Exploring De-Pragmatization as a Language Enrichment Strategy with Reference to Iraqi Arabic

This study deals with having the pragmatic force of a given expression be lost under certain processes of de-contextualization, conventionalization and abstraction. This phenomenon is introduced under the term ‘de- pragmatization’. It is addressed as a broad strategy that enriches language with new contexts of use for expressions that already exist in different contexts. The phenomenon in question is tested via selected expressions from Iraqi Arabic, as an objective to explore the strategies of de-pragmatization to borrow new contexts through certain strategies such as semantic erosion, formalization, institutionalization, disambiguation, simplification, elimination of the cultural aspects, loss of context, literalization, avoiding pragmatic markers, and abstractions. The de-pragmatized expressions can be identified with such features as recontextualization, minimizing illocutionary load, conventional meaning, frequent use, and used by people of influence. This process plays a key role in shaping language and future communication modes as it can be viewed as a significant indicator of a language’s adaptability and responsiveness to societal paradigm shifts.

Introduction

De-pragmatization is discussed as a process of losing the pragmatic forces of a given utterance through different semantic processes (Clark & Titov, 2016). Such semantic processes can lead to enriching language with new vocabulary and contexts of use having the inventories of language vitally increased (Netzeret al., 2019). As a way of cycling pragma-linguistic items, the phenomenon in question is to be explored to argue that it serves as a broad language enrichment strategy. This strategy is investigated by setting stages of the process of how a pragmatic force is lost by the impact of certain semantically conventionalized stages such as the loss of original context, the conventional frequent use of a given utterance and the abstraction from the cultural as well as social context.

Such an exploration can unravel the question of how language gets as fast as it changes and globalized in terms of receiving relevantly new contexts, structures, metaphors and the like. Setting the scene deals with the history of where the given utterance starts and how it obtains the changes that leads it to the current de-pragmatized situation.

Certain Iraqi representative utterances are selected to trace the sub-processes leading to de-pragmatized utterances to be conventional semantic expressions. A relevant account is given about how such expressions are pragmatized under specific contextual factors.

As far as language enrichment strategies are concerned, this strategy is an attempt to provide insight that could be used when addressing the issues of language enrichment and development, not to mention the relevantly new concept of globalization, i.e., where new de-pragmatized utterances are commonly used among the language speakers.

It is deemed to set certain observations and notes to be as guidelines or frameworks to analyze the process of de-pragmatization. This can be managed through the analysis of a considerable amount of data, focusing on the processes or sub-processes and transitioning towards the most significant linguistic strategies used to de-pragmatized the utterances and to turn them into semantically oriented expressions.

Language is a dynamic and ever-evolving facet of human communication, shaped not only by its structural components but also by the socio-cultural context in which it is used (Wilson, 2012). Within the framework of language development and enhancement, one intriguing avenue of study is “de-pragmatization”–the process of abstracting language from its immediate pragmatic context to analyze its structural intricacies and uncover its underlying linguistic features. This approach, often employed in linguistic research, can shed light on the unique linguistic attributes of Iraqi Arabic, offering valuable insights into its syntax, morphology, and semantics. In this exploration, we delve into the concept of de-pragmatization as a language enrichment strategy, with a specific focus on Iraqi Arabic, aiming to unravel the linguistic treasures hidden within this dialect and better understand its linguistic intricacies.

Pragmatization

Utterances always go through several stages of contextualization to have different communicative values in order to serve pragmatic ends. Such a process is referred to as pragmatization, i.e., the process where an utterance acquires a pragmatic illocutionary force (Crystal, 2008; Jubair, 2023; Whaley, 1997). Certain new contexts might yield through such a process in that meaning is enlarged and attached.

There are specific strategies as discussed by Jubair (2023, p. 13) that lead to the process of having any utterance pragmatized. Cognitively speaking, Sperber and Wilson (1986) argue that utterances are pragmatized through socio-cognitive and cultural mechanisms that build relevance among utterances and their communicative contexts.

Contextualization, as a process of relating context to different utterances to produce various levels of meaning, is the cornerstone of pragmatization (Andersen & Risør, 2014); all the contextual cues that could load variety of communicative values to an utterance are to be taken into account when dealing with both processes of pragmatization and/or de-pragmatization. The contextual cues, following Ducharme and Bernard (2001), play a crucial role in determining whether a given utterance is loaded with pragmatic force or not.

According to Jubair (2022, pp. 8–12), the process of pragmatization is constructed within three sequential stages as follows:

1. The social construction of meaning as proposed by Whaley (1997) states that it is a process of meaning negotiation between the speaker and the listener after a common ground of the utterances is given.
2. The conventionalization stage includes the sub-process of contextualized common ground where it becomes globalized among speakers and listeners from similar contexts to produce a general meaning that is agreed upon (Wray, 2002).
3. The third stage is that of pragmatic generalization. In this stage, new contexts imply new interpretations of the given utterances; meanings which are different from their conventional pragmatic ones. This represents the peak of the process of pragmatization (Gries, 2015). However, the process of conventionalization is inevitably inescapable here. It can impose certain processes through the conventionalized use of the contexts. It can lead to semantic bleaching, erosion, change in using metaphors, cultural shifts and de-contextualization of the utterances. Here, language receives new contexts of use, i.e., new utterances to have new interpretations. These can turn the meaning of the utterance from context-sensitive into context-free utterance, namely, it does not need a pragmatic context to unravel its meaning. This process, as to be discussed in this paper, is referred to as de-pragmatization.

De-Pragmatization

Following the process of conventionalization of a given context, variation in cultural, linguistic, and social landscapes due to certain factors have the intended meaning of a given utterance lose its pragmatic forces (Clark & Titov, 2016).

This process is referred to as de-pragmatization, i.e., the opposite of the process of pragmatization. It deals with the conditions under which the utterance loses its pragmatic meaning and becomes a conventional, semantic one, following Netzeret al. (2019).

There are several processes when pragmatic illocutions are conventionalized to become semantically acceptable.

These are as follows: Semantic erosion: This process is referred to as where an expression is gradually conventionalized changed or lost in terms of its meaning and/or interpretation. It happens with to certain kinds of shifts in culture and/or language use. The word “literally”, for example, is used to mean “exactly”. However, the same word, nowadays, means very. This means that it is changed into an intensifier. Iraqi Arabic, for example, the expression [shuwaya] meaning “little amount” loses its precision to be some amount okay and here we follow Jubair and Abdulraheem (2021) words on move why English want and can’t sit still like literary. Formalization: This strategy refers to the change of a pragmatic meaning from being used in colloquial or informal style into a formal style with a fixed meaning that can be used by all speakers of a given language with the need for a specific context of use. The utterance, for example, “at the end of the day” is commonly used formally and informally to pragmatically mean to sum up. However, it is widely used in speed in speech and formal situations for example Iraqi national had it is going well or it’s going far fine. It is also informal while the former context of business used to use search and expression. Institutionalization: A pragmatic allocution can be turned from a principle into a rule or regulation that should be followed in the official and standard settings of the utterance. “Thank you”, for example, is usually used to pragmatically refer to deference, politeness and so on. Yet, over time, it is institutionalized to be used as a gesture to the social etiquette in institutions for example in Iraqi Arabic we use “ya habibi” which actually means sir or madam. Disambiguation: The pragmatic ambiguous utterances result from ambiguous contexts ambiguous common background or common ground between the speaker and the listener (Heritage & Raymond, 2005). For instance, the utteraance “that’s interesting” tend to be genuine or polite to reject the idea of being interesting the same with the Iraqi saying and “inshallah”, following the justification of Jubair (2022) regarding explanations of the highly coded implicatures. Certain and ambiguous utterances give pragmatic force and dimensions when interpreting the meaning once such utterances are disambiguated, their pragmatic illocutions become naturalized and conventionalized to be used semantically as Brown and Levinson (1987) and Grice (1975) remarked. Jubair and Abdulraheem (2021) remarks on such a phrase although mostly pragmatically used to set the ambiguity of the speaker’s commitment to do something however this disambiguating it pragmatically leads to lose of its pragmatic force, for example, we say (Mako mishkila) ‘no problem’ while in fact it is totally a problem. Simplifying the pragmatic utterances Pragmatically issued utterances sometimes need to be simplified especially when dealing with macro pragmatics, that’s to say, certain pragmatic utterances are loaded with coded implicatures that need a wide knowledge of the various contexts to be interpreted as remarked by (Jubair & Abdulraheem, 2021). Eckert (2018) discusses that to interpret pragmatic utterances, certain contextual factors are required to be mentioned so that they can be easily analyzed and interpreted by most listeners with various social and cultural backgrounds (ibid). Elimination of cultural aspects Pragmatically oriented utterances lose their illocutionary force and become more neutralized. When cultural aspects are eliminated as language heavily relies on culture. This is manifested a lot in translating proverbs such as translating or modifying proverbs such as the English proverb he hits the nail on the head which can after eliminating the cultural aspects which translated into he was totally accurate. To fully interpret utterances, de-pragmatization is required, especially when meaning is highly reliant on contextual cues that are not linguistically oriented. Here, utterances are to be reinterpreted, following Seale’s (1996) speech act theory and Grice (1975). Loss of original context Some pragmatically intended utterances are misinterpreted at the level of contextual factors and could lead to accomplished in your interpretation, which is different from the speaker’s intention. However, the original context is lost and the pragmatic intention is de-pragmatized.

Other semantic processes can yield the pragmatically oriented utterances to lose their illocutionary force, i.e., losing the contexts where they are specifically employed. These are going to be discussed in the following section.

Semantic De-Pragmatization Processes

As far as the semantic strategies and other strategies of de-pragmatization processes and general, other strategies could strip or minimize the pragmatic implications of utterances. These strategies can be listed as follows:

Literalization

This strategy is used when speakers or listeners refer to the literal meaning of an utterance regardless of whether the intention of pragmatic intention is or up this can lead to the conventionalized conventionalization of the language in use and consequently abstracting the pragmatic intention and turn it into editorial meaning in certain contexts (Gumperz, 1982).

Avoidance of Pragmatic Markers

Gumperz (1982) focuses on the use of para-pragmatic cues to a given utterance such as facial expressions variety of intonation or tone and the like avoiding such markers could minimize the pragmatic force of the utterances and turn the given utterances into the literal meaning or at least the simple context to be understood semantically at least.

Abstraction

Following Swales (1990) and Hyland and Tse (2004) regarding using this strategy of abstraction pragmatic force can be weakened or lost when the intention is only to convey an utterance whose pragmatic illocution is of no use.

Language Enrichment

Different sources and strategies add to language new words items phrases, sentences and so on such as lexical diversity that indicates new words contribute to the lexicon. Other strategies can be represented by the precision in communication, which refers to facilitating the reduced pragmatic meaning and so on and so forth. Cognitive and Academic advantages refer to the development of a cognitive system to enrich the language or to the richness of language (Dehaeneet al., 2015). It can be seen as a social impact following Labov (2001) and Crystal (2000) due to moving from one place to another and cultural integration among groups are society.

Language enrichment is composed of certain elements as follows:

1. Vocabulary expansion: here new linguistic items are coined from the expressions of language through correlation among words sentences and so forth.
2. Syntactic complexities: Bloomet al. (1993) and Gibbons (2002) remark that developing syntactic structures may result in providing language within your vocabulary pragmatic and understanding.
3. Pragmatic understanding refers to providing and coining totally new context to language that automatically produces new utterances, sentences, phrases words and so on for two given languages (Kasper & Rose, 2002) and discussed the intercultural pragmatic competence they detect with the issue of how pragmatics adds to language. They conclude that contextualized and/or decontextualized contexts lead to enriching language with new modes of using meaning-given language. Why does the scope of Jews involve language in a broader sense in different situations that can be interpreted differently?

Method

The instrument of the analysis is to develop a model of analysis which is based on three parameters as follows:

1. Describing the selected data in accordance with the identifying features introduced in the study.
2. Discussing how the given utterances undergo the three stages toward de-pragmatization.
3. The most effective strategies that are employed with the three stages leading to the de-pragmatized utterance or the semantically oriented utterances.

Afterward, five of the data selected for analysis are analyzed to confirm the workability of the model and give brief insight for the sake of argument and discussion section. Discussing the results and commenting on the analyzed five data.

Model of Analysis

The present model of analysis is applied to the data selected, described and analyzed.

Identifying Features

With reference to the definition that has been introduced above, the following features can be regarded as identifying features to the de-pragmatization of a given expression the use of expression best fits here as sometimes it is a word a phrase or even a part of a sentence:

1. Re-contextualization The utterance is re-contextualized, meaning that it is lost throughout certain semantic process. Its usual context is rendered to be context-free. This keeps semantic meaning only.
2. Minimizing illocutionary load This feature renders only one semantic interpretation of a given utterance after it is decontextualized.
3. Conventional meaning In this feature, the existence of context is regarded as a conventionalized one which is closer to lexical interpretation than pragmatic one.
4. Frequent use One pragmatic expression is frequently used by almost all people and then conventionalized to be used under and interpreted easily and conventionally here the pragmatic force is lost.
5. It is used by people of influence first when this is used by almost all the people of influence, namely, the people in power in its semantic, or the convention and its conventional meaning then it loses its pragmatic allocution.

The above-mentioned features can yield de-pragmatized expressions i.e., expressions through using them by people of influence more slightly to run the meaning conventional the selection mechanism to be followed in data selection is based on these five identifying criteria.

Stages

The stages are represented by de-contextualization, conventionalization, and abstraction (Fig. 1). As discussed above, the utterance goes though the three aforesaid stages.

Fig. 1. Stages of the process de-pragmatization.

Strategies

These are represented by semantic erosion, formalization, institutionalization, disambiguation, simplification, elimination of the cultural aspects, loss of context, literalization, avoiding pragmatic markers, and abstractions. These strategies will lead to the de-pragmatized utterances where they are conventionalized and then they are represented as new utterances, new expressions, new context, and new contextual factors adding up to the language and finally enriching the language of any given language according to any given culture and given context and given a new context.

Fig. 2 illustrates the strategies that are combined to cover the selected data to be analyzed.

Fig. 2. Strategies of de-pragmatization.

Putting together the identifying features, the stages and strategies of de-pragmatization, the selected data are to be analyzed accordingly.

Certain representative utterances are selected from Iraqi Arabic. The representative utterances or expressions are commented on in terms of the origin from where it is brought or at least who has first used it, and their particular de-pragmatized context.

Afterwards, the selected expressions are traced along with the stages and the strategies of the process of de-pragmatization i.e., commenting on the contextual cues that turn its elocutions into conventionalized meaning where anyone without any context can easily interpret the identifying features as mentioned above are employed aspects to identify the data to be analyzed and commented on. These are mentioned along with the selected expressions all together expressions when they are spoken and already written so that all discussions can be discussions conversations and discourse and punctuation elements are taken into account as they play a considerable role in interpreting the expressions pragmatically and or semantically.

Having done that the yielded expressions that’s to say the conventionalized utterances are tested against language enrichment strategies to state the newly coming utterances to language.

Data Analysis

Data selected to be analyzed are fifteen expressions and/or utterances that are used by Iraqi Arabic speakers, all taken from the spoken context, such as listed in Table I. Only five of them are selected to be analyzed and interpreted according to the most effective and frequent strategies of use. The remaining ten utterances are only mentioned in Table I in order to save space and stay out of the monotonous tone in the paper as a whole.

Table I. Data Description

No.	The Iraqi depragmatized expression			Identifying features
	Iraqi Arabic	Romanized	Translated
1.		zimam almubadara	The lead	Used by people of influence
2.		taraf thalith	Third party	Used by people of influence
3.		rube allah	People of God	Conventional meaning
4.		hawasim	Looters	Conventional meaning, Re-contextualization
5.		shuya shwy	Bit by bit	Conventional meaning
6.		jukaria	Jokers	Used by people of influence
7.		tishrini	October protesters	Minimizing illocutionary load
8.		ibn alsifara	Sons of embassies	Minimizing illocutionary load, Re-contextualization
9.		aibna’ albaethiaat	Sons of female Baathists	Used by people of influence, Re-contextualization
10.		alshaayib	The old man	Conventional meaning
11.		mashi alhal	It’s o.k.	Conventional meaning, Re-contextualization
12.		yahabibi	My love	Conventional meaning, Re-contextualization
13.		Inshallah	Hopefully	Conventional meaning, Re-contextualization
14.		lajdhib	Really?!	Frequent use, Re-contextualization
15.		dawlat alarjintin	State of Argentina	Frequent use, Re-contextualization

Having listed the selected data in Table I, now five of them are analyzed according to the strategies and the framework introduced in this study. Each of these expressions is tested against the three stages of de-pragmatization and then the strategies used to de-pragmatized tbe given expression.

(zimam almubadara) [The Lead]

Regarding the stage of contextualization, the original utterance is situated in a specific context that provides meaning and illocutionary force. This expression is first issued by an influential figure in society, In this case, “the lead” might have originated in a particular setting with a specific purpose or intention.

As far as the stage of conventionalization, the utterance becomes conventionalized acquiring a more fixed or standardized meaning within a community or culture. This can lead to a shared understanding of its illocutionary force.

In the third stage of abstraction, all the specific details about the contextual cues are removed and abstracted. This results in a broad interpretation the expression in question, losing some of the nuanced/pragmatics details present in the original context.

Concerning the strategies employed here, three strategies are used. These are represented by the loss of original context, avoiding pragmatic markers and abstraction.

In terms of losing the original context, the expression in question is used in different contexts that are irrelevant the context which is pragmatically oriented. As for the strategy of avoiding pragmatic markers, speakers use this expression without any further contextual cues or pragmatic markers such as the para-linguistic cues, a matter that leaves it semantically used. This can justify the abstraction strategy as it is no more pragmatically used. The de-pragmatized expression can add to the inventory of language a new expression, meaning a new meaning to the same expression.

“” (taraf thalith) [Third Party]

At the contextualization stage, the utterance “” is first used in the demonstrations of October 2019 in Iraq when the government could not control the killing of the demonstrators. The government, then, attributed the killing to a third party which is unknown, as a strategy to escape the liability. Afterwards, Iraqi Arabic speakers use this utterance as a way to pragmatized whatever they intend not to state a third person. Soon, the utterance “third party” becomes a conventionalized expression used when the speaker wants to hide the identity of someone.

Accordingly, the first stage of conventionalization is represented by the common use of the expression by most of the speakers. The more it is used, the more abstracted from its sensitive context it becomes. As for the third stage of formalization, it is used by Iraqi Arabic speakers without at all the public as well as institutional places.

This utterance, which turns to be semantically oriented expression, underwent several strategies of de-pragmatization such as semantic erosion, abstraction and recontextualization.

“” (hawasim) [Looters]

Upon Sammad’s regime, each battle is given a name. As far as the U.S, forces entered Baghdad, Saddam authorities named the ballet Hawasim [the Final Battle], indicating that this is the final battle in which Saddam finishes the U.S. forces and obtains victory. However, the reality was totally different. U.S. troops entered Baghdad and ousted Saddam. Looters from everywhere started to loot the Iraqi possessions. Those looters were pragmatically named Hawasim. By the passage of time and the frequent use by common people, this expression becomes more conventional and recontextualized with the meaning of the person who rob Iraqi state facilities.

To analyze how this utterance undergoes de-pragmatization through the identified stages and strategies, the three sub-processes are illustrated below:

Initially, the utterance may be rich in contextual information. Contextualization involves embedding the utterance within a specific context or situation. The intentional meaning of being a looter is lost through conventionalization. Over time, the utterance may become conventionalized, losing some of its original context-bound meaning. It starts to acquire a more general and accepted interpretation. As the utterance moves away from specific contexts and becomes more generalized, it undergoes abstraction, a term often involves extracting it from concrete situations.

As for the strategies used, semantic erosion, loss of context, formalization and avoiding the use of any pragmatic marker. therefore, the de-pragmatization of this expression contains involves a series of processes that disconnect it from its original illocutionary force.

The Utterance “” (jukaria) [Joker]

This term was first used in the demonstrations of October 2019 in Iraq in which the people in power coined this term to refer to foreign parties that lobby the Iraqi young people to go out in the demonstrations. Pragmatically speaking, the illocutionary force is a speech act of accusation, but it is soon conventionalized. It underwent a process of de-pragmatization through various stages and strategies.

In the contextualization stage, the original utterance likely had a specific context or cultural reference that provided its meaning. Without this context, the utterance may become ambiguous or lose its intended illocutionary force.

As the utterance becomes conventionalized and abstracted, it moves away from its original, context-dependent meaning. It becomes a more general and potentially ambiguous term, losing the specific illocutionary force associated with the original context.

This expression underwent the process of semantic erosion, as a strategy which involves the gradual loss of meaning with the passage of time. This led to a reduction in the richness of its original meaning, making it more susceptible to misinterpretation or a loss of illocutionary force.

Convincingly, pragmatic markers are avoided and emphasis is put on abstractions in order to contribute to de-pragmatization by stripping away the subtle cues and markers that conveyed the illocutionary force in the original context.

In short, the de-pragmatization of (jukaria) is a complex process involving multiple stages and strategies that collectively distance the term from its original illocutionary force and contextual richness, a matter that adds to the richness of language.

“” (tishrini) [October Individual]

This is an Arabic term used in the protests and demonstrations of October 2019. It is used first by the people in power and the political analysts and others of relevance. The expression pragmatically refers to those protestors whom the government is not pleased with. Afterwards, the use of the term in question is conventionalized to be semantically employed.

The stages that this term goes through are as follows:

In the stage of conventionalization, its original context is lost and its pragmatic illocutionary force is minimized. Serves as an expression of the speaker turning 20 years old.

In the conventionalized stage, the utterance may become conventionalized, detached from its original context, and abstracted from the speaker’s personal intention to be used by anyone speaker. It starts to acquire a more general and conventional meaning.

As the term becomes more widely used, it may undergo formalization, taking on a standardized and structured form that loses the nuances and personal aspects of the original context.

The utterance becomes even institutionalized, i.e., used in formal or institutional places where the personal and emotional aspects associated with it are diminished, and the expression becomes more of a social convention.

All in all the pragmatic utterance “” (tishrini) undergoes a process of de-pragmatization through stages like conventionalization, formalization, disambiguation, simplification, and the elimination of personal and cultural elements. The result is a more abstract and context-free expression of age that loses its original illocutionary force.

Argument and Discussion

De-pragmatization, as shown by the analysis of the data, contains a number of strategies beyond mere lexical changes. It encompasses the gradual transition of the utterances from their usual pragmatic interpretations to abstract and/or conventionalized forms. Para-linguistic cues, alongside words and expressions, can contribute to this process, in a way of illustrating the multi-faceted nature of de-pragmatization.

Languages employ diverse strategies to de-pragmatize utterance, a matter that can be highlighted in the data which have been analyzed. Different strategies can be employed to produce de-pragmatized utterances. Beyond words and expressions, the de-pragmatization scope extends to broader domains.

To analyze the de-pragmatized utterances, it is vital to deal with the history of the give utterance in terms of how it is first used with the usual meaning, how it has got new contextual cues and finally how it becomes conventional or abstract.

The de-pragmatized data can be either words, expressions, utterances where paralinguistic cues are involved, as examining how an utterance initially emerged, acquired new contextual cues, and finally attained conventionality or abstraction paints a compelling narrative of linguistic transformation. Tracing this trajectory for specific examples within your research framework would strengthen your claims.

Regarding the proposed sub-processes: contextual reduction, semantic extension, and conventionalization, each process is illustrated and exemplified with concrete examples drawn from the data that have been analyzed and commented on. This explores the interplay and temporal sequence of these sub-processes as they provide a nuanced understanding and interpretation of the process of de-pragmatization.

Most importantly, the data analysis has shown that the newly de-pragmatized utterances are new additions to the meaning of language. This, in one way or another, can yield new utterances to the language. That can be considered as language enrichment strategy.

The process of de-pragmatization is a highly significant one when it comes to language change and relation between signified and significant. It shed the light on how language changes over the time of use and misuse of a given utterance. In other words, it deals with the process of how the utterance is conventionalized, abstracted from its pragmatic interpretations and globalized to be used by all language speakers.

It is a merit that de-pragmatization leads to new meanings and expressions in language as it is highly promising. The more these are explored in terms of how these newly-formed, de-pragmatized utterances enrich the expressiveness of a language, the newer contexts are produced and language expanse. Such expansion influences lexicon, syntax, and even figurative language.

This positions de-pragmatization as a key strategy of language change. As a way of studying this process is to shed light on the complex relationship between content and form. On the other hand, reinterpretation, often is subjected to “errors,” a matter that can actually drive creative evolution in language.

Conclusion

Having the things discussed above, the present paper has come up with the following conclusions:

1. The process of de-pragmatization is a dynamic strategy that is a multifaceted mechanism that has contains the power of reshaping language evolution.
2. Abstracting the context-dependent meanings and conventionalizing it via semantic extension, it adds new contexts to languages, as it expands vocabularies, gives birth to new expressions, and even influences grammatical structures.
3. In terms of pragmatization, the process of de-pragmatization opens the door to how certain utterances with a given socio-cultural environment can give pragmatic force or take away pragmatic force from the utterances.
4. Studying the way that the same form acquires various meanings, which depend on contextual and historical evolution, provides insights into the dynamic nature of the process of meaning-making. This focuses on the intricate connection between the linguistic form, social context, and individual interpretation.
5. The process of de-pragmatization is not to be viewed as merely a negative process of language decay. However, it has the role of shaping language and future communication modes. De-pragmatization can be viewed as a significant indicator of a language adaptability and responsiveness to societal paradigm shifts.
6. The analysis of the data encompasses implications beyond linguistics that offer significant insights into broader cultural and social transformations. Examining how language reflects and shapes social norms, power dynamics, and technological advancements can provide valuable information for diverse fields like sociology, anthropology, and communication studies.
7. The Iraqi Arabic is a considerable representative of the process of de-pragmatization as significant strategies, contextual cues and the three sub-processes of the phenomenon in question are met.