case study means in persian

Academic Writing for Academic Persian: A Synthesis of Recent Research

• First Online: 18 September 2021

Cite this chapter

• Chiew Hong Ng 10 &
• Yin Ling Cheung 10  

Part of the book series: Language Policy ((LAPO,volume 25))

234 Accesses

Besides enhancing Persian academic reading, in an English only research world, Persian academic stakeholders have to master English and/or Persian academic writing to disseminate findings globally to members of different disciplinary communities through Persian and English language as a lingua franca. This chapter uses the method of qualitative meta-synthesis of 40 empirical studies specifically on academic writing in Persian in refereed journals, book chapters, and conference proceedings published during the period of 2005–2020. An inductive approach to thematic analysis synthesizes (a) the theoretical models for researching Academic Persian in academic writing and (b) the similarities and differences between academic writers from Persian and English for different disciplines. Theoretically and pedagogically, the findings from the comparisons and the systematic content analysis following Sandelowski et al. (Res Nurs Health 20:365–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199708)20:4<365::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-E , 1997) contribute to our understanding of styles and genres specific to academic writing for Academic Persian, in terms of theoretical models for research as well as conventions or expectations of different disciplines in academic writing for Academic Persian.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abdi, R. (2009). Projecting cultural identity through metadiscourse marking: A comparison of Persian and English research articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning Year, 52 (212), 1–15.

Google Scholar  

Adel, S. M. R., & Moghadam, R. G. (2015). A comparison of moves in conclusion sections of research articles in psychology, Persian Literature and applied linguistics. Teaching English Language, 9 (2), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.22132/TEL.2015.53729

Article   Google Scholar  

Aghdassi, A. (2018). Persian academic reading . Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Allami, A., & Naeimi, A. (2010). A cross-linguistic study of refusal: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (1), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.010

Ansarifar, A., Shahriari, H., & Pishghadam, R. (2018). Phrasal complexity in academic writing: A comparison of abstracts written by graduate students and expert writers in applied linguistics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31 , 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2017.12.008

Ansarin, A. A., & Tarlani-Aliabdi, H. (2011). Reader engagement in English and Persian applied linguistics articles. English Language Teaching, 4 (4), 154–164. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p154

Attarn, A. (2014). Study of metadiscourse in ESP articles: A comparison of English articles written by Iranian and English native speakers. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 5 (1), 63–71.

Belcher, D. D. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001

Bennet, K., & Muresan, L.-H. (2016). Rhetorical incompatibilities in academic writing: English versus the romance cultures. SYNERGY, 12 (1), 95–119.

Bhatia, V. K. (1997). Introduction: Genre analysis and world Englishes. World Englishes, 16 (3), 313–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00066

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). “Take a look at…”: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25 , 401–435. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v8i1.30051

Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483

Coffin, C. (2009). Incorporating and evaluating voices in a film studies thesis. Writing and Pedagogy, 1 , 163–193. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v1i2.163

Ebadi, S., Salman, A. R., & Ebrahimi, B. (2015). A comparative study of the use of metadiscourse markers in Persian and English academic papers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2 (4), 28–41.

Ershadi, S., & Farnia, M. (2015). Comparative generic analysis of discussions of English and Persian computer research articles. Culture and Communication Online, 6 (6), 15–31.

Esfandiari, R., & Barbary, F. (2017). A contrastive corpus-driven study of lexical bundles between English writers and Persian writers in psychology research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 29 , 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1046/J.JEAP.2017.09.002

Faghih, E., & Rahimpour, S. (2009). Contrastive rhetoric of English and Persian written texts: Metadiscourse in applied linguistics research articles. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, 1 , 92–107.

Farahani, M. V. (2017). Investigating the application and distribution of metadiscourse features in research articles in Applied linguistics between English native writers and Iranian writers: A comparative corpus-based inquiry. Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 8 (1), 1268–1285. https://doi.org/10.24297/jal.v8i1.6441

Farzannia, S., & Farnia, M. (2017). Genre-based analysis of English and Persian research article abstracts in mining engineering journals. Beyond Words, 5 (1), 1–13.

Francis, G., Huston, S., Manning, E., & Patterns, C. C. G. (1996). Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 1; verbs . Harper Collins.

Ghasempour, B., & Farnia, M. (2017). Contrastive move analysis: Persian and English research articles abstracts in law. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 5 (4), 739–753. https://doi.org/10.22190/JTESAP1704739G

Ghazanfari, F., & Abassi, B. (2012). Functions of hedging: The case of Academic Persian prose in one of Iranian universities. Studies in Literature and Language, 4 (1), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.sll.1923156320120401.1400

Gholami, J., & Ilghami, R. (2016). Metadiscourse markers in biological research articles and journal impact factor: Non-native writers vs. native writers. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 44 (4), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20961

Gholami, M., Tajalli, G., & Shokrpour, N. (2014). Metadiscourse markers in English medical texts and their Persian translation based on Hyland’s model. European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 2 (2), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20961

Gillet, A. (2020). Academic writing: Genres in academic writing . http://www.uefap.com/writing/genre/genrefram.htm

Hasrati, M., Gheitury, A., & Hooti, N. (2010). A genre analysis of Persian research article abstracts: Communicative moves and author identity. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 2 (2), 47–74. https://doi.org/10.22111/IJALS.2012.70

Hunston, S. (1993). Professional conflict: Disagreement in academic discourse. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text & technology: In honor of John Sinclair (pp. 115–133). John Benjamins.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Hyland, K. (1996). Nurturing hedges in the ESP curriculum. System, 24 (4), 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00043-7

Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20 , 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/20.3.341

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse: Social interactions in academic writing . Longman.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 , 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001

Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse . Continuum.

Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27 (1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001

Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25 (2), 156–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156

Khajavy, G. H., Asadpour, S. F., & Yousef, A. (2012). A comparative analysis of interactive metadiscourse features in discussion section of research articles written in English and Persian. International Journal of Linguistics, 4 (2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v4i2.1767

Keshavarz, M. H., & Kheirieh, Z. (2011). Metadiscourse elements in English research articles written by native English and non-native Iranian writers in applied linguistics and civil engineering. Journal of English Studies, 1 (3), 3–15.

Koutsantoni, D. (2005). Greek cultural characteristics and academic writing. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 23 (1), 97–138. https://doi.org/10.1353/mgs.2005.0007

Lores, R. (2004). On RA abstracts: From rhetorical structure to thematic organization. English for Specific Purposes, 23 , 280–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.06.001

Marefat, H., & Mohammadzadeh, S. (2013). Genre analysis of literature research article abstracts: A cross-linguistic, cross-cultural study. Applied Research on English Language, 2 (2), 37–50.

Mauranen, A. (1993). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: metatext in Finnish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 12 (1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(93)90024-I

Mohammadi, M. J. (2013). Do Persian and English dissertation acknowledgments accommodate Hyland’s model: A cross-linguistic study. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3 (5), 534–547.

Mozayan, M. R., Allami, H., & Fazilatfar, A. M. (2017). Metadiscourse features in medical research articles: Subdisciplinary and paradigmatic influences in English and Persian. RALs, 9 (1), 83–104.

Omidi, L., & Farnia, M. (2016). Comparative generic analysis of introductions of English and Persian physical education research articles. International Journal of Language and Applied Linguistics, 2 (2), 1–18.

O’Sullivan, Í. (2010). Using corpora to enhance learners’ academic writing skills in French. Revue française de linguistique appliquée, XV , 21–35.

Peacock, M. (2011). The structure of the methods section in research articles across eight disciplines. Asian ESP Journal, 7 (2), 97–124.

Pho Phuong, D. (2010). Linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure: A corpus-based study of research article abstracts and introductions in applied linguistics and educational technology. Language and Computers, 71 , 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042028012010

Pooresfahani, A. F., Khajavy, G. H., & Vahidnia, F. (2012). A contrastive study of metadiscourse elements in research articles written by Iranian applied linguistics and engineering writers in English. English Linguistics Research, 1 (1), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v1n1p88

Rahimi, S., & Farnia, M. (2017). Comparative generic analysis of introductions of English and Persian dentistry research articles. Iranian Journal of Research in English Language Teaching (RELP), 5 (1), 27–40.

Reza, P., & Atena, A. (2012). Rhetorical patterns of argumentation in EFL journals of Persian and English. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2012.132

Reza, G., & Mansoori, S. (2011). Metadiscursive distinction between Persian and English: An analysis of computer engineering research articles. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2 (5), 1037–1042. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.5.1037-1042

Sadeghi, K., & Alinasab, M. (2020). Academic conflict in applied linguistics research article discussions: The case of native and non-native writers. English for Specific Purposes, 59 , 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2020.03.001

Samaie, M., Khosravian, F., & Boghayeri, M. (2014). The frequency and types of hedges in research article introductions by Persian and English native authors. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98 , 1678–1685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.593

Sandelowski, M., Docherty, S., & Emden, C. (1997). Qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and techniques. Research in Nursing and Health, 20 , 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-240X(199708)20:4<365::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-E

Shokouhi, H., & Baghsiahi, A. T. (2009). Metadiscourse functions in English and Persian sociology articles: A study in contrastive rhetoric. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45 (4), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-009-0026-2

Shooshtari, Z. G., Alilifar, A., & Shahri, S. (2017). Ethnolinguistic influence on citation in English and Persian hard and soft science research articles. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 23 (2), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017-2302-05

Siami, T., & Abdi, R. (2012). Metadiscourse strategies in Persian research articles: Implications for teaching writing English articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 9 , 165–176.

Sorahi, M., & Shabani, M. (2016). Metadiscourse in Persian and English research article introductions. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6 (6), 1175–1182. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0606.06

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings . Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications . Cambridge University Press.

Taki, S., & Jafarpour, F. (2012). Engagement and stance in academic writing: A study of English and Persian research articles. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (1), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2012.03.01.157

Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Valero-Garces, C. (1996). Contrastive ESP rhetoric: Metatext in Spanish-English economics texts. English for Specific Purposes, 15 (2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(96)00013-0

Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36 (1), 82–93.

Varastehnezhad, M., & Gorjian, B. (2018). A comparative study on the uses of metadiscourse markers (MMs) in research articles (RAs): Applied linguistics versus politics. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Learning, 4 (2), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.jalll.20180402.02

Yang, R., & Allison, D. (2003). Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes, 22 , 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00026-1

Yazdanmehr, E., & Samar, R. G. (2013). Comparing interpersonal metadiscourse in English and Persian abstracts of Iranian applied linguistics journals. The Experiment, 16 (1), 1090–1101.

Yeganeh, M. T., & Boghayeri, M. (2015). The frequency and function of reporting verbs in research articles written by native Persian and English speakers. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192 , 582–586.

Yeganeh, M. T., & Ghoreyshi, S. M. (2014). Exploring gender differences in the use of discourse markers in Iranian academic research articles. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192 , 684–689.

Zamani, G., & Ebadi, S. (2016). Move analysis of the conclusion sections of research papers in Persian and English. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science, 11 (1), 9–20.

Zand-Vakili, E., & Kashani, A. F. (2012). The contrastive move analysis: An investigation of Persian and English research articles’ abstract and introduction parts. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3 (2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2012.v3n2.129

Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2007). Metadiscourse in academic prose: A contrastive analysis of English and Persian research articles. The Asian ESP Journal, 3 (2), 24–40.

Zarei, G. Z., & Mansoori, S. (2010). Are English and Persian distinct in their discursive elements: An analysis of applied linguistics texts. English for Specific Purposes World, 31 (10), 1–8.

Zarei, G. R., & Mansoori, S. (2011). A contrastive study on metadiscourse elements used in humanities vs. non humanities across Persian and English. English Language Teaching, 4 (1), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n1p42

Zhang, W. Y., & Cheung, Y. L. (2017). Understanding engagement resources in constructing voice in research articles in the fields of computer networks and communications and second language writing. The Asian ESP Journal, 13 (3), 72–99.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

Chiew Hong Ng & Yin Ling Cheung

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chiew Hong Ng .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abbas Aghdassi

Appendix: List of selected studies

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Ng, C.H., Cheung, Y.L. (2021). Academic Writing for Academic Persian: A Synthesis of Recent Research. In: Aghdassi, A. (eds) Perspectives on Academic Persian. Language Policy, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75610-9_10

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75610-9_10

Published : 18 September 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-75609-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-75610-9

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Hayyim Steingass FarsiDictionary Glosbe Tatoeba

Google Bing

Langenscheidt

Wiktionary pronunciation

Wikipedia Google search Google books

• Dehkhoda Lexicon Institute : لغت‌نامهٔ دهخدا ( Loghat Nāmeh Dehkhodā , Dekhoda Dictionary) Persian dictionary in 15 volumes, by Ali-Akbar Dehkhoda علی‌اکبر دهخدا

• Aryanpour : Persian-English dictionary & French, German, Italian, Spanish, Swedish, Arabic

• FarsiDic : Persian Dictionary & Persian-English, Arabic, German, Italian

• translation of phrases Persian-English

• FarsiDicts : Persian-English dictionary

• Langenscheidt : Persian-German dictionary

• Free-dict : Persian-German dictionary

• Persian academy : Persian dictionary, words approved by the Persian language and literature Academy فرهنگستان زبان و ادب فارسی‎

→ online translation : Persian-English & other languages & web page

• Etymological dictionary of Persian , English & other Indo-European languages , by Ali Nourai

• An etymological dictionary of astronomy and astrophysics English-French-Persian, by Mohammad Heydari-Malayeri, Observatoire de Paris

• Loecsen : Persian-English common phrases (+ audio)

• Goethe-Verlag : Persian-English common phrases & illustrated vocabulary (+ audio)

• LingoHut : Persian-English vocabulary by topics (+ audio)

• Defense language institute : basic vocabulary (+ audio) - civil affairs - medical

• Persian-English dictionary by Sulayman Hayyim (1934)

• Comprehensive Persian-English dictionary by Francis Steingass (1892)

• Colloquial English-Persian dictionary in the Roman character , by Douglas Craven Phillott (1914)

• Persian for travellers by Alexander Finn (1884) (Arabic & Latin characters)

• English and Persian dictionary by Sorabshaw Byramji (1882)

• Concise dictionary of the Persian language by Edward Henry Palmer (1891) (Arabic & Latin characters)

• Dictionary, Persian, Arabic, and English by Francis Johnson (1852)

• Pocket Dictionary of English and Persian by William Thornhill Tucker (1850) (Arabic & Latin characters)

• Dictionary in Persian and English by Ramdhun Sen (1841) (Arabic & Latin characters)

• Vocabulary of the Persian language by Samuel Rousseau (1805)

• Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie : elements of Persian etymology, by Paul Horn (1893)

• Persische Studien : etymological studies, by Heinrich Hübschmann (1895)

• L'influence de la langue française sur le vocabulaire politique persan by Mahnaz Rezaï (2010)

• Les emprunts lexicaux du persan au français  : inventaires et analyses , by Maryam Khalilpour, dissertation (2013)

→ Persian keyboard to type a text with the Arabic script

• Iran Heritage : Persian course (+ audio)

• EasyPersian : Persian course

• Persian alphabet

• University of Texas, Austin : Persian grammar (+ audio)

• Jahanshiri : Persian basic grammar & vocabulary

• verbs conjugation

• Dastur : Persian grammar, by Navid Fazel (in English, German, Persian)

• Anamnese : Persian grammar [PDF] (in French)

• Wikimedia : linguistic map, Persian language is spoken in Iran and in a part of Afghanistan

• The Persian system of politeness and concept of face in Iranian culture by Sofia Koutlaki (2014)

• Note sur le progressif en persan : Persian/English comparative study, by Monir Yazdi, in Cahiers de linguistique hispanique médiévale (1988)

• Higher Persian grammar by Douglas Craven Phillott (1919)

• Persian self-taught in Roman characters with English phonetic pronunciation , by Shayk Hasan (1909)

• Modern Persian conversation-grammar by William St. Clair Tisdall (1902)

• Modern Persian colloquial grammar & dialogues, vocabulary, by Fritz Rosen (1898)

• The Persian manual , grammar & vocabulary, by Henry Wilberforce Clarke (1878)

• Concise grammar of the Persian language , & Dialogues, reading lessons, vocabulary, by Arthur Henry Bleeck (1857)

• Grammar of the Persian language by Duncan Forbes (1844)

• Grammar of the Persian language by Mohammed Ibrahim (1841)

• Grammar of the Persian language by William Jones & additions by Samuel Lee (1828)

• Manuale della lingua persiana , grammatica, antologia, vocabolario , by Italo Pizzi (1883)

• Some remarks on Italo Pizzi's Manuale della lingua persiana by Riccardo Zipoli (2013)

• Principia grammatices neo-persicæ : Persian grammar, by Gabriel Geitlin (1845)

• Early new Persian langage : the Persian language after the Islamic conquest (8 th -12 th centuries) by Ludwig Paul, in Encyclopædia Iranica

• books & papers about the Persian language: Google books | Internet archive | Academia | Wikipedia

• Ham-mihan هم‌میهن - Mardom salari مردم سالاری

• Radio Zamaneh رادیو زمانه

• Radio Farda رادیو فردا

• BBC - RFI - DW

• LyrikLine : Persian poems, with translation (+ audio)

• Petite anthologie bilingue de littérature irano-persane (Medieval texts, with transcription & translation) by Denis Matringe (2021)

• Persian literature , an introduction , by Reuben Levy (1923)

• Persian literature by Claude Field (1912)

• Persian literature , ancient and modern , by Elizabeth Reed (1893)

• La Perse littéraire by Georges Frilley (1900)

• Les origines de la poésie persane by James Darmesteter (1887)

• Yek ruz dar Rostamabad-e Shemiran يک روز در رستم آبادِ شميران by Mohammad-Ali Jamalzade محمدعلی جمال‌زاده

• The Little Prince شازده کوچولو by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, translated into Persian by Ahmad Shamlou

• Primer of Persian , containing selections for reading and composition with the elements of syntax , by George Ranking (1907)

• The flowers of Persian literature , Extracts from the most celebrated authors in prose and verse, with a translation into English , by Samuel Rousseau, William Jones (1805)

• Chrestomathia Persica : Persian texts, by Friedrich Spiegel (1846)

• glossary Persian-Latin

• The Quran translated into Persian

• Farsinet : translation of the Bible into Persian

• The New Testament translated into Persian (1901)

• The Bible translated into Persian (1920)

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights اعلامیه جهانی حقوق بشر translation into Persian (+ audio)

→ First article in different languages

→ Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Persian, English & other languages

→ Iran : maps, heritage & documents

→ Old Persian language

→ Arabic language

• Support & Donations
• Printed Volumes

Advanced Search

CASES, forms and uses, in Iranian languages and dialects.

General observations. The term case is used on at least three linguistics levels. It refers to:

1. the semantic role of a noun (phrase) relative to another noun (phrase) and/or to the verb, such as agent, patient, experiencer, and possessor;

2. the syntactic function of a noun (phrase) relative to another and/or to the verb, such as subject, direct object, and indirect object, and dependent noun (phrase);

3. the morphological means, “case”-endings, and/or pre/postpositions, often together with word order, by which semantic role and/or syntactic function of a noun (phrase) are distinguished, such as nominative, accusative, dative, and genitive.

The distinctions between these three levels may be illustrated by the following examples. Semantically, in both “He hit her” and “She was hit by him,” HE is the agent (the person who hits), and SHE the patient (the person being hit). Syntactically, however, “he” is the subject in the active sentence but “she” in the passive sentence, morphologically marked by the opposition of “he” and “she” vs. “her” and “(by) him.”

The interrelation of the three levels is reflected in traditional Western grammatical terminology. Nominative, accusative, dative, genitive, and, further, vocative, instrumental, ablative, locative, etc., are not exclusively morphological terms, but also imply the syntactic and semantic functions and roles which the endings of these cases most typically, but by no means only, mark.

For example, an “accusative,” with its case ending, may most typically mark the semantic patient and the syntactic direct object, but it may also mark, semantically, temporal and locational “goals” (“accusative of time/place”) and, syntactically, temporal and directional “objects.”

Such multi-functionality of morphological marking may be illustrated by an example from Persian. In Persian, the (specific) direct object is marked by the postposition -rā , called, or identified as, the “accusative” in traditional European grammars of Persian. The same postposition, however, may also, though not obligatorily, mark temporal and directional “object,” for instance, direct object: man ū-rā dīdam “I saw him/her,” emšab-rā īnjā bāš “Stay here tonight,” hama šahr-rā gaštam “I walked around the whole city.”

The terms of Near Eastern grammatical tradition similarly imply reference to all three levels. For example, the term fāʿel “doer” refers to the semantic “agent” as well as the syntactic “subject” of a sentence, and the morphological marker -u (in Arabic); and the term mafʿūl “(what is) done” refers to both the semantic “patient” and the syntactic “object” of a sentence, as well as to the morphological marking of it by -a in the case of a mafʿūl-e bī-wāseṭa “direct object,” as opposed to mafʿūl-e bī-wāseṭa “indirect object.”

In the following survey of cases in Iranian languages the focus will be largely on the morphological distinction of cases, which is the most tangible, rather than on semantic roles and syntactic functions. Typically, in the history of languages, morphological differentiation is cyclical: a stage with no or minimal differentiation is followed by a stage with increased differentiation, which in turn is followed by a stage of decay of the case system into a minimal binary opposition, direct case vs. oblique case, or total loss of formal differentiation other than by pre- or postpositions and/or word order. These rudimentary stages are then followed by newly differentiated case marking, usually by the development of pre- or postpositions into ending-like, or prefix-like case markers. Such cyclical developments are well represented and documented in the history of the Iranian languages, as well, and each of the many Iranian languages of today represents various stages in that cycle.

Origins. Iranian inherited its nominal inflection from Indo-European via a common Indo-Iranian stage. The typical Indo-European noun consisted simply of a root or a root followed by a “stem” formant. While the root gave the basic meaning, the stem formant represented “grammaticalized” meanings; in some instances it had been reduced to the simply morphological functions of identifying the morphological “class.” For example, in Old Iranian, the stem formant -tar inherited from Indo-European (cf. Lat. -tor- in fac-tor- , etc.) marks agent nouns, e.g., from the base dā- “to give” (OInd. dā- ) or “to create” (OInd. dhā- ) was formed dā-tar- “giver; creator”; the formant -a , however, is no more than a “thematic” vowel added to the stem, with the function of marking masculine (and neuter) vs. feminine -ā , etc. (cf. Latin masc., neut. o -stems and fem. ā -stems).

The inherited case endings were fusional, that is, one and the same ending was used to distinguish not only cases but also number: singular, plural, and dual. They were attached to the root or stem, with considerable variation depending on the phonological and morphological characteristics of the root or stem, and when attached to stems ending in vowels there was further fusion of case and number with gender, as in the a - and ā -stems.

In the following discussion of the development of the case systems in Iranian the focus will be on the thematic a - declension, as this declension spread to nouns of originally different declension classes and was transformed at a slower rate than the other declensions.

Origins of Indo-European nominal inflection . The Indo-European mother language in its early stages probably had no or just a few case markings, and gender, number, and case endings developed only gradually. It is likely that the development of the case endings from pronouns, adverbs, or postpositions went through three principal stages (cf. Shields; Baldi, 1987, p. 53): First these words in some or all contexts lost their independent meaning and were no longer used freely in the sentences but only in conjunction with nouns (“grammaticalization”; cf. the use of his to denote possession in early modern English). Next they became even more closely attached to the nouns preceding or following them and, losing their own stress, became enclitics (or proclitics; “clitization”; cf. Eng. his > ’s , identical with the regular plural ending). Finally they could become phonetically fused with other markers, for instance, some endings would mark gender and number, as well as cases. This development, which proceeded differently in different Indo-European languages, resulted in the many attested declensional classes with their varying paradigms and irregularities of nominal endings well known from languages such as classical Latin, Greek, Sanskrit (Old Indian), and so on. An example: the original nominative plural ending can be reconstructed as *- es and is seen clearly in consonant stems such as IE. * pod + es > OInd. pādas , OIran. * pādah “feet”; in o -stems, however, it merged with the stem vowel o to produce the ending *- ōs , as in IE. * deḭṷo + es > * deḭṷōs “heavenly ones” > OInd. devās “gods,” OIran. * daḭṷāh “demons.”

This process was in some instances accompanied by changes in the vowels of the noun itself, either in vowel quantity or quality, often depending upon the position of the IE. accent: long/short/no vowel (e.g., IE. * pēd -/ ped -/ pd - > OIran. * pād-/pad-/bd- ), or variation in vowel quality between e and o (e.g., IE. * ped-/pod- and * pēd-/pōd- > Indo-Iran. * pad-/pād- , with partly new distribution of short and long vowels). The declension of a few “irregular” nouns, as well as that of pronouns (see below), could involve two different, suppletive, stems, as, for instance, in Av. karšuuarə-karšuuąn “country-countries,” with variation between r -stem and n -stem (also called heteroclitic declension), or from rāzar- “commandment”: nom. sing. rāzarə̄ , gen. sing. rāzə̄ng ( < -anh ), gen. plur. rāšnąm.

Old Iranian.

The case system of the original common language of the ancestors of the Indian and Iranian tribes can be reconstructed from the Old Indian and Old Iranian languages. The system so reconstructed is among the most elaborate of those attested in Indo-European languages, containing three numbers (singular, dual, and plural), three genders (masculine, neuter, and feminine), and from four to eight cases.

Depending upon the declension, a maximum of eight cases were distinguished in the singular, six in the plural, and four in the dual. The differences reflect a typological tendency to have most distinctions in the singular, fewer in the plural, and fewest in the dual.  Table 4 shows the basic Old Iranian case endings (reconstructed from Avestan and Old Persian) and  Table 5 the endings of the masculine thematic ( a -stem) declension, from which the distinction between direct and oblique case in most modern Iranian dialects derive (see below). Original IE. s (marked S in the table) developed into OIran. -s , -h or -š depending on the preceding phoneme.

Case distinction in pronouns is characterized by suppletive paradigms. In particular, the forms in the three numbers of the first and second persons show many peculiarities, for instance, Av. azəm - mąm , vaēm - ahma- , cf. Eng. “I - me,” “we - us.” Case is less consistently distinguished in enclitic personal pronouns. Many adverbs reflect old (“frozen”) case forms of pronouns, for instance, Av. āaṱ “then,” originally ablative of the pronominal stem a- “that.”

Examples of the singular and plural cases of the thematic a- and ā- declension, yasna -masc. “worship, sacrifice” with ahura- masc. “lord,” and daenā- fem. “religion,” as well as derivative stem in -tar , dā-tār -masc. “creator,” showing stem variation, are given in  Table 6 .

Middle Iranian.

In Middle Iranian the highly differentiated Old Iranian case system was simplified to various degrees in

The different languages. The first major change, documented already in Old Persian, was the extension of the genitive to assume also dative function, which resulted in the loss of the dative marker in all three numbers (except occasionally in personal pronouns, e.g., Tumshuqese tivya “you,” Emmerick, in Schmitt, ed., p. 220).

West Iranian. The change from Old Persian to Middle Persian, seen as early as in the Old Persian inscriptions from the 4th century b.c., was radical. The dual and the distinction of gender were completely lost. In the singular and plural the endings were initially reduced to a binary opposition between direct and oblique case: the nominative, vocative, and accusative coalesced into one endingless case both in the singular and the plural, whereas the remaining cases coalesced with the genitive-dative (sing. * -ahya > -ē ), which was then also lost in the attested West Iranian languages but must have survived in many areas, as it resurfaces in modern dialects. As to the nominative plural, there is some evidence that at least in the very early stages it was marked by -e/-i , since such endings are used in many modern dialects (see below). The genitive plural ending * -ānām became the oblique plural ending -ān ( -īn and -ūn in a few nouns from the Old Iranian i- and u- stem endings). This is the stage of the language of the Middle Persian and Parthian inscriptions (Skjærvø, esp. pp. 176-77). Only in the terms for family members (“father,” etc.) do the Middle Persian inscriptions (and also Manichean Middle Persian) still preserve case distinction in the singular (Skjærvø, loc. cit.; Sims-Williams). Subsequently, -ān became the general plural ending, which resulted in the total loss of inflectional case distinctions. Later still, in Middle Persian -īhā , originally an abstract marker, developed as a plural marker in inanimate words (the earliest example is anjomanīhā in the Pahlavi Psalter , Skjærvø, loc. cit.). Table 7 shows the declension of yazd “god” and pid “father” according to the (fragmentary) evidence of the Middle Persian inscriptions and the Pahlavi Psalter (cf. Skjærvø, p. 176).

East Iranian. In the better documented eastern Middle Iranian languages, Choresmian, Sogdian, and Khotanese, the coalescence and loss of case endings and cases was slower. Sogdian and Khotanese preserved the six Old Iranian cases in the singular, in Choresmian nominative = accusative, and the vocative was lost. Both older Khotanese and Sogdian retained a special form of the nominative-accusative singular neuter in -u < -am . The dual was lost almost everywhere: only traces of it remained in Choresmian (q.v.; and see H. Humbach in Schmitt, ed., p. 197) and in the use of special forms after numerals in Sogdian (“numerative,” Sims-Williams, 1979, and idem, in Schmitt, ed., p.183). Khotanese originally preserved four cases in the plural: nominative-accusative, genitive-dative, vocative(!)-instrumental, and locative, but in the latest texts only two or three cases are distinguished. In Sogdian and Choresmian the case system in the plural was reduced to a binary opposition: nominative-accusative versus genitive-dative. In Sogdian two new plural markers developed: -t ( a ) from the Old Iranian collective or abstract marker -tāt- and -īšt (from an obsolete plural * -īš of i- stems with the addition of -t ), to which the oblique singular endings were added (Sims-Williams, 1979, 1982).  Table 8 shows the endings of a- and ā- stem nouns in Khotanese and Sogdian (light stems).

Modern Iranian.

Most modern Iranian dialects have no known direct predecessors. The exceptions are Persian which derives from Middle Persian, and Yaghnobi which is descended from Sogdian, although considerable differences are evident in both instances.

Direct and oblique cases. As shown above, inflectional case distinctions had already been lost in the Western Middle Iranian languages Parthian and Middle Persian, and this is also the case in Modern Persian, the best known and most influential of the modern Iranian languages, as well as in the modern Perside dialects, such as Lori, and in the modern southwestern and southern dialects of Fārs, Lāristān, and Bašākard (see baškardī ), and in most of the Central dialects .

However, as in other areas of the morphology of modern Iranian, Persian is the least typical, and most of the modern Iranian languages have preserved at least a two-case system. Note also that, in general, pronouns tend to preserve case distinctions longer than nouns (cf. the Romance languages, which have preserved the dative in the pronouns, and Germanic languages such as English and Scandinavian, which have an oblique case only in pronouns) and may even develop additional case distinctions (see below).

Two-case systems are found in the majority of the (north)western Iranian dialects: in the Dimili (Zaza) dialects in eastern Turkey, in the Gōrāni dialects in the middle Zagros near the Iraqi border and around Mosul in Iraq, and in the Kurdish dialects (major exceptions are Solaymānīya, Warmāwa, and several dislocated subdialects), Ṭāleši on the west coast of the Caspian, Tati in individual villages west of Tehran surrounded by a generally Turkophone population, in the Caspian dialects of Gīlakī and Māzanderāni, northern dialects of central Iran such as Semnāni and the surrounding dialects east of Tehran, Ḵūri in the central desert, and in several dialects of Baluchi , stretching from Central Asia to Pakistan, as well as in most eastern Iranian languages: Ossetic in the central Caucasus (which has developed a complex case system, see below), Pashto, Wakhi in northeast Afghanistan, Yaghnobi in Central Asia, Yidgha and Munji, Yazghulami, Ishkashmi, Roshani, and Sarikoli (only in the plural).

Direct case. The direct case of the singular is generally unmarked (no case ending). In the plural it is marked variously. It is zero (i.e., no ending) in such dialects as northern Kurdish, Sangesari, Baluchi, resulting from the loss of the earlier nominative-accusative ending. In a number of dialects it is a front vowel ( -i/-e , perhaps based on the descendants of the OIr. i- stem endings nom. -ayah , acc. * -īš ), such as Dimili, Semnāni, and Munji -i ; Gōrāni and Tati -e , and Ṭāleši -en . Both in dialects with and without case distinction it is quite common for the direct plural to be marked either by -ān , which results from the extension of the plural oblique ending into the direct case (e.g., Central Kurdish -ān , Ṭāleši -on , Māzanderāni and Gīlakī -un , -an ), or by endings derived from original abstract markers, for instance, Yazghulami -āθ , Yaghnobi -t , Ossetic -ät , Wakhi -īšt (probably related to Sogdian -t [ a ] and -īšt , see above), or words meaning “group,” for instance: Persian -hā (of disputed origin but probably from a form such as * -iyaθwa ), the western Iranian common plural ending -gal (southern Kurdish dialects, the Lor dialects, and other dialects of central Persia; cf. Pers. galla “flock, herd”), -bar in the Koroši dialect of Baluchi in Fārs, Sarikoli -xeyl . The ending -gal may be combined with the endings -ān or -hā .

Oblique case. In most dialects the singular and plural oblique cases derive from the older genitive-dative. The origins of the oblique singular endings containing n in many dialects (e.g., Yidgha -en , Munji -ān : sing. obl. masc./fem.; Wakhi -ən , “from”) cannot be definitely ascertained; they may be borrowed from pronouns or be descended from an Old Iranian form, possibly related to the Khotanese instr.-abl. sing. ending -äna . Some eastern dialects have oblique plural endings deriving from other old case forms (see also pronouns, below), for instance, the ablative-dative ending * -aibyah (or a similar form) is the origin of Munji -āf ; Wakhi -ev , Sarikoli -ef ; Pashto and Ishkashmi -o (cf. Khot. -yau ). In a number of dialects the oblique marker of the singular was added to the plural marker to mark the oblique case (cf. Sogdian, above), for instance, Sangesari ( -un-i ), Māzanderāni ( -un-e ), Gīlakī ( -an-e ), and Baluchi ( -ān-i ), Ishkashmi ( -o-yi ), Wakhi ( -ev-i or -ev ), Yazghulami ( -āθ-i ), Yaghnobi ( -t-i ), and Ossetic ( -ät-i ).

Kinship markers. The Middle Persian and Parthian special case distinction in nouns denoting kinship has been maintained in a large number of western dialects, including Dimili, Ṭāleši, Tati, Semnāni, and Sangesari and neighboring dialects. Here the oblique case of kinship nouns is marked by -r . Originally limited to r- stem nouns this marker has spread within this semantic group and even outside of it, as in southern Tati, where it has become the general marker of human objects (see, e.g., čāl and čāli ; čarza ), and in Dimili, where it is an optional marker of animate femininess.

Morphophonemic variation. There is some variation in the form of the case markers depending on the stem finals and gender, but only in Pashto do we find a proliferation of declensional classes, both of nouns and adjectives, some of which exhibit umlaut (see, e.g., Skjærvø, in Schmitt, ed., pp. 389-91).

Table 9 illustrates some common inflectional patterns: Semnāni ( asp “horse,” piyá “father”; dāra “tree,” me “mother,” after Christensen, pp. 39-40; Majidi, p. 95); Avromani dialect of Gōrāni ( har donkey/ māhar-a “she-ass,” piā “father,” aḏā “mother,” after MacKenzie, pp. 14-15), and Dimili ( mār “snake,” pī “father,” mā “mother,” after Todd, pp. 49-57); Pashto ( ās “horse,” aspa “mare,” soṛ “cold” see, e.g., Skjærvø, in Schmitt, ed.); and Munji ( pūr “son,” wula “wife,” see, e.g., Skjærvø, ibid.).

Differentiation of cases. The loss of the syntactically crucial formal distinction between nominative and accusative resulted in a need to make the direct object unambiguous by other means already in the western Middle Iranian languages (see, e.g., Skjærvø, rev. of Bossong; and Sundermann, in Schmitt, ed., pp. 134, l60). In the modern languages and dialects this distinction is commonly achieved by three major strategies: by using the marked oblique case (the genitive-dative), the dative marker -rā , or directional pre- or postpositions; combinations of these three are also used. This extension of the use of case markers has in turn spread to the indirect object (dative) and, to a lesser degree, to the possessor (genitive).

The typological extreme is in the Iron dialect of Ossetic, where, on the basis of the Middle Iranian oblique combined with postpositions, a paradigm of nine cases in both singular and plural has developed: nominative, genitive, dative, allative (“to”), ablative (“from”), inessive (“being in”), adessive (“being at”), equative (“as . . . as”), comitative (“with”; see, e.g., F. Thordarson in Schmitt, ed., pp. 469-71; and caucasus ii).

Direct object ( accusative ). All Iranian dialects except Pashto (which has preserved the passive construction of past transitive verbs in its pure form, see below) developed differential markers to mark the direct object (or some direct objects, see below).

The oblique case is used in such dialects as Ṭāleši, Tati, Semnāni, Dimili, Gōrāni, Northern Kurdish, Ishkashmi (where it has lost its other functions), Wakhi, Yaghnobi, and Ossetic.

The remaining eastern dialects employ pre- or postpositions which derive from the merger of Old Iranian directional pre- or postpositions. The Shughni group, including Sarikoli, has as (< OIr. hača “from”); Yazghulami has na ( -ž ): ( na- also ablative, < OIr. anā “along, upon,” and -ž- from * hača ); Munji-Yidgha and Sanglechi have va- ( < OIr. * upā “toward”); Ormuri has ku- ,probably related to the indirect object/dative marker kun -, whereas the closely related Parachi has ma- , possibly connected with Pers. mar = rā ; Morgenstierne, p. 53). In the west only Sangesari has -də (from dar , andar “in, into”), which is added to the oblique form. As a rule, these affixes retain their function as ablative or locative-directional markers, respectively.

The postposition -rā is used as an accusative marker in a large number of western dialects. It developed from OPers. rādiy “because of, on account of” (see Skjærvø, 1985, pp. 215-16), via rāy , dative marker in western Middle Iranian (also in modern Dimili -re ), to dative and accusative or only accusative marker in the modern dialects (e.g., both dative and accusative in classical Persian and Baluchi; accusative only in contemporary Persian and most of its dialects).

The marking of the direct object in many dialects depends on the nature of the object: whether it is human or non-human, animate or inanimate, definite or indefinite, specific or nonspecific, etc., with considerable variation depending on the dialect group and subgroup (see further, below; cf. the similar rules in Spanish for marking direct objects by the preposition a ).

Indirect object ( dative ). The marking of the indirect object shows even greater variety than that of the direct object. Dimili has preserved -rē ( < -rā ) in this function. In dialects where the accusative became identical with the dative the latter was often additionally marked by pre- or postpositions. Exceptions to this general tendency are Tati (where the oblique has preserved its original dative function with verbs of saying and giving), Semnāni, Sangesari, and several northern Central dialects. In dialects that use -rā (or-( n )- a < -rā as in Lori) for the direct object, the dative is generally expressed by the preposition ba- / be- , even in some dialects with inherited oblique forms, for instance, Gōrāni ba- . In Baluchi  the function of the inherited oblique in -i is reduced to that of genitive, and -ra has retained the old accusative and dative functions. A more developed form of -rā , -ā , has the function of a general oblique, to which in many Baluchi dialects the accusative-dative -rā may be added. The eastern dialects show much variety, using developed forms of -rā (Yazghulami and Sarikoli), ba- (Yaghnobi, Sanglechi, and Ishkashmi), -ta ( r ) (Pashto, in the pronominal adverbs, and the Shughni group), or na- (Munji), -än (Ossetic). Both Parachi and Ormuri use a preposition ku ( n ) - , which in Ormuri may be accompanied by to distinguish it from the direct object.

Other uses of the indirect object ( dative ). In a number of dialects the experiencer (our subject) with verbs of sensation such as “to feel hungry” and with modals “must,” “can,” “want,” has the form of the indirect object, a construction found as early as in Old Persian (see, e.g., Bossong, p. 17, and Skjærvø, rev. of Bossong, p. 70). “To have” is commonly expressed by “to be” plus indirect object (cf. Cl. Pers. marā hast “I have”).

Use of the cases in past transitive verbal constructions. Ergative. Iranian inherited the Indo-European marking of the agent/subject and patient/object by the nominative and accusative, respectively, and the verbal ending agreeing with the agent/subject, the so-called nominative-accusative pattern. However, already in Old Iranian there was a tendency to develop new past tense constructions based on the past/perfect participle in -ta plus the copula “to be.” Thus in the present tense case marking follows the inherited nominative-accusative pattern, and the verbal ending agrees with the subject; but in the past/perfect tense the agent/subject is morphologically in the oblique case and the patient/direct object in the direct case, and the verbal ending/ marker agrees with the patient/direct object. The origin of this construction is a participial passive construction, “which was done by me,” and it therefore used to be called the “passive construction” in the tradition of Iranian linguistics. It soon became incorporated into the verbal system, however, with active function (as opposed to the regular derivative passive marked by - y - in both present and past tenses). This pattern is illustrated in  Table 10 with two examples from Old Persian ( taya “which,” both nominative and accusative singular neuter; PR = present stem of verb; PF = perfect participle):

In modern Iranian this is the common past tense construction of transitive verbs, with the exception of the imperfect in Gōrāni and Ṭāleši in the west and Yaghnobi in the east, in which the imperfect stem is still based on the old present stem, rather than on the past participle.

The original passive construction of past transitive verbs is today only found in its pure form in Pashto ( zə dā lidə/əm “he saw me,” lit. “I [by] him seen-am”). The assimilation of this “passive” system to the “active” one began with the marking of the direct object as in the present (already in Manichean Middle Persian and Parthian and Book Pahlavi, see Sundermann, in Schmitt, ed., loc. cit.), resulting in a system where neither the subject nor the direct object was in the direct case; this stage is found in many modern dialects. Another typical change is the change occurring in the endings of the verb, which originally and still in many dialects agree with the direct object (logical subject). In other dialects, however, the endings are completely lost, and in the most developed instances, the verb agrees with the subject (agent), when in the ergative case.

In modern Persian and some other dialects in central Iran the old ergative construction has been completely ousted by the nominative-accusative construction, probably as a result of the loss of distinct nominative case forms in the personal pronouns (e.g., man “I, me” for early Mid. Pers. an-man ) and the phonetical merger of the copula with the pronominal suffixes (e.g., -am both “I am” and “me, my”; note the reverse analogy, which allows the 3 pers. pronominal suffix -aš/-eš to be attached to any 3 pers. verbal form in popular speech in some areas, e.g., mīkonad-eš “he does,” raft-eš “he went” in Tehrani (see  Table 12 ).

Ergative subject marking. Similar to object marking the marking of the ergative in many dialects depends upon the degree of animacy, definiteness, and thematic polarization. There is considerable variation among dialects and even subdialects belonging to the same dialect group, but as a rule marked direct objects are human and/or definite and/or thematic, whereas non-concrete, indefinite, non-thematic objects are unmarked (see Bossong, passim).

Agentive or volitional construction. The single, and typologically most noteworthy, exception to this overall Iranian pattern and trend is found in the system of subject marking in the northeastern Pamir language Wakhi, the semantics of which has only recently been recognized (Bashir). Whereas in the other Iranian dialects the oblique marking of the agent/subject in the past tenses, at whatever stage of simplification, is determined by the transitivity of the verb, in Wakhi it is not. Instead, oblique marking of the agent/subject is found with both transitive and intransitive verbs. The marking of the agent/subject by the oblique is instead determined by semantic and discourse-related factors, including volitional action and change of focus in discourse, irrespective of whether the verb is transitive or intransitive. As such the “logic” of this system has radically diverged from the common Iranian one, most probably under the influence of the neighboring non-Indo-European language Burushaski . Note the following examples in Chart 1 (Bashir, pp. 16, 19).

Possessor/genitive. In the vast majority of dialects the genitive is marked by the oblique, though several eastern dialects have innovated by the use of pre- or postpositions, usually with the oblique if distinct, such as Parachi, Munji, Sarikoli -an , while Ishkashmi has -no-y , where -y is a reflex of the oblique, parallel to Baluchi -ā-i , where the original oblique -i is confined to this function. Ormuri has -tar , Pashto has da-.

As for word order, two main alternatives can be distinguished: “possessed(NI)-connector-possessor(N2),” as in Dimili, Tati, Gōrāni and Kurdish, Persian, and the Central and southern dialects (e.g., Pers. pesar-e šāh , Kurdish of Solaymānīya ( kuṟ-a pāšā “the king’s son”), and “possessor (N2)-possessed (N1)” in the remainder of Iranian (e.g., Māzandarāni kijā-i pēr “the girl’s father,” Baluchi manī pissay brās “my father’s brother,” Pashto da saṛī kōr “the man’s house”). The predicative possessive may be expressed by the oblique and/or special markers (e.g., Pers. by the dem. pron. and eżāfa : ān-e man ast “it is mine,” mainly literary, for common māl-e man ast ).

Dimili is unique in having not only gender and number distinction in the eżāfa , that is, the vowel connecting two nouns in an eżāfa construction, like neighboring Northern Kurdish and Gōrāni, but also distinguishing an oblique case of the eżāfa , which is obligatory when a possessive construction is governed by either another noun or a postposition; examples are given in Chart 2 (Todd, pp. 136-43; EZ = eżāfa ).

Other cases. A number of dialects, such as Gōrāni, Dimili, Sangesari, Kurdish, and Ormuri, have a locative (with restrictive use), also marked by a front vowel ending and probably identical with the oblique. Parachi has an ablative in -i . Pashto has in the singular masculine an oblique form in -a ( < OIran. ablative -āt ) that is used with a few prepositions, mostly meaning “from.” In addition, a number of dialects have vocative markers, most of which appear to be innovations. In Pashto the vocative plural is identical with the oblique (cf. Khotanese, where in the plural vocative = instrumental).

The remaining case functions, such as direction and time, are expressed either by the direct or oblique alone or accompanied by pre/postpositions. Finally, in several central western dialects word order, that is, the position of a noun relative to another may serve to indicate location or direction.

Pronouns. Most dialects with an oblique case in nouns also have oblique cases in the pronouns. The opposition between direct and oblique case forms is usually better preserved in the singular than in the plural, and especially in the first and second persons singular. Diachronically, the history of these oblique forms is not uniform, evidently due to the survival of forms morphophonemically more marked than others. In many dialects the oblique forms derive from Middle Iranian forms derived from Old Iranian dative-genitive forms (New and Mid. Pers. man < OPers. gen.-dat. manā ), but other old cases (ablative, instrumental, locative, and even dative and accusative) are also represented, at least in some eastern dialects (see, e.g., Pakhalina, 1982). In addition, new forms were created by the coalescence of enclitic pronouns with pre- or postpositions. Thus, several dialect groups have distinct forms for the possessive (genitive), resulting in a tripartite system of direct, oblique, possessive, as in Gīlakī and Māzanderāni in the west, and Sanglechi in the east. In Pashto and Yazghulami in the east and Ṭāleši and Tati in the west, the possessive/genitive forms derive from OIr. hača “from” plus oblique pronoun. As these possessive forms are distinctly marked as “non-direct” case forms, they have come to replace less distinctly marked oblique forms in the northwestern dialects (e.g., Semnāni `ønaukär “his servant” and `øhākärd “he did,” with `ø < * hača plus an oblique form of the pronoun; Christensen, pp. 26, 43). This, in turn, has created a need for better marked possessives. The typological extreme is represented on one hand by Ossetic, where the pronouns are inflected like nouns (nine cases in Iron), and, on the other, by the Tati dialects of Hazārrūd in eastern Azerbaijan, in which the singular pronouns distinguish five cases: 1. subject of present and past intransitive verbs and present transitive verbs; 2. subject of past transitive verbs; 3. direct object of present transitive verbs; 4. direct object of past transitive verbs; and 5. possessive and postpositional; example 1st singular: 1. az , 2. men , 3. adem , 4. ačem , 5. čemen .

Pronominal suffixes ( enclitic pronouns ). The history of the modern pronominal suffixes can be traced back to the Old Iranian enclitic pronouns. These were declined for person, gender, and number but did not usually have distinct forms for all the cases. In Old Persian only the opposition between accusative ( -mā “me”) and genitive-dative ( -maiy ) was still regularly maintained, although ablative forms were also found ( hačā-ma “from me” < * -mat ; Brandenstein and Mayrhofer, pp. 66-67). In Middle Iranian, we find a single form used for all non-direct cases in western Iranian and Khotanese, while Sogdian appears to have maintained a distinction similar to that in Old Persian (Sims-Williams, in Schmitt, ed., p. 186). In this respect, too, the typological extreme is Ossetic, where the pronominal suffixes are inflected as to case similar to the independent pronouns. The Lārestāni dialects are noteworthy in that the agentive affix is not obligatorily enclitic (i.e., prefixed to the verb or affixed to a preceding noun), but may be separated and thus function as a quasi-independent agentive pronoun as opposed to the independent pronoun; examples are given in Chart 3 (Eqtedārī, p. 190).

In Harzani (Mortażawī), in the perfect the original endings of intransitives have been replaced by the agentive suffixes of transitives, except for the 1st and 2nd singular, which optionally retain the intransitive endings; examples “I, you, he, she, we, you, they have been” and “I, you, he/she, we, you, they said” ( Chart 4 ; note r < t in ber- < būta- , ra/runa = Pers. -at/etān ):

In the Pamir languages the distinction between transitive and intransitive sets of affixes has been leveled in all past tenses almost everywhere (Payne).

Pronominal suffixes are confined to the position after “self” (cf. Pers. ḵᵛodaš ) in Gīlakī and Māzanderāni and are not found at all in Dimili, Northern Kurdish, Sangesari, and in the Pamir languages.

In the modern dialects the pronominal suffixes generally mark the oblique case, being used for the subject (agent) of past transitive verbs (e.g., be-m-ke ( rd ) “I did,” in several Central dialects, see, e.g., P. LeCoq in Schmitt, ed., pp. 319, 321; Pashto dáy me wə́lid “I saw him”), direct object, indirect object, and possessor (e.g., Pers. dīdam-aš “I saw him,” az ān ḵᵛoš-am mīāyad “I like it,” ketāb-am “my book”).

Synopsis of the development of case markers.

Table 11 contains a synopsis of the development of the endings of the masculine singular and plural endings of the thematic a- declension, from Indo-European through proto-Iranian (OIran.), Avestan, Old Persian, early (EMWI) and standard Western Middle Iranian (Middle Persian and Parthian: MWI), as well as Eastern Middle Iranian Khotanese and Sogdian, including their late forms.

As seen above, the Iranian languages have varied considerably in the development of their case systems. Nevertheless, there is a common drift to be observed that is shared by both West and East Iranian, in terms of the merger and loss of cases.

While Avestan continues the inherited pattern, Old Persian innovates by the loss of the ablative-dative -aibyah in the plural, resulting in merger of the dative with the genitive, and of the ablative with the instrumental. In the singular the dative likewise merged with the genitive and the ablative with the instrumental after the loss of final -t . Exactly this pattern, rather than that of Avestan, is also found in the developments in Khotanese and Sogdian. In these two languages in addition the nominative merges with the accusative in the plural.

The next stage of the simplification of the case system is the development of an opposition between direct and oblique case only, as found in early Middle Persian. Similarly, in Late Khotanese there are only two distinct case forms in the plural. In Sogdian the binary opposition in the plural of -ta vs. -tya , is an innovation, as is also the optional marking of the oblique singular and plural in late Sogdian.

Overall, then, the major division that emerges is that between vocative, nominative, and accusative on one hand, and the remaining cases on the other.

The final stage is the loss of distinction other than singular vs. plural.

The evidence of the modern Iranian languages suggests that all of them, with the exception of Pashto, must have gone through a stage with the binary distinction between direct and oblique in both singular and plural, similar to that of early Middle Iranian.  Table 12 shows the basic patterns of the marking of the major marked cases in nouns (Note that the oblique marker cited is that of the 3rd singular masculine, only):

OBL = oblique;

ERG = ergative (subject in transitive past not in the direct case);

GEN = genitive/possessor (dependent noun and possessive);

DAT = dative/indirect object;

ACC = accusative/direct object;

P = oblique in pronouns only; D = direct case; O = oblique case;

A = accusative case in dialects where the direct object is marked by adpositions and/or the oblique;

PR = verbal forms from the present stem;

PT = forms from the past stem.

Example: DO/OD = in present tense constructions the subject is in the direct case and direct object in an oblique case, but in transitive past tense constructions the subject [ = agent] is in an oblique case and direct object in the direct case. The focus is on dialects that have preserved at least some of the inherited inflectional case markers. Ṭāleši, Tati, including Eštehārdi, Semnāni, Dimili, Gōrāni, Northern Kurdish, Sangesari, Gīlakī, Māzanderāni, Baluchi, Ormuri and Parachi, Munji, Sanglechi, Ishkashmi, Yazghulami, Roshani of the central Pamir group, Sarikoli, Wakhi, Pashto, Yaghnobi, and Ossetic. Lori and classical and modern Persian are chosen to represent western dialects which have lost inflection. The list is necessarily selective and omits many dialects, and thus much of the variety of inherited and adpositional case marking actually found in both western and eastern dialects.

This synoptic table suggests a common drift. We see that in the majority of the languages the marking of the accusative/direct object has been renewed by the extension of the dative, either of the oblique, that is, the old genitive-dative, and/or of the pre- or postposition marking the dative. The resulting formal identity of the two cases (cf. modern Spanish) then triggers the differentiation of the dative from the accusative by the use of pre- or postpositions in a number of dialects.

Overall, the West Iranian languages show considerable uniformity in terms of case marking, while the East Iranian languages show great variety not only in the marking of the accusative and dative but also of the genitive.

As to the use of the direct and oblique cases for the subject and object in the past of transitive verbs, the development varies considerably in the different dialects. The general drift of the development is:

Subject-Object: “nominative-accusative construction”

➝ OBL-DIR: “pure ergative construction”

➝ OBL-OBL and/or affix: “double oblique construction”

➝ DIR-OBL: “nominative-accusative construction”

The exception is Wakhi, as already mentioned, where the oblique has been extended from transitive to intransitive verbs, functioning no longer as “ergative,” but as volitional/topical agent.

See also DECLENSION; DERIVATION; and ERGATIVE .

Bibliography : (For complete bibliographies see Schmitt, ed.) Ph. Baldi, “Indo-European Languages,” in B. Comrie, ed., The Major Languages of the World , London and Sydney, 1987, pp. 31-67.

E. Bashir, “Beyond Split-Ergativity. Subject Marking in Wakhi,” in Proceedings of the 22nd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society , 1986, pp. 15-35.

G. Bossong, Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen , Tübingen, 1985 (rev. by P. O. Skjærvø, in Kratylos 34, 1989, pp. 65-71).

W. Brandenstein and M. Mayrhofer, Handbuch des Altpersischen , Wiesbaden, 1964.

A. Christensen, Le dialecte de Sämnān , D. Kgl. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Skrifter, 7/II.4, Copenhagen, 1915.

R. E. Emmerick, Saka Grammatical Studies , London, 1968.

Idem, “The Transition from Old to Late Khotanese,” in Societas Iranologica Europaea, Transition Periods in Iranian History. Actes du symposium de Fribourg-en-Brisgau ( 22-24 mai 1985 ), Studia Iranica, cahier 5, Louvain, 1987.

I. Gershevitch, A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian , Oxford, 1954.

J. Kurylowicz, The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European , Heidelberg, 1964.

M.R. Majidi, Strukturelle Beschreibung des iranischen Dialekts der Stadt Semnan , Forum Phoneticum 22, Hamburg, 1980.

M. Mortażawī, “Feʿl dar zabān-e Harzanī,” NDAT , 1341-42 Š./1962-63, no. 14, pp. 453-88, no. 15, pp. 61-97; also separate, Tabrīz, 1342 Š./1963, with errata.

T. N. Pakhalina, “On the History of the Forms of the Demonstrative Pronouns in the Pamir Languages,” in Monumentum Georg Morgenstierne II, Acta Iranica 22, Leiden, 1982, pp. 141-52.

J. R. Payne, “The Decay of Ergativity in Pamir Languages,” Lingua 51, 1980, pp. 147-86.

V. S. Rastorgueva, ed., Opyt istoriko-tipologicheskogo issledovaniya iranskikh yazykov I-II, Moscow, 1975.

Idem, ed., Osnovy iranskogo yazykoznaniya I-III, Moscow, 1979-87.

R. Schmitt, ed., Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum , Wiesbaden, 1989.

K. Shields, Indo-European Noun Inflection: A Developmental History , University Park, 1981.

N. Sims-Williams, “On the Plural and Dual in Sogdian,” BSOAS 42, 1979, pp. 337-46.

Idem, “Notes on Manichaean Middle Persian Morphology,” Studia Iranica 10, 1981, pp. 165-76.

Idem, “The Double System of Nominal Inflection in Sogdian,” TPS , 1982. pp. 67-76.

P. O. Skjærvø, “Case in Inscriptional Middle Persian, Inscriptional Parthian and the Pahlavi Psalter,” Studia Iranica 12, 1983, pp. 47-62, 151-81.

Idem, “Remarks on the Old Persian Verbal System,” in Festgabe für Karl Hoffmann , pt. 2, MSS 45, Munich, 1985, pp. 211-27.

Idem, rev. of Bossong (see above). T. Todd, A Grammar of Dimili ( Also known as Zaza ), Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1985.

E. Yarshater, A Grammar of Southern Tati Dialects , Median Dialect Studies I, the Hague and Paris, 1969.

Idem, “The Tati dialects of Tarom,” in M. Boyce and I. Gershevitch, eds., W. B. Henning Memorial Volume , London, 1970,pp. 451-67.

Table 4 . Old-Iranian Case Endings

Table 5 . Thematic Endings in Old Iranian, Avestan, and Old Persian

Table 6 . Examples of Avestan Thematic Declension

Table 7 . Middle Persian Declension

Table 8 . Thematic Declension in Khotanese and Sogdian

Table 9 . Examples of Case Forms

Table 10 . Transitive Verbal Constructions in Old Persian

Table 11 . Synopsis of the Singular Masculine A-Declension in Old and Middle Iranian

Table 12 . Survey of Case Markers

(Gernot L. Windfuhr)

Originally Published: December 15, 1990

Last Updated: December 15, 1990

This article is available in print. Vol.V, Fasc. 1, pp. 25-37

Sections in this entry

Images / tables.

0 COMMENTS on CASES

Tag this article.

Submitted tags will be reviewed by site administrator before it is posted online. If you enter several tags, separate with commas.

(Optional) Enter email address if you would like feedback about your tag.

Difficulties in Inter-Lingual Subtitling and the Strategies to Deal With: a Case Study of English Translation Into Persian

International Journal of English Linguistics; Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017 ISSN1923-869XE-ISSN1923-8703 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Difficulties in Inter-lingual Subtitling and the Strategies to Deal with: A Case Study of English Translation into Persian

Ahmad Ezzati Vazifehkhah1 1 Collage of Foreign Language, Islamic Azad University, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, Tehran, Iran Correspondence: Ahmad Ezzati Vazifehkhah, Collage of Foreign Language, Islamic Azad University, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: January 11, 2017 Accepted: February 4, 2017 Online Published: February 9, 2017 doi:10.5539/ijel.v7n3p97 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n3p97

Abstract This paper examines the obstacles in translating inter-lingual subtitling, and then suggests some weighty theoretical strategies to deal with such difficulties from English translation into Persian. The present study makes an effort to analyze three main strategies such as deleting, condensing and adapting in the subtitling translation (Baker & Saldanha, 2009). This study is a corpus-based, comparative, descriptive and non-judgmental analysis of English-Persian parallel corpus. Moreover, this research is comprised of English audio scripts of four American movies with Persian subtitles . The result indicates that Baker and Saldanha’s proposed strategies are applicable, and the most frequent strategy is deleting at 53.47%. Keywords: deleting, condensing, adapting, Source Language (SL), Target Language (TL) 1. Introduction Translation is one of the means of communication among human beings. Hence, translation Studies (TS), as a field of research took place over the recent years. Furthermore, searching on Audiovisual Translation (AVT) in TS as a new field is being increased. According to Diaz-Cintas (2005), “audiovisual translation refers to translation of products in which the verbal dimension is supplemented by elements in other media” (as cited in Hosseinnia, 2014). It is worthy to point out, Inter-semiotics has been known as a way to connect SL and TL. Further, inter-semiotics is a fairly new issue and is vastly used in communication rendering movies from SL to TL. According to Hatim and Munday (2004), inter-semiotics is, “a method of language transfer used in translating types of mass audio-visual communication such as films and television” (p. 350). Consequently, inter-semiotics as a simple way to convey the message from SL to TL is being developed and improved further. Moreover, inter-semiotics as a pioneer on audiovisual translation has been distinguished in the most wide-spread forms of AVT as subtitling and dubbing . According to Baker and Saldanha (2009), “ Subtitling consists of the production of snippets of written text (subtitles, or captions in American English) to be superimposed on visual footage—normally near the bottom of frame—while an audiovisual text is projected, played or broadcast” (p. 14). “Hatim and Muday (2000) explained some constraints of subtitling and stated that there is a shift in mode from speech to writing and a result of this shift, some features of speech such as non-standard dialect, intonation, style shifting and turn taking could not be represented in written mode” (as cited in Mohseni & Mozafar, 2013). Further, Shuttleworth and Cowie (1997) have claimed that subtitling is the process of providing synchronized captions for films and television dialogues (p. 161). “Subtitles sometimes referred to as captions, are transcriptions of a movie or a TV dialogue in the same or different language, presented simultaneously on the screen at the bottom” (Cintas, 2008, p. 7). However, what made subtitling different are technical and contextual aspects. Gottlieb (1992) uses various terminologies. He does believe “a subtitler is faced with formal (quantitative) and textual (qualitative) aspects. He also mentioned textual aspects are those imposed on the subtitles by the visual context of the film, whereas formal aspects are the space factors and the time factors” (as cited in Spanakaki, 2007). This originates in the fact that, it seems to be impossible to separate movies and modern life. That is why Baker (2004) has been claimed “Movie is so important that it has become the first arts of human world” (p. 40).

97 ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017

1.1 Hypothesis In light of the discussion exhibited in the introduction above, the present research provides the following hypothesis: • Translation of subtitles from English language into Persian language is very challenging. • Attempts to render English language into Persian subtitle will feature several translation strategies. • Deleting, condensing and adapting are applicable subtitle strategies. The above hypotheses draw upon the blurry image of subtitle strategies as they have not been made crystal clear to subtitlers. Moreover, this study aspires to clarify the concept of difficulties in inter-lingual subtitling in Persian language and presents three main strategies in order to help subtitlers. 1.2 Research Question There is a main research question, in this regard: How to recreate the same set of translation in a way that might convey exactly the same ideas of the original language. 2. This Paper 2.1 Statement of the Problem The notion of subtitling strategies has gained more momentum and attention in the past. Different definitions and classifications for subtitling strategies indicate that strategies are vibrant and convey the relevant concept in translation. Further, idioms, expressions and even culture specific-items face subtitlers to problems. As a result, choose the best strategies are essential to convey the message from SL to TL. 2.2 Significance of the Study Subtitling strategies are under-researched field of knowledge hence the significance of this study. Moreover, this research aims to investigate what those difficulties are in the process of interpreting and translating subtitle from English language into Persian. Besides, an attempt has been made to examine the strategies to deal with such difficulties. 2.3 Method and Material This paper is a corpus-based analysis of the subtitling strategies and conducted on a descriptive procedure that carries an English-Persian parallel corpus of 842 frames. The corpus included 80 minutes of movie dialogues in English and 80 minutes of Persian subtitles. 20 minutes of each movie was selected randomly. It is worthy to point out in order to obtain the required information ; the researcher followed three certain steps: At first viewing the movies and put them under the close scrutiny, second transcribing the English utterances and comparing them with the Persian subtitles and finally, determining the used strategies based on aforementioned framework. Here is the list of four American movies: 1. Kick Boxer: Vengeance (2016) by John Stockwell 2. Never back down: No surrender (2016) by Michael Jai White 3. Southpaw (2015) by Antoine Fuqua 4. She’s the man (2006) by Andy Fickman 3. Inter-lingual Subtitling Traditionally, there existed two types of subtitling, inter lingual and intra lingual subtitling. Dìaz Cintas defined inter lingual subtitling as a way to convey the message from SL to TL and intra lingual as a way to keep the SL linguistic form (Anderman & Rogers, 2003, p. 199). Based on Baker and Saldanha (2009), “Inter lingual subtitles provide viewers with a written rendition of the source text speech, whether dialogue or narration, in their own language” (p. 14). Without any doubt, one of the most significant reasons of development of the movies dues to the essence of inter-lingual subtitling. As a facilitator, it helps the source language to be understandable in target one. Therefore, movies are vastly developed and extended to the other countries. The pivotal role of translation in inter-lingual subtitling would be more brilliant since any movie which is rendered by a translator, ought to convey some messages and ignore or at least changes some certain words or expressions. At the same time, any movie is a representation of its country and subsequently the culture. As a result, it exacerbates the undeniable role of translator in choosing the closest equivalence to transfer the message. The mentioned point means two cultures in some circumstances are not identical. Based on Gonzalez (2004),

98 ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017

“the difficuulty in decoding cultural signs can be more problematic for the translator than semantic or syntacmatic difficulties” (as cited in Fathi and Moghimizadeh, 2014). In order to come over such difficulties there are three certain strategies. According to Baker and Saldanha (2009) they believed, deleting, condensing and adapting the source speech are some of the most common subtitling and used STRATEGIES deployed by professional translators (p. 16). Moreover, Hatim and Mason (1990) suggested four stages to deal with such difficulties. The first is Identification of a source system semiotic entity. The second one is international core (a suitable TL denottation equivalent). The stage three is related to explication in detail. And final stage is the transformation of data (pp. 105-106). This research tries to investigate three main strategies to deal with difficulties in inter-lingual subtitling that are as following: 3.1 Deleting One of the main difficulties in the translation of subtitles is the lack of Culture Specific-Items (CSI) from source language into target language. In such a circumstance, the best strategy to come over such difficulty is deleting or omission. Baker (2011) suggested that this strategy may sound rather affective, and actually it does no harm to omit transllating a word or expression in some context (p. 42). It is clear that, through this strrategy, the meaning is not distorted and just unimportant parts will be omitted. Hatim and Munday (2004) defined the omission as “Deliberate, or accidental, absence of a ST element or aspect of sense in the TT” (p. 345). Moreover, Baker (1992) has claimed that as with single words, an idiom or expression may sometimes be omitted altogether in the target text. This may be because it has no close match in the receptor language, its meaning cannot be easily paraphrased or for stylistic reasons (p. 77). Also, she pointed out, “The change in the information content of the message may be in the form of omitting information specified in the source text. If the target language lacks a grammatical category which exists in the source language, the information expressed by that category may have to be ignored” (as cited in Hosseinnia, 2014). According to Ivacovoni (2009), deleting or omission means droppiing a word or words from the SL into TL while translating. This procedure could be thhe outcome of the cultural clashes that exist between the source language and the target language. Actually, it is in subtitling translations where omission aattains its peak in use. Therefore, the translator omits words that do not have equivalents in the target text, or that may raise the hostility of the receptor. Further, Baker (2011) has pointed out that strategy involves rendering only the literal meaning of an idiom or expression in a context that allows for a concrete reading of an otherwise playful use of language (p. 84). She added that if the meaning conveyed by a particular item or expression is not necessary enough to the development of the text to convince distracting the reader with the lengthy explanation, transllators can and often do simply delete or omit translating the word or expression in question (p. 42). Moreover, Davies (2003) said, “omit a problematic CSI altogether, so that no trace of it is found in the translation” (as cited in Jaleniauskiene & Cicelyte, 2009). 3.1.1 Types of Omissions Generally speaking, based on Baker (2011), omission might have three forms: 1. Omission in an idiom that refers to contextual point of view, 2.Omission in the content of information that in a case of deleting does not injure the message, and 3.Omission in word or expression which concentrates on lexical aspect of a language (pp. 40-42). As a result, when a translator could not transfer or covey the CSI from source language into targett one, the best strategy would be deleting. 3.1.2 Different Types of Omission in a Sight

99 ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017

3.2 Condensing Due to differences between the source language and the target language, the concepts and meaning vary across these two. The most obvious point of difference appears through the culture-specific items which lead to the wrapped items by complexity when transferring the message from one language into another. In such a case, a translator reduces the length and the complexity of the given item. Hence, another strategy to come over such difficulty in subtitling is condensing. Through this strategy a translator tries to convey the message with fewer words. According to Gottlieb (1997), condensation would seem to be typical strategy used, that is, the shortening of the text in the least obtrusive way possible. Furthermore, he added occasionally the translator has to make use of the condensation strategy. This strategy can be consequence of the reading ability of the receiver as well as caused by the limitations of the medium. Condensation is a shortened expression with an adequate content (p. 75). One of the main factors through the mentioned issue is the submitted translation should be coherent; otherwise, translation might be enigmatic or distorted. 3.3 Adapting It is commonly accepted that translators mediate among cultures. This mediation includes ideological and linguistic aspects of a language. Hence, the audiovisual translation as a new field plays a basic role to convey the message from the source language into the target language. However, due to the different cultural background, it is not an easy job to find the equivalents in the target language. In such a case, translators adapt the items from the source language into the target language. Based on Baker and Saldanha (2009), adaption is sometimes regarded as a form of translation which is characteristic of especial genres, most notably DRAMA (p. 4). Moreover, they added “Adaptation may be understood as a set of translative interventions which result in a text that is not generally accepted as a translation but is nevertheless recognized as representing a source text” (p. 3). In Vinay and Darbelnet’s (1958) list of translation procedures, adaptation took place as a certain modifier of cultural reference for the target text readership (Hatim & Munday, 2004, p. 334). Furthermore, Baker and Saldanha (2009) have divided adaptation into two main types: local adaptation which is caused by problems arising from the original text itself and limited to certain parts of it, and global adaptation which is determined by factors outside the original text and which involves a more wide-ranging revision (p. 5). It is worthy to point out in subtitling translation any misinterpretation through cultural information conduct him to a great barrier to pose successful translation. Therefore, a translator is supposed to adapt the cultural context to figure out the appropriate meaning and lead viewers to get the message easily. However, a translator should avoid a complete translation on special cultural context. The main reason is they lead subtitling too long and get viewers frustrated. 4. Results and Discussion This section concentrates on the quantitative analysis of the corpus. In this regard, an attempt is made to reflect the frequency and percentage. Moreover, descriptive tables were presented for every movie in the study. Hence, Table 1 indicates the frequency and percentage of five certain inter lingual subtitling strategies on the four movies. This originates in the fact that Table 2 clarifies the total frequency and percentage which made use of four movies.

Table 1. Frequency and percentage of five certain inter lingual subtitling strategies on the four movies Strategies Kick Boxer Never back down Southpaw She is the man Omission in idiom Frequency 1 3 0 2 Percentage 4.2% 6% 0% 12.5% Omission in content of Frequency 2 8 1 3 information Percentage 8.3% 16% 9.1% 18.75% Omission in word Or Frequency 6 16 6 6 expression Percentage 25% 32% 54.54% 37.5% Condensing Frequency 6 6 0 2 Percentage 25% 12% 0% 12.5% Adapting Frequency 9 17 4 3 Percentage 37.5% 34% 36.36% 18.75%

100 ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017

Table 2. Total frequency and percentage of three main strategies on the four movies Types of strategies Total number Percentage Deleting 54 53.47% Condensing 14 13.86% Adapting 33 32.67%

The analysis of the data gathered in the present research revealed that translators have applied three mentiioned strategies to convey the message from the source language into the target one. As it was indicated through table 2, ‘Deleting’ constituted the main part, i.e., 53.47% of strategies in this research. Moreover, statistical results indicate that translators concentrate firstly on deleting. It is worthy to point out lacking appropriate equivalences lead translators to utilize this strategy in inter lingual subtitling. Subsequently, ‘Condensing’ was used in 13.86% of addressed strategies, although, condensing did not have stable position of the whole corpus. It indicates the hierarchy usage of this strategy completely depends on some particular conditions such as intimacy among actors or actresses. Moreover, there were two main reasons which made translators use such strategy; first due to the space limitation and second quick appearance and disappearance of frames. However, the corpus analysis has shown no important elements were deleted in the four movies. In the final stage, ‘Adapting’ formed 32.67% of the overall strategies. The number of adaptation traced in the corpus was low. It was used in some particular cases of untranslatable idioms, expressions or the content of information. This was not because of the lacking mentioned items in the target language, but because these iitems follow various meaning that could not be matched from the SL into the TL. Therefore, translators chose this strategy to keep the message and do not deviate minds of viewers. In order for shedding light on the subject, Figure 1 presented to indicate the precise frequency of each strategy in the corpus; in addition, Figure 2 shows them totally.

Figure 1. Frequency of five certain inter lingual strategies on the four movies

Figure 2. Total frequency of three main strategies on the four movies

5. Conclussion Throughout different parts of paper, it shown that all the strategies proposed by Baker and Saldanha (2009) were used in the English-Persian subtitling. Hence, the result of the analysis of these strategies revvealed that the most used one with a distinguishably high rate of occurrence is deleting at 53.47%. It is worthy to point out in the case of street talks, deleting was much more frequent than the others. Further, adapting has received the next highest

101 ijel.ccsenet.org International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017 frequency, that is, 32.67%. Finally, condensing is used 13.86% of overall addressed strategies in this study. In addition in the final stage, analyses showed that the used strategies by translators were not distributed equally among four movies. Another key concept is culture–specific items which should be considered by translators. References Baker, M. (2004). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Baker, M. (2011). In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation. London and New York: Routledge. Baker, M., & Saldanha, G. (2009). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge. Cintas, J. D. (2008). The Dictionary of Audiovisual Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.77 Fathi, M., & Moghimizadeh, R. P. (2014). An Analysis of English Subtitling of Verbal Cultural Signs in the ‘A Separation’ Iranian Film. International Journal of English and Education, 3(3). Gottlieb, H. (1997). Subtitles, Translation and Idioms. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen. Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the Translator. Harlow, England: Longman. Hatim, B., & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An Advance Resource Book. London and New York: Routledge. Hosseinnia, M. (2014). Omission as a Strategy in Subtitling. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 5(1), 394-402. Ivacovoni, A. (2009). Translation by Omission. Mohseni, A., & Mozafari, H. R. (2013). Strategies Employed in Translation of Idioms in English Subtitles of Two Persian Television Series. Journal of Language and Translation, 3(6), 27-32. Shuttleworth, M., & Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of Translation Studies. London: St. Jerome Publishing Company. Spanakaki, K. (2007). Translating Humor for Subtitling. Translation Journal. Yin, L. (2009). On the Translation of English Movie Titles. Asian Social Science, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v5n3p171

Copyrights Copyright for this article is retained by the author, with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

• Search this journal
• Search all journals

Article Sections

• Introduction, history, and concept of Persian gardens
• Influence of Persian gardens on gardens in other countries
• Elements of the Persian garden
• Bagh-e-Fin, Kashan
• Bagh-e-Eram, Shiraz
• Bagh-e-Golshan, Tabas
• Bagh-e-Shahzadeh, Mahan, Kerman
• Bagh-e-Dowlat Abad, Yazd
• Bagh-e-Pahlavanpour, Mehriz
• Bagh-e-Chehel Sotun, Esfahan
• Bagh-e-Akbariyeh
• Bagh-e-Joogh, Mako
• Bagh-e-Cheshmeh Belghies
• Bagh-e-Kalat-e-Naderi
• Bagh-e-Saad Abad, Tehran
• Other Persian gardens
• Outlook and conclusionary remarks on Persian gardens

Article Figures

Bagh-e-Fin (Fin Garden) is located near Kashan, Iran, and uses many water features and rows of trees.

Bagh-e-Shazdeh (The Prince’s Garden) in Mahan, Iran, has the most fascinating water features among all ancient Persian gardens.

The pavilion in Bagh-e Shazdeh (The Prince’s Garden) in Mahan, Iran, has a two-floor residential structure at the upper end, facing water fountains, and rows of ornamental and edible fruit trees.

Bagh-e-Dowlat Abad in Yazd, Iran, has a main pavilion with a large water pool and rows of trees on both sides of the pool.

• View raw image
• Download Powerpoint Slide

Related Content

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Ancient Urban Gardens of Persia: Concept, History, and Influence on Other World Gardens

Click on author name to view affiliation information

The history of Persian gardens goes back to a few millennia before the emergence of Islam in Iran (Persia). Designs of Persian gardens have influenced and are used extensively in the gardens of Al-Andalus in Spain, Humayun’s Tomb and the Taj Mahal in India, and many gardens in the United States and other countries around the globe. Bagh in the Persian language (Farsi) means garden and the word Baghdad (the capital city of Iraq) is rooted from the words bagh and daad (meaning “the garden of justice”). Pasargadae, the ancient Persian capital city, is the earliest example of Persian garden design known in human civilization as chahar bagh or 4-fold garden design. Bagh-e-Eram, or Garden of Eden or Eram Garden, is one the most attractive Persian gardens and is located in Shiraz, Iran. There are numerous other urban ancient gardens in Iran, including Bagh-e-Shahzadeh (Shazdeh), meaning “The Prince’s Garden” in Mahan, Golestan National Park near the Caspian Sea; Bagh-e-Fin in Kashan; Bagh-e-El-Goli in Tabriz; and Bagh-e-Golshan in Tabas. The design of each Persian garden is influenced by climate, art, beliefs, poetry, literature, and romance of the country and the region where the garden is located. In addition, each garden may have a gene bank of fruits, flowers, herbs, and vegetables. Although countless gardens were destroyed in the hands of invaders throughout the centuries, Persians have attempted either to rebuild or build new gardens generation after generation, each of which has become a favorite destination to tourists from around the world.

Gardens and green spaces have always played a significant role in Iranian history and culture, as evidenced by the gardens of the ancient city of Pasargadae from ≈3000 years ago and the garden of Cyrus the Great, the outline of which remains visible today ( Mahmoudi Farahani et al., 2016 ). In the Persian language, these gardens were called pardis , from which the English word paradise—in the sense of heaven—derives ( Fallahi, 2017a ). From the era of the Achaemenian and Sasanian dynasties, Iran itself was conceptualized by its rulers and citizens as a huge garden with surrounding walls that encompassed different tribes and beliefs, with every reward promised to be in heaven. This vision was evident from a speech about Iran and its walls by Persian King Anushirvan of the Sasanian dynasty. However, the fantasized walls came down and Arabs, Turks, Mongols, and others went into Iran. Still, the concept of the Persian garden remained in Iran, and all these conquerors continued to build gardens ( Daryaee, 2014 ).

Another word used to describe pleasant spaces planted with trees and shrubs is bagh . For example, the word Baghdad (the capital city of Iraq) is rooted from the words bagh and daad (meaning “the garden of justice”), as the ancient Persian city of Ctesiphon and Supreme Court of Ivan-e Madayen during the Sasanian dynasty of Persia were located near Baghdad. In the past, Persian elite ensconced themselves in these lavish private gardens, nine of which have been named collectively as the Persian gardens and count among Iran’s United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Sites. They include the Ancient Garden of Pasargadae near the tomb place of Cyrus the Great, Eram Garden, Chehel Sotun Garden, Fin Garden, Abbas Abad Garden, Shahzadeh Garden, Dowlat Abad Garden, Pahlavanpour Garden, and Akbariyeh Garden. In addition to their aesthetic beauty, it is arguably the ability of these gardens to adapt to and flourish in extreme climates that render them remarkable. The Iranian plateau is not a conducive environment for gardens to thrive. Little rainfall, extreme hot and dry temperatures in the summer, and cold temperatures in the winter, as well as gusty winds provide less than opportune conditions ( Fallahi, 2017b ; Tajaddini, 2011 ). These human-made havens therefore relied on proper use of space and a subterranean irrigation system (SIS).

Throughout time, these gardens have shifted in terms of layout, aesthetics, and use. During the Sasanian Empire, between the third and seventh century, a time in which the Zoroastrian religion was dominant, flowing water and fruit trees played a vital role, as illustrated in the garden designs replete with fountains and ponds ( Fallahi et al., 2018 ). After the Arab conquest, the ancient Persian concept of chahar bagh (four gardens) was used in Persian landscaping, placing a greater emphasis on aesthetics, mirroring the Garden of Eden described in verses of the Koran as a place where two rivers intersect, thereby dividing the garden into four quadrants. The Mongolian invasion during the 13th century brought with it ornamental and decorative floral species. Finally, during the 17th and 18th centuries (the Safavid dynasty), a palace became an extension of the garden. In other words, residential quarters or a pavilion were constructed on the garden grounds and became an integral element of the Persian garden.

Over millennia, the Persian garden had a major influence on and served as inspiration for other gardens around the world—from the Alhambra in Spain to the Taj Mahal and Mongolian Garden in India to the paved and tiled Andalusian courtyards with arcades, pools, and fountains testifying to their Persian roots ( Ghavidel, 2008 ). When Alexander the Great conquered parts of the Persian Empire in 334 BCE, he brought back with him new varieties of fruit and other plants, and these materials were later grown in Gardens of Lucullus (Horti Lucullani) on the Pincian Hill at the edge of Rome ( Bowe, 2004 ). The concept of the Persian garden prompted an interest in horticulture that was renewed in Europe around 60 BCE ( Bowe, 2004 ). Fallahi et al. (2002) , when describing the history of apple ( Malus domestica ) rootstocks, reported that the use of dwarf horses ( Equus ferus caballus ) and dwarf trees was popular in Persia, as illustrated in the hieroglyphic of Persepolis, the palace of Achaemenian, and other documents and monuments of the Sassanian and Parthian dynasties. By the mid 15th century, the use of dwarf apple rootstocks for training trees in different shapes and forms in gardens became more common, and paradise (derived from the Persian word pardis ) apples became an important component of todays’ dwarf rootstocks, which facilitate establishment of modern, high-density apple orchards.

It was around the Safavid and Qajar dynasties that western gardens also began to influence the gardens of ancient Persia, most notably in the types of flowers, shrubs, and plants ( Ghavidel, 2008 ; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2018 ).

In past decades, the influence of the Persian garden can be seen in numerous parks and landscaping landmarks around the world. Longwood Gardens (Kennett Square, PA) is one of the world’s great horticultural displays, encompassing more than 450 ha of dazzling gardens and woodlands. In our opinion, several aspects of Persian gardens, such as the concept of chahar bagh or charbagh and waterways, are merged with other garden designs at Longwood Gardens. The Walled Gardens in Untermyer Park, also known as Untermyer Garden, in Yonkers, NY, is an excellent example of a garden mimicking the design of ancient Persian gardens of antiquity in the modern western world. This garden was developed by Samuel Untermyer during the early 20th century and is considered “America’s greatest forgotten garden today” ( Gannon, 2017 ; Untermyer Gardens Conservancy, 2019 ).

In modern days, attention has been given to the influence and integration of Persian garden concepts with park designs of the new world where Iranian immigrants reside ( Ghavidel, 2008 ; Yazdani, 2018 ; Yazdani and Lozanovska, 2016 , 2017 ). Yazdani (2018) revealed that historical icons and cultural landscapes play prominent roles in inspiring Iran’s park environments, whereas sociocultural activities, restoration, and bonding with the past have great importance for Iranian immigrants in Australia.

The naturally unsuitable environmental conditions throughout much of Iran called for creative artificial engineering in Persian gardens including four major elements: land, water, plants, and space ( United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2018 ). These elements serve a practical purpose, such as water for irrigation, and an aesthetic one in the form of waterways, fountains, and ponds. Bright colors and the use of tiles at the bottom of the pools enhanced the aesthetics.

Constructing these gardens on various levels not only allows for irrigation, but also the opportunity to create waterfalls, which are another attractive feature. Without water, the Persian garden cannot exist; therefore, flowing water is central to the concept because its presence is conceptual, functional, and aesthetic. Because these gardens are in regions where water sources are scarce, irrigating the land is a major concern. Water from underground SISs, springs, or rivers functions to irrigate the land by waterways ( Mahdi Nejad et al., 2017 ).

Vegetation is a vital part of the Persian garden and includes diverse trees, shrubs, and flowers. The types of plants in these gardens vary according to location, but serve different functions, including providing shade and ornamentation. Evergreens, such as iranian cedar ( Cupressus sempervirens ) and turkish pine ( Pinus brutia ), and deciduous trees, such as ornamental plane tree ( Platanus orientalis ), are the main types of trees used in Persian gardens. Fruit-bearing and shade-providing trees are also featured prominently in Persian gardens. Pasargadae Garden is believed to have been used as both a hunting ground and a garden of fruit trees for consumption ( Ghavidel, 2008 ).

The last element of the Persian garden is the architectural space. Persian gardens are enclosed by surrounding adobe walls, offering seclusion and solitude. These walls are borders of the gardens themselves and serve as a boundary between the arid, uncultivated land outside and the protected, so-called paradise inside ( Massoudi, 2009 ). Within the borders of the wall, water flows throughout the garden to create one space despite the geometric patterns created by the waterways. The chahar bagh feature reflects the earth, sky, water, and God, thereby providing an almost ethereal quality ( United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2018 ). Unlike European gardens, the geometric and symmetrical features of Persian gardens are visible to the observer on the ground.

In the following sections, we look at some examples of Persian gardens around Iran and describe some of their defining qualities, features, and styles.

The city of Kashan, located in Esfahan Province, has two main parts: mountain and desert. The eastern part of the city faces the central desert of Iran, where one can find the Maranjab Desert, which is known for its shifting sands, and Salt Lake.

Bagh-e-Fin, or Fin Garden, therefore, is a welcome retreat from Kashan’s otherwise desertlike dryness ( Fig. 1 ). Fin Garden is the oldest surviving garden in Iran, which exemplifies the chahar bagh element. This garden was completed in 1590 under the Safavid dynasty; however, what remains of it is from the Qajar rule between 1799 and 1834. Bagh-e-Fin was given life from the nearby Soleymanieh Spring ( Mahmoudi Farahani et al., 2016 ). This spring is in the proximity of the ancient Tepe Sialk, a ziggurat (an ancient temple tower with the form of a terraced pyramid of successively receding stories), the oldest settlement of which dates back to 6000 and 5500 BCE. The existence of this nearby spring is also the reason this location has been favored by various kings and governments throughout history. Fin Garden was developed over time, and this is reflected in the exquisite architecture of the main pavilion, which contains features from the Safavid, Zandiyeh, and Qajar eras and is replete with fresco paintings, plasterwork, woodwork, and stained-glass windows ( United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2018 ). The bathhouse, located on the left side of the garden, is the site where Amir Kabir, a chancellor during the Qajar era, was murdered by an assassin.

Citation: HortTechnology hortte 30, 1; 10.21273/HORTTECH04415-19

• Download Figure

A major characteristic of Fin Garden is water. The pools and fountains of this garden, which function entirely without the use of mechanical pumps, are sourced by an SIS from the surrounding hillside. These pools are lined with blue tiles and now contain goldfish ( Carassius auratus ) that, along with the bubbling fountains, create a pleasant atmosphere.

Sarv-e-kashan or iranian cedar trees line the walking paths and provide shade for this 2.3-ha garden. Other vegetation includes ornamental plane trees, white poplars ( Populus alba ), long-leaved violet willows ( Salix acutifolia ), weeping willows ( Salix babylonica ), and forest boxwood ( Buxus hyrcana ). Fruit trees such as fig ( Ficus carica ), mulberry ( Morus alba ), apricot ( Prunus armeniaca ), green gauge plum ( Prunus domestica ), pear ( Pyrus communis ), pomegranate ( Punica granatum ), and quince ( Cydonia oblonga ), as well as various decorative flowers are also plentiful ( United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2018 ).

Located in Shiraz, the capital of Fars Province in southern Iran, along the northern shore of the Khoshk River, Bagh-e-Eram, or Eram (Persian for paradise or heaven) is a 110,380-m 2 rectangular garden with a west-to-east slope. The main pavilion is located on the western end, and there is a central pool. Although the layout of the garden is said to have begun during the 11th century by the Seljuk dynasty, it is suggested it was actually built in the 13th century during the Ilkhanate dynasty ( Wilber, 1979 ). Water streaming down the blue-tiled fountains and ornamental pools leads to a three-story pavilion flanked with vibrant mosaics and inscribed with the poems of Persian lyric poet Hafez. Like many other sites in Shiraz, the structure underwent renovation by the subsequent Zand and Qajar dynasties.

Today, the garden and building are part of Shiraz’s Botanical Garden. There is an abundance of fruit- and nonfruit-bearing trees as well as various medicinal plants and countless decorative flowers. Fruit trees include pomegranate, medlar ( Mespilus germanica ), sour orange ( Citrus aurantium ), persimmon ( Diospyros kaki ), apple, pear, quince, apricot, almond ( Prunus amygdalus ), and persian walnut ( Juglans regia ). Among the nonfruit trees are turkish pine, iranian cedar, persian maple ( Acer velutinum ), weeping willow ( Salix babylonica ), mountain ash ( Eucalyptus regnans ), pussy willow ( Salix cinerea ), silver dollar tree ( Eucalyptus cinerea ), and white poplar. The sarv-e naz shirazi or shiraz cypress ( C. sempervirens var. cereiformis ) is a towering tree plentiful in this garden (personal observation) and is one of the oldest—said to date back 5000 years. Bagh-e-Eram mainly sources its water from a spring that runs out in a stream to join several SISs to form a river that divides into many brooks to irrigate not only nearby gardens, but also the city of Shiraz ( United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2018 ).

Lying in the remote eastern town of Tabas, Bagh-e-Golshan is one of the most breathtaking gardens in Iran. Dating back to the Zand and Qajar dynasties, this garden was constructed under the order of Mir Hossein Khan, a governor of the city of Tabas appointed by Nader Shah during the Afshariyeh dynasty during the 18th century.

Given its isolated location between two salt deserts, the Lut and the Kavir-e-Markazi, the abundance of water to this 3.25-ha plot of land seems inconceivable, but it is, like other gardens, sourced from an ancient subterranean SIS system. This garden is also designed with the chahar bagh feature, with two streams intersecting.

Fruit trees such date palm ( Phoenix dactylifera ), sour orange, and pomegranate grow abundantly here, as do other trees such as cypresses ( Cupressus sp.) and cycads (Cycadophyta), and decorative flowers such as wild rose ( Rosa persica ) and hollyhock ( Alcea rosea ). This vertical garden leads to a centrally located pool where pelicans ( Pelecanus occidentalis ) have taken residence (E. Fallahi, personal observation).

Located about 35 km southeast of Kerman in Mahan, Bagh-e-Shahzadeh or Shazdeh (The Prince’s Garden) is a Qajar-era, walled Eden of towering trees and cascading water ( Figs. 2 and 3 ). This garden is 5.5 ha and sits on a 6.4% slope that contains a 20-m height difference from top to bottom ( Abbasalizadeh Rezakolahi et al., 2015 ). As a result of this difference in height, the water flowing from the upper end to the lower end creates a symphony that is pleasant to the ear, and the fountains shooting water upward are delightful to the eye ( Bachari, 2012 ). The water, which is supplied by the Tigran underground SIS from the nearby town of Joupar, is carried longitudinally ( Abbasalizadeh Rezakolahi et al., 2015 ). It is thanks in part to this SIS as well as the plentiful sunshine, fertile soil, and mild winds that this garden has been able to flourish in an otherwise arid, unforgiving environment.

The exquisite two-story sardar khaneh , or entrance, is equipped with paired columns, colorful tiles, stucco, plaster moldings, and gazebolike structures that jut toward the inside of the garden. The building on the garden’s upper side was dedicated as the living quarters of the prince. Among the trees in this garden are evergreens, such as turkish pine and iranian cedar, and shade-providing trees such as common ash ( Fraxinus excelsior ), ornamental plane tree, white poplar, and field elm ( Ulmus minor ). Grape vines ( Vitis vinefera ) and several fruit-bearing trees such as apple, pomegranate, quince, pear, apricot, peach ( Prunus persica ), and black plum ( P . domestica ) grow alongside flowerbeds with various decorative flowers ( Bachari, 2012 ).

Dowlat Abad Garden in Yazd is said to have the most complex layout of Persian gardens ( Fig. 4 ). With an area of about 40,000 m 2 , it was constructed in 1740 by Mohammad Taghi Khan, a governor of Yazd, during the Zand rule. A 208-m-long pool, the longest in Iran, with 47 fountains runs down the center of the garden between the octagonal summer and winter quarters ( United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2018 ).

The winter pavilion faces the south, thereby absorbing more natural sunlight. On the opposite side, the summer pavilion is arguably best known for its windcatcher, which towers 33 m into the Yazd city skyline and is said to be the tallest of its kind in the world ( Akhgar et al., 2013 ). This ancient, natural ventilation system, which was an essential architectural element in residential buildings and structures located in the desert, kept the water at near-freezing temperatures. Garofalo (2016) analyzed the karbandi of the Hashti pavilion at Bagh-e-Dolat Abad. Karbandi is a spatial system obtained through the projection of a star-shaped drawing onto a curved surface. He reported that the karbandi of the octagonal vestibule of the Hashti pavilion consists of a complex roof system that completes the octagonal volume of the room below; its intrados presents a pattern of interlocking ribbed arches. Garofalo (2016) also studied the drawings, module, and proportions of the Hashti pavilion with the exclusive purpose of providing a key to reading geometries that, although complex in appearance can, in reality, be traced using a simple ruler and compass.

Other features of this building include stained-glass doors and windows. This colorful glass serves many purposes, some of which include blocking the view from the outside. They block direct sunlight to protect rugs and other decor, and their reflections are said to keep mosquitos away. Some local people claim this type of glass has health benefits, including the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease and depression (Fallahi and Fallahi, interview with local people).

This garden sources its water from five small SISs that originate in the nearby town of Mehriz. These historical SISs date back two centuries. Trees in this complex include turkish pine and iranian cedar. Fruit trees and vines include pomegranate, mulberry (one tree of which is said to be the complex’s oldest), and, to a lesser extent, fig, olive ( Olea europaea ), and grape (E. Fallahi, personal observation).

Located about 35 km from Yazd in the town of Mehriz is Bagh-e-Pahlavanpour, which has been nicknamed “the garden town of Yazd.” Although this 25,000-m 2 garden was largely constructed during the Qajar dynasty, many of its architectural highlights belong to the Zandieh era. The property was first established by Hassan Mullah Reza, who then passed it on to his son-in-law, Ali Pahlevan. The summer and winter residences were once occupied by the town’s noblemen ( United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2018 ).

The water in this garden is sourced from an SIS that enters through the southwest and goes through the Anjirak watermill, filling the basin and gutters, before entering the Mirza Nasrollah watermill on the eastern end, after which it proceeds to irrigate the garden ( United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2018 ).

Pahlavanpour Garden consists mostly of turkish pine and iranian cedar trees, with fruit-bearing trees such as fig and pomegranate. The brooks that run through the garden to irrigate the land are flanked by ornamental plane trees ( Aladin Travel, 2019 ).

Located in Esfahan, Bagh-e-Chehel Sotun is a 16th-century Safavid-era garden measuring 6.75 ha ( Mahmoudi Farahani et al., 2016 ). The courtyard in the pavilion contains 20 slender columns made from the trunks of ornamental plane trees. These columns, combined with their reflection in the large pool in front, give the garden its name, which means “40 columns” in Persian, and count among the garden’s most notable features.

Plants and trees in Chehel Sotun Garden are mainly comprised of turkish pine, persian elm ( Ulmus boissieri ), black maple ( Acer nigrum ), ornamental plane tree, cade juniper ( Juniperus oxycedrus ), iranian cedar, forest boxwood, norway maple ( Acer platanoides ), white poplar, egyptian acacia ( Acacia nilotica ), bay laurel ( Laurus nobilis ), and common ash, among others. Water is supplied by a stream that continues to the Naqsh-e-Jahan Square after irrigating the garden. Ornamental stone fountain jets carved as lions and people have been placed around the pool.

Inside the pavilion in the Royal Hall, the walls and ceilings are graced by exquisite frescos and gilt. Frescos depict epic battle scenes as well as the king’s reception of guests for banquets and ceremonies. These frescos continue on the outer facades of the palace. The south facade even includes paintings of Europeans, which were painted by two Dutch artists who were frequent visitors (E. Fallahi, personal observation).

Bagh-e-Akbariyeh is located just 5 km outside Birjand in the South Khorasan Province, a city known for its plentiful sunshine. There are few clouds in this area, so the shortage of rain and rapid evaporation of water creates some challenges for a garden. The water, however, is supplied by the eponymous SIS, which runs to a miansara basin, where it branches out and runs underneath the main building and into the garden.

Akbariyeh Garden has a variety of plant species, including many indigenous plants. Trees include turkish pine, iranian cedar, common ash, and juniper ( Juniperus sp.). Fruit-bearing trees and shrubs include pistachio ( Pistacia vera ) and plum. Various other shrubs and seasonal flowers also grow here (P. Fallahi, personal observation).

This garden is in a village called Baghcheh Joogh, which is 5 km from the city of Mako. Bagh-e-Joogh was built by Governor Eqbal-o-Saltaneh at the end of the Qajar dynasty and it has been used as museum complex since 1988 (P. Fallahi, personal information).

This beautiful garden was built toward the end of Qajar dynasty in a town called Ghaleh Kareh, located in the state of Boyer Ahmad. In 1951, this garden was expanded by its new owner, Eskandar Khan Charmin (P. Fallahi, personal information).

Kalat-e-Naderi is essentially a fortress that was built during or before the Achaemenian Empire of Persia (550–330 BCE). This fortress is surrounded on three sides by high cliff walls that range from 500 m on the south side to 650 m on the west side, with lower eastern walls and a gently sloping plain leading up to the heights from the north. This is the only fortress that withstood the siege of Tamerlane from 1336 to 1405 ( Dalrymple, 2018 ).

The garden complex of Kalat-e-Naderi was rebuilt by Nader Shah Afshar (King Nader) in the city of Kalat, located northeast of the city of Mashhad. By the decree of King Nader, a building called Emarat-e-Khorshid (House of the Sun), with magnificent architecture and Persian artwork, carvings and paintings, was built in this garden complex for the tomb of King Nader, who died in 1747 ( Dalrymple, 2018 ).

The Garden of Saad Abad is located in the southern foothills of Alborz Mountain in the north of Tehran. Initially, an 8000-m 2 garden used to lodge Qajarid authorities before 1920. Then, Reza Shah the Great, founder of Pahlavi dynasty, expanded and added the Green Palace Kakh-e-Shahvand to the initial 8000-m 2 complex in 1923 ( Jalali, 2017 ). This garden has two features that are different from older Persian gardens. First, many plants (shrubs, trees, and flowers) are imported from Europe and other regions of the world. Second, Saad Abad garden plants are grown alongside local species, along streams, and throughout the garden according to their height and the land’s topography. Today, this garden is used as an important museum and is visited by tourists from around the world every year.

Numerous other ancient botanical gardens still exist in Iran, including Ghadamgah Neishapour, Garden of Shookat Abad Birjand, Garden of Delgosha in Shiraz, Garden of Hasht Behesht in Esfahan, Garden of Divan Khaneh (Chehel Sotun) in Mazandaran, Garden of Abbas Abad in Behshar, and Garden of El Goli in Tabriz. It is important to remember that countless other magnificent gardens existed throughout Persia’s long and rich history, but were destroyed by invading Arabs, Mongolians, and Tamerlanes for various cultural and religious reasons.

The Persian garden as a concept has a long history. Persian gardens are secluded and peaceful environments that survive under environmentally harsh conditions. The concept of chahar bagh is among the most prominent features of the Persian garden that dates back millennia. In Persian gardens, pavilions and luxury buildings for Persian aristocrats are often built. Designs and artifacts of each of these lavish buildings and gardens were influenced by the geopolitical situations of the time, beliefs, and the personal taste of its resident. Nevertheless, most of these gardens are surrounded by walls and all have waterways, rows of shade and fruit trees, and flowers in common. Unfortunately, a large number of these gardens were completely destroyed so that nothing remains, as a result of repeated attacks by invaders over centuries. Luckily, there are efforts by most Iranians, residing either inside or outside of Iran, to pay special attention to the value of these ancient gardens and the importance of preserving them ( Rahnama and Pouremad, 2013 ). These efforts, meshed with the ease of global travel, advancement of technology, ease of communication, and urgent need for water conservation, as well as greater awareness and a sense of responsibility for protecting the environment provide hopeful signs for the rejuvenation and maintenance of the ancient gardens of Persia.

Some features of ancient Persian gardens are being used ingeniously in modern horticulture in Iran and many countries with a similar climate, including India, Australia, and the United States. Despite current political issues and the worldwide shortage of water, brilliant Iranian scientists and farmers have meshed rich Persian architectural and garden designs with advances in various fields of horticultural science (floriculture, vegetable and fruit), and have devised amazing orchards and gardens in Iran. A typical example of this ingenuity can be seen at Fadak Farm near Qum, Iran. In this 100-ha olive orchard, a uniquely structured chimney, similar to the one in Dowlat Abad Garden, is built to convert the hot wind of the desert to a cooling system by going through a water misting spray for storing olives, without any electricity or other sources of power ( Fallahi et al., 2005 ). In this farm as well as many other orchards, the magnificent architecture at the entrance to the orchard highlights the combination of the passion of Iranian growers for Persian garden design and the science of horticulture. Efficient use of water by drip irrigation and rainwater storage in reservoirs and SISs in Arzhang Kooh Agricultural Center near the Fashandak region in Taleghan, Iran, and several other locations are example of ideas taken from the water-saving features of Persian gardens applied to practical agriculture ( Fallahi et al., 2005 ).

We hope peace and calm prevail in the Persian Plateau and other regions of the world. Only under a peaceful environment will scientists and farmers be able to combine the ingenuity and experiences of the old world, such as the principals of the Persian garden and the exchange of resistant plant materials, with new technologies and discoveries to combat or alleviate diseases, pests, and water shortages worldwide.

Literature cited

Abbasalizadeh Rezakolai, S. , Samadi, D. & Tabatabaian, M. 2015 Analysis of Persian gardens using Kaplan’s landscape preference theory: Case study: Fin Garden, Shahzadeh Garden, Eram Garden, and Eli-Goli Garden Intl. J. Architectural Eng. Urban Planning. 25 6 20

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Akhgar, H. , Zabihi, H. & Shaker Ardakani, R. 2013 Comparative analysis of Dowlat Abad Garden (Yazd, Iran) and the Taj Mahal (Agra, India) Intl. J. Architecture Urban Dev. 3 83 92

Aladin Travel 2019 Pahlavanpour Garden. 23 Aug. 2019. < https://www.alaedin.travel/en/attractions/iran/mehriz/pahlavanpour-garden >

Bachari, H. 2012 Bagh-e-Shahzadeh: The Prince’s Garden at Mahan. 23 Aug. 2019. < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjIi2A7a9F0 >

Bowe, P. 2004 Gardens of the Roman world. J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, CA

Dalrymple, S. 2018 Here lay Nader Shah. 23 Aug. 2019. < https://www.cntraveller.in/story/where-nader-shah-lies/ >

Daryaee, T. 2014 A walled paradise: A history of Iranian gardening. 23 Aug. 2019. < https://theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2014/oct/30/iran-walled-garden-paradise >

Fallahi, E. 2017a Horticulture in Iran can be an alternative to petroleum and a major source of international business with unique potential and challenges HortScience 52 1145 1147

Fallahi, P. 2017b The 10 most beautiful parks and gardens in Iran. 23 Aug. 2019. < https://theculturetrip.com/middle-east/iran/articles/the-10-most-beautiful-parks-and-gardens-in-iran/ >

Fallahi, E. , Boland Nazar, A. , Naeini, M. & Salehi, R. 2005 Horticulture in Iran Chronica Hort. 45 26 28

Fallahi, E. , Colt, W.M. , Fallahi, B. & Chun, I.-J. 2002 The importance of apple rootstocks on tree growth, yield, fruit quality, leaf nutrition, and photosynthesis with an emphasis on ‘Fuji’ HortTechnology 12 38 44

Fallahi, E. , Gharaghani, A. , Sheikhsofla, H. & Hassani, D. 2018 Persia is the center of apple and pear diversity and this irreplaceable treasure needs to be protected Acta Hort. 1190 1 8

Gannon, D. 2017 Did you know the ‘finest Persian garden in the Western Hemisphere’ is right outside Manhattan? 23 Aug. 2019. < https://www.6sqft.com/did-you-know-the-finest-persian-garden-in-the-western-hemisphere-is-right-outside-manhattan/ >

Garofalo, V. 2016 The geometry of a domed architecture: A stately example of karbandi at bagh-Dowlat Abad in Yazd Nexus Netw. J. 18 169 195

Ghavidel, H. 2008 The paradise gardens of Persia. 23 Aug. 2019. < http://www.iranreview.org/content/Documents/The_Paradise_Gardens_of_Persia.htm >

Jalali, S. 2017 Iran’s palaces: The Saad Abad complex. 23 Aug. 2019. < https://erasmusu.com/en/erasmus-tehran/erasmus-blog/irans-palaces-the-saad-abad-complex-pt-1-465585 >

Mahdi Nejad, J. , Azemati, H. , Zarghami, E. , Sadeghi, A. & Abadi, H. 2017 The role of water in Persian gardens Open J. Ecol. 7 41 54

Mahmoudi Farahani, L. , Motamed, B. & Elmira, J. 2016 Persian gardens: Meanings, symbolism, and design Landscape Online 46 1 19

Massoudi, A. 2009 Acquaintance with Iranian gardens Bagh-e-Shahzadeh. Nashr Faza Publ. No. 44

Rahnama, M.R. & Pouremad, M. 2013 Indicators of Iranian-Islamic gardens on reclamation of timeworn structures Intl. J. Adv. Studies Humanities Soc. Sci. 1 1151 1160

Tajaddini, L. 2011 Review of the characteristics of Mahan Garden: One type of Persian garden World Academy Science Eng. Tech. Intl. J. Architectural Environ. Eng. 5 351 354

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2018 The Persian garden. 23 Aug. 2019. < https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1372.pdf >

Untermyer Gardens Conservancy 2019 The walled garden. 23 Aug. 2019. < http://www.untermyergardens.org/walled-garden.html >

Wilber, D.N. 1979 Persian gardens and garden pavilions. Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, DC

Yazdani, N. 2018 Meanings of urban park landscapes as insiders and outsiders Landsc. Hist. 39 103 120

Yazdani, N. & Lozanovksa, M. 2016 The design philosophy of Edenic gardens: Tracing “paradise myth” in landscape architecture Landsc. Hist. 37 5 18

Yazdani, N. & Lozanovksa, M. 2017 Australian mythical landscape and the desire of non-English-speaking immigrants Landsc. Rev. 17 78 95

Contributor Notes

We express our gratitude to Professor Morteza Khosh-Khui, University of Shiraz, Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Shiraz, Iran, for providing some information for this article.

This paper was presented during the 2018 American Society for Horticultural Science Annual Conference in Washington, DC, as part of a workshop titled “Urban Horticulture: From Local Initiatives to Global Success Stories.”

E.F. is a Professor and Director of Pomology and Viticulture Program.

P.F. is an expert in international tourism and culture.

S.M. is a Postdoctoral Fellow of Pomology and Viticulture Program.

E.F. is the corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] .

  Headquarters:

  1018 Duke Street

  Alexandria, VA 22314

  Phone : 703.836.4606

  Email : [email protected]

© 2018-2024 American Society for Horticultural Science

• [66.249.64.20|185.39.149.46]
• 185.39.149.46

Character limit 500 /500

Grammatical Cases

There are eight grammatical cases in Old Persian . The instrumental and ablative cases are usually counted as one case, thus reducing the number of cases to seven. Since Middle Persian, grammatical cases are indicated with case markers rather than inflection system. Case markers are usually adpositions . However, they can be of other parts of speech. For example, the genitive marker “e” can be introduced as a particle or an adposition but it has actually evolved out of Old Persian conjunction “hya” and should be considered a conjunction.

Grammatical Cases in Modern Persian

The following table shows the list of grammatical cases and their markers in modern Persian.

Grammatical Cases and Word Order

Grammatical cases categorize nouns, pronouns, adjectives, … according to their grammatical function. In modern Persian, all types of objects and complements are marked for their grammatical role. Case marking has allowed Persian to retain free word order , which is typical of languages having an inflection system. Consider the following sentences:

English does not have an inflection system nor it marks the accusative, dative and ablative cases. As a result, when the word order changes, the meaning changes as well. For example, since “the son” is not marked for the accusative, the meaning of “The son kissed the father” is different from the meaning of the original sentence “The father kissed the son”. Similarly, “The father helped the son” and “The son asked the father” have a different meaning from the original sentences in the above table.

In Persian, the dative is typically marked with به , the ablative is typically marked with از and the accusative is typically marked with را . Therefore, it is possible to change word order without changing the original meaning.

As opposed to Old Persian, New Persian is not considered an inflected language but it still indicates grammatical cases. New Persian has replaced the complex system of affixes and inflection paradigms with a set of case markers. This allows Persian to fulfill the same functionality as an inflected language like Sanskrit, Latin and Russian. Having free word order is a clear proof.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Influence of Persian Language on Azerbaijani: A Case Study of Contact-Induced Changes in Iranian Azerbaijani

2021, University of Eastern Finland Philosophical faculty, School of Humanities, Foreign Languages and Translation Studies

This study is an attempt to investigate the linguistic aspects of contact-induced changes in Azerbaijani, a Turkic language, spoken in the northwest of Iran, where Azerbaijani as a minority language is spoken alongside Persian, an Indo-European language. To this purpose, a set of features from three linguistic categories of lexicon, morphology and syntax are analysed. Furthermore, this study aimed to get an overview of intensity of contact between Azerbaijani and Persian. To achieve the objectives, a qualitative case study is conducted with collection of spoken data from seventy Azerbaijani-speaking people in Tabriz-Iran. The data annotated and transcribed using ELAN linguistic annotator software. For theoretical discussions, this project made use of Thomason’ (2001) definitions on contact-induced change and borrowability. Moreover, Thomason’s broad borrowing scale is used to determine the intensity of contact between Azerbaijani and Persian. The findings suggest that Azerbaijani has been affected by Persian in three linguistic levels of lexicon, morphology and syntax. At lexicon level, Azerbaijani has borrowed Persian vocabulary of both content and function word classes in various semantic areas. At morphology level, Persian inflectional markers such as comparison suffixes and Ezafeh suffix are borrowed. Moreover, a set of Persian prepositions and an adjective-maker suffix imported from Persian. At syntax level, Persian syntactic methods of passivization and causation are borrowed by Azerbaijani and are used besides Azerbaijani native morphological methods. Moreover, Persian head-initial order is borrowed by Azerbaijani at noun phrases and prepositional phrase levels, while the native Azerbaijani exhibits head-final order. Finally, regarding the four stages of Thomason’s (2001) broad borrowing scale, my findings indicated that the current situation of contact between Azerbaijani and Persian falls into the third category of more intense contact.

RELATED PAPERS

Mishne Toda- J. Tigay Jubilee volume

israel knohl

Mariano Lisi

tanwey ratumanan

The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine

Ahmed Mohamed

Energy Justice Across Borders

Ankit Kumar

Francis Botchwey

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Jolanta Jaroszuk-Ściseł

International Journal of Science Education

Roald Verhoeff

African Journal of Biotechnology

Ravikesavan R

Journal of Asthma

Gregory Diette

Nabil Ebraheim

Vasco Martim Sousa Ferreira

Civil Engineering Scientific Journal

Delka Octiriani

Maria Bania

asria asmadun

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Timothy Langat

International Electron Devices Meeting 2000. Technical Digest. IEDM (Cat. No.00CH37138)

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Susan Koletar

Bioinformatics

Bogdan Lesyng

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Case study of an Iranian-American neuropsychological assessment in the surgical setting: role of language and tests

Affiliations.

• 1 University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
• 2 School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.
• 3 Richmond University Medical Center, Staten Island, NY, USA.
• 4 University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
• 5 Department of Psychology, CSU, Northridge, CA, USA.
• 6 Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
• PMID: 31880955
• DOI: 10.1080/23279095.2019.1706517

There is a growing need to conduct a neuropsychological assessment with bilingual Middle Eastern populations, particularly those who speak the Persian language (Farsi). Although validated neuropsychological and language tests have emerged in Iran, there remains a shortage of appropriate psychometric tests in the U.S. that have been validated for use with the Iranian-American population. This often leads to an assortment of using U.S. tests in English, U.S. tests translated into Farsi, and Iranian tests in Farsi, which can complicate the clinical assessment. To better understand common testing issues when working with bilingual Iranian-American patients, we review the first report of a 62-year-old, bilingual (English-Farsi) Iranian-American male with 18-years of education who was tested using U.S.-developed and Iranian-developed tests in both English and Farsi language. Pre-surgical, 6 months post-surgical, and 1.5 years of post-surgical assessment data are discussed. We highlight the strengths and limitations of naming tests, test used in the native country versus U.S. language tests, the importance of baseline testing, general bilingual Persian-English assessment considerations, and case-based learning points.

Keywords: Cultural neurocognition; Farsi; Iranian-American; Persian; cultural neuropsychology; language; naming; post-surgical assessment; pre-surgical.

• Language Tests
• Middle Aged
• Multilingualism*
• Neuropsychological Tests
• Translating
• United States

The state of AI in early 2024: Gen AI adoption spikes and starts to generate value

If 2023 was the year the world discovered generative AI (gen AI) , 2024 is the year organizations truly began using—and deriving business value from—this new technology. In the latest McKinsey Global Survey  on AI, 65 percent of respondents report that their organizations are regularly using gen AI, nearly double the percentage from our previous survey just ten months ago. Respondents’ expectations for gen AI’s impact remain as high as they were last year , with three-quarters predicting that gen AI will lead to significant or disruptive change in their industries in the years ahead.

About the authors

This article is a collaborative effort by Alex Singla , Alexander Sukharevsky , Lareina Yee , and Michael Chui , with Bryce Hall , representing views from QuantumBlack, AI by McKinsey, and McKinsey Digital.

Organizations are already seeing material benefits from gen AI use, reporting both cost decreases and revenue jumps in the business units deploying the technology. The survey also provides insights into the kinds of risks presented by gen AI—most notably, inaccuracy—as well as the emerging practices of top performers to mitigate those challenges and capture value.

AI adoption surges

Interest in generative AI has also brightened the spotlight on a broader set of AI capabilities. For the past six years, AI adoption by respondents’ organizations has hovered at about 50 percent. This year, the survey finds that adoption has jumped to 72 percent (Exhibit 1). And the interest is truly global in scope. Our 2023 survey found that AI adoption did not reach 66 percent in any region; however, this year more than two-thirds of respondents in nearly every region say their organizations are using AI. 1 Organizations based in Central and South America are the exception, with 58 percent of respondents working for organizations based in Central and South America reporting AI adoption. Looking by industry, the biggest increase in adoption can be found in professional services. 2 Includes respondents working for organizations focused on human resources, legal services, management consulting, market research, R&D, tax preparation, and training.

Also, responses suggest that companies are now using AI in more parts of the business. Half of respondents say their organizations have adopted AI in two or more business functions, up from less than a third of respondents in 2023 (Exhibit 2).

Gen AI adoption is most common in the functions where it can create the most value

Most respondents now report that their organizations—and they as individuals—are using gen AI. Sixty-five percent of respondents say their organizations are regularly using gen AI in at least one business function, up from one-third last year. The average organization using gen AI is doing so in two functions, most often in marketing and sales and in product and service development—two functions in which previous research  determined that gen AI adoption could generate the most value 3 “ The economic potential of generative AI: The next productivity frontier ,” McKinsey, June 14, 2023. —as well as in IT (Exhibit 3). The biggest increase from 2023 is found in marketing and sales, where reported adoption has more than doubled. Yet across functions, only two use cases, both within marketing and sales, are reported by 15 percent or more of respondents.

Gen AI also is weaving its way into respondents’ personal lives. Compared with 2023, respondents are much more likely to be using gen AI at work and even more likely to be using gen AI both at work and in their personal lives (Exhibit 4). The survey finds upticks in gen AI use across all regions, with the largest increases in Asia–Pacific and Greater China. Respondents at the highest seniority levels, meanwhile, show larger jumps in the use of gen Al tools for work and outside of work compared with their midlevel-management peers. Looking at specific industries, respondents working in energy and materials and in professional services report the largest increase in gen AI use.

Investments in gen AI and analytical AI are beginning to create value

The latest survey also shows how different industries are budgeting for gen AI. Responses suggest that, in many industries, organizations are about equally as likely to be investing more than 5 percent of their digital budgets in gen AI as they are in nongenerative, analytical-AI solutions (Exhibit 5). Yet in most industries, larger shares of respondents report that their organizations spend more than 20 percent on analytical AI than on gen AI. Looking ahead, most respondents—67 percent—expect their organizations to invest more in AI over the next three years.

Where are those investments paying off? For the first time, our latest survey explored the value created by gen AI use by business function. The function in which the largest share of respondents report seeing cost decreases is human resources. Respondents most commonly report meaningful revenue increases (of more than 5 percent) in supply chain and inventory management (Exhibit 6). For analytical AI, respondents most often report seeing cost benefits in service operations—in line with what we found last year —as well as meaningful revenue increases from AI use in marketing and sales.

Inaccuracy: The most recognized and experienced risk of gen AI use

As businesses begin to see the benefits of gen AI, they’re also recognizing the diverse risks associated with the technology. These can range from data management risks such as data privacy, bias, or intellectual property (IP) infringement to model management risks, which tend to focus on inaccurate output or lack of explainability. A third big risk category is security and incorrect use.

Respondents to the latest survey are more likely than they were last year to say their organizations consider inaccuracy and IP infringement to be relevant to their use of gen AI, and about half continue to view cybersecurity as a risk (Exhibit 7).

Conversely, respondents are less likely than they were last year to say their organizations consider workforce and labor displacement to be relevant risks and are not increasing efforts to mitigate them.

In fact, inaccuracy— which can affect use cases across the gen AI value chain , ranging from customer journeys and summarization to coding and creative content—is the only risk that respondents are significantly more likely than last year to say their organizations are actively working to mitigate.

Some organizations have already experienced negative consequences from the use of gen AI, with 44 percent of respondents saying their organizations have experienced at least one consequence (Exhibit 8). Respondents most often report inaccuracy as a risk that has affected their organizations, followed by cybersecurity and explainability.

Our previous research has found that there are several elements of governance that can help in scaling gen AI use responsibly, yet few respondents report having these risk-related practices in place. 4 “ Implementing generative AI with speed and safety ,” McKinsey Quarterly , March 13, 2024. For example, just 18 percent say their organizations have an enterprise-wide council or board with the authority to make decisions involving responsible AI governance, and only one-third say gen AI risk awareness and risk mitigation controls are required skill sets for technical talent.

Bringing gen AI capabilities to bear

The latest survey also sought to understand how, and how quickly, organizations are deploying these new gen AI tools. We have found three archetypes for implementing gen AI solutions : takers use off-the-shelf, publicly available solutions; shapers customize those tools with proprietary data and systems; and makers develop their own foundation models from scratch. 5 “ Technology’s generational moment with generative AI: A CIO and CTO guide ,” McKinsey, July 11, 2023. Across most industries, the survey results suggest that organizations are finding off-the-shelf offerings applicable to their business needs—though many are pursuing opportunities to customize models or even develop their own (Exhibit 9). About half of reported gen AI uses within respondents’ business functions are utilizing off-the-shelf, publicly available models or tools, with little or no customization. Respondents in energy and materials, technology, and media and telecommunications are more likely to report significant customization or tuning of publicly available models or developing their own proprietary models to address specific business needs.

Respondents most often report that their organizations required one to four months from the start of a project to put gen AI into production, though the time it takes varies by business function (Exhibit 10). It also depends upon the approach for acquiring those capabilities. Not surprisingly, reported uses of highly customized or proprietary models are 1.5 times more likely than off-the-shelf, publicly available models to take five months or more to implement.

Gen AI high performers are excelling despite facing challenges

Gen AI is a new technology, and organizations are still early in the journey of pursuing its opportunities and scaling it across functions. So it’s little surprise that only a small subset of respondents (46 out of 876) report that a meaningful share of their organizations’ EBIT can be attributed to their deployment of gen AI. Still, these gen AI leaders are worth examining closely. These, after all, are the early movers, who already attribute more than 10 percent of their organizations’ EBIT to their use of gen AI. Forty-two percent of these high performers say more than 20 percent of their EBIT is attributable to their use of nongenerative, analytical AI, and they span industries and regions—though most are at organizations with less than $1 billion in annual revenue. The AI-related practices at these organizations can offer guidance to those looking to create value from gen AI adoption at their own organizations.

To start, gen AI high performers are using gen AI in more business functions—an average of three functions, while others average two. They, like other organizations, are most likely to use gen AI in marketing and sales and product or service development, but they’re much more likely than others to use gen AI solutions in risk, legal, and compliance; in strategy and corporate finance; and in supply chain and inventory management. They’re more than three times as likely as others to be using gen AI in activities ranging from processing of accounting documents and risk assessment to R&D testing and pricing and promotions. While, overall, about half of reported gen AI applications within business functions are utilizing publicly available models or tools, gen AI high performers are less likely to use those off-the-shelf options than to either implement significantly customized versions of those tools or to develop their own proprietary foundation models.

What else are these high performers doing differently? For one thing, they are paying more attention to gen-AI-related risks. Perhaps because they are further along on their journeys, they are more likely than others to say their organizations have experienced every negative consequence from gen AI we asked about, from cybersecurity and personal privacy to explainability and IP infringement. Given that, they are more likely than others to report that their organizations consider those risks, as well as regulatory compliance, environmental impacts, and political stability, to be relevant to their gen AI use, and they say they take steps to mitigate more risks than others do.

Gen AI high performers are also much more likely to say their organizations follow a set of risk-related best practices (Exhibit 11). For example, they are nearly twice as likely as others to involve the legal function and embed risk reviews early on in the development of gen AI solutions—that is, to “ shift left .” They’re also much more likely than others to employ a wide range of other best practices, from strategy-related practices to those related to scaling.

In addition to experiencing the risks of gen AI adoption, high performers have encountered other challenges that can serve as warnings to others (Exhibit 12). Seventy percent say they have experienced difficulties with data, including defining processes for data governance, developing the ability to quickly integrate data into AI models, and an insufficient amount of training data, highlighting the essential role that data play in capturing value. High performers are also more likely than others to report experiencing challenges with their operating models, such as implementing agile ways of working and effective sprint performance management.

About the research

The online survey was in the field from February 22 to March 5, 2024, and garnered responses from 1,363 participants representing the full range of regions, industries, company sizes, functional specialties, and tenures. Of those respondents, 981 said their organizations had adopted AI in at least one business function, and 878 said their organizations were regularly using gen AI in at least one function. To adjust for differences in response rates, the data are weighted by the contribution of each respondent’s nation to global GDP.

Alex Singla and Alexander Sukharevsky  are global coleaders of QuantumBlack, AI by McKinsey, and senior partners in McKinsey’s Chicago and London offices, respectively; Lareina Yee  is a senior partner in the Bay Area office, where Michael Chui , a McKinsey Global Institute partner, is a partner; and Bryce Hall  is an associate partner in the Washington, DC, office.

They wish to thank Kaitlin Noe, Larry Kanter, Mallika Jhamb, and Shinjini Srivastava for their contributions to this work.

This article was edited by Heather Hanselman, a senior editor in McKinsey’s Atlanta office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Moving past gen AI’s honeymoon phase: Seven hard truths for CIOs to get from pilot to scale

A generative AI reset: Rewiring to turn potential into value in 2024

Implementing generative AI with speed and safety