Arabic Influences on Other Languages

Linguistic Contacts between Arabic and Other Languages

Kees Versteegh

Arabica, Vol. 48, No. 4, Linguistique Arabe: Sociolinguistique et Histoire de la Langue. (2001),pp. 470-508.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0570-5398%282001%2948%3A4%3C470%3ALCBAAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G

Arabica is currently published by BRILL.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/bap.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgFri Dec 7 00:32:33 2007


http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html

http://www.jstor.org/journals/bap.html

LINGUISTIC CONTACTS BETWEEN ARABIC AND O T H E R LANGUAGES

KEES VERSTEEGH University of Nijmegen

1 . Introduction

Most historical accounts of the Arabic language concentrate on the interaction between the speakers of that language with those of other languages within the confines of the Arabic-speaking world. In the course of that interaction large groups of speakers shifted from their own language to Arabic. If this shift was complete, the original language became extinct-e.g., Coptic in Egypt-in which case it is usually called a substratal language. If the shift was incomplete, the speakers continued to use their own language along with Arabic as a second language-e.g., Berber in North Africa-in which case it is often called an adrtratal language. Research usually focuses on the possible effect of substrata1 and adstratal languages on the development of the Arabic language, specifically, their role in the emergence of the new forms of Arabic that are nowadays known as the Arabic dialects. There are only a few studies on the reverse effect, that of Arabic on the substratal or adstratal languages (cf. below p. 480).

Outside the Arabophone area, too, speakers of Arabic were in touch with speakers of other languages. In some enclaves of Arabic outside the Arabic world, to which Maltese, Cypriot Maronite Arabic, Uzbekistan Arabic, Afghanistan Arabic, and Nubi (in Uganda and Kenya) belong, the language of the speakers is heavily influenced by the surrounding languages (for Maltese see Mifsud 1995; Mifsud & Borg 1994; for Cypriot Maronite Arabic Borg 1985; for Uzbekistan Arabic Fischer 196 1; Versteegh 1986; for Afghanistan Arabic Ingham 1994a; for Nubi Owens 1990). Since on the whole these varieties of Arabic are only used in domestic situations and do not have much prestige, linguistic

O Koninkljjke Brill NV, Leiden, 2001 Arabica, tome XLVIII

LINGUISTIC CONTACTS 47 1

interference is usually unidirectional, from the dominant language towards Arabic. A similar situation obtains in the case of those varieties of Arabic that are spoken as migrant languages in Western Europe and Latin America. The effects of interference in these varieties and the language shift towards the dominant language have been studied extensively (cf for the situation in the Netherlands El-Aissati 1996; Boumans 1998).

In all cases mentioned thus far Arabic was at the receiving end of the linguistic contact. Outside the Arabophone area, however, the interference pattern was the reverse: here the local languages were preserved but they were heavily affected by the interaction with speakers of Arabic (for a general survey see Versteegh 1997:226-240). Some of these languages were originally spoken in parts of the Arab empire, but later became separated from this region, for instance Sicily, al-Andalus in the West, and Iran, Central Asia, North India in the East.

Since in all these areas, as long as they belonged to the Arab empire, Arabic was the language of prestige, hundreds, sometimes thousands, of loanwords found their way into the languages spoken there, and in some cases there was a certain degree of phonological, morphological or syntactic influence. But even in those areas that never formed part of the Arab empire, the influence of Arabic as the language of Islam was felt. In large parts of Africa, in Central Asia (turcophone areas), in parts of India and Southeast Asia Islam became the majority religion, and in its wake the Arabic language was introduced as a vehicle of religion and culture. Moreover, even though these areas were never annexed by Arabic-speaking people, commercial relations with the central Arabophone area were often very intense, and although Arabic never replaced the indigenous languages, the commercial contacts left many traces of Arabic influence.

2. Borromng and change

2.1 Contact-induced change

In their study of language contact Thomason & Kaufman (1988) develop a model for linguistic change as the result of language contact. In this model they take a stance against a rigidly intra-linguistic explanation for linguistic changes. Although they do not claim that all linguistic changes have to be explained by external factors, i.e., by language contact, they do assert that internal factors are much less important than is assumed by most linguists.

472 KEES VERSTEEGH

Thomason & Kaufman distinguish between two types of contact- induced change, called by them borrom'ng and substratum inik$eretlce. In the former type foreign elements are incorporated in the speaker's native language (1988:2 1); in the latter type elements from the speaker's native language are incorporated in the foreign language. In their framework, therefore, 'borrowing' as the introduction of elements from a foreign language into the native language, has the same sense as in other mod- els. The sense in which Thomason & Kaufman use the notion of 'substratum interference', however, deviates somewhat from common usage. In their view substratum interference is part of a process of shift: speakers of one language are in the process of adopting another language and abandoning their own language. Since their acquisition of the new language is imperfect, they make learners' mistakes.

The crucial point is that according to the authors these mistakes are introduced by the learners into their new language. The result is often called a 'language change', a particularly unfortunate expression in this context, since the speech patterns of the speech community at large are not affected. What happens is that the new speakers speak the language in a way that differs from that of the 'native' speakers. From the discussion of this issue in Thomason & Kaufman (1988:38-39) it transpires that in their terminology 'the language' is assumed to change when new elements are introduced into it, regardless of whether these elements belong to the speech of the new learners or to that of the native speakers. Later on (1988:43), they also refer to a process of adoption of the new elements by the speech community at large, i.e., from the speech of the new learners into that of the native speakers, but this part of the process remains somewhat obscure. Certainly, when the new speakers remain largely isolated from the original speakers, the 'changes' remain confined to their speech community.

The two types of linguistic interaction correlate with a qualitative difference in contact-induced change. Standard treatments of borrowing, such as Haugen (1950) and Weinreich (1968 [1953]), which do not distinguish rigorously between the two types of change, usually oper- ate with a borrowing scale that goes from phonological through morphological to syntactic borrowing. In this view syntactic borrowing always presupposes morphological and phonological borrowing, which in their turn presuppose lexical borrowing (cf. also Romaine 1988:50- 66). A second scale rates the borrowings according to the degree of integration (cf. below p. 475).

Distinguishing between lexical borrowing and non-lexical (structural)

473 LINGUISTIC CONTACTS

borrowing, Thomason & Kaufman (1988) assert that contrary to what has been the common opinion among linguists for a long time, large- scale non-lexical borrowing can and does take place without concomitant lexical borrowing, but in their view this only happens in a process of substratum interference. The correlation of types of borrowing with the two types of linguistic change is shown in table I below.

Table 1: Types of contact-induced change (after Thomason & Kaufman (1988)

borrowing substratal or adstratal influence

lexicon very strong moderate phonology weak strong morphosyntax moderate strong

In other words, when speakers are shifting to another language they tend to transfer (morpho)syntactic patterns and phonological features from their native language to the foreign language, but they will hardly ever use words from their own language in the language they are try-ing to learn. After all, they wish to communicate in the new language, and it would be counterproductive for them to use words that the speakers of the foreign language do not understand. An exception is made for those semantic domains of the local lexicon for which the foreign language has no words (which happens frequently when it is the language of invaders or colonisers), such as flora and fauna, food, geographical conditions, toponyrns, etc.

On the other hand, in borrowing speakers are primarily interested in lexical items from another language, which are either perceived to be more prestigious than the lexical equivalents in their own language, or for which their own language has no equivalents at all.

The characteristics of the two types of contact-induced change may serve as a diagnostic instrument to determine the kind of contact that led to these changes (cf. the summary in Bechert & Wildgen 1991:92- 103): in cases of change with maintenance ('borrowing') usually the core lexicon stays the same, although there may be a large amount of lexical borrowing. In extreme cases, such as Cappadocian Greek (cf. Thomason & Kaufman 1988:215-222) even the grammar may gradually be borrowed. In cases of change with loss ('substratum interference') the lexicon of the foreign language is taken over by the new

474 KEES VERSTEEGH

speakers almost wholesale, but its grammar is heavily affected by the process. The new speakers introduce learners' errors into their new language, which are sometimes based on the structure of their original language. In extreme cases the structure of this variety of the new language may become almost identical to that of the substrate language, although the foreign language remains the source for most of the morphological markers. The differentiating points are therefore the core lexicon and the morphological markers, since in extreme cases of both borrowing and substrata1 interference the grammatical structure may change completely.

One disadvantage of the Thomason & Kaufman model is the shift of perspective in the two types. In the category of 'borrowing' they look at the way the dominant language affects the minority language involved in the linguistic interaction, but in the case of 'substratal interference' they look at the reverse effect (the way the minority language affects the dominant language). This may seem reasonable since in this scenario the minority language is doomed to disappear anyway, but it is not entirely realistic, since the period of coexistence leading to the eventual shift by the speakers of the minority language to the dominant language may be fairly lengthy, and the shift may be accompa- nied by a long period of large-scale code-switching, during which the degree of language loss (incomplete acquisition of the minority language) may vary within the community. During this period the minority language is bound to be affected by the interaction, something not taken into account in Thomason & Kaufman's model.

What applies to one part of the speech community does not neces- sarily apply to other parts. As an example we may quote here the case of Berber: some speakers of Berber have shifted in the past to Arabic, but other speakers have retained their language because they lived in relative isolation (e.g., the Tuareg), or they developed a more or less stable kind of bilingualism. In other cases (as in Iran) the development may be reversed: from extensive bilingualism or even shift, back to monolingualism with maintenance and only limited knowledge of the former dominant language.

A full cycle of linguistic interaction between speakers of language A, a minority group that is overrun by speakers of language B, a language of prestige and dominance, would look as follows:

1. first contact: borrowing of isolated nouns from B into A without reanalysis (e.g., Arabic words with article in Berber)


2. increased contact without extensive bilingualism: both nouns and verbs are being reanalysed in A and integrated phonologically and morphologically (e.g., berberised Arabic loans in Berber)

3. increased contact, in combination with bilingualism: increased tendency to borrow words from B together with their patterns and structural borrowing (i.e., using elements from A with patterns from B) (e.g., arabised Berber words in Berber)

4. increased contact, in combination with complete bilingualism but without shift: code-switching, structural borrowing from A to B and from B to A by the speakers of A (e.g., berberised Arabic words in Arabic, as well as arabised Berber words in Berber)

5. increased contact, in combination with complete bilingualism of older speakers and with shift of younger speakers: for the latter there is structural borrowing from B to A (e.g., arabised Berber words in Berber)

6. disappearance of A, regional variety of B with only a small amount of lexical borrowing from A to B and some structural borrowing (e.g., berberised Arabic words in Arabic)

Since occasionally the extreme cases may coexist within one speech community, in the end it is only the historical analysis of the context of contact that can decide which has been the order of events that has led to this situation.

2.2 Layers of borrowing

The degree to which borrowed elements are integrated in the structure of the borrowing language varies widely. In many cases of borrowing one may distinguish several layers of loanwords that differ in the degree of adaptation. The scale of adaptation (from full integration to intact realisation of the borrowed words) is, of course, closely related to the borrowing scale mentioned above (p. 472): when there is full phonological integration, it is unlikely for foreign phonemes to be borrowed (on principles of phonetic/phonological integration see Hyman 1970; Shibatani 1973, and the discussion by Al-Harbi 199 1 :95-99). When there is full morphological integration, this usually means that the borrowed morphological markers were not recognised as such and therefore could not become productive.

The issue is obscured by the fact that there may be quite a lot of variation within the speech community with regard to the degree of integration, so that some speakers use foreign words in a non-adapted

476 KEES VERSTEEGH

form, whereas others use highly adapted forms of these words. Another factor accounting for differences in assimilation of loanwords may be the structure of phonological constraints in the receiving language; accorlng to Holden (1976) this factor (partly) explains the differential treatment of loanwords.

In his discussion of French loans in Moroccan Arabic Heath (1989) arrives at a different conclusion: according to him the degree of knowledge of the foreign language determines the integration of the loans, in other words, large-scale borrowing presupposes a situation of full- fledged bilingualism. But as Boumans (1998:54-56) correctly points out, it is usually the fact that only when there is sufficient knowledge of the foreign language, possibly culminating in frequent code-switching, foreign words can be (re-)borrowed in a non-integrated form. Thomason & Kaufman (1988:33), too, believe that there is an inverse correlation between degree of integration and degree of bilingualism: the more the borrowing speakers come to know the foreign language, the more they tend to take over the foreign phonological elements in an unadapted form.

There is a problem, however, with the assignment of all non-integrated foreign elements to the category of loanwords. It is not obvious that all examples of phonological accommodation to the foreign structure are actually instances of borrowing. Some of them probably reflect variation within the community, others occur in situations of code-switching in which individual speakers use words of foreign origin that belong to a code-switching mode.

It is not obvious, either, that only widespread bilingualism correlates with layers of borrowings. In some of the communities involved there is an Clite who borrow new words for specific (religious or scholarly) domains and, because they know the foreign language well, they tend to take these over as accurately as possible. Alternatively, they may re- borrow existing loanwords so as to render them more similar to the original. This leads to a layering of loanwords that does not correlate with the presence of large-scale bilingualism, but only with the bilingual skills of the individual members of the klite. In the contemporary language, there often are pairs of words with similar of identical meaning, deriving from two different processes of borrowing. In essence, this kind of layering is identical with the well-known distinction betweenfornation savante and formation populaire in the Romance languages, which separates scholarly loans from Latin from 'ordinary' loanwords (as, for instance, maim "a swarm of bees" and exama "exam", both from Latin exam).

LINGUISTIC CONTACTS 477

In the case of loanwords from Arabic we may quote as an example the situation in Fulfulde (Labatut 1983:55-56) where the intellectual elite rearabise existing loanwords, e.g., zuhra "noon" (< _duhr) alongside existing juura, or zamaan "time" (< zamdn) alongside jamanu, jamaanu,

jamanuuru. Sometimes they even introduce Arabic plurals as in guluubi "hearts", where ordinarily loanwords receive a Fulfulde plural. In the case of Arabic loanwords in Swahili Tucker (1946:855) distinguishes between what he calls the pronunciation of the tlite among themselves, on the one hand, and that of the tlite outside their circle and of the non-tlite, on the other. The difference consists inter alia in the realisation of the Arabic interdental's as interdentals or as sibilants. Another example is the extensive use of Arabic syntactic patterns (including agreement and derivational morphology) by Ottoman writers (cf. below p. 495).

2.3 Lexical us. structural borrowing

The distinction between various degrees of intensity in borrowing is expressed by another borrowing scale as well (Thomason & Kaufman 1988:74-76), having to do with the domain of borrowing. In casual contact there is only lexical borrowing (e.g., uneducated Moslem Urdu speakers nativise the pronunciation of Arabic loanwords; English tech- nological terms are borrowed by many languages all over the world). But in more intense contact some degree of structural borrowing takes place (e.g., syntactic features from Latin into English; syntactic features from Arabic into Islamic languages).

Although they do not mention the role of the tlite in the case of layering, Thomason & Kaufman (1988:66) do acknowledge this role in connection with the degree of structural borrowing. In their view slight structural borrowing almost always takes place from a prestigious literary language, whose interference is channeled through the written medium. In such a case borrowing is usually restricted to the syntactic level: "minor structural influence from a prestigious literary language sometimes occurs through the written medium alone, without actual oral bilingualism among borrowing-language speakers" (Thomason & Kaufman 1988:78). The example they provide for a borrowing from Arabic into Turkic is that of the conjunction wa- which became ve in Turkic. Other examples they mention include Persian loans from Arabic; Standard English loans from Latin; Yiddish loans from Hebrew; and Literary Dravidian loans from Sanskrit.

Such syntactic influence need not always be slight. In most European

478 KEES VERSTEEGH

languages there are examples in literary texts where authors took the structure of Latin prose as a stylistic model, which led to extensive syntactic interference (e.g., in the case of Middle High German, cf. Bechert & Wildgen 1991:80; in all Western languages there are canonical Bible translations with extensive calqueing from Hebrew). A similar phe- nomenon is found in texts that imitate Arabic, for instance in the so-called Kitap-Malay (cf. van Ronkel 1899) or in the Kitap-Afrikaans described by van Selms (1951) and Kahler (1971). And, of course, in Ottoman Turhsh literary borrowing from Arabic the syntactic interference tends to be considerable.

Apart from the case of written transmission of structural features from one language into another, for Thomason & Kaufman (1988) the presence of a large number of bilinguals is a prerequisite for moderate to heavy structural borrowing. This brings us back to the problem of the distinction between borrowing and code-switching. Early attempts to distinguish between these two categories attempted to relate them to the degree of integration (for instance Haugen [1956], quoted by Romaine 1989: 133). In this view borrowing involves well-established loans, whereas code-switching takes place ad hoc,

In our view borrowing, whether lexical or non-lexical, is a process that takes place at the level of the speech community: a foreign element is said to have been borrowed if it is incorporated in the structure of another language, whether it is integrated or not. Such items are accessed mentally by the speakers in the same way as any other element in the language. Individual speakers, however, cannot be said to borrow: in their case, it is a matter of shifting codes (or accessing different structures).

One way to analyse code-switched materials is the matrix language model (cf. Myers-Scotton 1993), according to which the underlying structure of any utterance, including inserted foreign material, is always determined by a matrix language, often defined as the language of the verb (although this is not a foolproof method, cf. Romaine 1989: 134; for an extensive discussion of the criteria to determine the matrix language see Boumans 1998:65-81). Within this model inserted elements should not exhibit markers from the inserted language, but are always governed by the matrix language. An alternative analysis jcf. Boumans 1998) regards even one-word utterances as possible instances of code- switching. According to this analysis single lexical items may even contain mixed morphology (cf. Romaine 1989: 137-1 38; for a specific solution see Poplack, Wheeler & Westwood 1987). Unfortunately, the literature

- -


quotes many examples of inserted material being governed by the syntax of the source language, e.g., in word order or subcategorisation (cf. discussion of such examples in Boumans 1998:90- 103). This means that even on the non-lexical level, it is not always possible to decide about an individual utterance whether it contains instances of code-switching or whether the items in question are part of the native structure.

Apart from the cases of 'written' transmission mentioned above, Arabic material in languages outside the Arabophone area, where there is no question of extensive bilingualism with Arabic, tends indeed to be restricted to the lexical level. But it is not true that there is absolutely no borrowing beyond the lexical level in these languages. Examples of such borrowing range from Arabic plural forms, to subordinating conjunctions, numerals, prepositions, and sometimes even pronouns, as in the case of Betawi Bahasa Indonesia, which uses Arabic am "I" and ente "you" in order to avoid the complicated system of prestige pronouns that exist in many Indonesian languages (cf. Muhajir 1984:78, n. 2). There do not seem to be examples of Arabic verb endings: borrowed verbs are always integrated in the native verbal system or are replaced by compound verbs.

The presence of bilingual individuals seems to be a condition for borrowed morphology to become productive. The reverse is probably also true: when borrowed structural elements are not analysable within the language, i.e., when they remain opaque, one may infer that these elements were not introduced by fully bilingual speakers. In the case of borrowings from Arabic one may, for instance, assume that when Arabic nouns are taken over together with the article, this demonstrates that the people who took over these elements did not have full command of the foreign language. Arabic nouns with article do occur, of course, in the context of code-switching where they retain their full determinative force and may, therefore, be used with indigenous nouns as well, as in Nubian (cf below, p. 483).

The issue of the Arabic nouns that were borrowed together with the article is particularly interesting in the case of al-Andalus. Here dis- cussions concentrate on the question of whether or not the inhabitants of Islamic Spain and Portugal took over Arabic as their first language or simply acquired it as a second language, which was abandoned again after the Reconquista (cf. on this issue Wright 1982: 15 1-1 61; Zwartjes 1997:5-22). The question is not only of historical interest but also per- tinent for the history of Arabic loanwords in European languages (cf. Cannon 1994), which reached most European languages either through

480 KEES VERSTEEGH

the Iberian peninsula, or through Italy. A distinguishing mark between the two routes seems to be the absence or presence of the Arabic article: almost all Arabic nouns that entered the languages spoken in the Iberian peninsula (whether Portuguese, Spanish or Catalan; cf. Steiger 1932; Corriente 1996) contain the article (as in almacin "warehouse" < al-nah_zin, albaricoque "apricot" < al-barqiiq), whereas the Arabic loanwords in Italian do not have the article (e.g., zero < ?., dogana < dwdn; cf. Odisho 1997). Possibly, this may be attributed to a difference in the context of borrowing: in Spain the coexistence of the two languages must have led to various forms of contact language (cf. Corriente 1992), whereas the Arabic elements in Italian were probably borrowed from some kind of trade jargon.

Similar questions have been asked concerning the arabisation of Malta: did all original inhabitants of the island, who probably spoke some kind of Romance dialect, disappear as seems to be inferred from information in Arab geographers, or was there a continuous settlement with various periods of shift (cf. Mifsud & Borg 1994). According to some scholars Maltese is an example of a mixed language (cf. Drewes 1994; for an analysis of the Italian material in Maltese see Mifsud [1995]).

3. Arabic zntqfierence in languages within the Arabophone area

Cases of linguistic interaction within the Arabophone area have usu-ally been studied as instances of change through shift, i.e., the second type of contact-induced change called by Thomason & Kaufman (1988) 'substratum interference'. In other words, these languages-such as Berber, Nubian, Modern South Arabian, Neo-Aramaic, but also Coptic and Syriac-have always been regarded as substratal or adstratal languages with possible influence on Arabic (for Coptic cf. Bishai 1960, 1961, 1962; Palva 1969; Nishio 1996; for Berber cf. Mar~ais n.d.; for Neo-Aramaic cf. Arnold & Behnstedt 1993). Within the framework of Thomason & Kaufman's model this means that at the most they could have affected Arabic on the structural rather than the lexical level. Traditionally, Arabic linguistics has viewed such theories rather nega- tively (for a discussion of different claims of substratal influence in Arabic see Diem 1979).

In the present context we are dealing with something else. We have seen above (p. 474) that in a process of shift not only the 'shifters" ver- sion of the new language becomes different from the target language,


but their original language, too, is affected by the interaction, especially when there is an extensive period of code-switching and bilingualism. This means that we are dealing here with the other type of change, that of borrowing. All of the languages involved are minority languages that are in the same position vis-a-vis Arabic as minority languages in Europe or the United States. In normal cases of borrowing only lexical borrowing should be expected, rather than syntactic, and morphological/phonological influence should be limited to those cases where it was introduced through the use of loanwords from Arabic. But, as we have seen above, in the case of borrowing in a shifting situation both lexical and structural borrowing can take place on a massive scale. Even when there is some opposition to interference on the part of the speakers of the minority language, in the long run, because of its sometimes precarious position, such interference cannot be avoided.

Those substrata1 languages that became extinct rather quickly seem to constitute an exception to this general principle: there are surpris- ingly few Arabic loanwords in, for instance, Coptic. The explanation is probably that the process of second language acquisition, followed by language shift took place so swiftly that there was no extensive period of bilingualism in which loanwords could cross from Arabic, the new second language, into the lexicon of the original language.

A special case is the language of Jews and Christians in Classical Islam. Since in the Middle Eastern parts of the empire they shifted from Aramaic and Syriac (or Greek) to Arabic they belonged to the 'shifters' and although their in-group language became a special variety of Arabic (Judaeo-Arabic and Christian Middle Arabic respectively), there were very few traces of their original language in this variety. In the case of the Jews, however, Hebrew remained in use as a religious language, and we do find many loanwords and even syntactic interference from Arabic in these religious treatises, possibly as a result of the fact that many of them were first written in Arabic and then trans- lated into Hebrew (cf. Blau 1965).

The case of Modern Ivrit is, of course, quite different; apart from a few obvious loanwords the introduction of Arabic loanwords is restricted to various registers of colloquial language or slang (for which see Kornblueth & Aynor 1974; for a general survey of the linguistic coexistence of Hebrew and Arabic in Israel see Kinberg & Talmon 1994; Amara 1999).

Obviously in those cases where the original language remained in use, the number of Arabic loanwords increased considerably, as in the

482 KEES VERSTEEGH

case of Berber (cf. Chaker 1995; Brahimi 1999; for the level of knowledge of Arabic in berberophone areas in contemporary Morocco see Wagner 1993: 168- 186), Neo-Aramaic (cf. Arnold & Behnstedt 1993), and Nubian (Rouchdy (1991).

Lexical influence of Arabic in the case of Berber is considerable; according to Chaker (1995:118) in Kabyl Berber (Algeria) 38% of the lexicon is of Arabic origin, in Tagelhit (Chleuh, Morocco) 25'10, and even in the most isolated Berber dialect, Tuareg, there are 5% Arabic loanwords. Most of the loanwords in Berber concern the religious, intellectual and economic domain. The oldest loans are adapted to Berber phonology (e.g., gim > uzum, azum "to fast"; for the loanwords in older Berber literature see also van den Boogert 1997), later loans exhibit a high degree of Arabic phonemes, or phonemicisation of Berber allo- phones as the result of Arabic loans. Borrowed nouns retain the Arabic article (e.g., lmakla "food" < al-ma'kal, lmal "cattle" < al-ma1 "posses-sion"; Chaker 1995:121) and the Arabic plural form. Such reanalysed forms probably date back to a period when there was as yet no widespread bilingualism and concomitant code-switching, which prevented further analysis of the borrowed forms.

An interesting point is the borrowing of syntactic markers, such as all subordinating conjunctions (e.g., belli after verba dicendi, Chaker 1995: 120), which in Berber languages did not exist. Chaker (1 995: 12 1-122) notes a decrease in the use of Berber derivational morphemes in those dialects that have borrowed most heavily from Arabic. As a result the lexicon in such dialects becomes less transparent.

In Nubian the situation is comparable: according to Rouchdy (1991) Nubian dialects in Egypt as well as those in the Sudan contain thousands of loanwords from Arabic. Although there is a certain amount of loyalty towards the Nubian language and in spite of several attempts to revitalise Nubian language and culture, the general attitude towards the language is rather negative among bilingual speakers, and the language is headed towards extinction in favour of Arabic (cf. also Miller 1996). This situation is reflected in the proportion of Arabic loanwords. According to Rouchdy (1991:32) approximately 40% of the lexicon of the Nubian dialects spoken in Egypt consists of Arabic loanwords.

Typical patterns of language loss are found in the speech of non- competent bilinguals, whose command of Nubian is steadily deterio- rating. But even in the speech of competent speakers there is a large degree of borrowing from Arabic, affecting nouns, verbs, adjectives and even function words such as &kin "but" and illa "except" (Rouchdy


199 129). O n the whole, Rouchdy (199 1:33) maintains, "Nubians do not borrow Arabic morphology: they supply their own Nubian mor-phology in the majority of cases". This general statement is, however, contradicted by some of the examples she furnishes, e.g., the plural form kutub-i "books" with both Arabic and Nubian (-i) plural marker (Rouchdy 199 1:27-28). Syntactic interference from Arabic is visible in the tendency to shift to an SVO pattern rather than the indgenous SOV/OSV (Rouchdy 1991:24-25) and the use of the Arabic article with Nubian words, e.g., in-nGg "the-house" (Rouchdy 1991:30).

4. Arabic loanwords in AJizca

In the period of the Arab conquests in the 7th century Egypt and North-Africa were superficially arabicised, During the later Bedouin invasions of the Banu Hilal and the Banu Sulaym (loth/ 1lth centuries), first in Egypt and later in North Africa as well, the countryside, which up till then had continued to speak Coptic in the South of Egypt and Berber in North Africa, were arabicised much more profoundly. During later centuries the Sudan and parts of Central Africa were arabicised as well. Many Arabic-speaking tribes migrated to the bagara belt, the savannah region of Central Afiica; as a result native speakers of Arabic are found all over this region, as far West as the Bornu region of Nigeria (for an older account of the language situation in Central Afiica see Kampfheyer 1899; for a recent appraisal see Braukamper 1994; Owens 1985, 1994; on the Arabic spoken in Bornu see Owens 1993, 1998).

Trading relations between Islamic countries and West Africa go back as far as the 1 lth century; in the course of these contacts Islam was introduced in the area, and the existence of Koranic schools in Ghana, Bornu, Hausaland, Mali is attested at least from the 14th century onwards (cf. Hunwick 1964). Some knowledge of Arabic is implied by the fact that Arabic was used in the correspondence between various rulers in this region, and that books in Arabic were written locally by the mallams, the Islamic scholars.

Although there never was widespread bilingualism in West Africa several West African languages, such as Hausa, Fulfulde, Yoruba were written at one time in Arabic script, and the speakers of these and other major languages in the region (Wolof, Songhay, Bambara, Twi) must have had some exposure to the use of Arabic as a religious language. In such cases we may expect heavy borrowing, but no changes

484 KEES VERSTEEGH

due to shifting. At the beginning the intermediaries must have been either Arab interpreters, who had learned e n ~ u g h of the indigenous languages to make themselves understood, or indigenous interpreters, who had picked up the essentials of an Arabic trade jargon (cf. Heine 1973:53-54. Leslau (1964:44-51) mentions the existence of a merchant's argot in Ethiopia in which there are many loanwords from Arabic (including numerals and the genitive exponent haqqj.

In later times, local mllams who had traveled to Islamic countries for their training or for the pilgrimage provided much more detailed information about Arabic and Islam. In Bambara, for instance, a Mande language spoken in Mali, whose speakers never had any direct dealings with speakers of Arabic, several hundreds of loanwords from Arabic are found, most of them in the field of religion (cf. Dumestre 1983), and even for Yoruba a list of some 60 words is given (cf. Malik 1995). In some cases there may have been small communities of Arabic-speaking people.

In other languages contact with Arabic may have been more direct. In Fulfulde, for instance, a West-Atlantic language spoken in Cameroon, as well as in a large area from Guinea to Chad, Labatut (1983; cf. Lacroix 1967) counts 550 loanwords in the familiar domains of religion, literacy, science, trading, sociopolitical, space/time, and some abstract notions. Two layers of loanwords may be distinguished, a popular layer probably going back to commercial relations that may even predate the period of islamisation (e.g., tigaara "trade", probably from Egyptian/Sudanese Arabic), and on the other hand, literate borrowings or reborrowings (cf. above p. 477). Labatut notes the borrowing of a few grammatical elements (kala "all", and the causal marker sabi, saabi, sababu "because" < sabab "reason"). Verbs are completely integrated in the Fulfulde structure (e.g., hiis- "to count" < hasiba: mi hih-i "I have counted", mi hiis-ay "I have not counted") and serve as the point of departure for further derivations @abr- "to bury", gabr-in "to make so. bury so." < qabaraj. Remarkably, some verbs are derived from Arabic imperfects (yankir- "to deny", yamir- "to order"). Nouns are usually incorporated in the system of nominal classifiers, either analogically if their form permits this (as in albasal/plural albacce "onion" < al-bwal on the analogy of Fulfulde lisal/licce "branch"), or on the basis of their semantics (e.g., keefeer-o "unbeliever" < kjir with the classifier -0 for humans). Some plurals even undergo initial alternation, as in saabunde/ plural caabule "soap" (< @bin). Some nouns have been borrowed with


the Arabic article, like albmal, alkzwal "promise" (< Arabic al-qml), but these may have been borrowed through another language, as in the doublet binsir > hinjim, aalhanzima "pig" (the latter through Hausa).

The two languages affected most by Arabic influence are Hausa and Swahili, each having a completely different history of borrowing from Arabic. The case of Hausa is particularly interesting because the Arabic material in this language was borrowed in two radically different con- texts (cf. Abu-Manga 1999). In West-Africa (Hausaland) the speakers of Hausa were hardly ever exposed to spoken Arabic. Most of the older loans in this region were borrowings through speakers of other languages (Songhay, Fulfulde). Most of these nouns contain the Arabic article as a result of reanalysis, as in albarkk "blessing" (< al-baraka) or dbasaa "onion" < al-bwal).

Greenberg (1947) divides the Arabic loans in Hausa into two groups on the basis of their phonetic shape. The first group is characterised by thorough phonetic integration (dentals for interdentals, loss of / h / , /'/ and /'/) and by inclusion of the Arabic article, whereas the second group consists of more learned loans. According to Hiskett (1965) there are indeed two layers, but he regards both as derived from Classical Arabic. The first layer--basic religious vocabulary-is connected with the advent of Islam in Kano as early as the middle of the 14th century by non-Arabophones, probably by speakers of Mande languages. He believes that the loanwords from this period all derive from the Qur'dn, although some of them may be commercial terms. In view of the phonetic characteristics and the presence of the Arabic article (e.g., lit* "book" < al-ki~b, ladan "muezzin" < al-'a& "call to prayer"), however, it seems more probable that the origin of these loans lies in contact with a trade language, which by definition was derived from colloquial Arabic, as Abu-Manga (1999:56-62) explains. The second layer is connected by Hiskett with the beginning of poetry in Hausa, which contained many learned loanwords from Arabic (such as wafati "death", karibun "near", ban'? "creator"), some of which gradually spread to the general language. This adoption of Arabic loanwords in Hausa poetry did not take place until the end of the 18th century.

The second process of interaction between Hausa and Arabic occurs in the Eastern Sudan. Thousands of Hausa-speakers migrated eastwards, especially during the times of Mahdism. Most of these Hausa-speakers are bilingual in Arabic and Hausa. Their language also contains old loans, but many of the Arabic elements in their speech are the result

486 KEES VERSTEEGH

of frequent code-switching. In such a case it is problematic to speak of borrowing since at the level of the individual speaker adaptation of foreign material is by definition an instance of code-switching.

The Arabic elements in Eastern and Western Hausa also differ with respect to the number of verbal borrowings. These are rather infre- quent in Western Hausa (only 6% in Baldi 1989), but in the Eastern Hausa material cited by Abu-Manga (1999: 137) their number increases to more than lgO/o. This is no doubt the result of the extensive bilingualism of these speakers, which also explains the complete integration of these verbs in Hausa morphological structure, e.g., from karantaa "to read" (< Arabic qara'a) yaa bruntha "he read", yaa kcirantaa "he studied (thoroughly)", yaa Mrancie "he read completely", yaa karantli "it got read" (Abu-Manga 1999: 143- 146).

The source for some of the Arabic verbal forms in Hausa seems to have been the imperative, as in suugaa "to drive" (< Arabic saga, imperative suq), dummaa "to attach" (< damma, imperative dumm). In the case of loans from Arabic derived verbs, such as zihtarakaa "to participate" (< Ztaraka), gaabalaa "to meet" (< qdbala), or sajalaa "to register" (< s@ala), one must assume that in the variety of Sudanese Arabic serv- ing as the target the imperatives of these derived verbs contain the vowel a rather than i. Of particular importance for the study of the integration of these loans is their adaptation to the tonal patterns of Hausa, in which the general rule seems to be that Arabic stressed syl- lables receive high tone (cf. the detailed analysis in Abu-Manga 1999: 101-1 13, 143-154).

For Swahili the situation is rather complicated because the history of the language itself is not clear. Traders from Oman and Hadramaut established maritime settlement on the East African coast from the 9th century onwards. In their dealings with the local population they used a common Bantu language, which had become the lznguafianca all along the coast and received the name of Swahili, i.e., "(language of) the coast (< Arabic sawdhil "[pl.] coasts"). Arabic remained the language of the foreign Clite and that of Islamic instruction for the converts to Islam. When the first written documents in Swahili appeared, they used the Arabic script (the first manuscript dates from the beginning of the 18th century and already contains Arabic loanwords such as ahadi "promise" < ' dd , ao "or" < 'aw, yakzni "certainly" < yaqin; cf. Haddad 1983:28).

In the 18th and 19th centuries the East African coast was brought under the domination of the sultanate of Mascat; from the middle of the 19th century the main centre of Arab influence was the sultanate


of Zanzibar. The many settlers from the Shiraz region introduced a large Persian component into the lexicon (cf. Knappert 1983). With the spread of Islam into the African interior the newly formed Swahili language with its habidPersian loanwords became the common language of Kenya, Uganda, and even parts of Congo (for the present-day status of Swahili see Lodhi 1986).

Swahili has borrowed a very large amount of both Arabic nouns and verbs; according to Knappert (1983: 139, n. 1) the total proportion may be estimated at one third or even 40% of the total lexicon. Most loanwords have been integrated phonetically, so that for instance they usually exhibit a final vowel in accordance with Swahili phonological structure. In most cases this vowel is i, except after labials when it is u, e.g., risasi "lead" (< rqtis), thamani "price" (< Laman), but kalamu "pen" (< qalam), kitabu "book" (< kittib), dhazji "guest" (< dayf). Almost all originally feminine words end in -a (e.g., sajina "ship" < saJna), and there is no sign of the feminine ending -t, except in a few Persian loans such as daulati "state" (< dawla, Persian doulat; cf. Perry 199 1:2 13).

Both nominal and verbal loans are also well integrated into Swahili morphology; some nouns have even been incorporated into the Bantu class system, e.g., kitabu "book", which forms its plural with a Swahili class suffix, vitabu. Only a few nouns have been taken over with the Arabic article, e.g., asubuhi "morning (prayer)" (< q-~ubh) and azuhuri "noon (prayer)" (< a$-duhr). In some cases there are verbo-nominal pairs that at first sight seem to have been borrowed as such from Arabic, as for instancejkira "thought" vs.jkiri "to think" or3raha "joy" vs. jkrahi "to rejoice". But according to Tucker (1947:222) many of the nominal forms of such pairs are Swahili-coined pseudo-verbal nouns derived from verbal stems that are borrowed from Arabic. He proposes the Arabic imperative as the basis for many of the verbal sterns (1947:215; cf. Haddad 1983: 174). If this theory is correct-and the form of Swahili loan-verbs, especially with respect to their vowels, does seem to go back to Arabic imperative patterns, e.g., himili "to carry" < ihmil, hukumu "to pass sentence" < uhkum, as against rudi "to return" < rudd, imperative of radda, rithi "to inherit" < $, imperative of wari jethe process of borrowing in Swahili shows a remarkable resemblance to that of verb derivation in the Arabic creole Ki-Nubi (cf. for this suggestion Versteegh 1984: 124, and the discussion in Musa-Wellens 1994: 103- 1 11). This would mean that the origin of the Arabic elements in Swahili could be a pidgin/creole type of trade language. Such an oripn would also explain the absence of the Arabic article, which in pidginisation tends to

488 KEES VERSTEEGH

disappear, remaining only in a few cases of reanalysis, as in Ki-Nubi. Although most of the Arabic verbs seem to have been adapted to

Swahili morpholom-they take personal prefixes and have, for instance, regular causative derivations, such as qabila > kubali "to receiven/kuba- lisha "to make accept"; hdlafa > ha@ "to oppose"/hal@ha "to incite to disobediencex-there are indications that at some time Swahili also used compound expressions with a dummy verb of the type that is found in Persian, Turkish and Urdu (cf. below). Thus we have, for instance, expressions like fanya mali "to amass wealth" (< mdl), fanya jiiraha "to rejoice" (<farah) alongside jiirahi, fanya ho& "to be afraid" (< -hawf, alongside ho&, fanya fahari "to give oneself airs" (<fabr) alongside fahari (examples from Johnson 1939), all using the dummy verb fanya "to do, to make". In view of the general integration of Arabic verbs in Swahili morphology, this use of compound verbs suggests a layering in the borrowed lexicon that has thus far not been explained. The absence of a secure periodisation of Arabic loanwords in Swahili makes it difficult to assign such forms to any stage in Arabic/Swahili interaction.

The history of the African East coast is intimately connected with that of Madagascar (cf. Venn 1986). Arabic was introduced here through the trade with Africa and possibly the Arabian peninsula, together with Islam. Islam was replaced by Christianity during the colonial period, but Arabic left many loanwords in Malegassy, the Austronesian language spoken in the island.

Recently, information has become available on a special use of Arabic by the Anakara clan of the Antemoro tribe on the southeastern coast of the island. They use a secret language, called kalamon'Antesitey "language of the people of the sand", which contains hundreds of Arabic loanwords (see Beaujard [1998] who mentions about 500 of these Arabic loanwords; Rajaonarimanana 1998; Versteegh, forthcoming). The scholars (katibo < ihitib) of this clan, whose presence in Madagascar goes back to the 14th/ 15th centuries, jealously guard and preserve manuscripts (sorabe) with Arabic script containing religious texts in Malegassy mixed with Arabic loanwords (see Munthe 1982).

It has been speculated that this secret language is an Arabic pidgin, but this is highly unlikely, since in its present state the structure of the language is completely Malegassy. Possibly, however, some of the Arabic loanwords go back to an old trade jargon or pidgin that was originally used in the north of the island. A number of loanwords contain the Arabic article, e.g., lar6zy "earth" < al-'ard (examples quoted from Beaujard 1998). Most verbs seem to derive from an Arabic perfect,


e.g., tulaba "to find a woman" (< talaba "to search for, to request"), hajizo "to protect, to guard" (< ha&a); they are often combined with the Malegassy active prefix mi-; some appear to derive from the Arabic imperfect form, e.g., zosamko "to hear" (< yasmak), zosaribo "to drink" (<yafrabu). Most loanwords freely combine with Malegassy sufFkes, e.g., from dobiry "base, origine" < dubur "back" are derived the infinitive midobdry "to sit down", idobon'ana "place to sit down", and they are used with Malegassy personal endings, e.g., kilo "to eat" < 'akala the forms koliiko "I eat", koliiny "they eat".

One of the most conspicuous features of the Arabic loanwords in the secret language is the differential treatment of Arabic d and _d, e.g. zafariho "nail" < _du~,but mariy "sick" < marid; another interesting feature is the voiced reflex of Arabic t , e.g., dobiko "cooking7' < tabh.

One area in Africa is rather special in its treatment of Arabic loanwords, that of the Ethiopian languages, if only because in the predominantly Christian context of Ethiopia the role of Arabic was different from that in Islamic countries. Those Arabic loanwords that are found in Ethiopian languages (cf. Leslau 1990) suggest that the interaction with Arabic did not take the same course here as in other parts of Africa. Loanwords in written Gecez were introduced through the translation of Christian Arabic texts. In the spoken languages Leslau (1990:ix- xvii) attributes the introduction of loanwords to two factors. On the one hand, some parts of the population converted to Islam. Harar in the South became Islamic around the year 1000, even before the advent of Abyssinians in this area, and retains a tradition of advanced Islamic studies. The speakers of Harari are still Muslims, and so are those of Tigre and to some degree Tigrinya in the North. On the other hand, there was direct contact with speakers of Arabic through trading: Arab merchants lived dispersed or in small concentrations all over the country.

Most loanwords are found in Tigre, which is particularly conspicuous for the high amount of verbs that were borrowed. But in all Ethiopian languages the Arabic loanwords have become integrated to a high degree, both phonologically and morphologically. In Tigre the Arabic verbs are treated just like Tigre verbs in all derivations and denominal derivations. Perhaps, this may partly be explained by the similarity in structure between Arabic and the Ethiopian languages, which made it much easier to integrate these verbal forms.

There are a few traces of popular borrowing outside a bilingual context: thus in Gecez one finds a few Arabic loanwords with a reanalysed article (a@ut "Fish (Zodiac)" < al-hiit; alnzaknun "oven" < hniin, alqarasya

490 KEES VERSTEEGH

"cherry tree" < qarzsiya), and sometimes plural forms are used as a singular, e.g., in Amharic fuqara "saint" (<$qarE'), Harari aydm "day" (< 'ayydm). In this respect the borrowing of verbal compounds is of particular interest (cf. Leslau 1990: 131). In Harari and in Gurage one finds many examples of verbal expressions with a dummy verb meaning "to do, make", e.g., (Harari) haf~i dia "to memorise"; t$ra dsh. "to trade"; (Gurage) durn2 ariliii "to pray".

Unexplained is the borrowing of Arabic feminine nouns with the ending -at in many Ethiopian languages, especially in Tigre (cf. Leslau 1990:148) and in Harari (cf. Leslau 1990:130); in the latter case it may have been borrowed through Somali, which has -ad (< -at) in loanwords from Arabic. There does not seem to be any semantic distrib- ution between the loanwords with and those without the -t ending (cf. Perry 1991:213-214).

Finally it may be noted that in spite of the considerable amount of Arabic loanwords there does not seem to have been much influence on the morphological and syntactic level in the Ethiopian languages, at least Leslau does not mention this. Apparently, most loanwords have been adapted to the structure of these languages.

5. Arabic loanwords in Perian (Farsi), Turkish, and Urdu

In the early Islamic centuries the inhabitants of the conquered territo- ries took over Arabic as their new language, and as a result we find only a very limited number of loanwords from their languages into Arabic. After all, the aim of the new speakers, as we have seen above, was to communicate in Arabic and it would hardly have been helpful for them to use words from their own language in communicating with the Arabs. The Arabs themselves were hardly ever bilingual and therefore could play no role in the transmission of loanwords from these languages into Arabic.

In the Iranian area there was a rather special situation. We do not know to what extent people actually shifted to Arabic during the first three or four centuries of Islam. We do know that Middle Persian, the literary language of the Sassanid empire, disappeared. For some time Middle Persian continued to function as a prestige language from whlch many loanwords were taken over by Arabic (cf. Asbaghi 1988). An oripnally West-Iranian dialect became the colloquial language, which eventually supplanted all other dialects (cf. Lazard 1971). In the 10th century it was this dialect that formed the basis for the new literary


standard of Classical Persian poetry. Since in some regions, such as Khurasan, the local Persian elite remained in power after the Arab conquests and were even entrusted with the levying of taxes, Arab immigrants probably had to learn Persian in order to function in society. At the same time, the Persian elite probably had to learn Arabic, since that was the language of the central administration. Persian bilinguals introduced new words in their own language, Arab bilinguals took over Persian words, and in some regions there must have been Arabs introducing learners' errors into Persian, and Persians introducing learners' errors into Arabic (for the early history of Persian/Arabic relations, cf Lazard 1975; ZarrinkClb 1975).

The difference between the situation of the local varieties of Arabic in Persia and those in the Middle East, Egypt, and North Africa is that in the 10th century Persian again came to be used as a literary language, arid in the 16th century it was adopted by the Safavid dynasty as the administrative language of Iran. Arabic remained in use as the language of religion, but in most areas of Iran the local Arabic dialect was replaced by New Persian (Farsi) as the colloquial language. Other Iranian languages, such as Tajik, Kurdish, Afghan Dari, and Baluchi also developed standard varieties that at different times were reduced to writing with the help of the Arabic script (on the use of Arabic script for other languages see Kaye 1995). These languages, too, contain varying amounts of Arabic loanwords (cf. Perry 199 1: 139-1 58, 170- 174).

At the present time there are not many Arabic/Farsi bilinguals in Iran (except of course in the province of Khuzestan, which has remained arabophone): knowledge of Arabic is restricted to the religious elite, whereas the ordinary believers know only enough to understand the Qu7'6n (cf. Ingham 1994b). New loanwords are therefore restricted to the religious (and sometimes political) vocabulary. In the past, from the movement of the Suciibiyya to the nationalist movements of the 19th century there has always been some opposition towards the wholesale borrowing of Arabic words. Some scholars like the Qajar prince Jalal od-Din Mirza (d. 1871) made serious attempts to replace the Arabic component of the lexicon with 'authentic' Farsi words, preferably pre- Islamic ones, and in the 20th century a combination of secularism and nationalism led to the establishment of a language academy, whose specific aim was the renovation of the pure Farsi lexicon (cf. Kia 1998; for a comparison with language reforms in Turkey cf. Perry 1985).

Even among the present-day ayatollahs there may be some reserva- tions about the influx of Arabic words: some of the religious formulas

492 KEES VERSTEEGH

that characterise the religio-political discourse in Farsi are not expressed in Arabic (for instance hodi ra h k r "thanks to God!" with the Farsi word hod8 instead of Arabic allah), and there may even be a slight connection with political ideas about the superiority of the Persians. Although in Iranian propaganda the dichotomy Persians/Arabs does not seem to play an important role (cf. Gieling 1998: 163-165), one does find references to Iran's glorious past, and the use of Farsi formulas perhaps indicates a certain distancing from Arab hegemony.

Arabic loans in Farsi are predominantly nominal in nature; they freely combine with Farsi markers to fonn compound expressions, e.g., nu-ma'liim "unknown" (this and following examples have been taken from Lambton 1961). The only exceptions are a few conjunctions such as va "and", illii, ammii, lakin "but". The nominal loans in Farsi are spread across all semantic domains. Some of the Arabic a f i e s have become partially productive: thus we find the Arabic sound feminine plural -at with Farsi nouns like farmiyeEt "commands", bagat "gardens", hirhineiat "factories".

One intricate problem is the status of the feminine singular ending in Persian loans from Arabic. The usual reflex of the Arabic feminine ending is -e (< -a before the 19th century, written with silent -h), as in vilede "mother". But in a large number of nouns it is -at (usually written not with ki' marbiita, but with normal -t), e.g., in all abstract nouns of the type ensan&at "humanity", ~era'at "agricuiture", but also in words such as mamlekat "country" (contrast this with madrare "school", which has the same morphological structure) and doulat "state", imkat "company".

According to Perry (1991), who analyses the development and semantic differentiation of some 1,500 Arabic loanwords with and without this ending, there is a semantic distinction between the two reflexes: words in -at are generidabstract nouns, whereas those in -e are specific/concrete, as in doublets like baladiyat "expertise" vs. baladiye "town council", Sahriyat "urbanity" vs. sahriye "monthly dues, wages" (Perry 1991:212). There is also a distinction as to the provenance of the loanwords: nouns in -at often stem from a literary tradition, whereas those in -e derive from spoken interaction. The -e nouns were easier to adapt to Persian phonology, but the nouns in -at remained con-spicuous as Arabic loanwords.

Some of the Arabic words in Farsi obviously stem from the literary language. Thus we find, for instance, in compound phrases the nomi- native ending as in hob6 01-vatan "patriotism". In some cases the agree-


ment pattern of Arabic is retained in expressions with broken plurals such as omure mhme "important matters". On the other hand, the phonetic adaptation of Arabic loanwords in Farsi suggests a process of imperfect acquisition of Arabic: merger of emphatic with non-emphatic phonemes, of interdentals with sibilants, of /'/ with /'/, of /q/ with /g/, and of /h/ with /h/. This suggestion is also supported by the fact that some Arabic loanwords in Farsi have been provided with new plural endings, as in ~awiiheriit "jewels", lawdzemiit "necessities" on the basis of the Arabic broken plurals jawahir, hiizim. In borrowings containing a dual ending the oblique case is used, e.g., valedein "parents".

One very characteristic feature of the Arabic lexicon in Farsi is the large amount of compound expressions with a dummy verb meaning "to do", e.g., fekr kardan "to think" ( < j k r "thought"), harakat kardan "to set out, to start" (< haraka "movement"), ta'azob kardan "to be sur-prised" (< tac@@b "amazement"). Transitive verbs of this type are made passive with the help of the dummy verb s'odan "to become", e.g., e'liim kardan/e'liim Sodan "to announce/to be announced" (< 'i'hm "announce-ment"). Many prepositional expressions are formed by combining an Arabic noun or preposition with a Farsi element, e.g., v@& "when" (< waqt "time"), miidiimth "as long as" (< md dfima), dar suratih "in the event that, although" (< slra "form").

Considering the size of the Arabic lexicon in Farsi, the number of studies dealing with it is relatively low. Lambton's (1961) reference grammar contains a special section on the Arabic elements, but it is mainly addressed to learners of the language. A semantic analysis of some Arabic loanwords in Farsi is given by Asbaghi (1987). The periodisation of the Arabic component of Farsi has not yet been investi- gated thoroughly, either. Lazard (1985) refers to a statistical study by Skdmowski (1961), according to whom the proportion of Arabic loans in the works of the Classical Persian poets of the 13th/ 14th centuries is practically the same as that in the work of a contemporary Iranian writer. This would mean that the bulk of the Arabic loanwords in Farsi was incorporated all at once. Lazard's own statistical analysis seems to indicate that at least in the preceding period from the 10th through the 13th centuries the proportion of Arabic loanwords increased gradually. But it is impossible to say in what context these Arabic elements originated. In one of the oldest Persian texts in Arabic script, a translation of the Qul.'iin, possibly dating from the 11th century, the occurrence of the conjunction 'z'mn (W4) '"hen", a combination of Arabic ~amdn

494 KEES VERSTEEGH

"time" with the Persian conjunction kh "that" (cf. Lazard 1990a:189), demonstrates the early use of Arabic/Persian compounds with which New Persian abounds.

The transformation of Persian by the interaction of its speakers with Arabic determined the role of Arabic in the Islamic East: almost every- where in the East Persian served as the intermediate language through which Arabic elements were introduced in the languages of the East. Contacts with native speakers of Arabic were usually restricted to intellectuals and the occasional trader. Only in the modern period Arabic influence has begun to be exerted independently through the contacts that Islamic scholars in those countries entertain with the Arabic-speaking Middle East, through indigenous forms of Arabic language education, and of course, through the pilgrimage to Mecca.

In the Seljuk empire Arabic remained the language of religion and in some cases of science, but Persian was the cultural language and it remained so even when Turkish was introduced as the new adminis-trative language. In Ottoman Turkey the knowledge of the 'three languages' (Arabic, Persian, Turkish) was part of the cultural baggage of any intellectual. This explains why most Turkish loans from Arabic have gone through Persian as may be seen for instance in the reflex of Arabic _d, which is 2 as in Persian. Direct borrowing from Arabic did not cease altogether. In the 19th century many political neologisms were formed on the basis of Arabic lexical elements, as for instance cumhu^r < Brnhiir in the sense of "public", "republic", or mejveret < mxfiiwara in the sense of "representative government" (cf. Ayalon 1987:92, 100). Some of these neologisms were unknown in Arabic at the time, but later they were borrowed back into the newly arising political jargon of Arab nationalism.

Loanwords in Modern Turkish are still recognisable as such because they do not always follow the rules of the vowel harmony, e.g., memur "official" (< mdmiir), rather than %mein this respect Arabic loanwords are similar to foreign words from other languages. Like in Farsi there are no examples of verbal loans in Turkish, and only a few examples of particles (ama, fakat "but", ve "and", bazi "some" < Arabic baCd). But there is a large number of nominal loans which have been adapted to Turkish morphology, receiving for instance the Turkish plural -lo/ -1ar. Many Arabic nouns are used in compound expressions with the dummy verb etmek "to do", e.g., tesir etmek "to influence" (< ta'_tir "influence") or hareht etmek "to move, act" (< haraka "movement"). It is unknown whether all compound expressions were taken over from


Persian; some of them may represent new formations in Turkish. As in Persian nominal loans are also used to form compound prepositional phrases, as in haWnnda "about" (< haqq "right"), tarafinda "by means of" (< t a r4 "side") or adverbial or interrogative expressions, e.g., tamamen "completely" (< tam-man), Lujim "please" (< luvan), ne caman, ne vakit "when?", ne kadar "how much?".

In older stages of the language (Ottoman Turkish) the Arabo-Persian component was much more productive than in Modern Turkish. As we have seen above (p. 476), in literary borrowing syntactic interference of the source language takes place on the basis of the written language. Arabic loanwords that nowadays have a Turkish plural ending -ler/-lar (e.g., hidiseler "events", akideler "dogmas") had an Arabic broken plural (havadis < hawddii, akait < 'aqd'id) and-at least in the literary language-obeyed Arabic agreement rules when they were connected with Arabic adjectives. Arabic nouns were often used with their broken plural patterns. On the other hand, lower forms of Ottoman Turkish show that there were different levels of borrowing: there was a lot of variation in the use of the Arabic agreement rules (cf. Prokosch 1980:40, 48) and one often finds syntactic mistakes, such as the erroneous use of the Arabic participle instead of the masdar or of the Arabic masdar instead of the participle (e.g., intizrirdz "she expected" instead of muntazzrdz; Prokosch 1980:20 1, 203).

After the language reform instigated by Atatiirk Turkish went through a stage of purism in which many of the original Arabic loans were replaced by 'pure' Turkic forms; the elaborate Arabic expressions of Ottoman prose either disappeared or survived as stock phrases (cf. Bosworth 1965). The quantitative effects of the language reform were considerable: according to Aksan (1993) the amount of Arabic words in Turkish newspapers decreased from 51% in 1931 to 26% in 1965, and this tendency has continued in the years after 1965. In spite of the reforms the share of Arabic in the lexicon is still enormous, but this is not reflected in the secondary literature on this topic. There is a comprehensive study by Bittner (1900; cf. also Battersby 1966); most reference grammars refer to the Arabic element (modern examples given above were taken from Underhill 1976; Osmanic ones from Kissling 1960).

Other Turkic languages, too, incorporated Arabic loanwords to varying degrees, but almost all of them used Persian predominantly as an intermediary. This applies to such languages as Uzbek, Azerbaijani, Tatar (cf. Schemer 1972), and Chuvash (cf. Scherner 1977).

496 KEES VERSTEEGH

In India, too, Persian was the main cultural language that accom-panied the spreading of Islam in the Indus valley in the 1lth century. This process of islamisation was undertaken by the Ghaznavid dynasty, which had adopted the Persian language, both as colloquial and as literary language. Persian remained the literary language in the Mughal empire, while a Prakrit dialect from North India, Urdu (also called Hindawi or Hindu) came to be used as the colloquial language.

During the period of British colonialism language became an issue that was closely related to religious factionalism in India (cf. Kanungo 1968). When a modern form of Sanskrit arose as the Indian 'national' language to form a counterpart to the colonial language, English, it quickly developed into two varieties, mainly characterised by a Werence in lexical source language: Hindi acquired a largely sanskritised vocabulary, and was written in Devanagari script, whereas the same language with Arabic loanwords, written in Arabic script (cf. Kaye 1995), was called Urdu. The latter became the national language of Pakistan after independence.

In fact even in colloquial Hindi many Arabic loans still exist as variants of the official Sanskrit forms. For instance, the word for "answer" in literary Hindi is the Sanskrit word uttar, whereas colloquial Hindi and Urdu use the Arabo-Persian loanword javdb (all examples from PoEizka 1972). In general, one may say that the Arabic loans in colloquial Hindi belong more to the vernacular register, as indicated by the concrete meaning of some of these loans, e.g., 'addlat "courthouse7' (Arabic 'aidla "justice"). The Arabic loans in Classical Urdu, on the other hand, belong both the category of concrete nouns and to that of the abstract vocabulary of Islamic intellectuals. Perry (1991:159- 160) points out that Urdu borrowed all its loanwords from Persian, but did not go along with the development of the Persian language. Urdu writers continued to draw on the lexicon of Classical Persian, which explains why the Urdu lexicon is more conservative than that of Persian and Ottoman Turkish.

One aspect of the integration of Arabic loans in Urdu should be mentioned here, their classification as to grammatical gender, which did not take into regard their original gender in Arabic (Perry 1991:160- 161). In accordance with the morpho-phonology of Urdu nouns ending in a consonant or -i became feminine (e.g., este'dzd "talent, ability", feminine in Urdu, but masculine in Arabic), whereas most words in -eh are masculine (e.g., naqieh "map", masculine in Urdu, but feminine in Arabic).


Typical of both Hindi and Urdu loans is the extensive use of dummy verbs, such as kam- "to do", d a a "to give", in compound verbs (e.g., in&dr kamd "to wait", i&-r kamd "to deny", jav6b dm- "to answer"). It appears that these formations all follow the pattern of Arabic loans in Persian. In general one may say that all Arabic elements in Hindi and Urdu were imported through the medium of Persian; this applies to nominal loans, but also to prepositions (such as barhihf "on the contrary", ke banisbat "in comparison with"), conjunctions (such as lekin "but", va, o "and"), and Aiabic plural endings -dt (deht "villages, the country"), -in (hdzien "audience").

Many other modern Indian languages contain varying amounts of Arabic loans. A special situation obtains in Bengali, since it exists in two varieties, a Hindu one, in the Indian state of Bengal, and a Muslim one, in the independent state of Bangladesh. After the partition of India and Pakistan the language question divided the people in East and West Pakistan: those in the West advocated the use of Urdu as the only national language, whereas those in the East pleaded for the recognition of Bengali, o ~ i f this was not feasible-for the adoption of Arabic as the only national language (cf. Bhowrnik 1993). Among the partisans of Bengali there were also those who wished to islamicise the language by introducing large numbers of Arabo-Persian words, or even by adopting the Arabic script for the language, in order to distinguish it from the 'Hindu' Bengali of West Bengal (Bhowrnik 1993: 13 1-1 59).

The recognition of both Bengali and Urdu as national languages in 1956 (Bhowmik 1993:350) came too late anyway to satisfy the nation- alists in East Pakistan, and after separation Bengali became the only language of independent Bangladesh. Bengali as spoken in Bangladesh remained an Islamic language, and on the level of the written stan-dard this has led to two distinct lexicons with a large number of vari- ant pairs, for instance in West Bengali prakar vs. East Bengali burug' (< Arabic burg'"fortress"; cf. Dil 1972). In colloquial speech many speakers use the two variants as stylistic variants, although the association with the religious background remains unmistakable, and in the course of time the two varieties in East and West Bengal have increasingly grown apart on the lexical level.

Until recently, nothing much was known about the introduction of Islam (and Arabic) in China, for which Persia was again the intermediary. The Muslim community in present-day China numbers tens of thousands of people (on their social situation see Lipman 1997). Almost half of China's Muslims are classified as belonging to the minzu of the

498 KEES VERSTEEGH

Hui, a default category for all those Muslims who do not belong to any of the nine other Muslim minorities, most of them sinophone. Most of them live along the ancient Silk Road. Eastern Turkestan is almost entirely Muslim, and between North China and Turkestan there are two zones with dense Muslim habitation: Ningxia region and Gansu and Northeastern Qinghai provinces.

Muslims came to China according to Lipman (1997) within a few decades after the death of the Prophet; Arabs and Persians continued to play a significant role as traders for six centuries thereafter; they were foreigners and merchants, tolerated but despised. Most of them took Chinese women and created permanent Sino-Muslim communities, spealung Chinese.

A reform of the Muslim educational system in China took place in the 16th century, when the gedimu (< qadim "old") system of mosque schools with Koranic recitation under an ahong (= 'imam), was replaced by the jingtang jiaoyu "scripture hall education", in which Arabic was used pronounced with Chinese sounds, e.g., salfim as sa liang mu. In this education a systematic alphabetic representation of Chinese with Arabic letters (xiaojng) was developed, which is still used irregularly by Chinese Muslims. Chinese Muslims were connected to one another in ways that non-Muslim Chinese could not: they shared the jingtung education, the religious and ritual knowledge of insiders, which distinguished them as individuals from non-Muslims, and above all, they could use Huihuihua, the Arabic and Persian lexicon of authenticity, which despite its local Chinese dialect base, indicated to other Muslims that they were dealing with coreligionists. Unfortunately, nothing much is known about the phonological and morphological structure of these Arabic and Persian loanwords, and their integration into Chinese.

6. Arabic loanwords in Southeast Asia

The history of the earliest contacts between Arabia and Southeast Asia is not very well known. There is, for instance, some controversy concerning the route through which Arabic cultural influence and Islam reached Indonesia. According to Lombard (1990:42, 210) the rise of the earliest Muslim communities in Java was connected with the establishment of merchant ports on the northern coast of Java in the 14th century by Chinese traders, who had already converted to Islam. Only at a later period, at the beginning of the 16th century did Islam spread to the inland to become part of the agrarian culture (cf. Lombard 1990:llOE).


The expansion of Arabic loanwords is intimately related to the diffusion of Malay, the language of Malacca, which became the common language of the Indonesian archipelago. Malay had been in use as a trade language, first in Sumatra and then in Java, from the 7th century onwards. At least from the 14th century onwards (the Trengganu inscription) it was written with Arabic characters, and it came to incor- porate many loanwords that ultimately derived from Arabic. In the process, the literary forms of Malay and the so-called Kitap-Malay also underwent Arabic syntactic influence (cf. van Ronkel 1899), in much the same way as the literary forms of Persian and Ottoman Turkish did. Unfortunately, we know almost nothing about the development of the Arabic component of Malay in the earliest period, simply because the number of Classical Malay inscriptions is limited. It is not known precisely, either, through which routes Malay acquired its Arabic loanwords. The form of many loanwords betrays a Persian link, possibly via India.

When in Indonesia Malay became not only the trading language, but also the prestige language that was used at court (cf. Steinhauer 1980), the Arabic elements became part of the Indonesian heritage. Contact with real Arabophones was limited to Arab merchants, but in the 19th century the massive immigration of Hadramis (cf. the figures for Hadrami immigrants given in Lombard [1990:65-661: in 181 2: 600, in 1885: 1 1,000, in 1905: 30,000) may have influenced the shape of the Arabic element, especially in the large cities where the Hadramis were concentrated. Another possible source of knowledge about Arabic was the pilgrimage to Mecca, but this remained for a long time the privilege of the Clite (in the second half of the 19th century the number of pilgrims was never much higher than 10,000; cf. Lombard 1990:66). Such contacts may partly explain the form of those loanwords that did not enter Malay through Persian. Some of the Arabic loanwords must belong to this earlier period, for instance perlu "must" (< Arabic fard "religious duty", cf. the modern loanword fardu, which has the same meaning as the Arabic word).

Malay was not the only language which underwent the influence of the language of Islam. Both Javanese and Sundanese contain early Arabic loanwords, although nothing much is known about the exact routes through which these words were borrowed (cf. A. Juynboll 1883; H. Juynboll 1894). In Sumatra, Aceh was one of the first areas to become converted to Islam, and this is reflected in the degree of integration of the Arabic loanwords in Acehnese (luha "forenoon" < duha,

500 KEES VERSTEEGH

peureuke "must, religious duty" < fard, kh&h "special" < &JJ; cf. Al-Harbi 1991). Another Indonesian language in Sumatra with possibly early loanwords is Minangkabau (e.g., lahie' "public, known" < &hir, kaba "news" < habaq cf. van der Toorn 189 1, 1899). In both Minangkabau and Acehnese the reflex of Arabic /d/ is /I/, which perhaps retains an earlier lateralised pronunciation of the Arabic sound (cf. Steiner 1977; Versteegh 1999).

In present-day Indonesia with its overwhelming majority of Muslims the presence of Arabic is all-pervasive. Even though most Indonesians do not know Arabic well enough to have a conversation in that language, not even when they have attended language lessons in the pesantren system, their own language abounds with words from Arabic, many of which are recognised by speakers of Bahasa Indonesia as being of foreign origin (cf. Meuleman 1994). On the other hand, there is very lit- tle research into the nature of the Arabic lexicon in Indonesian. Jones' (1978) list of Arabic loans in the framework of the Indonesian Etymological Project contains a number of 3,000 loans but these are listed without any information about the sources or the periodisation. Thus the list contains early loans like perlu alongside with obvious learned loans such as nuzuh'l-kuran "the revelation of the Qur'dn". Sudarno (1992) is a popular synthesis of the state of affairs (cf. also Beg 1979; Arnin 1993).

In general one may say that most of the Arabic loanwords in Indonesian are nouns, although there are a few verbal bases that derive from Arabic (such as pikir "to think" < fakkara). But the system of lexical derivation in Indonesian makes it possible to make hundreds of verbal derivatives from these nouns. Thus from a word such as mak-sud "goal, meaning" (< Arabic mapsiid) we have the verbal derivatives bermaksud " to intend", memaksudhn "to aim at" and the passive participle termaksud "intended", and from istirahat "rest" (< Arabic istirgha) the verbs benitirahat "to rest" and menpistirahatkan "to let so. rest, to fire". Apart from the nominal loans there are a number of 'floating' particles, such as amabakdu "then" (< 'amma- ba'du), &n 'yet", labuda "unavoid-ably" (< Lci budda), as well as (compound) conjunctions such as lau "if" ohh sebab "because" (< sabab "reason"), waktu "when", etc. There are very few examples of the borrowing of productive Arabic grammatical devices. One example is that of the nisba adjective (cf. Meuleman 1994: 19), as in alami "natural" (< Arabic 'dlamf "world-"), which is also used with words of a different origin, such as gerejawi "church-" (< Portuguese gereja "church").


7. Conclusions

All cases of linguistic interaction described in the preceding paragraphs clearly fall within the category of 'borrowing' in Thomason & Kaufman's model. The effects of this interaction correspond with the characteristics commonly assigned to this category. There are, however, clear differences between the various cases. In some situations borrowing took place in a context of trading and imperfect second language acquisition, in other situations it was connected with the intellectual activities of a religious Clite. The typology of borrowing also differed with respect to the level of integration and the types of words borrowed. Although there were manifest resemblances in the material presented here (the use of dummy verbs to accommodate verbal loans, the use of con-junctions and prepositions derived from Arabic) it is not easy to cor-relate these with similarities in the context of borrowing. The contrast between the two types of borrowing is clearly seen in the case of the Hausa-speakers, whose interaction with Arabic in the Western and the Eastern Sudan may exemplify the two types (cf. above, p. 485).

Many questions about the effects of language contacts between Arabic and other languages remain as yet unanswered. One such question is that of the exact dialectal provenance of the Arabic loans in other languages. For the sake of convenience we have always quoted Classical Arabic words as etyma for the borrowings, rather than the dialect forms that are no doubt the real etyma. Other questions include the following: 1) how is it possible that a number of identical function words (such as the causal conjunction derived from Arabic sabab "reason") was taken over by several languages all over the world? 2) what was the role of the foreigner talk register in these contacts? 3) what was the role of Arabic literary culture in the transmission of Arabic elements (e.g., the terminology of writing, grammar, and scholarship)? 4) is it possible to distinguish in all situations two layers of borrowing, and who were the carriers of the first layer? 5) has there ever been a full- fledged trade jargon that may have served as the source for the borrowings in some of these languages, for instance in East Afiica or in Southeast Asia?

These questions pertain to the origin of Arabic interference and the circumstances in which this interference took place. In this respect the study of loanwords is highly relevant to the study of cultural influence in general. In the central areas Arabic was taken over in the same process of acculturation that brought Islam, and in most areas Arabic

502 KEES VERSTEEGH

became at first the second, and then the first language of the inhabitants. But when Islam was exported to other regions, and the inhabitants of these regions came into contact with the language of the new religion, they did not take over Arabic but still underwent the influence of the language because of its prestige and its indispensability in acquiring knowledge about the new religion. There must have been a class of bilinguals who were instrumental in spreading the knowledge about the new religion and at the same time in introducing new words from the language of the revelation. The later influx of abstract words derived from Arabic must be ascribed to the activities of these bilingual intellectuals.

One thing is certain: for the moment it is impossible to draw too many conclusions from the material. Since there is no chronologi-cal/diachronic analysis of the Arabic material in any language, and since in most cases the historical context in which borrowing took place, is insufficiently known, it is impossible to find out how the development took place. Even in the case of Persian and Turkish with their hundreds of loanwords that have pervaded the entire lexicon and include grammatical elements, we do not know when these loanwords entered the language. In the case of Indonesian the origin of the thousands of loanwords from Arabic cannot be ascertained with any accuracy for lack of information about the sources and the penodisation. Only when this kind of information becomes available will it be possible to embark on a comparative analysis.

Such an analysis may raise other questions about the correlation between type of borrowing, context of borrowing, and language typology. Why, for instance, do we find so many compound expressions in the three Islamic languages Persian, Turkish and Urdu? We may sur- mise that the use of compound verbs had something to with the context of borrowing (for an analysis of this construction in the context of code-switching see Backus 1996). In that case, Persian must have been the intermediary for the compound expressions in the other two languages, since in the case of Turkish and Urdu there was no direct context of bilingualism.

The main distinction remains that between languages that take only nominal loans, which are verbalised by means of the compound expressions, on the one hand, and those languages like Swahili that borrow both nouns and verbs (although Swahili may have used other devices in the older stages since there are some examples of compound expressions with fanya). In view of what we know about the context of borrowing our preliminary hypothesis is that the adaptation of verbs is


connected with a predominantly non-intellectual context, i.e., through commercial contacts-not counting, of course, those situations of extensive bilingualism in which verbs are used in non-adopted form. In Swahili the verbal form seems to have been the point of departure for nominal derivations (e.g., in pairs like $ r a h and jGrahi); in other languages verbs based on Arabic lexical elements do occur, as in Indonesian, but these lexical elements concern nominal loans that became the point of departure for verbal derivations within the borrowing language.

These and similar questions may be answered once we know more about the nature of the material and its layering in the lexicon of the languages involved. The answers may tell us something about the processes involved in linguistic interaction. But obviously, they are equally valuable for the historical study of Arabic. In one particular instance, the reflexes of Arabic /d/ and /d_ / as evidence of an earlier lateralised pronunciation of /d/ (first out by Steiner 1977; cf. Versteegh 1999), the comparison of loanwords shows that the history of loanwords may indeed he helpful in the reconstruction of both the internal development of Arabic and the nature of the interaction with other languages.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abu-Manga, Al-Arnin. 1999. Hausa in the Sudan: Process of adaptation to Arabic. Cologne: Riidiger Koppe.

Aksan, Dogan. 1993. "Die neueren Entwicklungen im modernen Tiirkei-Tiirkischen". Sprach- und Kulturlcontakte dm turhchm V o k , ed. by Jens Peter Laut & Klaus Rohrborn, 5-1 1. Wiesbaden: 0 . Harrassowitz.

Alexandre, Pierre. 1983. "Langue arabe et kiswahili". Lanpue arabe et langues ajxaines 7-12. Paris: Conseil International de la Langue Fran~aise.

Al-Harbi, Awwad Ahmad Al-Ahmadi. 199 1. "Arabic loanwords in Acehnese". Perspectines in Arabic Linguistics, 111, ed. by Bernard Comne & Mushira Eid, 93-1 17. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.

Amara, Muhammad Hasan. 1999. Politics and Sociolinguistic @exes: Palestinian border uilhges. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.

Amin, Awang Mohamad. 1993. "Kata pinjaman Arab dalam Bahasa Melayu satu peni- laian semula". Jumal Dewan B a h a 49.49-58.

Arnold, Werner, & Peter Behnstedt. 1993. Arabisch-Aramaische Sprachbe~iehurgen im QalamCn (Syrien). Wiesbaden: 0. Harrassowitz.

Asbaghi, Asya. 1987. Lh semantische Entwicklurg ambischer Worter im Pmsischen. Stuttgart: F. Steiner.

-. 1988. Persische LehnwBter im Arabischen. Wiesbaden: 0. Harrassowitz. Ayalon, h i . 1987. Language and Change in the Arab Middle East: & evolution o f modem

political discourse. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. Backus, Ad M. 1996. Two in One: B i l i n p l speech o f Turkirh imm@ants in the Netherlands.

Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Bakker, Peter & Maarten Mous, eds. 1994. Mixed Lanpges: 15 care studies in language

504 KEES VERSTEEGH

intmtzining. Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Lan- guage Use.

Baldi, Sergio. 1988. A First Ethnolinguistic Cornparifon ofArabic Loanwords Common to Hausa and Swahili. Naples: Istituto Universitario Orientale.

Battersby, H.R. 1966. "Arabic and Persian elements in Ottoman Turkish (Osmanhca)". R e j t Rahmeti Arat kin, 93-141. Ankara: Turk Kulturunu Ara~hrma Enstitusu.

Beaujard, Philippe. 1998. LA p a r h secret arabico-malguhe du sud-est de Madagascar: Recherches ipmologiques. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Bechert, Johannes & Wolfgang Wildgen. 1991. Einzhrung in die Sprachkontak@rschung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Beg, Muhammad AJ. 1979. Arabic Loanwords in Malay. Kuala Lumpur. Bhowmik, Satya N. 1993. Die Sprachenpolihk der Muslim-&ague-ReMng und die Entstehung

der Bengali-S)rachbewegung in Ostbmgalen 1947-1956. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Bishai, Wilson B. 1960. "Notes on the Coptic substratum in Egyptian Arabic". Journal

of the Ammcan Oriental Sociep 80.225-229. 1961. "Nature and extent of Coptic phonological influence on Egyptian Arabic".

Journal of Semitic Studies 6.175- 182. ----. 1962. "Coptic grammatical influence on Egyptian Arabic". Journal of the American

Orimtal Sock4 82.285-289. Bittner, Maximilian. 1900. "Der EinfluR des Arabischen und Persischen auf das Turkische".

Sitzungsbm'chte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichy Akademie dm Wissenschafb zu Wien 142/3.1-119.

Blau, Joshua. 1965. 7he Emergence and Ltnguistic Background of Judeo-Arabic: A study o f the origzns of Middle Arabic. London: Oxford University Press. (2nd ed., Jerusalem: Ben Zwi, 1981.)

Boogert, Nico van den. 1997. 7he Berber Litmary Tradition of the Sous with an Edition and Translation o f 'The Ocean of Tears' by Muhammad Awral (d. 1749). Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.

Borg, Alexander. 1985. Cypriot Arabic: A historical and comparatwe investigation into the phonol-OQ and morphologV of the Arabic vernacular spoken by the Maronites of Konnakiti village in the Kyrenia district of North- Westen? Cypm. Stuttgart: Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft.

Bosworth, C. Edmund. 1965. "Language reform and nationalism in Modern Turkey". Muslim World 55.58-65, 117-124.

Boumans, Louis. 1998. 7he Syntax of Codeszuitching. Anahsing Moroccan Ambic/Dutch conver-sation. Ph.D. University of Nijmegen.

Brahimi, Fadila. 1999. "Loanwords in Algerian Berber". Arabic as a Minm'p Language, ed. by Jonathan Owens, 371-382. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Braukamper, Ulrich. 1994. "Notes on the origin of Baggara Arab culture with special reference to the Shuwa". Arabs and Arabic in the Lake Chad Region, ed. by Jonathan Owens, 13-46. Cologne: Rudiger Koppe.

Cannon, Garland. 1994. The Arabic Contnbutwn to h English Language: An historical dictionary. Wiesbaden: 0. Harrassowitz.

Chaker, Salem. 1995. Ltnguistique berbhe: Etudes de syntuxe et de diachronic. Paris & Louvain: Editions Peeters.

Corriente, Federico. 1992. ~ r a b e andalusz'y hpunr romances. Madrid: Editorial MAPFRE. 1996. "Los arabismos del portugu6s". Estudios de Dialectologk Nortea&aana y andalusi

1.5-86. Diem, Werner. 1979. "Studien zur Frage des Substrats im Arabischen". Derlslam 56.12-80. Dil, M a . 1972. 'I;he Huuiu and Milslim h l e c t s ofBengali. Ph.D. Stanford University. Drewes, A.J. 1995. "Borrowing in Maltese". Mived Languages: 1 5 Case stdies in lanpuage

intmaoining, ed. by Peter Bakker & Maarten Mous, 83-1 11. Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use.

mailto:Sprachkontak@rschung

LINGUISTIC CONTACTS 505

Dumestre, Gerard. 1983. "Note a propos des termes bambara empruntes a l'arabe". L.an.gu arabe et langus aft.aims 13-20. Paris: Conseil International de la Langue Franpise.

El Aissati, Abderrahman. 1996. Language h s s among Native Speakers o f Moroccan Arabic in the Nefherlands. Ph.D. Univ. of Nijmegen.

Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 1961. "Die Sprache der arabischen Sprachinsel in Uzbekistan". Der Islam 36.232-63.

GalmCs de Fuentes, Alvaro. 1983. Diakctoogia mozarabe. Madrid: Credos. Gieling, Saskia. 1998. ?he Sacra1iz:ation of War in the Islamic Republic ofIran. Ph.D. University

of Nijmegen. Greenberg, Joseph H. 1947. "Arabic loan-words in Hausa". Word 3.85-97. Haddad, Adnan. 1983. L'arabe et le swahili duns la Ripublique du Giz: Etudes islamipus,

hiFtoire et linguktzque. Paris: SEDES. Haugen, Einar. 1950. "The analysis of linguistic borrowings". Lanpuape 26.2 10-23 1. Heath, Jeffrey. 1989. From Code-Switchznp. to Borrowing: A case study of Moroccan Arabic.

London & New York: Kegan Paul International. Heine, Bend. 1973. Pzdin-Sprachen im Bantu-Berich. Berlin: D. Reimer. Hiskett, Mervyn. 1965. "The historical background to the naturalization of Arabic loan-

words in Hausa". Afncan Languages Studies 1965, 18-26. Holden, Kyril. 1976. "Assimilation rates of borrowings and phonological productivity".

Language 52.131-147. Hunwick, J.O. 1964. "The influence of Arabic in West Africa: A preliminary historical

survey". Transactions of the Historical Sock& o f Ghana 7.24-41. Hyman, Larry M. 1970. "The role of borrowing in the justification of phonological

grammars". Studies in African Lingustics 1.1-48. Ingham, Bruce. 1994a. "The effect of language contact on the Arabic dialect of

Afghanistan". Actas del Congeso Intaacional sobre Intmjierencias Lingiicti~as Arabo-Romances y Paralelos Extra-Ibhicos, ed. by Jordi Aguadi, Federico Corriente & Marina Marugan, 105-1 17. Zaragoza: Navarro & Navarro.

-. 199413. "The Arabic language in Iran". Indian J o u m l of Applied Linguistics 20.103-116.

Johnson, Frederick. 1939. A Standard Swahili-English fitionav. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jones, Russell. 1978. Indonesian E&mological Project. 111. Arabic Loan-words in Indonesian. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.

Juynboll, A.W.T. 1883. "Lijst van Javaansche en Sundaneesche woorden, uit het Arabisch of het Perzisch afstammende". Bidragen Konulklik Instituut voor Tm1-,Land- en V o M n d e van Nederlands-Ind2, Feestnummm, 11, 25-82.

Juynboll, H.H. 1894. "Vervolg van de lijst van Javaansche en Sundaneesche woorden, uit het Arabisch of het Perzisch afstammende". Bidrqen Koninklik Inrtituut voor lad-, Land- en Voolkenkunde van Nederlands-Ind2 44.169-200.

Kinberg, Naphtali & Rafael Talmon. 1994. "Learning of Arabic by Jews and the use of Hebrew among Arabs in Israel". Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 20.37-54.

Kahler, Hans. 197 1. Studim uber die Kultur, die Sprach und die a r a b i s c h - a z m e Ltteratur dm &p-Mahien. Berlin: D. Reimer.

Kampfheyer, Georg. 1899. "Materialien zum Studium der arabischen Beduinendialekte Innerafrikas". Mittalungen des Seminars &r oriatuliFche Sprmhen 2.143-22 1.

Kanungo, Gostha Behari. 1968. ?he Language Controversy in Indian Education: Historical study. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago.

Kaye, Alan S. 1995. "Adaptations of Arabic script". iT72e World's Writing Systnnr, ed. by Peter T. Daniels & William Bright, 743-762. London: Oxford University Press.

Kia, Mehrdad. 1998. "Persian nationalism and the campaign for language purification". Middle E a s t a Studies 34.9-36.

506 KEES VERSTEEGH

Kissling, Hans Joachim. 1960. Osmanisch-tiirhche Grammat&. Wiesbaden: 0 . Harrassowitz. Knappert, Jan. 1983. "Persian and Turkish loanwords in Swahili". Sprache und Geschichte

in A@ 5.1 11-144. Kornblueth: Ilana & Sarah Aynor. 1974. "A study of the longebity of Hebrew slang".

International Journal of the Sociology o f Language I. 15-37. Labatut, R. 1983. "Les emprunts du peul a l'arabe". Langue arabe et langues afncaines, 41-

70. Paris: Conseil International de la Langue Fransaise. Lacroix, Pierre-Francis. 1967. "Remarques prelirninaires 5 une etude des emprunts arabes

en peul". A@ca 37:2.188-202. Lambton, Ann K.S. 196 1. Persian Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lazard, Gilbert. 1971. "Pahlaui, Pcirsi, dun: Les langues d'Iran d'aprks Ibn al-Muqaffa'".

Iran and Islam. In Memoy of the late Vladimir Minors,$, ed. by C. Edmund Bosworth, 361-391. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

-. 1975. "The rise of the new Persian language". The Cambridte Histoy o f Iran. IV. 77re P & d j o m the Arab Invarion to the Sabuqs; ed. by Richard Nelson Frye, 566-594. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1985. "Les emprunts arabes dans la prose persane du XCau XIIe siPcle: Apersu statistique". Revue de I'Ecole Nationale des Langues Onentales 2.53-67.

1990a. "Lumieres nouvelles sur la formation de la langue persane: Une traduc- tion du Coran en persan dialectal et ses affinitts avec le judeo-persan". Irano-Judaica, 11, ed. by Sh. Shaked & A. Netzer, 184-198. Jerusalem.

1990b. "PCrn' et dari Nouvelles remarques". Bulletin ofthe Asia Institute, New Series 4. Leslau, Wolf. 1964. Ethiopinn argots. The Hague: Mouton.

1990. Arabic Loanwords in Ethiopian Semitic. M1iesbaden: 0 . Harrassowitz. Lipman, Jonathan N. 1997. Familiar Strangers: A histo9 o fMus l im in Northwest China. Seattle

& London: University of Washington Press. Lodhi, Abdulaziz Y.1986. "The status of Arabic in East Africa". On the Dzpi& of Man:

Oriental and Classical Studies in Honour of Frithiof Ru&en, ed. by Tryggve Kronholm & Eva Kad, 257-262. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

Lombard, Denys. 1990. Le rant$our jauanais: Essai d'histoire globab. 11. Les riseau asiatiques. Paris: Editions de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.

Malik, Sayed H.A. 1995. "The impact of Arabic on the linguistic and cultural life of the Yomba people". Language in Nigeria. Essays in Honour of Ayo Baqbose, ed. by Kola Owolabi, 424-439. Ibadan: Group Publishers.

Marsais, Philippe. n.d. 119561. Le p a r h arabe de Qid j l l i (fiord constantinois, Alghiej. (= Publications de l'lnstitut d'Etudes Orientales diAlger, 16) Paris: Librairie d'Amkrique et d'Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve.

Meuleman, Johan H. 1994. "Arabic in Indonesia". Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 20.1 1-34.

Mifsud, Manwel. 1995. Loan Verbs in Maltese: A d e s 4 t w e and comparative study. Leiden: EJ. Brill.

-, & Albert Borg. 1994. "Arabic in Malta". Indian Journal ofApplied Linguistics 20.89-102.

Miller, Catherine. 1996. "Nubien, berbere et beja: Notes sur trois langues vernaculaires non arabes de 1'Egypte contemporaine". &pte /~onde Arabe 27-28.41 1-431.

Muhajir. 1984. MoZfobgi dialekJokarta: &mi dun redupltkasi. Jakarta: Penerbit Djambatan. Munthe, Ludvig. 1982. La tradition arabim-ma&ache uue a traDers le manusnit A - 6 d'0slo et

d'autres manusmMts disponibbs. [Tananarive:] T.P.F.L.M. Musa-Wellens, Ineke. 1994. A Descriptive Sketch of the Vmbal System of the N u b i - l a w e ,

Spoken in Bombo, Uganda. M A thesis, University of Nijmegen. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 1993. Duelling L q w g e s : Gammatical stntcture in code-stenstentchug. Oxford:

Clarendon Press. Nishio, Tetsuo. 1996. "Word order and word order change of wh-questions in Egyptian

Arabic: The Coptic substratum reconsidered". Roceedings ofthe 2nd Internatiaal Confmence


of LIAssociation Intrmataimab pour la k b c t o l o g k Arabe, Held at Trin* Hall in the Unwersip of Cambnajpe, 10-14 September 1995, 171-1 79. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

Odisho, Edward Y. 1997. "'al'-Prefixed loanwords in Spanish: Linguistic implications". <eitschn~jik arabisch Linguistik 33.89-99.

Owens, Jonathan. 1985. "Arabic dialects of Chad and Nigeria". <eitschnz&r arabirch Linguistik 14.45-61.

----. 1990. "East African Nubi: Bioprogram vs. inheritance". Diachronica 7.217-50. ----. 1993. A Grammar ofNigerian Arabic. Wiesbaden: 0. Harrassowitz. -. 1994. "Nigerian Arabic in comparative perspective". Arabs and Arabic in th Loke

Chad R e p n , ed. by Jonathan Owens, 85-175. Cologne: Rudiger Koppe. ----. 1998. Nkghborhood and Ancestty: Variation in the spoken Arabic of Maiduguri, Nigeria.

Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Palva, Heikki. 1969. "Notes on the alleged Coptic morphological influence on Egyptian

Arabic". Orientalia Suecana 18.128- 136. Perry, John R. 1985. "Language reform in Turkey and Iran". International Journal of

M d d k East Studies 17.295-31 1. 1991. F o n and meaning in Persian Vocabulary: 7%L Arabic feminine ending. Costa Mesa,

Cal. & New York: Mazda Publishers. Poplack, Shana, Susan Wheeler & Anneli Westwood. 1989. "Distinguishing language

contact phenomena: Evidence from Finnish-English bilingualism". 7he Nordic hnguages and Modem Lnguistics, ed. by Pirkko Lilius & Mirja Saari, 33-56. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press.

Poiizka, Vincenc. 1972. HindStina: Hind; language course. Prague: Statni Pedagogicki. Nakladatelstvi.

Prokosch, Erich. 1980. Studien zur Grammatik des Osmanisch-Turkirch unter besondere7 Beriick- sichhgung des Vulgarosmanirch-Turkirch.Freiburg: K. Schwarz.

-. 1986. Arabisch Kontoktsprachm (Ptdgm- und Kreolsprachm) in A j k h . Graz: Institut fur Sprachwissenschafi, Universitat Graz.

Rajaonarimanana, Narivelo. 1990. Sauoirs arabuo-macachs: La hadition manllsmmte &s devinr Antemoro Anakara. Paris: Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales.

Romaine, Suzanne. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Rodel, Ph.S. van. 1899. "Over invloed der arabische syntaxis op de maleische". TidschnJ

van het Bakmiaasch Genootschap 41.498-528. Rouchdy, Aleya. 1991. Nubianr and the Nubian Language in Contmpora~Egvpt: A case of cul-

tural and linguistic contact. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Scherner, Berndt. 1972. "Probleme arabischer und neupersischer Lehnworter im Tata-

rischen". Ural-Altaisch Jahrbucher 44.200-207. ----. 1977. Arabisch und neupersirche Lehnworter im Tschuwaschisch. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Selms, A. van. 1951. Arabies-Afnkanse Studies. I. 'n Twetal2e (Xrabiese en A j b h n r e ) kah-

pismus. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij. Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1973. "The role of surface constraints in generative phonology".

Lmpage 49.87-106. Skalmowski, W. 1961. "Ein Beitrag zur Statistik der arabischen Lehnworter im Neu-

persischen". Folk Orientolia 3.17 1-175. Steiger, Arnald. 1932. Contribucidn a lafonitica del hirpano-arabe y de los arabirmos en el i b w -

romanico y en el siciliano. Madrid. Steiner, Richard. 1977. 2% Case for Fniat ine-hals in Proto-Semitic. New Haven, Conn.:

American Oriental Society. Steinhauer, Hein. 1980. "On the history of Indonesian". Studies in Slmnc and General

Linguistics 1.349-375. Sudamo. 1992. Kata serapan dun' bahasa Arab. 2nd ed. Jakarta: Arikha. Toom, J.L. van der. 1891. Minangkabausch-Maleicch-Nedolandschwoordenboek. The Hague:

M. NijhofE -. 1899. Minangkabausch spraakkwrt. The Hague: M. NijhofT

508 KEES VERSTEEGH

Thomason, Sarah Grey & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. L a n m e Contact, Creolkahn, and Genetic Lulguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Tucker, A.N. 1946-1947. "Foreign sounds in Swahili". Bulletin ofthe School of Oriental and Ajiuan Studies 11.854-871; 12.214-232.

Underhill, Robert. 1976. Turkish Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Versteegh, Kees. 1984. Pldgtnization and Creoliration: Ihe care of Arabic. (= C u m t Issues in

Ltnguistk 7 7 ~ ~ 9 ,33.) Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. ----. 1986. "Word order in Uzbekistan Arabic and universal grammar". On the Dzgnip

of Man: Onentul and Classical Studies in Honour of Frithiof Rundgren, ed. by Tryggve Kronholm & Eva Riad, 443-453. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.

-. 1997. Ihe Arabic Languuge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. (2nd ed., 2001.) -. 1999. "Loanwords from Arabic and the merger of d/dn . Israel Oriental Studies

19.273-286. Forthcoming. "Arabic in Madagascar". Bulletin of the School of Oriental and Ajiuan

studies (2001). Venn, Pierre. 1986. Zhe History of Civilisation in North Madugaxcar. Rotterdam & Boston:

Balkema. Wagner, Daniel A. 1993. Literacy, Culture and Development: Becoming literate in Morocco.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weinreich, U. 1968. Languages in Contat. 2nd ed. The Hague: Mouton. (1st ed., New

York: Linguistic Circle of New York.) Wright, Roger. 1982. Late Latin and Earb Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool:

F. Cairns. ZarrinkGb, 'Abd al-Husain. 1975. "The Arab conquest of Iran and its aftermath". Ihe

Cambridge HtFtory ofIran. lV.Ihe Periodjom the Arab Invasion to th Saljuqs, ed. by Richard Nelson Frye, 1-56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zwartjes, Otto. 1997. Lave Songsjom 01-Andalus: History, structure and meaning ofthe Kharja. Leiden: EJ. Brill.

You have printed the following article:

Linguistic Contacts between Arabic and Other LanguagesKees VersteeghArabica, Vol. 48, No. 4, Linguistique Arabe: Sociolinguistique et Histoire de la Langue. (2001),pp. 470-508.Stable URL:


This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from anoff-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Pleasevisit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

Bibliography

Notes on the Coptic Substratum in Egyptian ArabicWilson B. BishaiJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 80, No. 3. (Jul. - Sep., 1960), pp. 225-229.Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28196007%2F09%2980%3A3%3C225%3ANOTCSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

Coptic Grammatical Influence on Egyptian ArabicWilson B. BishaiJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 82, No. 3. (Jul. - Sep., 1962), pp. 285-289.Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28196207%2F09%2982%3A3%3C285%3ACGIOEA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2

The Analysis of Linguistic BorrowingEinar HaugenLanguage, Vol. 26, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1950), pp. 210-231.Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-8507%28195004%2F06%2926%3A2%3C210%3ATAOLB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N

Assimilation Rates of Borrowings and Phonological ProductivityKyril HoldenLanguage, Vol. 52, No. 1. (Mar., 1976), pp. 131-147.Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-8507%28197603%2952%3A1%3C131%3AAROBAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 1 of 2 -

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0570-5398%282001%2948%3A4%3C470%3ALCBAAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28196007%2F09%2980%3A3%3C225%3ANOTCSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28196207%2F09%2982%3A3%3C285%3ACGIOEA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-8507%28195004%2F06%2926%3A2%3C210%3ATAOLB%3E2.0.CO%3B2-N&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-8507%28197603%2952%3A1%3C131%3AAROBAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9&origin=JSTOR-pdf

Remarques Préliminaires a une Étude des Emprunts Arabes en PeulP. F. LacroixAfrica: Journal of the International African Institute, Vol. 37, No. 2. (Apr., 1967), pp. 188-202.Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-9720%28196704%2937%3A2%3C188%3ARPAUED%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K

Language Reform in Turkey and IranJohn R. PerryInternational Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 17, No. 3. (Aug., 1985), pp. 295-311.Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-7438%28198508%2917%3A3%3C295%3ALRITAI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

The Role of Surface Phonetic Constraints in Generative PhonologyMasayoshi ShibataniLanguage, Vol. 49, No. 1. (Mar., 1973), pp. 87-106.Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-8507%28197303%2949%3A1%3C87%3ATROSPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 2 of 2 -

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-9720%28196704%2937%3A2%3C188%3ARPAUED%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-7438%28198508%2917%3A3%3C295%3ALRITAI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23&origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0097-8507%28197303%2949%3A1%3C87%3ATROSPC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A&origin=JSTOR-pdf

Documents

Arabic Influences on Other Languages