Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 2019; 114(1): 45–51
Semitistik
Davey, Richard J.: Coastal Dhofari Arabic. A Sketch Grammar. Leiden/Boston: Brill 2016. XXIII, 311 S. 8° = Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 87. Hartbd. € 104,00. ISBN 9789004316706.
Besprochen von Simone Bettega: Turin / Italien, E-Mail: [email protected].
https://doi.org/10.1515/olzg-2019-0012
In his recently published monograph, Richard Davey offers a detailed description of the variety of Spoken Arabic he labels Coastal Dhofari Arabic (henceforth CDA). Dhofar is the southernmost province of the Sultanate of Oman: it borders Yemen to the west and Saudi Arabia to the north. Its administrative capital is Salalah, a city of about 350,000 located on the shore of the Indian Ocean. Davey’s study deals with the type of Arabic commonly spoken in the city and its surroundings, i. e. the coastal plain that stretches between the sea and the mountains which sur-round Salalah on all sides. This study is the first to deal extensively with the Arabic dialects of coastal Dhofar (with the partial exception of Rhodokanakis’ work1, on which more below), and therefore it represents a welcome addition to the field of Arabic Dialectology.
The volume is divided into nine sections, each devoted to a different aspect of the language. These are preceded by an introductory chapter in which the geographical and (socio)linguistic landscape of southern Oman are dis-cussed, along with the existing bibliography on Dhofari and Omani dialects. Chapter 2 is dedicated to CDA’s pho-nology, while chapters 3 and 4 provide a description of its nominal and verbal morphology. Two short sections devoted to prepositions and local/temporal relations (chapter 5) and to adverbs and particles (chapter 6) are followed by a comprehensive treatment of CDA’s syntax (chapter 7). Chapter 8 is dedicated to an analysis of the role played by grammaticalization in the formation of a number of CDA particles, and to the uses and semantics of said particles. The last two sections of the book contain, respectively, a short lexicon and a collection of four sample texts.
Davey’s work is to be commended for numerous reasons. The first one is that, as already noted, Southern Oman has remained for a long time a blank spot on the maps of Arabic dialectologists. In general, studies dealing 1 Rhodokanakis, N. (1908) and (1911) Der Vulgarärabische Dialekt im Dofâr, (Zfâr), Voll. 1 and 2. Wien: Hölder.
with the different varieties spoken within the borders of the Sultanate are few: of these, some are dramatically out-dated (Jayakar 18892, Reinhardt 18943), and most focus on very specific regions, being thus limited in scope and extent (Brockett 19854, Webster 19915, Eades 20116). Even the one study which deals with Oman as a dialect area (Holes’ fundamental 1989 article7) concentrates exclu-sively on the northern part of the country, leaving out the southern province of Dhofar. Before the publication of Davey’s grammar, the only existing source of informa-tion on Dhofari Arabic was the already meninforma-tioned work of Rhodokanakis. In the introduction of his book, however, Davey questions the reliability of Rhodokanakis’ data. In this respect, the author deserves credit for his meticulous-ness: besides examining Rhodokanakis’ study in detail, Davey was able to acquire digitized copies of the original recordings on which it was based, along with the relative metadata protocols. On pages 12–15, he provides a rigorous evaluation of the work of the Austrian scholar: since all data in his study resulted from often problematic record-ing sessions with a srecord-ingle speaker, whose origins were all but clear and whose Arabic showed traits which are not typical of coastal Dhofar, along with marked influences from Shehri, Davey eventually concludes that the linguis-tic description offered by Rhodokanakis cannot be taken as representative of any variety spoken in the early 20th
century in the province of Salalah. In light of this, Davey’s work constitutes an even more valuable addition to the lit-erature on Southern Arabian languages and dialects.
On the level of linguistic analysis, Davey’s book is to be praised for the attention it devotes to areas of grammar that have traditionally found little space in descriptions of Arabic dialects. Most studies in the field of Arabic dia-lectology, especially in the past decades, used to focus heavily on morphology, providing long and detailed lists of nominal and verbal patterns occurring in the language. This, while of possible comparative interest for scholars of Arabic or Semitic linguistics, was often of little use for the typologist or general linguist. In general, syntax used 2 Jayakar, A. (1889) The O’mánee Dialect of Arabic. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 21 (3), pp. 649–87. 3 Reinhardt, M. (1894) Ein Arabischer Dialekt Gesprochen in ‘Omān und Zanzibar. Stuttgart & Berlin: Spemann.
4 Brockett, A. (1985) The Spoken Arabic of Khabura on the Batina of Oman. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
5 Webster, R. (1991) Notes on the dialect and way of life of the al-Wa-hiba Bedouin of Oman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 54, pp. 473–85.
6 Eades, D. (2011) A transitional Arabic dialect of the northern Omani interior. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik, 52 (1), pp. 27–41. 7 Holes, C. (1989) Towards a Dialect Geography of Oman. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 52, pp. 446–62.
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/2/19 3:48 PM
46 Semitistik, OLZ 114-1 (2019)
to be – and to an extent still is – one of the most neglected areas of inquiry in the field of Arabic dialectology. Davey’s study thankfully inverts this trend: though thorough, the section devoted to nominal morphology does not exceed five pages in length. On the contrary, ample space is devoted to topics such as subordination, the expression of temporal and local relations, word order within the verbal clause and its pragmatic implications, and so on.
In particular, as noted above, an entire chapter of Davey’s grammar is dedicated to the role that grammati-calization played in shaping a number of CDA’s functional elements (both affixes and independent particles), and to the role that these markers have in the general economy of the language. In the course of the last decades, the topic of grammaticalization has attracted growing attention from scholars working in different sub-fields of linguis-tics (such as historical linguislinguis-tics or cognitive linguislinguis-tics). It seems appropriate, therefore, that Arabic dialectology contributes its own share of data, helping to enrich and refine general grammaticalization theory. One wonders, however, whether an entire chapter devoted to what is fun-damentally a diachronic phenomenon should find space in a descriptive grammar. Elements such as the possessive particles māl and ḥaqq (p. 227) or the marker of continu-ous aspect bi- (p. 255) could have been treated in other, thematically related subsections (for instance, paragraphs 3.5.5, “Possessives”, and 4.3, “Tense, Aspect and Mood”, respectively). This would have added to the overall clarity of the book, while considerations on the diachronic impli-cations of grammaticalization processes in CDA could have remained the subject for a separate publication. This crit-icism remains, of course, limited to the formal level, and takes nothing away from Davey’s treatment of the topic, which the interested reader will surely find insightful.
More systematic criticism could be directed at Davey’s methodology, with particular reference to his data-gath-ering technique. In this respect, two main issues can be raised, one stemming from the other. In the first place, the data on which Davey’s analysis is based is almost entirely the result of direct elicitation. Secondly, the data was elicited by means of a linguistic questionnaire, which was administered in Modern Standard Arabic. In spite of Davey’s statement to the contrary (p. 23), it seems hardly possible that this choice did not affect the results of the investigation to a greater or lesser extent. In general, it is a commonly held view in the field of linguistic documen-tation that direct elicidocumen-tation cannot represent the sole or prime means through which a researcher acquires his or her data. To this, it might be added that a highly diglos-sic linguistic environment, such as that that characterizes almost all varieties of Spoken Arabic, represents a
par-ticularly problematic context for such a technique to be employed. Speakers with university-level education (as most of Davey’s informants are, p. 26) inevitably possess relatively clear notions of what “correct language” is, and this is bound to affect their behavior when actively requested to produce a translation of a given stimulus. This is all the more true if said stimulus is provided in the “high”, educated variety of the language. In addi-tion to this, the structural similarities that exist between Spoken and Modern Standard Arabic make transfers from one to the other likely to occur, and hard to tell apart. Admittedly, Davey’s database also contains samples of free speech, but these appear to be largely outnumbered by the elicited recordings (p. 26). In general, the main problem with non-spontaneous linguistic material is that it tends to obscure pragmatic-oriented and context-de-pendent uses of the language. Certain elements, which are fairly common in everyday speech, might become rare or entirely absent in the highly artificial structures that elicitation tends to create. For instance, of all the linguis-tic examples Davey provides in his book, the number of those which contain an active participle used with verbal force borders on zero. Verbal use of active participles is a very frequent phenomenon in Spoken Arabic, and, as it has been repeatedly shown, it has strong pragmatic con-notations (see for instance Caubet, 19918, Brustad, 2000: 182, and Eades & Persson, 20139). It might well be the case that one of the reasons behind the absence of parti-cipial forms from Davey’s material is the lack of a concrete context, which characterizes elicitation stimuli. Davey’s book is actually abundant in examples with a suspicious “textbook-quality” to them. To list but a few: “Out of all his brothers, Walīd loves sport the most” (p. 102), “If you had come yesterday, you would have seen her” (p. 143), “The men who came to the wedding have new cars” (p. 198). Anyone with experience in linguistic fieldwork knows that such well-ordered structures represent the exception, rather than the norm, in common language use, and tends to be wary of them.
To Davey’s credit, and in spite of the artificial quality of some of the examples, it has to be remarked that the book offers numerous insights concerning the pragmatics of CDA. This is no doubt the result of Davey’s familiar-ity with the language, which he acquired during several 8 Caubet, D. (1991) The Active Participle as a Means to Renew the Aspectual System: a Comparative Study in Several Dialects of Arabic. In Kaye, A. (ed.) Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, pp. 209–24.
9 Eades, D., Persson, M. (2013) Aktionsart, Word Form and Context: on the Use of the Active Participle in Gulf Arabic dialects. Journal of Semitic Studies, 58, pp: 343–367.
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/2/19 3:48 PM
OLZ 114-1 (2019), Semitistik 47 periods of immersive fieldwork. An example of such
atten-tion to the pragmatic detail is Davey’s treatment of the bā- verbal prefix. After noting how this particle can either mark plain future tense in main clauses or introduce the apodosis in conditional constructions (two uses that are common to several Arabian varieties), Davey points out that a third, modal use of bā- exists. When prefixed to a main verb yikūn “to be”, it can be used to express doubt, uncertainty or hypotheticality (as in bā-yikūn yʕraf aḥsan min-ni, “perhaps he knows better than me”, p. 253).
Davey’s description of CDA verbal prefixes is intrigu-ing, and brings us to the focal point of this review, namely the contents of the study in terms of the linguistic struc-tures he analyzes. Whenever a description appears of a formerly unknown variety, the question poses itself of the positioning of such variety in its broader linguistic context. Does it show affinity to its neighboring varieties, or the areal features typical of the region? And if so, to what extent? In this respect, Davey’s readers will not be disappointed, as they will find plenty of interesting mate-rial and “food for thought” in the book. Space constraints prevent us from going into much detail here, but I will try to analyze some points which might be of interest for scholars of Semitic, Arabic and Arabian linguistics.
Interestingly, as Davey himself remarks (p. 16), when compared to the dialects spoken to the West (Yemen) and to the North-East (Northern Oman, Gulf littoral), CDA seems to share traits with all of them. In particular, on the phonological level, CDA displays a voiceless uvular realization (/q/) of underlying ق and a velar stop (/g/) as reflex of ج, thus aligning itself with the sedentary varieties of Northern Oman, and in opposition to both Gulf Arabic in the north and Hadrami or Sanaani Arabic to the West (which all have voiced /g/ for ق and fricative of affricate reflexes of ج10).
Despite a consonantal inventory that presents strong affinities with northern Omani varieties, however, on the syntactical level CDA appears to show different alle-giances. Firstly, it possesses a bipartite set of verbal pre-fixes which includes the already mentioned modal/tempo-ral bā- and an aspectual element bi- (which marks either continuous present or habitual past). Davey (pp. 255–7) provides a detailed discussion of the possible origin of 10 All the information presented here on the dialects of Northern Oman, the Gulf, Sanaa and the Hadramawt are derived from Ver-steegh, K., et al. (eds.) (2006–2009) Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics. Vols. I–IV. Leiden & Boston: Brill. See, in particular: Holes, C. (2007) Gulf States, Vol. 2, pp. 210–6; Holes, C. (2008) Omani Arabic, Vol. 3, pp. 478– 9; Watson, J. (2009) Ṣanʕānī Arabic, Vol. 4, pp. 106–15; Al-Saqqaf, A. (2009) Wādī Ḥaḍrāmawt Arabic, Vol. 4, pp. 687–99.
both particles, along with comparative remarks on related elements in other Arabic dialects. It seems to me, however, that Davey overlooks the importance of the existence of an analogous distinction in Sanaani Arabic. In the dialect of the Yemeni capital, the very same bipartite system of TMA markers exists. Davey notes how in Sanaani the prefixes have partly different surface realization (bayn- or bi- for continuous aspect and šā-, ʕad- or ʕā- for future tense): this is true, but it does not necessarily rule out the pos-sibility that the phenomenon represents an areal feature, one that could have spread by means of contact from west to east. Each variety could have grammaticalized different lexical elements with similar final results. Admittedly, no such distinction is found in Hadrami Arabic (which only has bā- for future), but this trait could have bypassed the Hadramawt region by moving from one urban center to another, or it could be that the variety we now refer to as Hadrami Arabic has settled in at a later stage. What is certain, at any rate, is that no Eastern Arabian variety other than CDA possesses a specific marker for continuous aspect: in this respect, CDA appears more strongly con-nected with its western neighbors than Northern Omani Arabic. As Davey (p. 257) rightly puts it, “the distribution of both verbal prefixes across Southern Arabian Arabic dialects warrants further investigation”.
Another feature which sets CDA apart from other Omani varieties as well as Gulf Arabic is its use of the particle ḥaqq as a proper possessive element. Davey dis-cusses the possessive linkers māl and ḥaqq in detail in his chapter on grammaticalization (see in particular pp. 227– 40). While māl is commonly employed all along the shores of the Arabian Gulf, ḥaqq is not in use in the sedentary varieties of Northern Oman, and appears in Gulf Arabic (in the form ḥagg) only as a preposition marking dative case (Johnstone 1967: 90–111; Brustad 2000: 72–312). In this respect as well, CDA aligns with Sanaani Arabic, where ḥagg is employed as a true genitive exponent (though CDA is idiosyncratic in its using inflected forms of ḥaqq).
Lastly, there is one more important morpho-syntactic feature that needs to be discussed, namely the post-parti-cipial intrusive infix -(i)n(n)-. This element is obligatorily infixed, in certain Southern and Eastern Arabian dialects of Arabic, between an active participle used with verbal force and its suffix object pronoun. The -(i)n(n)- infix has acquired a certain prominence in studies of comparative Arabic dialectology, in that it appears to be at the same 11 Johnstone, T. (1967) Eastern Arabian Dialect Studies. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press.
12 Brustad, K. (2000) The Syntax of Spoken Arabic. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/2/19 3:48 PM
48 Semitistik, OLZ 114-1 (2019)
time typologically rare and scattered across a huge area. Its use is documented for sub-Saharan Africa (Chad, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sudan) and Central Asia (Iran, Uzbek-istan and AfghanUzbek-istan), besides Southern and Eastern Arabia. The most comprehensive study that exists on the topic is Holes 201113, which Davey cites in his grammar. However, although Davey mentions the infix as one of the distinctive features of Northern Omani Arabic (p. 17), he refrains from addressing the question of whether or not it also occurs in CDA. This is regrettable, because mapping the exact distribution of this trait in Arabia could provide us, as Holes has shown, with a better understanding of the linguistic history of the region. Holes (2011: 75–6) maintains that the infix is actually present all over Oman, including coastal Dhofar. I was able to identify a single sentence in Davey’s grammar containing an active parti-ciple followed by an object pronoun, specifically in one of the sample texts which appear at the end of the book (rākib-ha quddām māsik-hā quddām, “riding her in front, holding her in front”; p. 294, line 38). This again has to do with the extremely low number of active participles that appear in Davey’s material, on which I have commented above. At any rate, in the above example, the -(i)n(n)- infix is clearly absent. This is consistent with my own experi-ence with CDA. If the absexperi-ence of -(i)n(n)- from CDA were to be confirmed by further studies, this would be yet another element setting it apart from Northern Oman and con-necting it to the main Yemeni varieties (the only Yemeni dialect for which the infix has been reported is that of the south-western Dathīna region). The lack of -(i)n(n)- in CDA would also pose a series of questions: since Holes has con-vincingly proposed a very old South-Arabian origin for this feature, what can its absence from Dhofar mean? Was it an original feature of CDA that has subsequently been lost? Did CDA come to its actual location later in time, when the infixal element had already developed in other, neigh-boring dialects? Or did the use of the infix spread to other regions of Arabia and beyond in such a way that it did not affect the Dhofari coast? These are certainly intriguing topics that remain open for investigation.
Summing up everything that has been said up to this moment, Davey’s grammar of CDA undoubtedly con-stitutes a precious resource for scholars of Arabic and
13 Holes, C. (2011) A Participial Infix in the Eastern Arabian Dialects. An Ancient pre-Conquest Feature? Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 38, pp. 75–98.
Semitic linguistics. It finally fills up what for too long had remained a blank spot on the maps of dialectologists, and it does so within a theoretically up-to-date frame of reference, thus potentially appealing general linguists as well. The only criticism that can be advanced concerns the nature of the data on which the study is based: consisting almost exclusively of elicited material, it may not be an entirely faithful representation of spontaneous language use. Further publications on the subject, possibly contain-ing a corpus of edited texts, could give us a more complete picture of this variety. Apart from this, Davey’s work is to be praised for its thoroughness and attention to details. Containing as it does abundant information on several traits which figure importantly in studies of comparative Arabic dialectology, it will definitely help improving our understanding of the history and evolution of the Arabic languages.
As a final remark, one last aspect of Davey’s work deserves mention, namely its documenting a linguistic variety which could, in the not-too-distant future, become so dramatically altered as to be unrecognizable. Without adopting the kind of primitivistic rhetoric which some-times accompanies discourses on language endangerment and preservation, Davey provides a lucid analysis of CDA’s sociolinguistic environment and status. “In the case of the Arabian Peninsula”, he writes on the opening page of the introduction, the “transformation from the old world of sedentary and nomadic communities to one of modernity takes place in the blink of an eye […]. That is not to say that change in itself is necessarily a negative force, indeed it is often the urgency for change which stipulates the pace at which it takes place, but in Dhofar, as in many other com-munities across Arabia, the pace of change has outrun the time required for communities to sustain their heritage”. Saddening as this consideration might be, it is one that we all need to deal with, as linguists as well as members of today’s globalized societies. If this is indeed a process that cannot be halted or reversed, we can only hope to meet it with a critical attitude, preserving the fragile balance between that which is new and has to be welcomed, and that which is worth and needs to be preserved. Davey’s book, it seems to me, has the merit of succeeding in this delicate task, and for that its author has to be credited.
Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 5/2/19 3:48 PM
