1.1Brief overview

This study is in direct response to Kádár’s call for research on ritual in lesser studied languages (2017Kádár, Daniel Z. 2017 Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 225), and takes a step towards providing more empirical research on Iranian ritual practices in Persian. Based on data from participant observation and post-event and ethnographic interviews, it makes a theoretical contribution to Kádár’s ritual schema, by identifying ostensivity and examining its links with the other elements in the schema.

To my knowledge, Iranian urban marriage ceremonies have not yet been analysed in detail from either a pragmatic or a ritual theory perspective nor linked to a sense of moral order, and therefore, this research makes a contribution to the field of Iranian pragmatics. In the collective society of Iran, particularly Tehran, variations are observable in traditional marriage practices: traditional marriage rituals retain their external forms, even though their substance may have changed. The analysis indicates that the retention of external forms is closely linked to perceptions of moral order.

1.2Previous research

Ritual was initially the object of study for sociologists. Durkheim’s (1912)Durkheim, Émile 1912 [1954/2001] The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. by Carol Cosman. Oxford: Oxford University Press. seminal work argued that ritual plays an important role in the formation of social networks by signalling the interdependence among group members. It has also been extensively studied in anthropology, with Malinowski examining phatic communion and how words create “ties of union” (1923Malinowski, Bronislaw 1923 “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages” In C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. Oxford: Harcourt Brace., 315); Goffman (1967Goffman, Erving 1967 Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books., 1972Goffman, Erving 1972 “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” In Communication in Face-to-Face Interaction, ed. by J. Laver, and S. Hutcheson, 319–346. Harmondsworth: Penguin.) focusing on everyday interaction rituals; and Turner (1969)Turner, Victor 1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New Brunswick and London: Transactions. identifying separation, liminality and incorporation in the rites of passage.

Pragmatic studies in various cultures have extensively examined interpersonal communication patterns, particularly politeness, which contains ritualistic elements (Matsumoto 1988Matsumoto, Yoshiko 1988 Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 403–426. , 1989Matsumoto, Yoshiko 1989 Politeness and Conversational Universals – Observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8: (2/3), 207–221. ; Ide S 1989Ide, Sachiko 1989 “Formal Forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Linguistic Politeness.” Multilingua 8: 223–248. ; Gu 1990Gu, Yueguo 1990 “Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 14 (2): 237–257. ; Ide R 1998Ide, Risako 1998 “ ‘Sorry for your Kindness’: Japanese Interactional Ritual in Public Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 29 (5): 509–529. ; Ohashi 2008Ohashi, Jun 2008 “Linguistic Rituals for Thanking in Japanese: Balancing Obligations.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (12): 2150–2174. , 2013Ohashi, Jun 2013 Thanking and Politeness in Japanese: Balancing Acts in Interaction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. , among others). In recent years ritual has gained focus in its own right in pragmatics, where it is charting new interdisciplinary territory through the exploration of its relationship with communication and interpersonal interaction (Senft and Basso 2009Senft, Gunter, and Eileen Basso 2009 Ritual Communication. Oxford: Berg.; Kádár 2013Kádár, Daniel Z. 2013 Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ), (im)politeness (Kádár and Haugh 2013Kádár, Daniel Z., and Michael Haugh 2013 Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 148ff; Kádár 2017Kádár, Daniel Z. 2017 Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ), and other subfields.

To set the scene for Iranian ritual, a brief note follows. Iranian ritual politeness (ta’arof) was treated descriptively in earlier studies (Hodge 1957Hodge, C. 1957 “Some Aspects of Persian Style.” Language 33: 355–369. ; Assadi 1980Assadi, Reza 1980 “Deference: Persian Style.” Anthropological Linguistics 22: 221–224.) while Beeman defines ta’arof, as “the active, ritualised realisation of differential perceptions of superiority and inferiority in interaction” (1986Beeman, William O. 1986 Language, Status and Power in Iran. Bloomington: Indiana University Press., 56–57) and examines its connections with power and status. Asdjoodi (2001)Asdjoodi, Minoo 2001 “A Comparison Between Ta’arof in Persian and Limao in Chinese.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 148: 71–92. compares ritual politeness to the Chinese limao, and Bucar (2012)Bucar, Elizabeth M. 2012 “Saving Face: Navigating Landmines with Ritual Politeness.” History of Religions 52 (1): 31–48. examines its potential pitfalls in communication.

Koutlaki’s study of Iranian ritual politeness (ta’arof) and face (1997Koutlaki, Sofia A. 1997 “The Persian System of Politeness and the Persian Folk Concept of Face, with Some Reference to EFL Teaching to Iranian Native Speakers.” Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wales College of Cardiff., 2002Koutlaki, Sofia A. 2002 “Offers and Expressions of Thanks as Face Enhancing Acts: Ta’arof in Persian.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1733–1756. , 2009Koutlaki, Sofia A. 2009 “Two Sides of the Same Coin: How the Notion of ‘Face’ is Encoded in Persian Communication.” In Face, Communication and Social Interaction, ed. by F. Bargiela-Chiappini and M. Haugh, 115–133. London: Equinox.) traces a direct line from Malinowski’s phatic communion through Goffman’s interaction rituals and the concept of face (1959Goffman, Erving 1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday., 1967Goffman, Erving 1967 Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books., 1972Goffman, Erving 1972 “On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction.” In Communication in Face-to-Face Interaction, ed. by J. Laver, and S. Hutcheson, 319–346. Harmondsworth: Penguin.). Koutlaki details how the three principles of Persian politeness (deference, humility and cordiality) are realised through specific ritual politeness (ta’arof) strategies that are closely linked to face considerations (1997Koutlaki, Sofia A. 1997 “The Persian System of Politeness and the Persian Folk Concept of Face, with Some Reference to EFL Teaching to Iranian Native Speakers.” Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wales College of Cardiff., 2009Koutlaki, Sofia A. 2009 “Two Sides of the Same Coin: How the Notion of ‘Face’ is Encoded in Persian Communication.” In Face, Communication and Social Interaction, ed. by F. Bargiela-Chiappini and M. Haugh, 115–133. London: Equinox.), by pointing out that ‘going through the motions’ in ostensible offers, invitations and refusals, which are manifestations of ritual politeness (ta’arof), gives rise to politeness assessments and face enhancement. In this study, situated within the recent focus on ritual in pragmatics, I adopt Kádár’s definition (2017Kádár, Daniel Z. 2017 Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 12):

[R]itual is a formalized and recurrent action, which is relationship forcing; that is, by operating, it reinforces/transforms interpersonal relationships. Ritual is realized as an embedded liminal (mini)performance [which is] bound to relational history (and related moral order), or historicity in general (and related moral order). Ritual is an emotively invested action, as anthropological research has shown.

In the above definition, Kádár identifies the elements of recurrence, liminality, embodiment of the moral order and emotivity (2013Kádár, Daniel Z. 2013 Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. , 2017Kádár, Daniel Z. 2017 Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ). I understand recurrence to be the repetition of set patterns, whether they are initiation/response pairs, longer exchange sequences or whole speech events. Kádár (2013Kádár, Daniel Z. 2013 Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. , 183), following Taylor (1994)Taylor, Paul Beekman 1994 “Repetition as Cure in Native American story: Silko’s Ceremony and Momaday’s The Ancient Child .” SPELL: Swiss Papers in English Language and Literature 7: 221–42., argues that recurrence is distinguishable from discursive repetition; however, in this study, the term ‘recurrence’ includes ‘discursive repetition’.

Kádár’s definition characterises rituals as “models of moral order” (following Whuthnow 1989Whuthnow, Robert 1989 Meaning and Moral Order. Berkeley: University of California Press. , 58), and defines moral order as “the perceived aggregated obligations and affordances of individuals within a community, and communities within a society, which manifest themselves in norms and rules by means of which we keep things in their place,” (2017Kádár, Daniel Z. 2017 Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , xvii) “occasionally even without explicitly recognizing the values that we re-enact through maintaining this order” (2017Kádár, Daniel Z. 2017 Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 2). In other words, ritual functions are the symbolic embodiment of the moral order and, as such, can have an emotive effect on the performer (Kádár 2013Kádár, Daniel Z. 2013 Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. , 113), and produce feelings of solidarity and attachment with the participant group (Collins 2004Collins, Randall 2004 Interactional Ritual Chains. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. , 108).

Liminality is understood to be the crossing of the border between the ‘ordinary’ and the ‘extraordinary’ and describes ritual as a “relational target-oriented action, which sticks out from what is regarded as ‘ordinary flow’ of interaction as ‘salient’ from the participants’ point of view” (Kádár 2017Kádár, Daniel Z. 2017 Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 6–7). Emotivity is the aspect of ritual that refers to the interdependency of (im)politeness and feelings (Locher and Langlotz 2008Locher, Miriam, and Andreas Langlotz 2008 “Relational Work at the Intersection of Cognition, Interaction and Emotion”. Bulletin vals-asla, bulletin Suisse de la linguistique appliquee. 88: 165–91.; also see Kádár’s detailed discussion (2013Kádár, Daniel Z. 2013 Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. , 111–115)).

1.3Iranian marriage rituals

Beeman (1986Beeman, William O. 1986 Language, Status and Power in Iran. Bloomington: Indiana University Press., 47) writes that “families marry families…marriage negotiations can approach the complexity of a corporate merger” which apparently refers to the number of ‘events’, each with its own name, that take place in every marriage, from the first contact until well after the wedding ceremony. Marriage ceremonies provide a key dataset for the examination of ritual, as these are occasions in which two families gradually become acquainted. In these interactional settings, conformity to the moral order and an awareness of how this conformity is linked to face11.An exploration of how Kádár’s ritual schema and the element of ostensivity are related to face lies outside the scope of this paper. are particularly important.

The following overview is compiled from the accounts of native informants and my own first-hand experience of Iranian life (see Figure 1). During the fifteen years of my life in Iran, I conducted conversations and informal interviews with my extended circle of family, friends, colleagues and students. This caveat should however be noted: to many Iranians, the conventions that I describe might sound like stories from their parents’ youth, removed from their own experience. However, my own personal and professional experience among traditional, religious milieus indicates that these practices are still prevalent; traditional families are expected to conform to these practices, even if the young couple do things differently, as shown in the first extract below.

Traditionally, the groom’s mother identifies a prospective bride and arranges a visit with the groom and his father. The prospective couple speak in private, usually over several sessions. When an agreement in principle is reached, an official meeting of ‘exchange of promise to marry’ (baleh-boroon) takes place. Historically, the baleh-boroon was an occasion attended by close relatives, in which the families became acquainted and discussed the particulars of the match (bridal gift, the couple’s accommodation, wedding reception details). The male elders of both families played an active role in the process, the content and the outcome of the negotiations, as I observed during a baleh-boroon in 1999. Discussions can become animated because the bride’s family might demand a bridal gift of a large number of gold coins, often regarded as a matter of prestige. However, the groom’s family generally argue in favour of a more modest amount, as the groom is legally bound to pay the bridal gift upon demand.22.Article 1083, Civil Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran. https://​rc​.majlis​.ir​/fa​/law​/show​/97937 accessed 27 July 2019 In a situation where the two families have only known each other for a short time, the face stakes are high: respect for the views of elders, the reputation and social standing of both families, and practical and legal considerations have to be finely balanced until a final agreement is reached and ratified by the family elders.

Other particulars of a matchmaking deal are common knowledge, so the two families generally have similar expectations. The wedding reception and the couple’s accommodation are always the groom’s responsibility. The bride’s family provide the bridal trousseau, including home furniture, furnishings, bed linen and kitchen contents, including electrical appliances.

In post-event ethnographic interviews with participants and observers, informants generally regarded marriage rituals as ‘customs’ and ‘that’s how it is’, which appear to be compelling reasons for conformity. Such views provide an insight into the function of ritual as a phenomenon that facilitates social transaction by indexing the actors’ adherence to the same moral order, even if this adherence is only ostensive, as in Extract 1.

According to my observations of three recent cases of the baleh-boroon (2013–2018) over the last decade a significant change has taken place: negotiations on the important issues of the match take place behind closed doors between the two immediate families, while the baleh-boroon is now ceremonial in character. This fact was confirmed by a total of 23 informants, some of whom were the central participants in these ceremonies, and others to whom I described the situation and asked for an assessment. This development highlights the strong element of ostensivity which is present in these ceremonies: positive footing is established in the relationship between the two extended families through the ostensible show of respect (e.g. through the use of terms of address and honorifics, the approval expressed through the signing of the booklet) and the ostensible show of adherence to the moral order (such as gender roles and seniority position).

Traditionally the bride was ‘given away’ by her family, left her parents’ home and joined the groom’s family by physically living with them. Contemporary, urban living conditions, such as apartment living, have necessitated a complete change to this tradition. Therefore, young couples move to their own home, but the alteration in status is still felt psychologically and emotionally in similar ways to the past. This understanding is encoded in language, in expressions such as “the bride of the family”, or “since Mariam entered her husband’s family”. In the situation where a woman has married into a family from which one of her male relatives has taken a wife, the expression “we gave one [woman], we took one” is used. This conceptualisation is clearly evident in the conversations that were conducted with informants, and indexed by the fact that the baleh-boroon ceremony is always organised and hosted by the bride’s family.

Only family elders attend baleh-boroon ceremonies, where a male elder is in charge of the proceedings. During these ceremonies the bride, groom and female elders do not talk formally to the participants, although their presence is central to the ritual. These are all recurring patterns in which the other elements of ritual are also discernible.

4.1‘Exchange of promise to marry’ (baleh-boroon) ceremonies

The first extract is from a baleh-boroon held during spring 2016. It illustrates how contemporary social realities can affect traditions, while at the same time traditional rituals are still respected and practised. I was personally involved in this ceremony as the wife of the groom’s eldest maternal uncle.

This case differed from the traditional matchmaking because the young couple (let us call the groom Ali44.All names are pseudonyms. and the bride Mariam) had met without family mediation. According to the evaluation of the groom’s maternal uncle, this practice is still considered to be reprehensible in religious, conservative families, and therefore this fact was deliberately concealed to maintain face among their extended families.

After this marriage was contracted, Mariam’s mother said that it is now common practice for youngsters to meet on their own outside the house (with their parents’ permission) before the families themselves meet, and this practice is not frowned upon in the same way as it would have been ten years ago. However, she stressed that in her family this practice is unacceptable and, as far as I am aware, it is also unacceptable in Ali’s family.

When the couple disclosed their relationship and intention to marry to their respective families, Mariam’s mother acted as the animator of the family voice55. Kádár 2013Kádár, Daniel Z. 2013 Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. passim. for whom it was important to establish their position and the family standing at an early stage in the new relationship. As part of this role, she conveyed a message to Ali’s mother, via Mariam and Ali, asking her to pay them a formal proposal visit. By taking control of the process, Mariam’s mother established the ostensive position of the two parties in a manner which is acceptable in their social milieu: namely, parents initiate and follow through, and elders ratify the match. Ali’s family were pleased with this development because it allowed both families to announce the event in an acceptable format. Both families were able to tacitly fit the novel situation into a format that ostensibly conforms to their moral order, thus preserving the face of the individuals and their families.

From that moment on, the process followed the established pattern: Ali’s mother rang Mariam’s mother to arrange the visit, as if she were making the first approach. The first formal proposal visit was then followed by a couple of further formal visits during which, according to Ali’s mother, only the two sets of parents and the young couple agreed on the details of the wedding reception, the couple’s accommodation and a bridal gift (mehriyeh) of 500 gold Azadi coins.66.The issue of the bridal gift (mehr or mehriyeh) in Iran is a complex matter. This amount (usually, but not necessarily, recorded in gold Azadi coins) is pledged and recorded on the marriage contract, and it is legally payable to the bride (but not to her family) upon demand. However, in practice, it is not paid provided the couple remains married. Socially, it is a matter of prestige for both the young woman and her family (although opinions on this vary). If a woman decides to legally demand payment of her gift, her husband can face imprisonment if he is unable to do so. In autumn 2018 one Azadi coin was worth about 40 million Iranian rials, or approximately £222. See also footnote 3 above. Although the negotiation itself did not formally involve any other relatives, Ali’s mother shared the details with her siblings.

Mariam’s father told Ali’s parents that they do not ‘give away’ girls on a bridal gift of less than 2,000 coins, and added that if his father became aware that they had agreed on 500 coins, he would be upset and embarrassed in the extended family. Ali’s mother understood this communication as an ostensive demonstration of Mariam’s father’s respect and regard for Ali and his family, and as an effort to establish his family’s prestige at an early stage in the relationship.

After the private agreement was reached, the remainder of the process followed the traditional pattern. Mariam’s family held the baleh-boroon ceremony in their house, attended by grandparents, paternal and maternal uncles from both families. This event mainly served a ritualistic function as a means of mutual acquaintance of the two families and of ratification of the young couple’s union, highlighting the element of ostensivity that has been present throughout the process.

He then proceeded to introduce his own relatives and those of his wife’s, one at a time, and then asked Ali’s father to do the same, to which he responded using similar honorifics. As the eldest male at the assembly, Mariam’s paternal grandfather then took control of the proceedings, being entitled to speak because of his age, gender and position as the family patriarch. He began by nominally asking the maternal grandfather and Ali’s father for permission to speak to the assembly. Like his son, he used Persian honorifics towards the groom and his family, detailing the terms that the two sets of parents had agreed upon. The value of the bridal gift (500 gold coins) was explicitly mentioned, but despite his son’s earlier comment, he did not show any sign of displeasure. He circulated a large ornate booklet which recorded all the terms, and each participant signed it as a token of agreement.

In the days prior to the ceremony, Ali bought Mariam gold jewellery, chador and dress fabrics, shoes and a handbag, which Ali’s mother had professionally arranged on tall floristry baskets. These were sent to Mariam’s house in advance of the ceremony, where they were displayed in front of the couple’s two-seater. After the booklet was signed, Mariam’s paternal uncles carried the baskets around the guests, who expressed their admiration, gave thanks to Ali’s family and exchanged wishes for a happy and long married life. The flowery chador fabric was unpinned from the basket, Mariam then stood up and Ali threw the fabric over her head. It was then measured by her maternal aunt and cut to the required length for stitching.

The speaker asks both fathers to take a seat while he hands Reza and Hanieh the booklet to sign. The two fathers step down from the platform and take their seats, and the booklet is passed to them for signing. Both mothers-in-law then come along to sign, followed by the elders of each family, in alternative order and in descending order of age. Reza’s mother presented Hanieh with a length of dress fabric and an engagement ring.

4.1.1Interpretation of the ceremonies of “exchange of promise to marry”

Extracts 1 and 2 are examined in terms of Kádár’s ritual schema of recurrence, liminality, embodiment of the moral order and emotivity. My data suggest that these four elements and the element of ostensivity, although it has been identified separately here for the purpose of analysis, are in fact intertwined in the interactions and are experienced in a holistic way by the participants, as post-event comments would appear to suggest. It should also be noted that since the extracts are ritualistic and feature recurrent elements, the analysis focuses on only a few indicative examples.

• Recurrence

Common recurrent patterns are obvious in the two baleh-boroon ceremonies analysed above. They both begin with a formal welcome and respectful address by a member of the bride’s family, include an announcement of the terms which have previously been agreed and ostensive, ritual ratifications (the reciting of salutations and signing the booklet). They both have a gift presentation/exchange as ratification of the union in the presence of an audience.

• Liminality

Various modes of liminality are also present, with one mode being reminiscent of classical anthropological texts regarding a bride’s separation from her family and her future incorporation in her husband’s family. These ceremonies occupy the space “betwixt and between” from non-acquaintance to acquaintance to in-law kinship for the extended families, and for the couple’s status as unattached individuals to becoming betrothed. In another mode, when the verbal and non-verbal interaction is out of the ordinary, liminality is manifested through the formal means of address which can be observed in both extracts, the announcement of the imminent match and its ratification by both families, and the evocation of a sense of occasion. The presence of the audience and the modes of expression (e.g. respectful address and reference, salutations to the Prophet) highlight the ostensive character of this ritual.

• Emotivity

The baleh-boroon ritual evokes various feelings, depending on the attitudes of the individual participants. The use of respectful other-raising and self-lowering honorifics and terms of address in the speeches given by Mariam’s father and grandfather generate cordiality and warmth in the new relationships (Koutlaki 1997Koutlaki, Sofia A. 1997 “The Persian System of Politeness and the Persian Folk Concept of Face, with Some Reference to EFL Teaching to Iranian Native Speakers.” Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wales College of Cardiff., 195ff.) and enhance the face of all the participants because they are carried out ostensibly and in the presence of an audience. Several literary tropes in the elder’s speech in Extract 2 also produce emotional effects. The image of the two butterflies in one cocoon flying towards their ‘goal’ (Extract 2, lines 8–10) publicly and ostensibly projects the couple’s togetherness and affection. Feelings of well-being and the hope of future blessings are evoked through the choice of auspicious day and the choice of 110 coins (an auspicious number) for the mehriyeh, as well as mentioning the Holy Fatima’s mehriyeh (Extract 2, lines 12–13).

• Embodiment of the moral order

Numerous manifestations of the embodiment of the moral order, such as references to religious precepts and religious figures as role models, are observable. For example, ‘practising their divine tradition [i.e. marriage]’ (Extract 2, line 9) implies that by entering into matrimony the young couple are adhering to the moral order which was established by religious figures. The reference to ‘a mirror and [two] candlesticks following the tradition of the Holy Fatima’ (lines 12–13) also indexes the couple’s piety.

Apart from highlighting a religious connection, the upholding of the moral order can also be achieved by omission. Speakers can work towards the same interactional achievement by omitting references to issues that could be evaluated negatively such as the couple’s previous relationship or the fact that in Extract 1, contrary to custom, the two families bought a flat for the couple in their joint names. Iranians often read as much from omissions as they do from ostensible behaviour.

As components of the moral order, traditional gender roles are also re-enacted throughout these rituals. Despite the fact that women with their social knowledge and experience are instrumental in shaping the new relationship (making the first contact, smoothing out details of the terms in private, often acting as the spokesperson for their family), they are not assigned any formal roles during ceremonial occasions, such as the baleh-boroon, when male elders (Mariam’s father and grandfather in Extract 1 and Hanieh’s paternal cousin in Extract 2) are ostensibly in charge. Male elders lead the proceedings by addressing the guests and announcing the terms of the match, and thus project an image of playing the leading role, as they do in society. In Extract 1, Ali draped the chador fabric over Mariam’s head in a symbolic, ostensible gesture of taking her under his protection and care. Despite the fact that Mariam is a postgraduate student who also works, with her salary contributing to the household, and, contrary to conventions, her family shared equally in the purchase of the couple’s flat, this public gesture highlights ostensive adherence to the moral order, as laid down by Islamic law and understood by large numbers of Muslims.

• Ostensivity

The above analysis shows that ostensivity co-exists with, and is observed in, the other ritual elements of the schema; this point is highlighted by the fact that the following references to the previous extracts may sound repetitive. In Extract 1, Mariam’s and Ali’s fathers establish their own positions and those of others by lowering themselves and raising others in a process that can be seen as mimetic (Kádár 2013Kádár, Daniel Z. 2013 Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. , 74 and passim) and ostensible, i.e. it does not reflect the social reality experienced by the participants. The speaker is older than all the other participants and is simply going through the motions of projecting humility and deference.1111.For the principles of Persian politeness, see Koutlaki 1997Koutlaki, Sofia A. 1997 “The Persian System of Politeness and the Persian Folk Concept of Face, with Some Reference to EFL Teaching to Iranian Native Speakers.” Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Wales College of Cardiff., 2009Koutlaki, Sofia A. 2009 “Two Sides of the Same Coin: How the Notion of ‘Face’ is Encoded in Persian Communication.” In Face, Communication and Social Interaction, ed. by F. Bargiela-Chiappini and M. Haugh, 115–133. London: Equinox., 120ff. This ostensivity is observed in the use of Persian honorifics as well as other expressions of humility and deference, such as asking for permission, and works on the construction of a mutual face for both speakers and participants.

Ostensivity can also be seen in several aspects of these ceremonies, such as the public announcement of the mehriyeh and the signing of the booklet, as well as the display of gifts. The signing of the booklet does not have any legal significance: only the signing of the register after the official wedding ceremony (‘aqd) has legal weight. Nonetheless, the witnessing of the written agreement in the presence of elders from both extended families makes it socially binding. The ostensivity evident in the public display of the groom’s presents, the admiring and valedictory comments, the exchange of wishes and the draping of fabric over the bride’s head also indexes respect and appreciation towards the groom’s family and goodwill between members of the newly acquainted families.

4.2Official wedding ceremonies (‘aqd)

The organisation and the expenses involved in the official wedding ceremony are always the responsibility of the groom’s family. This is a ‘deconstructive ritual’, during which the bride’s membership of her family is deconstructed. At this point, the change to ‘officially married’ status takes effect, and the bride formally joins the groom’s family (Turner 1969Turner, Victor 1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. New Brunswick and London: Transactions.; Kádár 2013Kádár, Daniel Z. 2013 Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. , 142). As previously, the elements of recurrence, liminality, embodiment of the moral order, emotivity and ostensivity are observable, and discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.1.

The officiant recites the marriage sermon in Arabic, asks the participants to offer salutations to the Prophet, and concludes the ceremony with a series of supplications for healthy progeny, marital harmony, health and longevity, after each of which the participants respond in unison with ‘Amen’.

The traditional, universal pattern of the ritual of double answer avoidance by the bride is ‘the bride has gone to pick rose-flowers’ the first time, and ‘the bride has gone to extract rose-water’ the second time. This is a universally recognisable scene by all Iranians, and one that, according to the numerous informants I have interviewed and the considerable number of ceremonies I have witnessed, is almost never deviated from. However, Extract 3 features a variation on this universal response by replacing the flower-picking motif with the motif of reading from the holy book. A similar variation took place during the official wedding ceremony of the couple featured in Extract 1, as shown in Extract 4 below.

4.2.1Interpretation of official wedding ceremonies

In keeping with the analysis of Extracts 1 and 2, the five elements of ritual co-exist in the flow of the interactions. Examples are given for the sake of analysis, but are illustrations of more than one element.

• Recurrence

Recurrent patterns are also observed in ‘aqd ceremonies, from the set-up (e.g. the physical objects in the wedding spread, the positioning of the bride and groom) to the components of the ceremony: references to holy figures, the requests for the elders’ and bride’s permission, the bride’s double avoidance ritual and the grinding of sugar cones. Ostensivity can also be observed in the recurrent patterns: although the presence of the elders, bride and groom signifies agreement to the match, the ritual requires a request to be ostensibly made and permission to be ostensibly granted, as in Extract 3.

• Liminality

Participants appear to experience the ‘peak’ liminal moment just after the bride’s final response has been made following the double avoidance ritual, even though, legally, the marriage is not contracted until after the groom has granted permission and the marriage formula has been pronounced by the officiant. This is clear in Extract 3, when the white fabric is removed before the officiant asks Reza for his permission and the pronouncement of the marriage formula. Once again, manifestations of liminality are linked to ostensivity, as in the requesting and granting of permission to allow the officiant to solemnise the marriage, which marks and formalises the liminality in the presence of an audience.

Line 10 marks a momentary ‘stepping out’ of the ceremony with the officiant’s remark and the participants’ laughter: Sabr konid, damad ke bale nagofteh. ‘Wait, the groom has not said “I do.”’ Liminality also appears to be marked ostensibly through the recitation of salutations, which evokes the presence of the Holy Prophet and the Imams as witnesses. After this ceremony, the couple have crossed over the final threshold and are legally married, with both their families now being related by marriage.

• Emotivity

An official marriage ceremony is an occasion in which a number of emotive states of mind are evident. In Extracts 3 and 4, where both families approved of the matches, it can be assumed that positive feelings are generally experienced. However, Extract 5 represents a situation in which the bride’s behaviour does not correspond to the other participants’ moral order, and clearly illustrates how “ritual actions tend to trigger feelings that reflect the interactants’ perception of how the liminal action of ritual affects them and relates to their moral orders” (Kádár 2017Kádár, Daniel Z. 2017 Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 9). The film extract shows that various negative emotions are experienced by Rahman’s female relatives.

These negative emotions include ill-concealed displeasure, and anger and disapproval that Ameneh joins in the ululation on line 2, behaviour that runs counter to the Iranian ideal of a modest, reticent bride. Rahman’s relatives also express consternation and shock with the mehriyeh issue (line 14 and 21–22). They are also shown to experience acute embarrassment at the way Ameneh directly addresses the officiant on line 23 and dismisses the double response avoidance ritual with a non-standard answer (line 26) which is also highlighted by the women’s laughter in the background.

It could be argued that these emotions are partly triggered by the breach of the expected recurrent pattern; moreover, the significance of the ostensible double response avoidance lies in ostensible conformity to an ideal moral order, not in its factual accuracy, and the film director utilises this dissonance for comic effect.

• Embodiment of the moral order

As in the baleh-boroon extracts, moral order is manifested in the official wedding ceremonies in a number of ways. In Extracts 3 and 5, the officiants begin their speech with reference to marriage being the Prophet’s tradition, which implies that, by following him as a role model, the couple will enter into this desirable state. If Extract 5 presents a radical departure from the established ritual, Extracts 3 and 4 present interesting variations, which, nonetheless, continue to fit into the traditional mould of the ritual and reinforce the moral order of the image that a bride should project, and how and when she should speak. The double response avoidance is the only instance in which the bride and other female participants are expected to speak to the assembly during ‘aqd ceremonies. As previously mentioned, the recurrent pattern of the double response avoidance also indexes the bride’s ostensible conformity to traditional gender ideals and the prevalent moral order: a young, virginal bride should be restrained and shy, and not appear too eager to express her agreement to the match. This is clearly highlighted in the comments made by Rahman’s mother and paternal aunt on lines 2 and 31–32.

These lines clearly show their annoyance and are addressed semi-privately to other like-minded participants, and not to the whole congregation. One exception is when Rahman’s mother is asked about the mehriyeh in the absence of her dead husband, and the same applies to his paternal aunt when she instructs the officiant to begin the ceremony.

The mothers and sisters of the two grooms in Extracts 3 and 4 expressed the view that opting for religious motifs of the double answer avoidance indexes the piety of the bride’s family as well as invokes divine blessings for the union.