Analyzing the Pragmatic Functions of the Religious Expression /ʔallaːh yaʕtiːk ʔilʕaːfje/(May God grant you health) in Spoken Jordanian Arabic

4.1.1 Parametric Measures

The religious expression under investigation shows varying degrees of acceptability across different pragmatic functions in Jordanian Arabic. To assess the acceptability of these functions, this study employed a 5-point Likert scale, where (1) represents complete unacceptability and (5) indicates full acceptance. The scale’s midpoint (3) serves as a crucial reference point (neutral point) against which the acceptability of each pragmatic function was statistically evaluated. This neutral point represents a threshold between acceptance and rejection, indicating that respondents are expressing ambivalence or uncertainty about the appropriateness of using religious expressions for that specific pragmatic purpose. Table 2 presents the statistical analysis of acceptability ratings for nine pragmatic functions of religious expressions, including mean ratings, standard deviations (SD), standardized scores (Z-scores), t-statistics, p-values, and effect sizes (Cohen’s d).

The data indicate that five pragmatic functions of the religious term /ʔallaːh yaʕtiːk ʔilʕaːfje/ showed highly significant differences (p < 0.001) from the neutral point. Notably, “appreciation and gratitude”, and “motivation and encouragement” had large effect sizes (d = 0.918 and d = 0.853, respectively), indicating that speakers strongly favor these functions for religious expressions. Similarly, “starting a conversation,” “getting attention,” and “expressing anger and disapproval” demonstrated medium-large effect sizes (d = 0.693 and d = 0.706, respectively). And the pragmatic function relating to “feeling of sympathy” showed a moderate effect (d = 0.576). These findings suggest that when religious expressions are used to convey positive emotional states or facilitate social interactions, they are perceived as distinctly acceptable.

In contrast, pragmatic functions of “sarcasm and mockery” (d = 0.391) and “feeling of accomplishment” (d = 0.404) displayed moderate significance (p < 0.01), with smaller effect sizes. This indicates a less pronounced but still notable deviation from the neutral point, meaning that while the acceptability of these functions is above average, it is less emphatic than for the higher-rated functions. Finally, the functions associated with “understanding and support” (d = 0.155) and “resentment” (d = 0.125) did not significantly differ from the neutral point (p > 0.05). This lack of statistical significance implies that, on average, speakers do not show a clear preference or aversion for using religious expressions in these contexts. Such neutrality could indicate that these uses are either culturally ambivalent or still evolving within the community, and it might invite further investigation to explore how individual differences, or specific contextual factors contribute to this balanced perception. Figure 1 illustrates the main patterns of acceptance for the pragmatic functions of the religious marker.

Figure 1

Visualization of standardized acceptance patterns across the pragmatic functions of /ʔallaːh yaʕtiːk ʔilʕaːfje/ using parametric measures.

It is important to note that parametric measures tend to correlate positively. This means that functions with a higher mean rating also typically exhibit stronger effects (indicated by larger Cohen’s d) and more significant test statistics (such as Z-scores and t-statistics). For instance, the pragmatic function of “appreciation and gratitude” not only has the highest mean rating but also demonstrates the largest effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.918) and statistically significant test results. This reinforces the conclusion that respondents perceive it as highly acceptable.

A point to mention here is how the analysis of pragmatic functions has evolved from a traditional counting approach to a more sophisticated statistical framework, each revealing different aspects of linguistic acceptability. While this traditional approach provided a clear initial classification, the implementation of standardized statistical measures has unveiled more nuanced patterns in the data. This refined methodology considers the entire spectrum of responses on the 5-point Likert scale, rather than just the high ratings. By incorporating t-tests, effect sizes (Cohen’s d), and z-scores, the analysis determines not only whether ratings significantly differ from the neutral point but also the magnitude and reliability of these differences. While p-values indicate whether differences are statistically significant, effect sizes reveal how substantial those differences are. A large Cohen’s d (e.g., >0.8) suggests that the difference in acceptability between a pragmatic function and the neutral point is not only statistically significant but also meaningful in practical terms. For instance, while both approaches identify gratitude as the most accepted function, the statistical analysis quantifies this acceptance more precisely (d = 0.918, p < 0.001), demonstrating both the strength and statistical reliability of this finding.

Importantly, this statistical approach has significantly improved our understanding of functions that are often considered “less accepted.” For example, when looking at the function of “understanding and support,” traditional percentage-based analysis may categorize it as having low acceptance. However, statistical testing shows that its ratings do not differ significantly from neutral (p > 0.05). This finding indicates that the situation is more complex than simply labeling it as low acceptance; instead, it suggests there may be variability or ambivalence in how speakers perceive it. This highlights the individualistic aspect inherent to pragmatic functions.

4.1.2 Non-Parametric Measures

This section introduces an alternative analysis of the acceptability of the nine pragmatic functions discussed earlier, using a non-parametric method (suited for ordinal data). The analysis involved a Kruskal–Wallis test to evaluate whether the median acceptability ratings differ significantly among the pragmatic functions. The test statistic was found to be 3.611 with a p-value around 0.057. Although this p-value is marginally above the 0.05 level, it indicates a trend toward differences in how respondents perceive these functions, albeit less decisively than indicated by the parametric analysis. Additionally, an examination of the median-based rankings revealed a slightly altered order compared to the mean-based rankings. For instance, pragmatic functions such as “starting a conversation” and “getting attention” and “appreciation, and gratitude” appear among the highest in acceptability based on their medians. Conversely, functions like “understanding and support” and “resentment” consistently indicate lower acceptability. Despite these differences, the overall ordering remains similar, reinforcing the idea that respondent perceptions are robust even as the analytic approach shifts from parametric to non-parametric metrics.

While the non-parametric analysis via medians and the Kruskal–Wallis test suggests a trend of differences in the acceptability of the pragmatic functions, the statistical significance is marginal (p ≈ 0.057). This contrasts with the more decisive significance observed in the parametric analysis. However, the overall ranking of functions is largely consistent across both methodologies, confirming that respondents do perceive certain functions as more acceptable than others. The non-parametric approach uses the median to gauge central tendency and may yield different function rankings, especially when there are outliers or skewed distributions. This can result in a situation where the order based on medians diverges from the ranking based on effect size measures like Cohen’s d. With non-parametric measures, the absence of assumptions about the distribution means that the central tendency (median) and dispersion (as reflected by a computed effect size) might not change in tandem, leading to subtle discrepancies in ranking.

In other words, the median accurately represents the central tendency when dealing with ordinal data like Likert scales. It also directly reflects what most respondents perceive as acceptable, which is especially valuable when the underlying data are not normally distributed. While Cohen’s d (or any strength-of-effect measure) is crucial for understanding the magnitude of differences between groups, it provides supplementary interpretative context. This value illustrates how strong the differences are, but it isn’t inherently a central tendency measure. As such, it might not always coincide with the median’s ordering, especially in cases where the distributions vary in spread or skewness. For instance, Cohen’s d above 0.8 indicates a large effect, meaning the difference in acceptability is not only statistically significant but also pronounced in practical, perceptual terms. This suggests that the use of a particular pragmatic function might have a very noticeable effect on how respondents perceive it (Table 3).

4.2.1 Age and Gender

An examination of the overall mean ratings revealed that younger respondents (18–22) tend to assign higher acceptability ratings compared to their older counterparts. For instance, the overall mean rating for the younger cohort was approximately 3.88, while that for older respondents was around 3.56. These preliminary findings hint at a systematic effect of age, where older individuals appear more critical in their evaluation of pragmatic functions. To evaluate these primary findings, a further analysis combining the use of non-parametric tests and regression modeling was conducted. First, we compared differences in ratings across age groups, also conducting gender comparisons. Although the p-value for age was marginally non-significant (p ≈ 0.0615), it indicated a trend toward lower acceptability ratings among older respondents. Similarly, no significant differences were observed across genders (p ≈ 0.188). Then, another statistical measure was carried out, a regression using standardized variables for age and gender. The results confirmed the aforementioned age effect on the acceptability of pragmatic functions. Age illustrated a statistically significant negative influence on acceptability ratings (p = 0.014). This implies that an increase in a respondent’s age is associated with lower ratings even after adjusting for potential biases from uneven subgroup sizes. Furthermore, the interaction effect between age and gender was not significant, suggesting a consistent age effect across genders.

Data from the sample show that younger respondents rated the “Starting conversation” and “getting attention” functions at an average of 4.17, while older respondents rated it lower, at about 3.79. Similarly, for “Understanding and support,” the younger group rated acceptability at approximately 3.46, compared to 2.83 for the older cohort. These findings highlight the significant impact of age on perceptions of acceptability. The negative correlation between age and ratings may indicate generational or cultural shifts in the interpretation and value placed on these pragmatic functions. The lack of a gender effect likely reflects the culturally bound nature of the phrase /ʔallaːh yaʕtiːk ʔilʕaːfje/ and its associated pragmatic functions. In this context, both males and females interpret and use the phrase similarly, as it conveys widely accepted connotations in the community of speakers of SJA. Additionally, the substantial variability in ratings within each gender group dilutes potential gender-based differences, as individual differences overshadow systematic variations that could otherwise be attributed to gender alone.

The weak effect of demographic factors on the acceptability of the pragmatic functions of /ʔallaːh yaʕtiːk ʔilʕaːfje/ may be considered through the lens of context-dependent stances. Based on Austin’s seminal work (Austin, 1962) on speech acts, the acceptability of certain pragmatic functions may be due to our sample’s interpretation of the communicative stances. The performative aspect of language explains how expressions like /ʔallaːh yaʕtiːk ʔilʕaːfje/ are context-dependent and therefore contextual factors may be more prominent than demographic ones when interpreting certain preferences of some pragmatic factors over others. The importance of contextual nuances in pragmatic function research motivates one final analysis of how variables such as formality, relationship dynamics, and situational context may influence the acceptability of pragmatic function for /ʔallaːh yaʕtiːk ʔilʕaːfje/.

4.2.2 Social Context’s Effect on the Acceptability of Pragmatic Functions

This final section explores how three key contextual factors influence the acceptability of the pragmatic functions associated with /ʔallaːh yaʕtiːk ʔilʕaːfje/. The analysis grouped responses by pragmatic function along with distinct specifications for each factor and calculated the mean acceptability ratings within each group. These acceptability rates were then visually represented using heat maps to clearly illustrate the differences across the various settings. Figure 2 illustrates the effects of each contextual factor on the overall rating of pragmatic functions for the religious marker /allah jaʕtiːk ilʕafje/.

Figure 2

The effects of contextual factors on the acceptability ratings of the pragmatic functions of /ʔallaːh yaʕtiːk ʔilʕaːfje/.

First, we tested the influence of physical setting on the acceptability of pragmatic functions for /ʔallaːh yaʕtiːk ʔilʕaːfje/. The analysis involved grouping responses by pragmatic function and different physical environments (such as private/home, public/social, sports center/gym). The results indicated that contexts like private/home and public/social consistently received higher acceptability ratings, whereas settings such as sports center/gym or private/intimate were associated with lower ratings. This suggests that the physical environment is an essential factor in determining whether the expression is perceived as culturally and pragmatically appropriate, since some settings may be more conducive to the intended function of the expression than others. Secondly, we investigated the impact of relationship dynamics on acceptability ratings. The analysis grouped data by the type of relationship context (for example, close relationships, professional interactions, or encounters with acquaintances/strangers).

The findings revealed that the expression tends to be more acceptable in contexts involving close or intimate/family relationships, while its acceptability diminishes when used in more formal or distant relationships. Hence, relationship dynamics play a critical role in shaping the pragmatic function of the expression, underscoring the influence of interpersonal closeness on cultural appropriateness. The last section focused on the role of formality in shaping acceptability ratings. The study differentiated between semi-formal and informal contexts by grouping the data accordingly and computing average ratings for each pragmatic function. The results imply that an appropriate level of formality enhances the perception of linguistic expressions and strengthens the cultural resonance of the pragmatic function. Below are observations regarding the effects of the contextual factors on the acceptability rating for the nine established pragmatic functions of/ʔallaːh yaʕtiːk ʔilʕaːfje/. These observations highlight how the acceptability of each pragmatic function varies across physical settings, relationship dynamics, and formality levels.

1. Understanding and Support

   • Physical Setting: Higher acceptability in private/home and public/social settings, reflecting this function’s personal and empathetic nature. Lower ratings in sports centers/gyms and private/intimate settings.

   • Relationship Dynamics: Strongly acceptable in close relationships and intimate/family contexts, with lower ratings in professional or acquaintance/stranger contexts.

   • Formality: Semi-formal contexts yield higher ratings, suggesting that a moderate level of formality enhances the perception of understanding and support.

2. Appreciation and Gratitude

   • Physical Setting: High acceptability in private/home and public/social settings, as these are common environments for expressing gratitude. Lower ratings in sports center/gym.

   • Relationship Dynamics: Strongly acceptable in close relationships and professional/mentoring contexts, reflecting its universal appropriateness.

   • Formality: Semi-formal contexts show higher ratings, while informal settings are slightly less favorable.

3. Initiating a Conversation and Getting Attention

   • Physical Setting: High ratings in public/social settings, where initiating conversations is common. Lower ratings in private/intimate settings.

   • Relationship Dynamics: More acceptable in acquaintance/stranger and peers/friends contexts, as these often involve initiating interactions.

   • Formality: Semi-formal contexts are preferred, while informal settings show slightly lower ratings.

4. Feeling of Sympathy

   • Physical Setting: High acceptability in private/home and private/controlled settings, reflecting the personal nature of sympathy. Lower ratings in sports center/gym.

   • Relationship Dynamics: Strongly acceptable in close relationships and intimate/family contexts, with lower ratings in professional contexts.

   • Formality: Semi-formal contexts yield higher ratings, while informal settings are slightly less favorable.

5. Motivation and Encouragement

   • Physical Setting: High ratings in private/home and public/social settings, where encouragement is often expressed. Lower ratings in sports center/gym.

   • Relationship Dynamics: Strongly acceptable in close relationships and professional/mentoring contexts, reflecting its motivational nature.

   • Formality: Semi-formal contexts show higher ratings, while informal settings are slightly less favorable.

6. Resentment

   • Physical Setting: Lower ratings across all settings, with slightly higher acceptability in private/intimate settings.

   • Relationship Dynamics: More acceptable in close relationships, reflecting the personal nature of expressing resentment. Lower ratings in professional contexts.

   • Formality: Informal settings show slightly higher ratings, as resentment is less likely to be expressed in formal contexts.

7. Sarcasm and Mockery

   • Physical Setting: Lower ratings across all settings, with slightly higher acceptability in private/intimate settings.

   • Relationship Dynamics: More acceptable in close relationships and peers/friends contexts, where sarcasm is more likely to be understood. Lower ratings in professional contexts.

   • Formality: Informal settings show slightly higher ratings, as sarcasm is less appropriate in formal contexts.

8. Accomplishment

   • Physical Setting: High ratings in private/home and public/social settings, where accomplishments are often shared. Lower ratings in sports center/gym.

   • Relationship Dynamics: Strongly acceptable in close relationships and professional/mentoring contexts, reflecting its celebratory nature.

   • Formality: Semi-formal contexts yield higher ratings, while informal settings are slightly less favorable.

9. Anger and reprimand

   • Physical Setting: Lower ratings across all settings, with slightly higher acceptability in private/intimate settings.

   • Relationship Dynamics: More acceptable in close relationships, reflecting the personal nature of expressing anger. Lower ratings in professional contexts.

   • Formality: Informal settings show slightly higher ratings, as anger is less likely to be expressed in formal contexts.