Greetings and Partings in Iraqi and Jordanian Arabic: With Special Reference

to English

Dinha T. Gorgis & Majid Al-Quran

Hashemite University, Jordan

Introduction

Like many other politeness formulas, greetings (Gs) and partings (Ps) in several
languages have received considerable attention from practitioners of ‘language-in-
use’ at the dyadic level, with and/or without the inclusion of a mediator between
sender and receiver, e.g., ‘Say hello to Bob for me, will you?', where pragmatic
consequences are foreseeable (see Gorgis 1994). The scholars who have approached
the subject matter of Gs, e.g. hellos and the like, and Ps, e.g. good-byes, farewells,
etc., unanimously agree that such communicative acts have important discourse and
social functions. Their importance, Verschueren (1981:134) writes, “emerges from the
fact that omitting them (e.g. by neglecting to greet a person one knows) or failing to
acknowledge them (e.g. by not responding to a greeting) inevitably creates tensions in
interpersonal relationships”(1) Greif and Gleason (1980:165) add that “failure to
perform them or some variation of them is the sign of an eccentric or bizarre person”.
And if this failure extends to friends, it would be “insulting” (Hall 1973:60).

As discourse markers, Gs and Ps assume a key position in the structure of

conversation (cf. Ventola 1979), where the former may serve as ‘initiators’ and the
latter as ‘terminators’. But if no conversation is involved, Gs, but not Ps, can function
as self-identifiers and/or attention-getters. Other functions remain in the background.

The unanimous agreement, however, also suggests that the greeting phenomenon is
universal in almost all societies. But the “nature and amount of variation is not
predictable in any universal sense” (Ferguson 1981:29). But predictably, as Saville-
Troike (1982:13) notes, Gs and Ps in some languages, e.g. Arabic “are far more
elaborate” than others, e.g. English.

Such observations present methodological problems, as they require more coherent

conceptual frameworks. One such problem is related to Goffman’s ‘elaborated’ vs.
‘attenuated’ forms of Gs (and other exchanges). Ferguson (1981:28), in his discussion
of some aspects of Gs in Syrian Arabic, is not for the idea that reduced (attenuated)
forms are realizations of full (elaborated) forms. He thinks that this is “misleading”,
though “useful”. We agree, for it could be the other way round. So, a better model
would be one which allows for both elaboration and reduction since it is seen to be
“more productive”. Yet, if by ‘more productive’ Ferguson means the capability of a
revised model to account for conventional communicative patterns obtained during a
short visit to Syria, i.e., secured by observation, introspection as a legitimate ideology
that supplements ‘observation’ in current linguistic theory (cf. Arndt and Janney
1987: 39-48) would be missing amid. Our contention is, therefore, one which
integrates both ideologies as a healthy platform that seeks to explore the nature of Gs
and Ps at both the dyadic and group levels.

Elsewhere, Gorgis (1992) has attempted to characterize some greeting expressions

as belonging to the courtesy system of Baghdadi Arabic in the light of what could be
called ‘marked’ or ‘unmarked’ without losing sight of the elaboration/attenuation
distinction. Therein, he talked about a plain greeting formula that is devoid of any
courteous force and, hence, conventionally ‘unmarked’ or a courteous greeting which
is conversationally ‘marked’ without necessarily involving a one-to-one
correspondence with ‘attenuation’ and ‘elaboration’, respectively.

The present paper, though the major limitation of which is that it is qualitative
rather than quantitative in nature, is a second attempt in the same direction. But to the
exclusion of other politeness formulas, the ensuing discussion is wholly devoted to Gs
and Ps in Iraqi and Jordanian Arabic.(2) Gs and Ps related to phone calls, prayers,
greeting cards, military salutations and mass media ‘hellos and good nights’, etc. will
also be excluded from consideration. The paper shall mainly examine Gs, return-
greetings (RGs), Ps and return-partings (RPs) that involve face-to-face interaction in
civil life with the relevant sociolinguistic variables in the background. The discussion
will mostly focus on the verbal aspect of group (or plural) greetings (GGs) and
partings (GPs) as well as dyadic greetings (DGs) and partings (DPs) in Iraqi Arabic
(IA) and Jordanian Arabic (JA) with casual reference to English to see how far Arabic
Gs are more ‘elaborate’ than the English ones.

The reason why another Arabic variety, Jordanian in our case, is included is that
much in common is noticed to exist between the two, probably due to the geographic
adjacency in addition to the much shared cultural background and style of life.
Furthermore, expanding data and drawing further examples from another Arabic
variety will help in arriving at more sound and valid judgments as to the pre-assumed
claim that Arabic greetings and partings are more elaborate than those of English,
which is the main concern of the paper.

Discussion

At the outset, we would like to make clear what we mean by GGs prior to the
examination of their structure and use. By ‘group’ exchange we mean that sort of
discourse in which more than two persons get involved in an interaction. Unlike a
‘dyadic’ exchange, it does not necessarily require direct ‘facing’ or eliciting RGs
corresponding to the number of persons present at the time of executing the ritual. So,
instead of having one ‘second part’ only, we have several second parts in “adjacency
pairs” (cf. Levinson 1983: 303). The direction of address in GGs would in this case
be one-to-more than one, i.e., one person at a time, if there is more than one, greets
the whole group verbally and/or non-verbally, e.g. hand-shaking. In return, the
members of the group, usually the majority, if not all, respond to the greeting chorally
and/or individually (but with very short, almost unnoticeable, intervals between one
RG and another). Whether the addresser is one person or more, the response is, like
the greeting, often in the plural form but, unlike it, it can vary in length from one
addressee to another. For example,

1. / salamu alaykum/ ‘Peace be on you’(3)

requires the minimum ‘second part’, characterized as the “attenuated” (echo response,
to follow Ferguson) or conventionally ‘unmarked’ RG:
2. … n: /salam/ ‘Peace’, i.e. ‘And be it on you.’
Other options are possible but they range along a scale of markedness in the
ascending numerical order:
3. …n: /wa alaykum/ ‘And on you’;
4. …n: /wa alaykum issalam/ ‘And be it on you’;
5. …n: /wa alaykum issalam warrahma/ ‘And be it on you and (His) mercy’;
6. …n: /wa alaykum issalam warahmatu llah/ ‘And be it on you and God’s
mercy’;
7. …n: /wa alaykum issalam warahmatu llahi wabarakatuh/ ‘And be it on you
and God’s mercy and His blessings’,
(where …n = any number of respondents.)(4)

It is worth noting that all the forgoing examples are used in the Jordanian variety
except 2, which is very infrequent. Yet, when it occurs it is usually followed with
/warahmatu llah/ ‘And God’s mercy’.
In terms of the theory of preferences (see Blimes 1988), all of the preceding RGs
are both religiously and socially prescribed, but none is strictly tied to sociolinguistic
variables such as socio-economic status or educational background. It is clear,
however, that the absence of preference increases with the increase of members in a
group. It can be further noticed that markedness for a strictly religious person would
be judged to run in the descending order. That is, what is conventionally the most
unmarked, e.g. 2 above, would be taken by such a person as highly marked since it is
too faithful. Nevertheless and as is empirically tested, Iraqi as well as Jordanian
Arabic speakers generally avoid redundancy in greeting exchanges when hyperboles
are not called forth. This, according to the simple principle of ‘the same or more so’
(cf. Ferguson 1981:27), is not a violation of religious obligations; it only demonstrates
the least faith.

In the Arab culture, an adult normally greets the whole group even if only one
person is known to him. This is particularly the case when one person passes by or
joins the group.(5) The function, however, is not necessarily to maintain solidarity with
the whole group. A GG is viewed a social etiquette in addition to being a religious
obligation; all Iraqis and Jordanians, irrespective of religious affiliation, greet each
other alike. But alien to the Arab culture would be a scene to the San people in
Botswana, South Africa, where a visitor entering a scene already occupied by one or
more persons is met by the residents with the neglect of his appearance. The visitor
“silently approaching the scene behaves as if he were an ‘invisible man’, and whether
he speaks or not, the residents behave as if they had not perceived his appearance”
(Kitamura 1990:130).(6) In our culture, a passer-by, when known to the group, is very
much likely to be criticized publicly or otherwise by at least one member of the group
on not saying ‘hello’. The most frequently heard expression in such cases, within a
hearing distance, would be:
8a. (IA) /yaba sda wa/ ‘what’s in the air?’ i.e. ‘Hi, there!’
8b. (JA) /malna yaba/, /su idda wa/ or /wa alaykum issalam/ ‘What is
wrong?; what is in the air?; hi there!’.
In both cases, these function as attention-getters. Some form of apology on the part of
the passer-by is then predictable. One such form which is often coupled with a
justification, sincere or otherwise, would be:
9a. (IA) /?asif … fikri mas ul/ ‘Sorry, I’m busy-minded’.
9b. (JA) /?asif … missayf/ or /haqqu alena/ ‘Sorry, I haven’t seen you’
A greeting, such as 1, is therefore in order unless this person has the intention to avoid
the group because, as is the case in a Jordanian setup, there is someone among the
group whom the passer-by wants to ignore. Or, as he might be in a hurry, a simple
hand-wave can fulfill a similar, but less forceful, function.

A RG from individuals with whom you happen to have had previous tense
relationships is largely optional. A greeting can also be optional, especially when the
group is made up of two; you simply greet one to the exclusion of the other. The
function of a greeting formula such as:
10. /marhaba ?bu zayd/ ‘Hello, Zayd’s father’(7)
is in this case two-fold: to maintain social relationship with one person and to keep
social distance with another if the second person is known to speaker (S). If S opts for
the use of the neutral formula, viz. 1, he then avoids social distancing not as an
ultimate goal but as a cover that signals privacy in interpersonal relations. The RG
paired with 10, however, normally displays an equal status, e.g.
11a. (IA) /?ahlan ?abu dani/ ‘Hello, Danny’s father’ and/or
11b. (JA) /hayallah ?abu dani/ ‘God greets you, Danny’s father’.

The second important phase of GGs as well as DGs involves a following adjacency
pair. That is, only when the initiatory paired greeting, e.g. 1 and any one from 2-7
above, has been performed successfully and after a visitor entering a scene already
occupied by one or more persons has found a seat for himself that the second
adjacency pair is executed but with a reverse order of speaking roles. Such typical
exchange is:
12a. (IA) /?alla bilxer/ ‘May God keep all well’
12b. (JA) /marhaba/ ‘Welcome’; or, if it is afternoon or evening time, it can be: /?alla
yimassik bilxer/ ‘May God make your evening well’.

This second exchange in both contexts can also take place independently of the
initiatory pair if the person in charge appears on the scene already occupied by one or
more attendants. This is because in some settings the initiatory pair is presupposed to
have taken place between some receptionist/s and attendant/s. In such cases, the
second adjacency pair no longer functions as a supplement to the previous pair. It
rather functions as a discourse marker that, in addition to being a welcome, can evoke
a new or extended piece of conversation even if sincerity conditions are not met.

Less frequently used than the former examples, though also common, are the GGs
which often presuppose the group or even one person to be busy, e.g. working or
doing something collectively. The main function of such GGs, however, is to draw
attention. The speaker may say any of the following to greet the group:
13. /(?i) lgiwwa/ ‘(May God give you) strength’;
14. /gawwakum ?alla/ ‘May God strengthen you’;
15. /?alla mgawwihum/ ‘May God strengthen them’, i.e. ‘you’;
16. /?alla ysa idhum/ ‘May God help them’;
17. /?alla y inhum/ ‘May God give them a hand’;
18. /?alla mhayyihum/ ‘May God greet them’.
 The speaker here has the option to address the group involved more directly with
the deictic pronoun /kum/ as in 14. But /hum/ ‘them’ has indirect reference which
tends to be neutral, especially when the group is made up of males and females. This
is supported by the fact that a courteous element such as /?issabab/ ‘the youth’, i.e. Hi,
boys, can be annexed to 15-18 freely, but doubtfully to 14, irrespective of age and/or
sex. In JA, however, the following are possible:
13b. /gawhum/ ‘(May God give them) strength;
14b. /?alla yi tihum ilguwwa/ ‘May God give the strength’;
16b. /?alla yi tihum ?il afyeh/ or al afyeh/ ‘May God give them/ you
health’.

It is also worth noting that 18 above is used in a different context in JA. While it is
a welcoming greeting for a visiting group, it could also be a positive reply or an
agreement response to give something that the visiting group is asking for. Besides,
an equivalent GG to 18 in JA but maintaining the same function, is
18b. /?alla hayhum/ ‘May God greet them’,
which is used to encourage a group engaged in a difficult or challenging task.

The simplest RG, however, would be:

19. /hala/ ‘Hello’
or, as Ferguson (1981:27) describes it, a “modified echo response”, especially in rural
areas, e.g.
20a. (IA) /wimhayyikum/ ‘And may God greet you as well’, i.e. same to you, or in
JA:
20b /wilimhayyi/ ‘The same for that who is greeting’.
20c /tihya widdum/ ‘You may long live and last’.

More frequent responses in IA, however, are those of 19 and its hyperbolic
expressions, thus multiplying it by 100, 1000 (see Gorgis 1992). Other options
available to the members of the group range from the simple ‘hello’ to the highly
marked:
21a. (IA) /hala bilimhalli/ ‘Hello to the hello-man’,
21b. (JA) /wbilimhalli/ ‘(The same to) he who is saying hello’.
A RG like 21 is evidently an ‘elaboration’ of 19, another RG, which could also be a G
itself, especially among the non-elderly. This probably explains why the elderly
choose to reply to a G with a formal variant:
22. (IA and JA) /?ahlan/ ‘Hello’, or its extension:
23. (IA and JA) /?ahlan wasahlan/ ‘Hello and easy access’, i.e. most
welcome.
Warmer RGs are obtained by prefixing /ya/ in both IA and JA to already established
conventional RGs and, hence, conversationally more marked as:
24. (IA and JA) /ya?ahlan/ or /yahala/ ‘You are welcome’, i.e. indeed;(8)
25. (IA and JA) /yamarhaba/ ‘you’re welcome’;
26a. (IA and JA) /yahala wyamarhaba/ (nearly equivalent to 23) or in another JA
form;
26b. (JA) /yahala wrihib/ ‘Hello and most welcome’.

In addition to the former timeless Gs and RGs, “time-bound greetings” (Ventola

1979: 271) are as common as the casual /hala/ ‘hello’ and /marhaba/ ‘welcome’ (used
as a G and RG and understood as a ‘hello’). But unlike English time-bound Gs, the
use of:
27. /masa? ilxer/ ‘Good evening’
extends from afternoon or early evening to late night. Generally, an echo-response is
given in both Arabic varieties but, unlike English, IA and JA have additional RGs
which seem courteous in nature and, hence, marked such as:
28. /masa? innur/ ‘(Good) evening of light’;
29. /masa? ilxerat/ ‘Good evening’ (pl.)
And no less important than 27 is a religiously-oriented GG formula which is more
typical of rural than urban areas in both Iraq and Jordan:
30a. (IA) /massakum alla bilxer/ ‘May God bid you: good evening’;
30b. (JA) /?alla ymassikum bilxer/ ‘May God bid you: good evening’.

Analogously, /sabah/ ‘morning’ has similar good-wishing formulas. Other time-

bound Gs that are used in English but lacking in IA and JA include ‘Good afternoon’,
‘Good day’, and ‘Good night’ which “can only be used as a parting” (Levinson
1983:79). The nearest equivalent to ‘Good night’ in IA and JA would be:
31a (IA) /tisbahun ala xer/ ‘(I wish you) all (sleep) well till morning’;
31b. (JA) /tisbihu ala xer/ (the same meaning as before)
for which a single-word response is often used in IA, e.g.
32a. (IA) /?ajma in/ ‘All’, i.e. the same (wish) for all,
32b. (JA) /wilgayil/ ‘The same to the one who’s just said it’, i.e. same to you.
But the use of larger structures, viz. phrases and clauses, is also evident as 33 and 34
below show:
33a. (IA) /winta min ?ahla/ ‘you, too’;
33b. (JA) /wintu min ?ahlu/ ‘You, too’;
33c. (JA) /tilagu lxer/ ‘You may meet welfare’;
34. (IA only) /(?i) lxer yisib ijjami / ‘Welfare wishes to all’.
Compared to (32) and (33), (34) is both syntactically and conversationally marked.
Additionally, it partly echoes (31).

The foregoing instances of GGs are similar to DGs in many respects. But since the
latter are varied in structure, tone and use, not to mention concomitant non-verbal
aspects, they require special treatment. Apart from common grounds, DGs are less
predictable than GGs. Because there is more personal involvement, DGs can be
dramatized (or courteous), insincere though they may be (see Gorgis 1992). Among
these are the familiar, i.e. conventional, ‘good morning’, ‘good evening’, etc. to each
of which one can add ‘my heart’, ‘my eyes’, ‘my lord’, etc. as RGs and, hence,
marked. To follow Ventola (1979: 271), such cases of elaboration may be called
‘extended greetings”. But ‘markedness’ should not always be equated with
‘elaboration’ or ‘extension’; a ‘marked’ structure is unique in character. Though as
popular as the conventionally ‘unmarked’ structures such as (1), (2), (32), etc., it is
less frequently in use. In fact, more politeness is at stake.

To support the argument, RGs to, e.g. (1), can vary from a casual response such as
(2) to highly marked utterances, e.g.
35. (IA & JA) /hamatak ithibbak/ ‘Your mother-in-law loves you’;
36a. (IA) /hala bilhazzam/ ‘Hello, (you) escapist!’(9) ;
36b. (JA) /?ahlan bilmeisa ji/‘Hello, (you) escapist!;
37. (IA&JA) / as min safak/ ‘Long live the person who has caught an eye of you’;
38a. (IA) /la hala wla marhaba/ ‘No hello and no welcome’;
38b. (JA) /gillit hala wmarhaba/ ‘Very little hello and welcome’.

Whether (35) is annexed to (2) or freely used instead, it strikes the ear; the function
is more than a simple greeting: it is an invitation to a meal already served. Equally
interesting is the criticizing, but very much friendly, RG (36a and 36b). On the face of
it, it shows a negative attitude when measured against conventions, but pragmatically,
it is positive. That is, though impolite in form, as it is an accusation, which may
trigger a similar accusation from H, it not only maintains social relationship but it
displays strong bonds between friends. However, in the Jordanian variety, the same
word in (36b) could be used in other contexts to suggest being irresponsible and not
trusty. The same is true of the pragmatically equivalent (37), which, along with (35)
and (38), can also be appropriate RGs to:
39. (IA) /halaw/ ‘Hello’ or
40. (IA and JA) /marhaba/ ‘Hello’ for ‘welcome’ (i.e. rejoice for arrival), and the like.
But unlike (36) or the more highly marked (38), for it formally expresses negation,
(37) displays a milder criticism. Yet, common to all such RGs is the expression of a
longing desire; they are taken by convention to mean a ‘warm welcome’ which may
be followed by kisses (on cheeks) between intimates of the same sex who happen to
have been fairly distanced for some time. These RGs and the like, e.g.
41. (IA and JA) /?alla jabak/ ‘God has brought you here’, i.e. speak of the devil, are
locally constrained. That is, they are inapplicable to departures and arrivals, e.g. at the
airport or train platforms, which are timetabled.
Although Gs and Ps exercised at arrivals and departures also involve kisses (and other
gestures), they are strikingly different from those executed during casual encounters.
The former are trip-bound, timeless, and less sensitive to sex distinction and age
differences. The latter are more context-free, e.g. street encounters, time-bound, and
more hierarchical. To put it more lucidly, the former are seasonal whereas the latter
are daily practices. For example, you do not ‘speak of the devil’ at a time you planned
to meet (and greet) the intended person; the ‘devil’ appears unexpectedly during an
ongoing conversation.

This means that an adjacency pair such as 1-41 would be an embedded rather than
an initial element in the structure of a conversation (cf. Ventola 1979)(10) unless there
is a topic shift. Similarly, a parting expression does not necessarily assume a final
position in that structure. For in encounters that do not involve conversation, Gs as
well as Ps must be viewed as independent discourse events. You can simply greet a
person you pass by without getting involved in a talk or using even one single word;
you may nod or smile. You may also say ‘good-bye’ to a person with whom your
companion has had an exchange, but not you. That is, when you function as a passive
participant.

Generally, Ps require more awareness than Gs; they are characterized by less
automaticity and spontaneity. Many Ps are pre-planned; for they require conscious
leave-taking, especially if participants have spent a considerable time conversing with
each other, e.g.
42a. (IA) /?atraxxas/ or /nitraxxas/ (pl.) ‘Excuse me (us)’;
42b. (JA) /bruxsitku/ ‘Excuse me (us), or the more educated (formal):
43. (IA & JA) /?asta? in/ or /nista? in/, respectively;
44a. (IA) /?ihna tismahilna/ ‘With your permission’, i.e. we have to go;
44b. (JA) /tismahilna/ or /tismahulna/ (pl.) ‘With your permission’;
45a. (IA) /nirfa izzahma/ ‘We lift the inconvenience’, i.e. it’s time we left;
45b. (JA) /yalla badku tirtahu/ ‘ It’s time you needed rest’;
46a. (IA) /(?i) lga da hilwa wiyyakum/ ‘It’s nice being with you’;
46b. (JA) /walla lga dih ma ku hilwa/ ‘It’s nice being with you’;
46c. (JA) /walla la yummal/ ‘It’s not at all boring being with you, or simply:
47a. (IA) /(?i) t?axxarna/ ‘It’s late’, i.e. we better go now;
47b. (JA) /t?axxarna/ ‘It’s late’ or /maseina/ ‘let’s go’.

If such instances of leave-taking are not immediately followed up by a concluding

remark to express social warmth, e.g.:
48a. (IA) /ba ad wakit/ ‘But there is still more time’ (see Gorgis 1992),
48b. (JA) /bakkir/ ‘It’s still early’,
the unmarked ‘good-bye’ emerges concomitantly, e.g.
49a. (IA) /fiman illah/ ‘(We leave you) with God’s security’,
49b. (JA) /baman illah/ ‘With God’s security’ and or
49c. (JA) /ma issalamih/ ‘with safety’ or:
50. (IA) /?awda nakum/ ‘We bid you farewell’.

Without departing from any other polite norm, an echo-response (to 49 but not to
50) is very much likely to occur. Other Ps that may be dubbed as highly ‘unmarked’
are those like Gs (cf. 1&2), e.g.
51. (IA and JA) /ma issalama/ ‘(Leave you) with safety’,
which may be elaborated by a follow-up wish such as:
52a. (IA) /?alla wyak/ ‘May God be with you’(11),
52b. (JA) /?alla ma ak/ ‘May God be with you’
52c. (JA) /bhafa alla/ ‘With God’s protection’.
But (52) can also be used as a RP without any annexation. Analogous, but noticeably
marked, RPs are those that are frequently used by intimates, especially the elderly,
e.g.
53a. (IA) /?alla wimhammad iw ali wiyyak/ ‘God, (Prophet) Mohammad and (Imam)
Ali be with you’;
53b. (JA) /?alla wimhammad ma ak/ ‘God and Mohammad be with you’,
54. (IA and JA) /mahrus balla/ ‘May God escort you’;
55a. (IA) /(?i) truh iwtiji bissalama/ ‘A safe and sound return’.
55b. (JA) /truh wtiji bissalamih/ ‘A safe and sound return’.

Obviously, (53) is an elaboration of (52) and hence, marked. Yet, ‘markedness’ is

not always to be equated with ‘length’ and consequently, with ‘more politeness’. A
one-word simple sentence or a two-word compound sentence can be treated as
marked structures, e.g.
56. (IA&JA) /?anastuna/ ‘(It has been) our pleasure’, or its equivalent:
57. (IA&JA) /nawwartu wsarraftu/ ‘(It has been) a delight, i.e. my honor’,
in both cases one is tempted to label them as socially ‘cultivated’ etiquette, a criterion
which awaits confirmation.(12)
 Unlike the unmarked (conventional) ‘good-bye’ or ‘see you’, expressions like 56
and 57 would mean to an observer that a social gathering of some sort has already
taken place between conversants and, hence, conversationally ‘marked’. Empirical
observation suggests that only mature adults, particularly females, have access to
these expressions. Departing females (at the door of their hostess, for example) may
produce utterances that are qualitatively and quantitatively different from those used
by males (cf. 50); a cluster of well-being wishes can function as a more courteous
parting and, hence, more marked than any other produced by accompanying male
adults. One such fashionable sequence is:
58a. (IA) / allat yamkum il afya/ ‘Wish you a good health’;
/betil amir/ ‘Wish you a prosperous home’;
/?insufkum da?iman bilafrah/ ‘We hope we meet you always at
ceremonies’ etc. and so on. Similar equivalent marked parting utterances in JA are
also evident:
58b. (JA) /?i allu bil afyih/ ‘We wish you stay in good health’;
/insallah amar/ ‘May God keep it a prosperous home’;
/nzurku bil?afrah/ ‘We hope we visit you at ceremonies’.

Each utterance, however, or all (i.e. functioning as one single turn) may elicit the
simple unmarked response:
59. (IA and JA) /?ahlan wasahlan/ ‘you’re welcome’, or in (JA) /sarraftuna/ ‘We were
honored’, especially by male adults, or, for example, the marked (57) which is more
feminine-like. Notice that a marked utterance (usually produced by a benefactor) can
elicit an unmarked response. Utterances such as (53-55) are marked responses to
unmarked parting expressions such as (49-51) coupled with hugging and/or kisses on
both cheeks or hand-shakes (constrained by degree of intimacy and/or sex
differences).(13)

Concluding Remarks

Despite the difficulties one may encounter in formalizing human behavior in terms
of ‘markedness’, this study has attempted to reveal interesting common grounds
between Gs, RGs, Ps, and RPs. Deviation from the socially-prescribed norms would
define certain Gs and Ps as ‘marked’ for non-religiously oriented persons and vice
versa. Mainly because of this conflict, the discussion has been based on social norms
guided by the Qur’anic principle of ‘the same or more so’. Those Gs and Ps that
require ‘the same’, or equally so, responses are usually the ‘unmarked’ ones.
Ferguson (1981) calls many of these ‘echo-responses’ and thinks, as we do here and
elsewhere (see Gorgis 1992), that ‘attenuation’ ought not to be treated as an instance
of ‘elaboration’. For this reason, among others, appeal has been made to the widely
accepted notion of ‘markedness’. Thus, the more publicly heard Gs such as /salamu
alaykum/ ‘Peace be on you’, /marhaba/’Hi’ or /halaw/ ‘Hello’ as well as Ps such as
/fimanillah/ ‘(I wish you go) under God’s protection’ or /ma issalama/ ‘(I wish you
go) with God’s peace’ or even the borrowed /bay bay/ ‘bye, bye’, along with their
echo-responses, will be appropriately defined as ‘unmarked’. Less frequently used Gs,
though some partly involve echo-responses, are those which by virtue of their relative
length we term as ‘marked’; the longer would be more marked.
But we have also argued that length is not necessarily to be equated with how much
‘marked’ an utterance can be. Conversationally, marked Gs and Ps as well as their
responses, whether verbal and/or non-verbal, i.e. those which involve hand-shaking or
waving, kissing and/or hugging, etc. are more varied in number and structure and are,
above all, less predictable. So due to this complexity, their markedness should be
determined in the light of a set of features of which ‘length’ and ‘frequency’ are but
two. A better distinguishing feature is that of ‘courtesy’ as elsewhere discussed in
Gorgis (1992). But if ‘courtesy’, ‘exaggerated’ or ‘hyperbole’ are not happy notions,
some other features such as ‘cultivated’, ‘ornamental’ or ‘decorated’ and the like, can
be termed ‘social lubricants’.
Notes

1. “failing” in this sense does not cover ‘pragmalinguistic’ failure, i.e. wrong
inference of an illocutionary force calculated by hearer (H) due to transfer, or
‘socio-pragmatic’ failure, i.e. inappropriate reply made by H due not to
‘transfer’ from L1 to L2 but to having insufficient knowledge of the socio-
cultural context of L2 (cf. Jaworski 1994:51). Obviously, no tension in
interpersonal relations is created in such cases. The same may hold true of
interlocutors belonging to the same culture but who have different or similar
religious backgrounds and are of opposite sex. No wonder, our secretary (an
Iraqi Arab Moslem lady, once a student of the first researcher) refused to
shake hands with him on the New Year’s Eve. A colleague of him (also a
Moslem), who was standing by at the time of executing the verbal part of G
and extending his arm for the hand-shake, whispered in his ears immediately
to rescue his noticeable embarrassment: “It’s Ramadhan, you know.” Only
then he realized that Moslem ladies are not supposed to shake hands with non-
relatives, irrespective of religious beliefs, especially during fasting days (cf.
Hassanain 1994:74). But when suppositions are consciously or unconsciously
over-ruled, and this seems to be more fashionable in current practice unless
otherwise tested, the greeting exchange becomes part of the social behavior
rather than of religious obligations.
2. IA and JA are taken here as cover terms though most of our examples are
drawn from Baghdadi Arabic and Jordanian Arabic spoken in the north. This
is mainly because socio-cultural aspects are more readily (and generally)
equated with IA and JA.
3. Contrary to the general belief, this is a common biblical greeting formula
(cf. Aramaic / slama amxon/ ‘Peace be upon all of you).
4. If the number is relatively large, no hand shaking is likely to take place
along with the verbal exchange. It is also important to note here that these
responses are most frequent. Others, such as /?assalam warrahma wal ?ikram/
‘Peace, His mercy and honor’ are less common and, hence, marked.
5. But one can pass by unnoticeably without looking sideways and, thus, GG
is avoided for the same reason/s such that the passer-by happens to have had
tense relations with at least one member of the group.
6. For further details about the greeting behavior of this people, see Sugawara
(1990:87-88).
7. Foregrounding of the address term will unmistakenly produce the desired
RG.
8. /?ahlan ------ yahala/ with a short pause between the two segments does
not necessarily presuppose warmth.
9. Cf. /hala bilharrab/ in Egyptian Arabic.
10. Ventola (1979) discusses these elements, along with those that go in
between, in English. A future comparative study with Arabic casual
conversations may reveal striking differences characteristic of the two social
structures. For similar views, see Traugott and Pratt (1980:242-247).
11. In comparison with (51), whether paired with (52) or not, (50) is
monopolized by male adults. This monopoly also extends to (12).
12. Those that cannot be characterized as such are echo-responses to (19),
though marked as well.
13. These, and the like, are naturally domain-specific or sensitive to the
occasions (settings) in which they occur. As they are innumerable and varied,
they require a separate study. For example, patients need more soothing Gs
and Ps that take the form of a cluster of well-being wishes. In fact, the more
marked your expressions are the better sounded and appreciated (but not
necessarily responded to verbally). Parents, relatives, and friends of a
deceased person are expected to be greeted differently by different people. A
newly wedded couple, likewise, would be greeted and congratulated verbally
and/or non-verbally with varying degrees of formality.

REFERECES

Arndt, Horst and Janney, Richard Wayne. 1987. Intergrammar: Toward

An Integrative Model of Verbal, Prosodic and Kinesic Choices in
Speech. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Blimes, Jack. 1988. “The concept of preference in conversation analysis”.

Language in Society, Vol. 17, no. 2: 161-181

Ferguson, Charles A. 1981. “The structure and use of Politeness

formulas”. In: Coulmas, Florian, ed.: 21-35.

Coulmas, Florian, ed. 1981. Conversational Routine: Explorations in

Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The
Hague: Mouton.

Gorgis, Dinha T. 1992. “Courtesy expressions in Baghdadi Arabic”.

Mosul University: Adab Al-Rafidayn 24:1-23.

_____________. 1994. “Pragmatic consequences: The role of mediation

in discourse”. J. of Science and Education. Mosul University, Vol. 15:
1-15.

Greif, Esther Blank and Gleason, Jean Berko. 1980. “Hi, thanks, and
goodbye: more routine information”. Language in Society 9:159-166.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language.

London: Arnold.

Hassanain, Khalid S. A. 1994. “Saudi mode of greeting rituals: their

implications for teaching and learning English”. IRAL XXXII/1: 69-77.
Haverkate, Henk. 1988. “Toward a typology of politeness strategies in
communicative interaction”. Multilingua 7-4: 385-409.

Jaworski, Adam. 1994. “Pragmatic failure in a second language: greeting

responses in English by Polish students”. IRAL XXX II/ 1: 41-55.

Kiefer, Frence. 1980. “Greetings as language games”. Journal of

Pragmatics 4: 147-155.

Kitamura, Koji. 1990. “Interactional synchrony: a functional condition

for communication”. In: Moerman, Michael and Normura, Masaichi,
eds. Culture Embodied. Senri Ethnological Studies no. 27. Osaka:
National Museum of Ethnology: 123-140.

Laver, John. 1981. “Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and

parting”. In: Coulmas, Florian, ed.: 289-304.

Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

_______. 1987. “Stylistics and functionalism”. In: Fabb, Nigel; Attridge,

Derek; Durant, Alan; and MacCabe, Colin, eds. The Linguistics of
Writing: arguments between language and literature. Manchester
University Press: 76-88.

Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge. CUP.

Naden, Tony. 1980. “How to greet in Bisa”. Journal of Pragmatics 4:

137-145.

Saville – Troike, Muriel. 1982. The Ethnography of Communication:

An Introduction. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell.

Sugawara, Kazuyosli. 1990. “Interactional aspects of the body in

co-presence: observation on the Central Kalahari San”. In: Moerman,
Michael and Nomura, Masaichi, eds: Culture Embodied: 79-122.

Traugott, E. C. and Pratt, M. L. 1980. Linguistics for Students of

Literature. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Ventola, Eija. 1979. “The structure of casual conversation in English”.

Journal of Pragmatics 3: 267-298.

Verschueren, Jef. 1981.“The semantics of forgotten routines”. In:

Coulmas, Florian, ed.: 133-153.

Published in: Dirasat, Human and Social Sciences, The Jordanian University,
Volume 30, No.3, 2003, pp. 610-617.