Лингвистика

work in this area (Beeman, 1996), though invaluable and extensive, fails to account for changes in the Persian language as a result of the political upheaval in the country. Only Jahangiri (1980) acknowledges the effect of the revolution on forms of address though without elaborating on the subject. The present study attempts to describe the post-revolutionary changes in the pronominal system of Persian. These changes will be presented along three deictic dimensions namely (a) the speaker, (b) the addressee, and (c) referent(s). (For a detailed discussion of deixis, see Lyons 1977. ) The changes described in this article are





restricted to the use of Persian in Iran. It is hoped, however, that the present study will open some new avenues of investigation as to whether the Islamic Revolution has had any impact on the use of Persian in other Persian-speaking countries, such as Afghanistan considering the historical, cultural, and linguistic ties between these countries.
Another point which merits consideration is the fact that in many languages pronouns have traditionally been considered substitutes for nouns. In Persian, however, it is legitimate to consider some nouns as substitutes for pronouns. When persons designate themselves and others in terms of their roles in the speech event, the situation is deictic par excellence and pronouns are the primary modes of reference. Such deictic designation may draw upon forms from other grammatical categories. Thus, the set of terms with which speakers may designate themselves includes not only personal pronouns, but also honorific terms such as bænde slave. Thus, the expression pronominal system is employed here with this frame of reference and is meant to encompass both what are ordinarily lab