Parental and gender hegemonic struggle in Iranian wedding invitations across (1970–1990) and (1990 to present)

References

• Afary, J., and K. B. Anderson. 2004. Revisiting Foucault and the Iranian revolution. New Politics X(1). 1–37.
   Google Scholar
• Afful, J. B. A. 2006. Non-kinship address terms in Akan: A sociolinguistic study of language use in Ghana. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 27(4). 275–89. doi: 10.2167/jmmd425.1
   Google Scholar
• Afful, J. B. A., and I. N. Mwinlaaru. 2013. When ‘Sir’ and ‘Madam’ are not: Address terms and reference terms students use for faculty in a Ghanaian university. Sociolinguistic Studies 6(3). 491–517. doi: 10.1558/sols.v6i3.491
   Google Scholar
• Aghajanian, A. 2001. Family and family change in Iran. In Charles B. Hennon and Timothy H. Brubaker (eds.), Diversity in families: A global perspective, 1–47. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Ali, M. N. 2006. Religious affiliations and masculine power in Jordanian wedding invitation genre. Discourse & Society 17(6). 691–714. doi: 10.1177/0957926506068428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aliakbari, M., and A. Toni. 2008. The realization of address terms in modern Persian in Iran: A socio linguistic study. Linguistik Online 35(3). 3–12.
   Google Scholar
• Baher, H. 2014. Factors affecting divorce in Iran. Online: http://www.persianpersia.com/lifestyle/ldetails.php?articleid=19589&parentid=53&catid=174 (accessed 10 July 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Benveniste, É. 1971. Problems in general linguistics. Tr. M.E. Meek. Miami Linguistics Series no. 8. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
   Google Scholar
• Briner, B. J. 2013. Introduction to pragmatics. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, R., and A. Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language, 253–76. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, P., and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cawasji Katrak, J. 1965. Marriage in ancient Iran. Bombay: Godrej Memorial Printing Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cramer, J. 2010. ‘Do we really want to be like them?’: Indexing Europeanness through pronominal use. Discourse and Society 21(6). 619–37. doi: 10.1177/0957926510381217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidson, D. 2007. East spaces in west times: Deictic reference and political self-positioning in a post-socialist east German chronotope. Language & Communication 27. 212–26. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2007.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickey, E. 1997. Forms of address and terms of reference. Journal of Linguistics 33. 255–74. doi: 10.1017/S0022226797006488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 2007. Global capitalism and Change in higher education: Dialectics of language and practice. Proceedings of the BAAL conference 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 2010. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. 2013. Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies 7(2). 177–97. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2013.798239
   Google Scholar
• Forgacs, D. 1988. A Gramsci reader. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
   Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. 1979. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Gholam-Alizadeh, K. 2007. The structure of Persian language. Tehran: Ehya-Ketab.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1989. Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Johns, A. 1997. Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kress, G., and T. Van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leeds-Hurwitz, W. 2002. Wedding as text: Communicating cultural identities through ritual. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Machin, D. 2013. What is multimodal critical discourse studies? Critical Discourse Studies 10(4). 347–55. doi:10.1080/17405904.2013.813770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, C. 1984. Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70. 151–67. doi: 10.1080/00335638409383686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirzaei, A., and Z. R. Eslami. 2013. Exploring the variability dynamics of wedding invitation discourse in Iran. Journal of Pragmatics 55. 103–18. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulderrig, J. 2012. The hegemony of inclusion: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis of deixis in education policy. Discourse & Society 23(6). 701–28. doi: 10.1177/0957926512455377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rühlemann, C. 2007. Conversation in context. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Sharif, M., and L. Yarmohammadi. 2013. On the Persian wedding invitation genre. SAGE Open 3(3). 1–9. doi: 10.1177/2158244013503829
   Google Scholar
• Siewierska, A. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Soeffner, H. G. 1995. The art of experienced analysis: Anselm Strauss and his theory of action. Mind, Culture and Activity 2. 29–32. doi: 10.1080/10749039509524683
   Google Scholar
• Terkourafi, M. 2005. Identity and semantic change: Aspects of T/V usage in Cyprus. Journal of Historical Pragmatic 6. 283–306. doi: 10.1075/jhp.6.2.07ter
   Google Scholar
• Tsuda, Sanae. 1993. Indirectness in discourse: What does it do in conversation? Intercultural Communication III(1). 63–74.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. 2009. Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vuković, M. 2012. Positioning in pre-prepared and spontaneous parliamentary discourse: Choice of person in the Parliament of Montenegro. Discourse & Society 23(2). 184–202. doi: 10.1177/0957926511431507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wardhaugh, R. 2006. An introduction to sociolinguistic. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Wortham, S. 1996. Mapping participant deictics: A technique for discovering speakers’ footing. Journal of Pragmatics 25. 331–48. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(94)00100-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wouters, C. 2007. Informalization: Manners and emotions since 1890. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar