Document Type : Research Paper


1 Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Persian Literature & Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Persian Literature & Foreign Languages, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran.


Ta’arof has a special place in the Iranian culture and its linguistic repesentations are various and considerable. Since Ta’arof expressions are used in interactive contexts by native speakers of Persian, it is expected that the intonation patterns of these expressions be affected by discourse factors and vary as a function of context. The present study adopts Brazil’s (1975, 1978, 1997) and Brazil et al.’s (1980) approach to intonation with the main purpose of investigating the intonation patterns of Ta’arofs in Persian. The distinguishing feature of Brazil’s approach to intonation is its focus on the effect of discoursal context on intonation patterns each with a meaning of its own. In his approach, “meaning” does not refer to attitudes such as “surprised” or “expectant”, nor to grammatical meanings such as “interrogative” or “declarative”. Rather, it refers to the interactive role of intonation i.e., constant evaluation of discourse by the speaker and choosing the appropriate intonation pattern to achieve coherence and cohesion in discourse. To this end, the intonation features of tone and the prominence level of the onset (key) and tonic (termination) syllables were annotated and analyzed using the Praat software in 29 Ta’arof expressions in the Iranian series Hayula. Results showed that the dominent tone in these expressions is level or fall. Keys were mostly mid or high, while terminations were mostly mid. Considering the fact that intonation patterns of each Ta’arof expression depends on its situational and discoursal context, the Taarof expression ̒Gorbunet beram̓ ‘(lit.) may I be sacrificed for you’ with 4 different representations was chosen and analysed as one of the most frequent Ta’arof expression in the corpus of this study. Results showed that Ta’arof expressions although fixed lexically and syntactically, show different intonation patterns due to the influence of social norms such as politeness, power relations, the prediction of listener’s judgment, and listener’s agreement expectation.


Main Subjects

Alirezaei, Sh. 2017. Ta’arof in the culture of Iranian People. The whisper of culture. 8&9, 101-114. [in Persian].
Anvari, H. 2003. Condensed dictionary of sokhan. (3rded.). Sokhan Publisher. [in Persian].
Arianpour, Kashani A. & Arianpour Kashani, A. 1975. English-Persian academic dictionary. Amir Kabir. Tehran. [in Persian].
Astruc, L. & Vanrell, M. D. M. 2016. Intonational phonology and politeness in L1 and L2 Spanish. De Gruyter Mouton. 28(1), 91-118. DOI 10.1515/probus-2016-0005
Brazil, D. 1975. Discourse Intonation I. Birmingham: English Language Research Monographs.
Brazil, D. 1978. Discourse Intonation II. Birmingham: English Language Research Monographs.
Brazil, D. 1997. The communication value of intonation in English. Cambridge University Press.
Brazil, D., Coulthard, M. & Johns, C. 1980. Discourse intonation and language teaching. Longman. 
Brown, P. 2015. Politeness and language. Informational encyclopedia of social & behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). 18, http: // dx. doi. Org / 10. 1016 / B978-0-08-097086-8.53072-4
Borràs-Comes, J., Sichel-Bazin, R. & Prieto, P. 2015. Vocative intonation preferences are sensitive to politeness factors. Language and speech. 58 (1),  68-83. DOI: 10.1177/0023830914565441
Chun, D. M. 2002. Discourse Intonation in L2: From Theory and Research to Practice. Amsterdam /Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Daneshgar, M. 2011. Ta’arof and its culture among Iranian. Persian Letter Summer. 7 (2), 57-72 [in Persian]
Daniel, M. & Spencer, A. 2009. The vocative: An outline case. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 626–634). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dehkhoda, A. A. 1931. Dehkhoda dictionary. Tehran University publisher.
Delongovà, M., 2013, April. Intonation patterns expressing politeness in English requests and commands and their cross-language perception [Doctoral Dissertation, Filozofickà fakulta University Palackého]. Semantic Scholar.
Duryagin,p., & Fokina, M. 2022. Perception of prosodic and aspectual cues to politeness in teacher directives in L1 and L2 Russian. Journal of Language and Education, 8(1), 23-37. http: // doi. Org / 10. 17323 / jle. 2022. 11859
Estellés, M. & Marco, M. A. 2014. Evidentials, politeness and prosody in Spanish: A corpus analysis. Journal of Politeness Research. 10(1), 29-62. DOI 10.1515/pr-2014-0003
Faika, Z. 2016. Courtesy and complements in Iran. Iranian Studies. 6(1), 104-125. [In Persian] 10.22059/JIS.2016.60597
Goh, C. 2000. A discourse approach to the description of intonation in Singapore English. In A. Brown, D. Deterding & E. L. Low. (Eds.) 2000. The English Language in Singapore: Research on Pronunciation. Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics, Singapore. pp. 35-45. Chapter 4.
Hirose, K. and Kawanami, H. and Ihara, N. 1997. Analysis pf intonation in emotional speech. INT-1997, 185-188.
Hübscher, I, Prieto, P. & Borràs-comes, J. 2017. Prosodic mitigation Characterizes Catalan formal speech: the frequency code reassessed. Journal of phonetics. 65, 145-150. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2017.07.001
Izadi, A. 2017. An investigation of face in taarof. Journal of Linguistic Research, 10(2), 67-82. doi: 10.22108/jrl.2018.111257.1214 [in Persian]
Koutlaki, S. 2002. Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: tae’arof in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics 34(2002), 1733-1756.
Lee, A. J., Mason, M. F. & Malcomb, C. S. 2022. Beyond cheap talk accounts: A theory of politeness in negotiations. Research in organizational behavior. 1-16,
Leech, D. 1999. The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In Hasselgård & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpus. 1-7-118, Amsterdam. Rodopi
Modarresi, G. 2015. A descriptive dictionary of phonetics and phonology. Tehran: Elmi. [In Persian].
Navarro, A. H. & Cabedo-Nebot, A. (2014). On the importance of the prosodic component in the expression of linguistic im/politeness. Journal of Politeness Research. 10(1), 5-27. DOI 10.1515/pr-2014-0002
Parrott, L. A. 2010. Vocatives and other direct address forms: A contrastive study. In A Grѳnn, & I Marijanovic (Eds.), Russian in contrast, Oslo Studies in Language, 2(1), 2111-229.
Shahbazi, A. 2016. The analysis of the functions of Persian/ Farsi ritual politeness/comity (Taarof): investigating non-native Farsi learners' perception. M.A. Thesis. Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages. Allameh Tabataba'i University. [In Persian]
Sweet, H. 1890. A primer of spoken English. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Vergis, N. & Pell, M. D. 2018. Factors in the perception of speaker politeness: the effect of linguistic structure, imposition and prosody. Journal of politeness research. 16(1), 45-84.
Wells, J. C. 2006. English Intonation; an Introduction. Cambridge University           Press.
Wichmann, A. 2015. Functions of intonation in discourse. In W. Blackwell (Eds.), The Handbook of English Pronunciation (pp. 175-189). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Winter, B.; Oh, G. E.; Hübscher, I; Idemaru, K.; Brown, L.; Prieto, P.; Grawunder, S. 2021. Rethinking the frequency code: a metanalytic review of the role of acoustic body size in communicative phenomena. Philosophical Transaction B. 1-13.
Zwicky, A. M. 1974. Hey, Whatsyourname! Papers from the tenth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society. 10, 787-801. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.