Diglossia: A Critical Issue Confronting Teachers of Arabic

• Introduction
  
• Arabic in America
  
• Arabic in the Field
  
• Arabic Diglossia
  
• Scheduling of Instructional Time
  
• Arabic as a TFL
  
• MSA and Dialect Arabic
  
• Structural Re-design
  
• Bibliography
  

Introduction

The foreign language teacher is ever confronted with challenges that at once tax his or her expertise and impact the teaching/learning process, whether in the varied school settings or at the college level. As a professional, the foreign language teacher is obliged to face squarely the issues of one’s discipline and to attempt to resolved problems as they arise, whether completely or partially, as the situation permits, before the ability to teach successfully is engendered. Of course, to do so, one must be armed with a clear-headed understanding of the problems being faced, their origins, and a commitment to a personally-espoused theoretical framework of teaching that is both consistent and flexible in order to allow a margin for innovation and improvement.

In any case, the most basic issues that involve the foreign language teaching discipline as a whole include such matters as adequate preparation (Brooks in Donoghue, 1967: 396-409); the students’ aptitudes and their level of intellectual maturation (Carroll, 1974: 113-149; Jarvis in Silber, 1991: 29-42; Biehler and Snowman, 1997: 81-118); the choice of methodology implemented in the classroom and the underlying philosophy which inspire it (Angiolillo, 1947: 61-72, 138-155; Ramirez, 1985; Templeton, 1991: 129-164, 218-265; Johnson, 1997: 779-782); the availability of resources for effective teaching, including adequate programmed materials and equipment to insure maximum learning (Valdman in Valdman, 1966: 133-158 and Hutchinson in Valdman: 215-233; Heilenman in Silber, 1991: 104-130); and the basic issue of the allotted timeframe for instruction and practice (Brooks, 1960: 136-156). These issues are not at all new in the field of language pedagogy—as can be determined from the dates of some of the works noted above. Nonetheless, the way these issues are faced depends on the backgrounds of teachers, the times in which they operate, and the overall ethos of the educational culture that creates the context for learning and teaching in the school setting (Celce-Murcia, 1991).

The fashion in which these elements are dealt with is at once informed by the instructor's training in theory and methodology of the discipline, and equally of fundamental import, how the instructor's treatment of the issues are colored by the nature of the language being taught. In other words, the language teacher is not only a product of one's own professional training, but is also shaped—at the experiential level—by the exigencies of the target language. As such, the language teacher must—if instruction it to be fruitful—be engaged in periodical re-evaluation of the teaching approach and re-assessment of the syllabus to insure desired outcomes based on the needs of the students and the declared goals of the language program.

Although the points raised above hold true across the foreign language matrix, each language has its own additional set of specific issues, especially truly foreign languages (Rivers, 1992: 141-155). In turn, the teacher of the Arabic language has to contend with issues that are born from the nature of the language and the context in which it is taught (Abboud et al., 1991: v-ix; Massialas and Jarrar, 1991: 93-99). Freeman (1998) identifies problem areas that impact the teaching of Arabic in addition to the phenomenon of diglossia (to be addressed later), including the following: (1) Lack of readily available resources; (2) New writing system; (3) Arabic texts are not fully voweled (accentuated) in written form; (4) Arabic (vocabulary) is not recognized through any cognates in English; (5) The learner is required to learn a large number of vocabularies.

The ubiquitous and all-too-consuming question that teachers of Arabic consistently tackle is what to teach. What the debate revolves around is the point whether the syllabus, which now admits the need to emphasize the five basic skills, would concentrate on standard or dialect-based Arabic, or both, and if so, when will each variety be introduced, if not simultaneously. This is the most pressing critical issue for the teacher of Arabic today, and the answer(s) to this dilemma is directly related to desired learning outcomes. No doubt, however, these outcomes are invariably tied to the philosophical learning of the teacher and the program as a whole to the degree that it molds the purpose of teaching and learning. This can be illustrated through a brief historical look at learning Arabic in the United States.

Arabic in America

A century before American independence, Arabic began at Harvard University its career as a discipline, and later, gradually but steadily, at other institutions of higher learning , according to McCarus (1992), noting that its introduction to academe was theologically motivated. It was considered a cognate language and a tool for examining other Semitic languages—all in the name of biblical studies. McCarus adds that the second phase of the language’s career was philosophically oriented—as a corollary of secular scholarly interest in Semitic studies, and—an incipient orientalism that held non-white Euro-Anglo culture as superior (Said, 1978) . During both phases, the dominant if not the only purpose of learning Arabic was to decode classical text, a need which shaped the approach of instruction that relied heavily the traditional reading-grammar-translation method that taught emerging scholars medieval Arabic.

Arabic in the Field

The growth in the social sciences and the need for field work coupled with increasing governmental intelligence and diplomatic imperatives during the last two-thirds of the twentieth-century led to a shift from language-centered instruction to communication-based learning to fit those practical needs. This revolution in purpose of learning impacted Arabic at the government special language schools, and later, by osmosis, through the sharing of ideas, goals and faculty, at the university level as well. As early as 1948, Hyneman reports that the requirements of United States government foreign language learning concentrated on the colloquial form with less emphasis on grammar. The new phase of practical communication skills ushered in by modern needs created serious pedagogical issues for the teacher and learner of Arabic alike. The new paradigm necessitated the learning of Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) , the descendant of the classical variety of Arabic, and the vehicle of formal culture, along with colloquial Arabic, which is dialect- and regional-based, if one is truly to be considered competent in the use of the language. However, this constituted a monumental task given the increased volume of the register to be the base of the syllabus, and due in large measure to the psycho-social attitudes that maintain the "foreign-ness" of Arabic, as well as the nature of the language itself.

Arabic Diglossia

Aside from the issue of class time scheduling which will be visited later, the most vexing problem for the AFL teacher and student alike is the complex matter of diglossia, which heavily impacts the teaching process (Alosh in Rouchdy, 1992: 262-5; Alosh, 2000: xviii-xxv). Chejne suggests that Arabic speakers are undisturbed by a tradition of linguistic dualism that has existed ever since the language became a codified literary vehicle, while the people rely on their dialects for their everyday life (1969). Feguson (1959) offers a definition of this linguistic phenomenon, which he terms diglossia:

"[A] relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superimposed variety - the vehicle of large and respected body of written literature either of an earlier period or in another speech community - that is learned largely by means of formal education but is not used by any sector of the community for ordinary conversation" (p.336).

In essence, Ferguson presents a general framework to understanding the main issue in Arabic pedagogy.

Badawi identifies within the diaglossic world of Arabic five levels of speech: 1. Classical Arabic, 2. Modern Standard Arabic, 3. Educated Spoken Arabic, 4. Semiliterate Spoken Arabic, and 5. Illiterate Spoken Arabic (1973: 89). Badawi's classification suggests that the dichotomy of Arabic is really a multi-layered phenomenon that entails substantial pedagogical implications. According to Freeman (1994), Spoken Arabic while is not standardized, each dialect has its own set of 'grammar' which can interfere in the communication process, however, he adds:

"It is incorrect to think of the existence of two separate languages, one Classical and the other Colloquial. Rather it is a continuum. The most 'down home' street jargon sits at one end of the continuum. At the other end of the continuum sits the most ornate, elevated, classical language completely inflected for case and mood. Where a given person's speech sits on this continuum depends on a lot of factors, not the least of which is how well the two speakers know each other. Another very important factor in determining the formality of the language, is the formality of the occasion. The full-blown classical form of the language is typically spoke when giving newscasts, university lectures, television or radio interviews, speeches and sermons.

"Conversely, Colloquial Arabic is written only in cartoons and movie scripts. Writers occasionally write dialogue using Colloquial Arabic in novels and short stories. Writers who do this run the risk of limiting their audience. In English it is permissible for a writer to toss in some colloquial jargon, for flavor and authenticity, but in Arabic it is 'incorrect' for a writer to use colloquial grammar and idiom."

Certainly this situation complicates the teaching process to a great degree, challenging the instructor to define his/her goals in and in understanding the purpose of students behind learning Arabic. Thus, this state of affairs moves al-Batal (1992) to report:

"The educational challenges incurred by diglossia have been especially significant for the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language. Teachers of Arabic as a foreign language are continuously faced with the question of which variety to teach in the classroom, especially when oral skills are involved. Although this question has been posed ever since the teaching of Arabic began in the United States, the Arabic teaching professions (Sic.) is far from having reached a consensus" (p. 285).

In deed, the community of teachers of Arabic has not reached a consensus on the issue, and many have opted to teach the discipline based on their views and philosophies. Munther Younes offers this view:

"Arabs from different parts of the Arab world speak different dialects, but MSA is the same everywhere. This is why the majority of Arabic programs prefer to teach MSA. However, students who learn to speak only MSA will not be able to use it in conversation; not only will they sound funny, but they will also find it very difficult, if not impossible, to understand what is being said to them.

"I believe that teaching a spoken dialect for everyday conversation and MSA for reading, writing and formal speaking is the most effective way to prepare students for function in Arabic. I also believe that it a student masters any Arabic dialect well enough, he/she will be able to function in other dialects, just as native speakers from different areas of the Arab world do" (Introduction, 1995).

Younes espouses a two-track approach to learning Arabic, both MSA and dialect concurrently. However, Mahdi Alosh differs in his approach, focusing on MSA as bedrock of learning the Arabic language. He states:

"The Arabic you will be learning is the variety used in the Arab world for formal instruction, in the media, and in formal situations. It is, more or less, invariable all over the Arab world, thus giving you the advantage of learning the language that is readily understood everywhere in the Arab Middle East.Learning this form of Arabic lets the learner identify with the educated population and have access to the literature and the written and spoken media. This variety, however, is not used for everyday oral interaction on the street or at home" (Introduction of 1989 edition of Ahlan wa Sahlan, p. 6).

Clearly, Alosh favors teaching language, using MSA as the common denominator of all educated Arabs, thus enabling communication based on bias in favor of an educated class, whereas Younes favors learning a dialect in addition to MSA. There are programs that will favor spoken Arabic only—such as might be needed by anthropologists in the field. But, what remains, is the fact that Arabic diglossia itself is multi-faceted—especially in light of the regional varieties that can be included under Badawi’s classifications, noting that twenty-two states and more than 300 million people are considered native speakers of Arabic.

Scheduling of Instructional Time

Another basic concern is time. For the teacher, it is an issue of time for classroom instruction, for lab use. For the student it is a matter of time for personal study and practice—as well as time (in a program) for a student to reach some form of competence after being retained in a structured program. The issue of time is linked to how language courses are organized and taught in the universities and colleges of the United States. Additionally, the matter of time is related directly to student needs, too. The traditional four credit hours of instruction per semester, (which meets two to four times per week for the duration of the unit, sandwiched as it is among other courses/units of study in the average student’s schedule of classes, study time and work), poses a serious challenge for teaching Arabic. A language that is a truly foreign language (TFL). Teachers are aware that the average college student at the undergraduate level carries a load of credits, ranging from 15 to 18 credit hours worth or classes in order to be a full-time student. Of these only 4 credit hours may be devoted for the foreign language—clearly, given the scholastic demands on the student, time is very limited. This is especially true in light of the fact that a language (Arabic) whose instruction-time needs exceed the boundaries of the traditionally taught western European languages (presuming of course, a Euro-Anglo pool of students speaking English as a mother tongue), for which both content guidelines and time allotment are designed and devised.

Arabic as a TFL

Assuming that students elect to study a TFL, having overcome to some degree their normal apprehensions towards the 'foreign-ness' of the language, their expectation is to learn to speak, but, because of the instructor's need to teach the basics (that is to say, new phonemes and orthography), the aim is likely to teach to read (Belnap, 1987). This is especially true for Arabic, a language whose margin of difference from the familiar world of western languages is greater than the difference of those languages amongst each other. Hence, that 'foreign-ness' (meaning its natural level of unintelligibility) is additionally compounded with diglossia forces the introduction of Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) as a goal of instruction. The introduction of MSA, (which is essentially a book language and a dialect unto its own), and focusing on presenting a new set of phonetics and an unfamiliar script system that demands a new orientation to orthography takes much time away from developing communicative skills in the early part of any unit. Learning the new phonemes and adjusting to a novel orthographic symbology that requires a new orientation in mind as well literally in direction (since Arabic is written from right to left), goes against conventional wisdom of a language teaching process that stresses talking from the start.

MSA and Dialect Arabic

The challenge is compounded further with a moral issue because the honest instructor's refusal to teach a preferred personal dialect that may not be the choice of the students, knowing full well that talking must never the less be taught in the classroom. But to teach MSA and a dialect, (if one dialect is unanimously agreed upon, which is seldom true, and a capable instructor is found to teach it), it means that instruction will be carried out through two parallel tracks. Certainly, this makes for a very cumbersome process, notwithstanding the factor of classroom time scheduling.

What is there to do? First, whatever is decided regarding content at the program administration level ought to be communicated to students at the very beginning to minimize friction or conflict over the nature of anticipated learning. Second, it would be profiting to all concerned to reconsider what constitutes the learning content of the first year in a traditional college setting as compared to non-TFLs. Walton reports that "a student with average language learning aptitude the FSI [Foreign Language Institute in the United States] experience indicates that to reach proficiency level of 2 [high novice] requires 480 contact hours for Category 1 language such as French, German or Spanish, but 1,320 contact hours for Category 4 language such as Chinese or Japanese [or Arabic]" (1991: 163). Obviously, Introductory French cannot be the same as Introductory Arabic!

Structural Re-design

Clearly, a new course and unit architecture is needed to express the fundamental difference separating a TFL and an English cognate language. To achieve proficiency-based instruction in the four skills plus culture, ample class time must be invested. Perhaps, the addition of an extra hour of instruction to the traditional language unit, or the creation of additional units to acquire desired proficiency. By this, I mean the design of a preparatory unit (course, in the American parlance) that introduces phonetics, orthography and simple vocabulary, and provides a general orientation to the cultural context of the Arab world. The basic aim of this unit is to rationalize student expectations and to locate them at a somewhat near equal footing with non-TFL students.

Moreover, other middle-of-the-road course units are needed to insure that speaking and oral comprehension skills are developed, taking into account Arabic diglossia. This can be accomplished by expanding the elementary level set of units to include an additional unit designated for teaching conversational skills only. This unit focuses on talking and understanding dialectal Arabic, while preserving the integrity of the traditional system of units distribution and the ability of students to be promoted from first year, second unit to second year, first unit, depending on the learners' needs. Put differently, students interested in learning to speak in a dialect can do so by electing the intermediate unit without sacrificing learning MSA, while others who wish to master MSA only could bypass the conversational unit to the MSA based unit. This change in design would free the instructor to develop MSA skills unencumbered by the intrusion of dialectal Arabic, and the opposite is true, of course.

Carrying through on the same principle, the addition of a third unit at the second year level can expand intermediate level conversational skills. The goal of parallel instruction in dialect does not 'short change' students of the language. Furthermore, this structure releases the instructor to be creative and confident in teaching because s/he can delve deeper into materials instead of agonizing over which form of the language or register to introduce and follow through on. Additionally, it is wise, however, to continue this practice through the advanced levels. Still, it may be a wiser choice to introduce a high intermediate level, whose focus in the two tracks is on recapitulation and integration. This means extensive and practical application learned skills, (e.g., leveled reading and free writing in MSA and using auditory and visual media such as music recordings and film in dialectal Arabic units). Also, it means an effort at bridging the gulf of diglossia through writing and talking projects that make use of multi-faceted curriculum plans.

Bibliography

Abboud, P.F., et al., (1991). Introduction (V-IX), Elementary Modern Standard Arabic. 2nd edition print. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Alosh, M.M., (2000). "Ahlan wa Sahlan", Functional Modern Standard Arabic for Beginners. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Alosh, M.M., (1992). Designing a proficiency-oriented syllabus for modern standard Arabic as a foreign language. In A. Rouchdy (ed.), The Arabic Language in America (pp. 284-304). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

Alosh, M.M.,, (1989). Student Manual for Individualized Instruction: Elementary Arabic 1, Ahlan wa Sahlan, An Introductory Course for Teaching Modern Standard Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Foreign Language Publications No. 81.

Angiolillo, P.F., (1947). Armed Forces' Foreign Language Teaching, Critical Evaluation and Implications. New York, NY: S.F. Vanni.

Badawi, S.M., (1973). Mustawayaat al-'arabiyyah al-mu'aaSirah fi Misr [Levels of Contemporary Arabic in Egypt]. Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif.

Al-Batal, M., (1992). Diglossia proficiency: the need for an alternative approach to teaching. In A. Rouchdy (ed.)., The Arabic Language in America (pp. 284-304). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

Belnap R.K., (1987). Who's is talking Arabic and what on earth for? A survey of students in Arabic language programs. Al-'Arabiyya, 20 29-42.

Biehler, R.F. and Snowman, J., (1997). Psychology Applied to Teaching. 8th Edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Brooks, N., (1967). The ideal preparation of foreign language teachers. In M.R. Donoghue (ed.), Foreign Languages and the Schools (pp.396-409). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers. (Reprinted from The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 50 (Feb., 1966), pp.71-78.

Brooks, N. (1960). Language and Language Learning, Theory and Practice. NewYork, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

Carroll, J.B., (1974). Learning theory for the classroom teacher. In G.A. Jarvis (ed.), The Challenge of Communication (pp. 113-149). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.

Celce-Murcia, M. Editor. (1991). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. (2nd Edition). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Chejne, A.G. (1969). The Arabic Language, Its Role in History. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Ferguson, C., (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15 325-40.

Freeman, A., (1994). 'Intro to Diglossia' http://www-personal.umich.edu/~andyf/diglossia.html (accessed August 24, 2001).

Heilenman, L.K., (1991). Material Concerns: Textbooks and Teachers. In E.S. Silber (ed.), Critical Issues in Foreign Language Instruction (pp. 104-130). New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Hutchinson, J.C., (1966). The language laboratory: equipment and utilization. In A. Valdman (ed.), Trends in Language Teaching (pp. 215-233). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Hyneman, C.S., (1948). History of the wartime area and language courses. In M. Newmark (ed.), Twentieth Century Modern Language Teaching, Sources and Readings (Reprinted from Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, XXXI, 3, (Autumn, 1945), 434-441.

Jarvis, G.A., (1991). Psychological Processes in Foreign and Second Language Learning. In E.S. Silber (ed.), Critical Issues in Foreign Language Instruction (pp. 29-42). New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Johnson, K., (1997). 'And the Author Responds', TESOL Quarterly, V. 31, Number 4, 779-82.

Massialas, B. G. and Jarrar, S. A. (1991). Arab Education in Transition, A Source Book. New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.

McCarrus, E., (1992). History of Arabic in the United States. In A. Rouchdy (ed.), The Arabic Language in America (pp. 207-221). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

Ramirez, A.G., (1985). Bilingualism through Schooling: Cross-Cultural Education for Minority and Majority Students. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Said, E.W. (1978). Orientalism. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Templeton, S. (1991). Teaching the Integrated Language Arts. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Valdman, A., (1966). Programmed instruction and foreign language teaching. In A. Valdman (ed.), Trends in Language Teaching (pp. 133-158). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Walton, A.R., (1991). Expanding the vision of foreign language education: enter the less commonly taught languages. In E.S. Silber (ed.), Critical Issues in Foreign Language Instruction (pp. 160-185). New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Younes, M.A., (1995). Elementary Arabic, An Integrated Approach: Student Workbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.