Some Aspects of Persian Style

Abstract

1.1. Outlook. The present paper is not a programmatic statement, offering a theoretical base for the analysis of style, but the application of descriptive techniques to some aspects of style in a particular language, Persian. Linguists have generally been accustomed to restricting their analyses to a given style; this has been useful in presenting a consistent and coherent picture. The introduction of a stylistic frame of reference will enable us to deal more fully each language, and, in my opinion, to present an even more consistent and coherent picture by defining what were previously called 'free variants'. Harris defines the scope of linguistic endeavor as follows:' 'For the purposes of descriptive linguistic investigations a single LANGUAGE or dialect is considered over a brief period of time. This comprises the talk which takes place in a language community, i.e. among a group of speakers, each of whom speaks the language as a native, and may be considered an informant from the point of view of the linguist ... Even the speech of one individual, or of a group of persons similar language histories, may be analyzable into more than one dialect: there may be appreciable linguistic differences in a person's talk in different social situations (e.g., in some societies, in talk to equals or to superiors).' Earlier he says,2 'Although differences of style can be described the tools of descriptive linguistics, their exact analysis involves so much detailed study that they are generally disregarded. The procedures presented in the following chapters will not take note of style differences, but will assume that all styles within a dialect may be roughly described by a single structure.' In reviewing this passage McQuown says,3 'If style differences are characteristic of broad stretches of speech, they should be simpler in nature than differences restricted to shorter sequences. If we are to get at the particular synthesis in the speech habits of a single individual, we cannot afford to exclude style differences. Why should we needlessly limit the application of our techniques?' This problem of describing the variety within the speech of a given of a particular language is such a knotty one that it has generally been accorded a Gordian solution. Bloch's definition of an idiolect is a case in point 4 'The totality of the possible utterances of one at one time in using a language to interact one other is an idiolect ... The phrase with one other speaker is intended to exclude the possibility that an idolect might embrace more than one style of speaking.' This is too narrow a definition. A given utterance may contain more than one style. We could broaden the definition of 'idiolect' to mean the whole speech of a given individual, or at least a single dialect as spoken by a given