<div dir="ltr"><h3 class="">
A language with too many armies and navies? </h3>
Jun 21st 2013, 15:39<span class=""> by R.L.G. | NEW YORK</span>
<div id="block-ec_components-share_inline_header" class="">
<div class="">
<div class=""><ul class=""><li class=""><span style="height:20px;width:77px"></span><br></li><li class=""><br></li></ul></div> </div>
</div>
<div class="">
<p>JOHNSON has <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aeconomist.com%2Fblogs%2Fjohnson+arabic&oq=site%3Aeconomist.com%2Fblogs%2Fjohnson+arabic&aqs=chrome.0.57j58.4243j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">touched on Arabic</a>
and its variety quite a few times over the years, but we have never
really addressed a critical question directly: what is "Arabic" today,
and is it really even a single thing?</p><p>A short and simplified
version of the story follows: the prophet Muhammad wrote (or received
from Allah directly) the Koran in the seventh century. He then conquered
nearly all of Arabia as a political and military leader. His
successors—four "rightly guided" caliphs and then the Umayyad
caliphs—spread Islam further still, until the Islamic world stretched
from Spain to Pakistan. Arabic-speaking soldiers and administrators
settled in all of these places, and their language gradually took root
among local populations, who up until that point spoke languages from
rustic Latin to Berber to Coptic to Persian. </p><p>That was almost 1400
years ago. The Arabic of the Koran remained a prestigious and nearly
unchanging standard throughout the Islamic world. This is what most
Arabs consider "Arabic". But all spoken languages change, all the time,
and the Arabic people actually used on the streets and in their homes,
predictably enough, changed quite a lot in those 1400 years. Today, the
Arab world is sometimes compared to medieval Europe, when classical
Latin was still the only "real" language most people wrote and studied
in—but "Latin" in the mouths of its speakers had become early French,
Spanish, Portuguese and so on. Today, we recognize that French and
Portuguese are different languages—but Arabs are not often sure (and are
sometimes at odds) about how to describe "Arabic" today. The plain fact
is that a rural Moroccan and a rural Iraqi cannot have a conversation
and reliably understand each other. An urban Algerian and an urban
Jordanian would struggle to speak to each other, but would usually find
ways to cope, with a heavy dose of formal standard Arabic used to smooth
out misunderstandings. They will sometimes use well-known dialects,
especially Egyptian (spread through television and radio), to fill in
gaps. </p><p>In Europe, we call "French" and "Spanish" "languages", but
in Arabic, we call these varieties "dialects", despite the lack of
mutual intelligibility. Some linguists make the point bald: these <em>are</em>
different languages, they say. But Arabs themselves consider Arabic a
single thing, with local variety. All educated Arabs learn the
Koranic-based language that linguists call "modern standard Arabic". It
is used in political speeches, news broadcasts and nearly all
writing—but nobody speaks it spontaneously in the marketplace or over
the dinner table. Most people struggle to write it correctly.</p><p>Some
pan-Arabist thinkers have called for codifying a "middle Arabic", based
on the written standard, but stripped of much unnecessary complexity
and including the most common dialectal features. But there is no single
authority to hammer out such a middle Arabic that would be acceptable
to all. And of course the allure of pan-Arabism has waned, in
competition with local nationalisms, pan-Islamism, the Shia-Sunni
sectarianism and other trends. </p><p>It's a riot of a situation that is
hard to describe accurately without annoying somebody. But fortunately,
we have the internet, which allows the riot of voices to speak without
the need for any one to prevail. And in that spirit, some Arab users of
Reddit, a social sharing and discussion website, have simply decided to <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/arabs/wiki/dialects">give voice to their dialects</a>
by recording a short humorous story, intentionally stressing the
dialectal features, perhaps imagining an old uncle telling it. Here is
the story as written in standard Arabic.</p><blockquote><p>Ýí íæã ãä
ÇáÃíÇã ßÇä ÌÍÇ æÇÈäå íÍÒãæä ÃãÊÚÊåã ÅÓÊÚÏÇÏÇð ááÓÝÑ Åáì ÇáãÏíäÉ
ÇáãÌÇæÑÉ¡ ÝÑßÈÇ Úáì ÙåÑ ÇáÍãÇÑ áßí íÈÏÃæÇ ÑÍáÊåã. æÝí ÇáØÑíÞ ãÑæÇ Úáì
ÞÑíÉò ÕÛíÑÉ ÝÃÎÐ ÇáäÇÓ íäÙÑæä Åáíåã ÈäÙÑÇÊò ÛÑíÈÉ æíÞæáæä "ÃäÙÑæÇ Åáì
åÄáÇÁ ÇáÞÓÇå íÑßÈæä ßáåãÇ Úáì ÙåÑ ÇáÍãÇÑ æáÇ íÑÃÝæä Èå" ¡ æÚäÏãÇ ÃæÔßæÇ
Úáì ÇáæÕæá Åáì ÇáÞÑíÉ ÇáËÇäíÉ äÒá ÇáÃÈä ãä ÝæÞ ÇáÍãÇÑ æÓÇÑ Úáì ÞÏãíå áßí
áÇ íÞæá Úäåã Ãåá åÐå ÇáÞÑíÉ ßãÇ Þíá áåã Ýí ÇáÞÑíÉ ÇáÊí ÞÈáåÇ¡ ÝáãÇ
ÏÎáæÇ ÇáÞÑíÉ ÑÂåã ÇáäÇÓ ÝÞÇáæÇ "ÃäÙÑæÇ Åáì åÐÇ ÇáÃÈ ÇáÙÇáã íÏÚ ÅÈäå íÓíÑ
Úáì ÞÏãíå æåæ íÑÊÇÍ ÝæÞ ÍãÇÑå"¡ æÚäÏãÇ ÃæÔßæÇ Úáì ÇáæÕæá Åáì ÇáÞÑíÉ
ÇáÊí ÈÚÏåÇ äÒá ÌÍÇ ãä ÇáÍãÇÑ æÞÇá áÅÈäå ÅÑßÈ ÃäÊ ÝæÞ ÇáÍãÇÑ¡ æÚäÏãÇ
ÏÎáæÇ Åáì ÇáÞÑíÉ ÑÂåã ÇáäÇÓ ÝÞÇáæÇ "ÃäÙÑæÇ Åáì åÐÇ ÇáÅÈä ÇáÚÇÞ íÊÑß ÃÈÇå
íãÔí Úáì ÇáÃÑÖ æåæ íÑÊÇÍ ÝæÞ ÇáÍãÇÑ" ¡ ÝÛÖÈ ÌÍÇ ãä åÐå ÇáãÓÃáÉ æÞÑÑ Ãä
íäÒá åæ æÇÈäå ãä ÝæÞ ÇáÍãÇÑ ÍÊì áÇ íßæä ááäÇÓ ÓõáúØóÉð ÚáíåãÇ¡ æÚäÏãÇ
ÏÎáæÇ Åáì ÇáãÏíäÉ æÑÂåã Ãåá ÇáãÏíäÉ ÞÇáæÇ "ÃäÙÑæÇ Åáì åÄáÇÁ ÇáÍãÞì
íÓíÑæä Úáì ÃÞÏÇãåã æíÊÚÈæä ÃäÝÓåã æíÊÑßæä ÇáÍãÇÑ ÎáÝåã íÓíÑ áæÍÏå" ...
ÝáãÇ æÕáæÇ ÈÇÚæ ÇáÍãÇÑ</p></blockquote><p>It involves Joha (or Goha or
Jiha, depending on the region). He is a simpleton, though sometimes a
kind of "wise fool" who delivers comeuppance to the pompous. In this
case, the joke is on him. Here's my translation:</p><blockquote><p>One
day Joha and his son were packing their things in preparation for travel
to the nearby city, and they climbed onto the back of their donkey in
order to start their trip. On the way they passed a little village, and
the people came to look at them with strange looks and said "Look at
those cruel people, both of them riding on the back of the donkey and
having no mercy on him." And so when they were close to arriving to the
next village, the son got down from the back of the donkey and walked
on foot, so the people of the village would not say what the people in
the last village had said. And when they entered the next village, the
people saw them and said "look at that unjust father, letting his son
walk on foot while he rests on his donkey." And so when they were nearly
at the next village after that one, Joha got down from the donkey and
told his son, "You ride the donkey." And when they got to the village
the people saw them and said "look at this ingrate of a son, letting his
father walk on the ground while he rests on the donkey." Joha got
angry about this, and decided that he and his son would both get down
from the donkey so that the people wouldn't have any power over them.
And when they reached the city, the people of the city saw them and
said "look at these two fools, walking and wearying themselves, and
letting their donkey behind them walk alone." So they sold the donkey.</p></blockquote><p>Listening
to the different dialect-speakers tell the story, or even looking at
the Roman-alphabet transliterations, we quickly get a sense that—if
"dialect" makes you think Liverpool versus Newcastle—we are taking about
much more than dialect here. Here's the first bit transliterated from
modern standard written Arabic, ie, the text above:</p><blockquote><p>Fii
yowm min al-ayaam kaana Joha wa ibnuhu yahzimuun amta'atahum
isti'daadan lil-safar ila al-madiina al mujaawira fa rakibaa 'ala dhahri
likay yabda'u rihlatahum. Wa fii al-tariiq marruu 'ala quriya saghiira
fa akhadha al-nas yandhiruun ilayhim binadharaat ghariiba wa yaquuluun:
"andharuu ila ha'ulaa' al-qusaah yarkabuun kulluhumaa 'ala dhahri
al-hamaari wa la yaraa'afuun bihi. </p></blockquote><p>Here's an <a href="https://soundcloud.com/belsams/u-borrowed-algiers">Algerian version</a> from Algiers:</p><blockquote><p><span>Qallek
wa7ed ennhar kan Djou7a w wlido y7addro besh yro7o lwa7ed mdina, wkan
3andhom 7mar. Alors, tal3o fi zoudj foq el 7mar w qall3o meddar. Fettriq
djazo 3la un petit village, w ghir dekhlo bdew ennas ta3 had el village
ykhozro fihom "yokha 3la hado, rakbin zodj 3la 7mar wa7ed meskin.
Wallahi la 7ram"</span></p></blockquote><p>Here is an <a href="https://soundcloud.com/roa1084/alexandrian-egyptian">Egyptian</a> from Alexandria: </p><blockquote><p>fi
youm min el ayem, kan go7a we'bno bey7addaro 7aget-hom 3ashan yeroo7o
el balad elli gambohom. farekbo el etnein 7omarhom 3ashan yabtedo
yesafro. we 3a'sekka marro 3ala balad soghayyara keddaho. ba7ala2o el
nas feehom we 2alo: ayoh! bo99o el nas el 2asya elli mabter7amshi
rakbeen kollohom 3ala el 7omar.</p></blockquote><p>(Both dialect
transcriptions use common Arabic borrowings of numbers to represent
Arabic sounds. 7 is an "h" pronounced at the back of the throat. 3 is a
tricky, throaty consonant called the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_pharyngeal_fricative">voiced pharyngeal fricative</a>". And 2 is the glottal stop, like the catch in the middle of "uh-oh".)</p>
<p>It takes a sharp eye to see the few words in common between the dialects, among them <em>kan</em> ("was"), <em>(be)y7addaro</em> ("preparing", "packing"), 7mar/7omar ("donkey"), and <em>nas </em>("people").
Even allowing that speakers were told to retell the story in their own
words (and not to "translate" strictly), the differences are stark.</p><p>For
those who revel in linguistic diversity, this is all good fun. For
those who want languages in general to "behave", and for those in
particular who want Arabic to be a single, graspable thing, this is a
mess. For the language learner, it's a daunting task. To be competent in
"Arabic" means to learn one language to read and write, and a related
but rather different language (like Latin and then Italian) to be able
to speak. On top of that, the poor foreigner will be limited to
understanding only a fraction of the Arab world. Speaking of the decline
of pan-Arabism, it's likely that the inability of Arabs to move around
the region, speak naturally and be easily understood is a big reason
they do not always feel themselves to be one.</p><p>There's a saying
among linguists that "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy."
This usually means that languages without a state of their own are
belittled as mere patois, argot or dialect. But here we see a rare case
of the opposite problem: the Arabic language, spread over more than 20
countries, has too many armies and navies.</p><p><strong>Addendum</strong>:
Even more than usual, I encourage readers to scan the comments below. A
number of native speakers think that the account above exaggerates the
dialect differences. Given a thousand more words (in an already long
post) I could have added a lot more detail and shading to this account.
Perhaps most importantly, I didn't fully spell out that the western
dialects (particularly Moroccan) are separated particularly starkly from
eastern ones (Egyptian, Levantine and so forth). Within the eastern
dialects—which exist on a continuum, with no stark lines separating
them—cross-dialect communication is easier. And some dialects are spoken
across multiple countries, like the Levantine continuum spoken in
Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine. Readers should not get the
impression that most Arabs cannot talk to each other across borders.
They can, particularly those who have the metalinguistic knowledge to
minimise the unusual features of their own dialects and consciously use
widely-used phrasings.</p><p>Here is a typical vignette regarding
teenagers who have not yet mastered these strategies. It is relayed by a
Tunisian linguist, <a href="http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/About/Staff/#mohamed">Mohamed Maamouri</a>, about a sixteen-year-old from Tunis named Khaled, visiting his cousin in Saudi Arabia:</p><blockquote><p>Khaled
and Sourour don't speak the same Arabic dialects. Khaled understands
most of what Sourour says when she speaks in Arabic, but she does not
understand (Tunisian) Arbi. He has to use Fusha or French in order to
speak to her. They finally settle on a mixture of the two, because her
French is not as good as his. When he returns to Tunis, he wants to
write her letters, so he writes them in Fusha but throws in words in
French and English.</p></blockquote><p>Mr Maamouri's <a href="http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED456669&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED456669">entire paper</a> is interesting (and non-technical), for readers who want more detail on the subject.</p>
</div>
<div id="block-ec_blogs-ec_blogs_block_prev_next" class="">
<div class="">
<a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/06/language-learning-software" class="">
<span>Previous</span>
<p>
<span>Language-learning software:</span>
Review: Babbel and Duolingo </p>
</a>
<a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/06/language-identity-india" class="">
<span>Next</span>
<img src="http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/90_by_90/images/2013/06/blogs/johnson/karnataka_1956_reorg.png" alt="" title="" class="" height="90" width="90"> <p>
<span>Language identity in India:</span>
One state, many worlds, now what? </p>
</a>
</div>
</div><div id="block-ec_components-share_inline_footer" class="">
<div class="">
<br> </div>
</div>
<div class="">Featured comments</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.economist.com/comment/2068571#comment-2068571" class="">View thread</a> <div>
<a href="http://www.economist.com/users/ustaaza/comments" title="View Ustaaza's profile">Ustaaza</a> Jun 25th, 21:46
</div>
<div class=""><p>As a native speaker of Arabic, and a
professor of Arabic myself, I attest to the accuracy of this writer's
views.I do realize that to the native speakers of Arabic that have no
background in linguistics or the teaching of Arabic as a second
language, this issue may not be clear. We were all raised with the false
notion that we "Arabs" are one, and to believe that all dialects of
Arabic, therefore, are also just simply different ways of pronouncing
the same thing. It is essential to believe so, in order to preserve this
image of "oneness". Additionally, it is difficult for the average
native speaker, who was raised with enough exposure to the Levantine and
Egyptian dialects, as well as MSA to the extent of being skilled enough
to modify ones's speech automatically when confronted with the task of
communicating with another Arab, to understand that this "talent" is not
readily available to the non-native speaker. Most of us are so skilled
at doing this, that we take it for granted and do it almost
sub-consciously, and think that we're communicating because our dialects
are similar enough.the speakers of Egyptian or Levantine don't even
have to modify anything, since the rest of us understand them perfectly,
thanks to their domination of the media world.I elected to teach
Egyptian in my classes, in addition to MSA, for this exact reason. I
know that it would be far easier for me to teach them my native
"dialect", but it would be a disservice to them to limit them that way.</p>
</div>
<ul class=""><li class=""><a href="http://www.economist.com/vote/recommend-comment/2068571?nid=21579807&page=0&sort=0&token=8421f6e916fee39a796462cca6e6efe4" title="Recommend comment: As a native speaker of" class="" rel="nofollow">Recommend</a> <div>
<span>36</span></div></li><li class=""><a href="http://www.economist.com/report-abuse/comment/21579807/2068571?destination=node%2F21579807" title="Report this comment to our moderators" class="" rel="nofollow">Report</a></li>
<li class=""><a href="http://www.economist.com/comment/2068571#comment-2068571" title="Permanent link to this comment" rel="nofollow" class="">Permalink</a></li><li class=""><a href="http://www.economist.com/comment/reply/21579807/2068571" rel="nofollow">reply</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.economist.com/comment/2064458#comment-2064458" class="">View thread</a> <div>
<a href="http://www.economist.com/users/guest-liomemi/comments" title="View guest-liomemi's profile">guest-liomemi</a> Jun 22nd, 23:04
</div>
<div class=""><p>I am a native speaker of Egyptian
Arabic and cannot understand 2 native speaking Algerians or ýMoroccans
speaking in a natural spoken Arabic with each other. That is a fact.ý<br>
The vitriol, anger, or disbelief that some of the Arabic speaking
commentators are displaying in their ýcomments to the very real and
accurate linguistic issues addressed in the article is worthy of study.
It ýtook a lot of ideological brainwashing ingrained in schools all
around the Arab world, which vulgarizes ýand belittles the spoken
vernaculars from Morocco to Iraq and elevates modern standard or
classical ýArabic is the highest most perfect language. Linguists have
long been aware of the stark difference ýbetween the various “dialects”
and between the written classical and the spoken vernaculars. ýHowever
these very real issues are rarely discussed in an open manner in the
Arab world. Most are so ýblind/deaf they can’t even see it. ý</p>
</div>
<ul class=""><li class=""><a href="http://www.economist.com/vote/recommend-comment/2064458?nid=21579807&page=0&sort=0&token=27a435f34357a1ff6e481c814e4967ff" title="Recommend comment: I am a native speaker of" class="" rel="nofollow">Recommend</a> <div>
<span>119</span></div></li><li class=""><a href="http://www.economist.com/report-abuse/comment/21579807/2064458?destination=node%2F21579807" title="Report this comment to our moderators" class="" rel="nofollow">Report</a></li>
<li class=""><a href="http://www.economist.com/comment/2064458#comment-2064458" title="Permanent link to this comment" rel="nofollow" class="">Permalink</a></li><li class=""><a href="http://www.economist.com/comment/reply/21579807/2064458" rel="nofollow">reply</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.economist.com/comment/2063678#comment-2063678" class="">View thread</a> <div>
<a href="http://www.economist.com/users/ahascha/comments" title="View ahascha's profile">ahascha</a> Jun 22nd, 10:38
</div>
<div class=""><p>Nonsense! Arabic is actually the
bridge that brings all Arabs together and all Arabs are proud of their
language and would never claim the dialects to be different languages.
Especially with the arbitrary lines and political fragmentation, our
common language keeps us together and the dialects reflect our diversity
and rich cultures. Plus, the dialects all use Arabic words regardless
of the difference, that's what makes them dialects, not languages. We
use different Arabic words to describe things and communicate meaning
which is largely influenced by local cultures and interactions but they
remain Arabic nonetheless even if the pronunciation of those Arabic
words makes them hard to understand sometimes.</p>
<p>The Arabs are a lingual group and not a race so Arabic is
foundational to Arab identity and civilization. No need to play around
with that and no need to fit Arabic or Arabs into your own lingual
categories because it obviously doesn't work.</p>
</div>
<ul class=""><li class=""><a href="http://www.economist.com/vote/recommend-comment/2063678?nid=21579807&page=0&sort=0&token=dc85d4131e284f8e7b87e3039f6a91f4" title="Recommend comment: Nonsense! Arabic is actually" class="" rel="nofollow">Recommend</a> <div>
<span>32</span></div></li><li class=""><a href="http://www.economist.com/report-abuse/comment/21579807/2063678?destination=node%2F21579807" title="Report this comment to our moderators" class="" rel="nofollow">Report</a></li>
<li class=""><a href="http://www.economist.com/comment/2063678#comment-2063678" title="Permanent link to this comment" rel="nofollow" class="">Permalink</a></li><li class=""><a href="http://www.economist.com/comment/reply/21579807/2063678" rel="nofollow">reply</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<a href="http://www.economist.com/comment/2063005#comment-2063005" class="">View thread</a> <div>
<a href="http://www.economist.com/users/idris81/comments" title="View IDRIS81's profile">IDRIS81</a> Jun 21st, 21:34
</div>
<div class=""><p>The differences between the Algerian
and the Egyptian versions are indeed, as JOHNSON said, ‘stark’, but this
does not mean that a speaker of either dialect, or any other dialect
for that matter, will necessarily find the other or both largely
unintelligible. There are at least two reasons for this:</p>
<p>1- Most of the words used in both versions are Arabic words. They
just happen to be, well, DIFFERENT Arabic words. Looking at the Algerian
version, most speakers of other dialects of Arabic will only have
trouble with ‘besh’ and ‘ykhozro’, in addition to the French words of
course. We can even find synonyms in the two versions; wlido/'bno,
zoudj/etnein, fettriq/3a'sekka, djazo/ marro. A native speaker of Arabic
will recognize either one of them, even if he uses only one of them, or
a third form, because they are taken from the same pool. </p>
<p>2- Even though the content of both versions is basically the same,
some details in one are different in the other. For example, ‘lwa7ed
mdina’ translates into ‘a town/city’, while ‘el balad elli gambohom’ is
‘the nearby town/village’. Moreover, some details given in one are
actually missing in the other. Consider this: “tal3o fi zoudj foq el
7mar w qall3o meddar” = “Both mounted the donkey and left home”, whereas
“farekbo el etnein 7omarhom 3ashan yabtedo yesafro” = “Both mounted
their donkey to start travelling.” Of course these small details do not
make the story itself different, but they give the impression we are
dealing with two different languages here.</p>
<p>Now all the same, I myself as a speaker of Sudanese Arabic find only
Algerian and Moroccan dialects (and probably Mauritanian Arabic as well)
partially unintelligible, and only if their speakers talk among
themselves, not to me. That’s basically because of the pronunciation
(they use less vowels than speakers of most other dialects), and of
course because of the French words. The rest of the dialects are usually
easy to understand. And even when I speak with an Algerian or Moroccan,
we just tone down on dialect-specific features that we think are
unlikely to be found in the other dialect, with most of the toning down
done by the Algerian or Moroccan, and not me (speakers of Maghrebi
dialects understand Mashriqi dialects more than vice versa). We do not
use ‘Fusha’ to facilitate comprehension, maybe because the words we use
are Arabic anyway, but with less vowel endings than is the case in
Standard Arabic.</p>
<p>Which brings me to the last point, which is this; Arabic dialects
written in Roman letters are bound to be different, because the Arabic
diacritics (Harakat) would be rendered as letters. Example: the word
‘7imar’ (donkey) is transliterated in the two versions as ‘7mar’ and
‘7omar’. If we use the diacritics for the Standard Arabic form, it could
be rendered as ‘7imaru’, ‘7imara’, ‘7imari’. We can also add an ‘n’ if
we use the so-called ‘Tanween.’ Now if we are to write the word in
Arabic, there will be only one version, which is [ÍãÇÑ]. The diacritics
are usually only used if confusion may arise; it is assumed that a
speaker of Standard Arabic will know which one to use in speaking even
when the respective diacritic is left out in writing.<br>
So, probably because a speaker of Arabic has a mental image of words in
Arabic letters, not their Romanized version, it would not be too
difficult to recognize words in a different dialect. However, I can
imagine that even an illiterate speaker of Arabic would be able to
recognize most different spoken versions of a word like ‘7imar’.</p>
</div><a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/06/arabic">http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/06/arabic</a><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+<br><br> Harold F. Schiffman<br><br>
Professor Emeritus of <br> Dravidian Linguistics and Culture <br>Dept. of South Asia Studies <br>University of Pennsylvania<br>Philadelphia, PA 19104-6305<br><br>Phone: (215) 898-7475<br>Fax: (215) 573-2138 <br>
<br>Email: <a href="mailto:haroldfs@gmail.com">haroldfs@gmail.com</a><br><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/">http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/</a> <br><br>-------------------------------------------------
</div>