> When someone learns to read Arabic they have to work out which letters are which, and which ones go with which sounds.
How's this different from any other language?
> telling the characters apart involves looking at very small details such as the placement of dots.
Really? Try reading Chinese characters.
The real challenge with learning Arabic is that no one speaks the classical/standard Arabic as a native tongue, each region has its own dialect, and so to be really effective at using Arabic to communicate with real life Arabs, you have to know a lot about 2 or 3 major dialects. Even in online writing, people mix standard Arabic with their own dialect or major dialects. If you understand Classical Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic, Egyptian, Syrian, and Iraqi dialects, then you can communicate effectively with 90% of Arabs.
Basically you have to learn several (related) languages before you can communicate like a native Arab in the middle east. It's like learning Latin, Italian, Spanish and French at the same time.
I studied Japanese, and I found that once you learn a Chinese character, you recognize it instantly like a picture. They have unique shapes, and not many are similar enough that you have to peer at it to discern the difference.
Identifying Chinese characters, to me, is like distinguishing the letter "A" from "B"
http://mural.uv.es/ciucama/kanji.gif <= it may well look like gibberish to you, but I'm sure you can notice that they are largely unique, and even if you only look at the 'shape', you can tell the difference.
From what I've seen of Arabic, identifying characters is often like distinguishing "0" from "O" and "l" from "1", or "W" from "VV"
Not native, but I can read most kanji at 10px. (Some of the more complex ones with 12 or more strokes can be a bit difficult but you can usually guess them from context)
I notice that I have a lot more trouble trying to read Japanese in smaller fonts, but I'm also not that great at reading it to begin with.
At least Japanese has katakana & hiragana, though, which have only a few strokes and are quite prevalent in normal writing. I've seen dense walls of tiny Chinese writing that looked positively impenetrable.
>Even in online writing, people mix standard Arabic with their own dialect or major dialects.
When that happens, it just shows a poor command of the Arabic language.
>It's like learning Latin, Italian, Spanish and French at the same time.
Let us not make it harder than it actually is.
I would say it is like learning English for the writing part, but also knowing a few words here and there like "Bonjour", "Hola" and "Grazie" for when you talk to people in various regions (in addition to the English language that they would all understand...)
>If you understand Classical Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic, Egyptian, Syrian, and Iraqi dialects, then you can communicate effectively with 90% of Arabs.
If you learn Classical Arabic (this is what you would learn at school, not any of the dialects), and you learn a few important words from the following oral dialects:
Egyptian, Syrian, Moroccan/Algerian
From a westerner's point of view, each dialect would be considered its own language. I think there are more differences between Syrian and Egyptian than there are differences between Spanish and Italian.
From my point of view (as an Arab), Italian and Spanish are too similar to be considered separate languages.
It's mostly a matter of culture. We Arabs think of ourselves as one culture. We accept regional differences between dialects as a natural phenomenon. But if you actually think about it, there are big differences in basic expressions and various grammatical structures.
izzaiyak - kiifak
kwaiyis - mneeh
buss - leek (look)
3aiyz - biddi
mush raiye7 - maani raie7 (I'm not going)
Most Arabs know Egyptian and Syrian because they're constantly exposed to these dialects on TV, not because they're intrinsically mutually-intelligible. Izzaiyak doesn't resemble any word in Syrian or Iraqi Arabic, and I can't think of a possible Classical Arabic word as the origin for it, and yet we all know what izzaiyak means because we learned it from TV.
If you move to a region whose dialect isn't popular, you'll find it difficult to understand at first, but you'll quickly be able to pick it up; probably in about a week or so.
In the west, these concepts seem foreign; maybe it has something to do with focusing on individuality over the group.
I know in Japan there are many regional dialects, and they can be mutually-unintelligible at times. The Standard Japanese is the Tokyo dialect. I don't know what it's like if you're a native Japanese, but as a non-native, studying the Standard Japanese doesn't seem to be enough to pick up the various dialects just by ear.
I was watching a Japanese drama once, and some character was speaking a weird language. I thought he was speaking Korean or something, but I asked on a Japanese forum and they said it was a dialect of some region.[1] It seemed even natives have trouble deciphering it.
We accept regional differences between dialects as a natural phenomenon.
There are actually quite a lot of regional dialects within the US, not even getting into the differences with how Canadians, Brits and Australians speak. Some such differences have stalled political negotiations and such historically.
FWIW: I speak conversational German but can't really follow the News in German and can't really read or write it. I read and write French a little but never developed an ear for it so I have enormous difficulty following spoken French and struggle enormously to put together a spoken sentence. I think there are substantial differences between written and spoken, formal and informal for any language.
- Many basic expressions might be different, but they're learn-able without any formal education; simply watching TV in the other language constantly for some time allows you to pick up most of these differences
- If you speak slightly slowly, and stick to standard vocabulary, you can communicate with native speakers of the other language without much trouble.
If these above two points are true, then they're about as different as the various Arabic dialects.
Whether you identify these languages as separate languages or regional dialects is largely a political/cultural issue.
I was talking more about liguistics, not politics/culture. Linguistically, they are separate languages, not dialects, though what you say is true (and it also holds for Spanish and Portuguese, for example). I don't speak Arabic, so I don't know how far the differences between say, Lebanese Arabic and Tunisian or Moroccan Arabic go. I do know that I've met people from Lebanon and Tunis, and they communicated in French between them, mostly. The explanation was basically that written Arabic was pretty much understandable by all Arabic speakers, but the dialects were too different in some cases.
I sensed this when learning classical Arabic in college. Even after a year of intensive (= every day) Arabic, I really had to think to read the letters. Back then there were already stories about studies showing the letters were hard for kids to learn, though IIRC they were just statistical studies.
I've had a similar experience with learning the Perso-Arabic script recently, to be able to read Urdu.
But this report does seem far-fetched.
Trivia: lines from Urdu poetry are a normal class of conversational idiom here in North India, but after the partition of British India into modern India and Pakistan, the Urdu script isn't taught in school in most Indian states, and likewise for the Hindi script in Pakistan. Urdu and Hindi are practically the same language in informal use.
I studied classic Arabic when I was much younger for religious purposes. I never found it particularly difficult, but whenever I try to read normal Arabic it becomes an exercise in futility. I wonder if there is a real difference between reading the two or if it was just what I was used to.
Do you mean because normal Arabic lacks vowel markers? If so, I've got the same problem reading Urdu newspapers and fiction; one has to speak the word out loud and guess from the context what it 'completes' to.
Ah, reminds me how we had to learn russian back in the commie days (I'm from Bulgaria). Nothing against russian, or it's people, but the regime required it.
The research this seems to be discussing is at least partly described in "Language status and hemispheric involvement in reading: Evidence from trilingual Arabic speakers tested in Arabic, Hebrew, and English" by Raphiq Ibrahim and Zohar Eviatar. So far, I haven't been able to turn up a copy, so I'll just list my non-neuroscientist questions and concerns. I don't mean that I don't believe it necessarily; just that I have trouble accepting a lot of these statements without further qualification and discussion.
- Lateralization of brain function is a tricky business, because it's prone to exaggeration and urban legend. I'd like some clear citations for statements like, "When you are starting something new, there is a lot of [right hemisphere] involvement."
- Given the preceding statement, I'd also like some clear citations for "When the eyes see something for just a short time, and it is at one side of a screen, only one brain hemisphere is quick enough to process the image." When I first read this sentence, it made sense to me, but things which appeal to common sense are not necessarily true.
- What are the actual rates of recognition for the letters by the different speakers and for the different hemispheres? Was it really an all-or-nothing result, or was it a 49%-or-%51 result?
- Because this experiment (apparently) only tested individual letters, how does one take into account the fact that Arabic letters change their form in various parts of a word? Perhaps Arabic words are easier to read than Hebrew words because the letters, when put together, have a more recognizable shape than Hebrew letters, which have a more uniform outline. Would right-brain recognition of Arabic words vs. Hebrew words yield different results than the individual letters?
- Arabic is widely spoken in Israel, but what percentage of the Arabic speakers were native Arabic speakers who learned Hebrew later in life, and what percentage were native Hebrew speakers who learned Arabic later in life? How much later in life?
- Arabic typeset on a computer can differ radically from calligraphic Arabic and handwritten Arabic. What variety was tested? Would handwritten Arabic (which generally uses lines instead of dots for diacritics) aid or hinder understanding?
In general, science news prepared by non-scientific sources leaves out a lot of detail, but these are questions which I think could have a lot of bearing on the truth of this experiment.
I wonder what the implications of this are with respect to maths / logic. IIRC the left hemisphere of the brain does more of the logical thinking, with the right being more creative - does this mean that people who read / write a lot of Arabic tend to have more developed logical or analytical skills?
Arabic numerals spring to mind, though they originated from India originally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals), and algebra and trigonometry have been developed a great deal by Arabic and Persian scholars - all these are fairly fundamental to mathematics.
I wonder if there is any causation due to the written language, or would it merely be correlation?
The development of logic in the Islamic world has little to do with the Arabic language and everything to do with Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), and the conquest of settled, sedentary peoples in Persia, the Roman occupied Levant and Anatolia.
Suddenly, Arabs found themselves heirs to great empires and custodians of far richer cultures than their own. The recent converts had to be immersed in the culture with something other than eloquent oration and rhetoric, as was the custom back in Arabia, since few of them spoke Arabic much less appreciated its word-craft. The converts themselves were running around interpreting Islam in their old, familiar ways; the Persians, subservient to their God-Kings would have idolized the new Arabs. Arab families from the inner-circle were vying for power, and old clan conflicts were beginning to threaten the new Caliphate.
It was during this period of economic stability, but cultural chaos that Islamic scholars rediscovered* pockets of philosophical cults: Gnostics, Neoplatonists, Aristotelians, and various Christian offshoots, all off whom had highly developed systems of inquiry and exposition. These fringe groups were learned men who saw wisdom not only in Christian teachings, the state-sponsored religion, but also in the old teachings of sages and thinkers of antiquity.
That's when Islam discovered Logic and fell in love. Unlike Rome, logic didn't threaten their religion because they believed their holly book was infallible; and the thought of man, once elevated, can only be in agreement with what God said, and if wrong, the error lay with man.
The Caliphs threw scholarships at researchers and sent them digging in the books. First, it was a period of translation, followed by active search for lost Greek sources, and finally, once the attic dried, new research and development.
Within 30 years of first contact, in Baghdad and Basra, Mecca and Madina; Logic, Rhetoric, Music, and Geometry were in school curricula, along with Quran. And the new students, learned in native Arabic and oblivious to translation, ran with the sciences and developed them, as any of their many indigenous crafts.
"The researchers looked at 40 university students. Some of the students only spoke Hebrew, while some also spoke and read Arabic well."
Does this mean that all the 40 students had prior knowledge in Hebrew?
Does this mean that the ones which "only spoke Hebrew", only spoke it (but don't read and write it), or "spoke only Hebrew" (but don't speak Arabic).
(perhaps I have the illusion that the sentence is ambiguous because I'm not a native English speaker, please correct me)
Anyway, I fail to understand how this scientific experiment is being designed.
I have the feeling that they are only testing the difficulty to learn Arabic glyphs with no scientifically measurable difficulty to learn Hebrew glyphs since the tested subjects already know them. But this cannot be true, I cannot believe that such a blatant experimental error is being performed and the results being published, so I have to be wrong. Can somebody shed more light on it?
Reading Arabic letters means paying attention to detail and where dots are located, especially when you first learn the language. Not an issue after that.
I fail to see how that is "hard for the brain", when you know that the Arabic alphabet is limited to 28 letters.
The OP should have looked at learning languages that have thousands of ideograms (Japanese Kanji, Chinese, etc...)
Apl looks pretty tough, though I would love to learn it.
I know how to read persian/farsi, which I studied one course in at the university, I did not find it hard to learn to read that at all. Arabic is a little bit harder because there's more guesswork involved, but I don't know arabic. It's not the script, it's the way it's encoded imho, very few wovels are written down.
If you're interested in APL, I'd suggest checking out J (http://jsoftware.com/), a modern and free (though not open source) dialect, which only uses ascii. _J for C Programmers_ is pretty good. K, another APL dialect, is also quite amazing, but less free than J. (It's most recent version is called Q.)
I don't know Farsi or Arabic, though. I studied Spanish and German in college, but majored in history rather than linguistics.
How's this different from any other language?
> telling the characters apart involves looking at very small details such as the placement of dots.
Really? Try reading Chinese characters.
The real challenge with learning Arabic is that no one speaks the classical/standard Arabic as a native tongue, each region has its own dialect, and so to be really effective at using Arabic to communicate with real life Arabs, you have to know a lot about 2 or 3 major dialects. Even in online writing, people mix standard Arabic with their own dialect or major dialects. If you understand Classical Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic, Egyptian, Syrian, and Iraqi dialects, then you can communicate effectively with 90% of Arabs.
Basically you have to learn several (related) languages before you can communicate like a native Arab in the middle east. It's like learning Latin, Italian, Spanish and French at the same time.
Reading is trivial in comparison.