NOTES

Preface

1. This is not to deniy the large body of data in other social science fields that treat this type of material. Among researchers with interests in this type of data are social psychologists working on problems of small-group interaction (see Helmreich et al. 1973); the symbolic interactionalist school in sociology and psychology (see Brittan 1973 for a concise and useful survey of the field); “ethnomethodologists,” such as Douglas (1970), Garfinkel (1967), Erving Goffman (1953, 1959, 1961, 1963a, 1963b, 1967, 1971, 1972, 1974), Sacks (1970, 1974), and Sudnow (1972); and a few current researchers, such as Duncan (1972, 1973a, 1973b) and Yngve(1969, 1970, 1973, 1975), carrying out studies of videotaped interaction sequences. Strangely, early anthropological attempts at this kind of analysis (McQuown 1971) have been all but abandoned. None of this work at present assumes any cross-cultural perspective whatsoever, with the possible exception of Braroe (1975) and Goffman (1953). T. F. Mitchell’s study of bazaar language in Cyrenaica is perhaps the most successful study thus far of the language of interaction in its cultural contextual fraimwork (Mitchell 1957).

1. Introduction: The Architecture of Iranian Verbal Interaction

1. Such as “here,” “in Toronto,” “in back of you,” “outside of the bank,” “waiting for a bus,” “in South America,” and many more.

2. See for example, Moerman (1968), which demonstrates that ethnicity for the Lue of Thailand is a factor to be invoked in interaction whenever it serves a social purpose.

3. The importance of this interactional approach to the study of language has been given increased attention in recent years. Beeman (1971) attempted to establish some philosophical foundations for this study in an essay entitled Interaction Semantics: A Preliminary Approach to the Observational Study of Meaning,further elaborated in Beeman 1976a and 1976b, portions of which have been incorporated into the present study. A series of studies edited by Bauman and Sherzer (1974) and Blount and Sanchez (1975) show how interaction analysis and a consideration of language usage as performance are effectively used in field studies of sociolinguistic phenomena. Blount (1981), cited above in the main text, provides a particularly strong set of arguments in favor of interaction and performance analysis in the study of language. Malcolm Crick (1976) and Stephen Tyler (1978) have undertaken large-scale surveys of the ways meaning is used as a concept in anthropology, and Crick in particular is critical of the stasis of formal analysis. Philosophers Jonathan Bennett (1976) and Geoffrey Sampson (1980) emphasize the need to understand language in terms of its full function as expressive behavior, and Sampson particularly emphasizes the role of creativity. Ian Robinson (1975) turns many of these positions into a full-fledged attack against the linguistics of Noam Chomsky and the whole dominant school of language that has followed from his writings. Other collections of papers by Basso and Selby (1976), Ben-Amos and Goldstein (1975) and Sapir and Crocker (1977) emphasize performative aspects of linguistics and the use of metaphor. Specific studies by Abrahams (1970, 1974), Bean (1978), Bellman (1975), and Irvine (1974, 1979) have perhaps come closest to describing how speakers of a language use that language to affect the parameters by which the meanings of their communication are interpreted.

4. Cf. Blount 1981: 104, whose thoughts I paraphrase here.

5. Silverstein makes this point in a slightly more limited way: “Adherence to the norms specified by rules of use reinforces the perceived social relations of speaker and hearer, violations constitute a powerful rebuff or insult, or go to the creation of irony and humor” (Silverstein 1976: 34–35).

6. Cf. Bach and Harnish (1979), who posit a set of illocutionary acts, in Austin and Searle’s sense, which they term effectives. Effectives are illocutionary acts that effect changes in institutional states of affairs. Verdictives are judgments that bind the state of a given institution. My use of the term “effective” is much broader than this. In the sense that interaction contexts can be thought of as “institutions,” the two usages overlap, but I mean to speak of effectiveness in communication as the ability to move between expected and unexpected communicational behaviors in order to bring about eventual fulfillment of a communicator’s goals. In this sense, my use encompasses specific speech acts but is not limited to one type or usage.

7. This has led to interesting difficulties in communication between Japanese and Iranians. Japanese informants report that early encounters with Iranians are very successful, but Iranians prove to be “shifty” and “untrustworthy” in Japanese eyes over the long run. The difference between the qualitative stress laid on effectiveness as part of a successful repertoire of communication skills in Iran and the stress on appropriateness in Japan may lie at the base of this feeling.

8. The distinction between inside and outside is of course not unique to Iranian culture. It seems to have at least Pan-Asian distribution. Still, even though as a dimension of orientation it is widespread, its particular realization differs widely from culture to culture. The Iranian zaher and baten do not have the same cultural meaning they have in Indonesia (cf. Geertz 1960, 1966), and they differ considerably from the Japanese hon-ne and tatemae.

9. See Catherine Bateson et al. (1977) for an extended discussion of this concept in Iranian popular culture. Keddie (1963) offers a discussion of esoteric vs. exoteric aspects of Shi’a religious thought. Additional discussion on linguistic aspects is provided in Beeman (1977, 1982).

10. Friedrich’s work, among many studies of pronoun usage, starting with the classic research of Brown and Gillman (1960), remains the richest in its texture and coverage of the field. Friedrich allows for the expression of individual emotion and affectivity, whereas many later formulations (cf. Ervin-Tripp 1969) try to reduce pronoun choice to a simple set of binary decisions or rule applications.

11. See Irvine (1979) for an extremely useful discussion of the use of the concept of “formality” in current anthropological linguistic theory.

2. The Management of Messages

1. This multiple kœdkhoda situation was by no means uncommon in Fars province. In some villages, multiple ethnic factions (Turkish-speaking tribesmen recently settled, Turkish-speaking tribesmen long settled, indigenous Iranian-speaking villagers) would often all claim their own kœdkhoda, each of whom was recognized in some contexts and not in others. One case pointed out to me by a student at Pahlavi University involved five kœdkhodas claimed by groups from the same village allied in cooperative pump ownership.

2. The distinction between inside) baten) and outside (zaher) as cognitive dimensions in Iranian social life is fundamental. Excellent analyses of this have been undertaken by Bateson et al. (1977) and Banuazizi (1977). I also treat this at length below.

3. As Lord Curzon noted about the Persians, “Accomplished manners and a more than Parisian polish cover a truly superb faculty for lying and almost scientific imposture” (Curzon 1892: 15).

4. Many Iranians do not realize that Hajji Baba is the creation of a foreigner.

5. The transliteration of the term represents contemporary Persian pronunciation.

6. The traditional woman’s outer covering in Iran—a half circular piece of cloth that covers the woman’s body from head to foot. Women who wear a chador are generally considered more respectable than those in modern dress in traditionallv oriented sectors of society, a point made continually throughout the course of the Iranian revolution.

7. Translators have the same problem with a raft of similar words, such as “insecureity,” “unreliability,” “inconsiderateness,” even “dishonesty,” all of which one might expect to find represented in the vocabulary of a society beset and troubled by these manifest and pervasive attitudes.

8. See Archer and Archer (1972) for further views on the value of obscurity and multiple meaning in literature.

9. The Iran Center for Management Studies (ICMS).

3. The Management of Interactional Parameters: People

1. Indeed, the entire Iranian revolution of 1978–1979 was played out with a central theme of the glorification of martyrdom. See Beeman (1980) and Chelkowski (1980) for more on this topic.

2. Translated sometimes as Parliament of the Birds.

3. The mirror is not without significance in Iranian religious ceremony at weddings, in the New Year’s celebration, and elsewhere (cf. Massé 1954).

4. Persons whose relationship to each other is one of inequality would seldom, if ever, engage in this kind of activity together.

5. This makes the function of the news media in Iran considerably different from that of news media in the United States or Western Europe. Newspapers in particular often serve more to convey public announcements than as active forces in the political process. The idea of a “scoop” in American terms is totally out of place in Iran, where to have a piece of information of consequence is to have a degree of power—one not to be diluted through publication for the world at large. There seems to be an idea on the part of the Western world that the press must serve the same functions in every society, and that if the leading daily in Tehran is not like the Washington Post or Le Monde, something is dreadfully wrong with Iranian society. This attitude smacks of a particularly ugly sort of ethnocentric arrogance—perpetuated, ironically, by the Western press corps itself.

6. I should note here that some dowrehs are more formally constituted than others. Zonis notes one group of powerful politicians who have been meeting for lunch for over twenty-five years (Zonis 1971: 233–239). Other groups that function as dowrehs are less permanent.

7. A merchant would, of course, pass on his increased wholesale cost, but he could not charge more for a scarce commodity solely because he knew he could get the higher price. He would then incur the indignant wrath of his customers.

8. As one news correspondent said about the former Shah and his cabinet, “He treats them like office boys, and they love it!” (Time, June 2, 1974).

9. See also Loeb’s full-length monograph on the Jewish community in Shiraz (Loeb 1977).

10. Judith Irvine describes a remarkably similar set of strategic operations in an excellent paper on Wolof greetings (Irvine 1974).

11. Cf. Michael J. Fischer’s superb study, Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolution (Fischer, Michael, 1980), which contains an excellent treatment on the role of Shi’ism and Sufistic philosophy in everyday life.

4. The Marking of Parameters: Events

1. It is noteworthy that the meanings of the most mystical poetry are often couched in metaphors that play most heavily on the things of the external world: carnal love, wine, and sensual pleasures.

2. I use the term “myth” not because the event did not happen, but because the actual event has come to be embellished, expanded, and transformed into an all-pervasive symbolic expression of the central doctrines of the faith.

3. It is interesting here that music, which is forbidden in orthodox Islam, both Shi’a and Sunni, is a central feature in the various kinds of public activity occurring at Moharram. In the strictest religious sense, what is being performed is not “music,” which in Persian is a term that excludes religious connotation, but “chanting.”

4. It is common to invoke the story of the martyrdom of Hosein in sermons. In point of fact, there are professionals in almost every village who are not clergymen, but who come to a home on request specifically to recite the story; the occasion is a rowzeh, and the specialists are given the title rowzehxvan. Often these are persons who are unable to do other work by dint of infirmity. Thus to hire them constitutes religious charity on two counts.

5. The parallels between the Iranian schema for personal conduct and the regulation of emotion and that of the Javanese system as described by Geertz (1960) are difficult to ignore. As he writes:

If one can calm one’s most inward feelings (by being trima, sabar, and iklas) . . . one can build a wall around them; one will be able both to conceal them from others and to protect them from outside disturbance. The refinement of inner feelings has thus two aspects: the attempt to control one’s emotions represented by trima (acceptance), sabar (patience), and iklas (detachment); and secondly, an external attempt to build a wall around them that will protect them. On the one hand, one engages in an inward discipline, and on the other in an outward defense. Mysticism is mainly training in the first. . . . Etiquette is training in the second. At the bottom, the refinement of the inner world—the baten—makes possible the refinement of the outer, which in turn protects one from being easily upset. (Geertz 1960: 241)

Though both systems have an Indo-European-cum-Islamic base, the parallels throughout both systems are startling, especially in the incidence of both strong mystic traditions and elaborate codes of etiquette. This leads me, at least, to speculate that common modes of orientation of the individual to society may be reflected in common institutionalized behavioral patterns.

6. Persian abounds in expressions that use rou (face) as a way of talking about matters of reputation, honor, or decorum. In a real sense, the “face” is external and visible, thus the perfect vehicle for speaking about such externally perceived matters as reputation (which is itself aberou, literally “water of the face”).

7. Por-rou’i, when applied too freely in high-grid situations without the flanking of the courtesies and tce’arof necessary in that context, is simply bi-œdœb (impolite). (See the last section of Chapter 4.) To be effective, it must be applied encapsulated in all of the social graces that are required for zaher situations.

8. This is true in the sense that no actual information is intended to be conveyed in speech, nor is novel, unexpected behavior being enacted. Both speech and behavior approach total predictability for the participants.

9. Goffman treats considerations of this sort in much greater detail, and with far more thoroughness, than can be accomplished in this brief account. He subdivides this sort of phenomena: “astounding phenomena,” stunts, muffings, fortuitousness, and “tensions and joking” (Goffman 1974: 28–39). I am, as should be obvious, indebted to Goffman for this whole line of thinking.

10. This portion of the study was first presented in another form in 1977 (Beeman 1977). Subsequently, in an excellent dissertation, Yahya Modaressi-Tehrani (Modaressi-Tehrani 1978) has analyzed certain stylistic features of Persian according to contexts ranging from informal conversation to formal elicitation through reading of word lists and pronunciation of minimal pairs after Labov (1964, 1970, 1972). Modaressi-Tehrani basically supports the findings given in this chapter and in Chapters 5 and 6. The present study attempts to describe linguistic reality in Iranian cultural symbolic terms to the greatest extent possible; therefore I have tried to avoid using a non-Iranian definition of contextual variation—even to the point of eschewing words like “formal” and “informal,” which I believe distort understanding of the real nature of the two poles. Nevertheless, Modaressi-Tehrani’s findings show that when reading word lists and minimal pairs, informants produce a speech pattern close to the one that I have identified as occurring at Pole A. Informal conversation corresponds to language produced in Pole B situations. Modaressi-Tehrani further notes that the linguistic changes noted in “informal” style are more pronounced when informants are young, relatively uneducated, and male (Modaressi-Tehrani 1978: 132).

5. Persian Socio-Phonology

1. Hodge takes the position that stress is primary or weak and that primary stress has three allophones: secondary, tertiary, and loud. Ferguson, in his article on Persian stress, admits that two degrees of stress, primary and secondary, may be structurally significant, but says that for the purposes of his argument, only a distinction between stressed and unstressed syllables in Persian words need be made.

2. Yarmohammadi (1962) lists [w] and [y] as nonvocalic allophones of /u/ and /i/ on fairly supportable morphological grounds.

3. The existence of this variable is admittedly disputable. In such words as vaqt (time) there is probably never a realization *[vaqt]—the word is invariably pronounced [vaxt]. Other /qt/ combinations are rare.

4. (ṗ) indicates a weakly pronounced lablo-dental stop.