Proficiency, functionality and prestige:Arabic and Aramaic in symbiosis

Elie Wardini, Universitetet i Oslo

It is common knowledge that languages or language variants that enjoy a high

degree of prestige have been shown to exert strong influence on the languages

or language variants that are in contact with them. Thus in a sociolinguistic

framework the factor of prestige is, and rightly so, carefully monitored and

taken into consideration. Prestige – here when attributed to a language or

language variant it implies that this language or language variant enjoys a high

administrative, literary, political, religious etc. status at a given time in a given

society in a given situation – can be gained or lost due to many factors,

sociological, religious, literary or due to various other reasons varying from

region to region and period to period. Yet prestige is not the only factor that is

active in language change (for a discussion of the use, misuse and over use of

prestige in sociolinguistic explanation see J. Milroy 19921). Linguists have tried

to isolate other linguistic factors that can be used to predict change (for a

1) Milroy’s article is excellent, though one could disagree with him on some details.For example, commenting on sociolinguistic studies on gender differentiation hestates: “... if it is males who actually acquire social status and prestige – it is difficultto see why male language should not be considered status-ful, and why, forexample, the wives of successful men do not simply imitate the language of theirhusbands...” p. 153. The point here being that a person of prestige does notnecessarily speak a prestigious language. So, successful men may have prestige,but this does not necessarily imply that the language they use is prestigious. Moreover,what is prestigious in one social group is not necessarily so in another group. If thelanguage men use is considered prestigious among men, it is not necessarily sothat women have to be of the same opinion.

discussion see Thomason & Kaufman 1988). In the present paper I would like

244 - Elie Wardini

to explore two factors that play an important role in language change, especially

in a language contact situation, namely the factors of proficiency and

functionality. In this article I will demonstrate the usefulness of the factors of

proficiency and functionality using the development of Arabic and Aramaic

diachronically against the background of the other languages, both Semitic and

non-Semitic, that they have come into contact with.

What do I mean by proficiency? Proficiency is the degree of mastery an

individual or a group of individuals has over a certain language or language

variant. Such proficiency affects the way this language or language variant

influences and/ or is influenced by the other languages this individual/ group

uses. Moreover proficiency in one language is not uniform. It can differ depending

on the domain one wishes to address. A good example is how non-English

speakers, often unwillingly, use English terms and at times switch to English

while speaking about the domain of computer science (or even linguistics).

One of the factors influencing the choice of languages in such cases of functional

code-switching is what I call: language of experience, i.e. the language in

which an individual or group of individuals have come to experience a certain

concept, experience or process (see for example Grosjean 1982, especially the

sub-chapter on Code-Switching, pp. 145-157). For example the Lebanese national

television has a program in which students from different schools compete. In

these competitive events students are asked questions on different subjects.

Though the whole program is conducted more or less in Literary Arabic (or

lu¸at al-mu†aqqafïn ‘the language of the educated’, as it is now customary to

call this variant), questions dealing with science and mathematics are often

answered and commented upon in French (much less so in English). Questions

dealing with the subjects of history or geography and of course Arabic literature

are answered in Arabic. That is because in most Lebanese schools the subjects

of Arabic, history and geography are taught in Arabic while the scientific subjects

are taught in French and to a lesser extent English. In Lebanon and for most

students in this country, French is the language in which science is experienced.

This gives most Lebanese students better proficiency in French in the fields of

science. This does nevertheless not imply that most Lebanese students are

more proficient in French than in Arabic in an absolute sense.

What do I mean by functionality? Functionality as applied to a language

or a language variant is to be understood as the degree to which a certain

language is better developed – since development is relative – to address a

certain domain or express a certain experience, or process. The use of English

in the domain of computer science is again a good example. Whether a language

Proficiency, functionality and prestige: Arabic and Aramaic in symbiosis - 245

is more functional, i.e. better developed, is not something that is inherent to

that language. The functionality of a language is rather dependent on the

extent to which this language has been used and developed to address a

certain domain or express a certain experience or process. Thus every language

can gain or lose functionality to a varying degree from domain to domain.

I argue that the factors of proficiency and functionality, in combination with

prestige and other social and linguistic factors, play an important role in language

development. I argue further that in certain cases proficiency and/ or functionality

can even outweigh the effects of the factor of prestige.

The Semitic background

Among the Semitic languages Aramaic, in its different variants, has a history

that spans some three thousand years, from 1000 BC to the present. It has a

rich literature covering a very wide variety of subjects, a literature comparable

to the better known Arabic literature. Arabic with its rich literature spans a

period of some one thousand seven hundred years, from approximately the

year 300 AD to the present. These dates represent the dates when Aramaic and

Arabic were first attested as written languages. They were surely spoken in

different variants before the above-mentioned dates. In this context we should

note that texts written in Semitic languages in general, and Arabic and Aramaic

in particular, follow certain literary traditions characterized by the state of

diglossia. We cannot assume that any of the written variants, in their attested

forms, have ever been spoken as a mother tongue by anyone (though they

have been used as a means of oral communication).

The first Semitic languages that are attested around 2500 BC, Eblaite and

Akkadian, appear in the wider non-Semitic Sumerian cultural, linguistic, and

literary context. Sumerian was a prestigious language; the language of the

Sumerian city states, religion, and literature. Important for us here is that Sumerian

had developed into a written language using a pictographic script which later

developed into the cuneiform script. The first Eblaite and Akkadian2 texts that

2) The relationship between these two languages is still disputed. Some argue thatEblaite is a variant of Akkadian, while others argue that Eblaite is a West Semiticlanguage. Note for example Krebernik (1996:249): Eblaite “may be classified as anearly Akkadian dialect”, compared to Gordon (1997:101): “Eblaite is a Semiticlanguage embodying East [i.e. Akkadian] and West Semitic [i.e. non-Akkadian]features”, also p.107: “... Eblaite is a border language between East and North-westSemitic...”

are extant are difficult to analyse. They are replete with Sumerian logograms.

246 - Elie Wardini

At first, speakers of Eblaite and Akkadian started out by using the dominant

language, Sumerian. With time they started adapting the Sumerian script to

write their own languages. In the case of Akkadian, it was influenced by

Sumerian in its development on all levels, phonological, morpho-syntactical,

and the lexicon. With the rise of the Akkadian city states and Akkadian dominance

(with Sargon of Akkad approximately 2350 BC), Akkadian became established

as the administrative and literary lingua franca of the Middle East. Even the

kings of the Levantine coast corresponded with their Egyptian rulers in Akkadian.3

In the context of Akkadian dominance, other Semitic languages emerged in

the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. Besides Amorite attested only in personal

names written in Akkadian texts, Ugaritic and Phoenician were attested as

written languages. Each of these languages used a variant of what is known as

the Phoenician alphabet,4 an alphabet based on the Egyptian Hieroglyphs. It is

the Phoenician alphabet that gained widest use. We consequently see a spread

of the use of Phoenician into areas not inhabited by Phoenician-speaking

peoples (notably in Anatolia in such places as Zenjirli and Karatepe). The use

of the Phoenician language outside Phoenicia proper or the realm of the

Phoenician trade colonies can hardly be attributed to prestige. Akkadian still

held sway and was the language of highest status long into the 1st millennium

BC. Phoenician was a little language of a small seafaring people far from the

center of power. Surely, a major factor in the spread of the use of Phoenician

was the functionality that Phoenician had gained as a written language using a

simple alphabet rather than the difficult cuneiform or hieroglyphs. With its

simpler alphabet, Phoenician had become easier to write than Akkadian (or

Hittite in Anatolia). And since Phoenician had already established a written

tradition, both the Phoenician alphabet and language were adopted by several

peoples for writing purposes.5 Phoenician lacking the necessary administrative,

literary, political, or religious prestige, this state of affairs did not last very long.

Soon other languages, among which Aramaic, followed the Phoenician example

and using the Phoenician alphabet developed their own written traditions. It is

in this context that Aramaic emerged as a written language arround 1000 BC.

3) Note the Tell Amarna correspondences, dated at around 1400 BC. See for exampleKnudtzon (1915 [1964]) and Moran (1992).

4) Whether the Phoenicians themselves invented this alphabet is a moot question.Moreover, though there seems to be a consensus that the Ugaritic cuneiform alphabetis based on the Phoenician alphabet, the issue is not completely resolved.

5) Gibson comes to a similar conclusion. See Gibson (1982:32).

Proficiency, functionality and prestige: Arabic and Aramaic in symbiosis - 247

Aramaic

From its small beginnings, Aramaic became a major language in the Middle

East from around 800 BC to 700 AD. What is significant in this context is that

Aramaic did not gain this status due to the prestige of its speakers nor due to

the power of Aramaic empires. In fact Aramaic kings were nearly always subject

to larger powers. The prestigious language in the 1st millennium BC was still

Akkadian. With the fall of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires, the Persians

took power. Aramaic nevertheless gained its status, in defiance of the prestigious

Akkadian, among other reasons due to the ease in which it could be written

compared to the more complicated cuneiform used to write Akkadian. Another

factor that also contributed to the status of Aramaic was the linguistic proficiency

of the populace. Akkadian had been little by little replaced by Aramaic as the

language of the populace in Mesopotamia.6 Akkadian, the language of literature

and religion continued to be written, alongside Sumerian, long after it died out

as a spoken language. This was due to its position as a language of prestige.

Aramaic had gained such functionality in the administrative domain that even

after the rise of the Persian empire, in 5th century BC, it remained the language

of administration and in fact spread to the non-Semitic-speaking regions of the

Persian empire, as far as Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

With time Aramaic was used for other than purely administrative purposes.

More and more subjects were expressed in Aramaic. There thus emerged an

Aramaic literary tradition that was developed and diverse. By the beginning of

the Christian era, Aramaic had more or less replaced most of the local languages

and had become the lingua franca of the Middle East, not only for writing

6) This spread of Aramaic in Mesopotamia is still not satisfactorily explained. It shouldbe noted that Mesopotamia was a multilingual region throughout history. Moreover,the kernel region where Aramaic was used lay in western Mesopotamia, regionswhere to this very day Aramaic is still spoken. In addition some immigration ofAramaeans into the Eastern parts of Mesopotamia is attested. Some scholars alsoargue that Aramaic had developed into a sort of Koine among the many peoplewho had been deported into Mesopotamia under the rule of the Assyrians andBabylonians.

7) Again this spread of Aramaic is not satisfactorily explained. In the case of Palestine,some scholars attribute this spread to the return of the exiles from Mesopotamiawhere they had exchanged their Hebrew mother tongue with Aramaic. Since mostof the exiles formed an elite in the Israelite society, one can accept such anexplanation. Yet one still needs to explain this spread to the other regions of theAncient Near East.

purposes but also as a spoken language.7 It is important to note here that after

248 - Elie Wardini

the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek had been more strongly introduced

into the Middle East ushering the Hellenistic period. Greek and Aramaic coexisted,

competing basically in the coastal regions and in large cities. Aramaic dominated

at the countryside. With the rise of the city of Edessa (present-day Urfa in

southwestern Turkey) as an important Christian center, the Aramaic language

of its literary tradition, Syriac, became the literary vehicle of most of the Christian

Churches of the East that did not follow the Greek rite. Aramaic had also

become the language of the Jews as expressed in their Targumim, Talmudim,

and other writings. This is how Aramaic stood at the rise of Islam in the 7th

century AD. Aramaic developed at first under the influence of the dominant

Akkadian language (which, with time, it in turn influenced) and later on it was

strongly influenced by Greek in its competition with it. Latin and Persian did

also leave their marks on the now prestigious and dominant Aramaic.

Arabic

On the eve of the rise of Islam, Aramaic was the language that was most

dominant in the Middle East. But it was not the only one. Ethiopic also had

become an important language and had a strong influence on Arabic. So did

Persian. The contact between Arabic and Aramaic antedated the rise of Islam.

From the growing number of Aramaic inscriptions found in the Arabian Peninsula

and from the written documents of the Nabateans (centered in Petra) and the

Palmyrene (centered in Palmyra) we know that Arabic-speaking tribes have

used Aramaic for writing purposes long before the rise of Islam.8 At that time it

was Aramaic that had become the prestigious language in addition to being the

language that had gained most functionality in the domains of administration,

literature, and religion. With the rise of Islam, Arabic became the language of

prestige. It was the language of the conquerors and most importantly it was the

language of Islam, the language of the Quran. In the first centuries after the

Arab/ Islamic conquests, Arabic enjoyed such a degree of prestige that it quickly

replaced local languages in most of the Middle East spreading into Central Asia

and even into sub-Saharan regions in Africa. The Arabs were proud of their

language, and wherever Islam went, Arabic followed. Even after the Arabs had

lost military and political power, Islam kept Arabic alive with a high degree of

prestige. Ibn Khaldun (vol. 2, 305-307)., an Arab writer from the 14th century,

8) We do not have any direct evidence of the actual language used as a mother-tongueamong these tribes. They are nevertheless generally accepted to be speakers ofArabic due to their onomastic traditions and the mistakes they have committedwhile writing Aramaic.

put it this way:

Proficiency, functionality and prestige: Arabic and Aramaic in symbiosis - 249

Religion is derived from religious law, which is in Arabic, because the Prophet

was an Arab. Therefore it is necessary to avoid using any language but Arabic

in all the provinces of (Islam).

Since the religion (Islam) avoided the non-Arab dialects, and the language of

the supporters of the Muslim dynasty was Arabic, those (dialects) were avoided

altogether in all provinces, because people follow the government and adopt

its religion (ways). Use of the Arabic language became a symbol of Islam and of

obedience to the Arabs. The foreign nations avoided using their own dialects

and languages in all the cities and provinces, and the Arabic language became

their language. Eventually, (Arabic) became firmly rooted as the (spoken)

language in all their cities and towns. The non-Arab languages came (to seem)

imported and foreign there...

When non-Arabs, such as the Daylam and, after them, the Saljûqs in the East

and the Zanâth and Berbers in the West, became rulers and obtained royal

authority and control over the whole Muslim realm, the Arabic language suffered

corruption. It would almost have disappeared, if the concern of the Muslims

with the Qur’ân and the Sunnah, which preserve Islam, had not (also) preserved

the Arabic language... But when the Tatars and the Mongols, who were not

Muslims, became the rulers of the East, this element in favor of the Arabic

language disappeared, and the Arabic language was absolutely doomed... The

sedentary Arabic dialect has largely remained in Egypt, Syria, Spain, and the

Maghrib, because Islam still remains (there) and requires it. Therefore, it has

been preserved to some degree. But in the provinces of the ‘Irâq and beyond

(to the East), no trace or source of (the Arabic language) has remained... God

determines night and day.

The spread of Arabic happened more or less at the expense of Aramaic. Persian

after having at first lost ground, regained ground following a renaissance, yet

did so deeply transformed by Arabic. Aramaic lost ground quickly. Today there

are only small pockets of regions where Aramaic is spoken. Yet what Arabic

had gained in prestige, it lacked in functionality. The use of Literary Arabic had

earlier been limited, apart for some few inscriptions, more or less to poetry. It

lacked functionality in most other domains. Moreover it lacked a tradition of

written literature. Arabs had used, with very few exceptions, Aramaic or South

Arabian for writing purposes. Moreover, with the rise of Islam, Arabic lacked

the necessary functionality – the necessary linguistic tools, especially in the

lexicon – for expressing matters related to their new religion. Introducing his

250 - Elie Wardini

work on the foreign vocabulary in the Quran, Jeffery (1938:2) states that “[c]loser

examination of the question [about the influence of the Jewish and Christian

religions on Islam] reveals even further and more detailed correspondences

than these which appear on the surface, and forces on one the conviction that

not only the greater part of the religious vocabulary, but also most of the

cultural vocabulary of the Qur’än is of non-Arabic origin.” On the other hand,

what Aramaic had lost in prestige, it retained in functionality. This is how in

the beginning of the Islamic era Aramaic, a language that by now had lost its

prestige outside church circles, came to have an important influence on Arabic,

the dominant and prestigious language of the period.

The following is a list of central Arabic terms attested in the Quran that have

been loaned from Aramaic.9 It is meant to show the deep influence Aramaic

has had on Arabic in many domains, especially the domain of religion.10

rKÝ« : aslama ‘to submit, to surrender’ as a technical religious term < Syriac/

Aramaic: aßlem ‘to devote oneself to God’.

t??K?�« : alläh ‘God’ as opposed to the Arabic Áü≈, iläh ‘god’ < Syriac alåhå

‘God’.

ʬd????????????????????� : qur‚än ‘a reading from Scriptures’ < Syriac qiryånå ‘reading (of

Scripture), lesson’.

W¹¬ : äya ‘a sign’ and consequently ‘a verse in the Quran’ < Aramaic/ Syriac

å†å ‘sign, mark’ (could be a loan from Hebrew).

dO�Hð : tafsïr ‘explanation, interpretation’ < Aramaic/ Syriac p@ßar ‘to expound,

make clear’.

s¹œ : dïn ‘judgement, religion’ < Aramaic/ Syriac, Hebrew dïn.

w³½ : nabï ‘prophet’ < Hebrew via Aramaic n@biyyã ‘prophet’.

W�UO� : qiyäma ‘resurrection’ < Syriac q@yãmã/ q@yãmtã ‘resurrection’.

bOŽ : „ïd ‘festival’ < Syriac „idå.

b−Ý : sajada ‘to worship’ < Aramaic/ Syriac s@ged.

b−�� : masjid ‘place of worship’ < Aramaic masgdå ‘place of worship’.

…ËU�“ : zakät ‘legal alms’ < Aramaic/ Syriac z@kutã.

9) I will for the sake of brevity not discuss in depth the etymology of the terms that Ihave chosen. I content myself with referring to the following sources which arestill the standard works in the field: Jeffery (1938) and Fraenkel (1886 [1962]).

10) Though there is consensus on the Aramaic influence on many vernacular Arabicvariants in areas outside the lexicon, there is, however, no systematic work doneto show these influences. See for example works by Werner Diem.

WFOý : ßï„a ‘sect, party’ < Syriac si„tå/ si„å ‘faction, group’.

Proficiency, functionality and prestige: Arabic and Aramaic in symbiosis - 251

WM¹b� : madïna ‘city’ < Aramaic/ Syriac m@dittå ‘city’.

V²?????� : kataba ‘to write’ < Aramaic k@tab ‘to write’. (A borrowing from North

Semitic via Aramaic; cf. South Semitic ÷æ˛f ‘to write’).

„—UÐ : bäraka ‘to bless’ < Hebrew/ Aramaic/ Syriac b@rak ‘to bless’.

»Uð : täba ‘to repent towards God’ < Aramaic/ Syriac tåb

ÊUDKÝ : sulåän ‘power, authority’ < Aramaic/ Syriac ßulåånå.

‚uÝ : süq ‘a street’ and later ‘market’ < Aramaic/ Syriac ßüqå ‘street, market’.

Moreover, Aramaic became the vehicle through which certain other languages,

such as Greek and Latin, have influenced Arabic. The list below gives some

examples. Note also that since Aramaic (especially in its Syriac variant) had a

long tradition of contact with Greek, particularly in translations from Greek,

when Greek original works were to be translated into Arabic, they were usually

first translated into Syriac and then into Arabic.

Loans into Arabic from Greek/ Latin via Aramaic/ Syriac:

ÃdÐ : burj ‘towers’ < Greek ptqco| (purgos) via Syriac/ Aramaic burgå.

r¼—œ : dirham ‘a dirham’ < Greek dqavlñ (drachme) via Syriac drakmå .

◊«d� : æiräå ‘way’ < Latin strata via Aramaic/ Syriac isårååå ‘Street’.

r??K?� : qalam ‘pen, reed’ < Greek j0kalo| (kalamos) via Aramaic/ Syriac

qalmå.

With Arabic established as the dominant language in the Middle East, the vast

majority of literature of the period after the Arab/ Islamic conquests was written

in Arabic. While Muslims gained proficiency in writing Arabic, many non-

Muslims, especially Jews and Christians, were not as proficient in the language

of the Quran. In addition they were the bearers of their own Hebrew or

Aramaic heritage. This limited proficiency among many Christian and Jewish

authors has given modern day scholars a glimpse of what has been termed

Middle Arabic. The aim of every author was to write correct literary Arabic.

This was the ideology of the period, an ideology carried into the Modern

Middle East. Authors with a low degree of proficiency in literary Arabic produced

documents with certain characteristics typical of many Jewish and Christian

authors. These characteristics have been interpreted as reflections of the

vernaculars used by these authors, i.e. Middle Arabic. Thus despite the existence

252 - Elie Wardini

of a dominant language supported by a firm ideology, the proficiency of the

users of such a dominant language can influence the development of this

language in certain circles (cf. Thomason & Kaufman (1988) who call the

process “imperfect learning”; see pp. 38, 39).

The Modern Setting

From the 14th century on, Arabic and Aramaic experienced a period of stagnation.

It was not until the 19th century that efforts were made to rejuvenate these

languages. During that period Europe had become the dominant political,

military, and cultural force. While Arabic and Aramaic were stagnant, European

languages flourished and developed into great languages of literature. Parallel

with this linguistic development, Europe had also become the center of industrial

development. This state of affairs continues to our days. European languages,

especially English, are dominant internationally. In the wake of the industrial

revolution, European languages gained functionality so as to be able to express

matters dealing with the evolving domains of science and technology. Through

advanced technology, European countries gained military and political

domination over large parts of the world. They also gained economic superiority.

With these achievements, European languages, and here we note English and

French especially, gained both prestige and functionality. Most other languages

that were adapted, especially in their lexicon, to better function in the modern

world were thus modernized following more or less in the paths that English

and French have trodden.

In this state of affairs, beginning in the 19th century and continuing into the

20th century, speakers of Arabic and Aramaic have embarked on campaigns to

reinvigorate their languages. Both languages had long been to a great extent

relegated to writing on religious affairs. Once the languages of science and

technology, they have now become regarded by many of their users as backward

languages lacking the functionality to express modern thought and technology.

With the emergence of the Modern Middle East and the establishment of modern

states, Arabic became the official language of many countries. These countries

established the League of Arab Nations, which then actively embarked on

campaigns to modernize Arabic. Arabic became taught in schools and was

used to write on all domains modern states need to deal with.11 Aramaic on the

other hand did not enjoy such support. On the contrary, after the Arab, Turkish,

11) To what extent did this revival and modernization of Arabic succeed is open todebate. This subject, though, is outside the scope of the present paper.

Iranian, and other different nationalistic movements dominated the new Middle

Proficiency, functionality and prestige: Arabic and Aramaic in symbiosis - 253

Eastern states any other expression of identity or ethnic affiliation were either

completely oppressed or strictly restricted. Any discussions about or attempts

at modernizing other languages than the official languages of the different

states was and still is considered as high treason against the newly established

nation states.

Modern Literary Syriac

Speakers of Aramaic found and still find themselves in the situation described

above. Under these circumstances, Arabic was able to develop more rapidly. It

gained prestige, even among the speakers of other languages. It also gained

functionality. One should not lose sight of the fact that prestige, proficiency,

and functionality are relative. Thus while European languages enjoyed a high

degree of prestige, Arabic enjoyed prestige among the peoples of the Middle

East and among Muslims world wide. Among the Aramaic-speaking peoples,

the literary language of the Syriac tradition enjoyed more prestige than the

vernaculars used in the different regions. Thus one can observe, among speakers

of Aramaic, a scale of more or less prestigious languages: European, Literary

Arabic, Literary Syriac, Vernacular Arabic/ Aramaic. Yet this ideal scale is

disrupted by the proficiency of the modernizers and the users of the different

languages. This is clearly seen in the case of modernizing Literary Syriac.12

While European languages enjoy a very high degree of prestige among those

modernizing Syriac, most of the modernizers of Syriac are not very proficient

in these languages. Though they are aware of the fact that most other languages

copy the European models, they revert to Arabic as the major source for their

new coinages, even when Arabic itself has copied European languages. This is

due to the fact that Arabic, though less prestigious than the European languages,

still enjoys a relatively high degree of prestige among speakers of Aramaic.

Moreover, Arabic has had more experience in adapting to the modern world

and copying from European languages. Thus it has gained a certain functionality

which Syriac can benefit from – reversing the situation compared with the

cases of translations from Greek through Syriac to Arabic. Modernizers of Syriac

also argue that taking Arabic as a model preserves the “Semitic character of

Syriac”.

Most importantly considering the issue at hand, those modernizing Syriac

12) For a thorough discussion of the modernization of Syriac see Wardini (1995, ch. 1).

have learned Arabic in school and many have Arabic as a second mother

254 - Elie Wardini

tongue. It is a fact that it is in Arabic that their proficiency lies, to a much

greater extent than in any European language. It is also a fact that very many of

the authors who write in Syriac are more proficient in Literary Arabic than they

are in Literary Syriac. A common description of the Syriac texts produced in the

late 20th century is that the authors write “Arabic with Syriac words”. This

phenomenon reflects a generation shift that coincides with a major shift in the

socio-political situation in the Middle East. The older generation have grown

up mainly under the Ottoman empire where group identity lay mainly in the

religious community (the Millet system). Here children went to church schools

and read religious literature. Their education focused on the Syriac heritage.

The new generation have grown up in nation states where the state controls

the schools. Here each state emphasized its own cultural identity to the detriment

of minority groups. So rather than growing up, as their fathers and grandfathers

did, in an environment where the Syriac language and literature were central,

the new generation of speakers of Aramaic have grown up in societies dominated

by Turkish or Arabic. Their education was no longer based on the Syriac

heritage, but rather on the linguistic and literary heritage of the dominating

groups in the state. The result then is that the new generation writes an

“Arabicized” form of Syriac.13 That is despite the fact that Literary Syriac enjoys

a high degree of prestige among the speakers of Aramaic as well as having a

very high symbolic value for their ethnic identity. These two elements compete

with the prestige that Arabic enjoys. Moreover, Syriac does indeed, like Arabic,

have a vast literary tradition that can help in the quest for modern terms. The

fact remains that due to the linguistic proficiency of the writers and the

functionality that Arabic has gained from its attempts at modernizing, Modern

Literary Syriac is highly dependent on Arabic. Here we can establish for our

modern speakers of Aramaic a general – yet not true for every individual –

scale from more to less proficiency in the following languages: Vernaculars

Arabic/ Aramaic, Literary Arabic, Literary Syriac, European.

The following are some results of an investigation I have made on neologisms

in Modern Literary Syriac (Wardini 1995). Morphologically Modern Literary

Syriac is conservative. It is also conservative with respect to the bases used in

coining neologisms. 80% of the 761 neologisms that I have discussed have

bases that are internal to Syriac. Note though that 5 verbal roots have been

loaned from Arabic. On a semantic level, on the other hand, Modern Literary

13) Interestingly enough, Turkish seems to a play but a minor role in Modern LiterarySyriac.

Syriac is deeply influenced by Arabic. Even terms that are ultimately loans from

Proficiency, functionality and prestige: Arabic and Aramaic in symbiosis - 255

European are introduced into Modern Literary Syriac via Arabic. 44.5% of the

neologisms collected that have a new or modified semantic content have changed

due to Arabic influence. Semantic changes that are internal to Syriac are 47.8%.

The remainder 7.7% are attributed to other languages. 42.5% of new idioms are

calqued from Arabic.

Conclusion

Throughout their history Arabic and Aramaic are languages that have developed

in close contact with each other. They have in different ways had considerable

influence on each other. They are indeed languages in symbiosis. Their

development and the different ways they have influenced each other show

clearly that in a sociolinguistic framework prestige is not the only significant

factor steering their interaction. As demonstrated in the present paper, the

linguistic proficiency of the users of each language has played a major role in

the development of these languages. It has also been demonstrated that the

language that had gained a higher level of functionality in certain domains

contributed more to the other language in these same domains, at times contrary

to what one would expect from the point of view of prestige. We conclude

then by asserting that together with prestige and other linguistic factors, especially

in a language contact situation, proficiency and functionality should be

given their rightful position in the study of language change and development.

References

Fraenkel, Siegmund 1886 [1962]: Die aramäischen Fremdwörter im Arabischen.

Hildesheim, 1962. “Reprografischer Nachdruck der Ausgabe Leiden 1886”.

Gibson, J.C.L. 1982: Textbook of Syrian Semitic inscriptions, vol. III: Phoenician

inscriptions, including inscriptions in the mixed dialect of Arslan Tash.

Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gordon, Cyrus H. 1997: Amorite and Eblaite. In: Robert Hetzron (ed.) The

Semitic languages. London: Routledge, 100-113.

Grosjean, François 1982: Life with Two Languages: An Introduction to

Bilingualism. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Ibn Khaldun: The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Translated from

the Arabic by Franz Rosenthal, in three volumes, London 1958.

Jeffery, Arthur 1938: The foreign vocabulary of the Qur’an. Baroda: Oriental

Institute. (Gaekwad’s Oriental series, 79).

256 - Elie Wardini

Knudtzon, J.A. (ed.) 1915 [1964]: Die El-Amarna-Tafeln: mit Einleitung und

Erläuterungen. Leipzig: Aalen Otto Zeller Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Krebernik, Manfred 1996: The Linguistic Classification of Eblaite: Methods,

Problems, and Results. In: Jerrold S. Cooper and Glenn M. Schwartz (eds.)

The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twenty-First Century: the

William Foxwell Albright Centennial Conference. Winona Lake, Ind.:

Eisenbrauns, 233-249.

Milroy, James 1992: Social network and prestige arguments in sociolinguistics.

In: Kingsley Bolton and Helen Kwok (eds.) Sociolinguistics Today:

International Perspectives. London: Routledge, 146-162.

Moran, William L. 1992: The Amarna letters. Edited and translated by William

L. Moran. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Thomason, Sarah Grey and Kaufman, Terrence 1988: Language Contact,

Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkley: University of California

Press.

Wardini, Elie 1995: Neologisms in Modern Literary Syriac: Some preliminary

Results. Dissertation, University of Oslo. The first part of the dissertation is

published as the following: Neologisms in Modern Literary Syriac (Part

one). In: Mélanges de L’Université Saint-Joseph, vol. LIII 1993-1994. Beirut

1997, 400-566. Part two is forthcoming.