Article contents
Linguistic Markers of Affect in Heritage Persian: A Linguistic Anthropological Study among Persian Heritage Language Students and Their Teachers
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2022
Abstract
By analyzing linguistic utterances between teachers and students in a Persian heritage language class in the United States, this research study sought to illuminate what kinds of linguistic resources were used by these speakers to show different attitudes, moods and emotions. Furthermore, this study demonstrated possible functions of these linguistic markers and the way they were utilized to influence another party.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2013 The International Society for Iranian Studies
References
1 Ochs, E., “Linguistic Resources for Socializing Humanity,” in Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (Cambridge, 1996), 410.Google Scholar
2 Valdés, G., “The Teaching of Heritage Languages: An Introduction for Slavic-teaching Professionals,” in The Learning and Teaching of Slavic Languages and Cultures (Bloomington, IN, 2000), 375.Google Scholar
3 Ochs, E., “From Feelings to Grammar: a Samoan Case Study,” Language Socialization across Cultures (Cambridge, 1986), 254.Google Scholar
4 Bednarek, Monika, Emotion Talk across Corpora (London, 2008), 1: 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Beeman, W. O., “Affectivity in Persian Language Use,” Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 12 (1988): 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 E. Ochs and B. B. Schieffelin, “Language Has a Heart: The Pragmatics of Affect,” Special Issue of Text 9 (1989): 7–25.
7 Henry, J., “The Linguistic Expression of Emotions,” American Anthropologist 38 (1936): 250–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Hoeken, H. and van Vliet, M., “Suspense, Curiosity, and Surprise: How Discourse Structure Influences the Affective and Cognitive Processing of a Story,” Poetics 26 (2000): 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Goodwin, C., “Participation, Stance, and Affect in the Organization of Activities,” Discourse and Society 18 (2007): 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Ochs and Schieffelin, “Language Has a Heart,” 12.
11 Beeman, “Affectivity in Persian Language Use,” 22.
12 Atoofi, S., “Poetics of Repetition in Ordinary Talk: A Case among Persian Heritage Language Teachers and their Students,” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011): 3362–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 The fieldwork section of this paper has been previously published in Journal of Pragmatics, 43, no. 14.
14 Mostashari, A., “Factsheet on Iranian-American community,” Iranian Studies Research Group (Cambridge, MA, 2004).Google Scholar
15 Duranti, Alessandro, Linguistics Anthropology (Cambridge, 1997) 4: 84–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Goodwin, Charles, Conversational Organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers (New York, 1981): 606–633.Google Scholar
17 Ochs and Schieffelin, “Language Has a Heart.”
18 Names of the participants have been abbreviated for anonymity.
19 Transcription conventions can be found in the appendix. For the most part, three-line transcription style has been used in this paper. The first line is participants' utterances. The second line corresponds to word-by-word translation of utterances in English. And the third line is a rough translation of a sentence or phrase in English. Second line has been omitted in instances where it did not carry further information, such as in line 1 of transcript. If English words occurred in the midst of a Persian utterance, such words have been retained in their original forms.
20 Beeman, W. O.. “Emotion and Sincerity in Persian Discourse: Accomplishing the Representation of Inner States,” International Journal of the Sociology of Language Publication 148 (2001): 31–57.Google Scholar
21 Beeman, W. O., “Affectivity in Persian Language Use,” Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 12 (1988): 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Tavanestan takes full agreement inflection such as mitonem (I can), mitoni (you can), mitoneh (he/she can), mitonim (we can), mitonid (you pl. can) and mitonand (they can). Also, tavanestan takes tense aspect such as mitonestam (I could), mitonesti (you could), mitonest (he/she could), mitonestim (we could), mitonestid (you pl. could) and mitonestand (they could).
23 Azita Hojatollah Taleghani, “The Interaction of Modality, Aspect, and Negation in Persian” (PhD diss., University of Arizona, 2006), 24.
24 W. O. Beeman, “Culture Performance and Communication in Iran: Communicational Aspects,” paper presented at Anthropological Research Conference on Contemporary Japanese Theater (Tokyo, June 1982).
- 2
- Cited by