International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism

ISSN: 1367-0050 (Print) 1747-7522 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbeb20

When homeland remains a distant dream:

language attitudes and heritage language
maintenance among Rohingya refugees in Saudi
Arabia

Morad Alsahafi

To cite this article: Morad Alsahafi (2020): When homeland remains a distant dream:
language attitudes and heritage language maintenance among Rohingya refugees
in Saudi Arabia, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, DOI:
10.1080/13670050.2020.1754753

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1754753

Published online: 26 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbeb20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1754753

When homeland remains a distant dream: language attitudes and

heritage language maintenance among Rohingya refugees in
Saudi Arabia
Morad Alsahafi
Department of European Languages and Literature, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study investigates the sociolinguistic situation of Myanmarese Received 16 October 2019
(Burmese), Rohingya-speaking refugees in Saudi Arabia, specifically on Accepted 2 April 2020
the participants’ attitudes regarding their mother tongue and the
KEYWORDS
country’s official language, Arabic. The paper draws on data from a Heritage language; language
questionnaire and focus group discussions with 65 Saudi-born Rohingya attitudes; language
refugees. The respondents generally held positive attitudes toward both maintenance; refugees;
Rohingya and Arabic. Positive opinions of Arabic seem to fulfill a variety Rohingya
of social and religious needs, including integrating into Saudi society,
where Arabic opens the door to educational and economic success; and
gaining access to the Qur’an and to the teachings of Islam, since they
are co-religionists with the members of their host society. On the other
hand, positive views of Rohingya both shape and are shaped by a
number of social factors, including its use in the home and ethnic
community domains, as well as its relatedness to identity. The Rohingyas
have successfully created their own co-ethnic and co-linguistic networks,
daily activities, and patterns of living in the low-income neighborhoods
where they reside. The elements that appear to operate in favor of
Rohingya and its maintenance are demography, ethnic community
connectedness, and shared understanding in terms of origin, native
language, history, statelessness, and destiny.

Introduction
Saudi Arabia is a multicultural, multilingual country with immigrants, foreign workers, and visitors
from all over the globe. According to the latest figures released by the General Authority for Statistics
(GAStat 2018), the total population was estimated at 33.4 million inhabitants, of which 20.8 million
(62.3%) are Saudi nationals and 12.6 million (37.7%) are foreigners. In such a situation, languages
spoken in the home cover Arabic, the country’s official language and the mother tongue of most
of the population, as well as a wide range of minority community languages including Urdu, Rohin-
gya, Hindi, Bengali, Tagalog, and Hausa.
Various Rohingya-speaking Muslim communities have established themselves outside of
Myanmar (known as Burma until 1989) in states such as Bangladesh, Thailand, Pakistan, and Saudi
Arabia. Myanmar’s Muslim Rohingyas, one of the most persecuted minorities in the world, have
been forced to leave their country of origin due to a long history of ethnic and religious persecution
(Milton et al. 2017). Based on the Burmese 1982 Citizenship Law, Rohingyas have been deprived of
their citizenship because ethnic Rohingya is not included in the 135 officially recognized ethic groups
in the country (Ferguson 2015; Kipgen, 2019). Thus, despite living in Rakhine State (known as Arakan

CONTACT Morad Alsahafi maalsahafi1@kau.edu.sa

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. ALSAHAFI

until 1989) on the western coast of Myanmar for a long time, Myanmar’s government considers the
Rohingyas to be Bengali interlopers, and refuses to grant them citizenship. Bangladesh does not con-
sider them among its nationals either, ‘which automatically makes them stateless’ (Kipgen, 2019, 63).
Saudi Arabia has a long history of hosting Muslim Rohingyas. According to the head of the
Burmese community, Rohingyas fled their home country due to ‘injustice and torture against
Muslims at the hands of their former governments and various Buddhist extremist groups.’ Rohin-
gyas’ migration to Saudi Arabia occurred in four phases between 1948 and 1971. Their number is esti-
mated at 400,000, 250,000 of which are documented, i.e. with appropriate residence permits (Alsahafi
2019). Currently, the vast majority reside in cities such as Mecca, Jeddah, and Medinah in the Western
Region. Although the largest Rohingya communities have mainly lived in unplanned ethnic enclaves
in Mecca and Jeddah, they have generally been successful in forming well-organized, connected
communities. As the head of the Burmese community noted, ‘we worked on establishing councils
in every city where community members reside to solve any issue they may face’ (Saudi Gazette,
May 28, 2015). The refugees’ mother tongue, Rohingya, is an eastern Indo-Aryan language spoken
in northern Rakhine State (Ager 2019). It is primarily a spoken language and lacks a universally
accepted script (Pandey 2016).
Although the Rohingya Muslim minority has a long history of forced migration and displacement,
the sociolinguistic situation of their diasporic communities remains largely understudied. In Saudi
Arabia, the Rohingya-speaking community represents one of the largest visible ethnic minorities.
In a recent study on the Rohingya community in Mecca, Alsahafi (2019) investigated patterns of
language proficiency and usage among second- and third-generation Rohingyas and found that
spoken Rohingya is maintained among both groups. The study discussed three important factors
that help to preserve it: (1) Rohingya language use in the home and ethnic community; (2) the geo-
graphical concentration of Rohingya speakers in certain ethnic neighborhoods; and (3) Rohingyas’
utilization of their bilingual ability to position their ethnic and religious identity within their
Arabic-speaking, Muslim-majority host country.
Focusing on the Rohingya community in Jeddah, the current research takes a sociolinguistic per-
spective and explores the attitudes that second-generation Rohingya refugees hold toward their
mother tongue, its preservation, and Arabic. Reporting on their views as stateless refugees is impor-
tant, as it contributes to both the study of Rohingya communities in the diaspora, as well as the cir-
cumstances of language contact in refugee contexts.

Language attitudes and heritage language maintenance

The intergenerational preservation of a minority heritage language, one of the most obvious markers
of ethnic and cultural identity, often becomes a major challenge faced by minority ethnolinguistic
groups in the host country (Fishman 1991; Tannenbaum and Howie 2002). The term language main-
tenance refers to a situation whereby members of a minority community ‘continue to use their
language in some or all spheres of life despite competition with the dominant or majority language
to become the main/sole language in these spheres’ (Pauwels 2004, 719). On the other hand,
language shift represents a downward language movement, often characterized by a gradual
decline in terms of minority language proficiency, as well as its competent use in different
domains (Baker and Wright 2017). Generally, previous research on minority languages has found
language shift, typically over three generations, to be more common than language maintenance
(Baker and Wright 2017; Clyne 2003; Fishman 1991; Thomason 2001).
A minority ethnic group’s views of the languages available in their contact context play a crucial
role in the future status of their heritage language (Baker 1992; Bradley 2002; Fishman 1991; Garcia
2003; Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977; Smolicz 1981). Language attitudes can be defined as the beliefs
people hold about their own language and those spoken by others (Crystal 1992). In bilingual set-
tings, Myers-Scotton (2006) defined language attitudes as subjective evaluations of both languages
and their speakers, whether the perceptions are held by individual speakers or groups. Opinions
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 3

about different languages that coexist in a multilingual environment affect minority language
families’ patterns of language choice and behavior, which in turn influence their children’s language
development (De Houwer 1998). While some ethnic minority parents have positive views of their
mother tongue and choose to face the challenge of its intergenerational transmission and mainten-
ance, others might develop a negative outlook, causing them to deliberately use the majority
language with their children in order to accelerate majority language learning and assimilate into
mainstream society; this often opens the door to social, educational, and economic success.
There is considerable discussion in the literature concerning the vital role of language attitudes in
preserving heritage languages and cultural identity. Borland (2006), for example, pinpointed three
motivating factors conducive to maintaining languages: (1) positive perceptions of bilingualism
and heritage language learning; (2) a desire to use the mother tongue within the family; and (3) a
desire to keep strong familial ties with the homeland. In the Saudi context, negative opinions of
Hausa were reported as a chief reason for accelerating language shift among members of the
Saudi-Hausa community, who ‘have forgotten their Hausa roots, customs and traditions’ (Tawalbeh,
Dagamseh, and Al-Matrafi 2013, 139).
Two useful models for examining the role of attitudes in minority language preservation are those
of Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor (1977), who investigated ethnolinguistic vitality, and Smolicz (1981), who
scrutinized cultural core values. Giles et al. identified three classes of ethnolinguistic vitality factors,
which they defined as likely to cause an ethnolinguisc group ‘to behave as a distinctive and active
collective entity in intergroup situations’ (308). These are: (1) status (economic, social, symbolic);
(2) demographic (the number and concentration of minority language speakers); and (3) institutional
(media, education, community) support factors. According to this model, an ethnic minority group
with high vitality is more likely to enjoy a high degree of distinctiveness in multilingual settings;
thus, such a group is better qualified to preserve its home language and culture. Smolicz’s core
value theory assumes that each ethnolinguistic group has its own unique cultural values (e.g. a
native language, family structure, and religion) that are essential to its continued existence as a
group. For some groups, the native tongue is perceived as a core value; hence, maintaining the heri-
tage language is assumed to be more important for such groups. It should be noted, however, that
Clyne and Kipp (1999) found some intergenerational variation in core values and that the function of
the heritage language among second-generation participants was symbolic, rather than communica-
tive. Consequently, the second-generation was far less committed to the centrality of language as
part of their ethnic culture than their first-generation counterparts.
Overall, research in multilingual contexts has stressed the significance of language attitudes in
preserving heritage languages. The current study explores views among second-generation, Rohin-
gya-speaking refugees in Jeddah. The data analysis centers on two questions:
RQ#1. What are participants’ attitudes toward the Rohingya heritage language and its maintenance?

RQ#2. What are the participants’ attitudes toward Arabic (the majority language)?

To answer these questions, a 17-item attitude scale was used. In addition, two focus groups were con-
ducted with Rohingya participants to gather supplementary, qualitative details on their perceptions
of the languages they use in the host country.

Methods
Setting and participants
Jeddah is the second largest city in Saudi Arabia after the capital Riyadh, with a total population of
around four million. The city is home to about 43,914 documented Rohingya refugees and many
others who are undocumented, most of whom live in the Burmese neighborhood of southeast
Jeddah. This zone derives its name from the nationality of its residents, the majority of whom are orig-
inally from Myanmar. With over 25,000 houses, this densely populated, low-income neighborhood
4 M. ALSAHAFI

lacks key infrastructures (Okaz, September 13, 2018). Rohingya refugees’ socioeconomic situation is
generally below average. Jobs that require manpower, positions in mosques (e.g. those of imams,
muezzins, or Qur’an teachers) or in the fields of handicrafts, carpentry, blacksmithing, and upholstery
represent chief sources of livelihood. This locale is served by its own locally established councils and
the Burmese community’s sheikh’s office, which looks after residents’ interests.
The criteria in selecting the respondents were that they needed to be second-generation Rohin-
gyas living in Jeddah. For this study, they were defined as Rohingya people born in Saudi Arabia with
first-generation refugee parents. There were 65 participants in total, all of whom (27 females and 38
males) specified Rohingya as their ethnic mother tongue and that they speak both Arabic and Rohin-
gya at home. They ranged in age from 17 to 55 and were all educated in Saudi Arabia; the largest
group (73.9%) had completed either an intermediate/middle or high school certificate. In terms of
occupation, the males primarily comprised workers with no postsecondary education, whereas
most female respondents are housewives. Regarding martial statutes, 53 reported being married,
and all but two spouses are able to understand and speak Rohingya. See Table 1 for details on
gender, age, education, and employment.

Data collection and analysis

Data were collected by means of a questionnaire and two focus groups. The questionnaire included
17 statements on attitudes toward Rohingya and Arabic. It was critical to explore the respondents’
views of both Rohingya and Arabic in the Saudi context because, as noted by Gibbons and
Ramirez (2004, 195), ‘minority-language maintenance normally runs alongside proficiency in the
majority language, particularly for second-generation migrants and beyond.’ The respondents
were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with a 17-item attitude scale. They answered by select-
ing one option on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree,
and 5 = strongly agree).
As pointed out by Brown (2001), the Likert-scale is an effective technique for obtaining data on
respondents’ perceptions of various issues related to language. Following Gibbons and Ramirez
(2004), attitudinal statements used in the questionnaire included a wide range of status, identity,
and maintenance beliefs that may affect Arabic-Rohingya bilingualism, as well as Rohingya heritage
language maintenance (see also Clyne and Kipp 1999). The questionnaire also looked at demographic
background (e.g. sex, age, birthplace, marital status, occupation, education, and spouses’ first
language). For this study, the researcher contacted a Burmese community leader who works as an
imam at one of Jeddah’s mosques to help with recruiting participants. The participants were

Table 1. Details of participants’ gender, age, education, and employment.

Gender Male Female
Age Mean 34.6 31.7
Range 17–55 18–45
Education level None 1 2
Primary 7 5
Intermediate 11 8
Secondary 18 11
University 1 0
Unreported 0 1
Employment Driver 5 0
Carpenter 7 0
General worker 12 0
Housewife - 22
Mosque job 5 0
Upholsterer 3 0
Student 2 2
Unreported 4 3
Total 38 27
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 5

briefly informed of the study’s purpose and ensured that they would remain anonymous. A total of
100 questionnaires were administered with help from the community leader. Of these, 65 were
returned.
Qualitative data were obtained from two focus group discussions to shed light on the objective
data gathered through the questionnaire. In order to locate potential participants, a focus group invi-
tation letter was attached to the administered questionnaire, inviting respondents to take part in the
focus groups. While 29% of the male respondents indicated willingness to become involved and pro-
vided their phone numbers, none of the 27 female respondents did so (this may be due to cultural
reasons, as in Saudi Arabia, some women might feel uncomfortable engaging in conversation with
men who are not family members, including the researcher). Thus, a potential methodological limit-
ation of this study lies in the absence of female focus group participants, which would have provided
a vital perspective on the matters debated. Each focus group included 5 participants and the ques-
tions asked centered on the participants’ opinions about their languages. Both focus groups were led
by the researcher and lasted about 70 min each. Each focus group’s discussion was recorded and later
transcribed for analysis.
The data were analyzed using a combination of a descriptive statistical tool (SPSS 21) to code the
questionnaire data and qualitative analysis (see, for example, Miles and Huberman 1994) to code and
categorize the main themes that emerged in the focus group transcripts. The findings are presented
in the following section and are supported by verbatim excerpts from the focus group transcripts in
order ‘to keep the human story in the forefront of the reader’s mind and to make the conceptual
analysis more accessible to a wider audience’ (Charmaz 1995, 47). All focus group participants are
referred to using fictional, rather than actual, names to guarantee anonymity. The author of this
paper translated the focus group excerpts from Arabic into English.

Findings
This section explores respondents’ attitudes of Rohingya and Arabic by using results from the ques-
tionnaire and the two focus groups. The participants’ attitudes were grouped into two categories: (1)
attitudes toward Rohingya and its maintenance and (2) attitudes toward Arabic. The effect of gender
did not significantly affect participants’ answers to attitude statements in the questionnaire. As noted
by Clyne (2003), while gender might impact patterns of language maintenance and shift among first-
generation immigrants, its influence tends to be smaller among the second and third generations.

Attitudes toward preserving Rohingya as a heritage language

The respondents were invited to react to a number of 11 statements regarding their perspectives on
Rohingya and its maintenance (see Table 2). As noted previously, these items were divided into four
groups:

(1) affect (1);

(2) usefulness (5, 17);
(3) importance, pride, and identity (3, 7, 14, 15); and
(4) maintenance (9, 10, 13, 16).

The Rohingya affect

As seen in Table 2, the majority of respondents (80%) agreed or strongly agreed that Rohingya is a
beautiful language (item 1). On the other hand, only 10 (15.4%) disagreed with this statement,
whereas 3 (4.6%) were uncertain. Some focus group participants believed that Rohingya is a beautiful
language because it represents the vehicle for passing on their cultural heritage. For example, Abdul-
rahman said, ‘Rohingya is a beautiful language; it is one thing that we have in our possession; one
6 M. ALSAHAFI

Table 2. Attitudinal statements toward Rohingya with frequencies, means, and standard deviations (SD).
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Agree
Attitude statements 1 2 3 4 5 Mean (SD)
1. Rohingya is a beautiful language. 0 10 (15.4%) 3 (4.6%) 43 (66.2%) 9 (13.8%) 3.78 (0.87)
3. Rohingya is a unifying element among 0 9 (13.8%) 8 (12.3%) 44 (67.7%) 4 (6.2%) 3.66 (0.79)
the Rohingya people.
5. Rohingya is useful internationally. 2 (3.1%) 32 (49.2%) 23 (35.4%) 7 (10.8%) 1 (1.5%) 2.58 (0.78)
7. It is important for me to speak 3 (4.6%) 24 (36.9%) 3 (4.6%) 23 (35.4%) 12 (18.5%) 3.26 (1.26)
Rohingya.
9. Rohingya is being spoken less 2 (3.1) 8 (12.3%) 8 (12.3%) 41 (63.1%) 6 (9.2%) 3.63 (0.92)
frequently in my home.
10. Rohingya is being spoken less 6 (9.2%) 5 (7.8%) 9 (13.8%) 39 (60.0%) 6 (9.2%) 3.50 (1.06)
frequently in my community.
13. Rohingya children should attend 20 (30.8%) 34 (52.3%) 6 (9.2%) 1 (1.5%) 4 (6.2%) 2.00 (1.01)
evening or weekend classes to learn
Rohingya.
14. I am proud of the Rohingya language. 0 19 (29.2%) 6 (9.2%) 30 (46.2%) 10 (15.4%) 3.47 (1.07)
15. I cannot be a Rohingya if I cannot 16 (24.6%) 27 (41.5%) 6 (9.2%) 13 (20.0%) 3 (4.6%) 2.38 (1.19)
speak Rohingya.
16. In Saudi Arabia, Rohingyas should 17 (26.2%) 34 (52.3%) 3 (4.6%) 7 (10.8%) 4 (6.2%) 2.18 (1.13)
speak Rohingya at home regularly.
17. Learning Rohingya will be useful to 21 (32.3%) 28 (43.1%) 9 (13.8%) 3 (4.6%) 4 (6.2%) 2.09 (1.10)
Rohingya children in Saudi Arabia.

thing that links us to our past; a valuable tool that links us to our culture as Burmese Arakanese Rohin-
gyas.’ Similarly, Saleh commented that Rohingya is beautiful due to ‘its rich heritage of literature … I
mean I still remember numerous stories and songs my late grandfather used to tell, especially at
bedtime, as we used to live with him in the same household.’ On the other hand, two participants
disagreed and said they did not regard Rohingya as a beautiful language because it is only a
spoken tongue and that they have never seen it written. For example, Yassen pointed out that,
Well, I do not know how to write it, and to be honest, I have never seen Rohingya written … we only use Arabic for
reading and writing. A beautiful language is one which has a beautiful calligraphy if you know what I mean.

Similarly, Yusuf remarked, ‘Maybe it is beautiful back home in Arakan in its real environment … Arabic
is definitely more beautiful, like when we recite the Qur’an. Arabic is also more useful here.’

The usefulness of Rohingya

Attitude statements 5 and 17 in Table 2 examine the respondents’ perceived usefulness of Rohingya
in the global and local contexts. The majority of respondents seemed to disagree with both state-
ments. While 52.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed with statement 5 concerning the international
usefulness of Rohingya, a larger group (75.4%) did so with regard to the future usefulness of the
language to Rohingya children in Saudi Arabia. In their comments, the focus group participants
seemed very aware of the high status, importance, and utility of Arabic in the Saudi Arab-Muslim
context. They indicated that Arabic is more useful than Rohingya, both locally and internationally.
For example, Abdullah commented, ‘Arabic is more useful. For those in Burma, preserving the
language is much more important. Here I use it with my parents and wife at home, but with my chil-
dren I use both Rohingya and Arabic.’ Another participant, Zakaria, a father of two, emphasized the
significance of teaching his children Arabic and English, in addition to teaching them how to speak
Rohingya:
I think my children need to learn both Arabic and English. These two languages are crucial for their school success.
Besides Arabic, English is critical and useful as an international language; it is also vital for their future education.
Thus, we need all three languages, but of course for Rohingya, we just need to teach them how to speak it – I
mean without formal teaching. They need to speak it mainly at home, in particular when they communicate
with their grandparents since they do not speak Arabic well.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 7

Many participants linked the usefulness of Rohingya to its role in forming group identity and cohe-
sion among members of the Rohingya-speaking community, as discussed in the following section.

Language importance, pride, and identity

According to statements 3, 7, 14, and 15 in Table 2, more than half of the respondents (54%) believed
that being able to speak Rohingya is important, and 61.6% felt proud of the language. Regarding the
vital role of Rohingya as a unifying element among members of the community, 73.9% of the respon-
dents agreed or strongly agreed with statement 3. The qualitative data confirmed the above picture,
as almost all of the focus group participants stressed the centrality of the language in their ethnocul-
tural identity. In their comments, some participants expressed pride in being speakers of Rohingya.
Abdullah, for example, said:
We should not forget that Rohingya is the language of our fathers and ancestors and it’s our duty to keep it alive
here. You know when you look at other communities, you find that each community has its own native language
… a language that they can speak, read, and write – I mean a language they can study at their ethnic schools,
except for us. We do not have ethnic schools like Indian and Bengali communities, ethnic schools where our chil-
dren can go and learn their mother tongue … our language is a spoken one, maybe because our grandfathers
were forced to leave Burma 70 years ago and arrived here as refugees. We were born and grew up here and
cannot return to Burma.

The relationship between diasporic Rohingyas’ language and ethnocultural identity was underscored.
Mohammed, among others, not only regarded Rohingya as a medium of communication, but also as
an inseparable part of Rohingya ethnic culture and identity, as well as a vital tool to creating a sense
of ethnic group membership. He said:
The Rohingya language is very important for the Rohingya people. When we look at ourselves as Rohingya refu-
gees, either here or in Bangladesh or in any other country … at the end of the day you need to return to your
origins, no matter when, your ancestors left your country of origin. When you cannot communicate with your
fellow Rohingyas using your own ethnic language, it’s a bad and shameful thing … The Rohingya language is criti-
cal to our identity.

Placing more emphasis on the language’s role in enhancing group solidarity, Abdulrahman remarked:
We are Burmese Rohingyas. Here people call us “Burmese” but originally, we are “Rohingya” from Arakan, Burma.
Now I only use the term “Myanmar” in my ID card. Among ourselves, we say we are Burmese Rohingyas. Our
native language is Rohingya. Our homeland is Arakan. Our Burmese neighborhoods have helped us to use our
language not only at home, but also with our fellow Rohingya neighbors, with whom we share the same
culture. The Rohingya language is something that brings us together. We even have our own Burmese commu-
nity football team, which participates in the Communities Football Tournament. For those who live in other cities,
you find their language is weaker than those who live in the Burmese neighborhood.

Another participant, Hassan, shared his observations of Jeddah’s Burmese neighborhood: ‘We don’t
have to buy from outside the neighborhood. Our fellow Burmese vendors sell goods on the roadside,
and prices are suitable for those with low incomes.’ He added:
Life here is simple. Everyone helps each other to earn a living. We practice our customs as if we were in our
country of origin. Indeed, our loyalty is to this country, Saudi Arabia, where we were born and brought up.

Saleh commented on the positive role of the community-based councils: ‘Each Burmese neighbor-
hood has a council that looks after Burmese needs. For example, it organizes youth sport compe-
titions. It also arranges social gatherings like the Eid Al-Fitr celebration, and offers Burmese youth
advice and support.’ Likewise, Yaseen spoke about his fellow young Rohingyas’ daily performance
and practices (e.g. dress code and food):
Clearly, younger Rohingyas have started to adapt to the Saudi culture more than the older generation, which used
to be a bit isolated because they do not speak good Arabic. For example, people here started to alter their choice
of clothing. Unlike members of the older generation, who grew up wearing and still wear lungi (a type of sarong)
and a shirt, as you can see, we wear the Saudi thobe (a full-length dress with long sleeves) and shemagh (red-and-
8 M. ALSAHAFI

white headscarf). But in terms of food, we still cook the Rohingya dishes in our homes, and I think ethnic food is
one of the things that is well-maintained in our community … Weddings also follow a process tied to our cultural
traditions.

In sum, members of the Burmese Rohingya diaspora view the Rohingya language as central to
their ethnicity and cultural identity. Additionally, as Muslims, they feel accepted in Saudi Arabia
since they are co-religionists with the members of their host society. Regarding this connection,
Hassan said that ‘the most important advantage here is that it is a Muslim society. People do not
oppress you or look down on you. This is one reason why people have settled down here for a
long time. We’ve stayed here, learned about Islam and practiced our religious duties comfortably.’

Rohingya language maintenance and loss

Attitude statements 9, 10, 13, and 16, listed in Table 2, reveal aspects that are closely linked to the
intergenerational transmission Rohingya, including home and community use and formal learning.
Statements 9 and 10 focus on language use in the family and ethnic community. The respondents
were asked to consider whether Rohingya is disappearing in these two crucial domains. Emphasis
was given to these two settings due to their vital role in reproducing and maintaining the heritage
language.
As seen in the table, 72.3% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that Rohingya is being
spoken less frequently at home, and 69.2% agreed or strongly agreed that Rohingya is being spoken
less often in the community. Nevertheless, they reported that Rohingya is still used in the home and
the community. For example, Zakaria stressed the role of his multigenerational household as a site for
intergenerational use of the heritage tongue:
We use both languages at home. With my parents it is mostly Rohingya. With my children I use both Rohingya and
Arabic. It is really important to use Rohingya with my children because I am afraid they will lose it one day. With
my wife I also use Rohingya, so the children hear us and thus learn the language indirectly.

However, most of the focus group participants seemed aware of a decline in the use of Rohingya,
which can be attributed to a number of factors such as the following:
(1) The bilingual ability of second-generation parents who, unlike their Rohingya-dominant
parents, tend to use both Rohingya and Arabic with their children. Mohammed said:
My parents speak to me in Rohingya only because they do not speak Arabic well, and this is how I learned Rohin-
gya … I mean from my parents and other relatives. So, I have to use Rohingya with them. With my wife and chil-
dren, I use both Rohingya and Arabic, like mixed 50:50. I live with my brothers in the same house and sometimes
we need to use Arabic with our children to help them learn the language, as this is important for their schooling.

As demonstrated by some of the focus group participants, while first-generation parents tend to
nearly always communicate with their Saudi-born/second-generation children in Rohingya,
second-generation parents are more likely to codeswitch between Arabic and Rohingya when com-
municating with their spouses and children. Consequently, their children are more likely to use Rohin-
gya with their grandparents, and Rohingya and Arabic with their parents. Abdullah, a father of three,
noted, ‘My children can speak both Rohingya and Arabic, and my wife and I use both languages with
them. But with their grandmother, they mostly use Rohingya.’ Thus, the finding by Alsahafi (2019)
that Rohingya is intergenerationally transmitted and used among successive generations of Rohin-
gyas in Mecca is supported by the current’s study outcomes. Despite the reported decline, the
language is used among the second and third generations, and in particular when interacting
with Rohingya-dominant grandparents and other older members of the community.
(2) A lack of community literacy resources (e.g. printed materials) and family heritage-language
literacy practices (e.g. reading stories). The vast majority of the respondents (82.9%) strongly dis-
agreed or disagreed with statement 13 regarding providing supplementary Rohingya classes
either after school or on weekends to teach their children literacy. This might be because Rohingya
is mainly a spoken language with no universally accepted script, despite several attempts to create a
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 9

Rohingya-specific writing system, the latest of which is the Hanifi alphabet, developed in the 1980s
and added to the Unicode Standard in 2018. The focus group participants commented on the dearth
of literacy in Rohingya, as well as on the unavailability of printed materials in their households and
community. Yusuf said: ‘I do not read or write in Rohingya. I do not even know the alphabet. Recently,
I’ve watched some YouTube videos about a new Rohingya alphabet. I do all my reading and writing in
Arabic.’ Another participant, Abdulrahman, commented:
What makes teaching Rohingya to our children difficult here is that we do not have Rohingya textbooks. I do not
read or write in Rohingya. Our children learn from the Saudi curriculum. Perhaps you can find some books among
recent Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. There you may find some Rohingyas who can read and write Rohingya,
but due to our long length of stay here, we do not seem to have any. I remember my late grandfather who was a
scholar in Arakan prior to his migration; he had a few books that he used to read. I remember I used to listen to
him reading from those Rohingya books at bedtime … I think stuff like Rohingya poetry.

Two participants stressed the need for community-based, language planning efforts toward teaching
Rohingya literacy. Abdullah pointed out that:
Special efforts must be arranged by community councils to help teach our children how to read and write in
Rohingya. I’m sure that our language has textbooks and grammar. Today, thanks to the Internet, it’s become rela-
tively easy to obtain Rohingya resources. It is really important to combine efforts to achieve this goal.

(3) The statelessness of Rohingyas and the impossibility of visiting (or returning to) the homeland.
As previously noted, Myanmar’s government considers the Rohingyas to be illegal Bengali immi-
grants. Regarding this connection, Hassan remarked that ‘going back to our original home country
in Arakan, Burma has become a fading dream, but some people do not despair. Yet the truth is
that returning to our homeland remains a distant dream.’ Homeland return visits have been identified
as a factor in minority language maintenance (e.g. Holmes et al. 1993). For the Rohingyas, it is imposs-
ible to return to their country of origin in the foreseeable future due to their stateless condition. One
would expect that the positive role of return intentions in preserving heritage languages does not
apply in the case of this study’s participants.

Attitudes toward Arabic

The five statements in Table 3 illustrate the respondents’ beliefs concerning the beauty, usefulness,
importance, and learning of Arabic. Positive attitude statements toward Arabic were rated highly. For
example, all respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that Arabic is beautiful, and
the vast majority did so with regard to Arabic’s usefulness (97%) and importance (93.8). However,
only 12.3% agreed or strongly agreed – whereas 60% disagreed or strongly disagreed – with the
statement ‘I only need Arabic in Saudi Arabia’ because it implies a negative view of using Rohingya.
As discussed earlier, the participants seemed bound by social networks of the heritage language. In
terms of formal literacy learning, the participants underscored the significance of teaching Arabic to
their children at the expense of Rohingya due to the official language’s importance in academic
success; thus, 63% agreed or strongly agreed with item 12. As shown above, there is a shortage of

Table 3. Attitudinal statements toward Arabic with frequencies, means, and standard deviations (SD).
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Disagree Uncertain Agree Agree
Attitude statements 1 2 3 4 5 Mean (SD)
2. Arabic is beautiful. 0 0 0 21 (32.3%) 44 (67.7%) 4.67 (0.47)
6. Arabic is useful internationally. 0 1 (1.5%) 1 (1.5%) 38 (58.5%) 25 (38.5%) 4.33 (0.59)
8. It is important for me to speak Arabic. 0 0 4 (6.2%) 30 (46.2%) 31 (47.6%) 4.38 (0.60)
11. I only need Arabic in Saudi Arabia. 3 (4.6%) 36 (55.4%) 18 (27.7%) 5 (7.7%) 3 (4.6%) 2.52 (0.88)
12. It is more important for our children to 1 (1.5%) 14 (21.5%) 9 (13.8%) 27 (41.5%) 14 (21.5%) 3.60 (1.10)
learn Arabic well than to spend time
teaching them Rohingya.
10 M. ALSAHAFI

literacy in Rohingya among members of the community, as well as a dearth of resources for teaching
Rohingya literacy both at home and in the community.
The focus group participants’ views largely mirrored those of the survey in that they generally
showed a positive attitude toward functional bilingualism in Rohingya and Arabic. For example,
while Zakaria felt that knowledge of Arabic allows for a smooth integration into the Saudi Arabic-
dominant society, Rohingya, on the other hand, is seen as a key element of the Rohingyas’ identity:
Both languages are important for me and my children. Arabic is vital because it is the language of our second
home. In fact, I’ve always considered Saudi Arabia my first home. The second reason is that Arabic is the language
of the Qur’an and the language of our religion … At the same time, we should not lose our native tongue: the
language of the father and mother. Rohingyas should know how to speak Rohingya.

Taking a different stance, Maher, among other parent participants, stressed the significance of his
children developing proficiency in Rohingya, Arabic, and English: ‘My children need to learn three
languages: Arabic for their religion and schooling, English for their future studies and employment,
and Rohingya. You know, to be a Rohingya, you should know how to speak the mother tongue.’
Another participant, Hassan, agreed with Maher’s remark and explained that proficiency among chil-
dren can be achieved through a combination of both formal and informal education: ‘Our children
need the three languages. They need to study Arabic and English at school. As for Rohingya, they
can of course acquire it at home.’
Issues learning Arabic emerged among the focus group participants due to some recent develop-
ments witnessed by the Rohingya-speaking community. Specifically, over 60,000 Rohingya children
were previously enrolled in informal, community-based schools (funded by charities) in Mecca
Region. These institutions were merged with mainstream primary, intermediate, or secondary
public schools (attended by Saudi students) due to the poor facility conditions. Regarding this,
Saleh said:
In my school days at Madares Al-Jaliat (community schools), we used both Arabic and Rohingya. Although we
studied the Saudi curriculum – I mean we had the same textbooks used in public schools – our teachers were
Burmese and used to speak in both languages in the classroom: sometimes Arabic, sometimes Rohingya. This
helped us to develop both languages. But since the merger, [the education] is all now in Arabic.

Conclusion
This study provides insight into language attitude patterns among second-generation Rohingya refu-
gees in Jeddah. Overall, based on the findings, the participants held positive views of both Rohingya
and Arabic. For them, Rohingya-Arabic bilingualism appears to offer the means to be both ethnic
Rohingyas and Muslims in the host country. Positive opinions of Arabic seem to fulfill two critical
needs: (1) social: to integrate and fit in better in the Arabic-dominant environment, where Arabic
opens the door to educational and economic success; and (2) religious: Arabic is the tool through
which they can gain access to the Qur’an and to the teachings of Islam, since they share a religious
affiliation (Sunni Islam) with members of the majority group.
The participants also showed positive attitudes toward Rohingya in terms of: (1) its use in the
home and ethnic community domains, which function as crucial sites for reproducing the heritage
language and maintaining it across generations; and (2) Rohingya’s connection to identity. The Rohin-
gyas have successfully created their own co-ethnic and co-linguistic networks, daily activities, and
patterns of living in their neighborhoods. Their daily practices seem bound in social networks of
the heritage language, which allow for more in-group interaction patterns. The factors that seem
to favor maintaining the language include demography (Rohingyas’ numerical strength and high
geographical concentration), ethnic community connectedness, and shared understanding in
terms of origin, native language, history, statelessness, and destiny. In coping with the dilemma of
statelessness, for Rohingyas, ‘the name with which they identify themselves becomes more signifi-
cant as it is now inherently tied to their ethnic and political identity … even more so after many
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION AND BILINGUALISM 11

have died with the name’ (Kipgen, 2019, 71). One of the focus group participants, Abdulrahman,
emphasized: ‘We are Burma’s Rohingyas. Our native language is Rohingya. Our homeland is
Arakan.’ Finally, community-based councils must harness these positive perceptions and implement
effective language maintenance strategies at the community level to support the preservation of the
Rohingya language.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This project was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, under grant
number (D-240-125-1441). The author, therefore, gratefully acknoweldges DSR’s technical and financial support.

Notes on contributor
Morad Alsahafi is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. His research
interests are in applied linguistics and sociolinguistics, particularly bilingualism, heritage language maintenance and edu-
cation, language planning (in immigrant families), and language teaching and learning.

References
Ager, S. 2019. “Omniglot: Writing Systems and Languages of the World.” https://www.omniglot.com/writing/rohingya.
htm.
Alsahafi, M. 2019. “Language Proficiency and Usage Among Second- and Third-Generation Rohingya Refugees in Mecca.”
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 1–15. doi:10.1080/01434632.2019.1668945.
Al-Maghamsi, N. 2015, May 28. Burmese Community Still an Enigma. Saudi Gazette. Retrieved from http://saudigazette.
com.sa.
Alzahrani, M. 2018, September 13. Okaz Penetrates the Alleys of the Neighborhood of 25 Thousand Buildings. Okaz.
Retrieved from https://www.okaz.com.sa.
Baker, C. 1992. Attitudes and Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Baker, C., and W. E. Wright. 2017. Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 6th ed. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Borland, H. 2006. “Intergenerational Language Transmission in an Established Australian Migrant Community: What
Makes the Difference?” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 180: 23–41.
Bradley, D. 2002. “Language Attitudes: The Key Factor in Language Maintenance.” In Language Endangerment and
Language Maintenance: An Active Approach, edited by D. Bradley, and M. Bradley, 1–10. London: Routledge.
Brown, J. D. 2001. Using Survey in Language Programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Charmaz, K. 1995. “Grounded Theory.” In Rethinking Methods in Psychology, edited by J. A. Smith, R. Harre, and L. V.
Langenhove, 27–49. London: Sage.
Clyne, M. 2003. Dynamics of Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clyne, M., and S. Kipp. 1999. Pluricentric Languages in an Immigrant Context: Spanish, Arabic and Chinese. Berlin and
New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Crystal, D. 1992. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
De Houwer, A. 1998. “Environmental Factors in Early Bilingual Development: The Role of Parental Beliefs and Attitudes.” In
Bilingualism and Migration, edited by G. Extra, and L. Verhoeven, 75–96. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ferguson, J. 2015. “Who’s Counting? Ethnicity, Belonging, and the National Census in Burma/Myanmar.” Bijdragen tot de
Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Southeast Asia) 171 (1): 1–28.
Fishman, J. A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Garcia, M. 2003. “Recent Research on Language Maintenance.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 23: 22–43.
GAStat. 2018. General Authority for Statistics (GAStat): Statistical Yearbook. https://www.stats.gov.sa/ar/1007-0.
Gibbons, J., and E. Ramirez. 2004. Maintaining a Minority Language: A Case Study of Hispanic Teenagers. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Giles, H., R. Y. Bourhis, and D. M. Taylor. 1977. “Towards a Theory of Language in Ethnic Group Relations.” In Language,
Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, edited by H. Giles, 307–348. New York: Academic Pree.
12 M. ALSAHAFI

Holmes, J., M. Roberts, M. Verivaki, and A. ‘Aipolo. 1993. “Language Maintenance and Shift in Three New Zealand Speech
Communities.” Applied Linguistics 14: 1–24.
Kipgen, N. 2019. “The Rohingya Crisis: The Centrality of Identity and Citizenship.” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 39 (1):
61–74. doi:10.1080/13602004.2019.1575019.
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. 2nd ed. Newbury, CA:
Sage.
Milton, Abul, Mijanur Rahman, Sumaira Hussain, Charulata Jindal, Sushmita Choudhury, Shahnaz Akter, Shahana
Ferdousi, Tafzila Mouly, John Hall, and Jimmy Efird. 2017. “Trapped in Statelessness: Rohingya Refugees in
Bangladesh.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14 (8): 942. https://www.mdpi.com/
1660-4601/14/8/942#cite.
Myers-Scotton, C. 2006. Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Pandey, A. 2016. Revised Proposal to Encode Hanifi Rohingya in Unicode. L2/L16/16311R- Unicode Consortium. https://
www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16311r-hanifi-rohingya.pdf.
Pauwels, A. 2004. “Language Maintenance.” In The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, edited by A. Davies, and C. Elder, 719–
737. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Smolicz, J. 1981. “Core Values and Cultural Identity.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 4: 75–90.
Tannenbaum, M., and P. Howie. 2002. “The Association between Language Maintenance and Family Relations: Chinese
Immigrant Children in Australia.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 23: 408–424.
Tawalbeh, A., M. Dagamseh, and A. Al-Matrafi. 2013. “Language Maintenance or Shift? A Sociolinguistic Investigation Into
the Use of Hausa Among Saudi Hausa in the City of Mecca.” Acta Linguistica 7 (5): 128–141.
Thomason, S. G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Washington: Georgetown University Press.