A socio-pragmatic comparative study of

particular; and (7) explained ostensible invitations in English. 

---

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 
66
Chapter three, Methodology: (1) defined the key terms and concepts used through out 
the study for purposes of clarifying the study; (2) introduced the subjects of the study; 
(3) described the materials used in the study and justified the selection of the corpus for 
the study; (4) outlined the characteristics of the data and explained the framework for 
the study; and (5) elaborated on the procedures used to the analysis of the data. 
Chapter four, Data Analysis: (1) used necessary tables and graphs to present the results 
and findings of the data analysis; and (2) interpreted the tables statistically for purposes 
of making the study understandable. 
5.2. Conclusions of the Study 
In chapter one of the study, a number of questions were raised as the focus of the study 
(cf. chapter one.). The results of the data analysis and interpretation reveals that the 
answer to all the questions is positive. In other words, the defining properties of Farsi 
ostensible invitations are similar to those of the English language. It was also revealed 
that Iranian inviters take advantage of the same strategies in making the pretense of their 
invitations vivid as their English counterparts do. The difference is only a matter of 
degree.
Most illocutionary acts lead to certain reactions in addressees. A warning may frighten 
B, a question may get B to do what was ordered. These reactions are called perlocutions 
(See Austin, 1962; and Davis, 1979). Invitations have two expectable perlocutions. 
P
1
: B comes to believe that A wants B to attend E. 
P
2
: B comes to feel that A likes or approves of B to an extent consistent with
My corpus reveals that with genuine invitations, the situation makes both P
1
and P
2
possible. With ostensible invitations, however, the situation generally makes P
1
impossible. It gives B reason to believe that A does not really want B to attend event E. 
The situation, however, does not preclude P
2
. 
As such, ostensible invitations seem patently designed as face-saving devices. In 
chapter one, it was argued that politeness should be studied in the context of face-
threatening acts (FTAs). It can, through analogy, be concluded that the purpose of 

---

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 
67
ostensible invitations, for the most part, is politeness. Indeed, many of the invitations in 
the corpus were extended when they were socially expected, when their absence would 
have offended B. 
For most of the invitations in the sample B felt pleased at the gesture. It is, however, 
possible to feel hurt or insulted.
Dr. Tavakoli is teaching Farsi literature at Meybod Azad University. Shahla (I am 
not allowed to quote the last name of the student) starts asking a series of questions. 
After answering some of the questions, Dr. Tavakoli comes to feel that Shahla is 
making fun of him. Holding a piece of chalk out towards her, he says: 
Dr. Tavakoli: shomaa befarmaa. 
(Here you are.)
Shahla: sharmande-?am. 
(I am sorry.) 
In this case, P
1
and P
2
are quite different: