Arabic cross-dialectal communication: A missing element in the Teaching of Arabic as a Second Language

This study was initiated by an ambition of contributing to the field of Teaching Arabic as a Second Language (TASL) through further examination of the issue of the variability in the Arabic language. Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) has been the main variety taught in Higher Education (HE) institutions in the UK with the majority of them encouraging the students to learn a dialect either by exposure or by seeking instruction during their year abroad (Dickins & Watson, 2006). In recent years, more institutions —especially in the USA— are giving attention to the importance of teaching the dialects alongside MSA and, therefore, some programmes started teaching at least one dialect at different stages of the degrees while others started the integrative approach by teaching both MSA and a dialect concurrently (Younes, 1995). This appreciation of the equal importance of MSA and the dialect is an achievement to be valued; however, the question of which dialect to be taught is still taking the attention of the TASL professionals. Some institutions take a practical approach in answering this question by choosing the dialect taught in their partner institutions in the Arab countries, or the dialect spoken by their appointed staff members, while others choose the dialects that they believe to be the most comprehensible to the rest of the Arabic speakers. This question of which form to teach originates from a continuous focus on the language itself and trying to find a specific form to teach as in the situation of teaching non-diglossic languages. As Giolfo & Sinatora indicate, there is a need to deviate from the dichotomous concept of Arabic having distinct forms to the acceptance of these varieties being used by the native speaker (NS) as facets of one language (Giolfo & Sinatora, 2011:104). Therefore, this paper proposes that the shift should divert from focusing on a specific form to focusing on the language use by the NS including the cross-dialectal communication. Whether an institution chooses to teach a Levantine, Egyptian or another dialect, more concern should be given to how the speakers of these dialects cope with such variability.