A socio-pragmatic comparative study of

Formula frequency 
Percentage
?agar saretaan migirad. 
350 
84.95%. 
(If you like to drop in) 
?agar maayel hastid. 
29 
07.03% 
(If you desire to.) 
?agar maa raa laayeq/qaabel bedaanid. 
64 
15.53% 
(If you think we deserve it.) 
?agar baraay-e shomaa zahmati nist. 
19 
04.61% 
(If it does not bother you.) 
(7) A delivers the invitation with inappropriate cues. Usually genuine invitations are 
very vivid and crystal clear. Ostensible invitations, however, are fraught with 
inappropriate cues such as hesitations, pauses, down-casting of the eyes, rapid 
speech, and other non-verbal signs that manifest the pretense of the invitation. In 
my corpus, 4.74% (32) of the ostensible exchanges were delivered with 
inappropriate cues. However, 0% (0) of the genuine invitations were delivered 
inappropriately. The result of the comparison of ratios supported the following 
hypothesis: 

---

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS 
60
H
7
 (P
1
>P
2
): There is a meaningful difference between the inviters' use of 
inappropriate cues in ostensible and genuine invitations.
Z
0.05
=1.645
Z
observed
=6.103 6.103>1.645 therefore 
P
1
>P
2
These seven features, of course, are not independent of each other. Making an event 
implausible and leaving the arrangements vague both work because the preparatory 
conditions for the invitation do not hold. Failing to motivate beyond social courtesy, 
failing to persist, and hedging all show A's lack of commitment to the invitation. And so 
does an inappropriate delivery. Once any of these features is defective, B has reason to 
suspect the invitation is insincere. If the defective feature seems obvious enough that A 
would have to expect that they mutually recognize it, B has reason to believe the 
invitation is ostensible.