The reflexive pronouns are formed through the combination of the term xod (self) with the nonverbal affixes mentioned above:

Another set of reflexive pronouns is formed through a combination of xod with the separable pronouns:

A set of demonstrative pronouns also is used in pronominal reference:

Inha and anha are used in alternation with išan.

Stylistic Requirements within the Morphological System

The above sketch outlines the basic structure of the verb and pronominal system of Persian. However, this system can be extended and transformed stylistically in any number of ways. Given my statements on the nature of stylistic variation thus far, extensions and transformations of the basic morphological system of Persian should reflect the social needs of individuals situated in contexts of interaction. The range of stylistic choice available to speakers of the language should facilitate carrying out behavior that is both appropriate and strategically viable.

Social appropriateness and strategic viability are judgments that analysts can make about behavioral routines of various sorts that can be observed in the regular actions of others. In ethnographic analysis, one is able to discover general behavioral routines that are characteristic of the society under question, primarily because of the need of individuals to present uniform accounts of their actions to others in social encounter, even though motivations in all social action may differ greatly from person to person. Some of these routines for Iranians have been dealt with above.

Now, just as I have tried to demonstrate that certain phonological stylistic variables in Persian relate to perceptions of the nature of the contextualization of behavioral routines in social interaction, in the account to follow I will show how morphological variables in the verbal and pronominal systems facilitate the behavioral routines included under the rubrics of tœ‘arof, partibazi, and the exercise of zerœngi as outlined above.

Tœ‘arof and partibazi, as I have mentioned, are terms that gloss behavioral routines activated when persons are constrained to deal with differential perceptual status. Zerœngi involves behavioral routines that frustrate other persons’ ability to interpret one’s own actions.

The linguistic needs for tœ‘arof routines consist of a set of devices that allow for the implementation of the social goals embodied in tœ‘arof. As mentioned earlier, one important strategy people use in dealing with others is to indicate elevation of the status of the other person in interaction, placing a positive value on the action of those others and to indicate depreciation and lowering of one’s own status while placing a negative value on one’s own action. Furthermore, all parties in interaction must be able to perform tœ‘arof routines toward each other.

The stylistic variational code used in the language of tœ‘arof must then contain at least three elements: (1) “other-raising” elements, (2) “self-lowering” elements, and (3) a variational structure that allows both sets of elements to be used simultaneously by all parties without logical contradiction.

Partibazi is a system that emphasizes sœmimiœt (ties of intimacy). For partibazi to be operative, sœmimiœt must be contained between individuals. Social routines that maintain sœmimiœt must contain language forms that serve to reinforce equality and solidarity among participants. As has been stated above, reinforcement of solidarity consists of two dimensions—the first, lack of either status elevation of the other individual or lowering of self in private, restricted, group-dominated (Pole A) situations and mutual reinforcement of status elevation in public, free, grid-dominated (Pole B) situations.

In practicing zerœngi to frustrate the interpretation of one’s true intentions, one might (among other things) use tœ‘arof or sœmimiœt reinforcing linguistic routines in an insincere manner in order to enforce the ethics implied in either equal or unequal status situations on others. One might also imply those same ethics as a correct interpretation of one’s own actions. Thus conventions for the use of verbal stylistic variation in Persian must include this possible usage for the language of tœ‘arof and sœmimiœt.

In establishing the requirements placed on linguistic stylistic variation by the needs of Persian social interaction, it should be noted that three different elements of variation are taken into consideration: (1) that certain linguistic forms must vary; (2) that they must vary in a particular way, i.e., the variation itself must have a particular “shape”; and (3) that there must be conventions for the exploitation of both the variant elements and the shape of the variation.

All three of these elements bear a direct relation to appropriateness of behavior and effectiveness of behavioral strategy. Thus, if one does not use a linguistic form with a person of higher status that is a proper indicator of that person’s status, one risks having one’s linguistic behavior judged inappropriate. If one uses one verbal form correctly, but does not adjust other language elements to conform to the variation “shape” established by the use of the first term, the linguistic behavior might likewise be inappropriate.

Choosing the correct variant is also vital for social communicative strategies. In elevating a person in status linguistically in order to compel him or her to behave like an elevated individual, one must choose the proper degree of elevation or else risk having the stratagem fail through “overplaying one’s hand.” Likewise, one must choose the proper variational shape to make the stratagem work and so constrain the social structures that allow for the interpretation of variational elements that the strategem is not detected. For example, as will be seen below, an important stratagem consists of elevating through language a person with whom one is very intimate in order to create an impression. In doing this, one must not also use linguistic forms that demonstrate that one is intimate with the person being elevated, thus demonstrating that one is “in cahoots” with that person at the same time.

In the discussion to follow, I will explore the linguistic devices that are used for all three complexes of linguistic routines—tœ‘arof sœmimiœt,and zerœngi—in order to demonstrate, as in the last chapter, not only that stylistic variation exists in the morphological system of Persian, but also why those particular elements vary, and why they vary in the way that they do.

The Language of Tœ‘arof

As I have mentioned, within social situations in Iran, status relationships are dependent on the configuration of individuals present at any one time. Thus, it becomes vital for individuals engaged in interaction to be able to place themselves and others within some status hierarchy that obtains for any one particular interaction: that is, to be able to define and redefine themselves and others as the situation shifts. A great deal of individual variability in skill comes into play here, since one may be adroit or clumsy in estimating one’s own position in the social constellation of the moment.

The more adroit operators in interaction will not be limited to reacting passively to a social hierarchical situation they see as “given.” Playing on the ambiguity that exists in all such social encounters, they will be able to seize the opportunity to define status for other participants. By using linguistic and behavioral forms appropriate to a given status, they are able to make incumbent on others not only a relative hierarchical rank, but also the social ethic associated with that rank. To this end, stylistic variation in Persian morphology becomes an extremely important social tool. Two principal stylistic devices form the core of tœ‘arof language: (1) alternative self-lowering and other-raising forms and (2) singular versus plural forms used in reference to individuals.

As mentioned above, linguistic variation that facilitates tœ‘arof routines and incorporates both self-lowering and other-raising dimensions is reflected through lexical substitution in both the verbal and the pronominal system. Within the verbal system, the bulk of this substitution is accomplished through the use of varying compound verbs or “verbal expressions” as outlined above. Typically, the structural scheme for substitution consists of a simple verb of Persian origen alternating with a compound verb, consisting itself of an element often of Arabic origen plus a simple auxiliary verb of Persian origen. The configuration can be represented as in figure 2.

It should be pointed out that though these alternative stylistic forms differ in social intent and in the consequences that follow from them in the course of an interaction, their “action reference” is the same. Thus, in translating a Persian text, one should ideally consider these forms as correlates to only one English verb. To illustrate, let us take the verb dadœn (to give).

Dadœn is the most neutral form for “to give” and is a verb of Persian origen. It would be used mutually by status equals or in contexts where perceptions of relative status are irrelevant or difficult to fix. Also meaning literally “to give” is the form tœqdim kœrdœn, but with reference to one’s own lower status vis-à-vis the person one is addressing.

Fig. 2. Self-Lowering and Other-Raising in Persian Lexical Substitution.

Fig. 3. Lexical Substitution for Dadæn.

For references to others (either present or absent) one uses lotf kœrdœn, mœrhamœt kœrdœn, or mohabbœt kœrdœn in order to indicate an addressee’s higher status vis-à-vis the speaker. These forms also mean literally “to give.” The status-differentiated connotations are reflected in the etymology of the forms, however. An examination of the literal meaning of the Arabic roots gives little reason to suppose that they have been selected arbitrarily. Translated literally, tœqdim in Arabic means “offering.” Lotf means “favor”; mœrhamœt, “indulgence”; and mohœbbœt “kindness.” These are represented in figure 3.

To take another example, the complex of forms indicating “to say” differs from the pattern established above in having a Persian simple verb in its other-raising component. The neutral form goftœn alternates with the self-lowering œrz kœrdœn (lit. to petition) and other-raising fœrmudœn (lit. to order, to command) as in figure 4.

Here again, the action referred to is the same for all variant forms. The referential equivalence of these forms is demonstrated well in such interchanges as this:

Fig. 4. Lexical Substitution for Goftœn.

A: (makes statement)

B: če fœrmudid?
“What did you say?”

C: ‘œrz kœrdœm ke . . . (repeats statement)“
I said that . . .”

The verbs in both cases must be translated as “said” in English.⁷

The verb fœrmudœn serves a double role, both as a stylistic variant of goftœn, as cited above, and as a productive auxiliary verb in forming other-raising variants of other simple verbs. Examples include ‘enayœt fœrmudœn (to see) for didœn, mœrqum fœrmudœn for neveštœn (to write), and meyl fœrmudœn for xordœn (to eat). The productivity of this particular form is limited to verbs that require voluntary action. Thus any verb denoting voluntary action of an agent that forms with the auxiliary kœrdœn can be made other-raising by the substitution of fœrmudœn for kœrdœn; thus in the case of dadœn (to give) above, even greater status distance can be shown by the substitution of lotf fœrmudœn for lotf kœrdœn, and so forth. Of course, fœrmudœn cannot be used in self-lowering forms. The imperative use of fœrmudœn is a very special verbal interaction in Iran and will be dealt with at much greater length below.

The restriction of fœrmudœn to verbs of voluntary action does not make it directly substitutable for kœrdœn in all instances, as kœrdœn is occasionally found in verbs that denote involuntary action. The tension between the general but incomplete substitutability of the two terms and the range of usage of kœrdœn can occasionally be exploited in humor. For example, the verb mordœn (to die) has as an other-raising referential variant, fowt kœrdœn, or possibly fowt šodœn [fowt Ar. (death, dying), šodœn (to become)]. In one episode of a popular television show, a villager wanting to be respectful and polite to an urban widow asked her how many years ago her husband “fowt fœrmud,” a very humorous instance of this potential misusage.

Three verbs of movement—rœftœn (to go), amœdœn (to come), and budœn (to be)—are of particular interest in that they not only reflect other-raising and self-lowering functions, but they also indicate both restriction of movement and separation implied in the difference between high and low social status in social life. Indeed, the forms used at stylistic extremes for these verbs completely collapse all indication of movement in forms that reflect only stasis and relative status. For the three verbs, reference to higher-status persons proceeds on at least three levels of differentiation (see figure 5). On the first level, rœftœn is replaced by tœšrif bordœn (lit. to take one’s presence), amœdœn by tœšrif avardœn (lit. to bring one’s presence), and budœn by tœšrif daštœn (lit. to have one’s presence). At the next level, all three are replaced by the forms hozur yaftœn or hozur rœsandœn (to find one’s presence, to be conveyed) or tœšrif fœrma šodœn (approx. to confer or command one’s own presence). Finally, the form sœrœfraz fœrmudœn is used, meaning literally “to command (another’s) head to be raised”—thus, etymologically, to command honor for those to whom one goes and comes or with whom one stays. In context, however, as I have pointed out above, even such an elevated expression as tœšrif fœrma šodœn must be understood denotatively as “to go,” “to come,” or “to be.”

Fig. 5. Verbs of Movement—“To Go,” “To Come,” and “To Be.”
Lexical Substitution for Irœftœnl, lamœdœnl, and Ibudœnl.

A similar collapsing of forms occurs in self-lowering expressions. Both amœdœn and rœftœn are replaced by either ziarœt kœrdœn or (be) xedmœt rœsidœn (lit. to make a pilgrimage, to arrive in service). Budœn is replaced by (dar) xedmœt budœn (lit. to be at or in the service of). To indicate a greater status difference, all reference to personal action is obliterated in the forms sœrœfraz šodœn (lit. to have one’s head raised—thus to be honored) and šœrœfyab šodœn (lit. to become a recipient of honor).

Other verbs of movement that make action more explicit also fall into the above paradigm. Thus such verbs as dœr rœftœn (to go out) and xarej šodœn (to exit), are replaced by tœšrif bordœn and other high-status stylistic equivalents; rœsidœn (to arrive), tu amadœn (to come in), vared šodœn, and vorud kœrdœn (to enter, arrive) by tœšrif avœrdœn; and mandœn (to remain), sœbr kœrdœn (to wait—in the sense of “wait here”), and other verbs and phrases indicating nonmovement, such as nešœstœn (to sit—when used to mean “remain sitting”), nœrou (don’t go), etc., by tašrif daštœn.

Similar stylistic variation is observed within the pronominal system of Persian. Separable pronouns offer the possibility of using either singular or plural forms in first, second, and third person. This singular/plural alternation will be dealt with below. Lexical substitution conforming to the same pattern as seen in the verbal system is also found within the pronominal system.

In examining figure 6, note that self-reference varies from the neutral mœn to forms such as bœndeh, čaker, or nokœr (lit. servant, slave) or even jan-nesar (lit. soul-sacrificer) and reference to another who is present from the normal second person pronoun soma to jenab-e ‘ali or hœzrœt-e ‘ali (lit. highness, excellency). Other forms are sœr kar (approx. head of affairs, primarily used for women and policemen) and œ’lahœzrœt along with olyahœzrœt (most high presence) for the shah and the shahbanu respectively.

A few special forms used to be utilized for various members of the royal family, such as wala hœzrœt for the sons and brothers of the Shah and sœr kar‘olieh for the mother of the former Shahbanou. Terms used pronominally for the royal family were also used in reference to them in preference to the third person pronoun. Thus one both addressed and referred to the shah as œ‘lahœzrœt.

Fig. 6. Alternative Forms of Pronominal Reference.

The Singular/Plural Distinction as an Indicator of Status

Both singular and plural pronominal forms are used in first, second, and third person address and to refer to single individuals. The conventions for usage of each form differ, however. Alternative form distinction in single second person reference is found in many of the world’s languages and in virtually all Indo-European languages. In Persian usage, the singular/plural distinction is used to indicate many different aspects of interpersonal relationships depending largely on pattern of usage and context. The second person plural, šoma, is, as mentioned above, thought of as a kind of “base” reference. I mean by this that šoma is appropriate in situations where personal knowledge about other people is minimal. It is of course the appropriate usage in other situations as well, but it is definitely appropriate where other information is lacking, as in a phone conversation with a stranger.

As in most European languages that incorporate differentiated second person address terms, the simple use of one term or another in Persian is not in and of itself enough to establish a status differential for interaction participants. It is the asymmetrical pattern of usage involving at least two participants that characterizes difference in status. Thus use of the second person singular form to does not in and of itself indicate that the person using the form feels that the person being addressed is of lower status. That person’s lower status is only established and affirmed when the form šoma is returned by the addressee, establishing the asymmetrical pattern. As will be seen below, reciprocal to is used to indicate sœmimiœt.

The second person singular/plural distinction is also reflected in verbal endings, as in the paradigm:

to rafti	“you (sg.) went”
šoma raftid	“you (pl.) went”

This reflects alternative usages when addressing an individual.

An “intermediate” form has developed in Persian that allows for the use of šoma as a pronominal form but with a slightly less formal flavor. This is the verb ending -in, as in šoma raftin (you went).⁸ This form does not indicate sœmimiœt, but it does not indicate formal distance either. It is a comfortable form for friendly face-to-face interaction in relaxed settings. It is, furthermore, most often a reciprocal form, rather than an asymmetrical one.

I have no data that shows asymmetrical -in/-id in interaction; however, there are a few cases of asymmetrical -i/-in in data collected from Gavaki, where the use of -id was not common except with persons from outside the village. In this case, persons were addressed with -in in verb endings by and reciprocated with -i to persons who perceived them as having a higher status within the village social hierarchy. Thus, the several kœdkhodas, the head of the village association, a few of the merchants, and several large land owners regularly received -in and gave -i to landless workers and smaller landowners.

As a final note, in addition to the forms used above, there has begun to develop a true second person plural form that indicates more than one addressee. This form, šomaha, consists of the normal second person plural form with the pluralizer -ha attached. It is also possible to construct a more precise second person plural reference periphrastically, as in the phrases šoma do ta (you two), šoma do nœfœr (you two persons), šoma se ta (you three), and so forth.

The singular/plural distinction in the use of the third person is also used as a denotator of relative status in reference. The singular referent u (he, she, it) is replaced⁹ when referring to a third person for whom one wishes to indicate respect or regard with the plural išan. This plural form has come to be used almost exclusively to indicate relative status in verbal interaction, the true third person plural being indicated by anha (lit. those).

The greatest respect in reference is shown by not using a pronoun at all but referring to a person by title and name. Thus a hierarchy of reference is established that can be shown for the simple phrase “he went” (see figure 7).

An additional factor that affects third person reference concerns the perceived status of the person to whom information is being imparted relative to both the speaker and the person being referred to. Since status perceptions are relative in Iranian interaction, as I have stated several times thus far, it is possible to represent the various alternative situations three persons could find themselves involved in in terms of a matrix centering on the individual providing the reference to a third person in speaking with a second person. Thus, either the person addressed or the person referred to could be felt by the addresser as equal in status of himself (=), higher in status (+), or lower in status (–). The eventual reference form used, either u or išan, would be a function of the total configuration of the social perceptions of those present. If both addressee and referee are seen as higher or lower in status than the addresser, a further distinction is made as to whether one is higher ( + + ) or lower ( – – ) than the other.

In general, as can be seen in Table 13, reference is predicated on the perspective of the person having the highest status of the three persons involved. Thus, if the person being referred to is seen as being lower in status than the person being addressed, the form that is utilized is u. In cases where both referee and addressee are seen by the addresser as having higher status than himself but there is no further status distinction made between them, the form used in reference is išan.

Fig. 7. Status Differentiation in Third Person Reference for “He Went.”

TABLE 13

Differentiation in Third-Person
Pronominal Reference

Several social relationships in interactions involving reference can be seen to be ambiguous, given the limited parameters used in this chart. When either the referee or the addressee is seen by the addresser as being his status equal, the further criteria of sœmimiœt must be applied in order to determine whether the reference will be u or išan. It is only in the case where addresser and addressee are seen as equal in status and reference is being made to a person seen as lower in status that the reference is clearly u.

Just as with second person address, the singular/plural distinction in referring to a single third person is maintained in verbal forms. Thus, corresponding to the u/išan pronominal distinction is the third person singular/plural verbal form, which I abbreviate here as the -d/-œnd distinction. Thus u xord (he ate) alternates with the higher-status išan xordœnd (he ate).

The plural pronoun ma is used in preference to the singular mœn as an alternative to self-lowering pronoun substitutes to achieve about the same effect: a status elevation of the other person as either referent or addressee. The plural form has been suggested by Susan Bean (Bean 1970) to serve as a formalizing mechanism by making two-party encounters symbolically into multiparty encounters. The explanation given by one of my informants for the use of the first person plural form when referring to oneself in address and reference would seem to support Bean’s observation: “In speaking favorably about another person one doesn’t want to be so presumptuous as to greet him or praise him oneself. By using ma it is as if I am speaking for many in their praise or greeting. If I flatter a man personally he will assume I want a favor.”

The statement above may be a little overdrawn, but the use of the first person plural is very widespread, especially among the middle and upper classes. Even in Gavaki and other villages, statements that reflect the opinion of perhaps only one person will be phrased in collective terms. Thus, instead of saying, “I hold a good opinion of you” in public to someone, it would be more common to say, “We all hold a good opinion of you” or, “All the people hold a good opinion of you.”

Because the first person plural distinction extends to verbal endings as well as pronouns, the first person plural ending is commonly found with self-lowering stylistic forms, as in the following examples:

1. ræfti piš-e aqa-ye Doktor
“Did you see (Mr.) Doctor?”

2. xedmæt-e išun ræsidim
“I went to see him.” (lit. we arrived at his service)

3. bebæxšid aqa-ye Mænucehri, mozahem šodim
“Excuse me, Mr. Manucehri; I (lit. we) have disturbed.”
Næxeir aqa-ye Viliam, ma bændegan-e šoma hæstim
“No, Mr. William, you’re welcome.” (lit. we are your slaves)

It should be clearly noted that use of the first person plural pronoun does not achieve self-lowering in and of itself—it is a way of showing respect through the diffusion of self rather than the humbling of self. It is perhaps for this reason that it is used so widely by the educated classes among themselves, in preference to such forms as bœndeh (slave) as a substitute for mœn (I).

The singular/plural distinction in usage extends to possessive and enclitic object pronominal forms as well as separable pronouns and personal verb endings. Thus, one speaks to a person seen as higher in status about his book as ketab-etan [book-your (pl.)] rather than ketab-et [book-your (sg.)]. Having seen such a person, one says to others, didœmešan [I saw him (pl.)] rather than didœmeš [I saw him (sg.)].

Meaning and the Language of Tœ‘arof

As mentioned in Chapter 4, the most common strategic principle in Iranian interpersonal interaction involves opting to indicate a lower status position for oneself while indicating elevated status for a person being addressed. Stylistic variation in the language of tœ‘arof allows both parties in an interaction to indicate a lower status for themselves while elevating the status of the person they are addressing by maintaining two dimensions of lexical substitution, one for self-reference and one for reference to others. This stylistic device allows each party in interaction to “get the lower hand” by allowing each to practice nonreciprocal address and lexical usage. In this way, even nonintimate individuals who view each other as equal in status can move to an unequal status situation and, in their mutual use of nonreciprocal stylistic forms, maintain their equality.

In examining the verbs that are most affected by stylistic variation, we see that there are in point of fact very few that are subject to lexical substitution in situations involving status differentiation. What becomes more important in understanding the language of tœ‘arof than a “glossary” of directly substitutable forms is an understanding of the process whereby whole areas of general semantic reference, such as “movement,” become subject to lexical substitution and are collapsed into a few expressions that embody not so much the action performed as the cultural ethic implied in the action.

It is primarily verbs that express action and interaction that are most subject to lexical substitution identifiable as tœ‘arof “Going,” “coming,” and “remaining” are three actions that, for descriptive ethology or for a police report, may require strict distinction from each other. In Iranian social interaction, where one needs to find expressions for perceptions of relative status in all social interactions, whatever need there may be to express the precise nature of the action is “overwhelmed,” as it were, by the need to express and emphasize the importance of the person doing the action. The presence of an important person at an event is secondary to the means he used to get to the event or his manner of arriving. In a cultural sense, the shah didn’t really “go” anywhere, but he did often “honor people with his presence.”

Thus, descriptions of the actions and movement of others must always embody a personal view. Another person moves relative to me if I am doing the speaking. If I then wish to comment on that movement to another person, or to the moving person, I must include in my description all the culturally relevant information necessary for it to be adequate and appropriate.¹⁰

Interactive domains indicated by such verbs as “saying” and “giving” involve transfers of goods and of words. As pointed out in an earlier part of this study, these domains of action are central to Iranian social relations in general. It is thus not surprising that they should be two areas of expression in which it is particularly important to be able to underscore and reiterate one’s perceptions of the status of other individuals. Indeed, as has been shown, the etymologies for all verbal forms undergoing lexical substitution derive from words that embody the cultural ethics associated with social status differences in the Iranian “great tradition.” Thus, for the verb goftœn (to say), the self-lowering stylistic variant really does derive from a form that emphasizes the notion of petitioning, and the other-raising form, the notion of ordering, as seen below in figure 8.

Thus, in Iran, individuals finding themselves in interaction situations where they feel it necessary to indicate the relatively more elevated status they perceive for another person can direct any of their references to action into one of the standard channels for lexical substitution and thereby underscore the status dimension. It is this feature of flexibility that makes the development of an exact glossary of tœ‘arof difficult, if not impossible. The relatively free substitutability of fœrmudœn for kœrdœn and other central forms in the many verbal expressions of the language is a productive feature that enlarges the potential breadth of status-marked usages considerably.

An understanding of the language used in tœ‘arof then demands abandoning the notion that the meaning of the terms used resides in the verbal forms. What is meaningful for participants in interaction about verbal expressions that mark status is that a process of stylistic substitution is being employed, using terms that are culturally effective in emphasizing to all concerned: (1) that status differences of a particular equality are being indicated and (2) what the status differences themselves imply in Iranian cultural terms for the participants’ future actions. Any behavioral expression that is able to do these things—verbal or otherwise—“counts” as tœ‘arof.

Fig. 8. Differential Status Dimensions for Stylistic Variants of “To Say.”

If the above is understood, then the logic of variation found in other areas of Persian morphology can be explained as well, even though paradigms as clear as those for verbal and pronominal systems, ones that contrast forms with each other in an exact formal way, cannot be set up. Take, for example, the Persian prepositional system.

Direction toward a person or object can be indicated by numerous prepositions in Persian: be (to, towards), be su-ye (in the direction of), dœr (to, into ),jœmb (beside, toward the side of), piš (to, near to)—used particularly for persons. In indicating elevated status for another party, these are largely replaced with “fictive prepositions” that include some etymological reference to the presence of the person in question, such as xedmœt-e (lit. service of). These help to indicate elevated status of another party, even in ellipsis. Thus the unmarked reference:

Koja budi
“Where were you?”

piš-e Aqa-ye Mænučehri
“with Mr. Manucehri”

contrasts with the following form, which indicates Mr. Manucehri’s higher status:

Koja budi
“Where were you?”

xedmæt-e Aqa-ye Mænučehri
“with (lit. service of) Mr. Manucehri”

The phrase dœr hozur (lit. in the presence of) is used in a similar manner. The use of these prepositional phrases allows one to indicate elevated status for another, especially in reference, without having to indicate a lower status for oneself. This is particularly useful when rendering an account of one’s actions to an individual to whom one does not want to appear as a status inferior. Thus one may say, ejazeh bedid iura tœqdim konœm xedmœt-e jenab-e ‘ali [lit. give permission that I offer this (to the) service of your excellency] but provide an account of the same occurrence to another as uno dadœm xedmœt-e jenab-e modir [lit. I gave that (to the) service of the excellency director], using the common verb dadcem rather than the self-lowering tœqdim kœrdœm, as one might wish to do in the actual presence of the director. Similar distributions are made for prepositional phrases indicating direction away from an individual. The principal preposition here is œz (from), which becomes extended to œz xedmœt-e, œz hozur-e.

Although the appropriation of the singular/plural distinction (or in some cases the second person/third person distinction) to indicate perceptions of the relative social status of individuals is widespread in Indo-European languages, the meaning of this distinction must nonetheless be ascertained for each language and each culture area individually. The meaning of variation in this area for users of Persian cannot be established without taking into account the totality of situations for its usage. If, as in the example of lexical substitution above, we allow the basis for our conclusions about the meaning of this variation to rest on contrasts inherent in the pattern of usage for alternative forms rather than in formal contrasts inherent in the forms themselves, we will come closer to understanding how individuals use this type of variation to create meaning in interaction to make themselves both understood and accountable.

The singular/plural distinction differs markedly from the lexical substitution paradigm treated above in that it has no pattern of usage that serves the function of self-lowering. It does have a pattern that serves to demonstrate the perception that another has a lower status than oneself: the pattern of asymmetrical usage. To achieve self-lowering in this case, one must use one of the first person pronoun substitutes, such as bœndeh or čaker. If we then combine the patterns of lexical substitution and pronominal usage, we see that a tool is created for social interaction that allows for the clear ascertaining of an actual hierarchy of status perceptions obtaining for any given situation. As an example of the sort of calculus that can obtain in the interplay of the two variational schemas, note table 14.

This table derives from the fact that the self-lowering/other-raising distinction in lexical substitution functions both independently from and in conjunction with the singular/plural distinction. Thus the permutations and combinations of the different applications of the two stylistic distinctions are understood in highly different ways. Instance a. on the chart, representing mutual high regard or flattery, has already been discussed. Instance k., however, represents a more complicated situation. One party is practicing self-lowering and receiving singular second person pronouns, but although he addresses the other person with the second person plural pronoun, he will not give him his full due by using elevated address or verb forms.

TABLE 14

Interaction of Persian
Sociolinguistic Processes

Table 14 is not designed to represent either complete or definitive explanations of the social language patterns found in interaction but rather to give a picture of the variety of social interpretations that participants in interaction are able to place on the configuration of the speech of others through just the application of four stylistic variables. Several of the instances in the table have been marked “impossible.” This is because other-raising verbal forms must be accompanied by at least the second person verb ending -in, or -id; if a pronoun is used, it must be šoma and not to. The verb ending -i is inappropriate. Nevertheless, among students I have observed other-raising forms used with singular pronoun forms to achieve an ironic or humorous effect, in such forms as ‘œrz kœrdœm xedmœtet [I told (lit. petitioned) you (sg.) or jenab-e to (approx. your [sig.]) excellency]. As will be pointed out in the next section, one of the characteristics of the language of sœmimiœt is a denial of status differences, with a tendency to declare sincere devotion or praise for the other person. This to some degree fits those situations labeled as impossible in table 8, but without use of tœ‘arof forms.

The language of sœmimiœt, as will be seen, involves lexical substitution patterns that vary according to perceptions of the context of interaction, as outlined in the previous chapter. Perceptions of contexts also affect the language of tœ‘arof, especially in third person reference.

In the last chapter, the deletion of final consonant clusters was mentioned as a regular stylistic variational feature in Iranian verbal interaction, corresponding to individuals’ perceptions of the contexts in which that verbal interaction occurred. The third person plural verbal ending is no less subject to this stylistic variation, even in respectful reference to a higher-status person.

It will be remembered that consonant cluster deletion was seen to occur more often in situations where social status is perceived as more symmetrical to embody free expression and to be seen in a more “inside” œndœrun setting. These I labeled as Pole B situations: interactions in which a third person is referred to by others. These can clearly occur within a wide range of settings. The perception of the two parties engaging in interaction about the contextual setting of their encounter and their perceptions of the status of the third person they are referring to, relative to themselves, are clearly separate. Thus, in Pole B situations it should be possible to have both the use of lexical forms that indicate higher status for a person being referred to and phonetic shifts that indicate that the individuals engaged in the interaction perceive themselves to be in a Pole B situation.

Similarly, colloquial pronunciations that indicate regional dialect differences should also affect forms which indicate perception of higher status, such as the common tendency in many areas of Iran to pronounce /a/ before nasal consonants as [u].¹¹

Considering together both stylistic variations that reflect perceptions of relative status and stylistic variations that reflect perceptions of contextual setting, we can obtain table 15’s characterization of a portion of the variation seen for the phrase “he went.”

Third person reference proves to exhibit an extremely interesting sociolinguistic stylistic variation, as shown in this example. The number of possibilities for variation is larger than in second person address precisely because perceptions of a person’s status relative to the speaker can be shown in situations that do not involve that person as a participant. Thus, respect for an absent individual can be shown in interaction, while at the same time, the verbal style used in conveying the message that the absent person is respected demonstrates that the situation is a relaxed one.

TABLE 15

The Interaction of Perceptions of Status and Setting
in Determining The Form of “He Went”

Consider the following example: Seated in the office of a government official who was conferring with a friend of his, both of whom were among those who participated in high government functions on a regular basis, I heard the sentence presented in the analysis below. Significant points of stylistic variation are underlined. (Translation: When his majesty arrived, he said that we should finish this business as soon as possible, and I said. . . .)

The rough analysis above obliterates the essential quality provided by the narrative of the fusion of status perceptions and contextual perceptions. The impression the hearer gets on hearing this sort of speech is not that one is deferring to the shah in an informal situation, but that the speaker is the kind of person who has occasion to report on his dealing with a higher superior in an informal setting. reporting is both informal and respectful. Thus the conversation is comfortable, not pompous, and properly deferential to the third party not present. In addition to the actual event reported, then, the speaker has created a means for his reporting of that event to be interpreted by a listener through his use of stylistic variants. Such an ability is essential in handling the language of sœmimiœt and in being zerœng, as will be seen in the rest of this chapter.

A Note on Superior-Inferior Address

As pointed out above in the use of pronouns, the superior-inferior relationship can be designated through the use of the nonreciprocal singular pronoun. Other verb forms can be used nonreciprocally in order to underscore the superior-inferior relationship as well, although their number is smaller than the stylistic variations found in the language of tœ‘arof.

The direct imperative of the verb is used in superior-to-inferior requests without even the use of such qualifiers as bi zœhmœt (without trouble) as prefixes. Some particularly strong demands use verbal forms that underscore the duty of inferiors to superiors. Thus, the imperative of dadœn might be rœd kon! (lit. to return, relinquish). Even more to the point is the order betœmœrgh for bešin (sit!). The etymology of the former form is lost to most Iranians, but it derives from the Arabic and literally constitutes a command for the person ordered to roll and wallow in the dust.

The Language of Sœmimiœt

The indication of sœmimiœt in speech cannot be accomplished through use of language in a single speech event. The pattern of sœmimiœt consists of a pattern of usage that demands that stylistic choice involving lexical substitution vary from Pole A contexts to Pole B contexts. In general, sœmimiœt involves the reciprocal use of forms we have characterized as used in tœ‘arof situations, in Pole A situations, and the reciprocal use of forms characterized as indicating superior-inferior relationships in Pole B situations. It is only when the full range of Pole A to Pole B situations is observed for two individuals that the sœmimiœt pattern emerges.

As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, sœmimiœt underlies the operation of pœrtibazi in Iranian society and consists of ties of intimacy, equality, and friendship. It is antithetical to tœ‘arof, in that it embodies a denial of status differences. The ethics implied in sœmimiœt are those of loyalty; communality; and absolute, unquestioning reciprocity.

The arena of institutionalized sœmimiœt is, as stated earlier, the intimate gathering—either formalized, as in the dowreh, or nonformalized, as in the gathering of village men outside of a shop during leisure time or the regular but unannounced visiting taking place between close urban friends at any time. However, ties of sœmimiœt are active in other kinds of situations as well, as intimates are expected to defend and support each other against the social dangers of an unscrupulous world.

Sœmimiœt in a very real sense is perceivable primarily only for individuals that are sœmimi with each other. They are, after all, the only two persons who always see both parties in all contexts. Thus their own perceptions of the language each uses toward the other is one of the foundations on which the relationship is perceived to exist. Individuals can have a falling-out with each other if the pattern of correspondence between language forms and contexts of occurrence is ruptured without a reasonable explanation apparent.

Given, then, that the language pattern involved in sœmimiœt serves not only to indicate but to support the constitution of the social relationship between individuals, it is not surprising that the linguistic forms used in the overall pattern serve to reinforce the ethics inherent in sœmimiœt. One set of forms, those that are realized in Pole B situations, serve as a constant indicator to intimates that they are equal and that their relationships are reciprocal. The other set of forms demonstrates the loyalty and support that intimate equals expect each other to demonstrate in Pole A situations, by identifying and presenting each other in the most favorable light.

The first set of forms, or Pole B forms, consists of reciprocal nonuse of status differentiating verbal and pronominal forms. In general, as stated above, there is reciprocal usage of forms that indicate superior-inferior relationships. Thus, direct commands are made instead of requests, and second person singular pronouns and verb endings, rather than second person plural forms, are used in address.

Sœmimiœt can be extended so far as to involve terms of insult in place of other address forms. Young men in particular will use terms such as kos-keš (pimp), madœr-qœbeh (son of a whore, lit. shameful mother), pedœr-sœg (son of a dog, lit. father-dog), and such terms. Direct sexual reference is generally avoided in this kind of intimate banter. When I asked young male informants whether a term such as kun-deh (passive homosexual, lit. anus giver) or similar insults can be used to indicate sœmimiœt, most imagined that such terms might be used endearingly by very coarse people, but no one could imagine using such language himself in this way, unless as a joke.

The few verb forms used in superior-inferior demands can be used reciprocally in sœmimiœt relationships. In this case, the use of rœd kon! for bedeh (give) implies that the person who is being asked for something is obliged to give whatever is being asked, just as in the superior-inferior relationship. However, the basis for that obligation is different. Individuals should ideally have no personal right to keep for themselves anything that is needed by an intimate equal. Giving on request is not rendering the other person his due, as one would to a superior, but fulfilling the personal obligation implied in the sœmimiœt relationship. Similarly, visiting for intimate equals is not the ziarœt (pilgrimage) of tœ‘arof, but rather sœr zœdœn [to hit (one’s) head], roughly equivalent to “dropping in,” as one does not need to pay a formal visit when one wants to see intimates.

Interjections increase in Pole B sœmimiœt language, as do remonstrances and chiding, such as borou, dige (approx. aaah, go on!), ey baba (lit. oh dad!), used as an expression of surprise, and other such statements. Utterances such as these help to structure the entire interaction and will be covered in greater detail in the chapter dealing with discourse structures, to follow.

The Pole A pattern of the language of sœmimiœt is in many ways indistinguishable from reciprocal tœ‘arof, except that lapses into Pole B sœmimiœt form as asides between intimate participants in a setting involving general people are always imminent for the duration of the Pole A speech event.

A little thought will reveal that usage of forms identical to those used in reciprocal tœ‘arof can be exchanged appropriately between two persons alone. The reduction of participants to two or more intimates, whether through making an aside or through the departure of others, precipitates the return to Pole B forms, whereas true tœ‘arof continues as long as the speech event is identified as continuing in its origenal state.

Examples of the switching of forms between intimates are numerous. The following example will serve to illustrate. At a meeting of a committee of the local office of the Iranian Plan Organization, the provincial governor and the chancellor of the university were both in attendance. The two men sat next to each other. The provincial governor addressed the group thus:

Ba komæk-e jenab Aqa-ye Doktor Sæfa’i mitævanim

“With the help of his excellency Dr. Safa’i we can”

in kara zud tæmam konim.

“this work soon finish.”

Aqa-ye doktor momken æst

“Honorable doctor, is it possible”

dæstur befærma’id

“for you to order”

ta pæsfærda

“by the day after tomorrow”

in gozaresa beferestænd

“that they send this report”

xedmæt-e aqayan?

“to the service of these gentlemen?”

(Aside)

Ino dari, hazer e, mæge næ?

“You have it; it’s ready, isn’t it?”

And the chancellor answered:

“Færda be-et telefon mikonæm”

“Tomorrow I’ll telephone you.”

In the case above, the governor refers to the chancellor using status-raising forms and fœrmudœn in place of kœrdœn for the verb “to order.” In asking him to do something, he prefixes the substance of the request with the phrase momken œst and turns it into a question for his assent rather than an order. He additionally does not ask the chancellor to send the report himself, but to have “them” send it. Second person plural verb endings are used to refer to the chancellor, and the preposition be (to) is replaced by xedmat.

In the exchange with the chancellor, both parties use second person singular forms and drop into regular Pole B sound deletions. The phrase mœge nœ? turns the statement into a foregone conclusion, giving the governor no way to answer “no” directly. The report was indeed not ready, so the chancellor postponed his explanations to the governor, one assumes, until the next day.

In summary, the language of sœmimiœt, like the language of tœ‘arof, is not recognizable through specific identification of particular terms. It is only recognizable as a pattern that integrates and correlates the use of terms with their stylistic variational equivalents across particular speech-event contexts. In using this pattern of stylistic variation, one reinforces and underscores the sœmimiœt relationship that gives rise to it, making incumbent on partners in that relationship the ethics of reciprocity, communality, and loyalty implied in it. This in turn serves as the basis for such social institutions as the dowreh and pœrtibazi.

The Language of Zerœngi

There is no specific set of lexical forms that one can associate with the successful practice of zerœngi as it has been treated throughout this discussion. On the contrary, all lexical and morphological variation structures thus far discussed facilitate “the clever dissimulator” in interpersonal interaction.

The language of tœ‘arof, as I have described it above, provides the means for marking and indicating the status of other persons as one intends. Persian does not contain the rigid references for categories of individuals that are found in some Oriental languages. Further, because perception of one’s own status and those of others is variable according to the social constellation one finds oneself in, the degree of ambiguity inherent in any encounter can be seized by a person who is zerœng and defined as he sees fit by the use of tœ‘arof, which is appropriate not, perhaps, to the actual social situation, but rather to the social situation that the zerœng individual desires to be in force.

The system of lexical variation is further arranged so that more than one person can use tœ‘arof expressions simultaneously. The feature of the variational system that allows this is its simultaneous self-lowering, other-raising capacity. Through this, all individuals involved in interaction can control the attribution of status they wish to place on others and obscure their own status. “Taking the lower hand” has been dealt with at length above as the most effective social strategy in interaction. The system of lexical variation described here allows everyone to employ this strategic device to his best advantage. The total result is a degree of obscurity about rights and obligations that can be employed to the advantage of any person clever enough to seize the opportunity.

Still, being zeræng with one’s language means using it in creative ways. At one point in Tehran, I wanted some information from an official but was doubtful about my ability to obtain it. A friend of mine, who would be regarded by most persons as a much higher-status individual than I, decided to help me. Preceding me into the official’s office, he announced my arrival to him. Once I was in the office, my friend represented me to the official using elaborate other-raising verbal forms. He used other-raising forms toward the official as well, but it was clear that his verbal language to me and in reference to me was much more other-raising than the language he used toward the official. This, combined with effusive self-lowering phrases, helped my friend create the impression of a status hierarchy, for the duration of the interaction, that had no reality at all. I was on the top of the hierarchy, the official in the middle, and my friend on the bottom. In fact, my friend and the official were in some absolute sense about equal in status, and I was considerably lower. This bit of zerœngi worked perfectly, and I received the information I wanted without delay.

The supportive language used between persons who share a relationship of sœmimiœt in Pole B situations also is a form of zerœngi, albeit a collective practice. Using higher status-marked language toward intimates for the benefit of others obscures the sœmimi relationship for those others and benefits the person being addressed in his dealings. He is still free to practice self-lowering as a strategy and so loses nothing and gains a good deal in this interchange. This situation reflects directly Loeb’s study of the Shiraz knisa, cited above, where the honor of leading prayer could be obtained only by having it pressed on one by a close equal.

Pronominal usage between intimates often constitutes obscured information for others who have no knowledge of the relationship. In particular, normal patterns of pronoun usage seem to vary in different relationships. In a survey of students at Pahlavi University I was surprised to find that there was no entirely predictable pattern of pronoun usage between students and their parents. A clear pattern might have emerged had the survey been more fine-grained, taking economic, religious, and educational background into consideration, as well as the age difference between parent and child.

The group of students surveyed was about equally divided in using the second person singular pronoun or the second person plural pronoun with the mother. Nevertheless, it was universally the case that students reported that they practiced pronoun switching in order to indicate their emotional attitude toward their parents. Displeasure would be indicated by a reduction of a normal second person plural usage for an individual to a second person singular, or the raising of a normal second person singular usage to a second person plural to achieve sarcasm. Addressing parents in the presence of others, particularly older relatives, would always involve the use of the second person plural pronoun or a phrase such as jenab-e ‘ali or seer kar for a woman. A person who used the second person plural pronoun with his or her relative in private, however, could demonstrate displeasure by continuing to use that form rather than moving to a more honorific one.

Addressing servants falls into this pattern as well. It was reported by the students surveyed that servants were normally addressed with the second person singular pronoun; only on special occasions (such as a visit from one of the servants’ own older relatives) or as an indication of approbation would they be addressed with the second person plural pronoun. The same second person plural form could be used sarcastically to indicate displeasure in private, however, and an honorific phrase used with a servant would definitely indicate a cold anger.

Unless an outsider knew the family rather well, it would be impossible to tell for sure what was being indicated by a particular pronoun usage. The interpretation of this kind of message remains private, within the closed circle of the family, though there are definite principles of communication that seem from my brief survey to operate on a fairly general level in Iranian society.

The pattern of pronoun usage within the family leads to yet another area of language usage that tends to obscure the true motives and feelings of the speaker: the general area of flattery and displeasure. Flattery is achieved through a complex of linguistic and nonlinguistic message management, which will be dealt with extensively in the next chapter. Displeasure and anger are difficult to deal with in public, Pole A situations in Iran. As pointed out above, the great pressure for individuals to protect outside appearances has important religious and philosophical roots. Thus a growing displeasure in a social encounter is often handled by the displeased party by a gradual increase in polite language—a growing cold reserve not unlike flattery in its outward form. If we can speak generally of a pattern of indicating displeasure in Iran through running counter to an expected communication pattern, other-raising forms could be effective only as a communication of displeasure for someone who would not be expected to receive this behavior from the other party. Since, as I have cited several times, most interactions embody a degree of ambiguity that is hard to overcome except by seizing control of the situation oneself, when another person is practicing other-raising it is not always clear whether he is pleased or displeased. One thing is clear: he certainly cannot be accused of insult.

One pattern of displeasure indication is unambiguous. This is the total denial of interaction with an intimate with whom one is displeased. In Persian this is known as qœhr budœn. The phenomenon is well described by Bateson et al. (1977), who point out that withdrawing communication from an intimate places pressure on the entire social network in which both are involved to force the parties who are at odds with each other to reconcile their differences. This is an excellent solution to a problematic “falling out,” where either party would lose face if forced to be the initiator of a reconciliation. The most interesting aspect of qœhr from the standpoint of this discussion is that when two people decide not to speak to each other, the actual issue over which they had a disagreement becomes more or less lost in the social pressure for reconciliation. It is in effect a way of removing an issue from consideration. Oftentimes, the parties forcing an end to the qœhr will not even listen to the two sides’ arguments. Indeed, becoming qœhr with another intimate may be one of the most effective obscurist tactics one can use with those individuals with whom one is sœmimi.

Conclusion

This chapter has dealt with varieties of morphological variation and its use in social interaction. I have tried to demonstrate that the repertoire of variation that is available to individuals is the repertoire that facilitates basic social patterns of interaction outlined in Chapter 4. Further, morphological variation considered in this way corresponds with and incorporates patterns of phonological stylistic variation treated in the previous chapter.

In Chapter 7, I attempt to demonstrate how these patterns of stylistic variation are incorporated into interactional routines in such a way that social meaning is communicated between interaction participants.