A pragmatic analysis of ostensible lies in high-context cultures

Abstract This research investigates the pragmatic functions of ostensible lies in high-context cultures, with a specific focus on the Jordanian culture. Utilizing the Joint Action theory framework proposed by Clark (1996), the study aims to shed light on this communicative act. The data is collected through direct observation and recalls, and a qualitative analysis of 30 examples is conducted. The study reveals that ostensible lies in the Jordanian culture serve eight distinct off-record functions: implying information, expressing refusal, conveying rejection, extending apologies, expressing annoyance, engaging in bragging behavior, and adhering to regulations. These findings not only support the previously identified features of ostensible lies by Isaacs and Clark (1990) but also demonstrate potential overlap with the functions outlined in Walton’s (1998) study. However, the study adds an essential nuance by highlighting that in high-context cultures, ostensible lies can manifest even in situations where power dynamics are unequal, which challenges Walton’s argument. The significance of this study lies in its contribution to the understanding of lying behaviors within high-context cultures, particularly in the Jordanian context. By exploring the pragmatic functions of ostensible lies, the research enriches the existing literature on cross-cultural communication. It sheds light on the complexity and subtleties of communication practices in such cultural contexts. The findings have implications for intercultural communication, as they provide valuable insights for individuals and organizations seeking to navigate communication dynamics in high-context cultures, fostering more effective and culturally sensitive interactions.


Introduction
Lying is prevalent among people in different cultures (Zuckerman et al., 1981).It can have various forms and terms: white lies, cover-ups, acting, put-ons, and others.The variety of terms indicates that lies are not similar, have different degrees of deception, and play heterogeneous functions (Zuckerman et al., 1981).Ostensible lies are part of the Ostensible Communicative Acts (OCA), as defined by Clark (1996) and Walton (1998).The underlying principle of OCAs is that both the speaker and the addressee are aware that the communicated message is not true, yet they mutually pretend that it is sincere.In this sense, an ostensible lie does not qualify as a genuine lie.For example, consider the following scenario: (1)

Context:
The husband comes home late, disheveled and smelling of booze, having made only the most superficial effort to cover up evidence of his carousing.
Wife: It's 2 o'clock in the morning.Where have you been?
Husband: I had to work late again.(Walton, 1998, p. 35) In this scenario, when the wife questions the husband about his whereabouts, it is evident to her, based on his scent, that he had been at a bar.Simultaneously, the husband knows that his wife is aware of his location due to the odor.However, instead of explicitly admitting to being at the bar, he claims to have been working late.According to Walton (1998), the husband's statement is an ostensible lie as he intends to conceal his drinking habit and deny any guilt or blame.In Isaacs and Clark's (1990) technical description of ostensible speech acts, both the husband and wife feign belief in the husband's statement while mutually recognizing its falsehood.
This paper delves into examining the pragmatic functions of ostensible lies in Jordanian Arabic.The study acknowledges the differences between low-context and high-context cultures.Lowcontext cultures, as exemplified by Walton's (1998) study, are characterized by explicit and direct communication, where the meaning is conveyed primarily through words.On the other hand, highcontext cultures, such as Jordanian Arabic culture, rely heavily on non-verbal cues, implicit meanings, and shared cultural understanding to communicate effectively.By focusing on Jordanian Arabic, this study aims to fill a gap in the existing research by examining the specific cultural context where ostensible lies occur.In addition, ostensible lies refer to deceptive statements or actions that are intended to convey a different meaning than what is actually expressed.Understanding the functions and purposes of ostensible lies in a particular cultural context is essential for comprehending the nuances of communication within that society.By exploring the pragmatic functions of ostensible lies in Jordanian Arabic, the study aims to shed light on the cultural-specific aspects of deception and communication strategies used within this context.

Background
Ostensible communicative acts are a subset of speech acts.While OCAs share many properties at their surface level with genuine speech acts, they have distinct features that set them apart from genuine speech acts (Clark, 1996;Isaacs & Clark, 1990).In this section, we aim to present an understanding of OCAs.To build a comprehensive view of OCAs, we review basic concepts in the field of pragmatics.We introduce speech acts and their felicity conditions (Searle, 1969).Because OCAs are integrated with Common Ground management, we introduce CG through the lens of the Joint Action Theory (Clark, 1996).Then, we define OCAs based on Isaacs and Clark (1990).The second section of this part includes background about the Jordanian culture.Both parts taken together will facilitate understanding the topic under discussion.Austin (1962) shows that in uttering words, conversants do actions.That is, there are certain actions that we perform through words.Many actions can be performed through utterances: invitations, apologies, compliments, and many others.Let's explore some examples to illustrate the concept of speech acts: When someone says, "I invite you to dinner," they inform the listener about the dinner and actively invite them to attend the event.The speech act of invitation is performed through the utterance (cf., Choraih, 2022;Schegloff, 1988;Widari & Yaniasti, 2023;Wolfson, 1981).In addition, consider the phrase, "I am sorry."By saying this, the speaker is not merely expressing remorse or acknowledging a mistake but is actively performing the speech act of apology (Alhusban & Alshehri, 2022;Ardiati, 2023;Schegloff, 1988).The words themselves can convey the speaker's regret and seek forgiveness.Furthermore, when someone says, "You look beautiful today," they are not only stating an observation but also performing the speech act of complimenting (Golato, 2002;Herbert, 1990;Holmes, 1986;Wolfson, 1981;Wolfson & Manes, 1980).The words express admiration or appreciation, aiming to impact the hearer positively.

The speech act theory
Speech acts have three types of force: locutionary force, illocutionary force, and perlocutionary force.The locutionary force of an utterance means how the speaker executed his speech act.It refers to the literal or surface meaning of the words used.It focuses on the act of producing an intelligible and grammatically correct utterance.The locutionary force is concerned with the execution of the speech act itself, irrespective of its intended or perceived meaning.For example, in the utterance, "It's hot in here," the speaker is making a statement about the temperature in the current environment.But, in the utterance, "Can you pass the salt?" the speaker asks a question about the ability or willingness of the hearer to pass the salt.The illocutionary one includes the meaning behind a particular utterance and refers to the speaker's intended purpose or illocutionary act.It focuses on the speaker's intention behind the speech act, such as making a request, giving an order, making an apology, etc.The illocutionary force can vary based on the context, the speaker's tone, and the relationship between the participants.For example, in the utterance, "Could you please close the window?" the speaker is making a polite request.The perlocutionary act means the impact of the speech act on the hearer.It focuses on the response or reaction that the speaker intends to elicit from the hearer.The perlocutionary force is not entirely under the control of the speaker and can vary depending on the hearer's interpretation, beliefs, and emotions.For instance, in the utterance: "You're such a talented musician!" the speaker intends to compliment and boost the hearer's confidence in their musical abilities (Austin, 1962;Searle, 1969).In addition, speech acts have preparatory conditions.Those conditions state that specific requirements must be met for a speech act to take place at the sincerity level.In a nutshell, the speech act theory aims to explain how communicators deliver messages and how receivers interpret those messages as intended.
-The essential rule: the maker of an assertion commits himself to the truth of the expressed proposition.
-The preparatory rules: the speaker must be in a position to provide evidence or reasons for the truth of the expressed proposition.
-The expressed proposition must not be obviously true to both the speaker and the hearer in the context of utterance.
-The sincerity rule: the speaker commits himself to a belief in the truth of the expressed proposition.(Searle, 1979, p. 74) This definition deals with two types of commitments: the speaker's commitment to the truth of a statement and their personal belief in its truth.When speakers are insincere, they deceive listeners in two ways: about the accuracy of the statement and about their own belief in it (Meibauer, 2018).While this may describe genuine lies, ostensible lies do not fit this description because both the speaker and the listener know that the speaker is falsifying truths, but they pretend this is true.Austin (1962) presents speech acts and their conditions.Nevertheless, Isaacs and Clark (1990) notice that there is a subset of speech acts that are not introduced in Austin's (1962) and Searle's (1969) works because of their opacity.They refer to such acts as Ostensible Speech Acts.In his subsequent works, Clark (1996) develops a theory to reveal the exact nature of ostensible speech acts.He calls such acts Joint Actions.This part introduces the primary mechanism of Joint Actions and their properties.

The joint action theory
Isaacs and Clark (1990) set five defining properties for ostensible speech acts.Those properties are: (1) Pretense: A pretends to make a sincere [act].
(2) Mutual Recognition: A and B mutually recognize A's Pretense.
(4) Ambivalence: When asked, "Do you really mean it?"A cannot sincerely answer either "yes" or "no." (5) Off-record: purpose A's main purpose is tacit. (p.498) The first property, pretense, states that the person who initiates the ostensible speech act should pretend to be sincere.That is, the person should meet all the conditions of sincere speech acts.
The second property, Mutual Recognition, demands that both the speaker and the addressee should know that the speaker is only pretending that he is sincere.At the same time, the interlocutors should respond as if the speaker is genuine.Their response is part of the third feature, collusion.The first three points show how conversants can execute ostensible speech acts.Ambivalence means that the speaker always has a way of taking back what he uttered because his pretense is apparent.The final aspect, Off-record, shows that ostensible speech acts have two layers.The first layer shows a sincere act.But, the real intentions behind the act are not stated.

The cultural dimension
In his study of culture and communication, Hall (1989) introduces a framework that distinguishes between cultures based on their employment of context.Within this framework, he introduced two terms: high-context cultures and low-context cultures (cf., Barkai, 2008;Đỗ, 2021;Larsen et al., 2002;Yama & Zakaria, 2012).The terms are used to describe how cultures communicate and convey meaning.They refer to the amount of implicit information and shared understanding within a culture's communication style (Croucher et al., 2012;Kim et al., 1998;Korac-Kakabadse et al., 2001;Nguyen et al., 2007;Tanova et al., 2010).
In high-context cultures, a significant portion of information is conveyed through non-verbal cues, shared experiences, and implicit understanding.People in high-context cultures rely on contextual clues, such as body language, tone of voice, and social relationships, to interpret messages.Communication in high-context cultures tends to be indirect, relying on subtext and reading between the lines.On the other hand, low-context cultures rely more on explicit and direct communication.In low-context cultures, information is conveyed primarily through verbal communication, and there is a greater emphasis on clarity and explicitness in the message.People in low-context cultures tend to be more explicit in their language and rely less on non-verbal cues and shared understanding.
According to Al-Khatib (2021), "drawing on the literature of cultural anthropology and intercultural communication, it is worth noting that American culture and Jordanian culture are not the same" (p.413).Al-Khatib (2021) provides a vivid, concise description of the cultural aspect as follows.
Americans can be seen as low context culture as they are open, direct, and more confrontational [. ..], while Arab culture in general and Jordanian culture, in particular, can be seen as high context culture as they historically value high context communication [. ..]; namely, Arab people are more introverted and indirect.(p.411)To elaborate, in Jordanian culture, much of the communication is conveyed implicitly through nonverbal cues, facial expressions, and gestures.People often rely on shared knowledge and social relationships to understand the intended meaning behind a message.Jordanians often prefer indirect communication styles to maintain harmony and avoid confrontation.They may use polite language, euphemisms, and subtle hints to convey their message rather than stating it explicitly.Non-verbal communication plays a crucial role in Jordanian culture.Facial expressions, hand gestures, and body language carry significant meaning and are carefully observed to understand the underlying message.Building and maintaining strong relationships are highly valued in Jordanian society.Trust and understanding between individuals are essential for effective communication.Jordanians often rely on their existing relationships and shared history to interpret messages accurately.Jordanian communication heavily relies on shared cultural, historical, and social knowledge.References to local traditions, customs, and events are commonly used to convey meaning.Bond et al. (1990) hypothesize that "lie detection is based on universal cues; but if nature selects against tell-tale deception cues, then detections should represent a culture-specific discrimination " (p. 196).Therefore, without a cultural understanding, the intended message may be missed.

Literature review
Ostensible speech acts have been an area of research in several communities (Abdel Hady, 2013, 2015;Dastpak & Mollaei, 2011;Eslami, 2005;Link & Kreuz, 2005;Mohammed, 2011;Shishavan, 2016;Su, 2020;Yaqubi, 2020;Zhao, 2020).However, researchers focused on the strategies of extending invitations ostensibly, following Isaacs and Clark (1990), the first study which introduced ostensible communicative acts.Other studies have aimed to evaluate the strategies themselves and their impact on the ostensibility of invitations (Link, 2001;Link & Kreuz, 2005).Together these studies provide important insights into the OCAs.Due to space, we review the studies that help comprehend this study.

Ostensible speech acts
Following Isaacs and Clark (1990), Eslami (2005) and Salmani-Nodoushan (2006) conduct comparative studies on ostensible invitations in English and Farsi.The investigations follow the methodology proposed by Isaacs and Clark (1990).The researchers used recalls, observation, and face-to-face interviews for data collection.Salmani-Nodoushan's (2006) comparative study shows that ostensible invitations can be influenced by gender, age, and social status.His research shows that males tend to make more ostensible invitations than females.Young issue ostensible invitations as twice as old individuals.Moreover, individuals from higher social classes are found to extend ostensible invitations significantly more frequently than those from lower social classes.In the same vein, Eslami (2005) observed that Persian speakers employ ostensible acts to adhere to social norms and to enhance the social image and reputation (referred to as "face" by Brown and Levinson in 1987) for participants in an interaction.
In addition, Yaqubi (2020) examines challenges in understanding and translating ostensible speech acts in the subtitling of Iranian films from Persian to English.The study aims to provide a descriptive investigation into the transfer of meaning for 80 Persian OSAs extracted from selected Iranian films.Additionally, it analyzes the perceptions of 106 target text audiences regarding subtitled OSAs by assessing their comprehension of 14 subtitled OSAs and identifying the factors that influence their understanding.This study proposes a guideline for Persian-English subtitling to facilitate the accurate transfer of the intended meaning of OSAs.Abdel Hady's (2015) study explores the pragmatic functions of ostensible invitations in Jordanian Arabic.The study bridges a gap toward exploring the other side of invitations.He shows that in Jordanian Arabic, ostensible invitations serve three primary functions depending on the conversation context.They are predominantly used to maintain one's social reputation in situations that threaten face, such as easing farewells, expressing gratitude, preemptively apologizing, responding to compliments and requests, displaying envy, and lessening the impact of burdensome tasks.In addition, ostensible invitations can be employed cunningly to accomplish other objectives.While his corpus shows the extensive application of ostensible invitations as a device to save face in some situations and as a device that can damage face in other cases, the study is limited to one speech act, ostensible invitations.

Genuine and ostensible lies
To date, lying has received scant attention in the research literature.What is less clear is the nature of ostensible lies.Drawing upon two strands of research into lies, we attempt to highlight studies on deception in both Jordanian and American cultures (Bond et al., 1990;Walton, 1998).Bond et al. (1990) conducted the first cross-cultural study on lie detection using American and Jordanian participants.The researchers explore the ability to detect deception through nonverbal behavior and whether this ability differs across cultures.They aim to determine if lie detection patterns were consistent within each culture and if lie detection could occur across cultures.The study highlights the cultural factors influencing lie detection and suggests that the liar's demeanor and actions impact it.It contributes to our understanding of deception and emphasizes the importance of considering cultural differences in detecting lies.Walton's (1998) research, which investigates ostensible lies in American English, is the first attempt to analyze ostensible communicative acts by examining power relations between speakers.Based on 33 examples of ostensible lies collected via informal interviews, the study classifies ostensible lies from a functional perspective.The results show three major functions of ostensible lies: off-record functions, such as bullying, avoiding true deceit, and intentionally leaking information, and ostensible functions, such as justifications and cover-ups.This study, which represents the foundation for investigating ostensible lies, is significant for our research because the study highlights a group of functions, which can be assessed against our data, and the study points toward the social categories, where we can observe ostensible lies.Specifically, power relations between speakers might be a decisive factor for ostensible lies.
One of the more significant outcomes of this review is that detecting lies across cultures is possible.In addition, ostensible lies in American English have a variety of functions.The main weakness in the literature is that it overlooks ostensible lies in high-context cultures.

Methodology
This part introduces the methodology that we followed in conducting this research.We present how the data is collected and analyzed.

Data collection
In this study, the data collection process was based on the methods described by Isaacs and Clark in 1990, as well as Abdel Hady in 2013.These studies relied on the techniques of observation and recall.The researchers of the current study chose to follow these methods for two main reasons.The researchers recognized that ostensible speech acts, which are deceptive acts that appear truthful, are often difficult to detect.They can be easily mistaken for genuine lies, and it is challenging to determine whether both parties involved in the interaction are colluding or not.Due to these complexities, the researchers concluded that recording ostensible speech acts directly was not practical or feasible.

Sampling
The researchers defined all people living in Jordan as their population.The researchers selected 30 participants from their own social network following Abdelhady (2019) to recall and record themselves narrating their own experiences with ostensible lies.

Procedure
For the first set of data, the researchers opted to observe and make note of all instances of ostensible lies that they encountered over a period of four months.This allowed them to gather data on these deceptive acts indirectly through careful observation of real-life interactions.In addition to the observational approach, the researchers also incorporated a recall method inspired by the work of Isaacs and Clark (1990).The participants were asked to describe the reasons behind the ostensible lies, provide details about the context in which they occurred, and recall the sequence of conversational turns.To help participants recall a particular event, we asked participants specific questions that prompted their memory and encouraged them to provide detailed information.Here are some example questions: Can you describe a specific instance when you encountered or witnessed an ostensible lie?What was the reason behind the ostensible lie that you remember?Could you provide details about the context in which the ostensible lie occurred?Who were the individuals involved in the interaction?Can you recall their relationship or roles?What were the verbal and non-verbal cues that made the ostensible lie apparent to you?How did the ostensible lie affect the conversation or the relationship between the individuals involved?Did you notice any specific emotions or reactions from the person telling the ostensible lie or the person being deceived?Can you recall the sequence of conversational turns leading up to the ostensible lie?Were there any particular phrases or language used that stood out to you as indicators of the ostensible lie?How did you feel or respond when you realized or suspected that it was an ostensible lie?
These questions aim to elicit detailed recollections from the participants about the event and provide insights into the reasons, context, and dynamics surrounding the ostensible lie.The researchers chose this method of data collection because it provided a broader range of examples from different individuals in various naturalistic settings.By combining both observation and recall, the study aimed to capture a comprehensive understanding of ostensible lies in real-life communication scenarios.

Data analysis
In our data analysis, we adhere to the methodology outlined by Walton (1998) and conduct a qualitative analysis of the data.We employ the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach developed by Blommaert and Bulcaen (2000) and Fairclough (2013) to analyze our data.The reason for choosing this approach, as noted by Walton (1998), is that ostensible lies often involve power dynamics between participants.By considering power relations and contextual factors surrounding ostensible lies, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of both the social and pragmatic aspects of such lies.To begin the analysis process, we first collect various examples that could potentially be categorized as ostensible lies.We then examine each example to determine if it exhibits the five characteristics commonly associated with ostensible speech acts.These characteristics may include factors such as the speaker's intention to deceive, the presence of plausible deniability, or the reliance on shared knowledge or assumptions.
Next, we focus on identifying the underlying function of each ostensible lie (see the Appendix).In other words, we aim to uncover the unstated reason or motivation behind the use of these lies.To ensure the accuracy of our interpretations, we involve four independent researchers in the process.Each researcher is tasked with highlighting the function of the ostensible lie in each example.Afterward, we compare the results and look for instances where there is a high level of agreement among the researchers regarding the function of a particular lie.These examples with a consensus on their function are included in the study, as they provide reliable insights into the phenomenon under investigation.On the other hand, examples that are ambiguous or unclear as to whether they constitute ostensible lies or genuine lies are excluded from our analyses.We prioritize including only those examples where there is a clear consensus among the researchers, as this ensures the robustness of our findings.
In order to facilitate the interpretation and understanding of the examples, we provide additional contextual descriptions for each one.This contextual information helps shed light on the specific circumstances, backgrounds, or dynamics in which the ostensible lies occur.Additionally, we take steps to ensure clarity in interpretation by glossing, transcribing, and translating all examples.These measures assist in presenting the examples in a comprehensive and accessible manner.By following this rigorous methodology, combining Walton's approach with CDA, and involving multiple researchers to ensure reliability, we aim to gain valuable insights into ostensible lies' nature, function, and social implications.Including contextual details and carefully analyzing each example contribute to a thorough understanding of the complex phenomenon, we are studying.

Analysis and discussion
In this section, we discuss the findings of the study.Based on our data, Jordanians utilize ostensible lies for various functions; those functions include: implying information, expressing rejection, apologizing, minimizing requests, avoiding direct encounters, expressing awareness of norms and regulations, and evading answers.

Implying information
Responding to questions threatens face wants (Holtgraves, 1991).Because "questions demand a response [. . .].Thus one way to respond indirectly to a question is to fail to answer" (Holtgraves 1986cited in Holtgraves, 1991, p. 18).Ostensible lies help in protecting face wants when responding to face-threatening questions.That is when a person faces a question and knows that the answer to this question will damage his/her face, using ostensible lies, where the speaker leaves the answer to the question to be inferred, protecting his/her face.Consider the example in (2).
Example (2): Speakers A and B are females around 24 years old, conversing about the outcome of a traditional pre-engagement visit that B had the day before.This example mirrors one stage of a Jordanian marriage tradition.A typical Jordanian marriage is divided into three phases.First and foremost, there is the pre-engagement stage, in which the groom's mother pays a private visit to her son's probable pride to be so that they get to know each other.But more than getting to know each other personally, this visit is all about checking the physical traits of the bride-to-be to see if she would appeal to the groom."A" in the dialogue above, who lives next door, is very confident that the mother of the groom-to-be wouldn't call back; that is because the young lady is not as beautiful according to Jordanian beauty standards.As a result, party "A" mischievously asks the young lady's mother whether the groom's mother calls back for a formal proposal.Therefore, the potential bride's mother pretends that the refusal comes from their party because they are not very interested in the specifications of the prospective groom, and she will never tell the truth as it will underestimate her daughter, where in fact, both parties of the conversation know very well that the young lady is not beautiful and the rejection comes from the side of the proposing young man and his family.The lie implies a rejection.Therefore, the lie is told here for face-saving, not for deceit and party "A," in turn, pretends to be convinced by the young lady's mother's side of the story.
To round up, taken together, this interaction suggests an association between the ostensible lie and responding to questions as a face-threatening act.

Expressing rejection
Expressing rejection damages face wants (Chojimah, 2015;Johnson et al., 2004;Yusuf, 2018).Therefore, it is considered impolite to express rejection in face-to-face communication.However, speakers deploy other mechanisms for that purpose."Refusals should be most threatening to a requester's negative [and positive] face" (Johnson et al., 2004, p. 228).Therefore, interactants seek ways to mitigate threats when expressing refusals.
Based on our data, Jordanians utilize ostensible lies when they want to reject a proposal politely.Consider the conversation in (3)."She does not want to be involved in a relationship as she looks forward to completing her studies."

Example (3): Speakers
In the above dialogue, the two parties, "A" and "B," two close male friends, exchange a conversation that is similar to the marriage context of example 2. Party "B" admires a young lady and thinks about her constantly, but his low income has made him hesitant to approach her.Similar to example 2, in the Jordanian culture, it is believed that beauty comes first according to men's standards; however, a comfortable living wage is a priority for women planning on getting involved in a serious relationship.Party "A" builds up the courage to approach the lady whom he admires, then finds out that his doubts are confirmed through her responses as she uses the idea of pursuing her studies as an excuse, where in fact, marriage is never an obstacle to education.The young lady uses the "education pursuit" as a cover to politely escape the marriage proposal.
Rejection and ostensible lies intertwine to maintain social harmony and politeness.In Jordanian culture, ostensible lies allow individuals to politely refuse proposals or requests while mitigating potential threats to the requester's face wants.
In Jordanian culture, our data shows that ostensible lies are abundant in this context; when faced with a reprimand or with an on-record request for justification, Jordanians may ostensibly hide the truth.This occurs in situations where power relations are equal.That is, when friends reproach each other, excuses offered may line with ostensible lies.Consider the following scenario.
Example ( 4 'I swear everything just happened so quickly.' Example 4 portrays two parties, "A" and "B," conversing over a missed graduation party.Party "A" reproaches Party "B" in a friendly manner after not being invited to Party "B"'s graduation party.In contrast, party "B" gives a playful excuse in response to not inviting party "A." Party "A" knew all about the graduation party through pictures posted on social media that show that the party was fully prepared and was not "quick" as Party "B" responded to Party "A"'s reproach.Both interlocutors are fully aware of each other's intentions; Party "A" is sure that Party "B" is playful, as the pictures confirm, and Party "B" is positive that Party "A" must have seen the photos since they were posted without any privacy restrictions.
Expressing apologies in Jordanian culture can be a face-threatening encounter, prompting various strategies to mitigate this threat.Using ostensible lies among friends in situations of equal power relations is common, allowing for playful exchanges while maintaining social harmony.

Avoiding direct encounters
Arguments are face-threatening acts (Guan & Lee, 2017).Engaging in arguments often involves challenging or contradicting someone's beliefs, opinions, or actions, potentially damaging their face or social identity.Disagreement can lead to conflicts, hurt feelings, and a loss of face for those involved if not managed with sensitivity and respect (Brown et al., 1987;Locher, 2010).Lies can help minimize disagreements (Brown et al., 1987, p. 115;Walton, 1998).
Jordanians utilize ostensible lies in encounters that may lead to arguments.To minimize conversational turns around a certain topic, speakers may lie in their responses to questions.However, their lies are not meant to deceive.Even though a lie is evident, both conversants still collude and act as if it is true.See the following conversation as an illustrative example.
Example (5): Speaker A is a newly married wife to B. B got married to A after he broke up with his girlfriend.Another motivation for providing dishonest information is for a higher purpose, which is protecting the self and the household.That is why the husband, party "B," avoids the confrontation and brings up the past with his wife, party "A" in the example above.Although party "A" accepts party "B"'s answer, deep down, she is willing to live with the fact that party "B" has a history he refuses to disclose to her for reasons that protect both.Party "A" knows that it is unlikely for a handsome, decent, well-educated man of his age to have never been in a relationship before his marriage.
Arguments are inherently face-threatening acts, potentially damaging individuals' social identities and relationships.Consistent with the literature (Walton, 1998), to minimize disagreements and protect the self and others, individuals may employ ostensible lies in conversations, colluding with others to maintain harmony and avoid confrontations, as seen in the example provided.

Avoiding embarrassment
Embarrassment is a face-threatening act (Chang & Haugh, 2011;Oeldorf-Hirsch et al., 2017).When someone experiences embarrassment, it typically involves a public or social perception of their behavior, actions, or circumstances as deviating from societal norms or expectations.Embarrassment leads to a loss of face, often involving feelings of shame or inadequacy (Brown et al., 1987).
Another motivation for using ostensible lies is to express awareness of cultural norms and other regulations and to apologize indirectly for not meeting those norms.On certain occasions, like paying a visit, the visitor, in the Jordanian culture, is expected to bring a gift in the form of a pack of sweets or snacks if this person did not visit the other for an extended period.Due to the economic situation in Jordan, this cultural norm became a burden on the shoulders of some Jordanians.Jordanians may ostensibly lie to each other when they visit to avoid embarrassment.To illustrate this case, consider the following exchange.
Example (6): Speaker A is the brother of speaker B. Speaker A is stingy as he is passing through a challenging economic situation because he did not work for a year because of COVID.In the above example, party "A" visits Party "B" in his house.Upon Party "A"'s arrival, he tells Party "B" that he thought of getting some snacks for Party "B"'s children but decided to avoid the purchase, fearful that Party "B"'s children would have a sugar rush.Party "B" knows that Party "A" is stingy, and the reason he gave is untrue.Party "B" agrees with Party "A"'s excuse and responds mischievously.
Ostensible lies prevent embarrassment by indirectly acknowledging cultural norms or expectations and apologizing for not meeting them, as seen in the example where someone pretends to avoid bringing snacks to avoid the burden of fulfilling a cultural norm due to economic difficulties.

Abiding regulations
Failing to abide by regulations can be considered a face-threatening act (Brown et al., 1987), as it may lead to a negative social perception of one's behavior or actions.In such situations, individuals may resort to using ostensible lies as a strategy to mitigate the face-threatening nature of their actions.
For instance, to obey regulations, Jordanians may resort to ostensible lies to secure their jobs.This case appears in companies where the head and the staff are employees in the same company.The manager has to follow the company's regulations when granting leave permissions to those working under their supervision.Staff members may resort to ostensible lies when they want to abide by the rules, but, at the same time, they cannot do due to specific reasons.For instance, an employee who has run out of leaves must take a day off.Considering his leave record, the manager cannot grant them such permission.

Example (7):
A: weːn nivi:n kama:n mari:ḍa il-juːm Where Niveen also sick DEF-today 'Where is Niveen?Don't tell me she's sick again?' B: ma:xda ʔija:ze mard ʕ iyya Took.3SG leave sick 'She took (another) sick leave.' The example above shows a case of ostensibility and how sometimes the law could be misleading.This is the case with Niveen, Party "A," a department's secretary on campus.Niveen's department is very demanding in terms of workload; however, she missed many workdays and could not complete her assignments.She escapes these assignments by taking frequent sick leaves.Everyone in the department, including its head, knows that Niveen is faking the illness, but they cannot take action since she is taking her sick leave legally.
Non-compliance with regulations can damage one's social image, leading individuals to resort to ostensible lies to mitigate the negative perception.Some of the issues emerging from this finding relate specifically to power (Keating, 2009).Society, as a whole or a specific social institution within it, can exert power over individuals through various means, such as social norms, expectations, laws, and regulations.These power dynamics can shape and affect individual behavior, choices, and interactions in pragmatic contexts.This finding aligns with the literature (cf., Locher, 2010;Walton, 1998).Jin et al. (2022) state that "bragging is a speech act employed to construct a favorable self-image through positive statements about oneself."The motivations behind bragging, its effects on social interactions, and its interpretation can vary depending on various factors.Understanding the dynamics of bragging behavior contributes to our understanding of self-presentation and interpersonal communication (Hepper et al., 2010).

Bragging
In our data, it is noted that Jordanians may resort to ostensible lies to enhance their self-image when they face situations that expose their face to damage.This case appears abundantly clear when Jordanians respond to mischievous ostensible speech acts.We illustrate this pattern in two examples; the first shows an ostensible lie as a response to ostensible compliments, and the second shows a case of a response to offers/invitations.We can see how ostensible lies are portrayed in the above example when party "A" asks party "B" about the fancy coat party "B" is wearing.Party "A"'s friends know that Party "B" is obsessed with buying second-hand items from the thrift shops as she was spotted by one of Party "A"'s friends.
Party "A" cunningly attempts to embarrass Party "B" by complimenting her ostensibly.Party "B" read quickly what was in between the lines and prepared the ostensible lie of ordering the coat online.
Bragging is a speech act used to create a positive self-image.Jordanians may resort to ostensible lies to protect their self-image when faced with situations that could damage it.

Expressing annoyance
When speakers express annoyance, they perform a speech act to convey their displeasure or irritation about a certain situation or behavior.This act can serve various purposes, such as asserting boundaries, expressing dissatisfaction, or seeking a change in the behavior of others (Pavlenko & Pavlenko, 2006).
Another remarkable function of ostensible lies is when speakers express that they are annoyed and that they are no longer interested in continuing to respond to their conversants.This feature appears in discourse settings where speakers keep asking the same question, and their respondent gives the same answer.In this case, the person who is asking the question already knows the answer, but he/she keeps insisting that he/she needs continuous confirmation from the speaker.This type of conversation leads the speaker to give the opposite answer to the question that he already answered.
Example (9): A was telling his friends that he knows a person who will help him in getting a scholarship two weeks after applying.Party "B" in the following example was a mediocre student with a low GPA.However, his social and family connections helped him obtain a scholarship to one of the UK's top universities to pursue his master's degree.Everyone in his class knows very well that he is not the right candidate for such an opportunity.Sarcastically, party "A," asks Party "B" how he was able to get such a fine scholarship.Party "B" responds in a way as if his friends do not know who he truly is.Party "A" goes along with Party "B"'s response despite knowing that he obtained it in an unacceptable manner that could jeopardize the scholarship if the truth came out.
When expressing annoyance, speakers use speech acts to express dissatisfaction, assert boundaries, or seek a behavior change.In certain situations, speakers may use ostensible lies to express annoyance and disinterest since it is impolite to express their anger bluntly (Bousfield et al., 2008;Culpeper, 2016;Kecskes, 2015;Mills, 2009).

Recognizing ostensible lies
After presenting the functions of ostensible lies (see the Appendix for further examples), we analyze the properties that distinguish ostensible lies from genuine lies.In other words, we analyzed how our participants distinguish ostensible lies.
Based on our data, ostensible lies depend largely on shared experiences between participants.That is, the reason behind a lie is obvious to the listener by his/her prior knowledge of the speaker.For example, Speaker A knows Speaker B's real intention based on his knowledge of his circumstances.This type of information is not explicit; therefore, a pretense should be obvious for Speaker A based on the personal common ground between the two speakers.See the interaction again.In this instance, the participant reported that she knew earlier that her boyfriend had a girlfriend in the past, and he knows that she knows that because his ex-girlfriend saw them together many times, and she knows that he still loves her, but she passed away.The expression 'ħubbi: ʔil-ʔawwal w ʔal-ʔaxi:r "my first and last love" is a formulaic expression.Speaker A understands that she is not his first love, but she colludes with him as she knows that his first love has passed away.Thus, there is no need to raise this issue.In addition, prior knowledge can be based on communal common ground.That is, based on our knowledge of cultures; speakers reported their ability to tell ostensible lies.
Ostensible lies do not employ clear verbal-linguistic features because they are staged at a genuine level.However, there are certain linguistic features that show that the person is only pretending to lie.The first feature is hedging.A person attempts to hedge an utterance to make himself less committed to what he is saying.Let us reconsider this interaction.( 11 First, speaker A used kunt biddī "I wanted."Second, he presents the lie ʔadʒi:b maʕi: snaka:t l-al-ʔawla:d "brought snacks for the kids."Finally, he presents a statement that contradicts or justifies the reason that made him refrain from doing the action 'bas il-waʔt mitʔaxir bala:ʃ yhaybiru: "but it is late."Clarifying assertions that enable a speaker to justify his action is a sign that he is not telling the truth.However, at the same time, even though the lie is obvious, the speaker gives a signal for the listener to collude with this lie by showing the rationale that motivated him to do that bala:ʃ yhaybiru; "we don't want them to get hyperactive." Our participants reported that they could tell an ostensible lie from a genuine lie based on their direct observation of clear contextual signals.Because ostensible lies are fabricated narratives or behaviors, like ostensible invitations, ostensible liars show hesitation, pause while they speak, avoid eye contact, and smile repeatedly.While those are clear features that can help identify ostensible lies, they can overlap with genuine lies.Therefore, we argue that the most reliable signals of ostensible lies depend heavily on prior knowledge, that is the mutual common ground between speakers.
Therefore, we conclude that there is almost no difference between high-context and lowcontext cultures when extending ostensible lies.We attribute the reason, supported by our data, to pretense; that is, because ostensible lies are performed at a genuine level, which demands hiding real intentions, speakers refrain from using noticeable contextual features as much as possible.

Conclusion
In this study, we examined the functions of ostensible lies in the Jordanian culture.The study shows that ostensible lies in this culture are used for various functions, including implying formation, expressing refusal, extending apologies, apologizing anticipatory, abiding regulations and norms, bragging, and expressing annoyance.The study points out that Jordanians engineer their ostensible lies in a genuine-like manner.However, similar to other ostensible speech acts, ostensible invitations, and ostensible lies have remarkable features, which help the listener in perceiving those lies as ostensible.The features are based either on linguistic features, such as pauses, hesitations, hedging, and others, or on prior knowledge (common ground, which is represented as personal knowledge or cultural knowledge).
The study confirms Isaacs and Clark's (1990) proposal and shows that Walton's (1998) functions are applicable in the Jordanian culture; however, the study shows that power relations (contra Walton, 1998) are not a reliable measure for ostensible lies.The study shows that managers, who are, by virtue of their position, in higher status than regular employees, will collude with lowerstatus people if they are put in a corner where they must follow regulations even if their personal opinion of a matter is different from what the regulations demand (see the Abiding Regulation example).Therefore, the study concludes that ostensible speech acts, specifically ostensible lies, appear extensively with equal-status people.Still, they can also appear in interactions where those in power are forced to collude in a pretense.
A and B are males around 22 years old.Speaker B is an introvert and shy person.Speaker A knows that and keeps bullying Speaker A.
): Speakers A and B are friends with distal friendship ties.Speaker A reproaches speaker B because he did not invite him to his graduation party.
have brought the kids some snacks, but it is late, and we don't want them to get hyperactive.'