The lexical basis of variation in Jordanian Arabic

In this paper we consider the agreement rule associated with plural nonhuman nouns from a corpus of data. It is shown that two rules exist, one associated with colloquial Jordanian Arabic, one with Standard Arabic, and that the association is lexically conditioned: nouns trigger one rule or the other according to their provenance (as colloquial! standard). It is further shown, however, that the rules are constrained along two parameters, one paradigmatic, the other syntagmatic. Paradigmatically there is no evidence of the lexical diffusion of the agreement rule from one class to the other; syntagmatically there is a 'diffusion' of standard nouns to items with colloquial features via the agreement rule itself, but not the reverse spread of agreement between colloquial nouns and Standard Arabic items. The implications of the data for the history of Arabic are briefly discussed. 1. Arabic background Ferguson (1959a) in his classic definition of diglossia represented Arabic as having two discrete varieties, the classical language or the high variety (Standard Arabic, SA), and the colloquial low. This dichotomy is useful for two reasons: structurally the two varieties serve to define the two poles of the living language. That is, nearly any given excerpt of speech can be analyzed relative to these two norms (see [2] below), and socially there are situations where only one of the two varieties would be appropriate. On the other hand, it has been pointed out, most notably by Mitchell (1976, 1980) and his associates (El-Hassan 1977, 1978; Meiseles 1980) that there is an intermediate variety, termed 'Educated Standard Arabic' (ESA) by Mitchell, which shows various degrees of admixture of the two poles. This latter variety is playing an ever greater role, and indeed it can probably be said that for the average educated (high school and above) Arab it represents the variety most frequently used. Linguistics 25 (1987), 705-738 002Φ-3949/87/0025-0705 $2.00 © Mouton de Gruyter, Amsterdam 706 J. Owens and R. Bani-Yasin The fact that ESA consists of a mixture of two theoretically discrete varieties implies that its speakers exercise various options in choosing elements from either, and this in turn means that it can be understood only relative to a number of intersecting variables: provenance of speaker's colloquial variety and extent of his understanding of SA; the situation in which a given speech event takes place, where relevant factors include formality of event, subject of text, and relation between interlocutors (relative status, place of origin, degree of education, degree of intimacy, etc.; see Diem 1974: 54-60; El-Hassan 1978; Mitchell 1980; Sallam 1980; Bani-Yasin and Owens forthcoming b). One methodological consequence of this is that ESA can be studied only through the analysis of recorded texts correlated with the speech situation (see section 3 below). Difficult though the linguistic definition of ESA is, it can be assumed that it is a real variety with specific structural attributes, even though these characteristics must be defined within a range of possible values a given variable can take (see section 6). This being the case, the following question arises: to what extent are the various parts of the continuum targets which speakers aim for and attain. So far as the colloquial pole goes we think the answer is that it is a discrete variety that all speakers acquire as a first variety, a mother language learned at home and in the streets acquired before any important influence of a formal variety acquired largely in schools. For the SA variety we think, the concept of 'dummy high', first introduced by Platt, helps clarify the Arabic diglossic situation. The following is based on Fasold's (1985: 49) summary. A dummy high 'refers to speech varieties of which some of the members have a certain knowledge, and which are given prestige ratings by the speakers . but which are not in fact utilized extensively in any domain' (Platt, quoted in Fasold 1985: 49). We would suggest that within the domain of spoken (but not written) language, SA is a 'dummy high'. On the one hand it is undoubtedly the variety with the highest prestige; however, few Arabs can converse in pure SA for any length of time. The situation can be represented as the following. (1) SA Super (or 'dummy') high ESAi 2 defined in terms of variable realizations; see section 6