The Emic Concept of Face in the Iranian Culture: An Ethnographic Study of Āberu

زبانشناسی و گویش های خراسان

Article 7, Volume 9, Issue 17, July 2018, Pages 121-152   

Document Type: علمی - پژ‍وهشی

DOI: 10.22067/lj.v9i17.59884

Authors

Seyed Mohammad Hosseini^{* 1}; Ferdows Aghagolzadeh²; Aliyeh Kord Zaferanlou Kambouzia²; Arsalan Golfam²

¹Arak University

²Tarbiat Modares University

Abstract

Extended abstract
1- Introduction
Recent research on im/politeness in interpersonal pragmatics has witnessed a move away from Brown and Levinson’s (1987) much criticized face-saving theory (e.g., Eelen, 2001; Watts, 2003) towards more relational and interactional models that approach face and politeness as distinct concepts (Arundale, 1999, 2006, 2009, 2010; Terkourafi, 2007; O’Driscoll, 2007). One consequence of this is the call to investigate the emic concept of face, as it is understood by ordinary people, before any theoretical notion of face can be designated (Arundale, 1999, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2013; Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003; Haugh, 2009, 2013b; Haugh & Bargiela-Chiappini, 2010). This research is a response to this call and tries to analyze emic understandings of the concept of āberu (lit. water-of-face) as the closest equivalent of face in the Iranian culture.
2- Literature Review
Despite numerous researches on im/politeness in Persian, very few people have directly addressed the concept of face in the Iranian culture. Koutlaki (2002, 2009) argues that ehterām and shakhsiat are two aspects of face in the Iranian culture. Sharifian (2007) and Izadi (2017) offer āberu as the Persian equivalent of face in this culture. However, none of them does an ethnographic study of āberu idioms and collocations.
3- Methodology
An ethnographic approach is adopted. Ethnography is a method used to describe everyday human behavior, relying heavily on participant observation in natural settings (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2005). To gather the data, ethnographic field notes were taken of the actual uses of āberu and its idiomatic expressions and collocations in everyday conversations, TV serials, websites and weblogs, paying special attention to all possibly relevant contextual clues. The instances were then semantically analyzed in their contexts of use and a classification of the results was made.
4- Results and Discussion
An analysis of āberu idiomatic expressions and collocations shows that the domain of interpersonal relations is understood in terms of the domain of economic activity and the conceptual metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) of “ĀBERU IS A COMMODITY” can be applied to it. The exact nature of this commodity is ‘water’, which has always been a rare and hard-to-find resource in the dry and arid climate of Iran. Āberu is the most valuable commodity a person, or group, can ‘possess’ that can be ‘spilled’, ‘bought’, ‘sold’, ‘pawned’, ‘exchanged with money’, or even ‘auctioned’. The “ĀBERU IS A COMMODITY” metaphor gives the impression that āberu is ‘possessed’ by the individual (or group), but the data shows that this āberu exists only in the presence, or perception of the presence, of an ‘other’ and within an interaction. Therefore, it is not a possession of the individual but, as argued by Arundale (2006, 2009, 2013), is a property of the interaction (cf. Goffman, 1967).
The results also show four main uses of the word āberu in the Iranian culture. First, a person’s āberu is connected to the āberu (i.e., good name or reputation) of the group(s), one is associated with at the moment of interaction (Sharifian, 2007; Izadi, 2015, 2017). The group can be as small as the nuclear family or as big as a guild, the whole nation or even all humanity. The most important group is the family, which is then used as a metaphor to invoke protection of the āberu of larger social units such as a company, an organization or even the government.
Second, āberu is linked to people’s sense of competence (cf. Lim & Bowers, 1991), including possessions (i.e., competence in earning a decent living). Any perception of incompetence in the eyes of mardom, ‘the people’ or ‘significant others’ may lead to the feeling of āberurizi (lit. ‘Spillage of water-of-face’) or face loss.
Third, āberu is linked to the distinction, in Iranian life, between the two domains of zāher/birun (outside) and bāten/andarun (inside) referred to by Beeman (1986). If something that belongs to the realm of inside is revealed in the domain of outside, one may feel a loss of āberu. Things that must not be revealed in the outside cover a large list, including secrets, antisocial behavior or thoughts, any infringement of moral values and norms, misconduct, etc.
Finally, a person’s āberu is linked to their perceived sha’n or social status, which is defined according to age, education, rank in an organization or institutional power, occupation and gender.
Loss of āberu may lead to the feeling of sharm, i.e., shame, which then places the Iranian culture closer to the shame end of the shame/guilt (Benedict, 1946; Ho, 1976) continuum.
Āberu in the Iranian culture covers a larger extent of meanings than adab (politeness), which is considered as formal behavior appropriate to the context. Although āberu is part of the moral order (Garfinkel, 1967) against which im/politeness judgments are based (Haugh, 2013a; Kádár & Haugh, 2013), it is not accurate to equate politeness with face-saving strategies.
5- Conclusion
In the Iranian culture, my āberu in my eyes is the image I think others have of me and my āberu in others’ eyes is the image they have of me based on my social status and my verbal and nonverbal behavior. The results also indicate that while most of the descriptions of face in Goffman (1967) apply to āberu, group face, especially a family’s face, may impose a second layer of constraints on individual conduct. It is argued that āberu in Persian is both relational and interactional as claimed in Face Constituting Theory (Arundale, 1999, 2006, 2009, 2013). A person’s perceived social status influences the way people initially treat him in an interaction but this status has to be maintained and renegotiated within current interaction.

Keywords

face; āberu; ru; status; Iranian culture; Ethnography

References

1. انوری، حسن، (1381). فرهنگ بزرگ سخن (۸ جلد). تهران: اتنشارات سخن.

2. آهنگر، عباسعلی و اشرفی، بتول، (۱۳۹۳). «بررسی تأثیر موقعیت ارتباطی بر انتخاب راه‌بردهای ادب در مکالمه‌های دانش‌آموزان دختر دبیرستانی در بیرجند». زبان‌پژوهی. سال ششم، شماره ۱۱، صص. ۴۱-۷.

3. حسینی، سیدمحمد، آقاگلزاده، فردوس، کامبوزیا، عالیه و گلفام، ارسلان، (1396). ««رو» و «آبرو» دو روی مفهوم وجهه در فرهنگ ایرانی: پژوهشی قوم‌نگارانه در کاربردشناسی زبان». جستارهای زبانی، دوره 8، شماره 41، صص. 215-246.

4. حسینی، سیدمحمد و عامریان، مجید، (۱۳۹۳). «راه‌بردهای بیان مخالفت در بین دانشجویان دختر و پسر». زبان‌پژوهی. سال ششم، شماره ۱۳، صص. ۶۵-۸۹.

5. حسینی، سیدمحمد، (۱۳۸۸). «ادب و قدرت: نشانگرهای زبانی مخالفت در جلسات دفاع از پایان‌نامه». پژوهش‌های زبانی. سال اول، شماره ۱، صص. ۷۹-۱۰۰.

6. حسینی، سیدمحمد، (1389). «نظری به نظریه‌های مبحث ادب در زبان‌شناسی». مجله زبان‌شناسی. سال ۲۴، شماره 47، صص. ۶۷-۸۹.

7. حسینی، سیدمحمد، (1396). «وجهه در فرهنگ ایرانی و ارتباط آن با ادب: مطالعه موردی گفت‌وگوهای زنده تلویزیونی». رساله دکتری منتشرنشده. تهران: دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

8. عبدالهی، منیژه، عمل‌صالح، احیاء و محقق‌زاده، محمدصادق، (۱۳۹۳). «بررسی فیلم کلاه قرمزی از منظر ادب‌مندی». مطالعات کودک. سال پنجم، شماره ۲، صص. ۱۲۹-۱۵۲.

9. غیاثیان، مریم‌سادات، آهنگر، عباسعلی، فیرحی، داود، ذاکری، طاهره، (1394). «نشانگرهای تعدیل در کنفرانسهای مطبوعاتی سیاسی رئیس‌جمهور دورة دهم». جستارهای زبانی، دوره ۶، شماره ۳، صص. 215-239.

10. محمودی بختیاری، بهروز و سلیمیان، سمیه، (1395). «بررسی بی‌ادبی کلامی در نمایشنامه صیادان». جستارهای زبانی، دوره ۷، شماره ۲۹، صص. ۱۲۹-۱۴۹.

11. Adelkhah, F. (1999). Being Modern in Iran, (Translated by Jonathan Derrick). London: C. Hurst & Co. Publishers Ltd.

12. Amouzadeh, M., (2001). Politeness in Persian. Language Forum, 27, 131-141.

13. Arundale, R. B., (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics 9 (1), 119-153.

14. Arundale, R. B., (2006). Face as relational and interactional: a communication framework for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research 2 (2), 193-216.

15. Arundale, R. B., (2009). Face as emergent in interpersonal communication: an alternative to Goffman. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Haugh, M. (Eds.), Face, Communication, and Social Interaction. Equinox, London, pp. 33-54.

16. Arundale, R. B., (2010). Constituting face in conversation: face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8), 2078-2105.

17. Arundale, R. B., (2013). Face as a research focus in interpersonal pragmatics: Relational and emic perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 108-120.

18. Asdjodi, M. (2001). A Comparison between Ta'arof in Persian and Limao in Chinese. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 148: 71-92.

19. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., (2003). Face and Politeness: New (Insights) for Old (Concepts). Journal of Pragmatics 35: 1453-1469.

20. Beeman, W.O., (1976). Status, Style and Strategy in Iranian Interaction. Anthropological Linguistics 18(7):305-322.

21. Beeman, W.O., (1986). Language, Status, and Power in Iran. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

22. Benedict, R., (1946). The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

23. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C., (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Esther Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, 56 –289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

24. Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C., (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

25. De Kadt, E., (1998). The concept of face and its applicability to the Zulu language. Journal of Pragmatics 29(2), 173–191.

26. Duranti, A., (1988). Ethnography of Speaking: Toward a Linguistics of the Praxis. In: F. J. Newmyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. VI. Language: The Socio-cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.210-228.

27. Eelen, G., (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.

28. Ervin-Tripp, S., K. Nakamura & J. Guo. (1996). Shifting face from Asia to Europe. In Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson (Eds.), Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics: In honor of Charles J. Fillmore, pp. 43-71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

29. Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (1993). A cross-cultural comparison of the requestive speech act realization patterns in Persian and English. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, Monograph Series, Volume 4, 75-90. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

30. Eslami-Rasekh, Z. (2005). Invitations in Persian and English: Ostensible or Genuine? Intercultural Pragmatics 2 (4): 453–480.

31. Garfinkel, H., (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

32. Goffman, E., (1955). On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18, 213–231.

33. Goffman, E., (1956). The nature of deference and demeanour. American Anthropologist 58(3), 473–502.

34. Goffman, E., (1967). Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-face Behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.

35. Grice, H. P., (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, pp.41-58.

36. GU, Y., (1990). Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 237-257.

37. Haugh, Michael & C. Hinze. (2003). A metalinguistic approach to deconstructing the concepts of 'face' and 'politeness' in Chinese, English and Japanese, Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1581-1611.

38. Haugh, Michael, & F. Bargiela-Chiappini. (2010). Face in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 42(8), 2073-2077.

39. Haugh, Michael. (2009). Face and interaction. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Haugh, M. (Eds.), Face, Communication and Social Interaction. Equinox, London, pp. 1–30.

40. Haugh, Michael. (2013a). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order, Journal of Pragmatics 58, 52-72.

41. Haugh, Michael. (2013b). Disentangling face, facework and im/politeness, Sociocultural Pragmatics 1(1), 46-73.

42. Ho, D., (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology 81(4), 867–884.

43. Hosseini, S.M., (2013). The Persian Cultural Conceptualization of Face (āberu) and its Implications for Politeness Theory. Paper presented at the Second National Conference on Language, Discourse and Pragmatics, Jan. 23-25, Ahwaz University.

44. Hu, H. Ch. (1944). The Chinese concept of “face”, American Anthropologist, 46, 45-64.

45. Izadi, A. (2015). Persian honorifics and im/politeness as social practice, Journal of Pragmatics 85, 81-91.

46. Izadi, A. (2017). Culture-generality and culture-specificity of face: Insights from argumentative talk in Iranian dissertation defenses. Pragmatics and Society, 8(2), 208-230.

47. Kadar, D. & M. Haugh. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

48. Koutlaki, S. A. (2002). Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: tae’arof in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics 34(12), 1733–1756.

49. Koutlaki, S. A. (2009). Two sides of the same coin: how the notion of ‘face’ is encoded in Persian communication. In: F. Bargiela-Chiappini & M. Haugh (Eds.), Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, pp. 115–133.

50. Labben, A. (2017). Revisiting face and identity: Insights from Tunisian culture. Journal of Pragmatics 108: 98–115.

51. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

52. Leeds-Hurwitz, W., (2005). Ethnography. In: K. Fitch & R. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 327-353.

53. Lim, T.S., & Bowers, J., (1991). Face-work: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research 17,415–450.

54. Locher, M. A., Watts, R. J., (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 1 (1), 9-33.

55. Locher, M. A., Watts, R. J., (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: negotiating norms of linguistic behavior. In: Bousfield, D., Locher, M. A. (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 77-99.

56. Mao, L., (1994). Beyond Politeness Theory: “Face” Revisited and Renewed. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 451-486.

57. Matsumoto, Y., (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 403-426.

58. Nwoye, O., (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics 18(4), 309–328.

59. O’Driscoll, J. (2007). Brown & Levinson’s face: How it can—and can’t—help us to understand interaction across cultures. Intercultural Pragmatics 4, 463-492.

60. O’Driscoll, J. (2011). Some issues with the concept of face: when, what, how and how much? In: F. Bargiela-Chiappini & D. Kadar (Eds.), Politeness across Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 17–41.

61. Sharifian, F., (2007). L1 cultural conceptualisations in L2 learning: The case of Persian-speaking learners of English. In: F. Sharifian and Gary B. Palmer (Eds.) Applied Cultural Linguistics: Implications for second language learning and intercultural communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 33-52.

62. Sifianou, M., (2011). On the concept of face and politeness. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini & D. Kadar (Eds.), Politeness across Cultures. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 42–58.

63. Terkourafi, M., (2007). Toward a universal notion of face for a universal notion of cooperation. In: Kecskes, I., Horn, L. (Eds.), Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Intercultural Aspects. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 307-338.

64. Watts, R., (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.