Reactions of Arab-Palestinians in Israel Toward an In-group Member Mixing Hebrew or English With Arabic

Abstract

Code-mixing with a dominant language can appeal to members of linguistic minorities because it signals bilingual proficiency, modernity, and social mobility. However, it can also pose a threat to the minority’s group vitality and distinctiveness. In Study 1 (N = 208), Palestinian citizens of Israel (a linguistic and national minority) listened to a recorded message by a fellow group member, either in pure Arabic or in Arabic mixed with Hebrew or English. Code-mixing elicited negative evaluations. In Study 2 (N = 276), Arabic mixed with Hebrew was crossed with messages on the relations with the Jewish–Israeli majority. Speakers who advocated full independence from the majority or an impartial view, but expressed linguistic dependency on Hebrew through code-mixing lost credit. Identification with the national group affected the effects in both studies. The implications of code-mixing for identity-related processes and its potential use as a social barometer for intergroup relations are discussed.

Keywords

code-mixing Arabic Hebrew English linguistic and social minority Palestinian citizens of Israel

Languages and their speakers rarely live in linguistic isolation: they usually interact with and are influenced by each other. In the past few decades, there has been a proliferation of linguistic and social psychological research on the different forms of languages diffusion and mixing (e.g., Edwards, 2004). Code-mixing (hereafter CM) is one of these linguistic phenomena and is the focus of the current article. CM is commonly defined as the embedding of linguistic units such as phrases, words, and morphemes of one language into another language (Myers-Scotton, 2002; see also Muysken & Muysken, 2000). Beyond its interest to linguists, CM demands have social-psychological implications (see Bourhis & Genesee, 1980; Gibbons, 1983; Giles & Powesland, 1975). Here, we examined the ways in which linguistic national minority members reacted to fellow in-group members who mix their native minority language with dominant foreign languages. We explored how Arabic-speaking Palestinians in Israel responded to two forms of CM: a mix with the language of the majority in the country (i.e., Hebrew), and a mix with English, a global language. We then investigated the reactions to CM when it appeared in conjunction with different political messages (i.e., speaking for or against independence from the Jewish majority in Israel) to better understand whether these minority members would judge a fellow in-group CM speaker positively or negatively in these circumstances.

Two key competing theoretical perspectives, namely attributed value and social identity make opposite predictions in this regard, as detailed below.

The Attributed Value Perspective

In this perspective, CM by a minority speaker with a dominant language may signal some degree of bilingualism on the part of the linguistic minority member. This evidence of bilingualism can be perceived as a precious personal asset (e.g., cultural capital for the speaker in Bourdieu’s terms; Bourdieu, 1977). For example, it might be construed as a cue that indicates education, modernization, social mobility, and linguistic creativity (e.g., Grosjean, 1982; Henkin-Roitfarb, 2011; Kamwangamalu, 1989; Ritchie & Bhatia, 2004). There are also instrumental benefits from the mastery of dominant languages (e.g., Ginsburgh & Weber, 2011). Linguistic minority members who are proficient in the country’s majority language (especially when it is also the official language) have greater economic, professional, educational and social opportunities as well as advantages. Similarly, proficiency in English, the global lingua franca, also provides linguistic minority members with numerous instrumental advantages (see Crystal, 2012; Graddol, 2006; Melitz, 2016; Ritchie & Bhatia, 2004; Rosenhouse & Kowner, 2008). Thus, from an “attributed value” perspective, fellow group members would be likely to judge an in-group member who signals some bilingual ability with regard to a dominant language more favorably (see Grosjean, 1982; Kamwangamalu, 1989; Ritchie & Bhatia, 2004; see also Li & Elly, 2002).

The Social Identity Perspective

However, from a social identity perspective (e.g., Giles et. al., 1977; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) CM speakers may be viewed by fellow minority in-group members as not being “true” group members because they give the impression that they have less concern for the in-group’s language and thus do not conform to group norms (see Jetten & Hornsey, 2014; Ritchie & Bhatia, 2004) or because they are perceived as disloyal to the in-group by attempting to assimilate into the high-status dominant out-group (i.e., defection; see Levine & Moreland, 2002; Van Vugt & Hart, 2004) or alternatively by making attempts to ingratiate into the high-status group (e.g., Gordon, 1996).

The concept of linguistic purism is highly pertinent in this context: Linguistic purism is the drive to keep the in-group language as free of foreign words or phrases as possible and includes a resultant aversion to encroachment by foreign languages (e.g., Annamalai, 1989; Thomas, 1991). Thus, linguistic purism can be seen as part of identity politics in national and linguistic groups (Joseph, 2004; Oakes, 2001). Linguistic purism can also be interpreted through the lens of ethnolinguistic identity theory (ELIT; Giles & Coupland, 1991; Giles et al., 1977; Giles & Johnson, 1981, 1987). ELIT considers language to be a core feature of social identity and categorization and suggests that people’s identity is best expressed through the language they use. In addition, communication accommodation theory (Giles, 2016) makes a distinction between converging with the dominant group’s language and diverging from this language. Those who wish to retain the linguistic purity of the minority language would thus tend to diverge rather than converge.

Group members strive to achieve intergroup distinctiveness (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Spears et al., 2002) and thus maximize intergroup differences once they are categorized into distinct categories or groups (Krueger & Rothbart, 1990; Tajfel & Wilkes, 1963; Turner, 1982). Linguistic purism may thus emanate at least in part from this desire to maintain and enhance the ethnolinguistic group’s vitality and distinctiveness (see Giles et al., 1977) such that CM may convey a negative impression to the out-group (and the in-group members alike) since it gives the impression that the group is dependent (linguistically and otherwise) on the out-group. Therefore, group members who use CM may be perceived as a threat to the group’s positive distinctiveness and be derogated by their fellow group members (i.e., black sheep; see Jetten & Hornsey, 2014). The perceived need to protect the linguistic vitality of the group and shield it against language mixing may also be related to identification with the in-group (e.g., Roccas et al., 2006). In a recent study on Polish philology students, Hansen et al. (2018) showed that participants’ levels of national identification predicted their preference for native Polish words over synonymous loan words from foreign languages.

Previous studies on CM have mainly focused on group members’ motivation to modulate their speech, but less on how fellow group members view these accommodations (see Dragojevic et al., 2015). In the current article, we explored the reactions of fellow minority members to a peer using different forms of CM (i.e., a mix with the dominant out-group’s language or with English, a global language) and in conjunction with different messages (i.e., speaking for or against independence from the dominant majority). We examined this in the context of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, a minority group which is positioned in a complex linguistic and national predicament.

The Arab-Palestinian Citizens of Israel: A Linguistic and National Minority

Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel (about 1.9 million; 21% of the total number of Israeli citizens) constitute a national and linguistic minority group in the State of Israel (for details see Ghanem, 1998; Jamal, 2011; Kimmerling & Migdal, 2003; Rouhana, 1997). Their native language is Arabic, the lingua franca of the entire Middle East. However, a series of historical, political, and sociological conditions have made their dependence on Hebrew, Israel’s official language and the language of its Jewish majority, a major characteristic of their language use.

After the 1948 War and the founding the State of Israel, the 250,000 Arab-Palestinians who remained within the borders of the new State abruptly ceased being part of the Arabic-speaking majority in the Middle East (and in historical Palestine) and turned into a minority which is almost completely cut off from the rest of the Arab world’s economic, cultural, and educational centers. After 1948, most men were obliged to seek a livelihood outside Arab villages under Jewish employers, mainly as manual workers in agriculture, construction, industry, and services. Communication in the workplace and outside of it took place almost always in Hebrew (Mar’i, 2013). The laws of the new State, the regulations, bureaucracy, hospitals, commerce, and influential media were all in Hebrew. As described, for example, by Ben-Rafael et al. (2006), Arabic in Israel was almost nonexistent outside the Arab villages.

This dependence on Hebrew has not lessened over time. For example, higher education in Israel, in all universities and in most of the colleges, takes place in Hebrew (although most of the reading is in English). Even in high schools, most textbooks in the fields of technology, sciences, and mathematics are written in Hebrew. The labor market (especially for professionals) and, in fact, almost all facets of modern life requires using Hebrew. As noted by Mar’i (2013), many Arab-Palestinians in Israel not only speak Hebrew with their Jewish colleagues and friends but also prefer to write in Hebrew in their diaries, notes, and shopping lists. Members of the Arab-Palestinian group contribute to the Hebrew media and some of the most prominent Palestinian writers in Israel write in Hebrew (Shakour, 2013). Henkin-Roitfarb (2011) argued that the use of Hebrew and borrowing from it corresponds to “representing modern and Western concepts that did not exist in PA [Palestinian Arabic]. They [i.e., the use of Hebrew and borrowing from it] also symbolize modernism, education, and social mobility. In other words, borrowing serves as . . . a mean for stepping out and up for the Arab minority”. (p. 62)

It is noteworthy that one of the major characteristics of the Arabic language is its marked level of diglossia (see Albirini, 2016; Ferguson, 1959). That is, the difference between the literary and the spoken language within the same speech community (and even the individual). The spoken language is more receptive to foreign linguistic influences than the standard literary language. Linguistic influences and interferences come mainly from dominant languages that are readily available to the speakers. Arabic speakers in Israel are faced with a multitude of linguistic disadvantages, most of which have to do with their dynamic and changing reality in all spheres of life. Their forced separation from the rest of the Arab world and their close day-to-day contact with the Hebrew language have made Hebrew their main source for filling the communication language void. The Arabic language scholar, Sasson Somekh, noted that for “anything that is new, such as a new electrical device, or a legal and bureaucratic process in Israel, Arabic speakers are quick to adopt its Hebrew term, rather than inventing a new [Arabic] term” (cited in Mar’i 2013, p. 18).

Hebrew is not the only source of influence on spoken Arabic in the Palestinian minority in Israel (see Rosenhouse, 2008). English, as the dominant global language and more particularly as the official language during the British Mandate (1920-1948) also has considerable linguistic impact. (Further information on the linguistic influences of Hebrew and English on spoken Arabic in Israel is available in the online supplemental material).

Hebrew and Arabic, and the Jewish-Palestinian National Conflict

The relationship between Hebrew and spoken Arabic in Israel cannot solely be described in terms of contact (even asymmetrical) between two neighboring languages or simply depicted as an interaction between the dominant majority language in the country and the language of the minority (see Edwards, 2010). This is because Arabic is the language of the entire Middle East, whereas Hebrew is the language of a small minority in the area. Arabic is a source of national pride as part of the national identity (Suleiman, 2003). Thus, using loanwords and expressions from Hebrew and employing CM in everyday spoken language might be construed as depreciation even an insult to the mother tongue. More important, however, in this context is the ongoing political and military conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, Hebrew may become, for many, “the language of the enemy.” The Palestinian national narrative is that of an indigenous people whose land was taken by the Jewish settlers, where the Palestinians people became a nation of refugees, displaced people, or unequal citizens in the Jewish dominated state (see Jamal, 2011). In this context, letting Hebrew influence spoken Arabic may be construed by many as a sign of cultural submission and even defeat. If this is indeed the case, the identity threat posed by mixing Arabic with Hebrew should be greater than mixing with any other language (e.g., English) and becomes a grave political issue. This may be especially true for high identifiers with the Palestinian national group (on politics and sociolinguistics in this context see Hawker, 2019; C. Sulieman, 2018; Y. Sulieman, 2004).

Given the diverse and potentially incongruous meanings and ramifications of CM for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, we conducted two studies to explore CM with Hebrew and English, and in conjunction with different political content.

Study 1

Study 1 constitutes the first experimental study to explore reactions to CM in spoken Arabic among Arab Palestinian citizens of Israel. Participants were asked to evaluate a mixed speech in Arabic containing Hebrew or English terms as well as unmixed (“pure”) speech.

Method

Participants and Design

Two hundred and eight Palestinian citizens of Israel participated in the study (75 females, 130 males, 3 did not report their gender) ranging in age from 18 to 51 years (M = 22.65, SD = 4.62). Participants were recruited at the university via Palestinian social media groups and were randomly assigned to one of two CM conditions. Participants in each experimental condition were exposed to two recordings of a fellow Palestinian speaker. One recording was purely in Arabic and the other was mixed, either with Hebrew or with English. A mixed design was implemented with pure versus mixed as the within-participants factor, and the type of CM (i.e., with Hebrew or English) as the between-participants factor.

Procedure

The study was conducted online using Qualtrics software. Participants were told that the purpose of the study was to examine how people evaluate others based on a brief voice message which is a part of a newly developed technology. A pilot study with participants from the same participants’ pool confirmed that participants accepted the technology testing rationale at face value. Participants first completed the Identification With the National Group scale (referring to the Palestinian group) and were informed that they would hear two voice recordings and that after each recording they would be asked to respond to several evaluative questions. Participants completed the identification scale prior to the CM manipulation to avoid possible manipulation effects on their responses to the scale. Finally, participants filled in a few demographic questions and were thanked and debriefed.

The Code-Mixing Manipulation

Three voice recordings were employed in which a male¹ Arab-Palestinian student (i.e., an in-group member) described in Arabic his ordinary daily trip to the university either using Hebrew CM, English CM or pure Arabic. As stated above, participants in each experimental condition heard one “pure” Arabic recording and one mixed with either Hebrew or English. The order of the recordings was counterbalanced. All three recordings were made by the same narrator with exactly the same content and recording duration. The alternative Arabic-Hebrew-English synonyms were selected based on the criteria that they are all used in ordinary Arabic speech, and that their origin (Arabic, Hebrew, or English) is noticeable to ordinary Arabic speakers. The recorded text follows below (Hebrew/English synonyms are in bold; the rest of the text was spoken in Arabic):

I got on the train today and so I would not be late I called my friend to ask him to pick me up from the station. He sent me a text message back and agreed to come to get me. When he got there and saw me holding my ring binder and he told me that the lecturer had sent the class a message saying that he would be absent today so I had the opportunity to go study in the library and write my literature essay, hoping that I would get a good grade on it. I know that the life of a student is not easy but sometimes there are surprises.

Measurements

All measures were Likert-type scales anchored from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) unless we indicated otherwise.

The Identification With the National Group Scale (Roccas et al., 2006)

The scale includes two dimensions, attachment to the national group which conveys commitment to the national group and inclusion of the group in one’s self-concept (e.g., “Belonging to the Palestinian nation is an important part of my identity”), and glorification of the national group which refers to the perception that one’s group is superior to out-groups on a variety of dimensions (e.g., “Relative to other groups, we are a very moral group”). Although these two dimensions are highly correlated (r = .68, p < .001), they were found to sometimes bear different consequences (Roccas et al., 2006). In the current study, we used a short version of the scale with four items for each dimension. Cronbach α was α = .90 for attachment and α = .71 for glorification.

The judgment of the speaker

After listening to each recording, the participants were asked to judge the speaker on the basis of evaluative statements, adapted from “black sheep” paradigm (Marques et al., 1988) and the “impostor effect” studies (Hornsey & Jetten, 2003). The scale was composed of eight positive statements (e.g., I like the speaker), and eight negative statements (e.g., I feel revulsion toward the speaker). The internal consistency of the speaker judgment scale was high in all three experimental conditions for both the positive items (i.e., Pure Arabic α = .92; Arabic CM with Hebrew α = .89; Arabic CM with English α = .86) and the negative items (Pure Arabic α = .93; Arabic CM with Hebrew α = .94; Arabic CM with English α = .94). A factor analysis revealed a two-factor solution with positive and negative items loading on separate factors in each of the three language conditions.

Results and Discussion

Repeated measures analyses of variance were used to test for the main effects and the interactions between the recording presentation order (between-subjects factor), the judgments of the speaker (within-subjects factor) and the continuous measure of national identification (mean-centered prior to the analysis) as a covariate. The judgments of the pure Arabic speaker in each experimental condition were separately compared with that of the Arabic–Hebrew CM and to that of the Arabic–English CM in the same condition, respectively. We analyzed the moderation effect of identification using two models, first with attachment and then with glorification as a moderator.

Pure Arabic vs. Arabic CM With Hebrew

A main effect for the CM manipulation was found for both positive, F(1, 90) = 87.02, p < .001, η_p² = .492, 95% confidence interval [CI: 1.31, 2.02] and negative judgments, F(1, 90) = 114.77, p < .001, η_p² = .560, 95% CI [−2.50, −1.72]. Specifically, participants judged the pure Arabic speaker more positively (M = 4.58, SE = 0.14) and less negatively (M = 1.81, SE = 0.10) than the Arabic–Hebrew CM speaker (positive, M = 2.91, SE = 0.12; negative, M = 3.92, SE = 0.17).

This main effect, however, was qualified by an interaction between attachment to the Palestinian national group and the speaker’s positive, F(1, 90) = 7.75, p = .007, η_p² = .079 and negative judgments, F(1, 90) = 14.56, p < .0001, η_p² = .139. Specifically, highly attached participants were more favorably inclined toward the pure Arabic speaker as compared with the CM with Hebrew speaker, positive judgments (M_difference = 2.19), F(1, 90) = 72.87, p < .001, η_p² = .447, 95% CI [1.68, 2.70]; negative judgments (M_difference = −2.88), F(1, 90) = 108.17, p < .001, η_p² = .546, 95% CI [−3.44, −2.33]), and this preference was greater than the same preference among their less attached counterparts, positive judgments, (M_difference = 1.13), F(1, 90) = 18.71, p < .001, η_p² = .172, 95% CI [0.61, 1.64]; negative judgments, (M_difference = −1.31), F(1, 90) = 21.61, p < .001, η_p² = .194, 95% CI [−1.87, −0.75]. No such trend was found when glorification of the national group was used as the moderator Fs < 1.79 and ps > .251.

There was no significant interaction between presentation order and the judgment of the speakers on either positive or negative judgments, Fs < .900 and ps > .346. Furthermore, the identification measures did not moderate the interaction between presentation order and the judgment of the speaker on positive or negative judgments, Fs < 2.12 and ps > .150. That is, participants judged the pure Arabic speaker more favorably than the speaker who mixed Arabic with Hebrew regardless of whether the pure Arabic recording was heard before or after the Hebrew-mixed recording.

Pure Arabic Versus Arabic CM With English

Here too, there was a main effect for the CM manipulation on both positive, F(1, 110) = 99.58, p < .001, η_p² = .475, 95% CI [1.20, 1.78] and negative, F(1, 110) = 94.69, p < .001, η_p² = .463, 95% CI [−2.09, −1.39] judgments. Participants exhibited more positive (M = 4.43, SE = 0.13) and less negative (M = 1.81, SE = 0.11) judgments of the pure Arabic speaker than the Arabic–English mixer (positive M = 2.94, SE = 0.11; negative M = 3.55, SE = 0.17).

This main effect, however, was qualified by a tendency toward an interaction with the order of presentation of the recordings on negative judgments (but not on positive judgments), F(1, 110) = 3.94, p = .050, η_p² = .035. Although participants judged the pure Arabic speaker in less negative terms than the CM speaker, this tendency was greater when the pure Arabic speaker was heard after the CM speaker (M_difference = −2.09), F(1, 110) = 83.49, p < .001, η_p² = .432, 95% CI [−2.54, −1.64] than when he was heard before (M_difference = −1.39), F(1, 110) = 26.91, p < .001, η_p² = .197, 95% CI [−1.92, −0.86]. The Arabic–English-mixed speaker was judged equally negatively regardless of presentation order, F = 0.02 and p = .898. We conducted the same analyses with the two dimensions of national identification. Neither attachment nor glorification significantly moderated the main effect or the interactions.

Thus overall, consistent with the social identity and linguistic purism perspectives rather than the attributed value approach, the current results suggest that this sample of Palestinian citizens of Israel preferred the speaker who used pure Arabic over the one who used mixed Arabic either with Hebrew or with English. These preferences are congruent with the widespread societal sentiment reported in many countries (but never experimentally tested) to view “pure” speech as nobler and more principled than language mixing speech (e.g., Grosjean, 1982; Kamwangamalu, 1989). The preference for pure over mixed speech was equally powerful for Hebrew, the language of the majority in the country, and for English, the dominant global language. However, there were also some differences between the two CM cases. Participants who were highly attached to the Palestinian identity were less tolerant toward the Arabic–Hebrew mix than their lower attached counterparts. This was not the case in the Arabic–English case. Second, in the Arabic–Hebrew case, the preference for the pure Arabic speaker was equally powerful in both orders of presentation (i.e., prior to or after the CM with Hebrew recording). However, in the Arabic–English case, the preference for the pure Arabic speaker (as reflected in negatively but not positively framed judgments) was somewhat greater when this speaker was heard after the English CM speaker. Further research is needed to test the possibility that in the Arabic–English case, a cue of deviation may accentuate the linguistic norm of purity.

Study 2 focused solely on the Arabic–Hebrew mix and embedded the linguistic style of speech (i.e., pure Arabic vs. Arabic–Hebrew CM) in the context of a political debate on the optimal relations between Arab and Jews in Israel.

Study 2

In Study 1, the content of the speech was apolitical and consisted of a description of an everyday mundane episode. The goal of Study 2 was to examine the reactions of minority group members to CM in conjunction with the speaker’s advocated political position regarding preferential relations with the Jewish majority in Israel. One position, the isolationist advocated for separation from the Jewish majority. The second position was the integrationist, which supports cooperation with the Jewish majority. The third position was more complex and opts for some combination of the two previous stances (on minorities strategies vis-à-vis majorities, see Berry et al., 2006; Bourhis et al., 1997). Endorsing independence from the majority but uttering it with CM, which denotes linguistic dependency on the majority’s language, may signal some incompatibility between the political position and form of speech. This is less the case when the political position acknowledges the dependency on the majority. To test this issue, we crossed the linguistic manipulation (Arabic–Hebrew mix vs. pure Arabic) with the aforementioned types of political positions (isolationist, integrationist, and complex). That is, each political position was presented in pure Arabic or mixed with Hebrew.

As in the previous study, participants were first administered the Identification With the National Group scale (Roccas et al., 2006). As in Study 1, we also analyzed the two components of the scale attachment to the national group and glorification of the national group separately. Given the political focus on Palestinian–Jewish relations embedded in the content of the study, we reasoned that the glorification of the national group subscale (e.g., “we are better than them”) would be more pertinent in the present experimental context than the attachment subscale.

Method

Participants and Design

A total of 276 Palestinian citizens of Israel were recruited via a snowball sampling method (191 females, 80 males, 5 did not report their gender). Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 65 years (M = 24.23, SD = 7.73; 38 participants did not report their age). Participants were randomly assigned to each cell of a 2 speaker’s linguistic style (pure Arabic vs. Arabic mixed with Hebrew) × 3 political message content (isolationist vs. integrationist vs. complex) between-participants design.

Materials and Procedure

Participants received similar instructions and questionnaires as those in Study 1 and were asked to complete similar scales: Identification With the National Group scale (Roccas et al., 2006) that we split into the attachment (α = .91) and glorification subscales (α = .73; r = .66, p < .001). In this study, we employed a short version of the judgment of the speaker scale, which we used in Study 1. Due to the considerable similarity between the positive and negative statements in the longer speaker judgment scale, Study 2 only tested the positive statements we used in Study 1 (eight items; α = .89). High values on the short scale indicate a positive evaluation of the speaker.

The Experimental Manipulation

Similar to Study 1, we manipulated CM using recordings by a Palestinian male speaker who either expressed an opinion in pure Arabic or Arabic mixed with Hebrew. In this study, however, we used a text with a political content linked to Israeli–Palestinian relations which ended with the speaker expressing an opinion about the integration of Palestinians in Israeli society (words in bold were in Hebrew).

Integrationist [Isolationist] messages:

We Arabs in Israel feel that we live in good [bad] conditions and therefore we need to [should not] integrate ourselves in Israeli society. I think this would be in our best interest in the long run and would give us an opportunity to develop and promote our society [independently].

Complex message:

Some Arabs in Israel feel they live in good conditions and some feel they live in bad conditions. Some say it’s good to integrate ourselves into Israeli society because this would be in our best interest and some disagree and think that separation would give us an opportunity to develop and promote our society independently.

Results and Discussion

An analyses of variance was implemented to test for main effects and interactions between the speaker’s linguistic style (pure vs. mixed), the political message content (isolationist vs. complex vs. integrationist) and the continuous measure of national identification (mean-centered prior to the analysis, which was entered as a covariate) on speaker judgment.

The analysis revealed a main effect for the speaker’s linguistic style, F(1, 264) = 27.26, p < .001, η_p² = .094, 95% CI [0.44, 0.97]. There was also a main effect for message content, F(2, 264) = 11.22, p < .001, η_p² = .078. These main effects were however qualified by a significant interaction between message content and the speaker’s linguistic style, F(2, 264) = 5.14, p = .006, η_p² = .037. As presented in Figure 1, participants evaluated the pure Arabic speaker more positively than the mixed speaker in the isolationist condition, F(1, 264) = 16.91, p < .001, η_p² = .060, 95% CI [0.50, 1.41] and the complex condition, F(1, 264) = 18.85, p < .001, η_p² = .067, 95% CI [0.58, 1.54]. However, there was no significant difference between the two linguistic styles in the prointegration condition, F =.21, p = .644. Hence, the prointegration speakers were overall the least favored, and this was not mitigated by voicing this message in pure Arabic.

Figure 1.

Means of the judgments of the speaker in Study 2 as a function of code-mixing and message content.

To test the effects of identification on the results, we employed two models that enabled us to test the contributions of the two national identification components separately. No significant interactions, Fs < 2.32 and ps >.129, were found with the attachment subscale. However, when the glorification component of identification was employed, a main effect for glorification on the evaluation of the speakers emerged, F(1, 264) = 7.98, p = .005, η_p² = .029, where the greater the glorification of the Palestinian identity, the greater the liking for the speakers (who were all Palestinians). Second, there was a tendency toward a glorification X linguistic style interaction, F(1, 264) = 3.84, p = .051, η_p² = .014: Although both low and high group glorifiers judged the pure Arabic speaker more positively than the Hebrew CM speaker, this difference was more pronounced among high (M_difference = 0.98), F(1, 264) = 25.39, p < .001, η_p² = .088, 95% CI [0.59, 1.36] than low (M_difference = 0.44), F(1, 264) = 5.21, p = .023, η_p² = .019, 95% CI [0.06, 0.82] group glorifiers. Finally, no three-way interaction between linguistic style, message content, and glorification was found, F = 0.79, p =.456.

Thus overall, Study 2 replicated among our Palestinian participants the preference for pure Arabic over Arabic mixed with Hebrew, as found in Study 1. However, this study included a contextual factor in that participants heard the speaker endorsing either an isolationist political position vis-à-vis the Jewish majority in the state, a more conciliatory and cooperative integrationist position, or a complex view blending the two opposite stances. The isolationist sentiment was overall preferred by our participants over the intergrationist attitude if expressed in pure Arabic. However, the positive evaluation of the isolationist or complex speaker was diminished when the speakers expressed these statements using CM with Hebrew, and became as low as the evaluation of the prointegration speaker. Voicing a political position that endorses (full or some) independence from the out-group in a form of speech that embodies linguistic dependence (i.e., CM) in the out-group majority is a clear example of the message-form of speech incompatibility. However, the integrational speaker, toward whom the attitude was generally low, was not further negatively affected by using CM with Hebrew.

Glorification of the national group, which is related to the perception of the in-group as superior to the out-group (rather than attachment to the in-group component, as in Study 1), somewhat increased preferences for pure Arabic speakers. The political content of this study, dealing with the in-group relations with the out-group, might have made linguistic purism especially relevant for group members high on the need for in-group glorification and should be explored in future research.

General Discussion

The reactions of linguistic minority group members to a fellow minority speaker who mixes the in-group language with another language (i.e., CM) has generated considerable interest and speculation among language scholars (e.g., Grosjean, 1982; Kamwangamalu, 1989; Ritchie & Bhatia, 2004). The current article was designed to test this issue experimentally. In so doing, we were guided by two competing theoretical hypotheses. The first hypothesis is derived from the attributed value approach (e.g., Ginsburgh, & Weber, 2011; Grosjean, 1982; Henkin-Roitfarb, 2011; Kamwangamalu, 1989; Ritchie & Bhatia, 2004), which posits that proficiency in dominant foreign languages is an important personal asset for linguistic minority members. The rival hypothesis is derived from the social identity, ELIT and linguistic purism perspectives (e.g., Giles et al., 1977; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Thomas, 1991), which suggest that CM may be perceived as a threat to the distinctiveness, vitality, and traditions of the minority group and CM speakers.

The results of the two experimental studies conducted on Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel supported the second rather than the first theoretical claim. In Study 1, fellow speakers who mixed Arabic with either Hebrew (the language of the Jewish majority in Israel) or English (the dominant global language) were judged less favorably than a non-CM Arabic speaker. Although the CM effect was equally powerful in relation to both languages, attachment to the Palestinian group (measured by the Roccas et al. 2006 scale) increased the Hebrew but not the English CM effect. Study 2, which focused only on Hebrew, replicated the bias against Hebrew CM. In addition, CM with Hebrew was mainly damaging in this study to speakers who expressed proindependence views from the Hebrew-speaking Jewish majority, while manifesting linguistic dependence on Hebrew.

The particular group studied here (i.e., the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel) represent extreme levels on both poles underlying the CM dilemma. From the attributed value point of view, the dependence of the members of this group on the Hebrew language is particularly high and impacts almost all areas of life (e.g., education, the economy, professions and occupations, social status). In addition, the massive incorporation of Hebrew into spoken Arabic in this group makes CM an inevitable reality in any conversation in Arabic. On the other hand, from the social identity perspective, although Arabic speakers are a linguistic minority within the borders of Israel, they are the absolute majority in the Middle East that surrounds Israel. Arabic is a source of pride and social identity in all Arabic-speaking communities. Above all, Palestinian citizens of Israel are enmeshed in the intractable Israeli–Palestinian conflict (Rouhana, & Bar-Tal, 1998) such that their dependence on Hebrew (the language of the other party in the conflict) may largely be perceived as demeaning and shameful.

The explicit denunciation of CM revealed in these studies may provide some initial clues to resolving the “code-mixing paradox” described by Ritchie and Bhatia (2004). These authors noted that although CM may be perceived as a marker of linguistic creativity and bilingual proficiency, CM speakers are more often criticized and demeaned rather than valued and admired (see also Grosjean, 1982, Kamwangamalu, 1989). The current findings suggest that (collective) social identity may overshadow (individual) attributed value considerations (see also Ellemers et al., 1997). Future work on minority members with varying levels of individual mobility considerations and social identity concerns (e.g., Ellemers et al., 1997), or studies on different minority groups with different emphases on individual mobility and social identity could further clarify these issues.

In addition, the negative attitudes toward CM do not explain why this is such a prelavent and enduring linguistic phenomenon. Ritchie and Bhatia (2004) noted that “the vast majority of bilinguals themselves hold a negative view of code-mixing speech. They consider language mixing/switching to be a sign of ‘laziness’ an ‘inadvertent’ speech act, an ‘impurity’ . . . ” (p. 350). These authors reported that when code-mixers were made aware of their linguistic behavior, they at times became apologetic and expressed guilt over their “lapses.” However, Ritchie and Bhatia (2004) found that these same speakers often quickly reverted to CM even after these apologies. Qualitative evidence from the Israeli Palestinian minority further exemplifies this ambivalence (see the online supplemental materials).

All the above suggest that social psychological attempts to better understand CM and other forms of language mixing should include the code-mixers, their listeners (i.e., interlocutors) and the social environment and circumstances in which CM evolves. Future CM research should also relate to the differences in individual and collective needs and motivations (e.g., real lexical deficiencies, modernization, social mobility, creativity, preservation and enhancement of social identity, responses to intergroup conflict, and protests against out-group’s domination).

Other CM studies in different societies, especially those that are immersed in an intense intergroup conflict but at the same time also cope with having to live in close proximity (such as Palestinians and Jews in Israel) could assess the prevalence and the perceived legitimacy of CM and other forms of language contact at a given time or in a given segment of the group. This could also serve as a barometer of the state of the conflict and the possibilities for peaceful coexistence at this particular moment and among this particular group. For example, when the intergroup conflict intensifies, and the sense of anger and threat among the Palestinian citizens of Israel become more acute, it is likely that the frequency of linguistic mixing with Hebrew would decline, or would become delegitimized by the members of the minority group. On the other hand, when hopes for conflict resolution and equitable coexistence are kindled, there might be less resistance and delegitimization of linguistic mixing between these two Semitic languages, leading to a greater prevalence of CM. Future studies on language mixing as a social barometer could thus make a real contribution to the field of social psychology and intergroup relations.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental_material_for_SP-JLSP-403 – Supplemental material for Reactions of Arab-Palestinians in Israel Toward an In-group Member: Mixing Hebrew or English With Arabic

Supplemental material, Supplemental_material_for_SP-JLSP-403 for Reactions of Arab-Palestinians in Israel Toward an In-group Member: Mixing Hebrew or English With Arabic by Yechiel Klar, Abed Al-Rahman Mar’i, Slieman Halabi, Ameer Basheer and Bashir Basheer in Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Noor Korabi and Omsia Akre for their help in conducting the studies, and to three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Slieman Halabi

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Yechiel Klar is a professor of social psychology in the School of Psychological Studies at Tel Aviv University. Much of his research centers on social psychological processes during protracted intergroup conflicts, such as the Jewish-Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Recently, he is also interested in language use during such conflicts.

Abed Al-Rahman Mar’i is a senior lecturer at Beit Berl College, Israel. His research is on the influence of Arabic on the Hebrew literature in the Medieval Period, language education policy, and contact between languages. His book, Walla Beseder: A linguistic profile of the Israeli-Arabs (in Hebrew), appeared in 2013.

Slieman Halabi is a PhD student at the International Max Planck Research School (Uncertainty School) at Friedrich-Schiller-University in Jena, Germany, and is a researcher at IKG at Bielefeld University. His research includes responses to passing across groups, intergroup relations and communication.

Ameer Basheer is a Fulbright Alumni with MA in Digital Culture from Arizona State University, and BA in Psychology and Business and Management from Tel Aviv University.

Bashir Basheer is a marketing analyst with BA in Psychology and Business Administration from Tel Aviv University.

References

Albirini

(2016). Modern Arabic sociolinguistics: Diglossia, variation, codeswitching, attitudes and identity. Routledge. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4324/9781315683737

Annamalai

(1989). The linguistic and social dimensions of purism. In Jernudd

B. J.

Shapiro

M. J.

(Eds.), The politics of language purism (pp. 225-231). Mouton de Gruyter.

Ben-Rafael

Shohamy

Hasan Amara

Trumper-Hecht

(2006). Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 7-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710608668383

Berry

J. W.

Phinney

J. S.

Sam

D. L.

Vedder

P. E.

(Eds). (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bourdieu

(1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge university press. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1515/9783110245226.52

Bourhis

R. Y.

Genesee

(1980). Evaluative reactions to code switching strategies in Montreal. In Giles

Robinson

W. P.

Smith

P. M.

(Eds.), Social psychology and language (pp. 320-328). Pergamon Press.

Bourhis

R. Y.

Moise

L. C.

Perreault

Senecal

(1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32(6), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629

Crystal

(2012). English as a global language. Cambridge University Press. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1017/CBO9781139196970

Dragojevic

Gasiorek

Giles

(2015). Communication accommodation theory. In Berger

C. R.

Roloff

M. L.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1-21). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic006

10.

Edwards

(2004). Foundations of bilingualism. In Bhatia

T. K.

Ritchie

W. C.

(Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 7-31). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756997

11.

Edwards

(2010). Minority languages and group identity: Cases and categories (Vol. 27). John Benjamins. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1075/impact.27

12.

Ellemers

Spears

Doosje

(1997). Sticking together or falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 617-626. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.617

13.

Ferguson

C. A.

(1959). Diglossia. Word, 15(2), 325-340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1959.11659702

14.

Ghanem

A. A.

(1998). State and minority in Israel: The case of ethnic state and the predicament of its minority. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(3), 428-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/014198798329892

15.

Gibbons

J. P.

(1983). Attitudes towards languages and code-mixing in Hong Kong. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 4(2-3), 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1983.9994107

16.

Giles

(Ed.). (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316226537

17.

Giles

Bourhis

Taylor

D. M.

(1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group relations. In Giles

(Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations (pp. 307-348). Academic Press.

18.

Giles

Coupland

(1991). Language: Contexts and consequences. Thomson Brooks/Cole.

19.

Giles

Johnson

(1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. In Turner

J. C.

Giles

(Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 199-243). Blackwell.

20.

Giles

Johnson

(1987). Ethnolinguistic identity theory: A social psychological approach to language maintenance. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 1987(68), 69-100. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1987.68.69

21.

Giles

Powesland

P. F.

(1975). Speech style and social evaluation. Academic Press.

22.

Ginsburgh

Weber

(2011). How many languages do we need? The economics of linguistic diversity. Princeton University Press. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1515/9781400838905

23.

Gordon

R. A.

(1996). Impact of ingratiation on judgments and evaluations: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 54-70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.54

24.

Graddol

(2006). English next (Vol. 62). British Council.

25.

Grosjean

(1982). Life with two languages: An introduction to bilingualism. Harvard University Press .

26.

Hansen

Wypych

Bańko

Bilewicz

(2018). Psychological determinants of linguistic purism: National identification, conservatism, and attitudes to loanwords. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(3), 365-375. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927X17737810

27.

Hawker

(2019). The politics of Palestinian multilingualism: Speaking for citizenship. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429260230

28.

Henkin-Roitfarb

(2011). Hebrew and Arabic in asymmetric contact in Israel. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 7(1), 61-100. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-011-0004-7

29.

Hornsey

M. J.

Jetten

(2003). Not being what you claim to be: Impostors as sources of group threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(5), 639-657. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.176

30.

Jamal

(2011). Arab minority nationalism in Israel: The politics of indigeneity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203830697

31.

Jetten

Hornsey

M. J.

(2014). Deviance and dissent in groups. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 461-485. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115151

32.

Joseph

(2004). Language and identity: National, ethnic, religious. Palgrave Macmillan.

33.

Kamwangamalu

N. M.

(1989). Code-mixing and modernization. World Englishes, 8(3), 321-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1989.tb00672.x

34.

Kimmerling

Migdal

J. S.

(2003). The Palestinian people: A history. Harvard University Press.

35.

Krueger

Rothbart

(1990). Contrast and accentuation effects in category learning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 651-663. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.59.4.651

36.

Levine

J. M.

Moreland

R. L.

(2002). Group reactions to loyalty and disloyalty. Advances in Group Processes, 19, 203-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0882-6145(02)19008-4

37.

D. C.

Elly

C. Y.

(2002). One day in the life of a “purist.” International Journal of Bilingualism, 6(2), 147-203. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F13670069020060020301

38.

Mar’i

(2013). Walla beseder: Diokan leshoni al Aravim BeIsrael [Walla alright: A linguistic profile of the Israeli-Arabs]. Keter. (Hebrew)

39.

Marques

J. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Leyens

J. P.

(1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180102

40.

Melitz

(2016). English as a global language. In Ginsburgh

Weber

Macmillan

(Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of economics and language (pp. 583-615). Palgrave Macmillan.

41.

Muysken

P. C.

(2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge University Press.

42.

Myers-Scotton

(2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299530.001.0001

43.

Oakes

(2001). Language and national identity: Comparing France and Sweden (Vol. 13). John Benjamins. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1075/impact.13

44.

Ritchie

W. C.

Bhatia

(2004). Social and psychological factors in language mixing. In Bhatia

T. K.

Ritchie

W. C.

(Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism (pp. 336-352). Blackwell. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/b.9780631227359.2005.x

45.

Roccas

Klar

Liviatan

(2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 698-711. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.698

46.

Rosenhouse

(2008). Colloquial Arabic (in Israel): The case of English loan words in a minority language with diglossia. In Rosenhouse

Kowner

(Eds.), Globally speaking: Motives for adopting English vocabulary in other languages (pp. 145-163). Multilingual Matter.

47.

Rosenhouse

Kowner

(Eds.), (2008). Globally speaking: Motives for adopting English vocabulary in other languages. Multilingual Matters.

48.

Rouhana

N. N.

(1997). Palestinian citizens in an ethnic Jewish state: Identities in conflict. Yale University Press.

49.

Rouhana

N. N.

Bar-Tal

(1998). Psychological dynamics of intractable ethnonational conflicts: The Israeli-Palestinian case. American Psychologist, 53(7), 761-770. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.7.761

50.

Shakour

(2013). Arab authors in Israel writing in Hebrew: Fleeting fashion or persistent phenomenon? Language Problems & Language Planning, 37(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.37.1.01sha

51.

Spears

Jetten

Scheepers

(2002). Distinctiveness and the definition of collective self: A tripartite model. In Tesser

Stapel

D. A.

Wood

J. V.

(Eds.), Self and Motivation: Emerging Psychological Perspectives, 147-171. https://doi.org/10.1037/10448-006

52.

Suleiman

(2003). The Arabic language and national identity. Edinburgh University Press.

53.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. C.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-53). Brooks/Cole.

54.

Tajfel

Wilkes

A. L.

(1963). Classification and quantitative judgement. British Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1963.tb00865.x

55.

Thomas

(1991). Linguistic purism. Longman.

56.

Turner

J. C.

(1982). Towards a cognitive redeﬁnition of the social group: Social identity and intergroup relations. In Tajfel

(Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge University Press.

57.

Van Vugt

Hart

C. M

. (2004). Social identity as social glue: The origins of group loyalty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 585-598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.585

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB