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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, see the report in the attachments 

Kind Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This is an interesting article that analyses and discusses the issue of language attitude toward two
dialectal Arabic variations (Kashkasha and Kashkasha) in Saudi Arabia. The authors followed a
quantitative methodology, applied the matched-guise technique to investigate attitudes, and
chose the students at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah as a case study. Consequently, they
obtained some interesting results that revealed the participants’ perception towards the two
variations and the discrimination attitudes. However, there are some issues, especially in terms of
methodology, that need to be discussed and clarified before the article is ready for publication:
1 - The sample is taken from King Abdulaziz University: why did the authors limit themselves
to this particular context? i.e. Is there something special about them? Besides, Is the sample
homogenous? I reckon the sample represents different backgrounds in terms of tribes and dialect
variations, which could affect the results. For example, students who are not originally from
Jeddah but moved to it from the southern region could perceive the Kashkasha differently from
the students who are originally from Jeddah or elsewhere. Considering this diversity in tribe
backgrounds is more important than the diversity in academic disciplines, which the authors
considered (see line:173). Another related issue: what if there are students who speak the same
variant (e.g. Kashkasha) among the participants; would the results be different from those who
do not speak it? I think the authors should discuss these issues and limitations.
I addressed the previous issue in the revised copy, specifically in lines 308-327, as follows:
“The selection of participants from King Abdulaziz University is notable due to Saudi
university admission regulations, which stipulate that universities in Saudi Arabia
primarily accept students from the city in which they are located. For instance, 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.
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
King Abdulaziz University students provides a more neutral linguistic baseline for the
study, allowing for a more objective analysis of attitudes toward various Saudi Arabic
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 use kaskasah or kaʃkaʃah in their spoken dialect.
As a result, 34 participants who did not use the standard /k/ were excluded from the
study.”
2 - Applying the matched-guise technique, the authors state that the participants listen to two
recordings with the same content by the same speaker but one with Kaskasah and the other with
Kashkasha. This means that one of the variations is most likely (semi-)artificially produced (i.e.
it is a mimic). I think the two recordings are not standardized and balanced in this way. This
could have affected the results because the recording produced artificially may have not been
perfectly perceived by the participants. This limitation has already been discussed in the
literature and a solution has been given to avoid such an issue, which is the application of the
verbal-guise technique where the recordings are produced by different speakers, each speaking in
their habitual language variety. (See: Dragojevic, Marko and Sean Goatley-Soan (2022). The
verbal-guise technique (https://tinyurl.com/328z9u5v ); Al-Hakami (2023). Saudis’ Attitudes
towards Saudi Varieties (https://tinyurl.com/39j4h4cd).
This issue is clarified in lines 339-346 as follows:
“The speaker was a 38-year-old Southern male selected for his native proficiency in both
varieties under investigation. This choice ensured the authentic and natural production of
each guise, which was crucial for the study’s validity. The text used for the recordings was
a neutral passage designed to avoid biasing participants’ responses. It depicted a common
scenario in Saudi social life, where the speaker greets his aunt and recounts his typical day.
This everyday context was chosen to maintain naturalness while showcasing the linguistic
variations. The full text of this passage is provided in Appendix A for review, enabling
readers to assess its neutrality and appropriateness for the study’s objectives.”
Therefore, the speaker in both recordings is multidialectal which means the possibility of
the (semi-) artificially production is not applicable in the current study.
3 - Also, how was the speaker chosen? Would the results be different if the speaker was male
or female?
The influence of gender is irrelevant to the current study, as the variations under
investigation, kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah, are commonly used by women when they converse
with each other. However, they are not commonly used by men unless they are speaking
with women. Therefore, gender issues are off-topic for the current study. However, it could
be worthwhile and worth considering for investigation in a future study with different
settings and different methodolgy.
These methodological issues given in 2 and 3 need to be clarified and discussed to clear up any
unclarity.
I hope that these methodological issues have been clearly clarified and discussed in the
revised version.
1 - In line: 172: the authors state that the participants are 150 females and 190 males. However,
I do not see any results related to this gender division. I mean: have the authors identified any
interesting results that show the difference/indifference between the two genders in terms of the
perception of the two dialectal variations? Please, report this.
I would like to clarify that I initially included the gender distribution data with the
intention of exploring its potential impact on the findings. However, upon further analysis,
I realized that this information was not relevant to the focus of the paper and did not
contribute meaningfully to the discussion. I therefore decided to remove the gender data to
maintain the manuscript's coherence and concision.
5- Literature review: I think the paragraph (from lines 113 to 129) needs to provide deeper
critical reviews of the studies that focused on Saudi dialects. It is too short and general, and it
does not provide a proper justification for conducting the current study and choosing the case
study (i.e. language attitudes towards Kashkasha and Kashkasha). Also, I think a more critical
literature review is needed here.
I elaborated on the literature review as it appears in lines 31-51 and in lines 184-254.
6- In the title, Kashkasha and Kashkasha should be mentioned.
Frankly, I avoided mentioning them in the title for cultural reasons. The term kaskasah is a
well-known term in the field and has been used by medieval Arabic grammarians and
contemporary linguists, as described in the study. However, in contemporary Saudi spoken
colloquial, it carries a negative or sexual connotation; therefore, I chose not to include it in
the title.
7- Line: 196: the tribal and/or home background should be included in the demographic
Information.
As illustrated above regarding the participants, the same can be said here: the participants
are from Jeddah due to the university’s admission regulations in Saudi Arabia, as clarified
in lines 308-327, as follows:
“The selection of participants from King Abdulaziz University is notable due to Saudi
university admission regulations, which stipulate that universities in Saudi Arabia
primarily accept students from the city in which they are located. For instance, 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.
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
King Abdulaziz University students provides a more neutral linguistic baseline for the
study, allowing for a more objective analysis of attitudes toward various Saudi Arabic
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 use kaskasah or kaʃkaʃah in their spoken dialect.
As a result, 34 participants who did not use the standard /k/ were excluded from the
study”.
8- Table 1: I suggest that the traits are divided in two common categories: positive and negative.
This makes it easier for the readers to spot the general trends.2
I arranged the traits randomly to prevent the participants from recognizing any
categorization based on positive or negative qualities. My goal was to ensure that they did
not perceive the distinctions in positivity or negativity among the traits.
9- In the discussion and conclusion section: the authors repeatedly claim that the results obtained
in the study are in line with the previous studies (see Lines: 319-320, 326-327, 382-383). My
question is: what is the originality of the study if the results are duplicated? I think the authors
need to emphasize the contribution more clearly and deeply.
The study is not duplicated, but the results are in congruence with the studies in the
literature, and the major contribution of the study is exploring dialect-based
discrimination. The results showed that a considerable portion of participants voted
against hiring the speaker, implying dialect-based discrimination in a Muslim society
where such discrimination is forbidden.
10- In terms of the issue of discrimination, the result related to the rejection of hiring a person
who speaks the variation is very interesting. However, the author does seem to have given the
respondents the chance to provide the reasons behind their choice. Meanwhile, they (authors)
relied on their interpretation of such a result on some statements mentioned in the previous
studies. (See: lines 431- 439). If the authors had given the respondents the chance to justify their
answers, more contributions would have been added to the current study.
It has been added to the methodology in lines 364-369 and to the discussion in lines 695-716
as follows, respectively:
“Finally, the participants were asked to provide their comments on each recording and
answer whether the speaker or the 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.”
“Participants’ comments on each dialectal variation further 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. Some remarks reflected media influences, as two popular actors known for
imitating the Southern dialect and using kaʃkaʃah were frequently mentioned. These actors,
known for imitating the Southern dialect and using kaʃkaʃah in their spoken language,
often portray speakers of kaʃkaʃah with negative traits such as being idiotic, naive, low
class, and easy to deceive. Comments on kaʃkaʃah include, “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
“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 its speakers as naive and uncultured. Some comments simply
said, “It reminds me of old people.”
These participant feedback help 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 speaker with the kasaksah variation is slightly higher than that
of a speaker with the kaʃkaʃah variation due to the aforementioned reasons.”
11- The paragraph starting from lines 449 to 461 should be deleted as it repeats what was said
before.
It has been deleted.
12- Line 126: [the] previous studies. ‘the’ should be added here.
It has been added.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s)

This is a good piece of scientifically conducted research that illustrates a significant topic concerning the attitudes of 340 Saudi college students towards two 4 Arabic dialectal variations, kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah. The title reflects the content of the paper. The abstract accurately summarizes the purpose of the research, the methodological approach used and the main findings. The methodology is appropriate. The adopted theoretical framework is clarified. The results address the research aims and are adequately discussed.  The conclusion  and recommendations for further research are presented.   

 

1.  The rationale behind conducting this study needs to be enriched so as to sound more powerful.

2. Either tables or figures could be used for illustrating the results, not both .

3. I would recommend presenting the results of the comparative analysis between both dialectal variations in a figure so as to be easy to understand.

4. The theoretical and pedagogical implications of the results should be clarified.

5. I would recommend the researcher(s) to cite some up-to-date and relevant references from the Languages journal

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Author(s)
This is a good piece of scientifically conducted research that illustrates a significant topic
concerning the attitudes of 340 Saudi college students towards two 4 Arabic dialectal variations,
kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah. The title reflects the content of the paper. The abstract accurately
summarizes the purpose of the research, the methodological approach used and the main
findings. The methodology is appropriate. The adopted theoretical framework is clarified. The
results address the research aims and are adequately discussed. The conclusion and
recommendations for further research are presented.
1. The rationale behind conducting this study needs to be enriched so as to sound more powerful.
It has been added in lines 31-51 as follows:
“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 about 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, offering more
understanding of the social and linguistic attitudes towards 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, reflecting 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 the western urban centers like
Jeddah, Mecca, and Medina; Gulf Arabic, found 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; Alghamdi, 2003;
Ruthan, 2014).”
2. Either tables or figures could be used for illustrating the results, not both .
The figures have been deleted.
3. I would recommend presenting the results of the comparative analysis between both dialectal
variations in a figure so as to be easy to understand.
It has been added to the findings section in lines 373-400 as follows:
“Before presenting the detailed results of participants’ ratings for each trait across both
dialectal variations, Table 2 provides a comprehensive comparison, including the means
and standard deviations, of the participants’ perceptions of personality traits for speakers
of kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah.
Table 1 Means and Standard Deviation for Each Trait
Table 2 shows that participants perceive the kaskasah dialect more positively, as it
consistently scores higher on most positive traits, with particularly notable differences in
areas related to social interaction and self-perception. For instance, kaskasah was rated
higher in traits such as humility (4.31 vs. 3.94 for kaʃkaʃah), kindness (4.22 vs. 3.78),
friendliness (4.26 vs. 3.84), and self-confidence (4.16 vs. 3.72). This suggests that individuals
speaking kaskasah are perceived as more socially adept and self-assured compared to their
kaʃkaʃah counterparts. Both variations share similarities in their highest-rated traits, with
respectfulness, humility, and friendliness topping the list for both kaskasah and kaʃkaʃah.
Conversely, traits like humorousness received the lowest scores from both groups,
indicating a shared value system prioritizing social harmony and diligence while disdaining
negative attributes. Interestingly, kaʃkaʃah was rated slightly higher in certain traits that
might be considered less desirable, including being humorous (2.92 vs. 2.72 for kaskasah),
lazy (2.43 vs. 2.25), and arrogant (2.13 vs. 1.89). While the differences are small, they
suggest subtle distinctions in how the two dialectal variations are perceived. In terms of
variability, both variations show higher standard deviations in traits such as accepting new
customs, open-mindedness, and attractiveness, indicating more diverse opinions or
experiences within both groups regarding these characteristics. Religious and cultural
traits also reveal slight differences. Kaskasah is perceived marginally higher in religiosity
(3.3 vs. 3.18 for kaʃkaʃah), accepting new customs (3.19 vs. 2.97), and faithfulness (3.89 vs.
3.71). While these differences are small, they hint at potential cultural or attitudinal
variations between the speakers of the two dialectal variations.”
4. The theoretical and pedagogical implications of the results should be clarified.
This suggestion is worth considering for another research paper, as it is, in my opinion,
irrelevant to the current study.
5. I would recommend the researcher(s) to cite some up-to-date and relevant references from the
Languages journal
Unfortunately, I could not find a study that has been published in the Languages journal
which is relevant to my current study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following issues need to be addressed before this manuscript can be considered for publication: 

 

1) Lines 45-48 You mention the importance of studying dialectal attitudes in a changing community. You need to explain the reason behind that, i.e. why you think this is the case. You may want to say that the change taking place in the community may be influencing the dialects and dialectal attitudes used in that community.

 

2) Lines 206-231 Instead of repeating the data in the table, this part should be your opportunity to summarize the main patterns in the data, and try to explain why those numbers came this way. For example, what is the significance of the lower ratings on religiousness, humor, and open-mindedness? Also, you disregarded four of the traits mentioned in the table. Why?

 

3) Data in lines 316-357 should be part of the results section. They should also be revised to avoid repetition. Also, they should be exhibited as a figure that displays the comparisons in a clear manner. The discussion section should include the implications of the results. In other words, what does it mean that most of the attitudes towards the two recordings were positive? How would that affect the future and viability of the kaskasa/kashkasha dialects?

 

4) Lines 449-461 How do you explain the contradiction between the positive attitudes towards the two dialects and the potential discrimination that you talk about?

 

5) The text of the recording needs to be provided in the methodology section or in the appendix.

 

The following points need to be addressed in the discussion part, or as limitations of the study:

 

1) The dialect of the participant should be taken into consideration. What if the participant uses kaskasa or kashkasha himself/herself? Wouldn't that affect his/her attitude toward the recording?

 

2) The participants could be offered more variation, in addition to the kaskasa and kashkasha recordings. Why not have them listen to and evaluate additional matched guises that do not use kaskasa/kashkasha at all? This way you can compare among the different attitudes.

 

3) How can you tell that the participant's judgement of the speaker in the recordings was based on the variable kaskasa, and not on other variables in the recording? Maybe the participant judged the speaker based on other phonological or morphological variables.

 

Finally, the following are miscellaneous mistakes that need attention:

 

1) Line 81 Fix the spelling (individuals’)

 

2) Line 85 Say something about content analysis

 

3) Line 160 Delete the word "subconscious"

 

4) Line 207 Change "this descriptive analysis examines their attitudes" into "the following descriptive analysis examines the students' attitudes"

 

5) Line 209 Add a reference to Table 1 after the word 'traits'

 

6) Line 224 This sentence is confusing and needs to be rewritten/reconsidered: “Crucially, the speaker was not generally perceived negatively with respect to undesirable traits.”

 

7) Lines 248-249 What about the southern dialect? (32.68%)

 

8) Lines 254-256 You say "hire A speaker", but the question that you asked to the participants is regarding the particular speaker in the recording, not ANY speaker of the dialect.

 

9) Line 352 Trustworthiness (54.90% vs. 53.16%). here kashkasha is higher (you say it is lower).

 

10) Lines 344-348 The two bullet points should be combined in one, since they deal with the same traits.

 

11) Line 339 What does 'mixed' mean?

 

12) Lines 370-371 What about the northern dialects? you don't say anything about them

 

13) Lines 374-377 There is repetition, as well as contradiction (you say 'balanced' first, then 'linked to the Najdi dialect') with the previous lines in this paragraph (i.e. lines 364-374)

 

14) Lines 388-401 These two paragraphs needs to be rewritten to avoid repetition, and combined into one paragraph.

 

15) Lines 407-411 This also is a repetition and thus should be combined with previous lines.

 

16) Line 364 what does 'insignificant' mean?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is satisfactory overall. However, some sentences, as noted in my comments above, need to be rewritten for conciseness and clarity.

Author Response

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Languages journal for receiving my manuscript and providing me with the opportunity to have it reviewed. I appreciate the time and effort taken by the reviewers to carefully read and evaluate my work. Their insightful comments and suggestions have been invaluable in helping me improve the manuscript.
I am pleased to inform you that I have addressed the reviewers' comments and incorporated the necessary revisions, which are highlighted in green in the revised manuscript. I believe that these changes have significantly enhanced the quality and clarity of the paper.
Regarding the comment on the demographic information on page 8, I would like to clarify that I initially included the gender distribution data with the intention of exploring its potential impact on the findings. However, upon further analysis, I realized that this information was not relevant to the focus of the paper and did not contribute meaningfully to the discussion. I therefore decided to remove this section to maintain the manuscript's coherence and concision.
I have carefully considered the other comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers and have made the necessary revisions, as highlighted in the manuscript. I am confident that these changes have addressed the concerns raised and have improved the overall quality of the paper.
Once again, I would like to thank the Languages journal and the reviewers for their time and expertise. I am grateful for the opportunity to have my work reviewed and look forward to the possibility of publication.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The majority of my concerns were addressed in this new version. Good job.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your informative and helpful suggestions and feedback.