The Arabic Language
Yüklə 2,37 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
| Altsemitisch
, i.e., Akkadian), Early New Semitic ( Frühjungsemitisch , i.e., South Arabian and Ethiopian) and Late New Semitic ( Spätjungsemitisch , i.e., Canaanitic, Aramaic, Arabic). In the preceding chapter, we have seen how in the nineteenth century the existing ideas about the relationship between the Semitic languages crystallised into a classificatory scheme under the influence of the historical–comparativist paradigm. In this chapter, we shall discuss the implications of this paradigm for the position of Arabic within the Semitic languages, and possible alternatives. Originally, five languages, Akkadian, Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic and Ethiopic, had been distinguished and presented more or less as equals. With the growing influ- ence of historical research in the history of the Semitic-speaking peoples, the study of the relations between these languages was approached from an historical perspective, and under the influence of the paradigm of Indo-European linguis- tics an attempt was made to establish a family tree of the languages involved, supposedly reflecting their genetic relations. Such a genetic interpretation of the classification implied that all Semitic languages eventually derived from a proto- Semitic language. In Indo-European studies, it was generally assumed that it was possible to reconstruct a proto-Indo-European language on the basis of a comparison of the structure of the known Indo-European languages. Similarly, it was thought that a proto-Semitic language could be reconstructed by comparing Arabic, Hebrew, Akkadian, Aramaic and Ethiopic, and this language was assumed to have the same status with regard to the Semitic languages that proto-Indo-European had with regard to the Indo-European languages, namely, that of a parental language with its offspring. The attempts to find a common structure in these languages that could then be assigned to the proto-language led, however, to widely differing Arabic as a Semitic Language 13 results. Unlike the Indo-European languages, spread over a wide area and usually isolated from each other, the Semitic languages tended to be confined to the same geographic area (Syria/Palestine, Mesopotamia and the Arabian desert) and were often spoken in contiguous regions. This led to more or less permanent contacts between the speakers of these languages, so that borrowing between them was always a possibility. Borrowing typically disrupts historical processes of change and makes it difficult to reconstruct the original correspondences between the languages involved. The affinity between the Semitic languages is generally much more trans- parent than that between the Indo-European languages, and they share a number of common features that clearly mark them as Semitic. In themselves, none of the features that are usually presented as typical of a Semitic language is conclu - sive in determining whether a particular language belongs to the Semitic group, but in combination they constitute a reasonably reliable checklist: triradicalism, presence of emphatic/glottalised consonants, consonantal root structure, and a system of morphological templates, paratactic constructions, verbal system with a prefix and a suffix conjugation, as well as a large number of lexical correspon- dences. As long as the presence of common features in a group of languages is inter - preted in terms of a typological classification, without implications regarding their genetic relationship, the subgrouping of the languages involved is not problem - atic. In such a classification, the issue of later borrowing or of independent devel- opments that have led to identical results is left open. A genetic relationship, on the other hand, implies an historical descent from a common origin, a language that is regarded as the common ancestor of all the languages in the group. Since in this framework the ancestor language is presumed to have an historical reality, it must have been the language of an historical people. Semiticists working in the genealogical framework therefore started looking for a Semitic homeland. There has been a lot of controversy about this homeland of the ‘proto-Semites’. Many scholars situated it in the Arabian peninsula, while others mentioned Syria or North Africa. From such a homeland, successive waves of migration were then supposed to have brought various groups to their respective territories, for instance, the Amorites between 2000 and 1700 bce , and the Aramaeans between 1900 and 1400 bce . Of these waves, the Arab conquests in the seventh century ce were the latest and the last. Such a view of the events leading to the present- day division of the Semitic languages implies that the peoples mentioned in the historical records already spoke the languages associated later with their names and that, once arrived in their new area, these Semitic languages developed independently from each other, either under the influence of languages already being spoken there (substratal influence), or because of internal developments. These factors were held to be responsible for the innovations in each language and for the differences between the various languages. 14 The Arabic Language The genealogical paradigm, whether it is framed in terms of the migration of peoples or in terms of the spreading of linguistic innovations, has been severely criticised by some scholars because of its incompatibility with the nature of the linguistic situation in the Near East. Since in this area there are no clear demarca - tions between the various linguistic groups, they were never completely isolated from each other like the Indo-European languages. Many of the linguistic commu- nities were contiguous and entertained cultural and political contacts with each other, so that common innovations could spread over large areas, and extensive borrowing and interference could take place. Besides, as Blau (1978) has pointed out, several languages served for some time as the Yüklə 2,37 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|