Honorific behavior is a phenomenon which is frequently observed in Iranian society. Ta'arof is an element of Iranian honorific system, and is the most common, characteristic concept of interaction in Iran. It is principally expressed by exalting/humbling forms, formulaic utterances and non-verbal behaviors; and, is considered not only as lingustic etiquette but also a criterion for estimating speaker's competency or educational level. Therefore, much attention has been given to ta'arof as such [Jahangiri (1980), Beeman(1986), Moosavi(1986)].
In previous studies, ta'arof is interpreted as an equivalent for the polite form in Persian which reflects the power relation between a speaker and an addressee in a discourse. Beeman claims, “ta'arof is the active, ritualized realization of differential perceptions of superiority and inferiority in interaction”. These works give importance to classifying exalting/humbling expressions of ta'arof by degree of represented status difference.
The framework in these studies, however, is inadequate and fails to grasp and clarify the function and the system of ta'arof. The author has investigated primarily verbal expressions of ta'arof through an interview method, and has so far recorded a considerable sample of ta'arof usages which can not be analyzed in the current framework. The purpose of the present paper is to point out problems of the framework itself and to propose the following viewpoints for studying ta'arof on the basis of the results of our research.
1) To distinguish ta'arof from zaban-e mo'addabane, another part of the Iranian honorific system.
Iranian honorific system consists of two elements, ta'arof and zaban-e mo'addabane. Zaban-e mo'addabdne, “polite language” in literal translation, is a kind of language use which directly reflects the power structure and distance among participants in discourse. Ta'arof and zaban-e mo'addabdne are used properly according to each context and perceived with quite different feelings. For this reason these elements should be differentiated and treated separately and individually.
However, the previous studies have not referred to zaban-e mo'addabane and tend to confuse the usage of ta'arof and zaban-e mo'ddabane. It is because ta'drof and zaban-e mo'addabane are largely similar in appearances.
2) To recognize ‘mutual understanding’ as the main purpose of ta'arof.
As mentioned above, ta'arof and zaban-e mo'addabane are two separate parts of the honorific system. In order to differentiate between the two elements, their purposes and considerations may be suggested as that which distinguishes them apart. That is, while ta'arof chiefly aims at establishing the socio-communicative interaction and often functions as a phatic communion, mutual intelligibility is the most important purpose in zaban-e mo'addabane. This difference is definitely observed in discourse structure, the represented power relationship and several pragmatic points. These can be clarified by a sociolinguistic research on the system of actual usages and speaker's consciousness of ta'arof and zaban-e mo'addabane.

抄録全体を表示