Why linguistics needs an historically oriented Arabic linguistics

One of the more recent, and certainly one of the most empirically well-founded accounts of language change is Labov’s (2007) division between transmission and diffusion. The former results in gradual change via incrementation, the latter in larger and irregular change. This study examines the generality of this distinction, which was based on American vowel systems, against the rich history of Arabic. Five case studies are described in which it is shown that Arabic, like English, has striking instances of language stability across varieties as geo-diachronically separated as Emirati and Nigerian Arabic. By the same token, there are equally striking instances of widespread change due to contact. It is argued that in only one of these, Nubi (Creole Arabic), can diffusional changes be considered irregular, while in three others, Baghdadi Arabic (phonology), Uzbekistan or Central Asian Mixed Arabic (morphology and syntax) and Nigerian Arabic (semantics of idioms), the changes though of differing degrees of magnitude in their outcomes, cannot be said to be irregular. The study highlights two points: global criteria for defining the outcomes of transmission vs. diffusion are elusive, and Arabic, because of the ability to triangulate into different phases of its past, offers an unusually interesting insight into the workings of historical linguistic processes.