Verbal Hygiene and Language Peevers: Analyzing the Discourse of Linguistic Prescriptivism in Iran with Emphasis on Editorial Policies

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 National Language Institute Researcher, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of English Language & Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
In contemporary Iran, linguistic prescriptivism has emerged as a dominant approach in language policy and social interactions. This perspective views language as a set of fixed and immutable rules that must be protected against the natural changes and dynamism inherent to language. This study focuses on three main areas lexical purism, mandatory orthography, and script reform to analyze the discourse of prescriptivism. Lexical purism seeks to purge foreign loanwords from the language and replace them with “pure Persian” equivalents. Mandatory orthography emphasizes the imposition of rigid spelling rules, often restricting linguistic creativity. Script reform, meanwhile, has implications beyond the linguistic sphere, encompassing cultural and historical effects. Employing the theoretical frameworks of “language hygiene” (Cameron, 2012) and “linguistic superstition” (Pinker, 2014), this research demonstrates that prescriptivist discourse is not merely a linguistic phenomenon but also reflects cultural and ideological dominance in contemporary Iranian society.
 
Materials & Methods
This qualitative study is designed within the frameworks of critical discourse analysis and sociolinguistics. Data were collected from three main sources: the official rulings of the Academy of Persian Language and Literature as the authority on standard language, editorial guidelines from scientific journals, and user interactions on the social media platform Telegram. The data span from 2016 to 2025 and were analyzed using qualitative content analysis alongside descriptive statistics. Prior research indicates that most Iranian studies on prescriptivism have not adopted a descriptive lens and have largely served to reinforce norm-centric approaches. The works of Cameron (2012) and Pinker (2014) were particularly inspirational, revealing that language rules often originate from social and political ideologies. This study aims to critique extreme and inflexible approaches in language policies while emphasizing the status of language as a dynamic and social phenomenon. It seeks to demonstrate that prescriptivism in contemporary Iran not only imposes linguistic restrictions but also functions as a tool for reproducing power structures and marginalizing non-standard varieties of Persian.
 
 
 
Results & Discussion
Findings indicate that in contemporary Iran, three principal domains of linguistic prescriptivism are prominently observed. In the area of lexical purism, the Academy of Persian Language and Literature, as an official institution, endeavors to eliminate and replace loanwords with “pure Persian” equivalents. This policy, motivated by nationalist aims and the preservation of “linguistic purity,” faces significant challenges because borrowing is a global linguistic phenomenon and a sign of language vitality and enrichment. Regarding mandatory orthography, scientific journals and some editors enforce rigid rules, homogenizing writing styles and suppressing the linguistic creativity of authors and researchers. Editorial guidelines demonstrate a strict approach that labels any deviation from the standard language as “error,” leading to the elimination of individual stylistic variations. Contrary to descriptive linguistics recommendations, these prescriptions reproduce a symbolic and ideological order rather than reflecting linguistic realities. Script reform, as the third focus, encompasses broader dimensions and is often intertwined with religious, political, and cultural factors. Although seemingly technical, script reform carries deep cultural and historical consequences because script acts as a bridge between generations, and any abrupt changes risk causing identity ruptures. Analysis of social media user interactions reveals that prescriptive and purist attitudes are vigorously upheld even in informal settings. This shows that prescriptivism is not confined to official and academic domains but permeates multiple layers of society. Ultimately, discourse analysis of the data reveals that linguistic prescriptivism in contemporary Iran extends beyond a mere linguistic concern, contributing to the reproduction of symbolic power, consolidation of monolingual ideology, and erasure of linguistic diversity.
 
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that the discourse of linguistic prescriptivism in contemporary Iran, focusing on three main domains, functions as a tool for consolidating power and establishing symbolic order. Lexical purism, mandatory orthography, and script reform each operates under different motivations but ultimately aim to standardize language and eliminate linguistic diversity. The data analysis results indicate that prescriptivism is not simply a linguistic issue but also reflects broader social and cultural layers, serving as a crucial instrument for reproducing power structures. By critiquing these approaches, this research emphasizes the need for descriptive and flexible perspectives in language policy-making. Language is a dynamic and social phenomenon that must respond to societal needs and transformations. Ultimately, this study suggests that language policymakers should move away from imposing rigid, norm-based rules and instead recognize linguistic diversity and dynamism as valuable social and cultural capital, distancing themselves from monolingual and exclusionary policies.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Ager, D. E. (2001). Motivation in Language Planning and Language Policy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Atarofi, A. A., & Afrzandeh, M. (2010). Purism in the history of Persian literature. Tārikh-e Adabiyāt (Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities, University of Tehran), 64, 55–70.
Baker, P. & Ellece, S. (2011).Key Terms in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.
Bateni, M. R. (1988). Let us write incorrectly. Adineh, (24).
Battistella, E. L. (2005).Bad Language: Are Some Words Better than Others? Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Beal, J. C, Lukač, M, & Straaijer, R. (Eds.). (2023).The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Prescriptivism. Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1991).Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Cameron, D. (2012).Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge.
Clyne, M. (1995). The German language in a changing Europe. Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (2004).The Language Revolution. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Crystal, D. (2005).How Language Works. London: Penguin Books.
Davari Ardakani, N. (2006). Language planning and lexical purism. Nameh-ye Farhangestān, 8(3), 160–174.
Deumert, A. (2011).Multilingualism. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), *The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics* (pp. 261–282). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dittmar, N. (2002).Transkription: Ein Leitfaden mit Aufgaben für Studenten, Forscher, und Laien. Opladen: Leske and Budrich.
Esmaeili, A. (2015). Nonstandard linguistic patterns in Persian formal correspondence. Jostarhā-ye Zabāni (Language Related Research), 6(7), 1–32.
Ferguson, C. A. (1959).Religious factors in language spread. In R. L. Cooper (Ed.), *Language Spread: Studies in Diffusion and Social Change* (pp. 95–106).
Gee, J. P. (2014). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (4th ed.). Routledge.
Haspelmath, M, & Tadmor, U. (Eds.). (2009).Loanwords in the World's Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hentschel, G. (2015). Minority languages in Europe: Frameworks, status, prospects. De Gruyter.
Horobin, S. (2016).How English Became English: A Short History of a Global Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K, & Paltridge, B. (2011).Continuum companion to discourse analysis. Bloomsbury Companions. London, U.K.: Continuum.
Jaffe, A., Androutsopoulos, J., Sebba, M., & Johnson, S. (Eds.). (2012). Orthography as social action: Scripts, spelling, identity and power. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Jo Napoli, D, & Lee-Schoenfeld, V. (2010). Language Matters: A Guide to Everyday Questions About Language (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Joseph, J. (2007).Language and Politics.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Landau, J. M. & Kellner-Heinkele, B. (2001). Politics of Language in the Ex-Soviet Muslim States: Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan. University of Michigan Press.
Lewis, G. (1999). The Turkish language reform: A catastrophic success. Oxford University Press.
Malory, B. (2022).Legislative prescriptivism: Exploring the legislative enforcement of minor linguistic variants and its ramifications for consumers and the retail sector. International Journal of Language and Law, 11, 36–59.
Miller, C. (2007). Arabic urban toponyms: Between colonial heritage and postcolonial resistance. In The Politics of Language in the Arab World.
Milroy, L, & Milroy, J. (1999).Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. Routledge.
Mohammadi, A. (2023). Misconceptions about language. Sweden: 49Books.
Mohammadi, A. (2024). Analysis of common metaphors about linguistic diversity in the minds of social actors. Literary Discourse Analysis, 2(3). (In press / no page numbers available)
Najafi, A. (1987). Let’s not write incorrectly. Tehran: Markaz-e Nashr-e Dāneshgāhi (University Publishing Center).
Norman, J. (1988). Chinese. Cambridge University Press.
Piller, I. (2016).Linguistic Diversity and Social Justice: An Introduction to Applied Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press.
Pinker, S. (1994).The Language Instinct. New York: HarperCollins.
Pinker, S. (2014).The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. New York: Penguin.
Preston, R.D. (2012). What’s the right way to put words together? In E.M. Rickerson & B. Hilton (eds.), The 5 Minute Linguist: Bite-Sized Essays on Language and Languages (2nd edn.). Equinox Publishing.
Sadri Nia, B. (2009). Historical background and theoretical foundations of purism. Zabān va Adabiyāt-e Fārsi (Persian Language and Literature – University of Kharazmi), 17(65), 99–127.
Safavi, K. (2019). Scattered writings: Twelve conversations (Vol. 7). Tehran: Nashr-e Elmi.
Schechner, R. (2021). Orthography Is Political. TDR: The Drama Review 65(1), 208-217.
Scriver, P. & Hegewald, J. A. B. (2015). The Future of the City: The Mumbai Reader 02. Marg Foundation.
Sebba, M. (2007). Spelling and society: The culture and politics of orthography around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seydan, E., & Karamatian Fard, T. (2025). Basics of orthography in standard Persian. Fanun-e Adabi (Literary Techniques), 17(1), 73–88.
Sims, A. (2025).The influence of prescriptivism on French verbal defectiveness. Linguistics, 63(2), 110–130.
Spolsky, B. (2004).Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Švelch, J, & Sherman, T. (2018).I see your garbage: Participatory practices and literacy privilege on 'Grammar Nazi' Facebook pages in different sociolinguistic contexts. New Media & Society, 20(7), 2391–2410.
Tabibzadeh, O. (2019). Let’s not write incorrectly: From the first edition to the second edition – A review of critiques on the first edition of “Let’s Not Write Incorrectly” and their influence on the second edition. Tehran: Ketab-e Bahar.
Telles, E. (2004). Race in Another America: The Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton University Press.
Thomas, G. (1991).Linguistic Purism. London/New York: Longman.
Traugott, E. C. (2025).The politics of prescriptivism: One style manual, one century. American Speech, 100(1), 22–51.
Woods, N. (2006).Describing Discourse: A Practical Guide to Discourse Analysis.London.
Woolard, K. A. (2004). Is the past a foreign country? Time, language origins, and the nation in early modern Spain. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(1), 57–80.
Yáñez-Bouza, N, Rodríguez-Gil, M. E, & Pérez-Guerra, J. (Eds.). (2024).New Horizons in Prescriptivism Research. Multilingual Matters.
Zolfaghari, H. (2008). Nonstandard patterns in the language of the press. National Studies Quarterly, 9(1 [33]), 3–26.
Journal of Iranian Dialects & Linguistics
Volume 10, Issue 1
June 2025
Pages 87-104

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 31 May 2025
  • Revise Date: 04 October 2025
  • Accept Date: 02 October 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics