Modern Arabic.

• Author: Eisele, John C.

In Modern Arabic, Clive Holes succeeds in detailing present-day Arabic in all of its variety. Yet, in drawing conclusions regarding several important points, he fails to consider fully and objectively some of the data he himself presents in the study, due partly to his uncritical acceptance of certain widely-held but often unexpressed notions about Arabic. This - together with occasional lapses in the data itself - ultimately undermines the premise of the work, which is to represent variation in Arabic in a dynamic, fluid fashion.

The author of this work attempts to present the wide spectrum of linguistic variation in Arabic as an "integrated whole" in order to give the reader a "snapshot" of Arabic as a language undergoing changes due to this linguistic variation. In those parts of the book which are detailed descriptions of these interactions he succeeds in his mission, and does impart to the intended audience (advanced students of Arabic and general linguists) a very good sense of what Arabic language variation is all about. However, at several points the work is flawed, either because of unclear presentation, careless organization, or simple mistakes.

The book is divided into an introduction and eight chapters, ranging from an overview of the history of Arabic, through a description of variation at specific linguistic levels (phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, and lexical), and concluding with a useful description of the mechanics of code switching and its use and significance in modern literature. Overall, the most successful parts of the book are those chapters dealing primarily with variation, while the weakest are those presenting analyses of different aspects of the verbal system (sections 3.3-3.5 on the phonology of the verb and sections 6.2 on verbal aspect, mood and tense). There is one general deficiency, namely the absence of maps. Considering the extent to which this work deals with a variety of Arabic dialects, maps are needed to indicate some of the major dialect areas and isoglosses in the Arab world.

The first chapter provides a good overview of current opinions on the development and spread of Arabic. Although the author describes the situation as well as anyone has, when he comes to draw his conclusions from the description (pp. 28-30), they do not fit his own facts. For example, his emphasis on Arab immigration and settlement as the most important factor in arabicization is a great improvement on previous vague notions about why certain Islamic countries became Arabic speaking while others did not. I have only two criticisms about his presentation here: the first concerns his comments on how the linguistic changes came about, while the second deals with his summary comments on the role of Islam in arabicization. In dealing with the early linguistic results of the conquests (p. 19), Holes gives a good account and rebuttal of Versteegh's pidginization and creolization hypothesis, with which I agree. However, the most solid evidence against it is textual, which, being textual, as even Holes notes, weakens it somewhat, and nothing is offered in its place. Holes portrays Arabic as developing within a continuum of multilingual variation ranging from the pidgin/creole extreme (of very limited duration and impact, if any), through the lingua franca stage (short-term, urban), through bilingualism (long-term, rural), and finally, with increasing islamicization, to the monolingual stage; but there is nowhere offered an explanation of how these different linguistic situations brought about changes in Arabic, especially as it relates to interaction with the contact languages. Some comment would have been useful.

To address the second point, on pp. 28-29, Holes summarizes the four common strands in the spread of Arabic as follows: (1) pre-Islamic contact with Arab tribes (except in North Africa); (2) Islam; (3) urbanization, i.e., the establishment, by invaders, of towns which became regional centers of power and in which Arabic became the main language; and (4) migration and assimilation. He maintains that points (3) and (4) were the most decisive, whereas (1) only predisposed certain areas to arabicization, while (2), Islam, "initially was the least important influence in the spread of Arabic, though it came to acquire a central educative (and hence linguistic) role later on" (p. 29). It is this last comment that I take issue with.

To say that "Islam" was the least important factor is misleading, and does not reflect the situation he describes. First, his quote from Wansbrough is instructive not just because the language chosen reveals a certain strange negative bias toward Islam (the conquests diffused Arabic in a "natural, uninhibited" way, while Islam diffused it in an "artificial, restricted" fashion) but also because of its textual bias; Wansbrough is referring to Arabic as a written, not as a spoken language, since his examples of both "natural" and "artificial" diffusion of Arabic refer to written materials, while spoken Arabic is the main emphasis of Holes' work. Considering the extremely high rate of illiteracy throughout this period - which Holes mentions elsewhere - Wansbrough's comments would appear to be less than relevant. Second, using the term "Islam" here is misleading since throughout his description he uses the term "islamicization." If by "Islam" in point (2) he means "islamicization," then it is clear why it was the least important factor initially, since like arabicization, there was so little of it. But to emphasize that "Islam" or "islamicization" was not important in the beginning, and not to call attention to its importance later on is misleading, since his description of the process repeatedly makes the point that they were interdependent. For instance, in clarifying point (3), Holes notes that "the rural peasant communities were more slowly islamicised, [and] were much slower to give up their original languages" (p. 29), while in point (4), "assimilation" means quite simply conversion to Islam.

Diminishing the importance of Islam or islamicization in the process of arabicization is perhaps due in part to the fact that elsewhere conversion to Islam took place without concomitant arabicization, most notably among the Iranians, Kurds, and Berbers. However, this approach overlooks an important difference between these situations and those in arabicized lands - after the Islamic conquests the former societies were mono-religious ones, while the latter were multi-religious ones. In the multi-religious societies the indigenous languages were identified with the dhimmi religions, either Christianity or Judaism. If specific languages were associated with specific faiths, conversion to Islam could only mean "conversion" to Arabic, since holding on to the dhimmi tongue would imply an identification with the dhimmi religion. In other words, arabicization and islamicization were inextricably linked. One could derive this point from Holes' presentation, but it is not made...