Content uploaded by Tayebeh Mansoori
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tayebeh Mansoori on Jan 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Study of Personal Pronouns of Larestani as an Endangered Iranian Language
Ali Rahimi
Associate Professor, Bangkok University
ali.r@bu.ac.th
Tayebeh Mansoori
M.A. in Applied Linguistics (ELT), Yasouj University
mansoori.tayyebeh@gmail.com
1. Introduction
In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature on endangered languages
because every language reflects a unique identity and representation of the world; besides, each
language is replete with irreplaceable cultural peculiarities. As a result, a large and growing body
of literature has presented multiple methods in saving, revitalizing, and documenting the
endangered languages. To illustrate, some scholars suggested to preserve a language by
documenting it (Boas, 2006; Hoffmann, 2009), others asked governments not to institutionalize a
single language for their country (Hashi, 2014; UNESCO Ad Hoc Expert Group on Endangered
Languages, 2003), etc.
It is unquestionable that one of the primary tasks of linguists is to describe and document
the different languages of the world. Several dictionaries and grammar books have been written
on the well-known languages of the world such as English, French, Chinese, etc. However, there
is a scarcity of research and resources on the less-known languages, in other words, some
languages are undocumented. Documenting multiple languages is a valuable asset in general
linguistics. Without these documentations, future linguistic theories would be dependent solely
on future existing languages and not the extinct ones (Lehmann, 1999); as a consequence, their
richness decreases.
Documenting a language is not an easy task at all and questions have been raised about the
methods of accumulating the data samples in a language. This discrepancy might be due to the
fact that there is no sharp distinction between documentation and description of a language. Most
linguists believe that one should “document a language in such a way that future linguists can
derive a description from it” (Lehmann, 1999, p. 11). Considering this fact, a linguistic corpus
should be comprehensive enough to be used by the future linguists. Grammarians employ
various field methods to gather data for writing grammar (Bowern, 2008; Chelliah & De Reuse,
2011; Mosel, 2012). Austin (2006) believes that the most efficient type of text collection is a
digitalized annotated corpus accompanied with audios, videos, and their transcriptions, which is
obtainable through the internet. The desire for collecting “a variety of informal communicative
events ... to give an authentic impression of the language” (Seifart, 2008, p. 69) is not always
achievable because of several reasons such as limited resources, research purpose, speech
community’s agendas and willingness, etc.
The importance of language documentation cannot be disregarded. However, the solid
emphasis on documenting the endangered languages has led to a paucity of research on their
description. As Himmelmann (1998) reminds us, the principal concern in language description is
generating grammatical resources that are mainly intended for linguists. In these resources,
language samples are utilized as examples to support the linguist’s study. These language data
are generally presented as discrete sentences without mentioning their sources. It is universally
acknowledged that language description is of utmost significance in preserving the endangered
languages for future generations.
2. Review of Literature
2.1. Larestani language and its location.
Lar town is located at the southeastern of Fars province in Iran, with the latitude of 27°40´N and
the longitude of 54°14´E. It is the capital of Larestan County and its natives are called Larestani
or Achomi people. This county has eight towns: “Lar, Evaz, Beyram, Banaruiyeh, Fishvar,
Juyom, Khur, and Latifi” (Larestan County, n.d., para. 1).
The common language in this county is known as Larestani that consists of different dialects
and accents such as Evazi, khonji, Aradi, etc. It should be noted that all the studies reviewed so
far suffer from the fact that they have not been consistent in using one word for calling this
language. Many researchers have named it as Lari language (Mirdehghan & Ourang, 2013;
Molchanova, 1982; Moridi & Ourang, 2015; Taherkhani & Ourang, 2013; among others); others
have called it Larestani language (e.g., Eghtedari, 2005; Khonji, 2010). This language is well
known as Achomi in Iran; however, Achomi is not mentioned in any written account except
Mansoori (2003). Mansoori (2003) provided two possible reasons why it is called Achomi
language. Firstly, [t ] consonant is abundantly used in this language. Secondly, people in ʃ
Larestan County have been trading with Arab countries alongside Persian Gulf and Arabs call
foreigners and Persian speakers Ajam, which means Non-Arabs. Mansoori (2003) believes that
this word was loaned by traders, undergone some changes, and turned to Ajami and then Achomi
throughout time. In the current paper, the word Larestani is used to refer to the common
language spoken in Larestan County because Lari is the name of one of the dialects of this
language and we cannot attribute it to all the other dialects. Furthermore, the term Achomi is not
morally adequate for calling these people since this term was first utilized to distinguish
Larestani speakers from other groups so it holds a negative value.
One other criticism of much of the literature on Larestani language is that some scholars have
regarded it as a language (for instance, Eghtedari, 2005; Khonji, 2010; Moridi & Ourang, 2013);
still others have considered it a dialect (Geravand, Asadi, Shayestehfar, & Derogariyan, 2011;
Mansoori, 2003; among others). There is no universally accepted criterion for differentiating
language and dialect and as Falk (1978) stated, “The chief difference lies in the degree of
change” (p. 280). Those researchers who think of Larestani as a dialect argue that it is a dialect
of the Persian language (e.g., Mansoori, 2003) but this claim is invalid since Persian speakers are
not able to understand what Larestani people are saying. There are sharp distinctions between the
grammatical structures and vocabularies of these two languages and this fact prevents mutual
intelligibility, which is a decisive factor to claim that two languages are of the same origin
(Vajda, 2015). Larestani language belongs to the Southwestern branch of Middle Iranian
languages, it is deep-rooted in Pahlavi languages (Geravand et al., 2011), and that is why it is so
dissimilar to the Persian language. The view of those who contemplate Larestani to be a
language can be further reinforced by the fact that it has conclusively been shown to have several
other dialects itself. Hitherto, literature has offered contradictory findings about the number of
the dialects in this language. For instance, Khonji (1999) mentioned seven dialects of this
language, namely Bastaki, Evazi, Faramarzi, Gerashi, Kormastji, Khonji, and Lari. On the other
hand, Vosoughi (1995) identified eight dialects as follows: Bastaki, Bikheyi, Evazi, Faramarzi,
Fedaghi, Fishvari, Gerashi, and Khonji. A comprehensive analysis is required to classify the
dialects and accents of Larestani language, which is beyond the scope of the present paper.
2.2. Studies of Larestani language.
Few Iranian linguists have endeavored to conduct research on this language, among which
Khonji (1999, 2010), Eghtedari (2005), and Vosoughi (1995) are prominent. Among the non-
Iranian researchers, Koji and Minoru (1979) and Molchanova (1982) have carried out the most
remarkable studies. Recently, a number of studies have been conducted on different aspects of
Larestani language. For example, Taherkhani and Ourang (2013) analyzed the derivational
bound morphemes in two endangered Iranian languages, i.e., Lari and Tati. In another study,
Mirdehghan and Ourang (2013) described the grammatical tenses in Lari. A recent study by
Moridi and Ourang (2015) involved the categorization of the nominal system in Lari dialect.
There are still numerous untouched areas in the Larestani language, which require further
research and clarification. This paper aims to focus on describing personal pronouns in three
major dialects of this language, i.e., Lari, Gerashi, and Evazi.
3. Method
In order to describe the personal pronouns in the dialects under study (Lari, Gerashi, and Evazi),
a descriptive approach in writing grammar was adopted. The sources of data for this study were
obtained through descriptive linguistic fieldwork. The term descriptive linguistic fieldwork is
generally understood to mean the “investigation of the structure of a language through the
collection of primary language data gathered through interaction with native-speaking
consultants” (Chelliah & De Reuse, 2011, p. 7).
For this study, the data that were collected during a three-year period from 2013 to 2016 in
Larestan region were used. These data involved audio recordings of language use (both natural
and interviews) by native speakers. The data were transcribed using IPA (International Phonetic
Alphabet) system and were checked by native speakers when in the field. Although one of the
researchers was a native speaker of the language under study, the data went under a second
round of analysis by one other native speaker of each dialect. To increase the reliability of
transcriptions and translations, three native research assistants were selected who had a PhD
degree in Applied Linguistics. After writing example sentences from the corpus, which involved
personal pronouns, they were analyzed to deduce the different types of personal pronouns and
their structural patterns.