In a scenario familiar to those who follow debates on the Arabic language, the April 8, 2008 episode of Al-Jazeera’s “al-Ittijaah al-Mu‘aakis” pitted Dr. Ali Arsaan, the defender of Classical/Standard Arabic (Fusha) against Dr. Rafiq Ruhana, the defender of the colloquial (Ammiyya). Framed largely in military-oriented tropes, the discussion painted a picture of divisive and low-cultured dialects mobilized and on the attack against the language of unity and intellect. This ideology, which views the colloquial as a threat to the standard or classical language, and fears a public role for colloquial Arabic, has remained prevalent throughout much of the twentieth century. Yet, in late nineteenth-century Egypt, the Arab Nahda project of disseminating knowledge to ‘the masses’ gave rise to several journals that found a public role for Ammiyya, introducing it into the realm of written knowledge. The use of colloquial in the journals al-Ustaadh (1892-3), al-Arghuul (1894-5) and al-Ghazaala (1896-8) is well known, as are the arguments put forth by some in the debates from that period that it was necessary to spread education through an accessible medium. And while what some writers said about Ammiyya and Fusha made it clear that there was an uneasiness associated with this new public role for Ammiyya, a true contradiction between ideology and practice during this time of experimentation only becomes obvious through a close textual analysis of language usage in the journals. Through a framework of stylistic variation as ‘identity construction’ and the semiotic processes of iconization and erasure, this paper analyzes al-Nadim’s use of language variation in al-Ustaadh to sort out the contradiction between ideology and practice. For instance, a close analysis of al-Nadim’s use of code-mixing and style reveals a much more complex usage of the registers than the conventional reading of his work that portrays a one-to-one correspondence between language register and social class. What al-Nadim communicated through the juxtaposition of registers demonstrates how language practice contributed to the dominance by the early twentieth century of classical Arabic (Fusha) as both authentic and modern. This paper argues that even as his journal published didactic dialogues and articles in Ammiyya, al-Nadim’s language practice chipped away at the prospect of a sustained literary role for the colloquial by indexing it with the backward and superstitious realm of rural women and eventually attempting to erase the notion that an educated, modern Egyptian would have any use for the lower linguistic register.

In contrast to the colloquial dialects, Classical Arabic maintains a powerful prestigious status among Arabs all over the world for well-known reasons. Israeli decision-makers have long recognized the potential power of Arabic, the mother tongue of the Palestinian minority in Israel, and its central role in constructions of Arab national identity. In this study, I claim that one particular language policy implemented in Israel aims to diffuse this power, thereby weakening the ties of certain Arabic speakers to the language and identity of pan-Arab nationalism. In particular, this paper argues that one of the textbooks of the Druze curriculum in Israel was designed to mitigate the potential power of Classical Arabic, an effect that would presumably result in a strengthening of the students’ Druze identity over the national Palestinian and Arab identity. My argument will be based on a linguistic analysis of the textbook "min al-tur?th al-sha?bi." This textbook, taught in the 9th grade, is a part of the Druze Heritage curriculum designed exclusively for Druze students in public schools in Israel. The paper will begin with a brief sketch of the Druze educational system in Israel. I will then show through linguistic analysis that the language of this textbook mixes colloquial registers with classical. I will then illustrate how colloquial materials have been selected, placed, and used in the textbook to serve as a tool for reshaping the national identity of the Palestinian Druze students in Israel. I claim that the choice of colloquial materials was not arbitrary, but rather can be seen as a deliberate attempt to construct a particular kind of local identity in place of a national or pan-Arab one.

In this paper I problematize the common (and largely untested) assumption that variation in Arabic register occurs because speakers wish to signal membership in different social groups, and that they accomplish this by moving up and down a linguistic continuum, the ends of which hold different cultural connotations. Rather, I argue that the linguistic continuum in fact consists of multiple linguistic systems such as grammar, phonology and the lexicon, and that in each of these systems a speaker is forced to make a binary choice between the (H)igh and (L)ow forms of the language. While it may be true that a native speaker of Arabic is more likely to choose H forms in order to appear educated in specific circumstances (giving rise to the assumption noted above), moving away from H forms in favour of L forms does not indicate a desire to identify with a different social group, but simply a shift in the communicative intent of the speaker in an attempt to redefine the social situation in which he or she is involved. I illustrate this point using selected examples from a televised debate between the al-Azhar scholar Yousef al-QaraDaawii and the Arab intellectual Saadiq Jalaal al-3aZm in order to show how speakers move away from using standard Arabic when they are no longer primarily concerned with delivering a speech in front of an audience. When the speakers directly address each other, or when they provide a commentary to explain aspects of the argument that they are putting forward, they use L forms to signal that the social interaction in which they are involved has changed. It is not the speaker's identity that is defined here, but the nature of the interaction itself. The analysis of the debate supports the conclusion that although speakers do assume a certain culturally recognized identity when using H forms, they do so in order to define the social interacion as one in which they deliver an important message to their audience, and therefore it is not necessarily a corollary of this that a corresponding identity associated with L forms exists.

The question of register in Arabic is often framed in terms of a so-called “problem of diglossia:” an unstable language situation that will be resolved by the classical or formal registers and the spoken or colloquial ones coming closer together or even merging. This paper argues that the register situation in Arabic might be more stable than previously believed, as speaker behavior helps maintain these registers. In previous work, I showed that native speakers use “avoidance strategies” in writing to maintain the register divide between colloquial and formal registers. In this study, I claim that case-endings are used by speakers to negotiate language register and personal style in ways that are universally understood, and these functions are fundamental in maintaining case-marked speech as an important register of Arabic. While case-marking is prescriptively obligatory in formal registers of Arabic, it is used only sporadically in modern spoken contexts, even in formal environments, where it is understood to be more or less superfluous to communication and functions only to indicate the highest degree of formality possible. This study takes a more nuanced view of how case-marking is used, arguing that it functions semantically, pragmatically, and socio-linguistically. The paper first presents evidence of two different kinds of case-ending usage: one involving not only syntax but also semantics and pragmatics, and another which has no role in any of those areas, but which instead acts to raises or lowers the linguistic level or register of speech. The study then investigates how speakers make use of the latter type of non-semantic case-marking as an integral part of their rhetorical strategies and to negotiate and maintain the linguistic level of their conversation. The study also shows that individuals make conscious and systematic use of case-marking to present a style that is personal but nonetheless draws on shared social and linguistic norms. The paper concludes that the extra-syntactic roles of case-marking have contributed to its survival, and prevented it from simply disappearing as many commentators have predicted. The study is based on quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed evidence drawn from publicly televised speeches, debates and interviews, with male and female speakers from across the Middle East.

During a recent visit to Doha, I took a courtesy tour of both the Arabic and English studios at al-Jazeera Network. At the Arabic network studio, our guide pointed out the “language correction” desk, a large oval table towards the back of the large studio with approximately eight stations. When we got to the end of the English studio tour, I asked the guide if there was a language correction desk here as well. As I anticipated, he said, “No there isn’t! Is that an oversight on our part?” This paper investigates a set of questions highlighted by this disparity. Why does al-Jazeera budget for a team of Arabic language correctors but not English ones (money being a tangible indication of the importance of this function)? Is the nature of Arabic different than that of English? Does the so-called diglossic nature of Arabic necessitate more intervention? Is it difficult to find journalists whose Standard Arabic (Fusha) skills are acceptable? I argue that this policy is the result of a pervasive ideology of “language correctness.” Al-Jazeera’s own mission statement warns its journalists that its “language is Fusha” and “the failure to use correct words and expressions diminishes the accuracy of the material, and poor style negatively impacts the reputation of the network.” (www.aljazeera.net). The trustworthiness of the journalist relies in part on her/his linguistic “correctness.” This ideology has a long history: I will trace its origins of back to the emergence of the grammatical genre “Errors of the Commoners” (lahn al-‘amma) in the ninth century. It was revived along with many other literary genres during the Nahda around the turn of the twentieth century. I will link these manifestations of language correctness (read also: authenticity) ideology in these periods to socio-political factors as well. What is al-Jazeera’s role is perpetuating this ideology? Even as the network has opened the door to a breadth of linguistic plurality never before heard in a public forum, its policies reinforce the traditional structure of power that gives someone other than the writer or speaker the authority to evaluate and correct. At the same time, networks such as LBC and OTV are challenging Fusha by broadcasting news in other registers. In the end, perhaps the question of the authority, authenticity, and trustworthiness of Fusha will not be decided at the “language correctness” desk of Al-Jazeera, but by viewers across the Arab world.