MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402769657 · doi:10.3366/arabic.2024.0029

Makkan Arabic in the digital age: A sociolinguistic analysis of the representation of fricative, stop, and sibilant variation in WhatsApp text messages

2024· article· en· W4402769657 on OpenAlexaff
Hanadi Abdulaziz Azhari, Verónica Loureiro-Rodríguez, Elif F. Acar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Arabic Sociolinguistics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Communication and Language
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArabicVariation (astronomy)Representation (politics)LinguisticsSociolinguisticsPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines Makkan Arabic speakers’ orthographic representation of standard and colloquial variants in their WhatsApp text messages. In particular, we examine the role that speaker gender, speaker age, gender composition of conversations, and topic of discussions play in Hadari Makkans’ representation of standard and colloquial variants of the variables (th), (dh), and (Dh). Statistical analyses reveal that women favor colloquial variant stops [t] and [d], while men exhibit a preference for standard variants [θ] and [ð], particularly when conversing with other men. For (Dh), however, both women and men favor the standard variant [ðˤ]. Age also plays a role in the distribution of variants, with speakers favoring standard variants as they age. The use of fricatives [θ] and [ð] also increases when participants discuss formal topics, which suggests an implicit association between standard language and formality, despite the inherent informality of WhatsApp interactions. This study provides insights into how phonological variation is orthographically represented within a written genre designed to mimic spontaneous conversation and enriches the broader discourse on Arabic language variation and digital communication.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Arabic SociolinguisticsSame topicDigital Communication and LanguageFrench-language works237,207