Document Type : Research Paper


1 Ph.D. Candidate, Linguistics Department, Tarbiat Modares University

2 Associate Professor, Linguistics Department, Tarbiat Modares University

3 Assistant Professor, Linguistics Department, Tarbiat Modares University

4 Assistant Professor, Center for Persian Language and Literature Researches, Tarbiat Modares


This paper deals with the sincerity of Persian language Ta’arofs across genders. The sincerity is evaluated by means of cultural schemas. Data that is gathered from different conversational contexts and Iranian films is analyzed by conversation analysis method. Using emic approach, the researchers identify fifteen underlying cultural schemas for Persian Ta’arofs and represent a model. To fulfill this aim, the Ta’arofs with similar illocutionary forces are identified and classified as cultural micro-schemas. Each class is given a title and the first encoding is done. To make sure about the validity of the classifications two inter-raters are employed. Then the concepts which are considered as the basis for these micro-schemas in Iranian culture are identified and labeled as macro-schemas. The Ta’arofs are evaluated in questionnaires in terms of sincerity they are associated with across genders. Ta’arofs and their contexts are presented in the questionnaire and the subjects are asked to evaluate the sincerity of Ta’arofs. Ta’arofs are chosen from both genders’ conversations equivalently and distributed in the questionnaire with different cultural schemas. The evaluation of data demonstrates that despite the common belief that men’s Ta’arofs are more sincere than women’s, there wasn’t any significant difference between their degrees of sincerity. Moreover, considering that the most and the least sincere Ta’arofs belong to women, we can say that the range of sincerity of Ta’arofs is wider in women than in men. The underlying micro-schemas of the most sincere Ta’arofs in women and men are respectively sympathy (Hamdeli) and compliment (Tahsin); and, the underlying micro-schemas of the least sincere Ta’arofs are respectively hospitality (Mehmannavazi) and Shekastehnafsi in women and men. Although the underlying micro-schemas of the most (in) sincere Ta’arofs are different in the two genders and reflect social and psychological differences between them, the underlying macro-schemas obey the notion of distributive cognition.


Afghari, A. and Karimnia, A. 2007. “A contrastive study of four cultural differences in everyday conversation between English and Persian”. Intercultural Communication Studies. 1, 243-250.
Babai-Shishavan, H. & Sharifian, F. 2016. “The refusal speech act in a cross-cultural perspective: a study of Iranian English-language learners and Anglo-Australian speakers”. Language and Communication, 47, 75-88.
Beeman, W. 1986. Language, Status, and Power in Iran. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: polity press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eslami Rasekh, Z. 2005. “Invitations in Persian and English: Ostensible or Genuine?” Intercultural Pragmatics 2(4): 453-80.
FærhVdI, MortezV, 2006. “BVztVbe VmʊzehhVIe di:ni: dær færhænge i:rVnI væ bonIVdhVIe degærIVre nVhæmtærVz”. FæslnVmeIe Olu:me edƷtemVi:. 46: 1-39. [In Persian].
Garro, L.C. 2000. “Remembering what one knows and the construction of the past: A comparison of Cultural Consensus Theory and Cultural Schema Theory”. Ethos, 28.3, 275-319.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
Golato, A. 2002. “German compliment response”. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 547-571.
Golato, A. 2005. Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical Structure and Sequential Organization (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 15). John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
HoseIni:, SeIed Mohammad; VqagolzVdeh, Ferdows; KVmbʊzIa, VlIeh; Golfa:m, ærsælVn. 2017. “Ru:” væ “Vberu:” do ru:Ie mæfhu:me vedƷhe dær færhænge i:ranI PæƷʊheʃI Qomnega:ra:ne dær kVrbordʃenVsIe zæbVn. 41: 215-246. [In Persian].
Hutchins, E. 1994. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Ide, S. 1989. “Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness”. Multilingua. 8, 223-248.
Izadi, A. 2016. “Over-politeness in Persian professional interactions”. Journal of Pragmatics. 102, 13-23.
Koutlaki, S. 2018. “Ta’arof va nezame adab dar farhange Irani [Ta’arof and politeness system in Iranian culture]”. Journal of Iranology Studies, 4: 65-88.
Koutlaki, S. A. 2002. “Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing act: Ta’arof in Persian”. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1733-1756.
Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.
Maiz-Arevalo, C. 2012. “Was that a compliment? Implicit compliments in English and Spanish”. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 980-996.
Rice, E.1980. On cultural schemata. American Ethnologist 7: 152-171.
Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorization. In Cognition and Categorization, Eleanor Rosch, and Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), 27-48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sabzevari, A., Shafiee, S. 2013. “Cultural conceptualizations in Persian language: Implications for L2 learning”. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 57-62.
Sahragard, R. 2003. “A cultural script analysis of a politeness feature in Persian”. Paper presented at the 8th Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, Japan.
Sharifian, F. & Tayebi, T. 2017. “Perception if (im)politeness and the underlying cultural conceptualizations: A study of Persian”. Pragmatics and Society, 8:2 (2017), 231-235.
Sharifian, F. 2009. “On collective cognition and language” in H. Pishwa (ed.) Language and social cognition. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Sharifian, F. 2011. Cultural Conceptualisations and Language: Theoretical Framework and Applications. John Benjamins, Amsterdam; Philadelphia.
Sharifian, F. 2012. “Linguistic theory and cultural conceptualizations”. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation (LCT), 1(3), 93-110.
Shore, B. 1996. Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yu, M. Ch. 2005. “Sociolinguistic competence in the complimenting act of native Chinese and American English speakers: a mirror of cultural value”. Language and speech, 48(1), 91-119.