498 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [75,1973]

Southern White speech and various British dialects.

A second conflict point is highlighted and hopefully resolved in this volume. Perhaps, finally, an end has come to the filibustering over acceptance of differences in language varieties by linguists and educators.

These articles may bring one to the con- clusion that there are more similarities than differences in Black/White speech relation- ships. On the other hand, one may consider that significant enough differences occur be- tween Black and White speech to warrant calling each a different language.

The fact remains, however, that under- standing and respect for the structure and systematic nature of language varieties in this country is essential, in our attempt to break down the language deprivation hypo- thesis that plagues our society and educa- tional systems.

Black- White Speech Relations points out the need for neophyte and veteran re- searchers alike to make claims about the differences in subcultures on the basis of empirical data. Appraisal of descriptive facts such as those presented in the McDavid- McDavid and Wolfram articles, while less dramatic, make honest contributions to our understanding of language varieties. In sharp contrast is Stewart’s approach of docu- menting claims taken mostly from eighteen- th and nineteenth century literary attesta- tions.

It is of interest to note that the Lorenzo Turner article, written in 1.948, cautions researchers about difficulties of data collec- ting from Black informants of differing ages. Similar caution, because of difficulties in interpreting data, is recommended by Wolf- ram in his 1970 article.

The views presented in Black-White Speech Relations provide a sound beginning for educators and linguists dealing with this issue.

The Arabic Language: Its Role in History. ANWAR G . CHEJNE. Foreword by Philip K. Hitti. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969. x + 240 pp., map, illustrations, notes, list of periodicals, bibliography, index. $6.75 (cloth).

Reviewed by CHARLES FERGUSON Stanford University

At a time when the “ethnography of speaking” is gaining recognition as a field of inquiry (Hymes 1962; Sherzer and Darnell 1972), many anthropologists will welcome this historical account of the role of a particular language in its communities of users. Chejne points to four main functions of Arabic in Arab/Muslim culture: as medium of creative expression in poetry and oratory, as instrument of religion, as the language of a supra-ethnic intellectual cul- ture, and as the “mainstay” of con- temporary Arab nationalism. After a brief sketch of the language itself, he devotes chapters to its codification by the early grammarians, its “development, growth, and decline,” its encounter with the West, and the current views and actions of Arabs with relation to their language. Arabic is an ex- cellent case for historical treatment since it is well documented from the sixth century to the present, was the vehicle of a vast literature in the Middle Ages, and is an important world language today. Also, Arabic is of special interest as an example of a longpersistent diglossia and a language which is central in the social and political ideologies of its users.

The book serves its purposes well in that it gives the non-specialist a full introduction to the position of Arabic in society and its “role in the task of building a nation-state.” The author has drawn on over 500 Arabic works as well as numerous non-Arabic sources; he gives the main features of the history of the role of Arabic and he com- municates the flavor of Arabs’ views of their language.

Anthropologists, linguists, and others concerned with the systematic analysis of social and linguistic change will be dis- appointed in Chejne’s framework of descrip- tion. He follows throughout the familiar metaphor of the language which begins as a “primitive and undernourished language” (p. 38), develops to a maturity characterized by “a rich vocabulary [and] the qualities of simplicity, clarity, precision, and the capacity for expressing abstractions” (p. 66), and then suffers “deterioration. . . in its flexibility, eloquence, and precision” (p. 84) until confrontation with the West and the Arab renaissance. This view of language as a living being and the properties attributed to it are woefully inexact and misleading. In this framework, for example, “deteriora-

LINGUISTICS 499

tion” may refer to such diverse phenomena as reduced output of literature, increased dialect differentiation, diminished knowl- edge of the literary language among the populace, reduction in the total range of lexicon and forms of discourse employed by authors, or introduction of foreign elements into the language. As long as the terminol- ogy is so vague the processes of change in language use can hardly be identified.

Arabists who read the book can carp a t the inevitable typographical errors in the many transliterated Arabic words or quite justifiably criticize Chejne’s uncritical accep- tance of traditional beliefs (e.g., the dialect of the Quraysh was probably not so close t o the ‘Arabiyyah, the rivalry of Kufah and Basrah may be partly a schematization after the fact, etc.). Sociolinguists studying lan- guage development and language planning may wish for more details on such matters as the political processes of Arabization under Ibn Malik (end of sixth century), the exten- sive translation program under Al-Ma’mGn (ninth century) and the formation of the modem standard language. (On this last, details are given in Monteil 1960, which is not cited by Chejne; and valuable studies have appeared since Chejne’s book was writ- ten, including Sa’id 1967, Beeston 1970, and Stetkevych 1970.)

The real shortcoming of the book, how- ever, is one for which the author cannot be held accountable. There is, a t present, no satisfactory conceptual framework in which he could have placed this study so that it could be evaluated, compared with data from other language communities, and made to contribute to some general theories of language in society.

How can one test the extravagant sugges- tion reported by Chejne with some approval (p. 162) that the literary language represents the Arab’s “ideal self” while the colloquial represents his “real self”? How can one compare the great concern of Arab re- formers for modifying or replacing the Arabic script and the Japanese situation where the writing system is typographically much more complex and much less directly related t o pronunciation yet the Japanese language has become an impressive instru- ment of modernization and mass literacy? What are the critical differences between the Arabic and Spanish situations: in both cases a number of countries share a language, but

in one case it is the focal point of a common nationalism and in the other case there is no such focus?

I t is up t o sociolinguistic researchers to provide the needed conceptual framework; for now, we may be grateful for informative case studies like this one.

References Cited

Beeston, A. F. L. 1970 The Arabic Language Today. Lon-

don: Hutchinson University Library. Hymes, Dell

1962 The Ethnography of Speaking. In Anthropology and Human Behavior. T. Gladwin and W. Sturtevant, Eds. Washington, D.C. : Anthropological Society of Washington.

Monteil, V.

sieck. Sa’id, Majed F.

1960 L’Arabe moderne. Paris: Klinck-

1967 Lexical Innovation Through Bor- rowing in Modern Standard Arabic. Princeton Near Eastern Papers No. 6.

1972 Outline Field Guide to the Eth- nographic Study of Speech Use. In Directions in Sociolinguistics. J. J. Gumpen and D. Hymes, Eds. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Sherzer, Joel, and Regna Darnel1

Stetkevych, Jaroslav 1970 The Modern Arabic Literary Lan-

guage: Lexical and Stylistic Develop- ments. Publications of the Center for M i d d l e Eastern Studies, No. 6. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Studies on Kalinga Ullalim and Ifugaw Orthography. FRANCISCO BILLIET and FRANCIS LAMBRECHT. Baguio City, Philippines: The Catholic School Press, 1970. viii + 3 4 1 pp., figures, map, tables. n.p. (paper).

Reviewed by LAWRENCE A. REID University o f Hawaii

I t is rare that one has the opportunity of reading a book that bears the imprint of over fifty years of research by its authors. This book is one of these. Fathers Billiet and Lambrecht, both members of the Missionary Society of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, arrived in the Philippines from Belgium in the early years of this century, and have through their publications become highly