VI CONGRESO DE ÁRABE MARROQUÍ:

IDENTIDAD Y CONCIENCIA LINGÜISTÍCA

La edición de estas actas se ha llevado a cabo en el marco de actuación del Proyecto de
Inves?gación «Par?cipación polí?ca, islam y transnacionalidad en el Mundo Arabo-Islámico y
en contexto migratorio» Ref.: CSO2014-52998-C3-1-P.
Y del grupo de inves?gación «Ideologías y Expresiones Culturales Árabes Contemporáneas»
(IEXCUL), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, HUM-082.

Todos los derechos reservados. De conformidad con lo

dispuesto en la legislación vigente, podrán ser cas?gados
con penas de multa y privación de libertad quienes
reproduzcan o plagien, en todo o en parte, una obra
literaria, ars?ca o cienfica fijada en cualquier ?po de
soporte, sin la precep?va autorización.

© Ediciones UAM, 2016

© Francisco Moscoso García y Adil Moustaoui Sghir

Ediciones Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Campus de Cantoblanco
c/ Einstein, 1
28049 Madrid
Tel. 914974233 (Fax 914975169)
h
p://www.uam.es/publicaciones
servicio.publicaciones@uam.es

eISBN: 978-84-8344-562-4

Fotograa de cubierta: Verónica Rivera Reyes

Diseño de cubierta: Miguel Ángel Tejedor López
 VI CONGRESO DE ÁRABE MARROQUÍ:
IDENTIDAD Y CONCIENCIA LINGÜíSTICA

Francisco Moscoso García

Adil Moustaoui Sghir

Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

INDICE

Adil Moustaoui Sghir: Prólogo ....................................................................................................7

A) MERCADO LINGÜÍSTICO......................................................................................................19

Driss Meskine y Jan Jaap de Ruiter: Les jeunes Marocains s’expriment : le

marché des langues du Maroc en mutation..................................................................21

Adil Moustaoui Sghir: The concept of ‘Dialect’ and ‘Language’: A Critical

Sociolinguistic Overview ......................................................................................................47

Bárbara Herrero y Otman El Azami: Evolución de la conciencia lingüística

de los “marroquíes del mundo”. El papel de la televisión en el paso del
árabe marroquí de tabú a eje identitario ......................................................................61

Victoria Aguilar y Lidia Fernández Fonfría: La conciencia lingüística de los

estudiantes de árabe en España ........................................................................................75

Amal Hadid Tounli: Identidad y conciencia lingüística de niños marroquíes

en la Comunidad de Madrid beneficiarios del Programa de Enseñanza
de Lengua Árabe y Cultura marroquí (LACM)..........................................................117

Alicia López Núñez: The renewed debate on Arabic language in Morocco.

The awakening of national language awareness or the recovery of
linguistic “traumas” from the past?...............................................................................143

Francisco Moscoso García: Argumentos en defensa del árabe literal en

Marruecos.................................................................................................................................165

B ENFOQUE SOCIOLINGÜÍSTICO .......................................................................................193

Sarali Gintsburg: Moroccan immigrants in the United States of America:

history, languages and identities....................................................................................195

Laura Gago Gómez: Algunas cuestiones sobre la identidad lingüística en

contexto diglósico y pluricéntrico (Marruecos) ......................................................215

Fouad Brigui: De l’usage de l’arabe dialectal dans la presse écrite marocaine ......249

Mustafa Akalay Nasser: Salvaguarda y promoción de la lengua y cultura

amazigh en Melilla................................................................................................................265
C) LITERATURA Y PRÁCTICAS DE ESCRITURA.............................................................279

Mercedes Aragón Huerta: Una apuesta valiente por el árabe marroquí:

el género poético del zéjel.................................................................................................281

Ahmed Benremdane: El árabe marroquí en la Obra de Juan Goytisolo: una

constante en sus novelas sobre Marruecos ...............................................................303

Hamid Jaafar: L’arabe marocain : vocabulaire et «alliance» féministe .................315

MERCADO LINGÜÍSTICO 47

THE CONCEPT OF ‘DIALECT’ AND ‘LANGUAGE’: A CRITICAL

SOCIOLINGUISTIC OVERVIEW

MOUSTAOUI SGHIR, Adil1

Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Abstract: This paper provides an analysis of how processes of categorisation of languages

and varieties through strategies of designation would involve minoritisation and linguistic
inequality. In our analysis we will focus specifically in the case of Morocco. Our aim is: a)
to look at the complexity that exists when we come to define the concept of dialect and
language, b) to observe how the representations held by society with regard to linguistic
diversity can influence the categorisation of linguistic varieties and c) to propose a theo­
retical framework for a definition of the above­mentioned concepts, which is based on a
critical sociolinguistic approach to the analysis of linguistic variation. Finally, we will pre­
sent some conclusions related with linguistic variation and the process of categorisation
of languages as ideological phenomenon.

Key words: Sociolinguistics critic. Linguistic variation. Arabic linguistic continuum. Mo­
roccan Sociolinguistic regime and categorisation of language.
Resumen: Este artículo ofrece un análisis de cómo los procesos de categorización de
las lenguas y variedades a través de estrategias de designación implicarían minoriza­
ción y desigualdad lingüística. En nuestro análisis nos centraremos específicamente
en el caso de Marruecos. Nuestro objetivo es: a) analizar la complejidad que existe a la
hora de definir el concepto de «dialecto» y «lengua», b) observar cómo las representa­
ciones ejercidas por la sociedad con respecto a la diversidad y variación lingüística
pueden influir la clasificación social y lingüística de las variedades lingüísticas y c) pro­
poner un marco teórico para la definición de los conceptos antes mencionados, basado
en un enfoque sociolingüístico crítico, fundamental para el análisis de la variación lin­
güística en árabe. Por último, presentaremos algunas conclusiones relacionadas con la
variación lingüística y el proceso de categorización de las lenguas como construcción
ideológica.
Palabras clave: Sociolingüística crítica. Variación lingüística. El continuum lingüístico
árabe. Régimen sociolingüístico en Marruecos y categorización de las lenguas.

1. E­mail: adil.moustaoui@pdi.ucm.es. Associate professor at Department of Arabic and

Islamic Studies, University Complutense of Madrid. Field of research: Sociolinguistics, Lan­
guage Policy and Planning, Social Communication and Discourse Studies.
48 VI CONGRESO DE ÁRABE MARROQUÍ: IDENTIDAD Y CONCIENCIA LINGÜÍSTICA

0. INTRODUCTION

The study of how a process of categorisation of languages through strategies

of designation would involve examining, to some extent, the existence of a linguis­
tic minorisation or social stigmatization of languages, within a context of diversity
and linguistic variation. Such a study should involve contributions from a number
of complementary disciplines, but often it is the linguist or sociolinguist who is
left alone to tackle this situation. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to recognize
what is most important in order to carry out this study, prior to carrying out of
our analysis.

One of our tasks in the course of this paper is to explore possible new confi­
gurations wherein linguistic differentiation in terms of usage remains, but where,
at the same time, the social meanings of languages and variations change. In some
cases, these meanings might be more ambiguous. In others, these same meanings
can be relocated as demands of speech (performance), thereby generating a so­
ciolinguistic change (see Coupland 2010a).

For this reason, it is important to know what is meant by language, dialect

and the concept of language variety, given that a clarification of these concepts is
germane, along with one of the criteria chosen with which to frame, describe and
analyze the process that will be the subject of our paper. This is particularly the
case since we know that the definition of these concepts is framed within complex
social structures, such as those that have long operated in what are termed the
‘Arab countries’ – namely the Gulf States, the Middle East and particularly North
Africa.

Firstly, we consider that some of the forms of stigmatization, categorization

and linguistic inequality emerge through naming strategies, used in dominant dis­
courses and reproduced in society. These forms are also strategies for legitimizing
linguistic ideologies and language policies. For this reason, we recognize the im­
portance of the processes of sociolinguistic categorisation of language varieties
based on how they are named and how they are constructed conceptually, as well
as what social values they are assigned as a result of such designations. Our pur­
pose in this paper is a) to look at the complexity that exists when we come to de­
fine the above mentioned concepts, b) to observe how the representations held
by society with regard to linguistic diversity can influence the categorisation of
linguistic varieties and c) to propose a theoretical framework for a definition of
the above­mentioned concepts, which is based on a critical sociolinguistic appro­
ach to the analysis of linguistic variation.
MERCADO LINGÜÍSTICO 49

1. THE CONCEPTS OF ‘DIALECT’ AND LANGUAGE

There can be no doubt that in the Maghreb in general, and in Morocco in par­
ticular, the debate over the designation of languages has awakened a passion, not
only amongst linguists and sociolinguists, but also amongst sociologists, anthro­
pologists and other researchers in the social and human sciences. However, there
are two observations that are fundamental to our view, namely: a) defining the
concept of dialect and language in Maghreb society has never been an easy task,
due to the complexity, heterogeneity and subjectivity that have characterized the
criteria used for this purpose; b) it is possible to ponder the overall structure of
languages and analyze linguistic practices in order to unravel the various contra­
dictions emerging between different linguistic ideologies, and how they affect the
processes surrounding language policy. Starting from these two observations, we
will try to analyze the problem of the definition of these concepts from a descrip­
tive/critical sociolinguistic perspective.

1.1. THE CONCEPT OF ‘DIALECT’

The research that has been conducted on prejudices and attitudes towards
languages has always shown that the social meanings they hold are complex and
multidimensional, and that contextual factors have a crucial influence on such
meanings. We also know that the use of the term ‘dialect’ is typically based on the
popular meaning shared by the society that speaks it. In his definition Patrick
(2014:4), points out that “Common sense of course is a historical, cultural product
which varies from one social group, time and/or place to another­it is what ‘every­
body knows’ and what, therefore, one cannot easily disagree with­and it is also
exactly what outsiders do not ‘know’, thus making them appear collectively defi­
cient”. Indeed, most people think they have a clear and correct notion of what it
means. However, ‘dialect’ is not a term particularly easy to define, even for lin­
guists and sociolinguists.

Historically, the distinction between ‘dialect’ and ‘language’ was born of the
influence that Greek culture had over other cultures, since in Ancient Greece this
distinction came about in the face of the number of distinctly different varieties
of writing that were in use at the time. Each of these varieties was associated with
a different region, and employed in different literary genres. The meanings of the
Greek words subsequently translated as ‘language’ and ‘dialect’ were in fact quite
different from those now attached (for example in English) to these two terms.
In the case of French, the equivalent concepts are, in some ways, similar to the
original Greek, since the French word ‘dialect’ refers to the regional varieties that
have a written form and literature, as opposed to the purely oral regional varie­
50 VI CONGRESO DE ÁRABE MARROQUÍ: IDENTIDAD Y CONCIENCIA LINGÜÍSTICA

ties, known as ‘patois’. (Hudson, 1981). Until now, the same situation has obtained
in the Arabic­speaking linguistic continuum, given that ‘language’, in most coun­
tries refers to classical and standard varieties that is, those that are written and
used in official, institutional spheres, and in formal communications in both
modes, written and oral. Meanwhile spoken varieties, which are seldom or never
written, have always been considered ‘dialects’.

For Fishman (1979), in common usage, a dialect is usually a regional subunit

with respect to the language in question, particularly in its idiomatic or spoken forms
of expression. ‘Language’ is a superordinate designation whilst ‘dialect’ is the subor­
dinate term. In the popular definition offered by Fishman (op. cit.), for example, ‘dia­
lect’ is associated with territoriality, being coined according to linguistic geography.
According to this view, the description of the forms of the regional varieties of a lan­
guage geographically would be down to dialectology, and language varieties that ba­
sically represent diverse geographical origins would be referred to as ‘dialects’.

From the point of view of the functional linguistic and the sociolinguistic, the
term ‘dialect’ as opposed to ‘language’ refers to differences between varieties of
a single language. These differences can be both linguistic ­ i.e. morphosyntactic,
grammatical, lexical and phonetic –and of a social nature– fields of use, functions,
socio­political status and prestige. What cannot be accepted as fact, despite often
being considered legitimate, is that, based on observation of linguistic differences
and degrees of variation, one variety is somehow superior to another. All varieties
of a language are structured in complex systems, with a formal linguistic variation
at different levels: phonetic, lexical, morphosyntactic, semantic and functional.
These varieties, though they may be labelled ‘dialects’, respond fully to both the
communicative and social needs of their speakers.

Although one can speak of the manifestation of language as a linguistic conti-

nuum2, in any language there are a number of linguistic features that work in har­
mony in different ways; some of these will combine in a certain way in a given
region but differently in neighboring areas. Moreover, we would agree that any
legitimization of the concept of ‘dialect’ could be questioned based on the diffi­
culty of establishing how a ‘dialect’ might differ from a ‘language’ solely on lin­
guistic grounds. The fact that different varieties are considered dialects of a
language always involves extra­linguistic factors. In any case, although there are
ideologies that defend situations of hierarchisation and subordination between
varieties, it is a matter of sociolinguistic fact that different and diverse varieties
have developed in response to actual communicative needs.

2. For a more complete definition of the concept of linguistic continuum, see Castellanos
i Llorenç (2000).
MERCADO LINGÜÍSTICO 51

Moreover, since language is a social phenomenon, it has and will continue ha­
ving a close relationship with the structure and value system of the society in
which it is spoken. Due to these socio­political and ideological, rather than lin­
guistic factors, different varieties are evaluated in different ways. For example, in
English society, the normative Standard English has more prestige than any other
variety of English. The same has been true of most Arab countries since their in­
dependence: to establish and legitimize an official form of Arabic, some ideologies
insisted that a certain variety was superior and had more prestige, more history
and authenticity than other varieties spoken.

In other words, attitudes towards ‘dialects’ considered socially as non­standard,

are attitudes that reflect the structure of the society where they are spoken and the
power relations that exist between the various groups that compose that society ­
its speakers and their social classes. Likewise, such attitudes might reflect prejudices
involving all the language varieties spoken by a particular community or various
linguistic communities and where it is in the interests of those in power to circulate
these prejudices. “The linguistic mentality of those in power” writes Tusón (1996:
108) (here translated), “derives from an undeclared axiom: the fact is, there exists
a substantial entity, which is the language; the rest are nothing more than a series
of accidents, perhaps even subversive tendencies against unity”.

In the same vein, as Labov (1972) points out, the speakers of language varie­
ties conventionally dubbed ‘non­standard’ sometimes judge themselves as inferior
to speakers of the so­called ‘standard’ varieties. On finding such an attitude
amongst New Yorkers, Labov (1966) described the city as “a sink of negative pres­
tige”. For we know that self­stigmatization is an attitude adopted by speakers, in­
dividually and collectively, as part of a process of categorisation of languages and
their varieties. In Morocco, this phenomenon of lack of self­esteem is found
amongst speakers whose mother tongue or second language is Moroccan Arabic,
and is coupled with a low estimation, in general, for what has always been called
‘dialect’ or ad­Darija. Benrabah (1993: 34), based on the case of Algeria, similar
to that of Morocco, calls this revalorization de la langue maternelle ou la haine de
soi3, (undervaluation of the mother tongue and self­hatred). (see Benrabeh 1993,
Boukous 1999, Laroussi 2002).

Woolard and Schieffelin (1994) stated, that some language communities can
appropriate some of the linguistic resources of other groups with whom they are

3. According to this author (1993:34) : l’imposition de l’arabe classique dans le domaine

« prestigieux », et la présentation de l’arabe algérien et du berbère comme étant ses « sub-
alternes », illustre bien la relation d’inégalité et de différence de statut social accordé à ces
derniers.
52 VI CONGRESO DE ÁRABE MARROQUÍ: IDENTIDAD Y CONCIENCIA LINGÜÍSTICA

in contact and tension, reshaping and incorporating linguistic structures to their

own speech, thereby revealing certain linguistic ideologies that have to do with
social class.

The notion of social class emerges as a focus of prime importance for the
analysis of linguistic variation and specifically the concept of ‘dialect’, since it is
considered a key element in the denomination, hierarchisation and stratification
of linguistic varieties. Coupland (2003 and 2010b), a defender of the relevance
of the notion of class in the sociolinguistics of variation, claims that traditional
research into changes in ‘dialect’ over time paid a great deal of attention to lin­
guistic change and little to social change. Coupland (2010a) refers particularly to
those changes affecting the constitution of social class. This analytical focus is jus­
tified, on the one hand, as a response to the descriptive sociolinguistics of varia­
tion and, on the other, by the fact that historically linguistics has analyzed
linguistic construction and the social dimension of any process of change separa­
tely. Coupland (2010a: 56) then states that:

“There is no interest in how any particular historical configuration, in a

socio­cultural sense, might shape the forms or functions of the speech varie­
ties or systems in question. Time in variationist sociolinguistics is operatio­
nalized as a series of sampling points for the measurement of how language
varieties, viewed as autonomous systems, are changing.”

The researchers, who followed the variationist approach addressing ‘dialect’

and ‘language’, showed a somewhat sceptical attitude regarding what both terms
might mean in the context of late modernity, either generally or from a specific
context of analysis from the linguistics of speech or performance.

Therefore, Coupland (2010a) proposes a critical sociolinguistics to examine

how language variation and uses are two processes strictly related to the changes
that occur in social and cultural ecosystems. In this regard, Coupland (2010a: 57)
states that:

“The social categories that variationists have mainly relied on are argued
to be becoming unreliable; identities are more contextualized and ephemeral,
more amenable to agentive construction – the social through the linguistic
(Coupland and Jaworski 2009). Social change is certainly on the agenda here
in a couple of different respects”.

This new direction –critical and constructionist– that Coupland proposes in the
study and analysis of linguistic variation, places particular emphasis on what it
MERCADO LINGÜÍSTICO 53

brings to the scene: it would be a contemporary sociolinguistics capable of breaking

ties with some disciplines and certain fundamental assumptions that exist surroun­
ding what dialectal variation, social structure and sociolinguistic identity really
mean. Thus, understanding and analyzing ‘dialect’ as a concept inseparable from
‘language’ would have to be adjusted in the light of social dynamics and changes ta­
king place. One goal to be achieved through this new line in sociolinguistics is seeing
how linguistic varieties change significantly over time, and finding answers to why
individuals and groups segment these varieties perceptually in one place and at one
specific time and different social contexts, and how they reassign values and mea­
nings to existing language styles and statuses, and assign value to new ones.

In the following section will attempt to explain what is meant by the concept
of language from a critical sociolinguistic perspective.

1.2. THE CONCEPT OF LANGUAGE

The term language has extralinguistic connotations due to the conceptual am­
biguity that it has always posed for sociolinguistic studies. In fact, linguistically,
the term ‘language’ is an abstraction, because we use it to refer to what the various
varieties of a language have in common. In this sense, languages are not concrete,
but rather abstract entities, which, naturally, can be described, regulated and even
imposed. (Moreno Cabrera 2001: 49)

Hudson (1981: 42) has dealt closely with the problems of the distinction bet­
ween language and dialect. Hudson believes that the widespread idea that exists
regarding the differentiation of ‘language’ from ‘dialect’ comes from the popularly
accepted meaning of the terms in everyday life, and notes that the primary dis­
tinction made between language and dialect in general is based on a difference of
size between the two varieties. Hudson, as an example, claims that English society
thinks that “language is more extensive than dialect”. The other difference is the
prestige that each variety is lent. So Hudson states that whether a variety is called
a language or a dialect depends on the political and socioeconomic prestige that
each community believes this variety enjoys. For most, this distinction will depend
on whether or not a given language is used in formal writing (op. cit.: 42). Using
a military metaphor, Irvine and Gal (2000: 35) state the following: “A language is
simply a dialect that has an army and a navy, so goes a well­known saying in lin­
guistics. [....] The significance of linguistic differentiation is embedded in the po­
litics of a region and its observer”. As an example, we might cite the case of
classical Standard Arabic, which, being relatively widely extended, is used in writ­
ten communication and has therefore always been considered the most presti­
gious and powerful variety in the Arab linguistic continuum.
54 VI CONGRESO DE ÁRABE MARROQUÍ: IDENTIDAD Y CONCIENCIA LINGÜÍSTICA

Fishman (1972) makes the same point, noting that the definition of a lan­
guage historically has been linked to a number of extralinguistic criteria, such as
size, prestige, linguistic reach and the criterion of mutual intelligibility4.

Chambers and Trudgill (1999), in an attempt to give a complete and precise

definition of the notion of language, proposed to introduce two new concepts: ‘au­
tonomy’ and ‘heteronomy’. For these authors, a language is a variety that is codi­
fied, standard and autonomous, along with all the non­standard non­autonomous
(heteronomous) dialects that are dependent on it. Nevertheless, using the prin­
ciple of ‘heteronomy’ and ‘autonomy’, Trudgill wanted to demonstrate that any
variety might go through modifications and changes and thereby pass from the
category of ‘heteronomous’ to ‘autonomous’, or vice versa5.

Thus, Trudgill (1993: 4) agrees that both ‘heteronomy’ and ‘autonomy’ are
the results of extralinguistic factors, mainly political, cultural, ideological and
socio­economic. In addition, the author notes that, although the criterion of mu­
tual intelligibility is an entirely linguistic one, it has less bearing on the problem
of defining the concepts of language and dialect.

Meanwhile, Castellanos (2000) basing his research on the process of standar­

dization of Amazigh, starts from the same conception when he defines language as
a group of speech forms (its dialects) with the potential to become standardized
(i.e. homogenized and elaborated) supradialect. According to this linguist, it is im­
possible to establish a clear difference between what is a language and what counts
as a dialect, based solely on linguistic criteria. Furthermore, by observing how the
varieties are distributed geographically, we realize that the only relevant linguistic
distinctions are those between large geographical areas with a degree of homoge­
neity, or what is known as a linguistic continuum or geo­dialectal continuum.

Castellanos (2000) proposed that a proper analysis of the distinction between

the notions of language and dialect needs to begin with a study of linguistic con­

4. By mutual intelligibility we mean the process of mutual understanding that occurs bet­
ween two speakers of two different varieties, wherein both are of the same language. This
would apply, for example, between a speaker of Moroccan Arabic communicating with a
speaker of Lebanese Arabic
5. In the case of varieties that have changed from autonomous to become heteronomous,
we might mention the example of the Skone variety of Swedish, which was previously con­
sidered a “dialect” of Danish, or that of Scots, which is now often considered a variety of
English. Meanwhile, for the second case, i.e. from heteronomous to autonomous, we could
offer the example of the standard variety of Norwegian, Nynorsk, once considered a va­
riety of Danish. It’s worth mentioning also that, as a result of a political separation, some
varieties might become semi­autonomous, as in the example of Macedonian in the face of
Bulgarian, or American English in relation to British English.
MERCADO LINGÜÍSTICO 55

tinuums, because it is only within a continuum that doubts about individuation

might appear, given that from one continuum to another distinctions are clear. In
this way, the different varieties spoken in a linguistic continuum could be grouped
into languages or, in the words of Castellanos (op.cit: 28), collective entities ca­
pable of generating a referential standard variety for those ways of speaking that
recognize it as such.

So we see how, starting from a strictly linguistic perspective and given the
existence of the linguistic continuum, we discover an arbitrariness when we try
to distinguishing between the concepts of ‘language’ and ‘dialect’. This is what
Hudson (1981: 33) warned against when stating that elements of the same lan­
guage may have a different social distribution (depending on the speakers and
circumstances), and we can assume that it is possible that the social distribution
of a linguistic element might be unique6. So the principle of mutual intelligibility
is of little use in identifying and defining languages as compared with dialects due
to the arbitrariness present, and also because of the existence of another criterion,
which is the reciprocal nature of comprehension. With all this, we have attempted
to show that, once again, the distinction between language and dialect is be found
more readily through ideological, political and geographical, rather than linguistic
criteria. Thus, we agree with the Castellanos (2000) in his conception of language
as a combination of linguistic criteria, especially the principle of linguistic reach,
and socio­political and ideological criteria (see Joseph and Taylor 1990)

So language, in the words of Cameron (1990: 93), “is not an organism or a

passive reflection, but a social institution, deeply implicated in culture, in society,
in political relations at every level. What sociolinguistics needs is a concept of lan­
guage in which this point is placed at the centre rather than on the margins”.

1.3. THE ARABIC LINGUISTIC CONTINUUM IN MOROCCO: A CONTINUUM OF VARIETIES

The concept of linguistic variety. Firstly, we start from the concept of linguistic
variety as a valid concept for the case under investigation and for the appropriate
designation of the languages of Morocco in general. Thus, we agree with Moreno
Cabrera’s (2001: 49) position because, for him, “no language has complete homo­
geneity in terms of the ways in which it is spoken. The larger the geographical
area in which a language is used, the more local varieties there will be”. In addition,
Moreno Cabrera (op.cit: 47) states that we do not really speak a language but ra­

6. Hudson considers that linguistic structure is involved in the definition of the concept
of language and that, the definition will inevitably change in accordance with the concep­
tion we hold of linguistic structure.
56 VI CONGRESO DE ÁRABE MARROQUÍ: IDENTIDAD Y CONCIENCIA LINGÜÍSTICA

ther a linguistic variety, and that, as previously noted, the differences conceived
between language and dialect stem from political and economic interests. “From
a linguistic point of view, there is no language but rather a set of language varieties
closely related and confined to a given territory”. This, then, would be the defini­
tion that we prefer to follow in framing the phenomenon under study. Therefore,
we will follow neither the geographical definition nor that based on the criterion
of prestige when distinguishing dialect from language; i.e. we will not limit our­
selves to a popular, everyday conception, but opt rather for the sociolinguistic
definition. Concerning the notion of prestige Bassiouney (2009: 18) argued that

“There has been a growing realization since the mid­1980s that variation
in Arabic Speech is not merely (or even mainly) a question of H interference
in L. According Ibrahim (1986:115), ´The identification of H as both the stan­
dard and the prestigious variety at one and the same time has led to problems
of interpreting data and findings from Arabic Sociolinguistic research´. This
identification is the result of applying western research to the Arab World,
without noting the different linguistic situation”.

To denominate what, until now, some linguists from the Maghreb –or from
other countries– have called ‘Moroccan dialect(s)’, we will use a different term, na­
mely ‘Moroccan Arabic’ and its forms or styles of speech, based on the conviction
that the term ‘dialect’ might carry the weight of political ideologies. Furthermore,
the fact of referring to some varieties as dialects is not appropriate from a critical
sociolinguistic perspective, since the word ‘dialect’ has been used to refer to lin­
guistic varieties that are characterized by a lack of standardization or social and
political recognition as a linguistic variety that could be standardized, but that can­
not be identified with a pre­established language. Youssi (2010: 323) point out that
“the distribution of the functions involves, in contradictions to the latter, the lack
of this prestige (the two national languages, amazigh and darija, which are also mo­
ther tongues to the whole population, but categorized as Low languages or form of
languages)”. Note, also, that the name ‘dialect’ has often served to mask a situation
of linguistic subordination and reinforce power relations, not only between the lin­
guistic varieties, but also between groups of speakers and language communities.

2. CATEGORISATION OF THE LANGUAGES AND SOCIOLINGUISTIC REGIME IN MOROCCO

As Youssi (2010: 323) noted

“some of the main features of the interrelations of the languages and dia­
lects in contact are characterized by inertia phenomena […], with respect to
MERCADO LINGÜÍSTICO 57

the distribution of the linguistic functions, and in relation to the prestige at­
tached to the languages (fuçha and French mainly, but now also to other fo­
reign languages, categorized as prestigious or High)”.

From the above analysis, according to the socio­political situation of each lan­
guage, the linguistic situation that can be found in Morocco, from the current re­
lations between its languages and the social function each fulfils, is as follows.
There are two groups of languages, differentiated by the scope of their usage: a)
the vehicular languages; and b) the institutional languages. In the first group we
include the mother and commonly used languages, being those most widely used
in the present day, which are Moroccan Arabic, in its various forms, and Amazigh
in its three varieties. In the second group fall the languages with prestige, being
classical Standard Arabic and French, and in occasional contexts, English and Spa­
nish. (Moustaoui 2007 & 2010).

Moreover, we should note that their distribution according to status –official

language or working language (justice, public administration, the economic
sphere) or language of instruction– has reinforced the aforementioned categories.
This distribution created a relation of subordination (not diglossia) between the
varieties of Arabic in Morocco, in particular between Standard Arabic and Moroc­
can Arabic. Such relations involve, in this context, a certain linguistic inequality
since they stem from a type of linguistic organization at a macro­social level. Also,
the historical introduction and strengthening of these relations through the state
language policy is an issue that was linked to the socio­political structure of a so­
ciety where the notion of power has deep significance. These power relations are
further legitimated, not just by the imposition of certain linguistic practices, but
also through discourses of legitimation from the sociolinguistic regime.

At the level of the dominant discursive practices related to the languages of Mo­
rocco, we note that the symbolic subordination of Moroccan Arabic as a language
variety, despite being a social, linguistic and cultural element independent of the
other languages, was a factor that led to its total exclusion from the dominant official
discourse, given that it had not been considered as an entity. Therefore, at a macro­
social and political level, discourses did not begin to circulate demanding its recog­
nition, promotion and legitimation as an entity until the early 2000s. For this reason,
language policy, being a discursive practice exercised by the power elite, has repre­
sented what we might call the official, dominant institutional discourse. This dis­
course has been considered political, social, ideological and, historically, as
legitimate knowledge and has been imposed, spread and reproduced discursively
in Moroccan society, thereby establishing both a sociolinguistic regime characteri­
zed by a social and linguistic hierarchy (Boukous 1999), and, of course, an uneven
distribution of the uses of languages. At the same time, a social order of discourses
58 VI CONGRESO DE ÁRABE MARROQUÍ: IDENTIDAD Y CONCIENCIA LINGÜÍSTICA

on languages was established. This somehow led to the Moroccan population in ge­
neral, and social actors in particular, who are against Arabness and Arabization as
a linguistic, educational and cultural policy, failing to distinguish between the do­
minant face of Arabic, represented by classical Standard Arabic, and the subordinate
face, represented by Moroccan Arabic in its various forms.

3. CONCLUSION

We note, from the discussion in this paper, how the processes of menorization
and linguistic inequality are linked to strategies of designation of the language
varieties in society. We have also seen how, up to now, common sense societies
has based in part on the use of these denominations to legitimize actions, socio­
linguistic regimes and language ideologies.

The relations between the language varieties of the Arabic linguistic conti-
nuum, in terms of their relative levels of prestige (whether oral or written), cu­
rrently play an important role in the distribution of the functions of these varieties
and the perception of their status among Moroccan speakers.

Finally, from the point of view of the critical sociolinguistics of variation, the
fact of separating between dialect (considered in the common sense as non­stan­
dard variety) and language (as standard variety) and leads us to consider said
fact as a dichotomy arising from an ideological choice based a priori on the ac­
ceptance of the ideology of standardization. However, whether or not we happen
to share the ideological basis for such separation does not invalidate the socio­
linguistics of variation as an approach for analyzing the process. Similarly, it is
quite evident from the point of view of functional linguistics, which focuses on
the socio­communicative and pragmatic dimension of language, that it tends to
address linguistic phenomena in terms of a tension, on the one hand between the
desire to achieve an economy in the language and a pragmatism in linguistic prac­
tices, and on the other, between clarity and expressivity in pragmatic terms that
are more structural­linguistic. Thus, both linguistic variation and change are pro­
cesses that would be undesirable for a purist and nationalistic vision of language
(Thomas 1991). This is because the two processes –variation and change– give
rise to a struggle between two or more sociolinguistic and ideological fundaments.

REFERENCES

– ARMSTRONG. Nigel. MACKENZIE, Ian. 2013. Standardization, Ideo-

logy and Linguistics. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
MERCADO LINGÜÍSTICO 59

– BASSIOUNEY, Reem. 2009. Arabic Sociolinguistics. Topics in Diglossia, Gen-

der, Identity and Politics. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
– BENRABAH, Mohammed. 1993. « L’arabe algérien véhicule de la mo­
dernité. » Minoration linguistique au Maghreb. Cahiers de linguistique
Sociale 22, pp. 34­43.
– BENRABAH, Mohammed. 1991. Langue et pouvoir en Algérie: histoire
d’un traumatisme linguistique. Paris: Seguier.
– CHAMBERS, Jack ; TRUDGILL, Peter. 1999 (2nd edition). Dialectology.
Cambridge: CUP.
– BOUKOUS, Ahmed. 1999. Dominance et différence. Essai sur les enjeux
symboliques au Maroc. Casablanca: Le Fennec.
– CAMERON, Deborah. 1990. “Demythologizing sociolinguistics: Why
language does not reflect society.” En: Ideologies of language. Joseph,
John; Taylor, Talbot (eds). New York: Routledge, pp. 79­93.
– CASTELLANOS I LLORENÇ, Carles .2000. Llengua, dialectes i estan-
dardització. Barcelona: Octaedro.
– CASTELLANOS I LLORENÇ, Carles. 2010a. (eds.). “Language, Ideology,
Media and Social Change.” En: Performing the Self. Junod, Karen. Mai­
llat. Didier. (eds). Tübingen: Narr, pp. 55­78.
– CASTELLANOS I LLORENÇ, Carles. 2010b. (eds.) Handbook of Lan-
guage and Globalization. Malden, MA and Oxford: Wiley­Blackwell.
– COUPLAND, Nikolas. 2003. “Sociolinguistic Authenticies.” En: Journal
of Sociolinguistics 7/3, pp. 417­431.
– COUPLAND, Nikolas; JAWORKSI, Adam (eds). 2009. The New Socio-
linguistics Reader. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Mac Millan
– FISHMAN, Joshua. 1979. Sociología del lenguaje. Madrid: Cátedra
– .1972. Advances in the sociology of languages. Volumen 2, The Hague:
Mouton.
– HUDSON, Richard. 1981. La sociolingüística. Barcelona: Anagrama.
– IRVINE, Judith; Gal. Susan. 2000. “Language ideology and linguistic
differentiation.” En: Regimes of Language. P. Kroskrity (eds). Santa Fe
2000, NM: School of American Research Press, pp. 35­83.
60 VI CONGRESO DE ÁRABE MARROQUÍ: IDENTIDAD Y CONCIENCIA LINGÜÍSTICA

– JOSEPH, John; TAYLOR, Talbot. (eds). 1990. Ideologies of language.

New York: Routledge.
– LABOV, Wiliam .1972. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: Uni­
versity of Pennsylvania Press.
– LABOV, Wiliam. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York
City. Washington, D.C. Center for Applied Linguistics.
– LAROUSSI, Fouad. 2002. “Minoration linguistique au Maghreb : lan­
gues, nations et identités.” Revue DiversCité langues, Volume VII, Uni­
versité de Québec. Montréal, pp. 7­15.
– MORENO CABRERA, Carlos. 2001. La dignidad e igualdad de las len-
guas. Crítica de la discriminación lingüística. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
– MOUSTAOUI, Adil. 2010. Diversidad lingüística, identidades y discursos
en Marruecos: la pugna por la legitimidad. Berlin & New York: VDM
Publishing.
– MOUSTAOUI, Adil. 2007. “Minorización, desigualdad y política lin­
güística en Marruecos.” En: Al-andalus Magreb 14, pp. 117­137.
– PATRICK, Peter. 2014. “Language ideology.” En: LG232 Sociolinguistics.
Autumn, pp. 2­4.
– THOMAS, George. 1991. Linguistic purism. London & New York: Longman.
– TRUDGILL, Robert. 1993. Sociolinguistics. An introduction to language
and society. London: Penguin Books.
– TUSÓN, Jesús. 1996. Los prejuicios lingüísticos. Barcelona: Octaedro
– WOOLARD, Kathryn, Schieffelin. Bambi. 1994. “Language Ideology.”
En: Annual Review of Anthropology 23, pp. 55­82.
– YOUSSI, Abderahim. 2013. « Impératifs linguistiques, inerties socio­
culturelles. » En : Langage et Société 1/143, pp. 27­40.
– YOUSSI, Abderahim. 2010. “Can the Moroccans be made to read lite­
rature in darija? Reflections in the light of the translations of A. de St.
Exupéry’s Le petit Prince and S. T. Coleridge’s. The Rime of the An­
cient Mariner”. En: IV Congreso árabe marroquí: más allá de la orali-
dad. Herrero Muñoz. B.; Pérez Cañada, L.M.; Aragón Huerta. M.;
Moscoso García F. (eds). Almería: Editorial Universidad de Almería,
pp. 321­333.
eISBN: 978-84-8344-562-4