International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 14 (3), March 2017; 27-­‐33 Hashemi Yazdan Abad, A., & Afraz, Sh
EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org THE STUDY OF TAAROF (COMPLIMENT) IN NATIVE
SPEAKERS IN QESHM
Seyyed Amene Hashemi Yazdan Abad
M.A.Student in TEFL
Qeshm International Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qeshm, Iran
[email protected]
Shahram Afraz (Ph.D)
Department Of Qeshm International Branch, Islamic Azad University, Qeshm, Iran
ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is to study or survey how native people do taarof regarding their sexes,
ages ,and educations in Qeshm Island which is located in the south of Iran. Also, it examine s
44 male persons that the twenty of whom have university degree such as B.A, M.A, and Ph.D,
but the rest have or have no diploma degree or educational background. Moreover, the
researcher use a questionnaire including 19 multiple choice items and also apply ISDM formula
(interval standard deviation from mean) and SPSS software for computing the results in order to
determine how native speakers act in various situation and try to discover whether major factors
such as religion, culture, and migration which affect on doing taarof. The achievements or the
results of this paper can be helpful for the future researches in linguistic specially in
sociolinguistic, anthropology and for comparing different cultural phenomenon in different cities
of Iran.
KEYWORDS: Taarof, sociolinguistic, anthropology, linguistic, uestionnaire
INTRODUCTION
This paper deals with " tæ'arof " and whether it has to do with educational level in, Qeshm a
large island in the south of Iran. We have avoided the use of the word "compliments" for '
tæُ◌arof ', as we think that this word cannot cover all the senses of Persian 'taarof'.
Etymologically, tæُ◌arof is an Arabic word, meaning "mutual recognition". So, this indicates that
tæُ◌arof functions as a tool for negotiating interactions relationships.
Abbas Arianpour defines Taarof as compliments, ceremony, offer, courtesy, flattery, formality,
good manners, soft tongue and respect (306-7). Therefore, the word 'Taarof' sometimes has a
positive sense (courtesy, good manners), and sometimes has a negative sense (flummery, flattery,
empty formalities and ceremonies). No exact lexical equivalent in English can we find for Persian
Taarof.The researchers who have studied Taarof have glossed it as " ritual courtesy " (Beeman
56), and "expressed courtesy" (Bateson, et al. 270). So, tæُ◌arof is a very complex concept which
carries different meanings in the minds of the native speakers of Persian. That is why we have not
used the word 'compliments' for Persian ' Taarof '.
27
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 14 (3), March 2017; 27-­‐33 Hashemi Yazdan Abad, A., & Afraz, Sh
EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Generally speaking, Iranian people have achieved a certain notoriety at doing more Taarof than
needed. We might say that Qeshmi people are not an exception to the rule. However, social
variables including sex, educational level, etc. may affect the use of Taarof and reflect in part
different expressions of offer and thanks used by speakers of a language or a variety of a
language. This paper will address the relationship between taarof and the level of education in
Qeshm Island.
Specifically, on the basis of data collected from people who have and those who have not had
higher education in universities, whether expressions of tæُ◌arofare used by these two classes of
people will be identified and discussed, then the 'hows' and 'whys' of the matter will be explicitly
dealt with.
There isn’t any research paper in English on taarof in Iran. It is a part of Iranian convention. But
maybe some factors such as , culture, religion, social factors ,and migration can influence on
doing taarof in every day conversation.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Do native speakers do taarof (compliment) in Qeshm?
METHODOLOGY
For the purposes of this investigation, which by definition deals with speakers with and without
educational background, we collected the data, through a questionnaire, from 44 speakers, twenty
two of whom had university degrees, and the other twenty two enjoyed no university educational
background. Of the former group, two had Ph.D, three had M.A, seven were students of M.A and
the rest had B.A. Yet, the later group were all shopkeepers and they had or didn't have diploma
degree, two of whom were even not literate enough to answer the question of the questionnaire.
The shopkeepers being all males, we selected the educational subjects all from males rather than
females lest the sex variable should affect the outcomes of the research. We presented the
subjects with a questionnaire consisting of nineteen questions, which had multiple-choice
construction.
The questionnaire was designed carefully enough to elicit responses as regards whether, how and
why the subjects do Taarof, as well as regarding their inclination to receive Taarof. This research
was also aimed at seeking purposes for which the subjects do Taarof. Moreover, we included
some questions in our questionnaire so as to elicit responses as to whether the subjects' use of
Taarof was internalized or externalized. In addition to this, awareness of the formality of the
language used in Taarof was also aimed at through a few questions. On the whole, our
questionnaire was designed to elicit a lot of useful information on the subjects' views on Taarof.
The data gathered was analyzed carefully enough to cover the whole minute details of the subject
matter. No problem did we meet indeed as far as the multiple-choice questions were concerned,
28
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 14 (3), March 2017; 27-­‐33 Hashemi Yazdan Abad, A., & Afraz, Sh
EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org since it was already clear that each question was purported to, and the subjects' responses
indicated their very action of and opinion about a given aspect of tæُ◌arof in a particular sitting.
Moreover, we analyzed the data by ISDM formula which stands for interval standard deviation
from mean.we also used SPSS soft ware for obtaining frequency levels of doing of tæُ◌arof
between educated and uneducated individuals. Questions had been included so as to cover a
certain aspect of tæُ◌arof. Each option reflected the way that particular aspect of tæُ◌arof was
used by each subject. For instance, a question which was encompassed to elicit responses
regarding the formality of the language each researchee used had options including excessive use
(too formal), moderate use (moderate formality), a little use (less formal) and no use (quite
informal).
Then, we compared the subjects from the two groups on this particular aspect of the language
used in Taarof, and through this comparison, based on the options the two groups had or had not
selected, we came to the conclusion that the shopkeepers are somehow less formal in the
language they use in Taarof than the educated people. Other conclusions we reached will be
discussed in the next part of the paper.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of this study are summarized as follows:
The description and rating of the data is estimated through ISDM formula which divides the data
into four groups including informal, moderate, less formal and too formal using mean, standard
deviation, and maximum and minimum of LIKERT scale of items. In this article, LIKERT scale
increases with an increase of taarof in the choices. We rank the answers orderly from one to
four. For example a choice represents the least doing of tæُ◌arofis allocated number one and in
order with an increase of taerof in the choices , the allocated number increases to number four. So
, a choice implies the most doing of tæُ◌arof is assigned number four.
Informal: Min < A < Mean-SD
Moderate: Mean-SD < A < Mean
Less formal: Mean < A < Mean+ SD
Too formal: Mean +SD < A < Max
Amounts
1/59
0/15
4
1
Table 1: Mean and standard deviation (SD) of taerof in educated individuals
Obtained statistics from 19 items in educated individuals
Mean
SD
Maximum
minimum
According Table 1 the mean of replies in educated persons is 1/59 which places between informal
and moderate groups. Due to the amount of SD, the amount of deviation of tæُ◌arof in educated
individuals from the mean of Taarof is 0/15.
Informal: 1 < A< 1/44
Moderate : 1/44 < A <1/59
29
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 14 (3), March 2017; 27-­‐33 Hashemi Yazdan Abad, A., & Afraz, Sh
EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Less formal: 1/59 <A <1/74
Too formal: 1/74 < A <4
Frequency percentile
18/2
27/3
45/5
1/9
Table 2: The frequency levels of Taarof in educated individuals
frequency
Levels
4
6
10
2
Informal
Moderate
Less formal
Too formal
With regarding to Table 2, the behavior of four respondents is informal and (18/2) percent of
individuals locate in informal group. But the behavior of six respondents stands for moderate
group. As shown in the Table 2, the rest of the individuals place in less informal (10) and too
informal (2).
Amounts
1/41
0/09
4
1
Table 3: Mean and standard deviation (SD) of taerof in uneducated individuals
Obtained statistics from 19 items in uneducated
individuals
Mean
SD
Maximum
minimum
Regarding to Table 3 the mean of answers in uneducated individuals is 1/41 which locates
between informal and moderate groups. Due to the amount of SD, the amount of deviation of
tæُ◌arof in uneducated individuals from the mean of Taarof is 0/09 which represents that the
distribution of answers in uneducated individuals than the mean of the replies is less than this
amount in educated persons.
Informal: 1 < A< 1/32
Moderate : 1/32 < A < 1/41
Less formal: 1/41 <A < 1/151
Too formal: 1/51 < A < 4
Frequency percentile
4/5
54/5
41
0
Table 4: The frequency levels of tæُ◌arofin uneducated individuals
frequency
Levels
1
12
9
0
Informal
Moderate
Less formal
Too formal
30
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 14 (3), March 2017; 27-­‐33 Hashemi Yazdan Abad, A., & Afraz, Sh
EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org Table 5: The comparison of frequency levels of Taarof in educated and uneducated individuals
uneducated
Educated
Levels
Frequency
1
12
9
0
Frequency
percentile
4/5
54/4
41
0
Frequency
Frequency
percentile
18/2
27/3
45/5
1/9
4
6
10
2
Informal
Moderate
Less formal
Too formal
According to obtained results 18/2 percent of educated individuals are informal in return, 4/5
percent of uneducated individuals are informal. Also, 27/3 percent of educated persons are
moderate and 54/5 percent of uneducated individuals are moderate too. 45/5 percent of educated
persons are less formal and this number in uneducated persons is 41 percent. 1/9 percent of
educated persons are too formal and this number in uneducated persons is 0.
Table 6: The rate of taarof in educated individuals
Informal
Moderate
Less formal
Too formal
Table 7: The rate of taarof in uneducated individuals
InformalModerate Less formal Too formal
Informal
Moderate
Less formal
Too formal
31
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 14 (3), March 2017; 27-­‐33 Hashemi Yazdan Abad, A., & Afraz, Sh
EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org CONCLUSION
As mentioned above, according to Table 1 and Table 3 the mean of answers in educated and
uneducated locates between informal and moderate group. For example, the same number of the
two social classes pointed out that in a setting where they have received a guest during lunch,
they do not keep doing tæُ◌arof so repeatedly, but they do not tæُ◌arof more than one or two
times to invite their gust. Also, they use the word, befarma, or welcome in such situation.
So in Qeshm, it is not common for the educated and uneducated native speakers to do more
tæُ◌arof than needed. These two social classes were not shown to do tæُ◌arofin in their everyday
conversations almost equally. Among the educated as well as among the uneducated researchees,
most of them said they would not do Taarof at arrival on their certain place.
In addition to the above, it was shown that the most of the two groups of researchees responded
that they would give up their seats to an old man or woman, and what drives them to such a
reaction was said to be their conformity to moral principles rather than any religious affiliations
or social admirations. Also an equal high number of the two groups, when asked to express their
general view on tæُ◌arof in our society, gave their opinion both for and against it. However, the
uneducated subjects sufficed it to say that tæُ◌arof is good if done moderately, rather than
excessively. Unlike this group, the educated researchers presented us with some reasons why they
prefer a moderate use of tæُ◌arof. Among the reasons were: a) Tæُ◌arof shows our awareness of
social norms b) it has been integrated with our culture c) It is a social construct and so common
in our society that we cannot and should not put it away, and d) It is used with an ' interactional '
purpose. Moreover, migration from various cities and countries to Qeshm which leads to change
in their cultures and belifes. So, it is concerned with some positive and negative effects on their
views to do Taarof.
A controversial conclusion we came to was about the subjects' reaction in a situation where on
their arrival at a party, no one stands up to show respect for them. Almost half of the researchees
from the educated group responded that they expected the people sitting there to stand up and
thus show their respect for them, but if they didn't do so, that would make no difference.
However, to this question, the same number of the shopkeepers replied that they didn't expect to
be respected, as their personality was such that they didn't expect others to show respect for them.
We think that such responses stem from the subjects' experiences in their daily social relations
with others. As we can see, knowledge and the knowledgeable have values in every culture, so
because the knowledgeable are usually looked up to by others, this behavior brings about an
expectation within them. Of course, this might be a hurried judgment and conclusion and this
point does need further detailed investigation.
We also reached the conclusion that taarof is not an internalized matter for the uneducated and
educated people in Qeshm; that is, what causes them to do taarof is external factors rather than
their firm opinion and belief.
In conclusion, the use of taarof in Qeshm, by the educated people is almost the same as that of
by theuneducated people. Because in their cultures and communities, tæُ◌arof and formality has
32
International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World
(IJLLALW)
Volume 14 (3), March 2017; 27-­‐33 Hashemi Yazdan Abad, A., & Afraz, Sh
EISSN: 2289-­‐2737 & ISSN: 2289-­‐3245 www.ijllalw.org no place. For example, the most common expression used in their ceremonies is, befarma, in
order to invite their guests, but they do not apply it repeatedly (one or two times). However, the
educated people believe that tæُ◌arof should not be so highly used as it may slow down our daily
activities and affairs. Yet, the two groups favored a less use of tæُ◌arof and pointed out that some
instances of tæُ◌arof in our society are actually unnecessary and need be put away. As the reason
for which they dotæُ◌arof, the two groups believed that it roots from our moralities and cultural
interferences, rather than from any religious or social affiliations.
REFERENCES
Aryanpour, A., & Aryanpour, M. (1976).The Concise Persian-English Dictionary.One
volume.Tehran: Amir kabir Publication.
Beeman, W.O. (1986). Language, Status and Power in Iran. IndianaUniversity Press,
Brown, P., &
Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness
Phenomena.Cambridge University Press.
Brown, D., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, R.A. (1980). Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Milroy, L., & Gordon, M. (2003). Sociolinguistics Methods and Interpretations.Oxford:
Blackwell Publication.
Wardhaugh, R. (1986). An Introduction to sociolinguistics.Oxford:BasilBlackwell Ltd.
33