جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « the Pronoun » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

''The Separated Letters'' or ''The Mysterious Letters'' is one of the important topics of Qur'anic sciences, which has been discussed and explained in many ways. More than twenty different opinions have been expressed about these letters and each one has followed a different path in explaining these letters. Expressing opinions about ''The Separated Letters'' is not exclusive to the old scholars, and in the new era, several opinions have been expressed about these letters. The collection of opinions can be summarized in three categories; The first group believes that these letters are secrets, and refrains from commenting. The second group, although they believe in the secret nature of these letters, but they have commented on these letters, and the third group does not believe in the secret nature of these letters and has given a non-mysterious justification for it. In this article, after expressing some opinions about ''The Separated Letters'', a new opinion has been expressed in this matter; In this new explanation, both the secret aspect of these letters has been preserved and transparently, a clear opinion based on the Glorious Qur'an has been proposed for these letters, which is related to the teaching of ''Al-Kitab Al-Mubyn'' in the Glorious Qur'an. And the claim of this article is that the Glorious Qur'an itself has clearly and of course briefly stated what The Separated Letters are. According to this opinion, these letters are signs of Al-Kitab Al-Mubin.

Abstract
Undoubtedly, Hafez Shirazi is one of the most famous poets of the Persian language. Despite the many worthy studies, still, some secrets and the causes and factors of this fame and popularity have not been discovered and explained. In the present study, one of the creative linguistic and semantic subtleties of Hafez's poetry has been examined using a descriptive-analytical method, and its dimensions and unsaid aspects have been discovered and represented. In this research, the author tries to interpret the word "an" (it) in Hafez's poetry and investigates the intentions of the poet for the use of "it" with the two approaches of formalism and interpretation. While referring to the uses of "it" in grammar (pronoun and adjective), the author, to the best of his knowledge, paid more attention to the idiomatic and mystical concepts of "it" in the language of mystics and especially Hafez's sonnets. The marked word "it" in Hafez's poetry can have different artistic and aesthetic meanings and functions that have not been studied before. One of the main results of the study is that the word "it" is used for different purposes in Hafez's poetry, and its meaning has been developed with the art of ambiguity and equivocation. In this way, the brevity and coherence of the poem have increased, and the meanings have been honored and magnified.
One of Hafez's rare and apparently small artistic creations in the field of individual style is the highlighting of the pronoun "it". In this regard, he has made significant artistic and meaning-creation aspects. This issue is so well known today that in literary discussions, whenever scholars talk about an indescribable and ambiguous phenomenon or subject, they talk about Hafez’s "it". In this study, some of the unspoken artistic-rhetorical dimensions of the word "it" as a pronoun, adjective, or noun in the whole of Hafez’s sonnets have been categorized and analyzed.
Despite the good efforts of some authors, few, if any, independent and complete study has been done regarding diverse artistic uses of the pronoun "an" in Hafez's poetry and some semantic and aesthetic aspects of this word have been neglected. This study examined "it" in all of Hafez's sonnets and tried to represent all the meanings and purposes of using "it" by Hafez. The research method in this study is descriptive-analytical, which was carried out with the intention of discovering, introducing, and investigating better and more artistic and rhetorical creativity and applications of the word "it". In this research, the Hafez version considered by the author is the Ghani-Qazvini version and in some cases the corrected version of Khanlari.
Research The results of this research show that "it" is one of the common and old words that have been taken into consideration in mystical poetry in general, and in Hafez's poetry in particular, and more implicit meanings have been given to it with a kind of defamiliarization. In other words, this word (an: it) has been marked in Hafez’s poetry due to its high frequency of repetition. As a "sign", this word has implicit meanings, i.e. figurative, ironic, and ambiguous.
In some of his poems, Hafez Shirazi has beautiful references to the artistic-rhetorical uses and functions of "it". Hafez used "it" as a tool and means of expressing unspeakable and often romantic situations and states. He gave "it" a special character in various verses, and used "it" in a high frequency. Hafez, by consciously choosing the word "it" (considering the brevity and ambiguity in the word), caused the audience to hesitate to try to discover its possible and multifaceted references by reflecting on the meaning of "it". This, in addition to defamiliarization and highlighting, has also caused the personalization of the message.
Discussion of Results and The general conclusions of this research are as follows:1) Examining ancient poetry and especially the elements of Hafez's special art and style, with new methods and approaches of literary criticism (such as discourse analysis and semiotics) along with ancient rhetorical issues still has a lot of room for discussion.
2) Some apparently unimportant and underused elements and words in the aesthetics of Hafez's poetry are sometimes of great importance, and accuracy in these cases can pave the way for new readings and the creation of multiple and new meanings of his poetry.
3) It is necessary to make a distinction between the usage and types of roles of the word "it" in Persian grammar and its roles in the grammar of mysticism, especially mystical poetry.
4) Compared to the poets before him, Hafez used the word "it" in more rhetorical, semantic, and mystical purposes and roles, and with all kinds of literary tricks (especially ambiguity, brevity, and coherence). He has distinguished and highlighted this word in his poetry style and expanded and multiplied its explicit and implicit meanings.
* Associate Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Kashan University, Kashan, Iran (Corresponding Author Email: [email protected])
2476-3268© The Author(s).Pulished by University of Isfahan                                                                           
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0).

One of the factors behind the complicated and abstruse nature of Bidel Dehlavi's works is the avoidance of conventional linguistic and grammatical traditions as well as ambiguous anti-syntaxes and the use of alien and defamiliarized structures leading to the formation of a personal and unique style in the heart of macro styles. One of these personal stylistic features is the presence of “specific simile pronouns” as one of the most uncommon and ambiguous features of his style. In these types of compounds, the pronoun that is used as a possessive does not belong to the possessor but is the possessor itself. In this paper, the researchers have investigated specific simile pronouns through descriptive and analytical method. The results of the research indicated that Bidel Dehlavi used separate and attached first person and second person personal pronouns in his works, unprecedently and frequently, as tenor and for objectification. The aim of using such similes is to objectify Bidel's most fundamental mystical principle, that is, the helplessness and impotence of the human kind against the eternal lover. To do this, Bidel uses elements such as dust, bubbles, dew, drops, etc. In the meantime, the use of the first person attached pronouns (=م __) and separate pronouns (= منman and maما =) have the highest frequency, and the second person attached pronouns (=__ ت) and separate pronouns (= توto) have a lower frequency than the first person pronouns.

Persian is a Pro-Drop language and allows omission of subjective pronouns. In the present research the use of such pronouns in spoken and written varieties of standard Persian is compared to each other. The data of spoken Persian is gathered from HamBam Corpus of Contemporary Spoken Persian, interviews of oral history projects (Harvard and Artebox), and the talks of Iranian parliament (Majlis). The data for the written variety is gathered from the Persian Syntactic Dependency Treebank. Using corpus-based methods, the study showed that there is no prominent difference in using pronouns in the two varieties. It also indicated that more than half of the pronouns in the spoken Persian emerged as subject; whereas it is no more than one third in the written variety. This means that while talking, the speaker uses subjective pronouns mostly to underscore the subject. The results of this research might be useful for Persian word order studies, those of teaching Persian to non-Persians, and exploring discourse elements of spoken Persian.

In Farsi, the clitic pronouns are often added to the stem as the last element, but in some structures, they can be immediately attached to their hosts. The ability to describe this dual behavior can be used as a criterion to check the effectiveness of different approaches. This research aims to find out if Distributed Morphology and its post-syntactic mechanism are needed to determine the position of different morphemes at the level of the word? Or it can be explained using lexicalist hypothesis? For this purpose, after introducing the theoretical background and previous researches, we analyze data from Farsi; the analyses shows that the assumptions of lexicalists cannot explain why the clitic pronoun (shon) has two positions in (xodeshoniha) and (xodihashon), but this phenomenon is not allowed in other structures. On the other hand, by analyzing the data in the framework of Distributed Morphology, it was found that only with the existence of post-syntactic operations such as local dislocation and considering the content feature of clitics and stems the dual behavior of the clitic pronouns can be explained.

A resumptive pronoun is a pronoun appearing in a relative clause, which restates the antecedent. The use of resumptive pronouns in relative clauses appears to be governed by structural complexity in grammar and usage. Hawkins’s (2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars predicts a parallel effect in usage: when the grammar permits the option of either resumptive pronoun or gap, resumptive pronouns should be used more often as structural complexity increases. By the results of four experiments including processing assessment, production task, an acceptability judgement task and listening experiment, the relation of relative clauses’ weight and the presence of a resumptive pronoun with an objective antecedent or lack of it is verified. The hypothesis was that with the increase of grammatical weight of relative clause, the need for a resumptive pronoun will be more. Finally, the results of four experiments are analyzed by SPSS software. The results which were based on the hypothesis, were not meaningful. It means that the presence or absence of resumptive pronoun in different grammatical weights does not make a meaningful difference. It means Persian speakers use lots of resumptive pronouns without attention to grammatical weights of relative clause.

Abstract or unexpressed pronoun in Pro-drop languages  refers to a linguistic element having a syntactic function with no phonetic representation. These kinds of languages are divided in different varieties. This article, in the first level,  tries to mention the properties of pro-drop languages  and at the second one, tries to compare and survey Mazandarani based on pro-drop language division done by Rizzi (1982) to see that in which group, it can be placed. As a whole, the structure of all pro-drop languages can be divided into four groups; 1. Fixed pro-drop languages like Italian, Greek and Persian; 2. Expletive (Null filler) pro-drop languages such as German, some kinds of Dutch and African languages; 3. Relative pro-drop languages as Hebrew, Russian, Marathi, and Brazilian Portuguese; 4. Discourse pro-drop languages like Chinese, Japanese and Korean. With the comparison of Mazandarani to the properties of pro-drop languages, we come to the conclusion that this language belongs to the category of consistent pro-drop languages. Meanwhile, it can be categorized in discourse pro-drop languages as well, because the co-indexation of covert pronoun and the subject of matrix sentence depends on the discourse context.

The present study aims to investigate the Ezafe construction in Kurdish (Sorani dialect) based on cognitive grammar. The nature of the methodology of this qualitative research is descriptive-analytic, and the data have been collected via the interview with Kurdish speakers. The authenticity and originality of the collected data have been approved by Kurdish speakers of this linguistic variety. Ezafe marker is considered as the invoker of an intrinsic relationship between two entities having a kind of conceptual proximity.  In a way, one entity is considered as a reference-point based on which the location of the other entity is cognitively determined. In this construction, the landmark plays the role of a reference-point to provide a mental path to the trajector as the target. The findings showed that Ezafe in this dialect is the result of the grammaticalization of a relative pronoun HYA by which the intrinsic-conceptual relation between elements is profiled in a complex sentence. It should be noted that Ezafe marker has developed from the relative pronoun HYA in Old Persian. Accordingly, this relative pronoun, as an Ezafe marker, has been gradually transformed into an element profiling an asymmetric relationship between congruent entities within a single phrase (N Ez N; N Ez adj; N Ez preposition; N Ez nominalized verb) or in a clause (predicative Ezafe and topicalizing Ezafe). Also, the results showed that Ezafe marker indicates this asymmetric relation at different linguistic levels.

Resumptive pronouns (henceforth RP) can be used in the relative structure of some languages. RP, in this respect, refers to a personal pronoun co-indexed with the head of relative structure, used in the subordinate clause. In this paper, I try to investigate the typological features of Persian RP in headed relative clauses based on some universals. The first goal of this paper is determining the process of making RP in Persian headed relative clauses. As there are three universal approaches in this term, including base-generation, movement and processing based. As the second goal, I want to review the results of Keenan & Comeri (1977) for Persian pronoun retention strategy. The results show that, for the first goal, Persian RP base-generated in its original position within the relative clause. (a) Using complementizer (ke) at the beginning of every headed relative clause, (b) having strong island structure in relative clause, and (c) the same reading of the of relative clause in both gap and pronoun retention strategies, are three main reasons for considering Persian as a language with base-generated RP procedure. Findings of the second goal indicate that Keenan & Comeri’s Accessibility hierarchy for pronoun retention of Persian can be modified in two aspects. While Keenan & Comeri (1977) claimed Persian necessarily uses only gap strategy in subject position of relative clause, this paper presents some relative clauses which use pronoun retention strategy (optionally and obligatory) in this position. Furthermore, according to Keenan & Comeri (1977) using pronoun retention strategy in complement position of Persian is obligatory. But some evidences, presented here, show that in some object-complement & complement-complement relative clauses which use special category of verbs, pronoun retention strategy is optional.

Persian relative construction which can be followed by a demonstrative has Det N RC word order. Persian relative clause is a post-nominal subordinate clause that is the most common type in the world. The relative clause has a complex structure which can illustrate the relationship between typology and generative grammar and develop a set of generalization that describes formal grammatical structures. Through a general survey of relative construction, the present study attempts to present the types and patterns of Persian relative clauses through data-based and theory-oriented approaches. This language-internal study also aims to find the range of possibilities which consists of (a) different strategies for the configuration of relative structure (raising analysis: movement of relative head noun from the relativized site to the Spec, CP which is coindexed with trace left behind by movement, or base generated analysis: head noun base generated in the Spec, DP which is coindexed with pronoun inside the relative clause), (b) presence of head (headed or head incorporated (free) relatives), hierarchical position of head (externally/internally headed relatives), linear order of head and RC (head-initial/final relatives), types of head (generic, specific, definite or indefinite noun) in restrictive and non-restrictive relatives, (c) position of Det with respect to N and RC, (d) position of relativisation occurance (subject, object, object of preposition…), (e) presence or absence of resumptive pronoun, that is relative clause underlyingly contains a pronominal which may be filled by a gap, and (f) possibility of embedding relatives within DP.

One of the important terms used in the Holy Quran is Shachr('39')an Pronoun, one that gives special emphasis to the speech “Kalam” and it is not used except in very important cases. Some scholars and commentators of the Qurchr('39')an have claimed in numerous cases that Shachr('39')an Pronoun is determined in some verses of the Qurchr('39')an and have brought arguments for this claim. In this paper, which has been carried out by a descriptive-analytical method, in order to examine the validity of this claim, it was first determined that the Shachr('39')an Pronoun, due to ambiguity, being a name and being a pillar of speech has an extraordinary emphatic meaning and goes beyond other means of emphasis, and in many ways cannot be compared. Therefore, the arguments of believers of Shachr('39')an Pronoun to be determined have been mentioned and reviewed in various cases. Then the disapproval of determination of the Shachr('39')an Pronoun in Arabic convention, the incompatibility of the emphasis with the omission and the lack of the need for the pronoun in the claimed cases have been mentioned and proved as incorrect arguments of the claimed pronouns.  In none of the claimed cases, a pronoun is not determined. Through examining the translations of Mesbahzadeh (literally), Mostafavi (free) and Meshkini (interpretive), it became clear that Mostafavichr('39')s translation is more accurate than other translations, and Meshkinichr('39')s translation on this issue is less accurate than other translations.

Clausal dependents of noun in Persian are divided into two groups: relative clauses (restrictive relative clause /RRC and non-restrictive relative clause /NRRC), and clausal complements of noun (CCN). By mentioning the semantic and syntactic differences between these two groups, Iranian researchers often consider them as independent and distinct clauses. In this study, we show that the so-called CCN is a kind of RC and for some reason they cannot be complements. First, like RCs, these clauses are optional and adjunctive. Second, those few nouns that can accept a clausal dependent, unlike their corresponding verbs, do not semantically indicate an event or process or action. Third, the behavior of these clauses happens to be remarkably similar to that of NRRCs, mainly because the head nominal in both clauses are definite. The necessity of definiteness arises from the information structure of the clause and its being discourse-bound. On the other hand, contrary to what has been described in the literature, the head N of the clauses is not necessarily a predicative noun; however, semantically it necessarily does contain an event descriptor. That is why not every noun can be the head N of these clauses. The seeming CCNs are in fact RCs that are the product of relativization of an event argument. Since this element is hidden and located in one of the functional projections, CCNs seem to have no gap/resumptive pronoun. Thus, it is better to use the term “event-relative clauses” to refer to these clauses. The syntactic analysis of these clauses –in a manner similar to the syntactic analysis of RCs– will justify the impossibility of extraction, because according to Phase Theory, CP and DP are the phases that the extracted item must first move to their edges; However, the specifier of these two phrases is filled in by the relative operator and the DP, and no element can be extracted from it.

ersian relative clause is a post-nominal subordinate clause; that is, Persian relative construction which can be followed by a demonstrative has ‘Det N RC’ word order. The configuration of relative structure follows the base generated analysis: head noun base generated in the Spec, DP which is co-indexed with pronoun inside the relative clause. In the present study, it is proposed that a base generation analysis of the head noun and its optional determiner in the Spec of the complex DP accounts more adequately for Persian data than raising analysis. Unlike English relative construction which uses the null operator, Persian relative construction allows a gap and an optional clitic pronoun to represent the head noun within the relative clause. The study sought to provide evidence supporting the above mentioned analysis. It was found that the relative element which occupies the relative gap is the pronoun clitic agreeing ɸ-features with that of relative head noun

In the 3rd issue of the Journal of Language Science, Ehsan Changizi wrote a review on the Aban Yasht written by Changiz Mowlaee. In the 4th issue of the same journal, Mowlaee wrote a critique of that review and evaluated it as being false and incorrect in terms of its contents. In Mowlaee’s response, some subjects of the Avestan language are propounded that must be examined in more detail and be analyzed from the linguistic point of view. In the present article, the most important points are categorized in six classes, but under each subject the other subjects such as phoneme and sound, root, enclitic, clitic and host, relative pronoun or demonstrative pronoun ya, copula verb and attributive clause, predicate possession, enclitic pronoun mē and functions of ethical dative are also discussed. In these discussions it has become clear that for studying ancient texts it is necessary to be familiar with generalities of linguistics. It is only by using modern linguistic issues that one can study the Avestan language free from its rules of writing system. For instance, in Avestan writing system the enclitic pronouns are written separately from their hosts and after each of them a dot has been written. In transcribing the ancient texts, on the other hand, these pronouns should be written connected to their hosts since the pronounced form of the ancient texts is shown in the transcription.

This study is an attempt to overview the focus marker in some Persian dialects of Khorasan (including the three Khorasan provinces). As it is known, there are different ways of focalization in various languages including syntactical, morphological, and phonetic strategies. One of the morphological tools that is used in Persian language is /ke/ that appears after the constituent under emphasis. In modern Persian, /ke/ can make any constituent focalized. This study intends to discover whether there is any similar focus tool in Persian dialects of Khorasan. In case the answer would be positive, the research will investigate whether there are any other functions along with the focus markers or not. “Focus” has been either considered as an instrument to signify or emphasize something or used as an informative focus being assumed as the equivalent of "rheme" and it is defined as “a part of a theorem that cannot be assumed at the time of speech .The focus is that portion of a proposition which cannot be taken for granted at the time of speech. It is the unpredictable or pragmatically non-recoverable element in an utterance” (Lambrecht, 1994, p. 207). Jackendoff (1972, p. 16) believed that “focus is the information in the sentence that is assumed by the speaker not to be the same for him and the hearer". Various categories of focus have been offered. For instance, argument focus, predicate focus and sentence focus are some categories that have been offered in the scope of focalization. The first one indicates that each argument in a sentence including subject, object, or oblique can be under focus, in the second one, the predicate is under focus and this type is claimed to be a universally unmarked type of focus correlating with the topic-comment structure as the unmarked pragmatic articulation (Lambrecht, 1994( while in the latter, the whole clause is emphasized. Contrastive and informative focuses are presented in terms of communication. The first one is marked, has a particular nature, and is not necessarily present in each sentence while the second one contains new information. By new, it does not mean that it has not been indicated before, but the speaker present it in a way that is not retrievable out of the context or situation (Halliday, 1967, p. 204). The study investigated the Persian dialects of Khorasan within descriptive-analytic methodology, also the history of Persian language was sought to find out the etymology of these markers. In order to check the similarity of the Persian dialects of Khorasan with other Iranian dialects, the data drawn from the Khorasani dialects were compared with other Iranian dialects. The data gathering process was carried out via the students’ theses investigating these dialects and the speakers of these dialects who were the university students studying linguistics. In this part, the data were collected from these dialects including Raghei, Geziki, Birjandi, Bejestani, Gonabadi, Sabzevari, Adkani, Tabasi, Taibadi, Sedeh, Kakhki, and Khafi and then they were analyzed. The dialects of Sabzevari, Taibadi, Adkani, and Khafi showed that only one marker is used in all these functions that is /ke/ even though the focus /ke/ in khafi is different from the non-focus /ke/ in terms of phonology. These are the first category of dialects. Research on Raghei, Kakhki, Tabasi, Bejestani, Geziki, and Sedeh showed that there are two different markers for focus and non-focus functions. The focus marker is derived from “xwad” (self) while /ke/ is used in relative and complementary pronouns. These are the second category of dialects. Comparing these data with the other ones collected from the other Iranian dialects such as Hawrami, Laki, Ilami Kurdish, Kalhuri, Lori Salas, Lori Khoram Abad showed that there are focus and non-focus marker differences in the same way as the second type of Khorasani dialects. Although in some of these dialects, there is no marker for non-focus functions, such as relative pronoun and complementizer, but the absence of these markers is again a sign of distinction if to be compared with the presence of it. The Ilami Kurdish dialect was the only one different from others. Although it has two focus markers of /ke/ and /xu/ but in some focus positions, both of them were legible to be used and in non-focus functions, only /ke/ can be used. By studying the Iranian dialects, we can come to this conclusion that these dialects such as the second category of Khorasani dialects employ /xwad/ “self” (that used to be the focus pronoun and adverb of middle age) as a focus marker after undergoing grammaticalization and /ke/ preserved its function of middle age. On the other hand, the dialects of first category like standard Persian probably under the influence of colloquial Persian use /ke/ in all different functions. That is, the function of /ke/ has been extended and turned into a focus marker. There are some samples in Sedeh that shows the intermediate stage of these changes because /xo/ was used both as focus pronoun and focus marker (instead of /ke/). Also, Ilami Kurdish could be an indication of the middle stage because /ke/ and /xu/ were both used as a focus marker in most cases and /xu/ were used just in a few parts; there were also no focus marker as /ke/. In addition, as relative pronoun and other functions, just /ke/ is used. It seems that the situations observed in sedeh and Ilami Kurdish confirms the assumption of historical change. This also proves the assumption of the effect of the standard language on Khorsani dialects that /xo/x/ were put aside as focus markers and /ke/ was used like the standard Persian. In terms of geography, the second category of dialects was seen in south Khorsan as well as the cities or the suburbs of Tabas, Gonabad, Bejestan, Birjand, Ghayen, and Ferdows. Thus, the distribution is meaningful in terms of geography.

Surah Yusuf contains valuable points in the field of religious articles of faith, morality and education. Among the statements used in the surah is: I seek refuge in Allah! Lo! He is my Lord, Who hath treated me honorably; is in the verse 23 quoted by the Prophet Yusuf (a) in response to the evil demand of Zulaykha. By such a statement in response to her deman, the Prophet has based his refusal on a powerful reasoning. The name referred to by innahu and the thing referred to by rabbi have been a subject of dispute among the translators and commentators of the Quran; they are often in one of the three modes of: returning the pronoun ana to the Aziz of Egypt, returning it to God or presenting vague and ambiguous translation. Studying forty translations and about eighty commentaries comparatively, giving the translations and commentaries in a new and exact classification and relying on Ayatollah Meshkini`s translation and Ibn Ashur`s commentary, this paper supports the views knowing the pronoun in innahu as returning to the Aziz of Egypt and God both. It has taken the usuli basis for using a single word in more than one meaning as an evidence.

Sometimes exigency of stress or need to further explain in speech, requires the speaker or the writer to use the words that they can be replaced by others in the same sentence and they can play the same grammatical role We can mention to grammatical roles among them such as: apposition, paraphrase and repetition, that the grammarians have more or less attended them and they have submited a common or succinct definitions for them. We have studied another group of words in this article that they are antecedent (attached, detached) listed, if they can be removed and replaced by the pronoun they take on the role of the pronoun is omitted. For this reason we have chosen the name of “same role pronoun” for this group of words. There are pronouns that these word-groups are antecedent of them. They are often used in three roles such as: the possessive, complement form and object case.The later explaining, the role of the third person singular accusative In particular, they have differences with the other two roles. We believe that this difference has caused some modern grammarians have compared it with a specific application in Tehrani dialect of Persian and they mistakenly call it "nominative pronoun". In this paper, we have also demonstrated the Pronouns in sentences illustrate grammatical function is not continuous passive feeling something other than the object, complement or possessive and the grammatical role of the noun or detached pronoun at the beginning of sentences is “same role pronoun”. But in such sentences Insert a noun or detached pronoun instead of attached pronouns is being often the cause of non-grammatical sentence.

It is challenging for Iranian students to understand some Russian pronouns and especially specific pronouns. Specific pronouns which behave like adjectives in syntax, match the Farsi vague adjectives when translated to Farsi, so it could be stated that at least in translation, it shows the exact opposite of the concept of being specific in Russian. The reason behind this contradiction and inconsistency could be found in the way a Farsi- speaking person sees the world in comparison with the manner in which a Russian- speaking individual sees the world and its phenomena. When finding the equivalent for «каждый», «любой», and «всякий» specific pronouns in Farsi, they are mostly translated as “any” which is a vague adjective. The important matter is that their meanings are very similar which confuses the Iranian students in most cases. The questions are: «Do these three specific pronouns have different or similar meanings in Russian Language? What is the semantic or practical difference of them»? We intend to examine the Russian specific pronouns in this article and to examine the similar concepts and separate meanings, which makes it easier to distinguish and understand them.