Cultural schemas in intercultural communication

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication: A study of the Persian cultural schema of sharmandegi ‘being ashamed’ Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani

Abstract This paper explores the Persian cultural pragmatic schema of sharmandegi ‘being ashamed,’ which underlies the enactment of several speech acts in Persian. These include expressing gratitude, offering goods and services, requesting goods and services, apology, refusal, and accepting offers. For instance, the schema encourages Persian speakers to use the expression sharmandam ‘I am ashamed’ when inviting guests to the dinner table, suggesting that their food is not worthy of the guests. In this instance, this is a linguistic strategy to achieve positive politeness for the speaker. The paper presents some naturally occurring data from intercultural contexts where a Persian speaker has enacted the same schema communicating with Australian English speaking interlocutors. Elicited interpretations of the use of the expression of sharmandegi (such as ‘I am ashamed I didn’t call you’ or ‘I’m sorry the food is not good’) from a number of Australian English speakers reveal the potential for misunderstanding on the part of non-Persian speakers in intercultural communication with Persian speakers who use this schema when speaking English. In general, this study further reveals the potential of cultural schema theory for studies of intercultural pragmatics and contributes to the body of research on intercultural communication involving speakers of Persian. 1. Introduction An Iranian student at Shiraz University receives from her American lecturer the recommendation letter that she had asked him to write for her and then turns to him and says, “I’m ashamed.” Bewildered by the student’s response, the lecturer asks, “What have you done?!!!” (Personal data)

The above incident is a clear example of miscommunication between the two speakers from different cultural backgrounds. This miscommunication has resulted from the use of “I’m ashamed” by the student, as part of an exchange in Intercultural Pragmatics 8-2 (2011), 227–251 DOI 10.1515/IPRG.2011.011

1612-295X/11/0008-0227 © Walter de Gruyter

228  Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani which she would have been expected to express gratitude to the lecturer for writing her a recommendation letter. The aims of this paper are (a) to shed light on the nature of such miscommunication by elaborating on the Persian cultural schema of sharmandegi, ( b) to examine the realization of the schema of sharmandegi (roughly meaning ‘being ashamed’) in intercultural contexts i­nvolving Persian speakers and Anglo-Australian speakers, and (c) to explore in general the merit of cultural schema theory for studying speech acts and/in intercultural communication. The main premise underlying this study is that a d­isparity in the cultural schemas that the interlocutors bring to a communicative event can lead into misunderstanding and miscommunication. The paper begins with some background on schema theory, followed by an explication of the notion of cultural schema. It then proceeds to examine the Persian cultural schema of sharmandegi as it is used in association with, or to achieve certain speech acts. The later part of the paper examines this cultural schema and its linguistic realization in intercultural communication involving Persian speakers of Iranian background in Australia.

2. Schema theory and cultural schemas “Schema” has been one of the most widely used notions across various fields such as cognitive psychology (e.g., Bobrow and Norman 1977, Norman and Rumelhart 1975, Schank and Abelson 1977), artificial intelligence (Arbib et al. 1987), cognitive linguistics (Chafe 1994, Langacker 1987, 1991), cultural linguistics (Palmer 1996, Sharifian 2001, Sharifian and Palmer 2007), and cognitive anthropology (D’Andrade 1995, Strauss and Quinn 1997). The exact definition of schema largely depends on the views held concerning the nature of mental representations and the nature of human cognition. It seems that every new paradigm and every sub-discipline in cognitive science gives a new interpretation to the notion of “schema” due to the position it occupies in competing frameworks. This multiplicity in the interpretation is clearly reflected in Reber and Reber’s (2001: 649) definition of schema in the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology: A plan, an outline, a structure, a framework, a programme, etc. In all or any of these meanings the assumption is that the schemata (or schemas) are cognitive, mental plans that are abstract and that serve as guides for action, as structures for interpreting information, as organized frameworks for solving problems, etc.

The concept of schema underlies terms such as script, frame, global concept, scenario, encyclopedic entry, plan, etc. in cognitive studies. Several classifications of schemas have also been proposed. Cook (1994) makes a distinction between three types of schema: world schema, text schema, and language

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication  229 schema. Cook (1994: 15) uses “world schema” to refer to the schematic organization of world knowledge and “text schema” to refer to “a typical ordering of facts in a real or fictional world.” “Language schema” refers to generalized knowledge about the grammar of a language. Schema theory provides a useful tool in studies of cognition, language, and culture. The notion of schema in fact has provided an interface between cognition, culture, and language (e.g., D’Andrade 1995, Holland and Cole 1995, Rice 1980, Sharifian 2008, Shore 1996, Strauss and Quinn 1997). This is due to the generally agreed view of schemas as cognitive phenomena that are in most cases derived from cultural experience and which are often instantiated and embodied in linguistic expression. Strauss and Quinn (1997) elaborately discuss cultural schemas within the framework of the connectionist paradigm in cognitive science. As mentioned earlier, connectionists consider schemas as patterns of activation among strongly interconnected units in the human memory network. Strauss and Quinn (1997: 7) believe that schemas are cultural to the extent that they are not predetermined genetically. Within the framework of cultural conceptualizations and language (Sharifian 2011) cultural schemas do not just exist in the individual mind but also have a life at the group level of cognition, referred to as “cultural cognition.” This framework explores schemas as emerging from the interactions among the members of a cultural group and views them as being distributed in a h­eterogeneous way across the mind in a cultural group. Members of a cultural group negotiate and renegotiate these schemas and pass them onto later generations. Cultural schemas may be instantiated through the use of language, in painting, rituals, and even in silence (Shore 1996). Various levels and units of language such as morphosyntactic features, lexical items, speech acts, idioms, metaphors, discourse markers, etc., may be entrenched in cultural schemas (see more in Sharifian 2011). Aspects of language that heavily draw on cultural schemas may facilitate intra-cultural communication, while debilitating intercultural communication. Within a cultural group, communication based on c­ultural schemas involves a much more fluid transfer of messages and yields more homogeneous interpretations than communication based on idiosyncratic, individual-based schemas. At the level of pragmatic meaning, the interpretation of various utterances in association with different speech acts operates on the basis of “inference,” which in fact depends upon schemas that interlocutors more or less share (see also Wierzbicka 1987, 1991, 1996). Wierzbicka and her colleagues have developed an approach for exploring the cultural underpinning of speech acts known as Natural Semantic Metalanguage (e.g., Wierzbicka 1991, Wierzbicka and Goddard 2004). Within this

230  Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani a­pproach, cultural values and attitudes, or what they term “cultural scripts,” which give rise to pragmatic devices, are explicated in terms of a set of fundamental meanings, termed “semantic primes,” alleged to be universal. The use of pragmatic devices in conversation is usually tied to the assumption of shared schemas, and miscommunication often occurs when such assumptions are not met, either fully or partially. That is, when interlocutors do not totally share their schemas. These schemas may be termed cultural pragmatic schemas (Sharifian 2008b). Sharifian (2008b) explores the cultural pragmatic schema of shekasteh-nafsi ‘modesty’ and examines how it underlies the use of compliment responses among speakers of Persian, both in their L1 and their L2 (English). Studies of cultural pragmatic schemas (e.g., Sharifian 2007) have begun to reveal the strength of this approach in exploring the language of politeness, which is acknowledged in the literature to be culturally constructed (e.g., Blum-Kulka, House et al. 1989). The following section will return to the incident of miscommunication cited in the beginning of this chapter. As mentioned above, the miscommunication between the American lecturer and the Iranian student occurred due to the use of “I’m ashamed” by the student. The key to this incidence lies in the following schematic information. The lecturer comes from a cultural-linguistic background (Anglo-American) where “ashamed” would be interpreted to mean “a: feeling shame, guilt, or disgrace b: feeling inferior or unworthy” (MerriamWebster Dictionary online) — hence his surprise at the student’s remark. However, in Persian (the official language in Iran) the expression sharmandam,1 which is literally translated into English as “I’m ashamed,” is associated with a much wider range of speech acts including those associated with expressing gratitude, offering goods and services, and apologizing. This will be elaborated throughout this paper. In expressing gratitude, sharmandam can be used by itself or in conjunction with other formulaic expressions. Thus, it can be noted that the student in fact intended to express her gratitude to the lecturer by saying “I’m ashamed.” Still, the question is why a person should feel “ashamed” when asking for a favor or expressing gratitude. This is where we need to further relate linguistic behavior to deeper levels of cultural thinking to arrive at the cultural schemas that under­ lie the use of language by a speech community. The following section will provide a preamble to the discussion of Persian cultural schemas by presenting some background about the culture and rhetoric of Persian speaking Iranians. 3. Persian language and culture Persian (also known as Farsi) is an Indo-European (more specifically, IndoIranian) language that is mainly spoken in Iran and some parts of Afghanistan

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication  231 and Tajikistan. Persian is also spoken by communities of Iranians and Afghanis living in different parts of the world. Historically, the development of Persian has been described in terms of three distinct phases: Old Persian, Middle Persian, and Modern Persian. Modern Persian has retained a simplified syntax from Middle Persian and is written in Persian-Arabic script. The lexicon of Modern Persian includes borrowings from other languages such as Arabic, Turkish, French, and English. Persian culture and civilization have always fascinated Iranian and non-­ Iranian scholars in different fields (Asadi 1980, 1982; Beeman 1976, 1986, 1988, 2001; Eslami Rasekh 2004; Hillmann 1981; Hodge 1957; Keshavarz 2001; Modarressi-Tehrani 2001; O’Shea 2000; Wilber 1967). Beeman (1986) observes that in particular interpersonal social relations in Iran have been of prime interest to non-Iranians. He argues that the quality of social life in Iran differs significantly from that of even its close neighbors. For Beeman, personal relations in Iran are comparable to an art, one that requires sophisticated skills. Personal relations are negotiated largely through communication and thus Beeman observes that for Iranians, verbal skills and language use have a remarkable significance in everyday life. This significance may be reflected in several Persian phrases such as hormateh kalam, roughly meaning “deference of speech,” ghedasateh kalam, roughly meaning “sacredness of speech,” efateh kalam, roughly meaning “chastity of speech.” Spending several years as an anthropologist in Iran, Beeman comments on the Iranian art of speech as f­ollows: A person’s verbal performance becomes pregnant as the listener, practicing the skills he or she possesses as a communicator, tries to register every nuance of the verbal performance and interpret it successfully (1986: 2).

This quotation from Beeman shows how the verbal art of Iranians deeply rooted in Persian culture can impress outsiders. The following section will explore the cultural pragmatic schema of sharmandegi, through examining its realization in certain formulaic expressions associated with certain speech acts in Persian. The data used in this paper come from two sources: (a) the real-life commu­ nicative experiences of the authors, and ( b) anecdotal stories of fellow Iranians in Australia, as related to either of the authors. In the following section, we will use the Persian data first, to give the reader a feel for the context of the use of this schema in Iran, and then will go on to look at its application in an intercultural context by Persian speakers of Iranian background who use the translation “I’m ashamed” in their interaction with Australian English s­peakers. 4. Data sources The data used in this paper are of two types, which can be labeled intracultural  and intercultural. As examples of the use of sharmandegi in Persian

232  Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani i­ntraculturally, data were sentences constructed by the authors from their experience except for the case of one excerpt from an email. The list of sentences was then presented to a group of five native speakers of Persian, all of whom confirmed that the sentences were natural-sounding utterances in Persian. The intercultural data came from introspective anecdotes recalled by a number of Persian speakers of Iranian background living in Australia about situations in which they used some expression arising from the sharmandegi schema in conversations in English with Anglo-Australians. The former data were part of a corpus of data collected by the second author as part of a larger study of language, culture, and identity changes of Iranian migrants in Australia (Jamarani 2009). The methodology used to collect the intercultural communication data was a combination of observation and interviews. Data were collected through active participant-observation and interviews. Participants in the Jamarani’s study were 15 first-generation Iranians in Queensland, Australia, between 31 and 55 years of age, with their length of residency out of Iran ranging from 5 to 20 years. During the interviews, participants were prompted to talk about their lives, their settlement processes, their attitudes toward ethnic language and cultural maintenance, and the modifications they had made in their identities since migration. The participants were also asked about their experiences of intercultural communication, prompted by questions such as, “Have you ever been misunderstood or discriminated against because of your language use?” In r­esponse to such questions, some participants elaborated on communication problems due to cultural differences with Anglo-Australians. One of the examples that emerged as significant, being reported by a number of different Iranians in the study was the use of expressions that reflect the cultural schema of Sharmandegi. We have extracted those examples from the corpus of data and will analyze them in this paper, using cultural schema as the analytic, too. The use of introspective data collected during an interview is a compromise between the use of DCT data, which is alleged to be unnatural, and naturally occurring data, which needs much time and many resources to collect. Introspective data is still natural in the sense that it is based on the recall of real experience, although the exact details of the recalled data may not be accurate. This kind of data enjoys a relatively high degree of feasibility, in the sense that it can be collected in one or more data collection sessions. Furthermore, it should be noted that as we increase the naturalness of the data collected for intercultural studies, we decrease the degree to which the findings can be replicable, which is a real concern for those who closely follow the principles of empirical sciences. But it seems that the field of intercultural pragmatics in recent years has generally tended toward more naturalistic approaches to data collection, so that as much as possible data would mirror the use of language in real communicative contexts.

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication  233 5. Persian cultural pragmatic schema of Sharmandegi The Persian cultural pragmatic schema of sharmandegi is instantiated in several formulaic expressions in Persian, such as sharmandam (a short form for sharmandeh hastam meaning “I’m ashamed”) or sharmandam mikonid (meaning “you make me ashamed”). One frequently hears such expressions in everyday conversations among Iranians, especially when they talk to non-intimates. In fact as we observed earlier, an Iranian learner of English may also use the English translation of these expressions in his or her communications with foreigners. These expressions are associated with performing certain speech acts, some of which are discussed below. 5.1. Expressing gratitude Expressions of sharmandegi, such as sharmandam, either by themselves or in conjunction with certain other formulaic expressions, may be employed to express gratitude for goods or services received from others. In such instances, these expressions can often be followed by other statements that may reveal the speaker’s willingness to compensate for what he or she has received. The cultural rationale behind this pattern of linguistic behavior is an expression of awareness that the other person has spent some time/energy in providing the speaker with goods and services they were under no obligation to supply. The speaker acknowledges this by uttering “shame” statements, as if guilty because of this awareness. Consider the following sentence that was written in an otherwise English email to the first author, in response to a relatively minor favor: (1)

Vaghan ke man ro sharmandeh Really that me DO-marker ashamed kardin, I really thank you from the bottom of my heart, you did . . . ‘You really made me ashamed, I really . . . .2

The above sentence reveals how sharmandegi may be associated with an expression of gratitude. It is also interesting to note that the speaker shows their awareness of the fact that the English translation of sharmandeh (i.e., I’m ashamed) may not be appropriate and thus switches to Persian for the expression of sharmandegi (i.e., being sharmandeh). 5.2. Offering goods and services Another speech act associated with the use of expressions of sharmandegi is ‘offering goods and services.’ It is not rare for Iranians to say “sharmandam” when offering goods and services, such as food, to visitors. Such expressions

234  Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani are often accompanied by other formulaic expressions that may undervalue the service being offered or suggesting that what is being offered is not worthy of the recipient. In such cases sharmandegi is a reflection of hospitality. The f­ollowing text, uttered by a host when inviting the visitors to help themselves to food, exemplifies how sharmandegi may be encoded verbally during the invitation: (2)

Khahesh mikonam befarmain, sharmandam, ghabeleh shoma Please help yourself, I’m ashamed, worthy of you ro nadareh, DO-marker doesn’t have ‘Please help yourself, I’m ashamed, it’s not worthy of you.’

In particular, an expression of sharmandegi here suggests the high degree of esteem that a host should hold for a guest. It is a gesture of politeness and h­ospitality. 5.3. Requesting goods and services Still another speech act in Persian associated with the use of sharmandegi expressions is ‘requesting goods and services.’ Often among Iranians, one hears that when making a request, the speaker either apologizes by saying, for example, “bebakhshid ” meaning “forgive me,” or expresses sharmandegi as a disclaimer,3 using one of the expressions we have noted so far in this paper. Note the following utterance, made by an Iranian to a colleague: (3)

Sharmandam, mitunam khahesh konam chand daghighe az vaghtetuno I’m ashamed, can I beg do some minutes from your time be man bedid? to me you give. ‘I’m ashamed, can I beg some minutes of your time?’

In such cases, the expression of sharmandegi is associated with the consciousness on the part of the person making the request that people are not obliged to do such things for each other. 5.4. Apologizing Another speech act associated with sharmandegi is ‘apologizing.’ Consider the following sentence, said by an Iranian to his neighbor apologizing for the noise made during a party, which the speaker assumes may have kept her neighbor awake: (4) Vaghean sharmandam ke saro sedayeh bacheha nagzasht Really I’m ashamed that noise kids didn’t let

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication  235

shoma bekhabid. you sleep. ‘I’m really ashamed that the noise from the kids didn’t let you sleep.’

5.5. Accepting offers and refusals In conversations among Persian speakers, sharmandegi may be expressed as a disclaimer in association with some other speech acts such as accepting offers or refusals. The following sentences exemplify such usages: (5) Speaker A: man miresunametun I will.give.you.a ride. ‘I will give you a ride.’ Speaker B: (after twice rejection of the offer) Sharmandam, lotf mikon-in. I’m ashamed kind do-you ‘I am ashamed, that is kind of you.’ (6) Sharmandam nemitunam biam oonja I’m ashamed I can’t come over there ‘I’m ashamed, I can’t come over there.’ In (5) above, speaker B uses sharmandam as a disclaimer in accepting the offer of the ride, to acknowledge that speaker A is extending a favor beyond the call of duty. In (6), the speaker uses sharmandam as a disclaimer when refusing an invitation. This usage prepares the listener for rejection by expressing the speaker’s discomfort in rejecting the invitation. This usage reduces the severity of the face-threatening act (FTA) of refusal for the hearer. A close look at the above cases of the expression of sharmandegi suggests that they are all derived from a set of sub-schemas that fall under one over­ arching schema, at a higher level of abstraction, that we refer to collectively as sharmandegi. In general, these schemas encourage Iranian speakers to be very much conscious of the imbalances in their give-and-takes in daily social interactions. For example, the speaker is urged to be overtly conscious of the resources (such as time, money, effort, etc.) that others have or will expend for them in various forms, and to acknowledge them by expressing the feeling of “shame” (examples 1 and 3). The speaker is also encouraged to consider the possibility any contribution from them may not be in accordance with the other party’s “social esteem.” For example, hosts are expected to hold their guests in a very high esteem in Iran, and are expected to extend a relatively high degree of hospitability to them. This usually involves preparing elaborate food, fruit, drinks, and reserving the best room of the house for guests, which may be similar to what is expected in some other cultures. But the social esteem discussed

236  Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani here moves beyond these gestures, and has a significant realization in the use of language, for example by exercising what Beeman (1986) calls “self lowering” and “other raising” in the Iranian society. Such “social esteem” is not necessarily based on societal ranking or hierarchy but is rooted in politeness concerns (example 2 above). The latter achieves positive politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987) for the speaker in the eye of the addressee. In certain cases, sharmandegi (examples 4, 5, and 6 above) is drawn upon to make an apology. The idea of a set of schemas underlying the various instances of the use of the expressions of sharmandegi is also supported by the observation that all those speech acts may be responded to by the same formulaic expression, such as doshmanetoon sharmandeh basheh, literary meaning “may your e­nemy be ashamed.” As a final point, it should be noted that the likelihood of employing the schemas discussed so far in the actual speech acts performed by Iranians hinges on the formality of the relationship between the interlocutors participating in a verbal interaction. That is, two close friends will not necessarily draw on the schema of sharmandegi in thanking each other. 6. The schema of sharmandegi in intercultural communication So far, we have explained sharmandegi as a cultural pragmatic schema, and its usage among Persian speaking Iranians. In this section, we move on to elaborate on instances where Iranian speakers may draw on the schema of sharmandegi in their intercultural communication with non-Iranian speakers. To this end, we present data showing how this schema has been instantiated in conversations among Iranian speakers and speakers of Australian English in Australia. Each section presents a brief description of the scenario where the conversation took place, followed by an excerpt where the “I am ashamed” expression has been used. In a later section, a table will be presented where the intended pragmatic meaning of each case of the use of sharmandegi is identified. The data were also shown to a number of Australian English speakers to elicit their interpretation of the intended meaning of each case of the use of sharmandegi. This data will also be presented in a later section in another table. 6.1. Accepting an offer (7) Lydia4 and Mahin (Iranian) are neighbors and their children go to the same school. The following interaction happened between the two mothers on school day: Lydia: I can pick your daughter from school today and this way I can spare you a trip.

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication  237 Mahin: You make me ashamed, I don’t want to bother you. But it would be great if you could do that. According to Mahin, Lydia looked confused on hearing Mahin’s utterance, which implies she felt confused about the situation, and specifically did not understand the schema from which Mahin was using the “ashamed” e­xpression. (8) Sara (Iranian) was sick at home. A neighbor brought her a bowl of soup: Sara: You make me ashamed. I was not expecting this at all. Neighbor: Oh no, you should not feel ashamed. Of course you are sick and cannot cook yourself. In the above excerpt it is clear that the neighbor does not feel comfortable with the expression of “shame” from Sara. 6.2. Expressing gratitude (9) Mr. Anderson (Australian) and Roya (Iranian) are neighbors. Each month when mowing his lawn, Mr Anderson mows Roya’s front lawn as well. She is very pleased, and one day tells him: Roya: You always make me ashamed by mowing my lawn. (Mr. ­Anderson stopped mowing her lawn from that date.) When we asked Roya to elaborate on the situation, she believed Mr. Anderson stopped mowing her lawn, which suggests he did not want to make her ashamed anymore. Roya, on the other hand thinks Mr. Anderson is very strange, since he stopped mowing her lawn after she thanked him. This is clearly a case of intercultural miscommunication which has resulted from a mismatch of cultural schemas at work. (10) Tara’s (Iranian) neighbor Lara (Australian) offered to do some grocery shopping for her, when she was doing her own shopping. When Lara brought the grocery back, Tara wanted to pay her straight away: Lara: It is okay, you can pay me later. Tara: No, you have made me enough ashamed already. Lara: But why do you say so? I had offered to do the shopping myself. It is evident here that Lara is surprised to hear the expression of “shame” on the part of Tara, as she had willingly offered to do the shopping for her. 6.3. Offering an excuse (11) Ali (Iranian) was very busy with work for a while, and would come home quite late. One day his friend Simon (Australian) asked him:

238  Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani

Simon: I haven’t seen you for a while. I have missed you. Ali: I am ashamed I have been very busy lately. But will catch up with you very soon.

6.4. Apologizing (12) Lucy (Australian) had lent Nasrin (Iranian) a plate. Nasrin had forgotten about it, and when she went to return it finally, she said: Nasrin: I am really ashamed. I had totally forgotten about the plate. Lucy: That is really okay. It is just a plate. 6.5. Refusal (13) Shirin’s (Iranian) friend Jill (Australian) wanted to come and see her, but Shirin had some prior engagement: Jill: Can I come over to your place and see you on Monday? Shirin: I’m ashamed. I would have loved to see you, but I have already made an important arrangement. Let’s make it for another day. (14) Reza’s (Iranian) boss wanted him to stay back and help him finish some work, but Reza could not. Instead of saying explicitly, “Sorry, I can’t,” he says: Reza: I am ashamed. I have already promised my child to take him to a movie today. 6.6. Requesting goods and services (15) University assignments are due next week. Ehsan (Iranian) knows that his friend John (Australian) has three assignments due himself, but he needs his help in proofreading his assignment: Ehsan: I am ashamed. Can I possibly take two hours of your time sometime this week? (16) Shadi (Iranian) had a question about a property. She rang her friend, who was a real estate agent, with whom she had no contact in a long time: Shadi: I am ashamed. I call you whenever I have a request. Could you please give me some background data on this property? (17) Sanaz (Iranian) had a headache and was trying to sleep, but the children next-door were making too much noise. Sanaz went and knocked on their door: Sanaz: I have a terrible headache. I am ashamed to ask, but could you please ask you children to play quieter?

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication  239 6.7. Offering goods and services (18) Elaheh (Iranian) has spent hours preparing an Iranian elaborate meal that includes several dishes for her Anglo-Australian guests. She invites the visitors to the table and makes the following comment: Elaheh:  So sorry, the food is not good. 6.8. New function for sharmandegi in English (19) Tim (Australian) was a very hard working student, always attended his classes, and participated actively in the discussions. However, he did not get a good mark for his final exam and failed the subject. He emailed his (Iranian) lecturer to inquire about the results. This is what his lecturer wrote in his reply: Lecturer: You have been one of the good and active students in my class. But I’m ashamed to tell you that your mark is too low. You need to repeat the subject. I wish I could be of some help, but the university is very strict about the marking. Student: No, I am sorry. It is not your fault. I was not prepared for the exam. In the above excerpt, it seems that the expression of sharmandegi was used by the Iranian speaker in his English as a disclaimer when conveying the bad news. This usage appears to be an expression of sympathy, which is interesting as expressing sympathy is not a speech act commonly associated with sharmandegi in Persian. This is an important observation as it suggests that a cultural schema from an L1 may be instantiated to achieve a new speech act in an L2. This indicates a dynamic relationship between language and cultural schemas. Table 1 below shows, in a summary fashion, functions intended by the Iranian speaker, when using the expression of sharmandegi that we have p­resented Table 1.  Intended function of sharmandegi formulaic expression in Persian Function intended by the Iranian speaker

Numbers of the above scenarios

Expressing gratitude in accepting an offer Expressing gratitude Disclaimer for an excuse Disclaimer for offering an apology Disclaimer for refusal Disclaimer for a request Expression of embarrassment Disclaimer for a request Expressing apology Expressing sympathy/regret

#7–8 #9–10 #11 #12 #13–14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19

240  Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani in the intercultural data. Whether or not, and to what extent this “intended function” is received by the non-Iranian interlocutor, in the same way as was intended by the Iranian speaker will be discussed below. A glance at this table suggests that the functions of the formulaic expression “I am ashamed” (or, “you make me ashamed”) falls into two main categories: (a) expression of a feeling, and ( b) disclaimer for a speech act.

7. Sharmandegi as an expression of a feeling or a disclaimer for a speech act As we saw in examples 7 through 10, 16, and 19 the Iranian speakers have used the literal translation of this formulaic expression to show their gratefulness, embarrassment, or sympathy. In the first four examples, it can be argued that the Iranian person uses the expression not in its literal meaning, which is “b­eing ashamed,” but rather uses it to show their gratefulness toward their interlocutors. The speaker is showing concern about what Brown and Levinson (1987) call their positive face; therefore, this is a marker of politeness. Example 16, however, goes beyond a mere expression of politeness as the speaker is implying a sense of embarrassment. She feels slightly embarrassed for [possibly] giving the impression that she has only got in touch with her friend, the real-estate agent, because she has a work-related query. Example 19, reveals yet another function for the expression of sharmandegi. Even though, it is out of no fault of the teacher that the student has failed, the teacher still wants to show sympathy toward someone who has been a good student throughout the semester. Examples 11 through 14 and 17 highlight a further function of sharmandegi. In these instances, the utterance of sharmandegi in itself does not mean anything. In other words, it is not used as a speech act in itself. The expression, on the other hand, is used merely as a disclaimer preceding an intended speech act: excuse (example 11), apology (example 12), refusal (examples 13–14), and request (examples 15 and 17). In these examples it can be argued that the disclaimer is used to soften the succeeding speech act. Example 17 is particularly interesting since the disclaimer itself is preceded by two other disclaimers in the forms of apology (“I am sorry”) and an informative statement (“I have a terrible headache”). The reason for this “triple softening” and use of three disclaimers suggests the degree that the speaker feels to be imposing on the privacy of her addressee. This can be further understood through the notion of negative face, whereby one person threatens another person’s negative face by imposing on their time, space, or privacy. In this context, Sanaz’ utterance in example 17 could be viewed to mean:

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication  241 I am really sorry to impose on your privacy, but I have a terrible headache. Could you please ask your children to make less noise? I know that they should be free to play in the privacy of their own home. I would not have asked if I did not have to. Given how bad I’m feeling I can’t help but ask. Given the same circumstance I would ask again.

When prompted by the second author, Sanaz explained her motives: If my neighbor had already known that I had a headache, I wouldn’t have been so polite, and would just tell her “could you please ask your children to play quieter. I have a headache.” But since I was sure she did not know it, I didn’t want her to feel she was inconsiderate for letting her children play so loudly.

Sanaz’ explanation sheds light on a further aspect of politeness. In being extra polite, and using a triple disclaimer, she wanted to show concern for the positive face of her neighbor. So far, we have elaborated on the functions of the sharmandegi schema in the Iranian cultural conceptualization, by giving examples and explicating the intentions of the Iranian speakers. We now move to discuss the possible misunderstandings that using the sharmandegi schema may cause in intercultural communication contexts where the expression is used by an Iranian in communicating with Anglo interlocutors. 8. The Anglo-Australian interpretation of the sharmandegi formulaic expression For this part of the research, we showed the 13 examples mentioned above to five Anglo-Australian university students and asked them to give us their interpretation of the use of “I’m ashamed”/“you make me ashamed.” We then consolidated the answers and presented them in Table 2 below. All in all, the respondents were of the opinion that “ashamed” is too strong, reflexive, personal, and intimate in the Australian context, especially as Australia has a “no worries” and “s/ he’ll be right, mate” mentality. The table above presents functions intended by the Iranian speakers, as well as the functions assumed/perceived by the Anglo-Australian speakers. As such, the table allows for a comparison between the intended speech acts versus the interpreted speech acts. In the previous section, we were able to distinguish two main functional categories for the use of the sharmandegi schema by Iranian speakers: (a) sharmandegi as an expression of a feeling, and ( b) sharmandegi as a disclaimer for a speech act. Interestingly, the functions understood by the AngloAustralian respondents did not include the “disclaimer” category at all. In the  order of frequency they interpreted the expression as expressing guilt/­ awkwardness (six times), expressing shame (seven times), expressing concern

● Expressing

● Expressing

● Expressing

(7)  Lydia: I can pick your daughter from school today and this way I can spare you a trip. Mahin: You make me ashamed, I don’t want to bother you. But it would be great if you could do that.

(8)  Sara: You make me ashamed. I was not expecting this at all. Neighbor: Oh no, you should not feel ashamed. Of course you are sick and cannot cook yourself.

(9)  Roya: You always make me ashamed by mowing my lawn. gratitude

gratitude in accepting an offer

gratitude in accepting an offer

Function intended by the Iranian speaker

Example (taken from the below scenarios)

has the ability to mow the lawn herself, but doesn’t and so she feels ashamed. ● She feels bad because she isn’t doing anything in return. It’s a one-way gesture. ● Are you implying that I’m not capable of mowing my own lawn?

● Roya

believes she should be able to manage her life and cope; she shouldn’t need help. ● There is no feeling of reciprocity. ● Sara is getting help from people outside her ethnic group and not within her culture so feels ashamed and uncomfortable.

● Sara

makes Mahin feel unworthy. She should be able to organize her own life to be able to do it herself. ● Lydia was being so nice, it made Mahin feel indebted to her. “You put me to shame” because you are being so nice to me, and I’m not being so nice to you. ● She doesn’t want to impose on the other person.

● It

Anglo-Australian interpretation of “ashamed”

Table 2.  Received functional meaning of sharmandegi formulaic expression by Anglo-Australian speakers

shame guilt as a result of lack of reciprocity ● Expressing distress because of having done something wrong (i.e., not mowing the lawn herself  ) ● Expressing

● Expressing

guilt/ awkwardness ● Expressing discomfort being given help by outgroup members

● Expressing

guilt/ awkwardness ● Expressing of indebtedness ● Expressing concern about imposition

● Expressing

Function perceived/assumed by Anglo-Australians

242  Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani

● Disclaimer

● Disclaimer

● Disclaimer

(11)  Simon: I haven’t seen you for a while. I have missed you. Ali: I am ashamed I have been very busy lately, but will catch up with you very soon.

(12)  Nasrin: I am really ashamed. I had totally forgotten about the plate. Lucy: That is really okay. It is just a plate.

(13)  Jill: Can I come over to your place and see you on Monday? Shirin: I’m ashamed. I would have loved to see you, but I have already made an important arrangement. Let’s make it for another day.

for an

gratitude

refusal

for

for offering an apology

excuse

● Expressing

(10)  Lara: It is okay; you can pay me later. Tara: No, you have made me enough ashamed already. Lara: But why do you say so? I had offered to do the shopping myself.

should only feel ashamed if s/ he had made an arrangement and had to cancel or forgot. ● Doesn’t want to say no or refuse, but s/ he is giving a mild apology. Doesn’t want to cause offense.

● S/ he

so sorry. I should have given it back to you. ● Feels guilty that she forgot. ● They should only feel “ashamed” if they kept it for more than one year and then gave it back unwashed! ● She feels embarrassed that she didn’t bring it back in time.

● I’m

means sorry. An apology. feel guilty. Ali feels he should have done something but he hasn’t.

● I

● Ashamed

feels ashamed because Lara says she can pay her later, and that might mean Lara thinks she can’t afford to pay. ● Lara has already done the shopping and paid the money; now Tara feels indebted and uncomfortable.

● Tara

expression of shame ● Used as an addressee’s face-saving strategy

● Exaggerated

of having done something wrong (i.e., not bringing the plate back on time) ● Exaggerated expression of shame ● Expressing embarrassment

apology

apology guilt

● Expressing distress because

● Expressing

● Expressing

● Expressing

shame concern about losing face (i.e., losing face for not being able to pay) ● Expressing indebtedness ● Expressing

● Expressing

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication  243

● Disclaimer

● Expression

(15)  Ehsan: I am ashamed, can I possibly take two hours of your time sometime this week?

(16)  Shadi: I am ashamed. I call you whenever I have a request. Could you please give me some background data on this property?

for a

of embarrassment

request

for

● Disclaimer

(14)  Reza: I am ashamed. I have already promised my child to take him to a movie today. refusal

Function intended by the Iranian speaker

Example (taken from the below scenarios)

Table 2  (Continued )

of apology, gratitude, and plea for help, as well as indebtedness. ● Embarrassment ● She is getting all the help, and not giving any. She feels uncomfortable with this.

● A mixture

means “sorry to bother you, but would you mind . . .” ● Excuse me. ● Sorry to intrude on you. ● Feels inferior intellectually for having to ask for help. ● An Australian could construe this (out of context anyway) as an indication that Ehsan wanted to make a long confession about something.

● It

Anglo-Australian interpretation of “ashamed”

apology gratitude ● Expressing indebtedness ● Expressing guilt because of lack of reciprocity ● Expressing

● Expressing

apology for imposition/intruding ● Expressing distress because of a weakness (i.e., being intellectually inferior)

● Expressing

expression of shame ● Used as an addressee’s face-saving strategy

● Exaggerated

Function perceived/assumed by Anglo-Australians

244  Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani

● Expressing

(19)  Lecturer: You have been one of the good and active students in my class, but I’m ashamed to tell you that your mark is too low. You need to repeat the subject. I wish I could be of some help, but the university is very strict about the marking. Student: No, I am sorry. It is not your fault. I was not prepared for the exam.

apology

for a

sympathy/regret

● Expressing

(18)  Elaheh: So sorry. The food is not good.

request

● Disclaimer

(17)  Sanaz: I am sorry, I have a terrible headache. I am ashamed to ask, but could you please ask your children to play quieter, please?

He wishes he could have done more. ● Concerned, deep regret. ● Lecturer is deeply troubled. ● The word “ashamed” is appropriate if the student and lecturer were having an affair, and after the student dumped the lecturer, the lecturer is ashamed that s/ he let this affect how s/ he marked the student.

● Regret.

host wants the guests to say, “No, the food is great!” ● The host is feeling nervous/apprehensive about what the guests might think of the food. ● The host is feeling embarrassed about what the guests might think of the food.

● The

participants believe this is appropriate as they think Anglo-Australians might also say it. This example is the closest to how they might use this expression of “ashamed” and in what context. ● Sanaz feels ashamed because s/ he is putting themselves before the children, which Sanaz wouldn’t usually do as s/ he understands that kids act the way they do, but because of the headache, s/ he feels s/ he has to. ● She is apologizing for making a request that may offend. It is offensive to ask someone to modify their children’s behavior.

● All

Expressing regret Expressing concern ● Expression of regret over being deeply troubled ● Implies an expression of guilt over a misdeed ● 

● 

to fish for compliments ● Expressing distress because of not having done something well ● Expressing distress because of possible loss of face

● Strategy

of having done something wrong (i.e., imposing on the neighbor’s privacy) ● Expressing grave apology

shame

● Expressing distress because

● Expressing

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication  245

246  Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani about imposition/face (five times), expressing distress because of having done something wrong (five times), expressing apology (four times), expressing ­indebtedness (three times), expressing regret (twice), expressing embarrassment (twice), expressing gratitude (once), expressing concern (once), expressing discomfort due to accepting help from outgroup members (once), and a strategy used to fish for compliments (once). The comparison between intended functions and the perceived/assumed functions reveals some major misunderstandings that can arise from drawing on sharmandegi schema in this intercultural context. For example, scenario number 18 above, in which the hostess apologizes for the food not being “good,” is of particular significance. Her apology was interpreted by some of our Anglo respondents as fishing for compliments: She is obviously “fishing for compliments.” She wants the guests to say, “No, the food is great!” And that is how Anglo-Australians would respond to that comment in any case. (Anglo respondent)

Even though it can be argued that some Iranians might apologize to the guests for the quality of their meal in order to elicit compliments from them, such a move would be a personal choice and not a cultural trait. In other words, it is not common for an Iranian to use the speech act of apology in that situation with that intention in mind. Using apology for the purpose that our Anglo respondent has suggested would take a conscious effort on the part of a Persian speaker. By contrast, apologizing when offering food, within the context of the Iranian cultural schema, implies an expression of the high esteem in which the guests are held by the host. These strategies are habitual acts that have been ritualized into the social interaction of the Iranian speakers. Now we will elaborate on three instances of misunderstandings that did arise between the Iranian and Anglo speakers in relation to the cultural schema of sharmandegi. 8.1. Expressing gratitude versus expressing distress for having done something wrong Example 9 above was the lawn mowing case. Very pleased, and keen to show her gratitude, Roya says, “You always make me ashamed by mowing my lawn.” When Mr. Anderson stops mowing her lawn in response, Roya cannot understand why he would do so after she had thanked him. This is an excellent example of miscommunication. Roya had said, “I’m ashamed,” using her Iranian sharmandegi schema, intending to express gratitude, unaware of the schematic meaning of the phrase in Australian English. Mr. Anderson may have taken her words to mean, “By mowing my lawn you are implying that I’m not capable of doing it myself,” or, more likely, “By

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication  247 mowing my lawn you make me feel negligent and as though you think I am lazy.” This is the beginning of the misunderstanding. He may have been initially shocked that his kindness had been misunderstood, and not wanting to threaten Roya’s face any more, he stops the “offending behavior”. A second layer of misunderstanding occurred when Roya, could not understand her neighbor’s reason for suddenly stopping mowing her lawn. 8.2. Disclaimer for a request versus expressing distress for having a weakness Example 15 above concerns Ehsan’s request of proofreading help from his classmate: Ehsan: I am ashamed; can I possibly take two hours of your time sometime this week?

Ehsan prefaced his request by using “I’m ashamed” just as a disclaimer to show his concern about his use of his classmate’s time. His use of the translation of the formulaic expression of sharmandegi can be misunderstood by his Anglo-Australian classmate. For example, his use of the disclaimer could be taken as an expression of distress over a weakness — in the case of our collected data, intellectual inferiority — by his non-Iranian classmate. 8.3. Expressing sympathy/regret versus expressing guilt Our last example concerns example 19 above, in which an Iranian lecturer expressed sympathy over his student’s bad mark, which for the sake of convenience we reproduce below: Lecturer: You have been one of the good and active students in my class. But I’m ashamed to tell you that your mark is too low. You need to repeat the subject. I wish I could be of some help, but the university is very strict about the marking. Student: No, I am sorry. It is not your fault. I was not prepared for the exam.

An Anglo-Australian respondent interviewed in the course of this research interpreted the lecturer’s expression of sympathy and regret as an implicit expression of guilt, arguing the use of the word “ashamed” would be appropriate only if the student has failed as a result of a failed affair between the two, which affected the mark the teacher gave the student. The exact response reads as follows: The word “ashamed” is appropriate if the student and lecturer were having an affair and after the student dumped the lecturer, the lecturer is ashamed that s/ he let this affect how s/ he marked the student. (Anglo-respondent)

248  Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani All in all, the cases presented in this paper should suffice to reveal how cultural schemas may be drawn on in intercultural communication and also that an unfamiliarity with cultural schemas, in this particular case the schema of sharmandegi, may lead to misunderstanding. Even in cases in which major miscommunication was unlikely to result, the speaker who drew on sharmandegi schema is likely to have appeared to be somehow “overreacting,” as commented by one of the Australian respondents, who suggested that, in those cases, “the disadvantage for Persian speakers is that if they are often thought of as overreacting, people might keep a distance, thinking they are ‘intense’ and so may make ‘over-the-top’ demands.” In all these cases of either miscommunication or lack of smooth communication, what is at stake is human relations, which is so closely tied to mutual understanding.

9. Conclusion In this paper, we explored the cultural pragmatic schema of sharmandegi as an Iranian cultural pragmatic schema that allows Persian speakers to achieve, or facilitate the enactment of, a number of speech acts. These speech acts range from expressing gratitude to expressing apology, to expressing refusal. The schema was also shown to be evoked in association with offering and/or requesting goods and services and accepting offers. It goes without saying that when any cultural schema is employed within the cultural boundaries of a group, there is reciprocity (more or less) for both the speaker’s and hearer’s understanding of the implicit meaning of the formulaic expressions associated with that schema. In our case, the expression literarily means “I’m ashamed” and/or “you make me ashamed.” In an [culturally] ingroup context, functioning according to the expectations of any cultural schema promotes a smooth communication between the interlocutors. In contrast, when the schema is applied in an intercultural communication context, it can cause communication “bumps” and misunderstandings in the smooth flow of the encounter, as we have shown in this paper. We presented cases in which the sharmandegi schema was used by Iranian speakers of En­ glish through their use of the formulaic expressions “I am ashamed” and/or “you make me ashamed,” in their encounters with speakers of Australian En­ glish. The analysis of the data sheds light on the speech-act functions that the Iranian parties intended to convey. The data collected from the Australian En­ glish speakers revealed their interpretations of the intentions of the utterances made by the Iranian speakers. By comparing the two sets — “intended function” and “received function” — we were able to point out some of the miscommunications that could arise when Iranians draw on the sharmandegi schema

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication  249 in Australia. In general, the findings of this study suggest that unfamiliarity with the cultural schemas that speakers draw on during intercultural communication can be a potential source of discomfort and misunderstanding. This calls for further studies of intercultural communication from the perspective of cultural conceptualizations, in which the use of language is examined in terms of its grounding in cultural schemas. Studies of intercultural communication can gain much benefit from, and also contribute to, recent approaches to the study of language that view it primarily as a cognitive system that is entrenched in culture, such as cognitive sociolingusitics (e.g., Wolf and Polzenhagen 2006), and cultural linguistics (e.g., Palmer 1996, Sharifian and Palmer 2007). It is hoped that studies of this kind can contribute to cross-cultural understanding, which is more at stake than any other stage in the history of humankind.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers and Ms. Susan Alice Stanford for their helpful comments on the earlier drafts of this manuscript.

Notes 1. It should be noted that to be syntactically precise, sharmandam is the shortened form of sharmandeh hastam, which is used in Persian Conversational Style. Sharmandeh hastam may in fact be rendered into English as:

Sharmandeh hast-am ashamed be-1SG (first person singular marker)



However, for the sake of brevity, we avoid showing the syntactic details that may not be the prime area of focus in this paper. 2. The translations provided in this paper are not meant to reflect close equivalents of the sentences in English, but rather to stay as close as possible to the original wording of the sentences in Persian. For example, a closer equivalent of this statement in English, in terms of the use of speech act, would be ‘I am much obliged, I really thank you from the bottom of my heart.’ 3. In using the term “disclaimer,” we are relying on Hewitt and Stokes definition, which refers to:

[ . . . ] a verbal device employed to ward off and defeat in advance doubts and negative typifications which may result from intended conduct. Disclaimers seek to define forthcoming ­conduct as not relevant to the kind of identity-challenge or re-typification for which it might ordinarily serve as the basis. (Hewitt and Stokes 1975: 3)

4. It should be noted that all the names used in this paper are pseudonyms, and this is done so as to protect the anonymity of the people.

250  Farzad Sharifian and Maryam Jamarani References Arbib, Michael A., E. Jeffrey Conklin, & Jane C. Hill. 1987. From schema theory to language. New York: Oxford University Press. Asadi, Reza. 1980. Deference: Persian style. Anthropological Linguistics 22. 221–224. Asadi, Reza. 1982. Conflict and its management: Iranian style. Anthropological Linguistics 24. 201–205. Beeman, William O. 1976. Status, style and strategy in Iranian interaction. Anthropological Linguistics 18. 305–322. Beeman, William O. 1988. Affectivity in Persian language use. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 12. 9–30. Beeman, William O. 1986. Language, status, and power in Iran. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Beeman, William O. 2001. Emotion and sincerity in Persian discourse: Accomplishing the representation of inner states. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 148. 31–57. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House, & Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bobrow, Daniel G. & Donald A. Norman. 1975. Some principles of memory schemata. In Daniel G. Bobrow & Allan M. Collins (eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science, 131–149. New York: Academic Press. Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cook, Guy. 1994. Discourse and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. D’Andrade, Roy G. 1995. The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eslami Rasekh, Zohreh. 2004. Face-keeping strategies in reaction to complaints: English and Persian. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 14(1). 179–195. Hewitt, John P. & Randall. Stokes. 1975. Disclaimers. American Sociological Review 40(1). 1–11. Hillmann, Michael C. 1981. Language and social distinctions. In Michael E. Bonine & Nikki R. Keddie (eds.), Modern Iran: The dialectics of continuity and change, 327–340. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hodge, Carleton T. 1957. Some aspects of Persian style. Language 33. 355–369. Holland, Dorothy & Naomi Quinn (eds.). 1987. Cultural models in language and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hutchins, Edwin. 1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jamarani, Maryam. 2009. A study of languages and cultures in contact among Iranian female immigrants in Australia. Brisbane: University of Queensland PhD thesis. Keshavarz, Mohammad Hossein. 2001. The role of social context, intimacy, and distance in the choice of forms of address. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 148. 5–18. Langacker, Roland W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Roland W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lee, David. 2001. Cognitive linguistics: An Introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online. . Moore, Terence & Christine Carling. 1982. Understanding language: Towards a post-Chomskyan linguistics. London: Macmillan. Morrow, Nancy. 1997. Language and identity: Women’s autobiographies of the American immigrant experience. Language and Communication 17(3). 177–185.

Cultural schemas in intercultural communication  251 Norman, Donald A. & David D. Rumelhart (and the LNR Research Group). 1975. Explorations in cognition. San Francisco: Freeman. O’Shea, Maria. 2000. Culture shock: Iran. Portland, OR: Graphic Arts Publishing Company. Palmer, Gary B. 1996. Toward a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press. Reber, Arthur S. & Emily S. Reber. 2001. The Penguin dictionary of psychology, (3rd ed.). London: Penguin Books. Rice, G. Elizabeth. 1980. On cultural schemata. American Ethnologist 7. 152–71. Schank, Roger C. & Robert Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Inc. Sharifian, Farzad. 2001, Schema-based processing in Australian speakers of Aboriginal English. Language and Intercultural Communication 1(2). 120 –134. Sharifian, Farzad. 2003. On cultural conceptualisations. Journal of Cognition and Culture 3(3). 187–207. Sharifian, Farzad. 2007. L1 cultural conceptualisations in L2 learning. In Farzad Sharifian & Gary B. Palmer (eds.), Applied cultural linguistics: Implications for second language learning and intercultural communication, 33–51. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sharifian, Farzad. 2008a.  Distributed, emergent cultural cognition, conceptualisation, and language. In Roslyn M.  Frank, René. Dirven, Tom Ziemke, & Enrique Bernárdez (eds.), Body, language, and mind (Vol. 2): Sociocultural situatedness, 109–136. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Sharifian, Farzad. 2008b. Cultural schemas in L1 and L2 compliment responses: A study of P­ersian-speaking learners of English. Journal of Politeness Research 4(1). 55–80. Sharifian, Farzad. 2009. On collective cognition and language. In Hanna Pishwa (ed.), Language and social cognition: Expression of social mind, 163–180. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Sharifian, Farzad & Gary B. Palmer. 2007. Applied cultural linguistics: Implications for second  language learning and intercultural communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sharifian, Farzad. 2011. Cultural conceptualisations and language: Theoretical framework and applications. Amesterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Strauss, Claudia & Naomi Quinn. 1997. A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1987. Speech act verbs. Sydney: Academic Press. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural pragmatics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1996. Understanding cultures through their key words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilber, Donald N. 1967. Language and society: The case of Iran. Behaviour Science Notes 2. 22–30. Wolf, Hans-George & Frank Polzenhagen. 2006. Intercultural communication in English: Arguments for a cognitive approach to intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 3(3). 285– 321. Corresponding address: [email protected]

Copyright of Intercultural Pragmatics is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.