16.2189, Review: Lang Description/Semitic Lang: Holes (2004)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2189. Sun Jul 17 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.2189, Review: Lang Description/Semitic Lang: Holes (2004)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberg at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 15-Jul-2005
From: Andrzej Zaborski < zaborski at lingua.filg.uj.edu.pl >
Subject: Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties, Revised Ed. 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:37:14
From: Andrzej Zaborski < zaborski at lingua.filg.uj.edu.pl >
Subject: Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties, Revised Ed. 
 

AUTHOR: Holes, Clive
TITLE: Modern Arabic 
SUBTITLE: Structures, Functions, and Varieties
EDITION: Revised edition
SERIES: Georgetown Classics in Arabic and Linguistics 
PUBLISHER: Georgetown University Press 
YEAR: 2004
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-2509.html


Andrzej Zaborski, Jagellonian University of Cracow

This is a revised edition of the book which was originally published by 
Longman in 1995 and which is one of the really important books on 
contemporary Arabic discussing the grammar of Modern Standard Arabic as 
well as different complex sociolinguistic situations in several Arab 
countries. Holes himself (p. 7) identifies prospective readers 
as "advanced students of Arabic who have a good practical knowledge of the 
standard language and perhaps one dialect". Taking this into consideration 
it must be said that the basic introduction to Arabic script on pp. 391-
396 is not at all necessary. Professional Arabists profit from the book as 
it provides many original and important insights (nota bene found also in 
extensive footnotes!) and well-selected data, although the publication at 
the same time of the great Modern Written Arabic: A Comprehensive Grammar 
by Elsaid Badawi, Michael G. Carter and Adrian Gully, London 2004, 
Routledge, and of the monumental Syntax der Arabischen Schriftsprache der 
Gegenwart by Hashem El-Ayoubi, W.Fischer and M. Langer (strangely not 
mentioned at all, although the first volume appeared already in Wiesbaden, 
Reichert Verlag in 2001 and second volume in 2003) has seriously 
diminished the usefulness of Holes' selective description of Modern 
Standard Arabic which constitutes the majority of his book. In short, I 
would not recommend the book for real beginners who should start with a 
grammar of Modern Standard and/or Classical Arabic such as K. Versteegh's 
The Arabic Language, Edinburgh University Press 1997, but I recommend 
Holes' book for all other readers as a kind of useful supplement. 

Some flaws which could have been avoided: 
p. 1: it should be mentioned that Berber is still well represented in the 
Siwa Oasis in NW Egypt; 
p.2: "several hundred thousand native speakers of Kurdish" in Iraq is 
quite wrong since there are at least as many as three and a half million 
Kurds in Iraq; Modern South Arabian languages are spoken not only in Oman 
but also in Yemen; Nilo-Saharan and not Bantu languages are spoken in 
Southern Sudan; the Arabic dialect is still spoken in Kormakiti in 
northern Cyprus; it is not enough to say that "Maltese is undoubtedly 
structurally an Arabic dialect" -- it should be added that since centuries 
Maltese is a separate, independent language and although it is undoubtedly 
of Arabic origin, from the sociolinguistic point of view it is most 
interesting that many if not most of the Maltese including some linguists 
are not inclined to accept this fact; 
pp. 5 and 39: it is not correct to say that "Classical Arabic is no more a 
functional linguistic idiom for Arabs than liturgical Latin is a living 
language for Roman Catholics" since today apart from a very tiny minority 
Roman Catholics (including even many if not most French priests!) do not 
have any knowledge of Latin at all and apart from a very small margin 
Latin has not been a liturgical language for almost five decades -- the 
situation in Arab countries is rather similar to the situation in Romance 
countries about c. 1100 when Latin was still the main or even the only 
written language and a language of culture in general while 'Neolatin' or 
Romance, e.g. Italian dialects were already normally spoken and their 
speakers still could understand some Latin even without studying it; 
p. 15: it is not correct to explain the meaning of the name 'Koran' 
as 'reading, recitation' (p. 15) -- al-Qur'a:n means rather 'The Recited Text'; 
pp. 36-40: far too little attention is paid to Middle Arabic in the 'Brief 
History of Arabic' in which we miss a reference to Ignacio 
Ferrando's 'Introduccion a la historia de la lengua arabe -- nuevas 
perspectivas', Zaragoza 2001: Portico, which is an important contribution; 
pp. 50-51: contrary to Holes' claim, also Ugaritic has --u 
for 'Imperfect', -a for 'Subjunctive' and zero for 'Past/Jussive' as well 
as 'Energetic' -an and -anna - the latter not mentioned by Holes; even in 
Akkadian we have zero ending for the Past, a survival of --am < *-an as 
well as --u and even traces of -a.

Holes, like many other Arabists, underestimates the profound differences 
between the language situation, language use, language policy etc. in 
particular Arab countries which is not surprising since very few Arabists 
really know the situation in all Arab countries. Holes provides some very 
limited data on the situation in Tunisia which he visited in the year 2000 
but otherwise his characteristic of the problems of Arab West is minimal. 
He knows the situation in Egypt quite well but although more or less 
directly he admits that Cairo Arabic is a de facto national language of 
Egypt he underestimates the existence of Cairo Literary Arabic represented 
since decades by copious, mainly modern drama and poetry but also prose 
writings, mentioning only 'certain erstwhile leftist Egyptian writers such 
as Yusuf Idris' (p. 50) and underestimating tens of others, especially 
those active in the last decades. The fact is that in Egypt there is both 
Modern Standard/Literary Arabic a n d Cairo/Egyptian Literary Arabic! 
Certainly in Egypt 'written Egyptian' does not "conventionally convey 
multiple associations of the 'domestic', 'homely', 'amusing', 
and 'nonserious' " (p.50), it is just the 'normal', viz. non-artificial 
means of modern artistic literary communication for so many writers. 
Thanks to Egyptian films and satelite television Egyptian Arabic 
influences Arabic varieties in other countries. Holes does not mention the 
problem of the official arabicization in the Maghreb and underestimates 
the use of French which is still very intensive (although decreasing for 
several reasons) in the Arab West. It is surprising that Holes uses past 
tense saying that 'many (Arab specialists -- A.Z.) continued to use 
English or French' which is still a reality especially among engineers and 
medicine doctors. The language situation in the most multilingual Arab 
country, viz. Sudan is not discussed at all. 

In the chapter on 'Phonology' Holes mentions the traditional pronunciation 
conventions of Koranic and Classical poetry recitation (p. 57) but it is 
impossible to agree with his allegation that 'none of the reading 
conventions currently in use for the pronunciation of MSA has any 
historical validity' (p. 59) since the obligatory traditional 
pronunciation of the Koran certainly has at least some historical 
validity. There is no need to suspect that the this traditional 
pronunciation of the holy text has not been transmitted as accurately as 
possible, inevitable influence of colloquial phonetics being only 
marginal. There is nothing on the pronunciation of 'ayin which was 
analyzed rather as a stop than as a fricative by al-Ani years ago but 
which, nevertheless, is pronounced as a fricative in most varieties. It is 
strange that Holes does not even mention the alternative stress on the 
first syllable, e.g. in mádrasa (p. 63, cf. pp. 79-81) and does not 
mention even the problem of stress in the genitive construction (status 
constructus). The discussion of syllable types in Arabic dialects is 
limited to Cairo and Bahrain Sunni dialects and the special structures of 
e.g. Mesopotamian. and Maghrebian dialects are not mentioned at all. 
Actually the discussion of pausal forms (pp.63-68) as well of the 
different use of verbal forms (p. 86-89) does not belong to phonology but 
rather to morphology (or morphonology) and syntax. In the subchapter 
on 'Dialect and orthography' only examples from Bahraini poetry as written 
by one Bahraini poet are given and analyzed. Why the author has refrained 
from discussing problems of Cairo Arabic spelling which he knows so well? 
There should be at least a mention of the Lebanese as a l a n g u a g e 
(!) distinct from Arabic promoted by Sa'id 'Aql and Maurice Awad as well 
as by several other younger Lebanese writers who use Arabic script and/or 
special good Latin orthographies. 

In the chapter on verb morphology Holes misses important publications by 
Larcher summarized and updated in his book 'Le Systeme verbal de l'arabe 
classique', Aix-en-Provence 2003, Université de Provence which is valuable 
also for Modern Standard Arabic. On the other hand Holes provides a good 
supplement to Larcher when he presents verbal derivation in dialects which 
was the subject of my paper read at the Third International Conference of 
Association Internationale de Dialectologie Arabe in Malta in 1998. Holes 
emphasizes correctly that in both Modern Standard Arabic and in the 
dialects the verbal system is evolving toward a tense system but he 
explains the opposition between the 'Perfect' and 'Imperfect' (his use of 
the name 'p-stem' for the latter is objectionable since p-stem occurs also 
in the 'Apocopate' which is a past tense!) as that between 'completed' 
and 'noncompleted/ongoing' actions and states and argues that the use of 
the 'Perfect' in conditional sentences, in optative phrases as well as 
with resultative function (e.g. fahimt "I understand'; cf. Latin Perfect 
novi which means 'I know' and not 'I knew') shows that "'pastness' is not 
central to the s-stem" (p. 218). This last assumption cannot be accepted 
because in many languages, even in English (!), real past tenses are used 
in the same way. 

The discussion of dialect structures is practically limited to Cairo and 
Bahraini Arabic with some occasional references to a few other dialects, 
e.g. Damascus, Baghdadi, Jordanian varieties. In the chapter on noun 
morphology there is an important statement that "In uneducated dialectal 
speech relatively unaffected by MSA, the verbal noun does not figure very 
often, other locutions being preferred" (p.147). It is a widely spread 
phenomenon that nominalizations are avoided in many spoken languages but 
it is a pity that we are not told what 'other locutions' actually are. On 
p. 149 we do have an example of a nominalization ('eating of the things') 
in 'the plain colloquial of the Gulf'. The use of the quite idiosyncratic 
term 'broken plurals' (a calque translation from Arabic!) has a long 
tradition in Arabic studies but it has a big disadvantage since it 
separates Arabic linguistics from all other branches of linguistic 
sciences. "Broken plurals" are just internal plurals called also plurals 
with Ablaut or with apophony having good typological counterparts e.g. in 
English plurals 'feet', 'teeth', 'geese' and also 'oxen' and 'children' 
etc. Holes does not mention internal plurals of the type furs-a:n 'riders' 
corresponding to 'active participle' forms like sing. fa:ris 'rider' 
although he does mention bi'b-a:n 'doors, gates'. I have not found a 
mention that internal plurals are, at least in their majority, collectives 
since in well known circumstances they require a verb in singular. 

Final conclusion: this is still an important book presenting both 
descriptive linguistic and sociolinguistic analyses that every Arabist 
must take into consideration. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

I am chair of Afroasiatic linguistics, Jagellonian University of Cracow 
specializing in comparative Afroasiatic linguistics including Arabic 
dialectology and history of Arabic. I am coeditor of the Encyclopaedia of 
Arabic Language and Linguistics (forthcoming at Brill, Leiden) responsible 
among others for morphology and comparative problems. I was visiting 
professor at the universities  of Vienna, Heidelberg, Torino, Udine and 
Mainz, fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew 
University of Jerusalem. Chief editor of "Folia Orientalia" published by 
the Polish Academy of Sciences.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2189