Isaac Scientific Publishing

Advances in the Linguistic Sciences

A Retrospective Meta-analysis of Semantic-Spatial Comparison of Persian and English Orthographic Systems

Download PDF (406.6 KB) PP. 17 - 24 Pub. Date: June 1, 2020

DOI: 10.22606/als.2020.22001


  • Kazem Barzegar*
    English Language Department, School of Medicine, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
  • Somayeh Barzegar
    Islamic Azad University, Yazd Branch, Yazd, Iran


In this retrospective meta-analysis of the semantic-spatial comparison of the Persian and English orthographic systems, 32 Persian scholarly articles and their English equivalents were compared for number of words, number of pages, number of characters, and number of lines as variables. Non-scholarly papers were excluded from the study. Data were gleaned by word count capability of Microsoft word processor. It was concluded that the English orthographic system can express more semantic content using a smaller number of words; however, considering a given semantic content, the Persian orthographic system can express the same semantic content in less pages, smaller number of characters, and smaller number of lines. So, on the whole, the Persian orthographic system is more economic and cost-effective with respect to the number of pages, characters, and lines compared to the English writing system. Since the translations were performed by only one translator, care should be exercised in generalizing the findings to papers of other academic majors. Our findings also led to the development of the following formula for predicting the translation charges of scholarly papers: Charge of Persian-to-English translation  number of Persian lines  1.35  charge per line


Persian, English, orthographic system, alphabets, lexeme


[1] Baluch, Bahman (2005). Persian Orthography and Its Relation to Literacy. 19206056.pdf

[2] English language. (2010). In Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved November 23, 2010, from Encyclopedia Britannica Online.

[3] Horton, Helena (2015). Our most commonly misused words and phrases. The Sydney Morning Herald.

[4] Jabbari et al. (2013). The Effect of L1 Persian on the Acquisition of English L2 Orthographic System on the Shared Grounds. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2014.

[5] Khansir, Ali Akbar & Tajeri, Mojtaba (2015). The relationship between spelling and pronunciation in English language. Language in India, 15 (12): P. 66.

[6] Lapidus, Ira M. (2002). A history of Islamic societies. Cambridge University Press. P. 127.

[7] Lapidus , Ira M. (2012). Islamic Societies to the nineteenth century: A global history. Cambridge University Press. pp. 256

[8] Mirdehghan, Mahinnaz (2010). Persian, Urdu, and Pashto: A comparative orthographic analysis. Writing Systems Research Volume, 2, 2010, Issue 1, Pages 9-23.

[9] Taghipour, N. ,H. H. Seyyed Javadi, M. M. Dehshibi, & A. Adamatzky (2016). On Complexity of Persian Orthography: L-Systems Approach. Complex Systems 25(2):128-156

[10] Van Assche, Eva; Duyck, Wouter; Hartsuiker, Robert J. (2013), "Phonological Recoding in Error Detection: A Cross-sectional Study in Beginning Readers of Dutch", PLOS ONE, 8 (12): doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085111

[11] Venezky, Richard L. (1967), "English orthography: Its graphical structure and its relation to sound", Reading Research Quarterly, 2 (3): 75–105, doi: 10.2307/747031