1441, 22 مجلة جامعة طیبة: للآداب والعلوم الإنسانیة، السنة السابعة، العدد ٤٩١ ھـ

Arabic to English code switching among

Saudi students

Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

Assistant Professor The Arabic Language Institute for Speakers of Other

Languages King Abdulaziz University/Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

E-mail: malluhaubi@kau.edu.sa

Abstract

This study investigates the linguistic phenomenon Code-

Switching among Saudi students who can speak both Arabic

and English fluently. It examines the most common type to

be code switched as well as the validity of the equivalence

of structure constraint proposed by Poplack (1980). The

study also discusses other issues such as the phonological

shape of the switched items in order to see whether they are

integrated phonologically into Arabic or not. Moreover, the

study shows the impact on the behaviour of speakers when

they are engaged in a group discussion.

Key words:

Code-switcing, Arabic bilingual, sociolinguistics

٤٩٢ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

1. Introduction

Bilinguals sometime shift, either consciously or

unconsciously, from one language to another. Such a

phenomenon is known as code switching and has been

investigated for at least three decades. The term code

switching (henceforth CS) can be defined as an alternation

between two or more languages in the same setting (e.g.,

Poplack, 1980; Bullock and Toribio 2009; Myers-Scotton

1997). The ability to perform such a switching requires high

proficiency in the switched languages. Bullock and Toribio

(2009) distinguish between code switching and other contact

phenomena such as borrowing. They refer to code switching

as language shifting in which bilinguals shift from one

language to another, whereas borrowing means taking a

single lexeme from language A and integrating it

morphologically and phonologically into language B. They

also propose three approaches to study CS: structural, which

concerns with the structure of the CS speech,

sociolinguistic, which concerns with the social factors that

affect the CS phenomenon, and finally psycholinguistic,

which discuss the reasons that trigger such a behaviour.

There are also other studies that attempt to account for the

٤٩٣ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

occurrence of CS socially and psychologically (i.e., Chad,

2006; Eunhee, 2006; Heredia & Altarriba, 2001).

CS can be divided into two types based on where the

switch occurs in the speech: intersentential and

intrasentential. The intersentential type occurs at the

boundaries of the clause or the sentence (Zirker, 2007). The

intrasentential, in contrast, occurs within the sentence

(Poplack, 1980). Accordingly, the latter involves switching

between two syntactic rules (Zirker, 2007). That is, any

sentence in any language is governed by a specific rule, and

when a speaker alters between two languages in one

sentence, he or she has to pay attention to the syntactic rules

of these languages. However, the switch between languages

is not arbitrary. There are certain constrains restrict such a

switch. In this vein, Poplack (1980) proposes the notion of

the equivalence of structure constraint as one of the most

influential constraints on CS. It suggests that bilinguals are

free to switch between two languages as long as they do not

violate any syntactic rule in either language. In other words,

switches only occur in a constituent that could be generated

by a shared syntactic rule in the switched languages.

Poplack also notes other constraints, namely the size of

٤٩٤ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

constituent and the free morpheme. By the size of

constituent Poplack means that main constituents tend to be

switch more often than smaller constituents, whereas by the

free morpheme, she means that bilinguals cannot switch

between bound morphemes and lexical forms unless the

switched lexical form is integrated phonologically into the

language of the bound morpheme (Sankoff and Poplack

1981 as cited in Zirker, 2007). In this paper, however, I

consider, among other aims, only the equivalence of

structure constraint. More specifically, I test its validity. I

test whether participants in this study violate this constraint

when they code switch or not.

2. Code-switching in Arabic world

A few studies have been done on code switching among

Arabic bilinguals. Redouane (2005) tests the validity of

three linguistic constraints on CS (the equivalence of

structure, the free morpheme and size of constituents)

among Moroccan Arabic-French speakers. Surprisingly, his

participants violated all of them. Jdetawy (2011) monitors

CS among Arabic students at University Utara Malaysia.

The aim of his study is to determine the types of code

٤٩٥ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

switching among those students, the reason behind their

switching and whether the familiarity between interlocutors

affects their CS behaviour. He finds that tag switching is the

most common type among Arabic students, and the

familiarity between interlocutors has no effect on CS at all.

He also finds that the lack of English word equivalents in

Arabic is the major reason that makes participants code

switch. A similar result is found by Abalhassan and

Alshalawi (2000). In their study, 59.2% of the time Saudi

bilinguals code switch because they don’t know the term in

Arabic, and 22.6% of the time because they cannot recall the

Arabic equivalent term. In this study, participants are also

Saudi, and in the following section we will discuss the

research questions this study tries to answer, the type of

participants and the way data is collected.

3. Methodology:

3.1 Research questions

This study investigates the phenomenon of CS from Arabic

to English among Saudi bilingual students. More

specifically, it aims to answer five questions. First, the study

investigates the differences in CS among monodialectal and

٤٩٦ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

bidialectal speakers (see below for the rationale behind this

division). Second, it examines which CS type

(intrasentential or intersentential) is the most common one.

It also determines whether the switched items are modified

phonologically, and whether the occurrence of CS is

affected by engaging in a group discussion. Finally, this

study tests the validity of the equivalence of structure

constraint. In other words, I test whether participants violate

this constraint when they code switch or not.

3.2 Participants

Saudi Arabia is a relatively large country, approximately

2,150,000 km2. And according to the General Authority for

Statistics in Saudi Arabia, the total number of populations in

2019 is 34.218.169. In this large area, many forms of Arabic

can be found. We do not have a great deal of information

about the Arabic dialectological situation in this area.

However, one can with great confidence say that Saudis

exhibit at least five dialects with considerable variations

among them. Those dialects can be categorized

geographically as one spoken in the north, one in the south,

one in the east, one in the west and one in the center. This is

٤٩٧ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

not to say there is one dialect spoken in the west, for

example; it is just to draw a broad line between different

dialects in Saudi Arabia.

With this in mind, we turn now to the type of

participants in this study. Participants in this study are six

male Saudi Arabic/English bilingual. All of them were born

and got their primary and secondary school education in

Saudi Arabia, and Arabic is their mother language. Three of

these six are monodialectals: Eid, Omar and Rashed. And

the other three are bidialectal: Osama, Abdullah and Salem.

A participant is considered to be bidialectal if he was born

and raised in one of the major parts of Saudi Arabia and

then moved for some reasons to another. For instance,

Osama was born in the South part of Saudi Arabia. He lived

his entire childhood there, but when he became 21 years old,

he moved to the western part because his father had a good

job opportunity. For this reason, Osama had to adopt the

new Saudi Arabic dialect (the western one) in order to fit

well into his new society. This division (monodialectal vs.

bidialectal) seem to have a great impact on the way

participants code switch, as we will shortly see in the result.

٤٩٨ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

All participants were males only and over 18 years

old, and all of them went to Canada for educational

purposes. When non-English speakers decide to pursue their

higher education at one of the Canadian universities, they

are required to fulfill the English language requirement.

Generally speaking, international students must get a

minimum score of 80 on Internet-Based TOEFL with no

less than 19 in each section: reading, writing, listening and

speaking. Another option is to get a minimum score of 6.5

on the International English Language Testing System

(IELTS). Students are also allowed to do other similar tests

such as the CanTEST test which is offered by the University

of Ottawa. Since all participants had studied at the

University of Manitoba, they must have fulfilled the

language requirements. This proves their sufficient ability to

communicate in English either orally or in writing.

However, their proficiency in English differs depending

how long they have studied English. Table (1) below shows

the number of dialects each participant can do and the length

of their study to English.

٤٩٩ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

Table 1: Participants’ Profiles

Name Number of the spoken dialects Length of studying English Eid One 6 years Omar One 2 years Rashed One 5 years Osama Two 3 years Salem Two 20 years Abdullah Two 3 years

3.3 Data

This paper analyzes two hours of conversation in eight

different audio clips. Three strategies were adopted to obtain

data. First, participants were asked to confirm their

proficiency in Arabic and English by filling out a

demographic questionnaire (See Appendix A). Second, they

were divided into two groups, each one consists of three

participants based on the number of dialects they speak. In

the first group, all participants are monodialectals, while the

٥٠٠ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

second one consists of bidialectal speakers. Eid, Omar and

Rashed are Group 1, whereas Osama, Abdullah and Salem

are Group 2. For each group, I proposed seven questions to

be discussed (See Appendix B). Since this paper monitors

CS from Arabic to English, all questions were asked in

Arabic as Arabic here serves as the matrix language. As

participants were responding to the questions, I recorded

them for 30 minutes. Finally, participants were interviewed

individually for ten minutes each. In each interview, I asked

each participant to answer eight questions which were asked

in Arabic as well (See Appendix C). In the following

section, I discuss the result of this study and answer the

research questions.

4. Results

The result of this study is presented in three sub-sections.

The first one analyzes data obtained from Group 1

(monodialectal participants), and the second one is on data

obtained from Group 2 (bidialectal participants). In these

two sub-sections, two of the research questions are

answered: the differences in CS between monodialectal and

bidialectal participants and the most common types that is

٥٠١ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

code switched. In the third sub-section, the three remaining

research questions are answered: whether the switched items

are modified phonologically or not, the impact of being

engaged in a group discussion and the validity of the

equivalence of structure constraint.

4.1 Group 1

Table (2) and Table (3) below reveal 166 code switches in

Group 1 (Eid, Omar and Rashed). 155 of them are

intrasentential and 11 are intersentential. As shown in Table

(2), single nouns are significantly more switched than any

other syntactic category (114 times). Most of this percentage

occurred during the group discussion session (80 times),

whereas during the individual interviews the switches of

single nouns occurred 34 times. Noun phrases are the

second preferred syntactic category to be code switched; it

happened 12 times. Consequently, one can conclude that

conspicuously single nouns tend to be switched more than

phrases. Similar tendency is found in adjectives where

participants code switched single adjectives 9 times, while

adjective phrases were switched only once. In contrast,

phrases function differently with verbs. That is to say, verb

٥٠٢ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

phrases are slightly more code switched than single verbs (7

times for verb phrases and 3 times for single verbs). Data in

Table (2) also shows that adverbial phrases, conjunctions

and reflexive pronouns are the least switched categories as

each one of them has been switched only once.

Table 2: Number of Intrasentential switches (Group 1)

Syntactic # of CS in the # of CS in the Total % Category of CS Group discussion Interviews Single nouns 80 34 114 73.55% Noun phrases 5 7 12 7.74% Single verbs 3 0 3 1.93% Verb phrases 5 2 7 4.52% Adjectives 7 2 9 5.80% Adjective phrases 0 1 1 0.65% Adverbs 1 2 3 1.93% Adverbial phrases 1 0 1 0.65% Conjunctions 1 0 1 0.65% Prepositional phrases 1 2 3 1.93% Reflexive pronouns 0 1 1 0.65% Totals 104 51 155 100%

٥٠٣ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

As mentioned above, the intersententil CS is very rare (11 times only). Most of them occurred at the sentence boundary (7 times), some for the purposes of quotes (3 times), and only once the switched occurred with interjections. Table 3: Number of Intersentential switches (Group 1) Syntactic # of CS in the # of CS in the Total % Category of CS Group discussion Interviews Sentence 5 2 7 63.64 % Quote 3 0 3 27.27 % Interjection 0 1 1 9.09% Totals 8 3 11 100 % 4.2 Group 2 In Group 2, the switching from Arabic to English occurred

221 times. 204 of them were intrasentential switches (Table

4), while the rest (17 times) are intersentential (Table 5). As

Table (4) shows, 150 instances of the intrasentential CS

occurred with single nouns. This means 73.53 % of the time

which is almost the exact percentage found in Group 1

(73.55%). Another similarity between the two groups can be

seen in the switching of noun phrases; it is the second most

switched category in both groups. However, the groups

٥٠٤ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

behave differently when it comes to verb phrases, adverbial

phrases, conjunctions and reflexive pronouns. In Group 1,

the switches were attested in those syntactic categories, but

in Group 2, switches of such categories were not attested.

Table 4: Number of Intrasentential switches (Group 2) Syntactic # of CS in the # of CS in the Total % Category of CS Group discussion Interviews Single noun 89 61 150 73.53% Noun phrase 19 5 24 11.76% Verb 2 1 3 1.47% Verb phrase 0 0 0 0 % Adjective 17 6 23 11.28% Adjective phrase 2 0 2 0.98% Adverb 0 1 1 0.49% Adverbial phrase 0 0 0 0 % Conjunction 0 0 0 0 % Prepositional phrase 1 0 1 0.49% Reflexive pronoun 0 0 0 0 % Totals 130 74 204 100%

Also, similarly to Group 1, according to Table (5),

Group 2 participants code switched intersententially in three

٥٠٥ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

categories: sentences, quotes and interjections. Interjections

were the least syntactic category to be switched; once in

Group 1 and twice in Group 2. Also, the number of switches

that took place at the sentence boundaries is almost the

same; it was 7 switches in Group 1 and 8 in Group 2.

However, when it comes to “quote”, groups behave

differently. Bidialectals (Group 2) quote others 7 times

whereas monodialectals (Group 2) quote only 3 times.

Table 5: Number of Intersentential switches (Group 2)

Syntactic # of CS in the # of CS in the

Total %

Category of CS Group discussion Interviews

Sentence 3 5 8 47.06 %

Quote 5 2 7 41.18 %

Interjection 1 1 2 11.76%

Totals 9 8 17 100 %

4.3 General remarks on both groups In this sub-section, we examine the phonological status of the code switched item, the impact of engaging in a group discussion and the validity of the equivalence of structure constraint proposed by Poplack (1980).

٥٠٦ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

When it comes to the phonological shape of the

switched items, Group 1 and Group 2 participants are

different. To explain this, consider first the following

examples obtained from Group 1:

(1) māfi kān brāktis

not.existential was practice

“There was no practice.”

(2) ʔaṣlan brudʒikt yikūn ʔafðal

In.fact project is

best

“In fact, project is the best”

(3) lamma tʕaddī yunifirsitī wan

when pass university one

“When you pass university one”

(4) dʒib-t lifil ʔarbaʕah

got-I level four

“I got level four.”

In the previous examples, there are two phonemes that

have been changed, namely /p/ and /v/ in words like

“practice” and “university”. Speakers have substituted

٥٠٧ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

them with [b] and [f], respectively. Group 1 participants

seem to substitute English phonemes that do not exist in

Arabic with the closest one to them found in the Arabic

sound system. In this case, the closest phoneme to /p/ in

Arabic is /b/ and to /v/ is /f/.

Unlike Group 1, Group 2 didn’t substitute non-existent

phonemes; instead, they integrated them phonologically

into Arabic. Consider the following:

(5) yaʕtiqd-ūn ʔinnuh ʔanā ʕalā ʔasās

ʔaṣīr pirfikt

think-they that I on should

will.be perfect

“They think that I should be perfect.”

(6) spīkiŋg kān yaʕni sahalāt

speaking was kind easy

“speaking was kind of easy.”

(7) ʔal-balad haða māʃī bi-ʔal-

vayg

the-country this going

by-the-vague

“This country is vague.”

٥٠٨ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

(8) lazim yikūn fih supərvidʒin

must be there

supervision

“There must be supervision.”

As showed by example (5) and (6), bidialectals

integrated the phoneme /p/ in “perfect” and “speaking”

phonologically into Arabic. The same behaviour was

adopted in examples (7) and (8) when they did not change

the phoneme /v/ in “vague” and “supervision”; they uttered

the switched items as the way they are in English.

The possible explanation for this is that the differences

between dialects are mainly phonological, and since

bidialectal participants are fluent in two different dialects,

this makes them more professional in adopting new

phonemes into their speech. In other words, they have an

experience in dealing with new sounds that allows them to

deal more effectively with new similar situations. In this

case, the similar situation is pronouncing the new English

phonemes that do not exist in Arabic. Unlike bidialectals,

monodialectal participants lack such an experience, which

reflects negatively on their performance. They lack, so far,

٥٠٩ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

the sufficient experience to deal with new sounds.

Differently from the aforementioned case, Group 1 and

Group 2 participants behave similarly when it comes to the

equivalence of structure constraint; they both violated this

constraint. Example (9) and (10) below illustrate this

violation in Group 1. In Arabic, both (VSO) and (SVO) are

possible basic word orders. In English, on the other hand,

only (SVO) is possible. In other words, in English, subjects

must precede the verb whereas in Arabic there is some

flexibility as subjects can either precede or follow the

verb.1 In example (9), the subject “the food” comes before

the verb “was”, and then comes the adjective “good”. This

structure is perfectly fine in both Arabic and English. In

contrast, in example (10), the speaker formed his sentence

with respect to Arabic grammar only. In this example, the

verb “was” comes before the subject “the prof” which

makes the word order here (VSO). Such an order does not

exist in English which indicates a clear violation to the

syntax of English.

(9) ʔal-fūd kān ṭayyib

١ Other basic word orders are also possible in Arabic, see Alluhaybi (2019) for more information on this.

٥١٠ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

the-food was good

“The food was good.”

(10) kān ʔal-prūf yiʕṭī-k kul

ʃay

was the-prof give-you every

thing

“The prof was giving you everything.”

As the case with monodialectals, Bidialectals also violate

the equivalence of structure constraint. In example (11)

below, the speaker violated the structure of the embedded

language (English). That is, adjectives in English always

precede nouns, but in Arabic the case is vice versa. In this

example, the adjective “lazy” follows the noun “person”.

This structure is perfectly correct in Arabic but not in

English. Example (12) also illustrates similar instance

done by another participant. The adjective “cute” follows

the noun “girl”. Based on these examples, one can

conclude that Arabic bidialectals combine nouns and

adjectives with respect to Arabic rules only which serves

here as the matrix language.

٥١١ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

(11) ʃaxṣ layzī yadfaʕ ʔaθ-

θaman

person lazy pay

the-price

“Lazy person pays the price.”

(12) kān fīh bint kyūt

was there girl cute

“There was a cute girl.”

It is worth noting in this context that speakers in Group

1 switched adjectives only when they occur as predicate

phrases in copular sentences. In other words, the structure

should be as follows: subject-copular verb-predicate as in

the following:

(13) hinā ʔan-nās frindily

here the-people friendly

“Here, people are friendly.”1

The last question in this study to be answered is to see

whether engaging in a group discussion has an effect on

١ Note that the copular verb is missing here; it is a phenomenon in Arabic where copular verbs must be omitted if they occur in the present tense.

٥١٢ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

CS or not. It seems that engaging in a group discussion has

a great impact on participants; it significantly increases the

number of the switches in both groups. In Group 1, the

total number of the switches is 166. 67.5% of them

occurred in the group discussion. Almost the same result is

found in Group 2 where 62.9% of the 221 switches

happened during the group discussion period. Figure (1)

below, compare the number of switches that occurred

during the group discussion to the one occurred during the

interviews.

Figure 1: Number of the switches in group discussions and

interviews

٥١٣ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

This can be explained by the concept of peer pressure.1

That is to say, the behaviour of a participant is influenced by

his peers. In this case, participants seem to switch more

when they are engaging in a conversation with someone

who switches.

5. Conclusion

This study observes code switching among six male Saudi

students. They code switched 387 times in two hours of

.pressure social sometimes called is peer pressureThe term ١

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Group discussions Interviews

٥١٤ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

conversation. The result of analyzing the data shows both

intrasentential and intersentential type of CS. However,

most of the switches occurred intrasententially, more

specifically single nouns were the most code switched

syntactic category in all groups. Interestingly, engaging in

group discussion promote the switching. This has been the

case among both monodialectal and bidialectal speakers.

Moreover, data shows that both groups violated the

equivalence of structure constraint. In both groups, this

violation occurred in ordering morphemes in the clause.

Participants pay attention only to Arabic grammar in their

sentences, and Arabic has been the matrix language in every

single situation where English served as the embedded one.

The major difference between the two groups appears

in the way they deal with phonemes that do not exist in

Arabic. Monodialectals substitute those phonemes with the

closest ones to them in Arabic, whereas biadialectals

integrate them phonologically into Arabic.

Finally, this study was limited only to test the validity

of only one of the constraints proposed by Poplack (1980),

namely the equivalence of structure constraint. Data shows

a violation of this constrain regardless of whether the

٥١٥ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

participant is monodialectal or biadialectal. Further study

can test other linguistic constraints such as the free

morpheme and the size of constituents.

References

1. Abalhassan, K. & Alshalawi, H. (2000). Code-

switching behavior of Arab speakers of English as a

second language in the United States. Intercultural

Communication Studies X, 10 (1), 179-188.

2. Alluhaybi, M. (2019). Negation in modern Arabic

varieties from a typological point of view (Ph.D.).

School of Oriental and African Studies (University

of London).

3. Bullock, B. & Toribio, A. (2009). Themes in the

study of code-switching. The Cambridge Handbook

of Linguistic Code-Switching. Eds. B.E. Bullock and

A.J. Toribio. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.1-17

4. Eunhee, K. (2006). Reasons and motivations for

code-mixing and code-switching.TESOL Quarterly,

4 (1), 43-61.

٥١٦ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

5. General Authority for Statistics in Saudi Arabia

(2020, February 10). Total population according to

2019 census. Retrieved from

https://www.stats.gov.sa/en

6. Heredia, R. & Altarriba, J. (2001). Bilingual

language mixing: Why do bilinguals code-switch?.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10,

164-168. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00140

7. Jdetawy, L. (2011). Arabic-English code-switching

among Arab students at UUM, Malaysia. Language

in India, 11(5), 102-117.

8. Myers-Scotton, C. (1997). Code-switching. The

Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Ed. F. Coulmas.

Malden, MA: Blackwell. 217-237.

9. Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in

Spanish y termino en español: toward a typology of

code-switching. Linguistics 18, 7/8. 581-618.

10. Redouane, R. (2005). Linguistic Constraints on

Codeswitching and Codemixing of Bilingual

Moroccan Arabic-French Speakers in Canada. In

Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on

Bilingualism, Somerville, MA, USA. 1921-1933.

٥١٧ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

11. Zirker, K. (2007). Intrasentential vs. intersentential

code switching in early and late bilinguals.

(Unpublished Master's thesis). Brigham Young

University, United States.

٥١٨ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

Appendix A: Demographic questionnaire

Your FIRST name: ___________________________

Age: _____________

1) Where were you born?

2) How long have you been in Canada?

3) When did you start learning/speaking English?

4) What language(s) do you speak with your parents?

5) What language(s) do you speak with your

grandparents?

6) What language(s) do you speak with your friends?

7) What language(s) do you speak at home?

8) What was the language(s) of instruction at your

primary school?

9) What was the language(s) of instruction at your

secondary school?

10) What language(s) do you feel more

comfortable speaking?

٥١٩ Dr Mohammed Alluhaybi

Appendix B: Staged conversation topics

1) In Learning English as a second language for

educational purposes, you should master four skills:

reading, writing, listening and speaking. Which one

of these is the most difficult to learn and why?

2) If you have a course where you get to choose between

giving a presentation, or having an exam, which one

would you choose and why?

3) What was the best/worst advice you have ever been

given?

4) Have you ever had a negative experience with a

roommate, neighbor or classmate?

5) In your opinion, what is the most significant invention

and why?

6) Do you think media has positive of negative effects

on our lives? Give examples please.

7) Do you think governments should censor the Internet

and why?

Appendix C: Semi-structured interview oral script

٥٢٠ Arabic to English code switching among Saudi students

1) What is your major? And why did you become

interested in it?

2) Give a brief summary describing your major.

3) What are the differences between studying in Saudi

Arabia and studying in Canada?

4) What do you like/dislike about living in Canada?

5) When you were a student in Canada, what did you

miss the most from your country?

6) What is the job that you like to get in the future and

why?

7) As a Saudi Arabian person, what do you think we

need the most in Saudi Arabia?

8) Why did you code switch?