A socio-pragmatic comparative study of

1. 
A makes B’s presence at E implausible; 
2. 
A extends invitations only after they have been solicited; 
3. 
A doesn’t motivate invitation beyond social courtesy;
4. 
A is vague about arrangements for event E; 
5. 
A doesn’t persist or insist on the invitation; 
6. 
A hedges the invitation; And 
7. 
A delivers the invitation with inappropriate cues. 
The present study concerns itself with a descriptive survey of ostensible invitations in 
Farsi. It will then try to establish a cross-linguistic analysis of ostensible invitations in 
English and Farsi. 
 

---

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 
7
1.1. Purpose of the Study 
This study has a two-fold goal. On the one hand, it seeks to determine whether the 
defining properties of ostensible invitations mentioned in the previous section (i.e. 
pretense, ambivalence, collusion, mutual recognition, and off-record purpose) hold true 
for ostensible invitations in Farsi. On the other hand, it compares Farsi ostensible 
invitations to English ones in terms of the seven features listed in the previous section.
The following are among the issues this study aims at exploring: 
a) Whether Farsi native speakers extend invitations for purposes of 
politeness ; 
b) Whether Farsi ostensible invitations observe all of the defining 
properties of English ostensible invitations; and 
c) Whether Farsi inviters take advantage of the same strategies in their 
extending ostensible invitations as their English counterparts do. 
Needless to say, any description of speech acts should take into account the 
relationships which exist between the act and the context in which the act is used. In 
exactly the same way, a description of ostensible invitations should evaluate the use of 
such exchanges in context. This study aims to do so. To this end, the following checklist 
will be of great help: 
A. What is the inviter’s social role (in situation and in relation to the invitee’s)? 
1. Male or female? 
2. Age: young, adult, old? 
3. Economical, social, and educational status? 
4. Feeling of solidarity with the invitee? 
B. What is the conversational situation? 
1. The length of the acquaintance of the interlocutors? 
2. The number of the participants in the discourse? 
3. The type of the discourse? 
a. Social small talk? 
b. Information sharing? 
 

---

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 
8
C. What is the inviter’s psychological context? 
1. The inviter’s confidence in what he is saying? 
2. The impression the inviter wants to make? 
3. The assumptions the inviter has about the invitee, himself/herself, 
and of conversation? 
This study will endeavor to clarify the relationships that may exist between ostensible 
invitations and the above checklist.