The Differences in Consonantal Pronunciation Between Formal English and Saudi Hijazi English and Their Implications for Oral Intralingual Translation

Abstract

Based on Mahboob and Elyas (World Engl 33(1):128–142, 2014), who identified an expanding circle variety of Englishes, known as ‘Saudi English’, the present paper addresses the consonantal variations between Formal English and a sub-variety of Saudi English, termed as ‘Saudi Hijazi English’. The paper presents the specific consonants of Saudi Hijazi English through conducting an interview with five Hijazi linguists to obtain qualitative data concerning the consonants that constitute Saudi Hijazi English sound system. The paper argues that there are eighteen consonants constituting Saudi Hijazi English sound system. This sound system is partly influenced by the sound system of Urban Hijazi dialect only and partly by the sound system of both Urban Hijazi dialect and Modern Standard Arabic together. Finally, the paper claims that the consonantal variations between Formal English and Saudi Hijazi English have certain implications for oral intralingual translation, particularly if the latter is unknown to the formal English speaker.

Introduction

English currently represents the first global language and the leading language all over the world (Crystal 2003: 1). When the word ‘English’ is mentioned, people immediately think about what is called ‘formal English’ or ‘standard English’. But is there a clearly identified definition for ‘standard English’? Indeed, there is no clear-cut definition for what is called ‘standard English’. However, McArthur (2003) points out that ‘standard English’ is characterised by three features: it is recognisable globally in written formatting. It is the model used by news broadcasters and presenters. Finally, its usage is linked to the social class and level of education of its speaker (442). McArthur (2003) also adds that another important feature of ‘standard English’ is that it is predominantly deemed the most widely agreed-upon, valued and comprehended form in an English-speaking country (442).

It is argued that English used in the Middle East possesses local practices and patterns of use, which are different from formal English (Mahboob 2013). As the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (hereafter, KSA) is deemed part of the Middle East, English used in the KSA is considered part of the expanding circle variety, according to the terms proposed by Kachru (1985, 1986). He classifies the usage of English into three concentric circles: the inner circle, the outer circle as well as the expanding circle. Indeed, English was first introduced in the KSA educational system in the 1920s (Al-Seghayer 2005; Mahboob 2013) as a foreign language alongside French. It is claimed that The English language used in the KSA is not deemed neutral, but is burdened with social, religious, economic and political overtones and is a controversial topic (Mahboob and Elyas 2014: 128). The use of English has dramatically been increased in the KSA due to the current policies followed in the country which were largely influenced by modernisation and globalisation (Mahboob and Elyas 2014; Mahboob 2013). Nevertheless, there are factors of resistance that lead to a shift in the language, particularly its consonantal sound system, the focus of the present paper, to fit and run in line with Saudi local practices (Mahboob and Elyas 2014: 128). English in the KSA is taught as a core subject in both public as well as private schools. It is also used as the language of training in a number of companies and organisations in the KSA, such as Saudi Aramco, Saudi Airlines, etc. (Mahboob and Elyas 2014: 129).

The present paper deals with what can be called “Saudi Hijazi English” (hereafter, SHE), which is deemed a sub-variety of “Saudi English” proposed by Mahboob and Elyas (2014). It offers at the outset a succinct account of ‘Saudi English’, shedding some light on the linguistic features that characterise this expanding circle variety of English. These linguistic features, according to Mahboob and Elyas (2014), lie mainly in the variation in the use of articles, the variation in use of tense markers, the variation in marking number and the variation in marking subject-verb agreement. The paper then seeks to present the specific consonants peculiar to SHE through conducting an interview with five different Saudi Hijazi linguists to obtain relevant qualitative data concerning the consonantal sounds that make up SHE sound system. Only the consonantal sounds that will be agreed upon by the interviewees to be part of this English sub-variety will be considered. A comparative and contrastive analysis of consonantal sounds between formal English and SHE will be carried out, with the use of Modern Standard Arabic and Urban Saudi dialect to see whether or not there are similarities and/or differences between the four varieties, and whether or not SHE has been influenced by any of the other three varieties or by all of them. The present paper argues that there are eighteen consonants constituting SHE sound system. there are consonantal sounds of Formal English, which do not exist in SHE, nor do they appear in Modern Standard Arabic, nor are they found in Urban Hijazi dialect. Such sounds are replaced in SHE by their counterparts that are produced from the same place of articulation. Other consonantal sounds of Formal English are not found in both SHE and Urban Hijazi dialect although they exist in Modern Standard Arabic. Again, these sounds are substituted in SHE by other sounds, but are not articulated from the same place. Moreover, certain allophones of Formal English do not exist in SHE, nor are they found in Modern Standard Arabic, nor do they appear in Urban Hijazi dialect when they are placed at the end of the word. Certain consonantal sounds of formal English do appear in both SHE and Urban Saudi dialect, though they have no existence in Modern Standard Arabic. Finally, the paper claims that the differences in consonantal features between Formal English and SHE have certain implications for oral intralingual translation, particularly if the formal English speaker is not acquainted with the consonantal features specific to SHE.

Saudi English

This topic is deemed under-researched as only about three studies have differently addressed this issue. Only one of these studies has clearly and comprehensively discussed ‘Saudi English’ as a variety of World Englishes (WE). The first study is conducted by Al-Haq and Ahmed (1994), which attempts at exploring the problems associated with English texts written by Saudi students. The paper provides a list of problems encountered by Saudi students in academic writing, particularly argumentative essays. However, the paper has failed to provide any analysis with regard to students’ academic writing. Furthermore, it has not offered any descriptions or explanations of relevant peculiarities that might be viewed as specific aspects of ‘Saudi English’. The second study is carried out by Al-Haq and Oqlah (1996), which examines the link between Westernisation and English. Al-Haq and Oqlah (1996) in their research have made a claim based on the results of a survey undertaken by a student. This claim resides chiefly in the notion that while a group of people believe that learning the English language as a foreign language makes the learner Westernised, a larger sample of the survey participants point out that learning English does not make the learner Westernised, nor is his religion adherence lost, nor is his national identity undermined (Mahboob and Elyas 2014).The third study is undertaken by Mahboob and Elyas (2014), which attempts at providing plausible answers to two important questions: (1) is there a variety of English that might be called ‘Saudi English’? If so, what are the linguistic characteristics thereof? (2) What is the connection between English and the religion of Islam in the context of the KSA, if there is any? The paper proves with strong evidence the existence of what is called ‘Saudi English’. This conclusion has been reached by Mahboob and Elyas (2014) after carrying out particular analysis on published Saudi texts. Needless to say, there is no complete description of ‘Saudi English’ available, however, Mahboob and Elyas (2014) have managed to outline certain features that may characterise ‘Saudi English’ based on their meticulous analysis on published Saudi texts.

Based on their textual analysis on published Saudi texts, Mahboob and Elyas (2014) argue that there are several grammatical features found in the texts analysed, which are different from those of formal English. These grammatical features can be categorised into four categories. The first represents the variation in the use of articles, whilst the second resides in the variation in use of tense markers. The third category lies in the variation in marking number, while the fourth is the variation in marking subject-verb agreement.

Concerning the variation in the use of articles, Mahboob and Elyas (2014) find two examples in the text analysed in which the authors have not employed the indefinite articles when they should have used them instead of using a null article. Such practice is given credence by some Saudi experts who claim that Saudis overuse the definite article, while they misuse the indefinite articles. The two examples found by Mahboob and Elyas (2014) are as follows: “Hamza got off and porter carried his luggage into the building”. “Look at this box. Make sentence from it” (Mahboob and Elyas 2014: 137). According to Mahboob and Elyas (2014), since the aforementioned practice does not take place at random, the deficit approach to the issue concerned adopted by the Saudi linguists should be avoided. Instead, such lack of use of the indefinite articles by Saudis might be considered an indicator of a linguistic feature of an emerging ‘Saudi English’.

With regard to the variation in use of tense markers, Mahboob and Elyas (2014) quote an example used in the text analysed which shows the inappropriate use of the present perfect tense. The authors who have used the example have indeed contrasted themselves as they have written a rule for the use of the present perfect tense that it connects the past to the present. However, the example that they have used to support their claim shows inappropriate use of the present perfect tense as it is used to describe two events that happened and completed in the past. Hence the authors should have used the past simple tense instead of the present perfect tense. The example that shows the misuse of the present perfect tense is as follows: “he has had two or three jobs since he returned to the Kingdom. He has worked for Saudi Radio for 2 years. Then he has interviewed people for various programmes on TV for 6 months. He is soon going to have his own programme ‘In Focus’” (Mahboob and Elyas 2014: 136). As Mahboob and Elyas (2014) suggest, instead of adopting the deficit approach taken by Saudi linguists regarding the variation in use of tense markers among Saudis, this particular use of the present perfect tense by Saudis might be regarded as an indicator of a linguistic feature of an emerging ‘Saudi English’.

As for the variation in marking number, Mahboob and Elyas (2014) assert that the text analysed comprises examples in which the authors have not marked plural nouns with the plural marker ‘-s’. Conversely, there are also instances in which the authors have marked singular nouns with the plural marker ‘-s’, such as “but that’s another subjects” (Mahboob and Elyas 2014: 137). Mahboob and Elyas (2014) indicate that the Saudi experts seem uncertain of this feature to be regarded as a part of ‘Saudi English’. They go on to explain that one of the Saudi experts points out that the variation in marking number is not considered a common feature of ‘Saudi English’. Another expert, adopting the deficit approach to the issue, holds the view that the said remark is deemed the authors’ personal mistake and can never be regarded as a feature of ‘Saudi English’. However, due to the fact that the text analysed has been reviewed extensively since it was published in 1999 and owing to the fact that there are a number of instances of this type, Mahboob and Elyas (2014) view the variation in marking number by Saudis an indicator of what might be considered a linguistic feature of an emerging ‘Saudi English’.

Regarding the variation in marking subject-verb agreement, Mahboob and Elyas (2014) point out that the text analysed contains several examples in which the authors have not adhered to the rules specific to the subject-verb agreement which they have written themselves in the text analysed. One good example found by Mahboob and Elyas (2014) is the lack of third person singular marker ‘-s’ in the verb ‘like’. The example concerned is as follows: “he is a keen tennis player and he also like swimming” (Mahboob and Elyas 2014: 137). Some Saudi researchers admit that the lack of third person singular marker ‘-s’ is deemed a noticeable feature of the emerging ‘Saudi English’. This, indeed, runs in line with the claim made by Mahboob and Elyas (2014) that the omission of third person singular marker ‘-s’ can be taken as an indicator of what might be deemed a linguistic feature of an emerging ‘Saudi English’. Based on the types of variations stated above and the analysis carried out thereon, Mahboob and Elyas (2014) point out that there are multiple linguistic features, which are employed in the text analysed, and which are divergent from formal English. They then go on to add that if we accept that textbooks represent a locally agreed-upon language variety, the variations alongside the linguistic features indicated above might be deemed features of an emerging ‘Saudi English’. However, as Mahboob and Elyas (2014) have asserted, extra data collected from various sources is needed to constitute conclusive claims concerning the linguistic features of ‘Saudi English (138).

Saudi Hijazi English

As Europe attempts at developing and enlarging its expanding circle varieties to fit its sociolinguistic realities, Asia, particularly the KSA seems to be playing the same role to adapt English to its different dialects. It is claimed that the existence of a variety of English should be linked to the teachers (including their teaching style and abilities), the teaching context as well as the learners’ cultural and educational needs (McKay 2002). Jenkins (2000, 2006) holds the view that all English learners should prepare themselves to be able to contact in the future with other English speakers who speak an English variety different from theirs. Hence, English learners should be exposed to different varieties in order to understand them (Matsuda 2003). A number of different English varieties can be found in different newspapers all over the globe. They are also available on the radio, tv and on the internet (Cook 1999). It is worth noting that certain English varieties are deemed unintelligible (Smith 1992). One example of this is Singlish, which is usually used within Singapore and may not be understood outside of it (McArthur 2003)

Based on Mahboob and Elyas (2014) who have identified an important expanding circle variety of Englishes, known as ‘Saudi English’, by showing certain grammatical variations between formal English and what is called ‘Saudi English’ and specifying particular syntactic features for ‘Saudi English’, as explained in the previous section, the present paper addresses certain phonological features of ‘Saudi English’ by uncovering consonantal variations between formal English and a suggested sub-variety of ‘Saudi English’ abbreviated as SHE. SHE in the current research refers to the English version of the Saudi Hijazi Dialect, which is deemed a major dialect spoken in the KSA (Omar 1975). It is often spoken by Saudi Hijazi people in cities like Makkah, Madina and Jeddah who originally belong to different countries, such as Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and so on. Such people should have been living in the Western Province of the KSA for a very long time and have ipso facto acquired the linguistic and cultural heritage of the place. Some of them have lived in Makkah, Madina or Jeddah since the Ottoman Empire or even beforehand. Some people who originally belong to the KSA (those who come from different tribes within the boundaries of the KSA) and have long been living in the said cities or in any of them do also speak Saudi Hijazi dialect, the Arabic version of SHE. It is worth noting that SHE in the current research does not refer to the English version of Saudi Hijazi dialect which is considered a geographical term pointing to the area located in the west and north-west of the KSA. However, as stated above, SHE in the present paper is the English version of Saudi Hijazi dialect which is prevalent in the said cities. It is sometimes referred to as Urban Hijazi dialect, as opposed to Bedouin Hijazi dialect, which is often spoken in the countryside (Alzaidi 2014).

There are a few studies questioning certain linguistic aspects peculiar to Saudi Hijazi dialect. For instance, Sieny (1978) investigates the syntactic features of basic structures of this dialect based on the Tagmemics framework designed by Cook (1969). Other researchers, such as Al-Mozainy (1981), Jarrah (1993) and Abaalkhail (1998) study phonological features pertaining to lexical phenomena of Hijazi dialect, such as syllabification and vowel alternation. Alzaidi (2014) also conducts a study on information structure and intonation in Hijazi dialect. Alahmadi (2015) investigates the extent to which lexical variation in Urban Makkan Hijazi dialect exists through identifying the borrowed words and specifying the languages from which such words have been borrowed. Based on the foregoing, all the studies conducted have addressed Saudi Hijazi dialect from different angles. To the best of my knowledge, no study has addressed the consonantal sounds of the English version of Urban Hijazi dialect (SHE), the potential differences in consonantal sounds between SHE and formal English and their implications for oral intralingual translation.

Research Questions, Participants and Methodology

Three crucial research questions drive the current research. These are: (1) If we suppose the existence of SHE, what are the consonantal sounds that make up SHE sound system? (2) What are the differences in consonantal pronunciation between formal English and SHE, if any? (3) What are the implications for oral intralingual translation resulting from the differences in consonantal pronunciation between formal English and SHE, if any?

To answer the research questions, an interview has been conducted with five Hijazi linguists, two of whom come from Makkah, two are from Madina and one lives in Jeddah. All the research informants are PhD holders, have been teaching English in the KSA for more than 25 years and are Urban Hijazi dialect speakers. They all have obtained their Doctoral degrees from the West, have returned to their home country and have since been teaching English for university students. Their return from the West was about 25–30 years ago. They are specialised in applied linguistics and English language teaching, have taught phonetics and phonology courses at a university level for a couple of years and have been observing the use of English in their cities for a considerable period of time.

The interview has been conducted to elicit responses from the five informants to obtain qualitative data for the purpose of answering the research questions. The interview consists of five questions, all of which are open-ended questions, which can be summarised as follows: (1) Do you believe that there exists a sub-variety of ‘Saudi English’, which can be termed as SHE spoken in Makkah, Madina and Jeddah by some Saudi Hijazi people who know English? If yes, what are the reasons? If no, what are the reasons? (2) In your opinion amongst whom is SHE mostly spoken, men, women, old people, young people, etc. and why? (3) If you agree on the existence of SHE, what are the consonantal sounds that make up SHE sound system, taken on board that the majority of alphabetic languages, including dialects, typify sounds through using certain written forms that involve specific rules (Wang 2019) and on what criteria have you based your choice of SHE sound system? (4) What are the differences in consonantal pronunciation between formal English and SHE, if any? Is SHE influenced by Modern Standard Arabic and/or Urban Hijazi dialect with regard to its consonantal sound system? If yes, why? (5) What are the implications for oral intralingual translation resulting from the differences in consonantal pronunciation between formal English and SHE, if any?

Data Analysis and Discussion

As an answer to the first question of the interview, all the participants hold the view that Mahboob and Elyas (2014) article on ‘Saudi English’ was a milestone in World Englishes within the whole Asia. They also believe that there is a sub-variety of (Saudi English) in Hijaz that can be called SHE. However, while three of the participants have confirmed that SHE is spoken in Makkah, Madina and Jeddah, the other two have pointed out that SHE can also be spoken by some Urban Hijazi people in Taif and Yanbu as they are near to the said cities.

As a justification of their answers, two of the participants claim that the emerging SHE may probably be due to the great influence of MSA or Urban Hijazi dialect on the English pronunciation of some Hijazi People. They go on to add that Urban Hijazi dialect enjoys high status amongst Hijazi people to the extent that it dominates the way they speak and express themselves in any language. The other three participants hold the view that the emerging SHE may be attributable to the poor practice of English with its native speakers, particularly in the skills of listening and speaking. They continue to explain that the English proverb which says: ‘words which you do not use, you will lose’ can in some way or another be applied to foreign language sound system. This means that people tend to replace sounds that are not always uttered by them by those which they invariably produce. All the participants have rejected adopting the deficit approach to the issue, claiming that SHE has arisen due to certain factors that merit careful analysis and meticulous examination not only at the phonological level, but also at the lexical, syntactic and textual level.

Responding to the second question of the interview, three of the participants believe that SHE is mostly spoken among old men who had studied English since the 1980s or even before. They may have received their English education in the West or in the country, but a long time ago. The other two participants hold the view that gender has no role to play in the process of speaking SHE. They add that SHE is mostly spoken by aged people whether they are men or women who had not been in contact with English for a considerable period of time.

Having explained their reasons for their answer to the second question, the participants assert that SHE is predominantly used by old people due to the current poor practice of English and being greatly influenced by their first language. Furthermore, they lack the motivation of improving and developing their English skills compared to Saudi Hijazi young learners who are likely to be enthusiastic and eager to develop their English skills. They try to read, write, listen and speak English frequently, particularly with native speakers. Consequently, it is particularly rare to notice SHE being spoken by Hijazi young speakers whether men or women.

With regard to the third question of the interview, all the participants have agreed upon the emerging SHE among the old Hijazi people who had learned English then stopped using the language for a long time. The participants, at the same time, have rejected the notion of adopting the deficit approach to the issue concerned, claiming that the phenomenon is clearly linked to time, which indicates that there may be certain regularities controlling this phenomenon. They, at the same time, stress the importance of studying the emerging SHE at all levels to find out its origins. Also, all the five participants have agreed upon the following consonants to be the main consonantal sounds that constitute SHE consonantal sound system. One of the participants, beside his approval of the list below, differentiates at the outset between consonants and vowels, asserting that the former points to the sounds that are produced with obstruction of the airflow at some point in the vocal tract, whilst the latter refers to the sounds which are articulated without obstruction of the airflow in the vocal tract. Below are the list of eighteen SHE consonants given and approved by the participants along with the description and classification thereof:

• (1) /b/ voiced bilabial stop

• (2) /t/ voiceless alveolar stop

• (3) /d/ voiced alveolar stop

• (4) /k/ voiceless velar stop

• (5) /g/ voiced velar stop

• (6) /f/ voiceless labio-dental fricative

• (7) /s/ voiceless alveolar fricative

• (8) /z/ voiced alveolar fricative

• (9) /ʃ/ voiceless palato-alveolar fricative

• (10) /ʒ/ voiced palato-alveolar fricative

• (11) /h/ voiceless glottal fricative

• (12) /m/ voiced bilabial nasal

• (13) /n/ voiced alveolar nasal

• (14) /ŋ/ voiced velar nasal

• (15) /j/ voiced palatal semi-vowel

• (16) /w/ voiced bilabial semi-vowel

• (17) /r/ voiced alveolar trill

• (18) /l/ voiced alveolar lateral

All the participants have confirmed that SHE consonants list lacks six consonants that exist in formal English, as will be demonstrated below. Three of the participants state that they have based their choice of the list above on their experience of listening to the English sounds articulated by old Hijazi people when speaking English with them. They have pointed out that they have friends who are old Hijazi men and are English speakers concurrently as they studied the language a long time ago. The three participants state that they invariably speak with their old friends in English at least three times a week and have ipso facto made their decision on the list above. The other two participants have tested about five old Hijazi people who learned English about 25 years ago on English sound pronunciation and have accordingly concluded that the above list of consonantal sounds is what can only be produced by these people as English sounds.

Concerning the fourth question of the interview, all the participants have confirmed that there are differences in consonantal sounds between formal English and SHE. Below is the list of formal English consonants:

• (1) /p/ voiceless bilabial stop

• (2) /b/ voiced bilabial stop

• (3) /t/ voiceless alveolar stop

• (4) /d/ voiced alveolar stop

• (5) /k/ voiceless velar stop

• (6) /g/ voiced velar stop

• (7) /f/ voiceless labio-dental fricative

• (8) /v/ voiced labio-dental fricative

• (9) /ɵ/ voiceless dental fricative

• (10) /ɘ/ voiced dental fricative

• (11) /s/ voiceless alveolar fricative

• (12) /z/ voiced alveolar fricative

• (13) /ʃ/ voiceless palato-alveolar fricative

• (14) /ʒ/ voiced palato-alveolar fricative

• (15) /h/ voiceless glottal fricative

• (16) /ʧ/ voiceless palato-alveolar affricate

• (17) /ʤ/ voiced palato-alveolar affricate

• (18) /m/ voiced bilabial nasal

• (19) /n/ voiced alveolar nasal

• (20) /ŋ/ voiced velar nasal

• (21) /j/ voiced palatal semi-vowel

• (22) /w/ voiced bilabial semi-vowel

• (23) /r/ voiced alveolar trill

• (24) /l/ voiced alveolar lateral

As mentioned earlier, all the participants have confirmed that there are six consonants found in the list of formal English sounds, but do not exist in the list of SHE consonantal sounds. These are/p/, /v/, /ɵ/, /ɘ/, /ʧ/ and /ʤ/. The four consonantal sounds: /p/, /v/, /ʧ/ and /ʤ/ do not exist in SHE sounds system, nor do they appear in Modern Standard Arabic (hereafter, MSA), as clarified in the list of MSA consonants provided by Sabir and AlSaeed (2014: 186). The participants have also stated that the said four sounds do not exist in Urban Hijazi dialect, which leads us to say that SHE, with regard to the absence of these four sounds, may have been influenced by both MSA and Urban Hijazi dialect. The participants also add that SHE substitutes the sounds: /p/, /v/, /ʧ/ and /ʤ/ by the sounds: /b/, /f/, /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ respectively, which are produced from the same place of articulation. As for the two other sounds, namely: /ɵ/ and /ɘ/, all the participants point out that even though these two sounds are not found in SHE list of consonants, they do exist in MSA. However, the sounds in question, as the participants have asserted, are not found in Urban Hijazi dialect. Consequently, there is mutual consent among the participants that SHE, concerning the said two sounds, may have been influenced by Urban Hijazi dialect. What is more, the participants have confirmed that the sounds: /ɵ/ and /ɘ/ are replaced in SHE by the sounds: /s/ and /z/ respectively, although these sounds are not articulated from the same place as the replaced ones. Also, three of the participants argue over the merit of replacing the sound: /ɵ/ by the sound: /t/ by some Urban Hijazi people who speak SHE. Again, the sounds: /ɵ/ and /t/ are not produced from the same place of articulation.

The participants have also pointed out that the variation in consonantal pronunciation between formal English and SHE is not only restricted to the phonemic level, but it is also extended to the allophonic level. This is clearly shown, as the participants claim, in the phoneme /l/ and its two allophones: the light /l/ and the dark /l/. The participants state that even though the phoneme /l/ exists in formal English, SHE, MSA and Urban Hijazi dialect, its dark /l/ can exist in the last position in formal English only, as in the word ‘ball’. Conversely, the dark /l/ does not come in the last position in SHE, MSA as well as Urban Saudi dialect. Again, the influence of MSA and Urban Hijazi dialect is evidently witnessed on SHE, even at the allophonic level. The participants then explain that the influence of both MSA and Urban Hijazi dialect or either of them on SHE is normal and highly anticipated owing to the fact that L2 sound pronunciation is affected by that of L1. Three of the participants have added that the influence concerned becomes more conspicuous if the learner had lost contact with L2 for a considerable period of time. They go on to assert that age may also play a role in this process. For instance, the older the person is, the more he/she is influenced by his/her dialect/language that he/she had acquired since he/she was a child.

By contrast, the participants also claim that SHE together with Urban Hijazi dialect have been influenced by formal English at the phonemic level. The two sounds /g/ and /ŋ/ do exist in formal English, SHE and Urban Hijazi dialect, but does not appear in MSA. This, unquestionably, as the participants assert, confirms the wide spread of English and its undeniably huge dominance and influence all over the world.

As for the last question of the interview, all the participants hold the view that there are certain implications for oral intralingual translation resulting from the variation in consonantal sounds between formal English and SHE. Also, all the participants agree that such implications reside mainly in the incapability of the native speaker, the party who represents the formal English speaker, to understand the speech given by the SHE speaker, a matter which gives rise to incomprehensibility, which leads to miscommunication between the two parties. Such miscommunication is deemed a real problem, as the participants contend, and it should be overcome and surmounted by the parties concerned.

Three of the participants believe that once a particular variety of English is recognised worldwide, English speakers, particularly English native speakers, should prepare themselves to be acquainted with it. The other two participants are of the opinion that English speakers should be aware of all English varieties to be able to communicate with any person who knows any variety of English. This runs in line with Jenkins (2000, 2006) who holds the view that all English learners should prepare themselves to be able to contact in the future with other English speakers who speak an English variety different from theirs. Within the same line of thought, Matsuda (2003) argues that English learners and speakers need to be exposed to different varieties of English in order to understand them. Hence, all the participants see the importance and necessity of being aware of any variety of English, especially when it becomes universally recognised. They predict that SHE, on 1 day, will receive universal recognition as a de facto variety of English, on condition that it is well studied, carefully examined, meticulously analysed and largely spread in the region.

Concluding Remarks

Evidence suggests that English, as the first global language, has drastically spread in the KSA. It is taught in the country as a foreign language and is viewed as a language of prestige. However, the use of English in the KSA is not completely neutral, as pointed out by Mahboob and Elyas (2014), but it is indeed replete with economic, social, political and religious overtones. This has led Mahboob and Elyas (2014) to propose an emerging expanding circle variety of English known as ‘Saudi English’, after having carried out a textual analysis on a published English textbook taught at Saudi schools. Mahboob and Elyas (2014) have found linguistic features characterising what they have called ‘Saudi English’, which are different from those of formal English. Such linguistic features reside crucially in the variation in the use of articles, the variation in use of tense markers, the variation in marking number and the variation in marking subject/verb agreement.

Based on ‘Saudi English’ proposed by Mahboob and Elyas (2014), the present paper suggests a sub-variety of ‘Saudi English’ abbreviated as SHE. To ascertain the existence of SHE, specify the differences in consonantal pronunciation between formal English and SHE as well as determine the implications for oral intralingual translation that have arisen as a result of the aforementioned differences, the paper has questioned five Saudi linguists who speak Urban Hijazi dialect, the Arabic version of SHE. All the participants confirm the emergence of SHE as a sub-variety of ‘Saudi English’, justifying its emergence by the potential influence of MSA and-or Urban Hijazi dialect on the English pronunciation of some Hijazi people. Also, they attribute the emergence of SHE to the poor practice of English with its native speakers.

The majority of the participants hold the view that SHE is mostly spoken among old Hijazi people who had received their English education since 1980s or beforehand. This is owing to the fact that the said people have no longer been practising English properly and continuously, are clearly influenced by their first language-dialect and have lost motivation to develop their English-speaking skills. The participants have also agreed on the existence of eighteen consonantal sounds that make up SHE sound system. The majority of the participants have based their claim of these consonants on their experience of listening to their aged Hijazi friends’ English pronunciation three times a week. The other participants have explained their choice of the consonants in question by stating that they have tested the English pronunciation of five old Hijazi people and have eventually reached this result.

The participants have asserted that there are six consonants found in the list of formal English sounds which do not exist in the list of SHE sounds. These are /p/, /v/, /ɵ/, /ɘ/, /ʧ/ and /ʤ/. Some of these sounds do not appear in SHE as a result of the influence of MSA and Urban Hijazi dialect on SHE sounds system and are replaced in SHE by sounds produced from the same place of articulation. Other sounds do not appear in SHE, nor are they found in Urban Hijazi dialect, but they, however, do exist in MSA. Such sounds are replaced in SHE by other sounds which are not produced from the same place of articulation. The influence of MSA and Urban Hijazi dialect on SHE sounds system is not limited to phonemic level, but it is also extended to allophonic level. In that, the allophone dark /l/ of the phoneme /l/ does not come in the final position of a word in SHE, MSA and Urban Hijazi dialect, unlike formal English, which enjoys this feature, as in the word ‘ball’.

On the contrary, the participants have also claimed that SHE together with Urban Hijazi dialect are influenced by formal English in the sense that both the sounds: /g/ and /ŋ/ are part of formal English and are also found in both SHE as well as Urban Hijazi dialect, though they do not exist in MSA. Moreover, all the participants hold the view that there are particular implications for oral intralingual translation resulting from the de facto differences in consonantal pronunciation between formal English and SHE. Such implications lie mainly in the incomprehensibility by the formal English speaker when hearing SHE, which may cause miscommunication. It is argued that English varieties should be understood once they are recognised worldwide as languages often change over time. The present paper has addressed the consonantal sounds peculiar to what has been abbreviated as SHE, uncovering and explaining the variation in consonantal sounds between formal English and She and discussing the potential implications for oral intralingual translation resulting from the variation concerned. Further research is needed to study SHE vowels and diphthongs and see if there are any differences in these sounds between SHE and formal English, and whether or not SHE, concerning these sounds, is influenced by MSA and/or Urban Hijazi dialect. Also, substantial research is highly required to examine and analyse SHE from other levels, such as the lexical, the morphological, the syntactic and the semantic level.