29.3258, Review: Arabic, Standard; Afroasiatic; Sociolinguistics: Mejdell, Høigilt (2017)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3258. Thu Aug 23 2018. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 29.3258, Review: Arabic, Standard; Afroasiatic; Sociolinguistics: Mejdell, Høigilt (2017)

Moderator: linguist at linguistlist.org (Malgorzata E. Cavar)
Reviews: reviews at linguistlist.org (Helen Aristar-Dry, Robert Coté)
Homepage: https://linguistlist.org

Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:
           https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/

Editor for this issue: Jeremy Coburn <jecoburn at linguistlist.org>
================================================================


Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 15:07:46
From: Nadine Hamdan [nh278 at georgetown.edu]
Subject: The Politics of Written Language in the Arab World

 
Discuss this message:
http://linguistlist.org/pubs/reviews/get-review.cfm?subid=36366417


Book announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/28/28-3445.html

EDITOR: Jacob  Høigilt
EDITOR: Gunvor  Mejdell
TITLE: The Politics of Written Language in the Arab World
SUBTITLE: Writing Change
SERIES TITLE: Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics
PUBLISHER: Brill
YEAR: 2017

REVIEWER: Nadine Hamdan, Georgetown University

SUMMARY

Arabic has long been studied under the prism of ‘diglossia’, differentiating
between a High (H) and Low (L) variety. While oral communication was
postulated to be the domain of L, written language was thought to be reserved
exclusively for H. The volume ’The Politics of Written Language in the Arab
World: Writing Change’, edited by Jacob Høigilt and Gundvor Mejdell, sets out
to challenge that notion.

As the editors note in their ‘Introduction’, written productions of Arabic
have, as a consequence of the digital revolution and widespread literacy,
become more frequent, accessible, and diverse in terms of language variation.
The volume is, then, concerned with the effect that the process of “‘ordinary’
people [taking] possession of the written language” (1) has on the diglossic
character of the Arabic language, as well as the socio-political impact these
newly emerging writing practices, often in the vernacular, have. By focusing
on “’diglossia’, language ideology and the relation between writing practices,
social change and power” (2) as areas of inquiry, ‘The Politics of Written
Language in the Arab World: Writing Change’ endeavors to not only present an
analysis of written (vernacular) Arabic and attitudes towards it, but also to
connect language choice to socio-political developments in the region. For
these ends, they approach the concept of ‘diglossia’ as a language ideology,
rather than a description of sociolinguistic realities, arguing that
destandardization has to be regarded as part of a universal trend as a means
to challenge established norms of correctness within that language ideology.
The diglossic character of Arabic, then, provides its speakers (and writers)
with a rich stylistic resource granting speakers the agency to claim and
challenge notions of identity and authenticity.

In ‘A Language for the People?’ Kindt and Kebede provide the – as the editors
refer to it in their introduction – “broad empirical background for the rest
of the book by presenting and analyzing the findings from two large-scale
surveys on language attitudes and practices” (12). Specifically, this
contribution presents a quantitative approach to the question of “how ordinary
people relate to writing in the colloquial” (18). Their analysis is based upon
surveys on the (Arabic) writing practices and language attitudes of literate
city dwellers conducted in 2013 and 2015 in the metropolitan areas of Cairo
and Rabat respectively. Their study shows that in terms of writing practices,
age rather than gender or education, is a significant variable for the
likelihood of writing in the vernacular. The authors postulate that the
openness of under 35 year olds to written productions in the colloquial might
be the result of access to and familiarity with new technologies. With regard
to language attitudes, however, the findings clearly mark education as a key
variable towards accepting the L variety for writing, with an observable
decrease in relation to an increase in education levels. Comparing the two
sites of the survey, the authors conclude that “the Rabat population is more
conservative than the Cairenes” (33), albeit ignoring the status of foreign
languages, such as French especially in Rabat, as competing with the
vernacular for the recognition of a language of writing next to Standard
Arabic. A closer look at the domains of writing, however, reveals that mainly
the vernacular is used, both in Rabat and Cairo, for Facebook and SMS –
platforms for personal domains; the vernacular here, then represents a
textualization of oral communication. While the standard appears to be the
preferred variety for written productions in the school context, in areas such
as work or email, French in Rabat tends to be fulfill the same role as the
vernacular in Cairo. Instead, the authors offer inconsistencies in the
perception and labelling of Standard Arabic vs the colloquial as an
explanation for these regional differences.

Based upon these findings, in ‘Diglossia as Ideology’ Brustad sets out to
challenge the notion of ‘Diglossia’ as a description of linguistic realities,
arguing that this concept should rather be understood as prescriptive in the
sense of a specific language ideology instead. Based on this assumption, she
develops “a framework for the study of attitudes toward writing in the Arab
world” (41) and illustrates this through an analysis of Twitter data on a
particular hashtag relating to written Arabic. The author demonstrates how
diglossia as an ideology has “arisen during the ‘nahḍa’ and, due to its pride
of place in Arab nationalism and its usefulness in censorship through the
offices of language correctors, [and] was promoted throughput much of the
twentieth century” (66). She interprets the increase of vernacular writings,
then, as a sign for the decline of this language ideology. Instead of
threatening existence of the standard, however, Brustad argues, this trend
points toward its change in status and a renegotiation of the relationship
between the standard and the vernacular, ultimately resulting in an increase
of Arabic written productions, irrespective of variety.

The following chapter, ‘Changing Norms, Concepts and Practices of Written
Arabic’ presents a historical view of Arabic written productions, in
particular its norms and practices. Analyzing early codification and
standardization of the High variety, subsequent processes of
destandardization, written productions in the colloquial during the ‘nahḍa’ 
and resulting  restandardisation, and the most recent trends of mixing
standard and vernacular in writing, Mejdell argues that “processes of
standardization and destandardization, with shifting norms in use, have come
in waves” (68). In contrast to earlier processes of destandardization, she
predicts that the most recent development of linguistic heterogeneity in
Arabic written production is in tune with a universal trend to “pluralism of
expression […] in late modern society” (85) and as such is likely to remain.

After having laid down the empirical, theoretical, and historical background,
the volume continues with case studies on the topic of written vernacular
Arabic, beginning with two studies on Morocco. Catherine Miller offers in
‘Contemporary Dārija Writings in Morocco’ a synapsis of the history of writing
in Dārija, vernacular Moroccan Arabic. She distinguishes two main phases, from
the late 1800 to the late 1900, and the early 2000s. In the first of these two
periods, Dārija was not regarded with the prestige that other written dialects
of Arabic, e.g. colloquial Egyptian, carry, nor was writing in Dārija
institutionally promoted; Dārija writings were mostly contained within the
domains of theater, poetry, and oral literature. In the context of oral
heritage productions, Dārija gradually gained ground as a language acceptable
for expression of Moroccan cultural identity and values, while later, towards
the end of the 20th century, the discourse on Dārija writings took a more
modernist turn and included claims for “institutional promotion as a national
/official standard in order to cope with development” (97).  After the turn of
the century, however, proponents of the writing of Dārija grew in numbers and
became more diverse and outspoken, with no uniform political affiliation.
Rather, Dārija writing in the political domain is primarily a form of
stylistic and identitarian expression, less as a political stance in favour of
institutional promotion of written Dārija in itself. 

Dominique Caubet’s contribution ‘Morocco: An informal Passage to Literacy in
Dārija (Moroccan Arabic)’ argues that although Dārija had previously been
associated with illiteracy, the growing body of written Dārija productions,
especially online, enabled grassroot literacy in Dārija  to develop
independent of state control and regulations. Based on a corpus of online
publications in Dārija, Caubet illustrates a number of regularities and
variations in terms of spelling. Her findings point her towards the conclusion
that “variation probably reflects a difference in style or in level of speech”
(135). Nonetheless, Caubet notes, this form of vernacular literacy is limited
to the internet and, as a consequence of the outstanding recognition of Dārija
as a written standard, it is confined to this environment as it  has not yet
obtained the relevant status and prestige required to enter the offline world
of publishing.

The next two chapters are concerned with vernacular writing practices in
Egypt. Both Håland in ‘Adab Sakhir (Satrirical Literature) and the Use of
Egyptian Vernacular’ and Høigilt in ‘Dialect with an attitude’ focus on a
specific literary genre that exhibits vernacular use. While Håland presents
insight into “ways in which the `Egyptian vernacular […] and Standard Arabic
[…] are used” (143) in satirical literature (Adab Sakhir) as well as into the
underlying motivations for writing in the vernacular, Høigilt analyses “the
relation between content and language” (166) in two examples of new Egyptian
print media, a comic series and a glossy magazine. Håland’s findings suggest
that the decision to write in the vernacular is conditioned by a desire to
render the publication “more familiar, easier to understand and better suited
to reach the readers […] in a more direct manner” (159) rather than evoking
the air of authority as possibly connotated by the standard variety. In terms
of motivation for vernacular use in writing, Høigilt shows that both
identitarian aspects – to appear cool and humorous in the case of the glossy
magazine – and considerations of genre – in the case of the comic series –
appear to be at work. He further demonstrates that the linguistic choices in
favor of the vernacular have a number of socio-cultural implications, such as
providing a voice to groups outside of the establishment, indexing “popular
authenticity by treating issues close to the Egyptian street in a vernacular
idiom” (188), decreasing the formality in public discourse, and thus,
increasing accessibility, or serving as an expression of critique. In
conclusion, this chapter argues, the choice to write in the vernacular in
these publications “opens a third space in which authors can introduce
thoughts and issues alien to mainstream culture, without placing themselves
outside it” (188).  

Making the jump back to Morocco, Alexander Elinson’s contribution ‘Writing
Oral and Literary Culture’ investigates conflicts between standard and
vernacular written Arabic in Morocco by analyzing contemporary Moroccan Zajal
literature. He argues that although Zajal is in its majority written in the
vernacular, it is aimed at an educated and literate readership, as it “is a
strong assertion of Dārija’s ability to express even the most complex ideas,
contrary to those who would say that Dārija is only suitable for certain
contexts, and that Standard Arabic is the linguistic level most suitable for
‘high’ literature and the expression of complex topics” (200). He then
illustrates that written productions in the vernacular are very capable of
entering into domains in the diglossia ideology thought to be restricted to
the Standard variety. Elinson further demonstrates that Zajal authors actively
enter the language ideology debate in favor of the acceptance of Dārija as a
language of writing and literature, and as such form an ideological community.

Looking at language ideology explicitly, the next chapter, ‘The politics of
pro-ˁAmmiyya language ideology in Egypt’ by Mariam Aboelezz studies how
language ideologies are indexical of underlying political ideologies. Basing
her analysis on interviews with two (now defunct) “pro ˁAmmiyya agents of
change” (213), Aboelezz’s findings suggest that explicit programmatic language
ideologies are indexical of particular standpoints. In the case of the first
‘agent of change’, a spokesperson of the defunct Egyptian Liberal Party, the
vernacular represents authenticity and Egyptian Nationalism as opposed to
Pan-Arabism, an ideology he is opposed to and which according to him is evoked
by Standard Arabic. For the representative of the publishing house Malamih,
Aboelezz’s other agent of change, however, the choice of the vernacular is
indexical of a stance against the establishment, and as thus serves as a form
of political opposition in itself. Another noteworthy finding this study sheds
light on is the variation in labelling of the two varieties and the indexed
political, as for instance referring to the Egyptian vernacular as ‘language’
as opposed to the ‘tongues’ or ‘dialects’ of other Arabic vernaculars. 

The three concluding chapters, ‘Moralizing Standards’ by Atiqa Hachimi, ‘The
Language of Online Activism’ by Jon Nordenson, and Emad Abdul Latif’s ‘The
Oralization of Writing’ are concerned with written Arabic in digital media.
Hachimi’s contribution looks into the written discourse on a Moroccan Facebook
page blacklisting local celebrities, arguing that this playful and humorous
discourse of disapproving and moralizing stances constitutes a
“co-construction of respectable Morroccan womanhood” (240) while offering
insights into the interplay of the ideologies of language, gender, and
national identity. Diverging from the local focus of Egypt and Morrocco,
Nordenson illustrates the impact audience design has on stylistic choices,
such as vernacular vs Standard Arabic, in the discourse of Kuwaiti online
activists in 2006 and a current campaign. He postulates that the trend of a
preference of Kuwaiti Arabic features in the earlier campaign as opposed to a
higher saliency of Standard Arabic features in the more recent campaign, can
be explained by “differences in the intended and possible audience” (287) and
the consequential implications on setting and content. Abdul Latif’s chapter
on profanity in social media in the context of 2012 Egyptian presidential
elections investigates “the factors which influence the prevalence of
profanity in cyberspace, and the functions of profanity” (295). In conclusion,
Abdul Latif notes, that these examples of written Arabic in the form of
profanities, are representations of oral language, referring to it as the
“oralization of writing” (306). However, his argumentation reflects the
ideological bias of diglossia that this volume – according to the editor’s
introduction – is set out to challenge, as he equals the vernacular with oral
only, and the standard with written only language: “[…] most of the curse
words and profane expressions are in ˁAmmiyya, and are transcribed as they
would be pronounced without being converted to Fuṣha” (305).

EVALUATION

As depicted in the editors ‘Introduction’, the goal of this volume is to
“address” (1) questions on the effect the claim of “ordinary” (1) people has
on the diglossic character of Arabic, as well as on the quality of the
relation between “writing practices” (1) and socio-political currents in the
Arab World. For these ends, they aim to study “practices and perceptions of
writing in vernacular Arabic” (2) in order to make inferences on the
connection of language choice and socio-political developments. This already
raises a number of questions. Who are these ordinary people, and who are they
replacing, the elite, the establishment, etc.? It seems the authors have
fallen into the same ideological fallacy they claim to challenge, the ideology
of diglossia that reserves the domain of writing to the Standard variety of
Arabic, and thus those segments of the population that are educated in its
use. At the same time, the use of the word ‘ordinary’ in this context also
implies that there is a clear divide between writers who use the vernacular or
mixed varieties and those that write in Standard, while contributions in this
very volume, such as Elinson’s chapter on ‘Zajal’ demonstrate clearly that
although mostly written in the vernacular, the audience of works of this
literary genre is to be found amongst the highly literate and educated parts
of society. Further, due to the regional restrictions to mainly Egypt and
Morocco, and to a lesser degree Kuwait, the claim to address the relation
between language choice and socio-political developments in the Arab World is
not met, as large regions such as the Levant and the majority of the Gulf are
left out of the analysis. In addition, by focusing on niche literary genres
(e.g. Adab Sākhir, Zajal) or low circulation publications (c.f. contributions
by Høigilt, Hachimi, Abdul Latif), the data samples are not sufficiently
representative. Interestingly, even though the surveys conducted that provide
the empirical basis for this volume list Facebook and Sms as the domains where
the vernacular is most likely to be used , as opposed to work, school, or
email, only one of this volume’s contributions deals with data from Facebook
(Hachimi). Another point of confusion is that the editors state in the
introduction the following “three areas of inquiry – ‘diglossia’, language
ideology and the relation between writing practices, social changes and power”
(2), followed by a presentation of diglossia, standardization, and language
ideology, raising the question why standardization and not the relation
between writing practices and socio-political realities is discussed in more
detail. 

Yet, despite these shortcomings, the volume provides a much needed
contribution to the field of Arabic Sociolinguistic. By combining empirical,
theoretical, and historical research with case studies on written Arabic and
vernacular literacy in a variety of regions (Egypt, Morocco, and Kuwait), and
genres (e.g. Satirical Literature, new print media, Zajal Literature, digital
media), this volumes combines studies dealing with language ideology
implicitly as well as explicitly. Supported by the results from the surveys in
both Morocco and Egypt (albeit only in an urban setting) as presented by Kindt
and Kebede, Brustad’s chapter lays down the theoretical framework, approaching
diglossia as a language ideology rather than an accurate description of
linguistic realities, and lays the methodological ground work connecting the
various case studies and constituting the red thread that ensures the general
coherence of the volume.

As such, ‘The Politics of Written Language Change in the Arab World’
convincingly challenges the core concept of Arabic linguistics, diglossia. As
Brustad rightly points out, even Ferguson (1959) in his groundbreaking paper
on this topic implied that diglossia represents less a description of the
linguistic reality, but an ideology. Much of the research on variation in
Arabic has been focused on spoken language (e.g. in studies on dialectology,
language attitudes, or variationist sociolinguistics), based on the assumption
conceived from the traditional notion of diglossia that written language is
solely the domain of the standard variety. In addition to Arabic linguists,
then, this book is also of interest to scholars of language, literature, and
discourse in general, as it emphasizes the rich resource linguistic and
stylistic resource the Arabic language possesses as a consequence of its
diglossic character for expressions of style, stance, and identity. Further,
as a consequence of the various case studies included, this volume constitutes
a snapshot of current trends and dynamics in Arabic written productions. As
such, it also provides a valuable resource for language planners and scholars
of language (educational) policy and ideology. 

In order to provide a more comprehensive view of the linguistic situation,
especially in regard to written Arabic and the language ideology connected to
it, it would be desirable to see further studies expanding the scope both in
terms of region, and genre.

REFERENCES

Ferguson, C.A., 1959. ‘Diglossia’. Word, 15(2), pp.325-340.


ABOUT THE REVIEWER

An Arabic linguist, studying ideology and identity creation in political
discourse, Nadine Hamdan has completed her PhD at Georgetown University and
currently works as Research Fellow at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service
Qatar.





------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*****************    LINGUIST List Support    *****************
Please support the LL editors and operation with a donation at:

              The IU Foundation Crowd Funding site:
       https://iufoundation.fundly.com/the-linguist-list

               The LINGUIST List FundDrive Page:
            https://funddrive.linguistlist.org/donate/
 


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-29-3258	
----------------------------------------------------------