John Benjamins Publishing Company his is a contribution from Arabic in Contact. Edited by Stefano Manfredi and Mauro Tosco. © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company his electronic ile may not be altered in any way. he author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF ile to generate printed copies to be used by way of ofprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this ile on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staf) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com Arabic in contact, now and then Stefano Manfredi and Mauro Tosco SeDyL, CNRS / University of Turin 1. Contact linguistics and Arabic in contact1 Of course, languages are not in contact. We could say that speakers of languages are, but even this would be misleading, as we would bestow an undue role to individuals in their capacity as speakers, and at the same time forget that words and patterns spread when they are heard, rather than when they are uttered. As homason (2001: p. 2) puts it, “in the simplest deinition, language contact is the use of more than one language in the same place at the same time”. hus, what we call language contact is one facet of human interaction, never separable from it. An obvious factor favoring language contact is widespread bi- and multilingualism. However, chances of language contact might be increased/decreased among other things, by the relative number of speakers of a given language, their geographical location, their movement opportunities, and the technologies they use in communication – all the way down to the individual disposition to contact. Still, in any case, individuals interact, either face to face or not. In this respect, it is also important to remark that when we call an individual “a speaker of [language] X” we qualify them on the basis of their verbal behavior only – leading us eventually to forget that language interaction is ultimately just one of the results of human interaction (verbal and non-verbal alike). 1. his volume is derived from the conference “Arabic in Contact: Linguistic and Sociolinguistic perspectives” held December 15–17, 2014 at the University of Naples “L’Orientale”. he conference was organized by the editors of this volume, in collaboration with Giorgio Banti. he editors wish to thank the Universities of Turin and of Naples “L’Orientale” for their inancial and logistic support in the organization of the conference, which was part of the ATrA (“Linguistic and Cultural Areas of Transition in Africa”) project sponsored by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR). Please note that not all of the papers presented at the conference are published here, and that a few papers that were not presented at the conference have been added to this volume. https://doi.org/10.1075/sal.6.01man © 2018 John Benjamins Publishing Company 2 Stefano Manfredi and Mauro Tosco Many individuals have been in contact with speakers of Arabic for a long time, in diferent parts of the world and for diferent reasons, more than we can explore, or even mention, here. One of the reasons for contact with Arabic all around the world is linked to the role of Classical Arabic as the language of Islām, especially in Africa and Asia. his cultural aspect of the spread of Arabic produces an indirect type of language contact that will not be explored here (see Versteegh 2015; Tosco 2015). Equally, largely absent from our survey will be the issues of dialect contact (i.e., dialect levelling and dialect mixing, see Miller et al. 2007), diglossic bilingualism involving Modern Standard Arabic and language contact in diasporic contexts (see Rouchdy 2002). A further dimension of language contact which will not be covered in the present volume is the role of Arabic as a source of neologisms in language planning: in cases such as contemporary Ethiopia, Arabic words may be preferred over older loans from a local dominant language (such as Amharic) and purposefully imposed in the new, standard written languages (e.g., in Oromo; Savà and Tosco 2008). In this case, actual contact between speakers is largely immaterial. More humbly, the aim of the present volume is to provide an overview of current trends in the study of language contact involving Arabic. If ‘contact’ refers to contact between speakers, to separately investigate its efects as unfolding in and from Arabic is largely artiicial. By drawing on the social factors that have converged to create diferent contact situations, we therefore concentrate on both contact-induced change in Arabic and language change through contact with Arabic. Furthermore, we aim at covering other important aspects related to language contact involving Arabic, such as the emergence of Arabic-based contact varieties, codeswitching, and metalinguistic representations of contact-induced changes. For a long time, scholars have tried to typologize the outputs of language contact in light of both diferent contact situations and the nature of the linguistic structures in contact. In this regard, Weinreich (1953: p. 86) overtly states that the ultimate goal of contact linguistics is “to predict typical forms of interference from the sociolinguistic description of a bilingual community and a structural description of its languages”. he most inluential theoretical paradigm on language contact has probably been suggested by homason and Kaufman (1988) who provide for three main contact scenarios. he irst one is that of language maintenance which typically implies “borrowing” or, in other words, the incorporation of foreign elements into the speaker’s native language. he second scenario, that of language shit, is related to (substrate) “interference”, which is instead conceived as the linguistic inluence played by an ancestral language over an intrusive language that gradually supplants it. he third scenario involves the creation of new linguistic systems composed of elements of diferent languages in contact and it corresponds to pidginization/creolization as well as to language mixing. he idea underlying this sociohistorical understanding of language contact is that contact-induced change © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved Arabic in contact, now and then can occur at any level of a given linguistic system. However, the processes of “borrowing” and “interference” difer sharply in terms of linguistic outputs, the former being mainly related with the transfer of lexical and morphological material, and the latter inducing the transfer of phonological, syntactic and semantic constraints. Several studies of language contact involving Arabic (Thomason 2006; Versteegh 2001, 2010) have been primarily inspired by the explanatory model of homason and Kaufman. Despite this, the traditional sociohistorical understanding of contact-induced change has also been criticized. For instance, Myers-Scotton (2002) argues that diferent contact phenomena result from a limited set of grammatical processes, regardless of the sociolinguistic scenario in which they take place. Lucas (2012: p. 521), on his part, aptly observes that it is far from clear that the question of whether or not a community happens to maintain its ancestral language is crucial to understanding the dynamics of contact-induced change. As a further matter, it has been repeatedly observed that there is no clear-cut line between borrowing and interference (Haspelmath 2009). Aikhenvald (2007: p. 4), for example, deines “borrowing” as “the transfer of features of any kind from one language to another as the result of contact”. and “interference” as “the non-deliberate carrying over of linguistic features from one’s irst language into one’s second language”. In this acceptation, “interference” is nothing more than a subtype of “borrowing”. In the light of the above, over the last few decades scholars have advocated viewing the outcomes of language contact from other perspectives. Typological research in language contact focuses on the interplay of two or more linguistic systems in order to compare the efects of contact on language structures (Matras 2001). Adopting this typological standpoint, Ross (2006, 2007) detaches himself from the tripartite conception of contact-induced change proposed by homason and Kaufman and eventually distinguishes between two main processes of language transfer: “typical borrowing” and “typical shit-induced interference”. On the one hand, the process of typical borrowing is produced by native speakers who intentionally import lexical items from another language into their own language. On the other hand, typical shit-induced interference is produced by bilingual speakers who unconsciously import lexical and grammatical features of a dominant language into their own ancestral language. In such situations, bilingual speakers tend to transfer syntactic constructions from the socially dominant language, resulting in a contact-induced typological change labelled as “metatypy”. Metatypy oten presupposes a high degree of bi- and multilingualism among the members of a group, with the ancestral language being the intragroup means of communication, and the socially dominant language being used for intergroup communication. As far as the study of Arabic in contact is concerned, the typological notion of metatypy has been adopted for describing the contact-induced typological change afecting both minority varieties of Arabic, such as the Central-Asian dialect of Bukhara © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved 3 4 Stefano Manfredi and Mauro Tosco (Ratclife 2005), and minority languages in contact with Arabic, as in the case of Laggorí, an Eastern-Sudanic (Daju) language spoken in the Nuba Mountains region in Sudan (Manfredi 2014). A third prominent theoretical framework for the study language contact is that proposed by Van Coetsem (1988, 1995) and further developed by Winford (2005, 2007). Unlike previous approaches, Van Coetsem’s explanatory model of language contact is neither socio-historically nor typologically oriented, since it rather focuses on the psycholinguistic criterion of “language dominance” (see also Smits 1998). According to Van Coetsem, a bilingual speaker is dominant in the language in which they are most proicient and that is not necessarily their native language or the socially dominant language. Against this backdrop, he proposes two distinct transfer types: “borrowing”, which is typically produced by speakers who are dominant in the recipient language, and “imposition”, which is instead produced by speakers who are dominant in the source language (corresponding to homason and Kaufman’s concept of donor language). Moreover, Van Coetsem (1988: p. 20; 1995: p. 25) and Winford (2005: p. 377) point out that the dissimilar outcomes of borrowing and imposition are primarily a result of the “stability gradient” of language, which induces speakers to preserve the domains of their dominant language that are less afected by change. his is the main reason borrowing tends to be irregular and typically involves the transfer of lexical items, whereas imposition is more systematic and produces signiicant grammatical changes. Despite this, it is not always a trivial matter to tease the two transfer types apart since bilingual speakers may trigger borrowing and imposition in the same contact situation while directing them towards diferent languages. Crucially, in contrast to the traditional sociohistorical standpoint represented by homason and Kaufman, Winford (2005: p. 396; 2008: p. 128) assumes that the processes that create contact languages are the same as those that operate in contact-induced change. Given this background, three broad categories of contact languages may be identiied: contact languages that primarily arose through borrowing (such as the case of Maltese), languages that primarily arose through imposition (such as the case Arabic-based creoles), and languages that arose from a combination of both transfer types (e.g., Central-Asian Arabic). Only a small number of comprehensive studies have hitherto adopted Van Coetsem’s psycholinguistic model of language contact to Arabic (Lucas 2012, 2014; Manfredi 2018) and to the inluence of Arabic on other languages (Kossmann 2013b). he review of the main frameworks of language contact presented above is far from being exhaustive. Still, it gives an idea of the multiplicity of theoretical standpoints on language contact and their respective impacts on the study of the dynamic of language contact involving Arabic. In this light, we believe that regardless of the approach one adopts, language contact is above all a multifactorial process © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved Arabic in contact, now and then of language change (Chamoreau and Léglise 2012), encompassing, inter alia, sociolinguistic, typological and psycholinguistic factors. For the sake of the present volume, we do not align ourselves with any preferred model of contact-induced change, as we prefer to leave contributors free to adopt the most suitable approach for their own studies. he following sections detail the rationale of the contents of this volume. 2. In and from Arabic: Grammar in context Grammatical borrowing involves the transfer of grammatical structures from a donor language to a recipient language. It is now widely agreed that grammatical borrowing entails the transfer of a wide range of segmental grammatical structures (e.g. free and bound morphemes) and non-segmental ones (e.g. syntactic and semantic constraints). he comparative study of grammatical borrowing must therefore take into account both the “horizontal” diversity of languages in contact, and the “vertical” diversity of the grammatical categories on which contact can have an impact (Matras and Sakel 2007: p. 2). In the case of Arabic, the outputs of grammatical borrowing have been traditionally analyzed in terms of the substratal interference with modern Arabic dialects on the part of, inter alia, Himyarite (Diem 1979), Aramaic (in its diferent varieties, see for example Contini 1999), Coptic (Lucas and Lash 2010), and Berber (again, in diferent forms and times, see for example Taine-Cheikh 2008; see Kossmann 2013a for a general overview). A smaller number of studies focus on the grammatical inluence of Arabic on other languages (see for example Arnold 2007; Matras 2007; Kossmann 2013b; Souag 2014; Coghill 2015). In Section 1, we concentrate on the grammatical efects of contact, in cases where it induces changes in Arabic, as well as where contact with Arabic induces change elsewhere. In ‘he Arabic component in Domari’, Bruno Herin investigates the poorlydocumented (and by now largely displaced and severely endangered) Domari, an Indo-Aryan language spoken by Dom people, on the basis of his own largely unpublished ieldwork and supplementing Matras’ (2012) extensive investigation of Palestinian Domari. Domari is a primary example of language contact, insofar as its speakers are and have traditionally been bilingual. Arabic is just the most recent among a large number of languages with which Domari has interacted, with very diferent results: generally, Herin shows that Arabic inluence on Domari has been stronger in the south (Palestine) than in the north (Syria, Lebanon and southern Turkey). Such a diferential impact (leading in extreme cases, as in Jerusalem, to language shit to Arabic by a majority of Domari speakers) is visible in morphology, syntax and lexicon, and can be characterized as leading mainly to pattern © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved 5 6 Stefano Manfredi and Mauro Tosco replication in the north and matter replication in the south. his in turn seems to suggest, in the author’s words, that “phenomena such as bilingual suppletion in particular and large scale transfer of matter in general involve a greater historical depth of bilingualism and a more advanced stage of language attrition” in the south. It is instead an Arabic variety which is the target of contact in Faruk Akkuş and Elabbas Benmamoun’s ‘Syntactic outcomes of contact in Sason Arabic (Turkey)’. An endangered variety of southern Turkey, Sason Arabic has been in contact with both Turkish and (possibly for a much longer period) Kurdish. he authors concentrate on indeiniteness, light verb constructions, causatives, and negative copula sentences, and show how Sason Arabic patterns with the languages it is in contact with rather than with Arabic at large, making contact as the most plausible source of pattern change. We move to Africa and to a very diferent contact pattern with Lameen Souag’s ‘Arabic-Berber-Songhay contact and the grammaticalisation of ‘thing’’. Souag investigates the development of double negation in Arabic, focusing once again on the striking parallels between Berber and North African Arabic in this domain. he crux of the matter revolves around the contact-induced grammaticalization (Heine and Kuteva 2003; 2005) of relexes of (Classical) Arabic šayʔ as a negation marker, but also in indeinite quantiication and polar question marking, both across North African dialects of Arabic and Berber languages. he author proposes a relative chronology of these developments and points out how non-Arabic varieties sometimes preserve usages which are obsolete in present-day Arabic dialects. We remain within the dynamics of Berber–Arabic contact with Dominique Caubet’s contribution ‘Arabic and Berber in contact: Arabic in a minority situation in El Hoceima Region’. he author introduces us to a complex and somehow paradoxical contact situation in an area of northern Morocco, where both Jebli Moroccan Arabic and Tariit Berber are spoken. hus, within one single faction of one single tribe, we ind both Arabic and Berber speakers; in particular, we have a minority of Arabic speakers among the Berber-speaking Aït Aïssa faction, who are themselves a minority within the mostly Arabic-speaking Beni Iṭṭet tribe. he situation seems to be one of stable bilingualism, going on with little changes since it was irst studied in 1932, and possibly for centuries before that. In ‘Arabic on the Dahlak islands (Eritrea)’ Marie-Claude Simeone-Senelle describes a very poorly documented Arabic variety of the Red Sea based on her unpublished material, and compares it to the Arabic spoken along the African coast as a lingua franca (Simeone-Senelle 1999). Generally speaking, a certain amount of morphological reduction occurs in non-native varieties of Arabic. However, vehicular varieties of Arabic in Africa present a lower degree of grammatical restructuring in comparison with Arabic-based pidgins and creoles (Manfredi 2013; Tosco and Manfredi 2013, cf. 4). Trying to determine to what extent a distinction can be © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved Arabic in contact, now and then drawn between native and non-native varieties of Dahlak Arabic, Simeone-Senelle’s results show that the vernacular and vehicular forms of Arabic tend to merge and level into a single local variety. In this context, the role played by Dahalik, the Ethio-Semitic language dominant on the islands, is not as signiicant as it could be expected and appears to be dwindling. 3. In and from Arabic: Dealing with words Loanwords are the most obvious result of language contact. his is simply because, being highly referential, lexical categories are more likely to be borrowed than grammatical categories. Following Haspelmath (2009: p. 36), we deine “loanword” as a lexical item that at some point in the history of a language entered its lexicon as a result of “borrowing”, here intended as an umbrella term for all kinds of transfer from a donor language to a recipient language. he probability of lexical borrowing depends, of course, on both linguistic and extra-linguistic factors. On the one hand, high token frequency may play an important role in triggering the integration of a given lexical item. On the other, negative language attitudes and linguistic purism can limit, or even hinder, lexical borrowing. A large body of literature has been devoted to lexical borrowing involving Arabic (see Versteegh 2001; 2010 for a general overview) and a good number of contributions in this volume deal, one way or the other, with loanwords – again, both in and out of Arabic, and both “now” and “then”. hese dimensions are tackled in Section 2, starting with Catherine TaineCheikh’s ‘Ḥassāniyya Arabic in contact with Berber: the case of quadriliteral verbs’. Ḥassāniyya Arabic is the dominant language in Mauritania, while Berber (specifically, the Zenaga Berber language) is highly endangered. The author’s analysis demonstrates that Ḥassāniyya Arabic has incorporated a good deal of four-consonant roots of Berber origin. Even more common is the case of new formations from Berber nominal borrowings. hese pertain to the category of “cultural borrowings” rather than “core borrowings”, with two semantic ields dominating: animals (husbandry, riding, doctoring), and illnesses, followed by traditional activities, physical traits, social features and time-related vocabulary (cf. Myers-Scotton 2002: p. 41; see Haspelmath 2009: p. 46–50 for a critical review of “core” and “cultural” borrowings). While Ḥassāniyya oten retains Berber loanwords which are absent or disappeared in Zenaga itself, various semantic shits have made their appearance, oten together with semantic specialization. A typical example of lexical borrowing in Arabic as a native recipient language is represented by loanwords from European languages into modern Arabic dialects. In ‘Loan verbs in Egyptian Arabic: new indings and evidence from social media’, Ashraf Hassan explores the increasing lexical impact of English on Egyptian © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved 7 8 Stefano Manfredi and Mauro Tosco Arabic focusing on the morphophonological integration of loan verbs in the context of social media. Drawing on the typology of verbal borrowings proposed by Wohlgemuth (2009), Hassan explores the diferent accommodation mechanisms of loan verbs in written Egyptian Arabic (light verb strategy vs. direct insertion) and proposes a diachronic explanation for their variable incidence. Luca D’Anna, in ‘Italian loanwords in Libyan Arabic: morphophonological analysis and semantic considerations’, revisits and updates, building at least partially upon unpublished ieldwork, the long history of contact between Italian and Libyan Arabic. Contact has reached its apex before and during colonial times in the irst half of the 20th century (Italy conquered Libya in 1911 and a substantial Italian colony was present in the country until 1969). here are currently at least 700 lexical items in Libyan Arabic that can be traced back to borrowings from Italian (but for some of them the source may also be some other Romance language). Based on quantitative and qualitative observations, the paper goes through both the phono-morphological and semantic integration of these borrowed items. As is well known, Arabic represents an important source of loanwords in African languages. In this vein, Nicolas Quint proposes ‘An assessment of the Arabic lexical contribution to contemporary spoken Koalib (Sudan)’, a Niger-Kordofanian language spoken by approximately 100,000 people in the Nuba Mountains, in western Sudan. Contact with Arabic is at least 250 years old and commenced with the arrival of Arabic-speaking nomads and the rise of a local Muslim kingdom. All varieties of Koalib, even the most conservative, have witnessed the integration of a sizable number of Arabic items belonging to diferent parts of speech. A corpus of approximately 300 Koalib items borrowed from diferent Arabic varieties (mainly from Kordofanian Baggara Arabic and Sudanese Colloquial Arabic) is thoroughly analyzed as far as the phonology, morphology and semantics are concerned. Similar to Beja (Vanhove 2012), a northern Cushitic language spoken in eastern Sudan, the integration of Arabic lexical items in Koalib may also entail the copying of productive morphological patterns of the donor language. his shows how contact-induced morphological innovations are usually transferred into the recipient language via lexical borrowing (King 2000). 4. Deep contact: Arabic-based contact languages Apart from the aforementioned types of contact-induced change, Arabic has been involved in the emergence of a number of contact languages. According to Bakker and Matras (2013: p. 1), the notion of “contact languages” generally refers back to “new languages that have emerged in extreme contact situations where available language repertoires did not provide an efective tool for communication”. Broadly © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved Arabic in contact, now and then speaking, scholars identify three types of contact languages: pidgins, creoles and mixed languages. As far as pidgin and creole languages are concerned, despite the unfortunately recalcitrant belief that they merely represent simpliied versions of their lexiier languages, the only valid criterion for deining them against languages arising out of “normal” language transmission lies very possibly only in the social conditions for their emergence. As a matter of fact, pidgins and creoles are diferent from other spoken languages in that they came into existence as a consequence of the disruption of the intergenerational transmission of the lexiier language (Comrie 2011: p. 600). hese uncommon conditions of language emergence entail diferent processes of language change linked to second language acquisition with limited input, substratum interference, as well as to internal developments (Winford 2005: p. 411). Mixed languages, on their part, are conventionally seen as products of extensive bilingualism whose grammar and lexical systems can be traced back to more than a single source language (Matras and Bakker 2003).2 It is for this very reason that the source of pidgin/creole language structures are generally opaque, whereas those of mixed languages are relatively transparent (Owens 2001: p. 53). Section 3 is largely, but not exclusively, concerned with Arabic-based pidgins and creoles. At the same time, Arabic language mixing, such as found in Maltese and Central Asian Arabic, is not considered. Attention on Arabic-based pidgins and creoles (and what lies between) has received a good deal of attention in recent years. he editors of this volume had previously published a collection of articles addressed at creolists and general linguists (Manfredi and Tosco 2014) and an overview for scholars in Arabic (Tosco and Manfredi 2013). Against the backdrop of this growing amount of data on Arabic contact languages, in the present volume we prefer to concentrate on theoretical issues with contributions by Jonathan Owens and Kees Versteegh, followed by two data-oriented articles by Andrei Avram and Shuichiro Nakao. he question ‘Why linguistics needs a historically oriented Arabic linguistics’ is addressed by Jonathan Owens. he author applies Labov’s (2007) distinction between transmission and difusion (while the former results in gradual incremental changes, the latter yields larger and irregular change), to the study of ive Arabic cases: Emirati, Nigerian, Baghdadi, Uzbekistan (Central Asian) Mixed Arabic, and Nubi. Arabic, like American English in Labov’s study, shows striking language stability across geo-diachronically widely separated varieties, as well as impressive cases of widespread contact-induced change, but these can be considered irregular only in the case of Nubi (a creole). he study highlights how global criteria for 2. In this sense, every language could be considered to be “mixed” in that it presents some lexical or grammatical element deriving from another language. As a consequence, some scholars openly argue against the operativeness of the notion of “mixed language” (Versteegh 2017). © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved 9 10 Stefano Manfredi and Mauro Tosco deining the outcomes of transmission vs. difusion remain elusive, and most of all, ofers interesting insights into the workings of historical linguistic processes ofered by Arabic and its rich and variegated history. In ‘Basic varieties of Arabic’, Kees Versteegh applies the model of the Basic Variety (developed by Klein and Perdue 1997 and further elaborated by Benazzo 2003) to two basic forms of communication in Arabic, Pidgin Madame and Gulf Pidgin Arabic. Predictions on the sequentiality of development of temporal adverbs of contrast (resultative already; continuative still) based upon Benazzo’s analysis of the Basic Varieties of German, French and English fail to be supported when Arabic is taken into consideration: although the source language of these two Arabic Basic Varieties does not contain a resultative adverb, both varieties feature it as kalas. Both this and the relatively frequent use of a continuative particle (bād) at a very early stage contradict the universality of Benazzo’s results. Not much is yet known about Arabic foreigner talk and its role in the emergence of Arabic-based pidgins in the Middle-East. In ‘On the relationship between Arabic Foreigner Talk and Pidgin Arabic’, Andrei Avram compares the morphosyntax and lexical features of the Arabic Foreigner Talk to those of four Arabic-lexiier pidgins (Pidgin Madame, Jordanian Pidgin Arabic, Romanian Pidgin Arabic, and Gulf Pidgin Arabic). he author proposes a feedback relationship in order to account for the signiicant number of features shared between Arabic Foreigner Talk shares and all or at least some of these Arabic-based pidgins. In ‘A ‘creole’ music in Juba Arabic: direr dance in Juba (South Sudan)’, Shuichiro Nakao challenges the assumption that Nubi and Juba Arabic, the two Arabic creoles spoken in Eastern Africa, have been cut of from each other since their early divergence in the 1880s, when Anglo-Sudanese troops stationed in modern-day Southern Sudan were forced to move south and settle in Uganda and Kenya in the wake of the Mahdist revolution in Sudan. Nakao presents ethnographic evidence to the contrary, and, as a foremost example of these “inter-creole” contacts, explores the musical practice called dolúka in Nubi and dirêr in Juba Arabic. he results show that across eastern Africa, Arabic-based speech communities have been very much in contact through most of their history, shaping and continually redeining their identity through language and culture contacts. 5. Back to the speaker: Codeswitching and language ideologies he last section of the volume deals with the speaker’s involvement and processing in language contact. he focus here is on speaker role as both producer and conceptualizer of contact-induced change. he irst two contributions deal with codeswitching involving Arabic. Codeswitching is not a kind of diachronic © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved Arabic in contact, now and then contact-induced language change, but rather a type of synchronic contact-induced speech behavior (Hasplemath 2009: p. 40) which may have long-run implications in terms of linguistic convergence (Muysken 2000). In this perspective, codeswitching clearly difers from the integration of lexical and grammatical loans. In spite of this, during the last decades the traditional notion of codeswitching has been facing a growing criticism. Clyne (2003: p. 72) airms that “the term ‘codeswitching’ has now become so polysemous and unclear that it is necessary to ind more precise terms to map out the boundaries and interfaces”. Along the same lines, Winford (2003: pp. 107–108; 2005: p. 379) states that there are no hard linguistic criteria for distinguishing codeswitching from borrowing since they are outputs of the same transfer type involving recipient language agentivity. In contrast to the above, it is important to remark that, unlike lexical and grammatical borrowing, codeswitching refers above all to discourse and interaction (Auer 1998). his implies that, in choosing a give language, speakers tend to evaluate the markedness of their potential choices (Myers-Scotton 1993b) and accordingly emphasize instances of codeswitching through a number of linguistic means such as prosody (Manfredi et al. 2014). When the greater part of a speech community is bilingual, codeswitching may occur extensively. Moroccan Arabic–French codeswitching is a well-studied case in point (Heath 1989). In ‘Determiner phrase: how speciic is it in Moroccan Arabic-French Codeswitching?’ Karima Ziamari investigates nominal insertions in Moroccan Arabic-French codeswitching. As a number of studies have shown, French NPs are embedded in a larger constituent together with their determiners, and are further headed by the Arabic determiners wāḥəd and hād. Using the Matrix Language Frame model (Myers-Scotton 1993a, 2002) and on the basis of an extensive oral corpus, Ziamari seeks to elucidate the motivation behind this unexpected behavior, arguing that morphosyntactic structure alone cannot do justice to explaining the phenomenon, and proposing to take into account the semantic, pragmatic and enunciative mismatch between Moroccan Arabic and French in deiniteness, gender and number. he impact of modern technologies upon centuries-old patterns of contact is explored by Dénes Gazsi in the article ‘From Arabia to Persia and back: ArabicPersian codeswitching among the Al ‘Ali tribe in the UAE and Iran’. he article is a thorough analysis of Arabic-Persian codeswitching and the phonological and lexical outcomes of language contact among members of a tribe scattered between the UAE and the coastal Hurmuzgān Province of Iran. Both bilingualism and multidialectalism are at play in the linguistic environment of the speakers, which boasts Modern Standard Arabic, Gulf Colloquial Arabic, Modern Standard Persian, Colloquial Persian and two Persian dialects. he study draws on recorded data with speakers in the UAE and their conversation threads with Iranian tribe members © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved 11 12 Stefano Manfredi and Mauro Tosco on social media sites. he results evidence how language choices are determined by the topic of the conversation, the interlocutors’ identity and their relationship to each other, all resulting in complex patterns of situational and transactional codeswitching, both inter- and intra-sententially. he last two contributions tackle the issue of the nexus between language contact and language ideologies. While the linguistic outcomes of language contact involving Arabic have been analyzed from a wide array of perspectives, the study of language attitudes and ideologies lying behind contact-induced phenomena in Arabic and from Arabic have scarcely been studied. he question can therefore be raised whether contact-induced change in and from Arabic unveils diferent social structures and which efects it has on the social categorization of the language structures in contact. In asymmetric contact situations such as that of Palestinian Arabic with Israeli Hebrew (Horesh 2015), language ideologies may strongly afect the outputs of language contact. his is illustrated by Nancy Hawker in ‘Arabic borrowing of the Hebrew word menahēl ‘manager’: Articulations and ideologies’. he study describes the pragmatic functions – informative or humorous – of the Israeli Hebrew word menahēl ‘boss’ borrowed into Palestinian Arabic. Linguistic anthropology and ethnography can deepen our understanding of contact by introducing language into the ‘materiality of ideology’ (Grossberg 1986). he case of the Israeli Hebrew borrowing menahēl ‘boss’ in Palestinian Arabic provides material for an analysis that cannot but incorporate the ideologies that represent relations with the conditions of life in the Palestinian-Israeli context. hese conditions include economic precariousness for Palestinian day-migrant workers and military control over access and movement in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, coupled by limited autonomy for Palestinian institutions. Palestinians face these conditions with a mixture of stoicism and nationalism, while negotiating with Israeli securitism and economic liberalism. It might seem too obvious to apply this explanatory model to menahēl, in its semantic ield of power relations, but it is a place to start, not least so as not to annoy ‘the boss’. Valentina Serreli’s ‘Contact-induced change from speakers’ perspectives: a study of language attitudes in Siwa’ constitutes a qualitative analysis of the metalinguistic dimension of language contact between Arabic and Siwi, the easternmost Berber language spoken in the Egyptian oasis of Siwa. Siwi has been extensively exposed to contact with diferent varieties of Arabic (Souag 2014), the most intrusive of which is Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. Nonetheless, geographical and social isolation favored the maintenance of Siwi, which remains the major language of intragroup communication. By combining insights from discourse analysis and contact linguistics, the study seeks to demonstrate that the speakers’ perception of © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved Arabic in contact, now and then contact-induced change is afected by a high degree of individual variation induced by the diferentiated efects of the ongoing economic and social change in Siwa. 6. Envoy In the last few decades, the study of language contact emerged from the historical linguistic viewpoint in which it has been traditionally conined and it is now undergoing a process of conceptual renewal and theoretical reconstruction (Nicolai 2007). he present volume joins this new wave of contact linguistics by bringing together leading scholars who address a variety of topics related to contact-induced change, contact languages, codeswitching and language ideologies. It ofers, we believe, important insights from diferent theoretical approaches in connection with other research ields such as descriptive linguistics, sociolinguistics, ethnolinguistics and language acquisition. Over and above all this, the present volume intends to stress the centrality of language contact for Arabic linguistics, and to reveal the signiicance of Arabic for a multifaceted understanding of language contact. References Aikhenvald, A. (2007). Grammars in contact: a cross-linguistic perspective. In A. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds.), Grammars in Contact: A CrossLinguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1–66. Arnold, W. (2007). Arabic grammatical borrowing in western Neo-Aramaic. In Y. Matras and J. Sakel (eds.), Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 185–195. Auer, P. (1998). From Codeswitching via Language Mixing to Fused Lects: Toward a Dynamic Typology of Bilingual Speech. he International Journal of Bilingualism 4 (3): 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069990030040101 Bakker, P. and Y. Matras (2013). Introduction. In P. Bakker and Y. Matras (eds.), Contact Languages. A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513711.1 Benazzo, S. (2003). he interaction between the development of verb morphology and the acquisition of temporal adverbs of contrast: A longitudinal study in French, English and German L2. In C. Dimroth and M. Starren (eds.), Information structure and the dynamics of language acquisition. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 187–210. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.26.09ben Chamoreau, C. and I. Léglise (2012). A multi-model approach to contact-induced language change. In C. Chamoreau and I. Léglise (eds.), Dynamics of Contact-Induced Language Change. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110271430.1 Clyne, M. (2003). Dynamics of Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606526 © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved 13 14 Stefano Manfredi and Mauro Tosco Coghill, E. (2015). Borrowing of verbal derivational morphology between Semitic languages: the case of Arabic verb derivations in Neo-Aramaic. In F. Gardani, P. Arkadiev and N. Amiridze (eds.), Borrowed Morphology. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Comrie, B. (2011). Creoles and language typology. In C. Lefebvre (ed.), Creoles, their Substrates and Language Typology. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 599–610. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.95.33com Contini, R. (1999). Le substrat araméen en neo-libanais: Préliminaires à une enquête sisthématique. In M. Lamberti and L. Tonelli (eds.), Afroasiatica Tergensia: Paper from the 9th Italian Meeting of Afro-Asiatic (Hamito-Semitic) Linguistics. Padova: Unipress. 101–128. Diem, W. (1979). Studien zur Frage des Substrats im Arabischen. Der Islam 48: 12–80. Grossberg, L. (1986). On Postmodernism and Articulation: An Interview with Stuart Hall. Journal of Communication Inquiry 10(2): 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/019685998601000204 Hasplemath, M. (2009). Lexical borrowing: Concepts and issues. In M. Haspelmath and U. Tadmor (eds.). Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218442.35 Heath, J. (1989). From Code-Switching to Borrowing: a case study of Moroccan Arabic. London – New York: Kegan Paul International. Heine, B. and T. Kuteva (2003). On contact-induced grammaticalization. In Studies in Language 27 (3): 529–572. Heine, B. and T. Kuteva (2005). Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614132 Horesh, U. (2015). Structural change in Urban Palestinian Arabic induced by contact with Modern Hebrew. In A. M. Butts, Semitic Languages in Contact. Leiden – Boston: E. J. Brill. 198–233. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004300156_012 King, R. (2000). he Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing. A Prince Edward Island Case Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.209 Klein, W. and C. Perdue (1997). he Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research 13: 301–347. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765897666879396 Kossmann, M. (2013a). Borrowing. In Jonathan Owens (ed.), he Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 349–368. Kossmann, M. (2013b). he Arabic Inluence on Northern Berber. Leiden – Boston: E. J. Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004253094 Labov, W. (2007). Transmission and difusion. Language 83: 344–387. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2007.0082 Lucas, C. (2012). Contact-induced grammatical change. Towards an explicit account. Diachronica 29 (3): 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.29.3.01luc Lucas, C. (2014). Contact-induced language change. In C. Bowern and B. Evans (eds.), he Routledge Handbook of Historical Linguistics. London: Routledge. 519–536. Lucas, C. and E. Lash (2010). Contact as catalyst: he case for Coptic inluence in the development of Arabic negation. Journal of Linguistics 46 (2): 379–413. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990235 Manfredi, S. (2013). Native and non-native varieties of Arabic in an emerging urban centre of western Sudan. Evidence from Kadugli. In M. Lakioui (ed.), African Arabic: Approaches to Dialectology. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 13–51. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292343.13 Manfredi, S. (2014). Arabic borrowings in Laggorí (Eastern Daju). In T. C. Schadeberg and R. M. Blench (eds.), Nuba Mountain Language Studies. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. 463–484. © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved Arabic in contact, now and then Manfredi, S. (2018). Arabic as a contact language. In R. Bassiouney and A. Benmamoun (eds.), he Routledge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics. London: Routledge. 407–420. Manfredi, S. and M. Tosco (eds.) (2014). Arabic-based pidgins and creoles. Special issue of the Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29 (2). Manfredi, S., M. C. Simeone-Senelle and M. Tosco (2015). Language contact, borrowing and codeswitching. In Amina Mettouchi, Martine Vanhove and Dominique Caubet (eds.), Corpus-based Studies of Lesser-described Languages: the CorpAfroAs Corpus of Spoken AfroAsiatic Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 283–308. Matras, Y. (2001). Language Contact. In J. Verschueren, J. O. Östman (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics Online. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Matras, Y. (2007). Grammatical borrowing in Domari. In Y. Matras and J. Sakel (eds.), Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 151–164. Matras, Y. (2012). A Grammar of Domari. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291421 Matras, Y. and P. Bakker (2003). he study of mixed languages. In Y. Matras and P. Bakker (eds.), he Mixed Languages Debate. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1–21. Matras, Y. and J. Sakel (2007). Introduction. In Y. Matras and J. Sakel (eds.), Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 1–13. Miller, C., E. Al-Wer, D. Caubet and J. C. E. Watson (eds.) (2007). Arabic in the City. Issues in Dialect Contact and Language Variation. London: Routledge. Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-Mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993a). Duelling languages: grammatical structure in codeswitching. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Myers-Scotton, C. (1993b). Common and Uncommon Ground: Social and Structural Factors in Codeswitching. Language in Society 22 (4): 475–503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017449 Myers-Scotton, C. (2002). Contact Linguistics: Bilingual Encounters and Grammatical Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299530.001.0001 Nicolai, R. (2007). Language Contact: A Blind Spot in ‘hings Linguistic. Journal of Language Contact 1: 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1163/000000007792548314 Owens, J. (2001). Creole Arabic: the orphan of all orphans. Anthropological Linguistics 43 (3): 348–378. Ratclife, R. R. (2005). Bukhara Arabic: A metatypized dialect of Arabic in Central Asia. In É. Ágnes Csató, B. Isaksson and C. Jahani (eds.), Linguistic Convergence and Areal Difusion: Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic. New York: Routledge. 141–159. Ross, M. (2006). Metatypy. In K. Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 95–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00199-1 Ross, M. (2007). Calquing and metatypy. Journal of Language Contact 1 (1): 116–143. https://doi.org/10.1163/000000007792548341 Rouchdy, A. (ed.) (2002). Language Contact and Language Conlict in Arabic. New York: Routledge. Savà, G. and M. Tosco (2008). Ex Uno Plura: he uneasy road of the Ethiopian languages towards standardization. In Ausbau and Abstand Languages: Traditional and New Approaches. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 191: 111–139. Simeone-Senelle, M. C. (1999). L’arabe véhiculaire parlé en Érythrée sur la côte sud de la Mer Rouge de Massawa à Rahayta. Oriente Moderno XIX (LXXX): 153–181. © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved 15 16 Stefano Manfredi and Mauro Tosco Smits, C. (1998). Two models for the study of language contact: a psycho-linguistic perspective versus a socio-cultural perspective. In M. S. Schmid, J. R. Austin and D. Stein (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1997. Selected Papers from the 13th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.164.24smi Souag, L. (2014). Berber and Arabic in Siwa (Egypt): A Study in Linguistic Contact. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe. Taine-Cheikh, C. (2008). Arabe(s) et berbère en contact: le cas mauritanien. In M. Lakioui (ed.), Berber in Contact: Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe. 113–138. homason, S. G. (2001). Language contact. An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. homason, S. G. (2006). Language contact. In K. Versteegh, M. Eid, A. Elgibali, M. Woidich, A. Zaborski (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, vol. 2. Leiden – Boston: E.J. Brill. 664–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01901-5 homason S. G. and T. Kaufman (1988). Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkley: University of California Press. Tosco, M. (2015). Arabic, and a few good words about empires (but not all of them). In Christel Stolz (ed.), Language Empires in Comparative Perspective. Berlin – New York: de Gruyter. 17–39. Tosco, M. and S. Manfredi (2013). Pidgins and Creoles. In Jonathan Owens (ed.), he Oxford Handbook of Arabic Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press (2013) 495–519. Van Coetsem, F. (1988). Loan Phonology and the Two Transfer Types in Language Contact. Dordrecht: Foris. Van Coetsem, F. (1995). Outlining a Model of the Transmission Phenomenon in Language Contact. In Leuvense Bijdragen 84: 63–85. Vanhove, M. (2012). Roots and patterns in Beja (Cushitic): the issue of language contact with Arabic. In M. Vanhove, T. Stolz and A. Urdze (eds.), Morphologies in Contact. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050057699.309 Versteegh, K. (2001). Linguistic Contact between Arabic and Other Languages. Arabica 48: 470–508. Versteegh, K. (2010). Contact and the development of Arabic. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Handbook of Language Contact, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 634–651. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318159.ch31 Versteegh, K. (2015). An empire of learning: Arabic as a global language. In C. Stolz (ed.), Language Empires in Comparative Perspective. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 41–53. Versteegh, K. (2017). he myth of the mixed languages. In B. Saade and M. Tosco (eds.), Advances in Maltese Linguistics. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 217–238. Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Winford, D. (2003). An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Backwell. Winford, D. (2005). Contact-induced changes. Classiication and processes. Diachronica 22 (2): 373–427. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.22.2.05win Winford, D. (2007). Some issues in the study of language contact. Journal of Language Contact 1: 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1163/000000007792548288 Winford, D. (2008). Processes of creole formation and related contact-induced language change. Journal of Language Contact 2: 124–148. https://doi.org/10.1163/000000008792525228 © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved Arabic in contact, now and then Winford, D. (2013). Social factors in contact languages. In P. Bakker and Y. Matras (eds.), Contact Languages. A Comprehensive Guide. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 363– 416. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513711.363 Wohlgemuth, J. (2009). A Typology of Verbal Borrowings. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219340 © 2018. John Benjamins Publishing Company All rights reserved 17