Question
Could we observe morphosyntactic transfer from the spoken to the written varieties in Arabic diglossia? Do the grammar of Spoken Arabic and Standard Arabic co-exist in the same system in mind? Or are they separate?
Abstract
Our study focuses on bringing evidence from the Qatari spoken Arabic, a grammatical resumption language, the effect of both spoken Arabic dialects on reading Modern standard Arabic phrases. To implicate, we generate different resumptive pronoun sentences and collect data through a grammaticality judgment test, including grammatical and ungrammatical resumptive pronoun sentences in MSA.
Areas of Literature Review
- Diglossia
- the status of Resumption in MSA
- Optionality
- language processing
- Qatari grammatical resumption dialect.
- All sentences have definite relative clauses (allaði/allati). Which has a counterpart (illi) in the Qatari Arabic dialect.
- Qatari Arabic dialect must have definite relative clauses.
- The relative complementizer in Arabic (standard and dialects) is invariable (must be there) regardless of whether the base position is a locative, subject, or object.
Alotaibi & Borsley (2013) discuss the analysis of “Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) within the framework of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG).” They provide data demonstrating that MSA features phonologically empty resumptive pronouns and gaps in some situations. By establishing that gaps and empty resumptive pronouns are realizations of SLASH, the study describes an HPSG analysis of the data. Additionally, the same research examines coordination information and the interpretation of subordinate sentences that the complementizer anna’ introduces. Their research significantly contributes to our understanding of the morphosyntactic transition in Arabic diglossia between spoken and written varieties and the grammatical variations between spoken and standard Arabic.
Alotaibi & Borsley’s (2013) research provides insight into a morphosyntactic transfer from the spoken to the written varieties of Arabic diglossia and the grammatical distinctions between “spoken and standard Arabic.” Alotaibi and Borsley (2013) also discuss the importance of understanding the differences between “spoken and standard Arabic.” They argue that it is essential to be aware of the distinct grammars of the two varieties and that they may co-exist in the same system in mind. This is especially important when considering the morphosyntactic transfer from the spoken to the written varieties in Arabic diglossia. The source also highlights the need for further research into the area and the complexities of Modern Standard Arabic. This source is crucial to this study as it offers valuable insight into Resumption in Arabic diglossia.
Another study by Al-Aqarbeh and Sprouse examines the effects of island phenomena in Jordanian Arabic and the role of Resumption in ameliorating these effects. Al-Aqarbeh & Sprouse first provide a brief overview of Jordanian Arabic’s phonological and morphosyntactic features and then describe the experimental setup and methodology. According to the study, Resumption ameliorates island effects (Al-Aqarbeh, R., & Sprouse). Specifically, they found that Resumption was used to fill in missing constituents in questions and when constituents were stranded in the middle of a sentence. Furthermore, they found that the Resumption of a subject pronoun was preferred over an object pronoun when resolving island constraints. Also, they found that Resumption is used to reduce the syntactic distance between a pronoun and its antecedent and that it is used to maintain the grammatical structure of the sentence. The authors’ findings support that Resumption facilitates island effects in Jordanian Arabic.
Furthermore, the authors’ findings contribute to the growing body of research on the role of Resumption in Arabic diglossia, which uses two varieties of Arabic in different contexts (Al-Aqarbeh, R., & Sprouse). This study provides evidence that the grammars of spoken and written varieties of Arabic are not entirely separate but may be in a state of dynamic exchange. Therefore, Resumption may be used to bridge the gap between the two varieties of Arabic. The notion of Arabic diglossia has been studied extensively, and the role of Resumption in mediating the two varieties of Arabic has been a particular focus.
The study by Al-Aqarbeh & Sprouse (2020) investigated how resumption functions in Jordanian Arabic to ameliorate island effects. The authors found that Resumption was used to fill in missing constituents in questions and when constituents were stranded in the middle of a sentence. Furthermore, they found that the Resumption of a subject pronoun was preferred over an object pronoun when resolving island constraints. Additionally, the authors showed that Resumption reduces the syntactic distance between a pronoun and its antecedent and maintains the sentence’s grammatical structure.
The findings of Al-Aqarbeh & Sprouse (2020) provide important insights into the processing of Resumption in Arabic diglossia. The authors’ findings suggest that Resumption helps bridge the gap between the “spoken and written varieties of Arabic.” Moreover, their findings prove that the grammars of “spoken and written varieties of Arabic” are not entirely separate but may be in a state of dynamic exchange. This is an essential insight for researchers studying the role of Resumption in Arabic diglossia. Furthermore, their findings contribute to the growing research on resumption processing in Arabic diglossia and its implications for language acquisition.
Aoun et al. (2013) discuss the different forms and uses of sentential negation in Modern Standard Arabic and modern Arabic dialects. The article explains the differences between the two varieties, particularly in tense and agreement. It also looks at the interaction between negative markers and negative polarity items. Aoun et al. (2013) provide a detailed analysis of the two forms of negation, how they interact with the verb and how they are realized in different dialects. The source also explores the agreement paradigms of negative and positive imperatives and harmful particles’ syntactic and pragmatic properties. This article is essential to research sentential negation as it provides a comprehensive overview of the syntax of negation in Modern Standard Arabic and the Modern Arabic dialects.
Abdel-razaq also looked at the Resumption and optionality of Arabic definite restrictive relatives in another study. According to Abdel-Razzaq, resumptive pronouns in genuine restricted relations show the morphosyntactic transition from spoken to written Arabic. The study examines two varieties of Arabic: Moroccan Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) (Abdel-razaq, 2020). In MSA, resumptive pronouns are not necessary for definite restrictive relative clauses, whereas, in Moroccan Arabic, they are often used. The article then discusses the implications of this morphosyntactic transfer and examines whether the grammars of spoken and written Arabic exist in the same system in mind. The transmission of morphosyntactic traits from spoken to written Arabic, according to Abdel-razaq, is not the consequence of one grammar affecting the other. Instead, he contends that the two varieties of Arabic, MSA and Moroccan, are unique and independent.
Lastly, another study by Alghamdi (2020) examines the use of resumptive pronouns in Baha Arabic, a dialect of Arabic spoken in Saudi Arabia. The study focuses on the morphosyntax of resumptive pronouns, optional constructions that can refer to a verb’s subject. Through an experiment, the study found that Baha Arabic speakers have a different understanding of resumptive pronouns than speakers of other varieties of Arabic. Alghamdi’s (2020) study is relevant to the research topic as it shows how the grammar of Spoken Arabic and Standard Arabic can co-exist in the same system in mind and that morphosyntactic transfer between these two varieties is possible.
Chapter 4, “Acceptability of RPs in Baha Arabic Wh-dependencies,” this research studies the acceptability of resumptive pronouns in Baha Arabic. It found that resumptive pronouns are preferred in Baha Arabic wh-dependencies, which suggests that Baha Arabic speakers have a different understanding of resumptive pronouns than speakers of other varieties of Arabic. Furthermore, the study indicates that resumptive pronouns in Baha Arabic reflect a morphosyntactic transfer between the spoken and written varieties of Arabic in the region. This suggests that the grammar of Spoken Arabic and Standard Arabic can co-exist in the same system in mind and that morphosyntactic transfer between these two varieties is possible. Resumptive pronouns were also found to be more prevalent in spoken form than in written form, providing more proof of this morphosyntactic transfer. The usage of resumptive pronouns in Baha Arabic and its consequences for resuming processing in Arabic diglossia is thus thoroughly examined in Alghamdi’s (2020) study.
Diglossia
Diglossia is a term used when two dialects (two varieties of one language) are used in the same community. The high variety (the standard-formal) of this language is used for writing, and it is learned in schools, the other variety is used for speech (colloquial-informal) or the low variety. Children who are raised in such communities naturally acquire the low variety as their native language. This is because the low variety is used often for example in home, streets, with friends etc but the high variety is used in formal lectures, TV broadcast, courts, public speaking and higher education.
One example for diglossia is the differences between standard and Qatari Arabic, standard and Moroccan Arabic and lots of other varieties with different circumstances in each. However, both varieties share similar vocabularies but in the same time they are very different, the low variety lacks standardization, you can’t find it in formal documents or formal speeches as opposite of the high variety where you can find them easily, the high variety is also standardized in dictionaries and other traditional sources. The phonologies of the high and low variety range from being very similar to extremely different. We assume that both varieties of any language will overlap in the brain.
A study made by (Hamad Abdullah), clarifies the notion of acquisition in diglossia, saying that a child grows and learns the low variety (colloquial) as his native language, afterwards, when the child is exposed to the standard variety of the language (H), he acquires it as a foreign language. This is because the learner switches from the linguistic system of his colloquial dialect (L) to the standard variety (H), which both are different in terms of the grammar, lexicon and sometimes the phonological system. The (L) grammar system is easier and more simplified than the (H) grammar system.
Methodology And Data
The Choice of Method
Participants
To conduct this experiment a total of 240 participants participated. 120 were Qatari dialect Arabic speakers and a 120 were Moroccan Arabic dialect speakers. All participants were first language Arabic speakers who are educated and are exposed to MSA.
The experiment was online based which allowed us to reach out to both genders. Almost all Qatari Arabic speaking participants were based in Qatar however the Moroccan participants were mostly participating from Morocco.
Age, gender, and education were not controlled in this experiment. However, all participants were of ages 20 or above. To ensure that the sample participating in the experiment is representative of both the Moroccan and Qatari Arabic varieties, while also being able to read and understand written MSA. In addition to being a university student as their least requirement. Participants were able to complete the task from.
Materials
We used a Latin square design to create 12 randomized lists each list containing 20 different sentences. 10 of which include critical acceptable sentences (Resumption) and 10 critical violation sentences (without Resumption). For both critical conditions half the sentences are masculine, and the other half are feminine. In addition to the 20 critical sentences each set will have an identical set of 20 sentences. 10 of them being grammatical, and 10 ungrammatical sentences. A total of 240 sentences were tested by Qatari speakers.
The sentences were divided into four different categories, 60 feminine sentences with resumptive pronouns, 60 feminine sentences without Resumption, 60 masculine sentences with Resumption and the last 60 masculine sentences were without Resumption. We made sure to include a range of structures and contexts to capture the full range of variability in the MSA. We had to make changes in the sentences throughout the process to ensure the uniqueness of each sentence and minimize any repeating vocabulary in each set.
To be able to maintain a reasonable time length for the experiment. An online platform (google forms) was used to create the survey. Each set having its own link with the different sentences to be equally distributed onto the participants. This platform was chosen because it serves the purpose of the experiment and is easily accessible on all devices and for everyone.
Having to mention that many of the Moroccan participants were from abroad. A brief explanation was given at the beginning of each set to clarify the task. They were instructed to read the sentences carefully and rate the sentences according to acceptability on a scale from 1 to 4, 1 being the “completely unacceptable” and 4 being “completely acceptable”. We further explained that the sentences don’t have any spelling errors, and that they were intentionally written the way they were. To reduce any vagueness and misunderstandings.
Tasks
Procedure
Analysis
Summary Of Analysis:
- There is an effect of Resumption (the presence vs. the absence of the resumptive pronoun). There is a significant difference between judgments on R sentences (forms with Resump Pron) and X sentences (those without the Resump Pron).
- There is an effect of gender (Feminine vs. masculine). There is a significant difference between judgments o Feminine sentences and Masculine ones.
- There is an interaction between Resumption (R vs. X) and gender. Judgments on XF were significantly different from XM. We know that XF was rated acceptable far less than XM. This indicates that speakers tend to tolerate XM cases but not XF.
Results: There were main effects of Resumpro and SubjGender, and the interaction Resumpro X SubjGender was significant. Resolve for the effect of SubjGender at each level of Resumpro.
Resumptive pronouns effect: There was a simple main effect of SubjGender when Resumpro = Absent. (No such effect when Resumpro = Present). That is, when the resumptive pronoun was absent, there was a difference in Ratings between the masculine and feminine subject nouns.
- OXF = “slightly unacceptable”
- OXM = between “slightly unacceptable” and “slightly acceptable.”
- ORF= “slightly acceptable.”
- ORM= “slightly acceptable.”
The effect of gender at each level of resumptive pronouns:
A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was carried out to assess the effect of feminine and masculine sentences on the ratings of the absence and presence of resumptive pronouns. There is a significant interaction between the resumptive pronouns and gender.
The effect of gender was significant in the absence of resumptive pronouns (f=72.7). However, there was no such effect when the resumptive pronouns were present (f=0.084). Those results show the difference in ratings between the masculine and feminine subject nouns.
In the absence of RP sentences, the mean of “OXF” (mean=2.03) was more inclined towards the “unacceptable” rating than the “OXM” (mean=2.63), which was in between the “acceptable” and “unacceptable”.so that OXF were rated acceptable far less than OXM. This indicates that speakers tend to tolerate OXM cases but not OXF, Where the subject noun is masculine. This was not the case regarding ORF and ORM, as participants saw both conditions as acceptable.
In standard Arabic, the masculine form is unmarked. However, the feminine form is marked. Furthermore, there is evidence from standard Arabic that allaði does not behave like wh-expressions concerning Case. In standard Arabic, allaði is inflected for number (singular, dual, and plural), gender (masculine and feminine), and Case (Nominative and Accusative, although Case distinctions are only visible in the dual forms). (This morphology is lost in most Arabic dialects, specifically in the Iraqi dialect). The important point is that allaði agrees in Case with the noun head, not with the base position, as opposed to what happens in English: Web.
Research Analysis
The natives of Qatar realized the benefits of a resumption in a sentence. Since the present standard Arabic language allows masculine statements to be accepted without resumptions, several speakers in Qatar realized that an OXM phrase might be accepted without Resumption (dominance of masculinity in MSA) (Ali et al., 2021). Because all sentences in the Qatari dialect are with Resumption and may be allowed if only including RP, speakers from Qatar have seen that OXF phrases without Resumption are not acceptable, and they have noticed that feminine sentences are approved if they feature Resumption.
Furthermore, it is assumed that expressions of Spoken Arabic predominate, most likely due to the level of mastery, the extent of usage, and status as a mother tongue or second language). We can explain why the extremely hybrid existence of non-sentient plurals in Spoken Arabic dynamically adjusts how they are digested in Standard Arabic (Ali et al., 2021). The fact that HV evoked the basal negativity-late positivity effect while NV did not suggest that DA violations, unlike FA violations, are not treated as outright violations (Ali et al., (2021). This is due to the DA pattern’s status in Spoken Arabic. As previously stated, nonhuman masculine plurals require DA in Standard Arabic, whereas DA is not required in spoken variations.
Due to culture, civilization, and the number of people who speak the dialects, specific Arabic dialects such as Qatar may outnumber others. As a result, Qatari dialects are among the most prevalent of all Arabic dialects, and they are widely spoken all through Arab-speaking countries like Qatar because they are frequently used in Arab films (Abdelali et al., 2020). Consequently, Abdelali et al. (2020) assert that there is a linguistic distinction between Arabic and MSA dialects. Consonant clusters are linguistic features that distinguish MSA from Arabic dialects (Al Shamsi & Abdallah, 2021). Although phonemic clusters are uncommon in MSA, they are found in some Arabic dialects. One example given by Abdel-razaq (2020) is the word /tur:b/, which means “sand” in English and is pronounced as /trab/ in the Arabic dialects of Qatar. On the other hand, MSA words can have the last consonants, but they are uncommon in Arabic dialects. In Arabic dialects, the MSA term /sahl/, which means “plain” in English, was emphasized as /Sahel/, while another distinction concerns syntax.
Additionally, Arabi employs the verb-subject attribute (VSO) word order. In spoken Arabic, the word order is SVO. Furthermore, in MSA, adverb morphemes are required to name persons, gender, tenses, and figures, although, in Arabic dialects, these dictionaries are not required. One may claim that the little acoustic variations between MSA and the various Arabic dialects do not significantly hinder learning MSA (Abdelali et al., 2020). Vocabulary differences, however, may be a major barrier to communication. Similar to how this /s/ in English is pronounced differently in Arabic dialects, the voiced dental fricative [] is an example of a sound that is pronounced differently in Arabic than in English. Ali et al. (2021) report that the MSA word Hatha, which contains the sound /haa/, is spoken with an audible dental fricative.
Another example discovered in the Qatar dialect (ق) is encoded as /q/ in IPA emblems. It has the same sound in MSA regardless of where it is in a sentence or phrase. The sound ق is described as an unvoiced, /v/ stop in MSA. As a result, there is no need for a vibration between the vocal cords and the rear of the tongue to touch the uvular. In the Arab dialect, the Qatar (ق) /q/ has double allophones: the first is a silent, uvular stop [q], equivalent to the MSA dialect, and the other, a voiced, velar stop [g] (Ali et al., 2021). Significantly, the Arabic alphabet Jeem (ج), whose sound is depicted as /ʤ/ in IPA symbols, has distinct sounds in Arab dialects.
Cracked plurals are highly ‘hybrid’ nouns in spoken Arabic, in that consensus can target either syntax, that is; +masculine and +plural, or semantic that is; -plural, +group features. More so, the revelation of the numeric feature [+group] is a feminine understanding of broken plurals. Consequently, variation is, therefore, to be expected in Arabic dialects (Aoun et al., 2013). Essentially, the meaning of collectivity is given in Qatar Arabic, and DA is delegated to nonliving plurals, some animate plurals, and collectives (Alghamdi, 2020). As a result, in Arab dialects, generality is emphasized over heterogeneity or particularity (Al Shamsi & Abdallah, 2021). Consequently, the fundamental depictions of plurals are uttered slightly differently in Qatar dialects, enabling unconventional sex and numeral feature requirements. Significantly, human and nonliving referents are mostly the same as in Standard Arabic, but animal referents allow for both.
Related research indicates that diglossia harms Arab’s capacity to comprehend and possess the Arabic language. While MSA is taught in schools, colloquial Arabic is spoken at home. Consequently, dialects could affect writing and reading abilities (Al-Aqarbeh, R., & Sprouse, n.d.). Furthermore, such diglossia may delay respondents’ knowledge acquisition because Arad could be hampered in their comprehension of MSA vocabulary and structures (Alghamdi, 2020). The influence of the dialects could cause the respondents to struggle to understand information and knowledge (Al Shamsi & Abdallah, 2021). When communicating in MSA, the respondents’ speech appeared distorted and hesitant due to exertion. Diglossia can also impair Arabic speakers’ ability to communicate with one another. As a result, when speaking with Arabs, they may use discourse markers and substitute between MSA and Colloquial Arabic.
References
Abdel-razaq, I. (2020). Resumption and Optionality in Arabic Definite Restrictive Relatives. Web.
Al-Aqarbeh, R., & Sprouse, J. Island effects and amelioration by a resumption in Jordanian Arabic: an auditory acceptability judgment study. Web.
Alghamdi, A. A. M. (2020). Resumptive pronouns in Baha Arabic: an experimental study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds).
Alotaibi, M., & Borsley, R. D. (2013). Gaps and resumptive pronouns in Modern Standard Arabic. Web.
Aoun, J. E., Benmamoun, E., & Choueiri, L. (2013). The syntax of sentential negation (chapter 5) – the syntax of Arabic. Cambridge Core. Web.
Al Shamsi, A. A., & Abdallah, S. (2021). Text mining techniques for sentiment analysis of Arabic dialects: Literature review. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J, 6, 1012-1023. Web.
Abdelali, A., Mubarak, H., Samih, Y., Hassan, S., & Darwish, K. (2020). Arabic dialect identification in the wild. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.06557. Web.
Ali, I., Eiman, M., Tariq, K., & Muralikrishnan, R. (2021). A neurophysiological study of noun-adjective agreement in Arabic: The impact of animacy and diglossia on the dynamics of Language processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics.pdf. Web.
Hamad, Abdullah. “DIGLOSSIA IN ARABIC: THE BEGINNING AND THE END.” Islamic Studies 31, no. 3 (1992): 339–53. Web.