Effects of gender and degree of formality on the use of euphemistic strategies in Iraqi Arabic

Research in Arabic linguistics has largely focused on structure, grammaticalization of discourse markers, metadiscourse, and speech acts, while pragmatic uses such as euphemism—especially in Iraqi Arabic (IA)—are underexplored. Euphemism, broadly the use of softening words to avoid offense and save face, is integral to politeness theory and manifests differently across languages and dialects. This study examines how IA speakers use euphemistic strategies to save face for themselves and interlocutors, and evaluates the effects of formality and gender on strategy use. Research questions: (1) What euphemistic strategies are used by Iraqi speakers for death, mental illness, and obesity? (2) What is the effect of formality and gender on the use of euphemistic strategies by IA speakers?

Studies on euphemism in Arabic dialects report diverse strategy use shaped by culture and context. In Egyptian Arabic, speakers employ understatement, general-for-specific, hyperbole, borrowing, circumlocution, and jargon, particularly when face-threatening acts are present (Enab, 2020). Arabic speakers avoid direct reference to sensitive domains such as politics and sex, often employing borrowed terms (Khanfar, 2012). In Saudi dialects, fuzzy words and metaphor predominate, with choices varying by gender and age (Almoayidi, 2018). Arab EFL learners show limited awareness of English euphemism, with gender-based differences (Altakhaineh & Rahrouh, 2015). Cross-cultural comparisons reveal strategy variation between Arabic and English speakers due to cultural and religious norms (Almufawez et al., 2018; Alghazo et al., 2021). Political discourse in both languages commonly employs metonymy, synecdoche, and circumlocution, with other devices like abbreviations and hyperbole in English (Mugair, 2014). Rabab'ah and Al-Qarni (2012) found Saudis used overstatement, part-for-whole, deletion, understatement, general-for-specific, metaphor, and jargon, while Britons used general-for-specific, learned words/jargon, metaphors, deletion, and understatement, with shifts by formality and gender. In Iraqi Arabic specifically, research is scarce. Mahdi and Eesa (2019) documented varied euphemisms in Iraqi political discourse, including religiously framed overstatement. Obaid and Seger (2020) reported euphemisms for death and cancer in Al-Anbar, reflecting Islamic principles (e.g., “moved to God’s mercy”) and positive framing to support patients. Frameworks of euphemistic strategies include Allan and Burridge (1991, 2006), Warren (1992), Neaman and Silver (1983), and Huang (2005). Warren (1992) groups 17 strategies into: (a) word formation (compounding, derivation, blends, acronyms, onomatopoeia); (b) phonemic modification (back slang, rhyming slang, phoneme replacement, abbreviation); (c) loan words; and (d) semantic construction (particularization, implication, metaphor, metonym, reversal, understatement, overstatement). Warren also includes deletion/omission. Additional strategies include clipping, replacement/quasi-omission (Allan & Burridge, 1991), learned words, jargon, nurseryism (Huang, 2005), synonymy (Allan & Burridge, 2006), and diminutives (Neaman & Silver, 1983).

Participants: 160 Iraqi Arabic-speaking undergraduates (80 male, 80 female), aged 18–25, from the School of Pharmacy at Al-Zaytoona University, Jordan. Topics targeted taboo domains salient in Arabic culture: death and mental illness (fear-based) and obesity (politeness-based). Instrument: An open-ended discourse completion test (DCT) adapted from Rabab'ah and Al-Qarni (2012). Part 1 collected gender. Part 2 presented 16 situations across three topics (death, mental illness, obesity), each topic with four scenarios (two formal, two informal). For each situation, participants provided three commonly used utterances. Analysis: Researchers compiled frequency tables and percentages to identify the most frequent strategies by topic and context. A total of 63 euphemistic expressions were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Strategies were coded using definitions from Warren (1992), Allan and Burridge (1991, 2006), Neaman and Silver (1983), and Huang (2005), with sub-classification by formal vs. informal usage. Chi-square tests assessed gender effects by topic and formality. Validity and reliability: Content validity was ensured by review from two professors at the University of Jordan. Coding reliability was checked by two referees from the University of Technology–Baghdad and one from Mustansiriyah University; feedback informed final classifications.

By topic: Death (Table 1, N=960 tokens): Overstatement was most frequent (239; 24.89%), followed by deletion (105; 10.93%), part-for-whole (71; 7.39%), borrowing (46; 4.79%), synonym (36; 3.75%), compounding (12; 1.25%), general-for-specific (7; 0.72%), and flippancies (4; 0.41%). Mental illness (Table 2, N=960): Fuzzy words ranked first (122; 12.70%), followed by general-for-specific (120; 12.5%), implication (63; 6.56%), deletion (62; 6.45%), technical jargon (60; 6.25%), understatement (16; 1.66%), overstatement (7; 0.72%). Obesity (Table 3, N=960): Implication led (176; 18.33%), followed by overstatement (88; 9.16%), particularization (73; 7.60%), compounding (51; 5.31%), reversal (26; 2.70%), deletion (20; 2.08%), understatement (17; 1.77%), and metaphor (9; 0.93%). Effect of formality: - Death (Table 4): Overstatement dominated in both formal (182; 37.91%) and informal (57; 11.87%) contexts. Deletion was second in both (formal 52; 10.83%, informal 53; 11.0%). Synonym appeared only informally (36; 7.5%); metaphor absent formally. - Mental illness (Table 5): Formal contexts favored fuzzy words (64; 13.33%), then deletion (47; 9.79%) and general-for-specific (38; 7.91%). Understatement was unused formally. Informal contexts favored general-for-specific (82; 17.08%), then fuzzy words (58; 12.08%) and implication (35; 7.29%); overstatement was rare (1; 0.20%). - Obesity (Table 6): Implication dominated in both formal (76; 15.83%) and informal (100; 20.83%) contexts. Formal: overstatement 0%; compounding 24 (5%), particularization 58 (12.08%). Informal: overstatement 88 (18.33%), compounding 27 (5.62%), metaphor 9 (1.87%). Effect of gender (Table 7, chi-square): - Death: Formal total χ²=29.355, p<0.001, favor males (significant in part-for-whole and borrowing; no sig. in overstatement, deletion). Informal total χ²=16.057, p=0.003, favor males (significant in deletion and borrowing; no sig. in overstatement, part-for-whole). - Mental illness: Formal total χ²=8.079, p=0.004, favor males (differences in deletion, technical jargon, fuzzy words, general-for-specific; not in implication). Informal total χ²=7.473, p=0.006, favor females (differences in fuzzy words, implication, general-for-specific; not in deletion, technical jargon). - Obesity: Formal total χ²=20.694, p=0.001, favor males (differences in deletion, implication, particularization; not in compounding, reversal). Informal total χ²=11.147, p=0.025, favor females (difference in compounding; not in implication, particularization, deletion, reversal).

Findings address the research questions by identifying strategy profiles for three taboo topics in Iraqi Arabic and showing how formality and gender shape usage. Death elicited strong avoidance of direct terms, with overstatement and religiously inflected expressions prominent, reflecting cultural-religious beliefs about fate and divine will. Less frequent strategies included flippancies and general-for-specific, indicating occasional use of humor or idiomatic expressions to soften impact. For mental illness, fuzzy words predominated, suggesting speakers avoid medicalized labels and prefer vague, less stigmatizing descriptors; formality modulated choices, with fuzzy words most used formally and general-for-specific informally. For obesity, implication was most common, often framed as advice (exercise, diet), and overstatement used informally; this aligns with the sensitivity and potential derogatory connotations of direct labels like “fat.” Formality had limited effect on death but clearly influenced mental illness and obesity, with certain strategies absent in formal contexts (e.g., understatement for mental illness; overstatement and metaphor for obesity). Gender significantly affected strategy use across topics, with males more prominent in several formal contexts (death, obesity) and females more so in informal contexts for mental illness and obesity. Overall, the results underscore the role of cultural norms, politeness, and face-saving in IA euphemism, and align or contrast with prior findings in other Arabic dialects and English depending on topic and context.

The study documents how IA speakers euphemize death, mental illness, and obesity, showing topic-specific strategy preferences: overstatement for death, fuzzy words for mental illness, and implication for obesity. Formality minimally affects death but shapes strategy choices for mental illness and obesity; gender significantly influences strategy distributions across topics and contexts, with females often employing more euphemisms. These insights advance understanding of pragmatics and politeness in IA. Future research should undertake cross-cultural and cross-linguistic comparisons, examine different age groups, and contrast negative versus positive euphemisms within cultures to deepen understanding of sociopragmatic variation.