Interdialectical Lexical Compatibility in Arabic: An Analytical Study of the Lexical Relationships Among the Major Syro-lebanese Varieties 9004060413, 9789004060418

Citation preview

INTERDIALECT AL LEXICAL COMPATIBILITY IN ARABIC

STUDIES IN SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS EDITED BY

G. F. PIJPER Emeritus Professor in Arabic Language and Literature in the University of Amsterdam

XI F.J. CADORA INTERDIALECTAL LEXICAL COMPATIBILITY IN ARABIC

LEIDEN

E. J. BRILL 1979

INTERDIALECTAL LEXICAL COMPATIBILITY IN ARABIC An Analytical Study of the Lexical Relationships among the Major Syro-Lebanese Varieties

BY

F.J. CADORA

LEIDEN

E.J. BRILL 1979

ISBN 90 04 06041 3

Copyright 1979 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN BELGIUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables . List of Figures . Map. 1.

INTRODUCTION .

I. I 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.

COMPATIBILITY .

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2. 7 3.

Purpose Corpus. Method of Elicitation of Data Limitations of the Study General Definition Compatibility and Synonymity . Compatibility and Cognation . Compatibility and Synchrony . Compatibility and Intelligibility Compatibility and the Construction of Contrastive Sets and Systems . Compatibility and Classification

PHONOLOGICAL PRELIMINARIES

3.1 3.11 3. I I l 3.112 3.113 3.12 3 .121 3.1211 3.1212 3 .12 l 3 3.1214 3. 122 3. I 23 3.124 3.1241

Synchrony. Modern Literary Arabic. Consonants Vowels. Diphthongs The Syro-Lebanese Varieties Consonants Stops . Spirants Affricates Resonants. Summary of Consonant Inventories Pharyngealization Vowels. Long Vowels

VIII VIII IX

l I I 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 7 8 9

II 11 11 11 11 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3.1242 3.125 3.126 3.127 3.2 3.21 3.22 3.221 3.222 3.223 3.224 3.225 3.226 3.227 3.228 3.229 3.23 3.24 4.

LEXICAL RELATIONSHIPS

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.4 5.

Short Vowels Summary of Vowel Inventories The Diphthongs . Summary of Diphthong Inventories Historical Developments The Koine. Consonants Reflexes of the K Interdentals Reflexes of K/q/ Reflexes of K/j/ Reflexes of K/k/ . Reflexes of K/ay/ and K/aw/ Reflexes of K/a:/ . Reflexes of K/a/ Reflexes of K/u/ Reflexes of K/i/ Anaptyxis . Stress

Introduction The Swadesh Basic Vocabulary List Analysis of Lexical Relationships The Syro-Lebanese Varieties Comparison with Classical Arabic . Comparison with Cairene Arabic Comparison with Baghdadi Arabic Comparison with Jiddan Arabic Comparison with Casablancan Arabic. Summary and Interpretation

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY .

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.41 5.42 5.43

Introduction Description, Modification, and Utility of the Ferguson-Sa'id List Construction of Contrastive Compatibility Sets Sets of Contrastive Compatible Items Nouns . Adjectives . Verbs

15 16 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 19 19 20 21 23 23 24 24 26 26 26 27 27 29 31 31 31 32 32 35 35 35 36 37 37 53 54

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.5 5.51 5.52 5.6 6.

Construction of Contrastive Compatible Correlation Indices and Scales Syro-Lebanese Varieties . Non-Syro-Lebanese and Syro-Lebanese Varieties Summary and Interpretation

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK •

APPENDIX

A.

APPENDIX

B. C.

APPENDIX

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Swadesh Basic Vocabulary List : Sets of Compatible Lexical Items . Contrastive Compatible Systems Proposed Compatibility Analytical List

VII

6I 62 62 63

70 74 109 III

113

LIST OF TABLES l.

Consonants

2. Contrastive Compatible Items 3. 4.

Non-Contrastive Compatible Items Summary of Percentages of Non-Contrastive Relationships .

12 28 28 32

LIST OF FIGURES l.

2. 3. 4.

Map of Syro-Lebanese Variety Area and Non-Syro-Lebanese Varieties The Central and Eastern Groups The South-Western Group The North-Western Group

IX

69 69 69

Fig. I.

ISee p.1I

:.>cl

The Non-Syro-Lebanese Varieties

1 , . . . ; . . J - ..... .,~

THE SYRO-LEBANESE VARIETY AREA

.

Deir ez-Zor

.Baghdad

.Aleppo

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose. The purpose of this study is primarily to assess and characteriz.e the lexical relationships that exist among the major urban Syro-Lebanese varieties 1 of Arabic. This constitutes a quantitative analysis of degrees of sim~larity (or differentiation). To achieve this quantitative analysis, an analytical procedure based on lexical compatibility has been developed. 2 Secondarily, a classification of these Syro-Lebanese varieties is presented, albeit only as an implicational by-product of the compatibility analysis. Furthermore, in order to provide a wide perspective for this examination, these varieties are also compared with Classical Arabic 3 and four geographically widespread non-Syro-Lebanese varieties.

l .2 The Corpus. The corpus of material for this study has been elicited principally from informants representing the major urban areas in Lebanon and Syria. 4 These are Tyre (Ty), Sidon (Sd), Beirut (Br Ras Beirut, Bm - Mousaytbeh, Ba - Ashrafiyyeh), Zable (Z), Tripoli (Tp), Latakia (L), Damascus (D), Homs (Ho), Hama (Ha), Aleppo (A), and Deir ez-Zor (Dz). The Br, Bm, and Ba informants represent three separate quarters in Beirut, each with different linguistic characteristics. In addition, informants from Casablanca (Cb), Cairo (C), Jidda (J), and Baghdad (Bg), and one informant who is well versed in Classical Arabic (Cl), were interviewed. The total number of informants consulted is 18. 1 Variety is a tenn proposed by Weinreich to replace the tenn dialect for "the [latter] concept does not seem to fit into narrowly structural linguistics because it is endowed with spatial or temporal attributes which do not belong to a linguistic system as such". Uriel Weinreich, "Is A Structural Dialectology Possible?" Word, X ( 1954), pp. 388-400. Henceforth, "variety" will be used in this sense. 2 The tenn compatibility has appeared sporadically in the literature but has never been defined. See, for example, C. Ferguson and M. Sa'id's "Lexical Variants in Arabic Dialects" (unpublished, 1958), p. i. In Chapter 2 of this study, "compatibility" is rigorously defined and postulated as a lexical concept. 3 "Classical Arabic" is used as a cover term for "Classical" and "Modern Literary Arabic". 4 See Gabriel Baer, Population and Society in the Arab East (New York, 1964), pp. 179-80.

2

INTRODUCTION

Two analytical lists were used for the elicitation of data, the Swadesh and the modified Ferguson-Sa'id Lists. The former comprises two hundred items; the total number of lexical items yielded by this list is approximately 3600, all of which are listed in Appendix A. The latter list consists of 201 items, of which only 100-the contrastive compatible items 5 -are used in this work. The total number of items produced by the Ferguson-Sa'id list is again about 3600 bringing the actual total corpus to approximately 7200 lexical items. All the informants are educated speakers whose education ranges from secondary school to college. 6 The interviews were tape recorded in Beirut and Damascus from January to September, 1965. 1.3 Procedure of Elicitation of Data. The informants were, on most occasions, interviewed one at a time so as to avoid levelling influences. In the application of analytical lists to Classical Arabic, equivalents in Classical Arabic are postulated by reference to lexicons and cross-checking with an informant. This initial elicitation of Classical Arabic served later in the interviewing technique as a reference list to insure the acquisition of truly colloquial forms. In the application of the analytical lists to the varieties, each informant is given an English lexical item in context (when necessary) and is asked to produce the equivalent(s) for it in his variety. The same context is used for the given item with every informant to insure the elicitation of truly compatible items. When it was discovered that the informant was not familiar with the English gloss in isolation or in context, or if an explanation failed to convey its correct meaning, or if a response seemed suspicious, the informant was provided with the Classical item or a varietal equivalent to facilitate a correct response. Suspicious items in the pre-final analysis were re-examined by consultation with other informants indigenous to the area in question. As a precautionary measure, additional informants from Tripoli, Damascus, and Beirut were interviewed to confirm the validity of the data elicited from the regular group of informants. Differences of opinion regarding the dominant use of a lexical item arose only in the case of 2 or 3 items (out of a total of 100 items); therefore the procedure was abandoned. Had this been pursued fully, it would, of

5

6

For an explanation of contrastive compatibility, refer to Section 2.3. Only the Ba Ty Z and L informants are Christian; the rest are Sunni Moslems.

INTRODUCTION

3

course, have doubled the amount of work spent on the elicitation and validation of the data without contributing anything significant to the analysis. 1.4 Limitations of the Study. This study is exclusively lexical and the lexical domain investigated is limited to the lexical inventories of the two analytical lists utilized. For a more specific description of the nature of restrictions imposed upon the lists refer to Chapters 4 and 5. Furthermore, a basic distinction is made between the state of varietal differentiation in a population and its geographical distribution. The latter, and changes in it, function as a causal factor in bringing about changes in the former, but geography is only one of the contributing factors. It is the former aspect, (where geography is largely ignored) which is being investigated here to show the degrees of lexical affinity in the speech habits of a given people-the urban SyroLebanese.

CHAPTER TWO

COMPATIBILITY* 2.1 General Definition. Compatibility is a synchronic dialectological concept 1 that operates on the lexical level. It assesses the degree of lexical relationship that exists between two or more varieties of a given language at a given time irrespective of geography; i.e., it "analyzes the synchronic consequences ... of partial differences within a framework of partial similarity". 2 2.2 Compatibility and Synonymity. Compatibility differs from synonymity in that its domain of operation is much wider, for it comprehends lexical items of a given variety and their equivalents in one or more other varieties. Synonymity, on the other hand, is restricted to lexical items and their equivalents in one and the same variety. For example, the English gloss 'lemons' has in the Tripoli variety of Arabic two words /mr~:kbe/ and /h~:mµD/. These items are considered synonymous in Tripoli Arabic. The Sidonese variety, however, has the equivalent /laymu:n/. These equivalent lexical items, namely, Tp /mr~:kbe, h~:mµD/ and Sd /laymu:n/ are assessed as compatible with each other since they mean 'lemons' in the varieties in which they occur. Such a group of equivalent lexical items is called a set of compatible items. 2.3 Compatibility and Cognation. Compatibility depends completely on meaning for the isolation of sets of compatible items, for lexical items are compatible if they have the same meaning. However, sets of compatible items can be subclassed according to formal criteria; i.e., whether they are the same in form or not. Thus, two or more • This chapter appeared in my article version titled "The Concept of Compatibility in the Study of Language Varieties", Word, Volume XXII (1966), pp. 310-317. 1 "Dialectological" is used by Weinreich "as the adjective corresponding to 'diasystem"', p. 390. "Diasystem is the placement of discrete varieties in a kind of continuum determined by their partial similarities". p. 393. Uriel Weinreich, "Is A Structural Dialectology Possible?" Word, X (1954), pp. 388-400. 2 Weinreich, 395 and 399. Since this is a highly stipulative definition, it has been decided to retain the terms "lexical" and "interdialectal" in the original title of the study despite the resulting redundancy ( until such time when the definition might gain general acceptance) to avoid possible confusion.

COMPATIBILITY

5

items that are the same in meaning but different in form such as Tp /ha:m1,1D/ and Sd /laymu:n/ 'lemons' are contrastive; whereas, items that agree in both meaning and form such as Ty /zunn~:r/ and Ba /zinn~:r/ 'belt' are non-contrastive. A non-contrastive set of compatible items comprises cognates that may be isolated by the application of the comparative method. However, a contrastive set of compatible items includes non-cognates and asymetrical cognates. The latter subclass refers to items in which irregular changes and/or modifications may have been produced by either highly divergent developments and/or by another proto-item, perhaps a synonym of the established etymon. It follows, therefore, that compatibility is not identical with cognation. However, this does not mean, given two varieties with a contrastive set of two non-cognative compatible items, that one of the two varieties does not have a cognate form in the other; it may indeed and, of course, with a different meaning. For example, Damascus has /taxit/ for 'bed', Aleppo has /sari:r/; however, Damascus has the cognate /sri:r/ but with a different meaning, 'crib'. Another example may be given: Beiruti (Ashrafiyyah) uses /ballas/ for 'he began'; this is compatible with the non-cognate /bada/ in Jiddan where the cognate /ballas/ has the opposite meaning, 'he finished' 3 • 2.4 Compatibility and Synchrony. Despite the above historically oriented delineation of subclasses of lexical items, compatibility operates on a synchronic level. It appeared essential to utilize, to as great an extent as possible, comparative analysis to identify sets of sound correspondences in order to isolate non-contrastive compatible items. This is much sounder than dependence on the subjective criterion of simply determining as cognates those items that look alike. 4 Even 3 One interpretation may be suggested which is strictly historical: "Borrowing from different [Old Arabic] dialects was profferred as an explanation for the ?w;fdiid [semantic dipolarity in Classical Arabic], the words with two (real or imaginary) opposite meanings ... These words were employed by one tribe with one meaning and by another with the second. Later on the tribes became acquainted with each other's usage, and mutual borrowing ensued". C. Rabin, Ancient West Arabian, (London, 1951) p. 9. The Beiruti-Jiddan phenomenon may be a continuation of an earlier relationship that existed among the tribes. 4 See Karl Teeter, "Lexicostatistics and Genetic Relationship", Language, XXXIX (1963), pp. 640-42. It should be pointed out that the two terms "cognate" and "non-contrastive compatible item" are not id~ntical, for the former is a historical (etymological) term, while the latter, synchronic; e.g., the words to assist (English) and assister (French: 'to attend') are termed "cognates" but not "non-contrastive compatible items".

6

COMPATIBILITY

a more systematic approach of this kind cannot identify lexical similarities due to chance, diffusion, and borrowing from a common source. But this is irrelevant, for the assessment attempted is that of a synchronic situation without regard to the multiplicity of factors that may have effected the present state of affairs. In other words, the protosystem is utilized here as a means, not as an end in itself, for describing the present relationship that exists among the varieties, taking the "Koine" as the point of departure. 5 This forces the question of whether phonological compatibility may be assessable or not. It would not be amenable to analysis if noncognative items are included since no corresponding (or compatible) sounds can then be given. Moreover, if only cognates are to be used, then the analysis would be comparative and nothing more: it would simply substitute labels, compatibility for comparativity. Of course, this would not correspond at all to Weinreich's diasystematic approach by which he "compares systems that are partially different and analyzes 'the synchronic consequences' of these differences within the similarities". 6 While phonological compatibility would deal with partial differences that are differences of distribution, diasystematic analysis would deal essentially with partial differences that are differences of inventory. Weinrich simply implies that lexical correspondences should not be considered in constructing the diasystem, for he asserts that "differences in distribution cannot be directly inferred from a comparison of the differences in inventory, although the two ordinarily stand in a definite historical relationship". 7 • However, Cochrane seems to be more explicit in denying the utilization of lexical correspondences until after the listing of points of structural differences is given. Even then, he maintains that "this will not yield any lexical conversion formulae or statements of relationships between cognates in the varieties of the diasystem". 8 Yet even this position is questioned by Moulton who claims that "if in constructing a diasystem for two or more varieties of a language, we disregard lexical correspondences, then we are treating these varieties as if they were totally unrelated to one another. If, on the other hand, we treat them as related and hence take lexical correspondences For a detailed explanation of the "Koine", refer to Section 3.2.1. Weinrich, 395. ' Weinrich, 394. 8 G. R. Cochrane, "The Australian English Vowels as a Diasystem", Word, XV 5

6

(1959), p. 77.

COMPATIBILITY

7

into consideration, then the usefulness of the diasystem in dialectology becomes questionable". 9 It is not within the scope of this study to investigate at this point the problems of diasystematic phonology, but merely to emphasize the following: ( l) that compatibility is strictly a lexical concept and (2) that it operates in synchrony. It follows, therefore, that one can speak of neither phonological compatibility nor of lexical compatibility without overlapping with other concepts and committing redundancy. The principle advocated in structural dialectology in that the phonemic (and grammatical) systems of the varieties should be fully established before the diasystem is constructed. It would be methodologically feasible to indicate, therefore, the differences in inventory of phonological and grammatical entities in terms of their oppositions and functions. On the other hand, when a similar requirement is made of lexical systems 10 wherein inventories are equivalent to dictionaries, the construction of a lexical diasystem becomes somewhat difficult. The prerequisite step of gathering (since dictionaries are available for only a few varieties) complete lexical systems and then analyzing each system separately is a far from surmountable task. Consequently, the use of a partial count is inescapable; i.e. "conclusions will have to be drawn about the whole from an analysis of the representative selection, or sample". 11 2.5 Compatibility and Intelligibility. There does not seem to be full correlation between compatibility and intelligibility. This is supported by empirical evidence, for it has been found that contrastive compatible items may or may not be mutually intelligible to the interlocutors. For example, while Tyrean /manfnisfe 5 mansafe 6 minsafa b. I baski:r 2 b:>ski:r C. I xo:liyye 2 xa:wle d. I fu:Tc/-

6

2

3

2

5

4

3

(I)

2

52. 'undershirt': Cl qami:S tahta:niyy I fane:lla 5 7 6 2 fanella 3 fane:lla 4 fandla 5 fanella 6 fa:ni:le 7 fali:na b. I ?ami:S t:>hta:ni 2 ?~mj:S tihta:niyye C. I ?c/-mi:S da:xli 2 qamj:S da:xli d. I ?c/-mi:S ?uTµn e. I brute:! f. I mDtma

(I)

4

2

3

2 2

53. 'veil': Cl hija:b, burqus a. I mandi:l 2 m:>ndi:l b. I mle:ye 2 mla:ye Cb C

2

2

2 J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

Dz

51

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

Cb C C.

J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

I hu:b 2 hz.e:b

D

Ho Ha A

Dz

2

3

5

4

6

2

4

2

d. I Ti,.rha e. I gi,.Ti,. f. I bi,.:ca:ye g. I ganu:· h. I fi:si 2 pu:si 3 be:sa i. I bur?u' 2 burgi' j. I lta:m

3

2 2

54. 'wallet': Cl mihfaDa a. I zi$:n 2 d/bzda:n 3 ~zDi,.:n 4 j;)zDl):n 5 juzDi,.:n 6 juzda:n b. I Di,.bwe C. I po:rtmO:ne d. I mi,.Sfane e. I mi,.hfi,.~ f. I ooZTa:m g. I si,.nTi,.T fulu:s 55. 'bottom': Cl qa:· a. I ka'b 2 k;)'b 3 ka'ib b. I ?;)gfal 2 ?isfal 3 siifal 4 $;)fl C. I 'i,.?b d. I ?;)';)r e. I ga:' 2 ?a:' 3 qa:·

Tp L

2

5

2

4

(I)

3

2 3

2

56. 'frog': Cl Dafda"a a. I Di,.fDi,.'i,. 2 01,ifDi,.'i,. 3 D~fDj'i,. 4 D1,1fD1/i,.

3

4

Cb C

J

5 3

4

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

2

5 2

6

2

D

Ho Ha A

Dz

52

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

Cb C

5 D~fDf~ 6 D~tD·~ b. 1 s?~r?a C. 1 'aqruqqa 2 'ugruge 3 ?ur?a'a d. 1 fhru:n

3

57. 'hail': Cl barad a. 1 ~r~d 2 barad 3 ~ar~d b. I habb~l'azi:s C. 1 sne:n~l'aju:z 2 sne:nil'aju:z d. 1 t~bri:ru e. 1 ha:lu:ba 58. 'rag': Cl xirqa a. I sarT1,1:t~ 2 s:irwi:T~ b. I x~r?a 2 xir?a 3 xirqa 4 xirga C. I rug'a 59. 'rain': Cl maTar a. I site 2 siti 3 sita 4 sta b. 1 m~T~r 2 muT~r

60. 'throat': Cl halq a. 1 z~l'u:m 2 zal'u:m b. 1 z~l~'me C. 1 ~le? 2 11~1~? 3 ~~lq 4 ~alg d.· l h~nz..;ir~ e. I zardu:m f. 1 ~:r

J

2

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

2

2

3

Dz

2

2

2

4

2

2

2

4

3

3

2

2

2

2

2 3

2

4

J

2

2

Ho Ha A

Dz

2

3

Cb C

2

2

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D

53

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

5.42 Adjectives. Cb C

J

61. 'bachelor': Cl ?a'zab a. 1 ?a'zab 2 ?a'zib b. 1 'a:zib 2 'a:zeb C. 1 'azza:bi 2 'azza:bi d. 1 'azri 62. 'coward': Cl jaba:n a. I faba:n 2 fabe:n 3 i.ebe:n 4 gaba:n 5 jaba:n 6 jab,,rn b. I xawwi:f 3 2 xawwa:f 3 xawwa:f C. I xa:-yes d. I mxanna!

Bg

Ty Sd Br Bm Ba

2

z Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

2 2

2

2

4

2

3

2

2

2

6

5

5

2

63. 'dressed up': Cl hasanulliba:s a. I za:xex 2 i.e:xex 3 ze:xex b. I mhandas 3 2 2 mhandis 3 mihandiz C. I mabru:z d. I mithandes e. I msayyak f. I mga:wa g. I kwayyes h. I jaxxi:x i. I mkass;,T j. I la:bis tama:m 64. 'hard (opp. of soft)': Cl qa:sin a. I ?a:si 3 2 ?c,1:si 3 qa:S;,h b. I S;,lb 2 S.;ileb Cb C

Dz

J

2

2

3

2

2 2

Bg

Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L D Ho Ha A Dz

54

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

Cb C

I ga:mid d. I ya:bis e. I qawi 65. 'sick': Cl mari:D a. I m-.tri:d 2 mrj:D b. I m-.trD-.t:n C. I waz'a:n 2 waj'a:n d. I D'j:f e. IS.pin f. I ·ayya:n

5.43

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

J

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

2

2

2

Dz

I

C.

2 2

Verbs (to

)

66. 'begin': Cl bada?a a. I ballas b. I bada 5 2 bidi 3 bidi: 4 bide 5 bda C. I ?ibtada

(I) I 2

4

67. 'carry': Cl hamala a. I hamal 2 himel 3 hamel b. I sa:I c. I rfad

2

68. 'chew': Cl maDaga, 'alaka a. I 'alak 2 'alik 2 b. I m-.tD-.tg 2 mD;,g C. I la'was 2 'ilas d. I q-.tr-.tT 69. 'cough': Cl sa'ala a. I sa'al 2 sa'aL b. I qahh

2

2

2

3

3

2

3

2

2

2 2 Cb C

2 J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

Dz

55

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

Cb C

J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

2

2

2

Dz

2 kahh c. I khab

70. 'do': Cl 'amila, fa'ala a. I 'imel 4 3 2 'amel 3 'amal

3

4 'm:il b. I sa:wa 2 se:wi c. I sawwa 2 sawwe

2

3

2

2

2 2

72. 'empty (v.t.)': Cl farraga, ?axlaa a. I f;.iDD;.i 2 f;iDD;.i b. I farrag 2 f;.irr;.ig c. I xwa

2

2

72. 'enter': Cl daxala a. I fa:t 2 fe:t 3 fE:t b. I daxal 2 dx:il

2

I

3

2

3

3

2

I xass 2 x:iss d. I T;.ibb

2

C.

73. 'get up (from sleep)': Cl ?istayqaDa, ?afa:qa a. I fa:? 4 I I 2 2 2 f;.i:? 3 fE:? 4 fa:q b. I ?a:m 2 ?;.i:m C. I S;ihi 2 2 2 Sihi d. I ?a'ad 2 2 ga'ad

3

2 2

3

2

(I)

e. I wi'i f. I bass g. I n;.i:D Cb C

J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

Dz

56

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

Cb C

J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba

74. 'go down': Cl habaTa, nazala a. I niz:el 6 3 4 5 2 nazel 3 nizil 4 nazal 5 nizal 6 nzal b. I hadd;,tr C. I ltb~T 75. 'go out' : Cl xaraja a. I T;ile' 2 T;,tlf 3 Tili' 4 Tile' 5 Tila' b. I D;,th;,tr 2 dahar C. I xaraj 3 2 xarag 3 xraz

z 2

5

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

2

2

2

2

2

4

3

Dz

2

2 2

76. 'have a hair cut': qaSS sa'ra. I haJa? 4 2 ha)a? 3 tiaJ~? 4 h~l~g b. I ?;,tSS sa·rC. I tzayyan d. I ~iyyan e. I hassen

77. 'joke': Cl hazala, mazaha a. I nakkat 2 nakket 3 nakk;,tt 4 nakkal b. I mazah 2 3 2 maz:eh 3 mzah C. I tmallag d. I hazzar 78. 'look': Cl naDara a. I TT;,tllf 2 TT~lla' Cb C

J

3

2

2

2

3

2

(I) I

2

2

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba

z

Tp L

D

4

2

2

Ho Ha A

Dz

57

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

Cb C

J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

Dz

b. 1 dahhaq C. 1 sa:f d. 1 bl;lSS e. 1 Tl;lll f. 1 ba:wa' 79. 'pass': Cl marra a. 1 mara? 2 ml,lrl,l? 3 mari? b. 1 'adda 2 'adde C. lmlµT d. 1 da:z e. 1 fa:t f. 1 zall

3

3

3

3 2

80. 'scream' : Cl Sa: h a. 1 'l:lYYl:lT b. 1 Sl,lrrl,lx 2 sarrax C. 1 Sl;lrl,lx d. 1 Sl;lyyl,lh e. 1 guww~t f. 1 za"a? g. 1 Sl;l: h

2

81. 'shave': Cl halaq a. 1 hala? 2 hall;\? 3 hali? 4 hl;lll,l? b. 1 ?ass da?n2 ?ass C. 1 It.ala? da?n2 halag dagnd. 1 zayyen 2 ~iyyan e. 1 h~ss~n lihya-

4

2

2

2

(I)

2 2

82. 'take off clothes': Cl xala'a a. 1 salah 2 ~leh 3 salih b. I ?ala' C. 1 r~ma Cb C

J

3

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

2

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

Dz

58

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

Cb C

J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

2

2

2

83. 'tear down': Cl hadama a. 1 hadd 1 2 h:xid b. 1 haM,:,tT c. 1 hadam d. e. f. g.

Dz

1 1

d. 1 h:>yy:xi e. 1 zuww:>l f. 1 fassax g. 1 niza'

1 h:>ddam 1 xarab 1 T~h~~ 1 filla~

84. 'want': Cl ?ara:da a. 1 b:xido 2 baddo 3 biddu

4

2

3

3

2

2

4 biddb. 1 rl,l:d 2 ra:d c. 1 bga d. 1 'a:(w/y)iz

2

85. 'weigh': Cl wazana

2

a. 1 za:n 2 u::n b. 1 wazan 2 wizan c. 1 kiyyil

2

2

(I) (I)

86. 'allright': Cl hasan a. 1 Tl,lyyeb 2 Tl,lyyib

2

2

2

b. 1 ze:n c. 1 waxxa 87. 'also': Cl ?l;lyDan a. 1 kama:n 2 kaml,l:n 3 kamE:n 4 kame:n 5 keme:n 6 kemE:n b. 1 nno:b

5

Cb C

J

3

4

3

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

2

6

Tp L

D

4

Ho Ha A

Dz

59

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

Cb C

J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

3

3

2

2

23 3

2

D

Ho Ha A

Dz

I

c. I h:itta d. I bl:lrdu e. I hamm 89. 'enough': Cl kifa:ya a. I bikaffi b. I kfa:ye 2 kfE:ye 3 kifa:ya c. I ya:ji d. I barl:lkl:I e. I Sc,t:fi

I 3

90. •going to ( with verb)' : Cl sawfa, sa a. I rah

2 fia-

3 4 b. I c. I d. I

2

4

I

I I

laha ra:h n_t:y

biddga:di

91. 'how much (price)': CJ kam a. I 2 3 4 b. I 2 3 C. I 2 3 d. I e. I

?adde:s ?l:ldde:s ?:iddE:s ?addays s?add s?l:ldd sgadd kam ka:m kl:l:m be:s sha:I

2

4

3

2

3

2

3

92. 'in order to' : Cl kay, likay a. I m:isa:n 2 m:ise:n 3 mise:n 4 minsa:n 5 minse:n 6 m:insE:n 7 minSE:n b. I 'asa:n 2 2 'alasa:n Cb C

5

J

7

3

6

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

6

4 2 2 4

2

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

Dz

60

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

Cb C

J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

Dz

I

c. I hatte d. I ba:s 93. 'much': Cl ka!i:r a. I kti:r 2 kiti:r 3 kati:r b. I bhe:l C. I bazza:f d. I hwaye

2

3

94. 'nothing': Cl la:say? a. I walasi: b. I ma:si: 2 ma:s 3 mass 4 masi: c. I walu d. I ha:ga e. I hi:c

I 3

95. 'now': Cl ?al?a:n a. I halla? 2 haLL;,i? 3 h;,iLL;,i? 4 halli? 5 hallo? 6 hall;,i? b. I hassa· 2 hassa 3 ?issa C. I daba d. I dilwa?ti e. I dahhi:n

2

96. 'quickly': Cl bisur'a a. I bsar'a 2 bsir'a 3 bsur·a 4 bisur'a b. I b'azale 2 b'ajale c. I bazzarba d. I ?l,lwl,l:m Cb C

4

2

3

3

2

2

2

4

2

5 6

2

4

2

6

3

3

3

2

J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D

2

Ho Ha A

Dz

61

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

Cb C

J

Bg

Ty Sd Br Bm Ba

97. 'slowly': Cl 'alamahl, bibuT? a. 1 · alamahel 4 3 2 'alamehel 3 'alamahl 4 'alamihl 5 'amahel 6 'amahil b. I !lway!lway C. I ba!l!lwiya 2 2 bi!lwe:!l d. I yawe:!l

5

6

98. 'there is not': Cl la:yu:jad a. I mafi: 2 2 ma:fi: b. I ma:bi: C. I mafi!l!l 3 2 mafi!l!l 3 ma:fi:!l d. I maka:yan!l e. I m~:ku

z Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

Dz

2

2

2

2

2

2

99. 'when (conj.)': Cl 'indama, lamma: a. I lamma 4 I 23 I 2 lamman 3 lamma: 4 limma b. I wa?t 2 w~?t C. I 'iddma d. I min

2

2

2

100. 'which': Cl ?ayy a. I 2 3 4 b. I 2 C. I d. I

?ayy ?ayya ?ayyat hayy ?e:no ?anu ?a!imin ya:(hu)

3

2

2

2

4

2

Cb C

J

Bg

Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L D Ho Ha A

Construction of Contrastive Compatibility Correlation Indices and Scales. The construction of these correlation indices and scales requires the following procedural steps: (a) Examining the 100 5.5

Dz

62

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

contrastive compatible sets listed in Section 5.4 to determine the number of items (in the 100 sets) shared by any and every pair of the varieties. This number is then subtracted from 100 to give the percentage of contrastive compatibility for any given pair of the varieties. These computations are made first for the Syro-Lebanese varieties and then between them and the non-Syro-Lebanese varieties. (b) Tabulating the above percentages in geographic indices which list the varieties in West-East and South-North directions, after computations are made f'-'r all possible pairs. (c) Averaging out the percentages that a given variety has with each of the rest of the varieties to indicate how contrastively compatible each variety is with all the rest of the SyroLebanese varieties in toto. This average (AV) is recorded at the end of the index. (d) Averaging out the percentages that a given variety has with each of the non-Syro-Lebanese varieties to indicate how contrastively compatible each variety is with all the non-Syro-Lebanese varieties. This average (NA V l) is annexed to the appropriate index. (e) Ordering varieties on scales which proceed from the lowest to the highest percentage. 5.51 Syro-Lebanese Varieties. The following correlation indices show (I) the percentages of contrastive compatibility between a given variety and each one of the rest of the Syro-Lebanese varieties and (2) the average of these percentages for the given variety.

I. Tyre: 2. Sidon: 3. Beirut(r): 4. Beirut{m): 3. Beirut(a): 6. Zahle:

7. Tripoli: 8. Latakia: 9. Damascus: 10. Homs: II. Hama: 12. Aleppo: 13. Deir-ez-Zor:

Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D

X 21 24 26 32 20 28 37 26 43 38

28 23 26 23 19 23

26 23 28 35 32 31 24 3I X 21 24 38 60

21 X 26 23 30 21 23 31 23 42 33

24 26 X 21 27 25 26 33 28 37 41 54 48 50 75 74 72

26 23 21 X 19 20 23 29 35 43 38 49 73

32 30 27 19 X 26 19 30 32 42

20 21 25 20 26 X 23 33 31 43 40 37 46 49 69 77

37 31 33 29 30 33 X 25 25 X 24 31 34 38 26 38 63 38 72 67

Ho Ha A

Dz -

34 26 63 72 38 38 38 67 21 24 38 60 X 28 41 60 28 X 37 61 41 37 X 70 60 61 70 X

AV

35 33 34 33 34 34 32 36 31

40 37 50 69

5.52 Non-Syro-Lebanese and Syro-Lebanese Varieties. The following indices show (l) the percentages of contrastive compatibility between a given Syro-Lebanese variety and each of Classical, Casa-

63

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

blancan, Cairene, Jiddan, and Baghdadi Arabic, (2) the average of these percentages (Classical Arabic excluded) for the given variety (NAY l), and (3) the average of these percentages for each non-SyroLebanese variety (NA V 2). Ty Sd Br Bm Ba

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Casablanca: Cairo: Jidda: Baghdad: Classical: NAVJ:

87 70 67 84 58 77

84 65 64 85 53 75

81 68 66 82 59 74

z

90 84 87 68 70 67 66 59 67 77 83 82 58 53 57 77 73 76

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

84 67 60 82 56 73

79 59 54 79 52 68

94 58 58 76 58 72

86 61 62 79 53 72

86 65 59 80 58 73

Dz -

NAV2

84 86

86

66 78

66

67 60 68 73

62 78 57

61 71 56 71

5.6 Summary and Interpretation. An overall general assessment of the correlation indices 4 reveals that Dz A Ha and Ho are the four varieties with the significantly highest percentages of contrastive compatibility on the Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z and L correlation indices. This permits the isolation of Dz A Ha and Ho from the rest of the varieties. Since this contrastive compatibility relationship is mutual, the Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z and L varieties can likewise be isolated. These have been blocked off on the matrix of the correlation indices given in Section 5.51. This relationship may also be lucidly presented on continuum scales that order the percentages 6f contrastive compatibility from the lowest to the highest percentage. The following are the contrastive compatibility scales for the Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z and L varieties. I. Ty-Scale:

z

Sd Br BmD Tp Ba L

Ha Ho A

Dz

20 21 24 26 26 28 32 37 38 43 54 75 2. Sd-Scale:

Ty Z

Bm Tp D

Br Ba L

Ha Ho A

Dz

21 21 23 23 23 26 30 31 33 42 48 74 3. Br-Scale:

Bm Ty Sd

z

Tp Ba D

L

Ho Ha A

Dz

21 24 25 25 25 27 28 33 37 41 50 72 4. Bm-Scale:

Ba

z

Br Sd Tp Ty L

D

Ha Ho A

Dz

19 20 21 23 23 26 29 35 38 43 49 73 5. Ba-Scale:

Bm Tp Z

Br Sd L

Ty D

Ha Ho A

Dz

19 19 26 27 30 30 32 32 40 42 46 69 4 The possible use of correlation indices is suggested by U. Weinreich in "Is A Structural Dialectology Possible?" Word, X (1954), pp. 397-9.

64

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

6. Z-Scale:

Ty Bm Sd Tp Br Ba D

L

Ha Ho A

Dz

20 20 21 23 25 26 31 33 37 43 49 77 7. L-Scale:

Tp Bm Ba Sd D

Br

z

Ty Ho Ha A

Dz

25 29 30 31 31 33 33 37 38 38 38 67

One cannot deny the fact that some of the percentage-correlates on the continuum scales are insignificant; however, this does not militate against the validity of the analysis but rather strengthens it, for this insignificance reflects a state of linguistic continuity. Consequently, dividing and ordering this continuum into discrete varieties or groups of varieties becomes somewhat difficult. Nonetheless, one can observe clearly an interesting and definite pattern that persists on all the above scales-the complete clustering of the Ho Ha A and Dz varieties. It is this consistent pattern that permits the isolation of these varieties into one group; however, the borders of this group must be looked upon as fused with other varieties. Furthermore, an examination of the following continuum scale of percentage averages of contrastive compatibility (AV) confirms the status of the Dz A Ho and Ha varieties; the same clustering pattern recurs on the scale: AV-Scale:

D

Tp Sd 8111 Br Ba Z

Ty L

Ha Ho A

Dz

31 32 33 33 34 34 34 35 36 37 40 50 69

The three remaining varieties, D L and Tp, which lie in intermediate positions, i.e. between the two isolated groups, demand further analysis. Despite its 'double-faced' position, the D variety has a unique relationship with the Ho Ha A and Dz varieties: they have lower contrastive compatibility with D than with any other variety outside their group. The interrelationships are as follows: (a) D shares a lower percentage of contrastive compatibility with Ho than with Ha A or Dz; (b) Ho shares a lower percentage with D than with Ha A or Dz; (c) Ha shares a lower percentage with D than with Ho A or Dz; (d) A shares lower percentages with Ha and D than with Ho or Dz; and (e) Dz shares a lower percentage with D Ho and Ha than with A. This state of affairs may be represented in a triangle super-imposed upon the map of Syria with the sides cutting across all of the cities in question. (See Figure 2). Consequently, because of its singular relationship with the Ho Ha A and Dz varieties, the D variety should be included in this group. On the other hand, Dz should be excluded for two reasons: ( l) It

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

65

has the highest percentage of contrastive compatibility on the correlation indices of all the varieties and on the AV-Scale. (2) It has percentages that are on every scale significantly higher than the preceding variety. This is sufficient evidence to justify the isolation of Dz as a discrete variety. This assessment, therefore, yields two groups -one comprising Dz, and another, including D Ho Ha and A. Since Dz occurs on the eastern end of the scale, it will be posited under an Eastern Group, and D Ho Ha and A will be labeled the Central Group, since they are located between Dz and the rest of the varieties. The latter will be labeled the Western Group. The compatibility relationships among the D Ho Ha A and Dz varieties seem to correlate with certain facts of the outside world. It appears that the closer a city is, and the better its communication line is to D, the lower is its contrastive compatibility with D. If distance can be correlated with communication, then the greater the communication is between any two cities, the lower is their percentage of contrastive compatibility. Apparently, D serves as the center of communication for Ha Ho A and Dz. D is the focal point (prestige center) of the triangle and exerts influence (along its sides to the north and north east) which is directly proportional to the distance (or degree of communication) from the focal point. The network of roads in Syria is recent; it had remained in a state of trails until the end of World War I, with the exception of a few macadamized sections (totalling 200 kms. in 1920) between Damascus and Beirut and around the large towns. However, during the period between the two world wars, the system of roads began to receive some attention. The principal cities were linked with macadamized roads which traced those of the early caravan trails except in the mountainous areas. 5 No doubt, lexical differentiation among the Syro-Lebanese varieties was affected to a large extent by varying degrees of substratum and adstratum influences. However, later innovations that introduced similarities in some varieties can be explained as a consequence of contact of these varieties with other varieties and/or with a prestigious variety such as that of Damascus. The growing and improved system of roads must have enhanced to a great extent communication and hence contact between Damascus and the other cities. Since Damascus

5

Anis Chebat, le Reseau Routier de la Syrie (Beirut, 1953), p. I.

66

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

is an urban center of political and cultural importance in the area, the direction of diffusion of innovations is obviously outward. "The spread of highly communicable innovations can then be analyzed as reflecting the channels of communication in a sedentary society, while the spread of relatively non-communicable innovations becomes a clear sign of migration of populations. The goal of dialect classification is abandoned and geographic cross-section of a language comes to be scrutinized as a reflection of the determinants of linguistic structure, communication facilities and outside sources of stimulation". 6 The communication line between Dz and D is only in part a highway, while the rest is made up of tracks across desert areas; the line between Dz and Ho-Ha remains essentially similar; and the line between Dz and A has been built into a highway only since the time of the Mandate. Hence, it seems evident that lack of proper communication facilities between Dz and (each of) D Ho Ha and D impeded the transmission of innovations to Dz from these cities especially D, and consequently, Dz remained incompletely urbanized linguistically. On the other hand, D is linked to Ho Ha and A by a main highway; moreover, A Ho and Ha are linked by a standard-gauge railway. This facilitates greater communication between any two points along the AD side of the triangle. A seems to be almost as compatible with Ha and Ho as it is with D, presumably because of the more extensive lines of communication mentioned above. As for the L and Tp varieties, which are situated in Syria and Lebanon respectively, they have essentially lower contrastive compatibility with the Western group of varieties than with the Eastern as is shown by the following scales: Tp-Sca/e: L-Scale:

Ba Bm Sd Z

D L

Ha Br Ty Ho A

19 23 23 23

24 25 26 26 28 34 63 72

Tp Bm Ba Sd

D Br Z

25 29 30 31

31 33 33 37 38 38 38 67

Ty Ho Ha A

Dz

Dz

However, L and Tp occupy a unique position in the Western group because they have lower contrastive compatibility with A Dz and Ho Ha respectively than any of the other Western varieties. They are, 6 Marvin Herzog, "The Yiddish Language in Northern Poland", /JAL XXXI, Part III, No. 2 (April, 1965), p. 5.

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

67

therefore, subclassed under the Western group and labeled the NorthWestern Group. The rest of the Western varieties are labeled the South-Western Group. The varieties within each sub-group are intricately related to each other to such a degree that contrastive compatibility between any two given varieties is usually never higher than 30 per cent. (See Figures 3 and 4). It appears rather clear that D Tp and L, initially isolated on the correlation indices as intermediate varieties, are the link between the Western and Central groups-with D representing the central hook, and Tp and L the western. With the east-west links correlates the east-west axis of communication. The D variety is connected to B by both a main highway and a narrow-gauge railway; the Tp variety is likewise connected to Ho by both a main highway and a standardgauge railway; and L is connected to A by a main highway. Comparison with the non-Syro-Lebanese varieties produces results that are similar to a great extent to those yielded by the Swadesh List in Chapter 4. Refer to indices on p. 63 : (l) Casablancan has the highest contrastive compatibility with each one of the varieties. The average percentage of contrastive compatibility (NA V 2) is 86. (2) Baghdadi appears to have next highest contrastive compatibility with each one of the varieties, although it has fairly lower contrastive compatibility with Dz. The average percentage of contrastive compatibility is 78. Dz has 60; it shares relatively similar percentages with D Ha Ho and to a lesser extent with A. The proximity of Dz to the Iraqi area and the relatively bedouin-rural characteristics of Dz explain its lower contrastive compatibility with Bg. Besides, Dz constitutes one of the communication links between the Syro-Lebanese area and the Iraqi area. The communication line runs from Latakia via Aleppo to Deir-ez-Zor which in turn connects with Mosul, Iraq. (3) Cairene has lower contrastive compatibility with the Syro-Lebanese varieties than does Bg and Cb. It has an average percentage of contrastive compatibility of 66. Its urban linguistic characteristics and its non-separation from the Syro-Lebanese area contributed to this relatively higher affinity. (4) Jiddan stands less contrastively compatible with the Syro-Lebanese varieties than Bg is. The Swadesh List analysis rendered Bg more contrastively compatible than Jiddan. The latter result is clear although Bg (but not J), like the Syro-Lebanese varieties developed, from the "Koine"; this is a manifestation of this early relationship. However,

68

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

the modified Ferguson-Sa'id List analysis reveals presumably a later state of affairs: (a) the tremendous linguistic urbanization of J, an otherwise bedouin variety. (b) the linguistic bedouinization and ruralization of Bg, a formerly urban variety. Furthermore, the great influence exerted on the J variety by Egyptian and Syro-Lebanese teachers contributed to this relatively higher affinity. The Jiddan average percentage of contrastive compatibility is 62. Compared with Cairene it may not be significant, and the relatively similar degree of affinity could be easily attributed to the factors stated above. (5) Classical Arabic appears to be less contrastively compatible with the Syro-Lebanese varieties than J C Bg and Cb are. This correlates with the result yielded by the Swadesh List analysis. (See Chapter 3 for further explanation). An overall assessment of the compatibility relationships between each of the Syro-Lebanese varieties and the non-Syro-Lebanese in toto reveals a strikingly interesting and corroborative evidence for the singular position of the D variety both in its internal relationships and here in its external relationships. Examine the two scales given below: NA VJ-Scale

D

A

L

Ho Ba Tp Ha Dz Br Sd Z

Bm Ty

68 71 72 72 73 73 73 73 74 75 76 77 77 AV-Scale:

D

Tp Sd Bm Br Ba Z

Ty L

Ha Ho A

Dz

31 32 33 33 34 34 34 35 36 37 40 50 69

The NA VI scale indicates that D has the lowest contrastive compatibility of all the varieties with the non-Syro-Lebanese. The second scale shows D as the least contrastively compatible with the rest of the Syro-Lebanese varieties.

69

CONTRASTIVE COMPATIBILITY

Dz (10)

D

Figure 2. The Central and Eastern Groups. (Numbers in parentheses next to a city-symbol indicate percentage of contrastive compatibility it has with (D)amascus. The other numbers on the sides indicate the percentage between the varieties on either end of the side).

Ba Br) ( Bm 29 30 33

A

Figure 3. The North-Western Group.

L

Ho

Br B•) Sci ( Bm 23 21 30

BrBmBa' ( 24 21 30/Ty

Figure 4. The South-Western Group.

o(:,)

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK This study has introduced a new lexical concept-compatibility. The concept has appeared sporadically in the literature, but it has never been rigorously defined and applied. In addition, the application of this concept entailed the utilization, likewise for the first time, of correlation indices and scales-auxiliary tools of modern structural dialectology. Consequently, this study constitutes the first compatibility assessment, and by implication, also the classification of the urban Syro-Lebanese varieties. In the Syro-Lebanese area, ecological changes that involve migration of or movement of segments of the population take place primarily in the following two major ways: (1) The settling of bedouin or pastoral segments, sometimes near or even in rural areas. (2) The migration of rural and (sometimes) pastoral segments to the closest urban center. This population movement is prompted by socio-economic considerations; however, migration of large segments from one urban center to another is rather rare and usually for socio-political reasons (for example, the movement of Armenians from Aleppo to Tripoli or Beirut). Therefore, low contrastive compatibility between two given urban varieties cannot be attributed to migration of people and hence migration of lexical items. This is especially so when clear correlation is evidenced between compatibility and distance and/or communication facilities. An examination of the Central and Eastern Groups reveals that Damascus functions as the focal point (center of communications) and that compatibility of other varieties in the group with Damascus is in direct proportion to distance and communication facilities. Since no data are available on frequency of contact between any two given areas, distance and communication facilities are utilized to formulate this hypothesis. Furthermore, the Western Group is linked to the Central Group via the D-Tp-L varieties (with D representing the central hooks; while Tp and L, the western). The east-west links correlate with the east-west axes of communication (D-B, Ho-Tp, A-L). Tp and L of the Western Group are isolated into a North-Western

71

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

Group due to the fact that (A, Dz) and (Ha, Ho) have lower contrastive compatibility with these two varieties respectively than with any of the western varieties to the south. This seems to correlate more with the important east-west axes (Ho-Tp, A-L) of communication than with a coastal north-south axis which is of lesser importance. The rest of the western varieties constitute the South-Western Group. Within this group the varieties seem to be almost equally distant from each other and equally facilitative in their communication lines. Consequently, the varieties are so related to each other that contrastive compatibility between any two given varieties is never higher than 30 percent. 1 The inclusion in the Western Group of L which geographically belongs in Syria proper, shows clearly that lexical items do not necessarily change at political boundaries. If anything, varieties are fused on either side of the political boundaries; witness the Dz-Iraqi and the Ty-Sd-Palestinian relationships. Therefore, no classification can be considered valid or adequate if its groupings are correlated primarily with political entities. 2 Compatibility relationships among the varieties under study permit the postulation of the following groups-both compatibility relationships among the members of a group and between groups are taken into consideration: Western Group South-Western North-Western Beirut (Br, Bm, and Ba) Latakia Zahle Tripoli Saida Tyre

Central Group

Damascus Homs Hama Aleppo

Eastern Group

Deir-ez-Zor

The occurrence of Dz at the tail end of the correlation indices and scales reveals that the analytical list discriminates between what may be called urban and urbanized rural or semi-bedouin speech. The application of this list to three clearly trichotomous sociolinguistic areas ought to provide a body of information that comprises lexical items which can be identified as characteristically bedouin, rural, or urban. These lexical inventories may function as lexical norms of each socio-linguistic class. Given these norms, one can analytically demarcate classes that would fall in between these three major ones. These inter1 Except Ty-Ba where presumably Ty's deviation is due to its long distance to the south and its proximity to the North-Palestinian varieties to which it is linked. 2 Cf. Harvey Sobelmen (Ed.), Arabic Dialect Studies (Washington D.C., 1962).

72

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

mediate classes will convey a more realistic sociolinguistic grouping or classification of Arabic varieties, especially since the majority of Arabic varieties fall within these intermediate stages of sociolinguistic developments. Such norms would be basically linguistic rather than sociological and, therefore, operate unidirectionally since once these norms are established they cannot predict what is ecologically bedouin, rural or urban. Rather, they predict essentially what is linguistically characteristic of bedouin, rural, or urban speech. For example, an analysis of Baghdadi Arabic may well reveal it to be urbo-bedouin; obviously, this is not to be interpreted that Baghdad is ecologically semi-bedouin. It probably was when bedouin tribes flocked to it and settled in it. Instead, the assessment would reveal that the Baghdad variety is a bedouinized urban variety, but it is still urban ecologically. No sociolinguistic criterion that depends solely on a trichotomous division (one that ignores these intermediate classes) can be considered a valid and adequate basis for the classification of Arabic dialects. Finally, the micro-domain of these intermediate stages is the family wherein representatives of two generations communicate, the younger being more significantly exposed to an adjacent urban area. The hybrid linguistic situation that evolves is the result of the contact within the dichotomous situation that originated 1n the family, the parents' rural and the children's urban, for example. 3 Furthermore, such a study may generally be considered a preliminary investigation to a dialect geography analysis, for it has permitted the postulation of a list of lexical items that yields a relatively high percentage of contrastive compatibility. Such a list may be regarded rigorous enough to be applied fruitfully in Arabic dialect geography. 4 The informally espoused position that the urban varieties of Arabic are homogeneous seems now to be somewhat dubious. This study has demonstrated that not only did the Syro-Lebanese urban varieties share high contrastive compatibility with non-Syro-Lebanese, but they also had relatively high contrastive compatibility among some of their members. In other words, the urban varieties are not as homogeneous as has been maintained. However, this does not mean that they do not constitute an independent linguistic entity vis a vis the rural varieties. Indeed, they do, for this study has contributed further exical evidence 3 Refer to my article "LinguisticConcomitantsofContactual Factors of Urbanization", Anthropological Linguistics, XII (1970), pp. I 0-19. 4 A proposed compatibility analytical list is given in Appendix C.

CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK

73

to confirm the postulation of the "Koine", from which the urban varieties outside the Arabian Peninsula developed. The relative affinity between Classical Arabic and each of the Syro-Lebanese varieties is not to be interpreted as meaning that a speaker ofSyro-Lebanese will have little difficulty in learning "Classical Arabic". The learning of some of the non-Syro-Lebanese varieties may be equally-if not more-difficult lexically than that of "Classical Arabic". Nonetheless, Classical Arabic poses a big problem on the lexical level (which is further complicated by phonological, morphological, and syntactical problems) as is evidenced by the high percentage (57) of contrastive compatibility between them although lower than those of the non-Syro-Lebanese varieties. Finally, with the increased interest in the teaching of colloquial Arabic, one of the major problems has been the choosing of the variety to be taught first. Since the learning of another variety entails code switching and vocabulary acquisition, 5 the educated speech of Damascus would be the choice from among the Syro-Lebanese varieties dealt with in this study. This decision is based upon two facts revealed by this study: Damascus Arabic has essentially the lowest contrastive compatibility average with (l) the Syro-Lebanese varieties and (2) the examined non-Syro-Lebanese varieties.

5 "The chief source of difficulty . . . of American students who have completed a course of study of Classical Arabic and one of the colloquials ... in adjusting rapidly to another ... [variety] lies not in the differences in pronunciation or grammar, although at times these may be considerable, but in vocabulary". C. Ferguson and M. Sa'id, "Lexical Variants in Arabic Dialects", (unpublished, 1958), Preface.

APPENDIX A

THE SWADESH BASIC VOCABULARY LIST Sets of Compatible Lexical Items The following list provides lexical equivalents in all the varieties for every gloss on the 200-item Swadesh Basic Vocabulary List. Key to symbols and explanation of format are given in sections 1.2 and 5.3 respectively. Cb C I. 'all': Cl kull, jami:'

a. I kull

I

J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D Ho Ha A

3 3 3 2 2 2 2

I

2 k:111

2

Dz

2

3 kill

b. I ga:·

2. 'and': Cl wa a. I ?u:

2 ?u

24 3 3 3

3 2 2 2

3

3 wa 4 WU 3. 'animal' : a hayawa:n a. I hayawa:n I 2 2 haywa:n 3 hayawe:n 4 hayawe:n 5 hiwa:n

5

3 4 2 2 5 2 2

3

I

4. 'ashes': Cl rama:d a. I rma:d 2 rama:d 3 rm"1:d 4 rme:d

3 2 2 2

I

5

4

5

5 rme:d

2 2 2

b. I ~fwe 2 S"1fye C.

I sacan

5. 'at': Cl bi, Ii:, 'ind

a. I b-

I Cb C

J

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

Dz

75

THE SWADESH BASIC VOCABULARY LIST

Cb C

b. I 'ind 2 ':md C. I fi

2

J

I I I

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba

z

Tp L

D

Ho Ha A

I

I

I

2

2

2

2

2

6

5

3

2

2

2

Dz

2

2 fa 6. 'back (person's)': Cl Dahr

a. I D~hr 2 D~h;lr 3 D~her 4 D~hjr 5 D~h~r 6 D~hr 7 Daher 8 Dh;lr

8

I

4

7. 'bad': Cl radi:?, Ta:lih a. I ·~:T~l I I b. I mismni:h 2 musmni:h 3 mamni:h

5

3

4

3

7

1111111111 2 3 3 4 4 3 35 5 6 3

4 mannomni:h

S mumni:h 6 momni:h c. I radi

I se:n I muze:n I b~TT~:l I muT~yyib h. 1 xay:1b i. I wihis

d. e. f. g.

8. 'bark (of a tree)': Cl jig' a. I ?isre 2 ?:1sre 3 ?isir 4 qisir 5 q:1sr~ 6 gisra b. I jigi'

5

I

2

6

2

2 2

3

2

2

4

Ho Ha A

Dz

9. 'because': Cl Ji?ann

5

l:1?inno la?inno la?anno li?anno 5 li?an

a. I 2 3 4

Cb C

J

2

3

3

4

4

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba Z

4

I

Tp L

D

76

APPENDIX A

Bg Ty Sd Br Bm Ba I (I)

z

Tp L D Ho Ha A Dz

23 2

5

4

2

2

Cb C

b. I 2 3 c. I d. I

·asinno 'asa:n 'alasa:n 'lah;)