The pragmatics of invitation making and acceptance in Jordanian ...

Journal of Language and Linguistics
Volume 5 Number 2 2006
ISSN 1475 - 8989


The pragmatics of invitation making and
acceptance in Jordanian society

Mahmoud A. Al-Khatib
University of Science & Technology
Irbid - Jordan

Abstract
The present study explores the nature of invitation making and acceptance in
Jordanian society from a pragmatic point of view. It attempts to systemize the various
strategies used for the purpose of inviting in Jordanian society; and to highlight the
socio-pragmatic constraints governing their use. Three major aspects of inviting were
examined: inviting, accepting an invitation and declining it. The sample is composed
of 120 informants. The data was studied and analyzed following Austin (1962), Searle
(1967, 1976) concepts on speech act theory, and Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987)
notion of politeness and face threatening acts. The study has shown that the process is
patterned, functional and rule-governed. Furthermore, it shows that social distance in
relation to sex and age of the individual speaker is important factor in determining the
type of strategies used for inviting, accepting an invitation or refusing it. It has also
been argued that Jordanian Arabic has a special patterning of inviting that can be
understood and appreciated only by people sharing the same socio-cultural
background. The results of the study have implications for intercultural
communication, and applied linguistics as well as for a possible theory of
foreign/second language teaching


Introduction
This paper examines invitation making and acceptance in Jordanian society
from a pragmatic point of view. Invitations are a common occurrence in everyday life,
particularly in the maintenance of good relationships. They usually aim to address the
invitee's positive face. An attempt will be made in this study to demonstrate that upon
inviting Jordanian people engage in a "facework". Specifically, they take into account
the vulnerability of "face", and therefore take certain procedures to maintain it.
As a polite and constructive type of behavior, an invitation can be seen as a
social act. Speech act theory as developed by Searle’s (1969) following Austin’s
(1962) model is based on the assumption that language is a form of behavior, and it is
conditioned by a set of rules (1969:22). The idea that language is behavior is the basic
element that helps us understand how language functions in a social context. Previous

272

---

research on varied politeness formulas shows that social norms vary from culture to
culture. Therefore, what can be seen as a polite behavior in one culture may not be
seen so in another. However, in all speech communities, an invitation can be seen
socially as an acceptable humanitarian polite behavior. Parallel to the definitions
suggested by Holmes (1990) of an apology, and Al-Khatib (1997) of congratulation
and thank-you announcements, an invitation for this study can be defined as a
communicative act addressed to B's face-needs and intended to enhance and
strengthen good and healthy relations between A and B (where A is the inviter and B
is the invitee). Having agreed that invitations are communicative acts, we will attempt
in this study to uncover what communicative functions they intend to serve, how and
by what means such functions are served.
For the purpose of this study, by invitation making we mean all those social
occasions (e.g. party, meal, drink etc.) in which someone is verbally invited to take
part. Written invitations, therefore, do not fall within the scope of this study.
Before we proceed any further in our investigation, it is worth giving a brief
idea of the socio-cultural background of Jordanian society. Speaking of the
importance of providing the reader with such important information in any
ethnographic analysis of communicative events, saville-Troike (1997:126) argues:
In understanding an ethnography of communication in a particular locale,
the first task is to define at least tentatively the speech community to be
studied, attempt to gain some understanding of its social organization and
other salient aspects of the culture, and formulate possible hypotheses
concerning the diverse ways the socio-cultural phenomena might relate to
patterns of communication.

Jordanian Society and how an invitation is made

Just like many other Arab countries, Jordan is characterized by being a tribal
society. Social life in the Arab world in general, and in Jordan in particular, has
always centered on the family and attitude of the individual toward the family. Even
though the traditional Jordanian family which was extended in nature has become
something of the past, the great majority of Jordanian people still identify themselves
with their individual families, as the role and influence of the family/tribe in
supporting an individual morally, and in some cases financially, is still the norm.
Therefore, it can be said that the traditional family loyalty remains an influential force
in Jordanian society.
Socially, the conventional expectations of Jordanian society are that brothers,
sisters, relatives, friends and even neighbors will remain in contact with each other,
and be mutually loyal and helpful. One way through which Jordanian people tend to
express their feelings toward each other is by inviting one another. Arabs are
renowned of their hospitality. Upon inviting, the inviter has to be a real provider of
hospitality. An invitation to dinner, for example, may mean the offering of a wide
range of food. The more diverse of food the host offers the higher he would be ranked
on the scale of generosity. Another mark of hospitality is that when someone is
invited for a meal, the host has to keep on offering the invitee to eat just a bit more.
That is to say, the invitee would be kindly asked to eat above and beyond his capacity
of eating. Another traditional expectation is that a guest has to be fed before the host
feeds himself. At smaller events, it is common to wait to take a bite until everyone at
the table has received a serving. A host or hostess may urge his/her guests to eat
immediately upon receiving the food, and he/she should wait until everyone at the
table has begun eating.

273

---

How well one treats his guest, what type of food and how much he offers to
his guests is a typical Arab tradition, and seen as a direct measurement of what kind
of a person he is (Hasan, 1999). However, hospitality is not confined only to the
home. So, when two friends or acquaintances, for example, go to a coffee-shop, as a
matter of courtesy, each one of them feels obliged to compete for paying for the
drink.
As far as the invitee is concerned, when invited to a party or event, especially
at someone's home, an appropriate host or hostess gift could be a valuable pack of
chocolate, some sweets, flowers, or a small item for the home, such as a vase.
Thanking the host for the nice time someone had at the party or event is a must, and
inviting him/her in return is a nice gesture.
Jordanian society has a special pattern of inviting/offering. When two people
engage in an encounter, the one who offers should insist on offering and the one who
is being invited should bashfully reject the offer- but in reality intends to accept it
later. Put it differently, the invitee is expected to reject an offer several times, before
accepting it with a show of reluctance. Al-Khatib (2001:190) has reported that "to
invite without insistence means that the concerned person is not serious about the
invitation, and offers it as a mere remark of courtesy; and to accept the offer without
reluctance means that the recipient is gluttonous, and may be described as an ill-
behaved person."

Theoretical background
In this study, it is hypothesized that the socio-cultural context in which
invitation making occurs as well as a number of social factors such as sex, age, and
the social distance between the participants that are involved have a fundamental
impact on the type of strategies employed by them. My approach to the present data
is based on two pervasive principles which have been used widely in the field of
interactional discourse. These are: speech act theory which was developed earlier by
Searle (1969), following Austin’s (1962) work; and the notion of politeness as
developed by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987).
Speech act theory is based on the assumption that language is a form of
behavior, and it is governed by strict set of rules (Searle, 1969). The speech act,
according to this theory, is seen as the minimal unit of linguistic communication. It is
defined as an utterance that serves a particular function in communication. Austin
(1962: 94-108) proposed a set of three simultaneous types of acts:
1) Locutionary act: (i.e., reference and sense). The meaning of the statement
itself.
2) Illocutionary act: The contextual function of the act.
3) Perlocutionary act: what one achieves by saying something. This is the effect
of the act upon the listener.
In his work on the theory, Searle (1976: 22) also suggests five illocutionary
acts that one can perform in speaking. These are: a) Assertives: statements that may
be judged true or false because they purport to describe a state of affairs in the world,
such as asserting, concluding, etc.; b) Directives: statements that attempt to make the
addressee’s actions fit the propositional content; c) Commissives: statements which
commit the speaker to a course of action as described by the propositional content
such as promising, offering, etc.; d) Expressives: statements that express the
“sincerity condition of the speech act” such as apologizing, thanking, inviting, etc.;
and e) Declaratives: statements that attempt to change the world through utterances,
such as declaring war. However, although Searle spoke of the speaker-hearer

274

---

relationship and marked the indirectness of speech act which carries the relation
between the literal meaning of the words and the implicated function, he neglects
other variables such as, social status, sex, age and cross-cultural differences of certain
speech act. Most of these elements, however, were accounted for by Brown and
Levinson (1978, 1987) in their work on politeness theory, the focus of which is the
notion of "face" suggested earlier by Goffman (1967).
The notion of "face" as suggested by Goffman (1967), and developed by Brown
and Levinson (1978, 1987) is an important framework within which invitation making
and acceptance can be successfully explained. The notion of 'face' has been defined in
Scollon and Scollon (1999: 45) as "the negotiated public image, mutually granted to
each other by participants in a communicative event." For Goffman (1967) a person's
face is his image of himself in terms of approved social attributes. In an encounter all
participants are responsible for maintaining their own and each other's faces
cooperatively in the course of the interaction. For Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987)
'face' is a favorable public image consisting of two different kinds of desires or face-
wants, the desire to be unimpeded in one's actions, and desire to be approved of. The
former was labeled by Brown and Levinson as "negative face" and the latter as
"positive face". Brown and Levinson see negative politeness strategies as less
threatening than positive politeness strategies, since the latter assume that the hearer
shares the speaker's feelings of closeness. Put it differently, Brown and Levinson
believe that while conducting a speech event, speakers are motivated by two basic
wants of face: a) the desire of a participant that his action be approved or accepted by
another participant and this is labeled as "positive face wants", and b) the desire of a
participant that his actions be "unimpeded or be free from imposition" and this is
termed as "negative face wants." Brown and Levinson (1987) believe that some acts,
by their nature, threaten face, i.e. "face threatening acts"; therefore they require
softening. Moreover, Brown and Levinson contend that the concept of face itself is
universal, though the specific manifestations of face-wants may vary across cultures
with some acts being more face-threatening in one culture than in another. The
distinction made by Brown and Levinson between positive and negative politeness
lead to another important distinction, that of positive and negative politeness societies.
Brown and Levinson argued that England, for example, can be seen as a negative
politeness society when compared to America. Al-Khatib (2001) assumed that, like
Greece (see Sifiano 1989), Arab society in general, and Jordanian society in particular
are positive politeness societies when compared with England. Foley (2000: 275-76)
demonstrated that "crucial to Brown and Levinson's model of politeness is a principle
of cooperation among interlocutors in the mutual maintenance of face in conversation;
ideally speaker perform various types of speech acts more or less politely to preserve
each other's face."
By virtue of their nature as politeness phenomena, invitations can be seen as one
means through which people attempt to win the social approval of each other.
Therefore, they address the participant's positive face wants, i.e. they intend to tell the
invitee that his/her acceptance of the invitation is desirable and appreciated. By
contrast, declining an invitation may put the inviter's positive face at risk and preserve
the invitee’s own. Brown and Levinson (1987, 236) were quite aware of the
importance of solving such a problem when they pose a "balance principle." This
principle is based on the assumption that participants have adequate motives for
preserving each other's face. If somebody commits an offence against somebody else,
the latter has the right to complain, the offender (i.e. the person who declines the
invitation) has the obligation to apologize and the target person (i.e. the inviter) has

275

---

the obligation to accept the apology. In this way, an offence might be terminated, the
inviter's face is preserved and social harmony and interpersonal relationships may be
restored. So, it is believed that Brown and Levinson's (1978, 1987) model could
provide an insightful account of the various ways in which linguistic politeness can
be conveyed as far as invitation making is concerned.
Methodology and the corpus
The methodological paradigm of this research is based on the assumption that
observable differences in the choice and variation of politeness strategies, as used by
Jordanian people upon inviting or accepting an invitation may minimally originate
from the degree of solidarity between the inviter and the invitee in relation to other
sociological factors such as sex, age and social context. To examine this assumption, a
huge number of inviting speech acts was collected from various sources. Generally
speaking, the data falls into two main groups: oral and written. The oral portion of
data is spontaneous and naturally occurring intraconversational invitation acts used in
real environments of everyday communication between intimates. Among the many
sources we collected our data from are: daily interactions between dyads in the
workplace, department meetings, television programs, family gatherings, campus,
coffee shops, etc. Whenever we tried to collect the data no attempt was made by us to
inform the participants being involved in the interactions about our intention.
The written subset of the data, on the other hand, was collected by means of a
questionnaire with the help of five male and female university students enrolled at
two Jordanian universities: the University of Science and Technology in Irbid city,
and Philadelphia University in Amman city. The reason why we used assistants to
help us in collecting the data is because people in Jordanian society in general are
very suspicious of outsiders with whom they are not acquainted, or to whom they are
not, at least, been introduced through a third party, therefore a random selection of
informants was neither possible nor available. So, the only possible way for us to
draw the sample was to follow the "social network" model, suggested by Milroy and
Milroy (1978), and approach the subjects with the help of the assistants in the
capacity of "a friend of a friend" or in some cases through "a friend of a friend's
friend" (see also Al-Khatib 2001). By following this method, we were able to collect a
huge number of instances of spontaneous expressions of the type usually used by
Jordanian people in genuine social interactions. In addition, the assistants who helped
us in collecting the data were trained beforehand how to use the questionnaire. Also,
they were asked beforehand to note down the comments made by the interviewee
together with the relevant contextual details as soon and as exactly as possible. One
advantage of so doing was to elicit some extra information on the various ways in
which an invitation is made, accepted or turned down.
The sample of this study consisted of 120 Jordanian subjects who were made
up of 63 females and 67 males. The subjects involved are of various age groups: 54
were above 40 years-old and 66 below 40 years-old. It should also be noted that 42 of
the respondents were from Amman city and 62 from Irbid city, the largest urban
centers in the country. We have also tried from the very beginning to diversify our
sample in the best possible way according to the residential area and socio-economic
status of the subjects. Moreover, an examination of the educational background of the
subjects indicates that 52 are highly educated (i.e. university education or more), 50
are moderately educated (i.e. preparatory schooling or more), and 18 are non-educated
(i.e. little or no schooling).

276

---

The questionnaire consisted of four main sections. They were created to elicit
the specific speech acts comprising the focus of study. The first comprises five
questions intended to elicit some demographic data. The other three have equal
number of questions; each has ten questions covering a wide range of strategies of
inviting, accepting an invitation and refusing it, ranging in formality from the most
formal (e.g. inviting someone for a wedding party or dinner) to the least formal (e.g.
inviting someone for a cup of coffee). The basic of the questions included in these
sections were two scales; the social distance scale which is concerned with the
participant relationships, and the formality scale relating to the setting and type of
interaction. Scenarios involved the subject and another colleague, the subject and a
manager, the subject and a neighbor, or the subject and a relative. In each scenario,
the subject is supposed to be familiar with the participant. Each prompt simulated a
situation that could be formal (i.e. where the invitation is made to take part in a
wedding party), or informal (i.e. where the invitation could be made for taking a cup
of coffee).
The collected data was analyzed by the researcher for the components of each
speech act included in the responses. Employing the subjects’ responses to the
questionnaire, a speech act set was formulated for each item depending on the
subject’s response. For instance, an acceptance could be comprised of one speech act
(e.g. thank you) or three individual speech act components: (a) Thanking (e.g. thank
you very much), (b) Stressing common membership (e.g. I need no invitation, I
consider myself one of you), (b) Offering good-wishes (e.g. I much hope you always
have happy occasions). The presence of each component was calculated for frequency
of use for the subjects, and then we worked out the percentage score for the type of
speech acts (strategies) used by each subject. By way of comparison, the percentage
scores for the different speech acts are presented in the form of tables.
Strategies of inviting in Jordanian society
Building on the work of earlier researchers on similar politeness formulae like,
for example, apologizing (Holmes 1990, Blum-Kulka and Olshtain 1984, Olshtain
and Cohen 1983, Frazer 1981); gift offering (Hua et al, 2000); compliment and
compliment responses (Wolfson, 1983; Knapp et al, 1984; Farghal and Al-Khatib,
2001) this article will analyze invitation making and acceptance in Jordanian society
according to a categorization of strategies.
Invitation Strategies
Thus, a satisfactory categorizing system for the naturally occurring strategies
in the Jordanian corpus comprises the following basic three categories, with a number
of sub-categories:
1- Invitation making
A- An explicit way of inviting IFID (e.g. explicit illocutionary force indicating
device)
B- An implicit way of inviting
C- Employing intensifying devices
a. Stressing common membership
b. Swearing (by all that’s holy and valuable) so as
to make the invitee accept the invitation
c. Promise of repay
d. Offering good-wishes

2- Accepting an invitation
A- Thanking and appreciating

277

---

B- Stressing common membership
C- Expressing gladness
D- Complimenting
E- Offering good-wishes

3- Declining an invitation
A- Apologizing
B- Justification
C- Asking for forgiveness
D- Promise of compensation
E- Offering good wishes and rejecting

Data analysis shows that the subjects of this study used various strategies for
inviting, accepting an invitation or declining it. It should be noted here that, just like
Janet Holme's (1990) work on apologies in New Zealand English, these strategies are
not mutually exclusive. That is to say, the subjects of this study appear to have
employed more than one strategy during the complete act of inviting, repeating some
of the strategies several times. For illustration, consider example (1) below. Someone
invites a friend of him to join a Jaha (Groom's representatives visit the bride’s home
so as to negotiate the marriage agreement with the bride’s family).
(1) ?ilyom jay adςik liħduur jahit ?bni X maςinu ?inta mabidak daςwa la?inu ?iħna wintu
?ahil, ?akiid bitšarfuuna, winšallah nrdulkum ?iyaha bil?afraħ
Today, it is my son's Jaha (i.e. marriage delegation); I come to invite you to join us,
though you need not be invited because you are one of us (i.e. you are as close friend
as a family member). We would be honored if you would accept to join us. To be
repaid on similar happy occasions, God willing.
Cases like these can be seen as a set of speech acts each of which is a combination of
individual speech acts that, when produced together, comprise a complete speech act
(Murphy and Neu, 1996). To develop the illocutionary force desired a speaker often
needs more than one discrete speech act. Thus, in the case of inviting one finds
himself in need for more than one speech act in order to be able to convey the
intended message, namely addressing the positive face of the invitee, and informing
him/her that his/her attendance is appreciated .
Results and discussion
We will detail the distribution of these strategies in the speech of the selected
sample, the results, and the conclusions drawn from those results under three main
headings: invitation making, invitation acceptance and invitation-refusal.
Invitation making
Inviting in Jordanian society, like inviting elsewhere, is based on the
relationship between the inviter and the invitee. According to Searle (1976), the goal
of spoken interaction is to communicate things to the hearer by getting him/her to
recognize the intention that one has to communicate those things. The speaker then
must achieve the intended effect on the hearer by allowing him/her to recognize
his/her intention to achieve that effect. So, the recognition of the intention or intended
meaning of the utterance (speech act) seems crucial in achieving a level of success in
understanding. As far as invitation making is concerned, Jordanian society has a
special patterning of inviting. That is to say, in several cases it has been noticed that

278

---

an inviter tends to exploit the negative face of the invitee (i.e. the want not to be
imposed upon by others) for the purpose of addressing his/her positive face (i.e. the
want to be thought of as desirable person).
Data analysis has shown that several strategies of inviting are utilized by the
subjects of this study. To start with, it has been observed that the conventional way of
inviting in Jordanian society takes place either explicitly or implicitly. By the explicit
way we mean this type of expressions which indicates that the addresser has explicit
intention of inviting, like for example, ?ana ςazmak ςala ħaflet ςeed miladi "I invite
you to my birthday party". And by the implicit way we mean that type of inviting
which indicates that the addresser has the intention of inviting, but without saying
that directly. For example, while two friends are passing by a coffee-shop one of them
may say šura?iyak nfuut nišrablna finjan qahwa? "How about to take a cup of
coffee?" And the one who initiates such question has the intention of (inviting) paying
for the drink. A close attention to the data shows that this latter type of inviting is
usually used only among intimates, friends, status equals, or family members in
intimate situations. While the explicit way is usually used by people who have more
social distance and less solidarity in a rather formal situations.
Table (1) below demonstrates that the explicit way of inviting is used by
Jordanians much more often than the implicit way. This particular strategy appeared
in the majority of interactions, in different realizations. It accounts for almost exactly
77% of the collected utterances.
Table (1): Distribution of the conventional strategies of inviting in the speech
behavior of Jordanian people
Inviting strategy
Frequency
No. %
Explicit way of inviting
787
77



Implicit way of inviting
227
23
Total
1631
100

As pointed out earlier an inviting speech act can be made on its own (e.g. I invite you
for a meal, or how about to dine together?) or made up of different combinations of
semantic formulas. Almost two quarters of the total number of strategies occurring in
the corpus involved some combination of strategies. It is highly likely that this latter
type of data has occurred as a means for intensifying the effect of inviting speech act
on the target person. The results of the analysis, as shown in table 2, demonstrate that
inviting in Jordanian society is made up of different combinations of several speech
acts like, for example, bukra btitfadalu ?ina ςala ?ilvada ςamlinu ςalashan ςawdit
?ibna X bisallameh, inshallah ςugbal ςindwladkum? Would you honor us tomorrow
by lunching with us on the occasion of our son’s safe return, same to your sons God
willing? Speaking of the importance of this tactic, Holmes (1990) argued that
“combining strategies results in a ‘weightier’ apology, appropriate for more serious
offenses”. It is highly likely that Jordanian people tend to use this tactic so as to
achieve two goals simultaneously: first, to enhance the positive face of the invitee by
telling him/her, in an indirect way, that he is an important person. Second, to inform
him/her that his/her acceptance of the invitation is highly appreciated, therefore, he
should respond to it positively.
Table (2): Distribution of the intensifying inviting strategies in the speech behavior of
Jordanian people

279

---

Intensifying strategies
No.
%
Offering good wishes
376
23
Stressing common membership
211
13
Swearing by God or all that’s holly or of 157
9
great value
Promise of repay
138
8
Total
1663
100

Table (2) shows that Jordanian people tend to utilize as intensifiers a number
of positive politeness strategies such as offering good wishes, claiming reciprocity or
stressing common membership, Swearing by God or other valuable belongings and
promising to repay for strengthening the force of an offer on the invitee. Consider the
following examples:
2) yareit titfadalu ςina ςala ?il ςaša ?ileileh "I much hope you would honor us by
dining with us tonight"
3) ħabin niksabak ςala ?il γada ?ilyom "we would like to have the advantage of
having you on lunch with us today"
4) wujuudak bil ħafleh bysςidna "We would be very pleased by your participation"
These examples indicate that such intensifiers as you would honor us, we have
the advantage of having you, We would be very pleased by your participation may be
addressed to the positive face of the invitee in order to strengthen the illocutionary
force of the utterance and, consequently, heighten the perlocutionary effect of the act
of inviting on him/her.
Also it can be seen from Table (2) above that upon inviting, Jordanian people
tend to offer a variety of good-wishes, as an important strategy, for inviting. This
happens by using such expressions as ?ana jay ?aςzimkum ςuqbaal ςind wladkum
insallah "I come to invite you for…., your children to be next God willing- in terms
of success, wedding, or any other happy occasions- or ?inšallah nrudilkum ?iyaha
bel?afraħ "God willing, to be repaid on similar happy occasions." It is highly likely
that people in Jordanian society tend to offer a lot of such good-wishes upon inviting,
because of their positive effect on the addressee. So, an appropriate use of them can
be seen as a polite strategy through which the addresser attempts to arouse a positive
feeling in the hearer, and as such make him accept to share this happy occasion with
the inviter. Also, it should be noted here that religion was also found to play a role in
the process. A considerable number of religious expressions given in the form of
good-wishes were found to be used heavily by the subjects. For example, more than
278 good-wishes were found to include the name of ?aLLah or the Prophet
Mohammed Like, for example ?aLLah yihanik or ?aLLa yaħmik both of which mean
“God bless you”. The use of such expressions is taken from the Arab and Islamic
tradition, where the speaker tends to say nothing could happen without the help of
God wherever he/she wishes something good to happen.
The data, as seen in table (2), has also revealed that Jordanian people tend to
use swearing- by God or all that’s holly or of great value- as a means for intensifying
the effect of inviting. For example, some utterances such as billahi ςaleik "By God",
biħyaat ?ilxuweh "By our brotherhood", jirit ?allah ςaleik or ?anashdak bellah both
of which mean "for God sake" are usually used between intimates so as to strengthen
the positive perlocutionary force on the recipient. This happens by making him/her
feel that his/her attendance is highly appreciated and as such he/she has no choice but
to accept the invitation. It should be mentioned here that using such theo-pragmatic

280

---

expressions in the context of inviting may reflect the impact of Islamic culture on
Jordanian people when they perform the act of inviting.
Stressing common membership is another effective strategy through which
Jordanians attempt to heighten the perlocutionary effect of the act of inviting on the
invitee. As seen in table (A) (see appendix 1) people in Jordanian society opt for
employing a variety of such expressions. By using in-group identity markers such as
?nta waħad mina mabidak ςazuumeh "you are one of us, so you need not be invited
(rather invites)" is seen as an effective way of inviting, since it creates an impression
that the message flows from heart to heart. Additionally, the subjects' pragmatic
competence is evidenced in the ease with which inviting utterances are usually
accompanied by such in-group identity markers as "you are one of us" or ?iħna ?ahil
"we are as close friends as family members" that might have a positive perlocutionary
effect on the target person.
For more clarification, consider also the following example which illustrates
how an invitation is offered in Jordanian society:
Context: A conversation between two colleagues (AR and BK), working in the post
office, AR is extending an invitation to BK, BK attempts by all means to escape the
invitation but he, at last, finds himself, under A's insistence, obliged to accept the
invitation. (Personal observation)
(4) AR. yazalameh kam marah surt ςazmak ta tzurna whua ?iħna muš gad ?ilmagam
(smiling)
Hey man, how many times have I invited you to visit us? Are not we of the
same (socio-economic) status?
BK. ?inshallah bil?afraħ
On happy occasions, God willing
AR. ?iħna ςarfiin bil?afraħ bas bidna ?iyaha ?ilyom
We know “on happy occasions”, but we want it today
BK. raħ ?aħawil kul juhdi ?inshallah
I'll do my best, God willing
AR. (smiling) ?ana ςarif ?inshallah bas waςid šaraf?
I know happens by God willing, but you promise on your honor to do it?
BK. waςid šaraf
Yes I promise on my honor
BK. ?agulak, mazal waςid šaraf, xalas ?illeileh ?ana jay ?ana w?um X , bas bišart
?inak Latγalibħalak
Hey, since it is a promise on my honor, my wife (mother of X) and I will visit
you tonight provided that you would not bother yourself about us (i.e. in terms of
hosting the visit)

This dialogue is a good example of an informal invitation which usually takes
place between freinds and colleagues. As said earlier, insistence her is a remarkable
aspect of inviting. The inviter insists on the invitee to accept the invitation through
using several tactics. Once again, it should be noted here that the politenes in this type
of invitation basically resides in the insistence of the addresser on the addressee to
accept the invitation. Upon hearing this, the addressee may communicatively receive
the message by implicating that he is so important to the addresser, otherwise he
wouldn't be invited repeatedly with a great deal of insistence. This implacture is
brought about on the part of the addressee by making use of the generosity maxim
(Leech, 1983) from an Arab point of view, where such a visit may result in

281

---