A pragmatic analysis of compliment response strategies by Emirati Arabic speakers

Abstract

This study explored the compliment response (CR) strategies used by Emirati Arabic speakers. In addition, the study analysed the role of gender and the degree of formality in the use of CR strategies in this Arabic dialect. To this end, the study recruited 56 (28 males and 28 females) undergraduate students from the University of Sharjah (UAE). A written discourse completion task (DCT) consisting of 10 (five formal and five informal) scenarios was used to elicit CRs from the participants. The results showed that the Emiratis’ most frequently used major strategy is the Acceptance strategy, with Returning the Compliment and Expressing Gratitude being the most used sub-strategies and Agreeing and Encouraging being the least frequently used. The study shows that variations in the construction and realisation of speech acts exist due to gender and degree of formality. In particular, although both genders made use of the same major strategy, they showed differences in the use of the sub-strategies according to the (in)formality of the situation.

Keywords:

• Compliments
• compliment response strategies
• speech acts
• Emirati Arabic
• gender
• formality degree

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Jeroen van de Weijer, Shenzhen University, China

SUBJECTS:

• Introductory Linguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Applied Linguistics

1. Introduction

The speech act of compliment response (CR) is an acknowledgement of the other’s efforts when complimenting one’s activity or personal attributes. This demonstrates that a CR is typically thought of as a response given by the recipient to individuals who praise their actions or qualities and to those who hold them in high regard. A CR is based on the nature of the compliment and the interpersonal ties among the speech participants (Herbert, 1986). CRs can be studied in relation to several factors; these include the universality of CRs (e.g. Holmes, 1988), politeness strategies (e.g. Herbert, 1989), gender differences (e.g. Barron, 2003), language proficiency (e.g. Yu, 2011), and pragmatic competence (e.g. Barron, 2003). Most studies considered the realisation of CRs with reference to (im)politeness. CRs are considered strategies of positive politeness, which focuses on strategies used to show friendliness, solidarity, and respect in communication. Bax and Kádár (2011) draw attention to the fact that positive politeness contributes to maintaining and developing social bonds, which are expressed through friendliness and solidarity. They argue that politeness practices, such as complimenting and CRs, are pertinent to the socio-cultural and historical context of their use. Blum-Kulka (1987) also studies (im)politeness as she delves into whether being indirect when making the speech act of requests can be always deemed polite. She examines how people use different levels of directness or indirectness in their language when asking for something and whether that is consistently seen as polite or impolite. Blum-Kulka (1987) finds that according to her respondents, the most indirect requests (hints) are not the most polite while conventional indirect requests are more polite. She defines politeness as ‘the interactional balance achieved between two needs: The need for pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid coerciveness’ (Blum-Kulka, 1987, p.131). She also finds that slanting the balance ‘in favor of either pragmatic clarity or non-coerciveness will decrease politeness’ (p. 131); this means that direct strategies can be considered as impolite because they show no concern with the addressee’s face; on the other hand, non-conventional indirect strategies (hints) can be considered as impolite because they signify no concern for pragmatic clarity. Similarly, concerning the speech act of compliments, Haugh and Obana (2011) warn that compliments (and, by extension, CRs) require ‘extra care because [they] can sound condescending and thus potentially impolite’ (p. 164).

CRs have been the major focus of considerable research in the fields of sociolinguistics and pragmatics. Pomerantz (1978) was among the first scholars to examine CRs. She argued that, generally, the first expected and desired choice of response as a strategy is to show agreement with the compliment. As a result, the recipient may feel obligated to agree with the speaker and accept the compliment. Conversely, the recipient may feel uncertain about whether to avoid or limit self-praise (Pomerantz, 1978). Herbert (1989) pointed out that the recipient of a compliment is faced with a dilemma of balancing between two important conversational principles: agreeing with the speaker and avoiding self-praise. Herbert (1989) devised a taxonomy of CRs, similar to Pomerantz’s classification, which focuses on either agreeing with the speaker or evading self-promotion. Using data collected from American English, Herbert (1989) categorized the responses into three groups: agreement, non-agreement, and request for interpretation, with the first two groups having additional subcategories. Acceptance and rejection are the two options in the category of agreement. The subcategories of acceptance include appreciation tokens, comment acceptances, and praise upgrading. In contrast, the categories of non-acceptance are comment history, reassignment, and return. As for the non-agreement category, it subsumes scale down, disagreement, qualifier, query, and no acknowledgement category (Herbert, 1989). With all previous categories and subcategories, the speaker may face a dilemma on which CR to choose. However, the choice of CRs can be affected by the presence of numerous variables, such as the social situation in which the compliments are exchanged, as well as the gender and social status of the participants involved (Cutting, 2002; Levinson, 1983). Holmes and Brown (1987) suggested that an appropriate response to compliments is an essential component of communicative competence, which may vary across cultures in several ways. In addition, Lorenzo-Dus (2001) believed that, primarily, self-evaluation, the compliment topic, and the genders of both the complimenter and recipient affect the choice of CR strategies.

The study of complimenting and responding to compliments has been a topic of interest to linguists for many years. However, how CR strategies are used in Emirati Arabic is not given due attention in mainstream literature. This is particularly the case in most Arabic dialects, which remain under-explored in pragmatic research. Thus, this study fills this gap by exploring Emirati Arabic speakers’ use of CR strategies. The study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. What are the compliment response strategies used by Emirati Arabic speakers?

2. What is the role of gender in the use of compliment response strategies by the participants?

3. What is the role of the degree of formality in the use of compliment response strategies in Emirati Arabic?

4. How do Emirati Arabic speakers respond to compliments in their dialect?

2. Literature review

2.1. Research on non-Arabic languages

The literature on compliments and CRs has been generally examined within the framework of the politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Leech, 1983). Complimentees are usually caught in a double bind; acknowledging compliments leads to flouting the Maxim of Modesty while rejecting compliments results in challenging the Maxim of Agreement (Leech, 1983). Several studies have investigated the realizations of CRs in different languages and from several perspectives. Examining the role of object distance and gender in Persian CRs, Sarkhosh (2022), for example, found that Iranian students accepted compliments more than they rejected them, with females accepting compliments more than their male counterparts. He added that the object distance does not impact the CRs. Although Iranians used to reject compliments, Sarkhosh noticed that they shifted their CR behaviour to accepting compliments. He attributed this dramatic shift to the influence of Western media. In the same context, Allami and Montazeri (2012) investigated English CR strategies produced by Iranian EFL learners. The researchers used both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods to gather information from 50 Iranian EFL learners, both male and female, aged between 18 to 30 years. The study found that the acceptance strategy was the most common strategy used by the participants, which involved expressing gratitude for the compliment. However, some learners used inappropriate or culturally specific strategies, such as responding with self-criticism or deflecting the compliment. Moreover, the study also found differences in the compliment response strategies used by male and female learners. The researchers suggest that these findings highlight the importance of cultural awareness in language teaching to help learners respond appropriately to compliments in English.

Shehzad (2010) investigated the CR strategies used by Pakistani English speakers to determine if there has been a shift away from traditional modesty norms in compliment responses. The findings showed that Pakistani English speakers use a range of compliment response strategies, including acceptance, deflection, and rejection strategies. The study also found evidence of a shift away from traditional modesty norms in compliment responses, with participants more likely to accept compliments than to deflect or reject them. Participants used a variety of linguistic devices to respond to compliments, including thanking, downplaying, or redirecting the compliment. The study suggests that this shift away from traditional modesty norms may be related to changing cultural values and increased exposure to Western culture. Overall, the study provides insights into how Pakistani English speakers respond to compliments and highlights the changing cultural norms surrounding modesty in compliment responses.

Unlike many previous studies that used traditional written DCTs, Culpeper and Pat (2021) adapted DCTs for WhatsApp to study the CRs of Hong Kong Chinese students and examine how they perceive politeness within their CRs. They found that acceptance strategies were the most frequent strategies. They, however, added that the participants did not restrict modesty to rejection strategies. Previous research on compliment response strategies suggested that complimentees generally prefer acceptance to rejection and aversion, suggesting a preference for agreement over modesty.

CRs have also been studied cross-culturally to compare their structures and uses as used in two different cultures, by learners of another language, or when they are used by bilingual speakers. For example, Mir and Cots (2019), using DCTs, analysed humorous CRs in American English and Peninsular Spanish. They argued that complimentees strategically used humour to save face; Americans used self-denigrating humour since American English is a negative politeness culture. By contrast, considering the positive politeness nature of the Spanish culture, Spanish complimentees preferred teasing and ironic upgraders. Also, comparing native speakers of two different languages, Golato (2002) investigated the organization of compliment sequences in German and American English among families and friends and compared their compliment responses. The study found that while rejections and turns containing certain agreement and disagreement features are similar in both languages, they differ in agreement sequences, which can lead to communication problems in cross-cultural contexts. The study also highlighted an example of a non-native speaker of English transferring the format of a German compliment response into American English, thus resulting in communication problems. Based on the findings, the study suggests the importance of incorporating pragmatics into foreign and second language teaching to improve cross-cultural communication. The study emphasizes the need to understand cultural and linguistic differences in compliment responses and the importance of incorporating pragmatic instruction in language teaching to improve cross-cultural communication.

2.2. Research on Arabic

This section discusses the major and latest studies on CRs in the Arab culture and examines the variables that can affect the characteristics of CRs given by native speakers of Arabic. In the Arab culture, CRs differ mainly concerning gender and sociocultural background (Al-Dakhs, 2021; Farghal, 2006; Migdadi, 2021). Research studies into CRs have highlighted the effect of gender on the frequency and usage of CR strategies. Thus, previous studies show that Arab females outperformed males in CRs (Chen, 1993; Farghal, 2006; Nelson et al., 1996); for instance, Nelson et al. (1996) studied CRs produced by Egyptian students of both genders; they found that female students tend to use more polite strategies in CRs than males. Likewise, Al-Shboul et al. (2022) investigated the effects of gender and social power on the production of CRs by Jordanian adolescent students. Their methodology was based on administering eight DCT situations which had been translated into Arabic, to a sample of 37 male and 37 female adolescent students in Jordan. The results of the study showed that females produced a greater number of CRs compared to males. Al-Shboul et al. (2022) explained that females tended to employ a greater number of CRs than males due to their perception of politeness as a psychological trait that reflects their personalities, emotions, and perceptions. Their analysis reveals that the first preference of females is to use ‘combination strategies’, then ‘no acknowledgement’, followed by ‘acceptance strategies’, whereas males use more ‘acceptance strategies’ than females.

Similarly, within the Jordanian culture, Al-Shboul et al. (2022) examined the CR strategies used by Jordanian adolescent students and how these strategies are influenced by gender and social power. The study found that the most common strategy used by Jordanian adolescent students was acceptance, but there were differences in the strategies used by male and female students, with female students more likely to use acceptance and male students more likely to use deflection. The study also found differences in the strategies used by students of different social power levels, with students from higher social power backgrounds more likely to use acceptance. The study highlights the importance of sociocultural factors in shaping CRs and suggests that cultural sensitivity and awareness are important for effective communication.

Farghal and Al-Khatib (2001) also examined the CRs made by Jordanian college students; they depended on pragmatics and sociolinguistics as the perspective to analyse 268 compliment responses produced by the participants. In Jordanian society, the speaker’s gender appears to be a significant factor in the formulation of the acceptance or non-acceptance strategy by the complimentees. CRs were analysed based on the gender preferences concerning the CRs and in terms of the simple vs. complex responses. Findings show a definite relationship between gender and the choice of CRs. Male complimentees tend to use ‘simple acceptance’ ‘when they were complimented by males rather than females, and they tended to opt for exclusively non-verbal responses when complimented by females more than when complimented by males’ (p. 1499). Farghal and Al-Khatib (2001) attributed and explained this disparity concerning the cultural and societal norms prevalent in Arab societies. These norms prescribe a significantly different set of roles and expectations for women than men, shaping their experiences in different areas of life. Likewise, Al-Rousan et al. (2016) delved into the topic of gender and CRs, focusing on Jordanian university students. The researchers analysed 611 CRs from 36 participants to explore if any gender-based distinctions existed; they studied these responses using Herbert’s (1990) classification of CRs. Their findings revealed that female and male students tended to use agreement CRs more than non-agreement CRs. Nevertheless, female students employed agreement strategies more frequently than their male counterparts, particularly when responding to compliments from other females. The results further confirmed that men view compliments as a face-threatening act (FTA), which aligns with Holmes (1988) assertion that compliments can threaten one’s face.

Focusing on the impact of gender on CRs in another Arab culture, Migdadi (2021) aimed to investigate the compliment response strategies used by Saudi college students and explore the sociopragmatic aspects of these responses. The study found that the most common compliment response strategy used by Saudi college students was the acceptance strategy, which involved expressing gratitude for the compliment. The study also revealed that there were differences in the compliment response strategies used by male and female students, with male students more likely to use the rejection strategy and female students more likely to use the modification strategy. Results from his fieldwork suggested that Saudis, especially females, used compliment acceptance more frequently than rejection and evasion. Migdadi (2021) ascribed this to the fact that women are more likely to foster solidarity than men since acceptance is an effective positive politeness strategy. Migdadi (2021) also found that cultural and religious factors played an important role in shaping compliment response strategies, such as the importance of humility and the avoidance of arrogance. Overall, the study highlights the importance of sociopragmatic factors, such as gender, culture, and religion, in shaping compliment response strategies among Saudi college students.

Some studies on CRs as used in different Arab cultures have compared the CRs in one society with those used in another Arab or non-Arab society. For instance, Al-Dakhs (2021) compared the CRs of Saudis with those of Egyptians. Using a DCT and adopting Herbert’s taxonomy of CRs, she found that there are no significant differences between Egyptian and Saudi CRs; acceptance was the most frequently used strategy. However, the CRs of Egyptians and Saudis differ in that the former used additional responses more frequently, while the latter were more likely to use religious expressions in their responses. Overall, the study contributes to our understanding of compliments and compliment responses in Arabic-speaking contexts and emphasizes the need for further research on variational pragmatics in these contexts.

Another comparative/contrastive study was conducted by Al-Dakhs (2021) to investigate the CR strategies of Egyptian Arabic-English bilinguals and whether their use of these strategies is influenced by their proficiency level in the two languages. The study used a mixed-methods approach, combining a discourse completion test and interviews with 40 Egyptian bilinguals at different proficiency levels in both Arabic and English. The findings revealed that bilinguals used a range of CR strategies in both Arabic and English, with differences in the frequency of use and specific strategies employed between the two languages. Additionally, the study found that language proficiency influenced the use of compliment response strategies, with more proficient English speakers being more likely to use acceptance strategies in that language. Overall, the study emphasizes the importance of considering language proficiency and cultural norms when examining compliment response strategies among bilingual speakers.

In contrast to the above views, some Arab studies attributed the variation in the choice of CRs to social and cultural factors; the results indicate that gender has a minimum effect on the selection of CRs. Alqarni (2020), for example, conducted a sociolinguistic study examining the speech acts of compliments and CRs utilized by Saudi EFL students. His methodological approach was based on a DCT that consisted of twelve situations from which he collated the data from the participants. The analysis focused on the semantic and syntactic structures of speech acts, the topic of the speech, and the effect of both gender and social-cultural factors on strategy use and choice. His findings reveal that agreement strategies, such as ‘appreciation tokens’, ‘comment acceptance’, ‘praise upgrade (i.e. admiring the compliment)’ and ‘return or give back the compliment’ were the most frequently used response types, accounting for 88.66% of all responses made by male and female students. When the topic was delicate, the participants used more implicit compliments than explicit ones; Alqarni (2020) suggests that religious customs in Saudi Arabia stimulated the use of more implicit strategies in the CRs by both genders.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample of the study

The sample of the study consisted of 56 (28 males and 28 females) native speakers of Emirati Arabic. They were all undergraduate students studying towards their BA degree in various disciplines at the University of Sharjah (UAE), including English, Arabic, History, Engineering, Medicine, Pharmacy, and Communications. The participants’ age range was between 18 and 23.

3.2. Data collection tool

A Discourse Completion Task (DCT) consisting of 10 (five formal and five informal) scenarios (see Appendix A) was used as the data collection tool to elicit compliment responses from the participants. In our research, the formality of a situation generally refers to whether the speaker and addressee were familiar (informal situation) with each other or not (formal situations). The rationale behind selecting scenarios that differed in formality was that we wanted these scenarios to reflect everyday situations where compliments can naturally and culturally occur during interactions between Emiratis. Besides, we aimed that these situations vary by setting (e.g. family gathering (Eid occasion), workplace, wedding party, academic environment). The first five situations involved complimenters who were familiar (i.e. cousin, sister, best friend, mother) with the complimented addressee. The situations from 6 to 10 involved complimenters who were not familiar (i.e. job interviewer, university professor, neighbors, salesperson) to the complimented addressee. One DCT was administered to males and another was administered to females since addressee pronouns in Arabic are inflected for gender. However, the complimenter in each situation in both DCTs was the same; for instance, in situation 1 in both forms, the complimenter was a cousin. Each scenario included a description and a short dialogue where a speaker compliments an addressee, and the participants were required to respond in writing to each of the compliments and write more than one possible response. The participants were asked to respond in Emirati Arabic. The DCT was administered in a paper-based format. To delimit the study’s boundaries and establish its parameters, the contextual factors in each scenario were confined to 10 situations that reflected real-life circumstances.

The prompts for each situation were provided in Standard Arabic, and participants were required to respond in their Emirati Arabic dialect in writing. The rationale for presenting the prompts in Standard Arabic is to ensure clarity of each situation as Emiratis speak their dialect with minor accent variations; since they were educated university students, they could easily comprehend Standard Arabic. Moreover, the researchers who administered the DCT were available to respond to any inquiries as the subjects responded to each of the DCT situations. Before responding to the DCT, the participants were informed about the data collection tool and research aims. They were also asked to sign a consent form, which confirmed their voluntary participation in the current research and assured them that the collected data would only be used for research purposes and that their identities would not be disclosed. The study was approved by the departmental ethics committee (Faculty of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences).

3.3. Piloting

The DCT was piloted on a sample of five participants from each group (i.e. five male and five female) to validate the data collection tool, to assess the appropriateness of the compliment response strategies, and to better capture the nuances of compliment responses. Based on the results of the pilot study, the necessary modifications were made to the situations and prompts to ensure clarity, eliminate ambiguity or vagueness, and ensure that the situations were culturally appropriate and likely to occur in the target Emirati community. The sample responses were also analysed to evaluate the suitability of the compliment response taxonomy for the corpus that we aimed to collect at a later stage. The findings showed that no single taxonomy would be suitable for the purpose and corpus of the study. As a result, the taxonomy used in the data analysis of our present research was based on the findings of various studies, including Al-Dakhs (2021), Culpeper and Pat (2021), Herbert (1986), and Yu (2011).

3.4. Validity

The validation of the DCT involved a review by five colleagues with expertise in sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, and pragmatics. Four of these experts were local Emiratis and all were knowledgeable about the sociocultural norms and traditions of the Emirati speech community and society. This process ensured the validity of the DCT and that it measured what it intended to measure. The validation process included several steps. Firstly, the validators ensured that the prompts were culturally relevant to the speech community of Emirati Arabic. Secondly, they assessed the ability of the DCT to elicit compliment responses used in this dialect. Thirdly, the validators’ feedback on the piloted DCT was incorporated before the revised DCT was distributed on a larger scale.

4. Results

4.1. Quantitative analysis

Analysis of the data provided interesting findings that answer the study’s research questions. Concerning the first research question, which asked: What are the compliment response strategies by Emirati speakers? The statistical analysis presented in Table 1 below shows that the most frequently used strategy by the Emirati speakers was the Acceptance Strategy, and the Re-interpretation Strategy was the least used. The table also shows that the most frequently used strategy by the Emiratis was the Acceptance Strategy, with a frequency of 648 and a percentage of 43.17% of the total number of strategies used, while the least frequently used strategy was the Re-interpretation Strategy, with a frequency of 11 and a percentage of 0.73% of the total number of strategies used.

Table 1. Frequency of use of CR strategies by the Emirati Speakers.

Strategy	Emiratis
	Freq	Percent
Agreeing	3	0.46
Expressing gratitude	209	32.25
Expressing gratitude to Allah	7	1.08
Expressing gladness	12	1.85
Upgrading the praise	53	8.18
Impersonalizing the compliment	9	1.39
Returning the compliment	221	34.10
Shifting credit	90	13.89
Encouraging	3	0.46
Informative comment	34	5.25
Seeking protection from the evil eye	7	1.08
Acceptance strategies	648	43.17
Offering	0	0.00
Using humour	5	0.97
Assuming duty	39	7.60
Seeking confirmation	5	0.97
Praying	269	52.44
Giving advice	0	0.00
Expressing embarrassment	6	1.17
Address terms	131	25.54
Expecting adequacy	6	1.17
Making requests	3	0.58
Giving promises	44	8.58
Extralinguistic strategies	5	0.97
Evasion strategies	513	34.18
Disagreeing	4	5.63
Doubting	5	7.04
Downgrading	62	87.32
Rejection strategies	71	4.73
Re-interpreting as requests	8	72.73
Re-interpreting as self-serving acts	3	27.27
Re-interpretation strategies	11	0.73
Ignoring the compliment	2	16.67
Irrelevant comments	10	83.33
Non-acknowledgement strategies	12	0.80
Formulaic expression	246	16.39
Total	1501

The values in bold are the categories and the ones not in bold type are the subcategories.

As for the second research question, which asked: What is the role of gender and degree of formality in the use of compliment response strategies by the participants? The analysis presented in Tables 2 and 3 below indicates that there are differences in the use of sub-strategies according to gender and degree of formality.

Table 2. Results of (Ch²) for differences in strategies used according to gender.

Strategy	Males		Females		Ch^2	Sig
	Freq	Percent	Freq	Percent
Agreeing	3	0.98	0	0.00	6.000	.014*
Expressing gratitude	72	23.61	137	39.94	20.215	.000*
Expressing gratitude to Allah	2	0.66	5	1.46	1.286	.257
Expressing gladness	3	0.98	9	2.62	3.000	.083
Upgrading the praise	31	10.16	22	6.41	1.528	.216
Impersonalizing the compliment	5	1.64	4	1.17	0.111	.739
Returning the compliment	108	35.41	113	32.94	.113	.737
Shifting credit	59	19.34	31	9.04	8.711	.003*
Encouraging	1	0.33	2	0.58	.333	.564
Informative comment	14	4.59	20	5.83	1.059	.303
Seeking protection from the evil eye	7	2.30	0	0.00	14.000	.000*
Acceptance strategies	305	38.36	343	48.58	2.228	.135
Offering	0	0.00	0	0.00	0.000	1.000
Using humour	4	1.41	1	0.43	1.800	.180
Assuming duty	23	8.13	16	6.96	1.256	.262
Seeking confirmation	2	0.71	3	1.30	.200	.655
Praying	150	53.00	119	51.74	3.572	.059
Giving advice	0	0.00	0	0.00	0.000	1.000
Expressing embarrassment	0	0.00	6	2.61	12.000	.001*
Address terms	70	24.73	61	26.52	0.618	.432
Expecting adequacy	2	0.71	4	1.74	0.667	.414
Making requests	3	1.06	0	0.00	6.000	.014*
Giving promises	26	9.19	18	7.83	1.455	.655
Extralinguistic strategies	3	1.06	2	0.87	.200	.655
Evasion strategies	283	35.60	230	32.58	5.476	.019*
Disagreeing	3	6.38	1	4.17	1.000	.317
Doubting	4	8.51	1	4.17	1.800	.180
Downgrading	40	85.11	22	91.67	5.226	.022
Rejection strategies	47	5.91	24	3.40	7.451	.006*
Re-interpreting as requests	5	62.50	3	100.00	0.500	.480
Re-interpreting as self-serving acts	3	37.50	0	0.00	6.000	.014*
Re-interpretation strategies	8	1.01	3	0.42	2.273	.132
Ignoring the compliment	1	33.33	1	11.11	0.000	1.000
Irrelevant comments	2	66.67	8	88.89	3.600	.58
Non-acknowledgement Strategies	3	0.38	9	1.27	3.000	.083
Formulaic expression	149	18.74	97	13.74	10.992	.001*
Total	795		706		5.227	.022*

*The difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 3. Results of (Ch²) for differences in strategies used according to formal, informal.

Strategy	Formal		Informal		Ch^2	Sig
	Freq	Percent	Freq	Percent
Agreeing	2	0.60	1	0.32	.333	.564
Expressing gratitude	110	33.03	99	31.43	.579	.447
Expressing gratitude to Allah	4	1.20	3	0.95	.143	.705
Expressing gladness	10	3.00	2	0.63	5.333	.021*
Upgrading the praise	28	8.41	25	7.94	.170	.680
Impersonalizing the compliment	8	2.40	1	0.32	5.444	.020*
Returning the compliment	69	20.72	152	48.25	31.172	.000*
Shifting credit	67	20.12	23	7.30	21.511	.000*
Encouraging	0	0.00	3	0.95	6.000	.014*
Informative comment	32	9.61	2	0.63	26.471	.000*
Seeking protection from the evil eye	3	0.90	4	1.27	.143	.705
Acceptance strategies	333	45.55	315	40.91	.500	.480
Offering	0	0.00	0	0.00	.000	1.000
Using humour	2	0.92	3	1.01	.200	.655
Assuming duty	31	14.29	8	2.70	13.564	.000*
Seeking confirmation	2	0.92	3	1.01	.200	.655
Praying	105	48.39	164	55.41	12.941	.000*
Giving advice	0	0.00	0	0.00	.000	1.000
Expressing embarrassment	1	0.46	5	1.69	2.667	.102
Address terms	58	26.73	73	24.66	1.718	.190
Expecting adequacy	4	1.84	2	0.68	.667	.414
Making requests	3	1.38	0	0.00	6.000	.014*
Giving promises	10	4.61	34	11.49	13.091	.008*
Extralinguistic strategies	1	0.46	4	1.35	1.800	.180
Evasion strategies	217	29.69	296	38.44	12.166	.000*
Disagreeing	1	2.08	3	13.04	1.000	.317
Doubting	2	4.17	3	13.04	.200	.655
Downgrading	45	93.75	17	73.91	12.645	.000*
Rejection strategies	48	6.57	23	2.99	7.118	.008*
Re-interpreting as requests	3	60.00	5	83.33	.500	.480
Re-interpreting as self-serving acts	2	40.00	1	16.67	.333	.564
Re-interpretation strategies	5	0.68	6	0.78	.091	.763
Ignoring the compliment	1	33.33	1	11.11	.000	1.000
Irrelevant comments	2	66.67	8	88.89	3.600	.058
Non-acknowledgement strategies	3	0.41	9	1.17	3.000	.083
Formulaic expression	125	17.10	121	15.71	.065	.799
Total	731		770		1.013	.314

*The difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 2 above shows that the most frequently used major strategy by the males was the Acceptance Strategy, with a frequency of (305) and a percentage of (38.36%) of the total number of strategies used, and the least frequently used major strategy was the Non-acknowledgement Strategy, with a frequency of (3) and a percentage (0.38%) of the total number of strategies used. The table also reveals that the most frequently used major strategy by the females was the Acceptance Strategy, with a frequency of (343) and a percentage of (48.58%) of the total number of strategies used, and the least frequently used major strategy was the Re-interpretation Strategy, with a frequency of (3) and a percentage of (0.38%) of the total number of strategies used. The analysis above indicates that there were statistically significant differences in the total number of strategies used due to gender, where the value of Ch2 reached (5.227) with statistical significance (0.022), and the differences were in favour of the males. In addition, the analysis shows that there were statistically significant differences in the major strategies of Evasion, Rejection, and Formulaic expressions attributed to gender, and the differences were in favour of the males, while there were no statistically significant differences in the rest of the major strategies.

As for the sub-strategies, the analysis reveals that there are statistically significant differences in the use of the sub-strategy of Agreeing, Expressing gratitude, Shifting credit, Seeking protection from the evil eye, Making requests, Re-interpreting as self-serving acts. The differences were in favour of the males. There were statistically significant differences in the expression embarrassment strategy, and the differences were in favour of the females.

If we turn to the effect of the degree of formality on the use of CR strategies by the participants, we find that there appeared to be differences due to the formality of the situation. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3 shows that the most frequently used major strategy by the Emirati speakers in formal situations was the Acceptance Strategy, with a frequency of (333) and a percentage of (45.55%) of the total number of strategies used, and the least frequently used major strategy was the Non-acknowledgement Strategy, with a frequency of (3) and a percentage (0.41%) of the total number of strategies used. The analysis also reveals that the most frequently used major strategy in informal situations was the Acceptance Strategy, with a frequency of (315) and a percentage of (40.91%) of the total number of strategies used, and the least frequently used major strategy was the Re-interpretation Strategy, with a frequency of (6) and a percentage of (0.78%) of the total number of strategies used. The table also indicates that there are no statistically significant differences in the total number of strategies used due to the degree of formality where the value of Ch² reached (1.013) with statistical significance (0.314), which is a value that is not statistically significant. However, there were statistically significant differences in the major strategy of Evasion attributed to the degree of formality, and the differences were in favour of Informal.

The analysis shows that there were statistically significant differences in the major strategy of Rejection due to the degree of formality, and the differences were in favour of the formal, while no statistically significant differences appeared in the rest of the major strategies. In addition, there were statistically significant differences in the sub-strategies of Expressing gratitude, Impersonalizing the compliment, Shifting credit, Informative comment, Assuming duty, Making requests, Downgrading due to the degree of formality, and the differences were in favour of the informal situations. There were statistically significant differences in the sub-strategies of Returning the compliment, Encouraging, Praying, Giving Promises, Rejection Strategies due to degree of formality, and the differences were in favour of the informal situations, while no statistically significant differences appeared in the rest of the sub-strategies.

4.2. Qualitative analysis

The quantitative analysis above reflects the frequency of use of the different CR strategies by the respondents. In this sub-section, we show, through examples from the 10 situations, how major and sub-strategies were used by the Emirati speakers. We first show variation in the use of CR strategies caused by the degree of formality, and then we move to the effect of gender on the use of these strategies.

4.2.1. Compliment response strategies and degree of formality

4.2.1.1. Formal situations

If we turn to the impact of social distance on the use of compliment response strategies by the Emirati participants, we find that the most frequently used major strategy in formal situations is the Acceptance strategy, with Expressing Gratitude, Returning the Compliment, and Shifting Credit being the most used sub-strategies and Agreeing and Seeking Protection from the Evil Eye being the least used. The examples below show how these sub-strategies were used by the participants.

1. مشكورين    mashkūrīn                     (Sit. 6)

‘Thank you’.

1. من طيب أصلك min ṭayib ʾaṣlak                  (Sit. 8)

‘It is from your good origin’.

1. تدريبك المميز   tadribuk al-mumayyaz               (Sit. 9)

‘It is because of your excellent training’.

1. طبعا منتعلم منج ṭabʿan muntaʿallim mink             (Sit. 8)

‘Of course, I learn from you’.

1. اذكر اللهuḏkur Allāh                      (Sit. 9)

‘Mention the name of Allah’.

Example 1 above includes an expression of gratitude on the part of the speaker to respond to the compliment in a formal situation (invitation in Ramadan). In 2, the respondent returns the compliment by complimenting the speaker’s behaviour. Example 3 shows how the speaker sometimes shifts the credit to respond to a compliment. Here, the speaker emphasises that the excellent training he received from the driving teacher. In 4, a direct agreement of the compliment is used in the speaker’s response, while in 5, a request to mention Allah to protect the complimentee from the evil eye is used to respond to the compliment.

The second most frequently used major strategy by the Emiratis in formal situations was the Evasion strategy, with Praying and Address Terms being the most used sub-strategies and Expressing Embarrassment and Extralinguistic Strategies being the least used. The examples below show the use of these strategies:

1. تقبل الله طاعتكم        taqabbal Allāh ṭāʿatikum           (Sit. 6)

‘May Allah accept your good deeds’.

1. ماقصرت الغالي        mā qaṣart al-ghālī              (Sit. 9)

‘you did a good job, dear’.

1. بستحي     bistahī                      (Sit. 9)

‘I’m shy’.

1. بضحك       biḍḥik                      (Sit. 8)

‘I will laugh’.

The sub-strategies of praying and address terms were the most used sub-strategies, as shown in Examples 6 and 7 above. Six shows that the speaker prays for Allah to accept the good deeds, while 7 uses an endearment expression to address the complimenter. Examples 8 and 9 show the least frequent sub-strategies: in 8, the speaker expresses embarrassment because of the compliment in front of others, while in 9, an extralinguistic strategy of laughing is used in response to the compliment.

The third most frequently used major strategy by the Emiratis in formal situations is the Formulaic Expressions strategy, followed by Rejection, Re-interpretation, and Non-acknowledgements, respectively. The following examples illustrate the use of these major strategies:

1. أفا عليك      ʾafā                         (Sit. 7)

‘I always do it right as you expect me to do’.

1. شكرا دكتور، بس زملائي أحسن    shukran dukhtūr, bas zamilāʾī aḥsan   (Sit. 8)

‘Thank you, doctor, but my colleagues are better’.

1. أنت تقول جذي عشان أشتري العطر anta taqūl jadhī ʿashān ashtarī al-ʿiṭr   (Sit. 10)

‘You’re saying this so that I’ll buy the perfume’.

1. ان شاء الله   in shāʾ Allāh                     (Sit. 8)

‘If Allah wills’.

Example 10 represents the use of a formulaic expression in Emirati Arabic, which is used to show that the speaker always adheres to the expectations of the addressee. In 11, a direct rejection of the compliment is utilised by the respondent by saying that ‘my colleagues are better’. In 12, the re-interpretation strategy is used by the speaker to re-interpret the reason for the compliment, while in 13, the non-acknowledgement strategy is used to show evasion of the compliment received.

4.2.1.2. Informal situations

In informal situations, the most frequently used major strategy by the Emiratis was the Acceptance strategy, followed by the Evasion strategy, Formulaic Expressions, Rejection, Non-acknowledgement, and Re-interpretation strategies, respectively. Below are examples that show the use of these major strategies.

1. هذا ولا شي ابن العم  hādhā walā shayʾ ibn al-ʿamm            (Sit. 1)

‘This is nothing, cousin’.

1. عيبج حبيبتي؟   ʿaybuk ḥabībatī?                   (Sit. 3)

‘Do you like it, my dear?’

1. ماعليك زود mā ʿalayk zūd                      (Sit. 1)

‘you are even better’.

1. مب أكشخ عنج    mub ʾakshakh ʿanj                 (Sit. 1)

‘I’m not more stylish than you’.

1. ان شاء الله  in shāʾ Allāh                     (Sit. 4)

‘If Allah wills’

1. تبا رقم الحلاق؟  tabā raqm al-ḥalāq                 (Sit. 3)

‘Do you want the barber’s phone number?’

Examples 14 to 19 indicate that the major strategies of compliment response were similar in both formal and informal situations. Example 14 shows the speaker’s acceptance of the compliment by using the expression ‘this is nothing’. Example 15 shows the use of the evasion strategy by the speaker. In particular, the respondent uses the endearment expression to avoid the compliment. In 16, the formulaic expression ‘you are even better’ is commonly used in Emirati Arabic to express affection and respect. Example 17 shows how the speaker rejects the compliment by saying, ‘I am not more stylish than you’. In 18, the non-acknowledgement strategy is used, while in 19, the speaker re-interprets the compliment to respond to the complimenter.

4.2.2. Compliment response strategies and gender

As for the effect of gender on the use of CR strategies in Emirati Arabic, the analysis revealed that the most frequently used major strategy by the males was the Acceptance Strategy, with Returning the compliment and Expressing gratitude to Allah being the most frequent sub-strategies. The least frequently used major strategy was the Non-acknowledgement strategy. Examples 36–38 below show the use of these strategies:

1. أنت الأنيق anta al-ʾanīq                (sit. 1)

‘you are the elegant’.

1. الحمدلله   al-ḥamdu lillāh                (sit. 2)

‘Thanks to Allah’

1. ان شاء الله in shāʾ Allāh               (sit. 4)

Here, the examples show that the male respondents used the returning the compliment strategy (Example 20) and expressing gratitude to Allah (Example 21) to respond to the compliment. In 22, the speaker ignores the compliment by responding using a religious expression that expresses (partial) agreement.

As for the female speakers, the analysis revealed differences in the use of both the major strategies and the sub-strategies. The analysis above showed that the most frequently used major strategy by the females was the Acceptance Strategy, and the least frequently used strategy was the re-interpretation strategy. Of the acceptance strategy, expressing gratitude to Allah and returning the compliment were the most frequent. However, the female speakers made more use of the expressing gratitude strategy than did the male speakers. Examples 23–25 illustrate the use of these strategies by the female speakers.

1. الحمدلله al-ḥamdu lillāh                (sit. 2)

‘Thanks to Allah’

1. أنتي الحلوة  anti al-ḥulwah               (sit. 1)

‘you are the beautiful one’.

1. تبا رقم الحلاق؟ tabā raqm al-ḥalāq           (sit. 3)

‘do you want the barber’s phone number?’

Examples 23 and 24 indicate acceptance of the compliment by expressing gratitude to Allah, which implicates acceptance on the part of the speaker (Example 23) and returning the compliment (Example 24), in which the speaker responds by saying, ‘You are the beautiful one’. Example 25 shows a re-interpretation strategy in which the speaker realised what the complimenter wants and re-interpreted her compliment by offering to give the barber’s number in Sit # 3. In this particular case, gender differences were more apparent, as shown in the following examples:

Situation 3—Female responses

1. شكرا عيونج الحلوة shukran ʿuyūnak al-ḥulwah

‘Thank you, your eyes are beautiful’.

1. عيونج الحلوة ʿuyūnak al-ḥulwah

‘Your eyes are beautiful’.

1. فعرسج بقص أحلى fī ʿursik baqṣa aḥlā

‘I’ll make a better hair style in your wedding’.Situation 3—Male responses

1. اذكر الله uḏkur Allāh

‘Remember Allah’

1. عيونك الحلوة ʿuyūnak al-ḥulwah

‘Your eyes are beautiful’.

1. حلاقي مينون ḥalāqī mīnūn

‘My barber is crazy’.

The above examples show gender differences in response to compliments in the Emirati context, specifically focusing on reactions to compliments about a new haircut at a friend’s wedding. For males, they directly seek protection by invoking God’s name (Example 29), returning compliments (Example 30), and shifting credit to a third party (Example 31). Females might also express a response to a compliment by expressing gratitude by thanking the admirer and returning (Examples 26 and 27). Humour is used by females, as observed in Example 28, where the respondent told a joke that she would have a better haircut at her friend’s wedding.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to explore the realisation of the speech act of CR in Emirati Arabic. Three questions were asked to explore the issue. To answer the research question, we conducted two types of analyses. The quantitative analysis showed the frequency of use of the CR strategies by the respondents. The analysis revealed variations in the construction of compliment response strategies. The analysis shows that the most frequently used major strategy by the Emiratis is the Acceptance Strategy, with Returning the Compliment and Expressing Gratitude being the most used sub-strategies and Agreeing and Encouraging being the least frequently used. The second most frequently used major strategy by the Emiratis is the Evasion Strategy, with Praying and Address Terms being the most used sub-strategies and Making Requests, Extralinguistic Strategies, Seeking Confirmation, Using Humour, Expecting Adequacy, and Expressing Embarrassment being the least used sub-strategies. The third most frequently used major strategy by the Emiratis was Formulaic Expressions, followed by Rejection, Non-acknowledgement, and Re-interpretation strategies, respectively. The finding that the acceptance strategy was the most frequent aligns with findings of other studies about other Arabic dialects. Alqarni (2020) for Saudi EFL students and Migdadi (2021) for Saudi college students, for example, suggest a tendency among their participants to use acceptance strategies in their compliment responses.

These results indicate that there are differences in the use of CR strategies. This might be attributed to the social and cultural ties of the dialect. The Emirati Arabic dialect is spoken in the United Arab Emirates, a country in the Gulf region. Emirati Arabic is a Gulf Arabic vernacular that is ‘classified as an Afro-Asiatic, Semitic, Central South Arabic language. It belongs to the Semitic language subgroup, which also includes languages, such as Hebrew, Aramaic, and Amharic’,. This geographical and etymological feature is accompanied by a social facet. This variety is only spoken; it is not written. In this regard, it differs from Modern Standard Arabic, which is the written form of Arabic. Some scholars argue that the spoken vernaculars of Arabic are different languages from Standard Arabic. Cowell (2005, p. vii), for example, argues that

while the two kinds of Arabic [the spoken vernaculars and Standard Arabic] are indeed different languages, it cannot truly be said that they are separate languages. For most educated speakers, at least, there is and always has been an intimate association and mutual influence between them, with the influence of Classical upon Colloquial recently creating the more obvious—if not necessarily the deeper—currents of change. (Italics in source)

As for the role of gender and social distance, the findings indicate that there exist some differences in the use of CR strategies due to gender and social distance. Gender, in particular, was found to have an important impact on the use of CR strategies. Male participants and female participants were found to employ different strategies when receiving compliments due to various social and cultural factors. The females often used more modest and sensitive strategies, such as showing embarrassment and returning the compliment, while males were more assertive and tended to downplay compliments by using gratitude expressions and address terms. These differences may be attributed to the fact that the two genders are constrained by societal expectations and norms; this reflects the desire of each gender to conform to traditional gender roles in the Emirati speech community. Gender differences found in this study on Emirati Arabic accord with the findings of studies about other Arabic dialects. For example, Farghal and Al-Khatib (2001) and Al-Rousan et al. (2016) for Jordanian Arabic show that female speakers use strategies differently from male speakers. indicating that female speakers often use politeness strategies differently from male speakers. This is also supportive of the interpretation provided above that the differences are attributed to sociolinguistic and cultural variations. While previous studies (e.g. Al-Rousan et al., 2016; Farghal, 2006; Farghal & Al-Khatib, 2001; Nelson et al., 1996) have explored the impact of gender and sociocultural factors on using CRs in Arabic, other variables, such as dialects, have been largely overlooked. Disparities can result in misunderstandings and communication barriers. Furthermore, dialects can reveal information about a person’s social background or profession, in addition to geography (Crystal & Ivić, 2023). As language and culture are inseparable, and dialects reflect cultural identity, it is necessary to study CRs as used in different Arabic dialects for cross-cultural investigations. This paper aims to contribute to the current literature by examining CRs in Emirati Arabic and exploring the relationship between gender, class, and dialect and their impact on using CRs. Additionally, this paper aims to shed light on the association between social distance (intimate and distant) and CRs.

As for the effect of the degree of formality on the use of CR strategies, the results showed nuanced variation in the use of CR strategies according to the degree of formality. In formal situations, the responses were more carefully selected, structured, and pragmatically constructed as being more polite. We also noticed that the responses included expressions of gratitude that were more formal than other expressions. For example, the expression ‘thank you’ was used in many formal situations, while more informal (formulaic expressions) gratitude expressions were used by Emirati speakers in informal situations. The formal responses included gratitude expressions to maintain respect and show distance. In less formal settings, individuals may opt for more casual and spontaneous responses. They might respond with formulaic expressions. These responses reflect a more informal communication style.

6. Conclusion

This study has explored the use of the compliment response (CR) strategies by Emirati Arabic speakers and the role of gender and degree of formality in the use of CR strategies in this Arabic dialect. A DCT consisting of 10 (five formal and five informal) scenarios was used to elicit CRs from the participants. The results showed that the Emiratis’ most frequently used major strategy is the Acceptance strategy, with Returning the Compliment and Expressing Gratitude being the most used sub-strategies and Agreeing and Encouraging being the least frequently used. The analysis revealed that there are different realisations of the speech act of compliment response due to gender and degree of formality. These differences are interpreted within the socio-cultural milieu of Emirati Arabic. As Rashwan (2020) argues, Arabic has a unique linguistic and cultural context which makes it different from other languages, especially Euro-American languages. Therefore, any interpretation of the findings should relate them to their immediate socio-cultural context. In line with this research, previous research conducted on other Arabic dialects has shown that there are gender differences in the realisation of other speech acts (Rabab’ah et al., 2022; Younes et al., 2023).

Although the study has provided insights into the pragmatic use of the CR speech act in Emirati Arabic, it has some limitations. First, the sample of this study included 56 undergraduate students (28 males and 28 females) from the University of Sharjah. This definitely sets limitations on generalizing the findings of the present study to the larger population. Second, a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) by itself may be insufficient as it may not capture the real CR behaviour. DCTs are useful in eliciting certain speech acts; however, they sometimes bring about responses that reflect what the participant considers an appropriate response to be compared to what s/he would be performing in natural and spontaneously occurring conversation. Third, while the study does fill a gap in understanding the pragmatic functions of Emirati Arabic, its cultural specificity means that the findings could not be readily applied to other Arabic dialects or cultures without further research. Finally, the existing frameworks used for categorizing CR strategies might not necessarily describe culturally specific CR strategies or the subtleties of Emirati Arabic. There is room for a more nuanced model that explains these cultural and language-specific variations of Emirati Arabic. Future studies, therefore, would have to include a larger and more varied sample of the population, use other data collection methods, such as naturalistic observation or in-depth interviews, and consider a greater number of independent variables that would give a holistic view of the subject of CR strategies in Emirati Arabic and the socio-pragmatic variables of interest. Future research may look into the effect of other social variables, such as education and native language on the use of CR strategies and other speech acts in this Arabic dialect because it is an under-explored variety in pragmatic research.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ghaleb Rabab’ah

Ghaleb Rababah is a professor of linguistics with a focus on discourse analysis, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and TESL.

Sharif Alghazo

Sharif Alghazo is a an associate professor of  linguistics and applied linguistics and is interested in second language learning and discourse analysis.

Reem Al-Hajji

Reem Al-Hajji is an assistant professor at the University of Sharjah and is interested in Eduactaion and language and culture.

Samer Jarbou

Samer Jarbou is an assistant professor of linguistics and is interested in pragmatics, cognitive linguistics, and sociolinguistics.

Appendix A

The situations are translated into English as follows:

1. On the day of Eid, your cousin complimented your elegance in front of the family. What do you reply? (Sit. 1)

2. You told your sister that you had passed the university entrance exam with high grades, so she praised you and complimented you. What do you reply? (Sit. 2)

3. Your best friend complimented your new haircut at your friend’s wedding. What do you reply? (Sit. 3)

4. Your mother complimented you for fixing a problem at home. What do you reply? (Sit. 4)

5. Your sister complimented you for your manners in front of your aunts at a wedding event. What do you reply? (Sit. 5)

6. You invited your neighbours to a group breakfast one day during Ramadan, and they complimented your hospitality. what do you reply? (Sit. 6)

7. You attended a job interview ahead of time, and the employer complimented you. What do you reply? (Sit. 7)

8. Your university professor complimented you for your performance during the semester in front of your classmates. What do you reply? (Sit. 8)

9. The driving instructor complimented your skill during the training period. what do you reply? (Sit. 9)

10. The perfume saleswoman complimented your good taste in choosing. what do you reply? (Sit. 10)