A Thesis

Entitled

Deictic Reference: vs. Arab Americans

By

Fatima Ahmad Esseili

Submitted as partial fulfillment for the requirement for

The Masters of Arts in English with a Concentration in ESL

______Advisor: Dr. Douglas Coleman

______Dr. Samir Abu-Absi

______Dr. Melinda Reichelt

______Graduate School

The University of Toledo

May 2006 An Abstract of

Deictic Reference: Arabs vs. Arab Americans

By

Fatima Ahmad Esseili

Submitted as partial fulfillment for the requirement for

The Masters of Arts

The University of Toledo

May 2006

This study compares the verbal and nonverbal behavior of 33 Arabs and 20 Arab

Americans. The study compares the Arabs’ use of hada ‘this’ and hadak ‘that’ against the Arab Americans’. Definitions of these deictic terms provided by grammar books and dictionaries are also examined in this study. The subjects were prompted to refer to objects as the ones that they liked the best and least, from three distinct groups of objects: different objects; same objects, different color; and identical objects. The subjects’ verbal responses along with their nonverbal gestures were recorded. The study suggests, based on Lambda tests of correlation, that the verbal and non-verbal behavior of Arabs is different from that of Arab Americans. It also suggests that the traditional definitions and theoretical explanations of hada ‘this’ and hadak ‘that’ are not real world properties of the native speakers and have no existence in actual communication.

ii Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my outstanding mother for her love and support, and my father for instilling in me the love for freedom, beauty, and creativity.

أ>DE= وآAB@ و?<= و>;:6 و678ر : HُJKِ;M آ7G@!

>Rك و?JV : O:P@ا BSBT دآW ود?:WJ ا6TاWX..

I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Douglas Coleman for his patience and for always encouraging us to think outside the box.

Special thanks to my supervisor Dr. Samir Abu-Absi for being a great mentor and for being a father to me in Toledo.

Dr. Melinda Reichelt: many thanks for your insightful guidance.

I would like to extend my thanks and gratitude to my extraordinary professors at the Lebanese University, Dr. Nahida Saad and Dr. Eddine Hariri.

I would also like to thank my exceptional friends in Lebanon: Nadera, Mona, Reem, Wissam, Rana, and Dima.

Many thanks to the “You can do it group” at The University of Toledo: Amira, Adina, , Alex, Anastasia, Beth, Cathy, Gaby, Hong, Hwan, Justin, Katherine, , & Nate, Veronica, Torey, Sue and Nancy.

Finally, warm thanks go to

=>?

Thank you all for being in my life.

iii Table of contents

Abstract ii

Acknowledgements iii

Table of Contents iv

List of Figures v

List of Tables vi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Methodology – Background research 17

Chapter 3: Results 30

Chapter 4: Summary of Findings 37

References 39

iv List of Figures

Figure 1 – Percentage of Arabs and Arab Americans 23

Figure 2 – Glass Animals 25

Figure 3 – Colored Jacks 25

Figure 4 – Identical Jacks 26

Figure 5 – Barrier between the subjects and the objects 27

Figure 6 – Subjects one meter away from objects 27

v List of Tables

Table 1 – Proximal Demonstrative Pronouns in MSA 6 (adapted from Faris 1995, Ghrayyib 1983, and Tarhini 1996)

Table 2 – Medial Demonstrative Pronouns in MSA 7 (adapted from Faris 1995, Ghrayyib 1983, and Tarhini 1996)

Table 3 – Distal Demonstrative Pronouns in MSA 7 (adapted from Faris 1995, Ghrayyib 1983, and Tarhini 1996)

Table 4 – (Brustad, 2000) 8

Table 5 – (Brustad, 2000) 8

Table 6 – Different Objects: verbal and nonverbal response 18

Table 7 – Different Color: verbal and nonverbal behavior 19

Table 8 – Identical objects: Verbal and non-behavior 20

Table 9 – Different Objects (Best): verbal responses of the two groups according to the position of objects. 31

Table 10 – Different Colors (best): verbal and nonverbal behavior 32

Table 11 – Identical objects: verbal responses of Arabs and Arab Americans 33

Table 12 – Identical Objects (best): verbal and nonverbal behavior. 34

Table 13– Arab American verbal response 35

vi Chapter One

Introduction and Background

As a result of the nineteenth century renaissance movement in the Arab world, calls for arabization, mainly through language, emerged with the problem of the diglossic nature of in the frontline (Abu-Absi, 1986). Classical Arabic was reformed and

Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) materialized and became the literary language of education (books, newspapers, media, and lectures) all over the Arab world. On the other hand, every Arab country maintained its own dialect that was used in daily interaction. A huge number of grammar books was published that explained how MSA and the different dialects should be spoken, and, of course, written in the case of the former. Few works were published about Arabic communicative tasks in real world situations. Consider the situation where people have to indicate something or to point out something. When faced with this situation – whether trying to indicate objects they like, objects that are alike, objects that are confusing etc. – people usually use different kinds of referencing, along with nonverbal gestures, that are conventionally divided by linguists into four major types: deictic, anaphoric, exophoric, and symbolic. This thesis is limited to Arabic deictic spatial referencing, mainly the use of [haða] ‘this’ and [ðalika] ‘that’ in MSA and in spoken Arabic, specifically the Levantine and Gulf dialects. The main aim is to

1 investigate the reality of the demonstratives in the physical world as articulated by Arabs and Arab Americans.

This research will compare native speakers of Arabic, people who were born and who lived in an Arab country and acquired Arabic as their first language, and Arab

Americans, people who were born in America and acquired Arabic along with English in a minority Arabic speaking community. The Arab subjects were mainly from the Gulf area (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE) and Lebanon. The Arab Americans were of

Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi, and Egyptian origins. The motivation behind this comparison is a study done by Kelly-Lopez (2005) entitled ‘The Reality of This and

That ’. The study came to the conclusion that native speakers of English and hence native speech “did not follow the traditional definitions of this and that presented in dictionaries” (p. 28). They used these deictic terms interchangeably. In contrast, the responses of non-native speakers of English were consistent with grammatical definitions. The final conclusion drawn from the study was that “native speech must be defined in a manner that states, native speech is any articulation of a native speaker ” (p.

30). Further the author suggested that grammatical rules may be responsible for “non- native-speaker-like speech behaviors.”

In the present study I originally wanted to investigate the reality of [haða] ‘this’ and [ðalika] ‘that’ in Arabic with the intention of proving that these communicative tasks do not adhere to the definitions presented in grammar books and dictionaries. The motivation was an earlier unpublished study that I have done whereby I investigated age as a possible variable in the articulation of deictic referencing and where the results showed that this and that were used interchangeably by English speakers and that age

2 plays a significant role in the articulation of this and that . However, after reading Kelly-

Lopez’s study I was curious about another point, i.e., the status of Arab Americans. Are they properly considered native speakers of Arabic? If so, do they exhibit the same communicative properties of Arabs born in an Arab country? If they do not have the same communicative tasks, will they be considered non-native speakers of Arabic – of course bearing in mind Kelly-Lopez’s study?

3

Research Construction

This entire research is based on the framework of hard science linguistics (HSL) established by Yngve (1996) whereby linguistics is defined as the scientific study of people communicating in real world situations. Yngve’s aim is to elevate the status of linguistics from the philosophical domain to the scientific domain that bases its findings and validates them through scientific methodologies. In other words, the linguist is to observe, come up with a hypothesis, and test this hypothesis in the physical world by comparing the predications of the hypothesis against further abstractions. This means that the linguist’s data should be collected from real observations recorded in a specific place and a specific time. This approach is in direct opposition with the traditional one where linguists gather their data from introspection; i.e., their data is made-up, self- created to support their theories and, therefore, has no real value in the physical world.

Thus, language is an abstract system that has no tangible reality. Its long established components – semantics, syntax, morphology, and phonology – are also not real and they cannot be observed. It follows then that words, haða ‘this’ and ðalika ‘that’ in this case, are also not real; when we read these words or when we hear them, we are only

“projecting properties of ourselves onto the external causes of sights and perceived sounds” (Coleman 2004, p. 15). Therefore, when we want to observe people communicating it is imperative that we make sure not to confuse these subjective projections with objective reality, and to take into consideration the key elements of an assemblage, Yngve (1996), a “group of people together with their linguistically relevant

4 surroundings involved in particular communicative behavior” (p. 86). Elements of an assemblage include participants or communicating individuals, channels (sound and light waves emitted from the communicating individuals along with the non-verbal gestures that these individuals perform), props or physical objects, and finally, the setting in which communication is taking place. These elements, joined together, are the basis for any successful and meaningful communication. People exhibit different communicative behaviors when they are in different settings. Everything in the setting can act as a factor that might affect communication and might cause it to break down.

5 Definitions of haða ‘this’ and ðalika ‘that’ in MSA and in the spoken dialects:

It is usually reported that MSA has three different demonstrative pronouns to refer to an object; these are identified as proximal, medial, and distal. These pronouns, it is believed, change depending on the gender, the number of the object being referred to, and the grammatical case. Further, it is claimed that the particle /haa/ is optional and is used in a deictic sense to attract attention to the thing being talked about (Faris 1995, Ghrayyib

1983, and Tarhini 1996) The following tables (Table 1, 2, and 3) show how the above- mentioned linguists, by assumption, identify and define the different forms of each demonstrative in MSA and believe them to be properties of communicating individuals.

Table 1 shows the different forms of the proximal demonstrative pronoun in

MSA. The so-called singular feminine demonstrative form is always taught as [haaðih] in Arabic language books; only specialized linguistic books mention the supposedly

“original” form [(haa)taa]. The plural form, as these linguists claim, is the same for both masculine and feminine and is never used for non-human pronouns (Faris, 1995).

Singular Dual Plural Feminine /(haa)taa/or/haaðih/ /(haa)taan/ /?ulaa?i/ أو}ء هEuEن هEuE / هwx Masculine /(haa)ðaa/ /(haa)ðaan/ /?ulaa?i/ أو}ء هxان هxا Table 1 – Proximal Demonstrative Pronouns in MSA (adapted from Faris 1995, Ghrayyib 1983, and Tarhini 1996)

Table 2 shows the medial demonstrative pronouns as reported by the same above- mentioned linguists. It is interesting to note here that this form is rarely taught at schools in Levantine. It is also not found in books aiming to teach Arabic as a Foreign Language

6 (AFL). I definitely did not know about it before starting this research, even though I am a native speaker of Arabic. This further leads us to believe that rules of grammar do not reflect actual communication.

Singular Dual Plural Feminine /(haa)tiika/ /taanika/ /?uula?ika/ 7DEu| ه7uE| Masculine /(haa)ðaaka/ /ðaanik/ /?uula?ika/ ذاD| هEذاك Table 2 – Medial Demonstrative Pronouns in MSA (adapted from Faris 1995, Ghrayyib 1983, and Tarhini 1996)

The third form is the distal demonstrative form shown in Table 3. The final suffix

/ka/ stands for the second person pronoun “you,” and is used, Cowan (1985, p. 70) claims, to denote distance.

Singular Dual Plural Feminine /tilka/ /taanika/ /?uulaalika/ أو}u |DEu |T<| Masculine /ðalika/ /ðannika/ /?uulaalika/ أو}T| ذاD| ذT| Table 3 Distal Demonstrative Pronouns in MSA (adapted from Faris 1995, Ghrayyib 1983, and Tarhini 1996)

Spoken Arabic, on the other hand, is claimed to be limited to two forms: the proximal and the distal only. Further, linguists report that the dual form is not present in all the dialects. Although this form is taught at schools in MSA, nobody uses it in daily communication. Brustad (2000, p. 113) notes that “with the exception of Egyptian,” these forms are “relatively homogenous.” She provides a table that summarizes the

7 different forms in the four major Arabic dialects as exemplified by Moroccan, Egyptian,

Syrian, and Kuwaiti.

Proximal Demonstrative Pronouns

Masculine Feminine Plural Moroccan Hāda Hādi hādu Egyptian Da Di dōl Syrian Hād(a) hāy(ye) hadōl(e) Kuwaiti Hāda Hādi (ha)dēla Table 4 – (Brustad, 2000)

The articulation of the purported proximal forms in these dialects is not very different from that presented in MSA. The same thing applies for the distal forms in Table 5.

Distal Demonstrative Pronouns

Masculine Feminine Plural Moroccan (hā)dāk (hā)dīk (hā)dūk Egyptian dāk, duka dīk, dika dukhum Syrian Hādāk Hādīk hadolīk Kuwaiti (ha)dāk (ha)dīč (ha)dēla Table 5 – (Brustad, 2000)

Faris (1995, p. 253) defines a demonstrative as anything that you refer to or name, by means of a signal that is either cognitive or physical: haða , he claims, is used with physically and/or psychologically near objects, whereas ðalika is used for physically and/or psychologically far objects. Ghrayyib (1983, p. 75) takes it for granted that a demonstrative is a pronoun that people use to point to something that is proximal, medial, or distal. Ghrayyib has the same assumption concerning haða and ðalika as Faris.

8 Tarhini (1996, p.190) presents an interesting definition where the utterance [-ða] signifies al zaat or the ‘self’ of something or someone, and [ha-] acts as an attention caller particle.

Dictionary-based definitions are not substantially different from what is outlined above.

Al Munjid (1994), Arabic-Arabic dictionary, defines a demonstrative as a pronoun that is used to indicate objects that are proximal, medial, or distal. It also states that the prefix

/ha/ is used to call attention to the object being referred to.

All these sources explain in detail how haða and ðalika function in MSA according to their position or location in a sentence . Likewise, spoken Arabic theoreticians provide similar conjectural definitions of hada ‘this’ and hadak ‘that’. To

Brustad (2000, p.113), demonstratives “identify, recall, highlight, and contrast entities that play important roles in discourse.” She states that hādīk ‘that’ (fem.) is used in the four dialects in a non-gendered way which is only “limited to non-specific temporal expressions day and time” (p. 128). The basis for Brustad’s argument is tape recorded data taken from informants from different Arab countries; commercial tape recordings of plays and interviews; and published texts and studies. Brustad explains that she observed people talking and then she searched for the appropriate theoretical explanations of what she had observed in grammar books – which is merely a way to try to find real world evidence for the grammatical explanations. In fact, Brustad takes the definitions of this and that for granted when she states that it “is well-known that the proximal and the distal forms of demonstratives function deictically to refer to near and far objects in both time and place” (p. 113). Furthermore, Brustad continues with her assumptions and she identifies, as a fact, another function of the distal Arabic form which, like the definitions of the English form, is used to “signal contrastive reference.”

9 It follows that hāda ‘this’ is used for the item that one chooses first or indicates preference to and hādāk ‘that’ is used to indicate the second choice or the item least preferred. In fact, none of the Arabic sources that I have reviewed mentioned anything about contrasting entities that Brustad talked about in her definition except for one source, Omar (1975, p. 87), who offered theoretical examples about a contrastive situation but with no explanation whatsoever about the reality of such utterances. The examples are ‘Take this or this /xuuð haada ?aw haada/, and ‘Do you want this or this?’

/tibghii haada walla haada/. The two theoretical examples do not show the same contrastive situation which Brustad outlined; they allegedly show that in a contrastive situation Arabic speakers use the same form hāda ‘this’.

In a somewhat similar manner, Cowell (1964, p. 552) claims that proximal demonstratives “correspond not only to English this, these , but also to that, those , whenever the reference is to something near (or associated with) the person spoken to.”

The distal demonstratives, on the other hand, are used to “refer to something (or someone) relatively far away from both the speaker and the person spoken to.” Cowell provides many theoretical examples to support his definitions, one of which is /šū hāda/ which he translates as ‘What’s that one?’ Cowell indicates that [hāda] is associated with the English distal form that because it is related to the person spoken to. As a native speaker of Arabic I have never uttered [hāda] bearing in mind that it means the English articulation [ðæt], it is always [ðIs] whether the item referred to is related to the person spoken to or to the speaker or to no one.

Consider the utterance hay(di) illi honīk bil ziwyeh (this in there in the corner), i.e.

‘the one that is there in the corner’ . If a person hears this utterance alone, s/he will not

10 be able to make any sense of it. What is the thing that is being referred to? Where?

Which corner? Who is the speaker? Who is the addressee? There is no way one can know this information from that utterance alone. However, consider the following situation: Two friends, Mona and Reem, are window shopping on Hamra Street in Beirut.

They stop in front of one shop and they start examining the clothes displayed.

Mona says, patting Reem on the shoulder: layke hāydi sho helwī (look you this [fem.] very pretty) ‘Look at this, it is very pretty.’ Reem, who was busy looking at something else, turns and says: ayya wiHdi? (which [fem.] one [fem.]?) ‘Which one?’ Mona answers, pointing: hāydi illi honīk bil ziwyih. (this [fem.] that is there in the corner) ‘There in the corner.’ Reem says, pointing: Hilwi, shūfī hāy il hamra. (beautiful [fem.], see you this [fem.] the red) ‘It is beautiful, look at the red one.’ Mona answers: “ya’nii, bas hāydiki aHla.” (okay, but that prettier) ‘It is good, but the other one is prettier.’

As is obvious from the above situation, Mona and Reem are able to communicate successfully within a certain context or setting that frames their interaction and gives it meaning; that is why we are able to understand the conversation and to identify the thing being spoken about. But what are the causes affecting how Mona and Reem communicate? What made Mona choose to say haydi, rather than haydiki , in the opening of the conversation? Was it distance? Was it visibility? Was it the contact/control theory?

11 (See the discussion of contact/control theory below) Or was it something else?

According to the above-mentioned definitions of haydi ‘this’ and haydiki ‘that’, we should assume that Mona used haydi because the sweater she was pointing to was near her and was of primary importance or preference to her. But she could have as well used haydiki , as she did in her final utterance when she was speaking about the same sweater.

In order to understand and explain the above situation we need to consider the elements of an assemblage outlined earlier by Yngve (1996). In this situation we have participants or communicating individuals (Mona and Reem), channels (sound waves produced by Mona and Reem, light waves emitted from the same speakers and other physical objects), props (physical objects: mannequin, clothes), and the setting or the other parts of the surroundings (shop display, decoration). All these elements, that affect communication, need to be observed. Other group members need to be observed as well within the same linkage in order to reach a satisfying conclusion or generalization about the use of this particular communicative event.

12 Contact/Control Theory

In his PhD dissertation about spatial deixis, Shingo Imai (2003), challenges the assumption that relative distance is the primary parameter affecting people’s choice of this and that . He claims (p. 4) that a person “demarcates space by judging whether or not a referent/region is within his/her territory or not,” and he concludes that the contact/control parameter is the main cause behind people’s choice of this and that . “A referent touched by the speaker is a prototypical case of [direct] contact.” Imai contrasts this with indirect contact which happens when “the speaker is touching a distal referent with a long object like a stick” (p. 18). Imai assumes that the individual’s “direct or indirect [contact], is one of the main reasons to use proximal forms in all languages” (p.

19). Control, on the other hand, happens when a person manipulates an object, with a string attached to the object for example, and moves it “without directly touching it.”

This is a typical case where people will supposedly use the distal form that . In other words, if the referent is within the territory of a person and can be contacted or controlled by this person, then, according to Imai, it is certain that this and that will be used respectively. According to contact/control theory, the question of how this territory can be measured is something that is not determined by relative distance, but rather, by whether the person conceptualizes, subjectively, that the referent can be contacted or controlled and is within his/her “imaginary territory” (p. 5). In fact, this view, that the world is interpreted by the communicating individual’s subjective perception of the external events is not something new. It is a view supported by HSL which states that the observer, of any phenomenon, should be careful not to project his/her internal subjective

13 properties to the external events taking place in the real world. However, to state that in demarcating referents, the speaker’s perception would be “conscious and voluntary” (p.

17), is not really precise, especially in natural speech. Speakers or communicating individuals are not always conscious of the communicative tasks that they employ in referring to objects; otherwise, they would have ended up using these tasks according to grammatical rules or definitions found in dictionaries. In the experiment that I have done for this research, the subjects were asked about the reason behind their choice of this instead of that in certain instances. Most of the subjects answered that they did not know; when pushed further, they answered with a grammatical definition that did not comply with their initial response in the experiment.

Although the contact/control parameter is an interesting concept that might be responsible for people’s choice of this and that , Imai’s experiment design is flawed in many respects. To begin with, the cups used as referents in his study were labeled. “Each cup had a number and a character on it, such as‘1A’, ‘2C’, or ‘9B’ to facilitate the communication” (p. 76). This means that the subject, in a natural setting, would be more likely to name the object if it has an identifiable name. This is supported by the unpublished study that I have done where the subjects referred to the object by its name, if it was known to them, or by the color of the object if the name was not known to them, assuming that the color was distinctive. Most of the subjects in that study used this and that when dealing with a third set of objects, which were identical objects of the same color.

The second thing is the fact that Imai asked the subjects to use the distal form when he wanted them to use it.

14 It was made sure that the most distal cup on the table was not referred to with a

proximal form. In other words, the speaker was led to establish ground and

conceptualize the farthest end of the table as [distal]...Informants were asked to

refer to each cup with a demonstrative adjective and a demonstrative

pronoun…based on his/her intuition without thinking about ‘prescriptively

grammatical’ forms. (p. 77-78, emphasis mine)

Imai coached the subjects, “led them,” to use the form that he wanted them to use. This, in my opinion, is the greatest flaw in the experiment. Imai made the subjects perform conscious thinking about the form to be used, this or that , even though he mentioned that the subjects should do this “without thinking about ‘prescriptively grammatical’ forms.”

The mere fact that he asked them to use this or that would make them think in terms of the grammatical rules that they had learned and would therefore affect the results.

The third thing is the unnatural condition that framed the subjects’ gestures and natural reactions in referring to the objects. “The speaker could touch or only point at a cup without touching it” (p. 79). Again, in the unpublished study that I have done and in this current study, the subjects, when left on their own, used both pointing and touching sometimes in referring to the same object. They pointed first and then they leaned forward to touch the object. Some of them held the object and examined it closely before giving their answer which was not uniform, i.e., some of them said this , others said that .

Imai’s study does not attempt to examine the reality of deictic referencing as used by people in daily communication. It is trying to validate the definitions found in grammar books and dictionaries. Imai presents a huge number of parameters collected from reference grammar books, and he attempts to find a parameter, used in different

15 languages , that affects people’s employment of spatial deictic reference. The fact that the study is starting with the assumption that language is real and that grammatical rules are real is enough to question the reliability of the entire experiment.

16

Chapter two

Methodology

Background research

The idea that triggered my current research is an unpublished study that I performed in an Applied Linguistics course. In this study, 148 subjects were observed:

62 adults and 86 children. The main aim was to investigate whether people adhere to prescribed rules expounded in grammar books in their daily communication. The subjects were faced with three sets of objects. The first set consisted of four different plastic objects: a crocodile, an alligator, a monkey, and a tiger. The second set consisted of four objects that were the same (four Lego blocks), but the colors were different. The colors were red, yellow, blue, and green. The last set consisted of four identical objects

(Lego blocks) with the same color, all yellow. The subjects sat in front of the researchers and the objects were placed in such a way that the subject was able to make a body shift and touch them if s/he wanted to. The subjects were asked the following question:

“Which one of these do you like the best?” Age, gender, verbal and non-verbal responses were recorded by three researchers. The results showed that people said this and that interchangeably. Whether the objects were near the subject or away from the subject was

17 not significant – which lead us to reach the conclusion that distance does not matter in the choice of this and that.

I investigated another variable, age, as a possible factor in the articulation of [ðIs] and [ðæt]. The results showed that age plays a significant role in the subjects’ choice of this and that. In the three situations involving the three sets of objects, children said this and that more often than adults and they also used non-verbal gestures, especially touching, more than adults. Table 6 shows the results of the crosstabulation of verbal and nonverbal responses that children and adults performed when dealing with different objects. It shows that children tend to use more varied non-verbal gestures than adults.

Adults’ nonverbal behavior is only limited to pointing, especially when they name, to touching (low percentage), or to no gestures at all.

Different objects - nonverbal behavior

no pointing & Adult gestures pointing touching Touching Total child different objects: name Count 8 18 1 7 34 verbal behavior % of Total 9.3% 20.9% 1.2% 8.1% 39.5% none Count 2 10 3 17 32 % of Total 2.3% 11.6% 3.5% 19.8% 37.2% refer Count 0 7 1 12 20 % of Total .0% 8.1% 1.2% 14.0% 23.3% Total Count 10 35 5 36 86 % of Total 11.6% 40.7% 5.8% 41.9% 100.0% adult different objects: name Count 28 27 2 57 verbal behavior % of Total 45.2% 43.5% 3.2% 91.9% refer Count 0 4 1 5 % of Total .0% 6.5% 1.6% 8.1% Total Count 28 31 3 62 % of Total 45.2% 50.0% 4.8% 100.0%

Table 6 – Different Objects: verbal and nonverbal response of children and adults

18 The results of a Lambda test for children show that there is a correlation between status (adult vs. children) and the verbal and non-verbal behavior that the two groups are performing (λ = 0.225, p = 0.03). The reported p-value of 0.03 is less than 0.05, which shows that the results are significant.

Moreover, when the objects differed only in color (see Table 7), 33.7% of children touched the object and did not perform any verbal behavior, 10.5% touched it and said either this or that , 25% named the object by its color but did not perform any nonverbal behavior. In contrast, the adults rarely touched the object and they rarely referred to it in a deictic sense. It seems that the normal behavior for children is to avoid verbal response and to touch the object, whereas the normal behavior for adults is to name the object, if naming is possible, and to point.

Different Color: nonverbal response Pointing No & gestures Pointing Touching Touching Total Child Different Color: color Count 22 10 4 36 verbal behavior % of Total 25.6% 11.6% 4.7% 41.9% none Count 0 10 29 39 % of Total .0% 11.6% 33.7% 45.3% reference Count 0 2 9 11 % of Total .0% 2.3% 10.5% 12.8% Total Count 22 22 42 86 % of Total 25.6% 25.6% 48.8% 100.0% Adult Different Color: color Count 35 20 0 1 56 verbal behavior % of Total 56.5% 32.3% .0% 1.6% 90.3% none Count 0 3 1 0 4 % of Total .0% 4.8% 1.6% .0% 6.5% reference Count 1 1 0 0 2 % of Total 1.6% 1.6% .0% .0% 3.2% Total Count 36 24 1 1 62 % of Total 58.1% 38.7% 1.6% 1.6% 100.0%

Table 7 – Different Color: verbal and nonverbal behavior of children and adults.

19 The results of the Lambda test, again, show that there is a correlation between status

(adults vs. children) and the verbal and non-verbal responses that the two groups are performing (children: λ = 0.440, p = 0.00; adults: λ = 0.125, p = 0.039).

Finally, when the objects were identical (see Table 8), children touched and used deictic referencing more than adults, who pointed and described the position of the object.

Identical objects: nonverbal behavior Pointing No & Adult gestures Pointing Touching Touching Total Child Identical none Count 0 13 1 29 43 Objects: verbal % of Total .0% 15.1% 1.2% 33.7% 50.0% behavior other Count 0 1 0 1 2 % of Total .0% 1.2% .0% 1.2% 2.3% position Count 2 2 0 1 5 % of Total 2.3% 2.3% .0% 1.2% 5.8% reference Count 0 17 0 19 36 % of Total .0% 19.8% .0% 22.1% 41.9% Total Count 2 33 1 50 86 % of Total 2.3% 38.4% 1.2% 58.1% 100.0% Adult Identical none Count 0 4 1 2 7 Objects: verbal % of Total .0% 6.5% 1.6% 3.2% 11.3% behavior other Count 0 1 0 0 1 % of Total .0% 1.6% .0% .0% 1.6% position Count 12 19 0 0 31 % of Total 19.4% 30.6% .0% .0% 50.0% reference Count 0 21 1 1 23 % of Total .0% 33.9% 1.6% 1.6% 37.1% Total Count 12 45 2 3 62 % of Total 19.4% 72.6% 3.2% 4.8% 100.0%

Table 8 – Identical objects: Verbal and non-behavior of adults and children.

The fact that children were less prone to give verbal responses than adults, who almost always gave a response, is very interesting. The frequency of articulation of this

20 and that accompanied with deictic gestures, especially touching, was higher with children, probably because the normal behavior for adults is naming an object distinctively rather than describing it with a deictic pronoun.

In a similar research project, Kelly-Lopez (2005) wanted to investigate whether people’s choice of this and that has to do with the degree they like or dislike the object.

In her study, she showed the subjects 11 pictures of apples, some of which were rotten or worm-ridden. She asked the subjects which one of the apples they liked the best and which one they liked the least. Her results showed that the subjects did not say this and that according to dictionary definitions or grammar rules. In other words, they did not say this to refer to the apple that they liked the best or the apple that was near them.

Likewise, they did not say that to refer to the apple that they liked the least or the apple that was far away from them. They used the two forms interchangeably.

In a third study, Hickman (2005) investigated whether there are “possible differences in the way males and females refer to male and female objects” (p. ii). In his study, Hickman involved 79 children ages five to fourteen. The objects he used in his study were female and male groups of toys, the selection of which depended on a statistical analysis that classified the toys as significantly male or female. The results showed that “there was no statistically significant difference in the way male and female subjects referred to either female or male toys as referents” (p. 30). Hickman suggests that the use of this and that may be due to mere “personal preference” and that “there may be no one predictable way in which all English-speakers universally refer to an object” (p. 31). Further, Hickman indicates that teachers of ESL should exert effort to teach students to communicate in English in “as native-like manner as possible” (p. 32).

21 Hickman’s study was not able to determine the factor(s) responsible for native speakers’ choice of this and that ; however, it was able to further support the reality that these communicative tasks are not describable in terms of definitions found in English grammar books and English dictionaries.

22 Description of the current research

Kelly-Lopez’s comparison between native and non-native speakers of English was extremely interesting. My first impression was that if this is the case for English, then it should be the case for Arabic. The null hypothesis for this research is that the speech behavior of Arabs and Arab Americans is the same. The alternative hypothesis is that the speech behavior of Arabs and Arab Americans is not the same.

The number of subjects for this study was 53, with 33 Arabs and 20 Arab

Americans, ages 18 to 38. They were presented with the same tasks using three sets of props. Figure 1 shows the percentage of Arabs and Arab Americans in this study.

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

Percent 30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% arab arab american Status

Figure 1 – Percentage of Arabs and Arab Americans

The data collection took place in classrooms at the University of Toledo. This research replicated my unpublished study, presented earlier, with the difference that this

23 one used Arabs and Arab Americans as subjects. In addition, this research recorded more information such as nationality and native language, along with age, gender, verbal articulations, and nonverbal gestures. Only pointing, touching, and body shift were recorded as non-verbal gestures. Gaze was not recorded, because it was not certain to the researcher whether the subject was looking at a certain object or at the entire set of objects.

The subjects were asked the same set of questions for each set of objects ayya gharad biy’jbak(bik) aktar shi? (which object to like you [mas./fem.] the most) ‘which one of these objects do you like the best?’ And ayya gharad biy’jbak(bik) aqal shi?

(which object to like you [mas./fem.] the least) ‘which one of these objects do you like the least?’ After the recording of the subjects’ verbal and nonverbal behavior, they were asked about their definition of hada ‘this’ and hadak ‘that’. Or they were asked “Why did you say hāda/hādāk in your answer?” If the subject did not say hada ‘this’ and hadak

‘that’ in his/her response, the researcher would further prompt the subject by asking

’afwan, shou ?ilit(ti)? (excuse me, what say you [mas./fem.]) ‘excuse me, what did you say?’

Figure 2 shows the first set of props, glass figures of animals that are supposed to be easy to identify.

24

Figure 2 – Glass Animals

After answering the first two questions, ‘which one of these objects do you like the best?’ and ‘which one of these do you like the least?’, the subjects were presented with the second set of objects (see Figure 3) which consisted of four plastic Jacks with color being the only difference. The subjects were asked the same set of questions again.

Figure 3 – Colored Jacks

25 In the third stage of the experiment, the subjects were shown the third set of objects that consisted of four identical plastic Jacks (see Figure 4). The subjects were asked the same two questions again and their answers were recorded.

Figure 4 – Identical Jacks

After the subject was done with the first three stages, the researcher would record the subject’s age, nationality and his first and second language, if there were any. Then, the researcher would record, on a separate sheet, the subject’s definition of hada ‘this’ and hadak ‘that’. If the definition of the subject did not match his/her initial response, which was the case almost all of the time, the researcher would further ask, “Then, why did you use hada instead of hadak? The subject, most of the time, would answer that s/he did not know.

Initially, the objects were placed at one end of the table and the subject sat at the other end. The objects were placed this way to ensure that there was a sort of barrier, the length of the table, between the subject and the objects. The subject had to lean forward in order to reach and touch the objects. Figure 5 shows the location of the subject in relation to the objects. A total of 20 Arabs and 14 Arab Americans were tested this way.

26 This did not prevent some of the subjects from leaning over the table and touching the object that they liked the best or the one they liked the least. Some of them leaned over the table and moved the object to the front of the set without holding on to it.

Subject Researcher

Length of the table acts as a barrier Objects

Figure 5 – Barrier between the subjects and the object

The second thing that I tried was to place the objects in the middle of the table and the subjects one meter away from the table (see Figure 6).

Researcher

Objects

One meter

Subject

Figure 6 – Subjects one meter away from objects

27 This was done to test if more distance, in contrast to a barrier, would affect the choice of this and that . A total of 13 Arabs and 6 Arab Americans were tested this way.

Interestingly enough, almost all of the subjects got up from the chair, walked towards the table, leaned over it, pointed to or touched the object that they liked the best and the one they liked the least. Some of them gazed at the set of objects before holding the object in their hands, or moving it to the front of the set.

Data Collection

In order to facilitate the interpretation of the final results, few changes were made in the data entry into the SPSS file. As noted in the introduction, there are varieties in the way Arab speakers, belonging to different countries, utter certain communicative tasks.

Thus, utterances like [haydi], [hay], [de], [hayda], [hadi] which signify ‘this’, were entered as [hada]. Likewise, utterances like [hadak], [hadiki], [hadik], [haydik], [dak] which signify ‘that’, were entered as [hadak]. The gender which the utterance signifies was not recorded since it was irrelevant to the study. Some of the subjects referred to the object according to its position with respect to the subject/speaker. For example, “left,”

“right,” “middle,” “first,” “second,” “third one to the left.” These were all ranked as position. In addition, if the subjects did not give verbal or nonverbal response, the researcher recorded “N,” meaning ‘none’. Non-verbal gestures were recorded as P

(pointing), T (touching), S (body shift), and PT (pointing and touching). Finally, if the subjects referred to the object by its name or color, the researcher recorded “name” and

“color” respectively.

28 It is important to note here that the fact that only one researcher recorded the subjects’ utterances and non-verbal gestures might have resulted in misinterpretation of the data. However, it should be made clear, as noted above, that the actual utterances of the subjects were recorded as the researcher interpreted them. For example, if an

Egyptian subject utters [di], the researcher would record this utterance as [hada]; if a

Lebanese subject utters either [hay] or [haydi], the researcher would record [hada], and so on and so forth. In addition, gestures that were subject to misinterpretation, such as gaze, were not recorded, since it was hard to interpret whether the subject was gazing at a particular object or at the whole set of the objects, especially when it came to the identical objects. Gestures, other than pointing and touching, were not recorded since they were not related to the current research.

The instrument used to record the data was a word-document sheet with columns headed Number, Gender, Status, Nationality, Different Objects (verbal and non-verbal),

Different Colors (verbal and non-verbal), Identical objects (verbal and non-verbal), in addition to two rows headed Best, Least.

29 Chapter Three

Results

The study yielded unexpected results. The main assumption was that Arabs will use hāda ‘this’ and hādāk ‘that’ interchangeably just as Kelly-Lopez’s study (2005) showed. A crosstabulation for the three situations (three sets of objects) involving the verbal responses of Arabs and Arab Americans was performed. A total of 20 Arabs and

14 Arab Americans were tested with the table as a barrier between them and the objects

(refer to Figure 5) and not a single Arab subject used hadak ‘that’, although the objects were not easily reachable – assuming that distance has to do with the choice of hada

‘this’ and hadak ‘that’. In contrast, the Arab Americans were using both forms in an interchangeable manner. The first assumption was that the objects might not have been far enough. So, I moved the objects one meter away from the subjects (refer to Figure 6), this time with no barrier, and still, not one of the Arabs used hadak ‘that’. To my astonishment, most of the Arab subjects got up from their chair, moved toward the objects, pointed and/or touched the objects and then chose one, and said hada ‘this’, or simply identified the object by its name or color. Distance did not matter in this case.

Table 9 shows the verbal responses that the two groups gave when dealing with the different glass objects (cow, frog, owl, and horse – refer to Figure 2) that they liked the best, depending on the position of the objects. Arabs said hada twice as much as

30 Arab Americans when the objects were not reachable. The percentage was equal between the two groups when the objects were reachable.

Status position of Arab object Arab American Total Not DO_V_B hada Count 6 3 9 reachable % of Total 18.2% 9.1% 27.3% hadak Count 0 1 1 % of Total .0% 3.0% 3.0% name Count 10 8 18 % of Total 30.3% 24.2% 54.5% none Count 3 1 4 % of Total 9.1% 3.0% 12.1% position Count 1 0 1 % of Total 3.0% .0% 3.0% Total Count 20 13 33 % of Total 60.6% 39.4% 100.0% Reachabl DO_V_B hada Count 2 2 4 e % of Total 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% hadak Count 0 1 1 % of Total .0% 5.0% 5.0% name Count 5 4 9 % of Total 25.0% 20.0% 45.0% none Count 2 0 2 % of Total 10.0% .0% 10.0% position Count 4 0 4 % of Total 20.0% .0% 20.0% Total Count 13 7 20 % of Total 65.0% 35.0% 100.0%

Table 9 – Different Objects (Best): verbal responses of the two groups according to the position of objects.

The interesting thing in this situation is the fact that Arabs tend to give fewer verbal responses than Arab Americans. Table 9 shows that 9.1% of Arabs failed to give a verbal response when the objects were not reachable (NR) and 10% when the objects were reachable (R); whereas only 3% of Arab Americans failed in the same task.

Likewise in answering the question “which one of these do you like the least?”, 12.1%

(for NR objects) and 15% (for R objects) of Arabs did not give a verbal response. In

31 contrast, only 3% (for NR objects) and .0% (for R objects) of Arab Americans failed to give a verbal response. Almost the same thing applied to the other two situations when dealing with different colors and identical objects. The results of the Lambda test of correlation show that the reachability of the object does not affect the verbal and nonverbal behavior of Arabs and Arab Americans. In other words, there is no correlation between the position of the object and the verbal speech of Arabs and Arab Americans

(Not reachable: λ = 0.036, p = 0.310; reachable: λ = 0.056, p = 0.305).

Table 10 shows the percentages of the verbal and nonverbal responses that the two groups gave when dealing with the objects that differed in color (refer to Figure 3).

Different Color: nonverbal behavior (like best) Pointing No & Arab_Am gesture Pointing Touching Touching Total arab (DC_V_B) color Count 1 15 0 2 18 % of Total 3.0% 45.5% .0% 6.1% 54.5% hada Count 0 1 6 4 11 % of Total .0% 3.0% 18.2% 12.1% 33.3% none Count 0 1 1 1 3 % of Total .0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 9.1% position Count 0 1 0 0 1 % of Total .0% 3.0% .0% .0% 3.0% Total Count 1 18 7 7 33 % of Total 3.0% 54.5% 21.2% 21.2% 100.0% arab american (DC_V_B) color Count 5 9 0 14 % of Total 25.0% 45.0% .0% 70.0% hada Count 0 4 0 4 % of Total .0% 20.0% .0% 20.0% none Count 0 0 2 2 % of Total .0% .0% 10.0% 10.0% Total Count 5 13 2 20 % of Total 25.0% 65.0% 10.0% 100.0%

Table 10 – Different Colors (best): verbal and nonverbal behavior

32 As is obvious from this table, Arabs are more likely to touch and/or point when they use deictic referencing, whereas Arab Americans never touch and point at the same time and never touch when they use deictic referencing. The results of a Lambda test of correlation show that there is a correlation between the verbal responses of Arabs and their non-verbal behavior. It further shows that we can predict the verbal behavior of the

Arabs through their non-verbal gestures. The results for the Arab Americans, on the other hand, show that there is no correlation between Arab Americans’ verbal responses and their non-verbal gestures. There is no way we can predict the Arab Americans verbal behavior from their non-verbal gestures as is the case with Arabs (Arabs: λ = 0.433, p =

0.011; Arab Americans: λ = 0.308, p = 0.136).

Table 11 shows the percentages of the verbal responses of both groups when dealing with identical objects. Again, Arabs did not say hadak at all, they said hada almost three times as much as Arab Americans, and their verbal responses were fewer.

The results of the Lambda test show that there is a correlation between status (Arab vs.

Arab American) and the verbal responses provided by the two groups when it comes to identical objects (λ = 0.185, p = 0.013).

Identical Objects: verbal responses (like best) color hada hadak none position Total Status Arab Count 2 15 0 6 10 33 % of Total 3.8% 28.3% .0% 11.3% 18.9% 62.3% Arab Count 1 4 5 1 9 20 American % of Total 1.9% 7.5% 9.4% 1.9% 17.0% 37.7%

Total Count 3 19 5 7 19 53 % of Total 5.7% 35.8% 9.4% 13.2% 35.8% 100.0%

Table 11 – Identical objects: verbal responses of Arabs and Arab Americans

33 A comparison of the verbal and non-verbal gestures of the two groups, when dealing with identical objects, revealed significant results (see Table 12). Again, Arab

Americans rarely touched the object they liked the best. The only instances where they touched were when they were referring to the position of the object after the researcher asked, “Excuse me, which one?” Another interesting thing was that Arab Americans never pointed and touched at the same time. In contrast, 9.1 % of Arabs pointed and touched when they said hada, and another 9.1% touched when they said hada .

Moreover, Arabs never said hadak, whereas 25% of Arab Americans said it.

Identical Objects: nonverbal (like best) Pointing No & Status gestures Pointing Touching Touching Total Arab Identical color Count 0 2 0 0 2 Objects: % of Total .0% 6.1% .0% .0% 6.1% verbal (like hada Count 0 9 3 3 15 best) % of Total .0% 27.3% 9.1% 9.1% 45.5% none Count 0 1 1 4 6 % of Total .0% 3.0% 3.0% 12.1% 18.2% position Count 1 8 0 1 10 % of Total 3.0% 24.2% .0% 3.0% 30.3% Total Count 1 20 4 8 33 % of Total 3.0% 60.6% 12.1% 24.2% 100.0% Arab Identical color Count 0 1 0 1 American Objects: % of Total .0% 5.0% .0% 5.0% verbal (like hada Count 0 4 0 4 best) % of Total .0% 20.0% .0% 20.0% hadak Count 0 5 0 5 % of Total .0% 25.0% .0% 25.0% none Count 0 1 0 1 % of Total .0% 5.0% .0% 5.0% position Count 2 5 2 9 % of Total 10.0% 25.0% 10.0% 45.0% Total Count 2 16 2 20 % of Total 10.0% 80.0% 10.0% 100.0%

Table 12 – Identical Objects (best): verbal and nonverbal behavior.

34 Sample definitions of hada ‘this’ and hadak ‘that’ provided by Arab Americans

After the subjects were done with the three sets of objects, they were asked about their age, native languages, and the definition of hada and hadak. Subject number 14, a female originally from Lebanon, said: “I say hada when the object belongs to me, and hadak when it doesn’t belong to me.” Reviewing her response, (see Table 13) I asked:

“But these objects do not belong to you, and yet, you used hada more than once to refer to them.” The subject laughed and said: “Well, I don’t know, I must have assumed that they belong to me.” The subject reported that she was not familiar with any other definition for hada and hadak.

Subject # 14 Different objects Different color Identical objects Best hada il zahir ‘pink’ hadak Least hada hada il azraq ‘ blue’ hada Table 13 – Arab American verbal response

Subjects number one and ten reported that they use hada when they either point or touch the object and when it is near. They use hadak , on the other hand, when they describe the object without pointing or touching it because it is far. Both of them did not use hadak, because they said that the objects were not far enough. When they were asked about how far the objects should be, both of them pointed at an object in the room and said “over there.” Furthermore, Subject number 12 defined hada as something that you refer to right away, now. In contrast, hadak, is something that is far away. “It is the past tense I guess,” the subject said. The same subject used hada in all her verbal responses

35 except for the object she liked the best in the identical set of objects; in that case, she said hadak.

Sample definitions of hada ‘this’ and hadak ‘that’ provided by Arabs

The Arabs’ definitions did not match their responses as well. However, almost all of them reported that they say hada because it is easier for them to say and because it is the natural word to say, “Well, what else should I say?” one subject asked. When the researcher asked them in what sense it was easier for them to say hada in contrast to hadak , they did not know what to answer.

Subject number one said that hada is used to refer to something that can be touched right now and hadak is used when you point to something that is far away. The subject’s initial response in the test was pointing accompanied with hada .

Subject number ten reported that hada is used for objects that are in the speaker’s hand, whereas hadak is used with objects that are not near the speaker or that do not belong to the speaker. The researcher argued that the objects were not in the subject’s hand when the latter said hada . But the subject answered that he did touch the object, which to him was enough.

Three subjects from Saudi Arabia reported that the objects were not far enough for them to use the other form, hadak . When the researcher asked them about how far the objects should be, they gave a range of 15 to 20 meters.

36 Chapter 4

Summary of Findings

In this study, Arabs and Arab Americans proved to have distinct verbal and nonverbal behavior. Arabs never said hadak, they tended to give fewer verbal responses, and they tended to touch and/or point at the same time. In contrast, Arab Americans seemed to be saying hada and hadak in a random manner; they gave verbal responses more than Arabs; they rarely touched, and they never touched and pointed at the same time.

Arabs and Arab Americans did not follow the definitions presented in dictionaries and grammar books for hada ‘this’ and hadak ‘that’. Their later definitions did not match their responses initially recorded during the study. In other words, none of them used hada for the object s/he liked the best, and hadak for the object s/he liked the least. 10% and 25% of Arab Americans said hadak for the object they liked the best when dealing with different objects and with identical objects, respectively. Moreover, none of them said hada for near objects and hadak for far objects.

The speech of Arab Americans was particularly interesting. They were native speakers of Arabic and English, yet they seemed to have the same underlying task properties of a native speaker of English. They were all the first generation of Arab immigrants. Arabic is spoken at home, so one is tempted to assume that they must have acquired Arabic first. If this is the case, then why does their speech not resemble that of

37 the Arabs? Even their non-verbal behavior is distinct from Arabs. Is it a matter of transfer from one system to another? Or is it all related to the relative learning process in the brain? One reason for this might be that the Arab Americans interacted with native speakers of English more than they did with their parents or other Arabs in their community. This is why they might have developed an internal system of referencing similar to that of the native speakers of English, because they are also native speakers of

English, not just Arabic.

So are Arab Americans properly considered native speakers of Arabic? If we define native speech as any articulation of a native speaker born and raised in a particular country where that speech is dominant, then no, Arab Americans are not native speakers of Arabic. The notion of a “native speaker” has been recently a heated subject of discussion. Paikeday (1985) started this discussion by asking in one of his memos

“Anyone met a native speaker?” He wrote a book entitled the “The Native Speaker is

Dead,” which is a discussion between the author and a number of linguists, mainly

Chomsky, written in the Socratic style. In this book, Paikeday reaches the conclusion that the native speaker, in the mistaken sense of being the epitome of grammatical correctness, does not exist and has never existed. So the dilemma of defining a native speaker remains open to further future research projects.

To allow further generalization of results, this study could be modified to observe people communicating in a natural communicative setting, rather than a controlled experimental one. For example, a researcher could set a camera in a jewelry shop and tape-record people making live choices of which ring or bracelet they liked the best and then test the frequency of their deictic reference.

38 References

Abu-Absi, Samir. (1986). The modernization of Arabic. Anthropological Linguistics.

Al Munjid fii al Lugha w l’alaam. (1994). Dar el Machreq SARL Publishers. Beirut,

Lebanon.

Brustsad, Kristen E. (2000). They Syntax of Spoken Arabic. Georgetown University

Press.

Coleman, Douglas. (2004). Hard Science Linguistics. Retrieved April 2004, from

http://homepages.utoledo.edu/decolma/6150

Cowan, . (1958). Modern Literary Arabic. Cambridge University Press.

Cowell, Mark. (1964). A Reference to Grammar of Syrian Arabic. Georgetown

University Press. Washington, D.C.

Faris, Ahmad. (1995). Adwa’ fii Qawaa’d Al lugha Al Arabiyya. Second Edition. Dar

Al Amaan. Beirut, Lebanon.

Ghrayyib, George. (1983). Asraar Al lugha. Dar Al thaqaafa. Beirut, Lebanon.

Hickman, Torey. (2005). This and That: Spatial vs. Attitudinal Reference. The

University of Toledo.

Imai, Shingo. (2003). Spatial Deixis. Retrieved March 24, 2006, from

http://web.cc.yamaguchi-u.ac.jp/~imai2002/linguistics/imai2003.pdf

Kelly-Lopez, Catherine. (2005). The Reality of This and That . The University of

Toledo

Omar, Margaret K. (1975) Saudi Arabic: Urban Hijazi dialect. Basic course. Foreign

Service Institute, Washington D.C.

39 Paikeday. Thomas M. (1985). The Native Speaker is Dead! Paikeday Publishing INC.

Toronto, Canada.

Tarhini, Fayez. (1996). Nahwa Arabiyya muyassarah. Al Nakhiil llitiba’a wa l nashir.

Beirut, Lebanon.

Yngve, Victor. (1996). From Grammar to Science: New foundations for General

Linguistics. Philadelphia, PA: John .

40