Haitian Creole

"Language ideologies are never about language alone"

This is a quote from Susanne Stadlbauer's article on the "Arabic diglossic environment", which discusses the power relations within the languages spoken in Egypt. Here only two parts of the text are posted. To see the full text, access the link of the bottom of the post.

Language Ideologies in the Arabic Diglossia of Egypt

Susanne Stadlbauer

University of Colorado at Boulder

This paper surveys studies on language ideologies in the Arabic diglossic environment of

present-day Egypt. Specifically, it discusses linguistic and cultural implications of language

ideologies associated with Classical Arabic (CA), Modern Standard Arabic (MSA),

Egyptian Arabic (EA), and English in the Cairo area. The language ideologies of these

varieties are a product of both the past and the present: they emerged during British

colonialism in the late nineteenth century and are maintained in the postcolonial climate

through discourses on the purity of Classical Arabic, on the linguistic corruption of the

dialects, and on the increasing use of English as a symbol of Western capitalism and

modernity. Aligning with Woolard’s (1998) definition of language ideology as a mediating

link between linguistic features and social processes, this study demonstrates how language

ideologies are communicated in structural aspects of the language varieties in the Arabic

diglossia and how Egyptians use language varieties strategically to access the symbolic

power of these ideologies. It argues that studies of language ideologies, language features,

and discursive interaction are inseparable in uncovering how language is used in the Arabic

diglossia in Egypt.

1. Introduction

Studies on language ideologies and language-related historical studies on

nationalism in Egypt demonstrate that “the equation of language and nation is not

a natural fact but rather a historical, ideological construct” (Woolard 1998:16).

Language ideologies are social constructs that are illuminated through a microanalysis of linguistic structures in discourse and a macro-analysis of the factors

that lead to asymmetries in how languages are perceived. In line with Woolard, I

emphasize the analysis of language ideologies within the linguistic practices of

specific cultural settings, which means that language ideologies cannot have a

single interpretation. They are in dialectical relation with social, discursive, and

linguistic practices and often determine “which linguistic features get selected for

cultural attention and for social marking, that is, which ones are important and

which ones are not” (Schieffelin & Doucet 1998:285). In short, language

ideologies are never about language alone, but rather,

envision and enact ties of language to identity, to aesthetics, to morality, and to

epistemology. Through such linkages, they underpin not only linguistic form and

use but also the very notion of the person and the social group, as well as such Colorado Research in Linguistics, Volume 22 (2010)

2

fundamental social institutions as religious ritual, child socialization, gender

relations, the nation-state, schooling, and law (Woolard 1998:3).

Taking these definitions as a conceptual blueprint, this study shows how these

linkages play out in a specific linguistic and cultural setting: Arabic diglossia in

Egypt.

Present-day language ideologies in Egypt find their beginnings in British

colonization from 1882 to 1922 (Mitchell 1988, Suleiman 2003, amongst many).

In this period, the colonizers restructured Egyptian society according to Western

ideals of modernity and economic progress. Among other projects, they initiated

anti-Arabic, pro-English language policies that assigned symbolic value to these

languages: Arabic was depreciated because it was perceived as chaotic and

random, while English was projected as being modern, prestigious, and desirable.

According to Mitchell (1988), language was one of the most far-reaching

strategies of the colonizers to change Egyptian culture. He cites al-Marsafi’s

(1881) Eight Words, a book concerning the controversy of eight particularly

powerful words that penetrated Egyptian social and political life during British

occupation: “nation”, “homeland”, “government”, “justice”, “oppression”,

“politics”, “liberty”, and “education” (Mitchell 1988:131). These terms were the

new vocabulary of modern nationalism, and their perceived misunderstanding and

misuse created a national crisis: the Western values inherent in these eight words

clashed with the cultural background of the Egyptians.

The impact of the colonizers on language and social identity was a

breakdown of local culture (Said 1975, 1979; Abuhamida 1988; Mitchell 1988).

Said’s (1975, 1979) controversial research on Orientalism sharply criticizes

Western Orientalists for perpetrating this linguistic imperialism and rendering the

Arabic language chaotic and random. Said points to textual biases in literature

about the Orient. He claims, for instance, that Arabs are metaphorically associated

with hot-blooded sexual prowess (416), while institutionally or culturally “they

are nil, or next to nil” (416). The use of sexual metaphor to describe male and

female Arabs was the Orientalists’ way of “dealing with the great variety and

potency of Arab diversity, whose source is if not intellectual and social then

sexual and biological” (416).

These ideological forces gave rise to linguistic conflicts in post-colonial Egypt:

the desires for historical and linguistic nostalgia on one hand, and for

modernization of language and society on the other. Religious conservatives,

fueled with anti-Western sentiments and historical nostalgia, argue for a

superiority of CA, and its purity is strongly anchored in Muslim Arab history,

morality, and nationalism (Suleiman 2003, 2004; Haeri 2003). They relate

“authentic” Egyptian identity to Islamic laws and values that are uncorrupted by

the West (Suleiman 2003, 2004; Haeri 2003). This causes the religious

conservatives to fight to keep CA undiluted with foreign borrowings. Suleiman

(2004) points to military warfare metaphors in their Arabic rhetoric, such as

“language regiment”, “defense of the national language”, and “enemies of Islam” Language Ideologies in the Arabic Diglossia of Egypt

3

(50), while they are projected as “holy warriors”, “garrisoned troops”, and

“patrons” of Classical Arabic (49). Any modernization of CA is lahn “linguistic

corruption”, hadm wa-takhrib “sabotage”, or ghazw “invasion”, aimed at

destroying the Qur’an and the hadith “the Prophetic Traditions” (50).

In contrast, pan-Arab nationalists propose a united Arabic language – MSA

- to be the unifying force of all Arabic-speaking people in the Arab world.

(Abuhamida 1988; Suleiman 2003; Haeri 2003; amongst many). These idealistic

nationalists argue for a written language that is mutually comprehensible in all

Arab nations and unifies the Arab world. One proponent of this view is the

Egyptian government, which has been controlling the modernization of CA by

overseeing institutions of learning, publishing, and social affairs since the middle

of the nineteenth century (Haeri 2003; Van Mol 2003). The government is mainly

concerned with “revitalizing” CA as a means of achieving social, economic, and

political progress for Egypt. According to Haeri (2003), state officials, Egyptian

intellectuals, educators, and high bureaucrats regard CA as too literary, flowery,

and lacking in modern vocabulary needed for science and technology on a global

scale.

Nevertheless, many voices point to the predicament that Egyptian Arabic,

the vernacular, is ignored in writing and education, even though it is the mother

tongue of Egyptians and the lingua franca used in face-to-face interaction. In this

view, Egyptian Arabic cannot be divorced from the identity of Egyptian people and

their local and national culture. Linguistic regionalists, mainly Arab and non-Arab

writers, are calling for the consolidation of spoken varieties at the expense of the

standard variety (Abuhamida 1988:42). According to Abuhamida (1988), this call

for linguistic regionalism coincides with political regionalism.

Lastly, proponents of a modern cultural and linguistic landscape in Egypt

advocate increasing use of English in many social domains in order to connect to

the international community. Their argument is that English has always been

present in the postcolonial period. Schaub (2000) states that “after a return to

Arabic and Egyptian nationalism during the Nasser period in the 1950s and 1960s,

the situation again changed towards favoring English after the 1973 October War

against Israel” (228). He also explains that during the Sadat years (1970-81),

Egyptian university students turned increasingly towards the United States. From

1974 on, “the U.S. Agency for Internal Development has offered assistance to

Egypt in the training of public school teachers in English language instruction”

(228). English in Egypt is strategically used by the government and the media to

achieve economic progress and to strengthen political and economic ties with the

West.

In sum, the interference of ‘modern’ Western thought in colonial and

postcolonial Egypt acts as a powerful organizing force for present-day language

ideologies: the devaluation of the local dialects as a result of both pan-Arab

nationalism and religious conservatism; an elevation of CA to a carrier of

tradition and religious morals; the authority of MSA as a contemporary standard

variety able to reflect scientific and economic progress; and the use of English as Colorado Research in Linguistics, Volume 22 (2010)

4

symbolic capital linking Egypt to the “prosperity” of the West. Proponents of

each position use essentialized cultural differences between the East and the West

as their logic and strategy to construct social action, morality, nationalism, and the

“right” interpretation of language.

In this highly contested, politicized language conflict over the “best”

language variety, it is relevant to ask “which linguistic features are seized on, and

through what semiotic processes they are interpreted as representing the

collectivity” (Woolard 1998:18). These topics are explored in section two, which

uses linguistic and sociolinguistic research to provide a description of CA, MSA,

and Egyptian Arabic (EA) in the Arabic diglossia in Egypt and to show how

language ideologies are linked to the linguistic structures of these language

varieties. Section three demonstrates how language ideologies are ranked, play a

structuring role in every-day interaction, and shape a variety of communicative

strategies. Speakers use the shared historical, cultural, and linguistic background

associated with varieties as an interactional resource in discourse. This dialectic

aspect of ideology shows that “simply using language in particular ways is not

what forms social groups, identities, or relations…; rather, ideological

interpretations of such uses of language always mediate these effects” (Woolard

1998:18). In such interactional uses speakers take advantage of the social, moral,

and political attributes of each variety, which leaves a picture of dynamic

reinterpretation of language use in Egypt. The effects of these communicative

strategies range from showing solidarity with the pan-Arab nationalist ideology to

transgressing social and geographic boundaries by tapping into Western

communicative styles.

2. Arabic Diglossia

According to Eisele (2002), dialect geography represented the most

dominant form of linguistic analysis of Arabic until the 1950’s (12). However,

Ferguson’s (1959) introduction of diglossia to the Arabic sociolinguistic

landscape “helped to crystallize modernist notions about this phenomenon and set

the agenda for subsequent studies” (Eisele 2002:12). Ferguson (1959, 1996)

conducted an extensive analysis of Arabic diglossia. Ferguson defines diglossia as

a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects

of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a

very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed

variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an

earlier period or in another speech community, which is learned largely by

formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is

not used by any sector of the community for ordinary conversation (Ferguson

1996:34-35).

Ferguson claims that in Arabic diglossia, CA is the divergent, highly codified, and

superposed variety. It is seen as superior to vernaculars, such as EA, due to Language Ideologies in the Arabic Diglossia of Egypt

5

widespread prejudices against vernaculars within the language community

1

. In

line with Ferguson (1996), this paper will use “H” for a high prestige language,

such as CA or MSA, and “L” for the low prestige dialects, such as EA.

2.1 H and L

In diglossic situations, there is usually a belief that H is more beautiful,

more logical, and more sophisticated (Ferguson 1996; Van Mol 2003). This is true

for Arabic diglossia. According to Haeri (2003), CA is often perceived as a

“language whose aesthetic and musical qualities move its listeners, creating

feelings of spirituality, nostalgia and community” (43). CA “socializes people into

rituals of Islam, affirms their identity as Muslims and connects them to the realm

of purity, morality, and God” (Haeri 2003:43) and attributes of the language are

often translated to the moral virtues of the user.

CA also attained high prestige due to its rich literary tradition (Ferguson

1996; Van Moll 2003, amongst many). There is a “sizable body of written

literature which is held in high esteem by the speech community” (Ferguson

1996:29-30). In contrast to EA, the orthography of CA is well established and

“has a long tradition of grammatical study and a fixed norm for pronunciation,

grammar and lexicon” (Van Mol 2003: 43). The fixed norms of CA were

established as early as the ninth century, when CA was codified and, as the

language of the Qur’an, has been one of the major areas of study of Muslims

scholars ever since (Parkinson 1991; Van Mol 2003). Scholars have produced

grammars, dictionaries, pronunciation manuals, and stylistic conventions that

restrict variation and protect CA from the influence of modernity. This recalls

Woolard’s (1998:17) observation that “written form, lexical elaboration, rules for

word formation, and historical derivation all may be seized on in diagnosing ‘real

language’ and ranking the candidates” (17).

Somewhat contradictorily, Haeri’s (2003) research also shows that many

Egyptians judge the spoken vernacular, EA, as the more beautiful variety, even

for writing literature. She claims that “ordinary people describe it [EA] as easy,

light, full of humor and more beautiful than other Arabic dialects, as a habit and

as the language of Egyptians” (37). EA, or al-‘amiyyah “the common” is the

mother tongue used for every-day communication in Egypt and serves as a marker

of Egyptian identity and national culture (Haeri 2003:37). Nevertheless, EA is

not generally recognized by religious scholars or pan-Arab nationalists as a

language of writing; since it has layers of lexical borrowings from Coptic,

Turkish, Persian, Greek, Italian, French, and English, it is criticized as

“permissive”, “promiscuous”, or “weak” (38). Furthermore, it is perceived as the

1

It is important to note, however, that not all Egyptian dialects are valued

equally. Urban dialects, such as Cairene Arabic spoken in the city of Cairo,

usually have a higher prestige than rural dialects. Colorado Research in Linguistics, Volume 22 (2010)

6

language of the ordinary Egyptians on the streets, and the image of an EA speaker

is that of a common or backward man (Haeri 2003).

This argument, however, is not sound since the extent of foreign

borrowings into CA and their acceptability or naturalization is obscurred by the

large timeframe in which it happened and “by the degree to which foreign

elements have extended to be assimilated to the root-pattern system of the

morphology and also by the organizing principles of Arabic dictionaries, whereby

assimilated borrowings are listed under a theoretical ‘root’” (305). For instance,

the medieval borrowing di:ba:j “silk brocade” from the Persian di:ba gave rise to

the verb dabbaja “to embellish” (305). It then was reanalzed in the modern

lexicon with the trilateral root d-b-j and took on Arabic productive morphology,

which can be seen in the derivation mudabbaja:t “figures of speech” (305).

Furthermore, concurrent with colonial times, “as western political, economic, and

scientific ideas proliferated and ramified through the Arab world, transliterated

foreign words, especially in the sciences, and uncontrolled and sometimes

inaccurate loan translations began to pour into written Arabic” (308).

This discrepancy between the ideologies and actual language features

complicates the notion of the purity of CA. Ferguson (1996) states that the

communicative tensions between the H and L varieties in diglossia may be

resolved by “the use of relatively uncodified, unstable, intermediate forms of the

language” (31). MSA is the most common intermediate form and is perceived as a

“modern” version of CA. However, there are problems with defining MSA, to

which I turn to next.

http://www.colorado.edu/ling/CRIL/Volume22_Issue1/paper_STADLBAUER.pdf

'Conquest' Diglossia

This article is a part of the book "The Politics of English as a World Language - New Horizons in Postcolonial Cultural Studies". I believe it is worth-mentioning because of the concept the author works on - 'Conquest' Diglossia.

The 'Conquest' Diglossia he refers to would groundly differ from the one observed in Switzerland, for instance. The background of the presence of French in the Caribbean is the colonization, which didn 't take place in the European case.

The concept of “diglossia” in Caribbean creole situations

The concept of “diglossia” in Caribbean creole situations

Donald Winford (1985).

Language in Society, Volume 14,

Issue 03, September 1985 pp 345-356

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?aid=2991788

Greece: Demotic and Katharevusa

Demotic Greek language, also called Romaic, Greek Demotiki, or Romaiki, a modern vernacular of Greece. In modern times it has been the standard spoken language and, by the 20th century, had become almost the sole language of Greek creative literature. In January 1976, by government order, it became the official language of the state, replacing Katharevusa Greek as the language for governmental and legal documents, in the courts and Parliament, in the schools, and in newspapers and other publications. (Katharevusa continued to be used in some legal documents and othertechnical writings in which there was a large body of established literature.)

Although the vocabulary, phonology, and grammar of ancient Greek remain the basis of Demotic Greek, they have been considerably modified and simplified. Foreign words and constructions that penetrated the language in large numbers reflect the influence of various foreign powers that held sway in postclassical Greece or that exerted influence there, from the foundation of the eastern Roman Empire (ad 325) through the Crusades to the Venetian and Turkish conquests. The Turkish domination, in particular, destroyed Greek literary continuity and development, and after Greece regained its independence in the early 19th century, many nationalists —wishing to meet the need for a uniform written language—developed an artificial, purified language, Katharevusa, as an approximation of the old classical norms. It was a deliberate archaization. When a military dictatorship arose in 1967, the new conservatism extended to language, and Katharevusa was strictly imposed in the schools. But after the restoration of political democracy in 1974, linguistic democracy followed suit, and Demotic—literally, the “popular” language—was given official sanction.

Today the two varieties, Demotic and Katharevusa, have merged to form a single unified language, Standard Modern Greek (Greek: Koini Neoelliniki).

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157455/Demotic-Greek-language

Comic Strip

Diglossia : a case in Papuan Malay and Bahasa Indonesia?

When finishing the chapter 1 of Mesthrie’s “Introducing Sociolinguistics”, there is a big question in my mind about diglossia. This question comes into mind when I think about my dialect in my home country, Indonesia. I was brought up in a town in Bird’s head peninsula in West Papua, Indonesia, and when I was a child, I thought that I spoke Indonesian language. However, in fact, the language that I have spoken that merely a dialect called ‘Papuan Malay’; this term coined several years ago when there were some linguistic researches about the language spoken in my area. For your information, in West Papua area, I study the national language known as Bahasa Indonesia. Bahasa Indonesia, to some extent, is known as the modern modified Malay with abundantly loanwords from Sanskrit, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, Chinese, Arabic, English, and other tribal languages. I have studied and learned Bahasa Indonesia since I was in primary school, while when I was at home, my family and I as well as the community around me spoke the dialect known as Papuan Malay; it has served as the lingua franca of trading in the area to communicate with tribes in West Papua since circa 17^th centuries or before the integration to Indonesia. Bahasa Indonesia, otherwise, is the language used at school, government, and any formal situation especially concerning to academic writing.

Mesthrie’s explanation about Ferguson’s Diglossia and ‘Fishman’s extension’ (Mesthrie, 2009: 39 – 40), to some extent, makes me think about my dialect and national language ‘Bahasa Indonesia’, whether Papuan Malay is simply a dialect in terms of ‘standard versus dialect’ arrangement or the  situation when the diglossia occurs? I also wonder about the possibility that one dialect, at first is just a dialect in such non-diglossic society but when there is a change in society, let’s say because of political circumstance leading to diglossia occurrence, or vice versa. Is that possible?

Regarding to the hints in the textbook, the two distinctions proposed by Ferguson about diglossia can be used to describe the situation of the dialect used in my area especially the second hint that mentions “the relationship between standard and dialect is typically a close one, and it is not always easy to draw the line between the two. Again, in contrast the H and L forms of diglossia have distinct grammars which are almost like those of different language.” (Mesthrie, 1999: 39). It is because, in the case of Papuan Malay comparing to Bahasa Indonesia, it is so easy to distinguish between the standard and dialect, for example in terms of its morpho-syntactical structure. It is really clear, let’say, when addressing question to another person as well in addressing the possession of someone.

To illustrate my questions, I would like to give two simple sentences and its literal gloss written in my dialect and in Bahasa Indonesia (both formal and informal) about the case of interrogative form and possessive pronoun. In my dialect, we cannot form any question without using double-pronoun.

Example #1.
Papuan Malay
(…*) – ko – mo – pi – kemana?       Or   (…*) ko – pi – mana?
 (…*)  – you – want – go – where?              ( …) you – go – where?

Bahasa Indonesia (formal form)
Ke mana – kau – akan/hendak – pergi?
Where – you – will – go?

Or

(…**) ke mana – kau – akan/ hendak – pergi? (…**)
(…**) Where – you – will – go

Bahasa Indonesia (informal form)
Mau – ke mana, – (kamu**)?
Want – where – (you)?

Or

Kamu – mau – (pergi***) ke mana?
You – want – where?

English
Where do you go?/ Where are you going?

Notes:
*: In my dialect, the (*) refers to any name of the addressee or socially accepted term we can use to address i.e. uncle, sister and so forth

** In this example refers to the addressee (name or socially accepted addressee term). It can be put in the initial position or in the final position.

*** In this example the words ke mana ‘where’ embedded the meaning of go.


Example #2
The possessive pronoun in use

a. Singular form

Papuan Malay
Ini – sa – pu – buku.
 This/ it – I – have – book

Bahasa Indonesia (formal form)
Ini – bukuku.
This /it – book.poss.1Sg

Or

Ini – buku – saya/ aku (informal form)
It is – book – 1^st sing.

b. Plural form

Papuan Malay
Ini – dorang/ dong – pu – buku.
 This/ it – they – have – book

Bahasa Indonesia (formal and informal)
Ini – buku – mereka.
This /it – book.poss.3^rd plural

http://ling6002.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/diglossia-a-case-in-papuan-malay-and-bahasa-indonesia/