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 Englishspeaking 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 nonnative 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

286

The Handbook of Current Research

English as an abstract linguistic system isolated from the culture, as in the GrammarTranslation 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;

Sofia A. Koutlaki/A Model of Cultural Analysis and Its Applications 287

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;

288

The Handbook of Current Research

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

Sofia A. Koutlaki/A Model of Cultural Analysis and Its Applications 289

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.

290

The Handbook of Current Research

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

Sofia A. Koutlaki/A Model of Cultural Analysis and Its Applications 291

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 coexist 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.

292

The Handbook of Current Research

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 Englishspeaking 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

Sofia A. Koutlaki/A Model of Cultural Analysis and Its Applications 293

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;

294

The Handbook of Current Research

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 faceto-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,

Sofia A. Koutlaki/A Model of Cultural Analysis and Its Applications 295

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

296

The Handbook of Current Research

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. 319346). 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.

Sofia A. Koutlaki/A Model of Cultural Analysis and Its Applications 297

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

298

The Handbook of Current Research

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.