Ammice Fasih’in Bozulmuş Hali Midir?: Fasih-Ammice Diyalektiğinin Tarihsel Serüveni
Is ᶜĀmmiya A State Of Decayed Fusḥā?  Dialectical Affairs Between Fusḥā And ᶜĀmmiya
Yazar: Kaplan, Ahmet
Dergi: Bilimname, Vol. 2019 No. 38, 2018
Anahtar kelimeler: Arabic Language and Rhetoric,Language change,Fasih,Ammiya,Decay ; Arap dili,Dilsel değişim,Fasih,Ammice,bozulma

Bu çalışma, Fasih Arapça ve onun türevi olan Ammice/Halk ağzı arasındaki ilişkiyi betimleyici yaklaşıma göre incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Klasik Arapça dilbilgisi kaynakları kuralcı dilbilgisinin özelliklerini taşımış ve zamanın değişmesine rağmen dilin değişmeyen kurallarını tespit ve tatbik etmeyi hedeflemiştir. Bunun sonucunda, dilde görülen değişimler hata (laḥn) veya bozulma kavramlarıyla ifade edilmiştir. Kur’ân tilâvetinde görülen hataların etkisiyle başlayan nahiv çalışmaları büyük ölçüde bu yaklaşımı esas almıştır. Telif edilen eserlerde dilin değişmez kuralları tespit ediliyor ve dilin günlük kullanımlarına teşmil ediliyordu. Kur’ân Arapçası, günlük hayatta kullanımı zor, edebi ve ağır bir dil olsa da din dili olmasının sağladığı otoriteyle diğer lehçeleri baskılamış ve günümüzde devam ettirdiği “doğru” ve “asil” Arapça olma payesini elde etmiştir. Resmî kurumlarca esas alınan ve eskiden beri haddi zatında bir değer ifade eden Fasih, uzun zaman günlük konuşmalarda da önem arz etmiştir. Fakat kuralları günümüzde dahi tartışılan bu üst dil, eskiden beri halka ağır gelmiş ve erbabı tarafından bile zaman zaman hatalı kullanılmıştır. Hatalı görülen bu kullanımlar zamanla Ammice’yi doğurmuş ve günlük dil başta olmak üzere günümüzde sinema, dizi gibi pek çok alanda kullanılır hale gelmiştir. Bu çalışmada Fasih’in zamanla değişime uğramasıyla ortaya çıkan Ammice’yi, bozulma veya hata gibi kavramlarla nitelemenin dilbilimsel dayanağının olmadığı, Ammice’nin de toplumun bir ürünü olup dile yönelik art niyetli müdahalelerle açıklanamayacak kadar toplumsal ve tarihsel bir gerçekliğe sahip olduğu hususu vurgulanmaya çalışılmıştır.

This study aims to investigate the relationship between eloquent Arabic (fuṣḥā) and vernacular Arabic (ᶜāmmiya) depending on descriptive grammar approach. Unfortunately, the helpful data about pre-Islamic Arabic are limited so that although there are numerous anecdotes reported about variations in pre-Islamic period, these put down on papers after standardization of Arabic. Thus, the available linguistic amount is not enough to compare the standard Arabic with pre-Islamic Arabic. The classical Arabic grammar books built up on a rather prescriptive grammatic model and aimed to reveal the unchanging rules of language. This attitude seems to be affected by oral recitations of the Qur’ān, whose language viewed as standard, unchanged, beautiful, powerful and inimitable by humans. As a result, words such as error or decay have been used to describe any kind of difference or manner of speaking that deviates from the standard linguistic way fuṣḥā. The attitude toward the modern dialects as ‘deviations’ from the norm is no doubt linked to the understanding of laḥn at the early stage of Arabic. It is therefore not surprising that the language guardians use this term to describe modern ‘deviations’ from the fuṣḥā, regardless of their sources. It is impossible to ignore the role of Islam in the development of the Arabic language and in shaping the attitudes toward it. For Islam expanded the functional domains of Arabic and led to its lexical development through borrowing and semantic expansion and caused to its orthographic and grammatical codification, turned it into the vehicle of learning and high culture, and made it the medium of government. By revelation of the Qur’ān, Arabic was no longer an ordinary language which is used to communicate and that had an overwhelming impact on the minds of grammarians who limited language to normative statements based on Qur’ānic Arabic. The grammatical treatises, which started with the effect of mistakes made in Qur’ānic recitations, appreciably adopted this approach. In these treatises, the scholars tried to discover unchanging rules of language and tried to apply them to colloquial language. Arabic has two sides; one celestial with regard to Qur’ān, as medium of divine communication and the second sublunar in which it was language of poem, trade and daily life. Due to the fact that Quranic language was rhetorically highly elaborated genre of Arabic but as well too heavy to be used in daily life, it eventually suppressed the dialects and obtained as the undisputed authentic model for good and right Arabic and this is still the case today. Faṣīḥ, as the codified language and as the vehicle of religion and high culture had long time been important in daily conversations and was a way of gaining reputation or prestige in society. But this high and difficult language with its rules in dispute even today, found to be burdensome for the general public so that even those specialized ones would sometime use it incorrect so that grammatical treatises are full of anecdotes about Arabs who made grammatical errors. These kind of errors (deviances) have constituted the vernacular Arabic (ᶜāmmiya) which is today mostly used in daily conversations, cinemas, television series etc.Language changes even though it’s slow and cannot be noticed at first blush. Arabic has been preserved from change and this is what brought about the diglossic state in Arabic. Since the linguistic society uses language naturally without paying attention to its rules in accordance with their needs. We think that vernacular Arabic (ᶜāmmiya) is the total and final product of what called it grammarians as errors. Seeing as language gains its validity from the society, ᶜāmmiya has that validity and it’s a communication tool just like the fuṣḥā. But that does not mean Arab states should abandon fuṣḥā; on the contrary this language should be preserved for religious, cultural and historical reasons but not because linguistic change is decay. Indeed, there are great difficulties in switching from fuṣḥā to ᶜāmmiya. Firstly, fuṣḥā is the language of Qur’ān and other religious sources. Secondly, there is a tremendous amount of linguistic inheritance which includes history, culture and folklore. Thirdly, it’s almost impossible to choose on which dialect Arab states will depend.Although for Arabic speakers al-ᶜarabiyya is a cover term which refers to Arabic in its various forms, they express themselves in dialects. This paper, due to the language change, claims not to be linguistic basis to describe vernacular Arabic (ᶜāmmiya) as “false” or “decayed” and tries to point out that this kind of language is also a social product and, although we accept some kind of imperialist endeavors towards linguistic policy, it cannot be simply explained by imperialism.