’ (Bijankhan 2018). To detect
the compensatory lengthening rule in heritage speech would require an empirical acoustic
study. However, the deletion of the glottal stop in the coda can be seen in heritage speakers’
writing errors as exemplified in (6) (Megerdoomian 2009).

(6) Standard orthography Heritage orthography

a ‫بعد‬ [baɁd] ‘after, then’ ‫بد‬ /ba:d/
b ‫شعر‬ [šeɁr] ‘poem’ ‫شر‬ /še:r/
c ‫صبح‬ [sobh] ‘morning’ ‫سب‬ /so:b/7

4.4.2.5 Deletion of stops

Another common orthographic error found in the writing samples of heritage speakers is the
deletion of word-final stops (Megerdoomian 2009).

(7) Standard orthography Heritage orthography

a ‫رفتند‬ /raftand/ ‘(they) left’ ‫رفتن‬ /raftan/
b ‫دوست داشتم‬ /dust dāštam/ ‘(I) liked’ ‫دوس داشتم‬ /dus dāštam/
c ‫گرفت‬ /gereft/ ‘(he) caught’ ‫گرف‬ /geref/

These errors represent the phonological rule in Persian where post-fricative and post-nasal
anterior stops are deleted at the end of a word in colloquial speech (Bijankhan 2018).

4.4.2.6 Degemination
Bijankhan (2018) states that word-final geminates in Persian standard speech are reduced to
singletons when in isolated form and before consonants. This phonological alternation is more

65
 Karine Megerdoomian

difficult to observe in writing samples. However, Rafat, Mohaghegh and Stevenson (2017)
have demonstrated in a task-based study that this phonological process is active in Persian
heritage language (see Section 4.3.2).

4.4.3 Morphophonological patterns of stress

Word level stress in Persian is marked on the last syllable of the word. While derivational
suffixes receive the word-final stress, inflectional affixes are not part of the domain of word
stress in Persian (Kahnemuyipour 2003). Hence, morphemes such as the ezafe marker,8 the
(specific) direct object marker /rā/ (/ro/ or /o/ in conversational Persian), the indefinite marker,
and person inflection on verbs do not receive word-final stress, as exemplified in (8) (cf. Kah-
nemuyipour 2018).

(8) a Indefinite: ‫مسافری‬ /mosāfér-i/ ‘a traveler’

b Object marker: ‫ماشینو‬ /māšín-o/ ‘the book-acc’
c Ezafe: ‫میز قهوهای‬ /míz-e Gahveyi/ ‘the brown table’
d Person inflection: ‫رفتیم‬ /ráft-im/ ‘we went’

In Persian, the plural marker and the comparative/superlative suffixes behave as deriva-
tional affixes attracting word-final stress (Kahnemuyipour 2003). In addition, there are a hand-
ful of words that are exceptions to the word-final stress (e.g, /váli/ ‘but’, /xéyli/ ‘very, a lot’, /
ágar/ ‘if’, /bále/ ‘yes’, /váxti/ ‘when’).9 The stress pattern differs in the verbal domain where
the main stress falls on the leftmost element in the verb phrase (Kahnemuyipour 2009). Thus,
with all verbal forms that involve the durative marker /mi/ or the subjunctive marker /be/, the
stress falls on these prefixes, as in /mí-xor-im/ (dur-eat-1pl) ‘we are eating’, if no other ele-
ment is in the verb phrase. In the presence of the negation prefix on the verb, negation receives
the main stress, as in /né-mi-xor-im/ (neg-dur-eat-1pl) ‘we are not eating’. Although these
word-level stress patterns are distinct from stress marking in English, Persian heritage speak-
ers in the United States tend to produce them correctly in the HL (Megerdoomian 2009). An
empirical study, however, has not yet been carried out on measuring stress and intonation in
heritage language.
Sedighi (2010, 2018) reports that heritage speakers fail to distinguish the simple past tense
form (e.g., ‫ خوردم‬/xordam/ ‘I ate’) and the indicative present perfect (pluperfect) tense form
(e.g., ‫ خوردهام‬/xordeam/ ‘I have eaten’). The past tense consists of the past stem of the verb
‘to eat’ followed by the person agreement: /xord-am/. The present perfect is formed by the
past participle of the verb followed by the enclitics denoting the verb ‘to be’: /xord-e=am/.
In the literary language, the two tenses are written differently, but when transcribing con-
versational language and in the writing of heritage speakers, with the exception of the third
person singular form, both tenses are written the same way (e.g., ‫ خوردم‬/xordam/ ‘I ate’ or ‘I
have eaten’) (cf. Moore and Sadegholvad 2013). However, standard speech makes a clear
distinction between these two tenses by modifying the stress position: the simple past tense is
pronounced /xórdam/ while the present perfect form is pronounced as /xordám/ with a clear
difference in the stress pattern10.11 Based on classroom observations, Megerdoomian (2009)
states that heritage speakers have already internalized this stress pattern and do in fact make
the distinction between the two tenses in their speech. Given the contradictory findings on this
topic, it would be beneficial to conduct an experimental study to determine the competence of
heritage speakers with respect to such inflectional stress patterns in Persian, controlling for the
proficiency level of the speaker.

66
 Linguistic competence

4.4.4 Summary
This section discussed a number of phonetic features and phonological rules that seem to be
fully acquired in the heritage language. These features have been detected through ortho-
graphic errors in Persian heritage speakers’ writing samples and a small number of experi-
mental studies. It is essential to conduct systematic studies to verify that the evidence reported
from writing samples is statistically significant.
The phonological knowledge of heritage speakers undoubtedly places them in an advanta-
geous position over L2 learners. However, research shows that high-proficient L2 learners per-
form at the level of heritage speakers in perception tasks; more data is still needed in phoneme
production and in examining awareness of phonological rules in Persian.

4.5 Morphology and morphosyntax

Research on heritage linguistics has focused in large part on the domain of morphology and
morphosyntax. The findings show that heritage speakers typically have knowledge of mor-
phological paradigms in the language, especially if they are frequent and salient in the input.
Irregular morphological forms that do not appear frequently in the spoken language have been
found to be difficult for heritage speakers, while irregular forms that are frequent in the input
have been acquired. As an example, English heritage speakers use the irregular past tense
went but not the infrequent forms shone or sought (Polinsky 2010). In contrast, morphemes
used to encode dependency relations between distinct constituents (e.g., agreement and case
morphology) tend to be difficult for heritage speakers. The level of difficulty varies, how-
ever, based on the speaker’s proficiency level, the specific language features involved and
the distance between the two constituents within the sentence structure (O’Grady et al. 2011;
Montrul 2016).
Research on Persian heritage language confirms these findings. Heritage speakers show
an overall advantage over L2 speakers, particularly low proficient learners, when it comes to
morphological features and verbal paradigms that are frequent in the conversational language,
demonstrating native-like linguistic awareness. Yet morphological features that are infrequent
in the input are not acquired in the heritage language. In particular, any elements that are
considered to be characteristics of the High variant or formal language (e.g., Arabic root and
pattern morphology used in Persian language) are unfamiliar to heritage speakers. L2 speakers
tend to outperform heritage speakers on these items.
Experimental research has shown that both heritage and L2 speakers of Persian fall signifi-
cantly behind native speakers in their knowledge of derivational morphology, such as plural
formation,12 agentive and deverbal noun formation, and lexical negation. Derivational affix
choices are often dependent on semantic notions such as animacy and selectional restrictions
that do not seem to be fully acquired in the heritage language. Persian heritage speakers dem-
onstrate awareness of argument structure with a preference for analytic rather than synthetic
constructions, but they also tend to overgeneralize certain features that are more salient and
extend their context of use beyond how they are used by native speakers.

4.5.1 Verbal paradigms

Due to the diglossic nature of Persian, there is a large discrepancy between verbal morphology
in the formal, written variant of the language and the conversational variant. One such feature
is the verb form. Hence, in spoken language, one would say /mardom migan/ ‘people say’

67
 Karine Megerdoomian

Table 4.3 Non-past verbal stems

Formal Conversational Translation

Non-past
­ stem 1st sing. form Non-past
­ stem 1st sing. form Verb

/āvar/ /miāvaram/ /ār/ /miyāram/13 ‘bring’

/ā(y)/ /miāyam/ /ā/ /miyām/ ‘come’
/tavān/ /mitavānam/ /tun/ /mitunam/ ‘be able’
/dah/ /midaham/ /d/ /midam/ ‘give’
/rav/ /miravam/ /r/ /miram/ ‘go’
/šav/ /mišavam/ /š/ /mišam/ ‘become’
/gozār/ /migozāram/ /zār/ /mizāram/ ‘put, allow’
/gu(y)/ /miguyam/ /g/ /migam/ ‘say’

Source: Moore and Sadegholvad 2013

but would write /mardom miguyand/, where both the agreement endings on the verb (-an vs.
-and) and the basic non-past root form (g- vs. guy-) are different. Similarly, the spoken form /
mixān beran/ ‘(they) want to go’ would be written as /mixāhand beravand/. Here again, there
are differences in the verbal agreement suffixes (-n and -an
­ in spoken form vs. -and
­ in writing)
and in the verb stems (xā and r vs. xāh and rav, respectively). Table 4.3 provides a number
of common verbs with their corresponding non-past stem forms. These verbs display distinct
non-past forms in the formal and conversational variants of the language. Heritage speakers
familiar with the conversational language demonstrate robust knowledge of the conversational
forms of the verb, which provides them with an advantage over L2 learners. Yet, they often
cannot understand the high-level or formal verbal forms and are unable to relate them to the
conversational forms of the verbs that they already know (Megerdoomian 2009).

4.5.2 Derivational morphology

Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2012) conduct several tests to measure the awareness of
heritage speakers in the domain of derivational morphology. The results suggest that there is
no heritage advantage in awareness of appropriate derivational morphemes such as lexical
negation, choice of agentive suffix on nouns, and plural formation. These experiments are
described in the following.

4.5.2.1 Lexical negation

This grammaticality judgment test explores the knowledge of heritage and L2 speakers of
appropriate affixes used to build negative nouns and adjectives. A secondary goal of the test
is to determine whether the heritage speaker has acquired morpholexical selectional restric-
tions on the type of negation prefix that can be used on nouns and adjectives to create negative
lexemes. These prefixes are similar to the English un- prefix (e.g., unharmed, unkind) or the
in- prefix and its variants (e.g., indecent, impolite, illogical). Table 4.4 provides examples of
nominal and adjectival lexemes derived with negation prefixes in Persian.
The /nā/ affix attaches to adjectives to derive the negated adjectival form, while the /bi/
prefix attaches to nouns to form denominal adjectives. /bedun/, /zed/ and /Geyr/ are actually
prepositions rather than prefixes; they associate with the nominal (for /bedun/ and /zed/) or
the adjectival (for /Geyr/) through the Ezafe linker construction, forming new adjectives. The

68
 Linguistic competence

Table 4.4 Negative lexeme examples used in grammaticality judgment test

Negative Test items

morpheme

/nā/ /nā-rāhat/ /nā-binā/ /nā-mehrabān/

neg-comfortable neg-seeing neg-kind
‘uncomfortable’ ‘blind’ ‘unkind’
/bi/ /bi-maze/ /bi-kār/ /bi-arzeš/
neg-taste neg-work neg-worth
‘tasteless’ ‘unemployed’ ‘worthless’
/zed/ /zedd-e-zarbe/ /zedd-e-dowlat/ /zedd-e-āb/
neg-ez-impact neg-ez-government neg-ez-water
‘anti-shock, anti-impact’ ‘anti-governmental’ ‘waterproof’
/Geyr/ /Geyr-e-Gānuni/ /Geyr-e-mostaGim/ /Geyr-e-Gābel-e-Gabul/
neg-ez-legal neg-ez-direct neg-ez-able- ez-acceptance
‘illegal’ ‘indirect’ ‘unacceptable’
/bedun/ /bedun-e-ša:r/ /bedun-e-tavajjoh/ /bedun-e-hadaf/
neg-ez-explanation neg-ez-attention neg-ez-goal
‘unexplained, without explanation’ ‘inattentive’ ‘aimless’
/na/ /na-tars/ /na-fahm/ /haG na-šnās/
neg-fear neg-understanding rights neg-know
‘fearless’ ‘stupid’ ‘uncouth, thankless’

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

derived adjectives, however, are lexicalized and behave as a single word unit – this can be
seen by the fact that word stress falls on the last syllable, suggesting that the derived form as
a whole acts as the domain of word stress. Finally, the /na/ morpheme attaches to verbal stems
such as /tars/ ‘fear’, the stem of /tarsidan/ ‘to fear’.
In addition to the examples shown in Table 4.4, the test includes ungrammatical forms using
inappropriate prefixes, such as */bi-mehrabun/ ‘bi.neg-kind’ (meaning unkind), */nā-tarbiyat/
‘nā.neg-civility’ (meaning uncivilized, impolite), */Geyr-e-dorost/ ‘Geyr.neg-correct’ (mean-
ing incorrect) or */na-šoluG/ ‘na.neg-crowded’ (meaning uncrowded). Participants are thus
given a word with one of the negative prefixes, and the subject has to determine if the prompt
given is an acceptable Persian word. The decision on whether these forms are acceptable or
not are straightforward for a native speaker, but both heritage speakers and L2 learners judge
only 60–70% of the items correctly. This is illustrated in Figure 4.4.

4.5.2.2 Agentive nouns

To measure the awareness of heritage and L2 speakers of the derivational formation of agentive
nouns, a Lexical decision test was designed where participants are provided audio recordings
of grammatical and ungrammatical Persian agentive nouns and subjects have to determine the
acceptability of the lexical term. The prompts include Persian words formed with the suffixes
/či/, /kār/ and /gar/, as in the examples /po:sči/ (originally: /postči/) ‘mail-či.agent’ (mail-
man), /jenāyatkār/ ‘crime-kār.agent’ (criminal), and /kārgar/ ‘work-gar.agent’ (worker).
Unacceptable word forms include */ketābči/ ‘book-či.agent’ (meaning bookseller), */čubkār/
‘wood-kār.agent’ (meaning carpenter), and */sabadgar/ ‘basket-gar.agent’ (meaning basket-
maker). As shown in Figure 4.5, there is some variation here for heritage speakers, with those

69
 Karine Megerdoomian

1.0

0.9

Accuracy rate
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.4 Grammaticality judgment task to study awareness of derivational formation of negative

lexemes.
Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

1.0
0.9
Accuracy rate

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.5 Lexical decision task to explore awareness of derivational formation of agentive nouns in
Persian.
Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

at higher proficiency obtaining over 80% accuracy, but on the average, heritage speakers and
L2 learners both lag behind native speakers on this task, making accurate choices only about
65% of the time.
One of the reasons for the poor performance of L2 and low-proficient heritage speakers on
this task may be due to the fact that this derivation typically forms lexical items that are infre-
quent in everyday conversational language and are considered to be part of the High language,
as in terms like /estebdādgar/ ‘despot, dictator’ or /mohāfezekār/ ‘conservative’.

4.5.2.3 Plural formation

The basic and most productive method to form plural nouns in Persian is to add the suffix /hā/
(/ā/ after consonants) to the singular noun. Additionally, Persian nouns fall into distinct classes
with respect to plural forms they can take. Thus, animate nouns may also become plural by
adding the suffix /ān/ (with variants /yān/ and /gān/) as in /kudakān/ ‘children’. Nouns of Ara-
bic origin can take the suffixes /āt/ (e.g., /kalamāt/ ‘words’), /in/ (e.g., /mottexasesin/ ‘experts’)

70
 Linguistic competence

or ‘un’ /enGelābiyun/ ‘revolutionaries’. The suffix /jāt/ is used to form the plural on kind nouns
ending in the phoneme /e/ (e.g., /mivejāt/ ‘fruits, produce’). Finally, words of Arabic origin
may form the plural using Arabic root and pattern morphology (e.g., /elm/ ‘science, knowl-
edge’  /olum/ ‘sciences’, /armani/ ‘Armenian’  /arāmane/ ‘Armenians’).
The plural formation grammaticality judgment test was devised to determine whether mor-
pholexical selectional restrictions on the type of plural formation have been acquired by herit-
age speakers and L2 learners. The test battery does not include any plural forms with /hā/ as
that suffix can appear on all nouns and is not subject to selectional restrictions. Participants
are provided two prompts: the singular noun followed by its corresponding plural form. The
plural form can be a valid Persian word or an illicit form. Examples of illicit forms are Arabic
morphology on a Persian word (e.g., */panājer/ ‘windows’), animate plural form on inanimate
nouns or animates that do not take the /ān/ morpheme (e.g., */anjomanān/ ‘associations’) or the
wrong Arabic plural form (e.g., /towzih/ ‘explanation’  */towzihin/ ‘explanations’). Subjects
are asked to determine whether the plural form is valid or not. In this test, only native speakers
perform at above a 95% accuracy rate, and heritage speakers lag behind L2 learners as shown
in Figure 4.6. Also see results of task-based experiments conducted in Bemani Naeini (2016)
that finds the use of plural markers to be very problematic for L2 learners of Persian.

4.5.3 Arabic root and pattern morphology

Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2007) develop a more in-depth experiment targeting the
awareness of heritage speakers of Arabic derivational morphology. It has been argued that
the derivational pattern itself is not a productive mechanism in the Persian language, but the
various related Arabic words have been borrowed and lexicalized (Natel-Khanlari 1999). In
this method, a number of words can be formed based on the same root; these words share
certain orthographic features, and in most cases, they also have certain common meanings.
For example, the root /šeɁr/ ‘poem’ also forms the words /šāɁer/ ‘poet’ and /mošāɁere/ ‘poeti-
cal contest’. Native speakers can generally distinguish related words derived from the same
Arabic root, which allows for more advanced vocabulary knowledge and better spelling. This
multiple-choice test was designed to determine whether heritage and L2 speakers would also
be able to discern words related to the same root form.

1.0

0.9
Accuracy rate

0.8

0.7

0.6

native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.6 Grammaticality judgment task to measure awareness of derivational formation of plural

nouns in Persian.
Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

71
 Karine Megerdoomian

Table 4.5 Sample items for the Arabic root and pattern morphology test

Root form Prompt 1 Prompt 2 Distracter Outsider

‫شعر‬ ‫شاعر‬ ‫مشاعره‬ ‫شعور‬ ‫معاشرت‬

š-Ɂ-r šāɁer mošāɁere šoɁur moɁāšerat
‘poet’ ‘poetry reading’ ‘intelligence’ ‘associating (with s.o.)’
‫سکن‬ ‫مسکن‬ ‫اسکان‬ ّ
‫مسکن‬ ‫نسکافه‬
s-k-n maskan eskān mosakken neskāfe
‘domicile’ ‘residence’ ‘pill’ ‘Nescafé’
‫خرج‬ ‫اخراج‬ ‫خروج‬ ‫مخرج‬ ‫خجالت‬
x-r-j exrāj xoruj maxraj xejālat
‘excise, expulsion’ ‘exit’ ‘denominator, outlet’ ‘shame, embarrassment’
‫نظم‬ ‫ناظم‬ ‫منظم‬ ‫منظومه‬ ‫ضمانت‬
n-z-m nāzem monazzam manzume zemānat
‘super-intendent’ ‘organized’ ‘system’ ‘guarantee’

Subjects are presented with three words associated with the same Arabic root form, two of
which are common and one is low-frequency, as well as one phonetically similar but semanti-
cally distinct outsider, and must identify the unrelated form. An example of an unrelated word
is as follows: The Arabic root for ‘exit’ is the sequence [x-r-j], which derives the three words /
exrāj/ ‘expulsion’, /xoruj/ ‘exit’, and /maxraj/ ‘denominator, outlet’. The unrelated word given
for this sequence is /xejālat/ ‘shame, embarrassment’ which does not contain the three-vowel
sequence of the previous three tokens. There is a total of seventeen items presented to the sub-
ject with four words in each item. This task is also a test of lexical knowledge as it is almost
impossible to handle without a fairly advanced level of vocabulary.
As shown in Figure 4.7, L2 speakers significantly outperform heritage speakers on this test,
with heritage speakers performing at less than chance. These results are not surprising since
these Arabic derivational forms are not frequent in the heritage speakers’ input. Since most
heritage speakers have not received instruction in reading and writing of Persian, they have not
been intimately exposed to the language spoken in newscasts or the literary writing in books
and publications. L2 speakers, on the other hand, are exposed to these forms in the classroom
as they are often taught, especially at more proficient levels. These results also suggest that L2
speakers have learned the morphemic relationship between lexical items that are unfamiliar to
heritage speakers.
Another factor that may have allowed L2 learners to perform better than heritage speakers
in this task was the fact that several had received instruction in Arabic prior to participating
in the test battery. As Figure 4.8 illustrates, native speakers perform at the 90% accuracy rate
whether they have had any prior training in Arabic or not. The group that benefits most from
having studied Arabic is the L2 population, where those with prior Arabic training perform as
well as Persian native speakers on this task.

4.5.4 Classifiers
In Persian, specific classifiers are used depending on the noun’s semantic class. For instance,
to refer to countable things, the classifier /tā/ is used, but to refer to a person, the classifier /
nafar/ needs to be used. Other classifiers include /jeld/ ‘cover’ for books, /ra:s/ ‘head’ for sheep
and cattle, /dast/ ‘hand’ for clothing or dresses, /barg/ ‘leaf’ to count pieces of paper, /farvand/
for ships, etc.

72
 Arabic roots (odd-man-out)
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
% correct

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
NS HS L2
Speaker group

% correct

Figure 4.7 Arabic roots multiple-choice test results.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2007

Arabic roots (odd-man-out)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
% correct

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
NS HS L2
Speaker group

Without Arabic training With Arabic training

Figure 4.8 Arabic roots results: effect of Arabic training.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2007
 Karine Megerdoomian

Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2012) design a test to investigate heritage speakers’
awareness of the classifier selection when counting nouns. The test was designed as an Elicited
Imitation task where the subject hears a sentence containing a classifier used with its appropri-
ate noun class and is expected to repeat it. Item (9) is an example of a prompt received by the
participant, where the subject is asked to repeat the classifier used with the noun:

(9) ‫ممکنه لطفا ً یه نخ سیگار به من قرض بدی؟‬

momken-e lotfan ye nax sigār be man Garz bedi?
possible-is please one CL cigarette to me lend give.2sg?
‘Could you please lend me one cigarette?’ (i.e., a loosie)

In this test, heritage speakers perform much better than L2 learners, who averaged at 20%
accuracy (Figure 4.9). This result suggests that the choice of classifiers that associate with par-
ticular noun classes are acquired to some degree by heritage speakers. However, since classifi-
ers are not as frequent in English and choice of Persian classifiers is rarely taught in the context
of the language classroom, L2 learners may not have acquired this feature of the language.
In a study of classifiers in Mandarin, Benmamoun, Montrul and Polinsky (2013) found that
heritage speakers are not sensitive to classifier-noun mismatches. Heritage speakers of Manda-
rin have been reported to either omit classifiers completely or to use the wrong classifiers. This
seems to contradict the results reported in this section. However, the current elicited imitation
task does not measure the production of classifier-noun pairs by the heritage speaker, which
might be able to shed more light on the acquisition of classifiers and the selectional restrictions
of the noun class in Persian HL.

4.5.5 Causative verbs

Causation in Persian can be expressed either morphologically using a causative morpheme
on the present stem of the verb or by using a causative light verb. The strategy used depends
on the verb type and is strongly constrained. For instance, the verb /tarsidan/ ‘to fear’ can
become a causative by adding the morpheme /-ān/ (variant /-un/) shown in bold in /tarsāndan/
(conversational /tarsundan/) ‘to scare, to frighten’. But for the verb ‘to open’, the choice of the light
verb determines if the verb is intransitive or transitive/causative: The light verb /šodan/ ‘become’

1.0

0.8
Accuracy rate

0.6

0.4

0.2

native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.9 Elicited imitation task to test awareness of classifier choice.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

74
 Linguistic competence

gives rise to the intransitive (unaccusative) form, while the light verb /kardan/ ‘make’ forms the
causative as shown in the following examples.

(10) /dar bāz miše/

door open becomes
‘The door is opening.’
(11) /dar-o bāz mikone/
door-acc open makes
‘(He/she) is opening the door.’

The recognition of causation is reported to be difficult for heritage speakers often skipping
the causative morpheme in causative (transitive) constructions or by selecting an erroneous
light verb (Megerdoomian 2009). Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2007) conduct a gram-
maticality judgment test where subjects hear sentences with causative and non-causative verb
forms and need to determine whether the sentence is grammatical or not. Half of the sentences
are constructed using simple verbs (which may take a causative morpheme), and the others are
formed using light verbs. The same verb is used in the following conditions:

(i) causative and acceptable

(ii) causative and not acceptable (e.g., used in intransitive sentence)
(iii) non-causative and acceptable
(iv) non-causative and not acceptable (e.g., used in transitive sentence)

In addition, five items with causative interpretation in simple verbs and without an overt caus-
ative morpheme are being piloted. They are: /suxtan/ ‘burn’, /pušidan/ ‘wear, cover’, and /
pičidan/ ‘wrap’. These unaccusative verbs can take the causative morpheme, but due to lan-
guage change, they also seem to convey both a causative and a non-causative meaning without
having to add the causative affix.
The test item types are listed in the following, and sample items appear in Table 4.6.

1 causative simple verb n=20

2 non-causative simple verb n=20
3 causative light verb construction n=20
4 non-causative light verb construction n=20
5 test of (newly developing) causation on non-causative verb n=5

The results of this test are shown in Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11, where heritage speakers
lag behind native speakers but outperform L2 speakers.
Figure 4.12 shows a breakdown of correct grammaticality judgments for each subject group
based on the test condition. Both heritage and L2 speakers have higher accuracy rates on non-
causative light verb constructions but tend to have difficulty in judging the grammaticality of
non-causative simple verbs. This may suggest that the morphological causative formation has
not been acquired by heritage speakers, while they have better awareness of compound causa-
tive formation using the light verb.
This generalization is very much in line with the patterns seen in heritage linguistics in
general, where heritage speakers show a preference for analytical structures that provide a
one-to-one mapping between form and meaning (cf. O’Grady et al. 2011). If this conclusion
is on the right track, we would expect Persian HL to have a strong preference for light verb

75
Table 4.6 Sample items for the causation subtest of argument structure

Persian prompt English gloss Condition Grammatical?

‫صدای عصبانی بابابزرگ بچه‬ The sound of grandpa’s angry causative simple Yes
‫ها رو از ترس لرزوند‬ voice made the children verb
tremble with fear.
*‫دیدم که شونه هاش می لرزوندن‬ * I saw that his shoulders were causative simple No
making tremble. verb
‫پیرزن تو برف مونده بود و از‬ The old woman was stuck in non-causative Yes
‫سرما داش می لرزید‬ the snow and was trembling simple verb
from the cold.
‫زلزله های اخیر تموم استان‬ * The latest earthquakes shook non-causative No
*‫مرکزی رو لرزیدن‬ all of the central province. simple verb
‫ من رفتم‬.‫خیلی تاریک بود‬ It was very dark. I went and causative light verb Yes
‫چراغو روشن کردم‬ turned the light on. construction
‫چراغای خیابونا سر ساعت‬ * The streetlights turn on at causative light verb No
*‫هشت روشن می کنن‬ exactly 8 o’clock. construction
‫ سیگارم‬،‫هر چی می کردم‬ Whatever I did, my cigarette non-causative light Yes
‫روشن نمی شد‬ wouldn’t light up. verb construction
‫ تلوزیون‬،‫عصر که رسیدیم خونه‬ * When we arrived home in non-causative light No
*‫رو روشن شدیم‬ the evening, we turned on verb construction
the TV.
‫صدای هواپیما همیشه مریمو می‬ The sound of a plane always causative simple Yes
‫ترسونه‬ frightens Maryam. verb
‫پسرتون از این جور فیلما می‬ * Does your son frighten of causative simple No
*‫ترسونه؟‬ such movies? verb
‫بچه ها از این معلم می ترسن‬ The children are afraid of this non-causative Yes
teacher. simple verb
‫فیلمای الفرد هیچکاک منو می‬ * Alfred Hitchcock’s movies non-causative No
*‫ترسن‬ are afraid me. simple verb
‫این چند خط شعر منو به گریه‬ These few lines of poetry causative light verb Yes
‫انداخت‬ made me cry. construction
‫ به‬،‫شادی همین که فیلم رو دید‬ * As soon as she saw this causative light verb No
*‫گریه انداخت‬ movie, Shadi made cry. construction
‫وقتی که شاگردا نمره هاشونو‬ When the students saw their non-causative light Yes
‫ به گریه افتادن‬،‫دیدن‬ grades, they started to cry. verb construction
‫پسرت خواهرشو دوباره به گریه‬ * Your son started to cry her non-causative light No
*‫افتاد‬ sister again. verb construction

1.0
0.9
Accuracy rate

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.10 Grammatical judgment test for causative constructions.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2007
 Linguistic competence

Causatives
100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
% correct

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
NS HS L2
Speaker group

Ungrammatical Grammatical

Figure 4.11 Causatives results per speaker group, breakdown of grammaticality judgment.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2007

Causatives
100%

95%

90%

85%

80%
% correct

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%
light caus simple caus light non-caus simple non-caus
Verb & construction types

L2 HS NS

Figure 4.12 Grammaticality judgment based on condition types.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2007

77
 Karine Megerdoomian

Causative RTs
8000
7000
6000
5000
RT (ms)

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
light caus simple caus light non-caus simple non-caus
Verb & construction types

L2 HS NS

Figure 4.13 Causative test response times.

Source: Cagri, Jackson, and Megerdoomian 2007

constructions over simple verbs or morphologically derived argument structure alternations.

For a discussion on the acquisition and processing of light verb constructions in Persian sec-
ond language, read Chapter 6 in this volume.
Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2007) claim that overall, the response time of heritage
speakers is faster than that of L2 speakers. This is illustrated in Figure 4.13, where heritage
speakers perform as fast as native speakers, while L2 learners are slower in response to all test
questions.

4.5.6 Light verb constructions

Persian makes use of a small set of simple verbs; most verbal constructions are formed by
combining a nonverbal element with a light verb. These constructions are at the interface of
lexicon, morphology and syntax. Although researchers may disagree on the specific properties
of each light verb, it is agreed upon that the choice of the light verb is typically not random
and is dependent on various semantic, aspectual and syntactic properties of the light verb
construction as a whole.
The causative construction with light verbs was examined in the previous section, but the
various forms of these compound verbs raise difficulties for heritage speakers who sometimes
overuse the light verb /kardan/ ‘do, make’, creating forms such as /nejāt kardan/ (rescue do)
instead of the standard form /nejāt dādan/ (rescue give) ‘to rescue’ (Megerdoomian 2009).
Other examples include /jašn kardan/ (celebration do) instead of the standard /jašn gereftan/
(celebration get) ‘to celebrate’ and /duš kardan/ (shower do) substitutes the standard /duš ger-
eftan/ (shower get) ‘to shower’ (Moore and Sadegholvad 2013). Shabani-Jadidi (2018) also
reports difficulties by heritage speakers in selecting the appropriate light verb or preverbal
element in forming these compound constructions. She notes, however, that the overgenerali-
zation of /kardan/ is not observed with highly proficient speakers. In general, what these errors

78
 Linguistic competence

suggest is a lack of awareness of the aspectual and eventive properties of the verbal construc-
tions that constrain the choice of the light verb. The light verb /dādan/ is typically used with
eventive nouns while /gereftan/ is selected when the subject of the clause is the experiencer of
the event. The choice of the light verb with the least specifications, namely /kardan/ ‘do’, in
these constructions suggests an overgeneralization of this light verb to new contexts, regard-
less of the aspectual and eventive properties of the construction as a whole. The incomplete
acquisition of verbal compounds and the simplification of the choice of the light verb to using
the most salient verb across different constructions have interesting implications that could be
further studied.
Light verb constructions are often subject to borrowing from the dominant language, where
the Persian light verb is maintained but is combined with an English nonverbal element. This
code-switching is apparent not only in heritage Persian, however, but also in the Persian spo-
ken by the first generation of immigrants in the U.S. and, to a lesser degree, by speakers living
in the home country. The following examples are provided by Modarresi (2001), where the
borrowed term is shown in italics:

(12) /egzit-o­ mis kard-am/

exit-acc miss did-1sg
‘I missed the exit.’
(13) /kāler-ā­ bā ham kāmbāyn miš-an/
color-pl with each other combine become-3pl
‘The colors are combined with each other.’
(14) /ye ādat-i develop karde/
one habit-indef develop has done(3sg)
‘She/he has developed a habit.’

In general, lexical borrowings and code-switching, whereby the speaker switches from one
language to another in the middle of a phrase or sentence, are extremely frequent in both mono-
lingual and bilingual communities everywhere. Code-switching is not a simple combination
of two sets of grammars; rather, one language (in this case Persian) sets the main grammatical
framework and the other (i.e., English) provides certain items to fit into the framework. As
can be seen in these examples, the borrowed term takes on Persian morphology and is used in
the light verb construction. The borrowed word may carry Persian affixes such as the object
marker in /egzit-o/ ‘exit-acc’ or the plural affix in /kāler-ā/ ‘color-pl’. This kind of code-
switching in light verb constructions is also very common among native speakers in the home
country, as can be seen in the frequent usage of /kansel kardan/ (cancel do) ‘to cancel’. Patterns
of code-switching among heritage speakers actually suggest that they have a strong awareness
of the analytical structures formed by light verbs and are able to add Persian language mor-
phology to the borrowed word. For further information on this topic, read Chapter 27 in this
volume, where Persian second language acquisition and the status of codeswitching vis-à-vis
interlanguage are discussed.
The patterns seen in Persian heritage language have also been observed across heritage
languages. Code-switching instances with light verb constructions and the tendency to overuse
the light verb with the least specification ‘do’ have also been previously noted in other heritage
languages (cf. Treffers-Daller et al. 2016). Muysken (2000) describes that oftentimes the light
verb meaning ‘do, make’ is used for transitive verb formation and the light verb meaning ‘be,
stay’ is used for intransitive verb formation.

79
 Karine Megerdoomian

Interference effects from the dominant language may also influence the choice of the light
verb construction, as exemplified in the following sentences (Megerdoomian 2009):

(15) ‫این خواننده برنامه رو باز کرد‬

/in xanande barnāma-ro bāz kard/
this singer program-acc open made(3sg)
‘This singer opened the show.’
(16) ‫تازه یاد گرفتم که کتی ایرونیه‬
/tāze yād gereft-am
­ ke kati iruni-ye/
new memory got-1sg that Cathy Iranian-be.3sg
‘I just learned that Cathy is Iranian.’

The sentence in (15) is uttered by a heritage speaker on a Persian language TV program

in Los Angeles, where she used the incorrect verb /bāz kardan/ ‘to open’ instead of the gram-
matical /eftetāh kardan/; in Persian, only the latter is used in the context of ‘opening a show’.
In (16), the heritage speaker used the light verb construction meaning ‘to learn’ as in the Eng-
lish sentence ‘I just learned that Cathy is Iranian.’ In Persian, the appropriate verb would be /
fahmidan/ ‘to understand’.

4.5.7 Agreement
The literature on heritage linguistics has found that heritage speakers tend to lag behind native
speakers in the acquisition of verbal agreement, with a high number of errors in production of
subject-verb agreement. The following grammaticality judgment task examines Persian herit-
age speakers’ awareness of subject-verb agreement in the context of animacy.
In Persian, inanimate plurals may optionally appear with singular subject agreement on
the verb, but animate plurals can only have plural subject agreement. Example (17) shows a
sentence with an inanimate plural (‘papers’) lacking overt plural agreement on the verb, and
(18) illustrates a sentence where the subject is an animate plural (‘rabbits’) with missing plural
agreement on the verb, giving rise to ungrammaticality.

(17) ‫کاغذای هر سه امتحان روی زمین خیس ریخت‬

Papers-of each three exam on floor wet fell.3sg
‘The papers of all three exams fell on the wet floor.’
(18) *‫خرگوشها از سوراخ توی دیوار دراومد‬
Rabbits from hole in wall came out.3sg
‘*The rabbits came out of the hole in the wall.’

This test focuses on this specific agreement phenomenon by providing participants with
sentences that include a plural subject (animate or inanimate) split between those carrying
overt plural agreement and those displaying singular agreement on the verb. The object is to
determine whether the sentence is acceptable. Since long-distance dependencies have been
shown to be significant in testing for agreement, all sentences are controlled for length (six or
seven words long) and do not include subordinate clauses. The test conditions are:

– Eighteen acceptable sentences:

• six inanimate with plural agreement

80
 Linguistic competence

1.0
0.9

Accuracy rate
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.14 Grammaticality judgment test on subject-verb agreement.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

• six inanimate with singular agreement

• six animate with plural agreement
– Six unacceptable sentences:
• six animate subjects with singular agreement
– Each category has two high frequency, two mid frequency, and two low frequency
words.

The results show that Persian heritage speakers obtain lower accuracy scores than do native
speakers on this subject-verb agreement task but perform better than L2 learners who have an
average accuracy rate close to chance (Figure 4.14).
This finding is only a first step towards exploring the awareness of agreement in Persian.
More work is needed to investigate issues relating agreement to different person and number
values, and to study the effect of long-distance dependencies in Persian HL.

4.5.8 Summary
This section reviewed the literature on morphological awareness of heritage speakers as com-
pared to L2 learners. It was shown that heritage speakers have successfully acquired mor-
phosyntactic forms that are frequent in the input language, namely, conversational Persian
spoken by first-generation immigrants. They show a solid knowledge of the verbal inflectional
paradigm and tend to outperform L2 learners on most inflectional morphology tasks, including
subject-verb agreement, but still lag behind native speakers. L2 speakers with high proficiency
scores, however, perform similarly to heritage speakers on these tasks.
On the other hand, heritage speakers show a pattern of morphological deficiency across
tasks testing awareness of derivational morphology. This is the case especially when the mor-
phological forms or lexical items are not frequent in conversational language or integral to its
grammar and are considered to be a property of the high language. L2 speakers were shown to
outperform heritage speakers on these tasks, in particular if the feature being tested was part
of the instructional curriculum in the classroom. The study of light verb constructions confirms
findings in the general field of heritage linguistics whereby it is argued that perceptual sali-
ence in the input is a significant determining factor for heritage speakers’ competence. The

81
 Karine Megerdoomian

generalized use of the light verb /kardan/ among less proficient heritage speakers, in particular,
suggests that a form that is more visible, frequent and phonetically salient tends to get general-
ized and extended beyond its original use in the input language.
Overall, the heritage speakers’ competence in morphology seems to lag behind their aware-
ness of phonetics and phonological patterns in the language. The characteristics of Persian
heritage language – tendency to simplify structures that depend on complex aspectual and
semantic information, overgeneralization of salient patterns and items, preference for analytic
constructions that show a one-to-one mapping between form and meaning, and difficulty with
elements that are low on perceptual salience – are parallel to a number of findings in the herit-
age research literature (cf. Polinsky 2010). Areas that seem to be most susceptible to interfer-
ence from the dominant language, however, are constrained to the choice of lexical items
rather than structural influence.

4.6 Syntax
The results of studies on syntax show that Persian heritage speakers have acquired a number of
syntactic features nearing native-like competence. These include awareness of the use of nega-
tive polarity items and knowledge of sequence of tenses including the use of the subjunctive.
They are however outperformed in other domains by L2 speakers, with the most significant
results from preposition subcategorization and conjunction choice in complex sentences, both
of which seem to be affected by interference effects.

4.6.1 Negative polarity items

Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2012) perform a grammaticality judgment task to measure
speakers’ knowledge of Negative Polarity Items (NPI) in Persian. NPIs can appear in main or
subordinate clauses in Persian and require a negation morpheme on the verb. In interrogative
sentences, negation morphology is not required on the verb; the NPI is licensed in the question
environment. The test has the following conditions:

– Acceptable conditions
• single clause, negation on matrix verb (n=16)
• subordinate construction, negation on matrix verb (n=17)
• single clause, interrogative sentence, no negation on matrix verb (n=17)
• subordinate construction, negation on matrix verb and subordinate verb (n=17)
– Unacceptable conditions
• NPI in main clause, no negation on matrix verb (n=18); matches English construction

Acceptable sentences are illustrated in (19) and (20), with the NPI in a simple clause and
complex clause, respectively. An unacceptable sentence is provided in (21), where the verb
lacks negation, similar to the construction in English.

(19) /hičči be to na-gofte budam/

nothing to you neg-tell.part be-past.1sg
‘I had not told you anything.’ (lit: ‘I had not told you nothing.’)

82
 Linguistic competence

(20) /hiški na-tunest-e dar-e in xuna-ro bāz kone/

nobody neg-able.perf.3sg door-ez this house-acc open make.subj.3sg
‘No one has been able to open the door to this house.’
(lit: ‘No one has not been able to open the door of this house.’)
(21) */hiškas dar-e in xuna-ro bāz karde/
nobody door-ez this house-acc open made-perf.3sg
‘Nobody has opened the door of this house.’

Results of the test are shown in Figure 4.15. Heritage speakers perform well on this task,
with average accuracy scores matching those of native speakers, while L2 learners lag behind.
This suggests that heritage speakers have successfully acquired the knowledge of negative
polarity item constructions in Persian and there does not seem to be any interference effects
from English, which lacks NPI constructions.
Chapter 5 in this volume examines the acquisition of the functional category of negation in
Persian progressive tenses in monolingual, second language learners and heritage speakers of
Persian within the generative grammar and demonstrates the variability in the production of
this morphosyntactic structure by these three groups.

4.6.2 Relative clause

Research on the acquisition of relative clauses by heritage speakers has given mixed results. In
general, however, the results show that the level of difficulty observed seems to follow Keenan
and Comrie’s (1977) accessibility hierarchy, which provides a ranking of relative clause gap
structures in terms of ease of relativization:

(22) Subject > Direct object > Indirect object > Oblique > Genitive > Object of comparison

Keenan and Comrie posit that if a particular position in this hierarchy can be relativized,
all positions to its left have to be available for relativization in the language. Studies on rela-
tivization in heritage language have also found that the acquisition of relative clauses follows
the Keenan and Comrie hierarchy: subject relative clauses are easier to acquire and relative
clauses with a gap in the object position are more difficult for heritage speakers.

1.0
0.9
Accuracy rate

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.15 Grammaticality judgment on Negative Polarity Items in Persian.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

83
 Karine Megerdoomian

Table 4.7 Relative clause test items

Persian test item Transcription English translation Condition

‫معلمی که شاگردو نگا‬ moalemi ke šāgerdo The teacher who is Subject gap
‫میکنه‬ negā mikone looking at the student
‫اسبی که سگو گاز میگیره‬ asbi ke sago gāz The horse who is biting Subject gap
migire the dog
‫دزدی که داره پلیس رو‬ dozdi ke dāre polis ro The thief who is hitting Subject gap
‫میزنه‬ mizane the policeman
‫دختری و که پسره بغلش‬ doxtario ke pesare The girl that the boy is Object gap; resumptive
‫میکنه‬ baqaleš mikone hugging pronoun
‫سگی که اسب گازش‬ sagi ke asb gazeš The dog that the horse Object gap; resumptive
‫میگیره‬ migire is biting pronoun
‫پلیسی و که دزد داره‬ polisio ke dozd dāre The policeman that the Object gap; resumptive
‫میزندش‬ mizanadeš thief is hitting pronoun
‫صندلیای که َمرده روش‬ sandali-i ke marde The chair that the man Gap=object of prep;
‫جعبه رو میذاره‬ ruš ja’be ro mizāre is putting the box on resumptive pronoun
‫پاسبونی که آشپز ازش‬ pāsebuni ke āšpaz The policeman that the Gap=object of prep;
‫سیگارا رو میگیره‬ azaš sigārā ro chef is getting the resumptive pronoun
migire cigarettes from
‫دختری که پسره ازش پول‬ doxtari ke pesare The girl that the boy is Gap=object of prep;
‫میدزده‬ azaš pul midozde stealing money from resumptive pronoun
‫زنی که مرده براش گل‬ zani ke marde barāš The woman that a man Indirect object gap;
‫می خره‬ gol mixare is buying flowers for resumptive pronoun
‫پرستاری که دکتر بهش‬ parastāri ke doktor The nurse that the Indirect object gap;
‫دارویی رو نشون می ده‬ beheš dāruyi ro doctor is showing the resumptive pronoun
nešun mide medication to

To examine awareness of relative clause constructions and the use of resumptive pronouns
in Persian, Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2012) conduct a picture selection task where
participants are shown several pictures and hear a prompt of a relative clause (but not a full
sentence). The subject is expected to select the illustration that best represents the prompt. All
pictures represented reversible actions. The conditions for this test consist of relative clauses
with subject gaps (n=5), relative clauses with object gaps (n=5), relative clauses with gaps as
object of preposition (n=5) and relative clauses with gaps in indirect object position (n=5).14
As a secondary goal, this test also explores the speakers’ awareness of resumptive pronouns
in the relative clause. The test items are in conversational language and are exemplified in
Table 4.7.
Results of this test show that heritage speakers have successfully acquired the knowledge of
relative clause formation with various gap structures and use of resumptive pronouns, whereas
L2 learners have difficulty with these constructions (Figure 4.16). It should be noted that the
clauses in this test are from the conversational variant that differs from the literary variant typi-
cally taught in the classroom. One of the main differences is word order, but more importantly,
the resumptive clitics in the conversational variant substitute the formal forms of the pronouns.
Therefore, the register used in this test may prove to be more advantageous for heritage speak-
ers. Overall, a more detailed analysis of the test results, based on the specific conditions, can
help investigate whether there were differences in the task response with respect to subject,
object and indirect object gaps.

84
 Linguistic competence

Persian RC Head ID_MAIN_C

1.0

0.8

Accuracy rate
0.6

0.4

0.2

native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.16 Grammaticality judgment on relative clauses in Persian.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

In contrast, Sedighi (2010) claims that Persian heritage students tend to avoid complex
relative clauses or relative clauses with resumptive pronouns (23a) and instead opt for shorter
utterances (23b).

(23) (a) mard-i ke tu television-e hafte-ye piš injā bud

man-non-specific that in TV-is week-ez before here was
‘The man who is on TV was here last week.’
(b) un mard-e hafte-ye piš injā bud
that man-specific week-ez before here was
‘That man was here last week.’

Tarallo and Myhill (1983) set out to study the impact of L1 transfer on English-speaking
second language learners’ ability to recognize grammaticality in relative clauses in several target
languages which included Persian. The Persian learners who participated in the study were five
students in Persian foreign language classes at the University of Pennsylvania. The authors state,
“Structures tested for Persian include leaving a resumptive pronoun (correct except in subject
position), stranding a preposition (always incorrect), deleting a preposition (always incorrect),
and moving the preposition in front of the relativizer (also always incorrect)”. The researchers
found a large number of acceptances of ungrammatical sentences involving resumptive pronouns
by L2 speakers and concluded that these results cannot be attributed to interference from L1, as
English does not normally allow resumptive pronouns in relative clauses. Interestingly, the lit-
erature on heritage linguistics has found similar results where heritage speakers tend to overuse
the resumptive pronoun where native speakers would prefer a gap. In addition, several studies
have found that heritage speakers are more accepting of resumption in relative clauses, even in
places that are rejected by baseline speakers (see Polinsky 2010, 252 and references therein).

4.6.3 Preposition selection

Many verbs select for a preposition. The verb answer in English selects for a direct object,
whereas its synonym respond selects for a prepositional phrase ‘to someone/something’. Inter-
ference effects in Persian HL from English have previously been observed in the choice of
prepositions that follow a verb. Megerdoomian (2009) states that heritage speakers often say

85
 Karine Megerdoomian

or write ‫ در انگلیسی بنویسید‬/dar englisi benevisid/, which glosses as ‘in English write.2pl’. This
is a direct translation of the English construction ‘write it in English’; the Persian sentence
should use the preposition ‫‘ به‬to’ in this case. Heritage speakers often say ‫ من روی تلفنم‬/man ruye
telefonam/ (I on phone-am) or ‫ روی ساعت رسیدیم‬/ruye sāat residim/ (on time arrived.1pl) instead
of using the correct prepositions ‫ من پا تلفنم‬/man pā telefonam/ ‘I’m on the phone’ and ‫سر ساعت‬
‫ رسیدیم‬/sare sāæt residim/ ‘we arrived on time’, respectively. Moore and Sadegholvad (2013)
also report a similar interference effect from English in the use of the preposition /barāye/ ‘for’
instead of the appropriate /dar/ ‘in’ in the following sentence:

(24) man čāhâr sâle pish barāye dānešgāh sabte nām šodam
I four year before for university register name became
‘I registered for the university four years ago.’

Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2007) design a fill-in-the-beep task to test preposition selec-
tion in Persian HL. Subjects hear a sentence with a sound (a beep, for example) denoting the posi-
tion of a missing preposition and they must supply the missing preposition. Twenty-one distinct
verbs are selected where ten subcategorize for a preposition that is the same in English and eleven
subcategorize for a different preposition in Persian; two items are designed for each of these verbs,
resulting in a total of forty-two items. Examples of the prompts are shown in Table 4.8.
Figure 4.17 demonstrates that heritage speakers and L2 learners perform equally poorly
on this preposition subcategorization task, with an average accuracy score around 20%.

Table 4.8 Sample items for the preposition subcategorization subtest of argument structure

Persian prompt English gloss Persian preposition Condition to English

dustāye afGānemun če xub How well our Afghan from/of Diff

[beep] mā pazirāyi kardan friends hosted [x] us!
enšātuno [beep] ingilisi Write your essay [in] to Diff
benevisin English.
to dāri [beep] mohabate man You are taking advantage from/of Same
suɁestefāde mikoni [of] my affection.
kešvarhāye orupāyi am The European nations will in Same
[beep] in namāyešgā šerkat also be participating [in]
mikonan this exhibition.

1.0
Accuracy rate

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.17 Fill-in-the-beep test for preposition subcategorizaton task.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2007

86
 Linguistic competence

This suggests that interference effects play a highly significant role in the choice of prepo-
sitions used.

4.6.4 Conjunction choice

Another area where interference effects have been observed is in the use of conjunctions in
complex sentences. Megerdoomian (2009) states that heritage speakers of Persian have dif-
ficulty in the choice of the conjunction in embedded questions as shown in (25). Heritage
Persian speakers almost always use ‫ اگه‬/age/ ‘if’, which is a direct translation of the English
construction, whereas standard Persian typically leaves it blank. This use of ‫ اگه‬/age/ ‘if’ in
embedded questions is so engrained in heritage Persian that speakers are often shocked to hear
that it is a non-standard usage.

(25) ‫میخوام بدونم اگه میتونی بیای‬

mixām bedunam age mituni biyāy
want.1sg know.1sg if can.2sg come.2sg
‘I want to know if you can come.’

To test this feature, Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2012) designed a multiple-choice
test where the prompt is a written English sentence that includes an underlined conjunction.
Subjects are expected to choose the correct translation into Persian from a set of four choices
provided. Examples of the prompts are shown in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9 Sample items for the conjunction choice test

English prompt Correct Distractor 1 Distractor 2 Distractor 3 Condition

response to English

When I wanted to come ‫وقتی که‬ ‫به این دلیل‬ ‫درصورتی که‬ ‫هر چند‬ Similar
down, my foot slipped. /vaxti ke/ /be in dalil/ /dar suratike/ /har čand/
‘when’ ‘hence’ ‘whereas’ ‘even though’
I was out walking when ‫که‬ ‫به محض این که‬ ‫بعد از‬ ‫سرانجام‬ Different
I saw a black cat under /ke/ /be mahze inke/ /ba:d az/ /sar anjām/
the olive tree. ‘that’ ‘as soon as’ ‘after’ ‘finally’
I won’t buy you the ‫مگر این که‬ ‫به محض این که‬ ‫بلکه‬ ‫شاید که‬ Similar
bicycle I promised /magar inke/ /be mahze inke/ /balke/ /šāyad ke/
unless you get better ‘unless’ ‘as soon as’ ‘but, rather’ ‘maybe’
grades.
I was so tired that I just ‫که‬ ‫تا‬ ‫اما‬ ‫آیا‬ Similar
passed out. /ke/ /tā/ /ammā/ /āyā/
‘that’ ‘until’ ‘but’
I want to know if you’ve ‫آیا‬ ‫اگر‬ ‫پس‬ ‫چرا‬ Different
read this book. /āyā/ /agar/ /pas/ /čerā/
‘if’ ‘so’ ‘why’
As long as you’re in love ‫تا‬ ‫چون که‬ ‫وقتی که‬ ‫آیا‬ Different
with this man, you /tā/ /čon ke/ /vaxti ke/ /āyā/
won’t consider anyone ‘until’ ‘because’ ‘when’
else.

87
 Karine Megerdoomian

1.0

Accuracy rate
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.18 Multiple-choice test for choice of conjunction task.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

In this test, L2 speakers outperform heritage speakers, as shown in Figure 4.18. This sug-
gests that interference effects from the dominant language are more significant in the case of
HL acquisition than L2 learning.

4.6.5 Sequence of tenses

Knowledge of a language must include the ability to parse complex sentences that require a
subordinating verb. These structures are not only longer in length but also create syntactic
complexity by forcing tense requirements on the embedded verb, which may not be similar
across languages. An example is provided in the following where the subordinate verb in Per-
sian is in the past imperfective tense, while English employs a past conditional.

(26) ‫اگه جواب سؤالو میدونستم بهت میگفتم‬

age javāb-e soāl-o midunestam behet migoftam
If answer-of question-acc knew-past.imp.1sg to-you say-past.imp.1sg
‘If I knew the answer to the question, I would have told you.’

In this test, Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2007) assess the subject’s knowledge of
tense dependencies in multi-clausal environments using a grammaticality judgment task. The
test includes 125 items representing four distinct conditions:

(i) Tense sequences that are grammatical and parallel to English structures
(ii) Tense sequences that are ungrammatical and parallel to English structures
(iii) Tense sequences that are grammatical and unlike English structures
(iv) Tense sequences that are ungrammatical and unlike English structures

Several samples are shown in Table 4.10, where the sentences that are ungrammatical in
Persian have been marked with *.
Heritage speakers have accuracy scores close to those of native speakers on this task, while
L2 learners lag behind, as shown in Figure 4.19 and Figure 4.20. These results suggest that
Persian heritage speakers tend to have acquired an awareness of sequence of tenses in complex
sentences.

88
Table 4.10 Sample items for sequence of tenses subtest

Persian sentence Condition English gloss

.‫میگه زندگیش سخت میگذره‬ 1 S/he says her life is hard.

!‫ اینم بده به رضا‬،‫اگه میری‬ 1 If you are going, give this to Reza.
‫گزارش دادن خرسی که دیروز به مزرعه اومده‬ 1 They reported that the bear that had come to the
.‫ رفته‬،‫بود‬ farm yesterday has left.
.‫ لباس رسمی پوشیدیم‬،‫*وقتی به دانشگا بریم‬ 2 *When we go to the university, we wore formal
(official) dress.
.‫*تو رستوران منتظر شدیم تا مامان میرسید‬ 2 *We waited in the restaurant until mom was
arriving.
!‫ به ما بگین‬،‫هر وقت علی رو دیدین‬ 3 Whenever you saw Ali, tell us.
!‫ از سر میز بلند نشو‬،‫*تا غذاتو تموم نمیکنی‬ 4 *Until/while you are not done with your food,
don’t get up from the table.

1.0
0.9
Accuracy rate

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

native non-native
Subject condition

Figure 4.19 Grammaticality judgment task for sequence of tenses.

Source: Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian 2012

Sequence of tenses scores

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
% correct

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
NS HS L2
Speaker group

Ungrammatical Grammatical

Figure 4.20 Sequence of tenses scores.

 Karine Megerdoomian

Sequence of tenses RTs

7000

6000

5000
RT (ms)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
NS HS L2
Speaker group

RT

Figure 4.21 Sequence of tenses response time.

Figure 4.21 shows, once again, that heritage speakers’ response time matches that of native
speakers, whereas L2 learners are slower in responding to test items.

4.6.6 Other features

Persian is a null subject language that allows the subject of the sentence not to be expressed
overtly. Heritage speakers naturally utter sentences without the pronominal subject, whereas
English speakers need to learn this property of Persian. Nevertheless, no systematic study
has been conducted on the frequency of use of null subjects in Persian heritage versus native
speech, especially in the light of findings in the general literature on heritage language that
has observed an increased use of overt subjects in pro-drop languages when the dominant
language does not allow for null subjects.
In English, the bare plural is used to express an unspecified quantity in object position as
in ‘I read books every day.’ In Persian, however, a bare singular noun should be used as in
(27). While English learners of Persian tend to add a plural affix in these contexts (i.e., ‫ کتابها‬/
ketābhā/ ‘books’), Megerdoomian (2009) reports that most heritage speakers of Persian have
no difficulty using the bare noun.

(27) ‫من هر روز کتاب میخونم‬

man har ruz ketāb mixunam
I every day book read.Pres.1sg
‘I read books every day.’

In addition, heritage speakers have a clear intuition about the use of the object marker /rā/ in
Persian and almost always use it correctly in sentences that require a specific object. However,
since they have only heard this marker in the conversational language, they are familiar with
its colloquial forms /ro/ or /o/ as exemplified in (28) and (29), respectively, and have difficulty
linking it to the formal variant /rā/.

90
 Linguistic competence

(28) ‫کتابی رو که بهم دادی گم کردم‬

ketābi-ro ke behem dādi gom kardam
book-acc that to-me gave.2sg lost made.1sg
‘I lost the book that you gave me.’

(29) ‫مشقامو تموم کردم‬

mašG-ā-m-o tamum kardam
homework-pl-my-acc finished made.1sg
‘I finished my homework.’

Besides marking specific direct objects, the /rā/ (/ro/ or /o/) morpheme can also be used to
mark topicalized phrases. No studies have yet been conducted to test the acquisition of /rā/ in
topicalization in Persian heritage language.
The Ezafe morpheme /e/ (variant /ye/ after vowels, due to glide insertion in intervocalic
position) is used to link the head of the noun phrase to its post-nominal modifiers and posses-
sor as shown in (30).

(30) ketāb-e jāleb-e qermez-e amu-ye zan-am

book-ez interesting-ez red-ez uncle-ez wife-1sg
‘The interesting red book of my uncle’s wife’

The Ezafe morpheme is an unstressed vowel (i.e., phonetically not salient) but seems to
have been acquired by heritage speakers reported in Megerdoomian (2009). The evidence can
be found in errors in writing by heritage students in the classroom. The Ezafe morpheme is not
written in Persian script, except after vowels. Heritage speakers, however, commonly write
the /e/ sound in their writings, as shown in (31), where the Ezafe morpheme is shown in bold
in the transcriptions. These orthographic errors demonstrate that heritage speakers are fully
aware of the use of the Ezafe construction in forming noun phrases and certain preposition
phrases (cf. 30e).

(31) (a) ‫گچه معلم شکست‬ /gač-e­ moallem šekast/ ‘the teacher’s chalk broke.’
(b) ‫داستانه مارمولک‬ /dāstān-e­ mārmulak/ ‘the story of the lizard’
(c) ‫یک چیزه دیگه‬ /yek čiz-e­ dige/ ‘another thing’
(d) ‫زندگیه آنها‬ /zendegi-e­ ānhā/ ‘their life’
(e) ‫رویه صندلی‬ /ruy-e­ sandali/ ‘on top of the chair’
(f) ‫کتاب فرشته‬ /ketāb-e­ ferešteh/ ‘Fereshteh’s book’
(g) ‫مفهومه این فیلم‬ /mafhum-e­ in film/ ‘the meaning of this movie’

These are in contrast with findings on L2 learners of Persian that show omission of the Ezafe
marker (/čerā *mādar in doxtar asabāni šod?/ ‘Why did this daughter mother get angry?’), as
well as instances of hypercorrection (/in xune *nafar-e panj zendegi mikonan/ ‘this house five
of people live’) (Bemani Naeini 2016).
Additionally, Persian heritage speakers seem to have internalized a number of syntactic
constructions that occur often in conversational language, such as the use of the subjunctive
verb form as shown in example (32). In contrast, learning the correct use of the subjunc-
tive, which occurs after verbs and modals such as /bāyad/ ‘must’, /šāyad/ ‘may’ and /xāstan/
‘to want’, is usually challenging for L2 learners since it is not used in modern American
English.

91
 Karine Megerdoomian

(32) ‫ما فردا باید بریم دانشگاه‬

mā fardā bāyad berim dānešgā
we tomorrow must go.subj.1pl university
‘Tomorrow we have to go to the University’

The use of the subjunctive in hypothesis constructions, however, such as ‫ اگه وقت داشته باشم‬/
age vaxt dāšte bāšhæm/ ‘if I have time’, which uses the past subjunctive, proves difficult for
Persian heritage speakers (Megerdoomian 2009). In addition, heritage speakers do not demon-
strate a strong command of the passive voice (Fani 2013; Sedighi 2010; Shabani-Jadidi 2018).
The literature on heritage language has found that word order tends to become more
restricted in the HL, while morphological features on nouns tend to become simpler (O’Grady
et al. 2011). There has been no systematic study of word order in heritage Persian. However,
Moore and Sadegholvad (2013) provide the example in (33), which shows evidence of transfer
where the SVO order of English is superimposed. In the standard word order in Persian, the
copula /ast/ should be sentence-final.

(33) rešte-ye tahsili-am ast zistšenāsi

field-of education-my is biology
‘My major is biology.’

A common characteristic of heritage speakers is inexperience with stylistic variation and

high registers, despite their native-like fluency in informal registers (which L2 students tend to
learn after studying the written or formal discourse). Since heritage speakers have only been
exposed to the familial context, they are unable to change registers and may use the language
in socially inappropriate ways according to a native speaker. For instance, heritage speakers
oftentimes refer to everyone in the familial form of address /to/ ‘you’ and generally have to be
taught to use the polite form when appropriate, i.e., /šomā/ used for an interlocutor and /išān/
‘they’ used when speaking of a third person. Heritage speakers are also unfamiliar with the
honorific language used in Persian such as /tašrif biyārin/ (lit. ‘bring your honorable presence’)
instead of /biāyin/ ‘come’, or /in xedmatetun bāše/ (lit. ‘may it be in your servitude’) instead
of /in-o nega: dārin/ ‘hold this’. The choice of the inappropriate forms in contexts where the
honorific language is appropriate can have very negative social consequences if the interlocu-
tors are unaware of the heritage speaker’s limitations.

4.6.7 Summary
This section presented several studies conducted in the domain of syntax to assess the lin-
guistic competence of heritage speakers and L2 learners. There is much more variation in this
domain than in the results obtained in phonology and morphology. Persian heritage speakers
display strong awareness of agreement and dependencies, as seen by the near-native perfor-
mance in the negative polarity item and relative clause tasks with resumptive pronouns. Herit-
age speakers also outperform L2 learners and show target-like accuracy in determining the
appropriate sequence of tenses in complex clauses. In contrast, heritage speakers perform
weakly on tasks such as conjunction choice and preposition subcategorization, which seem to
be most susceptible to interference effects from the dominant language.
Given the variability in the results, it would be beneficial to study these features in more
detail by controlling for the test conditions, task types and subject profiles with the goal of
isolating the competence of heritage speakers on particular morphosyntactic features.

92
 Linguistic competence

4.7 Sources of heritage language divergence

The literature has argued that the heritage advantage is most obvious in phonetics but the herit-
age speaker’s output diverges strongly from the baseline in the domains of morphology, syntax
and lexical knowledge. Results on morphosyntactic knowledge, in particular, are more mixed
and depend on the linguistic feature being tested, the type of task used, and the proficiency
level of the heritage speaker (Benmamoun, Montrul and Polinsky 2010). This generalization
correlates with the findings for Persian heritage language reviewed in this chapter.
Research suggests that Persian heritage speakers have a native-like competence in pho-
nology and show strong acquisition of morphological paradigms. In contrast, morphologi-
cal elements that are derivational or features that are not salient in the input have not been
fully acquired in heritage language; L2 learners tend to do better than heritage speakers
in these domains. In the syntactic domain, the competence of heritage speakers is subject
to increased variation – overall, these speakers do not perform as well as native speakers
on recognition and production of syntactic patterns but tend to do better than L2 learners.
Persian heritage speakers show strong awareness of agreement relations, argument structure
and tense dependencies, but struggle with selection of certain functional elements, which
seem to be subject to interference effects from the dominant language. In this section, I will
explore how these findings fit within the claims made in the field of heritage linguistics. This
discussion can guide future design and analysis of experimental results on Persian heritage
language.

4.7.1 Frequency
The role of frequency of forms in the input language is well documented (De Houwer 2007).
Repeated exposure by the learner to particular features strengthens the association between
form and meaning expressed and facilitates complete acquisition of the features. Thus, more
common forms of lexical elements, phonemes, morphemes and syntactic patterns are acquired
first by the heritage speaker. Indeed, the investigation by Payesteh (2015) of the language
skills of 2–5-year-old bilingual Persian speakers in the United States confirms that parental
input is directly related to the development of the child’s Persian language skills.
As already discussed in the previous sections, a number of linguistic features that are not
frequent in Persian conversational language, such as Arabic root and pattern morphology,
are typically not acquired in heritage language. Although Persian heritage speakers show
solid awareness of the verbal paradigm, they are often unfamiliar with the future tense
construction formed with the verb /xāstan/ ‘want’ as in /xāhand kard/ (want.3pl do.past)
‘(they) will do’. This form has almost entirely been substituted by the present tense form
construction in conversational Persian, and the future meaning is generally conveyed using
temporal adverbials in the sentence, as in /fardā mirim/ (tomorrow imp.go.2pl) ‘(we) will go
tomorrow’ (Sedighi 2010).

4.7.2 Perceptual salience

Polinsky (2010) defines perceptual salience as forms that are visible in the input language.
For instance, if a morpheme is not overtly pronounced in certain contexts and it assimilates
phonetically to the next morpheme, it tends not to be acquired as uniformly in HL. This is
the case of the Spanish a accusative morpheme that marks animate objects, which sometimes
assimilates to the following word if the latter begins with the phoneme /a/. It has been reported

93
 Karine Megerdoomian

that heritage speakers of Spanish tend to omit this morpheme in their speech (Montrul and
Sánchez-Walker 2013). Thus, the phonetic salience of a phoneme or morpheme plays a role in
its successful acquisition in HL.
Perceptual salience may also occur functionally or structurally. Tense is an example of a
feature that is structurally salient (i.e., high in the syntactic structure), in contrast with Aspect.
Heritage speakers show stability in their acquisition of tense morphology across languages but
have less control of aspectual and temporal marking.
The low tolerance for what Polinsky (2010) refers to as “silent elements” is a related phe-
nomenon. Typically, heritage speakers show a preference for overtly expressing syntactic ele-
ments. This manifests itself in the low number of null pronominals in heritage languages and
in the increased use of resumptive pronouns or fully repeated antecedents instead of silent
categories in the gap position.

4.7.3 Leveling
One of the interesting findings in the field of heritage linguistics has been the fact that herit-
age speakers show a tendency towards leveling, where complex paradigms (e.g., case) are
eliminated or simplified. Leveling is a tendency of the heritage speaker to lose the distinction
in linguistic features between the HL and the dominant language (cf. Godson 2003 for pho-
netic leveling in Western Armenian). Leveling causes language features of the HL to “become
more similar, opting for a compromise in the representation of a particular segment” (Polinsky
2010).

4.7.4 Differentiation
In contrast to leveling, heritage speakers have also been known to differentiate the properties
of the HL that set it apart from the dominant language, especially in phonetics.

4.7.5 Regularization
The claim has often been made in the literature that heritage language displays a ‘simplifi-
cation’ of the language patterns. One instance of simplification is the tendency for heritage
speakers to regularize one form over others. According to Polinsky (2010), it is not only the
frequency of linguistic features that determines which feature is regularized in HL, but rather
salience. Thus, if several allophones or allomorphs compete in the language, heritage speakers
will acquire and regularize the more salient variant – i.e., the one that is most heavy phoneti-
cally or structurally.
A potential case of regularization in Persian may be the /hā/ plural suffix. As seen in Section
4.5.2.3, Persian has a number of plural suffixes that select for distinct nominal classes. The /hā/
plural, however, is the most common form and can attach to any noun regardless of semantic
category. Heritage Persian speakers do not demonstrate any familiarity with the different plu-
ral formation patterns; instead, they use the /hā/ suffix throughout to form plurals.

4.7.6 Overregularization
Overregularization refers to the use of regular grammatical patterns in a new context. A well-
documented example of this phenomenon is the overregularization of the past tense in English
L1 acquisition where children create forms such as comed, builded and catched.

94
 Linguistic competence

An instance of overregularization in Persian HL is the extension of the light verb /kardan/

‘do, make’ to form light verb constructions in contexts where a different light verb would have
been employed in the baseline. This pattern of selecting the most common light verbs ‘do/
make’ and ‘become’ for the formation of transitive and intransitive compound verbs, respec-
tively, has been noticed in several heritage languages. These light verbs may be the most
frequent ones in the language but more importantly, they are the least specified in terms of
eventive, aspectual and semantic value. While other light verbs provide certain aspectual (e.g.,
durative, semelfactive) information or select for nonverbal elements with specific characteris-
tics (e.g., eventive nouns or instruments), the light verb /kardan/ can appear on a large number
of constructions – especially in its non-causative use of ‘do’. This light verb is most commonly
used to form intransitives with an agentive subject (e.g., /kār kardan/ (work do) ‘to work’, /
bāzi kardan/ (play do) ‘to play’) or to form causatives (e.g., /xošk kardan/ (dry make) ‘to dry’,
/asabāni kardan/ (angry make) ‘to anger, make angry’). Thus, the use of /kardan/ in a causative
construction to form the illicit /*nejāt kardan/ (rescue make) ‘to rescue’ is a case of overregu-
larization of the causative event contributed to the verbal construction by /kardan/.

4.7.7 Compositionality
There is a partiality in heritage language for linguistic patterns and features that are composi-
tional, providing a more direct form-meaning mapping. The significance of this mapping has
been documented in O’Grady et al. (2011, 225):

The key point here will be that the types of phenomena that have proven most suscep-
tible to partial acquisition or attrition are those for which the form-meaning mapping
is likely to be problematic to the processor, either because the form’s phonetic pro-
file is acoustically compromised or because its precise semantic function is difficult
to discern. . . . [S]uch mappings are acquired only with the help of high-frequency
instantiations in the input – a condition that is often not met in the case of heritage
language learning.

The prominence of compositionality in heritage language can explain the results of experi-
ments on causatives in Section 4.5.5, where we saw that Persian heritage speakers perform
better on causatives formed with the analytical light verb construction rather than the simple
verb forms. In a light verb construction, the light verb clearly maps to a causative meaning,
thus providing a direct form-meaning mapping for the heritage speaker. The compositional
pattern formation can also be seen in code-switching examples in heritage language discussed
in Section 4.6.6.
Furthermore, the vulnerability of Persian heritage language in judgment tasks using the
Arabic root and pattern morphology is another instance of the robust nature of composition-
ality in HL. To begin with, the template morphology patterns do not provide a clear form to
meaning mapping. In addition, the Arabic morphology formation rules are not productive in
modern Persian; these plural forms are therefore considered high level lexical items. Thus, the
lack of compositionality in these constructions and their infrequent and non-salient nature in
the input language contribute to their unsuccessful acquisition in Persian heritage language.
Persian heritage speakers have been reported to perform poorly on tasks testing their knowl-
edge of idioms, collocations and proverbs, which are non-compositional lexicalized forms.
Cagri, Jackson and Megerdoomian (2012) conduct a phrase completion task where the partici-
pants are asked to provide the missing one word at the end of the idiom or collocation prompt

95
 Karine Megerdoomian

(34) and an error correction task to test the familiarity of participants with high-frequency
proverbs (35). In both tests, heritage speakers perform very poorly at around 20% accuracy on
the average, compared to the native speakers with an average accuracy of around 98%.

(34) ‫ جنب و‬. . . missing word: ‫جوش‬

/jomb o . . . / missing word: /juš/
‘hustle and bustle’ (literally: movement and boiling)
(35) ‫از کیسهی امام بخشیدن‬ correct word: ‫خلیفه‬
from bag-of Imam offer correct word: caleph
‘To offer from the bag of the *imam/caleph’
(meaning: to offer something that does not belong to you)

For further discussion on this topic, read Chapter 6 in this volume, which examines the
processing, comprehension and acquisition of idiomatic expressions in second language learn-
ers of Persian.

4.7.8 Distant dependencies

Research has shown that heritage speakers are susceptible to dependency relationships
between items that are separated by linear or structural distance. For instance, long-distance
agreements are challenging for heritage speakers in both production and comprehension tasks.
This factor does not seem to be obvious in Persian based on the evidence available since
Persian heritage speakers perform well on agreement tasks, both in simple clauses (task on
negative polarity item and verbal agreement, task on animacy effect and subject agreement
on verbs) as well as for tense dependencies in complex clauses and relative clause compre-
hension. Perhaps a more targeted experiment to test the effect of distance and grammatical
relationships can verify whether this phenomenon plays a role in Persian heritage linguistics.

4.7.9 Transfer from dominant language

It is generally accepted that features of the dominant language influence the structure and
properties of the heritage language in systematic ways. We have seen this to be a strong factor
in Persian heritage language more than in L2, given the poor performance of heritage speakers
on preposition selection and conjunction choice tasks. In order to verify these results, a closer
investigation of the test item conditions by targeting the ones that are similar to the English
usage would be needed. In addition, examining similar constructions in different dominant
languages can help isolate the contributing factors.

4.8 Conclusion
This chapter presents a comprehensive overview of the phonological, morphological, morpho-
syntactic and syntactic characteristics of Persian heritage language and contrasts them with the
linguistic characteristics of L2 speakers of Persian. The chapter presents various studies and
experimental tasks applied to the discovery of the characteristics, differences and similarities
between Persian HL and L2, and highlights the findings from the different researches while
calling attention to areas for future study and experimentation. Furthermore, the chapter pro-
vides insight into how phenomena observed within Persian heritage linguistics fit into what is
known about heritage languages in general.

96
 Linguistic competence

Notes
1) This distinction has changed since the advent of social media where the conversational variant is
often used in writing blogs, tweets and other social media posts.
2) It should be noted that almost all the studies have focused on heritage language characteristics in the
Tehran dialect of Iran. The author is not aware of any research on dialects of Persian spoken outside
of Iran, such as Afghan Persian (Dari) and Tajiki Persian.
3) Any test items where native speakers did not perform at above 70% accuracy have been deleted from
the final calculations (Cagri, Jackson, and Megerdoomian 2007).
4) The voiced allophone /G/ is a fricative but in prevocalic initial position tends to be a voiced stop,
often followed by a fricative release (Windfuhr 1979).
5) Test items with obstruents in coda position may need to be revised for phoneme monitoring tasks since
stops often undergo devoicing as in /ešx/ ‘love’ (root form /ešG/) or place assimilation in the case of /
jaŋ/ ‘war’ (root form /jang/) (Bijankhan 2018). These items may disadvantage heritage speakers who
are not as familiar with the written form, which does not reflect the actual pronunciation of the word.
6) It should be noted that the patterns of orthographic transcription of spoken speech encountered in
heritage Persian writing can also be found in Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC), such as
social media and social networking sites, where Persian native speakers often represent conversa-
tional language on CMC. In these instances, these forms are not “errors” but deliberate bending of
traditional rules of orthography to represent the spoken language online.
7) Persian has three distinct letters to transcribe the sound /s/. In this example, the heritage speaker uses
the sin letter instead of the correct sat character.
8) The ezafe is used to link the noun to other elements in the noun phrase, such as the modifying adjec-
tives or the possessive nouns: ketāb-e Germez-e pedar-am (book-EZ red-EZ father-my) ‘my father’s
red book’.
9) See Kahnemuyipour (2018) for a comprehensive list of terms that fall in this category.
10) Note that the distinction in the third person singular is maintained in heritage writing since the words
are pronounced /xord/ for simple past vs. /xorde/ for present perfect.
11) There is also a vowel lengthening on the present perfect form as /xordá:m/.
12) Plural affixes in Persian behave like derivational morphemes (cf. Kahnemuyipour 2009).
13) In Persian, a glide is inserted intervocalically at morpheme boundaries.
14) Relative clauses with gaps as object of preposition and relative clauses with gaps in indirect object
position have parallel constructions in Persian.

References
Au, T.K.F., J.S. Oh, L.M. Knightly, S.-A. Jun, and L. Romo. 2008. “Salvaging a Childhood Language.”
Journal of Memory and Language, 58: 998–1011.
Bemani Naeini, M. 2016. “Morphological Analysis of English L1-Persian L2 Adult Learners’ Interlan-
guage: From the Perspective of SLA Variation.” International Scholarly and Scientific Research &
Innovation, 10(4).
Benmamoun, E., S. Montrul, and M. Polinsky. 2010. “White Paper: Prolegomena to Heritage Linguis-
tics.” Unpublished manuscript. http://nhlrc.ucla.edu/pdf/HL-whitepaper.pdf
Benmamoun, E., S. Montrul, and M. Polinsky. 2013. “Heritage Languages and Their Speakers: Opportu-
nities and Challenges.” Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4): 129–181.
Bijankhan, M. 2018. “Phonology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics, edited by A. Sedighi
and P. Shabani-Jadidi, 111–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cagri, I., S. Jackson, and K. Megerdoomian. 2007. “Testing the Linguistic Competence of Persian Herit-
age Speakers.” Presented at the Second Language Research Forum: Colloquium on Understanding
the Interlanguage Systems of Heritage Language Learners. Urbana-Champaign, IL, October 2007.
Cagri, I., S. Jackson, and K. Megerdoomian. 2012. “The Linguistic Competence of Persian Heritage
Speakers: A Task-Based Study.” Unpublished manuscript, College Park, MD.
De Houwer, A. 2007. “Parental Language Input Patterns and Children’s Bilingual Use.” Applied Psycho-
linguistics, 28(3): 411–424.
Eslami, M., A. Estaji, and M. Elyasi. 2014. “The Spelling Error Analysis of the Written Persian Essays
of Russian Adult Learners of Persian.” Asian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences (AJHSS),
2(1): 1–8.

97
 Karine Megerdoomian

Fani, A. 2013. “Persian as a Heritage Language.” Peyk, 143: 19–20.

Ferguson, C.A. 1959. “Diglossia.” Word, 15: 325–340.
Ghadessy, E. 1988. Some Problems of American Students in Mastering Persian Phonology. Ph.D. dis-
sertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Godson, L. 2003. Phonetics of Language Attrition: Vowel Production and Articulatory Setting in the
Speech of Western Armenian Heritage Speakers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California San
Diego.
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2003. “Syntactic Categories and Persian Stress.” Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory, 21(2): 333–379.
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2009. The Syntax of Sentential Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kahnemuyipour, A. 2018. “Prosody.” In The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics, edited by. Anou-
sha Sedighi and Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keenan, E.L., and B. Comrie. 1977. “Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar.” Linguistic
Inquiry, 8: 63–99.
Khanzadi, S. 2013. “Velar Fricatives in English-Persian Learner Language.” Unpublished manuscript,
University of Minnesota.
Kupisch, T., D. Barton, K. Hailer, T. Lein, I. Stangen, and J. van de Weijer. 2014. “Foreign Accent in
Adult Simultaneous Bilinguals?” Heritage Language Journal, 11: 123–150.
Long, M.H., and C.J. Doughty. 2009. The Handbook of Language Teaching. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Megerdoomian, K. 2009. “Heritage Persian Characteristics and Needs.” Paper presented at the STAR-
TALK Persian Teacher’s Workshop for Professional Curriculum and Materials Development, Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Megerdoomian, K. 2010. “Linguistic Patterns in Heritage Persian Instruction.” Proceedings of STAR-
TALK Persian Teacher’s Workshop for Professional Curriculum and Materials Development, Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Modarresi, Y. 2001. “The Iranian Community in the United States and the Maintenance of Persian.”
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 148: 93–115.
Modarresi Ghavami, G. 2018. “Phonetics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics, edited by.
Anousha Sedighi and Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Montrul, S. 2008. Incomplete Acquisition in Bilingualism: Re-examining the Age Factor. Amsterdam,
NL: John Benjamins Publishing.
Montrul, S. 2012. “Is the Heritage Language Like a Second Language?” EUROSLA Yearbook, 12(1):
1–29.
Montrul, S. 2016. The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Montrul, S., and N. Sánchez-Walker. 2013. “Differential Object Marking in Child and Adult Spanish
Heritage Speakers.” Language Acquisition, 20: 109–132.
Moore, J., and E. Sadegholvad. 2013. “The Linguistic Markers of Persian Heritage Language Speakers:
Evidence from the Classroom.” Heritage Language Journal, 10(1): 83–107.
Muysken, P. 2000. Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-Mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Natel-Khanlari, P. 1999. The History of Persian Language. Tehran: Toos Publishing.
O’Grady, W., H.-Y. Kwak, O.-S. Lee, and M. Lee. 2011. “An Emergentist Perspective on Heritage Lan-
guage Acquisition.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33: 223–245.
Payesteh, B. 2015. Language Input and Outcomes in Bilingual Persian-English Children Attending an
Immersion Preschool. Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Polinsky, M. 2010. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Polinsky, M. 2011. “Reanalysis in Adult Heritage Language: A Case for Attrition.” Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 33: 305–328.
Rafat, Y., M. Mohaghegh, and R. Stevenson. 2017. “Geminate Attrition Across Three Generations of
Farsi-English Bilinguals Living in Canada: An Acoustic Study.” Ilha Desterro, 70(3): 151–168.
Rothman, J. 2007. “Heritage Speaker Competence Differences, Language Change, and Input Type:
Inflected Infinitives in Heritage Brazilian Portuguese.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 11:
359–389.
Sedighi, A. 2010. “Teaching Persian to Heritage Persian Speakers.” International Journal on Iranian
Studies, 43(5): 681–695.
Sedighi, A. 2018. “Persian as a Heritage Language.” In The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics,
edited by. Anousha Sedighi and Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

98
 Linguistic competence

Shabani-Jadidi, P. 2018. “Heritage Learners’ versus Second Language Learners’ Source of Errors in
Advanced Level Writing: Case of a Persian Media Course.” Journal of the International Society for
Iranian Studies. Routledge, 51(5): 747–778.
Silva-Corvalán, C. 1994. Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Silva-Corvalán, C. 2018. “Simultaneous Bilingualism: Early Developments, Incomplete Later Out-
comes?” International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5): 497–512.
Tarallo, F., and J. Myhill. 1983. “Interference and Natural Language Processing in Second Language
Acquisition.” Language Learning, 33(1): 55–76.
Treffers-Daller, J., M. Daller, R. Furman, and J. Rothman. 2016. “Ultimate Attainment in the Use of
Collocations among Heritage Speakers of Turkish in Germany and Turkish – German Returnees.”
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19: 504–519.
Windfuhr, G.L. 1979. Persian Grammar, History and State of its Study. Trends in Linguistics, State-of-
the-Art Reports, 12. The Hague: Mouton.

99
 5
NEGATIVE FORMS OF PERSIAN
PROGRESSIVE TENSES AZITA H. TALEGHANINEGATIVE FORMS

Evidence from monolingual, second language

learners and heritage speakers of Persian

Azita H. Taleghani

5.1 Introduction1
The generative approach of language acquisition mainly focuses on grammatical represen-
tations in children acquiring language and compares these to the adult representations. It
is also assumed that a theory of the acquisition and grammar of heritage speakers should
not be different from a theory of a monolingual and second language speaker (Montrul
2016, 150). The same modules and mechanisms that are crucial in monolingual acquisition
such as innateness, input and socialization are essential in heritage language acquisition too.
Heritage speakers, like monolingual learners, start acquisition of the language very young
and similar to second language learners bring the knowledge of another language. It is also
believed that monolingual and second language learners show differences in their produc-
tion of inflectional morphology associated with functional categories such as tense, aspect,
complementizers, determiners, inflection and negation. Such distinctions in monolingual
acquisition have been shown to be structurally determined. It is not the case that children do
not know the relevant morphology. Rather, their use or nonuse of inflection co-occurs with
other syntactic properties such as type of subjects, negation etc., suggesting that distinctions
reveal certain structural characteristics of the child’s grammar. Although there are disagree-
ments about what the relevant structural properties are, almost all generative theories of
monolingual acquisition share this notion that the child has full competence with respect to
functional categories. The question that arises here is whether second language variability
reflects the same characteristics with respect to the production of inflectional morphology
associated with functional categories. Some researchers argue that second language learners
know the abstract features of functional categories: the syntactic consequences of functional
categories can be observed in their grammars (Epstein, Flynn, and Martohardjono 1996, 19,
677–714; Lardiere 1998, 14, 1–26, Schwartz 1998, 35–59). However, the learner has had
insufficient time to experience enough samples of the second language’s data to establish
the relevant categories. Thus, what is lacking is full knowledge of the specific realization of
that functional category.
The discussion of this chapter focuses on the acquisition of the functional category of
negation in Persian progressive tenses in monolingual, second language learners and heritage

100
 Negative forms

speakers of Persian and the variability in the production of this morpho-syntactic structure by
these three groups. The theoretical approaches in this research are formal linguistics, genera-
tive grammar in both morpho-syntactic analysis and acquisition of negation.
The chapter is organized as follows: The first section is devoted to an overview of semantic
properties of the progressive structures. The second section focuses on the structural description
of Persian progressive tenses, followed by the morpho-syntactic analysis of these tenses in Sec-
tion 3. Section 4 is devoted to an overview of Persian negation. In Section 5, the main approaches
in generative grammar with respect to monolingual speakers, second language learners and herit-
age speakers’ acquisition will be presented. Section 6 is dedicated to the theoretical approach of
the research followed by the background research on negation’s acquisition in generative gram-
mar in Section 7. Section 8 is concentrated on the empirical study, acquisition of Persian negative
progressive tenses in monolingual, second language learners and heritage speakers of Persian.
The analysis of the results and the discussion of this empirical study will be presented in Sec-
tion 9. Finally, the chapter concludes with the final remarks and suggestions for further research.

5.2 Progressive: semantic properties

If we look at the progressive construction in many languages, we will notice that the original
function of the progressive is to give the location of the subject in the middle of an activity.
Thus, it would be reasonable that progressive constructions are used with verbs that have overt
location. In other words, the progressive co-occurs with dynamic verbs rather than state verbs.
Bybee, Revere Perkins and Pagliuca (1994, 136) suggest that in the progressive we can find
the following elements implicitly or explicitly.

a) an agent
b) is located spatially
c) in the midst of
d) an activity
e) at reference time

The locative notion may be expressed either in verbal auxiliary like ‘sit’, ‘be’, stay’, ‘live’ and
‘reside’ or in pre/post positions referring to the location such as ‘at’, ‘in’ or ‘on’. For example,
as illustrated in (1), in Spanish the present participle with the auxiliary estar originated from
the Latin stare, meaning ‘to stand’, produces the progressive tense (Bybee 1994, 130).

1) Elena está jugando voilbol este año.

‘Elena is playing volleyball this year.’

In Urdu, the verb rah ‘stay’ uses as an auxiliary and makes the progressive tense. This is
shown in (2).2

2) naadyaa kat likh rah-ii hai

N.F=Nom letter.M-acc write stay.F.SG be-PRES.3rdSG.
‘Nadya is writing a letter.’ (Butt 1995, 102, e.g. 23)

Comrie defines progressive as a continuousness combined with nonstative meaning (Com-

rie 1976, 33–35). But it is worth it to note that the continuous is more general than the progres-
sive because it can be used in progressive situations and stative predicates. He suggests figure
(1) for aspectual oppositions.

101
 Azita H. Taleghani

perfective imperfective

habitual continuous

nonprogressive progressive

Figure 5.1 Aspectual oppositions.

Comrie suggests that the progressive is an imperfective without habituality. Semantically,

continuity and habituality are the most common sub-senses of the imperfective, and continuity
is the starting point for the imperfective (Comrie 1976, 25).
After this overview of semantic properties of the progressive, in the next section, we will
see how these semantic features characterize morpho-syntactically in Persian progressives.

5.3 Persian progressive tenses: structural description

Every language has the specific structure to show progressive tense. For example, English uses
periphrastic form: be + verb-ing as shown in (3).

3) (a) She is reading a newspaper.

(b) We were watching a movie.

In languages without an explicit progressive grammar, the same device, which is usually used
for habitual actions, on-going states, and all other present occurrences is used (Bybee 1994, 133).
In Persian, present progressives may be expressed by simple present tense, as illustrated in (4).

4) (a) alān Sārā chi kār mi-kon-eh?

now, S. what work IMP-do-PRES.Stm-3rdSG.
‘What is Sārā doing now?’
(b) televizyon tamāshā mi-kon-eh
TV. watch IMP-do-PRES.Stm-3rdSG.
‘She is watching TV.’

102
 Negative forms

But Persian has the specific periphrastic progressive forms in present and past tense. Persian
present progressive tense is formed by the present stem of the verb dāshtan ‘to have’, dār’, and
the simple present form (imperfective) of the main verb. This is illustrated in (5).

5) dār-am dars mi-khun-am.

have.1stSG. lesson IMP-read.PRES.Stm-1stSG.
‘I am studying.’

The same process as the present progressive tense forms the past progressive tense. The
distinction is that the present stem of the verb dāshtan, ‘to have,’ is replaced by the past stem
dāsht, and, instead of the simple present tense of the main verb we have the past imperfective
form of the main verb. This is shown in (6).

6) dāsht-am dars mi-khund-am.

had.1stSG. lesson IMP-read.PST.Stm-1stSG.
‘I was studying.’

As (5) and (6) show, in present and past progressive tenses, both the simple present imperfec-
tive tense and past imperfect are used. The simple present and past imperfect tense include the
notion of duration and habit. The main common element in these two tenses is mi-. Semantically,
one of the cases that present tense can appear is habitual situation. Persian present tense also refers
to an action, which is happening habitually now. Similarly, the past imperfect refers to the past
habit. Thus, we can conclude that the morpho-syntactic marker that shows the habituality in these
two tenses is mi. The verb dāshtan ‘to have’ is also used as a main verb in possessive constructions
and refers to the possession in Persian. Semantically, the verb dāshtan ‘to have’ is a stative verb.
Stative verbs are atelic or unbounded since the event does not have an inherent terminal endpoint.
One of the sources of progressive is the stative sources (Bybee 1994, 128). Thus, dāshtan ‘to
have’ as a stative verb is a proper verb in the structure of progressive tenses in Persian.
The interesting feature of Persian present and past progressive tenses is that both auxiliary
verb dār/dāsht ‘has/had’ and the main verb receive agreement marking. This is not seen in any
tense in Persian.
Since dāshtan ‘to have’ takes agreement in progressives, these constructions function like
bi-clausal constructions. A question of interest is: are Persian progressive tenses bi-clausal
constructions? We will address this question in the next section, which focuses on the struc-
tural analysis of Persian progressive tenses.

5.4 Morpho-syntactic analysis of Persian progressives

5.4.1 Bi-clausal or Serial Verb Construction (SVC)?

As (5) and (6) repeated in (7) and (8) show, the structure of the progressive tenses is V1 NP V2.
Both V1 and V2 take the subject agreement and they share a single object.

7) dār-am dars mi-khun-am.

have.1stSG. lesson IMP-read.PRES.Stm-1stSG.
‘I am studying.’
8) dāsht-am dars mi-khund-am.
had.1stSG. lesson IMP-read.PST.Stm-1stSG.
‘I was studying.’

103
 Azita H. Taleghani

The structure looks like a bi-clausal construction, but neither a complementizer nor a con-
junction separates the two verbs, and the construction refers to a single conceptual event.
Schultze-Berndt defines ‘conceptual event’ as follows:

A single event is viewed as conceptual representation as linguistically encoded which

can be assigned boundaries, as/ or a ‘location’, in time.
(Schultze-Berndt 2000, 36)

There is another morpho-syntactic construction, which is similar to bi-clausal called Serial

Verb Constructions (henceforth SVCs).
Butt (1995, 222) describes the SVC as follows: “Serial verbs are verbal constructions
which can stack several events in a single clause.” She suggests that each member of an SVC
may display agreement features as illustrated in (9).3

9) iire rehe-sooni vakilii rehe-haa

1PL.Incl 1PL.Incl-distant.throw canoe 1PL.Incl-distant.go
‘We will go, putting (throwing) our canoe to sea.’ (Butt 1995, 224, e.g. 44b)

Butt (1995, 224) presents the following general characteristics for SVCs:

• A single SVC complex describes a single conceptual event.

• SVCs share at least one and possibly more arguments.
• One verb is not embedded within a complement of the other.
• Intonational properties of a clause with serialization are those of a mono-verbal clause.
• The complex takes only one subject or external argument.
• The serial complex has shared tense, aspect, modality, and polarity: this is often reflected
in a single morphological realization or in obligatory concord across the verbs.
• There is a diachronic tendency to lexicalization and grammaticalization of the meaning of
the serial complex. This can involve treating the whole serial complex as a single lexical-
ized item, or ‘demotion’ of the meaning and grammatical status of one of the verbs to that
of a modifier or case marker.

Butt (1995, 225) claims that in SVCs, one predicate is not subcategorized by the other predi-
cate. Rather, the verbs are gathered into a complex predicate under certain circumstances.
Sebba (1987, 2) suggests that SVCs refer to a surface string of verbs within a single clause.
He suggests that the entire serial string behaves like a constituent for the purposes of taking
tense/aspect markers, and topicalization.
Christaller (1964, 63–75) distinguished two types of combinations in SVC: 1) essential
combinations, in which one verb is the principal verb and the other is an auxiliary verb, and 2)
accidental combinations, in which two or more predicates express different successive actions
or states simultaneously.
Seuren (1990, 39, 18–23) suggests that SVCs are semantically bare. They do not have their
own tense or aspect, nor do they have a negation of their own, and they usually serve to signal
an aktionsart of the main verb.
Aikhenvald and Dixon (2006, 1–56) suggest that in many languages clausal boundaries
are indicated by an intonation break, and no such intonation break or pause markers can occur
between the components of an SVC. They categorize SVCs into two main groups: 1) Asym-
metrical and 2) Symmetrical.

104
 Negative forms

Asymmetrical SVCs consist of a minor verb from a closed class and a major verb (the head
of SVC) from an open class, which determines the transitivity of the whole construction. The
minor verbs tend to grammaticalize into markers of direction, aspect, and valency changing.
A grammaticalized minor verb can retain full lexical status in the language outside the con-
structions in which it has been grammaticalized. Asymmetrical serial verbs may be used to
impart the semantics of progressive, continuation or habitual meanings. Aspectual meaning
expressed with SVCs may correlate with tense.
Symmetrical SVCs consist of components chosen from major lexical classes. They do not
have a head and tend to give rise to lexical idioms.
Negation is likely to be marked once per SVC, even if other categories receive concordant
marking.4 There is a similar construction in Urdu. This is illustrated in the following sentence.

10) naadyaa kat likh rah-ii hai

N.F=Nom letter.M-acc write stay.F.SG be-PRES-3rdSG.
‘Nadya is writing a letter.’ (Butt 1995, 102, e.g. 23)

Butt explains that in this sentence rah ‘stay’ makes no semantic contribution other than aspec-
tual notion, and its only function is the expression of stativity. She notes that these constructions
do not have any negative forms and the aspectual verb is always inflected. She calls these con-
structions Aspectual Complex Predicate. Based on the given characteristics, a question of interest
is, is the Persian progressive tense an instance of SVCs? For answering this question, we have to
see what the grammatical function of the verb dāshtan ‘to have’ is in Persian progressive tenses.

5.4.2 Function of the verb dāshtan “to have” in Persian progressives

The verb dāshtan ‘to have’ in Persian progressives receives subject agreement, but it does not deter-
mine the agentivity of the event; the main verb is responsible for determining the case of the subject.
Furthermore, the verb dāshtan ‘to have’ makes no semantic contribution other than aspectual notion
to the progressive tense. Butt suggests that in a specific form of SVCs, called “Aspectual Complex
Predicate”, the main verb always appears in the stem form (Butt 1995, 102, ft.7). Since dāshtan ‘to
have’ has no semantic contribution other than aspect, Taleghani (2008, 122) suggests that Persian
progressives behave like Aspectual Complex Predicate. However, she mentions that in Persian pre-
sent and past progressive tenses, the main verb also takes agreement and it is not in stem form.
Since dāshtan ‘to have’ in Persian progressives does not affect the argument structure of a
clause, it does not make semantic contribution other than aspect. Thus, it is an auxiliary verb.
In this respect, Persian progressives are more similar to Asymmetrical SVC in the sense of
Aikhenvald and Dixon than Aspectual Complex Predicates. As Seuren (1994, 18–23) sug-
gests, SVCs do not have a negation of their own. In the next section, by giving an overview of
Persian negation we elaborate the negative forms in Persian progressive tenses.

5.5 Negation in Persian

Persian negation is represented by the prefix na- at the beginning of the verbal stem in simple
verbs and at the beginning of light verbs in complex predicates. This is illustrated in (11).

11) (a) na-khord-am

not-eat-PST-Stm-1stSG.
‘I did not eat.’

105
 Azita H. Taleghani

(b) zamin na-khord-am

ground not-eat-PST-Stm-1stSG.
Intended meaning: ‘I did not fall down.’

ne-, as an allomorphy of na-, substitutes na- before the aspect marker mi- at the begin-
ning of some Persian tenses. This is illustrated in following examples.

12) (a) ne-mi-r-eh (Simple present tense)

not-IMP-go-PRES.Stm-3rdSG.
(b) ne-mi-raft (Past imperfect tense)
not-IMP-go-PST.Stm-3rdSG.

In Persian present perfect tense, we have the complex predicate composed of an adjective,
which is a past participle and the light verb (henceforth LV), which is the auxiliary budan ‘to
be’ in the present tense (i.e., -ast
­ ‘is’). In colloquial present perfect, the light verb is omitted.

13) Sārā in film rā na-did-eh ast. (Present perfect tense)

S. this movie-acc not eat-Prt-3rdSG. be-PRES-3rdSG.
‘Sārā has not seen the movie.’

The structure of Persian past perfect in negative forms is similar to negative present perfect
tense with the difference that the LV is filled with bud ‘be-Pst’. This is illustrated in (14).

14) Sārā davāsh ro na-khord-eh bud. (Past perfect tense)

S. medicine-acc not take-Prt. be-PST-3rdSG.
‘Sārā hadn’t taken her medicine.’

It is worth noting that the spontaneous production of Persian negative tenses by Persian
first language learners (L1) shows that at the early stage of developing negative forms of past
perfect tense, children put negative marker na- before the auxiliary bud ‘be-3rdpst’. instead of
adding it at the beginning of the past participle. Consider sentences (15a&b) taken from the
two three-year old Persian children’s speech.

15) (a) emruz asr khābid-eh na-bud-am.

today afternoon sleep-Prt. not-be-PST-1stSG.
‘I did not sleep (take a nap) this afternoon.’
(b) vaghti raft-im pārk, mariz bud-am bastani khord-eh na-bud-am.
when go-PST-3rdPL. park sick be-PST-1stSG. Ice cream eat-Prt not-be-PST-1stSG.
‘When we went to the park, I was sick. I had not eaten the ice cream.’

This evidence supports this proposal that Persian past perfect tense is structurally similar to
a complex predicate because as it is mentioned earlier the negative marker na- appears at the
beginning of light verbs in complex predicates. This is illustrated in (16).

16) Sārā emruz otāghash râ tamiz na-kard.

­
S. today room-ACC clean not-do-PST-3rdSG.
‘Sārā did not clean her room today.’
tamiz kard=complex predicate, tamiz=adjective, kard=LV

106
 Negative forms

Persian present and past progressive tenses do not have direct negative forms. If they had the
direct negative, they would have negative marker na- at the beginning of either auxiliary dāshtan
‘to have’ or the main verb as illustrated in sentences 17 and 18. Instead, the negative forms of the
simple present tense and past imperfect are usually used. This is shown in 19a&b below.

17) (a) *5 man na-dār-am ketāb mi-khun-am.

I not-have-1stSG. book IMP-read.PRES.Stm-1stSG.
‘I am not reading a book.’
(b) *man na-dāsht-am ketāb mi-khund-am.
I not-had-1stSG. book IMP-read.PST.Stm-1stSG.
‘I was not reading a book.’
18) (a) *man dār-am ketāb ne-mi-khun-am.
I have-1stSG. book not- IMP-read.PRES.Stm-1stSG.
‘I am not reading a book.’
(b) *man dāsht-am ketāb ne-mi-khund-am.
I had-1stSG. book not- IMP-read.PST.Stm-1stSG.
‘I was not reading a book.’
19) (a) man ketāb ne-mi-khun-am.
I book not-IMP-read.PRES.Stm-1stSG.
‘I am not reading a book.’
(b) man ketāb ne-mi-khund-am.
I book not-IMP-read.PST.Stm-1stSG.
‘I was not reading a book.’

Negation is also a controversial issue in SVCs. Some linguists suggest that in SVC there
can only be one negator (see Seuren 1990). It can either have the whole construction as its
scope or part of the constructions.
After the earlier overview of the morpho-syntactic and semantics of Persian progressive
tenses and negation in the formal linguistics theory, we present a brief discussion of the main
approaches of the acquisition in generative grammar followed by the background research on
negation’s acquisition in the next two sections.

5.6 Generative grammar and language acquisition

5.6.1 Universal grammar and monolingual acquisition

The theory of universal grammar (UG) is a theory of the human biological endowment for
language. UG is like a Language Acquisition Device (LAD), a mental construct that mediates
between the primary linguistic data or input and actual linguistic behaviors. According to UG,
children are born with abstract grammatical knowledge that is initiated by exposure to input.
The generative approach of language acquisition mainly focuses on grammatical representa-
tions in children acquiring language and compares these to the adult representations. Although
child and adult grammar do not look alike in many respects, the generative approach has tried
to show that child and adult linguistic representation do not differ essentially.

5.6.2 Universal grammar and second language acquisition

In the 1990s, three kinds of theory appeared which assume that the logical problem can be
addressed by hypothesizing a UG of principles and parameters, which limits the nature of

107
 Azita H. Taleghani

second language grammar building. These theories differ in their assumptions about the devel-
opmental problem, and in particular about what is called the initial state in second language
acquisition: the point from which learners start to build grammars. We look into each theory
in Sections 5.6.3 to 5.6.5.

5.6.3 Minimal Trees (Vainikka and Young-Scholten 1994, 1996a,

1996b, 1998)
The Minimal Trees theory of second language syntactic development makes a critical use of
the distinction between lexical and functional categories. This theory suggests that only lexi-
cal categories are present at the earliest stage of second language acquisition, and functional
categories appear during the acquisition. In this theory, there will also be initial transfer from
the properties of lexical categories of L1 and with exposure to enough samples of the second
language; these transferred lexical properties will be eliminated in favor of the second lan-
guage pattern. While the Minimal Trees theory allows L1 influence only in lexical projections,
there are some findings to show the obvious influence in the functional projection TP (IP in
Hawkins) (see Hawkins 2001, 69). If functional categories were not transferred from the L1
we would expect parallel development across the second language learners. It is difficult to
explain this effect under the Minimal Trees theory.

5.6.4 Valueless Features theory (Eubank 1993/94, 1994, 1996)

Eubank also makes essential use of the lexical/functional category distinction in his theory.
In his early work (1993/94, 1994), Eubank suggests that all the categories instantiated in
L1 are initially transferred into mental grammar for the second language, but that particular
specifications chosen for the functional categories by L1 are neutralized. This means that in the
initial second language grammar, any functional categories present in L1 will also be present,
but they will simply mark structural positions, without any particular specifications: lexical
and functional projections transfer from L1. In his latest work in 1996, Eubank allows for the
possibility that learners’ grammars might initially have representations only for the lexical
categories (as in Minimal Tree theory), the transfer of functional categories from the L1 with
valueless features still occurs, but only if there is positive evidence from the second language
for projecting that functional category. The latest research shows that Eubank’s Valueless
­Features theory is not able to explain some of the syntactic developments in second language
learners of languages like Spanish and Japanese (see Hawkins 2001, 70, 71).

5.6.5 Full Access theories (Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, 1996; Epstein,
Flynn and Martohardjono 1996; Grondin and White 1996)
Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996) suggest that second language learners hypothetically have
full access from their first encounter with a second language to all lexical and functional cat-
egories relevant to the construction of a mental grammar for that language. The only limita-
tion on such access is if the learner has had inadequate time to experience enough samples of
second language data to establish the relevant categories. In the absence of relevant experience
of the second language, the learner relies on the syntax of L1 to construct sentences (Hawkins
2001, 71). Schwartz and Sprouse (1994, 1996) propose that all the syntactic properties of the
L1 are initially transferred into the second language grammar. Full access contends that learn-
ers restructure this initial state grammar based on the second language input they hear or read.

108
 Negative forms

In the case of the aspects of the second language’s input, which cannot be generated by the
initial state grammar, the learners build a new syntactic representation because the properties
do not exist in the L1. Schwartz and Sprouse (1996, 41) state that the idea that second language
learners have full access to the language faculty that makes monolingual and second language
learners alike. However, they differ in development because of their different starting points.

5.6.6 Universal grammar and heritage speakers

A number of researchers suggest that a theory of the acquisition of heritage languages should
not look different from a theory of monolinguals or second language speakers of a language
(Montrul 2016, 149). Montrul suggests that the differences between heritage speakers, mono-
linguals and second language learners do not require that the theory of grammar and its acqui-
sition for heritage speakers should be fundamentally different or have additional assumptions
than a theory of grammar for a monolingual speaker. This means that heritage speakers like
monolinguals and second language learners have the access to innate properties of language
and cognition, like monolingual learners they start acquisition of the language very young, and
like second language learners they also have knowledge of another language (p. 150).
Formal linguistic approaches in heritage speakers focus on linguistic knowledge and rep-
resentations elicited from production and comprehension data. These approaches address the
facts about variability in different linguistic domains as a function of reduced input, with par-
ticular emphasis on universal tendencies found in many heritage languages. These approaches
also emphasize the relationship between heritage language grammars and stages of develop-
ment in child language, the implicitness of the heritage language acquisition process and the
role of dominant language transfer (Montrul 2016, 158).

5.7 Theoretical approach of the research

The theoretical approach in this research is generative grammar of language acquisition. It is
worth noting that none of the approaches of acquisition in generative grammar is entirely con-
sistent with the observations in second language and heritage speaker acquisition, which have
been made so far. However, Minimal Tree and Full Access theories, especially Full Access
theory, are more reliable and consistent for explaining the acquisition of functional categories
like tense, aspect and negation. Thus, in this research our main theoretical framework is Full
Access theory proposed by Schwartz and Sprouse 1994, 1996; Esptein, Flynn, and Martohard-
jono 1996; Grondin and White 1996. For further discussion on theories of second language
acquisition, read Chapter 8 in this volume.
After an overview of theoretical approaches in acquisition, we look at some studies of the
negation’s acquisition in other languages in the next section.

5.8 Background research on negation’s acquisition in generative

grammar
In generative grammar, negation is investigated to get a better understanding of potential dif-
ferent types of language acquisition as regards accessibility to Universal Grammar (UG) in L1
and L2 acquisition, and in childhood and adulthood. For several years, there was the theoreti-
cal discussion about the L1 and L2 acquisition in UG. Meisel (1997) reviewed and appraised
these debates and added an original contribution to it with his comparison of L1 and L2 acqui-
sition of French and German. Meisel argued that different underlying mechanisms govern L1

109
 Azita H. Taleghani

and L2 acquisition. In L2 acquisition, adult learners apply sequencing strategies on the linear
arrangement of constituents in surface strings, unlike children, who construct their language
by way of structure-dependent operations within the range of options permitted by UG.
In the last 20 years, there has been much research focused on the acquisition of negation in
monolingual children and adults, second language learners and heritage speakers, especially
in generative linguistics. In this section, we present a brief summary of some of these studies.
It has been known that second language learners of English acquire sentential negation
systematically. Stauble (1984) worked on cross-sectional data of the L2 English of six Spanish
speakers and six Japanese speakers at three proficiency levels: low intermediate, intermediate
and advanced. Stauble’s data have shown that at the low intermediate level the Spanish speak-
ers use no in copula constructions, considerable use of no + thematic verb, with some use of
unanalyzed don’t. Surprisingly, the Japanese speakers use no as a sentential negator as much
as the Spanish speakers, both with thematic verbs and in copula be contexts. It is unlikely that
this is the effect of L1 influence, because negation in Japanese is very different from both Eng-
lish and Spanish. Japanese is a verb-final language in which the verb follows its complement
and the sentential negator is a form, which follows and attaches to the verb.
Hawkins (2001, 83–103) presented an analysis of the L2 development of sentential negation
in the framework of generative linguistics and in a composite working theory of second lan-
guage syntactic development, which he calls modulated structure building. In modulated struc-
ture building, learners’ initial L2 grammars consist of lexical projections like VP, NP, PP, AP,
and these have the structural properties of their L1 grammars, which is the first part of Minimal
Tree theory. He states that initial L2 grammars consist of lexical projections and their structural
properties determined by the L1, because of restructuring towards the nature of transferred
property in question, so that it may be difficult to detect initial transfer empirically. This is an
idea contained in the Full Access theory (Hawkins 2001, 73). Following Stauble’s (1984) study,
Hawkins suggests that there is an early lexical stage without TP (IP in his work) for both Span-
ish and Japanese speakers. He also investigates Spanish and French speakers learning English
with English speakers learning French. He found that whereas L2 learners of English establish
a lexical projection for sentential negation, initially English-speaking learners of French appear
to establish I in their mental grammars for French sentential negation almost immediately.
In an empirical study of second language acquisition of Chinese negation by French-
German and English-speaking learners, Yuan (2004, 169–297) challenges all three theories
of generative grammar on second language acquisition. His research on negation in genera-
tive linguistics is based on Pollock’s (1989) paper on V movement in which a separate NegP
is proposed for French and English. Yuan (2004, 178) mentions that Chinese negation has a
tendency to negate the item closest to it in its c-command domain, and it negates the head of
the XP that it is attached to. In his study, there were 48 French speakers, 41 German speak-
ers and 67 English speakers. They were undergraduate students in Chinese studies at Paris
VII University in France, the University of Tübingen in Germany, and the Universities of
Oxford and Cambridge in U.K. In all these universities, Chinese is taught from scratch.
Two tasks, an oral-production task and a judgement task, were administered to all subjects,
native and nonnative alike. The oral production task was administered before the judgement
task in order to minimize the subject’s awareness of the focus of the experiment. In the oral-
production task, each subject produced 16 sentences, of which six involve negation, and in ten
they use frequency adverbs in Chinese to describe what activities some people do not do in
their daily life on the basis of information provided in a table in Chinese. The judgement task
consisted of 18 pairs of sentences. Of them, six had the negation in different positions in the
pair of sentences (i.e., S-Neg-V-XP versus *S-V-Neg-XP), six differed in the position of the

110
 Negative forms

adverb and six were distracters. As expected, the sentences that the native speakers produced
in their oral-production task all have the word order of S-Neg-V-XP. In the judgement task,
they judged the S-Neg-V-XP sentences as correct also at a rate of 100%. Interestingly, nonna-
tive groups are very similar to the native group in doing the two tasks; the 11 nonnative groups,
whether French-, German- or English-speaking, all gave native-like performance in both the
oral-production task and the judgement task. This is the case across all groups at different
proficiency levels. The results of the study also show that neither the V2 word order nor the
head-final setting of VP is found in German subjects’ oral production of Chinese sentences
with the negator bu or frequency adverbs (Yuan 2004, 178–183). Thus, Yuan proposes that L1
transfer is a relative rather than an absolute phenomenon in second language acquisition. His
findings also suggest that L2 grammars can have specified features of functional categories
fully and appropriately from the initial stage of L2 acquisition even though these features may
have different values in learners’ L1s (Yuan 2004, 194).
Now, the questions of interest are how Persian monolingual children, second language
learners and heritage speakers acquire negation in the progressive tenses. Does generative
grammar’s approaches in acquisition explain the acquisition of Persian negative forms of pro-
gressive tenses? We address these questions through two pilot projects: The first one is a
qualitative, longitudinal study of two Persian monolingual children, and the second one is a
qualitative study on three second language learners and three heritage speakers of Persian.

5.9 Acquisition of Persian negative progressive tenses

Acquisition of negation in Persian progressive tenses is investigated through two qualitative
pilot projects. We present the details of the methodology, data collection and results of each
project in Sections 5.9.1–5.9.3. Before presenting the methodology and result of each projects,
we give the target negative structure and three forms of errors, which can appear in Persian
negative progressive structures. These errors are called structure A, structure B and structure
C in this chapter.

Target Negative Present/Past Progressive Tenses

Neg-main verb (present tense)/Past imperfect

Structure A
Neg-Main verb+ Neg-Auxiliary verb
e.g. *Sārā na-dārad mive ne-mi-khor-ad
 S. not-has fruit not-IMP-eat-PRES.Stm-3rdSG.
 Literal meaning: ‘Sārā is not eating the fruit.’

Structure B
Auxiliary verb + Neg-Main verb
e.g. *Sārā dāsht mive ne-mi-khord
 S. had fruit not-IMP-eat-PST.Stm-3rdSG.
 Literal meaning: ‘Sārā was not eating the fruit.’

111
 Azita H. Taleghani

Structure C
Neg-Auxiliary + Main verb
e.g. *Sārā na-dārad mive mi-khor-ad
 S. not-has fruit IMP-eat-PRES-Stm-3rdSG.
 Literal meaning: ‘Sārā is not eating the fruit.’

5.9.1 Monolinguals: methodology and results

The first project is a longitudinal study on two monolingual Persian children: a 4.5-year-old
Persian boy and a 5.5-year-old Persian girl. Data collection consisted of naturalistic observa-
tions, and it started three months earlier (i.e., when the children were 4.2 and 5.2 years old).
Parts of the data were gathered through recorded spontaneous speech of the children’s daily
conversation with their moms during these three months. Although Persian speakers use pro-
gressive tenses in daily conversation frequently, we asked moms to use more of these tenses
in their conversations, especially in negative context. The conversation was recorded or the
moms took notes on the children’s speech. Then, the recordings were transcribed later and the
developmental stages were analyzed.
The second part of monolingual data was collected through the task of ‘scene-setting
descriptions’. The data of this part were elicited through describing the picture and questions/
answers in the form of the target linguistics structure (i.e., negative progressive tenses). Since
this task is also part of a longitudinal study, the developmental stages are very critical. Thus,
we prepared five different scene-setting descriptions. The sceneries were prepared accord-
ing to different animations and cartoons that are popular among Persian children at this age.
Subjects have seen each scenery three times during these three months (once in each month),
and we asked the subject to describe the scene and answer the questions about the scenes in
the form of negative present/past progressive tenses and record their answers and descrip-
tions. The reason for repeating each scene is to observe the developmental stages of producing
negative progressive tenses. Then, we analyzed the recorded scene-setting descriptions and the
answers of the questions of each scene. We also compared the results of each scene in three
months to find out the differences and the developmental stages.
What is interesting about the monolingual task’s results is that children use progressive
tenses more frequently in spontaneous production than in describing the scene-setting descrip-
tion. The frequency of using progressive tenses in spontaneous production is 82%, while in
scene-setting description it is 68%.
In spontaneous production of the negative progressive tenses, the result shows that at the
beginning of the study, the first child who was 4.2 years old used structure B in almost all
sentences and did not use structure A and C. This is illustrated in (20).

20) Mom: Sāsān, dāshti tu otāgh-et māshin bāzi mi-kard-i?

S. had-2ndSG. in room-Poss.2ndSG. car play IMP-do-PST.Stm-2ndSG.
Literal meaning: “Sāsān, were you playing with your car?”
Child: Na māmān. dāsht-am māshin bāzi ne-mi-kard-am.
No Mom. had-2ndsg. car play not-IMP-do-PST.Stm-1stSG.
naghghāshi mi-kard-am.
painting IMP-do-PST-Stm-1stSG.
Literal meaning: “No mom. I was not playing with my car. I painted.”

112
 Negative forms

By analyzing data during three months, we found out that child 1 used structure B more
frequently in the middle and even final stage of our study. He did not use the target negative
structure even at the age of 4.5. He did not use structure C either.
Spontaneous production of the second monolingual subject shows that at the beginning
of the study when the child was 5.2 years old, she used structure B in almost 90% of the
sentences and she used the target negative structure in nearly 10% of sentences. Child 2 used
neither structure A nor structure C.
Analyzing data during the three months of the study shows that the second monolingual
subject started to use the target negative structure in more than 90% of sentences when she was
at the age of 5.4. This is illustrated in (21).

21) Mom: Samin, bāzam dār-i arusak-ā-t ro mi-shur-i?

S. again have-2ndSG. doll-PL.Poss.2ndSG.-ACC IMP-wash-PRES.Stm-2ndSG.
“Samin, are you washing your dolls again?”
Child: Na māmān. arusak-ā-m ro  ne-mi-shur-am.
No mom. doll-PL-Poss.1stSG.ACC not-IMP-wash-PRES.Stm-1stSG.
“No mom. I do not wash my dolls.”
dast-ām ro mi-shur-am.
hand-Poss.1stSG.-ACC IMP-wash-PRES.Stm-1stSG.

This means that in the spontaneous speech task, only the second monolingual child could
produce the negative present tense for present progressive and the negative past imperfect for
negative past progressive tense in the final stage of the study.
The result of scene-setting descriptions of negative progressive tenses shows that at the
beginning of the study, the first child, who was a 4.2-year old boy, used structure B in more
than 85% of sentences as shown in (22). He never used structure A and C in scene-setting
description.

Child 1: age: 4 years and 2 month (4.2)

22) Mom: tu in aks, Dārā dār-eh sib mi-khor-eh

In this picture, D. have-Prt-3rdsg. apple IMP-eat-PRES.Stm-3rdSG.
“In this picture, Dārā is eating an apple.”
Child: Na. un dāreh sib  ne-mi-khor-eh, dār-eh porteghāl
No he has apple not-IMP-eat-Prt-3rdSG. have-Prt-3rdSG. orange
mi-khor-eh.
IMP-eat-PRES.Stm-3rdSG.
“No. He is not eating an apple. He is eating an orange.”

Towards the end of the three months, which is the final stage of the project, the child used
the structure B more frequently (<98%). He never used the target negative structure in scene-
setting descriptions even at the age of 4.5 (final stage of the study).
In the case of the second monolingual subject, when she was 5.2 years she used structure B
more frequently in the negative progressive sentences (<78%). The result shows that at the age
of 5.4, she used the target negative structure for present and past progressive tenses in most of
the sentences, as illustrated in (23). However, we noticed that the subject used structure B in
less than 10% (>10%) of sentences at this stage. Towards the end of the three months, the child
used the target negative structure in more than 98% of sentences.

113
 Azita H. Taleghani

Child 2: Age: 5 years and 5 months (5.5)

23) Mom: tu in aks, Dārā dār-eh sib mi-khor-eh

In this picture, D. have-Prt-3rdSG. apple IMP-eat-PRES-Stm-3rdSG.
“In this picture, Dārā is eating an apple.”
Child: Na. un sib ne-mi-khor-eh dār-eh porteghāl
No he apple not-IMP-eat-Prt-3rdSG. have-Prt-3rdSG. orange
mi-khor-eh.
IMP-eat-PRES-Stm-3rdSG.
“No. He is not eating an apple. He is eating an orange.”

5.9.2 Heritage speakers: methodology and result

In this study, there are three heritage speakers. The information of these subjects has been
shown in Table 5.1. All of the subjects are girls who are in the second generation of Persian
immigrants in Canada, and they were at the intermediate high level of Persian language classes
in the University of Toronto. When their families moved to Canada, two of them were three
years old and one of them was less than one year old.
The heritage speaker study contains two different tasks:

Task 1: This is a combination of acceptability/grammaticality judgement and production

(Error Correction). Subjects have to judge the accessibility/grammaticality of ten Per-
sian sentences containing negative verbs. In the sentences in which the negative forms
are incorrect, the subjects are supposed to write the correct form of the negative verbs.
Task 2: This is a different production task (Sentence Manipulation task), which includes a
short Persian conversation. The conversation contains all Persian tenses. The subjects
are supposed to change the verbs of the sentences into the negative form.

Table 5.1 Information about the heritage speakers

Name Age Years of Age at Age at the Persian Information about Other
formal which time of proficiency social context language(s)
study of formal immigration level spoken
Persian study began

1 Mina 20 1 19 3 Intermediate Uses Persian with English

high family members
and sometimes
with friends
2 Maryam 21 2 20 3 Intermediate Uses Persian with English
high family members,
sometimes with
friends
3 Parisa 21 3 19 Under 1 Intermediate Understands Persian English,
high but she mainly French
responds in
English

114
 Negative forms

Each of the three subjects did the tasks three times during eight weeks: week 1, week 4 and
finally week 8 after being taught the progressive tenses and their negative forms.
The first task’s result in week 1 of the three heritage students shows that in the acceptabil-
ity/grammaticality judgement, the subjects found sentences with structure B 100% acceptable
and grammatical in the initial, middle and final stages. One of the sentences with structure B
has been shown in (24). It is worth nothing that none of the subjects found structure A and C
acceptable/grammatical.

24) *Sārā dār-eh tu otāgh-esh dars   ne-mi-khun-eh.

­ ­ ­
S. have-3rdSG. in room-Poss-3rdSG. lesson not-IMP.read-PRES-3rdSG.
“Sārā is not studying in her room.”

What is interesting about the judgement of these sentences is that the length of the sen-
tences had a critical impact on the subject’s misjudgement about acceptability/grammaticality
of the sentence with negative progressive tenses.
Within task 1, there was also a production task (Error Correction). In this task, the subjects
were supposed to write the correct form of the negative sentences, which are incorrect.
What is interesting about the result of this production task (Error Correction) is that all
three subjects produced structure B in 100% of sentences in week 1. This rate decreased to
58% in week 4 for subject 1 and 48% for subject 2, but the third subject produced structure B
at the same rate of the initial stage. In addition, subject 1 produced the target negative structure
at the rate of 42%, while subject 2 produced the target negative structure in 52% of sentences.
Interestingly, in the final stage (week 8), subject 1 produced the target negative structure in
76% of sentences and subject 2 produced in 82% of sentences, while the third subject pro-
duced structure B at the same rate of the initial stage.
The result of the second task of three heritage students is compatible with the result of the
production (Sentence Manipulation). In week 1, in almost 100% of sentences with progressive
tenses all three subjects used structure B, especially when the sentences were long and the
main and auxiliary verbs were separated from each other by several elements in the sentences.
In week 4, two of the subjects produced structure B in most of the sentences. Depending on
the subject, the rate changed between 58% in subject 1 to 48% in subject 2. They also started
to use the target negative structure, subject 1 in 42% of sentences and subject 2 in 52% of
sentences. In week 8, subject 1 used the target negative structure in 75% of the progressive
tenses in the text, and in 25% of the negative progressive tenses, he used structure B. Subject 2
used the target negative structure in 80% of sentences, and in 20% of sentences she produced
structure B. In weeks 4 and 8, the third subject produced structure B in all the negative pro-
gressive tenses in the text.

5.9.3 Second language learners: methodology and results

The data of second language learners were collected from three second language learners. The
proficiency level of two of them was intermediate high and one of them was at advanced level.
They were students of Persian language classes in the University of Toronto. The tasks of the
second language study are the same tasks of heritage speakers. The information of the subjects
has been shown in Table 5.2.
Qualitatively and quantitatively, the result of both tasks of the second language learners
in different developmental stages (week 1, week 4 and week 8 after teaching the linguistics
topic) shows some differences from the results of these tasks in heritage speakers. It should be

115
 Azita H. Taleghani

Table 5.2 Information about the second language learners

Name Age Years of Age at which Persian Motivation Other

formal study formal study proficiency language(s)
of Persian began level spoken

Mohammad 25 2 23 Intermediate Uses Persian for English, Urdu

high his education
and research
Ali 21 2 20 Intermediate Uses Persian for English,
high his education Arabic
and research
Daragh 20 1 19 Advanced Uses Persian for English,
the education Russian,
and research French

mentioned that in none of the stages of development of the study (week 1, 4, 8), the second
language learners found the sentences with structure C acceptable or grammatical.
In week 1, in the acceptability/grammaticality judgement of sentences, two intermedi-
ate high subjects found 15% of negative sentences with structure B and 85% with structure
A acceptable and grammatical. Meanwhile, the advanced subject found 75% of sentences with
structure B, and 25% of sentences with structure A acceptable/grammatical. In week 4, the
rates were enormously different. The acceptability rate for subject 1 with intermediate high
proficiency changed to 45% for structure A and 55% for structure B. The acceptability rate
for subject 2 with intermediate high proficiency was 40% structure A and 60% structure B.
In week 4, for the advanced subject, the rate was 58% structure B, 42% for structure A. In
week 8, the rate of acceptability for intermediate high subject 1 was 78% for structure B, and
22% for structure A. The rate of the acceptability for intermediate high subject 2 in week 8
was 14% for structure A, 86% for structure B. The rate of the acceptability for the advanced
subject in week 8 was 5% for structure B, especially in the long sentences, and 95% for the
target negative structure. In addition, the length of the sentences had a direct influence on the
second language learner’s misjudgement about acceptability/grammaticality of the sentence
with negative progressive tenses.
Interestingly, the result of the production (Error Correction) within the first task shows
that the rate of the suggested structures (i.e., structure A, structure B and the target nega-
tive structure) were quite distinct from the suggested structures of the heritage speakers. In
week 1, two intermediate high subjects used structure A in 100% of sentences, while advanced
subjects used structure A in 23% and structure B in 77% of sentences. In week 4, the rate of
using structure A by subject 1 decreased to 58% and the subject produced structure B in 42%
of sentences. Subject 2 in week 4 used structure A in 45% and produced structure B in 55%
of sentences. In week 4, the advanced subject produced structure B in 48% of the sentences
and the target negative structure in 52% of sentences. In week 8, the result of two intermediate
high-level subjects shows decrease in producing the structure A: 15% in subject 1 and 10%
in subject 2. The rate of producing structure B was 55% for subject 1 and 50% for subject 2.
Subject 1 produced the target negative structure in 30% of sentences, while subject 2 produced
the target negative structure in 40% of sentences. The result of the advanced subject in week
8 shows that he produced the target negative structure in almost 78% of sentences. He used
structure B in only 22% of sentences.

116
 Negative forms

Qualitatively, it is expected that the results of task 2, which is the production (Sentence Manip-
ulation) task, to be similar to the production (Error Correction) task in task 1. Although the qual-
itative results are very similar, we noticed quantitative differences in the result of the production
(Sentence Manipulation) task of task 2. In week 1, in almost 100% sentences with progressive
tenses, subjects 1 and 2 with high intermediate proficiency used structure A, especially when the
sentences were long and the main verb and auxiliary were separated by several elements in the
sentences. Meanwhile, the advanced subject used structure A in 35% of sentences and structure
B in 65% of sentences. In week 4, the result shows more improvement. Subject 1 and subject 2
used structure A at 62 and 53% rates respectively. Intermediate high subject 1 used structure B in
18% of sentences and subject 2 used structure B in 23% of sentences. Subjects 1 and 2 started to
use the target negative structure at the rate of 20 and 24% respectively. In week 4, the advanced
subject used 10% of structure A, 32% of structure B and the target negative structure in 58%
sentences. In week 8, intermediate high subject 1 used 38% of structure A, 32% of structure B
and 30% of the target negative structures. Subject 2 used 16% of structure A, 47% of structure B
and 37% of the target negative structure. In week 8, the advanced subject used the target negative
structure in 76% of the produced sentences. He only used the structure B in 24% of the sentences.

5.10 Discussion
Before analyzing and discussing the findings of our empirical study, following Montrul (2016)
we suggest that if adult heritage speakers make errors, which are similar to developmental errors
produced by monolingual children during the course of acquisition, then it is possible to conclude
that the patterns in heritage speakers resemble an earlier stage of language development. In other
words, comparing monolingual learners and adult heritage speakers allows us to assess Polin-
sky’s (2011) hypothesis that heritage speakers are fossilized6 monolingual learners (p. 226). On
the other hand, heritage speakers and second language learners are two types of bilingual indi-
viduals and may share knowledge and use of the same two languages. Because heritage speak-
ers acquired the heritage language and the majority language at birth (simultaneous bilinguals)
or later in childhood as an L2 (sequential bilinguals) and before puberty, they are called early
bilinguals. Like some heritage speakers, adult second language learners are also sequential bilin-
guals, because they learn the second language after puberty, they are called late bilinguals. Due
to different age of acquisition (early in heritage speakers, late in second language learners), their
learning experience with the weaker language is very different. For the second language learners,
the weaker language is the L2, but for the heritage speakers it is the L1 (p. 250).
The findings in our empirical study of monolinguals suggest that the developmental stage
of the target negative progressive tense starts at the age of 5.2 and later, and it will be com-
pleted before the age of 5.5. This means that at age 5.5, the child does not have any problem
in using negative progressive tenses.
In the case of the heritage speakers, the findings in different tasks of the study show the
qualitative consistency in the initial stage of the development of Persian negative progres-
sive tenses. At the initial stage of acceptability/grammaticality of task 1, structure B is highly
acceptable. From the middle stage (week 4), the rate of acceptability starts to decrease. With
respect to the production (Error Correction) task in task 1, the findings are consistent in the
initial stage for all three subjects. In the middle stage (week 4), two subjects show progress,
and by the final stage they produce the target negative structure, while the third subject’s result
does not show any progress and development.
In task 2, the production (Sentence manipulation) task, the findings are qualitatively and
quantitatively consistent at the initial stage. In the middle stage the qualitative results are the

117
 Azita H. Taleghani

same, i.e., all subjects produced structure B, but quantitatively the rate of the production in
three subjects shows minor distinctions. In the final stage (week 8), the results of two subjects
are very similar. These subjects succeeded in producing the target negative structure at the
final stage, while the third subject produced structure B at a high rate. The differences of the
third subject’s results in various tasks and in developmental stages are accountable through
the rate of the exposure to the heritage language in early ages, parental input and the degree of
proficiency of the subject. This subject was less than one year old when the family immigrated
to Canada. She went to day care at early age, and her parents did not speak the heritage lan-
guage (Persian) at home regularly.
As the findings of two production (Error Correction and Sentence Manipulation) tasks
show, the developmental stage of the target structure are qualitatively and quantitatively
consistent.
By comparing the findings of the heritage speakers and monolinguals, we found some
similarities in the developmental stage of the target structure in these two groups. The devel-
opmental stage of the negative structure for two heritage speakers is very similar to the devel-
opmental stage of this structure in child 2 (the 5.5-year-old girl), especially in the middle and
final stages. The findings of production tasks show that similar to child 2, the three subjects
of heritage speakers never used structure A and C in all stages of the study, even in the initial
stage. However, the starting point of using the target structure is different for child 2 and the
two heritage speakers. Child 2 started to use the target structure from the initial stage of the
study (at the age of 5.2), while heritage speakers began to use the target structure in the mid-
dle stage of the study (week 4). There are also qualitative similarities in the result and the
developmental stage between child 1 and the third heritage speaker. None of these subjects
(i.e., third heritage speakers and child 1) could produce the target negative structure even at
the final stage of the study. According to the background and the proficiency level of the third
heritage speakers, we suggest that this is the supporting evidence that heritage speakers with
low proficiency in the heritage language display grammatical patterns that are consistent with
incomplete acquisition, with L1 attrition and with changes in the input provided by the paren-
tal generation. For similar discussions, read Chapter 4 in this volume.
The contrastive analysis of monolinguals and heritage speakers’ findings also highlighted
that some of the grammatical patterns indicated in the grammar of the adult heritage speakers
share similarities with the developmental stages in monolingual acquisition.
In the case of second language learners, the findings of error analysis in the judgement task
show the developmental stage of the structure A to structure B from the initial stage towards
the final stage. At the initial stage, there is a big difference in the rate of the production tasks of
the intermediate high subjects and advanced subject. The results of the production tasks in task
1 and task 2 show qualitative and quantitative consistency at the initial stage for the intermedi-
ate high and advanced subjects. The rate’s distinction between the intermediate high subjects
starts in the middle stage (week 4); however, in producing the target negative structure the
rate’s distinctions in the middle and final stages of the study is low (4–10%).
By comparing the results of second language learners and monolinguals, we noticed that
the result of the production task, especially the Error Correction task in week 1, is close to the
results of child 2 in the scene-setting
­ description task at the initial stage of the study (at the age
of 5.2). In week 1, the advanced subject produced structure B in 77% of sentences and child 2
produced structure B in <78% of sentences at the age of 5.2. The results of the middle and final
stages of the study in two groups are very different. While child 2 is capable of using the tar-
get negative structure in 98% of sentences at the final stage (at age 5.5), the advanced subject
of second language learners was able to produce the target negative structure approximately

118
 Negative forms

in 78% of sentences. On the other hand, the result shows that heritage speakers with a high
degree of proficiency can produce the target negative structure in nearly 82% of sentences.
Heritage speakers never found structure A and C acceptable. However, with respect to struc-
ture B, the error analysis of the acceptability/grammaticality task in second language learners
and heritage students shows that the error rate of the advanced second language learner in the
final stage of the study (week 8) is close to the error rate of heritage speakers in all three stages.
Both groups found structure B acceptable, but with a different error rate. The error rate for struc-
ture B of the advanced second language learner was 95%, and 5% for structure A, while the error
rate of heritage speakers for structure B was 100%. The result of error analysis also highlights the
distinctions of developmental stages of second language learners and heritage speakers.
By the contrastive analysis of second language learners and heritage speakers’ results in
production tasks, we found similar patterns in the middle and final stages (weeks 4 and 8) of the
study between the heritage speaker with high proficiency (subject 2) and the advanced second
language learner. Qualitatively, both subjects produced structure B at the rate of 48% in week 4.
Both started to use the target negative structure in week 4 in the close rate, 52% for the heritage
speaker and 58% for the advanced second language learners. It means that the rate’s difference
between these two subjects is only 6%. In the final stage (week 8), the rate of producing the
target negative structure is even closer between two subjects, 80–82% for subject 2 of heritage
speakers and 76–78% for the advanced second language learners (rate’s distinction 4%).
Now, the question is how much our empirical studies support the Full Access theories of L2
acquisition. In fact, the close result of error rate in our production tasks between the initial stage of
child 2 and the final stage of the advanced second language learners can be supporting evidence
for the Full Access theory. According to this theory, second language learners hypothetically have
full access from their first encounter with a second language to all lexical and functional categories
relevant to the construction of a mental grammar for that language. The only limitation on such
access is the learner has had inadequate time to experience enough samples of second language
data to establish the relevant categories. When the learner receives sufficient input then he starts to
restructure the mental grammar of L2. This is what we observed in the contrastive analysis of the
error rate of production tasks in L1 initial stage and L2 final stage in our study.
On the other hand, Montrul (2016) states that heritage speakers are bilingual native speak-
ers of their heritage language, except that the degree of final achievement in the heritage lan-
guage is variable. Although heritage speakers start as monolingual native speakers, they grow
up in a bilingual environment and ultimately experience language change. By the end of the
language learning period, the heritage language has become secondary; it feels to the heritage
speakers like an L2 and displays many of the same properties of interlanguage systems of L2
learners (p. 249). In addition, if we believe that compared to L1, L2 is usually the weaker lan-
guage, then following Montrul (2016), we can consider heritage speakers as a type of second
language learner whose weaker language is their heritage language. Having this in our mind,
we evaluated the results of heritage speakers to find out if Full Access theory is compatible
with these results. Our assessment shows that in fact in the production tasks, the distinctions of
developmental stages in child 2 and two heritage speakers may be supporting evidence for Full
Access theory. The results of our study show that the starting point of using the target structure
is different for child 2 and two heritage speakers. Child 2 started to use the target structure
from the initial stage of the study (at the age of 5.2) while heritage speakers began to use the
target structure in the middle stage of the study (week 4). Based on Full Access theory, we may
explain, the reason that the developmental stages of the target negative structure are different
in these two groups is that the heritage speakers need to receive enough inputs to restructure
the mental grammar of their heritage language for producing the target negative structure.

119
 Azita H. Taleghani

5.11 Conclusion
In this empirical study, we examined the acquisition of the functional category of negation in
Persian progressive tenses in monolingual speakers, second language learners and heritage speak-
ers of Persian within the generative grammar and showed the variability in the production of this
morpho-syntactic structure by these three groups. Our findings in this study reflected that the
inherent variability observed in heritage speakers with respect to monolinguals is due to different
factors such as quantity and quality of input, degree of proficiency, incomplete acquisition, L1
attrition and changes in parental input. The discussion of this chapter also highlighted that some
of the grammatical patterns such as negation, tense and aspect shown in the grammar of adult
heritage speakers share similarities with the developmental stages indicated in monolingual acqui-
sition. Our findings in this study also indicated that it is possible that heritage speakers acquired
properties of their heritage language like tense, aspect, negation etc., but they did not reach the
level of mastery of these structures like monolinguals, and this incomplete acquisition is related to
the quantity of input and use. In addition, our study supported this proposal that the grammatical
representation of adult second language learners has similarity with monolingual children’s gram-
matical representation. However, there are some distinctions in developmental stages of gram-
matical patterns like negation between monolingual children and adult second language learners.
There are certain shortcomings of this study that need to be discussed in future research in
order to determine whether our findings can generalize beyond the data examined here. Firstly,
the findings of this study should be investigated in a large group of second language learners,
heritage speakers and monolingual children. Secondly, it would be highly advisable to exam-
ine the acquisition of other functional categories like Persian tense and aspect in these three
groups and compare the outcomes.

Notes
1) The data in this chapter represent the Tehrani dialect, the standard dialect of Modern Persian spoken
in Iran. I would like to thank Persian monolingual children and their parents, Persian heritage speak-
ers and second language learners who participated in this study, for their generous help and support
during the project. I am also grateful for the reviewers whose valuable feedbacks and remarks enor-
mously changed the form and content of the chapter. All errors are, of course, my own.
2) Abbreviations: Acc=Accusative, Ez=ezāfe, F.=feminine, IMP=imperfect, Incl=Inclusive, N= name,
M.= masculine, Nom=nominative, PST= Past., PL=plural, PRES=present, Poss.= Possessive, Prt.=
Past Participle, SG.=singular, Stm=Stem.
3) Butt refers to these SVCs as complex predicate constructions, but they are not the same as true Per-
sian complex predicates.
4) Concordant marking means that each component of SVC takes the marker. For example, in the case
of personal endings, each component of SVCs takes the personal ending.
5) ‘*’ shows the ungrammatical/unacceptable sentence.
6) Fossilization is a term commonly used in second language acquisition to refer to the arrested devel-
opment of grammatical features, which characterizes interlanguage grammars, the linguistics sys-
tems of second language.

References
Aikhenvald, A., and R.M. Dixon. 2006. Serial Verb Constructions; A Cross- Linguistic Typology. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bybee, J., L. Revere Perkins, and W. Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and
Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Butt, M. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

120
 Negative forms

Christaller, J.G. 1875. A Grammar of the Asante and Fante Language Called Tshi. Basel republished in
1964 by Gregg, Ridgewood.
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Epstein, S., S. Flynn, and G. Martohardjono. 1996. “Second Language Acquisition: Theoretical and
Experimental Issues in Contemporary Research.” Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 19: 677–714.
Eubank, L. 1993/94. “On the Transfer of Parametric Values in L2 Development.” Language Acquisition,
3: 182–208.
Eubank, L. 1994. “Optionality and the Initial State in L2 Development.” In Language Acquisition studies
in Generative Grammar, edited by T. Hoekstra and B. Schwartz. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins
Publishing.
Eubank, L. 1996. “Negation in Early German-English Interlanguage: More ‘valueless features’ in the L2
initial state.” Second Language Research, 12: 73–106.
Grondin, N., and L. White. 1996. “Functional Categories in Child L2 Acquisition of French.” Language
Acquisition, 5: 1–34.
Hawkins, R. 2001. Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Publishers.
Lardiere, D. 1998. “Case and Tense in the ‘Fossilized Steady State’.” Second Language Research, 14: 1–26.
Meisel, J. 1997. “The Acquisition of the Syntax of Negation in French and German: Contrasting First and
Second Language Development.” Second Language Research, 13: 227–263.
Montrul, S. 2016. The Acquisition of Heritage Languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Polinsky, M. 2011. “Reanalysis in Adult Heritage Language: A Case for Attrition.” Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 33: 305–328.
Pollock, J.Y. 1989. “Verb Movement, Universal Grammar, and the Structure of IP.” Linguistics Inquiry,
20: 365–424.
Schwartz, B. 1998. “On Two Hypothesis of ‘Transfer’ in L2A: Minimal Trees and Absolute L1 influ-
ence.” In The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition on Language Development, edited
by S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, and W. O’Neil, 35–59. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwartz, B.D., and R.A. Sprouse. 1994. “Word Order and Nominative Case in Non-Native Language
Acquisition: A Longitudinal Study of (L1 Turkish) German Interlanguage.” In Language Acquisition
Studies in Generative Grammar: Papers in Honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW work-
shops, edited by T. Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz, 317–368. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Schwartz, B.D., and R.A. Sprouse. 1996. “L2 Cognative States and the FullTransfer/Full ASccess
Model.” Second Language Research, Special Isssue on the L2 Initial States, 12 (1): 40–72.
Seuren, P.A.M. 1990. “The Definition of Serial Verbs.” In When the Verbs Collide, edited by Brian D.
Joseph and Arnold M. Zwicky. Papers from the Ohio State Mini-Conference on Serial Verbs, 14–33.
Ohio: Ohio State University.
Seuren, P.A.M. 1994. “Donkey Sentences.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, edited by
R. Asher, Vol. 2, 1059–1060. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Sebba, M. 1987. The Syntax of Serial Verbs. Amsterdam, NL and Philadelphia. John Benjamin Publishing.
Schultze-Berndt, E. 2000. Simple and Complex Verbs in Jaminjung: A Study of Event Categorization in
an Australian Language. Doctoral thesis, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, University of Nijmegen.
Stauble, A.M. 1984. A Comparison of a Spanish-English and Japanese-English Second Language Con-
tinuum: Negation and Verb Morphology. Edited by R. Anderson. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Taleghani, A. 2008. Modality, Aspect and Negation in Persian. Amsterdam, NL and Philadelphia: John
Benjamin Publisher.
Vainikka, A., and M. Young-Scholten. 1994. “Direct Access to X’ Theory: Evidence from Korean and
Turkish Adults Learning German.” In Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar, edited
by T. Hoekstra and B. Schwartz. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing.
Vainikka, A., and M. Young-Scholten. 1996a. “Gradual Development of L2 Phrase Structure.” Second
Language Research, 12: 7–39.
Vainikka, A., and M. Young-Scholten. 1996b. “The Early Stages in Adult L2 Syntax: Additional Evi-
dence from Romance Speakers.” Second Language Research, 12: 140–176.
Vainikka, A., and M. Young-Scholten. 1998. “The Initial State in the L2 Acquisition of Phrase Struc-
ture.” In The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition on Language Development, edited by
S. Flynn, G. Martohardjono, and W. O’Neil. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yuan, B. 2004. “Negation in French – Chinese, German-Chinese and English – Chinese Interlanguages.”
Transactions of the Philological Society, 102(2): 169–197.

121
 6
SECOND LANGUAGE
MORPHOLOGY POUNEH SHABANI-JADIDISECOND
­ LANGUAGE MORPHOLOGY

Case of idiomatic expressions

Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi
­

6.1 Introduction
Idiomatic expressions, also referred to as formulaic language, are derived from the ‘particular
cultural and contextual priorities and assumptions . . . dually rooted in the human brain and
human society’ (Wray 2013, 317). In this chapter, we will examine the dual roots of idiomatic
expressions, that is, the human brain and human society, with special reference to the Persian
language.
All languages in the world have idiomatic expressions, but some languages have more than
others. The reason may be the rich system of morphology of those languages, the speakers of
which make extensive use of morphologically complex words, compounds, and other multi-
morphemic idiomatic expressions. In addition, they can easily construct novel morphologi-
cally complex words, compounds, and expressions. An abundance of idiomatic expressions
can also be attributed to the rich literary culture of a language. Even in English, which is not a
very morphologically rich language, the number of idiomatic expressions in the native speak-
er’s mental lexicon is said to be roughly similar to that of single words (Jackendoff 1997).
Whereas some countries have a long tradition of visual arts, through which history,
beliefs, customs, values, popular culture, traditions, stories, etc. are depicted, some other
countries have an especially rich tradition in verbal arts. The latter is true of Iran, probably
due to religious restrictions on visual arts during the Islamic period. Persian poetry, in par-
ticular, has been the vessel through which history, beliefs, customs, values, popular culture,
traditions, stories, etc. have been expressed. The Persian language abounds with idiomatic
expressions derived from Persian poetry. In the following, some of these expressions used
in everyday Persian language, yet originating from Persian poetry of different centuries, are
illustrated:

‫در نومیدی بسی امید است‬

‫پایان شب سیه سپید است‬

There is much hope in despair

There is light at the end of the darkest night
(Niẓāmī Ganjavi’s̄ Leylī u Majnūn in his Khamsah, 12th century)

122
 Second language morphology

‫یوسف گم گشته بازآید به کنعان غم مخور‬

‫کلبه احزان شود روزی گلستان غم مخور‬

Lost Joseph will return to Canaan, worry not

The abode of sadness will one day become a rose garden, worry not
(Ḥāfiẓ’s Ghazaliyāt, 14th century)

‫مهربانی هست سیب هست ایمان هست‬

‫آری تا شقایق هست زندگی باید کرد‬

There is kindness; there are apples; there is faith

Yes, as long as there are poppies we shall live on
(Sohrāb Sepehrī’s Eight Books, 20th century)

Persian idiomatic expressions are not limited to those derived from Persian poetry; rather, they
are rooted in the fabric of the language. One can daringly say that more than half of Persian
discourse is composed of idiomatic expressions. In the following, there are some examples
extracted from Persian prose in literature and media to illustrate the widespread use of idioms
in this language:

‫مهرداد از آن پسرهای چشم و گوش بسته بود که در ایران میان خانوادهاش ضرب المثل شده بود و هنوز هم‬
.‫اسم زن را که میشنید از پیشانی تا اللههای گوشش سرخ میشد‬
Mehrdad was one of those naive (eye and ear closed) boys who had become a legend
(‘proverb’) among his relatives in Iran, and even now, whenever he hears the word
‘woman’, he turns red from ear to ear (from forehead to earlobe).
(Ṣādiq Hidāyat’s The Doll Behind the Curtain in Chiaroscuro collection of short stories,
20th century)
.‫سیاستمدار اگر دشمن را ببخشد پیروانش بر او خرده می گیرند‬

If the politician forgives his enemies, his followers will criticize him/get a piece of him (to
get a bit).
(Sentence extracted from the media)

.‫ روح تازه ای در کالبد این شهر تاریخی دمیدند‬،‫آنها با انتخاب شورایی متفاوت‬

With the election of a different council, they blew fresh life (blew a fresh soul into the body)
into this historic city.
(Sentence extracted from the media)

Looking at these examples, one can get a sense of the prevalence of idiomatic expres-
sions in the Persian language. Before we investigate how these expressions are stored in and
accessed from the mental lexicon, let us review what is meant by the mental lexicon.
Various definitions have been given for the mental lexicon, ranging from very simple to very
complex ones. The simple definition for mental lexicon is that it is the dictionary represented in
the mind, which is used by individuals to comprehend and produce a given language. A more
technical definition of the mental lexicon is given by Jarema and Libben (2007), who consider the
mental lexicon to be the cognitive system constituting the capacity for conscious and unconscious
lexical activity. It is the latter definition that we will be dealing with throughout this chapter.

123
 ­
Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi

Since we are interested in exploring the processing, comprehension, and acquisition of idi-
omatic expressions in second language speakers of Persian, we have to first consider whether
first language (L1) and second language (L2) mental lexicons are the same or not.

6.2 L1 and L2 mental lexicons

Most studies in the literature support the theory of the integration of the L1 and L2 mental lexicons
or what Cook (1992) calls ‘holistic multicompetence’. For example, some studies have argued
that frequency of cognate words in one language affects their processing rate in another language
(Caramazza and Brones 1980). Some other studies have observed that translation performance is
improved when there are morphemic similarities between L1 and L2 (Cristoffanini, Kirsner, and
Milech 1986). Still other studies have illustrated that homographs activate their corresponding
meanings in both languages, regardless of the stimulus language (Beauvillain and Grainger 1987).
Contrary to the theories in favor of the integration of the L1 and L2 mental lexicons, there
is some evidence indicating that the L1 and L2 mental lexicons are separate. One kind of
evidence comes from studies on codeswitching, which purports to show that bilinguals use
one language at a time, hence implying L1 and L2 mental lexicon separation (Grosjean 1982).
Another source of evidence comes from studies on aphasic patients, demonstrating that brain
damaged patients recover known languages one at a time, and in some cases, only one lan-
guage is recovered (Pearce 2005).
Studies of brain physiology are relevant to the understanding of L1 and L2 mental lexicons,
as well. Previous studies have established that L1 speakers possess two different brain memory
systems that work simultaneously and in parallel. These studies were testing the Declarative/
Procedural Model (DPM) (Ullman 2004; Ullman and Lovelett 2018) of mental processing.
According to this model, the lexicon is stored in the declarative memory (explicit or conscious
knowledge), which is rooted in temporal lobe structures. The temporal lobe is in charge of
language comprehension, including idioms. However, the rules of grammar are stored in the
procedural memory (implicit or non-conscious and automatic knowledge) and rooted in fron-
tal brain structures. The frontal lobe is in charge of speech production and syntax. As for L2
speakers, previous studies show that L2 learners depend mostly on the declarative memory,
as proposed in the Shallow Structure Hypothesis (Clahsen and Felser 2006). According to the
Shallow Structure Hypothesis, L2 grammar is shallower and less detailed than L1 grammar.
To build on the models discussed previously, we would like to see where in the brain idi-
omatic expressions are stored. Previous studies in the literature have shown that, as proposed
in the Graded Salience Hypothesis (Giora 2003), more salient and more frequent idiomatic
expressions are stored in the right hemisphere, while less salient and less frequent idiomatic
expressions are stored in the left hemisphere. The Graded Salience Hypothesis (Giora 2003) is
further supported by neuropsychological L1 figurative processing studies that have shown that
the left hemisphere activates only a small set of semantic fields closely related to the dominant
meaning of a stimulus word. However, the right hemisphere engages in coarse coding, that is,
activation of large and diffuse semantic fields related only peripherally to the word being pro-
cessed. This Fine-Coarse Coding Theory (Beeman 1998; Titone 1998) is supported by studies
of aphasia. For example, Papagno and Cacciari (2010) studied an Italian patient with selective
atrophy of left hemisphere regions and observed that he was better in figurative language than
literal language.
Now that we have found the loci of idiomatic expressions’ storage in the brain, we would
like to investigate how these expressions are processed and whether there is a difference
between L1 and L2 processing of idiomatic expressions.

124
 Second language morphology

6.3 L1 and L2 idiomatic expression processing

There are two main approaches to idiomatic expression processing in L1. The first one
includes Idiom Non-Composition Models, also called Direct Look-up Models (Glucksberg
1993). According to these models, idioms are processed as a whole rather than through their
constituent parts. One hypothesis generated from this model is the Idiom List Hypothesis
(Bobrow and Bell 1973), according to which the literal meaning of an idiom needs to be
rejected as inappropriate before its figurative meaning can be retrieved. The second hypothesis
following the non-compositional approach is the Lexical Representation Hypothesis (Swinney
and Cutler 1979), which proposes that the two meanings of an idiom (literal and figurative)
are processed simultaneously. A third hypothesis is the Direct Access Hypothesis (Gibbs 1980,
1985, 1993, 2002), which argues that the literal analysis of idiom constituents is unnecessary
and not undertaken, because figurative meanings can be accessed directly.
In opposition to the non-compositional model of idiomatic expression processing is the
Idiom Decomposition Model, which provides various arguments based on idiom types. For the
non-decomposable idioms (that is, idioms whose constituents do not contribute to the meaning
of the whole idiom, e.g. ‘kick the bucket’), there are inconclusive findings. While some studies
have shown slower processing time (Caillies and Butcher 2007), other studies have observed
no difference in processing time (Cutting and Bock 1997; Libben and Titone 2008). On the
other hand, decomposable idioms (in which the meaning of the whole idiom can be guessed
from its constituents, e.g. ‘spill the beans’) have been shown to have faster processing times in
comparison to non-decomposable idioms (Titone and Connine 1994, 1999).
Studies on idiomatic expression processing in L2 have investigated the issue physiologi-
cally and cross-linguistically. Some studies have argued for a cerebral hemisphere asymmetry
and observed that the right hemisphere processes L1 and L2 non-decomposable idioms faster
than decomposable ones, whereas the left hemisphere processes L1 decomposable idioms
faster (Cieślicka 2013). Some other studies have focused on the cross-language similarity,
stating that similar idioms (e.g. ‘give your heart to someone’; del-dādan ‘heart-give’ ‘fall
in love’) show a slower processing time due to L1 equivalents competing. For the same rea-
son, dissimilar idioms (e.g. ‘pull someone’s leg’; sar-be-sar-gozāshtan ‘head-to-head-put’
‘tease’) show a faster processing time, as there is no competition during processing (Cieślicka
and Heredia 2013). In the following, we will test these models using evidence from the Per-
sian language.

6.4 Evidence from studies of Persian

While there are many varieties of idiomatic expressions in Persian, the particular idiomatic
expressions investigated in this chapter are Noun-Verb compound verbs, also called complex
predicates. For further discussion on complex predicates and heritage and second language
learning of Persian, read Chapter 4 in this volume.
This section will review two studies on compound verb processing in Persian through two
masked priming experiments (Shabani-Jadidi 2014, 2016). Persian compound verbs are com-
posed of two or more constituent parts constituting a single united meaning. In the following,
different kinds of Persian compound verbs are illustrated:

• PP + Verb (az-bar-kardan
­ ­ ‘from-on-to do’ ‘to memorize’)
• Adv + Verb (pish-bordan
­ ‘further-to take’ ‘to succeed’)
• Adj + Verb (dāgh-kardan ‘hot-to do’ ‘to get mad’)

125
 ­
Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi

• NP + Verb (gush-tā-gush-boridan ‘ear-to-ear-to cut’ ‘to cut thoroughly’)

• N + Verb (zamin-khordan
­ ‘ground-to eat/hit’ ‘to fall’)

The particular compound verb investigated in this chapter is the last one, that is, Noun-Verb. In
experimental studies in language processing, the effect of one constituent on the whole word
or vice versa (that is, the effect of the whole word on its constituents) is tested. In such studies,
often the type of relatedness between the compound and its constituents is reported to have,
or not to have, an impact on the processing of the compound and its constituents. The types of
relatedness investigated in such experimental studies in language processing are:

1) morphological relatedness
a) Transparent (teacher – TEACH)
b) Opaque (corner – CORN)
2) Orthographic or phonological relatedness (brothel – BROTH)
3) Semantic relatedness (doctor – NURSE)
4) Syntactic relatedness (easily – SURELY)

Shabani-Jadidi (2014, 2016) investigated the processing of Noun-Verb idiomatic and non-
idiomatic compound verbs in L1 and L2 Persian speakers. The technique used in these studies
was masked-priming, which taps into the subconscious mind. The research questions were as
follows:

(1) Do constituents of Persian compound verbs show significant priming in a masked-priming

paradigm?
(2) Are priming effects constrained by semantic transparency?

Table 6.1 below is a summary of the results of these two studies.

In other words, idiomatic or opaque compound verbs (e.g. zamin-khordan­ ‘ground-to eat/hit’
‘to fall’) showed faster processing time for the verbal constituent (in comparison to their trans-
parent counterparts). However, non-idiomatic or transparent compound verbs (e.g. ghazā-
khordan ‘food-to eat’ ‘to eat’) showed a slower processing time for the verbal constituent. This
slower processing time can be attributed to the increased processing load due to the activation
of competing alternatives that exist in the lexicon (e.g., ‘food-to take’; ‘food-to bring’; ‘food-
to buy’; ‘food-to give’; etc.).

Table 6.1 L1 and L2 idiomatic expression processing

Language Decomposition Priming effect Possible explanation

L1 idiomatic expression Decomposed to its Transparent verbal Competing alternatives of

processing (Shabani- constituents constituents slower the verbal constituents
Jadidi 2014)
L2 idiomatic expression Decomposed to its Opaque verbal L1 transfer & non-
processing (Shabani- constituents constituents slower automaticity and non-
Jadidi 2016) lexicality of the opaque
expressions in L2

126
 Second language morphology

The evidence from these studies suggests that some widespread assumptions regarding L1
and L2 idiomatic expression processing are not true, at least for Persian:

1 Idiomatic expressions have been assumed to take longer to process across languages. In
the studies discussed previously, both idiomatic and non-idiomatic compound verbs took
the same amount of time (ranging between 507–515 milliseconds) to be processed regard-
less of their idiomaticity.
2 Idiomatic expressions have been assumed to be stored and accessed as a whole, whereas
non-idiomatic expressions are assumed to be decomposed. In these studies, both idiomatic
and non-idiomatic compound verbs were decomposed to their constituents at early stages
of processing, as indicated by the results of the masked experiments.
3 L1 and L2 have been assumed to have two separate systems of processing. In this study,
however, the processing route taken by both L1 and L2 speakers was shown to be identi-
cal and similarly accurate.

(For more detailed discussion of these studies, see Shabani-Jadidi (2014, 2016).)
A subsequent study investigated two additional questions in the field of L1 and L2 idi-
omatic expressions:

1 Whether language proficiency affects idiomatic expression acquisition strategies;

2 Whether consciousness-raising regarding the meaning of idiom constituents helps their
ultimate acquisition.

6.5 L2 Idiomatic expression comprehension

In order to investigate these questions, we devised a table of Persian-English idiomatic expres-
sions ranging from dissimilar to semi-similar to similar.
We used tables similar to Table 6.2 in order to investigate the comprehension, acquisition, and
production of idiomatic expressions in L2 Persian learners. Two experiments were carried out.

Table 6.2 L1 and L2 idiomatic expression ranges

Similarity L1 idiomatic expression L2 meaning

dissimilar Hand-hand-to ­ ­ do To hesitate

dissimilar Heart-to-sea-to ­ ­ ­ hit To take a risk
dissimilar Head-to-head-to­ ­ ­ put To tease
dissimilar From-face-to ­ ­ take To convince by persistence
dissimilar Wound-tongue-to ­ ­ hit To say something sarcastically
semi-similar
­ Fist-someone-to
­ ­ open To expose someone
semi-similar
­ Ear-rubbing-to
­ ­ give To punish physically
semi-similar
­ Finger-to-mouth-to ­ ­ ­ stay To be surprised
semi-similar­ Head-to-mountain-to ­ ­ ­ put To disappear
semi-similar ­ Foot-in-middle-to
­ ­ ­ do To mediate
similar To-wood-to
­ ­ hit To knock on wood
similar Eye-to ­ hit To cast an evil eye
similar Mouse-dying-to take off To play possum
similar Ice-someone-to
­ ­ melt To break the ice
similar With-one-arrow-two-target-to
­ ­ ­ ­ ­ hit To kill two birds with one stone

127
 ­
Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi

Experiment 1 included a pre-task where participants were given 20 idiomatic expressions

with only their holistic meanings. The task was divided into: 1) an acquisition phase where
participants had to answer 10 definition questions, and 2) a production phase where partici-
pants had to write a paragraph including five of these idiomatic expressions selected by the
researcher.
Experiment 2, on the other hand, included a pre-task where 20 idiomatic expressions with
both their holistic meanings and their constituent meanings were given to the participants.
Again, the task was divided into two phases: 1) acquisition, where participants had to provide
answers to 10 definition questions, and 2) production, where participants were asked to write a
paragraph including five of the idiomatic expressions selected by the researcher.
Before the start of the experiments, the participants were divided into three proficiency
groups based on the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Pro-
ficiency Scale, which has four main levels (Novice, Intermediate, Advanced, and Superior)
with the first three levels subdivided into three sublevels (Low, Mid, and High). For further
discussion on ACTFL and its tenets, read Chapter 15 in this volume.
In the present study, the Novice group were 20 in number, the Low Intermediate group
were 12, and the Mid Intermediate group were 8. The age range was 20–25. At the pre-task
stage, the participants were given a list of L2 idiomatic expressions, such as the one shown in
Table 6.2, and they were asked to provide the meanings of the idiomatic expressions in Eng-
lish (their L1) in the second column. They were also asked to write down what strategy/ies
they used in order to guess the meanings of the L2 idiomatic expressions.
Table 6.3 following shows the result of this pre-task, that is, L2 idiomatic expression com-
prehension based on L2 language proficiency. It also shows the most common strategies used
by participants in each proficiency level.
As illustrated in Table 6.3, the higher the proficiency level is, the more likely that the L2
learners resort to the constituent meanings in order to figure out the idiomatic expression
meaning. This result is in line with the results of the experimental studies on idiomatic expres-
sion processing in Persian, explained briefly earlier, and more elaborately in Shabani-Jadidi
(2014, 2016, 2018), where both L1 and near-native L2 speakers seem to decompose the string
of words in the formulaic language in order to process it.
The decompositional approach to compound words has been attested for other Indo-
European languages as well (e.g. Longtin, Segui, and Hallé 2003, for French; Fiorentino 2007,
for English; Smolka, Preller, and Eulitz 2014, for German; among others). However, some L2
studies suggest that L2 learners interpret the figurative language by decomposing it to its con-
stituents, whereas L1 speakers tend to interpret the idiomatic expressions holistically (Wray,
Bell, and Jones 2016). This second claim is not necessarily refuting the decompositional

Table 6.3 Language proficiency and idiomatic expression comprehension

Proficiency level Average percentage of correct Strategies

guesses

Novice 15 -First and only, resort to L1

-Try to find L1 idiom equivalents
Low Intermediate 25 -Use of L2 cultural cues
-Resort to L1 and other L2s
Mid Intermediate 37.5 -Mostly use constituent meanings
-Last, resort to L1

128
 Second language morphology

Table 6.4 Language proficiency and idiomatic expression acquisition and production

Proficiency level Experiment 1: Experiment 2:

Average percentage of writing Average percentage of writing grade with
grade with a pre-task of holistic a pre-task of holistic idiomatic meanings
idiomatic meanings as well as constituent meanings

Low Intermediate 79 67
Mid Intermediate 75 73

approach to formulaic language processing, as it taps into the conscious mind rather than the
subconscious mind involved in real-time processing.
After this pre-task, the two experiments were carried out with the two levels of Mid Inter-
mediate and High Intermediate. The reason why the Novice level was not used was that the
idiomatic expressions were too difficult for their proficiency level. Table 6.4 illustrates the
acquisition and production of idiomatic expressions in Experiment 1 where only the holistic
meanings were taught to the L2 learners and Experiment 2 where both the holistic and the
constituents meanings were taught in the pre-task stage.
The results of the two experiments illustrated in Tables 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 provide answers to
the two questions we posed about L1 and L2 idiomatic expressions:

1 The evidence given in the tables previously seems to validate the first hypothesis. In other
words, language proficiency does seem to affect idiomatic expression acquisition and the
kind of strategies used.
2 We did not find that consciousness-raising regarding the meaning of idiom constituents
helps their ultimate acquisition, as illustrated by the similar writing grades of two profi-
ciency groups depicted in Table 6.4.

6.6 Learning and teaching L2 idiomatic expressions

In addition to acquiring linguistic competence, L2 learners need to acquire figurative compe-
tence, which encompasses idioms, compound words, collocations, phrasal verbs, and other
multiword expressions (Cieślicka 2015). The two most relevant questions in teaching L2 idi-
omatic expression are 1) ‘how can multiword strings be most effectively taught to learners,’
and 2) ‘which multiword strings should be prioritized in teaching.’ (Wray 2013, 317).
Different kinds of idiomatic expressions require different kinds of teaching techniques. In
fact, learnability of idiomatic expressions is said to be regulated by their semantic transpar-
ency and frequency of use (Nippold 2006). In addition, context, analogy, precedence, and
pragmatics are said to be influencing the interpretation of an unfamiliar idiomatic expression
(Wray, Bell, and Jones 2016).
An important factor in the interpretation of L2 idiomatic expressions is their having a cor-
responding L1 equivalent and how similar or dissimilar they are. As illustrated in Table 6.2 in
the previous section, idiomatic expressions can vary from dissimilar to semi-similar to similar.
A study on Arabic learners of English idioms has shown that identical idioms are the easiest
to learn, followed by similar ones. The most difficult ones to learn are the different ones (Ban-
jar 2014). There are some discussions on effective ways of teaching vocabularies in second
language learning of Persian in Chapter 9 in this volume that may be of interest to the reader.

129
 ­
Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi

In addition, contextual cues can be very useful in helping L2 learners guess the meaning
of the L2 idiomatic expressions correctly. For example, consider the case of metonymy; for
example, ‘We drank a nice Bordeaux last night’, or ‘Ask seat 19 whether he wants to swap.’
(Slabakova 2016). In the first example, ‘Bordeaux’ is used to refer to a wine from the Bordeaux
region of France, and in the second, ‘seat 19’ is used to refer to the passenger sitting in seat 19.
However, in the absence of the context, these two expressions will not have the same meanings.
Therefore, it seems more efficient to divide idiomatic expressions based on their learnabil-
ity and contextual cues. The more similar to L1 and the more contextual cues are provided, the
easier it is to learn the L2 idiomatic expressions.
There are certain techniques that can be used to facilitate L2 idiomatic expression acquisi-
tion. One such technique is to group the idioms all around one topic. Experimental studies
on language processing discussed at the beginning of this chapter supported the hypothesis
that once a word is accessed, all the words in its immediate and peripheral semantic fields are
accessed simultaneously (e.g., Giora 2003; Beeman 1998; Titone 1998; among others).
Another factor that can make a difference in the teaching of L2 idiomatic expressions is
the choice of mode of instruction. There are two main modes of instruction. The first one is
implicit or incidental, which has been proven to be effective but slow (Nation and Meara
2002); yet it is said to be best for figurative idioms, as it pushes L2 leaners to make their own
interpretative strategies (Grant and Nation 2006). The second one is explicit or direct, which is
more focused and a necessary supplement to implicit instruction for adult L2 learners (White
1991; Schmitt 2000). Readers are invited to see Chapters 9–14 in this volume, which focus
on language skills and the most effective ways to help second language learners of Persian to
improve them.
Implicit and explicit instruction each tap into a different part of the brain, as discussed
earlier in this chapter. Explicit instruction leads to the new information being stored in the
declarative memory as conscious knowledge, while implicit instruction leads to the new infor-
mation being stored in the procedural memory as non-conscious knowledge (Ullman 2018).
Whereas the initial learning of a new lexical item will be based on the declarative knowledge,
the subsequent uses of that lexical item might be based on the procedural knowledge, as it is
used more frequently and eventually automatically.
Another factor that has proven useful not only in the teaching of L2 idiomatic expressions
but rather in any L2 instruction is the instructor’s knowledge of Second Language Acquisition
(SLA) theories, as she or he can choose teaching techniques and methods based on a solid
theoretical foundation (Slabakova 2016). For example, according to the parasitic hypothesis of
vocabulary development (Hall 2002) and the competing model of L2 acquisition (MacWhin-
ney 1992, 1997, 2002, 2005, 2008), when L2 learners encounter a new lexicon or an idiomatic
expression they have not heard before, they rely heavily on their L1. The findings of the pre-
sent study illustrated in Table 6.3 provide evidence for this model and theory of L2 acquisition,
as the lower the proficiency level, the more reliance on L1 in figuring out the meaning of an
unfamiliar idiomatic expression. In addition, the results of the present study also support the
hierarchical bilingual memory models (e.g. Kroll and Stewart 1994; Heredia and Cieślicka
2014), according to which L2 learners rely on the mediation of L1 translation equivalents at
the initial stages of L2 learning, and as they become more proficient, they are replaced with
direct connections between the L2 lexicon and the mental concept. Table 6.3 depicts this point
clearly as more proficient L2 learners refer to their L1 only as the last resort; instead, like
L1 speakers, they try to use strategies like referring to the constituent meanings to guess the
meaning of the idiomatic expressions. This is also in line with Cieślicka’s (2006) Literal Sali-
ence Model, which proposes that L2 learners, due to receiving the instruction in classroom,

130
 Second language morphology

are more familiar with the literal meaning of idiomatic expressions, hence the salience of their
constituents. However, salience and familiarity can be more complex than this, as L2 learners’
individual differences in the acquisition of the L2 idiomatic expression can determine what
is salient and what is not. This is also argued by Kecskes (2006), who states that salience is a
function of familiarity and experience with a given meaning, and experience is different from
one individual to another. Individual differences and various learning styles and beliefs in sec-
ond language learners of Persian are further discussed in Chapter 28 in this volume.
Another important factor for the instructor to help L2 learners learn L2 idiomatic expres-
sions is to know what particular L1-L2 pairs exist in the class so that the L1s of the class can
be used in order to decide the order of the material presented, based on SLA theories, as well
as refraining from focusing the time of the class on certain aspects shared by both L1 and L2.

6.7 Conclusion
This chapter examined L2 processing, comprehension, and acquisition of idiomatic expres-
sions. The chapter started by presenting the reasons why studying idiomatic expressions is
significant. After all, as stated by Wray (2013), in order to study L2 formulaic language pro-
cessing, one needs to know why this kind of expressions is so common in the language as well
as the linguistic structure of the idiomatic expressions. For this reason, we started the chapter
by discussing how commonly idiomatic expressions are used in the language under investiga-
tion, that is, Persian.
We then reviewed different linguistic theories of the L1 and L2 mental lexicon and how
they are taken to be integrated or separate by different theories. For that, we discussed the
physiological differences between the loci of lexicon storage, in general, and the loci of stor-
age of idiomatic expressions, in particular. After that, we discussed different theories of L1
and L2 idiomatic expression processing for different kinds of idiomatic expressions. Then we
argued how evidence from Persian helps contribute to the discussion of these theories. The
last topic we delved into was the comprehension and acquisition of idiomatic expressions by
presenting a small sample test investigating these issues with L2 learners of Persian.
The present study has some limitations, such as the small sample size of the final study and
the lack of more sophisticated statistical analysis. However, the aim of this chapter was to give
a bird’s-eye view of the theories and studies in L1 versus L2 idiomatic expression processing
and acquisition, while providing new evidence from a less-studied language, Persian. Further
studies need to investigate the L2 idiomatic expression processing and acquisition in Persian
and in other languages alike, as this is an understudied topic of research. We hope that the
present study will inspire researchers in the field to do more elaborate and extensive studies in
the realm of L2 idiomatic expression processing and acquisition.

References
Banjar, H. 2014. Interlanguage Idiomatics: The Acquisition of English Idioms by Saudi Learners. Theses.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.
Beauvillain, C., and J. Grainger. 1987. “Accessing Interlexical Homographs: Some Limitations of a
Language-Selective Access.” Journal of Memory and Language, 26: 658–672.
Beeman, M. 1998. “Coarse Semantic Coding and Discourse Comprehension.” In Right Hemisphere Lan-
guage Comprehension: Perspectives from Cognitive Neuroscience, edited by M. Beeman and C. Chi-
arello, 255–284. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bobrow, S.A., and S.M. Bell. 1973. “On Catching on to Idiomatic Expressions.” Memory & Cognition,
1: 342–346.

131
 ­
Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi

Caillies, S., and K. Butcher. 2007. “Processing of Idiomatic Expressions: Evidence for a New Hybrid
View.” Metaphor and Symbol, 22: 79–108.
Caramazza, A., and I. Brones. 1980. “Semantic Classification by Bilinguals.” Canadian Journal of Psy-
chology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 34(1): 77–81.
Cieślicka, A.B. 2006. “Literal Salience in On-Line Processing of Idiomatic Expressions by L2 Speakers.”
Second Language Research, 22: 115–144.
Cieślicka, A.B. 2013. “Do Nonnative Language Speakers Chew the Fat and Spill the Beans with Differ-
ent Brain Hemispheres? Investigating idiom decomposability with the divided visual field paradigm.”
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42: 475–503.
Cieślicka, A.B. 2015. “Idiom Acquisition and Processing by Second/Foreign Language Learners.” In
Bilingual Figurative Language Processing, edited by R. Heredia and A. Cieślicka, 208–244. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cieślicka, A.B., and R.R. Heredia. 2013. “The Multiple Determinants of Eye Movement Patterns in
Bilingual Figurative Processing.” 25th APS Annual Convention, Washington, DC.
Clahsen, H., and C. Felser. 2006. “Continuity and Shallow Structure in Language Processing.” Applied
Psycholinguistics, 27: 107–126.
Cook, V.J. 1992. “Evidence for Multicompetence.” Language Learning, 42(4): 557–591.
Cristoffanini, P., K. Kirsner, and D. Milech. 1986. “Bilingual Lexical Representation: The Status of Span-
ish – English Cognates.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental
Psychology, 38(3–A): 367–393.
Cutting, J.C., and K. Bock. 1997. “That’s the Way the Cookie Bounces: Syntactic and Semantic Compo-
nents of Experimentally Elicited Idiom Blends.” Memory & Cognition, 25: 57–71.
Fiorentino, R., and D. Poeppel. 2007. “Compound Words and Structure in the Lexicon.” Language and
Cognitive Processes, 12: 953–1000.
Gibbs, R.W. 1980. “Spilling the Beans on Understanding and Memory for Idioms in Conversation.”
Memory & Cognition, 8: 149–156.
Gibbs, R.W. 1985. “On the Process of Understanding Idioms.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,
14: 465–472.
Gibbs, R.W. 1993. “Why Idioms Are Not Dead Metaphors.” In Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Inter-
pretation, edited by C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi, 57–77. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibbs, R.W. 2002. “A New Look at Literal Meaning in Understanding What Is Said and Implicated.”
Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 457–486.
Giora, R. 2003. On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language. Oxford University Press.
Glucksberg, S. 1993. “Idiom Meanings and Allusional Content.” In Idioms: Processing, Structure,
and Interpretation, edited by C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi, 3–26. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Grant, L., and I.S.P. Nation. 2006. “How Many Idioms Are There in English?” International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 151: 1–14.
Grosjean, F. 1982. Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Hall, C. 2002. “The Automatic Cognate Form Assumption: Evidence for the Parasitic Model of Vocabu-
lary Development.” IRAL, 40: 69–87.
Heredia, R.R., and A.B. Cieślicka. 2014. “Bilingual Memory Storage: Compound-Coordinate and Deriv-
atives.” In Foundations of Bilingual Memory, edited by R.R. Heredia and J. Altarriba, 11–39. New
York: Springer.
Jackendoff, R. 1997. The Architecture of Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jarema, G., and G. Libben. 2007. The Mental Lexicon: Core Perspectives. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Kecskes, I. 2006. “On My Mind: Thoughts about Salience, Context, and Figurative Language from a
Second Language Perspective.” Second Language Research, 22: 219–237.
Kroll, J.F., and E. Stewart. 1994. “Category Interference in Translation and Picture Naming: Evidence
for Asymmetric Connections Between Bilingual Memory Representations.” Journal of Memory and
Language, 33: 149–174.
Libben, M.R., and D.A. Titone. 2008. “The Multidetermined Nature of Idiom Processing.” Memory &
Cognition, 36: 1103–1121.
Longtin, C., J. Segui, and P.A. Hallé. 2003. “Morphological Priming without Morphological Relation-
ship.” Language and Cognitive Processes, 18: 313–334.

132
 Second language morphology

MacWhinney, B. 1992. “Competition and Transfer in Second Language Learning.” In Cognitive Process-
ing in Bilinguals, edited by R.J. Harris, 371–390. Amsterdam, NL: North-Holland.
MacWhinney, B. 1997. “Second Language Acquisition and the Competition Model.” In Tutorials in
Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Perspectives, edited by A.M.B. de Groot and J.F. Kroll, 113–142.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MacWhinney, B. 2002. “The Competition Model: The Input, the Context, and the Brain.” In Cognition
and Second Language Instruction, edited by P. Robinson, 69–90. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
MacWhinney, B. 2005. “Extending the Competition Model.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 9:
69–84.
MacWhinney, B. 2008. “A Unified Model.” In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Lan-
guage Acquisition, edited by, P. Robinson and N. Ellis, 341–371. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Nation, I.S.P., and P. Meara. 2002. “Vocabulary.” In An Introduction to Applied Linguistics, edited by N.
Schmitt, 35–54. London: Arnold.
Nippold, M.A. 2006. “Language Development in School-age Children, Adolescents, and Adults.” In
Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed., edited by K. Brown, 368–373. Oxford: Elsevier.
Papagno, C., and C. Cacciari. 2010. “The Role of Ambiguity in Idiom Comprehension: The Case of a
Patient with a Reversed Concreteness Effect.” Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23: 631–643.
Pearce, J.M.S. 2005. “A Note an Aphasia in Bilingual Patients: Pitres’ and Ribot’s Laws.” European
Neurology, 54: 127–131.
Schmitt, N. 2000. Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shabani-Jadidi, P. 2014. Processing Compound Verbs in Persian: A Psycholinguistic Approach to Com-
plex Predicates. Iranian Studies Series of Leiden University Press and the University of Chicago
Press.
Shabani-Jadidi, P. 2016. “Compound Verb Processing in Second Language Speakers of Persian.” Journal
of the International Society for Iranian Studies, 49(1): 137–158.
Shabani-Jadidi, P. 2018. “Psycholinguistics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics, edited by
A. Sedighi and P. Shabani-Jadidi, 411–434, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slabakova, R. 2016. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smolka, E., K.H. Preller, and C. Eulitz. 2014. “‘Verstehen’ (‘understand’) primes ‘stehen’ (‘stand’): Mor-
phological Structure Overrides Semantic Compositionality in the Lexical Representation of German
Complex Verbs.” Journal of Memory and Language, 72: 16–36.
Swinney, D.A., and A. Cutler. 1979. “The Access and Processing of Idiomatic Expressions.” Journal of
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18: 523–534.
Titone, D.A. 1998. “Hemispheric Differences in Context Sensitivity During Lexical Ambiguity Resolu-
tion.” Brain and Language, 65: 361–394.
Titone, D.A., and C.M. Connine. 1994. “Comprehension of Idiomatic Expressions: Effects of Predict-
ability and Literality.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20:
1126–1138.
Titone, D.A., and C.M. Connine. 1999. “On the Compositional and Noncompositional Nature of Idi-
omatic Expressions.” Journal of Pragmatics, 31: 1655–1674.
Ullman, M. 2004. “Contribution of Memory Circuits to Language: The Declarative/Procedural Model.”
Cognition, 92: 231–270.
Ullman, M., and J. Lovelett. 2018. “Implications of the Declarative/Procedural Model for Improving
Second Language Learning: The Role of Memory Enhancement Techniques.” Second Language
Research, 34(1): 39–65.
White, L. 1991. “Adverb Placement in SLA: Some Effects of Positive and Negative Evidence in the
Classroom.” Second Language Research, 7: 133–161.
Wray, A. 2013. “Formulaic Language.” Language Teaching, 46(3): 316–334.
Wray, A., H. Bell, and K. Jones. 2016. “How Native and Non-Native Speakers of English Interpret Unfa-
miliar Formulaic Sequences.” European Journal of English Studies, 20(1): 47–63.

133
 7
SOME UNIQUE SEMANTIC
PROPERTIES OF PERSIAN MASOUD JASBISOME UNIQUE SEMANTIC PROPERTIES OF PERSIAN

Masoud Jasbi

7.1 Introduction
Language acquisition can be characterized as the process of discovering forms of the target
language, discovering the concepts that are communicated in that language, and mapping those
forms to the correct concepts (Clark 2009). Each step of acquisition has its own challenges to
overcome. In this chapter, I discuss issues that are closely related to the last step: when learn-
ing a new language, how do learners discover the right mapping of forms and meanings? How
do they converge on the correct characterization of a word’s meaning among many plausible
candidate meanings? Are some words or elements of a language more difficult to learn because
of what they mean? How can we facilitate learning in cases where the semantics of words
make their learning challenging? For further discussion on the acquisition of semantic features
in Persian, read Chapter 8 in this volume.
Words in almost any language divide into two basic categories: content words and function
words. Content words are the ones that are most word-like to native speakers! They are the
flagbearers of the lexicon. They constitute nouns like cat, verbs like run, and adjectives like
red, words that if you ask someone to name a word, they will most likely name those. Func-
tion words on the other hand are hardly recognized. They are small elements like the, and, or,
and every, which are unlikely to be mentioned if someone is asked to name a word. Despite
this lack of recognition, the role of function words in language is truly remarkable. They are
the nuts and bolts that put content words together and create the sentences of a language. In
short, function words form the backbone of a language structure and language cannot function
without them.
Function words are small in number and they rarely add a new member. This is why they
are also referred to as a “closed class”. Content words on the other hand are much more numer-
ous and easily add new members; hence the name “open class”. Function words are present
everywhere. If we compute the frequency of words in a document like this one, the most
frequent words are going to be function words. Given their small number and high frequency,
one might think that function words are easy to learn. However, this is the opposite of what we
find in language acquisition. Children master function words of their first language much later
than content words. But why are function words hard to learn?

134
 Some unique semantic properties of Persian

Despite their frequency and ubiquitous presence, function words have meanings that are
extremely abstract and hard to pin down. In introductory classes, I often ask students to pro-
vide their intuitions on the meaning of some content words and some function words. Students
are often quick in responding to content words. The meanings seem very clear to them. How-
ever, with function words, they often do not really know what the meaning is, even though
they know how to correctly use them in a sentence. Research in formal semantics and prag-
matics has shown that the meanings of function words are indeed extremely subtle. We often
need specific and precise mathematical tools to be able to capture their semantics. Therefore,
it is not surprising that despite their high frequency in language, function words are learned
later in the process of acquisition. To find the correct form-meaning mapping for function
words, learners may need more data and time. More importantly, to distinguish subtle differ-
ences in meaning, learners may need to rely on crucial data points that differentiate semantic
hypotheses from each other. But is it possible to facilitate the process of learning function
words? It is, in principle, if we provide the crucial data that learners need to converge on the
right semantic hypotheses for words and expressions. For learners of a second language, it is
also possible to provide generalizations that accurately capture the semantic contribution of
functional elements.
Research in theoretical and formal semantics and pragmatics can help with both of these
tasks. The goal of the present chapter is to provide recent findings on the semantics of some
functional elements in Persian and provide examples that in my view count as “crucial exam-
ples” for learning, because they bring out the important semantic distinctions that those func-
tional elements encode. The chapter also aims at demonstrating how theoretical research on
semantics of function words can contribute to the literature and practices in second language
acquisition.
I first start with a discussion of diglossia in Persian in Section 7.2. I argue that the infor-
mal and formal varieties of Persian differ significantly in their phonology, their syntax, (and
most relevant to the discussion here) their semantics. Rules and generalizations that apply
to one do not necessarily carry to the other. Therefore, in research and teaching of Persian,
it is important to keep the two systems apart and systematically highlight the similarities
and differences. For further discussion on diglossia in Persian, see Chapter 4 in this volume.
Section 7.3 discusses subtleties in the interpretation of bare nominals in Persian. Section 7.4
explains the semantic contribution of some functional markers that appear on singular nomi-
nals while Section 7.5 focuses on plural marking. Finally, Section 7.6 discusses the object
marker rā, which is infamous for creating major difficulties for speakers of Persian as a sec-
ond language. In each case, I present the type of data that I consider crucial for bringing out
the core semantic contribution of each marker and hence helpful in the process of language
acquisition.

7.2 Diglossia
One of the most challenging aspects of learning Persian is that what is spoken, namely Collo-
quial or Informal Persian, is considerably different from what is taught and written, i.e. Formal
Persian. The formal and informal varieties of Persian are closely and systematically related
but obey different rules and must be considered two separate systems. While Informal Persian
has been subject to rapid linguistic change, Formal Persian has remained relatively closer
to Literary Persian, which was spoken hundreds of years ago. Examples (1–3) show similar
sentences in Literary Persian (1), Formal Persian (2), and Informal Persian (3). The Literary

135
 Masoud Jasbi

example in (1), which dates back to 700 years ago, is quite similar to the Formal example in
(2). However, the Informal example in (3) is very different from the other two.

(1) čon u be xāne raft

(when) 3.SG to house PST.go.3.SG
“When s/he went home.”
(Ubayd Zākāni, 1300–1371 CE, Resāle-ye Delgoshā: Ārmān Dozdi)
(2) u be xāne raft
3.SG to house PST.go.3.SG
“Reza/he went home.”
(3) (Rezā) raft-esh xune
Reza PST.go.3.SG-3.SG house
“Reza went home.”

First, in Informal Persian it is more natural to use the SVO word order for the sentence
“Reza went home” as in (3). However, in Formal Persian it is more acceptable to use the SOV
word order as in (2). Second, the phonological form of “home” changes from /xune/ to /xane/
when we switch to Formal Persian. Third, “home” can appear as an NP without a preposition,
next to the verb raft “go” in Informal Persian. This is ungrammatical in the formal variety. We
need “home” to be preceded by the preposition be as in (2). Fourth, it is possible in Informal
Persian to use the third person singular clitic -esh on the verb to show agreement with the
subject of the sentence as (3) shows. This is totally ungrammatical in Formal Persian. Instead
the verb should only bear the third person subject-agreement suffix, which is zero-marking.
Most speakers of “Persian” grow up learning an informal variety such as Tehrāni or Shirāzi
Persian and only learn Formal Persian through primary education and schooling where they learn
to read and write. While Formal Persian is useful in understanding the language of the news,
literary texts, or formal communications, it is not as useful as Informal Persian in day-to-day
conversations. Many students of Persian as a second language learn it because they would like to
communicate with Persian-speaking friends and family. This includes a growing number of her-
itage speakers who have had limited exposure to Persian at home and would like to improve their
conversational skills. However, most programs teaching Persian as a second language focus on
teaching Formal Persian. In fact, many students are not aware of the relatively large gap between
Formal and Informal Persian, and are often surprised to find out that what they learned in class
does not apply to day-to-day conversation. In the following sections, we see that the differences
between Formal and Informal Persian extend to semantics as well. Therefore, it is important to
teach these differences and make students aware that Persian has two interconnected varieties.

7.3 Bare nominals

Nominals often appear bare in Persian, which means they do not receive any morphologi-
cal marking. A bare nominal can be interpreted in multiple ways. Consider examples (4–7).
The bare nominal māšin “car” can be interpreted as definite (4), generic (5), indefinite (6),
or a “numberless” nominal (7). I call examples like (7) numberless, because they are equally
felicitous describing a singular or plural state of affairs. For example, (7) can be used to warn
someone about an incoming car in the street or several cars that are approaching. My own
intuition is that numberlessness is something that is widely available in Persian but not as
much in English. A similar example may be gender in the pronominal systems of Persian and
English. Persian does not make gender distinctions in its pronominal system, but English does

136
 Some unique semantic properties of Persian

for the third person. As a result, it is hard to translate the pronominal clitic in (6) into English.
Since there is no exact lexical item available for translation, we have to resort to a disjunction
such as “him or her”.

(4) māšin xarāb-e

car broken-be.NPST.3.SG
“The car is broken.”
(5) māšin gerun-e
car expensive-be.NPST.3.SG
“Cars are expensive.”
(6) māšin b-esh zad
car to-3.SG hit.PST.3.SG
“A car hit him/her.”
(7) māšin mi-ā-d
car IPFV-NPST.come-3.SG
“Car(s) is/are coming.”

The fact that bare nominals can be interpreted in multiple ways makes them particularly
hard to learn for speakers of languages like English that often require nominals to be marked
by determiners. Therefore it might be helpful for learners to focus on bare nominals and dis-
cuss examples like (4–7) that illustrate the wide range of interpretations bare nominals receive.
Such examples can also be contrasted with examples from the learners’ first language. The
comparison helps them see how distinctions made by functional elements in their first lan-
guage collapse in Informal Persian.

7.4 Singular marking

In this section I discuss three functional markers: the indefinite determiner ye(k), the indefinite
clitic -i, and the nominal suffix -e. I focus on their semantics in Formal and Informal Persian.
For a more detailed semantic analysis of these elements please refer to Jasbi (2016) and Jasbi
(to appear b). Let us start with the indefinite determiner ye(k). The split between Formal and
Informal Persian shows itself immediately. The indefinite determiner in Formal Persian is yek
while in Informal Persian it is ye. In Informal Persian, the semantic behavior of ye is very close
to the English indefinite determiner a(n). The main difference is that ye is much more resilient
against being interpreted under negation than a(n). For example in (8), the indefinite determiner
ye interacts with the universal quantifier hame “all” in a way that both wide and narrow scope
readings are available: everyone watched the same movie (wide), everyone watched a different
movie (narrow). This is very similar to the English translation of the sentence. However, when
ye is forced under negation in (9), the utterance becomes infelicitous (# is used to mark the infe-
licity). This is not the case for the English equivalent. The sentence “Nobody watched a movie”
is a felicitous utterance conveying that no movie was watched (narrow scope).

(8) hame ye film tamāšā kard-an

all ID film watch do-3.PL
“Everyone watched a movie.”
(9) #hiš-ki ye film tamāšā na-kard
nil-person ID film watch NEG-do.3.SG
“Nobody watched a movie.”

137
 Masoud Jasbi

This behavior of ye might be due to its division of labor with the indefinite clitic -i in
Informal Persian. The semantic behavior of the clitic -i most resembles the determiner any in
English. The clitic -i is unacceptable in simple positive episodic environments without modi-
fication as (10) shows. Now compare (10) to (11), which is the formal version of the same
sentence using the formal form of the verb āmad “come”. The indefinite clitic can be used to
convey an indefinite meaning on its own in Formal Persian but not Informal Persian. I should
add that it is easy to find the indefinite clitic as the main marker of indefiniteness in older texts
of Persian. This suggests that the difference between Formal and Informal uses of this clitic
may be due to historical shift in its meaning.

(10) *zan-i umad

woman-IC come.PST.3.SG
“A woman came.”
(11) zan-i āmad
woman-IC come.PST.3.SG
“A woman came.”

Similar to any in English, the indefinite clitic becomes acceptable in positive episodic envi-
ronments if it is further modified, known as “subtrigging” in the linguistics literature (LeGrand
1975). The example in (12) is identical to the one in (10) except that it is modified by the relative
clause ke goft-i “that you talked about”. To most native speakers, (12) sounds a lot better than
(10) in informal Persian. You may have noticed that the addition of the relative clause made
something curious happen: the interpretation of the nominal “woman” is now definite rather than
indefinite. This phenomenon has puzzled Iranian linguists for decades. Data like (12) make it
hard to classify -i as a simple indefinite marker. Therefore, some Iranian linguists such as Moin
(1958, 235) and Natel-Khanlari (1972, 255) proposed that the indefinite clitic is polysemous.
In Jasbi (2016), I argued that the definite interpretation in examples like (5) is not due to the
clitic -i but rather the result of the compositional structure of the sentence. In this analysis, -i
conveys that the nominal zan “woman” is non-unique. If the nominal stays unmodified, then the
sentence is most compatible with an indefinite reading given that it conveys the non-uniqueness
of “woman”. However, when the i-marked nominal is further modified by a restrictive relative
clause such as ke gofti “that you talked about”, then the whole NP “woman that you talked about”
can pick out a unique woman. Therefore, the most likely interpretation in such cases is a definite
one. Jasbi (2016) provides a more detailed and formal account of this analysis.

(12) zan-i ke goft-i umad

woman-IC that say.PST-2.SG come.PST.3.SG
“The woman that you mentioned came.”

Again similar to any in English, the indefinite clitic in Persian (especially Informal Persian)
is licensed in “downward entailing” or “non-veridical” environments (Ladusaw 1980; Gian-
nakidou 1998). (13–16) show examples of such environments (negative sentences, questions,
and conditionals) for the English word any. While any is not acceptable in positive episodic
sentences (13), it sounds very natural in downward entailing or non-veridical environments
(14–16).

(13) # He sold any book.

(14) He didn’t sell any book.

138
 Some unique semantic properties of Persian

(15) Did he sell any book?

(16) Tell us if he sold any book!

We see a parallel situation with the indefinite clitic -i in Persian. Examples in (17–20) show
this clearly. It is important to note that all the examples including (17) are acceptable in For-
mal Persian (for example by changing the verb to its formal variant foruxt-e-ast). Therefore,
in Formal Persian the clitic -i does not conform to the pattern of any in English. Students of
Persian that are mainly taught the Formal variety, therefore, may sound formal or even poetic,
because of using structures like (17) in their colloquial speech. An important part of fluency
in speaking Persian is to learn the separate syntactic or semantic rules that govern Formal and
Informal Persian, and be able to apply them depending on the context.

(17) *ketāb-i furuxt-e

book-IC sell.PST-PERF.3.SG
“S/he has sold a book.”
(18) ketāb-i na-fruxt-e
book-IC NEG-sell.PST-PERF.3.SG
“S/he hasn’t sold any book.”
(19) ketāb-i furuxt-e?
book-IC sell.PST-PERF.3.SG
“Has s/he sold any book?”
(20) age ketāb-i furuxt-e be-gu
if book-IC sell.PST-PERF.3.SG IMP-say.NPST
“If s/he has sold any book, tell (us).”

The third marker that I discuss here is the nominal suffix -e. This suffix is an innovation of
Informal Persian and does not seem to be used in the Formal variety at all. I bring examples
(21–22) to illustrate this point. Notice the informal and formal forms of the verb “come” in
(21) and (22) respectively.

(21) zan-e umad

woman-UM come.PST.3.SG
“The woman came.”
(22) # zan-e āmad
woman-UM come.PST.3.SG
“The woman came.”

This suffix is often described as the informal definiteness marker. Again, the story is not
as simple as that. Examples like (23) show that the same suffix can appear with the indefinite
determiner ye and convey an indefinite interpretation. So what does -e really do in informal
Persian?

(23) ye zan-e umad

ID woman-UM come.PST.3.SG
“A (certain) woman came.”

The clue is the word certain in the translation of (23). In short, the suffix -e acts similar
to the adjective certain in English (see Jasbi (to appear b) for a more detailed semantic

139
 Masoud Jasbi

analysis). In other words, it adds determinedness to the referent or value of a nominal such
as zan “woman”. Therefore, a noun modified by -e such as ketāb-e communicates that its
referent is fixed. Now, this fixedness may be because the referent is known to the conversa-
tional participants, in which case no indefinite marker accompanies it and a definite reading
is derived. Or alternatively, the referent might not be known to the conversational partici-
pants, yet the speaker may want to convey that despite being unknown, the referent of the
nominal is fixed.
This “determinedness” or “fixedness” of the nominals marked with -e results in interesting
semantic patterns. For example, in (24) following, the sentence without the nominal suffix is
ambiguous between two readings: 1) everyone said “hello” to a different professor, and 2)
everyone said “hello” to the same professor. Once -e appears on the nominal ostād “professor”
in (25), the referent of “professor” becomes fixed and cannot vary with different individuals
who said hello. Therefore, in (25) the only available reading is the one where everyone said
hello to the same professor.

(24) emruz hame be ye ostād salām kard-im

today everyone to ID professor hello do.PST-1.PL
“Today, we all said hello to a (different/same) professor.”
(25) emruz hame be ye ostād-e salām kard-im
today everyone to ID professor-UM hello do.PST-1.PL
“Today, we all said hello to the same professor.”

Examples in the following show that this phenomenon is systematic and not isolated to uni-
versal quantification with hame. In (27) the nominal suffix can disambiguate that Sara always
gets into fights with the same boy and not different ones. In (29), it helps us know that the girl
Amir is going to marry is determined and Amir is not just looking for some girl or other to
marry. In the next section, I explore the role of functional elements in creating plural nominals
in Persian, focusing more on Informal Persian.

(26) Sārā hamiše bā ye pesar davā-š mi-š-e

Sara always with ID boy quarrel-3.SG IPFV-become-3.SG
“Sara always gets into a fight with (a different/ the same) boy.”
(27) Sārā hamiše bā ye pesar-e davā-š mi-š-e
Sara always with ID boy-UM quarrel-3.SG IPFV-become-3.SG
“Sara always gets into a fight with the same boy.”
(28) Amir mi-xā-d bā ye doxtar ezdevāj kon-e
Amir IPFV-want.NPST-3.SG with ID girl marriage do.NPST-3.SG
“Amir wants to marry (a certain/any) girl.”
(29) Amir mi-xā-d bā ye doxtar-e ezdevāj kon-e
Amir IPFV-want.NPST-3.SG with ID girl-UM marriage do.NPST-3.SG
“There is a certain girl Amir wants to marry.”

7.5 Plural marking

Plurals in Persian are formed using two different mechanisms. The first mechanism is the plu-
ral morpheme (h)ā as in (30). The second mechanism is the combination of a plural numeral
such as do “two” or čand “many” as in (31). These two mechanisms cannot be used at the

140
 Some unique semantic properties of Persian

same time. As sentence (32) shows, the plural marker (h)ā and the plural numeral čand cannot
appear together. I should add that if a sentence that contains čand is given a rising question
intonation, then čand acts like a question word such as “how many”.

(30) zabān-šenās-ā injā nešast-an

language-know-PL here sit.PST-3.PL
“The linguists are sitting here.”
(31) čand tā zabān-šenās injā nešast-an
some/many CL language-know here sit.PST-3.PL
“Some linguists are sitting here.”
(32) *čand tā zabān-šenās-hā injā nešast-an
some/many CL language-know-PL here sit.PST-3.PL
‘Some linguists are sitting here.’

These two mechanisms interact with definiteness. In (31) where “linguist” bears the plu-
ral suffix (h)ā, the sentence receives a definite interpretation: “the linguists”. In (31) where
“linguist” is only modified by the numeral modifier čand, the sentence receives an indefinite
interpretation: something like “some linguists” or “several linguists”. (32) shows that numeral
modifiers and the plural marker (h)ā cannot appear together to mark plurality. Based on such
examples, many linguists such as Ghomeshi (2003) and Gebhardt (2009), have suggested that
an NP marked by (h)ā is both plural and definite. While this is to some extent correct, there are
interesting exceptions like the ones following where the plural marker appears with indefinite
determiners and clitics on the same nominal.

(33) ye harf-ā-i goft-an na-dār-e

ID speech-PL-IC say.PST-INF NEG-have.NPST-3.SG
“Some things should not be said.”
(34) bazi zabān-šenās-hā irāni-an
some language-know-PL Iranian-be.NPST.3.PL
“Some linguists are Iranian.”

It is also tempting to conclude that an NP with a numeral and a classifier such as čand tā
is a plural indefinite. However, the data in (35–36) show that such constructions can receive a
definite interpretation.

(35) in čand tā aks-o pāk kon

this/these some/many CL picture-OM clean do.NPST
“Delete these pictures.”
(36) in aks-ā-ro pāk kon
this/these picture-PL-OM clean do.NPST
“Delete these pictures.”

In (35), čand is modifying aks meaning “picture”, but the interpretation of the NP is definite
(“these pictures”) due to the presence of the demonstrative in meaning “this/these”. Item (36)
shows that the same meaning can be expressed by the plural definite suffix (h)ā. The main
difference between (35) and (36) is that the former has a partitive meaning; it is implied that

141
 Masoud Jasbi

there are more pictures, and only some of them (the ones the speaker is referring to) should be
deleted. We see the same pattern in singular nouns with ye meaning “one”.

(37) ye aks-o pāk kon

ID picture-OM clean do.NPST
“Delete a picture.”
(38) in ye aks-o pāk kon
this/these ID picture-OM clean do.NPST
“Delete this one picture.”

In (37) where we have no demonstrative pronoun, the NP “one picture” is interpreted as

indefinite. However, in (38) the same NP is interpreted as definite due to the presence of the
demonstrative in “this”. This suggests that numerals such as ye(k) “one” or čand “many” in
Persian can act both as an indefinite determiner or a simple cardinality marker. One possible
account is that numerals in Persian only provide number information and (in)definiteness is
provided via covert semantic operations.

7.6 Object marking

The Persian object marker, formally known as rā, is pronounced in colloquial Persian as ro or
simply o. The form ro is used in the phonological environment where the preceding phoneme
is a vowel and o is used if the preceding phoneme is a consonant. The distribution of the object
marker in Persian is determined by the interaction of syntactic and semantic factors. Syntax pro-
vides the environment where its appearance is possible, and semantics determines the conditions
which make the occurrence of this marker necessary. I first explain where rā is allowed syntac-
tically and then describe where the semantics of the nominal determines the occurrence of rā.
The object marker rā appears only on nominals. It is unacceptable on subjects (39) and
PP arguments of the verb (40). Notice that (39) is interpretable, but what is marked by rā is
interpreted as the object of the sentence and not the intended subject. The object marker is
grammatical on direct objects (41) and certain nominal adverbials (42). It can also participate
in constructions such as (43) which are called Clitic-Binder Constructions by Karimi (1990).

(39) Maryam-(#o) keik xord

Maryam-OM cake eat.PST.3.SG
“(Intended: Maryam ate cake.) Cake ate Maryam.”
(40) Maryam be barādar-esh-(*o) cake dād
Maryam to brother-3.SG-OM cake give.PST.3.SG
“Maryam gave cake to her brother.”
(41) Maryam keik-o xord
Maryam cake-OM eat.PST.3SG
“Maryam ate the cake.”
(42) fardā-(ro)   Maryam keik mi-xor-e
tomorrow-OM   Maryam cake IPFV-eat.NPST-3.SG
“Tomorrow, Maryam eats cake.”
(43) Maryam-o keik-esh-o xord-i?
Maryam-OM cake-3.SG-OM eat.PST-2.SG
“Considering Maryam, did you eat her cake?”

142
 Some unique semantic properties of Persian

As mentioned, semantics and pragmatics determine where the object marker is necessary.
The occurrence of rā is obligatory on pronominal elements in Persian: personal and demon-
strative pronouns (44), reflexive pronouns (45), reciprocal pronouns (46), and demonstrative
nouns (47). It is also required on superlatives (48), question-words kodum “which” (49) and ki
“who” (54), strong quantifiers such as hame “all” (50), bištar “most” (51), har-do “both” (52),
and plurals with the plural marker (h)ā (53). I should add that rā also seems to be obligatory
on kas which means “person” (55–56).

(44) Amir un-*(o) mi-šnās-e

Amir that-OM IPFV-know-3.SG
“Amir knows him.”
(45) Amir xod-eš-*(o) mi-šnās-e
Amir self-3.SG-OM IPFV-know-3.SG
“Amir knows himself.”
(46) dānešju-hā hamdige-*(ro) mi-šnās-an
student-PL eachother-OM IPFV-know-3.PL
“The students know each other.”
(47) Amir un keik-*(o) xord
Amir that cake-OM eat.PST.3.SG
“Amir ate that cake.”
(48) Amir behtarin keik-*(o) xord
Amir best cake-OM eat.PST.3.SG
“Amir ate the best cake.”
(49) Amir kodum keik-*(o) xord?
Amir which cake-OM eat.PST.3.SG
“Which cake did Amir eat?”
(50) Amir hame-ye keik-*(o) xord
Amir all-EZ cake-OM eat.PST.3.SG
“Amir ate all of the cake.”
(51) Amir bištar-e keik-*(o) xord
Amir most-EZ cake-OM eat.PST.3.SG
“Amir ate most of the cake.”
(52) Amir har do-ta keik-*(o) xord
Amir each two-CL cake-OM eat.PST.3.SG
“Amir ate both cakes.”
(53) Amir keik-hā-*(ro) xord
Amir cake-PL-OM eat.PST.3.SG
“Amir ate the cakes.”
(54) Amir ki-*(ro) did?
Amir who-OM see.PST.3.SG
“Who did Amir see?”
(55) Amir ye kas-i-(ro) dust dār-e
Amir ID person-IC-OM friend have.NPST-3.SG
“Amir likes someone.”
(56) Amir hič-kas-i-ro dust na-dār-e
Amir no-person-IC-OM friend NEG-have.NPST-3.SG
“Amir doesn’t like anyone.”

143
 Masoud Jasbi

Rā can also occur obligatorily or optionally on generics as the following examples show.
In (57) from Dabir-Moghaddam (1992), rā is obligatory, while in (58) it is optional. These
sentences have a non-generic reading as well. To my knowledge, examples such as (57) where
rā is obligatory with a generic reading are rather rare. It is often the case that when the object
NP has a generic reading, rā is optional.

(57) serke šir-*(o) mi-bor-e

vinegar milk-OM IMPFV-cut-3.SG
“Vinegar curdles milk.”
(58) oqāb muš-(o) šekār mi-kon-e
eagle mouse-OM hunt IPFV-do-3.SG
“Eagles hunt mice.”

Those familiar with the literature on the object marker rā may have noticed that when
I listed the environments where rā seems obligatory, I left out proper names. After all, exam-
ples like (59) suggest that rā is obligatory on proper names too.

(59) Amir Bārāk Obāmā-*(ro) mi-šnās-e

Amir Barack Obama-OM IPFV-know.NPST-3.SG
“Amir knows Barack Obama.”

However, while rā is obligatory on proper names in most contexts, there are contexts in
which it does not appear on proper names. Such contexts shed light on the semantic contri-
bution of the object marker and count as crucial data for learning its meaning. Consider the
examples in (60) and (61). In (60), the speaker does not presuppose that there is anyone with
the name “Ali Saburi” when he asks the question. In other words, the question does not entail
that there is anyone with that name in the discourse context. An example context would be if
someone emails you and claims they are “Ali Saburi” and know a friend of yours. You may
ask your friend using (60) to see if such a person exists.
However, the opposite is true in (61). The speaker knows for sure that there is someone
called “Ali Saburi” and he does not consider that fact up for negotiation. In other words, he
presupposes the existence of someone named “Ali Saburi” and simply asks if the addressee
knows that person or not. Notice that the only difference in the form of the sentences in (60)
and (61) is the presence or absence of the object marker rā. Therefore, it is likely that rā is the
culprit here in introducing the presupposition of existence into the discourse.

(60) Ali (e) Saburi mi-šnās-i?

Ali EZ Saburi IPFV-know.NPST-2.SG
“Do you know someone named Ali Saburi?”
(61) Ali (e) Saburi-ro mi-šnās-i?
Ali EZ Saburi-OM IPFV-know.NPST-2.SG
“Do you know Ali Saburi?”

Note that a parallel distinction can be made in English using the indefinite determiner as
(62–63) show (I would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for this suggestion). In English,
proper names such as “Robert Moore” presuppose a unique reference by default. However, the
addition of the indefinite determiner in (62) coerces the proper name to drop its presuppositional
status and instead, makes the existence of such an individual the at-issue content of the question.

144
 Some unique semantic properties of Persian

Therefore, English takes the presuppositional status of proper names as default and only marks
them if this is not the case. On the other hand, at least in the object position in Persian, proper
names are not presuppositional by default and are only made so using the object marker.

(62) Do you know a Robert Moore?

(63) Do you know Robert Moore?

We can test this presupposition of existence by explicitly denying it in a follow-up sentence and
see if we derive a contradiction. Consider the examples in (64–65). In (64), the first statement
denies that there is any “work” to be done in the context of the utterance. The following state-
ment (after va “and”) explains that no work was done, which is consistent with not having any
work to do! In example (65) all we have done is adding rā to the nominal kār in the follow-up state-
ment. This results in a contradiction. The first statement of (65) denies that there is any work, but
it somehow seems like the second statement does insist that there was work to do, but the speaker
did not do any of them. This is what we expected if rā contributed a presupposition of existence.

(64) emruz kār-i na-dāšt-am va kār-i anjām na-dād-am

today work-IC NEG-have.PST-1.SG and work-IC finish NEG-give.PST-1.SG
“I didn’t have any work (to do) today, and I didn’t do any work.”
(65) #emruz kār-i na-dāšt-am va kār-i-ro anjām na-dād-am
today work-IC NEG-have.PST-1.SG and work-IC-OM finish NEG-give-1.SG
“I didn’t have any work (to do) today, and I didn’t do any of them.”

Another prediction is that if we change the first clause to assert that there is work to do,
then using the object marker should not result in any contradiction. This is what (66) shows.
(64–66) together provide evidence that rā implies that the nominal it modifies is instantiated
(exists) in the utterance context.

(66) emruz xeili kār dāšt-am va kār-i-ro anjām na-dād-am

today very work have.PST-1.SG and work-IC-OM finish NEG-give-1.SG
“I had a lot of work to do and did not do any of them.”

To provide further evidence for the semantic contribution of rā as an existential presupposi-

tion, consider the examples in (67–68) following. In (67) the quantificational nominal hič-čiz-i
“nothing” appears without the object marker, while in (68) it appears with it. The sentences do
not convey the same meaning and have a subtle difference. The one in (67) does not comment
on whether there were things to buy for Ali or not. However, the one in (68) conveys that there
were things to buy. One way to translate this intuition into English is to use the partitive: “Ali
bought none of them.” I should add that partitives do not do justice to what rā contributes here.
The meaning is a lot subtler and harder to translate. In Jasbi (to appear a), I provide a more
formal and compositional account of rā in Informal Persian.

(67) Ali hič čiz-i na-xarid

Ali nil thing-IC NEG-buy.PST.3.SG
“Ali bought nothing.”
(68) Ali hič čiz-i-ro na-xarid
Ali nil think-IC-OM NEG-buy.PST.3.SG
“Ali bought none of them.”

145
 Masoud Jasbi

7.7 Conclusion
I discussed several functional elements in Persian and provided examples that shed light on
their abstract and subtle meanings. Research on the meaning of function words in Persian has
only scratched the surface so far. There are numerous functional elements whose meanings are
poorly understood yet play a pivotal role in day-to-day conversations. Advances in theoretical
and formal semantics can discover the meanings of function words and provide the crucial
examples that illustrate their main functions in Persian. These discoveries can in turn inform
research and practice in language acquisition. Providing the crucial data for learning as well as
communicating accurate generalizations on the meaning of functional elements can substan-
tially boost and facilitate learning for learners of Persian as a second language.

References
Clark, E.V. 2009. First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. 1992. “On the (in) Dependence of Syntax and Pragmatics: Evidence from the
Postposition-rā in Persian.” In Cooperating with Written Texts: The Pragmatics and Comprehension
of Written Texts, edited by D. Stein. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gebhardt, L. 2009. Numeral Classifiers and the Structure of DP. PhD thesis, Northwestern University.
Ghomeshi, J. 2003. “Plural Marking, Indefiniteness, and the Noun Phrase.” Studia Linguistica, 57(2):
47–74.
Giannakidou, A. 1998. Polarity Sensitivity as (non) Veridical Dependency, Vol. 23. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Jasbi, M. 2016. “Three Types of Indefinites in Persian: Simple, Complex, and Antidefinite.” In Proceed-
ings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 26, edited by Mary Moroney, D.B. Carol-Rose Little, and
J. Collard, 244–263. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Jasbi, M. To appear a. “The Meaning of the Farsi Object Marker Ra: What It Is Not, and What It (prob-
ably) is.” Advances in Iranian Linguistics.
Jasbi, M. To appear b. “The Suffix That Makes Farsi Nouns Unique.” Advances in Iranian Linguistics.
Karimi, S. 1990. “Obliqueness, Specificity, and Discourse Functions: Rā in Persian.” Linguistic Analysis,
20: 139–191.
Ladusaw, W.A. 1980. “On the Notion Affective in the Analysis of Negative-Polarity Items.” In For-
mal Semantics: The Essential Readings, edited by P. Portner and B. Partee, 457–470. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley-Blackwell.
LeGrand, J.E. 1975. “or” and “any”: The Semantics and Syntax of Two Logical Operators. PhD thesis,
University of Chicago, Chicago.
Moin, M. 1958. Mofrad va Jam, Ma’refeh va Nakareh; Tarh-e Dastur-e Zabān-e Fārsi [Singular and
Plural, Definite, and Indefinite; The Design of Persian Grammar], Vol. 5. Tehran University Press.
Natel-Khanlari, P. 1972. Dastur-e Zabān-e Fārsi [The Grammar of Persian]. Bonyād-e Farhang- e Iran.

146
 8
SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION OF THE
SEMANTICS OF FOCUS-
SENSITIVE OPERATORS IN
PERSIAN MARZIEH MORTAZAVINIAFOCUS-SENSITIVE OPERATORS IN PERSIAN

Marzieh Mortazavinia

8.1 Introduction
The present chapter aims to explore the second language acquisition (SLA) of a specific
semantic property that is associated with the English particle even. Specifically, the goal is
to test to what extent L1 English second language learners (L2 learners) of Persian succeed
in the acquisition of the system that the target language has for the expression of the addi-
tive presupposition associated with their L1 even. In what follows, first I will sketch out the
semantic theory that will be adopted for even. Next, I will put forth a semantic analysis of the
system Persian has for the expression of the semantic features associated with even through
the use of the lexical items hattā and ham. After a comparison of the representations in both
languages, I will proceed to an elaboration of the SLA theories that are relevant for the current
study. This will set the baseline for the experimental study that will be presented subsequently.
Analysis, results, and conclusions will follow. For further discussion on the acquisition of
semantic properties of Persian by L2 learners, please refer to Chapter 7 in this volume, where
the semantic properties and acquisition of several functional elements are discussed.

8.2 English: Even

Even is a focus-sensitive scalar item that makes salient a set of propositional alternatives,
whose content depends on the position of focus1 in the clause.2 The semantic contribution
of even is that it requires the alternatives to be ordered in a particular way with respect to
each other, a salient ordering based on likelihood, expectedness, or noteworthiness. More
precisely, even contributes (i) the scalar presupposition that its propositional argument, its
so-called prejacent, is the least likely alternative among the other alternatives in the set, and
(ii) the additive presupposition that at least one3 of the alternatives in the alternative set other
than the prejacent must be true. Thus, a sentence like (1) would have the presuppositions in
(2a) and (2b).

147
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

(1) Mary even called BILL.

(2) a) Bill was the least likely person for Mary to call.
(Scalar presupposition)
b) Mary called someone other than Bill.
(Additive presupposition)

The status of the additive component of the semantics of even is controversial. Although
the particle feels to always carry an additive presupposition, it has been noted that this pre-
supposition is not always present in the semantics of even (von Stechow 1991; Krifka 1991,
among others). Specifically, the additive component seems to be absent if the invoked set of
alternatives involves mutually exclusive propositions. Rullmann (1997) discusses the problem
that scales with mutually exclusive alternatives create for the existence of an additive compo-
nent in the meaning of even. In (3), the additive presupposition, namely that at least one other
proposition in the alternative set must be true, would give rise to the contradictory implication
that ‘Claire can have more than one academic rank at the same time.’

(3) A: Is Claire an ASSISTANT professor?

B: No, she’s even an ASSOCIATE professor.
C= {Claire is an assistant professor, Claire is an associate professor, Claire is a full
professor}

The following example (with slight modification from Crnič 2011) also makes the same
point.

(4) A: Did Mary win bronze?

B: No, she even won the SILVER medal.
C= {she won the silver medal, she won the gold medal, she won the bronze medal}

The additive presupposition, again, would be incompatible with our knowledge – the
assumption that one can only win a single medal in a single race.
In summary, it is observed that there are clearly cases where even is non-additive; even
cannot have the additive presupposition when the pertinent scales involve mutually incon-
sistent alternatives. To account for this observation, a number of researchers have put forth
proposals. Rullmann (1997) and Crnič (2011), for instance, present a pragmatic-semantic
account. Wagner (2013, 2015), however, presents an account that considers the syntactic
position of even relevant to its semantic content. Due to space considerations, I leave the
discussion of the pragmatic-semantic account of Rullmann (1997) and Crnič (2011) aside
here and invite readers to consult Mortazavinia (2018) for a thorough discussion of why their
theories run into problems. In the present research, I adopt Wagner’s theory (2013, 2015),
which I assume to best capture the English data. This theory will be discussed in the follow-
ing section.

8.2.1 Wagner (2013, 2015): a syntactic account of the semantics

of even
Wagner (2013) believes that whether or not even carries an additive presupposition depends on
its syntactic position in the clause, hence, a syntax-semantics interface property. Consider the
following paradigm from Wagner (2013):

148
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

(5) A: Is it really true that someone from North America won the Marathon?
B: a) #Even a CANADIAN (won it)!
b) A CANADIAN even won it!
c) A CANADIAN won it even!
d) ?A CANADIAN even!

In his view, when even precedes its associate subject argument, an additive presupposition is
necessarily present in its meaning (5a). In other words, when even prenominally attaches to
an NP constituent (NP-even), presence of an additive presupposition in ensured. When even
is in VP position, however, and backwards-associates4 with a preceding subject (postnominal
even; 5b and d), or is sentence-final (5c), the additive presupposition is absent.5 In general,
when even attaches to the VP (VP-even: whether it backwards-associates with the subject-
postnominal even- or associates with the VP or an internal VP argument) or the sentence
(sentence-final even), the additive presupposition is not present in the meaning of even. Of
course, there is nothing that blocks VP-even or sentence-final even from appearing in an addi-
tive context. Even in these positions just does not have an additive component encoded in its
meaning, but its use is very well compatible with additive contexts. Wagner’s syntactic gen-
eralization about even accounts for a wide array of empirical data in English, as shown in the
following paradigms.

(6) Superlatives
# Even MY 5-YEAR OLD lifted the heaviest rock.6
MY 5-YEAR OLD even lifted the heaviest rock.
MY 5-YEAR OLD lifted the heaviest rock, even.
(7) Uniqueness-implying
­ predicates
# Oh, yes. Even A CANADIAN won it.
Oh, yes. A CANADIAN even won it.
Oh, yes. A CANADIAN won it, even.

The odd sentences in (6–7) involve prenominal even, which introduces an additive presup-
position. The additive presupposition is in conflict with the uniqueness presupposition of the
superlatives in (6), or the exclusivity of the predicate ‘win a gold medal (in a specific tourna-
ment)’ in (7). The observed weirdness goes away when even is not additive; in other words, in
the case of postnominal or sentence-final even.

8.2.2 Summary
To sum up this section, I adopt the following assumptions about the semantics of even in Eng-
lish based on Wagner’s syntactic generalization.

i) Even in English always triggers a scalar presupposition: the proposition it takes is the
least likely alternative in the pertinent alternative set. I refer to this semantic component
of even as SCAL and use the following feature specification in this study to represent the
sclarity of even: [SCAL]
ii) Even in English may have an additive presupposition in its semantics depending on its
syntactic distribution.
iii) If even associates with a following NP (NP-even), it always carries the additive presup-
position that at least one other alternative in the pertinent alternative set is true. Therefore,

149
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

prenominal even encodes both a scalar and an additive component in its meaning. The
feature specification I assume for prenominal even is [SCAL,ADD]. I will follow Crnič’s
(2011) decompositional view where he assumes two components in the lexical entry for
even. I assume SCAL for the scalar component and ADD for the additive. As such, pre-
nominal even spells out the following two components both [SCAL] and [ADD].
iv) If even attaches to a VP (postnominal,7 adverbial,8 or sentence-final even), it only spells
out the scalar component. I assume the following characterization to represent the denota-
tion of non-prenominal even: [SCAL].

The semantics assumed here would in principle not block non-additive even from appearing in
additive contexts since its use is not incompatible with an additive context. Plausibly, Wagner
argues, that in contexts where additivity is fulfilled, the principle of Maximize Presupposition9
(Heim 1992) forces an additive interpretation of even as one would have to maximize the
strength of the presuppositions encoded in an utterance. So, even in example (8) from Wagner
(2013) can very well have an additive interpretation if this presupposition is satisfied in the
context.

(8) Mary even invited JOHN to the party.

8.3 Persian: hattā, ham, hattā -ham

­
In this section, I will provide an analysis for the operators in Persian that I assume to trig-
ger the scalar and additive presuppositions associated with even in English. I will present an
analysis of how the scalar and additive presuppositions of even are realized in Persian. I will
use the features [SCAL] and [ADD] and build on the decompositional analysis of the meaning
of even (Crnič 2011).
Even has always been translated into hattā in Persian. Likewise, learners of Persian learn
that hattā is an equivalent of even. I propose, based on data presented in this section, that even
and hattā are actually not exact semantic equivalents.
First, I argue that Persian hattā does not spell out the same semantic features that even
does in prenominal position. Recall that in this position, English even is [SCAL,ADD]. I will
show that hattā only has the scalar component in its meaning; it is not specified for additivity,
regardless of its syntactic position. As such, I assume the following feature set for prenominal
and postnominal hattā in Persian:

(11) hattā: [SCAL]

This representation, as shown before, is what I assume for English even in postnominal
position.
Second, I propose that ham is an additive operator in Persian that does not carry a scalar
meaning. The following feature representation will be assumed for ham.

(12) ham: [ADD]

Furthermore, I will show that when these items form a string with an NP (hattā -NP-ham),
both a scalar and an additive presupposition are triggered: scalarity is contributed by hattā and
additivity by ham; in scalar additive contexts, Persian speakers use ham in addition to hattā in
the following basic word order:10

150
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

(13) hattā -NP-ham: [SCAL,ADD]

In other words, when additivity is satisfied in context, a separate lexical item ham that trig-
gers additivity is used in addition to hattā in Persian. This combination, hattā -NP-ham, gives
rise to both a scalar (contributed by hattā) and an additive (contributed by ham) presupposi-
tions, which in English is triggered by even in prenominal position. This representation is the
same feature specification as prenominal even in English.
The next section will present arguments in favor of the assumptions outlined previously for
hattā, ham, and hattā -ham.

8.3.1 Scalar and additive operators in Persian

8.3.1.1 Hattā is a scalar operator

In this section, I propose that hattā is a scalar operator in Persian, which does not lexically
encode additivity. I will provide separate arguments for the presence of a scalar component
and absence of an additive component in the meaning of this item. I will first show that it is
[SCAL] and then that it is not specified for additivity.

8.3.1.1.1 HATTĀ IS [SCAL]

A scalar item triggers a scalar presupposition; the proposition it takes as prejacent is the least
likely alternative in the alternative set. To show that hattā is [SCAL], consider the following
context.

(14) Context: Lionel Messi is inarguably the best soccer player in the world. He’s a
forward player who scores most goals for his team. In yesterday’s game, Phil James,
who was trying out for the team, was given a chance to play, although no one
expected him to score. But it turned out to be a rather easy game and many people
scored for the team.
A: hattā jeimz gol zad.
SCAL James goal hit
‘Even James scored a goal.’
A’: #hattā mesi gol zad.
SCAL Messi goal hit
#‘Even Messi scored a goal.’

This context makes the proposition that ‘James scored a goal’ an unlikely one since James
was only trying out for his team and was not likely to score a goal. Therefore, the sentence in
A is felicitous as hattā is taking a proposition that presumably is the least likely/most unex-
pected. In addition, the context ensures that the prejacent of hattā in A’, the proposition that
‘Messi scored a goal’, is very likely; it is very likely for Messi to score a goal in any game.
This context, therefore, does not satisfy scalarity, the scalar presupposition that would require
the prejacent of hattā to be the least likely. I argue that the use of hattā in this context yields
infelicity because hattā has a scalar component in its meaning that requires the prejacent to be
the least likely. This is in conflict with the given non-scalar context (the prejacent not being the
least likely proposition), hence infelicity.
Similarly, consider the following examples in (15).

151
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

(15) Context: Chopsticks were first and mostly used by the Chinese. They were just very
recently introduced in Iran. Today, using chopsticks has become very popular all
around the world.
A: hattā irāni-hā bā choob qazā mixoran.
SCAL Iranian-PL with chopstick food eat
‘Even Iranians eat with chopsticks.’
A’: #hattā chini-hā bā choob qazā mixoran.
SCAL Chinese-PL with chopstick food eat
‘Even the Chinese eat with chopsticks.’

Here, Iranians are not expected to widely use chopsticks, since they were just introduced to
them. The context makes the Chinese the most likely population to use chopsticks, however.
The use of hattā in the first case is, therefore, felicitous since the prejacent satisfies scalarity
and feels odd in the second case because it triggers a scalar presupposition that clashes with
the non-scalarity of the context.
In summary, hattā has a scalar component in its meaning that prevents it from being used in
contexts that do not satisfy the scalar presupposition, non-scalar contexts. I have not yet shown
here that hattā is not specified for the additive component. This is discussed in the following.

8.3.1.1.2 HATTĀ IS NOT SPECIFIED FOR ADDITIVITY

If hattā had an additive component coded in its meaning, its use in non-additive environments
would lead to infelicity; the additive presupposition would clash with the non-additivity of the
context and therefore one would predict infelicity for the examples following. Consider the
following examples where the use of hattā is licensed due to the scalarity of the contexts, but
the contexts do not satisfy additivity.

(16) Context: Claire is not a highly educated person and also never wanted to marry a
highly educated person. But to everyone’s surprise, she married someone who teaches
at university.
A: Did Claire marry an assistant professor?
B: hattā bā ye ostadyār ezdevāj kard.
SCAL with a associate professor marriage did
‘She married even an associate professor.’11

This example is perfectly natural in Persian and does not imply that Claire has married
another person besides an associate professor. The conclusion I draw, then, is that hattā does
not encode an additive presupposition and therefore should not be specified for additivity.
It must be noted that in principle, there is nothing that would block hattā from appearing in
additive contexts, like postnominal even in English; its use is perfectly compatible with addi-
tive contexts.12 Note that the example given previously would be odd if a lexical item with an
additive component is used:

(17) B’: #bā ye ostadyār ham ezdevāj kard.

with a associate professor too marriage did
‘She married an associate professor, too.’

Likewise, consider the following example.

152
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

(18) Context: Each person gets only one grade for a given exam. Students were given a very
difficult test where it was almost impossible to get a 20 (getting a 20, the maximum
grade, is far less likely than getting a 19, 18, etc.), but Kian did a great job.
A: How did Kian do on the exam? Did he get a reasonable grade?
B: hattā bist gereft.
SCAL twenty got.
‘He got even a 20.’

Since there is only one exam for which there can only be one grade, one should not be
able to felicitously use a lexical item with an additive component in its meaning. An addi-
tive operator would make the previous response odd since the additive meaning would
imply that Kian got another grade as well, which is incompatible with the context, as shown
in (19).

(19) B’: #bist ham gereft.

twenty too got.
‘He got a 20, too.’

Additionally, consider the example following.

(20) Context: I think that the older kids in our school are taller than the younger ones;
the older, the taller! But I just realized that, in the school basketball team, where there
are many tall students:
A: hattā ye pesare koochooloo qad-boland-tarin-e
SCAL a boy-EZ little height-tall-superlative-is
‘Even a young boy is the tallest (player).’

The context makes a little boy being the tallest very unlikely. In addition, the semantics
of the superlative ensures uniqueness of the predicate, which would mean that there is only
one person who is the tallest of all. The context is not additive here and the use of hattā is
still felicitous. This, I argue, is because this particle is not specified for additivity. Other-
wise, if hattā had an additive component, the utterance in A should have been odd, just like
in English. Once again, this example would indeed be infelicitous in Persian if an additive
operator is used:

(21) A’: #ye pesare koochooloo ham qad-boland-tarin-e

a boy-EZ little too height-tall-superlative-is
‘A young boy, too, is the tallest (player).’

Based on the data here, I argue that hattā is a scalar operator in Persian; it triggers a scalar
presupposition that makes reference to the unlikelihood, unexpectedness, or surprisingness of
its prejacent. Furthermore, hattā does not semantically encode additivity.
It should further be pointed out that hattā can either precede or follow an NP in Persian.
However, this does not affect the felicity of the sentences in (16), (18), and (19) in the given
contexts. These examples are felicitous with hattā being in postnominal position (see 16’, 18’,
and 19’ following) as well, which suggests that hattā is not specified for additivity regardless
of its syntactic position, unlike English even, which encodes an additive presupposition in
prenominal syntactic position.

153
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

(16’) bā ye ostadyār hattā ezdevāj kard.

with a associate professor SCAL marriage did
‘She married even an associate professor.’
(18’) bist hattā gereft.
twenty SCAL got
‘He got even a 20.’
(19’) ye pesare koochooloo hattā qad-boland-tarin-e.
a boy-EZ little SCAL height-tall-superlative-is
‘Even a young boy is the tallest (player).’

8.3.1.2 Ham is an additive operator

The goal of this section is to show that ham is an additive operator in Persian (section 8.3.1.2.1) and
that it does not trigger a scalar presupposition (section 8.3.1.2.2), similar to too and also in English.

8.3.1.2.1 HAM IS [ADD]

Intuitively, Persian ham triggers the presupposition that some other alternative to its prejacent
is true. The use of this operator is felicitous in contexts that satisfy this requirement, like the
response in B following.

(22) Context: There was a swimming competition at school and medals were given to the
students who reached the end of the pool before others. Kian and Kaveh were the first
to reach the end at the same time. They both won the first title and were given two gold
medals.
A: Tell me about the competition yesterday!
B: Kiān talā gereft. in dafe, Kāve ham talā gereft.
Kian gold got. this time, Kaveh too gold got.
‘Kian won a gold. This time, Kaveh too won a gold.’
Note that the absence of this particle in the same context is not felicitous:
(23) B’: #Kiān talā gereft. in dafe, Kāve talā gereft.
Kian gold got, this time, Kaveh gold got.
‘Kian won a gold. This time, Kaveh won a gold.’

The response in B’ feels weird because it violates the principle of Maximize Presupposition
(Heim 1992). According to this principle, if a presupposition is satisfied in a given context, the
version of the proposition with the presupposition trigger wins over the version without and is
successfully chosen by speakers. Given that the context here satisfies additivity, the response
in B is preferred over the one in B’ since it involves the presupposition trigger ham, which
encodes the additive presupposition.
Furthermore, if ham is an additive operator in Persian, one would expect a sentence with
ham to be infelicitous in non-additive contexts. Consider the following example, where the
context implies non-additivity:
(24) Context: There was a swimming competition at school yesterday where three medals
(gold, silver, and bronze) were given to the first three students who reached the end of
the pool.

154
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

A: Who won the gold medal?

B: # Kiān ham talā bord.
Kian too gold won.
‘Kian, too, won the gold medal.’

The presence of ham would only be allowed if there have been multiple winners of gold,
like in the previous context. The sentence here is odd because it presupposes that there have
been some other person(s) who has won the gold, which is not the case.
In summary, I argue that ham is an additive operator in Persian. First, there is a strong intui-
tion that ham has to be used where additivity is satisfied in context. This I take to be in accord
with the principle of Maximize Presupposition. Second, a sentence with ham cannot be used
in non-additive contexts. This is due to the clash between the additive presupposition triggered
by ham and the non-additivity of the context.
So far in this section, I have shown that ham is [ADD]. But this does not rule out the pos-
sibility of it having a scalar component in its meaning. In the following, I will show that ham
does not have a scalar component in its lexical meaning.

8.3.1.2.2 HAM IS NOT SPECIFIED FOR SCALARITY

If ham had a scalar component, its use should be incompatible with a context where scalarity
is not satisfied; i.e. where the prejacent is not the least likely proposition. Consider the follow-
ing examples:

(25) Context: A number of linguists including Rosa, our only syntactician, met in the semi-
nar room to discuss some issues in linguistics. Rosa is a renowned syntactician and
presumably would know the answer to all of the syntax questions raised. There was a
syntax question of which multiple linguists in the room knew the answer. Ash knew the
answer, Dan knew the answer, . . .
rozā ham javāb-e soāl-o midoonest.
Rosa too answer-GEN question-ACC knew
‘Rosa, too, knew the answer.’

Here, Rosa is assumed to be the most likely person to know the answer to the syntax ques-
tion. If ham had a scalar component, The Persian sentence here should have felt as odd as the
English one with even. Felicity of the use of ham in this example shows that this operator does
not have a presupposition inconsistent with the non-scalar context. In other words, ham does
not have a scalar meaning.
Likewise in the following, given the non-scalar context in (26) which suggests that Iran
is one of the biggest producers of oil, the use of ham does not yield infelicity. This I believe
shows that this item is not specified for scalarity.

(26) Context: Middle-eastern countries, particularly the ones around the Persian Gulf, pro-
duce the majority of the world’s oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq export oil. . . .
Irān ham naft sāder mikone.
Iran too oil export does
‘Iran, too, exports oil.’

155
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

Note that in an NP-ham string, the presence of a particular prosody invokes a scalar inter-
pretation. This prosodic effect, where the main prominence falls on the NP associate and ham
is de-accented, invokes a scalar meaning where the associate is placed low on a likelihood
scale. In examples such as (25) and (26), for instance, this prosodic effect leads to implication
of funny/sarcastic assumptions about the focus associate by placing them low on a likelihood
scale, which is contrary to reality.
To sum up, I argued in this section that ham is an additive operator in Persian. It triggers
the presupposition that at least one other alternative to the prejacent has to be true. In addition,
I showed that ham is not specified for scalarity. If it had a scalar component, the examples
given previously should have been odd in Persian, just like in English where the scalarity of
even yields infelicity.

8.3.1.3 Hattā -NP-ham

­ ­ encodes scalarity and additivity; [SCAL,ADD]
In section 8.3.1.1, I showed that hattā is a scalar focus-sensitive item in Persian. In 8.3.1.2,
I argued that ham is an additive particle. In this section, I will show that when these two
particles associate with an NP, in a string of hattā -NP-ham or NP-ham-hattā, they compose
semantically, and as a result, the combination of hattā and ham, in either word order,13 makes
the semantic contribution that prenominal even does in English.
In the following, I will show that when used together, hattā and ham can only appear in
scalar additive contexts (27). If either presupposition or both is not satisfied, in other words,
if the context is either scalar non-additive (28) or non-scalar additive (29), or non-scalar non-
additive (30), the use of hattā -NP-ham yields infelicity.

(27) Scalar additive context

Context: Amir is not a good friend and hasn’t been talking to us for many years. No one
expected him to show up at last night’s party.
A: Last night’s party was very busy.
a: hattā amir ham oomade bood.
even Amir too come was
‘Even Amir had come.’
b: # hattā amir oomade bood.
even Amir come was
c: #amir ham oomade bood.
Amir too come was
d: # amir oomade bood.
Amir come was

This given context makes Amir having come to the party the most unexpected among the
other propositions. In addition, the context satisfies additivity in that multiple people have
gone to the party. Maximize Presupposition would predict that the presence of the two opera-
tors, hattā and ham, as shown in (a), should win over their absence in this context, as shown
in (b–d). Since the use of hattā -NP-ham is felicitous in scalar and additive contexts like here,
I argue that in this string hattā and ham separately contribute their specifications for scalarity
and additivity, respectively. Hattā contributes [SCAL] and ham contributes [ADD], and these
components compose semantically.
The use of this combination is expected to yield infelicity in contexts that fail to satisfy
either of the components:

156
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

(28) Scalar non-additive context

Context: Claire is not a highly educated person and also never wanted to marry a highly
educated person. But to everyone’s surprise, she married someone who teaches at
university.
# hattā bā ye ostādyār ham ezdevāj kard.
even with an associate professor too marriage did
‘She married even an associate professor.’

The context here satisfies scalarity; for Claire, it is very unlikely to have married an aca-
demic person. In addition, this context implies uniqueness – marrying only one person. Hence,
the presence of an additive operator would trigger an additive presupposition that is in conflict
with the uniqueness presupposition and yields infelicity.
Now, assume that the context does not satisfy scalarity but does imply additivity.

(29) Non-scalar additive context

Context: A number of linguists including Rosa, our only syntactician, met in the semi-
nar room to discuss some issues in linguistics. Rosa is a renowned syntactician and
presumably would know the answer to all of the syntax questions raised. There was a
syntax question of which multiple linguists in the room knew the answer. Ash knew the
answer, Dan knew the answer, . . .
# hattā rozā ham javāb-e soāl-o midoonest.
Even Rosa too answer-GEN question-ACC knew
‘Even Rosa knew the answer.’

Here, multiple people have had the answer; therefore, the context satisfies additivity. The
presence of the scalar operator hattā, however, is in conflict with the assumption that Rosa is
indeed the most likely person to have known the answer, indicating non-scalarity of the con-
text. Therefore, the presence of hattā renders the sentence odd.

(30) Non-scalar non-additive context

Context: Only Alex scored a goal in the game. The speaker doesn’t know anything
about soccer players.
# hattā aleks ham gol zad.
even Alex too goal hit
‘Even Alex scored a goal.’

The context here ensures that one goal has been scored; therefore, the presence of the additive
operator ham is infelicitous. In addition, the context is non-scalar: it is not the case that Alex is
the least likely person to have score given the absence of a salient scale, the speaker does not
know about players. Therefore, the use of the scalar item hattā is not licensed by the context,
as well. The whole assertion is, therefore, odd because neither presupposition is satisfied in the
context.
The goal of this section was to present an analysis of how the scalar and additive presup-
positions of even are triggered in Persian using the features [SCAL] and [ADD] as inspired by
Crnič’s decompositional theory of even in English. I showed that in Persian:

i) Hattā is specified for scalarity but does not encode additivity. Therefore, I will assume
that hattā has the following feature representation: [SCAL]

157
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

ii) Ham is an additive operator in Persian. It is not specified for scalarity and encodes an
additive presupposition only: [ADD]
iii) Hattā -NP-ham is a string in which hattā and ham contribute their specifications for sca-
larity and additivity, respectively: [SCAL,ADD]. Hattā contributes [SCAL] and ham con-
tributes [ADD] in this string. The combination is only felicitous if both presuppositions
are satisfied in the given context.

8.3.2 Summary
In this section, I described the theoretical background I am assuming in the present research
for an investigation of the second language acquisition of scalar and additive focus-sensitive
presupposition triggers in Persian. The problem space of the current study is restricted to
English even in two syntactic positions for which the following feature representations are
adapted:

1 Prenominal even [SCAL,ADD]

2 Postnominal even [SCAL]

Second, this research concerns the second language acquisition of the Persian lexical items
responsible for the realization of the previous presuppositions:

1 hattā -ham [SCAL,ADD]

2 hattā [SCAL]

The next section will present a review of the second language acquisition theory tested in this
study, the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis of Lardiere (2005, 2008, 2009, and subsequent
work), and in particular in relation to the acquisition of semantic features.

8.4 Theories of second language acquisition

The current study was designed as an investigation of the Feature Reassembly Hypothesis
(FRH) (Lardiere 2005, 2008, 2009, and subsequent work). The FRH assumes two stages in L2
acquisition: first, the mapping stage, which involves a one-to-one mapping of L1 feature sets
onto those of the L2, and second, the reassembly stage, during which L2 learners reconfigure/
reassemble their L1 feature matrices based on those of the L2. The reassembly stage is predicted
to be hard for L2 learners, if the L2 differs from the L1 in the corresponding feature specifica-
tions. The focus of the present research is on investigating what is involved in the stages of
feature mapping and reassembly and the learner tasks in each stage in acquisition and what the
sources of complication and difficulty in L2 acquisition could in principle be. This study will
build up on the implementation of the FRH as per the proposals of Slabakova (2009) and Cho
and Slabakova (2014, 2015), where the FRH has been characterized in a more detailed way.

8.4.1 The Feature Reassembly Hypothesis

Research in second language acquisition has shown that some of the systematic errors that
second language learners make can be attributed to the influence of their native language
(L1 transfer). Lardiere’s (2005, 2007b, 2008, 2009) Feature Reassembly Hypothesis suggests,
following in the steps of the Full Transfer Full Access Hypothesis (White 1985), that second

158
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

language learners bring to the acquisition task a system of formal features that are already
assembled into their L1 lexical items. The task of acquisition, under her view, consists of two
main mechanisms or stages: ‘mapping’ and ‘reassembly’ of formal features. Second language
learners start off by an initial mapping between the feature sets from their L1 onto feature
matrices of the L2, followed by reassembly of features where differences exist between the
L1 and the configurations in the L2. According to this theory, feature reassembly is predicted
to be particularly difficult in cases where the target features exist in the L1 but are configured
differently from the L2. The two stages of ‘mapping’ and ‘reassembly’ that are intended to
explain the learning tasks of the second language learner, according to the Feature Reassembly
Hypothesis, are described in the following.

8.4.1.1 Feature mapping

Initially, L2 learners, who bring to the SLA process a system of formal feature bundles already
assembled into their L1 lexical items, establish a direct mapping between L1 and L2 forms.
Second language learners “look for morpho-lexical correspondences in the L2 to those in
their L1, presumably on the basis of semantic meaning or grammatical function (the phonetic
matrices will obviously differ)” (Lardiere 2009, 191). In other words, as stated by Cho and Sla-
bakova (2015, 13), “the first step in L2 acquisition is mapping based on similarities between
the functional meanings of the target morphemes and those of the L1 morphemes”.

8.4.1.2 Feature reassembly

When feature mapping fails, that is, if the feature specifications in the target language do not
coincide with those of the L1, second language learners will need to reassemble the configura-
tions that they transfer from their L1. The task of the second language acquirer is to monitor
the L2 input and accordingly modify and revise the L1 feature representations by deleting or
adding features; hence, feature reassembly. Feature reassembly can be conceptualized as a
process of assembling L2 feature sets based on L1 feature bundles and their formal contrasts
with the L2 input.
Lardiere’s theory posits that ultimately all features, regardless of interpretability, are in
principle acquirable. However, the process of feature reassembly “may be slow to occur or
may not occur at all if the relevant evidence for the formal or semantic feature is rare or con-
tradictory in the linguistic input” (Cho and Slabakova 2014).
In addition to the challenging process of dissociating and/or adding certain features, Lar-
diere (2009) argues that the mechanism of feature reassembly involves figuring out “the con-
texts in which [a particular form] can or cannot or must appear and restrictions on its use must
all be painstakingly acquired and are part of the learner’s developing morphological compe-
tence” (Lardiere 2008, 236). The L2 learner in the process of feature reassembly, therefore,
confronts the taxing task of not only reconfiguring their L1 feature representations into those
of the L2 but also figuring out under which language-specific contexts and conditions those
features are lexicalized in the L2. These could in principle pose tremendous challenges to the
second language acquirer and, in principle, hinder the process of second language acquisition.

8.4.2 SLA development within the FRH

White (2009) raises a question about the predictive power of the FRH, in particular, whether
the FRH can predict in advance which features or feature combinations are in principle more

159
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

difficult for L2 learners based on the kind of feature reassembly involved. While this is a
legitimate question, as noted by Lardiere (2009, 420), to investigate within the FRH proposal,
not much work in the literature has been devoted to this domain. Slabakova (2009), Cho and
Slabakova (2014), and Cho and Slabakova (2015), however, have offered significant develop-
ment in this domain. The current study wishes to pursue the same goal of providing further
development as to how the predictions of the FRH can be implemented in SLA.
Cho and Slabakova (2015) investigate the acquisition of specificity in L2 Russian by L1
Korean and English speakers. Russian kakoj-to, ­ English some, and Korean eotteon share the
same feature specifications with respect to the semantics of specificity: [-definite, -referential,
+specific]. Therefore, the acquisition task is predicted to be easy for both learner groups since
presumably no reassembly is required. The corresponding lexical items to the earlier-given
feature matrix should be easily detectable in the L2 input and learned with not much or even no
difficulty quite early on. In addition to kakoj-to,
­ Russian lexicalizes the feature set [-definite,
-referential, -specific] into kakoj-nibud.
­ This feature set is not morphologically realized in
the two L1s in this study, Korean and English. The learning task, therefore, for the Korean
and English L2 learners of Russian would have to involve feature reassembly of their most
similar L1 configurations to the target feature set, i.e., the representation corresponding to
the Russian kakoj-to ­ ([-definite, -referential, +specific]), into the target feature set for kakoj-
nibud: [-definite, -referential, -specific]. As such, the L2 acquisition of kakoj-nibud
­ would be
predicted to be more challenging and difficult to the learners than kakoj-to. ­
The authors compared the acquisition of kakoj-to, ­ which would involve only the map-
ping stage, with that of kakoj-nibud,
­ which would involve reconfiguration from the L1 feature
sets for the closest representations (of eotteon and some) onto the target L2 feature set. Their
results suggest that although overall the acquisition of Russian indefinite determiners was not
difficult, kakoj-to
­ was “the more easily mapped determiner”; both learner groups successfully
accepted this determiner in specific contexts. In non-specific contexts, however, the authors
noted a delay in acquisition, which they attribute to the reassembly of the feature configura-
tions involved in the acquisition of this determiner. The authors conclude that whether or not
feature reassembly is required in second language acquisition is a significant factor to consider.
Cho and Slabakova (2014) present a substantial development to Lardiere’s FRH by identi-
fying factors that should be considered in the investigation of the learning tasks of L2 learn-
ers in the process of feature reassembly. They provide a classification of features and, more
importantly for our goals in this study, of feature encoding options that are available to learners
cross-linguistically. This classification helps us to better understand what idiosyncratic strate-
gies various languages use to express universal semantic concepts. Further, one could empiri-
cally describe the L2 learners’ acquisition tasks by considering the encoding systems used for
semantic concepts in their L1 and L2.
Cho and Slabakova suggest, following Ramchand and Svenonius (2008) and building up on
Slabakova (2009), that feature expressions are either ‘overt’ or ‘covert’; a feature is ‘overtly’
expressed if it is encoded by dedicated morphology in a language. An example would be the
realization of [past] in English through the overt morpheme ‘-ed’. On the other hand, some
features are expressed ‘covertly’; a feature is ‘covert’ if its value needs to be supplied by con-
text (e.g. past tense in Chinese, which is signalled by the use of adverbs such as yesterday, last
week) or if syntactic movements and word order changes (e.g. word order changes to encode
information structure) are required to signal them. Furthermore, features can be expressed
‘directly’ or ‘indirectly’. If a feature provides the primary meaning of a morpheme (e.g. a for
indefinite and the for definite interpretations in English), it is realized ‘directly’; it directly
maps a semantic feature to a morphological expression. On the other hand, some other features

160
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

are encoded in expressions in addition to some primary meaning, hence ‘indirect’ mapping of
a feature to an expression (e.g. demonstratives like this which indirectly signal definiteness).
Cho and Slabakova (2014) investigate the second language acquisition of expressions of
definiteness in L2 Russian by two L2 groups: Korean and English speakers. The focus of the
study is on two means that Russian14 uses for the expression of definiteness. One is through its
possessor system and the other one is through word order: Russian uses possessor modifiers
(adjectival for indefinite and nominal for definite interpretations) and word order to encode
definiteness. In other words, definiteness is marked either overtly and directly by posses-
sor modifiers or covertly and indirectly through word order changes. English has overt and
direct morphology for the semantic property in question (a for indefinite and the for definite).
Korean, on the other hand, like Russian, does not mark definiteness morphologically by the
use of articles. Korean partially shares the possessor system of definiteness expression with
Russian. Possessor modifiers are all nominal and the difference in interpretation with respect
to definiteness is signalled by case-marking (nominative vs. genitive) as well as word order.
The two L2 groups, Korean and English L2 learners of Russian, participated in an offline
felicity judgment task. The authors first focus on the acquisition of the first means of definite-
ness expression in Russian; through the possessor system. Results from this study indicate that
the Korean group was more accurate in acquiring definiteness marked through the possessor
system than the English group since both Korean and Russian use the indirect expression of
definiteness in possessors. The authors, therefore, conclude that the learning task must be more
difficult when the property in question is expressed directly in the L1 (English) and indirectly
in the L2 (Russian). In other words, the authors claim that it must be more challenging to
acquire a feature when it is expressed overtly in the L1 but covertly in the L2 than when a
feature is expressed indirectly in both L1 and L2 (Korean and Russian).
They further test the acquisition of definiteness expressed through word order changes.
Although both Korean and Russian use word order to signal the different interpretations
related to definiteness (indirect and covert expression), results of this study show that the
English group is more successful in acquiring the word order effects in Russian than is the
Korean group. Korean learners, even the advanced group, did not perform target-like. The
authors attribute the Korean group’s low success rate in the acquisition of word order effects in
Russian to the fact that the learning of the conditions licensing word order changes, conditions
necessitating reassembly, must have been more difficult for them, hence more complicated and
taxing. They conclude from this finding that the biggest challenge in the acquisition task is to
reconfigure an indirectly and covertly encoded feature in both the L1 and L2 when it neces-
sitates reassembly.
In summary, Cho and Slabakova (2014) develop the learning model introduced by Lar-
diere’s FRH further by introducing significant factors involved in L2 acquisition. These factors
represent useful distinctions in terms of ‘overt’ versus ‘covert’ and ‘direct’ versus ‘indirect’
mapping of semantic features onto morphological expressions, distinctions that help illustrate
the sources of difficulty in L2 acquisition, a question addressed in the present research. In the
following is a summary of the main points that can be concluded from their research on the
‘reassembly’ stage of Lardiere’s FRH.
First, whether or not reassembly is required is an important question to address in second
language acquisition research. Phenomena that involve reassembly of L1 feature sets into
those of the L2 are more taxing on learners than are situations that involve simple mapping of
L1 to L2 morphemes. Second, overt versus covert encoding of features plays an important role
in the complication of the acquisition situation; it is more challenging to acquire a feature that
is encoded overtly in the L1 (English system for definiteness) but covertly in the L2 (Russian

161
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

possessor system) than when a feature is expressed indirectly in both L1 and L2 (Korean and
Russian use of possessors). Third, second language acquisition is most arduous if a feature is
expressed indirectly and covertly in both L1 and L2 but reassembly is required, as evidenced
by the case of the acquisition of word order effects on definiteness by Korean learners of
Russian.

8.4.3 Application of the FRH in the present research

The present chapter seeks to establish if and how the two stages in L2 acquisition, ‘mapping’
and ‘feature reassembly’, as proposed within the FRH, can explain the acquisition of semantic
representations of the additive presupposition of English even in L2 Persian. In other words,
the research goal of the study is to identify the sources of the predicted difficulty in the L2
acquisition of the semantics of hattā, ham, and hattā-ham within the framework of the FRH.
As discussed in this section, the process of L2 acquisition is hindered when L2 learners have
to figure out feature representation dissimilarities between the L1 and the L2 configurations.
Additionally, feature reassembly is predicted to be successful if L2 learners have been exposed
to sufficient positive input. In principle, therefore, advanced L2 learners should be able to
overcome such difficulty and successfully reassemble into L2 configurations. If feature reas-
sembly is not successful, however, even in highly proficient L2 learners, then the question is
what is it at the heart of the reassembly process that makes the acquisition task so arduous? Is
it the nature of the feature that makes the acquisition task hard? Is it the means of the feature
expression that is hard to integrate into the acquisition task? Is it the L1 lingering effects that
(continue to) obstruct feature reassembly? The experimental study reported here will address
these questions. Specifically, the study will set out to explore the L2 acquisition of overt and
direct features by addressing the following question: are English L2 learners of Persian able to
acquire the L2 direct and overt expression of ADD by overcoming their L1 covert and indirect
expression of this feature?
To investigate these questions within the FRH, I will assume the following featural assump-
tions about the means of feature expression as proposed by Cho and Slabakova (2014, 2015):

i) [SCAL] in English is expressed through dedicated morphology, overtly. I will also

assume that this feature is directly expressed by the lexical item even because expression
of unlikelihood (surprise or unexpectedness) is the primary function of this particle.
ii) [ADD] in English is constrained by word order. When in prenominal position, [ADD] is
morphologically encoded in even. Therefore, the expression of this feature is covert. In
addition, since the primary function of even is not the expression of additivity, I assume
that [ADD] is indirectly encoded in even.
iii) [SCAL] in Persian is expressed overtly and directly by the lexical item hattā.
iv) [ADD] in Persian is expressed overtly and directly by the lexical item ham.

The table following summarizes these assumptions.

Table 8.1 Expression of [SCAL] and [ADD] in scalar additive contexts in English and Persian

English Persian

[SCAL] overtly, directly overtly, directly

[ADD] covertly, indirectly overtly, directly

162
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

The experimental study, results, analysis, and conclusions will be presented in the next
section.

8.5 The study

8.5.1 Participants
Forty-two native speakers of Persian were tested as the Persian control group (N=42). These
participants resided in Iran and with the exception of one person who was a bilingual speaker
of Persian and Kurdish, all had Persian as their only L1. A group of 40 NSs of English were
also hired for the English NS control group (N=40). These participants were from Canada, the
U.K., and the U.S. Ten out of these 40 participants were L2 learners of Persian. This group was
tested as the experimental L2 group (N=10). Their only first language was English. All par-
ticipants received remuneration for their participation. The L2 learners of Persian completed
an online proficiency test of Persian, adapted from the McGill Islamic Institute Persian Place-
ment Test.15 Based on the scores obtained, participants were then divided into two proficiency
groups, intermediate (N=4) and advanced (N=6).

8.5.2 Methodology
The Persian NSs did three experiments on Persian. The English native speakers who were not
L2 leaners of Persian only did the two L1 English experiments. The L2 learners (N=10) com-
pleted five experiments: three on English and two on Persian. These online experiments were
scheduled at different sessions that were a minimum of 24 hours distant from one another.
Each experiment was expected to take from 20 to 30 minutes on average.

8.5.3 Tasks
The study consisted of felicity judgment tasks. The test items were randomized and presented
to the participants in both written and audio forms. Each test item comprised a short context
that the participants were asked to read first. After reading the story, the participants had to
press a button to play the recording of that short story followed by an ‘additional remark’
that appeared on the screen. The rationale behind creating audio stimuli was to control for
any prosodic effects that could potentially result in a difference in interpretation given that
a variation in prosody can sometimes trigger a specific presupposition in both languages of
interest. The goal of this study was to investigate the acquisition of lexical presupposition
triggers regardless of effects of prosody. The additional remark was a sentence fragment or a
full sentence (non-fragment)16 that appeared on the screen in written form as the speaker in
the audio reached the end of the context and appeared simultaneously with the recording of it.
This was to ensure a natural flow from the end of the context to the additional remark. Once the
audio-visual presentation of the test item was finished, a Likert scale appeared on the screen
that asked the participants to rate the naturalness of the additional remark given the story that
preceded it. The scale was from 1 to 7, where 1 was to indicate a completely unnatural addi-
tional remark and 7 indicated completely natural. They were also given the option of choosing
I don’t know if they did not have any intuition about the naturalness of the additional remark.
Once they hit a button on the scale, they were directed to the next item and were not able to go
back to a previous item or change their response. A screen shot of a test item from the study is
shown in the figure following.

163
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

progress

Read the passage below carefully:

I took one course last semester. The final exam for that course was extremely dif ficult. I was really
worried I would fail. But I actually got a good grade on the final.

Click here when you're ready to listen to the story with the additional remark

Even an A+.

Please rate how natural the final remark was given the preceding story

completely unnatural 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 completely natural

I don't know

Figure 8.1 Test item from the English experiment. Condition non-additive context, prenominal even,
NoToo.

Participants could not skip test items without providing an answer (which could be I don’t
know if they decided they had no intuition).

8.5.4 Design
The factors manipulated in the design of the experiments reported in the present chapter are
the following.

(1) L1: Persian or English

(2) group: intermediate or advanced
(3) context: additive or non-additive
(4) presenceToo: Too or NoToo
(5) syntax: prenominal or postnominal or VP (only for the English non-fragment experiment)

First was L1; participants in this study were either native speakers of Persian or English.
Second, the variable group was included with two levels based on proficiency level in the
corresponding L2: intermediate and advanced. This allowed an analysis of the two stages of
acquisition: mapping, which occurs at earlier stages, and reassembly, which occurs at more
advanced stages in L2 acquisition.
In designing the context stories, nine different themes (for example, exam grade) were
considered, and two stories were written for each theme (thus 18 contexts in total, see Appen-
dix B for test items): one that was compatible with an additive presupposition in the target
sentence and one that was incompatible with an additive presupposition. For instance, for
the ‘exam grade’ theme of the story in figure (stimulus shown in Figure 8.1, which implied a
non-additive context). There was also an additive version, as follows: “I took many courses

164
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

last semester. The final exams were extremely difficult. I was really worried I would fail the
semester. But I actually got some good grades.” Notice that for the Persian L1 and L2 experi-
ments, the same test items were presented to the participant in Persian. The stories were the
same across all experiments and were translated from English to Persian with very slight
modifications, where necessary. The contexts ensured that the presence of the scalar presuppo-
sition (scalarity [SCAL]) was kept constant across all test items; all contexts were constructed
with the assumption that the prejacent of the presupposition trigger is the least likely/most
unexpected proposition in the set of pertinent alternative propositions. This guaranteed that
the use of hattā and even was licensed throughout the study. In the examples mentioned previ-
ously, for instance, the fact that the final exam was extremely difficult implies that an A+ is a
very unlikely grade to get, perhaps the least likely one. Additionally, as discussed previously,
the contexts were constructed in such a way that the additive presupposition was either satis-
fied or not; hence the two levels additive (where truth of an alternative presupposition is fine)
and non-additive (where truth of an alternative presupposition would create a presupposition
clash). The context given earlier, for instance, ensures that only one grade could have been
obtained, given the speaker took only one course (and that the grade was obtained in the final
exam), hence uniqueness – an additive presupposition should lead to infelicity. After reading
the context and making sure they were familiar with it, the participants had to click on the
audio button to listen to the recorded version of the story, which was then followed by an
additional remark.
The next variable was based on the lexical manipulations of interest in the additional
remarks: First, presence or absence of the additive operators too and ham in English and
Persian (presenceToo). Two levels were associated with this factor: Too and NoToo. The Too
condition was associated with strings where an additive operator was used in combination
with even or hattā. For instance, the additional remark for the example in figure (8.1) was
“Even an A+, too” or “I got even an A+, too” in the non-fragment version. The NoToo condi-
tion included only even or hattā; e.g. “Even an A+” or “I got even an A+”.
Lastly, the syntax of focus association was a factor of interest that had two levels: prenomi-
nal placement and postnominal placement.
In summary, each of the two Persian and English experiments included eight experimental
conditions: context, presenceToo, syntax. There were, therefore, 72 items in each experiment
(2*2*2 conditions * 9 stories).

8.5.5 Results
In this section, results of the felicity judgment tasks will be presented in the following way:
First, I will present the English NS results as the baseline to compare their performance in
the L2. Second, the Persian NS results will be analyzed. Subsequently, results from how
the L1 English L2 learners of Persian perform on the tasks will be reported. Results of the
experiments in this study were analyzed using mixed-effects linear regression models, fitted
using the lmer function from the lme4 package (Douglas, Martin, Ben and Steve 2015) in
R. The participants’ responses were modelled as a function of a number of fixed variables.
The fixed effects are context, syntax, presenceToo, and proficiency group. Two- (and three)-
way interactions between the fixed effects related to my research questions were also added,
which will be introduced and discussed in the relevant results sections. The models also
included by-item
­ and by-participant
­ random intercepts for the fixed effects to account for
variability in the participants and items beyond the effects of the variables included in the
models.

165
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

To remind the readers, the presuppositional contribution of the focus-sensitive presupposi-

tion triggers in this study are operationalized in terms of the semantic features [SCAL] and
[ADD]. In addition, the research questions of this study concern expression of [ADD] in the
L2, i.e. how and whether L2 learners are able to acquire the expression/encoding of these
features in their L2. In FRH terms, the question will be whether L2 learners are able to reas-
semble/reconfigure their L1 feature representations into those of the L2. Note again that in the
experiments here, [SCAL] is always satisfied in the given contexts and as such all experimen-
tal items include even and hattā.

8.5.5.1 Native speakers of English

Figure 8.2 illustrates the results of the felicity judgment tasks for the English NSs. The data
is facetted by syntax (prenominal even on the left and postnominal even on the right), context
(the contexts where additivity is satisfied are shown to the left of the non-additive contexts),
and presenceToo (the presence vs. absence of too, the English additive operator; top row of the
plot illustrates the NoToo condition where even used alone and the bottom row plots the data
where even-too combinations were used).

prenominal postnominal
7

NoToo
4

2
response

5
Too

1
e

e
tiv

tiv

tiv

tiv
di

di

di

di
ad

ad

ad

ad
n-

n-
no

no

context

Figure 8.2 Felicity rating for the NSs of English by syntax, context, presenceToo.

166
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

Table 8.2 Summary of effects of syntax, context, presenceToo, and their interactions data: felicity rating
from English NSs

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|)

syntax 0.70318 0.06662 4894.00000 10.556 < 2e-16 ***
context −1.66279 0.05181 4886.00000 −32.093 < 2e-16 ***
presenceToo 0.21363 0.05213 4899.00000 4.098 4.24e-05 ***
syntax:context −1.07255 0.13167 4886.00000 −8.146 4.44e-16 ***
context:presenceToo −0.14092 0.10364 4886.00000 −1.360 0.1740
syntax:presenceToo −0.56641 0.13187 4888.00000 −4.295 1.78e-05 ***
syntax:context:presenceToo −0.45040 0.26335 4886.00000 −1.710 0.0873

Table 8.2 summarizes the results of the mixed-effects linear regression model fitted with
fixed effects for syntax, context, presenceToo, and their interactions used to analyze the data
from the English NSs.
As the plot illustrates, there is a main effect of syntax suggesting that overall, NSs prefer the
use of even in prenominal position rather than postnominal. This is not surprising since even
does in most uses appear prenominally. In addition, the results indicate a main effect of context
suggesting that NSs prefer the presence of even in additive contexts rather than non-additive
contexts which are admittedly much less frequent in general. The results also show a main
effect for presenceToo, indicating an overall higher rating for preference of too in combination
with even that is not in line with overall reported NS intuition. However, the two-way inter-
action between presenceToo and context is not significant. This result is surprising because
one would plausibly expect that the additivity effect (which, I assume to be signalled by a
significant difference between the ratings for the additive and non-additive contexts) would be
significantly larger if an additive operator is present in the structure. Put differently, the pres-
ence of the additive operator should in principle be highly accepted in additive contexts and
largely dispreferred in non-additive contexts yielding a large additivity effect. The NS data
here, however, suggests that the additivity effect is perceived independently of the presence of
too in English. The question now is what strategy English uses to signal the additivity effect;
what do NSs of English do to encode [ADD] in scalar additive contexts?
To address this question, let us review the predictions for English based on Wagner (2013,
2015). The syntactic analysis would predict that if even, in either syntactic position, encodes
an additive meaning in its semantics, it should then be incompatible with a non-additive
context; in a context where the additive presupposition is not satisfied. In other words, if
there is a syntactic position where the use of even is acceptable in additive contexts but not
felicitous in non-additive contexts, that would mean that even has a semantic component
which is in contradiction to the non-additivity established in the context, i.e. the additive
component [ADD]. Although, as indicated by the direction of the slopes in all of the plots
in Figure 8.2, even seems to be preferred with an additive reading in both prenominal and
postnominal positions (main effect of context), the statistical results as reported in Table 8.2
show that the additivity effect is significantly larger in the prenominal syntactic position,
hence, the significant two-way interaction between syntax and context. This would mean that
prenominal even encodes a component in its semantics ([ADD]), which makes its use highly
compatible with additive and largely incompatible with non-additive contexts, leading to a
larger additivity effect than the case of postnominal even, which is used in both additive and
non-additive contexts.

167
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

Note, furthermore, that another prediction based on Wagner (2013, 2015) would be that
in non-additive contexts, postnominal even would be preferred over prenominal since it does
not have the [ADD] in its semantics. In other words, one would expect prenominal even to
be highly rejected in non-additive contexts, as opposed to postnominal, because prenominal
even presumably encodes [ADD] in its meaning, which should block it from appearing in non-
additive contexts, while postnominal is predicted to not encode [ADD] at all and therefore in
principle be compatible with both additive and non-additive contexts. To test this, the non-
additive subset of the data was analyzed separately. This subset is plotted in Figure 8.3, where
the data is facetted by syntax and presenceToo. This plot shows that the previously given pre-
diction is borne out: postnominal even is the preferred choice in non-additive contexts.
To statistically investigate this observation, a statistical model for the non-additive condi-
tion was fitted with the fixed effect for syntax. Table 8.3 summarizes the results. The main
effect of syntax here shows that postnominal is rated significantly higher than prenominal,

NoToo Too
7

5
response

1
al

al

al
a
in

in

in

in
om

om

om

om
en

en

n
st

st
pr

pr
po

po

syntax

Figure 8.3 English NSs. Felicity rating for the non-additive

­ subset of the data by syntax and presenceToo.

Table 8.3 Summary of effects of syntax

data: English NSs. non-additive subset

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|)

syntax -0.9751 0.1328 1201.4000 -7.344 3.80e-13 ***

168
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

which confirms the earlier finding that prenominal even encodes [ADD], which is not compat-
ible with non-additive contexts.
To summarize the results from NSs of English, statistical findings indicate that the additiv-
ity effect in English is independent of the presence or absence of the additive operator too.
In other words, it could be concluded that too in combination with even does not contribute
the semantic feature [ADD]. English must, therefore, use another tool to express [ADD] in
contexts that satisfy additivity in order to respect maximize presupposition. This strategy was
found to be in line with the prediction made by Wagner’s (2013, 2015) syntactic constraint on
even suggesting that the additivity effect interacts with the syntactic position of even. The addi-
tivity effect is found to be significantly stronger when even is used in prenominal position. It
could be concluded, consistent with Wagner, that prenominal even encodes a semantic compo-
nent, [ADD], which makes it compatible with additive contexts and significantly dispreferred
in non-additive contexts. Furthermore, it was shown that postnominal even is the preferred
particle in non-additive contexts. Prenominal even is dispreferred in such contexts due to the
clash between its semantic content [ADD] and the non-additivity of the context.

8.5.5.1.1 ENGLISH NSS: DISCUSSION

The data from the NSs of English shows a significant interaction between the syntax of even
and context. In other words, whether or not [ADD] in encoded in scalar additive contexts
in English is constrained by the syntactic position of this particle: when used in prenominal
position, [ADD] is encoded in the meaning of even. Following the terminology of Cho and
Slabakova (2014, 2015), I propose that [ADD] in the meaning of even is a covert and indirect
feature in English. [ADD] is expressed covertly because its representation is constrained by
syntax. Further, it is expressed indirectly because, I assume, it is a secondary semantic func-
tion of even (the primary being the expression of [SCAL]). Finally, presence of the additive
operator is not perceived by NSs of English as signalling [ADD] in their language.
The next section will present the results from the NSs of Persian revealing the patterns in
Persian.

8.5.5.2 Native speakers of Persian

The results from the NSs of Persian are plotted in Figure 8.4. The data is divided by syntax
(prenominal vs. postnominal position of hattā in Persian), context (additive vs. non-additive),
as well as presenceToo (the presence vs. absence of ham, the Persian additive operator in
combination with hattā: the Too condition involves Persian sentences with ham vs. the NoToo
involving sentences lacking ham).
Results from the mixed-effects linear regression model fitted with fixed effects for type,
syntax, context, presenceToo, and their interactions are summarized in Table 8.4.
Overall, the results indicate a main effect for syntax, suggesting that prenominal position
for hattā is the preferred syntactic position for this particle. Non-additive contexts are overall
dispreferred when hattā is used, main effect of context. This is not surprising assuming that in
most uses, hattā appears in contexts that satisfy both a scalar presupposition (encoded in hattā)
and an additive presupposition (encoded in the additive operator ham, as will be shown later).
Let us now turn to the investigation of the research question about how [ADD] is expressed
in Persian.
As the distribution of the data in Figure 8.4 shows, there is a main effect of presenceToo.
The ratings for the Too condition where ham has been used in combination with hattā is

169
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

prenominal postnominal
7

NoToo
4

2
response

Too
3

1
e

e
tiv

tiv

tiv

tiv
di

di

di

di
ad

ad

ad

ad
n-

n-
no

no

context

Figure 8.4 Felicity rating for the NSs of Persian by syntax, context, and presenceToo.

Table 8.4 Summary of effects of syntax, context, presenceToo, and their interactions data: felicity rating
from Persian NSs

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|)

syntax 0.67119 0.05511 6361.00000 12.179 < 2e-16 ***

context -2.49164 0.04285 6362.00000 -58.153 < 2e-16 ***
presenceToo -1.00185 0.04284 6361.00000 -23.383 < 2e-16 ***
syntax:context 0.26350 0.21924 6355.00000 1.202 0.2294
context:presenceToo -4.06565 0.08568 6361.00000 -47.449 < 2e-16 ***
syntax:presenceToo -0.18495 0.11021 6361.00000 -1.678 0.0934
syntax:context:presenceToo -0.42290 0.22042 6361.00000 -1.919 0.0551

overall significantly lower than the NoToo condition where hattā has been used alone which
seems, as seen in Table 8.4, to be due to the occurrence of this particle in non-additive con-
texts. Crucial to the analysis of the Persian data is that there is a significant interaction between
presenceToo and context. This suggests that the additivity effect (signalled by a significant dif-
ference between the ratings for the additive and non-additive contexts) is significantly greater
in the Too condition where the additive operator ham has been used. In other words, hattā-ham

170
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

combinations clearly signal the additivity effect to a greater extent than hattā when used alone.
This would mean that presence of the additive operator in the structure increases the rejection
rate for hattā-ham combinations in contexts that do not satisfy the additive presupposition,
the non-additive conditions. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that ham encodes a
semantic component, namely [ADD], which otherwise is not encoded in hattā, and that is why
hattā-ham ratings are extremely low in non-additive contexts while these contexts are highly
accepted (not statistically differently from the additive contexts, as will be shown later) in the
hattā conditions.
Another finding is that the two-way interaction between syntax and context is not statisti-
cally significant. The prediction for the NSs of Persian was that prenominal and postnominal
positions of hattā would not be different with respect to the additivity effect. Therefore, the
syntax-context
­ interaction was not expected to come out significant. This prediction is borne
out and therefore it could be concluded that the syntax of hattā in Persian does not interact with
the additivity effect. Since both prenominal hattā and postnominal hattā are highly accepted in
both additive and non-additive contexts, one conclusion is that hattā does not encode [ADD]
in its semantic representation in either syntactic position. If it did encode [ADD], one would
have expected a high rejection rate in the non-additive contexts due to the inconsistency of the
presuppositional contribution of [ADD] and the non-additivity of the context.
In summary, the Persian NS results show that in Persian the syntactic position of hattā does
not interact with the encoding of [ADD]. In other words, Persian NSs happily accept hattā
in both syntactic positions in additive as well as non-additive contexts. The strategy used by
NSs of Persian for expressing the [ADD] is to use the additive operator ham in combination
with hattā in scalar additive contexts. Since these combinations are rejected in non-additive
contexts as opposed to hattā alone, which is highly accepted in both contexts, one can safely
conclude that ham contributes an additive component which is in conflict with non-additive
contexts.

8.5.5.2.1 PERSIAN NSs: DISCUSSION

The Persian NS results confirm the prediction that in this language, [ADD] is expressed by
dedicated morphology. This semantic feature is encoded in the lexical meaning of the additive
operator ham, an overt feature encoding. Further, since the expression of [ADD] is the primary
semantic function of ham, I propose that this feature is directly encoded by ham. In addition,
the prediction was borne out that hattā does not encode [ADD] because, as the results confirm,
its use is felicitous in non-additive contexts which are strongly rejected in the case of hattā-
ham where [ADD] is clearly encoded. Finally, it was expected that the syntactic position of
hattā does not interact with any significant additivity effect; the results reported here confirm
that hattā does not encode [ADD] in either prenominal or postnominal position.
The next section will present results from L1 English L2 learners of Persian.

8.5.5.3 L2 Learners of Persian

8.5.5.3.1 L2 LEARNERS OF PERSIAN: RESULTS

Let us now turn to the analysis of the results from the L1 English L2 learners of Persian. Their
felicity ratings are plotted in Figure 8.5 following and the statistical results from the model
fitted with fixed effects for syntax, context, presenceToo, and group (proficiency level; inter-
mediate vs. advanced), and their interactions are summarized in Table 8.5.

171
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

intermediate intermediate advanced advanced

prenominal postnominal prenominal postnominal
7

NoToo
4

2
response

1
7

Too
4

1
e

e
tiv

tiv

tiv

tiv

tiv

tiv

tiv

tiv
di

di

di

di

di

di

di

di
ad

ad

ad

ad

ad

ad

ad

ad
n-

n-

n-

n-
no

no

no

no
context

Figure 8.5 Felicity rating for the L2 learners of Persian by group, syntax, context, presenceToo.

Table 8.5 Summary of effects of syntax, context, presenceToo, proficiency group, and their interaction.
Data: felicity rating from L2 learners of English.

Estimate Std. Error df t value Pr(>|t|)

syntax −8.412e−01 1.511e-01 1.339e+03 −5.567 3.13e-08 ***

context −1.586e+00 1.153e-01 1.334e+03 −13.756 < 2e-16 ***
group −1.899e−02 6.755e-01 8.100e+00 −0.028 0.97826
presenceToo −8.396e−01 1.135e-01 1.336e+03 −7.399 2.42e-13 ***
syntax:context 4.975e−01 3.019e-01 1.334e+03 1.648 0.09961.
syntax:group 2.738e−01 3.878e-01 1.332e+03 0.706 0.48022
context:group −4.739e−02 2.968e-01 1.332e+03 −0.160 0.87316
context:presenceToo −7.007e−01 2.269e-01 1.334e+03 −3.088 0.00205 **
group:presenceToo −1.763e−01 2.799e-01 1.332e+03 −0.630 0.52891
syntax:presenceToo −3.960e−01 2.515e-01 1.339e+03 −1.575 0.11561
syntax:context:group −8.768e−01 7.755e-01 1.331e+03 −1.131 0.25841
context:group:presenceToo −1.045e+00 5.598e-01 1.332e+03 −1.866 0.06224.
syntax:context:presenceToo −6.737e−03 5.026e-01 1.334e+03 −0.013 0.98931

172
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

The statistical model with the fixed effects of syntax, context, presenceToo, group, and their
interactions are summarized in Table 8.5.
The statistical results from the L1 English L2 learners of Persian show main effects of
syntax and context. The acceptance rate for L2 learners of Persian is significantly higher in
the prenominal syntactic position of hattā. There is a main effect of context suggesting that
hattā is preferred in additive contexts over non-additive contexts. In terms of the expression
of [ADD] in Persian, the results show that the interaction between context, presenceToo, and
group is not significant, suggesting that the L2 learners do not attribute the additivity effect to
the presence of the additive operator ham in either proficiency level in Persian. Furthermore,
the three-way interaction between syntax, context, and group does not come out significant
either, suggesting that these L2 learners do not have a preference for either syntactic position
of hattā in the L2 for the expression of [ADD]. In other words, the L2 learners in this study
do not attribute the expression of [ADD] to either the presence of the additive operator ham or
to any specific syntactic positioning of hattā. Further, the three-way interaction between syn-
tax, context, and presenceToo is not significant. Assuming the overall preference for additive
contexts in all conditions, I interpret this finding as showing that these L2 learners assume that
hattā encodes [ADD] in its semantics in all conditions; in other words, they treat this particle
as additive across the board. Looking at the plots in Figure 8.5, it is clear that their judgments
barely differ across different conditions. While the additivity effect is clearly strong in all the
experimental conditions plotted, the L1 English L2 learners of Persian do not attribute this to
either the presence of ham or to syntactic position. Since the use of hattā is accepted in addi-
tive contexts and disfavored in non-additive contexts across all conditions, I conclude that for
these L2 learners, hattā must lexically encode [ADD], besides [SCAL], which renders its use
incompatible with non-additive contexts. Note also that there is a main effect of presenceToo,
indicating that the ratings for the Too condition is overall lower than the NoToo condition.
Assuming the finding that hattā is always additive to these speakers, one can conclude that
they find the use of the additive operator ham redundant and rate its presence in combination
with hattā (encoding ADD) lower.
One research question in this L2 acquisition study is whether L2 learners of Persian
improve in the acquisition of target-like properties as proficiency level increases. In other
words, the question here is whether the higher level proficiency L2 learners perform any bet-
ter than lower level ones in terms of the acquisition or non-acquisition of the L2 strategy of
encoding [ADD] which is by overtly and directly expressing it through the insertion of the
additive operator ham.
The statistical results do not reveal any significant difference between the two L2 groups
with respect to the interactions of interest: First, the presenceToo-context-group
­ ­ interaction is
not statistically significant. This suggests that even at higher levels of proficiency, L2 learn-
ers are not able to acquire the overt and direct way of expressing [ADD] in Persian; they fail
to notice that [ADD] is encoded in the semantic representation of ham and is realized by this
morpheme overtly to express it. One can conclude here that the L2 acquisition of the direct and
overt expression of [ADD] is a difficult task for the L2 learners.
Second, the syntax-context-group
­ ­ interaction is not significant, either. This suggests that
even the intermediate L2 learners have successfully learned that, unlike their L1, the L2 does
not use the covert and indirect strategy for expressing [ADD]. In other words, the L2 learners
are able, even at lower levels of proficiency, to acquire the fact that in Persian, the semantic
content of hattā does not interact with its syntactic position and therefore hattā has the same
semantic representation in both prenominal and postnominal. This suggests that noticing that
the L1 covert and indirect expression of [ADD] does not hold in the L2 does not present L2

173
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

Table 8.6 Summary of effects of syntax, context, presenceToo, and L1 and their interactions.

Estimate Std. Error df t-value Pr(>|t|)

syntax 0.12069 0.05555 7718.00000 2.173 0.0298 *

context –2.17177 0.04284 7713.00000 –50.695 < 2e-16 ***
L1 –0.36454 0.17914 56.00000 –2.035 0.0466 *
presenceToo –0.89586 0.04012 7717.00000 –22.332 < 2e-16 ***
syntax:context –0.19205 0.11109 7713.00000 –1.729 0.0839.
syntax:L1 –1.50549 0.12672 7719.00000 –11.880 < 2e-16 ***
context:L1 0.87482 0.09743 7714.00000 8.979 < 2e-16 ***
context:presenceToo –2.77417 0.08022 7712.00000 –34.582 < 2e-16 ***
L1:presenceToo 0.21791 0.09150 7719.00000 2.381 0.0173 *
syntax:context:L1 1.31450 0.25341 7715.00000 5.187 2.19e-07 ***
context:L1:presenceToo 3.36409 0.18297 7714.00000 18.386 < 2e-16 ***

Source: Persian data by L1 (Persian or English)

learners with great difficulty. Further, as shown in the plot, since hattā is highly accepted in
additive contexts and rejected in non-additive contexts in all conditions, it could be concluded
that the L2 learners assume an additive interpretation for hattā across the board. Therefore,
for these L2 learners [ADD] is expressed overtly but indirectly in the semantic representation
of hattā.
Finally, to statistically compare the performance of the NSs and L2ers of Persian, a statisti-
cal model was fitted with three-way interactions between syntax, context, and L1 as well as
context, presenceToo, and L1. As the results in the table following confirm, the two groups
are significantly different in terms of using the interactions of interest to encode [ADD]: they
are significantly different with respect to the syntax-context
­ interaction, which is the English
strategy to encode [ADD], as well as the presenceToo-context
­ interaction, which is the target
(Persian) strategy.

8.5.5.3.2 L2 LEARNERS OF PERSIAN: DISCUSSION

The L2 learners of Persian seem to fail to acquire the strategy used by NSs of Persian to encode
[ADD] in scalar additive contexts, which is by overtly and directly expressing it through the
use of the additive operator ham. Furthermore, they do not use their L1 (English) means of
encoding this semantic component, either, which is through the covert and indirect expression
of it in prenominal syntactic position (syntax-context
­ interaction), which suggests that they
have successfully acquired the absence of a syntax-context
­ interaction in the L2. Instead, the
L2 learners assume the same semantic content in terms of [ADD] for hattā in both syntactic
positions: they assume that the L2 hattā has the same semantic representation as their L1
prenominal even; that is, the L2 hattā encodes [ADD] (besides [SCAL] of course) across the
board. Therefore, the expression of [ADD] for the L1 English L2 learners of Persian is overt
but indirect through the use of a lexical item hattā. [ADD] for the L2 learners is an overt
semantic feature because had it been covert, it should have been constrained by syntax, as per
their L1. It is also an indirect feature because it is encoded as a secondary function of hattā
besides [SCAL]. It seems that having noticed the absence of a syntax-context interaction in
Persian, the L2ers attribute the stronger meaning of their L1 even to all instances of L2 hattā.

174
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

In addition, having learned the semantics of the additive operator ham independently, they
disprefer its use in combination with hattā.

8.6 Discussion and conclusions

In this section, the L2 learner results will be discussed in light of the FRH architecture of L2
acquisition and the predictions I made based on the learning tasks in the two stages of ‘feature
mapping’ and ‘feature reassembly’.

8.6.1 Feature mapping

Prediction (1): At the mapping stage of the L2 acquisition of the overt and direct expression
of [ADD] in Persian, the L2 learners would presumably transfer the representation of their
L1 even, given that they have been taught that these two particles are equivalent. As such, the
first prediction was that they would map the feature specification for L1 even onto hattā. This
would mean that the L2 learners were expected to show properties related to their L1 covert
and indirect expression of [ADD]. Specifically, they were predicted to accept prenominal hattā
in additive contexts and reject it in non-additive contexts. They were also expected to accept
postnominal hattā more than prenominal in non-additive contexts.
Before presenting the results for prediction (1), another prediction for the mapping stage
will be discussed next. Results of the experiments for both predictions (1) and (2) will be
discussed after.
Prediction (2): At the mapping stage, the L2 learners should be able to notice the presence of
ham in combination with hattā in scalar additive contexts. Ham is predicted to be easily acquir-
able at this stage given that it has the same feature specification as their L1 additive operator
too. However, given that at this stage the L2 learners presumably have mapped their L1 repre-
sentation of even onto hattā in Persian, namely by assuming that hattā is additive in prenominal
position in Persian as well, one would expect that the L2 learners should wonder why they
would need to express [ADD] on ham additionally when prenominal hattā have this component
encoded already. This representation (hattā-ham combinations) should strike them as redundant,
especially in cases where hattā appears in prenominal position. Therefore, the prediction at this
stage is that the L2 learners fail to associate ham with the expression of [ADD] in the context of
hattā, although the semantics of ham should have easily been established independently since it
matches the one of their L1 additive operator. The intermediate learners, therefore, are predicted
to fail at learning the L2 strategy of expressing [ADD] in scalar additive contexts.
Results for prediction (1): The results of the study reported do not support the first pre-
diction. The L2 learners in this study do not show the L1 properties related to the syntax-
semantics interaction of even, even at the mapping stage. They show no interaction between
the syntax of hattā and its semantic content. It could be concluded, therefore, that noticing that
the L2 does not use their L1 strategy to express [ADD] covertly seems to be an easy task. This,
I believe, could be explained as a result of the abundant and obvious use of the additive opera-
tor in the Persian input to encode [ADD] in combination with hattā in scalar additive contexts.
Having learned ham independently, the L2 learners would plausibly wonder why ham would
be used in addition to hattā (specially prenominal hattā), had hattā indeed encoded the addi-
tive component lexically in Persian. This would trigger reassembly at very early stages and
trigger the unlearning of the L1 covert expression of [ADD]. This is not a difficult task for the
L2 learners because even the intermediate learners succeed at dissociating the expression of
[ADD] with the syntactic position of hattā.

175
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

Results for prediction (2): Results from the study reveal that this prediction is borne out.
Although the L2 learners at this stage have successfully unlearned their L1 strategy (covertly
expressing [ADD]) by not showing a syntax-context interaction in the L2 (as discussed in the
results of prediction 1), they do not seem to have picked up the L2 strategy, either. They do
not note the interaction between the presence of the additive operator ham and the expres-
sion of [ADD]. In summary, although the L2 learners successfully dissociate from the L1 a
covert and indirect expression of [ADD], they fail to acquire the L2 strategy of overtly and
directly expressing it on the additive operator ham. According to the results, what the L2
learners do at this stage is they assume hattā is always additive, regardless of its syntactic
position and regardless of the presence of the additive operator. Put differently, the L2 learn-
ers do not use the L1 covert and indirect strategy, but they do not use the L2 overt and direct
strategy, either. They do express [ADD] by assuming that hattā always overtly but indirectly
expresses [ADD]. I propose that the expression of [ADD] for the L2 learners at this stage is
overt because they use a morphological item that has [ADD] encoded in its semantic represen-
tation. Further, this is an indirect expression of [ADD] because the primary function of hattā
is [SCAL] and [ADD] is encoded as a secondary function of this particle. This seems to be an
in-between representation they resort to at this stage. It must be pointed out that the learners,
even at the mapping stage, show that the use of ham in combination with hattā is dispreferred
overall compared to the use of hattā alone. This I take as an indication that they have learned
the semantic feature specification of ham (which matches their L1 too); what these L2ers fail
at is integration of this knowledge to the expression of ADD in scalar additive contexts where
NSs would normally use ham.

8.6.2 Feature reassembly

Prediction (3): At later stages in acquisition, the L2 learners are expected to notice the L2 con-
sistently uses hattā-ham combinations in scalar additive contexts, with hattā in both prenomi-
nal and postnominal positions. Further, in non-additive contexts, hattā alone is used. The L2
learners should in principle note at this stage that had hattā encoded an additive component,
it should have been inconsistent with contexts that do not satisfy the additive presupposition,
especially in prenominal position. But, unlike their L1, the L2 does allow both prenominal and
postnominal occurrences of hattā alone in non-additive contexts. This inconsistency should
trigger the process of feature reassembly. I believe that the L2 learners at this stage do realize
that the L1 syntax-context interaction does not hold in Persian. Having been exposed to suf-
ficient positive input, they should be able to conclude that since the L2 prevalently uses hattā-
ham combinations in additive contexts (in prenominal position, too) and does not use them in
non-additive contexts; the string should have been redundant, had hattā encoded [ADD]. In
summary, the advanced L2 learners were predicted to be able to notice the absence of their L1
covert and indirect expression of [ADD] in the L2.
Results for prediction (3): This prediction was indeed borne out. As discussed in the results
of prediction (1), even intermediate L2 learners succeeded in noticing the absence of the L1
covert and indirect strategy of expressing [ADD] in the L2 and do not show properties of the
L1 strategy in the L2. Therefore, the conclusion is that the unlearning of the covert and indirect
feature [ADD] does not pose great difficulty to the L2 learners. This result suggests that once
a learner is sensitive to a syntax-semantic constraint in their L1, it is easy for them to detect
whether or not the same constraint exists in the L2. If the L2 fails to show L1 properties with
respect to that constraint, dissociating from it does not pose great challenges in the L2 acquisi-
tion task.

176
 Focus-sensitive operators in Persian

Prediction (4): Having unlearned the L1 covert and indirect expression of [ADD] through
the syntactic constraint on hattā, besides having learned the L2 additive operator, the predic-
tion for the advanced L2 learners is that should be able to reassign the expression of [ADD]
onto the target-like means of expressing it. Once the L2 learners have noticed that the L2 does
not use their L1 strategy, the acquisition of the L2 expression of [ADD] through overtly and
directly encoding it on ham should not present the L2 learners with great difficulty. Feature
reassembly should be successful. The advanced L2 learners are predicted to accept hattā-ham
configurations in additive contexts, reject them in non-additive contexts, and accept hattā
alone in contexts that do not satisfy the additive presupposition.
Results for prediction (4): This prediction is not borne out in the results. Even the advanced
L2 learners of Persian fail to reassign the expression of [ADD] onto the lexical item ham.
While the L2 learners have succeeded in dissociating from their L1 strategy for expressing
[ADD], they fail to acquire the overt and direct means of expressing the same feature in the L2
even at advanced levels, hence unsuccessful reassembly.

8.6.3 Conclusions
To conclude, the aim of the present research was to contribute new empirical evidence to the
understanding of L2 acquisition tasks and potential challenges L2 learners face in acquisition
as understood in terms of the FRH. Results of the present study have implications that facilitate
the understanding of what is at the heart of the acquisition task that can make it difficult for
L2 learners to acquire L2 representations. In particular, the findings of the present study from
the L2 learner group strongly highlight the role of L1 lingering effects (at different stages of
proficiency) and identify the nature of the features being reconfigured (overt vs. covert, direct
vs. indirect) as well as the process of integrating L2 strategies in expressing certain features
as sources of difficulty in L2 acquisition. In particular, the learning task for the L1 English L2
learners of Persian was to reconfigure from their L1 feature configuration for [ADD] into that of
L2 Persian. They had to dissociate from the covert and indirect specification for [ADD] in Eng-
lish and reassemble into the overt and direct expression of this semantic component in Persian.
The L2 learners of Persian demonstrated interesting behavior. First, they learned at fairly
low proficiency levels that the covert L1 specification for [ADD] is absent in the L2; they
learned that there is no contrast between prenominal and postnominal hattā in terms of their
semantic import. This is interesting because it suggests that once the L1 has a covert strategy
to encode some feature, detecting that the L2 fails to correspond to the L1 representation is
not a difficult task. Second, upon learners’ realizing that the L1 and L2 representations do not
match, reassembly occurs and they need to find a strategy to express [ADD]. I suggest that the
L2 learners at this stage face two strategies to choose from, one of which is the L2 overt and
direct expression of [ADD] through the use of the additive operator ham. Another possible
strategy, which is the one the L2 learners opt for in this study, is to transfer a meaning of L1
even for hattā, which is semantically stronger, the additive meaning (the reading of even with
the additive presupposition is stronger than when it does not have the additive presupposi-
tion as it is more informative, noteworthy, and/or relevant). They treat hattā as additive in all
conditions, including different syntactic positions. I believe that in order to adhere to Maxi-
mize Presupposition, the L2 learners favor encoding [ADD] indirectly on hattā, over directly
expressing it on a different lexical item, because the former strategy is already available to
them in their L1 where prenominal use of even indirectly signals [ADD].
These learners did not succeed at acquiring the L2 strategy that is lexically expressing
[ADD] on ham; they failed to recognize that in scalar additive contexts that license the use

177
 Marzieh Mortazavinia

of prenominal even in their L1, Persian uses an overt and direct realization of both semantic
components: [SCAL] is lexicalized on hattā and [ADD] on ham. The L2 learners of Persian
assumed that [ADD] is lexicalized overtly and indirectly on hattā in Persian; overtly because
it is lexicalized and indirectly because it is the secondary meaning of hattā besides [SCAL],
which is its primary semantic function. As a result, the L2 learners disfavor the use of ham in
addition to hattā, as the use of an additive operator besides a lexical item that already signals
[ADD] strikes them as redundant.
I suggest that the challenge in L2 acquisition for them is not the acquisition of the addi-
tive operator ham. In fact, this particle has the same feature specification of their L1 additive
operator too and is very easily acquirable at the mapping stage. What these L2 learners fail at
is integration of the knowledge that [ADD] can be realized directly on a different morpheme
in scalar additive contexts when their L1 makes available to them a more familiar strategy, an
indirect way.
In conclusion, results of the present study indicate that once the L1 uses a covert and indi-
rect means of expressing a feature, here [ADD], it is easy to dissociate from the covert strategy
and learn that the L1 syntactic constraint is not present in the L2. It is difficult, however, for
L2 learners to learn an overt and direct feature specification of it in the target language when
their L1 has an indirect way of expressing it.

Notes
1) Focus position is marked by capitalization.
2) See Rooth (1985), for a standard approach to the computation of alternative sets.
3) The additive presupposition has been analyzed both as an existential (e.g. in Karttunen and Peters
1979) and a universal (Crnič 2011). The quantificational force of this component is orthogonal to the
purpose of this study.
4) See Erlewine (2014) for discussion of backwards association.
5) The present research concerns only the prenominal vs. postnominal syntactic positions.
6) Note again that the assumption here is that there is only one lifting per person.
7) This study primarily investigates prenominal versus postnominal uses of even. Therefore non-
additive even in this research would make reference to postnominal even.
8) Let’s assume that what is meant by VP/adverbial even is association either with the VP or a VP inter-
nal argument. Backwards association of even in VP position is referred to as postnominal even.
9) This principle forces the speakers to opt for an expression with stronger semantic presuppositions if
these presuppositions are satisfied by the context.
10) Note that in this string, hattā can follow the associated NP as well: NP-ham-hatta
­ ­ in more colloquial
speech.
11) In English, there seems to be a dispreference for attaching even to a VP-internal noun phrases. There-
fore, sentences like this are in general disprefered compared to ones with adverbial even. My English
consultants report that this sentence feels odd because it implies additivity, namely that Claire has
married more than one person.
12) As the experimental results show later on, speakers do in general prefer to use hattā in additive con-
texts. This is also true of even in English.
13) I will only use the first word order, hattā -NP-ham, which is used in spoken Persian, throughout the
chapter but make explicit that the two word orders give rise to the same semantic construct.
14) Their study focuses on two ways out of the many ways definiteness is signalled in Russian (Cho and
Slabakova 2014).
15) I would like to express my gratitude to the McGill Islamic Institute for allowing me to access the
McGill Islamic Institute Persian Placement Test.
16) Due to space limits, in the results reported in the present work, I have excluded the analysis of the
type of the additional remark: fragment vs. non-fragment. This decision is made because this manip-
ulation did not result in any relevant significant difference in the analysis of the data. For a thorough
analysis and discussion of the results of this manipulation, please refer to Mortazavinia (2018).

178
 Focus-­sensitive operators in Persian

References
Cho, J., and R. Slabakova. 2014. “Interpreting Definiteness in a Second Language without Articles: The
Case of L2 Russian.” Second Language Research, 30(2): 159–190.
Cho, J., and R. Slabakova. 2015. “A Feature-Based Contrastive Approach to the L2 Acquisition of Speci-
ficity.” Applied Linguistics, amv029.
Crnic, L. 2011. Getting Even. Doctoral dissertation, MIT Press.
Douglas, B., M. Martin, B. Ben, and W. Steve. 2015. “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Lme4.”
Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1): 1–48.
Erlewine, M. 2014. Movement Out of Focus. Doctoral dissertation, MIT Press.
Heim, I. 1992. “Presupposition Projection and the Semantics of Attitude Verbs.” Journal of Semantics,
9: 183–221.
Karttunen, L., and S. Peters. 1979. “Conventional Implicature.” In Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposi-
tion, edited by Choon-Kyu Oh and David A. Dinneen, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.
Krifka, M. 1991. “A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions.” In Proceedings of
SALT, edited by S. Moore and A.Z. Wyner, Vol. 1, 127–158. Ithaca, NY: Corcel University.
Lardiere, D. 2005. “On Morphological Competence.” In Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches
to Second Language Conference (GASLA 2004), edited by L. Dekydtspotter, R.A. Sprouse, and A.
Liljestrant, 178–192. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Lardiere, D. 2007a. “Acquiring (or assembling) Functional Categories in Second Language Acquisition.”
In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North
America (GALANA), edited by A. Belikova, L. Meroni, and M. Umeda, 233–244. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Lardiere, D. 2007b. Ultimate Attainment in Second Language Acquisition: A Case Study. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lardiere, D. 2008. “Feature Assembly in Second Language Acquisition.” In The Role of Formal Feature
in Second Language Acquisition, edited by J. Liceras, H. Zobl, and H. Goodluck, 106–140. New
York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lardiere, D. 2009. “Some Thoughts on the Contrast Analysis of Features in Second Language Acquisi-
tion.” Second Language Research, 25: 173–227.
Mortazavinia, M. 2018. Second Language Acquisition of the Semantics of Focus-Sensitive Presupposi-
tion Triggers in English and Persian. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.
Ramchand, G., and P. Svenonius. 2008. “Mapping a Parochial Lexicon onto a Universal Semantics.” In
Limits of Syntactic Variation, edited by M.T. Biberauer, 219–245. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins
Publishing.
Rooth, M. 1985. Association with Focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Rullmann, H. 1997. “Even, Polarity, and Scope.” In Papers in Experimental and Theoretical Linguistics,
edited by Martha Gibson, Grace Wiebe, and Gary Libben, 40–64. Department of Linguistics, Uni-
versity of Alberta.
Slabakova, R. 2009. “Features or Parameters: Which One Makes Second Language Acquisition Easier,
and More Interesting to Study?” Second Language Research, 25(2): 313–324.
Von Stechow, A. 1991. “Current Issues in the Theory of Focus.” In Semantik: Ein internationals Hand-
buch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary
Research), edited by A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Wagner, M. 2013. Additivity and the Syntax of Even. Manuscript: McGill University.
Wagner, M. 2015. “Additivity and the Syntax of Even.” Paper presented at Linguistics Colloquium,
University of Chicago.
White, L. 1985. “The Pro-Drop Parameter in Adult Second Language Acquisition.” Language Learning,
35: 47–62.
White, L. 2009. “Some Questions about Feature Re-Assembly.” Second Language Research, 25:
343–348.

179
 PART II

Language skills in second language

acquisition of Persian
 9
SECOND LANGUAGE
VOCABULARY ACQUISITION MICHAEL CRAIG HILLMANNSECOND LANGUAGE VOCABULARY ACQUISITION

Persian resources and teaching

and learning strategies

Michael Craig Hillmann

9.1 Introduction
My first trip overseas was Pan Am Flight Number 1 from New York City to Tehran following on
the heels of an intensive beginning Persian course, 250 contact hours at six hours each week day
for nine weeks at the University of Texas. The course syllabus was Mohammad Ali Jazayery’s
audio-lingual Elementary Lessons in Persian: Experimental Edition (1965).1 That meant Persian-
only class sessions, no textbook materials for students, no reading and writing instruction, lots of
pattern practice and drills (e.g., completion, question-answer, substitution, and transformation),
step-by-step introductions of phrase and sentence patterns, memorization of dialogues, and a late
afternoon hour or more in a language laboratory listening to and repeating Persian.
Once on the ground in Tehran, a bus took us 40-some, new-minted American Peace Corps
Volunteers from Mehrābād Airport to our hotel. I happened to sit in the first row to the right of
the driver, whom I peppered with questions en route to see if the 250 hours had done their job.
They had, although I restricted myself to questions to which I already knew answers in case
I didn’t understand exactly what the driver would say in reply and to yes-no questions, at least
the first part of answers to which I’d get (e.g., “Is Tehran’s population more than 2,000,000
people?” and “Was it hot in Tehran today?”).
Two days later, in a first-class compartment on the 4 pm to 8 am train to Mashhad, which
made a prayer stop at Dāmghān, I successfully ordered likely the best chelo morgh [rice and
chicken] dinner in the world that day. And, if I slept well that night, it was probably because
I had accomplished my first oral-aural Persian tasks and because the Jazayery book had con-
vinced me that I had won a sort of foreign language lottery in signing up for a two-year Eng-
lish teaching stint at the University of Mashhad – I was entering the world of what promised
to be the easiest foreign language imaginable, even for famously doltish American language
learners. After all, as Jazayery’s lessons had it, the Fārsi Persian language (1) presents native
speakers of general American English with no serious pronunciation problems (e.g., easily
resolvable, initial issues with /kh/, /r/, /q/, front ‘l’ in syllable-medial and -final position,
and /h/ in syllable-medial and -final position); (2) exhibits no definite article or indefinite
article per se; (3) features no irregular verbs; (4) has no grammatical gender except in the use
of some Arabic loanwords and phrases; (5) calls for no change in word order in any sort of

183
 Michael Craig Hillmann

interrogative statements; (6) requires no change in word order or convolution of elements in

subordinate clauses that normally exhibit subject-object-verb patterns; (7) features no declen-
sion of nouns, pronouns, adjectives, or relative pronouns; (8) involves no necessary pluraliza-
tion of nouns used with cardinal numbers; (9) involves no irregularities in cardinal and ordinal
numbers; (10) features a single verb conjugation and only twelve discrete tenses; (11) allows
for flexibility in the word order of subject, object, and verb parts of statements; and (12) makes
use of a Perso-Arabic writing system that is phonetic (albeit with a significant shortcoming
problematic in the short term; e.g., “‫ ”هتل‬/hotel/ being spelled /htl/.
So, once settled in my basement room at the Mashhad University Club and, having scouted
the surprisingly laid back, doroshkeh-filled, bicycle-friendly, rose-watered-flavored, and lamb-
fat-scented Persian-only world beyond my basement room, and once acclimated to classroom
life and tongue-burning tea drinking in the Faculty Lounge, I hired Hamid Āsudeh, the teen-
aged son of the doorman at the Club, to bring me breakfast most mornings: a ceramic bowl of
yoghurt with yoghurt skin on the top, a glob of drippy, pectin-less jam on wax paper, a hunk of
bolghār cheese also wrapped in wax paper, and a slab of tāftun bread. Hamid would bring all
that and tea from a samovar upstairs and stand behind me while I ate and read aloud the Per-
sian text of the day, correct my pronunciation, and define unfamiliar words in the text. I recall
noting at the time that these sessions were as energizing and satisfying as my deliciously un-
American breakfasts because they made for conversation practice not for its own sake but for
the sake of accomplishing a task relevant to my interests as an undergraduate and graduate lit-
erature major, now mesmerized by a new right-to-left world that, among other things, has had
me expanding my notion of lyric poetry ever since. I also remember noting that learning Per-
sian through Persian was easier and quicker than my school-learned French through English.
As for texts, I started with the Michigan Modern Persian Readers series (1962), Khayyāmic
quatrains in Sādeq Hedāyat’s edition called Tarāneh’hā-ye ‘Omar Khayyām, Ferdowsi’s Story
of Sohrāb in Parviz Nātel Khānlari’s Shāhkār-hā-ye Adabiyāt-e Fārsi [Masterpieces of Persian
Literature] series for university students, A.J. Arberry’s Fifty Ghazals of Hāfez, and several
Hedāyat short stories and his novella called Buf-e­ Kur [The Blind Owl]. On the side, I read
L.P. Elwell-Sutton’s Elementary Persian Grammar (1963) and Ann K.S. Lambton’s Persian
Grammar (1963).2 And always at my side was a copy of Solayman Haïm’s Farhang-e­ Yekjeldi-
ye Fārsi-Engelisi [The New One-Volume Persian-English Dictionary] (1961).3 I made check
marks next to headwords I looked up in Haïm and wondered as time went on what was going
on when I looked up a word that already had two or more check marks next to it!
Six months later, a decent amount of Persian, those Iranian breakfasts, kālbās [baloney]
sandwiches for lunch, and chelokabāb and istānboli polow dinners under my belt, I started
wondering why I was still unable to regale either my students and colleagues with a life story
as fascinating by Rousseauian definition as Rousseau’s own Confessions or my hosts and fel-
low guests at parties with my then New Critical views on the nature of lyric poetry. The simple
answer: a lack of vocabulary had me hemming and hawing and circumlocuting. Of course,
I had faced the same issue with my native language but had handled it stress-free, they tell me,
by lying mostly on my back for a spell, then sitting up and crawling, then standing, and then
walking and running, all the while absorbing all the words I’d be needing for a while. Then
I went to elementary school and learned to read the words I already knew and then other words
that opened up worlds beyond my time and place. I had six or so years to do all this but natu-
rally didn’t now have that much time to acquire an Iranian first-grader’s command of Persian
vocabulary. I had to find shortcuts to achieve near-native skills in Persian listening and reading
in a year or so, assuming that Persian speaking would take care of itself within whatever time
frame my mouth, tongue, glottis, and parietal lobes needed.

184
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

This chapter offers a sampling of such shortcuts in 13 “mini-lessons” within the framework
of a review of Persian vocabulary acquisition and maintenance as treated in Persian instruc-
tional and reference materials for speakers of English published in the first two decades of
the 21st century. I hasten to add that my involvement in Persian studies unfortunately has not
included any training in linguistics or lexicography or foreign language education – caveant
lectores – which means that my chapter draws on anecdotal experience and presents no more
than impressions of representative recent Persian textbooks and dictionaries and illustrations
of methods and strategies in teaching and writing about Persian that relate to vocabulary acqui-
sition and maintenance.4
Specifically, this chapter discusses (1) theme-based Persian glossaries, phrasebooks, and
learner’s dictionaries; (2) representative Persian dictionaries of various sorts and their utility
in vocabulary acquisition and maintenance; (3) attention paid to vocabulary issues in 21st-
century Persian instructional materials designed for adult English-speaking learners; (4) a
word-method approach to reading Persian that focuses on vocabulary acquisition; and (5) con-
textualization as an overall strategy in teaching/learning Persian vocabulary, the five sections
interspersed with the cited 13 mini-lessons.

*****

Upwards of 20 theme-based Persian glossaries, phrase books, and learner’s dictionaries

for speakers of English have appeared in the first two decades of the 21st century.

• Conceptually, the most important among Persian glossaries is A Frequency Dictionary

of Persian by Corey Miller and Karineh Aghajanian-Stewart (2017), which provides a
corpus-based list of 5,000 frequently used words in the language in order of decreasing
frequency, along with “thematic vocabulary lists” on (1) animals, (2) body, (3) cloth-
ing, (4) colors, (5) countries, (6) electronics, (7) emotions, (8) family, (9) female names,
(10) food, (11) health, (12) last names, (13) light verb constructions, (14) male names,
(15) materials, (16) nationalities, (17) nature, (18) politics, (19) professions, (20) reli-
gions, (21) simple verbs, (22) sports, (23) time, (24) days, (25) Persian months, (26) Dari
months, (27) Islamic months, (28) French months, (29) transport, and (30) war. Entries for
numbered headwords include authentic examples from the corpus, perhaps a signal that
vocabulary work in Persian instructional materials should focus on authentic texts. But,
in a frequency dictionary that focus, appropriate and particularly useful for instructors,
instructional materials developers, and advanced students of Persian, is problematic for
elementary-intermediate students of Persian both because of the possible unfamiliarity
of such readers with much in the authentic examples except for the frequently used word
in question and because authentic examples altogether may not reflect the variety in the
most common Persian phrase and sentence patterns and structures. And, when the authors
observe that “4,000–5,000 most frequent words account for up to 95% of a written text,”
there’s ultimately not much comfort in that fact, as these three examples suggest. First,
although the infinitive phrase “‫ رفتن‬+ ‫ در‬+ ‫جا‬+ ‫ ”از‬/az + jā + dar + raftan/ consists of four
of the most common words in Persian, how does a reader get from recognizing those four
words to discerning the verb’s denotation (i.e., “to get angry”)? Second, how can an inter-
mediate student of Persian confront the word “‫ ”تحمل‬in a text, a word that does not appear
in a reading threshold vocabulary list and that he/she has not seen before, yet automati-
cally know how to pronounce it as well as surmise its denotation in context?5 Third, ditto
for “‫ ”ملی گرایی‬with its four pieces of information?6

185
 Michael Craig Hillmann

• Focusing on vocabulary in one thematic area is Media Persian by Dominic Parviz

Brookshaw (2011, 2014), which presents media vocabulary “grouped . . . within each
chapter . . . in smaller, untitled sub-sections by topic. . . . [S]trict alphabetical order-
ing has been avoided on the whole” because, according to the author, “this is counter-
productive to learning vocabulary lists . . . [:] general, politics and government, elections,
conflict and security, law and order, human rights, economics trade and industry, science
and technology, energy, environment, aid and development culture and sport.” Media
Persian does not use diacritical marks or English transcription as a guide to pronuncia-
tion of Persian terms but offers a link to online audio files to help check pronunciation.
Media Persian does not cite any Persian dictionaries.
• Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi’s What the Persian Media Says: A Coursebook (2015) is a
Persian-only reader for upper-intermediate and advanced students, each of its 30 lessons
featuring an authentic newspaper text, available on the textbook’s website, text subjects
including: national news, international news, politics, opinion, entertainment, arts, eco-
nomics, provincial news, crimes and disasters, social issues, literature, theatre, health,
and books. The lessons present comprehension, headlines, idiomatic expressions, and
vocabulary exercises that focus on the pluralization of 500+ nouns, especially Arabic
loanwords.

9.2  Mini-lesson
­ #1
Classroom and self-study introduction and practice of media vocabulary can begin early on
in an elementary Persian course. Here follows such a lesson, in working with which students
should have access to a recent Persian-English dictionary or a Persian-English glossary of
newspaper terms, as well as an audio file recording of the lesson’s text. The mini-lesson high-
lights what some learners see as the daunting task of Persian vocabulary acquisition and the
utility of learning groups of vocabulary items in context.7
§1.1 Look over this vocabulary list.

to answer (‫َجواب دادن )ده‬ newspaper ‫روزنامه‬

to face, to confront (‫)شو‬
َ ‫روبرو شدن‬ ِ news ‫اطالعات‬ ِّ ِ
to seek, to search (‫ُجستن )جو‬ name ‫اِسم‬
plot, conspiracy ِِ ُ
‫توطئه‬ page ‫صفحه‬ َ
resorting/turning to for help ُّ َ َ
‫توسل‬ publication; publishing ‫انتشار‬ ِ ِ
question ‫ سؤاالت‬.‫سؤال ج‬ issue; number ‫شماره‬ ُ
text ‫ ُمتون‬.‫َمتن ج‬ single issue ‫شماره‬ُ ‫َتک‬
separation, space ‫فاصله‬ ِ date; history ‫تاریخ‬
number quantity) ‫ِتعداد‬ title ‫عنوان‬ ُ
nearness, proximity ‫َنزدیکی‬ headline ‫صفحه‬
َ ‫سر‬َ ‫عنوان‬
ِ ُ
distance, remoteness ‫دوری‬ price, cost ‫قیمت‬
َ ِ
means of doing sth ‫ی کار‬ِ ‫َوسیله‬ word ‫کلمه‬ ََ
under consideration َ َ ‫مورد‬
‫نظر‬ ِ ِ ُ phrase ‫عبارت‬
َ ِ
what person ‫چه َکسی‬ sentence ‫ُجمله‬
best ‫بهترین‬ َ ِ paragraph ‫پاراگراف‬
for ( prep) ‫برای‬
ِ َ article ‫َمقاله‬
about, concerning ( prep) ‫ی‬
ِ ‫َدرباره‬ meaning ‫َمعنی‬

186
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

§1.2 Read these two sentences, and then listen to a reading or recording of them while read-
ing along. Look up still unfamiliar words on the foregoing list. Then follow the directions in
the second sentence, looking up still unfamiliar words in the text.

.‫اول آن‬
ِ ّ ‫عنوان سرصفحه ی‬
ِ ُ ‫شماره ای از یک روزنامه و‬ ّ ِ ِ ‫متن درس یک‬
ُ ‫اطالعاتی است درباره ی‬ ِ
.‫زیر متن َجواب بدهید‬
ِ ‫متن را بخوانید و به سؤاالت‬
____________________
‫روزنامه ابرار‬
۱۹۹۶ ‫ ژانویه‬۱۱ – ۱۴۱۶ ‫شعبان‬ َ ۱۹ – ۱۳۷۴ ‫ دی‬۲۱ ‫پنجشنبه‬
۲۰۸۴ ‫شماره‬
‫ صفحه‬۱۲
‫ لایر‬۲۰۰ ‫تک شماره‬
_____________________________
‫قرآن کریم بهترین ابزار‬
ِ ‫ توسل به‬:‫رئیس جمهور‬
(۲ ‫برای رویارویی با توطئه هاست )مقاله در صفحه‬
‫اسم روزنامه؟‬ ۱
_____________________________ َ َ ‫مورد‬
‫نظر؟‬ ِ ِ ِ ‫تاریخ‬
ِ ُ ‫انتشار روزنامه ی‬ ۲
_____________________________ ‫شماره ی روزنامه ی مورد نظر؟‬ ۳
_____________________________ ‫صفحه های روزنامه؟‬ َ ‫تعداد‬
ِ ِ ۴
_____________________________ ‫قیمت َتک شماره ی روزنامه؟‬ ِ َ ِ ۵
_____________________________ ‫چند روزنامه است ؟‬
ِ ‫نظر روزنامه در صفحه ی‬ ِ ‫مورد‬
ِ ِ ُ ‫َمقاله ی‬ ۶
_____________________________ ‫مقاله ی مورد نظر درباره ی چه َکسی است؟‬ ۷
_____________________________ ِ ُ ‫روبرو شدن با‬
‫توطئه ها چیست؟‬ ِ ‫بهترین َوسیله ی کار برای‬ ۸
‫❒ نزدیکی ُجستن ❒ دوری جستن ❒ فاصله جستن‬ ‫سل“ چه َمعنی می دهد )✗(؟‬ ُّ ‫کلمه ی ”تََو‬ ۹

• As for a comprehensive theme-based guide to Persian vocabulary, there is A Thematic

Dictionary of Modern Persian (2004, 2010) by Colin Turner, which offers vocabulary lists
with English transcriptions of Persian headwords of these “Themed Sections”: Air Travel,
Animals, Art and Architecture, Astronomy, Biology, Birds and Insects, The Calendar, Cars
and Driving, Chemistry, Clothes, Colors, Computing, Countries of the World, The Coun-
tryside, Crime and Punishment, Economics Trade and Finance, Education, The Environ-
ment, The Family, Farming, Feelings and Relationships, Festivals and Commemorations,
Fish, Flowers and Plants, Food and Drink, Free Time, Fruit, Geographical Features, Geol-
ogy, Grammar, Greetings and Interjections, Health and Disease, Herbs and Vegetables,
At the Hotel, The House, Household Furniture, The Human Body, Industry and Develop-
ment, Information and Services, International Relations, Islam, In the Kitchen, Language
and Linguistics, Literature, Materials, Mathematics, The Media, Military Affairs, Music,
Numbers (Cardinal), Numbers (Ordinal), Office and School Equipment, Personal Char-
acteristics, Personal Effects, Philosophy, Physics, Politics, Psychology, Religions of the
World, At the Seaside, Shops and Shopping, Sociology, Sounds, Sport, Stage and Screen,
Time, Tools, In the Town, Train Travel, Transport, Trees, Weather and Meteorology, Work
and Professions. It includes an “Index of English Words.” A comparison of Turner’s “Lit-
erature” list with a dictionary of literary terms by a literature expert, which cites fre-
quency of usage of Persian equivalents for English terms, suggests that Turner may not
have referred to technical dictionaries or literary critical writing in deciding on specific
Persian equivalents for English terms.

187
 Michael Craig Hillmann

In the classroom use of theme-based guides to Persian vocabulary, role model exercises
focusing on specifics of the lives of adult American learners of Persian reveal that the follow-
ing are among many situations and subjects that come up repeatedly in conversation: talking
about family, making plans, talking about feeling unwell, asking personal questions, nego-
tiating classroom life and activities, negotiating a language textbook, describing one’s daily
routine, telling one’s life story, describing one’s job, talking about Persian poems, talking
about movies, talking about Iranian politics, talking about Islam in Iran, talking about Iranian
culture, and talking about computers and the online world.

9.3  Mini-lesson
­ #2
Here follows part of an elementary-level lesson on daily activities.8 The lesson might begin with
review of a list of verbs that relate to predictable daily activities, for example, these random verb
infinitives. An asterisk appears after specifically colloquial/spoken [‫ُگفتاری‬/‫ ] ُمحاوره ای‬forms.9

to chat with colleagues ‫َگپ زدن با َهمكاران‬

to check e-mail ‫اى ِمیل ِچك كردن‬
to eat lunch ‫ناهار خوردن‬
to leave the office ‫ِاداره را َترك كردن‬
to go to the gym ‫ورزشى رفتن‬
ِ َ ‫باشگاه‬
ِ
to watch television ‫ِتلویزیون ِنگاه كردن‬
to drop by a bar ‫سر زدن به بار‬َ
to read a book (*‫ِكتاب خوندن* )خون‬
to go home (*‫خونه* َرفتن )ر‬

The lesson might proceed with a monologue or dialogue (and translation) for listening and
reading. The lesson might then introduce typical, relevant questions and answers.
§2.1 Read the following pairs of questions and answers, using the translations to resolve
questions about meaning.

What time do you get up in the morning? ‫ساعت َچن ُ َبلن میشین؟‬
ِ َ ‫صبا‬
ُ ‫شما‬ ُ .۱
I usually get up at 7 o’clock. .‫میشم‬
َ ‫ساعت َهفت پا‬ َ ً ‫َمعموال‬
When do you go to the office? ‫ِكى میرین ِاداره؟‬ .۲
I leave the house at 7:45 ‫ساعت ِیك ُربع به َهشت َاز خونه میام بیرون‬ ِ َ
and get to the office by 8:30. .‫میرسم ِاداره‬
َ ِ ‫نیم‬ ‫و‬ ‫هشت‬ َ ‫ساعت‬
ِ َ ‫و‬
How many hours a day do you work? ‫چن ساعت در روز كار مى كنین؟‬ .۳
I work eight hours. .‫هشت ساعت كار مى كنم‬
When do you usually eat lunch? ‫ناهارو معموالً ِكى میخورین؟‬ .۴
I’m really busy these days ،‫شلوغه‬ ُ ‫وحشتناك‬
َ َ ‫سرم‬ َ َ ‫این روزها‬
so I don’t get to lunch until 1 o’clock or 1:30 .‫ یك و نیم نِمیرسم به ناهار‬،‫واسه همین تا ساعت یک‬
I can’t work when I’m hungry. ‫گرسنگى نمى تونم كار كنم‬ ِ ُ ُ ‫من با‬
There’s nothing I can do about it sometimes. .‫َبعضى َوقتا چاره اى نیست‬
Until what time do you-2 work ‫عصرها تا چه ساعتى كار می كنید؟‬ ُ
َ ‫شما‬ .۵
in the late afternoons?
I usually work until 5 o’clock or 5:30. .‫ پنج و نیم كار میكنم‬،‫ساعت َپنج‬
ِ ‫معموالً تا‬
Where do you go after that? ‫بعدش ُكجا میرین؟‬ِ .۶
I go straight home ‫یه راست میرم خونه‬
because I eat dinner early. .‫چون معموالً زود شام میخورم‬

188
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

What do you-2 do after dinner? ‫ بعد از شام چیكار میكنین؟‬.۷

I watch television or read a book. .‫تلویزیون نگاه مى كنم یا كتاب میخونم‬
When do you-2 go to bed at nights? ‫ شبا ِكى میخوابین؟‬.۸
During the week at 11 o’clock. .‫طول هفته ساعت یازده‬ِ ‫در‬
Only on Friday and Saturday nights ‫شب یك شنبه‬
ِ ‫شب شنبه و‬ ِ ‫فقط‬
do I go to bed a little later. .‫یك كم دیرتر میخوابم‬
What do you do on those nights? ‫ اون شبا چیكار مى كنى؟‬.۹
Usually we’re at a party or we have guests. .‫معموالً یا ِمهمونى هستیم یا مهمون داریم‬

§2.2 Now read each question with a partner who reads the answer. Read the text again
reversing roles.
§2.3 Review the questions and think of factual answers reflecting your own situation. Look
up any needed Persian words in your English-Persian dictionary.
§2.4 Again with a partner, practice the questions and answers with information reflecting
your actual daily activities.

*****

• Phrasebooks are another situational or theme-based vocabulary resource, Lonely Planet’s

Farsi (Persian) Phrasebook and Dictionary (2014) by Davar Dehghani likely the most
readily available. Designed for (European?) travelers to Iran, it features these sections:
meeting people, getting around, accommodation, around town, going out, family, inter-
ests, social issues, shopping, food, in the country, health, specific needs, times, dates,
and festivals, numbers and amounts, and emergencies, followed by English-Persian and
Persian “dictionaries of 2,700+ and 920+ entries,” respectively.
• Easy Persian Phrasebook: Essential Expressions for Communicating in Persian (2014) by
Reza Nazari treats the colloquial/spoken register and presents Perso-Arabic and English
transcriptions. Subject/situation categories include quick reference for the basics, greet-
ings, introductions, jobs, invitations, praise and gratitude, requests, feeling and blessings,
weather, time and dates, numbers, sports, colors, animals, insects, flowers, body, coun-
tries, nationalities, and languages; traveling, booking tips, flight registration, on the plane,
train, bus, boat, taxi, bus, subway, car rental, driving, parking, at the service station, out
of order; communication means: post office, telephone, internet; eating: fruits/vegetables,
spices, seafood, meat, grocery, drinks, at the restaurant; shopping – finance: clothing,
accessories, electronics, jewelry, books, in the office; sightseeing: tourist information,
entertainment, movies, theater, at the museum, camping, at the beach, countryside; health
and beauty care: drugstore, pain, seeing a doctor, dentists, hair salon; emergencies: acci-
dents, police.

Except for grouping vocabulary according to situations, subjects, and themes, theme-based
Persian glossaries, phrasebooks, and learner’s dictionaries may not directly “teach” vocabu-
lary, but Persian instructors can easily develop reading, listening, and speaking lessons around
sections and situations in such guides.

• Jane Adelson-Goldstein and Norma Shapiro’s English/Farsi Oxford Picture Dictionary:

Second Edition (2009) is a useful ancillary resource with its everyday topics sections and
illustrations of 4,000+ words and expressions.

189
 Michael Craig Hillmann

9.4  Mini-lesson
­ #3
Here is a sample, elementary- (beginning) level, audio motor unit, a sort of activity designed
to help develop listening skills that can concomitantly serve vocabulary acquisition and rein-
forcement aims.
§3.1 After listening to and watching your instructor identify the following classroom
objects, execute his/her commands to point to specific objects. Then ask classmates to execute
the commands.

. . . .‫ تخته سیاه‬. . . ‫ کف اتاق‬. . . ‫ سقف‬. . . ‫ پنجره‬. . . ‫ در‬. . . ‫با دست اشاره کنید به دیوار‬
blackboard . . . classroom floor . . . ceiling . . . window . . . door . . . wall
. . . ‫پریز برق‬
ِ ِ . . . ‫کلید برق‬
ِ . . . ‫ چراغ‬. . . ‫میز معلم‬
ِ . . . ‫صندلی معلم‬
electric socket . . . light switch . . . lamp/light . . . teacher’s table . . . teacher’s chair
. . . ‫سطل آشغال‬ َ . . . ‫هواکش‬
ِ َ . . . (‫)پروژکتور‬
ِ ُ ‫ َپرده‬. . . ‫کامپیوتر‬
ِ . . . ‫ نقشه‬. . . ‫پنکه‬
trash can . . . air vent . . . projection screen . . . computer . . . map . . . fan
. . . ‫کتاب درسیتون‬
ِ . . . ‫سیم برق‬
ِ . . . ‫ پرده کرکره‬. . . ‫پرده‬
your textbook . . . electric cord . . . blinds . . . curtain

§3.2 After listening to and watching your instructor perform the following actions, execute
his/her commands by performing those actions. Then ask classmates to execute the commands.

Say “hello.” .‫بگین سالم‬ .۱

Stand/get up. َُ
.‫بلن شین‬/.‫شین‬ ‫پا‬ .۲
Go to the blackboard. .‫برین جلوی َتخته سیاه‬ .۳
Write your name on the blackboard. .‫اسمتونو روی تخته سیا ِ ِبنویسین‬ ِ .۴
Go to the window. .‫طرف پنجره‬ِ ‫ِبرین به‬ .۵
Open the window. .‫پنجره رو باز ُکنین‬ .۶
Shut/close the blinds. .‫کرکره رو ِببندین‬ ِ ِ (‫)پرده‬ .۷
Turn off the lights. .‫ِچراغارو خاموش کنین‬ .۸
Turn the lights on again. .‫چراغارو دوباره ُروشن کنین‬ .۹
Go to the window. .‫پنجره‬
َ َ ‫برین به طرف‬ .۱۰
Go back to your seat/place. .‫برگردین جاتون‬ َ َ .۱۱
Go to the door. ِ َ َ ‫ِبرین‬
.‫طرف در‬ .۱۲
Leave the room and come back in. /biyāyn tu/. .‫از اتاق ِبرین بیرون و دوباره بیاین تو‬ .۱۳
Say “good-bye.” .‫بگین خداحافظ‬ .۱۴

*****

General Persian dictionaries, as well, do not teach vocabulary, but they often offer authentic
Persian texts in their illustrations of uses of headwords. And facility in their use seems indis-
pensable in developing reading competence and in maintaining and expanding command of
passive vocabulary. It so happens that, since the mid-1970s, Persian lexicography in Iran has
expanded dramatically and expertly. Reliable dictionaries now exist in many specialized and
technical fields and domains, among them agriculture, animal husbandry, Arabic loanwords,
archaeology, architecture, art, astronomy, banking, biology, business, oriental carpets (Per-
sian), chemical engineering, chemistry, cinema, civil engineering, computer science, dialects,
earth sciences, economics, electricity, electronics, engineering, environment, European loan-
words, geography, geology and mines, geophysics, health and hygiene, industrial engineer-
ing, journalism, law, linguistics, literature, management, materials, mathematics, mechanical

190
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

engineering, medicine, metallurgy, meteorology, military affairs, mining engineering, moun-

tain climbing, music, names (male and female), nursing, nutrition, painting, philosophy, pho-
netics, photography, physical education/sports, physics, political science, politics, proverbs,
psychology, psychiatry, pure Persian, railroad, religion, science and technology, slang, sociol-
ogy, statistics, and veterinary medicine.
Now, most specialized/technical Persian dictionaries published in Iran are primarily Eng-
lish to Persian, designed to familiarize their Iranian readers with English vocabulary in techni-
cal fields. But, because most of these dictionaries usually contain at least a Persian-English
vocabulary list or glossary and because some specialized/technical dictionaries are Persian-
English or have parallel Persian-English and English-Persian sections, specialized/technical
Persian dictionaries also meet the needs of English-speaking, general learners and readers
of Persian and instructional materials developers designing lessons focusing on vocabulary.
Moreover, because of the outdatedness and other inadequacies of most hardcopy, general
Persian-English dictionaries, English-speaking Persian experts and learners can supplement
coverage in their Persian-English dictionaries through access to specialized/technical Persian
dictionaries in subjects of interest.
Of course, the most useful dictionaries for elementary and intermediate, English-speaking
students of Persian are Persian-English and English-Persian dictionaries of bookish/written
[‫نوشتاری‬/‫کتابی‬
ِِ ِ ] Persian, which learners can use even for colloquial/spoken [‫گفتاری‬/‫ای‬ ُ ‫]محاوره‬
ُ
Persian forms heard or seen once they learn the basic differences between the two registers
of Persian.10 For advanced students of Persian, abridged and unabridged Persian-Persian dic-
tionaries are particularly important. And Persian-Persian and Persian-English dictionaries of
colloquial/spoken and slang registers of Persian have their place on the shelves of students of
Persian and Persianists. Parenthetically, memorization of the Persian alphabet in alphabetical
order and perhaps also in reverse order is not child’s play, but rather essential for efficient dic-
tionary use, not primarily in locating the letter with which a word begins but rather in locating
letters within words.

*****

At every stage or level of Persian study and Persian use by English-speaking learners, those
learners think of something they want to say or write but do not know the relevant equivalent
Persian word or expression. Here follow brief descriptions of four English-Persian
­ dictionar-
ies likely on or near the desks of most Persianists.

• The most popular English-Persian dictionary over the years has arguably been Haïm’s
The One-Volume English-Persian Dictionary (1993, 2002 [1st paperback edition], 700 p.).
40,000 entries. Outdated, but still useful when supplemented with lists or glossaries of
newer (post-1970s) words; one also needs a Persian-Persian or Persian-English dictionary
for pronunciation of Persian words.
• The most readily available English-Persian dictionary in the English-speaking world is
likely the first half of The Combined New Persian-English and English-Persian Diction-
ary by Abbas and Manoochehr Aryanpur Kashani (1986). Outdated and not error-free but
still useful, especially if supplemented with word lists or glossaries of post-early 1970s)
words.
• Among 21st-century one-volume English-Persian dictionaries, at least three stand out.
First is Farhang Moaser One-Volume English-Persian Millennium Dictionary by Ali
Mohammad Haghshenas et al. (2005). A second is Pooya English-Persian Dictionary,

191
 Michael Craig Hillmann

Two Volumes in One (2008) by Mohammad Reza Bateni and assistants. Then there is,
among other “Aryanpur” dictionaries, The Aryanpur Progressive English-Persian Dic-
tionary: One Volume, Concise (2005/6, 29th printing) by Manuchehr Aryanpur Kashani
with Bahram Delgoshaei.
• Manuchehr Aryanpur Kashani, The Aryanpur Progressive English-Persian Diction-
ary: Four Volumes, Comprehensive (2004) is the most readily available comprehensive
English-Persian dictionary.

9.5  Mini-lesson
­ #4
Here is an exercise based on entries in the One-Volume Millennium English-Persian Diction-
ary and Pooya English-Persian Dictionary: Two Volumes in One.
§4.1 Match the following English words and phrases with sample Persian equivalents and
definitions following.

1 advertise  9 mass communication media

2 advertisement 10 medium
3 advertiser 11 technical
4 advertising 12 technicality
5 communicate 13 technically
6 communication 14 technician
7 communications network 15 technique
8 communicator 16 technology
‫شارحِ َتردست‬ ِ ،‫فصیح‬ َ ‫آدم‬
ِ ،‫بیان‬ ‫روشن‬
َ ُ ‫آدم‬
َِ ___
‫ ِاعالن كننده‬،‫آگهى دهنده‬ ___
‫ َتبلیغ‬،‫ اعالن‬،‫آگهى‬ ___
‫اهمیت‬
ّ ّ ‫جزئیات بى‬
ِ ّ ‫ ُنكته ی‬،‫فنى‬
ُ ،‫فنى‬ ّ َ ِ‫اصطالح‬ ِ ِ ___
‫ ِاظهار كردن‬،‫ آگاهانیدن از‬،‫اطالع دادن‬ ِّ ِ ___
‫راه ارتباط‬ِ ،‫ َتماس‬،‫ارتباط‬ ِ ِ ،‫ رساندن‬،‫انتقال‬ ِ ِ ___
‫چارچوب َقوانین‬
ِ ّ ‫نظر‬
‫ در‬،‫فنى‬ ِ ‫ از‬،‫فنى‬ ّ ‫لحاظ‬
ِ ‫به‬ ___
‫ اعالن كردن‬،‫ آگهى كردن‬،‫تبلیغ كردن‬ ___
‫كار تبلیغات‬ِ ،‫صنعت تبلیغات‬ َ ،‫تبلیغات‬ ___
‫شبكه ی ارتباطات‬ ََ ___
ّ ،‫ ِتكنیك‬،‫ راهكار‬،‫روش‬
‫فن‬ ِ َ ،‫شیوه‬ ___
ّ ،‫ تكنولوژى‬،‫فن ِشناسى‬
‫فناورى‬ ّ ___
‫تخصصى‬ ُّ َ َ ،‫صنعتى‬ ،‫فنى‬ ّ ___
‫ ِتكنیسین‬،‫ َفناور‬،‫متخصص‬ ِّ ُ َ َ ___
‫ َرسانه هاى ُگروهى‬،‫ارتباطات جمعى‬ ِ ‫وسایل‬
ِ ِ َ ___
‫ رسانه‬،‫واسطه‬ِ ،‫طریق‬ َ ،‫ َابزار‬،‫وسیله‬ ___

*****

• ­
The most popular among Persian-English dictionaries over the years has arguably been
Solayman Haïm’s The One-Volume Persian-English Dictionary, its 1963 incarnation a
book that never left my side in Mashhad. It contains 22,500 entries and is outdated but
still useful if supplemented with lists or glossaries of (post-1960s) words.
• The most readily available Persian-English dictionary in the English-speaking world
is likely the second half of The Combined New Persian-English and English-Persian

192
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

Dictionary by Abbas and Manoochehr Aryanpur Kashani (Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Pub-
lishers, 1986). Outdated and not error-free but still useful, especially if supplemented with
word lists or glossaries lists of post-early 1970s words, e.g., “‫ ِگرا‬. . . ”/ . . . gerā/ and
“. . . ‫”گرایی‬/
ِ . . . gerāyi/ words for “. . . ists” and “. . . isms.”
• Among more recent one-volume Persian-English dictionaries, two seem to have some-
what wide circulation. First is Kimia Persian-English Dictionary (2006) by Karim
Emami, which includes some colloquial/spoken [‫گفتاری‬/‫ای‬ ُ ‫محاوره‬
ِ ُ ] and slang [‫ ]عامیانه‬words
and expressions, marked as such, among its 20,000+ headwords. Second is The Aryanpur
Progressive Persian-English Dictionary: One Volume, Concise (2007, 7th printing) by
Manoochehr Aryanpur Kashani with Seyyed Mostafa Assi.

9.6  Mini-lesson
­ #5
Here is a mini-lesson that introduces terms useful in talking about and reading Persian diction-
aries and presents a text illustrating dictionary vocabulary.
§5.1 Study the following list of words and phrases on the subject of dictionaries. Then
check your Persian-English dictionary to gauge any coverage limitations.

dictionary ‫فرهنگِ ُلغات‬ َ َ

monolingual dictionary ‫فرهنگِ ِیك َزبانه‬ َ َ
two-directional dictionary, e.g., E-P, P-E ‫فرهنگِ دوسویه‬ َ َ
bilingual dictionary ‫دوزبانه‬ َ ِ‫فرهنگ‬ َ َ
specialized dictionary ‫اختصاصى‬ ِ ِ ِ‫فرهنگ‬ َ َ
reverse sort dictionary ‫فرهنگِ زانسو‬ َ َ
lexicography ‫فرهنگْ ِنگارى‬ َ
َ ،‫فرهنگْ ِنویسى‬ َ َ
headword ‫سرمدخل‬ َ َ َ
denotation ‫صریح‬ َ ‫معنى‬ ِ َ ،‫َمعنى‬
entry ‫مدخل‬ َ َ
connotation ‫ضمنى‬ ِ ِ َ ‫معنى‬
spelling ‫ِامالء‬
association – association of ideas ‫تداعى َمعانى‬ِ َ ‫تداعى‬ َ
pronunciation ‫تلفظ‬ ُّ َ َ
explanatory symbol alāmát-e towzihí ‫عالمت ُتوضىیحى‬ ِ َ َ
part of speech ‫ َمقوله ی َنحوى‬،‫ ُنوعِ َكلمه‬،‫كلمه‬ ِ َ ‫قسم‬ ِ ِ
abbreviation symbol . . . ekhtesārí ‫اختصارى‬ ِ ِ ‫عالمت‬ َ َ
word root – source/origin ‘mabdá’, manshá ‫ َمنشأ‬،‫كلمه – َمبدأ‬ ِ َ ‫ریشه ی‬
proper name ‫اسم خاص‬ ِ
approximate equivalent ‫معادل َتقریبى‬ ِ ِ ُ
definition ‫َتعریف‬
semantic arena/environment howzéh ‫حوزه ی َمعنایى‬
synonym – antonym ‫متضاد‬ َ ُ – ‫مترادف‬ ِ َُ
stress/accent mark(er) ta(e)kyé َ
‫عالمت تكیه‬ ِ َ
example, illustration ‫ ِمثال‬،‫ِنمونه‬
background information ‫اطالعات َزمینه اى‬ ِ ِّ ِ

§5.2 The generic subordinating conjunction “‫ ”كه‬can introduce relative clauses, as in these
two examples. Note that an unstressed /i/ sound, written “‫”ى‬, appears at the end of the word
about which the relative clause gives information.

193
 Michael Craig Hillmann

ِ ِ .۱
esm-e­ ketābi keh ‫اسم ِكتابى كه دیروز میخواندید چه بود؟‬
What was the name of the book you were reading yesterday?
be ketābi keh .‫به كتابى كه واژه هاى یك زبان را همراه با معنى آنها نقل مى كند ”فرهنگ“ مى گویند‬.۲
They call a book that reports on the words of a language together with their meanings a “dictionary.”
§5.3 Look over the following partial dictionary entry for the word “‫”فرهنگ‬, which denotes
both “dictionary” and “culture.” Using the previously list, underscore dictionary terms in the
text that appear on the list.
‫ فرهنگ‬farháng ‫معنى آنها به َهمان‬ ِ َ ‫هاى یك َزبان را َهمراه با‬ ِ ‫( ِكتابى كه واژه‬۱) .(‫)اِسم‬
َ ُ ‫ترتیب َ ِالفبایى َنقل مى‬
‫كند و‬ ِ َ ‫ َمعموالً به‬،‫دیگر‬
َ ‫ یا واژه هاى ِیك زبان را به زبانى‬،‫زبان‬
َ
‫خواننده‬ ‫جز آنها به‬
ِ ُ ‫ و‬،‫كلمه‬ ِ َ ‫ ریشه ی‬،‫هویت َدستورى‬ ُّ َ َ ‫معموالً آگاهى هایى َدرباره ی‬
ِ َ ِ ُ ،‫تلفظ‬
‫( كتابى كه در آن واژه‬۲) .‫ فرهنگ معین ُمعین‬،‫ فرهنگ بزرگ سخن‬:‫ قاموس‬،‫لغت نامه‬ َ ُ .‫دهد‬
َ َ ‫مى‬
ُ
.”‫شرح داده شده است‬ َ ‫دانش یا ُموضوعِ خاصى‬ ِ ‫هاى َمربوط به ِرشته اى از‬ ِ
§5.4 Using data from the foregoing text, answer these questions.
____________________ (1) ‫كلمه مى َتوان در فرهنگِ ُلغات‬ ِ َ ‫مورد یك‬
ِ ِ ُ ‫اطالعاتى را در‬ّ ِ ِ ‫چه ُنوع‬ .۱
‫ِپیدا كرد؟‬
___________________ (4) ___________________ (3) ___________________ (2)
What sorts of information about a given word can one find in a dictionary?
______________________________ ‫اهمیت دارد؟‬ َّ ّ ِ َ َ ‫( ”فرهنگ“ چه چیزى‬2) ‫تعریف دوم‬ ِ ‫در‬ .۲
In the second definition of “dictionary,” what has particular importance?
________________________ ‫“ به فارسى چه مى شود؟‬a branch/field of knowledge” ‫ت‬ ِ ‫ار‬ َ ‫ِعب‬ .۳
What’s the Persian equivalent for the English phrase “a field/branch of knowledge”?
____________ _____________ .‫مترادف با كلمه ی ”فرهنگ“ در متن باال پیدا كنید‬ ِ َ ُ ‫كلمه ی‬ ِ َ ‫دو‬ .۴
Find two synonyms for the word /farhang/ in the foregoing text.
_____________________________ .‫زبان فارسى را نام ببرید‬ ِ ‫اختصاصى‬
ِ ِ ِ ‫لغات‬
ِ ِ‫یك ُنوع فرهنگ‬ .۵
Name one sort of specialized Persian dictionary.

§5.5 Use this translation to resolve questions about meaning in the foregoing text.
Dictionary. (1) A book which recounts the words of one language together with their
meanings in the same language or the words of one language in another language, usually
in alphabetical order, and which usually gives readers information about pronunciation,
grammatical identity, word origin, and the like. loghatnāmeh, qāmus: Sokhan Unabridged
Dictionary, Mo’in’s Persian Dictionary. (2) A book in which words pertaining to a field
of knowledge of a special(ized) subject have been explained: Dictionary of Economics.

*****

Theme-based Persian learner’s dictionaries, glossaries, phrase books, and frequency lists
highlight the utility of threshold reading, listening, and speaking word lists in the design of
instructional materials and ancillary materials in elementary Persian courses. In that regard,
specialized non-technical Persian dictionaries, that is, dictionaries treating specific areas
of Persian or Persian from a specific perspective, can also serve as valuable resources in
teaching/learning vocabulary; for example, thesauri, reverse-sort dictionaries, dictionar-
ies of Arabic loanwords in Persian, pronunciation dictionaries of proper names, dictionar-
ies of onomatopoeic lexical items and phrases in Persian, dictionaries of “pure” Persian
words, and dictionaries of neologisms. Among such resources, a reverse-sort dictionary and

194
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

a dictionary of Arabic loanwords would appear the most useful for vocabulary acquisition
and expansion.

• Khosrow Keshani’s Dictionnaire inverse de la langue persane/Farhang-e Fārsi-ye Zānsu

[Reverse Order/Sort Persian Dictionary] (1993) offers readers examples of the sorts of
word-ending elements to allow them to reach working generalizations about suffixes, verb
stems, and other verb parts, and words that combine with pre-final elements. Mini-lesson
#11 reviews uses of the letter yeh “‫ ”ى‬in word-final position, perhaps the most important
word-ending element that a reverse-sort dictionary would highlight.
• Sayyed Mohammad Nahvi’s Farhang-e Risheh’i-ye Vām’vāzheh-hā-ye ‘Arabi yā Loghāt-e
‘Arabi-ye Mosta’mal dar Fārsi [Dictionary of the Roots of Arabic Loanwords or Arabic
Words Used in Persian] (1989) is an easy-to-use guide in an Arabic dictionary style (i.e.,
entries appear in alphabetical order according to triliteral root systems presented at head-
words) that can help learners get passive control of family groups of vocabulary items,
rather than dealing with related words one at a time.

*****

The most important dictionary resources for students of Persian and potentially the richest
source for vocabulary acquisition, maintenance, and expansion are general Persian-Persian­
dictionaries that define and illustrate headwords within the context of Persian itself. The una-
bridged Loghat’nāmeh-ye Dehkhodā and the slightly abridged Farhang-e Mo‘in remain the
best-known Persian-Persian dictionaries and standard resources for texts predating the 1970s.
As for Persian-Persian dictionary coverage into the 21st century, Farhang-e­ Bozorg-Sokhan ­
[Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary] and Farhang Moaser’s Farhang’nāmeh-ye Fārsi:
Vāzhgān va A‘lām [Persian Encyclopedical Dictionary: Lexicon and Proper Names] provide
reliable coverage.

• Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary includes headwords from “everyday conversation.”

According to Chief Editor Anvari: The examples and citations are quoted from the works
of 800 authors and poets, resulting in over 80,000 main entries, 40,000 sub-entries, and
170,000 examples and citations. These include the Persian word sources as well as exam-
ples and citations covering a period of twelve centuries.11
• Farhang’nāmeh-ye Fārsi: Vāzhgān va A‘lām [Persian Encyclopedical Dictionary:
Lexicon and Proper Names], 3 volumes (2009/10, 3,021 p.) by Gholāmhosayn Sadri
Afshār, Nasrin Hakami, and Nastaran Hakami, features verb past stems and verb parti-
ciples as headwords, but no present stem headwords. It concludes with a Bibliography
that lists upwards of 200 dictionaries on the subject of, or otherwise relevant to, the
study of Persian vocabulary.
• The just cited two dictionaries are indispensable for Persianists, while for everyday
carry-with use, Farhang-e­ Mo‘āser-e Fārsi [Contemporary Persian Dictionary], 4th
edition (2004) by Gholāmhosayn Sadri Afshār, Nasrin Hakami, and Nastaran Hakami
includes among its headwords a comprehensive list of prefixes, infixes, and suffixes,
words and phrases from popular culture and entertainment media, and the colloquial/
spoken register of Persian. But, it does not list verb present or past stems unless consti-
tuting lexical items in their own right or unless they serve as word-final components of
multi-part words.

195
 Michael Craig Hillmann

9.7  Mini-lesson
­ #6
Thinking of already familiar Persian words and looking them up in Sokhan Comprehensive
Dictionary or Persian Encyclopedical Dictionary: Lexicon and Proper Names makes for a use-
ful vocabulary building and reinforcement exercise. The activity, repeated regularly, exposes
learners to Persian definitions of familiar words, synonyms of those words, and authentic
illustrations of them. Scanning headwords preceding and following a word in question often
introduces words and phrases related to that word.
َ ِ َ [to be able] in Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary and
§6.1 Look up the verb infinitive “‫”توانستن‬
read the entry. Use your Persian-English dictionary to check the meanings of a few of the unfamil-
iar words in the entry. Reread the entry. Scan the headwords above and below the word in question.
§6.2 Look up the word “‫”خدا‬ ُ [god, God] in Persian Encyclopedical Dictionary and read the
entry. Use your Persian-English dictionary to check the meanings of a few of the unfamiliar
words in the entry. Reread the entry. Then scan the (50+) headwords beneath “‫”خدا‬ ُ to appreci-
ate how prefixes, suffixes, verb stems and other parts, and other words combine with it.
§6.3 To facilitate use of Persian-Persian dictionaries, find and regularly look at a Persian-
English list of Persian grammar terms.12

• Cited Persian-Persian dictionaries treat literary [‫]ادبی‬ َ َ and bookish/written [‫نوشتاری‬/‫کتابی‬

ِِ ِ ]
registers of the language, leaving the colloquial/spoken [‫گفتاری‬/‫ای‬ُ ‫محاوره‬
ِ ُ ] and slang [‫]عامیانه‬
registers untouched. Abolhasan Najafi’s comprehensive Farhang-e Fārsi-ye ‘Āmiyāneh
[Colloquial/Slang Persian Dictionary] (1999/2000) presents thousands of authentic exam-
ples of headwords and headword phrases taken from 110+ prose works written between
1921 and the 1990s by writers born in Tehran.
• Among dictionary resources for oral, as opposed to written, colloquial/slang Persian, Mehdi
Samā‘i’s Farhang-e Loghāt-e Zabān-e Makhfi [A Persian Dictionary of Argot (lit: secret lan-
guage)] (2003), which treats the slang of young people in Tehran, is a modest sample among a
score of guides to Persian slang of various sorts.13 As useful as such guides may prove as occa-
sional resources, they may not figure significantly in high-frequency vocabulary acquisition.

9.8  Mini-lesson
­ #7
As an illustration of the use of dictionary entries in Persian reading activities, here follows a
sample reading unit called “A Dictionary Definition of Culture,” adapted from Gholāmrezā
Ensāfpur’s Kāmel Farhang-e Fārsi [Comprehensive Persian Dictionary] (1994), which
reminds readers that familiarity with Iranian culture plays an important role in reading compe-
tence at the intermediate/advanced level of Persian study.
§7.1 Read this list of Persian verb infinitives. Then scan the Persian text below for finite
verb forms or noun/adjective words derived from the verb infinitives. Infinitives appear on the
list in the order in which their related forms appear in the text.
to know sth – knowledge ‫دانش‬
ِ – (‫دانستن )دان‬ َ ِ
to build – urban development, city planning – tool ‫شهرسازی – اَبزارسازی‬ َ – (‫ساختن )ساز‬
making
to learn; to teach – teaching, instruction; education ‫آموزش‬
ِ َ
– (‫آموختن )آموز‬
to raise, to nourish – nurturing, rearing; training, ‫پرورش‬
ِ َ َ – (‫)پرور‬ ‫پروردن‬ َ َ
development
to go – method ‫روش‬ِ َ – (‫)رو‬
َ ‫َرفتن‬
to wear; to put on clothes – clothing ‫پوشیدن )پوش( – پوشاک‬ َ
196
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

to eat; to drink – food ‫خوردن )خور( – ُخوراک‬ َ ُ

to see – point of view, viewpoint ‫دیدن )بین( – دیدگاه‬ َ
to know sb; to recognize – anthropology ‫)شناس( – ِانسان ِشناسی‬ َ ِ
ِ ‫شناختن‬
to create – created; creature ِ َ – (‫)آفرین‬
‫آفریده‬ َ ‫آفریدن‬
َ َ
to live – nonliving ‫غیر زیستی‬ِ ِ – (‫)زی‬ َ
‫زیستن‬
to transfer َ َ ‫منتقل‬
‫کردن‬ َِ ُ
to pay; to undertake – theoreticians ِ َ َ – (‫)پرداز‬
‫نظریه َپردازان‬ َ
َ ‫پرداختن‬ َ
to designate; to appoint; to determine – decisive ِ َ ُ ‫کردن – َتعیین‬
‫کننده‬ َ َ ‫َتعیین‬

§7.2 Now scan the text below for the Persian equivalents of these English words and
phrases. The words and phrases appear on the list in the order in which they appear in the text.

1 architectural style(s) ..................................................

2 urban development, city planning ..................................................
3 education ..................................................
4 anthropological viewpoint ..................................................
5 theoreticians ..................................................
6 tool making ..................................................
7 distinction, distinctiveness ..................................................
8 mammals ..................................................
§7.2.1 Find any Persian terms on this answer list that you could not find in the text.
‫ ِپستانداران‬،‫تمایز‬ ّ َ َ ،‫دیدگاه ِانسان ِشناسی‬
ُ َ ،‫ َابزارسازی‬،‫نظریه َپردازان‬ ِ ،‫پرورش‬
ِ َ َ ‫آموزش و‬
ِ ،‫شهرسازی‬
َ ،‫سبک ِمعماری‬
ِ َ

§7.3 Now scan the text to find the missing singular or plural form in these pairs of nouns.

Plural Singular
......... ‫اثر‬ََ
‫َاخالق‬ .........
......... ‫ادب‬ ََ
......... ‫ادبی‬ ََ
......... ‫َپسینی‬
‫تمایزات‬ُ َ .........
‫َادیان‬ .........
......... ‫َرسم‬
......... ‫صت‬ َ‫ِف‬
......... ‫صنعت‬َ َ
......... ‫عقیده‬ َ
......... ‫قاعده‬ ِ
َّ َ ُ
‫مشخصات‬ .........
......... ‫مآثر‬
......... ‫َمع ِر َفت‬
......... ‫مظهر‬َ َ
......... ‫ُموضوع‬
......... ‫میراث‬
ّ َ َ
‫نظریات‬ .........
‫َانواع‬ .........
......... ‫واژه‬
......... ‫ویژگی‬ ِ
197
 Michael Craig Hillmann

§7.4 Read these questions and then read this unit’s text for answers.

______________ .‫مواریث تاریخی را نام ببرید‬

ِ ‫معارف و آثار و مآثر ویژۀ‬
ِ َ ‫چهار نمونه از َمجموعۀ‬ .۱
_____________________ _____________________ ______________________
______________________________________ ‫دید انسان شناسی آفریدۀ چیست؟‬ ِ ‫فرهنگ از‬ .۲
_________________________________________ ‫فرهنگ چگونه بین افراد منتقل میشود؟‬ .۳
________________________________________ ‫مشخصات انسان چیست؟‬ ِ ّ ‫مشترک ترین‬ .۴
______ ‫نظریه پردازان چه چیزهایی را تعیین کنندۀ تمایز بین انسان و دیگر پستانداران می دانند؟‬
ّ ‫اکثر‬ .۵
__________________________________________________________________

§7.5 Read the text while listening to its recording. For remaining issues with meaning in the
text, first consult a Persian dictionary and then refer to the translation beneath the text.

،‫ دین و عقاید‬،‫ ادبیات‬،‫ واژگان زبان‬،‫ دانشها‬:‫ مجموعه معارف و آثار و مآثر ویژه مواریث تاریخى هر ملت شامل‬:‫فرهنگ‬
‫ شیوه آموزش و پرورش و روش‬،‫ آیینها و آداب و رسوم و طرز معاشرت‬،‫ فولكلور‬،‫ سبك معمارى و شهرسازى‬،‫صنایع‬
‫ طرز آهنگهاى موسیقى و موضوعات نقاشى و دیگر هنرها و همچنین ویژگیهاى خلق و خوى و نوع پوشاك و‬،‫زندگى‬
‫ فرهنگ از دیدگاه انسانشناسى آفریده انسان است و او آن را از طریق غیر زیستى‬.‫خوراك و تمامى دیگر مظاهر زندگى ایشان‬
‫ زبان و ابزارسازى‬،‫ احتما ًالاكثر نظریه پردازان‬.‫ مشتركترین مشخصه انسان است‬،‫ فرهنگ‬.‫به پَسینیان خود منتقل میكند‬
‫و تنظیم قواعد جنسى را صفات مهم تعیین كننده تمایز انسان از دگر پستانداران عالى مى دانند‬.
۷۸۳‫ ص‬.۱۳۷۳ ،‫ انتشارات ز ّوار‬:‫ تهران‬.‫ بقلم غالمرضا انصاف پور‬.‫ كامل فرهنگ فارسى‬:‫نقل قول از‬
§7.5.1 Text translation. Culture: The aggregate of knowledge/learning and historical monu-
ments/works/traces and legacies left behind and characteristics of the historical legacy/herit-
age of every nation/people, consisting of: knowledge/learning, language vocabulary, literature,
religion and beliefs, crafts/techniques/industries, style(s) of architecture and city planning,
folklore, customs and manner of social intercourse, style/method of education and manner of
living, kinds of melodies and subjects of painting and other arts, and, likewise, characteristics
of behavior and disposition, and kinds of clothing and food and all of the manifestations of a
people’s life. From the viewpoint of anthropology, culture is a human creation and humanity
transfers it in a nonliving way to its to descendants. Culture is the most mutual/shared char-
acteristic of human beings. The majority of theoreticians presumably consider language, tool
making, and regulation of sexual rules as the important determining qualities of the superiority
of human beings over other higher mammals.

*****

Upwards of 60 Persian textbooks, manuals, and grammars for classroom use by English-
speaking learners have appeared since the mid-1990s.14 This figure arguably exceeds the
number of Persian programs at universities in the English-speaking world. The Routledge
imprint, for example, publisher of The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition
and Pedagogy of Persian (2020) appears on a dozen or more Persian titles published since
2000. A conclusion one might draw here is simply that university Persian instructors more
often than not choose to design and teach their own instructional materials rather than adopt
and adapt existing materials, while government organizations often commission or produce
in-house instructional materials for their Persian courses and programs. As for the rationale
behind teachers’ preferences in these regards, four factors stand out. First, teachers in any
given Persian program may not share language teaching and/or learning goals with teachers in
other programs. Second, some textbook writers develop artificial reading and listening texts

198
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

and dialogues of their own, while others seem comfortable only with prompted and authentic
texts. Third, differences exist in the views of Persian textbook writers concerning specific
Persian features and phenomena and the Persian language register with which to describe and
illustrate those phenomena. Fourth, Persian textbook writers may not share views teaching/
learning methods and approaches and may privilege specific methods and approaches.
At the same time, in almost all cases, authors both describe prior field-testing of materials
reflected in their books and acknowledge input by expert colleagues, editors, and students.
This and impressions from reading such instructional materials can lead to the supposition that
authors likely get good results when using their own textbooks, manuals, and grammars with
their own methods. In addition, authors of Persian textbooks, manuals, and grammars offer
specific rationales for their books on subjects already treated in other such books, but not usu-
ally with specific references to those other books. In fact, rarely do footnotes appear in Persian
textbooks citing the work of other authors or of secondary and tertiary sources.
Readers also come across observations and generalizations such as these about Persian lan-
guage phenomena in 21st-century Persian textbooks for speakers of English: (1) “The vowel
system in Persian consists of six vowel sounds, all represented by the letter “‫”ا‬, called alef”;
(2) The Persian alphabet has 32 letters – All of these, with the exception of the first letter alef
“‫ ”ا‬are consonants”; (3) “Seven letters of the alphabet never change their shape . . .”; (4) “I can
think of only one word that begins with the long vowel u . . .”; (5) “[T]here is only one common
word that ends with the sound ‘a’, and that is the informal word for ‘no’ ”; (6) “The letter ye is
the first of two letters that function as both a consonant and a vowel”; (7) “The sound . . . /r/ . . .
is the sound American English speakers make saying gotta as in gotta go”; (8) “When the letter
he-ye do cheshm comes at the end of the word and is immediately preceded by a consonant, it
makes an /e/ sound”; (9) “[W]e never write two of the same consonants in a row”; (10) “[T]he
Persian sound gh [‫ ق‬،‫[ ]غ‬is] like r in French”; (11) “[A]ll English questions sentences start off
with the question words”; (12) “Direct objects of transitive verbs are always followed by /
rā/”; (13) “If the verb is intransitive then you will never use/ . . . rā/”; (14) “Whereas temporal
clauses [in Persian] precede the main clause, purpose clauses always follow the main clause”;
(15) “Although . . . man, to, u, et cetera have other uses, these are basically subject pronouns”;
(16) “The passive is used in Persian only when the personal agent is not expressed. . . . Persian
hates the passive and uses ingenious methods to avoid it”; (17) “Not so many Arabic plurals
are now in common use. . . . The student’s only recourse is the dictionary” and “ [T]he broken
plurals of Arabic words are . . . hardly ever used in colloquial Persian”; (18) “[T]he subjunc-
tive mood is used in sentences where the action is not definitely going to happen”; (19) “The
subjunctive mood in Persian . . . always depends in some way upon or follows a primary verb in
the indicative mood”; (20) “There is no sequence of tense in Persian”; (21) “The stress in Per-
sian words generally falls on the last syllable of a word, with few exceptions. . . . [T]he excep-
tions are mainly verbs”; (22) “Singular nouns always follow numbers in Persian” and “Nouns
always remains singular after numbers”; (23) “[T]he subject is the person or thing doing the
action”; (24) “All substantives (adjectives and nouns) are abstracted by suffixing -i. ­ For sub-
stantives ending in -e,­ the abstraction is -gi”;
­ (25) “The plural suffix [-ān] . . . is used in formal
and written Persian; never in colloquial Persian”; (26) “‫’‘والدین‬
ِِ vāledeyn [parents] illustrates a
so-called Arabic loanword ‘broken plural’ form”; (27) “When asking a question in Persian . . .
just raise the intonation towards the end of the sentence”; (28) “Because all Persian verbs show
the person and number of their subject in a suffix attached to the verb, subject pronouns can
be omitted from a sentence”; (29) “‫‘ ’‘عامیانه‬āmiyānéh is the equivalent of ‘colloquial’ ”; (30) “In
Persian, a quantified noun, i.e., a noun accompanied by a number, never takes the plural”;
(31) “[A]djectives in Persian always follow the noun they qualify or describe”; and (32) mixed

199
 Michael Craig Hillmann

bookish/written [‫نوشتاری‬/‫ ]کتابی‬and colloquial/spoken [‫گفتاری‬/‫ ]محاوره ای‬examples and texts are
presented and discussed as if parts of a single standard register.
Counter-evidence in the form of authentic examples would appear to exist for all of the
foregoing 32 statements. For example, Mini-lesson #8 issues the frequency of so-called bro-
ken plural forms of Arabic loanwords in Persian (Item #17), while the following mini-lesson
addresses the issue of frequency of passive voice verb constructions (Item #16).

9.9  Mini-lesson
­ #8
Passive voice verb forms and words making use of passive verb stems and parts are ubiquitous
in Persian and a significant vocabulary acquisition focus.
§8.1 Here follow examples of the active and passive voice infinitives of four transitive
verbs, (i.e., verbs that govern a direct object).

passive voice verb active voice verb

to be wanted/desired ‫خواسته شدن‬ to want/to desire ‫خواستن‬
to be(come) disgraced ‫ُرسوا شدن‬ to disgrace ‫ُرسوا كردن‬
to wake up ‫بیدار شدن‬ to wake (sb) up ‫بیدار كردن‬
to get caught up/trapped ‫ِگ ِرفتار شدن‬ to capture/trap (sb/sth) ‫ِگ ِرفتار كردن‬

§8.2 The following chart presents affirmative active and passive voice forms in a bookish/
written register for the transitive verb “‫( ”دادن‬to give) in the various tenses and indicative,
imperative, and subjunctive moods. Note that the passive voice of “‫ ”دادن‬consists of its past
participle “‫ ”داده‬followed by conjugated forms of the verb “‫( ”شدن‬to become) in all moods and
tenses.

tense/mood passive voice conjugated forms active voice conjugated forms

general indicative dādéh mishavad 13
‫ داده مى شود‬mídahad 1
‫دهد‬
َ َ ‫ مى‬1
present
present subjunctive/ dādéh (be)shavad ‫ داده‬،‫ داده بشود‬bédahad 2
‫ بِدََهد‬2
imperative 14
‫شود‬
ََ
present continuous dārad dādéh mishavad 15
‫شود‬
َ َ ‫دارد داده مى‬
َ dārad mídahad 3
‫دهد‬
َ َ ‫دارد مى‬َ 3
16 ُ
future dādéh khāhad shod ‫خواهد شد‬
َ ‫داده‬ khāhad dād 4
‫خواهد داد‬
َ 4
17 ُ
simple past dādéh shod ‫ داده شد‬dād 5
‫ داد‬5
past repetitive dādéh mishod 18ُ ‫ داده مى‬mídād
‫شد‬ 6
‫ مى داد‬6
past continuous dāsht dādéh mishod 19 ُ ‫ داشت داده مى‬dāsht mídād
‫شد‬ 7
‫ داشت مى داد‬7
present perfect dādéh shodéh’ast 20 ُ ‫ داده‬dādeh’ast
‫شده است‬ 8
‫ داده است‬8
perfect subjunctive dādéh shodéh bāshad ‫باشد‬
21
َ ‫شده‬ُ ‫ داده‬dādeh bāshad 9
‫باشد‬
َ ‫ داده‬9
perfect repeated/ dādeh mishodéh’ast 22 ُ ‫ داده مى‬mídādeh’ast
‫شده است‬ 10
‫ مى داده است‬10
continuous
past perfect dādeh shodéh bud 23 ُ ‫ داده‬dādeh bud
‫شده بود‬ 11
‫ داده بود‬11
perfective past dādeh shodeh 24
‫شده بوده است‬ُ ‫ داده‬dādeh budeh’ast ‫ داده بوده‬12
perfect budeh’ast 12
‫است‬

200
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

§8.2.1 Here follow translations of the foregoing verb forms, numbered according to the num-
bers accompanying the forms.

l
He/she gives (sth, e.g., every day). 2He’d/she’d like to give (sth – subjunctive). He/she
should give (sth – imperative). 3He’s/she’s giving (sth now). 4He’ll/she’ll give (sth tomor-
row). 5He/she gave (sth yesterday). 6He/she used to give (sth a lot). 7He/she was in the
middle of giving (sth, e.g., when I saw him/her). 8He’s/she’s given (sth, e.g., a number
of times). 9It’s possible that he’s/she’s given (sth, but I can’t remember). 10When he/she
lived in New York, he/she used to give (things). 11By the time I got to the store, he/she had
already given sth). 12The shop which I went to regularly last year he/she had given (things
to before then).
13
It is given (e.g., every day). 14I’d like for it to be given/not to be given (subjunctive). It should
be given (imperative). 15It’s being given (there right now). 16It’ll be given (there tomorrow). 17It
was given (yesterday). 18It used to be given (out regularly). 19It was being given (away when
I saw him/her). 20It has been given (a number of times). 21It’s possible that it has (already)
been given (but I don’t know for sure). 22Years back, such a discount was (routinely) given to
customers. 23It had been given (to her before you got to Texas). 24(Before I started working at
the university, a lot of money) had been given to it for Persian Studies.

§8.3 Here follows a list of the active and passive voice infinitives for pairs of verbs. Note
that the passive voice of most verbs consists of its past participle followed by conjugated forms
of the verb “‫شدن‬ ُ ” (to become) in all moods and tenses. However, the verb “‫( ”كردن‬to make, to
do), when transitive, forms its passive by substituting forms of the verb “‫( ”شدن‬to become) in
all moods and tenses, including its infinitive “‫”كردن‬, which becomes “‫شدن‬ ُ ” (to become). An
asterisk (*) follows specifically colloquial/spoken forms.

to become (*‫ ش‬،‫شو‬ ُ ❒

َ ) ‫شدَن‬ to make, to do (‫❒ كردن ) ُكن‬
to be(come) implemented/ ‫❒ اجراء شدن‬ to implement, to ‫❒ اِجراء كردن‬
performed execute, to perform
to be(come) distributed/ ‫❒ پخش شدن‬ to distribute, to dis- ‫❒ پَخش كردن‬
broadcast seminate, to broadcast
to be(come) eliminated ‫❒ حذف شدن‬ to eliminate, to omit ‫❒ َحذف كردن‬
to be(come) used, to be ‫❒ استفاده شدن‬ to use, to make use (‫❒ اِستِفاده كردن )اَز‬
made use of of vi
to be(come) named ‫❒ نامیده شدن‬ to name, to call (‫❒ نامیدن )نام‬
to be(come) read/sung ‫❒ خوانده شدن‬ to read; to study; to (*‫خون‬،‫خوندخوان‬،‫❒ خواندن‬
sing
to be(come) built/made/ ‫❒ ساخته شدن‬ to build (‫❒ ساختن )ساز‬
constructed
to be(come) undertaken ُ ‫❒ پرداخته‬
‫شدَن‬ to pay; to proceed (‫❒ پَرداختن )پَرداز‬
(to begin/do)
to be(come) known ‫❒ شناخته شدن‬ to know sb (‫❒ ِشناختن )ِشناس‬
to be(come) given ‫❒ داده شدن‬ to give (‫❒ دادن )ده‬
to be(come) seen ‫❒ دیده شدن‬ to see (‫❒ دیدن )بین‬

201
 Michael Craig Hillmann

to be(come) composed/ ‫سروده شدن‬

ُ ❒ to compose/write (‫سرا‬
َ ) ‫سرودن‬
ُ ❒
sung poetry
to be(come) obtained ‫❒ گرفته شدن‬ to get, to obtain, to (‫گرفتن )گیر‬
ِِ ❒
receive
to be(come) said ‫❒ گفته شدن‬ to say, to tell (*‫ گ‬،‫❒ ُگفتن )گو‬
to be(come) kept ‫❒ نگاه داشته شدن‬ to keep, to preserve, (‫❒ نِگاه داشتن )دار‬
to withhold
to be performed ‫❒ به اِجراء ُگذاشته شدن‬ to perform (*‫ ذار‬،‫❒ به اِجراء ُگذاشتن ) ُگذار‬

َ ُ [to become] and of noun/adjective

§8.4 Study the following list of verb forms of “‫”شدن‬
words that incorporate its verb parts or stems.

verb infinitive to become َ ُ .1

‫شدن‬
verb past stem; 3rd person sin- he/she/it became; it happened . . . ‫شد‬ُ .2
gular, simple past tense verb
past participle having become, having taken . . . ‫ شُده‬.3
place
verb present stem: bookish/ . . . *‫شو – ش‬
َ .4
 written – colloquial/spoken
impersonal construction one can . . ., it is possible . . . *‫ – میشه‬. . . ‫شَود‬
َ ‫مى‬ .5
future tense it will become/take place/happen ُ ‫واهد‬
. . . ‫شد‬ َ ‫َخ‬ .6
simple past tense it became/it took place (once) ُ
. . . ‫شد‬ .7
mi -past tense: repeated/contin- it used to happen ُ
. . . ‫میشد‬ .8
uous past action/verbal state
present perfect tense it has happened/it has become . . . ‫شده است‬ ُ .9
past perfect tense it had become . . . /it had taken ُ .10
. . . ‫شده بود‬
place
infinitive + /í/ adjective form doable – forgettable ‫شدَنى‬ُ ‫شدَنى – فَراموش‬ ُ .11
negative infinitive + /í/ undoable – unforgettable ُ َ‫شدَنى – فَراموش ن‬
‫شدَنى‬ ُ َ‫ ن‬.12
adjective form
past participle preceded by lost (person) pl: lost persons ‫ ُگم شدگان‬.‫ ُگم شده ج‬.13
noun/adj
person raised in . . . pl: people ‫ بزرگ‬.‫ بُُزرگ شده ج‬.14
raised in ‫ شدگان‬. . .
suffixed present stem collapsible, foldaway . . . ‫ تاشو‬: ‫ شو‬.15
suffixed present participle ِ َ ُ – ‫شونده – پاك شونده – دورشونده‬
. . . ‫منفحر شونده‬ َ َ .16
in . . . andéh
becoming – becoming clean – become far(ther) away –
explosive
past verb stem traffic ُ ‫آمد و‬
‫شد‬ َ .17

§8.5 Read these sentences illustrating the foregoing verb tense and mood forms of the verb
“‫”شدن‬. Note that subjunctive and imperative forms can appear without a /be/ prefix in the case
of multi-word verbs in which “‫ ”شدن‬is the verbal element. Circle the number of any item that
reflects passive meanings.

202
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

.‫سرد شد‬
َ ‫َهوا‬ .۱
The weather got cold.
.‫كتابم كه گم شده بود پیدا شد‬ .۲
My book that had gotten lost turned up/was found.
َ ِ ‫شم یا‬
*‫بشینم؟‬ َ ِ ِ ‫شوم یا‬
َ ‫پا‬/‫بنشینم؟‬ َ َ ‫پا‬ .۳
Shall I stand up or sit?
*!‫خفه شین‬/!‫َخفه شوید‬ .۴
Shut up.
ُ َ
*.‫نشد ِبریم‬ .۵
We couldn’t go (e.g., sth came up).
َّّ ُ ‫امتحان‬
‫موفق شده باشند‬ ِ ِ ‫ُامیدوارم در‬ .۶
َ
I hope they did well in/on the test/examination.
*.‫ باهات میام‬،‫زودتر َتموم ِبشه‬
َ َ ‫ َاگه‬.۷
‫كارم‬
If my work finishes more quickly/earlier, I’ll come/I’m coming with you.
*.‫ دو و سه میشه َپنج‬.۸
Two plus three makes five.
.‫شود امیدوار بود كه زیاد شوند‬ َ َ ‫ مى‬.۹
One can be hopeful that they’ll increase (in number).
‫شده ام كه آخر چرا با سى و هشت بار نشود؟‬ ُ ‫وسوسه مى‬َ َ ‫مواقعى من همیشه‬ ِ َ ‫ در ُچنین‬.۱۰
At such moments I was always tempted to say: Why mightn’t it work after thirty-eight times?
.‫مرتب باشم‬َّ َ ُ ‫شد‬ ُ ‫ ُقرار‬.۱۱
I was supposed to be organized/well behaved.
‫شده است؟‬ُ ‫نقل َُقول‬
ِ َ ‫خبر از چه َكسى‬ َ َ ‫ در این‬.۱۲
In this news item what person has been quoted?
ُ ‫ یا‬،‫بشوید‬
‫فالن ِدلخورى را‬ ِ َ ُ ‫باعث مى شود كه از رفتن به هر جا كه َقصد داشته اید‬
َ ِ ‫منصرف‬ ِ ‫ همین‬.۱۳
.‫َبهانه كنید‬
This very thing causes you to change your mind about going wherever you
planned to go and to use such-and-such irritation, annoyance as an excuse.

Looked at in the aggregate, 21st-century Persian textbooks for speakers of English15 high-
light a handful of issues only tentatively or temporarily resolved in individual cases and
desirable emphases are addressed. First is the possibly problematic issue of convening a com-
municative classroom environment using a textbook that privileges the bookish/written regis-
ter of Tehran Persian. In other words, what would the language of classroom instruction and
discussion be for learners using such textbooks? Second is the apparent reticence on the part of
textbook authors to teach reading and writing making use of colloquial/spoken Persian forms
in Perso-Arabic script. Third, although existing Persian textbooks and teaching grammars pay
attention to vocabulary, primarily in the form of lists and glossaries, that attention does not
often involve exercises and activities that draw attention to shortcuts in learning word patterns
and forms.
Despite recent lexicographical attention to colloquial/slang [mohāvereh’i/‘āmiyāneh] reg-
isters of the contemporary Fārsi Persian language, much Persian textbook writing continues
to privilege the ketābi/neveshtāri [bookish/written] register of the language. The rationale for
this focus presumably relates to the fact that most published Persian writing and much media
broadcasting appear in bookish/written Persian. In addition, for learners of Persian whose
interest in the language relates to written texts, for example, Persian literature, a focus on
bookish/written Persian makes sense. Moreover, even for Persian learners whose main aim is

203
 Michael Craig Hillmann

proficiency/competence in speaking Persian, the most efficient way of expanding vocabulary

is arguably through reading.
As for the argument for privileging colloquial/spoken Persian, the fact that native speak-
ers of Persian themselves learn colloquial first and then bookish and that English-speaking
learners might do the same with shortcuts may suggest their learning colloquial/spoken first.
Moreover, initial exposure to colloquial/spoken Persian makes possible a communicative
classroom environment from the outset, which is why some Persian instructors devote the
first semester of university Persian courses to colloquial/spoken listening, speaking, reading,
and writing and then introduce differences between colloquial/spoken and bookish/written
registers, thereafter treating the two registers in tandem with a focus on authentic listening,
speaking, and reading texts.
Also, it may make no difference in terms of development of Persian reading skills to which
register learners are first exposed. A more salient issue here might have to do with the fact that
most Persian textbooks appear not to base their treatment of Persian reading from alphabet
instruction to intermediate/advanced texts on identifiable reading methods, including strate-
gies for scanning, skimming, gisting, inferring, and the like, or on methodologically grounded
attention to vocabulary acquisition. For example, the function of Persian-English and English-
Persian translation exercises accompanying reading texts in many textbooks seems unclear.
If such exercises intend to test learner comprehension of Persian sentences, might not the
exercise of reading sentences aloud sometimes accomplish the same purpose insofar as all but
the simplest Persian sentences are problematic to read aloud if the reader does not know how
their parts relate to one another and to the whole?

*****
If beginning students of Persian are introduced to Persian reading letter-by-letter with letters
illustrated in unfamiliar words chosen to illustrate a letter in question, that process seems not
to parallel the ordinary business of elementary reading, which is to recognize already known
words by discerning their written representation. Now, it so happens that beginning students of
Persian already know the meaning of several thousand Persian words, loanwords from French
and English. Mohammad Mo’in’s Persian Dictionary has entries for 5,000 such words divisible
into two groups: words that contain only written vowel sounds and words that contain short,
unwritten vowel sounds. Words in the former group are pronounced as written, while readers
have to know beforehand or to guess the short vowel sounds in many words in the latter group.
Taking advantage of the existence of thousands of French and English loanwords in Persian,
beginning Persian reading instruction/learning can take place with a word-method approach,
according to which alphabet letters are introduced in the context of words whose meanings
learners already know. The following descriptions and exercises illustrate one process or
method of teaching/learning the Persian alphabet in the context of useful, already familiar
words and the development of reading skills in the context of groups of words and words that
contain unwritten short vowels.

9.10  Mini-lesson
­ #9
The following descriptions and exercises illustrate a method of teaching/learning the Persian
alphabet in the context of useful, already familiar words and the development of elementary
reading skills such as scanning in the context of groups of words and words that contain
unwritten short vowels.16

204
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

§9.1 All of the letters in the Persian alphabet are conventionally considered to represent
consonant sounds. However, the three letters aléf, vāv, and yeh, when not the first letter of a
word, may represent, respectively, the vowel sounds /ā/, /u/, and /i/. And the letter “‫”هـ‬, usually
called héh-ye do cheshm [two-eyed heh] often represents the sound /é/ when it is the last letter
of a word (written “‫ ”ـه‬or “‫)”ه‬.
Except in the case of Arabic loanwords beginning with the letter ‘eyn (described in a later
unit), if a word begins with the vowel sounds /ā/, /u/, or /i/, it is written as follows.

Asia āsiyā ‫آسیا‬ free āzād ‫آزاد‬ ‫ا=آ‬+‫ا‬ ā

August ut ‫اوت‬ he/she, him/her u ‫او‬ ‫ و = او‬+ ‫ا‬ u
Italy itāliyā ‫ایتالیا‬ this in ‫این‬ ‫ ى = اى‬+ ‫ا‬ i

When the letter aléf begins a word, it is considered a consonant, representing a soundless
pause called a glottal stop. Thus, the word “‫”آسیا‬, pronounced /’āsiyā/, begins with two aléfs,
one written vertically and the other over it horizontally, representing /’/ followed by /ā/.
When the letter ye begins a word, it represents a /y/ sound.

‫یونان‬ ‫یاس‬ ‫یاد‬ ‫یا‬

Greece jasmine memory or

The letter ye in the middle or at the end of a word can represent /i/, /y/, or /ay/ (as in the
words “day” and “hey”). For example:

chemistry shimí ‫شیمى‬ . chic shik ‫شیك‬ /i/

truck kāmyún ‫كامیون‬ . Asian āsiyāyí ‫آسیایى‬ /y/
when? kay ‫كى‬ . cake kayk ‫كیك‬ /ay/

When medial aléf precedes ye in the same syllable, the ye represents /y/ and combines with
aléf to produce the sound /āy/ (as in the English word “sigh”). For example, the Persian word
for “tea” is “‫”چاى‬, pronounced /chāy/.
When the letter vāv begins a written word, it represents a /v/ sound.

‫ویزیت‬ ‫وانیل‬ ‫ویال‬ ‫ویزا‬ ‫ویسکی‬ ‫ویتامین‬

visit (to a doctor) vanilla villa visa whiskey vitamin

The letter vāv in the middle or at the end of a word can represent /u/, /v/, /o/ [as in the word
“tote”], and /ow/ [as in the words “mow,” “row,” and “tow”]. For example:

hair mu ‫مو‬ . museum muzéh ‫موزه‬ /u/

demon, devil div ‫دیو‬ . kiwi (fruit) kiví ‫كیوى‬ /v/
two do ‫دو‬ . hot dog sosís ‫سوسیس‬ /o/
wave mowj ‫موج‬ . soda water, soda sowdā ‫سودا‬ /ow/

Read this list of European loanwords aloud. Each word features a “‫ ”و‬letter pronounced /o/
(as in the words “so” or “go”). Then listen to a reading or audio recording of the list.

• ‫تانگو • دیالوگ • سودا • سوسیالیست • سوسیالیستى‬

• ‫سوسیالیسم • سوسیس • سونا • سونات • کامیون • كیوسك • گارسون • جوك‬
‫ماندولین • میلیون • یوگا • یویو • تونیك‬

205
 Michael Craig Hillmann

English equivalents. Line 1 (from right to left): tango, dialogue, soda (water), socialist,
socialistic. Line 2: socialism, hot dog, sauna, sonata, kiosk, waiter /gārsón/, joke. Line 3: man-
dolin, million /miliyūn/, yoga, yo-yo, tunic/tonic.
§9.2 Scanning European loanwords that exhibit only written vowels in Perso-Arabic script.
In each of the following groups of words, match the Persian term to the right with the appropri-
ate English description or synonym to the left.

modern art style ___ ‫  كاپیتالیست‬6 racist political policy ___ ‫ آپارتاید‬1
investor in business ___ ‫  صوفى‬7 wound application ___ ‫ جى‬.‫ پى‬.‫ آر‬2
vehicle type ___ ‫  جیپ‬8 meal set out on a table ahead of time ___ ‫ بانداژ‬3
Muslim mystic ___ ‫  مازوخیست‬9 military weapon ___ ‫ بورژوا‬4
person with mental disorder ___ ‫ كوبیسم‬10 middle-class person ___ ‫ بوفه‬5

§9.3 Select the English vocabulary subject or category from the list following that best
identifies each of the rows of Persian vocabulary items beneath it. A sample answer is
given.

1 Animals 2 Art 3 Athletics/Sports

4 Clothing 5 Food 6 Geography
7 Health (Mental) 8 Music 9 Nationalities
10 Politics 11 Science 12 Technology
13 Transportation 14 War 15 Weather/Climate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‫الما – پاندا – كوآال – راكون – گوریل‬ .۱

..................................... ‫پاستا – ماكارونى – دونات – ساالد‬ .۲
..................................... ‫کاندیدا – پارتىیزان – كاست – میتینگ‬/‫كاندید‬ .۳
..................................... ‫پارانویا – سادیسم – مالیخولیا – مازوخیسم‬ .۴
..................................... ‫الكروس – ژیمناستیك – بیس بال – راگبى‬ .۵
..................................... ‫ریكشا – موتور – ماشین – جیپ – كامیون‬ .۶
..................................... ‫دیكتافون – فاكس – فیوز – سونار – فیلم‬ .۷
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‫چین – آالسكا – كانادا – روسیه – لیبى – پاریس‬ .۸
..................................... ‫فیزیك – شیمى – بیولوژى – ادیولوژى‬ .۹
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‫جاز – راك – سالسا – سامبا – دیسكو – سونات‬ .۱۰

§9.4 The following matching exercises (#1–6 and #7–12) show that guessing the meaning
of many words with unwritten short vowels need not prove daunting when words appear in
context (e.g., in a text or on a list of words or phrases with English equivalents).

___ kind of political system ‫ جغرافیایى‬7 ___ Middle Eastern city ‫ ترومن‬1
___ military rank ‫ دموكراسى‬8 ___ American president ‫ تزار‬2
___ much-liked flavor ‫ ژنرال‬9 ___ Russian leader ‫ تكنولوژى‬3
___ European country ‫ سمبل‬10 ___ type of mass media ‫ تل آویو‬4
___ having to do with space/place ‫ شكالت‬11 ___ modern applied science ‫ تلویزیون‬5
___ sign for something else ‫ صرب‬12 ___ Asian country ‫ ژاپن‬6

Answer key. (1) Truman /terumán/, (2) czar /tezār/, (3) technology /teknolozhí/, (4) Tel Aviv
/telāvív/, (5) television /televiziyón/, (6) Japan /zhāpón/, (7) geographic(al) /joghrāfiyāyí/,
(8) democracy /demokrāsí, (9) general /zhenerāl/, (10) symbol /samból/, (11) chocolate/
shokolāt/, and (12) Serbia /serb/.

206
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

9.11  Mini-lesson
­ #10
Using European loanwords to illustrate the “‫ ”کسره ی اضافه‬kasréh-ye ezāféh construction.
§10.1 English adjectives usually precede the nouns they qualify, as in the phrases “the big
book” and “a red house.” The same holds true for possessives used with the things possessed,
as in the phrases “my book” and “your car.” But in Persian phrases the noun usually comes first
and the adjective, possessive pronoun, or other modifier follows. In addition, an unstressed /e/
sound (pronounced as the “e” in the word “fed”) appears between the noun and following modi-
fier. The phrase kasréh-ye ezāféh [short /e/ sound added] is the Persian term for this pattern. Here
follow examples of the unstressed /e/ sound pronounced between nouns and following modifiers.

‫تیم فوتبال‬ • ‫كالس فارسى‬

ِ ِ • ‫ماشین کادیالک‬
/tim-e futbāl/ /kelās-e fārsi/ /māshin-e kādilāk/
‫فیلم ایرانی‬ ‫توپ ِتنیس‬ ‫مبل شیک نو‬
/film-e irāni/ /tup-e tenis/ /mobl-e shik/

§10.2 In phrases such as these, use of the kasréh-ye ezāféh between a noun and its modifier(s)
is essential for the relationship between the two to be understood. In other words, failure to
pronounce the sound /e/ between the modified word and its modifier(s) can confuse a listener.
In the following two exercises (#1–8 and #9–16), match modified words in the left columns
with modifying words in the right column. Then read the resulting phrases aloud, making
certain to pronounce an unstressed /e/ sound between the two words in each pair. Verify your
choices and pronunciation by listening to the relevant audio file.

‫سوسیس‬ ___ ‫فستیوال‬

ِ ِ 9 ‫تِِلفُن‬ ___ ُِ
‫كد‬ 1
‫دیجیتال‬ ___ ‫رستوران‬
ِ ِ 10 ‫لوكس‬ ___ ‫ِتِلفُِن‬ 2
‫شیرازى‬ ___ ِ‫ساندویچ‬ ِ 11 ‫ِترانزیستورى‬ ___ ‫كارت‬
ِ 3
‫ِاسكى‬ ___ ‫بمب‬
ِ ُ 12 ‫موبایل‬ ___ /sowích/ ِ‫سویچ‬ 4
‫شیك‬ ___ ‫پمپ‬
ِ ُ 13 ‫فیلم‬ ___ ‫سانسور‬
ِ 5
‫َ ُاتمى‬ ___ ‫تلویزیون‬
ِ ِِ 14 ‫ُپستى‬ ___ ‫پروژكتور‬
ِ ِ ِ 6
‫فیلم‬ ___ ‫پیست‬
ِ 15 ‫ِاسالید‬ ___ ‫ماشین‬
ِ 7
‫ِبنزین‬ ___ ‫ساالد‬
ِ 16 ‫ماشین‬ ___ ‫رادیو‬
ِ 8

§10.3 When the first or qualified word in a phrase, such as those presented earlier, ends in a
consonant sound, the kasreh-ye ezāfeh is an unstressed sound /é/ and is not written. When the
qualified or modified word ends in a vowel sound, the kasreh-ye ezāfeh is pronounced /ye/ and
must sometimes be represented in writing. For example, when the first or qualified word in a
phrase ends in the sound /i/, the kasreh-ye ezāfeh is pronounced /ye/, and nothing is written. But
when the qualified word ends in /ā/ or /u/, the kasreh-ye ezāfeh is pronounced /ye/ and represented
by the letter “‫”ى‬. When the qualified word ends in the vowel sound /é/, represented by the letter
heh-ye do chéshm (“‫ ه‬. . . ”), kasreh-ye ezāfeh is pronounced /ye/ and need not be represented in
writing, but it can appear in writing either as an independent “‫ ”ى‬or as a hamzé-like character “‫”ء‬
sometimes called sár-e ye (the top of ye). Here follow examples of the cited possibilities.

‫مایوى دو تكه‬ ‫تاكسى آژانس‬

ِ ‫قالى ایرانى‬
ِ
māyó-ye do tekké tāksi-ye āzhāns qāli-ye irāni
two-piece bathing suit telephone taxi service Persian carpet
ِ َِ
‫الفباى فارسى‬ ‫ویزاى توریستى‬
ِ ‫آمریكاى التین‬
ِ

207
 Michael Craig Hillmann

alefbā-ye fārsi vizā-ye turisti āmrikā-ye lātin

‫هواپیماى ِجت‬
ِ ِ َ ‫آقاى ِاسمیت‬
ِ ‫دانشجوى كانادایى‬
ِ ِ
havāpaymā-ye jet āqā-ye esmít dāneshju-ye kānādā’i
jet airplane Mr. Smith Canadian college student
ُ ِ ِ ‫اداره‬
‫تلفن‬ ُ ُ ‫اداره ى‬
‫گمرك‬ ‫ِادارۀ ُپلیس‬
edāréh-ye telefón edāréh-ye gomrók edāréh-ye polís
telephone company customs office police department (lit: office)

§10.4 In the following two exercises (#1–8 and #9–13), match the modified words in the
right columns with modifying words to the left. Then read the resulting phrases aloud, making
certain to pronounce an unstressed /ye/ sound between the two words in each pair. Verify your
choices and pronunciation by listening to a reading or the accompanying audio file. Note that
Items 9–13 feature prepositions that take kasre-yé ezāfé.

‫دیپلماتیك‬ ُ ___ ‫آمریكاى‬

ِ 1
‫آژانس‬ ___ ‫آسیاى‬
ِ 2
‫التین‬ ___ ‫تاكسى‬
ِ 3
‫ِبریتانیا‬ ___ ‫سینماى‬
ِ ِ 4
‫ایرانیزه‬ ___ ‫ویزاى‬
ِ 5
‫آوان گارد‬ ___ ‫موزه ى‬ 6
‫مركزى‬ َ َ ___ ‫مریكایى‬
ِ ‫آ‬ 7
‫لیبرال‬ ِ ___ ‫ایرانى‬
ِ 8
‫براى‬
ِ َ ___ ‫پارك‬ 9
‫روى‬
ِ ___ ‫میز‬ 10
‫َدرباره ى‬ ___ ‫شما‬ُ 11
‫توى‬
ِ ___ َ َ
‫فلسفه‬ 12
‫روبروى‬
ِ ِ ___ ‫خانه‬ 13

*****
Even at an advanced level of Persian study, English-speaking learners exhibit occasional
uncertainty about the pronunciation of certain letters and combinations of letters and about the
transcription of certain sounds. Here is a partial list of potentially problematic pronunciation
and transcription issues: (1) pronouncing unfamiliar words which contain unwritten vowel
sounds, (2) placing word stress or accent either on a word’s last syllable or on another syllable,
(3) confronting multiple letters representing the same sounds in the cases of /t/, /h/, /s/, /z/,
and /’/, (4) pronunciation of the letter vāv “‫ ”و‬in written texts, (5) pronunciation of the letter
ye “‫ ”ى‬in written texts, (6) pronunciation of the letter alef “‫ ”ا‬in written texts, (7) shifting back
and forth from bookish/written [‫نوشتاری‬/‫ ]کتابی‬or literary [‫ ]ادبی‬Persian to colloquial/spoken
Persian, and (8) using kasréh-ye ezāféh in noun phrases (kasréh = zir).
Resolving doubts about what a specific written feature in Persian means and/or how to
pronounce and/or use it can often be a simple matter of reviewing a sufficient number of
representative examples of that feature or phenomenon to reach a tentative inductive conclu-
sion about it. A suggested plan of attack with respect to some of the issues cited previously
might involve writing down and continually cataloging examples of a feature or form and then

208
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

reviewing one’s list to see if a common denominator or a descriptive rule for it becomes appar-
ent. Some of the cited issues relate directly to vocabulary acquisition.

9.12  Mini-lesson
­ #11
A review of uses of the letter ye “‫ ”ى‬in word-final position, where it is pronounced /í/ with a word
stress or accent, /i/ without a word stress, /y/ with a preceding a or following /e/ sound, or /ā/.
§11.1 The letter ye (‫ )ى‬routinely appears in word-final position pronounced /í/ with the
word stress or accent falling on the word’s last syllable in the case of nouns and adjectives that
end in “‫ ی‬. . .”.

ship ‫ِكشتى‬ game/play(ing) ‫بازى‬

empty ‫خالى‬ kettle ‫ِكترى‬
nature – natural َ – ‫طبیعت‬
‫طبیعى‬ َ َ meaning ‫َمعنى‬

In the case of words that end in “‫ ى‬. . . ” pronounced / . . . í/, replacing the noun ending
/ . . . át/ with “‫ ى‬. . . ” produces an adjective. The pairs of words in Group 4 are loanwords
from Arabic in which such adjective-producing forms are common. The addition of a stressed
“‫ ی‬. . .” / . . . í/ suffix to nouns and adjectives in Persian is the most common way to produce
nouns from adjectives and adjectives from nouns. The following groups of words illustrate
possibilities.

America, American ‫ آمریكائى‬،‫ آمریکا – آمریكایى‬bad. . . . evil ‫بَد – بدى‬

putting on airs - ‫ اِفاده – اِفاده اى‬witty joke ‫ شوخ – شوخى‬. . .
haughty . . . expressing;
house, domestic ‫ خانه – خانِگى‬earth-dusty, down-to- ‫خاك – خاكى‬
earth, dirt,
France – French (person) ‫سوى‬ َ ‫ران‬ َ ‫ف‬ – ‫رانسه‬ َ ‫ف‬ wood – wooden, made ‫چوب – چوبى‬
of wood
photographer – photography ‫ع ّكاسى‬َ – ‫ع ّكاس‬ َ paper (n. – adj.) ‫اغذى‬َ ‫اغذ – ك‬َ ‫ك‬
painter – painting ‫ نَقّاش – نَقّاشى‬American automobile ‫ماشین آمریكائى‬
ِ
psychologist – psychology ‫ َروانِشناس – َروانِشناسى‬French food ghazā-ye ‫سوى‬ َ ‫ذاى فَران‬
ِ ‫غ‬َ
farānsavi
temporary wife (in Shi’ite ‫زن صیغه اى‬ ِ َ homemade wine ‫راب خانِگى‬
ِ ‫ش‬ َ
societies) siqe’í
worth seeing ‫دیدنى‬
َ

Word-final “‫ ى‬. . . ” also appears with an unstressed / . . . i/ pronunciation, as in the second-

person singular (you-1 or “‫ )”تو‬verb forms. Note that the pronunciation of the you-1 ending
“‫ ى‬. . . ” changes from /i/ to /y/ if the last letter of the present stem that precedes it is alef (‫)ا‬,
pronounced ā, in accordance with the rule that two letters both representing vowels do not
appear next to one another. A letter “‫ ”و‬or “‫ ”ى‬next to a medial “‫ ”ا‬is pronounced /v/ or /y/,
respectively.
A second sort of unstressed word-final / . . . i/ suffix appears at the end of the word “‫”چیزى‬
chízi [something, anything] as a sign of indefiniteness. Here follow other examples.

209
 Michael Craig Hillmann

by the hour sā’áti ‫ساعتى‬

َ book – a book ketābi ‫ِكتاب – ِكتابى‬
per day rúzi ‫( روزى‬some) books ketābhāyi ‫ِكتابهایى – ِكتابهائى‬
each week hafté’i ‫ هفته اى‬country – a country keshvári ‫كشورى‬ َ ِ – ‫كشور‬ َ ِ
per-month māhi ‫( ماهى‬some) countries keshvarhāyi ‫ِكشَورهاىى – كشورهائى‬
thing – a/some thing chízi ‫چیز – چیزى‬
(some) things chizhā’I ‫چیزهایى – چیزهائى‬
person – a person kási ‫َكس – كسى‬
some people. ‫کسانی‬
person – a person shákhsi ‫شخصى‬ َ – ‫شخص‬ َ
some persons ashkhási ‫َاشخاص – َاشخاصى‬
program – a program barnāmé’i ‫َبرنامه – َبرنامه اى‬
some programs barnāme’hā’i ‫برنامه هائى‬
an old man mard-e mosénni ّ ِ ُ ‫مرد‬
‫مسنى‬ ِ َ
several moments ‫لحظاتى َچند‬ َ َ
tiring days ‫روزهایى َمالل َانگیز‬
irrelevant statements ‫هاى ِچرتى‬ ِ ‫َحرف‬
incurable illnesses ‫العالج‬
ِ ‫بیمارى هایى‬
awful/useless people َ َ ُ ‫آدمهاى‬
‫مزخرفى‬ ِ َ
outstanding writers ‫برجست‬َ َ ‫نوىسندگانى‬ ِ َ ِ
annually – How much per year ‫سالى – سالى َچ؟ند؟‬
What person? ‫شخصى؟‬ َ ‫چه‬
What a beautiful day. . . . !‫قشنگى‬ َ َ ‫روز‬
ِ ‫چه‬
What book ‫چه كتابى؟‬
َ َ ُ ‫فیلم‬
What an awful movie !‫مزخرفى‬ ِ ‫ چه‬In what year ‫در چه سالى؟‬
What a mistake ِ ِ ‫ چه‬What relationship
!‫اشتباهى كردم‬ ‫رابطه اى؟‬ ِ ‫چه‬
I made
What a trick he/she !‫حقه اى زد‬ ّ ُ ‫ چه‬What sort of government? (now’, no ) ‫حكومتى؟‬
َ ُ ‫نوع‬ ْ ُ ‫چه‬
pulled! (hoqqé’i )

§11.2 An unstressed / . . . i/ sound represented by “‫ ى‬. . . ” also appears at the end of words
that function as antecedents for relative and other subordinate clauses introduced by “‫”كه‬, as
the following phrases and examples illustrate.

the person who kási ke ‫َكسى كه‬

when, at the time which váqti ke . . . ‫َوقتى كه‬
the people who . . . ‫َكسانى كه‬
while . . . ‫در حالى كه‬
the words which . . . ‫كلماتى كه‬ ََ
in the event that . . . ‫صورتى كه‬َ ‫در‬
the programs which . . . ‫برنامه هایى ك‬
as long as, until . . . ‫تا َزمانى كه‬
despite the fact that . . . ‫با ُوجودى كه‬
the chair which . . . ‫صندلى اى كه‬ َ َ

§11.3 In the so-called ezāféh construction ‫ َكسره ی ِاضافه‬, the letter “‫ ”ى‬pronounced /y/
appears at the end of words ending in “‫ ا‬. . . ” / . . . ā/ or “‫ و‬. . . ” / . . . u/ followed by a modi-
fier. In the case of words ending in “‫ ه‬. . . ” / . . . é/, some writers use the letter “‫”ى‬. The fol-
lowing examples illustrate the possibilities.

210
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

good book ketāb-e khúb ‫كتاب خوب‬

ِ ِ .1
easy chair sandalí-ye rāhatí ‫راحتى‬
َ ‫صندلى‬
ِ َ َ .2
Latin America āmrikā-ye lātin ‫آمریكاى التین‬ .3
superior college student dāneshjú-ye momtāz ‫دانشجوى ُممتاز‬
ِ ِ .4
on the subject of/about war dar bāré-ye jang ‫َدرباره ى َجنگ‬ .5
dar bāré-ye jang ‫َدربارۀ جنگ‬
dar bāré-ye jang ‫َدرباره جنگ‬

*****

9.13  Mini-lesson
­ #12
It used to be that university students serious about the study of the Persian language got
directed to Arabic language courses that would presumably help them deal efficiently
with the Arabic element in Persian. However, one can argue that only Persian students
interested in reading texts such as medieval Persian prose and verse need to learn Arabic.
Otherwise, Persian instructional materials developers could design syllabi that introduce
the Arabic element in Persian as part of the Persian language and arrange that element to
identify descriptive Persian categories and rules for it.17 This mini-lesson illustrates that
approach.
§12.1 Read the following list of Arabic loanwords exhibiting a h+k+m “‫ ”حکم‬root system.
Triliteral consonantal root systems of families of related words are a core feature of Arabic
loanwords in Persian.

order, decree; sentence ‫ َاحکام‬.‫ُحکم ج‬

philosophy, wisdom, knowledge َ ِ .‫حکمت ج‬
‫حکم‬ َ ِ
sage, wise man, philosopher ‫حکما‬َ ُ .‫َحکیم ج‬
governor; magistrate; judge; dominant, ruling ّ ُ .‫حاکم ج‬
‫حکام‬ ِ
ruling, dominant ‫حاکمه‬
rulership, ruling, authority, sovereignty ‫حاکمیت‬
َّ ِ
condemned, sentenced, convicted – sentence ‫محکومیت‬
ِ َ – ‫محکوم‬ َ
law court ‫محاکم‬
ِ َ .‫محکمه م‬ َ َ
arbitration, mediation, judgment َّ ِ َ َ
‫حکمیت‬
strengthening, fortifying ‫َتحکیم‬
trial, hearing, tribunal ‫محاکمات‬
ِ ُ .‫محاکمه ج‬ ِ ُ
strengthening – firm, strong, secure(ly)- firmness ‫ِاحکام – محکم – ُمحکمی‬
bossiness, domineering behavior ‫تحکم‬ُّ َ َ
solidness, firmness, strength, fortification- fortifications ‫استحکام – ِاستحکامات‬ ِ ِ
fortified, firm َ
‫مستحکم‬ ُ

§12.2 Knowing the basic meaning of a root system and the sorts of meanings that derived
patterns give to the root idea can make possible educated guesses about the meaning of most
Arabic loanwords in context as well as about their pronunciation. For example, the following
Arabic loanword forms, described with the number “1” for the first of three root letters, “2” for
the second root letter, and “3” for the third root letter of triliteral root systems, communicate
the modes presented within parentheses. Identify a word from the foregoing list that exhibits
each of the following forms.

211
 Michael Craig Hillmann

1a23, 1e23, 1o23 (base level verbal noun) ________________

1ā2é3 (active noun-adjective) ________________
ma12ú3 (passive noun-adjective) ________________
ma12e3é (noun of place) ________________
ta12í3 (derived active/intensive verbal noun) ________________
mo1ā2e3é (derived reciprocal verbal noun) ________________
e12ā3 (derived active/intensive verbal noun) ________________
ta1a22ó3 (derived verbal noun) ________________
este12ā3 (derived verbal noun) ________________18

§12.3 Knowing that the presence of one or more of these 10 letters, - ‫ ط‬-‫ ض‬-‫ ص‬- ‫ ذ‬- ‫ح‬- ‫ث‬
‫ ق‬- ‫ غ‬- ‫ ع‬- ‫ظ‬, almost always indicates a word’s Arabic origin Pay particular attention to words
with one or more of these letters, as well as any other words with three letters that remind
you of other words with the same three letters in the same order, for example: ‫سالم‬ َ (hello), ‫سالم‬
ِ
(healthy, whole), ‫( َتسلیم‬surrender), ‫( ِاسالم‬Islam), and ‫مسلم‬ِ ُ (Muslim).
§12.4 Among the most common are Arabic-loanword verbal nouns, of which there are nine
chief verbal noun patterns or forms in Persian, along with parallel active and passive noun/adjec-
tive patterns. The simplest words are in the first or base pattern and are three-letter words such
ْ ِ ” (shape), “‫عمر‬
as “‫شكل‬ ْ ُ ” (life(time)), and “‫وجه‬
ْ َ ” (aspect). In patterns for the second through ninth
levels, words consisting of a root system of three consonants exhibit usually unvarying forms.
Variants of such forms obtain for root systems that contain the letters aléf, vāv, and/or ye.19
§12.5 The following chart, to be read from right to left, presents sample Persian words
for nine levels of Arabic loanword verbal nouns and parallel active and passive noun/
adjectives.

passive noun/adjective active noun/adjective pattern verbal noun pattern

pattern
reasonable ‫معقول‬.…‫َمفعول‬ wise ‫عاقِل‬.…‫اعل‬ ِ ‫ف‬ ‫ فُعل و ِغیره‬،‫ فَعل فِعل‬reason, brain ‫عقل‬
َ ۱
well-arranged ‫مَرتَّب‬.…‫ل‬
ُ َّ‫ُمفَع‬ student ‫صل‬ ّ ِ ‫ُمَح‬.…‫ُمفَِعّل‬ ‫تفعیل‬ ‫ َتحصیل‬۲
person َ
‫مخاطب‬.…‫ل‬ ُ ‫ع‬
َ ‫ُمفا‬ speaker ‫اطب‬ ِ ‫مخ‬.…‫ل‬
ُ ‫اع‬
ِ ‫ُمف‬ ‫اعلَت‬
ِ ‫ ُمف‬/‫اعلِه‬
ِ ‫ ُمف‬conversation ‫مخاطبه‬
ِ ُ ۳
addressed
doubled, ‫عف‬
َ ‫مضا‬.…‫ل‬ ُ ‫ع‬َ ‫ُمفا‬ traveler ‫ ُمفِعل‬...‫ُمسافِر‬ travel ‫مسافرت‬
َِ ُ
two-fold
firm, strong ‫ ُمحکَم‬.…‫ُمفعَل‬ possible ‫ُممِكن‬.…‫ُمفِعل‬ ‫ ِافعال‬possibility ‫ ِامكان‬۴
conceivable ‫ُمتَِفَعَّل‬....‫صَّور‬ َ َ ِ‫ُمت‬ aware ‫متََِوِّجه‬.…‫ل‬
ُ ّ‫ُمتَِفَِع‬ ُّ َ َ attention
‫تفعل‬ ُّ َ َ ۵
‫توجه‬
customary ‫ُمتِ َعاَِرف‬ well- proportion ُ َ ۶
‫تناسب‬
proportioned ‫اعلت َفاعُل‬ ِ ‫ُمتِ َف‬
reflected ‫منعَِكس‬.…‫ل‬
ُ ‫ُمنفَِع‬ ِ ِ reflection
‫انفعال‬ ‫انعكاس‬ِ ِ ۷
respectable ‫ ُمحتََرم‬.…‫ ُمفتَعَل‬believing in ‫معتَِقد‬.…‫ل‬
ُ ‫ُمفتَِع‬ ِ ِ belief
‫افتعال‬ ِ‫ اعتقاد‬۸
the future َ َ ُ welcoming
‫مستفعل‬ ِ َ ُ welcoming,
‫مستفعل‬ ‫ مستقبل‬۹
greeting

§12.5.1 Each of the cited derived (#2–#9) patterns of Arabic loanword verbal nouns com-
municates a specific verbal mode or aspect, e.g., intensity (#2, #4), reciprocity (#3, #5, causal-
ِ ِ enfe’āl pattern
ity (#2, #4), reflexivity (#3, #5), and passivity (#7). For example, the “‫”انفعال‬
(#7) communicates passive meanings, which accounts for why it does not exhibit a passive
noun-adjective form.

212
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

§12.6 Find words in the foregoing chart that illustrate the following patterns (in which
“1” = the first root letter, “2” = the second root letter, and “3” = the third root letter, while the
English transcription reflects the Persian letters and/or sounds added to root letters to produce
words derived from base-level or level #1 words).

e12ā3 = ______________________ mo1a22e3 = ______________________

este12ā3 = ______________________ ta1a22o3 = ______________________
1ā2e3 = ______________________ e1te2ā3 = ______________________
ta1ā2o3 = ______________________ ma12u3 = ______________________
mo1ā2e3 = ______________________ en1e2ā3 = ______________________20

9.14  Mini-lesson
­ #13
This self-contained lesson focuses on vocabulary acquisition and maintenance in reading a
ghazal poem by premier Persian lyric poet Hāfez (c.1320–c.1390).
§13.1 Read the following questions and, without looking at the text of Hāfez’s ghazal or its
translation following, listen to a reading or recording of it for answers to the questions. If this
exercise takes place in class, the questions are posed and answered in Persian.

1. What sort of end rhyme scheme does the poem have?

2. How many people say things in the poem?
3. Is the setting (time/place/circumstances) of the poem initially about the past, the present,
or the future?
4. What words in the poem verify that it is a love poem?

§13.2 Listen to a second reading of the poem to verify answers to the foregoing questions.
§13.3 In the text, find Arabic loanwords in the given patterns related by consonantal root
system to the following words (1 = first root letter, 2 = second root letter, and 3 = third root
letter, those root letters represented in Perso-Arabic script by [from right to left] ‫ ل‬+ ‫ ع‬+ ‫)ف‬.
Check the chart of Arabic loanword patterns to visualize the paradigmatic context of the word
forms in this exercise.

lover ______________ 1ā2ē3 ‫فاعل‬

ِ love ‫عشق‬ َ ۱
infidel ______________ 1ā2ē3 ‫فاعل‬ ِ apostasy ‫ُكف‬ ۲
ascetic ______________ 1ā2ē3 ‫فاعل‬ ِ asceticism ‫ُزهد‬ ۳
______________ 1ā2ē3 ‫فاعل‬
ِ protecting, preservation ‫ِحفظ‬ ۴
preserver, one who knows the Koran
by heart, minstrel
sad ______________ 1a2i3 ‫َفعیل‬ sadness ‫ُحزن‬ ۵
wine ______________ 1a23 َْ
‫فعل‬ wine headache ‫ُخمار‬ ۶
gift ______________ 1o23 ُْ
‫فعله‬ gifts ‫تحف‬ َ ُ ۷
repentance ______________ [1o23e] َْ
‫فعله‬ penitent ‫تایب‬
ِ ۸

Because Arabic loanwords in Persian exhibit consonantal root systems, unlike native Persian
vocabulary that exhibits prefixes, suffixes, stems, and compounding, a specific Arabic word may
remind readers of other words related by consonantal root system and other words exhibiting the

213
 Michael Craig Hillmann

same pattern. For example, if the words “‫”عاشق‬ ِ and “‫عارف‬

ِ ” appear in the same short text, read-
ers might hear a sort of pattern rhyme in them and also sense the presence of the related words
ِ and “‫” َمع ِر َفت‬. Parenthetically, Item #8 illustrate sorts of Arabic loanword root systems not
“‫”عشق‬
discussed in this mini-lesson, root systems that feature the letters aléf, vāv, and/or ye.
§13.4 Find pre-modern forms in Hāfez’s ghazal for these modern forms:

________________ don’t criticize ‫ُخرده َنگیر‬ ۱

________________ last night ‫دیشب‬
َ ۲
________________ he/she sat down ‫نشست‬ َ ِ ۳
________________ he/she/it is ‫باشد‬
َ ‫مى‬ ۴
________________ it broke ‫شکست‬ َ ِ ۵

§13.5 Find words in Hāfez’s poem consisting of a noun combined with a verb present stem
with the following meanings:

1. “ghazal-singing” :.................
2. “drinkers to the bottom of the glass” : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (+ /ān/ = plural sign)
3. “alas-saying” : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (+ ān = verb sign)
4. “nocturnal”; ‫صبح زود‬ :.................
5. “wine-worshipping” :.................
6. “twisted,” “knotted” :.................

ُ َ ‫مشروبات‬
§13.6 Find words in the text referring to alcoholic beverages (‫الكلى‬ ِ َ ) with these
meanings:

1. two words for “wine”: ____________ ____________

2. “heavenly wine” (i.e., inspiring wine that may not have alcoholic content): ___________
3. “intoxicating wine” (i.e., wine that human beings make): ____________
4. three words for “wine cup”: ____________ ____________ _____________
5. “glass wine pitcher”: ____________

§13.7 Read Hāfez’s ghazal several times while listening to its recording.

/ zólfi āshofté-vo . . ./ ‫خندان َلب و مست‬

ْ َ ‫آشفته و خوى كرده و‬ ْ ‫ُز‬
ُ ‫لف‬
‫صراحى در دست‬ ُ ‫غ َزلخوان و‬
َ ‫پیرهن چاك و‬
َ

1. Tresses in disarray, perspiring, smiling, and intoxicated,

shirt torn, singing a ghazal, and a wine-pitcher in hand,
/arbadé-júy-o . . . / ‫عربده جوى و لبش َافسوس ُكنان‬ َ َ ‫نرگسش‬ َ ِ َ
‫بنشست‬
َ ِ ِ ‫بالین من آمد‬
ِ ‫شب دوش به‬ ْ ‫نیم‬
2. Narcissus eyes bellicose and lips mouthing “alas,”
midnight last night he came to my bedside and sat down.
/āvard-o . . ./ ‫آواز َحزین‬
ِ ‫فراگوشمن آورد و به‬ ِ َ ‫سر‬ْ
ِ
/kay/ (‫عاشق دیرینه ی من خوابت هست )كاى = كه اى‬ ِ ‫گفت كاى‬
3. He brought his head to my ear and in a sad voice said:
“O, my old lover, are you asleep?
‫شبگیر دهند‬ َِ
َ ‫ساغر‬ ‫عاشقى را كه ُچنین‬
‫پرست‬ َ ُ َ ‫بود گر‬
َ َ ‫نبود باده‬ َ ُ ‫كافر عشق‬ِ

214
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

4. A lover given such a nocturnal cup is an infidel to love

if he is not a wine-worshipper.
‫برو ِاى زاهد و بر ُدردكشان ُخرده َمگیر‬ ُِ
‫روز َ َالست‬
ِ ‫كه ندادند ُجز این ُتحفه به ما‬
5. Be gone, o ascetic, and do not scorn drinkers of the dregs;
for no gift but that was given us at the day of the covenant between God and humankind.
‫آنچه او ریخت به ِپیمانه ی ما نوشیدیم‬
/khamr-e behésht-ast-o gár . . . / ‫خمر بهشت است و گر از باده ی مست‬ ِ َ ‫اگر از‬
6. What He poured into our cup we drank,
be it heaven’s wine or intoxicating wine.
/máy-o/ ‫لف ِگره گیر ِنگار‬ِ ‫جام ِمى و ُز‬
ِ ‫خنده ی‬
َ ِ ِ ‫ِاى َبسا ُتوبه كه چون توبه ی حافظ‬
‫بشكست‬
7. The wine cup’s smile and the beloved’s curled tresses,
O how many repentances such as Hāfez’s have they broken!

§13.8 Refer to the foregoing text to find answers to these questions about Hāfez’s ghazal.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‫ او دیشب كجا بوده است؟‬،‫ول گوینده ی شعر‬ ِ ‫بق‬ .۱

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‫اول غزل ِذكر شده؟‬ ِ ِ‫ف ”مهمان ِ“ گوینده در ِمصراع‬ ِ ‫صفَت در وص‬ ِ ‫چند‬ .۲
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‫در ِمصراعِ سوم؟‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‫در مصراع دوم؟‬
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‫صفات در سه مصراعِ اََّول در خواننده ُممكن است چه تأثیرى‬ َ ‫دادن‬
ِ ‫ترتیب‬ .۳
‫ُگذاَرد؟‬
‫ورد وصف در غزل واقِعا ً اِتِّفاق اُفتاده یا اینكه گوینده دیداررا در تََخیُّالت و یا در خواب دیده است؟‬ ِ ‫دار ُم‬
ِ ‫بنظِر شما دی‬ .۴
. . . . . . . . . . ۲  . . . . . . . . . . . . ۱ .‫مذهبى پیدا كنید‬
َ َ ‫در غزل چهار واژه با مفهومهاى‬ .۵
. . . . . . . . . . .۴  . . . . . . . . . . . . ۳
‫ بنابراین در مصراع‬،‫آفرینش آدم مى باشد‬ ِ ِ َ ‫روز‬ ِ ‫”روز َ َالست“ ِاشاره به‬
ِ ‫عبارت‬
ِ ‫توجه به اینكه‬
ّ ‫ِ با‬ .۶
ً
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‫ور گوینده از كلمه ی ”او“ اِحتِماال كیست؟‬ ِ ‫” آنچه او ریخت به پِیمانه ی ما“ منظ‬

§13.9 Hāfezian ghazals appeal to Iranians today because of, among other reasons, their
lyricism or musical qualities and because of their sometimes complicated and philosophical
suggestiveness. The following questions highlight aspects of that suggestiveness.

1. What kind of love do you think this Hāfezian ghazal depicts? Physical, romantic love?
Spiritual love? Love of God?
2. Suppose one assumes that a connection exists between the visitor carrying the wine
pitcher in Couplet 1 and the pouring of wine in Couplet 8?
3. What implications might the word “‫ ”دیرینه‬in Couplet 3 have in the context of the allusion
in Couplet 5 to the Day of the Covenant between God and humankind?

9.15 Conclusion
In the light of the variety of Persian instructional materials and dictionary and other resources
in print and online as of 2020, one might conclude that contextualization in their use, rather
than designing new instructional materials, may be key to dealing with issues of Persian
vocabulary acquisition and maintenance. In other words, organizing vocabulary into groups
according to subject or theme or forms and presenting individual items in the context of charts
that give overall pictures of a vocabulary sort in question might best facilitate learning and
retention.

215
 Michael Craig Hillmann

Examples would include: (1) a list of the most common one-word Persian verbs together
with illustrations of verb stems and parts that figure in non-verb vocabulary; (2) a chart of Per-
sian verb tenses, moods, and voices with an illustration of each distinct form; a list of specific
prefixed, infixed, and suffixed elements with illustrations; (3) lists of Persian lexical items
in discrete families of Arabic loanwords and a chart of common Arabic loanword noun and
adjective patterns and forms; (4) a list of examples of each of the 150 or so discrete Persian
sentence patterns; and (5) a list of Persian words, phrases, and statements subsumed under the
term ta’ārof ((pr)offering, polite/respectful/deferential verbiage).21
(6) Role model exercises identifying specific settings in which, for example, American
learners can use Persian at the moment or plan to use Persian in their future can result in rel-
evant vocabulary lists on specific subjects, among them: (6.1) classroom objects, (6.2) class-
room life and activities, (6.3) using a Persian textbook, (6.4) describing one’s daily routine,
(6.5) describing one’s life story, (6.6) talking about a movie, (6.7) talking about the Persian
language, (6.8) talking about a Persian poem, (6.9) talking about life in America, (6.10) talking
about the Online Persian world, and (6.11) talking about Iranian culture.22
(7) Most Persian textbooks for speakers of English, including teaching grammars, do not
reference Persian dictionaries or practice their use. Of course, textbook authors can easily
supplement their textbooks by preparing exercises on Persian-English and English-Persian
dictionaries or assigning (parts of) a hardcopy Persian-Persian dictionary as required reading
in their courses. Persian-Persian dictionary entries being authentic texts with a relatively long
shelf life (in comparison, say, with news reports and much op-ed writing), reading them both
develops reading skills and reinforces and expands vocabulary through exposure to definitions
and, perhaps more importantly, to synonyms that appear in entries for given headwords, and
through scanning entries immediately before and after entries in question.
In short, the conclusion to “Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: Persian Resources
and Teaching and Learning Strategies” may simply be this suggestion of augmenting Persian
language course syllabi with supplemental materials and activities that specifically address
vocabulary acquisition as an issue sometimes not addressed as systematically in textbooks as
Persian listening, reading, speaking, and writing are.

Notes
1) Mohammad Ali Jazayery, Elementary Lessons in Persian: Experimental Edition (Austin, TX: 1965).
Heir to Jazayery’s audio lingual manual is Donald Stilo, Kamran Talattof, and Jerome Clinton’s,
Modern Persian: Spoken and Written, 2 Vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005, which
exhibits the careful step-by-step and signature progression familiar from earlier Stilo materials.
Modern Persian asserts that it takes “students from beginning to intermediate levels with a mastery
of modern Persian . . . and with an understanding of colloquial Persian.”
2) L.P. Elwell-Sutton, Elementary Persian Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1963; and Ann K.S. Lambton, Persian Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1953 [reprinted with corrections in 1957], and later printings. Wheeler M. Thackston’s An Introduc-
tion to Persian. Bethesda, MD: Ibex Books, 2009 (first published in 1993) is heir to earlier grammar-
translation manuals and focuses exclusively on the bookish/written [‫نوشتاری‬/‫ ]کتابی‬register of Tehran
Persian.
3) Bibliographical citations for all titles mentioned henceforth in this chapter appear in the “Refer-
ences” section at the end of the chapter.
4) Although one of two assumptions behind this chapter, that vocabulary acquisition is a chief chore for
English-speaking learners of the Fārsi Persian language, derives mostly from personal experience as
a student and teacher of Persian, the other assumption, that mastery of vocabulary is a core element
in development of foreign language competence, has behind it the views presented in Second Lan-
guage Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy, ed. James Coady and Thomas N. Huckin.

216
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. x, illustrated edition, online edition 2012, quoted
and echoed by Hillmann in “Preface,” in Persian Vocabulary Acquisition – A Guide to Word Forms
and The Arabic Element in Persian, 2nd ed. Hyattsville, MD: Dunwoody Press, 2003, i–xiii, a text-
book and reader that discusses and illustrates the rationale for an emphasis on vocabulary acquisition
in Persian instructional materials.
5) Four-letter words in Persian that begin with “‫ ”ت‬/t/ and then feature three consonant letters that iden-
tify the word as an Arabic loanword exhibit the form ta+1+ a + 22+ o3 /tafa‘‘ól/, a verbal noun often
communicating a reflexive idea vis-à-vis its related base-level word in a variant of a 123 pattern,
in this case “‫”حمل‬ َ /haml/ [carrying, transporting], which becomes “‫تحمل‬ ُّ َ َ ” /tahammól/ [forbearance,
enduring].
6) The noun “‫”ملت‬ ّ /mellát/ [nation, nationality, citizenry] minus its grammatical feminine ending / . . .
at/ plus the adjective-making suffix “. . . ‫ ”ی‬/ . . . i/ becomes the adjective “‫”ملی‬ ّ /mellí/ [national],
which combines with “‫”گرا‬ ِ /gerā/ (present stem of “‫ ”گرایین‬/gerāyidán/ [to incline/tend to, to join]
ّ
to form “‫”ملی گرا‬/melligerā/ [nationalist], the addition of the noun-making suffix “. . . ‫ ”ی‬/ . . . i/ to
which produces “‫”ملی کرایی‬ ّ /melligerayí/ [nationalism].
7) Mini-lesson #1 is adapted from the first of 47 lessons (accompanied by a comprehensive glossary,
text translations, and audio files) for intermediate/advanced Persian students in Persian Newspaper
Reader, 2nd ed. Hyattsville, MD: Dunwoody Press, 2000, 234, 77 p, 3–4, by Michael Craig Hillmann
with Ramin Sarraf, who note: “The approach to Persian newspaper reading which Persian Newspa-
per Reader has presented in lessons revolving around its texts . . . suggests that readers spend more
time trying to learn vocabulary in context than looking up words in . . . [its] glossary or in dictionar-
ies“ (p. 231). Sample PNR units are available online at www.Academia.edu/MichaelHillmann.
8) Mini-lesson #2 is adapted from “Classroom Listening: Audio Motor Units” in Michael Craig Hill-
mann’s Persian Listening. Hyattsville, MD: Dunwoody Press, 2008, 33–36, which offers vocabulary
lists on (1) listening, (2) jokes, (3) listening and speaking, (4) telephone calls, (5) radio broadcasts,
(6) music, (7) poetry, and (8) movies accompany, respectively, 100+ texts in eight chapters called (1)
Hearing Persian, (2) Persian Jokes, (3) Persian Monologues, (4) Persian Telephone Calls, (4) Persian
Radio Broadcasts, (6) Persian Songs, (7) Persian Poems, and (8) Persian Films. “Chapter 1: Persian
Listening” and sample lessons from other chapters in Persian Listening appear online at www.Aca-
demia.edu/MichaelHillmann.
9) Michael Carig Hillmann, “Colloquial/Spoken and Bookish/Written Registers of Tehran Persian,”
Persian Grammar and Verbs. Hyattsville, MD: Dunwoody Press, 2012, 61–74, compares, contrasts,
and illustrates the two chief registers of Tehran Persian.
10) Michael Craig Hillmann, “Colloquial/Spoken and Bookish/Written Registers of Tehran Persian,” in
Persian Grammar and Verbs. Hyattsville, MD: Dunwoody Press, 2012, 61–74, reviews the subject.
Persian Grammar and Verbs is available online at www.academia.edu/MichaelHillmann.
11) A mini-lesson on the Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary entry for “‫”توانستن‬ َ ِ َ [to be able] appears in
Hillmann, Persian Grammar and Verbs, 268.
12) E.g., Hillmann, “Persian Grammar Terms and Concepts,” in Persian Grammar and Verbs, 17–20.
13) On the subject of slang dictionaries in general, Ramin Sarraf, “Designing a Persian Slang Dic-
tionary,” (Ph.D. dissertation at The University of Texas at Austin, 2008). www.learningace/com/
doc/2236406/eb2c56a2bb9fe3c8391199d7c99fc570/sarrafr59881) is a good review and the first step
in Sarraf’s in-progress Dictionary of Persian Slang.
14) For a preliminary, unedited, and partially annotated list of Persian textbooks, manuals, and gram-
mars published before 2015, see “Fārsi Persian Instructional Materials for Adult Speakers of Eng-
lish: A Select and Partially Annotated Bibliography,” www.Academia.edu/MichaelHillmann.
15) For a list of 21st-century Persian textbooks for speakers of English, see “Persian Vocabulary Acqui-
sition Resources”, www.academia.edu/MichaelHillmann.
16) A word-method approach to beginning Persian reading is illustrated in Hillmann, “Chapter 1: The
Persian Writing System,” in Persian Reading and Writing. Hyattsville, MD: Dunwoody Press, 2012,
1–62. “The Persian Writing System” is available at www.academia.edu/MichaelHillmann.
17) Arabic loanwords in Persian are the subject of Chapters 45–58 in Hillmann, Persian Grammar and
Verbs (pp. 331–412). www. Academia.edu/MichaelHillmann.
18) A list of 30+ words in the /hokm/“‫”حکم‬ ُ “family” of Arabic loanwords in Persian appears in Sayyed
Mohammad Nahvi, Farhang-e Risheh’i-ye Vām’vāzeh-hā-ye ‘Arabi yā Loghāt-e ‘Arabi-ye
Mosta‘mal dar Fārsi [Dictionary of the Roots of Arabic Loanwords or Arabic Words Used in Per-
sian]. Tehran: Enteshārāt-e Eslāmi-ye Irān, 1989, 109–110.

217
 Michael Craig Hillmann

19) For a discussion of Arabic loanword root systems in Persian featuring aléf, vāv, and/or ye, see Hill-
mann, Persian Vocabulary Acquisition, Second Edition. 144ff.
20) For a description of common Arabic loanword forms and patterns in Persian, see Hillmann, “Arabic
Loanwords in Persian,” in Persian Grammar and Verbs, 331–412.
21) For examples of such lists, see Michael Craig Hillmann, “Notes on Persian Vocabulary Acquisition,”
www.Academic.edu/MichaelHillmann.
22) Hillmann, “Notes on Persian Vocabulary Acquisition.”

References
Adelson-Goldstein, J., and N. Shapiro. 2009. Translation reviewed by Ramin Eshtiaghi. English/Farsi
Oxford Picture Dictionary, 2nd ed, xi. New York: Oxford University Press. 305p. An errata sheet by
Michael Craig Hillmann is available.
Anvari, H., et al. 2002/3. Farhang-e­ Bozorg-e­ Sokhan [Sokhan Comprehensive Dictionary]. 8 vols. Teh-
ran: Sokhan Publishers.
Aryanpur Kashani, M., with M. Assi. 2004. The Aryanpur Progressive Persian-English Dictionary: Four
Volumes, Comprehensive. Tehran: Computer World Co.
Aryanpur Kashani, M., with B. Delgoshaei. 2005/6. The Aryanpur Progressive English-Persian Diction-
ary: One Volume, Concise. Tehran: Computer World Co. 29th printing.
Aryanpur Kashani, A., and M. Aryanpur Kashani. 1986. The Combined Persian-English and Engish-
Persian Dictionary. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers.
Bateni, M.R., and Assistants. 2008. Farhang Moaser Pooya English-Persian Dictionary, Two Volumes in
One. Tehran: Farhang Moaser Publishers.
Brookshaw, D.P. 2014. Media Persian Bilingual Edition, Essential Middle Eastern Vocabularies Series,
2011. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Coady, J., and T. Huckin, eds. 1997. Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Peda-
gogy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Online edition 2012.
Dehghani, D. 2014. Lonely Planet Farsi (Persian) Phrasebook and Dictionary, 3rd ed. Footscray, VIC:
Lonely Planet.
Dekhodā, ‘A., et al. Loghat’nāmeh [Dictionary]. 1956–197?. Tehran: Dāneshgāh-e Tehrān. Reprinted
and revised since the number of volumes depending upon binding of fascicules.
Emami, K. 2006. Kimia Persian-English Dictionary. Tehran: Farhang Moaser Publishers.
Ensāfpur, G. 1994. Kāmel Farhang-e Fārsi [Comprehensive Persian Dictionary]. Tehran: Enteshārāt-e
Zavvār.
Haīm, S. 1961. The One-Volume Persian-English Dictionary. New York, NY: Hippocrene Books, 2002,
4th printing.
Haghshenas, A.M., et al. 2005. Farhang Moaser One-Volume English-Persian Millennium Dictionary.
Tehran: Farhang Moaser Publishers.
Haïm, S. 1997. The One-Volume English-Persian Dictionary. Tehran: Farhang Moaser; New York: Hip-
pocrene Books, 4th printing, 2002 [1st paperback edition].
Hillmann, M., with Ramin Sarraf. 2000. Persian Newspaper Reader: Second Edition. Hyattsville, MD:
Dunwoody Press. www.Academia.edu/MichaelHillmann.
Hillmann, M. 2003. Persian Vocabulary Acquisition–A Guide to Word Forms and the Arabic Element in
Persian: Second Edition. Hyattsville, MD: Dunwoody Press.
Hillmann, M. 2008. Persian Listening. Hyattsville, MD: Dunwoody Press. www.Academia.edu/
MichaelHillmann.
Hillmann, M. 2012. Persian Grammar and Verbs. Hyattsville, MD: Dunwoody Press. www.Academia.
edu/MichaelHillmann.
Hillmann, M. 2012. Persian Reading and Writing. Hyattsville, MD: Dunwoody Press. “Chapter 1: The
Persian Writing System” is available online at www.Academia.edu/MichaelHillmann.
Hillmann, M. 2015. “Fārsi Persian Instructional Materials for Adult Speakers of English: A Select and
Partially Annotated Bibliography.” www.Academia.edu/MichaelHillmann.
Keshāni, K. 1993. Dictionnaire inverse de la langue persane/Farhang-e Fārsi-ye Zānsu [Reverse Order/
Sort Persian Dictionary]. Tehran: Presses Universitaire d’Iran/Markaz-e Nashr-e Daneshgāhi.
Miller, C., and K. Aghajanian-Stewart. 2017. A Frequency Dictionary of Persian: Core Vocabulary for
Learners. New York: Routledge Frequency Dictionaries.

218
 Second language vocabulary acquisition

Mo‘in, M. 1965–1973. Farhang-e Fārsi (Motavasset) [An Intermediate Persian Dictionary]. 6 volumes.
Tehran: Amir Kabir.
Nahvi, S.M. 1989. Farhang-e Risheh’i-ye Vām’vāzeh-hā-ye ‘Arabi yā Loghāt-e ‘Arabi-ye Mosta‘mal
dar Fārsi [Dictionary of the Roots of Arabic Loanwords or Arabic Words Used in Persian]. Tehran:
Enteshārāt-e Eslāmi-ye Irān.
Najafi, A. 1999/2000. Farhang-e Fārsi-ye ‘Āmiyāneh [Colloquial/Slang Persian Dictionary]. 2 volumes.
Tehran: Enteshārāt-e Nilufar.
Sadri Afshār, G., N. Hakami, and N. Hakami. 2004. Farhang-e Mo‘āser-e Fārsi [Contemporary Persian
Dictionary], 4th ed. Tehran: Farhang Moaser.
Sadri Afshār, G., N. Hakami, and N. Hakami. 2009. Farhang’nāmeh-ye Fārsi: Vāzhgān va A‘lām
[Persian Encyclopedical Dictionary: Lexicon and Proper Names]. 3 volumes. Tehran: Farhang
Moaser.
Samā’i, M. 2003. Farhang-e Loghāt-e Zabān-e Makhfi [A Persian Dictionary of Argot [lit: secret lan-
guage]. Tehran: Nashr-e Markaz, and subsequently reprinted.
Sarraf, R. 2008. Designing a Persian Slang Dictionary. Ph.D. dissertation at The University of Texas
at Austin. www.learningace/com/doc/2236406/eb2c56a2bb9fe3c8391199d7c99fc570/sarrafr59881.
Shabani-Jadidi, P. 2015. What the Persian Media Says: A Coursebook. New York: Routledge.
Stilo, D., K. Talattof, and J. Clinton. 2005. Modern Persian: Spoken and Written. 2 volumes. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Turner, C. 2004, 2010. A Thematic Dictionary of Modern Persian. New York: Routledge.

219
 10
SECOND LANGUAGE
GRAMMAR BEHROOZ MAHMOODI-BAKHTIARISECOND
­ LANGUAGE GRAMMAR

Challenges in grammar for

English-speaking
­ learners

Behrooz Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari
­

10.1 Introduction
The aim of this chapter is cataloguing the primary issues facing the Persian language instructor
working with English-speaking students. I consider most people consulting this chapter to be
Persian language instructors, who may need such issues as systematically as they have been
presented here. It is hoped that this list of grammatical features in Persian becomes of special
consideration to the instructors, as it provides a summary of the most challenging points of
Persian grammar for English speakers. Needless to say, the specific strategies to deal with such
challenging points require a separate (and highly needed) research, which will surely elevate
the level of discourse in this field from observational to analytical.
Grammar knowledge is defined as “what learners know about language rules and struc-
tures, and the acquisition of grammar is the acquisition of those rules and structures and the
ability to use them in a communicative context” (Nassaji 2017, 205). However, I consider the
term “grammar” to have two quite distinct general and specific senses. The specific sense,
which is more traditional in nature, refers to the description of the morphological and syntactic
structure of a language, to show how linguistic units such as words and phrases are built, and
how they get combined to produce sentences in a language. This sense does away with phonol-
ogy and semantics, which form the general sense of grammar, together with morphology and
syntax, proposed by Chomsky (Crystal 1987, 88).
In this chapter, I make use of the term “grammar” in its specific sense; dealing with some
major issues of interest in its morphology and syntax, for pedagogic purposes, following Lar-
diere (2012, 106), who correctly states that the acquisition of the morphology and syntax of
a second language lies at the heart of the study of second language acquisition. The ability of
learners to correctly produce grammatical morphemes (such as markers for case, tense/aspect,
plurality, definiteness, negation, agreement, etc.) is the standard for inferring that a learner has
acquired the representation of morphosyntactic categories. Also, the researchers would like to
know if the learners have recognized what issues are not possible in the L2, such as the restric-
tions of syntactic movements (see ibid. 114–115).
So, I consider myself a teacher in favor of having grammar instructions in my classes.
Although Krashen (1982) argues that formal instruction in grammar does not contribute to the

220
 Second language grammar

development of the knowledge needed for participate in authentic communication (referred to

as ‘acquired’ knowledge), and Prabhu (1987) argues that learners can acquire an L2 grammar
by participating in meaning-focused tasks, I find myself in agreement with scholars like Ellis
(1990), who hold that grammar teaching aids L2 acquisition, although not necessarily in the
way it is generally practiced. In line with Ellis (2002) and the two approaches she introduces
– ‘practice’ and ‘consciousness-raising’ – I believe the latter seems to be achieved via gram-
mar instruction, as it develops an explicit knowledge of grammar in the learners. Otherwise,
we will face the acquisition of implicit knowledge, which involves three processes: ‘noticing’,
‘comparing’, and ‘integrating’, for which the learners of Persian, for example, do not have
either enough time or facilities.
Considering this, in this chapter, I will try to highlight some selective noteworthy phe-
nomena that may rise in a contrastive study of English and Persian: issues such as the inflec-
tional paradigm for present, past, transitive, or intransitive constructions, as well as methods
of expressing the definite and indefinite noun phrases, or showing the specific objects and non-
specific ones, together with the several clitics used in Persian language, and different types of
agreement (object-verb), and so on.
This chapter is by no means a sketch of Persian grammar and simply touches some spe-
cific cases that have turned out to be challenging in teaching the language. The interested
reader may refer to several grammar books available, some of which date back to the late 17th
century. Of course it should sadly be stated that there has not been a comprehensive Persian
grammar that contains both the historical developments of the language, as well as a thorough
description of its present status so far. But Lazard’s (1957, and later on, 1989) Grammaire du
persan contemporain is perhaps the standard grammar up to the present, and the most precise
and methodological. Although it deals with modern standard Persian, as well as the colloquial
and classical registers of the language, it is far more useful than some rich works such as Phill-
ott (1919) and Windfuhr (1979). Also, Thackston (1993) and, recently, Yousef (2018) are very
useful and detailed grammars of Persian, which may be added to this list.
In this chapter, I will deal with issues of the morphology and syntax of Persian, with refer-
ence to the ones are not necessarily comparable with English. These are naturally the issues to
address more precisely when we would like to write a pedagogical grammar book of Persian
or think of developing standard exams.
For a discussion on second language morphology in Persian, read Chapter 6 in this volume,
and read Chapter 5 in this volume for further discussion on second language syntax in Persian.
In addition, Chapter 4 in this volume compares the acquisition of morphology and syntax in
Persian heritage learners and that in second language learners of Persian.

10.2 Persian morphology

As an Indo-European language, Persian acts like so many other languages of this family
in terms of inflection in morphology. Persian nouns share many of the characteristics that
nouns generally have in all languages, i.e., they primarily function as a referring expres-
sion; they belong to an open class, can take determiners, and can occur as subjects, objects
and complement. However, some specific issues about the Persian verb show that they can
occur as the first element in a compound verb, can take the post-position rā andenclitic =e,
and can be modified by adjectives in a N + ezāfe + adjective construction (but preceded
by a superlative adjective). They canonically occur before the verb and do not inflect for
tense, aspect, mood. Persian nouns have systems for distinguishing number and definiteness
(although the simple nouns remain neutral in both of them) but do not make a distinction

221
 ­
Behrooz Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari

in animacy or gender. Also, cases are not shown by inflection. Chapters 26 and 27 in this
volume present a detailed list of contrasting morphological properties in English speaking
learners of Persian.

10.2.1 Issues on nominal morphology of Persian

In this part, I briefly introduce some challenging issues in Persian nominal morphology for the
foreign learners. In this part, grammatical issues such as number, derivative suffixes (diminu-
tives and Definite markers), case relations and markings, the postposition rā, pronouns and
reflexive cases will be considered.

10.2.1.1 Number
Simple Persian nouns may be realized as generic nouns, such as the word ketāb ‘book’ in the
sentence injā ketāb arzān ast ‘books are cheap here’, or as plural nominal predicates in mā
hame mo’allem hastim ‘we are all teachers’. In order to pluralize the nouns, the stressed suffix
-hā is added to the noun like qalam-hā ‘pens’, sag-hā ‘dogs’ and dozd-hā ‘thieves’. However,
the stressed -ān is also used in more formal contexts and for animate human nous such as
sarbāz-ān ‘soldiers’, kudak-ān ‘children’ and nābinā-yān ‘the blind’, as well as for a small
number of non-human animates, such as giyāh-ān ‘plants’, jānevar-ān ‘animals’, deraxt-ān
‘trees’, and pestān-dār-ān ‘mammals’. It is noteworthy that in modern standard Persian, -hā
has almost totally replaced – ān, and it is quite all right to say, for example, dānesh-ju-hā rather
than dānesh-ju-yān ‘students’. The only exceptions are those words whose plural forms are
lexicalized and idiomatic, such as āqā-yān ‘gentlemen’ (*āqā-hā), bozorg-ān ‘the senior (peo-
ple), leaders’, digar-ān ‘the others’, and sar-ān ‘leaders’ (as opposed to sar-hā ‘heads’). The
same rule holds true for marking the (western) loanwords as plurals, such as kāmpiyoter-hā
‘computers’, and tāksi-hā ‘taxis’.
The Arabic plural suffixes -un, -āt and -in in the loan words enqelābi-yun ‘revolutionar-
ies’, estehkām-āt ‘fortifications’ and qātel-in ‘murderers’ are also witnessed, together with the
‘broken’ Arabic plurals such as dalāyel (sg. dalil) ‘reasons’, amāken (sg. makān) ‘places’ and
nosax (sg. nosxe) ‘manuscripts’; all of which are likely to appear with -hā as well.
Plural nouns impose a concord of number on the Persian verbs when they refer to animate
beings. For example, in the sentence gorh-hā be galle hamle kardand ‘the wolves attacked
the cattle’, the noun gorg-hā ‘wolves’ requires the verb hamle kardan ‘to attack’ to be conju-
gated for the 3Pl hamle-kard-and
­ ­ (attack-did-3pl). In case the subject is inanimate, the verb
may remain singular, such as sāxtemān-hā xarāb shod ‘the buildings damaged’ and jādde-hā
band āmad ‘the roads were blocked’. Also, when used with cardinal numbers, the Persian
nouns remain singular: yek medād ‘one pencil’, dah medād ‘ten pencils’. Noun classifiers
that are inserted between numbers and nouns do not change the singularity of the nouns as
well. The most common classifier with the most general application is -tā ‘-fold’, as in do(-tā)
doxtar (two-CL girl) ‘two girls’. Some other common classifiers are -tan ‘body (for people)’,
-jeld ‘volume (for books)’, -dāne ‘seed’, -ra’s ‘head’ (for domestic animals), halqe (for tires),
farvand (for ship, airplanes and tanks); as in se-halqe lāstik (three-ring tire) ‘three tires’, and
do-farvand havāpeymā (two-head airplane) ‘two airplanes’.
A clear difference between the English and Persian plural system is that Persian plurals
can be used with mass nouns or with infinitives, to indicate the large sum of something or
the repeated nature of something; like in nān-hā (lit. this bread-pl.) ‘this amount of bread’,
mashrub xordan-hā-ye u ‘his (excessive) drinking’.

222
 Second language grammar

10.2.1.2 Derivative suffixes

10.2.1.2.1 DIMINUTIVES

Diminutive suffixes -ak (usually for animate nouns) and -che (for the inanimates) are the com-
mon tools to denote the smaller size of a noun, or to denote denigration or endearment; as in
­ ‘kid’ (from pesar ‘boy’), tefl-ak ‘brat’ (from tefl ‘baby’), or qāli-che ‘rug’ (from qāli
pesar-ak
‘carpet’) and daryā-che ‘lake’ (from daryā ‘sea’). Worthy of note is that there are some lexical-
ized words with such diminutives as well, which have got their own separate meanings, such as
arusak ‘doll’ (arus ‘bride’) or simāche ‘mask’ (simā ‘face’) and mixche ‘toe corn’ (mix ‘nail’).

10.2.1.2.2 DEFINITENESS

Definiteness, as a property of the noun that indicates reference to a unique entity that can be
identified by both speaker and hearer, does not have clear morphological means in Persian.
Nouns in subject or indirect object position, when unmodified, are definite:1

gorbe ru=ye  sandali ast

cat  on=EZ chair  be.PRES.3SG
‘The cat is on the chair’.
ketāb rā be ostād    dād-am
book  rā  to professor  give.PAST.1SG
‘I gave the book to the professor’.

An issue that may be taken into consideration is the difference Persian and English show in
their definite markings. As opposed to English, demonstrative pronouns, personal pronouns,
and proper names as well as demonstrative adjectives, superlatives and ordinals are all inher-
ently definite in Persian, like medād-hā ‘the pencils’, avvalin nafar (first-person) ‘the first
person’, and behtarin shā’er (best-poet) ‘the best poet’.
However, indefiniteness and oneness is identified by an unstressed =i, as in mard=i ‘a man,
one man, some man, any man’.2 This clitic may also follow plural nouns, such as kudak-ān=i
‘some children’.

10.2.1.3 Case relations and markings

Typologically, Persian is a nominative-accusative language, but its nouns are not inflected for
cases. As a matter of fact, Persian cases are indicated by adpositions (prepositions and one post
position rā), verb agreement, and word order (see following). The subject of both transitive
and intransitive verbs is not marked with an adposition. It basically appears at the beginning of
the sentence and agrees with the verb in terms of number and person, as in rezā va ali raft-and
‘Reza and Ali went’, mā xābid-im ‘We slept’.3
Seven primary prepositions in Persian mark different cases. For example, be ‘to’(dative)
in ketāb rā be u dādam ‘I gave him/her the book’, dar ‘in(to)’ as dar otāq ‘in the room’, dar
chenin sharāyeti ‘in such circumstances’; az ‘from’, denoting the source of something, as

xāne-ye mā az injā xeyli dur ast

‘our house is so far from here’,
or

223
 ­
Behrooz Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari

in beyt az hāfez ast

‘This verse is by Hāfez’
Bā ‘with’ also has several functions. i.e. in comitative:
bā dustam dars xāndam
‘I studied together with my friend’,
instrumental, as:
bā chāqu be u hamle kard
‘S/he attacked him/her with a knife’
and concessive, as:
bā kamāl-e meyl in rā mi-pazir-am
‘I accept this with all pleasure’.
Tā is the other preposition with several meanings: ‘to, until’ as
bāyad tā shab montazer bemānim
‘We have to wait until night’,
az tehrān tā Tabriz cheqadr rāh ast?
‘How far is it from Tehran to Tabriz?’,
and also (be)joz ‘except’ as
hame madrak gereftand, bejoz man
‘Everybody got his or her certificate except me’
and barā(-ye) ‘for’ as
in gol rā barāye to xaride-am
‘I have bought this flower for you’ (see Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari 2018).

These were the predominant “simple” prepositions. Other types of prepositions are those with
ezāfe (see later) such as darbāre=ye (about) and barā=ye (for the sake of).

10.2.1.4 The postposition rā

The highly disputed postposition rā is generally regarded as a marker of the definite direct
object. However, there is not a consensus about this definition (see Mahootian 1997, 198–
201). The traditional view, supported by Phillot (1919), Sādeqi (1970), Lazard (1989) and
Rafiee (2001) identifies rā as the marker of definite direct objects, but more recent studies such
as Browne (1970), Karimi (1989), Windfuhr (1987) and Dabir-Moghaddam (1992) mainly
deal with it as a definite marker, indicator of specificity, or topicalization marker. I personally
believe that it is not accurate to regard rā simply as a definite marker, as there are examples of
its use with indefinite direct objects too, such as ānhā mard=i rā koshtand ‘They killed a man’,
or mā namāyande=i rā be ānjā ferestādim ‘we sent a representative there’.

Rā as a direct object marker can follow proper names, such as:

parviz rā mishenāsid?
‘Do you know Parviz?’
or after personal, demonstrative, reflexive, or reciprocal pronouns:
shomā rā be yād dāram
‘I remember you’.
in rā barā=ye shomā xaridam
‘I bought this for you’.
xod-ash rā az hame behtar midānad
‘He regards himself better than all others’.

224
 Second language grammar

hamdigar rā didand
‘They met each other’.
and
ānhā asrār=e ham rā midānand
‘They know each other’s secrets’.
Abstract nouns can also accept -rā when used as direct objects:
haqiqat rā nemishavad penhān kard
‘reality cannot be hidden’

(for other examples, see Mahootian 1997, 202–203).

10.2.1.5 Pronouns
As to the demonstrative pronouns in and ān, Persian shows flexibility in adding the plural
suffix to them (in-hā ‘these’, ān-hā ‘those’) as well as adding the object marker rā to them:

in rā bebar
‘Take this away’.
ān-hā rā shost-im
‘We washed them’.
These pronouns can also act as the third person pronouns as well:
che kasi in-hā rā da’vat karde ast?
‘Who has invited them (lit. these [people])’?
By adding the morpheme jā ‘place’ to the demonstrative pronouns, we will have Persian
locative demonstratives injā ‘here’ and ānjā ‘there’:
ānhā be ānjā raftand
‘They went there’.
inhā rā az injā bardār
‘Take these from here’.
The numeral yek ‘one’ with the indefinite clitic =i forms the indefinite pronoun yeki in Persian:
yeki az pesar-ān=ash dar āmrikā zendegi mikonad
‘One of his sons lives in America’.
lotfan yeki ham barā=ye man biyāvarid
‘Please bring one for me, too’.
yeki yeki az otāq birun raftand
‘They went out of the room one by one’.

As to the negative indefinite pronouns in Persian, they are three: hich-kas

­ ‘no one’, hich-chiz
­
‘nothing’, and hich-jā ‘nowhere’, which make the verb of their clause negative, as opposed to
what we have in English:

hame qazā=yeshān rā khordand. > hich kas qazā=yash rā nakhord

‘Everybody ate their food. > Nobody ate his/her food’ (lit. nobody didn’t eat his/her food).
injā hame chiz hast. > injā hich chiz nist.
‘Everything is here. > Nothing is here’ (lit. here nothing is not).
in ketāb hame jā peydā mishavad. > in ketāb hich jā peydā nemishavad
‘This book is available everywhere. > This book is not available anywhere’ (lit. This book
is not found nowhere).

225
 ­
Behrooz Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari

There are nine interrogative pronouns in Persian, some used with slight phonological dif-
ferences in the colloquial form of the language: ke/ ki ‘who’, che/ chi ‘what’, key ‘when’, kojā
‘where’, cherā ‘why’, chetor, chegune ‘how’, kodām ‘which’, cheqadr ‘how much’. Among
all these, ki ‘who/whom’ and chi occur alone in both subject and object position:

ki shomā rā rāh dāde ast?

‘Who has let you in?’
minā bā ki bargasht?
‘Whom Mina came back with?’
chi oftād?
‘What fell down?’
ostād chi goft?
‘What did the professor say?’

Also, Persian does not have independent relative pronouns. The general complementizer ke
‘that’ functions as a relative pronoun and introduces the relative clauses:

zan=i ke tez=am rā tāyp kard

‘the woman who typed my thesis’
jā=yi ke dars xāndam
‘the place where I studied’.

As it is seen, ke here restricts the antecedent and makes it specific, by adding the determiner
=i to it. This marker is also attached to the modifiers of the noun:

medād=e qermez=i ke mixāstid

‘the red pencil you wanted’
ketāb-hāy=i ke sefāresh dāde budim
‘the books we had ordered’.

Needless to say, if the antecedent is already specific, =i is not needed: ‘amu=yam ke . . . ‘my
uncle who . . .’, az tehrān ke pāytaxt=e irān ast . . . ‘from Tehran, which is the capital of
Iran . . .’. In some cases, the combination of har ‘each/every’ to some words yields relative
words, such as har-kas
­ (lit. every-person) ‘whoever’, har-jā (lit. every-place) ‘wherever’, har-
chiz (lit. every-thing) ‘whatever ’, and har-vaqt (lit. every-time) ‘whenever ’.
Persian does not have independent possessive pronouns, and possession is shown either by
ezāfe construction with the personal pronoun, or by the use of pronominal clitics, or by māl=e
‘property of’ construction in copular sentences: in ketāb māl=e man ast ‘This book is mine’.

Table 10.1 Pronominal clitics in Persian

Pronominal clitics

Person Singular Plural

First =am =emān
Second =at =etān
Third =ash/=sh =eshān

226
 Second language grammar

Pronominal clitics act as either direct objects, as in mishenāsam=ash ‘I know him’,4 or as pos-
sessives, as in mādar=at ‘your mother’. Pronominal clitics expressing possession may also appear
in noun phrases, as in kār–hā=yat ‘your works’, barādar yā xāhar=at ‘your brother or sister’, and
cheshm=e chap=am ‘my left eye’. This table provides the list of the pronominal clitics in Persian:

10.2.1.6 Reflexive cases

Reflexive pronouns express the reflexive case relations in Persian. They are formed by add-
ing the enclitic personal pronouns to the reflexive morpheme xod, as in xod=am, xod=at,
xod=ash, xod=emān, xod=etān, xod=eshān ‘myself’ up to ‘themselves’. It is noteworthy
that here xod may not be regarded equivalent with ‘self’ in English, as it may appear alone
(in formal texts), and according to the subject of the sentence, differ in meaning: u xod rā
kosht ‘he killed himself’, man xod rā dust dāram ‘I like myself’, lotfan xod rā be zahmat
nayandāzid ‘please do not put yourself in trouble’. Reflexive pronouns also act as emphatic
elements in sentences like cherā az u miporsi? az xodam bepors ‘Why do you ask him/her?
Ask me’, and xodam bā cheshm-hāye xodam didam ke raft ‘I personally saw with my own
eyes that s/he went’.

10.2.2 Verbal morphology

An important issue about the Persian verb is its totally distinguished finite and non-finite
forms. Finite verbs get inflected in terms of tense and subject agreement, as well as taking
imperfective, subjunctive and negative affixes. On the other hand, non-finite verbs do not act
as previously.
In terms of structure, Persian verbs are based on three stems: present, aorist and perfect
(participle). The aorist can usually be taken from the infinitive, after deleting the infinitive
marker -an. The perfective is also regularly derived from the aorist stem by -e: raftan ‘to go’,
raft ‘went’, raft-e­ ‘gone’. The present stem, however, is not as classified as it is in the earlier
example, and although in many cases it looks regularly derived such as busidan (pres. bus) ‘to
kiss’, paridan (pres. par) ‘to fly’, raqsidan (pres. raqs) ‘to dance’, there are quite a number of
present stems that should be memorized, such as didan (pres. bin) ‘to see’, neveshtan (pres.
nevis) ‘to write’, goftan (pres. gu) ‘to say’.
Imperfective and subjunctive prefixes are mi- and be- respectively, which occur with all the
previously mentioned stems: mi-bin-am
­ ­ ‘(I) see’, be-xān-ad ‘(that s/he) reads’. The exceptions
are the stative copula verb budan ‘to be’ (with the subjunctive stem bāsh without be-, and with
no past perfect), and dāshtan ‘to have’ (with no mi- or be- prefixes, and a periphrastic perfec-
tive subjunctive dāsht-e bāshi ‘that you have’). It should be noted that budan may appear as a
short or a long copula, as in xub-am
­ or xub hast-am­ ‘I am fine’. Short copula does not exist for
the past tense, and budan is used in its past like the rest of the verbs, together with the subject
agreement endings: bud-am ­ ‘I was’, bud-and
­ ‘They were’. The morphological future tense is
also built with the verb xāstan ‘to want’ (and the appropriate personal endings), together with
the truncated infinitive: xāham goft ‘I will say’.
Worthy of note is that in standard written Persian, habitual and progressive meanings are
expressed by the present and simple past verbs (i.e. mixoram may both mean ‘I eat’ and ‘I am
eating’, and mixordam serves to mean ‘I used to eat’, ‘I would eat’ and ‘I was eating’, as a
durative-iterative imperfect. Of course the present and past progressives are also expressed by
a periphrastic construction too, made up of the conjugation of the auxiliary dāshtan ‘to have’
and the verb: dārām mixānam ‘I am reading’, dāshtand miraqsidand ‘They were dancing’.

227
 ­
Behrooz Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari

This construction, mostly used in spoken Persian, is confined to positive statements and does
not have a negative form, and no future form either.

10.2.2.1 Modal verbs

Seven Persian verbs are normally used as modal verbs: xāstan ‘to want’, tavānestan ‘to be
able’, gozāshtan ‘to let’, behtar budan ‘to be better’, momken budan ‘to be possible’, together
with frozen modals bāyad ‘must’ and shāyad ‘may’. The first three verbs are independent
verbs, too, but all of them can express the notion of modality by occurring with a comple-
ment subjunctive verb (see Thackston 1993, 112): behtar ast be-ravim ‘It is better that we go’,
bāyad be-ravand ‘(They) must go’, begozārid be-mānim ‘Let us stay’.

10.2.2.2 Compound verbs

A vast majority of Persian verbs are compound verbs, consisting of a non-verbal element and
a light verb (see ‘Complex predicates’ in the syntax part of this chapter). Several non-verbal
elements may be used in forming the compound verbs, such as the noun qosse in the com-
pound qosse-xordan
­ (lit. grief-eat) ‘to grieve’, an adjective like penhān in penhān-kardan (lit.
hidden-do) ‘to hide’, and an adverb like pas-dādan (lit. back-give) ‘to return’. These verbs are
negated by adding the negative prefix to the verbal element: u rā peydā-na-kardim ‘We did not
find him’, u az shirāz bar-na=gasht ‘He did not return from Shiraz’.
As a result of the process of incorporation, generic objects form compounds with the verb,
without being marked with the object marker: qazā xord-am ‘I ate some food’, ketāb nevesht-
­ ‘We wrote books’. Object agreement markers, however, get attached to the non-verbal ele-
im
ment of the compound verb, such as komak=am kon ‘help me’, xāmush=ash kard-and ‘they
extinguished it’.
Impersonal constructions are formed either by the modal bāyad ‘must’, or the verbs
mishavad ‘it is probable’ (lit. it becomes), and mitavān ‘it is possible’ (lit. non conjugated
‘can’) followed by truncated infinitives:

chāre=i nist, bāyad raft

‘There is no other choice, we should go’ (lit. one should go)
mishavad hame rā rāzi negahdāsht?
‘Is it possible to keep everybody satisfied?’
mitavān neshast va montazer mānd
‘It is possible to sit and wait’.

Among the compound verbs, a challenge exists about some constructions with certain
verbs such as āmadan ‘to come’, gereftan ‘to get’, bordan ‘to take’, and oftādan ‘to fall’,
as well as constructions with budan ‘to be’ and shodan ‘to become’, in which the verb is
not conjugated, and the form of the sentence is like that of the impersonals, while it is not
exactly so, and the personal ending gets attached to the nominal part of the verb, rather than
the verbal. Examples are bist sāl=am ast (lit. twenty year=my is) ‘I am twenty years old’,
ketāb gir=am na-yāmad (lit. book hold=my didn’t come) ‘I couldn’t get hold of the book’,
sard=eshān ast (lit. cold=there is) ‘They feel cold’, xāb=am bord (lit. sleep=my took) ‘I
fell asleep’ and the like. These forms, known by Yousef (2018) as “Quasi-impersonal idi-
oms”, are reminiscent of the German phrases Mir ist kalt ‘I feel cold’, and Mir reicht’s ‘It
is enough for me’.

228
 Second language grammar

For a more detailed discussion on Persian compound verbs, read Chapters 4 and 6 in this
volume.

10.3 Issues in Persian Syntax: word order and NPs

Persian is a pro-drop language that permits scrambling. In terms of word order, Persian is
basically an SOV language, in which the subject precedes the predicate, and the direct object
is usually adjacent to the verb, as in dārā ketāb rā xarid ‘Dara bought the book’. Precedence
of subject with respect to the verb is also at work when the verb is a copula: dārā tarsu ast
‘Dara is coward’.
When the verb is ditransitive, the direct object precedes the indirect object like

dārā qazā ra be sārā dād

‘Dara gave the food to Sara’.
Or:
dārā ketāb-i rā be sārā dād
‘Dara gave a book to Sara’.
But in case of noun incorporation, this order changes:
dārā be sārā qazā dād
‘Dara fed Sara’ (lit. Dara food-gave Sara).

Typologically, the basic word order of Persian turns out to be misleading to many linguists,
as it does not normally follow the universals proposed by Greenberg for the SOV languages.
According to word order universals for SOV languages, it is a NP/ADJ-COPULA language:
dānā mo’allem ast (Dānā-teacher-is) ‘Dana is a teacher’ and Sārā zibā ast (Sara-beautiful-is)
‘Sara is beautiful’. However, many of its word order characteristics are much alike English,
as an SVO language: (Preposition-Noun, as in dar kelās ‘in the class’; AUX-V, as in Xāhad
raft ‘s/he will go’; N-REL, as in mard=i ke raft ‘the man who went’, and Sentence initial WH
word, as in kojā rafti? ‘Where did you go?’).
The modifier of a Persian noun phrase (noun or adjective) always follows the head,
together with an unstressed enclitic =e (=ye after the names ending in vowels), named ezāfe,
which serves to link a noun syntactically with a following modifying element. For example,
ketāb=e rezā ‘Reza’s book’ (N-N), or keyk=e xoshmaze ‘delicious cake’ (N-Adj). It is pos-
sible to have several ezāfe constructions in one noun phrase, such as keyk=e xoshmaze=ye
dāxel=e yaxchāl ‘delicious cake in the refrigerator’. First and family names (except those
names ending with – u or – ā) also follow the same pattern. So the famous Iranian director
Abbas Kiarostami’s name is pronounced abbās=e kiyārostami. Foreign names do not follow
this pattern, but if Noam Chomsky were Iranian, his name would be pronounced as noām=e
chāmski.
Generally, we may identify three ezāfe constructions: attributive, as sā’at=e panj ‘five
o’clock’, ketāb=e dastur ‘grammar book’, ketāb=e siyāh ‘black book’; genitive, as ketāb=e
mehdi ‘Mehdi’s book’ or pāye=ye miz ‘leg of the table’; and appositive, like āqā=ye akbari
‘Mr. Akbari’,5 xalij=e fārs ‘Persian Gulf’, forudgāh=e mehrābād ‘Mehrabad Airport’ or
xiyābān=e jordan ‘Jordan Street’.6
The only exceptions in such modifying are seen in demonstrative and quantifying adjec-
tives: se doxtar ‘three girls’, chahāromin nafar ‘the fourth person’, and in superlative
constructions: bāhush-tarin dāneshju ‘The most intelligent student’ (lit. intelligent-SUP
student).

229
 ­
Behrooz Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari

10.3.1 Syntax of complex predicates

Most of the predicates in the Persian are complex predicates, having two parts: a nonverbal
element and a light verb. The most-used light verbs and their strong meanings are kardan ‘to
do’, dādan ‘to give’, zadan ‘to hit’, gozāshtan ‘to place’, gereftan ‘to take’, keshidan ‘to pull’,
raftan ‘to go’, āvardan ‘to bring’, bordan ‘to take’, dāshtan ‘to have’, shodan ‘to become’,
xordan ‘to eat’, andāxtan ‘to throw’, and āmadan ‘to come’. The formation of complex predi-
cates is productive and expanding, and in many cases, the choice of the light verb determines
if the complex predicate selects an external argument or not.
The nonverbal element in the Persian complex predicate can either be a noun, an adjective,
an adverb or a prepositional phrase. Examples are:

10.3.1.1 Noun+verb
ātash-gereftan (fire-take) ‘catch fire’, pust-andāxtan (skin-throw) ‘shed skin’, qarz-gereftan
­
(borrow-take) ‘borrow’, farā-gereftan (beyond-take) ‘acquire, to prevail’, panāh bordan
(refuge-take) ‘take refuge’, ehterām-gozāshtan (respect-place) ‘respect’, harf-zadan
­ (speech-
hit) ‘speak’, sabr-kardan
­ (patience-do) ‘wait’, da’vat-kardan (invite-do) ‘invite’, ranj-­ bordan
(suffer-take) ‘suffer’, chāne zadan (chin-hit) ‘bargain’.

10.3.1.2 Adjective+verb
garm-gereftan
­ (warm-take) ‘warm up to’, bāz-kardan (open-do) ‘open’, boland-kardan
­ (high-
do) ‘lift’, bozorg-kardan
­ (big-do) ‘raise (a child)’, paxsh-kardan
­ (spread-do) ‘spread out’,
hamāhang-kardan (coordinate-do) ‘coordinate’, vel-kardan (loose-do) ‘release, let go’, derāz-
keshidan (stretch-draw) ‘lie down’.

10.3.1.3 Adverb
pas dādan (back-give) ‘return’, tah-keshidan
­ (bottom-pull) ‘be used up’, pas-oftādan (back-
fall) ‘pass out’.

10.3.1.4 Particle+ verb

bar-gashtan
­ (over-turn) ‘return’, bar-dāshtan (over-have) ‘take’, dar-māndan (in-stay) ‘be
inert’, dar-raftan
­ (out-go) ‘escape, get dislocated’, dar-oftādan (in-fall) ‘start a challenge/
fight’, bar-angixtan
­ (over-stimulate) ‘enrage’.

10.3.1.5 Prepositional phrase+ verb

be-kār bordan (to-work- get) ‘to use’, az- dast-dādan (from-hand-give) ‘to lose’, be-xāk-
sepordan (to- soil- entrust) ‘to bury’, be- donyā-āmadan (to- world-come) ‘to be born’,
az-yād-bordan (from- memory- take) ‘forget’, be-­ be-dard-xordan
­ ­ (to-pain- eat) ‘be use-
ful’, be-dast-āvardan (to-hand- bring) ‘attain’, az-hāl-raftan (from-mood-go) ‘pass out,
faint’.
These constructions show interesting syntactic properties. For example, the passive form
of those with nouns, adjectives and adverbs is not lexical and is formed by making another

230
 Second language grammar

complex predicate, while the passive for those with particles or prepositions is like the simple
passive verbs:

maryam ali rā farib dād > ali farib xord

‘Maryam tricked Ali > Ali was tricked’.
otāq rā tamiz kardim > otāq tamiz shod
‘We cleaned the room > the room was cleaned’.
ānhā in mozu’ rā be xāter sepordand > in mozu’ be xāter seporde shod
‘They memorized this issue > This issue was memorized’.
Many a time it happens that these constructions undergo ellipsis, such as
man otāqam rā tamiz kardam, vali mehrdād na-kard
‘I cleaned up my room but Mehrdad didn’t’.
man az hāl raftam, vali mehrdād naraft
‘I fainted, but Mehrdad didn’t’.

Also, the few available cases of Persian resultative constructions are mostly formed with
complex predicates:

sebil=ash rā hitleri eslāh mi-kon-ad

‘He shaves his moustache in toothbrush form’.
sofre rā tamiz pāk kon
‘Wipe the tablecloth clean’.
shāgerd=am rā herfe’i tarbiat-kard-am
‘I trained my student to be a professional’.
bachche-ash rā lus bār-āvord
‘S/he brought up his/her child spoiled’.

10.3.2 Syntax of complex clauses

In complex sentences, the order of the main clause and subordinate clause varies with the
logical or temporal precedence of the actions. If the action in the subordinate clause, due to
a cause, time or condition, logically precede the other actions, then the subordinate clause
precedes the main clause. On the other hand, it follows the main clause if its action follows
the others, due to an explanation, time of potential completion, or a sudden interruption. The
markers chon ‘since, as’, vaqti ‘when’, tā ‘as soon as’ and agar ‘if’ mark the preceding sub-
ordinate clauses, while zirā ‘because’, ke ‘when/suddenly’, tā ‘until’ and magar inke ‘unless’
act the other way round:

chon bā u qahram, be didan=ash nemiravam

‘Since I am not on speaking terms with him, I don’t go to see him’.
dāshtam kār mikardam ke āmad
‘I was working when he came’.
But it can generally be said that complement clauses are marked by ke, as in:
āmadam ke to rā bebinam
‘I came to see you’.

In the study of the syntax of the Persian complex clauses, three types of subordinate clauses
are considered: temporal, conditional and relative clauses.

231
 ­
Behrooz Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari

Different temporal clauses, i.e. anterior (having taken place before the verb of the main
clause), concomitant (taking place simultaneously) and future (taking place after the main
clause), have different forms in Persian. In the anterior temporal clause, we always have the
present subjunctive, regardless of the tense of the main clause:

qabl az inke u beravad, man residam

‘Before he went, I arrived’.
qabl az inke u beravad, man miresam
‘Before he goes, I arrive’.
qabl az inke u beravad, man xāham resid
‘Before he goes, I will arrive’.

The concomitant temporal clauses, usually introduced by vaqti ke ‘when’, make use of
identical tenses:

vaqti be ānjā residam, dar baste bud

‘When I got there, the door was closed’.
And (interestingly) the future temporal clause makes use of the past verb:
ba’d az inke raftam, fahmidam ke eshtebāh karde’am
‘After I went, I realized that I made a mistake’,
ba’d az inke rafti, mifahmi ke eshtebāh karde’i.
‘After you go, you (will) realize that you made a mistake’.

The conditional clauses are distinct in terms of possibility and impossibility. Possible
conditionals employ the present subjunctive in their protasis and present/future in the
apodosis:

agar puldār beshavam, xāne mixaram

‘If I become rich, I (will) buy a house’.

Sometimes the simple past is used in the protasis to emphasize the immediate realization of
the apodosis when the condition is fulfilled:

agar puldār shodam, xāne mixaram

‘If I become (lit. became) rich, I will (surely) buy a house’.
Impossible conditionals usually make use of the imperfect in both protasis and apodosis:
agar be moqe’ mi-residi, u rā mi-didi
‘If you arrived on time, you would see him’.
agar be moqe’ reside budi, u rā mi-didi
‘If you had arrived on time, you would have seen him’.

Persian relative clauses are postnominal, marked again by the subordinator ke, and the head
of the relative clause becomes definite by the use of the particle – i:

mard=i ke xāne=ash rā foruxt

‘the man who sold his house’.

232
 Second language grammar

This happens with the heads of relative clauses in other cases, too, such as:

mard=i ke az u xāne xaridam

‘the man from whom I bought the house’,
mard=i ke bā u sohbat mikardi
‘the man with whom you were talking’,
mardi ke ketāb=ash gom shode
‘the man whose book is lost’.

10.3.2.1 Che beresad be ‘let alone’ constructions

Among the coordinating means in Persian, che beresad be (lit. what reaches to) has a specific
function. Given the specific part of the sentence on which the speaker is emphasizing, the item
after che beresad be differs. In case the emphasis is on a noun, the following item is a noun:

u man rā bābā sedā nemikonad, che beresad be qorbān

‘He does not call me “dad”, let alone “Sir” ’.
This also holds true of the nouns acting as objects of prepositions:
man az gorbe mitarsam, che beresad be ‘aqrab
‘I am afraid of cats, let alone scorpions’.
However, after the emphasized sentences, a complementary clause follows it:
u javāb=e salām=e man rā nemidahad, che beresad be inke dastam rā bebusad.
‘He does not reply to my greetings, let alone kiss my hands’.

Here, the information structure is at work, and the behavior of the construction reveals a con-
nection between the syntax and pragmatics of Persian.

10.4. Conclusion
Error analysis may be a good method to pave the way for the production of useful grammar
books and exercises. My rather long experience of teaching Persian has given me the sense
that some specific areas of Persian grammar look more different and difficult to the foreigners
(especially the English speakers). In this chapter, these areas of Persian grammar were intro-
duced, which are supposedly making challenges while teaching the language. Issues such as
definiteness for nouns, rā and its several grammatical and discourse functions, ezāfe construc-
tion and its minute meanings, different prepositions and their uses, quasi-impersonal construc-
tions that are not found in many other languages, and finally, ellipsis and complex predicates
are among those phenomena that act differently in comparison to a language such as English
and should naturally be kept in mind in preparing syllabi and course books. The several exam-
ples provided in the chapter show the diversity of the issues to be covered and the exercises
useful for the students. My personal suggestion is emphasizing on such issues in the work-
books but making the learners face them for the first time in their textbooks.

Notes
1) In colloquial Persian, the enclitic =e gets attached to singular proper or common nouns (in subject or
object position) to indicate definiteness, such as mard=e bā man harf zad ‘The man talked to me’, or
film=e ro didam ‘I watched the film’.

233
 ­
Behrooz Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari

2) Traditional Persian grammar refers to this =i as yā-ye vahdat ‘=i of unity’ and yā-ye nakare ‘=i of
indefiniteness’. These two items were used to be known as separate suffixes, but now we know then
as one entity and as a clitic (see Lazard 1989).
3) This fact results in being Persian as a “Pro-drop” language; in which nominative pronouns may be
dropped: nahār=am rā xordam ‘(I) ate my lunch’, irāni ast ‘(s/he) is Iranian’. This is another clear
difference between English and Persian.
4) In spoken Persian, clitics also follow the prepositions and act as indirect objects too: az=ash geref-
tam ‘I took from him’, be-hesh-goftam
­ ­ ‘I told to him’.
5) Job titles, however, do not receive an ezāfe marker: doctor karami ‘Dr. Karami’, ostād haqshenās
‘Professor Haghshenas’.
6) Ezāfe may also appear after some prepositions such as kenār=e ‘beside’, zir=e ‘under’, ru=ye
‘over’, posht=e ‘behind’, jelo=ye ‘in front of’, ruberu=ye ‘opposite of’.

References
Browne, W. 1970. “More on Definiteness Markers: Interrogatives in Persian.” Linguistic Inquiry, 1(3):
59–63.
Crystal, D. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dabir-Moghaddam, M. 1992. “On the (in)Dependence of Syntax and Pragmatics: Evidence from the
Post-Position -rā in Persian.” In Cooperating with Written Texts, edited by D. Stein. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Ellis, R. 1990. Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Learning in the Classroom. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. 2002. “Grammar Teaching – Practice or Consciousness-Raising?’ In Methodology in Language
Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice, edited by Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Renandya,
167–174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karimi, S. 1989. Aspects of Persian Syntax, Specificity, and the Theory of Grammar. PhD dissertation,
University of Washington.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lardiere, D. 2012. “Linguistic Approaches to Second Language Morphosyntax.” In The Routledge Hand-
book of Second Language Acquisition, edited by Susan M. Gass and Alison Mackey, 106–126. New
York and Oxon: Routledge.
Lazard, G. 1957. Grammaire du persan contemporain. Paris: Klincksieck.
Lazard, G. 1989. “Persian.” In Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, edited by R. Schmitt, 253–293.
Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Mahootian, S. 1997. Persian. New York: Routledge.
Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari, B. 2018. “Morphology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics, edited by
A. Sedighi and P. Shabani-Jadidi, 273–299. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nassaji, H. 2017. “Grammar Acquisition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language
Acquisition, edited by Shawn Loewen and Masatoshi Sato, 205–223. New York and Oxon: Routledge.
Phillott, D.C. 1919. Higher Persian Grammar for the Use of the Calcutta University, Showing Differ-
ences Between Afghan and Modern Persian with Notes on Rhetoric. Calcutta: The University Press.
Prabhu, N. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rafiee, A. 2001. Colloquial Persian: The Complete Course for Beginners. London: Routledge.
Sādeghi, ‘A. 1970. ‘Rā dar Zabān-e Fārsi Emrooz’ (rā in Contemporary Persian). Journal of the Faculty
of Literature and Humanities. University of Tabriz, 93: 9–22.
Thackston, W. 1993. An Introduction to Persian. Bethesda, MD: Iran Books.
Windfuhr, G.L. 1979. Persian Grammar, History and State of Its Study. (Trends in Linguistics, State-of-
the-Art Reports, 12.) The Hague: Mouton.
Windfuhr, G. 1987. “Persian.” In The World’s Major Languages, edited by Bernard Comrie, 523–546.
London: Croon Helm.
Yousef, S. 2018. Persian: A Comprehensive Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.

234
 11
SECOND LANGUAGE
LISTENING IN PERSIAN YASS ALIZADEHSECOND LANGUAGE LISTENING IN PERSIAN

Yass Alizadeh

11.1 Introduction
The key idea of this chapter is to introduce various audio models that can help teachers of
Persian ease students into simultaneous decoding of authentic Persian utterances through the
instructor’s voice, audio stories, songs, movies, speeches, interviews and conversations in
class or at home via the internet and other media outlets. The questions this chapter will ask
are manifold: How can listening proficiency be achieved while engaging students in a lively
and vibrant interaction in and outside of the classroom? How can the development of listening
aptitude be part of a hands-on interactive syllabus that leaps beyond drills and exercises? How
can the instructor interact with students as intellectual and creative partners in learning rather
than mere recipients of the language? How can Persian listening skill pedagogy be forwarded
into the 21st century realm of a multitasking, multifaceted and global community of learners
who not only expect their learning to be in the form of tasks but also expect for the tasks to
be authentic, interactive, interpersonal, collective and creative? Considering the geopolitical
specificity of Persian as a less commonly taught critical language, which, unlike many other
world languages, is hardly targeted for the immediate purpose of travel and tourism, what are
the effective strategies to best model authentic oral give and take without sacrificing the fluid-
ity and flexibility of Persian as a living language? Finally, as Persian is a heritage language
selected by second and third generation immigrants, on the one hand, and valued as a political
and cultural medium by students of socio-political and cultural sciences, what are the best cul-
tural samples that may help introduce such a diverse group of learners to the Persian language
without sacrificing the multiplicity of Persian culture? Read Chapters 3 and 4 for elaborate
discussion on heritage learners of Persian.
The immediate answer to the five questions here is a class community with an intercultural,
project-based learning setting that holds true to a communicative approach to language teach-
ing while engaging students in a creative, design-oriented participatory learning environment
where knowledge is a trading of ideas between all members of the class community, and not a
one-way direction where the teacher actively gives and the students passively receive. Using
authentic material, expecting students to use critical thinking, teaching them to follow instruc-
tions, problem-solve, think, build, create, negotiate meanings, and allowing them to have
an input in the design of their curriculum will lead to a learner-based language community

235
 Yass Alizadeh

that builds upon the students’ knowledge and experience, and involves other subjects such
as math, economics and political science. By focusing on functional objectives, learning Per-
sian can successfully adhere to ACTFL’s “World Readiness Standards of Learning a Foreign
Language” in order to achieve the goals of “Five Cs” of language learning: Communication,
Cultures, Connections, Comparisons and Communities. ACTFL (American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages) categorizes communication, the basic goal of learning a lan-
guage, to be “interpersonal,” and “presentational” and “interpretive.” Interpersonal skills are
communicative skills that involve both parties engaged in the give and take of written or oral
knowledge. Presentational skills focus on speeches, lectures and oratory needs, and interpre-
tive skills are analytical reading and listening skills. Needless to say, competency in any of
these communicative modes is possible only through an ongoing understanding of the culture
of communication and the nuances that give life to written or spoken words (ACTFL 2019).
Making connections in the target language builds a community of learners to whom lan-
guage is hardly a target but a tool for building, creating and problem solving. In this commu-
nity, authentic content that is relevant to the students’ needs and enhances their understanding
of the target culture is the main component of the curriculum. Moreover, in order to follow
this authentic curriculum, the students need appropriate learning tools appropriate for criti-
cal engagement in an interactive classroom. Listening skills, as skills that target interpretive
modes of communication, must engage the same level of content authenticity as one’s first
language. The news, the weather, songs, stories, lectures, requests etc. are great examples of
authentic content for a task-based classroom, but in addition to the authenticity of the content,
the form, as well, should follow the speed, the tone and the voice as it is uttered for native
speakers.
In his discussion of the intricacies and complexities of listening aptitude for second lan-
guage learners, Richard Cauldwell (2013) categorizes the process of listening mode to three
consecutive parts of “preparation, perception and understanding.” Preparing one’s mind for
receiving audio information is the first step to successful comprehension of meaningful utter-
ances. Just as one will be lost if he or she shows up in the middle of a lecture, a conversation
or a reading in one’s native language if they do not know the context in which the exchange
of information is taking place, a second language leaner will be lost (even more so if the
vocabulary is new) if they are not given a proper introduction to the topic. Therefore, students
will tremendously benefit from an introductory context to what they are to hear. Perception, as
Cauldwell (2013) explains, is “decoding the sound substance and identifying the words that
are said.” Repetition is hence recommended and many times necessary for students to master
the decoding process. The last step in listening comprehension is “understanding” the mean-
ing of the utterance (Phonology for Listening 16). Spontaneous speech, as Cauldwell (2013)
argues, is never “accent-free” (PFL 159). This point is especially notable with regards to the
many dialects and accents of Persian and its teachers. The three major dialects of Persian,
Dari, Farsi and Tajik in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan, as well as the numerous accents in
the Persianate world, may not only confuse the learner but also deter instructors from claim-
ing an identity for their phonological method of articulating the language and using certain
vocabulary and syntax. Read Chapters 23 and 24 in this volume for a detailed discussion on
different varieties and dialects of Persian.
While teachers should not worry about their accents, they should be cognizant of the mul-
tiplicity of Persian dialects and accents, and should communicate with their students that no
matter what part of the Persianate world they are from, they are accented. One might decide
to change one’s accent, of course, as we, consciously or subconsciously, do change our tone
and accent in various social situations depending on a variety of factors including the social,

236
 Second language listening in Persian

political and cultural characteristics of the addressee. Not only do we use different vocabulary
and mold our language output based on variables including but not limited to age, social status
and our relationships with the recipient, but we also change our tone and voice based on the
social role that we as speakers play in various situations. Our students too should be aware
of this continuous shift, and while the teachers do not need to be knowledgeable about all the
accents in the Persian world, it is important to help students appreciate that there is not a single
authentic accent or dialect of Persian, and Persian is a fluid language that changes with time,
and in various socio-cultural and geo-political spaces. In addition, students need to be specifi-
cally cognizant of public versus private Persian and be aware that the shift in speech identity
does not limit to socio-economic, socio-political or regional accents. Finally, they need to
learn that Persian has differentiated formal and vernacular categories whose written/formal
sentences frequently change their form in oral/colloquial utterances and are not limited to one
formal or vernacular model:

‫ خواهر من است‬،‫آن دختر‬.: Written/Formal

‫اون دختر خانم خواهرم هستن‬.: Oral/Formal
‫آن دختر خانم خواهر من هستند‬.: Written/Formal
‫اون دختره خواهر منه‬.: Oral/Informal

Or:

‫ همان آهنگ همیشگی را بخوان‬،‫اگر میتوانی‬.:Written/Formal

‫ همون آهنگ همیشگی رو بخونین‬،‫اگه میتونین‬.: Oral/Formal
‫ همان آهنگ همیشگی را بخوانید‬،‫اگر میتوانید‬. Written/Formal
‫ همون آهنگ همیشگی رو بخون‬،‫اگه میتونی‬.: Oral/Informal

Acknowledging the multiplicity of Persian accents, tones and dialects in different villages,
towns, cities and regions of the Persian speaking world puts the students at ease with their own
Persian accents, helps their confidence when encountering less familiar styles of Persian utter-
ances outside of the class community, and gives the instructor the assuredness to communicate
with the learners in an authentic, personal, accented dialect that he or she is comfortable with.
Listening skills are arguably the most challenging of the four L2 skills as listeners have lit-
tle control over the speed and the complexity of the utterance that they receive. Persian listen-
ing skills are hence the most difficult to master, and compared to other interpretive skills, they
are the slowest to achieve even among the advanced level learners of the language. Persian lis-
tening proficiency is frequently a delayed skill attained on a much smaller scale than the other
three L2 skills. Nevertheless, the ability to comprehend and interpret spoken language is one
of the most important skills that an L2 learner should master, and modeling the natural learn-
ing process of native speakers’ listening aptitude, L2 speakers should master listening earlier
than speaking, reading and writing. If we apply the native speakers’ language acquisition pro-
cess for teaching a second language, and with regards to students in lower performance levels,
the ability to comprehend spoken Persian must be stressed more – if not given priority – over
reading and writing during the contact hours in the classroom. Whereas students may, to a
degree, practice reading and writing independently and outside of the classroom environment
via internet and other media resources, the instructor is usually one of the few Persian-speaking
individuals who can introduce the intricacies of spontaneous Persian and guide the students
thought the spiral route of interpretation and proficiency of Persian listening skills. In addition,
allocating adequate class time to listening exercises leads to a positive sense of community and

237
 Yass Alizadeh

cooperation that is of utmost importance for goal-driven classrooms of today. Listening to the
voice of the teacher and the classmates, hearing a lecture or a debate, following an oral story,
listening to a song, watching a TV show, a debate or a movie clip, are exercises that enable stu-
dents to achieve listening proficiency while advancing in other aspects of learning. Alluding
to Bloom’s Taxonomy (vanderbuilt.edu 2019), which continues to present the baseline for a
successful learning environment, providing the students with the opportunity to work together
as members of a learning community who endeavor to achieve meaningful results enhances
their learning experience and instills a sense of purpose to the language classroom. In effect,
listening skills are the torch bearers of the communicative approach to learning, and mastering
them can successfully lead to students’ “analysis” and “creativity”.
In order for the group work to be effective, however, the goals must be clearly defined by
the instructor, and the level of expectations, while stimulating, must not outweigh the abilities
of the students. In other words, not only must the objectives of the task be reasonable and at
reach, but also the roles of each member of the group must be clearly defined by the instruc-
tor; otherwise, the time spent on the task may not lead to learning and may leave the students
insecure about their linguistic abilities and assuming linguistic barriers. One way to ensure the
students’ classwork is effective is to follow the Backward Design method, the idea of starting
any lesson plan with a clear learning outcome in mind as introduced by Grant Wiggins and
Jay McTiche (2005). Following this rule, the students know what they are expected to produce
at the end of each lesson, and they will achieve a better learning outcome. More importantly,
the evidence of learning, they argue, will be different in a classroom that follows a Backward
Learning curriculum as assessment is no longer an examination of what students may or may
not know, but what they can evidently do with the language (Wiggins and McTiche 2005,
14–16). In a curriculum that follows evidence-based assessment, instructors present a con-
crete end result or learning outcome to the students, and provide enough guidance and direc-
tions for the students to achieve the set goals. Students’ progress is hence measured by their
position on the “road to mastery rather than tests or grades” (Wiggins 2013). In addition, an
evidence-based and goal-specific learning community substitutes purposeless exercises and
passive drills with hands-on activities that demand the students’ full presence and involvement
in classroom activities. As Wiggins (2013) illustrates, with regards to listening and speaking
exercises, the “evidence” is in communication and creativity, and dialogic exercises that focus
on give-and-take of information:

A teacher should ask himself, what will count as evidence of learning? A teacher who
originally was thinking on doing public speaking as a more traditional assessment,
but when he asks the question, “What will count as evidence of learning?” then he
might change his mind and consider Socratic Seminars because they definitely pro-
duce a lot of evidence of how much the students have learned simply by tracking
their questions and the answers.
(Edutopia, November 9, 2013)

Applying Wiggins and McTighe’s methodology to a task-based classroom with listening

skills as the focus of the unit, the students will pay more attention, will be more confident in
their learning and will control their own learning progress more effectively. In a goal-oriented
Persian classroom, time spent on listening tasks looks beyond mere practicing of drill-like
listening comprehension exercises, word-for-word translating of audio texts, or following
instructions that are irrelevant to the students’ communicative expectations. On the contrary,
collaboration on real-world, authentic projects using Persian interpretive skills can manifest as

238
 Second language listening in Persian

what Michael Byram, Conlon Perugini, and Wagner (2019) calls the language for “interpret-
ing and relating” and “discovery and interaction” with the goal of “Intercultural Citizenship”
(Eric, August 10, 2019). In fact, approaching listening skills with an Intercultural Citizenship
Competence goal can help students become active participants in their listening proficiency as
they will view the skill as a critical component in their education about self and others. Apply-
ing Michael Byram’s intercultural approach to a Persian classroom, L2 learners of Persian
will gain a critical understanding and application of the language if they are introduced to
listening skills as an active interpretive skill that develops critical cultural awareness in their
language proficiency, and L2 teachers of Persian must be encouraged to prioritize the teach-
ing of auditory proficiency and allocate a major section of class time to students’ mastering
listening interpretation. The old debate of phonos versus logos and orality versus literacy, and
the continuous deliberation in the academia on the weight of written language over spoken
language (Ong 2002, 163–164), continues to impact L2 teachers with the dilemma to choose
between allocating enough time to listening/speaking aptitude versus reading/writing profi-
ciency. Nevertheless, the goal of learning a second language is first and foremost the ability to
communicate and then to work alongside others to find or create solutions. Listening aptitude
helps the students with understanding problems faster, more naturally, and directly; hence it
makes solving problems and creating social justice closer and at reach.
As the new guidelines of ACTFL introduce listening as primarily an interpretive skill that
should be measured by the amount of information listeners comprehend, the inferences they
make, and the knowledge they can produce or the tasks they can perform via the retrieved mes-
sage, unlike many other L2 languages, Persian as a Less-Commonly-Taught Critical Language
puts instructors and students in a challenging situation (ACTFL 2012). Persian is different
from many other less commonly taught languages in the location of learning as learning the
language is rarely possible through immersion classrooms, real-time conversing with native
speakers or traveling to a Persian speaking country such as Iran or Afghanistan, hence Rich-
ard Cauldwell’s (2013) “Jungle” of voices and real-life utterances has been for the past many
years lost in the front and center “Greenhouse” and “Garden” voices of Iran and Afghanistan
that are introduced though media and digital venues (Cauldwell 2018, 12–13). In order to help
students with overcoming such linguistic barriers, Persian language teachers need to be extra
creative in introducing a combination of these three speech domains in their syllabi. Con-
trolled, semi-controlled and spontaneous utterances exist in real life and are part of one’s daily
communication patterns. We do spend our days in producing and receiving a combination of
premeditated speeches, isolated words, as well as mashed up utterances. A successful teaching
method helps students recognize the importance of understanding slow, well-organized words
as much as accepting a mishmash of unfinished sentences and inaudible sounds. Most impor-
tantly, L2 learners should be given assurance about the near-impossibility of decoding all that
is being uttered in either domain. Just as it is impossible to hear all that is being articulated in
any L1 chain of sounds, it is nearly impossible to hear and comprehend every sound combina-
tion in L2. Accepting the fact that what skips an L2 listener’s ears may not be due to lack of
his or her listening proficiency but a natural occurrence that comes with any listening activity
no matter what the language will lead to a more successful Persian listening curriculum and
learning outcome. When the fear of listening is removed, the teacher can focus on creating a
listening syllabus that combines various types of speech sounds and shares them with the stu-
dents in various stages of language proficiency. Although the level of the students’ understand-
ing of Persian speeches is generally a direct reflection of the amount of time they have been
exposed to the language, introducing a combination of utterance types or speech models from
the beginning of their L2 education will lead to higher proficiency in less time.

239
 Yass Alizadeh

Listening is a communicative skill, and according to ACTFL categories, listening is an

interpretive skill that encompasses an analytical understanding of heard speeches. Interpreta-
tion is not mere comprehension or translation of what we hear. Interpretive skills are “reading
between the lines” of speech sounds that fall on the learner’s ears. As Sandy Cutshall (2012,
38) argues, in this approach to listening skills, listeners are hardly expected to engage in trans-
lating the audio, and are instead fully engaged in communicating about what will happen next
in a narrative, finding the meaning of words through understanding the general meaning of a
sentence, and making inferences based on available evidence.
The goal of listening skills as such is not translational but analyzing synthesized data in
order to interpret the meanings that have been transpired. This interpretive mode differs from
what has classically been considered a translational goal of texts. As an alternative, it focuses
on a negotiation of meanings toward a cooperative common goal of creating solutions and
building mutually beneficial human connections. In effect, if the goal of learning a less com-
monly known language such as Persian is negotiation of meaning, cultural understanding and
creating common human goals, listening skills must advance beyond a traditionally passive
reception of data to goal-oriented task-based activities. Task-based activities shift the role of
language learners from passive recipients of the foreign language to active participants with
authentic and real-life responsibilities that benefit the learners’ community, the target commu-
nity and the global village we all belong to in mutual respect, and with no knowledge neces-
sarily superseding another. For example, when students listen to the Iranian diaspora singer
Marjan Farsad’s songs, not only will they gain a critical perspective on memory, nostalgia and
displacement (a collective human experience), but also their acquired knowledge may lead to
a more profound humanitarian stance on less commonly discoursed problems that immigrants
and refugees struggle with (loneliness and homesickness experienced by a minority group,
i.e. immigrants). They learn about the artistic, cultural and professional benefits of having
an open-door immigration policy (the privilege of hosting individuals like Farsad in one’s
country) and striving to change local and global policies that cause human displacements and
becoming actively involved in local and global xenophobia and racism. While a traditional
approach to improving listening skills through songs dealt with a translational approach to
the song without making a connection beyond the form and content of the lyrics, a mod-
ern response to listening skills engages the whole student in a holistic learning process. In
addition, in a task-based Persian class, students are encouraged to enter with their academic
knowledge from other disciplines and with daily experiences from life outside of the class-
room, putting their knowledge and strategies to use – as well as to test – in their groups. In
addition, their activities in the Persian classroom becomes a critical part of their repertoire of
knowledge when negotiating meanings outside of the classroom in other academic, profes-
sional and social communities. In effect, not only the linguistic abilities but also the cultural
knowledge that they take from their Persian lessons becomes an integral component of their
educational journey. For further discussion on task-based language teaching and learning, read
Chapters 16 and 17 in this volume.
As indicated earlier, listening activities in a task-based Persian classroom are expected to
be goal-oriented, meaningful and authentic, hence the instructor’s diligence in shifting away
from drills and fill-in-the-blank-exercises to open-ended questions, inference exercises and
creative queries that demand students’ critical understanding of the listening activity and pro-
mote their using problem-solving skills. In this Persian pedagogy, interactive and group work
substitutes exercises that are traditionally solitary and predictable, and open-ended questions
invite vibrant peer collaboration and active participation by all students. One example of the
difference between this method of listening activity and the traditional linear approach is how

240
 Second language listening in Persian

students are expected to listen to a Persian folktale or children’s story with the direct objective
of practicing their listening skills rather than translating the story. Whereas understanding the
literal meaning of sentences and phrases – if not the words – was the focus of most listening
comprehension exercises in the past, the 21st century student expects to activate the knowl-
edge he or she gains in a lesson. Instead of dead-end questions about the meaning of words or
“where” the character goes or “what” he or she does, the instructor can engage the learner in a
wholesome response to the story with inference and analysis. In this active listening exercise,
why and how questions take precedence over what, where and who questions, and group work
in interpreting the story replace traditional fill-in-the-blanks, yes/no questions and multiple-
choice drills. Nevertheless, such participatory listening exercises will only be successful with
prior notification and warmup by the instructor. As Richard Cauldwell (2013) expertly argues,
the students need preparation for what they hear, and unless the listeners are equipped with
(some) background knowledge about what to expect, what they receive can only be an “acous-
tic blur.” As the listener picks out words and their meaning or “lexical segmentation,” the
teacher’s role is to build a connection between the sound substance and the learner’s prior
knowledge of the language (Cauldwell 2013, 16).
Auditory skills of Persian can be taught using a variety of teaching tools. The instruc-
tor’s voice is undoubtedly the students’ primary means to simultaneous and authentic voice
of a Persian speaker. Hand and facial gestures, tone and manner of speech, choice of words
and formalities and decorum are best learned within the enclosed space of the classroom
and with direct interaction with the instructor. Nevertheless, because there are limits to
students’ real-time communication in class, instructors need to find ways to help the stu-
dents hear more Persian and listen to a wide variety of Persian utterances after the contact
hours. Songs, speeches, interviews, fiction and poetry podcasts, movies and TV effectively
contribute to the students’ listening skills and familiarity with various ranges of Persian
utterances.

11.2 Teaching listening skills through songs

Popular songs are a great tool for introducing students to descriptive language, vocabulary in
context, imagery, intonations, metaphors, symbols and, most importantly, cultural communi-
cation norms. In addition, Persian pop songs are an effective means for students to achieve
Intercultural Competence or “a set of cognitive, affective, and behavioral skills and character-
istics that support effective and appropriate interaction in a variety of cultural contexts (Bennet
2015, xxiii). Startalk’s proficiency model (Startalk, 1), as well, leads us to the conclusion that
successful lesson plans:

• Are learner focused

• Use Persian for meaningful communication
• Integrate analysis and synthesis of perspectives and viewpoints
• Focus on authentic material
• Apply performance-based assessment

Popular Persian pop songs play an important yet cheerful role in Iranian people’s personal and
political lives. As a socio-cultural means for reflection, criticism and change, popular songs
have been in the center of personal, social and political shifts during Iran’s modern history. Just
as Persian poetry has for centuries played a major part in communicating Iranian’s collective
feelings about personal, social and cultural issues, and as metaphor continues to claim a solid

241
 Yass Alizadeh

space for negotiating ideas, lyrics and melodies of Iran have not found an auspicious place in
Iranians’ emotion and psyche. Not only do most Persian songs apply everyday language to
express emotions, but they also negotiate a deeper understanding of Iranians’ shared values for
communication. In order to take advantage of the vast array of popular songs in Persian, the
language instructor needs to introduce the many facets of Iranian musical productions, explain
that the native tongue of most Iranians is not Persian hence Persian, for many, is a public rather
than a private language – which in turn makes Persian lyrics and melodies a collective mode
of communication – and that the Persian language is part of the national identity of Iranians
through which people of different ethnicities, languages and dialects share collective joys and
sorrows, communal victories and losses, and public celebrations and lamentations. In effect,
approaching Persian pop songs as expressions of Iranians’ multifaceted culture extends the
objective of the listening exercise beyond translational boundaries and aims at an intercultural
understanding between the learners and Persian speakers. Persian pop songs make an excel-
lent tool for listening skill proficiency as they add various cultural, vocabulary and intonation
layers to the learning experience. Choosing music videos with pleasant rhythms, rhymes and
repetitive phrases and utterances is the key to a successful usage of music for novice and
intermediate students. Marjan Farsad is one of the popular musicians whose work brings a
listening session to life. An Iranian-Canadian with catchy tunes, authentic melody and emo-
tional lyrics that are choreographed with artistic graphic, Farsad appeals to students who may
not, in round one, understand her lyrics, but will most likely enjoy the visuals that accom-
pany her songs. The combination of successful audio-visual presentations, cultural themes
and ideas makes Farsad’s songs a great tool for teaching audio skills. Farsad’s music brings
Persian language and culture to the classroom and helps create empathy between the foreign
learner and the Iranian singer who is herself a first-generation immigrant raised and educated
in Iran. Introducing Farsad’s songs to the classroom help ease listening comprehension by the
added melody, rhythm and rhyme as well as a ballad-like slow pace of her songs. In addition,
Farsad’s lyrics have a fresh, positive and global theme that negotiate a common identity with
students who might otherwise feel intimidated by the complexity of other Persian songs. Lured
by the beauty of the illustrations and the soft melody, students soon recognize the repetition
of the phrase “‫ ”خونه ما‬and “‫ ”دور دوره‬and familiar words and utterances. The familiarity of the
universal theme of displacement, migration and loneliness embedded in colorful cartoons,
and the combination of soft Persian and Western melodies, bring an ease to the lesson plan,
stimulate empathy and raise curiosity among the listeners about the song leading to a human
connection between us (second language learners) and them (Persian native speakers). Learn-
ing to overcome the assumed cultural gap not only by enjoying the song but also by thinking
critically about the political and ethical questions that the song raises invites the students to
learn more about the causes and effects of displacement, many faces of immigration and the
shared experience of memory and nostalgia.

“‫مرجان فرساد “ خونه ما‬

‫خونه ما دوره دوره‬
ٔ
‫پشت کوهای صبوره‬
‫پشت دشتای طالیی‬
‫پشت صحراهای خالی‬
‫خونه ماست اونور آب‬
‫اونور موجای بیتاب‬
‫پشت جنگای سروه‬
‫ توی یه خواب‬،‫توی رویاست‬

242
 Second language listening in Persian

‫پشت اقیانوس آبی‬

‫پشت باغای گالبی‬
‫اونور باغای انگور‬
‫پشت کندوهای زنبور‬
‫ پشت ابراست‬،‫خونه ما‬
ٔ
‫اونور دلتنگی ماست‬
‫ته جادههای خیسه‬
‫ پشت دریاست‬،‫پشت بارون‬
‫ قصه داره‬،‫خونه ما‬
ٔ
‫آلبالو و پسته داره‬
‫پشت خندههای گرمش‬
‫آدمای خسته داره‬
‫خونه ما شادی داره‬
ٔ
‫توی حوضاش ماهی داره‬
‫کوچههاش توپبازی داره‬
‫گربههای نازی داره‬
Marjan Farsad (2019)

Marjan Farsad “Khuneh-ye Ma”

Our home is far far away
behind enduring mountains
behind golden plains
behind empty deserts
Our home is on the other side the water
the other side of impatient waves
behind forests of cypress
it’s in a fantasy, in a dream
Behind the blue ocean
behind orchards of pears
the other side of vineyards
behind beehives
Our home is behind the clouds
the other side of our broken hearts
at the end of wet roads
behind the rain, behind the sea
Our home has stories
has Sour cherries and pistachio
behind its warm laughters
it has weary humans
Out home has joy
has fish in its (small) pools
has playing ball in its alleys
has cute cats

The instructor initiates communication for the intended listening activity by providing what
Stephen Krashen (1982, 20) coins as “comprehensible input.” By introducing the singer and
her song, and what is expected of the students to focus on while listening to the song, the

243
 Yass Alizadeh

instructor engages them in acquisition with language that is slightly above their level: chal-
lenging yet reachable. Although surprising the students with beautiful sounds and visuals is an
exciting idea specially for Persian classrooms where the students’ prior knowledge of Persian
language and culture is mostly limited to news and politics, it is more beneficial to prepare
the class for the lesson by planning a comprehensive introduction to the video/audio as well
as stating the goal in choosing the specific lesson. Following a backward design philosophy
(Wiggins and McTiche 2005), the instructor gives the students a set of open-ended questions,
tasks and creative exercises prior to playing the audio that ease the students acquisition process
by knowing what they are expected to produce.
As part of the preparatory steps for the lesson, students are responsible for gathering infor-
mation on the singer and research her work prior to class. This prior knowledge could be
acquired in English, Persian or both, but the students are required to present their research
to class in Persian. While the intermediate and advanced students can be expected to present
in complex Persian structures, novice learners can present in bullet points and short sentence
structures so that the flow of information is not inhibited by their developing ability in the
target language.

1 Pre-listening activity: The students have been instructed to research the musician and find
as much information on the singer, the lyricist and the composer as they can. They are
expected to share their findings with the class; each student will add information to what
a previous student might have missed.
2 Listening activity: The instructor introduces the singer in Persian. Because the stu-
dents have already researched the singer and know what to expect, they will try to
connect the knowledge that they teacher is giving them to their prior knowledge about
the singer and the song, and this active participation in creating new knowledge paves
the way for the rest of their class activities. As the instructor briefly explains why this
singer has been chosen and why this song matters as a culturally significant song, she
can direct the students’ attention to revisiting political and social constructs and giv-
ing the concept of memory and nostalgia a socio-political framework. The instructor
shares the important words from the song (the words of the chorus, the unfamiliar
words, the key words, etc.) with the students by using the words in different sentences
where the words function similarly and have the same connotation. Although vocabu-
lary out of context is not a useful teaching tool; the teacher models the usage of the
vocabulary in context by making simple sentences using the song’s words. The teacher
mimics the songs’ lyrical syntactic form to familiarize the students with the various
contexts/situations the same sentence structure may occur. The students then watch the
music video.
3 Post-listening activity: The instructor uses subtitles to help with the students’ audio recog-
nition, may engage in a meta-linguistic discussion of the syntax by adjusting her expecta-
tions to the students’ general facial and bodily response to the song (hesitance, anxiety,
curiosity and pleasure), may replay the song and pause every few lines to direct the stu-
dents’ attention to the more complex utterances, and finally directs the students to various
group and class activities following the song. As part of the effectiveness of songs as
mediums of listening aptitude is the lyrical repetition that makes songs easy to model and
remember. By using the lyrics as indirect grammar drills, the teacher integrates grammati-
cal patterns in teaching listening skills. These activities include a rewriting of the song in
their own words, answering listening comprehension questions about the signer’s home
(Where is her home? Is it far or is it close? What color is the ocean? What fruit trees does

244
 Second language listening in Persian

she mention, etc.), what is the singer’s tone, what words are repeated in the song and why,
what are her memories of her childhood, what are the universal themes of the poem, what
makes the poem a nostalgia for Iran? What makes it universal? How the graphics help
an appreciation for the melody? What are the onomatopoeic words in the song? What are
their synonyms in English? Do they like the song? Why? What do they learn about the
singer by listening to this song?
4 Assessment and follow-up: The students work in smaller groups with the goal of a better
understanding of the song, and the teacher moves from group to group and joins in the
conversations, observations and analysis of the song, repeating verses and encouraging
students to find synonyms for the vocabulary. For upper level classes, writing a summary
and a short response to the song is the final step of the project, whereas lower level classes
can listen to a recording of the following questions and answer them in writing or in audio
form. A final assessment project following the context and format of the poem can include
an audio recording of students responding to the singer by speaking about their childhood
home.

‫• خونه شما کجاست؟‬

‫ پشت چی؟ اونور چی؟ توی چی؟‬:‫• لطفأ آدرس بده‬
‫• خونه یاس کجاست ؟خونه شاعر کجاست؟‬
‫• خونه شما دوره؟ایران دوره؟‬
‫• رو دیواراتاقت عکس داری؟ عکس کی؟‬
‫• تو خونه ات حوض داری؟ استخر چی؟‬
‫• تو حیاط خونه شما درخت هست؟ درخت چی؟‬
• Where do you live?
• Give me the address please: Behind what? On the other side of what? In what?
• Where is Yass’s home? Where is the poet’s home?
• Is your home far from here? Is Iran far?
• Do you have any pictures on your walls? Whose pictures?
• Do you have a hoze* in your house? How about a pool?
• Are there trees in your backyard? What kind of tree?

11.3 Teaching listening skills through stories

Oral tales and folktales are a valuable component of any listening skill curricula regard-
less of class level as they provide a great teaching tool for instructors to enhance students’
listening skills concurrently negotiating about universal commonalities and intercultural
competencies. Moreover, folktales have the advantage of bringing people together; not
only do they bring people of the same language together, but they also build a common
ground for people of various cultures, ethnicities and languages to exchange values and
negotiate ideas. One such Persian example is the popular folktale “Uninvited Guests,”
the story of the old granny who lives in a house as small as a shoe box, shelters animals
on a stormy night, and gives them refuge only to give them a permanent home by sharing
her tiny house with them. Like most popular folktales, “Uninvited Guests” is a children’s
story hence semantically and syntactically easy to comprehend. The simple thematic con-
nect formatted with repetitions, onomatopoeias and mnemonic devices that distinguish oral
tales from other literary genres makes this story a great listening exercise for all levels of
Persian language learners.

245
 Yass Alizadeh

‫مهمانهای ناخوانده‬
‫ این پیرزن یک حیاط داشت قد یک قربیل که یک درخت داشت قد یک‬.‫در یک ده کوچک پیرزنی زندگی میکرد‬
‫ یک روز غروب وقتی آفتاب از روی ده‬.‫ پیرزن خوش قلب و مهربان بود و بچه ها خیلی دوستش داشتند‬.‫چوب کبریت‬
‫ چادرش را انداخت سرش و رفت در خانه‬.‫ پیرزن چراغ را روشن کرد و گذاشت روی طاقچه‬،‫پرید و خانه ها تاریک شد‬
. . . ‫ نم نم باران شروع شد‬،‫ همینطور که داشت با بچه ها صحبت میکرد‬.‫ آشنایی ببیند و دلش باز بشود‬،‫که هوایی بخورد‬
(Farideh Farjam 1, 1966)

Uninvited guests
Once there was an old woman who lived in a small village. This old woman had a yard as
tiny as a sifter in which there was a tree as tiny as a match stick. The old woman was kind
and warmhearted, and the children loved her very much. One evening at sunset, when the sun
jumped off the village and the houses turned dark, the old woman lit up the lantern and placed
in on the mantle. She covered herself in her chadore* and went outside to take some fresh air,
see a few familiar faces, and have a good time. While she was chatting with the children, rain
drops started to fall. . . .

1 Pre-listening activity: The students are instructed to research the author and the story
and share the information with the class. The students share their research with their
peers. The instructor pinpoints what the students are expected to focus on while listen-
ing. She summarizes the story, explains the cultural nuances of the tale including the
generosity, hospitality and warmth of the old nanny, her modesty and modest life as
well as her loneliness. The idea of giving a shelter to animals not only reflects the love
and respect for animals but is also a reference to the humanitarian actions of the woman,
who gives “refuge” to “homeless” animals knocking on her door at a time of “disaster”
and beyond. In other words, a simple oral tale and a pleasant listening activity can
concurrently be a class project that targets “the whole” student, and not just his or her
listening aptitude.
2 Listening activity: Depending on the class level, the students are told to focus on vari-
ous elements in the story. For novice levels, the time of the day, the weather, the size of
the woman’s house, the sequence of events, the animals and the sounds they make, their
individual reasons for staying and how they introduce their value to the woman, etc. can
be the focus of the story. For more advanced levels, the immediate group project can be
more complex and encompassing including a discussion of the ethical theme of the story
and the relevance of the tale to current refugee problems in the U.S. or Europe. As the
instructor reads the story or plays the audio version, and like most oral tales that are read
aloud, the pace is slow and the vocabulary is simple. Taking on the role of an oral story
teller, the instructor can stop, add information (in Persian) and repeat sentences while the
students take notes.
3 Post-listening activity: The students join their groups to review the tale, summarize it,
make questions about it or answer the instructors’ pre-made questionnaire.
4 Assessment and follow-up: In addition to the instructor’s immediate engagement with the
class about the many components of the folktale, and engaging the students in responding
to pre-made questions as they contemplate on the various components of the story, he or
she can ask the students to introduce new dialogues and new animals by following the
same pattern as the book. These assessment tools target their listening aptitude while
engaging their creativity and encouraging their writing proficiency as well. A final

246
 Second language listening in Persian

assessment project following the context and format of the story can include an audio
recording by the students telling their own version of the tale.

‫ نویسنده داستان کیست؟ از او چه میدانید؟‬1

‫ نقاش این قصه کیست؟ از او چه میدانید؟‬2
‫ داستان در چه سالی نوشته شده است؟‬3
‫ چند تا حیوان در این داستان هست ؟ چه حیواناتی؟‬4
‫ فکر میکنید داستان در چه فصلی اتفاق می افتد؟‬5
‫ حیوانات از خاله پیرزن چه میخواهند؟‬6
‫ در آخر داستان چه اتفاقی می افتد؟‬7
‫ آیا این داستان جهانی است؟ آیا به روز است؟‬8
‫ آیا این داستان کودکانه وزیباست؟‬9
‫ آیا داستانی شبیه به این را تا به حال خوانده بودید؟‬10
• Who is the author of the story? What do you know about her?
• Who is the artist of this story? What do you know about her?
• When was the story written?
• How many animals show up in this story? Which animals?
• What do you think is the season of the story?
• What do the animals ask the old woman?
• How does the story end?
• Is this a universal tale? Is it relevant today?
• Is this a beautiful children’s story?
• Have you ever read a story like this one?
Another wonderful children’s story is Jabbar Baqcheh-ban’s (1970) “Papa Snow.” As the
inventor of Persian sign language and the first Iranian to found a school for the Deaf and the
Mute in Iran, “Baba Barfi” or “Papa Snow” is a great medium for enhancing listening skills
in a task-based classroom. Despite the simplicity of the vocabulary and the ease of sentence
structures, this tale gives the learner an authentically Persian source for language acquisition
as well as a forum for a critical discussion about one of the early modern samples of Persian
short stories targeted for children. While the cultural motifs make this tale a great example of
Persian children’s stories, ideological, political and ethical themes make the tale a great topic
for advanced level students to research and analyze.

‫بابا برفی‬
.‫ نه مرزه‬،‫ نه ریحان‬،‫ نه سبزه‬،‫ نه گل مانده بود‬. . . . ‫ زمستان سختی بود‬،‫آن سال زمستان‬
.‫ یخ زده بود‬،‫آب هم از رفتن خسته شده بود‬
.‫ کوه و دشت و صحرا‬:‫ همه جا‬،‫همه جا سفید بود‬
.‫ برف می ریخت همه جا‬،‫ اما به جای آرد‬،‫آسمان شده بود آسیاب‬
‫ به خانه پدربزرگ‬،‫ سارا و سوسن‬،‫ حمید و حامد‬،‫ مریم و منیژه‬،‫ کاظم و کاوه‬،‫ نزدیکیهای ظهر‬،‫یک روز تعطیل‬
.‫ بازی کنند‬،‫رفتند تا هم پدر بزرگ را ببینند و هم در حیاط بزرگ مدرسه که خانه پدر بزرگ آنجا بود‬

Papa Snow
The winter of that year was a tough winter. . . . There were no more flowers, no grass, no
more basil, no more summer-savory. Even water was tired of running; it froze. Everywhere
was white; everywhere: the mountains, the fields, the deserts. One holiday, close to noon,

247
 Yass Alizadeh

Kazem and Kaveh, Mariam and Manijeh, Hamid and Hamed, Sara and Soussan, went to
Grandfather’s house to both visit Grandfather and play in the big school-yard where Grand-
father lived.

1 Pre-listening activity: The students research the author and share five informative points
about him either on the class website or in the classroom the next day. After the students
share their findings in bullet points and phrases (novice learners) or sentences (intermedi-
ate and advanced learners), the instructor shares information about the story in Persian
and gives a summary of the story without giving up the ending of the tale. The students
are encouraged to take notes while listening.
2 Listening activity: The students listen to the audio story online “atalmataltootooleh” or
on other web-links provided by the instructor (https://atalmataltootooleh.com/184/). The
instructor pauses the audio after every page and goes over the text engaging the students
in a dialogue about the text.
3 Post-listening activity: The students answer the questions prepared by the instructor
in groups. The instructor can modify the questions from open-ended to yes/no, and
from one-word answers to full paragraphs depending on the students’ proficiency
level.
4 Assessment and follow-up: In order to further measure the students’ interpretive aptitude,
and in addition to the instructor’s immediate engagement with the class about the many
components of the folktale, and negotiation with the students as they contemplate on the
various components of the story, he or she can instruct them to listen to the audio of the
story at home and write a one-page critical response to the tale. This assessment targets
their interpretive aptitude while engaging their creativity and encouraging their writing
proficiency as well. Another fun post-class activity is recording themselves reading
assigned parts of the story and having their friends listen to their audio. The students’ final
post-class activity can be writing five questions about the story to share with class. The
questions will be shared out loud in class and will become listening tools for the students
to copy as they practice how to follow formal questions about literary texts. A final assess-
ment project following the context and format of the story can include an audio recording
by the students telling their own version of the tale.

‫نویسنده داستان کیست؟ از او چه میدانید؟‬ 1

‫نقاش این قصه کیست؟ از او چه میدانید؟‬ 2
‫آهنگ ساز اجرای صوتی این داستان چه کسی است؟‬ 3
‫داستان در چه سالی نوشته شده است؟‬ 4
‫چند دختر و چند پسر در این داستان هستند و نامهای آنها چه میباشد؟‬ 5
‫چه رنگهایی در این نقاشیها هست؟‬ 6
‫پدر بزرگ کجا زندگی میکند؟‬ 7
‫داستان در چه فصلی اتفاق می افتد؟‬ 8
‫بچه ها از بابا برفی چه میخواهند؟‬ 9
‫بچه ها چه خوابی می بینند؟‬ 10
‫آیا در آخر داستان اتفاق بدی می افتد؟ چه اتفاقی؟‬ 11
‫آیا این داستان زمینه عقیدتی دارد؟‬ 12
‫آیا این داستان کودکانه وزیباست؟‬ 13
‫آیا داستانی شبیه به ”بابا برفی“ را تا به حال خوانده بودید؟‬ 14
.‫آیا بین متن چاپ شده و نمونه صوتی داستان تفاوتی وجود دارد؟ نام ببرید‬ 15
‫به نظر شما این تغییرات دالیلی دارد؟‬ 16

248
 Second language listening in Persian

1 Who is the author of the story? What do you know about him?
2 Who is the illustrator of the story? What do you know about him?
3 Who is the composer of the audio version of this story?
4 When was the story written?
5 How many boys and girls are in this story and what are their names?
6 What colors do you see in the illustrations?
7 Where does the grandfather live?
8 In which season does the story happen?
9 What do the children want Papa Snow?
10 What do the children dream about?
11 Does something bad happen at the end of the story? What?
12 Is this an ideological tale?
13 Is this a beautiful children’s story?
14 Have you ever read a story like “Papa Snow”?
15 Are there differences between the written text and the audio version of the tale? What
are they?
16 What do you think is the reason for these differences?

11.4 Teaching listening skills through recipes

One effective and fun exercise for developing listening skills in Persian is through fol-
lowing food recipes. Recipes not only bring a sense of community and collaboration to
the classroom but also invite the students to an integral component of Persian culture
that can be pleasantly surprising or surprisingly familiar. Practicing listening through
recipes is also a hands-on, project-based and communal class activity that brings a sense
of group work to the classroom through collaboration in pairs or groups. By adding time
constraints and a sense of competition to the activity, the students will enjoy their learn-
ing even more.
There are various ways to use recipes as a means of advancing interpretive skills, but the
methods all follow the simple rule of preparing the students for the lesson of the day by includ-
ing the words “Dastur-e Ashpazi” or “Recipe” on the syllabus. Preparing the students for what
to expect is an important step in advancing listening skills. Although students sometimes enjoy
an element of surprise in their daily lesson plans, listening without prior knowledge about
the topic of the discussion, speech or story delays an understanding and appreciation, and is
a waste of valuable class time. In addition to the instructor’s including the word “recipe” on
the syllabus, the students need to know what the result looks like; this “backward learning”
helps the student visualize the end product and strive to achieve a similar result through their
class activity. In effect, when the goal is clear, and when the students have been provided with
necessary tools and skills to reach their goal, a combination of their general and specific prior
knowledge about the topic and their creativity and critical thinking will lead them to reach
their goal.
An example of teaching listening through recipes is a “yogurt and cucumber” class
competition. The students have been given a list of ingredients they are supposed to bring
to class with them. The list can include pictures of the items for novice learners or be in
Persian only for intermediate and advanced students. The instructor divides the class into
groups and pairs and plays an audio of the appetizer recipe. The students follow the recipe
and make their food. The class will decide whose food turns out the best and enjoys the
food. There will be a lot of missteps and laughter, but the project engages the students in

249
 Yass Alizadeh

working together to achieve a goal that benefits their community while using their listening
skills.
Another class activity following recipes is the students’ writing the items that they hear in a
recipe, exchanging the information they have received and then engaging in making the food
in the classroom. This activity substitutes simultaneous listening/kinetic engagement with a
more critical and creative analysis of an audio and may be used with more sophisticated reci-
pes for high intermediate and advanced learners. “Salad Olivieh”, a popular cold salad among
Iranians, is an example of a recipe that is more complex in its variety of ingredients and
measurements, and requires much more focus on behalf of the student with following audio
instructions.

1 Pre-listening activity: The students are given a list of ingredients for the salad that they
will make in class the following day. They will divide the list among their group so that
each group member will bring a few items from the list. The instructor too will bring
items to be shared by all groups. The students are encouraged to google the salad and/or
watch Persian videos about its preparation on YouTube.
2 Listening activity: After the students set up their work stations, the instructor says the
names of the ingredient in Persian. The instructor either plays an audio recipe instruction
or reads the recipe aloud for the students to follow. In this exercise, the students learn to
follow command verbs, where the ordinal number shows up, how transitional words are
used, how to follow an instruction in Persian. Most importantly, a combination of listen-
ing and kinetic activities makes this project a 21st century sample of project-based learn-
ing where the student is not a passive recipient of language engaging in learning “about”
the language; instead, he or she is an active participant in creating an outcome, finding
solutions and cooperating with his or her community in a fun fruitful way. The mistakes
that the students make in preparing their salads, for example adding too much salt or not
enough mayonnaise, or bypassing a step, introduce an extra platform for learning through
trial and error.
3 Post-listening activity: The students actively engage in tasting the results of their listening
activity and grade each salad.
4 Assessment and follow-up: Assessment for project-based listening aptitude does not have
to follow the traditional assessment rubrics of grading based on memorization and transla-
tion; instead, assessment captures what the student can do with the language. Approach-
ing a language class like other project-based learning environments means performing
tasks takes precedence over traditional tools of testing. When following a recipe is the
task at hand, listening skills are measured by the accuracy of the process and the outcome
of the group projects.

‫ماست و خیار‬
:‫مواد الزم‬
‫ماست یونانی نیم پوند‬
‫خیار یک عدد بزرگ یا چهار عدد کوچک‬
‫آب نصف لیوان‬
‫نمک کمی‬
‫فلفل کمی‬
‫شوید خشک یا تازه )خورد شده( یک قاشق غذا خوری‬
‫نعناع خشک یا تازه )خورد شده( یک قاشق غذا خوری‬

250
 Second language listening in Persian

Yogurt and Cucumber

List of Ingredients:
Greek style yogurt: Half a pound
Cucumber: One large or four small ones
Water: Half a cup
Salt as needed
Pepper as needed
Chopped fresh or dried dill: One tablespoon
Chopped fresh or dried mint: One tablespoon

:‫طرز تهیه‬
.‫ مخلوط را با قاشق خوب هم بزنید‬.‫ آب را به آن اضافه بکنید و مخلوط نمایید‬.‫ماست را در یک کاسه بریزید‬
‫ اگر سبزی شما تازه است باید آن را خورد کنید و بعد‬.‫ سپس سبزی خشک را اضافه کنید‬.‫بعد کمی نمک و فلفل اضاف کنید‬
.‫ پیش غذای شما آماده است‬.‫اضافه کنید‬

Directions:
Empty the yogurt in a medium bowl. Add water and mix. Stir the mixture with a spoon. Add
salt and pepper and the dried herbs. If you use fresh herbs, you must chop them up first. The
appetizer is ready to be served.

‫ساالد الیویه بدون مرغ‬

:‫مواد الزم‬
‫سیب زمینی پخته چهار عدد‬
‫تخم مرغ آب پز دو عدد‬
‫نخود فرنگی پخته دو قاشق غذا خوری‬
‫خیار شور متوسط دو عدد‬
‫مایونز یک قاشق غذاخوری‬
‫لیو ترش یک عدد‬
‫نمک به اندازه کافی‬
‫فلفل به اندا زه کافی‬

Meatless Olivier Salad

Ingredients:
Boiled potatoes: Four
Boiled eggs: Two
Cooked green peas: Two tablespoons
Pickled cucumbers: Two medium-sized
Mayonnaise: One tablespoon
Lemon: One whole
Salt as needed
Pepper as needed

251
 Yass Alizadeh

:‫طرز تهیه‬
‫ آن را‬.‫ تخم مرغ را پوست مکنیم‬.‫ آن را با چاقو ریز میکنیم یا با ته قاشق له میکنیم‬.‫سیب زمینی را پوست می کنیم‬
‫ خیار شور را ریز میکنیم‬.‫ نخود فرنگی را داخل مخلوط می ریزیم‬.‫با چاقو ریز میکنیم و به سیب زمینی اضاف میکنیم‬
‫ آب لیمو را نمک و فلفل را می ریزیم و تمام مواد را خوب‬.‫ سس مایونزرا اضافه می کنیم‬.‫و به ساالد اضافه می کنیم‬
.‫ ساالد ما آماده است‬.‫مخلوط می کنیم‬

Directions
We peel the potatoes. We cut them up into small pieces or mush it with the back of a spoon.
We peel the eggs. We cut them up into small pieces; add them to the potatoes. We add the green
peas into the mixture. We cut up the pickles and add them to the salad. We add the mayonnaise.
We pour salt, pepper and lemon juice, and mix the ingredients well. Our salad is ready.

‫برای درست کردن ماست وخیار چه موادی الزم داریم؟‬ .1

‫آیا در ماست وخیار نمک میریزیم؟‬ .2
‫به نظر شما چه چیز دیگری میتوان به این غذا اضافه کرد؟‬ .3
‫آیا شما ماست وخیار دوست دارید؟‬ .4
‫ میدانید کدام؟‬.‫ماست وخیار شبیه چه یک پیش غذای یونانی است‬ .5
‫به نظر شما ماست و خیار را در کنارچه غذاهایی میتوان میل کرد؟‬ .6
‫در این دستور غذایی چند ماده خشک وجود دارد؟‬ .7
‫مهمترین مواد ماست و خیار کدامها هستند؟‬ .8
‫آیا شما یک روز این پیش غذای ایرانی را برای خودتان درست خواهید کرد؟‬ .9

1 What ingredients do we need to make mast-o-khiar?

2 Do we add salt to mast-o-khiar?
3 What other ingredient do you suggest we can add?
4 Do you like mast-o-khiar?
5 Mast-o-khiar is similar to a Greek appetizer. Can you guess which one?
6 What main dishes do you think can be served with mast-o-khiar?
7 How many dry ingredients are included in this food?
8 What are mast-o-khiar’s main ingredients?
9 Will you make this Persian appetizer for yourself?

Watching a cooking video and jotting down the list of ingredients or the gist of the what
the hear is another fun and fruitful listening exercise. The writing can include the list of
ingredients, numbers, nouns, verbs, full sentences, bullet points or phrases. After watch-
ing the video, the students sit in groups and exchange information about the recipe. They
compare their interpretations, provide a final list of ingredients, and present their infer-
ences to the class. After a second viewing of the video, with intervals filled by the instruc-
tor’s input, the students make the food at home. A cooking task that starts as a group
project in class, followed by an independent activity at home, is a creative way to incorpo-
rate authentic, real-world experiences into the students’ learning process, a goal-oriented
learning activity that not only benefits the students’ communicative proficiency but also
teaches them a new skill – cooking – that enriches their life experiences beyond class-
room. In this regard, the skills learned within the Persian language classroom are fluid,
surpassing linguistic proficiency goals by introducing practical ideas that enrich learners’
social and personal lives.

252
 Second language listening in Persian

11.5 Teaching listening skills through news and media

Another multifaceted listening activity to enrich the learners’ critical understanding of audio
Persian is listening to presentational language on podcasts, TV or radio. The oratory tone
of performances, speeches and interviews, and the formal syntax and polished word choices
of hosts speaking with political figures, celebrities and authors are effective components of
developing listening aptitude in second language learners. In effect, one of the linguistic strug-
gles of Persian heritage learners is their lack of training in formal or public decorum, hence
introducing them to formal interactions such as interviews and speeches can enhance their
understanding of private versus public language within Persian culture. The following exam-
ple from BBC Persian about a popular children’s program of 1980s Iran, “Zir-e Gonbad-e
Kabud” (BBC Persian 2018), familiarizes the students with a decorous conversation in a for-
mal setting. As the students watch the commentators converse with each other and address the
viewers in a friendly yet formal tone, they train their ears for hearing and interpreting formal
speech, and, in time, using a similar tone and vocabulary in appropriate settings. Of course,
this exercise opens the door to a wider and more in-depth discussion of children’s programs
in Iran, Persian classical folktales and children’s stories, as well as Iran’s popular TV shows
and personalities.

1 Pre-listening activity: The students are instructed to research the children’s programs pro-
duced in the first decade on the state TV of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and make a bullet
point of the key events of the era. They are instructed to watch a nostalgic video of the
remaking of the popular soundtrack by Sam Vafayi (Soundcloud 2014), who grew up with
Mr. Hekayati’s program.
2 Listening activity: The students watch the BBC video without pause. They take notes
while watching. They watch the video again as the instructor occasionally pauses the
video, repeats the sentences, and explains more complex audios.
3 Post-listening class activity: The students sit in groups and discuss their understanding of
the video. They make a summary of what has been said. In more advanced classes, the
students are expected to do simultaneous translation, and in their groups exchange ideas
on what they understood of the speeches.
4 Assessment and follow-up: Lower level students will be given a sheet of “yes, no” ques-
tions and/or a checklist while listening to the video at home, whereas the higher level
students will be expected to write a short report and research Bahram Mohammad Lu,
Marzieh Borumand and Iraj Tahmasb. With single-word answers to phrases and para-
graphs, the students are encouraged to find similarities and differences between the Per-
sian show and similar productions in English such as “Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood”.

‫ در‬.‫ مجموعه ”زیر گنبد کبود“ خوب یادشونه‬،‫دهه شصتیها و دهه هفتادیها در ایران‬
‫ به نام ”آقای حکایتی“ با بازی ”بهرام‬،‫ شخصیتی بود دوست داشتنی‬،‫این مجموعه‬
‫ در‬،‫ ایرج طهماسب و راضیه برومند‬.‫ قصه میخواند‬،‫شاه محمد لو“ که برای مخاطب کودک‬
‫ موسیقی ماندگار این‬.‫ نویسندگان این مجموعه تلویزیونی مخصوص کودکان بودند‬،‫دو فصل‬
‫ اخیرا انتشار گسترده ویدیویی از حضور آقای شاه‬.‫مجموعه هم ساخته بهرام دهقانیار است‬
.‫ یاد آقای حکایتی را زنده کرده است‬،‫محمد لو در جشنواره قصه گویی در شبکههای اجتماعی‬

Iran’s ’60s and ’70s generations remember the TV series “Zir-e Gonbad-e Kabud” quite well.
In this series, there was a lovely persona named Agha-ye Hekayati, played by Bahram Shah-
Mohammad Lu, who told stories to the young audience. Iraj Tahmasb and Razieh Borumand

253
 Yass Alizadeh

were the writers for the two seasons of this children’s TV series. The memorable theme song
of the series, too, was composed by Bahram Dehqanyar. Recently, a vastly viewed video of
Mr. Shah-Mohammad Lu’s attending the Story Telling Festival has commemorated Aqa-ye
Hekayati.

‫ این گفتگو راجع به چیست؟‬.1

‫ آقای حکایتی کیست؟‬.2
‫ خانم گوینده راجع به آقای حکایتی چه میگوید؟‬.3
‫ آیا خانم گوینده دوران کودکی را در ایران سپری کرده است؟‬.4
‫ بهرام شاه محمد لو چه جوابی به خانم گوینده میدهد؟‬.5
“‫ عاطفه وخاطره و قلب“ یعنی چی؟‬.6
“‫ عاشقانه و صادقانه“ یعنی چی؟‬.7
‫ دهه شصتی های ایران االن چند سال دارند؟‬.8
“‫ زیر گنبد کبود“ یعنی چی؟‬.9
‫ مترادف انگلیسی واژه ”نکوداشت“ چیست؟‬.10
.‫ لطفأ موسیقی این سریال را گوش کنید و سعی کنید آن را به خاطر بسپارید‬.11
 1 What is this interview about?
 2 Who is Mr. Hekayati?
 3 What does the anchorwoman say about Mr. Hekayati?
 4 Has she spent her childhood in Iran?
 5 How does Bahram Shah-Mohammad Lurespond to the anchorwoman?
 6 What do “sentiment and memory and heart” mean in this context?
 7 What do “lovingly and honestly” mean?
 8 How old are Iran’s ’60s generation?
 9 What does “Under the Purple Dome” mean?
10 What in English is the word “nekudasht”?

‫زیر گنبد کبود‬

‫ یکی نبود‬،‫یکی بود‬
‫زیر گنبد کبود‬
‫روبروی بچه ها‬
‫قصه گو نشسته بود‬
‫قصه گو قصه میگفت‬
‫از کتاب قصه ها‬
‫قصه های بانشاط‬
‫قصه های آشنا‬
‫قصه باغ بزرگ‬
‫قصه گل قشنگ‬
‫قصه شیر و پلنگ‬
‫قصه موش زرنگ‬
...
(Shah Mohammad Lu, 209)

Under the Purple Dome

One was and one wasn’t there
under the Purple Dome

254
 Second language listening in Persian

facing the children

sat the story teller.
The story teller told stories
from the book of stories
cheerful stories
familiar stories.
The story of the big garden
the story of the beautiful flower
the story of the lion and the panther
the story of the smart mouse.
...

11.6 Conclusion
Persian listening skills targeting today’s learners’ needs to encompass more than listening
comprehension practices, audio drills or translation exercises. In order for Persian listening
methodology to meet the needs of today’s enthusiasts, it should include authentic content,
effective format, and intercultural understanding. Moreover, the millennial students of Persian
language expect to be involved in the direction of their training and anticipate a curriculum
that is meaningful, multifaceted and transcultural. Persian listening syllabi as such needs to
include content that benefits a trajectory of learning outcomes. Moreover, a listening cur-
riculum that is goal-oriented and experiential engages learners as creative partners who are
active in the path and direction of their learning. With meaningful songs, memorable stories,
delicious recipes and real-life projects, based in an intercultural communicative setting, a suc-
cessful listening curriculum inspires the learners to expect more and do more with what they
learn. As Kubota, Austin and Saito-Abbot’s (2003) expound:

Teachers – as intellectuals and not mere technicians of learner-centeredness – have a

responsibility to bring broader perspectives on critical issues to their students, rather
than replicating past blindness to issues of difference and inequality . . . (they) must
shift their attention beyond apolitical appreciation and celebration of foreign culture, to
critically explore issues of diversity and sociopolitical aspects of human communica-
tion, and to make foreign language education instrumental in creating greater equality.
(Kubota, Austin and Saito-Abbot 2003, 22)

References
ACTFL. 2012. “ACTFL Performance Descriptors for Language Learners.” Accessed August 10, 2019.
www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/PerformanceDescriptorsLanguageLearners.pdf.
ACTFL. 2019. “World Readiness Standards for Learning Languages.” Accessed August 10. www.actfl.
org/sites/default/files/publications/standards/World- ReadinessStandardsforLearningLanguages.pdf.
Baqcheh-ban, J. 1970. Baba Barfi, 11th ed. 1997. Tehran: Kaun Parvares-eh Kudakan va Nojavanan.
Accessed January 20, 2019. http://atalmataltootooleh.com/184/.
Bennet, M.J., ed. 2015. The Sage Encyclopedia of Intercultural Competence. Portland, OR: Intercultural
Communication Institute.
Byram, M., D. Conlon Perugini, and M. Wagner. 2019. “The Development of Intercultural Citizenship in
the Elementary School Classroom.” https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1091126.pdf. Accessed Janu-
ary 20, 2019.
Cauldwell, R. 2013. Phonology for Listening: Teaching the Stream of Speech. Birmingham, UK: Speech
in Action.

255
 Yass Alizadeh

Cauldwell, R. 2018. A Syllabus for Listening – Decoding. Birmingham, UK: Speech in Action.
Cutshall, S. 2012. “More Than a Decade of Standards: Integrating ‘Communication’ in Instruction.”
www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/publications/standards/Communication.pdf.
Farjam, F. 1966. Mehman-ha-ye
­ ­ Nakhandeh, 16th ed. Tehran: Kanoon Paravaresh Fekri Koodadan va
Nojavanan, 2005.
Farsad, M. 2019. “Khuneh-ye Ma.” www.marjanfarsad.com. Accessed August 9, 2019.
Krashen, S.D. 1982. www.sdkrashen.com/content/books/principles_and_practice.pdf. Accessed
August 10, 2019.
Kubota, R., T. Austin, and Y. Saito-Abbot. 2003. “Diversity and Inclusion of Sociopolitical Issues in
Foreign Language Classrooms: An Exploratory Survey.” Foreign Language Annals, 36(1): 12–24.
https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.proxy.library.nyu.edu/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2003.tb01928.x
Ong, W.J. 2002. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York and London: Routledge.
Shah Mohammad Lu. Zir-e Gonbad-e Kabud. Accessed January 21, 2019. http://atalmataltootooleh.
com/209/.
Shah Mohammad Lu, B. BBC Persian. “Interview with Bahram Shah Mohammad Lu.” December 23,
2018. www.bbc.com/persian/arts-46668884.
“Startalk Endorsed Principles for Effective Teaching and Learning.” https://startalk.umd.edu/public/prin-
ciples. Accessed January 20, 2019.
Vafayi, S. 2014. https://soundcloud.com/aatiz/sam-vafaei-zir-e-gonbad-e. Accessed August 9, 2019.
Wagner, M. 2013. “A Conversation with Michael Byram.” https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1091150.
pdf. Accessed January 20, 2019.
Wiggins, G., and J. McTiche. 2005. Understanding by Design, 2nd ed. Richmond, VA: ASCD.
Wiggins, G. 2013. In Johnson, B. “An Interview with Grant Wiggins: The Power of Backward
Design.” November 19, 2013. Edutopia. Accessed January 21, 2019. www.edutopia.org/blog/
interview-grant-wiggins-power-backwards-design-ben-johnson.

256
 12
SECOND LANGUAGE1
SPEAKING IN PERSIAN MUSA NUSHISECOND LANGUAGE SPEAKING IN PERSIAN

Musa Nushi

12.1 Introduction
The first question people are most likely to ask when they learn you know another language
is “Do you speak it?” The question points to the fact that speaking is the quintessential reflec-
tion of ability in a second language (L2) and the main criterion by which success at language
learning is assessed (Bygate 1987; Nunan 2015; Richards 2008). Developing proficiency in an
L2, and speaking proficiency for that matter, is an arduous task for many L2 learners, however,
one that requires total cognitive, physiological and emotional commitment (Burns 2017), and
a whole new way of thinking (Cadierno 2012; Slobin 1996). Teaching the skill is also a chal-
lenge and many L2 teachers feel their classroom speaking activities are not sufficiently prepar-
ing learners for real world communication (Goh and Burns 2012). Richards (2008, 19) adds
that there are currently plenty of pedagogical techniques and strategies available to L2 teach-
ers to teach the skill, yet “how best to approach the teaching of oral skills has long been the
focus of methodological debate.” Sometimes even when the methodology and materials are
in place, learners are reluctant to use L2 in speaking classes, regardless of setting (Ali 2007;
Donald 2010; Ur 2012). This chapter aims to provide an overview of teaching and assessing
speaking, with an eye to Persian as the target language. The chapter opens with a review of
the nature of the spoken discourse, particularly the differences between the spoken and written
language. Care will be taken to introduce some features of the spoken Persian that may make
acquiring the skill a challenge for non-Persian speakers. Next, the importance and functions
of speaking for L2 learners will be discussed. In discussing the functions of speaking and how
to teach them, I draw on Richards’ (2008) three-partitive model of functions of speaking. The
chapter proceeds to discuss some issues regarding teaching speaking. It concludes with the
assessment criteria and procedures to evaluate performance on speaking activities.

12.2 Characteristics of the spoken discourse

Although speaking and writing are both productive skills, there exist important differences
between them, and recognition of those differences has implications for teaching and learn-
ing of either of those skills. One obvious difference between the two is that many languages
are not spoken the way they are written. This is evident to all those who are familiar with the
English language, where there are a lot of discrepancies between the spoken and written forms.

257
 Musa Nushi

This is true about Persian too, where ‫ خواهر‬/khāhar/ (sister), for instance, is not pronounced /
khavāhar/ (see Safar Moghadam 2013, 2014 for some of the differences between written and
spoken Persian). Therefore, “speech is not spoken writing” (Bygate 1987, 10). Besides this
obvious difference, there are other differences too if we look closely. Speaking is often spon-
taneous; we do not plan our speaking beforehand (unless it is an interview, announcement or
public speech of course). Instead, speakers plan online as they construct their utterances, a
fact evident by frequent pauses and hesitations, fillers, false starts and repeats in their speech.
Bygate (1987, 11) confirms that observation by saying that the spoken “message is not so
economically organized as it might be in print”. In fact, too much planning on the part of the
speakers when they are engaged in real-life conversations may make them appear slow, hesi-
tant or boring. Speech is also fluid and transient and learners may not get the chance to revise
what they have said. Nunan (2015, 49) says as speakers, we may sometimes get the chance to

do a “second draft” by saying What I meant to say was . . . and then cleaning up our
first draft, but all too often the conversation has moved on, and we have to live with
our original utterance [italics not in the original].

Another characteristic of the spoken discourse is its faster delivery. Although speech rates vary
considerably depending on the number of pauses, the topic and purpose of communication,
formality of the situation, the relationship between speakers as well as the personal and physi-
cal attributes of the speaker, speakers in a normal conversation may exchange up to 220 words
per minute (Richards 2008). Research has shown that L2 learners speak with a slower rate in
the L2 (Hincks 2010). To sound natural, L2 learners have to make the necessary adjustments
in their speech rate. This can be especially true for many language learners who are learning
the target language in a context where it is considered a foreign language and their primary
contact is via their textbooks.
Richards (2008) further points out that speaking has a linear structure, that is, the unit of
organization of spoken discourse is the clause rather than the sentence, which is the case with
the written discourse; we speak in clauses and join them to create longer utterances. Conse-
quently, “spoken sentences cannot be as long or as complex as in writing, because the writer
has more time to plan,” Bygate (1987, 11). Furthermore, compared with the written language,
spoken language often contains informal, colloquial vocabulary and many fixed expressions
and is often context-dependent, meaning interlocutors rely on each other’s common back-
ground knowledge to convey and interpret much of what is said. We should also remember
that written words may be pronounced differently when spoken. This situation gets even tack-
ier when we are dealing with languages like Persian, which has been described as diglossic
(Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari 2018). In diglossic contexts, two distinct varieties of a language are
spoken within the same speech community; one is the variety that is prestigious and used for
formal and literacy purposes and is called the high variety (H-variety). This contrasts with
the low variety (L-variety), which is used for informal, mostly spoken purposes. To give an
example, in Persian we can say ‫[ چیزی میل دارین؟‬/chizi meyl dārin?/, Would you like something
to eat?] or ‫[ چیزی میخوری؟‬/chizi mikhori?/, Like to eat something?]. In this example, the verb
‫( میل دارین‬/meyl dārin/, would like to eat, [H-variety]) has been replaced with ‫( میخوری‬mikhori,
eat, [L-variety]). Although these differences can manifest themselves at the levels of morphol-
ogy, syntax and semantics of the two varieties, they are mostly evident at the level of phonol-
ogy. Examples include changing the word ending /ān/ to /un/: [‫ تهران‬/Tehrān/ (H-variety),
‫ تهرون‬/Tehrun/ (L-variety), or direct object marker ‫ را‬/rā/ is pronounced /row/ after a vowel,
and /o/ after a consonant in the colloquial language [‫ برگه را‬/bargeh rā/ (H-variety), ‫ برگه رو‬/

258
 Second language speaking in Persian

bargeh row/ (L-variety)]. It behooves us to remember that sometimes changing the pronuncia-
tion of words creates a secondary meaning. To illustrate that point, if we pronounce the address
term ‫ شاهزاده‬/shāhzadeh/ as ‫ شازده‬/shāzdeh/, we would be changing the meaning of the term
from one which refers to ‘the offspring of a king or a holy person’ to ‘a young man, especially
one who has a cheap and showy character’. Another example would be ‫ ُگرسنه‬/gorosneh/ versus
‫ ُگشنه‬/goshneh/. The two variants have the same meaning (i.e. hungry), yet ‫ ُگشنه‬/goshneh/ has
the additional meaning ‘greedy’ and is most often used in spoken Persian.
For further discussion on the acquisition of the writing skill in second language learners of
Persian, read Chapter 14 in this volume.

12.3 Importance of the speaking skills for L2 learners

Speaking is a vitally important ability in an L2; mastering the ability provides L2 learners
with a number of distinct advantages. Goh and Burns (2012, 15) mention two such advan-
tages: (i) speaking can facilitate L2 learning; (ii) it can contribute to L2 learners’ academic
and professional development. Regarding the first, there is extensive theoretical and empirical
research showing that learners’ linguistic output can further their language acquisition (e.g.
Hatch 1978; Long 1985, 2018; Mackey and Silver 2005). In fact, Swain (1985) proposed his
comprehensible output hypothesis based on the idea that output allows learners, under certain
conditions, to notice the gaps in their L2 linguistic knowledge, and this observation pushes
them to acquire the specific linguistic feature(s) required for successful communication. This
belief is reflected in a later joint article with Lapkin (Swain and Lapkin 1995), where they state
that “sometimes, under some conditions, output facilitates second language learning in ways
that are different form, or enhance, those of input” (p. 371). Another influential proposal in the
field of second language acquisition (SLA), namely the interaction hypothesis (Long 1985,
1996), also ascribes an important role to speaking in L2 development. Long (1996) states that
when nonnative speakers of a language engage in conversations with native speakers of that
language, they often have to make adjustments in their utterances and are likely to receive
feedback from their interlocutors on their language use. The conversational adjustments and
the feedback, especially the negative evidence, can help learners master new language forms.
The second advantage bestowed upon learners is that good speaking can pave the way for
(more) academic and professional success. This has been shown to be true about the Eng-
lish language, which serves as the world’s current lingua franca (i.e. common language) in
many fields including science and commerce (Jenkins 2007; Seidlhofer 2011). Many of the
top universities in the world are in English-speaking countries, and an acceptable level of
proficiency in English is one of the prerequisites to enter those universities. That proficiency
is verified mainly by the internationally recognized tests such as TOFEL and IELTS, which
have speaking as one of their main components. A good score on the speaking section of these
tests may determine if an applicant can be admitted to the university of their choice or not.
Persian is certainly not the lingua franca of the world, but non-Persian speakers wishing to
work in Persian-speaking countries or pursue their studies at universities in those countries are
required to take an official IELTS-like proficiency test called SĀMFĀ2 (Standard Persian Lan-
guage Proficiency Test). A certain degree of speaking proficiency on the test is a prerequisite
for the applicants to function in countries where Persian is used as a language of education or
communication. For a detailed discussion on SĀMFĀ, read Chapter 21 in this volume.
Additionally, much information in academic settings is conveyed through spoken language
(Wolvin and Coakley 1996) and possessing good speaking (and listening) abilities in the
language of the instruction will no doubt facilitate students’ participation and learning of

259
 Musa Nushi

the subject matter (Cummins 2000; Goh and Burns 2012). To be able to carry out many of their
academic functions, learners need to be equipped with strategies “to initiate and maintain con-
versations, to sustain group discussions, describe feelings, and give reasons in an acceptable
manner and ask for more information and assistance” (Goh and Burns 2012, 21).
Finally, speaking proficiency provides a competitive edge in career choices. As companies
and workplaces become more globally minded, the demand for speakers who can converse well
in an L2 is increasing, and the individuals who are fluent in two or more languages will always
stand out above the rest in job interviews. These are just a few of the benefits of having good
speaking ability in L2. Research has further shown that learners with high proficiency in speak-
ing are popular among their peers, seek and gain more input for their language development, have
higher self-confidence and are more motivated to learn about the culture of the target language.

12.4 Functions of speaking

Richards (2008) draws upon Brown and Yule’s (1983) distinction between interactional and
transactional functions of speaking, that is, speaking to build and maintain social relationships
versus speaking to communication a specific message, and expands it into a three-part frame-
work, namely, talk as interaction, talk as transaction and talk as performance. He believes
each of these views is quite distinct in terms of form and function and requires different teach-
ing approaches.

12.4.1 Talk as interaction

Richards equates talk as interaction to what is normally known as conversation and says this
function is primarily concerned with building and keeping social relations. Richards (2008,
23) then gives examples of these kinds of talk:

• Chatting to an adjacent passenger during a plane flight (polite conversation that does not
seek to develop the basis for future social contact)
• Chatting to a school friend over coffee (casual conversation that serves to mark an ongo-
ing friendship)
• A student chatting to his or her professor while waiting for an elevator (polite conversa-
tion that reflects unequal power between the two participants)
• Telling a friend about an amusing weekend experience and hearing him or her recount a
similar experience he or she once had (sharing personal recounts) [italics in the original]

He says the focus of such talk is on the participants and how they wish to interact socially with
one another. Richards (2008, 22) summarizes the main features of talk as interaction as follows:

• Has a primarily social function

• Reflects role relationships
• Reflects speaker’s identity
• May be formal or casual
• Uses conversational conventions
• Reflects degrees of politeness
• Employs many generic words
• Uses conversational register
• Is jointly constructed

260
 Second language speaking in Persian

We can see some of these features in the following conversational exchange (from Mirdehghan
et al. 2018, 64, with some minor modifications). Two friends are talking about a recent natural
disaster in a province in Iran and the concern one of them has for someone in that province:

.‫ دیدی چی شده؟ دوباره گلستان سیل اومده‬:‫آیدا‬

AYDA: Did you hear the news? There has been yet another flood in Golestan [province].
‫ ای وای! یک ماه پیش هم که سیل اومده بود! حاال تلفات و خسارتی هم داشت؟‬:‫شیدا‬
SHAYDA: Oh, no! The previous flood was only a month ago! Were there any casualties or damage?

.‫ دلم خیلی شور میزنه‬.‫ خیلی از خونهها آسیب دیدن‬:‫آیدا‬

AYDA: Many homes have been damaged. I am so worried/anxious.
‫ آخه چرا؟ نکنه کسی رو اونجا داری؟‬:‫شیدا‬
SHAYDA: Why so? Do you have someone (i.e. a relative or friend) there?
.‫ از صبح هر چی زنگ میزنم جواب نمیده‬.‫ یکی از دوستام اونجا زندگی میکنه‬.‫ آره‬:‫آیدا‬
AYDA: Yeah, one of my friends lives there. I have been calling him/her since morning but
there’s no answer.
.‫ ایشاال چیزی نشده‬.‫ احتماال خطها مشکل پیدا کرده‬.‫ ولی بد به دلت راه نده‬. . . ‫ ولی‬. . . . ‫ میفهمم‬:‫شیدا‬
SHAYDA: Don’t you worry. The telephone lines may have been damaged or [destroyed]?
. . . ‫ امیدوارم‬:‫آیدا‬
AYDA: I hope so. . . .

The participants in this exchange cooperate with one another to construct the conversation; they
give each other feedback such as !‫( ای وای‬/ey vāy/, oh no!) and ‫( آخه چرا؟‬/ākhe cherā/, why so!) to
indicate to the other party that they are listening or encourage them to go on with their talk; we can
also see instances of colloquial words and expressions ‫( بد به دلت راه نده‬/bad beh delet rāh nadeh/,
Don’t you worry) and ‫( دلم خیلی شور میزنه‬/delam kheyli shor mizaneh/, I am so worried/anxious) and
pronunciation ‫( خونهها‬/khoneh-hā/, houses, homes) instead of ‫( خانهها‬/khāneh-hā/, houses, homes)
or ‫( ایشاال‬/ishālā/, God willing) instead of ‫( انشاهللا‬/enshāʿlāh/, God willing)”. Richards (2008, 22)
then specifies some of the skills speakers need in order to carry out this kind of talk:

• Opening and closing conversations

• Choosing topics
• Making small-talk
• Joking
• Recounting personal incidents and experiences
• Turn-taking
• Using adjacency pairs
• Interrupting
• Reacting to others
• Using an appropriate style of speaking (Richards 2008, 23)

Richards states that this kind of talk may appear easy on the surface and may not be high on
the learner’s agenda, yet learners “sometimes feel awkward and at a loss for words when they
find themselves in situations that require talk for interaction” (Richards 2008, 24). In multiple
second language conferences, the writer of this chapter has observed that non-native Persian
scholars were perfectly capable of talking about the academic content of their presentations

261
 Musa Nushi

yet had a hard time greeting their audience or expressing a particular desire at the lunch table.
One personal observation was when a Japanese professor wishing to say that she did not like
to eat Persian Kebab (skewered minced lamb) said.3 “‫( ”من کباب گاز نمی زنم‬/man kabāb gāz
nemizanam/, I do not bite or chew Kebab), which is rather weird. Therefore, L2 teachers need
to create varied and rich situations where talk as interaction is practiced.

12.4.2 Talk as transaction

Talk as transaction, on the other hand, refers to situations where the focus is on the message
rather than the speakers. Richards (2008, 26) mentions the following as main features of talk
as transaction:

• It has a primarily information focus.

• The main focus is on the message and not the participants.
• Participants employ communication strategies to make themselves understood.
• There may be frequent questions, repetitions, and comprehension checks. . . .
• There may be negotiation and digression.
• Linguistic accuracy is not always important.

In the following example between a mechanic and a man whose car does not run well, the
participants ask for and give each other information about the car and its problem:

‫ میشه یه لحظه به این ماشین نگاهی بندازین ببینین این‬. . . ‫ آقا سالم‬:(‫مشتری )خطاب به میکانیک که مشغول کار رو یه ماشین دیگه ای هست‬
‫صدای موتور چیه؟‬
CLIENT (TO THE MECHANIC WHO IS WORKING ON ANOTHER CAR): Hello sir. . . . Can you please
take a look at my car for a second to see what this funny noise coming from the engine is?
‫ )بعد چند دقیقه و چک کردن صدای موتور‬. . . . ‫ یه دقیقه دیگه میام میبینم‬.‫کاپوت رو بزن باال‬.‫ بله‬.‫ سالم‬:‫میکانیک‬
‫( ماشین چنتا کار کرده؟‬:‫میکانیک می پرسه‬
MECHANIC: Hi, sure, open up the hood and I’ll be there in a minute. . . . (after a few minutes
and having examined the engine, the mechanic asks) How many [kilometers] do you have
on your car?
!‫ هزار تا فکر کنم‬۵۸ ‫ تقریبا‬:‫مشتری‬
CLIENT: Around 85 Thousand (kilometers) I think!
.‫ موقعشه که عوض شه چون ممکنه پاره شه یهو‬. . . ‫ باید عوض شه‬. . . ‫ صدا از تسمه تایمه‬:‫میکانیک‬
MECHANIC: It is the timing belt. It needs replacing. . . . It is high time you have it replaced or
it might snap.
‫ تسمه چی فرمودین؟ پاره شه چی میشه؟‬. . . !‫ ببخشید زیاد از ماشین سر در نمیارم‬:‫مشتری‬
CLIENT: I don’t know much about cars! What belt did you just say? What happens if it snaps?
‫ اگه پاره شه سوپاپها ممکنه کج شن یا پیستونها ُرد شن و موتور قفل‬.‫ تسمه تایمه عرض کردم‬:‫میکانیک‬
‫ اونوقت کلی هزینه رو دستت میزاره‬. . . ‫کنه‬.
MECHANIC: Timing belt I said. If it breaks, the valves might get all bent up or the pistons
might break and the engine shuts down. . . . If that happens, it is going to cost you a lot
[to have it repaired].
‫ هزینه تعویضش چقدر میشه؟‬. . . ‫ هوووم‬:‫مشتری‬
CLIENT: Mmm . . . how much does it cost to have it replaced?

262
 Second language speaking in Persian

‫حوش‬
ِ ‫ پس میشه چیزی حول و‬. . . ‫دستمزد تعویض تسمه‬
ِ ‫ هزار هم‬۱۰۰ . . . ‫ هزاره‬120 ‫ تسمه قیمتش‬:‫میکانیک‬
.‫ ]هزار[ تومن‬۲۵۰
MECHANIC: The timing belt costs around 120 thousand Tomans,4 and 100 thousand for the
replacement fee . . . so it is going to be around 250 thousand.
‫ نمیشه حاال با ما کمتر حساب کنی؟‬. . . ‫ چقدر زیاد! نمیشه‬. . . ‫ عهههه‬:‫مشتری‬
CLIENT: Uh-oh. . . . That’s too much! Can you . . . can you please lower that amount (or can
you give ME a discount)?
‫ اما دستمزد رو باهت راه میام‬. . . ‫ راسش جنس رو که خودت میخری و من که سودی نمیگیرم‬:‫میکانیک‬
MECHANIC: You buy the belt yourself so there is nothing in it for me. . . . As for the replace-
ment fee, I will give some discount.
‫ من خیلی به ماشین نیاز دارم! تو تهران لعنتی هم بدون ماشین کارت لنگ‬. . . ‫ کارش چقدر طول میکشه‬:‫مشتری‬
. . . ‫میمونه‬
CLIENT: How long is it (the repair) going to take? I need the car badly! In damn Tehran you
cannot do much if you don’t have a car. . . .

Examples of talk as transaction, according to Richards (2008, 25), are:

• Classroom group discussions and problem-solving activities

• A class activity during which students design a poster
• Discussing needed computer repairs with a technician
• Discussing sightseeing plans with a hotel clerk or tour guide
• Making a telephone call to obtain flight information
• Asking someone for directions on the street
• Buying something in a shop
• Ordering food from a menu in a restaurant

To conduct talk for transactions, the following skills can prove beneficial:

• Explaining a need or intention

• Describing something
• Asking questions
• Asking for clarification
• Confirming information
• Justifying an opinion
• Making suggestions
• Clarifying understanding
• Making comparisons
• Agreeing and disagreeing (Richards 2008, 26)

12.4.3 Talk as performance

The third type of talk, talk as performance, refers to public speech that transmits information
to a usually live audience for purposes such as persuasion or entertainment. This type of talk is
often formal, monologic and structured, thus having a lot of features associated with the written
language. Richards says that although meaning is important in this type of talk, there will be more
emphasis on form and accuracy, adding that talk as performance “is often evaluated according to

263
 Musa Nushi

its effectiveness or impact on the listener” (p. 27). In the following is an excerpt from President
Hassan Rouhani’s speech before the UN General Assembly in New York on September 25, 2018.
‫ از خودسری و بیتوجهی برخی از دولتها به ارزشها و نهادهای‬،‫امروز در شرایطی گرد هم آمدهایم که جهان‬
‫ در سایۀ‬،‫امنیت جهان با کمترین هزینه‬
ِ ‫ آن است که ایجاد منافع و‬،‫ پیام حضور ما در اینجا‬.‫بینالمللی در رنج است‬
‫ اما متأسفانه در جهان امروز شاهد حاکمانی هستیم که فکر میکنند با‬.‫هماهنگی و همکاری کشورها امکانپذیر است‬
‫ نژادپرستی و بیگانه ستیزی که یادآور تفکر نازی هاست و با زیرپا گذاشتن مقررات جهانی‬،‫ناسیونالیزم افراطی‬
ِ ‫تقویت‬
‫ میتوانند بر‬،‫و تضعیف سازمانهای بینالمللی بهتر میتوانند به منافع خود دست یابند و یا حداقل برای کوتاه مدت‬
‫ به نمایشهای مضحکی حتی در قالب تشکیل‬،‫ تأثیر بگذارند و برای این منظور‬،‫احساسات عمومی و جذب آرای مردم‬
. ‫ دست میزنند‬،‫جلسه غیرمعمول شورای امنیت‬
Translation:5 We have assembled here today as the world is suffering from the reckless-
ness and disregard of some states for international values and institutions. The message of our
presence here is that the preservation of interests and security in the world in the least costly
manner is solely possible through the cooperation of, and coordination among, countries.
However, it is unfortunate that we are witnessing rulers in the world who think they can secure
their interests better – or at least in the short-term ride public sentiments and gain popular
support – through the fomenting of extremist nationalism and racism, and though xenophobic
tendencies resembling a Nazi disposition, as well as through the trampling of global rules and
undermining international institutions; even through preposterous and abnormal acts such as
convening a high-level meeting of the Security Council.
Notice how the president uses formal words and expressions such as ‫( گرد هم آمدهایم‬have
assembled), ‫ نژادپرستی و بیگانه ستیزی‬،‫ناسیونالیزم افراطی‬
ِ ‫( تقویت‬fomenting of extremist nationalism
and racism). There is little to no pausing; the sentences, mostly statements, vary in length and
are grammatically complex (compared those used in everyday conversations). The purpose of
the talk seems to be informing or persuading the addressees of a particular fact or viewpoint.
Examples of this type of talk are:

• Giving a class report about a school trip

• Conducting a class debate
• Giving a speech of welcome
• Making a sales presentation
• Giving a lecture (Richards 2008, 27)

To carry out talk as performance, Richards (2008, 28) says the following skills are required:

• Using an appropriate format

• Presenting information in an appropriate sequence
• Maintaining audience engagement
• Using correct pronunciation and grammar
• Creating an effect on the audience
• Using appropriate vocabulary
• Using an appropriate opening and closing

Recognizing the various functions that speaking performs in our daily life and determining
the different purposes for which L2 learners need speaking skills are crucial and have implica-
tions for designing speaking activities or instructional materials. For instance, to teach talk
as interaction, Richards (2008, 29) suggests the best technique would be providing learn-
ers with authentic conversation discourse “that model features such as opening and closing

264
 Second language speaking in Persian

conversations, making small talk, recounting personal incidents and experiences, and reacting
to what others say.” In the following conversation on a bus, the old man who is upset at not
being offered a seat by several younger people opens the conversation with his fellow passen-
ger by talking about his personal experiences.

!‫ یکیشون بلند نشد‬. . . ‫ ما چقدر برا بزرگترامون احترام قایل بودیم! اینا رو باش‬. . . ‫ جوون هم جوونای قدیم‬:‫پیرمرد‬
OLD MAN: Those were the youth. . . . How respectful we were of our elders! Look at these
(youth) now. . . . None of them offered their seat [to me]!
. . . ‫ اینا پدر و مادراشون هم عاصی کردن‬. . . ‫ جوونای امروز فرق دارن حاج آقا‬:‫مسافر‬
FELLOW PASSENGER: Youths of today are different Haj Aqa.6 . . . Even their parents are fed
up with them. . . .

The teacher can also point out that the old man opens his conversation by a statement that most
likely draws an agreement from the fellow passenger. Richards (2008) states that good topics to ini-
tiate talk as interaction are those that everyone has an opinion about, topics such as traffic, weather,
etc. Another important feature of talk as interaction that is not given the attention it deserves are
the conversational “routines”, that is, fixed phrases and expressions that not only perform specific
functions (e.g., showing interest in what the other person is say) in a conversation but also give it
the quality of sounding natural. In the following are some examples from the Persian language:

(Everything happens for a reason.) ‫• هیچ چیزی بیحکمت نیست‬

(As I was saying. . . .)  . . . ‫•  داشتم عرض می کردم‬
(To cut a long story short. . . .)  . . . ‫•  سرت رو درد نیارم‬
(What nonsense!) ‫• چه حرفا‬
(It was only God’s mercy!) ‫• خدا رحم کرد‬
(Poor him/her!) !‫ حیونکی‬،‫• طفلکی‬
(What a pity!) !‫• حیف! حیف شد‬
(Interesting!) ‫• جالبه‬
(You don’t say!) !‫• نه بابا‬
(Good job or more power to his/her elbow.) ‫• دمش گرم‬

Teachers can introduce these routines and discuss with the learners where these expressions
might occur or what their functions might be within specific situations. Alternatively, learners
can be given dialogs from which these routines have been omitted and asked to give or select
the appropriate response:

‫ شنیدی سهیل رتبه اول کنکور شده؟‬:‫الف‬

A: Have you heard Soheil ranked first on the university entrance exam?
!‫ اصال بچه درسخونی به نظر نمیرسید‬.------------------------- :‫ب‬
B: :-------------------------. He did not seem a studious to me!
.‫ آره ولی میگن یه سالی نشت و بکوب برای کنکور خوند‬:‫الف‬
A: Right, but they say he studied a full year for the test.
‫ حاال چه رشتهای میخاد بخونه؟‬.----------------------- :‫ب‬
B: :-------------------------. Now, what does he intend to major in [at university]?
.‫ پدرش که میگه به پزشکی خیلی عالقه داره‬:‫الف‬
A: His dad says he [Soheil] is very much interested in medicine.7

265
 Musa Nushi

Other activities that lend themselves well to talk as interaction include memorizing simple
dialogs (extremely useful for developing oral fluency in elementary level learners), giving
learners situations and tasks that encourage small talk (e.g. meeting their favorite actor or
actress and what they would say to them when such a chance presents itself), asking learners
to look for instances (or features) of such talk in Persian movies or TV or radio shows, etc. It
is essential to note that learners’ proficiency levels be taken into account when designing these
activities.
When the purpose is teaching talk as transaction, teachers have a wide variety of activities
at their disposal; games, group and pair work discussion, information gap activities, role plays,
and problem-solving tasks are just some of them.
Richards (2008) cautions that although designing activities to teach transactional use of
language is relatively easier, teachers might feel that such activities do not enable learn-
ers, especially those at elementary levels, to achieve the desired level of linguistic accuracy
because “low-level students, when carrying out communication tasks, often rely on a lexical-
ized system of communication that depends heavily on vocabulary and memorized chunks
of language, as well as both verbal and nonverbal communication strategies, to get meaning
across”, (p. 32). Several accuracy-based classroom activities can be used to address the issue.
Sometimes short, simple and snappy drills can do the job. In the following activity, the teacher
who wants to make sure students use the correct structure to express someone’s likes and dis-
likes gives students a model and then asks them to apply the model to describe the likes and
dislikes of someone they know very well:

.‫افسانه خیلی قهوه دوست داره ولی اصال از چای خوشش نمیاد‬
Afsaneh likes coffee very much but (she) does not like tea at all.

Teachers can also pre-teach some of the vocabulary to lower the cognitive load of the task
and allow students to focus more on the structure in question. Interestingly, this activity can be
adjusted for learners of more advanced proficiency levels too. Take a look at the following pair
work in which learners engage in a two-minute conversation where they take different identi-
ties of various foods, animals, objects, etc. and exchange information using the ،‫ بودم‬. . . ‫اگه من یه‬
‫اونوقت این یا اون کار رو میکردم‬. (If II were a . . . I would do this or that) structural pattern.

‫ میرفتم یه باغ جدید و با پرندهای دیگه دوست میشدم و‬،‫ هرروز بجای مدرسه رفتن‬،‫اگه من یه پرنده بودم‬
. . . ‫ به هرجا که دلم میخواست پرواز میکردم و از طبیعت لذت میبردم‬،‫کلی باهم بازی میکردیم‬
Translation: If I were a bird, instead of going to school every day, I would go to a
new garden and would make friends with other birds and we would play together, I
would fly wherever I wished and [I would] enjoy nature. . . .

To make the activity even more challenging, students can be given a structured-based dis-
cussion task that requires them to talk about a particular issue that can include a certain struc-
ture. For instance, students can work in pairs or groups to say what they would do regarding
some of their city’s problems if they were the mayor.
Finally, if the purpose is teaching talk as performance, we are probably, though not necessar-
ily, dealing with advanced students who need to learn how to present longer stretches of speech.
Richards (2008) says this type of talk needs a different instructional approach since “it often
follows a recognizable format (e.g., a speech of welcome), and is closer to written language
than conversational language,” (p. 27). Therefore, students need to learn that much like writing

266
 Second language speaking in Persian

an essay, their talk needs to have an introduction (telling the audience what the talk is about),
the main body (which is divided into several clear sections), and an ending that summarizes or
concludes the talk. A very good instructional strategy, according to Richards (2008, 35), would
be providing learners with plenty of instances authentic speeches, oral presentations of various
lengths, etc., which are then “deconstructed” to reveal the linguistic and organizational features
of such texts. He proposes these questions to guide this analytical process:

• What is the speaker’s purpose?

• Who is the audience?
• What kind of information does the audience expect?
• How does the talk begin, develop and end?
• What moves or stages are involved?
• Is any special language used?

Lazaraton (2013) says teachers can also provide learners with the structure of speech (e.g.
description, argumentation, narration) while students provide the content. This would not only
help learners become familiar with different rhetorical genres and their grammatical features
but also make the task meaningful to them. Moreover, as listening to speeches can at times be
boring, she suggests teachers involve those listening by giving them a set of criteria to evalu-
ate their classmate’s speech. The criteria can include the presenter’s body language, pacing,
preparation and engagement of the audience, organization of the different speech sections,
pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, communicative force, observation of the time limits. . . .
Another very practical activity Lazaraton proposes is for students to audio- or video-record
their speech and have their teacher or classmates on their presentation later on. She maintains
audio or videotaping of speeches allows students to have a more in-depth evaluation of their
speech, adding that students are often surprised to hear or see how they sound on the tape and
can learn a lot from the feedback they receive; they can even come up with their own ideas
as how to improve their speech (see also Ur 2012 for suggestions on how to design talk as
performance activities).

12.5 Issues to be considered during teaching speaking

Before discussing the issues related to the teaching of speaking, I would like to review the five
criteria that Ur (2012) proposes to evaluate a language-learning and teaching task. The first
criterion is validity, meaning that the task should engage learners in the language skill(s) it is
supposed to teach. Paired or small group discussions rather than whole-class discussion may
prove more effective if the intention of the teacher is to increase learners’ speaking fluency.
The second criterion is quantity, which refers to the fact that learners need plenty of meaning-
ful activities and exposure to a target language form in order to acquire it. Success-orientation
­
is the third criterion; Ur (2012, 44) says it is

important to select, design and administer tasks in such a way that students are likely
to succeed in doing them most of the time: they should not be too difficult, require
mostly known language and involve simple and easily explained processes.

The fourth, heterogeneity (of demand and level) of a task, means the task is designed in a way
that engages learners of different language proficiency levels. To illustrate the point, look at

267
 Musa Nushi

the following speaking task where students are asked to read the sentence out loud using the
correct auxiliary verb.

.‫ نمیتونه( از سوپر مارکت خرید کنه‬/‫ او )میتونه‬.‫ سالهای است‬۴ ‫سینا پسر بچهی‬
Sina is four years old. He (can/cannot) shop at a supermarket.

The lower level students who do not know the words can, cannot, shop or supermarket may
not be able to do the task and those more advanced students may feel that they can make far
more complex sentences and that this activity does not suit their level. However, if we change
the activity to

‫ سینا چه کارهای دیگه‬.‫ او میتونه راه بره ولی نمیتونه بند کفشاش رو ببنده‬.‫ سالهای است‬۴ ‫سینا پسر بچهی‬
‫رو میتونه یا نمیتونه انجام بده ؟‬
Sina is four years old. He can walk but he cannot do his shoe laces. What else can or
cannot Sina do?

. . . then the activity suits students of a wider range of abilities; the sample sentences can help
weaker students to comprehend the message and produce sentences of their own and those stu-
dents with higher proficiency levels have the opportunity to create more complex sentences.
Interest is the final criterion on her list; in order to keep students motivated in language
learning, especially in the early stages where too much repetition might bore them, it is essen-
tial to choose tasks that students find interesting, tasks with attractive topics or formats (e.g.
games). The five criteria may or may not be all present in a task, yet they can serve as a useful
set of criteria to determine the effectiveness of a language-learning and teaching task. Having
considered these general criteria, we can now turn our attention specifically to issues related to
teaching speaking in the next paragraphs (readers interested in learning about more practical
ways to teach speaking can consult Richards 2008 and Thornbury 2005).
Nunan (2015) draws a distinction between “reproductive” speaking and “creative” speak-
ing activities. He maintains that traditional classroom speaking activities were often reproduc-
tive, meaning language learners were required to reproduce language forms provided by the
teacher or some other aural model. These activities were highly structured, mainly in the form
of the teacher asking a question and the learner giving a rather predictable answer. The purpose
of these activities was for the students to showcase their linguistic knowledge; the method
that best embodies this approach was the audiolingual method, which was in vogue during the
1960s and early 1970s. Creative speaking activities, on the other hand, do not ask the learners
to “regurgitate the meanings of others, but create their own meanings” (Nunan 2015, 49) and
to construct and communicate a meaningful message. The latter set of activities represents a
more communicative approach to L2 learning and teaching. Nunan hastens to add, however,
that the distinction does not indicate the superiority of one set of activities over another and
that a healthy dosage of both reproductive and creative language use are necessary in devel-
oping speaking. Nunan (2015, 54–56) further proposes some principles that teachers need to
observe when teaching speaking. The principles are as follows:

1 Be aware of the difference between second language and foreign language learning con-
texts: An L2 can be learned in a second language context where the language is the main
language of the society (Persian in Iran or English in the U.S.) or in a foreign language
context where the language is not used widely outside of classroom (Persian in Vietnam
or English in Saudi Arabia). Although technology has lessened the gap between these two

268
 Second language speaking in Persian

contexts, the quantity and quality of the exposure to the L2 is quite different and teachers
in the foreign language context need to create as many opportunities for students to hear
and interact with the L2 as possible.
2 Give students practice with both fluency and accuracy: speaking is assessed both in terms
of accuracy (i.e. the degree to which the learner’s language is structurally and phono-
logically well formed and uses appropriate vocabulary) and fluency (e.g., the extent to
which the learner can speak in a well-paced smooth manner without too many pauses).
Nunan also mentions complexity as a third dimension, which has been defined by Ellis
and Barkhuizen (2005, 139) as “the extent to which learners produce elaborated lan-
guage”. The pedagogical implication of this principle is that L2 teachers design a variety
of activities in the classroom that cater to all the three aspects of speaking.
3 Provide opportunities for students to talk by using group work or pair work, and limiting
teacher talk: it is the observation and complaint of many L2 learners that they do not get
enough speaking time in the language classroom. Nunan suggests pair and group work as
the most effective way of maximizing learners’ talking time.
4 Plan speaking tasks that involve negotiation of meaning: as mentioned in the “Importance
of the speaking skills for L2 learners” section of this chapter, when learners interact with
other learners and go through the process of trying to reach a clear understanding of each
other, they are likely to receive feedback on their language use, which can in turn further
their language development.
5 Design classroom activities that involve guidance and practice in both transactional and
interactional speaking: this principle relates to the first and second of the three functions
of speaking as specified by Richards (2008) and elaborated earlier in this chapter: talk as
interaction, talk as transaction and talk as performance. Nunan contends that transactional
and interactional functions permeate our everyday conversational exchanges and there-
fore should be built into our teaching.

Ur (2012), likewise, offers a set of practical suggestions for designing speaking tasks. She
recommends using pair or group work not only to increase learners’ talking time but also to
encourage the shy learners or those unwilling speakers to join in. She also believes that the
learners need to be linguistically prepared for participation in speaking activities so that dif-
ficult or unfamiliar vocabulary and grammar do not hinder them from taking part. The third
suggestion concerns the topic and task which, she says, need to be carefully chosen so that
learners are motivated to participate in the speaking activities. The final tip is for a pedagogical
task to have a clear purpose and the conditions for its achievement are explained to the learn-
ers. This last principle requires teachers not to presuppose too much and make sure that the
learners understand what they are doing and for what purposes.
Hughes (2011, 7) makes a distinction between “teaching the spoken form of a language”
and “teaching a language through speaking”. She argues the distinction is important since
“spoken forms of language have been under-researched whether at the level of grammar or in
broader genre-based studies . . . in part [due] to attitudes to language data in linguistic theory.”
She claims that a great deal of speaking activities occurs in language classrooms but these
activities may not build efficient speakers out of the learners simply because they do not view
speaking as a holistic skill. She cites the separation of form (grammar and vocabulary) and
delivery (pronunciation and fluency) to support her argument. On this point, she says:

This [the separation] has had the effect of dislocating the fundamental fabric of spoken
mode – fluent intelligibility over a sophisticated range of styles and discourses – from

269
 Musa Nushi

other linguistic features. These are too often taught in isolation from the speaking
skills needed to deliver them.
(Hughes 2011, 7)

She draws our attention to the teaching of idioms and notes that to teach the idioms, “tim-
ing, accurate and fluent delivery, and cultural knowledge of how to place them in a conversa-
tion, are all key requirements” (pp. 7–8). Learners, however, are often taught these instances
of informal conversational language in isolation from the speaking skills needed to deliver
them, that is, learners are taught the idioms when they have a level of productive speech that
is too low for them ever to achieve delivery without causing confusion.
The other issue that Hughes raises is the fact that teaching speaking is not easily separated
from other objectives. She writes:

When the spoken language is the focus of classroom activity there are often other
aims which the teacher might have. For instance, a task may be carried out to help
the student gain awareness of, or to practice, some aspect of linguistic knowledge
(whether a grammatical rule, or application of a phonemic regularity to which they
have been introduced), or to develop productive skills (for example rhythm, into-
nation or vowel-to-vowel linking), or to raise awareness of some socio-linguistic
or pragmatic point (for instance how to interrupt politely, respond to a compliment
appropriately, or show that one has understood).

To tackle this problem, language teachers may be helped if they ask themselves the two
guiding questions suggested by Richards (2008) when they plan speaking activities (be it talk
as interaction, talk as transaction or talk as performance):

1 What kinds of speaking skills will the class focus on? To determine the focus, he suggests
teachers can use tools such as observation (of their learners when they are engaged in dif-
ferent kinds of communicative tasks), questionnaires, interviews etc.
2 Which pedagogical strategies should be employed to teach each kind of talk? The main
question here is which instructional options best enable learners to acquire a particular
feature of the target language.

A related issue involved in planning speaking activities is determining the expected level of
performance on a speaking task and the criteria that will be used to assess student perfor-
mance. Richards (2008, 39) reminds teachers that:

For any activity we use in class, whether it be one that seeks to develop proficiency in
using talk as interaction, transaction, or performance, we need to consider what suc-
cessful completion of the activity involves. Is accuracy of pronunciation and gram-
mar important? Is each participant expected to speak for about the same amount
of time? Is it acceptable if a speaker uses many long pauses and repetitions? If a
speaker’s contribution to a discussion is off topic, does it matter?

As these questions illustrate, the types of criteria we use to plan or evaluate a speaker’s oral
performance during a classroom activity will depend on which kind of talk we aim to teach
and the kind of classroom activity we are using.

270
 Second language speaking in Persian

12.6 Assessing speaking

It is widely known that effective oral communication depends on the interlocutors’ mastery of
speaking and its subskills such as pronunciation, fluency, grammar and vocabulary. Therefore,
not only has speaking been emphasized as an essential part of curriculum designed in language
teaching, but it has also been stressed as an integral component of assessing language abili-
ties. However, one of the challenges faced by the scholars is the lack of a unanimous, agreed-
upon definition of speaking and its component parts (Kang and Yan 2018). For example, it is
traditionally believed that native speakers should be considered as ideal models for accurate
pronunciation, a belief that is reflected in internationally known high-stake proficiency tests
such as IELTS and TOEFL. However, such an assumption has been challenged by some schol-
ars in the field of ELT (Derwing and Munro 2005; Isaacs 2008; Kennedy and Trofimovich
2008; Levis 2005). While maintaining that the eradication of errors should not be the target
for pronunciation teaching, they argued for intelligibility and comprehensibility as the two
goals. Similarly, there is an area of controversy among researchers regarding the importance of
teaching grammar to help learners develop their speaking skill. Krashen (1981), for instance,
argued that the learners’ explicit knowledge of grammar could cause learners to monitor their
production, which in turn could hinder fluency at the expense of accuracy. Nevertheless, this
view has been questioned by such SLA scholars such as McLaughlin (1978, 1987), Shar-
wood Smith (1981) and Gregg (1984). Furthermore, there have been similar conflicting views
on the contribution of vocabulary. Some researchers (e.g. Laufer and Paribakht 1998) have
maintained that the knowledge of vocabulary could be categorized into passive (receptive)
vocabulary, which refers to the knowledge of lexical items that are not used in language pro-
duction, and active (productive) vocabulary, which includes the lexical items that are utilized
in speech and writing. However, the controversy lies in whether the two types of knowledge
are convertible to each other, and if so under what condition. Also, there is little agreement on
what comprises fluency, and what dosage of fluency and accuracy should be considered when
teaching and assessing language skills. Another challenge facing those who design assessment
procedures is to develop elicitation techniques that get the examinees to produce the desired
language output without the learners’ using avoidance or paraphrasing strategies to circumvent
the criteria. If the tasks enjoy more authenticity, the learners are provided with more options to
select among their linguistic resources and their repertoire of strategies, which could present a
challenge to those who rate and score the performances.
Luoma (2004) has explained four “scenarios” that could illustrate different procedures test-
ers employ to assess speaking: in the first scenario the examinees are given pictures and are
asked to develop oral stories. The first examinee spoke with a strong accent but spoke fluently,
while the second one did not speak as much but spoke quite accurately. After the examina-
tion, the examinees were scored the same. In the second scenario, the test candidates were
taking their test in a language laboratory; all of them were talking at the same time with some
sporadic silences. The test takers were given booklets for note-taking and were using their
headphones to listen to test instructions while their responses were being recorded with the
exam supervisor administering the test. The third type of scenario consisted of four students,
two of whom were explaining in English how some product is produced in a factory while the
other two students were listening, and asking questions about the production. The teacher’s
role was to observe and monitor the students’ activities without intervention. Afterwards, all
the students went to the school workshop to explain the production. They were then given
some self-assessment and peer-assessment papers and were allowed time to spend on their
own performance and that of a peer as well as the assessment papers. In the fourth and the last

271
 Musa Nushi

scenario, the examiner has an interview with the examinee in which she asks about everyday
topics, such as the examinees job. The interviewer then asks about the test taker’s last job
and asks him to compare the tasks in both jobs, and what he planned to do in the future. After
fifteen minutes, the examiner brings the interview to an end and bids the candidate farewell
before filling out the assessment paper in which she has to make decisions on the exami-
nees’ performance on the oral activity. As can be witnessed from these assessment procedures,
the techniques required to assess speaking could vary depending on the theoretical definition
of speaking, and assessment as well as the practical considerations, according to which the
assessment could be deemed useful.
Brown (2005) categorized speaking assessment into four task types: the first type, imitative,
focuses on the ability to merely copy a word or a string of words. The criterion is basically
to determine the test taker’s pronunciation ability, although other criteria such as grammar or
vocabulary could be of interest as well. The second type, which is called intensive, focuses on
a very limited aspect of demonstrating oral ability on the part of the speaker with little or no
interaction with the interlocutor. Examples of such tasks include reading aloud tasks, picture
description tasks in which the examiner has to produce a single sentence, and oral sentence/
discourse completion tasks. The third type of tasks comprises those that require the examinees
to produce oral responses to the stimulus provided by the examiner. Because of having the
examinees produce responses, these tasks are called responsive, and the responses are most
frequently as short as small talks and brief dialogs with or without a few follow-up questions.
The fourth category, called interactive, gets the test takers to produce responses, but unlike
responsive tasks, the responses have to be longer and communicatively more complicated
in the presence or absence of active participation of a number of other test takers. The last
type of assessment tasks, labelled extensive or monologue, includes those in which the test-
taking participant needs to produce a lengthy stretch of discourse with little if any reciprocal
participation of the other interlocutor(s). Some examples of such tasks are lectures, narration
tasks and process explanation tasks in which, for instance, the examinee needs to describe the
steps needed to replace a flat tire. Also, the skills to be assessed were divided into two general
categories: microskills, which are employed to enable the speaker to produce small units of
language (e.g. phonemes, words and phrases) and macroskills, in which the production of
larger stretches of discourse is of interest (e.g. fluency, choice of communication strategy, and
non-verbal communication).
To conclude the chapter, it would be useful to know the considerations that the teachers
ought to bear in mind when they assess the learners’ speech. Goh and Burns (2012) main-
tained that learners should, first and foremost, know that they are indeed being assessed when
the assessment procedures are in progress. Moreover, the examinees need to know about the
exact procedures to elicit and assess their spoken language in addition to the benchmark or
criteria to be considered to evaluate their performances. Finally, learners should be provided
information on the scores, grades or marks associated with the criteria. The two authors then
proceed to mention the characteristics of a good assessment, according to which the assess-
ment criteria should first be associated with the learning target of a given course. In other
words, the tasks should not target the abilities not learned by the learners yet. Also, assessment
should be reliable in terms of rating or scoring (i.e. it should produce similar scores in differ-
ent administrations.). A good assessment must enjoy both intra-rater and inter-rater reliability,
with the former referring to the consistency of measurement within the assessor and the latter
between several individuals who carry out rating or scoring. Furthermore, assessment must
be valid. To put it more simply, the assessment procedures should assess what they are sup-
posed to. Finally, any assessment must be in line with a clear, shared assessment descriptor

272
 Second language speaking in Persian

so that other teachers can comprehend the criteria and use the assessment techniques to their
advantage (Goh and Burns 2012, 262–263). It should be added that one of the most essential
characteristics of a good assessment is authenticity, which refers to the extent to which the
assessment task is a simulation of real-life tasks (Bachman and Palmer 1996). This importance
of this feature seems more significant if the educators wish to promote the learners’ communi-
cative competence using the communitive approach to language teaching since the proponents
of Communicative Language Testing, which is a byproduct of the Communicative Language
Teaching, have maintained that the more the pedagogical and assessment tasks reflect the
learners’ prospective performances in the non-assessment domain, the more the results of the
assessment could be generalized to the learners’ future performance in real life. The second
reason for which this quality has gained importance is the examinees’ perceived link between
the assessment features and real-life features, which can, in turn, ensure their favorable atti-
tudes to the assessment procedures (Bachman and Palmer 1996, 23–24). What, then, is a defi-
nition of task-based
­ assessment? Ellis (2003, 285) has defined the concept as “assessment
that utilizes holistic tasks involving either real-world behavior (or as close as it is possible to
get to this) or the kinds of language processing found in real-life activities”. Nevertheless, the
question that arises is: Is it achievable, or even desirable, to design direct assessment tasks that
should be reliable, valid and, at the same time, authentic, or should we consider, as stated by
Davies (1978), that the search for authenticity is chimerical? Perhaps a reasonable context-
dependent dosages of the previously given characteristics could be considered when adopting
or adapting language assessments. For further discussion on second language assessment in
Persian, read Chapters 21 and 22 in this volume.

12.7 Conclusion
As stated by Pawlak and Waniek-Klimczak (2015, vii), development of speaking ability is a
major challenge that L2 learners and teachers face and this justifies the need for more pub-
lications that focus on the issues involved in teaching, learning and testing of the skill. They
add that that speaking is a highly complex interactive skill whose mastery demands not only
sufficient linguistic knowledge (i.e. grammar, vocabulary and phonology) but also “awareness
of pragmatic conventions, familiarity with culture-specific rules of discourse, the capacity
for managing the conversation, or the ability to tackle problems which may arise in interac-
tion through the use of various communication strategies, to name but a few”. To add to this
complexity is the fact that leaners often need to deploy such knowledge extremely fast in real-
time communication. It is no wonder then that speaking can cause anxiety in many L2 learn-
ers (Woodrow 2006). Given what was said, teachers need a systematic approach to speaking
instruction that helps learners not only develop an optimal balance between accuracy, fluency
and complexity but also acquire appropriate communications strategies that can help them
function in communicative contexts, even in the unpredictable ones.
This chapter tried to show how applying Richards’ (2008) framework of functions of
speaking can be utilized to teach speaking in Persian as a second or foreign language; the
framework can help teachers move beyond repetition-based methodologies of teaching speak-
ing towards the ones that are informed by the latest research findings from discourse analysis,
conversational analysis and corpus analysis. It has been the author’s belief that many of the
programs and materials designed to teach speaking in Persian still do not incorporate research
findings from these domains (probably due to lack of available spoken corpus and the tools to
systematically analyze such corpus). A fruitful direction for future research, therefore, would
be to examine if and how the textbooks that are currently being used to teach speaking in

273
 Musa Nushi

Persian reflect naturalistic features and patterns of speech as discovered by discourse analysis
or conversational analysis.
Another venue to explore regarding teaching and testing speaking is the affordances
made available through advances in technologies. It needs no arguing that technology has
been changing the landscape of education in general, and L2 education is no exception. Web-
based tools (e.g. chatrooms, video chat, online forums, weblogs, Skype and email) offer great
potential for the teaching and enhancing of the learners’ spoken language. Teachers’ accept-
ance and adoption of Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL) or Mobile-assisted Lan-
guage Learning (MALL) for speaking pedagogy become even more critical when we consider
the findings of an increasing number of studies that indicate the positive attitudes today’s
youth hold towards this form of learning and teaching. It should also be mentioned the recent
improvements in computer technology have enabled educators to carry out assessment faster,
more effectively and more precisely. For the English language, for instance, the design and
development of PhonePass Set-10, which was formerly labelled as simply PhonePass, has
made it possible to test the learners’ speaking ability through the technology called Natural
Language Processing (NLP). In this assessment method, the examinees are first provided with
some instructions in printed form before contacting the computer by phone to receive more
instructions. Then the test candidates present their speech on the phone, which is scored by the
computer (see Chapelle and Douglas 2006 for more information).

Notes
1) Second language in this chapter refers to any language(s) an individual learns after their native or
first language (Stern 1983). This definition might be challenged on a number of fronts, but those
nuances need not concern us. However, distinction will be made throughout the chapter between
second language and foreign language contexts. In the former context, learners are exposed to the
target language both inside and outside the classroom. In the latter context, however, the primary
source of input for learning the target language is the classroom.
2) Like IELTS, SĀMFĀ is of two types: Academic and General Training. The test has four sections: lis-
tening (30 questions, 60 minutes), reading (30 questions, 60 minutes), writing (2 tasks, 60 minutes)
and speaking (2 tasks, 15 minutes). Candidates get a score between 0 and 60 for each section and the
total score is 240 points. The total length of the test is 195 minutes.
3) The correct version of this sentence is “‫من کباب نمیخورم‬.” (/man kabāb nemikhoram/, I do not eat
Kebab).
4) The superunit of the official currency of Iran, the Rial. Each Toman equals 10 Rials.
5) The translation has been retrieved on May 2nd from https://theiranproject.com/blog/2018/09/25/
full-text-of-irans-president-rouhani-speech-at-unga-73/.
6) A polite term used to refer to an older man, usually someone you do not know well.
7) Possible answers in descending order: !‫( نه بابا‬You don’t say!); ‫( دمش گرم‬Good job or more power to
his /her elbow).

References
Ali, Z. 2007. “Willing Learners Yet Unwilling Speakers in ESL Classrooms.” Asian University Journal
of Education, 3(2): 57–73.
Bachman, L.F., and A.S. Palmer. 1996. Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful
Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown G., and G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, S. 2005. “Assessment for Learning.” Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1: 81–89.
Burns, A. 2017. “Research and the Teaching of Speaking in the Second Language Classroom.” In Hand-
book of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, edited by E. Hinkel, Vol. III, 242–256.
New York: Routledge.

274
 Second language speaking in Persian

Bygate, M. 1987. Speaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cadierno, T. 2012. “Thinking for Speaking in Second Language Acquisition.” In The Encyclopedia of
Applied Linguistics, edited by C. Chapelle. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chapelle, C.A., and D. Douglas. 2006. Assessing Language Through Computer Technology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, J. 2000. “Language Proficiency in Academic Contexts.” In Language, Power and Pedagogy,
edited by Jim Cummins, 57–85. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Davies, A. 1978. “Language Testing-Part II.” Language Teaching, 11(4): 215–231.
Derwing, T.M., and M.J. Munro. 2005. “Second Language Accent and Pronunciation Teaching:
A Research‐Based Approach.” TESOL Quarterly, 39(3): 379–397.
Donald, S. 2010. “Learning How to Speak: Reticence in the ESL Classroom.” ARECLS, 7: 41–58.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., and G. Barkhuizen. 2005. Analyzing Learner Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goh, C.C.M., and A. Burns. 2012. Teaching Speaking: A Holistic Approach. New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Gregg, K.R. 1984. “Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s Razor.” Applied Linguistics, 5(2): 79–100.
Hatch, E. 1978. “Discourse Analysis and Second Language Acquisition.” In Second Language Acquisi-
tion: A Book of Readings, edited by Evelyn Hatch, 401–435. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hincks, R. 2010. “Speaking Rate and Information Content in English Lingua Franca Oral Presentations.”
English for Specific Purposes, 29(1): 4–18.
Hughes, R. 2011. Teaching and Researching Speaking, 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman.
Isaacs, T. 2008. “Towards Defining a Valid Assessment Criterion of Pronunciation Proficiency in Non-
Native English-Speaking Graduate Students.” Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4): 555–580.
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a Lingua Franca: Attitude and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kang, O., and X. Yan. 2018. “Linguistic Features Distinguishing Examinees’ Speaking Performances at
Different Proficiency Levels.” Journal of Language Testing & Assessment, 1: 24–39.
Kennedy, S., and P. Trofimovich. 2008. “Intelligibility, Comprehensibility, and Accentedness of L2
Speech: The Role of Listener Experience and Semantic Context.” Canadian Modern Language
Review, 64(3): 459–489.
Krashen, S.D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Laufer, B., and S. Paribakht. 1998. “The Relationship Between Passive and Active Vocabularies: Effects
of Language Learning Context.” Language Learning, 48(3): 365–391.
Lazaraton, A. 2013. “Second Language Speaking.” In Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Lan-
guage, edited by Marianne Celce-Murcia, Donna Brinton and Marguerite Ann, Snow, 106–120. Bos-
ton, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Levis, J.M. 2005. “Changing Contexts and Shifting Paradigms in Pronunciation Teaching.” TESOL
Quarterly, 39(3): 369–377.
Long, M. 1985. “Input and Second Language Acquisition Theory.” In Input in Second Language Acquisi-
tion, edited by Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden, 377–393. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Long, M. 1996. “The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition.” Handbook
of Second Language Acquisition, edited by William C. Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, 413–468. San
Diego: CA, Academic Press.
Long, M. 2018. “Interaction in L2 classrooms.” In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teach-
ing, edited by J.I. Liontas, 1–7. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Luoma, S. 2004. Assessing Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., and R. Silver. 2005. “Interactional Tasks and English L2 Learning by Immigrant Children in
Singapore.” System, 33: 230–260.
Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari, B. 2018. “Spoken vs. Written Persian: Is Persian Diglossic?” Trends in Iranian and
Persian Linguistics, 1(1): 183–212.
McLaughlin, B. 1978. “The Monitor Model: Some Methodological Considerations.” Language Learn-
ing, 28(2): 309–332.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of Second-Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Mirdehghan, M., M. Molayian, H. Aghaii, F. Bagheri, and T. AbdollahiParsa. 2018. Professional Series
of PARFA: Level 2, Student’s Book. Tehran: Negarestan-e Andisheh Publishing Institute (in collabora-
tion with SBU & International Scientific Cooperation Center of MSRT).
Nunan, D. 2015. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages: An Introduction. New York:
Routledge.

275
 Musa Nushi

Pawlak, M., and E. Waniek-Klimczak, eds. 2015. Issues in Teaching, Learning and Testing Speaking in
a Second Language. Berlin: Springer.
Richards, J.C. 2008. Teaching Listening and Speaking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Safar Moghadam, A. 2013. “Spoken and Written Variants in Teaching Persian Language to Non-Persian
Speakers.” Language Studies, 3(6): 45–68.
Safar Moghadam, A. 2014. “Differences Between Spoken and Written Persian in Teaching Speaking to
Non-Persian Speakers.” Language Studies, 4(8): 115–140.
Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. 1981. “Consciousness-Raising and the Second Language Learner.” Applied Lin-
guistics, 2(2): 159–168.
Slobin, D.I. 1996. “From Thought and Language to Thinking for Speaking.” In Rethinking Linguistic
Relativity: Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language, edited by John J. Gumperz
and Stephen C. Levinson, Vol. 17, 70–96. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, H.H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. 1985. “Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehen-
sible Output in Its Development.” In Input in Second Language Acquisition, edited by Susan M. Gass
and Carolyn G. Madden, 235–256. New York: Newbury House.
Swain, M., and S. Lapkin. 1995. “Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They Generate: A Step
Towards Second Language Learning.” Applied Linguistics, 16(3): 371–391.
Thornbury, S. 2005. How to Teach Speaking. Essex: Pearson Longman.
Ur, P. 2012. A Course in English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wolvin, A.D., and C.G. Coakley. 1996. Listening, 5th ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Woodrow, L. 2006. “Anxiety and Speaking English as a Second Language.” RELC Journal, 37(3):
308–328.

276
 13
SECOND LANGUAGE
READING IN PERSIAN NAHAL AKBARI AND ALI REZA ABASISECOND LANGUAGE READING IN PERSIAN

Nahal Akbari and Ali Reza Abasi

13.1 Introduction
The vast literature on reading in second language speaks to the importance of this skill across
many educational contexts and curricula. For obvious reasons this literature is decidedly biased
toward English and, to a lesser degree, Western European languages (see Brustad 2006). While
many world languages including Persian have been only marginally investigated, what is par-
ticularly striking with respect to Persian is the paucity of research involving literate adult
learners of Persian from various language backgrounds. As such, writing a chapter on L2
reading in Persian poses a difficult rhetorical problem. In this chapter, our solution to the
challenge is to delimit the discussion to Persian second language reading in higher education
settings and identify a number of issues regarding L2 reading in Persian that we believe to be
most relevant to Persian learners across most L2 contexts. In this respect we align with Grabe
(2002), who points out that “any instructional setting and any group of curriculum develop-
ers must determine priorities based on student needs, institutional expectations, and resource
constraints” (p. 46).
A review of the reading research literature points to the importance of a number of recur-
rent topics in any discussion of L2 reading, namely, the nature of L2 reading, cross-linguistic
effects of orthography, text selection and accessibility, vocabulary knowledge, frequency of
reading, and reading literature. As the predominant goal of many Persian L2 reading curricula
in foreign language contexts is arguably the development of the ability to read for general
understanding, we believe these topic areas cover the key aspects of L2 reading that a bal-
anced curriculum should address. There is certainly much more to reading than these. L2
readers need to be able to read the world before reading the word, for instance (Freire 1985).
However, such high order abilities presuppose a solid mastery of lower-level reading abilities.
There are numerous studies (Adams 1990; Everson 2011; Gholamain and Geva 1999; Hansen
2010; Koda 1997, 2007; Nation 2008; Schmitt 2008) in support of the recommendation that
in order for L2 students to read fluently they need to have developed “a very large recognition
vocabulary, automaticity of word recognition for most of the words in the text, a reasonably
rapid overall reading speed for text-information integration, and the ability to build overall text
comprehension under some time pressure” (Grabe 2002, 50). For further discussion on second
language vocabulary acquisition in Persian, read Chapter 9 in this volume.

277
 Nahal Akbari and Ali Reza Abasi

Given that college-level L2 learners are cognitively mature, already literate in their L1,
and typically possess well-developed content schemata (Carrell 1987), we take the position
that L2 reading challenges of this particular cohort of learners would more likely have to
do with their still-developing knowledge of Persian rather than their general reading abil-
ity including their L1 reading strategies, metalinguistic knowledge, task successes, and word
learning skills (Alderson 2000; Carrell 1991; Hudson 1998). Language study at college level
typically involves two to three years of non-intensive instruction, and this is often less than
what is required to enable many learners to reach the L2 threshold proficiency level (Clarke
1980; Sarig 1987; Wurr 2003) that is widely believed to be a prerequisite for the transfer of L1
reading ability. Accordingly, such L2 readers may become so bogged down in the texts they
are attempting to understand that they are precluded from performing higher order skills such
as inferencing and critical analysis. While the precise level of language proficiency threshold
is difficult to determine due to its variability depending on the specific reading task demands
(Alderson 2000; Hudson 1998), L2 reading programs can best move toward it by devising
curricula that aim to provide students with a reasonably large vocabulary repertoire as well as
sufficient command of most frequent language structures and discourse marking devices along
with frequent and manageable reading experiences. When a robust knowledge of the language
is in place and students can recognize with ease and efficiency most of the words as well as
syntactical structures they encounter in texts, they will be able to move out of and beyond the
texts and bring their schemata to bear on the texts and tap into the full range of their L1 reading
skills in support of their L2 reading.
On these grounds, our discussion in this chapter focuses on the linguistic dimensions of
reading and draws on relevant research in second language acquisition (SLA) literature. It is,
however, important to once again acknowledge that reading comprehension obviously entails
much more than language knowledge. However, reading at its core remains a linguistic pro-
cess. One would only need to attempt to read in a language one does not know to verify this
proposition first-hand. The point here is that college-level L2 reading programs in foreign
language contexts should have a strong language learning component in order to provide the
necessary linguistic resources that support fluent reading. This means that curricula should
also pay due attention to highly relevant second language acquisitional issues such as noticing
and attention, automaticity and skill-development, quantity and frequency of input, learner
motivation, needs analysis, task demands and design, and so forth. It is worth noting at the
outset that on some issues there clearly exists some dissonance between L2 reading research
literature and that of second language acquisition (see later for an example). For a detailed
discussion on language learners’ strategies and beliefs about learning the language in Persian
language classes in the U.S., read Chapter 28 in this volume.

13.2 The L2 reading construct: top-down and bottom-up processes

The history of reading research over the past 50 years has revolved around whether reading is
a bottom-up or top-down process. In purely bottom-up processing models, readers start from
the visual graphic features on the page and serially work their way up to the higher levels
involving letters, words, phrases, sentences, local cohesion, paragraph structuring, topic of
discourse, inferencing and world knowledge in order to comprehend the text (Grabe 1988,
2009). In strictly top-down models, in contrast, readers primarily use their schemata (both
content and formal) to make predictions about the text and selectively sample textual data to
confirm or disconfirm those predictions (Goodman 1967). The essence of this psycholinguis-
tic view of reading is best summarized by the claim that what “the brain tells the eye is more

278
 Second language reading in Persian

important than what the eye tells the brain” (Smith 1971, cited in Alderson 2000, 14). Both of
these dichotomous views have now been found to be incomplete in light of numerous research
findings that show reading is at once a bottom-up and top-down process. For instance, it has
been shown that readers are not selective at all in attending to linguistic cues during reading
and do in fact focus visually on about 80% of the content words and about 50% of the small
function words (Adams 1990; Perfetti 1999; Pressley 2006; Stanovich 2000). It has also been
shown that contrary to linear bottom-up models where there is no feedback on the lower
processing levels from higher levels, information from all processing levels is parallelly avail-
able during text comprehension (Grabe 2009; Samuels and Kamil 1984; Stanovich 1980). In
light of such findings, reading is now widely believed to be interactive in the sense that it is
by necessity “always both bottom-up and top-down” (Grabe 2009, 55, italics added). Skilled
readers therefore simultaneously rely on a combination of linguistic input, schema knowledge,
and a range of inferential strategies to construct text meaning. A crucial premise in this domi-
nant interactive model of reading is that insufficiency in one knowledge source (i.e., bottom-up
or top-down) can trigger compensatory reliance on the other knowledge sources (Birch 2007).
For instance, insufficient vocabulary or syntactic knowledge may prompt readers to fall back
on their existing or pedagogically activated world knowledge in order to identify words or
guess the meaning of words from context. Likewise, unfamiliar topic of the reading task may
force the reader to overly attend to text to make up for insufficient topic knowledge in order to
achieve text comprehension. As another example, during word recognition when information
from phonological recoding alone is not sufficient to help with word recognition (for exam-
ple, ‫ دفتر‬meaning ‘office’ or ‘notebook’), the recognitional process relies on information from
higher levels of clause or sentence to access the correct lexical meaning.
There are some important implications from this interactive model of the reading pro-
cess for L2 reading instruction in Persian. One is that instruction should always tap both
processes and provide opportunities for learners to become equally proficient in using both
in any act of reading, moderated of course by the learners’ language proficiency. Second,
L2 reading instruction should not confuse teaching reading with testing. As noted in the lit-
erature, (Bernhardt 2000; Nuttall 2005), very often reading instruction misguidedly focuses
on the end product of reading (i.e, comprehension) such as when students are asked to
answer post-reading comprehension questions rather than teach them the many bottom-up
and top-down subskills involved to get to the end product. Teaching L2 reading, as Nation
(2008) notes, should be geared to making students better readers of future texts and should
thus provide the students with opportunities to become skillful in performing all the micro-
skills common to all acts of reading. Weak performance of these processes would render
L2 readers excessively text-bound and take up most of the cognitive resources necessary
for thoroughly comprehending what they are reading (Segalowitz 2000). It is worth not-
ing that while it is true that in the case of college-level L2 learners of Persian some of the
lower-level bottom-up skills might already be taken for granted, instruction should still aim
for increased automaticity and efficiency of those subskills in the language. It is neverthe-
less crucial to be vigilant that these skills do not develop on their own – or in case they
do, they may not so develop for all students without some sort of intervention. Teaching
reading should therefore involve explicit focus on the linguistic dimension of reading com-
prehension (Eskey 1988; Hinkel 2006). At the same time, it is equally important to note
that explicit intervention should not contravene what is already known about the process of
second language acquisition (DeKeyser 2001; Hudson 1998; Long 2009). In other words,
explicit focus should not degenerate into the traditional explication de texte associated with
the grammar-translation approach of the past.

279
 Nahal Akbari and Ali Reza Abasi

Before moving onto the next topic, it is worth noting that with respect to bottom-up pro-
cesses we currently know very little about the challenges that Persian might be posing to L2
readers across various L1 language backgrounds, or to learners from specific L1 backgrounds.
As an example, it would be very helpful for L2 instructors to know whether L2 readers from
languages with an SVO (subject-verb-object) syntactic structure process texts in Persian (a
SOV language) in the same way or not. For a second example, a review of research on read-
ing comprehension strategies suggests that it is not still clear whether these top-down strate-
gies are universal or language-specific (Erler and Finkbeiner 2007). It will be quite valuable
to explore this topic in the context of L2 readers of Persian from various L1 backgrounds.
Answers to such questions would not only be relevant for Persian L2 reading pedagogy but
they can also contribute to the broader L2 reading research literature (see Urquhart and Weir
1998 for a similar argument). For a theoretical discussion on the acquisition of syntax in sec-
ond language learners of Persian, read Chapters 4 and 5 in this volume.

13.3 Persian orthography and L2 readers

Perhaps one of the initial considerations in approaching L2 reading has to do with the Persian-
specific orthographic demands placed upon novice L2 readers in learning to read in the lan-
guage. L2 learners may come to Persian from various L1 typological backgrounds in terms of
writing systems, orthographies, and scripts (Perfetti, Van Dyke, and Hart 2001; Snider 2013).
Learners thus need to adjust to the alphabetic system of Persian, its unique orthographic pat-
terns, as well as its script. Depending upon their L1 backgrounds at the levels of writing sys-
tem, orthography, and script, novice L2 learners may begin learning to read in Persian with
advantages or disadvantages. On this account, for instance, three hypothetical L2 learners of
Persian from Arabic, English, and Chinese L1 backgrounds can be located on a cline in terms
of the number of Persian-specific adjustments each has to make in learning to read in Persian.
Persian, like other world languages, has its own unique peculiarities that are implicated in
the reading process. One major peculiarity of Persian has to do with its orthographic depth
(Katz and Frost 1992). Generally speaking, alphabetic orthographies like Persian have been
characterized as either transparent or opaque1 in terms of the degree to which graphemes
consistently represent phonemes. English orthography, for instance, is said to be notoriously
opaque while Persian could be either highly transparent or quite opaque, depending upon
whether short vowels are graphically represented (Baluch 1993; Everson 1998). Orthographic
opacity associated with the graphic absence of short vowels gives a consonantal appearance
to many words in Persian (e.g., CCC2 as in ‫ دست‬، ‫ درد‬or CCCC as in ‫ )چشمت; درخت‬which can
slows down word recognition for novice L2 readers of the language.
In addition to orthographic opacity arising from the visually absent short vowels, Persian
orthography and script represent other unique features that may pose additional challenges to
beginning L2 readers. The most prominent features with the potential to negatively impact
fluent reading are the followings:

• Direction of writing being from right to left,

• The joining/non-joining of graphemes, making the deciphering of word boundaries dif-
ficult at times,
• Different forms of the same graphemes depending on their locations in words,
• Polygraphy where some phonemes can be represented by different graphemes
(e.g., ‫سد‬/‫)صد‬,
• Perceptual similarities of graphemes differentiated only by dots (e.g., ‫)ر ز ژ؛ ح خ چ ج‬

280
 Second language reading in Persian

• Orthographic mismatch between Persian and Arabic loan words that adhere to different
morphological systems (e.g., ‫ وکیالن‬/‫ وکیل ها‬/‫ وکیل‬vs.‫)وکال‬,
• Morphological ambiguity (e.g., the morphograph ‫ ی‬in such words as ‫ دوستی‬can mean ‘a
friend’ or ‘friendship’),
• Opacity of the ezafe morpheme that can slow down phrasal identification and make sen-
tence parsing difficult for learners.

With all of these orthographic peculiarities in view, one initial question is whether we
should expose L2 learners to fully vowelized or unvowelized print (i.e., ‫ )اعراب گذاری‬includ-
ing visually represented ezafe morpheme (both of its morphographs as in ‫ دوست ِ من‬and as in
‫)خانه ی من‬. While there is no research on this issue with respect to adult L2 learners of Persian,
existing research conducted on Persian, Arabic, and Hebrew involving L1 children suggests
that vowelization does in fact facilitate visual word recognition, thereby contributing to bet-
ter reading (Abu-Rabia 2001; Baluch and Shahidi 1991; Brosh 2015; Everson 2011; Hansen
2010). Given that effortless and efficient recognition of words is widely considered to be a
necessary component in proficient reading (Adams 1990; Koda 2005; Perfetti, Landi, and
Oakhill 2005), it will make perfect sense to expose novice L2 readers of Persian to phonologi-
cally transparent print. As learners become more efficient and develop a larger repertoire of
vocabulary and are better able to rely on contextual clues in accurately recognizing words and
phrasal units (Stanovich and West 1981), they should be able to handle opaque print. With
students having become more comfortable with this type of print, vowelization can then be
limited to unfamiliar words as is commonly done in L1 situation.
As with many other aspects of L2 reading in Persian, the specific challenges that Per-
sian orthography might pose to adult learners of the language call for empirical scrutiny. For
instance, it remains to be shown if the perceptual features of Persian orthography listed earlier
do indeed impact L2 readers’ recognition of Persian print and thereby their processing of text
meaning. As a second example, it is widely believed that visual word recognition is achieved
through phonological recoding (Everson 2011). That is, the reader is posited to arrive at the
meaning of the word initially through the process of recoding graphemes into their phonemic
counterparts in order to access its meaning. It remains to be verified whether this is in fact the
recognitional route in Persian or whether lexical meaning is accessed directly without recod-
ing. If recoding is indeed the route, is it the preferred recognitional route for all learners or it
is moderated by the learner’s proficiency levels (for more information, see Alderson 2000)?
Answers to questions such as these will be greatly beneficial to Persian L2 reading pedagogy.

13.4 L2 Reading texts: authenticity and comprehensibility

Selection of reading texts is another key concern that needs to be addressed in any Persian L2
reading curricula. This issue is directly linked to the debate over the use of authentic materi-
als – a topic on which there is not much consensus (e.g., O’Donnell 2009; Widdowson 1992).
Lack of consensus in part derives from the difficulty over what constitutes ‘authenticity’. In
his review of the debate, Gilmore (2007) recounts eight definitions of the notion and suggests
that authenticity has accumulated so many meanings that it has become nearly meaningless
and at the risk of becoming irrelevant to L2 educators. To salvage the concept, however, he
advocates a more limited and workable understanding of the term where an authentic text is
regarded as “a stretch of real language, produced by a real speaker or writer for a real audi-
ence and designed to convey a real message of some sort” (Gilmore 2007, 98). However,
Long (1996) differentiates between genuineness and authenticity, arguing that a text could be

281
 Nahal Akbari and Ali Reza Abasi

genuine in terms of its source (e.g., news report culled from a Persian newspaper or website)
but inauthentic with respect to its uses in L2 classrooms (e.g. answering true/false questions
that readers in the real world do not typically perform when reading a news report). More
importantly, he draws attention to the importance of taking into account the highly relevant
psycholinguistic considerations such as developmental sequences, learnability, noticing, and
the like in discussions of authenticity.
The literature points to three pedagogical options that Persian L2 curricula could adopt in
deciding what kind of texts are appropriate. One option is to use contrived and/or simplified
texts such as graded readers. This route, however, has many downsides. Apart from the fact
that it runs counter to many research findings with respect to second language acquisition
(Ellis 2015; Skehan 1998), such texts expose students to impoverished textual input that can
impair their language development. In one study in an ESL context, for instance, it was shown
that contrived texts underrepresented modal verbs in comparison to genuine texts, failing to
show their diverse uses and contexts to the learners (Holmes 1988). Moreover, studies have
shown that simplified texts may encourage learners to develop reading strategies that are inap-
propriate when they later attempt to read genuine texts (Honeyfield 1977). Relatedly, it has
been shown that simplification removes all unfamiliar lexis or structures from texts, and in
doing this it misleads L2 readers into thinking that “every word in a text is significant” (Young
1999). Additionally, some studies have in fact shown that simplification does not promote text
comprehensibility (Floyd and Carrell 1987; Ulijn and Strother 1990). Moreover, text simpli-
fication may compromise the “generic integrity” (Bhatia 1993) of texts in terms of their mac-
rostructures, further misleading L2 readers about the forms of L2 genres. On a more practical
level, it is also generally a challenge to create simplified texts that are lively and do justice
to the linguistic and cultural richness of authentic texts that have been produced for real-life
communicative purposes in Gilmore’s (2007) sense noted previously.
The second option is to use ‘genuine’ texts produced by L1 users for L1 audiences without
L2 learners in mind. Proponents of this option argue that all that needs to be done is to select
texts that are appropriate to the proficiency levels of specific L2 readers, making sure that the
texts are just above the current proficiency levels of students so that they do challenge but not
frustrate the students. While the use of genuine texts does expose L2 readers to the richness of
genuine texts (McCarthy 1991; McCarthy and Carter 1994), it fails to provide that necessary
pedagogical support for novice L2 readers, leaving them with potentially dense and incompre-
hensible texts. Moreover, L2 readers do not necessarily notice many of the linguistic details
in texts that are crucial for both language development and successful comprehension of texts
(Schmidt 1993). The use of genuine texts was quite popular in the early days of communicative
language teaching where focus on meaning and comprehensibility of texts alone were over-
emphasized but has since been shown to be necessary but insufficient for language learning.
A third option is to use genuine but elaborated texts that can address the shortcomings of
the previous two options (Yano, Long, and Ross 1994). Existing research in other languages
has shown the superiority of this approach in terms of text readability, complexity, and length
(Brown 1987; Kim 2006; Ross, Long, and Yano 1991). Elaborated genuine texts have been
found to especially facilitate inferential comprehension since “elaboration of key terms and
concepts in the original text provides the reader with a ‘second look’ at those terms and con-
cepts and consequently increases the chance that inferencing about them can be stimulated
in the reading process” (Ross Long and Yano 1991, 24–25). Interestingly, elaborated texts
have been shown to be cognitively simpler even though elaboration increases the general pro-
cessing burden for the reader compared with unmodified texts (Ross Long, and Yano 1991).
Numerous studies over the past 20 years have emphasized the importance of in-built measures

282
 Second language reading in Persian

in texts for promoting language development as well as reading comprehension (Carver 1994;
Nation and Meara 2002). Elaboration of this type exposes students to texts that are enriched,
have formal integrity, and are significantly much more comprehensible.
While there are numerous studies in support of elaborating L2 texts to increase text com-
prehension in other languages, there are virtually no studies with respect to Persian. It would
be highly relevant to know how Persian L2 readers respond to such texts, how this pedagogical
intervention can best be implemented in Persian texts, or what kind of challenges there might
be with Persian. Comparative studies of effectiveness using different types of modifications
would also be highly informative.

13.5 Knowledge of vocabulary: an essential component

It is now a given that vocabulary knowledge is at the heart of fluent reading abilities (Bernhardt
2003; Devine 1987; Perfetti 2007). The irony, however, is that many L2 reading curricula do
not emphasize this aspect of reading enough. The crucial role of rapid word recognition comes
to the fore when we consider that the average skilled reader can recognize four to five words
per second and actually takes time to look at these words each and every second of reading. In
most cases, this recognition happens automatically, relieving readers from fixating too long on
each individual word. In fact, this process is so rapid that skilled readers recognize words in
“as little as a twentieth of a second” (Grabe 2002, 52). Having a strong vocabulary knowledge
has also been shown to be a predictor of reading success in both L1 and L2 contexts (Ander-
son and Freebody 1981; Laufer 1991) for the simple reason that no “text comprehension is
possible, either in one’s native language or in a foreign language, without understanding the
text’s vocabulary” (Laufer 1997, 20). Anderson and Freebody (1981) similarly echo the same
position that vocabulary knowledge is a major prerequisite and causal factor in comprehen-
sion because the reader has to know the actual words in the text to be able to comprehend it.
The importance to L2 readers of a sizable passive vocabulary knowledge was demonstrated in
another study where vocabulary knowledge predicted reading comprehension after accounting
for age, nonverbal IQ, decoding, and phonological skills (Nation and Snowling 2004). What is
particularly interesting about vocabulary acquisition and reading is that they stand in a recipro-
cal and mutually supportive relationship in the sense that on the one hand vocabulary is one
essential element for successful reading comprehension and on the other hand reading serves
as the main driver of L2 readers’ vocabulary acquisition and growth (Stoller and Grabe 1993).
The upshot here with respect to L2 reading curricula is that the best way to boost learners’
vocabulary knowledge is to get them to read more frequently. For further discussion on the
role of vocabulary in second language acquisition of Persian, read Chapter 9 in this volume.
One major issue with regard to vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading that is especially
relevant in L2 reading in Persian is the number of words in a given text that a learner needs to
know in order to comprehend it. The issue has been the subject of several studies over the past
several decades. Some have suggested that a learner needs to know around 95% of the words
in a text for successful comprehension, which translates into one unknown word in every 20
running words in a text (Laufer 1989), while others have argued for an even higher lexical
coverage at 98% (Hu and Nation 2000). This high lexical coverage, it is argued, makes it easier
for the reader to better understand the text because it helps with guessing the meaning of unfa-
miliar words. Others, however, have raised doubts about setting any definite lexical coverage
percentage, noting instead that progressively larger percentages are clearly associated with
progressively better comprehension (Schmitt, Jiang, and Grabe 2011). Despite these varia-
tions, it appears that a lexical coverage upwards of 95% (which is a significant vocabulary

283
 Nahal Akbari and Ali Reza Abasi

size) is key for meaningful reading comprehension. With these questions in the background, it
would be greatly useful to Persian L2 educators to know if these lexical coverage percentage
levels do hold true for Persian L2 learners in relation to various reading tasks that may demand
different lexical coverage levels.
A related additional question with respect to vocabulary and reading is the total number of
words that Persian L2 readers need to know in order to reach 95%–98% lexical coverage in a
given text. Previous vocabulary breadth studies conducted in ESL contexts suggest that learn-
ers in general need to know a large enough number of word families (i.e., groups of words
with the same root and sematic relation such as ‫ دیداری‬،‫ دیدنی‬،‫ دیدار‬،‫دید‬.) in order to be able to
independently read genuine texts. Vocabulary size estimates for L2 readers that can support
independent reading of authentic texts in English vary from as low as 3000 to 9000 word fami-
lies (Laufer 1989; Nation and Meara 2002; Nation 2006). A fruitful line of research that can
greatly benefit L2 reading curricula in Persian is to explore the necessary vocabulary size for
student readers. One complicating aspect of Persian vocabulary for L2 learners of Persian is
the loan words from Arabic that do not follow Persian morphology. While it has been claimed
that these lexical items constitute only a small percentage of words in the Persian lexicon
(Baluch 2006), their impact relative to L2 readers remains to be empirically investigated. The
importance of these loan words becomes especially evident when we realize that in some gen-
res of Persian, the distribution of Arabic loan words is significantly much higher.
Another issue related to vocabulary and reading comprehension has to do with the question
of the quality of knowing a word (Anderson and Freebody 1981; Perfetti 2007). Clearly know-
ing a word well entails knowledge of its pronunciation, register, morphosyntactic properties,
orthographic knowledge, semantic features, pragmatic features, and collocation (Nagy and Scott
2000; Read 2000). The more these aspects about a vocabulary item are known to the learner, the
higher the quality of their vocabulary knowledge in terms of its depth. However, given that not
all vocabulary items are learned with the same depth (even in L1), one important question is the
relative importance of vocabulary breadth versus depth in reading comprehension.
Read Chapter 6 in this volume for a discussion on acquiring morphology in second lan-
guage learners of Persian through an experimental study on the processing and acquisition of
idiomatic expressions.
With respect to Persian, the question is whether L2 Persian reading curricula should pri-
oritize breadth of vocabulary knowledge or depth. Put differently, should curricula encourage
students to learn more words (i.e., form-meaning) with less depth or instead limit the inventory
of words that students need to learn and put the instructional focus on teaching and learning
the various dimensions of word knowledge? Clearly the answer to this question has to reckon
with the authenticity debate noted earlier in relation to text selection. It is relevant to note here
that existing research suggests that the issues of breadth and depth are particularly relevant
for learners with lower language proficiency and much less so for those at advanced levels
(Quin 2002; Vermeer 2001). Given that at the moment “the extent to which breadth and depth
of vocabulary contribute to reading comprehension is far from clear” (Li and Kirby 2015),
research on this topic in relation to L2 reading in Persian will be very valuable to L2 reading
material developers and instructors.

13.6 Types of Persian L2 reading: intensive, extensive, or narrow?

It is common to make a distinction between two types of reading when it comes to reading
materials and programs, namely, extensive versus intensive (Nation 2001). In the former type,
students are encouraged to read widely for pleasure and focus on general understanding of

284
 Second language reading in Persian

texts, while in the latter students carefully read short texts and explicitly focus on vocabulary
and syntax (Urquhart and Weir 1998). Extensive reading is believed to implicitly expose L2
learners to the vocabulary and syntactical structures in multiple contexts and for this reason is
thought to be helpful for enhancing vocabulary depth along such dimensions as spelling (Day
and Bamford 1998), meaning and grammatical characteristics (Pigada and Schmitt 2006), as
well as orthography and collocations (Webb 2007). The potential for repeated encounters with
linguistic forms in diverse contexts of use is said to be the most valuable feature of extensive
reading. For instance, with respect to vocabulary acquisition via reading, it has been estimated
that students need to see a lexical item between 8 to 10 times in order to acquire it. Extensive
reading has also been found to expand students’ receptive vocabulary knowledge, which is
essential in optimal reading comprehension (Grabe 2009; Waring and Takaki 2003) and which
is found to correlate with higher motivation for reading among learners (Day and Bamford
1998; Iwahori 2008). On these grounds, extensive reading is one – if not the – primary means
through which “that L2 students can learn on their own beyond the classroom” (Carrell and
Grabe 2002, 233). Despite these positive attributes, however, it is important to note that imple-
menting extensive reading in L2 programs can be a challenge (Williams and Moran 1989). As
Grabe (2002) remarks, the proper mechanism for the development of many subskills involved
in reading has long been recognized to be wide and frequent reading. This ‘simple and obvi-
ous’ solution, however, is easier said than done in most L2 programs for a host of reasons,
chief among them being time constraints.
Clearly any L2 reading programs in Persian need to incorporate both intensive and exten-
sive reading as each one serves different purposes and mobilizes different skills, strategies,
and processes (Schmitt and Carter 2000; Urquhart and Weir 1998). It is important to note here
that there seems to be a divergence between reading research literature and that of second
language acquisition when it comes to implementing extensive reading (e.g., Nation 2001;
Long 1996). L2 reading scholars uniformly advocate the use of graded readers, which have
been variously defined as “a simplified version of an original work or a ‘simple original’ ” in
the language (Hill and Reid-Thomas 1988, 44) or “books written with a controlled vocabulary
and a limited range of grammatical structures and typically graded into a number of lev-
els” (Pellicer-Sánchez 2013, 5). The rationale beyond graded readers is to create “repetition,
recycling, opportunities for consolidation, ease of topics, amount of input, words frequency”
(Pellicer-Sánchez 2013, 5). However, graded readers as simplified texts run counter to second
language acquisition research findings, as discussed earlier. Given this dissonance as well as
the challenging nature of creating graded readers, Persian L2 reading programs can opt for
a middle ground by adopting a version of “narrow reading” approach (Schmitt and Carter
2000), incorporating many of the positive aspects of extensive reading, combining the posi-
tive attributes of extensive reading and elaborated genuine texts. It may be quite profitable to
use thematically organized reading modules where students can pick and choose from among
several authentic but carefully elaborated texts on the same topic. This compromise not only
avoids simplification but should be less labor intensive. After all, it is easier to elaborate than
simplify texts. The main point worth reemphasizing is that frequency of reading has been
shown to strongly correlate with positive attitudes toward reading.

13.7 Literature and Persian L2 reading

Reading literary texts is one other important issue of particular relevance to L2 Persian read-
ing. Linked to the broader debate over the role of literature in second language learning, the
significance of this debate derives in part from the value that has traditionally been attributed

285
 Nahal Akbari and Ali Reza Abasi

to works of literature in many college-level L2 Persian programs. Often in such programs

students programmatically begin to read literary texts after just two or three years of language
study. In some cases, upper-level L2 reading courses are basically literature reading where
students wade through such formally complex masterpieces of Persian fiction as The Blind
Owl. One reason for this state of affairs is perhaps due to the particular academic backgrounds
of the faculty who seem to subscribe to some form of the beliefs that the study of literature
is a “supremely civilizing pursuit” that trains students “in a way no other discipline can”
(Leavis 1943, 34) and that the newsworthiness of such texts, unlike other written texts, is not
timebound (Pound 1951). Grand claims about the uniqueness of literature in its civilizing and
intellectual effects, however, have had their critics, who have pointed out that these same abili-
ties can be equally developed by any other academic subject (Widdowson 1975) and that the
study of literature may not always be such an innocent civilizing pursuit after all (Said 1994).
These claims and counterclaims aside, if we accept the description of the process of literary
reading put forward by some of the influential reader-response theorists wherein the reader
needs to predict what is to happen in the text, retain information across the discourse in order
to confirm or disconfirm predictions, continually reassess what has gone before in the text,
adjust viewpoints in light of new information, and synthesize all of this information in order to
make sense of the work at hand (Fish 1980; Iser 1978), then this highly sophisticated cognitive
process that is put in motion when reading literary texts would be a very strong reason in favor
of using literature in any L2 reading curriculum.
Apart from the reasons just touched upon, in general in the field of second language teach-
ing, many other plausible reasons have been put forward for inclusion of literature in L2 reading
curricula. Literary texts, it has been argued, are a unique source of authentic written language
very rich in terms of creative use of language and cultural references (see Kramsch 1993).
Works of fiction, for instance, have been argued to be especially superior to other authentic
samples of language use in that authors need to build into the text a context for the way charac-
ters talk and act and, for this reason, can be easier to comprehend (Widdowson 1975). Literary
texts, others have argued, tend to deal with universal themes and fundamental human issues that
cut across all cultures and therefore have the power and potential to be engaging for L2 readers.
This quality can motivate students to read more and as a result develop positive attitudes toward
reading in general (Collie and Slater 1987; Lazar 1993). This line of reasoning can be particu-
larly true with respect to Persian since for a good number of L2 learners the ability to access the
Persian literature constitutes a primary goal. It would be only natural to include Persian literary
texts in L2 reading curricula and make the reading tasks more relevant to them.
Some arguments for the inclusion of literature in L2 reading have invoked SLA research.
Literary texts, it is argued, push L2 readers to pay careful attention to the stylistic aspects of
texts (e.g., denotational as well as connotational meanings, unusual juxtaposition of words,
metaphors, etc.) in the process of interpreting or responding to the work. The need for close
reading and heightened awareness of linguistic cues prime L2 readers to ‘notice’ linguistic
forms, thereby optimizing their language acquisition and development (Picken 2007; Zwaan
1993). This SLA-informed reasoning is augmented by the increasing recognition of the fact
that skills are rarely discrete. That is, very often reading is integrated with other skills (particu-
larly speaking and writing) in the real world. Given that literary works are open to multiple
interpretations and that the reader plays an active role in assigning meaning, they can naturally
give rise to readymade and genuine opinion gaps among students and organically motivate
them to exchange their perceptions and opinions of the texts. The ensuing oral interaction in
consequence is highly meaning-focused, and this interaction by its nature can spur general
language development (Duff and Maley 1990; Gass and Mackey 2007).

286
 Second language reading in Persian

While these arguments in support of literature point to the importance of using literature in
L2 reading curricula, it can be argued that some of them in an ironic way can work against flu-
ent reading and therefore be similarly invoked against using literature in L2 reading curricula
(see Edmondson 1997). To begin with, language-wise, literary texts very often are marked by
deviation from norms. This deviation from what is expected and familiar is in fact a major
mechanism used to create certain effects (Picken 2007; Widdowson 1983). One key concern
in connection with L2 readers here is that they would need to have a strong knowledge of the
linguistic norms in the first place before they can detect and appreciate deviations. Otherwise,
not only would they not be able to appreciate the intended effects but also the deviations can
hinder their language development by misleading them into what is grammatical (i.e. what is
allowable). One remedy here may be the careful selection of texts that are appropriate to the
levels of L2 learners. In fact, it has been noted that works of literature can be selected according
to how ‘literary’ they are (Carter and Long 1991). For instance, short stories typically involve
‘unmarked’ forms, whereas poetry is much more likely contain ‘marked’ forms. Accordingly,
the former may be more appropriate for L2 readers at lower proficiency levels while the latter
more appropriate for their advanced counterparts. A second concern has to do with indetermi-
nacy of meaning of literary works and the question of how ‘comprehension’ is to be defined.
One possible answer to this issue is that a distinction needs to be made with respect to ‘compre-
hension’ as constructing the “referential” meaning of the work and comprehension as forming a
“representational” meaning for it (Rosenblatt 1994; Kramsch 1993). While referential meaning
is less controversial to establish, representational meaning (i.e., multiplicity of interpretations)
poses an assessment challenge. Given that a laissez faire instructional approach where any
vague and unsupported interpretation is regarded as equally acceptable would not be appropri-
ate, one possible course of pedagogical action would be to encourage only “precision of refer-
ence” in support of a particular interpretation” without insisting on “precision of interpretation
itself” (Widdowson 1992). Such an instructional response can promote critical thinking skills
where L2 readers will have to hone their textually supported reasoning skills.
With respect to research on the use of literature in L2 reading, there are generally few
empirical studies. Research in this area in relation to Persian can prove to be very useful for
curriculum planners. For instance, it would be very illuminating to know learners’ percep-
tions of and attitudes toward using literature in reading courses, how instructors actually go
about teaching literature, the particular problems that students might have in dealing with
literary texts, or the views of faculty on the topic, and the like. Many assumptions regard-
ing the use of literature tend to be speculations with little empirical supports and may turn
out to be unfounded. As a case in point, advocates of using literary texts highlight L2 cul-
tural references in such texts as one reason for their inclusion in L2 curricula; however, it is
unclear how L2 readers’ unfamiliarity with cultural references in Persian texts might actually
impact L2 readers’ reading of such texts. Some existing research involving other languages,
for instance, has shown that readers with different cultural schemas may construct meanings
that are “incomplete, lopsided, and, perhaps crassly stated, inaccurate” (Bernhardt 1990, 196).
Read Chapter 19 in this volume for an elaborate discussion on developing the reading skill of
second language learners of Persian through literature.

13.8 Conclusion
In this chapter we briefly identified several aspects of L2 reading widely discussed in the
literature that we believe to be very germane to L2 reading in Persian which a balanced L2
reading curriculum cannot afford to ignore. Based on our reading of the extant literature on

287
 Nahal Akbari and Ali Reza Abasi

L2 reading, we have admittedly made a number of speculations with respect to L2 reading in

Persian which call for empirical verification. These empirical investigations would advance
our understanding not just about L2 reading in Persian, but they would also have wider impli-
cations for L2 reading in general. As noted at the beginning of the chapter, existing research
has an English bias and it does not necessarily reflect all the needs of Persian instructors and
learners. This is particularly acute in the case of Persian orthography and its impact on L2
reading process in Persian.

Notes
1) Another commonly used dichotomy for orthographic depth is shallow vs. deep.
2) C stands for consonant; V for Vowel.

References
Abu-Rabia, S. 2001. “The Role of Vowels in Reading Semitic Scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew.”
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14: 39–59.
Adams, M. 1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Alderson, J.C. 2000. Assessing Reading. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, R.C., and P. Freebody. 1981. “Vocabulary Knowledge.” In Comprehension and Teaching:
Research Reviews, edited by J. Guthrie, 77–117. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Baluch, B. 1993. “Lexical Decisions in Persian: A Test of the Orthographic Depth Hypothesis.” Interna-
tional Journal of Psychology, 28: 19–27.
Baluch, B. 2006. “Persian Orthography and Its Relation to Literacy.” In Handbook of Orthography and
Literacy, edited by R.M. Joshi and P.G. Arron, 365–376. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baluch, B., and S. Shahidi. 1991. “Visual Word Recognition in Beginning Readers of Persian.” Percep-
tual and Motor Skills, 72: 1327–1331.
Bernhardt, E. 2000. “Second Language Reading as a Case Study of Reading Scholarship in the Twentieth
Century.” In Handbook of Reading Research, edited by M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, and R.
Barr, Vol. III, 793–811. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Bernhardt, E.B. 1990. “A Model of L2 Text Reconstruction: The Recall of Literary Text by Learners of
German.” In Issues in L2: Theory as Practice/Practice as Theory, edited by A. Labarka and L. Bailey.
Norwood: Ablex.
Bernhardt, E.B. 2003. “Challenges to Reading Research from a Multilingual World.” Reading Research
Quarterly, 38: 112.
Bhatia, V.K. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
Birch, B.M. 2007. English L2 Reading: Getting to the Bottom. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brosh, H. 2015. “Arabic Spelling: Errors, Perceptions, and Strategies.” Foreign Language Annals, 48(4):
584–603.
Brown, R. 1987. “A Comparison of the Comprehensibility of Modified and Unmodified Reading Materi-
als for ESL.” University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 6: 49–79.
Brustad, K. 2006. “Reading Fluently in Arabic.” In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Profes-
sionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 341–352.
London: Routledge.
Carrell, P.L. 1987. “Content and Formal Schemata in ESL Reading.” TESOL Quarterly, 21(3): 461–481.
Carrell, P.L. 1991. “Second Language Reading: Reading Ability or Language Proficiency?” Applied Lin-
guistics, 12: 159–179.
Carrell, P.L., and W. Grabe. 2002. “Reading.” In An Introduction to Applied Linguistics, edited by N.
Schmitt, 233–250. London: Arnold.
Carter, R., and M.N. Long. 1991. Teaching Literature. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Carver, R. 1994. “Percentage of Unknown Vocabulary Words in Text as a Function of the Relative Dif-
ficulty of the Text: Implications for Instruction.” Journal of Reading Behavior, 26: 413–437.
Clarke, M.A. 1980. “The Short Circuit Hypothesis of ESL Reading – Or When Language Competence
Interferes with Reading Performance.” Modern Language Journal, 64(2): 203–209.

288
 Second language reading in Persian

Collie, J., and S. Slater. 1987. Literature in the Language Classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Day, R., and J. Bamford. 1998. Extensive Reading in the Second Language Classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
DeKeyser, R. 2001. “Automaticity and Automatization.” In Cognition and Second Language Instruction,
edited by P. Robinson, 125–151. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Devine, J. 1987. “General Language Competence and Adult Second Language Reading.” In Research
in Reading in English as a Second Language, edited by J. Devine, P. Carrell, and D. Eskey, 73–87.
Washington, DC: TESOL.
Duff, A., and A. Maley. 1990. Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edmondson, W. 1997. “The Role of Literature in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching: Some Valid
Assumptions and Invalid Arguments. AILA Review, 12: 42–55.
Ellis, R. 2015. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erler, L., and C. Finkbeiner. 2007. “A Review of Reading Strategies: Focus on the Impact of First Lan-
guage.” In Language Learner Strategies: 30 Years of Research and Practice, edited by A.D. Cohen
and E. Macaro, 187–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eskey, D.E. 1988. “Holding in the Bottom: An Interactive Approach to the Language Problems of Second
Language Readers.” In Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading, edited by P. Carrell, J.
Devine, and D. Eskey, 93–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Everson, M.E. 1998. “Word Recognition Among Learners of Chinese as a Foreign Language: Investigat-
ing the Relationship Between Naming and Knowing.” The Modern Language Journal, 82: 194–204.
Everson, M.E. 2011. “Best Practices in Teaching Logographic and Non-Roman Writing Systems to L2
Learners.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31: 249–274.
Fish, S. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Floyd, P., and P.L. Carrell. 1987. “Effects on ESL Reading of Teaching Cultural Content Schemata.”
Language Learning, 37(1): 89–108.
Freire, P. 1985. “Reading the World and Reading the Word: An Interview with Paulo Freire.” Language
Arts, 62(1): 15–21.
Gass, S.M., and A. Mackey. 2007. “Input, Interaction and Output in SLA.” In Theories in SLA, edited by
B. VanPatten and J. Williams. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gholamain, M., and E. Geva. 1999. “Orthographic and Cognitive Factors in the Concurrent Development
of Basic Reading Skills in English and Persian.” Language Learning, 49(2): 183–217.
Gilmore, A. 2007. “Authentic Materials and Authenticity in Foreign Language Learning.” Language
Teaching, 40: 97–118.
Goodman, K. 1967. “Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game.” Journal of the Reading Specialist,
6: 126–135.
Grabe, W.P. 1988. “Reassessing the term ‘Interactive’.” In Interactive Approaches to Second Language
Reading, edited by P. Carrell, J. Devine, and D. Eskey, 56–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Grabe, W.P. 2009. Reading in a Second Language: Moving from Theory to Practice. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Grabe, W.P. 2002. “Reading in a Second Language.” In The Oxford Handbook of Applied Linguistics,
edited by Robert B. Kaplan, 49–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hansen, G.F. 2010. “Word Recognition in Arabic as a Foreign Language.” The Modern Language Jour-
nal, 94(4): 5: 67–581.
Hill, D.R., and H. Reid-Thomas. 1988. “Survey Review: Graded Readers (part 1).” English Language
Teaching Journal, 42: 44–82.
Hinkel, E. 2006. “Current Perspectives on Peaching the Pour Skills.” TESOL Quarterly, 40(1): 109–131.
Holmes, J. 1988. “Doubt and Certainty in ESL Textbooks.” Applied Linguistics, 9(1): 21–44.
Honeyfield, J. 1977. “Simplification.” TESOL Quarterly, 11: 431–440.
Hu, M., and I.S.P. Nation. 2000. “Unknown Vocabulary Density and Reading Comprehension.” Reading
in a Foreign Language, 13(1): 403–430.
Hudson, T. 1998. “Theoretical Perspective on Reading.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18:
43–60.
Iser, W. 1978. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.

289
 Nahal Akbari and Ali Reza Abasi

Iwahori, Y. 2008. “Developing Reading Fluency: A Study of Extensive Reading in EFL.” Reading in a
Foreign Language, 20(1): 70–91.
Katz, L., and R. Frost. 1992. “The Reading Process Is Different for Different Orthographies: The Ortho-
graphic Depth Hypothesis.” In Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning, edited by R.
Frost and L. Katz, 67–84. Amsterdam, NL, Holland: Elsevier.
Kim, Y. 2006. “Effects of Input Elaboration on Vocabulary Acquisition Through Reading by Korean
Learners of English as a Foreign Language.” TESOL Quarterly, 40: 341–373.
Koda, K. 1997. “Orthographic Knowledge in L2 Lexical Processing: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective.”
In Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Rationale for Pedagogy, edited by J. Coady and T.
Huckin, 35–52. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Koda, K. 2005. Insights into Second Language Reading: A Cross-linguistic Approach. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Koda, K. 2007. “Reading and Language Learning: Crosslinguistic Constraints on Second Language Read-
ing Development.” In Reading and Language Learning, edited by K Koda, 1–44. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Laufer, B. 1989. “What Percentage of Text-lexis Is Essential for Comprehension?” In Special Language:
From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines, edited by C. Lauren and M. Nordman. Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Laufer, B. 1991. “How Much Lexis Is Necessary for Reading Comprehension?” In Vocabulary and
Applied Linguistics, edited by P.J.L. Arnaud and H. Bejoint, 126–132. Basingstoke, England: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Laufer, B. 1997. “The Lexical Plight in Second Language Reading: Words You Don’t Know, Words You
Think You Know, and Words You Can’t Guess.” In Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition, edited
by J. Coady and T. Huckin, 20–34. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lazar, G. 1993. Literature and Language Teaching: A Guide for Teachers and Trainers. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Leavis, F.R. 1943. Education and the University. London: Chatto & Windus.
Li, M., and J.R. Kirby. 2015. “The Effects of Vocabulary Breadth and Depth on English Reading.”
Applied Linguistics, 36(5): 611–634.
Long, M.H. 1996. “Authenticity and Learning Potential in L2 Classroom Discourse.” University of
Hawai’i Working Papers, 14(2): 127–149.
Long, M.H. 2009. “Methodological Principles for Language Teaching.” In The Handbook of Language
Teaching, edited by Michael H. Long and Catherine J. Doughty, 373–394. Oxford: Blackwell.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M., and R. Carter. 1994. Language as Discourse. Harlow: Longman.
Nagy, W.E., and J.A. Scott. 2000. “Vocabulary Processes.” In Handbook of Reading Research, edited by
M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, and R. Barr, Vol. III, 269–284. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nation, I.S.P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nation, I.S.P. 2006. “How Large a Vocabulary Is Needed for Reading and Listening?” Canadian Modern
Language Review, 63: 59–82.
Nation, I.S.P. 2008. Teaching Vocabulary: Strategies and Techniques. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Nation, K., and M.J. Snowling. 2004. “Beyond Phonological Skills: Broader Language Skills Contribute
to the Development of Reading.” Journal of Research in Reading, 27: 342–356.
Nation, P., and P. Meara. 2002. “Vocabulary.” In An introduction to Applied Linguistics, edited by N.
Schmitt, 35–54. London: Arnold.
Nuttall, C. 2005. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Heinemann.
O’Donnell, M.E. 2009. “Finding Middle Ground in Second Language Reading: Pedagogic Modifica-
tions that Increase Comprehensibility And Vocabulary Acquisition While Preserving Authentic Text
Features.” The Modern Language Journal, 93(4): 512–533.
Pellicer-Sánchez, A. 2013. “Vocabulary and Reading.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
edited by Carol A. Chapelle, 1–7. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1267.
Perfetti, C.A. 1999. “Comprehending Written Language: A Blueprint for the Reader.” In Neurocognition
of Language, edited by C. Brown and P. Hagoort, 167–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C.A. 2007. “Reading Ability: Lexical Quality to Comprehension.” Scientific Studies of Reading,
11(4): 357–383.
Perfetti, C.A., N. Landi, and J. Oakhill. 2005. “The Acquisition of Reading Comprehension Skill.” In
The Science of Reading, edited by M. Snowling and C. Hulme, 209–226. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.

290
 Second language reading in Persian

Perfetti, C.A., J.A. Van Dyke, and L. Hart. 2001. “The Psycholinguistics of Basic Literacy.” Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 21: 127–149.
Picken, J.D. 2007. Literature, Metaphor, and the Foreign Language Learner. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Pigada, M., and N. Schmitt. 2006. “Vocabulary Acquisition from Extensive Reading: A Case Study.”
Reading in a Foreign Language, 18(1): 1–28.
Pound, E. 1951. ABC of Reading. London: Faber and Faber.
Pressley, M. 2006. Reading Instruction That Works. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press.
Quin, D.D. 2002. “Investigation the Relationship Between Vocabulary Knowledge and Academic Read-
ing Performance: An Assessment Perspective.” Language Learning, 52(3): 513–536.
Read, J. 2000. Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenblatt, L.M. 1994. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Ross, S., M.H. Long, and Y. Yano. 1991. “Simplification or Elaboration? The Effects of Two Types of
Text Modifications on Foreign Language Reading Comprehension.” University of Hawai’i Working
Papers in ESL, 10: 1–32.
Said, E.W. 1994. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.
Sarig, G. 1987. “High-level Reading in the First and in the Foreign Language: Some Comparative Pro-
cess Data.” In Research in Reading in English as a Second Language, edited by J. Devine, P. Carrell,
and D. Eskey, 105–120. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Samuels, S.J., and M.L. Kamil. 1984. “Models of the Reading Process,” In Handbook of Reading
Research I, edited by P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, and P. Mosental, 185–224. New York:
Longman.
Schmitt, N. 2008. “Instructed Second Language Vocabulary Learning.” Language Teaching Research,
12(3): 329–363.
Schmitt, N., and R. Carter. 2000. “The Lexical Advantages of Narrow Reading for Second Language
Learners.” TESOL Journal, 9(1): 4–9.
Schmitt, N., X. Jiang, and W. Grabe. 2011. “The Percentage of Words Known in a Text and Reading
Comprehension.” The Modern Language Journal, 95(1): 26–43.
Schmidt, R. 1993. “Awareness and Second Language Acquisition.” Annual Review of Applied Linguis-
tics, 13: 206–226.
Segalowitz, N. 2000. “Automaticity and Attentional Skill in Fluent Performance.” In Perspectives on
Fluency, edited by H. Riggenbach, 200–219. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Snider, K.L. 2013. “Orthography.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, edited by Carol A.
Chapelle, 1–7. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stanovich, K.E. 1980. “Toward an Interactive-compensatory Model of Individual Differences in the
Development of Reading Fluency.” Reading Research Quarterly, 16: 32–71.
Stanovich, K.E. 2000. Progress in Understanding Reading: Scientific Foundations and New Frontiers.
New York: Guilford Press.
Stanovich, K.E., and R.F. West. 1981. “The Effect of Sentence Context on Ongoing Word Recognition:
Tests of a Two-process Theory.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Per-
formance, 7: 658–672.
Stoller, F.L., and W. Grabe. 1993. “Implications for L2 Vocabulary Acquisition and Instruction from L1
Vocabulary Research.” In Second Language Reading and Vocabulary Learning, edited by T. Huckin,
M. Haymes, and J. Coady, 24–45. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ulijn, J., and J.B. Strother. 1990. “The Effect of Syntactic Simplification on Reading EST Texts as L1 and
L2.” Journal of Research in Reading, 13(1): 38–54.
Urquhart, A.H., and C.J. Weir. 1998. Reading in a Foreign Language: Process, Product and Practice.
London: Longman.
Vermeer, A. 2001. “Breadth and Depth of Vocabulary in Relation to L1/L2 Acquisition and Frequency of
Input.” Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(2): 217–234.
Waring, R., and M. Takaki. 2003. “At What Rate Do Learners Learn and Retain New Vocabulary from
Reading a Graded Reader?” Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(2): 130–163.
Webb, S. 2007. “The Effects of Repetition on Vocabulary Knowledge.” Applied Linguistics, 28(1): 46–65.
Widdowson, H.G. 1975. Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Widdowson, H.G. 1983. “Talking Shop: H. G. Widdowson on Literature and ELT.” ELT Journal, 37:
30–35.

291
 Nahal Akbari and Ali Reza Abasi

Widdowson, H.G. 1992. Practical Stylistics: An Approach to Poetry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Williams, E., and C. Moran. 1989. “Reading in a Foreign Language at Intermediate and Advanced Levels
with Particular Reference to English.” Language Teaching, 22(4): 217–228.
Wurr, A.J. 2003. “Reading in a Second Language: A reading Problem or a Language Problem?” Journal
of College Reading and Learning, 33(2): 157–169.
Yano, Y., M.H. Long, and S. Ross. 1994. “The Effects of Simplified and Elaborated Texts on Foreign
Language Reading Comprehension.” Language Learning, 44(2): 189–119.
Young, D.J. 1999. “Linguistic Simplification of SL Reading Material: Effective Instructional Practice?”
The Modern Language Journal, 83(3): 350–366.
Zwaan, R.A. 1993. Aspects of Literary Comprehension. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.

292
 14
SECOND LANGUAGE
WRITING IN PERSIAN ALI REZA ABASISECOND LANGUAGE WRITING IN PERSIAN

Ali Reza Abasi

14.1 Introduction
Like most educational phenomena, writing in a second language is complex and multilayered.
One dimension of the complexity has to do with the issue of second language proficiency
that needs to be disentangled from expertise in writing, both in the learner’s first and second
language (Cumming 1989; Raimes 1987). A second aspect of complexity is represented in the
semantic ambiguity of ‘writing’ which at once can refer to writing both as a socio-cognitive act
and a completed linguistic product – an ambiguity that is of course lexically avoided in Persian
by ‫ نگارش‬versus ‫ – نوشته‬both of which need to be accounted for in a holistic understanding of
L2 writing. One further facet of complexity stems from the diversity of contexts of writing.
It is now axiomatic to say that all acts of writing are socially situated (Horowitz 1986; Johns
2011; Tardy 2013). That is, the forms that writing takes and the purposes that it serves in dif-
ferent contexts vary, and therefore competence in writing may vary across contexts. It is per-
haps due to this unwieldiness that there is no single exhaustive theory that could account for
all facets of writing in a second language (Cumming 2013; Leki, Cumming, and Silva 2008).
In view of the diversity of writing contexts and the centrality of context in conceptualizing
L2 writing, it would be appropriate in this chapter to delimit the treatment of Persian L2 writ-
ing to higher education settings in the United States context where the author is positioned and
most familiar with. In addition to regular needs analysis reasons, there are other imperatives
as to why any discussion of Persian L2 writing should start from an understanding of one’s
unique context. Given the limited research on Persian L2 writing to date to guide curricular
decision-making and pedagogy, Persian L2 writing practitioners need to rely on research con-
ducted on writing in other languages. However, as Leki, Cumming, and Silva (2008) have
pointed out, the bulk of this body of literature has been carried out in relation to English
language learners across the world (either in ESL or EFL contexts) who represent different
learner profiles, needs, and goals. Much of the research findings therefore may not be readily
relevant to Persian language learning contexts (for a similar argument regarding other world
languages see Reichelt et al. 2012). An understanding of the specific context of Persian in
terms of learner profiles, needs, and goals would therefore need to be an initial step in making
informed decisions about what aspects of the literature would be most pertinent to one’s spe-
cific context. Addedly, what renders knowing one’s context even more crucial is that it helps

293
 Ali Reza Abasi

Persian practitioners to better navigate a confusing research terrain that presents conflicting
findings on almost any aspect of interest regarding learning to write in a second language (for
various cases see Leki, Cumming, and Silva 2008).

14.2 Writing in Persian language programs in the U.S.

In the United States, higher education is the primary context where students take up Persian
language study in earnest (American Councils for International Education 2017), disregard-
ing the special case of heritage learners who might acquire literacy skills in Persian Saturday
schools. Chapters 3 and 4 in this volume discuss the acquisition of syntax, semantics, and
phonology in heritage learners of Persian.
Apart from a handful of institutions that offer a four-year undergraduate degree program in
Persian, most institutions offer only lower division language courses at 100- or 200- and occa-
sionally 300-levels. In most cases, beyond these years there are either no disciplinary courses
offered in the language for students to take, or students do not meet the prerequisite language
proficiency to enroll in such courses. It is therefore uncommon for the Persian learners to
engage in the kinds of writing tasks such as extended term papers and essays and the like that
are geared toward learning disciplinary content and socialization into disciplines. Throughout
their language study years, most students therefore tend to perform writing tasks that involve
very little writing in the sense of creative composing as discussed and assumed in the litera-
ture (e.g., Abasi and Akbari 2008; Spivey 1997). As is the case in most other foreign language
instruction in the U.S. (Lefkowitz 2011; Reichelt 1999), the ultimate goal of writing in lower
division language classes is in fact improving students’ general language proficiency rather
than learning disciplinary content. While it remains an open empirical question, it appears that
a similar situation holds for most Persian language programs across the world. Against this
backdrop, the following are arguably some issues that are most relevant to Persian L2 writing.

14.3 Three orientations to L2 writing: text, process,

and social practice
It has been observed that “if we write and teach writing, we have a theory of writing by defi-
nition” (Zebroski 1986, 57). Accordingly, since all (L2) writing research and instruction is
guided by a theory – albeit implicit – it would be useful to briefly outline major conceptions
of second writing dominant since the mid-20th century that have underpinned approaches
to L2 writing research and instruction. These approaches have all first appeared in teaching
composition to native users of English (L1) and then appropriated and expanded upon in the
field of L2 writing (Matsuda and Silva 2001). A brief overview of these orientations could help
(1) to map one’s implicit L2 writing theories in reference to these approaches and (2) to make
informed decision about selecting the approach that would be most contextually relevant to
teaching writing to learners of Persian.
Generally speaking, L2 writing instruction and research practices could prioritize the prod-
uct of the act of writing in the form of text, the process of writing, or the constellation of
social expectations, purposes, linguistic forms, values, and identities associated with the act of
writing in specific contexts (for a recent overview see Hirvela, Hyland, and Manchón 2016).
While conceptions of writing as text, process, or social context have appeared in chronological
sequence over the past 50 years or so depending upon whether linguistics, cognitive psychol-
ogy, sociology, or anthropology has had the most influence in the field at the time either indi-
vidually or in combination, none of the three orientations has in fact left the scene, and they

294
 Second language writing in Persian

all continue to inform L2 writing research and practice (Matsuda and Silva 2001; Silva 1993).
This is for the simple reason that writing is indeed at once text, process, and social action (Fer-
ris 2013; Raimes 1991). Without delving much into the theoretical discussions undergirding
each approach, let us briefly consider the orientations to teaching L2 writing.

14.3.1 Writing as product

Prior to the 1970s, the dominant approach to second language writing instruction was what
later came to be characterized as form-focused. Heavily influenced by structural linguistics and
behavioral psychology, the distinguishing features of this orientation were a preoccupation with
preemption and correction of errors in student writings, and little attention was paid to writing
as genuine communication (Ferris and Hedgcock 2014; Pincas 1962; Silva 2016). Learning to
write in a second language was believed to be a matter of learning vocabulary, syntactic patterns,
and cohesive devices that comprise the essential building blocks of texts. Instruction revolved
around the finished product and its formal accuracy. Errors were viewed negatively and had to
be prevented by various instructional strategies and, in case of their occurrence, had to be always
corrected. In support of this orientation, L2 writing research in turn focused on contrasting stu-
dents’ first language with the target language to identify areas of difference that could negatively
transfer from learners’ L1 and lead to errors in their writing (Fisiak 1981; Kaplan 1966). For
further discussion on L1 transfer in L2 learning, read Chapters 2–8 in this volume.
While there have been various instructional strategies to implement this approach (see
Raimes 1983), almost all of them required students to manipulate formal features of given
texts in order to gain accurate mastery of grammar and vocabulary. Two well-known strate-
gies were controlled writing and guided writing (Paulston 1972; Reid 1993; Silva 1990). In
both of these techniques, students are provided with the material (as opposed to generating it
themselves) and asked to perform on it some kind of formal manipulation such as changing
tenses, completing sentences, writing a paragraph from an outline, or putting paragraphs in
correct order in a very controlled fashion. The main concern in both strategies was to reduce
the likelihood of students making errors and flouting ‘prose decorum’ (Leki 1991). The fear
was that should students venture out on their own beyond their language means, they would
likely make mistakes perceived harmful to learning. While as techniques they might still be
used in writing instruction, the theoretical basis of this product-based approach has long been
discredited (for reasons see Tarone 2006).

14.3.2 Writing as process

In contrast, a writing pedagogy can focus on the process through which a piece of writing
comes to take its final form by focusing on the stages of planning, formulating, and revising,
and formative feedback during cycles of revisions (Kobayashi and Rinnert 2018; Zamel 1976).
Characteristically, a process-based pedagogy takes the view that writing is a form of complex
thinking (Flower and Hayes 1981a) that occurs over a series of non-linear reiterative stages.
The instruction should therefore enable the student writer to develop the skills with which s/he
can creatively “work out their own solutions to the [rhetorical] problems they set themselves,
with which they shape their raw material into a coherent message, and with which they work
towards an acceptable and appropriate form for expressing it” (White and Ardnt 1991). This
approach, while shifting the focus from the final product on the writer, views writing as a
(a) problem-solving activity, (b) multi-draft process, and (c) communicative event between a
writer and a reader (Barnett 1989). From the perspective of this orientation, instruction should

295
 Ali Reza Abasi

target the way students write in order to become effective writers. In support of this approach,
L2 writing research aimed to understand the nature of L2 composing itself and identify effec-
tive and ineffective composing strategies used by more and less skilled L2 writers in order to
enhance the process pedagogy (for a brief review see Krapels 1990).
Instructional strategies that incorporate this view downplay the importance of errors in
favor of creation of content and ideas – especially during the initial stages of idea generation,
planning, and formulating. In terms of providing feedback, they involve comment on content
(‘response’) as well as language (‘feedback’) – often provided during individualized teacher-
student conferences and peer-to-peer response episodes. In a process-based L2 writing class,
instruction tend to mirror the exploratory and generative process of writing itself, typically
taking some form of the following sequence of reiterative events:

Stage 1: Topic selection by students or instructor

Stage 2: Prewriting: idea generation through brainstorming, note-taking, collecting data, etc.
Stage 3: Composing the first draft
Stage 4: Peer and/or instructor responding to first draft regarding ideas and organization
Stage 5: Revising the draft
Stage 6: Peer and/or instructor responding to revisions
Stage 7: Self-evaluating, editing, proof-reading, and finishing the final draft
Stage 8: Instructor responding to final draft

It is worth noting that the process approach puts an emphasis on frequency rather than
quality of writing. The premise here is that frequent writing helps students develop the abil-
ity to reflect on the strategies they use to plan, generate, and revise their texts while receiving
appropriate coaching on the margin from their teachers. This way they increasingly gain more
control over the entire process and come to be competent at writing.
While the major strength of this approach lies in its foregrounding of the cognitive dimen-
sion of writing, this has ironically been its Achilles heel as well. The approach has been criti-
cized for its failure to emphasize the social nature of writing and distorting the reality of
writing by mispresenting it as an individualistic internal process powered by self-discovery
and self-expression (Kent 1999). Moreover, the approach, by not making explicit the rules that
make writing effective right from start, works to disadvantage those students who may not
be privy to the rules owing to their social or cultural positioning (Delpit 1988; Hyland 2004).
A further drawback of process pedagogy that is particularly relevant to Persian L2 writing
is that it may not be as productive with students at lower levels of language proficiency. As
Krashen and Lee (2004, 11) note in this respect, the approach is

most valuable when writing involves complex issues and difficult problems. There is
less need for planning, rereading, and revision when writing simple descriptions and
summaries, and more need for these strategies when writing requires the integration
of a great deal of diverse information, when a complex analysis is called for, or when
data can be interpreted in different ways.

14.3.3 Writing as social context

The third orientation to writing pedagogy of wide currency nowadays foregrounds the con-
texts, social purposes, and associated textual forms and structures of writing. Known as genre
pedagogy, the approach commonly used in L2 writing starts with an identification of the kinds

296
 Second language writing in Persian

of writing that students need to write in target situations and teach the rhetorical and linguistic
forms needed to produce those texts (Hyland 2007). While there are different strands within
this orientation (Hyon 1996), learning to write from the perspective of this approach essen-
tially means learning to create socially recognizable and valued texts. For instance, as a result
of their repeated encounters with recipes, court notices, research articles, and the like, readers
have developed an abstract knowledge of what each text type looks like formally, which they
would then expect to see in each type of writing they might encounter. Instruction should
therefore enable the students to construct a text that the writer assumes the reader will readily
recognize and expect. One major premise in this approach is that since “modes of communi-
cation within communities are often generic, learning to engage in these genres receptively
and productively can be essential to success as a group member” (Tardy 2013, 1). L2 writing
should thus make these generic rules and conventions explicit in order to help students to
develop “genre knowledge” (Berkenkotter and Huckin 1995) and become competent members
of their target communities. In contrast to the product-based pedagogy where the focus on
form and accuracy is disembodied from such contextual expectations and constraints, instruc-
tion of forms in genre pedagogy is systematically linked to context.
In terms of its instructional strategies, there is both diversity and controversy regarding
the nature of genres and their variability, stability, unpredictability, and teachability. Broadly
speaking, genre-informed strategies are either geared toward helping students to actually pro-
duce text types or gain awareness about them (Johns 2008). Perhaps the most unified and
coherent instructional strategy that attempts to enable learners to produce text types is that
of the Australian genre pedagogy that is primarily used in L1 contexts (Hyland 2004; Martin
2000). The technique involves three stages. In the first stage, known as genre deconstruction,
the instructor using a model text type (say, the genre of procedure) draws learners’ attention to
the way the text is structurally laid out to achieve the generic purpose in question (i.e., to tell
someone how something is done) as well as the relevant lexicogrammatical features used. In
the second stage, referred to as joint construction stage, the instructor and students collabo-
ratively write a text in the target genre. At this stage, the students contribute their ideas, and
the instructor demonstrates ways in which these ideas might be shaped into a well-structured
text using the language features from the model text. The final stage is that of independent
construction where students independently construct a text similar to the model text using the
same generic features. Despite its well-articulated model, the Australian genre pedagogy has
been criticized for its limited focus on ‘key academic genres’ only (Recount, Procedure, Nar-
rative, Description, Report, Explanation, Exposition). As Bhatia (2004) has rightly pointed
out, genres are primarily socio-cognitive abstractions rather than text-types, and knowing how
to write narratives, descriptions, and so on can at best provide the writer with some rhetorical
means rather than the ability to create, say, a named genre such as a legal brief. There would
therefore be no guarantee that students would be able to write socially effective texts even if
they know how to produce these isolated basic text types.
The other strand of genre pedagogy widely used in L2 writing known as Language for Spe-
cific Purposes (LSP) has not produced a unified pedagogical model (Belcher 2004). Given the
within genre variability (Bhatia 2000; Devitt 2004; Dudley-Evans 2002), it appears that a genre
approach would be most valuable as a consciousness-raising framework rather than as a basis
for teaching L2 students how to produce text-types. Indeed, using genres a basis for teaching
how to produce text types can potentially drive instruction into, what Freadman (1994) calls,
“a recipe theory of genre” – that is, treating genres mechanically as fixed forms. Moreover, as
Johns (2008) has noted, the LSP genre tradition is mostly suitable for highly proficient L2 writ-
ers en route to joining academic or professional communities rather than for early L2 writers.

297
 Ali Reza Abasi

14.4 Writing as a unique site for general language learning

In recent years, a new orientation in the field of second language writing has emerged that
investigates the possibilities that writing as a language modality provides for second language
acquisition and development in classroom settings. Traditionally the language dimension in
second language writing has been de-emphasized (Harklau 2002; Polio and Williams 2009).
And yet it goes without saying that “learners need to acquire and generate the L2 in order to
write it” (Polio and Williams 2009, 487). In fact, as Leki, (2009, xv) has observed, “using writ-
ing to develop language proficiency may be a central aim of L2 writing in [foreign language]
settings”. Indeed, very often L2 writers’ main difficulty is with the fundamentals of language
at the levels of lexis and syntax. There are numerous reports in the literature that point to
the crucial importance of general language proficiency in writing in a second language. For
instance, in a recent study by Coxhead (2012), vocabulary knowledge was found to be a major
obstacle confronting L2 writers in New Zealand. Likewise, Qu (2017) in discussing the central
mission of L2 writing courses characterize language proficiency as the “biggest problem for
L2 writers” and warns that these courses “should never change [their] irreplaceable role of
cultivating fundamental linguistic skill” (p. 93). In the absence of any reports to the contrary
regarding Persian, it is reasonable to speculate that a similar situation remains true for novice
L2 Persian writers.
From a second language acquisition perspective, writing as a modality presents unique
properties that render it as a relatively more effective vehicle for general language proficiency
development (Manchón 2011). The potentials of writing for language learning can be under-
stood in reference to two key second language acquisition (SLA) constructs known as ‘notic-
ing’ and ‘focus-on-form’ (see Doughty and Williams 1998; Robinson et al. 2015). During
writing, as in speaking, writers in producing language may come to notice that they do not
possess the necessary language form(s) to convey precisely an intended meaning to the reader.
This awareness has been shown to make it likely for novice writers to attend to and notice
the language forms in which they subsequently read or hear to acquire those missing forms
(Laufer 2013; Swain 1998). When used in genuine communication, writing can thus indirectly
promote second language development.
Writing, however, stands out in its potential to promote learner noticing and focus on form
compared with other language skills (Cumming 1990; Roca de Larios 2013). The following
description of writing points out all the features that make it such a potent modality for lan-
guage learning:

Writing takes time. The word ‘discoloration’, for example, takes the average person
approximately five seconds to write but only one second to say. The physical pace of
writing . . . allows for ongoing thought and planning during the writing process. As
we write a sentence, we can think of each word before we write it and then we can
always go back, correct it or alter it, until we’re satisfied. Before we can write any-
thing, even a shopping list, we need to think. We can write very little of any length or
sense without giving it some thought beforehand.
(Cornbleet and Carter 2001,10–11)

As this description suggests, writing in most cases (expect perhaps in synchronous situations
like text-messaging) does not occur real-time, thereby giving the writer ample time to plan
what to compose and how to linguistically encode it. Writing is such a slow-paced process
that “in some cases 70% of composing time is actually pause time” (Flower and Hayes 1981b, 229).

298
 Second language writing in Persian

This flexibility has shown to be conducive to language learning as it allows the learners to
experiment with or rehearse newly acquired language forms and as a consequence increase
their control over the use of those forms as well as the likelihood of using more complex
language that they might otherwise avoid in oral production (Ellis and Yuan 2004; Williams
2008, 2012). The slow pace of writing also allows the writers to deploy the two hypothesized
sources of L2 knowledge (implicit and explicit) to monitor their written production, resulting
in increased automaticity in language production as well as more formally accurate texts and
ultimately development in their L2 knowledge (for a fuller treatment of this topic, see Wil-
liams 2012). For further discussion on automaticity and second language acquisition, read
Chapter 6 in this volume.
Writing is further unique for language development due to its reified and permanent nature.
The written text, as it were, stands out there detached from the writer and can become the
object of reflection and explicit formal analysis. These cognitive processes are believed to
be crucial requisites for the language acquisitional processes of knowledge internalization,
restructuring, and consolidation to occur (Adams et al. 2015). Moreover, the writer’s mind-
fulness that the text remains to be scrutinized by the reader reflexively prompts the writer
to attend more to the formal aspects of the composing process (Schoonen et al. 2009). The
permanence of writing also impacts the quality with which the writers might process the cor-
rective feedback they receive on the writing. Unlike in oral production where both the output
and feedback are immediate and fleeting, in written production writers have much more time
to compare their own production against the feedback received. This visible juxtaposition and
has shown to heighten comparative analysis, triggering a change in their linguistic knowledge
(Adams 2003; Qi and Lapkin 2001; Tocalli-Beller and Swain 2005). Further, the very fact that
writing tends to be neither real-time nor face-to-face is likely to be less anxiety inducing for
the learner can create an optimal affective condition for learning (Harklau 2002; Lam 2000).

14.5 Writing proficiency versus language proficiency

A very relevant consideration in teaching Persian L2 writing is the distinction between writing
proficiency and L2 proficiency (Cumming 1989; Krapels 1990). This is crucial in deciding
whether problems of writing are due to lack of proficiency in composing involving think-
ing, composing strategies and behavior that together constitute ‘expertise’ in writing (Bereiter
and Scardamalia 1987; Stein 1986) or are simply due to the learner’s still-developing sec-
ond language proficiency. Previous research has shown that composing proficiency and L2
proficiency are two psychologically distinct but interacting traits. They interact in the sense
that, in order for the learner to be able to sustain the self-regulated behavior that L2 writing
requires, she needs to be at a certain level of second language proficiency (Cumming 1989;
Cummins 1979; Hornberger 2013). Further, it is now widely accepted that L1 and L2 compos-
ing processes are generally similar, and that experienced and proficient L2 writers compose
like their L1 counterparts (Grabe 2001; Sasaki 2000; Williams 2005). Learners’ difficulties
with L2 writing could therefore be due to shortcomings in either composing expertise or L2
proficiency.
In the context of college-level learners of Persian who are already literate in their L1 and
presumably know how to compose, it is tempting to attribute learners’ problems with writing
to their still-developing language proficiency. In light of the fact that L1 composing profi-
ciency is widely believed to be transferrable to L2 writing only after a certain threshold in
L2 proficiency has been achieved, determining which one is the true source of the problems
is dependent on whether learners have reached the necessary threshold in Persian. However,

299
 Ali Reza Abasi

what this threshold proficiency level actually is for learners of Persian remains an open empiri-
cal question. Relatedly, if one accepts this line of reasoning, it would make sense for Persian
L2 writing curricula to put heavy emphasis on promoting general language proficiency rather
than teaching learners how to compose.

14.6 Issues currently of most relevance to Persian L2 writing

14.6.1 Response to student writing

One of the most debated issues regarding L2 writing is that of feedback (Ferris 2011). Feed-
back can be either on content of writing and geared toward substantive and rhetorical revisions
or on the linguistic features of the writing oriented toward editing writing for formal accu-
racy, communicative effectiveness, and hopefully learners’ L2 development. The provision
of feedback on content seems to be a given universally, with debates revolving around such
issues as the timing of giving such feedback during the writing process (e.g., throughout the
writing process or on the final draft); providing feedback on form and content concurrently or
separately (Ashwell 2000); who should provide feedback (Liu 2013; Wigglesworth and Storch
2012); or cross-cultural considerations in providing feedback (Nelson and Carson 2006).
Feedback on form, in contrast, continues to be a highly controversial issue. Variously
referred to as ‘written corrective feedback’, ‘written error correction’, or ‘grammar correc-
tion’, there are essentially two fundamentally opposing views. One view marshalling serious
theoretical arguments from the field of second language acquisition research literature as well
as practical issues having to do with difficulties with recognition of errors and inconsistency in
giving feedback regards such error correction as ineffective and harmful for learners. It there-
fore calls for abandoning altogether the practice in favor of attending to other aspects of writ-
ing such as idea generation or rhetorical revision (Truscott 1996, 2004, 2007). A second view
emphasizing the inconclusive existing research findings on the matter (Bitchener 2012; Bitch-
ener and Ferris 2012; Ferris 2011) and the importance of availability of ‘negative evidence’
(Long 1996) – that is, supplying the learner with information about what is not grammatical
in the L2 – for language development, considers the call as premature and harmful for both
learners’ language development and their communicative accuracy and effectiveness. Propo-
nents of this view, however, emphasize providing effective written corrective feedback (CF) in
ways that could facilitate learning. As only three examples, they point out that error correction
should be selective, consistent, and clear. In this connection, Ferris (2010, 182) observes that
“students would utilize written CF more effectively for long-term language acquisition and
writing development when there are fewer, clearer error types on which to focus attention”.
Second, they advocate for an indirect instead of direct type of corrective feedback, reasoning
that the former promotes greater cognitive engagement, reflection, and problem-solving on
the part of the learners (Ferris and Hedgcock 2014; Swain and Lapkin 1995). As for a third
example, effective feedback is one that promotes uptake of feedback through such measures
as using multi-draft writing tasks (Hanaoka and Izumi 2012). The jury on error correction is
still out; however, it appears that a middle-of-the-road position that balances content and form
feedback and treats errors judiciously is advisable. This compromise approach needs to factor
in the imperatives of the instructional context such as students’ expectations and their needs
for accuracy. Indeed, error correction is an area most suitable for instructors of Persian L2
writing to conduct their own action research (Crookes and Chandler 2001) in order to explore
the effectiveness, or otherwise, of error correction in their particular contexts and make situ-
ationally valid instructional decisions.

300
 Second language writing in Persian

14.6.2 Integration of writing with other skills

It is now widely recognized that writing is best taught and assessed in integration with other
skills, especially reading (Carson and Leki 1993; Plakans 2009a, 2009b; Plakans and Gebril
2012). Nowadays, for example, all major international tests of English language proficiency
such as the TOEFL or IELTS tests assess writing ability through integrated writing tasks. The
integration of writing with other skills rests on several good reasons. In the majority of cases,
acts of writing tend to be in response to what the writer has read or heard. In fact, in some
settings such as academia, acts of writing are almost always reading-based (Carson and Leki
1993). If writing instruction is to prepare learners for real-life communicative situations, then
its instruction needs to reflect the reality of such communication, where writing is naturally
integrated with other skills. Integration would therefore not only create more authentic rhetori-
cal situations but could also promote transfer of learning across writing contexts (James 2010).
Apart from the natural reciprocity among skills in real-life communication, integration is
further underpinned by research findings that point to the synergistic relation between writing
and other skills (Eisterhold 1990; Grabe and Zhang 2016; Harste 2013). While writing can be
pedagogically integrated with listening, speaking, and reading in multiple ways toward differ-
ent pedagogical ends (Grabe 2001; Hirvela and Belcher 2016), its integration with reading is
believed to be most crucial for the second language writing development. The bidirectional
relation between these two skills can summarized as Good writers write like readers and Good
readers read like writers (Smith 1983; Williams 2005). The mutual relation between the two
skills derives from that fact that both reading and writing involve active construction of mean-
ing though the application of complex cognitive and linguistic abilities, and instruction in one
can enhance the other. Further, reading as written input provides learners with a significant
amount of tacit knowledge of the conventional features of written texts including grammar,
vocabulary, generic organizational patterns, metadiscoursal devices, and so forth that partially
comprise the requisite genre knowledge for writing socially effective texts. Integration can
additionally be used as a pedagogical strategy to mobilize different cognitive processes or
manipulate task complexity in order to impact learners’ written performance (see Robinson
2011). For instance, requiring students to summarize a text would direct them to deploy dif-
ferent composing strategies and reasoning processes than, say, getting them to paraphrase it
or summarize across multiple texts rather than one (Plakans 2009a, 2009b; Spivey 1997). For
further discussion on developing the reading skill in second language learners of Persian, read
Chapter 13 in this volume.

14.6.3 Describing second language writing performance

Sometimes it is necessary to explore the impact of certain pedagogical interventions on the
learners’ written performance, track their development in writing overtime, identify differ-
ences of writing performance across groups, assess learners’ overall written performance, and
the like. In such cases, learners’ written performance is described with respect to three distinct
but interacting constructs of complexity, accuracy, and fluency, known as CAF for short (Bui
and Skehan 2018; Polio 1997). These notions essentially derive from three core assumptions.
As L2 writers become more proficient, they (a) generate more text in the same amount of time,
(b) write with fewer errors, and (c) generate more complex texts (Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki,
and Kim 1998). At any given point in time along the way, these three components of lan-
guage performance in writing, however, might have developed unevenly owing to different
learning conditions or be in competition with each other under different conditions of writing

301
 Ali Reza Abasi

performance (Casanave 1994). It is important to note here that while these broad dimensions
of performance have been widely used since the late 1970s, their operationalizations continue
to evolve (Housen and Kuiken 2009; Norris and Ortega 2009).
Traditionally, fluency includes various metrics that aim to measure the speed and ease with
which written communication is produced (see Latif 2012 and Reynolds 2005 for alternative
definitions), while accuracy metrics target the extent to which such writing is free from error –
or is normatively acceptable or appropriate (Housen, Kuiken and Vedder 2012). Complexity
metrics in turn attempt to give a measure of the range and diversity of structures and vocabu-
lary that are used in writing (for a comprehensive list of various metrics for each dimension,
see Polio 1997 and Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, and Kim 1998). These dimensions of written
language performance have been most frequently used in reference to various levels of the
language (e.g., syntax, lexis, etc.), but they can arguably be applied to virtually any other
aspect of writing performance including organizational or discoursal features such as generic
moves (Swales 1990) or topical structure (Schneider and Connor 1990). For example, the writ-
ers’ move performance can be assessed in terms of their normative appropriateness vis-à-vis
genre conventions (i.e., their accuracy) or the sophistication with which they are realized (i.e.,
their complexity). Crucially, the simultaneous use of these broad measures of performance can
provide a better picture of learners’ overall written performance.
An important contribution of CAF measure to second language writing in Persian is that
they can be utilized to create a much needed “developmental yardstick” (Larsen-Freeman
1978) for tracking learners’ writing development in Persian. An objective external measure of
this kind would be useful for a variety of research and pedagogical purposes such as setting
writing progress benchmarks, placing learners within programs, and assessing learners’ texts
across proficiency levels, in addition to tracking students’ development overtime. Moreover,
the measure would be especially useful for validating and teasing out the broad and general
descriptors of writing performance in influential language proficiency guidelines such as those
of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL 2012). For instance,
various descriptors of writing proficiency in this document such as “simple”, “loosely con-
nected texts”, “closely resembles oral discourse”, and “evidence of control of basic sentence
structure and verb forms” can be empirically verified and unpacked for their components. As
an example, the descriptor “simple” can be broken down along the dimension of syntactic and
lexical complexity in reference to the Persian language in a way that is also developmentally
valid for learners of the language.

14.7 Conclusion
Second language writing in Persian as a domain remains an uncharted territory, leaving many
questions in need of answers. To begin with, there is a need for more clarity regarding the
status of L2 writing in Persian language programs and curricula. As a few illustrative issues, it
is not clear to what extent writing is perceived as a relevant skill by both teachers and learners
across language programs; to what extent teachers possess professional training regarding L2
writing; what conceptions of L2 writing are prevalent among teachers at the levels of theory,
approach, and technique; how teachers actually go about teaching writing in classrooms vis-
à-vis their professed beliefs; or what are teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding response to
writing – just to name a few. There is clearly a need for situated studies on this front using
various research methodologies.
With the increasing influence of genre approach to L2 writing research and instruction as
well as the move away from teaching writing as a set of acontextual autonomous skills (Street

302
 Second language writing in Persian

1984), there is a need for descriptive studies of various genres and genre systems in Persian
that could inform Persian L2 writing pedagogy. If all writing is in effect generic, and the goal
of teaching writing is to impart generic competence to leaners in order for them to become
effective writers in Persian, then there is an acute need for thick descriptions of various genres
and genre systems – especially those identified by needs analyses as being most relevant to
typical learners of Persian. Such reports need to include analyses of both linguistic forms and
organizational patterns as well as the requisite “knowledge of the culture, circumstances, pur-
poses, and motives that prevail in particular settings” (Paltridge 2001, 25). Empirical studies
of this kind can be highly relevant and useful in designing sound instructional materials for
learners at all levels, especially at advanced proficiency levels.
Relatedly, descriptions of genres of writing in Persian can also be illuminating regarding
the unresolved question of existence (or otherwise) of preferred rhetorical patterns for dis-
course development in Persian (for an overview see Abasi 2012). As noted in the literature
(Silva 1993), L2 writers’ texts are inherently distinct from texts produced by L1 writers, and
this distinction – at least at the initial stages of writing development – can in part be attributed
to the cross-linguistic influences of L2 writers’ first language rhetorical patterns (Atkinson
2016). Given that teaching writing is increasingly understood as teaching particular kinds of
writing that are valued and expected in particular contexts (Hyland 2013), studies investigat-
ing rhetorical development patterns in particular kinds of writing in Persian would greatly
enhance Persian writing pedagogy. The findings of these studies can be compared with find-
ings regarding other world languages, depending on the L1 backgrounds of the learners of
Persian, in order to make instruction more targeted and effective (for a review see Connor and
Rozycki 2013).
And lastly, learners’ L2 texts is another area for study that remains largely unexplored. While
there exists a handful of product-focused studies to date (Motevalian-Naini and Malekian 2014;
Pahlavan-Nedjad and Ali-Nejad 2012; Pahlavan-Nedjad and Khaleqi-Zade 2014), these studies
are limited by their focus on learners from a single L1 background or an exclusive focus on
learners’ errors. As noted earlier, one path of research that could be highly beneficial to Persian
writing pedagogy would be product-based studies that could help delineate formal correlates of
Persian writing proficiency at different proficiency levels that are developmentally valid. For
this purpose, longitudinal or cross-sectional studies involving learners from various L1 back-
grounds and different teaching and learning conditions would be most welcome.

References
Abasi, A.R. 2012. “The Pedagogical Value of Intercultural Rhetoric: A Report from a Persian-as-a-
Foreign-Language Classroom.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3): 195–220.
Abasi, A.R., and N. Akbari. 2008. “Are We Encouraging Patchwriting? Reconsidering the Role of the
Pedagogical Context in ESL Student Writers’ Transgressive Intertextuality.” English for Specific Pur-
poses, 27(3): 267–284.
Adams, R. 2003. “L2 Output, Reformulation and Noticing: Implications for L2 Development.” Lan-
guage Teaching Research, 7: 347–376.
Adams, R., N. Aloesnita, N.M. Alwi, and J. Newton. 2015. “Task Complexity Effects on the Complexity
and Accuracy of writing via Text Chat.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 29: 64–81.
American Councils for International Education. 2017. The National K-12 Foreign Language Enrollment
Survey Report. Washington, DC: ACIE.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. 2012. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Alex-
andria, VA: ACTFL.
Ashwell, T. 2000. “Patterns of Teacher Response to Student Writing in a Multiple-Draft Composition
Classroom: Is Content Feedback Followed by Form Feedback the Best Method?” Journal of Second
Language Writing, 9(3): 227–257.

303
 Ali Reza Abasi

Atkinson, D. 2016. “Second Language Writing and Culture.” In Handbook of Second and Foreign Lan-
guage Writing, edited by Rosa M. Manchón and Paul K. Matsuda, 545–565, Boston, MA: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Barnett, M.A. 1989. “Writing as a Process.” The French Review, 63(1): 31–44.
Belcher, D.D. 2004. “Trends in Teaching English for Specific Purposes.” Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 24: 165–186.
Bereiter, C., and M. Scardamalia. 1987. The Psychology of Written Composition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Berkenkotter, C., and T.N. Huckin. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication. Hillsdale,
NY: Erlbaum.
Bhatia, V. 2000. “Genres in Conflict.” In Analysing Professional Genres, edited by Trosborg, Anna,
147–162. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamin Publishing.
Bhatia, V. 2004. Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View. London: Continuum.
Bitchener, J. 2012. “A Reflection on the Language Learning Potential of Written Corrective Feedback.”
Journal of Second Language Writing, 21: 348–363.
Bitchener, J., and D. Ferris. 2012. Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and
Writing. New York: Routledge.
Bui, G., and P. Skehan. 2018. “Complexity, Fluency and Accuracy.” In TESOL Encyclopedia of English
Language Teaching, edited by John I. Liontas, 1–7. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Carson, J., and I. Leki, eds. 1993. Reading in the Composition Classroom: Second Language Perspec-
tives. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Casanave, C.P. 1994. “Language Development in Students’ Journals.” Journal of Second Language Writ-
ing, 3(3): 179–201.
Connor, U., and W. Rozycki. 2013. “ESP and Intercultural Rhetoric.” In The Handbook of English for
Specific Purposes, edited by Brian Paltridge and Sue Starfield, 427–443. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Cornbleet, S., and R. Carter. 2001. The Language of Speech and Writing. London: Routledge.
Coxhead, A. 2012. “Academic Vocabulary, Writing and English for Academic Purposes: Perspectives
from Second Language Learners.” RELC Journal, 43(1): 137–145.
Crookes, G., and P.M. Chandler. 2001. “Introducing Action Research into the Education of Postsecond-
ary Foreign Language Teachers.” Foreign Language Annals, 34: 131–140.
Cumming, A. 1989. “Writing Expertise and Second-Language Proficiency.” Language Learning, 39:
81–141.
Cumming, A. 1990. “Metalinguistic and Ideational Thinking in Second Language Composing.” Written
Communication, 7: 482–511.
Cumming, A. 2013. “Writing Development in Second Language Acquisition.” In The Encyclopedia of
Applied Linguistics, edited by Carol A. Chapelle, 1–5. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cummins, J. 1979. “Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Chil-
dren.” Educational Research, 49(2): 222–251.
Delpit, L.D. 1988. “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children.”
Harvard Educational Review, 58(3): 280–298.
Devitt, A.J. 2004. Writing Genres. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Doughty, C., and J. Williams, eds. 1998. Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dudley-Evans, T. 2002. “The Teaching of the Academic Essay: Is a Genre Approach Possible?” In Genre
in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives, edited by Ann M. Johns, 225–235. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Eisterhold, J.G. 1990. “Reading-Writing Connections: Toward a Description for Second-Language
Learners.” In Second Language Writing: Research Insights from the Classroom, edited by Barbara
Kroll, 88–101. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R., and F. Yuan. 2004. “The Effects of Planning on Fluency, Complexity, and Accuracy in Second
Language Narrative Writing.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26: 59–84.
Ferris, D.R. 2010. “Second Language Writing Research and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA. Inter-
sections and Practical Applications.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32: 181–201.
Ferris, D.R. 2011. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University
of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D.R. 2013. “What L2 Writing Means to Me: Texts, Writers, Contexts.” Journal of Second Lan-
guage Writing, 22: 428–429.
Ferris, D.R., and J.S. Hedgcock. 2014. Teaching L2 Composition, 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.

304
 Second language writing in Persian

Fisiak, J., ed. 1981. Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Flower, L., and J.R. Hayes. 1981a. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and
Communication, 32: 365–387.
Flower, L., and J.R. Hayes. 1981b. “The Pregnant Pause: An Inquiry into the Nature of Planning.”
Research in the Teaching of English, 15(3): 229–243.
Freadman, A. 1994. “Anyone for Tennis?” In Genre and the New Rhetoric, edited by Aviva Freedman
and Peter Medway, 43–66. London: Taylor and Francis.
Grabe, W. 2001. “Reading-Writing Relations: Theoretical Perspectives and Instructional Practices.” In
Linking Literacies: Perspectives on L2 Reading-Writing Connections, edited by Diane Belcher and
Alan Hirvela, 15–47. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Grabe, W., and C. Zhang. 2016. “Reading-Writing Relationships in First and Second Language Academic
Literacy Development.” Language Teaching, 49(3): 339–355.
Hanaoka, O., and Sh. Izumi. 2012. “Noticing and Uptake: Addressing Pre-Articulated Covert Problems
in L2 Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4): 332–347.
Harklau, L. 2002. “The Role of Writing in Classroom Second Language Acquisition.” Journal of Second
Language Writing, 11: 329–350.
Harste, J.C. 2013. “Reading-Writing Connection.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, edited by
Carol A. Chapelle, 1–9. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hirvela, A.R., and D. Belcher. 2016. “Reading/Writing and Speaking/Writing Connections: The Advan-
tages of Multimodal Pedagogy.” In Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing, edited by
Rosa M. Manchón and Paul K. Matsuda, 587–612. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hirvela, A.R., K. Hyland, and R.M. Manchón. 2016. “Dimensions in L2 Writing Theory and Research:
Learning to Write and Writing to Learn.” In Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing,
edited by Rose M. Manchón and Paul K. Matsuda, 45–64. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hornberger, N.H. 2013. “Bilingual Literacy.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, edited by
Carol A. Chapelle, 1–9. Oxford: Blackwell.
Horowitz, D.M. 1986. “What Professors Actually Require: Academic Tasks for the ESL Classroom.”
TESOL Quarterly, 20(3): 445–462.
Housen, A., and F. Kuiken. 2009. “Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in Second Language Acquisition.”
Applied Linguistics, 30(4): 461–473.
Housen A., F. Kuiken, and I. Vedder. 2012. “Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency: Definitions, Measure-
ment and Research.” In Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency Complexity, Accuracy and
Fluency in SLA, edited by Housen Alex, Folkert Kuiken, and Ineke Vedder, 1–20. Amsterdam, NL and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Hyland, K. 2004. Genre and Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. 2007. “Genre Pedagogy: Language, Literacy and L2 Writing Instruction.” Journal of Second
Language Writing, 16: 148–164.
Hyland, K. 2013. “ESP and Writing.” In The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes, edited by Brian
Paltridge and Sue Starfield, 95–113. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Hyon, S. 1996. “Genres in Three Traditions: Implications for ESL.” TESOL Quarterly, 30(4): 693–722.
James, M.A. 2010. “An Investigation of Learning Transfer in English-for-General Academic-Purposes
Writing Instruction.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4): 183–206.
Johns, A. 2008. “Genre Awareness for the Novice Academic Student: An Ongoing Quest.” Language
Teaching, 41(2): 237–252.
Johns, A. 2011. “The Future of Genre in L2 Writing: Fundamental, but Contested, Instructional Deci-
sions.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1): 56–68.
Kaplan, R.B. 1966. “Cultural Thought Patterns in Intercultural Education.” Language Learning, 16:
1–20.
Kent, Th. 1999. Post-process Theory: Beyond the Writing-Process Paradigm. Carbondale: Southern Illi-
nois University Press.
Kobayashi, H., and C. Rinnert. 2018. “Composing Processes.” In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English
Language Teaching, edited by John I. Liontas, 1–5, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Krapels, A.R. 1990. “An Overview of Second Language Writing Process Research.” In Second Language
Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, edited by Barbara Kroll, 37–56. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Krashen, S., and S-Y. Lee. 2004. “Competence in Foreign Language Writing: Progress and Lacunae.”
Literacy Across Cultures, 12(2): 10–14.

305
 Ali Reza Abasi

Lam, W.S.E. 2000. “L2 Literacy and the Design of the Self: A Case Study of a Teenager Writing on the
Internet.” TESOL Quarterly, 34: 457–482.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1978. “An ESL Index of Development.” TESOL Quarterly, 12(4): 439–448.
Latif, M.M.M.A. 2012. “What Do We Mean by Writing Fluency and How Can It Be Validly Measured?”
Applied Linguistics, 34(1): 99–105.
Laufer, B. 2013. “Vocabulary and Writing.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, edited by Carol
A. Chapelle, 1–5. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lefkowitz, N. 2011. “The Quest for Grammatical Accuracy: Writing Instruction Among Foreign and
Heritage Language Educators.” In Foreign Language Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices,
edited by Tony Cimasko and Melinda Reichelt, 225–254. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.
Leki, I. 1991. “The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College-Level Writing Classes.”
Foreign Language Annals, 24: 203–218.
Leki, I. 2009. “Preface.” In Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research,
edited by Rosa M. Manchón, xiii–xvi. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Leki, I., A. Cumming, and T. Silva. 2008. A Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing in Eng-
lish. New York: Routledge.
Liu, J. 2013. “Peer Response in Second Language Writing.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
edited by Carol A. Chapelle, 1–4. Oxford: Blackwell.
Long, M.H. 1996. “The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition.” In Hand-
book of Second Language Acquisition, edited by William C. Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, 413–468. New
York: Academic Press.
Manchón, R.M. 2011a. “The Language Learning Potential of Writing in Foreign Language Contexts.”
In Foreign Language Writing: Research Insights, edited by Melinda Reichelt and Tony Chimasko,
44–64. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
Martin, J.R. 2000. “Design and Practice: Enacting Functional Linguistics.” Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 20: 116–126.
Matsuda, P.K., and T. Silva. 2001. “Introduction.” In Landmark Essays on ESL Writing, edited by Paul K.
Matsuda and Tony Silva, xiii–xxv. Mahwa, NJ: Erlbaum.
Motevalian-Naini, R., and R. Malekian. 2014. “Analysis of the Syntactic Errors in the Writings of Urdu
Learners of Persian.” Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 1(6): 57–86. [in
Persian]
Nelson, G., and J. Carson. 2006. “Cultural Issues in Peer Response: Revisiting Culture.” In Feedback
in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, edited by Ken Hyland and Fiona Hyland, 42–59.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, J., and L. Ortega. 2009. “Towards an Organic Approach to Investigating CAF in Instructed SLA:
The Case of Complexity.” Applied Linguistics, 30(4): 555–578.
Pahlavan-Nedjad, M.R., and B. Ali-Nedjad. 2012. “A Contrastive Rhetoric Study of Metadiscourse
Markers in Descriptive Essays by L1 writers of Persian and Arab L2 learners of Persian.” Journal of
Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 1(6): 59–78. [in Persian]
Pahlavan-Nedjad, M.R., and S. Khaleqi-zade. 2014. “A Comparative Analysis of Passive Tense Use in
the Writings of Chinese and Arab Learners of Persian.” Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of
Other Languages, 1(6): 59–78. [in Persian]
Paltridge, B. 2001. Genre and the Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michi-
gan Press.
Paulston, C.B. 1972. “Teaching Writing in the ESOL Classroom: Techniques of Controlled Composi-
tion.” TESOL Quarterly, 6(1): 33–59.
Pincas, A.1962. “Structural Linguistics and Systematic Composition Teaching to Students of English as
a Foreign Language.” Language Learning, 12(3): 185–194.
Plakans, L. 2009a. “Discourse Synthesis in Integrated Second Language Writing Assessment.” Language
Testing, 26(4): 561–587.
Plakans, L. 2009b. “The Role of Reading in Integrated L2 Writing Tasks.” Journal of English for Aca-
demic Purposes, 8: 252–266.
Plakans, L., and A. Gebril. 2012. “A Close Investigation into Source Use in Integrated Second Language
Writing Tasks.” Assessing Writing, 17(1): 18–34.
Polio, C. 1997. “Measures of Linguistic Accuracy in Second Language Writing Research.” Language
Learning, 47(1): 101–143.
Polio, C., and J. Williams. 2009. “Teaching and Testing Writing.” In The Handbook of Language Teach-
ing, edited by Michael Long and Catherine Doughty, 476–517. Oxford: Blackwell.

306
 Second language writing in Persian

Qi, D., and S. Lapkin. 2001. “Exploring the Role of Noticing in a Three-stage Second Language Writing
Task.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 10: 277–303.
Qu, W. 2017. “For L2 Writers, It Is Always the Problem of the Language.” Journal of Second Language
Writing, 38: 92–93.
Raimes, A. 1983. Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Raimes, A. 1987. “Language Proficiency, Writing Ability, and Composing Strategies: A Study of ESL
College Student Writers.” Language Learning, 37(3): 439–468.
Raimes, A. 1991. “Out of the Woods: Emerging Traditions in the Teaching of Writing.” TESOL Quar-
terly, 25(3): 407–430.
Reichelt, M. 1999. “Toward a More Comprehensive View of L2 Writing: Foreign Language Writing in
the U.S.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 8: 181–204.
Reichelt, M., N. Lefkowitz, C. Rinnert, and J.M. Schultz. 2012. “Key Issues in Foreign Language Writ-
ing.” Foreign Language Annals, 45(1): 22–41.
Reid, J.M. 1993. Teaching ESL Writing. New York: Prentice Hall.
Reynolds, D.W. 2005. “Linguistic Correlates of Second Language Literacy Development: Evidence from
Middle-Grade Learner Essays.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(1): 19–45.
Robinson, P. 2011. “Second Language Task Complexity, the Cognition Hypothesis, Language Learn-
ing, and Performance.” In Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis
of Language Learning and Performance, edited by Robinson, Peter, 3–37. Amsterdam, NL: John
Benjamins Publishing.
Robinson, P., A. Mackey, S.M. Gass, and Richard Schmidt. 2015. “Attention and Awareness in Sec-
ond Language Acquisition.” In The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, edited by
Susan M. Gass and Alison Mackey, 245–267. London: Routledge.
Roca de Larios, J. 2013. “Second Language Writing as a Psycholinguistic Locus for L2 Production and
Learning.” Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4): 444–445.
Sasaki, M. 2000. “Toward an Empirical Model of EFL Writing Processes: An Exploratory Study.” Jour-
nal of Second Language Writing, 9(3): 259–291.
Schneider, M., and U. Connor. 1990. “Analyzing Topical Structure in ESL Essays: Not All topics are
Equal.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4): 411–427.
Schoonen, R., P. Snellings, M. Stevenson, and A. Van Gelderen. 2009. “Towards a Blueprint of the
Foreign Language Writer: The Linguistic and Cognitive Demands of Foreign Language Writing.” In
Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research, edited by Manchón Rosa
M., 77–101. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Silva, T. 1990. “Second Language Composition Instruction: Developments, Issues, and Directions in
ESL.” In Second Language Writing Research: Research Insights for the Classroom, 11–23. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silva, T. 1993. “Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 Writing: The ESL Research and
Its Implications.” TESOL Quarterly, 27: 657–675.
Silva, T. 2016. “An Overview of the Development of the Infrastructure of Second Language Writing
Studies.” In Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing, edited by Manchón, Rose M. and
Paul K. Matsuda, 19–44. Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
Smith, F.1983. “Reading Like a Writer.” Language Arts, 60: 558–567.
Spivey, N. 1997. The Constructivist Metaphor: Reading, Writing, and the Making of Meaning. New
York: Academic Press.
Stein, N.L. 1986. “Knowledge and Process in the Acquisition of Writing Skills.” Review of Research in
Education, 13: 225–258.
Street, B. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. 1998. “Focus on Form Through Conscious Reflection.” In Focus on Form in Classroom Sec-
ond Language Acquisition, edited by Catherine Doughty and Jessica Williams, 64–81. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M., and Sh. Lapkin. 1995. “Problems in Output and the Cognitive Processes They Generate:
A Step Towards Second Language Learning.” Applied Linguistics, 16: 71–391.
Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tardy, Ch.M. 2013. “Genre-Based Language Teaching.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
edited by Carol A. Chapelle, 1–4. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tarone, E. 2006. “Interlanguage.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, edited by Keith Brown,
747–752. Oxford: Elsevier.

307
 Ali Reza Abasi

Tocalli‐Beller, A., and M. Swain. 2005. “Reformulation: The Cognitive Conflict and Learning It Gener-
ates.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1): 5–28.
Truscott, J. 1996. “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes.” Language Learning,
46(2): 327–369.
Truscott, J. 2004. “Evidence and Conjecture on the Effects of Correction: A Response to Chandler.”
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4): 337–343.
Truscott, J. 2007. “The Effect of Error Correction on Learners’ Ability to Write Accurately.” Journal of
Second Language Writing, 16: 255–272.
White, R., and V. Ardnt. 1991. Process Writing. Essex: Longman.
Wigglesworth, G., and N. Storch. 2012. “What Role for Pair Work in Writing and Writing Feedback?”
Journal of Second Language Writing, 21: 364–374.
Williams, J. 2005. Teaching Writing in Second and Foreign Language Classrooms. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Williams, J. 2008. “The Speaking-Writing Connection in Second Language and Academic Literacy
Development.” In The Oral-Literate Connection, edited by Diane Belcher and Alan Hirvela, 10–25.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Williams, J. 2012. “The Potential Role(s) of Writing in Second Language Development.” Journal of
Second Language Writing, 21: 321–331.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., S. Inagaki, and H-Y Kim. 1998. Second Language Development in Writing: Meas-
ures of Fluency, Accuracy, & Complexity. Hawaii, HL: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Zamel, V. 1976. “Teaching Composition in the ESL Classroom: What We can Learn from Research in the
Teaching of English.” TESOL Quarterly, 10: 67–76.
Zebroski, J.T. 1986. “The Uses of Theory: A Vygotskian Approach to Composition.” The Writing Instruc-
tor, 5: 57–67.

308
 PART III

Classroom research in second

language acquisition and
pedagogy of Persian
 15
TEACHING PERSIAN FOR
PROFICIENCY IN AMERICAN
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES MEHDI MARASHITEACHING PERSIAN FOR PROFICIENCY

Mehdi Marashi

15.1 Introduction
During the past four decades, proficiency-based instruction has received increased attention
in the teaching of foreign languages. The joint efforts of major professional organizations,
including the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) and the
Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR), have resulted in the development of guidelines for
proficiency-oriented programs. The guidelines thus developed are modeled on the Functional
Trisection, often referred to as the corner stone of the proficiency guidelines.1 More recently,
the National Middle East Language Resource Center (NMELRC) and National Flagship Lan-
guage Initiative (NFLI) have been active in the establishment of national proficiency goals for
languages of the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the development of proficiency-oriented guidelines and adequate instructional
materials in less commonly taught languages, such as Persian and Turkish, are becoming
available through funding from the government and private organizations.
The focus of this chapter is on the step-by-step development of proficiency teaching of Per-
sian in American colleges and universities. It should be noted that this chapter is by no means
exhaustive; the issues discussed are representative of the general state of the affairs in Persian
programs. Hopefully the current state of the art provides an incentive for more research in
teaching Persian for proficiency at the advanced level as well.
Before turning to a description of proficiency-based instruction in Persian, I would like
to present a very brief overview of other approaches used in American university programs.

15.2  Grammar-translation
­ method
In historical perspective, many of the issues this chapter treats are new. A century ago, the
teaching of Persian was not as complicated as it is today. The objective of Persian instruc-
tion was mainly reading and translation. Most often, one instructor would teach one or two
students, and the method of instruction was the traditional grammar-translation.2 At the initial
state of the training, the instructor would “cover” the grammar of Persian (Herbert and Jazay-
ery 1961),3 then in the following stages he/she would switch to reading and translation, which
would continue until the student could read and translate the text.

311
 Mehdi Marashi

With regard to the students, in the past a typical student of Persian was usually mature,
highly motivated, and determined to make a career in the field of Iranian studies.4 It was not
uncommon for students of Persian to study Arabic simultaneously with Persian, a linguistic
experience that would enhance their achievement in Persian considerably. For a similar discus-
sion, read Chapter 9 in this volume. The students’ contact with the native speakers of Persian
would most likely take place after a long period of Persian training in the West.
Today our present generation of university students does not fit the traditional profile.
Students are far more diverse in age, objectives, major field of study, interest and linguistic
background.
The new group of special interest is the foreign-born Iranians (heritage students) who
desire to learn the tongue and culture of their ancestral country. These students are mixed
learners. Some have a certain level of spoken proficiency in Persian because they were raised
in a home outside Iran where Persian was spoken. Others can understand the language; how-
ever, they are not able to communicate in Persian. These students have little or no knowledge
of or training in reading and writing Persian. The third group can neither understand nor speak
Persian. In general, heritage students have a weak connection with Persian culture because
they live abroad. Their familiarity is limited to some aspects of Persian culture such as food
and celebrations, etc.
At the same time, so-called Iranian heritage students would presumably progress more
quickly in their study of Persian vis-à-vis their non-Iranian heritage, fellow American students.
Readers might have interest in available syllabi and materials used in Persian courses for herit-
age students and in issues arising when those students and non-heritage students participate in
the same class.5 Read Chapters 3 and 4 in this volume for an elaborate discussion on Persian
heritage leaners.

15.2.1 The audio-lingual approach

In reaction to the grammar-translation method, which did not emphasize communication com-
petence of the learners, new methods were developed. It is beyond the scope of this chapter
to describe the features of the methods adopted in teaching commonly taught languages. In
Persian, the audio-lingual approach was adopted in a few Persian textbooks for a short period
of time.6 According to this approach, language learning is a mechanical process and the best
techniques are repetition and memorizations of spoken patterns of the foreign language.
In the 1960s, some linguists claimed that the “structural linguistics”, which is behind the
audio-lingual approach, is weak. With the introduction of Chomsky’s transformational gram-
mar, the audio-lingual approach in teaching and learning Persian was abandoned. Read Chap-
ter 16 for further discussion on teaching approaches and methodologies in Persian second
language courses.

15.2.2 The communicative competence in peace corps

language training programs
With the arrival of Peace Corps volunteers on the scene, our profession had to seek a new
direction in teaching Persian as a second language.
At the outset, Peace Corps/Iran appeared to rely on Foreign Service Institute and Defense
Language Institute for Persian Language instructional materials of a practical sort exhibiting
colloquial or spoken Persian forms and situations rather than Oriental academic Persian mate-
rials in use at universities in the early 1960s.

312
 Teaching Persian for proficiency

Pre-service Peace Corps/Iran Persian training made use of existing audio-lingual methodol-
ogy; e.g. Jazayery, Zangi, Stilo, Hillmann, and other Persian materials written for or adopted/
adapted by state-side Peace Corps Persian trainings from 1962 to 1978 remain available in
libraries. This approach was replaced by teaching and learning Persian for proficiency.7
The new model adopted in Peace Corps language training had to focus on the ability to
use language skills correctly in a variety of basic social situations. Peace Corps/Iran used
role model exercises and identified interaction situations as part of their Persian instructional
materials development projects, especially for their in-country training, which became the
norm as of 1968.
The Peace Corps language training program opened the door to new methodologies and
concepts in teaching Persian as a second language. To meet the needs of the volunteers, a
non-traditional curriculum had to be designed by Persian linguists. The curriculum had to inte-
grate basic language skills, communication strategies and cultural understanding. Technology
resources such as videos and CDs for self-instruction were integrated into the program. The
Persian instructors were required to attend seminars and workshops to learn new techniques in
teaching for communication in the immersion programs.
The American Peace Corps operated in Iran from 1962 to 1976. By the end of the program,
1,748 volunteers had arrived in Iran on educational, agricultural, teaching English as a foreign
language, environmental and urban planning projects. The returned volunteers still maintain
their ties with Iran. They organized the Peace Corps Iran Association (PCIA) in 2011 and have
sponsored conferences every two or three years at different universities.
All in all, the experiences of PCIA volunteers and their Iranian counterparts promoted a new
spirit of dialogue and understanding between the two nations. This interaction between Ameri-
cans and Iranians was free from financial, military and political complications and emphasized
person-to-person contacts. In looking at the Peace Corps experience in Iran, Americans could
gain valuable insight into Iranian culture.
Upon completion of their assignment in Iran, a number of Peace Corps volunteers returned
to the U.S. and did their graduate work before going on or proceeding to assume high-ranking
positions in the U.S. government and/or at universities. Volunteers who have made significant
contributions in the field of Persian studies include Michael Hillman (University of Texas at
Austin), John Lorentz (Shawnee State University), Dick Eaton (Arizona State University)
and the late Jerome Clinton (Princeton University).8 For a personal account on the journey of
learning Persian as an American, read Chapter 9 in this volume.

15.3 Teaching for proficiency, familiarization

workshops for Persian instructors
Since 1982, the training of foreign language instructors in commonly taught languages and,
recently, in less commonly taught languages, has taken place in workshops across the country.
The development of proficiency-oriented guidelines and adequate instructional materials in
less commonly taught languages, such as Persian, has lagged behind. For the languages of the
Middle East, workshops and development of guidelines started with Arabic and Hebrew, then
for Persian and Turkish.
A few proficiency workshops for Persian instructors were organized by the Western and
Eastern consortia, mostly in conjunction with the summer intensive programs, starting in
1989. The purpose of shorter workshops was to familiarize the language instructors with the
principles of proficiency-based instruction while the longer provided them training as certified
testers.

313
 Mehdi Marashi

The first workshop for Persian that was held at the University of Utah introduced
competency-based instruction and proficiency testing. Colleagues from both the East and West
consortia were invited to participate. Of interest was the presence of Arabic colleagues from
the University of Pennsylvania, Brigham Young University, and the University of Arizona
who had already developed guidelines, instructional materials, and proficiency tests for Ara-
bic. They reported to their Persian colleagues the implications of the proficiency principles and
its effectiveness in modernizing the Arabic programs.
The second workshop was held at Portland State University for two days, in July 1990.
Papers were presented on proficiency testing and proficiency-based instruction. Of special
interest to Persian instructors was Professor Gernot Windfuhr’s report on “Title VI Directors
Meeting” in February 1990, held at the University of Michigan. Three papers were presented
at the meeting on efforts to develop proficiency testing and competency-based instruction in
Persian programs, and on new developments in the language pedagogy. During the discussion
periods, issues in Persian language teaching materials, current textbooks, and proficiency test-
ing were investigated.
In the third summer workshop at UCLA in 1991, the focus of attention was mainly on test-
ing. A preliminary report on a set of guidelines and procedures was distributed at the workshop
to be reviewed at the next workshop at the University of Washington in the summer of 1992.
The University of Washington hosted the fourth workshop in conjunction with summer
intensive courses in 1992. At this workshop, the emphasis was on practical issues and specific
projects, including the necessity of a curriculum for the first two years of instructions, and
proficiency testing.
There is no doubt that the participation of Persian instructors proved to be effective in
bringing the members of the profession together. The Persian workshops became a part of the
summer intensive courses. Moreover, the long-awaited American Association of Teachers of
Persian (AATP) was established. All these developments provided the Persian instructors a
forum to work together, the opportunity that did not exist in the past.

15.4 Proposed proficiency guidelines for Persian

In late 1950s, following the establishment of centers for Middle Eastern languages and area
studies, universities were free in planning and implementing their own program objectives and
curricula. Goals and objectives were formulated by the faculty of each program or department.
The proficiency movement that began in 1979 changed the situation. Focus on
competency-based instruction and proficiency goals became essential in receiving fund-
ing from government agencies and private foundations. Directors of Middle East centers
and chairpersons of the departments encouraged Persian faculty to attend the proficiency
workshops for the less commonly taught languages and adopt the ACTFL/ETS proficiency
guidelines for Persian.
To facilitate applying the less commonly taught language guidelines of ACTFL to Persian,
the Persian Board met at the University of Washington in Seattle in the summer of 2004.
A draft of Persian guidelines was created to provide a means of measuring the proficiency of
Persian, and to describe what a language user can do consistently at one level and cannot do
at the next higher level.
The proposed Persian guidelines for first- and second-year Persian are broken up into two
proficiency levels, Elementary and Intermediate; additionally, each of the levels is further
subdivided into low, mid and high. A brief description for each level of proficiency in spoken
Persian is given in Table 15.1.

314
 Teaching Persian for proficiency

Table 15.1. Definitions of speaking proficiency levels in Persian

Level Description

E-Low Have little or no ability to understand spoken Persian.

E-Mid Able to understand some memorized words and phrases. Understanding is limited to
greetings, leave-taking expressions, and familiar contexts such as objects in the classroom,
days of the week, kinship terms, and borrowed words such as ‘merci’. Struggle to identify
and distinguish individual words and phrases during instructional interactions.
E-High Able to understand short, memorized phrases and some sentence-length utterances in face-
to-face conversations, particularly when supported by gestures and when speech is very
clear. Comprehends words and phrases from simple questions, statements, high-frequency
commands and courtesy formulae. May require repetition, rephrasing and/or a slower rate
of speech for comprehension.
I-Low Able to understand sentence-length utterances that consist of recombination of learned
elements in a limited number of context areas: school, daily routine, inviting a friend
for dinner, telling the time; face-to-face conversation as well as some repetition and
rewording is still usually necessary for comprehension.
I-Mid Sufficient comprehension to understand simple conversations about topics beyond basic
survival needs such as planning a trip, reading the destination on the geographical map,
making reservation in a hotel, planning for a surprise birthday party for a friend, inviting
close friends to attend the birthday party.
I-High Able to comprehend longer stretches of utterances on several topics pertaining to different
time and places; however, understanding is inconsistent due to failure to grasp main ideas
and/or details. While topics do not differ significantly from those of an advanced-level,
comprehension is less in quantity and poorer in quality. Increasing ability to use lexical,
grammatical clues to grasp partially understood sentences and greater understanding of
abstract words in general.

The Persian instructors from various institutions who participated in the workshops tried
to adapt the ACTFL guidelines for less commonly taught languages to Persian and propose
acceptable description of low levels (Elementary and Intermediate), which is usually attained
by most beginners in the first two years of Persian study during the academic year or in the
intensive summer programs.

15.5 Students’ level of proficiency at the

end of first-year Persian study
Having participated in a few proficiency workshops in Iran in the 1960s and having involve-
ment in several Persian language training projects for American Peace Corps volunteers at the
University of Texas at Austin in 1970s, I became an enthusiastic proponent of proficiency testing
as an objective means of assessing language skills and for its impact on classroom instruction.
Being a certified tester by ACTFL, in 1986, I initiated a study of university-level student
proficiency in Persian. Given the absence of any proficiency guidelines in Persian at the time,
I confined my study to oral proficiency, using the ACTFL/ETS generic guidelines for oral
interviews. Three questions were addressed in the study:

1) What level of oral proficiency do students attain in Persian at the end of first year study?
2) How does the level of proficiency attained during the summer intensive programs com-
pare to those attained during the regular academic year?

315
 Mehdi Marashi

3) How do we account for any differences in the level of oral proficiency between these two
programs?

The study began in the summer of 1986 when the University of Utah became the host institu-
tion, for the third time, of the Western Consortium of University Centers for Middle Eastern
Studies. The collection of data that began in the summer intensive program continued during
the subsequent academic year. As I informed my colleagues at other institutions of the project
and expressed my need to collect more data, I received invitations from the University of
Texas at Austin, the University of Michigan, UCLA and Princeton University.

Institutions No. of questionnaires distributed

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total

U of Utah 9 13 15 20 18 75
UCLA 28 28
U of Michigan 12 12
Princeton 4 4
U of Texas 11 11
Total 130

After performing the survey and conducting an Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) test on
130 students over the five-year span, I came to the following findings: The overall average
rating of the students was Intermediate-Mid, which is reasonable for the first year. In a typical
Persian program that meets five hours per week, students would receive 80 hours of instruc-
tion each semester (160 hours in the first-year). Looking at the distribution of results of the
regular course compared to those of the summer intensive course, we can see that ten students
were rated Intermediate-Mid in the summer course, compared to six in the regular course, and
that five summer students were rated Novice-High, whereas ten students in the regular course
were rated Novice-High. Indeed, the distribution is almost opposite in the two programs, with
more students rating higher in the summer intensive program.
This experiment showed support for the claims made by other scholars regarding the desir-
ability of intensive language training. The level of oral proficiency attained in the summer
intensive course was noticeably superior. Moreover, in the intensive programs, students tended
to attain the higher levels of the median spectrum of proficiency. Some of the contributing
factors are the following:

a) In the four-hour daily session in the intensive course, there is ample time for review and
new material. In a 50-minute session, in the academic year, the warm-up period uses up a
significant portion of class time and leaves less time for the presentation of new material.
b) During a regular academic year, students are only in the classroom for 50 minutes a day and
they must concentrate on other areas of study as well. In comparison, in the summer inten-
sive program they concentrate exclusively on language. I have noticed in my daily observa-
tions that, in the intensive program, the first period of instruction does not go much beyond
a warm-up session and the subsequent periods seem to be productive. Yet, during the regular
program, that one daily contact period is the only opportunity for various activities.
c) The limited time devoted to daily instruction during the academic year is not continuous.
It is usually interrupted by short and long holidays, breaks, exam periods and, finally,

316
 Teaching Persian for proficiency

a long summer vacation. For those who decide to continue into second-year Persian,
an extensive review of the first-year materials is usually necessary before work on the
second-year curriculum begins.
 This is not true of those who finish the summer program; and after the break, which is
much shorter, they are able to continue with little review.
d) Students who take Persian in the intensive summer courses are usually more serious and
interested in the language. Those who come from other states at their own expense are
evidence of this. In contrast, not every student who takes Persian during the academic
year is as serious about learning Persian. There are several other reasons why regular
session students may be taking Persian, such as departmental requirements, university
language requirements, elective hours, personal interest, and curiosity. Moreover, the rate
of attrition during the school year is higher.
e) Since studying Persian is the primary objective of the students who attend the summer
intensive courses, they realize from the beginning of the program that regular attendance
and participation in class activities are an essential and effective way to make progress,
which further motivates them to accomplish their objectives in learning the language.
f) An informal follow-up study by the investigator reveals that more students who attend
the summer institutes continue to second-year Persian during the following academic
year. Graduate students often prefer the summer intensive course since they do not have
the time in their study programs during the academic year to devote an hour in class and
the additional hours required for lab work and other assignments. It is difficult in the less
commonly taught languages, Persian in particular, to find candidates for an experiment of
this nature. The investigator realizes that, with limited data, empirical results are not eas-
ily obtained. However, the participants in this experiment represent what I feel is a typical
cross-section of first-year students elsewhere.

15.6 A proposed curriculum for elementary

and intermediate Persian
This section focuses on how to build a curriculum that is designed to help students make
steady progress in terms of overall proficiency.
To follow up the previous meeting in Seattle, the Persian Board met in the summer of 2004
and submitted a proposal to NMELRC, aimed at designing, developing and delivering a cur-
riculum for elementary and intermediate Persian.
Having received the approval of NMELRC, the Persian Board created a curriculum for the
lower level courses. In the proposed curriculum, the focus was to streamline or integrate, as
much as possible, the efforts of students, teachers, materials developers, and administrators
into a skill-based system of language pedagogy in accord with the proficiency guidelines,
as opted for the Persian language. As such, a key concern in developing the curriculum was
the professionalization of the pedagogic process. It was expected that this approach would
lead to similar skills being taught by different teachers at diverse institutions, even when
they offer the language at different places and emphasize different skills. While emphasizing
incremental advances in the language-learning process, the curriculum was flexible enough
to allow variation to make individual initiative not just possible but a positive addition to the
classroom experience. Thus, those teachers who may prefer privileging speaking and com-
prehension as well as those for grounding the scholarly approach to language learning with
emphasis on reading and text-based experiences would be able to use a modified version of
the suggested curriculum. In short, the effort in developing the curriculum has been directed

317
 Mehdi Marashi

in such a way as to make it possible – and easy – for different Persian programs with diverse
needs and aims.
In developing the curriculum, the Persian Board adopted certain principles and models,
divisions and classifications, and theories and assumptions. The most notable among these are:

a) The proposed curriculum is divided into 60 units, each corresponding approximately to

one week of instruction or four to five contact hours. Therefore each 15 units correspond
to one semester of instruction for universities that operate on a semester basis, ten per
quarter for those on a quarterly system. Still, various Persian programs in American uni-
versities follow different models for their first and second year and therefore instructors
should feel free to adapt the divisions in this curriculum accordingly.
b) The curriculum allows the full integration of the four language skills and culture. We
believe that without that cultural orientation, mastery of the Persian language remains
partial and incomplete. Therefore, the topics and the accompanying activities have a
cultural content, which is why a checklist of cultural topics in the curriculum has been
included. Such a list can serve as a useful index of cultural information, customs, attitudes
and values. In the hands of curriculum developers, textbook writers and Persian instruc-
tors, this cultural component can be made to constitute one of the liveliest and most sig-
nificant aspects of the learning experience.
c) Besides the column on culture, each unit includes three components: Functions, Content,
and Structures. “Functions” refers to a set of tasks and activities that language users must
be able to perform at a given level of proficiency; they consist of those categories of
“action” or “event” that students are expected to master.
d) In the second category, “Content”, specific suggestions are made to assist instructors with
contexts/situations within which appropriate materials could be developed. Thus, the rela-
tionship between the Functions column and the Content column is often that of an activity
to an appropriate example, a life situation, a locus, or an item that anchors the function
at hand and makes it concrete and palpable. For instance, in unit one “loan-words” in
the topical domain column signals that a word such as “merci” (from French, meaning
“thanks”) can be useful to teach a frequently heard word and to recognize the letters in it
when encountering its written form; or to exchange greetings, students need to know the
informal and formal forms of address needed in addressing each other or in addressing
the professor. All such correspondence will be further amplified in a later stage when we
develop the supplementary material that will go with each of the 60 units.
e) The third category, “Structures”, includes predominantly grammatical structures. In gen-
eral, this column has developed more based on conjecture than any other column; we have
simply noted our best guess about what functions and topics may best fit what Persian
phrases, containing a grammatical point or an enriching lexical component. Because of
that, this column also invites the greatest amount of creative contribution from the teacher
in the classroom. Teachers should feel free to use their own ways of determining the struc-
tures that best connect the function and topic at hand.
f) The close interrelation of functions/content/grammar represents communicative and
linguistic aspects of the language. While content involves the “message” of the lesson,
whether it is conversation, reading/writing, or cultural topics, grammar represents the lin-
guistic code. The grammatical structures in the curriculum follow a systematic small step
progression. In this way, the three components – Functions, Topic, and Structure – are
integrated with culture and vocabulary as closely as possible. For that reason, knowing
that proficiency guidelines do not include a culture column, we have nevertheless added a

318
 Teaching Persian for proficiency

checklist of selected cultural topics simply to assist instructors and material developers in
their ultimate task of integrating language and culture. In doing so, covering the four lan-
guage skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing would be the primary principle to
each stated function. A second organizing principle has been to proceed from simpler top-
ics to more difficult. Read Chapter 11 for listening, Chapter 12 for speaking, Chapter 13
for reading and Chapter 14 for writing skill development in second language learners of
Persian.
g) The proposed guidelines and curriculum focus on the meaningful use of spoken and
written Persian rather than on the traditional structural orientation. In the creating of the
proposed guidelines and curriculum for Persian courses, the main objective has been to
respond to the needs of the students and to define what the students should be able to do
with Persian. Still, the proposed guidelines and curriculum should be seen only as one
of several tools that can help to attain higher levels of proficiency in Persian. They make
no statement about textbooks, methodologies, syllabi, lesson plans and classroom activi-
ties. It is the responsibility of curriculum developers, textbook writers and classroom
instructors to design curricula, materials and appropriate activities, considering the spe-
cific needs, purposes and interests of their students.

15.7  Proficiency-based
­ testing
Before any discussion on proficiency testing, it should be made clear that there is an inconsist-
ency in defining proficiency among teachers of Persian. The misconception that exists among
lay people concerning proficiency is not surprising. What is surprising is what we hear, for
example, from members of our profession or read in the official university bulletins pertaining
to language requirements for various degrees.
In 1983, a national survey was conducted through funding from the U.S Department of
Education at Western Michigan University on trends in measuring students’ level of pro-
ficiency in Persian. The questionnaire that was mailed to Persian instructors asked them,
among other things, to define proficiency. The instructors’ responses were diverse. As for
definition of proficiency of 17 responses that were tallied, eight defined proficiency in Persian
vaguely as “ability”. Three defined it only in terms of specific language skills. One instructor
defined proficiency as “active mastery of phonology, syntax, grammar, lexicon and the Per-
sian writing system”. Two others considered proficiency to be the same as proficiency with
other languages.
Regarding specific skills, the majority tended to include speaking and reading Persian in
their responses. Two instructors considered Persian grammar to be one of the major skills for
Persian proficiency. One instructor listed cultural literacy along with four language skills.
Another instructor mentioned the ability to translate the language as proficiency.
From this, one can see an inconsistency in determining proficiency and, therefore, teaching
practices. Let us see what we find in university bulletins. As a typical example, in our bulletin
of the University of Utah Graduate School, language proficiency requirements for the M.A.
and Ph.D. degrees reads as follows: “Department may require Standard or Advanced profi-
ciency in language competence”. The two levels of proficiency have been defined as follows:

Standard Proficiency: assumes a reading comprehension level expected of a student

who has completed one year of college foreign language instruction. Students may
verify standard proficiency by completing a third quarter language course (103) or
the equivalent at another institution, with at least a B grade.

319
 Mehdi Marashi

There are at least three problems in this and similar statements in other bulletins. First,
“proficiency” here is used simply as a measure of academic hours completed. Second, the
word “Standard” in this context is misleading. Moreover, reading comprehension expected
of a student who has completed one year of college foreign language instruction does not
provide enough and valid information on a student’s global proficiency in the language.
There is even more unrealistic exaggeration in defining “Advanced proficiency”. Here,
again, “Advanced language proficiency” is defined in terms of reading comprehension only
and students may verify advanced proficiency by completing the fifth quarter with at least
a B grade.
During my tenure as a full-time Persian instructor, I have coached students beyond first
year language study (160 contact hours) in both intensive summer courses and during the
academic year. In my observation, even students with high language aptitude do not get to
advanced level at the end of second year.
Saying this, the “Standard and Advanced proficiency” mentioned in the university bul-
letin of the university would be “elementary and intermediate achievement” whether such
an achievement will meet the needs of graduate students in using Persian for research and/or
communications is a dubious question.
Proficiency implies an attained skill rather than a method. Language proficiency is defined
as the ability of an individual to use culturally appropriate language to communicate sponta-
neously in non-rehearsed contexts. Proficiency also refers to the degree of skill with which a
person can use a language to understand, speak, read and write in real-life situations.
Theodore V. Higgs describes it as follows:

proficiency orientation in no way implies a particular method of teaching. A profi-

ciency orientation focuses on the product of instruction, not on the process itself.
Thus, instructors who teach to a proficiency orientation are free to use the methods
and techniques in which they have the most confidence.9

The Persian achievement test that instructors give to students in the course of instruction is
not to be confused with proficiency tests. Simply stated, the achievement test is used to meas-
ure the ability of the language learner in a limited and controlled situation such as a classroom,
repeating language elements that have been taught and mastered at some level. The profi-
ciency test, on the other hand, is intended to assess the ability of the language learner in a real-
world situation. Each has a role in language learning, but only proficiency testing is relevant
to what people use to communicate in the real world. Currently there are two well-established
instruments for proficiency evaluation. One is used by government agencies. The other, which
is adaptation of the government model, is being used by ACTF in academia. The modifications
were made in the government rating scales to fit the university programs. For most students,
the average length of language study is no longer than two years. Only in exceptional cases,
for example, graduate students who work towards an M.A. or Ph.D., do students take courses
beyond a second year.
The ACTFL descriptions for the less commonly taught languages have been adapted by
the Persian Board for the elementary and intermediate levels. The ACTFL test of Persian pro-
ficiency is a standardized test measuring the person’s performance to the criteria outlined in
the proficiency guidelines for the less commonly taught languages. Standard proficiency tests
have been developed by ACTFL and other testing organizations for receptive skills, listening,
reading and writing skills in written form and/or online. However, the OPI is the preferred
method of testing for speaking proficiency.

320
 Teaching Persian for proficiency

15.7.1 Testing speaking proficiency: the oral interview

The OPI is a conversation between an ACTFL certified tester and a candidate.
The interview begins with a warm-up followed by a level check, where the tester makes
an estimate of the speaker’s proficiency level. Then the tester would see whether the speaker
can do the tasks characteristic of the next higher level; finally, the tester returns to the highest
level at which the examinee can communicate comfortably and confidently. The conversation
generally lasts for 20–30 minutes, though it is much shorter (8–10 minutes) if the examinee is
at Elementary or Intermediate level of proficiency.
How many hours of instruction do students need to reach Intermediate Mid/Interme-
diate High Proficiency, which is desired and expected from a two-year Persian study in
academia?
It is important to understand that different languages are categorized by their degree of dif-
ficulty for native English speakers. Factors such as cultural context, appropriate content, the
nature of its writing system, grammar and tonality are some of the factors that contribute to
the perceived difficulty in learning a language. For speakers of English, Persian is remarkably
simple in terms of formal grammar, no gender, no noun inflected, no adjectival agreement, and
no irregularities in verbal conjugations.10
ACTFL has categorized world languages into four groups, based on the length of time it
takes to reach a certain level of Proficiency. In this classification, Persian, Dari, Hindi and
Greek are listed under category two. The most difficult languages including Arabic, Chinese,
Korean and Japanese are listed under category four.
The following ACTFL OPI represents the length of training for language learners of Per-
sian at the Intermediate level.

Length of training Minimal aptitude Average aptitude Superior aptitude

16 weeks (480 hours) Intermediate Low Intermediate Mid/High Intermediate High

When using this chart, it is important to keep in mind that different learners develop lan-
guage proficiency at different rates as the result of a variety of factors.
It must also be clearly stated that the number of hours needed to reach a specific proficiency
level in a foreign language varies from student to student. There will be students who fall
below and students who surpass the targeted levels. As an example, Persian heritage students
can move on faster in oral interviews because of their exposure to Persian at home and/or in
the community of Iranians.
Assessing language proficiency is a critical component of program evaluation. An even
more important reason to assess language proficiency is to provide students with accurate
feedback on their developing abilities in the language. While grades may be based on many
non-linguistic factors, such as attendance, mastery of specific grammar points or completion
of homework, language proficiency focuses only on what a student is able to do with the
language.
Because of the importance of valid information on an individual’s command of a foreign
language, government agencies, private testing services and institutions of higher learning
have developed several valid instruments for assessing language proficiency in both com-
monly taught languages and less commonly taught languages.

321
 Mehdi Marashi

Persian proficiency tests for academia are now available at several institutions. A short list
of organizations that can provide technical assistance on Persian proficiency tests include:

1 ACTFL Proficiency Assessments:

 i) OPI. An interview between an ACTFL certified tester and a candidate.
 ii) Reading assessment is delivered over the web.
iii) Listening proficiency tests assess the ability to understand the spoken word in all its
forms through an internet-delivered test format.
iv) Listening and reading Computer Test (L & R cat) is computer adaptive.
v) Writing test is delivered via the internet. The test takes 20–80 minutes, depending
on the range of proficiency being assessed. Language Testing International offers
(computer-based) ACTFL proficiency tests.
2 Computerized Assessment of Proficiency (CAP). Persian CAP is designed to provide a
general estimate of students’ language proficiency in reading, speaking and writing.
3 Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS), University of Oregon. Online
assessment for speaking, reading, writing and listening.
4 The U.S. Department of Education Title VI.
5 The World Language Program provides technical assistance to those interested in making
use of proficiency tests.
6 ALTA Language proficiency tests online and phone-based language testing for more than
90 other languages.
7 American Councils for International Education. The Assessment Department has devel-
oped several foreign language proficiency tests based on the American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Proficiency Guidelines. These tests, offered in
reading, listening, writing and speaking skills, are currently used for language proficiency
assessment in Persian and other less commonly taught languages.

15.8 Raising the levels of Persian proficiency in academia

This section of the chapter merits special attention as it contains the views of experts in gov-
ernment and professional language organizations who shared their experiences in teaching for
proficiency with the Persian Board.
Pursuant to the Seattle meeting, efforts were made toward the goal of increasing the number
of university graduates with relatively advanced proficiency, as well as other areas of greatest
need for NFLC-Persian recommended for the short term.
As for measures recommended for the long term, the Persian profession still has a lot to do
to accomplish those tasks in light of emerging areas of need.
Under the auspices of the National Security Education Program (NSEP), the National Flag-
ship Language Center considered extending its National Flagship Language Initiative (NFLI)
to Persian, with the goal of increasing considerably the number of university graduates with
relatively high proficiency (level 2+) proficiency in listening, speaking and reading, or better
in the language.
As the first step in the process, Professor Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak was asked to call a meet-
ing of six or seven leading Persianists in American universities to discuss the feasibility of
this idea and possibility the practical steps necessary in implementing the NFLI (here after
NFLI-Persian). The meeting was held at the University of Washington on February 22, 2003
with the participation of the Persian Board (Karimi-Hakkak, A., University of Washington,

322
 Teaching Persian for proficiency

Khorrami, M., N.Y.U., Marashi, M. University of Utah, Defense Language Institute, Gha-
noonparvar, M. University of Texas at Austin, Talattof, K., University of Arizona, Ziaie, H.,
UCLA, and Lewis, F., Emory University and officials of the NSEP and NFLC). At the end of
the meeting, the Persian Board agreed to submit its Capacity Study Report, addressing two
main issues: 1) advisability of extending the Flagship initiative to Persian at this time and,
2) if so, a summary plan of action charting the course to be taken to achieve the goal outlined
previously. It was also decided unanimously that Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak should coordinate
the effort and that the University of Washington, where the NFLI-Arabic is housed, should
house the NFLI-Persian as well. Pursuant to the University of Washington meeting, delibera-
tions continued among the members of the Board by various means. As this Capacity Study
Report indicates, the Persian Board examined the existing capacity of various Persian studies
programs around the country and determined that NFLI-Persian was feasible, timely and cru-
cial to the aims of the NSEP and NFLC. It also identified areas that need the greatest amount
of attention and affirmative action and identified a series of steps that need to be pursued
further, in the short run and in the medium and long run.

15.8.1 Present capacity

There is no reliable study of the present capacity of U.S. universities and other institutions
of higher education to produce graduates proficient at the level of proficiency sufficient to
meet the needs identified by NFLC. While approximately 40 American universities list Per-
sian among the languages they offer either regularly or occasionally, fewer than 20 of them
(mostly the major state and private universities) have full-fledged Persian language programs.
To meet the NFLC needs, this capacity must be increased considerably and more universities
need to adopt the proficiency approach of language pedagogy in their curriculum. The capacity
requirement of NFLC must be met in two distinct ways: Expanding the capacity of the existing
programs, and creation of new programs. In addition, providing support for and assistance in
development of instructional and self-instructional materials would be crucial to the process.
The Persian Board unanimously believed that this capacity could be increased considerably
within three to five years as outlined in this report.

15.8.2 NFLC-Persian areas of greatest need and measures

recommended for the near term
a) Establishment of a consortia organization on the model of the Center for Arabic Study
Abroad (CASA) to foster and oversee immersion or immersion-like programs, teacher
training opportunities, and study abroad arrangements, as described in the following.
Assuming logistical problems can be solved, such a center could oversee two of the most
significant aspects of the Persian Flagship Initiative, namely a summer immersion pro-
gram in Iran and elsewhere and study abroad arrangements both in Iran and elsewhere.
The Persian Board has identified this area of need as its top priority and recommends the
following actions:
b) Adopt CASA’s articles of association to Persian and take the steps necessary to estab-
lish a similar consortia organization (tentatively called Center for Persian Study Abroad,
CPSA), among the institutions the Board represents. Depending on the result so forth
related efforts, this organization may be charged with the mission to conduct summer
immersion and teacher training programs or, in addition, oversee the Study Abroad
arrangement as well.

323
 Mehdi Marashi

c) Seek the participation of other institutions with existing Persian programs, write by-laws
for the organization, and explore the possibility of aligning it with the American Institute
for Iranian Studies (AIIS), the Association for Iranian Studies (AIS), formerly Interna-
tional Society for Iranian Studies (ISIS), and the American Association of Teachers of
Persian (AATP), as well as other ways of giving prominence to the new organization
in matters related to summer immersion programs, teacher training, and study abroad
arrangements.
d) At the earliest possible opportunity, explore the feasibility of setting up summer intensive
programs for advanced students at Middlebury, in the Los Angeles area, or elsewhere in
the U.S. The Persian Board believes that this program should focus on advanced levels of
language learning or in cultural proficiency and that it should immerse the students for at
least eight weeks.
e) Simultaneously, conduct initial negotiations with select universities in Iran with the aim
of laying the groundwork for sending advanced students of Persian to Iran for summer
immersion programs and study abroad arrangements, as the situation may permit.
 Development of needed teaching and testing materials and procedures commensurate
with the proficiency system of language teaching, such as authentic language learning
materials, placement tests, ACTFL’s OPI tests and the like. The Persian Board believes
that teaching and testing materials sufficient to its immediate needs may exist, but they
remain either not utilized or underutilized. It recommends the following actions:
f) Survey the existing materials on teaching and testing that accord with the proficiency-
based systems of teaching and compile as comprehensive a list as possible.
g) Identify and prioritize the needs in this area as specifically as possible and take initial
steps to produce them and make them available to member institutions.
h) In consultation with the NFLC, seek proposals from qualified specialists for developing
the needed work.
i) Development of needed computer-based, self-instructional materials and distance learn-
ing tools along the line of NFLC’s Lang Net project or various distance learning efforts at
universities around the country. Distance learning programs and other self-instructional
approaches to language learning must be developed for Persian.
j) Monitor the development to all computer-based instructional and self-instructional mate-
rials and distance learning tools as closely as possible and share the information within
the Persian community. Pilot Lang Net’s Language Objects (LOs) in Persian classes and
seek student response, either through formal questionnaires or less formally through sub-
stantial anecdotal responses.
k) Survey student responses, identify areas of deficiency and report the results to NFLC.

To monitor progress in the areas defined previously and make the necessary adjustments con-
sidering accomplished work or changed situations, the Persian Board proposed follow-up
meetings of its members to identify and report the necessary modifications.

15.8.3 Measures recommended for the medium and long terms

in light of emerging areas of need
It is hoped that we will know whether study abroad arrangements in Iran are feasible or not
if we succeed in putting such arrangements in place, the first group of graduates from various
Persian studies programs in US. Universities should be able to begin their study abroad in Iran.
If this occurs, the Board will have to devise ways of accommodating and acclimating them to

324
 Teaching Persian for proficiency

the culture sufficiently, so these students can have host family arrangements, internships and
other components of study abroad year. Other important issues are continuing and enhancing
summer intensive and teacher training programs in the U.S. to the extent possible with the aim
of approximating the study abroad experience.
The following recommendations are made for enhancing the capacity of the Persian Studies
Programs in U.S. universities and increasing the number of proficient speakers of the language
in the country in the long run:

1 Expansion of the capacity of various Persian studies programs in US Universities. Pro-

gram expansion is possible only if the necessary resources are added to the existing pro-
grams in US universities. This can be done in several stages, as follows:
a) Supporting the institute on a third year of instruction in Persian (Advanced Persian)
in programs where this does not exist at the present time. Several Persian programs
do not offer the full three-year language course needed to move the students from
level 2 on the proficiency scale. This means that the graduates of these programs
rarely achieve the level of proficiency needed for entry into summer immersion or
study abroad arrangements.
 Providing support for sequence of courses at the advanced level seems an excel-
lent way of increasing the capacity of the existing programs.
b) Assisting the existing program in developing and implementing separate and/or
accelerated tracks for heritage learners, either through summer programs or through
parallel curricula designed to teach reading and writing to native speakers. Except for
UCLA, no academic program has a separate track for heritage learners of Persian. If
the Flagship initiative could develop mechanisms and procedures for advancing her-
itage learners through the beginning reading and writing stages, they could then join
the other students at later stages in the language learning process, thus increasing the
number of advanced-level students.
c) Development of Persian- and Iran-related courses. Certain academic courses likely
to identify and/or attract students potentially interested in learning Persian and do
so early on in their career. Courses like freshman seminars on Iran or introductory
courses on Iranian culture and civilization are bound to increase the initial pool of
language students at various universities. If universities could be supported in intro-
ducing such courses into their curricula, we would be in a better position to popu-
late our language classes with students who have a genuine interest in the Persian
language.
d) Addition of a fourth year of language instruction to our current programs. This may
include curriculum designs that would be used in all our institutions, but it is well
worth considering, especially if arrangements for in-country summer immersion pro-
grams and study abroad program do not seem to be forthcoming. The costs associated
with such efforts at expanding the capacity of existing academic programs could be
kept to a minimum, as hiring adjuncts to teach the additional courses involved seems
quite feasible at the local level.
2 Providing support for students who wish to make Persian part of their university curricu-
lum. Student support is crucial to the development of academic programs in languages
such as Persian. If the NFLC could provide for student scholarships for those who commit
to learning Persian, interest is bound to increase, especially among heritage students or
others with some background in Persian.

325
 Mehdi Marashi

3 Need to raise the level of proficiency in Persian within the time frame assigned or the
effort. The Persian Board believes that a substantial number of student scholarships for
study of Persian at both the graduate and undergraduate levels would be an excellent
tool in recruiting students to the study of this language. This is the least labor-intensive
and most quickly implementable platform in our proposed program. In order to facilitate
advanced study of the language, the Persian Board recommends that students be eligible
for such scholarships after successful completion of one year of Persian study. A year-to-
year renewable scholarship of about $5000 per student or more could certainly create a
strong incentive for good students to continue through to the advanced level and higher.
The Persian Board recommends at least two such scholarships be made available to each
of the qualified candidates.

Notes
1) Judith Liskin-Gasparro, The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: A Historical Perspective: In for Pro-
ficiency: The Organizing Principles, ed. Theodor V. Higgs and Ray Clifford. National Textbook
Company and ACTFL, Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co., 1984.
2) G.L. Windfuhr, Persian Grammar, History and State of its Study, Trends in Linguistics, State of the
Art Reports, 12. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1979.
3) The manuals used as required course texts in the 1960s include the following: (a) Ann K.S.
Lambton, Persian Grammar. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1960 (b) M.J.
Dresden, ed., A Reader in Modern Persian, School of Languages, Foreign Service Institute,
U.S. Department of States (American Council of Learned Societies, Program in Oriental Lan-
guages, Publication Series A Text 6), New York: American Council for Learned Societies,
1958 (c) Laurence P. Elwell-Sutton, Elementary Persian Grammar. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1966 and (d) H. Paper Herbert and M.A. Jazayery, A Reference
Grammar of Modern Persian. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Department of Near
Eastern Studies, 1961.
4) Zoltan Doryei, Motivation in Second Language Learning. Printed in the United Kingdom: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1998.
5) A. Sedighi, “Teaching Persian to Heritage Persian Students,” International Journal on Iranian Stud-
ies, 43(5) (2010), 681–695.
6) Audio-lingual techniques and activities seem at the core of Stilo-Clinton-Talatof textbook.
7) Recent proficiency-based textbooks include the following: (a) M. Marashi and L. Hagigi, Profi-
ciency in Persian, 3 Vols. Santa Jose, CA: DeHart (b) Peyman Nojumian, 2017, Persian Learner, 4
Vols for elementary, intermediate and advanced studies, UCI Jordan Center for Persian Studies,
(c) Sedighi 2015, Persian in use, An Elementary Textbook for Language and Culture, Iranian Studies
Series of Leiden University Press and University of Chicago Press, (d) P. Shabani-Jadidi and D.P.
Brookshaw, Farsi Shirin Ast 1: Routledge Introductory Persian Course. London and New York:
Routledge Tylor and ad Francis Group, 2010.
8) The list is longer. Those mentioned are Peace Corps Volunteers with whom I have worked.
9) Theodor V. Higgs, ed., Teaching for Proficiency, the Organizing. Lincolnwood, IL: Principles, pub-
lished by National Textbook Company, 1984.
10) M. Wheeler Thackston, An Introduction to Persian, Rev. 4th ed. Bethesda, MD: Ibex Publisher,
1944.

References
Doryei, Z. 1998. Motivation in Second Language Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Dresden, M.J., ed. 1958. A Reader in Modern Persian, School of Languages, Foreign Service Institute,
U.S. Department of State (American Council of Learned Societies, Program in Oriental Languages,
Publication Series A Texts, No. 6). New York: American Council of Learned Societies.
Jazayery, M.A., and H.H. Paper. 1961. A Reference Grammar of Modern Persian, edited by Prelim. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Department of Near Eastern Studies.

326
 Teaching Persian for proficiency

Lambton, A.K.S. 1960. Persian Grammar. Cambridge England: Cambridge University Press.
Liskin-Gasparro, J. 1984. The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: A Historical Perspective In for Profi-
ciency: The Organizing Principles, edited by Theodor V. Higgs and Ray Clifford. National Textbook
Company and ACTFL. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co.
Marashi, M., and L. Hagigi. 1991. Proficiency in Persian. San Mateo, CA: Persian Language Resources.
Nojumian, P. 2017. Persian Learner Series, UCI Jordan Center for Persian Studies.
Paper Herbert, H., and M.A. Jazayery. 1961. A Reference Grammar of Modern Persian. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan, Department of Near Eastern Studies.
Sedighi, A. 2015. Persian in use, An Elementary Textbook for Language and Culture. Iranian Studies
Series. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
Windfuhr, G.L. 1979. Persian Grammar: History and State of its Study. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.

327
 16
COMMUNICATIVE, TASK-
BASED, AND CONTENT-BASED
­
APPROACHES TO PERSIAN
LANGUAGE TEACHING LATIFEH HAGIGI AND MICHELLE QUAYAPPROACHES TO PERSIAN LANGUAGE TEACHING

Second language, mixed, and heritage

classes at the university level

Latifeh Hagigi and Michelle Quay

16.1 Introduction
Research in the fields of second language acquisition (SLA) and foreign-language pedagogy
continues to advance into new domains and advocate new strategies for language teaching on the
basis of empirical and statistical results. Although these fields consistently make new progress
and discoveries, the results are not always transmitted or disseminated effectively to educators,
particularly in less commonly taught languages such as Persian. This chapter hopes to redress
some of the disconnects between the findings of contemporary SLA research, the advances in
foreign-language pedagogy, and the actual methods employed in Persian-language classrooms.
One of the most popular methods1 of language teaching in recent decades has been the
Communicative Approach. Many linguists and researchers have explored this approach in
greater depth and detail and with more expertise than can be provided here. Nevertheless, a
rough working definition of the Communicative Approach will be laid out here so as to facili-
tate understanding. This chapter will also discuss the relationship between the Communicative
Approach and two other related methods, Content-Based Instruction (CBI) and Task-Based
Language Teaching (TBLT). Then it will address the chapter’s primary contributions: an over-
view of current textbook materials that take a communicative approach, the practical applica-
tion of communicative methods to Persian language classrooms, and how they might be used
to further student gains in proficiency.
The intended scope of this chapter is to deal primarily with first and second year Persian
language classes at the university level. It imagines both L2-only classrooms and heritage-
only classrooms, in addition to mixed L2 and heritage classrooms. The courses in mind focus
not only on Iranian Persian but also involve discussions of Dari and Tajiki when they are of
interest to the students. The applications suggested would be most effective in undergraduate
or graduate level courses. Not all activities will be applicable, depending upon the availability
of a substantial Persian-speaking community in the area.

328
 Approaches to Persian language teaching

16.1.1 Introduction to Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

The Communicative Approach has had a wide variety of interpreters and practitioners in its
short history going back to the UK in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In its most basic form, the
approach has been described by Bob Adamson as “a view of language learning as best brought
about by involving learners actively in communication related to real-life contexts” (Adamson
2008, 609). The method emphasizes active simulations of real-life communication tasks in
the target language and the slow build-up of more complex renderings of these scenarios over
time (Brumfit and Johnson 1978, 188–9).The field grew out of the works of sociolinguists who
first elaborated the notion of communicative competence as being much more than simple
mastery of a set list of grammar and vocabulary (Savignon 2017; Richards and Rodgers 2001,
9; Dhongde 1990, 229–34; Munby 1978). Bygate, Skehan, and Swain saw it as “explicitly a
post-method approach to language teaching . . . in which the principles underlying the use
of different classroom procedures were of paramount importance, rather than a package of
teaching materials” (Bygate et al. 2001, 11). Thus rather than being a specific method tied to a
certain set of materials, the Communicative Approach functions as an overarching term for a
set of common principles, including, as Adamson describes it, a notion of

language as principally serving as an expression of meaning at the discourse level

(not just the word or sentence level), where appropriacy is as important as accu-
racy . . . and view[s] the teacher as a facilitator and motivator, as well as source of
knowledge.
(Adamson 2008, 608–9)

Within this umbrella term, the school of proficiency-based instruction eventually arose.
For the purposes of this chapter, the proficiency movement is considered an offshoot of the
Communicative Approach, as many of its aims and principles overlap. As the ACTFL guide-
lines define it, proficiency is “what individuals can do with language in terms of speaking,
writing, listening, and reading in real-world situations in a spontaneous and non-rehearsed
context” (ACTFL Guidelines 2012). Additionally, communicative language teaching encom-
passes the 5 C’s as defined in Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century,
compiled by the National Standards in Foreign Language Education in 2006, which will be
discussed in detail in the following sections. The primary assumptions of CLT are that students
learn best through trial and error in interactive, communicative settings where they have to
negotiate the expression and construction of meaning in addition to adjusting their production
to the appropriateness demanded by the situation.

16.1.2 Task-based language teaching

In addition to the communicative approach, another method that has made great inroads in
contemporary foreign language teaching is the task-based approach. The task-based approach
dovetails nicely with the philosophies behind CLT, and for this reason, the approaches are con-
sidered together in their potential for improving Persian-language teaching. One of the central
issues of the task-based method is what truly qualifies as a ‘task’ in this conception of it (Lee
2000). As David Nunan defines it:

The communicative task [is] a piece of classroom work which involves learners in
comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target language while

329
 Latifeh Hagigi and Michelle Quay

their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than form. The task should
also have a sense of completeness, being able to stand alone as a communicative act
in its own right.
(Nunan 1989, 10)

Under the banner of TBLT, exercises where students are pre-taught or explicitly given
specific language forms to use do not qualify as tasks, because they only prove that students
can perform language, not use it to communicate themselves (Edwards et al. 2004, 3–4). To
some degree TBLT mirrors certain elements of CLT, which often emphasizes the importance
of learning to negotiate and create meaning spontaneously with an interlocutor (Richards and
Rodgers 2001, 156). Task-based syllabi see the task in the classroom as a bridge to perform-
ing similar functions outside of class (Edwards and Willis 2005). Adamson, looking to the
influential cognitive theories of Lee Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner, notes the seeming synergy
between communicative principles and TBLT, stating that TBLT “advocates a learner-centered
curriculum” and evinces “a strong element of group-work and autonomous activities” (Adam-
son 2008, 609; Bruner 1990; Vygotsky 1978). A look at Jack Richards’ 10 guiding principles
of CLT shows that many of them are central to both TBLT and CLT, including an emphasis
students undertaking interactive activities, negotiating meaning, taking part in meaningful
interpersonal exchange and engaging in creative use of language (Richards 2006, 22–23). For
further discussion on the task-based approach, read Chapters 17 and 18 in this volume.

16.1.3  Content-based
­ instruction
Another method that has gained a significant amount of traction in Foreign Language (FL)
teaching circles is the idea of Content-Based Instruction (CBI). As Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi and
Anousha Sedighi note, there are two ends of the spectrum in terms of the application of CBI.
“The broad interpretation [of CBI]” they write, “defines [it] as having its main focus on the
content not the form.” Meanwhile, the other narrower, more restricted definition “considers
CBI as the instruction of a specific academic topic and using the language as a tool to deliver
that specific content” (Shabani-Jadidi andSedighi 2018, 403). As of yet, no Persian-specific
teaching materials have appeared that focus solely on a content-based approach; however,
many current materials naturally feature elements of it. One of the most significant devel-
opments in this area for Persian, as of the time of writing, has been the substantial online
and summer content course offerings from the University of Texas at Austin with Persian as
the language of instruction. Additionally, the University of Maryland’s Flagship program in
Persian is known for its use of CBI in the advanced levels of its program. Richards views
CBI and TBLT to some degree as extensions of the assumptions underlying CLT. Through
its demonstration of the applications of these approaches, the chapter shows the consonance
of these three methods and their ability to complement each other in the language classroom.
Chapters 17 and 20 in this volume also discuss the content-based approach in teaching Persian
as a second language.

16.1.4 Critiques of CLT, CBI, and TBLT

The authors are well aware of the critiques of both the communicative method and task-based
teaching that have appeared from the 1980s onward, and as such they advocate a balanced
use of these activities at the teacher’s discretion, as they would with any other method. Task-
based teaching has been criticized on the grounds that it is not precisely a method but rather

330
 Approaches to Persian language teaching

a description of a process. That is, it instructs us how to set up and run specific activities,
instead of giving us principles upon which to hang our curriculum-design decisions (Richards
2006, 30–31, 35). A second issue with TBLT is the difficulty in delineating what a ‘task’ really
is – at some point, every activity done by students in the class begins to feel like a task of one
sort or another. Of course, proponents of the task-based method would be apt to respond by
stating that the tasks should resemble real-life tasks that language-learners would be likely to
encounter outside the classroom. Further critiques include the lack of emphasis on accuracy,
and the fact that content involved is usually not significant, which would be an issue for those
interested in CBI and those whose courses aim to help foreign language-speaking students
quickly enter mainstream instruction classes in the target language.
As for the communicative method, some critiques take issue with the fundamental premise
of CLT by arguing that it is impossible to teach the ‘normal usage’ CLT emphasizes (Dhongde
1990, 231). However, it is generally possible to delineate ‘normal usage’ within a specified
context and a standardized dialect (e.g. standard written Persian of contemporary Iran). Sev-
eral other critiques posit that the overuse of communicative-style activities, without sufficient
emphasis on improving accuracy at the same time, can lead to the fossilization of student errors
and the development of communicative work-around strategies that may hold the student back
once she tries to express more complicated structures and accomplish more complex commu-
nication tasks (Hüllen 1980, 18; Eskey 1983; Richards and Renandya 2002, 155). While the
development of these work-around strategies is in itself something teachers should aim for,
over-reliance on these strategies may eventually form an impediment to learner progress, and
as such it is emphasized here that the communicative approach is not a one-size-fits-all method
that can be adopted wholesale to any teaching context (Al-Khafaji 2015). Furthermore, the
writers of this chapter wish to underscore that by no means do they advocate that instructors
aim for an entirely communicative-based classroom at all times. Rather they view commu-
nicative activities as a necessary component of flexible and diverse lesson plans that include
more traditional approaches such as direct and indirect grammar instruction, modeling, and
drilling. For similar discussion, read Chapter 15 in this volume.
To go further, continued advances in CLT have shown that explicit grammar instruction –
long demonized as the core element of the much-maligned grammar-translation approach
(Brown 2001, 18) – is not necessarily incompatible with the aims of CLT. While it is true that
traditional approaches have tended to greatly over-emphasize grammatical drilling in their
curricula, this does not mean elements of that technique should be discarded as utterly useless,
particularly for adult learners who can leverage the complex grammatical system they have
already mastered in their native language to make inferences about the target language system.
As Karin C. Ryding puts it in her Teaching and Learning Arabic as Foreign Language:

The communicative approach to teaching that has been prevalent in recent years
has emphasized the acquisition of language structures primarily through indirect
and intuitive means, rather than through direct presentation and practice of lan-
guage skills. This has led to the belief among many teachers and teacher trainers that
grammatical rules should not be explicitly taught, discussed, or tested. More recent
research however, has shown that adult language acquisition can be accelerated
and strengthened by systematic, effective explanation and practice of grammatical
structures to improve skills and enrich performance. How to implement grammatical
awareness and accuracy for learners is a central issue in Arabic pedagogy, especially
for those learners aiming for advanced levels of proficiency.
(Ryding 2013, 4)

331
 Latifeh Hagigi and Michelle Quay

Given that current sensibilities in the field have come to view grammar instruction as anti-
quated, it seems of critical importance to emphasize that CLT and task-based methods are not
necessarily in direct conflict with explicit grammar instruction and in fact can lead to discus-
sions of more contextually relevant usages for students.

16.2 Resources with a communicative outlook

Before jumping into recommendations for how to apply CLT to the Persian-language class-
room, it is useful to draw attention to a number of existing resources that have already incorpo-
rated elements of CLT in their approach. This overview does not claim to be exhaustive. Indeed
there are many strong resources for Persian that are not explicitly mentioned here. However,
the chapter particularly focuses on recently published materials (since 2010) with a communi-
cative/proficiency-oriented methodology and those that are relevant to the teaching context of
American institutions of higher education. To this end, there are a number of resources pub-
lished in Iran for learners of Persian as a foreign language that have not been systematically
reviewed here. A selection of these are reproduced in the bibliography; however, many of these
do not take a specifically communicative approach (Zulfaqāri 2004; Dārābi 1998; Sādeghiān
1998; Shemāsi and Sharifzāde 1995; Nobahār 1993; Purnāmdāriyān 1993; Samareh 1988).
Notable among those sources systematically reviewed are Anousha Shahsavari and Blake
Atwood’s Persian of Iran Today (Vols. 1 & 2) (2013 & 2015), Anousha Sedighi’s Persian in
Use (2015), Peyman Nojoumian’s Persian Learner series (2017), Reza Farokhfal’s Persian
Here and Now (2013) and Pouneh Shabani-Jadidi and Dominic Parviz Brookshaw’s The Rout-
ledge Introductory Course to Persian (2010).2 Each lesson of Shahsavari and Atwood’s vol-
ume contains communicative speaking prompts and a number of game suggestions at the end
of each unit (Shahsavari and Atwood 2015, 77–78). Meanwhile, Nojoumian includes commu-
nicative prompts, mainly scenarios, more sporadically (Nojoumian 2017a, 91, 110).3 Farokh-
fal includes vivid picture dictionaries, which double as prompts for communicative scenarios
(Farokhfal 2013, 101). Shabani-Jadidi and Brookshaw’s scenarios conclude each lesson with
lists of common substitution words that students can use to make the presented dialogues their
own and leverage them as models of correct usage while performing real communication
acts (Shabani-Jadidi and Brookshaw 2010, 12–13, 24–25, etc).4 These kinds of activities are
instrumental in terms of using sentence stems or sentence starters to develop language chunk-
ing. Mar’ashi’s Proficiency in Persian contains the most robust scenario concepts sampled
here. It offers the prompts in English modeled on ACTFL OPI scenarios, including multiple
steps to ensure students complete several communicative objectives (Mar’ashi 2014, 63, 135,
etc.).5 Read Chapter 15 in this volume for the ACTFL OPI scenarios and guidelines. Finally,
Sedighi’s Persian in Use offers two dialogues at the beginning of each lesson upon which
students model their own versions, and it explicitly raises students’ awareness of differences
in spoken and written language (Sedighi 2015).

16.3 Special considerations for using communicative approaches

with heritage language learners and mixed classrooms
In addition to being an efficient and motivating way to learn, the Communicative Approach
also has the potential to alleviate concerns surrounding one of the most significant issues asso-
ciated with Persian language teaching in America today – how to maximize heritage learning.
With the arrival of a significant community of Iranian immigrants to the U.S. in the wake of the
Islamic Revolution and Iran-Iraq War, the presence of substantial numbers of heritage students

332
 Approaches to Persian language teaching

in Persian classrooms across American institutions of higher learning gave rise to questions
about how best to integrate these students into a curriculum primarily designed for L2 learn-
ers (Bozorgmehr 1998). In fact, the question of heritage language maintenance and teaching
has prompted the emergence of an entire academic subfield over the last two to three decades
dedicated to the heritage language phenomenon across various languages, including Spanish,
Russian, Korean, Chinese, Arabic, and many others (Kagan, Carreira, and Hitchins Chik 2017;
O’Rourke and Zhou 2016, 1–10; Hamedani 2015; Ibrahim and Allam 2014, 437–46; Loewen
2008, 23–39; Sohn 2007, 407–18). How Persian language instructors deal with the heritage
learner population in the academic sphere of higher education is critical for the success and
survival of the heritage language within the diaspora community. Anousha Sedighi summa-
rizes the findings of Najafi on the current situation in regards to the passing down of Persian
language to first and second generation children. The picture is unfortunately quite grim:

Najafi’s research shows that among second generation Iranians 70.3% understand
Persian, 55% speak Persian, 27% can read in Persian, and 21.6% can write in Persian.
Thus, she argues that the rate of Persian loss as an oral language is 45% and that the
rate of language loss as a literate language is almost 75%. . . . Najafi concludes that
as an oral language Persian might get transferred to the third generation but, as for
most immigrant languages, the literate language will die after the second generation.
(Sedighi 2018)

Thus, the stakes for heritage language maintenance are quite high, as they involve no less
than the continuance of Persian’s small cultural foothold in America’s melting pot and the
coherence of a community tied together by linguistic, cultural, and identity-based bonds. Fur-
thermore, Najafi’s results lead Sedighi to conclude, quite rightly, that the situation for Persian
as a written language is even more imperiled than as a spoken one. These data support heritage
language teachers’ long-held intuition derived from experience that emphasis on the written
language is of greater import to most heritage language learners’ proficiency in the target lan-
guage. As such, Sedighi argues that a communicative approach alone is not sufficient to meet
heritage language learner (HLL) needs, and they require form-focused instruction, preferably
in a context-based environment. For more elaborate discussion on heritage language learners
of Persian and the syntactic, semantic, and phonological characteristics of their interlanguage,
read Chapters 3 and 4 in this volume.
While many researchers have pointed out the sometimes vast gap between HLLs and L2Ls
in terms of oral and aural skills, they have equally noted L2Ls’ cumulative advantage in liter-
acy skills (Carreira 2016, 135). And yet, it is crucial that teachers do not generalize too aggres-
sively about the backgrounds of heritage speakers, as these diverge widely and are dependent
on many factors, including the age of beginning English-language school, community school
attendance, parental involvement, access to a larger community of Persian speakers, oppor-
tunities to travel to Iran/Afghanistan/Tajikistan, and of course personal motivation and indi-
vidual life experiences (Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans 2014, 10). It would be
wise to take a look at the different types of heritage speakers that register for university-level
courses before considering how best to model the curriculum for them.
By this time, the separation of definitions of heritage learners into two general categories,
broad and narrow, is well known in the heritage language teaching field. Under these umbrella
categories, the broad definition of a HLL considers the label to apply to anyone with a cultural
connection to the language, regardless of their actual, measurable proficiency. Meanwhile,
the narrow definition takes its cue from the opposite end of the spectrum, positing that a HLL

333
 Latifeh Hagigi and Michelle Quay

is someone who has real proficiency in the target language, but lacks formal education in it.
These quite general categories have been further broken down by Olga Kagan and Kathleen
Dillon, who suggest that heritage speakers fall along a continuum according to the speakers’
distance from the language abilities of the native speakers (Kagan and Dillon 2012, 495). In
university Persian language classrooms, at least five different subtypes of heritage speakers
have been observed. Some of these terms have been borrowed from linguistics, while others
were created to suit the categories of students observed in our programs:

i) Cutural heritage speakers: those that have familiarity with some traditions and holidays
(Nowruz, cultural practices, etc.) but no measurable language proficiency.
ii) Childhood overhearers: those that did not speak in childhood but had significant aural
input in the target language. These students often cannot speak but have some aural com-
prehension (Kit-Fong Au et al. 2002).
iii) Childhood speakers: those that spoke in childhood but left off doing so after going to
school. These students can often speak at a rudimentary level and communicate to some
degree. Their comprehension level is typically much higher than their speaking proficiency.
iv) Illiterate near-natives: Those with a high degree of listening comprehension and speaking
ability, but who are completely or mostly without any functional literacy in the written
language.
v) Semi-natives: Those with some schooling in a Persian-speaking environment (usually
Iran, Afghanistan, or Tajikistan) but who left in childhood or adolescence, leaving the full
language acquisition process incomplete.

Research in SLA shows that these types of learners have divergent profiles with differing strengths
and weaknesses, and various potential for high-level language acquisition (Ibrahim and Allam
2014; Albirini 2018). The wide range of abilities in these categories reveals the need for materials
and curricula specifically tailored to HLLs and a differentiated approach to the extent possible.
Based on our experience as Persian instructors in mixed and L2 classrooms, some general
tips follow for appropriately meeting a diverse range of HLL needs in the classroom. The her-
itage students in a mixed class can be very valuable. The non-heritage learners (L2) can also
rehearse with heritage students as partners, where typically it is most beneficial if the L2 does
more speaking work and the HLL can do more writing work. The instructor can even explicitly
point out the utility of both groups to each other, while emphasizing that they are all on the
same team trying to reach better proficiency in Persian. The presence of HLLs helps pull L2Ls
out of the constructed environment and teaches them function much better in more realistic
situations. Meanwhile, L2Ls can show HLLs the value of strong grammatical proficiency and
dedicated acquisition of higher-level vocabulary not normally heard in the home environment.
Another point to keep in mind in a mixed class is that, while they can be put in mixed pairs
in groups to work together and help each other, sometimes it is important to design different
activities for two separate groups according to their level of language and needs. Sometimes in
working with L2Ls, the heritage students feel that they are tutoring, and the activity is not as
challenging and beneficial for them. Another suggestion would be to separate the class into two
groups once a week, give them a name, and do different communicative activities and exercises
(e.g. reading a short story appropriate for each group, and then they can rephrase part of the
story in their own words using proper Persian synonyms as they are presenting to class and put
it in simple prose – or a short poem, or a song – and present it. In order to make it more com-
municative, the students are encouraged to ask questions and make comments, and tell what
they learned). These sorts of activities essentially take the Macro-based approach advocated

334
 Approaches to Persian language teaching

by Carreira for teaching HLLs (e.g. engagement with a whole text, video, etc. before moving
into grammatical and lexical detail). Although she claims it is possible to simultaneously use
Micro-based approaches with L2Ls (e.g., building up slowly from controlled vocabulary and
exercises), in practice it is very challenging to integrate these approaches simultaneously in
a meaningful way. As such the redistribution of language proficiency groups even within the
same class is certainly possible and has been successful in the past at UCLA, where there are
a large number of heritage students (including students of Iranian, Afghan, and Tajik back-
grounds). Naturally the best solution is probably to do what UCLA has done, where heritage
Persian and elementary Persian have become separate courses. This is not always possible at
different institutions, but for first year Persian, UCLA was able to do it.

16.4 Role of technology in communicative language teaching

The use of technology in the language classroom has been hailed as a potential panacea for the
ills that ail programs with lagging proficiency results (Al-Mahrooqi and Troudi 2014, 1–2).
However, technology should not be included in syllabi as a learning outcome in itself but as a
tool to more efficiently attain objectives that have always been on teachers’ radars. Thus, the
effectiveness of technology in the classroom is entirely dependent on the instructor’s intelli-
gent use thereof. Some of the latest research on technology in language teaching is very briefly
summarized here, and concrete examples are given of how it can be put to use in service of
CLT in the Persian language classroom. This section also addresses the question of how the
use of technology in language instruction can particularly benefit heritage learners.
Researchers who study the use of technology in language classrooms refer to both
Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) and Computer-Assisted Language Learning
(CALL) (Heift and Chapelle 2012). While CALL references a very wide range of potential
computer-based language learning tools, including systems that offer grammar drills and exer-
cises with immediate feedback, CMC refers to the use of electronic tools to facilitate target-
language communication. Because of its potential utility in communicative language teaching,
CMC will be the primary object of our consideration here. Studies have shown that CMC can
help L2 learners increase the amount of their target-language output and its complexity and
may even be able to improve students’ oral proficiency more than face-to-face discussions can
(Blake 2000; Blake et al. 2008). For an extended discussion of Computer-Assisted Language
Learning, see Chapter 18 in this volume.
In this field, communication is divided into two types: synchronous and asynchronous.
Synchronous communication denotes real-time interaction with other speakers of the target
language (Payne and Ross 2005). Examples would include instant messaging and chats, as
well as Skype, FaceTime, or other video conferencing applications. Asynchronous commu-
nication, meanwhile, refers to modes of communication that allow for time between com-
munication events. These modes seem particularly suited to less confident students who may
want more time to organize their discourse before putting something out into the world. Types
of asynchronous CMC are seemingly endless, but some examples would be interacting on
Facebook, Twitter, or other social media sites; writing and maintaining a blog; curating links,
videos, images and articles from around the web; or creating a digital magazine or newspaper
(see Henshaw 2016 for some excellent, detailed examples). Many of these would fall under the
Presentational mode of communication, some under the Interpersonal, and could be assigned
as long-term projects. Such projects would most likely be most appropriate for Intermediate
L2 learners and above, or possibly Elementary HLLs who have placed into an accelerated
course like that offered at UCLA.

335
 Latifeh Hagigi and Michelle Quay

The proficiency benefits to be gained from technology by L2Ls and HLLs are relatively
clear. Students can engage with authentic content (which can be curated by the instructor to
facilitate the use of strong materials) on a subject of their interest, and communicate with
other target-language speakers outside the limitations of the classroom. The subject and level
of the content can be adjusted by the students themselves to meet their own level, motivation,
and backgrounds. At Columbia University, even second-semester Elementary students have
been able to participate in Twitter threads and other social media networks on topics of their
choice, albeit with significant scaffolding, dictionary training, and curating by the instructor.
HLLs in particular can benefit because of the inherently differentiated nature of these tasks,
and because research shows that HLLs tend to be looking to establish greater ties with their
language community and their culture (O’Rourke and Zhou 2016; Henshaw 2016, 238; Blaz
2006). Henshaw has noted that HLLs can especially benefit from the text-based nature of
online communication, since literacy in the heritage language tends to be a point of weakness
for them. At the same time, the drawbacks of such online communicative exercises must be
noted. Researchers have expressed concern in regards to the potential nonstandard linguistic
registers and orthography that students may encounter online, with some going as far to say
that instructors risk compounding “almost exactly the fundamental mistakes that we are trying
to help our heritage learners overcome” (Loewen 2008, 33). Other commentators have noted
the flipside of this ‘problem’ – that it may be a chance to discuss differences in register, dialect
and nonstandard usages, which HLLs especially may have already encountered outside the
classroom and need to see addressed.

16.5 Examples of communicative and task-based

activities for the language classroom
Many of the activities and games presented here are applicable to any foreign language class-
room with appropriate adjustments by the teachers (Lee 1979). However, wherever possible,
the examples include games and activities that are somehow authentic or native to the Persian
context, for example, Hokm (Persian ‘Go Fish’) to practice numbers, and Esm Famil (Persian
‘Scattergories’) to work on vocabulary. The approach has tended towards collecting tasks and
activities that will hopefully inspire students’ interest and break up the tedium. As Stephen
Sadow puts it in his Idea Bank:

The activities in this book were conceived as a response to language class doldrums.
They are intended to change the pace, to break the routine. However, these activities
are definitely not time killers. All of them stimulate students to practice communica-
tive skills; emphasis is on skill-using rather than skill-getting. . . . These activities
provide students with problems they are interested in solving and create a supportive
non-threatening situation in which they are likely to solve them.
(Sadow 1982, 1)

Echoing Sadow, the authors of the clever and highly unique Purple Cows and Potato Chips
write that

in order to become more fluent in English, students need more quality listening time,
more active participation, more self-investment in the language, and less stress.
They need to use their second language skills in a coherent context and in interactive
settings.

336
 Approaches to Persian language teaching

These are fundamental principles both of CLT and of TBLT. Even more critical, in our
view, is the emphasis on the activities being fun as much as possible: “Participation in
these multi-sensory activities will allow your students to perceive language acquisition as a
pleasant and enjoyable experience involving the whole self,” write Christison and Bassano
(Christison and Bassano 1987, ix). With these principles in view, the idea-collecting process
was undertaken.
This process was guided throughout by the activity framework laid out by Jack C. Rich-
ards in his useful Communicative Language Teaching Today. He describes the following
types of activities: Information-Gap Activities, Jigsaw Activities, Task-Completion Activ-
ities, Information-Gathering Activities, Opinion-Sharing Activities, Information-Transfer
Activities, Reasoning-Gap Activities, and Role Plays (Richards 2006, 18–19). To these
categories Short- and Long-Term Projects, as well as Games, have been added, all of
which appear to fit nicely with CLT. Each of these activity types will be defined in its own
section later.
The collection process also took its cues from the ACTFL national standards for foreign
language learning (Minuchehr and Mills 2011). In these guidelines, ACTFL puts consider-
able emphasis on the 5 C’s of language competence: Communication, Culture, Connections,
Comparisons, and Communities. A concise summary of these tenets are presented by Shabani-
Jadidi and Sedighi:

Communication emphasizes the communicative aspect of the language and the

importance of using the language in real-life situations. Culture is considered crucial
in learning world languages, as each of these languages enjoys a particular culture,
and awareness of cultural differences between the first and the second language will
help learners integrate in the second-language culture more effectively. Connections
focus on bridging the gap between language learning and subject matters so that lan-
guage learning becomes more meaningful, less explicit, and more automatic. Com-
parisons invite students to do linguistic and cultural comparisons between their first
language and culture and those of the second language. Communities emphasizes the
application of what is learned in class to the outside world by going on field trips,
ordering in restaurants in the second language, and other cultural activities.
(Shabani-Jadidi and Sedighi 2018, 399)

These principles have helped guide us in our choices of select sample activities that may be
used in the communicative Persian classroom.
A few notes are included here on how best to use these exercises. Any project or activity
should be well structured, so students will know the end goal and the time needed, as well as
how it will be assessed. Insofar as possible, topics for presentations should be educational and
related to the region. Sometimes instructors can give them options to choose between differ-
ent projects and activities. The more students are put in charge of selecting and presenting the
material, and invited to take part in teaching, the more they are able to relate to the material.
As a result, they show more interest and are able to learn more efficiently. It increases their
self-confidence and is very encouraging. Instructors need to have a lot of confidence in stu-
dents, since the more they take ideas from the students, the more it will be related to what they
want to do. Teachers should keep in mind that at the beginning with some of these activities,
especially with oral presentations and unstructured communicative tasks in front an audience,
students will express different feelings. Students have different personalities, so some are very
shy and hesitant. They need a lot of support and encouragement. Instructors should be willing

337
 Latifeh Hagigi and Michelle Quay

to spend extra time with them outside class and practice with them to lower their affective
barrier to participation. Chapter 28 in this volume discusses language learners’ beliefs and
strategies in learning Persian as a second language in the U.S.
Where relevant, each of the activities has been marked as belonging to a Presentational (P),
Interpersonal (IP), or Interpretive (INT) mode. Furthermore, it has been indicated whether an
activity fits best with CLT, CBI, TBLT, or a combination thereof, and if appropriate, the level
for which we envisioned such an activity. Naturally the activities may be adjusted to whatever
level the instructor sees fit for his or her language classroom.

A) Projects
a) These were intended as short-term projects of just a few days’ duration or as long-
term projects that may extend over the term, including creating PowerPoint presenta-
tions with pictures and video clips. The presentation should include a question and
answer component with fellow students and the instructor.
i) Family Interview Project (Heritage–Beg.): Interview a Persian-speaking fam-
ily member. Interview questions and presentations must be generated before-
hand, and corrected and approved by instructor. [P, IP; CLT]
ii) Flags of the Middle East Project (Mixed–Interm., can easily be scaled to a
higher level): First design your ideal flag,6 then present on another country’s.
Give the background, meaning of symbols or crest, colors, and how long has it
been the official flag of this nation. [P; CBI]
iii) Cities of Iran/Afghanistan/Tajikistan Project (Mixed–Beg.): Design a poster
showing the points of interest and cultural information about a city of your
choice, and prepare a presentation on it. [P, IP; CBI]
iv) Recipe (Mixed–Beg., Interm.): Write the recipe for one of your favorite foods.
[P; TBLT]
v) Comparing Holidays (Mixed–Interm.): Compare Chaharshanbe Suri to another
holiday, like Halloween, whether in a Persian-speaking country or not. [P, IP;
CBI]
vi) A Significant Place or Tradition in Iran, Afghanistan, or Tajikistan (Mixed–
Interm.): Report in detail on a site, monument (e.g. Borj-e Āzādi, Majlis Build-
ing in Dushanbe), traditional handicraft (e.g. carpet-making), local product
(e.g. rosewater, saffron), or tradition (e.g. khāstegāri). [P, IP; CBI]
vii) Biography Writing (Mixed–Interm.): Pick a personality from the Persian con-
text who is not a poet or writer (e.g. Googoosh, Ibn Sina). [P, IP; CBI, TBLT]
viii) Biography Writing II (Mixed–Interm.): Research and write up a presentation
on the life and works of your favorite writer or poet. [P, IP; CBI, TBLT]
ix) Create a Video Advertisement (Mixed–Interm., Adv.): In a small group, script
and film your own video to advertise or promote something, or create a public
service announcement. [P, IP; TBLT]
x) Businessperson Interview Project (Heritage–Beg., Mixed–Interm.): Inter-
view a shopkeeper in Persian area or neighborhood. Interview questions must
be generated beforehand, and corrected and approved by instructor. [P, IP;
CLT]
xi) Menu Writing (Mixed–Beg. or Heritage–Beg.): In small groups, pick a holiday
and design a full menu for the occasion (e.g. Shab-e Yaldā, Jashn-e nāmzadi,
etc.). [P; CBI, TBLT]

338
 Approaches to Persian language teaching

B) Information-gap activities
a) These activities are based on the principle that communication is undertaken to
obtain information one does not have, and that more authentic communication will
result when students are asked to obtain some kind of information in unrehearsed
conversation (Richards 2006, 18).
i) What’s in your bag/pocket? (Mixed–Beg.): Work alone first, then work with a
small group (four to five students). Think of something you have with you in
your pocket or purse. Describe that object by writing answers to the following
questions. Then, in a group, take turns describing your object and having eve-
ryone guess what it is. If nobody guesses the object after two minutes, show the
group what it is. Can be a competition between teams as well (Christison and
Bassano 1987, 73). [IP; CLT]
ii) Describe and Draw (Mixed–Beg.): Give half the class one image of a house
cross-section and the other half another. Have students work in pairs to describe
their house to a member of the other group such that they can draw it. Images
can be changed to suit the vocabulary of the class’s unit. [IP; CLT, TBLT]
C) Jigsaw activities
a) These activities are based on the same principle as the Information-Gap Activities,
except that typically a larger group or even the entire class must come together with
their pieces of information to come to one whole.
Short Story Reordering (Mixed–Beg.): Each student is given one sentence of a short
story, and students must work together to put their short story back in order. [IP, INT;
CLT, TBLT]
D) Task-completion activities
a) The ‘Task’ has been defined previously. These include “puzzles, games, map-reading,
and other kinds of classroom tasks in which the focus is on using one’s language
resources to complete a task” (Richards 2006, 19). It is envisioned that these tasks
will be completed in pairs or small groups.
i) Story Writing (Mixed – Beg.): Show a picture or series of pictures depicting
some kind of narrative. Students write a story (in class or outside of it) and
share it with the class. [P; TBLT]
ii) Marketing (Mixed–Beg.): Give a list of products and write an advertisement
(Sadow 1982, 62–63). [P; TBLT]
iii) Picture Stories (Heritage–Beg., Mixed–Interm.): “Work with a small group (3–5
students). Your teacher will give you some magazines or catalogues. With your
group, select and cut out some pictures and glue them onto colored paper. Write
a story about the pictures and five questions about the story. Then show the class
the pictures and ask the five questions. Write the answers on the board. Tell the
class your story (do not read it!) and check the answers on board when you finish
to see if they are correct” (Christison and Bassano 1987, 41). [P, IP; CLT, TBLT]
iv) College Application (Mixed–Interm.): There is an unusual college applicant
(the teacher brings a picture of mythical creature). Students must fill out the
application together and persuade the committee to accept him or her. A secre-
tary writes down the group’s answers (Sadow 1982, 20–21). [P, IP; CLT, TBLT]

339
 Latifeh Hagigi and Michelle Quay

v) Travel Itinerary (Mixed–Beg.) – Write a travel itinerary for the teacher, use
authentic maps/road maps in Persian (1982, 36–37). [P, IP; TBLT, CBI]
vi) Inventing Hobbies (Mixed–Interm.): Come up with an unusual new hobby for
the teacher so they are not bored, and help them plan their free time (1982,
44–45). [P; TBLT]
vii) Wonder Cure (Mixed–Interm.): Imagine you and your classmates are develop-
ing a new ‘wonder drug’ – what will it cure? What will it be called? Where can
you get it? (1982, 52–53). [P, IP; TBLT]
viii) Tourist Bureau (Mixed–Interm.): Create descriptions of your country that will
attract tourists (it can be your country or Iran, Tajikistan, Afghanistan). What
are the sights? What are the inexpensive ways to travel? When is the best time
to come? [P; TBLT, CBI]
ix) A New Foreign Land (Mixed–Interm.): Imagine a foreign country, describe its
location, production, customs, culture, language. Compose a persuasive case
why your imagined language should be taught at your university and how you
might attract new students to the program (1982, 80–81). [P; TBLT]
E) Games
i) 20 Questions (All levels): Students can ask up to 20 yes-or-no questions
to determine the person, place, or thing a student is thinking of. [IP; CLT,
TBLT]
ii) Visual Memory (All levels): Students try to memorize a picture and tell the
teacher what is in it. Directions: Work with a small group (3–4 students). When
your teacher says “Go!”, unfold the exercise sheet and look closely at the pic-
ture. Try to remember everything you see in it. (Don’t write anything down!)
When your teacher says “Stop!”, refold the exercise sheet and tell your groups’
“recorder” everything you recall seeing in the picture. Share your answers with
the class. This can be a competition between two groups to see who remembers
more (Christison and Bassano 1987, 27). [INT, IP; CLT, TBLT]
iii) Charades (All levels): Either one or two people acts out a vocabulary word or
phrase; the rest of the class has to guess in teams. [IP; CLT, TBLT]
iv) Yek Morgh Dāram (Mixed–Beg.): Students play the Iranian children’s game to
practice numbers (Mar’ashi 2017, 15). Alternatively, students could play the
American card game “Go Fish” translated into Persian. [IP; CLT]
v) ‘Simon Says’ (Mixed–Beg. Q2): Play the American game ‘Simon Says,’ in
which students give and act out various commands, to practice imperative
verbs (Shahsavari and Atwood 2015, 22). Encourage students to pick a Persian
name, retitling the game (e.g. Sām mige, Simā mige). [IP; TBLT]
vi) Poetry Challenge (Mixed–All levels): All students memorize one poem with
several lines. They test each other by giving one half of the line (one hemistich)
and the other team has to supply the other, and if they forget they lose the game.
[P, IP, INT; TBLT]
F) Information-gathering activities
a) Information-gathering activities include taking surveys, conducting interviews, and
generally collecting information about classmates or other target-language speakers.
i) Classmate Background Interview (Heritage–Beg., Mixed Beg.): Students
interview each other in class; the instructor can give a subject: family, class

340
 Approaches to Persian language teaching

schedule, hobbies, thesis subject, habits, personality (some of the responses

should be including justifications, explanations), etc. [IP; CLT, TBLT]
ii) Find someone who . . . (All levels): Teacher creates a chart asking students to ‘Find
someone who . . .’, filling in the blanks with relevant vocabulary. [IP; TBLT]
iii) Who am I? (Mixed–Beg.): Each student provides three facts about themselves.
The class guesses who the facts refer to. [P, IP; TBLT]
iv) Sentence Starters (All levels): Introduce yourself to a classmate, then ask that
classmate to complete one of the statements given in the next paragraph. Write
down the person’s response and name next to the statement. Ask a different
classmate to respond to another statement. Continue interviewing other stu-
dents until your exercise sheet is complete. Be sure to write down each stu-
dent’s name and share your responses with the rest of the class.
 E.g.: My favorite food is . . ./I like this class because . . ./The color I like
best is . . ./My favorite thing to do on weekends is . . ./Studying is . . ./In five
years I want to be . . .” Naturally, these should be in the target language and
can be adapted to a Middle Eastern context (“On the night of Shab-e Yalda,
we . . .”/“We celebrate Nowruz for . . .”/“Shiraz is . . .”) (Christison and Bas-
sano 1987, 56). [IP, TBLT]
v) Generating Class Statistics (Mixed–Beg.): Survey the class to find out what
everyone’s major is, then create a chart showing the most and least common
majors among Persian-language students. [IP; CLT, TBLT]
G) Opinion-sharing activities
a) In these activities, students compare values, opinions, or beliefs.
i) Perfect Match: “Work alone. Complete each of the statements below by cir-
cling A, B, or C. Then give reasons for why you picked the choices you did.
1 E.g. A perfect Saturday night is:
a) a symphony concert and dessert
b) a fancy, expensive dinner and a walk in the moonlight
c) a large combination pizza and a good James Bond movie” (Christison
and Bassano 1987, 57). [IP; CLT, TBLT]
ii) Perfect Person: Describe a perfect person in terms of looks, personality, why
they are special, and what they do. What have they achieved? (These can be
extended to larger discussion questions – What are the best qualities a person
can have?) (Sadow 1982, 30–31). [IP; CLT]
iii) Student Center (Mixed–Interm.) Design a new student center for the campus,
discuss what kinds of things the students would enjoy and make use of, what
they will do there (1982, 41–43). [P, IP; CLT, TBLT]
H) Information-transfer activities:
a) In Information-transfer activities, students take information presented in one form
and convert it into another.
i) Summarizing the News (Mixed, Interm., Heritage–Beg.): Find short articles in
the news and summarize them to present to your classmates orally. The instruc-
tor can limit it the options to specific categories such as ‘good news’ or ‘sports.’
[P, IP; TBLT, CBI]

341
 Latifeh Hagigi and Michelle Quay

ii) Silent Video (Mixed, Beg.): Show the class a silent video and ask them what’s
going on. Have them describe what they see. Ask them where it is taking place.
If possible, pick famous places and actions that are conducive to narration or
description. [INT, P; TBLT]
iii) Verb Association (Mixed, Beg.): Show pictures to help students to review basic
nouns, and then use them to introduce and learn new verbs. E.g. What can you
do with this? – This is a boat. We row it./These are scissors. They cut flowers or
fabric (Christison and Bassano 1987, 12). [IP; TBLT]
iv) Describing Pictures (All levels): One nice twist on this classic activity: Show
students a very old historical picture of a group, and have them make up stories
about their ‘family history,’ e.g. What were they doing just before the picture
was taken? How are they dressed? How are they related to each other? (Sadow
1982, 12) [IP, INT; TBLT, CLT]
I) Reasoning-gap activities
a) During Reasoning-gap activities, students are asked to derive new information on the
basis of given information.
i) Half-Finished Story (Mixed–Beg.): Give students a half-finished story that they
must work together in groups to complete. [P, IP, INT; TBLT, CLT]
ii) Cartoon Sequencing (Mixed–Beg.): Put a sequence of pictures in order, write
a dialogue for it, and share it with the class (Christison and Bassano 1987, 19).
[P, IP; TBLT]
iii) Guess the Song Meaning (Mixed–Interm.): Have students bring in a song
they’d like to share with the class. Give the title and play the song. Have them
guess what the song is about before you discuss the meaning at all. The student
who chose the song must describe the song and tell what s/he likes about it
(Sadow 1982). [IP, INT; TBLT]
J) Role Plays

Role plays have become standard practice in almost all foreign language classrooms today and
are a familiar tool for teachers. A few notes on best practices for using role plays in class are
offered here. First, the teacher should provide a roadmap of the items students need to cover in
their scenario. S/he can provide extra vocabulary, and expressions and idiomatic terms can be
added as necessary. Consider having an explicit discussion with your students regarding the
fluency vs. accuracy debates. Typically, it is preferable to let students role play in class without
many corrections as a fluency exercise. However, it is also possible to ask students to write
their scenario out, have it corrected, memorize it, and play it in front of the class, so as to focus
on accuracy. Adding references and details that are relevant from regions where the target lan-
guage is spoken is always beneficial, as is the use of realia to the extent possible. Encourage
students to add to the structure to make it as natural as possible by including greetings, leave-
taking expressions, pleasantries, and politeness expressions. In the following, a scenario from
Mar’ashi’s Proficiency in Persian has been reproduced. Mar’ashi’s book provides some of the
most well-scaffolded scenarios specifically written for Persian language classrooms:

Situation Card #8 (Mar’ashi 2014, 193)

You and your friend are at Homa Travel Agency in London (Speak for the both of you).
1 Tell the travel agent that you wish to go to Tehran. You need two round trip tickets.
2 Explain that you wish to leave London this coming week and return a month later.

342
 Approaches to Persian language teaching

3 Ask how many flights to Tehran there are next week.

4 Inquire if the flights to Tehran are nonstop.
5 Ask the price for the cheapest tickets available.
6 Ask if you can pay with your credit card.

Further roleplays:
a) Pretend you’re a tour guide, and show off part of the city for a day. Tour guide: What have
you heard about this area? What do you want to see? How much time do you have? Visi-
tor: What is this area famous for? Where should I spend most of my time? (Sadow 1982,
84–85). [IP; CLT]
b) Students are all going abroad, and they have to discuss how they are going to survive.
This includes finding housing, food, the bank, the train station, the police station, inexpen-
sive clothing, and navigating travel interactions (1982, 86–87). [IP; CLT]
c) Imagine you are seeing a friend after 25 years at your high school or college reunion.
Talk about your memories using habitual past. “Whatever happened to . . ./How long
have you . . .” (1982, 88–89) [IP; CLT]
d) Pick a famous person in Iranian or American society and interview them, or even a char-
acter in a film. [IP; CLT]

16.6 Conclusion
As has been noted in the activity sections, Communicative Language Teaching works very
well in tandem with two approaches that it can successfully encompass: Task-Based Language
Teaching and Content-Based Instruction. It is recommended, as ever, that instructors use a
barrage of different strategies and extensively tailor to the needs of students and the contexts
of specific institutions. In the course of investigating ways to apply communicative methods to
Persian language teaching at the elementary and intermediate levels, a few significant conclu-
sions have risen to the surface. First, CLT can help mitigate some of the issues encountered in
mixed-classroom teaching by taking advantage of the differentiated nature of many commu-
nicative activities – the unpredictable nature of the type of communication students are asked
to do in communicative exercises allows for greater flexibility in the level of the final product
and hence is better tailored to the varying levels of students. Second, technology has opened
up new avenues for both simultaneous and delayed communication with native speakers in
ways that never existed in the past, and the modern communicative classroom should leverage
these assets by scaffolding the students’ engagement with the broader online Persian com-
munity through widely-used applications and websites such as Twitter, Facebook, Telegram,
Pinterest, and more. Third, it has emerged in our review of heritage language research that
heritage speakers should not be viewed as typical L2 learners, and certainly not as L1 learners.
Instead their language background falls into an ambiguous category between L1 and L2 that
requires special recognition and planning on the part of the instructor. Using CLT is critical
to engage HLLs, who have different motivations and can sometimes benefit even more than
L2Ls from exploring authentic contexts through CBI, because these more adequately meet
their needs for cultural and community engagement. Fourth, the chapter has given indica-
tions of where reliable Persian-teaching resources that take a communicative approach can be
found. Fifth, it has presented a host of sample activities specifically for the Persian-language
classroom that can be adopted to further facilitate the transition to more communicative-based
Persian instruction styles. These ideas represent merely a jumping-off point for instructors to

343
 Latifeh Hagigi and Michelle Quay

design and tailor their own activities. These points help illuminate the gaps between the state
of contemporary Persian language-learning materials and the advances in foreign-language
pedagogy, as well as the findings of SLA research. These findings have been more successfully
integrated into up-to-date teaching resources for other foreign languages, largely by embrac-
ing the Communicative Language approach and the related methods, Task-Based Language
Teaching and Content-Based Instruction. The information presented here aims to facilitate
the closing of these gaps to the greatest extent possible, until more complete Persian teaching
materials addressing them can be published in the future.

Notes
1) We realize that some pedagogy researchers distinguish meaningfully between method and approach,
however this chapter uses them synonymously in the broader meaning of a philosophy of teaching,
rather than the description of specific set of processes. This is mainly to avoid linguistic tedium. To
take a look at others who use it differently, see for example the summaries presented in Richards and
Renandya 2002, 5–6.
2) It is important to note that this is a representative sample of current published materials. Many of our
colleagues are using their own unpublished materials and workbooks. It is hoped many of these will
be published soon so that others can benefit from them.
3) This series comes in four volumes: Elementary in two volumes, Intermediate in one volume and
Advanced in one volume.
4) This series comes in two volumes, covering through Intermediate Persian.
5) This series comes in three volumes, covering through Advanced Persian.
6) This could also be used as an in-class activity, see Sadow 1982, 28–29.

References
Adamson, B. 2008. “Fashions in Language Teaching Methodology.” In The Handbook of Applied Lin-
guistics, edited by A. Davies and C. Elder, 604–622. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Al-Khafaji, R.S. 2015. An Application of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Approach for
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Learners in the Arab Context. MA thesis, University of New
Mexico.
Al-Mahrooqi, R., and S. Troudi. 2014. Using Technology in Foreign Language Teaching. Newcastle:
Cambridge Scholars Publisher.
Albirini, A. 2018. “Proficiency in Standard Arabic and Its Predictors: The Case of Heritage Speakers in
College-Level.” In The Routledge Handbook of Arabic Second Language Acquisition, edited by M.T.
Alhaway. London: Routledge.
Blake, R. 2000. “Computer Mediated Communication: A Window on L2 Spanish Interlanguage.” Lan-
guage Learning & Technology, 4(1): 120–136.
Blake, R., N.L. Wilson, M. Cetto, and C. Pardo-Ballester. 2008. “Measuring Oral Proficiency in Dis-
tance, Face-to-Face, and Blended Classrooms.” Language Learning & Technology, 12(3): 114–127.
Blaz, D. 2006. Differentiated Instruction: A Guide for Foreign Language Teachers. Larchmont, NY: Eye
on Education.
Bozorgmehr, M. 1998. “From Iranian Studies to Studies of Iranians in the United States.” Iranian Stud-
ies, 31(1): 5–30.
Brown, H.D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, 2nd ed.
New York, NY: Longman.
Brumfit, C.J., and K. Johnson. 1978. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Fairlawn, NJ:
Oxford University Press.
Bruner, J. 1990. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. 2001. “Introduction.” In Researching Pedagogical Tasks: Second
Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, 1–20. Harlow: Longman.
Carreira, M. 2016. “Macrobased Teaching and Mixed Heritage Language Classrooms.” In Innovative
Strategies for Heritage Language Teaching, edited by M. Fairclough and S. Beaudrie. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.

344
 Approaches to Persian language teaching

Christison, M.A., and S. Bassano. 1987. Purple Cows & Potato Chips: Multi-Sensory Language Acquisi-
tion Activities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Alemany Press and Prentice-Hall.
Dārābi, S. 1998. Fārsi-ye Sāde [Easy Persian]. Lāhijān: Nashr-e Niknegār.
Dhongde, R.V. 1990. “Communicative Language Teaching: Socio-Linguistic Perspective.” Bulletin of
the Deccan College Research Institute, 50: 229–234.
Edwards, C., and J. Willis. 2004. Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Edwards, C., and J. Willis. 2005. Teachers Exploring Tasks in English Language Teaching. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Eskey, D.E. 1983. “Meanwhile, Back in the Real World . . .: Accuracy and Fluency in Second Language
Teaching.” Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL), 17(2): 315–323.
Farokhfal, R. 2013. Persian: Here and Now; Introduction to Persian. ‫فارسی اینجا و اکنون‬. Washington, DC:
Mage Publishers.
Hamedani, L. 2015. “Persian Heritage Language Learners.” In NCOLCTL Conference: The Languages
of America in the 21st Century. Washington, DC.
Heift, T., and C.A. Chapelle. 2012. “Language Learning Through Technology.” In The Routledge Hand-
book of Second Language Acquisition, edited by Susan M. Gass and Alison Mackey, 555–569. New
York: Routledge.
Henshaw, F. 2016. “Technology-Enhanced Heritage Language Instruction.” In Innovative Strategies for
Heritage Language Teaching, edited by Marta Fairclough and Sara M. Beaudrie, 237–254. Washing-
ton, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Hüllen, W. 1980. “Foreign Language Teaching Invitations and Negative Questions: On Some Problems
in the Communicative Approach to Foreign Language Teaching.” Studies in Second Language Acqui-
sition, 3(1): 17–25.
Ibrahim, Z., and J. Allam. 2014. “Arabic Learners and Heritage Students Redefined: Present and Future.”
In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by W. Kassem,
Z.A. Taha, and L. England, 437–446. London: Routledge.
Kagan, O.E., and K. Dillon. 2012. “Heritage Languages and L2 Learning.” In The Routledge Handbook
of Second Language Aquisition, edited by S. Gass and A. Mackey, 491–505. New York: Routledge.
Kagan, O.E., M.M. Carreira, and C. Hitchins Chik. 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Heritage Lan-
guage Education: From Innovation to Program Building. New York: Routledge.
Kit-Fong Au, T., L.M. Knightly, S-A Jun, and J.S. Oh. 2002. “Overhearing a Language During Child-
hood.” Psychological Science, 13(3): 238–243.
Lee, J.F. 2000. Tasks and Communicating in Language Classrooms. New York: McGraw Hill.
Lee, W.R. 1979. Language Teaching Games and Contests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Loewen, D. 2008. “Overcoming Aural Proficiency: Pitfalls for Heritage Learners in Russian Cyber-
space.” Heritage Language Journal, 6(1): 23–39.
Mar’ashi, M. 2014. Proficiency in Persian, Book One, Rev. ed.
Mar’ashi, M. 2017. Language Games in Persian, edited by R. Hijab. San Mateo, CA: Persian Language
Resources.
Minuchehr, P., and N. Mills. 2011. “Standards-Based Goals for Beginning Persian.” Report for STAR-
TALK and the Middle East Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
Munby, J. 1978. Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nobahār, M. 1993. Dastur-e Kārbordi-ye Zabān-e Fārsi [Functional Grammar of Persian Language].
Tehran: Rahnamā Publishers.
Nojoumian, P. 2017a. Persian Learner: Elementary Persian for College Students. Part Two. ‫فارسی آموز‬.
Irvine, CA: UCI Jordan Center for Persian Studies.
Nojoumian, P. 2017b. Persian Learner: Elementary Persian for College Students. ‫فارسی آموز‬. Irvine, CA:
UCI Jordan Center for Persian Studies.
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
O’Rourke, P., and Q. Zhou. 2016. “Heritage and Second Language Learners: Different Perspectives on
Language Learning.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–10.
Payne, S., and B. Ross. 2005. “Synchronous CMC, Working Memory, and L2 Oral Proficiency Develop-
ment.” Language Learning & Technology, 9(3): 34–54.
Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans. 2014. Iranian Americans: Immigration and Assimilation.
Washington, DC. Accessed May 29, 2019. https://paaia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/iranian-
americans-immigration-and-assimilation.pdf

345
 Latifeh Hagigi and Michelle Quay

Purnāmdāriyān, T. 1993. Dars-E Fārsi: For Foreign Persian Students. Tehran: Institute for Cultural
Studies and Research.
Richards, J.C. 2006. Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, J.C., and W.A. Renandya. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current
Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C., and T.S. Rodgers. 2001. “Communicative Language Teaching.” In Approaches and Meth-
ods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ryding, K.C. 2013. Teaching and Learning Arabic as a Foreign Language. Washington, DC: George-
town University Press.
Sādeghiān, J.B. 1998. Āmuzesh-e Zabān-e Fārsi Barā-ye Gheyr-e Fārsi-Zabānān [Persian for Non-
Native Speakers]. Tehran: Council for the Promotion of Persian Language and Literature.
Sadow, S.A. 1982. Idea Bank: Creative Activities for the Language Class. Cambridge, MA: Newbury
House Publishers.
Samareh, Y. 1988. Āmuzesh-e Zabān-e Fārsi [Learning the Persian Language]. Tehran: Office of Inter-
national Relations, Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance.
Savignon, S.J. 2017. “Communicative Competence.” In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language
Teaching. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sedighi, A. 2015. Persian in Use: An Elementary Textbook of Language and Culture. Leiden: Leiden
University Press.
Sedighi, A. 2018. “Persian as a Heritage Language.” In The Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shabani-Jadidi, P., and D.P. Brookshaw. 2010. The Routledge Introductory Persian Course: Farsi Shirin
Ast. London and New York: Routledge.
Shabani-Jadidi, P., and A. Sedighi. 2018. “Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages.” In The
Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics, edited by A. Sedighi and P. Shabani-Jadidi, 388–408.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shahsavari, A., and B. Atwood. 2015. Persian of Iran Today: An Introductory Course. ‫فارسی ایران امروز‬.
Austin, TX: Center for Middle Eastern Studies and The University of Texas at Austin.
Shemāsi and Sharifzāde. 1995. Ketāb-Shenāsi-ye Ketāb-Hā-ye Āmuzesh-e Zabān-e Fārsi [Bibliogra-
phy of Persian Language Textbooks]. Tehran: Council for the Promotion of Persian Language and
Literature.
Sohn, S. 2007. “True Beginners, False Beginners, and Fake Beginners: Placement Strategies for Korean
Heritage Speakers.” Foreign Language Annals, 40(3): 407–418.
Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zulfaqāri, H. 2004. “Ketāb-Shenāsi-ye Ketāb-hā-ye Āmuzesh-e Zabān-e Fārsi Be Gheyr-e Fārsi-Zabānān
[Bibliography of Persian Language Textbooks for Non-Natives].” Sokhan-e ’Eshq (23).

346
 17
THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE
EDUCATOR’S ROLE IN
DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE
BLENDED LANGUAGE
LEARNING DARIA MIZZA AND MOHAMAD ESMAILI-SARDARIEFFECTIVE BLENDED LANGUAGE LEARNING

From principles to practice

Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

17.1 Introduction
Blended learning (BL), also called hybrid learning,1 has been defined in different ways,
from the broad combination of any different teaching or communication modalities in
education (Carman 2002; Maisie 2006; Ross and Cage 2006; Rossett, Douglis, and Frazee
2003; Singh and Reed 2001; Verkroost et al. 2008; Zemke 2002) to the more specific com-
bination of face-to-face (f2f) with Internet-based distance instruction and communication
(Osguthorpe and Graham 2003, 227), e-learning (Akkoyunlu and Soylu 2008; Koohang
2009), or online learning (Falconer and Littlejohn 2007).2 This study has its foundation
in this most specific definition of BL, which recognizes the value of both the f2f teaching
and the appropriate use of technologies in a networked environment (Moran and Myringer
1999, 60).
In tandem with some researchers in the field (Bliuc, Goodyear, and Ellis 2007; Tick 2006),
we move beyond the notion of simple presence of f2f interaction and technology, in order to
illustrate how simple combination of dissimilar environments does not guarantee the effec-
tiveness of blended courses (Johnson and Marsh 2014, So and Bonk 2010). Only a thoughtful
combination of f2f and online environments, with online learning designed as a natural exten-
sion of traditional classroom learning (Collis and Moneen 2002), enables higher quality learn-
ing (e.g., Furstenberg and Levet 2010; Garrison and Vaughan 2008, 105–141; Southgate and
Murphy 2011). Throughout the chapter, we will refer to the process leading to such thoughtful
combination as the blending process.
Language educators play a leading role in this process (Johnson 2014, as cited by John-
son and Marsh 2014). When planning instruction and assessment, they decide how to engage
diverse groups of learners in activities and tasks3 in both components, in order to maximize desir-
able outcomes. With this aim in mind, language educators must commit time and effort to plan

347
 Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

the blending process so that online and f2f activities closely integrate and coordinate to create
a seamless whole (Mizza and Rubio forthcoming 2020), in which each component generates
pedagogical benefits. Maintaining such a close degree of integration and coordination between
the online and f2f activities for the two parallel halves of the course to form a seamless whole,
however, constitutes a complex and challenging process for many teachers.
In this chapter, we intend to follow the pathways of current research to simplify such a pro-
cess, and suggest the main aspects that language educators should consider when embarking in
a planning process to obtain an effective blended sequence4 (see Section 17.2).
At the heart of the chapter, we propose a comprehensive example with a blended sequence
in a course for learning Persian as foreign language at the Advanced5 level offered at the Johns
Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (USA) (see Section 17.3). The
course is based on content-based instruction (CBI) and is part of an overall innovation project
for redesigning f 2f language courses into blended courses, piloted in 2015 and fully imple-
mented the following year.
As readers will see, this example envisages a thoughtful combination of f2f and online
environments, with a seamless connection between what students do online and activities in
the physical classroom to facilitate both content and language learning. Drawing on second
language acquisition (SLA) principles, the example aims to help Persian language educators
identify appropriate blended language learning (BLL) opportunities in their own context and
recognize the important role that the teacher plays in combining f 2f and online components6
closely, so that they integrate and coordinate. It is important to keep in mind, however, that
each instructional context necessarily requires adaptation and variation, because of its own
constraints and opportunities.

17.2 The blending process: crucial steps based on SLA principles

Scholars such as So and Bonk (2010) and Johnson and Marsh (2014) urge close integration
between the f2f and online environments. Several examples of course design reflecting such
integration take maximum advantage of the offline/f2f time in the physical classroom for
interaction and communication. The online avenues empower teachers to build a stronger
learning experience, as technology opens up for accessing and engaging with content, pro-
ducing output, and providing and reacting to feedback. For further discussion on the use of
technology and online material in second language (L2) learning, read Chapter 18 in this
volume.
In her work on the integration of the f2f and online environments in language learning
contexts, Neumeier (2005, 171) stresses that teachers and course designers may opt for a
low level of integration in which students self-select the activities and tasks. In the online
component, for example, the pace of learning may be based upon the abilities and some-
times also interest of each learner. Learners should be offered a wide variety of choice:
the availability of help mechanisms, multiple feedback options, all available if the users
actively select them.7
Teachers and course designers may also choose a high level of integration where the
expectation is that learners will tackle most, if not all, of the learning tasks and activities
provided. A number of considerations, including normative beliefs about student choice and
the nature of the course learning outcomes, may shape the decisions towards a higher level
of integration. For example, when learning outcomes require significant contact hours in
one mode of instruction, compared to the other, integration might be higher. In the online

348
 Effective blended language learning

components, teachers can integrate more sophisticated mechanisms for requiring comple-
tion of online tasks that are counted for assessment (e.g., feedback tools and plagiarism
checkers).
In addition to integrating two different components, educators must ensure that both
work in perfect harmony. This is accomplished by maintaining a close degree of continuity,
or flow, between the online and in-person experiences, which ensures that content and tasks
proposed f2f expand online and work completed online continues in class. A typical way to
create this flow is to design online tasks to prepare the learner for the f2f portion of the les-
son and then use some in-class tasks to lay the groundwork for what students will do online.
The role of the f2f component is twofold: when preceding the online sessions, f2f prepares
students for online work, and when following it, f2f requires students to reflect on it. During
virtual exchanges in online message boards, for example, students can meet f2f twice: a first
meeting prior to the virtual exchanges, in order to get familiar with the topic and its main
vocabulary, and a second meeting following the virtual exchanges, in order to reflect and
analyze what was said and how it was said. This last f2f stage constitutes the focus on form
and forms8 and contributes to the development of greater accuracy during communication,
as students are made aware of structures as a part of their language practice. Thus, the two
stages of the f2f component are complementary to the online component.
The result of this purposefully designed integration and coordination can take on differ-
ent blended forms, from mostly f2f, to mostly online, to a perfect 50–50 split. All forms
recognize, however, the critical role of the teacher in designing or redesigning learning
experiences, based on crucial elements – input, communication, and collaboration – in the
SLA process. Such role requires an active involvement in the development of technology-
integrated activities and tasks that afford learning autonomy,9 engagement, and collaboration.

17.2.1 Organizing input in the f2f and online modes

The input is a crucial element in the process of SLA (Gass 1997). For decades, scholars
in the field of language education have cited the central role of “comprehensible input”
(Krashen 1982 and 1985; among others) in the process of L2 acquisition, (“i + 1”). In addi-
tion, research emphasizes that, through the successful coordination with a partner, learners
may “reach beyond what they are able to achieve alone” (Gibbons 2002, 8). Thus, the pres-
entation of input is socially mediated because it may require interaction and assistance of
a “more capable peer” (Vygotsky 1978, 86). Chapter 16 in this volume points out the same
idea, stating that in mixed classes of heritage learners and L2 learners of Persian, placing
them together in pairs will benefit the L2 learners as they will be exposed to the language
and its use though their heritage peers.
According to the descriptors for input loading – back-loading
­ and front-loading
­ – (Cavage
2014; Mizza and Rubio forthcoming 2020), within a blended sequence, input is either pre-
sented during a f2f session or explored outside of the classroom. This constitutes a teacher’s
choice based on the learners’ language proficiency and language awareness (Thanasoulas
2000) as well as the learners’ ability to use cognitive and metacognitive strategies to assume
greater control over their own learning (Holmes and Ramos 1991).
In an input back-loading blended sequence (see Figure 17.1), the input is presented during
an initial f2f meeting, with the activities related to input processing. The initial f2f meeting is
followed by an online session. This organization is appropriate, for example, when teachers
consider that learners may strive to process input presented in the online component. In this

349
 Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

case, learners carry the risk to bypass structural information otherwise essential for continued
language development. To avoid such risk, a teacher-led f2f scaffolding plan, for example
to activate background knowledge, helps students get familiar with input enabling them to
process it.
The ensuing online component creates possibilities for enhanced student-teacher and
student-student interaction and collaboration outside of the classroom. Here, teachers can use
web-based resources and technology tools (Bell and Davis 1996; Jackson, Krajcik, and Solo-
way 1998) to design remote collaborative activities, such as virtual discussion and group story
building. Read Chapter 18 in this volume for a discussion on using technology in material
development for Persian language courses.
In an input front-loading blended sequence (see Figure 17.2), input is presented together
with necessary related activities during an initial online session. The initial online session
is followed by an f2f meeting. When presented online, learners may find the input particu-
larly challenging, because they must simultaneously tackle new input material that is slightly
beyond their knowledge and handle the complexity of working in an online environment.
In this case, initial teacher guidance and monitoring are vital to support student access to input.
Teachers can use an online scaffolding plan to guide learners to input comprehension. Such
a plan may include individual activities activating background knowledge and introducing
learners to the topic of the input, and/or more complex preliminary tasks to complete online
with the assistance of teachers and peers.
Thus, as in the case of the input back-loading blending sequence, interaction and
collaboration with teachers and students are no longer restricted to the following f2f
exchanges between individuals in the physical classroom but may also take place in the
online session.

Online
TEACHER-LED SCAFFOLDING PLAN:

• Background knowledge activation TECHNOLOGY-BASED

• Input familiarization FOLLOW-UP:
• Input processing
• Interactive & collaborative
activities

f2f

Figure 17.1 Visual representation of the components of the input back-loading blended sequence.

350
 Effective blended language learning

f2f
ONLINE SCAFFOLDING PLAN:

Background knowledge activation

Input familiarization TEACHER-LED FOLLOW-UP:
Input processing
Interactive & collaborative
activities

Online

Figure 17.2 Visual representation of the components of the input front-loading blended sequence.

17.2.2 Layering activities and tasks

Effective blended sequences often include a balance of individual, collaborative, and
cooperative-based activities and tasks,10 often delivered and enhanced with tools that allow for
unlimited individual as well as in-pairs, small-group, and whole-group activities, projects, and
assignments (Johnson 2014). For the sake of efficiency, the chapter will refer to the latter types
as collaborative activities and tasks.
When considering activities and tasks for language learning, teachers face the additional
requirement for those that are, in addition to intrinsically interesting, cognitively engaging and
appropriately scaffolded, as well as proficiency-oriented and communicatively based.
Based on the level of the students, their learning preferences, and task difficulty, teachers
can start by determining the amount and the type of guidance (in the form of teacher and peer
scaffolding) students may need to accomplish set learning outcomes.11
As a further element to guide activities and task layering, teachers should reference lan-
guage learning principles and guidelines. Activities and tasks can be designed according to the
principles of task-based language teaching (TBLT), a methodology associated with the com-
municative approach, which employs tasks as its main pedagogical tools to structure language
teaching. The tasks included in the blended sequence of the example following are based on
TBLT, thus mainly based on learning principles related to the importance of moving from
pedagogical tasks, accomplished for the purposes of classroom learning, to authentic or real-
life tasks, involving the use of language in the real world. For further discussion on TBLT, read
Chapters 16 and 18 in this volume.
At the core of the task creation there may also be CBI, in which each unit is fundamentally
theme-based and organized around cultural, geographic, historical, and political themes. Thus,
tasks are designed and organized within cohesive themes and through them learners are focused

351
 Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

on learning about specific topics by using the target language (TL), rather than their native lan-
guage, as a tool for developing knowledge, thereby developing their linguistic ability.

17.2.3 Creating a favorable environment to

communicate and collaborate
Many BLL courses follow a model that restricts the online component exclusively to mechani-
cal, non-communicative individual activities, mainly vocabulary- and grammar-related, while
f2f time is mostly dedicated to communicative practice. At the base of such organization there
are pedagogical reasons, linked to the importance of using online sessions to freeing up use-
ful in-person class time for communicative activities and the value of engaging with content
online to develop autonomous learning skills (Mizza 2019).
BLL can potentially facilitate autonomous learning, a learner capacity recognized and
addressed in language courses in higher education. In courses following the model described
previously, the use of a Learning Management System (LMS) can encourage students to initi-
ate their own learning processes relying on tools for self- or independent-study, without exclu-
sive overreliance on the teacher (Dang and Robertson 2010, as cited by Johnson and Marsh
2014). Individual input-based activities and pronunciation practice created with the integrated
authoring tools of an LMS (e.g., questionnaires, assignments, and quizzes) are all examples of
self- or independent-study activities that accompany written resources and video tutorials with
grammar explanations and cultural content also posted on the LMS. These activities can be
proposed in the online component of a blended sequence in preparation to the f2f component
that has a communicative and collaborative focus.
Because of the lack of essential academic or peer support, however, online self- or
independent-study activities could lead to student boredom or a strong sense of isolation
(Genc Ilter 2009). To overcome this challenge, practitioners have begun to consider that a
favorable environment to communicate, connect, and collaborate is not only established in the
f2f component but can also be created in the online component that students can access, rather
than on a self-study mode, on an autonomous mode.
Such autonomous access reflects the shift from “learning by the individual” to “learning as
part of a community” that a minimum of four to five active people are required to activate (Kil-
patrick, Jones, and Barrett 2003; Mizza and Rubio forthcoming 2020), especially in the case
of productive skills of speaking and writing that “need to be learned through the experience
of interacting with other people along with the guidance of a teacher” (Nakazawa 2009, 406).
Technologies supporting a blended instructional format, such as Web 2.012 offering writing
platforms with or without voice feature (e.g., wiki [www.pbworks.com 2019], Padlet [www.
padlet.com], VoiceThread [https://voicethread.com]), help pave the way for learner autonomy
(Wichadee 2010).
Scaffolds, supporting elements in the process of language learning, can also contribute to
develop learner autonomy. Teachers can then provide support by modeling desired perfor-
mance, offering explanations about concepts with illustrations, and inviting learners to partici-
pate in a task in which the instructor acts more like a guide and gradually withdraw guidance.
For a discussion on beliefs and strategies in L2 learners of Persian in the U.S., read Chapter 28
in this volume.
In sum, a thoughtful combination of f2f and online components may still propose
online written resources and video tutorials on grammar structures and cultural content, as
well as individual input-based activities. It does not, however, exclusively involve self- or
independent-study. Rather, the teacher and peers assist each other, by engaging in interactive

352
 Effective blended language learning

and collaborative activities, such as group brainstorming in which learners’ interests, experi-
ences, and goals are able to emerge clearly. Thus, interaction and collaboration with teacher
and other students are no longer restricted to the f2f exchanges between individuals, but they
expand to the online component, in which students can engage proactively and collaboratively
with course content.
With this purpose in mind, educators can encourage students to engage with and use the
TL in creative and meaningful ways, in both f2f and online components (Mizza 2019). This
can be accomplished through the creation of engaged communication in both components of
the course, based on interpretive, interpersonal, and presentational modes of communication
(ACTFL 2012). Online opportunities for students to practice interpretive (involving interpre-
tation of a text), interpersonal (involving information exchange), and presentational mode of
communication (based on presentation of information), just as in the physical classroom, can
be provided through measured use of technology-enhanced activities.
By taking on a more autonomous role in the online component, students can benefit from
its specific opportunities. This is accomplished by engaging proactively with online course
content and by communicating and collaborating with other learners. For example, students
can support each other in their acquisition of new information by inferencing and organizing
authentic material posted online (interpretive mode). By opening up possibilities for more
student-teacher and student-student interaction outside of the classroom, for example in an
online discussion board, wiki, or Padlet, the teacher can then foster spoken language produc-
tion (Richards 2010; Senior 2010) during f2f class time (interpersonal mode), so that com-
munication is maximized.

17.3 The blended sequence: applications in a BLL course

Described below is the blended sequence titled “What We Know About Iran Contemporary
History” opening a Persian course at Advanced ACTFL level. This blended sequence is mostly
f2f – with 80% of f2f instruction, equivalent to four weekly hours, and 20% online, equivalent
to one weekly hour. In this blended sequence, activities, tasks, assignments, and assessments,
as appropriate for a given mode and in a manner useful to the learner, pedagogically support
learning outcomes. Thus, students are engaged in effective activities and tasks aligned with
the learning outcomes.
In this process, the teacher plays a crucial role. In the following section, we will reflect on
such role that sees the teacher responsible for organizing input (see Section 17.3.1), layering
tasks (see Section 17.3.2); and creating favorable conditions for communication and collabo-
ration (see Section 17.3.3). All of these elements contribute to leveraging the best of online
and f2f instruction in the blended sequence.

17.3.1 Organizing input

As we have seen in Section 17.1.1, the organization of input within a blended sequence may vary
from one course to another, or within the same course from one unit to another. The organization
of the blended sequence opening the Advanced Persian course described here combines asyn-
chronous online learning with f2f classroom-based teacher-led instruction. The course also elects
an initial f2f meeting, followed by an online session, to conclude with an f2f one.
Characterized by input back-loading (see Figure 17.1), the blended sequence designed
for this opening unit is different from the following sequences in the course. A back-
loading organization is the ideal solution for two main reasons. First, from a logistical

353
 Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

point of view, the teacher must provide the course outline and specific orientation. This
ensures students gain an understanding of the overall structure and requirements of the
blended course. The online component of the blended sequence may be new for some
students, who may address immediate concerns and request clarification to alleviate neg-
ative feelings associated with it. From a pedagogical point of view, this first sequence
aims to establish a connection between learners. The fact that learners and the instructor
meet together in the same physical space during the first kickoff session creates a com-
munity of learners, engaging course participants both online and offline throughout the
whole course.
Thus, the organization of this first sequence with input back-loading is advantageous both
for students and the teacher. Students find an environment emotionally supportive, as it offers
an immediate social environment allowing immediate feedback, and the teacher is able to use
context clues, such as facial expressions and body language, to ascertain the level of student
understanding and engagement.

17.3.2 Layering activities and tasks

The blended sequence opening the Advanced Persian course is based on Willis’ task-based
model (1996). According to this model, the sequence presents a series of tasks related to
one another, but with different purposes and characteristics: the pre-task cycle, a task cycle,
and a language focus. As illustrated in Figure 17.3, the blended sequence includes a pre-
task and a post-task cycle taking place f2f, and a task cycle taking place online. Within the
blended sequence, each one of the cycles prepares learners for the next.
Both the f2f and online components of the blended sequence offer students opportunities to
actively participate and engage in communication, as well as collaborate together in the TL in
order to complete the main task.
The main task engages learners’ interest, as the topic of the revolution in Iran’s contempo-
rary history, interrelated with key political aspects, is particularly relevant to graduate students
in international relations. With a primary focus on meaning rather than forms, the task exposes
learners to real-life situations where they use language for meaning, rather than exposing stu-
dents solely to language features.

Cycle 2: Online
• Pre-task • Post-task
• Task
(Task - Planning
- Report)
Cycle 1: f2f Cycle 3: f2f

Figure 17.3 The three cycle-blended sequence: “What do we know about Iran’s contemporary history?”

354
 Effective blended language learning

The focus on language and focus on form13 come at the end of the learning cycle, when
learners are aware of linguistic forms that they are already able to use communicatively.

17.3.3 Creation of a favorable environment to communicate and

collaborate
In the following sections, we provide the description of each component of the blended sequence
of the Advanced Persian course and we reflect on how each part generates a favorable environ-
ment to communicate and collaborate. We also provide recommendations for practitioners who
wish to propose a similar blended sequence in their teaching context and are ready to engage in
the assessment and improvement of their own practice (see “Recommended Procedure” Section).

A) F2f component: pre-task cycle

Since this constitutes the opening sequence of the course, the teacher may take advantage of
the f2f environment to clarify aspects of the course, inform students on the structure of all
blended sequences, set expectations of their components, and demonstrate the outline of this
first sequence.
During the f2f pre-task cycle, the teacher may also introduce the topic of this sequence and
give the students clear instructions on the ensuing task cycle. To this end, she can help the
students recall key structures and vocabulary by highlighting useful words and phrases for the
main task. In this example, the teacher proposes some icebreaker activities in which learners
are encouraged to use group-work to share their personal goals for taking the course and/or
saying something about themselves as learners.
As readers can see in Table 17.1, the activities may be proposed in the f2f pre-task cycle
to prepare students for the main input, presented at the end of the cycle: group survey, brain-
storming, class discussion, vanishing words, and drag and drop. Activities are categorized by
type (individual, in pairs, small groups, and whole group). Language structures involved are
listed in the last column of the table.

Table 17.1 The f2f pre-task cycle preparing students for the main input

Component Cycle Activities Type Structures

f2f Pre-task I) Survey Small groups - Ws type of questions

II) Introducing Individual - Comparatives and superlatives, past
Lexical Keys tense, passive construction
III) Discussion Whole group - Vocabulary: ‫( دلیل‬reason),‫واقعه‬
IV) Vanishing Words In pairs (event), ‫( عطف‬pivotal), ‫تاریخ‬
V) Drag & Drop Individual (history)
VI) Main Input Individual

Table 17.2 Survey form for survey activity in small groups

.‫از همکالسی هایتان سواالت زیر را بکنید وجواب های آن را در هرستون بنویسید‬
(Instructions: Ask your classmates the questions below and note each answer in the space provided.)

‫ چند واقعه مهم یا یک نقطه عطف مهم در‬.۳ ‫ چرا این کالس را برداشتید؟‬.۲ ‫ اسم شما چیست؟‬.۱
‫تاریخ معاصر ایران را نام ببرید‬.

355
 Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

Figure 17.4 Activating background knowledge with the help of key pictures related to the topic.
Source: Component images from Wikimedia and Getty Images

I) SURVEY (SMALL GROUPS)

The survey is an activity proposed at the very beginning of the course when students
learn the other learners’ names (and an approximation of the pronunciation). To this
end, students stand up and circulate around the classroom to fill-in the survey form
(see Table 17.2). Students ask one another the general questions: “What’s your name?”
(‫ )اسم شما چیست؟‬and “Why are you taking this course?” (‫ )چرا این کالس را برداشتید؟‬to break
down barriers to conversation.
A further, important question of the survey is content-based: “Based on your knowledge,
name one or more events that you think represent a pivotal moment in Iran’s contemporary
history.” (.‫ )چند واقعه مهم یا یک نقطه عطف مهم در تاریخ معاصر ایران را نام ببرید‬Through this question,
the teacher intends to prepare students for the information that will be presented later in the
sequence.
The third question of the survey (۳), facilitated by the provision of key pictures related to
the event of revolution (see Figure 17.4) allows learners to activate background knowledge
collectively and enables the teacher to elicit students’ knowledge about the topic. The answer
to this question may involve hypothesis generation, which will be tested in the ensuing activi-
ties (II and III).

Recommended procedure
Showing the survey form on the board to the whole class provides opportunity for reviewing
known structures and vocabulary14 and exploring unknown ones.15 The instructor can check the
understanding of the survey activity by providing an example of question and answer, using the

356
 Effective blended language learning

newly explored key structures and vocabulary. Finally, the instructor provides each student with
the survey form (see Table 17.2) and explains that the activity requires collaboration. Students
ask one another questions and write down respective answers. The teacher should circulate to
monitor the process, listen to possible questions, and be ready to provide scaffolding to learners
seeking help.

II) INTRODUCING LEXICAL KEYS (INDIVIDUAL)

The verbal experience students had with the previous survey is balanced with the visual activ-
ity of a short video (Ashrafi 2015). This aims at raising readers’ interest towards the main
moments in Iran’s contemporary history and stimulating learners’ curiosity for testing the
ideas from the previous survey. By presenting a list of important moments in Iran’s contem-
porary history in the form of descriptive pictures and textual information, the one-minute long
video also introduces the keywords of the sequence.

Recommended procedure
After a first vision of the video in its entirety, the teacher pauses the video after each
event listed and prompts the students to come up with the key word for each event (e.g.,
‫ جنگ‬،‫ مرگ‬،‫ کودتا‬. . . [coup d’état, death, war . . .]).

III) TEACHER-LED DISCUSSION (WHOLE CLASS)

Based on the information collected with the survey, as well as the information provided in
the video, the teacher-led whole class discussion aims at guiding students towards compar-
ing information and checking their initial hypothesis under guidance. The discussion can be
guided by a mix of questions, starting from easily answered questions, becoming more slightly
challenging as the discussion develops. For example, initially students may be asked to rank
the events from the survey and the video in terms of importance in Iran’s contemporary his-
tory. The class discussion may continue with any question beginning with “How would you
explain the importance you gave to this event?” (‫)اهمیت این حادثه چیست؟‬, “Do you think that
event A is more important than event B?” (‫)آیا شما فکر می کنید این واقعه از واقعه ی دیگر مهم تر است؟‬.
To facilitate and structure the answer, students can be required to cite at least two aspects
related to the importance of the event A.
(‫)آیا بازگشت آیت هللا خمینی به ایران از گروگان گیری سفارت آمریکا مهم تر بود؟‬
These questions should lead to an animated discussion on the pivotal events in Iran’s con-
temporary history. Later in the cycle, a longer video segment is proposed as main input of the
sequence, in which students will definitively find the answers to all of these questions (see Activ-
ity VI in this cycle).
It is crucial to propose this discussion f2f rather than online, so the teacher can estab-
lish a sense of leadership and creates f2f classroom discussion etiquette for actively listening
to peers’ ideas, respecting turns and waiting for an appropriate moment in the discussion to
speak, asking for clarification when confused, etc.16 With an established etiquette in the f2f
component, students will get ready to respect the netiquette: a short from net – Internet – and
etiquette, or a code of good behavior in the online component, with specific guidelines. In

357
 Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

sum, students start experiencing a sense of community in the f2f component that can be taken
further in the online one.

Recommended procedure
The discussion requires students to interact with the teacher and their peers, taking turns by
raising their hands to endorse and/or oppose the information of classmates. The instructor
can facilitate the discussion from the perspective of an expert in the subject and also acts as a
moderator who seeks contributions from as many students as possible. Before the discussion
begins, for example, the instructor may show an outline or list of guiding questions on the
board. During the discussion, the instructor should respond to student contributions in ways
that move the discussion forward and keep it focused on the topic at hand. At the end of the
discussion, or at appropriate points in the session, she can then summarize the major ideas
and write them on the board. This way, students can reinforce the most important points and
understand their significance.
By following this procedure in the f2f class with the help of verbal (e.g., calling on all
students to answer) and nonverbal cues (e.g., eye contact and moving around) to encourage
participation, the teacher is able to enact ground rules for interaction that will also apply to any
ensuing online communication. Such rules constitute an initial set of guidelines that can help
clarify expectations and foster an environment of mutual respect and collaborative inquiry,
first f2f and then online.

IV) VANISHING WORDS (IN PAIRS)

The vanishing words activity aims at reviewing and familiarizing learners with the main
vocabulary of the unit (pivotal [‫)]عطف‬, events and ideas, as well as structures (e.g., passive
voice) to accomplish the main task.
The activity removes or requires the collocation of only certain types of words, also
grammar-related. It is intended to be conducted in pairs but can also be a flexible activity,
since it allows the instructor to adjust the difficulty to make it appropriate for the sub-level of
the pair. Competent learners, for example, may be able to remember the sentence construc-
tion from the example given by the instructor, based on their awareness of the structure of the
language or on their ability to conceptualize the sentence as a string of phrases. These learners
can be encouraged to organize phrases in more productive ways.

Recommended procedure
On any key word that the students encountered in the short video, such as “revolution”
(‫)انقالب‬, the instructor can remove or require collocations, as in the examples provided in
the following:

Example 1. Given the sentence: “Both events are very important, but the Islamic Revolution is
more important than the White Revolution” may well be recalled as “Both revolutions/are/
very important,/but the Islamic Revolution/is much more important than/the White Revolu-
tion.” When called to repeat the sentence, learners will have to re-organize it as a string of
phrases.
Example 2. Given the sentence: “Both events are very important, but the Islamic
Revolution . . .”, competent learners have the ability to predict the completion of

358
 Effective blended language learning

‫ﻗﺑل از اﻧﻘﻼب‬
‫ﮐﯽ اﺗﻔﺎق اﻓﺗﺎد؟‬
‫ﺑﻌد از اﻧﻘﻼب‬

.‫ﯾﮑﯽ از ﺑزرﮔﺗرﯾن ﻣوﻓﻘﯾت ھﺎی اﻧﻘﻼب اﺳﺗﻘﻼل ﺑود‬ .‫ﻧﻔوذ ﻏرب در اﯾران ﻣﺣو ﺷد‬

.(‫ﮔروﮔﺎﻧﮕﯾری روی داد )اﺗﻔﺎق اﻓﺗﺎد‬ .‫ﺑرﻧﺎﻣﮫ ھﺳﺗﮫ ای اﯾران ﺑﯾن اﻟﻣﻠل ﻣﺣﮑوم ﺷده اﺳت‬

.‫ﺷﺎه دﺳت ﻧﺷﺎﻧده ﻏرب ﺑود‬ .‫آزادی زﯾﺎدﺗر ﺑود‬ .(‫ﺧﻣﯾﻧﯽ ﺑﮫ اﯾران ﺑرﮔﺷت )آﻣد‬

.‫ﺣﮑوﻣت اﯾران ﺗرورﯾﺳم و ﺣزب ﷲ را ﺣﻣﺎﯾت ﻣﯽ ﮐﻧد‬ .‫ﺣﮑوﻣت ﺷﺎه ﻧﺎﻣﺣﺑوب ﺷده ﺑود‬

Figure 17.5 Drag and drop activity.

the sentence with a completion similar to “. . . is more important than the White
Revolution.”

.‫ ایران به عنوان یکی از مهمترین انقالب های سیاسی معاصر شناخته شده است‬۱۳۵۷ ‫انقالب‬
.‫انقالب اسالمی از انقالب سفید مهمتر در نظر گرفته شده است‬
.‫ ایران به عنوان نقطه عطفی در تاریخ معاصر ایران شناخته شده است‬۱۳۵۷ ‫انقالب‬
.‫تنش میان محمد رضا شاه پهلوی و مخالفانش بیشتر شد‬
.‫ آیت هللا خمینی از شاه محبوب تر بود‬،‫در زمان انقالب‬
The previously given sentence is a very useful frame that, once learned, provides a starting
point for the acquisition of other phrases that may include: a lot/a bit/older/than/etc.

V) DRAG AND DROP (INDIVIDUAL)

The individual drag and drop activity (see Figure 17.5) requires students to put the events
in chronological order by placing them into the appropriate column, using the Iranian
Revolution as a point of reference in time. By placing events before and after the Iranian
Revolution, learners are obliged to reflect on the function of the verb tense along with the
content of the rest of the sentence, giving an understanding of when the event happened.

VI) MAIN INPUT AND COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS

With the help of the whole teacher-led class discussion, learners have now activated the
necessary background in order to easily get the main gist from the longer video seg-
ment (VOA Persian 2015). This video constitutes the main input of the unit. After view-
ing the video in its entirety, students are required to answer two sets of comprehension
questions, which begin with more global aspects related to the basic idea and the key
words of the input (see Figure 17.6), and subsequently, go into smaller linguistic units
(see Figure 17.7).

359
 Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

‫ﺳﻮاﻻت‬

‫ ﭼرا اﻧﻘﻼب اﺳﻼﻣﯽ اﺗﻔﺎق اﻓﺗﺎد؟‬،‫ﺑﮫ ﻧظر ﺷﻣﺎ‬

‫ ﮐدام دﻟﯾل ﺗﺎﺛﯾر ﮔذارﺗرﯾن ﺑوده؟ و ﭼرا؟‬،‫ﺑﮫ ﻧظر ﺷﻣﺎ‬
‫ اﯾن ﯾﻌﻧﯽ ﭼﯽ؟‬.‫اﻧﻘﻼب اﺳﻼﻣﯽ ﯾﮏ ﺟﻧﺑش ﺳﯾﺎﺳﯽ ﺑود‬
‫ ﭼرا داﻧﺷﺟوﯾﺎن ﺳﻔﺎرت آﻣرﯾﮑﺎ را ﮔرﻓﺗﻧد؟‬،‫ﺑﮫ ﻧظر ﺷﻣﺎ‬
‫ در اﯾران آزادی وﺟود دارد؟‬،‫ﺑﮫ ﻧظر ﺷﻣﺎ‬
Figure 17.6 General questions related to the basic idea and the key words of the input.
[– In your opinion, why did the Islamic Revolution occur?
– In your opinion, which was the most significant reason?
– The Islamic Revolution was a political movement; what does this mean?
– In your opinion, why did the students take over the American Embassy?
– In your opinion, does freedom exist in Iran?]

‫ﺳﻮاﻻت‬

.‫ﺳﮫ ﮔروه ﺳﯾﺎﺳﯽ ﻣﺧﺎﻟف ﺷﺎه را ﻧﺎم ﺑﺑرﯾد‬

‫دﻟﯾل اﺻﻠﯽ ﺷﮑﺎﯾت ﺟواﻧﺎن و داﻧﺷﺟوﯾﺎن ﭼﮫ ﺑود؟‬
‫اﻋﺗراﺿﺎت و ﺗظﺎھرات از ﮐﺟﺎ ﺷروع ﺷد؟‬
.‫دو روﯾداد ﻣﮭم ﺗﺎرﯾﺧﯽ را ﮐﮫ ﺑﻌد از اﻧﻘﻼب اﺗﻔﺎق اﻓﺗﺎد ﻧﺎم ﺑﺑرﯾد‬
‫ﭼرا ﺟﺎﻣﻌﮫ ﺑﯾن اﻟﻣﻠل اﯾران را ﻣﺣﮑوم ﮐرده اﺳت؟‬
‫ﺷﻌﺎر اﻧﻘﻼب اﺳﻼﻣﯽ ﭼﮫ ﺑود؟‬
Figure 17.7 Detailed comprehension questions on the video input.
[– Name three political factions or groups that compose Mohamad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s
political opponents.
– What was the chief complaint of Iranian youth/students?
– Where did the protests begin?
– Name two major events that took place in Iran after the Revolution began.
– Why has the international community condemned Iran?
– What was the motto of the Islamic revolutionaries?]

360
 Effective blended language learning

Recommended procedure
The input video segment should be played twice. The first time, it can be played without
sound, for students to get the main idea of the segment. A second time it can be played with
sound, only after the students have skimmed the list of more detailed comprehension questions
(see Figure 17.7). These will be assigned as written homework with the request to be sent back
to the instructor for correction and feedback.
In this process, and especially during the second viewing, the instructor should intervene to
make salient the key words related to specific pieces of information. The teacher can highlight
vocabulary from the vanishing words activity and stress important events classified from the
drag and drop individual activity.

B) Online component: task cycle

After an initial connection among learners has been established f2f, students are considered
prepared for the main communicative task proposed online. Using the language resources
attained so far, students feel free to experiment with language by collaborating in small groups.
Students with different characteristics may uniquely benefit from the new online environ-
ment to complete the task. Shy or anxious students, reluctant to participate in the f2f setting,
may prefer the online environment, which does not present the pressure of limited time or
public speaking. Reflective students may prefer participating online, as task dynamics often
stop for periods of time and then are picked up and restarted, making students able to work
benefiting from ongoing reflection.
As readers can see in the activities described in the task cycle, an important element of the
design of the online component is student-to-student interactions. These interactions allow
learners to continue to experience a “sense of community” and enjoy mutual interdependence
while avoiding the feeling of isolation that often characterizes the online environment.
Table 17.3 describes the online task phase that includes a task, then a planning, and finally
a collaborative, student-led report.

I) TASK: RECAP AND ANSWER (SMALL GROUPS)

Students work in a pre-assigned group of three members, whom the teacher has previously
selected based on the similarities of answers given during the in-class discussion activity. The
groups are assigned to answer three questions on a wiki page. The questions are based on infor-
mation provided on the long video input (VOA Persian 2015). The teacher should require word-
limited explanation of relationships among the units and request that students explain general
concepts. This creates an opportunity to produce language in contextualized and purposeful ways.
In answering the questions, students should apply form (e.g., the question structure and the
specific vocabulary) and function (e.g., language used to clarify, explain, argue) to commu-
nicate and build ideas. These combined approaches increase knowledge on the topic through
redundancy of ideas and their related vocabulary.

Table 17.3 The online task cycle

Component Cycle Activities Type Tools

Online Task = Task + I) Recap & Answer Small groups Wiki
Planning + Report II) Ranking Graph Small groups Wiki
III) Report Small groups, whole class VoiceThread

361
 Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

Questions guiding this activity may include:

Compare and contrast based on an in-depth analysis: “Compare . . .” “Contrast . . .” “What
is the difference between . . .” “What is the similarity between . . .”

• What are the differences and similarities among the [various] groups who opposed the Shah?
‫تفاوت ها و شباهت های بین گروه های مختلفی که مخالف شاه بودند چه بود ؟‬
Cause and Effect: “What are the causes/results of . . .” “What connection is there between . . .”

• What were the results of the protest?

‫نتایج اعتراضها چه بود؟‬
Clarification: “What is meant by . . .” “Explain how . . .”
. . . ‫ یعنی چی؟ توضیح بدهید چطور‬. . .
• What is meant by the phrase “the Nation of Iran is proud”?
‫معنی ”ملت ایران مغرور است“ چیست؟‬

Recommended procedure
Each small group is assigned questions on a specific wiki page. Students in small groups
cooperate to perform activities structured for individually defined roles and responsibilities.
For example, student A can take the role of chairperson, student B can be in charge of writ-
ing down the main ideas, and student C can be responsible for double-checking the answers.

II) PLANNING: RANKING GRAPH (SMALL GROUPS)

In the pre-assigned group of three members, students fill in a ranking graph posted on the
group wiki page. On the group wiki, students are asked to rank the events based on the impor-
tance agreed within the group. The small-group task sees learners help each other to gather and
organize survey and video information into a simple graph.

Recommended procedure
On the wiki page of each group, the teacher can post the form containing the ranking graph
for students to complete.

III) REPORT: WRITTEN AND ORAL REPORT (SMALL GROUPS AND WHOLE CLASS)

On their group wiki page, each group writes a brief written report (a paragraph of about 150–
200 words) to justify the graph produced. In order to assure that students have accessed each
other’s group timeline and read the respective written report, the instructor can ask each group
to perform a peer assessment based on evaluation rubrics that she had previously sent by email.
Thus, each group shares the content of their written report with the rest of the classmates
on the class VoiceThread where one or all group members present it orally with a one/two-
minute speech.

C) f2f component: post-task review

Taking as a starting point the group-ranking graph, in class the instructor initially reviews
the main events in Iran’s contemporary history. Based on the written and oral report, she

362
 Effective blended language learning

Table 17.4 The f2f post-task cycle

Component/Mode Cycle Activities Type

f2f Post-task Review: Whole class
– Content
– Language Focus

then delves into language analysis (see Table 17.4). This can be accomplished through
consciousness-raising activities that bring learners’ attention to language aspects and patterns
emerged in the small group reports. Finally, the instructor should assign relevant homework,
engaging learners in language practice activities in both oral and written forms.
Example of activities that the teacher can use for language focus, either in class or as home-
work, are illustrated in Figures 17.8–17.10.

‫ﮐﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ در دو ﺳﺘﻮن را ﺑﮫ ھﻢ وﺻﻞ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‬

(‫ﺧوﻧﯾن )ﺳﯾﺎه‬ ‫ﻻﻧﮫ‬

‫ﺗﺣﻣﯾﻠﯽ‬ ‫ﺟﻧﮓ‬

‫ﻋطف‬ ‫ﻧﻘطﮫ‬

‫ﺟﺎﺳوﺳﯽ‬ ‫ﺟﻣﻌﮫ‬

Figure 17.8 Language focus activity (1).

‫ﮐﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ در دو ﺳﺘﻮن را ﺑﮫ ھﻢ وﺻﻞ ﮐﻨﯿﺪ‬

‫زدﮔﯽ‬ ‫روﺷن‬

‫ﺳﯾﺎﺳﯽ‬ ‫اﻧﻘﻼب‬

‫ﻓﮑر‬ ‫ھرج‬

‫ﻣرج‬ ‫ﻏرب‬

‫اﺳﻼﻣﯽ‬ ‫زﻧداﻧﯽ‬

Figure 17.9 Language focus activity (2).

363
 Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

‫ﻣﺘﺮادف‬
/ ‫ﺑرﺧوردار‬
‫ﺗﻐﯾﯾر دادن‬
‫دارا ﺑودن‬
‫دﮔرﮔون‬
‫داﺷﺗن‬
‫ﺳﺎﺧﺗن‬

‫ﻣﻧﻔور‬ ‫ﺣﮑوﻣت دﯾﻧﯽ‬

‫اﺧﯾر‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎﺻر‬

‫ﺣﮑوﻣت‬
‫ﻧﺎﻣﺣﺑوب‬
‫روﺣﺎﻧﯾون‬

Figure 17.10 Language focus activity (3).

As a logical follow-up to the content-based communicative main task completed throughout

the online component of this sequence, the next task could be an instructor-assigned reflec-
tive piece on students’ blogs. This would be a self-critique about the online task completion
in groups of three. Furthermore, the instructor can encourage learners to reflect on a hypo-
thetical individual version of the group task, explaining how students would have done things
differently.

17.4 Conclusion
The aim of this chapter is to reflect on the active role that language educators must play in
designing and implementing an effective BLL experience that meets learning outcomes, ulti-
mately creating favorable conditions for language acquisition. In order to maximize learning
potential, it is crucial that educators are cognizant of the interplay between SLA principles and
the technology tools that enhance language instruction. Drawing on such awareness before
delving into the delivery of content will enhance language instruction, both online and f2f.
Thus, teachers should devote the necessary time and effort to carefully plan the design or
redesign of the BLL experiences. The central goal of the design process is the integration and
coordination of different learning environments – defined as components throughout the chap-
ter – into a seamless whole. To gain the greatest pedagogical benefits, educators must design
each component with a seamless transition. With this goal in mind, this chapter has followed
current research to simplify the principle steps that teachers must take when embarking in the
blending process to obtain an effective blended sequence.
In the first section of the chapter (see Section 17.2), we have identified the organization of
input, the layering of tasks, and the creation of favorable environments as crucial steps in the
blending process. Teachers should organize content and layer activities and tasks for students
to generate communicative, autonomous, and collaborative experiences, both in the online and
f2f components.
In the second section of the chapter (see Section 17.3), we have described an example
of the specific implementation of the blending process: a blended sequence opening an
Advanced Persian course. With the help of this example, we have illustrated the teacher’s

364
 Effective blended language learning

active involvement in developing and layering technology-integrated activities and tasks that
afford learning autonomy, engagement, and collaboration.
In this input back-loaded blended sequence, the input is presented in the f2f component
and preceded by a scaffolding plan involving background knowledge activation and input
familiarization (see Section 17.3.3, A, Activities I–VI). As a result, the online component
proposes technology-integrated interactive and collaborative activities (see Section 17.3.3,
B, Activities I–III).
The Web 2.0 tools available within the LMS (e.g., wikis, voice tools, and video interfaces)
are key resources for collaboration and interaction among students. These tools are designed to
be supported by interactions and guidance of the teacher albeit without overreliance.
Within the blended sequence, the teacher role is twofold. In the f2f classroom, her main role
is to accompany students through tasks that are within reach, allowing students to build con-
fidence and self-reliance. Students gradually become more autonomous and thus prepared to
perform the ensuing online activities and tasks (see Section 17.3.3, A, and Section 17.3.3, C).
Since the online task cycle aims at furthering learner autonomy, in the online component the
teacher can assume the role of remote mediator (see Section 17.3.3, B). In this new role, she
monitors student progress and provides encouragement. For example, a teacher may ensure
that all students are on task and remind them of the time needed for each activity, after they
have strayed from the assignment at hand.
In sum, the success of a BLL experience does not only rely on discerning the appropri-
ate resources and tools. Simply putting content for students to access on an LMS suggests
an insufficient blended course design, as the blended environment calls for teachers plan-
ning of instruction in advance. Thus, what makes BLL an effective solution is the language
educators’ proactive role to leverage resources and tools to streamline the language learning
process?
In this chapter, we have focused on the planning and implementation phases of such pro-
cess, but the implications of an educator’s proactive role should extend to the delivery and
evaluation phases as well. During the instructional delivery phase, for example, teachers
should focus on providing the adequate guidance. Based on the complexity of the given learn-
ing environment, guidance may be proffered through the application of ad hoc instructional
strategies to deliver and assess content.
A discussion on the teacher role in the delivery and evaluation of a BLL experience, how-
ever, is beyond the scope of this chapter. Thus, we recommend readers consult scholarly books
and articles relevant to these specific phases and seek opportunities for relevant professional
development.
Assuring the necessary preparation for language educators to make the best use of blended
environments and realize the full potential of BLL experiences constitutes another important
challenge. The access to purposeful research into teacher preparation and the identification of
innovative institutions applying it constitute necessary actions that need to be taken to over-
come such a challenge.

Notes
1) To remain consistent with the terminology used by the key institution and case study cited through-
out the chapter, the term blended learning has been selected over hybrid learning.
2) Despite the widespread use of the term blended learning in higher education, the definition and
understanding of the concept remain elusive. Researchers (Johnson and Marsh 2014; Marsh 2012)
urge a clear understanding of the concept for course designers to have pedagogical direction

365
 Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

designing or redesigning their courses in a blended format. With this aim in mind, we recommend
that interested readers consult recent publications that address this lack of clarity by illustrating
different interpretations of the term and discussing the rationale for its adoption (see, for example,
Mizza and Rubio forthcoming 2020; Torrisi-Steele 2011).
3) The chapter differentiates the term activity from the term task. While an activity refers to any pur-
poseful classroom procedure that involves learners doing something related to language-learning
outcomes, a task is an assigned work that is not simply linked to language learning. The outcome of a
task takes into account learners’ needs, focuses on meaning, offers opportunities for communication
and interaction, and provides moments for reflection on language use (Richards 2014).
4) The chapter uses the term blended sequence to refer to the combination of delivery modes – the f2f
component/meeting and the online component/session. A blended sequence involves the instructor
and students working together to achieve learning outcomes. Depending on length, the blended
sequence can take one lesson, several lessons, or more to finish.
5) This course language level is based on the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Lan-
guages (ACTFL) guidelines. The ACTFL guidelines are an instrument for the evaluation of
functional language ability regardless of where, when, or how the language was acquired. For
further information, see www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/public/ACTFLProficiencyGuide-
lines2012_FINAL.pdf.
6) The chapter uses the terms f2f component and meeting interchangeably to refer to the environment
in which language instruction occurs synchronously with the instructor-led physical classroom. The
terms online component and session are also used interchangeably throughout the chapter to refer
to the environment in which language instruction occurs remotely. The instruction of the online
component/session can take place either synchronously or asynchronously, and with the support of
technology.
7) As Chapelle (2005) has pointed out in reference to reading and listening comprehension aids in
CALL applications, the act of choosing to use such help leads to deeper mental processing that pro-
motes language acquisition.
8) During the focus on form stage, linguistic forms should be presented in meaning‐focused interaction
when learners need them for communication. Thus, attention to linguistic forms is brief and often
spontaneous. In contrast, throughout the focus on forms stage, linguistic structures are presented as
discrete grammar rules or other metalinguistic information. Thus, in the focus on form grammar is
brought to the attention of language learners as a part of communicative language practice, while in
the focus on forms grammar is taught explicitly to empower language learners to use the forms cor-
rectly (Graham and Kent 2007; Loewen 2018).
9) The chapter follows Holec’s (1979) definition and considers autonomous learning to be “the capac-
ity or ability to take charge of one’s learning”. Autonomous learning is embedded in a course and
is supported by teachers and peers. This contrasts with self-study,
­ a method of learning involving
studying alone, without teacher supervision, f2f or online class attendance. Autonomous learning is
also differentiated from independent study, in which learning occurs with help from an instructor but
not as part of an organized class.
10) In a collaborative type of work each student contributes a separate component of a project, while in
a cooperative type of work, students work together on the same product or project, but each with a
different role.
11) An example could be scaffolding strategies guiding learners to call upon background knowledge,
which helps expose them to more comprehensible input.
12) With the term Web 2.0, we refer to the second generation of the World Wide Web–based technolo-
gies that allows the user to go beyond just receiving information through the web. By using Web 2.0
technologies, the user is expected to interact, share information, and create content with others.
13) Willis and Willis (2007) highlight the difference between focus on language and focus on form.
Focus on language occurs when learners take the initiative to “pause their process for meaning
and switch to thinking about the language itself” (113). In the focus on language, students work
independently with meaning and highlight any language they need to draw upon. Students can look
up the meaning of a word, revise sentences for accuracy, or rephrase drafts/word choice for clarity.
Comparatively, focus on form occurs when the teacher isolates a specific structure and explains it
outside the context of the communicative activity (114).
14) Examples of known structures include five Ws type of questions (whose answers are consid-
ered basic in information gathering or problem solving), past tense, and comparatives and
superlatives.

366
 Effective blended language learning

15) An example of unknown structure includes passive construction.

16) By requiring observance of etiquette, teachers can also explain the differences between a fight and a
discussion. Examples of differences include the use of open-end statements inviting other students
to agree or disagree vs. absolute statements, avoid insulting words, etc.

References
Akkoyunlu, B., and M. Yilmaz-Soylu. 2008. “A Study of Student’s Perceptions in a Blended Learn-
ing Environment Based on Different Learning Styles.” Educational Technology & Society, 11(1):
183–193.
Ashrafi, A. 2015. “‫ای ر ان اسال می اقنالب‬.” YouTube video, 1:02. Accessed February 14, 2015. www.youtube.
com/watch?v=Fs2di1oalWw.
Bell, P., and E. Davis. 1996. “Designing an Activity in the Knowledge Integration Environment.” In
Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). New
York: AERA.
Bliuc, A., P. Goodyear, and R. Ellis. 2007. “Research Focus and Methodological Choices in Studies into
Students’ Experiences of Blended Learning in Higher Education.” The Internet and Higher Educa-
tion, 10(4): 231–244.
Carman, J.M. 2002. “Blended Learning Design: Five Key Ingredients.” Accessed August 18, 2019.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c892/6edd8f4cd5f3d09b22f745410d6fb1bd97ca.pdf.
Carman, J. 2005. “Blended Learning Design: Five Key Ingredients.” Accessed August 4, 2018. www.
researchgate.net/publication/238687086_Blended_learning_design_Five_key_ingredients.
Cavage, C. 2014. “Blending Instruction through a Flipped Model.” Pearson. Accessed November 8,
2018. http://longmanhomeusa.com/blog/blending-instruction-through-a-flipped-model/.
Chapelle, C. 2005. “41 Computer Assisted Language Learning.” In The Handbook of Educational
Linguistics, edited by Bernard Spolsky and Francis M. Hult, 585. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
Collis, B., and J. Moonen. 2002. “Flexible Learning in a Digital World, Open Learning.” The Journal of
Open, Distance and e-Learning, 17(3): 217–230.
Dang, T., and M. Robertson. 2010. “Impacts of Learning Management System on Learner Autonomy in
EFL Learning.” International Education Studies, 3(3): 3–11.
Falconer, I., and A. Littlejohn. 2007. “Designing for Blended Learning, Sharing and Reuse.” Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 31(1): 41–52.
Furstenberg, G., and S. Levet. 2010. “Integrating Telecollaboration into the Language Classroom: Some
Insights.” In Telecollaboration 2.0 for Language and Intercultural Learning, edited by Melinda
Dooly and Robert O’Dowd, 305–336. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Group.
Garrison, D., and N. Vaughan. 2008. Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles,
and Guidelines. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Gass, S.M. 1997. Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. 2003. “Input and Interaction.” In The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, edited by
Catherine J. Doughty and Michael Long, 224–255. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Genc Ilter, B. 2005. “Effect of Technology on Motivation in EFL Classrooms.” Turkish Online Journal
of Distance Education (TOJDE), 10(4): 136–158.
Genc Ilter, B. 2009. “Effect of Technology on Motivation in EFL Classrooms.” Turkish Online Journal
of Distance Education (TOJDE), 10(4): 136–158.
Gibbons, P. 2002. Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning: Teaching Second Language Learners in
the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graham, R.P., and Kent, P. 2007. “The TALL Language System: An Integrated, Research-Based
Approach to ESL Instruction.” TALL Technology Assisted Language Learning. Accessed August 9,
2018. http://blog.cito-lt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Tall-White-Paper.pdf.
Holec, H. 1979. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Strasbourg, France: Council for Cultural
Cooperation.
Holmes, J., and R. Ramos. 1991. “Talking about Learning: Establishing a Framework for Discussing and
Changing Learning Processes.” In Language Awareness in the Classroom, edited by C. James and P.
Garrett, 198–212. London, UK: Routledge.
Holmes, J., and R. Ramos. 1992. “Talking About Learning: Establishing a Framework for Discussing
and Changing Learning Processes.” In Language Awareness in the Classroom, 198–212. London,
UK: Routledge.

367
 Daria Mizza and Mohamad Esmaili-Sardari

Kilpatrick, S., T. Jones, and M. Barrett. 2003. Defining Learning Communities. Launceston, Tasmania:
Centre for Research and Learning in Regional Australia.
Koohang, A. 2009. “A Learner-Centered Model for Blended Learning Design.” International Journal of
Innovation and Learning, 6(3): 76–91.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon
Press.
Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Hoboken, NJ: Addison-Wesley Long-
man Ltd.
Jackson, S.L., J. Krajcik, and E. Soloway. 1998, January. “The Design of Guided Learner-Adaptable Scaf-
folding in Interactive Learning Environments.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, edited by C.-M. Karat, A. Lund, J. Coutaz, and J. Karat, 187–194.
New York, NY: ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
Jackson, S., J. Krajcik, and E. Soloway. 2000. “Model-It: A Design Retrospective.” In Innovations in Sci-
ence and Mathematics Education: Advanced Design for Technologies of Learning, edited by Michael
Jacobson and Robert Kozma, 77–116. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishing.
Johnson, C., and D. Marsh. 2014. Blended Language Learning: An Effective Solution but Not Without its
Challenges. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Loewen, S. 2018. “Focus on Form Versus Focus on Forms.” Wiley Online Library. Accessed August 19,
2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0062.
Maisie, E. 2006. “The Blended Learning Imperative.” In The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global
Perspectives, Local Designs, edited by Curt J. Bonk and Charles R. Graham, 22–26. San Francisco,
CA: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Marsh, D. 2012. Blended Learning: Creating Learning Opportunities for Language Learners. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mizza, D. 2019. “Blended Learning for the Teaching of Italian as a Foreign Language. Theoretical Back-
ground and Pedagogical Applications in the North American and European Higher Education Con-
texts.” Special issue of Italian Canadiana, edited by Simone Casini and Christine Sansalone, 33:
35–58.
Mizza, D., and F. Rubio. Forthcoming 2020. Creating Effective Blended Language Learning Courses:
A Research-Based Guide from Planning to Evaluation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moran, L., and B. Myringer. 1999. “Flexible Learning and University Change.” In Higher Edu-
cation Through Open and Distance Learning, edited by Keith Harry, 57–71. London, UK:
Routledge.
Nakazawa, K. 2009. “Student Engagement in Online Language Learning: A Case Study Examining
the Online Delivery of Tertiary Language Courses.” The International Journal of Learning, 16(7):
405–414.
Neumeier, P. 2005. “A Closer Look at Blended Learning – Parameters for Designing a Blended Learning
Environment for Language Teaching and Learning.” ReCALL, 17(2): 163–178.
Osguthorpe, R., and C. Graham. 2003. “Blended Learning Environments: Definitions and Directions.”
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3): 227–233.
Padlet.com. 2019. “Padlet Is the Easiest Way to Create and Collaborate in the World.” Accessed July 28,
2018. https://padlet.com.
Pbworks.com. 2019. “Capture Knowledge, Share Files, and Manage Projects Within a Secure, Reli-
able Environment | PBworks – Online Team Collaboration Software.” Accessed July 28, 2018. www.
pbworks.com.
Richards, J. 2010. “Competence and Performance in Language Teaching.” RELC Journal, 41(2): 101–
122. doi:10.1177/0033688210372953.
Richards, J. 2014. “Difference Between Task, Exercise, Activity.” Accessed November 3, 2018. www.
professorjackrichards.com/difference-task-exercise-activity.
Ross, B., and K. Cage. 2006. “Global Perspectives on Blended Learning: Insight from WebCT and
Our Customers in Higher Education.” In The Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives,
Local Designs, edited by Curt J. Bonk and Charles R. Graham, 155–168. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer
Publishing.
Rossett, A., F. Douglis, and R. Frazee. 2003. “Strategies for Building Blended Learning.” Learning Cir-
cuits, 4(7): 1–8.

368
 Effective blended language learning

Sandrock, P., and E. Swender. 2012. “ACTFL Performance Description.” The American Council on the
Teaching of Foreign Languages. Accessed December 8, 2018. www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/
ACTFLPerformance-Descriptors.pdf.
Senior, R. 2010. “Connectivity: A Framework for Understanding Effective Language Teach-
ing in Face-to-Face and Online Learning Communities.” RELC Journal, 41(2): 137–147.
doi:10.1177/0033688210375775.
Singh, H., and C. Reed. 2001. “A White Paper: Achieving Success with Blended Learning.” Centra Soft-
ware, 1: 1–11.
So, H., and C. Bonk. 2010. “Examining the Roles of Blended Learning Approaches in Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Environments: A Delphi Study.” Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 13(3): 189.
Southgate, M., and L. Murphy. 2011. “The Nature of the ‘Blend’: Interaction of Teaching
Modes, Tools and Resources.” In Language Teaching in Blended Contexts, edited by Mar-
garet Nicholson, Linda Murphy, and Margaret Southgate, 13–27. Edinburgh, UK: Dunedin
Academic Press Ltd.
Swender, E., D. Conrad, and R. Vicars. 2012. “ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012.” The American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Accessed December 17, 2018. www.actfl.org/
publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012.
Thanasoulas, D. 2000. “What Is Learner Autonomy and How Can it be Fostered.” The Internet TESL
Journal, 6(11): 37–48.
Tick, A. 2006. “The Choice of eLearning or Blended Learning in Higher Education.” 4th Serbian-
Hungarian Joint Symposium on Intelligent Systems, 441–449.
Torrisi-Steele, G. 2011. “Blended Learning Primer.” In Encyclopedia of Information Communication
Technologies and Adult Education Integration, 521–538. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Verkroost, M., L. Meijerink, H. Lintsen, and W. Veen. 2008. “Finding a Balance in Dimensions of
Blended Learning.” International Journal on E-learning, 7(3): 499–522.
VOA Persian. “ ‫ ”گزارش صدای آمریکا درباره ی ایران‬Filmed February 12, 2009. YouTube video, 5: 39.
Accessed February 14, 2015. www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi59Z9hipGY.
Voicethread.com. 2019. Conversations in the Cloud. Accessed July 8, 2018. http://voicethread.com.
Vygotsky, L. 1978. “Interaction Between Learning and Development.” Readings on the Development of
Children, 23(3): 34–41.
Wichadee, S. 2010. “Using Wikis to Develop Summary Writing Abilities of Students in an EFL
Class.” Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(12): 5–10.
Willis, D., and J. Willis. 2007. Doing Task-Based Teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Willis, J. 1996. “A Flexible Framework for Task-Based Learning.” In Challenge and Change in Lan-
guage Teaching, edited by Jane Willis and Dave Willis, 52–62. Oxford, UK: Heinemann.
Zemke, R. 2002. “Who Needs Learning Theory Anyway?” Training Magazine, 39(9): 86–88.

369
 18
USING TECHNOLOGY TO
DEVELOP INSTRUCTIONAL
MATERIALS FOR PERSIAN PEYMAN NOJOUMIANUSING TECHNOLOGY

Based on task-based language teaching

Peyman Nojoumian

18.1 Introduction
The use of technology in foreign language learning has been increasing in recent decades.
People have been excited about technology and what it can offer or how it can facilitate learn-
ing and education in general. Despite recent advances in using more sophisticated forms of
technology, such as information technology (IT), in education, these new forms are relatively
new to the field of second language acquisition (SLA) and language teaching and still have
some constraints (Reinders and Stockwell 2017).
For decades, language teachers have effectively used early forms of technology, such as
radios, TVs, cassette and video players, as assistive tools to enhance the teaching and learning
of world languages. Early mainframe computers were utilized to offer some limited text-based
and guided language drills in the early 1950s and 1960s (Ahmad et al. 1985). However, the
emergence of personal computers (PCs), and especially networks in the late 1990s, allowed for
the introduction of better interactive learning tools in the form of multimedia and brought hope
to different fields of language technology research, such as Computer-Assisted Instruction
(CAI), Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), Computer-Mediated Communication
(CMC), Technology-Enhanced Language Learning (TELL) and Web-Enhanced Language
Learning (WELL), where the emphasis has started to move from computer to technology and
the web as a medium. Learning and instruction would also imply the role of learners or instruc-
tors at the center of the learning process. The advancement in technology has resulted in a shift
from traditional text-based learning to a more multimedia-based and communicative learning
experience. Today, language-based computer games, apps utilizing virtual reality (VR) and
simulations can create an interactive, cooperative and communicative learning environment
for language teachers and language learners.

18.2 Effectiveness of technology in teaching and learning language

Although recent studies have exaggerated the effectiveness of technology in language learn-
ing, there have, nonetheless, been some studies showing a “small but significant effect of using
technology” (Reinders and Stockwell 2017, 362). One of the main contributions of technology

370
 Using technology

to the field of second language learning is the possibility it creates for developing or simulat-
ing an effective and interactive learning environment, enriched with comprehensive target
language input. That is why it is crucial to consider an important role for technology in teach-
ing approaches. However, one should not confuse the role of learning using technology versus
instruction.
While recent enhancements in technology, in the form of Artificial Intelligence (AI), for
example, have created automated and expert systems, there is usually a human mind behind
the scene who has designed the respective algorithm. Information or news websites, chat
rooms, language forums, weblogs, etc. can potentially be non-instruction target language envi-
ronments, while some technologies are purposely designed for instruction. Technology can be
considered in two tails of a spectrum, from autonomous expert, AI systems or tutors to very
ordinary user-based online assignments and activities. In the former, the technology can play
the role of an instructor and be adaptive and interactive, while in the latter it can be used solely
as an assistive tool by an instructor. Regardless of the definitions, whether technology is used
as authentic instructional materials or as a means to enhance learning experiences, “it is at least
a significant methodological innovation” (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson 2011, 1). To choose
the appropriate technology for instructional needs, it is important to choose options that are
fitting to the learning objectives in question (for example web-based, distance, blended, etc.)
A comprehensive strategy would be to utilize the advantages of technology “while compensat-
ing for the difficulties posed by the absence of real-time, face-to-face interaction” (Doughty
and Long 2003, 53). Eventually, technology may evolve to facilitate real-time interactivity. For
further discussion on using technology in tandem with face-to-face second language teaching
in the form of a blended course, read Chapter 17 in this volume.

18.3 Use of technology in teaching Persian as a foreign language

For many decades in Iran, the Persian language was taught to the speakers of other languages
by instructors who were mostly instructors of Persian literature or ESL1 teachers. However, in
the late 1990s, the Iranian Ministry of Higher Education approved a plan to offer a master’s
degree in teaching Persian as a foreign language.2 TPFL was not just created to address the
high demand for Persian instruction in Iran but throughout the world as well. In the U.S., for
example, Persian was categorized as a less commonly taught language3 along with Arabic,
Chinese, Korean, Russian, etc. The demand for LCTL instruction increased worldwide fol-
lowing a surge in global immigration. Regional conflicts and the crucial potential of LCTLs to
enhance cross-cultural communications between nations were other important reasons for this
expansion. Today, the learning of LCTLs or world languages has become vital to the security
and socioeconomical welfare of all nations.
Early on, in the TPFL program in Iran, students utilized CALL principles and produced
prototype applications using computer technology. For example, Nojoumian (1999) designed
a multimedia-based courseware called DAZFA4 and developed a prototype application using
Macromedia Director (Nojoumian 1999). The prototype model showed how the acquisition
of basic language skills, such as vocabulary, could be facilitated by an automated computer
application. DAZFA demonstrated an elementary-level language lesson in which vocabulary
items were introduced using clickable photos with embedded audios and included a short
cultural video clip in the target language as well as a sample activity based on the video and
the taught vocabulary.
Early CALL applications could offer guided learning tasks or activities, such as reading
comprehension tasks on a computer monitor with clickable vocabulary and audios. As the

371
 Peyman Nojoumian

technology advanced, interaction was also introduced to CALL in the form of feedback and
limited response checking, such as written feedback on multiple-choice quizzes. Sahra’i and
Safari (2012) suggested SAZFA, an online portal for the TPFL program, but it was either not
implemented or discontinued (Sahra’i and Safari 2012). Birjandi designed a similar portal that
does not exist anymore (Birjandi 2013). Rezaee and Vazirnejad (2016) reported the launch of
a web-based portal for the TPFL program by the Iranian government, offering four levels from
novice to advanced in 16 units for each level. English was used in explaining the Persian sound
system but there were scarcely audio files for the sounds. The lessons consisted of readings,
lists of vocabulary items, mostly with their equivalents in English, a few photos, traditional
grammar explanations in English and non-interactive drills (Rezaee and Vazirnejad 2016). The
portal no longer exists because the organization merged into a new foundation under the name
of Bonyad e Saadi. Virtual Persian5 is another early web-based system for the TPFL program
launched by the Department of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, NYU. Virtual Persian con-
sists of four levels, from novice to advanced, with ten lessons in each level, mostly dialogues
read by participants and readings from a contemporary short story with parallel translations
to English. The novice level lessons do not have exercises, but the intermediate and advanced
levels have text-based true or false and multiple-choice questions. The higher advanced level
features a video clip with questions and answers. The interactivity is limited to clicks on audios.
The Language Acquisition Resource Center6 at San Diego State University launched a por-
tal of web-based online resources for the Persian language in 2014, using Adobe Flash.7 The
LARC Persian portal includes several resources for the Persian script and basic grammar,
conversational Persian and story-telling skills. The interactivity is limited to several drag and
drop drills and vocabulary matches. However, the user is given feedback on the correctness of
exercises. The conversations are mostly in written style and read dialogues, rather than acted,
and the grammar is taught explicitly using a traditional approach.
Persian in Texas8 is another web-based portal that mostly contains authentic materials in
parallel Persian-English languages, uploaded to the internet as early as 2004. This web portal
is mostly a collection of language material resources, consisting of video and audio clips,
poetry texts, literary stories, songs and texts. The interactivity is limited to audio pronuncia-
tions and word equivalents in English.
Researchers of the Department of the TPFL at the University of Qazvin developed a pro-
totype web-based course for elementary Persian using Moodle, a popular class management
system. The lessons incorporate content for developing all main language skills: listening,
reading, writing and speaking as well as grammar and vocabulary. Some interactivity has been
embedded in audio flash cards, grammar drills, feedback on exercises and recording of learn-
ers’ output (Vakilifard, Mahdavi, and Khodadadian 2013). Mirdehghan and Jorghani (2013),
from the same department, developed a blended learning model consisting of computer-based
and class-based instructions. Their program considered learners’ needs for Iranian Studies
majors and used a pre-task, task and post-task model to integrate and teach all language skills
(Mirdehghan and Jorghani 2013). For elaborate discussions on Persian language skills and
subskills, read Chapters 9–14 in this volume.
In a blended-learning design, most of the interactivity can be foreseen in the face-to-
face classroom interactions. Moreover, the technology can be used to provide learners with
enhanced audio and video as the target language input. Post-task activities can also embed
some form of interactivity such as feedback on students’ input. For an example of a blended-
learning design and sample tasks, read Chapter 17 in this volume.
Persian Language Online9 is a free web-based resource created by the Persian Language
Foundation in cooperation with the University of Cambridge, University of St. Andrews,

372
 Using technology

SOAS University of London and US-based Farhang Foundation in 2016. It offers sixty
multimedia-based units for learning Persian from novice to intermediate level developed for
college students. The instructional materials consist of readings and dialogues (mostly read
by participants) with animated characters. Each lesson has a glossary and vocabulary-based
activities. Materials have been provided in Persian with English equivalents and phonetic
transcriptions. The interactivity is limited to sorting dialogues, and matching words. Other
web-based learning apps include Easy Persian10 and Persian Pod 101. Easy Persian offers
mostly text-based lessons in grammar and vocabulary. Persian Pod 10111 offers YouTube video
presentations, teaching formulaic expressions with vocabulary drills. There are other web-
based resources such as DLI12 and CASL,13 available to US military personnel, that use similar
approaches to these systems.
Recently, through the availability of smartphones and mobile technology, several apps and
games have been developed to facilitate the learning of languages such as Persian. However,
these Persian learning apps are mostly flash cards, phrase books, and photo dictionaries, and
are not really that different from the web-based projects previously mentioned.
In addition to web-based and CALL apps, individual language tools and resources seem
to be useful for language learners (Da and Zheng 2018), although the guidance of an expert
instructor may be necessary. Tools such as online dictionaries, translators, verb-conjugators,
word-frequency lists, text corpora, enhanced or elaborated short stories (e.g. a day in Ros-
tamabad of Shemiran),14 word pronouncers (e.g. Fovo),15 grammar references (e.g. Bashiri),16
news, TV and cultural portals can also be used by language learners to increase exposure to
authentic materials. However, instructor supervision is highly recommended because the raw
instructional materials might not be suitable, especially for lower elementary learners and for
those who do not know how best to use them.
The aforementioned CALL projects are similar in that they offer limited interactivity
and lack a solid pedagogical foundation. The interactivity issue might be, in part, caused
by technological limitations. To fix this issue, expert systems can utilize artificial intel-
ligence to incorporate smart interactivity, such as speech recognition and text-to-speech
synthesis, language understanding and machine learning. Table 18.1 illustrates technol-
ogy and platforms that are currently available (to this date) to language learning and
teaching. From the early electrical devices, such as radios and telephones, to recent elec-
tronic gadgets, technology has been used by language learners and in blended language
classrooms. Nonetheless, technological limitation is one of the reasons that the field of
language learning and teaching has not yet been fully automatized. Although there is
controversy around the role of the language instructor in the future, this role may shift
to the behind-the-scenes programmer. But for now, there is a need to ground the technol-
ogy in innovative and effective pedagogical foundations so that real interactivity can be
brought to blended classrooms and language teaching fields. Interpersonal, face-to-face
activities and cooperative learning methods are the core of interactive language tasks cur-
rently missing from CALL.
Table 18.1 also shows that most forms of available technology provide limited interactivity,
mostly in the form of clicking and drag-and-drop, typing, text feedback, etc. Voice recognition
and language-understanding technologies are perhaps the missing links to high interactivity –
but are still very limited and language-dependent. Nevertheless, current possibilities of chat-
ting technology can facilitate interpersonal communication and fill the interactivity gap until
the smart language technology becomes available. To this extent, the two areas of improve-
ment, i.e. pedagogy and interactivity, will be discussed briefly after discussing pros and cons
of using technology in teaching and learning world languages.

373
Table 18.1 Available technology to language learning, teaching and SLA to date

Technology Example (technology or app)17 Smart Interactive

Multimedia-based LCD Projectors, TV, Radio, Cassette Players, Smart TV, Limited to
(audio, video, text, DVD/CD/MP3/Blue-ray Players, Satellite phone watch tablets,
photo, motion Receivers, TV Boxes (Apple TV, Roku, smartphones
sensor, touch Amazon Fire TV, Google Chromecast, and
screens, etc.) etc.), Tablets (iPad, Fire HD, Nook), watches
Mobile/smartphones, Laptops, Computers,
Smart Watches, Digital Cameras, Game
Boxes (PlayStation, Nintendo Wii,
Microsoft Xbox, etc.)
Online meetings and Skype, Telegram, Adobe Connect, Google No Facilitates
chatrooms Hangout, Free Conference Call, Zoom, interactivity
Facetime, Messenger
Text-based html, Blogs, Padlet, Textivate, MS-Office, No No
text corpora, text YouTube, Hulu, Vimeo, WeVideo, Netflix,
editor, online TV Box, GLWiz (Persian TV), iTunes,
multimedia, html- online TVs, Video and Radio Stations,
based webpages, Google Play etc.
JavaScript, PHP,
WordPress, etc.
Storytelling apps, Pixton, Vyond, GoAnimate, StoryBird, No Limited
avatars and virtual AniMaker, FlipGrid, Extempor, StoryKit,
reality Toontastic 3D, PowToon, CrazyTalk,
QuickTime VR, etc.
Text-to-speech, speech Nuance Dragon NaturallySpeaking, Yes Yes
recognition, MT FarsiReader.com, CSTR Festival (free)
Authoring and movie Adobe Captivate, Articulate, Animator, No Limited
editing Windows MovieMaker, Avid, Hot Potatoes,
SoftChalk
Online dictionaries Persian: Vajeyab, Persian Learner, Google No No
Translate, Farsi123 etc.
Class management Moodle, Blackboard, Edmodo, Top Hat, No Limited
systems, Socrative, QuizWorks, Hot Potatoes, Sakai,
assessment Schoology etc.
Social networks Facebook, Telegram, Twitter, Snapchat, No Limited
Instagram, Myspace, LinkedIn etc.
Vocabulary builders Quizlet, Byki, Anki etc. No Limited
Game-based Duolingo, Kahoot, LinguaLift, Hello Talk, No Limited
language apps Babbel, Memrise, Busuu, Rosetta Stone,
Beelinguapp, Quandary, Clozemaster,
Lingio, Lango, MindSnacks, Quia (game
maker) etc.
Presentations, voice- PowerPoint, Prezi, Dubme, VoiceThread, No No
over, voice editors, Vocaroo (online audio recording and sharing),
screencasts, Audacity, Fovo, Bandicam, Camtasia,
podcasts ScreenFlow, Elluminate, Echo360 etc.
Spell checkers and Word Processors (MS Office, Page), Yes Yes
grammar checkers Virastyar (for Persian editing in MS Word),
grammarly.com
NLP, NLU (Taggers, Assignment/test checkers (ACTFL AAPPL, Yes Yes
Parsers etc.) OPIc), essay graders, summarizers,
classifiers, MT
 Using technology

18.4 Pros and cons of using technology in SLA

As for any assistive medium in SLA, usage of technology has its own pros and cons depend-
ing on whether it is used in isolation, independently, or as part of a language curriculum. The
main advantage of using technology in SLA that can also be considered a gain in the learning
environment is that the technology lends itself very well to personalized and independent
learning, allowing learners to work at their own pace in an environment free of anxiety and
stress. Learners can make mistakes without being embarrassed or stop a lesson whenever they
like or repeat multimedia materials as many times as they need. Furthermore, technology is
interesting for learners. Colorful, interactive and collaborative apps, gadgets, games, etc. can
purposefully engage learners in the learning process because they provide them with rich
and multimodal inputs in all possible forms. Multimodal inputs help learners activate differ-
ent learning processes resulting in L2 acquisition (Hampel and Hauck 2006). Some forms of
technology can even provide learners with a simulation of real-world tasks. “Simulations are
one type of computer-based activity that allows students to be immersed and actively involved
in an environment that is not otherwise accessible” (Marta González-Lloret 2003, 86). These
activities are difficult to develop without technology; therefore, the technology makes it pos-
sible to go beyond the classroom and design tasks that are simulations of an otherwise out-
of-reach reality. Finally, technology allows for the integration of language skills into different
modes of communication. Reinders and Stockwell (2017) have reported decades of research
on all L2 aspects in reading (Chun 2006), writing (Kessler, Bikowski, and Boggs 2012), listen-
ing (Jones 2003), speaking (Valle 2005), vocabulary (Fuente 2003) and grammar (Sauro 2009)
and considered it an indication of interest in the field (Reinders and Stockwell 2017, 363).
One possible disadvantage of technology in SLA is an increase in the usage of multime-
dia in a language classroom, which may, adversely, decrease face-to-face interactions among
learners or between learners and the instructor. However, to address this issue, recent research
has also focused on the role of computers in mediating communications between learners,
known as Computer-Mediated Communications (CMC). Language environments to be medi-
ated may include text chats, emails, audio or video conferences, social networks, interactive
video games, simulators, etc. While it is sensible to say that asynchronous CMC is a legitimate
form of human communication, the synchronous form of CMC better resembles meaning
transaction between interlocutors. The asynchronous form of CMC, which entails delayed
communication, may also be beneficial in terms of allowing for a more enriched output.
Technology by itself might not be useful for learners if it is not used purposefully. The
purposeful usage of technology emphasizes the important role of pedagogy and the instruc-
tor (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson 2011). Usage of technology should be built on solid and
compatible pedagogical foundations. Displaying just a video clip in the classroom or playing
an audio file or chatting on Skype would not offer much benefit to learners, unless there is a
purpose behind each of those activities. Reinders and Stockwell (2017) consider three main
roles for technology, namely: “a mediating role” between communicators, “a teaching role”
on output assessments, and “a utilitarian role in the learning process” (Reinders and Stockwell
2017, 365). Although technology can assume a “teaching role”, it should not be seen as a
threat to the role of a teacher because it is still dependent upon the teacher (Ahmad et al. 1985)
who usually works behind the scene. Furthermore, Skehan (2003) believes that technology
lacks the intelligence of the classroom teacher to make adaptations and appropriate pedagogic
decisions (Skehan 2003). Doughty and Long (2003) believe that a language instructor is “(a)
ordinarily the most reliable source on local circumstances, (b) the one who can best make
decisions as a lesson unfolds, and (c) a major source of native L2 input and feedback on error”

375
 Peyman Nojoumian

(Doughty and Long 2003, 53). The use of technology over traditional methods in teaching,
however, can only be justified by solid rationales in task design and development.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)
are arguably most compatible with technology in developing instructional materials. Com-
munication is one of the main purposes of language learning, and real-world language tasks
would provide learners with authentic and rich inputs, often made available by technology.
As technology increasingly becomes an integral part of daily life, technology-supported L2
teaching should reflect this reality. Furthermore, technology is useful to both CLT and TBLT,
because these are approaches that put a great emphasis on using the target language. News-
casts, YouTube videos, chatrooms, weblogs, social networks, etc. are great target language
resources that can be used by an expert instructional materials developer to create rich lan-
guage learning curricula. Finally, CLT and TBLT are also learner-centered and content-based,
which entails that the technology can be utilized in learning. For further discussion on using
CLT and TBLT in teaching Persian as a second language, read Chapter 16 in this volume.

18.5 Communicative and task-based language teaching

TBLT18 can be considered a subset of the communicative language teaching approach and
is basically a language teaching theory informed by SLA and psycholinguistic research. The
main mission of TBLT is to “promote language learning” by doing (Ellis 2003, 8) – meaning
a hands-on approach – because a “practical hands-on experience with real-world tasks brings
abstract concepts and theories to life and makes them more understandable” (Doughty and
Long 2003, 58). Any real-world task that native-speakers of a target language do can be a
model for learners of that language. For example, reporting a car accident to the police or
negotiating a deal with a broker is considered a real-world language task (Long, 1985). Ellis
(2017), citing Ellis and Shintani (2014), considers four criteria for determining whether or
not an activity can be a task; an activity that “focuses mainly on meaning” and communica-
tion aims at an information gap activity, such as expressing opinion or solving a problem,
and requires participants to utilize “their own resources”; and, finally, accomplishing the task
should result in “a clear outcome”, such as a viable solution to a problem (Ellis 2017, 109).
Therefore, most grammar drill activities are not considered a task because they do not conform
to the four stated criteria. A language task can be further broken down to smaller subtasks or
pedagogical tasks to fit a lesson plan. Therefore, TBLT has developed pedagogical principles
and guidelines to effectively accomplish its main goal i.e. learning by doing. Among the many
reasons TBLT has garnered interest is the “potential it offers for developing functional lan-
guage proficiency without sacrificing grammatical accuracy and its compatibility with SLA
research on language learning” (Doughty and Long 2003, 50).

18.6 TBLT Principles19 and technology matches

18.6.1 Design target tasks based on learners’ needs

A solid pedagogical design should take the needs of learners into account (Long 2005). Learn-
ers’ needs are the main force behind their motivation to learn a language. A student of Iranian
studies, for example, needs to study contents in Persian related to the history and culture of
Iran, whereas a real-estate agent who sells homes to the members of the Persian community in
Los Angeles may need to learn the business jargon and negotiation strategies in the target lan-
guage. Whatever the needs are, the contents and themes of the instructional materials need to

376
 Using technology

be clearly identified (Long 2005). Age and proficiency level are other learner-related variables
important to learners’ needs. A course designed for novice learners of the Persian language
should consider teaching literacy skills, for instance. Several assessment techniques are avail-
able to language teachers that can help them place language learners into appropriate profi-
ciency levels. The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages20 has developed
guidelines to assess the oral and written proficiency of language learners in four major levels:
novice, intermediate, advanced and superior. A learner at the novice level would mostly use
memorized and formulaic expressions to accomplish some form of communication, whereas
an intermediate learner would be able to create with the language and can usually handle a
simple social interaction as a tourist would. An advanced learner, however, can narrate and
describe in all time frames of past, present and future and handle a complicated social interac-
tion, using paragraph as the output text-type. Superior level learners can communicate effec-
tively using an extended discourse and express and support their opinions, hypothesize and
function in an abstract and parametric domain across a variety of topics (ACTFL Proficiency
Guidelines 2012). An ACTFL-certified tester can conduct Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPI)
and rate Written Proficiency Tests (WPT) to determine the level of learners before and after
taking a language program, to measure proficiency improvements.
Technology can also be employed to identify learners’ needs by giving questionnaires
and language learning diagnostic surveys to students as well as online assessment tools such
as computerized OPI or OPIc. Survey and assessment results can be analyzed to determine
needs, age, level, aptitude, learning strategies, and information about task variables important
to instructional materials developers. Task variables determine task complexity and the need to
adjust or adapt the identified tasks to different proficiency levels. Task variables may include
other task modes: pairs, groups, synchronous and asynchronous modes, picture clues, opin-
ions, facts, or other modes of communication, such as interpretational, interpersonal or pres-
entational. For a discussion on beliefs and strategies of second language learners of Persian in
the U.S., read Chapter 28 in this volume.

18.6.2 Use task, not text, as the unit of analysis (Long 2005, 22)
Task design has a holistic approach to language learning, allowing for “learning-through-
communication” rather than merely “learn[ing]-to-communicate” (Ellis 2017, 109). Tasks are
not solely reading texts or dialogues but real-world language scenarios containing one or more
language functions. “The focus in TBLT lessons is on task completion, not on the study of
a decontextualized linguistic structure or a list of vocabulary items – and not the same phe-
nomena at the supra-sentential level text” (Doughty and Long 2003, 56). A task can be further
developed as a target task, then broken into pedagogical tasks. Target tasks are classified under
task types, such as reporting, decision-making, analysis, jigsaw,21 etc. Read Chapter 16 in this
volume for further discussion and examples of task types in Persian language classes.
Once learners’ needs are identified, target tasks can be developed (Long et al. 2003). For
example, for novice level Persian learners, self-introduction would be considered an impor-
tant task type and for an advanced learner who is a real-estate agent, describing a home or an
apartment in detail would satisfy a needed task type. Depending on the task type, an instruc-
tional materials developer would be able to identify the proper technology for implementing
pedagogical tasks. Voice recording technology, such as VoliceThread or similar software, can
be utilized to enhance a self-introduction task. Novice learners are encouraged to practice oral
production by recording and emailing their oral activities to their instructors. 3D animation
technology can be used in the classroom to simulate a house tour in which an advanced learner

377
 Peyman Nojoumian

can navigate through the house and describe its different rooms and amenities for the class.
Using technology provides multimodal inputs in the form of audio, video, image, text, etc. that
enhances the learning process because it makes for efficient memory retention (Brandle 2008).

18.6.3 Develop pedagogical tasks (PTs) or subtasks from task types

Narrating, describing places or familiar objects, offering solutions, comparing objects or con-
cepts, etc. are task type. Task types can be broken into PTs that range from simpler tasks
(linguistically less complex) to harder and more complex contents and contexts (Nunan 1989;
Long et al. 2003). Describing a home or an apartment in detail requires several PTs, such as
describing a location - from a simple sentence to extended discourse with multiple descrip-
tions using detailed spatial information.

18.6.4 Enhance and elaborate an authentic and rich input

An instructional materials developer should not impoverish or simplify the input and certainly
should avoid engineering or fabricating the materials. One of the main advantages of technol-
ogy is its easy access to authentic materials and resources. However, raw authentic materials
cannot be immediately instructional before being prepared and fit to the learners’ needs. They
are often complex and level-inappropriate for learners. Therefore, lower-level learners cannot
deal with raw authentic materials. Raw genuine materials can be enhanced by adding picture
clues, audios, videos, word glossaries, text enhancements, etc. Linguistic ambiguity and com-
plexity in authentic materials can be dealt with, and comprehensible input can be created by
elaboration according to the learners’ needs. Enhancement and elaboration should be gradually
minimized as learners progress to the upper levels of proficiency. Technology can facilitate text
enhancement by, for example, changing font face, style, size, color, format and adding punctua-
tions and picture clues to texts. The quality of authentic audio or video samples can be enhanced
by re-recording or editing. Subtitles or commentaries can be added to video clips using differ-
ent applications. Presentations and computer screens can be recorded to be used as enhanced
contents. JavaScript can be used to facilitate elaboration of a reading comprehension text in an
HTML format; for example, by developing mouse-hovering functions to retrieve the meaning
or picture of vocabulary items from a monolingual, bilingual or photo dictionary. Language
text corpora can be used to create concordances with real context in which the language usage
can be demonstrated. “Well-constructed input archives in the form of audio, video, and text-
based corpora, the components of which are tagged for task complexity and perhaps controlled
in terms of learner access could provide rich input” (Doughty and Long 2003, 62). CMC is
another technology that can utilize authentic, rich input and output.

18.6.5 Maximize the use of target language

Using authentic dialogues, videos and texts will provide learners with comprehensible, rich
input and output (for more on input and output hypotheses, see Krashen 2003). Chatting activi-
ties can be monitored to ensure maximum use of target language. Learners should be encour-
aged to do recording activities and increase target language usage at home. Recording exercises
can also hone output accuracy and enhance classroom interactions if used as pre-task activities.
Multimedia materials should be offered mostly in the target language except where there is a
need to explicitly elaborate, for example, on grammatical complexities. In TBLT, language is a
“tool for making meaning rather than an object to be studied” (Ellis 2017, 111).

378
 Using technology

18.6.6 Be a facilitator teacher

If technology is used in a blended learning environment, a teacher should play the role of a
facilitator and should always avoid becoming a lecturer. A good aspect of technology is its
learners-oriented feature which allows learners more freedom based on their learning needs
and style; technology itself can facilitate the language learning process.

18.6.7 Promote collaborative and cooperative learning

Collaborative learning increases interactivity. Technology can be used to facilitate interactivity,
even in interpersonal tasks. CMC can enhance this vital language skill outside of the classroom.
Computer games that can incorporate problem-solving tasks, such as Quandary, are another excel-
lent means to promote cooperative learning. Project-based activities such as Pixton (see the hands-
on tasks section) are cooperative learning activities in which a group of learners can work on a
comic-strip story-telling project, in real-time, in a classroom or at home. Project-based activities
are also useful for more advanced learners and well-suited for heritage-learners because these
activities often require learners to use a wide range of different language skills to solve challeng-
ing real-life problems. The open-ended nature of these sorts of activities give heritage-learners the
freedom to be more engaged in the language activity and to use their maximum capability in doing
the task. Some project-based activities can be designed to create connections between heritage-
learners and the target language communities. For example, making a short documentary video-
clip can be a great cooperative and project-based activity (Carreira and Kagan 2011), requiring
that students record interviews with members of the target language community, translate, dub or
provide subtitles and narrate in the background. Other project-based activities include creating
products in the target language, such as brochures, posters, flyers, public service announcements,
podcasts, websites, weblogs, online radios/TVs, newsletters, tutorials, manuals, infographics,
timelines, reports, surveys, case studies, presentations, etc. For further discussion on collaborative
versus cooperative language learning, read Chapter 17 in this volume.

18.6.8 Focus on form

While meaning is an important component of communicative language learning, it alone is
not enough (Doughty and Long 2003) because accuracy is also an important variable in com-
munication, and correct form is the core of accuracy. TBLT encourages instructors to utilize
teaching strategies to focus on form. This can be done through minimum and non-intrusive
corrective feedback and the explicit teaching of grammatical problems if the need arises (Long
1991). Ellis (2017) believes that focus on form can be accomplished through pre-task, correc-
tive feedback and post-task activities (Ellis 2017). Focus on form is a teaching strategy feature
in teacher-involved scenarios and can also include input elaboration and enhancement, and can
be implemented in CMC as well.

18.6.9 Provide corrective and negative feedback to increase accuracy

Technology can be used to provide feedback to learners which in turn adds more interactivity.
Most of the feedback mechanisms demonstrated by older technologies, were simple, only return-
ing correct answers to learners. Today, however, smarter technology such as Natural Language
Processing22 can be utilized to accept a variety of user answers, and errors can be pinpointed,
highlighted or underlined as negative or corrective feedback. Game-based language learning

379
 Peyman Nojoumian

apps use different forms of feedback and strategies to encourage learners to continue their lan-
guage learning efforts, by creating a dynamic and laid-back environment for them. For further
discussion on corrective feedback, read Chapter 14 in this volume.
Based on the interaction hypothesis, meaningful negotiations among learners are conduc-
tive to SLA and facilitate language acquisition (Long 1983). To add interactivity using the
interpersonal mode of communication, we can combine the previously given solid pedagogi-
cal principles with CMC technology and develop meaningful web-based language activities
for different proficiency levels. Three hands-on examples are given here to demonstrate an
efficient use of technology based on TBLT.

18.7 Hands-on tasks for Persian based on TBLT and CMC23

Target Task: Apartment hunting with a roommate (adapted from Brandl 2012)
Task Type: Negotiation, decision-making, jigsaw
Learner’s level and needs: Learners are college students at the intermediate level familiar
with basic vocabulary and structures.
Implementation: Chatting technology (Skype, Telegram, Facebook, Zoom, FaceTime,
WhatsApp, Google Talk, ICQ, etc.)
Mode: Simultaneous, colloquial
Collaboration Type: Pairs
Scenario: Two Persian learners (e.g. students A and B) are going to be roommates who are
going to look for an apartment in Tehran. They are going to chat and find a proper place
to rent. They have limitations and personal preferences, so they may have to give up one
or more of their preferences. They get two different listings, named A and B, from their
teacher. The learners need to negotiate in Persian by communicating their preferences,
asking questions and finding the best match for the both of them.

Pedagogical tasks
• Describe the basics of what you are looking for and your preferences
• Ask questions about your partner’s preferences
• Check your listings and offer your choices. Negotiate with your partner
• Resolve a problem and make a decision by giving up some of your preferences

Rationale: Negotiation of meaning, collaboration and interactivity are the main goals of this
task. As participants state their preferences and give up some of their lower-priority needs,
they learn how to negotiate and resolve a challenging problem. Collaboration in building
knowledge together and sociocultural interaction are beneficial to language learning.

‫ پیش از شروع سال تحصیلی‬.‫ شما و هماتاقیتان سال آینده در دانشگاه عالمه طباطبایی مشغول تحصیل خواهید بود‬:24‫تمرین‬
(‫ لیستی از چهارآپارتمان موجود )لیست الف و ب‬.‫باید آپارتمانی در منطقه شمال غربی تهران و نزدیک به دانشگاه عالمه اجاره کنید‬
،‫ اولویتها و ترجیحات زیر‬،‫ با هماتاقی خود لیستتان را چک کنید و با توجه به نیازها‬.‫برای هر کدام از شما جداگانه ارسال شده است‬
.‫ متنهای خود را به یکدیگر نشان ندهید‬،‫ برای یادگیری بهتر وتمرین گفتار‬.(‫آپارتمان مناسبی را انتخاب کنید )فقط یک جواب‬

:(‫موارد مورد نیاز دانشجوی (الف‬

ً
.‫ترجیحا‬ ‫ یک یا دوخوابه باشه‬.1
ً
.‫حتما‬ ‫ بالکن یا نورگیر خوب داشته باشه‬.2

380
 ‫‪Using technology‬‬

‫‪Table 18.2 Apartment listing A and B‬‬

‫آپارتمان نوع )ب(‬ ‫‪25‬‬

‫آپارتمان نوع )الف(‬
‫‪ ۷۶ (۵‬متری‪ ،‬پارکینگ‪ ،‬تک واحدی‪ ،‬طبقه دوم‪ ۲۰ ،‬متر‬ ‫‪ ۶۰ (۱‬متری‪ ،‬دوخوابه‪ ،‬طبقه دوم‪ ،‬تک واحدی‪ ،‬آسانسور‪،‬‬
‫انباری‪ ،‬آشپزخانه اپن‪ ،‬گرمایش از کف با پکیج‪ ،‬نوساز‬ ‫انباری‪ ،‬آشپزخانه اپن و شیک‪ ،‬دسترسی عالی‪ ،‬گرمایش شوفاژ‬
‫از کف‪ ،‬ده سال ساخت‬
‫‪ ۵۶ (۶‬متری‪ ،‬یکخوابه‪ ،‬طبقه اول‪ ،‬انباری کوچک‪ ،‬ششواحدی‪،‬‬ ‫‪۱۰۰ (۲‬متری‪ ،‬دوخوابه‪ ،‬تک واحدی‪ ،‬طبقه دوم‪ ،‬پارکینگ‪ ،‬انباری‬
‫گرمایش گازی‪،‬پارکینگ‬ ‫بزرگ‪،‬آشپزخانه ا ُپن‪ ،‬نورگیر عالی‪ ،‬بالکن‪ ،‬گرمایش مرکزی از کف‬
‫‪ ۱۴۰ (۷‬متری‪ ،‬سهخوابه‪ ،‬تک واحدی‪ ،‬طبقه پنجم‪ ۳۰ ،‬متر‬ ‫‪۱۱۵ (۳‬متری‪ ،‬دوخوابه‪ ،‬طبقه اول‪ ،‬تک واحد‪ ،‬آشپزخانه اپن و جادار‪،‬‬
‫پاسیو نورگیر عالی با بالکن‪ ،‬آشپزخانه شیک‪ ،‬انباری‬ ‫شیکدارای کمد دیورای مناسب‪ ،‬پارکینگ‪ ،‬گرمایش پکیج و از کف‬
‫بزرگ‪ ،‬گرمایش مرکزی‪ ،‬پارکینگ‬
‫‪ ۱۰۶ (۸‬متری‪ ،‬دوخوابه‪ ،‬چهارواحدی‪ ،‬نورگیر عالی‪ ،‬بازسازی‬ ‫‪۱۲۵ (۴‬متری‪ ،‬سهخوابه‪ ،‬نور گیر‪ ،‬پارکینگ‪ ،‬انباری بزرگ‪،‬‬
‫آشپزشده‪ ،‬خانه‪ ،‬طبقه دوازدهم با آسانسور‪ ،‬پارکینگ‪ ،‬گرمایش‬ ‫نوسازگرمایش شومینه‬
‫پکیج‬

‫‪ .3‬تک واحد باشه و ترجیحا ً طبقه اول یا دوم باشه چون شما از پله نمیتونید باال برید‪­.‬‬
‫‪ .4‬آشپزخونه مهم نیست چون بیرون بیشتر غذا میخورید‪.‬‬
‫‪ .5‬پارکینگ حتما ً داشته باشه چون ماشین دارید‪­.‬‬

‫موارد مورد نیاز دانشجوی (ب(‬

‫‪ .1‬بخاری یا حرارت مرکزی داشته باشه‪ ،‬ترجیحا ً از کف‪.‬‬
‫‪ .2‬حداقل دوخوابه باشه‪ ،‬ترجیحا ً سهخوابه‪.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬آشپزخونه بزرگ و ُاپن حتما ً داشته باشه چون خودتون هر روز غذا درست میکنید‪.‬‬
‫ً‬
‫ترجیحا‪.‬‬ ‫انباری بزرگ‬
‫ِ‬ ‫‪ .4‬متراژ بزرگ داشته باشه‪ ،‬با‬
‫‪ .5‬ترجیحا ً نوسازباشه ­‬
‫مناسبترین پاسخ‪ :‬مورد شماره دو‬
‫‪Target Task: Filling in a family tree chart26‬‬
‫)‪Task Type: Finding information, role-play (adapted from Brandl 2012‬‬
‫‪Learners level and needs: Learners are college students at the novice-mid or novice-high‬‬
‫‪level.‬‬
‫‪Implementation: Chatting or forum technology (Skype, Telegram, FaceTime, Google‬‬
‫)‪Talk, WhatsApp, Zoom, ICQ, etc.‬‬
‫‪Mode: Asynchronous, written or colloquial‬‬
‫‪Collaboration Type: In pairs‬‬
‫‪Scenario: Two Persian learners (e.g. students A and B) are going to work as a pairs and‬‬
‫‪fill out family tree charts. Each student is given partial information about the family in‬‬
‫‪question. They need to fill in as much information as possible. Each student will then‬‬
‫‪post or ask their partner a question and the pair will check each others’ work to complete‬‬
‫‪the charts.‬‬

‫‪Pedagogical tasks‬‬
‫•‬ ‫‪Read to find information and fill out a chart or form‬‬
‫•‬ ‫‪Ask questions to get the missing information‬‬
‫•‬ ‫‪Check information with your partner‬‬

‫‪381‬‬
 ‫‪Peyman Nojoumian‬‬

‫ﻧﺎم‪ :‬ﻟﻄﯿﻒ ﺧﺎن‬ ‫ﻧﺎم‪ :‬ﻣﻌﺼﻮﻣﮫ‬

‫ﺳﻦ‪........................... :‬‬ ‫ﺳﻦ‪........................... :‬‬
‫ﺷﻐﻞ‪..........................:‬‬ ‫ﺷﻐﻞ‪......................... :‬‬
‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‪.................. :‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‪.................... :‬‬

‫ﻧﺎم‪ :‬زھﺮا‬ ‫ﻧﺎم‪ :‬رﺿﺎ‬ ‫ﻧﺎم‪ :‬ﻣﮭﺪی‬ ‫ﻧﺎم‪ :‬ﻓﺎطﻤﮫ‬

‫ﺳﻦ‪ 55 :‬ﺳﺎل‬ ‫ﺳﻦ‪........................... :‬‬ ‫ﺳﻦ‪..................... :‬‬ ‫ﺳﻦ‪....................... :‬‬
‫ﺷﻐﻞ‪........................ :‬‬ ‫ﺷﻐﻞ‪......................... :‬‬ ‫ﺷﻐﻞ‪....................... :‬‬ ‫ﺷﻐﻞ‪...................... :‬‬
‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‪................... :‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‪................ :‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‪................... :‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‪................. :‬‬

‫ﻧﺎم‪........................... :‬‬ ‫ﻧﺎم‪....................... :‬‬ ‫ﻧﺎم‪ :‬ﻣﮭﺮداد‬ ‫ﻧﺎم‪........................... :‬‬

‫ﺳﻦ‪ 25 :‬ﺳﺎل‬ ‫ﺳﻦ‪........................ :‬‬ ‫ﺳﻦ‪......................... :‬‬ ‫ﺳﻦ‪.......................... :‬‬
‫ﺷﻐﻞ‪....................... :‬‬ ‫ﺷﻐﻞ‪........................ :‬‬ ‫ﺷﻐﻞ‪........................ :‬‬ ‫ﺷﻐﻞ‪........................ :‬‬
‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‪ :‬ﺗﮭﺮان‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‪................ :‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‪............... :‬‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‪.................. :‬‬

‫جدول خانوادگی (الف)‪Figure 18.1 Family tree chart A. 27‬‬

‫‪Rationale: This task requires that learners extract important information from the provided‬‬
‫‪texts and fill in family tree charts. To find all the required information, elementary level Per-‬‬
‫‪sian learners need to ask simple questions from each other, such as what is the name of the‬‬
‫‪grandma? where does she live? who is her husband, who is her older daughter? where does‬‬
‫‪her daughter live? etc. The task can be done in a chat room or a text forum as an out-of-class‬‬
‫‪assignment for an interpersonal interactivity at the novice level.‬‬

‫دانشجوی (الف)‪ :‬اول فرم “الف” را با اطالعات زیر پر کنید‪ .‬بعد اطالعات بیشتر را از دوستتان بپرسید‪.‬‬
‫اطالعات خود را با او به اشتراک بگذارید‪ .‬برای یادگیری بهتر و تمرین گفتار‪ ،‬متن خود را به دوستتان نشان ندهید‬
‫“زهرا” ‪ ۷۵‬سالش است و با شوهرش در شهر “کرج” زندگی میکند‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬مادر َ‬
‫“معصومه” برادر و خواهری ندارد‪.‬‬ ‫“سمیه”‪ ،‬نوهی َ‬‫ُ‬ ‫‪.2‬‬
‫“مهدی”‪ ۷۸ ،‬سالش است و بازنشسته شده است‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬پدرزن ِ‬
‫‪“ .4‬مهران” و “مهرداد” هر دو در کانادا زندگی میکنند و استاد هستند‪ .‬خواهرشان ُمعَلم است و در تهران زندگی میکند‪.‬‬
‫“محبوبه” کوچکتر است‪.‬‬ ‫“سمیه”‪ ۴ ،‬سال از َ‬ ‫ُ‬ ‫‪.5‬‬
‫“رضا” است‪.‬‬ ‫‪ “ .6‬زهرا” َ َ‬
‫همسر ِ‬ ‫َ‬
‫“مهرداد” بزرگتر است‪.‬‬ ‫‪“ .6‬مهران”‪ ۶ ،‬سال از برادرش ِ‬
‫پرستار و پدرش دندانپزشک است‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬پدر و مادر “سمیه” در منطقه “پونک” زندگی میکنند‪ .‬مادرش َ َ‬
‫‪“ .8‬مهدی” ‪ ۱۰‬سال از “زهرا” و ‪ ۵‬سال بزرگتر از زن خودش است‪.‬‬
‫خیاط است‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .9‬شوهرخالهی “سمیه”‪ّ ،‬‬

‫دانشجوی (ب)‪ :‬اول فرم “ب” را با اطالعات زیر پر کنید‪ .‬بعد اطالعات بیشتر را از دوستتان بپرسید‪ .‬اطالعات‬
‫خود را با او به اشتراک بگذارید‪ .‬برای یادگیری بهتر و تمرین گفتار‪ ،‬متن خود را به دوستتان نشان ندهید‪.‬‬
‫“لطیف خان” است‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬نام پدربزرگ َ‬
‫“معصومه” چهار َنوه دارد و خانهدار است‪.‬‬‫‪َ .2‬‬
‫‪382‬‬
 Using technology

........................... :‫ﻧﺎم‬ ........................ :‫ﻧﺎم‬

.......................... :‫ﺳﻦ‬ ‫ ﺳﺎل‬۷۵ :‫ﺳﻦ‬
‫ ﺑﺎزﻧﺸﺴﺘﮫ‬:‫ﺷﻐﻞ‬ ..................... :‫ﺷﻐﻞ‬
‫ ﮐﺮج‬:‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‬ ‫ ﮐﺮج‬:‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‬

‫ زھﺮا‬:‫ﻧﺎم‬ ‫ رﺿﺎ‬:‫ﻧﺎم‬ ‫ ﻣﮭﺪی‬:‫ﻧﺎم‬ ....................... :‫ﻧﺎم‬

......................... :‫ﺳﻦ‬ ......................... :‫ﺳﻦ‬ ........................ :‫ﺳﻦ‬ ...................... :‫ﺳﻦ‬
‫ ﺧﺎﻧﮫدار‬:‫ﺷﻐﻞ‬ ........................:‫ﺷﻐﻞ‬ ......................... :‫ﺷﻐﻞ‬ ......................... :‫ﺷﻐﻞ‬
.................. :‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‬ ................. :‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‬ .................. :‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‬ .................. :‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‬

‫ ﺳﻤﯿﮫ‬:‫ﻧﺎم‬ ............................ :‫ﻧﺎم‬ ‫ ﻣﮭﺮداد‬:‫ﻧﺎم‬ ‫ ﻣﮭﺮان‬:‫ﻧﺎم‬

........................... :‫ﺳﻦ‬ ........................... :‫ﺳﻦ‬ ........................ :‫ﺳﻦ‬ ......................... :‫ﺳﻦ‬
........................... :‫ﺷﻐﻞ‬ ‫ ﻣﻌﻠﻢ‬:‫ﺷﻐﻞ‬ ‫ اﺳﺘﺎد ﮐﺎﻣﭙﯿﻮﺗﺮ‬:‫ﺷﻐﻞ‬ ‫ اﺳﺘﺎد زﺑﺎن ﻓﺎرﺳﯽ‬:‫ﺷﻐﻞ‬
.................. :‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‬ ................. :‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‬ .............. :‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‬ ................. :‫ﻣﺤﻞ زﻧﺪﮔﯽ‬

Figure 18.2 Family tree chart B. 28)‫جدول خانوادگی (ب‬

.‫“مهرداد” است‬ ِ ‫“محبوبه” خو اهر “مهران” و‬

َ .3
.‫ َهم ِسن است‬،”‫“ مهران” با دختر خالهاش “سمیه‬ .4
.‫ سال دارد‬۳۵ ،”‫خواهرزاده “فاطمه‬ .5
.‫“مهدی” است‬ِ ،”‫نام پدر “مهرداد‬ .6
.‫ سال از او بزرگتر است‬۴ ‫ سال دارد و شوهرش‬۵۵ ،”‫“ َزهرا‬ .7
.‫ دو دختر دارد‬،”‫“لطیف خان‬ .8
.‫“فاطمه” گوینده است و با شوهر و بچههایش در تهران زندگی میکند‬ .9

Target Task: Narrate a memorable event of your past travels using Pixton technology
Task Type: Narration (past tense), create a comic strip project
Learners level and needs: Learners are college students at the low or mid-advanced
level.
Implementation: Comic strip (Pixton, Storyboard, GoAnimate, AniMaker, etc.)
Mode: Asynchronous, written or colloquial, real-time collaboration project
Collaboration Type: Group of two to three learners
Scenario: A group of 2–3 Persian learners works on a comic strip story-telling term
project and create at least nine slides (in Pixton) or a short animation (GoAnimate,
AniMaker) of a memorable event of their past travels. The students need to type narra-
tions on speech bubbles or animation subtitles and record them with their own voices.
Role-plays can also be embedded in the story and acted out using voice-overs or dub-
bing techniques.

383
 Peyman Nojoumian

Pedagogical tasks
• Write a memorable event of your past travels
• Type the story on slide panels or animation frames (subtitles)
• Record your narrations, voices or voice-overs on slide panels
• Collaborate on a group project

Rationale: The main goal of this task is for advanced language learners to collaborate on a
group project. The students will use a narration task to recount a memorable event, create a
story, type it in the Persian language and finally record their narrations or act their roles. This
is an integrative language task in which learners can collaborate on a project in real-time from
the comfort of their homes.

Figure 18.3 A sample of students’ comic strip project using Pixton technology. Speech bubbles show
recorded role-plays (slides are ordered from left to right).
Source: Made at Pixton.com

384
 Using technology

18.8 Technology and assessment

Language assessment has used technology in a wide range of applications to inform teaching
and curriculum development. Formative or diagnostic assessments can be developed using
authoring tools such as Hot Potatoes, QuizWorks and authoring technology for the assess-
ment of different language skills. Computer-based placement tests, even if not as accurate as
other forms of assessment, can be used by language coordinators to place learners in different
proficiency levels or assess learners’ achievements (e.g. JLU).29 Recently computerized oral
assessment tools, such as TOEFL,30 IELTS,31 and ACTFL’s OPIc and AAPPL,32 have been uti-
lized to make assessments available to distant learners because they can be easily implemented
online anywhere in the world. Technology-driven summative assessments are usually adaptive
to the pace and level of learners and generate scores faster and more efficiently, resulting in the
reduction of costs and time.

18.9 Conclusion
Without a doubt, we live in a world in which communication is becoming more and more
vital to world peace and security. Less commonly taught languages are becoming world stra-
tegic languages now more than ever. Our understanding of how language learning happens
has dramatically evolved, and perhaps language learning will become more efficient because
of advancements in second language acquisition research and the introduction of technology
to the field of language teaching. However, the connection between SLA research outcomes,
modern language teaching and learning tools provided by technology must be strong for
an ambitious efficiency in learning world languages to be attainable going forward. In this
chapter, relevant principles emerging from communicative language teaching and TBLT
approaches were reviewed, and possible applications of these principles to the field of teach-
ing Persian as a foreign language using modern technology were discussed. In addition,
guidelines were provided with several hands-on activities designed to remedy some of the
limitations rooted in current technology, among which is the lack of intelligent interactivity
and, perhaps, adaptive face-to-face interpersonal interactions. However, it seems that tech-
nological limitations in the field of language teaching are becoming less constraining, which
entails a new set of guidelines to adapt to new complexity in the language task design. It
seems, however, that the role of the language teacher will be relevant as far as human beings
are behind the AI development.

Notes
1) English as a Second Language.
2) Also known as TPFL.
3) Also known as LCTL.
4) Technologies and computer application names mentioned in this chapter in capital letters may be
registered trademarks owned by their respective owners or companies. DAZFA is a Persian acronym,
meaning Persian courseware.
5) www.nyu.edu/pages/gsasweb/dept/mideast/virtualpersian/index.html.
6) Also known as LARC: http://larc.sdsu.edu/persian/persiancourse/story.html.
7) Adobe Flash is apparently losing its support by most browsers because of cybersecurity concerns.
8) http://sartre2.byu.edu/persian/.
9) www.persianlanguageonline.com/.
10) www.easypersian.com.
11) www.persianpod101.com/.
12) Defense Language Institute: https://hs2.dliflc.edu/farsi.html.

385
 Peyman Nojoumian

13) Center for Advanced Study of Language: www.casl.umd.edu/.

14) www.lib.washington.edu/static/public/neareast/yekruz/index.html.
15) https://forvo.com/languages/fa/.
16) www.jahanshiri.ir/.
17) Technologies and computer application names mentioned in this table in capital letters are registered
trademarks owned by their respective owners or companies.
18) It should be mentioned that SLA researchers have different approaches to the TBLT theory and its
implementation. For more information see (Ellis 2017, 112).
19) Adapted from Doughty and Long (2003).
20) Also known as ACTFL.
21) Jigsaws are tasks that involve several learners who provide information to each other through
interactions..
22) Also known as NLP.
23) Adapted from Brandl (2012).
24) Adapted from Brandl (2012).
25) The rental information has been collected from rental ads in Tehran.
26) Adapted from Brandl (2012).
27) Adapted from Brandl (2012).
28) Adapted from Brandl (2012)
29) https://jlu.wbtrain.com/sumtotal/jlu2.0/HOME/index.asp (check with guest login).
30) Test of English as a Foreign Language.
31) International English Language Testing System.
32) ACTFL Assessment of Performance toward Proficiency in Languages (a K-12 language assessment
tool).

References
Ahmad, K., G. Corbett, M. Rogers, and R. Sussex. 1985. Computers, Language Learning and Language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) 2012. ACTFL Proficiency Guide-
lines. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Birjandi, A. 2013. A web-based (SLA-informed) portal for teaching Persian. MA thesis, Allameh
Tabataba’i University, Tehran.
Brandle, K. 2008. Communicative Language Teaching in Action: Putting Principles to Work. Upper Sad-
dle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Brandl, K. 2012. “Principles and Guidelines for Task Design in CMC Learning.” In Computer-Enhanced
­
and Mobile Assisted Learning Emerging Issues & Trends, edited by F. Zhang. Hershey, PA: IGI
Global.
Carreira, M., and O. Kagan. 2011. “The Results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for
Teaching, Curriculum Design, and Professional Development.” Foreign Language Annals, 44: 40–64.
Chun, D.M. 2006. “CALL Technologies for L2 Reading.” In Calling on CALL: From Theory and
Research to New Directions in Foreign Language Teaching, edited by L. Ducate and N. Arnold,
81–98. San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Da, J., and Y. Zheng. 2018. “Technology and the Teaching and Learning of Chinese as a Foreign Lan-
guage.” The Routledge Handbook of Chinese Second Language Acquisition, edited by C. Ke, 432–
445. New York: Routledge.
Doughty, C.J., and M. Long. 2003. “Optimal Psycholinguistics Environment for Distant Foreign Lan-
guage Learning.” Language Learning and Technology, 7(3): 50–80.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 2017. “Task-Based Language Teaching.” In The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Lan-
guage Acquisition, edited by S. Loewen and M. Sato, 108–124. New York: Routledge.
Ellis, R., and N. Shintani. 2014. Exploring Language Pedagogy Through Second Language Acquisition
Research. London: Routledge.
Fuente, M.J. 2003. “Is SLA Interactionist Theory Relevant to CALL? A Study on the Effects of Computer-
Mediated Interaction in L2 Vocabulary Acquisition.” Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1):
47–81.

386
 Using technology

González-Lloret, M. 2003. “Designing Task-Based CALL to Promote Interaction: En busca de esmeral-

das.” Language Learning & Technology, 7(1): 86–104.
Hampel, R., and M. Haucke. 2006. “Computer-Mediated Language Learning: Making Meaning in Mul-
timodal Virtual Learning Spaces.” The JALT CALL Journal, 2(2): 3–18.
Jones, L.C. 2003. “Supporting Listening Comprehension and Vocabulary Acquisition with Multimedia
Annotations: The Students’ Voice.” CALICO Journal, 21(1): 41–65.
Kessler, G., D. Bikowski, and J. Boggs. 2012. “Collaborative Writing Among Second Language Learners
in Academic Web-Based Projects.” Language Learning and Technology, 16(1): 91–109.
Krashen, S.D. 2003. “Explorations in Language Acquisition and Use.” In The Taipei Lectures, Ports-
mouth, NH: Heinemann.
Larsen-Freeman, D., and M. Anderson. 2011. “Emerging Uses of Technology in Language Teaching and
Learning.” Techniques & Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Long, M.H. 1983. “Native-Speaker/Non-Native Speaker Conversation in the Second Language Class-
room.” In On TESOL ’82: Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching, edited by M.A.
Clarke and J. Handscomb, 207–225. Washington, DC: TESOL.
Long, M.H. 1985. “A Role for Instruction in Second Language Acquisition: Task- Based Language
Teaching.” In Modeling and Assessing Second Language Development, edited by K. Hyltenstam and
M. Pienemann, 77–99. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Long, M.H. 1991. “Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language Teaching Methodology.” In For-
eign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective, edited by K. de Bot, R.B. Ginsberg, and
C. Kramsch, 39–52. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing.
Long, M.H., C. Doughty, Y. Kim, J.H. Lee, and Y.G. Lee, 2003. Task-Based Language Teaching: A Dem-
onstration Module. National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC RN#37 [text, audio CD,
and video]), Honolulu: University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum
Center.
Long, M.H., ed. 2005. Second Language Needs Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mirdehghan, M., and A. Jorghani. 2013. “Developing Instructional Materials for the TPSOL Program,
a Hybrid Computer-Based and Classroom-Based Approach in Teaching Integrated Language Skills
(title in Persian).” TPSOL Journal, 1(1).
Nojoumian, P. 1999. A Multimedia and Computer-Based Approach in TPFL, Designing of a Persian
Courseware (DAZFA). MA thesis in Persian, University of Allameh Tabataba’i Tehran.
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Reinders, H., and G. Stockwell. 2017. “Computer-Assisted SLA.” The Routledge Handbook of Instructed
Second Language Acquisition, edited by S. Loewen and M. Sato, 361–376. New York: Routledge.
Rezaee, V., and F. Vazirnejad. 2016. “Reviewing the Status of Online TPSOL Programs: Issues and Solu-
tions (title in Persian).” TPSOL Journal. Tehran, 2(4).
Sahra’i, R., and S. Safari. 2012. “Web-based Teaching of Persian; New Strategies to Expand the Persian
Language (title in Persian).” International Conference for the Expansion of the Persian Language,
Persian Language Association, Tehran.
Sauro, S. 2009. “Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback and the Development of L2 Grammar.” Lan-
guage Learning & Technology, 13(1): 96–120.
Skehan, P. 2003. “Task-Based Instruction.” Language Teaching, 36(1): 1–14.
Vakilifard, A., M.A. Mahdavi, and M. Khodadadian. 2013. “Tools for Teaching Persian in Virtual Envi-
ronments; From Design to Implementation (title in Persian).” TPSOL Journal, 1(2): 61–82.
Valle, L.M. 2005. “Analyzing Oral Skills in Voice E-Mail and Online Interviews.” Language Learning &
Technology, 9(3): 146–163.

387
 19
TEACHING PERSIAN
THROUGH SHORT
STORIES WITH PARALLEL
ELABORATION ANOUSHA SHAHSAVARITEACHING PERSIAN THROUGH SHORT STORIES

Anousha Shahsavari

19.1 Introduction
Reading is considered a critical component of developing second language proficiency
(Krashen 1993). The teaching of reading as a separate skill in the Persian language classroom
used to receive much attention. Most Persian courses offered for college level students and the
textbooks developed for these courses have focused on “reading” as a primary skill. Persian
language materials have nearly always included a section dedicated to reading. Prior to the
revolution of the virtual world, the main source for these reading materials in Persian was
literature. In academic settings, literature still contributes to the reading sources for teaching
and learning Persian, but unlike other discourses, literature instruction in the Persian language
classroom has not yet benefited from the “proficiency movement,” as it is reviewed and called
by Kramsch (1987) and Kramsch and Kramsch (2000, 567). The proficiency movement was
first started in the ’80s, when Proficiency Guidelines (1986) were developed by the Ameri-
can Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL 2019). Although the guidelines
were created as a tool to assess the proficiency of foreign language speakers, its function was
extended to help educators in teaching and developing curriculum and language materials.
These guidelines are a description of what L2 learners can do with language in terms of four
language skills in real-world situations in a spontaneous and non-rehearsed context. The teach-
ing of literature, no less than other discourse types, can benefit from the principles developed
by the proficiency movement, in which the focus of instruction is more on what the students
can do with the language, and not on what they understand and learn from the text. However,
in some Persian language classes that use literature as the main content, the literary text itself
is so intensely focused on that the factors involved in language learning are inadvertently mar-
ginalized and sometimes wholly ignored. As a result, a classroom that should be focused on
facilitating language learning instead becomes a lecture on content by the teacher, and in the
best case scenario, by a few students who are already at a high level.
Some of these issues go back to the role we give to comprehensible input language learn-
ing in classes incorporating Persian literature. Comprehensible input plays an important role
in language acquisition (Krashen 1980). It may appear that the instructor facilitates exposure
to comprehensible input by providing accommodation for learners such as describing a word
or a phrase, paraphrasing a sentence, or providing more information about the context as the

388
 Teaching Persian through short stories

students and the instructor summarize the main events of the story; however, this methodol-
ogy raises two important concerns. The first is that it is impossible for the instructor to provide
level-appropriate glossing for all students at the same time since students will be at different
levels. The second and larger issue is that the instructor has to spend important class time to
offer this accommodation. This time would be better spent devoted to more active participa-
tion from the learners, which based on Mackey (1999) is an important element in learner
interaction. Learner interaction is believed to raise the effectiveness of comprehensible input
in L2 acquisition (Long 1980).
This chapter combines analysis of research and teaching experience to answer a set of
questions about using literature as reading materials. The goal in this chapter is to facilitate the
creation of a dynamic curriculum in which focus shifts from providing comprehensible input
to creating an opportunity for learner interaction.

1 What is reading? How has teaching reading changed in recent years?

2 How have Persian language instructional materials been influenced by these changes?
3 Why use literature? Why short stories?
4 How can we transform literary texts into teaching materials? What is the rationale behind
what we do?

These questions provide an outline for this chapter. Read Chapter 13 in this volume for an
extensive discussion on the reading skill and its treatment in Persian language courses.

19.2 What is reading? How has teaching reading

changed in recent years?
When the proficiency movement began, L2 language teachers started redefining their objec-
tives for teaching and their roles as educators. Among other aspects of language teaching and
learning, the movement also affected how skills were described in terms of language learning
and teaching. Reading in its general meaning involves the reader, the text, and the interaction
between reader and text (Rumelhart 1977). For the purposes of this chapter, we define reading
as a process undertaken by the reader in order to explore the meaning a text carries. Reading as
so defined entails three interlinked operations – “text-meaning
­ building,” “personal-meaning
­
construction,” and “knowledge refinement” (Kod 2016). Based on Koda and Yamashita’s (2019)
definition of reading ability, “Text-meaning
­ building involves (a) analyzing word forms, (b)
retrieving word meanings, and (c) integrating words meanings into larger text segments, such
as sentences and paragraphs” (p. 32). In personal-meaning
­ construction, the reader recognizes
how the information on the text goes with her “real-life experiences and prior knowledge.” In
this process, the links are created between text meaning and the relevant information stored in
the reader’s memory. This information includes the reader’s real life experience, knowledge,
and personal views on the topic. The third process, knowledge refinement, “involves the incor-
poration of personalized text meaning into the learner’s knowledge bases” (Koda and Yamashita
2019, 33). This operation goes beyond the comparisons of personal-meaning construction, and
based on Koda and Yamashita (2019), involves the reader reflecting not only on the similarities
and differences between text information and what the learner already knows about the topic,
but also the change in the learner’s knowledge of the topic.
However we define it, it is important for language instructors to recognize that the “read-
ing” skill, simple on the surface, is in fact a complex interaction of text and reader and that
learners may need explicit assistance in this process when learning a second language.

389
 Anousha Shahsavari

Based on the overview by Paran (2012), the dominant view of reading, reading strategies,
and teaching offered by reading specialists since 1980 is still valid in many respects. Paran
suggests that the notable change that has happened since then is the shift of the focus from
intensive reading to extensive reading. That means the transition of attention from grammati-
cal forms, discourse markers, and other details in the form in order to understand the literal
meaning and implications and so on, to reading longer texts in order to understand the content.
However, an overview by Paran (2012, 450) suggests that “changes in theoretical understand-
ings and in teacher training often do not filter down to the classroom and that change is context
dependent to a very high degree.”

19.2.1 Extensive reading

Extensive reading may be misunderstood by teachers if they interpret “extensive” to mean
more complex. Reading extensive materials involves reading longer texts, but the reading pro-
cess must also come with reasonable comfort. It must be free from constant pauses and must
not overwhelm the learners (Paran 2012).
For the lower levels of less commonly taught languages, when the contact hours are lim-
ited, and/or the students do not have any previous knowledge of the language, it takes time
for students to reach the level at which they can start reading long texts, even more so for
languages like Persian which introduce an entirely new orthography. Also, there is limited
availability of authentic materials that are lengthy, manageable, and engaging. As much as
reading long texts can be rewarding, it can be frustrating and in cases can create resistance
and avoidance by students. For Persian, extensive reading may not be appropriate in the
first year of instruction, but it is never too early to develop the reading strategies underlying
extensive reading.

19.2.2 The whole language and integrated-skill approach

The holistic or whole language approach has also impacted the teaching of reading in the sec-
ond language classroom. Whole language was suggested by educators like Harste and Burke
(1977) and included literacy as a part of language. In whole language, the four modes of
language – speaking, writing, listening, and reading – “are mutually supportive and not artifi-
cially separated” (Rigg 1991, 526). Among the principles listed or mentioned by Rigg (1991)
and Dudley-Marling (1995) are:

1 language is being learned as a whole, and not as the sum of its unit,
2 language skills are in relationship to each other, and not separate skills
3 language learning is a social process
4 the learners are the center of classroom
5 classes are process-oriented as opposed to product-oriented
6 learning a language is associating the new information to the previous information and a
built-up process.
7 students errors are a part of their learning process.

This approach is in accord with current pedagogical best practices. The segregated skill
approach, which is still practiced perhaps due to logistically easier instructional methodology
(Mohan 1986), is no longer advised by language teaching experts. Despite this, the separation
of language skills is still practiced and pedagogically rationalized in language classes.

390
 Teaching Persian through short stories

One contributing factor to the failure of theory to impact practice in our language class-
rooms is the gap between what research says and the commercial materials available to teach-
ers. Although the whole language idea looks straightforward, in practice, it is not easy for
the materials developer and the instructors to abandon tradition and avoid what they have
internalized as language learning and teaching. There are language courses that use the most
recent technology and claim to be modern but simultaneously apply the language teaching
methodologies practiced in the ’70s. The idea of whole language may seem easy to apply, but
most of the time, even with training, it remains theoretical.
Over the past few decades, research in language pedagogy has shifted from a focus on
intensive reading to extensive reading and from a focus on language skills in isolation into an
integrated approach relying on interactions between the skills to facilitate learning.

19.3 How have Persian language instructional materials been

influenced by these changes?
This redefinition of reading skills has affected the way most new textbooks developed for lower
level in Persian are advertised and how they introduce their approach to materials development.
They still mention their attention to different language skills, and they claim that their approaches
are integrated and include all skills in developing materials. For more information see the text-
books by Brookshaw and Shabani-Jadidi (2012), Nojoumian (2017), Sahraei et al. (2017),
Sedighi (2015), Shabani-Jadidi and Brookshaw (2019), and Shahsavari and Atwood (2015).
The textbooks by the authors mentioned previously, per their own descriptions, are devel-
oped to address the needs of learners at novice to intermediate high. There have not been many
commercial materials available for Persian in advanced level in recent years. If they exist,
commercial higher intermediate to advanced level materials may not receive the attention the
lower level materials do, because the learners’ needs become more specific as learners move
to higher proficiency levels. According to Pachler and Field (1997), as learners’ proficiency
increases, their diversity in ability and interest extend, and their motivation and the resources
available to them broaden. The students who are studying at the advanced level in foreign lan-
guages will not necessarily continue to study foreign language as a major. For many of them
it is a means of supporting other subjects. Learners also become more independent as their L2
improves (Pachler and Field 1999).
Developing commercial materials for more advanced levels, especially text-centered
materials, is not very efficient, because it may lose its relevance too quickly. In Persian, the
learners’ goals may still include studying literature for its own sake, or as a door to learn the
language and understand the culture. A variety of other subjects, however, have been added
to the field of Persian language teaching, including international relations, media studies, and
political science. For the latter, students would rather read authentic and more recent materials:
news ages fast and quickly becomes stale. However, a few books have been developed after
2010, to include different subjects. Among these books are The Routledge Intermediate Per-
sian Course: Farsi Shirin Ast II by Brookshaw and Shabani-Jadidi (2012), What the Persian
Media Says by Shabani-Jadidi (2015), Enjoy Reading by Sahraei, Shahbaz, Ahmadi-Ghader
and Soltani (2018), Iranology or Iran-shenasi
­ by Sahraei, Soltani, Shahbaz, Marsous and
Shirinbakhsh (2018), Persian Academic Reading by Aghdasi (2018), Persian Learner Part
Four: Advanced Persian for College Students by Nojoumian (2018), Intermediate Persian
Reader by Hillmann (2019), and The Routledge Advanced Persian Course: Farsi Shirin Ast
III by Shabani-Jadidi (2020). Reading skills in most of the materials for advanced level are
treated more or less the same.

391
 Anousha Shahsavari

Enjoy Reading and Iranology have a similar approach to materials development. Enjoy
Reading is intended for pre-intermediate and intermediate level based on Common European
Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), however, due to the difficulty and complex-
ity of the selected texts and the vocabulary intended to be learned, the texts can be also placed
for higher levels. Iranology or Iran-shenasi
­ is a content-based language textbook developed
for intermediate and high-intermediate level based on CEFR. It is developed to address the
needs of university students whose major is related to Iranian studies. The book, which focuses
on introducing Iran as a country, utilizes a collection of texts that appear to be simplified to
accommodate lower levels. The regular exercises for reading skills are reading comprehension
exercises which appear in different formats. The instructor may also choose to ask questions as
the text is being read in class and elicit “wanted” answers. Some of the textbooks integrate the
four skills so there are interactions between skills around a topic or theme.
What the Persian Media Says includes authentic texts selected from newspaper texts that
are published in Iran, accompanied by exercises that test students’ knowledge of the topic.
Persian Academic Reading targets students with strong background in Persian and includes
authentic passages from various fields including history, philosophy, cultural studies, political
sciences, economics, literature, religious studies, and tourism. Besides exercises in each unit
that are meant to help students master the terms, optional exercises accompany each unit for
learners to practice their writing.
In Persian Learner Part Four: Advanced Persian for College Students, Nojoumian (2018)
claims that the materials are designed to treat reading skills in an integrated fashion through
task-based teaching approach.
The Routledge Advanced Persian Course (Shabani-Jadidi 2020) targets students of higher
level proficiency. Each lesson includes an authentic text about Iran, a brief biography of a
prominent poet and one of their most representative poems, and finally a Persian proverb and
the story behind it.
In this chapter, we offer a framework through which literature can be used to incorporate
reading in the language curriculum.

19.4 Why use literature? Why short stories?

Literature as a means for language instruction has proven beneficial. It reinforces linguistic
ability, raises cultural awareness, and creates opportunities for personal expression (Ur 1999).
Pickens (2007) lists several reasons for using literature in teaching: Literary texts are
authentic; they are motivating; and literature makes learners focus on the form of the language
and helps them handle linguistic creativity. It also contributes to intercultural understanding.
An experiment by Elley and Mangubhai (1983, 53) confirmed “the hypothesis that high-
interest story reading has an important role to play in second language learning.”
Using any piece of literature may appear authentic, but authenticity, although itself virtuous
(Picken 2007), cannot be preserved if the texts have been stripped of the original context (Wid-
dowson 1998). Widdowson believes that fiction, through its cautious perspective, can work
well since the context is included in the text. In short stories the text can be contextualized by
using other relative materials, including biography, movies, interviews, and other short stories.
The rationale for using stories for language teaching, as stated by Wajnryb (2003) can be
well explained based on Willis’s (1996) three essential conditions for language learning: 1)
exposure to accessible language, 2) use of the language to exchange meaning, and 3) motiva-
tion to process and use the exposure. In her view instruction is desirable but not essential. In
our case short stories give us a platform to create Willis’s conditions for language learning.

392
 Teaching Persian through short stories

19.4.1 Reading through literature

Rosenblatt, in the 1970s, introduced the transaction theory based on which the comprehen-
sion developed from the transaction between the reader and the written word. In Rosenblatt’s
(1978) transactional view, the reader and the text and the process of making sense of the text
are all part of a whole, not apart from it. Based on this theory, the reader can “live through”
the piece of literature and not simply study it. In her reader response theory (1983), the
reading skill is redefined as negotiation of meaning, which is not a new approach to read-
ing instruction in literature. Although the writer’s words are important, the knowledge and
experience the reader brings to the process of making sense of the text are a part of reading
comprehension.
In this chapter, materials development facilitates this transaction, while the tasks that do
so are undertaken by the learners themselves – in other words, providing a setting in which
students take ownership of this transaction, whose outcome is improving their language
proficiency/literacy.

19.5 How can we transform literary texts into teaching materials?

What is the rationale behind what we do?

19.5.1 The framework for materials development:

an integrated model for teaching literature
When using literature for our language courses, we need to decide the best approach to meet
the needs of our students and the objectives of the curriculum. Three main approaches have
been proposed by Carter and Long (1991): the cultural model, the language model, and the
personal growth model. The cultural model has been the traditional approach to teaching lit-
erature, in which the student’s role is understanding the text and interpreting the text socially,
politically, historically, and literarily. This approach does not lend itself to a learner-centered
approach to language teaching, because the instructor retains the main role in communicating
the knowledge. In the language model, which is still widely used by language teachers, the
learners’ engagement with the text stays at the linguistic level through language activities. The
personal growth model emphasizes the interaction of the reader with the text. In this model,
learning happens through the readers’ interpretation and construction of meaning based on
their own experience.
These three approaches with different focuses on the text are combined in a model called
the Integrated Model, as Savvidou (2004) states, which was offered by O’Brien in 1999. Sav-
vidou (2004, 4) believes that this approach “makes literature accessible to learners and benefi-
cial for their linguistic development.”
In Timucin’s (2001) case study, he implements an integrated approach combining the lin-
guistic description and stylistic approaches to teaching. The approach proves to have a positive
impact on students’ motivation, involvement, and appreciation of literary works. Savvidou
(2004) defends this model as a desired approach to teaching language because it benefits from
some of the strategies used in stylistic analysis in which the object is not just finding out
the meaning of the text but more importantly how the text’s elements, including vocabulary,
structure, register, etc., contribute to that meaning. This model, first suggested by O’Brien in
1999 (Savvidou 2004), uses the elements of the stylistic approach but is not as demanding
and technical. Savvidou (2004) believes that this model can be adapted for all levels with the
careful selection of text.

393
 Anousha Shahsavari

This approach was itemized by Savvidou (2004, 4–5) into six stages to make literary texts
work for language learning purposes:

1 Preparation and anticipation: “eliciting the learners’ real or literary experience of the main
themes and context of text.”
2 Focusing: “Learners experience the text by listening and or reading and focusing on spe-
cific content in the text.”
3 Preliminary Response: “Learners give their initial response to the text – spoken or
written.”
4 Working at it (I): “Focus is on comprehending the first level of meaning through intensive
reading.”
5 Working at it (II): “Focus is on analysis of the text at a deeper level and exploring how the
message is conveyed through overall structure and any special uses of language – rhythm,
imagery, word choice etc.”
6 Interpretation and personal response: “The focus of this final step is on increasing under-
standing, enhancing enjoyment of the text and enabling learners to come to their own
personal interpretation of the text. This is based on the rationale for the personal growth
model.”

The theoretical background for this model looks sound, but the stages mentioned by Savvidou
require further elaboration to be implemented in a classroom. For example, how should the
materials be prepared to serve these stages and what are the roles of the instructor and the
students in each stage?
To respond to these questions, this chapter suggests a parallel engaging model, which
is offered through supplementary materials besides the literary text and engaging material
parallel to the text. This model combines the main three approaches proposed by Carter and
Long (1991): the cultural model, the language model, and the personal growth model. This
model is an attempt to serve a learner-centered approach in which based on Tudor’s (1993)
description of a learner-centered classroom, the main role of the instructor is preparing learn-
ers, analyzing learner needs, selecting methodology, transferring responsibility, and involv-
ing learners.
A parallel engaging model serves a learner-centered approach to materials development.
The materials and assignments in this model are designed to involve students in making deci-
sions about their needs, are geared around students’ learning styles, and consider students’
individual goals.
The materials in this model include 1) supplementary materials to provide context for the
literary text, 2) meaning, interpretation, and modification of input for selected parts, 3) ques-
tions and activities that create opportunity for text analysis and personal interpretation. These
materials are all accessible to the students as they read the story at home and discuss it in class.
As we continue, I will explain how a “parallel engagement” model in developing materials for
a language through literature course lends itself to the findings of research on second language
acquisition.

19.5.2 Putting theory to practice – challenges and opportunities

When we use literature as the primary material in a language classroom, we cannot limit
ourselves to helping students understand the text. We must also consider the structure of the
curriculum and the role of students and teachers in the classroom (Short 1994).

394
 Teaching Persian through short stories

“Persian Through Short Stories” is a course designed for the students at intermediate-high
to advanced-low proficiency level based on the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages Proficiency Guidelines. The main characteristic of this course is the fact that it is
flipped. The flipped classroom is a pedagogical approach in which the order of typical activi-
ties of homework and classroom, as it is followed in traditional teaching, is reversed (Gar-
rison and Vaughan 2008). The principle of the flipped classroom is grounded in the theory of
active learning (e.g., Bonwell and James 1991). Active learning as Bonwell and James (1991)
describe involves students not only in doing things but also thinking about the things they
are doing. Creating a learner-centered language classroom can be difficult without a flipped
approach to teaching, because it can be hard for students to get engaged in an interaction
without having the tools to interact. The flipped language classroom provides the tool for the
students to do so. In the following section, I will review the main parts of the syllabus for “Per-
sian Through Short Stories”: objectives, materials, and assessment followed by a description
section on how this model takes advantage of relevant theories in second language acquisition.

19.5.3 Objectives, materials, and assessment

The objectives of the course are introduced to students in three main areas: language, litera-
ture, and the social context.
The course aims to improve students’ language ability and to help them get actively and
effectively involved in a communicative environment. The language is challenging for the
students in different areas: 1) Lexical challenges such as new terminologies, colloquialisms,
made-up forms, idioms, etc.; 2) Discourse-related challenges such as identifying the speech
act; i.e. narrate, inform, request, apologize; 3) Interpersonal challenges such as age and gender
differences; 4) Functional challenges such as asking for repetition or more definition, agreeing
and disagreeing, and hypothesizing.
The course is also designed to foster students’ skills as a critical reader of literature. Read-
ing, discussing, and analyzing the works and the texts are used as gateways to a deeper under-
standing of Persian literature.
Finally, the course aims to familiarize students with social issues in Iran. Social critical lit-
eracy includes investigation of social, political, and cultural issues in reading and responding
to literature. To achieve these goals, the following are pursued: 1) Reading the lines: under-
standing the plot of the story, identifying the climax; 2) Reading between the lines: under-
standing the larger setting, building a deeper view of the characters, putting the plot into a
context, stating the purpose of the theme; 3) Reading beyond the lines: investigation of social,
political, and cultural issues in reading and responding to literature.
The students read a few short stories during the course of a semester. Appendix B includes
suggested stories. Each story, depending on how long it is, is assigned for one to five class ses-
sions. The students are provided with a list of supplementary materials, independent from the
text, for each story. For supplementary materials, students are asked to pick two pieces to read/
watch/listen to, one as they prepare to read the story, and another as they finish reading the
story. They pick materials depending on their interest and needs. They are encouraged to pick
from different modes (reading/listening). They are asked to come up with a list of 10 impor-
tant words total for this assignment. They should be able to explain later in class why these
words are important. These supplementary materials include movies, biographies, interviews,
reports, songs, etc. all related to the story’s style, theme, social context, cultural references,
history, etc. Students are free to choose from different sources, which can help to boost their
interest and attitude towards the story itself.

395
 Anousha Shahsavari

Students read the story at home. Each story is accompanied by an audio file in which the
text is read slower than normal speed, with clear pronunciation. Students should listen to the
audio file, but they are free to do it simultaneously as they read the story or before or after
they read the text. Through provision of the audio file, students have access to pronunciation.
This is important because the Persian writing system does not include short vowels /a, e, o/ in
non-initial positions. In class, students should be able to read correctly the assigned part for
each session. Although they are not asked to read the entire text in class, in order to discuss the
accompanied questions in the table, they need to find the phrases and sentence/s related to the
questions and, if needed, read them aloud in their group.
A table (see later) accompanies each story which facilitates students’ reading. This table
includes meaning and interpretation of selected texts from the story, linguistic explanation,
questions from the text, and tasks for class activities. After each table, there is also a list of
questions that are more general. Students can use the latter when they write their summary
of the story before class, and later can use them as a source for additional pair discussions.
The stories are divided into a few parts, each of which has 20 to 30 items in the table of the
story. For each session, students read one part of the story and they use the table as a resource
to follow the story. To be able to discuss the story in class, students should try to answer the
accompanied questions. When they read the story, they should have the questions beside them
to help them in reading and following the story. They do not need to answer the questions, but
reading the questions will draw their attention to the importance of specific section they read.
After each table, students are provided with a few general questions about the story that
provide them with the opportunity to bring more personal responses to the discussion.
For their homework, which should always be completed before each session, students are
asked to write at least five long sentences retelling the part of the story they read for each class
session. They also should pick two to five questions from the table and answer them through at
least five long sentences. These assignments are graded on the overall quality, not on the gram-
matical correctness, or the interpretation of the story. For each session, students’ homework
also has a written component in which students respond to or answer questions about the story.
Their writing then is checked by the instructor, and written corrective feedback is provided.
Instructor feedback should focus on repetitive mistakes that most interfere with the compre-
hensibility of the student’s output. Students check the feedback and apply them on their text.
The final version will be checked and graded. For further discussion on corrective feedback to
students’ writing, read Chapter 14 in this volume.
In class, students are grouped in pairs, not in groups, maximizing their opportunities to
interact and use the language. Class normally begins with a short introduction by the instruc-
tor in a form of Q&A on the style of the story, then it is left to the students to discuss the
story itself in pairs. The pairs start with reporting a few important words they chose from the
supplementary materials, and then they report the summary they wrote. They compare their
understanding of the story as they report.
To continue the discussion and for the class activities, they use the parallel table. Active
participation is demonstrated by meaningfully engaging in class discussion. Examples of in-
class tasks are:

• Being able to read the story aloud correctly

• Discussing the assigned questions
• Discussing their findings by bringing examples from the text
• Giving feedback on another student’s ideas
• Asking for elaboration

396
 Teaching Persian through short stories

Class time is devoted to activating the vocabulary and structures that students have prepared at
home through their homework. They should expect to spend at least 75% of class time doing
activities in pairs.
Students also have two writing projects during the course of the semester, and for each of
them, they are expected to choose some of the vocabulary they learned to write two pages.
This is another opportunity for them to use the vocabulary they have learned. The project can
be in a format of a creative work like a story or other forms of writing, including writing about
the story covered in class or reporting on the life of an author they like, an artist they admire,
a piece of art they are amazed by, or any other favorite subject. For each project, they must
use at least 40 new words from the tables, including at least 20 verbs. The instructor will give
corrective feedback on this assignment. To receive credit for this assignment, students should
submit the improved text based on the feedback provided. The written assignment provides
opportunity for output, and gives the instructor an opportunity for assessment and to provide
feedback on students’ output. Grades of this course mainly include the grades on students’
homework assignments, class participation, and writing projects.
In class, the instructor remains a facilitator. The role of the teacher is facilitating and nego-
tiating of the meaning, when needed. Outside the class, the instructor provides corrective
feedback on students’ written assignments.

19.5.4 Materials

Accessible language through input modification

The classroom as described previously requires the use of materials that have been intensively
prepared in advance. Careful consideration must be given in the development of these materials
so that they can be used to facilitate text comprehension and language learning. Here we briefly
outline the theoretical considerations motivating our chosen method for enhancing input texts.
Based on Willis (1996), learning happens under three combined conditions: exposure to accessi-
ble language, use of language to exchange meaning, and motivation to process and use the exposure.
When teaching reading in our classroom, we strive to foster these three conditions. Comprehensible
input (Krashen 1981) or accessible language is language that can be understood by learner despite
them not knowing all the words and structure in it. In fact, there must be a comprehension problem or
language learning cannot occur (Gallaway and Richards 1994). Reading instruction for L2 lies along
a spectrum of instructor intervention ranging from intensive intervention to avoid any comprehen-
sion to a complete lack of intervention in which students are encouraged to solve the comprehension
problem on their own with no supplementary materials provided or input modification.
This course takes a middle approach that facilitates students’ comprehension of the text
with elaboration (Yano, Long, and Ross 1994), rather than simplification, of the original text.
As Long (1983) notes, simplification removes the comprehension problem without which
learning cannot occur. Elaboration is a way for clarifying the meaning, so it involves “features
such as slower speech, clearer articulation and emphatic stress, paraphrases, synonyms and
restatements, rhetorical signaling devices, self-repetition, and suppliance of optional syntactic
signals” (Parker and Chaudron 1987, 110).
Elaboration in this course is accomplished not by modification of the original text but first
by inclusion of parallel materials, and later by involving students in the process of modifica-
tion, thereby creating Willis’ (1996) second condition for language learning. There are several
reasons for this type of intervention in a literature-based language class. Besides the fact that
the originality of the text is preserved, students are given freedom in using elaborated texts

397
 Anousha Shahsavari

as needed for their reading comprehension, and they are empowered to read what they might
not be able to read otherwise. Empowered students are more motivated students, thus meeting
Willis’ third condition for language learning.
In this section we describe a parallel table that is the practical vehicle for delivering the
elaboration we describe previously. Each story we read in the class is accompanied with a
parallel table developed by the instructor. This table includes meaning, linguistic explanation,
elaboration, questions, and activities that create opportunities for discussing the content of the
story and sometimes the linguistic forms involved. Students have access to the table as they
read the story prior to the class.
In this section the details of a specific parallel table is described. Appendix A shows a
sample table for the shortest story for this course, “A Life” by Zoya Pirzad, but for detailed
description, the first two sentences of the story “The Fish and Its Mate,” by Ebrahim Golestan
(1994), have been chosen. This story is assigned to the students for two sessions. Each session
is 75 minutes. For each session students read one page of the story. The table accompanying
the story consists of 47 items. This table is created as a Google Document, so it can be easily
accessed by students and instructors. Students are able to make a copy of this file and write
their notes on it. For the first session, in addition to studying the items 1 to 27 of the table,
students choose to read or watch one of the supplementary materials (because the story is very
short) whose source/links are provided on the top of the Google Document. These supplemen-
tary materials include “The Taste of Cherry,” a movie whose theme is similar to the story, a
part of an interview with the author, a movie by the author, the biography of the author, a piece
of news about the author, and an interview with someone about the author’s works.
For homework, students should:

1 List five words that they extracted from the supplementary materials and that they think
are important
2 Write a summary re-telling the first page of the story in five long sentences (with different
stories students read up to five pages for each session). The summary should be at least
five long sentences.
3 Choose two to five questions from the table and respond to them in five long sentences.

The table included the meaning and interpretation for some of the words and sentences and
questions as the students read the story at home. The immediate function of the table is the
role it plays in students’ “noticing,” which has an important role in transforming input into
intake (Schmidt 1995). Later in class the table is used as a detailed guide for pair work. It could
potentially address the two last stages of the model suggested by Savvidou (2004) through
simultaneously considering: 1) the “analysis of the text at a deeper level and exploring how
the message is conveyed through overall structure and any special uses of language,” and 2)
“increasing understanding, enhancing enjoyment of the text and enabling learners to come to
their own personal interpretation of the text.”
.‫ پشت شیشه برایشان از تخته سنگها آبگیری‬.‫ ماهیها پشت شیشه آرام و آویزان بودند‬.‫مرد به ماهیها نگاه میكرد‬
.‫ دیوارهی روبروی مرد از شیشه بود‬.‫ساخته بودند كه بزرگ بود و دیوارهاش دور میشد و دوریش در نیمه تاریكی میرفت‬
.
The translation: The man was looking at the fish. The fish were calm and hanging behind the
glass. Behind the glass, with slabs of rock, they had built a pond, which was large with long walls
that disappeared into the semi-darkness. The door that was in front of the man was made of glass.
For these first four sentences of the story, four items were presented in the parallel table
(Table 19.1). The original table consists of four columns. The second column on the right

398
Table 19.1 Parallel elaboration

Translation of the questions and activities ‫پرسش ها و تمرین ها‬ ‫معنی و معادل و‬ ‫واژگان و‬ ‫شماره‬
(provided for the reader of the chapter) Questions ‫تقویت ورودی‬ ‫اصطالحات‬ number
and activities Meaning, Vocabulary,
(elaboration) interpretation, phrases,
and input sentences
enhancement

Column 1: Number 1 ‫به نظر شما چرا داستان‬ ‫ ماهیها‬-‫ماهی‬ ‫مرد به ماهیها‬ ۱
Column 2: The man was looking at the fish. ‫از چشمان و نگاه مرد‬ .‫نگاه میکرد‬
Column 3: Fish-fish (plural) ‫شروع میشود؟ بعد از‬
Column 4: Why do you think the story starts ‫این که داستان را تمام‬
with the eyes and gaze of the man? After you ‫ دوباره برگردید‬،‫کردید‬
read the whole story, return to this line and try ‫و سعی کنید به این‬
to answer this question again. .‫سؤال جواب دهید‬
Column 1: Number 2 ‫ حدس بزنید لباسم‬-‫الف‬ Calm and ‫آرام و آویزان‬ ۲
Column 2: Calm and hanging ‫را آویزان کردم چه‬ hanging
Column 3: Calm and hanging (translation ‫ شما‬.‫معنیای میدهد‬ :‫مثال برای آویزان‬
provided) ‫لباستان را کجا آویزان‬ .‫پرده آویزان است‬
Example for hanging: The curtain is hanging. ‫میکنید؟‬
Column 4:
‫ در فارسی آویزان‬-‫ب‬
A) Guess what “I hung my dress” means. Where
‫میتواند صفت عجیبی‬
do you hang your dress?
‫ به‬.‫برای ماهی باشد‬
B) In Persian, hanging can be a strange
‫نظر شما چرا ماهیها‬
adjective for fish. Why do you think the fish
‫آویزان هستند؟‬
are hanging?
Column 1: Number 3 ‫ به نظر شما‬-‫الف‬ :Pond ‫آبگیر‬ ۳
Column 2: Pond ‫”گیرکردن“ چه‬
‫ گیر‬+ ‫ آب‬:‫آبگیر‬
Column 3: Pond (translation Pond: /ābgir/: /āb/ ‫معنیای میدهد؟‬
‫ ستاک حال‬:‫گیر‬
(water) + /gir/ (get) 1 To get entertained
‫برای گرفتن‬
/gir/ (get): The present stem for /gereftan/ (to get) by someone
Column 4: 2 To get stuck in
A) What do you think /gir kardan/ means? something
  1 to get entertained by someone
‫ فکر میکنید آبگیر‬-‫ب‬
  2 to get stuck in something
‫یک آبگیر طبیعی‬
B) Do you think that the pond is a natural pond?
‫است؟ از چه ساخته‬
What is it made of? Where does it go?
‫شدهاست؟ به کجا ختم‬
‫میشود؟‬
Column 1: Number 4 ‫ دیواره روبروی مرد‬-‫الف‬ ‫ دیوار کوتاه‬:‫دیواره‬ ‫دیوارهی‬ ۴
Column2: The parapet in front of the man was ‫میتوانست از چه باشد؟‬ ‫ ه‬+ ‫ دیوار‬:‫دیواره‬ ‫روبروی‬
made of glass. ‫مرد از‬
‫ به نظر شما چرا در‬-‫ب‬
Column 3: parapet: short wall .‫شیشه بود‬
‫سه خط اول داستان‬
/divāreh/: wall /divār/ + suffix /eh/
‫سه بار شیشهای بودن‬
Column 4:
‫دیواره روبروی مرد‬
A) What material the wall in front of the man
‫یادآوری شده است ؟‬
could made of?
‫آیا اگر راوی نمیگفت‬
B) In your opinion, why has the glassy nature
‫که این دیواره شیشهای‬
of the wall been mentioned three times in
‫است خواننده فرض‬
the first three lines? If the narrator would not
‫دیگری میکرد؟ آیا‬
say that that wall is of glass the reader would
‫شیشهای بودن این‬
assume differently? Is the fact that the wall is
‫دیواره مهم است؟‬
made of glass important?
 Anousha Shahsavari

shows the words, phrases, or sentences chosen to be elaborated or discussed. The first column
on the right shows the order they appear in the text. The third column from right includes mean-
ing, hints, definition, or explanation on structure, sometimes in the form of input enhancement.
Input enhancement, first coined by Sharwood Smith (1991), is a deliberate intervention by
which selected features of input such as word order, tense, agreement, accent, etc. are made
salient to the learner, in order to draw her attention to specific features of the text. The fourth
column on the left (last column in the original table) includes questions that serve as opportu-
nities for students to get engaged in activities in which they have opportunities to negotiate for
meaning, discuss the content, interpret the story, and practice specific grammatical structures.
The translation of the original table has been provided in the fifth column (from right) solely
for the reader of this chapter; however, it was not provided for students of the course.
The first item of the table is the first sentence of the story “the man was looking at the
fish.” Although this sentence looks very simple in structure and vocabulary, it is important for
the story. This is an opportunity to ask meaningful questions about the story and the role of the
narrator, while providing students with important vocabulary to the discussion including “in
your opinion, why, story, eyes, gaze” and “start”. These are the vocabulary the students need
to discuss this part of the story.
For the “meaning, interpretation, linguistic structure, and input enhancement,” which is
column two, the differences between Persian and English in the plural form of “fish” have
been noted. This column’s goal is to help students in their first reading. Sometimes the English
meaning is provided here.
For item 2, the second item of the table is introduced: “calm and hanging.” The third col-
umn gives an example in which the “hanging” is used in a different context. The fourth column
addresses both meaning and interpretation of the text, and usage of the item in different texts.
“Hanging” has been mentioned six times in this table in different contexts. This will affect “notic-
ing” as they use the table in different stages of approaching the text. Students are also expected
to use “hanging” in their conversation when they discuss the questions. This will push them
actively and meaningfully to use the vocabulary they have learned in several different instances.
Isolated and unrelated questions can be easily ignored by students. Students should be
reassured that for them to answer linguistic questions, resources are provided in the table. For
example, item 3, question 2 in the fourth column can be answered easier if students read the
hint in column 3.
This table has 47 items, and the assignment is for two to three class sessions. If there are
questions that are important for personal interpretation they can be followed by the table. For
this story for example three questions did not get a chance to be included in the table and were
added after the table. These questions helped students discuss their personal interpretation more:

• Why do you think characters do not have names in the story?

• What do you think the man is looking for in his dream?
• How do you think the man’s generation is different from the child’s?

19.5.5 Extensive reading – a caveat

The flipped classroom can provide extensive reading opportunities if the text is accompanied
by enhancement, elaboration, and parallel activities. Through these interventions, when the
class is flipped, differences in students’ proficiency and cultural awareness levels are con-
sidered. As they initially read and prepare for class activities, students can use the content
of the table according to their level, allowing students of all levels to access the text. Input

400
 Teaching Persian through short stories

elaboration allows for the introduction of extensive texts earlier in the curriculum than would
otherwise be possible, accelerating the learning process.
There is a caveat here for choosing a level appropriate text. Knowledge of the texts vocabu-
lary is not always sufficient to understand the text. A study by Martinez and Murphy (2011)
on the “Effect of Frequency and Idiomaticity on Second Language Reading Comprehension”
shows that readers often overestimate how much they understand texts especially when con-
fronted with multiword and idiomatic expressions. For a discussion on the processing and
acquisition of idiomatic expressions in second language learners of Persian, read Chapter 6
in this volume.
An example may show this better:

/ja-tun khali bud/. ‫جاتون خالی بود‬

literally: Place-your was empty.

The literal meaning of this sentence “your place was empty” and the words “your,” “place,”
“was” and “empty” are frequent words that students will learn easily, but the meaning of
this sentence cannot be discerned solely from knowledge of the words. Persian in that case
is a highly idiomatic language, and literature takes advantage of this aspect of language. In
selecting the materials, this aspect of the language should be considered. We must consider
more than just word frequency when judging the ability of students to understand a text. The
following paragraph from the story of “Baqal-e Kharzavil” or “The Grocer of Kharzavil” by
Khaksar (1988), a short story used in Persian through short stories courses, is an example of
how a text with frequent words can be incomprehensible to a learner who already knows the
vocabulary of the text:

. . . ‫ پیرمرد دم گرفته بود و یكریز دموكراسی اروپا را به رخم‬.‫یادم است كه روی دنده چپ افتاده بودم‬
ٓ ‫ اما او به واقع گندش را‬،‫ شاید من اینطور فكر میكردم‬.‫میكشید‬
‫ مشكل بود دستش‬. . . . ‫دراورده بود‬
‫ و من هم ِكرم این را داشتم كه میان‬،‫ زبان انگلیسیام زیاد خوب نبود‬.‫را درباره دموكراسی اروپا رو كنم‬
‫ ٓانطور كه دست و پا‬،‫ ترجمه ٓانها به انگلیسی‬.‫حرفهایم اصطالحات عامیانه زبان خودمان را بهكار ببرم‬
. ‫ چیز خندهداری از ٓاب درمی ٓامد‬،‫شكسته كارم را پیش میبردم‬

Literal translation: My memory is that I was fallen on the left rib. The old man had taken
breath and one tiny would pull the democracy of Europe on my face. Perhaps I was thinking
so, but in fact he had taken off its stench. . . . It was difficult to do his hand on about European
democracy. My English language was not very good, and I also had the worm to put in work,
among my words, the slang of our language. Translating them into English, as I was moving
forward my job with broken hand and feet would come up of water as a joke.
As one can see, the text is composed of frequent words, and a student in low intermediate
is expected to know the vocabulary of this text. But it will not be easy for students to relate it
to the actual meaning:
Translation into English: I remember that I was being hard-headed. The man started raving
and boasting nonstop about European democracy. Perhaps that was what I was thinking. Actu-
ally, he had gone too far. . . . It was hard to prove him wrong about European democracy. My
English was not very good, and I’d need to grimace like a monkey and intentionally use idioms
of our own language while talking to him. That way, handling it with my broken language, it
would come out very funny/laughable.
Considering this caveat, there are a few reasons why parallel engagement can help intro-
duce extensive reading to the class. One is that the option of parallel modification makes it

401
 Anousha Shahsavari

easier to choose appropriate level materials, the text can be made accessible without touching
the input itself. Second, we can give students the ability to manage their reading speed, espe-
cially when they read the text for the first time. So we are creating a text with fewer obstacles.
Third, through this method we can address students’ differences in proficiency level and back-
ground knowledge. We can provide materials that serve a mixed ability class and serve the
underserved, which can motivate the students for reading. The students know that they will be
engaged intensely in class discussion and that they need to be prepared to discuss the detailed
questions on the fourth column in their own group of two.

19.6 Conclusion
The methodology offered in this chapter is potentially confusing for students in a few ways.
Students may expect a more structured approach in learning vocabulary and grammar. There-
fore, in order to avoid confusion, it is important to explicitly describe its nature and approach.
To bring more structure to the class, it will be useful if: 1) a few more advanced grammatical
points are mentioned for each story and highlighted in the text, and the students are asked to
use them in their daily writing assignments; 2) at least one writing project is dedicated to the
analysis of one of the stories, and students are guided in using the questions of the parallel
table to write their analysis.
It is not recommended that students answer all of the questions about the stories for class
activities. The instructor can highlight the ones that are more important for analyzing the story
and appropriate for elevating students’ level.
A vocabulary quiz on the table would both overwhelm students and confuse them regard-
ing the nature and objectives of the course, so it is not recommended. The students should be
responsible for selecting their own vocabulary to master. Supplementary video materials seem
to be what students most remember about this course, so it is recommended to spice up each
session with a relevant short video.
This model suggests that when we prepare a short story for language class, we consider the
following as necessary for improving comprehension on the one hand, and learner interaction
on the other hand:

1 Providing context for the text through supplementary materials.

2 Providing input enhancement to highlight selected features of a language for students,
such as word order, parts of words that express tense, agreement, and number for exam-
ple, accents, idioms, and slang. This also includes any audio files which help students read
the text.
3 Providing meaning and interpretation of selected vocabulary based on students and cur-
riculum needs. Students will use it to read the story.
4 Creating activities for students to provide their initial response to the text, such as asking
to retell the story in a few sentences, or writing about a particular section.
5 Providing questions and activities that direct students’ attention to the importance of spe-
cific elements of the text and result in text analysis by the students, through which better
comprehension can be reached. These activities are the source of class discussion.

This method’s aim is not just to provide pre-modified input, but furthermore to provide stu-
dents with opportunities for active participation and to empower them to discuss a story to
reach an interactionally modified input, which results in better comprehension than a pre-
modified input (Ellis, Tanaka, and Yamazaki 1994).

402
 Teaching Persian through short stories

There are a few factors that should be considered in adopting this model. First, as previ-
ously noted, students should be informed of the learner-centered nature of the course and
receive extra instruction on how to take responsibility for their part. Second, this is a labor-
intensive approach, and adopting this model entails extra work from the instructors. Third, it
needs to receive support from the department chairs and related administrative support lan-
guage teaching with a learner-centered approach (Tudor 1993).
The benefit of this model is that the materials can be adjusted and reused to address stu-
dents with different proficiency levels and needs. For example, for a higher level course more
inference questions can be added, and more stylistic and cultural elements of the text can be
considered in writing the questions.
The activities, if presented in parallel to the text, can constantly engage the learners with
the text and help them pay attention to different aspects of the language when preparing for the
class. This engagement continues during the class discussions. Based on detailed instructions
and questions, students prepare beforehand to have whole-class brainstorming and pair work.
What makes this model different is to provide students with the opportunity to start enjoying
the text and having their personal interpretation with the aid of carefully designed instructions
and questions, before attending the class. The activities avoid predetermined interpretation and
leave space for students’ own interpretations. The students are empowered and armed with
confidence and voice needed to interact in a language class.

403
 ‫‪Appendix A‬‬
‫‪The vocabulary and activity table and extra discussion questions on the story of “A Life” by‬‬
‫‪Zoya Pirzad‬‬
‫جدول واژگان و تمرینهای یک زندگی اثر زویا پیرزاد‬

‫تمرین‬ ‫معنی و معادل‬ ‫واژگان و اصطالحات‬

‫مورد بحث‬
‫چه کسی به درخت نگاه می کند؟‬ ‫درخت شکوفه کرده است‪The tree has bloomed. .‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫او از کجا به درخت نگاه می کند؟‬
‫به نظر شما کدام جمله در ادبیات فارسی ممکن‬
‫و درست نیست؟‬
‫‪ -۱‬حال مرا از شکوفههای گیالس بپرس‪­.‬‬
‫‪ -۲‬مرا شکوفه باران کن‪­.‬‬
‫‪ -۳‬پرندههای شکوفه برگشتند‪­.‬‬
‫به نظر شما زن چند سال دارد؟ پیر است یا‬ ‫چند دسته موی سفید را از پیشانی‬ ‫طره سفید را از‬
‫چند ّ‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫جوان؟‬ ‫کنار میزند‪.‬‬ ‫پیشانی پس می زند‪.‬‬
‫‪She pulls back a wisp‬‬
‫‪of grey hair from her‬‬
‫‪forehead.‬‬
‫‪ She stands in front of the‬زن اول کجا بود و بعد کجا رفت؟ مگر از ابتدا‬ ‫روبروی پنجره میایستد‪.‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫‪ window.‬روبروی پنجره نبود؟‬
‫چطور بگوییم ‪ I stood‬؟‬

‫‪ Her white tick nightgown‬به نظر شما چرا زن لباس کلفت و آستین بلند‬ ‫پیراهن خواب سفید و‬ ‫‪4‬‬
‫‪ has long sleeves and a high‬پوشیده است؟‬ ‫ُُ َ‬
‫کلفتش آستین بلند است و‬
‫‪ collar.‬چرا یقه لباسش بسته است؟‬ ‫َ ِیقه بسته‪.‬‬
‫کلفت ‪ #‬نازک‬
‫آستین بلند ‪ #‬آستین کوتاه‬
‫باد چه چیزی را تکان میدهد؟‬ ‫‪It shakes‬‬ ‫تکان میدهد‪.‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫چطور بگوییم ‪you shook the chair‬؟‬ ‫مثال‪:‬‬
‫به نظر شما ”صندلی را جابجا کردی‪ “.‬یعنی چه؟‬ ‫این عکس دنیا را تکان داد‪.‬‬
‫زلزله شهر همدان را تکان داد‪.‬‬
‫‪ The blossoms never seem‬به نظر شما آیا زن سردش می شود؟‬ ‫شکوفه ها انگار هیچ‬ ‫‪6‬‬
‫‪ to feel the cold.‬چطور بگوییم ‪She never seem to feel tired? :‬‬ ‫وقت سردشان نمی شود‪.‬‬
‫انگار‪:‬‬
‫‪As if‬‬
‫انگار نه انگار‪:‬‬
‫‪As if it has not happened‬‬
‫مثال‪:‬‬
‫روز بعد از جراحی رفت سرکار‪ ،‬انگار‬
‫نه انگار که اتفاقی افتاده‪.‬‬

‫‪404‬‬
 ‫‪Teaching Persian through short stories‬‬

‫تمرین‬ ‫معنی و معادل‬ ‫واژگان و اصطالحات‬

‫مورد بحث‬
‫‪ She remembers.‬زن چه چیز را به یاد می آورد؟‬ ‫یادش میآید‬ ‫‪7‬‬
‫یادش رفت‪:‬‬
‫‪she forgot‬‬
‫چه کسی زن را از خواب بیدار می کند؟‬ ‫از جا بلند شو‪ ،‬از خواب بیدار شو‬ ‫پاشو‬ ‫‪8‬‬
‫‪Stand up; wake up‬‬
‫زن و مرد چه چیزی را تماشا کردند؟‬ ‫تماشا کردن‪ :‬نگاه کردن به منظور‬ ‫تماشا کردند‬ ‫‪9‬‬
‫لذت بردن‬‫ّ‬
‫‪They watched (for‬‬
‫)‪entertainment‬‬
‫به نظر شما چرا لباس زن آستین نداشت و نازک بود؟‬ ‫بیآستین‪ :‬بدون آستین‬ ‫‪ 10‬پیراهن خواب سفید و‬
‫چرا سفید بود؟‬
‫‪Her white long nightgown‬‬ ‫بلندش بی آستین بود و‬
‫معنی واژههای زیر را حدس بزنید‪:‬‬ ‫‪was sleeveless and thin.‬‬ ‫نازک‪.‬‬
‫بیصبر‪:‬‬
‫دردسر‪:‬‬
‫بی ِ َ‬
‫بیفکر‪:‬‬
‫بیفایده‪:‬‬
‫‪ Her dress had a delicate‬لباس خواب زن با لباسی که در زمان حال‬ ‫دور یقۀ بازش توردوزی‬ ‫‪ِ ُ 11‬‬
‫‪ lace around its open collar.‬پوشیده چه تفاوتی دارد؟‬ ‫داشت‪.‬‬
‫‪ 12‬یا شاید شرم بود که سرما ‪ Or maybe it was the shame‬چرا زن شرم داشت؟‪/‬از چه چیزی شرم داشت؟‬
‫‪that was repelling the cold.‬‬ ‫را پس میزد‪.‬‬
‫‪ She was ashamed.‬زن خجالت میکشید به چشمهای چه کسی نگاه کند؟‬ ‫‪ 13‬خجالت میکشید‪.‬‬
‫‪ 14‬زن که پنجره را باز کرد ‪ . . .‬که“ نقش تاکیدی دارد و در اینجا“ وقتی در اینجا زن پنجره را باز میکند بار چندم‬
‫است که زن و مرد با هم شکوفهها را تماشا میکنند؟‬ ‫به معنی ”وقتی“ است‪.‬‬
‫‪When the woman opened‬‬
‫‪the window . . .‬‬
‫‪ It/she had brought a‬به نظر شما چرا در اینجا باد فقط یک شکوفه با‬ ‫‪ 15‬شکوفه ای با خود آورده‬
‫‪ blossom with it/her.‬خود میآورد؟‬ ‫بود‪.‬‬
‫با ”خوابیده بود“ یک جمله بگویید‪.‬‬ ‫آغوش‪ :‬بغل‬ ‫‪ُ 16‬نوزاد در آغوش زن‪،‬‬
‫در آغوش گرفتن‪ :‬بغل کردن چطور بگوییم ‪he was holding her‬؟‬ ‫آرام خوابیده بود‪.‬‬
‫‪to hold someone in arms‬‬
‫‪The infant was calmly‬‬
‫‪sleeping in the woman’s‬‬
‫‪arms.‬‬
‫‪ She stroked the baby’s face‬به نظر شما وقتی مرد انگشتش را روی‬ ‫‪ 17‬انگشتش را روی‬
‫‪ with her finger.‬صورت نوزاد میکشد چه احساسی دارد؟‬ ‫صورت نوزاد کشید‪.‬‬
‫‪ Just like a peach‬چه چیزی مثل هلو است؟‬ ‫مثل هلو‬
‫‪ 18‬درست ِ‬
‫به نظر شما به چه صفتی در هلو اشاره میشوذ؟‬
‫‪ She was startled.‬در اینجا که زن از خواب میپرد‪ ،‬چندمین بار‬ ‫‪ 19‬زن از خواب پرید‪.‬‬
‫‪ Literally: Jumped out of‬است که درخت شکوفه داده است؟‬
‫‪ sleep.‬به نظر شما چرا زن از خواب میپرد؟‬
‫‪ The wind was swirling‬وقتی باد دور درخت میچرخید‪ ،‬چه کسی داشت‬ ‫‪ 20‬باد دور درخت‬
‫‪ around the tree.‬از پنجره حیاط را نگاه میکرد؟‬ ‫میچرخید‪.‬‬
‫‪ As if they were looking for‬به نظر شما شکوفهها دنبال چه کسی میگشتند؟‬ ‫‪ 21‬انگار دنبال کسی‬
‫‪something.‬‬ ‫میگشتند‪.‬‬
‫)‪(Continued‬‬
‫‪405‬‬
 ‫‪Anousha Shahsavari‬‬

‫)‪(Continued‬‬

‫تمرین‬ ‫معنی و معادل‬ ‫واژگان و اصطالحات‬

‫مورد بحث‬
‫سرش نمی شد‪ :‬نمی فهمید؛ درک نمی کرد در اینجا درخت برای چندمین بار بود که شکوفه میداد؟‬ ‫درخت خستگی سرش‬ ‫‪22‬‬
‫درخت هرگز خسته نمی شد‬ ‫نمی شد‪.‬‬
‫‪The tree never tired.‬‬
‫‪ tiredness‬خسته ‪ +‬ی‪ :‬خستگی‬
‫‪ . . . . .‬گرسنه ‪ +‬ی‪ . . . . . .:‬؟‬
‫‪ S/he reached out and‬در اینجا چه کسی دست دراز می کند و شکوفه‬ ‫دست دراز کرد و‬ ‫‪23‬‬
‫‪ picked the blossoms.‬میچیند؟ زن‪ ،‬مرد یا دخترشان؟‬ ‫شکوفه چید‪.‬‬
‫می َ‬
‫چینم‬
‫‪I pick‬‬
‫دامنش پر از شکوفه شد‪ Her skirt was (became) full .‬به نظر شما زن چه احساسی دارد؟‬ ‫‪24‬‬
‫‪ of blossoms.‬جملههای زیر را کامل کنید‪:‬‬
‫‪ -‬خیابانها پر از ‪ . . . . . .‬بود‪.‬‬
‫‪. . . . . -‬پر از بوی خوب شد‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬لیوان پر از ‪. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‬‬
‫‪ They passed through a thin‬زن با شکوفهها چه کار میکند؟‬ ‫َ‬
‫سوزن نازک و َنخ‬ ‫از‬ ‫‪25‬‬
‫‪needle and a long thread.‬‬ ‫دراز ُ َ َ‬
‫گذشتند‪.‬‬
‫‪Note: a picture of a needle‬‬
‫‪with a thread is provided here.‬‬
‫کی دایره درست کرد؟ چرا دایره؟‬ ‫‪They made a circle.‬‬ ‫‪ 26‬دایِ ِره درست کردند‪.‬‬
‫دایره‪ ،‬مربع‪ ،‬مستطیل‪ ،‬مثلث‬
‫‪Circle, square, rectangle‬‬
‫در اینجا چه کسی به‪/‬در آیینه نگاه میکند؟‬ ‫‪She looked into the mirror.‬‬ ‫‪ 27‬به آیینه نگاه کرد‪.‬‬
‫به نظر شما چرا شمع روشن کردهاند؟‬ ‫‪The light of the candles lit‬‬ ‫‪ 28‬نور شمعها آیینه را‬
‫‪up the mirror.‬‬ ‫روشن کرد‪.‬‬
‫چرا زن با خودش حرف میزند؟‬ ‫‪Our own blossom‬‬ ‫‪ 29‬شکوفهی خودمان‬
‫خودمان یعنی چه کسی؟‬
‫چرا شکوفه ها خستهاند و حال خندیدن ندارند؟‬ ‫‪The wind tickles the blos-‬‬ ‫‪ 30‬باد شکوفهها را قلقلک‬
‫‪soms. The blossoms are too‬‬ ‫میدهد‪ .‬شکوفهها حال‬
‫‪tired to laugh.‬‬ ‫خندیدن ندارند‪.‬‬
‫حال ‪ . . . . .‬نداریم‪.‬‬
‫مثال‪:‬‬
‫‪ -‬حال راه رفتن نداریم‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬حال حرف زدن نداشت‪.‬‬

‫گفتگوی بیشتر‪:‬‬
‫‪ .1‬به نظر شما زن در آغاز داستان چند سال دارد؟‬
‫‪ .2‬لباس زن را توصیف کنید‪.‬‬
‫‪ .3‬اولین باری که زن شکوفه درخت را دید لباسش چگونه بود؟‬
‫‪ .4‬زن و شوهرش‪ ،‬بار یازدهم‪ ،‬وقت بهار‪ ،‬در چه حالی بودند؟‬
‫‪ .5‬بار بیست و یکم چه شباهتی و تفاوتی با بار یازدهم داشت؟ به نظر شما چرا شوهرش آنجا نبود؟‬
‫‪ .6‬سی و یکمین باری که درخت شکوفه میدهد چه اتفاقی میافتد؟‬
‫‪ .7‬چرا شکوفه ها برای چهل و یکمین بار حال خندیدن ندارند؟‬
‫‪ .8‬به نظر شما در آخرین جمله این داستان شکوفهها استعاره از چه هستند؟‬

‫‪406‬‬
 Appendix B
The list of suggested short stories for the course:

 1 ‫ یک زندگی اثر زویا پیرزاد‬A Life by Zoya Pirzad

 2 ‫ یک شب شورانگیز اثر منیرو روانیپور‬A Crazy Night by Moniru Ravanipour
 3 ‫ عروسک چینی من اثر هوشنگ گلشیری‬My Little China Doll by Hushang Golshiri
 4 ‫ ماهی و جفتش اثر ابراهیم گلستان‬The Fish and Its Mate by Ebrahim Golestan
 5 ‫ زبان کوچک پدرم اثر رسول پرویزی‬My Father’s Tonsil by Rasoul Parvizi
 6 ‫ گرگ اثر هوشنگ گلشیری‬The Wolf by Hushang Golshiri
 7 ‫ چتر و گربه و دیوار باریک اثر رضا قاسمی‬The Umbrella, the Cat, and the Slim Wall by Reza Ghasemi
 8 ‫ بقال خرزویل اثر نسیم خاکسار‬Kharzavil’s Grocer by Nassim Khaksar
 9 ‫ مونس از مجموعه زنان بدون مردان اثر شهرنوش پارسیپور‬Munis From the Story of Women With-
out Men by Shahrnoush Parsipour
10 ‫ خواهرم و عنکبوت اثر جالل آل احمد‬My Sister and Spider by Jalal Al-Ahmad

References
ACTFL. 2019. “ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012.” Accessed July 2019. www.actfl.org/publications/
guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012.
Aghdasi, A. 2018. Persian Academic Reading. Routledge. London and New York: Routledge and Taylor
and Francis Group.
Bonwell, C.C., and A.E. James. 1991. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. Washing-
ton, DC: George Washington University Press.
Brookshaw, D.P., and P. Shabani-Jadidi. 2012. The Routledge Intermediate Persian Course: Farsi Shirin
Ast II. London and New York: Routledge and Taylor and Francis Group.
Carter, R., and N.M. Long. 1991. Teaching Literature. Edited by M. Celce Murcia, 3–9. Harlow:
Longman.
Dudley‐Marling, C. 1995. “Whole Language: It’s a Matter of Principles.” Reading and Writing Quar-
terly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 11(1): 109–117.
Elley, W.B., and F. Mangubhai. 1983. “The Impact of Reading on Second Language Learning.” Reading
Research Quarterly, 19(1): 53–67.
Ellis, R., Y. Tanaka, and A. Yamazaki. 1994. “Classroom Interaction, Comprehension, and the Acquisi-
tion of L2 Word Leanings.” Language Learning, 44(3): 449–491.
Gallaway, C., and B.J. Richards, eds. 1994. Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Garrison, D.R., and N.D. Vaughan. 2008. Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Princi-
ples and Guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Golestan, E. 1994. “The Fish and Its Mate.” The Stream, the Wall and the Thirsty One, 5th ed., 86–89.
New Jersey: Rozan Publication.
Harste, J.C., and C.L. Burke. 1977. “A New Hypothesis for Reading Teacher Research: Both the Teach-
ing and Learning of Reading Is Theoretically Based.” In Reading: Theory, Research and Practice,
32–40. New York: National Research Conference.
Hillmann, M. 2019. Intermediate Persian Reader. Hyattsville, MD: JTG Press.
Khaksar, N. 1988. The Grocer of Kharzavil: The Stories of Exile. Saarbrucken, Germany: Navid.
Koda, K. 2016. “Development of Word Recognition in a Second Language.” In Reading in a Second
Language: Cognitive and Psycholinguistic Respective, edited by X. Chen, V. Dronjic, and R. Helms-
Park, 90–118. New York: Routledge.
Koda, K., and J. Yamashita. 2019. Reading to Learn in a Foreign Language: An Integrated Approach
to Foreign Language Instruction and Assessment. New York: Routledge Research in Language
Education.

407
 Anousha Shahsavari

Kramsch, C. 1987. “The Proficiency Movement: Second Language Acquisition Perspectives.” Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 9(3): 355–362.
Kramsch, C., and O. Kramsch. 2000. “The Avatars of Literature in Language Study.” The Modern Lan-
guage Journal, 84(4): 553–573.
Krashen, S.D. 1980. “The Input Hypothesis.” In Current Issues in Bilingual Education, edited by James
Alatis, 144–158. Washington, DC: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S.D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Krashen, S.D. 1993. The Power of Reading: Insights from Research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
Long, M.H. 1980. Input, Interaction, and Second Language Acquisition. Unpublished Doctoral Disserta-
tion, University of California, Los Angeles.
Long, M.H. 1983. “Native Speaker/Non-Native Speaker Conversation and the Negotiation of Compre-
hensible Input.” Applied Linguistics, 4(2): 126–141.
Mackey, A. 1999. “Input, Interaction, and Second Language Development: An Empirical Study of Ques-
tion Formation in ESL.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(4): 557–587.
Martinez, R., and V.A. Murphy. 2011. “Effect of Frequency and Idiomaticity on Second Language Read-
ing Comprehension.” TESOL Quarterly, 45(2): 267–290.
Mohan, B.A. 1986. Language and Content. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman Ltd.
Nojoumian, P. 2017. Persian Learner Part Two: Elementary Persian for College Students. Irvine, CA:
UCI Jordan Center for Persian Studies.
Nojoumian, P. 2018. Persian Learner Part Four: Advanced Persian for College Students. Irvine, CA:
UCI Jordan Center for Persian Studies.
Pachler, N., and K. Field. 1997. Learning to Teach Modern Foreign Language in the Secondary School.
London: Routledge.
Pachler, N., and K. Field. 1999. “Learner Independence.” In Teaching Modern Foreign Languages at
Advanced Level, edited by Norbert Pachler, 60–75. London: Routledge.
Paran, A. 2012. “Language Skills: Questions for Teaching and Learning.” ELT Journal, 66(4): 450–458.
Parker, K., and C. Chaudron. 1987. “The Effects of Linguistic Simplifications and Elaborative Modifica-
tions on L2 Comprehension.” University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 6(2): 107–133.
Picken, J. 2007. Literature, Metaphor and the Foreign Language Learner. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Rumelhart, O.E. 1977. “Toward an Interactive Model of Reading.” In Encyclopedia of Educational
Research, edited by H.E. Mitzel, J.H. Best, and W. Rabinowitz (1983).
Rumelhart, D.E. 1977. “Toward an Interactive Model of Reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and Per-
formance VI (pp. 575–603). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rigg, P. 1991. “Whole Language in TESOL.” Tesol Quarterly, 25(3): 521–542.
Rosenblatt, L.M. 1978. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transaction Theory of the Literary Work.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenblatt, L.M. 1983. Literature as Exploration, 3rd ed. New York: Modern Language Association of
America.
Sahraei, R., A. Gharibi, D. Maleklu, S. Sadeghi, M. Shahbaz, and M. Soltani. 2017. Mina Series. Tehran:
Saadi Foundation and Iran Language Institute.
Sahraei, R., M. Shahbaz, S. Ahmadi-Ghader, and M. Soltani. 2018. Enjoy Reading. Saadi Foundation.
Tehran: Khamush Publication.
Sahraei, R., M. Soltani, M. Shahbaz, F. Marsous, and Z. Shirinbakhsh. 2018. Iranology. Saadi Founda-
tion. Tehran: Khamush Publication.
Savvidou, C. 2004. “An Integrated Approach to Teaching Literature in the EFL Classroom.” The Internet
TESL Journal, 10(12): 1–6. Accessed May 2019. http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Savvidou-Literature.html.
Schmidt, R. 1995. “Consciousness and Foreign Language Learning: A Tutorial on the Role of Attention
and Awareness in Learning.” Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning, 9: 1–63.
Sedighi, A. 2015. Persian in Use: An Elementary Textbook of Language and Culture. Leiden: Leiden
University Press.
Shabani-Jadidi, P. 2015. What the Persian Media Says. A Course Book. Oxon, Oxford: Routledge and
Taylor and Francis Group.
Shabani-Jadidi, P. 2020. The Routledge Advanced Persian Course: Farsi Shirin Ast III. Oxon, Oxford:
Routledge and Taylor and Francis Group.

408
 Teaching Persian through short stories

Shabani-Jadidi, P., and D.P. Brookshaw. 2019. The Routledge Introductory Persian Course, 2nd ed.
Oxon, Oxford: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Shahsavari, A., and B. Atwood. 2015. Persian of Iran today, Book 2. Center for Middle Eastern Studies,
University of Texas at Austin.
Short, K.G. 1994. “Moving Toward Literature Based Curriculum.” In Under the Whole Language
Umbrella, edited by Alan D. Flurkey and Richard J. Meyer, 158–184. Bloomington, IN: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Smith, M.S. 1991. “Speaking to Many Minds: On the Relevance of Different Types of Language Infor-
mation for the L2 Learner.” Second Language Research, 7(2): 118–132.
Timucin, M.E.T.I.N. 2001. “Gaining Insight into Alternative Teaching Approaches Employed in an EFL
Literature Class.” Revista de filología y su didáctica, 24: 269–293.
Tudor, I. 1993. “Teacher Roles in the Learner-Centred Classroom.” ELT Journal, 47(1): 22–31.
Ur, P. 1999. A Course in Language Teaching Trainee Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wajnryb, R. 2003. Stories: Narrative Activities for the Language Classroom. Cambridge Handbooks for
Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. 1998. “Context, Community, and Authentic Language.” TESOL Quarterly, 32(4):
705–716.
Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Yano, Y., M.H. Long, and S. Ross. 1994. “The Effects of Simplified and Texts on Foreign Language
Reading Comprehension.” Language Learning, 44(2): 189–219.

409
 20
TEACHING PERSIAN
LITERATURE IN PERSIAN ASGHAR SEYED-GOHRABTEACHING
­ PERSIAN LITERATURE IN PERSIAN

A content-based approach

Asghar Seyed-Gohrab
­

20.1 Introduction
Persian literature is perhaps the strongest testament of the Iranian civilizations, which incor-
porated elements of various other cultures and religions. It has preserved and transmitted the
Persian and Islamic creation myth, world-views, religious affiliations, rules of proper conduct
and political strategies of the Iranian peoples, in a wide range of literary forms and genres.
A content-based approach to the teaching of Persian literature can be structured around ques-
tions that are also learning goals for the student. How and why did Persian literature emerge?
For whom was it written? Why did Persian literature, especially poetry, became the icon of
identity for Persian-speaking peoples in a vast area encompassing Tajikistan, Afghanistan,
Central Asia and Caucasus, present day Uzbekistan, and Iran? Why did Persian poetry become
a vehicle for political legitimization in parts of the Ottoman Empire and in Mughal India?
Why did Persian poetry become the medium for mystics from the eleventh century, across
a vast area? The student should also be familiar with formal literary aspects, such as rhyme
and metre, imagery and metaphor, literary motifs, and periodization, that are essential for the
appreciation of Persian literature. And there is the simplest question: what is the student’s
purpose in learning Persian literature? Is it purely for an aesthetic appreciation, to study one of
the world’s richest literary traditions, or is it to learn Persian language and culture, or to study
the cultural and political history of the Persian-speaking world? This chapter will concentrate
on only the most essential and basic aspects of Persian literature in a wide geographic context.
While Chapter 19 focused on the teaching methodology of literature with a focus on short
stories, this chapter introduces the most vital discussions to be included in a Persian literature
course whose language of instruction is Persian. Therefore, what follows will be an essen-
tial guideline for material developers for a Persian literature course, with a focus on Persian
poetry. After each section, the author has given some suggestions for further reading, which
are of benefit to the students of Persian literature.

20.2 The emergence of Persian literature

After the invasion of the Muslim Arabs in the seventh century, Arabic became the major
administrative and scholarly language of the conquered Persian areas for about two centuries,

410
 Teaching Persian literature in Persian

while the common people used variants of Middle Persian (pahlavī). Persians contributed
to Islamicate culture significantly by translating works from Middle Persian and other lan-
guages into Arabic.1 From the ninth century, Persian culture reasserted itself so strongly that
Persia became one of the few conquered areas to retain its own language and culture. A major
movement was the Shuʿūbiyya, in which Arabs and non-Arabs claimed equality in literary
domain.2 This was an equalitarian movement to redress new identities of Muslims with differ-
ent cultural backgrounds. The administration and bureaucracy of the vast new Islamic empire
relied largely on the Sasanian bureaucracy and the Persian aristocracy. From the ninth century
onwards, semi-independent dynasties, such as the Saffarids (861–1003) in Sistan, Samanids
(819–999) in Bukhara, and Ziyarids (930–1090) in Gurgan emerged in the eastern Iranian
lands, claiming independence from the Caliph in Baghdad. These dynasties claimed to be
heirs to the pre-Islamic Sasanian Empire (224–650). They invited scholars, poets, and artists
to their courts to promote their own reputation and to reassert Persian culture. The early liter-
ary texts from this period come from these courts. There are several stories about the rise of
Persian literature. One account in the chronicle Tārīkh-i sīstān tells how the first Persian (as
distinct from Pahlavī) poem was composed at the Saffarid court.3 A poet recited a panegyric
in Arabic for the Persian ruler Yaʿqūb Layth, who responded: chīzī ki man andar nayābam
chirā bāyad guft, or “things that I do not understand, why should they be said.” His secretary
Muḥammad ibn Waṣīf translated the poem into Persian. This story is usually told as an epitome
of the revivification of Persian culture and the rise of Persian poetry as the crown and icon of
Persian identity.

Further Reading
Lazard, Gilbert. 1975. “The Rise of the New Persian Language.” In The Cambridge History of Iran: The
Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, edited by R.N. Frye, Vol. IV, 595–632. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Malāyerī, M.M. 2000. Tārīkh va farhang-i Iran [Iranian History and Culture], 6. Vols. Tehran: Tūs.
Ṣafā, Dhabīhallāh. 1989. Tārīkh-i adabiyyāt dar Īrān [History of Literature in Iran], 5. Vols. in 8 parts,
Tehran: Firdows.

20.3 Some basic literary concepts

Perhaps the most lasting contribution of Arabic culture in this transitional period was the
development of a resilient written tradition. Middle Persian literature had been an oral tradi-
tion, its remnants being written down after the Arab invasion.4 Most of the literary terminology
of Persian literature derives from Arabic, yet Persian literature developed as an independent
literary tradition. The word adabiyyāt, which denotes the concept of literature, derives from
the root adab, which has a variety of meanings such as ‘education,’ ‘proper behaviour’ and
‘politeness,’ as well as ‘literary erudition.’5 The modern usage of the term adabiyyāt refers to
all types of literature in verse and prose. A Persian verse consists of two hemistichs, which
are called miṣrāʿ or miṣraʿ. Two hemistichs form one couplet or bayt (pl. abyāt). The term
poetry is indicated by shiʿr, which refers to the art of poetry and everything related to it. The
word also alludes to individual lines or an entire poem. The word for poet, shāʿir, derives
from shiʿr, and all activities related to the art of poetry are indicated by the noun shāʿirī. There
are also Persian varieties of these terms such as sukhan or ‘word,’ ‘speech’ and sukhan-dān
‘littérateur’ and sukhan-gū or ‘poet.’6 Alongside the term shiʿr, one finds naẓm. This literally
means ‘order,’ ‘concatenate,’ ‘joining pearls in a row,’ but it is used to refer to poetry. A related
term for a collection of poetry is manẓūma. Prose works are nathr. When an author’s poetry

411
 Asghar Seyed-Gohrab
­

and prose are collected in a modern volume, it is usually called āthār-i manẓūm va manthūr
or ‘works in poetry and prose.’ The poetic works of a poet are usually collated in a volume,
called a dīvān, which is structured alphabetically based on the rhyme pattern. In addition to
the dīvān, there is the kulliyyāt, or ‘collected works.’ Depending on the literary output of an
author, the kulliyyāt can be one or more volumes. The Persian literary tradition also has a rich
genre of anthologies, called tadhkira, (lit. ‘memoire’), containing biographical information for
an author and samples of his or her work.

20.4 The poet, his position at the court and qualities

Persian poetry was written down after the advent of Islam, but several of its roots, in terms of
themes, are in the oral literary tradition of pre-Islamic Persia.7 Because it was oral, we know
little about this literature but we have indications of the social position of a minstrel poet and
poetry. In pre-Islamic times, poetry was combined with music, and the professional singers
(gōsān) or khunyāgar (later muṭrib) performed poetry during all of life’s rituals, from the cra-
dle to the grave.8 Mary Boyce’s insightful analysis is indispensable in our understanding of the
position of minstrels in Persia and how this tradition was transmitted to the Islamic period.9
The early Persian poets also acted as minstrels. The eminent poet Rūdakī (860–940) at the
Sāmānid court, and Farrukhī Sīstānī (d.c. 1037) at the Ghaznavid court, were both accom-
plished musicians. Nevertheless, a sharp distinction was made between a professional poet
and a minstrel. In his mirror for princes, the Qābūs-nāma (1082–1083), Kay Kāvūs devotes
two separate chapters to these functions, attributing different traits to these two professions.
One difference is that the minstrel performs poetry while the poet composes it. Chapter thirty-
five, “On the Rules and Rites of Being a Poet” (dar āyīn-u rasm-i shāʿirī),10 outlines the poet’s
qualifications. He should know not only all aspects of poetry but also of the people and context
in which a poem is to be performed. He admonishes his son, for whom the book is written,
“Should the theme be one best suited for prose do not put it into verse; prose may be likened
to subjects and verse to a king – what is fitted for the king is not so for his subjects.”11 A few
lines further, he continues,

you yourself must know each man’s worth, so that when you are composing a lauda-
tory ode it shall be suited to the person to whom it is addressed. . . . [I]t is the poet’s
duty to judge the character of his patron and know what will please him, for until you
say what he desires, he will not give you what you need.12

Persian poetry was originally created at courts, as a courtly tradition. Rulers patronized
poets for their literary works, and poets glorified the ruler’s name and position, legitimizing his
rule by comparing him to pre-Islamic Persian kings. Poets at court provided kings and courti-
ers with wisdom and instruction, entertainment, and the cultivation of highly ornamented ver-
bal skills.13 This poetry maintains courtly aesthetics, and the aesthetic is politicized in polished
language. This courtly tradition lasted to the twentieth century.
The poet who praises the patron is called mādiḥ and the praised one; the patron is called
mamdūḥ. The poet has a high position at the court, alongside other indispensable functionaries
such as secretaries, the astronomer, and physicians. These classes of functionaries each receive
a chapter in Niẓāmī ʿArūżī’s Four Discourses, (Chahār maqāla, twelfth century). Chapter
two is devoted to “The Essence of the Science of Poetry and the Poet’s Qualification” (dar
māhiyyat-i ʿilm-i shiʿr va ṣalāḥiyyat-i shāʿir), which emphasizes the public function of poetry
for both the poet and the patron.14 One should certainly deliberate that such books create an

412
 Teaching Persian literature in Persian

ideal picture of the power of poetry, while poets often depicted an ideal picture in their intro-
duction to the panegyric obliging the patron to live up to this ideal. As a boon companion, the
poet is beside the ruler, commenting in poetry on court events such as abdications, the building
of palaces, the births and marriages of princes and intrigues, but also on wars and the ruler’s
enemies. The reputation of the poet and the patron depends on the poetry, which will damage
or elevate the patron’s reputation in posterity. ʿArūżī emphasizes how important it is for the
poet to know a wide range of sciences. As poetry suits any science, so any science is a suitable
subject for poetry. In addition, the aspiring poet should have a sound character, proper behav-
iour, sharp perception and be inquisitive and open to any subject. A young poet should learn
by heart a thousand couplets from ancient poets and ten thousand couplets from later poets. As
a student, he needs a master (ustād) to teach him all the finesses of the art. ʿArūżī gives much
attention to the skill of improvisation, which will transform the poet’s career and increase his
esteem among courtiers.15

Further Reading
Bruijn, Johannes Thomas Pieter, de. ed. 2009. General Introduction to Persian Literature. London and
New York: I.B. Tauris. (Trans. Tārīkh-i adabiyyāt-e Fārsī: muqaddama’ī kullī bar adabiyyāt-i Fārsī,
Trans. Majd al-Dīn Kayvānī, Tehran: Sukhan, 2010).
Saʿādat, E., ed. 2005. Dānish-nāma-yi zabān va adabiyyāt-e Fārsī [Encyclopedia of Persian Language
and Literature]. Tehran: Vizārat-i Farhang.
Ṣafā, Dhabīhallāh. 1989. Tārīkh-i adabiyyāt dar Īrān [History of Literature in Iran], 5. Vols. in 8 parts,
Tehran: Firdows.

20.5 Persian poetic forms

Students of Persian literature must also learn the poetic forms and their characteristics. Persian
has a wide range of poetic forms which are used for different genres at different periods. The
most used forms are rhyming couplets (mathnavī), panegyrics (qaṣīda), love lyrics (ghazal),
quatrains (rubāʿī), and the qiṭʿa. Other poetic forms which occur less frequently are the tarjīʿ-
band, tarkīb-band or strophic poems, musammaṭ, murabbaʿ, and more.16
The formal characteristics of the mathnavī are a metre and the rhyme scheme (aa, bb, cc,
etc.), which means that each line rhymes internally and the poet is free to use any internal
rhyme at any moment. This freedom has made mathnavī a favourite form for narratives and
long didactic pieces. The length of a mathnavī varies from several short lines to some 100,000
couplets.
The qaṣīda has been used to praise rulers, courtiers, and religious figures. While the focus
of the mathnavī is the narration, in the qaṣīda the poet’s focus is on social life, his own connec-
tion to the man of power, and current interaction with the patron, as the poet expects to receive
rewards. The qaṣīda has a mono-rhyme aa, ba, ca, and so forth. A Persian qaṣīda is commonly
around forty to eighty couplets. The form allows the poet to position himself among con-
temporary poets, who are his peers and rivals, by outstripping them through novel and fitted
metaphors, subtle allusions, and novel themes.
The qaṣīda consists of three main parts, the prologue (nasīb, or tashbīb), the praise piece
(madīḥ) and the concluding plea (duʿāʾ) in which the poet asks for the patron’s munificence.
The poet mentions the patron’s name in the transition between the prologue and the praise
piece, called the gurīzgāh, or makhlaṣ. The poet adorns his poem with a rich gallery of rhe-
torical figures. The opening (maṭlaʿ) and concluding lines (maqṭaʿ) are carefully treated to
attract the audience’s attention. At first sight, many prologues have little to do with the actual

413
 ­
Asghar Seyed-Gohrab

praise in the middle of the poem, but there is always some connection: descriptions of spring
when the rain falls, in the prologue, may refer to the patron’s generosity and the flourish-
ing of the empire, which are referred to in the praising section. The recurrent subjects of the
prologues are homoerotic love, descriptions of wine, the cupbearer, and wine drinking, but
also of pre-Islamic Persian festivals such as nowrūz and mihragān, the fire festival (jashn-i­
sada), and of Islamic feasts such as ʿĪd al-ażḥā (‘the Feast of Sacrifice’) or Ramażān. As the
qaṣīda celebrates social courtly life, protocols, and rituals, it also depicts celebrations around
the foundation of buildings, victories, hunting expeditions, elegies (marthiyya, mūyya) on the
ruler’s death, and descriptions of courtly regalia such as the pen, the sword, the horse, etc.
Other subjects such as intrigues at the court, satire, old age, etc. are also treated in the pan-
egyrics. Sometimes description are so ornamented that they resemble another Persian literary
genre, the riddle (lughaz, chīstān).17 While poets used riddles on a wide range of subjects for
courtly entertainment, they could also show their virtuosity in creating cryptic metaphors.
Other courtly subjects for the qaṣīda, used at the court to cement identity and religious affili-
ation, were debates (munāẓara), for example between an Arab and a Persian, or between a
Muslim and a Zoroastrian, who argue for their own superiority.18
The qaṣīda’s heyday was between the tenth and the thirteenth centuries, when it gave way
to the ghazal as a favourite form. Although lyrical pieces existed before the thirteenth century,
as components of qaṣīdas and romantic mathnavīs, the ghazal developed as an independent
poem from the twelfth century. Ghazals are included in the collected poetry of several major
poets, such as Mukhtārī and Sanā’ī. In Sanā’ī’s case, he used the ghazal chiefly for its mystical
message. The formal aspect of the ghazal is the metre and rhyme. The ghazal’s rhyme scheme
is aa, ba, ca, etc. Its length varies from five to some fifteen couplets but is commonly between
eight to ten couplets. As in the qaṣīda, the poet pays special attention to the opening line and
the concluding lines. In the concluding lines, the poet mentions his nom de plume (takhalluṣ).
This pen name both identifies the writer and serves as a poetic device to create an extra layer of
interpretation. For instance, in Ḥāfiẓ’s poetry, his name could also refer to a person who knows
the Koran by heart.19 A poet may use several pen names to identify himself with someone else
or with an abstract concept. Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī (1207–1273) uses the pen name of his beloved
friend Shams (‘the Sun’) or variations on his name. In several cases he also uses khāmūsh or
‘silence.’20
Almost all Persian poets have written quatrains (rubāʿīs). The simple rhyme pattern (aaba
or aaaa) and the pithy form of four lines allowed the poets to write about virtually any subject.
Their quatrains were often cited as punch-lines in sermons and dialogues, and lend them-
selves for inscriptions on buildings, tombstones, and artefacts. Sufis used them in their ser-
mons, theoretical treatises, and in their rituals such as the musical audition (samāʿ). There are
also several large collections of quatrains on mystical love such as ʿAṭṭār’s Mukhtār-nāma or
Shirvānī’s Nuzhat al-Majālis. Quatrains were also used for philosophical subjects, on which
there are several collections with commentaries. Although the origin of the quatrain is uncer-
tain, its metrical pattern is uniquely Persian, being based on variants of hazaj metre.21
The qiṭʿa, usually described as a ‘fragmentary piece,’ is a popular form. The translation is
misleading as this implies that the poem is incomplete. The reason for such terminology is that
qiṭʿa literally means ‘piece,’ and because the qiṭʿa lacks the rhyming opening couplet as in a
qaṣīda or ghazal. Qiṭʿa poems vary in length from five to some eighty couplets, dealing with
topical subjects. They can be characterized as occasional poetry dealing with aspects of social
life, but also treating moral and ethical issues.
In addition to these classical forms which have remained popular to this day, modern
European literary forms were introduced to Iran in the twentieth century. In the middle of the

414
 Teaching Persian literature in Persian

twentieth century, poets wanted to write in a new form of poetry, very much different from the
classical forms, which they called ‘New Poetry’ (shiʿr-i now) with Nīmā Yūshīj (1897–1960)
as a pioneer. Experiments with ‘new poetry’ based on European models started in the Con-
stitutional Revolution period (1905–1911). Political developments in the first decades of the
twentieth century, the rise of the Pahlavi dynasty (1925–1979), Reza Shah’s modernization
program and World War II, made many literati believe that the classical Persian forms and
contents could not express the needs of modern society.22 Using a single metre and a single
rhyme-pattern in an entire poem, with cliché imagery and metaphors, did not reverberate
with the wishes of the modern poet. Form, metres, rhyme, and imagery had to enhance the
meaning of a poem. Instead of following the classical conventional poetic rules, the poet had
to convey his own feelings and ideas in a new form. Even when a poet wanted to imitate an
old master, it had to have a personal tone with new form, imagery, and metaphor to suit his
purpose.23

20.6 Metre and rhyme

An essential aspect of appreciating Persian poetry is metre, which gives rhythm and melody.
Each poem, even if it contains over fifty thousand couplets, retains the same metre throughout.
There are over three hundred metres, of which forty have been widely used. Some poets, such
as Rūmī, are noted for using a wide range of metres. Persian metre is an adaptation of Arabic
metre, yet there are theories that the Persian quantitative metric system may be an adaptation
of “earlier [pre-Islamic] syllabic or accentuated metres.”24 The metres used in quatrains, which
are very productive in the Persian literary tradition, are not productive in Arabic. Moreover, as
J.T.P. de Bruijn remarks, the eleven syllabic pattern used in many Persian mathnavīs could be
related to a pre-Islamic origin.25 Whatever the case may be, the Arabic and Persian literary tra-
ditions have influenced each other through their long history and have exchanged literary ele-
ments. The prosodic system used in Persian is based on the Arabic metrical system developed
by al-Khalīl and is called ʿilm-i ʿarūż or ‘the science of metre.’ There are many differences
between Arabic and Persian prosody, which are beyond the scope of this introductory piece.
To read and to interpret a classical Persian poem, it is essential to know the metre used
throughout the poem, which helps define the connection between individual words. One’s
reading of a word or phrase can simply be wrong if the metre is not understood. For this pur-
pose, it is essential to scan (taqṭīʿ) a verse into different units to find out the metre. The Persian
metre is quantitative, meaning that it is based on the value of the syllable. The metre consists
of foots, with six or eight foots to a line. A foot is called rukn, (Pl. arkān) or juzʿ (Pl. ajzāʿ).
Each syllable has one of three metrical values: a) short; b) long; c) extra-long). The system of
values is as follows and must be learned by heart. A short syllable can consist of one consonant
plus a short vowel such as na, or simply a short vowel such as a. The long syllable can be made
of four combinations: a syllable consisting of a consonant, a short vowel, and a consonant, as
in the word bad; a short vowel plus a consonant, such as the word az (‘from’); a consonant
and a long vowel, such as mā (‘we’); or long vowels such as ā, ī, ū. The third value, the extra-
long, appears in the following cases: a syllable consisting of a consonant, a long vowel, plus a
consonant such as bīn (‘see’); a consonant, a long or short vowel and two consonants, such as
kārd (‘knife’) and kard (‘did’) respectively; a long vowel and a consonant such as ān (‘that’);
or a long or short vowel with two consonants, such as ārd (‘flour’) and arj (‘worth,’ ‘value’)
respectively.
While these are the basic rules for the scansion, there are several exceptions. These are
briefly as follows. Two short syllables can be substituted for one long syllable or vice versa.

415
 Asghar Seyed-Gohrab
­

The enclitic -a­ representing the iżāfa (written as Ezafe elsewhere in this volume), the con-
junction u, words such as tu and du and the ending -a ­ can function independently but they
can also be connected to a preceding consonant. The enclitic suffixes of the singular per-
sonal pronouns may be taken as short or long syllables. A consonant at the end of a word
and a vowel at the beginning of a word can be connected to each other. The word boundary
is less important than the syllable. The value of the last syllable of the first word depends
on this connection: the words man az (‘I from’) can be both two long syllables or it can be
read ma-naz,
­ in which case it is a short and a long syllable. The connection is also made
when the penultimate syllable is extra-long. So dastān is not long-short-long but two times
a long syllable. This rule is applied when the first word ends with a final vowel /ī/ or /ū/, or
a diphthong such as /ay/ or /ow/ as in the words Saʿdī az and āhū az, which are long-long-
long or long-short-long.
Rhyme (qāfiya) is the next important element in the outward form of a poem. In pro-
sodic works it is treated under the heading ʿilm-i qāfiya ‘the science of rhyme.’ Persian
poems can rhyme on a single syllable, but many poems, especially ghazals and qaṣīdas,
use radīf, or addition of a word or a phrase to the rhyme, which is repeated in the entire
poem. The poets love to experiment with this device to outstrip other poets in virtuosity.
The radīf consists of a word or a short phrase attached to the rhyme and repeated in each
couplet. The use of a specific metre and radīf rhyme is also a way to show that the poet
is creatively imitating another poet. A good example is Rūdakī’s poem about the scent of
the Mūliyān, with the radīf rhyme -āyad hamī, which has been imitated by many poets till
the present. The poem was written at the court of Naṣr ibn Aḥmad (873–892). The prince
used to spend the summer in another cool town in Herat, but on one occasion, autumn had
passed but the prince did not want to return to Bukhara and had decided to stay longer in
Herat. The prince’s retinue were longing for Bukhara. They tried to convince the prince to
return, but he would not listen. They desperately offered the prince’s intimate companion,
the poet Rūdakī, a reward to persuade the prince to return to Bukhara. Rūdakī says that
prose will have no effect on him, therefore he composes a poem and in the morning, when
the prince is drinking his morning wine, he takes a harp and sings the following poem with
this effective radīf rhyme.26

bū-yi jū-yi mūliyān āyad hamī

yād-i yār-i mihrabān āyad hamī
rīg-i āmū-o durushtī-yi rāh-i ū
zīr-i pā-yam parniyān āyad hamī
āb-i jeyhūn az nishāt-i rū-yi dūst
khing-i mā-rā tā miyān āyad hamī
ey Bukhārā shād bāsh-u dīr zī
mīr zī tu shādmān āyad hamī
mīr māh-ast-u Bukhārā āsmān
māh sū-yi āsmān āyad hamī
mīr sarv-ast-u Bukhārā būstān
sarv sū-yi būstān āyad hamī
The scent of the river Mūliyān comes to us,27
The memory of the friend dear comes to us.
The sands of the Āmū, toilsome though they be,
Beneath my feet are soft as silk to me.
On seeing the friendly face, the waters of the jeyhūn

416
 Teaching Persian literature in Persian

Shall leap up to our horses’ girth.

O Bukhara, rejoice and hasten!
Joyful towards thee hasteth our Amīr!
The Amīr is the moon and Bukhara the heaven;
The moon shall brighten up the heaven!
The Amīr is a cypress and Bukhara the garden;
The cypress shall rise in the garden!28

The poem had such an effect on the prince that on hearing this last couplet, he ran to his horse
without wearing his boots, heading to Bukhara. His retinue ran after him for some distance,
bringing his boots. This poem is an outstanding piece, arousing various sensory perceptions in
the prince to go home. The radīf rhyme, meaning ‘it comes,’ has a different meaning in each
line. In the first line it refers to the scent of the river reaching the prince, in the second it is the
loving memory. In the second couplet, it refers to sand felt under the prince’s feet like a soft
silk. In this way the poet uses different compounds with the singular third personal verb āyad
to arouse a different sense in the king. The particle hamī refers to the incessant duration of
each of the actions.

Further Reading
Kazzāzī, Jalāl al-Dīn. 1993–1994. Zībā-shināsī-yi sukhan-i pārsī (1, bayān, 2, maʿānī, 3, badīʿ) [Aesthet-
ics of Persian Poetic Discourse: Rhetoric; Meaning; Rhetorical Embellishment]. Tehran: Mād.
Zamāniyān, Ṣadr al-Dīn. 1995. Barrisī-yi owzān-i shiʿr-i Fārsī [Examining Metres of Persian Poetry].
Tehran: Bunyād-i Jānbāzān.

20.7 Periodization of Persian literature

Modern historians of Persian literature have developed several theories on the periodization
of Persian literature. The most common theory, used in both the Persian-speaking world
and the West, is based on stylistic developments and is closely connected to geographical
nomenclature.29 It must be stated here that this periodization was increasingly used after the
twentieth century in Iran. Several scholars consider this periodization a construct of Iranian
nationalism. Here I am only concerned with the style of Persian and how a large number of
scholars have examined Persian poetry based on the period and style. The first refers to the
renaissance of Persian culture after the Muslim invasion, with Persian poetry as its articu-
late icon. It appeared at the early Persian courts such as that of the Samanids (819–999) in
present-day Uzbekistan and is called the style of Khurāsān or Turkistān (sabk-i khurāsānī, or
sabk-i Turkistānī). This period is famous for its inimitable simplicity (sahl-i mumtaniʿ), har-
monious use of metaphors and limited use of Arabic words. In the space of one couplet, the
poet uses several rhetorical devices in such a balanced and natural way that they appear very
plain and pleasing to the reader, who may not immediately recognize that it is ornamented
poetry. The dominant poetic form of this period is the qaṣīda and the mathnavī. With heroic
epics such as Firdowsī’s Shāh-nāma and a large number of qaṣīdas, Persian poetry asserted
itself in this period as a dominant literary language in the eastern Iranian lands, reviving ele-
ments of pre-Islamic Persian culture.
The second period denotes the shift of literary activity from the eastern regions to the West
and central parts of contemporary Iran. It is the period starting with the rise of the Saljuks
(1040–1220) in the eleventh century and continuing to the rise of the Safavids (1501–1722).30
It is called the style of ʿIrāq (sabk-i ʿIrāqī). The features of this style are the sophisticated

417
 ­
Asghar Seyed-Gohrab

used of rhetorical devices, especially extended metaphors, the inclusion of mystical terminol-
ogy in the poetic idiom, the increasing use of Arabic vocabulary, and a tendency by several
poets, who could be called poeta docti ‘learned poets,’ to use difficult allusions. Prominent
forms of poetry of this period are the ghazal, quatrain, and romantic mathnavīs. It is in this
period that great masters of Persian literature such as ʿAṭṭār, Niẓāmī, Rūmī, Sa’dī, Ḥāfiẓ and
Jāmī flourished. This period saw also the incredible growth of Persian Sufi literature with
masterpieces such as ʿAṭṭār’s The Conference of the Birds, Rūmī’s Mathnavī, and Shabistarī’s
Gulshan-i rāz.
The third period is called the Indian style (sabk-i Hindī) starting approximately with the
rise of the Shiite Safavid dynasty in 1501 and ending about 1750 in Iran, but remaining as a
dominant style for Persian poetry in Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent until the twen-
tieth century. Many literati, scholars, and artists migrated to Indian courts where they were
warmly received. A smaller number went to the Ottoman court. During this period the Sunnite
Persians were converted to Shiism, which became the official state religion. The Safavids’
intolerance towards mystic orders, men of learning, and artists forced them to migrate. The
Persian millennial movements such as the ḥurūfiyya provided another motivation for many
Persian learned men to leave Persia for the Indian courts, where Akbar Shah (1542–1605),
perhaps the greatest Mughal Emperor, was promoting Universal Peace (ṣulḥ-i kull) as part
of his Dīn-i Ilāhī. A prodigious number of Persian literary works were written in India in this
period. The poetic style could be described as extravagant and baroque. Poets intentionally
deviated from poetic rules such as requirement of harmonious imagery. They used allegories
and the debating genre, and dwelt on religious, mystical and philosophical themes. The style
stopped in Persia in the mid-eighteenth century when Persian literati increasingly criticized the
style for incomprehensibility. In its place they returned to the style of Khurāsān, imitating the
early poets. This new period is called neoclassicism or ‘literary return’ (bāzgasht-i adabī) and
lasted until the mid-twentieth century, when modern poets such as Nīmā Yūshīj (1896–1960)
introduced ‘new poetry’ (shiʿr-i now).
While prominent poets today write mainly in the style of ‘new poetry,’ the advent of the
Islamic Revolution in 1979 and the Iraqi invasion of Iran on 22 September 1980 herald a new
period for Persian literature. From the beginning of the war (1980–1988), the longest conven-
tional war of the twentieth century, poets used both classical styled poetry and ‘new poetry’
to mobilize young Iranians to the front, to convey their abhorrence of war, and as a therapy to
process traumatic atrocities of violence.
It should certainly be mentioned here that the number of female literati increased signifi-
cantly after the Islamic Revolution. Sīmīn Bihbahānī (1927–2014), who was already an estab-
lished poet, engaged with the social and political developments of the period, created new
metres based on the classical metric system, and composed ghazals to express sociopoliti-
cal developments. The Revolution and war caused an exodus for Iranians who sought safety
mainly in western countries. Here they started to write about the experiences of imprisonment
under the Shah and the Islamic Republic, elaborating on the life between two cultures with all
its consequences.
This periodization based on style is merely an indication of the shifts of cultural and liter-
ary activities from one region to another, as there have always been exceptions, of poets or
poems employing a different style. Also the shift of the name of the dominant style from one
region to another did not mean that other regions followed a different style: the dominant style
could also be found in other regions. The conspicuous geopolitical aspect of this periodization
of Persian literature shows how closely literary activities are connected to political changes in
the Persian-speaking lands.

418
 Teaching Persian literature in Persian

Further Reading
Maḥjūb, Muḥammad Jaʿfar. 1971. Sabk-i Khurāsānī dar shiʿr-i fārsī [Stylistics in Persian Poetry]. Teh-
ran: Intishārāt-i Dānishsarā-yi ʿĀlī.
Yarshater, E. 1988. “The Indian or Safavid Style: Progress or Decline.” In Persian Literature, edited by
E. Yarshater, 249–288. New York: The Persian Heritage Foundation.

20.8 Genres, motifs, themes, and metaphors

The student must master the recurrent genres, motifs, and themes of Persian literature, several
of which go back to the pre-Islamic period and are still strongly present in Persian poetry. The
genre of the pand, ‘precept,’ (also named andarz and naṣīḥat) is an example. The precept,
often addressed to a ruler, is strongly present in Persian heroic, romantic, and didactic epics as
well as in the genre of mirror for princes and chronicles. Further examples of continuity with
pre-Islamic literature are massive historical masterpieces, such as the Persian translation of
Ṭabarī’s History and Firdowsī’s Shāh-nāma, which recount the pre-Islamic Persian legends,
history, culture, and world-view. There are many epics which are entirely retellings of sto-
ries from pre-Islamic Persia, such as Gurgānī’s Vīs and Rāmīn, Asadī’s Garshāsp-nāma, and
Niẓāmī’s Khusrow and Shīrīn.
There are at least four main genres: heroic, romantic, mystic-didactic, and historic, each
exemplified by a masterpiece. Some works cross the genres: Firdowsī’s Shāh-nāma is usually
and rightly considered as a heroic epic but it also contains fine examples of romance, didactic
literature, and tragic epic. The genre of romance is associated with Niẓāmī of Ganja, who
wrote three romances, the most famous being Laylī and Majnūn, which recounts the story
of an Arab boy smitten by the love of Laylī. Niẓāmī changes the Arabic anecdotal narrative
to a Persian courtly epic, introducing new elements such as meeting at school, descriptions
of gardens and nature, a plea for vegetarianism, etc. This simple story is so powerful that
it inspired more than a hundred creative emulations in various artistic forms in the Islamic
world and beyond, up to the present day. The rock star Eric Clapton wrote his best-selling
album Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs based on a translation of Niẓāmī. The other two
romances are based on the love stories of the pre-Islamic Persian kings Khusrow and his love
for the Armenian princess Shirin, and the love story of King Bahram in The Seven Beauties
(Haft-Paykar).
­ An episode of the last romance inspired Puccini to compose his opera mas-
terpiece Turandot.
Another genre is mystic and didactic, exemplified by Sanā’ī of Ghazna’s magnum opus
Ḥadīqa al-ḥaqīqa, containing in its larger version some ten thousand couplets, treating a wide
range of ethical and mystical subjects in verse. It was creatively emulated by several great
poets who themselves became models for poets of subsequent centuries. Niẓāmī’s Makhzan
al-asrār, ʿAṭṭār’s epics, and Rūmī’s Mathnavī-yi Maʿnavī are inspired by Sanā’ī’s poem.
The historic genre is represented by works dealing with Persian history. While several works
depict specific Persian historical periods, others such as Alexander of Macedonia, treated by
Firdowsī and especially Niẓāmī, could be considered as historical fictions. In Niẓāmī’s hands
the historical Alexander becomes a Persian king, a sage and a mystic in search of the Fount
of Life. Historical works are usually concentrated on one person. In addition to such works in
verse, Persian is a rich in the genre of dāstān (‘story’). These are popular prose narratives of
a considerable length. The genre has remained popular in Persian speaking world for centu-
ries. Favourite examples are Samak-i ʿAyyār, Dārāb-nāma, Abū Muslim-nāma, Ḥamza-nāma,
Iskandar-nāma, Ḥusayn-i Kurd, and Amīr Arsalān.31 Such stories were extremely popular and
were recounted by professional storytellers down to the present age. It should certainly be

419
 Asghar Seyed-Gohrab
­

added that heroic, romantic, and religious stories in verse have their equivalents in the dāstān
genre. The professional storyteller, who is called naqqāl, usually combines prose and poetry
to tell a story to achieve the utmost effect on the audience. These stories were told at coffee-
houses from Safavid times.32
There are a large number of motifs in Persian literature that must be known for the contex-
tualization of a text and a sound analysis. Although many derive from the Arabic literary tradi-
tion, their treatments and developments are typically Persian. The recurrent motifs in Persian
poetry are those related to nature, such as rabīʿiyyāt, (‘spring poems’), kharīfiyyāt (‘autum-
nal poems’), those related to religious practice such as zuhdiyyāt (‘poetry of abstinence’),
qalandariyyāt (‘poetry of libertine dervishes’), motifs of daily courtly life such as khamriyyāt
(‘wine poetry’), etc. In a panegyric, each of these motifs may occur, with the poet elaborating
upon the theme. In ghazal poetry, the poet combines several motifs in such a way that they
strengthen the imagery, creating a multiple interpretation of a certain subject. Employing sev-
eral motifs simultaneously in one ghazal displays the poet’s virtuosity and is much applauded
by connoisseurs. Ḥāfiẓ’s ghazals are famous for their polyphonic nature in which he weaves
together several seemingly unrelated motifs and metaphors to create complex layers of inter-
pretations. It is sometimes a puzzle to find the connection of one motif to another, but if they
appear incoherent this may have to do with the reader’s inability to recognize the internal
cohesion among an arsenal of metaphors and motifs strung together by rhyme and metre. The
phrase ‘Like orient pearls at random strung,’ used to refer to Persian ghazals, is now outdated
thanks to several splendid studies by Lewisohn, De Bruijn, Yarshater and Hillmann.33 The
multilayered ghazal has also created perennial discussions about spiritual or profane inter-
pretations. While scholars such as Ehsan Yarshater have defended the argument that Ḥāfiẓ’s
ghazals are bereft of a spiritual reading, other scholars such as Lewisohn believe in Ḥāfiẓ’s
spiritual message. Yarshater says, “Attempts at finding a mystical interpretation for Hafez’s
praise of wine and drunkenness are not supported by his Divān. . . . There is no indication at
all that Hafez said one thing and meant something else.”34 On the authority of Hellmut Ritter,
de Bruijn characterizes Ḥāfiẓ as not being

really a mystical poet but merely a rend-mašrab

­ [drunken lout]: “like the qalandar,
he does not withdraw from the pleasures of the world, mocks those who renounce the
world and their kind, excusing his scandalous way of life by pointing to predestina-
tion, and for the rest puts his hope, in the manner of popular piety, in God’s great
mercy.”35

Yet neglecting the mystic layer would decrease the appreciation of his poetry, for readers
over the centuries have found that Persian ghazals, and especially those of Ḥāfiẓ, oscillate
between heaven and earth, offering different messages for each reader. Whether the author
‘meant something else’ or not, the poetry of Ḥāfiẓ has been cited by mystics from the Balkans
to Bengal for seven hundred years, and poets in imitation of him have said ‘wine’ and meant
(among other things) spiritual ecstasy.

20.8.1 Embellishing poetic work

Persian poetry is deeply conventional. These conventions are detailed in literary manuals such
as Tarjumān al-balāgha (written between 1088 and 1114) by Muḥammad b. ʿUmar Rādūyānī,
and Ḥadāʾiq al-siḥr fī daqāʾiq al-shiʿr by Amīr Rashīd-al-Dīn Muḥammad ʿUmarī, known as
Rashīd-i Vaṭvāṭ (d. about 1182–83), which became a standard textbook. The use of rhetorical

420
 Teaching Persian literature in Persian

devices to embellish speech and to strengthen an argument was related to the science of rheto-
ric (ʿilm al-balāgha) with several subcategories. One of these disciplines is the science of
embellishment or ʿilm al-badīʿ. The word badīʿ is of Arabic origin, occurring in the Koran
(2:117; 6:101), and means novelty. Persian rhetorical manuals are modelled on Arabic exam-
ples written by authors such as Jurjānī, a Persian scholar who wrote the influential book Asrār
al-balāgha (‘The Secrets of Rhetoric’).36
The technical poetic terms have retained their Arabic forms for about a thousand years.
Although classical Persian authors tried to find Persian equivalents, most of the terminology
remained Arabic. Almost every century saw new Persian books on rhetoric, which sometimes
improved on the previous work, and this has continued in modern times. Jalāl al-Dīn Humā’ī’s
Sanāʿāt is a good example, following the classical example but in a simplified fashion to serve
modern students of Persian literature. He retains the Arabic terminology, while Jalāl al-Dīn
Kazzāzī, in his three volume work, coins comprehensible new Persian terms for almost the
entire contents of Persian rhetoric. While his language is pleasing readable Persian, at times
it sounds strange to the ear of a student trained in classical Persian rhetoric. In English, a
practical source is certainly E.G. Browne’s analysis of the most recurrent rhetorical devices
in Persian poetry and prose, in his Literary History of Persia. Here he provides Greek and
Latin parallels of terminology and at times even examples to demonstrate how Persian rhetoric
works. Although there are many similarities between European rhetoric and Persian, there are
also dissimilarities.

Further Reading
Browne, E.G. 1965. A Literary History of Persia, Vol. II, 41–78. Cambridge: University Press.
Humā’ī, Jalāl al-Dīn. 1975. Funūn-i balāghat va ṣanāʿāt-i adabī. [Arts of Eloquence and Literary Fig-
ures]. Tehran, Nīmā.
Rādūyānī, Muḥammad b. ʿUmar. 1949. Tarjumān al-balāgha [Interpreter of Eloquence]. Istanbul: no
publisher.
Rāzī, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Qays. 1955. al-Muʿjam fī maʿāyīr ashʿār al-ʿajam [A Compendium
on the Defects of Persian Poetry]. Edited by M. Qazvīnī and M.T. Mudarris Rażawī, rev. ed. Tehran:
Tehran University Press.

20.9 The role of Sufism in Persian literature

Without a profound knowledge of Sufism, Persian poetry cannot be understood and
appreciated, as many Persian masterpieces are inherently mystical. Persian literature is
an aesthetic reflection of life: its most recurrent themes include love, the vicissitudes of
life, death and the hereafter, and reflections on ethical quandaries such as truthfulness,
justice, tolerance, and spiritual growth to become a perfect human being (insān-i kāmil).
Sufism has something to say about all these themes and provides a language to address
them. The works of Sanā’ī, ʿAṭṭār, Rūmī, Saʿdī, Ḥāfiẓ, and Jāmī are full of mystical allu-
sions, theorization of mystical doctrines, and metaphoric descriptions of mystical states
and stations. Moreover, poetry is used to express the theoretical and contemplative dimen-
sions of Islamic mysticism and has been used to educate people in mysticism for about
a millennium. While modern dictionaries of mystical vocabulary may help to appreciate
Persian poetry, the student must read mystical manuals in prose and verse such as Asrār
al-towḥīd by Abū Saʿīd, Kashf al-maḥjūb by Hujvīrī, Tadhkirat al-owliyā by ʿAṭṭār and
Mirṣād al-ʿibād by Najm al-Dīn Rāzī, to name only a few. These books offer extensive
information about mystical terminology, the lives of saints, mystical doctrines, spiritual

421
 ­
Asghar Seyed-Gohrab

states and stages, and much else that is required to better appreciate a Persian poem. In
Iran’s and Afghanistan’s modern educational system, selections from such books have
been included in the curriculum. Furthermore, the prose used in these texts, especially
ʿAṭṭār’s Tadhkira, is still considered a model for a lucid, enjoyable, and compelling style
in Persian.

Further Reading
Bruijn, Johannes Thomas Pieter, de. 1997. Persian Sufi Poetry: An Introduction to the Mystical use of
Classical Poems. Richmond: Curzon (shiʿr-i ṣūfīyāna-yi Fārsī. Trans. by Majd al-Dīn Kayvānī, Teh-
ran: Markaz, 1999).
Sajjādī, Jalāl. 1983. Farhang-i lughāt va iṣṭilāḥāt va taʿbīrāt-i ʿirfānī [Dictionary of Mystic Words, Ter-
minology, and Interpretations]. Tehran: Ṭahūrī.
Zarrīnkūb, ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn. 1974. Arzish-i mīrāth-i ṣūfiyya [The Value of Sufism’s Heritage]. Tehran:
Amīr Kabīr.

20.10 Analyzing Persian poems

To appreciate a Persian poem, the student should focus first on the presentation form, starting
with the identification of rhyme and metre. What is the rhyme? What is the metre? What is the
length of the poem? The rhyme and length are among the elements that designate the form of
the poem. By scanning (taqṭīʿ) each line according to the rules stipulated previously, the stu-
dent can identify the metre. The next step is to look at the themes and motifs in the poem. In a
ghazal, the poet uses several motifs at once to increase the effects in the meanings he creates.
What is the subject matter of the poem? Often the poet combines, for instance, qalandariyyāt
with khamriyyāt or other motifs to create different levels of meanings. These motifs are often
depicted through a wide range of metaphors and imagery. The student should identify these
metaphors and other rhetorical figures in the poem to see how the poet has composed his
poem and what effects he wants to achieve. Having conducted the preliminary analysis, the
student should examine the relationships among the motifs and should identify the relationship
between the couplets. At first sight, the couplets in a Persian ghazal look unconnected, but a
thorough analysis of motifs and imagery shows the deeper interrelated structure. The poet has
often ingeniously connected each element to the others. The aim of analyzing a poem is not
only to appreciate its aesthetic qualities but also to contextualize it in its literary, historical,
religious, and cultural setting. Such an analysis offers an understanding of a specific period of
Persian literature.

20.11 Geographical scope of Persian literature

Persian literature functioned for different purposes such as entertainment, code of proper con-
duct, the legitimization of political power, or as a means to convey spiritual thoughts and
meditation, and for cultural prestige in a vast territory from Belgrade to the Bengal. It is often
said that Persian was the second language of Islam. In specific periods, Persian was a lingua
franca, the language of chancery, religious discourses, and the literati. Taking Ḥāfiẓ’s Dīvān
as an example, Shahab Ahmed discusses how

in the period between the fifteenth and the late-nineteenth centuries, [his poetry
was] a pervasive poetical, conceptual and lexical presence in the discourse of edu-
cated Muslims in the vast geographical region extending from the Balkans through

422
 Teaching Persian literature in Persian

Anatolia, Iran and Central Asia down and across Afghanistan and North India to the
Bay of Bengal that was home to the absolute demographic majority of Muslims on
the planet.37

There are several other sages who were part of the educational curriculum of Muslims in this
area, whose works were read, commented, and applied in life. The famous Bosnian commenta-
tor Aḥmad Sūdī (d. 1591) wrote huge commentaries on Saʿdī’s Gulistān, which is one of the
many commentaries written from the sixteenth century onwards.

Appointed to teach Persian at the Ibrahim Paša madrasa in Istanbul after his master’s
death, Sūdi devoted himself there to writing a series of commentaries in Ottoman
Turkish – mostly philological in nature – on classics such as the Matnawi of Rumi,
the Bustān and Golestān of Saʿdi, and the Divān of Ḥāfeẓ.38

Sudī’s extensive commentaries were later used by German Orientalists in their translations
of Persian literature. In some manuscripts, the Persian phrases are in red, followed by a long
Turkish commentary with explanations of grammatical structures in the Persian. These com-
mentaries were used as textbooks in schools.39 The Turkic-speaking regions had developed a
tradition of word-for-word translations from Persian texts so that the Persian texts were more
easily understandable for a general public. One of the main aims of these commentaries was
to teach the Persian language. While the literary merits of these works play a cardinal role, a
key function of these commentaries for the broader public was to transmit the ethical wisdom
of these texts. Persian literature was a veritable mine for proper conduct in this world and a
spiritual guide for a redemptive eternal life Hereafter.
Another central literary work which permeated the ethical, social, and political life of
Muslims in this vast area was Firdowsī’s Shāh-nāma. This monumental epic, completed in
1010, describes Persian history from the dawn of the creation to the advent of Islam, in
which the kingly tradition plays a central role. Contrary to the Islamic, Christian, or Jewish
traditions, the first man in Firdowsī’s epic is a king who is succeeded by a series of mythical,
semi-historical and historical kings. The first human being in this Persian creation myth was
King Kayumars, an androgen, who brought civilization to mankind. Each mythical king is
responsible for another aspect of civilization. The epic was used to legitimize power from
the thirteenth century until the mid-nineteenth century, by several Ottoman emperors such as
Sultan Selim, in Mughal India, and of course in Persia itself. The Shāh-nāma is a rich source
of courtly etiquette and conduct, stories on just rule, the traits of an ideal king, and many
philosophical reflections on life, love and death. In this capacity, the epic became a popular
document for several Ottoman Emperors who ordered men of letters to compose comparable
epics, elaborating upon the ruler’s exploits. Persian literature was an indispensable part of
the Ottoman culture and the learned hierarchy of the Ottoman society were well versed in
Persian. Perhaps the first Persian Shāh-nāma for a Turkish king was composed by Bahāʾ al-
Dīn Aḥmad b. Maḥmūd Qāniʿī Ṭūsī, dedicated to the Saljuq Sultan of Anatolia ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn
Kayqubād I (r. 1219–1237), which consisted of 300,000 couplets in thirty volumes.40 Prob-
ably the first translation of Firdowsī’s Shāh-nāma into Turkish was executed under Sultan
Murād II (r. 1421–1451) in 1450–1451. Writing on the deeds of the Ottoman kings in the
manner of the Shāh-nāma became so popular that the institution of Shāh-nāmaji was created,
which chronicled the events of a ruler’s reign.41 Firdowsī’s Shāh-nāma was also popular in
the coffee-houses. For instance, Evliyā Çelebi reports on the recitations of professional sto-
rytellers at coffeehouses in Bursa.

423
 ­
Asghar Seyed-Gohrab

The role of Persian literature in the Mughal Empire in India, and South-East Asia, was much
more intensive, as Persian functioned as the official language of the Mughals. Many regions
in the Indian subcontinent had become Persianized from the Ghaznavid period (977–1186),
when mighty rulers such as Sultan Maḥmūd (c. 971–1030) conquered these areas, spreading
the Persian language. Persian-speaking Indian poets participated in the literary activities in
cultural centres such as Delhi and Lahore. The role of Persian literature in the South-East Asia
is considerable. Here, many works of Persian poetry were translated, commented, and taught
for many centuries, leaving a lasting effect on the literature of this vast area with diverse com-
munities.42 It goes far from the scope of this discussion, but it is perhaps proper to mention as
an example the significant contribution of India in Shāh-nāma studies. The fourteenth century
Persian poet ʿIsāmī wrote the Futūḥ al-Salāṭīn, for the founder of the Bahmanī dynasty, nar-
rating historical events in 11,693 couplets, emulating Firdowsī’s Shāh-nāma.43

Further Reading
Fragner, Bert. 1999. Die “Persophonie”: Regionalität, Identität und Sprachkontakt in der Geschichte
Asiens. Berlin: Halle an der Saale.
Green, Nile, ed. 2019. The Persianate World: The Frontiers of a Eurasian Lingua Franca. California:
University of California Press.
Perry, J.R. 2018. Persian Literature from Outside Iran: The Indian Subcontinent, Anatolia, Central Asia,
and in Judeo-Persian (A History of Persian Literature), Vol. IX. London and New York: I.B. Tauris.
Rīyāḥī, Muḥammad Amīn. 1990. Nufūdh-i zabān va adabiyyāt-i Fārsī dar qalamrow-yi ʿUthmānī [Influ-
ence of Persian Language and Literature on the Ottoman Empire]. Tehran: Pāzhang.

20.11 Critical text editions

While these are essential background information for any student of Persian literature, it is
important to include in an introduction to Persian literature syllabus an anthology of Persian
prose and poetry with a vocabulary explaining words and phrases with specific connotations.
Moreover, the student should know how to find the best text edition: a good critical text-
edition will not only be closer to the original, it will also include copious explanations of the
texts, the terminology, and the context in which words appear. Excellent example are Gh.Ḥ.
Yūsufī’s editions of Saʿdī’s Būstān and Gulistān.44 Moreover, most Persian literature was orig-
inally written in a lively performative context in which poems were recited at a gathering, or
the texts were illustrated in manuscripts. Many of these manuscripts are now digitally avail-
able at libraries around the world, along with recordings of recitations and searchable digital
corpus collections.

20.12 Conclusion
To appreciate Persian literature, it is necessary to learn themes, motifs, poetic forms, but also
the context in which this literature was created. As we have seen, while the periodization of Per-
sian poetry is based on style, it is closely related to political developments in a large area outside
the contemporary Persian-speaking countries. Persian poetry is the carrier of Persian culture,
and with the rise of Sufism, this poetry became the preferred medium for spiritual and ethi-
cal purposes for about a thousand years from the Balkans to Bengal. In this vast area, Persian
poetry also functioned for political legitimization, as well as an icon for cultural prestige. Schol-
ars and poets – and patrons, artists, and copyists – across this vast area have greatly contributed
to Persian literary production, preservation, and transmission to today’s fortunate students.

424
 Teaching Persian literature in Persian

Notes
1) See G. Lazard, “The Rise of the New Persian Language,” in The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. IV.
The Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, ed. R.N. Frye, 595–632. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1975, Chapter 19. Also see R.N. Frye, The Golden Age of Persia: the Arabs in the
East. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975. For a recent article on this topic see Chapters 11, 12
and 13 in General Introduction to Persian Literature, ed. J.T.P. de Bruijn. London and New York:
I.B. Tauris, 2009, which also examines the influence of other literary traditions.
2) Many studies have been done on this topic, but I will limit myself to H.A.R. Gibb, “The Social
Significance of the Shuʿubiya,” in Studies on the Civilization of Islam, ed. Stanford J. Shaw and Wil-
liam. R. Polk, 62–73. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962; R.P. Mottahedeh, “The Shuʿubiyah
Controversy and the Social History of Early Islamic Iran,” International Journal of Middle East
Studies, 7 (1976), 161–182.
3) See Tārīkh-i sīstān, 209. A variant of the name is Muḥammad ibn Wāṣif but in Bahār’s critical text
edition it is Waṣif. Also see S.M. Stern, “Yaʿqub the Coppersmith and Persian National Sentiment,”
in Iran and Islam, in Memory of the Late V. Minorsky, ed. C.E. Bosworth, 535–555. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, 1971; also see A. Ashraf in Encyclopædia Iranica, s.v. Iranian Identity,
iii. Medieval Islamic Period.
4) See Oral Literature of Iranian Languages: Kurdish, Pashto, Balochi, Ossetic; Persian and Tajik, ed.
P.G. Kreyenbroek and U. Marzolph. London and New York, I.B. Tauris, 2010; Also see J. Ashtiany,
e.a. ‘Abbasid Belles-Lettres, the Cambridge History of Arabic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990.
5) Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh in Encyclcopaedia Iranica, s.v. Adab i. Adab in Iran. G. Lazard, “The Rise
of New-Persian Language,” in Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 4, 595–632. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1975.
6) K. Talattof, “Nizami ganjavi, the Wordsmith: The Concept of Sakhun in Classical Persian Poetry,”
in A Key to the Treasures of Hakim: Artistic and Humanistic Aspects of Nizami Ganjavi’s Khamsa,
ed. J.C. Bürgel and C. van Ruymbeke, 211–244. Leiden: Leiden University Press, 2011.
7) For an excellent introduction to the Persian literary tradition see J.T.P. de Bruijn, “Classical Persian
Literature as a Tradition,” in General Introduction to Persian Literature, ed. J.T.P. de Bruijn, 1–42.
London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009. See also A. Tafażżulī, Tārīkh-i adabiyyāt-i pīsh az islām,
113–114. Tehran: Mahārat, 1377/1998, in which Tafażżulī discusses how Middle Persian (Pahlavi)
literature was transmitted in the ninth and tenth centuries.
8) Mary Boyce, “The Parthian gōsān and Iranian Minstrel Tradition,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society (1957), 10–45.
9) Referring to the Parthian life and that of their neighbours down to the Sasanian era, Mary Boyce
states that these minstrels were “entertainer of king and commoner, privileged at court and popular
with the people; present at the graveside and at the feast; eulogist, satirist, story-teller, musician;
recorder of past achievements, and commentator of his own times.” See “The Parthian gōsān and
Iranian Minstrel Tradition,” 17–18.
10) Reuben Levy translates this heading as “How to be a Poet.” See A Mirror for Princes, The Qābūs
Nāma by Kai Kā’ūs ibn Iskandar Prince of Gurgān. London: The Cresset Press, 1951, 182. The term
shāʿirī refers to the art of poetry and anything related to it, including the poet. See J.T.P. de Bruijn,
in Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. Shāʿir. 2. In Persia
11) A Mirror for Princes, 183.
12) A Mirror for Princes, 184.
13) J.T.P. de Bruijn, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Courts and Courtiers, x. Court poetry; also see J.S.
Meisami, Medieval Persian Court Poetry. Princeton, NJ: University of Princeton Press, 1987.
14) See Niẓāmī ʿArūżī, Chahār maqāla, Tehran: Ishrāqī, 1327/1909, 26–53; for a translation see Revised
translation of the Chahár Maqála (Four Discourses) of Niẓámí-i ʿArúḍí of Samarqand, followed
by an abridged translation of Mírzá Muḥammad [Qazvīnī]’s Notes to the Persian text. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1921.
15) See Seyed-Gohrab, “Improvisation as a Chief Pillar of the Poetic Art in Persian Literary Tradition,”
in Images, Improvisations, Sound, and Silence from 1000–1800 – Degree Zero, ed. B. Hellemans
and A. Jones Nelson. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018, 131–144.
16) For a discussion of these forms see Jalāl al-Dīn Humā’ī, Funūn-i balāghat va ṣanāʿāt-i adabī, Teh-
ran, Nīmā, 1975; E.G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia. Cambridge: Cambridge University

425
 ­
Asghar Seyed-Gohrab

Press, Vol. II, 41–78; E.J.W. Gibb, History of Ottoman Poetry. London: Luzac & Co., 1900, I,
70–124.
17) Seyed-Gohrab, Courtly Riddles: Enigmatic Embellishments in Early Persian Poetry. Leiden: Leiden
University Press, 2010.
18) See Seyed-Gohrab, “The Rhetoric of Persian Verbal Contests: Innovation and Creativity in Debates
between the Persians and the Arabs,” in Disputation Literature in the Near East and Beyond,
ed. Catherine Mittermayer and Enrique Jiménez, in the series “Studies in Ancient Near Eastern
Records,” Berline: De Gruyter, 2020 forthcoming).
19) J.T.P. de Bruijn, in Encycloapedia Iranica, s.v. Hafez. iii. Hafez’s Poetic Art; Idem., Encyclopaedia
of Islam. 2nd ed., s.v. Takhalluṣ. Also see idem, “The Name of the Poet,” in Proceedings of the Third
European Conference of Iranian Studies. Part 2, ed. Ch. Melville. Wiesbaden, Reichert Verlag,
1999, 45–56; P. Losensky, “Linguistic and Rhetorical Aspects of the Signature Verse (takhallus2) in
a Persian ghazal,” Edebiyât 8 (1998), 239–271.
20) Franklin D. Lewis, Rumi. Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings and Poetry
of Jalâl al-Din Rūmī. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2000, 329–330 (authorized transla-
tion, Mowlānā: dīrūz tā imrūz, sharq tā gharb (Tehran: Nashr-i Nāmak, 1384/2005, 2nd ed.,
1385/2006).
21) Seyed-Gohrab, “The Flourishing of Persian Quatrains after Omar Khayyam,” in A History of Per-
sian Literature: Persian Lyric Poetry in the Classical Era 800-1500: Ghazals. Panegyrics and Quat-
rains, Vol. II, ed. E. Yarshater, London: I.B. Tauris, 488–568.
22) On Nīmâ’s philosophy of a new type of poetry see Essays on Nima Yushij: Animating Modernism in
Persian Poetry, ed. A. Karimi-Hakkak and K. Talattof. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
23) E. Yarshater, “A Star Ceases to Shine,” Persica, xvii (2001), 137.
24) J.T.P. de Bruijn, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., s.v. Iran vii. Literature; See B. Utas, “Prosody:
Meter and Rhyme,” in General Introduction of Persian Literature, ed. J.T.P. de Bruijn. London and
New York: I.B. Tauris, 2009, 96–122.
25) J.T.P. de Bruijn, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., s.v. Iran vii. Literature. For the background and
application of the metre hazaj see Benedikt Reinert, “Hazaj: Genese Eines Neupersischen Metrums,”
in Classical Arabic Humanities in Their Own Terms: Festschrift for Wolfhart Heinrichs on his 65th
Birthday Presented by his Students and Colleagues. Leiden: Brill, 2008, 68–98.
26) Translation by Edward G. Browne, Revised Translation of the Chahár Maqála, xi, 2, 1921.
27) The word mūliyān refers to the river Oxus.
28) Four Discourses, 35. This translation is an adapted version by J. Landau, “Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī and
Poetic Imagination in the Arabic and Persian Philosophical Tradition,” in Metaphor and Imagery in
Persian Poetry, ed. A.A. Seyed-Gohrab. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012, 15–65.
29) For the periodization of Persian poetry see see A.A. Seyed-Gohrab, “My Heart is the Ball, Your Lock
the Polo-Stick: ‘Development of the Ball and Polo-Stick Metaphors in Classical Persian Poetry’,” in
The Necklace of the Pleiades: Studies in Persian Literature Presented to Heshmat Moayyad on his
80th Birthday, ed. F. Lewis and S. Sharma. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers / West Lafayette, IN,
Purdue University Press, 2007, 183–205, in which I demonstrate how polo metaphors develop from
the style of Khurāsān to the Indian style. See also J. Rypka, History of Iranian Literature. Dordrecht:
D. Reidel, 1968, 112–115.
30) Daniela Meneghini, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Saljuqs. v. Saljuqid Literature.
31) William Hanaway in Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Dāstān-Sarāʾī; also see M. Mills, Rhetorics and
Politics in Afghan Traditional Storytelling. Philadelphia: De Gruyter, 1991.
32) Kathryn Babayan, Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs: Cultural Landscape of Early Modern Iran.
London and Cambridge, MA: Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs xxxv, 2002.
33) A.J. Arberry, “Orient Pearls at Random Strung,” Bulletin of Oriental and African Studies, 11 (1943),
703, 699–712; Michael Craig Hillmann, Unity in the Ghazals of Hafez. Minneapolis, MN: Biblio-
theca Islamica, 1976.
34) E. Yarshater, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Hafez. i. An Overview.
35) J.T.P. de Bruijn, in Encycloapedia Iranica, s.v. Hafez. iii. Hafez’s Poetic Art.
36) For a German translation of Asrār al-balāgha see H. Ritter, Die Geheimnisse der Wortkunst: (Asrār
Al-Balāġa) Des ‘Abdalqāhir Al-Curcāni. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1959. On Persian Rhe-
torical Manuals and Its Relation to Arabic see “Traditional Literary Theory: The Arabic Back-
ground,” in General Introduction of Persian Literature, ed. J.T.P. de Bruijn. London and New York:
I.B. Tauris, 2009, 123–138.

426
 Teaching Persian literature in Persian

37) Ahmad Ashraf, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Iranian Identity, iii. Medieval Islamic Period. Also see
Shahab Ahmed, What is Islam? The Importance of Being Islamic. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2016, 32.
38) Hamid Algar, in Encyclopædia Iranica, s.v. Bosnia and Herzegovina.
39) Tahsin Yazici, “Āthār-i Saʿdī dar impirātūrī-i ʿuthmānī va Turkiyya,” in Dhikr-i jamīl-i Saʿdī, III,
Tehran: Vizārat-i Farhang va Irshād-i Islāmī, 1369/1990, 317–28; Franklin Lewis, Encyclopaedia
Iranica, s.v. Golestān-e Saʿdi. (XI/1, 79–86)
40) Osman G. Özgüdenli, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Šāh-Nāma Translations, I. Into Turkish. There
are many translations and imitations of the Shahnma. Özgüdenli refers to a Turkish verse translation
accomplished by Ḥosayn b. Ḥasan Sharif, (better known as Šarifi of Āmed d. 1514), who “completed
his translation at the command of Sultan Qānṣawh Ḡawri (r. 1501–16), the last Mamluk sultan, in
Cairo in 1510, which took him ten years to accomplish.”
41) See Christine Woodhead, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., s.v. Shāhnāme
̲ ̲ ̳ ji;
̲ idem., “Reading Otto-
man şehnames: Official Historiography in the Late Sixteenth Century,” Studia Islamica, 104–105
(2007), 67–80.
42) See S. Sharma, Persian Poetry at the Indian Frontier: Mas‘ûd Sa‘d Salmân of Lahore. New Delhi:
Permanent Black, 2000; Munibur Rahman, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. Shāʿir, ̲ ̲ 4. In Muslim
India; for information on the role of Persian in South-East Asia see M. Ismail Marcinkowski, in
Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Southeast Asia, I. Persian Presence In; also see T. Rahman, “Teaching of
Persian in South Asia,” in Persian Literature from Outside Iran: The Indian Subcontinent, Anatolia,
Central Asia, and in Judeo-Persian (A History of Persian Literature), Vol. IX, ed. J.R. Perry. London
and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2018, 48–68.
43) See A.S. Bazmee Ansari, in Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed., ʿIṣāmī; also see Charles Melville, “The
Shahnameh in India: Tarikh-i Dilgush-yi Shamshir Khani,” in The Layered Heart: Essays on Persian
Poetry, A Celebration in Honor of Dick Davis. Washington, DC: Mage Publishers, 2019, 411–441.
44) Muṣliḥ ad-Dīn Saʿdī, Būstān, ed. G.H. Yūsufī, Tehran: Khārazmī, 1375/1996; idem, Gulistān, ed.
G.H. Yūsufī, Tehran: Khārazmī, 1373/1994; Muḥammad Shams al-Dīn Ḥāfiẓ, Dīvān, ed. P. Nātil
Khānlarī, Tehran: Khārazmī, 1362/1983; another excellent critical text-edition is of Fakhr al-Dīn
As’ad Gurgānī, Vīs u Rāmīn, ed. M.J. Maḥjūb, Tehran, 1338/1959, which has an extensive intro-
duction and invaluable information about various aspects of the poem. The texts published by Jalāl
al-Dīn Humā’ī such as his edition of ʿUthmān Mukhtārī’s Dīvān, (Tehran, 1341/1962) remains
exemplary for editors of text editions.

References
Ahmed, S. 2016. What Is Islam? The Importance of Being Islamic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Algar, H. Encyclopædia Iranica, s.v. Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Arberry, A.J. 1943. “Orient Pearls at Random Strung.” Bulletin of Oriental and African Studies, 11:
699–712.
Ashraf, A. Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Iranian Identity, iii. Medieval Islamic Period.
Ashtiany, J., ed. 1990. ‘Abbasid Belles-Lettres, the Cambridge History of Arabic Literature. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Babayan, K. 2002. Mystics, Monarchs, and Messiahs: Cultural Landscape of Early Modern Iran, xxxv.
London and Cambridge, MA: Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs.
Bahār, M.T., ed. 1935. Tārīkh-i sīstān [History of Sistan]. Tehran: Zawwār.
Bazmee Ansari, A.S., in Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd edition, s.v. ʿIṣāmī, Leiden: Brill, 1997, pp. 92–3.
Boyce, M. 1957. “The Parthian gōsān and Iranian Minstrel Tradition.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, 10–45.
Browne, E.G. 1902–24. A Literary History of Persia, IV Vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruijn, J.T.P. de. 1997. Persian Sufi Poetry: An Introduction to the Mystical use of Classical Poems.
Richmond: Curzon (shiʿr-i ṣūfīyāna-yi Fārsī. Trans. by Majd al-Dīn Kayvānī, Tehran: Markaz, 1999).
Bruijn, J.T.P. de. 1999. “The Name of the Poet.” In Proceedings of the Third European Conference of
Iranian Studies. Part 2, edited by C. Melville, 45–56. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Bruijn, J.T.P. de. ed. 2009. General Introduction to Persian Literature. London and New York: I.B. Tau-
ris. (Trans. Tārīkh-i adabiyyāt-e Fārsī: muqaddama’ī kullī bar adabiyyāt-i Fārsī, Trans. Majd al-Dīn
Kayvānī, Tehran: Sukhan, 2010).

427
 ­
Asghar Seyed-Gohrab

Bruijn, J.T.P. de. In Encycloapedia Iranica, s.v. Hafez. iii. Hafez’s Poetic Art.
Bruijn, J.T.P. de. In Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Courts and Courtiers, x. Court poetry.
Bruijn, J.T.P. de. In Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. Shāʿir. 2. In Persia.
Bruijn, J.T.P. de. In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., s.v. Takhalluṣ.
Fragner, B. 1999. Die “Persophonie”: Regionalität, Identität und Sprachkontakt in der Geschichte
Asiens. Berlin: Halle an der Saale.
Frye, R.N. 1975. The Golden Age of Persia: The Arabs in the East. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Gibb, H.A.R. 1962. “The Social Significance of the Shuʿubiya.” In Studies on the Civilization of Islam,
edited by Stanford J. Shaw and William R. Polk, 62–73. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Green, N., ed. 2019. The Persianate World: The Frontiers of a Eurasian Lingua Franca. CA: University
of California Press.
Gurgānī, F.A. 1959. Vīs u Rāmīn. Edited by M.J. Maḥjūb. Tehran: Jami Publishing House.
Ḥāfiẓ, M. Sh. 1983. Dīvān. Edited by P. Nātil Khānlarī. Tehran: Khārazmī.
Hanaway, W. In Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Dāstān-Sarā’ī.
Hillmann, M.C. 1976. Unity in the Ghazals of Hafez. Minneapolis, MN: Bibliotheca Islamica.
Humā’ī, J. 1975. Funūn-i balāghat va ṣanāʿāt-i adabī [Arts of Eloquence and Literary Figures]. Teh-
ran: Nīmā.
Karimi-Hakkak, A., and K. Talattof, ed. 2004. Essays on Nima Yushij: Animating Modernism in Persian
Poetry. Leiden: Brill.
Kazzāzī, J. 1993–1994. Zībā-shināsī-yi sukhan-i pārsī (1, bayān, 2, maʿānī, 3, badīʿ) [Aesthetics of Per-
sian Poetic Discourse: Rhetoric; Meaning; Rhetorical Embellishment]. Tehran: Mād.
Khaleghi-Motlagh, D. In Encyclcopaedia Iranica, s.v. Adab i. Adab in Iran.
Kreyenbroek, P.G., and U. Marzolph, ed. 2010. Oral Literature of Iranian Languages: Kurdish, Pashto,
Balochi, Ossetic; Persian and Tajik. London and New York, I.B. Tauris.
Landau, J. 2012. “Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī and Poetic Imagination in the Arabic and Persian Philosophical Tra-
dition.” In Metaphor and Imagery in Persian Poetry. edited by A.A. Seyed-Gohrab, 15–65. Leiden
and Boston: Brill.
Lazard, G. 1975. “The Rise of the New Persian Language.” In The Cambridge History of Iran: The
Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, edited by R.N. Frye, 595–632, Vol. IV. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Levy, R. trans. 1951. A Mirror for Princes, The Qābūs Nāma by Kai Kā’ūs ibn Iskandar Prince of
Gurgān. London: The Cresset Press.
Lewis, F.D. In Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Golestān-e Saʿdi, Vol. XI/1, 79–86.
Lewis, F.D. 2000. Rumi. Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teachings and Poetry of Jalâl al-Din
Rūmī. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 329–330 (authorized translation, Mowlānā: dīrūz tā imrūz,
sharq tā gharb (Tehran: Nashr-i Nāmak, 2005, 2nd ed., 2006).
Losensky, P. 1998. “Linguistic and Rhetorical Aspects of the Signature Verse (takhallus2) in a Persian
ghazal.” Edebiyât, 8: 239–271.
Maḥjūb, M.J. 1971. Sabk-i Khurāsānī dar shiʿr-i fārsī [Stylistics in Persian Poetry]. Tehran: Intishārāt-i
Dānishsarā-yi ʿĀlī.
Marcinkowski, M.I. In Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Southeast Asia, I. Persian Presence.
Meisami, J.S. 1987. Medieval Persian Court Poetry. Princeton, NJ: University of Princeton Press.
Melville, Ch. 2019. “The Shahnameh in India: Tarikh-i Dilgush-yi Shamshir Khani.” In The Layered
Heart: Essays on Persian Poetry, A Celebration in Honor of Dick Davis, edited by A.A. Seyed-
Gohrab, 411–441. Washington, DC: Mage Publishers.
Meneghini, D. In Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Saljuqs. v. Saljuqid Literature.
Mills, M. 1991. Rhetorics and Politics in Afghan Traditional Storytelling. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Mottahedeh, P.R. 1976. “The Shuʿubiyah Controversy and the Social History of Early Islamic Iran.”
International Journal of Middle East Studies, 7: 161–182.
Muḥammadī Malāyerī, M. 2000. Tārīkh va farhang-i Iran [Iranian History and Culture], 6 vols. Teh-
ran: Tūs.
Mukhtārī, ʿU. 1962. Dīvān. Edited by. Jalāl al-Dīn Humā’ī. Tehran: ʿIlmī.
Niẓāmī ʿArūżī. 1909. Chahār maqāla [Four Discourses]. Tehran: Ishrāqī. (Revised translation of the
Chahár Maqála (Four Discourses) of Niẓámí-i ʿArúḍí of Samarqand, followed by an abridged trans-
lation of Mírzá Muḥammad [Qazvīnī]’s Notes to the Persian text, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1921).

428
 Teaching Persian literature in Persian

Özgüdenli, O.G. In Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Šāh-Nāma Translations, I. Into Turkish.

Rādūyānī, M. b. ʿU. 1949. Tarjumān al-balāgha [Interpreter of Eloquence]. Istanbul: no publisher.
Rahman, M. In Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. Shāʿir,
̲ ̲ 4. In Muslim India.
Rahman, T. 2018. “Teaching of Persian in South Asia.” In Persian Literature from Outside Iran: The
Indian Subcontinent, Anatolia, Central Asia, and in Judeo-Persian (A History of Persian Literature),
edited by J.R. Perry, Vol. IX, 48–68. London and New York: I.B. Tauris.
Rāzī, S.M.B.Q. 1955. al-Muʿjam fī maʿāyīr ashʿār al-ʿajam [A Compendium on the Defects of Persian
Poetry]. Edited by M. Qazvīnī and M.T. Mudarris Rażawī, Rev. ed. Tehran: Tehran University Press.
Reinert, B. 2008. “Hazaj: Genese Eines Neupersischen Metrums.” In Classical Arabic Humanities in
Their Own Terms: Festschrift for Wolfhart Heinrichs on his 65th Birthday Presented by his Students
and Colleagues, edited by. Beatrice Gruendler and Michael Cooperson, 68–98. Leiden: Brill.
Ritter, H. 1959. Die Geheimnisse der Wortkunst: (Asrār Al-Balāġa) Des ‘Abdalqāhir Al-Curcāni. Wies-
baden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Rīyāḥī, M.A. 1990. Nufūdh-i zabān va adabiyyāt-i Fārsī dar qalamrow-yi ʿUthmānī [Influence of the
Persian Language and Literature on the Ottoman Empire]. Tehran: Pāzhang.
Rypka, J. 1968. History of Iranian Literature. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Saʿādat, E., ed. 2005. Dānish-nāma-yi zabān va adabiyyāt-e Fārsī [Encyclopedia of Persian Language
and Literature]. Tehran: Vizārat-i Farhang.
Saʿdī, M. 1994. Gulistān [Rose-Garden]. Edited by G.H. Yūsufī. Tehran: Khārazmī.
Saʿdī, M. 1995. Būstān [Orchard]. Edited by G.H. Yūsufī. Tehran: Khārazmī.
Ṣafā, D. 1989. Tārīkh-i adabiyyāt dar Īrān [History of Literature in Iran], 5. Vols. in 8 Parts. Tehran:
Firdows.
Sajjādī, J. 1983. Farhang-i lughāt va iṣṭilāḥāt va taʿbīrāt-i ʿirfānī [Dictionary of Mystic Words, Termi-
nology, and Interpretations]. Tehran: Ṭahūrī.
Seyed-Gohrab, A-A. 2009. “My Heart is the Ball, Your Lock the Polo-Stick: Development of the Ball
and Polo-Stick Metaphors in Classical Persian Poetry.” In The Necklace of the Pleiades: Studies in
Persian Literature Presented to Heshmat Moayyad on his 80th Birthday, edited by. Franklin Lewis
and Sunil Sharma, 183–205. Amsterdam, Rozenberg Publishers and West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue
University Press.
Seyed-Gohrab, A-A. 2010. Courtly Riddles: Enigmatic Embellishments in Early Persian Poetry. Leiden:
Leiden University Press.
Seyed-Gohrab, A-A. 2018. “Improvisation as a Chief Pillar of the Poetic Art in Persian Literary Tradi-
tion.” In Images, Improvisations, Sound, and Silence from 1000–1800 – Degree Zero, edited by B.
Hellemans and A. Jones Nelson, 131–144. Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press.
Seyed-Gohrab, A-A. 2019. “The Flourishing of Persian Quatrains after Omar Khayyam.” In History of
Persian Literature, edited by E. Yarshater, Vol. ii, 488–568. London: I.B. Tauris.
Seyed-Gohrab, A-A. 2020. “The Rhetoric of Persian Verbal Contests: Innovation and Creativity in
Debates between the Persians and the Arabs.” In Disputation Literature in the Near East and Beyond,
edited by C. Mittermayer and E. Jiménez, in the Series “Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records”.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Sharma, S. 2000. Persian Poetry at the Indian Frontier: Mas‘ûd Sa‘d Salmân of Lahore. New Delhi:
Permanent Black.
Stern, S.M. 1971. “Yaʿqub the Coppersmith and Persian National Sentiment.” In Iran and Islam, in
Memory of the Late V. Minorsky, edited by C.E. Bosworth, 535–555. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univer-
sity Press.
Tafażżulī, A. 1998. Tārīkh-i adabiyyāt-i pīsh az islām [History of Literature before Islam]. Tehran:
Mahārat.
Talattof, K. 2011. “Nizami Ganjavi, the Wordsmith: The Concept of Sakhun in Classical Persian Poetry.”
In A Key to the Treasures of Hakim: Artistic and Humanistic Aspects of Nizami Ganjavi’s Khamsa,
edited by J.C. Bürgel and C. van Ruymbeke, 211–244. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
Utas, B. 2009. “Prosody: Meter and Rhyme.” In General Introduction of Persian Literature, edited by
J.T.P. de Bruijn, 96–122. London and New York: I.B. Tauris.
Van Gelder, G.J. 2009. “Traditional Literary Theory: The Arabic Background.” In General Introduction
of Persian Literature, edited by J.T.P. de Bruijn, 123–138. London and New York: I.B. Tauris.
Woodhead, C. Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed., s.v. Shāhnāme ji. ̲
Woodhead, C. 2007. “Reading Ottoman Şehnames: Official Historiography in the Late Sixteenth Cen-
tury.” In Studia Islamica, 104–105: 67–80.

429
 ­
Asghar Seyed-Gohrab

Yarshater, E. In Encyclopaedia Iranica, s.v. Hafez. i. An Overview.

Yarshater, E. 1988. “The Indian or Safavid Style: Progress or Decline.” In Persian Literature. edited by
E. Yarshater, 249–288. New York: The Persian Heritage Foundation.
Yarshater, E. 2001. “A Star Ceases to Shine.” Persica, xvii: 137–153.
Yazici, T. 1990. “Āthār-i Saʿdī dar impirātūrī-i ʿuthmānī va Turkiyya [Saʿdī’s Work in Ottoman Empire
and Turkey].” In Dhikr-i jamīl-i Saʿdī, Vol. III, 317–328. Tehran: Vizārat-i Farhang va Irshād-i Islāmī.
Zamāniyān, Ṣ. 1995. Barrisī-yi owzān-i shiʿr-i Fārsī [Examining Metres of Persian Poetry]. Tehran:
Bunyād-i Jānbāzān.
Zarrīnkūb, ʿA. 1974. Arzish-i mīrāth-i ṣūfiyya [The Value of Sufism’s Heritage]. Tehran: Amīr Kabīr.

430
 21
DEVELOPMENT OF A
STANDARD PERSIAN
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY
TEST FOR SPEAKERS OF OTHER
LANGUAGES AMIRREZA VAKILIFARDSTANDARD PERSIAN LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY TEST

Amirreza Vakilifard

21.1 Introduction
Since 2000, many Iranian universities have started to admit international students, primarily
from the Middle Eastern countries. Accordingly, the targeted universities established Persian
language teaching centers to adequately furnish the students’ Persian language skills, helping
them function appropriately in academic courses presented in Persian language. For further
discussion on university-level Persian language programs in Iran, read Chapter 24 in this vol-
ume. By the same token, these language centers certainly needed the relevant instruments to
assess the language proficiency of the Persian learners. However, until 2010, no standardized
Persian language proficiency test was available for this significant purpose.
Two main factors, that is, the rise in the number of Persian language teaching centers as
well as the massive arrival of international students, motivated the authorities to develop a
valid and reliable test for the assessment of learners’ Persian language proficiency. They were
concerned that the fairness of proficiency assessments might not be guaranteed in the increas-
ingly internationalized higher education context. Inefficient progress tests used by various
language centers have led to inaccurate assessment of candidates’ language proficiency for
admission to universities, causing them not to be sufficiently ready to take on academic sub-
jects in the Persian language. This compromised the students’ subsequent academic perfor-
mance and posed problems for the staff who taught academic subjects to these students. This
also sent conflicting messages about the role of language in academic performance to the
learners. For a discussion on teaching and assessment for proficiency in Persian language
programs in the U.S., read Chapter 15 in this volume.
Shabani-Jadidi and Sedighi (2018) stressed the lack of a standardized Persian language profi-
ciency test, pointing to the fact that the Persian language programs all over the world administered
their own self-developed tests in order to evaluate the proficiency level of their students used for
academic placement purposes. To solve this problem, in recent years, the need for a valid and reli-
able Persian language proficiency test was felt so that it could inform the stakeholders of whether
the students are sufficiently ready and qualified to function properly in Persian academic courses.

431
 Amirreza Vakilifard

This study is an attempt to describe and elaborate on the conventional procedures used in
the development and validation of SAMFA as a newly developed language proficiency test for
the Persian language. Accordingly, the following research questions lead this investigation:

1 What are the essential components observed in the development and validation processes
of SAMFA as a standardized Persian language proficiency test?
2 What are the common procedures for the development of a SAMFA as a standardized
Persian language proficiency test?
3 What problems and difficulties could be encountered in the development process of a
Persian language proficiency test (SAMFA) in Iranian context, and what would be the
future directions for appropriate and standardized administration procedures of Persian
proficiency test?

It would be axiomatic that providing answers to these research questions could shed lights on
the required procedures for the development of an effective Persian language proficiency test.
In Iran, in the year 2010, the “Center for Scientific and International Collaboration”1 and the
“National Organization for Educational Testing”2 in the “Ministry of Science, Research and
Technology”3 started to develop a Persian language proficiency test with the help of test devel-
opment experts and Persian language teaching researchers. The aim of the test was to deter-
mine whether the learners have attained a specific level of competence or not, i.e., SAMFA.
The development of SAMFA, which was initially a proficiency test for academic purposes,
later on motivated the development of a proficiency test for general purposes as well and has
indirectly influenced the quality of the achievement and final tests of Persian language centers
in Iran. Over time, this test has been used not only for the admission of international students to
Iranian universities but also as a replacement for TOEFL and IELTS, which were previously a
requirement for the admission of international doctorate candidates into some Iranian universities.
SAMFA reflects what a successful Persian language learner is able to do in Persian language
and attempts to directly represent the abilities of a successful Persian language learner. The
National Organization for Educational Testing as the administrator of SAMFA in Iran and abroad
is independent of universities and therefore Persian language centers and other test users can use
the test to fairly compare the learners’ proficiencies from various language schools and countries.
In 2018, SAMFA was administered to Persian language learners three times merely within
Iranian universities and in 2019, once in an international scope, outside the country for the first
time, simultaneously, held in Georgia, Iraq, Bangladesh, Lebanon and Turkey. Persian language
learners and international universities outside Iran are increasingly showing interest in SAMFA,
and this raises the issue of fairness and equal opportunities. As with any proficiency test, SAMFA
exerts washback effect on non-Iranian Persian language learners and Persian language centers’
teachers and syllabus designers. The main purpose of this research is to contribute to the knowl-
edge in the field of test development as well as stages that typically must be accomplished in
the development of most Persian language proficiency tests. It is noteworthy that a limitation of
research material has been caused due to inaccessibility of the test-takers’ scores by the Iranian
National Organization for Educational Testing, making further analysis and studies impossible.

21.2 Theoretical framework

Language assessment involves collecting information to make evaluative judgments about
a learner’s ability in understanding and using a particular language (Chapelle and Brindley
2002). Language proficiency tests assess the learners’ competence in a language regardless

432
 Standard Persian language proficiency test

of the specific courses probably taken by the learners (Hughes 2003). Read (2015) stated that
“proficiency assessment focuses primarily on learners’ ability to use the language for func-
tional communication, especially in the areas of advanced education, professional practice, and
employment” (p. 111). Such a test is mainly conducted to assess the level of language learners
prior to a specific language teaching program regardless of their knowledge about that language.

21.2.1 Fundamental considerations in developing proficiency tests

The approach to language development that we will present in this section begins by
defining explicitly the qualities of usefulness. Test usefulness comprising several charac-
teristics or qualities of language tests, such as construct validity, reliability, impacts and
practicality. These components are fundamental in test validation; they will be further
described in the following sections. Test usefulness is the significant consideration for
quality management throughout the process of designing, developing and using a particu-
lar language test (Figure 21.1, adapted from Cambridge English Language Assessment,
Lim 2013, 11). Quality management includes planning and management of processes con-
tributing to implemented improvements over the time.

21.2.1.1 Quality management

Language test developers have to adopt a quality management approach to improve testing
and to make sure that appropriate professional standards are met. Saville (2012) argues that
quality management firmly supports the equilibrium of the processes underlying the validity
argument. It also “provides the tools and techniques for linking theoretical concerns with the
practical realities of setting up and administering assessment systems” (Saville 2012, 395).
According to Saville (2012), quality management includes two significant set of activi-
ties: (a) quality control and (b) quality assurance activities: Quality control activities check
the quality of the test items and the information the clients (the test takers, teachers and other
users) need. It also controls the quality of test administration as well as the quality of informa-
tion gathered and stored for assessment objectives. Quality assurance includes some specific

QUALITY MANAGEMENT

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY
Theory-based validity
Context-related aspects of validity
TEST USEFULNESS

VALIDITY

RELIABILITY
Scoring-related aspects of validity
Criterion-related aspects of validity

IMPACT
Consequential aspects of validity

PRACTICALITY

Figure 21.1 Key elements of validation framework.

433
 Amirreza Vakilifard

mechanisms, such as periodic audits, inspections and formal reviews that check, evaluate and
improve the processes of test development; put in simple words, its main focus is to ensure that
all processes are working sufficiently and that these processes are maintained to the required
standard (ibid.).

21.2.1.2 Usefulness
Test usefulness refers to the use for which it is intended. Bachman and Palmer (2000, 17)
assert that test usefulness is the most significant quality that needs to be considered in the
development procedure of a proficiency test. According to Doucet (2001), a useful test is “a
test that makes reasonable predictions while limiting the sources of error in the measurement
and bias in the interpretations of the results” (p. 25). The overall usefulness of a given test is
determined by qualities, including validity, reliability, impact and practicality.

21.2.1.3 Validity
Obviously, validity is considered a very important criterion for the quality of measurement
among the specific test qualities in educational context. Validity refers to ‘the degree to which’
or ‘the accuracy with which’ an assessment measures what it is supposed to measure (Coombe
2018). In order to operationalize the validity, as an abstract test construct, multiple sources of
information, such as empirical evidence, judgments and logical appreciation, must be assembled
(Davies and Elder 2005). In testing literature, this procedure is referred to as test validation.
Among various introduced frameworks for language test development and validation, it
seems that the socio-cognitive model has been very effective (Coombe 2018). This model that
was developed by Weir (2005) considers the social, cognitive and evaluative dimensions of
language use and relates these aspects to the context and the consequences of test use. The
socio-cognitive model of test validation has multiple components, such as cognitive, contex-
tual, scoring, criterion-related and consequential aspects of validity for careful interpretations
of test scores.
A very significant concept relevant to test validity is construct validity. “A construct is an
idealized and abstracted statement of the ability to be assessed. The test task performance of
an individual test-taker can be used as the evidence of their ability in similar tasks in future”
(Jenkins and Leung 2019, 82). In construct validation, the test developers desire to demon-
strate that the test indeed measures the ability or the construct that it claimed to be measuring
(Mousavi 2012). Messick (1998) proposed a unified view of construct validity in which he
defined validity “as an integrated evaluative judgment of the degree to which empirical evi-
dence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and
actions based on test scores” (p. 39). In this perspective, the meaningfulness and appropriate-
ness of the interpretations made on the basis of test scores are issues of construct validity
(Chalhoub-Deville and Deville 2005).
Weir (2005) included the cognitive aspects of the test takers’ language proficiency and
strategic ability within the executive resources and executive processing in the theory-based
part of his proposed validity model. Weir maintains that the theory-based validity is a vital
factor in determining the general validity of a specific test. Upon socio-cognitive approach
to language test development, language processing is not realized in isolation and, thereby,
the testers are required to define the context in which this processing operates. The testers
also must empirically describe the situational factors potentially affecting this processing. The
provided descriptions of both the situation and the conditions of language processing should

434
 Standard Persian language proficiency test

be maximally in consonant with those in the real world. In simple words, the testers need to
specify the so-called context validity. Context validity is “the extent to which the choice of
tasks in a test is representative of the larger universe of tasks of which the test is assumed to
be a sample” (Weir 2005, 19).

21.2.1.4 Reliability
Reliability refers to the consistency of test scores. That is, if a test is conducted in another
time, it must approximately produce the same scores (or results). For example, if the same
test is administered to the same group of students twice in two different times under different
conditions, the obtained results of the tests should not be considerably different (Coombe,
Folse, and Hubley 2007). Reliability is a significant feature of a good test. It is considered as
an attribute of validity.
Scoring validity: It is now widely accepted that reliability is considered a valuable and
contributing factor to the overall validity of a specific test. It is now commonly viewed as
a type of evidence (Chapelle 1999, 258). Some researchers use the term of scoring valid-
ity instead of reliability; they maintain that this influential quality is an adequate evidence
for supporting the validity of a good test. In other words, if a test doesn’t have this valuable
characteristic, its validity is seriously jeopardized. It is argued that the best technique for esti-
mating the reliability of a test is to score each skill or aspect of the language separately. The
main advantage of this procedure is that as the markers assign different scores, the amount of
reliability is risen considerably.
One sort of scoring validity is scorer reliability. It is used when we are concerned with the
consistency of the rater in assessing the productive abilities of the learners, namely, speaking
and writing skills (Weir 2005). More specifically, scorer reliability estimates the extent to
which the human raters consistently score the spoken and written performances of the test tak-
ers. This reliability (scoring validity) is classified into two types: (a) inter-rater reliability and
intra-rater reliability; the former deals with the consistency of scoring between two or more
scorers. It is the level of consensus among raters. If everyone agrees, inter-rater reliability is 1
(or 100%) and if everyone disagrees, it is 0 (0%). Perfect inter-rater agreement can seldom be
achieved. The latter refers to the consistency of scoring within the scorer him/herself (Coombe
2018). By the same token, this reliability concern the extent to which one rater is adequately
consistent in assigning the score to the same single sample of language performance.
­
Criterion-related validity: Criterion-related validity is concerned with the correspond-
ence between the scores obtained from a newly developed test and the scores produced by
some independent external criterion. The chosen criterion could be a number of outside vari-
ables including a syllabus, teachers’ judgments, performance in the real world, or another
well-established test (Davies et al. 1999). This validity is also called empirical validity since
the degree of correlation between the two sets of scores is determined by some statistical
procedures.
Time factor divides the criterion-related validity into two classifications: (a) concur-
rent and (b) predictive validities. Concurrent validity deals with a situation in which a test
designed to measure a particular ability is concurrently administered with another well-
known and standard test (e.g., TOEFL) of which the validity is already established. Unlike
concurrent validity, in predictive validity, the administration of two tests (i.e., the newly
developed test and the criterion) is performed in some time interval. Its main purpose is
to accurately predict a test taker’s performance on a criterion test based on his/her score
on the newly developed test (Weir 2005). For instance, the scores on an EAP test, whose

435
 Amirreza Vakilifard

purpose is to measure learners’ “readiness for university study, should correlate highly with
the academic performance of the same students as measured by their grades on subsequent
academic courses” (Davies et al. 1999).
To sum up, attempts were made to comprehensively elaborate on the concepts of context
validity, theory-based validity, scoring validity, consequential validity and criterion-related
validity that are contributing in the process of test validation and development.

21.2.1.5 Impact
Another quality of test is its effects and consequences on education and various aspects of
society. In Bachman and Palmer’s (2000) view, there are two levels for impact: (a) micro and
(b) macro levels of impact. The micro level impact involves the effect that the test exerts over
affected individuals. The macro level impact relates to the effect of the test on the educational
system or the society at large. An aspect of impact is washback, which refers to the effect
that a test might exert on students, curricula and the whole educational system (Winke 2011).
Other than being positive or negative, washback has other aspects that add to its complexity.
Washback effect could be immediate or delayed, direct or indirect, or apparent or not visible
(Wall 2012, 80). Taylor (2004, 143) stated that the impact of high stakes tests should be exam-
ined. Therefore, high stakes tests endeavor to establishing evidence relating to consequential
validity. Weir (2005, 210–215) proposes three main areas to examine consequential validity:
(a) differential validity – or avoidance of test bias; (b) washback in classroom/workplace; (c)
effect on individual within society.

21.2.1.6 Practicality
Practicality is an important characteristic of a test which refers to the way a test is imple-
mented, developed and used according to the human, material and time resources available.
Practicality of a test is related to the ways in which the test will be implemented (Bachman and
Palmer 2000). More specifically, a test is practical when it is time-saving, easily administrable
and not too much expensive; also, when its scoring or evaluation procedures are obviously
defined (Coombe, Folse, and Hubley 2007). As a matter of course, the practicality of the test
depends on whether the test is norm-referenced or criterion-referenced. In norm-referenced
tests, students’ performances (i.e., scores) are relatively compared to each other and, thereby,
their scores are distributed along a continuum in rank order. Learner’s score or performance is
interpreted in relation to a mean or median, standard deviation and percentile rank. Practicality
is the primary issue in this kind of test.
As a final point, it should be hastened to mention here that test developers need to find an
appropriate balance among the previously given qualities of test, and that this will vary from
one testing situation to another (Bachman and Palmer 2000).

21.2.2 Language test development

Read (2015) stated that the design and development of language tests includes a number of
stages that are cyclical and iterative. That is, the original plan would undergo several rounds of
revisions; therefore, test tasks and items need to be trialed several times before they function
desirably. According to Brown and Abeywickrama (2012), a standardized test is standards-
based, grounded on research findings, and it utilizes systematic scoring and administration
procedures (response format, number of questions and time limits).

436
 Standard Persian language proficiency test

Improvements to the test

Test Test Completed

Results
specifications materials test papers
Test Test Review and
Administration Processing
Design Evaluation
Production

Improvements to process

Figure 21.2 Core processes in language test development.

Source: Saville 2012

A crucial part of a quality management approach consists of defining stages and processes
required in developing and administering language tests. Saville (2012) recognizes five core
processes in a basic assessment cycle: 1) planning and design following a decision to develop
a test; 2) development, including initial development and systems for test assembly; 3) deliv-
ery, including routine test assembly and the administration of the assessment; 4) process-
ing, including marking and grading and issue of results; and, 5) review and evaluation (see
Figure 21.2). According to Saville (2012), the previously mentioned processes produce four
outputs: 1) specifications; 2) assessment materials and procedures; 3) completed assessments
(test takers’ responses); and, 4) results and interpretive information.
Coombe (2018) briefly identifies three important stages for test development: 1) planning;
2) design; and 3) administration:

– The planning stage is dedicated to gathering information about the purposes of the test,
the characteristics of test takers, the standards and the effects of the test.
– In the design stage, a set of constructs should be identified by a comprehensive review.
Stakeholders of a test draw on construct definition for score interpretations and infer-
ences. In defining a construct, some considerations need to be taken into account. In
Young, So and Ockey’s (2013) view, these considerations could include “the age of the
target population, the context of the target-language use, the specific language register,
which is relevant to the assessment purpose, the decisions that assessment scores are
intended to inform” (p. 4).
– In the administration stage, test developers usually test the draft specifications. They
conduct pilot tests and analyze the results to identify the problem areas and, accordingly,
make improvements.

21.3 Historical perspectives

21.3.1 Language assessment movements

Three movements for language testing were identified by Spolsky (1995) in Europe and United
States from 1800 until 1980; that is, pre-scientific, psychometric-structuralist, and integrative-
sociolinguistic movements:

– In pre-scientific movement, teachers’ judgments about the learners’ written and spoken
productions on open-ended tasks formed the basis of assessment.

437
 Amirreza Vakilifard

– In the psychometric-structuralist movement, statistics and measurement of close-ended tasks

were emphasized. The focus was on the discrete aspects of language such as vocabulary,
grammar, pronunciation and dictation. From pre-scientific to psychometric movement,
test format has endured some changes. Written and spoken production on open-ended
tasks was replaced with short-answer items such as multiple choice, true/false etc.
– In the integrative-sociolinguistic movement, discrete-point tests were replaced with
tests that tried to measure meaningful communication (Malone 2017). Integrative-
sociolinguistic assessment emphasized the authenticity of the tasks and their resem-
blance to the tasks that the learners would perform in everyday life. In this approach,
other data collection methods such as student portfolios and self-assessments were used
(Malone 2017).

In recent years, language testing and Persian language teaching research has been growing
slowly but steadily. All three of those movements could also be observed in Persian language
testing, yet with a different time frame. Prior to the year 2000, Persian language testing was
considered pre-scientific; since 2000 to 2010, it was psychometric-structuralist in orientation;
and from 2010 to 2020 it adopted the integrative-sociolinguistic perspective.

21.3.2 Literature review

In Iran, Persian language teaching centers were established in the 1990s; since then, these
language centers have designed and conducted a series of non-standardized Persian language
proficiency tests to meet their own needs. However, in reality, these tests were placement
tests administered to assess the competence of learners who claimed that they could function
appropriately in the Persian language since they did not probably desire to take Persian lan-
guage courses before starting their academic studies. In an investigation, Vakilifard, Mirzayi
Hesariyan and Mamaghani (2012) explored the reliability and validity of a test commonly
used in the Persian Language Teaching Center at Imam Khomeini International University.
The test measured listening, reading and writing abilities of the learners. The results showed
that the test was generally valid and reliable. However, since the speaking skill was not
included in the test, the test was not comprehensive and the validity argument could not be
extended to the speaking section of the test.
Generally, even if the tests developed and administered in Persian language centers were
adequately valid and reliable, they could not be qualified as influential instruments to assess
the international students’ academic language required at Iranian universities. This is due to
the argument that one’s appropriate function in a specific language doesn’t support his/her
academic achievements despite the fact that an adequate proficiency is needed to achieve aca-
demic goals via that language (Carlsen 2018).
Since the past two decades, attempts have been made to develop Persian language profi-
ciency tests to enable research-based teaching of Persian as a second language. These efforts
have mostly been unfocused and usually reflected in MA theses introducing frameworks for
proficiency test development. Some of these major works are presented in this section.
In a preliminary investigation, Mousavi (2000) aimed at developing a test that could assess
the general language skills of foreign students learning Persian as a second language. The test
comprised four sections: (a) listening, (b) grammar, (c) vocabulary and (d) reading compre-
hension. Writing and speaking skills, essential for language learners, were excluded from the
test. It should be mentioned that Mousavi separated grammar and vocabulary sections similar
to that one evident in TOEFL test format.

438
 Standard Persian language proficiency test

In another study, Ghonsooly (2010) reviewed different language proficiency test models
and took the one more in line with the realities of his testing situation. The researcher excluded
writing and speaking skills from the selected model, and the modified version of the test
assessed reading and listening skills along with the subskills of grammar and vocabulary. The
test resembled the features reflected in standard tests, such as TOEFL and IELTS. To examine
the validity of the test, Ghonsooly conducted a retrospective protocol analysis on three subject
informants and adopted another validation procedure based on the argument theory. He also
used Cronbach’s alpha to measure the reliability of the test. The reliability of the test was
reported to be 0.70. The results showed that while foreign students performed well on reading
comprehension sections, they found grammar items the most difficult ones.
In her study, Metani Boorkhili (2010) attempted to validate “The International Persian
Language Test”. The test consisted of three sections: (a) listening (30 items), (b) grammar
(30 items) and (c) vocabulary and reading comprehension (20 items each). Speaking skill was
overlooked to be assessed; the grammar section was similar to the one observed in the TOEFL
test. Each of the 100 items received one point, and following the ACTFL model, the scores
were classified into levels ranging from zero to ten. The test was administered to a sample
of 50 (9 females and 41 males) intermediate foreign students learning Persian as a second
language at Dehkhoda Institute and Shahid Beheshti University. The average age of the par-
ticipants was 26; they were from different nationalities. As a measure of validity, within each
section correlation of each item with all other items was calculated. Cronbach’s alpha was
used to estimate the reliability of each skill as well as the whole test. Researcher analyzed the
items with poor correlations to identify the causes of problems; for this case, he offered some
suggestions to improve the problems. Generally, the test was reliable since Cronbach alpha
coefficients for listening, grammar, reading and vocabulary, and the whole test, respectively
accounted for 0.814, 0.816, 0.913 and 0.945. Given the validity of the test, Metani Boorkhili
compared the test’s skills, content, item number and scoring procedure with those of other
tests. The results indicated that the test enjoyed an appropriate level of validity.
In his MA thesis, Jalili (2011) developed a Persian language test that measured the learn-
ers’ ability in four skills. The test was purposed to assess the Persian language proficiency
of international students pursuing their academic goals in Iranian universities. Jalili’s study
(2011) differed from Mousavi’s (2000) investigation since Jalili followed the IELTS format
in test development procedure. In this test, knowledge of grammar and vocabulary were also
implicitly measured in sections that measured the four skills. Hence, there were no separate
sections for grammar and vocabulary assessments. Jalili presented a sample of the test in the
appendix to his thesis.
Golpoor (2015) designed a test to assess foreign Persian language learners’ ability in four
language skills. In the development process, care was taken to ensure the test’s usefulness,
validity, reliability, applicability, originality and psychometric properties. She administered
the test to a sample size of 130 Persian language learners who were randomly selected and
aged 18 to 38. The learners had been studying Persian as a second language for four to twelve
months. The designed test was piloted by international students at Persian Language Teaching
Center, Imam Khomeini International University in the spring and summer of 2015. The test
had 100 items, and the students were allowed to answer the items within 210 minutes. The
reading section consisted of 30 items with the time limit of 90 minutes. Its main purposes
were to assess the students’ abilities in inferring word meaning, comprehension, paraphrasing
and rearranging. The listening section featured 30 test items; the students were permitted to
answer questions in 90 minutes; the items measured students’ competencies in remembering
time and location details, paraphrasing and understanding the flow of events, comparisons and

439
 Amirreza Vakilifard

classifications. The speaking test was performed by a 15-minute interview, and the learners
were given 20 points. This section had general and academic parts. The writing assessment
comprised two sections; in the first part, the students were required to write a letter, and in the
second section, they were asked to write a 200–250 word essay. Writing test characterized with
20 points and the allocated time was considered 60 minutes.
As was mentioned, the majority of these investigations are MA thesis projects aimed at
developing a test assessing the competency of overseas students learning Persian as a second
language. It was also evident that most of the designed tests were incomprehensive replicas
of proficiency tests developed for other languages. To the best of the researcher’s knowledge,
there is no investigation elaborating on the procedures utilized in the designing and develop-
ing of a particular Persian language proficiency test. Hence, this study describe processes
observed in the design, development and validation of the so-called SAMFA test for the Per-
sian language.

21.3.3 Early developments in SAMFA

Prior to the year 2000 in Iran, the focus of Persian language testing was primarily on the
assessment of reading proficiency and grammatical knowledge in the classroom. Listening
tests were not available and there were no resources to teach listening skill. Sedāy-e Del-
neshin-e Fārsi (Vakilifard 2000) was the first instructional material for teaching listening com-
prehension skills in the Persian language. It was a textbook supplemented with audio tapes.
Since then, listening tests emerged and were conducted along with both reading proficiency
and grammar tests. Iranian universities admitted foreign students based on the assumption
that these international students had to or were able to sufficiently function in the Persian lan-
guage as Iranian students did. Similar to their Iranian peers, non-Iranian students majoring in
humanities were obliged to pass preparatory and obligatory courses such as English language,
Islamic knowledge and Arabic language. However, these students usually performed weakly
or failed in the final exams of the courses dominantly due to deficiencies in their receptive and
productive skills of Persian language, not the subject matters.
With the appearance of Persian language teaching textbooks, such as “Persian Language
for International Medical Students” written by Vakilifard and Galledari (2002a) and “Persian
Language for International Engineering Students” (Vakilifard and Galledari 2002b), for the
first time an innovative movement started away from teaching Persian for general purposes
toward teaching Persian for academic purposes. The preparatory courses mentioned earlier
were no longer a requirement for international students and, alternatively, the courses, such
as reading medical or engineering texts were introduced to Persian language program. This
movement encouraged the stakeholders to assess learners’ language proficiency not only in
general Persian but also academic Persian as well.
Imam Khomeini International University was probably a leading university responsible
for Persian language teaching program in Iran. However, in 2010, the Ministry of Science,
Research, and Technology determined to extend the program and sustain it in other Iranian
universities. Accordingly, some top universities attempted to establish Persian language teach-
ing centers in 2011. After Dehkhoda center in Tehran University and Persian Language Center
in Imam Khomeini International University, Ferdowsi and Isfahan universities set up their
own centers in 2014. Since then, the number of Persian language centers has risen to 15 in a
period of four years.
The first official practice to develop Persian proficiency tests was begun by the Ministry
of Science, Research and Technology. In 2012, the National Organization for Educational

440
 Standard Persian language proficiency test

Assessment failed to develop a standard test for the Persian language teaching centers. This
was also experienced by the Office for Non-Iranian Students in 2015 as well. Two factors,
namely, increase in the number of Persian language centers and the lack of necessary standards
for the assessment of learners’ language, motivated the authorities to hold a series of meetings
at the Center for International Scientific Cooperation, Development of Persian Language, and
Iranian Studies Abroad with the cooperation of the National Organization for Educational
Assessment and the Office for Non-Iranian Students.
A panel of experts started to design a test that could assess the language proficiency irre-
spective of how the language ability was acquired. The group explored and discussed stand-
ardized assessment criteria so that they could conduct a thorough inventory of the language
abilities. The results of the meetings contributed to the development of a standard test called
SAMFA that would assess Persian language skills both in general and academic domains. The
Ministry of Science, Research and Technology substantiated SAMFA’s regulation memo, and
the National Organization for Educational Assessment became responsible for the administra-
tion of the newly designed test; the test development team was relocated to this organization.

21.4 SAMFA development process

During the past decade, an increase has been observed in the demand for high-quality profi-
ciency tests in Iran. Jones (2012) argued that in designing a test of language proficiency, which
is a complex phenomenon, every context of learning needs should be considered. Therefore,
considering the peculiarities of Persian language and the diverse backgrounds of Persian lan-
guage learners, Persian language teaching and testing experts comprising the scientific com-
mittee of SAMFA started to establish the primary foundations of standardized assessment
of Persian language skills. For elaborate discussions on peculiarities and specific features of
Persian language, read Chapter 2 (for phonetics), Chapter 3 (for phonology), Chapters 4 and
6 (for morphology), Chapters 4 and 5 (for syntax) and Chapters 7 and 8 (for semantics) in this
volume.
In the following sections, the three previously mentioned phases of the SAMFA test are
explained in detail.

21.4.1 The first phase: planning

At this phase, information which is required for the subsequent stages is collected. First, the
purpose of the test is elucidated. Then, a needs analysis is conducted to determine the domain
of language use and the required language abilities. Characteristics of the target test takers are
also identified, and standards for the proposed purpose are selected. To identify the critical
communicative functions and tasks, a number of detailed observations are usually made and
recorded. The transcriptions of observed tasks are studied to identify the features of general
and academic discourse which the learners need to acquire.
General and academic SAMFA belong to proficiency tests, designed for adult learners.
General SAMFA is designed for the learners wishing to take general Persian language courses
at Persian language teaching centers for personal purposes, working in Iran, studying in Ira-
nian high schools or migrating and living in Iran. Academic SAMFA is for the learners who
aim at pursuing academic majors through the Persian language at Iranian universities or for-
eign universities requiring knowledge of Persian as a foreign language. The general and aca-
demic SAMFA differ in terms of content, context and purpose of the tasks. The objectives of
these tests were clearly and accurately specified. Academic SAMFA draws on the features

441
 Amirreza Vakilifard

of academic language and determines whether a learner is able to pursue academic courses
through Persian language at Iranian universities. To operationalize the constructs of academic
language proficiency, the lexical, grammatical and textual characteristics of academic Persian
language were described.

21.4.2 The second phase: design

In the second phase, before structuring of the specifications for general and academic SAMFA,
a set of constructs was identified by a comprehensive review.
For assessing Persian language proficiency, language competence was broken down into
listening, reading, writing and speaking skills. Within these skills, learner performance was
measured in terms of linguistic units such as phonology (pronunciation), orthography (spell-
ing), vocabulary (lexicon), sentence structure (grammar), discourse and pragmatic features of
language. For example, oral production could assess overall conversational fluency or pro-
nunciation of words, while the written forms may assess correct spelling or discourse-level
competence (Brown and Abeywickrama 2012).
After stipulating each performance mode and linguistic units, specifications for SAMFA
were designed. According to Hughes (2003), specifications for a test in general include infor-
mation on content (operation, types and length of texts, topics, readability, structural range,
vocabulary range, dialect, accent and style), test structure, timing, medium/channel, critical
level of performance, and scoring procedures.

21.4.2.1 Content
Various attempts have been made to collect as much information about the content as possible
so that later decisions about the features that influence the writing of the test versions would be
less intuitive. For example, for the content of the grammar test, all important structures that had
been listed in “Persian Framework of Reference for Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Lan-
guages: Grammar, Vocabulary and Functions for Elementary, Intermediate and Advanced Lev-
els” (Mirdehghan et al. 2016) were consulted. This source was the most authoritative research
with regard to determining levels of grammatical content, vocabulary and functions for teach-
ing the Persian language that identified six levels from elementary to advanced. This book
provides the example of a clear use of standards. For an elaborate discussion on the Persian ref-
erence framework and teaching Persian varieties and dialects, read Chapter 24 in this volume.
General SAMFA assesses a learner’s ability to use the language for functional, communica-
tive purposes that may include two main categories of productive and receptive skills on the
basis of general topics and everyday social contexts. In contrast, academic SAMFA deals with
academic language proficiency relevant to communicative tasks such as comprehending an
academic subject or a university lecture and reading scholarly journal articles. The content of
the SAMFA test was specified in terms of the following aspects:

Operation: Tasks that the learners were required to perform were specified, focusing on
a single skill. Two examples of skills can be mentioned as follows: In the case of the
reading test, a selected number of tasks may include guessing the meaning of unfamiliar
words from the context, recognizing the references of grammatical structures, etc. In the
writing test, the learners might have been urged to provide enough evidence to support
their claims and ideas, express their opinions pertaining the causes of events, offer solu-
tions to problems, and identify strong and weak points.

442
 Standard Persian language proficiency test

Length and types of texts: The reading comprehension test contained four to five texts that
were two to four paragraphs in length. The listening comprehension tests included ten
short dialogs (ten questions), two long dialogs (ten questions) and two monologs (ten
questions). In the general reading and listening tests, narrative and informative texts
were used, but in the academic ones, only informative texts were applied. In the writ-
ing tests, the learners were required to write two essays on two topics, the first one 150
words long and the second one 250 words long. In academic SAMFA, the learners are
required to compare, contrast, describe and interpret charts or graphs of the tasks.
Topics: In general SAMFA, topics were largely general and related to everyday issues,
life changes, art, music, events etc. In academic SAMFA on the other hand, topics were
chosen from various academic fields and disciplines. Therefore, reading comprehension
texts, writing and speaking tasks dealt with topics in the fields of engineering, humani-
ties, social sciences and medical sciences.

Texts and topics play an important role in language tasks on the whole. However, in the
case of academic SAMFA, they assume an even more prominent role. Using texts that belong
to various disciplines raised several concerns regarding the construct under the accurate meas-
urement, the interaction of field-specific or background knowledge with language knowledge,
and the intensification of topic effect. To tackle these problems in academic SAMFA, simple
graphs were chosen regardless of background knowledge or cognitive abilities, which are
not accessible to the learners in academic writing tasks. The learners were required to read
graphs and describe the graph content. In this situation, it may be argued that score differences
among test-takers could be due to differences in their ability to read graphs. To avoid construct
irrelevant variance and ensure validity of score interpretations, listening tasks dealt with more
general academic topics that were judged to be shared across various fields.
Vocabulary and structural range: Research on the vocabulary of Persian language and
wordlists organized in terms of frequency of occurrence is in its infancy. Thus, the approxi-
mate range of lexical and structural domains for this test was drawn from “Framework of
Reference for Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages”.
Dialect, accent and style: The dialect and accent that the learners are expected to demon-
strate in speaking test involves the formal one used in Tehran. In the listening tests, informal
style and colloquial language are used. However, questions appearing on the listening section
of the test booklet use formal style and written language. The learners are expected to be capa-
ble of writing and speaking to Iranians in terms of age, social status and level of education
comparable to their linguistic performance.

21.4.2.2 SAMFA’s structure

The SAMFA’s structure was designed in a way that it would assess the learner’s ability to use
the language for communication. As such, it does not directly measure their knowledge of
the language per se. Language knowledge is usually assessed in terms of language skills and
components. Basic language skills include reading, writing, listening and speaking. Major
language components involve grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation (Chalhoub-Deville
and Deville 2005). Read (2015) stated that in language tests, it is customary to test the four
macro-skills separately and provide a profile of scores for the included skills. For this reason,
the general SAMFA comprised listening, reading, writing and speaking sections. For further
discussion on the acquisition of the four skills as well as the language components by second
language learners of Persian, read Chapters 9–14 in this volume.

443
 Amirreza Vakilifard

Academic SAMFA had a modular structure. Four discipline-based modules were provided
covering social sciences, engineering, humanities and medical sciences. The candidates could
select the module most appropriate for them. In academic SAMFA, reading, writing and
speaking sections were modular; however, the listening section was not modular due to the
difficulty of administration. Thus, a general listening section was designed for all participants
consisting of general academic texts. The earlier-mentioned skills largely measured general
academic proficiency in Persian.
Number of passages and items: Number of passages and items were as follows: The listen-
ing test included one scripted and audio-recorded monologue with ten items, two long conver-
sations with ten items, and ten short scripted conversational exchanges with one comprehension
item for each one. In total, the test comprised 30 multiple-choice questions. The reading test
consisted of five general-style written passages for general SAMFA and four to five academic-
style or field-specific texts for academic SAMFA, which were 150 to 350 words in length.
In total, 30 multiple-choice comprehension items appeared on the test. Moreover, one or two
items were usually concerned with finding the reference or the meaning of particular words in
context. The writing test comprised two impromptu writing tasks (the first one, 150 words and
second one, 250 words), involving a point of view on current issues or problems.
For academic SAMFA, one involved a point of view on an academic issue or scientific
news, and the other required the interpretation of a table or graph. The tasks and topics were
routinely based on disciplinary content. The speaking test included two independent tasks, to
which the test takers responded on the basis of general or academic knowledge, in accordance
with the general or academic module of SAMFA.
Medium/channel: SAMFA is a fixed-form test in which every test taker receives the same
items delivered on a paper booklet. Since the test developers cannot control the test takers’
prior experiences with proficiency tests, they have to prepare carefully crafted instructions to
minimize the misinterpretation of the instructions. In SAMFA test, questions of listening, read-
ing and writing sections were audio-recorded and played back during the examination session.
Speaking test was administered face to face and was recorded.
Test duration: For each of the listening, reading and writing tests, the learners were allot-
ted 60 minutes. The learners were allotted 15 minutes for the speaking test. In total, the learn-
ers would have 195 minutes to complete the SAMFA test. In the speaking test, the learners
were allocated up to three minutes time to compose and organize their ideas on the topic.

21.4.2.3 Criterial levels of performance

Levels of successful performance were determined and clarified in simple statements. For
writing and speaking skills, degrees of performance were determined in terms of accuracy,
appropriateness, domain, flexibility and size included in the SAMFA’s guidebook and scien-
tific framework.

21.4.2.4 Specification of scoring procedures and reporting formats

In SAMFA, each aspect of a task is scored separately. In this scoring scheme, aspects of learner
performance that were ignored in achievement tests of the Persian language teaching centers
were attended to. The separate scores that were given based on different criteria were summed
up to arrive at the resulting scores. For each of the four skills, a separate score was provided
(maximum 60 points for each skill) and the average of these scores acted as the overall test
score (maximum 240 points).

444
 Standard Persian language proficiency test

Since knowledge of the language components was not assessed in the test, it could be
stated that SAMFA does not directly measure language knowledge. The test did not measure
language knowledge since it was assumed that in performing on four skills, the learners inevi-
tably would draw on their passive language knowledge. In addition, through some items of
skills tests and some criteria of rating scales, language knowledge may be assessed indirectly.
That is, the learners’ language knowledge is assessed, but it is lost in the holistic score that is
given for each skill and the overall test. Actually, from the point of view of the Office for Non-
Iranian Students, those candidates receiving scores above the mean (30) for each of the four
skills can enter Iranian universities. Those scoring below the mean (30) must enroll in and pass
SAMFA in order to be certified.
Listening and reading tests are designed in multiple-choice format, and their answer sheets
are scored via computer with the help of scannable computerized scoring. Since the scor-
ing of writing and speaking tests were subjective, the raters had to use a rubric to achieve a
final result. The rubrics make the expectations and the assessment criteria explicit (Jonsson
and Svingby 2007). Well-designed rubrics are used to enhance the reliability, consistency and
objectivity of the assessment (Ayhan and Türkyilmaz 2015).
The constructs important for analytical scoring were discussed, and criteria that would
realize the expectations from Persian language learners were determined. The accurate speci-
fication of an analytical scoring raises scorer reliability. Based on these steps, a multiple-
trait scoring rubric was developed. For this purpose, Hughes (2003) suggested rating scales.
A series of writing samples were collected that covered the whole range of scales. Then, a
group of testing experts reviewed these samples and they assigned a score in the relevant
scales for each of these samples. These scored samples were used as a benchmark for subse-
quent uses. Within each performance level, a range of scores was possible.
The scoring rubric for the writing component of SAMFA was as follows. Writing was
scored in terms of content (extent, relevance, subject knowledge, up to six points for the first
composition, and up to twelve for the second one), organization (coherence, fluency, clarity,
logical sequencing, up to four and eight points), vocabulary (richness, appropriate register,
word form mastery, up to four and eight points), language use accuracy (use of articles, word
order, tenses, prepositions, sentence constructions, up to four and eight points), and mechan-
ics) paragraphing, spelling, punctuation, up to two and four points).
The detailed description of expected performance at each level was identified under four
labels. These levels of performance included very poor, poor to fair, average to good, and very
good to excellent. When the learner proficiency exceeded one of the four levels yet did not
qualify to be assigned to the upper level, a plus (+) was used to indicate this situation. The first
writing assignment received 20 points and the second one received 40 points. In total, there
were 60 points for the writing test.
To enhance reliability, the writing test was scored by two raters independently. If the raters
disagreed on any part, a third rater would score that part. To ensure a higher level of validity,
two writing tasks were included in the writing test, and the test-takers were not allowed to
choose the tasks. For the reliability of the judgments about the writings, the samples must be
adequately long. Thus, the learners were required to write a 150-word essay in the first task
and a 250-word essay in the second task. This helped to obtain reliable data about the writing
ability of the learners.
For the speaking test, test takers participated in a one-to-one dialog lasting for 15 minutes.
The learner was prompted to speak about two or three topics, and the conversation was audio-
recorded. The test taker would defend her/his opinion in an extended spoken response. Later,
in the National Organization for Educational Assessment, two experienced raters scored the

445
 Amirreza Vakilifard

conversation according to scoring rubric of SAMFA’s speaking section. In case of disagree-

ment between the raters, the sample is scored by a third rater. The sample is evaluated in terms
of six criteria.
The rubric for scoring the general SAMFA’s speaking section included the following crite-
ria: adequacy (range and choice of word, vocabulary, expression, lexical accuracy, gaps, up to
ten points), grammatical accuracy (complete sentences, grammatical utterances, word order,
broken sentences, bits of information, etc., up to ten points), fluency (using bits of information,
halting, hesitation, gaps in using cohesive devices like connectors or conjunctions, etc., up to
ten points), coherence and cohesion (up to ten points), pragmatic accuracy (socioculturally
appropriate usage, use of slang, etc., up to five points), intelligibility (pronunciation, stress,
rhythm and intonation, use of appropriate tone), and interaction (understanding the question’s
content, ability to communicate with the tester).
In the rubric for scoring academic SAMFA’s speaking section, three subcategories were
designed to reflect the dimensions of the construct that was considered important. These three
criteria included the relevance of content (relevant, limited or sufficiently covering the task),
credibility of the utterance, and the use of semi-academic terms and vocabulary. Performances
in each category were judged by a numerical score from 0 to 4.

21.4.2.5 Writing and moderating items

According to Salisbury (2005), writing items involves three phases. In the exploratory phase,
the item writer would search through possible texts and contexts. In the concerted phase, the
writer works intensively in a concentrated manner to prepare the texts and items. In the refin-
ing phase, the writer reviews the items to improve the test and make it to conform more closely
to domain requirements. Under the supervision of SAMFA’s scientific committee, a group of
testers experienced in teaching Persian to speakers of other languages started to write the items
according to the specifications prepared in advance. In each test, texts were selected from vari-
ous domains and subject areas to assure content validity and representation. Then, the prepared
items were handed to two expert members of the scientific committee for careful examination
to identify weak points of the items and provide suggestions for improvement of the items.

21.4.3 The third phase: SAMFA administration

In the administration phase of SAMFA, informal trialing did not take place. Though plenty of
Iranian native speakers as well as non-Iranian learners were available, the test was not admin-
istered under test conditions to a group similar to that for which SAMFA was intended, due to
concerns over the security of the test. But after each principal administration of the test, trained
psychometricians collect the data, perform statistical analyses and interpret and evaluate them.
After each administration two types of analyses are conducted. First, statistical analysis is con-
ducted to examine test qualities such as reliability and item qualities such as item difficulty and
item discrimination. Second, qualitative analysis is conducted to discover misinterpretations,
unforeseen responses and problematic items. The problematic items are identified so that they
are improved and preserved in the test’s item bank for use in succeeding editions of the test.

21.4.3.1 Make evaluations of different kinds of items

To arrive at suitable multiple-choice items, SAMFA items should be examined in terms of item
facility (IF), item discrimination (ID) and distracter analysis.

446
 Standard Persian language proficiency test

Item facility (IF) reflects the percentage of a proposed group of test-takers answering a
particular item correctly. To calculate IF in a test like SAMFA, 27 percent of the participants
who performed best in the test are compared against the 27 percent of the participants who
performed worst (Seyf 2015). The formula for calculating IF is:

high group no. correct + low group no. correct

IF =
high group no. examineess + low group no. examinees

The IF index would range from zero to one. The closer the index was to one, the easier the item
would be. While Brown and Abeywickrama (2012) believe that appropriate test items have in
general IFs that range between .15 and .85, Brown (2012) and Seyf (2015) claim that ideal items
in norm-referenced tests would be the items that 30–70% of the examinees answered correctly,
and items that have 0.30 and 0.70 facility indexes provide the maximum information about the
difference between examinees. In SAMFA, the more the scores are spread over a curve and the
more the variance of the items and inter-item correlations, the better the test would be.
Item discrimination (ID) is the ability of an item to differentiate between examinees of high
and low ability. The formula looks like this:

high group no. correct + low group no. correct

ID = 1
´ total of two comparaiison groups
2
ID ranges from zero to one. The more the index is closer to one, the more the item’s ability to
discriminate high ability learners from the low ability ones. ID shows the level of agreement
of an item with the whole test. Therefore, items that have high IDs are strongly correlated
with the whole test. Good items enjoy average IF and high ID (Seyf 2015). In SAMFA, these
indexes were used to decide on discarding or modifying the problematic items.
Distracter analysis is another useful tool in evaluating the effectiveness of the distracters
in a multiple choice format test. In distracter analysis, we are interested in how the distracters
draw the less proficient test takers away from the correct answer. To explore the effective-
ness of each distracter, testers calculate the number of times each distracter was selected by
the testees. When distracters are not effective, they are virtually useless. Malau-Aduli and
Zimitat (2012) stated that “a distracter that fails to attract any examinees is dysfunctional,
does not assist in the measuring educational outcomes, adds nothing to the item or the test
(psychometrically) and has negative impact upon learners” (p. 927). There is no mathematical
formula for calculating distracter efficiency and it is possible to make a conclusion by inspect-
ing the distribution of responses. In a well-functioning item, less-able learners are more likely
to select the distracters. These three indexes (item facility, item discrimination and distracter
analysis) are particularly prominent for a standardized multiple-choice test that is to be admin-
istered repeatedly.
In the case of items that employ non-discrete response formats such as oral or written
responses, practicality, reliability and facility play an important role. Practicality relates to
clarity of directions, test timing and ease of administration and scoring. Since these tests are
not discrete, reliability is determined by correlating the scores that two raters gave to the
same learner responses. If a single rater is used, calculating reliability will not be possible. As
Brown and Abeywickrama (2012) state, faulty directions, ambiguous language, inexact topics
and culturally incompatible information could influence learner comprehension of the task
requirements and make it unduly difficult for the learner.

447
 Amirreza Vakilifard

21.4.3.2 Perform ongoing construct validation studies

As SAMFA is a high-stakes test, it is essential that the final version of the test must be vali-
dated. According to Anastasi and Urbina (1997), content validity is a non-statistical type of
validity involving the degree to which test content is a representative sample of the behavior
domain that is being measured. To improve the content validity of SAMFA, the test specifica-
tions and the selection of items are reviewed by a panel of experts to see whether the items
represent the behavior domain adequately.
Even if appropriate items are designed for the SAMFA test, they have to be assessed and
scored validly as well. For example, in assessing Persian writing or speaking ability, speaking
or writing samples should be collected from students in a valid way; however, this alone does
not suffice. The scoring of writing or speaking samples should also be conducted validly. For
instance, in evaluating a writing sample, if a rater gives more weight to mechanical aspects of
the writing such as spelling and punctuation marks, the validity of the scoring procedure could
be jeopardized.
For achieving more perfect inter-rater agreement in SAMFA, high-stakes decisions are
made about the performance levels of Persian language learners in comparison to a pre-
specified threshold score. Thus, inter-rater agreement is very important. However, to ensure
SAMFA’s validity, inter-rater agreement must be conducted at maximum degree. If signifi-
cantly different scores are assigned to the same samples by different raters, there could have
been a problem with the training of the raters. To improve inter-rater agreement, the raters
should be trained adequately.

21.5 Problems and difficulties

21.5.1 Washback
Higher achievement thresholds that are set for Persian language learners by the SAMFA test
might lead to higher competition among learners and generate fear of failure among them.
There is uncertainty, concern, fear or even distrust of SAMFA among some stakeholders, espe-
cially among Persian language teaching centers. However, SAMFA has stimulated and encour-
aged other organizations to design more standard tests for their own purposes. For instance,
Sa’di Foundation is developing a proficiency test for general purposes that is called AMFA. It
appears that the availability of multiple standard Persian language proficiency tests would be
a welcome result. Some of these proficiency tests could be elaborated and used to assess the
language ability of Persian native speakers who are studying at K-12 classes inside Iran and
out of Iran. We are not yet exactly aware of how SAMFA interacts with educational factors
and its precise influences in broader contexts. Therefore, evaluation researchers must examine
the close relationship between SAMFA and its central functions in Persian second language
education.

21.5.2 Interrelation between content knowledge

and language proficiency
The role of content in language teaching and assessment varies significantly from context
to context, and until now, the interrelation of the language and content constructs has not
been completely explored (Bøhn 2018). One of the challenging issues in developing academic
SAMFA involved the interface between content knowledge and language proficiency, which

448
 Standard Persian language proficiency test

has not been empirically studied. Proficiency and content knowledge develop together. Thus,
it is very difficult to separate these constructs. Byrnes (2008) explained that

because content knowledge in an L2 learning environment is even more a devel-

opmental matter than is the case for native language instruction, content assess-
ment would benefit from principles that identify how content and language abilities
develop simultaneously in language learning.
(p. 45)

In some situations as in Iran, there is a need or mandate to separate language assessment and
content knowledge assessment. Another reason for separating language and content knowl-
edge assessment is to use this information for diagnostic purposes. This separation helps to
identify whether the source of learner problem lies in the language, content or both.

21.5.3 Train the test score users

Without any hesitation, the staff is the key consideration in assuring the quality of a test, and
the senior managers need to be utterly responsible for checking and monitoring the quali-
fication of their staff in performing their tasks within an organization. Hence, it is usually
maintained that the organizations should employ and train qualified specialists (Saville 2012).
As Bachman and Palmer (2010) affirm, “many who need to use a language assessment have
had no training or experience in this” (p. 1). Over the last few decades, language testing has
witnessed a rapid growth in terms of its theoretical concerns and its direct applications. For
this reason, stakeholders who are involved in language testing need to familiarize themselves
with essential concepts related to their specific language testing context. Davidson and Lynch
(2002) emphasized the role of human resources in generating and using test specifications
and items. To make test development more efficient, human resources should be well trained.
Kim et al. (2010) reported that individual characteristics of item writers such as their previous
experience, nativeness, cultural background, personality, and topic preference might influence
their item writing.
In the case of SAMFA, these concerns are even more relevant. The National Organization
for Educational Testing is challenged to educate the test score users within the organization. As
SAMFA is the first established Persian proficiency test, test score users are not accustomed to
it and are not familiar with descriptions of skill levels. As a result, there has been some confu-
sion, misunderstanding and inappropriate score use.
To reduce these problems, rater training should be included in the assessment development
process. At the least, training would make raters able to discriminate among different levels
of performance more consistently (Wigglesworth and Frost 2017). Training would improve
rater confidence and lead to the production of high quality items that test language skills more
accurately.

21.5.4. The validity of the uses and interpretations of SAMFA

As with any other reliable test, there must be a validation program for SAMFA to examine
the validity of its construct. It is suggested that the validity of the uses and interpretations of
SAMFA should be carefully studied, based on multiple components of Weir’s (2005) socio-
cognitive framework: cognitive aspects of validity, contextual aspects of validity, scoring
aspects of validity, criterion-related aspects of validity, and consequential aspects of validity.

449
 Amirreza Vakilifard

In addition, their interactions should be examined to support the specific uses and interpreta-
tions of test scores.

21.5.5 Limited evidence addressing validity,

reliability and fairness of rubrics
SAMFA rubrics are being designed for the first time for the Persian language and used as a gate
keeping instrument for foreign test-takers. There is limited evidence addressing validity, reli-
ability and fairness of these rubrics. Hence, the function of rubrics and their scoring should be
critically examined by the instructors. Pufpaff, Clarke, and Jones (2015) reported that little con-
sistency was observed even among experienced faculty members’ scoring of learner performance
on the basis of rubrics. Therefore, further empirical research is needed to find efficient methods
of increasing consistency in rubric-based scoring of Persian language learner performance.

21.6 Future directions

21.6.1  Performance-based
­ assessment
It should be mentioned that in Iran, for some operational purposes, such as certain jobs and
skills, performance tests are a prerequisite. Performance tests assess the learner’s ability to
perform a certain act derived from the operational task, such as translating, summarizing,
interpretation or transcription. Although learners who pass performance tests might need to
achieve a higher level of general language proficiency, performance tests afford more practi-
cal and valid measures of skills that are needed in the workplace. In the Persian language,
performance tests have not been developed yet, and as long as such tests are not available, the
SAMFA proficiency test could be used in their place. However, this does not obviate the need
for developing performance tests for the Persian language.

21.6.2 Computer-assisted language assessment

Major test developing organizations are always exploring the possibilities that new technolo-
gies provide for their tests. The computer is one of the technologies that has been used in
computer-assisted language assessment (Chapelle and Voss 2017). It appears that in Iran’s cur-
rent sociopolitical situation, there is room to utilize computer technologies in language testing
to better serve test developers, test takers and test users. In fact, scoring open-ended responses
is a highly challenging process for computers; computers could be useful in the facilitation,
contextualization and enhancement of Persian language testing.

21.6.3 Integrated task-based assessment

Currently SAMFA is designed to assess individual components of language proficiency such
as speaking, writing, reading and listening. However, in the future it must move beyond and
add integrated tasks into its assessment process as a further element of complexity. This could
happen through incorporating more than one skill. For instance, the learners could be asked
to read a passage and do a writing task based on reading that passage. These integrated tasks
enhance the authenticity of the assessment for real-life situations. However, since such tasks
require skills and strategies that could not be covered in a language test, further elements of
complexity are added (Wigglesworth and Frost 2017).

450
 Standard Persian language proficiency test

21.6.4 Persian language teacher assessment literacy

Assessment is an integral part of the teaching-learning process. One of the most effective ways
of enhancing Persian language learning within language centers is through the improvement of
assessment procedures. Research shows that “teachers devote a large part of their preparation
time to creating instruments and observation procedures, marking, recording, and synthesiz-
ing results in informal and formal reports in their daily teaching” (Cheng, Rogers, and Hu
2004, 360). To help students achieve higher levels of language proficiency, teachers should be
encouraged to improve their assessment literacy. Currently, there is little emphasis on assess-
ment in teacher development programs. No significant funds have been allocated to improve
Persian language teachers’ assessment and evaluation practices.
No standards have been set for the assessment of the competence of Persian language
teachers. Such standards would have to include a set of assessment competencies for Persian
language teachers. Appropriate training and professional development should be provided for
Persian language teachers so that their knowledge and skills are enhanced and they are enabled
to make informed decisions through the assessment process, which is defined as the develop-
ment, scoring, interpretation and sharing of the results of large-scale tests developed by the
National Organization for Educational Testing.
While standards and standards-based education have witnessed considerable growth, lan-
guage instructors have not had access to a framework of what is needed for the development,
selection, use and interpretation of reliable and valid tests even for classroom assessment.
Assessment, standards and politics are closely connected. This close connection makes it all
the more important to train language instructors and to equip them with necessary skills so that
they could assess their students’ progress toward local, national and/or international goals and
standards (Malone 2017).

21.6.5 Exit test development

Exit tests of Persian language proficiency have not been developed yet. SAMFA has the poten-
tial to be used as an exit test for graduates or foreign students who are currently studying at
Iranian universities without taking a proficiency test. Exit tests assess language proficiency
upon graduation from university. Persian language exit tests could play two roles. First, they
would motivate university students to improve their Persian language proficiency. Second,
they could be presented to future employers as proof of proficiency in Persian language skills.

21.7 Conclusion
Robust assessment procedures are needed to determine whether non-Iranian candidates of Ira-
nian universities possess sufficient Persian language proficiency to start their academic studies
in Iran. Learning Persian as a second language is not an integral component of the university
programs in Iran. With an inadequate level of proficiency in Persian language, students would
have a tough time in coping with the demands of university-level study. University faculty
who teach academic courses would also face difficulties if their incoming students’ level of
Persian proficiency is not adequate. Final exams of Persian language centers vary from one
center to another in terms of standards required for successful entry into academic programs.
Thus, the need for a standardized test of Persian language proficiency is highly emphasized.
To develop a standardized test, several steps need to be taken. First, validly constructed
standards are needed that are free from bias. For this purpose, in line with institutional goals,

451
 Amirreza Vakilifard

performance data should be carefully gathered and analyzed. Second, specifications should
be designed that require sophisticated construct validation and consideration of practicality
issues. Third, items must be constructed, and scoring and interpretation procedures be deline-
ated. This would require several rounds of trialing the items before the final version is made
available. If these steps are taken adequately, the end product would be a cost-effective, time-
saving and accurate instrument that could produce informative measurements of learners’ lan-
guage abilities.
Since SAMFA was launched in 2015, it has acted as a gate-keeping instrument to filter
international students of Iranian universities and let in the ones who possess a minimum
required level of Persian language proficiency and are able to cope with the language demands
of their academic fields. Different universities are encouraged to set their own minimum scores
and threshold levels for academic Persian language proficiency according to their position on
the ranking list of Iranian universities. This step was taken to allow the universities that are
more attractive for foreign students to be able to admit the students who possess the highest
intellectual and linguistic abilities.
For developing a brand-new standardized test of large-scale proportions, huge amounts of
investments are needed. Though SAMFA has been designed and developed with a minimal
budget, for its continuation and the solution of earlier-mentioned problems, more time and
budget should be allocated. This chapter offered a discussion of the concepts of different valid-
ities. The validity as well as the reliability of SAMFA should be explored on the basis of the
results which have so far been produced in six administrations of the test. Issues that are worth
empirical investigation include SAMFA’s internal factor structure, its concurrent or predictive
validity, and the cognitive processes that test takers undergo to complete the test. The effect of
this test on the stakeholders could also be explored. Its findings should also be communicated
to the stakeholders to provide guidance for them.
Ready-made and validated tests such as SAMFA that are administered several times each
year could relieve Persian language teaching centers from spending time and money to develop
their own tests. In addition, in SAMFA, rubric-based analytic scoring is employed that could
provide detailed information about learner abilities. This type of scoring, a multi-trait ana-
lytic mark scheme, is more interpretable since it allows identifying learners’ weaknesses and
strengths. For instance, writing or speaking skill is broken down into its component skills, and
each component is scored separately. This detailed scoring allows the instructors and curricu-
lum designers to diagnose learners’ problem areas and take measures to improve the learners’
abilities. Trong Tuan (2012) stated that analytic scoring is more explicit than other scoring
approaches and thus enables teachers to provide learners with consistent and direct feedback.
In Persian language proficiency tests differentiated according to four academic disciplines,
namely Social Sciences, Medical Sciences, Humanities and Engineering, the construct that
is measured encompasses both language knowledge and content knowledge. However, little
is known about the interrelationship between language knowledge and the content which the
language is used to convey. Thus, background content knowledge should be considered in the
interpretation of academic language proficiency tests that do not test background knowledge
directly. Also, it is necessary to explicate the criteria that language test designers and practi-
tioners in the academic fields use in judging performance in academic language proficiency
tests and academic tests in various fields. These criteria could inform the construction of rating
scales and the interpretation of test performances (Douglas 2005).
The last point is that the unique general language proficiency descriptors do not encompass
the whole range of language abilities that Persian language learners would need to acquire.
Brown and Bown (2014) emphasized that professional demands that are made from learners

452
 Standard Persian language proficiency test

should be considered, and instruction and assessment should be adjusted to the language norms
of target discourse communities that the learners wish to join. It should be pointed out that we
need to have different kinds of standards for proficiency. State and private institutions should
be allowed to set their own standards for general or academic language proficiency since their
specific contexts of use differ from one another. As Saville (2012) state, the standards could
be set by the government, a professional organization, an external standards organization (e.g.
ISO), and the organization itself and its internal rules and regulations. He mentioned that, in a
quality management system, that quality cannot be imposed from outside but must be founded
and controlled within an organization itself. In setting standards, the learners’ purposes of
learning Persian, their disciplinary orientations, institutional and curricular requirements, ped-
agogic approaches, and student cohort compositions must be considered (Jenkins and Leung
2019). It has been acknowledged that different real-life activities have their own language
varieties. Thus, setting a common proficiency standard for students who wish to enter diver-
gent professional communities is inadequate and misleading.
When institutions are allowed to set their own language proficiency standards, the key
stakeholders of the language assessment process, i.e. students, teachers, and language schools,
are given direct control over the design and use of language tests. This perspective is in contra-
diction to the view that a single type of standardized general Persian language proficiency test
could be administered to learners who want to learn Persian language for divergent purposes
and needs. Jenkins and Leung (2019) emphasize the importance of recognizing the “standard
reality” of each individual context and argues against imposing a “mythical standard” for all
language learners.

Notes
‫سنجش استاندارد مهارتهای فارسی‬
‫ مرکز همکاریهای علمی بین المللی‬1
‫ سازمان سنجش آموزش کشور‬2
‫ تحقیقات و فناوری‬،‫ وزارت علوم‬3

References
Anastasi, A., and S. Urbina. 1997. Psychological Testing, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Ayhan, Ü., and M.U. Türkyilmaz. 2015. “Key of Language Assessment: Rubrics and Rubric Design.”
International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(2): 82–92.
Bachman, L.F., and A.S. Palmer. 2000. Language Testing in Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L.F., and A.S. Palmer. 2010. Language Assessment in Practice: Developing Language Assess-
ment and Justifying Their Use in the Real World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bøhn, H. 2018. “Assessing Content in a Curriculum-Based EFL Oral Exam: The Importance of Higher-
Order Thinking Skills.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(1): 16–26.
Brown, H.D., and P. Abeywickrama. 2012. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices,
2nd ed. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Brown, J.D. 2012. “Classical Test Theory.” In Routledge Handbook of Language Testing, edited by F.
Glenn and F. Davidson, 323–335. New York: Routledge. Taylor and Francis Group.
Brown, T., and J. Bown. 2014. “Conclusion: To Advanced Proficiency and Beyond: Charting a New
Course in the Twenty-First Century.” In To Advanced Proficiency and Beyond: Theory and Methods
for Developing Superior Second Language Ability edited by T. Brown and J. Bown, 205–212. Wash-
ington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Byrnes, H. 2008. “Assessing Content and Language.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Education:
Language Testing and Assessment, edited by N.H. Hornberger, 2nd ed., 37–52. New York: Springer.

453
 Amirreza Vakilifard

Carlsen, C.H. 2018. “The Adequacy of the B2-Level as University Entrance Requirement.” Language
Assessment Quarterly, 15(1): 1–15.
Chalhoub-Deville, M., and C. Deville. 2005. “A Look Back at and Forward to What Language Testes
Measure.” In Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning, edited by E. Hin-
kel, 815–831. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chapelle, C.A. 1999. “Validity in Language Assessment.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19:
254–272.
Chapelle, C.A., and G. Brindley. 2002. “Assessment.” In An Introduction to Applied Linguistics, edited
by Norbert Schmitt, 267–288. London: Arnold.
Chapelle, C.A., and E. Voss. 2017. “Utilizing Technology in Language Assessment.” In Encyclopedia of
Language and Education: Language Testing and Assessment, edited by E. Shohamy, I.G. Or, and S.
May, 3rd ed., 149–161. Cham: Springer.
Cheng, L., T. Rogers, and H. Hu. 2004. “ESL/EFL Instructors’ Classroom Assessment Practices: Pur-
poses, Methods, and Procedures.” Language Testing, 21(3): 360–389.
Coombe, C.A. 2018. An A to Z of Second Language Assessment: How Language Teachers Understand
Assessment Concepts. London: British Council.
Coombe, C.A., K. Folse, and N. Hubley. 2007. A Practical Guide to Assessing English Language Learn-
ers. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Davidson, F., and B.K. Lynch. 2002. Test Craft: A Teacher’s Guide to Writing and Using Language Test
Specifications. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Davies, A., A. Brown, C. Elder, K. Hill, T. Lumley, and T. McNamara. 1999. Dictionary of Language
Testing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, A., and C. Elder. 2005. “Validity and Validation in Language Testing.” In Handbook of Research
in Second Language Teaching and Learning, edited by E. Hinkel, 795–813. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Douglas, D. 2005. “Testing Languages for Specific Purposes.” In Handbook of Research in Second
Language Teaching and Learning, edited by Eli Hinkel, 857–868. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Doucet, P. 2001. “Pour un Test Utile.” ASp, 34: 13–33.
Ghonsooly, B. 2010. “Development and Validation of a Persian Proficiency Test.” Research in Contem-
porary World Literature, 15(57): 115–129.
Golpoor, L. 2015. Development of a Persian Language Proficiency Test on the Basis of Four Language
Skills: Listening Comprehension, Reading Comprehension, Speaking, and Writing. Unpublished Doc-
toral Dissertation, Payam Nour University, Tehran, Iran.
Hughes, A. 2003. Testing for Language Teachers, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jalili, S.A. 2011. Persian Language Proficiency Test Based on Four Main Language Skills. Unpublished
MA thesis, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran.
Jenkins, J., and C. Leung. 2019. “From Mythical ‘Standard’ to Standard Reality: The Need for Alterna-
tives to Standardized English Language Test.” Language Teaching, 52(1): 86–110.
Jones, N. 2012. “Reliability and Dependability.” In Routledge Handbook of Language Testing,
edited by G. Fulcher and F. Davidson, 350–369. New York: Routledge and Taylor and Francis
Group.
Jonsson, A., and G. Svingby. 2007. “The Use of Scoring Rubrics: Reliability, Validity and Educational
Consequences.” Educational Research Review, 2: 130–144.
Kim, J., Y. Chi, A. Huensch, H. Jun, H. Li, and V. Roullion. 2010. “A Case Study on An Item Writing
Process: Use of Test Specifications, Nature of Group Dynamics, and Individual Item Writer’s Charac-
teristics.” Language Assessment Quarterly, 7: 160–174.
Lim, S.G. 2013. “Components of an Elaborated Approach to Test Validation.” Cambridge English Lan-
guage Assessment, Research Notes, 51: 11–15.
Malau-Aduli, B.S., and C. Zimitat. 2012. “Peer Review Improves the Quality of MCQ Examinations.”
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(8): 919–931.
Malone, M.E. 2017. “Training in Language Assessment.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Education:
Language Testing and Assessment, edited by E. Shohamy, I.G. Or, and S. May, 3rd ed., 225–239.
Cham: Springer.
Messick, S. 1998. “Test Validity: A Matter of Consequence.” Social Indicators Research, 45(1–3): 35–44.
Metani Boorkhili, N. 2010. Validation of the International Language Test. Unpublished MA thesis, Pay-
ame Nour University, Tehran, Iran.

454
 Standard Persian language proficiency test

Mirdehghan, M., A. Vakilifard, Z. Montazeri, and F. Bagheri. 2016. Persian Framework of Reference
for Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages: Grammar, Vocabulary and Functions for Ele-
mentary, Intermediate and Advanced Levels. Tehran: Ministry of Science, Research and Technology
(MSRT) with Collaboration of Khamoosh Edition.
Mousavi, S.A. 2000. Examining the Theoretical Foundations of Proficiency Tests and Developing a
Standard Persian Language Proficiency Test. Unpublished MA thesis, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.
Mousavi, S.A. 2012. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language Testing, 5th ed. Tehran, Iran: Rahnama
Press.
Pufpaff, L.A., L. Clarke, and R.E. Jones. 2015. “The Effects of Rater Training on Inter- Rater Agree-
ment.” Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 27(2): 117–141.
Read, J. 2015. Assessing English Proficiency for University Study. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Salisbury, K. 2005. The Edge of Expertise: Towards an Understanding of Listening Test Item Writing as
Professional Practice. Unpublished doctoral thesis, King’s College, London.
Saville, N. 2012. “Quality Management in Test Production and Administration.” In Routledge Handbook
of Language Testing, edited by F. Glenn and F. Davidson, 395–412. New York: Routledge. Taylor and
Francis Group.
Seyf, A.A. 2015. Educational Measurement, Assessment and Evaluation, 6th ed. Tehran: Doran Publica-
tion. [in Persian]
Shabani-Jadidi, P., and A. Sedighi. 2018. “Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages.” In The
Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics, edited by A. Sedighi and P. Shabani-Jadidi, 388–410.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spolsky, B. 1995. Measured Words: The Development of Objective Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Taylor, L.B. 2004. “Testing Times: Research Directions and Issues for Cambridge ESOL Examinations.”
TESOL Quarterly, 38(1): 141–146.
Trong Tuan, L. 2012. “Teaching and Assessing Speaking Performance Through Analytic Scoring
Approach.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(4): 673–679.
Vakilifard, A. 2000. Sedāy-e Delneshin-e Fārsi (SADAF): A Set of 10 Cassettes for Improving Persian
Language Listening Comprehension. Qazvin: Imam Khomeini International University, Persian
Langue Center Edition. [in Persian]
Vakilifard, A., and M. Galledari. 2002a. Persian Language for International Medical Students. Qazvin:
Parsiyane Farhikhte Institute Research. [in Persian]
Vakilifard, A., and M. Galledari. 2002b. Persian Language for International Engineering Students. Qaz-
vin: Parsiyane Farhikhte Institute Research. [in Persian]
Vakilifard, A., M.B. Mirzayi Hesariyan, and H. Mamaghani. 2012. Analysis of Reliability and Validity of
Persian Proficiency Tests. Seminar on Teaching Persian Language to Spanish Speakers. Complutense
University (20 and 21 September). Spain: Madrid.
Wall, D. 2012. “Washback.” In Routledge Handbook of Language Testing edited by F. Glenn and F.
Davidson, 79–92. New York: Routledge. Taylor and Francis Group.
Weir, C.J. 2005. Language Testing and Validation: An Evidence-Based Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Wigglesworth, G., and K. Frost. 2017. “Task and Performance-Based Assessment.” In Encyclopedia of
Language and Education: Language Testing and Assessment, edited by S. Elena, I.G. Or, and S. May,
3rd ed., 121–134. Cham: Springer.
Winke, P. 2011. “Evaluating the Validity of a High-Stakes ESL Test: Why Teachers’ Perceptions Matter.”
TESOL Quarterly, 45(4): 628–660.
Young, J.W., Y. So, and G.J. Ockey. 2013. Guidelines for Best Test Development Practices to Ensure
Validity and Fairness for International English Language Proficiency Assessments. ETS Office of
Professional Standards Compliance’s Fairness Series.

455
 22
SECOND LANGUAGE
ASSESSMENT IN PERSIAN NAHAL AKBARISECOND LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT IN PERSIAN

Nahal Akbari

22.1 Introduction
Language assessment continues to be a key and thriving aspect of the second language
learning and teaching process. As educational systems and language programs increas-
ingly grapple with issues of accountability and demonstrating outcomes, the need for a
broader and more comprehensive understanding of the nature of language ability as well
as approaches to assessment and meaningful interpretations of test results for learners,
teachers and other stakeholders receive more attention. Questions on how different types
and contexts of assessment are connected to instruction in the classroom at a practical
level, and to their real-world implications for test takers at a broader level, continue to
challenge researchers and language educators. It is now widely recognized that assess-
ment should be conceived of within an interlinked framework of cognitive, educational,
social, ethical and even political considerations. Some of the new challenges and findings
in the field are particularly relevant for teachers of Persian both in the United States and
across the world, as more institutions of higher education offer Persian courses and more
language learners are interested in demonstrating proficiency results for professional and
academic purposes. For a discussion on different kinds of tests devised within Iran, see
Chapter 21 in this volume.

22.2 Overview of testing and assessment

The terms “testing” and “assessment” have been used in the literature in a wide range of ways,
sometimes interchangeably and sometimes deliberately distinguished to refer to two differ-
ent sets of construction and administration practices. The current trend in applied linguistics
is to consider assessment as the broad umbrella term that includes a wide range of methods,
including formal and standardized measures or “tests”, as well as alternative ways to evaluate
learning such as self-assessment, peer-assessment, portfolios and learning logs, among others.
Increasingly, assessment has become the more acceptable term that implies a whole host of
considerations and procedures for gathering information and designing, scoring and interpret-
ing results in relation to language teaching and learning. Norris (2012) points out that the
“ultimate goal of language assessment is to use tests to better inform us on the decisions we

456
 Second language assessment in Persian

make and the actions we take in language education” (p. 42). He invites language educators to
consider factors such as users (including teachers, students, parents, organizations, employers
etc.), as well as the intended use, purpose and impact of the test in selecting and designing
tools for purposeful language assessment.
Language programs conduct assessment for a number of purposes including screening
and selection of eligible students, placement at appropriate levels of instruction, monitor-
ing student progress throughout the program, certification of exiting students after they
have gained the desired knowledge, skills or abilities, and determining the effectiveness
of instruction or program evaluation. The decision of programs to select certain existing
measures or to develop their own for each of these purposes is a complex one. In the case
of Persian programs in higher education contexts in the U.S., similar to several other lan-
guages, program administrators and instructors have generally developed their own tests
mainly for the purpose of placement, assessing skills and knowledge, or in response to
departmental and institutional proficiency requirements. Persian language instructors are
increasingly becoming aware of and familiar with general proficiency guidelines in develop-
ing their curricular goals. This has been evident in their increasing active participation in the
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) workshops and profes-
sional development opportunities through the American Association of Teachers of Persian
(AATP), as well as other relevant conferences and annual meetings. However, unlike with
some other languages, there is not much evidence of a coherent plan for the alignment of
curricular goals with assessment practices across Persian programs at different institutions.
There are few, if any, published reports or studies on how the expectations of a given Persian
curriculum are met through its assessment practices. The alignment between curricula and
assessment practices is an area that brings together the program goals and desired outcomes,
teaching approaches, and tests in meaningful ways and through specific methods (Martone
and Sireci 2009). More research in this area and reports from Persian programs will be valu-
able to the field.

22.3 Communicative language teaching and assessment

Historically, along with the departure from structural, grammar-based teaching approaches
toward communicative language teaching, language testing and assessment have like-
wise shifted from structural to communicative, and from analytical and discrete point
to integrative and holistic (Davies 2014; Fulcher 2010). The advent of communicative
approaches to teaching and learning informed by Canale and Swain’s (1980) influential
work on the Hymsian concept of communicative competence meant that the field of test-
ing and assessment would also inevitably evolve (Bailey 1998). In Canale and Swain’s
(1980) model, communicative competence comprises an underlying system of knowl-
edge including linguistic competence (knowledge of linguistic forms), sociolinguistic
competence (the ability to use language appropriately in contexts), discourse competence
(coherence and cohesion), and strategic competence (knowledge of verbal and nonverbal
communicative strategies). The ensuing empirical and theoretical work of several other
researchers further enhanced the notion of language competence or ability as having mul-
tiple components rather than being unitary or global (Bachman and Palmer 1996; Skehan
1998). The challenge, however, has been linking these abilities to performance and actual
evidence when it comes to assessing them. Bridging the gap between communicative
teaching and the ways in which it gets assessed is still a challenge for curriculum develop-
ers, test designers and language teachers. As Persian language educators try to incorporate

457
 Nahal Akbari

authentic materials that simulate real-world interaction into their teaching and aim to
adopt communicative approaches to instruction, they should concurrently consider how
they will assess the knowledge, skills and abilities of their learners differently. This can
lead to significant enhancements to curricula, instruction and assessment in seamless ways
that can potentially benefit students, reduce the anxiety caused by a perceived or actual
disjuncture between teaching and testing, and even increase learner motivation. Arguably,
one of the values of assessment for educational programs can be to “guide the efficient
and effective learning of relevant content as well as motivate learning” (Fulcher and Owen
2016). Read Chapter 16 in this volume for a more elaborate discussion on using the com-
municative approach in teaching Persian.

22.4 Basic principles and ongoing conversations

in language assessment
A long-standing question and ongoing challenge in the literature of language assessment has
been if and how we can be confident that a test is effective and dependable. Brown (2004)
enumerates the five criteria for evaluating tests – “practicality, reliability, validity, authentic-
ity, and washback” (p. 19) – which are briefly reviewed here respectively. Test practicality is
largely self-explanatory and does not need much explanation beyond noting such considera-
tions as cost, time constraints and relative ease of test administration and scoring. The second
principle, reliability, is concerned with the consistency of scoring and the extent to which
the administration procedures of any given test are accurate. Examples of methods to deter-
mine reliability include administering the same test to an individual or a group of test takers
more than once over a period of time (i.e., test-retest reliability), having more than one rater to
score the same test to cross-check evaluations and determine the extent to which subjectivity
or personal judgement might play a role in the score (i.e., inter-rater reliability), and creat-
ing more than one form of the same test by slightly varying the items and administering it to
the same group to establish the correlation between versions (i.e., parallel or alternate form
reliability).
Perhaps the most complex and intensely debated criterion to establish has been test valid-
ity. For the purpose of this broad overview, the notion of construct validity and the conversa-
tions around it is most relevant. A “construct” in language assessment can be defined as a
meaningful interpretation of observed behavior. For instance, when we interpret a learner’s
score on a vocabulary test or a listening test as an indicator of their vocabulary knowledge
or listening ability, then these become the constructs that give meaning to the test score.
Bachman (2007) identifies the understanding of the roles of abilities and contexts, and of
how the interaction between them can affect performance on tests as an ongoing challenge
in the field.
Closely related to the concept of construct is the issue of test validation. At its core, the
validation of a language assessment tool or process involves gathering compelling evidence
that the assessment does what it claims to do. Warranted interpretations of test results are only
possible if we clearly identify the “constructs” we are assessing and what indicators or behav-
iors lead to our interpretations. Effective and meaningful validation, however, has become
increasingly complex and perceived to be multifaceted in recent decades. Researchers have
realized that the complexities of different languages and the process of learning, acts of com-
munication, and the multiplicity of social and cultural contexts in which assessments are used
do not allow for a straightforward and unitary approach to defining certain constructs for the
purpose of assessment and establishing test validity. Along this line, there has been a growing

458
 Second language assessment in Persian

interest in practice-oriented, argument-based validation, originally proposed by Kane (1992,

2006). As Cumming (2013) points out:

[T]here is little agreement on theories of language acquisition for assessment pur-

poses or, fundamentally, even whether language abilities should be assessed as a
trait, behavior, or interaction in any given situation. Moreover, it is unlikely that a
single theory of language learning could emerge or be applied uniformly as a useful
construct across different language assessments given the enormous variation in lan-
guages themselves and their status in different societies, the conditions under which
languages are taught, learned, and practiced, and the many, divergent purposes and
populations for which language assessments are made.
(pp. 7–8)

When it comes to conceptualizing validity and reporting it, it is therefore imperative that stud-
ies of Persian language assessment tools be cognizant of this broader, more comprehensive
approach to establishing test validity. For a similar discussion on test validity and reliability,
read Chapter 21 in this volume.
The next principle, test authenticity, involves the extent to which the items or tasks in a
given test correspond to the real-world tasks and situations of language use. Brown (2004)
notes that for a test to have authenticity, features such as incorporating natural samples of lan-
guage use, including meaningful and relevant items for the real-life experiences of test-takers,
and contextualizing rather than isolating items should be present. And finally, the impact of
language assessment on the curriculum design, teaching practices, and behaviors of students
and teachers is generally referred to as the “washback effect”. Messick (1996) defines wash-
back as “the extent to which the introduction and use of a test influences language teachers
and learners to do things that they would not otherwise do that promote or inhibit language
learning” (p. 241). Carr (2011) notes the significance of the washback of high-stakes tests
on instruction. For example, in an effort to prepare students for multiple choice tests or the
ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPIs), teachers may incorporate test items or role-play
activities that simulate these test formats into their instruction, or in extreme cases merely
focus on them at the expense of other aspects of the curriculum. Language educators need to
be aware of the risk of test preparation activities crossing the line in their teaching practices.
That is, rather than helping learners develop test familiarity and strategies that assist them in
demonstrating their skills and abilities on a given test, they might find the pressure of tests on
their instruction in ways that make them focus primarily on better test results to the detriment
of their students’ development of a richer and more holistic second language learning experi-
ence. As Persian language instructors see an increasing number of their students take some
of the high-stakes standardized tests discussed in the next section, it would be important for
them to consider the balanced, ethical ways in which assessment can inform and affect their
instruction.

22.5 Standardized testing

Looking at the history of standardized testing across the world and in the U.S., it seems that for
several decades in the twentieth century the idea of tests that could be administered and scored
in a consistent way, used efficiently and conveniently across different contexts with large num-
bers of test takers, and developed based on empirical principles, used to be very appealing
and almost unchallenged (Brown 2004). Standardized tests were – and continue to be – used

459
 Nahal Akbari

across all levels of education from K-12 to higher education and in different professions such
as medicine and law. In the case of language education, initiatives to increase the national
capacity in foreign languages have inevitably led to a greater need for accountability and
therefore the development of assessment mechanisms that can be used and meaningfully inter-
preted in a variety of contexts. Widely recognized proficiency scales and ability descriptors
include the Common European Frame of Reference (CEFR), Canadian Language Benchmarks
(CLB), the Australian Second Language Proficiency Ratings (ASLPR), the American Council
for the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) guidelines, as well as the Interagency Lan-
guage Roundtable (ILR) in the United States, among others.
Proficiency testing measures the individual’s ability to use language for real-world pur-
poses and to accomplish linguistic tasks, unrehearsed and regardless of any particular curricu-
lum, across a range of topics and settings against one or more of the previously given language
descriptors. Among other applications, proficiency testing helps address the problematic “seat-
time” requirement in colleges and universities, which means that by virtue of going through
the required language courses in a sequence (typically over a few semesters), it is assumed that
students would make meaningful gains in their language learning process, achieve a certain
level of language ability (beginner, intermediate or advanced), and fulfil certain academic or
professional requirements. One of the most widely used standardized proficiency tests used by
different organizations and academic institutions in the U.S. is ACTFL’s speaking, listening,
reading and writing tests. The best known and by far most commonly used tool for assessing
speaking in different languages including Persian is the ACTFL’s Oral Proficiency Interview
(OPI). Before discussing the ACTFL OPI in further detail, a note on one important distinc-
tion in the literature on standardized testing would be relevant; this distinction has to do with
the broad categorization of tests into “norm-referenced” and “criterion referenced”. Norm-
referenced tests measure and rank test takers in comparison to each other’s performance. A test
taker’s score would be compared to the norm of similar test takers and can be expressed as
a percentile rank. In contrast, criterion-referenced tests are designed to assess the learners’
knowledge of a well-defined domain of knowledge, and the performance of others does not
impact the test taker’s grade. Performance is measured against specific standards or criteria,
and scores can be expressed as a percentage of the possible total score, or a certain descriptor.
ACTFL OPI is known as a criterion-referenced, interactive test of speaking. It comprises
a 20- to 30-minute one-on-one interview between a certified tester and the test taker. The
interview follows a specific protocol that is intended to adapt to the interests and abilities of
the test taker throughout the course of the conversation. The interview (typically conducted
over the phone) is recorded and double-rated, and an official ACTFL certificate stating the oral
proficiency level is issued to the candidate. The test was originally developed in the 1950s and
later came under major scrutiny and criticism beginning in the ’80s on multiple grounds such
as its validity claims. ACTFL has in response tried to address these criticisms through research
and improvements to the test and providing new proficiency guidelines (see Malone 2008).
Because the ACTFL OPI is such a high-stakes and widely used test for different languages
across many institutions and organizations for purposes such as certification, hiring and pro-
motion, the debate around the test is ongoing among assessment specialists. For one thing,
the ACTFL OPI continues to rely heavily on intuitive judgement rather than a theoretical,
empirical foundation. In addition to language ability, several other factors such as personality
and degree of familiarity of test format can impact the results. It also relies on the assumption
that the descriptors and the criteria that assessors have been trained in are transferrable across
languages. In addition to posing a major challenge to the validity claims of the test, this can
open the door to major ethical issues. The problematic notion of ideal native speaker, thorny

460
 Second language assessment in Persian

issues such as the dominance of certain dialects or accents over the others in many languages,
and the subjective judgement or preference of testers can create a major issue. One serious
challenge that these questions pose is whether all test takers across different languages are, in
fact, taking the same test.
The gradation of performance from informal settings at lower levels to formal at higher lev-
els, as well as associating the functional ability to describe, narrate and explain with intermedi-
ate, advanced and superior levels respectively, has also been seriously challenged. This linear
approach to a variety of demands of interactions across different contexts and global tasks
can be misleading and potentially even prohibiting test takers from getting a chance to move
up to questions at the next level during the course of an interview. Depending on their own
background, education and level of familiarity with the literature of fields such as linguistics,
discourse analysis and language teaching and learning, the testers might have varying degrees
of ability to interpret the guidelines. For instance, if a highly capable language learner frames
a discussion of an abstract topic within a personal narratives and anecdotes (as a personal style
even in their first language, or due to lack of familiarity with the OPI format and expectations),
they may be rated at a lower level since personal narratives are associated with the advanced,
not the superior level. In training its testers, ACTFL should take measures to ensure that the
complex sociopolitical, educational and ethical issues in assessment are taken into considera-
tion. In fact, McNamara and Roever (2006) caution against a potentially narrow view of the
training needed, stating that: “[i]n terms of academic training, we stress the importance of a
well-rounded training for language testers that goes beyond applied psychometrics . . . a train-
ing that includes a critical view of testing and social consequences” (p. 255). In sum, while the
OPI test continues to have several undeniable shortcomings, its elimination is neither feasible
nor desirable. In fact, it can be argued that no alternatives are currently available for assessing
speaking ability with the level of practicality, accountability and easily interpreted results as
ACTFL OPI for non-specialists (Salaberry 2000).
Still another widely referenced proficiency descriptor is ILR, developed by the United
States government. The history of ILR goes back to the mid-twentieth century, when during
critical war times, it became evident that the United States’ lack of preparation in foreign
languages was a major problem for many of its employees, particularly diplomats who were
going to be stationed abroad. In the absence of a system developed by the academic com-
munity at the time, the Civil Service Commission concluded that the government needed to
create its own objective criteria that would be applicable to all languages and civil service
positions, unrelated to any particular language curriculum. The Foreign Service Institute (FSI)
was tasked with developing a proficiency scale. After several iterations, by the 1980s the ILR
proficiency scale of 0 to 5 levels, including full descriptions of “plus” sub-levels (e.g. 1+, 2+,
etc.) within each category, was in place. Even after the development of the ACTFL proficiency
guidelines, the government agencies have continued to adhere to the ILR definitions as their
standard measure of language proficiency. Despite challenges and criticism from the testing
research community on multiple grounds, ACTFL and the U.S. government continue to work
closely to ensure that the two proficiency testing systems are complementary. Two major pro-
ficiency tests based on the ILR scale include the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT)
and Foreign Service Institute (FSI) test, commonly used by the State Department and many
other government agencies.
The current version of DLPT (i.e., DLPT5, available for Persian) is designed to assess the
general language proficiency in reading and listening of English speakers who have learned a
foreign language. Listening and reading passages on the test selected from authentic materials
and real-life sources such as signs, publications, radio and television broadcasts and online

461
 Nahal Akbari

sources. They cover a broad range of themes including social, cultural, political, economic,
geographic, scientific and military topics. The test format is either multiple choice or con-
structed response (DLIFLC DLPT guides and information, 2018). The FSI test (also available
for Persian) has speaking and reading sections, and it evaluates listening comprehension as
part of the interaction with the tester about everyday, personal, social and current affairs top-
ics. Test takers are also given an oral report on a subject based on English-language materials
that provide some information they can use in their response. They can use that material as a
guide or draw on their personal knowledge and experience about the subject. Afterward, they
are expected to respond to follow-up discussion questions in language. Finally, they receive
information, facts and opinions from the tester in the language on a subject in which test takers
choose from several options and then report in English on what they learn. This demonstrates
the test takers’ comprehension as well as their ability to manage an interaction in accomplish-
ing a specific, integrative task. As for the reading section of the test, examinees read quickly
through several short texts in the language, varying in topics and difficulty levels, and are then
expected to give a gist of the topics to the tester. This is followed by reading longer articles
and giving a detailed oral report of the content. Bachman and Palmer (2006) offer empirical
evidence demonstrating the validity of the speaking FSI.
Additionally, the Center for Applied Second Language Studies (CASLS) at the University
of Oregon has developed a Persian Computerized Assessment of Proficiency (Persian CAP)
based on its Standards-based Measurement of Proficiency (STAMP) for speaking, listening,
reading and writing. Still another example of a standardized Persian proficiency test in the
United States is the listening and reading test developed by the American Councils for Interna-
tional Education (ACIE). The test is sponsored and used by The Language Flagship, a feder-
ally funded national foreign language educational program, for the purpose of qualification,
pre-departure and post-return assessment of their program participants, measuring proficiency
levels within a range of L0+ to L3+ on the ILR scale. The University of Maryland Persian
Flagship Program has also developed a two-tier listening, reading and writing proficiency test
calibrated with the ACTFL and ILR scales and is currently used for internal assessment and
annual tracking of student progress purposes. Ghonsooli (2010) developed one of the only
Persian proficiency tests in Iran that was reported on in terms of its theoretical foundations,
specifications and validity.
In general, interest around the world in developing national tests seems to have grown
since the early 2000s. Government organizations and educational institutions are facing
an increasing demand for ways to predict or demonstrate the ability of individuals to per-
form, with varying levels of language ability, in real-life work and academic settings. As
such, there has been an ongoing need for standardized aptitude tests, proficiency tests and
performance tests. Within Iran, the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT)
has sponsored the development of the Persian Language Proficiency Test (PLPT) in two
areas of general and academic proficiency. The test was officially sanctioned as the national
standard test of Persian language in 2018 when the Iranian president signed into law a bill
recognizing it as the national exam for assessing Persian language skills for a wide range of
purposes such as issuing work permits and student visas, among other applications of the
test (President Rouhani Signs into Law 2018). An early report on the preliminary stages of
the development of the test and the theoretical foundations of the academic version of the
test (PLPT-AV) was published by Sahraei and Jalili (2012). In their description of the theo-
retical foundations and test specifications, Bijankhan and Shayestefar (2016) report that it
is corpus-based (i.e., relies on real texts produced by Persian speakers in real contexts) and
aligned with the CEFR.

462
 Second language assessment in Persian

22.6 Assessment in the classroom

Standardized and externally mandated testing aside, a considerable amount of the language
learning process and time of teachers in the classroom is devoted to assessment. It will be
therefore in order to briefly focus on issues related to assessment in the classroom. Cumming
(2009) notes that the conventional approach to classroom assessment is sequential. In other
words, teachers first establish goals and objectives, then they use instructional materials or
design activities and tasks that move learners toward those goals, and finally they evaluate
how their students have succeeded in reaching those goals. As an alternative, there has been
a growing interest over the years in the role of assessment during the learning process rather
than at the end. That is, assessment for learning as opposed to assessment of learning has been
gaining ground (Fulcher 2010). The notion of formative assessment refers to this particular
type of assessment of learning in instructional settings, where assessment is utilized as a part
of the learning process in order to give feedback to learners on what aspects of their knowl-
edge, skills or abilities they need to improve, and more importantly, how they can improve
their learning. Closely related here is the discussion around “alternative assessment” and
“dynamic assessment” in the classroom. Drawing on the Vygostkian psychology and a socio-
cultural theory of learning, this view of assessment allows for collecting diverse evidence
of learning for diverse learners in different immediate situational contexts and informed
by the dynamics of different interactions in the classroom (Scarino 2013). Teachers might
assume that throughout their teaching, they are constantly engaged in alternative, formative
and dynamic assessment: at any point in their day-to-day teaching when they ask questions,
check on students’ understanding, ask students to produce language, have them work in pairs
or groups and provide corrective feedback, they are indeed engaged in acts of non-traditional
assessment concurrent with teaching. Even quizzes and chapter tests that involve follow-up
review and feedback aimed at improving learning can be considered as planned formative
assessments, therefore blurring the dichotomy of teaching and assessment on an ongoing
basis (Ellis 2003).
However, as Fox (2008) notes, alternative assessment is philosophically different in the
sense that, regardless of the form of assessment, it actively involves learners in the selection
of what will be assessed, in collaborating with their teacher peers in identifying the evalua-
tion criteria, in self and peer assessment, and in developing an awareness of their learning and
performance. In sum, using different forms and techniques of classroom assessment such as
portfolios or self-assessment and peer-assessment per se do not comprise dynamic or alterna-
tive assessment. Rather, the key distinction between non-dynamic and dynamic assessment
is how actively learners are involved in determining the expectations and criteria of success
in assessment activities, and how much awareness they gain of the gap between their current
ability or performance and the desired level through assessment practices.
Linking instruction and assessment together in the classroom in more seamless ways
requires instructors to reflect on their teaching approach and deliberately decide to assess
students along similar lines. As a case in point, despite the various definitions of tasks and
different conceptions of task-based language teaching (TBLT), the approach has received
increasing recognition in second language teaching and learning over the past two decades
(for more recent overviews, see Long 2015; Ellis 2018; Samuda and Bygate 2008; Van den
Branden 2006). If teachers decide to incorporate tasks into their pedagogy, then naturally task-
based language assessment (TBLA) (Norris 2009; Van Gorp and Deygers 2014) should also
inform their assessment practices. In fact, performance/task/can-do-orientated instruction can-
not and should not be assessed with discrete-point tests or skills/abilities-oriented assessment

463
 Nahal Akbari

(Bachman 2014). In reality, many language teachers are not as familiar with task-based lan-
guage assessment as they are with the teaching approach.
Another concept related to alternative classroom assessment that is most often used inter-
changeably with task-based assessment is performance assessment. Both terms imply that in
addition to tests that provide information on what students know about the target language, it is
important to have information on what they are able to do in the language (Norris 2002). Fun-
damental to this type of assessment is the direct observation and evaluation of how learners
use language to engage in meaningful, extended acts of communication. Norris (2009) advo-
cates for this type of assessment as it helps assess language learning based on clearly identi-
fied target tasks, and it can be tied to expected proficiency levels while allowing the learners
to demonstrate their ability to perform in certain situations that simulate real life professional
domains. At the end of this chapter, a sample task/performance-based assessment activity is
presented for an advance level content-based Persian course.
In a similar vein, the ACTFL has developed a cluster assessment model called Integrated
Performance Assessment (IPA). What distinguishes IPA is clearly identifying the performance
criteria and evaluating performance based on authentic tasks, language abilities, pragmatics,
and so on. By emphasizing the three dimensions of interpretative, presentational and inter-
personal communication and featuring three tasks each reflecting one mode, IPA incorporates
the actual uses of language across communication modes and abilities. The test is standards-
based, performance-based and integrative, and is designed to be used with rubrics that rate
performance in terms of meeting, exceeding or not meeting the expectations for the task. The
rubrics enable teachers and learners to identify strengths, areas in need of improvement, and
proficiency level.
When it comes to the selection and design of appropriate classroom assessment, Fulcher
(2012) and Malone (2013) highlight the importance of assessment literacy for language
instructors. One of the key areas of assessment literacy and professional development for
Persian language instructors/assessors should be keeping up with the research and practice
of selecting and designing assessment tools and procedures, implementing classroom assess-
ment, and integrating their interpretation of assessment results into decisions about the cur-
riculum and instruction in their classrooms and programs.

22.7 Assessing Persian heritage language learners

One of the challenges that Persian programs, similar to many other languages in the U.S. sec-
ondary and higher education context face, is the key issue of the placement of heritage learn-
ers in language classes. Although there is an abundance of placement tests and procedures for
different languages, very limited research is available for the placement of heritage learners
in general (Llosa 2014), and for Persian heritage learners in particular. Heritage learners are
believed to excel in “listening and speaking skills and cultural/sociolinguistic knowledge” in
comparison to their non-heritage peers, who are believed to “possess stronger reading and
writing abilities of the prestigious variety as well as metalinguistic knowledge of the target
language” (Fairclough 2011, 274). Once these learners are in language classes, approaches are
recommended for addressing their unique learning profiles, instructional needs, motivations
and attitudes toward language learning. Sedighi (2010) proposes a learner-centered approach,
differentiated instruction, and creating opportunities for collaborative learning among Persian
heritage and non-heritage learners who are most often placed in the same classes due to low
enrollments. Megerdoomian (2010) argues for an inductive, explicit linguistic approach where
the focus is on the analytic discovery of language patterns and the heritage learners’ intuitive

464
 Second language assessment in Persian

knowledge of language rules. Through sample activities, she demonstrates how this approach
allows Persian heritage learners to tap into their intuition to discover linguistic generalizations
while performing specific tasks.
Informal interviews, demographic questionnaires, and self-assessment seem to be common
to place heritage learners at different levels of instruction, particularly if they report that they
have no literacy skills or very limited reading and writing ability. This is typically despite their
relative fluency in speaking and even a higher-level listening comprehension ability. One area
of research that would greatly benefit Persian programs is documenting and discussing their
approaches to placement of heritage learners and the effectiveness of these approaches. In
addition to placement, another notable gap in the heritage language assessment literature is in
the area of classroom assessment and expected criteria of successful performance for heritage
and non-heritage learners. For more information about Persian heritage language learning and
teaching, read Chapters 3–4 in this volume, in which phonological, morphological, semantic
and syntactic properties of heritage language learners are discussed in detail. Chapters 16, 27
and 28 in this volume also discuss the differences between Persian heritage language learners
and second language learners of Persian.

22.8 Conclusion
This chapter provided an overview of the current approaches and ongoing issues in language
assessment, as well as the use and effectiveness of some of the most recent assessment practices
and procedures in second language education. The particular case of Persian as an additional
language in the U.S. was discussed, and some of the commonly used standardized proficiency
assessment instruments available for Persian were critically reviewed. Finally, some practical
considerations in classroom assessment as an integral, ongoing component of instruction were
highlighted. In conclusion, a sample performance-based classroom assessment activity is pre-
sented for an advanced-level, content-based Persian course (see appendix). The sample rep-
resents a dynamic group project that involves demonstrating knowledge of content, extensive
communications among group members to accomplish the task, extensive reading and writing,
and active involvement of the students in developing assessment criteria and peer-evaluation.

465
 Appendix

Sample Task-based/Performance-based Assessment

Course: Introduction to Persian Media Literacy (content-based)

Level: Advanced (third-year Persian)
Task: Group activity creating a newspaper page based on authentic samples

‫ مطالب‬3 ‫ لینک روزنامه ها را میتوانید در بخش‬.‫صفحه های مختلف چند روزنامه ایرانی را ورق بزنید و با دقت بررسی کنید‬
:‫ در مشورت با هم گروهیهای خود تصمیم بگیرید که‬.‫کالسی پیدا کنید‬

‫موضوع صفحه روزنامه شما چیست؟‬

(‫ روابط بین الملل – جهان – سینما‬-‫ سیاست‬-‫ تکنولوژی‬-‫ جامعه‬-‫ اقتصاد‬-‫ ورزش‬-‫ فرهنگ و هنر‬. . . .)
‫مخاطب شما کیست؟ گرایش روزنامه شما چیست؟ آیا داخل ایران چاپ میشود و یا خارج از ایران )اگر داخل ایران است به‬
‫ عکس‬،‫ دقت کنید که گرایش شما در انتخاب واژگان‬.(‫قوانین نظارت بر رسانه ها و موضوع سانسور توجه کنید‬
.‫ و تیترها تاثیر دارد‬،‫ها‬
(‫ کلمه‬۲۰۰ ‫ تا‬۱۵۰ ‫ کلمه( و یک یا دو متن کوتاه )حدود‬۳۰۰ ‫ تا‬۲۵۰ ‫هر کدام از افراد گروه باید یک متن بلند )حدود‬
‫ متن ها میتوانند بر اساس منابع فارسی یا انگلیسی باشند و خالصه یک خبر یا‬.‫برای صفحه روزنامه تهیه کنید‬
.‫موضوع روز و یا ترکیب شما از چند منبع باشند‬
‫برای جلب توجه خواننده از عکس و تیرهای جذاب استفاده کنید‬
‫به استفاده خوب از فضای صفحه در محیط پابلیشر توجه کنید‬
‫اگر در صفحه جای خالی دارید میتوانید مانند روزنامه های موجود از تبلیغات و یا آگهی استخدام و غیره استفاده کنید‬
.‫مطالب یکدیگر را بخوانید و بر اساس معیارهایی که با هم تعیین کردیم تصحیح کنید‬
‫ در این تاریخ الزم نیست همه مطالب کامل باشند‬.‫ آماده کنید‬. . . ‫نسخه اول پروژه را به صورت الکترونیک روز‬
.‫ آماده باشد و در کالس نشان داده شود‬. . . ‫نسخه دوم با تغییرات الزم باید تا روز آخر کالس‬
.‫نسخه نهایی روز امتحان پایان ترم تحویل داده میشود‬

English translation of task guidelines:

Carefully examine different pages of some Iranian newspapers (both in terms of form and
content). You can find links to their PDF versions under module 3 on ELMS. In close collabo-
ration with your team members, decide on the following:

• The content of your page

• Your audience and your assumed position (you can choose to be objective, or have a mod-
erate, conservative, reformist etc. viewpoint). This will affect your choice of headlines,
words and images. If your newspaper is published inside Iran be mindful of the oversight
and censorship regulations.
• Each group member is expected to contribute a longer piece (250–300 words, and one or
two short texts (150–200 words each). These can be based on English or Persian sources;
they can be news, analysis or simply introducing an interesting topic or idea to your readers.
You can base your piece on one source or synthesize information from different sources.
• Make sure you get the attention of your readers through using interesting headlines, pic-
tures and your language choices!

466
 Second language assessment in Persian

• Make the best use of the space on your page so that it looks pleasant to the reader and is
not cluttered. You can easily move text boxes around in Publisher. If there is space that
you have not used try to fill it with ads, announcement etc., based on what you typically
see in newspapers.
• If you cannot use Publisher or experience problems in the process, ask for help.
• Make sure to read and discuss each other’s texts. Full editing is not expected, but give
feedback to your teammate and edit their text as needed. Use the assessment criteria we
developed together to give feedback to your peers and assess their work.
• First draft of your project in the publisher template is due Wed. Oct. 5 (content does not
need to be complete at this point)
• Second draft after incorporation of feedback due Monday Oct. 10 (last session of class).
You will share your newspaper page with other class members this day.
• Final version should be submitted electronically on the day of your final exam.

References
Bachman, L.F. 2007. “What Is the Construct? The Dialectic of Abilities and Contexts in Defining Con-
structs in Language Assessment.” In Language Testing Reconsidered, edited by J. Fox, M. Wesche, D.
Bayliss, L. Cheng, C. Turner, and C. Doe, 41–71. Ontario, CA: University of Ottawa Press.
Bachman, L.F. 2014. “Ongoing Challenges in Language Assessment.” In The Companion to Language
Assessment, edited by A.J. Kunnan, 565–582. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Bachman, L.F., and A.S. Palmer. 1996. Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful
Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bachman, L.F., and A.S. Palmer. 2006. “The Construct Validation of the FSI Oral Interview.” Language
Learning, 31(1): 67–86.
Bailey, K.M. 1998. Learning about Language Assessment: Dilemmas, Decisions, and Directions. Pacific
Grove, CA: Heinle & Heinle.
Bijankhan, M., and P. Shayestefar. 2016. “Corpus-Based Insights into Modeling a Level-Specific Persian
Language Proficiency Test (PLPT): Development and Factor Structure of the PLPT Listening Tasks.”
Journal of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 5(1): 19–42.
Brown, H.D. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Longman.
Canale, M., and M. Swain. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language
Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics, 1: 1–47.
Carr, N. 2011. Designing and Analyzing Language Tests. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cumming, A. 2009. “Language Assessment in Education: Tests, Curricula, and Teaching.” Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 29: 90–100.
Cumming, A. 2013. “Validation of Language Assessments.” In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics,
edited by C.A. Chapelle, 1–10. Wiley-Blackwell.
Davies, A. 2014. “Fifty Years of Language Testing.” In The Companion to Language Assessment, edited
by A.J. Kunnan, 1–21. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Ellis, R. 2003. Task-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 2018. Reflections on Task-Based Language Teaching. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Fairclough, M. 2011. “Testing the Lexical Recognition Task with Spanish/English Bilinguals in the
United States.” Language Testing, 28(2): 273–297.
Fox, J. 2008. “Alternative Assessment.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Education, edited by E. Sho-
hamy and N.H. Hornberger, 97–109. New York: Springer and Business Media LLC.
Fulcher, G. 2010. Practical Language Testing. London: Hodder Education.
Fulcher, G. 2012. “Assessment Literacy for the Language Classroom.” Language Assessment Quar-
terly, 9(2): 113–132.
Fulcher, G., and N. Owen. 2016. “Dealing with the Demands of Language Testing and Assessment.” In
Handbook of English Language Teaching, edited by G. Hall, 109–120. London: Routledge.

467
 Nahal Akbari

Ghonsooli, B. 2010. “[Tarahi va Ravaee Sanji-e Azmoon-e Basandegi-e Zaban-e Faris] Development
and Validation of a Persian Language Proficiency Test.” [Pazhuhesh-e Zabanhay-e Khareji] Foreign
Language Research, 57: 115–129.
Kane, M. 1992. “An Argument-Based Approach to Validation.” Psychological Bulletin, 112: 527–535.
Kane, M. 2006. “Validation.” In Educational Measurement, edited by R.L. Brennan, 4th ed., 17–64.
Washington, DC: National Council on Measurement in Education and the American Council on
Education.
Llosa, L. 2014. “Assessing Heritage Language Learners.” In The Companion to Language Assessment,
edited by A.J. Kunnan, 256–269. London: John Wiley and Sons.
Long, M. 2015. Second Language Acquisition and Task-Based Language Teaching. Oxford: Wiley
Blackwell.
Malone, M. 2008. “Training in Second Language Assessment.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Educa-
tion, edited by E. Shohamy and N. Hornbeger, Vol. VII, 225–239. New York: Springer.
Malone, M.E. 2013. “The Essentials of Assessment Literacy: Contrasts Between Testers and Users.”
Language Testing, 30(3): 329–344.
Martone, A., and S. Sireci. 2009. “Evaluating Alignment Between Curriculum, Assessment and Instruc-
tion.” Review of Educational Research, 79(4): 1332–1361.
McNamara, T., and C. Roever. 2006. Language Testing: The Social Dimension. Oxford: Blackwell.
Megerdoomian, K. 2010. “Linguistic Patterns in Heritage Persian Instruction.” In Proceedings of STAR-
TALK Persian Teacher’s Workshop for Professional Curriculum and Materials Development, Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, July 2010.
Messick, S. 1996. “Validity and washback in language testing.” Language Testing, 13(3): 241–256.
Norris, J.M. 2002. “Interpretations, Intended Uses and Designs in Task-Based Language Assessment.”
Language Testing, 19(4): 337–346.
Norris, J.M. 2009. “Task-Based Teaching and Testing.” In The Handbook of Language Teaching, edited
by M. Long and C. Doughty, 578–594. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Norris, J.M. 2012. “Purposeful Language Assessment: Selecting the Right Alternative Test.” English
Teaching Forum, 3: 41–45.
President Rouhani Signs into Law Bill on Persian Language. December 2018. http://en.farsnews.com/
newstext.aspx?nn=13970928000913.
Sahraei, M., and A. Jalili. 2012. “[Mabani-e Tahye va Tadvin-e Azmoon-e Maharati-e Farsi (AMFA)]
Theoretical Foundations for the Development of a Persian Proficiency Test (PLPT).” Journal of
Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 1(1): 123–150.
Salaberry, R. 2000. “Revising the Revised Format of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview.” Language
Testing, 17(3): 289–310.
Samuda, V., and M. Bygate. 2008. Tasks in Second Language Learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Scarino, A. 2013. “Language Assessment Literacy as Self-Awareness: Understanding the Role of Inter-
pretation in Assessment and in Teacher Learning.” Language Testing, 30(3): 309–327.
Sedighi, A. 2010. “Teaching Persian to Heritage Speakers.” Journal of Iranian Studies, 43(5): 683–697.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van den Branden, K., ed. 2006. Task-Based Language Teaching in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Van Gorp, K., and B. Deygers. 2014. “Task-Based Language Assessment.” In The Companion to Lan-
guage Assessment, edited by A.J. Kunnan, 306–321. London: John Wiley and Sons.

468
 PART IV

Social aspects of second

language acquisition and
pedagogy of Persian
 23
PERSIAN AS A NATIONAL
LANGUAGE, MINORITY
LANGUAGES AND
MULTILINGUAL EDUCATION
IN IRAN NEGAR DAVARI ARDAKANIPERSIAN AS A NATIONAL LANGUAGE

Negar Davari Ardakani

23.1 Introduction
Iran has been a multiethnic, multilingual and multicultural country during its long history.
As far back as the Achaemenid era (550–330 BC), inscriptions were written in various
languages of the diverse ethnic groups that inhabited the then Persian Empire, where lan-
guages and religions were addressed (Finn 2011, 219). The shift from multilinguality to
Persian as a dominant language is believed to have occurred around four centuries after
the advent of Islam in Iran (637 AD), when Persian became a dominant spoken and written
language through a gradual natural bottom-top supra-stratization process of standardization
and officialization (Perry 2012). It is believed that this standardization occurred because
of the high status of the literary works in Persian and the support it received by the soci-
ety (Modarresi 1989, 246; Perry 2012, 70–94; Sarli 2008, 23–54). Hence, the diachronic
aspect of the survival, transformation and dominance of Persian has been a matter of covert
policy implemented by many Muslim Persians who refused to learn Arabic and demanded
an interpretation of the Koran in Persian (Frye 2000, 152–156; Spooner 2012, 89–117)
and not an imposition by a political power, a process that is also related to the continuing
development of Persian in the countries it has been spoken. The study of the situation is
considered by Spooner as shedding light on hidden aspects of language policy (2012, 90).
Perry (2012) considers Ferdowsi’s national masterpiece, the Shahname (The Epic of Kings)
as an overt/institutional measure towards promoting Persian language and literature, which
only appeared in the tenth century.
Miskub and Banuazizi (1992, 25) emphasize on the role of Persian in maintaining “Iranian-
ness” versus “Arabness”. They believe that after Iranians became Muslim, they urged to main-
tain and incorporate their Iranian identity within the new Islamic identity through Persian
language and not Persian arts, which did not accommodate Islam (ibid., 46–50).
Persian has maintained its high status among Iranians throughout its history with almost
no interference with the rights and opportunities of other languages’ speakers. However, mid-
19th-century radical sociopolitical changes affected the situation in some ways. During World

471
 Negar Davari Ardakani

War II due to the inefficiency of the local government and interferences of foreign powers,
Iran was divided by Britain and Russia. Reza Shah aiming at unifying the country through his
despotic Persianification of the nation. A modern national identity was built through Persian
language and literature and Iran’s pre-Islamic history and culture by ignoring the multiethnic,
multilinguistic, multicultural, and multireligious reality of the Iranian state (Kia 1998, 9–10)
and by violating the rights of ethnic minorities, tribes and the rural population to the point that
some groups tried to seek independence from the central government. However, Reza Shah
succeeded in unifying the collapsing country; he offended the minority language speakers
by depriving them of using their mother tongues and practicing their cultures. In addition,
in a time in which not many of the ethnic populations could speak and comprehend Persian,
a monolingual Persian literacy program was imposed on them, which caused lack of confi-
dence in the targeted populations because of the failures they experienced due to a neglected
pedagogical basis; they had to learn to read and write Persian while they could not speak and
comprehend the language – as minority language speakers, the literacy program was exactly
the same as the one for Persian speakers.
However, today the problem is partly solved due to the vast coverage of Persian media
throughout the country and a very recent offering of a short pre-literacy program in prov-
inces where people’s mother tongue is not Persian. Nevertheless, a 10–20% gap still exists
between the literacy rates of Persian (as mother tongue) speakers and minority languages’
speakers.
On the other hand, the contemporary digital era and the consequent broad coverage of
satellites with ethnic language programs throughout the country including the borderline
provinces made mother-tongue languages more accessible to satisfy some identity needs of
the speakers.
It is worth mentioning that Iran is not the only country having a monolingual educational
system based on the national language (see Harrison 2019). Despite the fact that multilingual-
ism is the norm of language societies, most countries’ educational systems are based upon
national/official languages, and multilingualism has been neglected and disregarded as a natu-
ral norm of societies (Benson 2014, 11–29), relying partly on the stereotypical belief that there
is an instinct connection between national unity and the use of a single official language. The
belief is today considered as a myth by many researchers, who argue that using and valuing
one language at the expense of excluding many others could create divisions, inequalities
and inequities. Mother tongues should be acknowledged, as they contribute to building self-
identities of the speakers. Neglecting them could lead to the formation of deficient identities
that may ultimately threaten the nation’s wellbeing.
Iranians including the ethnic minorities have continuously shown their national unity in
many political occasions during the past 40 years (e.g. in the 1979 revolution, Iran-Iraq war
[1980–1988], Mohammad Khatami’s [1977–2005] and Rouhani’s [2013-present] presidential
elections). The inclusive social contributions of the nation show that the minorities have well
integrated into the multidimensions of Iranian national identity, which is partly due to their
long-lasting residence in their territories in the country.
Despite the earlier-mentioned situation and considering the basic measures that have been
taken regarding minority rights, there is still a long way to pave to maintain, nurture and
develop the language capital of the country, which at the same time paves the path towards
socioeconomic development. To achieve this, language-in-education planning based on a
sound understanding of multilingual settings and an awareness of the substantial value of the
capital of language(s) are required.

472
 Persian as a national language

This chapter, by looking into the historical and contemporary status of Persian as a national
language and the languages of Iran’s ethnic minorities, surveys the background scene of the
situation. By emphasizing the non-neutral and marked nature of standard languages (including
the standard versions of minority languages) and the underlying inequality of their speak-
ers, I highlight the inevitable hierarchical relation of co-existent languages and question the
implementation of ready-made solutions for Iran’s situation. I strongly argue against consid-
ering minority languages as a threat to the national language. I show that there is no conflict
between promoting a national language and at the same time cultivating minority languages.
The chapter will also delve into the related language-in-education aspects and discuss the
pros and cons of the situation in the context of globalization. The argument is that Iran could
linguistically, socially, politically and economically enjoy its rich linguistic capital by incor-
porating the teaching of multiple languages including minority languages into the public edu-
cational scheme. Multilingual education relying on multiple linguistic and cultural capitals
provides diverse canals for acquiring and transferring knowledge and skills and promotes
communication. It, therefore, affects the contribution styles of generations and creates social
opportunities. This means that a decision to teach/use or not to teach/use a language could
be influential in determining the future life of generations. In addition, within the Persian lan-
guage, there are different varieties. For a discussion on core versus peripheral varieties of
Persian and the necessity to shape a common framework for teaching Persian to speakers of
other languages, read Chapter 24 in this volume.
Many researchers agree that the first step in designing a fair education system is to under-
stand the sociohistoric context of the minority communities (in this case Iran’s) (Obaidul
Hamid, Hoa, and Baldauf 2013, 3; quoted in Tupas 2015, 118). Therefore, in the next section,
a brief overview of the sociohistorical context of Persian and some major minority languages
in Iran is presented.

23.2 An overview of Iran’s language landscape

Currently, 78 languages are spoken in Iran, of which 14 are non-Iranian and 64 are Iranian lan-
guages. The two languages Avestan and Salchuq have died and still, seven more languages are
dying (Zoroastrian Dari, Tat, Zoroastrian, Khorosh, Halaula, Senaya and Mandaic). Twenty-
nine languages are in trouble (3 threatened and 26 shifting towards Persian).
From the remaining 42 languages, Persian as Iran’s national and official language is spo-
ken by the majority of the population (98%) including 49,600,000 (61%) as their mother
tongue. South Azerbaijani/Azeri, Central Kurdish, Arabic, Armenian and Gilaki are consid-
ered as Iran’s institutional languages; Azeri and Kurdish are wider communication languages,
and the three latter are educational languages. The total number of vigorous languages are
26; among them Southern and Western Baluchi, Mazandarani, (Afghanistan) Dari, Georgian,
Kazakh, Northern Kurdish, Southern Pashto, Talysh and Turkmen are considered as develop-
ing languages. Only 12 (15%) are non-indigenous languages consisting of Kashkay, Khalaj,
South Azerbaijani/Azeri, Khorasani, Turkmen and Kazakh (from the Altaic/Turkish family),
Gulf-spoken and Mesopotamian Arabic plus Assyrian (from the Afro-Asiatic Semitic family),
Armenian (a non-Iranian Indo-European language), Georgian (a Kartevian language) and Bra-
hui (a Dravidian language) (Simons and Fenning 2018, 6–52).
Persians are Iran’s largest ethnic group, comprising 61% of the population. Turks com-
prise 18%, Kurds 10%, Arabs 2%, Baluchis 2%, and Lors 6%. Others (including Mazanda-
rani, Talysh, Gilaki, Armenians, Assyrians, and Georgians) comprise 1% (Iran Population,

473
 Negar Davari Ardakani

2018–10–02). However, numbers for the speakers of the related languages are reported
slightly differently; for example Aliakbari and Khosravian (2014, 191) report Persian
speakers (as their mother tongue) 51%, Turkish speakers (25.4%) followed by Kurdish
speakers (8%), Gilaki and Mazandarani speakers (7.4%), Lori and Balochi speakers (4%),
Arabic speakers (3%) and Laki speakers (1.2%). The majority of Iran’s minority language
speakers live in borderline provinces; however, nowadays due to an increase in mobility,
minority language speakers have dispersed all over the country (see Marchant 2015, 31,
54, 82, 104, 130).
The term “minority language” in the context of Iran could refer to both non-indigenous lan-
guages (e.g. Azeri, Turkmen, Arabic and Armenian) and indigenous languages (e.g. Kurdish,
Baluchi, Lori, Gilaki and Mazandarani). Thus, it may refer to speakers of minor languages,
major languages, tribal or ethnic and religious minorities with specific languages. Benson
(2014, 11–29) avoids using the term “minority language” and instead uses the term “Non-
dominated languages (NDL)”, trying to de-emphasize the number of speakers. In my view
“domination” is just as relative as “minority” and therefore still imprecise, as it may imply
“world domination” or some very limited “local domination”. Therefore, I choose to continue
using the term “minority language”.

23.2.1 Iranian languages

An overview of Iran’s linguistic situation Ethnologue report combined with the available his-
torical analysis of the situation (Iranica) shows that the majority of the languages spoken in
Iran are Iranian/indigenous languages, which have been used in the region and by their speak-
ers for millennia (Simons and Fenning 2018).

23.2.1.1 Persian
Modern Persian is an Indo-European language promoted from spoken Middle Persian (Pahl-
avi) due to its homo-glossic status, inclusivity (of ethnic and social communities), neutrality,
its usage as a trade, bureaucracy and literary language (by the Turkish and Mongol dynasties),
the society’s preference towards preserving bilingualism regarding Arabic and other dominant
languages such as Turkic languages, and last but not least the composition of the epic of Shah-
nameh (Perry 2012, 70–94).
The language has successfully resisted change while maintaining and elaborating its pro-
ductivity due to the natural process of standardization it has undergone. It has functioned as an
international literary language and a major spoken language in the last millennium throughout
the Iranian plateau, Central Asia, and India, influencing Konya and Istanbul, Cairo and Mom-
basa, Saray and Kazan (Paul November 19, 2013). It has also been used as the official foreign
language in China from the early 13th century into the late 14th and as the primary literary
language in India up to the 19th century. Persian was also used by the speakers of Parthian,
Sogdian Khwarazmian and (pre-Turkish) Azari as the standard spoken and written language
of their time, a situation that has continued among the speakers of current Iranian dialects and
minority languages, e.g. Lori, Semnani, Yaghnobi, Qashqa’i Turkish (Perry 2012, 70–94).
The use of Persian was delimited to Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan only from the early 20th
century due to the emergence of nation-states and national languages. Iran’s constitutional
law has introduced Persian as the official language and script of Iran and the lingua franca of
people and obliged all to use Persian in official documents, correspondence and texts, as well
as in textbooks (article 15).

474
 Persian as a national language

23.2.1.2 Kurdish
Kurdish is a West Iranian language consisting of a set of closely related dialects that are spo-
ken in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Major dialects of Kurdish spoken in Iran are Southern
and Northern dialects including Sorani (from Uremia to Mahabad to Divandareh spoken by
3,250,000), Kurmanji or Shikak (close to the Iran-Turkey border in northeastern parts of Iran
and in the cities of Bojnord, Quchan and Mashhad, spoken by 350,000), Ardalani, which is
highly affected by Hawrami and Kalahari (spoken in Sanandaj) and Kalhori, Hawrami and
Laki (in Kermanshah, spoken by 2,000,000). Hawrami and Jaff are also spoken in the west
of the land between Sanadaj and Kermanshah. Some Kurdish dialects are mutually incom-
prehensible, none of them has gone through the process of standardization and yet none of
them has the status of a standard version of the language. Due to the strong influence of the
Sorani tradition in Sulaymaniyah (in Iraqi Kurdistan), it has become the dominant literary and
standard written language in Iranian Kurdistan too. Iranian Kurds are reported to be nearly
8 million, representing around 10 percent of Iran’s population. Most Iranian Kurds live in
the provinces of Kurdistan and Kermanshah in the borders of Iraq and Turkey. Some Kurds
also live in West Azerbaijan, Hamadan, Ilam, Northern Khorasan, Razavi Khorasan, Qazvin,
Mazandaran, Khuzestan, Sistan and Baluchestan and Lorestan (Simons et al. 2018, 6–52).
Kurdish tribes have historically lived in the area semi-autonomously for centuries organized
in tribal clans and emirates, until by the end of 19th century when a national identity emerged
in response to social transformation, Ottoman pressures and western influence in the Middle
East region (Maisel 2018, xiii).
In the Middle Ages, most Kurdish writers/poets composed their works in Arabic, Persian or
Gorani (a Kurdish dialect with exclusively literary use). In the last few decades, Iran’s national
literacy movement has tended a shift of Gorani towards Persian, Hawrami, Laki and Kalhori.
Kurdish literary figures have played significant roles in Persian literature (e.g. the Persian
novel Shohar-e­ Ahoo Khanom by Ali Mohammad Afghani and the earliest examples of Per-
sian free verse poems by Abulqasim Lahouti, the translation of many world masterpieces into
Persian by Mohammad Ghazi and Ebrahim Younesi) (Maisel 2018, 236–237).
As in most border provinces, in Kurdistan literacy in Persian is below the average rate
of the country and is reported to be 81% (Mehr News, 23.12.2018). Maisel believes that as
a result of the monolingual Persian literacy program in schools, young Kurdish children are
more inclined towards speaking Persian, especially in big cities, and the knowledge of Kurdish
literacy is low. However, he states that some private schools and tutors are teaching Kurdish
language and literature. Very recently the Iranian Ministry of Education has run a one-month
preparatory Persian course for first-grade elementary students and also approved a course on
the Kurdish language in middle schools (Mehr News. 3.08.2015). In 2015 the Ministry of Sci-
ence, Research and Technology granted the permit for establishing the BA program in Kurdish
Language and Literature at the University of Kurdistan in Sanandaj as enforcement of article
15 of Iran’s Constitution law. Kurdish magazines and newspapers are published in Kurdish
cities, and local TV and radio channels have programs in some Kurdish dialects (Maisel 2018,
237–238).
On the other hand, Iranian Kurdish musicians have almost dominated the nation’s contem-
porary music (e.g. Keyhan Kalhor, Shahram Nazeri, and the Kamkars) with audiences in the
country and around the world (ibid).
The majority of Kurds practice Sunni Islam, although some are Shiites, Christians, Jewish
or followers of Ahl-e Hagh/Yarsanism (Marchant 2015, 102). The total number of the Kurdish
ethnic community around the world is an estimated 35 million (Maisel 2018, xii).

475
 Negar Davari Ardakani

23.2.1.3 Baluchi
Baluchi is a Northwestern Iranian language, a descendant of Parthian, and related to modern
Kurdish, Tati and Ṭālysh, but very different from them in many respects (Elfenbein 1988). It is
the principal language spoken in Marv oasis in Soviet Turkmenistan, Sīstān and Baluchistan,
Hormozgan, Kerman and South Khorasan in Iran (Simons and Fenning 2018, 6–52), Nīmrūz
province in Afghanistan (where it has been an official language since 1978) and Makran in Paki-
stan. Large populations of Baluchi speakers reside in the United Arab Emirates and in Kuwait.
Many Baluchi speakers are bi- or multilingual. Baluchi has been used as a written language
from the first half of the 19th century and is now written mainly in Pakistan and sporadically in
India, Iran (usually through a modified version of Urdu script) and Afghanistan (through Pashto
script). However, it does not yet have a standard written language. The Baluchi population in
Iran is about 2 million (Marchant 2015, 82). However, the total population is about 10 million
(40,000 in Soviet Turkmenistan, 200,000 in Afghanistan, 1,178,000 in Iran (Simons and Fen-
ning 2018, 6–52)), 500,000 in the Arabian Peninsula and 3,600,000 in Pakistan. Baluchi has
borrowed many words mainly from Persian and from several different Indo-Aryan languages
and Brahui – a Dravidian language with which it had been in close contact. Major dialects of
Baluchi spoken in Iran are Khoroshi, Lotuni and Makrani (by more than 500,000), Rakhshani,
Saravani, Yarahmadza and Bashkardi (more than 700,000). Different Baluchi dialects are com-
pletely comprehensible to all Baluchi speakers. Baluchi has a rich oral literature and its docu-
mentation started by the British only in the 19th century. The Sistan-Baluchistan literacy rate
for 2017 is reported to be 76%, which is the lowest rate among Iran’s provinces while allocating
the biggest growth in literacy to itself (Financial Tribune, 05 April 2017).
Baluchs are largely Sunni Muslims and around 10% of them are nomadic or semi-nomadic.

23.2.1.4 Lori
The Lori dialect continuum just like Persian belongs to the southern branch of Western Ira-
nian. It is an oral language similar to Persian spoken by more than 2 million Iranians (Simons
and Fenning 2018, 13, 19–21). The main difference between Lori dialects and Persian is in
their phonology. The language is spoken in different dialects of Southern and Northern Lori,
Bakhtiyari and Kumzari. Northern Lori is spoken by 1,500,000 in Hamedan, Ilam, Khuzestan,
Lorestan and Markazi, and South Lori is spoken by 875,000 in Bushehr, Fars, Khuzestan,
Kohkiluyeh and Boyerahmad. Bakhtiyari is spoken by 1,000,000 in Khuzestan, Chaharma-
hal and Bakhtiyari, Lorestan, Kohkiluyeh and Boyerahmad, Esfehan, Markazi and Kumzari,
and by 700 in Hormozgan. Dezfuli, Shushtari, Andimeshki, Borujerdi, Giōni, Ḵorramābādi,
Chagani, and Bālā Gerivāʾi, Feyli, Nahavandi, Mahali (Rural) and Solasi are among other
dialects of Lori (MacKinnon 2011). Approximately 700,000 Lori speakers are monolingual.
There is no written script for this language. The population of Lors is 4.8 million. They
are a mix of Persian and Arab descent and mainly live along the western border with Iraq in
the provinces of Lorestan, Bakhtiari, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmed. Smaller numbers live in
Khuzestan, Fars, Ilam, Hamadan, Esfahan, Markazi, Hormozgan and Bushehr. The majority
of Lors are Shiite Muslims.

23.2.1.5 Gilaki, Mazandarani and Shahmirzadi

Gilaki is an Indo-European Iranian language spoken in Gilan province by 2,400,000. It is
considered a vigorous language. Its dialects are Galeshi (Rural Deylami), Rashti, Rudbari

476
 Persian as a national language

(Urban Deylami), Some’e Sarai, Lahijani, Langerudi, Rudsari, Bandar Anzali, and Fumani.
It is similar to Mazandarani and is used at home, market and work at all ages. The attitudes
towards the language are positive. Gilaki has a rich literature and is used in published peri-
odicals, radio and TV. The language has dictionaries and grammars. In 2012, the Bible was
published in Gilaki. The script is Arabic. It is under a heavy influence of Persian (Simons and
Fenning 2018, 15).
Mazandarani (with its two dialects Sari and Tabari) is spoken in Mazandaran, Golestan and
Semnan by 2,340,000 people, and Shahmirzadi, another same-family language, is spoken by
36,000 in Semnan.

23.2.2  Non-Iranian
­ languages
Around 30% of Iran’s population is from a non-Persian ethnic background and speaks non-
Iranian languages as their mother tongue besides Persian as the official national language.
Some of the most important are introduced in the following.

23.2.2.1 Turkic languages

Turkic speakers began entering Iran at the 11th century and Turkicized the Iranian lan-
guages during the last millennium in Azerbaijan and in western Iran, the areas along
the Alborz up to Qazvin and east of the Zagros Mountains. During most of the second
millennium, Turk dynasties such as the Safavids ruled the country (Windfuhr April 17,
2012). In 1828, Iran’s Azeris were divided from the neighboring Azerbaijan by the Treaty
of Turkmanchai. The community size of Azerbaijani-Turkish in Tehran, East Azerbaijan,
West Azerbaijan, Ardabil and Zanjan added to the smaller numbers in Hamadan, Qazvin
and Karaj is fairly large, estimated at 16–22% of the country’s population (world popula-
tion review). They are the majority in the northwestern part of Iran and therefore a cultur-
ally dominant group.
Two distinct branches of Oghuz Turkic languages and dialects, i.e. the southwestern branch
of Turkic and Khalaj (spoken by only 51,000), are used in Iran. Azeri (varieties of which are
spoken in eastern Turkey and the republic of Azerbaijan and Northern Iraq) is the most promi-
nent Turkic variety spoken in Iran. In addition to Azeri, the transitional central Oghuz dialects,
Sonqori, South Oghuz, prominently Qashqa’I (spoken by 959,000), Khorasan Turkic variety
(spoken by 886,000) and Turkmen of northern Khorasan (spoken by 719,000) are among other
Turkic dialects used in Iran. It is worth noting that the prestige variety for Iran’s Azeri is the
one spoken in Tabriz (Windfur May 1, 2012).
More than 10,000,000 Iranian Azeris speak Azeri, write in Persian and cite prayers in Ara-
bic. Unlike their neighboring Azeri speakers, they have never changed their script to Latin,
even during one year of declared independence from Iran under the name of Azerbaijan Peo-
ple’s Government from 1945 to 1946. Today in Iran, the books and magazines published in
Azerbaijani use the Arabic alphabet (Khalili 2015, 168–169). Khalili’s survey shows that most
ordinary Iranian Azerbaijani ethnic citizens, either in Tehran or in Tabriz, described them-
selves as under the full influence of Iranian nationality. Azerbaijanis have played an active role
in both the process of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and during the Iran-Iraq war (1980–1988),
which is believed to have intensified the merging of Azerbaijani identity in Iranian national
identity (ibid., 171; Cottam 1979). A comparison of literacy rates published by the Statisti-
cal Center of Iran in 2006 shows that the rate of literacy in Persian speaking provinces is

477
 Negar Davari Ardakani

approximately 10% more than Turkish speaking provinces (Modarres 2004, 37). Since 23
September 2015, a BA program of Turkish language has offered by Allameh Tabatabayee
University/Tehran.
Azeris are well integrated into Iranian society and therefore present in all different socio-
economic and politic strata, and the majority of the working class and trade human resources.
They are well educated and prominent in sociocultural and educational activities and move-
ments. They are mostly Shiite Muslims and hence have intermarriages with other non-Turkish
Iranians (Nercissians 2001, 62–63).

23.2.2.2 Arabic
Arabic speakers began entering and residing in Iran at the seventh century. Arabic as the lan-
guage of Qur’an and Islam has gained the status of Iran’s religious language from the emer-
gence of Islam and also became Iran’s official language in the early centuries of Islam. Persian
and other languages of Iran were remarkably influenced by Arabic (Windfuhr March 29,
2012). Iranian Arabic-speaking populations mainly reside in the southwest Khuzestan prov-
ince and along the borders of the Persian Gulf in Bushehr, Fars, Hormozgan, Kerman and
Yazd; among them, 260,000 speak Gulf Arabic and 1,280,000 speak Mesopotamian Arabic
(Simons and Fenning 2018, 37–39). Two percent of Iran’s total population are Arabs (more
than 1.5 million) (world population review). Arabic has been given the status of educational
language and is being taught after elementary school at all levels. It has also been taught at
universities since 1934. A majority of Arabs are Shiite Muslims and a minority are Sunni; very
few are Christian and Jews.

23.2.2.3 Armenian
Armenian is a non-Iranian Indo-European language that is the national language of Arme-
nia – Iran’s neighboring country in the west. More than half of its 200,000 population reside
in Tehran in some specific suburbs. The rest live in Azerbaijan provinces (Tabriz, Urumiyeh,1
Ardebil, Ahar, Khoy, Shahpur/Salmas), Shiraz and some also in villages of Gorgan. The total
population of Armenians in the world is 10–16 million. Iranian Armenians resided in Iran long
before the Ottoman Empire Genocide in 1915, which formed the Armenian diaspora (Nercis-
sians 2001, 61–62). Armenians have had their first schools related to the church in 12 AD and
their first modern schools in Iran since 1833 (Baghdasarian 2001). Iran’s Armenians are Chris-
tian. Therefore, intermarriages between them and non-Christian Iranians are rare. Armenians
are both a linguistic and religious minority.

23.2.3 The landscape of minority languages in Iran

The earlier description of some of Iran’s language minorities shows that bilingualism or mul-
tilingualism is the norm of language societies in at least 30 of Iran’s provinces (Simons and
Fenning 2018, 36–39).
It is worth mentioning that language speakers including minority language speakers iden-
tify themselves by “complex, interesting layered patterns of cultural, ethnic, and linguistic
affiliations” (Windfuhr 2013, 15) including their local languages along with the national lan-
guage (Davari Ardakani and Mostafa 2011; Baheri 2008, 125). It is also important to know that
many of Iranian minority ethnic groups (e.g. Kurds, Baluchs, Lors and Gilakis) are indigenous

478
 Persian as a national language

people of the land and therefore they share a single cultural and historical heritage with major-
ity ethnic groups. Moreover, even the so-called non-indigenous residents of Iran have lived
in the land for several hundreds of years up to millennia and therefore are merged into the
native population. They have greatly contributed to the nation’s solidarity and sovereignty
throughout the history. Grebennikov (2013, 66) states that: “Iran has largely succeeded in
forging an identity that surpasses niche and tribal cleavages. However, modern Iranian his-
tory suggests that some external interventions might have sharpened ethnic cleavages within.”
Sridhar (1996, 327–347) reports the same situation regarding ethnic disputes in India: “The
British policy of ‘divide and rule’ had made minorities suspicious of the majority”. He sup-
ports his statement by referring to J. T. Sunderland’s book titled “India in Bondage” where he
proclaims, “Before the British came to India, there seems to have been little hostility between
Hindus and Muslims. . . . It is only since British Rule in India began” (1928, 267 quoted in
Sridhar 1996, 332).
During the past century, Iranians have sought full citizenship rights including the expansion
of culture-based practices, e.g. promotion of local languages for minorities at different levels
of education. Grebennikov (2013, 76) states that

Iran’s ethnic groups seem to have attained high ethnic self-esteem, with the ability
to open up more space for themselves by influencing the growing national reform
movement within the Iranian political system. They have repeatedly shown little
interest in ethnic-inspired instability and no interest in separatism or reunification
with outer related groups.

As a matter of fact, Iran’s constitution has guaranteed the minorities some fundamental
rights including the use of regional and tribal languages in the press and mass media, as well as
teaching of their literature in schools besides Persian (article 15). It has also promised protec-
tion by the law for all citizens as a whole regardless of their ethnic group or tribe, color, sex,
race, language, and the like (article 19) and all human, political, economic, social and cultural
rights in conformity with Islamic criteria (article 20). Nevertheless, the constitution has not
overtly stated the right for the minorities to establish their own schools. However, Armenians
have had their own modern schools since 1833 (Baghdasarian 2001) in Tehran, Isfahan and
Urumiyeh, and Armenian has been taught in Isfahan University as a Bachelor of Arts degree.
Regarding other minorities, recently some permanent measures have been introduced in Iran’s
education system to facilitate teaching in minority languages or to teach such languages as a
second language; e.g., since 2015 a one-month course is offered in bilingual primary schools
to make sure that the students already speak and understand Persian before the Persian literacy
program starts (Mehr News, 3 Aug 2015). Another measure taken against ethnic division is
the allocation of a specific portion of mother universities’ seats (sahmiye-bandi
­ konkur) to the
so-called deprived areas (including many borderline provinces with minority language speak-
ers) since 1982 (Mehr News. 30.07.2014), which has enhanced the mobility and mixture of the
population (Keiko 2004, 391–392).

23.3.2 Planning for minority languages in the context of a respected

dominant standard national language
The unequal confrontation of minority languages with standard official languages has
long been the concern of language planners and policymakers as well as social activists.

479
 Negar Davari Ardakani

However, there have been different approaches towards the situation, some of which are
the following:

a) Explicit neglect of minority languages by implementing policies to empower the national/

official language at the expense of minority languages loss;
b) Implicit neglect of minority languages by implementing a laissez-faire policy;
c) Providing minority language speakers some of their linguistic rights such as to speak
and use their language at home, work, trade, media and literature (but not in mainstream
education);
d) Running a literacy program in minority language beside the national language literacy;
e) Running a bilingual/multilingual literacy program;
f) Running the literacy program only in minority language;
g) Introducing the minority language as an educational/second/foreign language at the ter-
tiary level;
h) Running a multilingual and multiliteracy education program.

As is obvious, all options d to h require developing a standard variety of the minority

language(s), a non-neutral process that may result in crucial status problems and challenges
(Lane 2015, 263–283). The challenge is centered on the quality of the users’ relationship to
the variety that is chosen to be the standard (acceptance/rejection). The problem is that if the
users reject the chosen variety, standardization will not empower the minority language and
on the contrary, a new form of inequality and exclusion may emerge for those who reject the
new standard code.
The official approach towards minority languages in Iran matches with c. Iran’s Minor-
ity languages have not been used as the public schools literacy language, and as men-
tioned only recently, Istanbul Turkish and Surani Kurdish have been included in university
programs.
To maintain minority languages and to fight against the hegemony of national/dominant
language(s), Mother-tongue-based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) (options d and e)
(Tupas 2015, 112–116) has been introduced. It is based on the proposition that “education in
mother-tongue is a linguistic right” (Kosonen 2005, 96) emphasizing that “effective learning
is best achieved through learners’ mother tongue” (UNESCO 2009). MTB-MLE has proved
to improve learning, increase political participation and expand life chances (Tupas 2015,
116). However, it has recently been criticized because of the unequal status of the languages
involved (Tupas 2015, 117). The criticism is in line with Lane’s (2015, 264) criticism of the
standardization process. In this context it is understandable that the success of MTB-MLE is
based on learners’ positive attitude towards their local mother tongue. Therefore, it could not
be taken for granted that “MTB-MLT removes the stigma from the face of minority languages”
(Tupas 2015, 117). Surveys have shown that Iran’s minority languages’ speakers’ attitudes are
positive to their languages; however, there has been no survey of attitudes towards teaching
them as literacy languages. Some of the probable challenges in the way of introducing minor-
ity languages into the education and literacy system are the following: an increase of study
load, financial burden of designing and implementing a new curriculum and the documenta-
tion and standardization of the oral minority languages, and the probable stigma that the new
standard will cause.
Iran’s minority speakers respect and acknowledge learning Persian both as a national herit-
age capital and as the nation’s lingua franca besides their mother tongues (Davari Ardakani
and Mostafa 2011; Baheri 2008). It is interesting to know the first modern Persian primary

480
 Persian as a national language

schools before the establishment of public nation-wide schools by Reza Shah had been estab-
lished by Hassan Rushdiyeh in Tabriz.
Iran’s language planning from the time of Reza Shah and his nationalistic Persian-in-
literacy policy almost a century ago has mainly focused on Persian literacy advancement and
Persian word-coinage for foreign loan words. The latter continued to be the focus of the second
and third Academies up to the present time. It is worth mentioning that the lexical resources
of local languages and dialects are considered as auxiliary resources of word-coinage after
Persian and Arabic ones (dastur-ol-amal-e vaje-gozini farhangestan). However, it is only since
2012 that teaching Persian as a foreign language (TPFL) is institutionally recognized and
followed by the Academy of Persian Language and Literature under the branch of the Sa’adi
Foundation. Nevertheless, a TPFL master’s program had been introduced by the Ministry
of Science, Research and Technology three decades ago on 13 February 1994. However, a
specialized journal of dialectology has been published by the Academy, and documentation
of Iran’s languages and dialects has been started by the Institution of Cultural Heritage; the
local languages and dialects of Iran have not been included for their own sake in the plan-
ning agenda of the language academies during the past century. Since the establishment of
the language planning institutions and even before that from the early 20th century up to very
recently, language authorities have considered the cultivation of Iran’s minority languages as
a threat to Persian as the national language (Davari Ardakani 2008, 269–295) and a laissez-
faire (leave-it-alone) policy has been implemented relying on the myth of “one nation, one
language”, which had once been a crucial factor in preserving national solidarity. It seems that
the language policy, national unity and cultural identity plans (of Iran] have conservatively
treated minority languages and dialects (Modarresi 2006, 1–3) under the strong influence of
the nationalistic Pahlavi regime until the recent time (Marchant 2015, 12). Persian language
planning researchers believe that promoting a national language is not in contradiction with
nurturing other languages and dialects (Fallah 2007, 131–164; Modarresi 1992, 177–206,
2006, 2; Davari Ardakani 2010, 11–39). They have also emphasized the necessity of providing
proper conditions and devising efficient methods of teaching Persian to the speakers of local
languages. They have pointed out that educational failures due to insufficient proficiency in
Persian may cause lack of confidence, identity crisis and social deprivation in the minority
populations, while developing local languages and dialects could strengthen the speakers’
positive attitudes towards themselves as well as towards the national language (Davari Arda-
kani and Moghani 2016, 21–44; Davari Ardakani and Mostafa 2011, 209–323; Modarresi
2005, 129–146).
A comparative educational assessment of bilingual children in East Azerbaijan (Tabriz
and some surrounding villages) and their peer Persian monolinguals (in Tehran and some
surrounding villages) shows an educational gap between the two groups (Modarres 2004,
31–41), a gap that may lead to a language shift towards Persian as Bosnali (2003) reports
for Iranian Turkish speakers in Tehran and Salmas (a town in the province of Western
Azerbaijan).
As mentioned earlier, attitudes towards Persian and the regional languages are shown to be
positive nation-widely both among Persian speakers and minority speakers (Davari Ardakani
and Mostafa 2011, 209–323; Baheri 2008, 10; Davari Ardakani 2006, 1–24). Mostafa (2008,
123), Baheri (2008, 126) and Aliakbari and Darabi (2012) through their attitude-assessing sur-
veys respectively in Kurdistan, Azerbaijan and for Persian, Turkish, Kurdish and Lori showed
that there is no conflict between appreciating, using and maintaining mother tongues (as sym-
bols of individual and local identity and as intergroup communication tools) and at the same
time using and acknowledging Persian (as a symbol of national identity). In the same line,

481
 Negar Davari Ardakani

attitudes towards Azeri language and literature, its music, ethnic history and affiliation are
shown to be positive among Tabrizi youth (Nouri 2015, 1476–1481).
On the other hand, Persian language and literature have long enjoyed the contribution of
many Iranian poets, writers and language experts whose native language is not Persian; they
have actively supported Persian through their works and even by their contributions to the
Academies of Persian during the past century. Acknowledging this convergent contribution
requires the emergence of a new discourse in Persian and minority language planning, a dis-
course based on the premise that “no contradiction exists between promoting Persian as the
national language and cultivating minority languages as local languages”. The formation of
the discourse is primarily due to a deep understanding of the advantages of multilingualism
in general and multilingual education specifically and a reconsideration of the myth of “one
nation, one language”, a belief that although it has had a great role in uniting the country since
the beginning of the 20th century, is not necessarily true and does not apply to today’s global
societies.
On the other hand, it is evident that language teaching in Iran’s public education (i.e.
Arabic, English and other foreign languages) is suffering from substantial flaws (Mirhos-
seini, Kiany, and Navidinia 2011, 49–70). Iranian high school students after 7 years of
studying Arabic are unable to communicate through it; it seems that it is only taught to
enable them to read Qur’an and prayer texts. Nevertheless, the situation has been slightly
different in the seminaries and also in theology and Arabic programs at universities, where
more communicative functions were sought in teaching Arabic. The same is true for west-
ern foreign languages (e.g. French and English) that have long been taught to enable stu-
dents to read scientific texts and to communicate, a situation that has continued up to the
present time.
Looking at the bigger picture, we could easily see that the whole area of language-in-
education teaching including religious language (Arabic), foreign languages, minority lan-
guages and even the national language itself have suffered from non-communicative teaching
approaches. Consequently, the cognitive horizons that learning languages opens to the learners
and the acts that using languages could fulfill are totally neglected, a situation partly caused
by the 20th-century ideology of monolingualism, nationalism and localism. For an elaborate
discussion on the most recent and effective teaching methodologies, including the communi-
cative approach, read Chapter 16 in this volume.

23.4 National language and minority languages:

solidarity and identity
An opposition between national languages and minority languages has been taken for granted
from when colonialism and nation-states emerged relying on the myth of “one nation, one
language”. As a consequence, a common language has been considered as the only uniting
element of a nation.
Although languages have historically functioned as identifying symbols of states and
nations especially since the emergence of nation-states, they are not the only builders of
national identity; other non-linguistic (e.g. socioeconomic) elements could also shape identi-
ties, and this is what “the dynamicity of identity” means; as Frye says:

these two [religion and language], although always present, did not assume an impor-
tant place in the designation of identity until later.
(1993, 143–146)

482
 Persian as a national language

Nowadays, we clearly see that the socioeconomic advantages of national/official languages

have become the main reason of minority language shift towards the dominant language in
many countries when the speakers no more see themselves in their mother tongues. This is
because socioeconomic status brought by the languages becomes more important in identi-
fying their “selves”. In this way, identity building (the construction of the “self”) would be
understood as an indeterminate, ambiguous, fluid, multidimensional, multifaceted and self-
defining entity that heavily depends on the elements of choice (Rasool 2004, 199–200). On
the other hand, different identities are inhabited within various contexts; each of them needs
the necessary cultural resources (including multilingualism) to live meaningful lives (ibid.,
203). A survey of Iranian national identity symbols among high school and university stu-
dents, university lecturers and the staff of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature in
Tehran revealed the multiple elements of Iranian national identity as follows: culture, ethical
characteristics (e.g. hospitality), ancient civilization (including ancient/historical monuments),
myths, flag, sport, religion, ethnicity, national anthem, geography, economy, arts, languages
(national and local), literature, science and technology, history, celebrities, politics and iden-
tity cards (passports, birth certificates etc.) (Davari Ardakani 2008, 3). The study supports the
idea that language is not the only element of national identity and solidarity. Moreover, it is not
a persistent element in the designation of identity (Frye 1993, 143–146).
However, this does not imply a denial of the importance of languages in the designation
of national identity and hence national solidarity, as it is certain that a language that is valued
by its speakers (either as a powerful communicative instrument or as something they have
affectional attitudes towards) could turn into a symbol of identity. Since identity building is
a process of building confidence and power, languages implying connectedness to any type
of intellectual, political or economic power are more viable to become part of a nation’s or
an individual’s identity, and at the same time, speakers may naturally tend towards languages
which bring them power. As emphasized before, the salience of specific social identity mark-
ers, including linguistic and semiotic markers, may change over time and should not be taken
for granted (Coupland and Kristiansen 2011, 13). Therefore, knowing the synchronic sali-
ence order of a nation’s elements of identity is fundamental in understanding the status of
language(s). In other words, the image and perception of one’s group identity are not innate;
they are shaped gradually and through their lived experience. Smith believes that each society
has its own system of group identity, and he considers family, geography (place of origin),
religion and country of citizenship among the most dominant identity shaping factors (1991
quoted in Khalili 2015, 163–165).
Rasool’s (2004, 203–206) statement that “the monocultural-monolingual metropolitan
nation-state no more exists” is simply supported by looking at the linguistic landscapes of
the countries around the world where we see that multilingualism has become the norm of
most of the language societies and on the contrary, monolingualism is delimited to only
isolated societies. There are 7105 distinct living languages, while there are only 193 United
Nations’ recognized states (Simon and Fenning 2018). Hence, an average of 39 languages
is spoken in every country. The numbers show that multilingualism is dominant across the
globe, and very few countries are monolingual (Eisenchlas, Schalley, and Guillemin 2015,
152). Accordingly, almost every individual has “multiple dynamic identities” and uses more
than one language or a variety of a language regarding its different social needs and the
functions that each language/language variety satisfies. In Rasool’s view, acquiring a range
of linguistic skills, discourse styles and discursive knowledge enables people to function
effectively as workers and consumers within the global cultural economy (Rasool 2004,
199–214).

483
 Negar Davari Ardakani

Normally, social and individual multilingualism originates from social contacts, the emer-
gence of which is not usually planned, while monolingualism is usually the result of a nation-
building process (e.g. the promotion of a standard language through public education) or
geographical isolation.
Nevertheless, the prevalent existence of social multilingualism is usually and easily
neglected because monolingual public education is easier and less costly. Moreover, through
monolingual public literacy education, the speakers of a single language could easily increase
and gain some kind of power that states also benefit from.
On the other hand, the apparent unifying function of globalization that seemed to lead soci-
eties towards monolingualism has turned to cause reactions towards the dominance of a single
language, i.e. English, and also the emergence of Englishes.
On the basis of these arguments, I believe that Iranian national solidarity and national
identity, however partly relying on Persian as the country’s national language, do practically
include local identities of the nation partly due to the long co-existence of the indigenous
and non-indigenous populations of the country. Consequently, ethnolinguistic minority groups
should not necessarily be considered as “endangered authenticities” (Chow 1993 quoted in
Rasool 2004, 209).
Iran’s minority language planning should consider rights of information access, tech-
nologies and technological knowledge alongside linguistic rights (Rasool 2004, 210). Such
accesses usually influence the users’ linguistic attitudes and hence determine the future of
languages (i.e. their social status, survival, shift, death, etc.).

23.4.2 Language standardization and discrimination

A standardized (national) language is useful, as it facilitates education, communication, eco-
nomic and political running of a nation-state, workforce training and social cohesion. Such
functions well justify the status of a standard language as a symbolic object, a social norm
and a political tool (Lane 2015, 276), and there is no dispute about the value-based and social-
prestigious status of standard languages.
However, many researchers have critically challenged the theories of linguistic standardi-
zation as being ideological and discriminative. Lane (2015, 263–283) sees “standardization
as prioritizing some forms and structures ahead of others” and therefore some speakers ahead
of others on the basis of sociopolitical, cultural and economic concerns. On the other hand,
there is a mutual reflexive relationship between standards and users. Standards are established
through their acceptance by the users as social actors who shape standard languages and are
also shaped by standard languages (Duranti and Goodwin 1992 quoted in Lane 2015, 263–
283). Therefore, the starting point for any language policy administration should be the user
and not the standards (Cowen quoted in Lane 2015, 265–270).
Non-neutrality of standard languages is evidenced by the reality that standardization is a
selection on the basis of the selector’s priorities (Rutten 2016, 25–57) and therefore could
delimit the linguistic rights of some groups. This is because they are considered the only true
linguistic forms and not additions to existing repertoires.
On the other hand, multilingual policies that have originated to dismantle linguistic ine-
qualities may create unwanted inequality. In other words, introducing multilingual education
could not totally remove the pressures the speakers of minority languages’ experience due to
implementing a national standard language education policy since the sociopolitical implica-
tions of languages could never be removed from them.

484
 Persian as a national language

23.5 Multilingual education paradigm for Iran

Multilingualism could bring a deeper understanding of the diverse cultures and broader world
views. It also could nurture liberation due to a recognition of diversity. It could bring more
job opportunities and access to more diverse resources of information, it could facilitate com-
munication and meaningful social relationships, positive approaches towards learning other
languages and traveling. However, many nations are concerned about some probable conse-
quences of multilingualism, e.g. penetration of loan words into the native language and the
possibility of a shift towards the global dominant languages (Gorter 2015, 82–98). There are
also some reported technical, ideological and discursive obstacles in the way of establishing
multilingual education both in ethnic minority regions and at a national level. Implementation
of the following measures could facilitate the process and to some extent avoid the inequalities
brought by the hierarchical tiers of languages in a multilingual context:

• Assessing minority speakers’ linguistic attitudes and demands: speakers of some minority
languages may see the inclusion of their languages into the education system as a devel-
oping force of their languages, but this is not true about all minority societies. In other
words, for certain minorities, only symbolic recognition of their language in educational
institutions provides the required confidence and self-esteem.
• Promoting multilingual awareness, which means to provide the teachers and the learners a
deep understanding of the necessity of learning and using more than one language includ-
ing foreign, religious, local, trade and other languages as a path to know each other and to
communicate with the world.
• Clearly stating linguistic, sociologic and economic aims;
• Deciding on the use of the languages as subjects, the medium of instruction, literacy
medium, literature etc.;
• Deciding on the school year in which the different languages are introduced;
• Knowing about the special linguistic landscape including the geographical distribution,
number and status of the languages and their varieties;
• Knowing about the national and global forces that affect minority language speakers;
• Introducing the multilingual program gradually and adapting it to the school pedagogies.
• Evaluating the students’ learning outcomes;
• Re-conceptualizing teacher education to make sure that they have absorbed the required
teaching methodology and also have positive attitudes towards minority language
education.

Different models of multilingual education have been introduced based on the type of lin-
guistic landscape, multilingual awareness, and education/literacy situation, some of which
are accretive (ML2+NL3+FL)4 [suitable for areas where ethnic minority group forms the
majority and a degree of economic stability exists], balanced (ML, NL+FL), transitional
(NL+DML5 as a subject+FL) and depreciative, which is a bilingual education not for pro-
moting minority languages but for diminishing them and promoting national or/and foreign
languages. These four models form a continuum, trying to replace NL with ML to NL getting
rid of ML. The three first models could be implemented in Iran’s different minority socie-
ties regarding the minority language status locally, nationally and internationally, its geo-
graphical, linguistic, pedagogical, historical, economic and political contexts. For example,
Turkish, Kurdish and Arabic have high economic capital because of the opportunities they
afford for cross-border trading (Davari Ardakani 2016). Attitudes towards ethnic minority

485
 Negar Davari Ardakani

language(s), Persian, Arabic and English/Foreign language are also important in the deter-
mination of the appropriate model for each region. Some localities do prefer degrees of
promotion of minority language while some others just like to use it in non-official contexts.
Even in some regions, we may encounter a preference of Persian because of the economic,
social and political benefits that are associated with the language. On the other hand, the
choice of any paradigm partly depends on the availability of a written variety of language;
from this aspect Iran’s ethnic minority languages could be categorized into those that pos-
sess both the spoken and written form, those that have functional writing systems of only
limited usage and those that do not have a writing system. However, none of Iran’s minor-
ity languages have been used neither as a literacy language nor as a language in education
during the past century, except Armenian and Arabic. Considering such linguistic facts and
regarding the specific linguistic landscape of each region a multilingual paradigm consisting
of a combination of minority language(s), a national language, foreign language(s) and reli-
gious language(s)6 with different preferences is suggested. It is worth mentioning that such
multilingual approach is a desirable educational approach not only for minority language
speakers, but also for all learners.7
Iran’s multilingual education paradigm could be based on a teaching/communicational
strategy called translanguaging,8 which accommodates globalization, digital communica-
tion, the mobility of the population, and generally language use in real society. Translan-
guaging refers to a bi-/multilingual pedagogy that alternatively and systematically uses an
integrated linguistic repertoire to improve communication (Gorter and Cenoz 2015, 54–74;
García and Wei 2015, 223–240). It is defined as “the ability of multilingual speakers to
move between languages”; an example would be to read a text in Persian and then prepare
an oral presentation in, for example, Turkish. It may also encompass code-switching and
code-mixing to allow bilingual/multilingual speakers move between two or more languages
at phrase, sentence and discourse levels. In this way, the languages reinforce each other and
understanding deepens, as it could act as a communication strategy which prevails over
deficient cognitive processing and compensates for insufficient and limited second language
proficiency. Consequently, it might constitute an advantageous and beneficial approach to
establishing a framework for communication and honing basic and necessary first language
skills. For more elaborate discussion on code-switching and interlanguage, read Chapter 27
in this volume.
Nevertheless, the implementation of translanguaging is not an easy task. A knowledge of
the real status of the minority languages and their usages is essential in recognizing the bound-
aries between languages and the delimitations and possibilities of switching.
Therefore, any decision in this regard should be made after making sure that:

a) Sufficient multilingual proficient instructors are available or an instructor training program

is provided that covers all the involved languages including the learners’ mother tongue,
the national language and any other languages which are going to be translanguages;
b) The value and reality of diversity are acknowledged and also diverse language back-
grounds are taken into consideration. Otherwise, translanguaging would not be successful;
c) The quality of translanguaging is guaranteed not to result in the emergence of a pidgin;
d) Measures are taken for developing appropriate curricula and teaching materials compris-
ing translanguaging tasks.

For a discussion on Persian as an interlanguage, read Chapter 26 in this volume. Notwith-

standing the flaws and difficulties, the strategy if implemented carefully could be useful in

486
 Persian as a national language

maintaining or revitalizing minority languages. There is a lot to be learned and experienced

in this regard by Iran to secure the use of minority languages through formal or informal
language education policies and to seek knowledge about the long-term contribution of
multilingual education to a sustainable future for minority language speakers and for the
whole nation.

23.6 Conclusion
Minority literacy and education in Iran have not received sufficient academic attention. They
have, however, been given sporadic attention by the Centre for Strategic Studies, the two min-
istries of education and of higher education and also by independent researchers. The issue
has also been raised in the second term of the presidency of Rouhani in 2016 by him and his
ministers.
Some of the rights allocated to minority languages in Iran’s constitution, i.e. the use of
mother tongues as local languages at home, street and bazaar and also in oral, visual and writ-
ten media, have long been satisfied. However, only very recently teaching their literature at
secondary and tertiary levels and a one-month pre-primary school Persian literacy program
have been implemented. One must have in mind that many minority languages lack standard
written and spoken varieties and therefore have never been thought of as being used in lit-
eracy, education and written media. On the other hand, some minority language speakers like
Armenians have taught their language alongside Persian for almost two centuries. Arabic as
a religious language has also been taught in upper primary school level during the past four
decades (Multiple Authors 2011).
In the same vein, a policy of allowing minority students to enter higher education insti-
tutions with lower marks in the national university entrance examination (Konkur) have
been implemented in Iran for more than three decades (the scholarship of deprived areas).
The policy is based on the reality that in some specific regions (including many having
their own ethnic languages), students do not have equal access to Konkur preparation pro-
grams, which are available in metropolitan cities like Tehran, Mashhad, Shiraz, Isfahan etc.
However, no specific linguistic measure has been taken into consideration for the students
whose mother tongue is not Persian, a situation that may cause inequality in the competi-
tion. One should consider that not all multilingual regions could be considered as deprived
and marginalized.
Protection and promotion of minority languages as cultural capital are justified by several
undeniable causes such as identity construction, cognitive development, language mainte-
nance, etc. However, developmental engineering of the capital is only possible after gaining
an awareness of the languages’ landscapes.
In contemporary Iran, there are only a few provinces that could be considered monolingual
(see Marchant 2015, 31, 54, 82, 104, 130). According to Ethnologue (Simons and Fenning
2018, 6–50), 78 languages belonging to five different language families, i.e. Indo-European
(Iranian and non-Iranian), Altaic, Afro-Asiatic Semitic, Caucasian/Kartevian and Dravidian
(Northern), are used throughout Iran. Almost 60% of the population (49,900,000) speak Per-
sian as their mother tongue, and all the others except a minority, less than 2%, speak Persian
alongside with their mother tongue. Therefore, a major part of the population is bi-/multilin-
gual including almost one-third who speak a Turkish dialect, mostly Azeri.
Another prerequisite for designing and implementing an adequate language policy is gain-
ing knowledge about the priorities of the minority language speakers in each area. Some of
them may want their languages to be taught at as a literacy language in primary schools, as

487
 Negar Davari Ardakani

a literary or/and educational language in high schools and universities which would only be
possible for languages with standard spoken and written varieties (Eisenchlas, Schalley, and
Guillemin 2015, 151–156), having in mind that standardization of the minority languages
might itself raise new inequalities.
The problem for Iran is that there has been no nation-wide assessment of the minority
language speakers’ attitudes towards their ideal literacy/education program. However, the few
studies carried out have shown that the nation’s attitude towards the local languages and the
national language are positive (Davari Ardakani and Mostafa 2011, 210; Baheri 2008, 10) and
that minority languages’ speakers would certainly like their languages to be acknowledged
but no idea of how and in what degree and no guarantee of satisfaction upon incorporating
minority languages into the Persian monolingual literacy program or substituting them. For a
study on language learning strategies and beliefs about language learning, read Chapter 28 in
this volume. Although this study has been done in the U.S., its arguments can hold for lan-
guage learners’ attitudes towards learning the language, in general.
Moreover, Iran’s illiteracy rate is relatively low (currently less than 10%) and therefore
not a cause for an urgent change in the present literacy program. Nevertheless, the 10–20%
gap between the literacy rates in Iran’s borderline provinces (which include the majority of
minority language speakers) could support a proposal for gradual reform in Iran’s language-
in-education and literacy policy.
A view of Iran’s educational system9 shows that the general paradigm of teaching lan-
guages needs a fundamental reform (Mirhosseini, Kiany, and Navidinia 2011, 49). The two
programs of English as a foreign language and Arabic as a religious language are not aimed at
teaching languages for communication in the real world. Hence, Iran needs reform in language
teaching besides taking measures for the promotion of minority languages. As the main miss-
ing aspect of Iran’s language education is its connection to real-world usage of the languages,
to compensate for this, literacy and education planners should focus on teaching languages as
a performing skill and not a theoretical knowledge and hence to consider language as an act
and language learning as a necessary life skill. Only after reform in general language teaching
paradigm could Iran implement a multilingual education and literacy program.
A sound understanding of multilingualism is necessary for institutionalizing it. Iran’s educa-
tional system needs to see languages as paths towards knowing one another and communicat-
ing beyond local and national levels. It needs to recognize the advantages of multilingualism
for both minority language speakers and all other Iranians. Combining national language
(Persian), religious language(s) (Arabic), minority languages and foreign language(s)/Eng-
lish in the language teaching agenda together with a change in the teaching methodology
and pedagogy will bring in significant educational and social benefits leading to sustainable
development. Having in mind that inadequate provision of English is also affecting Iranians’
opportunities, as it reduces access to international communication, knowledge and trade, Iran
needs to formulate its multilingual policies on the basis of its languages, backgrounds, needs,
resources and opportunities. Even a very successful multilingual program should be accom-
modated to its specific context of implementation. What Iran needs is a multilingual flex-
ible literacy and education curriculum aiming at developing greater confidence and broader
communication for all citizens including minority speakers, something that could contribute
to sustainable development throughout the society. Iran’s multilingual education and literacy
system in its preliminary stage could initiate with a strategy of selective language courses,
and it seems that implementing an immediate replacement of the monolingual Persian literacy
paradigm by a minority languages literacy paradigm is not the best solution to the problem
(Gorter, Zenotz, and Cenoz 2014, 10) in the case of Iran.

488
 Persian as a national language

To conclude, I have to say that the first step towards planning for Iran’s minority languages
is to recognize them as the nation’s common cultural and economic capital. Through the intro-
duction of this new discourse, any measure to preserve and cultivate minority languages and
to promote the speakers’ self-esteem would mean promoting the whole nation and the national
cultural capital. And this could be done by introducing a discourse of multilingual education
that recognizes the dynamics of combining different languages at first place. It is important to
make sure that access to languages with high social and economic capital is provided; other-
wise, it may bring deprivation and negative attitudes towards the minority languages (Beckett
and MacPherson 2005; Adamson and Feng 2014).
Mother tongue literacy could be implemented as some later steps in Iran. Multilingual pri-
vate schools as Non-Formal Education (NFE) systems can be developed parallel to the Formal
Education (FE) system – and later adopted as part of the formal system whenever the society
experienced the advantages. This will allow time and opportunity for the development of minor-
ity languages, particularly for the ones without a standard variety. Something very important is
that the implementation of multilingual education needs to be gradual. The use of side-by-side
bilingual learning materials in specific subjects and new assessment strategies are suggested to
make sure that the languages are not being compartmentalized (Benson 2014, 11–19).
Given the rapidity of changes in the global economy, creating a multilingual and multi-
cultural workforce enables the next generations to have better social and cross-cultural skills
(Siew Kheng Catherine: 67–68). There are many challenges in establishing a multilingual edu-
cation paradigm in Iran, e.g. lack of human and financial resources for recruitment of teachers,
designing and implementing suitable curriculums including their timing and scheduling, and
last but not least the current dominant monolingual top-down education and language policy.
Iran’s new multilingual education policy is to be based on a concept of Iranian citizenship
that includes Iranian ethnicities who have had a long historical presence in Iran. Turks, Arabs
and Armenians have lived in Iran for more than a millennium; Kurds, Balochi, Gilaks and Lors
are indigenous to the land and have resided in Iran for millennia – all having intermarriages
with each other and with Persians. The merging of the populations is well shown in Marchant
(2015). Iranians during their millennial common history have all contributed to the promotion
of Persian as a lingua franca throughout ancient Persia. The existing positive attitude of the
nation towards Persian makes implementation of MTB-MLE and formulation of educational
policy an extremely hard task. What is known for sure at this stage is that acknowledging
regional linguistic interests in the way that minority populations want brings national solidarity
and social development.
I would like to end this start in Iran’s minority languages by quoting from Ioan Bowen
Rees, a leading Welsh political thinker who has said: “We bring up our children to speak [their
local language] Welsh and be bilingual, not for the sake of the language, but for the sake of our
children” (Rees 1990, 78 quoted in Gorter 2015, 95).

Notes
1) In Urumiyeh most of the Christian minorities speak Assyrian and not Armenian. However, Ortho-
dox, Assyrian and Armenian Christians live in peace and have friendly social interaction in this city.
2) Minority Language
3) National Language
4) Foreign Language
5) Dominant Minority Language
6) The proposed multilingual paradigm for Iran is based on a review of the cases of Cambodia, Mozam-
bique, Basque (Benson 2014, 11–29), China, Singapore in . . . Singapore after a long time of English

489
 Negar Davari Ardakani

dominance has now started teaching of their three ethnic languages through a strategy of compart-
mentalization, i.e. the Chinese take Mandarin; Malays take Malay and Indians take Tamil as a local
language to acquire (Rappa and Wee 2006 quoted in Siew Kheng Catherine 2014, 70).
7) According to Benson (2014, 11–29) in Mozambique, schools are currently operating in 16 different
non-dominant languages, and additional languages are in the process of development by linguists at
the national university.
8) Translanguaging was developed in Wales, where education is important in the maintenance and
revitalization of Welsh, a minority language (Lewis, Jones, and Baker 2012a).
9) The general education journey for an Iranian consists of one year of pre-primary school, six years
in primary school, three years in middle school, three years in high school, four years for bachelor’s
degree, two years for master’s degree and four to five years for Ph.D. degree.

References
Adamson, B., and A. Feng. 2014. “Models for Trilingual Education in People’s Republic of China.” In
Minority Languages and Multilingual Education: Bridging the Local and the Global, edited by D.
Gorter, V. Zenotz, and J. Cenoz, 29–44. Netherlands: Springer.
Aliakbari, M., and R. Darabi. 2012. “A Socio-Geographical Study of the Distribution of Major Language
Communities in Iran.” Paper presented in the 1st International Interdisciplinary Conference on Art,
Language & Technology ICALT2012. Mashhad, Iran.
Aliakbari, M., and F. Khosravian. 2014. “Linguistic Capital in Iran: Using Official Language or Mother
Tongue.” International Conference on Current Trends in ELT, Elsevier. Accessed. www.sciencedirect.
com
Baghdasarian, E. 2001. “A Glance into the History of Tehran’s Armenians.” Tehran [in Persian]. Accessed
February 19, 2019. www.iranarchive.com/sites/default/files/sanad/negahi_be_tarikh-e_armaniyan-
e_tehran.pdf.
Baheri, L. 2008. A Survey of Linguistic Attitudes and National Identity Components (Among pre-university
students in Ardabil province). MA. Dissertation, Payame Noor University, Tehran. [in Persian]
Beckett, G. H., and S. MacPherson. 2005.“Researching the Impact of English on Minority and Indig-
enous Languages in Non-Western Contexts.” TESOL Quarterly, 39(2): 299–307.
Benson, C. 2014. “Adopting a Multilingual Habitus: What North and South Can Learn from Each other
about the Essential Role of Non-dominant Languages in Education.” In Minority Languages and
Multilingual Education: Bridging the Local and the Global, edited by Durk Gorter, Victoria Zenotz,
and Jasone Cenoz, 11–28. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bosnali, S. 2003. Bilingualism and Diglossia in Turkish Speakers of Iran. PhD. Dissertation, Sorbonne
University.
Cottam, R. 1979. “Azerbaijan: Province or Nation?” In Nationalism in Iran, 118–133. London: Univer-
sity of Pittsburgh Press.
Coupland, N., and T. Kristiansen. 2011. “SLICE: Critical Perspectives on Language (de) Standardiza-
tion.” In Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe, edited by Tore Kris-
tiansen and Nikolas Coupland, 11–35. Oslo: Novus Press.
Davari Ardakani, N. 2006. “Language Planning and Iranian National Identity.” Motāleât-e Melli Quar-
terly, 2: 1–24. [in Persian]
Davari Ardakani, N. 2008. “Language, Language Planning and National Solidarity in Iran.” In National
Solidarity, Strategies and Policies National Conference Proceedings, 269–295. Tehran: Strategic
Research Centre. [in Persian]
Davari Ardakani, N. 2010. “Language-in-Education Planning and the Issue of Multilingualism.” The
Research Letter of the Higher Council of Policy-making Strategic Research Centre, 35: 11–39. [in
Persian]
Davari Ardakani, N. 2016. “The Necessity of Reconsidering Foreign Language Teaching Policies in
Iran.” Shora-y-e
­ ­ Enghelaab-e­ Farhangi Newsletter, 59–63. [in Persian]
Davari Ardakani, N., and H. Moghani. 2016. “Iranian Linguistic Attitudes and Persian Language Plan-
ning: A Case Study in Tehran.” Iranian Heritage Journal, 1(1): 21–44.
Davari Ardakani, N., and Mostafa, T. 2011. “A Comparative Assessment of the Status of Kurdish and
Persian Considering Iranian National Identity (a Case Study Among Iranian Kurdish Pre-university
Students).” Irannameh, 26(1–2): 209–323. [in Persian]

490
 Persian as a national language

Eisenchlas, S.A., A.C. Schalley, and D. Guillemin (eds.). 2015. “Multilingualism and Literacy: Attitudes
and Policies.” International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(2): 151–161.
Elfenbein, J. 1988. “Baluchi Language and Literature.” Accessed January 2, 2019.
Fallah, M. 2007. “The Role of Persian in National Uniformity and Unity in Iran.” Ghohare Ghuya, 4:
131–164.
Financial Tribune. 2017. “Iran Literacy Rates Improves.” Accessed February 1, 2019. https://financial-
tribune.com/node/61861
Finn, J. 2011. “Gods Kings, Men: Trilingual Inscriptions and Symbolic Visualizations in the Achaemenid
Empire.” Ars Orientalis, 41: 219–275. www.jstor.org/stable/23075965
Frye, R. 1993. “Iranian Identity in Ancient Times.” Iranian Studies, 26(1/2): 143–146. Accessed Janu-
ary 31, 2019 06:53 UTC. www.jstor.org/stable/4310830
Frye, R. 2000. “Arabic, Persian and Turkish Historiography in Central Asia.” In History of Civilizations
of Central Asia, edited by C.E. Bosworth, Vol. IV, No. 2, 152–156. Paris: UNESCO.
García, O., and L. Wei. 2015. “Translanguaging, Bilingualism, and Bilingual Education.” In The Hand-
book of Bilingual and Multilingual Education, edited by Wayne E. Wright and O.G. Sovicheth Boun,
223–240. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gorter, D. 2015. “Multilingual Interaction and Minority Languages: Proficiency and Language Practices
in Education and Society.” Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, 48(1): 82–98.
Gorter, D., and J. Cenoz. 2015. “Translanguaging and Linguistic Landscapes.” Linguistic Landscape, 1:
54–74.
Gorter, D., V. Zenotz, and J. Cenoz. 2014. “Minority Language Education and Global Challenges.” In
Minority Languages and Multilingual Education: Bridging the Local and the Global, edited by Durk
Gorter, Victoria Zenotz, and Jasone Cenoz, 1–10. Netherlands: Springer.
Gorter, D., V. Zenotz, X. Etxague, and J. Cenoz. 2014. “Multilingualism and European Minority Lan-
guages: The Case of Basque.” In Minority Languages and Multilingual Education: Bridging the
Local and the Global, edited by Durk Gorter, Victoria Zenotz and Jasone Cenoz, 201–220. Nether-
lands: Springer.
Grebennikov, M. 2013. “The Puzzle of a Loyal Minority: Why Do Azeris Support the Iranian State?”
Middle East Journal, 67(1): 64–76.
Harrison, M.A., and A. Joubert. 2019. French Language Policies and the Revitalization of Regional Lan-
guages in the 21st Century. Switzerland: Palgrave, Macmillan. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
baluchistan-iii.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-vii6-in-islamic-iran-language-families. Accessed March 8,
2019.
https://www.mehrnews.com/news/2873777/.
Keiko, S. 2004. “University Entrance Examination and the Making of an Islamic Society in Iran: A Study
of the Post-Revolutionary Iranian Approach to Konkur.” Iranian Studies. Routledge, 37(3): 385–406.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4311647.
Khalili, M. 2015. “A Comparative Study of Ethnic Identity among Azerbaijani Speakers in the Islamic
Republic of Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan.” Ritsumeikan Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 34:
161–174.
Kheng Catherine, S. 2014. “A New Model of Bilingualism for Singapore.” In Minority Languages and
Multilingual Education: Bridging the Local and the Global, edited by Durk Gorter, Victoria Zenotz,
and Jasone Cenoz, 65–84. Netherlands: Springer.
Kia, M. 1998. “Persian Nationalism and the Campaign for Language Purification.” Middle Eastern Stud-
ies, 34(2): 9–28.
Kosonen, K. 2005. Education in Local Languages: Policy and Practice in Southeast Asia. First Lan-
guages First: Community-Based Literacy Programmes for Minority Language Contexts in Asia.
Bangkok: UNESCO, Bangkok.
Lane, P. 2015. “Minority Language Standardization and the Role of Users.” Language Policy. Springer,
14: 263–283.
Lewis, G., B. Jones, and C. Baker. 2012a. “Translanguaging: Origins and Development From School to
Street and Beyond.” Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7): 641–654.
MacKinnon, C. 2011. “Lori Language i. Lori Dialects.” Accessed March 7, 2019. http://www.iranicaon-
line.org/articles/lori-dialects.
Maisel, S., ed. 2018. The Kurds: An Encyclopedia of Life, Culture and Society. Santa Barbara, CA:
ABC-CLIO.

491
 Negar Davari Ardakani

Marchant, J. ed. 2015. National Fabric (Iran’s Ethnic Minorities). London, UK: Small Media.
Mehr News. July 30, 2014. Accessed February 18, 2019. https://www.mehrnews.com/news/2340556.
Mehr News. August 3, 2015. “Preparatory Literacy Courses will be held for Primary Students in Bilingual
Regions.” Accessed February 18, 2019. https://www.mehrnews.com/news/2873777/. [in Persian]
Mehr News. 2018. “The Rate of Literacy in Kurdistan Is Not Good.” December 22. Accessed Febru-
ary 21, 2019. https://www.mehrnews.com/news/4492937/. [in Persian]
Mirhosseini, S-A., G. Kiany, and H. Navidinia. 2011. “Foreign Language Education Policies in Iran:
Pivotal Macro Considerations.” Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 53: 49–70.
Miskub, S., and Ali Banuazizi. 1992. Iranian Nationality and the Persian Language. Translated by
Michael C. Hillmann and edited by John R. Perry. Washington, DC: Mage.
Modarres, S. 2004. “Educational Issues of Bilingual Children in East Azerbaijan.” Dilmaj, 4: 31–41. [in
Persian]
Modarresi, Y. 1989. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Tehran: Cultural Studies and Researches Insti-
tute. [in Persian]
Modarresi, Y. 1992. “Linguistic Issues and Language Planning in Iran.” Farhang, 13: 177–206. [in
Persian]
Modarresi, Y. 2005. “Ethnic- Linguistic Pluralism and National Identity.” Nameye EnsanShenasi, 7:
129–146. [in Persian]
Modarresi, Y. 2006. “Aspects of Sociolinguistics in Iran.” International Journal of the Sociology of Lan-
guage, 148: 1–3.
Mostafa, T. 2008. A Survey of Linguistic Attitudes of Pre-university Students in Kurdestan Province.
Tehran: Payame noor University.
Multiple Authors. 2011. “Foreign and Minority Schools in Persia.” Accessed January 2, 2019. http://
www.iranicaonline.org/articles/education-xv-foreign-and-minority-schools-in-persia.
Nercissians, E. 2001. “Bilingualism and Diglossia: Patterns of Language Use by Ethnic Minorities in
Tehran.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 148: 59–70.
Nouri, N. 2015. “Is Azerbaijani Turkish an Endangered Language? Language Attitudes among Azerbai-
jani Youth in Tabriz.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(7): 1476–1481.
Paul, L. 2013. “Persian-Language: Early New Persian.” Accessed January 2, 2019. http://www.irani-
caonline.org/articles/persian-language-1-early-new-persian.
Perry, J. 2012. “New Persian: Expansion, Standardization, and Inclusivity.” In Literacy in the Persianate
World: Writing and the Social Order, edited by Brian Spooner and William L. Hanaway, 70–94. Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press: JSTOR.
Rappa, A. L. & Wee, L. 2006. Language Policy and Modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, the Philip-
pines, Singapore, and Thailand, New York: Springer.
Rasool, N. 2004. “Sustaining Linguistic Diversity within the Global Cultural Economy: Issues of Lan-
guage Rights and Linguistic Possibilities.” Comparative Education. Taylor and Francis, 40(2):
199–214.
Rutten, G. 2016. “Standardization and the Myth of Neutrality in Language History.” International Jour-
nal of the Sociology of Language, 242: 25–57.
Sarli, N-G. 2008. Persian Standard Language. Tehran: Hermes. [in Persian]
Simons, G.F., and C.D. Fenning, eds. 2018. “Languages of Iran.” In Ethnologue: Languages of the World.
Dallas, TX: SIL International. www. Ethnologue.com.
Smith, A.D. 1991. National Identity. London: Penguin Books.
Spooner, B. 2012. “Persian, Farsi, Dari, and Tajiki: Language Names and Language Policies.” In Lan-
guage Policy and Language Conflict in Afghanistan and Its Neighbors: The Changing Politics of
Language Choice, edited by Harold Schiffman, 89–117. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Sridhar, K.K. 1996. “Language in Education: Minorities and Multilingualism in India.” International
Review of Education. Springer, 42(4): 327–347.
Tupas, R. 2015. “Inequalities of Multilingualism: Challenges to Mother-tongue-based Multilingual Edu-
cation.” Language and Education. Routledge, 29(2): 112–124.
UNESCO. 2009. “Language Vitality and Endangerment.” Accessed January 14, 2019. www.unesco.org/
culture/ich/doc/src/00120-EN.pdf.
The University of Kurdistan. 2019. “The Department of Kurdish Language and Literature.” Accessed
February 18, 2019. https://uok.ac.ir/fa/faculties/literature/departments/kurdish.aspx. [in Persian]
US Census Bureau. 2018. “Iran Population.” Accessed March 7, 2019. http://worldpopulat ionreview.
com/countries/iran/.

492
 Persian as a national language

Windfuhr, G. March 29, 2012. “Iran vii. Non-Iranian Languages (1).” Accessed March 8, 2019. www.
iranicaonline.org/articles/iran-vii1-non-iranian-languages-overview.
Windfuhr, G. April 17, 2012. “Iran vii. Non-Iranian Languages (1) Overview,” Encyclopædia
Iranica, XIII/4: 377–386. Accessed January 2, 2019. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
iran-vii1-non-iranian-languages-overview.
Windfuhr, G. May 1, 2012. “Iran vii. Non-Iranian Languages (6) Overview,” Encyclopædia Iran-
ica, XIII, Fasc. 4: 393–396. Accessed March 8, 2019. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/
iran-vii6-in-islamic-iran-language-families.
Windfuhr, G. ed. 2013. The Iranian Languages. London and New York: Routledge.

493
 24
TEACHING PERSIAN VARIETIES
AND DIALECTS MAHINNAZ MIRDEHGHAN AND SAEED REZA YOUSEFITEACHING PERSIAN VARIETIES AND DIALECTS

A Persian reference framework

Mahinnaz Mirdehghan and Saeed Reza Yousefi

24.1 Introduction
This chapter is presented in seven sections. After an introduction to the topic and a historical
review of it, a brief typological sketch of “Persian language varieties” together with the differ-
ence between “core” and “peripheral” (dialectal) varieties of it is provided here.
The “core varieties” of Persian are represented as: “Iranian Persian (Persian/Farsi)”, “Tajiki
Persian (Tajiki)” and “Afghan Persian (Dari)”, each of them having their own group of dia-
lects, which are called “peripheral varieties”.1
The chapter further presents a geographical quantitative report of Persian teaching centers
and programs throughout the world, which shows the focus on teaching Iranian Persian in com-
parison to the other two core varieties namely, Tajiki and Dari Persian. The main focus in the
present research is to provide a list of extant Persian Teaching institutes throughout the world.2
Accordingly, the point is further discussed together with a classification among institutes
teaching Iranian Persian (inside and outside of Iran) which is divided into three categories: (i)
institutes administered by Iranian Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT), (ii)
free institutes, and (iii) cultural associations. In sum, this section comes roughly to a number
of 157 organizations that offer Persian language programs officially and unofficially (private
institutes).
The next section illustrates the necessity for a well-structured framework for teaching
standard Persian to speakers of other languages, which can result in the production of suitable
and applied educational contents, according to the needs of the learners in different regions,
organizations and countries. In this regard, a reference framework that can represent the gen-
eral principles for developing and designing educational materials and textbooks, designing
language teaching training courses, as well as evaluating language skills and certifications
for different language levels, has always been an essential requirement for Persian language.
Accordingly, this reference framework for Persian, dubbed Persian Reference Framework
(PRF),3 which is developed mainly on the basis of the Common European Framework of
Reference (CEFR) for teaching languages and is localized specifically for Persian, has been
explained in more detail in Section 6.
Finally, the chapter is concluded by summarizing the main topics discussed throughout it,
in its last section.

494
 Teaching Persian varieties and dialects

24.2 Historical review

In achieving the research goals, a review of historical ties of Persian and its ancestors (i.e.
Indo-Iranian languages) is sketched in brief, which is then followed by the varieties of Persian.
Indo-Iranian
­ languages constitute the largest branch of the Indo-European
­ language fam-
ily. With more than 1.5 billion speakers, it mainly consists of: Iranic (Iranian)4 and Indic
(Indo-Aryan) languages (Sims Williams 2002).
The Iranic branch (Iranian languages) is categorized in three stages of development: Old
Iranian, Middle Iranian and New Iranian. Windfuhr (2009) mentions an estimated 150–200 mil-
lion native speakers of the Iranian languages, as of 2008. Ethnologue estimates that there
are 86 Iranian languages (Gordon 2005), the largest among them being Persian, Pashto, and
the Kurdish dialect continuum (Cardona 2019). Among the New Iranian languages the present
research is aimed to study the Persian language and its varieties and dialects (mainly to get to
the topic of teaching Persian).5&6
Dabir Moghaddam (2013, XXIII) notes the following Iranian languages in Iran, 1) Farsi, 2)
Gilaki, 3) Mazandarani, 4) Kurdish, 5) Gurani,7 6) Vafsi, 7) Laki, 8) Lari, 9) Raji, 10) Delwari,
11) Larestani, 12) Shahmirzadi, 13) Semnani, 14) Davani, 15) Balochi, 16) Naini, 17) Talishi,
18) Tati. He (ibid.) considers mutual understanding as a parameter to classify them, with a fur-
ther distinction between “official” and “local” languages. Accordingly, he considers Persian as
the “official language” in Iran and the rest in the earlier list as “local languages”. Noteworthy
is the fact that they are all considered “languages” due to their lack of mutual intelligibility.
Each language (official or local) by its own consists of a group of dialects (“dialectal group”).
The following is a brief summarization of these languages:
Considering Dabir Moghaddam’s earlier-mentioned classification, within the present
research “Core” and “Peripheral” varieties are categorized for Persian in which peripheral
varieties are considered roughly to be the same as what Dabir Moghaddam (2013) mentions as
“dialects” of each language (the language being official or local).

Languages Official Persian (sample dialectal group: Tehrani, Esfahani, Birjandi, Ghaeni, Kashani, …)

in Iran Local Larestani (with the dialectal group of: Lari, Evazi, Khonaji, Gherashi, Bastaki, Bikhe’i)

Tati (Southern) (Chali, Takestani, Eshtehardi, Khiyarji, Khuzini, EbrahimAbadi, …)

Vafsi (Vafs.vafsi, Chehreghani.Vafsi, Gurchani.Vafsi)

Kurdish (Northern Kurdish (Kurmanji), Central Kursish (Sorani), Southern Kurdish (Palewani))

Taleshi (Northern Taleshi, Central Taleshi, Southern Taleshi)

Balochi (Mandwani, Domki)

Laki

Naeini

Shahmirzadi

Gurani (Ourami)

Delwari

Figure 24.1 Languages in Iran.

495
 Mahinnaz Mirdehghan and Saeed Reza Yousefi

The matter is discussed more in the following section, which considers “Core Varieties”
(including: Iranian Persian, Tajiki Persian and Dari Persian) and “Peripheral Varieties” of Per-
sian (including dialects of each of these three core varieties).

24.3 Modern Persian varieties

24.3.1 Core varieties: Iranian Persian, Tajiki and Dari

Persian, also known as Farsi,8 is one of the Western Iranian (Iranic)9 languages within the
Indo-Iranian
­ branch.
There are three modern varieties of standard Persian (Solati (2013); Purmohammad (2013);
Rafiee (2001)):

• Persian (i.e. Standard Persian, Iranian Persian or Farsi) is the official language of Iran
and the primarily spoken language in Iran, which is also spoken by minorities in Iraq and
the Persian Gulf states. Perso-Arabic script is the writing system used for it.
• Dari (i.e. Dari Persian, Afghan Persian or Dari) is spoken in Afghanistan where it is
one of the two official languages of that country. It is written with a version of the Perso-
Arabic script. Afghan Persian is officially known as “Dari” since 1958 (Olesen 1995).
• Tajiki (i.e. Tajik Persian) is the official language of Tajikistan and is spoken in Tajikistan
and Uzbekistan. Tajik Persian is officially known as “Tajiki” since the Soviet era (Karimi
Hakkak 2001, 511). Tajiki was written in the Latin script beginning in 1928 and the Ara-
bic alphabet prior to 1928. After 1939, materials published in the Persian alphabet were
banned from the country, and it is currently written in Cyrillic script (Perry 1996, 571).

The Persian language holds the official status in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan, with approx-
imately 110 million Persian speakers throughout the world10.11 Persian speaking peoples of
Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan can understand one another with a relatively high degree of
mutual intelligibility (Beeman 2005).
The previously mentioned three varieties of Persian are termed here as “Core Varieties”
indicating standard varieties of Persian with the official language status in Iran, Afghanistan
and Tajikistan, respectively.12
The matter is considered in comparison to “Peripheral Varieties”, which are considered to
be the dialects of the standard varieties.

24.3.2 Peripheral varieties: dialects

Accordingly, each of the three core varieties, i.e. Persian, Dari and Tajiki, consists of a group
of dialects (peripheral varieties) which are listed in the following:

Persian includes a group of dialects including: Tehrani, Esfehani, Birjandi, Kashani, Shi-
razi, Mashhadi, Yazdi, Hamadani, Ghaeni, for instance.
Tajik group of dialects can be categorized in four groups as noted by Windfuhr (2009, 421):

1 Northern dialects (Northern Tajikistan, Bukhara, Samarkand, Kyrgyzstan, and the

Varzob valley region of Dushanbe)
2 Central dialects (dialects of the upper Zarafshan Valley)

496
 Teaching Persian varieties and dialects

3 Southern dialects (south and east of Dushanbe, Kulob, and the Rasht region of
Tajikistan)
4 Southeastern dialects (dialects of the Darvoz region and the Amu Darya near Rushon)
Dari Persian consists of Kabuli, Mazari and Badakhshani as its main dialects; the Kabuli dia-
lect of which has become the standard model of Dari in Afghanistan (Wahed Alikuzai 2013, 4).
In brief in this section the three “Core Varieties” of Persian were presented together with
the group of dialects of each of them which were classified as “Peripheral Varieties”. The main
focus in this chapter is on the core varieties of Persian, among which Iranian Persian has the
most language teaching programs in different parts of the world. The matter is shown numeri-
cally in the following sections.

24.4 Universities with Persian language programs focusing on

Varieties of Persian (Tajik and Dari)
Tajiki Persian is only taught in Tajikistan. The Dushanbe Language Center located in the capi-
tal, Dushanbe, has a Tajiki Persian program for foreigners. As the conflict between Iran and
the U.S. has grown, in order to school the future generation of Persian speaking diplomats, the
U.S. State Department is directing language learners to Tajikistan instead of Iran.13
The Dari Department of Kabul University14 is responsible for the expansion of Dari lan-
guage and literature.15
Noteworthy is to mention that no credible institute has formal teaching programs for other
dialects of Persian.

24.5 A geographical quantitative report of the standard

(Iranian) Persian teaching centers
As the country of Iran is the hub of the Persian language and culture, and Iranian Per-
sian has the highest number of speakers among the other two core varieties of Persian
(as well as other Iranian languages; see Appendix 1 for a brief review of the institutes
offering programs for teaching other Iranian languages), this Persian variety is the most
taught variety abroad, which is seen in the following sections in the high number of the
institutes teaching this variety (in comparison to the other two varieties). Accordingly,
the focus of this section is to sketch a view of the institutes teaching this variety of
Persian.
The institutes teaching Iranian Persian ((1) Inside Iran [including 16 institutes] and (2)
Outside Iran [including 106 institutes and 35 cultural associations]) are presented in three
categories here:

1) Administered by MSRT (Iranian Ministry of Science, Research and Technology)

2) Free Institutes
3) Cultural Associations

In sum, the number of Persian language programs reviewed in this chapter shows 157 organi-
zations, including Persian teaching programs in their curriculum planning, both officially and
unofficially. Noteworthy is that within MSRT, it is the International Scientific Cooperation
Center that is responsible for the expansion of Persian language and culture in the country and
abroad.

497
 Mahinnaz Mirdehghan and Saeed Reza Yousefi

24.5.1 Institutes administered by MSRT

This section is aimed at presenting a list of universities and institutes (inside and outside of
Iran) for teaching Persian that are administered by MSRT. The list is provided on the basis
of Ostadzade’s (2018) report on the previous and current situation of Persian language and
literature teaching centers abroad. The report shows that 14 institutes in Iran and 68 institutes
abroad have Persian teaching programs that are directed by MSRT.

24.5.1.1 Inside Iran

There are 16 institutes inside Iran with centers for teaching Persian language to speakers of
other languages (TPSOL) (ibid., 8) (see Appendix 2 for a list of them).

24.5.1.2 Outside Iran

Before continuing the topic, it’s worth mentioning that MSRT considers some supplementary
classifications in specializing and managing the Persian language teaching programs abroad,
which can be summarized as follows:

• Persian language and literature

• Iranology and Iranian studies
• Orientalism and Oriental studies
• Linguistics
• Persian translation
• Islamic studies

On the basis of these specializing categories, Persian language seats around the world are
considered to be classified by MSRT, so specialists and professors from Iran are sent abroad
for teaching the related specialization.16
This section will present Persian language programs directed by the MSRT in five general
regions, as well as the included universities within them. The matter is presented in the regions of:

1) Europe (with 16 Universities); 2) Caucasus and the Commonwealth of Nations region

countries (with 21 Universities); 3) Asia and Oceania (16 Universities); 4) African and
Arab countries (10 Universities); 5) South American countries (3 Universities); and 6)
additional countries (4 Universities) (cited from Ostadzade 2018, 9). In sum, the number
comes to 68 universities containing Persian language teaching programs administered by
MSRT.

24.5.1.2.1 EUROPE

In Europe, 13 countries, each with one or more universities, contain Persian language pro-
grams, which in general show a number of 16 universities for teaching Persian (ibid., 9) (see
Appendix 3 for the list of these institutes).

24.5.1.2.2 CAUCASUS AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS

This region includes eight countries, containing 24 Universities, for Persian language pro-
grams (ibid., 9) (see Appendix 4).

498
 Teaching Persian varieties and dialects

24.5.1.2.3 ASIA AND OCEANIA

This region includes six countries, with 14 Universities, for Persian language programs (ibid.,
10) (see Appendix 5).

24.5.1.2.4 AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST

This region includes six countries, with 10 universities, for Persian language programs (ibid.,
10) (see Appendix 6).

24.5.1.2.5 SOUTH AMERICA

This region includes three countries, with three Universities (ibid., 10) (see Appendix 7).

24.5.1.2.6 ADDITIONAL COUNTRIES

MSRT plans to offer Persian language programs in universities in four more countries (ibid.,
10) (see Appendix 8).

24.5.2 Free institutes

This section is aimed at presenting a list of universities and institutes that include Iranian
Persian language teaching programs but belong to the second category, labeled here as “free
institutes”.17 The classification is added here to show the attention of nongovernmental insti-
tutes teaching Persian, which by its own shows the importance of Persian language and the
interests of learners around the world for learning it.
The search shows nine institutes in North America and 39 institutes in Europe. The matter
in general comes to a number of 46 free institutes in the regions.

24.5.2.1 North America

For the list of free institutes offering Persian language programs in North America, see
Appendix 9.

24.5.2.2 Europe
There are 10 countries in Europe with free institutes for teaching Persian, including Austria
(with four), Bulgaria (with one), France (with six), Germany (with eight), Italy (with five), the
Netherlands (with one), Poland (with two), Scandinavian countries (with two), Spain (with
five), and UK (with five) institutes; which in sum comes to number of 39 institutes in Europe
(see Appendix 10 for the list).

24.5.3 Cultural associations

The following is a list of Persian language programs labeled as “Cultural Associations” here,
which can be seen as informal associations for teaching and learning Persian throughout the
world. The matter is considered in the following four regions: Europe (in four countries,
including 26 associations), Canada (seven associations), Japan (one association), and Aus-
tralia (one association), which in general show a number of 35 cultural associations.

499
 Mahinnaz Mirdehghan and Saeed Reza Yousefi

24.5.3.1 Europe
The report contains France including 18 associations, Germany including six, UK with one,
and the Netherlands with one association. Some of the following mentioned activities are
directed by student associations in main universities (see Appendix 11 for the list of cultural
associations in Europe).

24.5.3.2 Canada
For the list of cultural associations offering Persian language programs in Canada, see
Appendix 12.

24.5.3.3 Japan
Only “Academic Society of Iranians in Japan”18 offers a Persian language program as a cul-
tural association in Japan.

24.5.3.4 Australia
Only “Iranian Australian Community Association of Southern Tasmania (IACAST)”19 offers a
Persian language program as a cultural association in Australian.

24.6 Persian Reference Framework (PRF)

The matter will be followed on by illustrating the need for a well-structured framework for
teaching standard Persian to speakers of other languages, which can result in the production
of suitable and applied educational content. In this area, a reference framework that represents
the general principles could shape the roadmap for developing materials for different language
levels has always been an essential requirement, which has not got enough attention so far.
This reference framework, called the Persian Reference Framework (PRF), will be discussed
in the following paragraphs.

24.6.1 The necessity for developing a reference framework

for teaching Persian to speakers of other languages
For principled and successful teaching of a language, the existence of a teaching reference
framework is a main prerequisite. According to Vandergrift (2006), a reference framework
for languages can create a clear and consistent system for explaining the language skills for
different countries and at the same time helps in mutual understanding of linguistic practical
skills. In the area of teaching Persian as a second or a foreign language, there has not been
such a framework to be used as a reference for selecting and classifying teaching contents or
for determining the language level of Persian learners. Most of the activities in this area have
focused solely on the preparation of the curricula, based on the designers’ language intuition or
mere impersonator versions of the foreign material without any tending to the Persian idiosyn-
crasies, context subtleties, or the learners’ needs and favorites. For a discussion on developing
a standard proficiency test for Persian, read Chapter 21 in this volume.
In a field study, Gharegazi, Asgharpour-Masoule, and DabirMoghaddam (2014) show that
among the existing Persian teaching course books, very few sources are in accordance with

500
 Teaching Persian varieties and dialects

the standards of the new international frameworks. As analyzed in most cases, there is no clear
scientific criterion for the classification of the teaching material in the curricula and in fact the
only criterion has been the personal experience and intuition of the writers. According to their
statistical data, more than half of teaching books in the area of teaching Persian to foreigners,
no teaching classification or level determination is found (ibid.).
Due to the lack of a common teaching framework and a level determination within the existing
Persian teaching sources, the need for presenting a framework for selection and classification of
Persian teaching material is of great importance. Meanwhile European countries have been using
a standard framework known as Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) for solving
such a problem. This framework has been active since 2001, and its goal is to produce a collection
of reference definitions for different language levels; i.e., elementary to advanced (A1.C2). The
aim of this framework is to pass the communication barrier among the European citizens with dif-
ferent linguistic backgrounds; also it tries to create some kind of cooperation among the activities
of the teaching material designers and teachers in different countries (CEFR 2001, 2).
Therefore, the aim of this section is to investigate the characteristics and advantages of the
CEFR and the possibility of using it for the Persian language. Accordingly, first we introduce
the CEFR, its characteristics and its goals, and later the explanation for its advantages will be
given. In the next section, after explaining the advantages of the CEFR, we will investigate the
possibility of designing the Persian Reference Framework (PRF) for teaching it to speakers of
other languages based on the CEFR.

24.6.2 A historical overview of the CEFR

According to CEFR (2001, 1.2), this framework has been devised as one of the European Com-
munity’s documents based on a political view and requests of the European Community mem-
bers, in order to create a democratic political environment all over the European countries
and other member states. Its main purpose is to standardize all language teaching discourses
in Europe. This document has been authored due to the need to develop a common basis for
designing language teaching programs, instructions and books. The framework is the main part
of a bigger project called “Language Learning for the European Citizen”, which started in 1991.
In fact, it is the result of the previous research geared toward explaining and assessing language
ability and usage. In other words, this framework is the result of three decades of efforts in the
area of modern languages in the European community. The development of this framework
has been in line with the basic changes in language teaching, i.e. the move from grammar-
translation method to functional-conceptual approach and communicative approach, which
occurred at the same time. In fact, this framework was the result of the need for an international
common framework for language teaching, and it was believed to ease the participation and
cooperation among the language teaching institutes in different European member states.
By presenting a common basis and a clear explanation of the goal, content and teaching methods,
this framework makes the language teaching courses more transparent and higher in quality. Also, it
can create the possibility for international cooperation in diverse areas. By using the framework, the
different language competence levels in different contexts can be compared with each other.

24.6.3 The characteristics of a reference framework

A reference framework for a language is a collection of linguistic descriptions that has been
designed in a specific sequence, in order to show the expected order of the language develop-
ment in time (O’Loughlin 2007). A reference framework must have different criteria:

501
 Mahinnaz Mirdehghan and Saeed Reza Yousefi

It must be “comprehensive”, “transparent” and “consistent” (CEFR 2001). “Comprehen-

siveness” means that it must try to cover all aspects of language knowledge, skills and func-
tions so that the language learners can describe their goals in reference to that framework
(ibid., 7). “Transparency” means the data should be presented in a clear and accurate manner
and be accessible and easily be intelligible by the users. “Consistency” means that the data
should not have internal contradiction.
In connection with the teaching systems, consistency requires the coordinated relations
among their components. General components of a teaching system include diagnosis of
needs, determination of goals, content description, selection or content generation, execu-
tion of the teaching or learning program, usage of the teaching or learning methods, and
assessments.
A comprehensive, consistent and transparent framework will not impose a single and
defragmented system. On the contrary, it is open and flexible in order to be adapted based on
the learners’ needs. A framework must be (ibid.):

• Multipurpose: it must be feasible for diverse goals with different teaching situations and
approaches.
• Flexible: it must be adaptable with different situations.
• Open: it can be expanded or limited.
• Dynamic: it must evolve according to the experiences of usage.
• ­
User-friendly: it must be easily understandable and useable.
• Unbiased: it must not be exclusively attached to any linguistic or teaching theory.

24.6.4 General approach in CEFR

According to CEFR (2001, 9), a comprehensive, transparent and consistent reference frame-
work must be related to a general approach of functionality and language learning. Gener-
ally, the CEFR approach is an action oriented approach, because it sees the language learners
and language users as social actors. It means they are seen as members of society who must
practice some social tasks in specific situations, in a specific context and in a specific func-
tional area (which necessarily is not language related). Although speech acts occur in linguis-
tic activities, these activities are part of a more extensive social context. An action-oriented
approach includes all the cognitive, emotional and voluntary resources of a person and all of
his individual and practical abilities as a social actor.

24.6.5 Requirements for a reference framework

for language teaching
Other than what has been discussed regarding the requirements for a reference framework
for language teaching, the following can be considered the most practical reasons requiring a
reference framework of language teaching (ibid., 5–6); a common reference framework will
provide specific goals for language teaching and learning activities. Besides, it is a lifetime
assignment to achieve language learning skills, which must be encouraged and facilitated
throughout educational systems from preschool up to adult teaching. Also, it can, in all levels,
encourage and facilitate the cooperation among different teaching institutes in different coun-
tries and create a suitable basis for mutual understanding of the characteristics of different lan-
guages. Also, it can help language learners, language teachers, curriculum and test designers
and the educational administrators in determination and coordination of activities. And most

502
 Teaching Persian varieties and dialects

importantly, it can be used for programming the language teaching courses, giving certificates
for the language skill levels and the programming of the language learning self-studies.

24.6.6 Reasons for choosing CEFR as the theoretical

basis for developing PRF
The reasons for choosing CEFR as the theoretical base for developing PRF are manifold.
Most importantly, it is a well-known and global framework that, besides its uses for teaching
European languages, has been used for teaching non-European languages such as Filipino,
Japanese, Chinese, Arabic and Hebrew. Besides, the framework is context-free, flexible and
open, so it’s possible to revise, correct and localize it based on different languages and require-
ments. Accessibility of the basic sources and documents of this framework is another factor in
choosing it; i.e. most of the higher level documents, meeting reports, supplementary sources
and the presentation of the projects based on this framework are electronically accessible to
researchers without any limitation. The other reason is that its approach to language teaching
and learning is action-oriented, which is favorable for interactive teaching methods and a
communicative approach, which makes it adaptable to the newest language teaching methods.
For a more detailed discussion on language teaching methods including the communicative
approach, read Chapter 16 in this volume. In addition, Chapter 17 in this volume discusses a
blended content-based approach to teaching Persian.
Another reason is that being context-free, language-neutral and flexible makes it usable
in terms of different languages. Another important reason is that, while all the other existing
frameworks are limited to a specific language and are mostly inflexible, samples of this frame-
work for different languages show a successful, high quality and scientific implementation of
the framework. Furthermore, the reference framework is not limited solely to the definition
of the competence and skill levels but has been assessed in different designs of the teaching
contents for each level, and its ability for implementation and adaptability to different practi-
cal experiences has been investigated. Likewise, one of the most outstanding advantages of
the reference framework is that it is not language-specific; i.e., it is not limited to a specific
language’s grammar, lexicon, phonology etc. Therefore, it can be localized based on any other
specific language’s needs. Therefore, not being specialized for a specific language, this frame-
work has been implemented for many languages inside and outside Europe. Lotti (2007) has
investigated the practicality of this framework in minority languages. Its practicality is shown
on the following minority languages: Welsh (in UK), Irish (in Northern Ireland), Basque and
Catalan (in Spain), Frisian (in the Netherlands) and Sámi (in Finland).

24.6.7 Persian Reference Framework (PRF) methodology

The significance of having a reference framework for Persian that can represent the general
principles and shape the roadmap for developing and designing educational materials and
textbooks, designing language teaching training courses, as well as evaluating language skills
and certifications for different language levels, has been considered as an essential require-
ment here.
Accordingly, this reference framework for Persian, which is developed mainly on the basis
of the Common European Framework of Reference (2001) for teaching languages and its adap-
tation specifically for Persian, has been explained in more detail in this section. The matter is
specifically developed by determining the selection and leveling of the three linguistic mod-
ules of grammar, vocabulary and function for elementary, intermediate and advanced levels.

503
 Mahinnaz Mirdehghan and Saeed Reza Yousefi

The importance of this selection is of great importance in designing language teaching

sources, which even affects the success of a language teaching program based on it. Although
in recent years, different course books have been devised for Persian language teaching to
speakers of other languages, unfortunately the lack of a reference framework for evaluation
of the content and even principled selection and leveling has resulted in the failure of many of
them. The designers, programmers and teachers of the language teaching programs can choose
from these standard modules according to the language learners’ needs or/and the prospects of
the teaching program.
Consequently, based on the Common European Framework of Reference for teaching lan-
guages (CEFR) (CEFR 2001; CEFR Companion Volume 2018) and due to the necessity for
planning a well-structured framework for Teaching Persian Language, and the lack of such a
reference framework in representing the general principles for Persian, a project in developing
and designing this reference framework was initiated by a team in Shahid Beheshti (National)
University in Iran. This project, which is approved by the International Scientific Cooperation
Center of MSRT as Persian Reference Framework (PRF), has been implemented within the
following book: Persian Framework of Reference for Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other
Languages: Grammar, Vocabulary and Functions (For Elementary, Intermediate & Advanced
Levels) (Mirdehghan et al. (2017)).
In regard to developing a reference framework for teaching Persian the following studies
can be consulted: Mirdehghan and Zandi (2010a, 2010b), Bagheri (2015), Montazeri (2015),
Saedi (2015), Mirdehghan et al. (2017) and Sahraei and Marsus (2017).
In addition, Chapter 15 in this volume delves into the history of teaching Persian in Ameri-
can universities and colleges as well as aspects of proficiency guidelines developed by Ameri-
can Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL).

24.6.8 Steps in developing PRF

For creating the Persian Reference Framework (PRF), the following steps have been taken by
a team of linguists and Persian language teachers in Shahid Beheshti (National) University in
Tehran, supervised by Mahinnaz Mirdehghan (2017, III):
In the first step, after reviewing the reliable language teaching collections and the special-
ized teaching books in every module, the corpus for each language module as well as the
grammatical, lexical, and functional notes have been compiled. Next, in the second step, the
compiled linguistic corpora have been analyzed and certified based on the Persian language
teachers’ and linguists’ reviews and comments. Later, in the third step, based on the notes
on each module, six questionnaires have been devised for both language teachers and lan-
guage learners. Further, in the fourth step, the fieldwork has been executed by distributing the
questionnaires among the teachers and learners in different Persian language teaching cent-
ers throughout the country. Next, in the fifth step, after filling the questionnaires, they were
collected and the data was inserted into the statistics software and the results were analyzed
based on the agreement among the teachers and learners, notes for each module of grammar,
vocabulary and functions have been determined and certified. And finally, in the sixth step,
the leveled frameworks for different modules in three levels of elementary, intermediate and
advanced levels have been devised.
These modules are designed in the form of user-friendly and practical tables for ease of use
of syllabus designers and language programmers (Mirdehghan et al. 2017, 175–196). In total,
278 lexical (ibid., 180–190), 119 grammatical (ibid., 175–179) and 184 functional (ibid., 191–196)
modules for Persian have been selected and categorized in three levels. It is noteworthy that

504
 Teaching Persian varieties and dialects

due to the open structure of the framework and based on the variants such as the teaching
program length, total teaching hours, the type and prospects of the program, and the learners’
needs, the number of the levels and extension of the sub-levels can be increased.
The designed framework for teaching the previously mentioned three Persian language
modules not only proposes a unified approach toward different language levels, but also it will
ease the design and evaluation of the syllabuses and the language skills of the learners.

24.6.9 PRF characteristics

The following are the most important characteristics of the Persian Reference Framework
(ibid., IV):

1 Comprehensive collection for grammatical, lexical and functional modules;

2 Special attention to the language learners’ opinions, needs and favorites;
3 Use of expert opinions of the Persian language teachers;
4 Provision of the results and the contents of each teaching level in different tables based on
the needs of different groups, for the ease of accessibility for language programmers and
textbook authors.
5 The flexibility of the structure of the framework such that with the growth of data, it’s
possible to review and revise the framework.

In sum, this project has been brought up using the European Framework of Reference for
teaching languages and localizing it for the region. Accordingly, the localized Persian criteria
(PRF) can be used for designing and planning educational courses and textbooks, and provid-
ing a harmony and balance between different areas of teaching, testing and evaluating Persian.
This project is accomplished using standardized questionnaires designed for language learners
and language teachers. The data was analyzed and the final results demonstrate: 278 lexical
domains, 178 grammatical items and 184 functions selected and graded in three levels of
elementary, intermediate and advanced in TPSOL (Mirdehghan et al. 2017, iii).

24.6.10 Professional series developed on the basis of PRF

Accordingly, and on the basis of the earlier-mentioned Reference Book for Persian (PRF),20
a series of professional series entitled “PARFA” has been published for teaching Persian to
speakers of other languages. PARFA provides a new integrated four-skills course book series
for teaching Persian to adults who want to use Persian in daily life, and guides them from
PARFA 1 (Elementary level) to PARFA 2 (Intermediate level) and finally PARFA 3 (Advanced
level).21 The PARFA syllabus links grammar, vocabulary, skills and functions as illustrated in
the Persian Reference Framework (PRF).
The PARFA series are designed on the basis of PRF for the three earlier-mentioned levels of
elementary, intermediate and advanced (together with an audio CD as well as tests and exams
for each student’s book).

24.7 Conclusion
The aim of this chapter has been to introduce and investigate different language programs for
teaching Persian varieties. First, we investigated the concept of core and peripheral varieties of
Persian, within which Iranian Persian (Farsi), Tajiki Persian (Tajiki) and Dari Persian (Dari),

505
 Mahinnaz Mirdehghan and Saeed Reza Yousefi

as the official languages of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan have been listed as three core
varieties of Persian. Among these three, due to Iran being the cradle of Persian civilization and
culture, Iranian Persian has become the focus of most language teaching programs in different
parts of the world.
Along the three “core varieties” of Persian, the group of dialects of each of them that were
classified as “peripheral varieties” have been discussed. The main focus here is on the core
varieties of Persian, among which Iranian Persian has the most language teaching programs in
different parts of the world. The matter is shown numerically in this chapter by presenting dif-
ferent institutes in Iran and throughout the world offering Persian (especially Iranian Persian)
language programs for foreigners. As the current inquiry shows, universities with Persian lan-
guage programs focusing on Tajiki and Dari varieties of Persian are limited to Tajikistan and
Afghanistan (Kabul University). The geographical quantitative report of the standard (Iranian)
Persian teaching centers shows a number of 16 institutes “inside Iran” and roughly 106 insti-
tutes and 35 cultural associations “outside of Iran”, which include Persian teaching programs
in their curriculum planning, both officially and unofficially.
The review shows the attention of nongovernmental institutes to teaching Persian, which
by its own shows the importance of Persian language and the interests of learners around the
world for learning it.
The previously given geographical report has been followed in the chapter by illustrating
the necessity for a well-structured framework for teaching standard Persian to speakers of
other languages, which can result in the production of suitable and applied educational con-
tents, according to the needs of the learners. In this area, a reference framework for Persian
that represents the general principles and could shape the roadmap for developing materials
for different language levels for teaching Persian is an essential requirement.
Consequently, based on the Common European Framework of Reference for teaching lan-
guages (CEFR) (CEFR 2001; CEFR Companion Volume 2018) and due to the necessity for
planning a well-structured framework for teaching the Persian language, and the lack of such a
reference framework in representing the general principles for Persian, a project in developing
and designing this reference framework was initiated by a team in Shahid Beheshti (National)
University in Iran. This project has got approved by the International Scientific Cooperation
Center of MSRT as Persian Reference Framework (PRF) and is explained in detail in this
chapter, together with its methodology, characteristics, steps in its development and profes-
sional book series, which are all developed based on that.

506
 Appendix 1
Institutes offering programs for teaching
other Iranian languages
A brief review of the institutes offering programs for teaching other Iranian languages, namely
Balochi and Pashto, is presented in the following. It’s to be noted that for teaching other Iranian
languages such as Tati, Taleshi, Vafsi etc., no organized institute has been found. However,
some courses or programs can be found online in form of websites, weblogs and applications.

I) Institutes teaching Balochi

a) In Asia
1 Pakistan
1) University of Balochistan (www.uob.edu.pk)
2) Balochi Academy, Quetta, Pakistan (www.balochiacademy.org)
2 Iran
1) University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran (to be presented)
3 Bahrain
1) Baloch Club, Bahrain
b) In Europe
1 Sweden
1) Uppsala university (www.uu.se)
c) In North America
1) Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), Monterey, Califor-
nia (www.dliflc.edu)

II) Institutes teaching Pashto

a) In Asia
1 Pakistan
1) University of Balochistan (www.uob.edu.pk)
b) In Europe
1 Germany
1) Cultural Association of Mittelfranken Afghans (http://afghan.akm.de/index.php/
fa.ir/sprachunterricht.farsi.paschto)
c) In North America
1) Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), Monterey, California

507
 Appendix 2
Institutes inside Iran
Institutes inside Iran with centers for teaching Persian language to speakers of other languages
(TPSOL)22:

 1 Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU) (http://ikiu.ac.ir/en/)

 2 Dehkhoda Center, University of Tehran (UT) (https://icps.ut.ac.ir)
 3 Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM) (https://en.um.ac.ir)
 4 University of Isfahan (UI) (http://ui.ac.ir)
 5 Shahid Beheshti (National) University (SBU) (http://en.sbu.ac.ir)
 6 Alzahra University (www.alzahra.ac.ir)
 7 University of Kordestan (UOK) (www.ukh.edu.krd)
 8 Shiraz University (http://shirazu.ac.ir)
 9 Bu.Ali Sina University of Hamedan (http://basu.ac.ir)
10 University of Mazandaran (UMZ) (http://en.umz.ac.ir)
11 Shahid Chamran University (SCU) of Ahvaz (http://scu.ac.ir)
12 Payam.e Noor University (PNU) (www.pnu.ac.ir)
13 Allameh Tabataba’i University (https://en.atu.ac.ir)
14 Kharazmi University (https://khu.ac.ir)
15 Tarbiat Modares University (TMU Research Center) (http://modares.ac.ir)
16 Sa’adi Foundation (https://saadifoundation.ir/en) (Shabani-Jadidi and Sedighi (2018, 394))

508
 Appendix 3
Universities in Europe
List of universities in Europe offering Persian language programs:

 1 France
1) Sciences Po University (www.sciencespo.fr/en)
2) University of Strasbourg (www.en.unistra.fr/)
 2 Slovakia
1) Bratislava University (https://fphil.uniba.sk)
 3 Slovenia
1) University of Maribor (www.um.si)
2) University of Ljubljana (www.uni.lj.si)
 4 Poland
1) Warsaw University (http://en.uw.edu.pl)
 5 Bosnia and Herzegovina
1) The Oriental Institute in Sarajevo (www.ois.unsa.ba)
 6 Romania
1) University of Bucharest (https://en.unibuc.ro)
 7 Czech Republic
1) Charles University in Prague (www.cuni.cz)
 8 Germany
1) The Free University of Berlin (www.fu.berlin.de)
2) The University of Bonn (www.uni.bonn.de)
 9 Belgium
1) Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) (www.kuleuven.be)
10 Bulgaria
1) Sofia University (www.uni.sofia.bg)
11 Denmark
1) University of Copenhagen (www.ku.dk)
12 Hungary
1) University of Budapest (Eötvös Loránd University) (www.elte.hu)
13 Austria
1) University of Vienna (www.univie.ac.at/en/)

509
 Appendix 4
Universities in Caucasus and the Commonwealth of Nations
List of universities in Caucasus and the Commonwealth of Nations offering Persian language
programs:

1 Ukraine
1) Kyiv National Linguistic University (www.knlu.edu.ua/en/)
2) Shevchenko University (www.univ.kiev.ua/en/)
2 Russia
1) The Institute of Asian and African Countries at Lomonosov Moscow State University
(www.msu.ru/en/info/struct/depts/isaa.html)
2) Moscow State Linguistic University (https://linguanet.ru/en/)
3) Kazan Federal University (https://kpfu.ru/eng)
4) University of Bahkortostan (www.bashedu.ru/en) (Shabani-Jadidi and Sedighi (2018,
396))
5) Saint Petersburg State University (http://english.spbu.ru/) (ibid)
6) Saratov State University (www.sgu.ru/en) (ibid)
3 Belarus
1) Minsk State Linguistic University (www.mslu.by/en/)
2) State Economic University (http://bseu.by/english/)
4 Georgia
1) Tbilisi State University (TSU) (www.tsu.ge/)
2) Ilia State University (https://iliauni.edu.ge/en/)
3) Kutaisi University (www.unik.edu.ge/index.php?lang=en)
4) The Free University of Tbilisi (www.freeuni.edu.ge/en)
5 Azerbaijan
1) Nakhchivan State University (http://ndu.edu.az)
6 Turkey
1) Istanbul University (www.istanbul.edu.tr)
2) Atatürk University (www.atauni.edu.tr)
3) Ankara University (https://en.ankara.edu.tr)
7 Kazakhstan
1) Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (www.kaznu.kz)
2) The Kazakh Ablai Khan University of International Relations and World Languages
(www.ablaikhan.kz)
3) University of Zhambyl

510
 Teaching Persian varieties and dialects

8 Armenia
1) Yerevan Brusov State University of Languages and Social Sciences (www.brusov.
am)
2) Russian Armenian University (www.rau.am)
3) National Academy of Sciences (www.sci.am)

511
 Appendix 5
Universities in Asia and Oceania
List of universities in Asia and Oceania offering Persian language programs:

1 Bangladesh
1) University of Dhaka (www.du.ac.bd)
2) University of Rajshahi (www.ru.ac.bd)
2 China
1) Shanghai University (http://en.shu.edu.cn)
2) Peking University (http://english.pku.edu.cn)
3) Xiamen University (https://en.xmu.edu.cn)
4) Guangdong University (http://iie.en.gdufs.edu.cn)
5) Sun Yatsen University (www.sysu.edu.cn)
6) Luo Yang University of Foreign Languages (www.uscet.net/partners/luoyang.for-
eign.languages.university) (Shabani-Jadidi and Sedighi (2018, 395))
3 Australia
1) Australian National University (www.anu.edu.au)
4 Malaysia
1) University Putra (www.upm.edu.my)
5 Pakistan
1) National University of Modern Languages (www.numl.edu.pk)
2) University of Lahore (www.uol.edu.pk)
3) University of the Punjab (www.pu.edu.pk)
6 India
1) Jawaharlal Nehru University (www.jnu.ac.in)
2) University of Delhi (www.du.ac.in)
3) University of Mumbai (www.mu.ac.in/) (Shabani-Jadidi and Sedighi (2018, 395)

512
 Appendix 6
Universities in Africa and the Middle East
List of universities in Africa and the Middle East offering Persian language programs:

1 Algeria
1) University of Algiers (www.univ.alger.dz)
2 Tunisia
1) El Manar University (www.utm.rnu.tn)
2) Manouba University (www.uma.rnu.tn)
3) University of Sousse (www.uc.rnu.tn)
4) Ez Zitouna University (www.uz.rnu.tn)
3 Senegal
1) University of Dakar (www.ucad.sn)
4 Lebanon
1) Beirut Arab University (www.bau.edu.lb)
2) Islamic University of Lebanon (www.iul.edu.lb)

513
 Appendix 7
Universities in South America
List of universities in South America offering Persian language programs:

1 Brazil
1) University of Brasília (www.unb.br)
2 Columbia
1) National University of Colombia (http://unal.edu.co)
3 Uruguay
1) University of the Republic (www.universidad.edu.uy)

514
 Appendix 8
Universities to offer Persian language programs in near future
List of universities to offer Persian language programs in near future:

1 Finland
1) University of Helsinki (www.helsinki.fi)
2 Australia
1) University of Sydney (https://sydney.edu.au)
3 Mexico
1) Mexico City University (www.unam.mx)
4 Venezuela
1) University of Caracas

515
 Appendix 9
Free institutes in North America
List of free institutes offering Persian language programs in North America:

1) University of Chicago (www.uchicago.edu)

2) University of Maryland (www.umd.edu)
3) University of Utah (www.utah.edu)
4) International Career Institute (https://icieducation.co.uk)
5) United States Military Academy (www.usma.edu)
6) Boston University (www.bu.edu) in MA: At BU, students can study two years of Persian
language in small classes and pursue further study on an individual basis.
7) University of Pennsylvania (www.upenn.edu)
8) University of Michigan (https://umich.edu/) (Shabani-Jadidi and Sedighi (2018, 399))
9) University of Austin in Texas (www.utexas.edu/) (ibid.)

516
 Appendix 10
Free institutes in Europe
List of free institutes offering Persian language programs in Europe:

1 Austria
1) University of Vienna: Institute for Orientalism (https://orientalistik.univie.ac.at)
2) University of Vienna: Institute for Linguistics – Indo-Germanic (https://pling.univie.
ac.at)
3) The University of Innsbruck: Institute of Ancient History and Ancient Near Eastern
Studies (http://uibk.academia.edu)
4) The Austrian Academy of Sciences: Institute of Iranian Sciences (www.oeaw.ac.at/
en/iran/institute/about.the.institute/)
2 Bulgaria
1) Centre for Iran, the Balkans and Central European Studies (http://cibce.org)
3 France
1) The New Sorbonne University – Paris 3: Institute of Iranian Studies (http://univ.
paris3.academia.edu)
2) University of Strasbourg: Department of Persian Studies (www.en.unistra.fr)
3) National Institute for Oriental Languages and Civilizations (INALCO) (www.geresh.
cam.eu/national.institute.of.oriental.languages.and.civilizations.inalco)
4) Practical School of Advanced Studies, Paris: Iranian and Indian worlds (UMR 7528)
(www.paris.iea.fr)
5) France College, Paris: Iranian and Indian worlds (CNRS) (www.iran.inde.cnrs.fr/
mondes.iranien.et.indien.research.groupe)
6) MOM (House of the Orient and the Mediterranean), Lyon (www.mom.fr)
4 Germany
1) University of Bamberg: Institute for Iranian Studies (www.uni.bamberg.de/en/
orientalistik/)
2) University of Gottingen: Institute for Iranian Studies (www.uni.goettingen.de)
3) University of Hamburg (www.uni.hamburg.de)
4) University of Marburg (www.uni.marburg.de)
5) University of Koln (www.portal.uni.koeln.de)
6) University of Heidelberg (www.uni.heidelberg.de)
7) University of Munich (www.en.uni.muenchen.de)
8) Turfan Studies at the Berlin Brandenburg Academy of Sciences (http://turfan.bbaw.
de/projekt.en)
5 Italy
1) The University of Naples Federico II: The Eastern Studies (www.unina.it)
2) The Sapienza University of Rome (www.uniroma1.it)

517
 Mahinnaz Mirdehghan and Saeed Reza Yousefi

3) Ca’ Foscari University of Venice (www.unive.it)

4) The University of Bologna: Alma mater studiorum, Ravenna office (www.unibo.it/
en/campus.ravenna)
5) The Tuscia University (www.unitus.it)
6 The Netherlands
1) The University of Leiden (www.universiteitleiden.nl)
7 Poland
1) Jagiellonian University, Dept. of Iranian Studies (www.iranistyka.io.filg.uj.edu.pl)
2) University of Warsaw, Dept. of Iranian Studies (http://informatorects.uw.edu.pl)
8 Scandinavian Countries
1) Department of Culture Studies and Oriental Languages, University of Oslo, Iranian
Languages (www.uio.no)
2) The University of Uppsala, Persian Studies (www.uu.se/en)
9 Spain
1) The University of Salamanca: University Expert in Languages and Cultures of India
and Iran (www.usal.es)
2) The University of Sevilla (www.us.es)
3) The Autonomous University of Madrid: Department of Arab and Islamic Studies and
Oriental Studies (www.uam.es)
4) The University of Alicante: Region of Arab and Islamic Studies, Institute of the Near
East Ancient (https://eps.ua.es)
5) The University of Barcelona: Ancient Near Eastern Institute (www.ub.edu)
10 UK
1) SOAS: Centre for Iranian Studies, Manchester: Middle Eastern Studies (www.soas.
ac.uk/lmei.cis/)
2) Durham: The Centre for Iranian Studies (www.dur.ac.uk)
3) Oxford: Faculty of Oriental Studies (www.orinst.ox.ac.uk)
4) British Institute of Persian Studies, The Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (https://royalasiaticsociety.org)
5) Iran Heritage Foundation, University of Edinburgh, University of St Andrews (www.
iranheritage.org)

518
 Appendix 11
Cultural associations in Europe
List of cultural associations offering Persian language programs in Europe:

1 France:
1) Omid Cultural and Educational Association ([email protected])
2) The International Nowruz Day in Paris ([email protected])
3) Bahar Cultural Association in Paris
4) French Iranians Cultural Association (http://aveciraniensenfrance.com; iranienfr@
yahoo.fr)
5) Cultural Association of Persian Speakers in Montpellier (pauseculture34@gmail.
com)
6) Parse Cultural Association (http://association.parse.blogspot.fr; association.parse@
gmail.com)
7) Persian Letters Literary Association (lettrespersanes.fr; [email protected])
8) Association for the Dissemination of Culture of Art and Literature of Iran (ADCALI)
(http://adcali.com; [email protected])
9) Association Norouz (http://norouz.e.monsite.com; [email protected])
10) Strass’iran.Strasbourg (www.strassiran.org; [email protected])
11) Arghanoun Cultural Association (http://arghanoun.com)
12) Setak Cultural Association in Paris ([email protected])
13) Ferdowsi Linguistic and Cultural Association (http://association.ferdowsi.free.fr;
[email protected])
14) Nima Artistic and Cultural Association (http://association.ferdowsi.free.fr; nima.
[email protected])
15) Persian Letters Cultural Association in Paris ([email protected])
16) Aftab Cultural Association in Paris ([email protected])
17) Association for the Promotion of Iranian Culture in Strasbourg ([email protected])
18) Persepolis Cultural Association in Limoges ([email protected])
2 Germany
1) Dehkhoda German Iranian Society (www.deutsch.iranische.gesellschaft.de)
2) Iranian in Germany Society (www.iraniande.com)
3) Iranian-German Cultural Association in Heidelberg (www.divh.de)
4) Lovers of Iranian Languages and Culture Association in Düsseldorf (www.persischs-
chule.de)
5) Iranian Social and Cultural Association (www.iskv.org/)
6) Literary and Cultural Association of Iranians in Frankfurt (www.1001shab.de/)
3 United Kingdom
1) Sokhan Association in London (http://sokhan.co.uk/)
4 The Netherlands
1) Association of Iranian Culture and Literature (www.vicl.nl/)

519
 Appendix 12
Cultural associations in Canada
List of cultural associations offering Persian language programs in Canada:

1) Iranian Association at the University of Toronto (www.iaut.org)

2) Iranian Students’’ Association of University of Alberta (ttp://www.isaua.org)
3) Iranian Students’ Association in British Columbia University (http://ubcpc.com/)
4) The University of Manitoba Iranian Student Association (http://umisa.net/)
5) Iranian Community Association of Ontario (www.iranianassociation.ca)
6) Iranian Studies at McGill (www.mcgill.ca/study/2018.2019/faculties/arts/undergraduate/
programs/bachelor.arts.ba.minor.concentration.persian.language)
7) Centre for Iranian Studies Concordia University, Montreal Quebec (http://iranianstudies.
concordia.ca)

Notes
1) For an elaborate discussion on different peripheral varieties of Persian and other dialects and lan-
guage spoken in Iran for whom Persian is considered second language, read Chapter 23 in this
volume.
2) For a detailed discussion on the historical review of teaching Persian in the world, see Shabani-Jadidi
and Sedighi (2018).
3) The Persian Reference Framework (PRF) has been developed by a team of linguists and Persian lan-
guage teachers in Shahid Beheshti (National) University in Tehran, based on the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR). This project has been supervised by Mahinnaz Mirdehghan and
implemented within the following book: Persian Framework of Reference for Teaching Persian to
Speakers of Other Languages: Grammar, Vocabulary and Functions (For Elementary, Intermedi-
ate & Advanced Levels) (Mirdehghan et al. 2017).
4) The term Iranic/Iranian is applied to any language that descends from the ancestral Proto-Iranian
language.
5) Other Iranian languages are just briefly noted in place to place to get to the main point.
6) For a more detailed list of Iranian languages, read Chapter 23 in this volume.
7) Dabir Moghaddam mentions “Ourami” as a local language in Iran, but according to Mackenzie (1966)
it is a dialect of the Gurani language. The latter is what’s considered in the present classification.
8) Spooner (1994) notes that the ambiguity between Farsi/Persian nomenclature comes from the fact
that the term Farsi is the Persian pronunciation while the latter is the Anglicized version. Therefore,
the term Farsi can be considered analogous to Deutsch for German, Français for French or Russki
for Russian.
9) As used by Bechert, Bernini, and Buridant (1990) and Windfuhr (1979).
10) For centuries, Persian has also been a prestigious cultural language in other regions of Western Asia,
Central Asia and South Asia by the various empires based in these regions (Encyclopedia Britannica:
Persian literature, retrieved January 2019).
11) Encyclopedia Britannica: Persian literature, retrieved January 2019.
12) “Variety” is used here as a cover term to avoid using language, dialect and accent terms, while at the
same time it can include them all.
13) Despite its cultural differences with Iran, Tajikistan is used as a substitute for American students
interested in researching the Islamic Republic, based on US State Department’s policies.
14) http://ku.edu.af.
15) The main subjects taught in this department are: general linguistics, literary arts, poetry, history of
language evolution, and history of literature.

520
 Teaching Persian varieties and dialects

16) For a more detailed discussion on the previous and current situation of the Persian language seats
and its challenges and solutions, see Ostadzade (2018).
17) Since there’s not an organized and published source listing all the institutes offering Persian teaching
programs, this section is mainly based on the information gathered in person and by online searches,
which shows that it may be changed in time.
18) http://asij.ir/.
19) https://sites.google.com/site/iacast2014/.
20) Other research provided on the basis of PRF for teaching Persian for “specific purposes” can be
referred to as follows: Ekhtiyarzade (2018), Dehghani (2018), Borumand (2017), Yahaqi (2017),
Vali’i (2017), Bahrami (2017), Omidi (2017), Nosobaliva (2014), Karimzade (2016), Hajibagheri
(2016), Molaeiyan (2016).
21) The book series includes nine books, including:
• Student’s book:
Professional Series of PARFA: PARFA 1, Student’s Book, Elementary Level (Mirdehghan et al.
2018b)
Professional Series of PARFA: PARFA 2, Student’s Book, Intermediate Level (Mirdehghan et al.
2018a)
Professional Series of PARFA: PARFA 3, Student’s Book, Advanced Level (Mirdehghan et al.
2018b)
• Workbook:
Professional Series of PARFA: PARFA 1, Workbook, Elementary Level (Mirdehghan et al. 2018a)
Professional Series of PARFA: PARFA 2, Workbook, Intermediate Level (Mirdehghan et al. 2018b)
Professional Series of PARFA: PARFA 3, Workbook, Advanced Level (Mirdehghan et al. 2018a)
• Teacher’s book (under publication)
22) Here, the Research Institute of Tarbiat Modares University and Sa’di Foundation have been added to
the 14 other Persian Teaching centers in Iran listed by Ostadzade (2018), which comes to a number
of 16 institutes in the country.

References
Bagheri, F. 2015. Developing (Selecting and Classifying) the Grammatical Content of the Persian
Framework of Reference for Teaching it to Speakers of Other Languages at the Elementary, Interme-
diate and Advanced Levels. MA, thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. [in Persian].
Bahrami, H. 2017. Designing of Proficiency Test Framework for Reading Skills for Persian Learning
Foreigners. MA, thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. [in Persian].
Bechert, J., G. Bernini, and C. Buridant. 1990. Towards a Typology of European Languages. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Beeman, W.O. 2005. “Persian, Tajiki and Dari in Central Asia.” In The National Council for Eurasian
and East European Research. Rhode Island: Brown University.
Borumand, M. 2017. Development of Textbook for Management Field Special for Persian Learning
Foreigners Based on Content based Approach for Academic Purposes at Advanced Level. MA thesis,
Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. [in Persian].
Cardona, G. “Indo-Iranian Languages.” In Encyclopedia Britannica. Accessed January 27, 2019. www.
britannica.com/topic/Indo-Iranian.languages.
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teach-
ing, Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Council of Europe – Companion Volume. 2018. Common European Framework of Reference for Lan-
guages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Press Syndicate of the University of
Cambridge.
Dabir Moghaddam, M. 2013. Typology of Iranian Languages. Tehran: SAMT.
Dehghani, M. 2018. Explaining Persian Teaching to Chinese Speakers in Basic Level Based on Persian
Reference Framework. MA thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. [in Persian].

521
 Mahinnaz Mirdehghan and Saeed Reza Yousefi

Ekhtiyarzade, M. 2018. Development of Persian Teaching Curriculum Based on Task Based Approach
for Iranian Children Living Abroad: Case Study of the Swedish Schools. MA thesis, Shahid Beheshti
University, Tehran. [in Persian].
Encyclopedia Britannica. 2019. “Persian Literature.” Accessed January 30. www.britannica.com/art/Per-
sian.literature
Gharegazi, M., M. Asgharpour-Masoule, and M. DabirMoghaddam. 2014. Descriptive Bibliography of
AZFA: Persian Language Teaching to Foreigners. Tehran: Allame Tabataba’i University [in Persian].
Gordon, R.G. 2005. “Report for Iranian Languages.” In Ethnologue: Languages of the World, edited by
Raymond G. Gordon and Barbara F. Grimes, 15th ed. Dallas: SIL International.
Hajibagheri, Z. 2016. Development of a Comprehensive Textbook for Persian Teaching to Foreigners
Based on Persian Reference Framework at Advanced Level. MA thesis, Shahid Beheshti University,
Tehran. [in Persian]
Karimi-Hakkak, A. 2001. “Persian Tradition.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited
by Mona Baker, 513–522. New York: Routledge.
Karimzade, S. 2016. Development of a Comprehensive Textbook for Persian Teaching to Foreigners
Based on Persian Reference Framework at Basic Level. MA thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, Teh-
ran. [in Persian].
Lotti, B. 2007. Investigation into the Use of the Common European Framework of Reference for Lan-
guages in Regional and Minority Language Education. Leeuwarden: Mercator.
Mackenzie, D.N. 1966. The Dialect of Awro: Grammatical Sketch, Texts, and Vocabulary. Copenhagen:
Munksgaard.
Mirdehghan, M., Z. HajiBagher, T. AbdollahiParsa, F. Bagheri, Z. Montazeri, and H. Aghaei. 2018a.
Professional Series of PARFA: PARFA 3, Workbook, Advanced Level. Tehran: Negarestan-e Andisheh
Publishing Institute (in collaboration with SBU & International Scientific Cooperation Center of
MSRT). [in Persian]
Mirdehghan, M., Z. HajiBagher, T. AbdollahiParsa, F. Bagheri, and H. Aghaei. 2018b. Professional
Series of PARFA: PARFA 3, Student’s Book, Advanced Level. Tehran: Negarestan-e Andisheh Pub-
lishing Institute (in collaboration with SBU). [in Persian]
Mirdehghan, M., S. Karimzade, F. Bagheri, T. AbdollahiParsa, and H. Aghaei. 2018a. Professional Series
of PARFA: PARFA 1, Workbook, Elementary Level. Tehran: Negarestan-e Andisheh Publishing Insti-
tute (in collaboration with SBU & International Scientific Cooperation Center of MSRT). [in Persian]
Mirdehghan, M., S. Karimzade, F. Bagheri, T. AbdollahiParsa, and H. Aghaei. 2018b. Professional Series
of PARFA: PARFA 1, Student’s Book, Elementary Level. Tehran: Negarestan-e Andisheh Publishing
Institute (in collaboration with SBU). [in Persian]
Mirdehghan, M., M. Molayian, H. Aghaei, F. Bagheri, and T. AbdollahiParsa. 2018a. Professional Series
of PARFA: PARFA 2, Student’s Book, Intermediate Level. Tehran: Negarestan-e Andisheh Publishing
Institute (in collaboration with SBU). [in Persian]
Mirdehghan, M., M. Molayian, Z. Hajibagheri, F. Bagheri, and T. AbdollahiParsa. 2018b. Professional
Series of PARFA: PARFA 2, Workbook, Intermediate Level. Tehran: Negarestan-e Andisheh Publish-
ing Institute (in collaboration with SBU & International Scientific Cooperation Center of MSRT). [in
Persian]
Mirdehghan, M., A.R. VakiliFard, Z. Motazerirad, and F. Bagheri. 2017. PERSIAN FRAMEWORK OF
REFERENCE for Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages: Grammar, Vocabulary and
Functions (For Elementary, Intermediate & Advanced Levels). Tehran: Khamush Publications (in
collaboration with the International Scientific Cooperation Center of MSRT). [in Persian]
Mirdehghan, M., and M. Zandi. 2010a. “Standard Framework for Teaching Persian to Foreigners: Con-
sistency and the Transparency of the Goals, Teaching Level and Assessment.” In The Proceedings
of the 7th International Conference of the Persian Language and Literature Teachers. Tehran: The
Union for Expansion of Persian Language and Literature. [in Persian]
Mirdehghan, M., and M. Zandi. 2010b. “Teaching Persian on the basis of the Common European Frame-
work of Reference for Languages.” Paper presented at the 7th biennial International Congress of
World Teachers of Persian Language and Literature held on Mehr 28–29 Dei. Tehran University. [in
Persian]
Molaeiyan, M. 2016. Development of a Comprehensive Textbook for Persian Teaching to Foreigners
Based on Persian Reference Framework at Middle Level. MA thesis, Shahid Beheshti University,
Tehran. [in Persian]

522
 Teaching Persian varieties and dialects

MontazeriRad, Z. 2015. Developing (Selecting and Classifying) the Lexical Content of the Persian
Framework of Reference for Teaching it to Speakers of Other Languages at the Elementary, Interme-
diate and Advanced Levels. MA thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. [in Persian]
Nosobaliva, E. 2014. Explaining Persian Teaching to Kyrgyz Speakers based on European Common
Reference Framework at Basic Level. MA thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. [in Persian]
Olesen, A. 1995. Islam and Politics in Afghanistan. New York: Routledge.
O’Loughlin. 2007. “The National Bilingual Program in Colombia: Imposition or opportunity?” Journal
of Applied Language Studies, 5: 7–17.
Omidi, M. 2017. Designing of Proficiency Test Framework for Listening Skills for Persian Learning
Foreigners. MA thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. [in Persian]
Ostadzade, Z. 2018. “A Report on the Previous and Current Situation of Persian Language and Litera-
ture Teaching Abroad: Challenges and Approaches.” Presented in the 2nd National Conference on
TPSOL, Shahid Beheshti University. [in Persian]
Perry, J.R. 1996. “Tajik Literature: Seventy Years Is Longer than the Millennium.” World Literature
Today, 70(3): 571.
Purmohammad, M. 2013. An Applied Persian Grammar: Speaking as the Macro Skill. Scotts Valley, CA:
Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.
Rafiee, A. 2001. Colloquial Persian. New York: Routledge.
Saedi, S. 2015. Developing (Selecting and Classifying) the Functional Content of the Persian Framework
of Reference for Teaching it to Speakers of Other Languages at the Elementary, Intermediate and
Advanced Levels. MA thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. [in Persian]
Sahraei, R.M., and F. Marsus. 2017. Standard Teaching Persian Reference. Tehran: Allame Tabatabaei
University Publication. [in Persian]
Shabani-Jadidi, P., and A. Sedighi. 2018. “Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages.” In The
Oxford Handbook of Persian Linguistics, 388–408. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sims Williams, N. 2002. Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples. London: University Press.
Solati, B. 2013. Persian Grammar: An Elementary Guide to Some Persian Grammatical Problems.
Scotts Valley, CA: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.
Spooner, B. 1994. “Are We Teaching Persian? or Farsi? or Dari? or Tajiki?” In Persian Studies in Amer-
ica, edited by M. Mar’ashi, 175–190. Bethesda, MD: Iran books (IBEX Publishers).
Vali’i, M. 2017. Designing of Proficiency Test Framework for Writing and Speaking Skills for Persian
Learning Foreigners. MA thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. [in Persian]
Vandergrift, L. 2006. “Proposal for a Common Framework of Reference for Languages for Canada.” New
Canadian Perspectives. Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage.
Wahed Alikuzai, H. 2013. A Concise History of Afghanistan, Vol. 14. Indiana: Trafford Publishing.
Windfuhr, G. 1979. Persian Grammar: History and State of Its Study. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Windfuhr, G. 2009. “Persian and Tajik.” In The Iranian Languages, edited by Gernot Windfuhr, 416544.
New York: Routledge.
Yahaqi, F. 2017. Development of Textbook for Accounting Field Special for Persian Learning Foreign-
ers Based on Content based Approach for Academic Purposes at Advanced Level. MA thesis, Shahid
Beheshti University, Tehran. [in Persian]

523
 25
THE ACQUISITION OF PERSIAN
PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE ZAHRA HAMEDI SHIRVANPERSIAN PRAGMATIC COMPETENCE

A case study about the comprehension of

conversational implicature and presupposition
in the learners of Persian as a second/foreign
language (LOP)1

Zahra Hamedi Shirvan

25.1 Introduction
To be competent language users in the Persian language, second/foreign language learners not
only have to acquire grammatical accuracy, but they must also learn pragmatic appropriate-
ness. Compared to other aspects of language, like grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and
the four skills, pragmatics has come to attention in Persian as a second language research and
education much later. Read Chapter 2 in this volume, the focus of which is the acquisition of
prosodic parameters of politeness in second language learners of Persian.
The study of pragmatics deals with areas such as deixis, conversational implicature, pre-
supposition and conversational structure, etc. As Bardovi-Harlig (2017) mentions,

one of the ongoing issues in studying pragmatics in ISLA2 is the lack of a pragmatics
curriculum (for any language). Closely related to that is the lack of reference works
(in any language) that catalogue the basic pragmatic phenomena for that language.
It is hard to imagine the teaching of grammar, pronunciation, fluency, vocabulary,
listening, and reading and writing without the established associated pedagogies and
reference works. Yet, in pragmatics there is no established approach that forms the
basis for further inquiry.
(226–227)

One of the main objectives of this research is to assess and investigate Persian learners’
level of understanding and comprehension of the conversational implicatures and presupposi-
tions in some Persian conversations and sentences.
To achieve such a goal, the main research questions to be answered in this chapter are as
follows:
Does the learning context have an effect on the pragmatic competence of those learning
Persian as a second or foreign language? In other words, is there a significant difference

524
 Persian pragmatic competence

between the pragmatic competence of those learning Persian abroad and those who learn it
in Iran?
Another important objective is to examine the extent of the attention of the Persian language
teaching materials and textbooks to the Persian learners understanding of the conversational
implicatures and presuppositions; therefore, one other main question will be: to what extent
the teaching materials have dealt with and paid attention to pragmatic competence implicitly
or explicitly?
With these ends in view, in this research a survey was conducted using a questionnaire
to measure the knowledge of conversational implicature and presupposition of Persian
learners. The data of the present study were collected from two groups of learners of Per-
sian; the first group were 33 LOPs who were studying Persian inside Iran and the second
group were 12 LOPs who were studying Persian outside Iran. In addition, two book series
were examined in terms of their use of exercises and tasks related to conversational impli-
cature and presupposition. In the research methodology, these issues are described with
more clear details.
It can be said that this research would be the first attempt to assess Persian learners’ prag-
matic comprehension, namely conversational implicature and presupposition and also to
investigate the amount of textbooks’ attention to these two important pragmatic issues.
In the next section, some theoretical issues about pragmatics, pragmatic competence and
other related topics will be introduced briefly. Then, the few previous studies in Persian L2
pragmatics will be introduced. In the next section, the Research Methodology, Data Collec-
tion procedure and the Participants are explained in detail; and finally, the main part of the
research, that is data analysis and discussion, will be presented.

25.2 Theoretical issues: pragmatics, pragmatic competence,

conversational implicature and presupposition
There are various definitions of pragmatics; one of the most complete and concise definitions
is expressed by Crystal, who defines it as

the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they
make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction and the
effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication.
(Crystal 1997, 301)

In more recent theories of language teaching, it is believed that grammatical competence,

which was introduced by Chomsky, is not sufficient for a native-like command of a second/
foreign language. In the theory of communicative competence, as first introduced by Hymes
(1972, 1974), one important part is pragmatic competence. Bardovi-Harlig (2017, 149)
believes the development of L2 pragmatic competence involves the development of both L2
sociopragmatic sensibilities and L2 pragmalinguistic resources. The development of L2 socio-
pragmatic knowledge is

the link between action-relevant context factors and communicative action (e.g.,
deciding whether to request an extension, complain about the neighbor’s barking
dog); while the development of pragmalinguistic resources which include the various
linguistic devices that allow speakers to implement their sociopragmatic knowledge.
(Kasper 2001, 51, in Bardovi-Harlig 2017, 149)

525
 Zahra Hamedi Shirvan

Hence, while dealing with pragmatics, attention is paid to consider knowledge of the
means to weaken or strengthen the force of an utterance (i.e. pragmalinguistic knowledge) and
knowledge of the particular means that are likely to be most successful for a given situation
(i.e. sociopragmatic knowledge) (Soler and Martinez-Flor 2008, 3).
According to Canale and Swain (1980, Canale 1983), who were among the first to intro-
duce a model of communicative competence, pragmatic competence, which is the same as
sociolinguistic competence, is the mastery of the sociocultural code of language use (this
definition itself includes ambiguous terms like, ‘sociocultural code’).
Yule describes implicature as “something more than just what the words mean, an addi-
tional conveyed meaning” (Yule 1996, 35). He continues that “implicatures are primary exam-
ples of more being communicated than is said, but in order for them to be interpreted, some
basic cooperative principle must be in operation” (ibid., 36).
Levinson (2000, 11) defines the notion of a generalized conversational implicature as “a
default inference, one that captures our intuitions about a preferred or normal interpretation of
a sentence, an utterance, a conversation or a text”.
Thus, if a speaker utters for example a sentence like the following:

(1) John has three cows.

a hearer will infer from this sentence that John has only three cows, and no more. And in the
following dialogue,

(2) A: Will you go to Mark’s PhD party?

  B: I have to prepare my inaugural lecture.

Speaker A will understand that speaker B implies with his or her answer (which is an indirect
speech act – in Searle’s terms) that he or she will not or cannot go to this party. (Senft 2014, 33)
Levinson (2000, 14) also points out “what is conversationally implicated is not coded but
rather inferred on the basis of some basic assumptions about the rational nature of conversa-
tional activity.”
Grice formulates these ‘basic assumptions about the rational nature of conversational activ-
ity’ in his Cooperative Principle: “Make your conversational contribution such as is required,
at the state at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in
which you are engaged” (Grice 1975, 45).
This principle is constituted by four maxims which are claimed to be generally valid; these
maxims are ‘Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner.’ These concepts are defined as follows:
The category of QUANTITY relates to the quantity of information to be provided, and
under it fall the following maxims:

1 Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the
exchange).
2 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Under the category of QUALITY falls a supermaxim – ‘Try to make your contribution one
that is true’ – and two more specific maxims:

1 Do not say what you believe to be false.

2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

526
 Persian pragmatic competence

Under the category of RELATION, I place a single maxim, namely, ‘Be relevant’.
Finally, under the category of MANNER, which I understand as relating not to what is
said (like the previous categories) but, rather, to HOW what is said is to be said, I include the
supermaxim ‘Be perspicuous’ and various maxims such as:

1 Avoid obscurity of expression.

2 Avoid ambiguity.
3 Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
4 Be orderly (ibid., 45).

25.2.1 Importance of pragmatic comprehension in SLA

According to Canale (1983) and Canale and Swain (1980), pragmatic ability, which is an
important part of the language proficiency construct, is the ability to use language appro-
priately according to the communicative situation. Pragmatic comprehension refers to the
comprehension of oral language in terms of pragmatic meaning. Therefore, second language
learners need to acquire the pragmatic knowledge of the English language in order to achieve
the following abilities:

• The ability to understand a speaker’s intentions,

• The ability to interpret a speaker’s feelings,
• The ability to differentiate the meaning of a speech act, such as the difference between a
directive and a commissure,
• The ability to evaluate the intensity of a speaker’s meaning, such as the difference between
a suggestion and a warning,
• The ability to recognize sarcasm, joking, and other facetious behavior,
• The ability to understand the conversational implicature used in conversations by native
speakers in order to respond appropriately,
• The ability to understand the presuppositions and the conventional meanings that are
associated with certain words (Canale 1983, 6–9).

One important aspect of pragmatic competence in a second language is the ability to draw
correct inferences. Therefore, if second language learners are expected to acquire pragmatic
competence in the target language, they are required to be able to draw correct inferences,
especially when dealing with native speakers.

25.3 Previous research in Persian L2 pragmatics

The study of pragmatics in foreign/second language learning has a history of at least two
decades. Some studies have concentrated on the comprehension or production of speech
acts (Blum-Kulka 1991; Hassall 1997; Li 2000; Rose 2000, among others), refusals
(Fe´lix-Brasdefer 2004), compliments (Rose and Ng Kwai-fun 2001) and apologies (Tros-
borg 1995).
Compared to other areas in learning Persian as a second or foreign language, the investiga-
tion of L2 pragmatics has received very little attention. Only a few studies have been conducted
about learners of Persian pragmatic knowledge or Persian learners’ pragmatic development.
Modarresi and Tajali (2013), have compared the amount and type of direct and indirect
strategies and peripheral modifications employed by Persian speakers and Persian language

527
 Zahra Hamedi Shirvan

learners in the request speech act, in different contexts (concerning formality, familiarity and
importance of the subject of request).
They have used a Discourse Completion Test, and also direct observation, as the main
instrument for data collection. In total, 80 native Persian speakers and 80 Persian language
learners of two levels in one age group of 20–30 participated in this study. Results indi-
cated that there is no significant relation between the importance of the subject of request
and formality and the amount of peripheral modifications employed by language learners
when requesting. But, depending on the amount of familiarity with the addressee, they use
peripheral modifications. However, native Persian speakers acted differently depending on
the given variables, and this indicates that Persian language learners are not aware of suit-
able strategies in different contexts. Findings of this research can help the teachers of Persian
language in this way that educational materials and class activities should prepare Persian
language learners for applying suitable strategies when needed and communicating success-
fully in different situations.
Vakilifard, Ebadi and Ebrahimi-Marjal (2015) have investigated the types and the percent-
ages of speech acts included in the conversations of teaching Persian to the speakers of other
languages (TPSOL) textbook series titled Let’s Learn Persian (2005) taught at the interme-
diate level. For this purpose, the whole speech acts in the dialogue sections of the selected
textbooks were analyzed based on Searle’s (1979) speech act framework. The reliability of
results was checked by two independent inter-raters. The results of this study showed that the
distribution of the speech acts in the conversations of this series was not equal and hence the
pragmatic information in these course books was not adequate to develop learners’ pragmatic
competence. They have finally suggested some implications for material developers and text-
book designers.
In another study, the speech acts in conversations of a book named Farsi be Farsi (2008)
which is written for teaching Persian to the speakers of other languages has been analyzed.
The main goal of study has been to assess the naturalness or authenticity of these conversa-
tions. The theory of speech acts of Searle (1969) and the five categories of Austin’s (1962)
were implemented as the framework of the study. The research questions of the study were:
How frequent is each type of the speech act in the conversations of the book in question? And
what are the differences between speech acts used in everyday conversations in Persian and
the conversations in this book? The results show that the frequency of speech acts in everyday
conversations in Persian and conversations in the book in question, is extensively the same,
regarding the use of all speech acts except for Declaratives. (Behnam 2015).

25.4 Research methodology, data collection, participants

In this study, the Persian translation version of the questionnaire developed by Taghizadeh
(2017) was used to measure the knowledge of conversational implicature and presupposition
of Persian Learners with some small changes. All the LOPs were given 30 minutes to answer
the questionnaire, and the learners who answered the questionnaire online were asked not to
spend more than 30 minutes on it.
The data of the present study were collected from two groups of LOP. The first group con-
sisted of 35 LOPs in the intermediate and higher intermediate level who were studying Persian
at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. The data of this group were collected in about two months
with a questionnaire distributed in chapter format. The nationality of these LOPs is given in
Table 25.1. The second group consisted of 12 LOPs in the intermediate and higher intermedi-
ate level who were studying Persian at the Center of Teaching Persian to the Speakers of Other

528
 Persian pragmatic competence

Table 25.1 Respondents’ country of origin

Thailand Lebanon Iraq Germany Syria England France total

1 3 26 1 1 1 2 35

Table 25.2 Textbooks used as the sources of data in the second phase of analysis

Let’s Learn Persian Level Publisher

Book 1 Basic Madreseh

Book 2 Basic Madreseh
Book3 Intermediate Madreseh
Book 4 Advanced Madreseh
Book 5 Advanced Madreseh
Modern Persian Teaching
Book 1 Basic Ghabool
Book 2 Basic Ghabool
Book3 Intermediate Ghabool
Book 4 Advanced Ghabool
Book 5 Advanced Ghabool

Languages, the Najaf Branch3 (in Iraq). The data of this group were collected through the same
questionnaire which was designed online on Google Forms. The learners were all from Iraq
and native speakers of Arabic.
The second phase of this research includes analyzing and studying two book series of
TPSOL in terms of the amount of attention to conversational implicature and presupposition
in their conversations and listening exercises. These two collections are Let’s Learn Persian,4
written by Zolfaghari et al., and Modern Persian Teaching5 by Ghabool (2014). The first rea-
son for choosing these books was that they were a series – in other words these books contain
elementary level books to advanced level – and another reason is that both series are used as
the main source to teach Persian in many centers inside and outside Iran. The profile of the
books is given in Table 25.2.

25.5 Data analysis and discussion

In this part, every question of the questionnaire will be explained in detail and the results will
be interpreted and discussed for both groups.

25.5.1 Interpretation of questions about conversational

implicature and presupposition

Question (1) Mohammad and Sina are having lunch at the university café

MOHAMMAD: ‘Asghar Farhadi’s new movie has come to the cinema. Me and Michael are
going to watch it tomorrow or the day after, are you coming?
SINA: I have two class seminars next week.

529
 Zahra Hamedi Shirvan

On the basis of Sina’s response, Mohamad understands that he is going with them to the
cinema. The first question about Conversational Implicature (CI) is targeting the Maxim of
Relevance introduced by Grice (1961, 1975, 1978 and 1989). Grice’s Maxim of Relevance
is responsible for creating a large number of standard implicatures. According to Levinson
(1983, 107), “if the implicatures were not constructed on the basis of the assumption of
relevance, many adjacent utterances in conversations would appear quite unconnected”.
The percentage of correct answers to the first question is 77%, and (30 of 39) respondents
answered correctly to it, which is quite high and shows that many respondents have under-
stood this response, although the maxim of relevance is flouted.

Question (2) Golnush and Zahra are talking about

Golnush’s birthday party
ZAHRA: Have you invited Maryam and Sara to the party?
GOLNUSH: I have invited Sara.

Based on this conversation, Zahra understands that Maryam has not been invited to the party.
In this question, the focus is on Grice’s Maxim of Quantity. According to Grice’s theory of
conversational implicatures, we should not say less or more than what is required. While Zahra
refers to both Maryam and Sara in her question, Golnush only refers to one of them in her
response and violates the maxim of quantity deliberately. Violation, according to Grice (1975),
takes place when speakers intentionally refrain to apply certain maxims in their conversa-
tion to cause misunderstanding on their participants’ part or to achieve some other purposes.
However, considering Grice’s cooperative principle, Golnush should be still trying to answer
Zahra’s question. To do so, instead of referring to her name or giving a direct response like ‘I
didn’t invite Maryam’, Golnush simply chose to omit her name and left it to Zahra to under-
stand the conveyed message.
The percentage of correct answers to this question is only 13%, and only 5 out of 39 respond-
ents answered correctly to this question, while 79% answered wrongly and 8% remained neu-
tral. This shows that the violation of the maxim of quantity is challenging for the LOPs and
they have trouble inferring the intended meaning of the speaker.

Question (3) Hamid and Hushang are colleagues

HUSHANG: Would you like a cup of tea?

HAMID: I like mine sweet, and we have run out of sugar.

According to Hamid’s response, Hushang concludes that he will have a cup of tea.
The focus in this question is on the Grice’s Maxim of Manner. Hushang offers his col-
league, Hamid, a cup of coffee and he declines his offer. To do so, he does not use a direct
‘no’ response; instead, he refers to the fact that there is no sugar and he likes to have his coffee
sweet. According to one of the submaxims of Manner, Hamid is supposed to avoid ambigu-
ity; nevertheless, he violates this maxim and does not give a clear ‘no’ response to his offer.
The percentage of right answers to this question is 63%, and the percentage of wrong
and neutral answers are 28% and 9%, respectively. It can be said that although Hamid’s
response is not a direct one, Persian leaners were generally able to comprehend his indirect
answer.

530
 Persian pragmatic competence

Question (4) Jamshid and Ehsan are running together in the park

JAMSHID: Can you slow down a bit? I’m running out of breath.
EHSAN: I am glad that I don’t smoke.

Based on this conversation, you conclude that Jamshid smokes. This question focuses on the
Maxim of Relevance. To reply to Jamshid’s request to slow down, Ehsan’s utterance seems
irrelevant; however, considering Grice’s Maxim of Relevance it can be concluded that there
is a relationship between Ehsan’s utterance and Jamshid being out of breath. Thus, it can be
concluded that, the reason behind Jamshid being out of breath is that he is a smoker.
The percentage of right answers to this question is 77%, compared to the wrong answers’
percentage and neutral ones, which are 15% and 8%, respectively. The high percentage of
right answers show that Persian learners have understood the maxim of relevance in this
conversation.

Question (5) Narcissus and Kati have gone to a new restaurant in their
city and are having dessert. Narcissus has already decided about what to
eat, but Kati has not decided yet

NARCISSUS: Do you like the dessert?

KATY: The cutlery set is new and beautiful.

Based on Katy’s utterance, Narcissus can understand that she does not like the food. Like
the previous question, this question also focuses on the Maxim of Relevance. To respond to
Narcissus’s question whether she likes her food or not, instead of commenting on the food,
Katy refers to the cutlery set. Considering that she is still contributing to this conversation co-
operatively, her response can be interpreted as an indirect ‘no’ to Narcissus’s question.
The percentage of correct answers to this question is 61.5% and the percentage of wrong
answers is 30.5%. In fact, 24 respondents out of 39 answered correctly to this question; out
of them 14 have chosen “agree” and 10 “strongly agree”, and this shows some kind of uncer-
tainty for the Persian learners to decide on the answer of this question. The percentage of
wrong answers is rather high, too. It can be concluded that interpreting indirect responses is
not always easy for all learners.

Question (6) Shahla and Yasaman are professors at a university.

They are talking about the essay of a student called Maryam

SHAHLA: How did you find Maryam’s essay on physics?

YASAMAN: It was well typed.

According to Yasaman, the chapter was well typed. In order to answer Shahla’s question,
Yasaman is trying to be relevant and contribute to this conversation; however, her utterance
conveys a meaning beyond what she has actually uttered. Shahla’s question is about a stu-
dent’s chapter on physics and to respond to her colleague’s question, Yasaman only refers to
the presentation quality of the chapter rather than the content.

531
 Zahra Hamedi Shirvan

The results of this question are rather interesting. The percentage of correct answers is
much less than that of wrong answers 31% vs. 62% with 7% neutral ones. This data shows
that the question has been a relatively challenging one for the learners, and more than 50% of
them haven’t understood that Yasaman’s utterance conveys a meaning beyond what she has
actually uttered.

Question (7) Ali is talking to a bank clerk to apply for a bank loan

BANK CLERK: To be eligible for the loan, you must have 10% deposit, which is £15,000. Do
you have this amount, sir?
ALI: Yes, I do.

According to Ali’s response, he has £15,000 deposit, maybe more. This question refers to
Grice’s Maxim of Quantity. According to Grice (1975), while exchanging information in con-
versations, we should make our contribution as informative as is required. Here, when Ali
agrees to the Bank clerk’s utterance, he means that, he has at least £15,000 deposit. Therefore,
from his utterance it can be concluded that, he either has exactly £15,000 deposit or he may
have more.
The percentage of right answers to this question is 87%; while wrong and neutral ones are
respectively 8% and 5%. In this question, the speaker is giving as much information as needed,
so the leaners seem to have no problem comprehending the utterance.

Question (8) Sara and Amir bought an apartment in Tehran

This sentence is likely to lead you to think that Sara and Amir bought separate apartments in
Tehran. This question is generated considering Levinson’s (2000) Maxim of Manner. Accord-
ing to Levinson’s (2000) informative principle, a speaker should say as little as is required.
Therefore, in this conversation we expect the minimum linguistic information that is needed
to achieve communicational ends. Considering this maxim, this sentence would lead us to
conclude that Amir and Sarah bought one apartment together in Tehran.
The percentage of correct answers to this question is 75%, with 10% wrong responses
and 15% neutral ones. The percentage of the neutral responses is more than that of the wrong
answers. It can be inferred that most of the leaners have understood the meaning of the utter-
ance correctly and the ones who were uncertain preferred to be neutral than to choose the
wrong answer. So giving more information than needed is not necessary even for learners of
Persian as a second/foreign language.

Question (9) Jalal and Payam are two friends and also roommates.
Jalal who is very tired, has gone to bed early tonight

PAYAM: Shall we go to the football game tonight?

JALAL: I have had a hard day.

Based on Jalal’s response, Payam concludes that Jalal is interested to go to football tonight.
Considering the Maxim of Relevance, this question is generated. To respond to Payam’s offer
to go to the cinema, Jalal provides a statement which violates the Maxim of Relevance as

532
 Persian pragmatic competence

Jalal’s response seems to be irrelevant to Payam’s question; although, considering the infor-
mation given about Payam in the introduction that he goes to bed early when he is tired and
the fact that he has had a long day, it can be concluded that he is not looking to accompany
Payam to go to the cinema. The percentage of right answers to this question is 74% and wrong
answers 18.5%. Here a maxim has been flouted, but most learners have understood the mean-
ing of the utterance.

Question (10) Last night I went to the coffee shop in the

neighborhood and ate three ice-creams
According to this sentence, the speaker has gone first to the coffee shop and then had eaten
three ice- creams.
Based on Grice’s (1975) Maxim of Manner, those participating in a conversation should be
orderly. Therefore, in the earlier example, it can be concluded that this person has gone to the
coffee shop first, and then has had three ice-creams.
The percentage of correct answers to this question is 55% and the percentage of wrong
answers is 40%. Among the correct answers, 12 of them are “agree” and 10 are “strongly
agree”. This is somehow an odd result; because no maxim has been violated and there is no
indirect answer or ambiguity or even a word or structure above the level of the leaners. But
40% of the respondents have responded wrongly to this question.

Question (11) Bahareh and Sima, who are roommates, are sitting in the
university café. Sally starts talking about their other roommate, Atefeh

BAHAREH: Atefeh sometimes behaves very badly; I think we must find another roommate.
SIMA: Have you heard anything about the university’s three-day tour to Isfahan and Kashan
for this weekend?

According to this conversation Sima is interested to continue this conversation about

Atefeh.
Here, the focus is on the Maxim of Relevance. To continue the conversation with Bahareh,
Sima produces an utterance that is totally irrelevant to her statement. Thus, she intentionally
violates the Maxim of Relevance because she is not interested to continue the conversation on
the topic raised by Bahareh.
The percentage of correct answers to this question is 69% and the percentage of wrong
answers is 28%. Here the maxim of relevance has been flouted intentionally, but most learners
have understood the meaning of the utterance. It can be said that the violation of the maxims
is not always so hard and challenging for the learners to understand.

Question (12) After Saman has withdrawn money from

an ATM, his friend Reza approaches him

REZA: Saman! How are you doing? I need some cash.

SAMAN: Not bad; and you? There are three ATMs here and all of them are working.

According to this conversation, Saman is not going to lend Reza the money.

533
 Zahra Hamedi Shirvan

Based on Grice’s Maxim of Manner, people involved in a conversation should avoid ambi-
guity; however, a speaker might intentionally violate a maxim by avoiding being clear in a
conversation to convey more than what he or she had actually uttered. In this question, Saman
uses an ambiguous response to Reza’s statement as he is pretending not to understand Reza’s
real intention of requesting money of him.
The percentage of correct answers to this question is 80%, which is rather high, and it
can be seen again that violation of a maxim didn’t lead to misunderstanding in most of the
learners.

Question (13) Who left the door open?

Based on this question, you will understand that somebody has left the door open.
When we use any interrogative words like ‘who’ in Persian, there is always something
which is presupposed prior to asking that question. This structural presupposition is associated
with wh-questions. Wh-questions in Persian are conventionally interpreted with the presup-
position that the information after the wh-form (e.g. when and who) is already known to be the
case. Therefore, this question will lead us to believe that the door must have been left open by
somebody rather than something.
The percentage of right answers, wrong ones and the neutral ones to this question are
respectively 81.5%, 16% and 2.5%. Most of the learners comprehended the presupposition of
the utterance correctly.

Question (14) Sohrab, who participated in a marathon race

for a charity, is talking to his mum

MUM: Ok, could you reach the finish line?

SOHRAB: I had almost reached the finish line when I felt a sharp pain in my left knee, and
could hardly continue with the remaining path.

According to the first part of Sohrab’s utterance, he didn’t finish the race because of a pain in
his left knee. In this conversation the lexical trigger of “could hardly continue” conveys this
message that, despite difficulties in doing something, it was finally done. Therefore, in this
example, Sohrab finally finished the race, though with pain and difficulty.
The percentage of correct answers is 52.5% in this question, which is almost near the per-
centage of the wrong answers, 45%. About 50% of the respondents answered wrongly to this
question and it can be inferred that most of the learners didn’t read the utterance till its end or
notice the words; they have judged the meaning according to the sharp pain in his knee and
thought that he couldn’t continue the race till the end. The lexical trigger hasn’t helped the
ones who answered quickly or carelessly.

Question (15) Amin is talking to his brother, Bahman, about

one of their neighbors who is a very wealthy man

AMIN:
I saw Mr. Hosseini again in a new Benz, Yesterday. Only God knows how many auto-
mobiles he has.
BAHMAN: He is very rich; but he is not a happy man.

534
 Persian pragmatic competence

According to this conversation, rich people are usually happy.

Grice (1975, 46) uses the following example to demonstrate the conventional aspects that
are associated with ‘but’.

(a) She is poor but honest.

(b) She is poor and honest.

Grice argues that (a) and (b) have the same truth conditions, but that a speaker who utters (b),
conventionally implies that there is some salient contrast between the poverty and honesty of
the woman in question. ‘And’ and ‘but’ therefore, on Grice’s account, share their truth condi-
tional content; however, ‘but’ has an implied content that ‘and’ lacks. This question focuses
on this conventional aspect of the word ‘but’ and the following sentence can be inferred (>> is
the symbol of presuppositions).
(16) John: He is rich, but he is not a happy man.
>> Rich people are happy generally.
The percentage of right answers is 40% and that of wrong answers is 55%. The much higher
percentage of wrong responses can show that some learners may have answered according to
their personal beliefs and not according to the conversation.

Question (16) Shirin is talking to her friend Fereshteh

SHIRIN: I saw Mina’s husband in a new car yesterday.

Based on this utterance, you are likely to believe that Mina is married.
In this utterance, the conventional meaning is associated with the word ‘husband’. The fact
that Shirin chose to refer to him as ‘Mina’s husband’ not ‘Mina’s ex-husband’ or ‘Mina’s boy-
friend’ means that she is trying to convey the message that Mina is married. Therefore, Shirin’s
sentence presupposes the following sentence:

>> Mina is married

The percentage of right answers and the wrong ones are respectively 77% and 18%.
Because the word ‘husband’ is learned at the elementary level to the learners, it was expected
that the percentage of correct answers would be higher than that.

Question (17) No horses in the farm have been vaccinated

Based on this sentence, you conclude that there are many horses in the farm.
In this sentence, the focus is on the notion of quantifiers’ domain. Every quantifier has a
presupposition about the noun phrase used in the sentence. Therefore, considering the exist-
ence of the quantifier (no), the following sentence is presupposed:

>> There are horses in the farm.

The percentage of correct answers in this question is 51%, while 35% answered wrongly
and the neutral ones are 14%. It can be inferred the word “no”, hich in Persian, has confused
about 50% of the learners and has led them to choose the wrong answer or the neutral one.

535
 Zahra Hamedi Shirvan

Question (18) Leila and Aida are roommates. Aida expects a

parcel from her family via post

AIDA: Has my parcel arrived?

LEILA: Your parcel has not arrived yet.

Based on this conversation, we conclude that Amy’s parcel was expected to have arrived by now.
This utterance investigates the learners’ knowledge of the conventional meaning that is
associated with the word ‘yet’.
The percentage of correct responses is 64% and the incorrect ones is 31%. It means that
many learners have understood the conventional meaning and presupposition associated with
the word ‘yet’, hanuz in Persian.

Question (19) Darius regrets telling Hossein the truth

Based on this utterance, the truth has been told to Hossein.
This sentence is chosen to investigate the learners’ knowledge of this factive verb,
regret. The presupposition trigger of ‘regret’ conveys a feeling of sadness or disappoint-
ment over an occurrence. Thus, its presence indicates that Darius has already told the truth
to Hossein.
The percentage of correct responses is 67% and the incorrect ones is 33% with no neutral
ones. It can be inferred that most of the learners are familiar with the verb ‘regret’, Afsus
khordan in Persian.

Question (20) Aria and Arash are talking about their

friend, Parsa, together

ARIA: Do you know where Parsa wants to go this summer?

ARASH: He will either return to France or go to Spain to his grandfather’s home.

Based on Arash’s utterance, you will conclude that Aria has been in France before.
According to Levinson (1983, 182), iterative verbs like, come back, restore, repeat, return,
etc., convey a repeated action. Therefore, it can be concluded that Aria has been in France before.
The percentage of correct responses is 61.5% and the percentage of incorrect ones
is 33.5% which is rather a high percent. It is expected that the intermediate and high
intermediate level learners know the meaning of come back, bargashtan in Persian,
which denotes that the person has gone there before. But the results are against the
expectation.

Question (21) How I didn’t realize that Parisa left the party soon!
Based on this utterance, Parisa has left the party soon.
Here the focus in on respondents’ knowledge of the factive verb of ‘realize’.
According to Karttunen (1971, 341) “verbs like know and realize as factive verbs
carry along the speakers’ presupposition that the complement sentence represents a true
presupposition”.

536
 Persian pragmatic competence

The percentage of correct responses is 67% and the percentage of incorrect ones is 28%
and 5% remain neutral. The results show that about two thirds of the students have answered
correctly to this question and it means that they know what the verb ‘realize’ presupposes in
Persian.

Question (22) Mina and Mahshid are talking about their friend’s wedding

MINA: Are you also invited to Paria’s wedding?

MAHSHID: Of course I am. Even Leila’s mother is invited.

Based on this conversation, you conclude that Leila’s mum was among the first people to be
invited.
This question targets the conventional meaning that is associated with the word ‘even’.
According to Huang (2007, 55), “the term ‘even’ being epistemic in nature, conventionally
implicates some sort of unexpectedness, surprise or unlikeness”. Therefore, considering the
word ‘even’, the following sentences can be implied:

(26) >> Other people were also invited to Paria’s wedding ceremony.
>> Of all the people under consideration, Leila’s mum was the least likely to be invited to
Paria’s wedding ceremony.

The percentage of correct responses is 46%, while the percentage of incorrect ones is
41% with 13% neutral responses. The percentage of correct and incorrect responses is
approximately equal, and this shows that the word “even” and its meaning(s) or its uses
is not known to at least half of the respondents and it needs more practice in different
contexts.
For a detailed analysis and discussion of the acquisition of ‘even’ by second language learn-
ers of Persian, read Chapter 8 in this volume.

Question (23) Bijan and Arash are two friends who are seeing
each other after one year at the university

BIJAN: I didn’t know that you are working at the university!

ARASH: Oh, yeah, I’m working at the computer section of the Faculty as a student job.
BIJAN: Good! Do you like the job?
ARASH: My father wanted me to accept the job.

Based on this conversation, Arash does not like working at the computer section.
The focus in this question is on the Grice’s Maxim of Manner. Bijan asks about Arash’s
opinion about his new part time job, but he didn’t like the job. However, he does not use a
direct ‘no’ response; instead, he answers indirectly by saying the job had been his father’s
choice.
The percentage of correct responses is 61.5% and the percentage of incorrect ones is
25.5%, and 13% remain neutral. More than 50% percent of the respondents have answered
correctly, which shows that this indirect response has been understandable for many of
them.

537
 Zahra Hamedi Shirvan

Question (24) Yesterday I saw Shokoufeh with her twin girls

on the street. The twins are now studying at the university
Based on this utterance, Shokoufeh is married and she has twin girls.
In this conversation, the lexical trigger is the word “twins”, which means that she has two
children now. This word can have the connotation that she is married now, but is it always
true? In other words, is not possible that she is divorced now? Or is there any possibility that
she has adopted the children? Does this sentence presuppose that she is now married?
The percentage of correct responses is only 22%, while the percentage of incorrect ones is
69% and 9% remain neutral. The results show that most of the students have thought that the
woman who is seen with her twins is surely married now and didn’t think about other condi-
tions that somebody can have a twin, yet not married right now.

Question (25) Behrouz and Payam are talking about

a new movie that has come to the cinema recently

BEHROUZ: Oh, how about last night’s movie? It must have been fantastic!
PAYAM: When it was over, I was happy!

Based on this conversation, you can conclude that Payam has enjoyed the movie.
The focus in this question is on Grice’s Maxim of Manner. Behrouz asks Payam’s opinion
about the movie, and he didn’t like the movie. But, he does not use a direct ‘no’ response;
instead, he answers indirectly.
Finally, in the last question, the percentage of correct responses is only 35%, while the
percentage of incorrect ones is 56%, and 9% remain neutral. Here again wrong responses
outstripped the correct ones, and it shows that more than half of the respondents didn’t realize
that being happy when the movie is over means that the speaker has not enjoyed it, and they
didn’t understand this indirect conversational implicature.
The results obtained from the questionnaires are all shown and compared in separate tables
for both groups. The readers can see these tables in the appendix.
Among 25 questions of the questionnaire, question number two led to the least number of
correct responses among all 25 questions. Only five respondents out of 39 answered correctly
to this question, and the mean score was 18%. Question number seven also led to the most
number of correct responses, and 87% answered correctly to it.
For most of the questions, there are not significant differences between the responses of the
two groups, except for a few questions, which are highlighted in Table 25.5.

25.5.2 Analyzing the textbooks in terms of conversational

implicature and presupposition
In this section, we examine and describe the mentioned book series in terms of the use of
exercises related to conversational implicature and presupposition. It should be noted that out
of ten books reviewed, only two volumes of them contained a few of these exercises, namely
volumes 4 and 5 of the series “Modern Persian Teaching”. A few examples of conversational
implicature exercises in the textbooks are described here.
In book 4 (Intermediate Level), on page 89, there is a listening exercise in which there is
a conversation between two people about Iranian carpets and some multiple choice questions

538
 Persian pragmatic competence

Table 25.3 The frequency of exercises related to conversational implicature

Level Book 4 (intermediate) Book 5 (advanced)

Frequency 11 22

must be answered about this conversation. Three of these questions are about the implicit
conversational implicature, that is about the meaning of the expressions “Jaye Shoma khali”,
“Qadametun ruye cheshm” and “Qabel nadareh”, in Persian; in all these examples, the literal
meanings are not intended, and the implied implicatures are intended.
In the same book, on page 79, there is a listening exercise, in which there is small talk, and
then some multiple choice questions must be answered. In two of these questions, the conver-
sational implicature that is perceived of these conversations is expressed and the student must
choose in which dialogue this implicature has existed.
Now we will turn to the advanced level book of the series, book 5. On pages 9 and 10, there
is a listening exercise, in which there is a conversation between three people (a university
professor and two students) about the research methodology class, and students must answer a
variety of exercises, including multiple choice questions. Four of these questions are about the
implied conversational implicature of the expressions in the conversation.
On page 22, there is a matching exercise in which the students have to match some con-
versational implicatures with the dialogue characters based on a conversation between four
people (a family: parents and two children on the train coupe). In fact, in this exercise the
implied meaning of the words of each person is given and that must be connected with the
characters themselves.
On pages 36 and 37, there are some multiple choice questions, which should be answered
based on a reading on the previous page. Two of these questions are related to the implied
meaning (indirect meaning of the sentences and expressions).
Table 25.3 summarizes the result of the investigation of these books and the frequency of
exercises related to conversational implicature in them.
As shown in Table 25.3, the frequency of the implicature exercises is duplicated in the
advanced level book (book 5) compared to the intermediate level one (book 2), and this seems
like a logical development. As students’ knowledge of vocabulary, grammar and other struc-
tures in Persian develops, that is, their grammatical competence expands, they will be more
ready for pragmatic competence practices.

25.6 Discussion and conclusion

In the first phase of this research, which was a quantitative study, two different groups includ-
ing Group (1), who were studying Persian in context, and Group (2), who were studying
Persian out of the context, answered 25 questions about conversational implicatures and pre-
suppositions in Persian. The first group was 35 international students of Ferdowsi University
of Mashhad who were studying Persian at the university at the intermediate or higher interme-
diate level. The second group were 12 students who were studying Persian at Ferdowsi Uni-
versity’s Persian Teaching Branch at Najaf, Iraq; all of them were from Iraq and were studying
at the intermediate or higher intermediate level, too.
It can be said that this study is the first attempt at measuring the pragmatic competence of
the Persian learners, focusing on conversational implicature and presupposition. According to

539
 Zahra Hamedi Shirvan

Table 25.4 Comparing the results of Group (1) and Group (2)

Average correct responses Average incorrect responses

Group (1) 59% 32.5%

Group (2) 62% 38%

the findings, there is no significant difference between the mean scores of Group (1) and Group
(2) in terms of the percentages of the correct answers to the questions – 59% vs. 62% – nor in
the percentages of the incorrect answers – 32.5% vs. 38%.
Table 25.4 shows a short summary of the results collected from the two groups. There is no
large difference between the two groups in terms of correct and incorrect responses. However,
surprisingly, the average correct responses of Group (2) are 3% more than Group (1). This
can show that at the intermediate level, not only had the context of learning not affected the
pragmatic competence – learning of conversational implicature and presupposition – but also
even those who have not been in the context have somehow performed better in this regard.
Comparing the incorrect responses shows that there is a 5.5% difference between the two
groups and that here Group (1) – who learned Persian in context – have performed better and
made more correct choices.
Finally, it must be mentioned that this research has been a case study with some limitations;
more studies with different groups of learners, different levels of proficiency, nationalities, etc.
is required to reach much more accurate and reliable results.
In the second phase of this research, which was mainly a qualitative study, two book series
of TPSOL, were analyzed in terms of the amount of attention they pay to conversational
implicature in the speaking and listening parts of the books. In this phase, ten textbooks
were analyzed to investigate the extent of attention to conversational implicature and pre-
supposition in these materials. As mentioned in the data analysis, only two of the books,
books 4 and 5 of the series Modern Persian Teaching, contain some exercises related to these
pragmatic issues. It was shown in Table 25.3 that the frequency of the implicature exercises
is duplicated in the advanced level book (book 5) compared to the intermediate level one
(book 2), and this seems to be a logical development. In other words, by increasing students’
knowledge of vocabulary, grammar and other structures in Persian, that is, expansion of their
grammatical competence, they will be more ready to practice and perform well on pragmatic
competence exercises.
Finally, it can be said that little attention has been paid to the instruction of pragmatics,
namely conversational implicature and presupposition in these Persian language textbooks.

25.7 Future directions

Here are some suggestions for future research: Investigating the socio-pragmatic knowledge
of the Persian learners will be a useful area. In other words, do learners of Persian know and
use rules that guide the use of Persian Language in society and in the context? Another issue
that needs to be investigated is teaching Persian pragmatics in the classroom setting; is it pos-
sible to teach pragmatics at all or not?
Factors influencing the learning of Persian pragmatics in second/foreign language learn-
ing context can also be a fruitful study. Investigating LOP’s knowledge and comprehension
of other areas of pragmatics like speech acts of request, compliment, apologies and refusals
seems really necessary.

540
 Persian pragmatic competence

For a study on the acquisition of prosodic parameters of politeness in second language

learners of Persian, read Chapter 2 in this volume.
Analyzing the Persian textbooks and materials which are designed for the LOPs in terms
of other aspects of pragmatics like speech acts, etc. and examining how much these materials
are successful in teaching pragmatic aspects of Persian language to LOP can be a continua-
tion of the second part of this study. Another relevant and helpful issue can be exploring the
relationship between learners’ time spent studying Persian and their pragmatic competence. Is
there any meaningful difference between the learners in terms of the time spending on learning
Persian and pragmatic competence?

541
 Appendixes
Table 25.5 Frequency of the answers to each question (both groups)

Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Neutral Total

disagree agree

Question 1 18 12 7 0 2 39
Question 2 4 1 12 19 3 39
Question 3 17 7 6 5 3 38
Question 4 4 2 17 13 3 39
Question 5 5 7 14 10 3 39
Question 6 11 1 16 8 3 39
Question 7 1 2 22 12 2 39
Question 8 12 17 3 1 4 39
Question 9 11 17 6 1 1 38
Question 10 9 7 12 10 2 40
Question 11 12 15 10 1 1 39
Question 12 4 2 18 14 2 40
Question 13 5 1 20 11 1 38
Question 14 14 7 13 5 1 40
Question 15 16 9 13 5 2 45
Question 16 3 4 15 15 2 39
Question 17 7 13 12 2 5 39
Question 18 7 5 20 5 2 39
Question 19 11 15 11 2 0 39
Question 20 9 15 10 3 2 39
Question 21 15 11 7 4 2 39
Question 22 12 6 12 4 7 39
Question 23 14 10 7 3 5 39
Question 24 5 3 10 17 4 39
Question 25 8 6 14 8 7 39

542
 Persian pragmatic competence

Table 25.6 Percentage of correct and wrong answers to each question (both groups)

Correct answer Type of Percentage Percentage Percentage

question of correct of wrong of neutral
answers answers answers

Question 1 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 77% 18% 5%

Question 2 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 13% 79% 8%
Question 3 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 63% 28% 9%
Question 4 Agree or Strongly agree CI 77% 15% 8%
Question 5 Agree or Strongly agree CI 61.5% 30.5% 8%
Question 6 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 31% 62% 7%
Question 7 Agree or Strongly agree CI 87% 8% 5%
Question 8 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 75% 10% 15%
Question 9 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 74% 18.5% 7.5%
Question 10 Agree or Strongly agree CI 55% 40% 5%
Question 11 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 69% 28% 3%
Question 12 Agree or Strongly agree CI 80% 15% 5%
Question 13 Agree or Strongly agree P 81.5% 16% 2.5%
Question 14 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 52.5% 45% 2.5%
Question 15 Agree or Strongly agree P 40% 55% 5%
Question 16 Agree or Strongly agree P 77% 18% 5%
Question 17 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 51% 35% 14%
Question 18 Agree or Strongly agree P 64% 31% 5%
Question 19 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 67% 33% 0%
Question 20 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 61.5% 33.5% 5%
Question 21 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 67% 28% 5%
Question 22 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 46% 41% 13%
Question 23 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 61.5% 25.5% 13%
Question 24 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 22% 69% 9%
Question 25 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 35% 56% 9%
Total 60.5% 35.5% 6%

543
 Zahra Hamedi Shirvan

Table 25.7 Comparing the percentage of correct and wrong answers to each question in both groups

Correct answer Type of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of

question correct answers wrong answers neutral answers

Disagree or Strongly disagree Group1 Group2 Group1 Group2 Group1 Group2

Question 1 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 74% 83.5% 18.5 % 16.5% 7.5% 0%

Question 2 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 18.5% 0% 63% 100% 18.5% 0%
Question 3 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 77% 33.5% 19% 50% 4% 16.5%
Question 4 Agree or Strongly agree CI 74% 83.5% 15% 16.5% 11% 0%
Question 5 Agree or Strongly agree CI 59% 67% 29.5% 33% 11.5% 0%
Question 6 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 44.5% 0% 44.5% 100% 11% 0%
Question 7 Agree or Strongly agree CI 81.5% 100% 11% 0% 7.5% 0%
Question 8 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 78% 67% 7.5% 16.5% 14.5% 16.5%
Question 9 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 77% 83.5% 19% 16.5% 4% 0%
Question 10 Agree or Strongly agree CI 43% 83.5% 50% 16.5% 7% 0%
Question 11 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 70% 67% 26% 33% 4% 0%
Question 12 Agree or Strongly agree CI 78.5% 83.5% 21.5% 0% 0 16.5%
Question 13 Agree or Strongly agree P 73% 100% 23% 0% 4% 0%
Question 14 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 40% 83.5% 57% 16.5% 3% 0%
Question 15 Agree or Strongly agree P 42.5% 33% 51.5% 67% 6% 0%
Question 16 Agree or Strongly agree P 66.5% 100% 26% 0% 7.5% 0%
Question 17 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 44.5% 67% 44.5% 16.5% 11% 16.5%
Question 18 Agree or Strongly agree P 70% 50% 22% 50% 8% 0%
Question 19 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 75% 50% 25% 50% 0 0%
Question 20 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 59% 67% 33.5% 33% 7.5% 0%
Question 21 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 66.5% 67% 26% 33% 7.5% 0%
Question 22 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 44.5% 50% 37% 33.5% 18.5% 16.5%
Question 23 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 59% 67% 22% 33% 19% 0%
Question 24 Disagree or Strongly disagree P 16.5% 33% 70% 67% 13.5% 0%
Question 25 Disagree or Strongly disagree CI 37% 33% 51% 67% 12% 0%
Total 59% 62% 32.5% 38% 8.5% 3.3%

Notes
1) LOP is used in this chapter as abbreviation for the phrase “Learners of Persian as a Second/Foreign
Language”.
2) Instructed Second Language Acquisition.
3) This branch was also established by Ferdowsi University of Mashhad in Najaf and is under the
supervision of this university.
4) Farsi Biyamuzim.
5) Amuzesh Novin Zaban Farsi.

References
Austin, J.L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 2017. “Acquisition of L2 Pragmatics.” In The Routledge Handbook of Instructed
Second Language Acquisition, edited by S. Loewen and M. Sato. New York and London: Routledge.
Behnam, K. 2015. “A Contrastive Study of Speech Acts in Persian Conversations and Conversations of Farsi
be Farsi: Zaban-e- Farsi (1) Textbook.” Unpublished MA, thesis. University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

544
 Persian pragmatic competence

Blum-Kulka, S. 1991. “Interlanguage Pragmatics: The Case of Requests.” In Foreign/Second Language

Pedagogy Research, edited by Robert Phillipson, Eric Kellerman, Larry Selinker, Michael Sharwood-
Smith, and Merrill Swain, 255–272. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Canale, M. 1983. “From Communicative Competence to Communicative Language Pedagogy.” In Language
and Communication, edited by Jack C. Richards and Richard W. Schmidt, 2–27. London: Longman.
Canale, M., and M. Swain. 1980. “Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language
Teaching and Testing.” Applied Linguistics, 1: 1–47.
Crystal, D. ed. 1997. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Fe´lix-Brasdefer, J.C. 2004. “Interlanguage Refusals: Linguistic Politeness and Length of Residence in
the Target Community.” Language Learning, 54: 587–653.
Ghabool, E. 2014. Modern Persian Teaching. Mashhad: Ghabool.
Grice, H.P. 1961. “The Causal Theory of Perception.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 35(suppl.):
121–152. Partially reprinted as Chapter 15 of Grice 1989, 224–247.
Grice, H.P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, edited by Peter Cole and Jerry L.
Morgan, Vol. 3, 41–58. London: Academic Press.
Grice, H.P. 1978. “Further Notes on Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, edited by P.
Cole, Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted as ch.3 of Grice 1989, 41–57.
Grice, H.P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hassall, T. 1997. “Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian.” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Australian National University, Canberra.
Huang, Y. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D.H. 1972. “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life,” In Directions in Sociolin-
guistics: The Ethnography of Communication, edited by J.J. Gumperz and D. Hymes, 35–71. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hymes, D.H. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadephia: Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania Press.
Karttunen, L. 1971. “Some Observations on factivity.” Papers in Linguistics, 4(1): 55–69.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Li, D. 2000. “The Pragmatics of Making Requests in the L2 Workplace: A Case Study of Language
Socialization.” The Canadian Modern Language Review, 57: 58–87.
Modarresi, Y., and M. Tajali. 2013. “The Request Speech Act: A Comparison Between Persian Speakers
and Persian Learners.” Journal of Teaching Persian to the Speakers of Other Languages, 1(2): 83–107.
Rose, K.R. 2000. “An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study of Interlanguage Pragmatic Development.”
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22: 27–67.
Rose, K.R., and Connie Ng Kwai-fun. 2001. “Inductive and Deductive Approaches to Teaching Compli-
ments and Compliment Responses.” In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, edited by Kenneth R. Rose
and Gabriele Kasper, 145–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Senft, G. 2014. Understanding Pragmatics. New York and London: Routledge.
Shahidi, S., M. Shirinzadeh, and A. Navaabi. 2008. Farsi Be Farsi, Persian Language for the Basic
Level. Tehran: Tehran University Publication.
Soler, E.A., and A. Martinez-Flor. 2008. “Pragmatics in Foreign Language Contexts.” In Investigating
Pragmatics in Foreign Language Learning, Teaching and Testing, edited by Eva Alcón Soler and
Alicia Martinez Flor, 3–25. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Taghizadeh, R. 2017. Pragmatic Competence in the Target Language: A Study of Iranian Leaners of
English. Unpublished PhD, thesis, University of Salford, Manchester.
Trosborg, A. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin and New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vakilifard, A.R., S. Ebadi, and B. Ebrahimi-Marjal. 2015. “A Critical Analysis of Speech Acts in Text-
books of Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other.” English for Specific Purposes World, 47: 1–23.
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zolfaqari, H., B. Mahmoodi Bakhtiari, and M. Qaffari. 2005. Let’s Learn Persian. Tehran: Mardeseh
Publications.

545
 26
PERSIAN AS AN
INTERLANGUAGE MAHBOD GHAFFARIPERSIAN AS AN INTERLANGUAGE

Mahbod Ghaffari

26.1 Introduction
Selinker for the first time introduced the concept of “interlanguage” in 1972 (Selinker 1972),
but it seems that he actually wrote the paper three years before its publication when he was
in the University of Edinburgh in 1969. According to him, apart from the linguistic systems
of native and target language (first language and second language), there is a third linguistic
system which has both rules from the other two linguistic systems and the rules which belong
to neither of them. This third linguistic system is used by the learners of the second language
and is influenced by their first language. Therefore, it is something between L1 and L2 and
can be understood as a type of “pidgin”. Thus, interlanguage is different from both the first
language of the learner and his/her target language but interlinks them. However according to
Frith (1978) some other terms were used to refer to the same concept of interlanguage with
some minor differences among which we can refer to Nemser’s approximative systems (1969),
Corder’s idiosyncratic dialects (1967) and Richards and Sampson’s learner language systems
(1974).
Not only are there transfers from the first language into the interlanguage, but the interlan-
guage consistently gets more similar and closer to the target language, and above that it is a
language by itself which has its own characteristics and systematic rules and principles. The
interlanguage is constantly changing and at any particular time it has its own grammatical,
morphological and phonological rules and features. In language learning and the growth and
development of linguistic competence and performance of the learner, five main processes are
involved: language transfer, overgeneralisation, transfer of training, strategies of learning sec-
ond language, and finally strategies of second language communication (Selinker, L., p 215).
Language transfer refers to the state that some of the characteristics and features of inter-
language are the result of the transfer from the learner’s native language. Overgeneralisation
mainly refers to the overgeneralisation of specific linguistic rules and linguistic and semantic
features of the second language that the learner has already learnt. Transfer of training refers
to those features of the learner’s interlanguage that are due to the methods and resources
(books, teachers, etc.) through which s/he has been learning the language. Strategies of learn-
ing a second language which refer to those rules of interlanguage are due to the tendency of
learner to make the target language a less complex system. Strategies of second language

546
 Persian as an interlanguage

communication refer to those rules of interlanguage which are shaped as the result of the
strategy of the learner to make use of his/her limited knowledge to maintain communica-
tion (Selinker 1972, 216–217). Although the interlanguage has its own system of phonology,
morphology and syntax, its study can go further to semantic, pragmatic and discourse levels.
The holistic characteristics of the Persian interlanguage of English L1 speakers who are
learning Persian show that it is systematic and includes its own specific rules which can be
called the learner’s internal grammar. In addition, the interlanguage and its related rules are
not fixed, but dynamic, and it constantly changes during the time of language learning. This
language is simple with less complex grammatical structures and vocabulary compared to the
ones of the second language. The interlanguage of every learner is different from those of oth-
ers, and it is because of different individuals’ learning style and pattern, their first language, the
resources they use, their communication needs in second language and their individual point
in the continuum of language learning.
Therefore, Persian language learners will develop an interlanguage through their language
acquisition journey which will have some features of their first language as well as some over-
generalisation regarding the Persian language rules. This interlanguage will change through
different stages of their learning process and is different for every individual. However, usually
the native speakers of English who learn Persian as a second or foreign language share some
aspects of Persian as an interlanguage. Cognitive, interlingual and intralingual factors can
affect the form of this interlanguage. For an elaborate discussion on interlanguage and code-
switching that is one of the salient characteristics of second language learners of Persian, read
Chapter 27 in this volume.

26.2 Review of literature

Although Persian is the official language in Iran, there are many other languages in the coun-
try and hence the first language or mother tongue of many Iranians is different from Persian.
These speakers learn Persian as a second language at a later stage in their life, usually when
they start going to school. For more detailed discussion on other languages, language varieties
and dialects in Iran, read Chapters 23 and 24 in this volume.
Therefore, a few linguistic and pedagogical researches have been carried out regarding
the Persian interlanguage of these speakers. Among these researches, we can refer to Sat-
tari Golbaghi’s research (2001) on the Persian interlanguage of Laki speakers based on the
error analysis of their vocabulary, Ahmadian’s MA dissertation (2004) on the Persian inter-
language of Kurdish speakers of Mahabad at intermediate level based on the error analysis
in their written Persian, Mehdizadeh’s MA dissertation (2007) on the Persian interlanguage
of Kurdish speakers of Eilam based on the error analysis in their spoken Persian, Kamju’s
Research (2011) on the Persian interlanguage of Mazani speakers of Amol based on their
morphological error analysis, and Khanbabazadeh’s research and book (2009 and 2016) on
the Persian interlanguage of Taleshi speakers based on their syntactic error analysis. Firstly
most of these researches and papers usually introduce the works of Yip (1995), Ellis (1985),
Keshavarz (1994) and James (1980), who are among the experts and specialists in language
teaching and error analysis and have outlined different features for interlanguage. Although
all of them believe that the interlanguage is permeable, systematic, dynamic and variable,
some of them consider other features for it as well. Keshavarz introduces simplicity, or Ellis
adds reduced system to the list. Secondly such researches on Persian interlanguage mainly use
Keshavarz’s framework and principles for error analysis. Through these researches, the find-
ings show that the syntactic errors are much higher than morphological and semantic errors

547
 Mahbod Ghaffari

regarding frequency and the interlingual errors which are due to the learners’ native language
are the main sources of their Persian interlanguage features.
Also, due to the opening of many Persian language centres in Iranian universities and institu-
tions in the recent years, the number of foreign students of different nationalities and of different
first languages has increased, and a number of researches have been done on the Persian inter-
change of such learners whose native language have not been English. Among these we can
refer to Han Sati Hung’s MA dissertation (2011) on the Persian interlanguage of Vietnamese
speakers through a syntactic error analysis, Eslamis’ dissertation (2013) on the Persian interlan-
guage of Russian speakers based on the error analysis of their written Persian at intermediate
level, Motevalian and Ostovar’s paper (2013) on the syntactic error analysis in the Persian inter-
language of Arab speakers, Motevalian and Malekiyan’s research (2014) on the syntactic error
analysis in the Persian interlanguage of Urdu speakers, the paper of Mirdehghan et al. (2014) on
the Persian interlanguage of German speakers at elementary level based on the analysis of their
error in written Persian and the paper by Taherzadeh et al. (2016) on the morphological error
analysis of the Persian interlanguage of Arab speakers at intermediate level.
Most of these researches and papers were based on James’s framework of error analy-
sis (1998), which categorises the errors of written language into four main groups: spelling,
mechanical, morphological and grammatical. The findings from these researches show that
usually the grammatical errors are of the highest frequency and the spelling, morphological
and mechanical errors are respectively of lower frequency.
Also they generalise that the errors are usually having interlingual sources (those influenced
by the learners’ native language) or intralingual sources (those happened because of the differ-
ent linguistic features of Persian), but there are some errors which are considered ambiguous
or not clear whether they are interlingual or intralingual. In other words, they can be attributed
to both mother tongue language interference and target language at the same time.
Furthermore, most of these researches show that the intralingual errors (which can be in
vocabulary domain or grammar) are of higher frequency and occur more often than the other
errors, though the research by Motevalian and Malekian (2014) on Urdu native speakers shows
that the interlingual syntactic errors are more frequent.
Amongst the intralingual semantic errors, the ones related to semantic relations are more
frequent than the errors regarding morphological collocation. Also considering the semantic
errors of interlingual nature, the frequency of the errors because of loan translations is much
higher than the errors because of direct borrowing from L1. And amongst the syntactic errors,
the ones related to verbs and prepositions have the highest occurrence respectively.
The other very recent research on Persian interlanguage is the work of Sajjadi and Sahrayi
(2018) on the Persian relative clause and the hierarchy of its related noun phrase. They have
done their research on 493 written texts of Persian learners (at different levels) irrespective of
their first language. Their work is based on Keenan and Comrie’s noun phrase accessibility
hierarchy (1977), and they conclude that learning those Persian relative clauses which modify
a subject and/or a direct object completely follow the hypothesis but the process of learning
the other relative clauses do not agree with the hierarchy.

26.3 Characteristics of the Persian interlanguage

of English speakers
To discuss the characteristics of the Persian interlanguage in a Persian-English and English-
Persian environment and to explain the phonological, morphological, semantic and syntactic
features of Persian as an interlanguage in this chapter, the author mainly uses the data and

548
 Persian as an interlanguage

findings from his ongoing research which is based on the teaching and examining of the Eng-
lish native speakers during the past eight years. These English native speakers have been
learning Persian in academic and non-academic environments. The number of students whose
works have been used for this analysis has been 128 students at Elementary level (A1-A2),
69 students at Intermediate level (B1-B2), and 27 students at Advanced level (C1-C2). These
students were between 19–25 years old, of which about 52 percent were male and 48 percent
were female.
From the very first stages of language learning, the learner of Persian language starts to get
some knowledge of Persian and to reflect that knowledge in written or spoken forms. These
performances have particular features and characteristics and are the result of the language
rules of the learner’s first language (in our case, English), the language learning process, the
rules of the Persian language which s/he is learning and the resources (teacher, books, other
teaching materials etc.) s/he uses.
With very careful consideration and analysis of the data from the interlanguage of those
who are learning Persian at different levels in English speaking countries and environment, the
characteristics of this linguistic system and the reasons behind these features and the factors
making these transfers happen can be elaborated.
These characteristics can be phonological, morphological, semantic and syntactic, and they
will be discussed through examples in the following sections.

26.3.1 Phonological characteristics

The analysis of the data from the English speakers who learn Persian shows that there are six
different factors which are behind the special phonological characteristics of the interlanguage
of Persian language learners.
Firstly, there are some phonemes of the Persian language which do not exist in the first
language of the learners, in our case, English. For example, English speakers do not have the
phoneme /x/ in their native language. Therefore, in the very first stages of language learning,
they replace the phoneme with the closest possible phoneme which is available in English, and
in this case, they use /k/ or /h/ instead of /x/, so they pronounce the word /xub/ meaning “good”
as /kub/ or /hub/. The other example is using the phoneme /g/ instead of /q/, which is absent
in English phonological system, so they usually utter /qalb/ meaning “heart” as /galb/. These
examples are in line with Nemser’s (1969) approximative system by which he portrays inter-
language as a systematic self-contained language system owned by learners. Interestingly, the
analysis of the data shows that sometimes the learners do it vice versa; that is, when they are
learning and practicing to pronounce the sound /q/, they overgeneralise it and even when the
Persian word has the sound /g/, they replace it with /q/. As an example, the word /gol/ meaning
“flower” is pronounced /qol/ by many learners.
Secondly, there are some phonemes in English which does not exist in Persian. For exam-
ple, the phoneme /w/ is not present in Persian. Therefore, the analysis of the interlanguage of
English speakers shows that they pronounce the word /vey/ meaning “he” as /wei/, because
this is similar to the pronunciation of the English word “way” with which the learners are well
familiar.
Thirdly, there are some differences between the phonological structures of Persian and
English and at the same time the diacritics for short vowels are not usually shown in Persian
texts. For example, no Persian syllable can have more than one consonant in initial position;
so unlike English, there is no initial consonant cluster in Persian. Moreover, when there is a
word in Persian which starts with a consonant and is followed by a short vowel and then one

549
 Mahbod Ghaffari

or two consonants, in written Persian we do not show that short vowel and the learner will
only see two or three consonants one after the other. So s/he will transfer the initial consonant
cluster rule of his/her first language to pronounce the word in Persian. Therefore the learner
pronounces the word /setāre/ meaning “star” in Persian as /stāre/ or the word /barādar/ mean-
ing “brother” as /brādr/.
Fourth is the case or issue of writing a word or representing a word in a written form that
leads to spelling mistakes. There are many occasions in which the learner has perfectly learned
how to pronounce a word and use it verbally, but when writing it s/he makes a mistake, and it
usually happens when the phonemes are present in both Persian and English but they are not
exactly the same and with slight differences. For example, there are two vowels of /a/ and /ā/ in
Persian. The former is considered a short vowel and the diacritic is not used for representing it,
but the former is a long vowel, which is represented by a letter or character in Persian alphabet.
The English speakers write frequently the word /mādar/ meaning “mother” as /madār/ or even
the word /bad/ meaning “bad” as /bād/. This same error or characteristic is applicable to the
phonemes represented by more than one letter/character in the alphabet such as the phoneme
/s/, which has three letters in thePersian alphabet, or /z/, which is represented by four letters.
The fifth is the special case of the existence of a particular phoneme in both Persian and
English, but the English speakers verbalise and pronounce it mainly when it is at the beginning
of the word. For example, both English and Persian have the consonant /h/ which is normally
pronounced in the initial positions of English words “hotel”, “happy”, “he” and so on. The Per-
sian interlanguage of the English speakers shows that at lower levels of their competency, they
can pronounce the consonant /h/ properly in words like /havā/ meaning “air”, /havij/ meaning
“carrot” and /māhi/ meaning “fish” because the phoneme /h/ is coming at the beginning of the
word or initial position of the syllable, but the same learners may struggle to pronounce /h/
when it comes in the middle or final positions of the syllables like in words /mehr/ meaning
“kindness” or /sohbat/ meaning “talk”; thus, they drop the sound /h/ and pronounce these two
words as /mer/ and /sobat/ respectively.
It seems that all these characteristics are the result of the properties of the learners’ first
language.
The sixth one can be the result of overgeneralisation which happens during the language
learning and is due to the nature of Persian language. For example, the word /tʃe/ in Persian
changes to /tʃi/ in spoken Persian when it is not followed by a syntactically related noun or
noun phrase. As an example, one writes /tʃe xordi/ in written Persian, but says /tʃi xordi/ in
spoken Persian meaning “What did you eat?”, or one may write /hartʃe gofti, anjām dādam/
but may say /hartʃi gofti anjām dādam/ meaning “Whatever you said, I did.”. However when /
tʃe/ is followed by a noun or noun phrase in exclamatory sentences or interrogative sentences,
then even in spoken Persian it keeps the original form and is pronounced as /tʃe/. For example,
in both written and spoken Persian, one says and writes /tʃe dust-e xubi!/ meaning “What a
nice friend!” or /tʃe ruzi miravi?/ meaning “What day are you going?”. However, the learner
may overgeneralise the change of /tʃe/ to /tʃi/ in spoken Persian, and not only s/he makes the
same sentences as /tʃi dust-e xubi!/ and /tʃi ruzi miravi/ when speaking in Persian, but also
reflects this change in his/her written work.
So in general, the phonological features of interlanguage of Persian at earlier stages are as
follows:

1 The Persian interlanguage of English speakers usually lacks some of the consonants of
the target language /q/, /x/, /ʔ/ and occasionally /h/ particularly at lower and intermediate
levels of language learning.

550
 Persian as an interlanguage

2 The consonant /w/, which is a phoneme in the learners’ native language, English, is pre-
sent as a consonant of the phonological system of the Persian interlanguage of English
speakers at lower levels of language learning.
3 The use of initial consonant clusters of the learners, which is a phonological feature of
English and not Persian, is a characteristic of the Persian interlanguage of English speak-
ers at lower levels of language learning.
4 The Persian interlanguage of English speakers shows the learners’ problem in differenti-
ating the vowels /a/ and /ā/ in the target language, particularly at lower and intermediate
levels.
5 Although the consonant /h/ is a phoneme in both English and Persian, the Persian interlan-
guage of English speakers shows that this consonant is dropped in coda (either when no
other sound follows it or more likely when another consonant follows it in the same coda
or in the onset of the following syllable) by the learners.
6 Overgeneralisation of a particular rule is another phonological feature of Persian inter-
language of English speakers when the learners overgeneralise a phonological change in
spoken Persian and then they reflect this change in their written Persian.

The more the learners progress in acquiring Persian language and mastering the language, the
more their interlanguage is similar to the features of Persian language regarding the phonol-
ogy. Although the learners at a higher level show a great mastery of the phonemes and phono-
logical system of Persian language, it can be claimed that regarding actual pronunciations of
many phonemes, there are traces of fossilisation, because even some phonemes which exist in
both languages are not articulated the same way and at the same place, so this is still more or
less noticeable in the performance of proficient Persian language learners. For a more detailed
discussion on the phonological errors made by second language learners of Persian and Per-
sian heritage learners, read Chapter 3 in this volume.

26.3.2 Morphological characteristics

When English speakers learn Persian, they transfer some of the morphological features of their
native language into Persian and/or they create vocabulary which is unique to their interlan-
guage of Persian.
One type of transfer is using a word from their native language in Persian. This particularly
happens when the learners’ vocabulary is very limited and they base their judgement on the
semantic category of that particular concept and make a false analogy. For example, regard-
ing the name of the sports, in many cases the same vocabulary which is used in English as the
name of sports such as “football”, “basketball”, “tennis” and so on, is used in Persian (with
minor phonological changes) to name those particular sports. In the early stages of language
learning, the learners overgeneralise it and they use words such as “chess”, “swimming”, and/
or “polo” instead of their Persian equivalents /ʃatranj/, /ʃenā/ and /tʃogān/ respectively. This
process can be called “direct transfer” and is one of the most popular language transfers. When
the learner doesn’t know the equivalents s/he uses a word from his/her mother tongue, in our
case from English. This can happen both in speaking and writing. One should pay attention to
the point that such characteristics in interlanguage are different from the ones in codeswitch-
ing, which is a natural feature of language use and happens even when the speaker is a highly
proficient in both languages (Myers-Scotton 2002). These kinds of examples of Persian inter-
language are the result of a second language learning and ongoing changes and development of
the linguistic system of the interlanguage. In cases where the vocabulary of the same semantic

551
 Mahbod Ghaffari

field in Persian and English do not completely map and one term in English is associated with
two or more words in Persian, the learners will use the English term for all of them at early
stages. For example, Persian uses different terms for maternal uncles and aunts and paternal
uncles and aunts and also different terms for cousins. However, in the Persian interlanguage of
English speakers at lower levels of language learning, one can notice that the learner may use
the word “uncle” to refer to both /ʔamu/ (paternal uncle) and /dāyi/ (maternal uncle).
The other morphological feature of Persian interlanguage of the English learners is the
outcome of another transfer named loan translation. In this transfer, the learner translates
parts of a term or phrase into Persian when s/he doesn’t know the correct term or vocabulary
in Persian. In other words, s/he uses a literal equivalent for a particular phrasal verb they have
in English. For example, the learner may use /barā-ye . . . didan/ or /barā-ye . . . negāh kardan/
to refer to the verb “to look for something” instead of /donbāl-e tʃizi gaʃtan/. In this example,
the learner has used word-for-word translation instead of the appropriate compound word to
express the action of “looking for”, that is, using /didan/ or /negāh kardan/ for the word “look”
and /barā-ye/ for the word “for”. This happens extensively when in English we use a verb and
a particular particle to refer to a particular action. Another example can be /biʃtar zibā/ for
“more beautiful” where “more” is /biʃtar/ and “beautiful” is /zibā/, but the correct equivalent
is /zibātar/. These are the result of first language transfer.
There are instances that the learner knows one of the equivalents of an English word which
has two equivalents in Persian. For example the word “you” in Persian is /to/ to refer to second
person singular and /ʃomā/ to refer to second person plural (or used in formal polite context to
refer to second person singular). The interlanguage of Persian at an earlier stage shows that the
English learner uses one of them (mostly /to/) in both cases, which may cause cultural conflict
and misunderstanding and further may be considered an example of impoliteness. Another
example is the verb “to say” for which at least two Persian equivalents can be considered: /
goftan/ and /harf zadan/. The interlanguage of Persian at earlier stages shows that the English
learner uses /harf zadan/ instead of /goftan/ in some contexts such as /nemidānam tʃe bāyad
harf bezanam/ instead of /nemidānam tʃe bāyad beguyam/ meaning “I don’t know what to
say.”, but to express a sentence such as “Don’t say anything.”, in Persian we can say both /tʃizi
nagu/ and /harf nazan/.
The third morphological feature of Persian interlanguage is overgeneralisation. In this
case, learners have already learnt a particular word formation process or morphological rule
and they generalise it to all cases without being aware of the limitations and exceptions. This
happens extensively in the suffixation process. For example, in Persian, the comparative adjec-
tives and superlative adjectives are made by adding /-tar/ and /-tarin/ respectively to the adjec-
tive. For example, /tārik/ is “dark” and /tāriktar/ and /tāriktarin/ are “darker” and “darkest”
respectively. English speaking learners add these suffixes to /xub/ meaning “good” and make /
xubtar/ and /xubtarin/ which is an overgeneralisation of the rule, because the comparative form
of this adjective is /behtar/ and the superlative form is /behtarin/.
Sometimes different suffixes are used for making adjectives in Persian. For example the
suffix /-mand/ is added to nouns and make /servatmand/, /qodratman/, /dāneʃmand/ and so on
to refer to “rich”, “powerful” and, “scholar” respectively. The learner may use this same suffix
and make words such as /tarsmand/ and /qammand/ to refer to “fearful” and “sad (for films
and stories)” respectively, though for these two words the suffix /-nāk/ should be used, which
changes the nouns to /tarsnāk/ and /qamnāk/.
The overgeneralisation as a morphological characteristic of Persian interlanguage is not
limited to affixation. Sometimes the learners use a particular verb for similar semantic fields
due to their own analogy. For example, in Persian the compound verb /bāzi kardan/ meaning

552
 Persian as an interlanguage

“to play” is used with sports such as “football”, volleyball”, “chess” and so on. Some learners
overgeneralise this term and use it for “swimming”, “wrestling”, “skiing” and so on, for which
there are different compound verbs which contain the name of these sports; in the latter cases
the compound verbs /ʃenā kardan/, /koʃti gereftan/ and /eski kardan/ are used respectively.
The other characteristic of the Persian interlanguage is related to the verbal part of com-
pound verbs where the learners use an inappropriate verb with nonverbal element of the com-
pound verb. This mostly happens when the learner overgeneralises the verb /kardan/ meaning
“to do”, which is one of the most frequent verbal elements in making compound verbs. For
example instead of saying /edāme dādan/, /nafas keʃidan/ and /sut zadan/, the learners say /
edāme kardan/, nafas kardan/ and /sut kardan/ to mean “to continue”, “to breathe” and “to
whistle” respectively. Thus, the learner has overgeneralised /kardan/ as part of the compound
verb instead of /dādan/ (literally meaning “to give”), /keʃidan/ (literally meaning “to draw” or
“to extend”), /zadan/ (literally meaning “to hit”). The examples here which refer to this char-
acteristic on interlanguage are the result of the process of learning Persian language. However,
the same characteristic can be found in the interlanguage of English speakers learning Persian,
where it is because of the concept transfer from the learners’ first language. For example, the
learners say /dast tekān dādan/ instead of /dast dādan/ to refer to “to shake hands” in which the
learner has used /tekān dādan/ meaning “to shake” instead of /dādan/ meaning “to give” with
the non-verbal element /dast/ meaning “hand”.
For further discussion on the phonological, morphological and syntactic errors made by sec-
ond language learners of Persian and Persian heritage learners, read Chapter 4 in this volume.

26.3.3 Semantic characteristics

One of the semantic characteristic of the Persian interlanguage is related to the verbs /budan/
meaning “to be” and /ʃodan/ meaning “to become”. In Persian, there is a clear distinction
between these two verbs, while the former refers to a stable state; the latter usually refers
to a change from one state to another state. For example, in /emruz xoʃhāl hastam/ meaning
“Today, I am happy”, /hastam/ meaning “I am” a conjugated form of /budan/ in the present
tense expresses a stable state of feeling; but in /vaqti mādaram rā bebinam xoʃhāl miʃavam/
meaning “When I see my mother, I will become/be happy” the verb /miʃavam/ indicates a
change of state and “becoming happy”. When English speakers who learn Persian are trying
to convey this second meaning, some may say /vaqti mādaram rā bebinam xoʃhāl hastam/. So
they use /hastam/ meaning “I am” instead of /miʃavam/ meaning “I become” and fail to con-
vey the change of state. This semantic characteristic of the Persian interlanguage is the result
of the learners’ first language, as in English, the verb “to be” is used extensively to mean “to
become”.
The other semantic characteristic of the Persian interlanguage is related to cases where the
learner has learnt one particular word in the second language through books, dictionaries or
teachers and s/he overgeneralises that term for all other items in that category as s/he is not
aware that there are other words and terms in the second language to refer to each particular
item. A common example is using the word /qalam/ meaning “pen” to refer to any object that
can be used for writing; so the learner use it to refer to “pencil”, “ballpoint pen” and so on,
whereas the correct equivalents should be /medād/ and /xodkār/ respectively. This overgen-
eralisation is because of lack of vocabulary, and the learners need to use the communication
strategy of resorting to the limited vocabulary resources they have to express what they mean.
For a detailed description on semantic properties of Persian that are difficult to acquire by
second language learners of Persian, read Chapter 7 in this volume.

553
 Mahbod Ghaffari

26.3.4 Syntactic characteristics

Careful consideration of the Persian interlanguage of English native speakers who learn Per-
sian shows particular syntactic features which do not belong to standard Persian. In the follow-
ing subsections, the syntactic characteristics of Persian interlanguage are explained based on
different syntactic or grammatical factors. See Chapter 4 in this volume for a detailed discus-
sion and categorisation of syntactic errors made by second language learners of Persian and
Persian heritage learners.

26.3.4.1 Word order

The first syntactic characteristic of Persian interlanguage related to word order is the use
of SVO sentence word order. The unmarked word order of standard Persian is SOV, but at
early stages and lower level, the learners commonly use SVO word order, which is the direct
result of English which is the learners’ native language. For example, the interlanguage of the
learners shows that instead of producing /barādaram ketāb xarid/, they make /barādaram xarid
ketāb/ for the English sentence “My brother bought books.” where /xarid/ is the verb and /
ketāb/ is the object.
The second characteristic of Persian interlanguage in this section is related to the order of
noun and adjective in a noun phrase. In Persian usually the adjective or modifier follows the
noun, but in English the adjectives precede the nouns which they modify. As the result of the
learners’ first language, in their Persian interlanguage they may bring adjective before the
noun in earlier stages of their language learning. As an example, the English speakers say /
gerān gol/ instead of /gol-e gerān/ for English “expensive flower” where /gerān/ is the adjective
and /gol/ is the noun.

26.3.4.2 Verb omission

Dropping verb is the other syntactic characteristics of Persian interlanguage. This happens
mainly for the verb “to be” in early stages of learning Persian. For instance the learners of
Persian when introducing themselves they usually drop the verb /ast/ or its spoken forms /e/,
/st/ or /s/ meaning “is” from the end of the sentence; they may say /esm-e man jak/ instead of
/esm-e man jak ast/ for “My name is Jack.” This also happens when the learners use another
structure to mean “I am Jack.” For which the learner says /man jak/ instead of /man jak has-
tam/ where s/he drops the verb /hastam/ meaning “am” or “I am”.

26.3.4.3 Pronouns
Standard Persian is a pro-drop
­ language, so using subjective pronoun can be redundant and
it is used only in some particular contexts. In Persian interlanguage, the extensive use of pro-
nouns as subjects is one of the main syntactic features as the learners are less likely to drop
the pronoun, which is because of the nature of the English language, which keeps the subject.
The second syntactic characteristic of Persian interlanguage regarding the usage of pro-
noun is related to using the incorrect form of the third person singular pronoun. In Persian,
there are two pronouns to show third person singular: the first one is /u/ which refers to a
human (like “he” and “she” in English) and the second one is /ān/ which refers to a non-human
entity (like “it” in English). In early stages of language learning, the learners usually use /u/
for all instances to refer to third person singular nouns. For example, they may say/diruz yek

554
 Persian as an interlanguage

ketāb xaridam va u rā xāndam/ instead of /diruz yek ketāb xaridam va ān rā xāndam/ meaning
“Yesterday, I bought a book and I read it”. This characteristic in Persian interlanguage is due
to the language learning process.
The third syntactic characteristic of Persian interlanguage related to using the personal
pronoun is the time when the learner overgeneralises using the free forms of personal pro-
noun instead of the enclitic forms in object, object of preposition and the possessive adjec-
tive positions. In standard Persian, the free personal pronoun can be used in those positions
provided that what they are referring to is different from the subject of the same sentence,
otherwise the corresponding enclitic forms need to be used. So the learner may write /
ketāb-e man rā az ostād gereftam/ meaning “I got my book from the professor.” where s/he
has used free personal pronoun /man/ meaning “my” in possessive adjective position while
the subject of the same sentence is “I” and referring to the same entity. The correct form of
this sentence in Persian should be /ketābam rā az ostād gereftam/ where /-am/ is the enclitic
pronoun meaning “my”. This syntactic interlanguage characteristic can even stay with the
learners till later stages of language learning and is considered the result of the language
learning process.

26.3.4.4 Prepositions
Among those characteristics of Persian interlanguage which are related to prepositions are
instances of dropping prepositions in Persian in cases where they should be used. This char-
acteristic is due to the learners’ first language. For example, the learner says /har ruz mādaram
komak mikonam/ instead of /har ruz be mādaram komak mikonam/ meaning “Every day I help
my mother.” the preposition /be/ is deleted due to the learner’s first language as in English the
verb “help” does not take any preposition.
The other type of characteristics of interlanguage related to prepositions is using preposi-
tions where it is not needed. This happens with the expressions related to time where the learn-
ers use the preposition /dar/ before time in the same way they use English prepositions “at”,
“in” and “on”. For example, the learners say /dar ruz-e doʃanbe be bazār raftam/ instead of /
ruz-e doʃanbe be bazār raftam/ meaning “On Monday, I went to the bazār.” This characteristic
is the result of the learners’ first language as well.
The third type of characteristics of interlanguage related to prepositions is using an inap-
propriate preposition. For example, the learners use preposition /dar/ instead of /be/ in the
phrase /ʔalāqemand be/ meaning “interested in”. Again this happens due to direct loan transla-
tion from their native English language, as the equivalent of preposition “in” is usually /dar/.
So the learners say /dar fārsi ʔalāqemand hastam/ instead of /be fārsi ʔalāqemand hastam/
meaning “I am interested in Persian.”

26.3.4.5 Indefinite marker /-i/

One of the characteristics of interlanguage is related to the indefinite marker /-i/. In Persian
when a noun is not specific or definite it takes the marker /-i/. There are some cases where
the learner drops this marker. For example, in the sentence /diruz polis dozd dar xiyābān-e
mā dastgir kard/ produced by the learner meaning “Yesterday, the police caught a thief in our
street”, the indefinite marker /-i/ is missing after /dozd/ meaning “thief”. This feature exists in
the Persian interlanguage because of the learning process. This can be seen in the sentence /
be didār-e dustam dar bimarestān raftam va barāyaʃ ketāb-hā bordam/ meaning “I went to visit
my friend in the hospital and I took (some) books for him.” in which the indefinite marker /-i/

555
 Mahbod Ghaffari

is missing after the plural noun /ketāb-hā/. The incorrect use of the plural marker is another
feature of the interlanguage which will be discussed later in Section 26.3.4.10.
Another case related to the same category, i.e. using the indefinite marker /-i/, is when the
learner overgeneralises and uses /-i/ where it is not needed. For example, the learners produce
sentences such as /yek sibi xordam/ meaning “I ate one apple.” or “I ate an apple.”. In such
context, only the word /yek/ meaning “one” or the indefinite marker /-i/ can be used, so one
of them is redundant. Another example is where a noun is made definite with some linguistic
devices such as determinative adjectives /in/ meaning “this” or /ān/ meaning “that” and still
the learner brings the indefinite marker /-i/ after the noun. For example, in the sentence /
barādaram ān māʃini ra naxarid zirā gerān bud/ meaning “My brother didn’t buy that car
because it was expensive.”, the learner has used the indefinite marker /-i/ after /ān māʃin/
which is a definite noun meaning “that car” and does not need the /-i/. All these examples are
the result of the language learning process.

26.3.4.6 Object marker /rā/

In Persian, when a noun or a noun phrase is definite or specific and functions as the direct
object of the verb, it is followed by the direct object marker /rā/. For example, in the sentence
/mādaram ʃomā rā did/ meaning “My mother saw you”, the word /ʃomā/ means “you” and is
the object of the sentence, and since all pronouns are specific, it is followed by the specific
direct object marker /rā/. The nouns can be specific either semantically or grammatically, so
all proper nouns, pronouns, nouns after demonstrative adjectives or possessive adjectives, and
reflexives are considered specific.
Among those characteristics of the interlanguage which are related to the object marker /rā/
in Persian includes dropping /rā/ in cases where it should be used. This is likely due to the fact
that an overt object marker like /rā/ does not exist in English.
English language does not have any marker to show the object of the verb, while in Persian
/rā/ comes after definite specific direct objects and is considered an object marker. For this
same reason, when English native speakers learn Persian, they often forget to use /rā/ after
the definite objects, and this is one of the characteristics of their Persian interlanguage. For
example, they say /in ʃeʔr do bār xāndam/ instead of /in ʃeʔr rā do bār xāndam/ meaning “I
read this poetry twice”. So the learners forget to use /rā/ after /ʃeʔr/ meaning “poetry” which
is the specific object as it is preceded by determiner /in/. This clearly shows the impact of the
learner’s native English language on his/her Persian.
The second characteristic of Persian interlanguage related to /rā/ as an object marker is the
incorrect use of /rā/, in other words, overgeneralisation of /rā/ and using it after non-specific
indefinite object. In this case, this characteristic of interlanguage does not relate to the learn-
er’s first language but the process of learning Persian. For example, the learner may say /diruz
be foruʃgāh raftam va ketābi rā xaridam/ instead of saying /diruz be foruʃgāh raftam va ketābi
xaridam/ meaning “Yesterday, I went to the shop and bought a book.” in which /ketabi/ has
indefinite marker /-i/ so it is an indefinite noun and cannot take object marker /rā/.
The third characteristic of interlanguage which is related to the object marker /rā/ is when
we have a complex sentence embedding a relative clause. In Persian, when constructing a
relative clause, the noun which the relative clause is referring to gets an enclitic /-i/, which is
a kind of antecedent marker /-i/ and is different from indefinite marker /-i/; for example, in /
mardi ke āmad/ meaning “the man who came”, /mard/ has got the antecedent marker /-i/ and is
followed by the relative clause /ke āmad/. In another example, the learners may say /ketābi ke
xāndam az dustam gerefte budam/ instead of /ketābi rā ke xāndam az dustam gerefte budam/

556
 Persian as an interlanguage

meaning “The book which I read I had got from my friend.” Therefore, while learning how
to use the relative clause, the learners mistakenly consider this /-i/ an indefinite marker, and
when the noun is in the object position they mistakenly do not bring /rā/ after the noun. This
characteristic can be because of both the learners’ native language and the process of language
learning.
The next characteristic of Persian interlanguage which is related to the object marker /rā/
is when the learner uses it in an inaccurate place in cases where a relative clause construction
is used. In standard Persian, in such sentences, /rā/ should come after the noun and not after
the verb in the relative clause. But the interlanguage of the learners shows that they use /rā/
at the end of the relative clause. For example, the learners may say /ketābi ke āvarde budi rā
xāndam/ instead of /ketābi rā ke āvarde budi xāndam/ meaning “I read the book which you
had brought.” in which the learners have used /rā/ after the verb /budi/ at the end of relative
clause and not after the noun /ketābi/ to which the relative clause refers. This characteristic
of interlanguage does not relate to the learner’s first language but rather to the process of lan-
guage learning.
The fifth characteristic of Persian interlanguage which is related to using the object
marker /rā/ is when the learner uses it between the nonverbal and verbal part of a com-
pound verb. For example, in the sentence /dar muze be tʃizi dast rā nemizanam/ meaning “In
museum, I do not touch anything.”, the learner has used /rā/ between the compound verb /
dast zadan/ meaning “to touch” (literally “hand hit”). This is again a result of the language
learning process.
The final syntactic characteristic of Persian interlanguage in this category is related to using
the object marker /rā/ in the passive voice. In the early stages of language learning, Persian
learners extensively use the object marker /rā/ in the passive sentences which normally comes
after the definite object in active voice and is deleted when the sentence is changed to pas-
sive. For example, the learners may form the sentence /sarbāzān rā koʃte ʃodand/ instead of
/sarbāzān koʃte ʃodand/meaning “The soldiers were killed”. So they are using the verb in
passive voice but still keeping /rā/ with the grammatical subject. This is again a result of the
language learning process.

26.3.4.7 Linking word

Missing the linking word /ke/ is amongst the syntactic characteristics of Persian interlanguage
which is due to the learner’s first language. The learner says /ketābi xāndam moʔallem be man
dād/ meaning “I read the book which the teacher gave me.” which should be /ketābi ke xāndam
moʔallem be man dād/. In the interlanguage, the linking word /ke/ is deleted, which is due to
the learner’s first language English, in which the relative pronoun can be deleted in such con-
structions; the English example can be “I saw the man you were talking about.”

26.3.4.8 /-i/ in exclamatory phrases

In Persian, in exclamatory sentences, if /tʃe/ is followed by a noun or noun phrase, then the
enclitic /-i/ is attached to the noun phrase, for example /tʃe ʃahr-e bozorgi/ means “What a big
city!”, in which /-i/ has come after /ʃahr-e bozorg/. This /-i/ behaves like the indefinite marker
/-i/ but it is somehow different. The interlanguage of Persian learners shows that they drop
this /-i/ and make the exclamatory sentences without /-i/. For example, they may say the same
sentence as /tʃe ʃahr-e bozorg/ where the enclitic /-i/ is missing. Once again, this feature is the
result of the language learning process.

557
 Mahbod Ghaffari

26.3.4.9 /-i/ in interrogative adjectival /tʃe/

Exactly similar to /-i/ in exclamatory phrases, in Persian, if the question word /tʃe/ is followed
by a noun, then the enclitic /-i/ is attached to the noun; this is the interrogative adjectival /tʃe/.
For example, in /tʃe rangi?/ meaning “what colour?” or /tʃe sāli/ meaning “what year?” or /
tʃe ketābi/ meaning “what book?”, /-i/ has come after the nouns /rang/, /sāl/ and /ketāb/. The
interlanguage of Persian learners shows that they drop this /-i/ and make this kind of inter-
rogatives without /-i/. For example, they may say the same sentences as /tʃe rang?/, /tʃe sāl?/
and /tʃe ketāb/ respectively, where the enclitic /-i/ is missing in all examples. Once again, this
feature is the result of the language learning process.

26.3.4.10 Plural/singular nouns

One of the characteristics of interlanguage is related to the plural or singular forms of the
nouns. There are cases where the learner uses plural forms instead of the singular forms. One
of the most common ones at early stages of learning Persian is using plural after a numeral
greater than one, the same way the English speakers do in their native language, English. In
English, count nouns which follow numerals greater than one are obligatorily plural (e.g. three
dogs), but in Persian they must not have the plural marker and are always in singular form after
any number. For example, the interlanguage of Persian learners shows that the learners may
use /do sib-hā/ instead of /do sib/ meaning “two apples”. This same characteristic can be found
when some Persian learners use count nouns after quantifiers such as /tʃand/ and /te’dādi/, /
kami/, and /xeyli/, respectively meaning “some”, “a number of”, “a few”, and “many”. Again,
this is the result of language transfer from the first language.
Another common case is in sentences like /ketāb-hā behtarin dust-hā-ye ma hastand/
instead of /ketāb behtarin dust-e māst/ meaning “Books are our good friends”. In Persian, we
can use singular nouns as a generic nouns to refer to all members of a particular group. We
do not need to use plural forms in the way we do in English. In the aforementioned example
both /katāb-hā/ and /dust-hā/ are in plural form by virtue of the plural maker suffix /-hā/, while
we should use the singular generic noun. This characteristic of Persian interlanguage is again
a result of the learner’s first language.
However, there are instances where the learner uses the singular form instead of the plural
form. One of the most common ones at early stages of learning Persian is using singular after
the expressions such as /yeki az/ meaning “one of the”, /teʔdādi az/ meaning “a number of”, /
barxi az/ meaning “some of”, /hame-ye/ meaning “all” or “all of” and so on, while in standard
Persian, these expressions are followed by plural nouns. For example, Persian learners may
say /teʔdādi az ketāb/ instead of /teʔdādi az ketab-hā/ meaning “a number of books”. Although
this can be the result of the process of language learning, more specifically it can be because
of Persian language-internal impact and has happened due to the existence of another similar
construction in Persian where /teʔdādi/ meaning “a few” (without the preposition /az/) should
be followed by a singular noun; therefore the learner overgeneralises the rule and keeps the
noun singular after /teʔdādi az/.
Another characteristic of Persian interlanguage in this same category is the use of double
plural. In Persian, in addition to the most regular pluralisation rule, which is adding /-hā/ to
a singular noun, there are other available ways. One of them is a rather irregular way and is
called “broken plural” which is a rule in Arabic language to make plural nouns and the plural
forms are borrowed into Persian in their original Arabic form. For example, the word /filsuf/
is a singular noun meaning “philosopher”. The normal plural form of it in Persian can be /

558
 Persian as an interlanguage

filsuf-hā/; however, there is another broken plural form /falāsefe/ meaning “philosophers”
borrowed from Arabic. There are instances that the learner, considering the latter form as a
singular noun, adds the plural maker /-hā/ to /falāsefe/ and changes it to /falāsefe-hā/ to make
it plural. This feature is due to overgeneralisation of the pluralisation rule and adding /-hā/ to
nouns which are already in plural form made by means of other less frequent pluralisation
devices and processes. Another example of this double plural is making /mardom-hā/ instead
of /mardom/ meaning “people” where the noun naturally refers to a plural entity and consid-
ered plural.

26.3.4.11 The ezafe marker

Another syntactic characteristic of Persian interlanguage is omitting the ezafe marker when
needed. The ezafe marker is the vowel /-e/ which links syntactically related nouns (such as the
possessive) or links a noun to an adjective or a series of adjectives. If the immediate phoneme
which precedes ezafe is the vowel /ā/ or the vowel /u/, then the consonant /y/ comes before
the ezafe marker. At early stages and lower levels, the learners have the tendency to drop
ezafe, which can be noticed both in their spoken and written performance. For example, they
produce the sentence /qazā mekziki dust nadāram/ instead of /qazā-ye mekziki dust nadāram/
meaning “I don’t like Mexican food.” where they have missed the ezafe and the accompanying
consonant /y/ as the needed buffer. Another example is in spoken Persian where the learner
says /moʔallem mehrabān be man goft/ instead of /moʔallem-e mehrabān be man goft/ mean-
ing “The kind teacher told me.” where the learner is dropping the ezafe between /moaʔallem/
meaning “teacher” and /mehrabān/ meaning “kind” (as in written Persian usually the diacritics
representing short vowels are not used, then the /-e/ as ezafe marker is not shown. Therefore by
looking at the learners written work one cannot decide if they have dropped the ezafe marker
or not, but when they are asked to read aloud their own piece of work, they drop the ezafe
marker. Dropping the ezafe marker as one of the syntactic characteristics of the Persian inter-
language of English speakers can be the result of their native language, where they can join
syntactically related nouns and adjective without any linker and/or the result of the language
learning process.

26.3.4.12 Noun or adjective

One of the characteristics of interlanguage is related to the word form. A very frequent one is
using an adjective form of the word instead of the noun. For example, the learner may say /
be tārix-e irāni ʔalāqemand hastam/ instead of /be tārix-e irān ʔalāqemand hastam/ to mean
“I am interested in Iranian history (or history of Iran)”. In this example, it can be seen that
the learner is using the adjective /irāni/ instead of the noun /irān/. This is mainly due to the
learner’s first language, English in which normally the adjective “Iranian” can be used; but
using the adjective form in Persian makes a change in meaning (when the adjective /irāni/ is
used it is describing and giving or attribute a feature to the noun /tārix/, while using the word
/irān/ means the “history belongs to Iran”). The other example related to this category is in
very early stages of language learning in a sentence like /man ahl-e eskātlandi hastam/ instead
of /man ahl-e eskātland hastam/ meaning “I am from Scotland.” when the learner is trying to
say where s/he is coming from. This time, using adjective /eskātlandi/ instead of the noun /
eskātland/ is the result of the process of language learning and overgeneralisation, because
to express the same concept one can correctly use the adjective /eskātlandi/ in the sentence /
man eskātlandi hastam/ meaning “I am Scottish” in which there is no /ahl-e/. So it seems some

559
 Mahbod Ghaffari

learners overgeneralised using the adjective form in the sentence /man ahl-e eskātlandi has-
tam/ while in such sentences, the name of the country (which is a noun) and not the nationality
(which is an adjective) should be used after the word /ahl-e/.
Another frequent type of such characteristics is using a noun instead of an adjective. In
phrases such as /kāqaz-e divār/, /dastmāl-e jib/, and /madrese-ye pesar/ instead of /kāqaz-e
divāri/ meaning “wallpaper”, /dastmāl-e jibi/ meaning “pocket tissue”, and /madrese-ye
pesarāne/ meaning “boys’ school”, the learners have used nouns /divār/ meaning “wall”, /
jib/ meaning “pocket” and /pesar/ meaning “boy” instead of the adjectives /divāri/ meaning
“related to wall”, /jibi/ meaning “related to pocket” and /pesarāne/ meaning “for boys” respec-
tively. In all these examples, using nouns instead of adjectives is due to the learners’ first
language, English.
Another syntactic characteristic of Persian interlanguage is related to using the right form
of an adjective. In Persian, there are adjectives which have somehow the same meaning but
of different forms and different usage. For example, the adjective /ʃojāʔ/ means “brave”, and
/ʃojāʔāne/ means “in a brave way” (which can be used as an adjective after nouns or as an
adverb to describe a verb.) However, /ʃojāʔ/ is used with a noun which is animate like in /
sarbāz-e ʃojāʔ/ meaning “brave soldier”, but /ʃojāʔāne/ as an adjective accompanies an inani-
mate noun like in /nabard-e ʃojāʔāne/ meaning “a brave battle” or “a battle in a brave way”.
In the interlanguage of the learners we find that they use the adjective form /ʃojāʔ/ with both
animate and inanimate nouns without paying attention to the limitation of its usage. This can
happen in other similar pairs of adjectives such as /ʔāʃeq/ meaning “lover of” and /ʔāʃeqāne/
meaning “romantic”, /dalir/ meaning “brave” and /dalirāne/ meaning “in a brave way”, /
qamgin/ meaning “sad” and /qamgināne/ meaning “sad” or “in a sad way”, and so on. This is
a result of both the native language of the learner and the process of language learning.

26.3.4.13 Verb forms: tense, aspect, mood and voice

One of the main morpho-syntactic characteristics of Persian interlanguage relates to the for-
mation of present or past forms of the verb. The learners initially learn the rule which states
that one can drop the past-forming morpheme from the past form of the verb and then by
adding /mi-/ before it and the personal endings to the end of the root, different verb forms in
present tense can be conjugated. For example /xaridan/ means “to buy” and /xarid/ is the past
stem of the verb, from which /id/ is the past phoneme and can be dropped to get the root, then
making the present form /mixaram/ meaning “I buy” where /mi-/ is used for making simple
present and /-am/ is the personal ending referring to “I” as the first person singular subject.
The learner often overgeneralises the rule and applies it to the exceptional cases; for example,
from the infinitive /poxtan/ meaning “to cook” they make the present form /mipoxam/ instead
of /mipazam/ in order to express “I cook” in which it is not sufficient to remove the past maker
morpheme /t/, but the root should go through the phonological changes of which the most
important one is changing the consonant /x/ to /z/, and in this particular example the vowel
/o/ also needs to change to /a/. In some cases, the reverse way has been noticed too, where
the learner knows the present form and wants to make the past form by adding the past maker
morpheme /id/, which is the most frequent among all past making morphemes of /d/, /id/, /
ad/ and /t/. For example, the learner already knows the verb /minevisam/ meaning “I write” in
which /nevis/ is the root. The learner overgeneralises the rule that by adding /-id/ to the root
and mistakenly makes the past tense form /nevisidam/ in order to express “I wrote”, whereas
s/he doesn’t know that the correct past form is /neveʃtam/. Taking both examples into account,
this characteristic is the result of overgeneralisation of the same rule.

560
 Persian as an interlanguage

One of the major syntactic characteristics of Persian interlanguage is confusion of verb

forms. This can commonly be seen when the learner uses progressive aspect instead of simple
past form or vice-versa. For example, English speakers who are learning Persian at different
stages of learning produce sentences like /moʃkel-e ʃomā rā dānestam/ instead of /moʃkel-e
ʃomā rā midānestam/ meaning “I knew your problem.”, where the learners are using simple
past form rather than progressive aspect. It means that they are not using the progressive
marker /mi-/ before the verb /dānestam/ in the past tense. This is mainly due to the learners’
first language, English, where they use simple past form to express such a concept, while in
Persian the verb “to know” has mostly the concept of progression and “knowing something for
a while”. Interestingly, if the learner uses the same sentence in present tense, s/he will keep the
/mi-/ as present tense in written Persian has the same form for both simple present tense and
progressive aspect. So the learner says /moʃkel-e ʃomā rā midānam/ meaning “I know your
problem”. This can be because of the nature of this particular verb as well, as it is unlikely
to be used in progressive aspect in present tense. Please note that Persian has other means of
forming the progressive aspect – e.g. through the use of /dāʃtan/ meaning “to have”, as in /
dāram minevisam/ meaning “I am writing” and /dāʃtam mineveʃtam/ meaning “I was writing”.
Another particular syntactic feature of Persian interlanguage is related to the verb /dāʃtan/
meaning “to have”. In standard Persian, all verbs in present tense and in past progressive tense
take /mi-/ except /dāʃtan/ and /budan/ meaning “to be”. For example in /xāharam be madrese
miravad/ meaning “My sister goes to school.”, /miravad/ is in present tense meaning “she
goes” and has the /mi-/, but in /xāharam keyk dārad/ meaning “My sister has cake.”, /dārad/ is
in present tense without /mi-/ and means “she has”. Also in /xāharam keyk mixord/ meaning
“My sister was eating cake.”, /mixord/ is in past progressive tense meaning “She was eating”,
but in /xāharam qazā dāʃt/ meaning “My sister had food.”, /dāʃt/ is in past tense meaning “She
had” and does not take /mi-/. This rule also applies to other compound verbs with /dāʃtan/ as
their verbal part, such as /dust dāʃtan/ meaning “to like”, /entezār dāʃtan/ meaning “to expect”,
/kār dāʃtan/meaning “to be busy”, /bastegi dāʃtan/ meaning “to depend” and so on. There are a
couple or three exceptions of such compound verbs such as /negah dāʃtan/ meaning “to keep”,
/bar dāʃtan/ meaning “to lift or to take” and /dar nazar dāʃtan/ meaning “to consider” where
the verbal part /dāʃtan/ can take /mi-/ in present tense and past progressive tense like any other
verbs. However, the interlanguage of Persian learners shows that they overgeneralise the rule
and apply /mi-/ for /dāʃtan/ in both present and past progressive tenses and the make sentences
like /emruz kelās midāram/ instead of /emruz kelās dāram/ meaning “Today, I have classes.”
and /u rā dust nemidāram/ instead of /u rā dust nadāram/ meaning “I do not like it”. The exam-
ples show that this characteristic is again the result of the process of language learning and
overgeneralisation of a rule in the second language.
Another example is in some complex sentences where the learners do not use the correct
form of the verb mostly using simple past or past perfect tenses instead of the present sub-
junctive mood when the clause starts with /qabl az in ke/ meaning “before”. Learners may say
sentences like /qabl az in ke be landan raftam, do sāl dar pāris zendegi kardam/ or /qabl az in
ke be landan rafte budam, do sāl dar pāris zendegi kardam/ instead of /qabl az in ke be landan
beravam do sāl dar pāris zendegi kardam/ meaning “Before I went to London, I had lived in
Paris for two years”. This is a direct result of the learners’ native language, because in Persian
regardless of the tense of the matrix clause, the verb in the subordinate temporal clause /qabl
az in ke/ must be in the subjunctive. So in our case /beravam/ meaning “I go” in subjunctive
mood. To some extent, this may happen after the phrase /baʔd az in ke/ meaning “after” when
we refer to the actions happened in the past. Since English speakers usually bring the past per-
fect form of the verb in clauses containing “after” in English, they do the same expressing such

561
 Mahbod Ghaffari

sentences in Persian; however, Persian usually uses the simple form of the verb rather than the
perfect aspect in such clauses. For example, the learners may write /baʔd az in ke az kelās rafte
budid, modir āmad/ instead of /baʔd az in ke az kelās raftid, modir āmad/ meaning “After you
had left the class, the head master came.” in which the learner used the perfect aspect /rafte
budid/ instead of simple past /raftid/.
Another example is using simple present form instead of the present subjunctive form. In
Persian, to indicate the purpose of doing something, the purpose clause comes after /tā/, /ke/
or /tā in ke/ meaning “in order to” and the form of the verb in the purpose clause should be in
subjunctive form. However, the learner says /be kelās miravam tā fārsi yād migiram/ instead
of /be kelās miravam tā fārsi yād begiram/. This characteristic is the result of the process of
language learning. There are plenty more of such examples in complex sentences such as
conditionals, nominals and other adverbial clauses where the learners use different form of the
verbs instead of subjunctive forms.
One other important example is interlanguage characteristic in the case of indirect or
reported speech in Persian. Unlike English, in Persian, when the main clause is in the past
tense, the tense of the verb in the reported speech stays in the same form that it is originally
used in the direct speech. The characteristic of the Persian interlanguage of English speakers
shows that they apply the same rules that they use in English to say indirect speech in Persian;
that is, they change the tense of the verb in the reported speech; for example, the learners say /
pedaram goft ke (mi-)āmad/ instead of /pedaram goft ke miāyad/ meaning “My father said that
he would come or he was coming.” in which the learner has used /āmad/ or /miāmad/ which
are past forms instead of /miāyad/ which is present form of “to come”. As it can be seen, this is
the direct result of the learners’ first language. Similarly this impact from English on the per-
formance of learners can be noticed when they change the tense of the verb in the subordinate
clause when the verb in the main clause is in the past form and conveys meaning of percep-
tions such as “hearing”, “seeing”, “knowing”, “understanding” and the like. For example,
the sentence /midānestim in mard ki-st/ meaning “We knew who this man was” is correct and
learners may say /midānestim in mard ke bud/.
The other noticeable feature of Persian interlanguage is related to active/passive voice.
Normally the syntactic rule that applies to active voice form of the verb in order to change it
into the passive voice in Persian is that the main verb should change to participle form and then
be followed by the verb /ʃodan/ in the appropriate tense. So the active sentence /mohandesān in
pol rā se sāl piʃ sāxtand/ meaning “The engineers built this bridge three years ago.” changes to
/in pol se sāl piʃ sāxte ʃod/ in passive voice meaning “This bridge was built three years ago.”
in which the participle form /sāxte/ is followed by the verb /ʃod/ in past tense. More or less,
learners keep on using this correct form, and the problem may occur in the correct form of
the tense or forgetting to drop the object marker /rā/, which is not needed in the passive voice.
However, regarding the form of the verb in the passive voice, the interlanguage would be to a
large extent the same as the one in language of Persian native speakers. In cases of compound
verbs with /kardan/ meaning “to do” as their verbal part in Persian, the passive voice is made
by replacing /kardan/ with the verb /ʃodan/; so there is no more any need to change the verb to
the participle form. But the learners overgeneralise the rule which is used for making passive
voice forms of other verbs and apply it to the compound verbs with /kardan/. For example the
learners say /miz-hā tamiz karde ʃod/ instead of /miz-hā tamiz ʃod/ meaning “The tables were
cleaned”. This characteristic is the result of the process of language learning and overgenerali-
sation of a rule in the second language.
Another syntactic characteristic of Persian interlanguage is related to using gerunds. In
Persian, gerunds are in the form of infinitive. For example the Persian proverb /ʃenidan key

562
 Persian as an interlanguage

bovad mānand-e didan/ has two gerunds and means “Hearing is never like seeing.” in which /
ʃenidan/ is “hearing” and /didan/ means “seeing”. In cases where we have one word in subject,
object, and object of prepositions there is no problem unless there is a noun which is more
appropriate than and preferred to the gerund form of the verb, such as the Persian noun /āʃpazi/
which means “cooking” and is preferred to the infinitive /poxtan/ in cases we may want to
use a gerund. In such cases the English learners overgeneralise the rule and still use /poxtan/
instead of /āʃpazi/. This is the result of teaching/learning process. This characteristic gets more
complicated when there is a case of a gerund in phrases with more than only infinitive forms
of the verbs. Normally, if that infinitive is accompanied by a definite object, the object comes
after the infinitive and the infinitive takes the ezafe marker, so it is an ezafe construction; for
example, in the sentence /sāxtan-e in xāne zaman mibarad/ meaning “Building this house
takes time.”, /sāxtan-e xāne/ is the gerund in form of ezafe construction. But when the object
is not definite and a general concept is expressed, then the singular generic noun usually pre-
cedes the verb; this can be seen in /lebās ʃostan zaman mibarad/ meaning “Washing clothes or
clothes washing takes time”. In the interlanguage of learners, one can notice that the tendency
is towards bringing the nouns (definite or indefinite) before the verb. This is again a result of
learning process as the learners have learned that Persian is an SOV language and hence object
comes before the verb. So they overgeneralise the rule for all kinds of gerunds. This same
characteristic is also noticeable when the verb usually takes the prepositional phrase such as /
be . . . komak kardan/ meaning “to help somebody”. Although the prepositional phrase comes
before this verb when /komak kardan/ is used as the main verb of the sentence, when it is part
of the gerund, then the prepositional phrase follows /komak kardan/. But the learners say /be
digarān komak kardan fāyede nadaran/ instead of /komak kardan be digarān fāyede nadarad/
meaning “Helping others is of no use”. The case of gerunds in interlanguage becomes more
interesting when it is going to be used as the complement of a preposition of the main verb.
For example the verb /ʃoruʔ kardan/ meaning “to start” usually takes a direct object in the
sentence, for example in/tim-e irān bāzi rā ʃoruʔ kard/ meaning “The Iranian team started the
match”. But when this verb takes a gerund it is usually used as an indirect object and /ʃoruʔ
karan/ needs preposition /be/. Native speakers of Persian know that this gerund along with the
preposition /be/ follows the main verb /ʃoruʔ kardan/, so for example one says /ān-hā ʃoruʔ
kardand be zadan-e pesar-hā/ meaning “They started hitting the boys”. But the learners again
overgeneralise the sentence word order of Persian and bring this gerund as the direct object
before the main verb and say /ān-hā zadan-e pesar-hā rā ʃoruʔ kardand/.

26.3.4.14 Verb number (plural/singular)

One more characteristic of Persian interlanguage is related to number in verb conjugations.
Normally the verb in Persian agrees with the grammatical subject regarding the number. But
there are instances where the learner has used a singular noun instead of plural. This mostly
happens at earlier stages of language learning and particularly when the form of the subject is
singular but it refers to a plural noun or entity such as the word /mardom/ meaning “people”.
The learner may say /mardom be xiyābān āmad/ instead of /mardom be xiyābān āmadand/
meaning “People came to the street.” where /mardom/ refers to more than one person and
therefore needs a plural form of the verb /āmadand/ meaning “they came”. This syntactic char-
acteristic of the interlanguage is the result of the language learning process.
Another example is related to the time when the subject refers to second person. In Persian,
if the subject refers to the second person singular, then the verb takes /-i/ as personal ending
to agree with the subject in number, and when the subject refers to second person plural, then

563
 Mahbod Ghaffari

the verb takes /-id/ as the personal ending. There are many cases that the learner keeps the
personal ending in singular form /-i/ despite the fact that the subject is second person plural.
For example, they say /ʃomā kojā rafti/ instead of /ʃomā kojā raftid/ to express “Where did you
go?”. It seems that this syntactic characteristic of the interlanguage is the result of the learn-
ers’ first language, because there is no distinction between second person singular and second
person plural in English and hence the verb stays the same to agree with the subject regarding
the number.

26.3.4.15 Verb negation

Another noticeable syntactic feature of Persian interlanguage is related to verb negation. In
Persian, in order to make a verb negative normally the morpheme /ne-/ or /na-/ is added to the
beginning of the verb as the negative maker (in literary texts /ma-/ may be used as a negative
maker). If it is a compound verb, then it is added to the verbal part of the compound verb.
In imperative and subjunctive forms, if they have the marker /be-/, then the negative maker
replaces /be-/. The interlanguage of Persian learners show that they overgeneralise the rule and
they use it with subjunctive and imperative forms without dropping /be-/. For example, they
would say /nabexor/ instead of /naxor/ meaning “Don’t eat!” or say /momken ast naberavad/
instead of /momken ast naravad/ meaning “It is possible he does not go”. The other instance
which exists in the interlanguage of learners of Persian is bringing the negative maker /na-/
before the nonverbal element of the compound verb particularly when the nonverbal element
is a preposition. For example, at lower levels, the learners say /mādaram az safar nabargaʃt/
instead of /mādaram az safar bar nagaʃt/ meaning “My mother didn’t return from trip.” where
/bar/ is the nonverbal part of the compound verb /bar gaʃtan/ meaning “to return”. In both
examples, the syntactic characteristic of the interlanguage is the result of the process of lan-
guage learning.
Not considering the double negative is the other grammatical characteristic of Persian
interlanguage that is the result of the native language of English speakers who are learning
Persian. For example, the learners may say /hargez be kavir rafteʔam/ instead of /hargez be
kavir narafteʔam/ to mean “I have never gone to the desert”. Unlike English, the word /hargez/
meaning “never” does not make the sentence negative, and still the negative marker /ne-/ is
needed to be prefixed to the verb to make the sentence negative. This is also the case with
words such as /hitʃ tʃiz/ meaning “nothing”, /hitʃ jā/ meaning “nowhere”, /hitʃ kas/ meaning
“nobody” and the like.

26.4 Conclusion
The Persian interlanguage of English speakers shows that its phonological, morphological,
semantic and syntactic characteristics, features and rules are a mixture of those of English
language (the learners’ first or native language), those of the Persian language (target or sec-
ond language) and the ones which belong to neither of them but are special to the Persian
interlanguage which are the result of communication strategy, language learning process, and
the books and other learning aids. The study of this interlanguage shows that these features
and rules are not fixed but changing through the process of language learning. On one hand,
the less complex features such as word order, verb negation and phonological rules belong to
the Persian language in the earlier stages of language learning and will fade and become less
frequent or common at later and more advanced stages of language learning. On the other hand
the more advanced and sophisticated features such as the verbal parts of compound verbs,

564
 Persian as an interlanguage

relative clauses, subjunctive forms of the verbs, and semantic features last for a longer time
and would be present until later and even at higher stages of language learning. Therefore these
characteristics can be considered to be hierarchical. Persian interlanguage is a continuum, and
studying it at any cross section will show different characteristics and linguistic rules; and the
Persian interlanguage of each individual can be different from that of another person but have
many rules and features in common.
Regardless of the nature and the source of these features, they are more or less the result of
some behavioural procedures such as overgeneralisation, lack of awareness of the limitations
of the linguistic rules, incorrect comparison, incorrect classification, overcorrection, lack of
linguistic knowledge and resorting to the communication strategies.
The detailed study of Persian interlanguage at different stages can be very useful for the
instructors of Persian language as it helps them to anticipate the linguistic behaviour of their
learners, develop their own pedagogical strategy to address the potential mistakes of their
students, see how their learners juggle between the two languages and eventually help them
to avoid or correct such mistakes more quickly so that they can get closer to a native-like
proficiency.

References
Ahmadian, A. 2004. Barrasi-ye Xatāhā-ye Zabāni dar Neveʃtār-e Dāneʃāmuzān-e Fārsiāmuz-e Kord
Zabān-e Guyeʃ-e Mahābād dar Sath-e Motevaset-e Zabānāmuzi [The Study of Linguistic Errors of
the Written Texts of Kurdish (Mahabadi Dialect)-speaking Learners of Persian at Intermediate Level].
MA. Dissertation, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran.
Corder, S.P. 1967. “The Significance of Learners’ Errors.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 5: 161–170.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eslami, M. 2013. Tahlil-e Xatāhā-ye Neveʃtāri-ye Rusi Zabānān-e Fārsiāmuz dar Sath-e Miyāni [Error
Analysis of Written Text of Russian-speaking Learners of Persian at Intermediate Level]. MA. Dis-
sertation, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad.
Frith, M.B. 1978. “Interlanguage Theory: Implications for the Classroom.” McGill Journal of Education,
13(2): 155–165.
James, C. 1980. Contrastive Analysis. London: Longman.
James, C. 1998. Errors in Language Learning and Use: Exploring Error Analysis. London: Longman.
Kamju, M. 2011. Tahlil-e Xatāhā-ye Vaʒegāni-ye Dāneʃāmuzān-e Āmoli Zabān Maqta’-e Dabirestān dar
Neveʃtār-e Zabān-e Fārsi [The Analysis of Morphological Errors of Amoli-speaking Learners of Persian
in Their Persian Writing at High School]. MA. Dissertation, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran.
Keenan, L.E., and B. Comrie. 1977. “Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar.” Linguistic
Inquiry, 8(1): 63–99.
Keshavarz, M.H. 1994. Contrastive Analysis and Error Analysis. Tehran: Rahnama Publications.
Khanbabazadeh, K. 2009. Barrasi-ye Xatāhā-ye Nahvi-ye Tāleʃi Zabānhā dar Gune-ye Neveʃtāri-ye
Zabān-e Fārsi [The Study of the Synatctic Errors of Taleshi-speaking Learners of Persian in Their
Persian Writing]. MA. Dissertation, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran.
Khanbabazadeh, K. 2016. Xatāhā-ye Nahvi- ye Tāleʃi Zabānhā dar Fārsi-ye Me’yār, [Synatctic Errors of
Taleshi Speakers in Standard Persian]. Tehran: Andishmandan Kasra Publications.
Mehdizadeh, N. 2007. Tahlil-e Xatāhā-ye Goftāri-ye Zabānāmuzān-e Kord Zabān-e Eilāmi dar Yādgiri
va Kārbord-e Zabān-e Fārsi [The Analysis of the Spoken Errors of Kurdish-speaking Learners of
Persian in Eilam]. MA. Dissertation, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran.
Mirdehghan, M., et al. 2014. “Xatāhā-ye Neveʃtāri-ye Fārsiāmuzān-e Ālmāni Zabān dar Sath-e
Moqaddamāti: Xatāhā-ye Emlāyi-vāji’ [Written Errors of German-speaking Learners of Persian at
Elementary Level: An Orthophonemic Analysis].” Journal of Teaching Persian to Non-native Speak-
ers of Persian, 6(3–1): 91–116.
Motevalian Naeini, R., and R. Malekian. 2014. “Tahlil-e ‘Xatāhā-ye Nahvi-ye Fārsiāmuzān-e Ordu
Zabān [The Analysis of the Syntactic Errors of Urdu-speaking Learners of Persian].” Journal of
Teaching Persian to Non-native Speakers of Persian, 6(3–1): 31–64.

565
 Mahbod Ghaffari

Motevalian Naeini, R., and A. Ostovar Abarghuyi. 2013. “Xatāhā-ye Nahvi-ye ‘arab Zabānān dar
Yādgiri-ye Zabān-e Fārsi be ‘onvān-e Zabān-e Dovvom [Syntactic Errors of Arabic-speaking Learn-
ers of Persian as a Second Language.” Journal of Teaching Persian to Non-native Speakers of Per-
sian, 4(2–2): 57–86.
Myers-Scotton, C. 2002. Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nemser, W. 1969. “Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners.” International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 9: 115–224.
Richards, C.J., and P.G. Sampson. 1974. “The Study of Learner English.” In Error Analysis: Perspectives
on Second Language Acquisition, edited by J.C. Richards. London: Longman.
Sajjadi, S., and R.M. Sahrayi. 2018. “Selsel-e Marāteb-e Dastrasi-ye Goruh-e Esmi: Farāgiri-ye
Bandhā-ye Mosuli dar Zabān-e Fārsi [Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy: Learning Relative
Clauses in Persian].” Journal of Paʒuheʃhhāy-e Zabāni [Language Researches], 9(1): 21–38.
Sati Hung, H. 2011. Barrasi-ye Xatāhā-ye Nahvi-ye Vietnāmi Zabānān dar Yādgiri-ye Zabān-e Fārsi
[Syntactic Error Analysis of Vietnamese-speaking Learners of Persian]. MA. Dissertation, Allameh
Tabatabaei University, Tehran.
Sattari Golbaghi, M. 2001. Tahlil-e ‘Xatāhā-ye Vāʒegāni-ye Lak Zabānān dar Yādgiri va Kārbord-e
Zabān-e Fārsi [The Analysis of Morphological Errors of Laki-speaking Learners of Persian], MA.
Dissertation, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran.
Selinker, L. 1972. “Interlanguage.” International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10: 209–231.
Taherzadeh, M., et al. 2016. “Barrasi-ye Xatāhā-ye Neveshtāri-ye Fārsiāmuzān-e ‘arab Zabān-e Sath-e
Miyāni: Xatāhā-ye Vāʒegāni bar Mabnā-ye Tʃārtʃub-e Jeymz [The Analysis of the Written Errors of
Arabic-Speaking Learners of Persian at Intermediate Level: Morphological Errors Based on James’s
Framework].” The Third National Conference on Linguistics and Teaching Persian Language, 101–
121 Mashhad: Iran.
Yip, V. 1995. Interlanguage and Learnability: From Chinese to English. Amsterdam, NL: John Benja-
mins Publishing.

566
 27
INTERLANGUAGE
AND BEYOND SHAHRZAD MAHOOTIAN AND LEWIS GEBHARDTINTERLANGUAGE AND BEYOND

Persian-English
­ codeswitching

Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

27.1 Introduction
What happens when we learn a second language as adults? In what ways does our second lan-
guage interface with our first? What types of influences and obstacles should we expect to be
exerted from the first language onto the second? Chapters 2–8 in Part I in this volume discuss
the quality and quantity of first language influence on second language.
The process of second language acquisition is best described as a sequence of steps on
a continuum, stretching from monolingualism to bilingualism. In this chapter, we examine
a series of outcomes when Persian is acquired as a second language. We consider some of
the phonological and grammatical interlanguage phases of Persian second language acquisi-
tion including Persian-English codeswitching. We also show that codeswitching requires a
high level of grammatical and functional proficiency typical of native speakers. Moreover, we
demonstrate how codeswitching is guided by universal principles of grammar and differs from
interlanguage systems, structurally and functionally.
In the remainder of Section 27.1, we provide a brief review of grammatical and phonologi-
cal features of Persian and examine common interlanguage structures resulting from the inter-
face between these features and those of the same value in English. For further discussion on
Persian-English interlanguage, read Chapter 26 in this volume. In Section 27.2, we provide a
brief overview of codeswitching models and shows Persian-English codeswitches to be a natu-
ral, grammatical outcome of universal syntactic principles, specifically the head-complement
principle and the Merge operation, as we detail how current syntactic theory accounts for the
structure of mixed-language words and phrases. In Section 27.3, we examine some of the
social motivations for codeswitching. We conclude with a brief summary in Section 27.4.

27.1.1 Some features of Persian

27.1.1.1 Word order

As others in this volume have discussed, the canonical word order of Persian is subject-object-
verb (SOV), or more precisely SXV, where X may be a direct object as in example (1), a
prepositional phrase as in (2), or adverbial phrase as in (3). We will use SOV when the phrase

567
 Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

preceding the verb is a direct object. Otherwise we will use SXV. In each example, the verb is
in final position after the object, or prepositional or adverbial phrase:

(1) man yek kolāh kharidam

I a hat bought
‘I bought a hat.’
(2) bache-hā bā minā raftand
Child-pl with Mina went
‘The children went with Mina’
(3) Behruz sāʻat-e panj miyād.
Behruz o’clock five comes
‘Behruz will come at five o’clock.’

However, Persian is not a strict SXV language and shows word order flexibility in a
number of contexts. Most notable is when adverbial phrases of goal are involved. Goal
adverbial phrases are those that use adverbs such as ‘up’, ‘out’ or ‘in’ (as in ‘she went up/
out/in’), or the preposition ‘to’ with a motion verb such as ‘walk’, ‘run’, ‘move’ and so on
(as in ‘they walked to the store’). In example (3a), birun ‘out’ precedes the verb miram
‘am going’ in typical canonical order. In (3b), the Persian adverb birun ‘out’ follows the
verb miram ‘am going’, as it does in English, instead of preceding the verb. Both orders
are acceptable.

(3a) man birun miram. (3b) man miram birun.

I out am going I am going out
‘I’m going out.’ ‘I’m going out.’

However, in cases where a prepositional goal phrase is used, in Persian the preposition be
‘to’ is optional when a specific location is mentioned as in example (4).

(4) man miram (be) dāneshgāh

I am going (to) university
‘I’m going to the university.’

A final important characteristic of Persian canonical order is that Persian is a pro-drop

language. This means that subjects can, and mostly are, ‘dropped’. For example, instead of
the utterance in (4), native Persian speakers would commonly use the utterance in (5a) rather
than the one in (5b):

(5a) miram dāneshgāh (5b) man miram dāneshgāh

am going university I am going university
‘I’m going to the university.’ ‘I’m going to the university.’

Using the pronoun man ‘I’ adds a layer of meaning to the utterance, emphasizing who it is that
is going to go to the university. Undoubtedly, these variations can create problems for a beginner
learner of Persian. It is, therefore, good practice for the learner to start with the SXV order, and to
eventually make their way up through the variations. Chapter 4 in this volume has an extensive

568
 Interlanguage and beyond

discussion on word order in Persian heritage learners and second language learners of Persian. In
addition, Chapter 26 specifically discusses word order in English-Persian interlanguage.
The difference in word order can also be observed with the placement of adjectives and
nouns. Persian adjectives occur after the nouns they modify, as shown in example (6), as
opposed to the English adjective-noun order. Additionally, Persian adjective constructions also
require a ‘binding’ particle between the noun and adjective called the ezāfe, transliterated as -e­
or -ye in the examples following, and glossed as EZ.

(6) chaman-e sabz

noun- EZ adjective
lawn- EZ green
‘green lawn’

The term literally means ‘addition’, though with possessive pronouns, the ezāfe creates an
of-phrase as in example (7):

(7) xuneh-ye man

house-EZ me
‘my house’ (literally: house of me)

With its multiple functions, presented in the following, the ezāfe particle poses grammati-
cal and phonological challenges for the PSL learner.
Genitive ezāfe links the possessor noun to the possessed noun, as in examples (8a, b):

(8a) khune-ye pariā (8b) durbin-e man

house-EZ Paria camera-EZ me
‘Paria’s house’ ‘My camera’

Attributive ezāfe links a noun, adjective, or prepositional phrase or infinitive to the noun
being modified. Example (9a) shows the ezāfe between a noun modified by an attributive
noun, while (9b) shows an ezāfe placed between a noun and an adjective, and (9c) shows two
ezāfe, one between a noun and a modifying prepositional phrase, and another between the
preposition zir ‘under’ and its complement, miz ‘table’:

(9a) ketāb-e shimi (9b) ketāb -e qadimi

book-EZ chemistry book-EZ old
‘chemistry book’ ‘old book’
(9c) ketāb -e zir-e miz
book-EZ under-EZ table
‘(The) book under (the) table’

Appositive ezāfe serves to bind two elements such as geographic locations and their names
as in (10a,b):

(10a) kuh-e damāvand (10b) khalij-e fārs

mountain-EZ Damavand gulf-EZ Persian
Damavand mountain Persian Gulf

569
 Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

The ezāfe is also required between the given name and the family name, denoting someone
of the X family:

(11) parvin-e masudi

Parvin-EZ Masudi
‘Parvin Masudi’ (literally: Parvin of the Masudi family)

Quantification ezāfe places an ezāfe between a quantifier such as hame ‘all’, ‘every’, tɑmām
‘all’ and a noun:

(12a) Hame-ye bache-hā (12b) tamām-e ruz

all-EZ child-pl all-EZ day
‘all of the children’ ‘all day’

For a more detailed discussion of the role of ezafe in Persian please see Mahootian (1997),
Karimi (1989), Samiian (1983), Windfuhr (1979, 1990), Lazard (1957), among others. In addi-
tion, Chapter 26 in this volume has a section on ezafe marker in Persian.
Also, like many other Indo-European languages, Persian is a subject-verb agreement lan-
guage, with a very regular pattern of past and present tense verbal suffixes that agree with the
subject in person and number. Tables 27.1 and 27.2 show the agreement verbal suffixes for
past and present.
In addition to the agreement suffixes, Persian verbs have three distinctive forms, an infini-
tival form, a past tense root and a present tense root. This aspect of Persian morphology may
very well be the most difficult for the learner because, although there is a clear relationship
between the infinitive and the past tense root, there is often very little morphological or pho-
nological relationship between the infinitive and the present tense root. The upshot of these
differences is that the learner has no choice but to memorize at least two forms for many verbs.
In principle, this is no different from learning irregular verbs in English. In Table 27.3, we
present the three forms of a few common Persian verbs. Note the differences between the past
and present roots, as for example cases such as the last example didan ‘to see’, where there is
no obvious phonological relationship between the present root and the infinitive and past root.

Table 27.1 Past tense verbal suffixes

Singular Plural

1st -am -im

2nd -i­ -id
3rd - -and

Table 27.2 Present tense verbal suffixes

Singular Plural

1st -am -im

2nd -i­ -id
3rd -ad -and

570
 Interlanguage and beyond

Table 27.3 Infinitive, past and present roots of some common Persian verbs

English infinitive Persian infinitive Past root Present root

To eat khordan khord khor

To live zendegi kɑrdan zendegi kard zendegi kon
To say goftan goft gu/g
To sleep khābidan khābid khāb
To go raftan raft -rav-/-r-
To give dādan dād dah/d
To sit neshestan neshest shin
To see didan did bin

A further source of learner interlanguage is the object marker rā (ro, o) which, among other
functions, serves to indicate a definite direct object (DO) such as the examples in (13) and
(14a,b). The direct objects are underlined:

(13) man un film rā dust nadāshtam

I that movie DO didn’t like
‘I didn’t like that film’
rā needs to also follow specific, definite objects, shown in examples (14a, b).
(14a) Maryam bastani-ye man rā xord
Maryam ice.cream-EZ I DO ate
‘Maryam ate my ice cream’
(14b) ketāb-e fārsi-ye to rā peydā mikon-am
book-EZ Farsi-EZ you DO find will do-1st pers.
‘I will find your Farsi book’

Because rā has multiple grammatical functions that are covered by a number of different
elements in English (such as possessive pronouns and determiners such as the, that, this, its
correct use can be problematic, even at advanced stages of PSL acquisition. For further discus-
sion on rā, read Chapter 4 in this volume.

27.1.1.2 Phonological features

Though at first blush Persian phonology may appear vastly different than that of English, in
fact it is not. However, there are three differences that can be problematic for some learners.
Persian has three consonants that don’t exist in English the velar fricative ‘kh’ (written ‫)خ‬, and
the uvulars ‘gh’ and ‘q’, (‫ )غ‬and (‫ )ق‬respectively; two that are pronounced differently and in
different environments, the flapped ‘r’ and the clear ‘l’; and two that are used in different sound
combinations than in English ‘h’ and the glottal stop (‫)ع‬. As for vowels, though phonemically
Persian and English vowels overlap, phonetically, all Persian vowels are pronounced as clear
vowels; in other words, they are not diphthongized. Persian has two diphthongs: the round
low back [ow] and front ey [ei]. Additionally, there is no high front lax vowel (IPA [I]) like the
sound in the English word pin). The individual sounds aside, it is the sequence of sounds in
Persian that are more problematic for learners. For example, sequences such as [ah], [ahr] and
[ahv] are not found in English, which only allows syllable-initial /h/, but are found in common
words in Persian, for instance in the name [ahmad], or the words [shahr] ‘city’ and [qahveh]

571
 Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

‘coffee’. A further feature of Persian phonology is gemination or consonant lengthening where

a consonant is articulated (held) for a longer period of time than if the consonant was not
geminated. For example, the [s] in [pesseh] ‘pistachio is held and articulated for a longer time
than the [s] in [pesar] ‘boy’. For a more detailed discussion on Persian phonology in second
language acquisition domain, read Chapter 3 in this volume.

27.1.2 At the intersection of Persian and English: interlanguages

Given these differences, we can expect that on their way to mastery, Persian second lan-
guage learners (PSLL) pass through phases where the patterns they produce are different
than those of the target language (Persian), on the one hand, and also differ from the learn-
er’s L1, on the other. Interlanguage phases will differ based on the learner’s L1. For the
purpose of this chapter, we look at some typical examples of English-Persian interlanguage
patterns in the beginner and high beginner stages of learning Persian as a second language.
The data presented in examples (15)–(17) are from a total of 45 homework assignments and
12 in-class presentations by seven graduate and undergraduate native-English-speaking
beginner and high beginner learners of Persian as a second language. For a similar study on
interlanguage characteristics of English-Persian, read Chapter 26 in this volume.

27.1.2.1 Morphosyntactic interlanguage systems

As mentioned, major differences between Persian and English can be found in canonical word
order of the two languages (Persian SOV v. English SVO), the order and construction of adjec-
tive phrases (noun-ezāfe-adjective in Persian v. adjective-noun in English), and the robust
subject-verb agreement suffixation in Persian as compared to the minimal subject-verb agree-
ment requirements in English.
Word Order: Beginners and high PSL beginners consistently show a pattern of SVO when
producing sentences in the simple past and present. Compare the learner’s sentences in (15a,
c) with the target sentence in (15b, d). Though the learner has produced correct target subject-
verb agreement, they have not yet internalized the SOV order:

(15a) man kharidam nān. (15b) man nān khɑridam.

I bought bread I bread bought
‘I bought bread.’ ‘I bought bread.’
(15c) man kharidam shokolāt. (15d) man shokolāt kharidam.
I bought chocolate I chocolate bought
‘I bought chocolate’ ‘I bought chocolate’

Additionally, as these examples illustrate, the subject pronoun man ‘I’ is used where a
native speaker would have dropped the pronoun.
Agreement: A further interlanguage development is illustrated in the sentences in (16). In
these examples, we see a pattern of generalization in subject-verb agreement that matches nei-
ther English nor Persian. Here the learner has opted for the 3rd person singular present tense
verb form of ‘to be’ ([-e] to mean ‘is’):

(16a) man khub-e (16b) to khub-e (16c) mā khub-e

I good-is you good-is we good-is
‘I’m good’ ‘You are good’ ‘We are good’

572
 Interlanguage and beyond

Acquisition of ezāfe and rā: With both the ezāfe and the rā we find two patterns, one of
overgeneralization where both these particles are used generously throughout the learners’ dis-
course regardless of whether the ezafe or rā is needed. The other is undergeneralization where
we also find beginner learners opting to use the ezāfe in only one of its required contexts, and
the rā not at all. The sentence below is from a high beginner student. Notice the non-target use
of the third ezāfe after bozorg:

(17) dar tehrān tu-ye khāne-ye bozorg-e zendegi mikon-and.

in Tehran in-EZ house-EZ big-EZ life do-3rdPl
‘They live in a big house in Tehran’

Phonological interlanguage systems are simply the speaker’s attempt to hear and produce tar-
get sounds that don’t occur in their L1. Often, although comprehension of these sounds is attained
rather quickly, their production lags behind or is never quite achieved. Instead, the speaker lands
on and maintains an approximation of the sounds. For example, the kh and gh sounds in Persian
are often not fully acquired by English speaking PSLLs. In their place kh is routinely produced
as [k] or as [h], and gh as [g], an apt example of Nemser’s (1971) approximative system.
Taken together, these examples support what Corder (1967) called a ‘transitional compe-
tence’ which Selinker (1972) and others built upon and expanded into what we now know
as interlanguage. In the next section, we analyze codeswitching to show how it differs from
interlanguage systems in both structural and functional properties, and the universal principles
that can account for switches between any pair of languages, including Persian and English.

27.2 The structure of codeswitching

Codeswitching is a familiar term for many of us, referring to the natural use of languages that
all bilinguals practice in some contexts. It is simply the alternation of two or more languages in
the same utterance or discourse. Codeswitching can occur at the smallest structural level – that
of the bound morpheme (in Persian and English these would be inflectional and derivational
morphemes such as the plural Persian suffix -hā, Persian possessive person suffixes such as -et,­
-esh, or English ‘-s’, English progressive -ing, and so on). Or it can involve larger language ele-
ments such as whole words, phrases and sentences. Examples (18)–(21) show different types of
Persian-English codeswitches.1 The first is between a free morpheme of Persian shukhi ‘joke’
and the bound English morpheme -ing. ­ Example (19) shows a switch between the English deter-
miner my and a Persian noun eynak ‘glasses’, while in (20) the entire prepositional phrase ‘on
the table’ is in Persian (ru-ye
­ miz). These types of switches are known as intrasentential swiches
(within a sentence). In (21) we have an intersentential switches (between sentences) from Eng-
lish to Persian and back to English. Both types are commonly used in by many bilinguals.

(18) I’m shukhi-ing with you!

joke
‘I’m joking with you!’
(19) Where’s my eynak?
glasses
‘Where’s my glasses?
(20) I saw them ru-ye
­ miz.
on table
‘I saw them on the table.’

573
 Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

(21) I saw him standing across the street. fekr kardam miād tu. But he didn’t.
thought I did he come in
‘I saw him standing across the street. I thought he’d come in. But he didn’t.’

As we shall see in the remainder of this section, in each of these examples the speaker uses
words and rules from both languages to form a linguistic mosaic where all the elements fit
together, producing a communicative whole. This amalgam should not be interpreted as inter-
language, however. One obvious difference between codeswitching and interlanguage is that
codeswitched utterances are never the result of a still-developing second language grammar.
Every codeswitch can be accounted for by the rules of one of the speaker’s language or the other.
Essentially, codeswitching involves knowledge of the syntactic and morphological rules and the
pragmatic sociocultural norms of both languages and their associated cultural expectations and
norms. It is not a ‘word salad’ or ad-hoc combinations of words. As we shall see, codeswitching
is rule-governed, with the rules for each utterance corresponding to the universal principles that
all languages have in common. These principles hold true at all levels, from combining mor-
phemes, to producing mixed language sentences, to choosing the appropriate language in various
social contexts. In Section 27.3, we examine some of the social motivations for codeswitching.

27.2.1 The morphosyntactic structure of

Persian-English
­ codeswitching
In this section we outline a theory of codeswitching as a rule-governed system based only on
the grammatical relationship between phrasal heads and their complements, the lexicons of
the languages and the universally available operation of Merge that assembles morphemes into
sentences (as outlined in Chomsky 1995 and subsequent work). Merge simply puts together
morphemes or phrases with other morphemes or phrases while making sure that both are syn-
tactically compatible.

27.2.1.1 What is a grammar?

To begin, let’s consider what a grammar is and what constitutes native speaker knowledge.
Monolingual English speakers converse with each other in English. Underlying speakers’ abil-
ity to produce and understand sentences of English is a lexicon and a system of rules for the
morphology, syntax, phonology and semantics of English. Together, the lexicon and the rules
make up the grammar of English. The lexicon is simply a speaker’s list of morphemes, mini-
mal units of meaning in the language. For example, the word cat is a minimal unit because it
doesn’t comprise any subunit that contributes to its meaning. In contrast, the word cats can be
analyzed as the two pieces, cat and the plural suffix -s. The lexicon thus includes morphemes
such as me, you, the, cat, dog, walk, which also happen to be whole words, as well as so-called
bound morphemes such as plural -s, ­ past tense -ed, progressive -ing, and prefixes like re- and
un-. The morphology of the grammar comprises the rules for making words. To form the
word cats, the pluralization rule is invoked: to make the plural of a noun, suffix -s to the noun.
Another morphological rule is that of forming the past tense of regular verbs: add the suffix -ed
to the verb. For further discussion on Persian morphology and second language acquisition of
Persian morphology, read Chapter 6 in this volume.
The syntax structures morphemes into sentences. English syntax calls for the subject of the
sentence to precede the verb. So The cat is sleeping is English while *is sleeping the cat is
not. For an elaborate discussion on Persian syntax and second language acquisition of Persian

574
 Interlanguage and beyond

syntax, read Chapters 4 and 5 in this volume. The phonological component of the grammar
accounts for the sounds and how they’re combined, as in the pronunciation of plural -s­ ([s] in
cats but [z] in dogs). For more information on the acquisition of segmental and suprasegmental
features in Persian and Persian phonology, read Chapters 2 and 3 in this volume. Finally, the
semantics allows speakers and hearers to attach meaning to words and sentences. Chapters 7
and 8 in this volume discuss Persian semantics and the acquisition of Persian semantics by
second language learners of Persian. Likewise, Persian speakers converse in Persian, and the
sentences spoken and understood are accounted for by the grammar of Persian (some aspects
of which were briefly sketched out in Section 27.1). For more information on the particular
grammatical characteristics of English-Persian interlanguage, read Chapter 26 in this volume.
What happens, then, when a Persian-English bilingual speaker mixes the two languages
together in conversation, in writing, blogs, texts and so on? Which grammatical structure is
used English, Persian, or both? Are these mixtures an interlanguage phase or something else?
In the following sections we address these and related questions.

27.2.1.2 Is codeswitching grammatical? Codeswitching

models – a brief history
At one end of the language-acquisition continuum, bilingualism can result when a child grows
up in a bilingual environment, developing both languages from infancy and becoming a native
speaker of the two languages, fluent in both. At the other end of the continuum, a person
acquires only one of the languages as a child and learns the second language at some period
later in life, from later childhood to adulthood, sometimes largely in an classroom environ-
ment. When one of the languages is learned later in life, especially during adulthood, on their
way to linguistic competence in the new language the speaker may pass through various stages
of acquisition in what is now called interlanguage (Weinreich 1953, Corder 1967; Nemser
1971; Selinker 1972 and subsequent work). As explained earlier in Section 27.1, the speaker’s
interlanguages may consist of grammatical features adopted from their first language into the
target language, or of newly created forms that are neither part of the speaker’s first nor second
language grammars. Each of these possibilities is an interlanguage phase, a linguistic system
the learner uses on their way to mastering the target language. In contrast, in the case of a
bilingual who is competent in both languages, codeswitching is not based on lack of mastery
in one language but rather exploits competence in both languages. On this interpretation, there
is a continuum of mixed-language use from interlanguage to the ability to codeswitch.
Early descriptive accounts (e.g. Timm 1975 and Pfaff 1979) noted patterns of when switch-
ing is possible and when it isn’t. Many of these early accounts focused on the latter, when
switching is not possible. Based on patterns where codeswitching was apparently ungrammati-
cal, various constraints were proposed to characterize the syntactic conditions that blocked it.
For example, Timm (1975, 477) noted that expressions like the Spanish-English codeswitch in
(22) were ungrammatical: that is, English-Spanish bilinguals judged them to be impossible.2

(22) *yo went

I ____

Accordingly, she suggested a constraint on switching between a subject pronoun (yo), in

one language and a verb in the other language (went). The reasoning seemed to follow that
there must be a third grammar specific to codeswitching where such constraints reside. This
meant that Spanish-English bilinguals, for instance, must have command of three grammars:

575
 Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

monolingual Spanish, monolingual English, and a Spanish-English codeswitching grammar.3

For further discussion of the theoretical shortcomings of codeswitching third grammars see
Appendix 1.
Many other very specific constraints were proposed over the years, with attempts to attrib-
ute the specific constraints to more general principles. There were various empirical problems
with the proposed constraints, which often appeared to be based on what was not found in the
researchers’ data and what was specific to certain language pairs. For a summary of the pro-
posed constraints see Mahootian (2006).
Following in the footsteps of previous researchers, armed with data from Persian-
English codeswitches such as those in (19)–(21), two languages that did not share word
order or other important morphosyntactic features, Mahootian (1993) set out to show
that codeswitching does not require a third grammar, and that switches are governed by
universal operations and rules of syntax. In Section 27.2.1.3, we provide a more detailed
presentation of her Head-Complement model and provide an update of the model that is
consistent with current syntactic theory. We reiterate the position that codeswitching is
simply access to the lexicon of the two languages and the two languages’ rules for com-
bining morphemes and phrases, via the syntactic operation of Merge – the same opera-
tion that combines morphemes in each of the separate languages. Through codeswitching
examples, we demonstrate that the head-complement relationship and Merge, as part of
a general theory of grammar, account for codeswitching as much as it accounts for any
monolingual grammar. In particular, we derive some Persian-English codeswitches in
some detail, and through a comparison with examples from codeswitching with some
other language pairs we show the same principle-based account of codeswitching applies
to other language pairs. Moreover, the structured predictable nature of codeswitches, a
consequence of universal principles which apply regardless of the language pairs involved,
supports the claim that interlanguage and codeswitching are different (though to a degree)
related phenomena.

27.2.1.3 An alternative to codeswitching specific rules

Mahootian (1993 and subsequent work) approached codeswitching from a different angle,
with the assumption that codeswitching was a natural language phenomenon; she sought
answers in universal principles of grammar. She proposed that codeswitching doesn’t require
additional grammars and instead suggested that codeswitched utterances can be accounted
for by the universal principle that holds between the heads of phrases and their complements
in all languages. She proposed the Head-Complement
­ Principle which simply states that the
language of the head of a phrase determines the order of its complement in codeswitching and
monolingual contexts alike; complements can be in either language. Phrasal heads include
verbs, determiners, prepositions and inflections such as negation, plural, possessive and so on.
A Persian-English codeswitching example is given in (23a), from Mahootian (1996, 2006),
with corresponding monolingual examples in (23b, c).

(23a) ten dollars dād (23b) She gave ten dollars

________ gave
‘she gave ten dollars’
(23c) dah toman dād
ten toman gave
‘she gave ten tomans’

576
 Interlanguage and beyond

In (23b) the head of the verb phrase gave ten dollars is the verb gave. As an English verb,
it requires its direct object complement to follow. In contrast, in (23c) the Persian verb dād
requires its direct object complement dah toman to precede it. The codeswitched sentence in
(23a) is the outcome of the speaker’s choice to mix to two languages. The verb dād in (23a)
is the head of the verb phrase ten dollars dād. Therefore, according to the Head-Complement
Principle, dād determines what happens in the rest of the verb phrase. Since Persian verbs
call for their direct objects to precede them, the English-language direct object ten dollars
comes before dād rather than after the verb as it would in English. Keeping in mind the Head-
Complement Principle as the universal principle guiding codeswitching, we discuss example
(23a) in the context of a Merge operation.

27.2.1.4 A merge model of codeswitching

Mahootian’s proposal (1993, 1996, and elsewhere) made use of Joshi’s (1985, 1987) tree
adjoining grammar model to explain the technical details of codeswitched utterances. Here
we maintain Mahootian’s basic idea of the Head-Complement Principle and adopt cur-
rent notions of Merge as assumed under Minimalism. As mentioned earlier, Merge, a core
operation of the grammar, is simply the operation of combining morphemes or phrases
with other morphemes or phrases, as long as the items being combined are syntactically
compatible. The Head-Complement Principle can be more broadly understood as a specific
case of the operation Merge. Words from the lexicon are merged into phrases, and phrases
merge with other items in the lexicon, building up a structure until the sentence is formed.
Codeswitching uses the same rules. If an English head is used, the phrase will include the
complement in the linear position required by English order. Likewise, if a Persian head is used,
then the items in the phrase will follow Persian order. No separate codeswitching grammar is
required. The only difference between monolingual and codeswitching grammars is the lexicon.
The grammar of English includes the lexicon of English morphemes (LEnglish) and the operation
Merge. The grammar of Persian involves the Persian lexicon (LPersian) and the operation Merge.
Persian-English codeswitching uses the same operation of Merge but exploits two lexicons, LEng-
lish
+ LPersian. Again, there are no special rules or constraints unique to codeswitching and it is only
the expanded lexicon that distinguishes codeswitching from the two monolingual grammars.
As mentioned earlier, Merge, a universally available operation, common to all language
and thus assumed to be part of the human capacity for Language, combines syntactic objects.
A syntactic object is either a morpheme taken from the lexicon or a phrase already constructed
in the morphosyntax. Combining objects creates new syntactic objects. A head usually merges
with a complement to form a phrase.
Here we outline how Merge results in the three sentences in (23), repeated here. Example
(24) is English, (25) is Persian, and (26) is a codeswitching example. We provide a very simple
account. An account with more details on the heads and the kind of complements they require
is provided in Appendix 2.

(24) She gave ten dollars

(25) dah toman dād
ten toman gave
‘She gave ten tomans’
(26) ten dollars dād
gave
‘She gave ten dollars’

577
 Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

In the English sentence in (24), the plural -s is an inflectional head that merges with its noun
complement, dollar. The numeral ten also heads a phrase that includes as its complement the
recently formed dollars. The verb gave heads a verb phrase and takes as its complement ten
dollars. Finally, the pronoun she merges with the verb phrase. (This is not a head-complement
Merge but we omit the details. Suffice it to say that English sentences require a subject.) The
process is laid out in the steps in the following.

(27) Merge dollar and -s­ ⇒ [dollars]

Merge ten and [dollars] ⇒ [ten dollars]
Merge gave and [ten dollars] ⇒ [gave ten dollars]
Merge she and [gave ten dollars] ⇒ [she gave ten dollars]

For the Persian sentence, dah ‘ten’ takes toman for a complement, resulting in the phrase
dah toman. In turn, the verb dād ‘gave’ is a head that takes dah toman for a complement, yield-
ing the sentence dah toman dād, with the complement on the left of the verb as required by
Persian. Recall that Persian is a pro-drop language and doesn’t require a pronounced subject.

(28) Merge dah and toman ⇒ [dah toman]

Merge dād and [dah toman] ⇒ [dah toman dād]

However, Merge doesn’t simply allow just any two items to combine. The operation is
limited by a checking procedure that makes sure the combining objects match grammatically.
For example, the article the cannot merge with went to yield *the went because the wants to
merge with a noun, not with a verb. For a detailed explanation and illustration of the operation
Merge see Appendix 2.

27.2.1.5 Merge and Persian-English codeswitching

Since Merge does not specify the language of the morphosyntactic objects to be combined,
Persian-English codeswitching can be easily accounted for through the same steps as we
saw for the monolingual Persian and English examples previously. As an illustration, in
(29) following, we show the derivation of the sentence in (26) where the verb is in Persian
and the object is in English. The English phrase ten dollars is derived the same way as in
the English sentence. The difference in (26) is that the Persian verb merges with the English
phrase. Since the verb dād, the head, is Persian, its English-language complement phrase
ten dollars must be on the left, not on the right as in English, resulting in the codeswitched
phrase ten dollars dād.

(29) Merge dollar and -s­ ⇒ [dollars]

Merge ten and [dollars] ⇒ [ten dollars]
Merge dād and [ten dollars] ⇒ [ten dollars dād]

Go to Appendix 2 to see how Merge can also produce a codeswitch, like the one in (30),
between a free morpheme of English (lawyer) and the Persian bound possessive morpheme –
et ‘your’:

(30) I saw lawyer-et-o

­ yesterday
– 2.Poss-Acc.Def
‘I saw your lawyer yesterday’

578
 Interlanguage and beyond

The focus so far has been codeswitching between Persian and English. However, as
mentioned, the main syntactic mechanism for codeswitching operates in the same way
between any two language pairs. To illustrate the crosslinguistic validity of the proposed
model, we provide some examples from other language pairs where the codeswitches
can also be accounted for by applying the Head-Complement Principle and Merge. The
following Japanese-English example is from Nishimura (1985) (glossing details altered
slightly).

(31) sorekara his wife ni yattara

also to give.Conditional
‘Also, if (we) give (it) to his wife . . .’

The switch is within the adpositional phrase, a phrase which can precede the noun (prepo-
sition) as in English, or follow (postposition) as in Japanese. The head of the phrase is the
Japanese postposition ni ‘to’, which requires a complement, in this case a determiner phrase
object. Being a postposition, ni wants its complement to be on its left. The determiner phrase
is the English expression his wife, preceding the postposition as expected. Note that the Eng-
lish expression itself follows English order, with the possessive head preceding its noun
complement.
Another Japanese-English example adapted from Nishimura (1985) shows a switch
between a free morpheme of English and a bound Japanese morpheme:

(32) she-wa took her a month to come home-yo

-Topic -Exclamation
‘As for her, it took her a month to come home, you know’

The switches in (32) involve two of the many discourse particles in Japanese, -wa, which
marks topics, and -yo, an exclamation of sorts that emphasizes or insists on the truth of the
preceding sentence. Whether the particles are bound to or morphologically independent of the
word before them, -wa and -yo ­ are heads of a topic phrase and tense phrase respectively, with
their complement phrases to the left.
The Irish-English example in (33) (Laoire 2016) shows a switch involving the Irish deter-
miner an ‘the’ and its noun complement, English jackpot, in an otherwise Irish sentence
(glossing details are slightly altered).

(33) beidh an jackpot anocht a’ainn

will.be the tonight do
‘We’ll get the jackpot tonight’

The Irish article is like its English counterpart, not only in being a definite article but also
in requiring a noun complement (in this case, ‘jackpot’) to its right.
Example (34a) presents a French-Moroccan Arabic codeswitch (Bentahila and Davies1983),
where the French determiner phrase le drap merges with the Arabic preposition min fug to cre-
ate the mixed prepositional phrase ‘min fug le drap’. In (34b) a Wolof-English switch (Haust
1995, in Myers-Scotton and Jake 2009) is presented where the Wolof 2nd person posses-
sive prefix sa has merged with the English noun phrase little salary. The resulting posses-
sive phrase in turn has merged with the Wolof 3rd person copula la ‘is’ to produce ‘It’s only
your little salary’. Example (34c) shows a switch between Palestinian Arabic and English free

579
 Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

morpheme nudris ‘study’ and the English bound progressive marker – ing (Myers-Scotton,
Jake, and Okasha 1996).

(34a) elle te pique min fug le drap

‘it bites you through the sheet’
(34b) Sa little salary rek la [. . .]
2s.poss little salary only 3s.cop [. . .]
‘It is only your little salary, [. . .] ’
(34c) ?iħna we are supposed to be nudris-ing
1pl.top . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . study-prog
‘We, we are supposed to be studying.’

Concluding this section, we have argued that (1) codeswitching does not require a third
grammar in addition to the two monolingual grammars a bilingual has, and (2) codeswitching
utterances derive from the Head-Complement Principle which applies to all languages, and
the universally available operation of Merge: elements from the bilingual’s two grammars
merge where the features between the elements match. Consequently, there is no need for
additional codeswitching-specific constraints or rules. Although our focus for this chapter is
Persian-English codeswitching, the Head-Complement Principle is assumed to be universal
and applies to codeswitching between any pair of languages, as demonstrated by additional
examples from language pairs other than Persian-English. These examples serve to not only
highlight the capacity of Mahootian’s original Head-Complement model and its predictions
for codeswitching, but also its successful recast within current syntactic theory. Moreover,
the examples throughout serve to highlight the many possible codeswitches that could not be
accounted for by previous models.

27.3 Functions of codeswitching and language choice

We have thus far discussed the structure of codeswitches as part of a larger, universal set of
grammatical principles that govern all languages. We have also pointed to the differences
between interlanguage systems and codeswitching, and although in the case of adult PSL
learners, the two may overlap, codeswitching (unlike interlanguage) is not the result of speak-
ers’ second language grammar on the way to fluency. Rather, the ability to codeswitch is the
result of speakers’ native-like acquisition and knowledge of the grammatical system of their
second language. This native-like knowledge is further supported by what is called intentional
codeswitching (Mahootian 2005), a deliberate choice to codeswitch or choose one language
over the other to deliver an extra-linguistic message. This is not to say that all codeswitching
is deliberate and meant to convey an extra level of information. In fact, codeswitching may
be intentional or unintentional. The latter, unintentional switching, is typically brought on by
psycholinguistic factors. For example, imagine the PSLL bilingual speaker who uses the term
‘business model’ on a regular basis in a monolingual English work environment, talking to
another Persian-English bilingual about her job. Although the speaker knows the phrase in
Persian, she often uses it in English, resulting in quicker access to the English version. This
quicker access to one word rather than another can be explained by what’s known as the most
common word phenomenon, whereby the words that are most commonly used are also the
most readily accessible during language processing and production. Much of codeswitching
in casual conversation between bilinguals is of the unintentional variety, and happens easily
and fluidly.

580
 Interlanguage and beyond

Intentional switching, on the other hand, is the deliberate language choices bilinguals make.
These choices, whether to go with L1, L2, or a mix of the two, is wholly influenced by speak-
ers’ perceptions of the expectations and norms of the discourse context and the interlocutors
and the role each language plays in the relational dynamic with the interlocutors. A seminal
article on the functions of codeswitching comes from Gumperz (1982) who identified six con-
versational functions of intentional codeswitching (pp. 75–78):

(a) Quotation: when quoting someone, speakers will often switch into the language the per-
son originally used, as in the following Persian-English in (35) (Mahootian et al. 2017, 156)
and French-English example in (36):

(35) unvaqt John be man mige, “I don’t think I can make it.”
then John to me says _____________________
‘Then John says to me, ‘‘I don’t think I can make it.” ’
(36) ‘c’était bruyant mais je pense qu’elle a dit “can I have your number?”
It was noisy but I think that she has said _____________________
‘It was noisy but I think she said “can I have your number?” ’

(b) Addressee specification: switching between languages to address a message to a specific

person in a conversation, as in the Persian-English example adapted from Mahootian
et al. (2017, 156), where three friends are talking: the bilingual Iranian Persian-English
speaker, the Iranian Persian-English Hearer 1(H1), and the American monolingual Eng-
lish speaker Hearer 2(H2):

(37) ‘Well I don’t know how to describe it but it just doesn’t feel like home to me (directed
to H1 and H2). to miduni manzuram chie, doroste? (‘you know what I mean, right?’
directed to H1).

(c) Interjection/sentence fillers: speakers may codeswitch interjections or sentence fillers such
as ‘you know’, ‘know what I mean?’ Spanish eh and ay (to intensify or draw attention) and
mira and fijate (‘look’ and ‘notice’, respectively, to draw attention to a point being made),
Japanese neh, Persian doroste? (‘right’?), Hebrew oy/oy vay (as a disheartened response).

(38) Ay! You have to read the directions BEFORE assembling it.

(d) Reiteration: switching languages to emphasize or clarify a message as in the Persian-

English example in (39) the Hindi-English example from Gumperz (1982, 78) in (40):

(39) chetori? How’re you doing?

How are you? _______________?
‘How are you? How’re you doing?
(40) Father in India calling to his son who was learning to swim in a swimming pool, first
in Hindi and then repeated in English:
Baju-me jao beta, andar mat. Keep to the side.
Go to the side son, not inside. _____________
‘Go to the side son, not inside. Keep to the inside.’

581
 Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

(e) Message qualification: switching to add more information as in the following Slovenian-
German and English-Spanish examples (from Gumperz 1982, 60, 79, respectively). In
(41) the speaker uses Slovenian to ask ‘Will you take coffee?’, then in German adds ‘Or
tea?’ as a way of qualifying the initial offer to include tea as an option.

(41) Uzeymas ti kafe? Oder te?

‘Will you take coffee? Or tea?’
(42) The oldest one, la grande la de once años
___________, the big one who is eleven years old.
‘The oldest one, the big one who is eleven years old.’

As the field continues to investigate the nature and functions of language choice, other
codeswitching functions have been proposed:

(f) To keep conversations private in public spaces or exclude others from a conversation.
(g) To avoid translating idioms and cultural concepts. In the Persian-English example in
(43) the speaker uses korsi, a furniture/heat producing item which was popular up to
two to three generations ago, and for which there is no easy translation (go to https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korsi to read a more detailed explanation and see images of korsi).
In the English-Korean sentence (44) the Korean word baek-il ­ is used instead of a transla-
tion which would be lacking the significance of this cultural ritual:

(43) What we really need on this sub-zero night is a good old-fashioned korsi!
______________________________________________________
(44) We are celebrating the child’s baek-il
­
________________________ one hundredth day.
‘We are celebrating the child’s one hundredth day.’

(h) For creating humorous, playful effects.

(i) To mark group or personal identity and/or emphasize solidarity and camaraderie. Mahoot-
ian (2005, 2012) concludes that mixed-code in writing is used intentionally to evoke a sense
of cultural identity, unity and camaraderie. And Edwards (2013) reminds us that “Language
clearly intertwines powerfully with conceptions and definitions of allegiance and ‘belonging.’
It possesses more than instrumental value; it is the vehicle of tradition and culture, and the
medium of group narrative. Issues of psychology and sociology, of symbol and subjectivity,
become important whenever we observe language in society. When more than one language is
involved, then, we should expect ramifications in terms of identity and ‘groupness’ ” (p. 20).

For Persian-English bilinguals, the most significant social factors determining language choice
are age and status of the interlocutors. Older bilingual speakers expect to speak and hear Per-
sian and English without codeswitching. In exclusively Persian gatherings, using a language
other than Persian is often considered disrespectful and even disloyal to one’s heritage. Addi-
tionally, codeswitching is seen by this generation as an assault on the purity of both languages
(Persian and English) and a loss of Persian identity.
Interestingly, as is often the case, speakers aren’t always aware that they themselves codes-
witch (unintentional codeswitching), as in the utterance following:

(45) If you’re bilingual, chetor fārsi harf ne-mizɑnid?

‘If you’re bilingual why don’t you speak Farsi?’

582
 Interlanguage and beyond

This is a comment made by an Iranian mother in her mid-60s, who has lived in the U.S. for
over 20 years, to her children at a family dinner. The children, who range in age from 35–40,
have spent more than half their lives in the U.S. All have received their university degrees in
the U.S. and consider themselves bilingual in varying degrees. The mother frequently codes-
witched, though she wasn’t aware of it, and didn’t approve of mixing the two languages. The
age factor interfaces with the level of the formality of the context to steer speakers into a lan-
guage choice. For example, whether the conversation is taking place in a formal, professional
or casual setting will influence which language will be chosen and whether codeswitching
will occur. A final factor, slightly less significant than the other two, is topic of conversation.
Sometimes, despite a professional setting with bilingual elders, the L2 or even a L1-L2 mix
will be considered appropriate. The pattern of switching and the attitudes of Persian-English
bilinguals are consistent with those found in many other bilingual communities. In the exam-
ple following, a Punjabi-English speaker laments (Romaine 1995, 122). We’ve added italics
to the Punjabi for clarity.

(46) I mean I’m guilty in that sense ke ziada wsi English i bolde fer ode nal eda . . . wsi
mix
kerde rene ã. I mean, unconsciously, subconsciously, keri jane e . . .
“I mean I’m guilty in that sense that we speak English more and more . . . we keep mixing.
I mean unconsciously, subconsciously, we keep doing it . . .”

The speaker continues in English,

“you get two or three words of English in each sentence . . . but I think that’s wrong.
I mean, I myself would like to speak pure Panjabi whenever I speak Panjabi. We
keep mixing, I mean unconsciously, subconsciously, we keep doing it, you know, but
I wish, you know, that I could speak pure Panjabi.”

Figure 27.1 shows the relationship between age, formality of context and codeswitching.
Switching is less acceptable among older speakers and in more formal contexts.

Age
Less acceptable
50

40

30

20

10

0
Context More formal
Figure 27.1 Acceptability of Persian-English codeswitching by age and context.

583
 Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

Table 27.4 Switching by age and context. YS=speakers < 35 yrs, OS=speakers > 35 yrs

YS OS Formal Informal

YS F-E, F, E F F F-E, F, E
OS F F F F

Table 27.4 presents some common pairings of interlocutors by age and formality of con-
text, noting when switching would be acceptable (unmarked). Switching among younger Ira-
nians (age 35 and under) is unmarked, with speakers’ attitudes toward their own language
mixing ranging from neutral to somewhat positive. However, these same speakers are extra
careful to speak pure Persian when talking to Iranians of an older generation. The number one
reason given for this shift to monolingual Persian is that they don’t want to appear disrespect-
ful toward their elders.

27.4 Conclusions
In this chapter, we examined Persian second language acquisition with special attention to
Persian-English interlanguage and codeswitching. We considered some of the salient gram-
matical aspects of Persian faced by English-speaking learners. These aspects include different
word order (English SVO v. Persian SOV, English adjective-noun v. Persian noun-adjective),
Persian but not English being a pro-drop language, robust subject-verb agreement in Persian
v. almost no agreement in English. Further, Persian verbs show a difference between their
present and past roots while English present and past roots are mostly alike. Further, we noted
some of the phonological differences between the two languages that may present stumbling
blocks for the Persian-language learner; in particular, the velar fricative, the uvulars, and the
medial glottal stop can be difficult to master by adult learners. Moreover, we discussed the
status of codeswitching vis-à-vis interlanguage. We then showed in some detail that the abil-
ity to codeswitch is an outcome of the speaker’s proficiency in two languages and guided by
universal principles of grammar: codeswitches occur between heads and complements, and
heads determine the order of the complement, while the complement is free to appear in either
language. Lastly, we discussed some social and pragmatic aspects of codeswitching as further
evidence of its qualitative difference from interlanguage grammars.

584
 Appendix 1
Shortcomings of codeswitching third grammars
As important as the empirical problems was the theoretical issue of where the constraints come
from and, more specifically, where the supposed third, codeswitching grammar comes from.
To better understand these questions, let’s consider the general view among linguists about
how children acquire language. Many linguists and psychologists conjecture that children
come to the acquisition process already equipped with some hardwired capacity to acquire a
language. Part of the reason for this assumption is that, first, no matter what language is being
acquired, children are able to master it in the same window of five to seven or so years. Sec-
ond, the stages of acquiring languages are quite similar crosslinguistically. For example, nouns
are among the first things learned, along with verbs for expressing basic needs and desires.
Only later do children begin to master the grammatical aspects of the language such as articles
and tense markers. This pattern of acquiring basic nouns and verbs before grammatical stuff
holds cross-linguistically. A third reason is the well-known Poverty of Stimulus argument,
going back to Chomsky (1959). According to this argument, children don’t have sufficient
linguistic input during the period of language acquisition to make deductions about the gram-
mar that they achieve. Therefore, at least some prewired aspects to language and language
acquisition must exist to guide children.
Whatever the hardwired capabilities of children, they still need language input from speak-
ers in their environment. After all, a child has to learn the words of their language. But a child
also needs to get input for syntactic facts like whether, in the language they are acquiring,
the direct object precedes the verb or follows the verb. A child who grows up in a monolin-
gual English environment has monolingual English input and will achieve, in that five-to-
seven-year window, a monolingual grammar of English. A child growing up in a more or less
balanced Persian-English bilingual environment receives input from Persian and input from
English. In each case, the child enjoys thousands of hours of input and ends up a native speaker
of two languages.
Now, where does the purported codeswitching grammar come from? Presumably, a child
being raised in a bilingual environment must get some codeswitching input, but it’s unlikely
that the child gets the same thousands and thousands of hours of input they do from each of
the separate languages. And, to our knowledge there is no literature claiming that there are
nonfluent codeswitchers. So it doesn’t seem that speakers need a whole lot of input in order to
successfully and grammatically codeswitch. Further, if bilinguals require three grammars for
two languages plus their codeswitching ability, then trilinguals would need knowledge of six
grammars: grammar A, grammar B, grammar C, codeswitching grammar A/B, codeswitching
grammar A/C and codeswitching grammar B/C (assuming that codeswitching is done between
two language at a time). The proliferation of grammars would seem to require thousands of
hours of input each. These conceptual arguments argue against there being independent codes-
witching grammars.

585
 Appendix 2
Heads and their complements
In order to clearly describe the morphosyntactic system through concrete examples, we sim-
plify many technical syntactic details. First, we illustrate how Merge works in monolingual
English and then we show the operation in Persian, and finally in a Persian-English codes-
witching context.4

Merge in English
To grammatically derive the sentence in (1), we start with the set of morphemes that will
appear in the sentence (2). This set of morphemes is called the array (or numeration).

(1) she will eat the pizza

(2) {she, will, eat, the, pizza}

Each morpheme is itself a set of features that specify its semantic, phonological and mor-
phosyntactic content as in (3) through (7). Here we list four major features for each of the
morphemes in the array:

(3) she category: Pronoun

semantics: 3rd person, singular, feminine
morphosyntax: nominative case, 3rd person, singular
phonology: /ši/
(4) will category: Verb; subcategory: modal
semantics: Future
morphosyntax: head of tense phrase (sentence); takes a verb phrase complement
on its right
phonology: /wɪl/
(5) eat category: Verb
semantics: ‘to consume, ingest solid food’
morphosyntax: transitive verb (requires subject; requires object complement to its
right); object must be accusative case
phonology: /it/
(6) the category: Determiner; subcategory: Article
semantics: Definite, identifies a unique referent known to speaker and hearer;
morphosyntax: head of determiner phrase and requires a noun complement to its
right
phonology: /ðə/
(7) pizza category: Noun; subcategory (here) count, common
semantics: ‘flat baked dough with toppings’
morphosyntax: should form the complement of a determiner head, accusative case
phonology: /pitsə/

586
 Interlanguage and beyond

Now, in order to build up the sentence in (1) let’s start merging, two objects at a time,
beginning with two morphemes from the array. First, the determiner the needs a noun
complement, and the only possibility in the given array is pizza. Merge forms the deter-
miner phrase in (8), with the head the on the left and the complement pizza on the right.

(8) [DP the pizza]

At this point, besides the unused morphemes in the array we also have a new syntactic
object, the determiner phrase [DP the pizza], which can merge with another of the mor-
phemes remaining in the array. The only morpheme in the array that can take [DP the pizza]
as a complement is the verb eat, which requires a determiner phrase complement. So eat
merges with that determiner phrase to form the verb phrase in (9). Again, the head of the
phrase, here the verb, is on the left and the complement it merged with is on the right.

(9) [VP eat [DP the pizza]]

With the, pizza and eat used, remaining in the array are {will, she}. The pronoun she
doesn’t take a verb phrase complement, but the modal verb will does. So the next step in
the derivation is for the morpheme will to merge with the newly formed syntactic object
[VP eat [DP the pizza]]. Functioning as a head, will, which indicates tense, will take the
verb phrase complement, resulting in (10).

(10) [Tʹ will [VP eat [DP the pizza]]]

Once again, the head is on the left and the complement, the verb phrase, is on the right.

Finally, recall that the verb eat calls for not only an object but also a subject. We have
already merged eat with its object, the phrase [DP the pizza], so what’s needed now is a subject.
The only morpheme left in the array is the pronoun she, which serves just fine as a subject,
given its nominative case. Note that if the array included accusative her, that pronoun would
have the wrong morphosyntactic features to function as a subject. The rules of English are
that subjects, typically, precede everything else in the sentence. Subjects can be pronouns, and
pronouns are determiner phrases, so the phrase comprising the single head she can merge with
the syntactic object in (3) to give us the syntactic object in (11).

(11) [TP she [will [VP eat [DP the pizza]]]]

The successive instances of Merge end up creating the entire sentence. At this point, all the
morphosyntactic requirements of the morphemes in the array have been satisfied.

Merge in Persian
Persian sentences are derived similarly, but Persian morphemes may differ from English mor-
phemes. Each language may have morphemes that the other language lacks. Even when both
languages have corresponding morphemes, they may differ to a greater or lesser degree in their
precise features. Starting with an array of morphemes with their grammatical features, a series

587
 Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

of Merge operations takes place, making sure that all the morphosyntactic features are satis-
fied. We derive the sentence in (12) from the array of morphemes in (13).

(12) minā sib-o khord

Mina sib-DO ate
‘Mina ate the apple’
(13) {minā, sib, -o, khord}

Given the array of morphemes {mina, pizza, -o, xord}, one obvious fact is that they are
Persian, not English. Syntactically and semantically minā does correspond to Mina in Eng-
lish, khord to eat, and sib to apple. But khord, the head of the verb phrase, wants its object
to precede it, not come after. Another morphosyntactic peculiarity of Persian with regard
to English lies in the features of the suffix -o, which has no analog in English. As we noted
in Section 1, it’s a noun suffix for a direct object that is definite, identifiable to both the
speaker and hearer. The Persian sentence in (12) makes reference to a specific, definite
apple: the sentence cannot mean ‘Mina ate an apple’. In fact, -o has the features in (14):

(14) -o morphosyntax: accusative, takes a noun complement semantics: definite reference

Let’s assume that -o is a kind of definite determiner that also includes the feature for accu-
sative case. Thus, it heads a determiner phrase with the head on the right. Second, note
again that the direct object precedes the verb. This is because the verb is head of the verb
phrase and calls for its object, its complement, to precede it. Again, the Persian head of
the phrase is on the right, unlike in English with its heads on the left. Successive Merge
proceeds as in (16).

(16a) Merge sib and -o

­ ⇒ [DP sib-o]
(16b) Merge khord and [DP sib-o] ⇒ [VP [DP sib-o] khord]
(16c) Merge mina and [VP [DP sib-o] xord] ⇒ [TP mina [VP [DP sib-o] khord]]
Merge and Persian-English codeswitching
Now, let’s take the sentence in (17). Here a bound morpheme, 2nd person possessive
suffix – et ‘your’, has combined with the English noun lawyer.

(17) I saw lawyer-et yesterday

–2.Poss
‘I saw your lawyer yesterday’
(18) {I, saw, lawyer, -et, yesterday}

The features for each morpheme are as follows.

(19) I category: Pronoun

semantics: 1st person, singular
morphosyntax: 1st person, singular, nominative case
phonology: /ai/
(20) saw category: Verb, transitive
semantics: ‘perceive visually’
morphosyntax: requires subject; complement is on its right
phonology: /sɔ/

588
 Interlanguage and beyond

(21) lawyer category: Noun, common, count

semantics: ‘person who practices law’
morphosyntax: singular
phonology: /lɔjr/
(22) -et
­ category: Suffix
semantics: 2nd person, singular, possessive
morphosyntax: requires noun complement to its left
phonology: /ɛt/

For this sentence, Merge proceeds as follows: The Persian suffix -et
­ marks the noun lawyer
as possessed; the English noun lawyer is a complement to the left of – et, resulting in (23):

­ ⇒ [PossP lawyer-et]
(23) Merge lawyer and -et

Note that -et doesn’t care if its complement is Persian or English; it only cares that the com-
plement has the feature of being a noun. So far, Merge has been with Persian heads specifying
complements on the left. The next instance of merge, however, is with the English verb saw,
which requires a complement on its right.

(24) Merge [PossP lawyer-et] and saw ⇒ [VP saw [PossP lawyer-et]]

Finally, since the English verb needs a subject, a determiner phrase in nominative case, the
pronoun can merge in this position.

(25) Merge [VP saw [PossP lawyer-et]] and she ⇒ [TP she [VP saw [PossP lawyer-et]]

The formation of the sentence in (17) through successive applications of Merge has been
accomplished simply by using the morphemes from both languages and making sure
that the features of each are satisfied. No special codeswitching grammar was needed to
be invoked.

Notes
1) Unless otherwise noted, the Persian-English codeswitching examples are from Mahootian (1993).
2) It should be noted that speaker judgments of stigmatized speech are notoriously unreliable. See
Labov (1972), Rickford (1975), Pfaff (1979), Mahootian (1993), among others.
3) The earliest and best known of these proposals is Poplack and Sankoff’s (1981) proposal for two
constraints and a third grammar to account for codeswitched utterances.
4) The literature on Merge within the Minimalist Program is large. A recent formalization of the gram-
mar based on Merge is in Collins and Stabler (2016).

References
Bentahila, A., and E.E. Davies. 1983. “The Syntax of Arabic-French Code-Switching.” Lingua 59:
301–330.
Chomsky, N. 1959. “Verbal Behavior. By B. F. Skinner.” Language, 35: 26–58.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Collins, C., and E. Stabler. 2016. “A Formalization of Minimalist Syntax.” Syntax, 19(1): 43–78.
Corder, S.P. 1967. “The Significance of Learners’ Errors.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in
Language Teaching, 5: 161–170.

589
 Shahrzad Mahootian and Lewis Gebhardt

Edwards, J. 2013. “Multilingualism: Some Central Concepts.” In The Handbook of Bilingualism and
Multilingualism, edited by Tej Bhatia and William Ritchie. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Gumperz, J.J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Haust, D. 1995. “Codeswitching in Gambia: Eine soziolinguistische Untersuchung von Mandinka, Wolof
und Englisch in Kontakt.” In Language Contact in Africa, Vol. 1. Köln, Germany: Rüdiger Köppe
Verlag Publishers.
Joshi, A. 1985. “Processing of Sentences with Intra-Sentential Code-Switching.” In Natural Language
Processing: Psycholinguistic, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Joshi, A. 1987. “An Introduction to Tree-Adjoining Grammars.” In Mathematics of Language, edited by
Alexis Manaster-Ramer, 87–115. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Publishing.
Karimi, S. 1989. Aspects of Persian Syntax. University of Washington PhD dissertation.
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Laoire, S.N. 2016. “Irish-English Codeswitching: A Sociolinguistic Perspective.” In Sociolinguistics in
Ireland, edited by R. Hickey. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lazard, G. 1957. Grammaire du Persan Contemporain. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksiec.
Mahootian, S. 1993. A Null Theory of Codeswitching. Northwestern University PhD dissertation.
Mahootian, S. 1996. “Codeswitching and Universal Constraints: Evidence from Farsi/English.” World
Englishes, 15(3): 337–384.
Mahootian, S. 1997. Persian: Routledge Descriptive Grammars. London: Routledge.
Mahootian, S. 2005. “Linguistic Change and Social Meaning: Codeswitching in the Media.” In Interna-
tional Journal of Bilingualism, Vol. 9. London and New York: Blackwell Publishers.
Mahootian, S. 2006. “Code Switching and Mixing.” In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, edited
by Keith Brown, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, 511–527. Oxford: Elsevier.
Mahootian, S. 2012. “Language as a Resource: The Role of Context in Code Choice.” Paper presented at
Department of Linguistics, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Mahootian, S., Kaplan-Weinger, J., Gebhardt, L., and R. W. Hallett. 2017. Language and Human Behav-
ior: Topics in Linguistics. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt Publishers.
Myers-Scotton, C., and J. Jake. 2009. “A Universal Model of Code-switching and Bilingual Language
Processing and Production.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-switching, 336–357.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C., J. Jake, and M. Okasha. 1996. “Arabic and Constraints on Codeswitching.” In Per-
spectives on Arabic Linguistics, edited by M. Eid and D. Parkinson, Vol. 9, 9–43. Amsterdam, NL:
John Benjamins Publishing.
Nemser, W. 1971. “Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners.” International Review of
Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 9: 115–224.
Nishimura, M. 1985. Intersentential Codeswitching in Japanese and English. University of Pennsylvania
PhD dissertation.
Pfaff, C. 1979. “Constraints on Language Mixing.” Language, 55: 291–319.
Rickford, J.R. 1975. “Carrying the New Wave into Syntax: The Case of Black English BIN.” In Analyz-
ing Variation in Language, edited by Ralph W. Fasold and Roger W. Shuy, 162–183. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Romaine, S. 1995. Bilingualism. New York: Basil Blackwell, Inc.
Samiian, V. 1983. Structure of Phrasal Categories in Persian. UCLA PhD dissertation.
Sankoff, D., and S. Poplack. 1981. “A Formal Grammar for Codeswitching.” Papers in Linguistics, 14:
3–46.
Selinker, L. 1972. “Interlanguage.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching,
10: 209–241.
Timm, L. 1975. “Spanish-English Code-switching: El Porque y How-Not-To.” Romance Philology, 28:
473–482.
Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton.
Windfuhr, G. 1979. Persian Grammar. History and State of Its Study. The Hague: Mouton.
Windfuhr, G. 1990. “Persian.” In The World’s Major Languages, edited by Bernard Comrie, 523–546.
New York: Oxford University Press.

590
 28
LANGUAGE LEARNING
STRATEGIES AND BELIEFS
ABOUT LANGUAGE LEARNING AZITA MOKHTARILANGUAGE LEARNING STRATEGIES AND BELIEFS

A study of university students of

Persian in the United States

Azita Mokhtari

28.1 Introduction
This study will investigate learner beliefs about language learning and language learning strate-
gies used by university students of Persian in America and compare these beliefs and strategies
to similar findings for other languages. The goal is to broaden the study of learners’ beliefs and
strategies to cover those of university students engaged in studying the Persian language. The
study surveyed the beliefs and strategies of students at similar levels in their language studies.

28.1.1 Statement of the problem

Wenden (1987b) stated that learners’ prescriptive beliefs about how best to learn a second lan-
guage denote their awareness of language learning. These beliefs have the potential for devel-
oping self-regulation. Such beliefs indicate that learners have begun to reflect on what they
are doing in line with their goals, and this awareness may ultimately lead to self-regulation.
Later, Wenden (1991) illustrated specific action plans for cultivating supportive beliefs, atti-
tudes, and strategies to promote learner autonomy. Similarly, Cotterall (1995) contended that
learner beliefs are indicators of learners’ readiness for a behavioral change toward autonomy,
as a given set of particular beliefs and behaviors ultimately predicts a learner’s degree of
autonomy. These authors concluded that knowledge of beliefs enables both learners and teach-
ers to construct a shared understanding of how to learn as well as what role beliefs play in the
learning process; this knowledge is seen as an essential foundation of autonomy.
Furthermore, according to Wenden (1991) and Dickinson (1987), language learning beliefs
and language learning strategies are both critical constituents of understanding “how to learn”
a second language (L2). For this reason, language educators should nurture and help students
develop effective language learning strategies and beliefs about language learning. Clearly, in
order to accomplish this goal, the first step would be the identification of such beliefs and strat-
egies. While previous research has indicated some similarity in beliefs and strategies across
learner groups, Horwitz (1989) argues that it is important for teachers to be aware of the char-
acteristics of their specific student group.
591
 Azita Mokhtari

To date, there has been no research that has identified Persian language students’ use of lan-
guage learning strategies or their beliefs about language learning. Likewise, no study of effec-
tive language learning strategies and beliefs about language learning with particular attention
to the Persian language has been attempted. As enrollments increase in less commonly taught
languages (LCTL) in general, and in the Persian language in particular, it is important to better
understand this under-studied learner group.

28.1.2 Purpose of the study

The major purpose of this study is to explore language learning beliefs and language learning
strategies used by university students of Persian in the United States. Since there is almost no
previous research on Persian language learners, this study will also compare its findings con-
cerning the language learning beliefs and language learning strategies of Persian language stu-
dents in the United States to the findings of previous studies involving other foreign language
students. For further discussion on language speakers’ beliefs about their first and second
languages, read Chapter 23 in this volume.

28.1.3 Significance of the study

In the field of foreign language education, most studies related to learner beliefs and strategies
have focused on the study of English or other commonly taught languages (CTL) in the U.S.
such as French, Spanish, and German. Conversely, research on learner beliefs and strategies
in Less Commonly Taught Languages (LCTL) is rare. In the arena of Persian language, such
research is nonexistent.
Finding out about students’ language beliefs and their choice of language learning strat-
egies will offer new insights as to what American students expect and how they go about
learning Persian in the classroom. In addition, if students are found to hold unrealistic
beliefs about learning Persian, instructors may attempt to modify the preconceived notions
that may influence their choice of language learning strategies. Therefore, discussing real-
istic expectations regarding language learning task may help and engage students in more
effective learning.
Furthermore, language beliefs can be culture-bound (Horwitz 1988; Kern 1995; Truitt
1995). Knowledge of students’ beliefs can then help Persian instructors, most of whom are
native Persian speakers, reduce potential classroom conflicts that may stem from inconsisten-
cies between teacher and learner language beliefs. The findings of this study should contribute
to research of foreign language teaching in the direction of better understanding and accom-
modating learners who take up the daunting task of learning challenging, less commonly
taught languages such as Persian. This study will also add to the discussion of the variability
of beliefs and strategies in specific learner groups.
Therefore, the current study will attempt to provide empirical evidence on language learn-
ers’ beliefs and their use of language learning strategies in a previously unstudied target lan-
guage. The study of Persian language learners’ beliefs about language learning and their use
of learning strategies has practical significance since to date neither the beliefs of students
of the Persian language in the United States about Persian learning nor their use of language
learning strategies has been investigated. It is hoped that this study will provide educators and
course developers with a better understanding of an important group of students’ “expectations
of, commitment to, success in and satisfaction with their language classes” (Horwitz 1988,
283). This study should further provide information concerning the learners’ use of strategies in

592
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

learning the Persian language, which can prove useful in developing enhanced and up-to-date
Persian language courses.

28.2 Method
The major objective of this study is to assess the beliefs about learning the Persian language
and the use of language learning strategies of students studying Persian at three American
universities. The intent of this study is to determine whether learners of the Persian language
are similar to other language learners when it comes to beliefs, strategies, and the nature of
their specific beliefs and strategies. Beliefs were measured using the Beliefs About Language
Learning Inventory (BALLI) (Horwitz 1987), and language learning strategies were identified
by the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) (Oxford 1989c).
This section describes the research methodology of the study and includes descriptions of the
research design, research questions, instruments, participants, data collection, and data analysis.

28.2.1 Research design

The present study is primarily descriptive. It uses three self-report questionnaires to identify
the students’ background, use of language learning strategies, and their beliefs about language
learning.
The target population of this study is American college students studying Persian as a for-
eign language in three university settings. Students who participated in this study were enrolled
in either first- or second-year Persian language courses at the University of Texas at Austin, the
University of California at Los Angeles, and the University of California at Berkeley during the
fall of 2003. The rationale for choosing these locations was firstly due to the historically large
number of Iranian emigrants who have settled in California and Texas; secondly, the historically
high number of enrollments in Persian language classes in these universities was considered;
and finally the prestigious nature of Persian instruction in these settings was taken into account.

28.2.2 Research questions

This study addresses the following research questions:

1 What beliefs about language learning do US Persian language learners report holding?
How do the American university students’ beliefs about language learning compare to
those of other language learners?
2 Which beliefs about language learning are most common or least common among the
participants in this study?
3 What language learning strategies do US Persian language learners report using? How do
the American university students’ language learning strategies compare to those of other
language learners?
4 Which strategies are most common or least common among the participants in this study?

28.2.3 Instruments
The instruments used in this study were: the Individual Background Questionnaire (IBQ,
Appendix A), the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI, Appendix B), and the
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL, Appendix C).

593
 Azita Mokhtari

28.2.3.1 Individual Background Questionnaire

An individual background questionnaire (IBQ), developed by the author, was used to gather
additional information on individual characteristics of the participants. The questionnaire elic-
ited gender, age, mother tongue, language background, previous foreign language learning
experiences, their perceived language learning proficiency, and their motivation for studying
Persian.
Starting from item 12, subjects were asked about their Persian language experience. Items
12 and 13 asked the subjects how long they had been studying Persian and what had made
them interested in learning Persian. The rest of the items solicited information about their
perceptions of their proficiency in Persian and their expectation of their proficiency level by
completing the entire course.

28.2.3.2 The Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)

The BALLI was developed by Horwitz (1987) to elicit learners’ beliefs about language learn-
ing. It contains thirty-four items relating to beliefs within five major areas:

1 foreign language aptitude

2 the difficulty of language learning
3 the nature of language learning
4 learning and communicative strategies, and
5 motivations and expectations

The BALLI is scored on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “1: strongly disagree” to “5:
strongly agree”. Since the BALLI measures a variety of individual beliefs about language
learning, there is no composite score. The BALLI was developed based on free-recall proto-
cols by language teachers from different cultural backgrounds, and focus group discussions
with language students. It has been tested with American foreign language students, ESL stu-
dents in the U.S., and EFL students abroad (Horwitz 1987).
Horwitz (1989) questions the appropriateness of reliability computations for the BALLI;
however, several researchers have examined the reliability of the BALLI based on the cor-
relation of the items with each other. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was found to be .53.
Previously, Kim-Yoon’s (2000) Cronbach’s alpha for the BALLI was .71, Kunt’s (1997) was
.64, Truitt’s (1995) was .61, Park’s (1995) was .61, and Yang’s (1992) was .69. These scores,
which ranged from .61 to .71, seem rather low but may be expected since the BALLI is really
a composite of individual items rather than a single scale.

28.2.3.3 The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)

The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL, Version 5.1 for English Speakers Learn-
ing a New Language) (Oxford 1989c) was used to measure the frequency with which Persian
language learners use various language learning strategies. The eighty-item questionnaire is
divided into six categories.

1 Memory strategies used for storage and retrieval of new information.

2 Cognitive strategies used for improving understanding and the production of language
through various channels.

594
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

3 Compensation strategies used to compensate for missing target language knowledge.

4 Metacognitive strategies used for organization of learning and self-evaluation.
5 Affective strategies used to regulate emotions and motivations.
6 Social strategies used to build social interaction and learning with others.

The SILL uses a five point Likert-scale: “1: never or almost never true of me”, “2: generally
not true of me”, “3: somewhat true of me”, “4: generally true of me” and “5: always or almost
always true of me”. Following Oxford (1989c), this study uses the following indications based
on the means derived for each item: mean ranges of (1) 4.5 to 5.0 on SILL indicate items that
are “always or almost always used”, (2) 3.5 to 4.4 indicate items that are “usually used”, (3)
2.5 to 3.4 indicate items that are “somewhat used”, (4) 1.5 to 2.4 indicate items that are “gener-
ally not used”, and (5) 1.0 to 1.4 indicate items that are “never or almost never used”.
Cronbach’s alpha has been computed in several studies to determine the internal con-
sistency for the SILL. The alpha coefficient of an earlier version (121 items), according to
Oxford and Nyikos (1989), was 0.96 and 0.95 respectively based on a 1200 and a 483-subject
university sample. According to Oxford’s and Nyikos’s (1989) study, several findings sup-
port the validity of the scale. Specifically, there was a correlation of 0.95 between two raters
who matched SILL items with strategies in the taxonomy on which it was based. There was
also a strong relationship between SILL items and self-reports of proficiency and motivation.
Finally, a previous study in which the SILL was administered to more highly trained and less
highly trained linguists verified that the more highly trained subjects reporting “more frequent
and more wide-ranging” strategy use (Oxford and Nyikos 1989).

28.2.4 Participants
The participants surveyed in this study were 166 students enrolled at the University of Texas
(UT/67) at Austin, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA/62) and the University
of California at Berkeley (UCB/37) during the 2003 fall semester. The subjects were enrolled
in the first-year and second-year Persian language courses at the time the data were collected.
The participants ranged from freshmen to seniors and ranged in age from 17 to 59, with an
average age of 22. According to Table 28.1 following, of the 166 students, 51.8% were men
and 48.2% were women. This finding is interesting in itself since enrollments in American
colleges and universities, specifically in language classes, tend to a majority of women. Fur-
thermore, 42.8% of the subjects reported Persian as their mother tongue, while 45.8% reported
English as their mother tongue, and the rest reported other languages as their mother tongue.
From the total population of the participants, 48.2% said they were second generation Iranian-
Americans and 51.8% said that they were not second generation Iranian-Americans.
Thus, many of the Persian learners can be classified as heritage learners. A “heritage lan-
guage” can be defined as “the language associated with one’s cultural background and it may
or may not be spoken in the home” (Cho, Cho, and Tse 1997). A “heritage language student”
may refer to “a language student who is raised in a home where a non-English language is
spoken, who speaks or at least understands the language, and who is to some degree bilingual
in that language and in English” (Valdes 2001, 38). Thus, heritage learners can include stu-
dents who are exposed to the language in the home as well as students who have family ties
to that language. The participants’ range of experience with Persian language study was from
0 months to 228 months with an average of 18.1 months. See Chapters 3 and 4 in this volume
for elaborate discussions on specific characteristics of Persian language acquisition by Persian
heritage learners.

595
Table 28.1 Individual background questionnaire
Age
M SD Min Max

Total group 22.1 6.0 18 59

Sex (Unit: %)
M F
Total group 51.8 48.2

Mother tongue (Unit: %)

PERSIAN Persian-English
­ English Others
Total group 42.8 2.4 45.8 9.0

Are you second generation Iranian-American? (Unit: %)

Yes No
Total group 48.2 51.8

Studying months (Unit: Month(s))

M SD Min Max
Total group 18.1 36.3 0 228

How important is it for you to become proficient in Persian? (Unit: %)

Not Important Somewhat Important Very Important Missing
Total group 3.0 36.7 59.0 1.2

So far how do you compare your overall proficiency in Persian to other students in your class?
(Unit: %)
Poor Fair Good Excellent Missing
Total group 8.4 28.3 47.6 14.5 1.2

So far how do you compare your overall proficiency in Persian to native speakers of Persian?
(Unit: %)
Poor Fair Good Excellent Missing
Total group 38.0 36.7 22.3 1.2 1.2

By the end of this course what do you expect your proficiency level to be? (Unit: %)
Poor Fair Good Excellent Missing
Total group 3.0 28.9 51.8 15.1 1.2

After two years of instruction what do you expect your proficiency level to be? (Unit: %)
Poor Fair Good Excellent Missing
Total group 0.0 9.6 44.6 44.0 1.2
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

28.2.5 Data collection

The questionnaires were administrated during the 2003 fall semester. At each survey session,
the study was explained to the volunteer subjects. Then a consent form was distributed to be
read and signed by all the respondents. Then, the questionnaire was administered. The ques-
tionnaire consisted of three sections. The first section consisted of the background question-
naire. The second section included the BALLI questions. The final section included the SILL
items.
The survey administrators reiterated the confidentiality of the survey responses and
reminded the respondents that there was no right or wrong answer on the IBQ, the BALLI, or
the SILL. The subjects were asked to respond honestly.

28.2.6 Data analysis

The quantitative analysis of this study used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 11.0 for MS Windows XP. The data collected for this study were analyzed according
to the following procedures:

1 Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, means and standard deviations, were cal-
culated to summarize the responses to the IBQ, BALLI, and SILL items. These analyses
identified the overall patterns of beliefs about language learning and the use of language
learning strategies.
2 To compare responses across the three groups, a cross-comparison between the three
groups (three settings) was made.
3 Finally, a cross-comparison with previous studies utilizing the BALLI and SILL was made.

28.3 Results and discussion

This section presents the findings from the IBQ, the BALLI, and the SILL in order to address
four research questions:

1 What beliefs about language learning do US Persian language learners report holding?
How do the American university students’ beliefs about language learning compare to
those of other language learners?
2 Which beliefs about language learning are most common or least common among the
participants in this study?
3 What language learning strategies do US Persian language learners report using? How do
the American university students’ language learning strategies compare to those of other
language learners?
4 Which strategies are most common or least common among the participants in this study?

28.3.1 Results
The results and discussion have been categorized into three sections: (1) a descriptive analysis
of the IBQ items, (2) a summary of the descriptive analysis of the BALLI items, (3) a descrip-
tive report of the most common and the least common beliefs endorsed by Persian language
learners, (4) a summary of the descriptive analysis of the SILL items, (5) a descriptive report
of the most common and the least common strategies reported by the Persian language learn-
ers, and (6) a comparison with other groups of language learners from the previous studies.

597
 Azita Mokhtari

28.3.1.1 Descriptive analyses of IBQ

The individual background questionnaire solicited information about the subjects, including
gender, age, mother tongue, foreign language learning experience other than Persian, their
perceived language learning proficiency, and motivation for studying Persian.
Table 28.2 shows the range of participants’ age at the three universities. The participants
varied from freshmen to seniors and ranged in age from 17 to 59, with the average being 22.
For the three settings, the mean distribution as well as minimum age (17–18) and maximum
age (50–59) of the respondents seems to be reasonably equal, although UCLA has a somewhat
higher mean age.
According to Table 28.3 following, a higher percentage of the participants (59.5%) from
UC Berkeley were men, while 40.5% were women. The percentage of female participants was
higher at UCLA (56.5%) and UT (53.7%).
As found in Table 28.4, a higher percentage of the participants (59.7%) from UT Austin
reported Persian as their mother tongue, while 29.9% reported English as their mother tongue
and the rest reported other languages. The percentage for UT Austin “Persian as the mother
tongue” is relatively higher than that found at UCB (56.8%) or at UCLA (48.4%).

Table 28.2 Age

M SD Min Max

Total group 22.1 6.0 17 59

UC Berkeley 21.8 5.7 18 50
UCLA 23.2 6.6 18 53
UT Austin 21.3 5.6 17 59

Figure 28.1 Age

598
 Table 28.3 Sex
(Unit: %)
M F

Total group 48.2 51.8

UC Berkeley 59.5 40.5
UCLA 43.5 56.5
UT Austin 46.3 53.7

Figure 28.2 Sex.

Table 28.4 Mother tongue

(Unit: %)
Persian Persian- English Others
English

Total group 42.8 2.4 45.8 9.0

UC Berkeley 56.8 5.4 35.1 2.7
UCLA 48.4 1.6 37.1 12.9
UT Austin 59.7 1.5 29.9 9.0

Figure 28.3 Mother tongue.

 Azita Mokhtari

Comparing participants’ responses about “mother tongue” and “second generation Iranian-
American” shown in Table 28.5 following, interesting results were found in the three different
settings (UB, UCLA, UT). All participants from UT who reported Persian as their mother
tongue (59.7%), also reported their status as being second generation Iranian-Americans. Sim-
ilarly, of the 48.4% participants at UCLA who reported Persian as their mother tongue, 41.9%
of the total professed that they were second generation Iranian-Americans. At UCB, however,
56.8% reported Persian as their mother tongue but only 37.8% of the total reported that they
are second generation Iranian-Americans.
The reason for this discrepancy could be in how the respondents viewed themselves in
regards to being labeled as second generation Iranian-American. Even though many could be
considered as fitting under the general label of “second generation”, many could have been
born in Iran and moved to the United States in their infancy or beyond. These may or may not
view themselves as the second generation, deeming that the term second generation is fully
applicable only to those who were actually born on US soil.
Another possible reason could be due to what is implied by the phrase “second generation
Iranian-American”. If only one parent is of Iranian descent, will the offspring see themselves
as “second generation Iranian-Americans” or not? In general, it is this author’s belief that the
label “second generation Iranian-American” is not as clear-cut as it may appear on the surface.
It seems likely, however, that Iranian Americans at UCB may have had somewhat different
backgrounds than the Iranian Americans at the other universities.
As shown in Table 4.5, the students’ range of experience with Persian language study was
from 0 months to 228 months with an average of 18.1 months. The probable cause for this

Table 28.5 Are you second generation Iranian-American?

(Unit: %)
Yes No

Total group 48.2 51.8

UC Berkeley 37.8 62.2
UCLA 41.9 58.1
UT Austin 59.7 40.3

Figure 28.4 Second generation Iranian-American.

600
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

Table 28.6 Number of months studying Persian

(Unit: Month(s))
M SD Min Max

Total group 18.1 36.3 0 228

UC Berkeley 17.4 34.6 0 206
UCLA 21.0 42.8 0 228
UT Austin 13.8 28.9 0 182

Figure 28.5 Number of months studying Persian.

inconsistency could be that some respondents misinterpreted the question “Number of months
studying Persian” to mean number of months exposed to Persian.
It is also possible that there is no placement test requirement for Persian courses offered
in the universities surveyed in this study. As it is the experience of this author as a Persian
instructor, there are not generally placement testing requirements in place for students who
register for Persian language classes. Even highly skilled Persian speakers are sometimes not
barred from taking first semester Persian. Such students may be given the option of taking
a test for credit/noncredit or sitting in the class and earning an A. Therefore, even advanced
students who may have graduated from high school in Iran and then transferred to a university
in the U.S. or those who were tutored in the U.S. for many years before entering the university,
may be allowed to register for first- or second-year Persian.
Table 28.7 displays beliefs of participants regarding the importance of becoming proficient
in the Persian language. Of the 166 subjects, 59% felt that it is very important to do so while
36.7% said that it is somewhat important for them to become proficient in Persian. Only 3%
reported that it was not important for them to become proficient in Persian. Thus almost all
of the subjects valued learning Persian. In the case of heritage speakers, this might be due to
the following two factors: valuing Persian mainly because of the parents’ influence, or valuing
Persian as a language to communicate with relatives in Iran.

601
 Azita Mokhtari

Table 28.7 How important is it for you to become proficient in Persian?

(Unit: %)
Not important Somewhat Very important Missing
important

Total group 3.0 36.7 59.0 1.2

UC Berkeley 2.7 35.1 59.5 2.7
UCLA 1.6 35.5 62.9 0.0
UT Austin 4.5 38.8 55.2 1.5

Figure 28.6 Importance of being proficient in Persian.

Table 28.8 So far how do you compare your overall proficiency in Persian to other students in your class?
(Unit: %)
Poor Fair Good Excellent Missing

Total group 8.4 28.3 47.6 14.5 1.2

UC Berkeley 8.1 24.3 48.6 16.2 2.7
UCLA 4.8 30.6 54.8 9.7 0.0
UT Austin 11.9 28.4 40.3 17.9 1.5

When asked about their proficiency level in Persian compared to other students in their
class (Table 28.8), 8.4% considered their Persian proficiency level as “poor”, 28.3% as “fair”,
47.6% as “good” and 14.5% as “excellent”.
In addition, in response to the item comparing their Persian proficiency level to those of
native speakers (Table 28.9), 38% evaluated their Persian proficiency level as “poor”, 36.7%
as “fair”, 22.3% as “good” and 1.2% as “excellent”.

602
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

Figure 28.7 Comparison of overall proficiency in Persian to other students.

Table 28.9 So far how do you compare your overall proficiency in Persian to native speakers of Persian?
(Unit: %)
Poor Fair Good Excellent Missing

Total group 38.0 36.7 22.3 1.2 1.2

UC Berkeley 32.4 37.8 21.6 5.4 2.7
UCLA 33.9 37.1 29.0 0.0 0.0
UT Austin 44.8 35.8 16.4 0.0 3.0

Figure 28.8 Comparison of overall proficiency in Persian to native speakers.

The resulting discrepancy between self-evaluated performances (comparison with a class-

mate vs. comparison with a native speaker) points to the possibility of respondents visualiz-
ing an ideal, abstract, and “super” native speaker. Whereas in comparing themselves with an
actual classmate with whom they are closely associated and with whose performance they are

603
 Azita Mokhtari

quite familiar, they lower the projected gap in performance in their minds. This may also be a
reasonable response for someone who is a language learner.
According to Tables 28.10 and 28.11 following, almost half of the participants claimed that
they expect their proficiency level to rise by the end of their current course and become even
higher after two years of Persian language instruction.

Table 28.10 By the end of this course what do you expect your proficiency level to be?
(Unit: %)
Poor Fair Good Excellent Missing

Total group 3.0 28.9 51.8 15.1 1.2

UC Berkeley 10.8 24.3 43.2 18.9 2.7
UCLA 0.0 22.6 59.7 17.7 0.0
UT Austin 1.5 37.3 49.3 10.4 1.5

Figure 28.9 Expected level of proficiency by the end of the course.

Table 28.11 After two years of instruction what do you expect your proficiency level to be?
(Unit: %)
Poor Fair Good Excellent Missing

Total group 0.0 9.6 44.6 44.0 1.2

UC Berkeley 0.0 16.2 51.4 29.7 0.0
UCLA 0.0 4.8 41.9 53.2 0.0
UT Austin 0.0 10.4 43.3 43.3 3.0

604
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

Figure 28.10 Expected level of proficiency by the end of the two-year instruction

Looking more closely at the data from UCLA, there is a higher percentage of respondents
who chose “good” (59.7%) and “excellent” (53.2%) as compared to the other two surveyed
settings, and a lower percentage from UCLA selected “poor” (0%) and “fair” (4.8%). Over-
all, the respondents from UCLA display more positive opinions toward their expected level
of proficiency. This might be due to the possibility that their confidence in themselves, their
teachers and their program is high as compared to learners at the other two universities or to
differences in their backgrounds.

28.3.1.2 Descriptive analyses of the BALLI

The following tables and charts present the frequency of student responses in percentages,
means, and standard deviations in each area of learner beliefs about language learning on
the BALLI. Using Horwitz’s (1987) categories, they illustrate the five major areas in the
BALLI: (1) the difficulty of language learning; (2) foreign language aptitude; (3) the nature
of language learning; (4) learning and communication strategies; and (5) motivations and
expectations.
Descriptive statistics were computed on the students’ responses to the BALLI items, which
were included in the second section of the questionnaire. These analyses were done to address
the first research question: “What beliefs about language learning do Persian language learners
hold in the United States?”

28.3.1.2.1 GENERAL BALLI RESPONSES

The results of the BALLI responses are reported in the following. Table 28.12 shows the mean
of each subgroup of BALLI items and its rank in frequency. The highest mean belongs to
“motivation and expectation” category; while the lowest belongs to “the difficulty of language
learning”.

605
 Azita Mokhtari

Table 28.12 BALLI categories and frequencies

Beliefs Mean Rank

The difficulty of language learning 3.21 5

Foreign language aptitude 3.33 2
The nature of language learning 3.31 3
Learning and communication strategies 3.25 4
Motivation and expectations 3.63 1

Table 28.13 Descriptive statistics for the variables and mean difference of the beliefs

Variables Mean SD Min Max

UCB 3.27 0.98 1.81 (19) 4.41 (1)

UCLA 3.31 0.98 1.69 (9) 4.55 (17)
UT Austin 3.43 0.97 1.94 (9) 4.67 (1)

Table 28.14 Differences in mean and standard deviation of overall beliefs among the five categories

Variables Group Mean SD

UCB 3.17 0.89

DLL UCLA 3.12 1.03
UT Austin 3.32 0.96
UCB 3.30 0.90
FLA UCLA 3.35 0.92
UT Austin 3.33 0.88
UCB 3.25 0.95
NLL UCLA 3.26 0.96
UT Austin 3.40 0.98
UCB 3.19 1.01
LCS UCLA 3.19 1.02
UT Austin 3.35 0.99
UCB 3.42 1.13
MOT UCLA 3.65 0.96
UT Austin 3.75 1.02

Note: DLL = Difficulty of Language Learning; FLA = Foreign Language Aptitude;

NLL = Nature of Language Learning; LCS = Learning and Communication Strategies;
MOT = Motivation and Expectations

28.3.1.2.2 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARISON FOR THE BALLI

In summary, the descriptive analysis of the BALLI shows only small differences among the
three groups. Beliefs about language learning by all the participants of this study, based on their
responses on the BALLI, are shown in Tables 28.13 through 28.17. The mean scores of overall
beliefs and standard deviations were calculated for UCB, UCLA, and UT to compare the differ-
ences between the three groups. As shown in Table 28.13, “belief” means were within the medium
range for all three groups: 3.43% for UT, 3.27% for UCB, and 3.31% for UCLA participants.

606
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

The differences in the five categories of beliefs between the three groups were also com-
pared. As indicated in Table 28.14, only small differences among the three groups in the type
of beliefs they hold are shown. A slightly higher percentage of beliefs by UT students than by
UCB and UCLA students are indicated for most categories. UT participants reported holding
higher percentage of beliefs in all five categories except “Foreign Language Aptitude” where
UCLA got the highest mean.
The individual belief items by all three groups, based on their responses on the BALLI, are
shown in Tables 28.15 through 28.17. Table 28.15 presents belief categories, which fell into
the high range. Items 3, 1, 11, 17, and 6 from each category were among the most common
beliefs by all participants and were held more than other beliefs: a DLL item (Item 3), “Some
languages are easier to learn than others” (M: 4.20); an FLA item (Item 1), “It is easier for
children than adults to learn a foreign language” (M: 4.55); an NLL item (Item 11), “It is bet-
ter to learn a foreign language in the foreign country” (M: 4.26), an LCS item (Item 17), “It
is important to repeat and practice a lot” (M: 4.55); and an MOT item (Item 6). “I believe that
I will ultimately learn to speak the Persian language very well” (M: 4.15).
More belief items fall within the medium range for the participants of this study
(Table 28.16). More items from FLA and LCS were in the medium range than other kinds of
beliefs. Some of the beliefs which fall within the medium-high range were: a DLL item (Item
14), “If someone spend one hour a day learning the Persian language, it would take him/her
3 to 5 years to become fluent” (M: 2.97); an FLA item (Item 15), “I have foreign language
aptitude” (M: 3.49); an NLL item (Item 20), “Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter
of learning a lot of grammar rules” (M: 3.02), an LCS item (Item 18), “I feel self-conscious
speaking the Persian language in front of other people” (M: 3.27); and an MOT item (Item
30), “People from my culture think that it is important to speak a foreign language” (M: 3.45).

Table 28.15 Reported beliefs categorized by high mean range (M: 3.5 or above)

Category Item (Mean)

DLL 3 (4.20), 6 (4.15)

FLA 1 (4.55), 10 (3.78), 34 (4.03)
NLL 8 (3.50). 11 (4.26), 25 (3.99)
LCS 7 (3.74), 13 (3.64), 17 (4.55)
MOT 6 (4.15), 23 (4.09), 31 (3.66)

Note: DLL = Difficulty of Language Learning; FLA = Foreign Language Aptitude;

NLL = Nature of Language Learning; LCS = Learning and Communication Strategies;
MOT = Motivation and Expectations

Table 28.16 Reported beliefs categorized by medium mean range (M: 2.5–3.4)

Category Item (Mean)

DLL 4 (2.84), 14 (2.97), 28 (2.71)

FLA 2 (3.44), 5 (2.90), 15 (3.49), 32 (3.17)
NLL 16 (2.93). 20 (3.02)
LCS 12 (2.77), 18 (3.27), 19 (3.07), 21 (3.17)
MOT 27 (2.84), 30 (3.45)

Note: DLL = Difficulty of Language Learning; FLA = Foreign Language Aptitude;

NLL = Nature of Language Learning; LCS = Learning and Communication Strategies;
MOT = Motivation and Expectations

607
 Azita Mokhtari

As seen in Table 28.17 following, there are fewer items within the low range than high
and medium range of beliefs. This shows that participants of this study hold a relatively
medium percentage of beliefs (M: 3.34). Items 24, 29, 26 and 9 from each category were
among the least common beliefs by all the participants and were held less than other beliefs:
a DLL item (Item 24), “It is easier to speak than to understand the Persian language” (M:
2.39); an FLA item (Item 29), “People who are good at math and science are not good at
learning foreign languages” (M: 2.21); an NLL item (Item 26), “Learning a foreign language
is mostly a matter of translating from English” (M: 2.20) and an LCS item (Item 9), “You
shouldn’t say anything in the Persian language until you can say it correctly” (M: 1.82).
Interestingly, no item from the category of “motivation and expectations” falls within the
“low belief range”.
In summary, almost half of the participants considered Persian as having medium learn-
ing difficulty, possibly because of the different alphabet and word order between Persian and
English. They felt that it would take three to five years to achieve proficiency in the Persian
language. On the other hand, the three groups were different in the perceived difficulties of
language skills. About half (56.8%, 44.8%) of the participants at UCB and UT disagreed that
speaking is easier than listening, only 38.7% of UCLA participants disagreed.
While American Persian language learners endorsed the concept of foreign language apti-
tude, the possibility that children are better language learners than adults and agreed that peo-
ple who already speak a foreign language would learn and speak another one better, they
disagreed with the idea that certain groups of people, such as people good at math or science
were better or worse at language learning. Almost half of the participants (54.1% at UCB,
48.4% at UCLA, 47.8% at UT) from all three groups were neutral to the possibility of female
superiority to male at learning foreign languages. A similar number of participants (51.4%
at UCB, 51.6% at UCLA, 44.8% at UT) agreed that everyone can learn to speak a foreign
language.
In the area of strategies, the importance of repetition and practice and of excellent pro-
nunciation in speaking was supported by good number of participants in each group. All the
participants held quite similar beliefs regarding guessing, correctness, and anxiety. The par-
ticipants in all three groups were less likely to enjoy practicing Persian with Persian native
speakers they met.
A good number of the participants in each group reported strong motivations for learning
Persian, particularly to get to know native speakers of Persian better, but not in order to get
a good job. Eventually, they would have many opportunities to use their Persian language
skills.

Table 28.17 Reported beliefs categorized by low mean range (M: 2.4 or below)

Category Item (Mean)

DLL 24 (2.39)
FLA 22 (2.42), 29 (2.21)
NLL 26 (2.20)
LCS 9 (1.82)
MOT N/A

Note: DLL = Difficulty of Language Learning; FLA = Foreign Language Aptitude;

NLL = Nature of Language Learning; LCS = Learning and Communication Strategies;
MOT = Motivation and Expectations

608
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

28.3.1.3 Descriptive analyses of the SILL

In general, participants of this study reported using a variety of learning strategies to learn
Persian. The following discussion of learning strategies is based on the descriptive analysis
of the subjects’ responses to the SILL. The frequencies of responses (in percentages), means
and standard deviations for all the SILL items are presented in the following tables and charts.
Descriptive analyses of the participants’ responses to the SILL were conducted to examine
the strategies which were most and least frequently used by learners of Persian as a foreign
language. The five point Likert-scale items of the SILL ranges from (1) never or almost never
to (5) always or almost always. In general, high means are considered to be in the range of
3.5 to 5.0, medium 2.5 to 3.4, and low 1.0 to 2.4. The overall frequency of strategy use (the
overall SILL mean) was 3.13, which indicates moderate usage of learning strategies by the
participants.
According to Oxford’s classification of learning strategies (1990a), the SILL items are
divided into six subgroups; (1) memory strategies (items 1 to 15), (2) cognitive strategies (items
16 to 40), (3) compensation strategies (items 41 to 48), (4) metacognitive strategies (items 49 to
64), (5) affective strategies (items 65 to 71), and (6) social strategies (items 72 to 80).

28.3.1.3.1 GENERAL SILL RESPONSES

The results of the SILL responses are reported in the following. Table 28.18 shows the mean
of each strategy subgroup and its rank in frequency of strategy use. The highest mean belongs
to the “motivation and expectation” category; while the lowest belongs to “the difficulty of
language learning”. The most frequently used strategies were compensation and social strate-
gies followed by metacognitive and memory strategies. The least frequently used strategies
were affective strategies whose mean was far below the frequencies of the other strategies. As
mentioned in the previous section, a mean score in the range above 3.5 on all SILL items is
considered to reflect high use of a given strategy, 2.5 to 3.4 indicates medium use, and below
2.4 shows low use of a strategy (Oxford 1990a).

28.3.1.3.2 SUMMARY OF THE COMPARISON FOR THE SILL

In summary, the individual strategy use by all the participants of this study, based on their
responses on the SILL, is shown in Tables 28.19 through 28.23. The mean scores of overall
strategy use and standard deviations were calculated for UCB, UCLA, and UT to compare the
differences between the three groups. As shown in Table 28.19, strategy usage means were
within the high range for UT students (M: 3.84) and medium range for UCB (M: 3.03) and

Table 28.18 SILL categories and frequencies

Strategies Mean Rank

Memory 2.93 5
Cognitive 3.30 3
Compensation 3.47 1
Metacognitive 3.17 4
Affective 2.54 6
Social 3.41 2

609
 Azita Mokhtari

Table 28.19 Descriptive statistics for the variables and mean difference of the strategy use

Variables Mean SD Min Max

UCB 3.03 1.09 1.43 4.03

UCLA 3.09 1.09 1.37 4.18
UT Austin 3.84 1.20 1.33 4.67

Table 28.20 Differences in mean and standard deviation of overall strategy use among the six categories

Variables Group Mean SD

UCB 2.85 1.04

Memory strategies UCLA 2.83 1.11
UT Austin 2.88 1.00
UCB 3.35 1.09
Cognitive strategies UCLA 3.32 1.10
UT Austin 3.28 1.08
UCB 3.40 1.09
Compensation strategies UCLA 3.49 1.06
UT Austin 3.54 0.97
UCB 3.06 1.13
Metacognitive strategies UCLA 3.22 1.14
UT Austin 3.19 1.04
UCB 2.48 1.12
Affective strategies UCLA 2.60 1.04
UT Austin 2.86 0.92
UCB 3.28 1.11
Social strategies UCLA 3.44 1.06
UT Austin 3.44 1.01

UCLA (M: 3.09). Therefore, UT participants reported overall higher strategy use than UCB
and UCLA when learning Persian.
The differences in the use of the six categories of strategies between the three groups were
also compared. As indicated in Table 28.20, a higher use of strategies by UT students for most
categories of strategies except for cognitive and metacognitive strategies which showed a
difference between the three groups. UT participants reported using memory, compensation,
affective and social strategies, whereas UCB participants used cognitive strategies and UCLA
participants used metacognitive and social strategies more frequently.
The individual strategy use by all three groups, based on their responses on the SILL,
is shown in Tables 28.21 through 28.23. Table 28.21 presents strategy categories which fell
into the high use range. Items 1, 39, 45, 46, 63, and 79 from each category were among the
most common strategies by all the participants and used more than other strategies: a memory
strategy (Item 1), “I create associations between new material and what I already know” (M:
3.91); a cognitive strategy (Item 39), “I look for patterns in the new language” (M: 3.92); a
compensation strategy (Item 45), “I ask the other person to tell me the right word if I cannot

610
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

Table 28.21 Reported strategy use categorized by high usage (M: 3.5 or above)

Category Item (Mean)

MEM 1 (3.91), 7 (3.52)

COG 17 (3.64), 18 (3.60), 20 (3.57), 31(3.77), 32 (3.81), 36 (3.81), 37 (3.56), 38 (3.54), 39
(3.92), 40 (3.65)
COM 41 (3.96), 42 (3.57), 44 (3.89), 45 (4.01), 46 (4.01)
MET 50 (3.52), 62 (3.64), 63 (3.95)
AFF N/A
SOC 72 (3.79), 73 (3.67), 74 (3.57), 77 (3.52), 79 (3.96), 80 (3.63)

Note: MEM=Memory Strategies; COG=Cognitive Strategies; COM=Compensation Strategies; MET=

Metacognitive Strategies; AFF= Affective Strategies; SOC= Social Strategies

Table 28.22 Reported strategy use categorized by medium usage (M: 2.5–3.4)

Category Item (Mean)

MEM 2 (3.00), 3 (2.96), 4 (3.16), 6 (2.71), 8 (3.19), 10 (3.32), 11 (2.84), 13 (3.26), 15 (3.40)
COG 16 (3.34), 19 (3.16), 21 (3.10), 22 (3.19), 23 (2.99), 24 (3.27), 25 (3.22), 26 (3.04), 27
(2.54), 28 (2.63), 29 (2.89), 30 (3.44), 33 (2.77), 34 (3.16), 35 (3.35)
COM 43 (3.39), 48 (2.80)
MET 49 (2.79), 51 (3.40), 52 (2.64), 53 (2.84), 54 (3.39), 55 (3.12), 56 (3.16), 58 (3.07), 59
(3.28), 60 (3.22), 61 (2.95), 64 (3.38)
AFF 65 (3.28), 66 (2.83), 67 (3.48)
SOC 75 (2.88), 78 (3.28)

Note: MEM=Memory Strategies; COG=Cognitive Strategies; COM=Compensation Strategies;

MET=Metacognitive Strategies; AFF= Affective Strategies; SOC= Social Strategies

think of it in a conversation” (M: 4.01) and Item 46,“When I cannot think of correct expres-
sion to say or write, “I find a different way to express the idea: for example, I use a synonym
or describe the idea” (M: 4.01); a metacognitive strategy (Item 63), “I learn from my mistakes
in using the new language” (M: 3.95); and a social strategy (Item 79). “I try to learn about the
culture of the place where the new language is spoken” (M: 3.96). It is noteworthy that no item
from the “high strategy usage” falls within the category of affective strategy. This shows that
participants of this study rarely use this type of strategy.
More strategy uses fell within the medium range for the participants of this study
(Table 28.22). More items from the cognitive and metacognitive strategies were in the medium
range than other kinds of strategies. Some of the strategies that fall within the medium-high
range were: a memory strategy (Item), “I go back to refresh my memory of things I earned
much earlier” (M: 3.40), a cognitive strategy (Item 30), “I seek specific details in what I hear
or read” (M: 3.44), a compensation strategy (Item 43) “In a conversation I anticipate what the
other person is going to say based on what has been said so far” (M: 3.39), a metacognitive
strategy (Item 51) “I decide in advance to pay special attention to specific language aspects;
for example, I focus the way native speakers pronounce certain sounds” (M: 3.40), an affective
strategy (Item 67) “I actively encourage myself to take wise risks in language learning such as
guessing meanings . . .” (M: 3.48) and a social strategy (Item 78), “In conversation with others

611
 Azita Mokhtari

Table 28.23 Reported strategy use categorized by low usage (M: 2.4 or below)

Category Item (Mean)

MEM 5 (2.20), 9 (1.79), 12 (1.51), 14 (2.02)

COG N/A
COM 47 (2.27)
MET 57 (2.31)
AFF 68 (2.10), 69 (2.47), 70 (1.36), 71 (2.35)
SOC 76 (2.34)

Note: MEM=Memory Strategies; COG=Cognitive Strategies; COM=Compensation

Strategies; MET=Metacognitive Strategies; AFF= Affective Strategies; SOC= Social Strategies

in the new language, I ask questions in order to be as involved as possible and to show I am
interested” (M: 3.28).
As seen in Table 28.23 following, there are fewer items within the low range than high and
medium range of strategy use. This shows that participants of this study use a relatively medium
percentage of strategies (M: 3.13). Items 12, 47, 57, 70, and 76 from each category were among
the least common strategies by all the participants and used less than other strategies: a memory
strategy (Item 12), “I use flash cards with the new word on one side and the definition on
the other” (M: 1.51); a compensation strategy (Item: 47), “I make up new words if I do not
know the right ones” (M: 2.27); a metacognitive strategy (Item:57), “I plan what I am going
to accomplish in language learning each day and each week” (M: 2.31); an affective strategy
(Item 70), “I keep a private diary or journal where I write my feelings about language learning”
(M: 1.36); and a social strategy (Item 76), “I have a regular language learning partner” (M:
2.34). Interestingly, no item from the category of cognitive strategy and only one item from
the categories of compensation and social strategies each fall within the “low strategy usage”.

28.3.2 Discussion
Using the research questions as a framework, the following section discusses and interprets
findings of the data analyses. Each section offers interpretations of findings based upon the
descriptive analysis of the data (IBQ, BALLI, and SILL). The findings of the current study are
then compared with those found in previous studies, mainly with studies related to American
students learning other foreign languages (LCTL and CTL).

28.3.2.1 Research question 1

What beliefs about language learning do US Persian language learners report holding? How
do the American university students’ beliefs about language learning compare to those of other
language learners?
Based on the descriptive analyses of the BALLI developed by Horwitz (1987), this study
identified American students’ beliefs about learning the Persian language. Using Horwitz’s
five categories for the BALLI, this study found that only small differences exist among these
categories. The highest mean belonged to the “motivation and expectations” category, while
the lowest mean belonged to the “difficulty of language learning”.
In terms of frequency of beliefs about language learning, Persian language students hold
strong beliefs about motivation and expectations of learning Persian. They also strongly

612
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

expressed a desire to have Persian-speaking friends and to learn to speak Persian. In spite of
these beliefs about language learning, many of these students felt self-conscious and timid
speaking Persian. Thus, these students may not be willing to practice Persian with others.
These findings suggest that even though it is assumed that students’ beliefs are related to
their use of language learning strategies (Park 1995; Yang 1992; Wenden 1986, 1987a), this
relationship may depend on the types of beliefs, language learning strategies, and individual
characteristics of learners.
With respect to difficulty of language learning, most participants considered Persian as a
language of medium difficulty, which can be learned and spoken fluently between three to
five years. Participants mostly believed that they would ultimately learn to speak Persian very
well. The Persian learners tended to believe that learning Persian takes the same time as the
time the American believed was required to learn French in Kern’s (1995) study. Perhaps this
similarity is related to American students’ objectives and expectations for learning a foreign
language. Interestingly, a similar result was also shown in Oh’s (1996) study where Japanese
learners tended to believe that Japanese was a relatively difficult language and it takes three to
five years to learn the language. While many French learners (in Kern’s 1995) and Japanese
learners (in Oh’s 1996) agreed that it is easier to speak than understand a foreign language,
Persian learners in this study disagreed with this belief.
Concerning foreign language aptitude, most of the participants agreed that it is easier for
children than adults to learn a foreign language, and also agreed with the statement that “it is
easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn another one”. The results
from Kern (1995) and Oh (1996) also supported this belief. In addition, students from all these
studies shared the same belief that everyone can learn to speak a foreign language.
On the topic of the nature of language learning, a good number of participants agreed that it
is necessary to know the foreign language culture in order to speak well. The same result was
shown by Japanese language learners (Oh 1996) whose emphasis was on learning the target
culture. However, this belief was not supported by French language learners (Kern 1995) and
other foreign language learners, such as German and Spanish (Horwitz 1988). This difference
of opinions might be due to the nature of less commonly taught languages such as Persian
and Japanese rather than commonly taught languages such as French, German and Spanish.
Persian language learners also believed that it is best to learn a foreign language in the foreign
country. This was well supported by both foreign language learners in Kern’s and Oh’s study
as well as by foreign language learners in Horwitz’s (1988) study. Many also agreed that learn-
ing a foreign language is different from learning other academic subjects.
Regarding “learning and communication strategies”, most of the participants felt that it is
important to repeat and practice when speaking Persian. This belief was previously supported
by all the other foreign language learners (Horwitz 1988; Kern 1995; Oh 1996; Kuntz 1996).
Exactly half of the participants disagreed with the notion that they should not say anything
in the Persian language until they could say it correctly and they also said that it was O.K. to
guess if they do not know a word in the Persian language. These numbers were much higher
according to previous studies (Yang 1992; Park 1995; Oh 1996; Kunt 1997; Hong 2006). This
could be due to the possibility that native speakers, both instructors as well as students, convey
common myths to the non-native learners both directly and indirectly.
Finally, concerning “motivation and expectations”, the great majority of the participants in
each group expressed the wish to learn Persian well in order to get to know native speakers
better and not for bettering their opportunity for getting a good job. They reported that they
expected ultimately to learn Persian very well. In previous studies (Horwitz 1987; Yang 1992;
Park 1995; Truitt 1995; Kunt 1997; Hong 2006), a high percentage of participants who were

613
 Azita Mokhtari

comprised of students learning English as a second /foreign language, expressed the belief that
if they learn English very well, they would have better job opportunities. Studies on American
students learning foreign languages (Kern 1995; Oh 1996; Kuntz 1996), however found that,
a high percentage either disagreed with or were neutral towards this belief.
It seems that at least as far as it is true of this study, students have integrative motivation
in expressing a wish for “learning the language well, getting to know the native speakers,
making friends and learning the culture”. On the other hand, the ESL/EFL students in previ-
ous studies, who expressed a wish to better their chance of getting a better job through their
learning of the English language, clearly hold instrumental motivation. This point could be
generalized to cover all the LCTLs versus the CTLs, that learners of LCTL embark on the
learning expedition due to integrative motivations but this is not so in the case of CTLs. The
evidence from studies on American students learning foreign languages (Kern 1995; Oh
1996; Kuntz 1996) cited previously also supports this. At this point it is warranted to point
out that since September 11, 2001, there has been such a great shift in looking at and clas-
sifying so many of LCTL as desirable, necessary, crucial, and strategic (entailing better jobs
and salaries) that there could well be a change in the motivation of current and future stu-
dents starting on their journey from integrative to instrumental. It is also possible that these
students are indicating that they have personal but nor strategic reasons for learning Persian.

28.3.2.2 Research question 2

Which beliefs about language learning are most common or least common among the partici-
pants in this study?
Based on the participants’ responses on the BALLI, some of the individual items fall within
the high mean range. These items show the most common language learning beliefs in each
category among the participants of this study. Regarding “difficulty of language learning”,
items 3 and 6 were among the most common beliefs by all participants. These were: “Some
languages are easier to learn than others” and “I believe that I will ultimately learn to speak
the Persian language very well”. Concerning “foreign language aptitude”, items 1, 10, and 34
scored high means. These were: “It is easier for children than adults to learn a foreign lan-
guage”, “It is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn another one”
and “Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language”. On the topic of “nature of the language
learning”, items 8, 11, and 25 were reported as most common beliefs, which were “It is neces-
sary to know the foreign culture in order to speak the foreign language”, “It is better to learn
a foreign language in a foreign country” and “learning a foreign language is different from
learning other schools subjects”. Regarding “learning and communication strategies”, items
7, 13, and 17 were highly scored. These include “It is important to speak the Persian language
with an excellent accent”; “It is o.k. to guess if you don’t know a word in the Persian language”
and “It is important to repeat and practice a lot”.
Furthermore, based on the participants’ responses on the BALLI, some of the individual
items fall within the low mean range. These items show the least common language learn-
ing beliefs in each category among the participants of this study. Regarding “difficulty of
language learning”, item 24 was among the least common beliefs by all participants. This
was: “It is easier to speak than understand the Persian language”. Concerning “foreign
language aptitude”, items 22 and 29 scored low means. These were: “Women are better
than men at learning foreign languages” and “People who are good at math and science are
not good at learning foreign languages”. On the topic of “nature of the language learning”,
item 26 was reported as the most common belief, which was “Learning a foreign language

614
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

is mostly a matter of translating from English. Regarding “learning and communication

strategies”, item 9 was scored low. This includes “You shouldn’t say anything in the Per-
sian language until you can say it correctly”. Interestingly, no item from the category of
“motivation and expectations” falls within the “low belief range”. This shows that partici-
pants of this study have high levels of motivation and expectations for learning the Persian
language.
Comparing the three groups in this category, only small differences among the three groups
in the type of beliefs they hold are shown. Although the means for beliefs about language
learning were within the medium range for all three groups, a slightly higher percentage of
beliefs by UT (M: 3.43) students than by UCLA (M: 3.31) and UCB (M: 3.27) students are
shown for most categories. UT participants reported holding a slightly higher percentage of
beliefs in all five categories except in “Foreign Language Aptitude”, where UCLA got the
highest mean.
A potential basis for holding stronger beliefs by UT students relative to the two other loca-
tions may be in the high percentage of confirmatory responses to the question on the IBQ: “Are
you second generation Iranian-American?” (UCB: 37.8%, UCLA: 41.9%, and UT: 59.7%). As
these figures illustrate, the percentile disparity between UCB and UCLA is low (about 4%),
yet exhibits an increase in favor of UCLA, whereas the percentile difference between the
two aforementioned settings and UT is very high (about 20%). This constancy is mirrored
in the holding of beliefs about language learning where it demonstrates a steady rising slope
for UCB, UCLA and UT (respectively: M: 3.27, 3.31, and 3.43), which could very well be
indicative of existence of a connection linking heritage background to beliefs about language
learning.

28.3.2.3 Research question 3

What language learning strategies do US Persian language learners report using? How do the
American university students’ language learning strategies compare to those of other language
learners?
Based on the descriptive analyses of the SILL developed by Oxford (1990c), this study
identified American students’ Persian language learning strategies. In general, the students
of Persian reported using a variety of different strategies. Almost none of the Oxford’s sub-
groups of strategies received a low-use rating (2.4 or below). Furthermore, the overall fre-
quency average; i.e., the grand mean of all 80 items was 3.13, which indicates that this sample
used language learning strategies at a moderate level. This study compares the frequency of
strategy use between the present sample and previous samples from other studies, which
have used the SILL. The samples included for this comparison were those who learned L2
in foreign language situations. Samples, which learned L2 in L2 environments (e.g., ESL),
were excluded since research studies have shown that strategy use is generally higher for the
latter groups. In other words, it is highly likely that if learners are surrounded by the target
language all day, their need for using strategies will be higher than those who have limited
exposure to L2.
The majority of foreign language students from previous studies (Oxford 1986; Oxford
and Nyikos 1989; Green 1991; Douglas 1992; Nakayama 1995) used learning strategies at
moderate level (2.5 to 3.4). None of the Puerto Rican students (Green 1991) was consist-
ently low frequency strategy users. This might be due to the fact that these students were
studying English in a so-called mixed ESL-EFL environment. Similarly, participants from
the current research and Nakayama’s (1995) study used strategies at a higher level than other

615
 Azita Mokhtari

studies. The difference might have resulted from the fact that most of the participants of the
present research had previously studied at least one foreign language, mostly Indo-European
languages such as Spanish, German and French, in high school or college before attempting
to learn Persian. Therefore, they might have already developed certain strategies with which
they felt comfortable or which they found worked for them. On the other hand, it is possible
that Persian, as an Indo-European language, demanded the use of the same learning strategies.
In terms of the individual items of the SILL, most items belonged to the mean ranges
between 2.5 and 3.4, indicating that Persian language learners in this study “sometimes” used
most of the strategies inventoried by the SILL to learn Persian more effectively. Interestingly,
Yang (1992), Park (1995), Nakayama (1995) and Hong (2006) report that university students
in their studies also “sometimes” used most of the strategies in the SILL. Compared to the
earlier-given findings, many language learning strategies in the SILL used by the foreign lan-
guage learners in the U.S. reported by Nyikos and Oxford (1993) belonged to the categories of
“never or almost never used” and “generally not used” as well as “usually used” and “some-
times used”. In other words, foreign language learners in the U.S. used language learning strat-
egies more broadly than EFL university students in Taiwan and Korea. However, findings of
the current study do not support the latter statement. This might be due to either the nature of
the Persian language as a less commonly taught language or the nature of the Persian instruc-
tion in the United States.

28.3.2.4 Research question 4

Which language learning strategies are most common or least common among the participants
in this study?
American students employed a variety of language learning strategies. In the follow-
ing section, the use of strategies by the participants is provided in descending order from
most to least used and gives a possible rationale for the results. By means of descrip-
tive analyses of the SILL, this study found that 26 items were among the most common
strategies by all participants and were used more than other strategies, whereas 11 items
were among the least common strategies by all participants and were used less than other
strategies. The highest mean belonged to items #45 and #46. These were “I ask the other
person to tell me the right word if I cannot think of it in a conversation” and “I find a
different way to express the idea”, respectively. The lowest mean belonged to item #70,
which was “I keep a private diary or journal where I write my feelings about language
learning”.
In general, compensation strategies emerged as the most popular strategies in the cur-
rent study as well as previous studies (Phillips 1991; Yang 1992; Mullins 1992; Nakayama
1995; Hong 2006). On the other hand, memory and affective strategies were the least fre-
quently used, which is, in fact similar to worldwide findings with a variety of samples using
various versions of the SILL (Oxford and Cohen 1992). Learners seem to use a limited
set of memory strategies on a regular basis rather than using a variety of memory tricks
occasionally.
Another point to be noticed is that strategy use by the present sample was quite similar
to that of the study by Nakayama (1995). First, the overall frequency of strategy use in both
studies was relatively high, compared with the other studies. Secondly, frequencies of use
by categories were almost alike except for one slight difference in order; in both cases, com-
pensation and social strategies were used the most frequently, whereas memory and affective
strategies were employed the least frequently. The preference for these types of strategies

616
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

may indicate that participants tended to rely heavily on compensation and social strategies
to process information due to their lack of overall language competence and knowledge. In
addition, the high use of compensation and social strategies may reflect the methods of teach-
ing and ways of learning Persian in the United States both of which encourage students to
use translation, gestures, clues, and synonyms in order to process information in the language
learning classes. The high use of social strategies by the participants of the current study was
also supported previously by other studies (Douglas 1992; Nakayama 1995; Wharton 2000;
Hong 2006).
On the other hand, the low mean score for memory strategies supports the findings by Phil-
lips (1991) in which Asian ESL students used memory strategies the least frequently among
the six categories of learning strategies in the SILL (ESL/EFL Student Version). In addition,
it is interesting that American students in this study used metacognitive strategies similar to
students in Oxford et al. (1990) and Phillips’s (1991) studies. Regardless of the importance
of practice strategies, included in the category of the cognitive strategies, to learn an L2,
participants of this study were reluctant to use independent and interactive practice strate-
gies. Regarding this, several possible explanations can be offered: (1) Students may not have
enough opportunities to practice Persian outside the classroom; (2) These students may avoid
practice strategies because practice strategies usually accompany affective demands such as
lowering anxiety; (3) Instructional practice and classroom objectives may suppress these stu-
dents’ use of practice strategies, and (4) These students may not be aware of enough practice
strategies.
Finally, as for affective strategies for regulating emotions, learners of foreign languages
may not find themselves in situations requiring spontaneous responses in the L2 or in which
they may experience culture shock; thus, affective strategies are, in general, underused. More-
over, based on familiarity with teaching Persian, this author can attest that another possible
reason behind this might be due to the fact that these students may not be aware of the exist-
ence of affective strategies. This indicates that there is a need for instructing students in strat-
egy training at the beginning of the course.
Comparing the three groups in this category, strategy usage means were within the
high range for UT students (M: 3.84) and medium range for UCB (M: 3.03) and UCLA
(M: 3.09). Therefore, UT participants reported overall higher strategy use than UCB and
UCLA when learning Persian. The comparison in the use of the six categories of strate-
gies between the three groups also showed a higher use of strategies by UT students
for most categories of strategies except for cognitive and metacognitive strategies. This
showed a significant difference between the three groups. UT participants reported using
memory, compensation, affective and social strategies; whereas, UCB participants used
cognitive strategies and UCLA participants used metacognitive and social strategies more
frequently.
A potential basis for the elevated usage of language learning strategies by UT students
relative to the two other settings may possibly be traced in the high percentage of affirmative
responses to the query on the IBQ: “Are you second generation Iranian-American?” (UCB:
37.8%, UCLA: 41.9% and UT: 59.7%). As these figures illustrate, the percentile dispar-
ity between UCB and UCLA is low (about 4%) but exhibits an increase in favor of UCLA,
whereas the percentile difference between the two aforementioned institutes and UT is very
high (about 20%). This consistency is paralleled in the application of strategies where strategy
use demonstrates a steady intensifying gradient for UCB, UCLA and UT (respectively: M:
3.03, 3.09 and 3.84), which could very well be indicative of existence of a connection tying
heritage background to the use of learning strategies.

617
 Azita Mokhtari

28.4 Conclusions and implications

28.4.1 Conclusions
The current study is the first research attempt to investigate US Persian university students’
beliefs about language learning and their use of language learning strategies. Particularly, stu-
dents learning a less commonly taught language, such as Persian, may have different language
beliefs and use different language learning strategies than those students learning a commonly
taught language. This study has also presented empirical evidence reflecting learners’ beliefs
about language learning and their self-reported use of learning strategies.

1 The current study indicated that American university students reported holding vari-
ous beliefs about language learning inventoried by the BALLI. That is, these students
responded to all the items in the BALLI from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The
American university students in this study were highly motivated for learning Persian
integratively. For instance, participants believed that learning the Persian language is very
important because they would get to know the Persian native speakers as well as their
culture better. This shows that students were motivated to learn Persian more for social
interaction rather than academic purposes or better job opportunities. This study found
that not only learning context influenced the beliefs of the students but also societal trends
in language learning regarding the advantages of Persian fluency was influential too. Fur-
thermore, in spite of the dominant grammar-translation method used in teaching Persian
in the United States, many of these students rejected the importance of teaching mainly
translation and grammar in learning Persian.

In addition, the participants strongly expressed a desire to learn to speak Persian well and make
Persian-speaking friends. These participants also acknowledged the importance of cultural
knowledge, learning environment, pronunciation, and guessing in speaking Persian. Further-
more, the participants in this study held both similar and different beliefs concerning language
learning from those of American foreign language learners (Horwitz 1988; Kern 1995; Oh
1996), ESL university students (Horwitz 1987; Siebert 2003) and EFL university students
(Yang 1992; Park 1995; Truitt 1995; Nakayama 1995; Kunt 1997; Kim-Yoon 2000; Hong
2006). Some of contrasting findings across the studies with learners in various learning and
cultural contexts may support the argument that learners’ beliefs are influenced by the different
language learning contexts (ESL/EFL/FL or LCTL/CTL), educational or cultural backgrounds.

2 This study investigated the most and least common beliefs held by American university
students of Persian. By means of descriptive analyses of the BALLI, this study found that
14 items were among the most common beliefs held by all participants and were held
more than other beliefs, whereas five items were among the least common beliefs held
by all participants and were held less than the other beliefs. The highest mean belonged
to items 1 and #7. These were “It is easier for children than adults to learn a foreign lan-
guage” and “It is important to repeat and practice a lot” respectively. The lowest mean
belonged to item 9, which was “You shouldn’t say anything in the Persian language until
you can say it correctly”.
3 American university students learning Persian as a foreign language in the United States
employed a variety of language learning strategies inventoried by the SILL (FL Student
Version) when learning Persian and reported similarities and differences in strategy use.

618
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

Among the strategies, the American university students in this study used more compen-
sation and social strategies than metacognitive, memory and affective strategies. In addi-
tion, a comparison of findings of previous studies revealed several similarities as well as
some differences in the responses to the SILL items between participants of the current
study and those of ESL learners (Chang 1990; Phillips 1991; Osanai 2000), EFL learners
(Yang 1992; Park 1995; Wang 1996; Nakayama 1995; Chou 2002, Chang 2003; Hong
2006) and FL learners (Oxford and Ehrman 1995; Wharton 2000).
4 This study investigated the most and least common language learning strategies used by
American university students of Persian. By means of descriptive analyses of the SILL,
this study found that 26 items were among the most common strategies used by all par-
ticipants and were used more than other strategies; whereas, 11 items were among the
least common strategies used by all participants and were used less than other strategies.
The highest mean belonged to items 45 and 46. These were “I ask the other person to tell
me the right word if I cannot think of it in a conversation” and “I find a different way to
express the idea” respectively. The lowest mean belonged to item 70, which was “I keep
a private diary or journal where I write my feelings about language learning”.
5 A comparison between the three settings indicated that the mean for learning beliefs was
within a slightly higher range for UT students than for UCLA and UCB students. How-
ever, this mean was within a noticeably higher range for strategy use for UT students
than for UCB and UCLA students. Therefore, UT participants reported overall higher
strategy use than UCB and UCLA when learning Persian. This study showed a higher
use of strategies by UT students for most categories of strategies except for cognitive and
metacognitive strategies, which showed a significant difference between the three groups.
UT participants reported using memory, compensation, affective, and social strategies,
whereas UCB participants used cognitive strategies and UCLA participants used meta-
cognitive and social strategies more frequently.

28.4.2 Implications
The findings of this study have both theoretical and pedagogical implications for research on
second or foreign language teaching and learning and practice of Persian instruction in the
United States. This study found variety in the strategy use and beliefs about language learning
of American university students.
Theoretically, this study explored language learning strategies and beliefs about language
learning of American university students learning a strategic, less commonly taught language
in the United States. It has been argued that learners’ prescriptive beliefs about how to best
learn a second language represent their awareness of language learning and have the potential
for developing self-regulation. Such beliefs indicate that learners have begun to reflect on what
they are doing in line with their goals, and this awareness may ultimately lead to self-regulation.
In addition, studies in language learning strategies create profiles of good language learn-
ers as students who are actively engaged in language learning and are able to problem-solve
regarding their own learning. One consistent finding is that all language learners report using
some type of strategies in their language learning. Differences across learners are in the rela-
tive effectiveness of strategy application; that is, the appropriate implementation of the right
strategies at the right times.
Pedagogically, the findings of this study suggest that strategy training conducted in a regular
language classroom can help less successful students become successful in learning Persian,

619
 Azita Mokhtari

which will help them become more effective and autonomous Persian learners outside the
classroom. Nevertheless, the findings of this study add more ideas about exploring the beliefs,
strategy use, and strategy training for students of less commonly taught languages:

1 Participants of this study show high integrative motivation and self-perceptions of foreign
language aptitude. They believe that they will learn to speak Persian very well and they
strongly believe that by learning Persian they can get to know Persian native speakers
and their culture better. Therefore, instructors can help students by discussing the value
of knowing Persian and the importance of sociocultural elements in learning the Persian
language. Instructors should also develop a curriculum that reflects the needs of these
culture-oriented students.
2 Persian language learners in this study believe that “learning a foreign language is not
mostly the matter of translating from English”. In addition, they believe that learning
Persian is not just learning the grammar rules. Therefore, Persian instructors should use
methodologies that the field of foreign language instruction currently promotes, such as
the communicative language teaching method, which is more learner-centered and more
practice-oriented and emphasizes social interaction for the development of students’ pro-
ficiency more than other methods. This way, instructors can help students by providing
frequent positive feedback, creating a non-threatening environment in which students feel
comfortable speaking Persian and most of all by making learning Persian fun.
3 The participants of this study are engaged in language learning strategies less frequently.
This might hypothetically be due to such universal factors as follows:

A) The nature of the language: Persian, being a less commonly taught language may
affect the learners differently than say a commonly taught language. The unfamiliar
characteristics of the language (visually unfamiliar writing system, right to left writ-
ing, SOV word order, unwritten short vowels). This includes the cultural aspects of
the language too (what is expected from the students).
B) The nature of the language instruction: it is highly probable that the instructors in the
less-commonly taught languages field, including Persian language, do not engage in
instructing the students in “strategic training”, “awareness raising”, and/or similar
topics.
C) The nature of the student: these two points notwithstanding, the only conclusion to
arrive at is that the students engaging in the learning of the Persian language are not
highly effective language learners.
Therefore, since effectiveness in both language teaching and learning is the objective, educa-
tors need to know who their students are and how they approach language learning. Instructors
should also be more involved in introducing the relevant language learning strategies to the
Persian language students. Finding out about students’ language beliefs and their choice of
language learning strategies will offer new insights as to what they expect and how they go
about learning Persian in the classroom. In order to achieve this goal, the instructors need to be
familiar in the field of foreign language education and its teaching methodologies, specifically
less commonly taught languages.

4 Strategy training should be combined with belief training to increase training effects. In
order to maximize training effects in large groups, teachers should identify more effective
learning strategies for specific groups of students and focus on teaching these strategies

620
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

to the students. In addition, if students are found to hold unrealistic beliefs about learning
Persian, instructors may attempt to modify the preconceived notions that may influence
their choice of language learning strategies. For instance, if the instructors find that the
students believe that Persian must be difficult to learn, they might influence these beliefs
by providing students with relevant facts such as the origin of the Persian language (Indo-
European), the sharing of many loan words by both languages, the lack of case-marking,
gender, neutral and dual (as opposed to French, German, Arabic) in Persian. Therefore,
discussing realistic expectations regarding language learning task may also help and
engage students in more effective learning.

621
 Appendix A
Individual Background Questionnaire (IBQ)
 1. Date ___________
 2. Age ____________
 3. Sex ____________
 4. Mother Tongue ______________
 5. Are you second generation Iranian-American?
• Yes
• No
 6. If not, what do you consider yourself? ______________________
 7. Language(s) you speak at home __________________________________________
 8. Language(s) you have been exposed to at home _____________________________
 9. Language(s) you have studied. How long? _________________________________
10. How do you evaluate your proficiency in the above language)s(? )Write down the
name of each language next to the appropriate choice)
• Excellent
• Good
• Fair
• Poor
11. Other languages you have been exposed to. How? _________________________
12. How long have you been studying Persian? _______________________________
13. What made you interested in learning Persian? (Mark all that apply)
• Being second generation Iranian American
• Needing Persian for academic purposes
• Having ties to Iranians (friends, spouse, etc.)
• Needing Persian for performing job related duties
• Persian will benefit you in the job you will eventually have
• Required to take a language for graduation
• Need it for travel
• Other (explain) __________________________________________________
14. How important is it for you to become proficient in Persian?
• Very important
• Somewhat important
• Not important
15. So far, how do you compare your overall proficiency in Persian to other students in
your class?
• Excellent
• Good
• Fair
• Poor

622
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

16. So far, how do you compare your overall proficiency in Persian to native speakers of
Persian?
• Excellent
• Good
• Fair
• Poor
17. By the end of this course, what do you expect your proficiency level to be?
• Excellent
• Good
• Fair
• Poor
18. After two years of instruction what do you expect your proficiency level to be?
• Excellent
• Good
• Fair
• Poor
19. Has language been your favorite subject? ________________________________

623
 Appendix B
Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI)
Copyright Elaine K. Horwitz (1987)
In the following are some statements about learning foreign languages. Read each state-
ment and then decide if you (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) neither agree nor disagree,
(4) agree, (5) strongly agree. There is no right or wrong answers. We are simply interested in
your opinions. Questions 4 & 14 are slightly different and you should mark them as indicated.

REMEMBER: 1. Strongly disagree

2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree

 1. It is easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language.

 2. Some people are born with a special ability, which helps them learn a foreign language.
 3. Some languages are easier to learn than others.
 4. The Persian language is: 1) a very difficult language, 2) a difficult language, 3) a language
of medium difficulty, 4) an easy language, 5) a very easy language.
 5. People from my culture are good at learning foreign languages.
 6. I believe that I will ultimately learn to speak the Persian language very well.
 7. It is important to speak the Persian language with an excellent accent.
 8. It is necessary to know the foreign culture in order to speak the foreign language.
 9. You shouldn’t say anything in the Persian language until you can say it correctly.
10. It is easier for someone who already speaks a foreign language to learn another one.
11. It is better to learn a foreign language in the foreign country.
12. If I heard someone speaking the Persian language, I would go up to them so that I could
practice speaking the language.
13. It’s o.k. to guess if you don’t know a word in the Persian language.
14. If someone spent one hour a day learning the Persian language, how long would it take
him/her to become fluent?
1) less than a year, 2) 1–2 years, 3)3–5 years, 4) 5–10 years, 5) You can’t learn a language in
1 hour a day.
15. I have foreign language aptitude.
16. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of new vocabulary words.
17. It is important to repeat and practice a lot.
18. I feel self-conscious speaking the Persian language in front of other people.
19. If you are allowed to make mistakes in the beginning it will be hard to get rid of them
later on.
20. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of learning a lot of grammar rules.
21. It is important to practice in the language laboratory.
22. Women are better than men at learning foreign languages.
23. If I get to speak the Persian language very well, I will have many opportunities to use it.

624
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

24. It is easier to speak than understand the Persian language.

25. Learning a foreign language is different from learning other school subjects.
26. Learning a foreign language is mostly a matter of translating from English.
27. If I learn to speak the Persian language very well, it will help me get a good job.
28. It is easier to read and write the Persian language than to speak and understand it.
29. People who are good at math and science are not good at learning foreign languages.
30. People from my culture think that it is important to speak a foreign language.
31. I would like to learn the Persian language so that I can get to know its speakers better.
32. People who speak more than one language well are very intelligent.
33. People from my culture are good at learning foreign languages.
34. Everyone can learn to speak a foreign language.

625
 Appendix C
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL)
Version 5.1 (c) R. Oxford (1989c)
The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) is designed to gather information
about how you, as a student of a foreign or second language, go about learning that language.
On the following pages, you will find statements related to learning a new language. Please
read each statement and mark the response (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) that tells how true the statement is
in terms of what you actually do when you are learning the new language.

1. Never or almost never true of me

2. Generally not true of me
3. Somewhat true of me
4. Generally true of me
5. Always or almost always true of me

Part A
When learning a new word . . .

 1. I create associations between new material and what I already know.
 2. I put the new word in a sentence so I can remember it.
 3. I place the new word in a group with other words that are similar in some way (for exam-
ple, words related to clothing, or feminine nouns).
 4. I associate the sound of the new word with the sound of a familiar word.
 5. I use rhyming to remember it.
 6. I remember the word by making a clear mental image of it or by drawing a picture.
 7. I visualize the spelling of the new word in my mind.
 8. I use a combination of sounds and images to remember the new word.
 9. I list all the other words I know that are related to the new word and draw lines to show
relationships.
10. I remember where the new word is located on the page, or where I first saw or heard it.
11. I use flash cards with the new word on one side and the definition or other information on
the other.
12. I physically act out the new word.
When learning new material . . .
13. I review often.
14. I schedule my reviewing so that the review sessions are initially close together in time and
gradually become more widely spread apart.
15. I go back to refresh my memory of things I learned much earlier.

Part B
16. I say or write new expressions repeatedly to practice them.
17. I imitate the way native speakers talk.

626
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

18. I read a story or a dialogue several times until I can understand it.
19. I revise what I write in the new language to improve my writing.
20. I practice the sounds or alphabet of the new language.
21. I use idioms or other routines in the new language.
22. I use familiar words in different combinations to make new sentences.
23. I initiate conversations in the new language.
24. I watch TV shows or movies or listen to the radio in the new language.
25. I try to think in the new language.
26. I attend and participate in out-of-class events where the new language is spoken.
27. I read for pleasure in the new language.
28. I write personal notes, messages, letters, or reports in the new language.
29. I skim the reading passage first to get the main idea, then I go back and read it more carefully.
30. I seek specific details in what I hear or read.
31. I use reference materials such as glossaries or dictionaries to help me use the new language.
32. I take notes in class in the new language.
33. I make summaries of new language material.
34. I apply general rules to new situations when using the language.
35. I find the meaning of a word by dividing the word into parts which I understand.
36. I look for similarities and contrasts between the new language and my own.
37. I try to understand what I have heard or read without translating it word-for-word into my
own language.
38. I am cautious about transferring words or concepts directly from my language to the new
language.
39. I look for patterns in the new language.
40. 1 develop my own understanding of how the language works, even if sometimes I have to
revise my understanding based on new information.

Part C
41. When I do not understand all the words I read or hear, I guess the general meaning by
using any clue I can find, for example, clues from the context or situation.
42. I read without looking up every unfamiliar word.
43. In a conversation I anticipate what the other person is going to say based on what has been
said so far.
44. If I am speaking and cannot think of the right expression, I use gestures or switch back to
my own language momentarily.
45. I ask the other person to tell me the right word if I cannot think of it in a conversation.
46. When I cannot think of the correct expression to say or write, I find a different way to
express the idea: for example, I use a synonym or describe the idea.
47. I make up new words if I do not know the right ones.
48. I direct the conversation to a topic for which I know the words.

Part D
49. I preview the language lesson to get a general idea of what it is about, how it is organized,
and how it relates to what I already know.
50. When someone is speaking the new language, I try to concentrate on what the person is
saying and put unrelated topics out of my mind.

627
 Azita Mokhtari

51. I decide in advance to pay special attention to specific language aspects; for example.
I focus the way native speakers pronounce certain sounds.
52. I try to find out all I can about how to be a better language learner by reading books or
articles, or by talking with others about how to learn.
53. I arrange my schedule to study and practice the new language consistently, not just when
there is the pressure of a test.
54. I arrange my physical environment to promote learning; for instance, I find a quiet. com-
fortable place to review.
55. I organize my language notebook to record important language information.
56. I plan my goals for language learning, for instance, how proficient I want to become or
how I might want to use the language in the long run.
57. I plan what I am going to accomplish in language learning each day or each week.
58. I prepare for an upcoming language task (such as giving a talk in the new language) by
considering the nature of the task, what I have to know, and my current language skills.
59. I clearly identify the purpose of the language activity; for instance, in a listening task
I might need to listen for the general idea or for specific facts.
60. I take responsibility for finding opportunities to practice the new language.
61. I actively look for people with whom I can speak the new language.
62. I try to notice my language errors and find out the reasons for them.
63. I learn from my mistakes in using the new language.
64. I evaluate the general progress I have made in learning the language.

Part E
65. I try to relax whenever I feel anxious about using the new language.
66. I make encouraging statements to myself so that I will continue to try hard and do my best
in language learning.
67. I actively encourage myself to take wise risks in language learning, such as guessing
meanings or trying to speak, even though I might make some mistakes.
68. I give myself a tangible reward when I have done something well in my language learning.
69. I pay attention to physical signs of stress that might affect my language learning.
70. I keep a private diary or journal where I write my feelings about language learning.
71. I talk to someone I trust about my attitudes and feelings concerning the language learning
process.

Part F
72. If I do not understand, I ask the speaker to slow down, repeat, or clarify what was said.
73. I ask other people to verify that I have understood or said something correctly.
74. I ask other people to correct my pronunciation.
75. I work with other language learners to practice, review, or share information.
76. I have a regular language learning partner.
77. When I am talking with a native speaker, I try to let him or her know when I need help.
78. In conversation with others in the new language, I ask questions in order to be as involved
as possible and to show I am interested.
79. I try to learn about the culture of the place where the new language is spoken.
80. I pay close attention to the thoughts and feelings of other people with whom I interact in
the new language.

628
 Language learning strategies and beliefs

References
Chang, S. 1990. “A Study of Language Learning Behaviors of Chinese Students at the University of
Georgia and the Relation of Those Behaviors to Oral Proficiency and Other Factors.” Dissertation
Abstracts International, 52(2): 450 (UMI No. 9118144).
Chang, C.Y. 2003. The Effects of Language Learning Motivation on the Use of Language Learning
Strategies Among EFL Learners at Technological Universities and Colleges in Taiwan. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Spalding University, Kentucky, USA.
Cho, G., K. Cho, and L. Tse. 1997. “Why Ethnic Minorities Want to Develop Their Heritage Language:
The Case of Korean-Americans.” Language, Culture and Curriculum, 10(2): 106–112.
Chou, Y. 2002. “An Exploratory Study of Language Learning Strategies and the Relationships of These
Strategies to Motivation and Language Proficiency among EFL Taiwanese Technological and Voca-
tional College Students.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(7): 2481 (UMI No. 3058397).
Cotterall, S. 1995. “Readiness for Autonomy: Investigating Learner Beliefs.” System, 23(2): 195–205.
Dickinson, L. 1987. Self-Instruction in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Douglas, M. 1992. Development of Orthography-Related Reading/Writing Strategies by Learners of Jap-
anese as a Foreign Language. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California.
Green, J. 1991. Language Learning Strategies of Puerto Rican University Students. Paper Presented at
the Annual Meeting of Puerto Rico TESOL. San Juan, PR.
Hong, K. 2006. “Beliefs about Language Learning and Language Learning Strategy Use in an EFL
Context: A Comparison Study of Monolingual Korean and Bilingual Korean-Chinese University Stu-
dents.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(4): 1272 (UMI No. 3214478).
Horwitz, E.K. 1987. “Surveying Student Beliefs about Language Learning.” In Learner Strategies in
Language Learning, edited by A. Wenden and J. Rubin, 119–129. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall International.
Horwitz, E.K. 1988. “The Beliefs about Language Learning of Beginning University Foreign Language
Students.” Modern Language Journal, 72: 283–294.
Horwitz, E.K. 1989. “Recent Research on Second Language Learners: Beliefs and Anxiety.” Texas
Papers in Foreign Language Education, Special Edition, 51–60.
Kern, R. 1995. “Students’ and Teachers’ Beliefs about Language Learning.” Foreign Language Annals,
28(1): 71–79.
Kim-Yoon, H. 2000. “Learner Beliefs about Language Learning, Motivation and Their Relationship:
A Study of EFL Learners in Korea.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(8): 3041 (UMI No.
9983257).
Kunt, N. 1997. Anxiety and Beliefs about Language Learning: A Study of Turkish Speaking University
Students Learning English in North Cyprus. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas
at Austin.
Kuntz, P. 1996. University Students’ Beliefs about Foreign Language Learning, with a Focus on Arabic and
Swahili at United States. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Mullins, P. 1992. “Successful English Language Learning Strategies of Students Enrolled at the Faculty
of Arts.” Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(6):
1829 (UMI No. 9223758).
Nakayama, S. 1995. Language Learning Strategy Use by University Students of Japanese in the United
States. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Nyikos, M., and R. Oxford. 1993. “A Factor Analytic Study of Language Learning Strategy Use: Inter-
pretations from Information-Processing Theory and Social Psychology.” Modern Language Journal,
77: 11–22.
Oh, M.J. 1996. “Beliefs about Language Learning and Foreign Language Anxiety: A Study of American
University Students Learning Japanese.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(9): 3858 (UMI No.
9705927).
Osanai, D. 2000. “Differences in Language Learning between Male and Female, and Also between Asian
and Latino ESL Students.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(11): 4364 (UMI No. 9996379).
Oxford, R.L. 1986. Development and Psychometric Testing of the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL). ARI Technical Report 728. Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute.
Oxford, R.L. 1989a. “Use of Language Learning Strategies: A Synthesis of Studies with Implications for
Strategy Training.” System, 17: 235–247.
Oxford, R.L. 1989b. “The Best and the Worst: An Exercise to Tap Perceptions of Language Learning
Experiences and Strategies.” Foreign Language Annals, 22: 447–454.

629
 Azita Mokhtari

Oxford, R.L. 1989c. The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL). Version 5.1 (Version for
English Speakers Learning a New Language).
Oxford, R.L. 1990a. Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Oxford, R.L. 1990b. “Styles, Strategies, and Aptitude: Important Connections for Language Learners.”
In Language Aptitude Reconsidered, edited by T. Parry and C. Stansfield, 67–125. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Oxford, R.L. 1990c. “Language Learning Strategies and Beyond: A Look at Strategies in the Context of
Styles.” In Shifting the Instructional Focus to the Learner, edited by S. Magnan, 35–55. Middlebury,
VT: Northeast Conference on Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Oxford, R.L., and A. Cohen. 1992. “Language Learning Strategies: Crucial Issues of Concept and Clas-
sification.” Applied Language Learning, 3: 1–35.
Oxford, R.L., and D. Crookall. 1989. “Research on Language Learning Strategies: Methods, Findings,
and Instructional Issues.” Modern Language Journal, 73: 404–419.
Oxford, R.L., D. Crookall, A. Cohen, R. Lavine, M. Nyikos, and W. Sutter. 1990. “Strategy Training for
Language Learners: Six Situational Case Studies and a Training Model.” Foreign Language Annals,
22(3): 197–216.
Oxford, R.L., and M.E. Ehrman. 1995. “Adults’ Language Learning Strategies in an Intensive Foreign
Language Program in the United States.” System, 23: 359–386.
Oxford R.L., and M. Nyikos. 1989. “Variables Affecting Choice of Language Learning Strategies by
University Students.” Modern Language Journal, 73: 291–300.
Park, G.P. 1995. “Language Learning Strategies and Beliefs about Language Learning of University
Students Learning English in Korea.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(6): 2102. (UMI No.
9534918).
Phillips, V. 1991. “A Look at Learner Strategy Use and ESL Proficiency.” CATESOL Journal, November,
57–67.
Siebert, L. 2003. “Student and Teacher Beliefs about Language Learning.” The ORTESOL Journal, 21:
7–39.
Truitt, S.N. 1995. “Beliefs About Language Learning: A Study of Korean University Students Learning
English.” Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 2(1) Spring 1995.
Valdes, G. 2001. “Heritage Language Students: Profiles and Possibilities.” In Heritage Languages in
America: Preserving a National Resource, edited by J.K. Peyton, D. Randard, and S. McGinnis.
Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Wang, S. 1996. “A study of Chinese College English Major’s Beliefs about Language Learning and Their
Learning Strategies.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(12): 5021 (UMI No. 9716564).
Wenden, A. 1986. “Helping L2 Learners Think about Learning.” English Language Teaching Journal,
40: 3–12.
Wenden, A. 1987a. “Conceptual Background and Utility.” In Learner Strategies in Language Learning,
edited by A. Wenden and J. Rubin, 3–13. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. 1987b. “How to Be a Successful Language Learner: Insights and Prescriptions from L2
learners.” In Learner Strategies in Language Learning, edited by A. Wenden and J. Rubin, 103–118.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. 1987c. “Incorporating Learner Training in the Classroom.” In Learner Strategies in Lan-
guage Learning, edited by A. Wenden and J. Rubin, 159–168. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wenden, A. 1991. Learner Strategies for Learner Autonomy. New York: Prentice Hall.
Wharton, G. 2000. “Language Learning Strategy Use of Bilingual Foreign Language Learners in Singa-
pore.” Language Learning, 50: 203–243.
Yang, N.D. 1992. “Second Language Learners’ Beliefs about Language Learning and Their Use of
Learning Strategies: A Study of College Students of English in Taiwan.” Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 53(8): 2722 (UMI No. 9225771).

630
 29
UTILIZATION OF NEOLOGISMS
IN TEACHING AND
ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED
PERSIAN RAMIN SARRAFNEOLOGISMS IN TEACHING PERSIAN

A sociolinguistic approach

Ramin Sarraf

29.1 Introduction
This chapter will cover a brief history of the Academy, the socio-linguistic issues it entails
(including language policy, language standardization and official language), and the differing
views of the applied linguistics field regarding teaching neologisms. We will go over sample
lessons, exercises and assessment using the neologisms coined by the Academy. The language
of instruction is Persian; the level is advanced.

29.2 A brief history of language standardization in Iran

Since the 19th century, the Iranian government has been actively involved in officially reform-
ing the language. The fact that Modern Persian was influenced by Azerbaijani Turkish through
the Qajar court, and by contact with Western European languages (Meskoob 1992), as well
as the flooding of Arabic terms in Persian dictated this reform. Thus, policies to modernize
the Persian language continue to be implemented simultaneously and unofficially. These two
processes usually work in contrary to each other.
According to Jazayery (1983), language modernization is a natural process during which
a language undergoes change. This change takes place as a result of acquiring the linguistic
terms relating to tools, concepts and phenomena, which the language had so far lacked. This
is an unconscious process, and it is unstoppable. When enough modernization has occurred,
people, especially those who consider themselves masters in the language in its original form,
begin to take notice.1 Then usually a call to arms against the invading vocabulary is raised and
the process of language reform is instigated.
Language reform, sometimes used synonymously with language Purification, is a con-
scious process, expected to rid the language from “new” foreign words, and replace them with
words native to the language. One problem with this process is that it is always many steps
behind the modernization process. Also, if the language had access to words to use that were
equal to the foreign terms, it would have long ago adopted them. Language reform calls for

631
 Ramin Sarraf

research into the depths of the language well for salvaging appropriate terms. The next step
is the forming of bodies to implement language reform, i.e. the Language Academies. This is
both time consuming and costly. Thirdly, citizens are not willing to sacrifice ease, economy, or
in some cases the prestige that using loanwords carry. Because of this, a social conflict ensues
that might evolve into a no-win situation for all sides.
The Persian Academy is engaged along with other duties, in coining new words. As Joan
Rubin says in Directory of Language Planning Organizations (1979): “How little is known
about language correction in general and language planning organizations in particular”. This
is very true of the Iranian/Persian Academy(s); little is known of the history, function and
the processes for term selection. Since as Rubin (1979) says for studying language planning
“there is no better way than to observe people who do language planning”, a short study of the
Persian Academy(s), will be provided here.
There have been few studies of the Persian Academy per se except Jazayeri (1979), and
Jazayeri (1983). The former is in Spanish, and the latter is an article prepared immediately
after the Islamic Revolution in Iran and does not cover the latest developments in language
planning in Iran. Another article that is somewhat useful in this regard is by Perry (1985); also
Kia (1998) sheds light onto parts of the history of the early days of the Academy. Sarraf (2001,
2012), covers the topic of the Persian Academy, including history, word products and current
trends in depth. Dabir-Moghaddam (2018), is another informative, succinct newer survey of
this topic. For more information about the language planning and standardization of Persian
language in Iran, read Chapter 23 in this volume.

29.3 A brief history of the Persian academies

29.3.1 The First Persian Academy

The idea of purifying the Persian language dates back to the 19th century;2 in 1906, the
Constitutional Revolution took place and according to Kamshad (1966), the Iranian society
experienced an extraordinary boom in journalism. One year after the revolution, at least 84
newspapers were being published in Iran. Many of these papers adopted and propagated “sim-
ple Persian”.
The dream of ridding Persian from foreign words was finally achieved to some extent dur-
ing the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi (1925–41). From early on, he had understood the need for
a modern army that would be used to suppress the traditional power centers, thus began the
modernization of the Iranian army and police. However, the fact that the Persian language did
not have the equivalent words and terminologies for the European military terms, blocked
Reza Khan’s ambitions. The Iranian military either had to adopt thousands of new European
words in their everyday language, or new Persian equivalents for the foreign words had to be
produced.
To this end in 1924, while still acting as both the Commander-in-Chief, and the Prime
minister, Reza Khan ordered the Ministry of War to form a committee to create new Persian
equivalents for European military words.
Although the members of the committee were neither linguists nor specialists in Iranian
languages, their accomplishments were impressive. In the first year of its existence, the com-
mittee produced three to four hundred new words, many of which are still used in the everyday
language. Examples of these from Badre’i (1977) are: /forudgāh/ for ‘aerodrome’ (airport),
/havāpeymā/ for ‘avion’ (airplane), /gordān/ for ‘bataillon’ (French, battalion or an army
division).

632
 Neologisms in teaching Persian

In 1925, the Ministry of War organized a second ‘committee’ to translate military rules
and ranks. This committee continued its separate existence until the end of Reza Shah’s reign
in 1941, and in spite of the formation of the Academy of Iran (the First Academy) in 1935.
However, after the formation of the Academy of Iran, all the new words produced by this com-
mittee would be sent to the Academy for ratification.
The Second Committee targeted and changed not only military European terminologies
but also Arabic and Turkish words which were in use by ordinary people. Two examples from
Badre’i (1977) that have caught on are: /vatan/ ‘homeland’ (originally Arabic /watan/) was
changed to the Persian word /mihan/. And the Arabic word /mamlekat/ ‘kingdom, country’
was changed to the Persian word /keshvar/.
According to Badre’i (1977), and Jazayeri (1986) in 1932, a society was organized by the
Teachers’ Training College of Tehran for creating new scientific terminologies. In eight and
a half years of existence, this society produced about 3,000 new words, of which many were
adopted and used in school texts. Some of these new words were: /tapesh/ for ‘pulsation’, /
geravesh/ for ‘gravitation’ and /peyvaste/ for ‘continuous’.
As a result of the growing pressure from nationalist army officers, bureaucrats and intellec-
tuals who were “Persianizing” the language at will, the prime minister, Foroughi, approached
Reza Shah and expressed the need to establish an academy to uniformly modernize the lan-
guage.3 Reza Shah, already aware of the creation of language academies in Turkey and Egypt
as early as 1932, accepted.4 Already the ministry of education had formed the Medical Acad-
emy (Akademi-ye Tebbi) to produce medical terms.5 The word /farhangestan/ as an equivalent
for ‘academy’ was a creation of this Academy. After a few meetings, however, the Academy
was dissolved, and all language planning activities were handed over to the Farhangestan-e
Iran6 (referred to in this chapter as the First Academy) which was established on May 19,
1935. The Shah tasked Foroughi to create an academy to standardize word creation. Foroughi
was also appointed as head of the Academy.
At this time, the elite who had a say into what was called for in language reform and how
it should be attempted fell into three main groups: 1) those who wanted to rid the language
of Arabic elements and bring in pre-Islamic Persian words, foremost among them Reza Shah
himself, 2) those who did not see any problem with the Arabic elements in Persian and wanted
to keep them, amongst these were the clergy and the religious set and 3) the middle camp,
those who opposed the presence of so many Arabic words in Persian but who also felt an
attachment to the classical Persian which had borrowed from Arabic, among which was the
prime minister Foroughi.7
Due to the conflict between these groups, especially between the first and last, the Farhang-
estan was deemed anti-purist and Foroughi was dismissed from his posts as prime minister
and the president of Academy on December 2, 1935. Another reason for Foroughi’s forced
resignation was Reza Shah’s impatience at the slow pace of the purification campaign8 and
the passive resistance of some of the scholars in the Academy who “deliberately suggested
awkward and clumsy Persian roots in order to underline the fallacy of making too rapid and
too sweeping changes”.9
In its first years of existence between 1935 and 1941, the first Persian Academy produced
many new words. It also changed a significant number of place names, from Arabic and Turk-
ish to Persian.10 Many of the new words manufactured and approved by the Academy were
adopted by the public (/afsar/11 “crown or tiara” for ‘officer’), but there were also many new
words and names that were never adopted (/kankāshestān/12 = ‘parliament’, from /kankāsh/
‘burrow, search, dig, look for’ and the suffix for country /-estān/ for the originally Arabic /
majles/).

633
 Ramin Sarraf

Immediately after Reza Shah’s abdication, the Academy found itself on the defensive and
its products were openly ridiculed and criticized. Eventually, the Ministry of Education pub-
lished an order abandoning the new mathematical words approved by the Academy which had
been used in schoolbooks.

29.3.2 The Second Persian Academy

In 1970, Farhangestan-e Zaban-e-Iran (Iranian Academy of Language, here referred to as the
Second Academy), was established and was active under the presidency of Dr. Sadeq Kia until
1979. According to Jazayeri (1983), its methodology seemed to be an improvement over the
first, it was more serious and better organized, its members were in general better qualified,
many of them honestly believed in what they were doing (contrary to the first Academy), and
its membership was larger and its appeal to public was expanded. It saw its main task as the
provision of necessary technical terminology and tried a more democratic approach to the
problem: The Academy’s word selection committee published a series of glossaries of techni-
cal terms in English with proposed Persian equivalents, under the heading pishnehad-e shoma
chist? (What is your suggestion?).
According to Rubin (1979), the Academy operated under the supervision of the Admin-
istrative and Coordinating Council of the Imperial Foundation of Iranian Academies, which
was headed by the Minister of Culture and Arts. Its goals were set out as: 1) to preserve the
Persian language at its longstanding cultural level, and keep it up-to-date to meet modern
scientific, technical and cultural needs; 2) to investigate and study old and modern Iranian
languages and dialects to facilitate the solution of linguistic problems and to enrich and expand
Persian vocabulary. The Academy consisted of a Supreme Council and nine Research Depart-
ments: Word Selection, Old and Middle Iranian Languages, Iranian Dialectology, Grammar
and Orthography of the Persian Language, Contacts between Persian and other Iranian Lan-
guages and Dialects and non-Iranian Languages, Technical Terms relating to Arts and Crafts,
The Colloquial Variants of the Persian Language, and Iranian Proper Names. It also had a
Library, Phonetic Laboratory, Secretariat, and Computer Services Department. Its professional
staff numbered 38 full-time, 38 part-time, 59 full-time support staff. Also, about 220 scien-
tists cooperated with the Academy. Its periodical was The Journal of the Iranian Academy of
Language.
Jazayeri (1983) also states that one of the products of language reform in Iran (and this
Academy) was confusion, and the reason for that was “the unwillingness of the many people
involved to work with others, or to accept terms introduced by others.” This is not documented
in the First or Third Academies; however, in a separate study on the Hebrew Academy’s word
selection procedures and problems, similarities are documented (Rubin et al. 1977). Jazayeri
(1983) predicts that the new government in Iran will not be supportive of language purifica-
tion; times have shown this to be untrue.

29.3.3 The Third Persian Academy13

In 1991, almost 13 years after the termination of the Second Academy, and under a longer title,
the Academy for Persian Language and Literature of the Islamic Republic of Iran (The Third
Academy) was founded. Its charter was ratified by the Supreme Council for Cultural Revolu-
tion, which specifies one of the duties of the Academy as word selection. Under Paragraphs 2
and 3 of Article 2 of The Academy’s Charter, it is called on “to establish units for word mak-
ing and selection and organize similar units in universities and other cultural and scientific

634
 Neologisms in teaching Persian

institutes, and to coordinate their operation through providing expertise” and “to oversee word
making and equivalent selection in translating from other languages into Persian language,
and establishing the necessary criteria for safeguarding and fortifying the health of the Persian
Language in the face of new expressions and ideas.”
Even though the current Academy is structurally more or less the same as the previous
(Second) Academy and enjoys the facilities of its predecessor, its goals have changed.
The words targeted by the Third Academy are mostly Western words. This is not sur-
prising to many including Jazayeri (1983), who thought this would happen. However,
it should be remembered that the raison d’etre for the first Academy was the massive
infusion of European military terminology, and that purifying the Persian language from
Arabic elements, and the prestige of actually having an Academy were secondary reasons
for its establishment. Similarly, as the Third Academy acknowledges, after 13 years of
inactivity on one hand and great advancements of technology on the other, if something
was not done, then the Iranians could kiss their language good-bye. As it is, today every
term that deals with the computer industry is being used and understood by the special-
ists and to some extent average people, such terms were among the first to be targeted
by the Academy.14
The methodology that this Academy engaged in was to begin with the corpus method and
find a list of foreign words and their frequency as they appeared in the media. Then the Word
Selection Committee debated each word as to whether or not it needed to be replaced, left as
is, or leave the decision to a specialized (e.g. scientific) committee. Then and only then, the
words that needed to be replaced were issued an ID (rather a dossier) in which all necessary
information was entered. This included the Persian form, the English form, the meaning(s),
usage(s), part of speech, and examples of usage in Persian.
In the dossier, etymological information on the item, in the source language, together with
explanations, meanings, etc. from several different dictionaries, sometimes even different lan-
guages, such as English, French and German was entered. Also, by looking at Arabic and Urdu
dictionaries, information on how these two languages had solved their problems in regard to
the item was extracted and included. Recently, experiences from the Persian speakers in Tajik-
istan and also the Second Academy have been included. Also included were the equivalents
listed for each word in English/Persian, Persian/Persian dictionaries and books translated from
European languages into Persian. Everything was then entered into the Academy’s computer
database.
Members, who had been given the dossiers for each term in advance, would then meet and
discuss the suggested terms coming from both outside the Academy and from the members,
and arrive at a decision regarding which term would be henceforth used.
The current Academy, having studied the outcome of the previous two Academies, is con-
vinced that the Persian words selected for foreign terms by the Terminology Department,
before any ratification should be announced to the public in general, and to the specialists
in particular, to solicit input. The words are distributed by the media as a whole and by the
Academy’s Newsletter (khabarname-ye farhangestan) specifically and the public is asked for
their views, suggestions and input. A 24-hour answering machine is connected to one of the
Academy’s phone lines for this specific purpose. For each word, the consideration phase is
six months. During this time, the public input is gathered, and the results are sent to the Ter-
minology Department, who reviews the suggestions and then the final candidates are put on
the agenda for the Academy Council’s ratification. The council votes on the final item, and the
final list is sent to the I. R. Iran President, after whose approval it is distributed to the govern-
ment institutes and organizations.

635
 Ramin Sarraf

29.3.4 Comparison of the three academies

In the area of duties, all three Persian Academies had been assigned to compile a dictionary; so
far none has appeared. Perry (1985), on evaluating the two early Academies, calls their actions
“insipid” as they were not able to bring about radical changes expected of language planning
institutes, among them the compilation of the Academy’s own dictionary. As to how successful
the Iranian Language Academies have been, Perry (1985) says:

In Farhangestan, individual members were certainly competent and diligent scholars,

but the glossaries they produced were not widely distributed, public feedback was
not actively sought, and the collection and analysis of lexical material was the spo-
radic work of individuals or small committees. The endeavor was not coordinated
with any educational or literacy campaigns and no dictionary was published.

It should be noted that Perry is referring to the first two Academies. Second, “literacy cam-
paigns” were not necessary in Iran, due to the number of people who were already literate.
Furthermore, since no changes in the script took place, like that of Turkey, there would be no
need to engage in such campaigns. The reason none of the academies have so far seriously
considered the dictionary project could be due to the fact that several authoritative dictionaries
exist in Iran, among them: Loghat Name-ye Dehkhoda15 and Moin Persian Dictionary. Finally,
as Perry (1985) puts it:

It is the spirit of an age of discovery, reappraisal, and popularization that periodically

prompts the speakers of any language to revive dormant morphology in an effort to
understand what they are talking about instead of merely parroting the past.

It seems that it is also the spirit of the age that is giving a boost to the acceptance of the new
terminology produced by the current Academy.

29.4 Use of neologisms in foreign language instruction

29.4.1 Definition of neologism

According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary (merriam-webster.com), neologism is defined as:

1 : a new word, usage, or expression

2 psychology: a new word that is coined especially by a person affected with schizophrenia
and is meaningless except to the coiner, and is typically a combination of two existing
words or a shortening or distortion of an existing word

Under this definition, the Merriam Webster Dictionary, adds:

The English language is constantly picking up neologisms. Recently, for example,

computer technology has added a number of new terms to the language. “Webinar,”
“malware,” “netroots,” and “blogosphere” are just a few examples of modern-day neol-
ogisms that have been integrated into American English. The word neologism was itself
a brand-new coinage at the beginning of the 19th century, when English speakers first
borrowed it from the French nèologisme. Its roots, however, are quite old. Ultimately,

636
 Neologisms in teaching Persian

“neologism” comes from Greek neos (meaning “new”) and “logos” (meaning “word”).
(merriam-webster.com).

Per definition No. 1, a neologism can be said to be any new word, with the emphasis
on new. Therefore, both slang16 and technical words fit under this definition. The common
practices in teaching foreign languages, e.g. English, dictate the use of both slang and tech-
nical words be covered in the classroom. Some language instructors tend to shy away from
introducing slang and argot in the classroom, as one example, most Modern Standard Arabic
instructors come to mind.

29.4.2 Current research on neologism

In researching studies on Persian and neologisms, very few were found. Momeni, Raghib-
doust and Teymouri (2016) was one. This paper, however, deals with the second definition,
the one used in psychology. One other study on Persian neologisms, conducted by Meg-
erdoomian and Hadjarian (2010), deals with the usage of neologisms in the blogosphere.
Megerdoomian and Hadjarian (2010) state that “[t]he exponential growth of the Persian blo-
gosphere and the increased number of neologisms, create a major challenge in NLP applica-
tions of Persian blogs”.
The current chapter is the first in advocating on the use of neologisms in Persian language
instruction, with the language standardization/policy at its core.
Rets (2016, 813–820), in “Teaching Neologisms in English as a Foreign Language Class-
room”, states:

This article draws attention of English teachers to the increasing number of new
words or neologisms that appear in the English language. It is argued that one can
understand the culture by examining its new words, thereby neologisms should be
integrated into the vocabulary material offered to English learners.

In papers addressing neologism instruction in languages other than Persian, Kern (2017)
propagates the use of neologisms (meaning specifically slang and dialectical variations of the
standard language), to battle the effects of language standardization by the central government.
This is an innovative approach to a socio-linguistic issue in language education. Kern (2017,
26–40) states:

This paper proposes a pedagogical framework for incorporating sociolinguistic

diversity in the language classroom to counter the promotion of standard varieties. It
problematizes the standard language ideology especially as it pertains to the standard
variety of Spanish and the prestige of the Real Academia Española. It reviews current
critical pedagogical approaches to address linguistic ideologies in the Spanish herit-
age language classroom and puts them in dialogue with Kramsch’s (2006) concept of
symbolic competence and a multiliteracies approach. . . . The proposed framework
demonstrates how (socio) linguistics can contribute to pedagogy by encouraging an
approach guided by sociolinguistic sensitivity.

Therefore, it is necessary to implement neologisms into language education classroom if

not for any other reason, for covering the sociolinguistic aspect of the language and the wealth
of information that go along with each neologism. In addition to the sociolinguistic features,

637
 Ramin Sarraf

neologisms can be an effective assessment tool, and greatly benefit instructors in assessing the
language learners’ skills and expertise. Since there is a date stamp attached to each neologism
(in the case of Persian Academy terms), it can additionally serve as a valid tool for tracking
the progress of the distribution of each term in the language by creating correct assessment
tools. The fact that most of these neologisms generate ridicule and are used as the butt of
jokes (as we shall display later) further serves the language learner in understanding jokes and
references to them in humorous situations, yet another sociolinguistic aspect (a negative one)
to ponder when creating teaching material and tests. In the case of Persian language and the
neologisms coined for the purpose of language standardization, the current chapter is promot-
ing the opposite of Kern (2017); as native speakers know these terms, in order to understand
the day-to-day language, the students of the language need to have a working competency of
such terms too.
Looking purely from the standpoint of structure and function, neologisms are words
created by native speakers for use by native speakers and must follow the rules of the
language. These new words, after an introductory period, will be learned, recognized, and
eventually used by native speakers. This applies to slang, argot, technical terms and most
language policy–driven words. The only differentiating factor is the “Seal of Approval”
that some of these words receive and the rest do not, plus the stigma that some words
(slang) have attached to them. Based on linguistics and applied linguistics methodolo-
gies, the study, instruction and assessment of any language is not limited to portions of
that language, and there cannot be a discriminatory approach to language learning and
teaching. In other words, all words are equal, and politics should be checked in at the door
of the classroom. Language instruction should be free from any bias, discrimination and
prejudice. The language policy a country is implementing is mainly aimed at the children
of the country, learning to speak, read and write the “Official” form. As Baugh (1997,
33–41), in Linguistic Discrimination in Educational Contexts, states: “Many nations pro-
vide a combination of public and/or private education for (some?) children who represent
their future citizens, and many of these schools have classrooms of different sizes that also
vary considerably in their linguistic composition.” Thus, emphasizing policy driven lan-
guage instruction for the children of the country. The fact that the children are “schooled”
in the official form of the language, necessitates that foreign language learners focusing
on the language in question need to learn and master the same register of the language,
voluntarily and through non-compulsory methods. Baugh (1997) adds: “Some schools,
or classes within schools, may be linguistically homogeneous – while other schools, or
classes within them, may be dissimilar from a linguistic point of view.” What is inferred is
the fact that the linguistic diversity has no impact in the design and implementation of the
language policy, and that a “one size fits all” language instruction is enforced. Learning a
language, in this case Persian, is no different as an adult or a child, the only difference is
being obligated to learn or choosing to. The content remains the same, the method differs.

29.4.3 Neologisms as the bridge between Persian

language pedagogy and sociolinguistics
Foreign language learners need to perform at the level of the native speakers and thus need
to be instructed in a manner that facilitates this goal. In addition, regarding assessment, the
learners need to be assessed on the same footing as the educated native speakers and display
proficiency in all aspects pertaining to the language and no linguistic gaps can be allowed or
tolerated. In arguing for the value of teaching neologisms coined by an “internal authoritative

638
 Neologisms in teaching Persian

body” to foreign language learners, looking at the guidelines of the Academy for selecting
words/vocabularies can help. The guidelines following are translated from Persian as they
appeared in a 1999 publication by the Academy:

Article 1. In selecting Persian equivalents for foreign words and expressions, the
Persian word should be as much as possible close to “today’s standard Persian Lan-
guage”, which is the language in use in lectures and writings and is in use by the
educated (class) and scholars.

This article references “today’s standard Persian Language” and stresses the language in
use in lectures and writings and is in use by the educated (class) and scholars. So, the language
standardization intent is made obvious, together with the focus on elitism, which can be inter-
preted as discriminatory.

Article 2. In word selection the rules of the pure/clear/clean and current Persian
grammar should be observed.

This article focuses on the concepts: “pure/clear/clean”, which sound vague, unless one
is more or less familiar with the intent; pure Persian is the form of language that has been
“cleaned” from Arabic elements. An impossible task given the 15 centuries of Arabic influence
on Persian in terms of vocabulary, grammar and script.

Article 3. In word selection the phonetic rules of the Persian language should be
observed and selecting unmelodious and aversion causing words should be avoided.
The selected Persian word to the extent possible should be shorter than its foreign
equivalent.

This article by focusing on phonetics and prosody of the language is a step in the right
direction; however, the words created by the Academy, generally replace a foreign word with
a phrase: “‫”پاس‬, /paas/ replaced with: “‫”پذیرش ورود و خروج‬, /paziresh-e vorood va xorooj/ in
defiance of this article.
The rest of the articles, presented in the following, do not need any comment and are
self-evident.

Article 4. In choosing equivalents, words with ability to be parsed or conjugated, and

enable noun, adjective and verbs to be formed from them are preferable.
Article 5. In the selection of equivalents, the following hierarchy should be
observed:

5–1. Currently in use and familiar Persian words which have long existed in the
Persian language.
5–2. Newly formed compounds, using Persian productivity processes, and Persian
words.
5–3. Familiar and current Arabic words and expressions in the Persian language.
5–4. Newly formed compounds, using Persian productivity processes, and current
Arabic words in Persian.
5–5. Words selected from other contemporary Persian and Iranian dialects.
5–6. Words selected from Middle and Old Iranian languages.

639
 Ramin Sarraf

Article 6. In selecting the equivalent, a word whose meaning is clear and readily
comes to mind is preferred over one whose meaning is unclear and does not come to
the mind easily.
Article 7. In selecting words especially for the sciences, for any term that has
a specific meaning, preferably only one word be selected, keeping away from
synonyms.
Paragraph: For a foreign term that has different definitions in different branches
of science, selecting various equivalent words based on tradition, background and
shared knowledge of users in each field is permitted.
Article 8. Finding equivalents for those foreign words that have become universal
and international is not necessary.
Article 9. In the few cases where selection of an equivalent word fitting the cus-
tomary Persian templates is not possible, and by necessity recourse to new meth-
ods is perceived, action will be taken based on what the Academy council votes/
approves.

29.5 Conclusion
In this chapter, we covered a brief history of the Persian Academy, the socio-linguistic issues
it is intertwined with, (including language policy, language standardization and official lan-
guage), and the differing views of the applied linguistics field regarding teaching of neolo-
gisms. We went over sample lessons, exercises and assessment using the neologisms coined
by the Academy. In the Persian language, the existence of the Persian Academy, and its output
of words, with the envisioned goal of replacing “foreign” words with those of Persian origin
prove to be an untapped source that is valuable in the Advanced level Persian instruction and
assessment. To date, no study has been undertaken on the merit of these terms in language
instruction or how they can best be incorporated into language lessons and proficiency level
tests. Based on the literature review, the words created by the Academy do qualify as “authen-
tic” and can and should be included in material created for language instruction for students
engaging in foreign language instruction. To sum, here are the key reasons why it is advanta-
geous to do so:

1) The fact that authentic language instruction requires the learner to be instructed at and to
function at the same level as a native speaker.
2) Context-based and content-based language instruction similarly stipulate that the
foreign language learner be instructed via the same resources available to a native
speaker.
3) The cultural background of the neologisms made by the Academy is an important
educational tool in instructing the Culture component of the Five Skills: Listen-
ing, Speaking, Reading, Writing and Culture. The cultural aspect also informs the
satirical, joking aspects of the general population’s belief and outlook towards the
neologisms.
4) The sociolinguistics background of the neologisms is an important factor in educating
advance level students in the intricacies of the language and the ongoing language poli-
cies in the target language.
5) The diachronic aspect of the study of neologisms is important for the advanced level
student and leads to a better understanding of word formation rules in the target language

640
 Neologisms in teaching Persian

and the linguistic rules governing the language, including phonetics, phonology and
morphology.
6) The introduction of the official neologisms requires the introduction of the unofficial neol-
ogisms, namely slang and argot into the classroom. Both slang and argot are important
aspects of foreign language education at any level and more so for the advanced level.

To demonstrate how this can best be accomplished, two sample lessons and two tests have
been included in the Appendix.

641
 ‫‪Appendix‬‬
‫‪In the following sample lessons/tests, the following is strictly observed:‬‬

‫)‪1‬‬ ‫‪The language of instruction is Persian.‬‬

‫)‪2‬‬ ‫‪The texts/content chosen are all authentic; no editing or simplifying of the texts has been‬‬
‫‪attempted.‬‬
‫)‪3‬‬ ‫‪The texts/content are available online.‬‬
‫)‪4‬‬ ‫‪The translations are provided.‬‬
‫)‪5‬‬ ‫‪This type of lesson/test can be utilized in online education format in addition to in-person.‬‬
‫)‪6‬‬ ‫‪The lessons/tests can be used for both group work and individual work.‬‬
‫)‪7‬‬ ‫‪The tests can be used to assess the levels of students. As they do not cover only one level,‬‬
‫‪it is possible to glean information at the mid-low or even advanced-low levels, but the‬‬
‫‪highest score will come from advanced level students.‬‬
‫)‪8‬‬ ‫‪Reading aloud is an important aspect of the lessons/tests and class time needs to be dedi-‬‬
‫‪cated to it, as in the case of Persian, the prosodic features of juncture, pause and stress‬‬
‫‪show that the reader understands the underlying grammar rules.‬‬

‫‪Sample Lesson No. 1‬‬

‫کد خبر‪۱۱۲۷۴۸۲ :‬‬
‫اردیبهشت ‪ ۲۰۰۸:۵۹ – ۱۳۹۵‬تاریخ انتشار‬
‫سیاسی “ مجلس‬
‫با رای نمایندگان مجلس تصویب شد‪:‬‬
‫ممانعت مجلس از دو شغله بودن در دستگاه های دولتی‬
‫نمایندگان مجلس به منظور تامین نظر شورای نگهبان‪ ،‬الیحه قانونی اصالح قسمتی از قانون تجارت را اصالح و تصویب‬
‫کردند‪.‬‬
‫همچنین وکالی ملت به منظور رفع ایرادات شورای نگهبان‪ ،‬اصالحاتی در طرح تسریع در امر تخلیه و بارگیری‬
‫کشتی ها در بنادر انجام دادند‪.‬‬
‫براین اساس در انتهای بند ‪ 5‬ماده واحده این طرح ”پذیرش ورود و خروج“ جایگزین کلمه ”پاس“ شد و در بند ‪7‬‬
‫نیز عبارت ”پاسگان“ جایگزین کلمه ”گارد“ شد‪.‬‬
‫بعد از خواندن متن به سئواالت زیر پاسخ دهید‪:‬‬
‫‪ (1‬کدام گزینه صحیح است؟‬

‫در مجلس دو کلمه جدید پاس و پاسگان تصویب شدند‪.‬‬ ‫‪(1‬‬

‫دو کلمه پاس و پاسگان توسط مجلس رد شدند‪.‬‬ ‫‪(2‬‬
‫مجلس دو کلمه پاس و پاسگان را جایگزین یکدیگر شناخت‪.‬‬ ‫‪(3‬‬
‫مجلس تصویب کرد که از این پس به جای کلمه پاس از عبارت ”پذیرش ورود و خروج“ استفاده شود‪.‬‬ ‫‪(4‬‬

‫‪ (2‬جستجو در فرهنگ لغت فارسی آن الین دهخدا کلمه پاسگان را به معنی زیر نشان می دهد‪:‬‬
‫زنبورک و پاسگان‬
‫لغتنامه دهخدا‬
‫)اخ( دهی از دهستان قنوات است که در بخش مرکزی شهرستان قم واقع است‬ ‫]زم ْ َر ک ُ[ ِ‬
‫زنبورک و پاسگان‪َ .‬‬
‫و ‪100‬تن سکنه دارد‪) .‬از فرهنگ جغرافیایی ایران ج‪.(1‬‬
‫جستجو در فرهنگ لغت فارسی آن الین معین کلمه پاسگان را به معنی زیر نشان می دهد‪:‬‬
‫گارد‬
‫فرهنگ فارسی معین‬

‫‪642‬‬
 ‫‪Neologisms in teaching Persian‬‬

‫]فر‪ِ [.‬‬
‫)ا‪ (.‬گروه مسلحی که پاسداری از مکان یا مقامی را بر عهده داشته باشد یا در اجرای مراسم تشریفاتی شرکت‬
‫کند‪ ،‬پاسگان )فره(‪ ،‬محافظ ‪ ،‬نگهبان‪.‬‬
‫به نظر شما تعریف کدام فرهنگ به کلمه پاسگان در متن می خورد؟‬
‫‪ (2‬دو ستون زیر را باهم تطبیق دهید و معادلهای هر کلمه را در ستون مقابل مشخص کنید‪:‬‬

‫)‪a‬‬ ‫‪Guardian/protector‬‬ ‫پاس‬ ‫‪(1‬‬

‫)‪b‬‬ ‫‪Head guard/police officer‬‬ ‫پاسبان‬ ‫‪(2‬‬
‫)‪c‬‬ ‫‪Officer of the guard‬‬ ‫پاسبخش‬ ‫‪(3‬‬
‫)‪d‬‬ ‫‪Police station‬‬ ‫پاسدار‬ ‫‪(4‬‬
‫)‪e‬‬ ‫‪Policeman‬‬ ‫پاسگاه‬ ‫‪(5‬‬
‫)‪f‬‬ ‫‪Portion of night‬‬ ‫پاسی از شب‬ ‫‪(6‬‬
‫)‪g‬‬ ‫)‪Shift (guard‬‬ ‫سپاس‬ ‫‪(7‬‬
‫)‪h‬‬ ‫!‪Thanks‬‬ ‫سرپاس‬ ‫‪(8‬‬

‫به نظر شما معنی پاس درکلمات فوق چیست؟‬

‫الف( تشکر‬
‫ب( نگهبانی‬
‫ج( وقت‬
‫د( احترام‬
‫ه( اصطالح ورزشی است‬

‫در فرهنگ فارسی متوسط معین ‪ ،‬ذیل پاس چنین آمده‪:‬‬

‫‪ (4‬پس از خواندن این مداخل آیا جوابتان را عوض می کنید؟ چرا؟‬
‫کلمه ”پاسگان“ را بلند بخوانید‪ ،‬چند جور میتوان این واژه را تلفظ کرد؟‬
‫‪ (5‬متن را به انگلیسی ترجمه کنید‪:‬‬

‫‪” (/paas/) as defined in Mohammad Moin’s Persian dictionary.‬پاس“ ‪Figure 29.1 The word‬‬

‫‪643‬‬
 ‫‪Ramin Sarraf‬‬

‫‪The nation’s lawyers also made reforms to expedite the discharge and loading of ships to‬‬
‫‪ports to address the defects of the Guardian Council.‬‬
‫‪Accordingly, the word “pass” was replaced by “acceptance of entrance and exit” at the end‬‬
‫‪of paragraph 5 of unit one of this plan, and in paragraph 7 the word “pasgan” replaced the word‬‬
‫‪“guard”.‬‬
‫‪ (6‬به نظر شما کلمه جان پاس یعنی چه؟‬

‫)‪1‬‬ ‫‪life guard‬‬

‫)‪2‬‬ ‫‪body guard‬‬
‫)‪3‬‬ ‫‪dear guard‬‬
‫)‪4‬‬ ‫!)‪John, pass (the ball‬‬
‫در اینترنت جستجو کرده و معنی جان پاس را پیدا کنید‪.‬‬ ‫‪(7‬‬

‫‪www.vajehyab.com‬‬
‫جانپاس ‪bodyguard‬‬
‫مصوب فرهنگستان ]عمومی[ محافظ شخصی )‪guard, garde (fr.‬‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫وا ژههای‬
‫‪ (8‬پاسخ خود را به سئوال ‪ 6‬مرور کنید‪ .‬آیا پاسختان تغییر کرد؟ چرا؟‬
‫اجزای کلمه پاسگان را مشخص کنید‪:‬‬
‫الف( پا ‪ +‬سگ ‪ +‬ان‬
‫ب( پاس ‪ +‬گ ‪ +‬ان‬
‫ج( پاس ‪ +‬گان‬
‫د( پا ‪ +‬سگان‬

‫دلیل انتخاب خود را توضیح دهید‪.‬‬

‫‪Sample Lesson No. 2‬‬
‫کد خبر ‪۳۳۸۳۱۳‬‬
‫‪ May 2014‬تاریخ انتشار‪ ۸ – ۱۰:۴۹ :‬خرداد ‪29 – ۱۳۹۳‬‬
‫صفحه نخست “ اجتماعی‬
‫پپ‬
‫مسألهای به نام پارکومتر!‬
‫پارکومتر‪ ،‬ایست سنج‪ ،‬توقف سنج؛ نامش را هرچه مي خواهید بگذارید‪ .‬این وسیله زرد رنگي که کنار خیابان ها‬
‫سبز شده و قرار است نقش پارکبان ها را براي ما بازي کند این روزها براي خودش ماجراهایي پیدا کرده‪ .‬چطور باید‬
‫از آن استفاده کرد؟ چرا برخي پارکومترها در محل دید تعبیه نشده اند و همین موضوع سبب جریمه هاي ‪۲۰‬‬
‫هزارتوماني بي شماري براي رانندگان شده؟ چرا با وجود شارژ کردن این وسیله باز هم رانندگان جریمه مي شوند؟‬
‫چرا ماموران راهنمایي و رانندگي بدون توجه به خرابي هاي احتمالي یا در دیدن نبودن آن باز هم براي رانندگان‬
‫جریمه صادر مي کنند؟‬

‫‪ (1‬متن را بسرعت مرور کنید و تعداد وام واژه ها را مشخص کنید‪:‬‬

‫الف(‬ ‫‪1‬‬
‫ب(‬ ‫‪2‬‬
‫ج(‬ ‫‪3‬‬
‫د(‬ ‫‪5‬‬
‫کلمه شارژ را در متن پیدا کنید‪ ،‬معنی آن را حدس بزنید‪:‬‬ ‫‪(2‬‬
‫الف( ‪charge‬‬
‫ب( ‪pay‬‬
‫ج( ‪park‬‬
‫د( ‪fine‬‬

‫‪644‬‬
 Neologisms in teaching Persian

‫بنظر شما کلمه پارکومتر یعنی چه؟‬ (3

parking meter (‫الف‬
parkometer (‫ب‬
parking attendant (‫ج‬
meter maid (‫د‬
‫به نظر شما کلمه پارکومتر از چه زبانی قرض گرفته شده؟‬ (4
‫الف( انگلیسی‬
‫ب( آلمانی‬
‫ج( فرانسوی‬
‫د( روسی‬
:‫کلمات زیر را بلند بخوانید و اعراب گذاری کنید‬ (5

‫پارکومتر‬
‫ایست سنج‬
‫توقف سنج‬
‫پارکبان‬
‫تعبیه‬
‫شارژ کردن‬
parcomètre
Parkometer, stand-meter, stop-meter; call it whatever you want. This yellow-colored device
that has grown on the streets and is set to play the role of parking attendants for us has its own
stories these days. How to use it? Why aren’t some parkometers installed in visible locations,
and this has resulted in countless 20,000 Toman fines for drivers? Why are drivers still fined
after paying this device? Why do police officers still impose fines on drivers, regardless of
being out of commission or out of sight?

Sample Test No. 1

‫علیه پدیده زورافزایی “دوپینگ” مبارزه میکنیم‬:‫فدراسیون دوومیدانی ترکیه‬
‫ برای جلوگیری از آسیبهای‬٬‫رئیس فدراسیون دو و میدانی ترکیه اعالم کرد با همکاری دیگر سازمانهای کشور‬
.‫علیه پدیده زورافزایی ”دوپینگ“ مبارزه میکنیم‬٬‫ورزشی‬
‫خبرگزاری آناتولی‬/‫آنتالیا‬
‫ با همکاری وزارت‬:‫ رئیس فدراسیون دوومیدانی ترکیه در مصاحبه با خبرنگار آناتولی گفت‬٬‫فاتح چینتیمار‬
‫ وی با اشاره ممنوعیت دو‬.‫ورزش و جوانان و اداره کل جوانان و ورزش علیه پدیده زورافزایی مبارزه میکنیم‬
‫ ”پس از این به هیچ وجه ورزشکارانی‬:‫ تاكید كرد‬،‫ساله الوان آبیلگس دونده ترکیه از فعالیت به دلیل انجام دوپینگ‬
‫ دوومیدانی مادر رشتههای‬.‫ هدف ما گسترش ورزش پاک است‬.‫که اقدام به دوپینگ می کنند را تحمل نخواهیم کرد‬
‫ سازمان جهانی مبارزه با‬:‫ چین تیمار در پایان اظهار داشت‬.“‫ مادران باید پاک و نظیف باشند‬.‫ورزشی است‬
‫دوپینگ و اتحادیه بینالمللی فدراسیونهای دوومیدانی که با این پدیده مبارزه میکنند از ابتکار فدراسیون ترکیه‬
.‫تشكر و قدردانی کرده اند‬

Fateh Chin Timar, the director of the Field and Track Federation of Turkey, in an interview
with the Anatoli reporter said: “In cooperation with the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs
and the Directorate General of Youth and Sport, we are fighting against doping.” Referring to
the two-year ban on Turkish runner Alwan Abilges for doping, he stressed: “From now on,
we will not tolerate doping by athletes at all. Our goal is to develop clean sports. Track and
Field is the mother of all sports, Mothers must be clean and pure.” Chin Timar, in conclusion

645
 ‫‪Ramin Sarraf‬‬

‫‪stated: the World Organization Against Doping and the International Union of Track and‬‬
‫‪Field Federations, who are also battling this phenomenon, have expressed their gratitude for‬‬
‫‪the initiative taken by the Turkish Federation.‬‬

‫جمالت زیر را مرتب کنید‪:‬‬ ‫‪(1‬‬

‫الف( فدراسیون رئیس ترکیه دوومیدانی با همکاری گفت وزارت و جوانان ورزش و کل اداره ورزش جوانان و‬
‫علیه پدیده زورافزایی میکنیم مبارزه ‪.‬‬
‫ب( ممنوعیت ترکیه وی با اشاره دونده فعالیت دو ساله از دلیل به انجام تاكید دوپینگ‪ ،‬كرد‬
‫ج( ” ورزشکارانی کرد پس از این به وجه هیچ که به دوپینگ اقدام تحمل می کنند را نخواهیم‪ .‬هدف گسترش ما‬
‫”ورزش است پاک‪ .‬مادر دوومیدانی است رشتههای ورزشی‪ .‬پاک مادران باید نظیف و باشند ‪.‬‬
‫د( سازمان مبارزه دوپینگ جهانی با اتحادیه و بینالمللی دوومیدانی فدراسیونهای که با پدیده این میکنند مبارزه‬
‫ابتکار از قدردانی فدراسیون تشكر ترکیه و کرده اند ‪.‬‬

‫کلمه دوپینگ را در متن زیر پیدا کنید و دور آن خط بکشید‪ .‬چند بار این کلمه در متن استفاده شده است؟‬ ‫‪(2‬‬

‫آنتالیا‪/‬خبرگزاری آناتولی‬
‫فاتح چینتیمار‪ ٬‬رئیس فدراسیون دوومیدانی ترکیه در مصاحبه با خبرنگار آناتولی گفت‪ :‬با همکاری وزارت‬
‫ورزش و جوانان و اداره کل جوانان و ورزش علیه پدیده زورافزایی مبارزه میکنیم‪ .‬وی با اشاره ممنوعیت دو ساله‬
‫الوان آبیلگس دونده ترکیه از فعالیت به دلیل انجام دوپینگ‪ ،‬تاكید كرد‪” :‬پس از این به هیچ وجه ورزشکارانی که اقدام‬
‫به دوپینگ می کنند را تحمل نخواهیم کرد‪ .‬هدف ما گسترش ورزش پاک است‪ .‬دوومیدانی مادر رشتههای ورزشی‬
‫است‪ .‬مادران باید پاک و نظیف باشند“‪ .‬چین تیمار در پایان اظهار داشت‪ :‬سازمان جهانی مبارزه با دوپینگ و اتحادیه‬
‫بینالمللی فدراسیونهای دوومیدانی که با این پدیده مبارزه میکنند از ابتکار فدراسیون ترکیه تشكر و قدردانی کرده اند‪.‬‬

‫در متن کلمه معادلی برای دوپینگ استفاده شده است‪ ،‬این کلمه چیست؟ زورافزایی‬ ‫‪(3‬‬
‫کلمه زور افزایی را به عوامل سازنده اش تجزیه کنید و هریک را به فارسی معنی کنید‪.‬‬ ‫‪(4‬‬
‫زور‪+‬افزا‪+‬یی‬
‫نیرو‪+‬بیشتر‪ +‬پسوند اسم‪/‬صفت ساز‬
‫متن را به انگلیسی بخوانید و معادل کلمه های زیر را در متن فارسی مشخص کنید‪:‬‬ ‫‪(5‬‬

‫‪In cooperation with the Ministry of Sport and Youth Affairs and the Directorate General‬‬
‫‪of Youth and Sport, we are fighting against doping, said Fateh Chinimara, president of the‬‬
‫‪Turkish Athletics Federation. Referring to the two-year ban on Turkish runner Alwan Abilges‬‬
‫‪for doping, he stressed: “After this we will not tolerate doping athletes at all. Our goal is to‬‬
‫‪develop clean sports. Mothers must be clean and clean.” China’s Treasury said at the end: the‬‬
‫‪World Organization Against Doping and the International Union of Runner-up Federations are‬‬
‫‪grateful for the initiative of the Turkish Federation.‬‬

‫‪Federation‬‬
‫‪Field and track‬‬
‫‪Athlete‬‬
‫‪World Organization‬‬
‫‪Initiative‬‬
‫‪Ban‬‬
‫‪Phenomenon‬‬
‫‪against‬‬

‫‪646‬‬
 ‫‪Neologisms in teaching Persian‬‬

‫‪” (doping) and its definition.‬زورافزایی“ ‪Figure 29.2 Screenshot of webpage showing the neologism‬‬

‫‪Sample Test No. 2‬‬

‫متن زیر را که خبری در مورد کلیپ ویدئویی باالست بخوانید و به سئواالت پس از متن پاسخ دهید‪.‬‬
‫واکنش به شوخی با فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی‪ /‬برای کسب شهرت دروغهای شاخدار میگویند‬
‫تسنیم نوشت‪ :‬عضو فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی توضیحاتی درباره شایعات منتشر شده در فضای مجازی‬
‫درباره معادل فرهنگستان ارائه داد‪.‬‬
‫در سالهای اخیر هرگاه سخن از فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی به میان میآید‪ ،‬بخشی از آن به مصوبات‬
‫فرهنگستان برای واژگان بیگانه اختصاص دارد‪ .‬در این میان‪ ،‬برخی معتقدند که مصوبات فرهنگستان زبان و ادب‬
‫فارسی نتوانسته در سالهای گذشته در میان عموم رایج شود و تنها چند نمونه موفق در این زمینه وجود دارد که‬
‫انگشتشمار است‪ .‬این عده‪ ،‬عمدتا ً مثالهایی را مطرح میکنند که فرهنگستان بارها اعالم کرده که این واژگان از‬
‫سوی فرهنگستان اعالم نشده و جعلی است ‪.‬‬
‫چندی پیش نیز ویدیویی در فضای مجازی با تمسخر به برخی از همین کلمات جعلی منتشر شد‪ .‬محمدرضا‬
‫ترکی‪ ،‬دانشیار گروه زبان و ادب فارسی و عضو وابسته فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی‪ ،‬با انتشار یادداشتی کوتاه به‬
‫توضیحاتی درباره این قبیل کلمات و اقدامات اخیر پرداخته که در ادامه میآید ‪:‬‬
‫در حاشیه باالبر‪ ،‬خویشانداز‪ ،‬درازآویز زینتی و ‪! . . .‬‬
‫جوانکی جاهل در یک ویدیو برابرنهادهای فرهنگستان به جای واژههای فرنگی را با لحنی مستهجن به ریشخند‬
‫گرفته که چرا فرهنگستان به جای آسانسور ”باالبر“ و به جای سلفی ”خویشانداز“ و به جای کراوات ”درازآویز‬
‫زینتی“ و به جای تبلت ”رایانک مالشی “ و ‪ . . .‬را تصویب و پیشنهاد کرده است !‬
‫آدم جاهلتری هم در پای این ویدیو نوشته‪” :‬فالنی فرهنگستان را با این سخنان پودر کرده)!( “ و آن را در فضای‬
‫مجازی منتشر کرده است!‬
‫توجه به فضای عوامزدۀ مجازی این لودگی‪ ،‬مثل موارد مشابه قبلی‪ ،‬میلیونها بیننده و الیککننده هم داشته است‬ ‫با ّ‬
‫مصوب و پیشنهاد فرهنگستان‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫و همچنان دست به دست میشود! این در حالی است که هیچیک از این اصطالحات‬
‫نیستند و بارها و بارها ارتباط چنین تعبیراتی با فرهنگستان تکذیب شده است‪ .‬مراجعه به وبگاه این مرکز علمی هم‬
‫همین نکته را ثابت میکند ‪.‬‬
‫عدهای برای لودگی و کسب شهرت یا رسیدن به اهداف خاص پروایی از گفتن دروغهای شاخدار و جعل‬ ‫ظاهرا ً ّ‬

‫‪647‬‬
 Ramin Sarraf

!‫اصطالحات بیربط ندارند‬

‫ بعضیها‬.‫در عنوان خبر فاعل جمله را مشخص کنید‬ (1

‫خیر‬/‫ بله‬.‫ آنچه در ویدئو گفته شده همه دروغ است‬،‫طبق عنوان‬ (2
‫مرجع خبر چیست؟ تسنیم‬ (3
‫در خبر از چه کسی نقل قول شده است؟ محمد رضا ترکی‬ (4
‫این شخص چه رتبه ای دارد؟ دانشیار گروه زبان و ادب فارسی‬ (5
‫این شخص عضو کجاست؟ فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی‬ (6
‫ این شخص ادعا می کند که کلمات نقل شده در ویدئو و منصوب به فرهنگستان هیچ کدام برابر‬،‫طبق متن‬ (7
‫غلط‬/‫ درست‬.‫نهاد فرهنگستان نیست‬
‫کلمه باالبر‬ (8

Notes
1) Two examples are at hand:
a) E’atemad us-Saltane (1840–96), Naser ed-Din Shah’s minister of publications, expressed his
opposition to importation of new foreign words. He wrote:
 “I lament that our present Persian language has mixed with foreign languages. There is no
Academy in Asian countries that could rectify this problem so that we could have thirty to forty
thousand new! Persian words in our hands and then we did not have the need to use non-Persian
words in speaking and writing.” See E’temad-us-Saltane (1985).
b) In 1978 the President of the Academy is quoted as having said that the language needs one mil-
lion new words! (Perry 1985). Given the times the numbers seem enormous.
2) Kia (1998) writes:
One early Iranian writer who glorified Iran’s pre-Islamic history and called for a complete puri-
fication of Persian from all Arabic words and terminologies was the Qajar prince, Jalal od-Din
Mirza (1832–71). The prince denounced the influence of the Arabic language and called on Irani-
ans to read and study their history as an independent and ancient people. In order to demonstrate
the ability of the Persian language to purge itself from Arabic words, Jalal od-Din Mirza wrote
in a simple Persian free from Arabic words (i.e. Farsi-ye Sare).
It is interesting that his life was so short, especially among the Qajar dynasty, where one king alone
ruled for fifty years and in the end was assassinated!
3) Badre’i (1977).
4) Badre’i (1977).
5) Badre’i (1977).
6) Badre’i (1977).
7) Wilber (1975)
8) As Perry (1985) notes, the Persianization of the army jargon was brought about very fast, this could
be one of the factors that Reza Shah became impatient with the Academy. He might not have fully
understood the difference between Army personnel, who are used to obeying orders without ques-
tioning them, and the population in general.
9) Wilber (1975).
10) For example, Qarajedagh was changed to Arasbaran, Soltanabad to Arak, Salehabad to Andimeshk
and, Mohammareh to Khorramshahr. As for rivers, Qizil Ozan was changed to Sefidrud and Qara
Ayni to Sia Cheshmeh. See Kia (1998)
11) Perry (1985)
12) Perry (1985).
13) Most of the materials in this and other sections that deal with the Third Academy have been trans-
lated by this author from the “Approved General Terms-1 and 2, Academy of the Persian language
and literature, Terminology Department (1999, 2000).
14) The word /rāyāne/ has been taken from the stem of: /rāyānīdan/ meaning: to analyze, evaluate, com-
pare, order, arrange, organize and the Persian concrete noun maker suffix /-e/, which was actually
one of the creations of the Second Academy, is accepted and used.

648
 Neologisms in teaching Persian

15) This dictionary enjoys its own organization, sponsored by the government (both before and after
the revolution) and can be said to be official. However, the most used dictionary is Moin, due to its
more manageable volumes, (6 as opposed to about 50 for Dehkhoda) and price. Both the Moin and
Dehkhoda have online versions which are pirated and truncated, hence inauthentic, users for whom
authenticity is important will do better using the hardcopy of these dictionaries.
16) For a detailed list of Persian slang words, refer to:
1) Designing a Persian Slang Dictionary. By Sarraf, Ramin. (2008). PhD dissertation, The Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin.
2) Persian Slang Dictionary. By Sarraf, Ramin. (in progress). Hyattsville, MD: JTC Press.

References
Badre’i, F. 1977. Gozareshi darbare-ye farhangestan-e iran, (A report on the Iranian Academy). The
Language Academy of Iran Publications, No. 16.
Baugh, J. 1997. “Linguistic Discrimination in Educational Contexts.” In Encyclopedia of Language and
Education, Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dabir- Moghaddam, M. 2018. “Academy of Persian Language and Literature.” In The Oxford Handbook
of Persian Linguistics, edited by A. Sedighi and P. Shabani-Jadidi, 318–328. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
E’temad-us-Saltane, M.H. 1985. Tatbiq-e loqt-e joghrafia-ye qadim va jaded-e iran [Comparison of the
Old and New Geographical Terminology of Iran]. Edited by M.H. Mohades. Tehran: Amir Kabir
Publications.
Jazayeri, M.A. 1979. Farhangestan- La Academia Irania de la Lengua. Mexico City: Universidad
Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
Jazayeri, M.A. 1983 “The Modernization of Persian Vocabulary and Language Reform in Iran.” Lan-
guage Reform: History and Future II, edited by I. Fodor and C. Hagège, 241–267. Hamburg:
Buske.
Jazayeri, M.A. 1986. “Madjma’ ilmi’ (Scientific Society).” In The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. V. Leiden,
Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers.
Kamshad, H. 1966. Modern Persian Prose Literature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kern, J. 2017. “Framework for Incorporating Sociolinguistic Diversity.” Arizona Working Papers in
Second Language Acquisition and Teaching.
Kia, M. April 1998. “Persian Nationalism and the Campaign for Language Purification.” Middle Eastern
Studies Journal, 34(2).
Kramsch, C. 2006. “From Communicative Competence to Symbolic Competence.” The Modern Lan-
guage Journal, 90: 249–252. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00395_3.x.
Megerdoomian, K., and A. Hadjarian. 2010. “Mining and Classification of Neologisms in Persian Blogs.”
Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Second Workshop on Computational Approaches to Linguistic
Creativity. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Meskoob, S. 1992. Iranian Nationality and the Persian Language. Translated by M.C. Hillmann, edited
by John R. Perry. Washington, DC: Mage Publishers.
Momeni, F., S. Raghibdoust, and R. Teymouri. 2016. “The Nature and Function of Neologism in the
Speech of Three Persian-Speaking Groups.” International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(5). Cana-
dian Center of Science and Education.
Neologism. 2019. “Merriam-Webster.com.” Accessed October 14, 2019. https://www.merriam-webster.
com/dictionary/neologism
Perry, J.R. August 1985. “Language Reform in Turkey and Iran.” International Journal of Middle East
Studies, 17.
Rets, I. 2016. “Teaching Neologisms in English as a Foreign Language Classroom.” Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 232: 813–820. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.110.
Rubin, J. 1979. Directory of Language Planning Organizations. Honolulu, HI: East-West Culture Learn-
ing Institute, East-West Center.
Rubin, J., et al. 1977. Language Planning Processes. Cambridge: Mouton Publishers.
Sarraf, R. 2001. The Seal of Approval. Qualifying Paper, The University of Texas at Austin.
Sarraf, R. 2008. Designing a Persian Slang Dictionary. PhD Dissertation, The University of Texas at
Austin. Accessed. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/18371.

649
 Ramin Sarraf

Sarraf, R. 2012. “A Survey of Linguistic Factors Impacting the Creation of New Words and Phrases in
Contemporary Persian.” Accessed. https://iranian-studies.stanford.edu/events/iranian-studies-lecture-
series-10.
Sarraf, R. To appear. Persian Slang Dictionary. Hyattsville, MD: JTC Press.
Wilber, D.N. 1975. Riza Shah Pahlavi: The Resurrection and Reconstitution of Iran. Costa Mesa, CA:
Mazda Publishers.

650
 INDEX

Note: Page numbers in italic indicate a figure and page numbers in bold indicate a table on the
­corresponding page.

Abasi, Ali Reza xxi, 3 acquisition, vocabulary 183 – 186, 215 – 216;

academia: raising levels of proficiency in mini-lesson #1 186 – 188; mini-lesson #2
322 – 326 188 – 189; mini-lesson #3 190 – 192; mini-
academies: comparison of three academies lesson #4 192 – 193; mini-lesson #5 193 – 195;
636; the first Persian academy 632 – 634; the mini-lesson #6 196; mini-lesson #7 196 – 200;
second Persian academy 634; the third Persian mini-lesson #8 200 – 204; mini-lesson
academy 634 – 635 #9 204 – 206; mini-lesson #10 207 – 209;
accessible language 397 – 400 mini-lesson #11 209 – 211; mini-lesson #12
accuracy scores 62, 62, 81, 83, 86, 88 211 – 213; mini-lesson #13 213 – 215
acquisition 524 – 525, 539 – 540, 540; analyzing the activity table 404 – 406
textbooks in terms of conversational implicature adjectives 559 – 560; adjective+verb 230
and presupposition 538 – 539, 539; English administration: SAMFA 446 – 448
even 147 – 150; feature mapping 175 – 176; adverb 230
feature reassembly 176 – 177; future directions Africa: institutes administered by MSRT in 499;
540 – 541; and generative grammar 107 – 109; universities in 513
interpretation of questions about conversational age 583, 584, 598, 598
implicature and presupposition 529 – 538; agentive nouns 69 – 70, 70
methodology 19 – 22, 21; monolingual 107; agreement 80 – 81
negation 109 – 111; Persian hattā, ham, hattā Akbari, Nahal xxi, 3 – 4
-ham 150 – 158; of Persian negative progressive Alizadeh, Yass xxi, 3
tenses 111 – 117; politeness and phonetic Arabic 478
features 17 – 19; previous research in Persian areas of need 323 – 326
L2 pragmatics 527 – 528; previous studies on argument structure 76; preposition
Persian L2 phonological acquisition 10 – 16, subcategorization subtest of 86
12, 14; research methodology 528 – 529, 529; Armenian 478
of segmental and suprasegmental features Asia: institutes administered by MSRT in 499;
9, 16 – 17, 22 – 28, 23 – 26; of the semantics universities in 512
of focus-sensitive operators 147, 163 – 175, aspect 560 – 563; aspectual oppositions 102
177 – 178; theoretical issues 525 – 527; theories assessment 395 – 397; assessing speaking
of second language acquisition 158 – 163, 162; 271 – 273; basic principles and ongoing
see also acquisition, phonological; acquisition, conversations in 458 – 459; in the classroom
vocabulary 463 – 464; and Communicative Language
acquisition, phonological 2, 9, 28, 38, 41; Teaching 457 – 458; computer-assisted
previous studies on 10 – 16 450; integrated task-based 450; language

651
 

assessment movements 437 – 438; and 359 – 360, 361, 363, 363; collaborative

neologisms 631 – 640, 642 – 648, 647; overview learning 379
of 456 – 457; performance-based 450; of comic strip project 383 – 384, 384
Persian heritage language learners 464 – 465; competence see pragmatic competence
Persian language teacher assessment literacy comprehension questions 359 – 361, 360
451; second language assessment in Persian Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC):
456 – 465; task-based/performance-based hands-on tasks for 380 – 384, 381, 382 – 384
466 – 467; and technology 385 communication: the blended process 353;
audio-lingual approach 312 the blended sequence 353 – 363, 355, 356,
Australia: cultural associations in 500 359 – 360, 361, 363, 363
authenticity 281 – 283 communicative competence 312 – 313
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
background knowledge 356 328 – 332, 376, 457 – 458; activities for
BALLI see Beliefs About Language Learning 336 – 343; critiques of 330 – 332; resources
Inventory with a communicative outlook 332; role of
Baluchi 476; institutes teaching 507 technology in 335 – 336; special considerations
bare nominals 136 – 137 for heritage language learners and mixed
beliefs about language learning 591 – 593, classrooms 332 – 335
606 – 608; conclusions 618 – 619; discussion complements 586 – 589
612 – 617; implications 619 – 621; method complex clauses: syntax of 231 – 233
593 – 597, 596; results 597 – 612, 598 – 604, complex predicates 230 – 231
598 – 605, 606 – 612 compositionality 95 – 96
Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory compound verbs 228 – 229
(BALLI) 594, 606; descriptive analysis of comprehensibility 281 – 283
605 – 608, 606 – 608, 624 – 625 computer-assisted language assessment 450
bi-clausal 103 – 105 conjunctions 87 – 88, 87, 88
blended language learning (BLL) 348, 364 – 365; constraints on clusters 63
the blended process 348 – 354, 350 – 351; the construct validation studies 448
blended sequence 353 – 363, 350 – 351, 355, content 442 – 443
356, 359 – 360, 361, 363, 363 Content-Based Instruction (CBI) 328, 330, 338,
BLL see blended language learning 340 – 341, 343 – 344, 410, 424; analyzing
bottom-up processes 278 – 280 Persian poems 422; basic literary concepts
411 – 412; critical text editions 424; critiques of
Canada: cultural associations in 500, 520 330 – 332; the emergence of Persian literature
case relations 223 – 224 410 – 411; genres, motifs, themes, and
Caucasus and the Commonwealth of Nations: metaphors 419 – 421; geographical scope of
institutes administered by MSRT in 498; Persian literature 422 – 424; metre and rhyme
universities in 510 – 511 415 – 417; periodization of Persian literature
causatives 74 – 78, 76, 76 – 78 417 – 419; Persian poetic forms 413 – 415; the
CBI see Content-Based Instruction poet, his position at the court and qualities
CEFR: general approach in 502; historical 412 – 413; the role of Sufism in Persian
overview of 501; reasons for choosing 503 literature 421 – 422
child heritage: phonology 47 – 48 content knowledge: and language proficiency
choice of conjunction task 88 448 – 449
classifiers 72 – 74, 74 context 166, 170, 172, 583; summary of effects
classroom: assessment in 463 – 464; learner of 167, 170, 172, 174
performance in 57 – 58 conversational implicature 525 – 527,
CLT see Communicative Language Teaching 529 – 538; analyzing textbooks in terms
CMC see Computer-Mediated Communication of 538 – 539, 539
codeswitching 567, 584; functions of 580 – 584, cooperative learning 379
583, 584; heads and their complements corrective feedback 379 – 380
586 – 589; morphosyntactic interlanguage country of origin 529
systems 572 – 573; phonological features criterial levels of performance 444
571 – 572; shortcomings of 585; the structure critical text editions 424
of 573 – 580; word order 567 – 571, 570 – 571 cultural associations 499 – 500, 519 – 520
collaboration: the blended process 352 – 353; curriculum: for elementary and intermediate
the blended sequence 353 – 363, 355, 356, Persian 317 – 319

652
 

Dari 496; universities with language programs face-to-face (f2f) 349 – 350, 350 – 351; post-task
focusing on 497 review 362 – 363, 363, 363; pre-task cycle
data analysis 597; analyzing the textbooks in 355 – 361, 355, 356, 359 – 360
terms of conversational implicature and facilitator teacher 379
presupposition 538 – 539, 539; interpretation of fairness 450
questions about conversational implicature and Falahati, Reka xxii
presupposition 529 – 538 familiarization workshops 313 – 314
data coding 21 – 22, 21 family tree chart 382 – 383, 382 – 383
data collection 528 – 529, 529, 597 feature mapping 159, 175 – 176
Davari Ardakani, Negar xxi – xxii, 4 Feature Reassembly Hypothesis (FRH) 158 – 159,
deaspiration 65 166, 175 – 177; application of 162 – 163, 162;
definiteness 223 SLA development within 159 – 162
degemination 65 – 66 feedback 379 – 380
deletion of stops 65 felicity rating 166, 167, 168, 170, 170, 172, 172
derivational formation 69 – 71, 70 – 71 fill-in-the-beep test 86, 86
derivational morphology 68 – 71, 69, 70 focus-sensitive operators 147, 163 – 175,
derivative suffixes 223 177 – 178; English even 147 – 150; feature
design 164 – 165, 442 – 443; design target tasks mapping 175 – 176; feature reassembly
376 – 377; research design 593 176 – 177; Persian hattā, ham, hattā -ham
devoicing 64 – 65 150 – 158; theories of second language
dialects 494, 505 – 506; a geographical quantitative acquisition 158 – 163, 162
report of the standard Persian teaching centers form 379; formal situation 20
497 – 500; historical review 495 – 496, 495; free institutes 499; in Europe 517; in North
modern Persian varieties 496 – 497; Persian America 516
Reference Framework 500 – 505; universities frequency 93; see also fundamental frequency
with language programs focusing on 497; see FRH see Feature Reassembly Hypothesis
also specific dialects and languages Full Access theories 108 – 110, 119
dictionaries 185, 643 fundamental frequency (F0) 15, 17 – 22, 21, 24,
differentiation 94 24, 26 – 28
diglossia 135 – 136
diminutives 223 games 340
direct object marker 556 – 557 Gebhardt, Lewis xxii, 5, 141
discourse completion task 29 – 31 geography: quantitative report of standard Persian
discrimination 484 teaching centers 497 – 500; scope of Persian
discussion: discussion questions 404 – 406; literature 422 – 424
teacher-led 357 – 358 Ghaffari, Mahbod xxii, 5
distant dependencies 96 generative grammar 107 – 109; negation’s
drag and drop 359, 359 acquisition in 109 – 111; theoretical
approach 109
elicited imitation task 74, 74 genres 419 – 421
embellishing: poetic work 420 – 421 Gilaki 476 – 477
Esmaili-Sardari, Mohamad xxii, 3 glossaries 185
even 147 – 150 glottal stop deletion 65
environment: the blended process 352 – 353; grammar 574 – 575; and codeswitching 575 – 576;
the blended sequence 353 – 363, 355, 356, third grammars 585
359 – 360, 361, 363, 363 grammar-translation method 311 – 313
Europe: cultural associations in 500, 519; free grammaticality judgment 68 – 71, 69, 70 – 71, 76,
institutes in 499, 517 – 518; institutes administered 80 – 83, 81, 88 – 89, 89; based on condition
by MSRT in 498; universities in 509 types 77; on Negative Polarity Items 83; on
evaluations 446 – 447 relative clauses 85
exclamatory phrases 557 guidelines: proposed proficiency guidelines for
experimental studies 58 – 59 Persian 314 – 315, 315
extensive reading 390, 400 – 402
ezafe marker 559 Hagigi, Latifeh xxii – xxiii, 3
Hamedi Shirvan, Zahra xxiii, 4
F0 see fundamental frequency heads 586 – 589
f2f see face-to-face heritage language divergence: sources of 93 – 96

653
 

heritage language learners: assessing 464 – 465; technology 370 – 371; hands-on tasks for
and communicative approaches 332 – 335 Persian based on TBLT and CMC 380 – 384,
heritage Persian 53 – 54, 96; agreement 80 – 81, 381, 382 – 384; literary texts as 393 – 402, 399;
81; Arabic root and pattern morphology pros and cons of using technology 375 – 376;
71 – 72, 72; the baseline 55 – 56; causative TBLT principles and technology matches
verbs 74 – 78, 74, 76, 76 – 78; characteristics of 376 – 380; technology of assessment 385; use
55; classifiers 72 – 74, 73; conjunction choice of technology 371 – 374, 374
87 – 88, 87, 88; derivational morphology integrated-skill approach 390 – 391
68 – 71, 69, 70 – 71; heritage speakers 54 – 55; integrated task-based assessment 450
light verb constructions 78 – 80; morphology interlanguage 546 – 547, 564 – 565, 584;
and morphosyntax 67 – 82; negative polarity characteristics of 548 – 564; functions
items 82 – 83; phonetics and phonology 59 – 67, of 580 – 584, 583, 584; heads and their
62 – 63; preposition selection 85 – 87, 86, 86; complements 586 – 589; literature review
relative clause 83 – 85, 83, 84, 85; sequence of 547 – 548; morphological characteristics
tenses 88 – 90, 89, 89 – 90; sources of language 551 – 553; morphosyntactic interlanguage
divergence 93 – 96; studies in linguistics systems 572 – 573; phonological characteristics
57 – 59, 58 – 59; syntax 82 – 92; verbal 549 – 551; phonological features 571 – 572;
paradigms 67 – 68, 68 semantic characteristics 553; shortcomings
heritage phonology 36 – 38, 43 – 48 of 585; the structure of 573 – 580; syntactic
heritage speakers 36 – 38, 54 – 55, 109, 114 – 115, characteristics 554 – 564; word order 567 – 571,
114; child heritage 47 – 48 570 – 571
heritage speech 44 – 46; learning as a multimodal interrogative adjectival 558
event 38 – 44 Iran 471 – 473, 487 – 489; language landscape
hierarchy of difficulty 11 – 14, 12, 16 473 – 482, 495; language standardization in
Hillmann, Michael Craig xxiii, 3, 420 631 – 632; multilingual education paradigm for
historical perspectives 437 – 441, 495 – 496, 495; Iran 485 – 487; national language and minority
language standardization in Iran 631 – 632; languages 482 – 484
overview of the CEFR 501; Persian academies Iranian Ministry of Science, Research and
632 – 636 Technology (MSRT): institutes administered
by 498 – 499
IBQ see individual background questionnaire Iranian Persian 496
identity 482 – 484
idiomatic expression 122 – 124, 131; acquisition Japan: cultural associations in 500
and production 129; comprehension 127 – 129, Jasbi, Masoud xxiii, 2 – 3, 137 – 138, 145
128; evidence from studies of Persian jigsaw activities 339
125 – 127, 126; L1 and L2 idiomatic expression
processing 125; L1 and L2 mental lexicons Kurdish 475
124; L2 idiomatic expression comprehension
127 – 129, 127 – 129; learning and teaching L2 labelling 21 – 22, 21
idiomatic expressions 129 – 131; processing language assessment movements 437 – 438
125, 126; ranges 127 language change 44 – 46
impact 436 language choice: functions of 580 – 584
indefinite marker 555 – 556 language focus activity 363 – 364
individual background questionnaire (IBQ) 594, language learning: available technology to 374;
622 – 623 beliefs about language learning 591 – 593,
informal situation 20 606 – 608; conclusions 618 – 619; discussion
information-gap activities 339 612 – 617; implications 619 – 621; method
information-gathering activities 340 – 341 593 – 597, 596; results 597 – 612, 598 – 604,
information-transfer activities 341 – 342 598 – 605, 606 – 612
input back-loading blended sequence 349 – 350, language proficiency: and content knowledge
350, 351 448 – 449; and idiomatic expression acquisition
input front-loading blended sequence 350, 351 and production 129; and idiomatic expression
institutes 507 – 508; see also free institutes comprehension 128; see also speaking
instructional materials 19 – 20, 370, 385, proficiency
397 – 400, 399; and changes in reading language standardization 484
391 – 392; communicative and task-based language test development 436 – 437, 437
language teaching 376; effectiveness of layering: activities and tasks 351 – 352, 354

654
 

learner performance: in the classroom 57 – 58 periodization of 417 – 419; and Persian L2

learners’ needs: tasks based on 376 – 377 reading 285 – 287; reading through 393;
Learners of Persian as a Second/Foreign Sufism in 421 – 422; as teaching materials
Language (LOP) 524 – 525, 539 – 540, 393 – 402, 399
540; analyzing the textbooks in terms of literature review 438 – 440, 547 – 548
conversational implicature and presupposition LOP see Learners of Persian as a Second/Foreign
538 – 539, 539; future directions 540 – 541; Language
interpretation of questions about Lori 476
conversational implicature and presupposition
529 – 538; previous research in Persian L2 Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari, Behrooz xxiii, 3
pragmatics 527 – 528; research methodology Mahootian, Shahrzad xxiii, 5, 22, 570, 576 – 577,
528 – 529, 529; theoretical issues 525 – 527 580 – 581
learning strategies 183 – 186, 215 – 216; mini- Marashi, Mehdi xxiv, 3
lesson #1 186 – 188; mini-lesson #2 188 – 189; markings 223 – 224
mini-lesson #3 190 – 192; mini-lesson #4 materials see instructional materials
192 – 193; mini-lesson #5 193 – 195; mini- Mazandarani 476 – 477
lesson #6 196; mini-lesson #7 196 – 200; mini- measures recommended: for the medium and long
lesson #8 200 – 204; mini-lesson #9 204 – 206; terms 324 – 326; for the near term 323 – 324
mini-lesson #10 207 – 209; mini-lesson #11 media: teaching listening skills through news and
209 – 211; mini-lesson #12 211 – 213; mini- media 253 – 255
lesson #13 213 – 215 Megerdoomian, Karine xxiv, 2, 57, 61 – 68, 71,
lessons 642 – 648; see also under learning 74 – 75, 78, 82 – 88, 90 – 92, 95
strategies mental lexicons 124
leveling 94 Merge model 577 – 580; in English 586 – 587; in
lexical decision task 40, 63, 63, 70 Persian 587 – 589
lexical keys 357 metaphors 419 – 421
lexical negation 68 – 69 metre 415 – 417
lexicons, mental 124 Middle East: institutes administered by MSRT in
light verb constructions 78 – 80 499; universities in 513
linguistic competence 53 – 54, 96; agreement Minimal Trees 108
80 – 81, 81; Arabic root and pattern minority languages 471 – 473, 487 – 489; Iran’s
morphology 71 – 72, 72; the baseline 55 – 56; language landscape 473 – 482; landscape of
causative verbs 74 – 78, 74, 76, 76 – 78; 478 – 479; and national language 482 – 484;
characteristics of 55; classifiers 72 – 74, 73; planning for 479 – 482
conjunction choice 87 – 88, 87, 88; derivational Mirdehghan, Mahinnaz xxiv, 4, 372, 504, 548
morphology 68 – 71, 69, 70 – 71; heritage mixed classrooms: and communicative
speakers 54 – 55; light verb constructions approaches 332 – 335
78 – 80; morphology and morphosyntax 67 – 82; Mizza, Daria xxiv, 3
negative polarity items 82 – 83; phonetics modal verbs 228
and phonology 59 – 67, 62 – 63; preposition moderating items 446
selection 85 – 87, 86, 86; relative clause Moin, Mohammad: Persian dictionary 643
83 – 85, 83, 84, 85; sequence of tenses 88 – 90, mood 560 – 563
89, 89 – 90; sources of language divergence Mokhtari, Azita xxv, 5
93 – 96; studies in linguistics 57 – 59, 58 – 59; monolingual acquisition 100, 107, 118
syntax 82 – 92; verbal paradigms 67 – 68, 68 monolinguals: methodology and results 112 – 114
linguistic subdomain 58 morphological patterns of stress 66
linking word 557 morphology 122 – 124, 131, 221 – 229;
listening 235 – 241, 255; teaching listening skills agreement 80 – 81, 81; Arabic root and pattern
through news and media 253 – 255; teaching morphology 71 – 72, 71, 72; causative verbs
listening skills through recipes 249 – 252; 74 – 78, 74, 76, 76 – 78; classifiers 72 – 74,
teaching listening skills through songs 73; derivational morphology 68 – 71, 69, 70;
241 – 245; teaching listening skills through evidence from studies of Persian 125 – 127,
stories 245 – 249 126; L1 and L2 idiomatic expression
literary concepts 411 – 412 processing 125; L1 and L2 mental lexicons
literature 392 – 393; emergence of Persian 124; L2 idiomatic expression comprehension
literature 410 – 411; geographical scope 127 – 129, 127 – 129; learning and teaching L2
of 422 – 424; literary concepts 411 – 412; idiomatic expressions 129 – 131; light verb

655
 

constructions 78 – 80; linguistic competence number 222

67 – 82; morphological characteristics of Nushi, Musa xxv, 3
interlanguage 551 – 553; patterns of stress 66;
verbal 227 – 229; verbal paradigms 67 – 68, 68 objectives 395 – 397
morpho-syntactic analysis: of Persian object marking 142 – 145, 556 – 557
progressives 103 – 105 Oceania: institutes administered by MSRT in 499;
morphosyntactic interlanguage systems 572 – 573; universities in 512
morphosyntactic structure of Persian-English online modes 349 – 350, 350 – 351
codeswitching 574 – 580 online task cycle 361, 361
morphosyntax 67; agreement 80 – 81, 81; Arabic operators 150 – 151; scalar and additive 151 – 158
root and pattern morphology 71 – 72, 71, opinion-sharing activities 341
72; causative verbs 74 – 78, 74, 76, 76 – 78; oral interview 321 – 322
classifiers 72 – 74, 73; derivational morphology oral report 362
68 – 71, 69, 70; light verb constructions 78 – 80; orthographic annotations 21
verbal paradigms 67 – 68, 68 orthography 38 – 44; and L2 readers 280 – 281
Mortazavinia, Marzieh xxv, 3, 148 overdifferentiation 12, 12
mother tongue 599, 599 overregularization 94 – 95
motifs 419 – 421
MSRT see Iranian Ministry of Science, Research parallel elaboration 388 – 389, 402 – 403; and
and Technology literary texts as teaching materials 393 – 402,
multilingual education 471 – 473, 487 – 489; 399; and literature and short stories 392 – 393;
Iran’s language landscape 473 – 482; national and Persian language instructional materials
language and minority languages 482 – 484; 391 – 392; and reading 389 – 391
paradigm for Iran 485 – 487 participants 19, 163, 528 – 529, 529,
multimodal event 38 – 44 595 – 596, 596
multiple-choice test 88 particle+verb 230
Pashto: institutes teaching 507
nasal place assimilation 64 peace corps language training 312 – 313
national language 471 – 473, 487 – 489; Iran’s pedagogical tasks (PTs) 378, 380 – 384, 381 – 394
language landscape 473 – 482; and minority pedagogy: and neologisms 638 – 640; see also
languages 479 – 482, 482 – 484; multilingual pedagogical tasks
education paradigm for Iran 485 – 487 perceptual salience 93 – 94
negation 105 – 107; acquisition 109 – 111 performance-based assessment 450, 466 – 467
negative feedback 379 – 380 periodization: of Persian literature 417 – 419
negative lexemes 69, 70 Persian Reference Framework (PRF) 500 – 505;
Negative Polarity Items (NPI) 82 – 83, 83 characteristics 505; methodology 503 – 504;
negative progressive tenses 111 – 117 professional series developed on the basis of 505
neologisms 631 – 640, 642 – 648, 647; as the phoneme monitoring 58, 61 – 62 62
bridge between Persian language pedagogy phoneme naturalness judgment task 62
and sociolinguistics 638 – 640; current research phonemes 12; perception and production of 59 – 63
on 637 – 638; definition of 636 – 637; in foreign phonetic features: and politeness 17 – 19
language instruction 636 – 640 phonetics 59 – 67, 62 – 63
news: teaching listening skills through news and phonological patterns 63 – 66, 63
media 253 – 255 phonology 36, 44 – 48, 59 – 67, 571 – 572; child
Nojoumian, Peyman xxv, 4, 332, 371, 391 – 392 heritage 47 – 48; heritage speakers 36 – 38;
nominal morphology 222 – 227, 226 and orthography 38 – 44; phonological
non-additive context 157, 164, 167 – 168, 168 characteristics of interlanguage 549 – 551
neologisms 631 – 640, 642 – 648, 647 phrase books 185
North America: free institutes in 499, 516 pitch measures 22 – 24, 24
NoToo 164 – 166, 164, 169 – 170, 173 Pixton technology 383 – 384, 384
noun phrase (NP) 136 – 138, 141 – 144, 149 – 153, planning 441 – 442
156 – 158, 548 – 550, 554 – 557; and word order plural formation 70 – 71
229 – 233 plural marking 140 – 142
nouns 558 – 560; noun+verb 230; see also noun plural nouns 71
phrase poetry: analyzing Persian poems 422;
NP see noun phrase embellishing poetic work 420 – 421; the poet
NPI see Negative Polarity Items 412 – 413; poetic forms 413 – 415

656
 

politeness: and phonetic features 17 – 19; see also progressive tenses 100 – 101, 117 – 120;
prosodic parameters of politeness acquisition of Persian negative progressive
practicality 436 tenses 111 – 117, 114, 116; background
pragmatic annotations 21 – 22, 21 research on negations’ acquisition in
pragmatic competence 524 – 525, 539 – 540, generative grammar 109 – 111; generative
540; analyzing the textbooks in terms of grammar and language acquisition 107 – 109;
conversational implicature and presupposition morpho-syntactic analysis of 103 – 105;
538 – 539, 539; future directions 540 – 541; negation in Persian 105 – 107; semantic
interpretation of questions about properties 101 – 102, 102; structural description
conversational implicature and presupposition 102 – 103; theoretical approach of research 109
529 – 538; previous research in Persian L2 projects 338
pragmatics 527 – 528; research methodology pronominal clitics 137, 226 – 227, 226
528 – 529, 529; theoretical issues 525 – 527 pronouns 225 – 227, 554 – 555
pragmatic comprehension 527 prosodic annotations 21
pragmatics 525 – 527; previous research in prosodic measures 17, 25 – 26, 25
527 – 528; see also pragmatic annotations; prosodic parameters of politeness 9, 16 – 17,
pragmatic competence; pragmatic 22 – 28, 23 – 26; methodology 19 – 22, 21;
comprehension politeness and phonetic features 17 – 19;
prenominal even 149 – 151, 164, 166 – 169 previous studies on Persian L2 phonological
preposition 555; subcategorization subtest of acquisition 10 – 16, 12, 14
argument structure 86 PTs see pedagogical tasks
prepositional phrase+verb 230 – 231
preposition selection 85 – 87 quality management 433 – 434, 434
preposition subcategorization 82, 86, 86, 92 quantitative report: of standard Persian teaching
presence capacity 323 centers 497 – 500
presenceToo 166, 168, 170, 172; summary of Quay, Michelle xxv, 3
effects of 167, 170, 172, 174
presupposition 525 – 527, 529 – 538; analyzing Rafat, Yasaman xxvi, 2, 15 – 16, 42 – 46, 58,
textbooks in terms of 538 – 539, 539 60, 66
problem areas 10, 14, 14, 437, 452 ranking graph 362
procedure 20 – 21 reading 389 – 391; extensive 390; the L2 reading
process 294 – 295; writing as 295 – 296 construct 278 – 280; literature 285 – 287, 393;
product: writing as 295 and orthography 280 – 281; texts 281 – 283;
proficiency 601 – 604, 602 – 605; future directions types of 284 – 285
450 – 451; historical perspectives 437 – 441; reasoning-gap activities 342
problems and difficulties 448 – 450; proficiency recap and answer 361
tests 431 – 453; SAMFA development process recipes: teaching listening skills through recipes
441 – 448; theoretical framework 432 – 437, 249 – 252
433, 437; writing proficiency versus language reference framework: characteristics of 501 – 502;
proficiency 299 – 300; see also language the necessity for 500 – 501; requirements
proficiency; proficiency-based instruction; for 502 – 503; see also Persian Reference
speaking proficiency; Standard Persian Framework (PRF)
Language Proficiency Test reflexive cases 227
proficiency-based instruction 311; regularization 94
familiarization workshops for Persian relative clause 83 – 85, 84, 85, 57 – 58, 231 – 233,
instructors 313 – 314; grammar-translation 556 – 557
method 311 – 313; proficiency-based reliability 435 – 436, 450
testing 319 – 322; proposed curriculum, reporting formats 444 – 446
for elementary and intermediate Persian request 17 – 21, 21, 361
317 – 319; proposed proficiency guidelines research: instruments 593 – 595; methodology,
for Persian 314 – 315, 315; raising the levels data collection, participants 528 – 529, 529; on
of Persian proficiency in academia 322 – 326; neologism 637 – 638; in Persian L2 pragmatics
students’ level of proficiency at the end of 527 – 528; research design 593; research
first-year Persian study 315 – 317 questions 593
proficiency-based testing 319 – 322; see also resources 183 – 186, 215 – 216; mini-lesson #1
Standard Persian Language Proficiency Test 186 – 188; mini-lesson #2 188 – 189; mini-
proficiency group 165, 172 lesson #3 190 – 192; mini-lesson #4 192 – 193;

657
 

mini-lesson #5 193 – 195; mini-lesson #6 considered during teaching speaking

196; mini-lesson #7 196 – 200; mini-lesson 267 – 270
#8 200 – 204; mini-lesson #9 204 – 206; second language vocabulary acquisition
mini-lesson #10 207 – 209; mini-lesson #11 183 – 186, 215 – 216; mini-lesson #1 186 – 188 ;
209 – 211; mini-lesson #12 211 – 213; mini- mini-lesson #2 188 – 189; mini-lesson #3
lesson #13 213 – 215 190 – 192; mini-lesson #4 192 – 193; mini-
rhyme 415 – 417 lesson #5 193 – 195; mini-lesson #6 196; mini-
role plays 342 – 343, 384 lesson #7 196 – 200; mini-lesson #8 200 – 204;
root and pattern morphology 71 – 72, 71, 72 mini-lesson #9 204 – 206; mini-lesson
roots 73; verbs 571 #10 207 – 209; mini-lesson #11 209 – 211;
rubrics 450 mini-lesson #12 211 – 213; mini-lesson #13
213 – 215
SAMFA see Standard Persian Language second language writing 293 – 294, 302 – 303; and
Proficiency Test general language learning 298 – 299; issues
Sarraf, Ramin xxvi, 5, 632 currently of most relevance to 300 – 302;
scalar additive contexts 156 – 157, 162, 174 – 178 orientations to 294 – 297; writing in Persian
scoring procedures 444 – 446 language programs in the U.S. 294; writing
second generation 595 – 596, 600, 600, 615 – 617 proficiency versus language proficiency
second language acquisition (SLA): available 299 – 300
technology to 374; blending process segmental features 9, 16 – 17, 22 – 28, 23 – 26;
348 – 354, 350 – 351; development within methodology 19 – 22, 21; politeness and
the FRH 159 – 162; importance of pragmatic phonetic features 17 – 19; previous studies on
comprehension in 527; pros and cons of using Persian L2 phonological acquisition 10 – 16,
technology in 375 – 376 12, 14
second language grammar 220 – 221, 233; semantic properties 134 – 135, 146; bare nominals
issues in Persian syntax 229 – 233; Persian 136 – 137; diglossia 135 – 136; object marking
morphology 221 – 229, 226 142 – 145; plural marking 140 – 142; singular
second language learners: methodology and marking 137 – 140
results 115 – 117, 116 semantics: English even 147 – 150; feature
second language listening 235 – 241, 255; mapping 175 – 176; feature reassembly
teaching listening skills through news and 176 – 177; of focus-sensitive operators 147,
media 253 – 255; teaching listening skills 163 – 175, 177 – 178; Persian hattā, ham, hattā
through recipes 249 – 252; teaching listening -ham 150 – 158; semantic characteristics of
skills through songs 241 – 245; teaching interlanguage 553; theories of second language
listening skills through stories 245 – 249 acquisition 158 – 163, 162; see also semantic
second language morphology 122 – 124, 131; properties
evidence from studies of Persian 125 – 127, sequence of tenses 88 – 90, 89 – 90, 89
126; L1 and L2 idiomatic expression serial verb construction (SVC) 103 – 105, 107
processing 125; L1 and L2 mental lexicons sex 599, 599
124; L2 idiomatic expression comprehension Seyed-Gohrab, Asghar xxvi, 4
127 – 129, 127 – 129; learning and teaching L2 Shabani-Jadidi, Pouneh xxvi – xxvii, 2, 57, 78,
idiomatic expressions 129 – 131 126 – 128, 186, 330, 332, 391 – 392, 431
second language phonology 36, 44 – 48; child Shahmirzadi 476 – 477
heritage 47 – 48; heritage speakers 36 – 38; and Shahsavari, Anousha xxvii, 4, 332
orthography 38 – 44 short stories 389, 392 – 393, 395, 401 – 402, 407
second language reading 277 – 278, 287 – 288; SILL see Strategy Inventory for Language
authenticity and comprehensibility 281 – 283; Learning
knowledge of vocabulary 283 – 284; literature singular marking 137 – 140
and Persian L2 reading 285 – 287; Persian SLA see second language acquisition
orthography and L2 readers 280 – 281; top- social context: writing as 296 – 297
down and bottom-up processes 278 – 280; social practice 294 – 297
types of Persian L2 reading 284 – 285 sociolinguistic approach 631 – 640, 642 – 648, 647
second language speaking 257, 273 – 274; solidarity 482 – 484
assessing speaking 271 – 273; characteristics songs: teaching listening skills through songs
of the spoken discourse 257 – 259; functions 241 – 245
of speaking 260 – 267; importance of speaking South America: institutes administered by MSRT
skills for L2 learners 259 – 260; issues to be in 499; universities in 514

658
 

speaking: assessing 271 – 273; characteristics Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)

of spoken discourse 257 – 259; functions 328 – 332, 343 – 344, 370, 376, 385; activities
of 260 – 267; importance of speaking skills for 336 – 343; communicative and task-based
259 – 260; issues to be considered during language teaching 376; critiques of 330 – 332;
teaching speaking 267 – 270 effectiveness of technology 370 – 371;
speaking proficiency 315; testing for 321 – 322 hands-on tasks for Persian based on TBLT
spectrogram 21 and CMC 380 – 384, 381, 382 – 384; heritage
speech rate dependent variables 22, 25 – 26 language learners and mixed classrooms
spoken discourse: characteristics of 257 – 259 332 – 335; principles and technology matches
standardization, language 484; a brief history of 376 – 380; pros and cons of using technology
631 – 632 375 – 376; resources with a communicative
standardized testing 459 – 462 outlook 332; and the role of technology in CLT
Standard Persian Language Proficiency Test 335 – 336; TBLT principles and technology
(SAMFA) 451 – 453; administration 446 – 448; matches 376 – 380; technology of assessment
development process 441 – 448; early 385; use of technology 371 – 374, 374
developments in 440 – 441; future directions task-completion activities 339 – 340
450 – 451; problems and difficulties 448 – 450; tasks 163 – 164; pedagogical 380 – 384; for
structure of 443 – 444; uses and interpretations Persian based on TBLT and CMC 380 – 384;
of 449 – 450 task types 378; as unit of analysis 377 – 378
stories: teaching listening skills through stories teacher-led discussion 357 – 358
245 – 249 teaching: available technology to 374;
Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) effectiveness of technology in 370 – 371;
594 – 595, 626 – 628; descriptive analyses of facilitator teacher 379; issues to be considered
609 – 612, 609 – 612 during teaching speaking 267 – 270; and
strategy use 609 – 612, 610 – 611, 615 – 620 neologisms 631 – 640, 642 – 648, 647; Persian
student writing: response to 300 language teacher assessment literacy 251;
subject-verb agreement 80 – 81, 81, 570, through short stories 389, 392 – 393, 395,
572, 584 401 – 402, 407; teaching listening skills
subtasks 376, 378 through songs 241 – 245; teaching listening
Sufism: in Persian literature 421 – 422 skills through stories 245 – 249; teaching
suprasegmental features 9, 16 – 17, 22 – 28, Persian varieties and dialects 494 – 495,
23 – 26; methodology 19 – 22, 21; politeness 497 – 506; see also blended language learning;
and phonetic features 17 – 19; previous studies Communicative Language Teaching (CLT);
on Persian L2 phonological acquisition 10 – 16, Content-Based Instruction (CBI); cultural
12, 14; survey 356, 356 associations; free institutes; institutes;
switching see codeswitching multilingual education; proficiency-based
syntax 82, 90 – 92; of complex clauses 231 – 233; instruction; Task-Based Language Teaching
of complex predicates 230 – 231; conjunction (TBLT); teaching Persian as a foreign
choice 87 – 88, 87, 88; the ezafe marker 559; language (TPFL); teaching strategies;
indefinite marker /-i/ 555 – 558; issues in universities
229 – 233; linking word 557; negative polarity Teaching Persian as a Foreign Language (TPFL):
items 82 – 83; noun or adjective 559 – 560; use of technology in 371 – 374, 374
object marker /rā/ 556 – 557; plural/singular teaching strategies 183 – 186, 215 – 216; mini-
nouns 558 – 559; prepositions 555; preposition lesson #1 186 – 188; mini-lesson #2 188 – 189;
selection 85 – 87, 86, 86; pronouns 554 – 555; mini-lesson #3 190 – 192; mini-lesson #4
relative clause 83 – 85, 83, 84, 85; sequence of 192 – 193; mini-lesson #5 193 – 195;
tenses 88 – 90, 89, 90; verb forms 560 – 563; mini-lesson #6 196; mini-lesson #7 196 – 200;
verb negation 564; verb number 563 – 564; mini-lesson #8 200 – 204; mini-lesson
verb omission 554; word order 554 #9 204 – 206; mini-lesson #10 207 – 209;
mini-lesson #11 209 – 211; mini-lesson #12
Tajiki 496; universities with language programs 211 – 213; mini-lesson #13 213 – 215
focusing on 497 technology 370, 374, 385; and assessment 385; in
Taleghani, Azita H. xxvii, 2, 105 communicative language teaching 335 – 336;
talk: as interaction 260 – 262; as performance communicative and task-based language
263 – 267; as transaction 262 – 263 teaching 376; effectiveness in teaching and
target language: and technology 378 learning 370 – 371; hands-on tasks for Persian
task-based assessment 466 – 467 based on TBLT and CMC 380 – 384, 381,

659
 

382 – 384; Pixton technology 384; pros and 598 – 604, 598 – 605, 606 – 612; strategies for
cons of using 375 – 376; TBLT principles and and beliefs about language learning 591 – 593,
technology matches 376 – 380; and teaching 606 – 608; see also institutes
Persian as a foreign language 371 – 374, 374; usefulness 434
technology of assessment 385 utterances 20 – 23, 23, 235 – 244, 258 – 259,
tenses 560 – 563; negative progressive 111 – 117; 530 – 538, 573 – 577, 580 – 582
past tense verbal suffixes 570; in SLA
375 – 376; see also sequence of tenses Vakilifard, Amirreza xxvii, 4, 438, 440, 528
testing 642 – 648; Arabic root and pattern validation framework 433
morphology test 72; causation subtest validity 434 – 435; limited evidence of addressing
of argument structure 76; causative test 450; of the uses and interpretations of SAMFA
response times 78; conjunction choice test 449 – 450
87; exit test development 451; fill-in-the- Valueless Features theory 108
bleep test 86; future directions 450 – 451; vanishing words 358 – 359
grammaticality judgment test 69; historical varieties 494, 505 – 506; core 496; a geographical
perspectives 437 – 441; language test quantitative report of the standard Persian
development 436 – 437, 437; linguistic teaching centers 497 – 500; historical review
subdomain 58; multiple-choice test 88; oral 495 – 496, 495; peripheral 496 – 497; Persian
interview 321 – 322; overview of 456 – 457; Reference Framework 500 – 505; universities
preposition subcategorization subtest with language programs focusing on 497; see
of argument structure 86; problems and also specific dialects and languages
difficulties 448 – 450; proficiency-based testing verbal morphology 227 – 229
319 – 320; proficiency tests 431 – 453; relative verbal paradigms 67 – 68, 68
clause test items 84; SAMFA development verbal stems 68 – 69, 68, 105
process 441 – 448; sequence of tenses subtest verbal suffixes 570, 570
89; standardized 459 – 462; test subjects verb forms 560 – 563
59; theoretical framework 432 – 437, 433, verb negation 564
437; train the test score users 449; see also verb number 563 – 564
assessment verb omission 554
textbooks 529, 538 – 539, 539 vocabulary: knowledge of 283 – 284
texts 281 – 283, 294 – 297; critical text vocabulary, acquisition of see second language
editions 424 vocabulary acquisition
themes 419 – 421 vocabulary table 404 – 406
third grammars 585 voice 560 – 563; voice intensity 25; voice
three cycle-blended sequence 354 quality 25
top-down processes 278 – 280
training: train the test score users 449 Wagner 148 – 149
transfer from dominant language 96 washback 448
translation: grammar-translation method waveform 21
311 – 313 whole language approach 390 – 391
Turkic languages 477 – 478 word order 229 – 233, 554, 567 – 571
writing 293 – 294, 302 – 303; describing second
UG see universal grammar language writing performance 301 – 302;
United States (U.S.): beliefs about language integration of writing with other skills 301;
learning 591 – 593, 606 – 608; conclusions issues currently of most relevance to Persian
618 – 619; discussion 612 – 617; implications L2 writing 300 – 302; orientations to 294 – 297;
619 – 621; method 593 – 597, 596; results in Persian language programs in the U.S. 294;
597 – 612, 598 – 604, 598 – 605, 606 – 612; as process 295 – 296; as product 295; response
writing in Persian language programs in 294 to student writing 300; as social context
unit of analysis 377 – 378 296 – 297; as a unique site for general language
universal grammar (UG): and heritage speakers learning 298 – 299; writing proficiency versus
109; and monolingual acquisition 107; and language proficiency 299 – 300
second language acquisition 107 – 108 writing items 446
universities 497, 509 – 515; conclusions 618 – 619; written report 362
discussion 612 – 617; implications 619 – 621;
method 593 – 597, 596; results 597 – 612, Yousefi, Saeed Reza xxvii, 4

660