A Model of Cultural Analysis and Its Application in the Teaching of Culture 2013

Chapter 19

A Model of Cultural Analysis and Its Applications in the Teaching of Culture

Sofia A. Koutlaki

O mankind, We have created you male and female, and appointed you races and tribes, that you may know one another. (Holy Quran, Apartments, tr. A. Arberry)

Abstract Culture teaching generally focuses on helping foreign language learners develop an understanding of the culture of the target language and, ideally, positive attitudes towards it. In todays world, the domination of English in entertainment, mass media and new media may sometimes be accompanied by unbalanced views: some EFL learners view English-speaking cultures as superior, while others feel that their own culture is inherently superior to them. This paper argues that in a world where non-native speakers of English outnumber native speakers, culture teaching should widen its aims: in addition to helping learners develop positive attitudes towards and knowledge of the culture of the target language, it should also aim to develop a more explicit understanding of the rules of the learners own culture. It looks at the concepts of communicative competence and pragmatic failure, and then presents a model of analysis of Persian culture, looking at the concept and components of "face" and the principles of politeness in Persian (deference, humility and cordiality). It then demonstrates how this analysis can be used to develop classroom strategies. The writer concludes that explicit understanding of both target and learners own culture can equip learners with the ability to analyze and understand other cultures, and have positive effective cognitive, behavioral and affective outcomes.

Introduction As native and non-native English speakers interact in person or in virtual space, each one carries the cognitive, behavioral and affective baggage of their own to every interaction. So far, the emphasis on successful cross-cultural communication has generally been on learners developing an understanding of the culture of the target language in order to be able to function adequately in it.

This position is predicated on two ideas. Firstly that the target culture is a unified system, observable and testable, much like the grammar of a language, the rules of which can be described, tested, and verified or rejected against the yardstick of native usage. Secondly, again in a model situation, that the non-native speaker is to develop proficiency and competence in interactions with native speakers, rather than with other non-native speakers, and should therefore have adequate knowledge, behavioral competence and helpful attitudes towards native speakers and their culture.

While I do not wish to argue against either of the above positions, I would venture to add another dimension to successful, fulfilling cross-cultural communication. In addition to having adequate understanding of the target culture, behaving appropriately and being positively disposed towards it, competent, successful communicators also need to internalize these ideas:

Basic human needs are the same: only their linguistic encoding varies; No culture is inherently superior to any other and therefore cultures are relative.

284 The Handbook of Current Research

In other words, we, as teachers, should help our students look at both their own culture and the target culture with engagement and fascination, seeing them both as manifestations of our common humanity. We should aim to cultivate in them the excitement of becoming a successful participant in a new culture, even as they are secure in and proud of their own.

Native speakers generally have an intuitive understanding of their own culture and usually behave in ways acceptable to others sharing the same culture. They know which behaviors are judged positively, which are acceptable and which are frowned upon, and can put forward some explanations why, but they usually cannot explicitly cite the rules behind them in the same way that literate speakers can cite grammatical rules (unless, that is, they are discourse analysts or social scientists.)

As for the third aspect of successful communication, that of having a positive attitude towards ones own culture, there is a lot to be said. Over the long years of my acquaintance with Iranians both in Iran and abroad, I have observed two diametrically opposite attitudes.

The first one was during my work in the offices of an Iranian company in London, which employed both Iranians and English workers. Being Greek, and therefore an outsider to both sets of colleagues, they felt able to share with me their rather unflattering opinions of each other. These went along the lines of: the English only care about themselves and no-one else; Iranians never tell you what they really think - you cant get a straight answer out of them; the English are rude and have no regard for other peoples feelings. Over the years, I came across similar negative comments about the English by some Iranians who had lived in England for most of their adult life.

At the same time, the opposite attitude is sometimes observable in those who have interacted with foreigners, lived abroad or had exposure to other cultures through the media. They often admire the fact that foreigners (kharejiha itself an overgeneralization) speak their mind and do not stand upon ceremony, which, to their minds, is a good thing. They thereby imply that Iranian verbal behavior, with its politeness rituals, formal expressions and conventional indirectness is somehow insincere.

Negative attitudes, either towards another culture or towards ones own culture are unhelpful in cross-cultural communication. Those of the first kind function as a barrier to language learning and successful membership of the target culture, because they depict it as inferior, even unworthy; those of the latter kind make learners feel that the target culture is somehow superior to their own culture, sometimes leading to its rejection. Neither help learners engage in effective intercultural communication, and ultimately, successful relationships.

I should point out here that although the main focus of this paper is EFL teaching to Iranian learners, the thesis of the paper and the specific points made can apply equally to the reverse situation, that of English native speakers learning Persian as a foreign language. English as a World Language In 1983 Braj Kachru predicted that by the turn of the millennium the number of non-native speakers of English would outnumber that of native speakers (3). This prediction has since been proven right; the number of non-native English speakers is estimated at twice or three times that of native speakers (Crystal, 2003; Rajagopalan, 2004). English has assumed the status of membership of a global club, but with a difference.

Unlike ordinary clubs, where members agree to abide by the club rules, the rules of the English global club, if I may stretch the metaphor that far, are not rigid: they are defined by the languages, the cultures and the societies of those who use English as lingua franca, medium of

Sofia A. Koutlaki/A Model of Cultural Analysis and Its Applications 285

instruction, for learning and research or surfing the internet. In todays new media-dominated world, this phenomenal growth has implications on the ways English is being used, taught and learned, some of which relate to the cultures of the people who speak it.

Now that English has long crossed the borders of lands where it is spoken as a native language, it might be justifiably argued that, it is indefensible to focus on cultural rules and standards that apply to English native speaker communities or nations. However, I would advance two arguments in favor of this practice in justifying my practice to refer to English-speaking settings throughout this paper, and therefore implying that interaction generally takes place between language learners and native speakers.

Firstly, some standard should be adopted in language teaching in order to facilitate teaching. The adoption of one of the native varieties of English (British or American) seems to be the most plausible option, since a large body of literature and media texts exists in each, and learners generally have regular exposure to such texts. English is now a global language spoken by more non-native than native speakers, and consequently, too many cultural issues are involved in its use. Therefore, the choice of a standard seems imperative, as it would be impossible to accommodate all this dazzling cultural variety in English language teaching practice.

Secondly, if learners are helped to understand the relativity of cultures and are given the tools for the analysis of important aspects of native cultures (a native English-speaking culture and their own), they should be able to develop an understanding of any other native or non-native culture, and to apply it in their communication with other non-native speakers. Culture? What Culture? The notion of culture is generally understood as having two meanings, that of high culture and that of anthropological or life-style culture (Scollon & Scollon, 1995; Stern, 1992). The former includes a nations literature, art, archaeological treasures, architecture and music; in short, the heritage that nations are proud of. For example, Iranian high culture includes Hafezs mystical poetry, world-famous carpets, the Persepolis complex, the Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque or the modes of Iranian traditional music. The latter refers to a mixed bag of mundane, but nevertheless important, matters relating to everyday life, behavior and worldview such as, in our example of Iran, how to queue for bread, how to bargain when shopping (and for what transactions you are not expected to bargain) and how to maintain and enhance social relationships through the use of politeness strategies.

At first glance, knowledge of both aspects of Iranian culture would be useful to foreigners who want or need to function adequately in their interactions with Iranians. The first aspect is generally easy to access through books, photographs, films or music files; the second one is rather harder to come by because of a host of reasons to which I will return in the next section. Culture Teaching The aim of every language teacher is to help students achieve not only grammatical fluency but also communicative competence, which includes cultural elements. Thus, students performance of the foreign language should (ideally) reflect an understanding of the target culture, which should lead to effective interaction with native speakers, and, ultimately, to enjoyment and a sense of fulfillment from such interaction.

It seems to me that in some cases, the culture component in EFL teaching may sometimes be falling to the other extreme. Having moved away from the extreme practice of teaching


English as an abstract linguistic system isolated from the culture, as in the Grammar-Translation Method, we make well-meaning attempts to increase language input for our students. We encourage them to watch English films, read English books, magazines and other written materials, and generally engage more extensively with the target language, and consequently, the culture from which the language is inseparable. Although such encouragement is in itself commendable, and generally brings about positive results, it should be accompanied by some brief, but fundamentally important cognitive input of cultural analysis.

I do not suggest that we should attempt to turn learners into students of anthropology; however, I firmly believe that those intending to learn another language and therefore about to be exposed to its culture, need to internalise the principle of cultural relativity and to keep the following points in the forefront of their minds.

The aim of comparing ones own culture to the target culture is to discover their similarities and differences in order to interpret correctly what one sees, hears and reads and to respond appropriately, not in order to sit in judgment over whether any culture is better than any other. We may be intrigued, fascinated, attracted or puzzled by aspects of the other culture, or of our own, but we cannot, and should not, compare apples with oranges: just like the grammars of individual languages, each culture is subject to its own rules, and we cannot, and should not, judge one culture applying the rules of another.

One of the first items that Persian EFL learners are taught at the early stages is that, unlike Persian, the verb in English usually occupies the second position in the sentence. This is an item of grammar that learners master easily, and one that they do not tend to compare favorably or unfavorably to their own language. In the same way that students need to learn the grammatical rules of the target language in order to produce grammatical sentences, they also need to discover the cultural rules and apply them in order to behave in culturally acceptable ways. The problem is that cultural rules have not been described to the extent that grammatical rules have. How is this then to be achieved in practice?

On a practical level, in order to give learners a clearer picture of the target culture, the material writer and the language teacher will need to provide thorough explanations of the different values prevalent in the two cultures and how these are encoded in the various communicative strategies in both languages. Language textbooks have largely neglected the area of pragmatic competence, firstly because detailed description of pragmatic rules does not exist to the extent of grammatical rules (Widdowson, 1979, p.13, Stern, 1992, p. 208), and secondly because pragmatics -language in use- is a delicate area and it is not immediately obvious how it can be taught(Thomas, 1983, p. 97).

Among the sociolinguistic factors that contribute to learners fluency, Sajavaara (1981, pp.48-49, emphases mine) lists the following:

- awareness of social judgements necessary for the production of acceptable utterances in a given situation;

- sensitivity to various sociolinguistic, cultural and environmental features including those which are based on interpersonal relationships.

Valette summarizes the goals of culture teaching in five categories: 1. Cultural awareness, comprising geographical knowledge, knowledge about the

contributions of the target culture to world civilization, knowledge about differences in the way of life as well as an understanding of values and attitudes in the second language community.

2. Command of etiquette, i.e. polite behavior;


3. Understanding of daily life, including unfamiliar conventions, such as writing a check or reading a timetable;

4. Understanding of cultural values, requiring the interpretation of the target culture and the learners own culture;

5. Analysis of the target culture, based on theories of cultural analysis. (1977, as quoted in Stern, 1992, p.213, emphases mine) The highlighted items mostly focus on understanding and analysis of the target culture,

either explicitly or implicitly, with the exception of item 4 above, which refers to the interpretation of both the target and the learners own culture. At first sight this may seem like a minor point, and it is generally treated as such, with the focus being generally on the target culture, while understanding and analysis of the learners native culture is usually taken for granted. However, it is precisely this lack of learners explicit understanding of, and consequently of positive attitudes towards their own native culture, that may have as much bearing on effective culture teaching as those relating to the target culture. But before I focus on an example of how a cultural analysis model can provide precisely such input in culture teaching practice, I take a brief look at the concepts of communicative competence and pragmatic failure and at how they can relate to culture teaching.

Communicative Competence Hymes (1967, 1971, 1972) introduced the term communicative competence to signify the native speakers ability to communicate effectively, although not necessarily to form grammatically correct utterances in social contexts. In Gumperzs words communicative competence describes his [the learners] ability to select, from the totality of grammatically correct expressions available to him, forms which appropriately reflect the social norms governing behavior in specific encounters (1972, p.205).

Although Hymes did not explicitly refer to language pedagogy in his work, language teachers adopted the concept of communicative competence as the goal of language teaching. This concept prompted what amounted to a cultural revolution in the field of language teaching, with the emphasis shifting from grammar and syntax towards the application of language to communicative functions in realistic situations in the classroom (for a review of the application of the concept of communicative competence in language teaching, see Hymes, 1985; Wolfson, 1989).

Pragmatic Failure A very important symptom of the impairment a foreign language learners communicative competence is what Thomas (1983) has termed pragmatic failure, defined as the inability to understand what is meant by what is said (Thomas, 1983, p.92). Pragmatic failure affects communicative competence and is classified as two kinds, pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic. However, Thomas notes that although she treats the two kinds of pragmatic failure separately, in reality they are not so clear-cut. She describes them as a continuum rather than distinct categories, with some instances belonging to the grey area in between (Thomas, 1983, p.109).

She argues that pragmalinguistic failure is fundamentally a linguistic problem, brought about by the differences in the way two languages encode pragmatic force, whereas sociopragmatic failure is a result of cross-culturally divergent perceptions of what appropriate linguistic behavior actually is. This distinction means that pragmalinguistic failure is nearer the surface, whereas the roots of sociopragmatic failure lie deeper in a persons make-up;


consequently, the language teacher is warned to treat unhappy formulations stemming from the latter with sensitivity, as corrections may be perceived by the learner as value judgments, targeting his social, political, religious or even moral beliefs (p.109). She encapsulates the distinction between the two very aptly when she writes that pragmalinguistic failure is language-specific, whereas sociopragmatic failure is culture-specific (p.101).

Pragmalinguistic failure occurs when the pragmatic force mapped by S onto a given utterance is systematically different from the force most frequently assigned to it by native speakers of the target language, or when speech act strategies are inappropriately transferred from L1 to L2.(Thomas, 1983, p.99). She argues that pragmalinguistic failure may arise from two sources: teaching-induced errors and pragmalinguistic transfer, which she terms as the inappropriate transfer of speech act strategies from one language to another, or the transfer from the mother tongue to the target language of utterances which are semantically or syntactically equivalent, but which, because of different interpretive bias, tend to convey a different pragmatic force in the target language (p.101).

She gives the example of Would you like to read?, a conventionalized request/directive in an English classroom, receiving the response No, I wouldnt in a Russian classroom. The Russian learners had no intention of being rude; they only read into the utterance a less likely interpretation in the given context, that of a genuine question about their preferences.

I came across an example of this failure in an email from a student of mine. She asked me to reconsider her term examination paper. After explaining the reasons for her complaint, she concluded, This is not just! For Gods sake please revise my mark! I understood that she used the expression for Gods sake as an equivalent of the Persian toro khoda, without realizing that the English expression has a different pragmatic force. The Persian expression introduces a deferential request and usually conveys neediness, imploration, and at times status difference in favour of the addressee. Although the English expression seems to be an approximate translation of the Persian one, its pragmatic force is quite the opposite: it introduces a directive conveying impatience, even exasperation, and implies that the speaker has the right to ask the addressee to comply with the directive. I am sure that these were not the intentions of this student.

Another example was gleaned from an English class test used in an Iranian high school. The design of the multiple choice item implied that the sentence Could you buy the book? is a question asking for information, presumably a translation of the Persian tavanesti ketab-ra bekhari? rather than as a request to do so, which is how an English native speaker would understand it.

The term sociopragmatic failure was introduced by Leech (1983, pp.10-11) and Thomas uses it to refer to the social conditions placed on language in use. Thus, the concept of the size of imposition, taboos, and cross-culturally different assessments of relative power or social distance may all give rise to sociopragmatic failure. I will look at specific manifestations of this failure below. The Way Forward The above exposition points towards the need for reliable cultural data as input for culture teaching, a fact highlighted by a number of researchers. Sajavaara argues that contrastive sociolinguistic studies indicating potential problematic areas can equip learners with the ability to make appropriate decisions so that their utterances are acceptable (1981, p.51). Janicki (1981, p.188) argues for the construction of a sociolinguistic grammar through a combination of a linguistic grammar and a grammar of social interaction. Such a grammar of


social interaction would consist of a closed number of rules capable of generating an infinite number of instances, much like grammatical rules. However, he concedes that we do not have to wait until sociolinguistic grammars have been constructed in order to tackle the use of language in social context in teaching. We can always start using the fragmentary sociolinguistic data whose collection is being encouraged or which, in some isolated cases, has already been gathered for the benefit of the foreign language learner (p.192).

Despite the call for more sociolinguistic and cultural data, Stern (1992, p.222), more than ten years after Janicki still deplored the lack of cultural documentation from major cultures and calls for more input from research, which is usually "not ongoing", resulting thus in the scantiness of culture teaching.

Judd (1983, pp. 237-238) suggests that materials designers can use three types of strategies in presenting sociolinguistic information in teaching materials, even though each one has its drawbacks. Firstly, they can consult published studies. A shortcoming of this strategy is that some, or indeed most, aspects of the use of language in a social context have not been investigated and therefore, information on them is not available (see also Stern 1992, pp. 207-208).

The second strategy open to materials designers is to conduct their own field investigation, which will allow them to check previous research findings and to add to the existing body of knowledge. However, this strategy also has serious drawbacks, among which temporal and financial constraints in the production of publications, as well as the fact that a good materials writer is unlikely to have expertise in field research methods too, which means that the results of any non-rigorous field investigation are likely to be unreliable.

The third strategy that Judd proposes is the use of intuitive data, either derived from the writers own introspection, or gleaned from conversations with native speakers, which may however lead to overgeneralization or inaccuracies. The unreliability of native speakers comments is well-documented in the literature, so I will not dwell upon it here (see e.g., Blom & Gumperz, 1972; Brouwer, Gerritsen, & DeHaan 1979; Labov, 1966; Wolfson 1983, 1989; Wolfson, Marmor, & Jones, 1989). In view of the limitations of each strategy, Judd suggests that a combination of the three should be used, where possible.

By way of summary, what is needed is: 1. More research into individual languages, which will yield information on sociocultural

features; 2. Practical application of this information in teaching materials and in teacher training,

with the aim of providing learners with the means of expressing their real intentions and the awareness of the likely results of their utterances;

3. Cultural information incorporated in teaching materials, aimed at creating a realistic picture of the second culture in the EFL learners mind.

As a first step in response to these three requirements, I will outline the main points of a cultural analysis model, that of politeness and face in Persian, and I will indicate how it can be practically applied in the identification of potential areas of pragmatic failure in Iranian EFL learners.

Let me add a caveat here: the following exposition deals with tendencies, not absolutes. The highlighting of possible differences in the two cultures aims at raising learners awareness of potential problems and contributing to their pragmatic competence, and preventing them from forming stereotypes such as the ones mentioned earlier.


A cultural model of analysis: Face and politeness in Persian and their practical implications My earlier work analyzed the system of politeness in Persian and demonstrated the centrality of the concept of face within it (1997, 2002, 2009). Based on a large body of recorded, naturally occurring interactions among native speakers, supplemented by ethnographic interviews and my own observations, the following model of face and politeness in Persian was formulated.

The concept and components of face An important basis in my description of face in Persian is Goffmans (1972) concept of face, described as an individuals most personal possession and the center of his security and pleasure. Although face belongs to the individual, it is only on loan to him from society; it will be taken away from him if he, through inappropriate behavior, shows he is unworthy of it (Goffman, 1972, p.322).

An individuals position in society places certain limitations on behavior: in order to maintain face, a person is expected to live up to his/her self-image, to show self-respect and not to carry out actions or take part in activities that are out of keeping with his/her self-image (Goffman, 1967, p.7). Such limitations in behavior stem from pride (from duty to himself 1967, p.9) or honor and, in effect, render an individual his/her own jailer, albeit in a cell of his/her liking (Goffman, 1967, pp.9-10). In the same way that individuals are concerned with their own face, they are also expected to show consideration for others faces and to work towards upholding their faces because they identify emotionally with them and their feelings (Goffman, 1967, pp.9-10).

Brown and Levinsons (1978, re-issued 1987) seminal politeness theory, harking back to Goffmans ideas, is predicated on a central notion of face, defined as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself. According to this purported universal theory, face consists of two aspects, negative and positive face, defined respectively as a model persons want to have his freedom of action unhindered and his attention unimpeded, (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p.129) and [his] perennial desire that his wants (or the actions/ acquisitions/ values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable. (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p.101). In polite communication, every act that potentially threatens face is usually accompanied by strategies directed at redressing an interlocutors negative or positive face.

Although the theory is meant to be universal, numerous researchers of different cultures have criticized its ethnocentric bias, especially the notion of negative face, which seems to be a specifically Anglo-Saxon concept (see e.g., Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989; Matsumoto, 1988, 1989; Nwoye, 1992; Mao, 1994; Koutlaki, 1997, 2002; de Kadt, 1998).

Based on Goffmans formulation of face, the concept of face in Iranian culture is understood as having two aspects, shakhsiyat and ehteram. Shakhsiyat (personality, character, self-respect, social standing) is understood as the outcome of various parameters such as the education and upbringing a person has received, and ehteram (respect, esteem, dignity) is demonstrated through conformity to the conventions of ritual (ta`arof) politeness and to other behavioural norms in interaction with others. Although the former is more static and the latter more dynamic, their manifestations are closely related. Speakers demonstrate their shakhsiyat through their verbal and non-verbal behavior which conforms to societal norms and pays the appropriate amount of ehteram to an interlocutor.

I discussed the components of the Persian concept of face and I argued that face is central in all communication in Iranian society. Face considerations are also of paramount importance in English, but the similarity ends here. According to one of Hofstedes axis of culture classification, that of collectivism vs. individualism, the US, Great Britain and


Australia rank the highest on the individualism scale, whereas Irans ranking points towards the collectivism end of the scale (Hofstede, 2001; Koutlaki, 2010)

In practice, this means that in Iranian settings, involvement and inclusion are the norm; if these are not forthcoming, hurt and offence are likely outcomes. On the contrary, mainstream English cultural norms place a high value on independence, autonomy and freedom from imposition, or Brown & Levinsons negative face. These concepts include the right to personal space, the need of an individual to be alone sometimes and to engage in activities that please him/her, even if they do not please anyone else. If these norms are not followed, it is likely that English speakers will feel their freedom limited and personal space invaded.

In Iranian society, the concept of privacy differs substantially, relating mainly to the gender segregation encouraged in Islam, not to individual wants of private space. In traditional and rural households, all the members of the family spend their time in the same room, which often doubles as a dining room and as a bedroom at night, and they do not usually withdraw to be alone in another room often not even when they pray, sleep or study (see Wierzbicka 1985, p. 164 and 1991, p. 47 about the concept of privacy in Anglo-Saxon culture). Although these patterns may not be observable any more, at least externally, in modern, urban families, the feeling is still generally one of togetherness and family and other group membership.

Having grown up in such a collectivist setting, an Iranian can find it difficult to digest the fact that an English friend, acquaintance, flatmate or spouse will want to be left alone sometimes and to do things on his/her own, and thus may interpret such behavior as a personal insult or even a downright rejection. An English colleague of mine told me that when he was working in Iran, he unwittingly offended his Iranian colleague by asking him Could I have some space please? I would like to be alone for a bit. His addressee was so hurt and offended by this, that my colleague had to apologize profusely and to explain his perspective on the situation in order to comfort him.

Another example comes from my own experience when sharing a flat with an Iranian student. One late afternoon when I was resting in my room she called me to tea. When I asked her, she told me that she had known I had been resting, but that she was concerned that if she had not called me, I would have been offended at being left out. This anecdote indicates that inclusion and togetherness often supersede all privacy considerations.

Focusing on such superficial differences can lead to negative attitudes and stereotypes, such as the ones expressed by my ex-colleagues. I maintain that the formation of such negative outcomes can be prevented by examining their roots. In following the principles of their culture in including others, Iranians intend to respect their addressees face. Similarly, in intending to communicate the same effect, the English are more likely to avoid intrusion. By understanding their radical rather than superficial differences, both groups of speakers can avoid rubbing each other up the wrong way.

In Persian communication, the expression of polite attitudes conforms to three principles, Deference, Humility and Cordiality, which I outline briefly here. (for a detailed treatment, see Koutlaki, 1997).

Deference: show deference to other; raise other in respect to self; Humility: show respect to other; lower self in respect to other. Cordiality: show interest in others affairs, concern for others needs, comfort and

welfare; express your agreement, sympathy with and friendliness towards other. Although these principles are presented separately for the purposes of analysis, they often co-

exist in interaction, as becomes clear in the brief overview that follows. These principles are realized in interaction through a variety of verbal and non-verbal behaviors.


The Deference Principle In Persian, deference often works reciprocally among equals, thus expressing solidarity, involvement and cordiality. Deference attends to the others shakhsiyat by directly or indirectly acknowledging other as superior, or better than self, even if only nominally so, by showing him/her ehteram. At the same time, self appears as knowledgeable in the ways of behavior in society, and therefore selfs shakhsiyat is satisfied too. This maxim includes a common strategy of praising ones interlocutor in terms of accomplishments, abilities, knowledge or possessions. This means that the Deference and the Humility principles often mirror each other in practice: the speaker who elevates an addressee will often humble him/herself.

In Persian interaction, deference is encoded through a wide array of verbal elements including other-raising and other-praising formulaic polite forms of verbs, such as tashrif avordan (to bring honor for to come); the use of polite pronouns (2nd person plural for a singular addressee and 3rd person plural for a singular referent); and other-raising terms of address and reference like jenab-e-ali (your excellency).

Deference, often only nominal, has a prominent place in communication among Iranians, while in contemporary English it is not anymore linguistically encoded in similar situations. If an Iranian learner of English incorrectly transfers a deference expression, e.g. the use of a higher address term, by translating it in English, or adopts a generally deferential attitude, his English-speaking interlocutor may interpret it as irony, mockery or servility and form an inaccurate impression of the speaker.

When it comes to terms of address, a contrast between English and Persian conventions can highlight important differences. In English, two options involving personal names are generally available:

TLN (Title + Last Name), eg. Mr. Smith, Dr. Allen FN (First Name), eg. Tony, Kate

Three options in Persian correspond to these two options in English:

T(T)LN (Title + (Title) + Last Name), eg. aqa-ye Samadi, khanum doctor Fouladi FN (First Name), e.g., Hossein, Mariam FNT (First Name + Title), eg. Hossein aqa, Mariam jan The simple contrast of the two systems indicates differences in usage and context; these are

to provide the raw material for teaching, which might go along the following lines. The use of TLN (Title + Last Name) is much more widespread in Iran than in Britain and

America; in professional and tertiary education settings, only TLNs are used, even if in a private setting or behind closed doors interlocutors may be on first name terms. Even lifelong acquaintances of similar status may always address each other in this way. In English-speaking settings, the opposite is generally the case, with the vast majority of participants being on first name terms with each other in the same settings.

Ide, Hill, Carnes, Ogino, and Kawasaki (1992, p. 291) write that in a culture like the US, where polite and friendly are perceived as similar concepts, it is easy to switch from the polite TLN (Title + Last Name) to FN (First Name) to address a person to whom deferential attitude is due. For Japanese speakers, in whose culture politeness and friendliness are quite discreet, learning to operate within the American system involves re-learning the concepts polite and friendly. Similarly, Iranians will need to familiarize themselves with the idea that in English the use of first names with people one is not intimate with implies friendliness and informality but not


intimacy (Wierzbicka, 1991, p.48), as the use of FN in Persian very often does. Status perceptions can also vary considerably among cultures; this fact is often manifested

in some students deferential and formal behavior towards teachers, according to the social norms of their own cultures. An instance of this failure in Iranian speakers would be identifying informality with familiarity in a British or American setting. In Iranian society, the reciprocal use of first name or FNT (as in e.g. Hossein aqa or Mariam jan) between two people can indicate varying degrees of familiarity.

On the contrary, in British and American societies generally, familiarity is not a prerequisite for informality, so people of very different status, in a work setting for example, generally address each other by their first names. Such informality may be mistaken for familiarity by an Iranian employee or student. On the other hand, if the Iranian does not feel able to follow convention and use the superiors first name and/or shows discomfort at being addressed by his first name, s/he may be perceived as aloof and difficult to approach, which may not have been his/her intention at all.

When a non-Iranian informant was working for an Iranian firm, she heard her colleagues addressing an older, but not much senior, Iranian colleague by her pet name Billy or Billy jan. But when she did so, the older colleague retorted I am not Billy; I am Mrs. X! There was clearly a mismatch in the assessments of the relationship by the two speakers.

The Humility Principle Similarly to deference, humility in Persian is expressed through the use of various strategies: self-lowering forms of verbs, such as khedmat residan (lit. to arrive at your service for to come); usage of the first person plural pronoun ma (we) to indicate one speaker (the opposite of the royal plural in English); formulaic expressions in invitations, apologies, gift offers, food offers, expressions of thanks and compliments; formulaic expressions in response to them; and self-lowering formulaic reference terms, e.g. bandeh (male slave).

In parallel to Deference, Humility is often nominal, whereas in English, equivalents to the Persian forms are not available since its expression is generally not encoded linguistically. Accordingly, the transfer of an expression or an attitude of humility can be mistaken for incompetence or lack of confidence by a native English speaker.

The verbalization of humility in Persian is often realized through formulas. Teaching the appropriate formula or equivalent expression in English can prevent inappropriate use, e.g. when offering a present, it is possible to say This is a little something Ive brought for you, in order to avoid the inappropriate translation from Persian, Ive brought something unworthy of you.

In Persian ostensible apologies are used extensively in situations where other speech acts are used in English. In a comparable situation in the two cultures, visitors thank the hosts for their hospitality at the end of a visit. Where an English speaker will offer a straightforward expression of thanks such as thank you for having me, the Iranian speaker will usually offer an ostensible apology (bebakhshid zahmat dadim). Widespread use of ostensible apologies by Iranians in English conversation as, for example, when a hostess apologizes for the quality or the scantiness of the food at the beginning or at the end of a meal, may sound too obsequious and therefore disconcerting to an English interlocutor, and may also be perceived as a self-put-down. The Cordiality Principle Behavior conforming to this maxim asserts and strengthens relationships through the demonstration of interest in others affairs, appreciation of their efforts and concern for their welfare and comfort. Such behavior can take the shape of health and other enquiries;


repeated offers of refreshments; repeated genuine or ritual (taarof) offers and expressions of thanks (see also Koutlaki, 2002); ostensible invitations; and extended closings of interactions. I outline some areas of potential misunderstanding here.

Health enquiries in Persian can take place between strangers at the opening of an interaction, e.g. in a government office. In England, transfer of this convention may give the impression that interlocutors have met before, and will almost certainly confuse the English native speaker. In Persian social encounters and telephone interactions, health enquiries are quite extensive, asking about the addressees, his spouses and their childrens health (often one by one), sometimes including enquiries about the health of the interlocutors parents, even if the speaker has never met them, which sounds bizarre to non-Iranian ears. Similar questions will be reciprocated, often at the same time. The function of such enquiries and their responses is to reassert the interlocutors goodwill and warmth of feeling towards each other. As the responses to these enquiries is usually ritual, their sheer number and the rapidity of their delivery may make the interaction sound tedious and trivial to English ears (Koutlaki, 2010).

Health enquiries are often followed by questions about the addressees recent activities and any affairs that were left pending since the interactants last communication. All these questions, often delivered in machine-gun style, are quite acceptable and expected by Iranians, but may be perceived as inquisitiveness by English native speakers.

Fertile ground for miscommunication are taboo subjects in English. In British society generally, direct inquiries about a strangers marital status, salary, religious affiliation or political conviction is in most circles unacceptably intrusive, while in other cultures such information is naturally asked for even during a first conversation among strangers (Thomas, 1983), which generally seems to be the case in Iranian society.

Such taboo subjects include the price one has paid for something, ones age, political persuasion, religion and income, which, according to Rafiee (1992) are common topics of conversation among Iranians. In a first encounter, an Iranian might also ask the interlocutors marital status and the number of his children, questions which are generally unacceptable to an English speaker. In explaining all these conventions to an Iranian EFL learner, it will be helpful to point out the cultural differences in an explanation along these lines. In asking such questions, an Iranian indicates the desire to include the new acquaintance in the circle of his/her existing acquaintances (Koutlaki, 2010) and therefore shows cordiality, whereas an English speaker most likely observes the negative face needs of the addressee, in avoiding to ask personal questions that the addressee may be unwilling to answer.

The use of address terms displays differing patterns in the two cultures. In Persian, address terms are used more liberally than in English: the choice of the term conveys deference or familiarity, as detailed earlier, but the use of a term, rather than its absence, has the function of establishing common ground and warmth. In English, the excessive use of address terms may sound odd or manipulative.

Telephone behavior is another area that features different uses in England and Iran. In Iran, until recently the telephone was not used extensively for business purposes, the effective strategy being going there in person, even only for a request for information. Thus, the telephone still retains its status as a tool for socializing, following similar conventions to face-to-face interactions, e.g. openings, health enquiries, and so on. On the contrary, in England, people depend on the telephone more for business purposes and for requesting information. In social relationships, the telephone is generally used to exchange information or for another specific reason, rather than just in order to exchange everyday news (see Beeman, 1986,


pp.180-181 for conventions of telephone usage in Iranian society). An interesting observation is that, unlike English usage, Iranians do not usually leave

factual messages on answering machines, and limit themselves to expressions conveying polite attitudes, such as zang zadam haletuno beporsam (I just rang to see how you are). One telephone message I recorded begins with, salam aleikom...cetori?... xubi? (Hello, how are you? Alright?) with pauses between the questions, as if waiting for an answer (!) and ends with a request to the recipient to return the call (see also Rafiee, 1992 for differences in other areas).

Ostensible invitations can be another source of misunderstanding. In Persian ostensible invitations are issued for instance, when an Iranian is given a lift and invites the person who brought him/her in for tea or a meal. In an interaction between Iranians, such invitations are correctly interpreted as a sincere expression- of thanks or regard- but [] rarely [as] a sincere invitation. (Beeman 1986, pp.185-186), and therefore refusal is the only expected response. Beeman explains that ostensible invitations are understood as the desire to reciprocate the favor, even if only nominally, and to bring the interaction to a close.

On the other hand, in English, an on-the-spot invitation will be interpreted as a genuine invitation, with acceptance or refusal as equally possible response, depending on the addressees convenience. Possible misunderstandings stemming from this divergence in social rules are obvious.

Insistent offers of refreshments or help and initial refusals, which are very common in Persian, convey cordiality and warmth of feeling (Koutlaki, 2002). In English however, an offer will usually be made once, possibly repeated once more, but once a refusal has been made, it is considered as final. It is worth pointing out these differences in order to avoid misunderstandings or real discomfort, e.g. an Iranian guest going hungry after having refused a second helping, in the hope that the English host will repeat the offer, or an Iranian host appearing pushy to an English guest, who has refused more food (see Rafiee, 1992).

Teaching Strategies The discussion in the previous section shows that effective culture teaching should delve deeper than the identification of differences and possibly the teaching of English expressions equivalent to Persian ones. I contend that the examination of the cultural roots of behaviors in both their own and the target culture can have numerous positive outcomes. These include learners deeper understanding of the different attitudes in the two cultures, and the development of positive attitudes towards both.

The above differences in conversational conventions and cultural reality can be effectively dealt with through a variety of strategies and teaching aids. Some situations may be easier to deal with than others, but the following teaching strategies may prove effective.

A thorough explanation of a concept or situation, illustrated by an appropriate dialogue from a textbook, or a carefully-chosen extract from a film or play will go a long way towards alerting learners to the differences between their mother language and English, thus making them aware of potential miscommunication. After the illustration, the teacher could make a note of some points to be discussed or questions to be answered orally by the students working in pairs or groups. This activity will often spark off a spontaneous class discussion, which can give the students the opportunity to air their views and to explore their initial reactions to the situation, apart from the fact that they would be practicing their spoken English.

After a few lessons, the teacher could choose one or more situations, calling for the use of the taught behavior and ask students to improvise a dialogue, or write out a short scene that


they can read to or act out in the class later. This activity can indicate whether what has been taught has been learned and assimilated, and can be used actively and spontaneously. It can also act as a springboard for raising the students awareness of the different ways of behaving in the same situation and their potential outcomes.

The teacher could also take advantage of every opportunity for explanation, possibly adding anecdotes, personal experiences and extracts from TV shows etc. in order to enhance the learners understanding. Conclusion This paper set out from a thesis that foreign language learners would benefit from an explicit understanding of certain aspects of both the target culture and their own, and that the results of cultural analysis of both the target culture and the learners own can ideally equip them with the ability to analyze and understand other cultures, and have positive effective cognitive, behavioral and affective outcomes. By way of an example, it focused on the Persian concept of face and politeness system, and outlined how some elements can be utilized in the foreign language classroom in order to raise learners awareness of cross-cultural differences.

I do not claim exhaustiveness or unshakeable validity in the areas of potential misunderstanding I have identified. These are only initial ideas, which might prove useful in the EFL classroom in helping students develop a better understanding of the culture of the target language and of their own, and ultimately develop positive attitudes towards both. This can only happen if they internalize the position that a culture, be it their own or that of the target language, is neither better or worse than any other, but simply different. References Beeman, W.O. (1986). Language, status and power in Iran. advances in Semiotics.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Blom, J.P., & Gumperz, J.J. (1972), Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching

in Norway. In J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 404-434). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Brouwer, D., Gerritsen, M., & DeHaan, D. (1979). Speech differences between men and women: On the wrong track? Language in Society, 8, 33-50.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. (Second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1972). On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In J. Laver & S. Hutcheson (Eds.), Communication in face-to-face interaction (pps. 319-346). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Gumperz J.J. (1972). Sociolinguistics and communication in small groups. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Harmer, J. The practice of English language teaching. (Fourth Edition). Harlow: Longman. Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of Linguistic

Politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347-371.


Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. (Second edition). London: Sage Publications.

Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 8-28

Hymes, D. (1971). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interactions of language and social life. In J.J. Gumperz & D. Hymes, (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Hymes, D. (1985). Toward linguistic competence. AILA Review, 2, 9-23. Ide, S. (1989), Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness.

Multilingua, 8, 223-248. Ide, S., Hill, B., Carnes, Y.M., Ogino, & T., Kawasaki, A. (1992). The concept of politeness:

An empirical study of American English and Japanese. In J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich, (Eds.), Politeness in Language. Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Studies and Monographs 59. The Hague: Mouton De Gruyter

Janicki, K. (1981). On the feasibility of pedagogical contrastive sociolinguistics. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher (pp.185-194). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Judd, E.L. (1983). The problem of applying sociolinguistic findings to TESOL: the case of male/female language. In N. Wolfson & E.L. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 234-241). Cambridge: Newbury House.

Kachru, B. (1983). Introduction: The other side of English. In B. Kachru (Ed.), The Other tongue English across cultures. Oxford: Pergamon.

De Kadt, E. (1998), The concept of face and its applicability to the Zulu language. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 173-91

Koutlaki, S.A. (1997). The Persian system of politeness and the Persian folk concept of face, with some reference to EFL teaching to Iranian native speakers. (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis), University of Wales, College of Cardiff

Koutlaki, S.A. (2002). Offers and Expressions of Thanks as Face Enhancing Acts: taarof in Persian. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1733-1756.

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, (pp.115-133). London: Equinox.

Koutlaki, S.A. (2010). Among the Iranians: A guide to Irans customs and culture. Boston, Mass: Intercultural Press.

Labov, W. (1966). The Social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman Mao, L.R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: `Face' revisited and renewed. Journal of

Pragmatics, 21, 451-486. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in

Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 403-426. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Politeness and conversational universals observations from

Japanese. Multilingua, 8, 207-221. Nwoye, O.G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and sociocultural variations of the notion of face.

Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 309-328. Rafiee, A. (1992). Variables of communicative incompetence in the performance of Iranian


learners of English and English learners of Persian. (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis), University of London.

Rajagopalan, K. (2004). The concept of World English and its implications for ELT. ELT Journal, 58, 111-117.

Sajavaara, K. (1981). Contrastive linguistics past and present and a communicative approach. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher (pp. 33-56). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S.W. (1995). Intercultural communication. Oxford: Blackwell Stern. H.H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112. Valette, R.M. (1977). Modern language testing. (Second Edition). New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich. Widdowson, H.G. (1979). Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts: Polish

vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-178. Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: the semantics of Human Interaction.

Trends in Linguistics-Studies and Monographs 53. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Wolfson, N. (1983). An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English. In

N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 82-95). Cambridge:Newbury House.

Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge: Newbury House. Wolfson, N., Marmor, T., & Jones, S. (1989). Problems in the comparison of speech acts

across cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 174-196). Volume XXXI. Advances in Discourse Processes. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

About the author Greek-born Sofia A. Koutlaki studied the system of politeness in Persian for her Ph.D. (Cardiff 1997) and has since published internationally on the subject, including Among the Iranians: A Guide to Irans Customs and Culture. She has taught in London and Tehran, and now teaches at Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran. Her academic interests include all aspects of politeness and face in Iranian culture and the development of speaking and writing in EFL students. She also carries out translation and copyediting work on a freelance basis.

Documents

A Model of Cultural Analysis and Its Application in the Teaching of Culture 2013