Fulltext

ASIAN AND AFRICAN STUDIES, 19, 2010, 1,71-86
A S T R U C T U R A L M O D E L OF PR E S T IG IO U S
ORAL ARA BIC1
Ladislav DROZDÍK
Institute of Oriental Studies, Slovak A cadem y of Sciences,
K lem ensova 19, 813 64 Bratislava, Slovakia
kaorladi@ savba.sk
Prestigious Oral Arabic, the substandard noncolloquial oral medium of the present-day Arab
cultural elite, is an unstable linguistic entity with diffuse structural contours. Thc following
inquiry aims at creating a tentative structural model of this emerging linguistic medium in
terms of its deviation from the synthetic norm of Standard Arabic, and at defining its
position in the recent system of diglossia.
Key words: diglossia, substandardness, noncolloquialness, oralness, cultural significance,
synthetic norm of Standard Arabic, i crāb-less language, diglossic continuum, mono/multifunctional indicators, structural/graphical limit
1 .In the recent system of A rabophone com m unication, currently
identified with the notion o f diglossia2 the linguistic and socio-cultural status
of the substandard noncolloquial oral Arabic, henceforw ard Prestigious Oral
Arabic (POA), is not easy to define, neither is its position in the diglossic
hierarchy quite clear. POA, a parallel o fM itc h e lL s Educated Spoken Arabic
/E S A /,3 Karin C. R y d in g 's Formal Spoken A ra b ic /F S A /,4 etc., is here used
lThis study is published within the grant project V E G A 2/0153/09.
2 F E R G U S O N , C.A . D ig lo ssia , pp. 325-340/1971, pp. 1-27; F L E IS C H , H. A ra b e
cla ssiq u e et a ra b e d ia le cta l, pp. 2 3 - 6 2 , Ia dualité linguistique; D IE M , W.
H o ch sp ra ch e u nd D ia le kt im A ra b isc h e, p. 18 f.: /k o ord inie rte/ Z w eispra chigke it;
etc.
3 M IT C H E L L , T.F. Wliat is E d u ca ted S p oken A ra b ic, pp. 7 - 3 2 .
4 R Y D IN G , K arin C. F orm al Spoken A rabic.
71
as a generic term for all substandard noncolloquial, typically oral varieties
of Arabic, irrespective o f t h e nam es they actually bear.
W hen retaining the notion of diglossia as a working fram ew ork, PO A
appears as an in-between m edium , Iuga wusta, oscillating betw een both
poles of diglossia: Standard Arabic (F erg uson 's H-variety), at the synthetic
pole of the typological space, and any o f the set of local colloquials, at the
analytic pole th ere o f (F erg u so n 's L-variety).
The classical concept o f diglossia, however, did not gain general
acceptance with all those concerned with problem s of com m unication in the
A rabophone world. T he binary model of diglossia is challenged by several
more refined hierarchies.
The system proposed by H. B lanc5 distinguishes five varieties or style
levels.
D oubts about the utility of the latter type of finely graded system s are
recognized by Blanc him self when admitting that it is rare 'to find any
sustained segm ent of discourse in a single one of the style varieties alluded
t o '. 6 In formal classification, however, B lan c's system m ade it possible to
identify both polar values of the diglossive space: Standard Classical and
Plain C olloquial. The non-polar rest o f the system, disregarding its
subdivision into three separate units (M odified Classical, Sem iliterary or
Elevated C olloquial, and apparently also Koineized Colloquial), might be
taken for a P O A -related segm ent of the A rabophone diglossic continuum.
A similar, though not overlapping and term inologically quite different,
hierarchy of levels (m ustaw ayaf) o f the contem porary Arabic o f Egypt was
developed som ew hat later by as-SacTd B adawI.7 As in B la n c ’s system, the
five levels o f this hierarchy are delimited by two structural maxima:
synthetic and analytic. B adaw I’s m axim um o f synthetism, however, is
subdivided betw een fu sh a t-turāt or Standard Arabic o f the heritage, true
Classical Arabic, and fusha I - Casr or Standard Arabic of the present. The
analytic m axim um coincides with cā m m īy a t al-u m m īyīn , colloquial of the
illiterate. The tw o in-between levels, cā m m īy a ta l-m u ta q q a fīn , colloquial of
the educated, used in formal com m unication without recourse to any written
text, and cā m m īy a ta l-m u ta n a w w irīn , colloquial o f the enlightened, used in
the everyday needs of educated interlocutors, might seem ingly be identified
with what we call PO A , the substandard noncolloquial linguistic entity.
5 B L A N C , H. Stylistic V ariations in Spoken Arabic. In F E R G U S O N , C harles A.
(Ed.). C o n trib u tio n s to A ra b ic L in g u istics, pp. 7 9 - 1 6 1 .
6 Ibid., p. 85.
7 B A D A W I, as-Sa°Id M u sta w a y a t a l- carabīya al-m u°āsira f ī m isr. (Linguistic levels
o f c o n tem p o rary A rabic in Egypt).
72
Several other attempts at hierarchizing elem ents of the A rabophone
diglossic com m unication are left out of consideration.
In contrast to B lan c’s system o f varieties or B adaw I’s hierarchy of
levels, M itchell arg u e s 8 that ESA has to be conceived as a result of the
constant interplay of written and vernacular Arabic rather than as a series of
separate entities. Substantially the same approach to the educated
nondialectal oral Arabic may be deduced from E l-H a s a n 's 'critical view of
d ig lo ssia '.9
1.1.
In the Arab cultural tradition, the vague notion of an i crāb-less
noncolloquial Arabic, used in culturally highlighted com m unicative events,
is not unknown to recent izdiw agIya debates. AnTs F ra y h a ’s simplified
A ra b ic 10 is an i'r d b 4 c ss language defined as a com m on spoken language {a/Iahga a l- carabIya al-m ahkIya al-niustaraka), free from clear regionalisms,
with reduced verbal paradigm s and a reduced inventory of personal
pronouns due to the loss of gender distinction in the 2P and 3P of the plural,
and with a sim plified syntax o f numerals. In the field of lexicon, F ra y h a ’s
simplified Arabic depends on Standard Arabic as a source of its lexical
borrowings.
Henri F le isch ’s attitude toward F ray h a’s com m on spoken language is
that of a scholar and conservative supporter of Classical Arabic, an Arabic
m odernized and som ew hat simplified, but not / crāb-\ess. An i crab-less
Arabic is not even a language in the proper sense of the word. The future
Iies in an urabe classique m oderne written in the fully vocalized script.11
T he 20th century attitude of the leading Arab scholars towards
fundamental synthetic manifestations of Arabic, nam ely those related to the
case and verbal mood inflection, may further be illustrated by Ibräflm A nIs’
view on i'rab. Although it cannot be affirmed that A n Is’ presentation of the
(vowel-based) /7aA-m arkers in terms of mere cluster-preventing wordconnecting operators is fully representatitve o f t h e Arab scholarship, an i crāb
deprived of its gram m atical function is certainly worth consideration: "It
seems that providing the word ends with vowels was one of the
distinguishing m arks of junction, both in poetry and prose. W hen ever a
speaker makes a pause or concludes his sentence, he has no need of these
vowels, he stops at the last word of his utterance with what is known as
8 M IT C IIE L L , T.F. W Imt is E ducated S poken A ra b ic , p. 12.
9 E L -IIA S S A N , S. E d u ca ted Spoken A ra b ic in E g yp t a n d the L e v a n t, pp. 1 12-132.
10 F R A Y H A , AnIs N alnva °arabTya m uyassara. (T ow ards a sim plified A rabic) In
D IE M , W e rner H o ch sp ra ch e und D ia lekt im A ra b isch en . U n tersu ch u n g en zu r
h eutig en Z w e isp ra c h ig k e it, p. 141.
11 F L E IS C H , H. A ra b e cla ssiq u e et arabe d ia le c ta l, pp. 2 3 - 6 2 .
73
sukQii. It may be inferred from this premise that the basic rule for all
inflective words is to end in this su ku n and the speaker has to resort to the
voweling of words but in the case of a phonetic necessity called forth by the
( w o r d )ju n c tio n ." 12
2.
The first attestable m anifestation of the evolutional process of
analytic reconstruction of Arabic, which is assum ed to have started around
the time of the Islamic conquest in the 7th and 8th centuries A .D .,1' appears
in the dichotom y of pausal and contextual forms, recorded and carefully
analysed in the works of early Arab gram m arians and in num erous q irä a t
treatises. T he very existence of the pausal-contextual dichotom y contributed
to the assum ption that dropping the word-final short-vowel m arkers does not
produce any noticeable loss of grammatical information and that these elided
elem ents can easily be dispensed with in the com m unicative process. The
subsequent spread of pausal forms in contextual positions gradually led to
the constitution o f t h e structural basis for modern Arabic dialects.
POA, the prom ising Iuga wusta of the present-day Arabic diglossia and
the prestigious oral m edium of the Arab intellectual elite, is itself the
product of this evolutional trend. As a so-far norm less linguistic entity, PO A
may best be approached as a linguistic continuum of relatively diffuse and
perm eable structural states alternating between both poles of the diglossic
space, m axim um of synthetism (ms), supported by the synthetic norm of
Standard Arabic (SA) and m axim um of analytism (ma), represented by the
analytic structures of Colloquial Arabic (CA), subsum ing the whole of
modern Arabic colloquials (local dialects), without being fully identifiable
with any of the two structural maxima.
I
I
I
I
CA: ma
SA: ms
POA: m s/ma
As the synthetic norm of Standard Arabic is the unique stable point in
the whole typological space of diglossia, all structural m anifestations of
P O A will be classified in term s of their identity with or their deviation from
this synthetic norm, m aterialized in various sets of inflectional indicators
(the dom ain of derivation stands outside the scope of the present study). The
following considerations will purposefully be restricted to the /T a6-related
categories o f case and verbal mood, the ones most im mediately affected by
the ongoing process of analytic restructuring of Arabic. B eyond this narrow
12 A N lS , IhrāhIm R a ’y f ī l - i crāb. (My opinion on a l - i c rāb), pp. 5 5 - 5 6 .
15 F Ü C K , J. A ra b fy a , pp. 2 - 3 , 5 - 6 ; B L A U , J. The E m erg en ce a n d L in g u istic
B a ck g ro u n d o fJ u d a e o -A r a b ic , p. 8.
74
i crāb space only the perfective paradigm will be taken into account to
com plete the verbal counterpart of the nominal domain.
2.1.
POA, defined in terms of two structural m axim a still offers space for
a largely unpredictable alternation of synthetic and analytic structures. Any
valid linguistic statem ent about POA, structurally reduced to the sum of its
inflectional indicators, may only be derived from a sort of hierarchical
organization o f the latter. To this purpose, the whole inventory o f the
inflectional m arkers of Standard Arabic is classified in term s o f their
structural stability. T he latter expresses the relative capability of synthetic
inflections to resist the impact o f pausalization in non-pausal c o n te x ts .o f
oral com m unication, that is, in a wider evolutionary perspective, to resist the
process of analytic reconstruction of the synthetic structural model of
Standard Arabic. This classification leads to a dichotom ous division
between:
(1) relatively stable, and
(2) relatively unstable inflections.
Stable inflections, functionally represented by inflectional indicators
(m arkers) that signal several gramm atical categories, hence multifunctional
or m ulticategorial indicators, contrast with unstable inflections whose
indicators tend to signal one category only, hence m onofunctional or
monocategorial indicators. The ability o f multifunctional indicators to resist
the impact of pausalization in oral contexts is markedly greater than that of
m onofunctional ones.
T he form er class may be illustrated by portm anteau m orphem es, such as ū n (a )XA/-ū v j\\\c \\, in nominal paradigms, mark case (nom inative), gender
(m asculine) and num ber (plural), in a nonconstruct/construct opposition; in
verbal (im perfective) paradigms, they indicate gender (m asculine), num ber
(plural), mood ( -iiu(a) for indicative /-t7for subjunctive and ju ssive) of the
third/second person (the 3P/2P distinction being specified by the prefix).
T h e latter class includes suffixes like -u, as in nnis/im -u, signalling, in the
nominal domain, only case (nominative, with the definite singular and
broken plural nouns of both triptotic and diptotic declension types), and, in
the imperfective paradigm, verbal mood (indicative), as in ya -ktu b -u .
The dividing point betw een the two types of indicators is termed
stru ctu ra l lim it (sI).
ms
stable: m u ltifu n c tio n a l m ark e rs
sl
unstable: m onofunctional m arkers
ma
14 B rackets indicate elem ents elided in pre-pausal positions (for con ve tio n s adopted
see §4).
75
2.2
T he Arabic scrip tio defectiva (kitäba näqisä) offers another clue for
the classification of inflectional markers. M ultifunctional indicators of the
stable class, the only ones to be represented by autonom ous alphabetic
sym bols o f the Arabic script, patently differs in this respect from the
unstable m onofunctional markers where such graphical representation is
missing. From this point o f view, the stable indicators may alternatively be
classified as alphabetic, as against those belonging to the unstable class,
which will be classified as nonalphabetic indicators. The dividing point
between them is marked by graphical lim its (gl), the graphical parallel of
the structural limit.
ms stable: alphabetic markers
gl
unstable: nonalphabetic markers
ma
Graphically classified stable or multifunctional indicators have to satisfy
the prerequisite of what we call syllabic m inim um in the pausal
representation. On the strength of this syllabic constraint each
multifunctional indicator, alternatively classifiable as an alphabetic marker,
has to consist of at least one syllable in the pre-pausal position.
The prerequisite of syllabic m inim um for the alphabetic classification of
inflectional indicators along the alphabetic/nonalphabetic dichotom y is
inherently satisfied by all stable or multifunctional indicators of the i crābcategories of case and verbal mood, for some m arkers o f the perfective
paradigm, however, especially ior-t(u)& nd-t(a), as against, say, -ti& nd-na, it
has be postulated as a taxonom ic convention.
On account of the failure of syllabic constraint, the perfective -t(u), IP
singular, gender-neutral, or -t(a), 2P singular masculine, for instance, with
unstable, pause-sensitive vowels, have to be classified as m onofunctional,
hence nonalphabetic indicators (of person, contrasting with the unm arked
gender and num ber values of masculine and singular resp.), as against, say,
the perfective -ti, 2P singular feminine, ending in a stable, pause-resistant
vowel, which belongs to the multifunctional, hence alphabetic class of
markers (person, gender).
2.3. T he main criterial devices used in classifying the Standard Arabic
inflectional markers by their functional power are (1) criterion of structural
stability, and (2) that o f graphical representability. W hile the latter might
easily be regarded as a mere external m anifestation or attribute of the
former, we find it preferable to list them separately at the same taxonom ic
level since they may, with only a rather limited num ber o f exceptions (see
2.2), operate as autonom ous criteria. Nevertheless, a certain difference
between the two still exists. The criterion of structural stability, entirely
76
based on lhe b ehaviour of inflectional m orphem es in the pre-pausal position,
is a fully self-contained device, largely independent of phonological and
related prosodic features, and their written representation. On the other
hand, the criterial value of what we call graphical representability cannot
satisfactorily w ork without the help of some structural phenom ena (syllabic
constraint, see 2.2), ultimately derived from the form er criterion. The
autonom ous position of this graphical criterion in our hierarchy is further
supported by the function it plays in visualizing the difference between
function and redundance. In spite of the well-know n fact that Standard
Arabic, in the recent system of diglossia, mostly operates as a written
medium, the Arabic defective script exercises nevertheless a noticeable
impact on oral com m unication as it, on the part of com m unicants,
strengthens the feeling of redundance and uselesness o f the unrepresented
markers as against those alphabetically represented. T his impact may be
either active, through oral reproduction of a written Standard Arabic text, or
passive and implicit, by way of linguistic awareness and speaking habits
stimulated by the latter. The criterial value of the alphabetic classification is
nonetheless m anifested in the close correlation between the functional range
of inflectional m arkers and their alphabetic representability.
3. C onventions adopted for the treatment of m orphem ic data:
(1)
Arabic, as used in this text, refers to Standard Arabic (SA),
identifiable with all synthetic variants of Arabic, irrespective o f whether
Classical Arabic o f the pre-Islamic poetry, Koran and canonized literature of
the M iddle ages, or M odern Written Arabic. SA, the unique codified
linguistic entity in the diglossic space is located at the m s pole of the latter.
Colloquial Arabic (CA), collectively referring to the sum of analytic variants
of Arabic, nam ely regional colloquials, occupies the m a pole o f the diglossic
diagram. The in-between space is filled by the norm less linguistic
continuum of what we call POA, the ever variable result of the m s/m a
hybridization or, in M itchell’s words, the result of the constant interplay
between written and vernacular A rabic.15
ms: S A
P O A : socioculturally graded linguistic continuu m
m a: CA
(2)
The Standard Arabic verbal-m ood distinction is reduced to only three
modal paradigms: indicative, subjunctive and jussive, inclusive of
imperative (sum m arily labelled as imperfective paradigm s); the reduction
15 M IT C IIE L L , T .F . W hat is E d u ca ted Spoken A ra b ic , p. 12.
77
has to bring the Standard Arabic modal system closer to the oral
characteristics of the m oodless POA.
(3) U nstable (pause-sensitive) vowels, as parts of inflectional m arkers of
various types, are put in brackets: ya-ktub-an(j), katab-t(u), etc., as against
those them selves operating as inflectional markers, which are not: ya -ktu b -u ,
-a, etc.
(4) In defining the m arking capability of inflectional m orphem es, the
prefixal com ponent o f the com bined prefixal-suffixal m arkers operating in
the im perfective paradigm s will be ignored, since only the suffixal
com ponents can be affected by the impact of pausalization. Accordingly,
mono- and multifunctionality are defined with exclusive reference to the
suffixal m arkers (in the perfective and case paradigm s) and to the suffixal
com ponents of the com bined prefixal-suffixal markers (in the im perfective
paradigms): the com b ined ta- ~ - u in ta-ktub-u 3P.sing.fem, for instance, has
to be classified as a multifunctional indicator (person-gender-verbal mood),
when stripped of the prefixal com ponent, however, its function is reduced to
the indicative marking, in contrast to the subjunctive -a or the jussiv e zera,
on the other hand, the suffixal -u in ta-ktub-u, as a m onofunctional marker,
contrasts with the corresponding perfective inflection k a ta b -a tW .lk x n g .lfe m .
whose suffixal m orphem e has to be classified as a m em ber of the
multifunctional class; the redundant nature of -u in ta-ktub-u is confirm ed, in
turn, by the graphical evidence (its deletion in pre-pausal position in tune
with its pause-sensitive, nonalphabetic nature).
(5) F orm ally identical markers operating in the sam e paradigm , such as taktub-an(i), 3P dual, fem inine /2P dual, masc/fem, are listed only once with
no attention paid to the num ber of their recurrent occurrences.
(6) ^ e c o m o rp h e m e s , such as the jussive ^revr>markers ya -/ta-/'a-/na-ktub0 , are not listed as separate items;
(7) Spelling conventions involving alphabetic sym bols, as in y a -k tu b -ü
( wāw+ aHf), are not taken into account.
(8) The alphabetic representation of monofunctional m arkers is reduced to
the pre- pausal -ā of the context-pause correlation -an/-ā —> m a lik-a n /
m aI/k-ā, in contrast to -u n /zero and -in/zero ,16 and to a few of other cases;
for the exclusion o f -t(a), -t(u) from the category of alphabetic
(m ultifunctional) m arkers, see § 2.2 above.
16 Cf., T he special status o f the taw In -an, as o pp ose d to -un and -in, seem s to have a
phonological background, since it ca nnot be safely explained by a higher functional
rank (B I R K F L A N D , H., A lta ra b isch e P ausalfo rm en , p. 46); additional pausally
m otivated prosodic p h en o m en a (F IS C H E R , W ., G ra m m a tik des kla ssisc h en
A ra b isc h , p. 32) are found irrelevant for the purposes o f this inquiry.
78
(9) Suffixal m orphem es in the weak-stem verbal inflections, such as *r-dy : ta-rd-aw n(a) < * ta-rday-dn(a) or ta-rd-ayn(a) < *ta-rday-In(a), and the like, are
regarded as represented by their strong-stem counterparts listed in the
inventory that follows.
(10) Alphabetic symbols in graphically classified multifunctional
indicators (§ 2.2) are indicated by the symbol A; the latter, in relation to the
syllabic structure or the lack of any syllable, in the pre-pausal position, may
occur as a sylla b ic A, e.g. katab-t(u); m onosyllabic A, as in katab-na, or AA,
as in ya-ktub-Q n(a); bi-syllabic AAA, as in katab-tum d.
4.
Inflectional indicators o f Standard Arabic operating in the i crab categories o f case and verbal mood.
4.1 Stable, multifunctional indicators, alternatively classifiable as
alphabetic markers, are m orphem es consisting of:
(1) a single long vowel (a single alphabetic symbol: m onosyllabic A):
(11) case paradigm: -/7, - j , -a ^> muslim-Q, -I, -ā (for the pausal m uslim -a,
see 3(8) above);
(12) im perfective paradigm: subjunctive,jussive; imperative: -ū, -/, -ā :
-ū ^> ya -klu b -ü , ta-ktub-ü; u-ktub-ü;
-I - ^ ta-ktub-j; u-ktub-I;
-ä ^ ya-ktu b -ä, ta-ktub-ä. u-ktub-ä;
(2) a consonant com bined with a stable (pause-resistant) short vowel
(m onosyllabic A): imperfective: indicative; imperative): -na ^> ya-ktub-na,
ta-ktub-na; u-ktub-na;
(3) a Iong vowel com bined with a consonant and an unstable vowel
(m onosyllabic AA):
(31) case: -Qn(a), -Jn(a), -dn(i):
-ūn(a) ^> m uslim -Q n(a);
-In(a) ^> m usIim -In(a);
-ān(j) ^> m u slim -ä n (i);
(32) imperfective: indicative: -wi(a), -In(a), -an(i):
-ūn(a) ^ y a - k tu b - u n ( a ) , ta-ktub-Qn(a);
-In(a) ^ ta-ktub-In(a);
-ān(i) ^> y a -ktu b -ä n (i), ta-ktub-än(i).
(4) a single diphthong (monosyllabic A): case: -a y ^ m u slim -a y;
(5) a diphthong com bined with a consonant and an unstable vowel
(m onosyllabic AA): case: -a yn (i) ^ m u s lim - a y n ( i) ;
4.2 Unstable, m onofunctional indicators, unclassifiable in terms of
alphabetic markers, hence nonalphabetic indicators, are m orphem es that
display the following structures:
79
( I ) a single short vowel (unstable, pause-sensitive, m aintaining its status
of a fully com petent synthetic indicator like any m arker of the stable, pauseresistant type):
( I I) case: -u, -i, -a:
-ii ^ kitab-u, ku tu b -u ; m asagid-u;
-i ~> kitäb-i, ku tu b -i;
-a ~> kitab-a, kutub-a; m asdgid-a;
(12) imperfective: indicative:-u; subjunctive, ju ssiv e :-a (for zero,
see §3 (6)):
-U -> y a -k tu b -u , ta-ktub-u, a-ktub-u, na-ktub-u;
-a ^> ya-ktub-a, ta -k tu b -a , a-ktub-a, na-ktub-a;
(2)
a short vowel com bined with the indefiniteness m arker -n
(ta n w w ) in the triptotic case paradigm: -un, -in (nonalphabetic m orphem ic
com plex deleted in the pre-pausal position; for -an/-a, as against -un/zero
and -in/zero (see § 3(8)).
5. Perfective paradigm:
As previously hinted at in 3 (4), the marking pow er of the suffixal
markers of the perfective, com pared with that of the suffixal com ponents of
the com bined prefixal-suffixal inflection of the imperfective, markedly
differs and affects thereby the functional classification.
(1)
Stable, multifunctional or alphabetic indicators display the
following m orphem ic structure:
( 11) a single long vow el (m onosyllabic A, § 3(7)): -ā ^ katah-ā; -ū ^ katab-Q;
(12) a co n s o n an t follow ed by a long vowel (m onosyllabic AA): -nā ^> katab-nā;
(13) a co n s o n an t follow ed by a stable short vowel (m onosyllab ic A): -na ^>
katab-na, -ti ^> katab-ti (for paiisal p hen om ena due to the syllabic constraint, see
(3(8));
(14) a short vowel follow ed by a con sonant (m onosyllabic A): -at ^k a ta b -a t;
(15) a short vowel followed by a consonant and a Iong vowel (bi-syllabic AA): -
atā —> katab-ata;
(16) a consonan t follow ed by a short vowel and a c o nso nant (m onosyllabic
AA): -tiim —>katab-tum;
(17) m ore c om plex bi-sylIabic m o rp hem e o f the (A A A ) type: -tumā ^> katab-
tumā;
(18) bi-syl!abic m o rph em e involving gem ination
p hon em e (AA /g): -tunna ^katab-tunna.
(/g) o f one consonantal
(2) Unstable, m onofunctional or nonalphabetic indicators:
(21)
alphabetically represented, technically, however, nonalphabetic
indicators, consisting of a consonant and an unstable vowel (asyllabic A)
(see §§ 2.2; 3(8): failure of the syllabic constraint): -t(u ) ^ k a t a b - t( u ) , and t(a) ~> katab-t(a);
80
(22)
alphabetically unrepresented monofunctional indicators, consisting
o f a single unstable vowel (see §3(3)): -a ^>katab-a.
6.
In notions used in this study, the linguistic continuum of PO A is
delimited by the two structural maxima: the m axim um o f synthetism (ms)
and the m axim um of analytism (ma). The essential attribute of this linguistic
entity,
encom passing
both
features
of
substandardness
and
noncolloquialness, may be reduced to a unique generalized attribute o f its
nonidentifiability with either of the two structural m axima, represented by
Standard and Colloquial Arabic.
The sym m etrical statem ent of what POA is not, cannot be paralleled by
an equally sym m etrical claim of what POA actually is. In spite of the
incontestable fact that POA is the result of the constant interplay taking
place between the two structural maxima, its structural features can be
m eaningfully defined with reference to only one of them, to the possessor of
the codified linguistic norm, namely Standard Arabic. Any positive
statem ent about P O A is marked by an unbridgeable asym m etry of basic
attributes:
(i) structural, inherent in basic defining notions: ms - synthetic, ma analytic;
(ii) socio-cultural significance: F erg u so n 's classic H -L dichotom y or
what may equal it in the Arab izd iw a g iya discourse.
(iii) linguistic acquisition: SA, substantially active, perform ance
acquired by study, 17 CA (regional vernaculars), substantially passive,
perform ance acquired by being subject to the linguistic impact of the
diglossic A rabophone m ilieu;18
(iv) com m unication type: SA, typically written; m onologic; RCs,
typically oral; dialogic;
(v) com m unication range: SA - pan-Arabic, C A - regional; etc.
6.1.
W hen exam ined separately, the two basic attributes of POA:
substandardness and noncolloquialness, for all their permeability and lack of
a clear-cut distinction between their formal m anifestations, seem to show
nevertheless a certain am ount of autonomy.
The attribute of substandardness, alluding to the non-identity with
Standard Arabic, determ ines at the same time the m ethod of structural
analysis adopted: detecting, describing and classifying structural deviations
from the synthetic norm of this polar entity, such as deletion, pseudo-
l7M lJS A , N ihād N a d w a ta l-iz d iw ā g īy a f í l-luga a I-carabīya, pp. 8 3 - 1 0 5 : al- fu s h ä
al-m uta°allam a. (S ym posium on thc Arabic D iglossia).
18 Ibid., a l- aā m m īy a al-m uktasaba.
81
correction |u of both hyper- and hypo-types, or any other faults or
inconsistencies, substantially no matter whether due to a m istake or in
accord with the s p ea k er's linguistic habits, m aterialized in his idiolect. The
following exam ples of potential POA deviations from SA have to offer a
rapid survey:
^> deletion: POA: al-gumhDrIy-a / - ''arabJv-a l-m uttahid-a (caselcss);
SA: al-gum hD rIy-at-u l - carabīy-at-u l-m uttahid-a(t-u) (nom inative) 'U nited
Arab R ep u b lic', and the like;
^
hyper-correction: POA: tagallabD calā l-m ugāhid-ūn;
SA:
tagallabD ca l ā l-m ugähid-In 'they defeated the (M ujahidin) fig h ters' (pseudocorrect substitution of the SA -Hn for the correct -In, to avoid the colloquial
caseless -In, and similar cases;
^> hypo-correction: POA: al-m ugähid-In tagallabü calā l - cadDw; SA:
tagallaba l-m ugähid-D n . . .'the fighters defeated the e n e m y ' (substituting the
colloquial caseless
-In for the correct SA nom inative -D'n(a); moreover, the postclassical SVO
word-order pattern stands for the regular, discourse-neutral VSO order of
Standard Arabic, etc., etc.;
^> various structural features of pseudo-correct or any other background,
mostly due to the structural and lexical impact of the local vernacular
(colloquialism are illustrated with Egyptian Arabic (EA), contrasting SA
items retain their undeviated form ):
- dual restricted to substantives, plural agreem ent with dual nouns: EA:
bet-cn kubar, SA: bayt-an(i) kabIr-än; EA: walad-čn m asrIy-In, SA: waladān(i) m isrIy-än;
- fem inine pIural -āt restricted to substantives: EA: s i t t - ä t t u w ä l / SA:
sitt-ä t ta wll-ät;
- impersonal nouns with impersonal or personal agreement: EA: biyDt
kibIra or kubdr, SA: buyD tkabIra;
^> syntax of numerals: EA: ta la tk u tu b , baim t / SA: ta la t-a t-u ku tu b -in ,
taIāt-u baimt-in, etc.
19
As dem o n strate d by Blau for the Judaeo-A rabic variant o t M idd le A rabic (1965,
p. 31, n. 1), hyp er-co rre ct features may have their origin in hy po -co rre ct forms, as
in (subjunctive, dual) an y a q ta sim ä n 'that they d iv id e ' for the C lassical an
yaqtasim ä, the latter displaying, in turn, a hypo-correct relationship to the true
plural-substituted M iddle Arabic a n y a q ta s im u ( r e written from unvow elled H ebrew
script).
82
6.2. The attribute of noncolloquialness manifests itself in the rejection of
culturally tabooing colloquial features as dom inant linguistic characteristics:
^> possessive patterns20: EA: il-ugra-btact-ak, SA: ugrat-u-ka (nom); EA:
ll-b iy u t b ita cit-na (b itu c- n a ), SA: b u yū t-u -u ā (n o m );
^> 6/-indicative (EA bi- operates as an indicativizer and a klionsartmarker: continuative or habitual action;21: EA: bi-tiTab, SA: ta lcab-(u), etc.
^> phonological: EA: āI; SA: qfil; EA: ik-kitäb, SA: al-kitäb, etc.;
phonologically motivated: EA: ām - y i7 m ,22 SA: aqäm - y u q i m ;
^> m orphonologic reconstruction of the syllabic system (elision,
epenthesis, vowel quantity, stress /here unm arked/ ): EA: k u n t '- f m a s r , SA:
k u n t-u f I m i s r ; EA: kitab-ha (caseless), SA: kitab-u-ha ( nom inative /nom /);
EA: b in ta~ha, SA: b in t-u -h a {nom );
H> verbal patterns: voweling of the middle radical: EA: ci r i f - y i craf, SA:
ca r a f - y a °rif, e tc .
^ lexical selection: EA: šaf, SA: ra ’ä; EA: hall, SA: taral<;e.tc., etc.
7.
Deviations from the synthetic norm of Standard Arabic may be
presented as processes affecting two different levels o f the functional
hierarchy:
(1) deviations exclusively affecting m onofunctional indicators
(simple deviations), typically taking place in the synthetic interval of the
diglossic space, and
(2) those involving both mono- and multifunctional inflections
(complex deviations), in the analytic interval o f t h e diglossic space;
( I I ) synthetic interval (the term has to reflect the presumed
predom inance o f synthetic structures) delimits the type o f POA
com m unication whcre standard structures co-occur with simple deviations
(POA-i);
( I I I ) POA-i: mainly used in the oral reproduction (reading) of a
Standard Arabic text, Iess com m only, in culturally significant acts of oral
com m unication;
(21) analytic interval (the term is motivated by the presum ed
predom inance o f analytic structures) defines another type of POA
com m unication that exhibits an interplay between standard structures and
com plex deviations (POA-ii);
20 analytic g en itiv e s', see H A R N IN G , S., T he Analytic G enitive in the M odern
A rabic Dialects.
21 For b y 2 sra b -m n 2 sra b in D am ascus A rabic, see G ro tz fe ld 's b -lm p e rfe k t, p. 58.
2~ B A D A W I, E l- S a id - H in d s , M. A D ictio n a ry o fE g y p tia n A r a b ic , pp. 7 2 3 - 7 2 4 .
83
(211) POA-ii: predominantly used in spontaneous oral, chiefly
dialogic co m m unication at various levels of cultural significance, except the
highest-ranking acts thereof;
7.1.
The duality in PO A com m unication is certainly more than a
mere taxonom ic convention. The notion reflects, in a reduced inter-polar
space, the duality o f structural maxima at the two poles of the diglossia
itself. It is m oreover supported by the dual functional distinction of
inflectional m arkers into mono- and multifunctional m orphem es. T he duality
of PO A com m unication may best be paraphrased as a dual representation of
the unique linguistic continuum resulting from the constant ms/ma
interaction. In spite of all arguments uttered in favour of the POA-i / POA-ii
duality, it is hardly possible to refute the claim that the cleavage of PO A
com m unication at exactly the sl/gl point, and with exactly the POA-i / POAii structural properties, listed in the foregoing paragraphs, is quite free from
the idealization, typical o f a n y far-going and risky abstraction.
ms synthetic interval (POA-i) sl/gl analytic interval (POA-ii) ma
Abbreviations:
CA - Colloquial Arabic, denoting all analytic varieties of Arabic,
represented by modern vernaculars;
SA - Standard Arabic, generic term for all synthetic varieties of
Arabic, Classical and Modern Written Arabic;
ms
- m axim um o f synthetism (represented by the synthetic norm
o f Standard Arabic (§ 3(1));
ma
- m axim um o f analytism (represented by the analytic structure
of Colloquial Arabic (modern vernaculars);
m s-m a - typological space o f the Arabic diglossia which is
substantially coextensive with that of P O A excluding,
however, the full identifiability
o f the latter with any o f the two structural maxima;
sl
- structural limit dividing the typological space of diglossia
into two intervals in terms of structural stability (§ 2.1):
synthetic and analytic interval;
gl
- graphical limit: graphical parallel of sl; the division o f t h e
typological space into two intervals depends on the criterion
o f alphabetic representability of the inflections operating
therein.
84
A p p e n d ix
The m assive spread of POA in the educated m ilieu o f A rab intellectuals
has also aroused the attention of native scholars tow ards this norm less
idiom. T he inventory of W estern term s is enriched by the addition of
F rayhaA Inhga carablya m ahkIya m uštaraka 'com m on spoken language
/co llo q u ia l/'o r al-M Q sa's calque o f M itch ell's (and o th e rs') E S A : carabIyat
al-m uta caIIim In aI-rnahk/ya '
A n o th er p ro o f o f the steadily im proving position o f PO A in the
hierarchy o f co m m unicative devices in the A rabophone w orld is its serving
as a teaching m odel for a vaguely defined noncolloquial oral A rabic. S erious
linguistic studies, som e o f w hich are m entioned in the introductory part of
this paper, are being paralleled by a num ber o f instructionally conceived
m anuals, each o f them w ith its own presentation o f the P O A 's structural
c o n tin u u m .21 S everal fairly differring versions o f a 'sim p lified A ra b ic '25
w hich prom ise sim plicity com bined with an inter-regional usability, are their
final resu lt.26
REFERENCES
A N IS , IbrähIm R a ’y f ī I - i crāb. (M y opinion on a l- ic rāb) In. M a g a IIa tM a g m a c alIuga aI-°arabIya (Journal o f the Academy o f the A rab ic L an g u ag e) C airo:
A cadem y o f th e A rabic L anguage 1958.
B A D A W l, as-S ac!d M u sta w a y ā ta I-°a ra b Iy a al-m u°āsira f i m i s r . (L in g u istic levels
o f co n tem p o rary A rabic in E gypt). C airo 1973. L in g u istic lev els o f
co n tem p o rary A rabic in E gypt.
B A D A W I, E l-S aid - H IN D S , M. A D ictionary o fE g yp tia n Arabic. Arabic-English.
B eirut: L ib rairie du L iban 1986.
B L A N C , H aim S ty listic V ariatio n s in S poken A rabic: A S am p le o f In terd ialectal
E ducated C onversation. In F E R G U S O N , C h arles A. (E d .) Contributions to
A rabicL inguistics. C am bridge: M assach u setts 1960, pp. 7 9 -1 6 1 .
B IR K E L A N D , H. A ltarabische Pausalformen. O slo: N o rsk e V id en sk ap s-A k ad em i
1940.
23 F R A Y H A , A nIs N a hw a carabIya m uyassara. (T o w ard s a sim p lified A rabic)
M Ū SĀ , N ihäd N a d w a t aI-izdiwagTya f i I-Iuga a I-carabīya (S y m p o siu m on the
A rabic D ig lo ssia), pp. 89. T ow ards a sim plified A rabic.
"4 S M A R T , J.R . A rabic, JU M A IL I, M. Gesprächsbuch Deutsch-Arabisch',
R Y D IN G , K .C . Form al Spoken Arabic, and others.
25 T he term m odelled on F ra y h a 's carabIya m uyassara: N a h w a carabIya muyassara',
(T ow ards a sim p lified A rabic) see also note 9. T o w ard s a sim p lified A rabic
26 For p articu la rs, see D R O Z D ÍK , L. Prestigious Oral Arabic as a linguistic model
in the instruction o fA ra b ic .
85
B L A U , Jo sh u a The Em ergence and Linguistic Background ofJudaeo-A rabic.
A Study o fth e origins o fM id d le Arabic. O xford U n iv ersity P re ss 1965.
D IE M , W ern er H ochsprache und D ialekt im Arabischen. U ntersuchungen zur
heutigen Zweisprachigkeit. W iesbaden: K o m m issio n sv e rla g F ran z S tein er
G m bH 1974.
D R O Z D ÍK , L adislav P re stig io u s O ral A rabic as a lin g u istic m odel in the in stru ctio n
o f A rabic. In Asian and African Studies. 15/2006, 1, pp. 3 -1 6 .
E L -H A S S A N , S. E d u ated S poken A rabic in E gy p t and the L ev an t. A critical
review o f d ig lo ssia and related co ncepts. In Archivum Linguisticum, 8/2, 1977, pp.
1 12-132.
F E R G U S O N , C h arles A. D iglossia. In Word 15, 1959, pp. 3 2 5 -3 4 0 ; q uoted after
A .S. D ill (E d.) Language Structure and Language Use. Essays by Charles A.
Ferguson. S tanford: S tanford U niversity P ress, 1971, pp. 1-26.
F E R G U S O N , C h arles A. (Ed.) C ontributions to Arabic Linguistics. C am b rid g e:
M assac h u setts 1960.
F IS C H E R , W o lfd ietric h G ram m atik des klassischen Arabisch. 3rd ed. W iesb ad en :
H arra sso w itz V erlag 2002.
F L E IS C H , H enri A rab e classiq u e et arabe dialectal. In Travaux et jours, 12, 1964,
pp. 2 3 -6 2 .
F R A Y H A , A nIs N a!nva carabIya m uyassara. (T o w ard s a sim p lified A rabic).
B eiru t 1955. T o w ard s a sim plified A rabic.
F Ü C K , Jo h an n ArabIya. U ntersuchungen z u r arabischen S prach- u n d S tilg esc h ich te.
B erlin: A cadem ie V erlag 1950
H A R R E L L , R ichard S. A L in g u istic A nalysis o f E g y p tian R adio A rab ic. In
F E R G U S O N , C h arles A. (E d.) C ontributions to A rabic Linguistics. C am b rid g e:
M assac h u setts 1960, pp. 3 -7 7 .
H A R N IN G , K erstin E. T he A nalytic G enitive in the M o d ern A rab ic D ialects. In
Acta U niversitatis G othoburgensis. G öteborg 1980.
JU M A IL I, M onem G esprächsbuch D eutsch-Arabisch. L eip zig : V E B V erlag
E nzyklopiidie 1987.
M E IS E L E S , G. E d u cated S poken A rabic and the A rabic L an g u ag e C o n tin u u m . In
A rchivu m L in g u isticu m 1980, 11, pp. 118-148.
M IT C H E L L , T. F. W h at is E ducated S poken A rabic. In International Journal o fth e
S o cio lo g y o fL a n g u a g e 1986, 61, pp. 7 -3 2 .
M Ū SĀ , N ihäd a l-Izd iw ā g īy a fI l-carab īy a. (S ym p o siu m on the A rab ic D ig lo ssia).
In N a d w a t a l-izd iw a g Iy a f I l-luga a l- carabiya. (S y m p o siu m on th e A rabic
D ig lo ssia ). M a g m ac aL lu g a a l-'a ra b iy a al-u rd u n n I (Jo rd a n ia n A cad em y o f
A rab ic
L an g u a g e),
a l-ö ä m ica
al-urdu n n Iy a
(U n iv ersity
of
Jo rd an )
1 988.S ym posium on the A rabic diglossia.
R Y D IN G , K arin C. Formal Spoken Arabic: Basic Course. W a sh in g to n , D .C .:
G eo rg eto w n U n iv ersity P ress 1990.
S M A R T , J.R . A rabic (T each Y o u rself B ooks). N ew Y ork, H o d d er & S to u g h to n
1986.
86