LADO colloquium at IAFL conference, 11-14.7.2011
Aston University, Birmingham, UK
Arabic varieties and LADO:
How can LADO deal with variance?
Judith Rosenhouse
SWANTECH Ltd.
swantech@013.net.il
1. Introduction
The title of this talk indicates that we deal here with
LADO problems, with Arabic as a “case study.”
We will not discuss here whether using linguistic
methods for this goal is justified or not.
Our talk has three major parts:
1. Background: The Arabic language
2. The problems of LADO with reference to Arabic
3. Suggesting some solutions to the problems.
and: Conclusion
References
2
1. Introduction to Arabic
Figure 1. Main Arabic dialect regions (ArabAtlas)
3
1. Introduction to Arabic
Arabic has been expanding out of its original region,
the Arabian Peninsula, since the 7th century CE
Native speakers of Arabic are found now, mainly in
the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).
“Fringe” dialects of Arabic are spoken in Central
Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Due to recent migrations many Arabic-speaking
communities exist in the other continents.
(cf. Holes 2004; Kaye & Rosenhouse 1997; Rosenhouse 2009)
Arabic now is 5th/6th world language by number of
speakers (> 250 million native speakers).
4
1. Introduction to Arabic
Arabic has two basic registers: a rich, prestigious,
written Literary (LA) form and spoken (CA) dialects:
CA
LA
spoken, colloquial
written, literary
vernacular dialects modern standard
This dichotomy is diglossia (Ferguson, 1959)
which is an inherent part of Arabic
5
1. Introduction to Arabic
In this diglossia state:
CA is the speakers’ mother tongue
LA is studied at school and is not a mother tongue.
CA varieties differ among themselves and from LA
on all linguistic domains at various rates (depending
on the dialect)
6
1. Introduction to Arabic
CA dialects are first classified geographically into
Eastern and Western dialects.
These are classified into
sedentary urban (towns) and
rural (villages), and
nomadic tribal dialects.
[Along history, including the 20th century, many
nomadic dialects changed due to sedentarization.]
7
1. Introduction to Arabic
Five main factors affect Arabic and its varieties:
Geography, Social status, Religion, Sex, Education.
Education is particularly relevant for diglossia:
Speakers’ proficiency in LA and daily communication
in CA is affected by Education (cf. Al-Wer, 2002).
Note that CA simultaneously affects LA
8
1. Introduction to Arabic
Political and cultural changes occurred in the 20th
century due to:
strong Western influence on the MENA,
technological progress, and
general globalization processes.
Arab immigrants and refugees immigrated to
other Arabic-speaking countries and to
non-Arabic-speaking countries in other continents.
There they form contacts with different Arabic
varieties and other languages.
9
2. LADO problems
Immigrants’ contacts with new language communities
usually yield language processes such as:
borrowing,
code switching / code mixing,
erring,
linguistic accommodation,
mother tongue attrition…
These processes can be found also in the speech of
Arab immigrants, many of whom are LADO clients.
10
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
Concerning LA/CA relations: Shraybom-Shivtiel(1995)
writes as follows:
“The phenomenon of the renaissance of the Arabic
language must not be construed in the sense of the
death and subsequent revival of the language…but
rather as the penetration of a language which has
previously existed in written form exclusively into
widespread areas of everyday social
communication.”
She also shows there CA effects on the Egyptian
Language Academy.
11
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
LA/CA relations in Egypt, are described, e.g. in:
‘Egyptian Arabic as a Written Language’ (Rosenbaum,
2000)
‘Do you parler ‘Arabi?” Mixing Colloquial Arabic and
European Languages in Egyptian literature’
(Rosenbaum, 2000-2002)
12
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
Rosenbaum (2000) begins with these words:
“The change of attitude in Egyptian culture toward
the colloquial and the change of stylistic norms in
the literary system have encouraged the
appearance of various kinds of mixed styles, not
only in oral performance but in written texts as
well.”
These mixed forms are in fact Code Switching (CS)
13
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
The following example is from a play using CA, LA,
German and English (Rosenbaum, 2000-2002: 24)
14
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
CS is revealed also with other languages and dialects.
See, e.g., the case of Morocco and the relationship
between Moroccan Arabic and French (Lahlou, 1991:
182-183, in Caubet, 2000):
“Code switching has become part of their linguistic
repertoire….the use of CS by these people is not an
indication that they have not mastered the
languages among which they switch. It is a linguistic
behavior that indicates a choice…
15
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
“It is true that many code switchers find it easier to
use CS than to use either Moroccan Arabic only or
French only. But this is because CS has become
their usual everyday means of interaction with their
peers. CS is their ‘default mode’ of conversation, a
mode which is in the middle of their linguistic
continuum…” (Lahlou, ibid.)
16
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
These examples demonstrate fundamental changes
in Arabic in the 20th century due to literacy and
language contacts (among other factors).
(Needles to say, there are many other examples.)
Thus, CA and LA keep developing and changing
naturally - like any other living language.
17
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
Three types of CS can be mixed in their speech:
• Intra-lingual Diglossic switching (CA-LA).
• Inter-lingual Code switching
• Inter-dialect Variety switching (dialects)
Psycholinguistically these processes are similar, for
many speakers switch between these varieties or
languages even without noticing it, as a life habit.
(on Arabic, see also: Mejdell, 2006)
18
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
For LADO these natural processes increase the
problems involved in verifying speakers’ origin by
their language use.
The very concept of LADO and its tasks raises many
questions (Muysken et al. 2010: 2-4).
For us, a crucial question is:
How can an expert be sure that a given person is a
native speaker of a certain Arabic dialect (or not), if
that person’s recorded speech is not pure or typical
of the claimed dialect when it
presents certain features of different dialects, or
lacks specific or characteristic dialect forms?
19
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
We’ll examine this problem by three questions:
1) Which is the speaker’s original dialect out of
several dialectal features found in a recorded text?
(2) How does one decide which feature is more
salient (significant) than others when several
dialects are involved?
(3) Should only what is in the recorded texts be
considered in deciding the speaker’s original dialect
or also what is not expressed verbally?
20
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
Q1. To decide a speaker’s original dialect at least
three optional approaches may be tried:
1. Counting the number of all the features of each
dialect in the text and deciding by the majority;
2. Assessing the saliency of different dialect features,
counting them and deciding by the majority of the
salient features;
3. Combining these methods.
The 3rd option is probably the preferable.
These methods can be used in all the switching types
21
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
However, one may argue that these methods may
refer to dialect dominance in the recording rather
than speaker’s origin (in case speakers want to
imitate some dialect other than their original one).
It seems, then, that these method do not provide a
foolproof answer for Q1...
22
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
Q. 2 is about feature salience:
How does one decide which feature is salient
when features of several dialects occur in the
recording?
Note that:
A feature may be salient for some dialect but not
for another.
A feature that is common to several dialects is
hardly salient as a distinctive marker.
23
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
This issue leads to considering geographical
dialectology which studies different dialects and
their borders (Behnstedt, 2006, Belinkov, 2010)
Dialect atlases and isoglosses might be used.
But in spite of the great progress in this area
(Behnstedt and Woidich, 2005), Arabic dialects are
hardly documented or covered in such maps.
Vocabulary is one of the linguistic areas used to mark
inter-dialect differences (cf. Cadora, 1979, for Arabic
following Swadesh, 1971).
Let’s examine this aspect now.
24
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
Cadora (1979: 32) found that dialects in the SyroLebanese varieties revealed 96% non-contrastive
compatibility on the average (i.e. cognate lexical
items).
This fact complicates things for LADO: As vocabulary
is that similar (at least in these dialects), it is not too
difficult for a speaker of a certain dialect to master
the vocabulary of a different dialect.
25
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
Quoting Swadesh (1952a, b) Cadora also
suggests the minimum 70% requirement of noncontrastive compatibility for dialects to be still
considered varieties of the same language - in
this context of Arabic dialects.
This is a rather broad lee-way for inter-dialect
differences, and is probably not satisfactory for
LADO needs.
26
3. Some CA problems for LADO: diglossia, Code and Variety Switching
So, to answer Q 2 linguists would usually examine
features of syntax, morphology, phonology and
vocabulary (in this order) in the recording, because:
Syntax and Morphology are considered the core of a
language system as they are the last to be affected
by external linguistic forces, while
Phonology and Vocabulary are the weaker parts of a
language system and can change easily
(diachronically and synchronically).
These considerations are relevant for Arabic, too.
Here are some examples:
27
4. Results of processes in CA
Examples of syntactic distinctive features:
Copula at the end of the phrase:
Baghdad: -ya:nu; Anatolia: -we (others: simple 3rd person pron.)
Bound personal particle
preceding the direct object: Iraq: šufto la-mHammad ‘I saw M.’
the possessive structure: Iraq: be:to la-mHammad ‘M.’s house’
Imperfect indicative particles
Damascus: bi; Iraq: qa; Morocco: da, ka
Genitival exponents
Iraq ma:l; Syria: taba‘; Cairo: bita:‘; Galilee Bedouin: Hagg;
Morocco: nta‘, dyal; Malta: tagH, tiegH
Noun-negating particles
Baghdad: ma: Damascus: mu: Cairo: muš Jerusalem: muš, miš
28
4. Results of processes in CA
Examples of morphological distinctive features:
Pronouns:
“I”: Cairo, Damascus: ana; Yemen, Bedouins: ani/a:ni
Bound (suffixed) pronouns:
“his”: Cairo: -uh; Damascus: -o; Bedouins: -ih/ah/uh; Morocco:
-u/-eh
Verb conjugations, Perfect tense:
“I wrote” Cairo, Damascus: katabt; some in Yemen: katabk;
Morocco: ktebt
Morphophonology: ima:la (=/a>e, i/ in certain word patterns):
Cairo: no ima:la; Damascus: conditioned Iraq, Malta: much
29
4. Results of processes in CA
Examples of dialect-distinctive phonological elements
Feature
urban Eastern vs. urban Western
Consonants */q/
’
q often retained
Diphthongs /ai, au/ retained
often ai>i/a, au>u
Long/short vowels retained
often long >short;
short>null
Feature
Urban
vs. Nomadic (Bedouin)
Consonants
q; k; g; ’
g/dž/dz; k/tš/ts; dy
t, d, δ
θ, δ, δ
Pharyngealized few, weakened
many, strong
Feature
Muslim Baghdadi
Christian Baghdadi
Bedouin type
sedentary type
Consonants g/dž, k/tš, đ
vs. q, k, 
Ima:la*
little
vs.
*/a/>/e~i/ in certain word patterns
much
30
4. Results of processes in CA
Vocabulary: Fig. 2. Semantic field of the verb “to speak”
(Behnstedt & Woidich, 2005:209): 3 main centers + other forms
31
4. Results of processes in CA
• To answer Q 2 it seems that a meticulous
examination of all these aspects in the speaker’s
recording should be undertaken.
• Due to inter-dialect similarities by geographical
regions when features are mixed it would be difficult
to reach a clear-cut opinion. This is true in particular
if the speech features in the recording are of the
shared rather than the distinct character.
• So, to answer Q2 a comprehensive study of the
salient features of the Arabic dialects is necessary.
Until then the answer to Q2 is also pending.
32
4. Results of processes in CA
Our Q3 is rather “philosophical”:
Should one define a speaker’s original dialect only
by what is in the recorded texts or also by what is
not shown?
Speakers may try to disguise their “original” features,
and hide some weakness by avoidance strategies
(e.g. Milroy, 2002).
Conversely, they may also try to reveal closeness to
the interlocutors (or some dialect) by imitating the
interlocutor’s features which are “foreign” for the
speaker.
33
4. Results of processes in CA
Concerning Arabic, inter-dialectal communication
phenomena were described as:
Leveling of conspicuous dialectal features, and
Koineization: use of features shared by the
speakers, thus hiding differences between them.
(Blanc, 1960).
Such behavior has also been described as speakers’
sociolinguistic accommodation due to factors such
as status, sex, or origin.
34
4. Results of processes in CA
If the non-appearance of some features is known –
how can it be considered?
Or: Is it a fact to be considered at all?
In the context of LADO speakers, these phenomena
are frequent.
All the facts described above reveal a complex
picture, which is important to take into
consideration.
Our questions will remain unanswered for now, but
we tend to support an approach that somehow
takes into consideration “missing forms”.
35
5. Suggestion for LADO: A Linguistic Template
At least as a partial answer or aid, a good computer
program could treat at least some of these aspects.
In contrast with speaker and speech recognition, not
much effort has been dedicated to designing and
using computer programs for LADO goals.
(but see a review in Belinkov, 2010).
As a first step towards the use of computer programs
in LADO, it seems necessary to define general
linguistic protocols as templates for different dialect
features.
36
5. Suggestion for LADO: A Linguistic Template
To reach a relatively reliable evaluation of a recorded
text, two combined parts seem to be necessary:
(1) A feature array (database) of as many Arabic
dialects as possible (including LA)
(2) A computer program which calculates the
probabilities of origin by features and feature
combinations
Cadora’s 70% rate could be considered the lowest
base-line for some probability that a speaker is
right in claiming a specific dialect as L1, but
higher certainty rates are better, of course.
(In computerized speech analysis/synthesis programs
good rates are around the 90%-95% success.)
37
5. Suggestions for LADO: A Linguistic Template
For stage (1) the lists need to include at least:
1. The basic features which are common to all
the Arabic dialects
2. A list of distinctive features of Arabic dialects
(The features will have to refer to all language forms.)
For stage (2) the program will be able to register the
data, classify and list the features by dialects, and
calculate the probability that a group of n features
reflects a certain dialect.
This approach should be further developed.
38
5. Suggestions for LADO: A Linguistic Template
It may be possible to reach a reliable result only if the
salient features are defined as well as the features
involved in speech accommodation.
Such a project requires much work and time, but
seems feasible at least for several dialects due to
the present programming and memory capacities.
Yet, even if this project materializes (for a few
dialects), it still does not enable 100% certainty - at
least because:
Not all the Arabic dialects are known/documented
(Behnstedt, 2006) and probably cannot be documented.
39
5. Suggestions for LADO: A Linguistic Template
In the context of Q. 3, we suggest that dialect-typical
features that do not appear in the recordings (where
they could occur) will be taken into account as a
negative factor for origin assessment.
This is a difficult task, for the pragmatic use of certain
features (such as sociolinguistic accommodation)
involves behavior patterns that are not strictly
defined (as in computerized calculation) and some
freedom is normally possible in human speech.
40
6. Conclusion
In sum:
Arabic has numerous dialects/varieties.
Their variance exists not only due to number but also
due to their sometimes unexpected mixtures.
Changes are undergoing in Arabic varieties, in both
Arabic-speaking countries and elsewhere, due to
internal and external processes.
A person’s speech reveals these changes at least by
code switching, borrowing, leveling & koineization,
which depend on the speaker’s personal language
make-up.
These natural processes complicate LADO work.
41
6. Conclusion
In order (at least) to facilitate LADO, we suggested
the design of a computer program with two parts:
Level 1: A linguistic analysis of Arabic dialects’
features as the data base (for the second part).
Level 2: A computational analysis that will run the
probability calculation for any recording to examine
whether a certain text reflects one dialect (rather
than another) as an L1.
This design is influenced by the existing literature
(e.g. Rose’s (2002) approach to speaker
identification).
42
6. Conclusion
Though calculated (statistical) probability is not 100%
certainty, it may support impressionistic “gut feeling”
or extra-linguistic and semi-scientific opinion about
the origin of a text.
A computerized program such as suggested here
requires much work, but seems feasible in stages,
at least for some dialects.
Collaboration of teams of linguists, programmers and
statisticians is needed to materialize this project.
The final “human touch” is nevertheless inevitable in
this task (as in many others),
but such a program may contribute to solving some of
the LADO language variance problems.
43
The End
Thank you for your attention
44
References
Al-Wer, E. (2002) Education as a speaker variable. In: Rouchdy, A. (ed.) Language
contact and Language Conflict in Arabic: Variation on a sociolinguistic theme,
London: RoutledgeCurzon, 41-53.
Behnstedt, P. and M. Woidich (2005) Arabische Dialektgeographie. Eine Einführung,
Leiden: Brill.
Behnstedt, P. (2006) Dialect Geography. In: K. Versteegh et al. (eds.) Encyclopedia
of Arabic Language and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill, Vol. 1, pp. 583-593.
Belinkov, Y. (2010) Computational dialectology, NLP Seminar, January 2010, TelAviv University
Blanc, H. (1960) Style variations in spoken Arabic. In: C.A. Ferguson (ed.)
Contributions to Arabic Linguistics, MA. 81-158.
Cadora, F.J. (1979) Interdialectal Lexical Compatibility in Arabic: An Analytical Study
of the Lexical Relationships among the Major Syro-Lebanese varieties, Leiden:
Brill
Holes, Clive. 2004. Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions and Varieties, Washington
D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Kaye, Alan S. 1994. Formal vs. informal in Arabic: Diglossia, triglossia, tetraglossia
etc., polyglossia - multiglossia viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für arabische
Linguistik, 27:47-66
Kaye, A.S. and J. Rosenhouse (1997) Arabic dialects and Maltese. In: R. Hetzron
(ed.) The Semitic Languages, London: Routledge, 263-311.
Mejdell, Gunvor. 2006. Code-switching. In: K. Versteegh et al. (eds.) Encyclopedia of
Arabic Language and Linguistics. Leiden: Brill, Vol. 1, 415-421.
45
References
Milroy, L. (2002) Introduction: Mobility, contact and language change –
Working with contemporary speech communities, Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 6: 3-15.
Muysken, P., M. Verrips and K. Zwaan (2010) Introduction. In: K. Zwaan, M.
Verrips and P. Muysken (eds. ) Language and Origin - The role of
Language in European Asylum procedures: Linguistic and Legal
Perspectives, Nijmegen: Wolf legal Publishers, 1-6.
Rose, Ph. (2002) Forensic Speaker Identification, London: Taylor &
Francis
Rosenbaum, G.M. (2000) ‘ “FusHāmmiyya”: Alternating style in Egyptian
prose’, Zeitschift für Arabische Linguistik, 38:68-87.
Rosenbaum, G.M. (2000-2002) “Do you parler ‘Arabi?” Mixing Colloquial
arabic and European Languages in Egyptian literature, Materiaux
Arabes et Sudarabiques-GELLAS, Nouvelle Serie, 10: 11-47. (Groupe
d’Etudes de Linguistique et de Litterature Arabes et Sudarabiques)
Rosenbaum, G. M. (2004) Egyptian Arabic as a Written Language,
Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 29: 281-340
Rosenhouse, J. (2009) “Arabic in Comparative Forensic Linguistics,” paper
presented in the 4th Conference on Translation, Interpretation and
46
Comparative Legi-Linguistics, 2-4.7.2009, Poznan, Poland.
References
Shraybom-Shivtiel, Sh. (1995) “The role of the colloquial in the renaissance of
Standard Arabic,” Israel oriental Studies, 15: 207-215.
Swadesh, M. (1952a) “Lexicostatistical dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts with
special reference to North American Indians and Eskimos,” Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society, XCVI: 452-463.
Swadesh, M. (1952b) “Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistics dating” IJAL, 28:
223-230. Swadesh, M.(1971) “What is glottochronology?” In Swadesh, M. (ed.
by J. Sherzer) The Origin and Diversification of Language, Chicago/ New York:
Aldine-Atherton, 271-284.
Swadesh, M.(1971) “What is glottochronology?” In Swadesh, M. (ed. by J. Sherzer)
The Origin and Diversification of Language, Chicago/ New York: Aldine-Atherton,
271-284.
47
Examples of Lexical Contamination (mixed forms)
(Behnstedt & Woidich, 2005):
Lebanon-Syria: iffe, burtum; bartu:me, burtme “lip”
Egypt: furn (m); tabu:na (f); furne (f) “cooking oven”
Syria: batti:x: watermelon (red); melon (yellow); either
(neutral + adjective to qualify the meaning)
To sum up this issue:
Certain features distinguish different dialects,
while others are common to many dialects.
48
Now, if A is the recorded text of a LADO client which claims
a certain dialect, and B is the template structure of that
dialect, then after adding up the features:
1. If the final feature score of (A) < (B), (A) is negated (= it
is not considered the speaker’s L1).
2. 2. A (the claimed dialect) would “lose” also when it
shows features of more than one dialect - depending
on the salience of the features.
This make its features more than (b)’s features, if the (a)
features are more salient than any of the (b) features.
49