"A.A..A....,..:..¢...V _. . . ..:..E V ... .
'V A u: o .v V V . . V
V . 1.. 29...! 1.... o.\ . . V
“(3'5 ...-u I. V I! .12.. ...-A. h 15H”. A ..v \1

. . ..shVAnVAu. .AV.... V.

. . V .5 .Cu A. ... V. . .. ola: I ‘..Vch
~.§(...CLH..I ...SVAu . V s. ..v..: .uw‘JPrV ..v \V .15. hr. ngox rum 3.. _ 3.1L. . . luLtA m. .V

 

1..
V

 

. A . _ . . _ . ... , . _. _ ..A .A..: _ .A . - mam

.. 4:. V . A V ..A A u . . . V A , . .V . . . .. . . .H . U . V. . ......r....... V. . A A; ..l t 3'
V! i. . V. . . .. . . . . . . .A 3...“; . . 43.? 3A.. a . ... _ V . .. . ,. . _ . A .V V V I o. A . . . V h4lhn.’ Worm,“
o ooAV . V .. . . 0”“. V . . . A .uuu. ....D V ...-.oo...n. . . V . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .A A . . A . ., .. V, O... . A'l ‘c w

7...... . . A _ . u4$5§3§$€ .A.Vo I . .V q) .n V . _ . . . . . . V .. . A V. . . . V o .1 {a
. V .V . . V . . V V fr... 0...“.1' A: . v... I 0. V A ... 0.. .0 AVV‘CWVIO.. V . V V. . V . A‘.‘ .14“ .OVV'~V . . V . . . _ . . . . . .. V. V A V V D. ...

. , . V . .. V V V V . c o V V . . . V . A . .

...an .. .. .V . .2. — .13....» . . . ........V.nw . . A . . . . nan..." .....V..:.V~. V _ . .
O ... ‘ . V. A V . V V . V .

.. . .

  

F. 140‘.- .. c9. . V V . V .. V V. .. Io
.. ... . . . _ . .. . _ . V , V xuwwa 9; . A V_ . . . .. A- .- _.--.VVVV
.. o ‘0. . _ A V. . V V . . . . A . ... ..1 ..‘6: . V . .. .1013... . . ..V
‘00 ‘o. A A . . - u!

at”:
...v

o .
.1 V ..

V .. VV‘vncuu- .
(L . . ... .u...

3......
. V.
.0 I u. ‘60.
..Vu.....aV ....V. . . _. .....V:
. . .V . . A .V a.

.. . V . V . . V V . A . . A. . . . . A ...-Q... .0 V
V . A u 1 . .. . .. .. .F.'.OO.V. . . .V
. . . . , V V ...OOUAV. . . ....
.0” .4“ on.... V V . A A V V. 40 P V . V V V . .. V 5.1.. ‘
. . V V . . . A V V . V . ,
J. ~F.l..¢p.lv¢oq.: 3k.” H . . .
. u . v V. A
A. .....fluvov. .V.V .

I)
‘a...~b “
0‘). ‘s

.l..

 

.a

V .. V . AVA V V . .V . o. .4 '
‘V....|....r.3\ol . ... . . V. . V. A. . A . . .V . A . V
Vial-I .

".“l‘
OJ:-
.u.

1

.. o A.
V1.41.-.
- 4%....
.’ ...,~.-
. 1.
D ‘
. .Vovl . . V . 0.....9.
......voonnll «d. ....uu. . . . . . V . ... .r: I ‘
. . ...... VI sthx- .
...-..VV... b! O V. \a
. ...: ..VVJVV 3:3...
... o..- no’l A .Fx. Ann».¢nvoo....u.

V. ”.A.... tut

J .

 

V . I . In.
A V . . . V. V . . V ..o ...-VI”
n to: VquV:-..u. . .V ,o t V
I 2‘... .I9 to. V . V .. . .
o. A¢L.'.
V ‘4 V . Q l. 1".
. A V a”... O |V VV
4.. V, .x V .nV‘I-ult. .70 .u
.0...)|V-4.1r|1 .V. A: a... . .03.!
. V. d..\.l.u..u... V. . .01., IV 0 ...!

 

. a .V V .... .
V . . _ . . .. _ _ A 22......1 ..n.!......:... ...A.
. .. . . . A. . . . . . .. .. . . 1...»... .‘uv: ...!)
V V.- V .‘ a ' V A . .. . . V H . . V . V .V. . u. . V 0.... V 1“ 0J‘
0...... ..a . lu‘... .‘ V o‘d....”v_li" ... u . A A. V. . . . . .. . . .V .V V .. . IA H V
. VI... ..u....:4....V.uno.o..."runner anctuoloVAV‘uer . . A . .. A A :
I. iii-91:: u V... .414. 1-. ...¢ V.. 0 V. .V . V . A . . . . . V V V A. V o ..:...
.93 ..sl .... . .. V . . AA . . A A.
if}. v.3. . V . . . .. . A V. . . . A . . . . 26.”.WIJVJ.Q..
n I- . ... V V V . V . A . V. .V.

 

. n...- V.. .‘u. ...

I‘v».u.9 A . . .
. olvsl. u-vi

v. ... . . ..
cu. Hh-r...O-.V . . . V . V . . . V . ILA...) .‘VI‘.I 03..
.I l .4 . . . V . .. . V . . . .V I a,

. ..r. ....V . .. . . A ... . , . . . . . .. . . A .. ..Vvhi...3. .
.VS.J ... c... ’,l~ . , V V V . . A V V . AV. . . . V V V . , , . V. V. V .
A V .V . 3.11. ..:to . A. V . . . .

. I 0‘ V V V \ ... o . .

. ...Oo‘ t...’ r . . V. . .. A

V. ...... ‘Q . .

V t. .V V V V , V V . .V ,. V V . A A . V. .. . I. .
. 0-. .‘d'filhm .. , V . . V. V . . V V . V . ... . . . . .VVIVooLV-V 3 .r.
nor . . . .. . . .. .. . .. .IVv. .A.: #3..
. . ..

A. o . .A. V. V . .

A. . ... . V . . ‘....? ..:..Il . V A..., . .. V . . O. 00.6.344-
. 11...! . . . V . . . . . V 92.... V . . . . . . . : . .. . . . . V

.0 I}. ii. . . .A V . . . V V V V V . . V V . . V . .

. .... .9lnnuo\1‘£\n. V . . V A V . . . .

 

l V. n.‘ A u.-
.. . >0. iv'I IJ.-‘.V.....‘.
84-0 ...: K ..
.‘u. .ttl‘h
.C.V.V V... V . An.VA.
Vl o . 0.. . ?V‘uo. A0,
. V.‘ 2% Pogéflnfihc“
V (.10....
. . .V . V V. V . . A V . .~ I
O.L4 .oA. . . . . .V V. . V V .. . . V. V . .V . ... c . VA 07“? 91K;
. ”I. .g 0 V V V , .V . V . V . '
..., Yin-s. ....I} V V V . V V .. V. V. .V V . V V. , . . ‘h.o.'... . . V V
. U 3. ... . . V . A . .... V . V . . . V V 91
.u V V . . . V . . . q

.o . ....
.... .

..
... . V. . ..
2.. ..Y-- (I.
.A. 1.19 .V

. V ;
Au. .- «1.....n‘1
‘quQ‘A 4‘3!
.AVI;a.¢.L.-.IE. (‘3’.-
V . . Cu. I’VW.I!.|D-

 

.a ..
V V o o‘
.A. f... .

 

. .-
..V V.
....

... V . o
.0. 7...?!

I...
. II 00000.
sl.‘ .2. . .16.
.V . . V V. . . . . V . o 1 . ..AoVA
I. . A . . .. V. p.911... .
I. . V . . .. V . _ . V . V
.rtvoVVV ... . .. ....

V 0115.,
It...)

. V .

I . . .

.5 ... 3.3.3. . .

l... £.‘~ ...
V.

I... . .....
.A.,Oga V. ..‘1..
0 cs V 1.0.2.... V

A»

 

0.. . I ...lv|t.
. ...or;.5.A

O...

‘

.v
‘V"Il
.I r

   

. . V . a
‘ . . I .. V i .r . .u .0 .

"H.

 

 

 

 

o
s Q It
0o V0.10... V
. It .9 a
V V ..V.. ~. .39.... . o). r..oV V V... o A .V 9680!: V on
. V u ...VV ‘..‘.‘\OVO>.O.:‘—‘ov. . ' V :QJlo n . V‘ . V V v . V c a
. . ~V4v I V. ... ....mh 2:“ ¢ .. I .0. V ...? .....V... a o a. . . o ; .V
. .... .0.‘N\.I h . VVV I. -.s V «8.0.1: 1.
A. . . -. at 4‘ A 0 .*.\¢v a”. V. OI LV\\d.Q.hV."WL. ...-H 4.. O... ...&a- I I n . o .qn...lva...ot.\¢....o 3.0.1.! ...-.0 0. A... n V ... 9. . IQ ' .Iqu O.‘
..lvlfl 0%. ‘a.. o 912V ‘IV (. o..'bt.&a.bq 'ollnlf.x9cou .A. ...?.h. . '03 V ... ... .lnA ..4-2. In? .13.}... 0.! H!- . . u . .
o l... .. I . 0 . . . ‘Vo .. .x. Vt 3;...al . . o...
. u . .- Vi.t- .50. a. L...) in. .0 0 VIM.I O ... o .9
W? V. V. A J ..v .V.VVluslV..§._-(1.-I‘V\m . '1‘? .0. A.A' ..lé , . o o .QbVV . . V. II.
... n . n! ‘ ' .l

.

‘II.
I-

 

Y

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Najdi Perceptions of Saudi Regional Speech

presented by

Ahmad Alrumaih

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters degree in Linguistics

 

 

 

 

Major professor
Dennis R. Preston

U

Date October 29, 2002

 

0-7 639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

o-«o r-fit

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN REfURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

MAR o 3 2008
321308

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2105 wacnmmma-ms

 

 

NAJDI PERCEPTIONS OF
SAUDI REGIONAL SPEECH

By

Ahmad A Alrumaih

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Linguistics and Languages

2002

Abstract
Najdi Perceptions of Saudi Regional Speech
By

Ahmad Alrumaih

Most of the linguistic studies concentrate on the study of the distinction of the
varieties of one region or on examining the phonological or morphological or syntactic
aspects of that variety. But less work has been done to examine the linguistic attitudes
and beliefs that one variety may have towards the other.

In this study, the attitudes and perceptions of Najdi residents towards the other
varieties of the country, Saudi Arabia, are examined. There are five tasks in this study.
The first task is the hand-drawn maps task where respondents are asked to draw boundary
lines on the regions where people speak ‘alike.’ The other three tasks are scales where
respondents are asked to rate the speech of the other dialects in terms of ‘correctness’,
‘pleasantness’, and ‘degree of difference’. The last task is interviews with some of the
respondents to elicit some information about their judgment. The output of the
respondents was then analyzed using three statistical programs: Chi-square test, One way
analysis of variance test best known as (ANOVA) test and Kruskal Wallis test.

The overall results of this study indicate that Najdis are not linguistically secured
when they compare their dialect with the Classical Arabic or Modern Standard Arabic
although this insecurity is different from one aspect to another. In the correctness, they do
not feel much secure as they feel it in the pleasantness aspect. But Najdis exhibit a high

linguistic security if they compare their dialect to the other dialects in the country.

To My Wife

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My great thank and appreciation goes to Dr. Dennis Preston, my advisor and
committee chairman, for all of his continuous assistance throughout my four years of
study at the Linguistics Department at Michigan State University. His kind consideration
and understanding have been a motive for the completion of this study.

I wish also to acknowledge all those who helped me in the data collection as well
as in the statistical work of this study. My special acknowledgment goes to Ahmad
Alhajjaj for his help with the statistical tests. I am grateful for Dr.Ali Badi for his sincere
support and help as my advisor at the Saudi Mission. Sincere appreciation and gratitude
are extended to the other two members of my committee, Dr David Dowyer and Dr Malik
Bela for their contribution.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, brothers, sisters, and especially my wife

for their support and kindness throughout the period of my study.

iv

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES AND CHARTS ............................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ............................................................. 3
2.1 DIALECTOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 3
2.2 LANGUAGE ATTITUDES ................................................................................................... 6
2.3 LANGUAGE ATTITUDE IN ARABIC ................................................................................ 13
2.4 PERCEPTUAL DIALECTOLOGY ....................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 3
3.1 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 20
3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................... 20
3.3 DATA COLLECTION AND SUBJECTS OF THE STUDY ....................................................... 20
3.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ......................................................................... 21
3.4.1 Maps ............................................................................................................ 21
3.4.1.a. First Maps ........................................................................................ .21
3.4.l.b Second Maps ....................................................................................... 21
3.4.2 Scales ......................................................................................................... 22
3.4.2.a Scale One: Correctness ...................................................................... 22
3.4.2.b Scale Two: Pleasantness ................................................................... 22
3.4.2.c Scale Three: Degree of Difference ................................................... 22
3.4.3 Interviews ................................................................................................. .23
3.5 HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................... 23
3.6 COMMENTS ON THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 25
3.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .......................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 4
4.1 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 28
4.1.1 Hand-Drawn Maps ...................................................................................... 28
4.1.2 Degree of Difference .................................................................................... 33
4.1.3. Correctness .................................................................................................. 41
4.1.4 Pleasantness ................................................................................................ 51

4.2 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 61

4.2.1 General Observations ................................................................................. 61
4.2.2 Najdis Perceptions of Other Dialects ........................................................... 65
4.2.2.a. Perceptions of Northern Regions ..................................................... 67
4.2.2.b. Perceptions of Western Region and Southern Region Dialects ......... 68
4.2.2.c. Perceptions of Eastern Region............................ ................. 69
4.2.3. Effect of Gender and Age ........................................................................... 69
CHAPTER 5
SUGGESTION AND CONCLUSION ........................................................... 71
5.1 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER WORK ............................................................................. 71
5.2. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 71
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 74
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 79

vi

Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.

Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Table 23.
Table 24.
Table 25.

LIST OF TABLES

Frequency of Identification of Dialect Regions

A List of the Labels Used in the Hand-Drawn Maps
Degree of Difference Ratings for Northern Region
Degree of Difference Ratings for Western Region
Degree of Difference Ratings for Eastern Region
Degree of Difference Ratings for Northeastern Region
Degree of Difference Ratings for Northwestern Region
Degree of Difference Ratings for Southern Region
ANOVA test results for degree of difference ratings
Correctness ratings Northern dialect.

Correctness ratings Northeastern dialect.

Correctness ratings Northwestern dialect.

Correctness ratings Western dialect.

Correctness ratings Eastern dialect.

Correctness ratings Central dialect.

Correctness ratings Southern dialect.

Correctness Ratings for Southern Region by Age Group
ANOVA test results for correctness ratings
Pleasantness ratings for Northern dialect

Pleasantness ratings for Western dialect

Pleasantness ratings for Eastern dialect

Pleasantness ratings for Central dialect

Pleasantness ratings for Southern dialect

Pleasantness ratings for Northeastern dialect
Pleasantness ratings for Northwestern dialect

Table. 26. ANOVA tests results for pleasantness ratings

Table 27.
Table 28.
Table 29.
Table 30.
Table 31.
Table 32.
Table 33.
Table 34.
Table 35.
Table 36.
Table 37.
Table 38.
Table 39.
Table 40.
Table 41.
Table 42.

Degree of Difference ratings (Raw numbers)
Correctness ratings (Raw numbers)
Pleasantness ratings (Raw numbers)

Degree of difference ratings for Northern dialect by age group.
Degree of difference ratings for Western dialect by age group
Degree of difference ratings for Eastern dialect by age group.

Degree of difference ratings for Northeastern dialect by age group.
Degree of difference ratings for Northwestern dialect by age group.
Degree of difference ratings for Southern dialect by age group.
Degree of Difference Ratings for the Western dialect by Gender
Degree Of Difference Ratings for the Eastern dialect by Gender.
Degree Of Difference Ratings for the Northern dialect by Gender.
Degree of Difference Ratings for the Southern dialect by Gender
Degree Of Difference Ratings for the Northeastern dialect by Gender
Degree of Difference Ratings for the Northwestern dialect by Gender

Correctness Ratings for N orthem dialect by Age Group

vii

28
33
37
38
38
38
38
39
39
45
45
45
45
45
48
48
49
50
55
55
56
56
56
57
57
59
90
90
91
92
92
92
93
93
93
94
94
94
95
95
95
96

Table 43.
Table 44.
Table 45.
Table 46.
Table 47.
Table 48.
Table 49.
Table 50.
Table 52.
Table 53.
Table 54.
Table 55.
Table 56.
Table 57.
Table 58.
Table 59.
Table 60.
Table 61.
Table 62.
Table 63.
Table 64.
Table 65.
Table 66.
Table 67.
Table 68.
Table 69.
Table 70.

Correctness Ratings for Western dialect by Age Group
Correctness Ratings for Eastern dialect by Age Group
Correctness Ratings for Central dialect by Age Group
Correctness Ratings for the Northeastern dialect by Age Group
Correctness Ratings for the Northwestern dialect by Age Group
Correctness Ratings for Southern dialect by Age Group
Correctness Ratings for the Central dialect by Gender
Correctness Ratings for the Western dialect by Gender
Correctness Ratings for the Eastern dialect by Gender
Correctness Ratings for the Northern dialect by Gender
Correctness Ratings for the Southern dialect by Gender
Correctness Ratings for the Northeastern dialect by Gender
Correctness Ratings for the Northwestern dialect by Gender
Pleasantness Ratings for Northern dialect by Age Group
Pleasantness Ratings for Western dialect by Age Group
Pleasantness Ratings for Eastern dialect by Age Group
Pleasantness Ratings for Central dialect by Age Group
Pleasantness Ratings for Northeastern dialect by Age Group
Pleasantness Ratings for Northwestern dialect by Age Group
Pleasantness Ratings for Southern dialect by Age Group
Pleasantness Ratings for the Central dialect by Gender
Pleasantness Ratings for the Western dialect by Gender
Pleasantness Ratings for the Eastern dialect by Gender
Pleasantness Ratings for the Northern dialect by Gender
Pleasantness Ratings for the Southern dialect by Gender
Pleasantness Ratings for the Northeastern dialect by Gender
Pleasantness Ratings for the Northwestern dialect by Gender

viii

96

97

97

97

98

98

99

99

100
100
101
101
102
103
103
104
104
105
105
105
106
106
106
107
107
108
108

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Where the Central region is small
Figure 2. Where the Central region is big

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 1. Degree of difference ratings for all dialects

Chart 2. Degree of difference ratings for the Northern and Western dialects

Chart 3. Degree of difference ratings for the Western and Southern dialects

Chart 4. Correctness ratings for all dialects

Chart 5. Correctness ratings for Northern dialects

Chart 6. Correctness ratings for the Central and Southern dialects

Chart 7. Correctness ratings for the Northern, Western, Northeastern, and
Northwestern dialects

Chart 8. Correctness and Pleasantness ratings for all dialects

Chart 9. Pleasantness ratings for all dialects

Chart 10. Pleasantness ratings for the Northern, Western, Northeastern, and
Northwestern dialects

29
30

36
37
40
43
44
47

51
53
54

6O

Chapter One

1.1 Introduction

One of the purposes of this study is to provide evidence that the characteristics of
the speech of one group will affect the way in which that group is perceived. The study
will also Show how the attitudes and perceptions of people influence their judgment of a
particular dialect. Deperez and Persoons (1987) linked attitude to behavior as a state of
mind and they perceived attitude as something that “ ...has a lot to do with behavior, but
it is not behavior; attitude means readiness to behavior” (Deperez and Persoons, 1987:
125). The main difference between language behavior and language attitude is in that
language behaviors are easily measurable and directly perceivable, whereas language
attitudes are neither directly measurable nor perceivable. The principal means of carrying
out this task will be the research methodology known as “perceptual dialectology” (e.g.
Preston, 1989).

First, the study of perceptual dialectology concentrates first on showing the mental
maps that people have in their minds about the location of different varieties spoken in
one country or region. The study of perceptual dialectology also reveals the negative
and/or positive attitudes that one group of people have toward the other groups. In some
cases, people tend to judge one particular dialect as “good” or “bad” based on their own
feelings toward the people who speak that variety. Therefore, such social attributions or
local stereotypes are essential in determining the sources of the judgment of a variety.

This study aimed to conduct a perceptual dialectology survey among Najdis, the

inhabitants of the central part of Saudi Arabia, where there are many different tribes and

regions and each region’s inhabitants speak a different variety. The study of language
variation in Saudi Arabia is especially interesting if one keeps in mind that there are
religious, social, and geographical factors that help create an environment for a wide
range of dialectological differences. This study will Show how such non-linguistic factors
affect peoples’ judgment of other dialects by asking the respondents about how “pleasant”
and “correct” other varieties are. There will be sixty respondents in this study and the
study will be conducted through a questionnaire and various interviews. The respondents
will be Saudis who lived all or at least most of their lives in Najd.

The study will examine relationships between language and society: how people
who speak one variety of a particular language view the different varieties of that
language. Moreover, the study will investigate the reasons behind people’s judgment of

other varieties.

Chapter Two
Overview and Background
2.1 Dialectology

“Among the most commonplace conversations that human beings make from day

to day are dialect differences” (Chambers, and Trudgill, 1980:15). Dialectology is the
study of dialects, and dialects are the different varieties of a language spoken by groups of
people within a larger community. There is a tendency for languages to split into dialects
wherever there are a large number of people speaking that language. Languages also split
for other political, geographical, or social reasons. The differences among dialects within
a language may be so great that the speakers of different dialects in one language do not
understand each other or may be SO slight that they are confined to only some aspects of
the language. Dialects may differ from each other in one or more of the language
dimensions: structure, pronunciation, usage, and vocabulary.

The boundaries between a dialect and a language are not necessarily linguistically
related factors but instead they are nonlinguistic factors like social or geographical.
Romaine (2000) pointed out that although Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian are known to
be three different languages, they are linguistically very Similar to one another. The
distinction between the three languages is more of a result of political and social factors
than linguistic ones. Speakers of any of those languages could easily understand each
other. The boundary lines between the three languages are linguistically arbitrary, but
relevant in terms of social and political distinctions. In fact, Romaine (2000) reported an

interesting fact about the relationship between the three languages and their speakers. She

explained that studies of mutual intelligibility resulted in interpretations and explanations
of the linguistic phenomena. Danes, for example, claimed to understand Norwegians
although Norwegians did not feel the same about Danes. Danes were considered to have a
poor understanding of Swedes. However, Norwegians could easily understand Swedes.
Swedes reported having a poor understanding of both Norwegians and Danes. It was
concluded that social factors were involved more than linguistic factors. In essence, the
reason for this phenomenon had to do with the Speakers of the language than the language
itself. Thus, a closer look into the social, financial, and geographical aspects of these
three countries would help provide insight as to why this phenomenon occurs.

Sweden is richer, larger, and more independent than the other two countries,
which attract more Norwegian and Danish. Because of these characteristics, Swedes
generally have little interest in settling in Norway or Denmark. .Only nine per cent of
Swedes listen to Danish or Norwegian radio whereas more than forty-one per cent of
Norwegians and Danish listen to Sweden radio stations. Thus, it is not very surprising
that Swedes have less interest in either of the two languages.

Usually speakers of neighboring dialects are not expected to have difficulty
understanding each other, whereas Speakers of widely separated dialects are expected to
have difficulty communicating with each other.

Varieties of common speech blend into one another by imperceptible gradations.

A villager who might know only the speech of his village would easily understand

that of the neighboring village, with a bit more difficulty that of the village he

would come to by walking on the same direction, and so on, until finally he

reached a point where he would understand the local speech only with great
difficulty. (Gauchat 1905 :379)

The study of dialects is not a new field. It began more than eight centuries ago
when the dialects in the north and south of France were characterized. The modern and
systematic study of dialect begins in the latter half of the nineteenth century.

Observations of dialect difference are so common that it is perhaps surprising to
find that the major thrust toward studying dialects systematically begins only in
the latter half on the nineteenth century. There is, of course, a long history of
astute commentary prior to this time. In France, the primary dialect division
between the north and the south was characterized as early as 1284 by the poet
Bemat d’Auriac, who coined the term langue (1 ’oil and langue d ’oc from the word
for ‘yes’ which were used in the north and in the south, respectively. (Chambers,
and Trudgill, 1980:15-16)

Dialectologists believe that an imaginary boundary line that is called an “isogloss”
separates dialects. Isoglosses are actually generalizations of gradual transitions across one
area that limit the use or the pronunciation of a word or any linguistic feature. The
barriers that mark different dialects could be geographical, social, political, or a
combination of such features. A good example of a geographical barrier is the shores of
Pitcairn and Norfolk Islands, which prevents the descendants of the Bounty mutineers and
their Polynesian companions from having contacts with other speakers (Ross and
Moverly, 1964).

In the entire Arab world, these three different barriers exist not only with respect to
different countries, but also within individual countries. Arabic is the main language
spoken in twenty-two Arab countries. The dialects on the borders of Saudi Arabia, for
example, are slightly different from the dialects in the neighboring countries. The barriers
resulting in this distinction are less geographical than they are social and political.

Every Arab country is believed to have a distinct dialect and that is why many

linguists have discussed the phonological, historical, and syntactic aspects of these

dialects (e.g. Fouad, 1964; Esmail, 1972; Almozainy 1981). Moreover, different dialects
within one country have also been discussed (e.g. Aljehani, 1985), but the study of the
correlation between these dialects and their sociocultural settings has not yet been given

sufficient attention.

2.2 Language Attitudes

It is easy to define the word ‘attitude’ when it stands by itself, but it is far from easy
to give it a good definition that covers all of its aspects once it is linked to the word
‘language’. Ryan et a1. (1982: p7), for example, define language attitude as “any effective,
cognitive, or behavioral index of evaluative reactions towards different language varieties
and toward their speakers.” Baker (1992) saw attitude toward language as “a hypothetical
construct used to explain the direction and persistence of human behavior.” Deperez &
Persoons (1987) looked at attitude toward language in relation to behavior as something
that “. .. has a lot to do with behavior, but it is not behavior; attitude means readiness to
behavior.” Fasold (1984) discussed language attitude from another perspective claiming
that language attitude is an internal mental state of readiness that is affected by a start
(i.e., stimulus) and leading to an end (i.e., response). In fact, Fasold’s understanding of
language attitude poses another problem that adds to the complexity of the definition.
That is, since language attitude is a state of mind, it becomes difficult to measure,
perceive or solicit more knowledge about it.

Language is not only a means of communication, but is also an indicator of social

characteristics and views:

Language is not merely a carrier of content, whether latent or manifest. Language

itself is content, a referent for loyalties and animosities, an indicator of social

statuses and personal relationships, a marker of situations and topics as well as of
the societal goals and the large-scale value-laden arenas of interaction that typify

every speech community. (Fishman, 1971 ,1)

It is also a means of identification, an aspect of behavior, and a basis for judgment:
Spoken language is an identifying feature of members of a national or cultural
group and any Listener’s attitude toward members of a particular group should
generalize to the language they use... the use of the language is one aspect of
behavior common to a variety of individuals, hearing the language is likely to
arouse mainly generalized or stereotyped characteristics of the group. (Lambert,
Gardner, Hodgson & F illenbaum, 1960,1)

Language can also be a symbol to foster support, display and increase pride, and
show individuality and belonging. Adegbija (1994), for example, observed that the use of
Kiswahili in Tanzania instead of the colonial language (i.e., English) reflects national
pride, supports unity, and also shows independence and belonging. Also, language can
further strengthen social communication between individuals of different tribes, or other
ethnic groups:

In multicultural contexts, intercultural or interethnic communication in markets,
social gatherings, places of worship, etc tends to be enhanced when the different
cultural groups have languages that serve in day-to-day social interaction. Such
languages are referred to as link languages, vehicular languages, and lingua francas.
(Adegbija 1994. 3).

Not only is language used to express thoughts, but also to create an image of our
identity and our relationships with others. During a football game in 1995, the
commentator of the game made some comments about Kansas State player Mark

Simoneau saying, " I had the chance to talk with Mark yesterday, and if you ever talked to

him, then you will see that he is one of the most respectful, polite young men that you

have ever met." It is apparent that the player did not only use language to express
thoughts but he was successful to make the commentator think very highly of him.

During the past three decades, some linguists have begun to study the social
aspects of dialects, including the perceptions that the speakers of one dialect have of the
speakers of other dialects of the same language.

Since language is a form of social behavior, we react to a person’s speech pattern

as we would react to any of his actions. If his dialect differs from our own, we

may consider him quaint, naive, stupid, suave, cultivated, conceited, alien, or any
number of other things. Most frequently, however, our attitudes toward the
outsider tends to be negative, since after all he is not one of our group. (Shuy,

1967:2)

It is not necessary to have two different languages in order to have language
variation. There are different varieties within most languages that can account for
language variation. It has been suggested that the dialect of the most dominant, socially
powerful group in a society is considered to be prestigious, while the dialect of the
socially less powerful group, or minority, is deemed inferior and less prestigious. It latter
is a barrier from achieving success in society (Ryan, Giles & Sebastian 1982). Social and
economic standards determine the powerful dialect even if only the minority (i.e. the
educated, the wealthy, and the politically influential) in communities uses it. Adegbija
(1994) observed that in all of the sub-Saharan African countries, the elite class’s colonial
western languages are the powerful, educated, and prestigious although the speakers of
such languages do not exceed ten per cent of the population and the national languages
are less prestigious although spoken by more than ninety per cent of the people.

Ryan, Giles & Sebastian (1982) looked at language attitude research in three

dimensions. The first dimension was the social aspect (i.e., vitality) and also the structural

aspect (i.e., standardization). The second dimension had to do with the measurement
techniques (i.e., direct or indirect). The third and last dimension was the two evaluative
dimensions of language attitudes, status and in-group solidarity.

As far as sociostructural determinants of language attitude are concerned, Lambert
(1967) suggested that there is a tendency for people to give evaluative reactions toward
speakers using contrasting language varieties. The most important distinction among
varieties is the structure Of the variety and the extent to which a variety is standardized.
According to F ishman (1971), a variety is standardized if certain norms defining ‘correct’
usage have been codified and accepted in the speech community and documented through
dictionaries and books of grammar. Language standardization can be a deliberate action
or it can happen without attention as a result of some pre- established factors. Political
and/or social forces can also force standardization of a language or a variety. Lippi- Green
(1997) argued that standardization of languages may have some biases and she looked at
the process of standardization as a "bias toward an abstracted, idealized, homogenous
spoken language which is imposed and maintained by dominant institutions" (Lippi-
Green, 1997: 64).

Vitality, on the other hand, is related to social factors such as the amount of use and
the reasons for using it. Arabic is more vital to Egyptians using it for all of their daily
activities and interactions than Arab-Egyptian American parents using it only at home.
There are also some other aspects of vitality such as social or educational status,
demographic strengths, and institutional and official representation. Standardization and

vitality are not separate from each other. “Standardization contributes substantially to the

vitality of a language variety while strong vitality enhances its potential for achieving
standardization” (Ryan, Giles & Sebastian l982,5).

In measuring language attitude, there are three major assessment techniques that
are necessary to conduct each study. The first technique is the direct technique, where
questions are asked directly of a certain number of people, usually in the form of
interviews, questions, or questionnaires in order to elicit attitudes about one language or
another. The questionnaire and interview are examples of this type of approach. The
second technique is the indirect method where the respondent is not expected to know
that their language attitudes are being investigated. A good example describing this
method can be found in Cooper and Fishman (1974). They wanted to examine the
hypothesis that Hebrew was thought of as a language better used for scientific arguments
whereas Arabic is a language better used for conveying traditional Islamic arguments and
teachings. Four one-minute passages recorded by fluent speakers of both languages were
used. The first two passages gave scientific evidence about the evils of tobacco and were
recorded in both Arabic and Hebrew. Using traditional Islamic arguments, the other two
passages discussing the use of liquor were also recorded in both languages. The four
passages were played to two groups of Muslim adults. The first group listened to the
liquor passage in Hebrew and the tobacco passage in Arabic. The other group listened to
the liquor passage in Arabic and the tobacco passage in Hebrew. The two groups were
asked if they would support increased taxes on tobacco or liquor in order to reduce their
use.

The results of this experiment appeared to support the hypothesis. The group that

heard the tobacco passage in Hebrew appeared to support the tax increases by a two- to-

10

one ratio over those who heard the same passage in Arabic. On the other hand, the group
that heard the liquor passage in Arabic was twice as likely to support the tax increases as
those who heard the passage in Hebrew.

The third method is the matched-guise technique as introduced by Lambert,
Hodgson, Gardner & F illenbaum (1960); it has become a standard method in language
attitude research. In order to execute the experiment, a group of bilingual speakers are
recorded reading a passage in the two languages under investigation. The recorded
passages are then ordered in such a way that makes the respondents feel that a different
speaker reads every passage. For example, if we have four bilingual Speakers reading a
passage in language 1 and language 2, the arrangement could be as follows: first speaker
reads in L1, second speaker reads in L1, then the third speaker reads in L2, and finally,
the first speaker reads again in his L2 guise. The respondents will presumably have
forgotten that the first and the fourth speakers are the same speaker.

The respondents who are bilingual are then asked to rate the speakers on aspects
such as social class, intelligence, and preference. If a respondent rated a Speaker
differently in the different guises, then the difference will be likely attributed to language
since the voice factor will not interfere. This experiment is a combination of direct and
indirect techniques. It is direct in that the respondents are asked to respond directly to the
speakers’ characteristics. It is indirect in that the respondents are asked to respond to the
speakers, not the language. These methods are the most common techniques in language
attitude research, although there are other methods that can be used such as Agheyisi and

Fishman’s (1970) Observative method.

ll

The occasions in which a variety is used are important in determining its prestige.
The variant that is reserved for use on formal occasions enjoys higher social prestige than
the one reserved for informal occasions. The degree of standardization and the amount of
governmental and institutional support for varieties create differential associations among
their speakers. The social, economic, and educational status of the speakers of a variety
are important factors in judging its prestige. The higher the social and educational status
of the speakers of a variety, the more likely their variety will acquire such characteristics
as confidence, intelligence, and ambition (Giles, 1971b; Lambert, 1967; Mulac 1976a;
Williams, 1976). A good example to illustrate this point is Modern Standard Arabic
verses colloquial Arabic. Modern Standard Arabic is used only on formal occasions,
particularly religious services, and also for social and formal events. It is also used in
publications of textbooks, specialized journals, and governmental documentations,
whereas colloquial Arabic is used in informal settings such as family gatherings, Internet
chat rooms and personal correspondence.

Concerning the evaluative dimensions of language attitudes, social status and in-
group solidarity are the two evaluative dimensions in which different varieties are
viewed. These two dimensions are related to the two social and structural determinants of
language attitudes mentioned in Ryan, Giles, & Sebastian (1982). The social status or
power of the Speakers of one variety are the primary determinants of its extent of
standardization, whereas the vitality of a variety is determined by the solidarity among its
speakers. It is interesting to note that judgments for dialect standardization and vitality are

based on some socio-linguistics bases.

12

In-group solidarity — the second evaluative dimension in language perception — is a
means for people to Show social and community attachment as well as preserve and
maintain language varieties that enforce belonging and unity. The characteristics of the
variety such as being prestigious, indicative of education, or intelligent are not important
to making them capable of reflecting social pressures. The language or dialect that we use
within our families, or within our informal interaction with friends or relatives is a
symbol of social meaning and an indicator of our identity and belonging (Ryan, Giles, &
Sebastian, 1982).

In many countries such as Saudi Arabia, where there are many different tribes, the
study of language attitudes helps reveal the beliefs and thoughts that one group has about
the other. “Attitudes towards particular varieties are then taken to be attitudes towards the
Speakers of those varieties” (Ryan, Giles, and Sebastian, 1982: p2).

Finally, it is important to recognize that studying the attitudes of people in one
area towards the variety or varieties in other areas is not a way of saying that a particular
variety is better than another. From a linguistic viewpoint all varieties are equally good
with respect to their linguistic system (Trudgill, 1974), but from a social point of view,

they are not the same, especially if we compare a particular variety to the standard one.

2.3 Language Attitude in Arabic

Most of attention that was given to Arabic was related to its syntax, semantics,
phonology, or morphology but less attention was given to its sociolinguistic aspects. Al-
Dash and Tucker (1975) conducted a study to investigate Classical and Colloquial Arabic

and Egyptian English. They used a classic matched guise method where two Egyptian

l3

speakers who were fluent in both Classical and Colloquial Arabic and Egyptian English
discussed the Giza pyramids. The speakers were told to speak Classical Arabic as
spontaneously as possible. The discussion was tape-recorded. A group of listeners were
then asked to evaluate the speech on all different language guises according to four
semantic differential scales: intelligence, religiousness, likability, and leadership. The
study showed that the speakers of Classical Arabic and Egyptian English were viewed to
have greater leadership ability and were seen as more intelligent than the speakers of
Colloquial Arabic. Speakers of Classical Arabic were rated highest in terms of
religiousness and likability. Colloquial Arabic came second while Egyptian English came
third in religiousness

The study also examined the suitability of the different language varieties in five
situations: (1) at home; (2) at school; (3) at work; (4) on radio and television; and (5) in
formal and religious speeches. No significant differences were reported for the “at work”
Situation. Classical Arabic was the most suitable for three situations: “at school,” “on
radio and television,” and “in formal or religious speeches.” Egyptian English came
second and Colloquial Egyptian Arabic came third

Spolsky et. a1 (1998) conducted a language attitude study in the Palestinian
communities in Israel. They examined Palestinian attitudes toward four languages used in
Palestine. The four languages were colloquial Arabic, English, French, and Hebrew. They
discovered that colloquial Arabic was ranked higher as the language of traditions and
heritage. English was considered to be the most prestigious and was also ranked high as
the language of instrumental needs. French came next with a lower status than English.

Hebrew was associated with social aspects such as occupation and disputes, but was not

ranked low. Respondents’ attitude was mainly positive considering Hebrew as the
language best used for the instrumental needs.

In Arabic, variety is considered to be standard or not by its closeness to Classical
Arabic, which has been maintained by the Holy Quran. Arabic has three different stages
of language variation. The highest and most prestigious is Classical Arabic, which is used
in the Holy Quran. Modern Standard Arabic comes next as the dialect for formal social
events and religious services. In fact, Classical and Modern Standard Arabic are distinct
only in terms of their lexicon and the rhetorical usage of the language. The third stage is
where there are dialects for every country, and even different dialects within each country.
The first two stages are formal and unchanged throughout each country. In other words, if
Arabic speakers used Standard or Classical Arabic where delivering a speech, it would be
very difficult to tell their country of origin. However, when this particular speaker used
his/her colloquial variety, it would be much easier to tell the country of origin.

One of the misunderstandings that many people in Saudi Arabia have is that non-
standard varieties are incorrect, ignorant, or funny, whereas the standard variety is the
only educated and correct variety. This misunderstanding is exaggerated in Saudi Arabia
because people have a historical hatred of groups of people (tribes) and extend this
evaluation to the variety they speak. The Holy Quran did not favor one variety over the
other, but rather was revealed in seven different varieties that were spoken in the Arabian
Peninsula at that time. Prophet Mohammad said, “The angel Gabriel taught me the Holy
Quran at seven varieties of Arabic” (Bukhari 1952). Nevertheless, past disputes among

the different tribes have had a great impact on peoples’ judgment of other varieties.

15

It is difficult to be certain that one particular variety spoken by people in one region
is what is called in sociolinguistics “the standard variety.” It is true that some varieties are
closer to Modern Standard Arabic than others, but that does not mean that one particular
variety can be labeled as the standard variety. In general, sociolinguists believe that the
difficulty may apply not only to Arabic, but also to many languages in the world. In
America, for example, no single variety of American English could be labeled as the
standard variety (Preston, 1993). Many different varieties are thought Of by their speakers
to be the standard. From a purely linguistic point of view, we could claim that although
the varieties differ in terms of their phonology, morphology and lexicon, they share many
things, and there is no need to label one variety as the standard one. One of the
misconceptions that people have is that the non-standard variety is not “a very structured
system” but “accumulations of errors.” “All linguists agree that non-standard dialects are
not highly structured systems; they do not see these dialects as accumulations of errors
caused by the failure of their speakers to master Standard English” (Labov, 1969:73-74).
It has not yet come to the attention of the researcher that any language attitude research

has been conducted in Saudi Arabia.

2.4 Perceptual Dialectology

The research done by Preston (1986) with residents of New York City, Hawaii,
southern Indiana, western New York, and southeastern Michigan involved giving
respondents maps of the US and askied them to label and circle the areas where people
‘speak alike.’ There was a tendency for the respondents in the study to single out their

own region as a separate dialect. Interestingly enough, Preston’s research found out that

16

respondents do not differentiate separate regions in the western states with the exception
of California, which was singled out as a separate dialect area. All respondents, with the
exception of Hawaiians, drew “West” as a distinctive region and only western New York
respondents drew distinct boundaries for what they called “Northwest” region which
includes the states from Oregon to Minnesota. All other regions are then divided into
regions called: “Texas,” “North/Northern,” “Northeast/New England,” “New York City,”
“south/southern,” and “Midwest.”

In addition, Preston (1993b) examined the perceptual dialectology of southern
Indiana and southeastern Michigan respondents by asking them to rate the 50 states
together with New York City and Washington DC. in terms of “correctness,” “degree of
difference,” and “pleasantness.” The study Showed that how a given society views a
particular variety could affect their judgments of themselves and of others.

The southeastern Michigan respondents, for example, exhibited a high linguistic
security by rating themselves high in both “correctness” and “pleasantness” scales,
although some other states were rated high in “pleasantness” as well. Southern Indiana
respondents, on the other hand, exhibit small linguistic insecurity by rating several other
states higher in terms of “correctness”, although they rated themselves highest in terms of
“pleasantness.” The reason for southern Indiana respondents’ linguistic insecurity is
mainly due to the fact that they feel themselves to be part of a stereotyped group in the
American culture (i.e., as having a southern accent), The study also revealed that this
stigmatization helped create in-group solidarity amongst them.

Hartley’s study on Oregonians (1996) shares similar results to Preston (1986;

1993). The study showed that the caricature of one group against the other affected their

17

judgment. Oregonians, for example, do not distinguish themselves from Washington, but
they distinguish themselves slightly from California. The distinction came from the fact
that Oregonians have a caricature of Southern California (i.e., there are many native
Spanish Speaking residents.) Since Oregonians, like Preston’s Michiganders, do not feel
stigmatized, they exhibit a high linguistic security by rating themselves high in both
scales of “pleasantness” and “correctness.” It is interesting to note that Oregonians did not
distinguish themselves from Washington since Preston (1993) proposed that each
region’s respondents tend to single out their own dialect as a distinct dialect region.

The findings that Preston (1986;1993) and Hartley (1996) found are consistent with
some of the past language research that proposed that a variety of a minority group can
become a means of creating high feelings of solidarity. According to Preston (1993: 35),
“These results suggest, further, that the preference for local norms along affective lines is
stronger in areas where there is linguistic insecurity.”

From the above researches, one can conclude that linguistic security is correlated to
some social factors. Stigmatization and stereotyping are at least two determinant
examples of linguistic security. How people are thought of in a particular culture can be
an important factor in that group’s linguistic security. In addition, the above research
illustrates the fact that the variety of a particular minority group can be their means to
create a sort of solidarity and “a key symbol” for their identity and culture.

In spite of the fact that Preston and Hartley’s works give a good picture of
American perceptions of US regional speech, no universal understanding of perceptual
dialectology has yet been provided. Preston and Hartley’s works are carried out in the

atmosphere of one language and one culture. Doing research in a different culture and a

18

different language will provide a much wider understanding of perceptual dialectology.

The methodological details of perceptual dialectology are outlined below.

19

Chapter Three

3.1 Methodology

This chapter illustrates how the research is designed and the data is collected as
well as how the different methodological procedures are canied out. The chapter includes
the following sections:

0 Development of the Questionnaire.
0 Data Collection and Subjects of the Study.
0 Description of the Questionnaire.

o Hypotheses of the Study.

3.2 Development Of the Questionnaire

Before the questionnaire was formulated, the researcher reviewed some of the
related literature in order to find a questionnaire that was sound and appropriate for the
study. The researcher determined that the questionnaire that was used by Hartley (1996)
would be appropriate if some changes were made to accommodate the Saudi situation.
The questionnaire then was translated into Arabic. The details are discussed in 3.3 below.

(See appendix A for complete instruments.)

3.3 Data Collection and Subjects Of the Study

The data collected for this study were primarily from residents living in Najd, Saudi

Arabia. Most of the respondents were approached through a conference that the

20

researcher attended. The total number of respondents is sixty. Twenty respondents live in
Alkassim, two hundred miles to the north of Riyadh, the capital city of Saudi Arabia.
Twenty-eight respondents live in Riyadh and the remaining twelve respondents live in
small villages near Riyadh. The respondents ranged in age from 18 to 63 with the
following number in each of the four age categories: 18- 28, twenty-one respondents; 29-
39, seventeen respondents; 40-50, thirteen respondents; 51-63, nine respondents. Twenty
of the respondents lived their entire lives in Najd. Eighteen respondents lived outside
Najd for less than ten years. Nine respondents were born outside Najd, but then moved to
Najd during their childhood. Thirteen respondents were born and raised in Najd, but have
lived outside Najd for their college study. The respondents belong to different tribes, but

all their tribes live in Najd.

3.4 Description of the Questionnaire

3.4.1 Maps

3.4.1.a. First Maps

The respondents were given maps of Saudi Arabia and then asked to draw the
different regions of the country. They were not told on what basis they should draw their
regions. In this task, the respondents are expected to be influenced by the political
division of the country more than the linguistic division.
3.4.l.b Second Maps

The respondents were then given another map and asked to draw boundary lines

around regions where people speak the same dialect. The reason for giving two maps was

21

to examine the influence of the political division of the country since the country is

divided politically into five different provinces.

3.4.2 Scales

3.4.2.a Scale One: Correctness

All the different regions were given to the respondents in a list. Then the
respondents were asked to rate each region on a 7-point scale as to how “correct” the
speech in that region is. When the respondents demanded an explanation of the meaning
of correctness, they were told to use their own judgment. The scale went from “1” being

least correct to “7” bring most correct.

3.4.2.b Scale Two: Pleasantness

In “pleasantness” the same scale that was used in “correctness” was used. But the
respondents were asked to determine how pleasant the speech of a particular region is.
Again, the respondents were advised to use their own judgment in determining the
meaning of pleasantness. This scale is similar to the scale that was used with the

correctness task. It has ‘1’ being least pleasant through ‘7’ most pleasant.

3.4.2.c Scale Three: Degree of Difference
In this scale, the respondents were asked to rate the six regions according to how
similar the Speech of each region’s residents are compared to the respondents’ own

speech on a four-point scale as follows:

22

People there sound like me.

People there sound a little different from me.

People there sound very different from me.

People there sound so different from me that I can’t understand them.

PPR)!”

3.4.3 Interviews

Structured interviews with some guiding questions were employed. Some
respondents were interviewed after they filled in their questionnaire. The aim of the
interview was to elicit more details about things the questionnaire did not cover such as
the stereotypes people have against the others, and the reason behind their ratings. In
some cases, the reason for interviews is to understand the individual backgrounds of some

respondents to help the study.

3.5 Hypotheses of the Study

All the research mentioned in the previous chapter tempts me to ask this question:
What if we change the areas, the culture, and the language? Are we going to get the same
results or not? Since no perceptual dialectology research has been carried out in Saudi
Arabia, I intend, as a native of the central part of Saudi Arabia, to investigate the
perceptual dialectology of residents from the central part of Saudi Arabia, or what is

known there as Najd. The following hypotheses are tested in this study:

Hypothesis 1: Najdi people will differentiate varieties of speech in all parts of
the country. They will not consider any of the seven parts of the country as
identical, and, on the contrary, each region will have its own particular dialect that
no other region shares. Najdis will in particular distinguish themselves from the
rest of the regions.

23

This hypothesis is based primarily on the fact that Saudi Arabia is politically
divided into five regions: the Central region, the Western region, the Eastern region, the
Southern region, and the Northern region. The researcher divided the Northern region into
three regions based on the idea that the Northern region is bordered by three countries and
each of them has a distinct dialect. The number of regions, therefore, became seven
instead of five. The second part of the hypothesis is based on past research (e.g., Preston
1986; Hartley 1996), which suggests that the Speakers of each dialect tend to single out

their dialect or region as a distinct dialect or region.

Hypothesis 2: Najdis will exhibit a great degree of linguistic security and that

will be reflected in their rating of themselves high in terms of “correctness” and
“pleasantness”. NO other region of the country will have the same rating.

This hypothesis is based mainly on the fact that Najd is a part of the country that

has never been stigmatized. According to my intuition about the Arabic variety that is

Spoken there, and because the region itself is more religious and conservative, the same

thing is proposed. In addition, Najd has more religious scholars than any region, and that

consequently gives it more respect and higher status.

Hypothesis 3: The southern part of the country is expected to score the lowest
rating in both “correctness” and “pleasantness”. The western part is also expected
to score low in both “correctness” and “pleasantness” though it will not be as low
as the southern part. It is not obvious whether the eastern or the northern parts is
expected to come second in both “correctness” and “pleasantness” since the two
regions have the same qualities.

Hypothesis 4: Age will have a significant effect on ratings. Gender may not be
significant though it may influence ratings slightly.

24

This hypothesis is based largely on the fact that the old people tend to be less
educated and are more socially affected by past tribal disputes. The new generations have
less negative attitudes towards the other regions since they did not experience the same
problems as their parents. Gender is less likely to affect the rating mainly because both

genders are affected by the same social and cultural incidences.

3.6. Comments on the Research Methodology

While preparing for the questionnaire, there was the problem of the political
division of the country. The researcher thought that there might be some impact on the
respondents’ boundary lines of the different dialects, so there were two maps for the
respondents to draw their boundary lines on. The two maps helped reveal the political and
social influence on the respondents since the different dialects were distinguished on non-
linguistic basis such as geographical area (e.g., Grootears, 1959). Yet at the same time,
they were a source of confusion for the respondents since they thought they performing
the same task.

In order to assure a good translation of the questionnaire, the researcher asked eight
students studying at Michigan State University to translate the words “correctness” and
“pleasantness” into Arabic using as many synonyms as they could. The researcher then
picked the words that were repeated in all of the translations. The word “correct” was
translated as Arabic /sahih/ which triggered an association with Classical Arabic since

the word “correct” implies a standard for judgment.

25

The respondents were also confused by the word Isahih/ and kept asking about the
its meaning. They understood the word as referring to classical Arabic. The following
interviews showed the confusion that the respondents experienced (the researcher’s
comments are in italics):

(respondent # 28) If you mean and you mean the grammar, then I think we all
speak bad language, but if you mean the pronunciation then we are a little bit O.K.
Just try to make your best guess.

I think when people say correct they mean the grammar, SO my judgment will be
based on the grammatical aspects of the language.

(respondent # 3) In fact, I do not understand what you really mean by “correct.” I
know pleasantness, I know difference, but for correctness I have no idea what you
mean. Is it the opposite of wrong or the synonym of right?
Judge as you judge your students when they talk. Do you feel that their language
is correct or not.
Actually I still do not understand what you mean, but when I judge my students, I
am more concerned with their grammar.

The strong objection and the demand for more explanation in the correctness task did not

Show up in the other two tasks. Some respondents took just a minute or two to think

about it.

3.7. Limitations of the Study

No linguistic research can achieve a hundred percent accuracy though the high
percentage of credibility is an indication of the strength of the study. Many things limited
this study. The researcher could not have complete access to female respondents because
of the religious restrictions, especially in terms of the interviews. Some respondents were
hesitant for religious reasons to fill in the questionnaire Since they thought that if they

criticized any of the varieties, then they might actually be criticizing the people who

26

speak that variety. In Islam, it is highly discouraged to make fim of a person for his
language, race, religion, social status or color. The study was also limited by how people
understood the questionnaire. Some respondents did not understand what was meant by

“correctness” so they kept asking for an explanation.

27

4.1 Results

Chapter Four

Results and Discussion

4.1.1. Hand-Drawn Maps

In the hand-drawn maps task, the respondents were asked to draw the different

regions on two maps. The first map was given to them with minimal comments. They

were asked to identify the different regions in the country. Then the respondents were

given similar maps but were asked to draw their boundary lines according to the regions

where “people talk alike.”

The two different maps showed minimal difference in their boundaries for the

different regions. All respondents differentiated five distinct regions. Only three

respondents divided the country into seven regions. Some examples of hand-drawn maps

are included in Appendix B.

Table 1. Frequency of Identification of Dialect Regions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Region Identified Number of Respondents % Respondents identifying
identifying regions n= 60) region
The Central Region 60 100.0
The Western 60 100.0
Region
The Eastern Region 60 100.0
The Northern 60 100.0
Region
The Southern 60 100.0
Region
The Northeastern 3 5.0
Region
The Northwestern 3 5.0
Region

 

28

 

As can be seen in T able 1, the least often identified regions are the Northeastern
and the Northwestern regions. Although all of the remaining five regions are clearly
identified, the size of each region varies from one respondent to another. Some
respondents drew the Central region, for example, almost twice as big as some other
respondents did. In order to illustrate how different the respondents were in their
distinction of the Central region boundaries, two maps were provided. The first map is
from a respondent who drew the Central region small as in Figure l, and the second map

is from a respondent who drew the Central region big as in Figure 2.

 

 

Figure 1. Where the Central region is small.

29

 

Figure 2. Where the Central region is big.

Although some respondents varied in their boundaries, their judgment did not
affect this Study. The respondents, while drawing the boundaries, asked about the big
cities. Their identification of the regions appeared to be based on the location of the
cities. Almost 85 % of the people in Saudi Arabia live in fairly large cities. These large

cities were identified correctly and used as base for the regions identified by the

30

respondents. For this reason I have not generalized boundaries as was done in previous
work (Preston, 1986).

While drawing their maps, some respondents excluded an area in the southeastern
part of the country called the “Empty Quarter.” The Empty Quarter is a huge desert
constituting one-fourth the size of the country that is unsuitable for habitation.

As the respondents were drawing their second maps, they were asked to label each
region’s dialect. The labels that were used fall in one of the following categories:
‘descriptive phrases/words,’ ‘variety or dialect descriptors,’ ‘names of other countries,’
‘Sound qualities,’ and ‘cultural/historical labels. It is interesting to notice that the term
‘Standard’ which was used by Preston’s (1986) Hawaiian respondents did not show up in
any of these regions.

Unlike Hartley’s (1996) Oregonian respondents, most of the labels were not
“geographical locations.” The most common category is “descriptive phrases/words”,
which means that the respondent used a typical dialect word or phrase from that region to
label it. Some respondents, while labeling the regions, imitated the dialect. The region
most often labeled with regional words was the Western region.

The “variety or dialect descriptor” category was the second most common
category used to describe the Northern region. Labels of this sort were termed ‘funny’ or
‘boring.’ They were used only to label the Northern region. Other labels like ‘bad,’
‘unbearable’ or ‘GOd help me’ (a literal translation of an Arabic idiom to indicate a great
discomfort with something) were also used for the Southern and Western regions.

Respondents labeled some regions, particularly border regions such as the

Southern region, with the name of the neighboring country to Show that the region has

31

immigrants from that country, or that the residents of that region sound like the speakers
of their neighboring country. These types of labels fall under the category of ‘names of
other countries.’ Other labels of this kind (e.g., ‘immigrants’) were also used to describe
the Western region.

The Eastern region was labeled primarily with labels that indicated a description
of their sound (e.g., “heavy accent”, “big tongues” or “big throats”). NO other region was
given any labels that indicated a description of sound.

All regions except the Northern were given labels that indicated cultural or
historical backgrounds. The Southern region was given such labels that showed
stereotyping as “07,” (the area code of the Southern region) which indicates being last in
importance since the country has seven different area codes starting from 01 (the area
code of the capital city Riyadh) through 07. The Western region was also given some
labels that indicated stereotyping such as ‘the leftovers,’ (i.e., settlers who came originally
on a pilgrimage and then settled in the country). Labels like ‘good,’ ‘decent,’ and
‘proper’, which indicate local pride, were used to describe the Central dialect, the dialect
of the respondents.

A list of all the labels that were used in the hand-drawn maps and their translation
in English can be found in Table 2. The English translation is a literal translation of the
labeling word and a description of the meaning is also provided. Most of the labels were

idioms or rhetorical use of Arabic.

32

Table 2. A List of the Labels Used in the Hand-Drawn Maps

 

N° Label Category Label

 

1. Descriptive phrases/words my father: indicating a feeling of boring dialect.
(for the Western dialect)

I tell you: indicating less favorable feeling. (for
the Southern dialect)

brother of Shamar: indicating a description of
social attributes like generosity (for the Northern
dialect)

sons of old ladies: an expression suggesting high
pride (for the Central dialect)

get away: indicating a less favorable feeling (for
the Western dialect)

 

2. Variety descriptors funny (for the Northern dialect)

boring (for the Northern dialect)

bad(for the Southern and Western dialects)
unbearable(for the Southern and Western dialects)
God help me (for the Western dialect)

heavy words (for the Eastern dialect)

my lover (for the Central dialect)

 

3. Other countries Yemen (for the Southern dialect)

Bahrain (for the Eastern dialect)

immigrants (for the Western dialect)

San’a (the capital city of Yemen) (for the Southern
dialect)

 

4. Sound qualities heavy accent (for the Eastern dialect)
big tongues (for the Eastern dialect)
big throats (for the Eastern dialect)

 

 

5. Cultural/historical labels ‘07’ (the area code of the southern part of the

 

 

 

country) (for the Southern dialect)
the leftovers or immigrants ( for the Western
dialect)

 

4.1.2. Degree of Difference

In order to examine the ‘degree of difference,’ a four-point rating scale was used.

PeOple there sound like me.

People there sound a little different from me.

People there sound very different from me.

People there sound very different from me that I cannot understand them.

PPN?‘

33

The researcher used three different statistical tests. The Chi-square tests and the
Kruskal-Wallis test were used to determine if there was a systematic relation between two
variables. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for the data that have zero cell rows since the
Chi-square statistics is inappropriate in those cases. In fact, the Kruskal-Wallis test was
more suitable than Chi-square test for ordered data. The One-Way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) test was used to determine the difference between variables.

Since the data in the three scales of this research, “degree of difference,”
“pleasantness,” and “correctness” are ordered data and have some zero cells, the
researcher was advised to use the Kruskal-Wallis test to determine the relationship
between age, gender, and the three scales. Chi-square test was used to determine the
relationship between the different regions of the country and the One-Way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) test was used to determine the significance of difference of regions
against each other.

The significance of relationships was determined by calculating the cell
frequencies that would be expected if no relationship existed between the variables. In
order to determine the probability that the observed differences were due to chance, the
expected cell frequencies were compared to the observed cell frequencies and the
resulting value was compared to the Kruskal-Wallis or Chi-square distribution. The larger
the discrepancy between the expected cell frequencies and the observed cell frequencies,
the larger the calculated Kruskal-Wallis or Chi-square statistic, and the less likely that the

differences were due to chance.

34

The results of this study Show that Najdis rated other regions as different from
their own although the extent of difference varied. It is interesting to notice that Najdis
did not perceive any other dialect to be different from their own that they could not
understand it nor did they perceive any other variety in the country as being just like their
dialect. No other dialect was rated ‘l,’ “speak like me” or ‘4’, “speak so different from
me that I can’t understand them’. Chart 1 below gave a comparison of ratings of all
respondents of the other dialects. The chart showed that all three northern regions (i.e.,
Northern region, Northwestern region, and Northeastern region) were rated “2” , “People
there sound a little different from me”, by most of the respondents. Forty nine
respondents rated the Northern dialect as "People there sound a little different from me".
Forty respondents gave the Northeastern region a rating of ‘2’, and thirty five respondents
gave the Northwestern region a rating of ‘2’. More "3" ratings, "People there sound very
different from me", were given to the other three regions (the Eastern region, the Western
region, and the Southern region). Thirty five respondents rated the Eastern dialect ‘3’,
forty nine respondents gave the Western region a rating of ‘3’, and forty seven Najdis
gave the Southern region a rating of ‘3’. Tables 3 through 8 provided the actual ratings

for all respondents of all regions.

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Degree of Difference Ratings
60
55
50
L
45- —
4o- _.
g; 35- -—
§ 30* _ I 1N0 Difference
“5 25" _ I 2
i“ 204 D 3
El 4 Great Difference
15- ~ -—
10- —
5- _
0‘1 1 t I t t 1
.3“ gar“ gr“ ,S‘ 93° 6506‘
o O ‘b 0
Regions

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chart 1: Degree of Difference Ratings for All Dialects

It is obvious from the chart above that Najdis' perception of other dialects varies
tremendously. In order to examine the discrepancy in ratings, it would be appropriate to
draw a bar chart comparison to examine the respondents’ ratings of one of the northern
regions with their high ratings and the Western or the Southern regions with their low
ratings. The following chart displays the difference in ratings between the Northern and

the Western regions.

36

Degree of Difference Ratings for Northern and Western

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dialects.

it?
.... e ”T
C
a) .r
g .9
3 I1 No Difference
68 6° I 2
a: .9 El 3

[34 Great Difference
'9 J I
6 Northern ' r Western I .
Regions

Chart 2: Degree of Difference Ratings for the Northern and Western Dialects.
The following tables 3 through 8 give the actual ratings of all regions and they show the
difference in ratings between males and females. Figures in the following tables are the
actual number of respondents that gave the specific rating. Refer to appendix D for more

detailed ratings of all regions in terms of gender and age group, and for percentages.

Table 3. Degree of Difference Ratings for Northern Dialect

 

 

 

 

 

 

..t‘srespondendts 60
l 0 0 0
2 24 25 49
3 5 6 1 1
4 0 O 0
Total 29 3 1 60

 

 

 

 

 

 

37

Table 4. Degree of Difference Ratings for Western Dialect

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

respondents 60
l 0 0 0
2 7 4 11
3 22 27 49
4 0 0 0
Total 29 31 6O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. respondents 60
1 0 0 o
2 10 15 25
3 19 16 35
4 O 0 0
Total 29 31 6O

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6. Degree of Difference Ratings for Northeastern Dialect

 

 

 

 

 

es ' 'aes' ' '
iRatings n(=)2 1. .. (1":3). responden 60 . Q.’
1 0 0 0
2 2O 20 40
3 9 11 20
4 0 O 0
Total 29 31 6O

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Degree of Difference Ratings for Northwestern Dialect

 

* FI‘Eotal # of

respondets 60

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

 

 

Table 8. Degree of Difference Ratings for Southern Dialect

          

 

 

 

 

: . " Respondents ' ‘ Total # of p
1 O O
2 7 6 13
3 22 25 47
4 O O 0
Total 29 31 6O

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Kruskal-Wallis test was run for each of the different regions based on gender
and age. The tests showed that gender and age were not significant at or: 0.05 level for
any of the regions. Therefore, we accept the null hypothesis (H0) which assumes that age
and ‘degree of difference’ and gender and ‘degree of difference’ are independent. (See
appendices D1 and D2 for the exact statistical values of all regions). Figures in D1 and
D2 appendixes are numbers of actual raters and percentages of the whole number of
respondents.

Since the statistical tests did not Show any statistical significance in terms of the
relationship between age and degree of difference or between gender and degree of
difference. Also, the fact that Chart 1 (see above) indicated that the ratings of some
regions were similar to other regions. Therefore, the researcher decided to run subsequent
statistics (i.e., One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests) on the entire population of
this study regardless of any differences in terms of age or gender. The results emphasized
the bar chart suggestions and showed that degree of difference ratings of some regions
were not significantly different from the ratings of other regions at the alpha level of 0.05.
The statistical tests were executed by comparing the degree of difference ratings for each

region against every other region. The tests showed that some regions were not

39

significantly different from other regions. In order to understand what we mean by
regions or dialects that can be grouped together, bar chart comparison would allow us to
visualize the difference in ratings of some regions compared to other regions. The ratings
of the Western region, for example, were not different from the ratings of the Southern

region as indicated in Table 9 and shown in Chart 3.

Degree of Difference Ratings for the Western and the
Souflrern regions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6°
*2 6°
8
S s9 .
5,1, I 1 No Difference
9‘1: .39 I2
g [:13
‘19 El 4 Great difference
,3
Q Western Southern

Regions

Chart 3. Degree of Difference Ratings of the Western and the Southern Dialects
The results of the tests are displayed in Table 9. The results in the table are in

terms of which regions were not significantly different from others at or= 0.05 level.

40

Table 9. ANOVA test Results for Degree of Difference Ratings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Region Regions which were not significantly Statistical difference
different
Western Region Southern Region F :0.22, P:0.64
Eastern Region None
Northern Region Northeastern Region F:3.09, P:0.083
Northwestern Region F: 0.75, P:0.39
Southern Region Western Region F :0.22, P:0.64
Northeastern Region Northern Region F :3.09., P:0.64
Northwestern Region F:0.75, P:0.39
Northwestern Region Northern Region F:0.75, P:0.39
Northeastern Region F:0.75,P:0.39

 

 

 

One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests revealed that the respondents'
ratings of the Southern region are not significantly different from their ratings of the
Western region. They also did not differentiate significantly between the three northern
regions. Ratings of the Eastern region, on the other hand, indicated a distinct dialect that

is different from theirs, but not similar to any other region.

4.1.3. Correctness

66199

On a scale of “1 — 7” where is the least correct and “7” is the most correct,
Najdis did not perceive any other dialect, indicating their own, as the most correct
(i.e.,"7") and they do not also see any other dialect as a least correct (i.e.,"l"). Most of
their ratings were right in the middle of the scale. Chart 3 showed a complete bar-

comparison between all regions. The chart and table 15 showed that the majority of

Najdis (52 respondents) gave the highest rating to their own dialect through rating it “5”.

41

 

Only three respondents gave their own dialect a high rating of ‘6’, and five other
respondents looked at their dialect with a relatively low rating of ‘4’. Most of the ratings
for the other dialects were within the rating scale of “4”. The exception was the Southern
dialect, which was rated “3” more often than “4” by the majority of the respondents (i.e.,
twenty eight respondents giving the Southern dialect a rating of "4" and twenty one
respondents giving it a rating of "3"). The Eastern dialect received a "4" rating from 36
respondents and a "3" rating from 18 respondents. The Westem region was rated "3" and
"4" by nine and forty-three respondents respectively. Refer to tables 10 through 16 for a

complete listing of the ratings for all regions.

42

Correctness Ratings for All Regions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

50-

40
12 F
é ' I1 Least Corr
‘ I2
8 _
8 3O .3
95 U4
0
4:: I5

20 —* I6

I7 Most Corr
1O
0' fl I I

 

@Wngff

(396‘ (P0 0'90 (090 9‘6
9° ‘9 96:9)‘6‘ 60$

Regions

Chart 4: Correctness Ratings for All Dialects

It is interesting to notice that although the northern part of the country is divided
politically into three regions, Najdis did not see the same difference based on their ratings
of the correctness of all the three varieties. The following chart and the actual ratings are

available in the tables below with explanation of their ratings in greater detail.

43

Correctness Ratings for the Northern Regions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60
. I1 Least Corr
50 I2
El 3
a 4

4o ' 5
.. ' I6
5 I 7 Most Corr
'0
C
i 30
0
tr
“5
:1:

20

10

0- . i
Q
def sf .9
s sf" \g“
Regions

Chart 5: Correctness Ratings for Northern Dialects
Tables 10 through 16 Show the respondents’ actual ratings of every region as well
as the different ratings in terms of gender. Figures in the following tables are the actual
number of respondents giving the specific rating. Refer to appendix E for more detailed

ratings in terms of gender, age groups, and percentages.

44

Table 10. Correctness Ratings for Northern Region

  
 

 

"r 08 ';-.ru '.
respondents 60

O

 

 

 

1

 

8

 

40

 

11

 

0

 

O

 

 

 

 

 

 

6O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. - ...flgesaetsieraéit...
1 o o o
2 o o
3 5 2 7
4 19 21 4o
5 5 8 13
6 o o o
7 o o 0
Total 29 31 60

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12. Correctness Ratings for Northwestern Region

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Respon ents’" 'ema es ‘ " a es ‘ o a o "E ""1.
Baths... . (strait... (...-.31) .58 909999.69...
1 0 0 0
2 2 O 2
3 5 6 l 1
4 18 21 39
5 4 4 8
6 0 0 0
7 0 0 0
Total 29 31 6O

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

Table 13. Correctness Ratings for Western Region

ts

n=31
0

O
4

22
5
0
0
31

 

Table 14. Correctness Ratings for Eastern Region

n=31
O

0
12

18
l
0
O
31

 

Comparing the Central region with the Southern region revealed some interesting
findings about how Najdis perceive the Southern dialect of the country. NO one rated the
Central region with any of the first three ratings while four respondents rated the Southern
dialect “2”. Another twenty-eight respondents rated it “3”. No one gave the Southern
dialect a rating of “6” or “7”. None of the respondents gave a rating of “7” to their own
dialect, but there are three respondents who rated the Central region as high as “6”. The
chart below and tables 15 and 16 give a comparison between the two regions and a full

account of the actual rating.

46

Correctness Ratings for the Central and Southern

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regions
60
50
..‘L’
g 40 I1 Least Corr
8 I 2
3 30 _ [:13
(if [34
H5 20 I 5
=14: I 6
10 I 7 Most Corr
0 , ,1] , ,
Central Southern
Regions

Chart 6: Correctness Ratings for the Central and Southern Dialects

The following tables Show the respondents’ ratings for the Central and Southern regions

and they also Show the gender differences in the ratings.

47

Table 15. Correctness Ratings for Central Region

      
 

. .500 . auntie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

) respondZnts 60 i.
1 0 0 0
2 O 0 O
3 O 0 O
4 3 2 5
5 25 27 52
6 l 2 3
7 O 0 0
Total 29 3 1 6O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 o o o
2 2 2 4
3 11 17 23
4 12 9 21
5 4 3 7
6 o o o
7 o o 0
Total 29 31 6O

 

 

 

 

 

 

Within the factor of age group, all regions were not significantly different in terms
of correctness except the Southern region, which was rated significantly different at the
alpha level of 0.0003 by the respondents of different age groups, as shown in Table 17.
The rating scale was 1= least correct to 7= most correct. Refer to appendix E for the

statistical values of the ratings of all regions in terms of age group.

48

Table 17. Correctness Ratings for Southern Region by Age Group

% # % # %
of of of of of of
60 17 60 60 9 60
0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1.6 l 1.6 1.6 5.0
6.7 8 13.3 18.3 8.3
20.0 6 10.0 1 1.6 1.6
6.7 2 3.3 0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0 0.0
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 18.390, d.f: 3, and p: 0.0003)

 

l
2
3
4
5
6
7

In the correctness ratings, the same statistical procedures were used with the
degree of difference data. Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed that gender is not significant at
the level of or: 0.05 for any of the regions. A complete account of statistical values of
significance are explained in Appendix El.

Given the fact that only the rating of the Southern region was affected by the age
group factor as well as the fact that gender was not significant at any of the regions, the
respondent ratings were combined and again statistically analyzed. The One-Way
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests comparing the ratings of each region with every
other region revealed that some regions could be grouped together. Thus, the regions that
were not significantly different from one another were reported together as in Table 18.
Table 18 shows that both the Central and Southern regions stand by themselves,
distinguished from each other, and from any other region. Comparing the ratings of all
respondents regardless of their age or gender, One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

tests revealed that sets of regions are not significantly different from other regions. As a

49

matter of fact, the statistical tests revealed that the ratings of the Western region were not
significantly different from the ratings of any of the three different northern regions. The
tests also revealed that there is no significant difference between the ratings of Eastern
region and the Northwestern region. The tests also showed that the Northern region was
not significantly different from any of the other northern regions, nor it is different from
the Western region. The Northeastern and the Northwestern regions were not significantly
different from the Northern region, nor were they different from the Western region. The

Northwestern region was not different from the Eastern region.

Table 18. ANOVA Tests Results for Correctness Ratings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Central Region None
Western Region Northern Region F: 1.00 P:0.32
Northeastern Region F: 1.82 P 0.18
Northwestern Region F: 0.24 P 0.63
Eastern Region Northwestern Region F: 2.65 P: 0.11
Northern Western Region F: 1.00 P: 0.32
Region Northeastern Region F: 0.27 P: 0.61
Northwestern Region F: 1.48 P: 0.23

Southern None

Region

Northeastern Western Region F: 1.82 P: 0.18
Region Northern Region F: 0.27 P: 0.61
Northwestern Region F: 3.38 P: 0.07
Northwestern Western Region F: 0.24 P: 0.63
Region Eastern Region F: 2.56 P: 0.11
Northern Region F: 1.48 P: 0.23
Northeastern Region F: 3.38 P: 0.07

 

 

 

50

 

In order to understand what we mean by regions or dialects that can be grouped
together, bar chart comparisons allow us to visualize the differences and similarities in
ratings of some regions compared to other regions. The ratings of the Northern region, for
example, were not significantly different from the ratings of the Western, Northwestern,

and Northeastern regions as indicated in Table 18 and shown in Chart 7.

Correctness Ratings for Northern, Western,
Northwestem, and Northeastern Regions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6°
6°
"’2’ .9 - I1 Least Corr
0
g Q — I 2
D:
“5 '5 _ Cl 3
at ‘19 D4
' I 5
”Q Li MU n 6
Q $0 «5.x ‘0‘? (of I 7 Most Corr
0% 0" e? e"
e s s: s
e° e°
Regions

 

Chart 7: Correctness Ratings for the Northern, Western, Northwestern, and Northeastern Dialects

51

4.1.4. Pleasantness

Again in the pleasantness scale ratings, Najdis gave different ratings for all
regions. It is interesting to note that Najdis seem in their pleasantness ratings more
generous and spread out by giving higher ratings than they did with the correctness
ratings. AS we have seen in the correctness task, Najdis did not rate any region as high as
“7” or as low as “l”, but it seems that they were less conservative in the pleasantness task
through ratings as low as “1” and also as high as “7”. Considering the fact that only three
respondents gave ratings as high as “6” in terms of correctness, pleasantness ratings
Showed that the frequency of using a rating scale of "6" was used by as many as fifty
respondents. This high frequency suggests that the respondents were willing to give high
scores for some regions. The following bar chart shows the spread out of the actual
ratings of all regions for all respondents by comparing the combined ratings of all
respondents to all dialects. As can be seen in the chart, the majority of the respondents
used the rating scale of "4". At a time when no one issued ratings of "7" or "1" in
correctness, it seemed that the rating scales of "6" and even "7" were used in the

pleasantness scale.

52

Correctness & Pleasantness Ratings for All Regions

 

250

 

 

200

 

 

150

 

I Correctness

 

 

.3
O
O

I Pleasantness

 

 

 

F reguency of Rating

 

 

50

 

 

 

Ratings

Chart 8: Correctness and Pleasantness Ratings for All Dialects

The pleasantness task showed that Najdis ratings of their own dialect was higher
than what they used with the correctness task. Most of the respondents gave a “6” rating
to their dialect and even fewer of them gave it a “7”. In fact, only eight Najdi respondents
used the highest rating of “7” (i.e., most pleasant) to rate any of the different regions.

Seven of those respondents used a “7” rating for their own dialect and only one

53

respondent rated the Northeastern region as “7”. Comparison of the Najdis ratings for

their own dialect and the other dialects of the country are shown in this bar chart.

Pleasantness Ratings for All Regions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60
50
.... 40
C
(D
'U
C
o 1"l
B 30 _
g .
“5
7‘ 20 ~—
10 " —
.-l l
{of st .6“ 96° goo“ 06° $68
90 0 $6 Q50 630 ‘9 ‘6“
$0 $0
Region

Chart 9: Pleasantness Ratings for All Dialects

 

 

I1 Least Pleas
I 2
Cl 3
Cl 4
I 5
B 6
I 7 Most Pleas

 

The bar chart shows that most of the Najdis rated their dialect “6” while the

majority of the other dialects were rated “4”, with exception of the Southern dialect,

54

 

which was rated lower than a “4” by the majority of the respondents (i.e., twenty eight
respondents gave it a rating of “3”). Tables 19 through 25 show the actual ratings of all
respondents to each region in terms of pleasantness. Figures in the following tables are
the actual number of respondents giving the specific rating. Refer to appendix F for more

detailed ratings in terms of gender, age groups, and respondents’ percentages.

Table 19. Pleasantness Ratings for Northern Region

 
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

respondents 60
1 O O 0
2 0 6 6
3 4 2 6
4 16 14 30
5 8 8 16
6 1 1 2
7 0 0 0
Total 29 3 1 60

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l ' BSD. ents emaes v r a" 3.0.. ...,gl,‘
iRatings (n=29) (n=31) respondents 60

1 0 0 0

2 3 2 5

3 6 5 11

4 18 17 35

5 2 7 9

6 O 0 0

7 0 0 0

Total 29 3 1 6O

 

 

55

Table 21. Pleasantness Ratings for Eastern Region

Ratings (n=29) (n=31) respondents 60
3

5
17

27
8
0
0
60

 

Table 22. Pleasantness Ratings for Central Region

Ra _(n==

 

_l
wm—Awwoog

Total

Table 23. Pleasantness Ratings for Southern Region

Ratings (n=29) _ (n=31) respondents 60
O 0 0

4 5 9

15 13 28
6 10 16
4 3
0 0
O 0

 

29 31

56

Table 24. Pleasantness Ratings for Northeastern Region

 

Females Total # of

   
   
    

   
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . 012).” .. . . . resvontsdenm
O 0 O
3 2 5
4 5 9
1 l 14 25
7 5 12
3 5 8
l O 1
29 31 60

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total # of ..
. resdnponets 60

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The same statistical procedures that were used in both the “degree of difference”
and “correctness’ tasks were used in the ratings of ‘pleasantness.’ Kruskal-Wallis tests
Showed no effects of age or gender on the ratings. The results of Kruskal-Wallis tests are

shown in appendixes F1 and F2. The rating scale is 1= least pleasant to 7: most pleasant.

57

Given the fact that age group or gender factors did not affect the ratings of all the
regions, the respondent ratings were again combined and statistically analyzed regardless
of age or gender. The One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests comparing the
ratings of each region with every other region revealed that some regions could be
grouped together in terms of pleasantness and thus, the regions that are not significantly
different from one another are reported in Table 26. Again the Central region is singled
out as a completely distinguished variety. Some other regions were not significantly
different from each other. These regions are the Western region; the Eastern region, the
Northern region, and the Northwestern region; the Eastern region; the Western region and
the Southern region; the Northern region; the Western region, the Northern region, and
the Northwestern region; the Southern region; the Eastern region; the Northeastern
region; Northern region and the Northwestern region; Northwestern region; the Western

region, the Northern region and the Northeastern region.

58

Table 26. ANOVA Tests Results for Pleasantness Ratings

 

Region

Regions which were not significantly different

Statistical difference

 

Central Region

None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Western Region Eastern Region F: 1.63 P: 0.21

Northern Region F: 2.72 P: 0.1

Northwestern Region F: 1.18 P: 0.28

Eastern Region Western Region F: 1.63 P: 0.21
Southern Region F: 1.21 P: 0.28

Northern Region Western Region F: 2.72 P: 0.1
Northeastern Region F: 1.36 P: 0.25

Northwestern Region F: 0.50 P: 0.48

Southern Region Eastern Region F: 1.21 P: 0.28
Northeastern Northern Region F: 1.36 P: 0.25
Region Northwestern Region F: 3.34 P: 0.072
Northwestern Western Region F: 1.18 P: 0.28
Region Northern Region F: 0.50 P: 0.48
Northeastern Region F: 3.34 P: 0.072

 

 

 

In order to understand the Similarity between the different ratings of some regions,

bar chart comparisons allow us to visualize similarities in ratings of some regions

compared to other regions. The ratings of the Northern region, for example, are not

significantly different from the ratings of the Western, Northwestern, and Northeastern

regions as indicated in Table 26 and Shown in Chart 10.

59

 

 

Pleasantness Ratings for Northern, Western,
Northwestern, and Northeastern Regions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6°
a 6°
*5 b9 i _ I1 Least Corr
E e — I 2
'5 ‘5 .H ._ C1 3
" r19 . 1:14
‘ I5
is
“J ..
0&‘9'6‘ #9 gaff .06350 I 7 Most Corr
e 4* 05s 0&3:
e 9
Regions

 

Chart 10: Pleasantness Ratings for the Northern, Western, Northwestern, and Northeastern Regions

60

4.2 Discussion

4.2.1. General Observations

It is now possible to make some generalizations about the different respondents’
perceptions of the different regions of the country based on the results of the hand-drawn
maps and the three rating tasks (degree of difference, correctness, and pleasantness) used
in this study. The respondents’ perceptions of each different region of the country will be
discussed separately in this chapter, but the researcher will first comment on some
common findings of the hand-drawn maps as well as the three rating tasks.

As far as the hand-drawn maps are concerned, there was a tendency for the
respondents to draw their boundary lines differently. In other words, it is apparent that the
regions are different in size (see Figures 1-2).

The respondents drew similar boundary lines for the different regions in the two
maps that were given to them, although the respondents were instructed to draw their
boundary lines according to where people speak “alike” in the second maps. This task
showed the influence of the political division of the country since the country is divided
politically into five different regions. In fact, this political influence came about as a
result of social influence. Sixty years age before Saudi Arabia was united, it was divided
into five groups of tribes. These groups were divided into subgroups of allied tribes. In
other words, the inhabitants of each of the five divisions belonged to one tribe or to
different tribes that coexisted with each other. After the country was united, the same
division was preserved. But the question remains: Are the political divisions the only
bases for the linguistic boundaries? Past studies showed that the variety boundaries could

be drawn according to non-linguistic bases. Grootaers (1959), for example, showed that

61

 

the boundaries for different dialects could be drawn on geographical basis: “... the
various dialect groups recognized by our informants seem to be conditioned by the
geographical structure of the landscape, because the latter imposes some directions to
human communities” (3 72). In this study the political influence cannot be neglected, but
it is not necessarily the only reason. I believe social influence plays a more important role
in dialect distinction. Shari’s dialect, a small village in the northern part of Najd, for
example, was judged as a Najdi dialect, whereas Samera, which is a twenty-mile distance
from Shari, was judged as a northern dialect. The reason is simple: Shari’ inhabitants
belong to one of the tribes which live in Najd while Samera inhabitants belong to Shamar,
one of the tribes in the northern region.

Through asking each respondent about how they came to know about the other
dialects, they all indicated that they had visited all the different regions of the country.
The size of the country is one reason that people have the chance to see all of it. Also, the
location of Najd in the middle of the country also helped the respondents to visit all other
parts of the country. Each region in the country has a particular reason for people to visit.
The Eastern region has the sea, so when people want to see the beach they go to the
Eastern region. The Western region has religious importance, as the two holy mosques
exist there, and many people in Saudi Arabia find it necessary for them to visit such
places. The weather in the Southern region is very nice during the summer season, and
that is why many people from the Central part of the country escape the heat and go to the
southern part of the country. The Northern regions are very close and have ancient places
that are worth visiting and they are also on the way for those who intend to visit other

neighboring countries such as Jordan and Syria.

62

 

The degree of difference task showed that no region was rated “1,” (i.e., “people
there speak like me”) or “4”, (i.e., “people there sound so different from me that I can’t
understand them”) This degree of difference indicated that Naj dis (the Central area
residents) perceived all the other varieties as distinct from theirs, but not to the extent that
they cannot understand the speakers of the other varieties. The degree of difference task
in Preston (1993b) revealed more than the hand drawn maps that Michiganders consider a
large number of Western US states speak a dialect that is much closer to theirs. Both the
degree of difference task and the hand-drawn maps in this study Show the same results.

For the correctness task, it is interesting to note that no variety was rated a “1,” (i.e.
“least correct”) It is more interesting to notice that no variety scored “7,” ( i.e. “most
correct”) or even “6” except for the Central region which was rated “6” by only three
respondents (5.0%). The reason for this could be attributed to the fact that the respondents
exhibited a high linguistic insecurity if they compared their variety to Classical or Modern
Standard Arabic. This was illustrated in some of the respondents’ interviews (the
researcher comments are in italics):

I noticed in your ratings that you did not rate your region as high as “7, ” is there
any reason why?

I don’t know, you didn’t tell me how you want me to rate them. On what basis. If
you mean in comparison with Classical Arabic, 1 am not going to rate myself “5.”
I don’t know how you want me to rate the other varieties since if you compare
them with classical Arabic you will not give them even a “2.” (Respondent # 11)
Why didn ’t you rate yourself “7” or “6”?

Which one, you mean the correctness? You mean page 4? Yes. Do you want me to
rate myself “7.” Then how can I rate the language of the holy Quran? Do you call
the dialect that we speak Arabic? Go and open the Quran; you won’t understand
most of it. Isn’t the Quran in Arabic? I understand but if you compare your dialect
with the other dialects in the Kingdom how will you see yours? We are all the

same. Our dialects are all bad, though one is better than others, but they are all
bad. (Respondent # 6)

63

 

In the Arabic speaking countries, Modern Standard Arabic is perceived as the
standard variety, and hence, it is the most correct and pleasant. All other varieties, on the
other hand, are judged according to their closeness to the standard variety. This fact
makes it easy for Arabic speakers to decide which variety is the standard.

In the “pleasantness” task, as is the case in the “correctness,” no variety was given
“1,” (i.e., ‘the least pleasant’) except the Eastern region, which was given “1” by only
three respondents (5.0 %). Moreover, no other variety reached the level of the Central
region, which was rated “7,” (i.e., “the most pleasant”) by seven respondents (11.6 %).
However, Northeastern region was rated “7” by one respondent (1.6%). In fact, there is no
reason that I can think of to account for this rating except for the personal loyalty of that
person to that region.

The fact that the Central dialect was rated “7” in “pleasantness” by only seven
respondents contradicted Giles and his associates’ (1982) claim that the local variety is
effectively preferred regardless of its “correctness.” Past research (e.g., Coupland 1988
and
Ryan, 1979) proved that varieties have the potential to serve as markers for group identity
and therefore, a force for speakers to maintain their variety even if it is not the standard
variety. “The value of language as a chief symbol of group-identity is one of the major
forces for the preservation of non-standard speech styles or dialects” (Ryan, 1979: 147).
The relatively low rating of the Central dialect, the dialect of the informants, in both

“pleasantness” and “correctness”, seems to contradict what Ryan and Coupland proposed.

64

 

The Central dialect speakers were obviously not happy with their speech because they
realize that their Colloquial dialect is not suitable for their religious worship as pointed

out earlier by respondent # 6.

4.2.2. Najdis Perceptions of Other Dialects

The hand-drawn maps and the degree of difference task revealed that Najdis
perceived all politically divided five regions of the country as distinctive dialects even
though they differ in their ratings in all tasks (correctness, pleasantness, and degree of
difference). Unlike Preston (1986 and 1993) and Hartley (1996) where the lowest rated
region (i.e., the South) was the most identified, the regions in this study were equally
identified for the social and political reasons that are explained above. To the contrary of
what was proposed in the first hypothesis of this study, Najdis perceived only five distinct
regional dialects instead of the seven regional dialects. Although the Northern part of the
country is divided into three parts with three different governors, Najdis considered all
Northern parts to have one dialect.

The second part of the first hypothesis is proven where Najdis distinguished
themselves from the rest of the regions. In fact, Chi-Square results for the degree of
difference task showed that Najdis perceived their dialect, to be distinct, and all other
regions are different. This conclusion was illustrated through the hand drawn maps and

66199

the degree of difference task. Najdis did not rate any region as , (i.e., ‘people there
speak like me’) confirming that their dialect is different from the rest of dialects. Chi-

Square results also showed that Najdis did not see any dialect as totally different from

65

 

theirs to the extent that they do not understand it. No region was given ‘4’ rating (i.e.
“people there sound so different from me that I can’t understand them”).

Najdis’ ratings, in terms of pleasantness and correctness for the Central region did
not show obvious linguistic security since no respondent rated their dialect "7" (i.e., ‘most
correct’) and there were only seven respondents who rated it "7" (i.e., ‘the most
pleasant’). This indicated (as mentioned in the third chapter of this study) that Najdis did
not exhibit high linguistic security when they compared their dialect to the prestigious
and formal forms of Arabic (i.e., the Classical or Modern Standard Arabic). However,
this linguistic security was manifested when we compared their ratings of their dialect to
the ratings of other dialects in the correctness and pleasantness tasks (see appendices E
and F). Najdis’ high linguistic security was clearly seen through the labeling of no other
regions with labels like “sounds like me” or “speaks like me,” and by labeling their
dialect with labels that indicate pride. The linguistic insecurity, if Najdis compared their
Colloquial dialect to Classical or Standard Arabic, is consistent with Al-Dash and
Tucker’s ( 1975) conclusion that Classical Arabic was considered more suitable in three
situations out of five, “at school,” “on radio and television,” and ‘for formal and religious
speeches” as illustrated in chapter 2. Najdis observed their low variety (i.e. colloquial
dialect) as less appropriate for performing religious acts or for formal settings than their
high variety (i.e. classical or Modern Standard Arabic). This was consistent with Preston
(1993a):

To the extent that listeners find their own varieties less prestigious, they suffer
from what Labov (1966) called ‘linguistic insecurity.’ Some of this insecurity

doubtless has its source in speakers’ awareness of the fact that the local variety
will not serve extra-regionally. That is, it will not convince outside listeners that

66

 

the intelligence, education, and authority of the speaker or writer are high, and it

will not, therefore, inspire confidence in the content of some messages (p: 299).
Other evidence supporting the second hypothesis was that thirty-five respondents (58.3%)
rated the Central region as “6” (See appendices E and F for more details on the rest of the
ratings). No respondent gave the Central region less than “3” in pleasantness and less
than ‘4’ in correctness. In fact, only three respondents gave the Central dialect a rating of

"3" and another seven respondents gave it a rating of "4."

4.2.2.a. Perceptions of Northern Regions

The hand drawn maps showed that Najdis perceived a dialect distinct from theirs in
the Northern region of the country. ANOVA test results as shown in tables 9, 18, and 26
indicated that all the Northern regions were not Significantly different from each other,
but they are distinct from the Central region dialect. Although the respondents were
expected to distinguish between the three different regions in the north, they considered
all of the northern part of the country to constitute one dialect. This region, which
includes Hail and Alola, has been considered the closest dialect in terms of “degree of
difference task” to the Central region, which included Riyadh, Qassim, and Kharj. Forty-
nine respondents (81.7%) rated the Northern region as “2” i.e. ‘people there sound a little
different from me’ No one rated this region as ‘4’ (i.e., ‘People there sound different from
me that I can’t understand them”). Eleven respondents saw the Northern dialect as very
different from theirs. The Northeastern region came second with forty respondents
(66.7%) rating it ‘2.’ The Northwestern region came third with thirty-five respondents

(58.4%) rating it ‘2’ (See appendix D). Najdis perceive the three northern dialects as the

67

 

closest dialects to their own in terms of the degree of difference scale for two reasons: (1)
the Central region was ruled by the Northern region; and (2) the strong stigmatization of
the other dialects. while the north was clearly distinguished for Najdis in terms of the
degree of difference scale, the same distinction was obvious in pleasantness and
correctness ratings. ANOVA tests results for Correctness and pleasantness ratings showed
that Najdis’ perceived the Western region as joining the group of the Northern regions in

terms of correctness and pleasantness as Shown in tables 18 and 26.

4.2.2.b. Perceptions of Western Region and Southern Region Dialects

Of the 60 respondents, only eleven Najdis (18.3%) perceived the dialect in the
Western region as a little different from theirs, giving it a ‘2’ rating. The majority of
respondents (81.6%) saw the Western dialect as very different from theirs, but no one
considered it to be totally different that they could not understand it. Thirteen respondents
thought that the Southern dialect was a little different from theirs and forty seven of them
perceived it as very different from theirs, but not to the degree that they could not
understand it (see appendix D). It was obvious through the degree of difference ratings
that Najdis saw the dialects in the Western and Southern parts of the country to be distinct
from theirs. This low rating for both regions in the degree of difference task was due to
the beliefs that Najdis have about these two regions (i.e., they are full of immigrants).
Another reason is that the Western region has the holy sites and many people from all
over the world visit these sites. During one of the Islamic rites, the pilgrimage, more than
one and a half million people come from everywhere to perform the pilgrimage to

Makkah. Some of these people come from poor countries, and they find it attractive to

68

stay for some time to work and make money. Some of them do not return to their
countries at all. The Southern region was stigmatized of being highly influenced by
neighboring country (i.e. Yemen).

In fact, One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests’ results on table 9 showed
that Najdis grouped the Southern dialect and the Western dialect together. While Najdis
perceived the Western and Southern dialects as distinct from theirs, they did not hold the
same perception in terms of correctness and pleasantness (see tables 18 and 26). The
Southern dialect was the only dialect that was rated significantly by age group as Shown
in Table 17. Older people tend to be harsher in their ratings for the southern dialect
because younger generations did not have the old bad memories of wars and insecurity as
the older people did. The One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests’ results on
tables 18 and 26 for Correctness and Pleasantness tasks suggested that Najdis did not
group the Southern and Western dialects together in terms of their correctness and

pleasannress.

4.2.2.c. Perceptions of Eastern Region

Hand drawn maps and degree of difference tasks Showed that Najdis considered
the Eastern region to constitute a distinct dialect region. Twenty-five respondents rated
the Eastern region dialect as different from theirs, whereas the majority of respondents
(35) rated it as a dialect that is very different from theirs. Comparing each region against
every other region through ANOVA tests for the degree of difference task indicated that
Najdis believed that the Eastern region has a dialect that is distinct from any other

regional dialect as shown in table 9. The Eastern region was not distinguished from the

69

 

Northwestern region in terms of correctness and from the Western region and the

Southern region in terms of pleasantness as ANOVA results Show in tables 18 and 26.

4.2.3. Effect of Gender and Age

This study tackled two demographic factors: gender and age. The first factor,
gender, has not been reported as significant in any of the ratings.

Before this study was conducted, it was expected that age would play an important
role in the ratings of this study. But age did not affect the rating, except in the task of
correctness for the Southern region, where younger respondents tended to rate the
Southern region lower in terms of correctness than the older respondents. This effect of
age was the opposite of what was hypothesized in the beginning of this study. In fact, the
only reasons that I could think of to account for why age has been a factor in this
particular rating are culturally, socially, and geographically related. Many young people in
Saudi Arabia have negative attitudes about other regions and consequently, about other
dialects. These feelings came as a result of many things such as: (1) Some neighboring
countries are already being stigmatized against and then the same thing will be true about
the region that is close to that country, (2) The regions vary in their development and so
the least developed region will not be looked at as a developed one, (3) Some regions for
severe topographic reasons, do not have as good as educational system as in other
regions; and (4) The jokes are always about particular regions and that makes even the
people who do not know the region have unpleasant impressions about these specific
regions. All of these four reasons are available in the case of the southern region. This

could be the reason younger respondents rated the South low in terms of correctness.

70

Chapter Five
Suggestions and Conclusion

5.1 Suggestions for Further Work

In future studies, it would be interesting to examine the Saudi speakers’ perceptions
of every dialect towards the different dialects in the country with no influence of classical
Arabic on their judgment. This task could be carried out by informing the respondents
that their judgment should not be based on Classical Arabic, and that all the dialects
under study are investigated through their relationship with each other. It is important that
any future language attitude research concerning any of the different dialects in Saudi
Arabia should include other techniques such as the matched guise method.

Another interesting study could examine the language attitudes of the Saudis
towards the other Arab countries. The study is interesting if we keep in mind that there is
a huge religious impact on the people’s judgment. The other side of the study, where the
attitudes and perceptions of the other Arab countries towards Saudi Arabia are examined,

would also be interesting.

5.2. Conclusion

The results of this study and especially the degree of difference and the hand drawn
maps tasks showed that Najdi respondents divide the country into five different regions;
each of them has a distinct dialect. The five different dialects are: the Southern dialect,

the Northern dialect, the Eastern dialect, the Western dialect, and the Central dialect.

71

The effect of the Standard Arabic on the respondents’ judgment is obvious. In the
correctness scale, no dialect was rated “7,” (i.e., ‘most correct”) or even “6,” but
respondents used less than “7,” except for the Central dialect, the dialect of the
respondents of this study, which was rated “6” by only three respondents. However, in the
“pleasantness” task, seven respondents rated the central dialect “7”. Thus, the Central
dialect was rated the highest in terms of both “correctness” and “pleasantness.” The
Southern dialect, on the other hand, was rated lowest in the pleasantness scale and the
Eastern dialect was rated the lowest in terms of correctness. Najdis, like Preston’s
Michiganders and Hartley’s Oregonians exhibited high linguistic security, but unlike
them, Najdis did not rate any other dialect high in either of the two scales.

This study was the first to examine the perceptual dialectology of a dialect in
Arabic. The study was also the first step towards a full and comprehensive picture of
language attitudes in Saudi Arabia in particular, and in the Arab world in general.

In order to have more generalizations and universality, more research on language
attitude and perceptual dialectology are needed to examine the credibility and validity of
the results of this study using different techniques like Lambert’s matched guise
technique to elicit more information on language attitudes. Other studies could also
include the impact of religion on such studies. In the Arab world, where huge diversities
exist, a study of language attitudes is not only helpful from a linguistic point of view, but
also from a social and psychological one. In terms of the social aspects, the study of
language attitudes is the key to examining problems such as prejudice, and thus, is the
instrument through which we can find the prescription. But a study of this sort should not

by any means be a reason for us to say that a particular variety spoken in a particular

72

region by particular people is the only proper variety since all varieties are the same from
a linguistic viewpoint.

Finally, the researcher would like to emphasize that this study did not aim by any means
to shape or favor one dialect over the others, or favoring one group of people over
another. It was only a study that aimed to investigate a linguistic phenomenon based on
an input from respondents living the area focus of the study. It is important for me to say
that it was not the goal of the study, nor was it the intention of the researcher to infer or
make any judgments about other dialects, people, or regions based on the outcomes of the
surveys of this study. No social or political conclusions should be made on, or about, any
results of this study. In conclusion, the researcher would like to express his respect to all

the regions of the country, as well as the dialects.

73

Appendices

74

Appendix A
(1)

Research Tools
PERSONAL INF ORNATION

No. ------

Please provide the following information for classification purposes only. In no way will
this information be used to identify you individually in published results of this study.

a. Name: ................................................... b. Age: .............
c. Address: ................................................. D. Sex: ..............
e.Phone: ...................................................
f. Highest Grade Level Completed: .....................
g. Would you be willing to participate in a short interview as follow up to this
questionnaire? Yes ...... No ........
i h. Where were you born? .................................................................
i. Where did you spend your elementary school? .....................................
1 j. Where did you spend your high school years? ......................................

k. Where have you Spent your post-high school years (please list locations and dates up to 1
your current residence):

1. Where did your mother grow up? ......................................................
m. Where did your father grow up? ........................................................
11. Where do most of your relatives reside?

75

Appendix A
(2)

Consent Form

 

 

Consent Form for Study on dialects in Saudi Arabia

1, , have consented to participate in a linguistic study
involving the identification, labeling and rating of ways of speaking in the different
regions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I understand that both written and tape-recorded
data (in the form of an interview) may be obtained from me in this project. I have been
informed that all demographic information about myself in addition to all data I provide
is strictly for the purpose of linguistic research and will be kept confidential. In no way
will I be placed at risk in this study. I also understand that my participation in this study is
voluntary and that I can withdraw my participation at any time during the project. Any
questions regarding this project or it results may be addressed to: Ahmad Alrumaih,
Department of Linguistics, A 614 Wells Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan 48824.

 

Signature Date

 

76

 

Appendix A
(3)

The map (a) Without the names of regions

1
\

 

77

Appendix A

(3)

The map (b) With the names of regions

 

78

Appendix A
(4)

Scales

 

 

Scale 1
DEGREE OF DIFFERENCE
Please rate the seven regions of Saudi Arabia on a scale of 1 to 4 as follows:
1. People there sound like me
2. People there sound a little different from me

3. People there sound very different from me
4. People there sound so different from me I can’t understand them

 

The Northern Region ( )
The Northwestern Region ( )

The Northeastern Region ( )

The Southern Region ( )
The Western Region ( )
The Eastern Region ( )

 

79

 

Appendix A
(5)

Scales

 

 

Scale 2

CORRECTNESS

Please rate the speech of people in the seven regions of Saudi Arabia on a scale of l to 7
as follows:

Least correct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 most correct

The Central Region ( )
The Northern Region ( )
The Northwestern Region ( )

The Northeastern Region ( )

The Southern Region ( )
The Western Region ( )
The Eastern Region. ( )

 

80

 

Appendix A
(6)

Scales

 

 

Scale 3

Pleasantness

Please rate the speech. of people in the seven regions of Saudi Arabia on a scale of l to 7
as follows:

Least pleasant most pleasant
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
The Central Region ( )
The Northern Region ( )
The Northwestern Region ( )

The Northeastern Region ( )

The Southern Region ( )
The Western Region ( )
The Eastern Region. ( )

 

81

 

Research Scales in Arabic

3.94.111 1453f-

#3131 1.1411434115593149 1531531 ékmlé'q-H-m 34339"¢e=oewmltil~e+ld¥=
wile.“

24341433517 6 5 4 3 2 12.41.44
:JhLiA-ll

( )uhjli'Ml

( )zgyarumr

( )rgsjzrms

( )MIMI

:, ( )QJ-‘léilz-ne-LJ‘

( )zoojarwlwr

()zisfilu'w’lwfi 'l

4.5.1.113.“
;‘,lmlwgfiallcle;tolptdl@udlgj"wlh4"cgsoawtallcolsglgum
will-.13»-ll
43.41.453.17 6 5 4 3 2114441413
:JhU-Jl‘
()ULDJJIZSLJJI
()zfijarmr
“tamer-.31
Unnatural
()Igojslllilarxll
()gfirwimr

()gfilrtyunimr

83

1.5mm It”;
U11 """° °
«.51 JW‘JDGLUQU1 L}LM1@"HJA3'\"Y1 BJJHCLUACJAUJU.“ $134.1 "
. .. . W
:UuLiLll

. Hsélwwlflliedemfl
ofaeJ’.‘¢=3L.fl§é-1Lhwmlze+luh~' "=2
144441? imagehwwwflfl
.34 .3 Heamwmlzfilqhssg
:JLM

( ”Loam-.41

( )Igofiliitsdl

( )zosjsrlmrr

( )WliiLrJl

( )Lojrslliilarali

( )zgfiiwtutm

()ujfiiuuaimi

84

Appendix B

(1)
Sample of Hand-Drawn Maps

(3)

 

 

85

Appendix B

(2)
Sample of Hand-Drawn Maps

(b)

 

 

86

Appendix B

(3)
Sample of Hand-Drawn Maps

87

 

"1'
--..--...—.~4.~ 14-f-

Appendix B

(4)
Sample of Hand-Drawn Maps

((1)

"‘°-f—""“r*-- ..\1"f"

 

/,,"'. /§‘.l-
t o .
{If a
l'
4)

{.o
L
f
I
'l
l c

88

02.

en-

Appendix B

(5)
Sample of Hand-Drawn Maps

(6)

 

 

89

Table: 27. Degree of Difference Ratings (Raw Numbers)

Appendix C
(1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Difference Great Differences
No Rating Region 1 2 3 4
1 The Western Region 0 11 49 0
2 The Eastern Region 0 25 35 0
3 The Northern Region 0 49 ll 0
4 The Southern Region 0 13 47 0
5 The Northeastern Region 0 40 20 0
6 The Northwestern Region 0 35 25 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table: 28. Correctness Ratings (Raw Numbers)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Least correct Most correct
No Rating Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
l The Central Region 0 0 0 5 52 3 0
2 The Western Region 0 l 9 43 7 0 O
3 The Eastern Region 0 2 18 36 4 0 0
4 The Northern Region 0 1 8 40 11 O 0
5 The Southern Region 0 4 28 21 7 0 0
6 The Northeastern Region 0 0 7 40 13 0 0
7 The Northwestern Region 0 2 11 39 8 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90

 

 

Appendix C
(2)

Table: 29. Pleasantness Ratings (Raw Numbers)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Least pleasant Most pleasant

No Rating Region 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 The Central Region 0 0 3 7 8 35 7
2 The Western Region 0 5 11 35 9 0 0
3 The Eastern Region 3 5 17 27 8 0 0
4 The Northern Region 0 6 6 30 16 2 0
5 The Southern Region 0 9 28 16 7 0 0
6 The Northeastern Region 0 5 9 25 12 8 1
7 The Northwestern Region 0 6 10 32 7 5 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

91

 

Appendix D

(1)

Degree of Difference Ratings for Regions that were not significantly different by age

group
Table 30. Degree of Difference Ratings for Northern Region by Age Group

  
  

%

 

  

%

 

%

  

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of of of of of of of of of of

21 60 17 6O 13 60 9 60 60 60
] 0 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
2 17 28.3 15 25.0 9 15.0 8 13.3 49 81.6
3 4 6.7 2 3.3 4 6.7 1 1.7 11 18.3
4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

Table 31. Degree of Difference Ratings for Western Region by Age Group

   
  
  

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 2.117, d.f: 3, and p: 0.548)

%

 

   

%

 

#

%

   

   

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of of of of of of of of of of

21 60 17 60 13 60 9 60 60 60
1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0
2 5 8.3 2 3.3 2 3.3 2 3.3 11 18.4
3 16 26.3 15 25.0 11 18.4 7 11.6 49 81.6
4 0 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 1.059, d.f: 3, and p: 0.787)

Table 32. Degree of Difference Ratings for Eastern Region by Age Group

 

  
 
 

%

 

%

 

%

       

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of of of of of of of of of of

21 60 17 60 13 6O 9 60 60 60
] O 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0
2 8 13.3 7 11.6 6 10.0 4 6.7 25 41.6
3 13 21.6 10 16.6 7 11.6 5 8.3 35 58.3
4 O 0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.754, d.f: 3, and p: 0.860)

92

 

 

 

Table 33. Degree of Difference Ratings for Northeastern Region by Age Group

  

96

 

96

 

%

 

96

    
   

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of of of of of of of of of of

21 60 17 6O 13 60 9 60 60 60
1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
2 13 21.6 12 20.0 11 18.3 4 6.7 40 66.7
3 8 13.3 5 8.3 2 3.3 5 8.3 20 33.3
4 0 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 4.146, d.f: 3, and p: 0.246)

Table 34. Degree of Difference Ratings for Northwestern Region by Age Group

   
  

 

 

  

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% % % %
of of of of of of of of of of
21 6O 17 6O 13 60 9 60 6O 60
1 O 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
2 11 18.3 12 20.0 9 15.0 3 5.0 35 58.3
3 10 16.6 5 8.3 4 6.7 6 10.0 25 41.7
4 O 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0

 

Table 35. Degree of Difference Ratings for Southern Region by Age Group

   

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 4.234, d.f: 3, and p: 0.237)

 

 

  

     

  

 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% # % # %
of of of of of of of of of of
21 6O 17 6O 13 60 9 60 60 6O
1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
2 5 8.3 4 6.7 3 5.0 1 1.6 13 21.7
3 16 26.6 13 21.6 10 16.6 8 13.3 47 78.3
4 0 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 O 0.0

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.686, d.f: 3, and P: 0.876)

93

 

 

 

Appendix D
(2)

Degree of Difference Ratings for Regions that were not significantly different by
gender group.

Table 36. Degree of Difference Ratings for the Western Region by Gender

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ 1111111411,, _ z. ,,. ...
1 0 0.0 0 0.0
2 7 11.6 4 6.7
3 22 36.6 27 45.0
4 0 0.0 O 0.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0204., d.f: l, and P: 0.650)

Table 37. Degree of Difference Ratings for the Eastern Region by Gender

roup emale n= - - n=
1. .

0 0.0

10 16.6

19 31.6

0 0.0
Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.700, d.f: l, and P: 0.402)

 

Table 38. Degree of Difference Ratings for the Northern Region by Gender
roup . . n= . n=

0 0.0 0

40.7
5 8.3 6
0 0.0 0
Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.759, d.f: 1, and P: 0.383)

 

94

Table 39. Degree of Difference Ratings for the Southern Region by Gender

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

-“““G"é‘ii'd€i- (ii-666°26’G‘i’ir’riigm "“Fema‘re‘(.i=f‘ " What) '1
5 . l:‘ i p o o .

1 0 0.0 o 0.0

2 7 11.6 6 10,0

3 22 36.6 25 41.6

4 o 0.0 0 0.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.031, d.f: 1, and P: 0.860)

Table 40. Degree of Difference Ratings for the Northeastern Region by Gender

 

 

 

 

1 0 0.0 0 0.0
2 20 30.3 20 30.3
3 9 15.7 11 18.3
4 o 0.0 o 0.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.032, d.f: l, and P: 0.856)

Table 41. Degree of Difference Ratings for the Northwestern Region by Gender

roup . n== n=
#of29 . %of60. .. of3l .. %. 60
0 0.0 O 0.0

19 31.6 16 26.6

10 16.6 15 25.0

0 0.0 0 0.0
Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.316, d.f: l, and P: 0.573)

 

95

Appendix E
(1)

Correctness Ratings for Regions that were not significantly different by age group.

Table 42. Correctness Ratings for Northern Region by Age Group

% # °/o # % # %
of of of Of of of of
60 17 60 13 6O 9 60

0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0

1.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.3 l 1.6 3.3 5.0
23.3 13 21.7 13.3 8.3
6.7 3 5.0 5.0 1.6
0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 2.054, d.f: 3, and p: 0.561)

 

Table 43. Correctness Ratings for Western Region by Age Group

% # % # % # % #
of of of of of of of of
60 17 60 13 60 9 60 60
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0
O 0.0 1.6 l
3 5.0 3.3 9
26.7 14 23.4 8 13.3 8.3 43
3.3 2 3.3 2 3.3 1.6 7
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0
0.0 O 0.0 O 0.0 0 0.0 0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 1.936, d.f: 3, and p: 0.585)

0.0 0 0.0
5.0 1 1.6

 

96

Table 44. Correctness Ra

Table 45. Correctness Ra

% #
of of
60 17

0.0 0
0.0 0
10.0 5

23.3 10

1.6 2
0.0 0
0.0 0

 

for Eastern

%

of

60
0.0
0.0
8.3
16.7
3.3
0.0
0.0

#
of
13

O
0
5
7
1
0

0

%
of
60
0.0
0.0
8.3
l 1.7
1.6
0.0
0.0

#
of
9

0

Grou

%

of

60
0.0
3.3
3.3
8.3
0.0
0.0
0.0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 1.918, d.f: 3, and p: 0.589)

% #
of of
60 17

0.0

0.0

0.0

3.3 1
30.0

1.6 2

0.0 0

% #
of of
60 17
0.0 0
0.0 O
1.6 2
23.3 3
10.0 2
0.0 0
0.0 0

  

for Central

%
of
60
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
23.3
3.3
0.0

%
of
60
0.0
0.0
3.3
21.7
3.3
0.0
0.0

  

0
0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 1.651, d.f: 3, and p: 0.647)

#
of
13

0

0
2
8
3
0

0

          

%
of
60
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
20.0
0.0
0.0

%

of

60
0.0
0.0
3.3
13.3
5.0
0.0
0.0

#
of
9

0

#
of
9

0

Grou

%

of

60
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
13.3
0.0
0.0

Table 46. Correctness Ratings for the Northeastern Region by Age Group

%

of

60
0.0
0.0
3.3
8.3
3.3
0.0
0.0

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 1.299, d.f: 3, and p: 0.729)

97

Table 47. Correctness Ra

% #

 

of of
60 17

0.0 0
1.6 0

5.0

6.7

0.0

3
21.6 12

2
0.0 0
0

%
of

60

0.0
0.0
5.0
20.0
3.3
0.0
0.0

#
of
13
0
l
3
8
1
0

0

for the Northwestern

%
of
60

0.0
1.6
5.0
13.3
1.6
0.0
0.0

#
of
9

0
0
2
6
1
0

0

 

%
of
60
0.0
0.0
3.3
10.0
1.6
0.0
0.0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 1.310, d.f: 3, and p: 0.726)

% #
of of
60 17

0.0
1.6
6.7
20.0
6.7
0.0
0.0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k:

0

1
8
6
2
O

0

%

of

60
0.0
1.6
13.3
10.0
3.3
0.0
0.0

%

of

60
0.0
1.6
18.3
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0

#
of
9

0

Table 48. Correctness Ratings for Southern Region by Age Group

%

of

60
0.0
5.0
8.3
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0

 

18.390, d.f: 3, and p: 0.0003)

98

Appendix E

(2)
Correctness Ratings for Regions that were not significantly different by gender
group.
Table 49. Correctness Ra for the Central Gender

    
    

     

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.0
41.6 27
1.6 2
0.0 0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.528, d.f: l, and P: 0.467)

Table 50. Correctness Ra for the Western Gender

 

0.0
1.6
8.3

35.0

3.3

0.0
0 0.0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.589, d.f: 1, and P: 0.207)

Table 51. Correctness Ra for the Eastern 11 Gender

0.0
3.3

10.0
30.0
5.0
0.0
O 0.0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.570, d.f: l, and P: 0.450)

 

99

Table 52. Correctness Ra for the Northern n Gender

0.0
0.0

10.0
28.3

10.0

0.0

0.0 0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.125, d.f: l, and P: 0.722)

 

Table 53. Correctness Ra for the Southern Gender

        
 

0.0
3.3
18.3
20.0
6.7
0.0
O 0.0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 2.245, d.f: l, and P: 0.133)

Table 54. Correctness Ra for the Northeastern Gender

      

 

0.0
0.0
8.3

31.6
8.3
0.0
0.0 0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 1.173, d.f: l, and P: 0.278)

100

Table 55. Correctness Ra for the Northwestern 11 Gender

0.0
3.3

8.3
30.0
6.7
0.0
0.0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.141, d.f: l, and P: 0.707)

 

101

#

of

17
0.0 0
1.6 1
3.3 2
18.3 9
10.0 4
1.6 l
0.0 0

Appendix F

(1)

% #
of of
6O 13
0.0 0
1.6 2
3.3 1
15.0 7
6.7 3
1.6 0
0.0 0

%
of
60
0.0
3.3
1.6
1 1.7
5.0
0.0
0.0

#
of
9

0

Pleasantness Ratings for Regions that were not significantly different by age group.

Table 56. Pleasantness Ratings for Northern Region by Age Group

%
of
60

0.0
3.3
1.6
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.0

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 1.070, d.f: 3, and p: 0.784)

% #

of of

60 17
0.0 0

3.3 O

5.0 3
20.0 12
5.0 2
0.0 0
0.0 0

% #
of of
60 13
0.0 O
0.0
5.0
20.0
3.3
0.0
0.0 0

%
of
60
0.0
1.6
5.0
l 1.7
5.0
0.0
0.0

#
of
9

0

Table 57. Pleasantness Ratings for Western Region by Age Group

%

of

60
0.0
3.3
3.3
6.7
1.6
0.0
0.0

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 1.837, d.f: 3, and p: 0.606)

102

Table 58. Pleasantness Ratings for Eastern Region by Age Group

% % % %
of of of of
60 60 60 60

3.3 1.6 0.0 0.0

3.3 1.6 1.6 1.6
11.7 6.7 6.7 3.3
13.3 13.3 11.7 6.7
3.3 5.0 1.6 3.3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 1.894, d.f: 3, and p: 0.594)

 

Table 59. Pleasantness Ratings for Central Region by Age Group

% # % # % # %
of of of of of of of

60 17 60 13 60 9 60
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.3 3.3 3.3
3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
23.3 15.0 11.7 8.3
5.0 5.0 1 1.6 0 0.0
Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 3.323, d.f: 3, and p: 0.344)

1.6

0
o
0.0 1.6 1.6 1 1.6
1
2
5

 

103

%
of
60
0.0
3.3
5.0
13.3
5.0
5.0
1.6

#

of

17
0

l
3
6
5
2
0

%
of
60
0.0
1.6
5.0
10.0
8.3
3.3
0.0

#

of

13
0

l
2
7
2
l

0

%
of
60
0.0
1.6
3.3
11.7
3.3
1.6
0.0

#
of
9

0

Table 60. Pleasantness Ratings for Northeastern Region by Age Group

%

of

60
0.0
1.6
1.6
5.0
3.3
3.3
0.0

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 1.344, d.f: 3, and p: 0.718)

%
of
60
0.0
3.3
5.0
18.3
5.0
3.3
0.0

#
of
17

0

2
4
8
2
1
0

%
of
60
0.0
3.3
6.7
13.3
3.3
1.6
0.0

#
of
13

0

1
2
8
1
l
0

%
of
60
0.0
1.6
3.3
13.3
1.6
1.6
0.0

#
of
9

0
1
1
5
1
l

0

Table 61. Pleasantness Ratings for Northwestern Region by Age Group

%

of

60
0.0
1.6
1.6
8.3
1.6
1.6
0.0

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.680, d.f: 3, and p: 0.877)

%
of
60

0.0

3.3

18.3
11.6
1.6

0.0

0.0

#
of
17

0

3
8
4
2
0
0

%
of
60
0.0
5.0
13.3
6.7
3.3
0.0
0.0

#

of
13

0

O

%
of
60

0.0
3.3
10.0
5.0
3.3
0.0
0.0

#
of
9

0

Table 62. Pleasantness Ratings for Southern Region by Age Group

%

of

60
0.0
3.3
5.0
3.3
3.3
0.0
0.0

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.130, d.f: 3, and p: 0.987)

104

Appendix F
(2)

Pleasantness Ratings for Regions that were not significantly different by gender
group.

Table 63. Pleasantness Ratings for the Central Region by Gender

# of % of # of % of
29 60 31 60
0 0.0

0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0.0
0 0.0 3 5.0
4 6.7 3 5.0
4 6.7 4 6.7
19 31.6 16 26.6 35
2 3.3 5 8.3 7
Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.00006, d.f: l, and P: 0.993)

 

Table 64. Pleasantness Ratings for the Western Region by Gender

# of % of # of % of
29 60 31 60
0 0.0 0 0.0

3 5.0 2 3.3
6 10.0 5 8.3
18 30.0 7 28.3

2 3.3 7 11.6

0 0.0 0 0.0

0 0.0 0 0.0
Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.809, d.f: l, and P: 0.368)

 

105

Table 65. Pleasantness Ratings for the Eastern Region by Gender

# of
29
2
2
9
2
4
0
0

%of

60
3.3
3.3
15.0

20.0

6.7
0.0
0.0

#of
31

l

3

8
15
4

0

0

% of
60
1.6
5.0
13.3

25.0
6.7
0.0
0.0

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.114., d.f: l, and P: 0.735)

Table 66. Pleasantness Ratings for the Northern Region by Gender

# of
29
0
0
4
6
8
1

0

% of
60
0.0
0.0
6.7

26.6
13.3
1.6
0.0

#of

31
0
6
2
4
8
1

0

% of
60
0.0
10.0
3.3

23.3
13.3
1.6
0.0

 

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.832, d.f: l, and P: 0.361)

Table 67. Pleasantness Ratings for the Southern Region by Gender

# of
29
0

4
15
6
4
0
0
Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.030, d.f: l, and P: 0.861)

% of
60
0.0
6.7

25.0
10.0
6.7
0.0
0.0

#of
31
0
5
13
10
3
0
0

106

% of
60
0.0
8.3

21.6
16.6
5.0
0.0
0.0

 

Table 68. Pleasantness Ratings for the Northeastern Region by Gender

# of % of # of % of
29 60 31 60
0 0.0 0 0.0
5.0 2 3.3

6.7 5 8.3

11 18.3 14 23.3

7 11.6 5 8.3
5

3 5.0 8.3
1 1.6 0 0.0

Kruskal-Wallis = (k: 0.010, d.f: 1, and P: 0.919)

 

Gender

      

for the Northwestern

 

Table 69. Pleasantness

 

% of # of % of
60 31 60
0.0 O 0.0

5.0 3 5.0
8.3 5 8.3
25.0 17 28.3
5.0 4 6.7
2

5.0 3.3

107

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adegbija, Efurosibina. (1994). Language Attitudes in Subsah_aran Africa
A Sociolinguistic Overview. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Agheyisi, R. F ishman, J. (1970). Language gttitudes studies: a brief survey of
methodological approaches. Anthropological Linguistics, 12(5):137-57.

Al-Dash, Linda and Tucker, G. Richard. (1975). Subjective reactions to various speech
styles in Egypt. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 6:33-54,
(=Linguistics, 166.)

Aljehani, N. (1985). Sociostylistic Stratification of Arabic in Mak,_k_ah Variation. Saudi
Arabia. Unpublished dissertation. University of Michigan.

Almozainy, H. (1981). Vowel Alterngtions in a Bedouin Hiiazi Ara_rbic Dialect:
Abstractness and Stress. Unpublished dissertation. University of Texas,
Austin.
Amara, M.H. (1999). Politics and sociolinguistic Reflexes: Palestinian border villages.
John Benjamin Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Baker, Colin. (1992). Language and Attitude. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Chambers, J .K. & Peter Trudgill. (1980). @ectologv. Cambridgg: University Press.

Cooper, R. (1974). Language Attitudes, 1. International Journal of the Sociology of
Language,3. (=Linguistics 136).

Coupland, N. (1988). Dialect in Use: Sociolinguistic Variation in Cardiff English,
Cardiff,
University of Wales Press.

Deperez, K. & Persoons, Y. (1987). In Sociolinguistics: An Introduction. Handbook of

The Science of Language and Society, H. Von, U. Ammon, N. Dittmar and
K]. Matteier (eds.), 125-132. Berlin— New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Edwards, J .R. (1982). Langggge Attitudes and their implications amgg English speakers.
In E. B Ryan and H. Giles (eds) (1982): 20-33.

Esmail, M. (1972). The Syntax of Urban Hiiazi Ara_bi_c. Unpublished dissertation.
Georgetown University.

108

Fasold, R. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of Society, Oxford: Blackwell.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading:
Addison- Wesley.

Fishman, J. (1971). Advances in the Sociology of Language, Volume 1. The Hague:
Mouton.

F ouad, P,A. (1964). The Syntax of Najdi Arabic. Unpublished dissertation. University of
Texas, Austin.

Francis, W.N. (1983). Dialectology: an introduction, London and New York, Longman.

Gauchat, L. (1905). L’unite phonetique dans le patois d’une commune. In Aus
Romanischen Sprachen und Literaturen: Festschrifi Heinrich Mort, Hallez,
Max Niemeyer 175-232

Giles, H. (1971b). Pgttefls of evaluation in reactions to RR, South Welsh and Somerset
accented speech. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10,280-
281

Grootaers, W. (1959). Origin and nature of the subiective boundgries of dialects. Orbis, 8,
355-84.

Hartley, L. (1996). Oregonian Perceptions of Americgn Region_al Speech. Unpublished
thesis. Michigan State University.

 

Labov, W. (1969). Contraction deletion and inherent variability of the English copula
Lg. 45. 715-762.

Labov, W. (1970). Langu_age in social context. Stadium General, 23, 30-87.

Lambert, W. E., Hodhson, R. C., Gardner, R. C. and Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational
reaction_s to spoken langgages. Journal of A bnormal and Social Psychology,
60, 44-51.

Lambert, Wallace. (1967). A socigl psychology if bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues
23(2): 91-109.

Mulac, A. (1976). Effects of obscene langgage upon three dimensions of listener attitude.
Communication monographs, l976,43,300-307.

Osgood, Charles, Suci, C., and Tannenbaum, Percy. (1957). The Measurement of
Meaning Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

109

Oskamp, S (1977). Attitudes and opinions. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Preston, D. (1982). Perceptual Dialectology: Mental Maps of the United States dialects
from a Hawaiian perspective. Working Paper in Linguistics, 14 (2), 5-49.

Preston, D. (1985). Southern Indian_a perceptions of “correct” and “pleasant” Speech. In
Hwarkentyne (ed.), Methods V (Papers from the Fifth International Conference on
Methods in Dialectology), British Columbia: University of Victoria, pp. 387-411.

Preston, D. (1986). Five visioas of America. Language and Society, 15 (2), 221-40.
Preston, D. (1989). Perceptual dialectology. Dordrecht: Foris.

Preston, D. (1993a). Folk Dialectology. In Preston (ed.), American Dialect Research,
Amsterdam: Benjarnins, pp.333-77.

Preston, D. (1993b). Two Heartland Perceptions of langu_age variefl. In T. Frazer, (ed.),
“heartland” English, Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama, pp. 23-47.

Rosina, Lippi-Green. (1997). @glish with an accent. New York: Routledge,
1997- 31.

Ryan, EB. (1979). Who do low-prestigenguage varieties persist? In H. Giles and R St.
Clair (eds.) (1979): 145-57.

Ryan, Ellen 3., Howard Giles, & Richard J. Sebastain. (1982). An integrative perspective
for the study of attitudes toward language variation. In Ellen B. Ryan &
Howard Giles (eds), Attitudes towards language variation. London: Amolds, 1-19.

Shuy, R. W. (1967). Discovering American dialects. Urbana, 111.: National Council of
Teachers of English.

Shuy, R.W. (1983). On Discovering Language Attitudes. In E. Dudley & P. Heller (ed.),
American Attitude Toward Foreign Languages and Foreign Cultures, Bonn:
Grundmann, pp.71-93.

Spolsky, B., Tushyeh, T., Amara, M. and de Bot, K. (1998). Language in Bethlehem: The
Sociolinguistic Transformation of a Palestinian Town. The Final Scientific Report
Of Project No. 94-11-1 Sponsered by the Netherlands-Israel Development
Research Program (NIRP). Language Policy Research Center, Bar-Ilan University.

Trudgill, P. (1974). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society, London:
Penguin.

110

Tucker, GR. and Lambert, W.E. (1969). White and Negro Listeners’ reactions to various
American- English dialects. Social F orces,47, 463-68.

Williams, F. and his associates (1976). Explorations of the Linguistic Attitudes of
Teachers.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Wolck, W. (1973). Attitudes towards Spanish and Quechua in bilingu_al Peru. In Shuy and
Fasold 1973: 129-47.

Yami, H. (1982). The Yemeni Community in the Southemed, Dearbom, Michigan.
Unpublished MA thesis. Michigan State University.

111

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

 

31293 02504 2056