Oral History School – 6

The position of “standard language” in compiling oral history

Compiled by: Maryam Assadi Jafari
Translated by: M.B. Khoshnevisan

2024-9-26

According to Oral History Website, Dr. Morteza Rasoulipour in the framework of four online sessions described the topic “Compilation in Oral History” in the second half of the month of Mordad (August 2024). It has been organized by the Iranian History Association. In continuation, a selection of the teaching will be retold:

Significance of compiling oral history texts

Compilation can be done from three points of view: some people believe that any correction, compilation or change in the text of the speech is not permissible. That is, the speech and orality should be objectively established and we should publish it. Some others are of the view that the text should be compiled and its problems fixed because there are repeated words or it needs footnotes and additions. Some people believe that each text is mentioned only once. That is, if this speech and text includes the passage of time or is expressed in a different time, it will still create a difference in meaning and perceptions will be different over time. Mohamed Arkoun is an Algerian thinker who studied and taught at the Sorbonne University and worked with René Girard. He points out that every verbal statement changes its meaning when it is written down. In his view, there is a discussion of textology and metatextual views that can be interpreted and detailed. This attitude believes that even speech can only be understood once. If it includes time and wants to come up again, it becomes another thing. In fact, if we want to publish the texts or oral speeches as they are, according to the requirements of our own society – the same orality in relation to the set of oral activities that I mentioned - it is not possible to do so, so we have no choice but to compile. If we want the output of oral history to be written, we must be familiar with the tools of compilation. Otherwise, I really liked that this orality dominated all the components of oral history activities.

Criticizing the oral history project of Harvard University

Consider the approach of Harvard University's oral history department in compiling oral history texts. Habib Lajevardi has transcribed and published the interviews exactly as stated. 134 interviews were conducted at Harvard University with Iranians abroad, who were mainly the high officials of the previous government, and it was released in the year 1371-1372 (1992-1993). Of course, good work has been done and I have seen his works. Mr. Lajevardi was also in contact with me and sent the works he was doing. I also sometimes sent my works to him and this exchange continued until his lifetime. In 1376 (1997), I wrote a review on one of these memoirs and explained the problems of that method and approach. The interview with Dr. Ali Amini was among the first interviews that were published. He had a Qajari background and was from a noble family. He was the prime minister in 1340 (1961) and held various jobs and positions. Ali Amini's life included different phases. He concluded the consortium contract in Zahedi's cabinet after the coup. Another phase of his life was the time of the prime minister who carried out land reforms, which is a very important issue in itself. When he came to Iran from Paris in 1357 (1978), he made efforts for the survival of the previous regime, which was not successful. After the revolution, he went to Paris and created a front to unite Iranians living abroad so that the situation would return to the previous conditions. These different periods should have been reflected in this conversation. If we leave aside the interviewer's ability and read the interview, you will see that the narrator's words are exactly reflected. A person who is nearly 90 years old has repetitions in his words and his body language is not reflected in the writings and the text is not adjusted. The intensified form of this issue can be seen in the interview of Amirtaimur Kalali, one of the officials of the Pahlavi period. He was a member of the parliament for 9 terms, and was the minister of labor in Mossadegh's cabinet. He was also one of the heads of the important clans of Khorasan. When you read two sessions of this interview, you will see that more than 100 pages of the book are repetitions of the previous session. The 88-year-old man does not hear many things during the interview, and all this is reflected in the text. Why aren't the duplicated sections removed? I am in no way seeking to find fault with his work. I mentioned there that I see the collection of work as positive, but I have criticized the collection of approaches in compiling. When talking to senior officials, verbal errors and repetitions should be eliminated. However, some people still emphasize that orality should prevail and we should have the least interference in the text. I do not believe in such a thing and I believe that these works should be published during the lifetime of these people and with their consent. Unless, due to special considerations, they themselves insist that these memories should be published after their death. So, I believe in compiling the speech to writing. Therefore, oral history trainees should be familiar with the principles, rules and criteria of compiling oral history.

Position of different kinds of languages in oral history

Language can be divided into 5 general categories: “local language or dialect” whose applications in written text or standard language are very limited and should be done only when necessary. We can use italics to make it different from the rest of the text. “Colloquial language” is mostly used in informal conversations and has different vocabulary and grammar than official language. Colloquial language in writing is not common. Except in special cases with special people who pass the colloquial language according to their taste and take some story and poetry conversations in this direction, which is very beautiful. But it is not everyone's job. Colloquial language should be placed in quotation marks so that the reader can understand the difference between it and the text. The third language is “vernacular” and includes terms that are spoken locally and enter the language quickly, have a short life and sometimes remain. It is not allowed to use this language in writing except in necessary cases, it must be written in italics or in parentheses. The next language is the "professional language" which belongs to the spokespersons of a particular group or profession. We cannot use it in official writing; except in special cases. But what is important is the official language or standard language, which is a clear one. If there are elements that contradict the characteristics of this language, it will not be included in the format of the standard language. The text must be uniform and there is no place for abandoned and obsolete linguistic elements in the standard language. Insisting on transliteration - not using Arabic words in Persian - is not common at all and is not the right thing at all. That is, the emphasis on de-Arabization in the Persian language is not correct for some reasons. We must take the path of moderation.

Compiler’s choices in oral history

One of the characteristics of an oral history intern in an interview is to have a listening ear. Listen well and let the narrator express himself. There are techniques in conveying the content to the reader, but it is a bit extreme to assume that there is a specific style or framework and program for writing. All the sayings, writings and expression styles cannot be taken in one writing format. It is true that the standard language is a condition, but the standard language has a wide range. You must know that a child audience is different from the audience of the political economy and finally, each of you must find your own fingerprint. I'm not trying to make you write like me. You must write like yourself. The subject-oriented nature of oral history requires us to cut a discussion from 50 minutes to 5 minutes. We have the permission of this intrusion. When a single topic is dispersed in the parts of a person's speech, you must eliminate this dispersion. Phrases and words that the interviewee says and you don't know their meaning, need to be written in footnotes. These are the general principles; but every interview is unique. Each work has its own characteristics, but general standards must be followed in all cases.

To be continued...