Cover not available
Article published In:
Intercultural Pragmatics and Cultural Linguistics
Edited by Ulrike Schröder, Milene Mendes de Oliveira and Hans-Georg Wolf
[International Journal of Language and Culture 7:1] 2020
► pp. 104–120

Responding to dard-e-del (lit. pain of the heart) in Persian

| Monash University
Drawing on insights borrowed from Mey’s pragmatic act theory (2001) and Sharifian’s framework of Cultural Linguistics (2011, 2017a), this study attempts to explore the pragmemes associated with the speech act of responding to dard-e-del (lit. pain of the heart) in Persian and the cultural pragmatic schemas underlying them. Dard-e-del can be described as the verbal communication of suffering, sadness, or hardships to others, mainly for the purpose of discharging negative emotions, finding relief, and strengthening social bonds. This study argues that the language used by speakers of Persian to respond to dard-e-del can be categorized into three groups of pragmemes. Pragmemes, according to Mey (2010: 2884), are defined as “general situational prototypes of [pragmatic] acts that are capable of being executed in a particular situation or cluster of situations.” Besides, it is illustrated that the identified pragmemes cannot be correctly used and interpreted unless the interlocutors are aware of the cultural pragmatic schemas informing them. A cultural pragmatic schema is described as the (assumed) shared knowledge by members of a cultural group, which is reflected in different features of their language (Sharifian 2017a, 2017b). Data for the present study was collected from a number of online forums, where speakers of Persian communicate their dard-e-del to other users. As a cultural insider, the author has also drawn on personal observation and insights from some Persian literary works. Qualitative analysis of the data revealed that interlocutors mainly employ three pragmemes to respond to dard-e-del. These pragmemes include wishing to suffer instead of the sufferer, cursing the cause of suffering, and inviting the sufferer to submit to god’s will. Each pragmeme has the potential to be expressed in a variety of ways (practs), depending on the context. The speech act of responding to dard-e-del in Persian and the associated pragmemes and practs draw on the three cultural pragmatic schemas of ghorbâni, tavakkol , and nefrin , which have their roots in religion.
Keywords: dard-e-del , Cultural Linguistics, cultural pragmatic schema, pragmatic act theory, pragmemes, practs
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Pragmatic act theory
  • 3.Cultural pragmatic schemas
  • 4.Methodology and data analysis
  • 5.Summary discussion and concluding remarks
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 8 July 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00029.bag
References (34)
References
Azadi Deh-Abbasi, N. (1394/2015). Ramz goshâyi-eh âyineh ghorbâni dar ostureh, erfân, va farhang. Adabiâteh Erfâni va Ostureh Shenâkhti, 11(38), 11–40. Retrieved from [URL]
Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1355–1371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). On pragmemes again: Dealing with death. La Linguistique, 46(2), 3–21.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capone, A., & Mey, J. L. (2016). Introduction: Pragmatics, linguistics, and sociocultural diversity. In A. Capone, & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 1–11). Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chittick, W. (1983). The Sufi path of love. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Dehrami, M., & Fahimpour, M. (1396/2017). Âfarin va nefrin dar âsâreh Irani-eh bâstân va miyâneh. Majaleh-ye Motâleâteh Irani, 16(31), 65–80. Retrieved from [URL]
Amid, H. (2013). Farhang-e Farsi-ye Amid (Amid Dictionary). Amirkabir: Tehran.Google Scholar
Farid ud-Din Attar. (c. 1145 – c. 1221). Diwan of Attar of Nishapur. Retrieved from [URL]
, (c. 1145 – c. 1221). A vice-roy at the point of death (A. Darbandi & D. Davis, Trans.). In the conference of birds (1984). Toronto: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
Frager, R. (1997). Introduction. In J. Fadiman & R. Frager (Eds.), Essential Sufism (pp. 19–23). San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.Google Scholar
Hafez. (c. 1315 – c.1390). Diwan of Hafez. Retrieved from [URL]
Karami, M. H. (1375/1996). Tavakkol dar erfân. Shiraz University Social and Human sciences journal, 12(1). Retrieved from [URL]
Kecskés, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2889–2897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Encyclopedic knowledge, cultural models, and interculturality. In F. Sharifian, & M. Jamarani (Eds.), Language and intercultural communication in the new era (pp. 39–59). New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lesan, H. (1394/2016). ghorbâni az ruzegâre kohan tâ emruz. Retrieved from [URL]
Link, K. E., & Kreuz, R. J. (2005). The comprehension of ostensible speech acts. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(3), 227–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2006). Pragmatic acts. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 5–12). Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Reference and pragmeme. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2882–2888. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Pragmatics seen through the prism of society. In A. Capone, & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 15–41). Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moein, M. (2009). Farhang-e Farsi-ye Moein (Moein encyclopaedia). Amirkabir: Tehran.Google Scholar
Mohamadi-Bideh, F. (1390/2001). Âsâreh donyavi va okhravieh nefrin kardan. Retrieved from [URL]
Parvin, M. (2003). Dardedel: rumi, hafez, and love in New York. New York: The Permanent Press.Google Scholar
Polzenhagen, F. & Wolf, H.-G. (2010). Investigating culture from a linguistic perspective: An exemplification with Hong Kong English. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik. 581, 281–303.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sabouri, M. (1396/2017). L’an va nefrin dar Eslam. Retrieved from [URL]
(2015). Cultural Linguistics. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 473–492). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2017a). Cultural Linguistics: Cultural conceptualisations and language. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). Cultural pragmatic schemas, pragmemes, and practs: A cultural linguistics perspective. In K. Allan, A. Capone, & I. Kecskés (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F., & Jamarani, M. (2011). Cultural schemas in intercultural communication: A study of Persian cultural schema of sharmandegi ‘being ashamed’. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 227–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tayyeb, M. (1380/2001). Mesbâh-ol Hodâ: Dar Negaresh va Ravesheh ’Erfâni-ye Ahleh Mohabbat va Valâ. Tehran: Safineh.Google Scholar
Xu, Z., & Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural conceptualisations for ELT in China. In Z. Xu, D. He, & D. Deterding (Eds.), Researching Chinese English: The state of the art (pp. 205–218). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar