Learning Outcomes of the Simultaneous Exposure to Two Arabic Varieties by English L1 Learners of Arabic as an L2 at Different Stages of their L2 Development

Abstract

The efficacy of the “integrated approach,” which calls for the simultaneous integration of two varieties in teaching Arabic as a second language (L2), has not yet been rigorously examined, and the very few available studies suffer from many methodological limitations. The current study sought to bridge this gap in the literature by comparing the language output (in terms of fluency, accuracy, complexity, and overall proficiency) of 57 English first language (L1) learners of Arabic as an L2, belonging comparably to two groups: the first consisted of those instructed in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and Egyptian Arabic (EA) simultaneously, the integrated program group (IPG), and the second consisted of those instructed in MSA only, the unintegrated program group (UIPG). The participants of both groups were further divided cross-sectionally based on their three proficiency levels: first year, second year, and third year. Their performance was additionally compared to that of a control group (CG) consisting of nine native speakers of EA. Spontaneous obligatory-in-context data were elicited from the participants who performed three oral picture-based description tasks: two narrative tasks and one manipulation task. Fluency was measured by counting words produced per minute (W/M). Accuracy was examined in their production of the past tense, present tense, past negation, and verbal present negation. Complexity was measured by their error-free production of the subjunctive and cause–effect subordinations. The overall proficiency was gauged by adding up the scores attained in the above-mentioned three constructs. The findings revealed that both L2 groups produced comparable W/M when narrating past and present events. However, in other areas examined, the UIPG maintained a significant advantage over the IPG: (a) at the first-year and second-year levels on the past tense, (b) at the third-year level on the present tense, (c) at the first-year and third-year level on the past negation, (d) at the second-year level and (near-significantly) at the third-year level on the verbal present negation, (e) at the second-year and third-year levels on the subjunctive and cause–effect subordinations, and (f) at the second-year and third-year levels on the overall proficiency. The advantage of the UIPG over the IPG was further supported by the within-group analyses. The UIPG improved significantly in the long run—particularly at the third-year level—in their fluency, in all target structures (except for the past tense with the third-person singular feminine form and past negation), and in their overall proficiency. In contrast, the IPG did not show any significant improvement—particularly from the first-year to third-year levels—in their fluency, in all target structures in which MSA and EA diverge, and in their overall proficiency. Additionally, only the third-year UIPG participants were statistically on par with the CG in their accuracy on the past tense and present tense (in the third-person singular masculine context), as well as the verbal present negation. The strong implication of these findings is that the simultaneous exposure to two varieties from the outset, without sufficient recycling, visual presentation, and explicit instruction of their structures in the input, is not beneficial to Arabic L2 learners and might be detrimental to their developmental acquisition paths. Such an instructional practice can cause linguistic dissonance, hinder comprehension, and obstruct facilitative L1 transfer. Thus, it is pedagogically recommended to initially teach one variety for the first 2 years of the learning process.