Jordanian arabic between diglossia and bilingualism

JORDANIAN ARABIC BETWEEN
DIGLOSSIA AND BILINGUALISM

Pragmatics & Beyond
An Interdisciplinary Series of Language Studies
Editors:
Herman Parret
(Belgian National Science Foundation,
Universities of Louvain and Antwerp)
Jef Verschueren
(Belgian National Science Foundation,
University of Antwerp)
Editorial Address:
Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures
University of Antwerp (UIA)
Universiteitsplein 1
B-2610 Wilrijk
Belgium
Editorial Board:
Norbert Dittmar (Free University of Berlin)
David Holdcroft (University of Leeds)
Jacob Mey (Odense University)
Jerrold M. Sadock (University of Chicago)
Emanuel A. Schegloff (University of California at Los Angeles)
Daniel Vanderveken (University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières)
Teun A. van Dijk (University of Amsterdam)
VI:8
Saleh M. Suleiman
Jordanian Arabic Between Diglossia and Bilingualism:
Linguistic Analysis

JORDANIAN ARABIC BETWEEN
DIGLOSSIA AND BILINGUALISM:
LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS
Saleh M. Suleiman
Yarmouk University, Jordan
JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY
AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA
1985

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Suleiman, Saleh Mahmoud Khalil.
Jordanian arabic between diglossia and bilingualism.
(Pragmatics & beyond, ISSN 0166-6258; VI:8)
Bibliography: p.
1. Arabic language — Jordan. I. Title. II. Series.
PJ6060.J67S8 1985 492'.7'095695 86-6895
ISBN 90 272 2550 8 (European) / ISBN 0-915027-94-1 (US) (alk. paper)
© Copyright 1985 - John Benjamins B.V.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or
any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who made this
book possible.
I am particularly thankful to Dr. Riad Hussein who most graciously
facilitated my reproducing parts of his doctoral dissertation entitled, "The
case for triglossia in Arabic (with special emphasis on Jordan)".
I am also greatly indebted to Yarmouk University through the Deanship
of Scientific Research and Graduate Studies for funding my research under
grants 1/82 and 73/83.
For the tedious task of typing the manuscript I am deeply indebted to
Ms. Nicklin for her careful work and patience.
Finally, I would like to thank all the respondents who contributed tre
mendously to the completion of this work.
July 16,1985

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF VARIANT SYMBOLS xiii
PREFACE xv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Statement of purpose 1
1.2 Definitions 1
1.2.1 Broadening the definition 2
1.2.2 Variation in definitions 3
1.3 Theory : Linguistic variation 5
1.3.1 The structural view 5
1.3.2 The descriptive view 6
1.4 Arabic diglossia 7
1.4.1 Morpho-syntax 8
1.4.2 Phonology 10
1.4.3 The phonological system of Jordanian Arabic:
Main inventory 11
1.5 Lexicon 13
2. SCOPE, AIM, HYPOTHESIS AND METHODOLOGY 17
2.1 Scope 17
2.2 Aim 17
2.3 Hypothesis 18
2.4 Methodology 19
2.5 Method of collecting data 20
3. LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH PATTERNS: DIGLOS
SIA OR TRIGLOSSIA 23
3.1 Data analysis 23
3.2 Yarmouk University students 23
3.3 The dominance of Arabic 24
3.4 Language and dialect 24
3.5 Linguistic variables 24
3.6 Language currency 25

X CONTENTS
3.7 Distribution of dialects 26
3.8 Structural comparison of CA, MSA and KA 26
3.8.1 Vowel systems 28
3.8.2 Morphology 30
3.8.2.1 Modal and case endings 30
3.8.2.2 Numeral system 31
3.8.2.3 The loss of the dual 32
3.8.3 Syntactic comparison 32
3.8.3.1 Nominal versus verbal sentences 32
3.8.3.2 More on word order in Arabic 33
3.8.3.3 Verb deletion in the coordinate clause 38
3.9 A general view of the language situation: Domains of use 39
3.9.1 Modern standard Arabic 40
3.9.2 Domains of classical Arabic 41
3.10 The language situation among Yarmouk students 41
3.11 The KA of Yarmouk students 44
3.11.1 The Madani variety 44
3.11.2 The Fallahi variety 46
3.11.3 The Bedouin variety 48
3.11.3.1 The current status of Bedouin Arabic 50
3.11.4 An overall evaluation of colloquial Arabic (KA) 50
3.12 The non-linguistic variables 51
3.12.1 Geographical area 52
3.12.2 Sex 52
4. JORDANIAN ARABIC AND THE STATE OF BILIN-
GUALISM 53
4.1 Theoretical preliminaries of bilingualism 53
4.2 Code-switching 53
4.3 Interference 55
4.3.1 Interlingual interference and language con
vergence 57
4.3.2 Structure as a determinant of interference 57
4.3.3 The non-linguistic causes of interference 58
4.3.4 Interference, language contact and cultural con
tent 58
4.4 Integration 60
4.5 Language contact 61

CONTENTS Xi
4.6 Linguistic analysis 62
4.7 Contrastive analysis 62
4.8 Data analysis 63
4.8.1 Phonemic substitution 63
4.8.2 Consonants 64
4.8.2.1 Under-differentiation 64
4.8.2.2 Over-differentiation 64
4.8.3 Vowels 69
4.9 Orthographic interference 73
4.10 Vowel reduction 73
4.11 Diphthongs 74
4.12 Stress 74
4.13 Theoretical implications of linguistic borrowing 75
4.14 Language mixture 78
4.15 Reasons for lexical borrowing 78
4.16 The linguistic influence of English on Arabic: Historical
background 79
4.17 Listing of English loanwords 81
4.18 The significance of lexical borrowing from English 81
4.19 The phonology of loanwords 83
4.20 Morphological treatment of loanwords 86
4.21 Loanshifts 87
4.22 Influence from other languages 89
4.23 Classification of loanwords according to domains 90
5. CONCLUSION 93
5.1 General implications 93
5.2 Research findings 93
5.3 Between diglossia and bilingualism 95
FOOTNOTES 99
APPENDIX: Listing of loanwords in the colloquial Arabic of Jordan 101
REFERENCES 127

LIST OF VARIANT SYMBOLS
? ~ '
d ~ D
ö ~ D
J ~ j
1 ~ L
r ~ R
s ~ S
t ~ T
z ~ z
ä ~ aa
ê ~ 
ï ~ ii
ö ~ oo
 — uu

PREFACE
This text provides a linguistic analysis of Jordanian Arabic spoken by
educated groups and most particularly by students at Yarmouk University. It
is designed to investigate the extent to which spoken Jordanian Arabic is
affected by the classical/colloquial dichotomy (i.e., diglossia). Likewise, the
present work delineates the most discrete influence of English as a medium
of instruction, in some departments of Yarmouk University, on the linguistic
repertoire of Yarmouk students vs. students of other Arab Universities
where the medium of instruction is basically Arabic.
Chapter 1 is simply a review of the literature pertaining to the problem
of language and dialect and the basic tenets of bilingualism. It introduces the
reader smoothly to Chapters 3 and 4, which constitute the bulk of the text.
Chapter 2 delineates the scope and aim of the study presented in this text
as well as the research hypothesis and methodology. For the purposes of this
research a random sample of 40 respondents was chosen in light of some
socially diagnostic variables such as age, sex, educational background and
social class.
Chapter 3 provides a fairly complete linguistic analysis of the speech pat
terns of the respondents. The overall language situation prevailing among
Yarmouk University students was depicted by checking the speech patterns
against the scales of diglossia/triglossia and bilingualism. The distribution of
dialects in Jordanian Arabic was duly discussed along with a structural com
parison of Classical Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic and Colloquial Arabic
(hereafter CA, MSA, and KA respectively).
Chapter 4, on the other hand, furnishes an extensive analysis of Jorda
nian Arabic and the state of bilingualism.
A theoretical treatment of language contact between English and Arabic
is provided with reference to the three discrete ways of language diffusion:
code-switching, interference and integration. A contrastive linguistic analysis
is also carried out on the level of phonology and lexicon. Instances of
phonological interference and borrowing are also depicted and duly discus
sed.

XVi PREFACE
Chapter 5 wraps up the research findings and evidences the primacy of
diglossia/triglossia over bilingualism.
The author anticipates that the present text will be of great help to stu
dents of language and linguistics and especially those who find their interest
in sociolinguistics and language contact. The text easily meets the needs of
Arab students at the University level regardless of the locale.
By and large the research findings and the bulk of the loanwords, espe
cially those rendered in the Appendix, suggest that the language situation in
Jordan may be easily applied to other parts of the Arab world. Consequently,
the question of diglossia/triglossia and bilingualism may be addressed on a
Pan-Arab level.

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statement of purpose
The overall context in which this work is presented presupposes a direct
correlation between two major dichotomies, namely diglossia and bilin-
gualism. To start with, the immediate research area for the present study
entertains the hypothesis that in most language areas there is a certain com
monality among speech communities with regard to the language(s), and/or
the language varieties they utilize in their speech acts. Such a statement
makes the question of a language/dialect distinction relevant. This eventually
leads to the historical process of designating language as 'superordinate' and
dialect as 'subordinate' (cf. Haugen 1966). Similarly, one may bring about a
parallel argument which applies to two separate linguistic 'norms' (i.e., lan
guages) utilized alternately by the same individual to announce the beginning
of 'bilingualism.'
In trying to clarify these relationships, the author has chosen to under
take the task of drawing on the same lines mentioned above. On the one
hand, the immediate topic of research addresses itself to a detailed investiga
tion of the linguistic varieties that dominate the scene in Jordanian Arabic. In
other words, it investigates the extent to which spoken Jordanian Arabic -
utilized by educated groups and most particularly by students at Yarmouk
University - is affected by the classical/colloquial dichotomy (i.e., diglossia)
or by the trichotomy of classical, modern standard and colloquial Arabic1
.
Likewise, a good portion of the present work delineates the most discrete
influence of English as a medium of instruction - in certain instances - on the
linguistic repertoire of Yarmouk students vs. students of other Arab Univer
sities where the medium of instruction is basically Arabic2
.
1.2 Definitions
Ferguson (1959) defines diglossia as, "A relatively stable language situa
tion in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which
include a standard or regional standard), there is a very divergent, highly

2 JORDANIAN ARABIC BETWEEN DIGLOSSIA AND BILINGUALISM
codified superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of writ
ten literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech community,
which is learned largely by formal education, and is used by any sector of the
community for ordinary conversation". The term diglossia was used by Fer
guson to refer to those situations in which two or more language varieties are
used differentially by the same speakers under different conditions and
within a single geographical area. It was initially used in connection with a
society that recognized two or more languages for internal (intrasocietal)
communication. The use of separate codes within a single society depended
on each code's serving a function distinct from those considered distinct for
the others. This separation was most often along the lines of high (H) and low
(L) language (cf. Fishman 1965).
1.2.1 Broadening the definition
Gumperz (1966) broadens the concept to include variations in dialect,
register, and thus comes to the conclusion that almost all societies possess dig
lossia to some extent. He pointed out that diglossia exists not only in multilin
gual societies, but also in societies which recognize several dialects, registers,
or functionally differentiated language varieties (Fishman 1965). One lan
guage, dialect, variety, etc., will normally be used for some social functions,
while a distinctly different linguistic variety may be employed for the remain
ing social functions. Examples of such situations may be drawn from the clas
sical/colloquial dichotomy in Arabic. Another distinction is made between
(High) and (Low) German, modern Greek, Swiss German, and Haitian
Creole.
On the other hand, the term bilingualism has been used in one sense as
a cover term for the alternate use of two languages by the same individual.
"To be considered a bilingual a person must have the ability to use two differ
ent languages, whereas the term multilingualism is usually reserved for indi
viduals possessing the ability to use more than two languages." (Hornby
1977: 3)
Haugen (1965) points out that although a bilingual is, strictly speaking,
one who has two languages, the term may be used to include also the one who
knows more than two, variously known as a plurilingual, a multilingual or a
polyglot. In his opinion, the problems of learning, interference, borrowing
and the like do not seem to be essentially different when a third or further lan
guage is added. If we are to consider Haugen's argument, then multilin
gualism will be merely an extension of the bilingual state, which is not quan-

INTRODUCTION 3
titatively different. Nevertheless, if we are to include the use of more than
two languages as part of the definition, we shall therefore consider bilin-
gualism as the practice of using two or more languages by the same person.
It seems that this simple definition of bilingualism is deceptive, imprecise,
and possibly inaccurate. Although it may seem satisfactory for general usage,
it fails to provide adequate answers to some basic questions such as the ques
tion of degree. Such a definition, along with several others, has been a con
stant source of confusion in the theoretical literature on this topic. For exam
ple, Bloomfield (1933) defines a bilingual as someone who possesses native
like control of two languages. On the other hand, Haugen (1953) defines
bilingualism as beginning at the point where the speaker can produce com
plete meaningful utterances in the other language.
1.2.2 Variation in definitions
Haugen's suggestion for minimal rather than maximal qualifications on
the part of bilingual speakers involved a broadening of the concept of bilin
gualism. In taking such a position, he suggested that for some purpose one
might wish to include also a completely passive bilingualism (i.e. understand
ing without speaking). The concept was broadened even more when Haugen
(1956) argued that the mastery of two different but mutually comprehensible
dialects of the same language is also a kind of bilingualism, requiring the same
kind of learning and the danger of interference as any other. On the other
hand, Weinreich (1953: 1) defines bilingualism broadly as the practice of
alternately using two languages without reference to degree of mastery.
With this variation in definitions, a very fundamental question remains
unanswered, namely, what are the defining characteristics of bilingualsim?
Insofar as the definition of bilingualism is concerned, it seems that the most
crucial element to consider is the fact that bilingualism is a relative rather than
absolute phenomenon. Consequently, the most accurate criterion in his con
nection would include the question of degree. In other words, how bilingual
a person is. One approach which seems to handle the problem adequately is
that of Hornby (1977) who suggested that the best way to clarify the definition
is to recognize that bilingualism is not an all-or-none property, but is an indi
vidual characteristic that may vary from minimal competence to complete
mastery of more than one language. Thus the question of measuring degrees
of bilingualism emerges as a significant consideration in the theoretical and
research literature on the topic.
Weinreich's definition, however, leaves several issues unresolved such

as, does the term "bilingualism" equally cover "diglossia" and "bidialec-
talism" or should it only be applied to different languages? Furthermore,
modes of expression are to be considered in the evaluation of using languages
alternately; i.e., speaking, comprehension, reading, writing (Albert and
Obler 1978).
Weinreich's vague definition falls short of its target as it fails to specify
whether the use of a language entails any minimal fluency criterion. In my
opinion, a functional definition of bilingualism should incorporate some
clearly defined parameters of intelligibility and acceptability. This may be ful
filled by the bilingual's ability to produce meaningful utterances in the second
language along with a modest ability of comprehension. In other words, a
modest mastery of the aural skills may be adequate to qualify a bilingual
speaker. The control of other skills such as reading and writing may be over
looked because they are not as crucial to communication as those of the first
category. Also, their degree of mastery is determined by the manner of learn
ing the language whether formal or informal.
A working definition of bilingualism was also missed by Bloomfield and
Haugen, who came up with two opposing definitions of bilingualism by tak
ing the extremes. While Bloomfield insisted on a 'native-like' control of two
languages, Haugen reduced it to 'passive bilingualism': understanding with
out necessarily speaking. In essence, the two definitions are far from practi
cality and realism. As far as Bloomfield's definition is concerned, a total
native-like command of two languages is an ideal situation in which interling
ual impact wouldn't exist. In fact, bilingualism is seldom if ever balanced, and
interlingual impact occurs in varying degrees (Shaffer 1978). Thus while
Bloomfield's requirements are far beyond most bilingual speakers' capacity,
Haugen's suggestion to broaden the definition to include 'passive bilin
gualism' violates the minimal requirements for a verbal interaction namely,
comprehension and expression.
The next important problem to consider is the extent to which the mas
tery of two or more varieties of the same language (diglossia) or even speech
styles may come under the same rubric (i.e. bilingualism). In my opinion, one
of the principal conditions for the occurrence of bilingualism is the fact that
two languages are brought into contact. Wölck (1978) reports that the most
obvious problem in the classification of linguistic varieties is the act of iden
tifying what is a 'language' and what is a 'dialect'. As he puts it, the main dis
tinguishing feature of a dialect is its orality, the fact that it is spoken. A neces
sary corroíate of its use in oral communication is the restriction of the commu-

INTRODUCTION 5
nicative spread of a dialect to only regional diffusion across communities of
rather limited size. Further, a person whose communicative repertoire con
sists of linguistic competence in a dialect only is generally found at the lower
end of the socio-economic scale. A language, on the other hand, has a tradi
tion of writing, easily attestable in certain orthographic conventions. As
people are easily able to name subdivisions of it, as accents or dialects a lan
guage has national or even international diffusion, which allows its users to
belong to the higher strata of the socio-economic scale (in Paradis 1978: 213-
214). In light of this, we may assume that the mastery of two or more varieties
of the same language does qualify for bilingualism as such.
1.3 Theory: Linguistic variation
"Sociolinguists have long felt that linguistic variants whether phonologi
cal, syntactic, or semantic, do not occur randomly or independent of one
another, but should fall into definable patterns of correlation with each other
(see Ervin-Tripp 1964; Ferguson 1959; Gumperz 1967; Labov 1964, 1965,
1966). Given a set of variables with discrete variants or values, it should be
possible to show that co-occurrance or co-variation relations exist among the
different variants such that a shift in value of one variable implies or entails a
shift in some other variable(s). For example, in English, the pronunciation of
"you're" as [e] requires the pronunciation of "going to" as [gonə], compare
"you're going to be late" with "ya 'gonna be late". Or compare the dialectical
double negative construction of "he ain't goin' nowhere" with the standard
"he isn't going anywhere". To say "*he isn't going nowhere" or "*he ain't
going anywhere" is simply ungrammatical in either dialect" (Ma and
Herasimshuk 1972).
1.3.1 The structuralist view
Structuralism has preached that linguistic units should be defined by
opposition, and this is true of categories and technical terms too. 'Language'
and 'dialect' form a fairly clear opposititon. 'Language' might develop a wide
variety of values, but, as opposed to 'dialect', it designates the language of
one of the major nations, English, French, or Spanish, for example (cf. Mar
tinet 1953).
Dialect, as contrasted with language, refers to a form of speech peculiar
to a section of the domain of a language; it is, as it were, a variety of that lan
guage. Exactly in this fashion we speak of the New York dialect of English.
Linguistically and sociologically, it makes a great difference whether a

dialect is one of several equally legitimate forms of a given language or
whether it is felt to deviate from an accepted standard. Whoever speaks the
New York city dialect — as distinct from its substandard variety, so-called
"Brooklynese" — is at no time conscious of using a form of speech barred
from the maximal prestige. With the exception of some substandards, i.e.
social rather than geographical varieties, all American dialects seem to enjoy,
on the whole, fairly equal prestige. The situation is widely different in Great
Britain, where, linguistically, a cultured speaker from the Midlands does not
rank with comparable southerners. Thus, one may distinguish between
dialects that are, so to speak, fully legitimate representatives of the language
and opposed to it only as parts to a whole, and others that are, in a way, mar
ginal and opposed to the language as something at least partially different
(after Martinet 1953).
1.3.2 The descriptive view
Haugen (1964) argues that in a descriptive scientific sense 'language' can
refer either to a single linguistic norm, or to a group of related norms. In a his
torical, diachronic sense 'language' can either be a common language on its
way to dissolution, or a common language resulting from unification. A
'dialect' is then any one of the related norms comprised under the general
name 'language', historically the result of either divergence or convergence.
This suggests that the two terms are cyclically applicable, with 'language'
always the superordinate and dialect the subordinate term. 'Language' as the
superordinate term can be used without reference to dialects, but 'dialect' is
meaningless unless it is implied that there are other dialects and a language to
which they can be said to 'belong'.
In the structural use of 'language' and 'dialect', the overriding considera
tion is genetic relationship. If a linguist says that Jordanian Arabic has three
dialects, for instance, he means that there are three identifiably different
speech-forms that have enough demonstrable cognates to make it certain that
they have all developed from one earlier speech-form. He may also be refer
red to the fact that these are mutually understandable, or at least each dialect
is understandable to its immediate neighbors. If not he may call them differ
ent languages.
The criterion of mutual intelligibility has been often employed to identify
both 'dialect' and 'language'. Dialects are defined as linguistic varieties
characterised by mutual intelligibility, and a language is a variety composed
of such mutually intelligible units. Therefore, in order for two varieties to

INTRODUCTION 7
belong to the same language, they must satisfy the minimum criterion of intel
ligibility. Contrary to this, two different languages do not normally meet this
requirement unless they are genetically related.
Given the possibility of wide divergence between two varieties of the
same language (i.e., Classical and Colloquial Arabic), the criterion of mutual
intelligibility may still be considered the most important factor that makes
contact between them different from two languages. In the first place, any
two varieties of the same language virtually have the same phonemic systems
along with a nearly identical morphemic and syntactic structure except in
some cases of inflectional reduction and simplification. It follows then that
the two or more varieties of the same language are mutually intelligible or
very close to the extent that the mastery of a single variety would not isolate
the individual speaker or impede his interaction in the larger speech com
munity. On the other end of the spectrum, the mastery of one language rather
than the dominant one in a bilingual situation of language contact would
impair a person's ability to fully interact with members of other language
groups in the larger speech community.
1.4 Arabic diglossia
The long established concept of diglossia, which originally involved the
classical/colloquial dichotomy, has been expanded to include the modern
standard variety of Arabic. The term modern standard Arabic is used here to
refer to any variety of Arabic that is found in contemporary books, newspap
ers, magazines, and that is used orally in formal speeches, and learned
debates. It is also used in newscasts over radio and television. The word mod
ern serves to distinguish the presentday variety of Arabic from classical
Arabic, a historical term that has commonly been used in reference to the
ancient form of the language as codified and recorded by Arab grammarians
and philologists in the first few centuries of Islam. The word standard, mean
while, is assigned to a relatively uniform variety of Arabic which is function
ally restricted all over the Arab world in the sense that it is mainly written but
also spoken to a lesser degree, as contrasted with the colloquial dialects which
vary strikingly from one region to another and are mainly spoken but rarely
written (Sa'id 1964: 2).
The high prestige accorded to modern standard Arabic is the result of
several factors:
1. It is based on classical Arabic, the language of the Qur'an, as a result of
which it has attained a high degree of codification.

2. Standard Arabic is viewed as a unifying factor, whereas the diversification
of the local dialects is considered a disruptive factor.
3. The time and effort spent on learning the standard language lend it a pres-
ige that is never given to a colloquial dialect.
No matter how many linguistic varieties one may detect in Jordanian
Arabic it is of the utmost importance to project the distinctive features that
characterize each. Nevertheless, given the current state of affairs pertaining
to linguistic varieties in the Arab world, one may suggest that the term 'dig-
lossia' may have to be reconsidered in the light of the recent linguistic
changes.
Butros (1963) reports that the dual nature of Arabic is characterized by
a dichotomy between literary or spoken Arabic on the one hand and spoken
or colloquial Arabic on the other. The distinctive features that promote such
a dichotomy go beyond a mere stylistic opposition between elevated and
popular expression. The classical language is used in conjunction with formal
writings, political and religious speeches, as well as other aspects of high cul
ture. The low (L) language, on the other hand, is used in everyday household
activities, conversations with family and friends, and folk literature.
As far as the classical variety is concerned, it is largely uniform in writing
and speech in a pan-Arab context, except for some minor phonetic variation.
This stability may be best demonstrated in the way classical Arabic has sur
vived the upheavals since the pre-Islamic period by reflecting very little
change in the areas of phonology, morphology and syntax. Meanwhile, voc
abulary has witnessed a considerable change which may be explained as a
process of simplification, particularly observed in the elimination of connota-
tive synonyms (cf. Butros 1963).
Given that Arabic is a diglossic/triglossic language, it follows that there
are some major along with minor differences on the level of phonology, mor
phology, syntax, and lexicon. Not only do these differences surface to distin
guish classical Arabic from the colloquial, but they also serve to identify other
subdivisions of the colloquial variety of Arabic. By comparing the classical
variety of Arabic with the colloquial, one may come across striking differ
ences motivated by a need for simplification (i.e. inflectional reduction), lex
ical innovation, etc.
1.4.1 Morpho-Syntax
The very first observation a linguist may make in his attempt to delineate
the most discrete differences between the classical and the colloquial varieties

INTRODUCTION 9
of Arabic is the fact that syntactic differences play a significant role. Indeed,
one of the most striking differences between (H) and (L) relates to grammat
ical structure. (H) has grammatical categories not present in (L) and has an
inflectional system of nouns and verbs which is much reduced or totally
absent in (L). For example, classical Arabic has three cases in the noun
marked by the endings: /u/, /i/, /a/; for example:
/'alqalamu jadiidun/: the pen is new (nominative)
/katabtu bil-qalami/: I wrote with the pen (prepositional)
/kasart-ul-qalami/: I broke the pen (objective)
Contrary to this, colloquial dialects of Arabic do not display any of these
endings to serve a grammatical function. At best, such endings mark dialecti
cal differences of the low variety in terms of phonology. This aspect, (i.e.
phonology), will be elaborated on later in this work when the 'Fallahi' —
town/village — variety of Jordanian Arabic is discussed. In the light of this,
one may conclude that the array of inflectional endings present in classical
Arabic is far less emphasized and has been reduced to a simple pattern in spo
ken Jordanian Arabic. For instance, the complex classical pattern of the dual
form in nouns has been discarded in the colloquial.
For example, while classical Arabic emphasizes the use of/'ibnatayn/ to
mean 'two daughters', colloquial Arabic contends with /binten/. Moreover,
dual adjectives are subject to simplification in colloquial Arabic, whereas a
rigid pattern of dual formation of adjectives modifying duals is usually fol
lowed in the classical version.
Classical Colloquial
/zarqaawaan/~/-ayn/ /zuruk/, [k] >[g], ['] — (i.e., /zurug/ or /
zuruV) 'blue'
/jadiidayn/~/-aan/ /jdaad/ 'brand-new'
Similarly, the plural formation of adjectives modifying plurals may also be
cited:
Classical Colloquial
/nisaa 'un kaasifaat/ /niswaan kaasfi/ 'indecently dressed
women'
/quSuurun 9aaliyaat(un)/ /qSuur 9alyi/ 'high-rising palaces'

1.4.2 Phonology
The dichotomy between classical and colloquial Arabic lends itself to a
great reliance on phonetic/phonological distinctions. In essence, the
phonemic system of classical Arabic is remarkably different from that of the
colloquial. The gap is further widened by the intra-dialectal differences
within the existing colloquial. With this in mind, it looks as if any proper study
of Arabic diglossia should consider, in the first place, the classical/colloquial
phonemic systems, in addition to a separate inventory of phonemic difference
within the colloquial.
To begin with, the phonemic inventory of consonant phonemes in classi
cal Arabic may be illustrated in Table 1.
bilabial
labiodental
plaininterdental
emphatic
interdental
plaindental
emphaticdental
alveolar
alveopalatal
palatal
velar
uvular
pharyngeal
glottal
vl
Stops
vd b
t
d
T
D
 q
'
vl
Fricatives
vd
f
(D-)
s
z
S
9
h
vl
Affricates
vd j
Nasals m n
Lateral 1
Trills r
Semi-vowels w 
Table 1
Classical Arabic consonant phonemes

INTRODUCTION 11
The phonemic inventory of consonant phonemes in colloquial Jordanian
Arabic, meanwhile, presents obvious differences from the table given above.
The totality of these differences may be attributed to allophonic variation.
Whereas some distinctions may be explained as examples of free variation3
others demonstrate cases of phonemic distinctions promoted by the com
plementary distribution4
of phonemes. The latter is best illustrated by a set of
minimal pairs which determine the existence of certain phonemes as indepen
dent entities. E.g.:
/saal/: leaked
/jaal/: roamed
/kaal/: measured
/saal/: carried
This indicates that /s,k,j,s/ constitute four distinct phonemes since a
single change in the initial phoneme was responsible for changing the entire
meaning of the word, whereas, an allophonic change motivated by free vari
ation does not result in meaning change. E.g.:
/kalib/: dog
dog
/jamal/: camel
camel
/Darab/: hit
/Darab/: hit
Thus, D/ are said to be in free variation, and hence
identified as allophones.
1.4.3 The phonological system of Jordanian Arabic: Main inventory
The phonemic inventory of consonant phonemes in spoken Jordanian
Arabic may be represented in Table 2.

bilabial
labiodental
plaininterdental
emphatic
interdental
plaindental
emphaticdental
alveolar
alveopalatal
palatal
velar
uvular
pharyngeal
glottal
vl
Stops
vd b
t
d
T
D

(9)
(9)
vl
Fricatives
vd
f
(D-)
s
z
S
Z
X
9 '
h
vl
Affricates
vd j
Nasals m n
Lateral 1
Trills 
Semi-vowels w 
( ) = Phonemes between brackets are not found in each regional variety of
Jordanian Arabic. Some of them are dialect-specific, and no one speaker uses
them all.5
Table 2
In line with the above one may argue that the phonemic inventory of spo
ken Jordanian Arabic is different from that of Classical Arabic. The fact of
the matter is that colloquial Jordanian Arabic provides a general system in
which three subsystems are embedded:
1. The 'Madani' variety: represented in urban centers.
2. The 'Fallahi' variety: spoken in rural areas.
3. The 'Bedouin' variety: spoken by non-sedentary nomads.
In more specific terms, speakers of Jordanian Arabic are known to pre
sent three different varieties within the geographical boundaries of Jordan.
Suffice it to say that each of these varieties manifests a degree of non-unifor
mity with the classical, as well as a lack of uniformity with other colloquials.

INTRODUCTION 13
For instance, three Jordanian speakers may come up with three discrepant
pronunciations with regard to one another and in comparison with Classical
Arabic:
/'ulit/, 'Madani': I said
/kulit/, 'Fallahi':I said
/gulit/, 'Bedouin': I said
/qultu/, 'Classical': I said
1.5 Lexicon
By and large, the greatest difference between the two forms, namely
classical and colloquial Arabic, is most succintly detected on the level of lex
icon. As Butros (1963: 35) points out, avast number of words one finds listed
in a dictionary of classical Arabic are conspicuously non-existent in the
dialect form. Many words show interesting semantic shifts; synonyms are
fewer, and the resultant polysemy makes for greater economy in vocabulary
tabulations. Moreover, the classical language shows a definite reluctance to
admit foreign words while the colloquial language displays a high degree of
flexibility and adaptability to foreign loans.
Interestingly enough, any attempt to determine the degree of relation
ship between classical Arabic and spoken Jordanian Arabic encounters a
number of problems pertaining to the selection of lexical items and the iden
tification of their meanings when viewed outside their context. Most of the
vocabulary of classical Arabic is shared with the other three low varieties spo
ken in Jordan. Many lexical items are used in both types of varieties: classical
and colloquial respectively, but there are some words which are restricted in
their use to the high variety. For example, the word /zalami/ 'man' is typical
of the low varieties. If this word was mentioned in a conversation and for
some reason it had to be quoted in a newspaper or magazine, it would
automatically be replaced by the word /rajul/, which is typical of the high vari
ety. A significant point should be emphasized in this connection, that is,
whenever a word is shared between the high and the low varieties, a modified
pronunciation is adapted in the latter. For example, the word /walad/ 'boy',
is either /waladu/ 'nominative case', or /walada/ 'objective case', or /waladi/
'prepositional case' in the classical variety. The colloquial varieties mean
while reduce the inflectional endings so that the form /walad/ 'uninflected for
case' is recognized.
For the sake of clarity, I will present a set of examples indicating how a

given word may be shared by both varieties with the exception that the inflec
tional endings are reduced in the low variety. Another set of examples will
include a list of words with different forms but with the same meaning in both
the classical and the colloquial. A third list includes a set of loanwords which
are only used in the low varieties however, a totally different form is used as
an equivalent in classical Arabic.
TYPE 1
High Low English
/kataba/
/sariba/
/katab/
/sirib/
he wrote
he drank
/waladun/
/bintun/
/walad/
/bint/~/binit/
boy
girl
/kabiirun/
/Tawiilun/
/kabiir/~/kbiir/
/Tawiil/~/Twiil/
big
tall/long
TYPE2
High Low English
/fam/
/rajul/
/sariir/
/0im/
/zalami/
/taxt/~/taxit/
mouth
man
bed
/'ahDir/
/unDur/
/ðahaba/
/jiib/
/suuf/
/raatr/
bring "imperative'
look "imperative"
went
TYPE3
High Low English
/miðyaa9/
/haatif/
/miqwad/
/raadyu/
/talafoon/
/stiiring/
radio
telephone
steering-wheel

INTRODUCTION 15
In the light of the above we may conclude that the lexicon is one of the
major factors that establish a distinction between classical and colloquial. It
is quite obvious that there is a difference between both varieties — high and
low.
Equally important is the tri-lateral distinction between the 'Madani',
'Fallahi' and 'Bedouin' varieties of Jordanian Arabic. As I have mentioned
earlier, phonology has always been an area to contend with when it comes to
marking the beginning of a linguistic feature (i.e., isogloss). It is not unusual
to come across a word that may be used in the three varieties of spoken Jorda
nian however, the distribution of phonemes or their articulation is slightly dif
ferent. Let us consider the following examples:
High Madani Fallahi Bedouin English
/faqiir/ /fa'iir/ /fakiir/ /fagiir/ poor
/qalb/ /'alib/ /kalib/ /galib/ heart
/suuq/ /suuV /suuk/ /suug/ market
The way a Jordanian speaker reflects his regional background is largely
determined by the way he handles a given sound. One could easily tell a
speaker's regional background from the distribution of phonemes in his
speech patterns. For example, a person who replaces the phoneme /q/ with /7
is known to speak the 'Madani' variety, and thus should be from a city. On the
other hand, if anyone replaces the phoneme /q/ with /k/, he then belongs to
the 'Fallahi' community, and thus should be coming from a small town or vil
lage. Likewise, anyone who replaces the /q/ with /g/ speaks the 'Bedouin'
variety.
Within this framework of dialect distribution it should be emphasized
that even within the regional variety (i.e. Fallahi), one may have to
familiarize himself with the intra-dialectal variation. In other words, a set of
linguistic features (i.e. isoglosses) come into play to distinguish between
speakers of the same variety. For example, the 'Fallahi' subdivision of col
loquial Arabic makes a further distinction between Southern and Northern
speech. The fact that most of these distinctions are phonological in nature
suggests that the pronunciation of some words is inconsistent at all times. Let
us consider the following examples:

A. NOUNS
Low Northern Low Southern English
/jibni/ /jibna/ cheese
/kaasi/ /kaasa/ glass
/mayyi/ /mayya/ water
B. FEMININE ADJECTIVES
/hilwi/ /hilwa/ beautiful
/Tawiili/ /Tawiila/ tall
/farhaani/ /farhaana/ happy
C. TRANSITIVE VERBS
/Sirbu/ /sirba/ drank it
/katabu/ /kataba/ wrote it
/jaabu/ /jaaba/ brought it
D. PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES
/minnu/ /minna/ from him
/ma9u/ /ma9a/ with him
Apparently, the distinction between northern and southern speech in
the 'Fallahi' variety of Jordanian Arabic is quite clear. Therefore, we find
that diglossia is affected by geographical distance.

2. SCOPE, AIM, HYPOTHESIS, AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Scope
While the bilingual individual is the locus of bilingualism, the speech
community is the locus of diglossic research. The interaction of social and lin
guistic phenomena is in the heart of sociolinguistic research. Labov (1964),
introduced and developed the concept of 'linguistic variable' as the major lin
guistic unit by which the sociolinguistic structure of a language can be studied
and measured.
Bilingualism per se is merely a more salient extension of the general phe
nomenon of variation in code repertoire and code-switching, so that bilingu-
als switch languages for many of the same reasons that monolinguals switch
styles (Gumperz 1967).
2.2 Aim
This work concerns itself with the study of Jordanian Arabic as utilized
by the Yarmouk University student population. But it also addresses itself to
an exhaustive treatment of foreign language influence (i.e., English). These
dimensions comprise the crux of this research with regard to the impact of one
or both of them on the average student. To put this in a clear perspective, this
research project tends to investigate the extent to which using English as a
medium of instruction, in some departments or even in teaching some
courses, affects the linguistic repertoire of Yarmouk students vs. students of
other Arab Universities, where the medium of instruction is strictly Arabic.
One may argue, however, that according to the stated Yarmouk University
by-laws, Arabic is officially declared as the language of instruction.
Nevertheless, the author has observed that English is used quite extensively
in most departments such as Engineering and Medical Sciences. Two factors
are responsible for the irresistable use of English in such disciplines:
1. Teaching materials (textbooks, references and lab work).
2. The inevitable use of English by many instructors whose native language
is other than Arabic.

With this picture in mind, one may need to inquire about the most dis
crete factors which have some bearing on the linguistic performance of Yar-
mouk students vs. students of other Arab Universities. Once the mechanisms
are delineated within the framework of University instruction at large, the
author is bound to interpret the results of this work and put forward some
recommendations with regard to the implementation of a teaching/learning
strategy based on students' needs, and University expectations of its
graduates. In light of the research findings, we will be in a better position to
call for retaining the current educational policy, modifying it, or simply dis
carding it altogether. This, in turn, will determine whether the extensive use
of English in some departments is well advised or not.
2.3 Hypothesis
One of the basic premises of linguistic research is the assumption that
language acquisition sustantiates a need and/or desire to assimilate with the
new surroundings both physical and cultural. The adaption to the new envi
ronment is obtainable in the case of being part of the new setting to some
extent. It should be emphasized however, that the process of language learn
ing may have a great impact on the learner if he is exposed to the foreign lan
guage as well as its culture simultaneously. This is feasible in the act of learn
ing the English language, for example, in the U.S.A. or Britain. The impact
here is so great that it allows different learners to interact with the new lan
guage and culture in different degrees.
A second group of language learners encompasses those who acquire the
foreign language through regular schooling and education. In this case, the
opportunities to interact with the new language and culture are far less acces
sible to them compared to those in the first group. Consequently, the first
group of language learners is in a better position to adapt to the new sur
roundings. It follows then that the chances of becoming bilingual and/or
bicultural are relatively high. This may have some impact on the learner's
identity, attitudinal considerations, self-perception, ethnic and cultural iden
tification and so on. At the other end of the spectrum, the second group of
language learners comprises a less adaptable group in contrast with the first.
The influence of the new language is nevertheless detected, to some extent,
in the course of language learning.
Taking Yarmouk students as a case in point, I am prone to hypothesize
that compared to graduates of other universities where Arabic is the only
medium of instruction, Yarmouk students are likely to demonstrate a more

SCOPE, AIM, HYPOTHESIS, AND METHODOLOGY 19
frequent use of English loanwords in academic discussions and everyday
interaction. Unlike other Arab students who study in English-speaking coun
tries, such as the U.S.A. and Britain, the occurrence of English loans in their
speech may be based on purely academic grounds void of socio-cultural con
siderations. The fact of the matter is that most of those students have never
been exposed directly to Western culture. The advent of English loans in
their discourse is mainly the product of their interaction with English texts.
Thus, they are endowed with the medium which facilitates the process of
foreign language acquisition. The feasibility of the entire operation is a by
product of many variables, including the language of instruction, textbooks,
the role of individual instructors, and the students' attitudes. The sum of
those factors seems to be responsible for establishing a background against
which the learner's performance may be measured objectively. With regard
to the status of Jordanian Arabic at Yarmouk University, I hypothesis that it
is a diglossic one.
2.4 Methodology
One of the crucial considerations in conducting research is the concern
about the methodology of field research. In an attempt to collect meaningful
data, the researcher will have to make sure that the methodology is opera
tional to the hypothesis under investigation. When a linguist, for example,
decides to describe the speech behavior of a particular population, he is faced
with the problem of defining his universe in such a way as to ensure represen
tativeness. In some types of sociological studies random sampling is used, in
which each person in the population has an equal chance of being selected for
the sample. The procedure relies on the assignment of a number to each indi
vidual in the population under study. The investigator can often use a table
of random numbers, simply following the numbers in consecutive order.
Each individual with an assigned number corresponding to the one selected
in the list of random numbers is then chosen for the sample, until the
researcher arrives at the number of respondents he desires for his study (Wol
fram and Fasold 1974: 36-37). The researcher can also designate every Xth
unit in his population for study, for example, every fifth, tenth, etc., depend
ing on the ratio of the total population chosen for the sample.
Strictly random samples, although advantageous for certain purposes,
have some drawbacks:
1. In order to be representative, the sample must be relatively large com
pared to the total number of the population under study.

2. Samples often include subjects who do not qualify for the desired
research.
3. A detailed knowledge of the community and its members along with some
individual characteristics of each respondent will have to be obtained; this
knowledge may violate the randomness criterion.
As an alternative to strictly random sampling, it is often more efficient to
obtain a representative sample for predetermined social categories. In this
procedure the social composition of the sample is first determined, then
informants are chosen to represent these categories (Wolfram and Fasold
1974: 36). This type of sampling is referred to as a stratified random sample,
or a pre-stratified random sample. In this case, the method of studying social
stratification is based on existing statistics or on a pilot survey.
For the purposes of the present research, a random sample of forty
speakers was chosen in view of some socially diagnostic variables such as,
age, sex, educational background, and social class. The sample consisted
mainly of two sets of informants:
a) Yarmouk University students — both currently enrolled and graduates.
b) Non-Yarmouk students and graduates with emphasis on students of Arab
Universities where the medium of instruction is basically Arabic.
2.5 Method of collecting data
Once it was decided whom I wanted to interview, the next step in the
research was to elicit the necessary data. In order for a study to succeed, it
should have adequate data for analysis.
Of the two methods of data collection, the survey method and the per
sonal interviewing method, the data for this research were collected through
individual and group interviews. Thus, the method is based on personal inter
views which may be characterized as oral, repeated, exploratory, and con
ducted on a small scale. Besides, the relationship between the researcher and
the respondent is always close, opposed to the survey technique where the sit
uation is formal, less personal and conducted on a large scale.
The best way to account for foreign language influence in the speech of
Arabic is to collect samples of their speech. For the purpose of this research,
the method of data collection was tape-recordings. A series of individual
interviews were conducted in a relatively casual setting. In fact, the less atten
tion is paid to speech, the more natural we can expect the speech to be.
Naturally, the language of the interview was Arabic. However, English
was occasionally used when the situation demanded it. Since a major section

SCOPE, AIM, HYPOTHESIS, AND METHODOLOGY 21
of this work is about lexical interference and loanwords, it was necessary, in
order to obtain the necessary amount of data, to conduct these interviews in
Arabic. The main objective is to examine the extent to which English has
found its way into the speech of speakers of Arabic. In other words, the idea
is to explore the impact of English, and the way these words are adapted to
the phonological system of Arabic. The outcome of these interviews was also
important to determine the degree of switching and how far Arabic speakers
succeed in maintaining linguistic independence, which is a strong predictor of
the degree of bilingualism.
Once the data collection was completed, it was necessary to take three
other essential steps: (a) data analysis, (b) interpretation, (c) subjective reac
tions and evaluation. Special emphasis was placed on the impact of lexical
interference reflected in the flow of loanwords from English into Arabic.
Foreign borrowings which easily gained acceptance in Jordanian Arabic were
checked. Also the causes and the mechanism in operation for the accommo
dation of such borrowing was explicated.
The final step of data analysis was to establish a contrastive study
between loanwords manifested in the speech of Yarmouk students and
between those evidenced in the speech of Non-Yarmouk students and
graduates. A classification of such loans was conducted according to the area
of specialization, source and type. The implications of these findings will be
explored in Chapter 5.

3. LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH PATTERNS:
DIGLOSSIA OR TRIGLOSSIA
3.1 Data analysis
The speech patterns that constitute the research data will here be
analyzed and interpreted in light of some structural and non-structural
parameters.
As the framework of the present work shows, it is of the greatest impor
tance to depict the overall language situation prevailing among Yarmouk
University students with regard to whether it lends itself to a state of diglossia
or bilingualism. Also, it is necessary to study the extent of each as manifested
by non-Yarmouk degree holders where the language of instruction is strictly
Arabic.
3.2 Yarmouk University students
To start with, I will put forward an argument to the effect that the lan
guage situation prevalent at Yarmouk University may be characterized as a
triglossic one. By and large, Arabic proved to be the dominant language
among the respondents who were randomly selected for the purposes of this
research. Arabic surfaced as the basic medium of communication between
speakers irrespective of their educational and/or professional orientation.
Generally speaking, whenever any important segment of the popula
tion, an elite, is familiar with the language of another nation, it is tempting to
assume that the other language (L2) is likely to be used by that elite simply as
a matter of convenience. Nevertheless, such an assumption turned out to be
inoperational on a large scale among the student population at Yarmouk Uni
versity. This is not to suggest, of course, that the use of the foreign language
(i.e. English) was totally absent or neglected. In fact, a detailed analysis of
the collected data demonstrated that the occurrence and frequency of English
words in the speech of the respondents showed only a very low percentage on
the scale of usage compared to that of Arabic. With this picture in mind, I will
take an analytic approach to identify the most discrete language forms dis-

played by Arabic speakers in their conversations, speech acts and discourse.
3.3 The dominance of Arabic
The corpus of data collected and analyzed indicates that Arabic is
undoubtedly the language that dominates the scene in almost every aspect of
language use. The multiplicity of topics and the chain of speech acts rep
resented in the interviews place strong emphasis on the use of Arabic. In
other words, the assumption that Arabic is likely to be threatened by the
occasional use of English was unrealistic and rather insignificant. Con
sequently, the language situation could be mainly described as 'triglossic' in
nature. More often than not, a diglossic/triglossic situation of language use
has a great bearing on the notion of bilingualism and its implications.
3.4 Language and dialect
In the foregoing section, the assumption has been made that the lan
guage most widely featured and strongly favored by the greatest majority of
Yarmouk University respondents is Arabic. With this picture in mind, it
stands to reason to investigate the extent to which different varieties of Jorda
nian Arabic are being utilized by speakers. Secondly, a correlation should be
drawn between linguistic and non-linguistic variables that seem to control
and determine the choice of one given variety rather than another.
3.5 Linguistic variables
It is now important to consider how linguistic theory is to capture such
facts about language variation. Linguistic theory has, as its goal, the task of
accounting for exactly the capabilities people have in using language. In the
area of choice and optionality, it is important to decide just how much capa
bility speakers have as far as influence on variability is concerned.
Language users tend to make their choice on the basis of familiarity, pro
ficiency, control, and security. Linguistically speaking, these factors draw
heavily on the speaker's mastery of phonology, morpho-syntax and lexicon.
In light of these facts, the author is inclined to advocate that the language
dominance configuration established among Yarmouk University students
may be characterized with the use of Arabic more than English. Not only do
students suffer from a deficiency in spoken English, but also in reading and
writing English adequately. Consequently, the facility of verbal expression
along are with other language skills hampered and far less developed than

LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH PATTERNS 25
those for Arabic. Suffice it to say that English and Arabic are genetically
unrelated languages and their systems are far from being identical.
3.6 Language currency
Given that Arabic is a triglossic language, the most pertinent problem to
consider is the use of language varieties in the performance of speech acts. In
other words, we have to explicate the language situation as manifested in the
speech of Yarmouk University students in various domains. Considering that
the sample was exclusively representative of an educated group, one is prone
to expect a uniformity in the use of language on the part of the respondents.
Our expectations may even lead us to hypothesize that the most dominant
variety of spoken Arabic is simply the standard (SA). This assumption may be
justified in light of the fact that other varieties of Arabic, namely classical and
colloquial, may only be present on a very limited scale. The reason for under
scoring the use of the last two varieties may be partially attributed to the fact
that classical Arabic, hereafter (CA), is a highly specialized and elevated
variety which is hardly used by the average speaker. On the other end of the
scale, colloquial Arabic (KA) is expected to broaden its base and gain cur
rency among uneducated or semi-educated groups.
The actual research findings, however, went far beyond the expectations
and diverged significantly from the research hypothesis and the theoretical
tradition of sociolinguistic research. It turned out that Yarmouk University
students (represented in the sample) adhere strongly to the colloquial variety
of Jordanian Arabic. Interestingly enough, research findings demonstrated
that although a large number of the respondents opened the first few minutes
of the interview with a tilt towards standard Arabic, they failed to maintain
that throughout the interview. As the discussion progressed, their speech was
marked with an almost pure use of the colloquial. Of course, a switch of this
sort is legitimate and linguistically sound. In fact, Haugen (1956) argues that
the mastery of two mutually comprehensible dialects of the same language is
a type of bilingualism. We should add at once that all language varieties are
adequate as communicative systems. It is also accepted that language is a
human phenomenon which characterizes every social group, and that all lan
guage systems are perfectly adequate as communicative systems for the mem
bers of the social group. The social acceptability of a particular language vari
ety is determined by its adequacy of use in reasoning, abstracting, and
hypothesizing. Middle-class dialects are no more or less inherently equipped
to deal with abstract or logically complex reasoning processes than are lower-

class dialects (cf. Wolfram and Fasold 1974).
3.7 Distribution of dialects
It looks as if the tri-partite relationship between Classical, Standard, and
Colloquial is not well reflected in the larger speech community with regard to
specialization. To elaborate this point, I can safely say that the three language
varieties stated above are never distributed evenly among speakers. The fact
of the matter is that whereas (CA) covers little ground and is very limited, the
other two varieties (i.e., SA, and KA) cover a wide variety of domains. The
language function that Ferguson (1959) iterated in his classic article Diglos-
sia, seems to have great bearing on (SA) and (KA) in everyday life. This is not
to say that (CA) is totally absent, but it is far less utilized when compared with
(SA)and(KA).
Not only was the classical variety of Arabic used very infrequently, but
the standard variety (SA) was severely underrepresented when compared
with the predominance of the colloquial (KA). (CA) is becoming rare and
(SA) is also losing ground, though to a lesser degree than (CA).
3.8 Structural comparison of A, MSA and K
This segment presents a brief linguistic comparison between the three
major varieties of Jordanian Arabic as represented in the speech of Yarmouk
students and non-Yarmouk respondents alike. The comparison will encom
pass selected features of these forms of Arabic mainly on the level of phonol
ogy. This portion of the work draws heavily on the findings of Hussein (1980)
in his Ph.D. dissertation.
Phonological comparison:
The speech patterns of the respondents show that whereas 28 consonants
are recognized in CA, the colloquial Arabic of Jordan (JKA) has 32 conso
nants including 4 non-classical phonemes. MSA, however, has only 31 conso
nants (see Chapter 1, tables 1 and 2).
In essence, the consonant phonemes of all systems are identical in the
sense that the majority of consonants recur in exactly the same phonetic
shape and with the same distribution in all varieties. A few differences, how
ever, emerge, particularly from the use of the consonants /q,k,j,0,ð,D/.
1. The variable /q/ does not occur in JKA except for a few scattered words
such as /quraan/ 'koran', and /issarq il-'awSaT/ The Middle East', which are

borrowed classicisms. However, JKA deviates from CA in the use of /7, /g/,
and /k/ as reflexes of /q/ in the 'Madani', 'Bedouin' and 'Fallahi' varieties
respectively. The word /qalam/ 'pencil', for example is rendered as /'alam/, /
galam/, and /kalam/ in the 'Madani', 'Bedouin' and 'Fallahi' varieties respec
tively. Altoma (1969: 11) asserts that the CA variable /q/ corresponds to /j/,
besides the above reflexes, in a significant number of words in Iraqi Col
loquial Arabic. For example, CA /sarqi/>/sarji/ 'eastern' and /qarya/>/jarya/
'village', etc.. /j/ as a reflex of the classical phoneme /q/ is almost absent in
JKA.
In MSA, on the other hand, the variable /q/ remains the same except in
a few examples when the situation is less formal or characterized by familiar
ity. In this case the reflexes /7, /k/, and /g/ are used by the Madani, Fallahi and
Bedouin speakers respectively.
The phoneme /q/ is the only consonant in CA which has totally different
reflexes in all regional varieties under consideration and these reflexes serve,
therefore, as identifying markers of these varieties. The findings of the pre
sent work affirm that the reflex /7 is favored by some Fallahi speakers who
tend to use it in their speech instead of the reflex /k/ peculiar to their variety.
Such tendency is sometimes overgeneralized to the extent that hypercorrect
forms are produced when the classical variable /k/ is also replaced by the
Madani /7. For example, CA /kasar/>/'asar/ 'broke', /karim/>/'arim/ 'vin
eyard', etc..
2. The variable /k/ has the same reflex in the 'Madani' and 'Bedouin' var
ieties. But in the Fallahi it has the reflex /c/. /kalib/ /calib/ 'dog', /kabriiti/>/
cabriiti/ 'box of matches' and /mikinsi/>/micinsi/ 'broom', etc..
Thus, the affrication of CA to /c/ occurs only in the Fallahi variety. The
reflexes /c/ of /k/, and /k/ of the classical /q/, serve as the most salient features
in characterizing the Fallahi variety; and these are generally looked upon as
stigmatized features and therefore many speakers try to suppress them in
their speech in order not to elicit unfavorable reactions from the speakers of
other varieties.
3. The variables /9/ and /ð/ are always replaced by corresponding stops /t/ and
/d/ in the 'Madani' variety. /6aani/>/taani/ 'second', /ðiib/>/diib/ 'wolf, and
/ðaak/>/daa7 'tasted', notice the variation: /d/ for /ð/, and /'/ for /k/. The
development of/0/ and /ð/ to their corresponding stops "was noted as early as
the ninth century. For example, Ibn Qutayba cited a number of cases in which
'the common people' used /t/ and /d/ instead of the original interdentals" (Al-

toma 1969: 19).
The classical /6/ and /ð/ are rendered the same in the 'Fallahi', 'Bedouin',
and MSA as well.
4. The /j/ variable is replaced by /z/ only in the 'Madani' variety. The reflex
/z/ of the classical phoneme /j/ is by no means restricted to the Madani variety
spoken in Jordan: it also occurs in sedentary Arabic spoken in Damascus,
Beirut and other cities in the Arab East. So, words like /jaar/ 'neighbor', /jiil/
'generation', /najjaar/ 'carpenter', are pronounced with the fricative /z/ and
not the affricate /j/. However, the /j/ remains the same in the 'Fallahi', 'Be
douin', and MSA words.
5. The variable /D/ in CA has the realization /D/ 'emphatic interdental' in
both the 'Fallahi' and 'Bedouin' varieties. For example, the words /'arD/
'ground' and /'ayDan/ 'also' correspond to /'arD/ and /'ayDan/ respectively.
In the Madani variety, however, the variable /D/ is rendered the same. So
words like /'arD/ 'ground' and /'abyaD/ 'white' are pronounced with ÍDI and
not /D/.
It is now worth discussing some sounds which entered MSA and JKA via
words imported from foreign languages.
First of all, /p/: it occurs in loanwords such as /'ispaanya/ 'Spain' and /
poolanda/ 'Poland'. There are no genuine colloquial or CA examples which
show /p/ as a separate phoneme. The sound /p/ has been extended in use to
MSA where it can be heard in the pronunciation of foreign words. In his
description of Arabic phonology Cantineau maintains that /p/ should be
excluded partly because it does not form a distinctive opposition with /b/ (in
Altoma 1969: 19).
/v/: this sound again does not exist in CA and therefore is not part of its
phonological system. It only exists in loanwords that have been integrated in
MSA and KA: in loanwords such as veto, Venezuela, virus, villa, etc..
3.8.1 Vowel systems
(A) CA recognizes six vowels; three short ones /a,i,u/ and their corres
ponding long forms /aa,ii,uu/, in addition to the diphthongs /ay/ and /aw/.
JKA, on the other hand, has all these vowels in addition to // and /oo/,
which are reflexes of the Classical Arabic diphthongs /ay/ and /aw/, respec
tively as in the following examples:

CA KA
bayt beet house
9awr 6oor bull
xayr xeer good
MSA, however, tends to use the reflexes // and /00/ of the classical
diphthongs /ay/ and /aw/. In this respect it is similar to KA but not to CA.
For convenience, a chart is inserted for summing up the phonological dif
ferences between the varieties under consideration. First, CA is listed with all
the varieties, then the other varieties with their different reflexes (Hussein
1980).
CA q  e j D ay aw
M '
 t
d
z D  0 0
KA  g  e
ð
j D  0 0
F  5 e
ð
j 9  0 0
MSA q  e
ð
j   0 0
() The English vowel system, on the other hand, assumes a different
phonemic inventory for its vowels. The phonemic inventory of both English
and Arabic vowels is tabulated as follows:
English Vowels
Front Central Back
High ï u
i u
Mid ê  ö
e  0
Low ae a

Arabic Vowels*
Front Central
long short long short
High ii i
Mid 
Low aa a
*Arabic long vowels have been transcribed alternately with a diacritic to
mark the vowel length. Thus, /ä, ü, i, ö, ê/.
3.8.2 Morphology
The most obvious difference between CA and MSA pertains to inflec
tional morphology. Whereas CA usually manifests modal and case endings,
MSA lacks them altogether. In spite of the fact that JKA also lacks case end
ings, it is still easy to differentiate between MSA and JKA on the basis of the
lexicon used. Other morphological processes serve to differentiate between
CA and MSA, such as numeral systems, negativity, etc. A diagnostic feature
of the standard variety spoken by a relatively small number of Yarmouk stu
dents is the reduction of inflectional endings.
3.8.2.1 Modal and case endings
As mentioned earlier, case endings are totally deleted in nouns in MSA,
but retained in CA. Nouns in CA are normally inflected according to their
grammatical function in a sentence. In CA there are three cases traditionally
identified as nominative, genitive and accusative, and these are indicated by
the suffixes /-u/ for the nominative, /-i/ for the genitive, and /-a/ for the accusa
tive. For indefinite nouns, the endings are /-un/, /-in/ and /-an/. The word /
walad/ 'boy' can be inflected /waladu/, /waladun/, /waladi/, /waladin/, /
walada/ or /waladan/. We should point out that the lack of case endings does
not usually result in an ambiguity or misunderstanding of the structural mean
ing, since case endings are redundant in CA and the reader can still recognize
the meaning by appealing to other linguistic cues such as word order.
(a) ra'ayt kalb fil haql. (MSA)
I saw a dog in the field.
(b) ra'aytu kalban fil haqli. (CA)
I saw a dog/acc. in the field.
In (a) /kalb/ 'dog' lacks the accusative ending /-an/, unlike its counterpart
in (b) which manifests it. Also in (a), the word /haql/ is not inflected for the
Back
long short
uu 
oo

genitive while its counterpart in (b) is inflected via the affix /-i/.
In JKA, also inflectional case endings are totally absent. A word like /
ilwalad/ 'the boy' is not inflected for case, whereas /alwaladu/ 'the boy' which
is classified as (CA) has the nominative case marker /-u/.
As mentioned above, both MSA and JKA lack inflectional endings. The
way the two varieties differ is through the use of lexical items: while MSA
uses /walad/, JKA uses /Sabi/, /Tifil/ or perhaps /9ayyil/; all these words lack
inflectional endings, as does the word /walad/.
3.8.2.2 Numeral system
CA differs from KA in the category of numbers. Numerals from 3 to 10
are similar in CA, MSA, and JKA. However, numerals in CA disagree in
gender with the numbered. If the noun is masculine, for instance, the num
eral must have a feminine suffix, as shown in the following: /xamsata rijaal/
'five men' and /xamsa banaat/ 'five girls'. Because the noun /rijaal/ is mas
culine, the numeral has to be inflected for feminine by the attachment of the
suffix /-ta/. In the other phrase, since the noun /banaat/ 'girls' is feminine, the
noun is to be inflected for masculine. MSA and JKA differ from this in the
general use of the masculine form of numerals regardless of the gender of
nouns.
In CA, the numbers 11 to 19 consist of two parts: a form of the number
'ten' /9asara/ or /9asrata/ and a 'digit' part corresponding to 3 to 9. The noun
which follows is always singular and the 'ten' part of the number always
agrees in gender with it, while the digit part disagrees with it, e.g.,
istaraa 9aliyun xamsata 9asara dunuman
bought Ali/nom. five/fem. ten dunum/acc.
The word /dunuman/ in CA is masculine. So the 'ten' part /9asara/ agrees
in gender with it, but the 'digit' part /xamsata/ 'five' disagrees in gender, since
it is inflected for feminine gender. On the other hand, when the noun is
feminine, the 'ten' part and the 'digit' part are inflected differentially:
'asqaTat 'amriika sitta 9asrata Taa'iratan
shot down America six ten/fern. plane/acc.
The 'ten' part degrees in gender with the feminine noun /Taa'iratan/,
while the 'digit' part /sitta/ 'six' does not.
In the light of the complexity of the numeral system in CA, KA uses a
simple system which makes use of the same form regardless of the gender of
the noun following, so instead of /xamsa 9asrata/ or /xamsata 9asara/,
depending on the gender of the noun following, one single form has been

introduced, /xamisTaasar walad/ or /xamisTaas/, the former if followed by a
noun (so we would say /xamsTaasar walad/ 'fifteen boys') and the latter if not
followed by a noun.
MSA makes use of the same contracted forms used in JKA, as in the fol
lowing example:
'ameerka 'asqaTat siTTaasar Taa'ira (MSA)
America shot down sixteen plane
It should be noted that these numerals are used only in spoken MSA, and
only a very few attempts have been made to introduce them into writing.
3.8.2.3 The loss of the dual
Ferguson (1959: 621) indicates that the gradual loss of dual forms is a
familiar occurrance in the history of Indo-European and Semitic languages.
This loss of the dual forms occurs in JKA but not in CA or MSA. The dual
forms of pronouns, adjectives, and verbs have disappeared in all regional var
ieties without a trace; this loss applies also to nouns except when one is
requesting specific information regarding the exact number of things, objects
or people, etc.. The dual forms are generally replaced by plural forms in
JKA, and from this follows the replacement of dual suffixes by plural suffixes.
In other words, the dual is assimilated to the plural with various word classes.
So instead of saying /daras-aa/ 'both boys have studied', in JKA it is /daras-u/.
Note the replacement of the dual suffixes /-aa/ by /-u/ which serves as a
marker for masculine plural verbs in CA. The assimilation of dual forms also
takes place in adjectives. A phrase like /waladaan mujtahidaan/ 'two diligent
boys' is rendered in JKA as /wlaad mijtihdiin/. Again note the replacement of
CA /waladaan 'two boys' by the colloquial /wlaad/ 'boys', and the replace
ment of the suffix /-aan/ by /-iin/.
3.8.3 Syntactic comparison
The most obvious instances of syntactic differences may be summarized
in the following:
3.8.3.1 Nominal versus verbal sentences
CA tends to use almost exclusively a word order different from KA and
MSA. Typically, word order in CA is VSO, whereas in JKA, it is SVO. MSA,
however, alternates between these two, although it tends more to use the
word order predominant in JKA. The following sentences illustrate these
facts (from Hussein 1980).

(a) 'asqaTat 'amriika sitta 9asrata Taa'iratan (CA)
shot down America six ten plane
(b) 'amriika nazzalat siTTasar Tayyara (KA)
(c) 'amriika 'asqaTat siTTaasar Taa'ira (MSA)
The classical sentence (a) reflects the dominant word order in CA, while
(b) and (c) reflect the dominant word order in KA and MSA: (SVO).
According to Hussein (1980: 109), nominal sentences are predominant
in MSA and are widely used by modern writers, novelists, playwrights, and
journalists. All one has to do is to pick up a daily newspaper to grasp the truth
of this statement. It is possible, however, to classify contemporary writers in
regard to their identification or lack of identification with CA simply by not
ing the frequency of nominal or verbal sentences in their writings: the more
verbal sentences they use, the closer they are to CA and vice-versa. In a count
of nominal versus verbal sentences in Al-Ahram, the leading, semi-official
daily newspaper of Egypt, Badawi found that there were twice as many nom
inal sentences than verbal sentences (Badawi 1973:102). In a similar count of
nominal versus verbal sentences in the obituary page of Al-Dustour, a Jorda
nian daily newspaper, 24 out of 34 obituaries started with nominal sentences
and 10 with verbal sentences (Badawi 1973: 109).
The dominant word order of MSA is a borrowed linguistic feature and
has entered the language under the influence of two factors:
(1) KA with its divergent varieties which make use of the nominal sen
tences almost exclusively.
(2) Foreign languages: we note that MSA deals with topics and subjects
typical of foreign languages and sources, as journalism and the new genres of
literature. The influx of telegrams and cables received continuously from
major European news agencies is translated into Arabic. This translation
exhibits traces of the influence of foreign languages, and this influence seems
to be apparent mainly in the structure of sentences in MSA which, patterned
on the model language, is now primarily nominal. (See Badawi 1973: 141).
3.8.3.2 More on word order in Arabic
The question of word order in Arabic is rather controversial. Neverthe
less, there is a strong tendency to support the claim that a VSO preferred
word order is basic. This argument may be supported with evidence from
Arabic grammar according to the relational hierarchy of subject and object in

Arabic and the notion of NP fronting (i.e. topicalization).
Arabic is a VSO language; however, it has a construction created by a
rule called 'NP-fronting'. The NP fronting rule advances NP's to sentence ini
tial position. According to this, I am going to touch briefly on the properties
of subject which accrue to topicalized NP's. The thrust of this argument is to
refute the claim that VSO languages have underlying SVO word order. Prop
onents of the latter claim which is levelled against VSO languages hasten to
conclude that the linear order of subjects and objects relative to one another
is the only parameter that distinguishes subject from object in a VSO lan
guage like Arabic. The fact of the matter, however, is that as genuine VSO
languages, Breton (a Celtic language), Samoan (of the Polynesian family),
and Arabic present examples to indicate that their basic typology is VSO. Both
Arabic and Samoan demonstrate that rules would not be stated to affect the
NP following the verb, but rather the NP which has the structural properties
of either a subject or an object. In other words, at least for Arabic, a different
argument may be raised. Other than order, the two NP's in a transitive clause
are not structurally equivalent, which makes it feasible to distinguish results
of topicalizing the subject from the results of topicalizing the object. One of
the distinctive features of subjects and objects in Arabic is the inflectional
case markers. Subjects usually carry the nominative case marker -u or -un,
whereas objects usually carry the accusative case markers: -a, or -an, e.g.
V Su O
akala al-waladw al-mawzata
ate the boy the banana
-u is the nominative case marker for defined subjects.
-a is the accusative case marker for defined objects,
while in:
akala waladun mawzatan
ate a boy a banana
-un is the nominative case marker for non-defined subjects.
-an is the accusative case marker for non-defined objects.
To demonstrate that the two NP's in a transitive clause are not structur
ally equivalent I will try to put forward a number of relational properties that
distinguish subject NP's from object NP's.
(1) The subject, in standard Arabic, has the ability of controlling

coreference across clause boundaries. e.g.,
(a) sariba al-awlaadu kulluhum hal i iban wanaamu
drank the boys a l l them milk and s l e p t
All the boys drank milk and slept
When the NP fronting rule is applied, the sentence reads as follows:
S V 
(b) al-awlaadu saribuu hal i iban kulluhum wanaamu
the boys drank milk a l l them and s l e p t
All the boys drank milk and slept
In sentence (b) coreference is controlled by the fronted subject al-awlaadu
'the boys', which is the subject of the sentence, and the possibility that
coreference is controlled by the object haliiban 'milk' (accusative) is ruled
out. The reason is that the modifier kulluhum 'all of them', does not refer to
the object but only to the subject.
(2) Coreference with subordinate clauses: coreference across clause
boundaries is usually associated with the subject whether in a fronted or a
non-fronted construction. Under no circumstances may this property be
taken over by fronted NP's other than the subject. e.g.,
(a) Dar aba mutrammadun 9aliyan 0umma har aba
h i t Muhammad Ali and then (he) escaped
Muhammad hit Ali then he escaped
becomes
(b) mutrammadun Dar aba 9aliyan  haraba
Muhammad hit Ali and then (he) escaped
With NP fronting in sentence (b), it is clear that coreference is controlled by
the subject "Muhammad". While, on the other hand, a topic NP cannot con
trol coreference (Aljarim 1975), who suggested that the semantic interpreta
tion confirms that "Muhammad" hit and he himself escaped. E.g.
9aliyun Darabahu mutrammadun  haraba
Ali h i t him Muhammad and then {he) escaped
'he' is coreferential with the subject "Muhammad" and not with the fronted
NP "Ali". Therefore, coreference across clause boundaries is controlled only
by the fronted subject.
(3) NP subject fronting conditions verb agreement. A fronted NP may
result in a change of the verbal form; such a property is attributed only to the
subjects. e.g.,

(a) naama al-awlaadu
s l e p t the boys
The boys slept
becomes
(b) al-awlaadu naamuu
the boys s l e p t
The boys slept
In sentence (b) the verb  = 'slept', is inflected for number. This
change in verbal form occurred so that the verb agrees with the fronted NP,
but this inflection for number takes place only with plural NP fronting, other
wise the verb usually carries the same inflectional marker for singular and
plural subjects. e.g.,
(c) naama al-waladu (singular)
slept the boy
The boy slept
or
(d) naama al-awlaadu (plural)
slept the boys
The boys slept
In case of singular NP subject fronting the verbal form remains the same.
e.g.,
al-waladu namma
the boy s l e p t
Therefore, the verbal form changes in order to agree with fronted plural
NP's, and not with fronted singular NP's provided that the fronted plural NP
is a subject.
The point I would like to make here is that in addition to their linear
order relative to the verb, the two NP's in a transitive clause in Arabic are not
structurally equivalent. Thus, in case of NP fronting, the output structure [NP
V NP] can be easily identified by referring to the structural properties that
distinguish subject from object. What may pose a problem in this respect is
the absence of explicit structural differences revealed in the surface structure
of the two NP's in question; an example of such languages is Breton and not
Arabic.
A second argument that works the originality of VSO as a basic word
order of Arabic is based on the existence of nominal sentences in Arabic. This
establishes another piece of evidence in favour of the claim that VSO Ian-

guages may have an underlying SVO word order. The claim is, of course,
entertained by the tendency to concede that topicalization in VSO languages
can lead to the assumption that the underlying structure of VSO languages is
SVO.
My position on that may be presented in a counter argument which
suggests that in spite of the fact that the process of topicalization in some VSO
languages leads to some surface structure which is not VSO, yet the original
structure of these languages is VSO. Let us consider this example from
Arabic:
S V 
(a) 'al-bintu 'i starat  awban
the girl bought dress
The girl bought a dress
which is originally:
V S O
(b) 'istarat al-bintu θ awban
bought the girl dress
The girl bought a dress
In my opinion, sentence (b) stands as the norm, whereas sentence (a) is
derived. The reason behind the process of topicalization in sentence (b) may
be justified on semantic grounds. That is to emphasize the fact that the girl
and not the 'boy' or anyone else is the agent and the point offocus. Thus, the
process of topicalization is motivated by the notion of emphasis.
The arguments raised in the previous discussion pertain most specifically
to (CA) and (SA). The question however remains unresolved with regard to
(KA). To what extent can we go ahead and generalize the existence of a
uniform word-order that incorporates the three varieties of Arabic indis
criminately? It looks as if we should be a little more cautious before jumping
to a conclusion of any sort. Our judgement cannot, of course, be valid unless
we furnish substantive evidence to support our argument.
As far as (KA) is concerned, a different argument is often presented to
suggest that unlike (CA) and (SA), colloquial Arabic (KA) is more likely to
manifest an SVO word-order. The fact of the matter is that although there are
common occurrences between (CA) and (SA) on the one hand and (KA) on
the other, they are far from uniform. Let us consider the following examples:
(1) CA/SA:  b alwaladu 'i1a almadrasat (i)
went the boy to the school
The boy went to school

KA: 'ilwalad raah 9almadrasi
the boy went to school
Obviously, the distinction is recognized on the level of syntax (word
order and inflectional endings), as well as lexicon.
(2) CA/SA: yadrusu 'alwaladu 'addarsa
study the boy the lesson
The boy is studying.
If topicalization is applied we get:
'alwaladu yadrusu 'addarsa
the boy study the lesson
KA:(a) 'ilwalad budrus
the boy study
(b) liwlaad budursu
the boys are studying
Although the reverse order is possible in the two examples of (CA/SA),
yet the preferred word order is VSO and not the other way around. As far as
(KA) is concerned, the preferred word order seems to favour the VSO model
again simply because in sentence (b) the word liwlaad is a topic, budursu is a
verb and plural marker -u functions as a subject pronoun. Thus we end up
with the verb preceding the subject. This is not to conclude, however, that
SVO is inoperative or absent in (KA). In fact, it is the contention of some
Arab linguists that (KA), in particular, manifests a stronger tendency
towards being SVO. This contention is not shared by the author and by Bakir
(1980) who argue for a VSO order in literary Arabic, and all other orders
including that of the colloquial are derived ones. In my opinion, it is prema
ture and rather dangerous to claim that Arabic has changed from a VSO lan
guage into an SVO one. It might be a lot safer to claim that (KA) is currently
gaining ground at the expense of (CA). The fact of the matter is that a com
plete mastery of CA seems unlikely or even impossible due to its difficulty
and complex patterns. The difficulty of understanding CA stems specifically
from its use of a lexicon that by now has become unfamiliar and old-
fashioned. Such a use of lexicon rendered many of the texts written in classi
cal Arabic unintelligible (Hussein 1980).
3.8.3.3 Verb deletion in the coordinate clause
In the process of analyzing data, it was feasible to detect another syntac-

tic difference between CA on one hand and KA and MSA on the other. That
is, the tendency of the former to repeat the verb of the main clause in the
coordinate clause, which, in KA and MSA, is normally deleted as shown
below:
(a) 'asqaTat 'amriika sitta 9asrata Taa'iratan wa
shot down America s i x ten plane and
'asqaTat ruusya Salada 9asrata Taa'iratan
shot down Russia t h r e e ten plane
America shot down sixteen planes and Russia thirteen
In this example, the main clause is /'asqaTat 'amriika sitta 9asrata
Taa'iratan/ and the coordinate clause is /wa 'asqaTat ruusyaθalaθa 9asrata
Taa'iratan/. The verb /'asqaTat/ 'shot down' is used both in the main clause
and in the coordinate clause as shown in (a) above.
Let us now consider the following example:
(b) 'ameerka nazzalat siTTaasar Tayyara 'uruusya
America shot down sixteen plane and Russia
θalaTTaas (KA)
thirteen.
In the previous example, the verb /nazzalat/ 'shot down' is not repeated
in the coordinate clause (Ibid).
3.9 A general overview of the language situation: Domains of use
In light of the previous linguistic arguments and the linguistic charac
teristics of the three varieties of Arabic, there seems to be a strong tendency
among Yarmouk students to utilize (KA) more often than the other two var
ieties. Generally speaking, KA has been associated with more situations and
settings than any other variety. All Arab children, regardless of their parents'
social status or educational level grow up speaking KA and not until they go
to school do they have any exposure to other language varieties, such as Clas
sical Arabic or MSA.
KA has been characterized as the language used for everyday activities:
buying, selling, asking questions, giving directions, and so on.
The case with my respondents showed that Yarmouk University stu
dents, regardless of their majors,6
demonstrated that the use of (KA) is so
widely spread as to extend itself to almost all everyday activities and even to
some classroom academic arguments. A few of the respondents used some
standard words but on a limited scale and even then they did not observe the
inflectional endings to mark the nominative, objective, and accusative. In

other words, although there was a mixture of both standard and colloquial,
the use of the standard was limited and almost negligible.
3.9.1 Modern Standard Arabic
Modern Standard Arabic, on the other hand, was less utilized than col
loquial Arabic. Some of the respondents showed an interest in using the stan
dard form of Arabic, nevertheless. Their actual use was incomparable with
that of the colloquial. The domains of MSA have been said to be restricted to
the following:
(a) Interdialectal situations, especially for purposes of communication
amongst educated dialect speakers. It has also been maintained that MSA
serves as a means of communication among educated Arabs who come from
different Arab countries. In this sense, on a pan-Arab level, its unifying func
tion is more than that of CA.
(b) Mass-media of an electronic and written kind. Several respondents
maintained that the language used on the radio, in the press, in newspapers
and magazines is MSA. This belief can be easily confirmed. But Hussein
(1980) hesitates to agree that the language used in the mass-media is entirely
restricted to MSA since, for the most part, the language used is largely deter
mined by the topic. A religious topic in a newspaper would inevitably require
the use of CA, and the discussion of farming or harvesting on the radio would
require the use of the colloquial Arabic as it is the only form of language suf
ficiently intelligible to farmers and uneducated peasants. MSA is, of course,
used for a majority of programmes on the radio, such as news bulletins, polit
ical discussions, discussion of artistic or social changes and other programmes
of a more formal nature. So, the generalization made by many respondents
that only MSA is used in the mass-media is subject to reservations; yet, like
most generalizations, what they overstate is a valid observation.
(c) New genres that have flourished in the second half of the twentieth
century: it is not unusual for MSA to be used in these new modes of literature
such as the short story, the novel and the drama. Literary men who were con
cerned with the language as much as with the artistic production itself were
puzzled as to which form of the language they should use. Some used a form
of the Classical, others used colloquial Arabic, while still others opted for the
creation of a new language. Al-Hakim, the most prominent Arab playwright,
has consistently made use of a third language /wusTa/ Arabic. In 1956 he pub
lished his play Assafqa The Bargain' in /wusTa/ Arabic for what he later cal-

led 'the language of the play'. Although Al-Hakim portrayed his attempt as
being directed towards creating a new language, some critics levelled harsh
criticism.
3.9.2 Domains of Classical Arabic
Hussein (1980) reports that whereas MSA has been said to be the lan
guage of current and modern themes that persistently engage the Arab edu
cated individual in the twentieth century, CA has been characterized as the
language used exclusively in religion and associated with liturgical matters.
Its use is restricted to the Sheikhs, religious leaders 'Ulama', and those who
devote themselves to the study of Classical Arabic and the glorious literary
heritage associated with it; its use by these people is not sporadic, but rather
systematized and is determined by a host of factors: setting, topic, situation,
etc. Whereas a religious Sheikh uses CA for matters of religion, praying,
preaching, discussing religion-related legislation, he uses KA for conversing
with his little child, the neighborhood grocer, and so on.
The use of CA by religious Sheikhs is mainly motivated by the following
reasons:
(a) Their strong attachment to CA which for the most part is a symbol
of religion and a symbol of the great era of Islam.
(b) Their training which requires that they have deep knowledge of the
Koran, the Prophet's traditions and the Islamic creed. For this reason many
Sheikhs know by heart and can recite from memory any passage from the
Koran, and the moment they recite the Koran or the Prophetic traditions they
find themselves obliged to use CA to satisfy the audiences' expectation, who
at best understand part of it and at worst none of it.
3.10 The language situation among Yarmouk students
In light of the previous argument, the language situation among Yar
mouk University students may be described as one of strong adherence to KA
with occasional resort to MSA. The use of KA is very prominent almost
everywhere and in the greatest majority of settings. During the interviews
that were conducted with Yarmouk students it was obvious that KA was on
top, followed by MSA. The use of CA was virtually absent. Interestingly
enough, most of the respondents took the initiative of starting the interview
with a stretch of speech from MSA, but then shifted to KA. Another thing to
consider is that the language of the respondent was, to a great extent, affected
by that of the interviewer who would normally pose questions or initiate an

argument. Even then, both interviewer and respondent were surprisingly
found to have shifted to the use of KA rather than maintaining their MSA ice
breaker.
The fact of the matter is that in his dealings throughout the day, a stu
dent's verbal interaction is restricted to the following domains: family, class
room, cafeteria, and a few others. As far as family life is concerned, it is quite
natural to assume that the preferred and most prevalent language form is the
colloquial. A boy or a girl is expected to address his parents in the local vari
ety which is the by-product of physical geography, as well as other factors
which vary from one family to another.
As far as the academic life of the student is concerned, two aspects of uni
versity life might be considered. First is the purely academic (i.e. classroom)
atmosphere, where the language of instruction is either English or Arabic.
Once the language is Arabic, it is assumed that the lecturer utilizes MSA as
a medium of instruction. This is not to suggest, however, that only MSA is
used throughout the lecture, simply because when it comes to discussing cer
tain points or presenting an argument, there is a chance for both the professor
and the students to shift to the colloquial variety of Arabic (KA) either con
sciously or unconsciously. The reason that most students give for making such
a shift is the fact that (KA) gives them better self-expression, less formality,
and more involvement in the topic under discussion. As those students put it,
(KA) is simplified, less codified, less rule-governed and more lucid when
compared with the standard or the classical varieties of Arabic. According to
some students, the most dominant form of Arabic in classroom discussions is
(KA) despite the fact that both MSA and KA are employed alternately dur
ing lecturing.
Concerning the non-academic settings such as the extra-curricular
activities (i.e., social gatherings, cafeteria, etc.), the most appropriate form
of language is KA. It is practically the only form of Arabic prevailing. The
overwhelming majority of Yarmouk students 'chit-chat', discuss everyday
matters, family affairs, and the like, in colloquial Arabic.
As far as the choice of lexicon is concerned, we are faced with a situation
in which the greatest majority of Yarmouk students rely on the use of the col
loquial vocabulary. This suggests that, from a structural point of view, there
is a very strong tendency to depart from the use of the standard and the clas
sical varieties. This trend seems to gain momentum and cover larger ground
with the course of time. The point is that, if we are to tolerate the use of (KA)
among educated groups (i.e., university students and the like), who else is

expected to respond to the classicists' calls for discarding the colloquial
altogether?
Following is a set of examples that illustrate the extensive use of col
loquial Arabic on the level of morpho-syntax and lexicon. Herein, a
phonemic representation is given:
/biddi 'ruuh 9ala 'ameerka minsan 'akammil
I want go to America in order to continue
ta91iimi/
my education
To start with, the given stretch of speech is exclusively colloquial in
nature. The standard Arabic equivalent is:
/'uriidu 'an 'aðhaba 'ila 'ameerka likay
I want to go to America in order to
'ukammila ta91iimi/
continue my education
The discrepancy between the two varieties may be illustrated in the fol
lowing:
(1) The use of colloquial lexical items such as:
/biddi/ Twant' for /'uriidu/
/'aruuh/ 'to go' for /'aðhaba/
/minsan/ 'in order to' for /likay/
(2) The loss of the objective case marker -a in the word /'akammil/ 'to
continue' which appears as /'ukammila'/ in standard Arabic.
Another example may be given in the following:
/lees  yhaawlu tayyiir niDaamz ittasjiil/
why neg they t r y changing system r e g i s t r a t i o n
Why don't they try to change the registration system
The previous example demonstrates, again, the dominance of the col
loquial syntax even though there are some lexical items which are adopted in
standard usage. The standard counterpart of the previous example is:
1imaa a la yuhaawi 1uuna tayyiira niBaam ittasj iil
why neg they t r y changing system r e g i s t r a t i o n
Why don't they try to change the system of registration?
The lack of conformity between SA and KA is evidenced in:
(1) phonology: the insertion of a vowel in the (KA) /yhaawil/ to
become (SA) /yuhaawil/.

Jordanian arabic between diglossia and bilingualism

Jordanian arabic between diglossia and bilingualism

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Jordanian arabic between diglossia and bilingualism

Similar a Jordanian arabic between diglossia and bilingualism (20)

Más de Mohammad Ali

Más de Mohammad Ali (20)

Último

Último (20)

Jordanian arabic between diglossia and bilingualism