The Blurred Boundaries Between a Language and a Dialect
Introduction
One of the biggest dilemmas that linguists encounter in present times is stating whether a particular form of communication is a language or a dialect. This challenge is mostly due to the realization that forms of communication are intricately composite. Language use cannot be merely reduced to a single definition. There exist as many languages as the communities that use them. Languages vary a lot and so do the factors that affect linguistic variances. Additionally, language is not just linguistic; it is a factor used by many communities all over the world in defining their ethnic peculiarities. Good examples are the communities that occupy the former Czechoslovakia, and who consider linguistic variances as a credible method of highlighting ethnic differences (Latawski, 1995). Furthermore, there are other considerations used by linguists in determining how languages and dialects can be told apart. These are social, religious, gender, and political factors involved, which result in uniquely multifaceted forms of communication (Finegan, 2007)
Due to the factors elaborated above, there exist forms of communication perceived as less complex than others. These have been referred to as dialects. On the other hand, forms of communication that are perceived as prestigious and superior are referred to as languages. Suffice it to say that between these forms, there exist interspacing linguistic varieties. Added to the idiosyncrasies of linguistic communities discriminating between a language and a dialect becomes an arduous task for linguists (Finegan, 2007). Languages and their varieties are interspacing. They overlap, blurring the boundaries between them.
The focus of this paper is to evaluate Moroccan Arabic- herein referred to as Darija- and its idiosyncrasies and to determine if it is a dialect of Modern Standard Arabic, otherwise referred to as MSA. Evidence unearthed in some sources portends that Darija is not an inferior form of MSA and therefore cannot be its dialect (Massi, 1999). This is due to the realization that Darija contains loanwords and linguistic likeness to other languages. These languages are Portuguese, Spanish, and French. Moreover, political, religious, linguistic, and geographical factors add to this complexity.
The pervasive idiosyncrasies that blur the dissimilarities between linguistic and dialectical forms
Telling a language apart from a dialect is a common challenge among many linguists. Linguists encounter such challenges due to the idiosyncrasies of the various linguistic variations that render it difficult to develop a universally acceptable method for how languages and dialects can be separated. Dictionary definition according to Finegan (2007) portends that a language is a collection of words and the associated systems that have found application among people who share a similar cultural habit or geographical setting. Yet some forms of communication defined as dialects fit perfectly into this definition thus nullifying it as criteria for distinguishing between languages and dialects. Several examples can be used in this case. For example, the two most popular varieties of the Chinese language spoken in China are Mandarin and Cantonese. Speakers of the aforementioned varieties of Chinese argue that the two are one language. Ironically, the two types of speakers can barely communicate without the written version. They are at pains to explain how they are unable to communicate using the same language. It seems that Mandarin differs greatly from its sister variety (McWhorter, 2016).
Furthermore, some linguistics argue that a language is any form of communication that has been documented and that this differentiates it from a dialect (Cavendish, 2007). This school of thought proposes that dialects are only used in spoken form whereas languages are in both written and spoken forms. This implies that dialects are low-grade forms of communication. They are subservient. However, this view is opposed by some linguists who quote the following evidence. Attempts to document English date back thousands of years. As a result, this language has thousands of universally acceptable formal words. Yet, some of the undocumented languages such as Archi and Endegen have fewer words because they have not been documented. Furthermore, Archi and Endege are very sophisticated languages. Besides, all languages existed only as oral forms in the past.
Indeed, linguists have unearthed loads of evidence suggesting that the dissimilarities between languages and dialects have been disguised due to the presence of as many peculiar forms of communication as there are communities that use them. These communities develop unique varieties of a language or a dialect based on each community’s peculiar needs (Holmes, 2013).
Another popular criterion suggested by linguists to segregate a language from a dialect is mutual intelligibility. Linguists suggest that where two or more communities can use different systems of speech and can communicate unambiguously, then those linguistic variations become dialects of a language. McWhorter (2016) however, attempts to dissuade people from accepting this worldview by using English as an example. He argues that there “are different varieties of English spoken in each of the following regions: New York, Yorkshire, South Africa, in addition to the type of English spoken by blacks in America” (Wolfram and Schilling, 2016, p.184). Linguists see these as diverse forms of the English Language
Suffice it to say that there is a visible mutual intelligibility between New Yorkese, Yorkshire, South African, and Black English. However, this definition while examined against Cantonese and Mandarin falls flat. McWhorter (2016) finds no mutual intelligibility between Cantonese and Mandarin. There is a group of linguistics who rigidly hold that these two are as different from each other as English is from Swedish. Yet still, going by popular use, Cantonese is perceived as a dialect of Chinese as is Cantonese. This is untrue.
McWhorter (2016) expounds the concept of intelligibility further. He argues that intelligibility is the ability to acquire a system of communication without formal training. Forms of communication developed through such approaches are alleged to be variances of a language. Regrettably, this law is not relevant to other languages. Upon further investigation, some forms of communication acquired without any kind of training are treated as languages and not dialects (Holmes, 2013). Why then is this?
As shown previously, a dialect is alleged to be a range of a higher system of communication called a language. Let us consider the case of The Danes, The Swedish, and the Norwegians, each of which according to Wardhaugh (2013) employs a distinct code of communication. These three groups of speakers can communicate between themselves in their particular and distinct tongues by adopting a variant that is not alternate to the native tongue (McWhorter (2016). Such a variation engages a code dissimilar to Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian (Wardhaugh, 2013). Thus, it may seem that the three languages are differences – here seen as dialects - of a higher form of communication.
This argument begs one important question. If Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish are dialects, which language are they dialects of? There is no recognized language whose variants are Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. This dilemma is also evident when considering how the Czech and the Slovakian communicate. The two communities can dialogue effortlessly with each other in their respective native speeches. Assuming that these two languages are dialects of another form of communication, it would imply, therefore, that they are divisions of a higher language. Yet, notwithstanding that the two communities were once a country called Czechoslovakia, there is no recognized language named Czechoslovakian (McWhorter, 2016).
The Czech and Slovakian phenomena unearth the peculiarities of ethnic underpinnings in trying to define a language. The Czech and the Slovaks see themselves as two distinct ethnic groups. It follows that Czech and Slovakian are two languages defined along ethnic boundaries more than linguistic uniqueness. Using this method, ethnicity and language become synonymous because language is perceived as a form of ethnic identity (Montgomery, 2008). Yet ethnicity is not a collective criterion for defining a language and telling it apart from a dialect. Japanese is the cultural group of people found in Japan, who communicate in the system of language termed Japanese. Yet native Japanese assert the inability to recognize fluent Japanese spoken by individuals who are non-ethnically Japanese (Wardhaugh 2013). This signifies that the Japanese used by non-ethnic Japanese is dissimilar and that is incomprehensible to ethnic Japanese.
The above-mentioned instances disclose conspicuous futilities in the efforts to detach a language from its weaker variation. They also demonstrate how dialects are alleged to be a form of communication substandard to language, yet certain forms of communication seen as dialects are more composite than those termed as languages (Holmes, 2013). This argument is nullified by the evidence that exists in Arab and Welsh. Evidence advocates that the variety of Arabic common in Morocco contrasts significantly with one found in Iraq, as well as the one used in Egypt. Similarly, informal usage of Welsh in South Wales contrasts grammatically with the one found in North Wales. Yet, Welsh and Arabic are perceived as two tongues that have no varieties.
The classification of dialects and languages overlaps. The boundaries seem blurred and obscure. The classification of two phenomena is confusing and is used in efforts to superimpose one over the other; a dialect is merely not so prominent a half-formed variation of a higher language (Holmes, 2013). Yet, in most instances, language experts can’t decide when to use one term and when to use the other.
Other underlying factors
Political factors
The problems stated above are magnified by what way politics determine the course of the language versus dialect debate. In the past, language has had a crucial role in popular political upheavals. Classical Chinese has been frowned upon by political revolutionaries who associate it with retrogressive conservatism. Oddly, dialecticism is also not considered as it is understood to hinder unification of the greater China. Yet, Baihua, a Mandarin dialect, has been adopted as a basis of modern progressive Chinese. This elevates Baihua above Classical Chinese not only as a superior language but also as a modernizing and nation-saving language. Persons who use Southern Chinese Dialects understand this to be political subjugation and reject Baihua as a language (Law, Weekes, and Wong, 2009).
The Baihua scenario is perceived similarly to the elevation of the King's English superiority beyond existing variants of English. Kings English is the acceptable, greater, correct, and elite system of the English Language. For thousands of years, English linguists superimposed King English as the politically correct language for national identity (Helgerson, 2005). However, this has come under serious scrutiny during contemporary times. In current-day England, very little King English is spoken outside the English nobility. Varieties of English based on class, region, and age group are preferred instead and are seen as a passive political rebellion against the English elites (Blank 2003).
Besides, the Soviet Union scenario is dreadful to linguists. In efforts to effectively detach Moldova's politically isolated entity from Romania, authorities in the Soviet Union declared Moldovan not only a separate but also a distinct language from Romanian. Suffice it to say that Moldovan has no known linguistic differences from Romanian whatsoever (Blank, 2003). This case is almost similar to the Hutu and Tutsi scenario in central Africa that saw the creation of two distinct languages out of nothing for political gain.
Linguistic factors
Linguistically, a dialect is defined as any system of communication that is methodically used by a group of societies demarcated by either one or a combination of these factors: geography, social class, and association. This definition eliminates the inferiority element associated with dialects and equates a dialect to a language. This eradicates the variances between a language and a dialect (Montgomery, 2008).
It is customarily expected that languages have methodical customs and rules and rule formation procedures. Every speaker of a specific language has to learn the fundamental lexical, structural, phonological, and morphological guidelines of that language. This enables the speaker to effectively use the language. This kind of argument presupposes that dialects have no set of linguistic rules that govern their use. This argument nevertheless is tricky as it assumes that dialects arise from a community’s lethargic linguistic practice. Following this argument, therefore, each person can form a system of rules for that particular dialect (Montgomery, 2008).
However, empirical studies on linguistic factors indicate that dialects too, like languages, have a complex yet unique set of rules that govern them. It is impossible to use any dialect without learning a pre-established set of rules. Furthermore, lexicographical studies of the variations of American English unearth interesting findings. The common reference for carbonated drinks varies from one region to another. The following are its variations across different regions in America: tonic, cold drink, soda, or dope. This evidence indicates that the usage of these variations is not merely dialectical. This unearths class, ethnic, and sub-ethnic variances among the American public.
Additional linguistic thought that shadows the clear split-up between languages and their pervasive varieties is the technique through which languages are studied. As revealed previously, it is implied that dialects are typically spoken versions of a greater form of communication, which is typically referred to as a language. Thus, dialects exist as spoken forms instead of written forms. However, linguistics pays little attention to the written version of languages. It is mostly concerned with spoken languages and how speech varies from one region to another, from one social class to another. The purpose of such a worldview is to assert that the written language disregards accentuation, phonological, lexical, syntax as well as grammatical variations of a certain language (Montgomery, 2008).
Geographical Factors
Studies have been conducted on how a language varies from one region to another. The findings have not only been interesting but also intriguing and have not helped in distinguishing between a dialect and a language. The boundaries between regional variations are often blurred. It becomes difficult to place geographical indicators of where a variation of language begins and ends (Lake, et al., 2008). The Ethiopian scenario can best describe this phenomenon.
In Ethiopia linguistic studies show that forms of language vary from one region to another. Each area has its discrete variation of the language that delicately changes the more a person travels from one place to another. For instance, speakers of Soddo subtly vary the way they express the concept of the grass-roofed house with speakers of Muher who live not so far away. Soddo’s equivalent is kəddənəm which is pronounced with the/k/ sound which is slightly different from the /ch/ as used in Maher. The intricacies of language variance are significantly magnified the more a person transits geographically, such that kəddənəm ultimately changes to khətərə in Gyeto. In Endegen, its equivalent is hətərə. There are other subtle varieties in between, kəddənəm and hətərə, which have not been used here for the sake of brevity. However, kəddənəm and hətərə are not mutually intelligible. Such intelligibility has been gradually erased due to the distance between Soddo and Endegen (McWhorter 2016).
This scenario raises important questions. To begin with, are kəddənəm and hətərə different languages? Furthermore, kəddənəm and hətərə are as different as Dimanche – the French reference for Sunday and domenica its Italian Equivalent. Furthermore, there are interspacing varieties in between kəddənəm and hətərə (McWhorter 2016). Are these dialects? If yes, dialects of which language? These questions have no empirically verifiable answers due to the complexities within which these varieties interact.
Moroccan Arabic versus Modern Standard Arabic
The assertions made above will be examined herein vis a vis Moroccan Arabic and how it differs from Standard Modern Arabic, MSA. MSA is modeled along Classical Arabic, which pervades Quranic Arabic. Yet, is not the native tongue among Moroccan communities; Moroccan Arabic is (Skutnabb-Kangas and Heugh, 2013).
Quranic Arabic is seen as the purest form of Arabic. Yet there glaring similarities between Quranic Arabic and MSA that make it almost impossible to distinguish the two. Ironically, Moroccan Arabic is modeled along MSA and not Quranic Arabic. MSA as are other foreign languages such as French and Spanish are taught in Moroccan schools. Moroccans are only able to learn and use dialectical Moroccan Arabic outside formal the setting. This offers phonological and lexical dissimilarities that make MSA and Dialectic Moroccan Arabic look like diverse ranges of Arabic (Heath, 1997)
Indeed, proof suggests that MSA differs from one area to another. The different variances of language are not comprehensible commonly. According to Ibrahim (2009, p. 234), there exists a fictional notion that “written Arabic used in all Arab-speaking countries is identical”. However, evidence on the ground indicates that there exists a language drift that renders it impossible to comprehend the variation of MSA used. This means that it might be impossible for MSA users in Morocco to comprehend the form of MSA used in newspaper writing in another country like Iraq.
Some writers have decried the growth of many varieties of MSA across the Arabic-speaking communities. Suffice it to say that MSA is perceived as not only a cultural but also a religious unifying language. The fact that most of these varieties are not mutually intelligible tears into the fabric of the Arabic unity (Andujar and Benchehda, 2007). The result of this is the fragmented Arabic culture as well as the limitation of intellectual contact within the Arab world.
Moroccan Arabic has evolved. This is because of various reasons but mostly because Moroccans learn more than one language in school. These languages include, but are not limited to French, Roman, and Latin. It therefore follows that Moroccan Arabic has borrowed heavily from these languages as well as from the local Berber languages (Sadiqi, 1999).
As earlier stated, dialects are perceived as the less respected and informal forms of communication, while languages are treated as the more formal codified, and acceptable form. This indicates that MSA is the language while Moroccan Arabic is relegated to dialect though, this is a misconception. In research done lately, Moroccan Arabic also identified as Darija, is mostly the preferred spoken variety (Heath, 1997). It is more prevalent among internet users, during everyday unwritten conversations, text messaging as well as in the streets. Yet it has been codified in written text. The Dictionary of Moroccan Darija curates the official.
Ironically, there exists no universally acceptable code for writing Darija yet. Darija is based on the systems of other superior languages. These include Portuguese, French, Latin, and German. Yet in modern times, there are efforts to advance a system of scripting Darija. KtbDarija - loosely translated to Write Darija - is a project attempting to develop not only an alphabet but also a standardized system of writing Darija. Ironically, the founders of KtbDarija have overlooked MSA and even Classical Arabic as the basic system of developing written Darija. The Latin system has been adopted by WriteDarija experts, who have adopted the numerals such as 7, 2, 3, 9, and 5. They also borrow certain Latin letters to codify certain Arabic sounds (Andujar and Benchehda, 2007).
Following the proof mentioned above, it is difficult to categorize Darija as a dialect typically because, building on claims made previously in this paper, a dialect is seen as a substandard variety of a language. Critical questions arise hereinafter. Which language is Darija a dialect of? Is it French, MSA, or Latin? Fascinatingly, can it be a dialect of two or more languages?
According to Ibrahim (2009), Darija continues to evolve at a very fast rate. This kind of growth is catalyzed by improved literacy levels among those who speak Darija, globalization, the effect of media, and intensive work done to Arabanize Darija. Educated Darija users are inclined to use loanwords from other foreign languages such as French. Other Darija words have been borrowed from Italian. Loanwords such as tilifūn (telephone), Telfaza (television), and Kamera (camera) among others make up vocabulary commonly used today. Yet, print and electronic media are progressively accepting more lexical items from Classical Arabic and MSA to revive the Arab identity. As such, an increasing number of literate Darija users are using more Arabic words but with localized accents. As a consequence, most Darija phrases used before 1977 appear outdated as they no longer cater to the emerging needs of the Moroccans. They are being expunged albeit passively from the brand of Darija used in present-day Morocco (Harrel, 1966).
This kind is evolution is however complicated. Instead of unifying Darija speakers behind Arabic identity, it exposes their divergent choices and the growing disparities occasioned by the perils of the conflict between global and local preferences. In addition, it creates complex and interspacing linguistic varieties of Darija whose distinctions are blurred. Does this formerly brand Darija a language? The answer is no.
Based on assertions made by Wardaugh (2008), certain linguists have fruitlessly attempted to demonstrate how geographical limits can be used to discriminate against dialects and a language. Wardaugh’s assertions have been found true when evaluated against Darija. Owing to the effect of other languages such as French, Spanish, and Latin, there are varieties of Darija prevalent within specific geographical areas in Morocco. In the northern parts of the country, the linguistic variety of Darija used is deeply rooted in Spanish basically because the area is a former Spanish colony as well as being geographically nearer to Spain. Certainly, Darija speakers in this district can happily code-switch between the foreign language Spanish, and the local language Darija (Hewwitte, 2011).
There are 3 variants of Darija employed in the following regions: Northern, Eastern, and Western Morocco. Essentially these regional variations are termed as Eastern Darija, Western Darija, and Northern Darija. While every variety uses almost similar lexical matter, a sample of vocabularies shows clear dissimilarities between them. For instance, la bas? is the phrase used in Western regions. It’s the Darija equivalent of ‘how are you?’. The same phrase is used in the northern region together with other variations such as bi-say. And Amandra? Yet, in eastern Morocco LaBas? has another variation in rak šbab. (Harrel, 1966).
Other examples prove that regional variations of Darija exist. Be-Slama, which means good-bye is used across the three regions effectively. However, tḥălla is the lexical version used in the western region. Huwa Hadak’s is only popular with speakers in northern Morocco. In addition to this, fin ġadi temši? Is the Darija equivalent to ‘Where are you going?’ and is used in the western parts of Morocco. In the northern parts, nayemmaši? Is predominantly used together with other variations that have gender inflections. These are fayn maši? The variation used with male conversationalists and fayn mašya? The feminine equivalent. F-rak rayaḥ? Is very popular with eastern Darija speakers (Harrel, 1966).
These samples attest to the there being a distinct lexical variety in Morocco. Yet, such distinctions are not entirely universal. There are no regional variations for lay awn and its alternative lay Sehl, which means ‘good luck’, and la šukran, which means ‘no thank you’ among others (Harrel, 1966). Therefore, the variations are only limited to certain lexical situations and not others. The universally acceptable linguistic components of Darija are mostly unified under MSA and to some extent Classical Arabic.
According to views supported by linguists such as McWhorter (2016) local variations are likely to interspace imperceptibly as one travels from one region to another. The transformations become prominent the more one moves from the center of focus such that the varieties become totally different and occasionally not mutually intelligible. This also creates interspacing linguistic forms, akin to a language continuum, for effective communication among people of neighboring regions. This makes strict regionalization of dialects almost an impossible task.
Given McWhorter’s (2016) assertions, it is impossible to use geography as a criterion for determining whether Darija is a language or a dialect. This phenomenon is further complicated by two emerging factors. Firstly, most of the novel means of communication have improved the availability of Classical and Modern Standard versions of Arabic. As a result, there is increased acceptance of the use of the above-mentioned types of Arabic in both colloquial and formal settings especially among young people. Again, Arab nationalists, trying to encourage Arabic linguistic unity, vigorously used Darija centered on both MSA and Classical Arabic (Massih, 1999). They actively eliminate loanwords from French, German, Italian, and other local traditional languages.
Conclusion
Darija, in likeness to other forms of communication, is intricately peculiar. Its principal complexities are built not only by linguistic influences of Spanish, Spanish, Portuguese, Berber, and other local tongues but also by geographical diversities of Darija which have eventually emerged. These are: Western, Eastern, and Northern Darija. It is worth noting that these varieties exist generally at the lexical level and are a consequence of the geographical nearness to other foreign languages. Moreover, religious, political, and gender inclinations have led to the emergence of numerous interspacing lexical varieties that form Darija. Furthermore, the system used in developing written Darija is not based on MSA; it’s based on Latin. This denotes that Darija is not a clean form of MSA. Thus it cannot be its dialect.
References
Andjar, B. and Benchehda, A., 2007. A., Moroccan Arabic phrasebook. Lonely Planet: London
Blank, P., 2003. Broken English dialects and the politics of language in Renaissance writings. Routledge: London
Cavendish, M., 2007. A quick guide to Mandarin, Cantonese & Shanghainese. Paris: Boston, MA, USA: Thomson Wadsworth
Finegan, E., 2007. Language: its structure and use. Boston, MA, USA: Thomson Wadsworth. p. 348
Harrel, R. A., 1966. A dictionary of Moroccan Arabic. Georgetown Univ. Press: Georgetown
Heath, J., 1997. Ablaut and ambiguity: Phonology of a Moroccan Arabic dialect. State University of New York Press: New York.
Hewwitte, L., 2010. Languages of Morocco: Spanish language, Arabic language, Berber languages, Central Morocco Tamazight, Moroccan Arabic, Tashelhiyt language. Birmingham: General Books, LLC Holmes, J., 2013. An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Routledge
Ibrahim, Z., 2009. Beyond lexical variation in modern standard Arabic: Egypt, Lebanon and Morocco. London: Cambridge
Kangas, T. and Heugh, K., 2013. Multilingual education and sustainable diversity work: from the periphery to the center. London: Routledge
Lake, R., et al., 2008. Geography mark-up language: foundation for the geo-web. New York: Wiley Publishing
Latawski, P., 1995. Contemporary nationalism in East Central Europe. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Law, S., Weekes, B. and Wong, A., 2009. Language disorders in speakers of Chinese. London: Nicholas House
Massih, A., 1999. Introduction to Moroccan Arabic. University of Michigan: Washington.
McWhorter, J., 2016. What's a Language, Anyway?. The Atlantic, [Online] Available at:
Montgomery, M., 2008. Introduction to sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge
Richard, H., 2005. Forms of nationhood: the Elizabethan writing of England. University of Chicago Press: Chicago
Sadiqi, F., 1999. Berber languages/dialects: analysis of mutual intelligibility. Paris: Vivlia,
Wardaugh, R., 2008. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Routledge
Wolfram, W. and Schilling, N., 2016. American English: dialects and variation. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, p. 184.
