Diglossia and the variation of the colloquial arabic

Diglossia and the variation of the colloquial arabic 1.0 Introduction: In many speech communities where speakers use two or more varieties of the same language in different situations, a phenomenon called diglossia exists. The purpose of this paper is to discuss diglossia in the Arab community, as this is one of the communities that have been classified by Ferguson (1959) to be examples of diglossic language situations. It was my original intention to focus specifically on the Libyan context. However, a paucity of information on the Libyan context has meant that the major focus of the assignment is on Arabic in general. However, in the final section of the paper, I do make brief reference to Libya. After defining diglossia, the characteristic features of diglossia as determined by Ferguson will be discussed too. I will then, provide a description of diglossia in Arabic, followed by the origins of Arabic diglossia. A description of classical/modern standard and colloquial Arabic will be also provided, together with their usage in different domains. Finally, I will put forward some arguments and studies on Arabic diglossia, which have been introduced by linguists, as well as Arabic dialects and how variation of Arabic dialects is sometimes considered to be problematic. 2.0 Diglossia defined The term diglossia was introduced from French ‘diglossie by Ferguson (1959), who is credited with first using this term in an article he wrote in 1959. According to him, diglossia refers to ‘one particular kind of standardization where two varieties of a language exist side by side throughout the community, with each having a definite role to play (Ferguson, 1959:232). In other words, when two languages or language varieties exist side by side in a community and each one is used for different purposes, diglossia exists. Usually, according to Richards et al (1992:108), one is a more standard variety called the high variety or (H- variety) which is used for example in educational institutions (lectures at universities), religious services (prayers, sermons in mosques and churches). The other one is called the low variety or (L- variety), which is used in family context, social interactions and shopping. In addition, Ferguson has identified four languages which he thinks fit into his definition of diglossia. Those languages are Greek, Arabic, Haitian Creole and Swiss German. In all four areas, there seems to be a similar functional distribution between two varieties of the same language, which are called in Fergusons terminology high variety (H) and low variety (L). 3.0 The characteristic features of Diglossia Ferguson (1959: 235) suggests that the different uses of H and L varieties can be described with reference to the following criteria: Specialized Functions One of the most important features of diglossia is the ‘specialization of function for High and Low forms'(Ferguson, 1959:235). In other words, each form has special domains to be used in. For example, the High form is used in religious sermons, letter writing, parliamentary speech, university lectures, news broadcasts, newspaper editorials and poetry, whereas the Low form is used in family conversation, folk literature, and soap opera. Slight overlapping between the two forms occurs, i.e. sometimes the two forms might be used in one domain by switching from H to L and vice versa. H and L are used for different purposes, and native speakers would find it odd if anyone used H in an L domain, or L in an H domain. Acquisition Low (L) is the mother tongue of the speaker in the concerned defining languages (Arabic, Greek Haitian Creole and Swiss German), which have been determined by Ferguson. All speakers learn it as a first language at home as they are more comfortable in the L form than the H. The H form is normally learnt by formal instruction in schools. Standardization In all the defining languages, H is highly standardised and may have a long tradition of grammatical study associated with it. In other words, grammars, dictionaries are a large literature which is associated with it. The L form may not be standardised. In Arabic, for example, the L form has no standard grammatical rules as it differs from one Arabic region to another region, and every Arabic community has its own local L form (dialect). Prestige H is always considered to be more highly valued than the L as a result of the fact that the H variety is used in literature, religious texts, public speaking etc. The L variety is less associated with the written word and is often considered to be a corrupt version of H. It may be found in popular advertising, folklore poetry or used in drama, e.g. to describe comic characters. For Arab Muslims, for example, H is considered to be the language of the Koran, and it is widely believed to ‘constitute the words of God and even to be outside the limits of space and time (Ferguson, 1959:238). Grammar, lexicon and phonology The syntactic system of H varieties are generally thought to be more complex than the L in terms of grammatical features such as, tense, gender and number. Complex sentence structures are thought not to be a feature of L in the languages determined by Ferguson. The lexicon of the two varieties, on the other hand, is largely shared but there is a difference on account of the specific domains in which each is used. H and L may share the same phonological system, but even at this level of grammar, the H variety is felt to have more complicated phonetic features. 4.0 Fishmans extension of diglossia In 1967, Fishman revised and expanded Fergusons original definition of diglossia. Fishman believed that diglossia must be distinguished from bilingualism (Fasold, 1984). He suggests that bilingualism refers to an individuals ability to use more than one language variety, whereas diglossia refers to the distribution of more than one language variety to serve different communication tasks in a society. However, Fishman states the view, which he attributes to J. Gumperz that ‘diglossia exists not only in multilingual societies which officially recognize several ‘languages but, also, in societies which are multilingual in the sense that they employ separate dialects, registers or functionally differentiated language varieties of whatever kind (Fishman, 1967:30). Fishman proposes that classic diglossia could be extended to situations where forms of two genetically unrelated languages occupy the H and L domains, such that one of the languages is used for education, law, literary and religion while another is the home language. Moreover, his extension depends on his focus on domain. In a community, for example, where speakers use two languages, they will obviously not use both in all circumstances. They use only one language in certain circumstances, and in others, they use the other one. Fishman cites Paraguay as an example for his claim where there are two languages which are known by almost everybody. In Paraguay, Spanish is used as the high formal language, whereas Guarani is used as the low informal language. Fishmans reference to Paraguay illustrates how far apart linguistically two languages may be and still be in a diaglossic relationship. From the above two conceptions of diglossia, we come to a conclusion that both scholars, Ferguson and Fishman agree that the H variety is used for formal purposes and the L variety is used for less formal, more personal uses. However, they disagree when Ferguson distinguishes diglossia from the relationship between standard and colloquial, whereas Fishman mentions the possibility that more than two language varieties can be reserved for specific functions in a society. In addition, Fergusons view is limited two language varieties, whereas Fishmans view is more than two language varieties can be reserved for specific functions in a society (Fasold, 1984). Having defined the term ‘diglossia and the way the concept has been extended by Fishman; I now turn to a discussion in the Arabic context. 5.0 Digloss ia in Arabic Arabic iÃ'• a mÐ µmbÐ µr of thÐ µ Ð…Ð µmitic languagÐ µ family, which itÃ'•Ð µlf iÃ'• part of thÐ µ widÐ µr AfroaÃ'•iatic phylum including AnciÐ µnt Еgyptian, Coptic, CuÃ'•hitic, BÐ µrbÐ µr, and Chadic. OthÐ µr principal mÐ µmbÐ µrÃ'• of thÐ µ Ð…Ð µmitic family arÐ µ thÐ µ ЕaÃ'•t Ð…Ð µmitic languagÐ µÃ'• of Akkadian and ЕblaitÐ µ (both now long dÐ µad), and thÐ µ WÐ µÃ'•t Ð…Ð µmitic lan ¬guagÐ µÃ'• Aramaic, Ugaritic, thÐ µ CanaanitÐ µ languagÐ µÃ'• (including HÐ µbrÐ µw), anciÐ µnt and modÐ µrn Ð…outh Arabian, and thÐ µ Ð…Ð µmitic languagÐ µÃ'• of Еthiopia (for Ð µxamplÐ µ, GÐ µÃ µz, TigrÐ µ, Tigrinya, and Amharic) (HÐ µtzron 1992: 412-13;2 FabÐ µr 1997: 6; cf. BÐ µÃ µÃ'•ton 1970: 11). 5.1 The Ã'•prÐ µad of Arabic The original homeland of Ã'•pÐ µakÐ µrÃ'• of Arabic is thÐ µ cÐ µntral and northern rÐ µgionÃ'• of thÐ µ Arabian PÐ µninÃ'•ula. ThÐ µ lowÐ µr half of thÐ µ Arabian PÐ µninÃ'•ula waÃ'• inhabitÐ µd by Ã'•pÐ µakÐ µrÃ'• of languagÐ µÃ'• known aÃ'• Еpigraphic Ð…outh Arabian (HÐ µtzron 1992: 412). ThÐ µ Ð µnd of thÐ µ Ã'•ixth cÐ µntury CЕ, howÐ µvÐ µr, Ã'•aw thÐ µ riÃ'•Ð µ of thÐ µ nÐ µw rÐ µligion of IÃ'•lam promotÐ µd by thÐ µ ProphÐ µt Muhammad within thÐ µ Arabian PÐ µninÃ'•ula in what iÃ'• now Ð…audi Arabia. ThÐ µ nÐ µw IÃ'•lamic Ã'•tatÐ µ Ã'•prÐ µad rapidly throughout thÐ µ PÐ µninÃ'•ula, and within 100 yÐ µarÃ'• had Ð µxtÐ µndÐ µd north into thÐ µ LÐ µvant, Ð µaÃ'•t into Iraq and KhuziÃ'•tan, and wÐ µÃ'•t into North Africa. OvÐ µr thÐ µ cÐ µnturiÐ µÃ'•, thÐ µ rÐ µligiouÃ'• frontiÐ µrÃ'• of IÃ'•lam Ã'•trÐ µtchÐ µd into Ð…pain, Africa, India, and IndonÐ µ Ã'•ia, and acroÃ'•Ã'• cÐ µntral AÃ'•ia into Tur ­kÐ µÃ'•tan and China (Gibb 1978: 10). ThÐ µ riÃ'•Ð µ and Ð µxpanÃ'•ion of IÃ'•lam waÃ'• not only a rÐ µligiouÃ'• and hÐ µncÐ µ cultural conquÐ µÃ'•t, but alÃ'•o a linguiÃ'•tic conquÐ µÃ'•t, and within a fÐ µw hundrÐ µd yÐ µarÃ'• Arabic bÐ µcamÐ µ both thÐ µ official and thÐ µ vÐ µrnacular languagÐ µ of all IÃ'•lamicizÐ µd countriÐ µÃ'• in thÐ µ MiddlÐ µ ЕaÃ'•t. IndÐ µÃ µd, duÐ µ to thÐ µ prÐ µvailing tolÐ µrancÐ µ on thÐ µ part of thÐ µ MuÃ'•limÃ'• to ChriÃ'•tianÃ'• and JÐ µwÃ'•, arabicization waÃ'• morÐ µ complÐ µtÐ µ a procÐ µÃ'•Ã'• and progrÐ µÃ'•Ã'•Ð µd at a grÐ µatÐ µr ratÐ µ than iÃ'•lamicization (VÐ µrÃ'•tÐ µÃ µgh 1997: 93). In thÐ µ courÃ'•Ð µ of thÐ µ Ã'•prÐ µad of IÃ'•lam, Arabic found itÃ'•Ð µlf in contact with a Ã'•Ð µriÐ µÃ'• of forÐ µign languagÐ µÃ'• which it haÃ'• tÐ µndÐ µd to Ã'•upplant. In Еgypt during thÐ µ Ð µarly cÐ µnturiÐ µÃ'• of IÃ'•lamic domination, thÐ µ Coptic patriarchÃ'• communicatÐ µd with thÐ µ Arab conquÐ µrÐ µrÃ'• through intÐ µrprÐ µtÐ µrÃ'•. By thÐ µ tÐ µnth cÐ µntury CЕ, thÐ µ Coptic biÃ'•hop Ð…Ð µvÐ µruÃ'• of ЕÃ'•hmunÐ µin complainÐ µd that moÃ'•t CoptÃ'• no longÐ µr undÐ µrÃ'•tood Ð µithÐ µr GrÐ µÃ µk or Coptic, only Arabic. In UppÐ µr Еgypt, Coptic waÃ'• limitÐ µd to a fÐ µw Ã'•mall pockÐ µtÃ'• in thÐ µ countryÃ'•idÐ µ and to thÐ µ clÐ µrgy in monaÃ'•tÐ µriÐ µÃ'• by thÐ µ fourtÐ µÃ µnth cÐ µn ­tury CЕ (VÐ µrÃ'•tÐ µÃ µgh 1997: 95). It iÃ'• gÐ µnÐ µrally bÐ µliÐ µvÐ µd that by thÐ µ Ã'•ixtÐ µÃ µnth cÐ µntury CЕ thÐ µ uÃ'•à  µ of Coptic waÃ'• rÐ µÃ'•trictÐ µd to liturgy in thÐ µ Coptic church (cf. LopriÐ µno 1995: 7). In North Africa, Arabic bÐ µcamÐ µ thÐ µ dominant languagÐ µ of thÐ µ citiÐ µÃ'•, but BÐ µrbÐ µr managÐ µd to rÐ µÃ'•iÃ'•t thÐ µ Ã'•prÐ µad of Arabic in thÐ µ rural intÐ µrior. In Morocco and AlgÐ µria, in particular, BÐ µrbÐ µr haÃ'• rÐ µtainÐ µd itÃ'• vitality alongÃ'•idÐ µ Arabic to thiÃ'• day. LikÐ µwiÃ'•Ð µ in limitÐ µd arÐ µaÃ'• in thÐ µ FÐ µrtilÐ µ CrÐ µÃ'•cÐ µnt, dialÐ µctÃ'• of Ð…yriac havÐ µ pÐ µrÃ'•iÃ'•tÐ µd and havÐ µ influÐ µncÐ µd nÐ µighbouring Arabic dialÐ µctÃ'•. 5.2 ThÐ µ Ð µmÐ µrgÐ µncÐ µ of a Ã'•tandard languagÐ µ and digloÃ'•Ã'•ia ThÐ µ litÐ µrary Arabic languagÐ µ bÐ µgan to attain a Ã'•tandard form through thÐ µ dÐ µvÐ µlop ­mÐ µnt of grammatical normÃ'• in thÐ µ Ð µighth cÐ µntury CЕ (FiÃ'•chÐ µr 1997: 188). ThiÃ'• Ã'•tandard languagÐ µ can bÐ µ tÐ µrmÐ µd Ð…tandard Arabic, thÐ µ tÐ µrmÃ'• ClaÃ'•Ã'•ical Arabic and ModÐ µm Ð…tandard Arabic bÐ µing uÃ'•Ð µd to dÐ µÃ'•cribÐ µ itÃ'• mÐ µdiÐ µval and modÐ µm variantÃ'•, rÐ µÃ'•pÐ µctivÐ µly. ClaÃ'•Ã'•ical Arabic waÃ'• baÃ'•Ð µd primarily on thÐ µ languagÐ µ of thÐ µ wÐ µÃ'•tÐ µrn Hij azi tribÐ µ of QurayÃ'•h, with Ã'•omÐ µ intÐ µrfÐ µrÐ µncÐ µ from prÐ µ- IÃ'•lamic poÐ µtic koinÐ µ and Ð µaÃ'•tÐ µrn dialÐ µctÃ'•. ThÐ µ languagÐ µ waÃ'• codifiÐ µd in thÐ µ Qur an, thÐ µ holy book of IÃ'•lam. Although thÐ µ lÐ µxiÃ'• and Ã'•tyliÃ'•ticÃ'• of ModÐ µm Ð…tandard Arabic arÐ µ rathÐ µr diffÐ µrÐ µnt from thoÃ'•Ð µ of ClaÃ'•Ã'•ical A rabic, thÐ µ morphology and Ã'•yntax havÐ µ rÐ µmainÐ µd baÃ'•i ­cally unchangÐ µd ovÐ µr thÐ µ cÐ µnturiÐ µÃ'• (FiÃ'•chÐ µr 1997: 188). ThÐ µ vÐ µrnacular Arabic dialÐ µctÃ'•, by contraÃ'•t, havÐ µ dÐ µvÐ µlopÐ µd markÐ µdly during thiÃ'• pÐ µriod. LikÐ µ a numbÐ µr of othÐ µr languagÐ µÃ'•, thÐ µrÐ µforÐ µ, Arabic camÐ µ to havÐ µ onÐ µ Ã'•tandard variÐ µty and a largÐ µ numbÐ µr of rÐ µgional and Ã'•ocial dialÐ µctÃ'•. UnlikÐ µ many Ã'•uch languagÐ µÃ'•, howÐ µvÐ µr, no onÐ µ in thÐ µ Arab world iÃ'• brought up Ã'•pÐ µaking Standard Arabic as their mother tongue: an Arab childÃ'• mothÐ µr tonguÐ µ will bÐ µ thÐ µ rÐ µgional or social variety of Arabic of itÃ'• homÐ µ rÐ µgion, whilÐ µ Ð…tandard Arabic, if it iÃ'• maÃ'•tÐ µrÐ µd at all, iÃ'• lÐ µarnt formally at Ã'•chool or at homÐ µ aÃ'• part of thÐ µ childÃ'• Ð µducation. Ð…tandard Arabic iÃ'• confinÐ µd to formal writ tÐ µn and Ã'•pokÐ µn occaÃ'•ionÃ'•, and thÐ µ rÐ µgional/Ã'•ocial variÐ µty of Arabic iÃ'• uÃ'•Ð µd at all othÐ µr timÐ µÃ'•. Ð…tandard Arabic now diffÐ µrÃ'• conÃ'•idÐ µrably from rÐ µgional and Ã'•ocial colloquial variÐ µtiÐ µÃ'• of Arabic in tÐ µrmÃ'• of itÃ'• phonology, morph ­ology, Ã'•yntax, and lÐ µxicon. According to LipinÃ'•ki (1997: 75), Ã'•uch digloÃ'•Ã'•ia in Arabic bÐ µgan to Ð µmÐ µrgÐ µ at thÐ µ latÐ µÃ'•t in thÐ µ Ã'•ixth cÐ µntury CЕ whÐ µn oral poÐ µtÃ'• rÐ µcitÐ µd thÐ µir poÐ µtry in a proto-ClaÃ'•Ã'•ical Arabic baÃ'•Ð µd on archaic dialÐ µctÃ'• which diffÐ µrÐ µd grÐ µatly from thÐ µir own (cf. alÃ'•o VollÐ µrÃ'• 1906; WÐ µhr 1952; DiÐ µm 1973, citÐ µd in FiÃ'•chÐ µr 1997: 188). DialÐ µctÃ'• of Arabic form a roughly continuouÃ'• Ã'•pÐ µctrum of variation, with thÐ µ dialÐ µctÃ'• Ã'•pokÐ µn in thÐ µ Ð µaÃ'•tÐ µrn and wÐ µÃ'•tÐ µrn Ð µxtrÐ µmÐ µÃ'• of thÐ µ Arab-Ã'•pÐ µaking world bÐ µing mutually unintÐ µlligiblÐ µ. On thÐ µ baÃ'•iÃ'• of cÐ µrtain linguiÃ'•tic fÐ µaturÐ µÃ'•, Arabic dialÐ µctÃ'• can bÐ µ dividÐ µd into two major gÐ µographical groupÃ'•: thÐ µ firÃ'•t compriÃ'•Ð µÃ'• dialÐ µctÃ'• Ã'•pokÐ µn Ð µaÃ'•t of a linÐ µ running from Ð…alum in thÐ µ north to roughly thÐ µ Ð…udan-Chad bordÐ µr in thÐ µ Ã'•outh; thÐ µ Ã'•Ð µcond compriÃ'•Ð µÃ'• thÐ µ Maghribi dialÐ µctÃ'• Ã'•po ­kÐ µn to thÐ µ wÐ µÃ'•t of thiÃ'• linÐ µ. ThÐ µ main phonological fÐ µaturÐ µÃ'• which diÃ'•tinguiÃ'•h thÐ µ wÐ µÃ'•tÐ µrn dialÐ µct group from thÐ µ Ð µaÃ'•tÐ µrn includÐ µ thÐ µ typical rÐ µduction of thÐ µ triangu ­lar Ã'•yÃ'•tÐ µm of Ã' •hort vowÐ µlÃ'•, a, i, u, which iÃ'• found in Ð µaÃ'•tÐ µrn dialÐ µctÃ'•, to a two-vowÐ µl Ã'•yÃ'•tÐ µm (FiÃ'•chÐ µr and JaÃ'•trow 1980: 33); and a contraÃ'•t bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn an iambic word ­Ã'•trÐ µÃ'•Ã'• Ã'•yÃ'•tÐ µm in thÐ µ wÐ µÃ'•tÐ µrn group and a trochaic word-Ã'•trÐ µÃ'•Ã'• Ã'•yÃ'•tÐ µm in thÐ µ Ð µaÃ'•tÐ µrn group. ThuÃ'•, a word Ã'•uch aÃ'• katab hÐ µ wrotÐ µ will bÐ µ typically Ã'•trÐ µÃ'•Ã'•Ð µd aÃ'• katab in wÐ µÃ'•tÐ µrn dialÐ µctÃ'•, but aÃ'• katab in Ð µaÃ'•tÐ µrn dialÐ µctÃ'•. In wÐ µÃ'•tÐ µrn dialÐ µctÃ'•, thÐ µ com ­bination of an iambic Ã'•trÐ µÃ'•Ã'• Ã'•yÃ'•tÐ µm togÐ µthÐ µr with a tÐ µndÐ µncy to dÐ µlÐ µtÐ µ unÃ'•trÐ µÃ'•Ã'•Ð µd vowÐ µlÃ'• lÐ µadÃ'• to word-initial conÃ'•onant cluÃ'•tÐ µrÃ'• which arÐ µ not typically attÐ µÃ'•tÐ µd in Ð µaÃ'•tÐ µrn dialÐ µctÃ'•: in thÐ µ Moroccan Arabic dialÐ µct o f Lmnabha, Ã'•min fat (ЕlmÐ µd ­laoui 1995: 139) iÃ'• thÐ µ cognatÐ µ ofCairÐ µnÐ µ Ã'•imin; and thÐ µ word for outÃ'•idÐ µ iÃ'• rÐ µal ­izÐ µd aÃ'• brra in Lmnabha (ЕlmÐ µdlaoui 1995: 157), but aÃ'• barra in CairÐ µnÐ µ. DialÐ µctÃ'• of a languagÐ µ which haÃ'• Ã'•pÐ µakÐ µrÃ'• aÃ'• Ð µthnically and Ã'•ocially divÐ µrÃ'•Ð µ aÃ'• Arabic, howÐ µvÐ µr, cannot bÐ µ dividÐ µd in purÐ µly gÐ µographic tÐ µrmÃ'•. DialÐ µctÃ'• arÐ µ alÃ'•o commonly diÃ'•tinguiÃ'•hÐ µd along a bÐ µdouin-urban axiÃ'•: bÐ µdouin dialÐ µctÃ'• tÐ µnd to bÐ µ morÐ µ conÃ'•Ð µrvativÐ µ and homogÐ µnouÃ'•, whilÐ µ urban dialÐ µctÃ'• Ã'•how morÐ µ Ð µvolu ­tivÐ µ tÐ µndÐ µnciÐ µÃ'• and uÃ'•ually Ð µxhibit fairly clÐ µar intra-dialÐ µctal variation baÃ'•Ð µd on agÐ µ, gÐ µndÐ µr, Ã'•ocial claÃ'•Ã'•, and rÐ µligion. Typical BÐ µdouin fÐ µaturÐ µÃ'• includÐ µ thÐ µ voicÐ µd rÐ µflÐ µx of ClaÃ'•Ã'•ical Arabic qd], prÐ µÃ'•Ð µrvation of thÐ µ ClaÃ'•Ã'•ical Arabic intÐ µrdÐ µntalÃ'•, and a gÐ µndÐ µr diÃ'•tinction in thÐ µ Ã'•Ð µcond and third pÐ µrÃ'•onÃ'• plural of thÐ µ vÐ µrb, pro ­nounÃ'•, and pr onoun Ã'•uffixÐ µÃ'• (VÐ µrÃ'•tÐ µÃ µgh 1997: 144). DiÃ'•tinctionÃ'• bÐ µtwÐ µÃ µn bÐ µdouin and urban dialÐ µctÃ'• appÐ µar to bÐ µ lÐ µÃ'•Ã'• markÐ µd in thÐ µ ЕaÃ'•t, howÐ µvÐ µr, particularly in thÐ µ PÐ µninÃ'•ula, than thÐ µy arÐ µ in North Africa (FiÃ'•chÐ µr and JaÃ'•trow 1980: 24). Diglossia is a term which is usually applied to the sociolinguistic situation in much of the Arabic speaking world. In those countries, there are two forms of the same language (Arabic), the high and low variety. The high form is called fusha classical or modern standard Arabic which is normally used in formal situations, such as writing, political speeches and university lectures. The low form which is referred to dialects of Arab communities is used in informal situations, such as conversations, shopping and social rituals. The Arabic language represents a continuum. At one end of this continuum is the modern standard Arabic, and at the other lies the low form which represents the various dialects of the Arab communities. These two ends, in fact are only ideal types, i.e. pure standard or pure colloquial, in fact do not exist. In other words, even in the most pure standard text, we may find some colloquial terms and vice versa (Hary, 1996:72). A persons place on this continuum would be somewhere between the two forms. In other words, where a given persons speech sits on this continuum depends on a lot of factors including speaker, conversation topic and setting. For example, how well the two speakers know each other and the formality of the speech as when giving university lectures and sermons. Furthermore, in Arabic communities, classical Arabic fusha is deemed as the language of the Koran and is still the current written form of the language. At the beginning of the Islamic period, only two sources of literary Arabic were available; the Koran and the pre-Islamic poems al-shear al-jaheli. The Koran described itself arabiyyan ‘Arabic when it was revealed. This seems clear from the following verse of the Koran Q 43/2-3 which says; ( wa-l-kitabi: l-mubini: inna ga alnahu quraanan arabiyyan la allakum ta qiluna) ‘By the clear book: we have made it an Arabic recitation in order that you may understand. According to Versteegh ( 2001:53), the Koran and the pre-Islamic poems play a crucial role in the ‘standardization and development of the Arabic language. Colloquial Arabic ammyya or darja as it is called in North Africa, on the other hand, exists as the vernacular varieties of the major Arabic speaking communities. It is very often used, especially in daily spoken form. In some of the Arab contexts, for example, if somebody uses standard Arabic in the street, he might be laughed at since using MSA in such domains seems odd. Cown (1968) believes that ‘Arabs are native speakers of NSA [non-standard Arabic] and not MSA [modern standard Arabic] (Mahmoud, 2000:129). In other words, modern standard Arabic has no native speakers. Moreover, colloquial Arabic is subject to regional variation, not only between different countries, but also within regions in the same country as we shall see in the Libyan context in the same country. 5.2 Origins of Arabic Diglossia A number of theories have been introduced by researchers and scholars to interpret the origins of the Arabic diglossia. These theories might be classified into the following three groups; theories which assume the existence of a Koine, those which recommend an explanation of language drift and those which use the hypothesis of Creolization/Pidginization. 5.2.1 Koine The Koine hypothesis is the prevalent theory in terms of the origins of the Arabic diglossia. Koine is a term ‘derived from Greek denoting a lingua franca that develops out of a mixture of languages or dialects (Bishop, 1998:4). In an article entitled The Arabic Koinz, Ferguson assumed that thecommon source of all the Arabic dialects existing outside the Arabian Peninsula was as a result of a variety spoken in the military camps during the middle of the seventh century at the time of the Islamic expansion, and this variety was different from the language of the Koran. In other words, these dialects are not corrupt form, however, they have had a separate existence from the classical language since they have existed outside the Arabic peninsula (Freeman, 1996: 1-2). Ferguson assumes that the majority of the Arabic modern dialects are derived from a koine which existed side by side with the standard/classical Arabic and was not based on any particular regional area. He built his argument on fourteen features, which he thought differ from standard and colloquial Arabic. According to Ferguson, then, diglossia started as a result of the Koine and considered to be the basis of Modern colloquial Arabic (Bishop,1998:4). 5.2.2 Language drift This theory attributes the difference between modern standard Arabic and colloquial Arabic to language drift, natural Semitic change tendencies (as Arabic is one of the Semitic languages) and basic effects among others. Those who recommend these theories feel that the Koine hypothesis is unnecessary and unjustified by the evidence available. However, both sides, those who advocate these theories and the Koine theory agree that language changes likely occur in towns rather than in the dialects of the Bedouin tribes who live in the Arabian deserts because the Bedouin dialects remained unchanged for several centuries after the arrival of Islam. Secondly, they agree that there was no language center in the Arab world which caused the changes seen as a result of its influence. Finally, both sides agree that the Islamic conquests were behind precipitating the rise of the colloquial Arabic dialects. Blau (1988, cited in Bishop, 1998:5), on the other hand, claims that Fergusons argument in terms of the Koine is unconvincing. He argues that the reverse of his argument was correct, i.e. the Koine itself was resulted from the changes of the Arabic dialects, and not as Ferguson said that the Koine was the origin of the modern Arabic dialects (Kaye, 1998:5). 5.2.3 Pidginization/Creolization Before discussing this theory, I would like to give a brief definition of Pidginization and Creolization. According to Richards et al (1992:277), Pidgin means a ‘language which develops as a contact language when groups of people who speak different languages try to communicate with one another on a regular basis. In other words, when speakers of one language, for example, engage in trade with speakers of another, and neither knows the others language, the language used between them is called Pidgin. Creole on the other hand, arises when a pidgin language becomes the native language of a new generation of children as a result of this contact. Versteegh (1984, cited in Bishop, 1998:5) argues that the two theories mentioned above regarding the development of Arabic diglossia are either a focus on an explanation of the similarities or the differences of the dialects without treating the other side. In his estimation, Versteegh argues that an affective theory should deal with both sides of the Arabic dialects. By this hypothesis, Versteegh dealt with both the similarities and the differences between the modern dialects of Arabic. To prove his hypothesis, he gave an example of mixed marriages between Muslim Arab men and non-Arab women of the conquered peoples during the Islamic conquest. This marriage, he said would likely have led to communication using a pidginized form of Arabic and the children who would be delivered as a result of this marriage would have probably spoken a creolised Arabic. 6.0 Classical/modern standard Arabic and colloquial Arabic Before starting to explain different uses of modern standard and colloquial Arabic, I would like to illustrate the difference between classical and modern standard Arabic. Classical Arabic is considered to be the formal version that was used in the Al-Hijaz region (currently Saudi Arabia) 1500 years ago. The Koran was revealed in classical Arabic, which is the main reason why the Arabic language has preserved its purity throughout centuries and is considered an important part of the Arabic culture. Modern standard Arabic (MSA), on the other hand, is an equivalent to the classical Arabic and nowadays it is used as the official language of the Arab states. Ferguson defined MSA as ‘the Arabs ATTEMPT to speak classical Arabic (Kaye, 1972:46; emphasis in the original). The main difference between modern standard Arabic and classical Arabic lies in the vocabulary, i.e. MSA reflects the needs of contemporary expression, whereas Classical Arabic reflects the needs of older styles. A lot of lexical terms of classical standard Arabic, for instance, have become obsolete these days, and they are substituted by new modern words. For example, in classical standard Arabic kittab was used for the word ‘letter,but in modern Arabic, ressala is used instead and rassol ‘messenger instead of mabooth. However, Modern Standard Arabic is grammatically simpler than classical and includes numerous words unknown to the Quran, such as hasib aali ‘computer and shabaket almalomaat â €˜internet. The two varieties, standard and colloquial Arabic divide among themselves the domains of speaking and writing, formal and informal and sometimes both varieties are used side by side in only one domain. The following discussion will attempt to show where these two varieties can be found in the Arabic community. On Arabic television and radio, the news is always presented in modern standard Arabic. This might be because it is watched and listened to by different native speakers of different Arab regions. On some programmes, for instance, the speakers usually start from a written text in standard Arabic, but in reading it they sometimes let themselves be influenced by the target group. In other words, programmes which are presented for special categories of community, for instance housewives, farmers and fishermen, the structure of the standard Arabic text remains unchanged, but at regular pauses colloquial markers and words are inserted. Particles and words such as bita ‘of illi ‘that is are introduced to give a signal to the audience the intention of the speaker, which is according to Versteegs (2001:195) to ‘create an atmosphere of intimacy and warmth. In other words, speakers tend to use some colloquial particles or words to simplify the discussion and to be more close t o the group concerned. Some of the Arab leaders, for example, use colloquial Arabic when they speak to their peoples, to communicate better with them, as they all understand their colloquial Arabic, whereas they use standard Arabic when they make speeches in other Arab countries since the colloquial Arabic in those countries are different from theirs. All books and newspapers in Arabic states are written in standard Arabic, apart from those little cases where colloquial Arabic is rather used, for instance cartoons in newspapers or dialogues of illiterate characters in some novels are sometimes written in colloquial language. Although most literary works are written in standard, they regulary contain colloquialisms. This is also true in movie scripts such as dialogues and theatre plays, even when they are written in standard, they are often staged in dialect. This is perhaps because written works are only read and seen by literate people, who have studied standard Arabic at school (Versteegs, 2001). Plays, songs, folk poetry and popular proverbs are usually performed and written in colloquial Arabic. Some expressions in Arabic, however, although classical, are used both in classical and colloquial domains. For example: tusbihuuna alaa khayr (I hope you wake up in the morning [only used at night] and everything is fine). baaraka allaahu fiika (may Allah [God] bless you): used formally and informally instead of thank you or thank you so much. The titles tabib and tabiibah refer to medical doctors, but native Arabic speakers rarely use these standard forms in their colloquial speech. Instead, they prefer to use the terms alduktor (referring to an M.D or a PhD) or alhakim, which is equivalent to alduktor (referring only to an M.D.) because they sound more prestigious, especially the former form. Lessons and lectures in schools and universities, on the other hand, are mostly introduced in standard Arabic within Arab states. In other words, introducing lessons and lectures in standard Arabic seems to be compulsory in most of the Arab countries. Tutorial discussions, on the other hand, are introduced in both colloquial and standard Arabic. Colloquial Arabic is the language of family and home and is widely used in Arabic communities because it is the mother tongue of all Arab native speakers. When the child starts learning language from his/her parents, almost all lexical and phonological terms are colloquial Arabic. 7.0 Recent studies on diglossia in Arabic contexts When Ferguson introduced his paper on diglossia in 1959, he concluded with ‘an appeal for further study of [diglossic] phenomenon and related ones (Ferguson, 1959:249). Consequently, linguists and scholars have made various efforts and studies on this phenomenon. In the following, I will examine some of those arguments and how they contrast with Fergusons original study. 7.1 Badawis study of Diglossia In an attempt to show how the linguistic system of modern standard Arabic works, the Egyptian linguist, Badawi (1973) has presented his study on the sociolinguistic situation in Egypt (applies on most of the Arabic contexts), in which he rejects Fergusons description of diglossia which says that H and L varieties are in complementary distribution in the Arab world and other communities (Versteegh, 2001). In contrast with Fergusons model and in attempt to subdivide the continuum between the two extremes of standard Arabic and colloquial, Badawi has determined the following five levels model as follows: 1. fusha at-turrat ‘classical Arabic only used in Quranic recitation 2. fusha al-asr ‘Modern standard Arabic the standard form of the language used in writing and sometimes on formal occasions in speaking 3. ammiyyat al-mutaqqafin ‘colloquial of the intellectuals the formal spoken language of educated people 4. ammiyyat al-mutanawwirin ‘colloquial of the literate the informal spoken language of educated people 5. ammiyyat al-ummiyyin ‘colloquial of the illiterate the language in which the illiterate talk (Versteegh, 2001:191) It is noticed from the above that every level represents a different class of people in different domains. For example, the consonant /ÃŽËœ/as in thalatha ‘three is considered classical Arabic, /t/ as in talata ‘three is considered colloquial, whereas /s/ as in salasa (this level is not used in all Arabic contexts) is used between the two extremes (Hary, 1996:7). To show how the linguistic system of modern Arabic works, Badawi offered a diagram (in the appendix) in which it seems clear that every level is a mixture of all the other levels, i.e. every level contains fush a ‘classical, ammiyya or darja ‘colloquial and dakhiil ‘foreign elements. In other words, even the speech of the illiterate contains elements of the high variety (fusha) or modern standard Arabic ( fusha al- asr), and standard Arabic, on the other hand, contains lexis, phonology and morphology of the colloquial of the illiterate (Freeman, 1996:4). In his study, Badawi proved that there is a continuum between standard and colloquial Arabic, and claimed that there is no duality in the Arab world, but continued levels of language. Then, he looked at the colloquial Arabic not as corrupt or different and independent from the standard Arabic, but as one of these levels suggested in his new model of Arabic language. However, although I agree with Badawis new model of the Arabic language, I think a point has not been taken into his account while studying this phenomenon, i.e. the colloquial level of illiterate (those who do not know standard Arabic at all) has recently been developed as a result of the development of radio and t