Elamur Research⌕
☰
home / papers / 2020 / The Mutual Intelligibility of Arabic Dialects: Implications for the Language Classroom

The Mutual Intelligibility of Arabic Dialects: Implications for the Language Classroom

Summary

Arabic learners need both Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and spoken regional dialects. Programs that add dialects usually pick one, and nobody knows well how far that one dialect carries over to others. Trentman and Shiri measured how well listeners understand Arabic varieties they have not studied and what predicts that skill. They tested 55 native speakers (NS) and 62 non-native speakers (NNS). Each participant heard recordings in four regional dialects plus MSA, answered comprehension items, identified which variety they heard, and filled in a background questionnaire that also asked how dialects should be taught.

Regression analysis showed that listening proficiency in a familiar dialect or in MSA did not predict comprehension of unfamiliar dialects. For learners, the ability to recognise which variety is being spoken did predict it. Chi-square tests showed that the two groups disagree on teaching: NS lean toward MSA plus a single dialect, while NNS favour exposure to many dialects. The authors argue that comprehension across major varieties is high. They recommend multidialectal teaching built on metalinguistic awareness, with receptive exposure to many varieties and learner choice in production.

Key points

  • Participants: NS n=55 and NNS n=62. Stimuli: four regional dialects and MSA. Instruments: listening comprehension items, a variety-identification task and a background/beliefs questionnaire.
  • Proficiency in a known dialect or in MSA was not a significant predictor of understanding unfamiliar dialects. Variety identification ability was a predictor, but only for NNS.
  • Chi-square tests found significant NS/NNS differences in teaching beliefs:
    • NS favour an MSA + one dialect model.
    • NNS favour a multidialectal model.
  • Background from the literature:
    • Phonological distance almost always predicts intelligibility in spoken tests across language families.
    • Lexical distance and contact/attitudes also matter.
    • Earlier work (Trentman 2011) found familiar-dialect listening predicted unfamiliar-dialect comprehension better than MSA listening did.
  • Limitations the authors acknowledge:
    • small sample;
    • problems with online data collection;
    • heritage speakers excluded;
    • Intermediate-level texts that may cause ceiling effects and hide NS/NNS gaps.

Interesting ideas

  • I1. Recognising which variety a text belongs to is a skill of its own, and it predicted cross-variety understanding better than raw proficiency did. Detecting the variety first can be worth more than general strength. — For Mova (tree): Add a cheap register/dialect detector (e.g. tweet, legal, archaic, transcribed speech) ahead of the parser, so gparse can choose conversion rules or a matching treebank instead of relying on one general model.
  • I2. MSA and dialects are treated as a continuum that speakers slide along, not as separate boxes. A graded scale captures mixed input better than a hard label. — For Mova (tokens): Score tokens and sentences on a formality/variety continuum, so the tagger and lemmatizer can blend standard and nonstandard lexicons on mixed text instead of making a binary switch.
  • I3. Intelligibility research separates functional measures (doing a comprehension task) from opinion measures (self-rated understanding), and the two can diverge. — For Mova (learn): Report task-based accuracy separately from model self-confidence on each evaluation set, and flag cases where confidence is high but task success is low as candidates for repair rules.
  • I4. The authors warn that test texts which are too easy cause ceiling effects that flatten real differences between groups. — For Mova (answer): Calibrate school-test and fable QA sets so that strong and weak configurations actually separate, and add harder items wherever all variants score near the top.
  • I5. Learners get broad receptive exposure to many varieties but produce only the variety they choose. Understanding widely and generating narrowly is a deliberate asymmetry. — For Mova (back): Let parsing accept many registers and dialects while generation targets one chosen consistent register, controlled by an explicit setting rather than copied from the input.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Linguistics & languages

Cited by

3 papers of our library cite it (of the 140884 whose bibliographies we read); 1 of them have a page here, 2 not yet.

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.2458/cms.6549

@article{trentman2020mutual,
  title = {{The Mutual Intelligibility of Arabic Dialects: Implications for the Language Classroom}},
  author = {Trentman, Emma and Shiri, Sonia},
  journal = {Critical Multilingualism Studies 8},
  year = {2020},
  doi = {10.2458/cms.6549},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.2458/cms.6549}
}

References

50 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Abu-Melhim, Abdel-Rahman. 2014. “Intra-lingual code alternation in Arabic: the conversational impact of diglossia.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4(5): 891– 902. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.5.891-902 ↗
  2. Al-Batal, Mahmoud. 2018a. Arabic as One Language: Integrating Dialect in the Arabic Language Curriculum. Georgetown University Press. find
  3. Al-Batal, Mahmoud. 2018b. “Dialect integration in the Arabic foreign language curriculum: Vision, rationale, and future directions.” In: Arabic as One Language: Integrating Dialect in the Arabic Language Curriculum, edited by Mahmoud Al-Batal, 3–22. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. find
  4. Al-Batal, Mahmoud and R. Belnap. 2006. “The teaching and learning of Arabic in the United States: Realities, needs, and future directions.” In: Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 389–399. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. find
  5. Al Masaeed, Khaled. 2020. “Translanguaging in L2 Arabic Study Abroad: Beyond Monolingual Practices in Institutional Talk.” The Modern Language Journal 104(1): 250– 266. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12623 ↗
  6. Bassiouney, Reem. 2009. Arabic Sociolinguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. find
  7. Brustad, Kristen, Mahmoud Al-Batal, and Abbas Al-Tonsi. 2010. Alif Baa: Introduction to Arabic letters and Sounds (3 ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. rd Brustad, Kristen, Mahmoud Al-Batal, and Abbas Al-Tonsi. 2011. Al-Kitaab fii Taᶜallum al-ᶜArabiyya: A Textbook for Beginning Arabic: Part 1 (3 ed.). Georgetown University Press. rd Brustad, Kristen, Mahmoud Al-Batal, and Abbas Al-Tonsi. 2013. Al-Kitaab fii Taᶜallum al-ᶜArabiyya: A Textbook for Beginning Arabic: Part 2 (3 ed.). Georgetown University Press. rd Carvalho, Ana M., Juliana Luna Freire, and Antonio J. B. da Silva. 2010. “Teaching Portuguese to Spanish speakers: A case for trilingualism.” Hispania 93(1): 70–75. find
  8. Čéplö, Slavomír, Ján Bátora, Adam Benkato, Jiří Milička, Christophe Pereira and Petr Zemánek. 2016. “Mutual intelligibility of spoken Maltese, Libyan Arabic, and Tunisian Arabic functionally tested: A pilot study.” Folia Linguistica 50(2): 583–628. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0021 ↗
  9. Eisenstein, Miriam R. 1982. “A study of social variation in adult second language acquisition.” Language Learning 32(2): 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1982.tb00977.x ↗
  10. Eisenstein, Miriam R. 1986. “Target language variation and second-language acquisition: Learning English in New York City.” World Englishes 5(1): 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1986.tb00638.x ↗
  11. Eisenstein, Miriam and Gail Verdi. 1985. “The intelligibility of social dialects for working-class adult learners of English.” Language Learning 35(2): 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1985.tb01029.x ↗
  12. Ferguson, Charles A. 1959. “Diglossia.” https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1959.11659702 Word 15(2): 325–340. ↗
  13. Gooskens, Charlotte. 2006. “Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of inter-Scandinavian intelligibility.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 23: 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.23.12goo ↗
  14. Gooskens, Charlotte. 2007. “The contribution of linguistic factors to the intelligibility of closely related languages.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 28(6): 445– 467. https://doi.org/10.2167/jmmd511.0 ↗
  15. Gooskens, Charlotte. 2018. “Dialect intelligibility.” In: The Handbook of Dialectology, edited by Charles Boberg, John Nerbonne, and Dominic Watt, 204–218. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118827628.ch11 ↗
  16. Gooskens, Charlotte and Femke Swarte. 2017. “Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of mutual intelligibility between Germanic languages.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 40(S2): 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586517000099 ↗
  17. Gooskens, Charlotte, Vincent J. van Heuven, Jelena Golubović, Anja Schüppert, Femke Swarte, and Stefanie Voigt. 2018. “Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe.” International Journal of https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1350185 Multilingualism 15(2): 169–193. ↗
  18. Gooskens, Charlotte and Renée van Bezooijen. 2006. “Mutual comprehensibility of written Afrikaans and Dutch: Symmetrical or asymmetrical?” Literary and Linguistic Computing 21(4): 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fql036 ↗
  19. Hilton, Nanna H., Charlotte Gooskens, and Anja Schüppert. 2013. “The influence of non-native morphosyntax on the intelligibility of a closely related language.” Lingua 137: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2013.07.007 ↗
  20. Holes, Clive. 2004. Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. find
  21. Major, Roy C., Susan F. Fitzmaurice, Ferenc Bunta, and Chandrika Balasubramanian. 2002. “The effects of nonnative accents on listening comprehension: Implications for ESL assessment.” TESOL Quarterly 36(2): 173–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588329 ↗
  22. Major, Roy C., Susan F. Fitzmaurice, Ferenc Bunta, and Chandrika Balasubramanian. 2005. “Testing the effects of regional, ethnic, and international dialects of English on listening comprehension.” Language Learning 55(1): 37–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00289.x ↗
  23. McCann, William, Tilbert D. Stegmann, and Horst G. Klein. 2003. EuroComRom, the seven sieves: how to read all the Romance languages right away. Aachen: Shaker. find
  24. Lam, Henry and Mary Grantham O’Brien. 2014. “Perceptual dialectology in second language learners of German.” System 46: 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.08.006 ↗
  25. Ockey, Gary and Robert French. 2014. “From one to multiple accents on a test of L2 listening comprehension.” Applied Linguistics 37(5): 693–715. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu060 ↗
  26. Pihko, Marja-Kaisa. 1997. “His English sounded strange”: The intelligibility of native and non-native English pronunciation to Finnish learners of English. Jyvaskyla, Finland: Centre Applied Language Studies. find
  27. Ribbert, Anne and Jan D. ten Thije. 2007. “Receptive multilingualism in Dutch-German intercultural team cooperation.” In: Receptive Multilingualism, edited by Jan D. ten Thije and Ludger Zeevaert, 73–102. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. find
  28. S’hiri, Sonia. 2002. “Speak Arabic please!: Tunisian Arabic speakers’ linguistic accommodation to Middle Easterners.” In: Language Contact and Language Conflict in Arabic: Variations on a Sociolinguistic Theme, edited by Aleya Rouchdy, 149–176. New York: Routledge. find
  29. Sabatini, Elisabetta. 2000. “Listening comprehension, shadowing and simultaneous interpretation of two ‘non-standard’ English speeches.” Interpreting 5(1): 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.5.1.03sab ↗
  30. Sağın-Şimşek, Çiğdem and Wolf König. 2012. “Receptive multilingualism and language understanding: Intelligibility of Azerbaijani to Turkish speakers.” International Journal of Bilingualism 16(3): 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911426449 ↗
  31. Salehi, Mohammad and Aydin Neysani. 2017. “Receptive intelligibility of Turkish to Iranian-Azerbaijani speakers.” Cogent Education, 4. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1326653 ↗
  32. Sayahi, Lofti. 2014. Diglossia and Language Contact: Language Variation and Change in North Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  33. Schneider, Cindy and Charlotte Gooskens. 2018. “A Follow-up Analysis of Listener (Mis) comprehension across Language Varieties in Pentecost, Vanuatu.” Oceanic Linguistics 57(1): 144–176. https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2018.0005 ↗
  34. Schüppert, Anja and Charlotte Gooskens. 2012. “The role of extra-linguistic factors in receptive bilingualism: Evidence from Danish and Swedish pre-schoolers.” International Journal of Bilingualism 16(3): 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006911426389 ↗
  35. Shiri, Sonia. 2013. “Learners’ attitudes toward regional dialects and destination preferences in study abroad.” Foreign Language Annals 46(4): 565–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12058 ↗
  36. Shiri, Sonia. 2015. “The homestay in intensive language study abroad: Social networks, language socialization, and developing intercultural competence.” Foreign Language Annals 48(1): 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12127 ↗
  37. Soliman, Rasha. 2014a. “Arabic cross-dialectal conversations: A missing element in the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language.” In: Arabele 2012: Teaching and Learning the Arabic Language, edited by Victoria Aguilar, Miguel Ángel Manzano, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, Waleed Saleh, and Paula Santillán Grimm, 114–133. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia. Servicio de Publicaciones. https://libros.um.es/editum/catalog/view/1311/1961/1601-1 ↗
  38. Soliman, Rasha. 2014b. Arabic Cross-dialectal Conversations with Implications for the Teaching of Arabic as a Second Language. (Doctoral Disserataion) University of Leeds. Retrieved from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/9119 ↗
  39. Tang, Chaoju and Vincent J. van Heuven. 2009. “Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects experimentally tested.” Lingua 119(5): 709–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.001 ↗
  40. Trentman, Emma. 2011. “L2 Arabic dialect comprehension: Empirical evidence for the transfer of familiar dialect knowledge to unfamiliar dialects.” L2 Journal 3(1): 22–49. https://doi.org/10.5070/L2319068 ↗
  41. Trentman, Emma. 2013, “Arabic and English during study abroad in Cairo, Egypt: Issues of access and use.” Modern Language Journal 97(2): 457–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12013.x ↗
  42. Trentman, Emma. 2021. “Reframing monolingual ideologies in the language classroom: Evidence from Arabic study abroad and telecollaboration.” In: Pathways to Paradigm Change: Critical Examinations of Prevailing Discourses and Ideologies in Second Language Education, edited by Beatrice Dupuy and Kristen Mitchelson, 108–132. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. find
  43. Tullock, Brandon and Lourdes Ortega. 2017. “Fluency and multilingualism in study abroad: Lessons from a scoping review.” System 71: 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.09.019 ↗
  44. van Bezooijen, Renée and Charlotte Gooskens. 2005. “How easy is it for speakers of Dutch to understand Frisian and Afrikaans, and why?” Linguistics in the Netherlands 22: 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.22.04bez Van Compernolle, Rémi. ↗
  45. A. 2014. Sociocultural Theory and L2 Instructional Pragmatics. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. find
  46. Versteegh, K. 2001. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. find
  47. Younes, Munther. 2006. “Integrating the colloquial with fusha in the Arabic as a foreign language classroom.” In: Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 157–166. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. find
  48. Younes, Munther, Makda Weatherspoon, and Maha Saliba Foster. 2014. ‘Arabiyyaat al-Naas: Part One. New York: Routledge. find
  49. Younes, Munther, Makda Weatherspoon, Jonathan Feathersonte, and Elizabeth Huntley. 2019. ‘Arabiyyaat al-Naas fii Masr: Part One. New York: Routledge. find
  50. Zeevaert, Ludger. 2007. “Receptive multilingualism and inter-Scandinavian semicommunication.” In: Receptive Multilingualism, edited by Jan D. ten Thije and Ludger Zeevaert, 103-136. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. find

↑ back to top

This page in Markdown → https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/trentman-2020-mutual-intelligibility-arabic-dialects-implications/