The Clash of
Languages
By A S BISHTAWI |
|
Consider the
following encounters between a Palestinian (A) seeking responses to
greetings for research purposes and a young Maronite woman (B) both
working in a London office:
A: Sabah al khair. (Good Morning in Arabic)
B: Bonjour.
Several days later...
A: Good morning.
B: Good morning.
Several days later...
A: Assalam Alaikum (Peace be upon you in Arabic with an Islamic
tone)
B nods slightly with a faint resentful smile.
Analyses of the responses seem to illustrate several aspects of
code-choice or code-selection.
By responding in French to what may be considered, in different
circumstances, a perfectly acceptable form of morning greeting to
other Lebanese, B is asserting two main social and political points:
1- That she is an integral part of that particular French cultural
system adopted for decades by a majority of Maronites, and assisted,
directly and indirectly, in making them the most powerful group in
Lebanon until the eruption of the civil war in 1975 after which some
may consider them as persecuted as the Palestinians who have the
misfortune of living there,
2- And that she distances herself not just from the implied identity
of speaking the same language, but more importantly from speaking
the same language with a Palestinian, viewed by a large number of
Maronites, and indeed other sects, as an important factor in the
destruction of Lebanon and the ensuing political restructuring of
the traditional power base in Lebanon.
Language co-existence
A's greeting in English in the second encounter is a compromise; a
neutral response in a natural place (London). This seems to have
drawn a similar neutral response partially dictated by the necessity
of preserving a tolerable degree of co-existence.
One, however, pauses in trying to explain the third response.
Notwithstanding the existence of inexplicable psychological factors
which may have played a part in drawing a completely negative
response, such may be explained as a two-pronged rejection initially
provoked by: (a) using a form of greeting alien to Maronites, albeit
acceptable to other Lebanese, and (b) knowingly employing a form of
greeting preserved largely for Muslims who threatened the supremacy
of the Maronites.
It would be obvious, however, that a different role or setting would
produce a different response. B's response as an employee to a
greeting of "sabah al khair" from the Managing Director in a London
office is "sabah al khair". A greeting form by a foreign student of
Arabic of "Assalam Alaikum" to a Maronite, say in East Beirut, which
is predominately Christian, would be challenged as "provocative".
The same form of greeting addressed to Maronites manning a
checkpoint in East Beirut during the civil war would have invited
instant arrest if not a hail of bullets. Conversely a "bonjour" to a
group of Shia belonging to Hizzbullah (The Party of Allah) in West
Beirut would trigger a similar severe response, while "assalam
alaikum" would be regarded as a friendly, appropriate greeting.
An important question may be raised as to why did a majority of
Maronites shift decisively in the past 15 years in regarding French
as their correct social and political speech code when they
themselves have played such a decisive role in the development of
modern Arabic?1
There are several social, psychological and religious
interpretations for this recent emphasis on using French, but the
political reasons may be considered to have acquired a special
importance in recent years. Most "educated" Lebanese speak French,
but only Maronites adhere to it a means of identification with
France to which they look for support.
Such attitude on the part of Christians should not be construed as
rejection of Arabic per se. One of the best-known modern
dictionaries in Arabic (Al Munjid) is still produced by Christians.
A story is told in East Beirut of a mother who, upon seeing her new
fair neighbours for the first time, suspected them to be foreigners
and sent her son to investigate.
"They are Arabs," the son told her upon returning.
"How did you know?" she asked.
"I heard them say: "bonjour!"
Language as status
Lebanon is a small country of just over 4,000 sq m. with very
limited resources. Three years before French forces withdrew in
1946, public senior positions were divided among the various
religious communities in accordance with a National Covenant. The
Christians, being a majority them, became the most influential. By
the 1979s Muslims, with a Shia majority, were in the majority while
Maronite Christians had shrunk to around 25%. Muslims began to
campaign for larger political and economic share but were resisted
because a larger share meant a smaller share for the Christians.
The French were the Christians' staunchest allies in the war against
Muslims who were supported mainly by Syria and Iran. A closer
idetification with the France, as protector, brought along an
increased shift to French which was ironic since Lebanese Christians
played such a decisive role in the development of modern Arabic.2
Loyalty to France and the need to be linguistically distinct were
additional factors. At the same time there was a progressive
decrease in the selection of Arabic because it was the code of their
opponents.
The Shia, generally, were the unprivileged lot of Lebanon. For them
and other Muslims, learning French was necessary for jobs and for
conducting business with Christians. The civil war, which began in
1974 and involved most communities whose shifts of allegiances were
as quick as the code-shifts, resulted in the disintegration of the
economic base and the loss of jobs. A large number of Shia moved to
the Gulf searching for jobs. For a considerable section of Muslims,
French lost its former economic and social value while Arabic gained
in importance resulting in a simultaneous decrease of French and an
increase of Arabic. Continued animosity led a dominantly Muslim area
like West Beirut, to drop French gradually as a second language and
adopt English.
In neutral settings Beirut dialect became the only code permitted by
the different members of Lebanese communities. Persistent switches
to Arabic with higher classical content would produce strong
reactions on the part of Maronites, while persistent switches to
French would produce equally strong reactions on the part of Shia.
For extremists on both sides using the wrong code-choice at the
wrong setting was not just dangerous but potentially lethal.
While Beiruti-code was still the "universal" code for most residents
of the Capital, subtle variations of code-speech were employed to
single out specific "enemies" such as the Palestinians. At the
height of the civil war Phalange militias (Maronites) used to
produce a tomato to people stopped at checkpoints and ask them to
name it. If the suspects used the word "banadora", they were
released, but as Palestinians who tend to use a slightly different
pronunciation i.e. "bandora" would be instantly arrested and some
were reportedly shot. The "Shibboleth" test of the Bible was very
much alive in Lebanon of the Civil War.
We have seen how the political conflict in Lebanon led to linguistic
division of its communities. If the present code-shifting continues
unchecked, and there are many indications it will, enough momentum
will be generated to push the political strife into new dangerous
grounds which will put the future of the country at risk. Without
ignoring the importance of political, economic and social factors in
the eruption of the civil war, it seems possible the "linguistic
compromise" embodied in the acceptability of one "national" code,
i.e. Beiruti dialect, would still have provided a vital linguistic
ingredient for the survival of unified Lebanon.
The "official" language of Lebanon since independence was not
Arabic, but the Beiruti Arabic dialect that provides common
linguistic ground. As the Christian community shifts away from that
code into French, and the Muslim community move further into Arabic,
an essential this essential element will be lost.
Inglehart and Woodward ask the moot question whether a viable nation
must be made up largely on one language group. "If this is true,"
they add, "recent events in India, Canada, Belgium, Nigeria and
several other areas give one cause to think that there may be some
basis for drawing that conclusion".3
While historians may argue endlessly what started the Lebanese
conflict in 1974, the political and economic dominance of the
Christian was a focal target by Muslims who had become the majority.
For historical, political, economic and religious reasons, the
French were the Christians' staunchest allies in a vicious war
against Muslims who were supported mainly by Syria and Iran. Aside
from that, an important aspect of this type of "conversational
switching"4 remains a case where "regular patterns of concomitant
variations at the social and linguistic levels are brought to light
only through a painstaking analysis of speech and of the social
situation in which speech unfolds." 5
1- See Hans Wehr's introduction to A Dictionary of Modern Written
Arabic, Wehr, Hans, J. Milton Cowan ed., 1974, Librairie Du
Liban.
2- See Hans Wehr's introduction to A Dictionary of Modern Written
Arabic, Wehr, Hans, J. Milton Cowan ed., 1974, Librairie Du
Liban.
3- 2 p 358
4- in addition to this etc. see 4 of 8
5-(2) p 8 |
|
|
|
