ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Lang. Sci.
Sec. Language Processing
Volume 4 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/flang.2025.1560932
Comparative Constructions in Bisha Colloquial Arabic: A Case Study
Provisionally accepted- University of Bisha, BISHA, Saudi Arabia
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction: Comparative constructions are a core syntactic and semantic feature across Arabic varieties, yet their dialectal realizations remain unevenly documented. Despite extensive research on Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and major dialects, the comparative system of Bisha Colloquial Arabic (BCA)-a distinct southern Saudi dialect-has received virtually no systematic linguistic attention. This study addresses this critical gap by identifying the unique forms and functions of comparative constructions in BCA and situating them within the broader spectrum of Arabic dialectology, with reference to parallels and divergences from MSA and other regional varieties. Methodology: Data were collected from undergraduate student discourse during grammar class interactions and social media content, including TikTok and X (formerly Twitter). Comparative expressions were identified, systematically extracted, and categorized into distinct structural types: simple comparatives, complex comparatives, equality comparisons, non-scalar comparisons, quantitative and qualitative comparisons, intensified comparisons, adverbial and clausal comparisons, and comparative correlatives. A qualitative analysis was conducted to describe the patterns and functions of these constructions in BCA.The analysis revealed that BCA employs a versatile and adaptive system of comparative constructions, characterized by simplicity and pragmatic efficiency. Unlike the rigid grammatical rules of MSA, which heavily rely on the classical ʔafʕal pattern with case markings, BCA prioritizes syntactic flexibility and contextual clarity. Markers such as ʔakṯar ("more"), ʔagall ("less"), and informal terms like zaay and kan ("like") were prominent. The dialect incorporates nominal, adverbial, and clausal comparisons, enabling speakers to convey equality, difference, and intensification effectively. Expressions such as b-kathiir ("much more") and b-milyoon marrah ("a million times") enhance expressiveness, while correlatives like kul ma ("the more") highlight causal and proportional relationships. These trends align with patterns observed in other Arabic dialects, such as Egyptian and Levantine Arabic, which emphasize accessibility in spoken communication. Discussion: The findings suggest that BCA adapts traditional grammar to prioritize conversational needs, striking a balance between practicality and clarity. This research contributes to the broader understanding of Arabic dialectal variation and highlights the role of colloquial forms in meeting modern communicative demands. The results offer valuable insights for linguists, translators, and educators working with Arabic dialects.
Keywords: Comparisons, Comparative constructions, Bisha Colloquial Arabic (BCA), Arabic dialects, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), Syntactic simplification, Linguistic adaptation
Received: 04 Mar 2025; Accepted: 27 Jun 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Alharthy. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Fatema Alharthy, University of Bisha, BISHA, Saudi Arabia
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.