Study of Nature of Language of Government in Three Decades of Islamic Revolution of Iran and Design Its Efficient Pattern in Iran

Document Type : Research Paper



Bureaucracy is became dominant Structure of government, however, language of government is largely became by language of bureaucracy. Many of the problems of public administration are to be traced to, and found in, the language of bureaucracy. This thesis examines the nature of language of government in three decades of Islamic Revolution of Iran and designs efficient pattern of language of government for fourth decade. Methodology was used by Fairclaugh and Van Disk’s critical discourse analysis approaches for studying current situation and Delphi method for designing efficient pattern of language of government. Population is included speeches of public administrators that publish in newspapers. Selected sample was 28 texts in Jomhori Eslami newspaper that theoretical saturation was basis for sampling method and was used theoretic sampling in first step and snowball sampling in second step in Delphi method. Results of study indicates that nature of language of government in three decades of Islamic Revolution of Iran (current situation) is closed to bureaucratic language and efficient pattern of language of government (desirable situation) should move toward to post bureaucratic language; which is honest, nation building, participative, accountable, veneration of citizens, attention to public interests, justice oriented, transparent and ethic oriented language


پورعزت ع. ا. (1387). مبانی دانش اداره دولت و حکومت، انتشارات سمت، چاپ اول، تهران.##
سلطانی س ع. ا. (1384). قدرت، گفتمان و زبان (سازوکارهای جریان قدرت در جمهوری اسلامی)، نشر نی، تهران.##
میرزایی اهرنجانی ح.  1385). مبانی فلسفی تئوری سازمان، انتشارات سمت، چاپ اول، تهران.##
نرگسیان ع. (1390). تئوری‌های مدیریت دولتی، انتشارات نگاه دانش، تهران. ##
Alexe R. (2009). Rforming Spanish Bureaucratic Language. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov, 2(51), 213-216.##
Dorney J. M. (1988). The Plain English Movement. English Journal, 77, 49–52. ##
Fairclough N. (1991). Language and power, London and New York.##
Herman E. S. (1992). Beyond hypocrisy: Decoding the news in an age of propaganda Boston: South End Press.##
Hummel R. P. (1994). The Bureaucratic Experience: A Critique of Life in the Modern Organization. New York: St. Martin’s Press.##
Hummel R. P. (2008). The Bureaucratic Experience: The Postmodern Challenge, 5 th ed. M.E. Sharp, Inc.##
Jansen C. Steehouder M. (1985). From Bureaucratic Language to Instructional Texts: How to Design An Effective Problem-Solving Tool for Citizen, Twente University of Technology, Dept. of Applied Linguistics, Enschede, Netherlands.##
Kvale Steinar. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.##
Lutz W. (1987). Notes toward a Description of Doublespeak. Quarterly Review of##
Lutz W. (1989). Doublespeak: From ‘Revenue Enhancement’ to ‘Terminal Living.’ In How Government, Business, Advertisers, and Others Use Language to Deceive You. New York: Harper and Row, 10-11.##
Lutz W. (1988). Fourteen Years of Doublespeak. English Journal, 77, 40–43.##
Maykut P. Morehouse R. (1994). Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.##
Roche G. (1988). Bureaucracy: Enemy of the People. In Public Administration Debated, Edited by H. M. Levine. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 6–15.##
Sarmiento R. (2005). El lenguaje de laAdministración. Revista de Llengua i Dret. Nr.43, 13-46.##
Watson R. P. (2006). On the Language of Bureaucracy:Postmodernism, Plain English, and Wittgenstein. in Handbook of Organization Theory and Management: The Philosophical Approach, by Thomas D. Lynch and Peter L. Cruise, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Second Edition, 1-906.##