Ostensible Refusals in the Jordanian culture

Abstract

This study comprehensively analyzes ostensible refusals, a type of ostensible communicative act. The research utilizes the Joint Action theory framework proposed by Clark to highlight the functions and structure of this communicative act in Jordanian culture. The data of the study is collected through informal interviews with twenty participants and direct observation and recalls, and a qualitative analysis is conducted. The study shows that, like other cultures, ostensible refusals in Jordan often follow a multipartite structure like ‘invite-refuse-invite-accept’ and are characterized as immediate, unmitigated, and short. These refusals play crucial roles in different contexts, such as avoiding support, responding to compliments, mitigating embarrassment, adhering to cultural rituals, fostering customer loyalty, expressing frustration, and negotiating offers. The research significantly contributes to understanding the complexity of verbal interactions and cultural communication practices in Jordan.

Keywords:

• Face
• ostensible communicative acts
• ostensible refusals
• speech acts

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Jeroen van de Weijer
• Shenzhen University
• China

SUBJECTS:

• Applied linguistics
• Pragmatics

1. Introduction

This study explores ostensible refusals in the Jordanian culture. Ostensible refusals are part of ostensible communicative acts (Clark, 1996; Isaacs & Clark, 1990). Ostensible acts are ‘nonserious language use - a form of mutually recognized pretense […]. They differ from the rest in what [Isaacs and Clark] have called ambivalence. When asked, ‘Do you really mean it?’ the speaker cannot wholeheartedly answer either “yes” or “no”’ (Isaacs & Clark, 1990, p. 508). In this vein, Ran and Lai (2014) define ‘ostensible refusals in Mandarin as pre-acceptance refusals where the refuser intends to accept an offer of gift, assistance, or invitation from the very beginning but refuses it initially out of courtesy’ (p. 2). Shishavan (2016) illustrates the concept of ostensible refusals. She shows that ostensible refusals are expected under certain circumstances. See the following interaction for further illustration.

Example (1)

Context: Ali and Hoda are a couple leaving their friend’s (Reza) home. It is 12:30 at night and they do not have a car. No public transportation facility is also available at that time of the night. It is a 30-min walk from Reza’s home to Ali and Hoda’s apartment. As they say goodbye, Reza takes his car keys and offers to give them a ride.

Reza: mæn be mɒːʃin miːɾesunæmetun.¹

 I with car drive.you

 in moqeʔ ʃæb ɒːtobus  giːɾetun nemiːɒːd

 This time night bus  find.you not.do.you

 ‘I’ll give you a drive. You can’t find a bus at this time of the night.’

Hoda: næ, æɡæɾ ɾezɒ, mɒː diɡe  mæzɒːhem nemiːʃim.

 No Mr. Reza, we no.longer trouble  not.do

 miːxɒːjim kæmi hæm gædæm bezænim.

 Want.us a.bit also walk  do.us

 ‘No Mr. Reza, we won’t bother you. We also would like to walk a

 Bit.’

 (But they clearly seem too tired and sleepy to be able to walk for about

 half an hour).

Reza: næ bɒːbɒ, mozɒːhemæt nist  æslɒn.

 No, it trouble  not.is  at.all

 bɒ mɒːʃin pændʒ dæɢiɢe  biʃtɒr tʊl  nemikeʃe.

 by car five minutes more duration not.take

 ‘No, it’s not a trouble at all. It won’t take more than five minutes by car.’

Hoda: dæste ʃomɒː dærd nækonæ.

 hand yours pain not.do

 xeili  mæmnun.

 so.much thanks

 ‘Thanks so much.’ (and they all walk towards the car.)

  (Persian)

  (Shishavan, 2016, pp. 24–25)

In the example above, Hoda initially declines Reza’s offer to drive them home late at night, despite their apparent tiredness and lack of transportation options. This polite refusal is a common social practice in many cultures, where direct acceptance might be perceived as impolite or imposing. Hoda’s response, emphasizing not wanting to be a bother, reflects a concern for social courtesy rather than a true desire to refuse the offer. Reza’s subsequent insistence and reassurance that it’s no trouble at all is also a typical part of this social dance, where the offeror recognizes the refusal as a formality and gently pushes past it to provide assistance.

There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of ostensible communicative acts across cultures (Abdel Hady, 2013, 2015; Abdelhady & Alkinj, 2023; Dastpak & Mollaei, 2011; Isaacs & Clark, 1990). Investigating ostensible communicative acts is a continuing concern because such acts differ from genuine speech acts in several aspects. In addition, recent evidence suggests ostensible communicative acts vary across cultures (Su, 2020). However, ostensible refusals have received scant attention across cultures (Isaacs & Clark, 1990; Shishavan, 2016; Su, 2020). Therefore, this study addresses ostensible refusals in Jordanian culture by addressing the following questions: Why and when do Jordanians resort to ostensible refusals? How do ostensible refusals differ from genunine refusals? Are ostensible refusals in the Jordanian culture similar to other cultures? As communication styles vary significantly across cultures (Giri, 2006), by examining how ostensible refusals are handled in Jordanian culture, the researcher can compare and contrast these practices with those in other cultures, contributing to a broader understanding of global communication practices.

2. Background

2.1. The speech act theory

Speech acts are a key concept in the study of language and communication. They capture the idea that words can present information and carry out actions (Austin, 1962; Cohen, 1970; Downes, 1984; Huang, 2006; Searle, 1969). For example, when a speaker utters, ‘I invite you to dinner,’ the speaker uses those words not to present information but to establish an invitation.

The speech act theory views any utterance to have three major acts: locutionary act, perlocutionary act, and illocutionary act (Searle, 1969). It is necessary here to clarify exactly what is meant by those terms. According to Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), a locutionary act is the literal meaning of an utterance ‘with a particular sense and reference,’ and it consists of ‘a phonic act, a phatic act, and a rhetic act’ (Allott, 2010). That is, the locutionary act is the mere act of pronouncing words. For example, when a person utters, ‘It is snowing here,’ the utterance states a fact about the weather. The perlocutionary act refers to the effect of the utterance on the listener. For instance, the previous utterance may make changes to the emotional state of the listener, making the listern happy or sad. The illocutionary act, on the other hand, refers to the function of the utterance, a speaker may utter, ‘It is snowing here,’ to indicate that the room temperature is too cold (not the weather).

A speech act should meet certain conditions to be performed genuinely. The literature refers to those conditions as the ‘felicity conditions’ (Afghari, 2007; Ardiati, 2022; Austin, 1962; Goffman, 1983; Isaacs & Clark, 1990; Keating, 2009; Marsili, 2021; Meibauer, 2005; Schelchkova & Борисовна, 2013; Searle, 1969; Válková, 2013). According to Allott (2010), ‘felicity conditions’ have to be met for the act to be performed successfully. Failure to meet certain conditions could cause the act to fail entirely’ (p. 228). In addition, failure to meet those conditions may result in a different interpretation or nonserious language use (Abdel Hady, 2015).

2.2. Nonserious language use

Nonserious language use involves the playful, ironic, or humorous manipulation of words and phrases to create a lighthearted, amusing, or satirical tone rather than conveying straightforward information (Díaz-Pérez, 2014; Haugh, 2016; Partington, 2009). It’s a creative linguistic tool ranging from puns and sarcasm to exaggeration and irony. This form of language is often used to add humor, express creativity, critique societal norms, or entertain.

Nonserious language can also be found in everyday conversation, advertising, and various forms of media (Díaz-Pérez, 2014; van Mulken et al., 2005). A classic example is puns, where words with multiple meanings or similar sounds create humorous double entendres. A common form is sarcasm, which involves saying the opposite of what one means to emphasize a point or critique something. For instance, after a long, unproductive meeting, someone might remark, ‘Well, that was as useful as a chocolate teapot.’ Such expressions provide a way to convey criticism or frustration humorously or less directly. According to Isaacs and Clark (1990), ‘Ostensible speech acts are […] called a nonserious use of language, making them akin to irony, sarcasm, facetiousness, teasing, play-acting, and others’ (p. 506). According to Clark (1996) in his Joint Action Theory, ostensible speech acts share features with all types of nonserious use of language. However, they differ in ambivalence. The following part introduces ostensible speech acts in light of the Joint Action Theory.

2.3. Ostensible communicative acts

Based on the Joint Action theory (Clark, 1996), communication is a form of joint action, similar to other joint activities like playing music together. In these activities, participants must coordinate their actions with each other to achieve a common goal. In the context of communication, this goal is mutual understanding. Each participant ensures this mutual understanding is achieved between conversants (Clark, 1992, 2006; Clark et al., 1983). Based on this theory, conversants rely on ‘common ground’ (Clark, 2006) to make their messages clear to each other. Ostensible communicative acts are joint actions, and their execution depends on mutual coordination between interlocutors and their shared knowledge (Isaacs & Clark, 1990).

Ostensible communicative acts abide by five defining properties. Those properties are:

Pretense: A pretends to make a sincere [act].

Mutual Recognition: A and B mutually recognize A’s Pretense.

Collusion: B responds appropriately to A’s Pretense.

Ambivalence: When asked, “Do you really mean it?” A cannot sincerely answer either “yes” or “no.”

Off-record: purpose A’s main purpose is tacit.

(Isaacs & Clark, 1990, p. 498)

Pretense in communication involves actions that appear genuine but are understood, at a deeper level, to lack sincerity. Mutual Recognition, the second characteristic, hinges on both the speaker and listener being aware, through their shared knowledge, that the communication is not to be taken at face value. However, Collusion, the third aspect, necessitates the listener’s response as if the act were sincere. Ambivalence is another key trait, where if questioned about their sincerity, the speaker cannot truthfully respond with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ The final feature, Off-record, highlights that ostensible acts serve an underlying, often unspoken purpose.

2.4. The politeness theory

Brown and Levinson (1987) introduce a theory that grounds the idea that all individuals possess what is known as face, a public self-image they seek to save through interactions. The notion of face consists of two aspects: positive face, which is the desire to be liked, admired, and ratified by others, and negative face, which is the desire for freedom from imposition.

The theory suggests that communicative acts potentially threaten one’s face or the face of others, leading to the employment of politeness strategies to mitigate these face-threatening acts (FTAs). These strategies are categorized into four main types: bald on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness, and off-record. Bald on-record involves no minimization of the imposition. Positive politeness often involves showing interest or admiration. Negative politeness minimizes imposition and often includes indirect language. Finally, off-record strategies are indirect and ambiguous, leaving room for interpretation, thus avoiding direct imposition. For example, when a student wants to ask his professor a question during the professor’s lunchtime, he may ask, ‘I know it is not the right time to ask, but could you please postpone the assignment deadline?’ Using expressions such as ‘I know it is not the right time to ask,’ ‘could,’ and ‘please,’ the speaker attempts to minimize the imposition of the request. In this way, the speaker protects his ‘face wants.’

The choice of strategy depends on various factors, including the relationship between the speaker and the hearer, the utterance’s context, and the FTA’s perceived weight. According to Clark (1996), ostensible communicative acts are utilized mainly for politeness and serve underlying, often unspoken functions.

2.5. The cultural context

Jordanian culture significantly emphasizes hospitality, respect, and community values (Abuamoud et al., 2014; Al-Khatib, 2006). These principles are not only a reflection of religious beliefs but also longstanding cultural norms. In social settings, Jordanians are known for their generosity, often going to great lengths to accommodate guests and ensure their comfort. This extends to everyday interactions, where courtesy and respect are, and actions are often guided by a strong sense of honor and duty to others (Al-Khatib, 2006).

When it comes to refusals and politeness, Jordanians typically favor indirectness over direct confrontation. Direct refusals or disagreements are often seen as impolite or too confrontational. In addition, Jordanians are expected to reject before they accept.

Jordanian society has a special pattern of inviting/offering. When two people engage in an encounter, the one who offers should insist on offering and the one who is being invited should bashfully reject the offer- but in reality intends to accept it later (Al-Khatib, 2006, p. 274)

Al-Khatib (2006) observes that use more non-verbal cues to convey their refusal or disagreement (i.e. they should appear ‘bashful’ when they reject) and to accept (i.e. they should show relectance when they accept). Ostensible offers and rejections are expected in such occasions. To reiterate, consider how Al-Khatib (2001) describes the invitations process in Jordan: ‘to invite without insistence means that the concerned person is not serious about the invitation, and offers it as a mere remark of courtesy; and to accept the offer without reluctance means that the recipient is gluttonous, and may be described as an illbehaved person’ (p. 190). This approach is rooted in the desire to maintain harmony and avoid offending. For instance, if unable to fulfill a request, a Jordanian might offer an alternative suggestion or defer the request rather than outright deny it.

3. Literature review

Ostensible speech acts have been a subject of interest in various cultural contexts, explored through diverse academic lenses. This section provides an overview of key studies on these communicative acts, highlighting the range and depth of research in this area. Then, the section reviews studies on genuine and ostensible refusals.

3.1. Ostensible speech acts

Isaacs and Clark (1990) examine ostensible invitations in the American Culture. This type of invitation is extended without the intention of being taken seriously. The researchers gathered 156 examples through various methods, including reports from undergraduates and face-to-face interviews. These examples were collected with the intent of reflecting a range of people observing spontaneous instances in a variety of naturalistic settings. The study’s findings show the defining properties of ostensible invitations: pretense, mutual recognition, collusion, ambivalence, and off-record purpose. Furthermore, the study identifies seven interrelated features predominantly found in insincere invitations, which help in making the pretense obvious enough for the addressee to recognize. These elements are essential in differentiating ostensible invitations from genuine or insincere invitations. Finally, the study shows that ostensible invitations are issued primarily to save face wants and needs.

Eslami (2005) conducted a study focusing on the nature of invitations in Persian and English, highlighting the complexities in Persian ostensible invitations compared to their English counterparts. The study utilized the framework established by Isaacs and Clark (1990) and found that while some features of ostensible invitations in English are present in Persian, these are not adequate to distinguish between genuine and ostensible invitations in Persian. Contrary to Isaacs and Clark’s observation that ostensible invitations are infrequent in English, Eslami notes that Persian speakers frequently use ostensible invitations as part of ritual politeness (ta’arof), enhancing the social standing (face) of both parties involved.

Abdel Hady (2015) investigates ostensible invitations from a pragmatic perspective. The corpus of the study consists of 120 instances (60 ostensible and 60 genuine) of invitations observed and recalled in Irbid City, Jordan. The results revealed that ostensible invitations in Jordanian Arabic function on two layers: the top layer, where they appear genuine and are treated as such by both the inviter and invitee, and the bottom layer, where both parties mutually recognize that the invitation is not serious and serves other functions. The study found that ostensible invitations serve as mitigating devices in various face-threatening situations, and can also function as persuasive or provocative devices. The methodology for data collection was multifaceted, combining face-to-face interviews, direct observation, telephone conversations, and computer-mediated social networks. The study collected a balanced sample of both ostensible and genuine invitations, encompassing a diverse demographic in terms of age and gender.

Yaqubi’s (2020) conducts a research on the challenges of subtitling ostensible speech acts from Persian to English in Iranian films. Yaqubi (2020) explores the process of translating certain complex speech forms from Persian into English in the context of Iranian film subtitles. The study highlights the unique challenges arising from the linguistic and cultural differences between the two languages. Although this area has received some attention in linguistic studies, it has been largely neglected in translation and subtitling practices. Yaqubi’s (2020) work involves a detailed examination of the translation of 80 such speech acts from various Iranian films and an assessment of how well audiences understand these translations. The research culminates in developing guidelines to improve the translation of ostensible speech acts for English subtitles.

Abdelhady and Alkinj (2023) offer a detailed exploration of the role and functions of ostensible lies in communication. The study used Clark’s (1996) Joint Action theory framework to collect data through direct observation and participant recalls, analyzing 30 examples qualitatively. It identified eight distinct off-record functions of ostensible lies: implying information, expressing refusal, conveying rejection, extending apologies, expressing annoyance, engaging in bragging behavior, and adhering to regulations. These findings support and expand on previous research by Isaacs and Clark (1990) and Walton (1998), particularly by demonstrating that ostensible lies can occur in high-context cultures, even in situations with unequal power dynamics. Although this study contributes significantly to understanding lying behaviors within high-context cultures and enriches existing literature on cross-cultural communication, the study is limited to ostensible lies and does not focus on refusals.

3.2. Genuine and ostenisble refusals across cultures

Su (2020) investigate the pragmalinguistic features and sociopragmatic constraints of genuine and ostensible refusals in Mandarin invitational and offering conversations. The analysis covered both predetermined-outcome and open-outcome items, revealing four distinct discourse patterns: Direct Acceptances, Single-Cycle Refusals, Refusal-before-Acceptance sequences, and Multi-Cycle Refusals. The study found a total of 110 genuine refusals and 61 ostensible refusals, with a clear distinction in their pragmalinguistic features. The findings indicated that genuine refusals are mostly delayed, mitigated, justified with specific reasons, and speaker-oriented. An example provided in the study shows how a genuine refusal is often indirect and includes specific explanations that refer to extrinsic forces.

On the other hand, ostensible refusals are primarily immediate, unmitigated, and justified with unspecific explanations. Ostensible refusals can be either hearer-oriented, addressing the initiator’s return-for-favor intention or the cost of the invitation/offer, or speaker-oriented with unspecific explanations. Ostensible refusals are briefer and often use formulaic expressions, suggesting a lack of genuine intent to refuse. Regarding sociopragmatic constraints, the study revealed that outright invitations and offers within a hierarchical politeness system elicited fewer multi-cycle responses and, consequently, limited use of ostensible refusals. Conversely, contexts (like return-for-favor invitations or offers in a non-hierarchical setting) led to a significantly higher number of Multi-Cycle Refusals and Refusal-before-Acceptance sequences. This suggests that the context and nature of the invitation or offer significantly influence the type and pattern of refusals in Mandarin conversational discourse.

In Jordan, genuine refusals are characterized by their indirectness, often employing strategies like providing reasons or excuses, expressing regret, or suggesting alternatives (Alshmaseen et al., 2023; Al-Shboul & Huwari, 2016). This approach reflects cultural norms valuing politeness and face-saving. The discourse structure typically starts with a mitigating statement or a preamble, followed by a reason or excuse, and sometimes concludes with an alternative suggestion or an expression of hope for future interaction. This structure is designed to maintain social harmony and minimize the potential face-threatening impact of the refusal.

4. Methodology

This part outlines the systematic approach used for gathering data, including the techniques and tools utilized, and the criteria for selecting smaple of the study. This is followed by a detailed description of the analytical methods applied to interpret the data.

4.1. Population and sampling

The research targets a diverse group of Jordanians residing in Irbid City, a city in the northern part of Jordan. Twenty participants, selected using the random sampling technique from various social and professional backgrounds, are asked to record their experiences with ostensible refusals, confirming a wide range of perspectives.The participants were of both genders and different age groups (between 18 and 65 years old) and education levels.²

4.2. Data collection

Following the method described by Isaacs and Clark (1990), the researcher uses informal interviews and personal systematic observation to collect the data for the study. This choice was due to the difficulty in directly recording ostensible refusals, which often resemble genuine refusals (Abdelhady & Alkinj, 2023; Isaacs & Clark, 1990; Su, 2020). The researcher observes interactions for six months, focusing on scenarios where ostensible refusals are likely, such as negotiations, social invitations, and professional settings.

In addition to direct observation, the researcher conducted face-to-face informal interviews. Before starting the interviews, the researcher explained the purpose of the research to the participants and obtained their consent. The researcher asked participants detailed questions about their experiences with ostensible refusals following Abdelhady and Alkinj (2023). These questions explore the circumstances leading to the refusal, the cultural and social contexts, the subtleties in communication, and the aftermath of such interactions. Those questions are as follows: Can you describe a recent situation where you felt compelled to reject something while deep inside you wanted to accept it? What was the nature of the request or proposal you were responding to? Can you recall the exact words or phrases you used to convey your refusal? How did the situation resolve after your apparent refusal? Can you describe your relationship with the person? Why did you reject the proposal? Do you think that the other person realized that you intended to accept after your initial refusal? How did the person respond? Such questions aim to trigger natural responses for the motivation, the context, and the structure of ostensible refusals in the Jordanian culture. The researcher recorded the dialogue through comprehensive note-taking, ensuring a precise representation of the scenarios presented.

4.3. Data analysis

In the data analysis, the researcher follows the methodology of Abdelhady and Alkinj (2023) and Walton (1998). A qualitative methodology is employed in this study. After observing an ostensible refusal and listening for the personal recalls, the researcher coded the interactions and noted the contextual cues to visualize the cases observed/described clearly. This involves analyzing the content, structure, and delivery of refusals. The content analysis examines the words and phrases used in the refusal, looking for patterns or specific linguistic markers that characterize ostensible refusals. The discourse structural analysis examines the organization of ostensible refusals, including the sequence of statements and how the refusal is positioned within the larger conversation. Finally, the delivery analysis focuses on the non-verbal aspects, such as tone, pace, and pauses, which can provide crucial cues about the nature of the refusal.

The researcher also analyzes the functions of these refusals in the context of the Politeness Theory and the Joint Action Theory. The researcher aimed to understand how these refusals are formulated to maintain social harmony and face-saving, where direct refusals might be considered impolite. In addition, the researcher analyzed the data to understand how both parties in the conversation collaborate to achieve a mutual understanding, especially in cases where the refusal is not overtly stated but is implied through shared cultural understandings and contextual cues. The researcher structured the data into thematic categories based on their functional role, specifically identifying themes that serve off-record purposes to protect face wants and needs. Examples of these themes includes mitigating potential offense, donwnplaying the significance of a request/offer and hinting. This dual framework provides a comprehensive understanding of the function behind the ostensible refusal.

5. Analysis and discussion

This section provides a deeper understanding of ostensible refusals in Jordanian cultural interactions. It begins by exploring the pragmatic functions of these refusals, examining their social and communicative contexts. The discussion then extends to methodologies and strategies for accurately recognizing and distinguishing these ostensible refusals from genuine refusals. This involves examining linguistic cues, cultural norms, and contextual factors that influence the interpretation and intention behind such refusals in Jordanian society.

5.1. Functions of ostensible refusals

5.1.1. Avoiding support

Although ‘a valuable component of many relationships is the expectation that people will provide social support for one another in times of need’ (Floyd & Ray, 2017, p. 2), offering support to someone can, in certain situations, be perceived as a threat to face because it can be perceived as an imposition or a demand for a response, threatening the individual’s negative face (Andriyani et al., 2019; Floyd & Ray, 2017).

When people see offers of help or support as unnecessary or troublesome, it can make them feel like their abilities and desires are being questioned or undermined (Floyd & Ray, 2017). In Japan, for example, ‘tourism workers perform negative FTAs when addressing Japanese tourists and offering goods or services for sale’ (Andriyani et al., 2019, p. 64). In the Jordanian culture, ostensible refusals occur as a response to support offers. Speakers may refuse a help to save their face wants and needs. Consider the following conversation.

Example (3)

Context: A construction worker (A) is trying to lift a heavy wooden board alone. The worker faces great difficulty moving the board alone and obviously needs assistance. A young man (B) in his thirties passes by and offers help.

A: bɪddak musaːʕadah, ʕammi

 do.you.want assistance, uncle

 ‘Do you need help, uncle?’

B: laː ʕammi  barfaʕu laħaːli

 no uncle  I.will.lift.it by.myselff

 ‘No, uncle, I will lift it myself.’

A: allah jigawiːk

 Allah gives.you.strength

 ‘May Allah give you strength.’

B: ðahabtu wa saaʕadtuhuu fiː rafʕihi

 I.went  and I.helped.him in lifting.it

 ‘I went and helped him in lifting it.’

A: ʃukarn ʕammi

 Thank.you uncle.my

 ‘Thank you, uncle’ (the worker did not refuse the actual assistance [smile])

In this example, we observe an interaction between a construction worker and a young man, highlighting the dynamics of offering and declining assistance. The construction worker struggles to move a heavy wooden board, a task that requires assistance. When a young man passing by notices the worker’s difficulty, he offers to help. However, the construction worker initially declined the offer. This refusal is not a true rejection of the needed assistance but a display of personal dignity. The young man, recognizing the genuine need for help and understanding the construction worker’s hesitation as a form of polite refusal rather than a true rejection, colludes with the initial refusal and responds by ‘may Allah give you strength.’ However, at the same time, he steps in to assist with moving the log, demonstrating an understanding of the situation beyond the verbal refusal. The construction worker’s smile in response signals his appreciation. It acknowledges that his initial rejection was not meant to be taken at face value but was a formality dictated by protecting his face.

This interaction is a perfect example of ostensible rejection, as outlined by Isaacs and Clark (1990). The construction worker’s initial refusal to accept help represents a socially polite gesture, maintaining professional integrity and independence. The young man’s decision to assist, despite the refusal, shows an understanding of the deeper social context – recognizing that the help is needed and that the rejection was not a literal denial of assistance but a form of polite conduct. Thus, both individuals navigate a social situation where the surface communication (the refusal of help) does not directly align with the underlying needs and intentions (the need for assistance).

5.1.2. Responding to compliments

Compliments are face-threatening acts (Abdelhady & Alkinj, 2023; Archer, 2015; Herbert, 1990; Holmes, 1986, 1988; Leech, 2014; Nkwain, 2011; Válková, 2013; Wolfson, 1981; Wolfson & Manes, 1980). ‘Compliments which support the positive aspect of the addressee’s face but can simultaneously threaten its negative aspect’ (Sifianou & Tzanne, 2021, p. 252). In the Jordanian culture, ostensible refusals appear as a response to compliments. Consider the following example.

Example (4)

Context: A married woman (A) bought a dress she always wanted. When she bought the dress, she asked her husband (B) about his opinion.

A: ki:jf al-fustaan ħiˈluː

 How the-dress nice

 ‘How is the dress? Is it nice?’

B: ʔah,  ħiluː kaθiːr

 Yes,  nice a-lot

 ‘Yes, it is very nice.’

A: laː mʊʃ ħiˈluː ʔanta bɪtʒɑˈmil-ni  raːħ ʔarˈʒaʕuː

 no not nice you are-flattering-me will.I return.it

 ‘No, it’s not nice. You’re just flattering me. I’ll return it.’

B: ħaˈbiːbti wa allah ħiˈluː ʕaˈlejki  

 my-love by God nice on-you

 wa ʔɪnti maxliːtuu ʔaħˈlaː

 and you making-it nicer

 ‘My love, really, it’s nice on you, and you make it even nicer.’

A: ʕanˈʒadd ʔanu huwa lawnu:  kaθiːr ʕaˈʒɑbnɪ

 really   that it  color    a.lot  pleasing.to.me

 wa ħattɑ tafsiːlatuu murtɑbbah

 and even its.detail neat

 ‘Really? Yeah, I like its color a lot, and even its details are neat.’

In this interaction, a wife’s response to her husband’s compliment about her new skirt is a classic example of ostensible rejection, a concept where a statement is made not to convey its literal meaning. The wife, having bought a new skirt, asks her husband for his opinion. He responds positively, praising the skirt and its appearance on her. However, the wife, seeking validation beyond a routine compliment, playfully dismisses his praise, stating that the skirt isn’t beautiful and she plans to return it. This response isn’t a genuine expression of her dislike for the skirt; rather, it’s a strategic move to confirm her husband’s sincerity. She already likes the skirt and has been looking forward to purchasing it, but she wants to ensure her husband genuinely shares her enthusiasm. Her husband reassures her more emphatically. The wife’s reaction, pleased with the more emphatic assurance, openly expresses her own fondness for the skirt’s color and design. This exchange illustrates the concept of ostensible rejection beautifully.

Farghal and Al-Khatib (2001), citing Dowens (1998), claim that speakers may avoid explicit rejection when rejecting a compliment. Holmes’ (1986) study confirms that refusals may occur such occasions. Yet, she explains that the compliment is rejected genuinlly if ‘the compliment is experienced as face threatening in that it assumes greater solidarity or intimacy between the participants than the recipient feels comfortable with’ (p. 501). Unlike previous studies on compliment responses (Holmes, 1986), rejecting a compliment may not always mean a genunie rejection. In this example, Holmes condition is not met because there is a great intimacy between the participants (husband and his wife) and the the recipient requests the compliment. Thus, the wife’s initial denial of her husband’s compliment is not a literal rejection of his opinion. Instead, it’s a way to evaluate the authenticity of his response. It reflects a deeper layer of communication within their relationship, where both parties understand and play along with the subtleties of such exchanges. This finding enriches previous studies. It shows that ostensible rejctions can occur as a response to compliments.

5.1.3. Mitigating embarrassment

Embarrassment is considered a FTA because it involves situations where a person’s public image is threatened (Alsubaie, 2023; Chang & Haugh, 2011; Oeldorf-Hirsch et al., 2017). This can occur in various ways, such as through awkward social mistakes, failures, or the exposure of private aspects of one’s life. When a person is embarrassed, something has happened that undermines their desired image or the esteem in which they wish to be held by others. People often use various strategies to save face for themselves and others, especially in situations that could cause embarrassment.

In the Jordanian culture, people resort to ostensible rejections to mitigate the impact of FTAs (Abdel Hady, 2015; Ariff & Mugableh, 2013; Banikalef et al., 2015; Bataineh, 2013). My data shows that Jordanians also employ ostensible refusals to respond to embarrassing situations. See the following case for illustration.

Example (5)

Context: At the crack of dawn, my friend (A) – a proficient mechanic – and I (B) set out from Irbid, heading towards Amman. Our goal was to buy spare parts for my vehicle. Despite his financial constraints and inability to afford dining out, my friend committed to this journey. Our story continues as dusk settles in, coinciding with the Maghrib time.0

B: xalliːnaː nu:kul wadʒba bil mak waʔallaːhi alˈwaːħid dʒaːʕ

 let’s  eat meal  in the-Mac by-God the-one  hungry

 ‘Let’s eat a meal at McDonald’s, I swear I’m really hungry.’

A: sˤadiːqi, ʔanaː ma baddi liʔanni  maʃ dʒuːʕaːn

 My.friend I don’t want because not hungry

 ʔafˈtˤart  bil al-bajt  gabl maː natlaʕ

 Ate.breakfast in the-house before we go-out

 ‘I don’t want to because I’m not hungry, I had breakfast at home before we left.’

B: w ʔana kaman ʔafˈtˤart bas ʔanaː ʕaˈziːmak ʕalaː ħisaːbi

 And I also ate.breakfast but I inviting.you on my.expense

 ‘And I also had breakfast, but I’m inviting you at my expense.’

A: sˤadiːqi maʕ  ʔani muˈfattˤir bas xadʒalˈtani

 My.friend even.though I ate-breakfast but embarrassed-me

 ‘My friend, I had breakfast, but you’re making me feel embarrassed.’

B: ʕadi  jazzum maʃ bajna

 Normal man  not between.us

 ‘It’s okay, man, no big deal between us.’

In this scenario, two friends, Speaker A and Speaker B, have spent the entire day together in Amman, Jordan, searching for car parts. Both are aware, based on their mutual understanding and past interactions, that Speaker A is currently facing financial difficulties and cannot afford unnecessary expenses. After a long and likely exhausting day, Speaker B, feeling hungry and perhaps a bit frustrated, suggests they go to McDonald’s for a meal. This puts Speaker A in a difficult position due to his lack of funds.

To navigate this situation without revealing his financial constraints, Speaker A declines the offer by claiming he had already eaten at home before they met. Speaker B, knowing they have been together since early morning and logically deducing that Speaker A must be hungry, understands that Speaker A’s refusal is not genuine. It’s an ostensible rejection, a polite refusal rooted in financial embarrassment rather than a lack of hunger. To address this delicately, Speaker B offers to treat Speaker A, framing it as his own desire to eat out and not as a response to Speaker A’s financial situation. He presents the invitation as a casual treat, not charity. Realizing the considerate nature of this gesture and also feeling hungry, Speaker A accepts the offer, adding that he would pay next time.

This interaction illustrates the dynamics of ostensible rejection, where Speaker A’s initial refusal was a polite facade to hide his financial constraints, and Speaker B’s understanding and response allowed them to navigate the situation without causing embarrassment or discomfort. The exchange demonstrates a deep understanding and respect for each other’s circumstances, using subtle social cues to communicate and resolve the situation.

5.1.4. Adhereing to cultural rituals

Adhering to cultural rituals plays a significant role in fostering politeness and helping individuals to save face in many societies (Shishavan, 2016; Su, 2020; Walton, 1998). Cultural rituals can range from formal greetings and expressions of respect to specific dining etiquette. By following these rituals, individuals demonstrate their awareness and respect for the cultural norms and values of the group. This adherence not only promotes courteous behavior but also strengthens social harmony. In Jordan, ostensible refusals are utilized strategically during such occasions. Consider the following conversation.

Example (6)

Context: During Eid, a significant Islamic festival celebrated worldwide, a father (A) visits his married daughter (B) in her house. The exchange occurs when the father offers 20 JDs Eidiah, a gift of money, which is a central part of Eid celebrations in Jordan for his daughter upon leaving her house.

A: kull  ʕaːm wɪntu  bɪχeːr

 Every year and-you(plural) in-goodness

 ‘Every year and you’re well,’ (as he gave his sister twenty dinars).

B: laː maːfi  daːʕi xi:jrak   saːbig.

 no there-is-no need your-goodness preceding.

 Translation: ‘The sister: Noooo, there’s no need, your kindness is enough.’

A: bɪʕraf maʃ bejna  bas heːk  al-ʔʊsʊːl…

 I-know not between-us but like-this the-norms

 ‘I know it’s not between us, but that’s the tradition.’ (she took the twenty dinars.)

In this culturally rich scenario centered around the Eid celebration in a Muslim context, we witness an interaction between a father and his sister that exemplifies the concept of ostensible rejection. During Eid, it is customary for brothers to give their sisters a monetary gift called ‘Eidiyah’. When the father presents his sister with 20 Jordanian Dinars, following this tradition, the sister initially declines the money. Her refusal is steeped in cultural etiquette; it’s considered impolite to accept such a gift immediately. She politely remarks that her father has already done enough for her in the past and that she doesn’t need the money. However, this refusal is not a true reflection of her wishes or the cultural expectations. It’s an ostensible rejection. The father, well-versed in these cultural norms, insists that she accepts the money. He acknowledges the ritualistic nature of their exchange, emphasizing that it’s not about the need but about upholding the tradition. The sister, recognizing that her father understands her initial refusal was not genuine, accepts the Eidiyah.

This exchange is a clear illustration of ostensible rejection. The sister’s initial refusal to accept the Eidiyah is not an actual rejection but a part of the cultural dance of politeness and respect. It’s a ritualistic gesture that acknowledges and respects the tradition while also allowing for the expression of humility and gratitude. The brother’s understanding and response further highlight the deep-rooted cultural norms and the importance of maintaining these traditions in their community.

5.1.5. Fostering customers’ loyalty

Fostering customer loyalty is central to businesses (Aihie Lin & Yan, 2012; De Waal & van der Heijden, 2016; Schwab & Rothenberger, 2015). One aspect of this approach is the use of politeness strategies (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Schwab & Rothenberger, 2015). These strategies focus on making customers feel valued and appreciated. This could include remembering and acknowledging a customer’s past preferences or purchases and employing friendly and engaging language. On the other hand, negative politeness strategies are equally important. These strategies are about respecting customers’ desire to save their negative face. This can be achieved by not pressuring customers into purchases and respecting their privacy. Understanding and balancing these two facets of politeness theory can lead to more meaningful, respectful, and ultimately loyal customer relationships.

The data shows that Jordanians utilize ostensible refusals to foster customers’ loyalty by not pressuring them into purchases. Thus, while seller/those who offer services expect to get money for their services, they pretend that customers should not pay for the service. This is heavily observed with taxi drivers, barbers and small retailers. Consider the following example for illustration.

Example (7)

Context: Speaker A, a loyal client, has just received a haircut from Barber B, a professional they regularly visit. As B finishes the haircut, a conversation unfolds between the two.

[After finishing the haircut.]

B: naʕi:man

 May.you.enjoy.it

 ‘Enjoy it’ (or ‘Bless you’ in a grooming context).

A: allah yinʕam  ʕalayka ya rabb

 God bless   on.you  O Lord

 ‘May God bless you, O Lord.’

[A gave the barber five dinars for the haircut.]

B: la  ya rajul ʕayb  ʕalayka… xalli:ha  ʕalaynā [with hesitation]

 No O man shame on.you… let.it.be on.us

 ‘Hesitantly: No, man, it’s on us… leave it to us.’

A: xayruk    sabig   ʔabu ʔusamah

 Your.goodness precedes Abu  Usamah

 ‘Your kindness precedes you, Abu Usama.’

B: [took the five dinars]

A: ʔaʃkurak,  abga mur ʕalayna:

 I.thank.you remain visit on.us

 ‘I thank you, please visit us again.’

B: ʔinʃaʔa allāh bamur ʕalayk qabl ma tasafar

 If.wills God will.visit on.you before that you.travel

 ‘God willing, I will visit you before you travel.’

In this scenario, a customer’s interaction with a barber in a Jordanian cultural context illustrates the concept of ostensible rejection, particularly within the framework of professional and customer relations. After receiving a haircut, the customer offers the barber, Abu Osama, a payment of five Jordanian Dinars. In line with cultural norms of politeness and efforts to maintain good customer relations, Abu Osama initially declines the payment, insisting that the customer keep the money as a gesture of friendship. This refusal by the barber isn’t a literal rejection of payment but a social courtesy, a common practice among barbers to show goodwill and foster customer loyalty. Understanding this cultural practice, the customer appreciates Abu Osama’s gesture but insists on paying for the service. This insistence is an acknowledgment of the professional service rendered and a recognition of the ostensible nature of the barber’s initial refusal. It’s a customary exchange where both parties understand the underlying expectations – the barber is expected to show a polite refusal, and the customer is expected to insist on payment regardless.

When the barber accepts the payment without hesitation after the customer’s insistence, it confirms the ostensible nature of the initial rejection. This interaction is a clear example of ostensible rejection within Jordanian culture, where the surface-level communication of refusing payment is a formality rather than a genuine denial. It’s a dance of politeness and respect, deeply embedded in the culture.

5.1.6. Expressing frustration

When someone expresses frustration, their illocutionary act might be to convey their displeasure, to seek empathy, or to prompt a change in the situation causing the frustration. The way this is expressed can vary widely – a direct statement like ‘I am frustrated because…’ or more indirect hints, such as sighing loudly or making sarcastic comments. The effectiveness and clarity of the illocutionary act depend largely on how explicitly the speaker communicates their feelings and intentions. In contrast, the perlocutionary act involves the effect the expression of frustration has on the listener. This impact might include making the listener aware of a problem, prompting them to take action to alleviate the speaker’s frustration, or even causing the listener to feel a certain way, like guilty or concerned.

Ostensible rejections/refusals are observed in contexts in which speakers signal seeking empathy from others when they reject a certain offer to make the listener become aware of a problem. In Jordan, this context is fertile in parent-child interactions. Consider the following example.

Example (8)

Context: During Ramadan, our family fasts from morning till evening. Just before it was time to break our fast at sunset, the father (A) calls his son (B) who was busy pl playing a computer game to help his mom (C).

A: saʕid ʔummak  fi:  ħaʈ al-ʔakl   ʕala al- ʈawilah

 Help your-mother in placing the-food on the-table

 ‘help your mother in arranging the food on the table’

[B didn’t listen to A and kept playing]

[A disconnected the power of the computer]

[After 3 minutes]

C: tæʕaːl ift͡ʕir   haːj ʔaðan  al-maɣrib

 Come breakfast this call.to.prayer the-sunset

 ‘Come break your fast, this is the sunset call to prayer.’

B: ma: bidi:  aft͡ir

 Not I-want  have.breakfast

 ‘I don’t want to break my fast’ (because he is upset about the situation).

 [the mother realizes the issue and resolves the issue with her son]

C: ruħ  nuːkul

 let’s.go we.eat

 ‘Let’s go eat.’ [he agreed immediately]

This example shows the family, observing a fast during the Holy Month of Ramadan, is preparing to break their fast together at prayer time. The son is playing games on his laptop. His father asks his son to help his mother prepare the meal. The son, preoccupied with his game, did not hear his father, leading to a conflict where the father, in frustration, turned off the laptop as a disciplinary measure. At the prayer time, the mother, unaware of this tension, calls her son to join the family for the meal to break their fast. The son declines, claiming he isn’t hungry and will eat later.

The mother inquires about his refusal, and the son then explains the situation with his father. Upon hearing this, the mother speaks with the father, explaining the situation from the son’s perspective. Understanding the impact of his actions, the father apologizes for his earlier reaction. Reassured by his father’s apology, the son agrees, admitting he was very hungry. The essence of this scenario is the son’s initial apparent rejection of joining the family meal, which stemmed from his conflict with his father, not from a lack of desire to participate in the family tradition.

5.1.7. Negotiating offers

Badarneh et al. (2016) show that bargaining encounters in Jordan are multifold. Because of this multi-criteria based choice, these stores can further be described as ‘‘speech intensive stores’’ (Traverso, 2001, p. 424). Furthermore, as French (2001) explains, marketplace bargaining is a process that ‘‘follows tacit rules and implicit regulations established by convention’’ and often involves a ‘‘series of paired offers and rejections’’ (p. 164). What is overlooked in previous analyses of this genre is that rejection in such encounters is not genuine, but they are strategies to reach a better bargain. Consider the following exchange for illustration.

Example (9)

Context: Speaker A represents a customer, while Speaker B is a shopkeeper in a Jordanian clothing store. In this cultural context, the prices of goods are often negotiable rather than fixed. This dynamic sets the stage for a traditional bargaining exchange. The customer knows already the price of the shirt as his brother bought one.

A: kam  saʕaruhu al-qami:s

 How  price the-shirt

 ‘how much is the shirt?’

B: xamsa wa ʕiʃri:n

 Five  and twenty

 ‘twenty five’

A: ʕiða  bi  ʕiʃri:n  bu:xðuh

 If    for twenty  take.it

 ‘if it’s for twenty, I’ll take it.

B: laː maː btuːfiː maʕiː   haːðaː tʊrkiː  al-qamiːṣ,

 no not suffices with.me this  Turkish the-shirt,

 χalliːhaː ʔiθnajn wa ʕiʃriːn

 make.it two and twenty

 ‘no, that won’t suffice for me, this is a Turkish shirt, let’s make it twenty-two.’

A: tajjib basʔal wa barʒaʕlaka ʔinʃaːʔallaːh

 okay will.ask and will.return.to.you if.God.wills

 ‘okay, I’ll ask around and get back to you, God willing.’

B: χallaṣ ʕaʃaːnak   χuðuh   biʕiʃriːn

 Okay  for.your.sake take.it  for.twenty

 ‘okay, for you, take it for twenty.’

In this study, the researcher found that Jordanians often use apparent rejections as a tactic in bargaining negotiations. This is illustrated in a typical interaction between a seller and a customer. Initially, the seller proposes a high price for a shirt, a price both parties recognize as inflated. The customer counters with a more reasonable offer, which, despite being fair, the seller initially declines, aiming to extract a higher amount. This refusal is strategic rather than genuine. Anticipating this, the customer employs a common Jordanian negotiation technique—leaving the shop to test the seller’s flexibility. Predictably, the seller quickly capitulates, accepting the customer’s offer.

This demonstrates that the seller’s initial rejection was merely ostensible, a bargaining maneuver, fully aware that the customer’s offer was, in fact, a fair price for the item. The seller, Party A, pretends to firmly stand by the high price of the shirt, presenting it as a sincere offer. Both the seller (A) and the customer (B) recognize that this high price is not the final offer but part of a bargaining process. They both understand the pretense involved. The customer responds to the seller’s pretense by offering a lower price, playing along with the unspoken rules of negotiation. If questioned directly about the sincerity of the high price, the seller would struggle to answer with a straightforward ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ This is because the high price is part of a strategic ploy rather than a final decision. The seller’s main objective is not openly stated but implied. It’s not just to sell the shirt but to do so at the highest possible price, understanding that some negotiation is expected.

5.2. The structure of ostensible refusals

Ostensible refusals often appear in multipartite structures like ‘invite-refuse-invite-accept’ or ‘offer-refuse-offer-accept’, indicating a negotiation process in the conversation (Su, 2020). The majority of ostensible refusals in the Jordanian culture follow the same pattern.

Example (10)

[Invite]  C: taʕal ifṭir    hay ʔaðan  al-maġrib

     Come  break-fast this call-to-prayer the-sunset

     ‘Come break your fast, this is the sunset call to prayer.’

[Refuse] B: ma bidi:  afṭir

     Not I-want  to-break-fast

     ‘I don’t want to break my fast’ (because he is upset about the situation).

     [the mother realizes the issue and resolves the issue with her son]

[Invite] C: nruḥ nu:kul

     let’s.go we.eat

     ‘Let’s go eat.’

[Accept] B: [agreed immediately]

In the given example, the conversation unfolds in a structured four-part sequence. It begins with an initial invitation by Person C, inviting Person B to break their fast, aligned with the cultural significance of the sunset call to prayer. Person B, however, refuses, citing a lack of desire to eat, which is implied to be due to being upset about a certain situation. This refusal is not a conclusive end but a part of a conversational tactic. Acknowledging the underlying emotional context, Person C extends a second invitation, gently nudging towards a resolution and communal eating. Finally, the sequence concludes with Person B’s immediate acceptance, illustrating a journey from initial refusal to eventual acceptance.

Ostensible refusals are usually immediate, unmitigated, and shorter in length (Su, 2020). The refusal in the provided example is characterized as immediate and unmitigated, in line with Su’s (2020) description of ostensible refusals. First, the refusal above is immediate because the refusal by Person B follows directly after Person C’s invitation. There’s no delay or hesitation in the response. The immediacy conveys a straightforward reaction to the invitation without any preceding small talk or diversion. Second, the refusal is unmitigated. Person B’s response, ‘I don’t want to break my fast,’ is clear and straightforward, without any softening language or qualifiers. There’s no use of phrases like ‘maybe later’ or ‘I’m not sure,’ which would mitigate the refusal. The statement is direct and leaves little room for ambiguity about Person B’s reluctance at that moment.Therefore, this direct and unqualified refusal aligns with ostensible refusals being immediate and unmitigated. It portrays a clear, straightforward denial, which is a part of the cultural conversation norm being discussed, rather than a definitive end to the negotiation process.

Genuine refusals involve detailed explanations and are perceived as more elaborate. These differences in features also reflect varying sociopragmatic constraints and cultural norms in communication. In addition, genuine refusals are typically delayed, mitigated, and speaker-oriented, often justified with specific reasons, such as external commitments (Alshmaseen et al., 2023).

Example (11)

[Reason] Ɂana Ɂal-jawm ʕind-i dˁjuuf bi-l-bajt w-miʃ ħaɁdar ɁatɁaxar biʧuɣul

     ‘I have people who are visiting over today, and I can’t stay late at work’

[Alternative]

     bas kuun mitɁakkid Ɂinni raħ Ɂasalm-ak Ɂal-taqariir

     Ɂabkar min Ɂal-mawʕid Ɂal-matˁluub

     ‘But I guarantee you that I’ll submit the report earlier than expected.’

[Regret] Ɂuʕðurni

     ‘I’m sorry.’

 (Alshmaseen et al., 2023, p. 158)

A male is asked by his boss to stay late at work. He responds with a refusal that is speaker-oriented and mitigated. His reply is, ‘I have people who are visiting over today, and I can’t stay late at work,’ which shows the speaker-oriented aspect as it focuses on his personal circumstances. The mitigation is evident in his assurance, ‘But I guarantee you that I’ll submit the report earlier than expected,’ offering an alternative solution to the request. Finally, he concludes with a statement of regret, ‘I’m sorry,’ which further softens the refusal. This example fits the description of genuine refusals as it is not an immediate, direct rejection. Instead, it is softened with a reasonable excuse, a focus on the speaker’s circumstances, and an alternative solution, maintaining respect and understanding in the professional relationship.

6. Conclusion

Ostensible refusals are a unique form of verbal communication where a refusal is not meant to be taken at face value but serves as a polite or indirect way of declining something. This is particularly prevalent in scenarios such as offering assistance, responding to compliments, or in situations where direct refusal might cause embarrassment or be deemed impolite. The study illustrates how these refusals are not mere rejections but are laden with cultural expectations. The research highlights the cultural depth of these interactions, demonstrating that ostensible refusals are more than simple acts of communication; they are deeply embedded in the Jordanian cultural fabric. These interactions are a reflection of the high-context nature of Jordanian culture, where the meaning of communication is often embedded in the context rather than explicitly stated in words. The study explores various situations where these refusals are employed, such as in polite denials of offers or in modest responses to compliments. In each case, the refusal serves as a tool for maintaining harmony and social balance. By analyzing these interactions, the study sheds light on the complex interplay between language, culture, and social norms, revealing how ostensible refusals serve as a crucial mechanism for face-saving and demonstrating respect.

The implications of this study extend far beyond the Jordanian context, offering valuable insights into cross-cultural communication practices. It underscores the importance of understanding the cultural underpinnings of communication, especially in high-context cultures like Jordan, where indirect forms of speech and non-verbal cues play a pivotal role. For individuals engaging with different cultures, recognizing and interpreting these subtle forms of communication can be crucial for effective interaction and relationship building. The study’s findings contribute significantly to the field of intercultural communication.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Saleem Abdelhady

Saleem Abdelhady is an assistant professor at the Department of Liberal Arts, American University of the Middle East, Kuwait. He obtained his Ph.D. from Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada.

Notes

1 The transcription has been altered to match the IPA symbols that are used throughout this paper.

2 The research focuses mainly on the pragmatic functions of ostensible rejections; therefore, future research is needed to confirm the influence of demographics on ostensible rejections.