Attitudes Toward Dialectal Variations in Saudi Arabic: A Case Study of King Abdulaziz University Students

Abstract

The current study investigated the attitudes of 340 Saudi college students towards two Arabic dialectal variations, kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah, utilizing the matched-guise technique. Participants listened to recordings of a speaker using each variation and evaluated the speaker on various personality traits, regional origin, and hireability. The findings revealed generally positive attitudes towards both variations, with the majority associating the speaker with desirable traits such as humility, kindness, friendliness, and respectfulness. However, the kaskasah variation was perceived slightly more favorably overall compared to kaʃkaʃah. The study also found distinct regional associations, with kaskasah slightly more strongly linked to the Najdi dialect and kaʃkaʃah overwhelmingly associated with the Southern dialect. Notably, a considerable minority indicated that they would not hire speakers of these variations, particularly kaʃkaʃah, suggesting some degree of dialect-based bias. The study contributes to research on language attitudes in Saudi Arabia by highlighting the complex interplay between dialectal variation, regional identity, and social evaluation. The findings underscore the importance of promoting linguistic awareness and inclusivity to mitigate the negative effects of dialect-based stereotyping and bias.

1. Introduction

The linguistic landscape of Arabic has remained relatively stable over time, with a standard form of the language coexisting alongside various dialects and regional variations for centuries. This rich linguistic diversity has been a hallmark of the Arabic language, as evidenced by the work of medieval Arabic grammarians (ʻAbd al-Tawwāb, 1999; Ibn Fāris al-Qazwīnī, 2013, d. 1004; Sībawayh, 1982, d. 796), who described and documented the different dialects and variations present in the language.

Among the dialectal variations that have persisted until the present day are kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah. Kaskasah refers to changing the feminine pronominal suffix [ki] to /s/ in the pausal form, whereas kaʃkaʃah involves changing the same suffix to /ʃ/. These variations were attributed to specific Arab tribes by medieval grammarians, who considered them indicative of low varieties of the language. However, these early linguists did not provide much information regarding how such variations were perceived or judged by the speakers of that period. Therefore, the current study attempts to contribute to medieval Arabic grammarian works by utilizing modern approaches to explore how contemporary generations perceive such variation (i.e., kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah). By integrating contemporary linguistic methodologies and sociolinguistic perspectives, this research aims to bridge the gap left by medieval grammarians and, thus, provide a greater understanding of the social and linguistic attitudes toward these phonetic phenomena in the present day. This approach not only enriches the historical linguistic narrative but also provides valuable insights into the ongoing evolution and perception of Arabic dialects.

In contemporary Saudi Arabia, a vast country with considerable linguistic diversity, Arabic is the dominant native language. Several distinct regional dialects of Arabic are spoken across Saudi Arabia, which reflects the country’s history, geography, and cultural influences over time. The main varieties include Najdi Arabic, spoken in the central regions of Saudi Arabia; Hejazi Arabic, predominantly spoken in western urban centers such as Jeddah, Mecca, and Medina; Gulf Arabic, prevalent along the Arabian Gulf coast in eastern Saudi Arabia; Southern Arabic, which encompasses various dialects spoken in the southern regions such as Jazani, Faifi, and Asiri; and Northern Arabic, which includes dialects spoken in the northern parts of the country (Aldosaree, 2016; Ruthan, 2024).

Among the salient dialectal variations common in Saudi dialects are kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah, which are still used in various regions of the country, including the eastern, southern, and central areas (Al-Azraqi, 2007; Al-Mahmoud, 2020; Ingham, 1994; Watson, 2014). Research has revealed that the affrication of /k/ in these dialects can be influenced by various social factors, including age, gender, and educational level (Al-Azraqi, 2007; Al-Essa, 2009; Al-Rojaie, 2013; Ismail, 2019). The current study aims to explore the variations and social cognition of Saudi society toward these dialectal features, specifically in terms of how college students perceive kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah. By investigating the attitudes of young, educated Saudis toward these variations, this study seeks to shed light on how these language variations are viewed today, given the lack of information provided by medieval grammarians on this topic.

This study is particularly timely, given the significant social and cultural changes occurring in Saudi Arabia, which are driven by rapid urbanization and modernization. As the country undergoes this period of transformation, it is crucial to understand how attitudes toward language and dialect are shifting, particularly among the younger generation. This research aims to address two main questions. First, what are the attitudinal aspects of college students toward the dialectal variations of kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah; how do they perceive these features? Second, is there any evidence of linguistic or dialect-based bias against the speakers who use these variations?

By investigating these questions, the objective is that this study contributes to our understanding of the complex interplay among language, society, and identity in contemporary Saudi Arabia. The findings of this study may also have implications for linguistic diversity, language policy, and social inclusion issues in the country and the wider Arabic-speaking world. As Saudi Arabia continues to evolve and transform, it is essential to recognize and value the richness of its linguistic heritage while promoting a culture of acceptance and respect for all its speakers, regardless of their dialect or regional background.

2. Literature Review

The study of language attitudes is a crucial aspect of sociolinguistics, as it sheds light on the patterns of language variation and evolution (Bishop et al., 2005; Garrett, 2010; Giles, 1970; Kristiansen et al., 2005; Labov, 1972, 1984). Language attitudes refer to evaluative reactions toward different language varieties or their speakers (Ryan & Giles, 1982). Examining language attitudes is a powerful method for unveiling the ideological beliefs that underpin the stereotypical views individuals hold about their own and others’ dialects (Bishop et al., 2005; Garrett, 2010; Giles, 1970; Kristiansen et al., 2005; Labov, 1972).

Two main theoretical approaches are recognized in the study of language attitudes. The behaviorist perspective indicates that attitudes should be investigated by observing how languages are used in real interactions. In contrast, the mentalist viewpoint—followed by almost all scholars studying language attitudes (Appel & Muysken, 2005)—regards attitudes as internal mental states that influence behavior, acting as mediators between a stimulus and an individual’s response (Appel & Muysken, 2005; Fasold, 1984). The mentalist approach commonly employs two main methods to study language attitudes: the matched-guise technique and questionnaires (Appel & Muysken, 2005). A few researchers have outlined three primary approaches for examining language attitudes: content analysis, direct measures, and indirect measures (Garrett, 2010; Ryan et al., 1988). Content analysis, also referred to as the “societal treatment approach”, involves examining existing materials and media to infer language attitudes. This method analyzes how languages, dialects, and linguistic features are portrayed and treated in society. The direct approach involves directly questioning individuals about their evaluations and preferences regarding language and encouraging them explicitly to express their attitudes toward different language phenomena. The indirect approach, also known as the “speaker evaluation paradigm” or the “matched-guise technique”, involves recording bilingual speakers reading the same passage in both their languages and then having subjects evaluate the speaker’s personality traits based on these recordings (Garrett, 2010; Lambert et al., 1960). The matched-guise technique is a sociolinguistic method that assesses individuals’ attitudes toward different language varieties by presenting the same speaker in various linguistic guises to the participants (Lambert et al., 1960; Obiols, 2002; Soukup, 2013). Participants then evaluate the speaker on various traits without knowing that it is the same individual who is speaking in both recordings (Campbell-Kibler, 2013; Gaies & Beebe, 1991; Lambert et al., 1960; Trudgill, 1974).

Language attitudes are present in our everyday experiences, occasionally lingering beneath the surface without conscious recognition, while others are openly expressed, particularly when they lean toward negativity (Garrett, 2010). Despite the belief in the diversity of language expression, variations in language usage convey social connotations that can evoke varied responses, ranging from favoritism to social marginalization (Garrett, 2010). In an initial matched-guise investigation by Lambert et al. (1960), English-speaking Canadians displayed a strong preference for English–Canadian guises over French–Canadian guises, perceiving speakers in their English–Canadian guises as more attractive, taller, smarter, more reliable, kinder, more ambitious, and possessing a superior character. Surprisingly, the French–Canadian students also favored the English–Canadian guises across various traits, except for kindness and religiousness, for which they rated the French–Canadian guises more positively. This pattern of results was interpreted as indicative of a widespread stereotype within the French–Canadian community, portraying French–Canadians as relatively inferior individuals (Lambert, 1967). Similar studies have been conducted in various contexts, such as Arab–Israeli and Jewish–Israeli adolescents’ attitudes toward Hebrew and Arabic (Lambert et al., 1965) and Black South African students’ attitudes toward English and Afrikaans (Vorster & Proctor, 1976).

In Arabic contexts, studies have examined the perception and usage of standard Arabic in relation to languages such as English and French. These studies have revealed that classical Arabic is generally viewed more favorably than colloquial Egyptian or Egyptian English. In certain contexts, Arabic is the preferred language, while French is favored for personal expression and cultural activities. Conversely, English is the language of choice for fields such as technology, medicine, science, business, and higher education (Benmamoun, 2001; El-Dash & Tucker, 1975; Shaaban & Ghaith, 2002). In postcolonial countries such as Morocco, French and English are associated with modernity and considered essential for technological and scientific advancement. Meanwhile, standard Arabic, Moroccan Arabic, and Berber languages are primarily viewed as representations of Arabic identity and culture but are often considered less effective in educational settings (Bentahila, 1983; Chakrani & Huang, 2014; Chakrani, 2020). Benmamoun (2001) stated that classical Arabic holds significant cultural and religious importance for Berbers and Arabs. For Berbers, it is integral to their Muslim identity, while for Arabs, it serves as a connection to their Eastern cultural heritage. Notably, French remains a vital language for economic purposes, although English is gradually overtaking its dominance in higher education. Mustafawi et al. (2021) examined the attitudes of Qatar University students toward the use of Arabic and English in education and communication. The study found that students have a strong attachment to Arabic for cultural and identity reasons but recognize the importance of English for professional and educational purposes.

Studies on the perceptions of Arabic varieties have revealed a consistent trend: standard Arabic is generally viewed favorably, with positive attitudes toward it, while colloquial forms of Arabic tend to elicit more negative attitudes (Abdel-Jawad, 1986; Albirini, 2016; Ennaji, 2007; Hussein & El-Ali, 1989; Mustafawi et al., 2021; Saidat, 2010).

Research on attitudes toward colloquial Arabic dialects reveals a complex linguistic landscape, with no stable preference for any single dialect. Instead, attitudes vary significantly across different regions. Arabic dialects are generally categorized into five major groups: Egyptian and Sudanese, Levantine, Gulf, Moroccan, Sudanese, and Somali (Abdel-Rahman, 2016; Theodoropoulou & Tyler, 2014). Such diversity occasionally leads to contradictory attitudes toward these dialects. For example, Maghrebi dialects are often described as “strange and difficult to understand”, Qatari Arabic as “classy”, Egyptian Arabic as “bragging”, Gulf dialects (excluding Yemeni) as “similar”, and Sudanese Arabic as “lazy” (Theodoropoulou & Tyler, 2014). In particular, Egyptian respondents rated their own dialect highly in terms of accuracy, similarity to modern standard Arabic (MSA), and pleasantness, thereby reflecting a sense of linguistic security and in-group loyalty.

Further, Chakrani (2015) noted that speakers of more prestigious dialects, such as Egyptian and Levantine Arabic, often do not accommodate speakers of less prestigious dialects, such as Maghrebi and Sudanese Arabic, placing a communicative burden on the latter. The media and historical contexts have reinforced the prestige of Mashreqi (Eastern Arabic) dialects over Maghrebi (Western Arabic) dialects, contributing to these power dynamics. Therefore, the Moroccan participants’ switch to Syrian and Egyptian dialects was driven by linguistic insecurity, manifesting as a negative self-perception of their native Moroccan dialect compared to other Arabic dialects, rather than a lack of proficiency in standard Arabic (Albirini, 2016, p. 101).

Abdel-Rahman (2016) examined Arabic native speakers’ perceptions of five dialects: Kuwaiti, Iraqi, Egyptian, Syrian, and Tunisian. The research revealed that the Egyptian dialect stood out positively in terms of several aspects. It was the most accurately identified, rated as the most pleasant, and perceived as closest to MSA by respondents. In contrast, the Tunisian dialect was often labeled “unintelligibly different” and considered the most distant from MSA. Additionally, both Kuwaiti and Tunisian dialects were frequently rated as unpleasant. These findings highlight the varying perceptions and attitudes toward different Arabic dialects among native speakers.

The aforementioned studies consistently revealed distinct stereotypes associated with each language group, with certain languages perceived as more prestigious, attractive, or beneficial for academic pursuits.

In Saudi Arabia, a limited body of research has explored how Saudis view their own dialects, focusing on language attitudes to examine the personal influences on language diversity and evolution within the country (Alabdali, 2017; Alahmadi, 2016; Aldosaree, 2016; Alfalig & Alhazmi, 2022; Al-Essa, 2009; Alhazmi, 2018, 2023; Almahmoud, 2013; Alqahtani, 2014; Al-Rojaie, 2020; Alrumaih, 2002; Omar, 1975; Ruthan, 2024). These studies have predominantly concentrated on the perceptions of regional dialects, often from the perspective of specific social groups or focusing on a limited number of dialects. Their findings indicate preferences for certain dialects over others. For example, Alrumaih (2002) examined how Najdis perceived their own and other Saudi dialects. The study revealed a clear influence of standard Arabic on the participants’ evaluations. In assessing accuracy, no dialect received the highest rating of “7” or even “6”, except for the central dialect, which was rated “6” by only three respondents. This central dialect, spoken by the study participants, received the highest overall ratings for both accuracy and pleasantness. In contrast, the southern dialect was perceived as the least pleasant, while the eastern dialect was judged to be the least correct among all dialects evaluated. Another study by Aldosaree (2016) explored perceptions of different Saudi Arabic dialects, specifically Najdi, Hijazi, and southern dialects. The results revealed that participants associated positive qualities, such as bravery, humility, and kindness, with speakers of the southern dialect. However, in the interviews, participants expressed negative views regarding the socioeconomic status of southern speakers, with one noting that they had never seen a southern speaker hold a high-ranking position (e.g., a minister) in Saudi Arabia. This implies that negative attitudes toward the southern dialect are not exclusive to Najdi speakers, but are shared by speakers of other Saudi Arabic varieties. Moreover, Ruthan (2024) studied the Jazani dialect, which is considered part of the southern dialect group. He found that respondents could identify Jazani speakers based on sociophonetic characteristics, and speakers of other Saudi dialects had more positive attitudes toward Jazani Arabic compared to Najdi speakers, who held more negative views toward Jazani Arabic. Positive traits associated with Jazani Arabic included friendliness and intelligence, while negative traits included perceptions of lower education and socioeconomic status. His study highlighted the social stratification in Saudi Arabia, where dialects are associated with different social statuses. The study revealed that respondents often relied on phonetic characteristics to identify and evaluate Jazani Arabic speakers, with comments frequently mentioning linguistic features, cultural associations, and comparisons with Yemeni Arabic. Notably, Alahmadi (2016) found that speakers of urban Meccan Hijazi Arabic have a strong affection for their dialect, viewing it as a key part of their identity and sense of community. Regardless of age, sex, or education level, respondents expressed a desire to continue using their dialect within and outside Mecca and believed that it authentically represented Hijazi culture. They also preferred to be identified as speakers of Hijazi Arabic and believed that it should be featured in TV shows. This points to a strong sense of in-group loyalty, where members of a social group have a positive attitude toward their own dialect. However, the study was limited to urban Meccan Hijazi Arabic and did not explore attitudes toward other dialects. Alhazmi (2018) expanded the scope to include both urban Meccan Hijazi Arabic (Hadari Hijazi) and Bedouin Hijazi. She found that Hadari Hijazi speakers were perceived as modern and similar to other Arabic dialects, while urban Bedouin Hijazi speakers were considered serious and traditional. The study also revealed strong loyalty among participants toward their own dialects, with Hadari Hijazi speakers rating themselves high on modernity and urban Bedouin Hijazi speakers rating themselves high on tradition. This dichotomy signifies that Hadari Hijazi is associated with modernity and similarity to other Arabic dialects, while urban Bedouin Hijazi is associated with tradition and seriousness. Alfalig and Alhazmi (2022) explored the perceptions and attitudes of Saudi Arabians toward the main dialects in their country. The study employed an open-ended questionnaire with 78 Saudi participants, asking them to write their first impressions of Saudi dialects and identify the most dominant spoken dialect. The results revealed that each dialect was associated with specific stereotypes and characteristics. For example, the northern dialect was perceived as generous and moralistic, the western dialect as the friendliest, and the southern dialect as the most difficult to understand. The Najdi (central) and western dialects were considered the easiest to comprehend, while the eastern dialect was noted for having the heaviest accent. Interestingly, 68% of participants perceived the Najdi dialect as being the most dominant one in Saudi Arabia.

Overall, it is evident that dialects in Saudi Arabia exhibit social stratification. Various studies have contradictory perspectives on dialects in Saudi Arabia. These differing viewpoints can be summarized in the following manner. The Najdi dialect is perceived as prestigious due to its association with the royal family and its linguistic conservatism (Aldosaree, 2016; Alqahtani, 2014; Omar, 1975). However, certain studies describe the Najdi dialect as prestigious yet arrogant (Alfalig & Alhazmi, 2022; Al-Rojaie, 2020, 2021; Alrumaih, 2002). The southern dialect is often viewed as difficult, uncultured, and harsh (Aldosaree, 2016; Alfalig & Alhazmi, 2022). The eastern dialect is perceived as slow (Alfalig & Alhazmi, 2022), while the Western (Hijazi) dialect is regarded as friendly (Alfalig & Alhazmi, 2022). Omar (1975) described Hijazi Arabic as less “pure” than Najdi Arabic due to language contact with Palestinian, Egyptian, and Sudanese dialects. Notably, the northern dialect is viewed as attractive because of its Bedouin character (Alfalig & Alhazmi, 2022; Al-Rojaie, 2021).

With regard to linguistic bias, dialect- or accent-based bias refers to bias or prejudice against individuals based on the way they speak, which is often characterized by regional or cultural variations in language (Chakraborty, 2017; Craft et al., 2020; Flege, 1984; Lippi-Green, 1994; Thamer Ahmed et al., 2013). This bias can manifest in various forms, including social exclusion, stereotyping, employment bias, and unequal treatment in educational or institutional settings. Linguistic bias exacerbates systemic inequality, which manifests through two primary mechanisms: (1) the inherent ability to differentiate between distinct linguistic signs or sounds and (2) the unfair consequences experienced by individuals based on their specific linguistic style choices and the resulting judgments made by listeners (Craft et al., 2020).

Furthermore, language ideologies mediate between aspects of language and other sociocultural phenomena, such as identities, interactional stances, and hierarchies of cultural value. Speakers draw on their presumptions regarding speech and language to interpret conversations and engage in everyday interactions, including the socialization of children, political debate, ritual speech, intellectual exploration, and governance. The media play a significant role in promoting standard language ideologies, reinforcing linguistic stereotypes, and stigmatizing accents and dialects (Lippi-Green, 2012; Soares, 2017). Lippi-Green (2012) reported that repetitive media imagery, coupled with certain stigmatized varieties of English, can legitimize the assumptions made regarding the speakers of these varieties. Thus, language stereotypes can have real and harmful consequences for speakers of stigmatized varieties, but research on language ideologies can help reduce their adverse effects.

In light of the foregoing discussion, the study of language attitudes is essential to sociolinguistics as it provides insights into the patterns of language variation and evolution as well as the ideological beliefs that underpin stereotypical views regarding language varieties and their speakers.

3. Methodology and Data Collection

Building on the studies of Lambert (1967), Bentahila (1983), and Woolard (1989), this study employed the matched-guise technique, which is based on a binary model conceptual framework. This framework comprises two distinct types of indexicalities: power traits associated with social status and solidarity traits related to social bonding. The matched-guise technique was used to investigate the attitudes toward two Arabic dialectal variations, kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah, among students at King Abdulaziz University. This technique enables researchers to assess language attitudes while controlling for extraneous variables indirectly (Dragojevic et al., 2021; Obiols, 2002; Soukup, 2011), thereby isolating the effect of dialectal variation from the speaker’s identity and other extralinguistic factors.

This study involved (N = 340, 150 females and 190 males) undergraduate students from King Abdulaziz University. The participants were selected through a convenience sampling method, ensuring a diverse representation of academic disciplines and years of study to capture a broad spectrum of attitudes toward the dialectal variations under investigation. Students from King Abdulaziz University were selected because they are considered linguistically neutral, typically using the standard /k/ sound rather than exhibiting kaskasah or kaʃkaʃah dialectal features.

The selection of participants from this university is notable due to Saudi university admission regulations stipulating that universities in Saudi Arabia primarily accept students from the city where they are located. For example, King Abdulaziz University admits students predominantly from Jeddah, while King Saud University accepts students mainly from Riyadh. This localized admission policy enhances the reliability of the study’s findings by minimizing the influence of dialectal variations from other regions of Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, by focusing on students from King Abdulaziz University, the study avoids potential biases that might arise from including participants from universities in regions where specific dialectal features are more prevalent. For example, universities in the eastern region of Saudi Arabia, where kaʃkaʃah is common, or those in the central region, where kaskasah is prevalent, might skew the results. Similarly, universities in the southern and northern parts of Saudi Arabia have their own distinct dialectal characteristics. Therefore, selecting students from King Abdulaziz University provides a more neutral linguistic baseline for the study, enabling a more objective analysis of attitudes toward various Saudi Arabian dialects. To ensure neutrality, participants were asked about their own dialect, specifically how they would ask a woman, “How are you?” This question aimed to identify who uses kaskasah (“kayf ħaːlis”), kaʃkaʃah (“kayf ħaːlish”), or the standard /k/ (“kayf ħaːlik”). The purpose was to exclude participants who used kaskasah or kaʃkaʃah in their spoken dialect. As a result, 34 participants who did not use the standard /k/ were excluded from the study.

Data collection occurred in March 2024 through an online survey distributed via Google Forms. The survey was designed to be anonymous to encourage honest responses. The procedure involved is described below.

The participants were first introduced to the study’s purpose and assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. They were then asked to give their consent to participate in the study. After that, the participants listened to two audio recordings sequentially. Both recordings featured the same speaker, but in the first, the speaker used the kaskasah dialectal variation, while in the second, the kaʃkaʃah variation was used. The content of the recordings was identical, thereby ensuring that any attitudinal differences could be attributed solely to dialectal variation. The speaker was a 38-year-old southern male selected for his native proficiency in both varieties under investigation. This choice ensured the natural and authentic production of each guise, which was crucial for the study’s validity. The decision to use a male speaker was based on two key factors.

First, the examined variations appear only when the speaker addresses a woman. Second, women typically do not use these variations when speaking among themselves, as they tend to use the standard /k/. This aligns with Al-Essa’s (2009) findings that younger Najdi women living in Hijaz use the Hijazi velar stop /k/ more frequently than men. Therefore, selecting a male speaker for this study ensured that participants could clearly recognize and distinguish the examined variations, enhancing the reliability of the research outcomes.

The text used for the recordings was a neutral passage designed to avoid biasing the participants’ responses. It depicts a common scenario in Saudi social life: the speaker greets his aunt and recounts his typical day. This everyday context was selected to maintain naturalness while showcasing linguistic variations. The full text of this passage is provided in Appendix A for review, and readers can assess its neutrality and appropriateness for the study’s objectives.

After listening to each recording, the participants were asked to evaluate the speaker’s traits using a Likert scale, where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree. This five-point scale allowed respondents to indicate their level of agreement with various statements about the speaker’s characteristics, ranging from complete disagreement (1) to strong agreement (5). The traits were classified into two groups: status traits and solidarity traits. Status traits include attributes linked to social advancement and esteem, including self-confident, educated, intelligent, successful, leadership skills, creative, hardworking, proud, attractive, arrogant, brave, respectful, and open-minded.

In contrast, solidarity traits encompass qualities that foster social cohesion and interpersonal connections, including humility, kindness, friendliness, religiosity, trustworthiness, faithfulness, neatness, generosity, acceptance of new customs, and laziness. Regarding laziness, although it is not a standard trait evaluated in matched-guise studies, it was included in this study, since there is a stereotypical perception that southern people are not lazy. Including this enables an examination of how this stereotype might influence language attitudes and perceptions in the study context.

Table 1. List of traits.

Status Traits	Solidarity Traits
Self-confident	Humble
Educated	Kind
Intelligent	Friendly
Successful	Humorous
Leadership skills	Religious
Creative	Trustworthy
Hardworking	Accepting new customs
Proud	Neat
Attractive	Generous
Arrogant	Faithful
Brave	Lazy
Respectful
Open-minded

illustrates this categorization of traits.

The participants were then asked to guess the speaker’s region of origin based on the dialectal variation. Following this, they responded to a hypothetical scenario to assess potential dialect-based biases: “If you were the manager of a company and this speaker applied for a position in your company, would you hire him?” A chi-square test was conducted to determine if there was a significant difference in the respondents’ decisions to hire the speaker based on his dialect. Finally, the participants were asked to comment on each recording and answer whether the speaker or dialect reminded them of a specific character.

The data collected through the Google Forms survey were then analyzed using descriptive analysis. The analysis focused on identifying patterns in the participants’ evaluations of the speaker’s traits for each dialectal variation and comparing their attitudes toward kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah. The responses regarding regional identification and answers to the bias scenario question were also analyzed to explore perceptions of regional affiliation and potential biases in employment decisions based on dialect.

4. Findings

Before presenting the detailed results of participants’ ratings for each trait across both dialectal variations,

Table 2. Comparison between kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah regarding the overall status and overall solidarity traits.

Traits	kaskasah		kaʃkaʃah		t-Test	p-Value
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
Overall status	3.35	0.507	3.26	0.531	1.614	0.107
Overall solidarity	3.57	0.449	3.37	0.550	3.619	0.000 **

** Significant at < 0.01.

provides a comprehensive comparison between kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah regarding the overall status and solidarity traits.

4.1. Overall Results

As presented in Table 2, the analysis of the overall status dimension revealed no statistically significant difference between kaskasah (M = 3.35, SD = 0.507) and kaʃkaʃah (M = 3.26, SD = 0.531), as evidenced by the t-test results (t = 1.614, p = 0.107). However, a significant difference emerged in the overall solidarity dimension, with kaskasah (M = 3.57, SD = 0.449) scoring higher than kaʃkaʃah (M = 3.37, SD = 0.550). This difference was statistically significant (t = 3.619, p < 0.001).

4.2. Status Traits

Table 3. Comparison between kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah regarding the status traits.

Status Trait	kaskasah		kaʃkaʃah		t-Test	p-Value
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
Confident	4.11	0.619	3.73	0.855	4.293	0.000 **
Educated	3.54	0.819	3.50	0.762	0.405	0.686
Intelligent	3.50	0.767	3.36	0.749	1.547	0.123
Successful	3.46	0.634	3.34	0.710	1.447	0.149
Leadership skills	3.39	0.823	3.31	0.942	0.715	0.475
Creative	3.25	0.638	3.19	0.783	0.628	0.531
Hardworking	3.64	0.868	3.55	0.898	0.824	0.410
Proud	2.64	1.075	2.83	1.008	−1.503	0.134
Attractive	2.98	0.710	2.95	0.786	0.369	0.712
Arrogant	1.92	0.773	2.24	1.088	−2.892	0.004 **
Brave	3.66	0.772	3.64	0.733	0.255	0.799
Open-minded	2.99	0.939	2.97	0.896	0.209	0.835
Respectful	4.41	0.704	4.08	0.823	3.555	0.000 **

** Significant at <0.01.

presents the analysis of the specific status traits for kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah. The results revealed significant differences in three key traits: confidence, arrogance, and respectfulness. Speakers of kaskasah were perceived as significantly more confident (M = 4.11, SD = 0.619) than those of kaʃkaʃah (M = 3.73, SD = 0.855; t = 4.293, p < 0.001). In contrast, kaʃkaʃah speakers were rated as more arrogant (M = 2.24, SD = 1.088) than kaskasah speakers (M = 1.92, SD = 2.24; t = −2.892, p = 0.004). However, kaskasah speakers were perceived as more respectful (M = 4.41, SD = 0.704) than kaʃkaʃah speakers (M = 4.08, SD = 0.823; t = 3.555, p < 0.001). For the remaining traits—education, intelligence, success, leadership skills, creativity, hard work, pride, attractiveness, bravery, and open-mindedness—no statistically significant differences were found between the two varieties (p-value > 0.05).

4.3. Solidarity Traits

Table 4. Comparison between kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah in terms of the solidarity traits.

Solidarity Trait	kaskasah		kaʃkaʃah		t-Test	p-Value
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
Humble	4.29	0.819	3.90	0.866	4.113	0.000 **
Kind	4.12	0.864	3.65	0.929	4.689	0.000 **
Friendly	4.23	0.752	3.80	0.840	4.775	0.000 **
Humorous	3.16	0.699	3.19	0.807	−0.384	0.701
Religious	3.06	0.878	3.13	0.825	−0.729	0.467
Trustworthy	3.57	0.844	3.48	0.892	0.934	0.351
Accepting new customs	3.03	1.009	2.95	1.084	0.642	0.521
Neat	3.55	0.807	3.39	0.803	1.776	0.077
Generous	3.94	0.774	3.70	0.884	2.572	0.011 *
Faithful	3.81	0.762	3.67	0.861	1.533	0.126
Lazy	2.34	0.847	2.45	0.898	−1.116	0.265

* Significant at <0.05. ** Significant at <0.01.

presents a detailed comparison of solidarity traits between kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah. The results revealed significant differences in several key attributes. Speakers of kaskasah were perceived as significantly humbler (M = 4.29, SD = 0.819) than those of kaʃkaʃah (M = 3.90, SD = 0.866; t = 4.113, p < 0.001). Similarly, kaskasah speakers were rated as kinder (M = 4.12, SD = 0.864) compared to kaʃkaʃah speakers (M = 3.65, SD = 0.929; t = 4.689, p < 0.001). The friendliness trait also revealed a significant difference, with kaskasah speakers perceived as friendlier (M = 4.23, SD = 0.752) than kaʃkaʃah speakers (M = 3.80, SD = 0.840; t = 4.775, p < 0.001). Additionally, kaskasah speakers were considered more generous (M = 3.94, SD = 0.774) than kaʃkaʃah speakers (M = 3.70, SD = 0.884; t = 2.572, p = 0.011).

Regarding other traits—religiosity, trustworthiness, acceptance of new customs, neatness, faithfulness, and laziness—no statistically significant differences were found between the two varieties.

4.4. The Kaskasah Variation

The findings show that most participants perceived the kaskasah speaker positively across several personality traits, as illustrated in

Table 5. Participants’ attitudes toward kaskasah.

The Person Who Is Speaking Seems…	1 (Strongly Disagree)	2	3	4	5 (Strongly Agree)
Humble	2.19%	0.63%	7.52%	43.89%	45.45%
Kind	0.78%	2.73%	10.16%	46.88%	38.67%
Friendly	0.40%	1.61%	9.68%	49.19%	38.31%
Humorous	12.35%	29.22%	38.27%	13.99%	6.17%
Religious	7.08%	15.42%	50.42%	21.67%	5.42%
Trustworthy	1.69%	5.91%	38.82%	40.08%	13.08%
Self-confident	0.42%	0.42%	13.08%	55.27%	30.38%
Neat	1.32%	1.75%	45.18%	37.28%	14.04%
Educated	1.75%	3.51%	35.09%	44.30%	14.91%
Intelligent	0.89%	3.56%	49.78%	35.11%	9.78%
Open-minded	8.14%	15.38%	48.42%	20.81%	6.79%
Lazy	19.09%	40.91%	35.91%	4.09%	0.00%
Successful	0.00%	1.83%	52.75%	39.45%	5.05%
Respectful	0.92%	1.38%	9.22%	39.63%	48.39%
Arrogant	38.43%	39.35%	17.13%	4.63%	0.46%
Brave	0.00%	1.84%	38.71%	42.40%	17.05%
Creative	0.00%	6.02%	59.72%	27.31%	6.94%
Generous	0.00%	0.93%	31.48%	43.06%	24.54%
Faithful	0.00%	2.35%	27.23%	49.30%	21.13%
Hardworking	0.00%	11.21%	35.05%	35.98%	17.76%
Proud	2.39%	3.35%	40.19%	37.80%	16.27%

. An overwhelming majority (89.34%) agreed or strongly agreed that the speaker sounded humble, with only a small percentage (2.82%) disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with this. Similarly, 85.55% of the participants found the speaker to be kind. Regarding friendliness, 87.50% agreed or strongly agreed that the speaker came across as friendly, with a mere 2.01% disagreeing. However, perceptions were more mixed for certain traits. While 86.65% felt that the speaker exhibited self-confidence, only 20.16% agreed or strongly agreed that the speaker sounded humorous, with 41.57% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.

Furthermore, opinions on religiosity were divided: 27.09% agreed or strongly agreed that the speaker seemed religious, 22.50% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 50.42% remained neutral. Most participants agreed or strongly agreed that the speaker was trustworthy (53.16%), with 88.02% agreeing or strongly agreeing that he was respectful. Education level and intelligence ratings were moderately positive, with 59.21% and 44.89%, respectively, agreeing or strongly agreeing that the speaker sounded educated and intelligent. Open-mindedness ratings were lower, with only 27.60% agreeing or strongly agreeing that the speaker possessed this trait.

The speaker was not negatively perceived concerning undesirable traits such as laziness and arrogance—60% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the speaker sounded lazy, with 0% strongly agreeing. Moreover, 77.78% disagreed or strongly disagreed that the speaker seemed arrogant. In addition, 59.45% agreed or strongly agreed that the speaker was perceived as brave, 67.60% agreed or strongly agreed that he was perceived as generous, 70.43% agreed or strongly agreed that he seemed faithful, and 53.74% agreed or strongly agreed that he seemed hardworking.

To identify the region of origin of the speaker, an analysis of the participants’ responses to the kaskasah dialectal variation yielded the following results: A little more than one-third (36.79%) of the participants associated the kaskasah dialectal variation with the Najdi dialect, thereby indicating a strong association. Only a small fraction of the participants (5.62%) linked the kaskasah dialectal variation with the Hijazi dialect, thereby indicating a low level of linkage. A mere 9.52% of the participants perceived the kaskasah dialectal variation as reflecting the eastern dialect, suggesting minimal association. Almost one-third of the participants (32.68%) identified the kaskasah dialectal variation as southern, demonstrating a strong association, second only to the Najdi dialect. Approximately 15.36% of the participants believed that the kaskasah dialectal variation was northern, thus indicating a moderate to low level of association.

Overall, the participants most frequently identified the kaskasah dialectal variation as reflecting the Najdi dialect (36.79%) (Figure 1).

In response to the hypothetical scenario question designed to assess potential dialect-based bias, the participants provided the following answers: a large majority (79.57%) answered “Yes”, which indicated that they would hire a speaker with the kaskasah dialectal variation, whereas 20.43% answered “No”, which indicated that they would not hire a speaker with this dialect.

Table 6. The participants’ answers regarding hiring the speaker with the kaskasah dialectal variation.

Answer	Percentage (%)
Yes	79.57
No	20.43

presents the participants’ answers.

4.5. The Kaʃkaʃah Variation

The findings regarding the participants’ attitudes toward the kaʃkaʃah dialectal variation indicate that the majority perceived the speaker positively for several personality traits, as illustrated in

Table 7. Participants’ attitudes toward kaʃkaʃah.

The Person Who is Speaking Seems…	1 (Strongly Disagree)	2	3	4	5 (Strongly Agree)
Humble	1.51%	7.04%	14.07%	50.75%	26.63%
Kind	0.61%	10.98%	15.24%	56.10%	17.07%
Friendly	0.63%	9.43%	15.72%	53.46%	20.75%
Humorous	9.74%	21.43%	43.51%	18.18%	7.14%
Religious	3.27%	11.76%	56.86%	20.26%	7.84%
Trustworthy	3.27%	7.84%	33.99%	43.79%	11.11%
Self-confident	1.99%	8.61%	21.19%	51.66%	16.56%
Neat	3.97%	5.30%	52.32%	31.13%	7.28%
Educated	3.33%	6.67%	36.00%	45.33%	8.67%
Intelligent	0.67%	7.38%	51.68%	35.57%	4.70%
Open-minded	8.72%	17.45%	48.99%	19.46%	5.37%
Lazy	19.59%	28.38%	42.57%	8.11%	1.35%
Successful	0.67%	8.00%	51.33%	33.33%	6.67%
Respectful	1.34%	4.70%	10.74%	50.34%	32.89%
Arrogant	34.23%	30.20%	26.85%	6.04%	2.68%
Brave	0.00%	6.08%	37.16%	44.59%	12.16%
Creative	0.68%	11.56%	57.14%	23.81%	6.80%
Generous	2.05%	6.16%	30.14%	42.47%	19.18%
Faithful	0.68%	6.12%	33.33%	41.50%	18.37%
Hardworking	2.04%	8.84%	36.05%	36.05%	17.01%
Proud	0.00%	6.16%	48.63%	30.14%	15.07%

. A large majority (77.38%) agreed or strongly agreed that the speaker sounded humble, with only 8.55% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. Similarly, 73.17% perceived the speaker to be kind. Regarding friendliness, 74.21% agreed or strongly agreed that the speaker came across as friendly, with only 10.06% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. However, perceptions were more divided for certain traits. While 68.22% felt that the speaker exhibited self-confidence, only 25.32% agreed or strongly agreed that the speaker sounded humorous, with 31.17% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. Religiosity elicited mixed opinions, with 28.10% agreeing or strongly agreeing that the speaker seemed religious, compared to 15.03% who disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 56.86% remained neutral. The participants generally viewed the speaker as trustworthy (54.90% agreeing or strongly agreeing) and respectful (83.23% agreeing or strongly agreeing).

The education level and intelligence ratings were moderately positive, with 54.00% and 40.27%, respectively, agreeing or strongly agreeing that the speaker sounded educated and intelligent. Open-mindedness ratings were lower, with 24.83% agreeing or strongly agreeing that the speaker seemed open-minded. However, the speaker was not perceived very negatively regarding undesirable traits. Almost half (47.97%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the speaker sounded lazy, with only 9.46% agreeing or strongly agreeing. An even higher percentage (64.43%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the speaker seemed arrogant. Further, the speaker was perceived as brave (with 56.75% agreeing or strongly agreeing), generous (with 61.65% agreeing or strongly agreeing), faithful (with 59.87% agreeing or strongly agreeing), and hardworking (with 53.06% agreeing or strongly agreeing).

An analysis of the participants’ responses to the kaʃkaʃah dialectal variation yielded the following results: Only 8.77% of the participants identified the kaʃkaʃah dialectal variation as Najdi, representing a significant drop compared to the association of kaskasah with Najdi. Similarly, a low percentage of participants (4.39%) associated the kaʃkaʃah dialectal variation with Hijazi, which is consistent with the findings for the kaskasah variation. Furthermore, the percentage of those who associated the kaʃkaʃah dialectal variation with the eastern dialect remained relatively low (8.77%) and was consistent with the Najdi responses for kaʃkaʃah. A significant majority (66.96%) identified the kaʃkaʃah dialectal variation as southern, which indicates a strong association of kaʃkaʃah with the southern dialect. This is a notable increase compared to the association of kaskasah with the southern dialect. Only 11.11% of the responses associated the kaʃkaʃah dialectal variation with the northern dialect, which indicates a slight decrease in association compared to kaskasah. Therefore, for the kaʃkaʃah variation, the southern dialect was overwhelmingly identified (66.96%), as shown in Figure 2.

For the hypothetical scenario designed to assess potential dialect-based bias, the participants’ answers revealed the following results: Approximately 75.53% answered “Yes”, which indicated that they would hire a speaker with the kaʃkaʃah dialectal variation, whereas 24.47% of the participants answered “No”, which indicated that they would not hire a speaker with this dialectal variation as

Table 8. The participants’ answers regarding hiring the speaker.

Answer	Percentage (%)
Yes	75.53
No	24.47

shows.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

A noteworthy pattern emerges when comparing the overall status and solidarity dimensions of kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah. Although the difference in overall status was not statistically significant, kaskasah speakers were rated slightly higher (M = 3.35, SD = 0.507) than kaʃkaʃah speakers (M = 3.26, SD = 0.531), with a difference of 0.09 points.

This subtle difference indicated that kaskasah speakers may be perceived as having a marginally higher status, even though the difference did not reach the threshold for statistical significance (t = 1.614, p = 0.107). In contrast, the overall solidarity dimension reveals a statistically significant difference between the two varieties. Speakers of kaskasah were rated considerably higher (M = 3.57, SD = 0.449) than kaʃkaʃah speakers (M = 3.37, SD = 0.550), with a difference of 0.20 points.

This difference is highly significant (t = 3.619, p < 0.001) and indicates that kaskasah speakers are perceived as having a stronger sense of solidarity than kaʃkaʃah speakers. The discrepancy between the overall status and solidarity dimensions is noteworthy. While the difference in status is subtle and nonsignificant, the difference in solidarity is more pronounced and statistically significant. This indicates that the perception of solidarity may be a more salient and influential factor in distinguishing between kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah speakers, potentially shaping social interactions and community dynamics more strongly than status perceptions. Although not statistically significant, the subtle difference in overall status may still contribute to a slight preference for kaskasah in certain contexts. However, the significant difference in overall solidarity underscores the potential for kaskasah to foster a greater sense of community, belonging, and social cohesion than kaʃkaʃah.

To delve deeper into the specific traits that contribute to the overall status and solidarity dimensions, the individual characteristics associated with each variety are discussed below.

5.1. Status-Related Traits

The analysis of the specific status traits of kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah speakers uncovered a complex pattern of similarities and differences. Three traits showed statistically significant differences: confidence, arrogance, and respectfulness. Speakers of kaskasah were perceived as significantly more confident (M = 4.11, SD = 0.619) and respectful (M = 4.41, SD = 0.704) than kaʃkaʃah speakers (M = 3.73, SD = 0.855; t = 4.293, p < 0.001 and M = 4.08, SD = 0.823; t = 3.555, p < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, kaʃkaʃah speakers were rated as significantly more arrogant (M = 2.24, SD = 1.088) than kaskasah speakers (M = 1.92, SD = 2.24; t = −2.892, p = 0.004).

For the remaining status traits, no statistically significant differences were found between the two varieties (p-value > 0.05). However, a closer examination of the means reveals subtle patterns. Speakers of kaskasah are rated slightly higher in terms of traits such as education (3.54 vs. 3.50), intelligence (3.50 vs. 3.36), success (3.46 vs. 3.34), leadership skills (3.39 vs. 3.31), creativity (3.25 vs. 3.19), hard work (3.64 vs. 3.55), attractiveness (2.98 vs. 2.95), bravery (3.66 vs. 3.64), and open-mindedness (2.99 vs. 2.97). The differences ranged from 0.02 to 0.14 points, indicating a slight preference for kaskasah in these traits, even though the differences were not statistically significant. However, kaʃkaʃah speakers were rated slightly higher in pride (2.83 vs. 2.64), with a difference of 0.19 points. This finding, along with the significantly higher rating for arrogance, indicates that kaʃkaʃah speakers are probably perceived as having a more assertive or self-assured demeanor than kaskasah speakers.

The significant differences in confidence, arrogance, and respectfulness, combined with the subtle patterns in the nonsignificant traits, paint a nuanced picture of the status perceptions associated with kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah. While kaskasah speakers are generally perceived more positively regarding confidence and respectfulness, kaʃkaʃah speakers are considered to be more arrogant and slightly prouder. Furthermore, the significant differences in key traits, such as confidence, arrogance, and respectfulness, may have a stronger impact on social interactions and perceptions of status. However, the subtle patterns in the nonsignificant traits imply that underlying biases or preferences may shape the overall perception of each variety, even if they do not attain the threshold for statistical significance. While these differences are not statistically significant, the consistent trend of slightly higher ratings for kaskasah across most traits suggests a subtle overall preference or positive attitude toward kaskasah speakers regarding status-related attributes.

5.2. Solidarity-Related Traits

The findings for the solidarity traits of kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah speakers highlight a complex pattern of perceptions, with significant differences in several key attributes and subtle variations in others. Speakers of kaskasah were perceived significantly more positively in terms of four important solidarity traits: humbleness, kindness, friendliness, and generosity. They were considered significantly humbler (M = 4.29 vs. M = 3.90, p < 0.001), kinder (M = 4.12 vs. M = 3.65, p < 0.001), friendlier (M = 4.23 vs. M = 3.80, p < 0.001), and more generous (M = 3.94 vs. M = 3.70, p = 0.011) than speakers of kaʃkaʃah. These significant differences signal that kaskasah speakers are generally perceived more favorably in terms of interpersonal and community-oriented traits.

No statistically significant differences were observed between the two dialectal variations (p-value > 0.05) for the remaining solidarity traits. However, a closer examination of the means reveals subtle patterns. Speakers of kaskasah were rated slightly higher in terms of traits such as trustworthiness (3.57 vs. 3.48), neatness (3.55 vs. 3.39), faithfulness (3.81 vs. 3.67), and acceptance of new customs (3.03 vs. 2.95). The differences ranged from 0.08 to 0.16 points, indicating a slight preference for kaskasah in these traits, even though the differences were not statistically significant. Conversely, kaʃkaʃah speakers were rated marginally higher in terms of humor (3.19 vs. 3.16), religiousness (3.13 vs. 3.06), and laziness (2.45 vs. 2.34), with differences ranging from 0.03 to 0.11 points. These findings suggest that while kaskasah speakers might be perceived as slightly more dependable and adaptable, kaʃkaʃah speakers may be viewed as marginally more laidback and spiritually inclined. However, these perceptions are not strong enough to reach statistical significance. These differences are consistent with the overall pattern of more positive perceptions for kaskasah speakers, although they are not statistically significant.

Nonetheless, the significant differences in key traits, combined with the subtle patterns in nonsignificant traits, paint a comprehensive picture of solidarity perceptions associated with kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah speakers. Speakers of kaskasah are consistently perceived more positively across most solidarity traits, both significant and nonsignificant. This analysis indicates that kaskasah may be associated with stronger community bonds, more positive interpersonal relationships, and a greater sense of social cohesion than kaʃkaʃah. The perceptions of kaskasah speakers as humbler, kinder, friendlier, and more generous likely have a strong impact on social interactions and community dynamics. These perceptions could have important implications for social interactions, community integration, and potential social advantages for kaskasah speakers in certain contexts, such as the job market. The subtle patterns in nonsignificant traits further reinforce the overall more positive perception of kaskasah speakers regarding solidarity, which hints at a pervasive preference that extends beyond the statistically significant differences. Although small, these nuanced differences could subtly contribute to a more favorable overall perception of kaskasah in terms of solidarity, potentially influencing social interactions and community dynamics.

However, the findings show that the kaskasah dialectal variation is significantly favored among the participants and is associated with desirable personality traits, such as humility, kindness, friendliness, and generosity, consistent with the existing literature (Alabdali, 2017; Alahmadi, 2016; Aldosaree, 2016; Alfalig & Alhazmi, 2022; Alhazmi, 2018, 2023; Almahmoud, 2013; Al-Rojaie, 2020; Alrumaih, 2002). This suggests that using kaskasah does not appear socially stigmatized from the participants’ perspectives. In contrast, the findings related to kaʃkaʃah reveal that it is associated with a more assertive but less community-oriented and less respectful image than the kaskasah dialect. This perception aligns with previous research, as shown in the literature, in which the southern dialect (i.e., kaʃkaʃah) is often viewed as harsh, difficult, and uncultured (Aldosaree, 2016; Alfalig & Alhazmi, 2022).

The findings of this study on kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah variations reflect both similarities and contrasts in perceptions. The kaskasah variation, which participants mostly attributed to the Najdi dialect, is generally perceived as prestigious and dominant, reflecting the positive status-related traits associated with kaskasah speakers (Aldosaree, 2016; Alqahtani, 2014; Alrumaih, 2002; Omar, 1975). Speakers of kaskasah are seen as more confident and respectful, with kaskasah speakers also rated slightly higher in education, intelligence, and success. However, while certain studies describe the Najdi dialect as arrogant (Alfalig & Alhazmi, 2022), kaskasah speakers in this study are perceived as significantly less arrogant than kaʃkaʃah speakers. This favoring of kaskasah over kaʃkaʃah could be attributed to Saudi Vision 2030, which has transformed central Saudi Arabia (i.e., Najd) into a melting pot for people from diverse ethnicities and cultural backgrounds for business and trading. Even some people from Hijaz have migrated to work and establish businesses in Riyadh. This diversity and mass migration led participants to favor kaskasah over kaʃkaʃah, potentially influencing perceptions of the dialect and its speakers in terms of confidence, respectfulness, and other positive attributes.

The kaʃkaʃah, which the participants attributed to the southern dialect, shows mixed perceptions across studies. While Aldosaree (2016) found positive associations like bravery and kindness with southern speakers, the current study on kaʃkaʃah reveals lower ratings in these solidarity traits than kaskasah. The southern dialect is perceived as more difficult to understand and spoken by the less socioeconomically advantaged (Aldosaree, 2016; Alfalig & Alhazmi, 2022). The findings of this study that the participants perceived kaʃkaʃah speakers as more arrogant and prouder are consistent with the description of the southern dialect as harsh (Aldosaree, 2016; Alfalig & Alhazmi, 2022).

While the southern dialect was associated with humility in Aldosaree’s study, kaʃkaʃah speakers were perceived as less humble than kaskasah speakers in the current study. Based on their higher ratings for arrogance and pride, speakers of the kaʃkaʃah dialect were perceived as having a more assertive or self-assured demeanor than speakers of the kaskasah dialect. However, it is essential to consider the potential underlying factors that may have influenced these perceptions. The attribution of arrogance and more pride to kaʃkaʃah speakers may be rooted in stereotypes regarding southern people, who are socially and traditionally conservative. Southern societies in Saudi Arabia are mostly tribal communities known for being rigid, which may be misinterpreted as arrogance or assertiveness. Furthermore, southern people are occasionally stereotyped as having a bragging personality, known as “hijɑːtˤ”, which may contribute to the perception of kaʃkaʃah speakers as being prouder and more arrogant.

This discrepancy highlights the complex and occasionally contradictory nature of language attitudes. Overall, the perceptions of kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah are consistent with the broader attitudes toward Najdi and southern dialects, respectively, reflecting the intricate relationship between language varieties and social perceptions in Saudi Arabia.

Although the speaker in both recordings is from southern Saudi Arabia, and both variations are used in that region, the participants were confused about the origin of the speaker with the kaskasah variation. They more accurately identified the speaker with the kaʃkaʃah variation as speaking a southern dialect. The kaskasah variation was slightly higher in association with the Najdi dialect than with the southern dialect, indicating that participants might perceive this variation as common in both regions (Al-Azraqi, 2007). Meanwhile, kaʃkaʃah was predominantly associated with the southern dialect (Al-Azraqi, 2007; Watson, 2014), thus pointing to a strong linkage and possibly a unique characteristic of the southern dialect in the participants’ perceptions. The low percentages for the Hijazi and eastern dialects across both variations indicate that these dialects have a lower association with these specific variations.

This study found a clear difference in the perceived regional associations between kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah. This is consistent with recent studies indicating that college students in Saudi Arabia generally hold a positive attitude toward dialectal variations and are aware of their presence in society (Alabdali, 2017; Alahmadi, 2016; Aldosaree, 2016; Alfalig & Alhazmi, 2022; Alhazmi, 2023; Almahmoud, 2013). Specifically, the participants perceived kaskasah as being more associated with both the Najdi and southern dialects, while kaʃkaʃah was predominantly linked to the southern dialect, which is consistent with previous literature (Al-Azraqi, 2007; Al-Essa, 2009; Al-Rojaie, 2013; Ismail, 2019).

Concerning linguistic bias, this study found that for the kaʃkaʃah variation, approximately 75.53% of participants indicated a willingness to hire the speaker based on the audio recording. This response rate is slightly lower than that for the kaskasah variation but represents a generally positive attitude toward kaʃkaʃah. The proportion of participants who responded negatively (24.47%) suggests a certain level of dialect-based bias or negative attitudes toward this dialect.

When comparing responses to the two dialectal variations, it was observed that the kaskasah variation received a slightly higher positive response rate (79.57%) than the kaʃkaʃah variation (75.53%). This indicates a marginally more favorable attitude toward the kaskasah variation among the participants, as demonstrated by the higher preference for kaskasah over kaʃkaʃah for the traits assessed. Conversely, the kaʃkaʃah variation faced a slightly higher rejection rate (24.47%) compared to the kaskasah variation (20.43%), which indicates a marginally higher level of dialect-based bias or negative attitudes toward the kaʃkaʃah variation. The statistical analysis resulted in a chi-square statistic (χ²) of 1.569, with one degree of freedom. The associated p-value was 0.210, which was above the alpha level of 0.05, demonstrating the absence of a significant association between the two variables. This study’s findings suggest that participants favored speakers of kaskasah over kaʃkaʃah in the job market due to their perceived higher levels of confidence, respectfulness, humbleness, kindness, friendliness, and generosity. Although there was no statistically significant difference in the overall status dimension between the two dialects, kaskasah speakers were rated significantly higher in key status traits, such as confidence and respectfulness, which are highly valued in professional settings.

Additionally, kaskasah speakers were perceived as significantly humbler, kinder, friendlier, and more generous, which are important solidarity traits that contribute to a positive work environment and effective teamwork. In contrast, kaʃkaʃah speakers were seen as more arrogant, which may be viewed as a less desirable trait in the workplace. These findings indicate that the combination of positive status and solidarity traits associated with kaskasah speakers may give them an advantage in the job market compared to kaʃkaʃah speakers. Thus, this study’s findings revealed varying attitudes toward the two dialectal variations. While both variations were generally accepted, with most participants expressing a willingness to hire speakers exhibiting either variation, a notable minority would not hire such speakers, which reflects an underlying dialect-based bias.

Further, the participants’ comments on each dialectal variation illustrate the following perceptions. Generally, comments on the kasaksah variation were more respectful and positive, such as “The speaker reminds me of my father’s friend who was very faithful and extremely polite,” “It reminds me of good people with pure and clean hearts,” “It reminds me of the history of the great Saudi Kingdom and our great ancestors,” and “It is an authentic Saudi dialect.” On the flip side, comments on the kaʃkaʃah variation were less favorable. A few remarks reflected media influences, as two popular actors known for imitating the southern dialect and using kaʃkaʃah in their spoken language were frequently mentioned. These actors often portray speakers of kaʃkaʃah with negative traits, such as being idiotic, naive, low class, and easy to deceive. Comments on kaʃkaʃah included, “The speaker reminds me of Nasir Al-Qasabi in Tash ma Tash,” referring to the actor who, in some episodes, embodied a southern character using the kaʃkaʃah variation and chose the name “ʔabuː ˈʕali: Abu Ali”, a common nickname in southern Saudi Arabia. Another comment referred to the word “dinniħi”, an actor known for portraying southern people as naive and simple. This aligns with Alabdali’s (2017) observation that Saudi TV series often use the southern dialect for comic purposes, portraying their speakers as naive and uncultured. A few comments simply said, “It reminds me of old people.”

The abovementioned participant feedback helps to explain why there is a preference for the kasaksah variation over the kaʃkaʃah variation, even impacting the likelihood of hiring the speaker. The probability of hiring a kasaksah speaker is slightly higher than that of a kaʃkaʃah speaker due to the reasons mentioned above. Consequently, the study findings highlight potential linguistic bias, as approximately one-fourth of the participants expressed reluctance to hire a speaker exhibiting the kaʃkaʃah variation. Such bias can manifest in various forms, including social exclusion, stereotyping, employment bias, and unequal treatment in educational or institutional settings (Chakraborty, 2017; Craft et al., 2020; Flege, 1984; Thamer Ahmed et al., 2013).

In conclusion, this study contributes to the growing body of research on language attitudes in Saudi Arabia by shedding light on the perceptions of dialectal variations among educated youth in the country. It highlights the intricate relationships among language, region, identity, and social evaluation. The findings also emphasize the importance of promoting greater linguistic awareness and inclusivity to mitigate the negative effects of dialect-based stereotyping and bias.

Nonetheless, it is important to acknowledge the study’s limitations, such as focusing on a specific population of university students and examining only two dialectal variations. Future research should consider a broader range of Saudi dialects and linguistic variables across more diverse demographics. Qualitative methods, such as interviews, could also provide a deeper understanding of the motivations and experiences underlying these language attitudes.

Finally, the matched-guise technique is a crucial sociolinguistic method for uncovering attitudes toward languages, dialects, or accents. It reveals hidden biases, identifies stereotypes, and is versatile across various settings. However, its drawbacks include its artificial nature, forced responses, and potential to create non-existent stereotypes. To enhance its effectiveness, researchers can incorporate exemplar theory by asking participants who the speaker reminds them of and open-ended questions that encourage the participants to comment on the guises. Thus, the findings provide a broader understanding of perceptions and covert attitudes. This approach enables a more nuanced exploration of language attitudes beyond the traditional matched-guise technique. Additionally, when analyzing the results, it is crucial to consider both statistically significant and nonsignificant differences, as these findings can offer valuable insights into the complexities of language attitudes and perceptions.

Building upon these methodological considerations, studies on language attitudes and perceptions in Saudi Arabia have revealed a complex pattern of similarities and differences between the kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah dialects. These findings emphasize the need for continued research and efforts to promote linguistic diversity and equality in Saudi Arabia and beyond. To develop a holistic attitudinal model, a comprehensive study that includes all major Saudi dialects and considers the impact of demographic variables is necessary. Furthermore, dialect- or accent-based bias, exacerbated by language ideologies and stereotypes perpetuated through the media, can have harmful consequences for speakers of stigmatized varieties. This highlights the importance of research in this area to reduce negative effects.

In summary, the study of language attitudes and ideologies is crucial for understanding the patterns of language variation and evolution, as well as the sociocultural factors that shape and influence language use and perception within communities. By employing a variety of methodological tools, researchers can contribute to a richer and more nuanced field of sociolinguistic research, ultimately promoting linguistic diversity and equality.