Effects of Arabic Diglossia on Pupils' Linguistic Performance in an Algerian Context

Table of Contents

Dedication

Acknowledgments

Abstract

List of Abbreviations

List of Phonetic Symbols

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Contents

General Introduction

Chapter One: Some Basic Sociolinguistic Key-Concepts
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Language and Dialect
1.2.1. Language Definition
1.2.2. Dialect Defined
1.3. Language Planning
1.3.1. Kinds of Language Planning
1.3.1.1. Status Planning
1.3.1.2. Corpus Planning
1.3.1.3. Acquisition Planning
1.4. Diglossia and Bilingualism
1.4.1. Diglossia Defined
1.4.1.1. Arabic Diglossia
1.4.1.2. Diglossia and Education
1.4.2. Bilingualism
1.5. Language Contact Dynamics
1.5.1. Borrowings
1.5.2. Code-switching and Code-mixing
1.6. MSA and its Status in the Arab World
1.6.1. MSA and Education
1.6.2. Exposure of Arab Pupils to MSA
1.7. Language Attitudes
1.7.1. The Concept of ‘Attitude’
1.7.2. Attitudes towards Diglossia
1.8. Conclusion

Chapter Two: The Algerian Sociolinguistic Profile
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Algeria: A Glance at History
2.3. Language Repertoires in Algeria
2.3.1. The Arabic Language
2.3.1.1. MSA as the Official Language
2.3.1.2. AA as a Mother Tongue
2.3.2. Berber
2.3.3. French
2.4. The Arabisation Policy
2.4.1. The Process of Arabisation
2.4.2. Issues of the Arabisation Policy
2.5. The Actual Sociolinguistic Situation in Algeria
2.5.1. Diglossia in Algeria
2.5.2 Diglossia and Education in the Algerian Context
2.5.3 Algerian Bilingualism
2.5.4 The Dynamics of Language Contact in Algeria
2.5.4.1 Borrowings
2.5.4.2 Code-switching
2.5.4.2.1 Algerian Arabic/ French Code-switching
2.5.4.2.2. Algerian Diglossic Code-switching
2.6. Conclusion

Chapter Three: Research Methodology and Data Analysis
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Research Objectives and Motivations
3.3. Methodological Concerns
3.3.1. Sample Population
3.3.2. Research Instruments
3.3.2.1. Questionnaires
3.3.2.2. Interviews
3.3.2.3. The Matched-Guise Technique
3.3.2.4. Classroom Observation
3.4. Research Findings
3.4.1. Questionnaire Findings: The Variety of Classroom Interaction
3.4.1.1. Quantitative Analysis
3.4.1.2. Qualitative Analysis
3.4.2. Interview Findings: Pupils’ Linguistic Performance
3.4.2.1. Findings from the Questions to Pupils
3.4.2.2. Findings from the Interview for Teachers
3.4.3. Matched-Guise Technique Findings: MSA and Pupils’ Attitudes
3.4.3.1. Quantitative Findings
3.4.3.2. Qualitative Findings
3.4.4. Classroom Observation Findings
3.5. Data Interpretation
3.5.1. Questionnaire Findings and Interpretation
3.5.2. Interview Findings and Interpretation
3.5.2.1. Interpretation of the Pupils’ Answers
3.5.2.2. Interpretation of the Interview with Teachers
3.5.3. Interpretation of the Matched-Guise Technique Findings
3.5.3.1. Quantitative Findings
3.5.3.2. Qualitative Findings
3.5.4. Interpretation of the Classroom Observation Findings
3.6. General Findings: Interpretation and Integration
3.7. Conclusion

General Conclusion

Bibliography

Appendices

Dedications

First and foremost, this study is dedicated to my late parents, Kheireddine Hamzaoui and Nouria Benkalfat, who always had confidence in me and offered me love, encouragement and support in all my endeavors; and I want to say (O my Lord! Have mercy on them both, as they did care for me when I was young)

It is also dedicated to my husband Zoheir, for his care, understanding and patience. His constant encouragement has meant to me so much during the pursuit the writing of this work.

To my lovely children Noureddine, Adil and Hanane who gave me love strength, courage and support. I love you from the bottom of my heart.

Acknowledgments

I would like to offer my sincere thanks to all the teachers, head masters and pupils from both ‘Ibn Msaib’ and ‘Mustapha Chiali’ primary schools for their contribution to the realization of this work. A special thank is also addressed to my colleague, teacher and friend Prof. Zoubir DENDANE.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of Arabic diglossia on formal instruction with special reference to the primary level in Tlemcen schools. It seeks to highlight the sociolinguistic phenomenon ‘diglossia’ and its effect on pupils’ linguistic performance. Recently, clear flaws seem to have been noted in pupils’ linguistic skills in all Arab schools, particularly in first grade level, since most of them have relatively little or no contact with the official language of instruction before formal schooling. In the Algerian policy, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA hereafter) is the language used in classroom settings. However, it is generally agreed among educationists, that the achievement of low levels is mainly linked to the complexities of the literary language used in formal instruction and the various colloquial forms reserved for non-formal contexts. Children acquire Algerian Arabic as a mother tongue, while Standard Arabic is learned later on through access to formal instruction. The pupils’ educational problems and the persistent feelings of linguistic insecurity are directly attributed to diglossia. Through collecting and analyzing data by means of a number of sociolinguistic tools, the researcher tried, in this study, to compare between two school settings to show the extent to which diglossia affects the learning process among first grade pupils by: exploring the variety used in classroom interaction, insisting on the language difficulties encountered by young pupils and detecting their attitudes towards the forms of Arabic used in classroom interaction.

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

List of Tables

Table 1.1. Haugen’s revised language planning model with additions

Table 1.2. The diachronic evolution of the Concept ‘Diglossia’

Table 1.3. Situations for H and L in diglossic communities

Table 3.1.a. The gender variable rates of pupils (respondents)

Table 3.2.a. The gender variable rates of teachers (respondents)

Table 3.3. Teacher’s variety use in the classroom

Table 3.4. Teachers’ use of AA in the classroom (Ibn Msaib PS)

Table 3.5. Teachers’ use of AA in the classroom (Mustapha Chiali PS)

Table 3.6. Pupils’ use of MSA from teachers’ perspective in Ibn Msaib PS

Table 3.7. Pupils’ use of MSA from teachers’ perspective in M. Chiali PS

Table 3.8. Pupils’ use of MSA vs AA in class

Table 3.9. The understanding skill in MSA in class

Table 3.10. Pupils’ perception about learning MSA

Table 3.11. Pupils’ proficiency in speaking MSA

Table 3.12. Percentages of the respondents’ assumption of G1 gender

Table 3.13. Percentages of the respondents’ assumption of G2 gender

Table 3.14. Pupils’ selection of the younger guise

Table 3.15. Pupils’ affirmation of guises’ pleasantness

Table 3.16. Pupils’ attitudes towards G1 (MSA)

Table 3.17. Pupils’ attitudes towards G2 (AA)

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Countries of the Arab world

Figure 1.2. A three-component model of Attitude

Figure 2.1. Characterization of diglossia in Algeria

Figure 2.2. Badawi’s diagram (1973): “Levels of Egyptian Arabic”

Figure 2.3. Aspects of bilingualism in Algeria

Figure 3.1.a. The gender variable rates of pupils (respondents)

Figure 3.2.a. The gender variable rates of teachers (respondents)

Figure 3.3.MSA vs. AA use by teachers in the classroom

Figure 3.4. Frequency of teachers’ use of AA in Ibn Msaib PS

Figure 3.5. Frequency of teachers’ use of AA in Mustapha Chiali PS

Figure 3.6. Teachers’ use of AA in Ibn Msaib vs. M. Chiali PS

Figure 3.7. Pupils’ use of MSA vs AA in class

Figure 3.8. Pupils’ understanding skill in MSA in class

Figure 3.9. Pupils’ perception about learning MSA

Figure 3.10. Pupils’ proficiency in speaking MSA

Figure 3.11. Percentages of the respondents’ assumption of G1 gender

Figure 3.12. Percentages of the respondents’ assumption of G2 gender

Figure 3.13. Pupils’ selection of the younger guise

Figure 3.14. Pupils’ affirmation of guises’ pleasantness

Figure 3.15. Pupils’ attitudes towards G1 (MSA)

Figure 3.16. Pupils’ attitudes towards G2 (AA)

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

General Introduction

Diglossia is that sociolinguistic phenomenon that characterizes the Arab world in general and Algeria in particular. The term refers to the existence of two forms of the same language, the standard and the vernacular. The Arabic language is seen as a typical example that shows clearly this phenomenon which means that it consists of two distinct varieties: Modern Standard Arabic functions as the High variety (H hereafter), as it is used in formal contexts like administration, religious sermons, radio broadcastings, editorials in newspapers and most importantly as a medium of instruction. Algerian Arabic, on the other hand, has no official status, as it functions as the Low variety (L hereafter). It is thus, used in day-to-day conversations and more relaxed settings such as family and friends. In a number of situations, only H is appropriate while in others L is more suitable.

One of the most important issues that characterize Algerian formal education is that the language that is prescribed in the official text as the language of instruction, differs from the pupils’ mother tongue namely in vocabulary, phonology, grammar and syntax. In fact, Arabic diglossia has strong impact on the educational sphere since the vernacular seems to be the predominant variety used as a medium of communication between teachers and pupils in the various classroom situations. Some sociolinguists attribute the low quality results of education in the Arab world to the diglossic situation in classrooms and to the linguistic distance between MSA and the different colloquial forms.

In the Algerian speech community, all children are exposed to the low variety at home whereas the High variety is learned through access to formal instruction. Though several scholars claim that Arab children have no contact with MSA until they enter school, some of them have some exposure to Standard Arabic before entering school through television programmes, particularly in cartoons and documentaries, in addition to literary events like stories. However, this exposure might be very limited depending on the environment to which the child belongs.

This dissertation highlights the impact of Arabic diglossia on formal instruction among first grade pupils in Tlemcen primary schools. In parallel, it indicates the impact of such a phenomenon on pupils’ linguistic proficiency in MSA use in classroom interaction. In this study, our reference to the term ‘diglossia’ may be restricted to cases in which H and L are considered as versions of the same language but H is no one’s mother tongue.

In an attempt to treat the issue, an overall question is raised: to what extent does the phenomenon of diglossia affect the learning process among first grade pupils in primary schools?

From this general question, it has been thought of the necessity to derive other research questions in order to facilitate our investigation. In a nutshell, our study tries to answer the following questions:

1- Knowing that MSA is the medium implemented in formal instruction in the whole Arab world, we wonder what form of Arabic is actually used in classroom interaction.
2- What are the main language difficulties that pupils encounter in classroom interaction?
3- What are the pupils’ attitudes towards MSA in classroom interaction? Trying to answer these questions, the following hypotheses are put forward:

1- Though MSA is the school language, Algerian Arabic is often used supposedly to facilitate the transition from home to school.
2- Pupils are confronted with two varieties of Arabic: MSA and AA, and thus, this certainly creates a feeling of linguistic insecurity among them.
3- Most pupils display positive attitudes towards MSA because of its overall association with Islam.

The present research work is composed of three inter-linked chapters. The first chapter is devoted to the definition of some basic sociolinguistic key-concepts upon which our study is based, namely language and dialect, language planning and language attitudes. The chapter focuses mainly on the phenomenon of diglossia in Arabic and its relation to the field of education. It also gives a brief reflection on the status of MSA in the Arab world, in addition to the exposure of Arab pupils to MSA.

The second chapter provides an overview on today’s sociolinguistic situation in Algeria with the aim of showing the language varieties present in the Algerian linguistic scene. The chapter emphasizes on the process of Arabisation, in addition to the various sociolinguistic phenomena that characterize the Algerian state, namely diglossia, bilingualism and code-switching.

The third chapter elucidates the methodology and the research instruments used to gather the valid data which are presented and examined both quantitatively and qualitatively. It also interprets the results and discusses the findings accordingly.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Chapter One : Some Basic Sociolinguistic Key-Concepts

1.1. Introduction
1.2. Language and Dialect
1.2.1. Language Definition
1.2.2. Dialect Defined
1.3. Language Planning
1.3.1. Kinds of Language Planning
1.3.1.1. Status Planning
1.3.1.2. Corpus Planning
1.3.1.3. Acquisition Planning
1.4. Diglossia and Bilingualism
1.4.1. Diglossia Defined
1.4.1.1. Arabic Diglossia
1.4.1.2. Diglossia and Education
1.4.2. Bilingualism
1.5. Language Contact Dynamics
1.5.1. Borrowings
1.5.2. Code-switching and code-mixing
1.6. MSA and its Status in the Arab World
1.6.1. MSA and Education
1.6.2. Exposure of Arab Pupils to MSA
1.7. Language Attitudes
1.7.1. The concept of ‘Attitude’
1.7.2. Attitudes towards Diglossia
1.8. Conclusion
1.1. Introduction

It is well-known that Arab communities are diglossic,¹ i.e. communities in which two varieties, H (MSA) and L (colloquial Arabic) ‘exist side by side’ (Ferguson, 1959) and are used alternatively for different functions. Nevertheless, MSA has a sacred status amongst all Arabs as it is the closest variety of the Classical Arabic, language of the Holy Qur’an and the medium of instruction in all Arab countries.

This chapter tends to clarify a set of sociolinguistic key- concepts that are of crucial importance to our research work. First, a distinction is drawn between language and dialect, two important terms for the study of language policy and diglossia. Secondly, this chapter synthesizes literature about other interesting concepts, notably education, bilingualism and code switching, and ends up with a survey about language attitudes.

1.2. Language and Dialect

The terms ‘language’ and ‘dialect’ have been the² concern of many linguists who attempt to draw water-tight definitions. Non-specialists commonly perceive some difference in kind between the two concepts. But, in fact, the question that is often asked is in the following form: ‘is X a dialect or a language?’ This is a question that specialists are unable to answer because of the complexity of language as a whole.

1.2.1. Language Definition

Language originates from the French word ‘langage’, which ³ in turn derives from Latin ‘lingua’. Sapir (1921:8)1, for instance views language as “a purely human and non- instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desires by means of voluntarily produced symbols”. In the same vein, Hall (1968:158)2defines language as “the institution whereby humans communicate and interact with each other by means of habitually used-oral-auditory arbitrary symbols”.

In fact, both Sapir and Hall view language as a purely human institution and a system of symbols assigned, as it were, for the purpose of communication. Hall uses the term ‘institution’ to clarify the fact that the language used by a particular society, is part of the culture of that society.

Admittedly, the terms ‘language’ and ‘dialect’ are usually perceived as non- technical notions by scholars because of their ambiguity, and thus, the division between the two is rather fuzzy as the distinction is not linguistic, but most of the time social. In this line of thought, Trudgill (1995:145) tells us: “it is only linguists who fully understand the extent to which these questions are not linguistic questions.”

Furthermore, the famous statement proposed by Max Weinreich3⁴ (1945) “a language is a dialect with an army and a navy” underlines the importance of political power and sovereign nations in determining what counts as a language or a dialect. In the same vein, Waurdaugh suggests that the concepts of ‘power’ and ‘solidarity’ may be helpful in understanding what is occurring. He (2006: 30-31) says that: “Power requires some kind of asymmetrical relationship between entities”, whereas solidarity “is a feeling of equality that people have with one another”. Language can, thus, be considered as the powerful dialect which has gained such a privilege because of non-linguistic factors.

It is worth pointing out that users of a language are essentially speakers of dialects and the standard language4itself is formerly a dialect and, thus, from a linguistic stand point, no dialect is in any way ‘superior’ or ‘better’ than any other. Baker (2000:63) tells us that: “the person who says ‘I ain’t done nothin yet’ conveys meaning just as effective as the person who says ‘I haven’t done anything yet’”.

It has been noticed by Haugen (1966a), that language and dialect ⁵ are ambiguous notions and it is possible to assert that “X is a dialect of language Y or Y has the dialects X and Z (never for example, Y is a language of dialect X)”. (Haugen, 1966:923). In other words, if X is a dialect of Y, then Y cannot be the dialect of X. Therefore, Haugen considers the relationship between ‘languages’ and ‘dialect’ as a super-ordinate one, and, thus, dialects, are regarded as subdivisions of a particular language from a linguistic viewpoint.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Another distinction between language and dialects is a question ⁶ of ‘prestige’. RP English, for example, is considered more prestigious than some other regional or social dialects (Cockney English, Yorkshire English, Cardiff English …). However, any dialect may evolve to a ‘standard language’, a prestige position that can be reached as a result of cultural and political influences. In this line of thought, Hudson (1996:32) argues:

Whether some variety is called a language or a dialect depends on how much prestige one thinks it has, and for most people this is a clear cut matter, which depends on whether it is used in formal writing.

Most people refer to the standard form of their state as ‘language’,⁷ by contrast to forms of speech which are not written as ‘dialects’. This can be noticed, for instance, with most Algerian individuals who perceive MSA as the most ‘prestigious’, ‘correct’, and ‘pure’ variety for religious and literary purposes, while their colloquial and regional dialects are considered as ‘non-prestigious’, ‘general’, or ‘common’ dialects used in daily life activities.

In education, there is much controversy over which ⁸ language should be used in schools, especially at the lower primary level. In fact, in their educational strategies, all the Arab-speech communities state that MSA is the medium of instruction in schools. In Maamouri’s (1998: 11) terms, language is “a means and a carrier of knowledge and learning”. He (ibid) continues stating that “language becomes central to the instruction process, and its mastery is an indicator of educational success or failure”.

1.2.2. Dialect Defined

In popular usage, the term ‘dialect’ often denotes ⁹ a supposed deviation, or ‘inferior’ speech pattern from the accepted norm. But fortunately, thanks to advanced research, dialect is actually perceived as a form of language like any other one characterized by a vocabulary, a grammar, and a pronunciation. This term originates from Greek ‘dialectos’ to mean ‘way of speaking’, and has been defined differently by various specialists. In Trudgill’s words (1992:23), a dialect is:

A variety of language which differs grammatically, phonologically and lexically from other varieties and which is associated with a particular geographical area and/or with a particular social class or status group.

More recently, Akmajian (2001: 280) offers a general definition of the term by stating that dialect is:

A distinct form of a language, possibly associated with a recognizable regional, social, or ethnic group, differentiated from other forms of the language by specific linguistic features (e.g., pronunciation, or vocabulary, or grammar or any combination of these).

Additionally, the Free Online Dictionary5defines the term dialect as:

A regional or social variety of a language distinguished¹⁰ by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists: Cockney is a dialect of English.

Dialect, thus, is a sub-category of language which can be either of a regional or social nature differing in some aspects of grammar, vocabulary, as well as pronunciation from other forms of the same language. However, dialects are no more considered as substandard or deviant from the societally accepted norms, because speaking dialects are in fact, dialects of a language.

Hence, every language has its dialects and every speaker of a language speaks at least one dialect and/or accent. This latter is, sometimes confused with dialect, though they are distinguished on the basis of level of analysis: while an accent refers to the speaker’s way of pronunciation, a dialect is distinguished from other dialects of the same language on at least three levels namely: pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary.

Dialects are generally discussed in terms of social or regional varieties: a regional dialect can be simply viewed as a form of language spoken in a particular geographical area, i.e. it is a variety associated with a given geographical location. We can speak, for example, of Parisian French or Yorkshire English. For Waurdaugh (2006:139), defining regional dialects is quite an easy task. He argues:

One basic assumption in dialect geography is that regional dialects are really quite easy to sample: Just find one or two people in the particular location you wish to investigate, people who are preferably elderly and untraveled, interview them, and ask them how they pronounce particular words, refer to particular objects, and phrase particular kinds of utterances.

Therefore, regional dialects tend to differ in the words people¹¹ use for the same object or in the different pronunciations for the same word. In fact, dialect differences are not only geographical; boundaries can be of a social nature. In other words, the term dialect does not refer to geographical differences only, but also, to speech differences associated with various social groups or classes. Moreover, many factors may contribute in the social variation such as age, sex, occupation, religion, cultural background and education. Waurdaugh (2006:49) says in this respect:

Whereas regional dialects are geographically based, social dialects originate among social groups and are related to a variety of factors, the principal ones apparently being social class, religion, and ethnicity.

In the Algerian context, dialect refers to either ‘regional’ or ‘social’ variety which may be distributed in geographical lines called ‘isoglosses’ on maps showing a boundary for each area in order to separate a dialect from another. For example the expression “he said” is pronounced /al/ in Tlemcen, /kal/ in Ghazaouet and /qal/ or /gal/ in other regions. Another example may be given about the word “egg” which is “wladada” in Tlemcen, “baida” in Oran and “adma” in some other areas.

Dialects of the same language are supposed to be mutually¹² intelligible, i.e. if speakers of dialect ‘A’ understand those of dialect ‘B’, they are said to have mutual intelligibility, but, in fact , there might be some counter cases: If we consider Chinese dialects like Cantonese and Mandarin, though they are ethnically related, they are mutually unintelligible.

In order to avoid any negative connotation the dialect engenders, sociolinguists suggest the use of the neutral term ‘variety ‘to refer to any identifiable kind of language. Duranti (1997:70-71) says in this respect:

[…] sociolinguists prefer the term variety (also linguistic variety or variety of language), to be thought of as a set of communicative forms and norms for their use that are restricted to a particular group or community and sometimes even to particular activities. Sociolinguists’ varieties might cover what other researchers call languages, dialects, registers, or even styles. The advantage of using the term variety is that it does not carry the usual implications associated with words like “language” and “dialect” and can cover the most diverse situations… Yet, other problems may be of political nature, i.e., concerned with whether a dialect may become a language or the other way round. This interplay of status allows us to tackle a sociolinguistic issue, worthy of interest, notably that of language planning.

1.3. Language Planning

In its historical perspective, language planning (LP hereafter) is often related to the language unification and purification activities of the “Académie Française” that was established in 1635 by Richelieu. Haugen (1959) is considered as the first who employs the term ‘language planning’ in an introduction of a fourfold planning model in which he depicts the stages of LP as involving respectively: selection, codification, implementation and elaboration, as it is illustrated in the table below:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 1.1 Haugen’s (1983:275) revised language planning model ¹³ with additions (in Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997:29)

Generally speaking, ‘language planning’ refers to the official, government-level activity aiming at establishing which language varieties are used in a particular community and at directing which language varieties are to be used for which purposes in that particular community. Others view it as a dynamic process aiming at changing language functions, language patterns, and language status in a given society. In education, the most important language planning decisions are about the choice of the variety or varieties to be used as the medium of instruction.

LP is a field of sociolinguistics that has been defined in a variety of ways by many scholars. Fishman (1974b:79)6, a prominent sociolinguist, defines the term simply as “the organized pursuit of solutions to language problems, typically at the national level”. Here, the term ‘national level’ indicates the historical importance in LP of nation building and related processes of national identity formation involving language standardization. However, the beginning of the academic discipline of language planning was related to decolonization and the language problems of the new emergent states.

Waurdaugh (1992:346) puts it this way: “Language planning is a government¹⁴ authorized long term sustained and conscious effort to offer a language functions in a society for the purpose of solving communication”. In this view, a language that can be used as a common means of communication is in fact a medium of intercommunication that overcomes the diversity of various mother tongues to have smooth functioning of the institutions and regular development of a given nation. Policy makers are, thus, responsible for making courageous decisions and taking into account all the available resources.

A wide variety of goals are involved in LP. Indeed, Nahir (2003)7 has recognized eleven language planning goals:

1. Language Purification refers to a prescription of usage in order to preserve the “linguistic purity” of language, protect language from foreign influences, and guard against language deviation from within.
2. Language Revival is the attempt to turn a language with few or no surviving¹⁵ native speakers back into a normal means of communication.
3. Language Reform is a deliberate change in specific aspects of language, like orthography, spelling, or grammar, in order to facilitate use.
4. Language Standardization is any attempt to garner prestige for a regional language or dialect, transforming it into one that is accepted as the major language, or standard language, of a region.
5. Language Spread refers to the attempt to increase the number of speakers of one language at the expense of another.
6. Lexical Modernization or word creation or adaptation.
7. Terminology Unification involves the development of unified terminologies, primarily in technical domains.
8. Stylistic Simplification is mainly a simplification of language usage in lexicon, grammar, and style.
9. Interlingual Communication is the facilitation of linguistic communication between members of distinct speech communities.
10. Language Maintenance refers to preservation of the use of a group’s native language as a first or second language where pressures threaten or cause a decline in the status of the language.
11. Auxiliary-Code Standardization is the standardization of marginal, auxiliary aspects of language such as signs for the deaf, place names, or rules of transliteration and transcription.

By the late1980s and early 1990s, LP has become subject of criticism¹⁶ and according to Spolsky (1998:66): “In the late 1980s, the regular failure of national planning activities seems to have encouraged the more neutral-seeming term, language policy”, sometimes called ‘language engineering’, ‘language development’, or ‘language management’.

Additionally, Spolsky (2004:217) argues:

Language policy is about choice. It may be the choice of a specific sound, or expression, or of a specific variety of language. It may be the choice regularly made by an individual, or a socially defined group of individuals, or a body with authority over a defined group of individuals.

Moreover, Baldaugh (1994), Shiffman (1996), and Kaplan and Baldauf¹⁷ (2003)8 noticed that there is a clear difference in denotation between “language policy” and “language planning”. Whereas the former refers to decision-making processes and the setting of goals, the latter refers to the implementation of plans for attaining those specific goals.

The field of LP can be divided into two main interesting areas, namely: language planning and language in education planning. In the latter area, language learning should be relatively linked to issues of culture and society. Lomax Trappes (1990:95) 9 says that, in order for a language to function as a medium of instruction, it should meet three criteria; first, it should be accepted by all concerned parents, teachers, students, and society as a whole. Second, it should be teachable to the required standard. At last, the language should be used in at least some domains outside the educational system.

Cooper (1989:45) offers a narrower definition of language planning: “LP refers to deliberate efforts to influence the behaviour of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their language codes”, i.e. as an intervention aiming at influencing language or language use, and the term ‘efforts’ refers to the decisions taken by policy makers to evolve a language and to implement it for specific functions. These actions are referred to as, status planning, corpus planning and acquisition planning.

1.3.1. Kinds of Language Planning

Theorists agree to assign LP three major kinds labeled respectively: status planning, corpus planning and acquisition planning. Although all three are interrelated, they address distinct social issues.

1.3.1.1. Status Planning

Status planning refers to deliberate efforts undertaken by policy¹⁸ makers to allocate the functions of languages and literacies within a given society. It involves status choices, making a particular language or variety an ‘official language’, a ‘national language’, etc. In Cooper’s terms (1989: 32), status planning refers “to the allocation of languages or language varieties to given functions, e.g. medium of instruction, official language, vehicle of mass communication”.

Moreover, Kaplan and Baldauf (1997: 30) argue that: “status planning can be defined as those aspects of language planning which reflect primarily social issues and concerns and hence are external to the language(s) being planned”. The status issues that make up a language plan are: the selection of languages for specific functions and the implementation of those languages for those specific functions.

In this regard, status planning is a purely political activity which refers to those efforts undertaken by policy makers concerning what functions each language should have in a given nation, or nation state. Such a process usually occurs when countries and nations become decolonized. The situation becomes more complicated in independent states with the choice of which variety of a language or language should be used in education and all formal and institutional domains. In Algeria, for instance, after independence, there was an intricate linguistic issue in the existence of a linguistic diversity, MSA and the French language on the one hand, and Tamazight and Algerian Arabic on the other. Lamamra (2006)10 mentions that, in Algeria, more than forty years after independence, the importance of these languages is still being deliberated by civil society and politicians alike. She adds that the Algerian language policy raised and continues to raise a number of questions on the identity of the Algerian people.

Language status decision also becomes more complex when such a process produces a situation where some people need to learn a language that they do not normally speak. According to Kloss (1969)11, language status is linked to four subtypes:

1. The origin of the language used officially with respect to the speech community.
2. The developmental status of a language.
3. The juridical status with respect to the speech community.
4. The ratio of users of a language to total population.

In the Arab world, there seems to be a conflict about the status of Arabic in the educational sphere because of the existence of the well- known phenomenon, ‘diglossia’ which is the principal concern of our research work. According to Maamouri (1998), the problem lies in the fact that the Arabic language that children learn at school differs from the language spoken at home or in the street.

Once a language has been fixed as appropriate for use in an official situation, its structure needs to be fixed or even modified .This process of modification is known as corpus planning.

1.3.1.2. Corpus Planning

Corpus planning is a fundamental activity in any language ¹⁹ planning process referring to the prescriptive intervention in the structure and content of a language. Such a process involves “activities such as coining new terms, reforming spelling, and adopting a new script. It refers, in short, to the creation of new forms, the modification of old ones, or the selection from alternative forms in a spoken or written code”. Cooper (1989:31).

As opposed to status planning which is political in nature, corpus planning is a purely linguistic activity which attempts to define or reform the standard language by modifying forms in spelling, pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar. The reforms of languages such as Hebrew and Turkish are perfect examples of corpus planning. In Maamouri’s terms (1998: 12), corpus planning is a process which “seeks to develop a variety of a language or a language, usually to standardize it by providing it with the means and tools for serving as many functions as possible in society”.

Something else worth mentioning is that Kloss (1969)12 is considered as the first to draw a distinction between ‘corpus planning’ and ‘status planning’. Whereas the former refers to modifications in structure, vocabulary, or spelling, or even the adoption of a new script, the latter is concerned with whether the social status of a language should be lowered or raised. Ferguson (1968) employs the concept of ‘language development’ rather than ‘corpus planning’. In a nutshell, he describes its three major stages as graphization, standardization and modernization.

Graphization refers to the process of developing a writing system. It also refers to development, selection, and modification of scripts for a language. An illustrative example would be the use of Latin alphabet as the writing system of some African languages such as ‘Hausa’, ‘Fula’ and ‘Manding’. For purely political reasons, the writing system of a language can be regraphicized as is the case of Russian which moved from the Roman script to the Cyrillic in order to reinforce Russian identity. Corpus planners have the option of using an existing system or inventing a new one. The Moroccan linguist Ahmad Lakhdar Ghazal13 proposed an approach for Arabic script reform aiming at simplifying the orthographic variation by using one sole graphic form in all positions. However, his suggestion came to nothing, as, for Arabs, the Arabic script is “a faithful preserver and gatekeeper of their timeless heritage”. (Maamouri, 1998: 56).

Another important process in corpus planning implies standardization which aims either at reducing or eliminating diversity. Wardaugh (2006: 33) defines standardization as: “the process by which a language has been codified in some way. That process usually involves the development of such things as grammars, spelling books and dictionaries”.

Indeed, standardization is the process by which a language takes precedence over other social and regional dialects of a language i.e., a variety of a language highly accepted by members of a speech community may be viewed as “a supra-dialectal norm” (Ferguson & Huebner, 1996: 43) and as Wardaugh (2006: 34) reports, “once a language is standardized, it becomes possible to teach it in a deliberate manner”.

Modernization is the last process in corpus planning. It enables language users to speak and write about technical topics especially in academic and scientific domains. Modernization also refers to the creation of new terms for new concepts. In most cases, the process consists of borrowing, and sometimes adapting new technical terms from the language in which they were created and is therefore called technicalization (Webb & Kembo-Sure 2000)14. The expansion of the lexicon which permits the language to discuss topics in modern domains is one of the most significant forces in modernization. The Arabic language, for instance, has experienced rapid expansion of technical terms in textbooks in schools. Yet, the language in question cannot be used in school without having access through the implementation phase called ‘acquisition planning’.

1.3.1.3. Acquisition Planning

Cooper (1989) states a third activity of LP besides status planning and corpus planning known as ‘acquisition planning’ that follows from this definition: “language policy- making involves decisions concerning the teaching and use of language, and their careful formulation by those empowered to do so, for the guidance of others”. (Cooper, 1989: 31). In fact, Cooper stresses the need of this category of language planning mainly because planning energy is directed toward language spread and especially through education.

Acquisition planning, also termed ‘Language-in-education planning’ (Kaplan & Bardauf,1997), is another type of language planning in which a national state or local government system aims at influencing aspects of language, such as language status, distribution, and literacy through education. More recently, Paolo Colluzzi (2007: 138) argues that acquisition planning refers “to any effort leading to the acquisition of the language on the part of the people targeted by the language planning”. Status planning aims at increasing the number of functions of the language by contrast to acquisition planning which aims at increasing the number of users of the language. Spolsky (2004) enumerates the possible domains for acquisition planning notably, the workplace, religious organizations, the media, and more particularly education.

Education is essential to LP so that acquisition planning is named after it. Spolsky (2004)15 says in this respect: “of all domains of LP, one of the most important is the school”. Furthermore, Hoffman (1991:214) points out that “the education system is by far the most important tool for implementing a government’s language planning policy”. In other words, education is one of the most important domains of acquisition planning.

The British colonial education system proposed a solution that consists of using the child’s mother tongue as a variety for school instruction in the first years. Yet, educationists may be faced with the dilemma as to the choice of the appropriate variety for the medium of instruction, and when to put an end at using the mother tongue. Thus, LP assigns a language to formal domains and leaves the vernaculars for less formal contexts, i.e. to daily speech where the mother tongue is used. Such a distinction of function allows us to consider an interesting aspect of language contact called ‘diglossia’, (in addition to bilingualism).

1.4. Diglossia and Bilingualism

Some linguists attempt to draw a distinction between diglossia and bilingualism in a very interesting way. Whereas the former refers to a situation where two varieties of the same language occur for variant contexts, the latter refers to the ability of an individual to use two or more languages.

1.4.1. Diglossia Defined

Sociolinguists generally agree that the notion of ‘diglossia’ refers to a situation where a given speech community employs two or more varieties of a language, a high variety and a low variety, for distinct purposes. In Ferguson’s (1959: 338)16 view point, diglossia is likely to come into being when (1) ‘there is a sizable body of literature in a language closely related to (or even identical with) the natural language of the community… [and when (2)] literacy in the community is limited to a small elite, [and]…a suitable period of time, of the order of several centuries, passes from the establishment of (1) and (2)’ .

Diglossia, a widespread phenomenon in the world was first introduced by the German linguist Karl Krumbacher (1902), in his book ‘ Das Problem der Modernen Griechischen Schiftsprache’, and particularly in his study about the nature, the origin, and development of diglossia with special reference to Arabic and Greek cases (Zughoul 1980)). More reference goes later on to the writer Psichari (1928)17 who considers the Greek situation as diglossic because Dimotiki is used as the medium of everyday communication, while Katherevousa is used for writing and reflects Classical Greek more than the popular form. However, the common view is that it was the French linguist and anthropologist William Marçais (1930-1931)) who first attempts to describe this sociolinguistic situation in the Arab world as “la concurrence entre une langue savante écrite et une langue vulgaire parfois exclusivement parlée”18i.e., as a competition between the literary language and the vernacular. The diachronic evolution of the concept ‘diglossia’ has been proposed by Serir (2011/2012: 78) as it is illustrated in the table below:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table1.2: The Diachronic Evolution of the Concept ‘Diglossia’.

A few decades later, in his famous article ‘Diglossia’ in word, the American linguist Ferguson (1959) re-introduced the concept of diglossia into the English literature on sociolinguistics with special reference to four distinct linguistic situations that display a diglossic character: Modern Greek, Swiss German, Haitian Creole and Arabic. In each of these situations, there is a high variety and a low variety, each serving specific functions. In Greece, the two varieties are: Katharevousa (H) and Dimotiki (L). In Switzerland, they are Standard German (H) and Swiss German (L). In Haiti, the two varieties are: Standard French (H) and Haitian Creole (L). In Arabic, they are Classical Arabic (H) and the various colloquial dialects. The most frequently quoted definition is Ferguson’s (1959: 336) according to which:

Diglossia is a relatively stable language situation in which , in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech community, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes, but is not used by any sector of the community for ordinary conversation.

According to Ferguson, a diglossic situation is characterized by a stable co- existence of two linguistically related language varieties, one high (H) variety that is prestigious and one low (L) variety with no official status which are used for two sets of complementary social functions. In a diglossic context, the high variety is the written code used for formal, public and official functions, contrary to the low variety which is an exclusively spoken code used in ordinary conversation. Thus, in addition to the existence of distinct speech varieties, Ferguson (1959: 336) also emphasized the role of a sizable body of literature and restricted literacy “to a small elite” in diglossic speech communities. He also exemplifies situations which imply the use of one of the varieties to the exclusion of the other as indicated in the following table:

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Table 1.3: Situations for H and L in diglossic communities (adapted from Ferguson 1959:236).

Ferguson’s theory on diglossia is multidimensional since it points out nine separate rubrics in which the high and the low varieties may differ: Function, prestige, literary heritage, acquisition, standardization, stability, grammar, lexicon and phonology.

a. Function: There are some circumstances where the use of the high variety is appropriate such as university lectures, poetry and sermons, and other contexts where the low variety is more suitable, as, for instance, when conversing with family, colleagues and friends. Ferguson (1959) provides the example of the use of al-fus  a, the high variety of Arabic, in sermons in mosques, contrary to al ‘ammiya, the low variety which never displaces H and it is used in people’s day-to day communication. Therefore, H and L have different functions. Ferguson (1959: 235) says in this respect: “One of the most important features of diglossia is the specialization of function for H and L”.
b. Prestige: Speakers regard the high variety as better, aesthetic, more beautiful and more logical than L as far as prestige is concerned. Therefore, speakers show positive attitudes towards H, and L is negatively valued as it is seen as ‘less worthy’, ‘vulgar’ and ‘corrupt’.
c. Literary heritage: There is a substantial amount of written literature in H which is held in high esteem by the community, while folk literature is written in L.
d. Acquisition: It is obvious that children acquire L as a mother tongue. Adults, therefore converse with their off spring using the low variety. The high variety is learned later on through formal instruction. Thus, as Hudson (1996: 50) says, “no one acquires H as a mother tongue; H is learned through school”.
e. Standardization: Native grammarians standardize H since it is the language of literature and official contexts. In addition to the existence of grammars, dictionaries, treatises on pronunciation, styles and so on; there is an established norm for pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary which allows variation only within certain limits in H.
f. Stability: Diglossia may persist for centuries, and evidence in some diglossic situations seems to show that the two varieties can last well over a thousand years. However, communicative tensions may arise between them because of many factors. Increasing literacy, for instance, may lead intellectuals to switch to H while using L. This phenomenon has been illustrated by Ferguson by the appearance of ‘Greek mikti’, ‘Arabic al-lugha-al-wusta’ and ‘Haitian Créole de Salon’.
g. Grammar: One of the major characteristics of H is the grammar system. Ferguson (1959: 435) calls H “grammatically more complex”. The high variety has grammatical categories that are absent in the low variety and has an inflectional system of nouns and verbs which is much reduced or not present in the latter.
h. Lexicon: The high variety includes in its lexicon some terms, which have no equivalents in the low variety. In other words, H and L varieties may have distinct terms for the same object. For example, [Jahaba] in H, and [mGa] in L meaning ‘he has gone’.
i. Phonology: The phonological systems of H and L are slightly different. There might be sounds present in H and totally absent in L and vice versa. An illustrative example from Arabic would be the phoneme /q/ also pronounced as /g/, //, or /k/ depending on the dialect.

These nine areas make up the ground on which differences between²⁰ H and L are established in diglossic speech communities. Furthermore, according to Ferguson, diglossia phenomenon differs from the standard-with-dialect languages for various reasons, mainly because H is not used in ordinary conversation. In this regard, he (1959: 337) claims that:

Diglossia differs from the more widespread standard-with-dialects in that no segment of the speech community in diglossia regularly uses H (the prestigious variety) as a means of ordinary conversation, and any attempt to do so is felt to be either pedantic or artificial. In the more usual standard- with-dialects situation, the standard is often similar to the variety of a certain region or social group which is used in ordinary conversation more or less naturally by members of the group and as a superposed variety by others.

Ferguson’s classical definition of diglossia, however, seems to be a simple suggestion that lacks clarity as well as objectivity. In fact, Ferguson himself has acknowledged his weak points in a more recent article which he has entitled ‘Diglossia Revisited’ (1991) where although he gave new supports to his original article, he specified that “his definition for diglossia was putative”.(Freeman, 1996). Indeed, Ferguson (1991) himself asserts that: “Of the many weaknesses that can be attributed to the original diglossia article, let me mention seven that I have found especially salient and troublesome- things I would certainly treat differently if I were to write the article today”19. These seven weaknesses are respectively: Object of description, variety, linguistic distance, larger picture, attitudes, power and interactional dynamics.

Later on, some scholars attempted to ‘extend’ the definition of the term diglossia which was described by Ferguson (1959) as a situation where two varieties of a language exist side by side in a speech community, with each having a definite role to play. Fishman (1967) is one of those scholars who suggested an extended version of diglossia to characterize other bilingual and multilingual situations where the H and L varieties are genetically unrelated. Indeed, Fishman (1967) extended the concept of diglossia to include “several separate codes, and recognized two types of compartmentalization: functional and social/ political”. (Chen, 1997: 4). Fishman provides some examples such as Biblical Hebrew and Yiddish for many Jews, Spanish and Guarani in Paraguay, and Standard English and Caribbean Creole. In each of these situations, the different languages have quite distinct functions.

Wardaugh (2006) mentions the example of Spanish and Guarani that exists in what Fishman (1967) calls an ‘extended diglossic’ relationship. Spanish is the high variety used in formal occasions. Guarani, however, is the low variety used in most casual occasions. Fishman (ibid), then discussed the relatedness of the two varieties of the language in the diglossic case and introduced the notion of diglossia with/without bilingualism for the fact that he based his definition on language function rather than on language form.

Many sociolinguists defined the term ‘diglossia’ in different ways, but a diversity in the terminology has been used to refer to diglossia: Ferguson (1959) proposed the term ‘classical’, while Fishman (1967) suggested the term ‘extended’. Kloss proposed the term ‘in-diglossia’ for cases where H and L are closely related, while ‘out-diglossia’ is reserved for situations where two languages are unrelated or at best distantly related. Myers-Scotton (1986) proposed the term ‘narrow’ to refer to Ferguson’s original version and ‘broad’ to portray Fishman’s expansion of the discussion while others prefer using the terms ‘ endo diglossia’ vs ‘exo diglossia’.

This terminology variation paved the way to the creation of more complex definitions that include other kinds of diglossia. Abdulaziz Mkilifi (1978) proposed the term ‘triglossia’ with special reference to contexts where three varieties are involved. He took Tanzania as an example where there are three varieties in practice: Swahili as H, the vernacular as L and English which is higher than Swahili. Romaine (2000), in turn, exemplified this triglossic situation in Tunisia, where the high varieties are MSA and French and the low variety is dialectal Arabic.

Platt (1977) considers situations where more than three varieties exist. Those situations are referred to as ‘Polyglossia’. Muller & Ball (2005: 61) gave the example of Malaysia where numerous languages co-exist. Romaine (2000) took Singapore as an example where English, Mandarin, Tamil and Malay share co-official status, but each of these has local low variants. In fact, diverse examples are found, but as it does not fit our principal objectives, there is no need to list all of them. The present study deals with the classical version of diglossia where two varieties of the same language co-exist within the same speech community; H is reserved to formal contexts and L to less formal ones.

1.4.1.1. Arabic Diglossia

According to Ferguson (1959), a diglossic context is defined by two features: The first is a distinction between the written and spoken modes. The second is a rigid complementarity of two sets of functions performed by two distinct, though linguistically related codes.

From a sociolinguistic perspective, diglossia is a typical characteristic of the twenty two countries in which Arabic is an official language. The high variety, MSA also known as ‘al-fus a’, Standard Arabic or Literary Arabic which is a modern descendant from Classical Arabic (the language of Qur’an, the holy book of Islam) is used in education, administration, literature, and for formal speech functions such as religious sermons and broadcasts. This variety which is shared by all Arab communities alternates with the low variety, also called ‘al ‘ammiya’ (meaning the common) commonly used for everyday conversation and folk literature.

In diglossic contexts, speakers usually perceive H as the ‘real’ language, more prestigious, more beautiful and more logical by contrast to L which is commonly viewed as less prestigious, ‘impure’, or ‘incorrect’ usage. In Arabic, people talk about the high variety as being ‘pure’ Arabic and the dialects as being ‘corrupt’ forms. In Haeri’s (2003:43) terms, Classical Arabic (CA hereafter) is perceived as a “language whose aesthetic and musical qualities move its listeners, creating feelings of spirituality, nostalgia and community”. To this, he adds that CA “socialized people into rituals of Islam, affirms their identity as Muslims and connects them to the realm of purity, morality and God”. (Ibid).

The linguistic distance between MSA and the spoken vernaculars is illustrated by various diglossic variables, or linguistic structures that survived in MSA, but disappeared from spoken Arabic. According to Saiegh –Haddad (2003: 433), these variables include, but are not limited to:

1. Important lexical differences, even in commonplace everyday words and functional terms;
2. Inflections denoting gender, number, and tense, most of which have disappeared from all colloquial Arabic dialects; and
3. Important varying changes in structure with sounds in writing, which have dropped out of everyday usage (Maamouri, 1998: 47–48).

A non- linguistic characteristic of Arabic diglossia is that the high variety is learned through formal education, contrary to the low variety which is acquired naturally from birth. H possesses an established norm for grammar, orthography, pronunciation, and vocabulary by contrast to L which lacks a written grammar. In the Arabic case and in the middle ages, aspects of colloquial Arabic are described negatively in a literary aspect called ‘lahn al ãmma’, that is treatises on the mistakes of language made by ordinary people aiming at preventing the cultivated class from being influenced by dialectal Arabic and making errors when using the standard language.

The earliest work of this kind is ‘lahn al awamm’ proposed by the Andalusi grammarian al-Zubaydi (928-989) who expresses in the preface of his work, the difference between the literary and the oral language:

It is a question of alterations, owed to our ‘ãmma’ [common people], which has modified the pronunciation (of certain words) or adapted the meaning, and has been followed in this practice by a great many people, to the point where these incorrect usages have infiltrated into the works of poets, and the most eminent scribes and functionaries include them in their correspondence and make use of depraved expressions in their conversations. (Pellat, 1986: 606)20.

More recently, heated discussions have developed over the use of the term ‘Arabic diglossia’. Indeed, Ferguson’s classical version that diglossia is “two varieties of a language exist[ing] side by side … with each having a definite role to play” (1959: 325) should be re-evaluated through the use of the term ‘Arabic multiglossia’ since more than two varieties of Arabic come at play. The coalescence between CA and colloquial Arabic seems to pave the way to the creation of a new variety of Arabic known as the middle variety used in semi-formal situations. This is the main reason why diglossia in the Arab world is suggested to be rather a multiglossia. Mahmoud (1986: 239) says in this respect: “the emergence of a new, intermediate form of Arabic called Educated Spoken Arabic is commonly cited as evidence that the diglossic situation is undergoing a dramatic change (Abdel-Masiih, 1975; Bishai, 1966; Mahmoud 1984, 1962).”

Essentially, MSA, Educated Spoken Arabic (ESA henceforth) and colloquial Arabic constitute a continuum from which, native speakers may select the available variety at different times and occasions. In fact, Ferguson himself acknowledges that Arabic diglossic contexts are evolving towards a type of continuum when he (1970) claims that “Intermediate between the two varieties, relatively ‘pure’ Classical and Colloquial, there are many shadings of ‘middle language’”.

20 In Cabo Aseguinolaza, F. (2010). A Comparative History of Literatures in the Iberian Peninsula. Vol N°1. Benjamins John. Philadelphia. USA.

Moreover, Badawi (1973) posits five levels of speech when analyzing the situation in Egypt, and it is probably the first investigation in which a scholar speaks of a continuum of different levels. These levels are termed as follows: a) fusa-at-turà, purely traditional Classical Arabic; b) fusa-al-ãsr, Modern Standard Arabic; c) ãmmiyat al- mutaqqafin, Educated Spoken Arabic; d) ãmmiyat al- mutanawwirin, Semi-literate Spoken Arabic and e) ãmmiyat al- ummiyin, Illiterate Spoken Arabic (Badawi, 1973: 16).

Ferguson’s description of functions in diglossic contexts has been further criticized by El Hassan (1977) who asserts that the functions are not as separate as it may have appeared to Ferguson. Educated speakers and academicians can use elements of MSA in their daily speech. El Hassan (ibid) suggests that colloquial Arabic can be used even in a formal setting where MSA is more appropriate, such as a sermon in the mosque.

It is therefore safely claimed that there are various varieties of Arabic: MSA which takes its normative rules from CA, the variety deserved to be the language of Qur’an; ESA also called Formal Standard Arabic meaning the vernacular of the educated people, in addition to the different colloquial forms, i.e. the different dialects spoken differently in the Arabic speaking communities. Diglossia is undergoing a considerable change in the Arab world and ESA is successfully bridging the gap between varieties for the elite21. Mahmoud (1986: 247) says in this respect:

Diglossia is not an unchanging, stable phenomenon as it may have appeared ²¹ to Ferguson, and ESA is a definite harbinger of change in the Arabic speech community since it seems to be bridging successfully the gap between the two forms of Arabic and increasingly satisfying the communicative needs of its elite.

Therefore, according to Mahmoud (1986), the impact of ESA has been most noticeable in the teaching and learning processes of the Arabic language. The Arab child, for instance, will be exposed for the first time to a language not too far removed from his mother tongue.

[...]

---

¹ Quoted in Lyons, J. (1981: 3).

² Quoted in Lyons, J. (1981:4).

³ Max Weinreich is the father of the famous linguist Uriel Weinreich.

⁴ Romaine (2000 :14) defines a standard language in the following terms : “A standard language is a variety that has been deliberately codified so that it varies minimally in linguistic form but is maximally elaborated in function”.

⁵ http://www.the freedictionary.com/dialect accessed to on January 22nd, 2013 at 16:05.

⁶ Mentioned in Ferguson, G (2006 :1)

⁷ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_planning, accessed to on January 31st, 2013.

⁸ Quoted in Ferguson, G. (2006 :16).

⁹ In Rubagumya, C. (ed.). (1990). Language Education in Africa: Clevedon, Multilingual Methods Ltd.

¹⁰ Lamamra. N. Amel (2006). Do You Speak Algerian?, IBS Journal of Science | Volume 1 Number 2|July 2006 http://www.ibscientific.net

¹¹ Mentioned in Cobarrubias, J. & Fihman, J.A. (1983: 43).

¹² In Cobarrubias, J. & Fishman, J. A. (1983:42).

¹³ Idea mentioned in Maamouri (1998: 57).

¹⁴ http://eprints,ru.ac.za/16/1/dalvit-ma.pdf accessed to on February 2nd, 2013

¹⁵ www.actfl.Org/files/public/languagepolicykeynote.pdf accessed to on February 3rd, 2013.

¹⁶ Quoted in Wardaugh (2006: 91).

¹⁷ Mentioned in Muhammad Umer Azim. (2007). “Multiple Nested Triglossia in Pakistan”.

¹⁸ 18 My personal translation: “the competition between a learned written language and a dialect sometimes exclusively spoken”.

¹⁹ 19 Mentioned in Elgibali, A. (1996:54).

²⁰ In Cabo Aseguinolaza, F. (2010). A Comparative History of Literatures in the Iberian Peninsula. Vol N°1. Benjamins John. Philadelphia. USA

²¹ The ‘elite’ are members of a group or class enjoying high intellectual, social, or economic status