Bukhara Arabic: A Metatypized Dialect of
Arabic in Central Asia
Robert R. Ratcliffe

General Issues
The obscure Arabic dialects spoken in Bukhara state of the Uzbek Republic
are known to scholars primarily through the pioneering work of Vinnikov and
Tsereteli, especially Vinnikov (1969), a collection of narrative texts collected
in 1936, 1938, and 1943 in the two villages of Djogari and Arabkhane. The
dialects have generated considerable interest among Arabic dialectologists,
and have been investigated from the point of view of dialectology and classical historical (genetic) linguistics (Fischer 1961, Fischer and Jastrow 1980,
Jastrow 1997a, 1998, Versteegh 1997). But the materials are of contemporary
interest to a broader linguistic audience because of what they reveal about language contact and syntactic typology. While the dialects are conservative in
their phonology and lexicon, they are radically different from other Arabic
dialects (and correspondingly similar to the surrounding Persian and Turkic
languages) in their syntax and to a lesser extent their morphology. They are so
different indeed as to constitute a case of ‘metatypy’ in the sense of Ross
(1996), that is, change of syntactic type. Furthermore they show a configuration of word order properties (specifically RelN alongside NG and NA) which
is apparently quite rare (possibly otherwise non-existent) among world languages, to judge by its lack of attestation in the 149 language sample of
Hawkins (1983).
The aim of this article is to delineate, on the basis of an analysis of Vinnikov’s texts, those morphological and syntactic features of the dialect which
are of most interest from the point of view of typology and contact studies, in
short to bring the data from this dialect to bear on such larger questions as the
following:
— To what extent can specific structural patterns in or among languages be correlated with specific types of contact situations?
— Are there any limitations on what aspects of a language can change due to contact with another language?
— How are reversals of normal word order patterns implemented in the course of a
change of type?

The analysis is based on the texts from Arabkhane. Reference numbers are the
number of the text in Vinnikov’s collection, followed by the line number.
Vinnikov’s transcription is maintained.

1

Phonology and Lexicon
The dialects are conservative in phonology, preserving the ‘back’ consonants
q, ©, x, ?, and V ( k¢, h¢, æ, g in Vinnikov’s transcription), as well as the ‘emphatic’ (pharyngealized) † and s¢. (One scholar has suggested, however, that
the latter is only an appearance due to Vinnikov’s conservative transcription
(Jastrow 1997)). One phonological innovation likely due to areal influence is
the shift /aa/ > /OO/ kon ‘he was’ < Classical Arabic (henceforth CA) kaana
(Tsereteli 1970).
The lexicon too appears to be overwhelmingly Arabic in origin, although
the texts contain a handful of words of Persian, Turkic, or Russian origin. A
count of one text chosen at random turned up only ten percent vocabulary (tokens) of demonstrably non-Arabic or unknown origin. Some examples of
foreign vocabulary:
(1)
bozor
sartaros#
parc#a
amlokdor

‘market’
‘barber’
‘piece’
‘government official’

< Persian
< Uzbek < Persian
< Turkic
< Ar. /amlaak, pl. of mulk ‘property’ + Persian
daar ‘holder’

The dialects are genetically related to the dialects of Iraq (Jastrow 1998) with
which they share certain innovative lexical and phonological features:
— indefinite article /fad/ < CA fard ‘individual’
— shift of interdental fricatives /T/, /D/, /D¢/ to sibilants /s/, /z/, /z/.

This shift is found elsewhere only in Northern Iraq. The other dialects have
either maintained these sounds (Arabian peninsula dialects) or shifted them to
dental stops /t/, /d/, /d¢/ (all other central dialects).
(2) Some lexemes (for Iraqi see Woodhead and Beene 1967)
‘to give’
‘to ask’
‘head’
‘kid’
‘with’

Iraqi
ni†a
nis#ad
kalla
saxal
ya

Most other dialects
/?a†a/ < CA //a?†aa/
< CA /naSada/ ‘to seek’ CA /sa/ala/
CA ra/s
CA jady
CA ma?a

Morphology and Syntax
In spite of its conservatism in phonology and lexicon, Bukhara Arabic is radically different from CA or the central Arabic dialects in its syntax and (to a
lesser extent) its morphology. Where syntactic and morpho-syntactic structures differ from those of other Arabic dialects, they usually match closely
2

with structures found in one of both of the other languages spoken in Bukhara
state, namely Uzbek (a Turkic language) and Tajik (an Indo-European, specifically Iranian language very close to standard Persian).

Basic Word Orders
The table below indicates basic word orders with less frequently attested word
orders in parentheses. Bold text indicates identity with the Bukhara Arabic
pattern, plain text difference from it.
(3)
Other Arabics
VSO(SVO)
NA
NG
Prep
NRel

Bukhara Arabic
SOV
NA (AN)
NG (GN)
Prep
RelN

Tajik
SOV
NA (AN)
NG
Prep
NRel (RelN)

Uzbek
SOV
AN
GN
Postp
RelN

This configuration of word order properties (specifically RelN alongside NG
and NA) is apparently quite rare (possibly otherwise non-existent) among
world languages (Frederick Newmeyer, personal communication). It is not attested in the 149 language sample of Hawkins (1983), although Hawkins’ information on relative clause/noun order is incomplete (reflecting the fact that
it was not included in Greenberg’s (1966) article on word-order typology
which inaugurated this line of research ). According to the first four word order properties (SOV/Pr/NG/NA) Bukhara Arabic is Greenberg type 17.
Hawkins indicates three other Afroasiatic languages, Iraqw, Akkadian, and
Neo-Aramaic, as well as Persian and Tajik as belonging to this type. All five
are NRel, unlike Bukhara Arabic (for Akkadian see Huehnergard 1997:185
#ff., for Neo Aramaic, Krotkoff 1982: 56–7, for Iraqw, Mous 1993: 277).

Basic Clause Order
Intransitive verbs always show a simple SV pattern:
(4)
fat
faqir
kon
a
poorman
was
‘There was a poorman.’ (56, 1)

(5)
†ole?
rose

fat
adami
min
giddamu
a
man
from
before-him
‘A man rose up before him.’ (51, 9)

3

This is in contrast with other Arabic dialects, where VS is the unmarked order:
Cf. Iraqi (Baghdad Muslim) (Fischer-Jastrow 1980: 155):
(6)
aku
fad
wa©id
faqir
was
a
one
poorman
‘There was a very poor man.’

jiddan
very

Cf. Cairo (Fischer and Jastrow 1980: 230):
(7)
kan
fi
marra
wa©id
was
at
time
one
‘There was once a barber.’

mizayyin
barber

For transitive verbs the simple (S)OV pattern is occasionally found
(8)
fat
?ud
xada
a
stick
took
‘He took a stick.’ (59, 27)

(9)
dabba
ijir
zarab
horse
leg
struck
‘The horse thrashed its legs.’ (59, 31)

But much more commonly transitive verbs also have an encliticized pronoun
referring back to the nominal object or objects: SOV-o, SOOV-oo
(10)
sakina
xada-ha
knife
(he) took-it
‘He took a knife.’ (59, 30)

(11)
xilaf
li-gidday
xubza
an†-u-a
then
to-beggar
bread
gave-him-it
‘Then he gave the beggar a piece of bread.’ (56, 6)

This type of construction is by no means alien to other forms of Arabic, where
a word can be topicalized by being moved to the first position of a sentence,
4

with its syntactic role indicated by a resumptive pronoun. For object-topic
sentences Brustad (2000: 349) gives examples like the following from Egyptian Arabic:
(12)
il-fustan
the-dress
‘I got the dress.’

gibt-u
I-got-it

On the surface this Egyptian example is structurally identical to 59,30, above.
Apparently what has happened in Bukhara Arabic or is happening is the reanalysis of a resumptive pronoun as a verbal inflection agreeing with the object. Whether or not such a reanalysis has been internalized by speakers is perhaps impossible to tell. The important point from a historical linguistic point
of view is that shift from VO to OV is not immediate, but is mediated through
a variant word-order pattern available to the language in the stage where VO
is the unmarked order.

Adjective-Noun
The adjective generally follows the noun (as in CA), except that the adjective
kasir ‘many’, ‘much’ precedes the noun (which is in the singular):
(13)
kasir sana
kasir adami

‘many years’ (43, 5)
‘many men’ (43, 20)

In Tajik too the normal order is NA, though determiners of quantity, superlatives, etc. may come before the noun (Rastorgueva 1992: 94–5).
When the noun precedes the adjective it is linked to it by a particle /-in/
which is formally identical to the Classical Arabic indefinite genitive suffix
(more exactly a genitive suffix -i, plus an indefinite suffix -n) but which functions like the Persian/Tajik ezafe (cf. Fischer and Jastrow 1980: 96). The adjective agrees with the noun in gender.
(14)
?eys#-in aswad
rice-N
black
‘black rice’ (at a funeral ceremony) (40, 2)

(15)
ba©ar-in kabir
river-N
big.MASC
‘a big river’ (51, 20)

5

(16)
xubzat-in zina
bread-N
good.FEM
‘a good piece of bread’ (56, 24)

(17)
xubzat-in
dawonoka
bread- N
poisoned.FEM
‘a poisened piece of bread’ (56, 23)

Cf. Tajik
(18)
kitOb-i xondagi
book-EZ read
‘a read book, a book which has been read’ (Rastorgueva 1992:39)

Genitive Construct
This is generally of the Arabic type with a simple juxtaposition of N and G, or
with pronouns linked by the preposition /ila/ ‘to’:
(19)
mazar
graveyard

?arabin
[of the] Arabs (40, 1)

(20)
raqabet
neck

dabba
[of the] horse (59, 30)

(21)
wald
son

amir
[of the] prince (56, 9)

(22)
mart
wife

ila-y
to-me (57, 4)

Turkic type constructs GN-pro, with a resumptive pronoun are also rarely
found:
(23)
amir
prince

wald-u
son-his

6

‘the prince’s son’ (56, 8)

(24)
s#ib?an
qus#-u
oldman
hawk-his
‘the old-man’s hawk’ (59, 5)

(25)
ilay
ism-i
to-me
name-my
‘my name’ (51, 12)

Cf. Uzbek (Sjoberg1963: 140–141):
(26)
qiz
Ona-si
girl
mother-her
‘girl’s mother’

(27)
men-iN
bir
I-GEN
a
‘friend of mine’

dost-im
friend-POSS1SG

Adpositions
Adpositions are almost exclusively prepositions, as in all forms Arabic. One
example of a complex circumfix was found:
(28)
fi
beyt-u
adrun-u
in
house-his
inside-its
‘inside his house’ (53, 22)

Relative Clause
Lengthy modifier clauses are headed by a form of the Arabic active participle
preceding the modified noun. Not only the word order but also this usage of
the participle is quite foreign to other forms of Arabic. As yet unexplained
elements sometimes intrude between the participle and the modified noun As
noted, it is this feature which makes Bukhara Arabic typologically unusual.
(29)
Iskandar
muqul-un
fad
amir
kon
Alexander
saying-PL(?)
one
prince
was
‘There was a prince (whom they) called Alexander.’ (43, 1)

7

Cf. Turkish, traditional story-telling style (Bernt Brendemoen, personal communication)
(30)
Iskandar
Alexander

derler
say-PL

bir
one

amir-di
prince-was

The normal Arabic dialectal structure for this expression would be something
like:
(31)
kaan
was

(fii)
(exist)

/amiir
prince

ismuh
name-his

Iskandar
Alexander

(32)
fi
ide-h
woquf
qus#-u
il-dabba
zarabu
in
hands-his standing
hawk-his
against-horse
he struck
‘His hawk which was standing (i.e.sitting) on his arm, he struck against the horse.’ (59, 5)

(33)
min
nahar
Vodi-yam
s#ajar
kon
from
river
going-(?)
grass
was
‘There was grass which extended (lit. went) from the river.’ (53, 5)

The normal pattern in Uzbek is the same (Ismatulla 1995, p. 430):
(34)
kitåb
oqiyåt-gan
yigit
özbek
tilini
book
read-PART
youth
Uzbek
language-POSS-ACC
‘The young man who is reading a book knows Uzbek.’

biladi
knows

In Tajik also relative verbs with -gi precede the modified noun (Rastorgueva
1992: 95):
(35)
Omada-gi
Odam
came-PART
man
‘the man who came’

Other Complex Clause Structures
An infinitive formed with suffix -(a)han (see below for discussion of the
possible origin) has a wide range of syntactic roles. In Classical and dialectal
8

Arabic, verbal nouns exists but have a very restricted set of syntactic functions, and are morphologically unproductive.

Infinitive subject constructions
The infinitive or a clause governed by the infinitive may function syntactically as a noun phrase, hence may be the subject of a sentence:
(36)
fi
wa©t
Iskandar
mit-ahan
ma
in
time
Alexandar
die-INF
no
‘In the time of Alexandar there was no death.’ (43, 1)

kon
was

(37)
pos#o il-A©mat-Tura bint-u
on†-ahan fi qalb-u
ma kayin
Pasha to-Ahmat-Tura daughter-HIS give-INF in heart-his not being.ACT.PART
‘The Pasha did not have it in mind to give his daughter to Ahmat Tura.’ (51, 3)

Infinitive plus attached pronoun in indirect speech and temporal clause
This is a characteristic Turkic feature, found also in Tajik (Rastorgueva 1992:
97–99), but completely alien to other forms of Arabic.
(39)
?anza min xaro-h
?áarfa
furux-a
?al
kal-ahan-u
goat from excrement-his knew.ACT.PART offspring-hers about eat-INF-his
‘The goat knew from his excrement that he had eaten her offspring.’ (50, 23)

(40)
is#tu
te?rifum
hat
harami
kayn-ahan-u
how
you-know
this
thief
being-INF- his
‘How do you know that this one is the thief?’ (52, 21)

(41)
hat fi tigara †olahan-u
ras
kon ?end-u-mi, ma kon
?end-u-mi
this in poplar climb-INF-HIS head was to-him-Q
not was to-him- Q
‘When this (man) climbed up the poplar, did he have a head or not? (54, 10)

(42)
wa!©t-in
s#i
kal-ahan-u,
mana-hu
kom
time-N(?) something eat-INF-his
chin-his
was
‘When he ate something, his chin was moving.’ (54, 13)

mifta!raq
moving.ACT.PART

(43)
ana hat
I
these

xaruf-at
story-PL

wa©t-in
time-N

mit?ilm-ahan-i
learn-INF-my

9

fat
a

?a#Ser
ten

xams
five

kunt
I-was

‘I was a (boy of) fifteen when I learned these stories.’ (67, n.)

Infinitive temporal clauses
(44)
kasir
darb
sayr-ahan
xilaf
many
road
go-INF
after
‘After travelling many roads…’ (51, 14)

In Uzbek a similar construction exists using the converb based on the participle in -gan (Sjoberg 155):
(45)
bir
paz
otir-gan-dan
a
while sit-PART-ABL
‘after sitting a while’

keyin
after

(46)
mihmOn
kel-gan
guests
come-PART
‘when the guests came’

waqt-ta
time-LOC

Serial Verb Constructions
Coordinate
When a series of coordinate verbs occurs in sequence, no conjunction intervenes.
(47)
xilaf ?ayyan:
iyetimu
mou,
†oleh,
hareb,
Vodi
after he-saw
farmhand
not-he
rising
escaping
going
‘Then he saw: the farmhand was not there, he had gotten up, run away and gone.’ (59, 33)

(48)
xilaf
mahrutat-u
laqa†
xada
then
pieces-(of)-it gathered
took
‘Then he gathered up the pieces of it.’ (59, 16)

(49)
suxul ?anza
min ba†en hays#a bi-ki-ki-ki sowat,
†ol?at
kids nannygoat from belly wolf
bikikiki
doing.FEM.PL rosing up.FEM.PL
‘Saying (lit. doing) bikikiki the nannygoat’s kids came out of the wolf’s belly.’ (50, 15)

(50)
fi
in

mu
water

farru,
jumped

Vadu,
went

Varq
drowning

10

s¢oru.
became

‘They jumped in the water, went down, and drowned.’ (43, 13)

Subordinate
A commonly found compound verb structure consists of the active participle
of the verb ‘to stand’/woqf/ (CA waaqif) dominating a finite verb in the
present/future:
(51)
hinti
is#
mi-s-sin
you.FEM what
PRES/FUT-you.FEM-do
‘What are you doing?’ (59, 20)

woqf-in-ki
standing.ACT.PART-N-you.FEM

(52)
ana c#ipon
iley-kum
m-a-xit-u
I
coat
to-you
PRES/FUT-I-sew-it
‘I am sewing your coat.’ (59, 21)

woqf-an-i
standing-N-I

According to Masica (1976: 155) this is a Central Asian areal feature. It is
found in Tajik (istodan), though not in Persian, and more common in Uzbek
(turmak) than in Turkish:
(53)

Tajik

man
maktub
naviSta
I
letter
writing.PART
‘I am writing a letter.’

(54)

istoda-am
standing-am

Uzbek

xat
yåzib
turib-man
letter write-CONV stand- CONV-1SG
‘I am writing a letter.’

Morphological Peculiarities
Common Arabic morphemes lost:
— Unlike any of the core dialects, Bukhara Arabic has lost the definite article.
— The conjunction /wa/ ‘and’ was not found in any of the texts I examined.
Nouns are conjoined with /ya/ ‘with’. Verbs are simply strung together without a conjunction. I suspect that the use of different conjunction types for
nouns and verbs is a typological characteristic of SOV languages, although
the question needs research.
Use of Arabic morphemes in a non-Arabic way
—Use of the reflex of CA kaana (a copula verb required only in the past tense
in CA) as an existential.
11

This usage is found otherwise only at the other end of the Arabic dialect
continuum in Moroccan Arabic, under Berber or possibly Romance influence.
—Use of active (present) participle as main verb with past tense meaning
Both of these features are illustrated by the following example:
(55)
fat
pos#o
kayin
a
pasha being
‘There was a pasha.’ (51, 1)

— Use of the active (present) participle plus -Vn suffix plus a possive suffix
pronoun as a finite verb with present or present continuous sense.
(56)
ana
ma
?arf-an-i
I
not
knowing-N(?)-my
‘I don’t know.’ (59, 10)

The same development has occurred in Eastern Neo-Aramaic (Jastrow 1997)
under Kurdish influence. In both Persian and Turkic languages the clitic pronouns which mark verbal subject are similar to those which mark possessor.
The CA possessor pronoun clitics are similar to object clitics but not to subject marking suffixes. My hypothesis is that the Turkic/Persian isomorphism
has motivated the reanalysis of Arabic possessives as subject clitics (or at
least as available for use in that role).

Use of Clitic pronouns
(57)
Other Arabic
Bukhara Arabic
Persian
Turkic

Possession
X
X
X
X

Subject
—
X
X
X

Object
X
X
X
—

— Use of an uninflected form of kon (CA kaana) plus m- prefix present/future in the sense of past progressive or past habitual:
(58)
hamat
?eys#
kom
m-isun,
they.FEM food
were
PRES/FUT-making
‘They were making food and cooking it.’ (40, 26)

kom
were

m-i†baxun-u
PRES/FUT-cooking-it

The CA pattern is to use the inflected past verb kaana plus an inflected
12

present.
(59)
hunna
kun-na
they.FEM
were-FEM.PL
‘They were cooking.’

ya†bax-na
cook-FEM.PL

(60)
hum
kaan-uu
they.MASC
were-MASC.PL
‘They were cooking.’

ya†bax-uuna
cook- MASC.PL

This is possibly due to a tendency of SOV languages to inflect only the last
verb in a sequence, although government should be right to left, not left to
right as here.
— Participial relative construction (see Relative clause)

New morphemes and particles gained
(61) From Tajik or Persian (ultimately):
/ki/
/na/

particle introducing indirect speech (also in Turkic)
verb negator (less common than the inherited Arabic /ma/, it appears in
the texts examined only in the speech of female speakers)
/ham/, /yam/ ‘also’ (also found in Iraqi Arabic)
/hast/
present tense existential particle ‘there is’ (also in Iraqi Arabic)
/agar/
‘if’ (in addition to the inherited Arabic /hin/) (also in Turkic)

(62) From Turkic:
/mi/
/tar/
/c#i/

interogative marker
copula ? (or Persian compartive suffix?)
profession suffix (also in Iraqi and other Eastern dialects of Arabic)

Examples:
(63)
duki
qoyla
ki
that one.FEM
said.ACT.PART
that
‘She said ‘I don’t know either.’ (54, 13)

‘ana-yam
I -too

(64)
qol
ki
xubza
?and-ak-mi
HE said
that
bread
to-you-Q
‘He said ‘Do you have any bread’ (56, 11)

13

na-m-a?rif’
no-PRES/FUT-I know

(65)
ilay
min
dámmi
te!?bir
agar,
m-a-qul
to me
from
blood-my you-cross
if
PRES/FUT-I-say
‘If you spare my life (lit.blood), I will tell (you).’ (43, 30)

(66)
wa©edu qol ki
jild-a a©mar-tar wa©edu qol ki adrun-a abyas-tar
one
said that skin-its red-COMP one
said that inside-its white- COMP
‘One said ‘Its skin is more red’. One said ‘Its inside is more white’.’ (53, 25)

Source unknown
/-(a)han/

infinitive suffix (related to Tajik infinitive -an or Uzbek -g/k/qan?)

Fischer (1961) interprets it as an based on the Arabic verbal noun pattern (one
of several) fa?alaan, influenced by resemblance to Tajik infinitive -an, attached to feminine participle form ending in -a, hence requiring -h- in hiatus.
/-ak(in)/ only used with past tense of ‘come and ‘go’ (completive aspect?) possibly
Tajik -gi participle suffix + Arabic tanwin
/m-/
general present/future prefix (related to E. Arabic /b-/ or Pers. /mi-/?/)
/ta-/
jussive prefix (possibly contracted from Arabic ©attaa or Pers. taa)
/-am/
participle suffix (?)

Conclusion: Parameters of Contact
Although it is not always traditionally defined so, historical linguistics can be
defined as a discipline which attempts to correlate structural patterns within or
among languages with the history of the communities speaking those languages. Traditionally historical linguistics has focused on only one such correlation: the genetic relationship. In this case systematic correspondences (in
phonology and morphology) between languages make possible the inference
that the languages had a common source. But genetic relationship is only one
possible type of historical relationship which can obtain between languages,
and there is no particular reason why it should be privileged. Rather than trying to strip away the residue of contact as a hindrance to discovering genetic
relationships, the question which students of language contact should be asking is ‘is it possible to correlate specific types of structural similarity between
languages with particular types of contact situations?’ If a positive answer can
be given, then the study of language contact can aspire to the same degree of
rigor as traditional genetic linguistics.
As a rough outline, let me suggest the following: Contact situations can be
defined along two parameters: direction of influence and degree of bilingualism. By direction of influence I mean the dichotomy of ‘shift’ and ‘borrowing’ as these terms are used by Thomason and Kaufman (1988). Speakers may
either shift to a second language, in which case the first language is assumed
14

to influence how they speak the second language. Direction of influence is L1
to L2. Or speakers continue to speak their original language but their speech is
influenced by a second language which they know: They ‘borrow’ from the
second language (Direction of influence L2 to L1). Degree of bilingualism refers to the extent to which the whole speech community commands the second language. This parameter is clearly a continuum rather than a dichotomy.
Within these parameters four cardinal points can be described.
(67)
Level of L2 knowledge
maximal
⇑
⇓
minimal

Language Contact situations
Direction of Influence
L1 > L2 (‘shift’)
L1< L2 (‘borrowing’)
‘substrate influence’
?

‘pidgin/creole’

‘adstrate influence’
‘cultural borrowing’

Maximal bilingualism with shift would describe the classic substrate situation, where a population (usually a politically weak one) over the course of
centuries shifts to another language (usually that of a politically dominant
group): Celtic to Romance or Germanic in NW Europe; Berber, Coptic, Aramaic to Arabic in the Middle East and North Africa. The expected linguistic
result is primarily in phonology, particularly in suprasegmental phonology,
stress and intontation. Typically lexical influence is minimal, morphological
influence non-existent, although oddities of word order and expression may
be found. If the shifting population is large enough the language of the orignal
L2 community may be affected as well.
The second case minimal bilingualism with shift describes the more drastic
situation of pidgin formation. Speakers do not have adequate time or opportunity to acquire native-like L2, but are forced to communicate with L2 speakers. In these cases lexicon is clearly taken from L2 (the ‘lexifier-language’),
morphology is generally supposed to be lost altogether. Whether syntax and
phonology are necessarily derived from L1 or supplied by universal principles
is a topic of debate.
The third case, borrowing with minimal bilingualism describes cultural
borrowing or ‘adstrate influence.’ A small group of scholars or traders are in
contact with and may have a high knowledge of the L2, the majority of the
community does not know it. This is the case with the influence of Chinese on
Japanese, Latin and Greek on English, Arabic on Turkish. Somewhat higher
levels of bilingualism were no doubt involved in the influence of Arabic on
Persian, Arabic on Berber, or French on English.
Finally we come to the case of borrowing with maximal bilingualism. In
this case the entire community is fluent in an L2 (which is thus only a ‘second’ language from the historical point of view) and this influences their L1. I
15

know of two documented cases— the famous case of Kupwar in India
(Gumperz & Wilson 1971), where Kanada (Dravidian), Marathi (IndoAryan), and Urdu (Indo-Aryan) come into contact and a more recently documented set of cases (Ross 1996) in Papua New Guinea, where Austronesian
languages (Takia and Maisin) come into contact with Papuan languages. For
the Kupwar case Gumperz & Wilson (1971: 154) observe:
“A historical linguist would readily identify particular texts as from a deviant dialect of
Kannada, Marathi, or Urdu. What would be missed is that sentence-by-sentence comparison of natural conversation texts in all three main local varieties reveals an extraordinary degree of translatability from one local utterance to the other.
…The sentences in this example are lexically distinct in almost every respect, yet
they have identical grammatical categories and identical constituent structures… What
seems to have happened in these informal varieties is a gradual adaptation of grammatical differences to the point that only morphophonemic differences (differences of
lexical shape) remain.”

And Ross (1996) observes for the New Guinea cases:
“It is important to note here that all the Papuan features of Takia have to do with morphosyntactic structures. Where grammatical morphemes participating in these structures can be sourced (by way of cognates in other languages), their forms are invariably
W[estern] Oc[eanic].” (1996: 188)
“We could continue this catalogue of syntactic parallels further.. However, it is more
important to conclude by pointing out what has not occurred in Takia. There has not
been much lexical borrowing from Waskia [a Papuan language]. And there is no sign
that Takia phonology has undergone any major changes.” (1996: 192)
“Extensive though the Papuanisation of Maisin has been, its Papuan features (like
those in Takia) are all morphosyntactic structures. Careful reconstruction reveals that
the forms are of P[apuan] T[ip] origin.” (1996: 194)

In short the pattern observed in these cases is that morphosyntactic structure
(word order and use of morphological formatives) and perhaps semantic function conforms with surrounding languages while the phonological form of
words and formatives are cognate with those of genetically related languages
located farther away. This description largely fits the Bukhara Arabic case, although there does appear to be some borrowing of the form, not just function
of morphological formatives and particles. Moreover, the situation is complicated by the fact that the two surrounding languages, Uzbek and Tajik, are not
entirely convergent in syntactic structures. In general it seems that Bukhara
Arabic is converging toward the Uzbek pattern, that is toward a consistently
head final or harmonic SOV type. There is only one syntactic structure found
in Bukhara Arabic and Tajik but not in Uzbek or most other forms of Arabic.
That is the Noun-linker-Adjective pattern. As regards the sociolinguistic situation which this linguistic situation reflects, the Indian and New Guinea cases
would lead us to suspect that there is extensive bi-(or multi-)lingualism and
that the original L1 is maintained prinicpally as a vehicle of in-group communication and a symbol of identity:
16

“As far as can be determined, almost all local men are bi- or multi-lingual….There is
every indication that the Kannada-speaking Jain cultivators and the Marathi-speaking
service castes have both been in the region for more than six centruies. The Urduspeaking Muslims date from the days of Moghul domination threee or four centruies
ago. Bilingualism in Kupwar is thereore a long-standing tradition. Why has it been
maintained for so long?
Information obtained from living in the village over a period of several months suggests that the major factor in language maintenance is that the local norms or values require strict separation beween public and private (intra-kin group) spheres of activity.”
(Gumperz & Wilson 1971: 153).
“For many New Guinea bilinguals (‘bilingual’ here also subsumes ‘multilingual), one
of their languages is emblematic of that ethnicity…. Both the emblematic language and
the intergroup languages are ‘native’ in the sense that they are acquired together in infancy.” (Ross 1996: 181).

Whether this expectation is borne out in the Bukhara Arabic case awaits the
results of further research.
(68)
Contact situation
Max. shift (substrate)
Min. shift (pidgin)
Min. borrowing
(adstrate)
Max. borrowing

Phonology
L1 (L2)
UG? (L1)
L1
L1

Structural correlate
Morphology
Lexicon
L2
L2
UG?
L2
L1
L2 (L1)
L1(L2)

L1

Syntax
L2 (L1)
UG? L1? (L2?)
L1
L2

References
Brustad, K.E. (2000) The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: A Comparative Study of Moroccan, Egyptian,
Syrian, and Kuwaiti Dialects, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Cowan, W. (1967) ‘Sound Change in Central Asian Arabic’, Der Islam 43: 134–138.
Fischer, W. (1961) ‘Die Sprache der arabischen Sprachinsel in Uzbekistan’, Der Islam 36: 232–
263
Fischer, W. and Jastrow O. (1980) Handbuch der Arabischen Dialekte, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz.
Greenberg, J. (19662) ‘Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of
Meaningful Elements’, in J.H. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Language, Cambridge, Ma.:
MIT Press, PAGES
Gumperz, J.J. and Wilson R. (1971) ‘Convergence and Creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan/
Dravidian Border in India’, in D. Hymes (ed.) Pidginization and Creolization of Languages,
Cambridge: University Press, PAGES
Hawkins, J.A. (1983) Word Order Universals. San Diego: Academic Press.
Huehnergard, J. (1997) A Grammar of Akkadian, Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press.
Ismatulla, Kh. (1995) Modern Literary Uzbek, Bloomington: Indiana University.
Jastrow, O. (1998) ‘Zur Position des Uzbekistan-Arabischen’, in Annäherung an das Fremde:
XXVI. deutscher Orientalistentag vom 12. bis 29.9.1995 in Leipzig, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner
Verlag, 173–184.
— (1997a) ‘Wie arabisch ist Uzbekistan-Arabisch?’, in E. Wardini (ed.) Built on Solid Rock:
Studies in Honour of Professor Ebbe Egede Knudsen. Oslo: Novus Forlag, 141–153.
— (1997b) ‘The Neo-Aramaic Languages’, in R. Hetzron (ed.) The Semitic Languages, London:

17

Routledge. PAGES
Krotkoff, G. (1982) A Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Kurdistan: Texts, grammar, and vocabulary, New
Haven, Ct.: American Oriental Society.
Masica, C.P. (1976) Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mous, M. (1992) A Grammar of Iraqw, Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.
Rastorgueva. V.S. (1992) A Short Sketch of Tajik Grammar, trans. by H.H. Paper. Bloomington:
Indiana University.
Ross, M. (1996) ‘Contact-induced Change and the Comparative Method: Cases from Papua New
Guinea’, in M. Durie and M. Ross (eds) The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and
Irregularity in Language Change. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Sjoberg, A.F. (1963) Uzbek Structural Grammar, Bloomington: Indiana University.
Thomason, S.G, and T. Kaufmann (1988) Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics, Berkely: University of California Press.
Tsereteli, G.V. (1970) ‘The Influence of the Tajik Language on the Vocalism of Central Asian
Arabic Dialects’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 33: 167–170.
Versteegh, K. (1997) The Arabic Language, Edinburgh: University Press.
Vinikov, I.N. (1969) Jazyk i folklor Buxarskix Arabov. Moscow: Nauka.
Weinrich, U. (1963) Languages in Contact, The Hague: Mouton.
Woodhead, D.R. and W. Beene (1967) A Dictionary of Iraqi Arabic: Arabic-English, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to Akio Nakano for alerting me to the existence of these texts and for considerable help in
deciphering them, to Olga Kapeliuk for updating my bibliography and sending me a number of
articles I could not readily find in Tokyo, to Tooru Hayasi, Éva Á. Csató, and Lars Johanson for
first allowing me to present this material in a forum they organized in Tokyo in 1997 on peripheral Altaic languages, and especial thanks to Éva Á. Csató (again), Bo Isaksson, and Uppsala
University for making possible my participation in this extremely stimulating forum.

List of abbreviations
ABL
ACT
CA
COMP
CONV
EZ
FEM
INF
LOC
MASC
N
PART
PL
POSS
PRES/FUT
Q
SG

ablative
active
Classical Arabic
comparative
converb
ezafet
feminine
infinitive
locative
masculine
????
participle
plural
possessive
present/future
question particle
singular

18