A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Use of Arabizi in Social Media Among Saudi Arabians
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this sociolinguistically-oriented study is to explore the Arabizi phenomenon which is characterized by spelling Arabic words using the Latin script. It is prevalent in the text-based computer-mediated communications among Saudi Arabians. The study focuses on why Arabizi is used, how, particularly in respect to with whom and in which topics, it is used, the attitudes of its users toward its use and the perceived advantages and disadvantages of its use. Using an online survey, data were collected from 241 participants, 72 of which were users of Arabizi. The findings revealed that the primary reasons for using Arabizi were its being a communication code among youths and a compensation for the lack of Arabic keyboard from technological devices as well as being more expressive than Arabic language. It was also found that Arabizi was primarily used to communicate with friends and individuals of the same age, but not with parents and older people or in formal relationships. In addition, the study revealed that Arabizi is used in occasional conversations and social matters, but not in academic, scientific, business, economic, religious or poetry and literature- related topics. Arabizi users were found to hold both positive and negative attitudes based on different advantages and disadvantages of the phenomenon. These findings will be discussed and recommendations for future research will be given.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it