Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language: Origins, Developments and Current Directions 9789048542901

Table of contents :
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
List of Abbreviations
Arab World Map
Introduction
1. The Historical Background
2. The Birth of a New Branch
3. Growth (1970s)
4. Development (1980s)
5. New Challenges (1990s)
6. In the Twenty-first Century (2000-2010)
7. The Present Period
Conclusions
List of Events
A TAFL Who’s Who (1958-2018)
TAFL Institutes (1958-2018)
Tables
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language

Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language Origins, Developments and Current Directions

Andrea Facchin

Amsterdam University Press

Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Typesetting: Crius Group, Hulshout isbn 978 94 6372 060 1 e-isbn 978 90 4854 290 1 (pdf) doi 10.5117/9789463720601 nur 616 © Andrea Facchin / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2019 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Every effort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher.



Table of Contents

Acknowledgments 7 Transliteration 8 List of Abbreviations Arab World Map

9 10

Introduction 11 Genesis of the Research 16 Research Questions 17 Methodology 20 Arrangement of the Present Study 21 1 The Historical Background The ‘Early Period’ The Colonial Period Open Doors

25 27 33 39

2 The Birth of a New Branch

47

3 Growth (1970s) Terminology Methods Broader Debates

61 68 69 72

4 Development (1980s) Broader Debates Methods Terminology Scholarly Production

87 95 98 103 104

5 New Challenges (1990s) Terminology Broader Debates Methods Scholarly Production

123 130 130 137 145

6 In the Twenty-first Century (2000-2010) Broader Debates Methods Scholarly Production

161 167 176 184

7 The Present Period Broader Debates Methods Scholarly Production

197 202 211 216

Conclusions 227 List of Events

237

A TAFL Who’s Who (1958-2018)

243

TAFL Institutes (1958-2018)

249

Tables 251 On the Approaches of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language in Short 251 The Direct Method 252 The Traditional Method 253 The Grammar-Translation Method 253 The Phonetic Method 254 The Whole-Word Method 254 The Aural-Oral Orientation 255 Structuro-Global Audio-Visual (SGAV) Method 255 Bourguiba School Method 256 Eclectic Method 256 Communicative Approach 257 Learner-Centered Orientation 257 The Integrated Approach 258 Bibliography 259 Index 305

Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratefulness to Professor Antonella Ghersetti of Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, who has given me guidance through a marvelous PhD path, for she has read, carefully commented and provided me with useful advice on research work. Special thanks also go to Professor Jan Jaap de Ruiter of Tilburg University and Professor Indalecio Lozano Cámara of Universidad de Granada, who read the study and offered positive and enriching considerations on the whole work, giving me the opportunity to implement and improve it. Informal readers of the thesis must also be mentioned, for they have provided very appreciated, valuable help. Among them, my wife, Carolina, for she not only presented precise notes on the passages handed to her, but also always gave me unconditional support at any time. Then my family, both my parents and in-laws, and my cousin, who encouraged me during the phases of hard work. Their experience and attentive observation of life inspired me. Last but not least, I thank other precious people that I have met either along the path or during research periods abroad, in Tunisia, the Netherlands, Finland, Egypt, Canada, the United Arab Emirates, the United States and Saudi Arabia. These people listened with interest to me and my passionate speeches on the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language in such focused ways that they directly (or indirectly) gave me strength to pursue my objectives and continue my research. These people are Anneke de Graaf and the expert group on Arabic language at Cito Netherlands: Azzedine Ahbout, Karim Laaraj, Fadil Azzarouali, Ali Liazid, Professor Geert Borg of Twente University and Monique Bernards of the School of Abbasid Studies. To them I add professors Ida Zilio Grandi, Francesco Grande, Marco Salati, Massimo Khairallah, Graziano Serragiotto, Fabio Caon, Paolo Balboni of Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Professor Amel Arbi of the Bourguiba School in Tunis and the exceptional staff met at Université de Tunis El Manar – Faculté de Science Humaines, Ez-zitouna University of Tunis and King Fahd National Library of Riyadh; the organizers of Le CECRL et la didactique de l’arabe conference held at Université du Québec à Montréal in October 2014; Eleni Papaioannou; the young researchers making presentations at Jil Jadid 2016 at the University of Texas at Austin, and my PhD colleagues.

Transliteration ‫ء‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ج‬ ‫ح‬ ‫خ‬ ‫د‬ ‫ذ‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ز‬ ‫س‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ص‬

ʾ b t t

ǧ ḥ ḫ d d r z s š ṣ

‫ض‬ ‫ط‬ ‫ظ‬ ‫ع‬ ‫غ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ل‬ ‫م‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ه‬ ‫و‬ ‫ي‬

ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y



List of Abbreviations

AATA ABEGS ACTFL AFL ALCC ALECSO

American Association of Teachers of Arabic Arab Bureau of Education for the Gulf States American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages Arabic as a Foreign Language Arabic Language and Culture Center of Cairo University Arab League Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization Arabic Language Learning and Teaching ALLT Arabic Proficiency Test APT Arabic as a Second Language ASL American University in Cairo AUC Common European Framework of Reference for Languages CEFR Council of Europe CoE Foreign Language FL Foreign Language Teaching FLT Anno Hegirae H Heritage Language HL Institut Bourguiba des Langues Vivantes IBLV ISESCO Islamic Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization International University of Africa IUA First Language, mother tongue L1 Second Language L2 Modern Standard Arabic MSA Second Language SL Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language TAFL Teaching Arabic as a Second Language TASL TASOL Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization WFAIIS World Federation of Arab Islamic International Schools

Management School TAFL program (1988) Maʿhad Mauritania (1997)

Rabat Symposium (1980)

Instituto de Estudios Islámicos Madrid Symposium (1959) Arabele2009 Arabele2012

TAFL Centre (1982)

MECAS (1948-1978) AUB AFL program (2001) Maʿhad al-Mustansiriyah

Aleppo University TAFL Program (2006)

Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm (1974) Khartoum Symposia (1980, 1981, 1982) International University of Africa Institute (1994) Symposia of Khartoum (2000, 2003) Meeting of Khartoum (2003)

Yarmouk Language Center (1979) Markaz ʿAmmān (1979) Maʿhad al-Qāhira (1964) Maʿhad al-Zarqāʾ (1994) Kuwait Symposium (1981) CASA (1967) Conference of Amman (2008) Symposium of Cairo (1978) Symposium of Doha (1981) AUC TAFL Master (1979) Markaz al-Dawḥa (1987) Cairo University ALCC (1991) Doha TAFL Conference (2016) Markaz al-Azhar (2010) Meeting of Cairo (2013) Abu Dhabi Forum (2013) Medina TAFL Division (1966) Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ (1974) Medina Symposium (1981) Dhad Institute Riyadh Symposium (1978) Maʿhad al-Madīna (2001) (2004) Arabic Language Teaching Institute (1981) Arabic for All (2001) Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà (1975) Conference of Riyadh (2009) Maʿhad Ğudda (2010) Princess Nourah University TAFL Institute (2012)

TAFL Division (1970s)

Bourguiba School (1964) Meeting of Tunis (1991)

Arab World Map

Figure 1 Map of the Arab world with the most important institutes and meetings in the field of Teaching Arabic as Foreign Language

Introduction This study is focused on the genesis, developments and current directions of the discipline called Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language (TAFL) within the Arab world between 1958 and 2018. The goal of this research is to outline a historical overview of the evolution of the discipline from the onset to the present. Although the study focuses mostly on the last 60 years, a general analysis of the previous period is given in order to allow the reader to understand the historical contexts of today’s trends. The most influential scholars, authors, educators and those significant works that contributed to the development of the discipline are all considered. In addition, special attention is paid to the TAFL institutes, which are regarded as epicenters of the activities and important meetings, allowing scholars to gather around the same table and discuss approaches, trends and methods used in the TAFL field. All these aspects converge in one comprehensive study – the first of its kind – which is enriched by the narration of the main sociopolitical changes that have affected the Middle Eastern region in latter-day history. Recent years have seen the publication of some influential works in the TAFL field (e.g., Wahba, Taha, and England; Aguilar, Pérez Cañada, and Santillán Grimm; Ryding 2013; Aguilar et al.; Younes 2015; Alhawary 2018b; al-Batal 2018; Wahba, England, and Taha). These seminal publications report the best practices, scientific advance and brand-new perspectives in the field, which mainly describe TAFL in European and North American contexts, besides some significant contributions concerning Arab experiences (e.g., Nahla; al-Rajhi; Awaiss; Chekayri 2010). The fact that such a prolific piece of writing is witnessed outside the Arab world can be explained through the words of some Arab TAFL authors (Makkī; Fahmī; Badawi 1992a; al-ʿUṣaylī 2002), who pointed out that the discipline is the fruit of the interplay between Arab and non-Arab scholars. In this sense, the aforementioned works take into account an important slice of the literature on TAFL. Nevertheless, today there is little knowledge on the debates and discussions carried out by Arab TAFL scholars within their homelands during the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the present one. Furthermore, no complete study on the topic has been published yet. In this light, the influential publications cited above together with other earlier examples (Abboud 1968; al-Batal 1995) represent excellent contributions to the field, though they still lack a wider Arab perspective on the topic. The aim of the present work is hence to eliminate this gap in the writings in the most satisfactory way possible; that is to say that the research intends

12 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

to shed light on the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language, taking into consideration the discussions and written production of Arab TAFL scholars who have dedicated their efforts to this field since its dawn. It does so by unearthing scholars’ viewpoints on TAFL, a discipline that distinguishes itself from the teaching of other foreign languages for it comprises certain skills and hallmarks, chosen among other aspects to represent the Arabic language, its traditions, specificities and legacy that will be unraveled within this study. The Arab perspective on the topic is stressed by outlining a status quaestionis, so that what was and is written in the Arab world does not remain encaged within the Arab states’ national boundaries. With this in mind, emphasis is put on scholars’ provenances, background studies, readings and influences. As a matter of fact, many Arab TAFL scholars have found inspiration either from famous Arab intellectuals like Sībawayhi, Ibn Ǧinnī, Ibn Ḫaldūn or from North American and European scholars of the recent era, who have dealt with linguistics in general, such as Ferdinand de Saussure, Leonard Bloomfield, Robert Lado and Noam Chomsky. Their works have been read in translation or in the original. For instance, the TAFL Tunisian author Riḍā al-Swīsī took particular stances in his work issued in 1979, as he refused the traditional method of language teaching and embraced the structural one. This choice was derived from his readings, especially those of French background, which mainly concentrated on the teaching of French abroad and the Structuro-Global Audio-Visual (SGAV) methodology. Thus, the study uses a comparative approach, which considers the theories that took root within the Arab world and puts them in connection with the general trends of foreign language teaching outside the region. Teaching philosophies promoted by Arab TAFL authors are examined and then compared to the original theories from which they stem. In some cases, in fact, authors exhibited different methodological views since they were influenced by divergent readings. In this way the study aims to contextualize background information and draw a clearer picture of the theories that have been influencing TAFL. Moreover, it provides a snapshot of the TAFL research environment and the scholars who both took part in its debate and developed it. The teaching of Arabic as a foreign language is also analyzed through geographical and historical perspectives. On the one hand, the study examines broader debates and scholarly production in TAFL in the whole Arab world, with special attention to three countries, namely Tunisia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The research, in fact, started with the ascertainment that these three nations have played a key role in the development of the discipline and continue to exercise decisive influence today. The analysis carried

Introduc tion

13

out in the study will better contextualize this general assumption, beyond disclosing other realities and adding more details from the geographical viewpoint. For this reason, the significant contributions issued outside this geographical area are also incorporated; in particular, the scientific production and broader discussions of other Arab states, North America, Europe, Southeast Asia and South America. On the other hand, the historical overview sheds light on the developments of TAFL decade after decade. The chronological division of the chapters (1 to 7) is designed to highlight the characteristics of each period, distinguish among them, and identify their respective main trends and research focuses. It does so through the words of famous scholars and Arabists, who contributed in developing and enriching this study area, starting as a simple branch of applied linguistics and then turning into an independent field and finally reaching the status of a full-fledged discipline. As a result, a multitude of topics developed within TAFL debates over the years are analyzed in the present work. Some of them are stressed more than others, like teaching methods, proficiency, testing, etc., while others are considered only in part. For instance, TAFL teachers’ training, AFL learners’ problems and difficulties, curriculum design, syllabi, and textbook drafting are mentioned underlining their most important examples. Similarly, the debate on the Basic Arabic course (kitāb asāsī), which kept Arab TAFL scholars busy during the 1980s, is extensively discussed for it represents a fundamental step in TAFL development. Moreover, since TAFL is historically plentiful in notable examples of textbooks and courses, an examination of such an important topic was included in the historical overview. Some renowned examples of textbooks are therefore discussed,1 although transversal comparative studies on TAFL textbook production are to be viewed as needed. Particular attention is paid to scales of levels, guidelines, placement and proficiency tests. Such themes constituted a real challenge and were selected among others because of their relative hold on TAFL debates. For instance, in Chapters 3 and 4 the incubation of the Arabic Proficiency Tests (APTs) drafted in the United States between 1967 and 1974 is narrated, thus included in the general historical analysis, so as to highlight the status quaestionis concerning APT. In addition, teaching philosophies are extensively discussed in the work, together with their practical applications, which do not always correspond 1 See the Arabic Language Learning Textbook section in the bibliography at the end of the book.

14 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

to theories. For example, during the 1960s and 1970s the use of Arabic as the only vehicular language in the classroom was promoted in Tunisia. This stance was later confirmed by some Tunisian scholars, who included it in the theoretical principles on which lessons should have been carried out. On a practical level, however, this did not match the teaching realities, since a certain use of French was witnessed in class. This situation was not unique to Tunisia though. On the contrary, the gap between theory and practice represents a trend consistently observed in the TAFL field in many learning environments both within and outside the Arab world. In this sense, Alhawary (2018a) has recently affirmed that constant awareness is needed to address the disconnect between Second Language learning findings and actual teaching practices in the classroom. Hence, the reflections on TAFL approaches and methods reported in this study should be mainly considered on the theoretical level, since they are derived from the words, statements and declarations of eminent TAFL scholars, who provided limited evidence of such practical classroom applications and empirical data. These latter still have to be further collected and investigated. Although the study provides the reader with insight into scholarly TAFL production, broader debates and a wide range of topics within fifteen Arab countries throughout the last 60 years, it is still far from being exhaustive and I firmly hold that more studies in the field are needed. Moreover, experts may argue that little attention is paid to the relationship between Modern Standard and Colloquial Arabic. In this light, it should be clarified that the choice of putting MSA first was driven by the examples found in TAFL literature itself, which favors MSA and leaves little – if not any – room for dialects for reasons linked to the ideology of language (see Ferguson 1959a, 1990, [1991] 1996; Kaye, p. 40; Badawi 1973; Donner; Milroy; Bassiouney, p. 13). To this extent, one should mention the anecdote reported by Bassiouney (p. 13) and originally narrated by Ferguson (1990, p. 44), when the American linguist himself highlighted the discrepancy between Arabs’ perceptions of their language use and the actual one. A distinguished Iraqi scholar declared that the only Arabic he spoke was MSA, which was in his opinion the only Arabic useful in teaching; however, when answering his wife on the phone, he asked her, ‘š-lōn-ki?’ (‘How are you?’) in Baghdadi Arabic. The discrepancy witnessed in this brief exchange is also reflected in the TAFL field, where MSA is considered the only useful language and worthy of teaching (i.e., Ḥassān 1983; al-Qumāṭī 1992; al-ʿUṣaylī 2002), while colloquial varieties are either rarely mentioned or never considered. Nonetheless, the present work does not intend to analyze these ideological aspects, which lie outside the main focus of the study, namely the historical overview on TAFL. For

Introduc tion

15

prolonged periods the ‘age-old and ceaseless debate’ (Ryding 1991) on ‘which’ variety to teach has taken the lion’s share to the detriment of ‘how’ to teach in the discussions revolving around the Arabic language within and outside the Arab world. In this sense, the work tries to raise awareness of TAFL, which has often been considered a secondary issue and consequently set aside in favor of other more urgent questions. As a general rule, Arabic in all its forms is considered. However, the implications of teaching Colloquial Arabic to non-Arabs are examined only when Arab TAFL scholars explicitly carry out analyses on the topic (e.g., Abdel-Malek; Younes 1990a, 1990b, 1995; Woidich and Heinen-Nasr 1995, 1998, 2004; Woidich; Chekayri 2011; Moscoso and Rodríguez; Soliman 2014). Hence, from a terminological point of view, Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language refers to MSA, while other expressions and acronyms are used to distinguish it from the study of colloquial varieties, i.e., Teaching Colloquial Egyptian Arabic as a Foreign Language (TCEAFL) as well as TMAFL for Moroccan Arabic. In this light, a clarification must be made before moving on to more in-depth reflections. Indeed, since the focus of the study is the teaching of Arabic to foreigners within the Arab world, one may argue that the most proper expression to be used is Teaching Arabic as a Second Language (TASL). Nevertheless, there is no general consensus among scholars on the proper use of terminology, for they employ different expressions in order to define the teaching of Arabic to non-Arabs within the region. For instance, while al-ʿArḍāwī mainly defines it a Second Language study (luġa tāniya), having in mind students learning the language in French institutes in Tunisia, other scholars show different viewpoints. Wilmsen refers to the study of Arabic at the American University in Beirut calling it Foreign Language teaching and learning; similarly, both the Netherlands-Flemish Institute2 and the American University in Cairo3 offer specialization courses in teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language. Recently, other scholars have focused on the relationship of Arabic language teaching in connection with target learners and language varieties (Ibn al-Barāʾ; Arbi 2001; al-Saʿīd). Specifically, they have been questioning how MSA should be dealt with in non-Arab learners’ classes. To this extent, Arbi (2001) analyzed the learning of both MSA and colloquial varieties from the perspective of foreign learners studying in the Arab world. In essence, the scholar affirms that the colloquial variety can be learned as a Second Language since students are immersed in an environment characterized 2 3

Cf. http://www.institutes.leiden.edu/nvic/education/arabic/, accessed 26 December 2017. Cf. http://schools.aucegypt.edu/huss/appliedlinguistics/taflma/, accessed 7 January 2018.

16 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

by the presence of the target language. On the contrary MSA cannot be learned as likewise, but rather as a Foreign Language ‘for specific purposes’. Regardless of what scholars affirm, the present study mainly takes into consideration the teaching of MSA, then colloquial varieties (TCEAFL, TMAFL) and conventionally regroups them under the label of Foreign Language study. Besides the lack of general consensus, this choice is driven by the fact that today ‘TAFL’ seems preferred over other expressions like TASOL, namely ‘Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages’. From the point of view of Arabic and this work, ‘TAFL’ represents a conventional translation of the numerous variations found in Arabic like ‘teaching Arabic to non-native speakers’ (talʿīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā), ‘to non-Arabs’ (li-ġayr al-ʿarab) and ‘to foreigners’ (li-l-aǧānib), etc., which are extensively discussed here (in Chapters 2 to 4). TAFL organizes all of them into one single expression, which is used transversally today both inside and outside the Arab region. Thus, the current debate on the subject is bypassed, as it does not represent the focus of the research. However, the specific translations of TAFL in Arabic are provided when considered significant, in order to clarify Arab TAFL scholars’ proper terminological uses. These are given in transliteration and are usually found in brackets as in the examples cited above. Furthermore, great importance is also given to the translations of other scientific terms, which are reported in transliteration as well in the whole work, e.g., composition (intaǧ maktūb), literary taste (tadawwuq adabī), etc. From the terminological point of view, in fact, the study aims to provide the reader with the precise Arabic words used by scholars in their works, since lexical choices often underpin important details and stances that otherwise would be lost. Customarily, these terms are cited once and repeated only when needed. With this in mind, I conclude by saying that this research represents the first systematic reference work for those scholars who intend to go in-depth with their studies concerning the origins and developments of teaching of Arabic as a foreign language, especially within – but not limited to – the Arab region. Experts and teachers of Arabic may also take advantage of the study in learning about the various TAFL phases over time and finding helpful resources which can contribute in curriculum building, lesson planning, test construction, etc.

Genesis of the Research I began my study with some essential information, names and dates, which now seem mere data, but were signif icant in guiding me in the

Introduc tion

17

right direction, permitting me to proceed and conduct in-depth research on the topic. Undoubtedly, a reference point in the reconstruction of the recent history of TAFL was the Symposium of Riyadh (see Chapter 3), which represents a landmark in my research path and a milestone in the TAFL chronicles described in this work. The symposium was held at King Saʿud University in 1978 and gathered a large number of Arabists from the United States, Europe, Turkey, Kenya and above all Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Kuwait and Lebanon. For the very first time, scholars had the opportunity to discuss TAFL in a fully dedicated event within the Arab region. In this regard, my plunge into the three volumes of the symposium proceedings brought me to discover the general debates characterizing a specif ic period of TAFL, apart from disclosing a view of the Arab world and its academic research environment crowded with scholars of different nationalities. What intrigued me most was to find out who these scholars were, which theoretical stances they took and whether they supported one teaching philosophy over another. Such insight gave access to a multitude of options. Soon I realized that what seemed a circumscribed research area was actually not so narrow. What I knew about TAFL was in fact only the tip of the iceberg. The few books on the topic that circulated outside the Arab world were available in various university libraries. By reading the original sources, I was able to gain access to what Arab scholars wrote and thought about the teaching of Arabic to non-Arabs. Moreover, the fact that some of these works were either partially undiscovered or forgotten made my study even more stimulating. The research that was found in the three volumes of the proceedings, together with other works on TAFL, which I had been reading extensively, dealt with a wide range of topics, generating a likewise range of questions.

Research Questions Since I intended to write a chronicle of the recent history of TAFL, the ‘when’ played a key role as it represented the foundations of my research. In the first instance, I began posing questions: When was the onset of the Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language within the Arab world? Was there a watershed, or a date, that sanctioned its birth as a study area? Even though some scholars had tried to circumscribe the founding of this new branch at the end of the 1950s in Sudan, Europe or North America, in particular, with the Harvard University conference of 1958, I still needed to corroborate these theses by researching backward while answering other emerging questions.

18 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

If it was true that the discipline originated at the end of the 1950s, where did TAFL spring from? And, more importantly, what were the events that determined its birth and which other correlated disciplines inspired it? In this regard, my first hypothesis was that the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language was influenced by foreign language teaching practices within the Arab region. Such conjecture came from what later was revealed to be a wrong assumption, namely the idea that times were already ripe for scholars to glean from foreign language teaching traditions that developed in some Arab countries. If my hypothesis turned out to be correct, it would allow me to demonstrate that foreign language teaching practices – and maybe theories – were somehow transposed to the field of TAFL, which started from a similar perspective: that of students learning a foreign language. 4 This would also avert another hypothesis, namely that TAFL originated from the teaching of Arabic to Arabs, which would reveal scientific inexperience. Thus, I started to investigate whether there were any correlations between TAFL and the know-how developed in the strongholds of modern instruction, and precisely that of foreign languages, that were established in Tunisia and Egypt during the second half of the nineteenth century, e.g., the School of Translators of Cairo and the École Polytechnique du Bardo of Tunis. In a certain sense, I was going in the right direction, since it was either in these places or in nearby newly founded institutes that the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language flourished at the beginning of the 1960s. However, no significant correlation of teaching practices confirmed my first hypothesis, thus, I turned toward other fields. In particular, I began pondering whether the teaching of Arabic to Arabs had affected the dawning of TAFL both on a practical and a theoretical level. Duly, I went on to study some precious accounts left by Arab scholars on TAFL experiences carried out during the 1950s and later on. These works provided me with insight into classroom practices that have been used within the Arab world over the last 60 years, which represents a treasured discovery unraveled in this book. Other issues had to be resolved though, as scholars’ accounts contained a series of perspectives and stances that cast theoretical doubts. Contingently, having references and citations were invaluable while their absence caused other questions to emerge: What kind of theories did Arab TAFL scholars refer to? Did Arab linguists have an 4 In this specific case I consider the perspective of Arabs learning a FL in their homelands and I compare it to the perspective of non-Arabs learning Arabic within the Arab region. In both cases a FL is learned regardless of the theoretical debates and the various scholars’ positions on the nature of teaching previously presented.

Introduc tion

19

influence on TAFL theoretical debates? What was the contribution of nonArab scholars? Did foreign language teaching theories that originated outside the Arab region play a key role in the development of the discipline? To what extent did TAFL distinguish itself from the teaching of other languages? No simple answer can be given to these questions, because the early days of TAFL are more complex than that and the aim of the present study is to disclose the composite nature of a discipline interlaced with other research areas. In essence, the reflections carried out in this work will clarify these questions, which will give various answers according to the different geographical and chronological settings examined. However, these answers will undoubtedly unleash other questions as it occurred along my research path. In point of fact, no sooner had I a clearer view of the aforementioned phenomena to ascertain both theoretical and practical influences of TAFL than I realized the research questions were not completed yet. Nonetheless, it was necessary to verify whether TAFL experienced a development over time, and if so, how it did. Such questioning originated from those exhortations frequently found in TAFL works, which urged a change of a discipline often described as unfledged. Arab TAFL scholars often encouraged modernization of the field and this suggested that further investigation along this line was required. Although by logic one could answer affirmatively to the inquiry about the existence of TAFL development, the fact that this last actually occurred within the Arab world was arguable, since some alerts bringing progress into question were evidenced. Arab TAFL scholars who wrote during the 1970s, for instance, often denounced some weaknesses that are still present today in contemporary debates. In addition, scholars’ strong claims to modernization of TAFL seemed to imply similarly strong attachments to tradition, which did not preclude development. Nevertheless, the reading of sources proved that such assumptions were a mere generalization. Once again, TAFL and its developments had to be investigated in depth and in their context, otherwise other very important questions would not be answered. The latter were essential for the whole study since they prospected the kind of development itself. More precisely: When and where did this development take place? Was it tangible from decade to decade? Which areas (e.g., approaches, methods, classroom practice) were affected? And, in turn, did Arab scholars play any role in it? Furthermore, if it is true that this development did take place, the geographical aspect also had to be examined in more detail: Did TAFL share the same history within the Arab region experiencing similar changes? Was the latter reflected in a broader context? Were there points of convergence – e.g., academies,

20 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

institutes – where TAFL was discussed and joint decisions were made? By contrast, did TAFL evolve separately with diverse applications in each Arab nation? Did foreign language teaching findings and theories affect some countries rather than others? And in their turn, did Arab scholars develop their studies alone?

Methodology At first, the research bore a series of questions primed to be investigated while sources could provide the anticipated answers. Specifically, a comparative analysis of the references had to be conducted so as to examine the features of this development. This had to be an exploration on four levels: first of all, a chronological one, in order to discover whether TAFL changed over time. To answer this question, changes in the various aspects of TAFL required detecting, be it scientific advancement, scholars’ stances, debates, teaching approaches, testing or textbook drafting, etc. This operation allowed the investigation of developments on a second level, that pivoting on the scientific theories and different methodologies involved, specifically those regarding the TAFL branches and niche fields affected. For instance, one of my hypotheses was that teaching methods have remained mostly unvaried until recently. I was in fact convinced that the germ of communicative teaching entered TAFL only in a later stage. However, the results of the study showed that the real development of TAFL over time was quite different by far. In this vein, the present study will dispel the aforementioned false myth and disclose a story of unconventional theoretical orientations. Through the employment of comparative analysis, I was able to identify what impact Arab scholars had on TAFL developments and, in turn, I was able to explore the third level of the discipline development, namely network analysis. In concrete terms, through in-depth examination, I probed to confirm whether scholars cited their peers, taking inspiration from their theories, publications, historical accounts, as well as signif icant TAFL experiences and debates. Last but not least, the fourth level of investigation was a geographical one. It aimed to understand where TAFL developments took place and whether changes affected the Arab nations jointly or separately. Hence, I tried to ascertain if the Arab region shared the same history of TAFL and experienced similar changes, which reverberated through research poles and were amplified in wider contexts; or on the contrary, if TAFL evolved separately with diverse applications in each Arab country, where Arab

Introduc tion

21

scholars developed their research independently, taking inspiration from different sources and theories. Answering these questions meant tracing the evolution of TAFL over time, discerning the aspects of each chronological period and assessing whether the different Arab nations experienced a common history of TAFL or respectively distinguished themselves from one another. By the same token, it also intended to understand through TAFL literature and historical facts whether scholars from a given Arab country were influenced by certain schools of thought and theories, if they were based on French references rather than English or Arab ones. In point of fact, my hypothesis was that some authors largely were inspired by scholarly production written either in the language of their former colonizers or that of their economic partners. Essentially, Tunisian TAFL scholars would read scientific treatises on foreign language teaching in French, while Egyptian ones would do it in English. If my hypothesis were to be correct, this would mean that Arab TAFL scholars started from different sources, which contained correspondingly different theoretical principles and assumptions. As a result, TAFL would develop separately depending on each Arab country and its respective research environments, which were influenced by diverse FLT theories and traditions. In view of this, the study will disclose the relationships among the various Arab nations’ research environments and between one another and the rest of the world. All these questions had to be answered to understand the present, the current trends of TAFL and future directions. Without sound comprehension of the past decades and the related phenomena, whatever analysis of the present TAFL would result useless and this is the basic premise of my decision to embark upon such a complex study: to explore an undisclosed realm, that of the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language within the Arab world, its philosophies, approaches, methods, together with its vaster debates and meetings and the scholars who took part in them, coming from various institutes both in and outside the Arab world. This quality of research has accordingly demanded great accuracy while granting me the instruments to understand the modernity of such work and hopefully forecasting which roads this discipline would face in the near future had this study not gone forward.

Arrangement of the Present Study The book opens with a chapter which quickly sketches the study of Arabic before the birth of TAFL within the Arab world. It sheds light on the ‘early period’, discussing Arabic language learning and teaching until the rise of

22 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

colonialism and analyzes the policies enacted by Arab reformers during the nineteenth century; for instance, the foundation of brand-new institutes that provided Arab students with up-to-date modern instruction. Immediately afterward, the chapter shifts to the colonial period, when the language panorama of some Arab countries like Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia radically changed and bilingualism penetrated a region mostly dominated by Arabic for centuries. The end of colonial rule and emerge of national independences are described in a section which testifies to the opening as well as the lively debate on Arabic, public instruction and language teaching witnessed in some Arab countries after the undoing of colonialism. This period represents a turning point in the historical overview, as it lays the foundations for the birth of TAFL during the 1960s. Chapter 2 illustrates this history by reporting the creation of those institutes that first promoted TAFL as a branch of Arabic language studies in the Arab world, the theories formulated by the scholars who attended these scientific poles and the first broader debates that formed around them. The following chapters (3 and 4) are respectively dedicated to the growth (1970s) and development (1980s) of this branch, which evolved into a subject taught today at university level. Thus, both chapters highlight the main achievements in the TAFL field along with the proliferation of studies, research, scientific treatises and a description of the increase of interest in the Arabic language, which ‘developed from being a scholarly language studied for religious and, at times, commercial reasons in the 16th and 17th centuries to serving as one of the main foreign and second languages in the 21st century’ (Nielsen 2009, p. 147). Globalization and its implications in TAFL are weighed; for instance, Arab scholars’ questioning whether Arabic would become an international language by the turn of the fifteenth Hegira century (1979) is evaluated. Chapter 5 analyzes the debates and scholarly publications produced during the 1990s within the Arab world. It also highlights novel topics, injecting new life in the discussions on Arabic language and TAFL while paving the way to globalization. Chapter 6 then describes the developments of TAFL with the turn of the new millennium and, in particular, after striking historical events like the September 11 attacks. TAFL is analyzed from unfamiliar perspectives, while meetings, broader debates, scholarly production and online projects are discussed. The last chapter of the book examines recent developments in the subject in conjunction with today’s historical happenings, starting from the watershed of 2011 when the Arab revolutions burst in the region to the present day. This chapter describes TAFL internationalization and discusses the gradual

Introduc tion

23

specialization of its scholars, who have begun to explore more subfields and applications in depth, multiplying the research branches of a subject that has become a full-fledged discipline today, discussed in international conferences and by a wide range of scholars and educators all over the world. The book concludes with a summary of the main results of the research and a clarification of the questions bearing on it. This ascertains that new studies and in-depth analyses are needed, besides explaining why future directions necessitate further discussion.

1

The Historical Background

After the Second World War, the field of Foreign Language Teaching witnessed an extraordinary growth, together with the proliferation of new teaching methods. People entered the globalization era and felt the necessity to communicate with one another on an international level. The pendulum of teaching, which had swung for centuries between the grammar-translation method and the natural method in Europe, was now moving faster, as a series of approaches were created, all supported by scientific scrutiny and research as well as scholars who dedicated their attention to linguistics and its practical applications. Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language, as we know it today, is a collective product of these times; it is a subject that sprung from the contact between the reflections made by Arab scholars after national independences and those made by the rest of the world, especially by those scholars who operated in the nerve centers of Arabic language studies and applied linguistics outside the Arab world. Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language (hereafter TAFL), known in Arabic as taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, originated in the Arab world in the 1960s and developed significantly during the following decade. It has undergone several transformations and has expanded in different directions to the present day. This subject is also rooted in historical concerns, a condition prevailing in contemporary education issues (Reble, p. 14). Accordingly, the aim of this first chapter is to provide a wide historical background, in order to explain the events leading to the birth of this subject. Subsequently, its main historical occurrences will be considered in relation to the institutes and scientific poles that promoted certain theories, approaches, methods and methodologies, as well as the scholars who generated them as they gathered at these institutes and crowded the scientific scene. To a functional extent, innovation in the field of education and Foreign Language Teaching in the Arab world will be also analyzed, so as not only to have a complete overview of the topic, but also to infer the influence of the debate around these disciplines on the development of TAFL and make comparisons with the trends in language learning and teaching that originated outside the Arab world. Within this comparative framework, the reader will be able to comprehend theoretical and practical aspects of the aforementioned disciplines and subjects, distinguish among them, their traditions and their origins, with special consideration for the Arab world and areas such as Europe, Southeast Asia, North America and South America.

26 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Historical circumstances and geographical regions of the Arab world are analyzed and described from a global perspective, which shifts to microhistory and local areas when needed. In view of this, the Arab world is presented as a whole territory and then examined in detail with special attention to three countries that are particularly significant from the point of view of TAFL and critical for its history: Tunisia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia (see the Introduction). Until the nineteenth century, even though there were separate regional developments, the Arab territories held together. This fact favored connections among them and therefore circulation of information and exchange of theories and practices. To give an example, the reforms started by the Egyptian khedive Muḥammad ʿAlī had a strong appeal to other Arab territories, such as Tunisia, whose sovereigns took inspiration from Europe but also from the Egyptian reform experience and the Ottoman tanzimat in order to modernize their rule. The evidence for this lies, for instance, in the nineteenth-century school missions to Europe, which were a widespread trend witnessed in Egypt from 1826 onward, as well as in other parts of the Arab world such as Tunisia and the Syro-Lebanese region. However, at the beginning of the colonial period and more than ever after national independences, the Arab states started to enclose themselves inside their national boundaries. This situation fostered national or local debates, alongside with unique developments in every country. Hence, in the Egypt of the ‘liberal experiment’ during the 1930s, there was an unfolding of lively scientific debate that revolved around the Arabic language and the reform of its script, which continued to involve the country and other Arab states (e.g., Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Algeria) until the 1970s (see Meynet). A remarkable number of scholars moved to Egypt from Syria and Lebanon to participate in this debate and enriched it with their own views. Moreover, the presence of foreign institutes in these countries – e.g., the American University at Cairo as of 1919 – promoted openness to new theories in the field of language teaching and learning and therefore affected Arabic language education itself. This scientific transmission was carried out through scholarly discussions and scientific journals, such as the Maǧallat al-tarbiya al-ḥadīta (Journal of modern education), first published in 1928 by the American University at Cairo, which dealt with education and psychology. The journal included translations from original American materials and infused Egyptian scholars with new ideas and theories on education that originated outside Egypt, such as the principles by famous American educators like John Dewey, Paul Monroe and William Chandler Bagley. This syncretism was not present though in countries like Tunisia and Algeria during the colonial period. In the 1930s these territories still existed under

The Historical Background

27

French control and developed diverse debates on language. Moreover, after national independences the Arab countries, once characterized by unity, began to proceed on separate paths, which produced likewise different Arabization policies and debates on language learning and teaching. The succession of such different historical happenings is what justifies the specific chronological division of this chapter.

The ‘Early Period’ The chronological limit of the ‘early period’ is set between the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, when the so-called period of decadence (inḥiṭāṭ) drew to a close and the Arab world saw the rise of revival movements. This pattern allows us to consider an extended time span in which the learning and teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language (AFL) presented some common features. Premodern and modern language teaching orientations and methodologies are analyzed by and large so that the reader can grasp the delineating trends of the centuries preceding the emergence of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language. During the early period, learning of Arabic as a Foreign Language was characterized by some prevalent aspects: it was often fostered by contacts between speakers of different languages. These situations happened regularly and implied translation, interpreting and, to some extent, language teaching. Translation was provided in two ways: either by an interpreter who had learned Arabic in its natural environment and could speak it, or by means of a lingua franca. The language was learned and taught in the field by simple communication and language exchange, as it happened almost everywhere during the early period. The teaching approach was mainly practical and aimed at training students for real communicative situations. This paragraph aims to elucidate the dynamics of language contact in the Arab world, the contextual learning of Arabic and, to a lesser extent, the attitudes toward foreign languages and teaching methodologies, these last being functional aspects for the general discussion. Contact between people speaking different languages always existed and history abounds with examples of such. The purposes of this contact are to be found in commerce, politics and not least the desire to know different cultures. Moreover, most importantly in the specific case of Arabic, another purpose of contact is linked to religion. As Younes highlights, the study of Arabic as a foreign language dates back to the early Islamic period ‘when new converts, whose language was not Arabic, sought to understand the

28 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

language of their sacred text’ (Younes 2015, p. 22), although one should clarify that language education at that time was neither institutionalized nor supported by any theoretical reflections. On the whole, from the very beginning of their journey of conquest and expansion, Arabs came into contact with people speaking foreign languages, naming them ʿaǧam, a collective term meaning ‘barbarians’, also ‘non-Arabic speakers’. As it turns out, the most characteristic sign of these people’s barbarousness was the ʿuǧma, an ‘incomprehensible and obscure way of speaking’ (cf. Gabrieli, p. 206), which contrasted with what is reported in the Qur’an as lisān ʿarabī mubīn (clear Arabic language) (Q XVI, 103). Such identification of people was chiefly made by Arabs in reference to their neighbors, the Persians, also called aʿāǧim (plural of aʿǧam ‘stranger; barbarian; non-Arab’). Similarly, the Muslims of al-Andalus used al-ʿaǧamiyya1 ‘non-Arabic’ to refer to the Romance dialects of their neighbors who lived in the north of the Iberian Peninsula (Lévi-Provençal, p. 404). However, ʿaǧam and al-ʿaǧamiyya were not the only terms used to identify the ‘Other’. In a different place and time setting, Arabs used another appellation for the non-Arab indigenous populations of North Africa. This term was barbar, a contemptuous epithet used in Greek (barbaroi) and in Latin (barbari) as well as in Arabic (singular barbarī, plural barābir or barābira) meaning ‘barbarian; savage; uncivilized’ (cf. Pellat 1986). Later, during the Middle Ages, Arab authors recognized these people with the more specific name of (A)maziγ,2 which in all likelihood represents a rumination of records from a previous era (cf. Chaker, p. 564). Religion and conquest were not the only opportunities of contact for Arabs. Admittedly, commerce was a very important reason for meeting the ‘Other’ and their language. To give a key example, the ports of Maghreb had been visited by the ships of the maritime Republic of Amalfi since 850 AD (Balard, p. 11). The Mediterranean basin and its trade routes fostered cooperation and exchange between Arabs and traders of different proveniences. After Amalfi, others took the route of North Africa and the Middle East. Among them, one could find merchants from Venice, Genoa, Pisa, Barcelona and Marseille, who started sailing in this direction from the eleventh century on (cf. id.). 1 During the Middle Ages this word acquired a different meaning (Lévi-Provençal, p. 404), which is summarized today by the Spanish word and expression aljamía and literatura aljamiada. Both terms come from the Arabic al-ʿaǧamiyya and today they indicate the Romance languages (i.e., Mozarabic, Judeo-Spanish, Portuguese and Spanish) that were written with the Arabic characters during the Muslim occupation of the Iberian Peninsula. 2 The term (A)maziγ is presented among Arab authors (e.g., Mazīġ in Ibn Ḫaldūn) as the mythical common ancestor of all Berber tribes (Chaker, p. 564).

The Historical Background

29

On the language contact between Arabs and these foreigners, we know that translations and interpreters served for communication and trade agreements between the parties. These skills were mainly provided by non-Arabs such as slaves, refugees and renegades coming from outside the Arab world (Lewis, p. 23). These people along with converts were, in a sense, early learners of Arabic as a Foreign or Second Language, for they not only mastered their mother tongue, but also could provide translation from and into Arabic, because they learned either Arabic through the sacred scriptures or the local dialect hands-on by habitual contact with its speakers. However, languages and language contact have always been subject to social changes and the resulting political decisions; sometimes language contact was drastically reduced by historical conjunctures. It is the case of the Fatimids in Egypt, who limited the free movement of foreigners in the country and imposed on them residential segregation in temporary homes (cf. Balard). This policy forced foreign merchants to stay inside the residential areas. Consequently, there were limited opportunities for language contact. Soon the situation changed. Undoubtedly, the Ayyubid sultans allowed foreign merchants to lodge, store and sell in funduqs ‘hostelries’ and have more favorable residential conditions in comparison with their predecessors (ibid.). This fact promoted the birth of permanent colonies in Egypt, ideally allowing foreigners to interact with Arabic speakers and their mother tongue. During the Middle Ages, these hostelries were widespread around the Mediterranean Sea and concentrated in towns open to international trade: Venetians had two, in Alexandria and Cairo, as well as Pisans, in Alexandria and Damietta, etc. (see Mack; Balard). This condition persisted until the early modern period; since in seventeenth-century Tunis one could still find the funduqs of the French, English and Jews (see Sebag 1989, p. 24). The relative proximity of foreigners to Arabs meant not only the exchange of goods, but also language contact and cultural contamination to which foreigners were irretrievably exposed, being hosts in the Arab world. History provides ample evidence of language contacts and interactions between cultures. One can suppose that, during these contacts, the Arabic language was learned and taught to some extent in the places and at the times mentioned. As Titone (1980) points out, the need of teaching a foreign language can be dated back to the beginning of time, when men started communicating with groups speaking different languages. However, it would sound anachronistic to speak about Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language (TAFL) as a subject with respect to the time span analyzed above. In this period, the AFL acquisition process remained restricted to the real necessity and true cases of interaction (e.g., refugees, renegades or slaves

30 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

learning the language of their hosts through direct contact), so that there was no methodological awareness for the teaching and learning of foreign languages. The language was learned by whomever needed to learn it and it was often the case of non-Arabs who came to the Muslim lands for different reasons (cf. Lewis, p. 20). This being said, Arabic pedagogy displayed a rich range of theories and philosophies, since Arab medieval scholars and educators such as Ibn Saḥnūn, al-Ǧāḥiẓ, Ibn Sinā and al-Ġazālī left significant contributions in this field. For Arabs, learning Arabic language properly often meant being able to read, write, develop good handwriting, know grammar, poetry, aesthetic style and elegant speech. It was often a question of learning by heart and memorization (cf. al-Salmān), even though some scholars preferred deductive reasoning – e.g., al-Ǧāḥiẓ – and insisted on the enjoyable side of learning (cf. Günther, p. 379). Teaching took place verbally (taʿlīm masmūʿ) or through providing an example (cf. ibid., p. 375), while didactic techniques often consisted of reading and writing, e.g., pupils would dictate to each other; advanced pupils would write letters to adults or copy them from the board, in order to get familiar with them (cf. ibid., p. 379). This situation persisted for centuries and kept the study of Arabic contained a precise context: that of religious studies. The depictions above evidence that there was little room for a theory of teaching of Arabic as a foreign or second language in the Arab world at the beginning of the Early modern period. Even though contacts with foreign speakers happened frequently and language learning occurred every time a foreigner took on the study of Arabic locally, the political and sociohistorical conditions did not favor the development of a discipline that remained scarcely regarded in the Arab context until the second half of the twentieth century. With respect to interpreting, the nineteenth century was characterized by the decline of Levantines and dragomans (Lewis, p. 27), who were employed respectively by embassies and the Sublime Porte to make translations. Two new phenomena were soon ready to substitute these traditional figures. On the one hand, European powers such as France, the United Kingdom, the Austrian Empire and Russia began to send their students to the Arab world so that they could learn Arabic in the f ield and then come back with thorough knowledge of the target language; on the other hand, the Ottoman Turks – together with the governors of their regencies – felt the necessity to learn foreign languages. This was a historical landmark. For the first time, one could speak about Arabic Language Learning not only as a subject learned by one who happened to learn it through direct contact,

The Historical Background

31

but also by foreigners and people who mainly planned such study for other purposes. Arabists began to systematically set off for the Arab world in order to learn the language of its speakers. It was not only a question of politics, e.g., the embassies needed to substitute the untrustworthy figures of the Levantines; it was also the desire to know the ‘Other’, its language and its culture. Meanwhile, language learning and teaching had already undergone a long history in Europe, for the continent had evolved through its many language teaching phases and could boast its numerous celebrated scholars and thinkers. Among the teaching approaches that were commonly found in Europe was the practical method, then called ‘direct’ or ‘natural method’ and the grammar-translation method. These were later translated into Arabic, respectively, as ṭarīqa mubāšira and ṭarīqat al-tarǧama or ṭarīqa naḥwiyya. The first was rooted in history, widely diffused and characterized by an extremely practical kind of teaching that favored oral ability while penalizing grammar and literature. The teacher was often a native speaker who fostered communication pertaining to real-life situations with the student. A typical lesson would start with the teacher talking in the target language while the pupil listened. To this, brief explanations would follow as the teacher expected from the student to repeat the contents of the lesson by even resorting to mnemonic acquisition (Titone 1980, p. 24). Of particular concern are those scholars who endorsed this method and enriched its principles with thoughts and lessons learned, which mainly derived from their personal theoretical speculations and teaching experience. Among them, we find for instance: the French philosopher and writer Michel de Montaigne, Jan Amos Komensky, also known as Comenius and less known names such as Luneaud de Boisgermain and the Abbé Pluche (ibid.). All these scholars and thinkers were against grammarism, thus favored a practical kind of teaching based on oral activities, use of language rather than application of rules, repetition, copying and lastly inductive reflection. As regards the grammar-translation method, it was an approach so widely used during the first half of the nineteenth century in Europe that the Egyptian writer and teacher Rifāʿa Rāfiʿ al-Ṭahṭāwī (1801-1873) left trace of it in his famous autobiography and travel account. Rifāʿa al-Ṭahṭāwī had – in fact – the opportunity to learn French in Paris during the first school mission sent to France by the Egyptian khedive Muḥammad ʿAlī in 1826. During his visit, al-Ṭahṭāwī observed, read and translated, besides leaving an account on how foreign languages were taught to him and precisely French: firstly, the alphabet is presented, then it is followed by words and verbs, through which one learns to write; secondly, words are kept in mind

32 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

and then they are pronounced (cf. al-Ṭahṭāwī (1834) 2011, p. 199). In his autobiographical account Taḫlīṣ al-ibrīz fī talḫīṣ Bārīz (The quintessence of Paris), al-Ṭahṭāwī states that he also studied conversation (muḫāṭabāt wa-muḥāwarāt) and after finishing a handbook of simple sentences, he took on a more important topic, namely grammar (naḥw), which he considers of paramount importance and pursues to study it by examining various books (ibid., pp. 200, 219). Thanks to al-Ṭahṭāwī’s accurate description, it can be clearly inferred that he learned both through the natural and the grammar method. Some years later, when the scholar came back to Egypt in 1831, he was appointed translator from French at the School of Medicine3 (al-Madrasa al-ṭibbiyya bi-Miṣr), then founded the School of Translators (Madrasat al-mutarǧimīn) in Cairo in 1835. The f irst cycle of graduate students ended in 1839, but only ten years after the school closed down and reopened a century later.4 In this, al-Ṭahṭāwī took inspiration from his treasured discoveries made in France. The grammar-translation method was mainly an artificial approach. It aimed at the systematic study of grammar, while language was codified and arranged into fixed rules learned by heart. Among its exponents, we find Johann Franz Ahn, Heinrich Ollendorff and the influential German scholar Karl Plötz (see Titone 1980 for a complete discussion on the topic). The two approaches coexisted in the same period and scholars endorsed one or the other thought while opposing either the natural method or ‘unnatural’ grammarism. This last was the case of the American scholar George Ticknor (1791-1871), who expressed his innovative positions in the Lecture on the Best Method of Teaching the Living Languages, which was delivered before the American Institute in 1832. Hence, while the Arab world was awakening, Europe and North America were going through a change in the methodologies of language learning and teaching. On the one hand, Language Teaching was entering the recently established institutes of higher education in Tunisia and Egypt, mainly influenced by European (i.e., French, English and Italian) experience, theories and experts who were called to serve the new type of instruction. The teaching methods employed were both traditional and innovative, the classic use of blackboards and the novel inclusion of free class discussion (ḥurriyyat al-niqāš) are attested (cf. Ibn Yūsuf, p. 14). On the other hand, the West was preparing for a transformation brought on by fresh ideas in disciplines such as linguistics and psychology, 3 The School of Medicine was created in Abū Zaʿbal, in the outskirts of Cairo, then moved to downtown in 1837 at Qaṣr al-ʿAynī. In 1925 the Qaṣr al-ʿAynī Hospital joined Cairo University. 4 Cf. http://alsun.asu.edu.eg/article.php?action=show&id=1#.Vv-Iyz_tJnw, accessed 2 April 2016.

The Historical Background

33

which revolutionized the field of Language Teaching during the nineteenth century and the colonial era.

The Colonial Period While the first schools of foreign languages and secular instruction were founded in Cairo in 1835 and in Tunis5 in 1837, other parts of the Arab world were being occupied by European powers. The very first military and political subjugation was that of the French expedition to Algeria in 1830, which officially ushered the colonization of the Arab territories. After the seizure of Algeria, one had to wait until the end of the nineteenth century to see other Arab territories fall into the hands of foreign powers. On 12 May 1881, it was the fate of Tunisia, when the bey, Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq ibn Ḥusayn, surrendered to the French and signed the Treaty of Bardo (muʿāhadat Bardū), also called Treaty of ‘Ksar Said’ (muʿāhadat qaṣr al-saʿīd). After only one year, in 1882, the British entered Egypt and established their control over the country. In the meantime, other Arab countries were enjoying freedom, a condition that did not last for a long time though. Between 1911 and the end of the First World War, the Middle Eastern region was split among the main European powers. However, there were some Arab states that resisted the colonial conquest: Saudi Arabia was one of them. In 1902 King ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Āl Saʿūd proclaimed himself emir of Riyadh. A period of internal conflict followed and, after the unification of Hijaz and Najd, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was founded in 1932. The colonization of North Africa and the Middle East was a period marked by great turmoil and transformation. Radical changes affected the language spectrum of the Arab world, which entered a new phase. In the time span that goes from 1880 to the late 1950s, the European colonial powers enacted very different policies, in which language issues were included. These policies produced likewise diverse sociolinguistic phenomena in the territories under the control of colonizers. Arab countries passed from the purity of a language panorama dominated by Arabic and quasi-untouched by other languages to the intrusion of foreigners and their languages both in politics and in peoples’ everyday lives. The main events that led to this situation 5 École Polytechnique du Bardo (Madrasat al-ṣanāʾiʿ wa-l-ʿulūm al-ḥarbiyya bi-Bardū) was founded in Tunis in 1837. The school provided students with the teaching of Arabic and foreign languages such as Turkish, Italian, French and English, besides training them in military discipline.

34 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

requires tracing and description in order to contextualize a more critical matter: that of innovation in teaching. The French hold on colonies brought asymmetrical relations between languages (Tullon, p. 39), but also real competition between Arabic and French and the respective cultures of these languages dividing countries like Tunisia into two factions, for and against this influence (see Maamouri; Perkins). Even though the politique d’assimilation in Tunisia was different from the one perpetrated on Algeria, French direct rule aimed at spreading the language in the country. French therefore became the language of education both in schools and at university level. Louis Macheul, the director of public instruction from 1883 to 1908, encouraged the assimilation of French attitudes by Tunisians (Perkins, pp. 62, 64). Franco-Arab schools were established and after the first decade of French control on Tunisia, thousands of Tunisians were exposed ‘to an array of new ideas [that] brought them into direct contact with the French population’ (ibid.). On the Egyptian stage, British indirect rule did not eradicate kuttābs, as the French attempted to do in North Africa. On the contrary, they used them as quasi-state schools, introducing nonreligious subjects (cf. HeyworthDunn). This does not mean that they did not start an education policy in the country. Lord Cromer, the British consul-general in Egypt between 1883 and 1907, started his own, especially in 1888 and 1892. He aimed at substituting Arabic with English in instruction, anglicizing the educational system and raising the general level of education in village schools (see Williamson; Abugideiri). However, the matter of education represented only a minor part of his policy. His main objective was to ensure that Egyptian graduates did not rise above a low profile, so as to prevent the creation of a group of people whose education ‘unfits them for manual labor’ (Marlowe; Williamson). Despite the fact that French and British rules differed in their intrinsic nature, the effect on the Arabic-speaking communities was somewhat similar, since they both aimed at imposing their superiority on their subjects. As Versteegh (2006, p. 8) points out, ‘both colonial powers [the British and the French] […] felt the responsibility to introduce European language and culture to the regions under their administration’. In essence, Europeans’ alleged superiority was a pretext to impose their language. However, inside the language conflict, it should be pointed out that Arabic language had a decisive symbolic role in the fight against the oppressor. As a matter of fact, Tunisians gathered around Islam and its language, Arabic, which became the most important means for identity claims and aggregation during the French occupation. Tunisians were opposed to colonizers as well as to the Franco-Arab schools. During the Protectorate people did not stop

The Historical Background

35

the protest, which spread all over the country soon after the formation and throughout the Protectorate (Perkins; Facchin and Pacifici). The situation in Egypt was slightly different. British indirect rule fostered community alienation and despite Lord Cromer’s language policy and efforts to anglicize the school system, English did not permeate Egyptian society in the way that French did in the Maghreb region. That being so, British and French rules produced two different language scenarios in the countries they subjected: one was the presence of bilingualism in the Maghreb, the other was Arabic with no other vehement competitors in Egypt. This split scheme is at the basis of the different kinds of Arabization (taʿrīb) policies that were carried out by Arab countries after they gained independence. During colonization, language teaching remained a discipline connected to the political events and historical situations described above. In the Maghreb region, for instance, French was imposed as the language of domination, leaving Arabic to the cultural and vernacular spheres. As Tullon (p. 39) states, the two languages developed asymmetrically. While French was taught as the language of modernization and occupied a privileged place in education, Arabic – in all its forms – was often illegitimately considered the language of tradition and therefore downgraded. In Tunisia, the Lycée Carnot, current Lycée pilote Bourguiba, embodied the best example of French public education, while kuttābs still attracted those families who were opposed to foreign domination. From a pedagogical point of view, French was taught as a Foreign Language to both Tunisians and the other language minorities, above all Italians, who entered in the French assimilation policy scheme just like the Tunisians did. Arabic, instead, continued to be taught to Tunisians in the traditional way, while non-Arab communities in the country started to learn it as a Foreign/Second Language. During the colonial period, interpreting from and into Arabic was a necessity and this led not only Tunisians to learn the language of their rulers, but also the French to study Arabic. Its knowledge was perceived as a rare skill that few people could master in Europe (Bendana, p. 133). However, Europeans did not limit themselves to the study of Classical Arabic, though they started to learn colloquial varieties of Arabic, namely Arabs’ L1. The first studies on the topic were carried out by foreign dialectologists and, as a result, ‘dialectology became associated with the divisive policy of the colonial authorities, […] [while] the dialectologist was regarded as a tool of imperialism’ (Versteegh 1997, p. 132; see also Maamouri; Haeri). Arabs, from their point of view, did not show particular interest in their mother tongues, which they considered a ‘degraded form’ of the Arabic language. With respect to Tunisia during the colonial period, Maamouri (p. 13) affirms that they were often not even aware

36 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

that a duality existed. In general, the study of dialects was felt as a threat to Classical Arabic and therefore as the uniting factor of the Arab world, besides religion. Colonizers were perceived as oppressors with different levels of intolerance depending on the rule in question, namely British, French, Spanish or Italian. Even so, in the previous period, some Arab intellectuals such as Rifāʿa al-Ṭahṭāwī still deemed Europe as an advantage rather than a danger, a position totally incompatible with that of the Algerian emir ʿAbd al-Qādir (1808-1883), who was an obstinate opponent of French rule in his country. It was only with the occupation of Tunisia and then Egypt that the political thought of the Muslim communities changed (Hourani, p. 103) and with it the relationship of Arabs with their language. Colonization was a particular period for the history of the Arab countries since it forced Arabs to face those issues that had previously begun undergoing reformation, but were still works in progress. Since the rise of the Nahḍa, Arabs had searched for a way to cope with an advanced and modernized Europe. Albeit, modernization often did not mean embracing Westernization and setting tradition aside. Innovation in teaching embedded itself in the intellectual debate of that period despite the colonial domination and the difficulties that Arab peoples suffered. It affected and influenced questions such as Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language, Arabic Language Education and Foreign Language Teaching in general. More than ever, this historical predicament was embodied in open debate on modernization by the Arab society, which juxtaposed itself with the occupying European forces. To give an example, the existence of a national higher education institute in Egypt was a topic argued by prominent intellectuals such as Ǧurǧī Zaydān, Muṣṭafà Kāmil, Muḥammad ʿAbduh and Saʿad Zaġlūl. Between the setting of the nineteenth and the dawning of the twentieth century, innovation in teaching influenced many fields: other institutions were established and Arab authors published relevant works and translations. These academies showed a renewed interest in Arabic Language Education and at the same time the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Both in Tunisia and in Egypt, the creation of new institutes corresponded to development in the field of instruction and teaching methodologies. In Tunis, schools were built over the two centuries. In 1896 the Khaldounia (Madrasat al-ḫaldūniyya) was established by the Tunisian reformer Béchir Sfar and aimed at providing a curriculum entirely in Arabic, in which sciences and modern subjects were included. After its foundation, other schools followed: in 1911 the École supérieure de langue et littérature Arabes, in 1922 the Centre d’études de droits de Tunis introduced the study of foreign languages. In the same period, a renewed stake in learning Arabic as a Foreign Language is

The Historical Background

37

confirmed. This interest involved both foreign scholars and communities in the Arab countries, who sometimes fostered it as a function of the colonizing mission and expansion of the West (see Kalati 2003). Consequently, the Haut Comité Méditerranéen et de l’Afrique du Nord and the Centre des Hautes Études d’Administration Musulmane were created in France, respectively, in 1935 and 1936. Moreover, from 1935 on, an examination in the Arabic language was established in order to recruit the civil inspectors of the French colonial administration (Bendana, p. 132). In this period, scholars of non-Arab origins contributed to enriching the scope of publications in Arabic; to mention one, the famous German linguist and orientalist Gotthelf Bergsträsser, who wrote al-Taṭawwur al-naḥwī li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya in 1929. The colonial period was also prolific in the exchange of teaching methodologies. In 1908, Cairo University (Ǧāmiʿat al-Qāhira) was off icially inaugurated under the name Egyptian University (al-Ǧāmiʿa al-miṣriyya), which remained so until 1940, when the institution was renamed King Fuʾad I University of Cairo (Ǧāmiʿat Fuʾād al-awwal) for a short period of time before taking its current name. For the first official lectures of the Egyptian University, King Fuʾad availed himself of foreign professors, especially Italians, since he had a strong predilection for Italy. Among these professors we find famous Arabists such as Ignazio Guidi and Carlo Alfonso Nallino as well as other acclaimed names like Gerardo Meloni and David Santillana. These professors held various courses in the Egyptian institute from its very first days. It is important to emphasize that the language used by these professors in their lessons was Arabic, but what is really striking is that they brought a new kind of teaching to Egypt, about which students were enthusiastic. As Baldinetti (p. 55) points out, Egyptian students were impressed not only by the good language knowledge of those professors, but also by their preparation, completeness of their research and teaching methods. Despite this, around 1910 Egyptian students began to dissent with protests for two reasons considered interesting from a pedagogical point of view. Students lamented the absence of exams and, at the same time, the kind of teaching methods that obliged them to merely take down notes and learn the concepts transcribed by heart. The students’ protests were soon contained, though this event shows a certain awareness among Egyptian students who claimed the right to receive better instruction and quality teaching. The creation of institutions of secular education and foreign control on the Arab homeland instilled distinct viability into the debate around modernization in Arab society. In this period, the study of the Arabic language coexisted with the study of other foreign languages in the curricula

38 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

of the newly established institutes and schools. This coincided with the amending of not only teaching methodologies, but also Arabic Language Education and language teaching in general. Indeed, these subjects were an integral part of the debate on modernization and, by the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, they underwent a significant reformation within the Arab world; Arabic Language Education (taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya) became a modern subject, characterized by a more practical approach. The debut of taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya as contemporary was modest and the first three decades of the twentieth century witnessed an equally limited interest in Arabic Language Education and Arabic language teaching in general. At the beginning of the 1980s, a group of scholars who gathered around the table of the Arab League Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO, or in Arabic al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm) tried to describe this inception (see al-Munaẓẓama 1983). According to this group, hereafter called ALECSO Board of Scholars, the research on the topic remained confined to the Arab regional boundaries (ibid.) and this situation may have led to a paucity of publications. Furthermore, according to Muḥyī al-Dīn Ṣābir, ALECSO director-general between 1976 and 1988, Arab scholars’ attention to education and teaching came with a certain delay with respect to other foreign countries (cf. ibid.). The ALECSO Board of Scholars identified the first trace of this renewed subject with the publication of al-Durūs al-naḥwiyya (Grammar lessons) in 1903 by Ḥifnī Nāṣif and other authors such as Muḥammad Diyāb, Muṣṭafà Ṭamūḥ and Maḥmūd ʿUmar (see Nāṣif et al. 1903a). The book has the dual scope of being used as a grammar reference and a workbook; it evidences novel drafting and topic order, including a variety of exercises, mainly devoted to the acquisition of morphological rules and syntactic structures, at the end of every chapter. Despite the innovative nature of this and other works by Nāṣif (e.g., Nāṣif et al. 1903b), the books were targeted at Arabic language speakers – not foreigners – who pursued in-depth knowledge of their language. Even though the board itself admits to the difficulty of circumscribing the origin of literature on Arabic language teaching methods (ṭuruq tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya) and regardless of the fact that there may have been other significant works on the topic before the publication of al-Durūs al-naḥwiyya, the book represents a good example of a subject characterized by a renewed and more practical approach, which is hermeneutic of the changing times. All the same, the works by Nāṣif (i.e., Nāṣif et al. 1903a, 1903b) are not the only fruits of the first decades of the twentieth century. As a whole, until the 1930s authors wrote their essays by

The Historical Background

39

deriving information from their practical experiences (al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 13), presenting a wide range of scientific themes that went from Arabic language teaching methods to education and from the school system to child psychology (see Tawfīq).

Open Doors The first half of the twentieth century was an aperture for the Arab world. Research, studies, theories on and approaches to modern language teaching dawned and spread within the Arab nations that gained independence from colonial powers, while those countries that were still subjected only partially experienced that inception. The debate and the desire of renewal that bred among scholars and educators in this period prepared the ground for the birth of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language, which was forged and grew from the scientific grounds as well as the theoretical contagion that took place in the region between the two world wars. During the 1920s and the 1930s, some Arab states gained independence from colonial powers and were soon ready to face social issues and host scientific debates within their new boundaries. Their status of newborn national entities allowed them to reunite people under the symbols of traditions like the Arabic language and Islam while exploring modernity through the opening to influences of theories and philosophies that originated outside the Arab world. Egypt experienced a particularly radical change during this period. The country gained independence from Britain in 1922 and soon after, under the leadership of the Wafd Party, which won the most seats in the House of Representatives in the 1923-1924 elections, embarked on the well-known ‘liberal experiment’ (see, i.e., al-Sayyid Marsot). Furthermore, many intellectuals came back to Egypt after a period of study in Europe. Among them one could find for instance, Muḥammad Ḥusayn Haykal, Ṭāhā Ḥusayn, Aḥmad Luṭfī al-Sayyid, etc. (cf. Camera D’Afflitto, p. 156; see also Badawi 1992b). The country was at the center stage of a vivacious scientific debate, which revolved globally around Arabic language and, in particular, language reform, the relationship between MSA and ʿāmmiyya and their development (e.g., ʿAbbās; ʿAysà; Wāfī). This period exhibited an increase in the number of books and articles published in various regions of the Arab world such as Egypt, Iraq and Syria. These publications focused on the teaching of writing (taʿlīm al-kitāba), reading (taʿlīm al-qirāʾa), dictation, language reform (iṣlāḥ al-luġa), teaching styles (asālīb al-taʿlīm) and Arabic language teaching (tadrīs al-ʿarabiyya),

40 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

beside secondary school instruction, children literature and pedagogy (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 13). The debate that animated Egypt in that period was initially fostered in 1934 by a group of intellectuals who wrote an article entitled ‘Hal alluġa al-ʿarabiyya fī ḥāǧa ilà iṣlāḥ?’ (‘Does the Arabic language need to be reformed?’) (cf. Maǧallat al-Hilāl). In the article, the authors analyzed a series of topics related to the reform of Arabic script. The group was formed by distinguished names such as Ṭāhā Ḥusayn, Manṣūr Fahmī, Muḥammad Kurd ʿAlī and ʿAlī ʿAbd al-Rāziq, who conveyed their ideas through a famous Egyptian journal al-Hilāl (The crescent), founded in 1892 by Ǧurǧī Zaydān. After a few years, the debate was still so important that Bahī al-Dīn Barakāt (1889-1972), an Egyptian intellectual and minister of education, formed an intellectual circle (nādī Barakāt) to concentrate again on the reform of Arabic script, publishing a number of articles on the topic in the Journal of Modern Education (Maǧallat al-tarbiya al-ḥadīta) in February 1938. Promptly, in the month of May of the same year, other intellectuals presented articles on the topic, which were published in al-Hilāl, in a sort of debate that went back and forth from one journal to the other. This debate continued to involve Egypt and other Arab states such as Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Algeria until the 1970s. To this, one should add the language question, a transversal dispute that has kept scholars and erudite others busy to this day (e.g., BoussofaraOmar; den Heijer). The dispute revolves around the question of diglossia (izdiwāǧiyyat al-luġa) and asks whether Modern Standard Arabic or its colloquial varieties should be the off icial language of Arabs. This ‘ageold and ceaseless debate’ (Ryding 1991) together with that on language reform left little room for other research issues such as applied linguistics. The questions ‘What to teach?’ and ‘Which variety?’ preceded ‘How to teach?’ and therefore the discussions on approaches and methods for Arabic language learning and teaching. This fact postponed the birth of new research focuses like Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language, which appeared in the 1960s when the world order was changing and with it the teaching and learning of languages, despite the fact that the debates cited above were still left open. However, the latter did not limit Arab scholars in their discovery of modernity. Doors were left open and the 1930s were thus decisive years for teaching innovation and scientific contamination of methods, approaches and theories. Egypt was for another time the stage of this process and the aforementioned Egyptian Journal of Modern Education played a key role in it.

The Historical Background

41

The first copy of Maǧallat al-tarbiya al-ḥadīta was published in 1928 by the American University at Cairo, established in 1919. The journal dealt with education and psychology and was the first of its kind in Egypt. In the early editions it mostly included translations from original American materials, while from the 1950s onward it published studies by Egyptian psychologists (cf. Abou-Hatab) and educators. The journal was a vehicle for the conveyance of new ideas and theories on education that originated outside Egypt. The views of famous American educators like John Dewey (1859-1952), Paul Monroe (1869-1947) and William Chandler Bagley (1874-1946) were presented. Two examples may be cited: firstly, an article written by Muḥammad alṬayyib Ḥasan in 1934 entitled ‘Kayfa tuṭabbaqu naẓariyyāt al-duktūr Ǧūn Dyūī ʿalà al-taʿlīm fī Miṣr’ (‘Dewey’s principles applied to Egyptian schools’); secondly, during the reign of King Fayṣal I of Iraq (1921-1933), the American educators Monroe and Bagley took part in the commission for the study of Iraqi instruction conditions and the result of their experience was reported in the journal. Theories and approaches from the United States such as Dewey’s experiential education or the ‘lecture method’6 (see Boktor and Galt) were not the only sources of knowledge about which Egyptian scholars were learning then. The Journal of Modern Education exposed the Egyptian readers to an array of new ideas and practical experiences coming from other teaching contexts, such as Mexico, Turkey and Italy.7 As information never travels in just one direction, it accordingly arrived in Egypt from all over the world. Hence, scientific contagion became inevitable as new theories infiltrated the Egypt of the ‘liberal experiment’ and forced Egyptians to face modernity. The doors that opened during the 20-year period between the 1920s and the end of the 1930s could not later be closed. The process had already started, and subsequently the following decade (1940s) witnessed an increase of scientific conduction engendered by translations, open debates and foreign influences in the development of teaching methods. Egypt and Iraq were again at the center stage of these phenomena. The debate insisted on some themes that had been discussed in the previous decade and as the ALECSO Board of Scholars later reported (al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 16), the 6 The lecture method is a teaching method, where the teacher usually gives an oral presentation and the learners listen to him. 7 Aḥmad Aṭiyyat Allāh (1906-1983), an Egyptian scholar from Aswan, wrote, for instance, an article entitled ‘Maṣīf al-talāmīd fī Īṭāliyā’ (‘Italian children and summer resorts’), which was published in 1933 in al-Tarbiya al-ḥadīta (see Aṭiyyat Allāh). In his article the author informs the reader of a summer camp (namely the Colonia marina ‘Edoardo Agnelli’ of Marina di Massa near Florence) in which the workmen’s children spent their holidays.

42 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

publications of this period focused on the relationship between MSA and the colloquial varieties, but also the simplification of the Arabic language, its advancement with respect to the requirements of the time, the teaching of reading and writing, literature, grammar and Arabic language teaching methodologies. Nonetheless, other topics such as language vocabulary lists (qāʾima li-l-mufradāt al-luġawiyya) captured the interest of scholars. In Iraq, in particular, authors dedicated their endeavors to Arabic language teaching methodologies for Arab pupils (i.e., al-Ḥuṣrī 1940; al-Naǧǧār). These writers published their own works, but also regularly contributed to enriching the debate in the periodical Maǧallat al-muʿallim al-ǧadīd (New teacher), edited by Mattà ʿAqrāwī (1901-1983) and published in Baghdad since 1935. Beside the Iraqi journal, other periodicals fostered the debate during the 1940s: Ṣaḥīfat dār al-ʿulūm, Maǧallat al-tarbiya al-ḥadīta and Ṣaḥīfat al-tarbiya, all published in Cairo. Scientific contagion began to spread in the Arab world by means of translations of Western scholarly books, contact between scholars of different proveniences, open debate and the expertise acquired by Arab scholars who traveled abroad. Notably, in 1946, Muḥammad Ḫalaf Allāh Aḥmad translated How the Mind Works, written by the British educational psychologist Cyril Burt (1883-1971), and in 1948 The Children We Teach: Seven to Eleven Years by the famous British psychologist Susan Isaacs (1885-1948) appeared in Egypt in translation as al-Ṭifl fī al-madrasa al-ibtidāʾiyya. Isaacs was influenced by Melanie Klein and from the pedagogical point of view she was convinced that independence was very important in the language-acquisition process of children and that knowledge could be attained through playing. These and other theories were made available to Arabic language scholars and psychologists who were vital in the scientific and cultural transition that Egypt and other Arab countries were going through at that moment. Methods of teaching and learning Arabic were also brought into question. The scholars of this period abandoned the link with the past, which had bound them to a kind of teaching that favored the talented (al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 16). They started to turn their attention to the scientific methods that allowed them to identify the nature of things (cf. ibid.). This is the reason why the 1940s saw a commitment to experimental research and numerous authors dedicated their attention to the study of psychological matters, pupils’ cognitive development (numū al-tilmīd), students’ learning interests (muyūl al-ṭullāb) and educational psychology in general (al-Munaẓẓama 1983). Another focus was modern teaching approaches (ṭuruq al-tadrīs). For instance, the work by Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Disūqī reflected the preference for teaching (talqīn) and in-depth study (muṭālaʿa) over the abundance of

The Historical Background

43

grammatical explanations (katrat al-qawāʿid). Thereupon, the methods of language teaching that could be found in the Arab world during this period were – to cite a few – the ‘indirect method’, the ‘whole-word method’ and the ‘phonetic method’. The first is translated into Arabic as al-ṭarīqa al-ġayr mubāšira and it is a method proposed in 1949 by Ḥamza, who explained it as being the use of Arabic in the study of other subjects. It would correspond to today’s Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), a learning methodology recently created that fosters language inputs through the teaching of subjects that are directly presented to students in the Second Language. The whole-word method is translated into Arabic as ṭarīqa kulliyya (the global method) and is attested in the work by al-Qawṣī, where the coauthors Sumaya Fahmī and Muḥammad Saʿīd Qadrī reported on the use of the method according to their direct experience on school pupils, which was carried out in the early 1940s. This method consisted of a comprehensive reading that emphasized the word as the smallest chunk of meaning in the language acquisition process rather than the isolated sounds or letters, as it happened with the phonetic method. This last is translated into Arabic either literally as ṭarīqa ṣawtiyya or as ṭarīqa ǧuzʾiyya (the partial method). It originated in the late nineteenth century, when the newborn science of phonetics was considered indispensable for the teaching and learning of languages. It focused on the spoken word rather than the printed page and on the sound rather than the letter (Gideon, p. 476). It was at f irst exclusively oral and gave paramount importance to pronunciation. It is in accord with names such as Henry Sweet, Sievers, Trautmann, Helmholtz, Passy, Rambeau and Klinghardt (Titone 1980, p. 74). The phonetic method was diffused in Iraq until the late 1930s, when educators involved in Iraqi instruction – such as Muḥammad Fāḍil al-Ǧamālī (1903-1997) and Mattà ʿAqrāwī – took over the previous generation of educators,8 contested the teaching methods used at school and discarded the phonetic method in favor of ‘the “progressive” ideas of John Dewey; expressly, reading using the whole-word method’ (Simon, p. 194). Although the target students of the debate on Arabic language teaching methods were for the most part Arab pupils, the discussion outlined above gives insight into the approaches and theories that influenced the field 8 Sāṭiʿ al-Ḥuṣrī (1882-1968) represented this generation. Al-Ḥuṣrī was a Syrian writer, educator and influential Arab politician of the twentieth century. In 1923 he introduced the primary school curriculum into Iraq for the first time. The curriculum was based on Arabic instead of Turkish; it did not give importance to local dialects and it used the standard phonetic method for reading (cf. Simon, p. 73).

44 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

of Arabic language (L1) learning and teaching during the first half of the twentieth century. Moreover, it prepares the ground for another discussion, the one on Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language, which evolved from these scientific foundations not to mention the theoretical contagion that took place in the Arab world during the period that preceded its manifestation. Another defining current was witnessed in this period: a special interest for the applied dimension of Arabic language teaching, as it happened in the work by al-Muršidī. The scholar wrote a book on elementary school examinations entitled Imtiḥānāt al-šahāda al-ibtidāʾiyya fī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya (Tests for primary school certification of Arabic). The book is markedly explanatory of the change of times, as it represents a movement toward a thematic specialization of the issues discussed by scholars, a trend frequently witnessed in the following decades. The 1950s were important years for the Arab world as some of its nations that had been striving to gain independence from foreign occupying forces, now obtained it. This was the case of Libya in 1951, and Tunisia, Morocco and Sudan in 1956. The former colonies were left with a distinct sociolinguistic panorama and in the period soon after their independence, they started Arabization (taʿrīb) policies that mainly aimed to eradicate the language of the colonizers, especially in the Maghreb region, where Arabization presented a special challenge (Altoma 1974, p. 286) and took the shape of a status planning rather than a corpus planning (cf. Maamouri, p. 27). Other Arab states were facing internal political reorganizations. For instance, in the 1950s, Egypt was going through a radical change once again. In 1952, the revolution led by the Free Officers Movement gave rise to the overthrowing and abolishment of the Egyptian monarchism. In the following years, and above all with the Suez Crisis of 1956 and during the government of Ǧamāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir (1956-1970) Egypt took on a pivotal role in the recent history of the Middle East, which put it at the fore of politics and economy in the region. Additionally, in the 1950s Egypt saw the reopening of a celebrated institution: the School of Translators founded by Rifāʿa al-Ṭahṭāwī, which was destined to play a strategic initial role the birth of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language (see Chapter 2). In 1951, after a long silence, the school opened its doors again, when Ṭāhā Ḥusayn – minister of education in that period – encouraged professor of Semitic languages Murād Kāmil to reopen the School of Languages (Madrasat al-alsun), which was later integrated into Ain Shams University as the Faculty of Languages (Kulliyyat al-alsun) in 1973. In the same period, another part of the Arab world was experiencing the end of an era. In 1953, the first king of Saudi Arabia, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Āl Saʿūd, died, leaving the kingdom to his two sons, Saʿūd and Fayṣal. The

The Historical Background

45

brothers entered in a period of open dispute that lasted until the accession of Fayṣal to the throne in 1964. During the 1950s many ministries were created, above all the Ministry of Education9 in 1953. In 1957, the first Saudi Arabian university was founded under the name of King Saʿud University (Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd). Later, the university would be the stage for the First International Symposium on Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers (al-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) held in 1978. In terms of scholarly production, the 1950s saw both a quantitative and a qualitative increase in publications regarding Arabic language learning and teaching (al-Munaẓẓama 1983). As Khater (1963, p. 13) affirmed, after the Egyptian coup d’état of 1952, Egyptian efforts to support research work into the teaching of Arabic was increased. The same situation can be seen in other Arab states. Authors concentrated on reading, grammar, and Arabic teaching styles, and they also explored new themes, such as teachers’ training (iʿdād al-muʿallim), adult education (taʿlīm al-kibār), reading skills (mahārāt al-qirāʾa), the role of libraries in education and pronunciation problems like communication disorders (amrāḍ al-kalām). Experimental and applied research began to proliferate in this period (al-Munaẓẓama 1983). Such studies were dedicated to topics like examinations (iḫtibārāt), vocabulary lists (ʿĀqil; Bailey) and spelling mistakes (al-aḫṭāʾ al-imlāʾiyya) (al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 39). Theories and approaches continued to penetrate the Arab world doors, which were left open. For instance, works by French linguist Joseph Vendryes and the famous psychologist Jean Piaget permeated Egypt through translations. The American educator William Gray (1885-1960) came to Egypt in the early 1950s in order to give some lessons on reading methodologies at the Institute of Education in Cairo (Maʿhad al-tarbiya bi-l-Qāhira). During the same period, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) dedicated its attention to Egypt, requesting a study that aimed at drafting a report of the existing methodologies for reading and writing in the country. The study was carried out in 1954 by Mahmoud Rushdi Khater (Ḫāṭir),10 a prolific Egyptian scholar, who dedicated his career to literacy (maḥw al-ummiyya), adult education and language testing. 9 The nucleus of the Saudi Ministry of Education (Wizārat al-maʿārif) was established in Saudi Arabia in 1925 (1344 H), with the creation of the Education Department (Mudīriyyat al-maʿārif) desired by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Āl Saʿūd (cf. al-Salmān, p. 181). 10 The works by the author are cited in bibliography either under the name ‘Khater’ if published outside the Arab world or its transliterated version ‘Ḫāṭir’ for those works published within the region.

46 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Khater started to analyze the textbooks available in Egypt in that period; he categorized them according to the target learners (children or adults) and the methodologies employed in the books, namely the phonetic and the whole-word method11 (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 32), which were the most diffused in that period. In light of this, it is important to mention a scholar that stands out from the other authors: Ibrāhīm Imām, who published an article in Ṣaḥīfat al-tarbiya (Journal of education) in 1953 where he encouraged the use of the language through speaking and repetition. This example represents a change of trend in the approach to language teaching, which shifted from a reading/writing-oriented philosophy to the communicative one on the theoretical level. Nonetheless, the methods identified by Khater were still subjects of discussion among scholars (ʿAbd al-Maǧīd 1956; alTūnisī; Barakāt 1959) and one had to wait until the following decades to see a resurgence in the field of teaching methodologies. In the meantime, Europe and North America were living through a revolution in the field of language teaching. The Second World War favored the birth of new teaching methods, which tried to cope with the changes attributable to the new world order. Among the new methods that emerged in this period, one can find the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP), which was a military program of the United States Army that aimed to provide officers with communicative language skills during wartime, from 1943 onward. ASTP instilled a sharper focus on real communication and three aspects of language teaching: oral production, grammar and cultural knowledge, namely area studies. To conclude, the first half of the twentieth century was particularly important with respect to the field of language teaching, as it was marked by scientific contagion and the arrival of new theories in the Arab world as well as by transformation and innovation, especially in North America. Hence, the excursus outlined above aims to illustrate the cultural atmosphere witnessed in the Arab world before the inception of Teaching Arabic as Foreign Language as a modern branch of applied linguistics; that is, to prepare readers with a more thorough understanding of the relative conditions in the Arab world and thereby elucidate the context for the following chapters.

11 These methods are called by Khater himself, respectively, the ‘analytical’ or the ‘alphabet method’ and the ‘global’ or the ‘sentence method’ (Khater 1963, p. 3).

2

The Birth of a New Branch

Between the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the following decade, colonizers ultimately left the territories that had been under their control in the Arab world. The last Arab state to obtain independence was Algeria in 1962, after a period of great tension and severe internal conflict with France. As a result, the newly independent Arab nations regained importance in the international arena and their political leaders became well-known, as in the case of Ǧamāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir or Habib Bourguiba (Būrqība). The Arab world was going through a radical change. The Free Officers Movement fomented revolution in the region and took over Arab monarchies in Iraq (1958), Yemen (1962) and Libya (1969). Ǧamāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir represented the Arab world’s ‘center of political gravity’ (Osman, p. 58) and a focal point of these demands for change. This fact prompted Egypt to assume a leading role in the entire region. In 1958, Egypt and Syria merged as one state, which was called the United Arab Republic (abbreviated to UAR). The United Arab Republic had a short life since it existed only until 1961; however, it represented a first step toward a larger unitary pan-Arab socialist state. With the Conference of Belgrade of 1961, Egypt and other Arab countries1 adopted nonaligned positions, which diverged both from NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Nonetheless, pan-Arab and socialist sentiments were very strong in many Arab countries and this inevitably generated tensions at an international level. The United States and the Soviet Union had already entered the Cold War era and the Arab world did not remain untouched by the emergence of the two power blocs. Egypt had tense relations with Saudi Arabia, which opposed pan-Arabism with pan-Islamism. In 1964, the accession of Fayṣal to the throne in the Kingdom of Āl Saʿūd marked the beginning of a new era, which was characterized by economic growth, projects of vital importance and reforms such as that concerning education (cf. Abd-el Wassie). Fayṣal was a modernist leader and at the same time pan-Islamist, as he feared the transmission of pan-Arabism in his country, a trend that was spreading rapidly in the Arab world at that time. At the time, Saudi Arabia was experiencing exceptional development, which was likely thanks to the rise in the price of oil and its respective revenues. On the one hand, oil had become a strategic resource for the reconstruction of European economies after the Second World War; on the other hand, the profits it generated allowed the Saudi Arabian kingdom to consolidate the 1

Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia and Yemen.

48 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

state in 1932. Concurrently, the United States began to bolster their role in the Middle Eastern region. According to the Eisenhower Doctrine, the defeat of France and Britain in the Suez Crisis of 1956 unequivocally left a void in the Middle East (cf. Al-Rasheed, p. 158). The proliferation of ideologies such as Fayṣal’s pan-Islamism, Arab nationalism, Nasserite pan-Arabism and socialism influenced those authors who wrote on Arabic language learning and teaching during the 1960s. Ḥusayn Sulaymān Qūra’s positions are a prime example since they reflected the civic nature of the Nasserite project (cf. Qūra), which was mainly a non-Islamic political and developmental program that emphasized civic notions such as social equality and identification with the poor (cf. Osman, p. 60). From the point of view of scholarly publications, authors focused on the teaching of writing, reading, grammar, as well as teaching styles, adult education, literature teaching, children’s literature and the role of libraries in education (al-Munaẓẓama 1983). In addition, the 1960s saw the birth of new themes such as the Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language (taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) and Arabic language assessment (taqwīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya). Scholars began to draw their attention to specific themes such as language skills (mahārāt), especially those involving reading and the development of literary taste (tadawwuq adabī) in the student, a topic anchored in literature teaching. An important phenomenon was the debate on language reform and its simplification, which continued to interest the Arab world throughout this decade and now entailed traditional centers of higher education such as al-Azhar (Ǧāmiʿat al-azhar). As it turns out, its journal, the Maǧallat al-azhar (al-Azhar journal), got involved in the debate and the scholars who wrote for it expressed the university’s point of view on the topic. In this debate, there was also the participation of Tammām Ḥassān (1918-2011), an eminent Egyptian linguist, who wrote an article entitled ‘al-Naḥw wa-l-manṭiq’ (‘Grammar and logic’). The debate continued not only in the Maǧallat al-azhar, but also in the other journals active in that period: for instance, Maǧallat maǧmaʿ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya (Journal of the Arabic Language Academy), al-Maǧalla (The journal), Maǧallat maǧmaʿ Dimašq (Journal of the Damascus Language Academy) and the Iraqi Maǧallat al-ustād (Professor’s journal) (al-Munaẓẓama 1983). In a sense, the debate even influenced the first scholarly productions on Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language (i.e., Makkī), which aspired to analyze Arabic language teaching from a new perspective despite still being linked to this age-old discussion. The 1960s were also a period in which Arab scholars inquired about modern language approaches and practical achievements carried out outside

The Birth of a New Br anch

49

the Arab world. As, for example, Ḥiǧāzī wrote about famous educators such as Pestalozzi, Fröbel, Rousseau, Montessori and Parkhurst while also reporting on a series of methods that were used in the teaching of reading. Other scholars presented either the Gestalt theories originating in Germany in the early twentieth century (ʿAbd al-Maǧīd 1961) or some applications of the structural and communicative methods. The traditional teaching approaches like the whole-word and the phonetic method were placed side by side with new ones. The use of radio and television in the teaching of languages was introduced and some scholars (e.g., Makkī) wished it were employed for Arabic language learning and teaching or maintained what Khater (1963, p. 13) pointed out: ‘the teaching of language […] should not be confined to the book, it should extend its arms so as to embrace [the] new media as well’, such as the press, the radio and television. Synchronously, the School of Languages of Cairo proposed a solution to avoid heterogeneity in Arabic as a Foreign Language classes, which was and is still a popular trend (Muḥammad Aḥmad; al-Fiqī). The solution was called ‘the movable classes’ system (al-fuṣūl al-mutaḥarrika) and aimed to place students at the most appropriate level, by upgrading or downgrading them with a certain flexibility according to their knowledge of language (Muḥammad Aḥmad, p. 56). Although this solution may seem quite obvious today, one can easily imagine that it represented a ‘best practice’ in the field of teaching at that time. Regarding Arabic language testing in the Arab world, it remained bound to the field of literacy development; therefore, it was targeted at native speakers. However, from the second half of the 1960s on, Arab scholars dedicated increasingly more attention to the matter of taqwīm (assessment) (Muǧāwir et al.; al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 82), which reaped a new terminological significance. As a result, other tests were published in Egypt, specifically in the city of Sers el-Layyan, and Saudi Arabia during this time (Ḫāṭir n.d.), while Western translations on the topic entered the Arab world and started a transformation. Translations revealed to Arab readers different assessment techniques (ṭuruq al-taqwīm), tests for the measurement of language skills such as listening (iṣġāʾ), speaking, writing, handwriting (taqdīr al-ḫaṭṭ), composition (intaǧ maktūb), grammar, expression and literary taste (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 87). In the meantime in the United States, the first Arabic Proficiency Test was produced under the direction of Peter Fouad Abboud and four other contributors: Raji Rammuny, Salman al-Ani, Sami Hanna and Bill Cowan (cf. Rammuny and May). Peter F. Abboud was a scholar born in Palestine in 1931, who studied in London, Cairo and Austin to later teach Arabic at the University of Texas from 1961 on. In 1966, he headed a

50 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

workshop at Columbia University dedicated to Arabic instructional and testing materials where the preparation of an Arabic proficiency test was urged (cf. McCarus); subsequently, it was quickly realized by 1967. Between the end of the 1950s and the mid-1960s, there were the first discussions on a new branch of applied linguistics: The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language (TAFL), together with the advent of books and articles dedicated to it. Roger Allen explains that Western universities realized the strategic dimensions of language competence in Arabic only through a later rostrum, as governments and their diplomatic arms implemented new programs of instruction after the Second World War, and as consequence of contacts with indigenous peoples in North Africa and greater Syria (cf. Ryding 2013, p. ix). The TAFL phenomenon can be explained with the convergence of various factors, both historical and social. The heightened importance of some Arab nations – now independent from colonial rules – their economic axis during the 1960s and the following decades and not least the sacredness of Arabic itself among Muslims induced many people to the study of Arabic outside the Arab world and within. In addition, mass media began to yield great attention to the Middle Eastern political scenario, especially to themes such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, along with the migration phenomenon, which affected North Africa and made Arabic one of the major migrant languages in Europe. After decolonization, the world order inevitably changed and the Arab region entered the international panorama enjoying temporary stability. In respect to this period, globalization ‘has given Arabic a far more prominent position in Western societies than was the case earlier’ (Nielsen 2009, p. 147). In the same time span, Foreign Language Teaching evolved comprehensively, not to mention the proliferation of new teaching methods. Peoples entered the globalization era and felt the necessity to communicate with each other on the international level. As a result, a series of approaches to language teaching were created, all backed by scientific research and scholars, whose work addressed linguistics and its practical applications. Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language (TAFL), as we know it today, is a product of these times; it is a subject that arose from the tangency of reflections made by Arab scholars after national independences with those made by the rest of the world, especially by scholars who operated in the nerve centers of Arabic language studies and applied linguistics outside the Arab world. A f irst conference on the teaching of Modern Standard Arabic was organized in August 1958 at Harvard University by Charles Ferguson (Muḥammad Aḥmad; Belnap and Haeri), which was followed the year after

The Birth of a New Br anch

51

by the Symposium on Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabs (nadwat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab) held at the Instituto de Estudios Islámicos en Madrid in 1959 under the direction of the Egyptian Ministry of Education. The symposium gathered Arabists from the Arab world, the United States and above all Europe.2 It gave such ample consideration to the works initiated the previous year at Harvard that Ferguson was invited to take part in the ensuing debate, which revolved around themes such as the variety of Arabic to be taught, the creation of a vocabulary list for Arabic, the identification of a method for Basic Arabic (al-ʿarabiyya al-asāsiyya) and a simplified version of the language that would serve in teaching non-native speakers. The end of the symposium marked the creation of a permanent committee, the Comité d’Enseignement de l’Arabe aux Non-arabes (laǧnat tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab), composed of the meeting lecturers (cf. Maʿhad Madrīd). Having said that, the Arab nations did not defer their commitment on the issue: Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language was considered a strategic aim (tawaǧǧuh istrātīǧī) in Egypt already in 1959,3 when the Symposium of Madrid was organized and other activities began in the country. In May 1960, the School of Languages of Cairo (Madrasat al-alsun) introduced a project intended to group various experiences in the field, including that of the Madrid symposium. The report issued by the school described a series of problems linked to TAFL and put particular emphasis on the importance of textbooks (cf. Muḥammad Aḥmad, p. 43), as L1 material for AFL lessons was used (cf. Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 121). Therefore, a commission for the drafting of textbooks was arranged with the participation of the school’s dean, Muḥammad Mursī Rāšid, and Hilmī Naṣr, a scholar destined to be known later as the founder of TAFL in Brazil. In no time, the School of Languages was in the spotlight of the debate on TAFL and this was no coincidence. First and foremost, the school was incipient in the study of foreign languages with a modern approach both in Egypt and in the Arab world and, at the same time, it was a pole of Arab studies (cf. ibid.). Secondly, it could trust a commission of experts that drafted textbooks for TAFL fostered by the facilities and teaching tools of the school (cf. Muḥammad Aḥmad, p. 43). Following this, the textbook Taʿallam al-ʿarabiyya (Learn Arabic) was 2 Among the lecturers we cite a few: Laura Veccia Vaglieri from Italy, Charles Pellat from France, Robert B. Serjeant from the United Kingdom, Bertold Spuler and Hans Wehr from Germany, Fernando de la Granja Santamaría and Elías Terés from Spain (cf. Maʿhad Madrīd, p. 439). 3 Cf. http://www.mohe-casm.edu.eg/static_data/arabic_learn/about_center/Main, accessed 12 March 2018.

52 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

issued in 1961 with the aim of simplifying the teaching of Arabic as a Second Language (cf. Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 121). The book conformed to modern principles of language teaching and it brought learners from the study of MSA to a colloquial variety4 in a straightforward fashion (ibid.). Three years later, the Egyptian Ministry of Education decided to build a center fully dedicated to the language preparation (iʿdād luġawī) of international students studying in Egypt. This was called the Arabic Language Education Center for Foreign Students (al-Markaz al-taʿlīmī li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-lṭullāb al-wāfidīn) and was established in Cairo in 1964, hereafter abbreviated as Maʿhad al-Qāhira. Among the objectives of Maʿhad al-Qāhira was the preparation of a modern and developed curriculum, the organization of summer schools and inaugural days for international students settling in Egypt. However, most prevailingly, its first aim was the propagation (našr) of Arabic among international students coming to Egypt to enroll in one of its universities. Before they mastered Arabic, Maʿhad al-Qāhira helped them to schedule Modern Standard language sessions so as to be able to continue their studies once they reached a good level of language knowledge. This offered training responded to a market demand, which should be observed as a much wider phenomenon that spread all over the Arab world and was essential in the founding of TAFL. The affinity of Arabic and its sacredness has always been cogent in the hearts of Muslims. The historical conjuncture of decolonization and Arab independences, coupled with easier traveling conditions, favored the study of Arabic within the Arab world: many Arab countries were free to finally organize language sessions for non-Arabs, while Muslims living outside the Arab world now had the opportunity to travel abroad to study their language of denomination. The discourse on publications – which were few in number – is interesting chiefly from a terminological point of view. Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language can be translated into Arabic with different expressions, among which taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (teaching of Arabic to non-Arabic speakers) seems to be nowadays the most commonly used. However, this early phase exhibited different terminological choices for the classification and denomination of the subject. The authors that wrote in the 1960s named the newborn branch either al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib (Arabic for foreigners) (Makkī; Rāšid) or taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab (Arabic language teaching to non-Arabs) (Šalabī 1966; al-Ḥadīdī). The 4 For the sake of precision, Madkūr and Harīdī (p. 121) use the expression ‘Educated Spoken Arabic’ (ʿāmmiyya al-mutaqqaf īn), which represents one of the sociolinguistic levels later formulated by Badawi (1973, 1985, 1995).

The Birth of a New Br anch

53

two formulations originated from divergent contexts, although they aimed to convey the same concept. On the one hand, the first is the countenance of the political changes that took place after the Second World War, which established the new world order. In this new era, the nation-states were closed sets that had relations and interacted with other state entities, which were distinguished by politics and language. In addition, the choice of the first formulation seems to reflect the contemporary use of the term aǧānib (foreigners), which represents the ‘otherness’ in the new world order. For instance, Makkī (p. 80) uses the term in connection with foreign institutes, organizations and students, who started to visit Egypt for study purposes. In a sense, these students represent the outsider group as opposed to Egyptians. On the other hand, the second formulation may have other origins. However, it recalls the classic opposition between ʿaǧam (non-Arabic speakers) and ʿarab, where the former term is a synonym of ġayr al-ʿarab (non-Arabs) and contrasts with the latter. The first publications on TAFL tried to analyze methods (kayfiyya), problems (muškilāt) and proposed a simplification (taysīr) of Arabic language teaching to non-native speakers (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 86). In a sense, these publications were influenced by the debate on Arabic language reform during the foregoing decades within the Arab world. According to the ALECSO Board of Scholars the first work dedicated to TAFL appeared in Cairo in 1964 and may be identified with Ṣalāḥ ʿAbd al-Maǧīd al-ʿArabī’s book Maʿāmil al-luġāt (Language laboratories). Two years earlier, Sāṭiʿ al-Ḥuṣrī had published Durūs fī uṣūl al-tadrīs (The fundamentals of teaching) in Beirut, in which he debated various topics, included the Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 89). However, the first publications entitled to be called TAFL appeared two years later, again in the Egyptian capital, which was the center stage of the new trends in the Arab world. In 1966, Aḥmad Šalabī, an esteemed Egyptian scholar who obtained his PhD at the University of Cambridge, published Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab (Arabic language teaching to non-Arabs). In June of the same year, al-Maǧalla (The journal) published an article entitled ‘Taysīr al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib’ (‘Arabic language simplification for foreigners’), written by al-Ṭāhir Aḥmad Makkī, an eminent Egyptian scholar born near Esna in the Luxor Governorate in 1924. Makkī was not a TAFL specialist; his pursuits were prevalently engaged the field of Arabic literature, especially the literature of al-Andalus. As a result, his article was influenced by his main field of expertise and interest, as he identified three historical phases for TAFL. The first began in Toledo, at the Escuela de Traductores, when Arabic was studied during the

54 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

twelfth century. The history of TAFL continues with the colonial period and then quickly goes to the third phase that coincides with the end of the Second World War. After citing a series of efforts made by foreigners (hayʾāt aǧnabiyya) in the field of Arabic language learning and teaching in which he mentions Harvard University and the University of Michigan, Makkī states that the Arab nations have made little effort in this direction (cf. Makkī, p. 80), despite the increase in the number of students learning Arabic. In a sense, the article can be considered a manifesto of the new branch to which it is dedicated, not because of its pervasiveness or success, but for the principles and aims that it contains, which represent Makkī’s line of thought and ideological objectives. According to the author, in fact, the study of Arabic is functional for the knowledge of culture (cf. Makkī, p. 81). This knowledge can be inferred through authentic readings in addition to well-structured textbooks and it can be imparted by teachers, whose training represents the most important step for the future of education and TAFL. Makkī describes how the teaching of Arabic to foreigners should be and accordingly he proposes a method split into two levels, which seems to follow the principles theorized by phoneticians. The article is written with an enlightened approach since the author discusses Arabic language learning and teaching from a modern perspective, putting emphasis on themes such as the unbreakable bond between language and culture and the way of thinking (ṭarīqat al-tafkīr), which – he says – varies from language to language (cf. Makkī, p. 85). The ensuing year, in 1967, TAFL was given heed by other scholars once again. Aḥmad Šalabī published a second book entitled Taʿlīm al-luġa alʿarabiyya wifqan li-aḥdat al-ṭuruq (Arabic language teaching according to the most modern methods). In the same year, ʿAlī al-Ḥadīdī published his scientific guide for TAFL teachers Muškilat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab (The problem of Arabic language teaching to non-Arabs), in which he spoke about the newborn branch, the importance of Arabic on the international level and other didactical issues such as grammar terminology and the different skills involved in the Arabic language acquisition process. In the work there is also a general regard for the best practices carried out in Western Europe and the United States. The author reported new teaching approaches like language study via means of the radio in Australia, to which one should add the others described by Muḥammad Mursī Rāšid in the book preface. In this part, Rāšid speaks about some methods in relation to Foreign Language Teaching in general. These are: the grammar-translation method (ṭarīqat al-tarǧama), the direct method (ṭarīqa mubāšira) and the aural-oral approach – called also audio-lingual method – (in Arabic ṭarīqa

The Birth of a New Br anch

55

samʿiyya šafawiyya or samʿiyya nuṭqiyya), which is a method developed around the Second World War that starts from sounds and then shifts to reading and writing (cf. Rāšid). In essence, this approach is founded on the notion that language is basically a matter of listening and speaking. It favors aural acquisition and production activities in the target language. In addition, Rāšid refers to the so-called ‘traditional method’ (ṭarīqa taqlīdiyya), in which the student ‘found many difficulties’ (cf. al-Ḥadīdī, p. 6). This method was later described by various Arab TAFL scholars during the 1970s and 1980s (al-Swīsī 1979; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; Maamouri, ʿAbīd, and al-Ġazālī; al-Nāqa 1985c; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985; Badrān). These agreed on the fact that the method was used in an early stage of TAFL, at least, until the end of the 1970s. For instance, Ṭaʿīma (1986, p. 8) affirmed that – until a certain period – Arabic language teaching was mainly a question of teachers’ efforts and it was not built on any scientific method. Similarly, some Tunisian scholars (in Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī) of the Institut Bourguiba (see below) spoke about the traditional methods as being used inside and outside the Arab region until the Riyadh symposium of 1978 (see Chapter 3). According to Rāšid (in al-Ḥadīdī), TAFL firstly began with the traditional method and Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn (1985, p. 43) gave examples of what the common proclivity of language learning was before the advent of scientific methods. The three scholars reported that teachers would explain grammatical aspects of the language, exceptions to the rule and particulars, while most of the students were distrait. At the end of the lesson, the teacher would ask them to give examples of the topics explained by formulating suitable sentences. With respect to the focus of this method, al-Swīsī (1979, p. 79) affirmed that it fostered translation, the memorization of grammar rules and vocabulary lists. Badrān (p. 42) held that it mainly consisted of theoretical teaching (talqīn naẓarī) and corresponded to the translation method pervasive in Europe. Moreover, it purposed teaching the living language starting from reading and writing (al-Swīsī 1979; Bākallā in Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī), rather than the audio-lingual method, which coveted pronunciation, aural acquisition and production activities. In particular, the scholars from the Institut Bourguiba pointed out that the traditional method used in the Arab world was based on the theoretical teaching of grammar rules and morphology, with little application and real use of the language. The same was true in Europe, where Arabic language teaching concentrated on translation (ṭarīqat al-tarǧama) and again lacked palpable language use. To these observations, al-Ḥārdallū (in Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī) added that this was a diffused trend among orientalists, who

56 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

mastered reading, writing, grammar and translation, but were unable to express themselves orally and had low levels of proficiency in listening comprehension. This circumstance resulting from the traditional teaching method was defined by the Sudanese scholar as a ‘reversed situation’ (waḍʿ maqlūb) arduously rectifiable. In general, there were no specialized TAFL teachers, both inside and outside the Arab world: Arabs were specialized in teaching Arabic as a first language, while non-Arab scholars typically learned the language either to translate literature or to gain access to the sacred scriptures (cf. Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī). In a sense, one could hypothesize that Arabic Language Education may have influenced the field of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language in its early stage. Expressly, the traditional approach of teaching Arabic was taken for TAFL classes, where textbooks for L1 learners were used in a first phase. According to Maamouri, ʿAbīd and al-Ġazālī, the traditional method was the fruit of the Arabic diglossic situation. The presence of two functionally different varieties, manifestly, led grammarians and linguists to prefer one variety over the other, which was often – if not always – the most ‘eloquent’ one. This necessarily induced the choice of reading and writing skills to the detriment of listening and speaking, which were often – but not always – neglected. To conclude, one can affirm that TAFL was started in the 1960s by scholars who specialized in very different disciplines, such as history or literature, while they dedicated partial attention to this new branch. However, Makkī, Šalabī and al-Ḥadīdī shared a common quality, which directed them in exploring the field of Arabic language learning and teaching from a new perspective: they all experienced otherness and had a relation with it in a moment in which the world was changing and the Arab region entered the international scene in the form of independent nation-states. Al-Ḥadīdī obtained his PhD in the United Kingdom and had experience of teaching Arabic to foreigners in Egypt at Ain Shams University and abroad; Šalabī studied at the University of London and then obtained his PhD at the University of Cambridge; Makkī specialized in the literature of al-Andalus and could be considered an expert of the Spanish world5 since he studied and taught Arabic abroad, at the University of Madrid and the Pontifical Xavierian University of Bogotá, Colombia. The motivations that brought these scholars to start their teaching experiences abroad are the expression of favorable opening that Arabic 5 In his article, Makkī (p. 78) cites a series of Spanish scholars, such as the Majorcan philosopher Ramon Llull (d. 1315), the Arabist Miguel Asín Palacios (1871-1944) and Federico Corriente Córdoba.

The Birth of a New Br anch

57

and Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language was experiencing in that period. The new branch began to spread outside the Arab world and this allowed Arabs to realize a twofold objective that represented one of their greatest aspirations in that historical moment. According to Badawi (1980, p. 22), the expansion of Arabic language teaching on an international scale allowed Arabs to claim their identity – as they embraced an independent status – and start cooperation with the former oppressors, who had been controlling their territories. Moreover, it sanctioned the building of more solid bridges with the Muslim countries already affected by Islam but not Arabic yet. Thus, TAFL landed in Europe, North America and other places where Arabic had been taught for a considerable amount of time, but a new methodological awareness was reawakening scholars who started to carry out new applied research in the field (Abboud 1968; Kalati 2003, 2004). Contemporaneously, Arabic and TAFL reached remoter places where the need of Arabic language learning was relatively recent: Arabic began to spread, for instance, in Asia and South America, and TAFL in the Muslim states of Africa. Indeed, a multitude of similar stories tell of the birth of TAFL in various countries, such as Brazil, Chile, Korea or Nigeria (see, i.e., Hunwick; Ḥakīm; Hee-Man and El-Khazindar; Gomes de Araújo). To take a case in point, Ḥilmī Naṣr, from the School of Languages of Cairo, arrived in Brazil in 1962 and officially started teaching Arabic at the University of São Paulo a year later. Another example took place in 1965 when the Korean Ministry of Education agreed to the opening of a department of Arabic language and literature at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. Finally, in the same year, the University of Ibadan in Nigeria organized a seminar on the teaching of Arabic. Even though Arabic teaching as a foreign language was mainly a matter regarding non-Arab institutes before the 1960s, ultimately it may be said that the branch of TAFL, as we know it today, originated both inside and outside the Arab world at the same time. This new branch sprung from the exchange and dialogue between the newly independent Arab countries and the rest of the world in a peculiar historical landmark, characterized by the reorganization of the world’s economic and political equilibrium. The mid-1960s confirmed what could be defined as the first strongholds of TAFL in the Arab world: the Institut Bourguiba des Langues Vivantes (Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya) of Tunis and the Arabic Language Education Center for Foreign Students of Cairo (Maʿhad al-Qāhira). In addition, an ‘Arabic language teaching division’ (šuʿbat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya) was established at the Islamic University of Medina in 1966 (cf. al-Rabbāḥ, p. 223). In 1963, Muḥammad Ibn Ismāʿīl (also Ben Ismail), together with a group of other Tunisian scholars, founded the Arabic section of the Institut Bourguiba

58 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

(Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983), which has since offered Arabic language training to foreign learners and is often referred to either as ‘IBLV’ – the acronym of its French name – or as the ‘Bourguiba School’.6 IBLV was officially established in 1964, the same year when Maʿhad al-Qāhira was founded. The Bourguiba School focused on foreign students interested in learning about Arab-Islamic culture (ḥaḍāra ʿarabiyya islāmiyya) and its human values (qiyam insāniyya) (cf. Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī). Furthermore, since its beginning, the Tunisian institute endeavored to expand the teaching of Arabic: during the summer, students had the opportunity to study the language in IBLV textbooks targeted at AFL learners like Durūs fī mabādiʾ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya (Lessons on the principles of Arabic language), which was published in 1966 by professors Muḥammad Ibn Ismāʿīl, Muḥammad Ibn Ṣāliḥ and Aḥmad al-ʿĀyid. The book comprised 21 units, each dealing with a different grammar topic (al-Swīsī 1991). Soon after the birth of these language bastions, in 1967, the Center for Arabic Study Abroad (CASA) program was established at the American University in Cairo, which started providing advanced Arabic language training to undergraduates, graduates and professors, allowing them to gain a greater understanding of Egypt and the Arab world.7 Although these institutes were commonly recognized by Arab TAFL scholars as the first TAFL experiences in the region, other untold stories can be narrated. As a matter of fact, a few authors have described the dawning of the teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language in Lebanon, at the American University in Beirut (AUB), which was founded in 1866 by American missionaries. Another account claims that TAFL began there in the early 1920s, ‘when the young Anīs Frayḥa took up a position as adjunct professor in the Department of Arabic and Near Eastern Languages and began teaching new American faculty members and their wives Lebanese colloquial Arabic’ (cf. Kozah, p. 282; Wilmsen, p. 141). In addition, a British institution, namely the Middle East Centre for Arab Studies (MECAS), was moved to the village of Shemlan in the Chouf Mountains above Beirut (cf. Craig; Wilmsen) in 1948, after functioning in Jerusalem8 between 1944 and 1946 and in Zarqa (Jordan) in 1947. Both MECAS and AFL at AUB withered away in the 1970s when Beirut came to be seen as too dangerous as a studyabroad destination and MECAS closed its doors (cf. Wilmsen, p. 141). This is the reason why less scrutiny is given to these two TAFL experiences within 6 The story of the English name ‘Bourguiba School’ is briefly clarified by Canu (p. 16), who affirms that this referred to the institute where English night classes were organized in 1958. 7 Cf. http://www.aucegypt.edu/academics/CASA, accessed 26 April 2017. 8 In Jerusalem the centre was run by the English Arabist Bertram Sidney Thomas (1892-1950).

The Birth of a New Br anch

59

the study, besides the fact that Lebanon does not represent a focus area of the present investigation. Similarly, another often-untold story can be mentioned. In 1955, Professor Ḫalīl Maḥmūd ʿAsākir was sent from Cairo University to the Marīdī Institute (Maʿhad Marīdī) in South Sudan, where he was asked to teach Arabic to non-Arab speakers. There, the teaching of Arabic was targeted at local language speakers other than Arabic and was included by Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa Abū Bakr (1980) in the examples of early TAFL experiences transpiring in Sudan and the Arab world in general. However, this last experience places itself between TAFL and Arabization; hence, the dedicated amplitude of focus on it is reduced within this study.9

Conclusions The 1960s were decisive years for TAFL, for this period was a watershed ushering a new branch of teaching both within the Arab world and outside of it, although significant prior experiences can be chronicled. This situation can be summarized by what the French Arabist Charles Pellat said at the Madrid symposium in 1959: ‘We are starting a revolution in the field of Arabic language teaching and – as we know – every revolution has its own philosophy and action program. Our duty is to take care of its future directions.’10

9 For a general overview on the topic, see Bašīr (2013). 10 My translation (cf. Maʿhad Madrīd, p. 485).

3

Growth (1970s)

The death of Ǧamāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir (Nasser) on 28 September 1970 left the Arab world with no political leader and at the same time it marked the end of an era. After years of a rather intellectually liberal atmosphere, Egypt entered a new phase: President Anwar al-Sādāt – who succeeded Nasser – steered the country away from the Nasserite project and replaced the civic nature of the Egyptian state of the 1950s and 1960s with a quasi-Islamic one (cf. Osman, p. 90). Moreover, his foreign policy marked the end of Egypt’s leading role in the Arab world. The political vacancy this created was filled first by King Fayṣal of Saudi Arabia, then by Saddam Hussein in Iraq, both of whom tried – in vain – to replace Nasser (Campanini, p. 174). Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language, the new branch of applied linguistics that flourished during the 1960s in Egypt, now suffered a setback in the country. As a result, it crossed the Suez Canal eastward and Cyrenaica westward to spread across territories and reach other corners of the Arab world. Hence, during the 1970s, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, and Libya saw the rise of TAFL, which developed considerably as the number of publications increased and conferences were organized within the Arab world. The undisputed Arab capitals of the new expansion were Riyadh and Khartoum, together with the Syro-Lebanese region and Cairo, albeit in the background. Tunisia, in particular, saw the appearance of the first work on TAFL only in 1979, even though the Bourguiba School had already published dedicated textbooks (Ibn Ismāʿīl, Ibn Ṣāliḥ, and al-ʿĀyid; Ibn Ismāʿīl 1974) and continued to train foreign learners of Arabic during summer sessions for the whole decade. In all these places, Arab scholars debated TAFL, started new projects, conducted experimental studies and had the opportunity to create institutes which focused their attention on this specific research field both from theoretical and practical points of view. Apart from the Bourguiba School and Maʿhad al-Qāhira – which mainly pursued practical objectives – the first institute dealing with TAFL theory within the Arab world was established in Sudan. The reason that such a decision was taken in a remote country of the Arab world stems from both historical and linguistic factors. On the one hand, Sudan was experiencing a fertile moment at the beginning of the 1970s. As a matter of fact, after the military coup of 1969 and throughout the first half of the following decade, the country bore a period of secular government, which was driven by Ǧaʿfar Nimayrī, a Free Officer, who initially pursued socialist and pan-Arabist policies. On the other hand, the country displayed a distinct morphological

62 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

situation, characterized by the coexistence of Arabic with a multitude of other local languages, which produced linguistic phenomena such as language transfer.1 The concurrence of these two factors favored the birth of an institute dedicated to Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language. In 1974 the Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm al-duwalī li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya) was founded by ALECSO, after a petition by the Sudanese government requesting that a TAFL center be built in order to remedy the problem of language transfer (tadāḫul luġawī) in the country.2 The institute (hereafter referred to as Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm) was geared toward training learners of Arabic as a Foreign Language, providing a dedicated library and offering a diploma in this specific field. From its foundation to 1976, Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm played a key role in TAFL, training the first TAFL ‘ambassadors’ (al-Nāqa 1985c), who graduated in 1976 (Qāsim 1992, p. 115), and attracting Arab scholars from Egypt and Tunisia, who were employed as teaching experts. Among them for instance, there was Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa, Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma and Muḥammad Ibn Ismāʿīl (Ben Ismail), later known for their contributions to the field and for animating the debate in the following decade (see Chapter 4). In the same year, the Arabic Language Institute was founded at King Saʿud University, which was later renamed the University of Riyadh (Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ) during the reign of Fayṣal, lasting until it reverted to its original name in 1981. King Fayṣal reigned until 1975, when he was murdered by his nephew Fayṣal ibn Musāʿid. During his tenure, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) – of which Saudi Arabia was a member – declared an oil embargo against the United States and other industrialized countries that supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War. These events, later remembered as ‘the 1973 oil crisis’, put Saudi Arabia and other Arab states in the limelight on an international level. As a result of the world’s increased attention on the Arab emerging economies, the interest for Arab culture and language heightened. Arabic was added to the official languages of the United Nations in 1973 and, as a consequence of the political turmoil of the early 1970s, Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language received a boost, which was followed by a debate deemed necessary for the creation 1 Language interference, or language transfer, reflects the influence or the action of a given language system on another. It often deals with linguistic item borrowings (words, rules, categories, meanings, etc.), which are imported from one language into the other (cf. Berruto, p. 289). In Sudan, language transfer regards Arabic and other local languages like Nubian, Beja and Fur, as in the case of Khartoum Arabic (cf. Dickins). The Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language was founded in order to cure this situation. 2 Cf. http://alecsolugha.org/, accessed 9 July 2017.

Grow th (1970s)

63

of simplified, modern methods for Arabic language teaching (al-Swīsī 1979, p. 7). On reaching this historical milestone, the Arabic Language Institute (Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ) – today called the Arabic Linguistics Institute (Maʿhad al-luġawiyyāt al-ʿarabiyya) – was created with the intention of being an internationally and scientifically pioneering institute for the spreading of the Arabic language, along with the teaching of Arabic and Islamic culture (taqāfa islāmiyya) to non-native speakers. In particular, the institute – hereafter abbreviated Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ – provided two programs for AFL learners, the first intensive during the day and the second extensive through night classes. Moreover, Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ aimed at training teachers in the newborn branch of TAFL and promoting research, studies and textbooks in this specific field by following an ‘objective method’ (ʿAbduh 1979a). At its opening, Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ started with more than a hundred enrollments from various countries (al-Fawzān, p. 88). Its first director was Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, a Saudi scholar born in Medina in 1942, who obtained his PhD at Georgetown University (Washington, DC) in 1972. He was active in the debate about TAFL in Saudi Arabia since the 1970s and emerged as an influential scholar in the field of applied linguistics and Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language. The following year, in 1975 (1395 H), another TAFL center was established in Saudi Arabia. The Institute of Arabic Language (maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) was founded in Mecca as an offshoot of the College of Shariʿa and Islamic Studies,3 which represented the very first nucleus of Umm al-Qura University, established in 1981. The institute (hereafter Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà) displayed the same objectives as Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ, although its mission today leans toward the teaching of Arabic and Islamic law, an aspect that has characterized the nature of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language in Saudi Arabia since its birth. Courses of Arabic for religious purposes have been organized in the kingdom (al-Fawzān) since the dawn of TAFL and dedicated textbooks have been published. Even more, TAFL Saudi scholars commonly stressed the eternal link of Arabic with Islam (al-Qāsimī 1979; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; Bahǧat 1980), a question that did not concern authors from other Arab countries (e.g., Qūra; al-Swīsī 1979). Evidently, the TAFL orientation produced in Saudi Arabia differed from those of other Arab countries such as Egypt and Tunisia, where there was a more diffused secular approach to this branch. In the mid-1970s, new life was injected into the debate on TAFL in Egypt. As Nahla (p. 68) reports, the Polytechnic Institute of London sent its students 3

Cf. https://uqu.edu.sa/en/instarab/AboutUs, accessed 28 July 2017.

64 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

to the Faculty of Art at Alexandria University (Ǧāmiʿat al-Iskandariyya) to take classes in Colloquial Egyptian Arabic and other subjects related to the social and economic aspects of Egyptian society. In 1979, the American University in Cairo formalized the master of arts in Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language and the influential Arab scholar Essaid Mohammed Badawi was appointed as respective director. Moreover, according to the account given by Yūnis (1978, p. 270), other institutes operated in Egypt at the end of the decade, such as those at al-Azhar University and in Zamalek (Cairo), where the Ministry of Culture established the Egyptian Center for Cultural Cooperation (al-Markaz al-miṣrī li-l-taʿāwun al-taqāfī). By the end of the 1970s, even Jordan and Libya had built their own research institutes. For instance, the Language Center (Markaz al-luġāt) was established in Jordan at Yarmouk University (Ǧāmiʿat al-Yarmūk) in Irbid in 1979. Later, the center became famous for its Arabic-language program for foreigners (see Chapter 4). In the same year, the University of Jordan Language Center (Markaz al-luġāt bi-l-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya) was founded in Amman under Royal decree.4 Similarly the North African country of Muammar Gaddafi (al-Qaddāfī) did not remain untouched by Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language. Since the 1970s, Libya displayed a notable interest in applied linguistics and specifically TAFL. Riḍā al-Swīsī (1979, p. 153) reported that in 1973 Libyan scholars published the work entitled Naḥwa al-taʿbīr (Toward expression), which followed the structural principles in language teaching (al-Swīsī et al.). As for TAFL, three institutes particularly active in the Libyan scene started organizing Arabic language teaching sessions for foreigners. These were the International Relations Center,5 the Islamic Call Society6 (Ǧamʿiyyat al-daʿwa al-islāmiyya) and above all Al Fateh University (Ǧāmiʿat al-fātiḥ), currently University of Tripoli (Ǧāmiʿat Ṭarābulus) founded in 1957 as a branch of the University of Libya (al-Ǧāmiʿa al-lībiyya), which facilitated AFL courses through a dedicated division (šuʿbat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib) (al-Qumāṭī 1992). Other Arab countries like Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait, Qatar, and Syria also saw the emergence of TAFL centers and units. These were either championed by ministries as with Syria and Qatar or realized by higher education institutes as revealed by the University of Algiers (Ǧāmiʿat al-Ǧazāʾir) and Kuwait University (Ǧāmiʿat al-Kuwayt), where an Arabic language unit (waḥdat alluġa al-ʿarabiyya) was established at the Language Center, then documented 4 5 6

Cf. http://centers.ju.edu.jo/ar/ujlc/Pages/CNNaboutus.aspx, accessed 18 May 2017. Cf. http://www.foreign.gov.ly/ar/diplomatinstitute.php, accessed 17 September 2016. Currently, World Islamic Call Society, http://www.wicsociety.ly/, accessed 17 September 2016.

Grow th (1970s)

65

by Ṣāliḥ (in al-Šalaqānī). By contrast, Lebanon saw the renowned British institute, the Middle East Centre for Arab Studies (MECAS), close its doors in 1978, after being temporarily evacuated in 1976, when ‘a combination of UK government budget austerity and the increasingly uncertain security situation attendant upon the Lebanese Civil War finally made its position untenable’ (Wilmsen, p. 141; see also Craig). These institutes were created with the scope of carrying out research on TAFL, training teachers in the new branch (Badawi 1992a, p. 47) and, almost as important, promoting the Arabic language and cultural ideology. As the Tunisian minister of education Mohammed Mzali affirmed at the end of the 1970s: the diffusion (našr) of Arabic had a twofold objective: firstly, to affirm Arab identity; secondly, to legitimate Arabic and place it side by side with the other foreign languages in class. In this vein, the teaching of Arabic to foreigners encompassed the objectives outlined by the Tunisian minister, as it represented the key opening the doors to the world, which – in that period – was asking the Arab nations for a civil dialogue based on give-and-take interplay (cf. al-Swīsī 1979, p. 7). This was particularly true for some Arab countries. For example, during the tenure of King Ḫālid (or simply Khaled) (1975-1982), Saudi Arabia became the point of reference for US foreign policy. In 1979, the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan started to worry King Ḫālid, who feared the surge of Shiite unrest in his kingdom. These political events led the king to strengthen his strategic alliance with the United States, catapulting him to the context of the following decade, when the underground tensions of resistance created by Fayṣal emerged and the region started to lose its stability once again. Institutes positioned themselves as leading centers of TAFL and fostered the diffusion of the Arabic language, which became the study subject for an increasing number of foreigner learners. From their point of view, Arab scholars demanded overhauling of teaching methods, which should provide simplification of the field of Arabic language teaching and boost the production of up-to-date teaching materials. TAFL remained in fact vestigial with begrudged fruition until 1978. Scholarly production focused on the problems related to Arabic language teaching in Europe and North America, recent methodological trends, teaching styles and their psychological implications, as well as writing and reading skills, grammar, vocabulary lists (al-kalimāt al-šāʾiʿa) (cf. Burǧ), the role of libraries, teachers’ training, teaching Arabic via radio (Bakr, ʿAṭā, and al-ʿAzzāwī) and new technologies (al-tiknūlūǧiyā al-ḥadīta). Some works also displayed the Basic Arabic project (Farūḫ), which echoed the experiences revealed in other languages (i.e., Basic English and

66 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

français fondamental). In addition, the Basic Arabic project (al-ʿarabiyya alasāsiyya) reflected the goals of the Madrid symposium, which were reiterated in the Arab world in 1973 at the Conference of Brummana (Lebanon), where scholars from the Arab world and particularly Europe gathered to discuss the problems linked to Arabic language learning and propose solutions to them. Like its English and French kin, Basic Arabic was a ‘simplification method’ and sought to limit and select lexical material, so as to ensure a quick and thorough comprehension of the language (cf. Cochran; Titone 1980, p. 170). Of note in this field was the frequency list compiled by the Palestinian scholar Dāwūd ʿAbduh, who identified and assembled the 3000 most common words in Arabic, published in Riyadh in 1979. The work was targeted at both foreign and first language users (cf. ʿAbduh 1979a). It was not the first of its kind though, as the author did mention other lists he consulted to derive his own. These lists were all published between the 1940s and the 1950s (Brill; ʿĀqil; Bailey; Landau) and were intended for lexical material selection and therefore simplification. Similarly, other TAFL works (Ismāʿīl [Ṣīnī]; al-Qāsimī 1979) dealt with this matter as they continued to be influenced by the traditional debate on Arabic language reform previously described in this chapter. In this light, theoretical discussions, the Basic Arabic project and frequency lists represented, as a whole, the broadness of making Arabic easier to foreign learners. Therefore, during the early 1970s, TAFL was boosted by a few publications. One notable event of the time was the Ninth Conference of the Arab Teachers Syndicate (ittiḥād al-muʿallimīn al-ʿarab), which dealt with TAFL and was held in Khartoum in 1976, in a country that played a groundbreaking role in the field of TAFL in this early phase, especially after the creation of Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm. The conference hosted scholars who spoke about TAFL and its practical applications, for instance: the lectures by Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa, ʿAlī al-Ḥadīdī on grammar in the AFL class, ʿAlī Maḥmūd Farīd on TAFL teachers’ training and Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa on Arabic as a language of culture and communication (cf. alMunaẓẓama 1983, p. 134). The Conference of Khartoum, however, addressed many other themes such as teachers’ training and Arabic language teaching in general as it was not focused on Arabic as a Foreign Language only. In 1978 a revolution was ready to upset the new branch. Undoubtedly, this year was crucial for the growth of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language, as a series of dedicated meetings were organized and studies on the issue were published. The cities where the new branch flourished were Riyadh and Cairo, although other works were to be issued in Tunis, Beirut and Rabat by the end of the decade. In this period, scholars’ interest in TAFL increased, but the most important event was the First International Symposium on

Grow th (1970s)

67

Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers (al-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā), held in Riyadh in March 1978 (see below). Books, articles and colloquia proceeded this meeting, which was consequential in the history of Arabic language teaching. In addition, the growth of thematic research specialization was evidenced, which had already started in the 1950s and now was notable, since scholars began not only to conduct applied or experimental research, but also carried out in-depth studies dedicated to specific areas, e.g., teaching of stories (tadrīs al-qiṣṣa), literary taste, etc. Interest in Arabic language testing considerably increased: scholars strived to measure various language skills, above all reading. Among these scholars, once again there was the presence of Mahmoud Rushdi Khater (Ḫāṭir),7 who remained the leading advocate of this research area. Tests were developed in the field of literacy (Ḫāṭir 1971; Ṭaʿīma 1971), pedagogy (Barrāda; Muǧāwir 1974b) and Arabic language teaching in general. Experimental research such as Taṣmīm manhaǧ li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib (Curriculum design for TAFL) by Fatḥī Yūnis were published in Cairo in 1978. Of note also were two publications dedicated to Arabic language testing: first, Taṣmīm iḫtbārāt al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-waṣfi-hā luġa aǧnābiyya (Arabic foreign language test design), published by Ṣīnī in Riyadh in 1977; second, Iḫtibār al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab (Arabic language test for non-Arabs), published by the Arabic Language Center of the University of Riyadh in the subsequent year (cf. Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ). The work published by Ṣīnī was based on scientific parameters for test construction, such as clear objectives planning (qāʿidat taḥdīd al-hadaf ), validity (ṣidq), reliability (tabāt), etc. It contained a wide range of items, which were developed for all four language skills and displayed the use of visual material, as per the structural approaches. The scholar was principally influenced by foreign studies on English language testing (i.e., Robert Lado, Paul Pimsleur, David Payne Harris, J.B. Heaton), but also by Muḥammad Muǧāwir’s experience on objective tests (iḫtibār mawḍūʿī) published in Kuwait in the mid-1970s (Muǧāwir 1974a). At this point in time, it is important to punctuate that Ṣīnī’s commitment to the testing of Arabic as a foreign language came after two noteworthy experiments conducted by the Arab scholars Peter F. Abboud and Raji Rammuny in the United States in 1967 and 1974, respectively. The first experiment consisted of the creation of the first Arabic Proficiency Test (APT) for foreign learners ever written, 7 The works by the author are cited in bibliography either under the name ‘Khater’ if published outside the Arab world or its transliterated version ‘Ḫāṭir’ for those works published within the region.

68 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

previously discussed (see Chapter 2). The second experiment was started after 1973, when the American Association of Teachers of Arabic (AATA) appointed a Test Committee to reevaluate the 1967 APT in the light of the Arabic language teaching profession trends of that period (cf. Rammuny and May). The committee, directed by Raji Rammuny, decided to build a new APT rather than revising the old one. The new APT was realized in 1974 and aimed to assess students’ levels of proficiency in both Medieval (Classical) and Modern Standard Arabic, in order to place learners in the classes appropriate to their level (Rammuny and May). As McCarus (p. 191) pointed out, ‘the test was remarkable in that it included not only a taped aural comprehension component but also a written component – both translation and free composition in Arabic.’ In effect, the APT aimed to assess listening, writing and reading skills, together with other aspects such as grammar and vocabulary. With respect to lexicon, the committee used two prominent vocabulary lists to check the frequency of lexical items. These were: McCarus and Rammuny’s Word Count of Elementary Modern Literary Arabic Textbooks of 1968 and Landau’s renowned A Word Count of Modern Arabic Prose of 1959.8 The test was then adopted by the CASA (Center for Arabic Study Abroad) program and – by the end of the 1970s – distributed to a broad spectrum of testees representing 48 different Arabic programs (cf. Rammuny 1980b). In 1977 the AATA decided to reexamine the APT and put equal emphasis on all language skills, in line with the recent trends in foreign language teaching, which focused more on oral comprehension and communication. The test was revised in 1979 and several times again in the following decades (see Rammuny’s report on APT in al-Batal 1995).

Terminology The flourishing of TAFL in the Arab world by the end of the 1970s also brought the terminological proliferation of TAFL phraseologies. Until the previous decade, these were quite limited in number, but substantiated an increment in this period. For instance, among the expressions used by scholars during the 1970s, one could find profuse slight variations of the same concept. The most used ones were ‘teaching Arabic to non-native speakers’ (talʿīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā; talʿīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā) or its minor variances like ‘to non-Arabs’ (talʿīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab; li-ġayr abnāʾi-hā; li-ġayr ahli-hā). In this case, 8

Also consulted by Dāwūd ʿAbduh (1979a).

Grow th (1970s)

69

the expressions distinguished the Arabic speakers from the rest, who were called ġayr al-ʿarab, literally ‘non-Arabs’, ġayr abnāʾi-hā (not its children) or ġayr ahli-hā (not belonging to its family). Other expressions were calques from European languages such as ‘teaching Arabic as a foreign language’ (tadrīs al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa aǧnabiyya; talʿīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib), where the focus was either on the foreign language or foreigners. The last phrasing used was ‘teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages’ (talʿīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-l-luġāt uḫrà), probably an adaptation of the English term Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), which began to be used in the United States from the second half of the twentieth century on (cf. Arbi 2001, p. 18). In the Western context, adaptations like Teaching Colloquial Egyptian Arabic as a Foreign Language (TCEAFL) also appeared (see, e.g., Abdel-Malek).

Methods As regards teaching methods, the traditional ones continued to be employed alongside the new approaches. Some scholars, for example, Najm Bazergan and Wallace Erwin (Karin Ryding’s mentor), pointed out the difficulties that traditional methods – such as grammar-translation – created in Arabic language classes (Bākallā 1980). It was held that this method put too much emphasis on grammar and did not leave room for the development of other language skills like listening and speaking. Most scholars, to their credit, did not want the problems and inefficient teaching techniques of old to migrate into the new branch of TAFL; hence, they accordingly initiated discussions on the matter both in conferences and in their publications. For example, learning grammar through exercises and not theoretical explanations was proposed. Structural methods (i.e., aural-oral and audio-visual) were integrated in the curricula of the TAFL institutes established in the Arab world9 (cf. al-ʿUṣaylī 2002, p. 338); they became popular and captured the attention of many Arab scholars, who began to write on language teaching via radio, television, and theater. Technological progress introduced new devices, which rapidly entered foreign language classes, forcing teachers to learn how to use them; namely overhead projectors, radio, cassette players 9 In a recent lecture given at the Mastering Arabic Variation conference in Genoa, Italy, on 6 September 2018, the Tunisian scholar Ṭāriq Būʿattūr, professor at the University of Carthage (Ǧāmiʿat Qarṭāǧ), revealed that Direct Contact by Fontaine and Podevyn (1970) – based on structural theories – had had widespread prevalence between 1970 and 1976.

70 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

(musaǧǧil), language laboratory equipment, televisions and computers. From 1966 on, for instance, the Egyptian Broadcasting Corporation (hayʾat al-idāʿa) aired a program for the propagation of the Arabic language and Islamic culture which was directed at foreign language learners and continued to be broadcast throughout the 1970s. The project was written by a commission of experts comprising distinguished scholars like Mahmoud Rushdi Khater and Muḥammad Qadrī Luṭfī. In addition to being organized in three levels (beginners, intermediate and advanced), the program was in MSA and presented the language of everyday life. Readings were rendered through the whole-word method, along with the help of a printed booklet initially distributed in the Arab world and later dispatched to West African and Southeast Asian countries, where the program was broadcast. In 1977, another radio project, al-ʿarabiyya bi-l-rādyū li-Ġāmbyā (Arabic through radio in Gambia), was started by the Gambian government in cooperation with King Saʿud University, the World Federation of Arab Islamic International Schools (WFAIIS) (al-ittiḥād al-ʿālamī li-l-madāris al-ʿarabiyya al-islāmiyya al-duwaliyya) and TAFL experts ʿAlī al-Qāsimī and Muḥammad Ḥasan Bākallā, later known for their contributions to the field. The project was designed into programs directed at non-Arabic speakers who wanted to learn Arabic while being conceived to serve other West African countries like Senegal, Mali, Guinea and Nigeria (al-Qāsimī 1979). Some years later, in 1979, the Joint Program Production Institution of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Muʾassasat al-intāǧ al-barāmiǧī al-muštarak) produced the children’s television series Iftaḥ yā simsim (Open sesame), which had an educational purpose and later became popular in the f ield of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language (e.g., Alosh 1984; Abu Absi 1986, 1990; Stansfield and Galloway; Mahomed). Among TAFL structural methods produced within the Arab world, the most famous was that of the textbook Min al-Ḫalīǧ ilà al-Muḥīṭ (From the gulf to the ocean), written in 1979 by a group of scholars: Ǧarǧūra Ḥardān, Roland Meynet, Henri Awaiss, Haytam al-Amīn, Joseph Dichy, and Yūsuf ʿAwn. All the same, another method was destined to become popular in the following decades. This specifically regards the teaching method used by generations of learners of Arabic at the Bourguiba School in Tunis, which was elaborated in a schematic article published at the end of the 1970s by Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī. This disclosure of the method used in Arabic as a Foreign Language classes examined the ‘what’ (mādā nudarrisu) and ‘how’ (kayfa nudarrisu) of Arabic language teaching. The contents were therefore in Modern Standard Arabic and concerned the language of everyday communication and mass media. Later, this choice became a distinctive feature of the ‘Bourguiba School

Grow th (1970s)

71

method’ (ṭarīqat Maʿhad Būrqība) and was exemplified by the Bourguiba textbook series al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira (Contemporary Arabic), published and reedited various times from the 1970s onward. With respect to the method, it was made clear that this should follow neither the translation method nor the traditional one. Grammar would be practiced in a natural way (ṭarīqa ṭabīʿiyya) with exercises, rather than explained through theory. Hence, a concrete approach was presented, where the Arab proverb lā ḫayr fī ʿilm bi-lā ʿamal (theory without practice is empty) was adopted as a motto. The Bourguiba School method favored good pronunciation (nuṭq salīm), the use of a language laboratory, audio-visual tools and Arabic as the only vehicular language, so that students could think in the language they studied. Moreover, the method put listening and speaking skills first, and then developed reading and writing. This choice was inspired by both the natural approach in language learning witnessed throughout history and by new scientific awareness of children’s language acquisition processes (cf. Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī, p. 225). Finally, another important feature of the method was flexibility, which allowed it to develop according to political and societal changes, in harmony with the pendulum of foreign language teaching discipline. Nonetheless, the proclaimed method sometimes did not correspond to the reality of the situation, since a certain use of French as a vehicular language was witnessed.10 In the late 1970s, another approach was incorporated in the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language. This was Community Language Learning (CLL), a language-teaching approach developed by the psychologist Charles A. Curran (1913-1978) at Loyola University of Chicago at the end of the 1950s (cf. Curran). CLL originated from the broad concept of ‘counseling’, namely client-centered therapy, developed by Carl Rogers (1902-1987), of whom Curran was a disciple (cf. Rogers). In the United States, CLL was implemented in Arabic language instruction during the late 1970s and this experience was reported in an article by Karin Ryding, which was published in Al-ʿArabiyya Journal in 1978 (cf. Ryding Letzner). Ryding is an American Arabist, later known for her influential contributions in the field of Arabic language and linguistics (e.g., Ryding 1991, 1993, 2006a, 2006b, 2010, 2013, 2018). In 1978, she affirmed that the focus of CLL was to make the learning process meaningful, where the teacher was a ‘knower’ and developed a sense of 10 In the travel journal Orientaleggiando, Baldissera (p. 22) reported his experience at the Bourguiba School as young student: ‘E mi ritrovai […] a seguire lezioni molto più leggère, dove si faceva un certo uso anche del francese.’ My translation: ‘And I found myself following lighter lessons, where there was a certain use of French [as vehicular language].’

72 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

self-responsibility among learners (cf. Ryding Letzner 1978). What is more, she reported that CLL lowered AFL learners’ anxiety toward the language and increased their sense of security. Ryding’s students, in fact, declared that after CLL classroom activities they felt relaxed and reassured (cf. ibid., p. 14). Nevertheless, in this period, the Community Language Learning approach was rarely taken into consideration in the Arab context and by Arab TAFL scholars, who were by all means concentrated on the structural philosophies.

Broader Debates As previously anticipated, until the late 1970s no conferences entirely devoted to the field of TAFL had been organized in the Arab world. Only in March 1978 was the First International Symposium on Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers (al-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) held at the University of Riyadh – formerly the University of Saʿud. The symposium gathered Arabists from the United States, Europe,11 Turkey, Kenya and above all Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Kuwait and Lebanon. Beyond being the premier forum of its kind in the Arab sphere, it provided these language specialists the opportunity to encounter peers and discuss the new branch in a fully dedicated event. For this reason, the Symposium of Riyadh can be considered a juncture in the field of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language and even though the Harvard Conference of 1958 and the Madrid symposium of 1959 were forerunners in the field of TAFL, they were organized outside the Arab domain and gathered Arabists that came mainly from Europe and North America. The Symposium of Riyadh dealt with many topics such as Arabic language teaching methods and materials, reading, writing, grammar, lexicon, culture and the actors of the teaching and learning process: the teacher and respective students. The lectures given were published two years later in al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers) in three volumes (Bākallā 1980; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; al-Šalaqānī). The editors were four scholars, who in due course became eminent personalities in the field of TAFL, and Arabic language and linguistics in general: Director of Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, Deputy Director Muḥammad Ḥasan Bākallā, and professors of 11 Scholars from Europe came from the United Kingdom and Netherlands.

Grow th (1970s)

73

applied linguistics ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Qāsimī and philology ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd al-Šalaqānī at the University of Riyadh (currently King Saud University). Beside these lecturing scholars, there were others who were later recognized for their contribution to the field of Arabic language teaching: Essaid M. Badawi, Wallace M. Erwin, Salih J. Altoma, Raji Rammuny, Hüsein Atay, Raja Tawfiq Nasr, Mohammed El Khouly, Bruce Ingham, Peter and Victorine Abboud. In general, the majority of these scholars highlighted the fact that at the end of the 1970s Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language was still a field under development and needing implementation (see, e.g., Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; al-Fiqī; Ṣāliḥ; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz in al-Šalaqānī). Research, studies, experimental projects, teachers’ training and textbooks on TAFL were scarce or lacking and combined efforts were needed. Nonetheless, these milestones were not set for the sake of TAFL only, as – to a larger extent – their achievement would allow Arabs to disseminate (našr) their language and their culture outside their homeland. Therefore, scholars called for proper teacher training and the renewal of Arabic language teaching methods. Expressly, many of them pointed out that Arabic language educators had been teaching in the hitherto traditional way, without carrying out any thorough examination of their methods nor bringing changes to them (Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī, p. 155). During the initial years, TAFL centers recruited AFL educators, who were not specialized, albeit experienced in the field. Basically, they were university professors, instructors of Arabic as L1 or foreign languages like English (al-ʿUṣaylī 2002, p. 264) or French. From a certain point of view, they had no scientific language teaching philosophy (manhaǧ), and this was key in making the call for teaching methods renovation even more urgent and impelling. In particular, scholars were concerned about the phenomenon of teachers using L1 textbooks in Arabic as a Foreign Language classes. Many Arab scholars took stances against this practice and, thanks to the debate that arose in Riyadh, proved a general raising of awareness that teaching methods and techniques devoted to first language learners are to be discerned from those used in the foreign language class (e.g., al-Qāsimī 1979; al-Swīsī 1979; Bākallā 1980; al-Ḥārdallū and Altoma in Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; al-Ḥilyawī). To this extent, the need for specific training in TAFL was felt; hence, instructors were sent abroad to the United Kingdom, the United States, etc., in order to acquire know-how in foreign language teaching (al-ʿUṣaylī 2002). Dedicated studies on TAFL methods, research and practical experiences began to proliferate only at the end of the decade and the Riyadh symposium was a window of opportunity for the discussion of new practices and

74 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

exchange of ideas. For instance, Peter F. Abboud presented a new orientation in his contribution entitled ‘Baʿḍ al-awlawiyyāt fī tadrīs al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa aǧnabiyya’ (‘Some preliminary remarks on teaching Arabic as a foreign language’) (Abboud 1980). The scholar, who had been teaching Arabic language and linguistics at the University of Texas since 1961, was part of a curious occurrence exhibited by the symposium lecturers. A considerable part of them (e.g., Raji Rammuny, Victorine Abboud, Salih J. Altoma) were in fact Arab scholars who ended up settling abroad, especially in the United States, for their careers. For this reason, they were inextricably influenced by the debate on TAFL prevalent in North America then, and their lectures accordingly propounded new ideas at the discussion in Riyadh. Different perspectives and views were presented. In particular, Peter F. Abboud proposed a method (ṭarīqa) that placed great emphasis on reading and writing skills, inclining toward the former. Language skills were ideally placed in a pyramid and reading was at the top. In this method, however, the focus of teaching was completely different from that of the traditional method, likewise based on reading and writing, but oriented toward translation and grammar rules memorization. The method proposed by Abboud – instead – encouraged students to express their ideas through language and this by means of reading and learning written texts. Additionally, it gave importance to examinations (iḫtibār), which – in the scholar’s opinion – should come after the teaching phase and should identify the level achieved (mustawà taḥṣīlī) by the student (cf. Abboud 1980). The method was clearly exemplified by a noteworthy textbook published ten years before in 1968, which came to be known as ‘the orange book’ among generations of learners of Arabic for its cover color (cf. Nielsen 2009, p. 153). Elementary Modern Standard Arabic by Abboud and McCarus (1968a, 1968b) adhered to the audio-lingual method (also called aural-oral approach) and according to Nielsen (2009) it exemplified ‘the transition from the grammar-translation method [to] […] the audiolingual approach’. As Akar stated, the textbook gave listening and speaking skills more consideration, but concentrated on the literary language. It signaled a shift in the philosophy of teaching (cf. Akar, p. 563), which moved TAFL ‘from philology to communication’ (Nielsen 2009), and it dominated the field of Arabic instruction for over 20 years until the advent of the al-Kitaab series in the mid-1990s (cf. Younes 2015; see Chapter 5). Another novel viewpoint was discussed by Raji Rammuny, a scholar of Arab origin, later known for his significant contributions to Arabic language teaching and testing (see, e.g., Rammuny 1979, 1980a, 1994). Rammuny moved to the United States, started teaching Arabic at the University of Michigan in 1966 and contributed to the publication of Elementary Modern

Grow th (1970s)

75

Standard Arabic. Thus, within the context of the symposium, he drew the participants’ attention to a new orientation: the communicative practice (tadrībāt ittiṣāliyya), which was used in the United States in that period and consisted in promoting both written and oral production so as to permit students to master the language ‘properly’ (istiʿmāl ṣaḥīḥ) (Rammuny 1980c, p. 174) and know Arab-Islamic culture. According to the scholar, there are many ways to boost this process: for instance, through the use of audiovisual tools, language games or simple exercises, which he classified in mechanic, abstract or communicative. While the first two categories are pattern drills, communicative exercises implied the use of free activities, which linked language study to real-life situations and made room for discovery and creation. These positions indicate the scholar was influenced by the new trends in language teaching observed in the United States in that period and more precisely by the communicative approach as well as the theories by famous scholars such as Noam Chomsky and J.P. Guilford. The communicative approach developed from the 1970s on and it evinced the deconstruction as a whole of the previous theories on language learning and teaching. For example, while during the 1960s mastering a language meant accuracy and grammar knowledge, the communicative approach shifted the focus of language study to social conventions and the appropriate use of language in a given sociocultural context. It consolidated the language acquisition process rather than the language itself. This renewed approach favored a transformation inside the classroom walls: the student became an active player in the acquisition process and the teacher a facilitator rather than a leader, analogously to the structural approaches, e.g., the aural-oral method. The theories that supported this change of trend in language teaching were – indirectly – those formulated by Noam Chomsky and notably the American linguist and anthropologist Dell Hymes, who theorized the concept of communicative competence in 1972. The scholar identified communicative competence as the ability to choose an appropriate linguistic form in a way that its results were consistent with social norms affecting behavior in specific situations (cf. Hymes; Serra Borneto). Except for Raji Rammuny, Arab scholars who convened at the Symposium of Riyadh did not seem touched by the communicative approach, for they had a declivity that was aligned with structural methods. Although a series of teaching methods were reported by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (1980) in translation12 and relevant theories by psychologists and linguists from North America or Europe were presented 12 The list of language teaching method provided by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (1980) was taken from the works of the Canadian linguist William Francis Mackey (1918-2015).

76 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

(i.e., John B. Carrol, William F. MacKey), the branch of TAFL was still too young to absorb new concepts swiftly and the world tarried unremittingly in a semi-closed system. One had to wait for the internationalization of TAFL to see the contagion of theories and free exchange of thought between Arab scholars and the rest of the world. Nonetheless, two noteworthy methods on Arabic language teaching were proposed at the symposium. The first was presented by Tunisian scholars of the Bourguiba School, while the second by Muǧāhid Muṣṭafà Bahǧat, from Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà of Mecca. Both methods represented the Arab response to the changing times and – as a consequence – the transformation of language teaching methods. In particular, the scholars from Tunis presented the Bourguiba School method (already discussed above), which promoted the use of Modern Standard Arabic in real-life situations. While the method rejected translation and theoretical analysis of grammar it encouraged the use of language laboratories, and audio-visual tools with Arabic as the only vehicular language. Moreover, it put listening and speaking skills first, leaving reading and writing for a later stage. The second method presented by Bahǧat bears Islamic leanings, which confirmed the expected proclivity of TAFL theories produced in Saudi Arabia and their disparity with the secular orientation of the Bourguiba School method. In al-Rūḥ al-islāmiyya fī taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (The Islamic spirit in teaching Arabic to non-native speakers), the author put down the teachers’ guidelines for non-Arab Muslim learners, in which not only language was taught. According to Bahǧat (1980), Islam should be included both in the curriculum and in the teaching method (manhaǧ al-taʿlīm), a point many other Arab scholars agreed on, as they accentuated the abiding vinculum of their language with religion. Another scholar who lectured at the symposium was Essaid Mohammed Badawi, who became director of the TAFL program at the American University in Cairo by the time the proceedings were published. In his article Badawi debated many topics13 and outlined the birth of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language, affirming that the paramount objective of the institutes recently established in Khartoum, Riyadh and Cairo was to define the prevailing linguistic realities of Arab societies, besides investigating 13 Besides TAFL, the author debated also the diglossic issue together with the matter of Mixed Arabic, which he called ‘common Arabic’ (ʿarabiyya muštaraka). In this sense, Badawi was influenced by different perspectives since he cited T.F. Mitchell (1919-2007), an important British linguist, who left an enduring mark in the debate on diglossia and Mixed Arabic or Educated Spoken Arabic (see, e.g., Mitchell 1986).

Grow th (1970s)

77

the training needs of AFL learners14 (Badawi 1980, p. 30). Badawi’s point of view summarizes the Riyadh symposium recommendations, which were pronounced during the meeting and imparted two years later in its Proceedings (Bākallā 1980). The recommendations reflected the lines of thought, choices, and linguistic and ideological orientations that the Riyadh group of scholars wanted to follow. For instance, Modern Standard Arabic (al-fuṣḥà al-ḥadīta) was preferred as the official language for teaching and manuals, which was detrimental to colloquial varieties. An Islamic orientation (rūḥ islāmiyya) was established as the teaching objective for Arabic to non-Arab Muslim learners, so that they could have a gateway to the sacred scripture and to in-depth knowledge of Islamic culture (cf. Bākallā 1980, p. 334). With respect to networks, the recommendations willed more effective cooperation between the TAFL institutes recently established, allowing scholars to take part in conferences, seminars and periodic meetings, where practical problems could be sorted out and information or data exchanged. From the point of view of teaching methods, the Riyadh group of scholars encouraged teachers to proceed in three ways: to train in the new branch of TAFL, to concentrate on the functional rather than the theoretical aspect of grammar and to use audio-visual tools in the Arabic language class. Finally, the recommendations stressed the need for more research, in order to produce new radio programs, frequency lists and a survey of training needs, including language and cultural problems of AFL learners. In the same year, only a few months later, Arab scholars proved to be reactive, as they put into practice what the symposium was in favor of by taking part in a follow-up interview published in the Maǧallat al-Fayṣal (al-Fayṣal journal). The journal was published for the first time in Riyadh in 1977 and was dedicated to the recently deceased King Fayṣal. In this particular occasion, the commitment to the matters outlined in the symposium was demonstrated in the publishing of two articles in September and December 1978. The first was a conversation with various experts, who explained the principles of TAFL textbook drafting. Among them was Fawzān Aḥmad Ṭūqān, TAFL program supervisor at the University of Jordan, along with some participants in the Riyadh symposium, such as Aḥmad Wālī al-ʿAlamī from Morocco, Raja Tawfiq Nasr from Beirut University College – now Lebanese American University – and the director 14 With respect to the typology of Arabic language learners, Ṣāliḥ (in al-Šalaqānī) informed about their heterogeneous provenance during the 1970s. In particular, the places of origin reported by Ṣāliḥ were North America, Europe, the Soviet Union, the Far East and specif ic countries such as Pakistan, Iran, Somalia and Eritrea.

78 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

of Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī. In the article, the scholars pointed out that the TAFL textbooks available then were inappropriate,15 apart from being few in number, an aspect also confirmed by al-Qāsimī (1979, p. 100). In particular, Ṣīnī (1978) asserted that although many assemblies and researchers had made efforts to tackle the issue in the Arab world, their endeavors were individual and needed to be integrated. Wālī al-ʿAlamī (in Ṣīnī 1978, p. 77) maintained that grammar should not be considered as a single subject, a point of view also shared by Ṣāliḥ (p. 133), who considered grammar a means for (wasīla) and not an object of language. According to Wālī al-ʿAlamī, grammar should be learned in context and deducted from sentences and texts. Indeed, language is mastered through listening (samʿ). In this sense, it seems that Wālī al-ʿAlamī inclined toward the aural-oral approach rejecting that of grammar-translation. The second article, written by Muḥammad Mubārak, addressed the training of TAFL teachers, which was a topic that particularly concerned Arabic language scholars at the time. In the article Mubārak posed a series of preliminary questions, which were then answered by some of the organizers and lecturers of the Riyadh symposium. The scholars consulted were Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, the deputy director of Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ Muḥammad Ḥasan Bākallā, Hüsein Atay from Ankara University and the Gambian scholar Hatab Bojang. According to these scholars, the TAFL teacher should have a wide knowledge of the Arabic language, together with insight into modern linguistics (ʿilm al-luġa al-ḥadīt), applied linguistics (ʿilm al-luġa al-taṭbīqī), not to mention educational and psychological studies linked to teaching (Mubārak, p. 70). In addition, Bākallā reiterated in the interview that it was necessary for the teacher to use the new audio-visual tools (aǧhiza samʿiyya baṣariyya) for teaching. This affirmation linked him to the structural methods used in that period, and discussed above. By the end of the 1970s, Arab scholars managed to create a lively scientific debate around the branch of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language. Their main point of reference was represented by Muškilat taʿlīm al-luġa 15 During the 1970s both Ṭūqān (in Ṣīnī 1978) and al-Qāsimī (1979) attested a widespread phenomenon that saw the use of Arabic L1 textbooks for the teaching of Arabic to non-native speakers. In particular, al-Qāsimī reported that the Ministries of Education of certain Arab countries used to ship Arabic L1 textbooks to African countries (i.e., Gambia). These books – which were conceived for Arabic-speakers (kutub li-abnāʾ al-ʿarabiyya) – were useless for Foreign Language (FL) learners, since the training needs of L1 learners are radically different from those of FL ones. This aspect is clarified by al-Qāsimī himself (1979, p. 99), who points out that while L1 textbooks should provide a contrastive analysis between Modern Standard and colloquial Arabic, TAFL textbooks should carry out a type of analysis that highlights the differences between Modern Standard Arabic and the foreign language itself.

Grow th (1970s)

79

al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab (The problem of Arabic language teaching to non-Arabs), written by ʿAlī al-Ḥadīdī and published in Cairo in 1967. The book paved the way for the following discussion on TAFL and it proved to be influential during the 1970s, since it was considered an essential reference for those intending to carry out in-depth studies on the teaching of Arabic to foreigners. Nonetheless, the work by al-Ḥadīdī represented one of the rare TAFL references available. Theoretical essays written in Arabic on either foreign language teaching or TAFL were truly few in number. This situation compelled Arab scholars to turn westward to find publications by their North American and European colleagues, from which they took great inspiration for their research activities. To give an example, in 1978 two other conferences on TAFL were organized in cooperation with foreign (non-Arab) institutes. The first, the Arab-German Symposium on Teaching Arabic to Non-Native Speakers (al-nadwa al-ʿarabiyya al-almāniyya fī taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā), was held in Cairo. The second, The Present and Future of Arabic and Islamic Studies, was organized by the universities of the Socialist People’s Republic of Libya and the University of Michigan. The seminar was held at Ann Arbor, Michigan, in July of that year. During these meetings, scholars had the opportunity to reiterate what was said in Riyadh a few months earlier. The topics discussed included TAFL research projects, studies on teaching tools – such as that by Muḥammad ʿAwnī’s (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 139) – and the use of audio-visual materials (cf. Rammuny 1977), which undeniably captured Arab scholars’ interest. Scholarly Production At the end of the 1970s, certain consequential publications were issued in three different countries of the Arab world: Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia. Their authors were Raja Tawfik Nasr, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, ʿAlī al-Qāsimī, who participated in the Riyadh symposium, and Riḍā al-Swīsī, a Tunisian scholar who studied in France. Each of these books promoted structural approaches. The first work was published in Lebanon in 1978 by Raja Tawfiq Nasr. The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language: Linguistic Elements was a procedural book that provided instructions on Arabic language teaching through a marked scientific approach. According to the author, the work is his personal response ‘to a felt need by teachers of Arabic as a foreign language […] [that he] sensed in the Middle East, East Africa, North Africa, Europe, the U.K. and the U.S.’ (Nasr, p. xii). In addition, the scholar took an official stance on Arabic language learning and teaching methods, slanting in

80 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

the direction of the aural-oral approach, a trend also witnessed among other scholars (al-Swīsī 1979; al-Qāsimī 1979; Rammuny 1980c). More precisely, Nasr favored oral mastery, practical learning of grammar, pairwise language comparisons,16 pattern practice exercises aimed to develop basic automatic habits, and the teaching of the lexicon through the use of images, which recalls both the approach employed at Université Saint-Joseph (Lebanon) and the very well-known ‘TAFL method’, expounded in the textbook Min al-Ḫalīǧ ilà al-Muḥīṭ (From the gulf to the ocean). In that year two other books were published by Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ, one written by its director, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, and the other by ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Qāsimī, a consummate scholar born in Iraq in 1942, who has published many works on different topics, such as applied linguistics, education, translation studies, human rights, literature and literary criticism. The first work represented an applied research project in the field of TAFL and was entitled Fī ṭarāʾiq tadrīs al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (On the methods of teaching Arabic to non-native speakers), while the second further developed the Saudi debate on TAFL that came after the foundation of Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ and the organization of the Riyadh symposium. The work by al-Qāsimī was entitled Ittiǧāhāt ḥadīta fī taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-l-luġāt al-uḫrà (New directions in the teaching of Arabic to speakers of other languages) and displayed a broad spectrum of topics, from epistemological issues (e.g., arbitrariness, polysemy of languages, etc.) to Arabic applied linguistics, experimental research, teaching tools (i.e., textbooks, maps, etc.) and innovation (e.g., computer-aided instruction) in the field of TAFL. The author’s dissertation on Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language was accordingly enriched by his numerous readings of Arab, European and North American works, such as those by B.F. Skinner, John B. Carrol, Robert Lado, Dāwūd ʿAbduh, Ḥusayn Qūra, Muḥammad Bākallā, Wilga Rivers, William Francis Mackey, Charles Key Ogden and I.A. Richards. In his work, al-Qāsimī dissociated from literal translation (tarǧama ḥarfiyya) and to a certain extent those approaches that did not favor speaking and comprehension. In particular, he chronicled the approaches used in TAFL so far, such as the grammar-translation method, which weighed heavily on grammar and asked learners to merely memorize rules (al-Qāsimī 1980, p. 56). Such a way gives no possibility either to communication (ittiṣāl) or skill development (tanmiyat al-mahārāt). However, he did not refuse grammar 16 With ‘pairwise language comparison’ I refer to those exercises that highlight significant sound features in a given language such as in the case of Modern Standard Arabic: ṣayf and sayf (‘summer’ and ‘sword’); ḥāl and ḫāl (‘time being’ and ‘maternal uncle’), etc.

Grow th (1970s)

81

explanations a priori, and he embraced the audio-visual orientation (ittiǧāh samʿī baṣarī), namely the audio-visual method, which – he affirmed – is not bound to any approach to language teaching, a perspective derived from his readings.17 The audio-visual method was in fact a ‘teaching aid’ that passed as a method (Titone 1980), which reversed the traditional way of teaching and put listening and speaking skills first, followed by reading and writing (al-Qāsimī 1979, p. 194). The audio-visual method saw a phase of growth after the Second World War, when old posters and illustrations in classrooms were substituted by new technological tools like the radio cassette player and television. As a result, al-Qāsimī (1979, p. 106) and other scholars (al-Swīsī 1979; Bākallā 1980; Rušdī) encouraged the use of both the language laboratory (muḫtabar al-luġa) and audio-visual tools in the AFL class, for instance, audiocassettes (šarīṭ musaǧǧal), movies, videotapes or simple pictures. In addition, the author gave an account of technological innovation in the field of TAFL, such as the use of radio in language teaching and computer-assisted instruction (CAI), which was specifically attributable to the experiences of eminent scholars like Victor Bunderson and Victorine Abboud. The latter, in particular, had taught Arabic at the University of Texas at Austin since 1966 and can be considered a pioneer of CAI for Arabic (see, e.g., Abboud 1971, 1978), as she had been producing sophisticated Arabic computer-assisted instruction programs since the late 1960s and early 1970s, when her colleagues would say ‘you’re just dreaming’18 and long before ‘computer’ became a household term (cf. Abboud 1995). Regarding Tunisia, the country saw an augmented interest in Arabic linguistics between 1976 and 1979. Summer sessions on this subject were organized at the Bourguiba School and mustered experts from the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and North America. However, al-Taʿlīm al-haykalī li-l-ʿarabiyya al-ḥayya (Structural teaching of Arabic as a living language) was only put out by Riḍā al-Swīsī in 1979. It was identified by the author himself as the Tunisian prototype of theoretical and applied research on Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language (cf. al-Swīsī 1979, p. 14). The work was an Arabic adaptation of his book in French, Enseignement structural des langues vivantes, published three years earlier in Tunis, in 1976. The French version represented the fruit of the author’s ten years of experience in the 17 In this particular case, al-Qāsimī derived this perspective from Wilga Rivers’ Teaching Foreign Language Skills, a comprehensive text that provided a complete overview on language teaching thinking and methods through history. 18 Cf. http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/198304/arabic.and.arwri.htm, accessed 12 November 2017.

82 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

field of education, applied linguistics, and teaching Arabic and French as foreign languages, both in Tunisia and abroad. Riḍā al-Swīsī, in fact, completed his PhD at the Sorbonne in 1970; this enabled him to absorb theories and approaches to modern language teaching and linguistics (muʿṭayāt alsuniyya), especially the French antecedents, e.g., français fondamental, the Bonjour Line method for children 19 and the theories of Ferdinand de Saussure, Jean Piaget, Gaston Mialaret, Bernard Quemada, etc. When his colleagues encouraged him to translate his 1976 work into Arabic, al-Swīsī decided to pursue a twofold objective: on the one hand, to spread knowledge of these linguistic theories into the Arabic world and inform readers of the language of the most up-to-date language teaching trends and methods; on the other hand, to adapt the various works on aspects of the Arabic language, and consequently raise new issues connecting the teaching of Arabic to theories coming from Europe and North America. In his work, al-Swīsī presented theories and took positions on them. For instance, the scholar affirmed that it is the vision that we have of language that influences the way we study it (al-Swīsī 1979, p. 80). Therefore, if teachers retain the view that language is a set of words and rules, they will inevitably teach it by virtue of traditional methods (ṭuruq taqlīdiyya), which inherently foster translation and the memorization of grammar rules and vocabulary lists. Consequentially, the scholar dissociated himself from these methods in order to fully embrace the structural approach (ṭarīqa haykaliyya), which is based on the concepts of lexical sets (maǧmūʿāt muʿǧamiyya) and language structures (hayākil). According to the structural approach, in fact, language consists of structures, organized in lexical sets. These theories were derived by al-Swīsī from his reading, especially those regarding the teaching of French abroad and the Structuro-Global Audio-Visual (SGAV) methodology, also called the Saint-Cloud Zagreb method from the names of the institutions where it was theorized: the École normale supérieure de Saint-Cloud of Paris and the University of Zagreb. The method was developed by the Croatian scholar Petar Guberina (1913-2005) together with Paul Rivenc of the Centre de recherche et d’étude pour la diffusion du français (CREDIF), an organization for the diffusion of the French language, established in 1959 and incorporated into the École de Saint-Cloud. The SGAV method distinguished itself from the aural-oral approach firstly for the fact that the former was of European origin, while the latter was developed in the 19 The Bonjour Line was a method for the teaching of French as a foreign language to children. It was realized in France by the Centre de recherche et d’étude pour la diffusion du français (CREDIF) during the 1960s.

Grow th (1970s)

83

United States between 1940s and 1960s. Secondly, SGAV put great emphasis on comprehension, while the aural-oral approach was content with providing learners with auditory patterns, leaving comprehension to a later stage. Despite their differences, both methods are considered part of structural approaches today. In this, Riḍā al-Swīsī seemed to lean toward a structural approach that favored comprehension and held oral expression to be of crucial worth. As the scholar stated: the purpose of Arabic language teaching should be to enable learners to communicate and use Arabic as a living language, free from registers, styles, sociolinguistic variations, ‘unaffected by colors or perfume’ (cf. al-Swīsī 1979). The scholar’s positions on the structural approach pervade his entire work, to such an extent that he can be considered a proponent of it. Thereby, al-Swīsī distinguished the structural approach from the audio-visual method (ṭarīqa samʿiyya baṣariyya),20 which – he affirmed – represents the tools and aids that a teacher can use to carry out a lesson consistent with the teaching method. Although audio-visual tools are not the aim of the teaching process, they do support it (al-Swīsī 1979, p. 89). These affirmations link the Tunisian scholar to ʿAlī al-Qāsimī, who made similar assertions in the same period (see al-Qāsimī 1979). However, while the former favored the structural method, the latter verged on the eclectic method (ṭarīqa intiqāʾiyya) – which combines various teaching approaches according to training needs – aided by the use of audio-visual tools. Therefore, according to al-Swīsī, the aim of structural teaching is to enable students to freely communicate in real situations. This aim is sought through lessons, exercises, pattern drills (tamārīn haykaliyya) such as pairwise language comparisons (tamyīz samʿī) and audio-visual tools. In this process, speaking and listening skills are given more importance and accordingly developed before reading and writing, which are approached at second stage. As regards teaching tools, books, class posters (lawḥat al-muḥādata) and images are placed side by side with modern audio-visual tools, such as the radio, cassette player, flannel board (lawḥa wabariyya), movies and the language laboratory (maḫbar). The purpose of the last is to immerse students in an authentic auditory environment (bīʾa samʿiyya ṭabīʿiyya), which is clarified by al-Swīsī through a historical recollection. The author recalls the situation in which Tunisian 20 Unlike al-Qāsimī (1979), who preferred to use the term ‘orientation’ (ittiǧāh) in connection with the audio-visual method, al-Swīsī chose to call it ‘method’ (ṭarīqa). Even though it is known that aural-oral and audio-visual methods are ‘teaching aids’ that play a method (Titone 1980), today there is a wide consensus on the use of the term ‘method’ in connection with these aids. This fact would legitimate al-Swīsī’s use of the term.

84 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

students found themselves at the onset of Tunisian school missions to the European capitals, where they learned the language in the field. However, in the absence of an authentic auditory environment, al-Swīsī affirmed that it is necessary to recreate an artificial one (bīʾa samʿiyya iṣṭināʿiyya), which can be represented by the laboratory itself, where students are trained in good pronunciation and accurate listening, and the teacher corrects their mistakes (cf. al-Swīsī 1979). As defined by the scholar, the teacher – essential to the learning process – is an ‘emitter’ (sic) (bātt), while the student a ‘receiver’ (mutaqabbil). In this process, both cooperate in the pursuit of language automaticity (āliyya alsuniyya) by acquiring basic speech habits (ʿādāt kalāmiyya). The teacher is therefore ardent to motivate (tašwīq) students, encouraging their free expression (taʿbīr al-ḥurr), so that they can use language automatically (istiʿmāl tilqāʾī). Again, this discussion links al-Swīsī to another scholar: Raja Nasr, who spoke about basic automatic habits in his work of 1978. This connection indicates that both al-Swīsī and Nasr read similar publications, but – to the best of my knowledge – there is no evidence of any exchange between the two scholars. Even though the TAFL scene in the Arab world was not particularly crowded during the 1970s and most of the scholars knew each other thanks to coauthoring and participation in conferences and meetings, the TAFL course in Tunisia seemed to be somewhat isolated from the rest of the region, swayed more by the French debate on foreign language teaching. For example, in the 1970s, an experimental project concerning French language teaching was started in Tunis. The positive results achieved encouraged the Tunisian National Institute of Education Sciences (al-Maʿhad al-qawmī li-ʿulūm al-tarbiya) to adapt the project to Arabic. In 1976, the dialogic method (ṭarīqa ḥiwāriyya) entered the Arabic language class in schools for a two-year period (cf. al-Swīsī 1979). The dialogic method emphasized the function of dialogue in the learning process, for it represented the core of a lesson fostering not only oral communication, but also written production. The adaptation example mentioned above demonstrates reciprocity between the fields of foreign and first language teaching. In light of this, the debut of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language called for vision from other experiences – somehow, including those carried out in cognate or even specular fields such as the teaching of foreign languages to Arabs. In the meantime, however, Arab scholars displayed a general increase in their awareness of the fact that teaching methods and techniques devoted to first language learners were diverse from those used in the foreign language class (e.g., al-Qāsimī 1979; al-Swīsī 1979; Bākallā 1980; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī). Thus, TAFL was not only an

Grow th (1970s)

85

echo of foreign theories on language teaching, it also developed alongside with them, making respective contributions. Nonetheless, during the 1970s TAFL still remained a branch in progress. For the most part of this decade, many TAFL scholars denounced the scarcity or lack of dedicated publications, articles, textbooks and practical experiences, which began to proliferate only at the end of the decade. Still, as this scarcity was reported, scholars produced the first significant works on TAFL, which today are viewed as essential bases of the branch. Scholars expressed their convictions at symposia and meetings; they called for proper teachers’ training, the renewal of Arabic language teaching methods, support and simplification of organic didactical material, which persisted as a critical topic throughout the debate (see, e.g., Ismāʿīl [Ṣīnī]). During this period, the branch of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language rose to the status of a subject, or as Bākallā (in Mubārak, p. 70) put it, ‘an independent field’ (maydān mustaqill), which went forward on its own path.

4

Development (1980s)

The meetings on Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language organized in the Arab world at the end of the 1970s represented a great impetus for the subject. These conferences had a positive effect on the following decade, which was characterized by a proliferation of activities. In this light Saudi Arabia held a leading role in the field of TAFL: Mecca, Riyadh and Medina became the centers of current projects, research units, publications and talks. This trend was also confirmed from a political point of view. In fact, two landmark occasions opened a window for Saudi Arabia’s leadership ambitions in the region. The first was the exclusion of Egypt from the Arab League after the Egyptian president Anwar al-Sādāt and the Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin signed the Camp David Accords in 1978, and the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty the year after. The second event was the collapse of the Pahlavi regime in Iran, which was considered the most favorable ruling power in the region by the United States. The dream of leadership kept Saudi Arabia busy during the whole decade or at least until Egypt reentered the Arab League in 1989 with a new president, Ḥusnī Mubārak, elected in 1981. Nonetheless, from the beginning of the 1980s the region once again started to lose its stability. In 1980 the war between Iran and Iraq was put under the spotlight by the mass media, to such an extent that less attention was paid to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the question of peace in the Middle East. In 1982, King Ḫālid (Khaled) died and Crown Prince Fahd accessed the throne. In the first years of his tenure (1982-2005), Saudi Arabia saw an increasing number of foreigners entering the country both for work and study purposes. In 1985, the population of foreign origin was estimated at around 4 million, mainly coming from other Arab states (i.e., Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan) and Southeast Asia (cf. Al-Rasheed, p. 197). The number of students entering university also increased and there was a considerable flow of non-Arab Muslims from Asia and Africa requesting Arabic language training. In this time span, the Arabic language gradually crossed its traditional boundaries, since it became the official language of organizations like the United Nations, the African Union, UNESCO, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). For this reason, in this period, some scholars explored whether Arabic would become an international language. Of note is the article by Turkī Rābiḥ published in al-Fayṣal Journal in 1981 and entitled ‘Hal tuṣbiḥ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī al-qarn al-ḫāmis ʿašar al-hiǧrī luġa ʿālamiyya min ǧadīd?’ (‘In the fifteenth

88 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Hegira century will Arabic again become an international language?’). This article, together with other scholars’ contributions, echoed the atmosphere that the Arabic language was experiencing during the 1980s. For example, al-Nāqa (1985c) highlighted how Arabic left the Arab region, to spread across other countries in such different and unusual contexts as industry, airports (e.g., London, Paris and Zürich), etc. In these places, MSA was the prevalent choice, even though colloquial varieties were sometimes preferred, as in the case of the Gulf Spoken Arabic classes that were organized in Karachi in the 1980s for prospective Pakistani workers, who wanted to settle in the Gulf (Badawi 1992a, p. 55). The worldwide heightening of interest in Arabic put the language on the path of globalization and internationalization. New centers were created abroad, e.g., Argentina. These dynamics then led Arabic to what we know today as being ‘one of the main foreign and second languages in the 21st century’ (Nielsen 2009, p. 147), as stated previously. With respect to Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language, the cities of the Arab world that saw its flourishing during the 1970s now witnessed the budding of research units and the creation of master’s degrees dedicated to TAFL at university level. In this time frame, Khartoum, Riyadh and Cairo saw the growth of some existing institutes and the development of new ones. In particular, the interest in TAFL expanded in Saudi Arabia, where dedicated research, theoretical and practical studies and textbooks were published. The country received a stream of experts from the other Arab countries, who started to write on TAFL, calling for increased participation and modernization from their colleagues. This trend had already been witnessed at the end of the 1970s, when the Symposium of Riyadh and the correlated debates put Saudi Arabia at the center stage of the newborn branch. In the 1980s, the country also saw many institutes grow in size and fame. For instance, in the holy city of Islam, Mecca, Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà gained a new nucleus status. The Umm al-Qura University (Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-qurà) was officially founded in 1981 during the tenure of King Ḫālid and the institute dedicated to Arabic language diffusion now displayed a new research unit (waḥdat al-buḥūt) and numerous publications dedicated to TAFL, which were incorporated in a book series (silsilat dirāsāt fī taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā). Among the scholars who published in Mecca, one could find the famous Egyptian linguist Tammām Ḥassān, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma (precisely Ṭuʿayma, also written as Taima or Toeimah) and Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa (also written as Al Naqa, Alnaqa, Al Nagga or Naga), later known for their contributions to the field of TAFL. Two other noteworthy personalities linked to Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà were its directors: ʿAbd Allāh al-Ǧarbūʿ (al-Jarboa) and ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿAbādī. At the

Development (1980s)

89

beginning of the 1980s al-Jarboa promoted the drafting of the Basic TAFL textbook, which was an objective sought since the early 1960s in Egypt (see Muḥammad Aḥmad). In order to achieve this milestone, the institute director appointed two commissions: one chaired by Tammām Ḥassān for the analysis of the existing Arabic language vocabulary lists and the other for the close examination of the TAFL textbooks published so far. The results obtained by the two commissions were then analyzed and applied by a third commission composed by Ṭaʿīma and al-Nāqa, who worked on the creation of a basic textbook for TAFL, al-Kitāb al-asāsī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà (Basic course for teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages), completed in 1983. In Saudi Arabia, Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà was not the only institute that attained a pivotal status during the 1980s. Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ maintained an appreciable role in the TAFL picture especially in regards to textbook, workbook and practical handbook publication (e.g., ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān 1982, 1988; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ṣāliḥ; Ṣīnī and Šaʿbān; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Sulaymān 1989, [n.d.] 1995; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1983, 1985, [1988] 2012). Meanwhile, other centers were founded and started to publish on Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language in Mecca, Riyadh and Medina; i.e., the Center of Islamic Education (al-Markaz al-ʿālī li-l-taʿlīm al-islāmī) of Umm al-Qura University and the Arabic Language Teaching Institute (Maʿhad taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya) of Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh (Ǧāmiʿat al-imām Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd al-islāmiyya). In 1985, the Center of Islamic Education published a complete study on the history of TAFL in Muslim countries of Asia such as Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and India. The book, written by Professor ʿAbd al-Salām Fahmī of Umm al-Qura University, was edited by the center’s director, Maḥmūd Ḥasan Zaynī. In the same year (1405 H), ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Ibrāhīm1 prepared al-Kitāba al-ʿarabiyya wa-ṣalāḥu-hā li-taʿlīm al-luġa li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Arabic writing and its improvement in teaching non-native speakers). The book was published by the Center of Islamic Education and represented a complete work that examined writing skill in all its aspects, including problems and simplification (Ibrāhīm 1985). In Mecca, the Constituent Council of the Muslim World League (Rābiṭat al-ʿālam al-islāmī) also showed an interest in TAFL during this period. The Arabic Language Teaching Institute was affiliated to Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, which was founded in Riyadh in 1974 and aspired for diffusion of Arab-Islamic studies. At the beginning of 1981 (1401 H), the Supreme Council of the university decided to create a center dedicated to 1

The complete name of the scholar is ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Maḥǧūb Muḥammad Ibrāhīm.

90 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

TAFL, which was called ‘Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabs Institute’ (Maʿhad taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab).2 The name of the institute was then modified to the current one in 1985; it aimed at training foreign students in Arabic and applied linguistics as well as to become TAFL instructors. Originally the Arabic Language Teaching Institute was established to sort out an urgent problem: foreign students enrolled at the university often had difficulties in following the lessons (al-Duḫayl, p. 69). Accordingly, the institute endeavored to help them, so that they could gain access to specific subjects through Arabic and continue their studies. This purpose differed entirely from what constituted the scope of Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ and Umm al-Qurà. Furthermore, in a time when an increasing number of foreigners were entering Saudi Arabia for work, the institute was invested in training workers in the language of their hosting country. Night classes were therefore arranged for such learners, who were taught everyday language by means of the four language skills. These learners were organized into six grades, i.e., three nominal levels split in part A and part B: beginners (dawra mubtadiʾa), intermediate (mutawassiṭa) and advanced cycle (mutaqaddima). For non-Arab Muslims, information on Islamic culture was provided, while for non-Arab non-Muslim learners culture and literature were offered (al-Duḫayl, p. 78). In 1982 (1402 H), experts started to work on a textbook series for foreign learners of Arabic at the TAFL Institute of Riyadh. In this they took inspiration from various experiences, namely those of Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ, al-Ḫarṭūm and Umm al-Qurà (cf. al-Ḥāmid). The series was published in 1986 (1407 H) after nearly four years of discussions and became well-known in the following decades, as it was reprinted and the number of its volumes increased. To these institutes one should add the Arab Bureau of Education for the Gulf States (ABEGS) (Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ), which was founded in Riyadh in 1975. The bureau’s mission was, however, only partially related to TAFL; beside fostering the diffusion of Arabic and its learning, it aimed to support cooperation between its member states and develop educational policies.3 In particular, in the field of pedagogy, ABEGS published a series of twelve books entitled Uḥibbu al-ʿarabiyya (I love Arabic), which were directed at young AFL learners. The series was prepared by Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, Nāṣif Muṣṭafà ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz4 and Muḫtār al-Ṭāhir 2 Cf. https://units.imamu.edu.sa/colleges/TeachingArabicLanguageInstitute/profile/Pages/ default.aspx, accessed 22 September 2016. 3 Cf. http://www.abegs.org/eportal/about/index, accessed 31 August 2016. 4 Here I refer to Nāṣif Muṣṭafà ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. This scholar should not be confused with Muḥammad Ḥasan ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, a Kenyan scholar who lectured during the Riyadh symposium.

Development (1980s)

91

Ḥusayn and it has undergone periodic republication to today, confirming how successful it is (see Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn [1988] 2012). In addition, some Arab universities like al-Azhar or the Islamic University of Medina (al-Ǧāmiʿa al-islāmiyya bi-l-Madīna al-Munawwara) started to enroll more and more students, especially non-Arab Muslims needing Arabic language training (al-Ḫaṭīb in al-Munaẓẓama 1992). This phenomenon prompted the universities to start debates on TAFL, like the one on lexicon and teacher training held in Medina in 1981. The great demand for Arabic language teaching and learning all over the world and now in some Arab countries, in particular, led to three further developments: the specialization of the existing TAFL institutes founded in the 1970s, the commitment of other stakeholders and the birth of new dedicated institutes. This evolutionary phenomenon characterized the 1980s, when more foreign learners started to study the language at various education levels. Arabic now entered high schools in Europe, e.g., France, Netherlands, Germany (Reid and Reich; Gandolf i) and the migration flows from the Arab world impelled Western societies to be more willing to learn about the newcomers’ cultures. Hence, teachers needed to be trained and professionally qualif ied in this specif ic f ield. The scope of TAFL scholars still remained the same, in other words, to spread their language and culture, in line with the principles that propelled the TAFL institutes founded in the previous decade. Furthermore, aside from the classic debates on Arabic language simplif ication as well as TAFL problems and teacher training, the 1980s witnessed the surfacing of contemporary issues and discussions, which were only partially outlined or dealt with in the 1970s but were now placed and debated alongside the traditional topics. Throughout the decade and, in particular, from the mid-1980s onward, the TAFL focus shifted to current points like curriculum development, Arabic language teaching methods, listening comprehension, etc. Some works (Ṭaʿīma 1982, 1986; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985; al-Nāqa 1985a, 1985c; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān 1988) were notably representative of this new phase of TAFL, for they examined the field from a new perspective. Besides Saudi Arabia, other TAFL institutes, master’s degrees, programs and research units were created during this time in Arab countries: Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Mauritania, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Jordan, Algeria, Oman and Qatar (cf. al-Nāqa 1985c, p. 27). Considering Egypt, its reach was expanded with the foundation of the TAFL Center of Alexandria in 1984. The center was established at Alexandria University to meet the increasing demand of learners coming from foreign universities for training in the

92 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Arabic language.5 It focused on teaching Arabic and Arab culture, especially that of Egypt, to foreign students (see also Nahla). During the early 1980s, Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm proved to have a vital function in the f ield of TAFL, as it not only ameliorated its activities revolving around TAFL (see al-Munaẓẓama 1985), but also those concerning general linguistic matters, language interference in South Sudan, Arabization, and others. In the early 1980s, Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm introduced a TAFL master’s degree, followed by offering scholarships as of 1989 onward. Additionally, it started a scientific journal dedicated to TAFL in 1982, named al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya (Arab journal of linguistic studies), where a series of articles on TAFL, linguistics, translation, as well as Arab and African studies were published by prominent scholars such as Raja Tawf iq Nasr, ʿAlī al-Qāsimī, Dāwūd ʿAbduh, Nuhād al-Musà, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, etc. In Tunisia, the research unit led by Riḍā al-Swīsī was particularly active during the same period, and in 1980 it even organized the North African Forum on Arabic Language Teaching (al-multaqà al-maġribī li-ṭuruq tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya). The forum was held in Tunis, attracting many scholars from Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, who addressed in part the topic of TAFL. In Tunisia, the Bourguiba School was invariably the leader in TAFL, as it published a new textbook series (silsila ǧadīda) by al-Qafṣī, which replaced the previous one (silsila qadīma). Moreover, in 1981, ALECSO organized a conference to define common measures for the diffusion of Arabic language and Arab-Islamic culture abroad. During the meeting, the proposal of an International Cooperation Board for Arab-Islamic Cultural Development (ǧihāz al-taʿāwun al-duwalī li-tanmiyat al-taqāfa al-ʿarabiyya al-islāmiyya) was furthered. The board was then established in 1983 and worked hand in hand with Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm, as ALECSO’s operating arms in the field of TAFL. The International Cooperation Board aimed to spread the study of Arabic in Europe (see, e.g., al-Munaẓẓama 1988) and the Americas, besides creating TAFL centers abroad and supporting those countries that manifested particular phenomena such as language interference and requested Arabic language training primarily for religious purposes, i.e., Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti and Mauritania. The diffusion of Arabic in these countries was implemented firstly by way of the education system, then via mass media (television, radio, newspapers), as well as cinema and theater, not to mention the publication of books, magazines and translations from Arabic (al-Munaẓẓama 1992, p. 130). 5

Cf. http://arts.alexu.edu.eg/tafl/?page_id=43, accessed 7 January 2018.

Development (1980s)

93

In Mauritania, for example, the demand for Arabic language training was so urgent that in 1988 the Management School (al-Madrasa al-idāriyya) in Nouakchott (Nuwākšūṭ) tried to cope with this high demand by introducing a TAFL program,6 which worked on listening, speaking, and good pronunciation, gradually introducing more complex tasks (cf. Ibn al-Barāʾ). In the early 1980s the Yarmouk University Language Center located in Irbid started its Yarmouk-University of Virginia Arabic language program for foreigners, which served international students, especially from the United States (al-Maḫzūmī, p. 109). The program attracted many Jordanian scholars, who cooperated with the center either as AFL teachers or researchers – Ḫalaf al-Maḫzūmī, ʿAlī Ṭalfāḥ, Fāʾiz al-Ḥamad, and Muḥammad al-Salīm, to name a few. Regarding Jordan, the TAFL activities carried out at the University of Jordan Language Center (Markaz ʿAmmān) are to be considered. Since 1983, the center has trained students with a dedicated textbook series divided into four levels and coauthored by Jordanian female scholars like Hādiyā Ḫazna Kātibī (Khazna Katbi), Hāla al-Nāšif and Badriyya ʿAbd al-Ǧalīl (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1994). The main objectives of Markaz ʿAmmān departed slightly from those of other institutes. Beside Arabic language diffusion, it aimed to meet the ‘Other’ (infitāḥ ʿalà al-āḫar), create a cultural exchange (tabādul taqāfī) and dialogue (tawāṣul ḥaḍārī) with them.7 In 1987, Qatar University (Ǧāmiʿat Qaṭar) founded the Arabic for NonNative Speakers Center (Markaz al-Dawḥa) as an academic unit of its Arabic Language Department.8 In the same period other universities in the Arab world decided to specialize in the field of TAFL teacher training, namely Mansoura University in Egypt and Al-Mustansiriyah University in Iraq (Ṭaʿīma 1986, p. 7) – the latter had already been documented by Fatḥī Yūnis at the end of the previous decade (Yūnis 1978, p. 270). The Iraqi TAFL center based its program on the Bourguiba School curriculum (cf. Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 124), so its AFL courses focused on the communicative aspect of Arabic language learning and teaching. 6 For the sake of precision, Mauritania was not untouched by Arabic language teaching to non-Arab communities in the past, like many other African countries. For a long period, Arabic was mainly learned for religious purposes and teaching methods encouraged the study of grammar and the memorization of the Holy Qur’an. In 1941 Arabic was systematically introduced in instruction as El Hadj Mahmoud Bâ founded the Salvation School (Madrasat al-falāḥ) in Southern Mauritania, which later expanded to other African countries: Mali, Senegal, Guinea, Cameroon and Congo (Ibn al-Barāʾ, p. 107). These schools aimed at spreading Islam and Arab culture, though did not focus on pure TAFL. For this reason, it was decided to dedicate less space to them within this research. 7 Cf. http://centers.ju.edu.jo/ar/ujlc/Pages/CNNaboutus.aspx, accessed 18 May 2017. 8 Cf. http://www.qu.edu.qa/artssciences/anns/, accessed 5 December 2017.

94 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

In terms of scholars’ knowledge of the problems and issues associated with TAFL, the 1980s registered a general increase in awareness, as they not only provided terminological clarifications9 but also addressed language teaching theories – predominantly referred to in English and French – that originated outside the Arab world and detailed the most relevant positions in the field (e.g., Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983; al-Nāqa 1985c; Ṭaʿīma 1986). While in the 1970s scholars disparaged first language textbooks that many educators used in their Arabic classes as L2, during the following decade these problems were to be partially sorted out thanks to the greater number of TAFL dedicated teaching tools and the proliferation of debates. These factors granted scholars the opportunity to discuss the challenges faced by foreign language learners faced when studying Arabic. To illustrate, teacher training was discussed by scholars during the 1980s. Ṭaʿīma (1986), Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn (1985) published works aimed at helping TAFL teachers in the Arabic language classroom. These publications were explanatory of the time, since they sought to bridge the gaps in teacher training that were pointed out and debated by experts in the previous decade. A shortage of highly qualified instructors, a small number of suitable books on methodology books and a limited amount of field research continued to define the TAFL teacher training outlook until the mid-1980s. Experience showed that institutes did not manage to satisfy the pressing training demand of this particular type of teacher (cf. Madkūr 1985). In 1983, Tammām Ḥassān turned to ALECSO to organize a TAFL teacher training session in the Arab world which, according to him, should instruct the cream of the crop of teachers on problems and solutions in Arabic as a Foreign Language classes, for the sake of the Holy Qur’an, Arab identity and learners (cf. Ḥassān 1983, p. 71). Only two years later, the Islamic Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) published a study on teacher training entitled Taqwīm barāmiǧ iʿdād muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Evaluation of training programs for teachers of Arabic to non-Arabic speakers). The book was written by ʿAlī Aḥmad Madkūr with the objective of examining the TASL teacher training programs offered by six TAFL institutes, 10 namely Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm, Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ, Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà, the American University in Cairo, 9 For instance, Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma (1986) distinguished between the terms ‘second language’ and ‘foreign language’, which are used interchangeably by scholars. 10 The original English summary of the work by Madkūr specif ies ‘TASL teacher training institutes’. However, I prefer using the expression ‘TAFL institutes’ in order not to generate confusion.

Development (1980s)

95

the Arabic Language Teaching Institute of Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University and the University of Minnesota – included as a basis for comparison. Special evaluation was also given to the in-service training summer institutes organized by ISESCO in Sierra Leone and Malaysia in 1984 (cf. Madkūr 1985, p. 12). As a result, the study established that the profile of the AFL teacher mandated qualifications from the linguistic, professional and cultural points of view. Furthermore, Madkūr judged the quality of the aforementioned training programs. To this extent he highlighted a widespread asymmetry in the programs analyzed, for they displayed varied duration and admission requirements. In addition, he pointed out that these programs put emphasis on the structural details of language rather than developing the four language skills. This observation underlines how in 1985 TAFL evinced its renewal from the theoretical point of view, while classroom practice was still far from putting into effect the recommendations proposed by scholars during the debates and symposia held at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s. This dichotomy was also stressed by Riḍā al-Swīsī’s research unit at the Forum of Tunis five years before, in 1980. Specifically, ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ḥilyawī affirmed that although the Bourguiba School method was based on precise instruction, trainers followed the method they considered most suitable (cf. al-Ḥilyawī, p. 109). Theory was just not in tandem with practice – and this was the case because TAFL was still undergoing adjustments at the beginning of the 1980s.

Broader Debates The onset of the 1980s proved that the growth of TAFL previously witnessed did not stop and scholars had the opportunity to further discuss TAFL problems and matters in symposia and meetings both within and outside the Arab world (e.g., Jakarta, Paris, Islamabad). In particular, 1981 was as a strategic year for TAFL as 1978 had been in the 1970s. In this sense, one can affirm that the four-year period from 1978 to 1981 was the most prolific, fertile and important for the growth and ensuing development of this field. In fact, in 1980 and 1981 a series of meetings regarding the Arab world were organized. In these debates, scholars further analyzed the themes that were currently debated in the field of foreign language teaching; topics that precisely referred to the Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language and the development of these concepts as independent constituents of what is now a full-fledged field.

96 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Matters such as Arabic language simplification or TAFL Arabic textbook design (e.g., ʿAbduh 1985) still signified a need for research aims. Sometimes textbooks were evaluated in case studies like the one by Ṭaʿīma (1983), entitled ‘Naḥwa adā mawḍūʿiyya li-taqwīm kutub taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ (‘Toward an objective tool for evaluating TAFL textbooks’) and published in al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya (Arab journal of linguistic studies) of Sudan. In 1980, the cities of Riyadh, Khartoum and Rabat were theaters of debate, updating and development. For example, a symposium on the simplification of TAFL was organized in Riyadh from 9 to 10 February 1980 (al-Nāqa 1985c, p. 25). In October of the same year, ALECSO organized a symposium in Khartoum on the topic of creating a basic textbook (kitāb asāsī) to use for TAFL, which was followed by another two of the same kind in January 1981 and August 1982. The topic of TAFL textbooks had already been analyzed during the 1970s by Arab scholars (i.e., Ṣīnī 1978; Muḥammad Aḥmad; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī), though it was now elaborated further. Indeed, the meetings in Khartoum, together with discussions and experiences in the field, gave birth to TAFL basic textbooks during the 1980s, as proposed by Ṭaʿīma and al-Nāqa in 1983 and by Badawi and Yūnis in the same year. However, the symposia of Khartoum were not the only occasions to discuss the matter of TAFL textbooks. In 1980, the Symposium on Writing TAFL Textbooks (nadwat taʾlīf kutub li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-l-luġāt al-uḫrà) was held in Rabat, Morocco. The meeting was organized by ALECSO and focused on the issue of TAFL textbooks, which was a question frequently debated in the previous decade by many authors (Ṣīnī 1978; al-Qāsimī 1979; Muḥammad Aḥmad). Among the lecturers, there were international scholars from Europe, Southeast Asia and renowned experts in the field of TAFL from the Arab world, such as Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, Ibrāhīm al-Ḥārdallū, Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa Abū Bakr, Aḥmad Wālī al-ʿAlamī and ʿAlī al-Qāsimī, who had participated in the Riyadh symposium two years before. Of note was the contribution by Dāwūd Salām on the role of frequency (takrār) in the word selection process for vocabulary list construction (al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 140). In general, scholars spoke about TAFL textbook drafting principles, methods, lexical choices and frequency, textbook readability (inqirāʾiyya) (e.g., Ṭaʿīma 1980), teaching materials preparation, exercises and the use of visual book aids. In this instance, the Tunisian scholar Muḥammad Muwāʿada (Mohammed Moada) debated the use of audio-visual tools in the AFL class and ʿAlī al-Qāsimī promoted the use of images in the TAFL textbook (al-Munaẓẓama 1983, p. 140). Both contributions highlight the structural orientation of some scholars at the beginning of 1980s, a time

Development (1980s)

97

when the direction of foreign language teaching inclinations was stepping closer to the communicative approach. The recommendations of the Rabat symposium urged scholars to produce and study vocabulary lists for Modern Standard Arabic (see also al-Munaẓẓama 1981). At the same time, they encouraged providing a functional-notional syllabus that contained themes related to Arab-Islamic culture and the times (cf. Ṭaʿīma 1982). These were applied two years later by one of the symposium lecturers, Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma, who denounced the paucity of teaching materials, adding that the selection of words and cultural content of TAFL textbooks was often circumstantial and had no scientific foundation (Ṭaʿīma 1982, p. 19). Therefore, the scholar prepared a useful tool for TAFL textbook creation and test building, which contained a list of the most diffused words in MSA, beside themes held to most significant including cultural topics. On this matter, al-Nāqa also expressed his point of view: he affirmed that neither TAFL courses nor textbooks took into consideration the students’ real training needs. In 1985, the scholar analyzed the training interests of Muslim learners of Arabic through a survey and then proposed a sample program for them. According to al-Nāqa, the work would serve for the planning of Arabic language programs, which have to satisfy learner training needs and interests. This topic was also debated at the Symposium of Doha, Qatar on TAFL methods (nadwat manāhiǧ taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) in May 1981. At the meeting, Sulaymān al-Wāsiṭī presented a paper on the training needs of foreign learners of Arabic (cf. al-Wāsiṭī), which correlated to experiments carried out in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait by al-Fiqī and Ṣāliḥ, respectively (cf. al-Šalaqānī). The Doha symposium was organized by ABEGS and was part of a series of meetings, which were held in Kuwait City 11 and Medina the same year. The lecturers’ talks were then included in the proceedings of the meetings, issued by ABEGS in three volumes entitled Waqāʾiʿ nadwāt taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language symposia facts). The symposia of Kuwait City and Medina were dedicated to TAFL teacher training as well as other topics. Of note were the lectures presented by ʿAlī al-Qāsimī, Tammām Ḥassān on Arabic language particularities; Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī on foreign language teaching methods; Muḥyī al-Dīn al-Alwāʾī (Mohiaddin Alwaye) on TAFL problems; Ḥamdī Qafīša (Qafisheh), Tawfīq al-Šāwāšī on frequent mistakes among AFL learners; ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Fiqī on the textbooks and methods 11 In Kuwait ABEGS cooperated with the Language Center of Kuwait University (Ǧāmiʿat al-Kuwayt).

98 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

used at Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ḥusayn on his teaching experience at the TAFL Institute of Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh; and ʿAlī Aḥmad ʿAlī al-Ḫaṭīb, an Egyptian scholar born in 1928, who taught in TAFL training sessions in Kano (Nigeria) during the 1980s. Of special note was the lecture by al-Nāqa on the Arabic language basic textbook 12 (cf. al-Nāqa 1986; Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ). This last lecture, entitled ‘Proposed Plan for TAFL Basic Textbook Writing’, was a paper that later evolved into the basic course of Arabic coauthored by Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma (see Ṭaʿīma and al-Nāqa [1983] 2009). In 1981, it was also the turn for Mecca and Jakarta, where other talks were organized. In Jakarta scholars gave talks on the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language, Arab-Islamic culture and the creation of TAFL institutes in Asia that could advance this field and Arabic language learning. In Mecca, the Constituent Council of the Muslim World League (Rābiṭat al-ʿālam al-islāmī) discussed the diffusion of Arabic and issued a series of recommendations on the matter (cf. al-Nāqa 1985c, p. 26). Other meetings were organized throughout the decade (cf. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm 1983). Among them, those worth mentioning are: the Founding Conference of the World Council for WFAIIS Examinations (al-muʾtamar al-taʾsīsī li-l-maǧlis al-ʿālamī li-imtiḥānāt al-madāris al-ʿarabiyya al-islāmiyya), held in Riyadh in 1986, and the International Conference on Arabic Language Teaching Development in Pakistan (al-muʾtamar al-duwalī li-taṭwīr taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī Bākistān), held in Islamabad in 1988 (al-Munaẓẓama 1994). The year 1981 was a crucial one for TAFL, for it marked the 1980s as a decade of renewal and development. If in the previous period TAFL scholars had the opportunity to congregate in the first TAFL symposium of the Arab world held in Riyadh, in the 1980s they could take part in various meetings around the region: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Tunisia, Morocco and Sudan. There, they were able not only to discuss and conduct in-depth analysis on theoretical issues, but also expound on practical matters and problems, while putting forward solutions as well.

Methods As regards methods during the 1980s, Arab scholars made efforts to survey the best possible scientific method for TAFL; thus, a spectrum of orientations was evidenced. This probe was based on solid scientific principles, 12 Cf. http://www.abegs.org/aportal/books/books_detail.html?id=5095272711454720, accessed 5 September 2016.

Development (1980s)

99

often supported by teaching experience and practice. Given the expertise of scholars, stances on teaching approaches and methods could be taken, and independent points of view could be expressed. For example, Tammām Ḥassān (1983, p. 91) maintained that language had to be learned in its natural environment. Other scholars like al-Swīsī, al-Ḥilyawī (in al-Maʿhad alqawmī), Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn (1985), ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān (1988) encouraged the use of oral discussion (munāqaša) in the Arabic as a foreign language class. This extraordinary regard for encompassing speaking activities in the learning process was not rare among Arab scholars and did not characterize only those working in the field of TAFL, but also Arabic Language Education experts (see, e.g., Qūra). In the 1980s many scholars still favored a teaching approach galvanized by structural methods. Although these latter teaching orientations were losing ground on an international level, the TAFL centers of the Arab world still based their curricula on these methods and did not change them on various grounds (cf. al-ʿUṣaylī 1999, 2002) until the following decades. Nonetheless, other scholars displayed a certain methodological evolution by embracing new theories (al-Nāqa 1985a; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985; Ṭaʿīma 1982, 1986), however, they also kept using good structural method principles, such as the use of audio-visual tools (e.g., Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983; Ḥassān 1983). For example, Ibn Ismāʿīl (1983), al-Nāqa (1985c), Ṭaʿīma (1986), ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān (1988) maintained that the four traditional language skills should be taught and learned in a specific order: first, listening and speaking; in a second phase, reading and writing. This orientation of TAFL scholars is analogous to that debated by other similar scholars (al-Swīsī 1979; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī) in the 1970s, which reflected structural positions. The same happened with Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn (1985), who put emphasis on good pronunciation, pairwise language comparisons (tunāʾiyyāt ṣuġrà),13 and the use of flashcards, audio-visual tools and language rather than explanations on it. More specifically, the importance of good pronunciation (nuṭq salīm) was an aspect highlighted by many TAFL scholars, especially those from Tunisia (e.g., al-Swīsī 1979; Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983; al-Maǧdūb), where the Bourguiba School method had a sizable impact on the TAFL debate. Other scholars (Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān 1988) showed a propensity for Total Physical Response (TPR) techniques, a teaching method developed by James Asher during the 1960s that focused on instructions and orders given by the teacher and replied to 13 Pairwise language comparisons have two other realizations in Arabic: murāqabat al-samʿ and tamyīz samʿī.

100 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

by the students, employing whole-body actions; e.g., ‘take the yellow pen’, ‘sit down’, etc. With respect to the communicative approach, a considerable number of authors (al-Nāqa 1985a; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985; Ṭaʿīma 1982, 1986) embraced this philosophy in all its forms. In particular, Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Ḥusayn sustained that the communicative aspects of language, as a learning objective, fostered student motivation as well as real and proper use of the language (luġa salīma). According to them, student interest was an essential component of didactical planning. The focus on student interest and training needs was also present among other scholars, like al-Nāqa (1985a) and partially in Ṭaʿīma’s notional syllabus of 1982. For example, al-Nāqa not only focalized on the theme, he also embraced the communicative approach with a learner-centered orientation, which he translated with the expressions tamarkuz taʿlīm al-luġāt ḥawla almutaʿallim or tadrīs al-luġa al-mutamarkaz ḥawla al-mutaʿallim. In this light, al-Nāqa drew on European and North American scholars, who published works that focused on learners in the language classroom and their training needs (i.e., Gardner and Lambert; Oller and Richards; Finocchiaro and Bonomo; Schumann and Stenson; Papalia). The learner-centered approach was, in fact, an increasing trend in language teaching. It aimed to develop functional competence14 in students rather than simply communicative ability (Serra Borneto, p. 138). Moreover, al-Nāqa and Ṭaʿīma were aware of the studies on modern foreign languages conducted in Europe during that period. Both, in fact, mentioned and took inspiration from the Council of Europe’s experience on syllabus building. This fact links them again to the communicative approach, this time with a functional-notional orientation. In general, the birth of functional-notional syllabi was influenced by the speech acts theory by Austin and Searle, who maintained that by saying something we do something and things are done with words. In a sense, Ṭaʿīma’s work of 1982 recalled the experience carried out by the Council of Europe in the 1970s, which was cited by the scholar and aimed to develop a unit/credit system for adult language learners. The outcome of this experience was published in 1975 under the title of The Threshold Level in a European Unit/ 14 The term is translated from the specification made by Rosa A. Scalzo, who speaks about ‘competenza d’azione’ in Serra Borneto (p. 138). The term cannot be translated into English with ‘action competence’, since it would be linked to a concept in the field of human sciences. The translation that I propose is ‘functional competence’ since it represents an ability that goes beyond the communicative competence, allowing interaction with other language speakers in an active way in order to achieve objectives (cf. Bach and Timm). Simply put, it is the ‘know-how’.

Development (1980s)

101

Credit System for Modern Language Learning by Adults – commonly referred to as the Threshold Level (T-Level) (van Ek). However, the work by Ṭaʿīma did not specify grammatical notions such as time, quantity, frequency etc., but presented themes, cultural concepts and lexical items. As regards Tunisia, the teaching approaches diffused in the country over this period were reported by Riḍā al-Swīsī, Muḥammad Ibn Ismāʿīl and ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ḥilyawī.15 The first scholar provided a general overview in his article ‘Ṭuruq al-tadrīs bi-l-taʿlīm al-ʿālī bayna al-talqīn wa-l-tawāṣul al-alsunī’ (‘Teaching methods in higher education, between teaching and communication’), published in 1981 by the Tunisian National Institute of Education Sciences in the volume Ḥawla ṭuruq taʿlīm al-luġāt al-ḥayya bi-Tūnis (On the methods of foreign language teaching in Tunisia). AlSwīsī affirmed that while teaching methods (ṭuruq tadrīs or didactique des matières) had already become a full-fledged discipline, they were still lacking as a collective subject in Tunisian universities. At the beginning of the 1980s, the Tunisian scholar favored structural and sometimes constructivist methods, but most importantly he opposed traditional teaching approaches. Not by chance, al-Swīsī was a scholar influenced by concepts having French origins, e.g., theories by Ferdinand de Saussure, Jean Piaget, Gaston Mialaret, Bernard Quemada, etc. In the same period another Tunisian scholar reported the teaching methods known in Tunisia, the Arab world and Europe thus far. This scholar, Ibn Ismāʿīl (Ben Ismail), split them into two method categories: translation and direct. He added that until then the translation method was the most diffused in the Arab world for foreign language teaching and vice versa in Europe for teaching Arabic (Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983, p. 13). The scholar pointed out that the use of literary texts and word lists that characterized this method did not favor the language acquisition process. In this light, he analyzed the popular Assimil method (cf. Schmidt) to demonstrate its inefficacy, for it neither encouraged production activities, nor a natural acquisition of the language. Then, Ibn Ismāʿīl presented the direct method, which he divided into the audio-visual method and another structural one. The first 15 The Tunisian scholar mainly dealt with Arabic language teaching methods for native speakers. In particular, al-Ḥilyawī (in al-Maʿhad al-qawmī) highlighted that in the early 1980s some Arabic language educators inclined toward either structural positions (ṭarīqa haykaliyya) or Pédagogie par Objectifs (PPO), a teaching method created by Ralph Tyler in the mid-1930s that gave paramount importance to learning objectives. However, most of the educators taught Arabic in the traditional way, a situation also confirmed some years before at the meeting on Arabic language teaching methods held in Amman in 1974 (cf. Maamouri, ʿAbīd, and al-Ġazālī, p. 76).

102 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

was called ṭarīqa haykaliyya kulliyya samʿiyya baṣariyya (structuro-global audio-visual method) and represented a literal translation of what he heard in France as the SGAV method previously outlined. According to Ibn Ismāʿīl, the method was based on listening and repetition, while it also encouraged good pronunciation and intonation. In addition, it fostered communication with the use of language in everyday life situations and promoted the target language as the only vehicular language. This seemed to echo the focus on everyday life (ḥayā yawmiyya) of the Bourguiba School method, a vision also shared by other scholars not linked to the Tunisian scientific scene (ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān 1988). Not by chance, Ibn Ismāʿīl can be considered an heir of the ṭarīqat Maʿhad Būrqība, which he embraced over the years spent teaching at the Tunisian institute. The second structural method mixed the centrality of listening and speaking skills with a renewed interest in reading and writing. For this reason, it was called by Ibn Ismāʿīl ṭarīqa samʿiyya baṣariyya šafawiyya yadawiyya (audio-visual oral-written method).16 In a way, this last method was the summa of the scholar’s positions, as he encouraged the use of each of the four language skills simultaneously. When used together, the two structural methods were called by Ibn Ismāʿīl ‘dual’ (ṭarīqa izdiwāǧiyya) or ‘blended method’ (ṭarīqa tawlīfiyya) (cf. Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983, p. 17). ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ḥilyawī made similar affirmations in 1980. The Tunisian scholar maintained that the best language teaching method began with speaking (muḥādata), and he inclined toward the use of audio-visual tools in the language laboratory. Moreover, according to al-Ḥilyawī, grammar had to be taught through exercises and Arabic could be the only vehicular language, once again an echo of the Bourguiba School method. The eclectic method was partially embraced by al-Nāqa (1985c) in this decade. In general, the scholar embraced various methodological orientations and its partial leaning toward the eclectic method seems to justify this fact. The scholar’s positions recanted those outlined by ʿAlī al-Qāsimī in 1979. In particular, al-Nāqa asserted that there was no best method for language teaching, since each way of teaching had its pros and cons. Al-Nāqa named the eclectic method either ṭarīqa intiqāʾiyya or tawlīfiyya (blended method). This latter should be distinguished from the blended method proposed by Ibn Ismāʿīl, as the Tunisian scholar intended a convergence of structural methods, while al-Nāqa referred to the eclectic method in the strict sense. 16 Literally, yadawiyya should be translated with ‘manual’, though I prefer to translate the term with ‘written’ because Ibn Ismāʿīl mainly refers to the writing skill.

Development (1980s)

103

Terminology In 1986, order was given to the disarray of terminological proliferation, namely that of TAFL formulations and expressions, witnessed in the foregoing decade. An example of this is that of Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma (1986), who provided a clarification of the various terms employed and proposed the use that was most appropriate. The scholar took into consideration, for example, ‘teaching Arabic to non-Arabs’ (talʿīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab) and ‘to foreigners’ (li-laǧānib), which put the focus either on ‘foreigners’ or ‘non-Arabs’. According to Ṭaʿīma, both expressions were selective (māniʿ) and not inclusive (ǧāmiʿ), since they excluded some groups of learners, who were neither foreigners nor non-Arabs but still learned Arabic as a foreign language. Another formulation was def ined by Ṭaʿīma as selective also. This was ‘teaching Arabic to foreigners’ (talʿīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aʿāǧim), a specific expression found by the scholar in some articles (cf. Ṭaʿīma 1986, p. 52). The expression harnessed a particular term from the Holy Qur’an: aʿāǧim (foreigner; barbarian), which was used to name non-Arabs in the past and commonly referred to Persians. The three expressions discussed by Ṭaʿīma were labeled as selective. To explicate his stance, the scholar relied on his teaching experience (i.e., at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm) and gave the example of Arab citizens who learned Arabic as L2, but spoke other languages as L1, such as in the case of South Sudan, Northern Iraq and Nubia, where a multitude of local languages other than Arabic were and are spoken. Consequently, none of the expressions were considered accurate and precise and Ṭaʿīma therefore opted for ‘teaching Arabic to non-native speakers’ (taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā). This formulation might be able to sort out the problem since it focused on nuṭq (pronunciation), which – in the broad sense – identified not only language expressions and structure repetition, but also speaking and reading (cf. Ṭaʿīma 1986, p. 53). As a result, ġayr al-nāṭiq (nonspeakers) referred to those who did not ‘pronounce’ Arabic as L1, including Arab citizens mastering an L1 other than Arabic. Nonetheless, another issue was introduced by Ṭaʿīma, complicating the matter. ‘Teaching Arabic to non-native speakers’, in fact, did not include those Muslim learners who could read the Holy Qur’an and therefore Arabic. Hence, the expression was deemed inappropriate. According to the scholar, the solution could be found in another formulation: ‘teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages’ (taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà), which included all learners, whose mother tongue was other than Arabic. This expression did not focus on learner provenance, origin or language

104 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

skills, but differentiated two simplified categories: speakers of Arabic and all the rest. The expression adopted by Ṭaʿīma was used by ʿAlī al-Qāsimī in 1979, then by al-Nāqa and Ṭaʿīma in 1983 in their publication al-Kitāb al-asāsī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà (Basic course for teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages) and again by al-Nāqa, in 1985. However, over the years ‘teaching Arabic to non-native speakers’ (taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) and its slight variations overrode the other formulations and became the predominant expression referring to TAFL in Arabic.

Scholarly Production Regarding scholarly publications, the works on TAFL published during the 1980s revolved around many points such as: foreign language teaching methods, language skills, vocabulary lists, teacher’s guides, TAFL textbooks (e.g., Baybars and Suwayd; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān 1982; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ṣāliḥ; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1983; Ṣīnī and Šaʿbān; al-Qafṣī; al-Tonsi and Al-Warraki; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Sulaymān 1989, [n.d.] 1995; al-Ḥāmid), anthologies, tests and exercises. This period bore the production of distinctly applied research on the topics of Arabic language teaching programs and syllabi, such as grammar (manhaǧ naḥwī), situational (manhaǧ al-mawāqif ) and notional syllabi (manhaǧ al-fikra) (e.g., Ṭaʿīma 1982, 1986; al-Nāqa 1985a), etc. These works derived respective foundations from the heretofore publications,17 developed them into broader debates, turned preliminary research into in-depth studies and addressed new topics like curriculum development, listening comprehension, etc. The new debates were placed on par with the traditional ones, and some works were particularly representative of this newfangled phase of TAFL, as the field was being examined from a new perspective, which was more in touch with the foreign language teaching trends emerging from North America and Europe (i.e., Ṭaʿīma 1982, 1986; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985; al-Nāqa 1985a, 1985c; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān 1988). One of the most important works published in the 1980s was issued by ALECSO in Tunis. Dalīl buḥūt al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-dīn al-islāmī fī al-waṭan al-ʿarabī (The Arabic language and Islamic religion research guide) was a reference book that listed more than 850 works dealing with Arabic 17 For example, the work by ʿAlī al-Ḥadīdī of 1967 was still a source cited by TAFL scholars during the 1980s and further on (see Chapter 7).

Development (1980s)

105

language and Islamic studies published in the Arab world between the early twentieth century and 1980. This inventory of numerous writings includes books, articles, research and scientific dissertations both published and unpublished (see also al-Munaẓẓama 1985). The main aims of this reference guide were to provide a scientific basis for research and an overview of the most important trends observed in the field of Arabic language teaching during the first eight decades of the last century. In addition, according to Muḥyī al-Dīn Ṣābir, ALECSO director-general between 1976 and 1988, the book aimed to further develop the field of Arabic language teaching and Islamic education, its branches, by drawing a modern universal map (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1983). As already noted, Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà gained centrality during the 1980s. With respect to scholarly publications, its research unit issued a multitude of studies and works on TAFL in this period. This prompted the creation of a dedicated book series on Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language. This series consisted of theoretical dissertations (Ḥassān 1983; al-Nāqa 1985a), applied research (Ṭaʿīma 1982, 1985; al-Nāqa 1985a), practical handbooks for teachers (Ṭaʿīma 1986), vocabulary lists (cf. Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà) and a basic textbook for TAFL (Ṭaʿīma and al-Nāqa [1983] 2009). At the beginning of the 1980s, Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà’s commission for the analysis of the existing Arabic language vocabulary lists worked on the production of a vocabulary list, which was published in 1981 under the name of Qāʾimat Makka li-l-mufradāt al-šāʾiʿa (Mecca vocabulary list) by Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà’s research unit (cf. Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà). The Mecca list added to a series of older lists (Brill; ʿĀqil; Bailey; Landau) and to that by Dāwūd ʿAbduh in 1979, which was at the time conventionally called Qāʾimat al-Riyāḍ (The Riyadh list), since it was published in the Saudi capital. The Mecca list – hereafter called Qāʾimat Makka – grouped the most frequent words found in other Arabic vocabulary lists previously issued (ʿAbduh 1979a; Sartin). This work – together with other projects carried out in Mecca at that time – paved the way to a major achievement. In 1983, al-Kitāb al-asāsī litaʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà (Basic course for teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages) was published in the Holy city of Islam by Ṭaʿīma and al-Nāqa ([1983] 2009). The book should not be confused with the one by Essaid Mohammed Badawi and ʿAlī Fatḥī Yūnis published in 1983 (al-Kitāb al-asāsī fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, al-ǧuzʾ al-awwal [Basic course for teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers, part 1]). This course was published by ALECSO in Tunis and as Nielsen (2009, p. 153) later pointed out, it displayed the direct method, by imitating

106 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

the way children learn their mother tongue. The book avoided translations and used Arabic as the only vehicular language. It focused on everyday vocabulary, in order to provide students with more pragmatic and useful material (cf. ibid.). However, the variety of Arabic was Modern Standard and this undermined the outcome of the learner’s speaking ability. The debate on the TAFL textbook was a conventional discussion that engaged Arab scholars with the dawning of TAFL in the Arab world, and, in particular, with the first expert committees organized at Ain Shams University in the early 1960s. Therefore, the aforementioned textbooks represented the achievement of a long-term goal, which was rendered thanks to the meetings organized across the Arab world, where scholars had the opportunity to exchange ideas and discuss practical problems. Equally significant is that in the previous decades TAFL textbooks were published (e.g., Ibn Ismāʿīl, Ibn Ṣāliḥ, and al-ʿĀyid; Ibn Ismāʿīl 1974; Ḥardān et al.); however, the textbook courses issued in the 1980s left such a footprint in history that the 1983 textbook by Badawi and Yūnis became one of the most known Arabic language textbooks for foreign learners ever written, after Elementary Modern Standard Arabic by Abboud and McCarus (1968a, 1968b), the famous ‘orange book’, which preceded it. During this time, Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà in Mecca drew experts from the Arab world, as Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm did in the mid-1970s. For example, the Egyptian scholar Tammām Ḥassān enriched the Mecca book series with his al-Tamhīd fī iktisāb al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Introduction to the acquisition of Arabic for non-native speakers) in 1983. This was a dissertation of Arabic linguistics, where the author discussed many aspects of Arabic, mentioning famous grammarians and scholars of the past such as Sībawayhi, Ibn Ǧinnī, al-Ǧāḥiẓ, al-Suyūṭī, etc., but also Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) and his theories. In his work, Ḥassān claimed to be in favor of the study of Modern Standard Arabic, as opposed to the study of dialects, which may confuse foreign students who cannot distinguish between different pronunciations and inflections. The work by Ḥassān was to become renowned, as the scholar discussed a theory identifying three levels in the Arabic language acquisition process. The highest of these three in language learning was the enjoyment level (marḥalat al-istimtāʿ), occurring when learners could master literary taste (tadawwuq adabī) and the comprehension of beauty in a text (cf. Ḥassān 1983). This was preceded by what Tammām Ḥassān def ined as ‘level of comprehension’ (marḥalat al-istīʿāb), which referred to the comprehension of sentence functions (anmāṭ al-ǧumal) and concerned those students who could understand the meaning of a text. Comprehension also included

Development (1980s)

107

cultural understanding (istīʿāb al-taqāfa). Accordingly, Ḥassān maintained that the concept of culture in Arab society had two features – or two cultures – one of which he distinguished as Arab and the other as Islamic. According to the scholar, these aspects were very different; for example, while Arab culture was local and pursued knowledge as well as the national spirit (rūḥ qawmiyya), the Islamic counterpart was global and affirmed a path of religion. However, despite the departures of one from the other, they were inseparable (cf. Ḥassān 1983, p. 85). Consequently, the teacher of Arabic had to introduce both cultures to his foreign language students. In this task, he had to follow the principle of simplicity in his presentation, choose appropriate themes and explain them in class with the aid of audio-visual tools (ibid., p. 92). Before this comprehension level was the first level, which Ḥassān called the ‘level of knowledge’ (marḥalat al-taʿarruf ). This related to basic language elements and abilities such as distinguishing between sounds and words, and giving them a function. Ḥassān clarified this point by giving an example: he explained that students who acquired the knowledge level in Arabic were able to discriminate the function of the active participle fāʿil from that of the passive participle mafʿūl. The levels identified by Ḥassān were also inserted in a rigid hierarchy, meaning that learners could not pass to the level of comprehension without mastering the level of knowledge. Thus, Arabic language acquisition could only take place in an inflexible order: knowledge f irst, then comprehension, and enjoyment last. In 1985, the Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà research unit published two other works enriching the book series on TAFL. These contributions were by Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa, an Egyptian scholar who began working in the field of TAFL at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm in 1975; participating in the Ninth Conference of the Arab Teachers Syndicate in Khartoum the following year in 1976, where substantial deliberation on TAFL was effectuated. Al-Nāqa had also been teaching at Ain Shams University and on various occasions had collaborated with Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma. The f irst work examined here is a theoretical essay that represents the summa of al-Nāqa’s ten-year-experience of teaching Arabic to foreign students. Even more, Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà (Teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages) can be considered a major achievement in the field of TAFL in the 1980s, as it is a complete scientific work, while also summarizing the most important events, scholars’ theoretical positions, terminological issues and teaching techniques. In this, Al-Nāqa, first outlines the most important happenings in TAFL since the initial meeting of its kind, identified as the Madrid symposium, then goes

108 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

on to comment about the subsequent meetings held in and outside the Arab world to 1985. In writing this book, the author aimed at discussing TAFL, its methods and the relationship between Modern Standard and Colloquial Arabic. The language was introduced by the scholar through the words of prominent North American and European Arabists or orientalists such as Charles A. Ferguson (1921-1998), Raphael Patai (1910-1996) and Louis Massignon (1883-1962). Al-Nāqa also inquired which Arabic should be taught and if teaching both MSA and Colloquial Arabic was practicable, a position also shared by Ṭaʿīma (1986), who affirmed that both varieties could be taught; however, this depended on the course objectives. This discussion later resulted in the creation of the integrated approach (ṭarīqa takāmuliyya) (see Chapter 5). Ultimately, both scholars endorsed modern current standard (fuṣḥà ḥadīta mutadāwala) as the variety to teach. As regards contents and methods, al-Nāqa held that Arabic language teaching should provide students with cultural knowledge, the legacy (turāt) of the Arabic language as well as stimulate everyday communication. AlNāqa added that the teacher should begin with listening and speaking and then shift to the other skills, an aspect that links him to many other scholars of that period, who were influenced by the structural philosophy in foreign language teaching (see above). In addition, repetition (takrār) and use (istiḫdām) of the language were encouraged by the scholar. In his essay, al-Nāqa described the four language skills, teaching techniques, and methods (grammar, phonetic, direct, psychological, audio-lingual and reading), rarely cited by his colleagues. Also addressed is the reading method (ṭarīqat al-qirāʾa) developed at the beginning of the twentieth century when the world was closing in national boundaries; thus, the language became a means for reading scientific works, literature, etc. Of note are al-Nāqa’s positions on the best method to be used in class. He affirmed that there was no single best method, since each way of teaching had its pros and cons. The best method was therefore the one that facilitated both the teacher and the students in achieving the objectives established at the beginning of the learning process (cf. al-Nāqa 1985c, p. 58). At the same time, the scholar was convinced that every language had particularities that should coalesce with the teaching/learning approach. These views conjoined al-Nāqa with the eclectic method, which he translated as ṭarīqa tawlīfiyya (blended method) or intiqāʾiyya. In such case, this method was suitable for the teacher and student needs as well as appropriate for the language particularities. The second work by al-Nāqa is an applied research project entitled Barāmiǧ taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-muslimīn al-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà (Programs

Development (1980s)

109

for teaching Arabic to Muslim speakers of other languages). It is an example not only of TAFL, but also of teaching Arabic for specific purposes; more precisely, religious purposes (aġrāḍ dīniyya). This factor links this publication with the typical orientation of TAFL witnessed in Saudi Arabia since its dawn, as scholars stressed for the most part the immutable interdependence of Arabic and Islam (e.g., al-Qāsimī 1979; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; Bahǧat 1980). However, this time the work by al-Nāqa was roused not only by devotion, but also by market trends, since a large number of foreign learners studying in Saudi Arabia came from the Muslim countries of Asia and Africa and therefore represented an interesting share of the whole TAFL market. At the same time, the work focused on students’ interest and training needs and was an example of the learner-centered orientation communicative approach. To this end, al-Nāqa analyzed the training interests of Muslim learners of Arabic and then proposed a sample program for them. The scholar reached this monumental conclusion with a survey of 180 foreign students, who studied Arabic at the advanced level and came from 29 different countries, e.g., Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Philippines, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh and Malaysia. They were studying in Saudi Arabia, at the three TAFL institutes located in Riyadh and Mecca. The Muslim learners’ training needs highlighted by the survey results, along with al-Nāqa’s studies in foreign language teaching, were elemental in drafting the sample program. In particular, the scholar was influenced by the most recent trends in program design such as the multidimensional curriculum discussed at the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) convention held in Boston in 1980. The scholar mainly drew on the convention lecturers’ recommendations drafted in the ‘Boston Paper’ (cf. Lange) and on H.H. Stern’s ‘Toward a Multidimensional Foreign Language Curriculum’ published as a follow-up article three years later in 1983 (cf. Stern). ‘Multidimensional curriculum’ was translated by al-Nāqa with manhaǧ al-luġa al-aǧnabiyya mutaʿaddid al-abʿād; it represented an evolution of the teaching approaches used during the 1970s (e.g., audio-visual, the ṭarīqa īḥāʾiyya ‘suggestopedia’, etc.), which led to the eclectic approach. This last was founded on the conviction that there was not only one recipe for language teaching; thus, teachers and learners had to diversify their strategies (cf. al-Nāqa 1985a, p. 106). As a result, the multidimensional curriculum consisted of a program that took into consideration various aspects of language learning, where effective use of language and communication were emphasized and all skills were developed. Cultural competence (kafāʾa taqāfiyya) was also contemplated: the student could observe and analyze cultural aspects and values, and therefore acquire a cultural awareness (waʿī taqāfī).

110 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

The multidimensional curriculum proposed by al-Nāqa took into account the students’ motivations identified through the survey. The majority of respondents reported being impelled to learn Arabic firstly for religious purposes (e.g., Islamic studies, Quranic exegesis, Islamic history, etc.), and secondly for cultural and professional considerations (see al-Nāqa 1985a for a detailed analysis). This survey outcome shaped al-Nāqa’s program, which pitched religious contents while following the eclectic approach, propitious of all four language skills, communication and the use of audio-visual tools. Al-Nāqa’s curriculum can be related to another work issued in Mecca by the Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà research unit in 1982. This work is al-Usus al-muʿǧamiyya wa-l-taqāfiyya li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Lexical and cultural bases for teaching Arabic as a foreign language). The book discusses a series of themes such as epistemological language matters, Arabic language levels, tests, Arab-Islamic culture, lexicon, etc., but, most importantly, it is an example of functional-notional syllabus for teaching elementary Arabic. In essence, the book represents a good tool for textbook creation and test construction. al-Usus al-muʿǧamiyya wa-l-taqāfiyya li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā was written by Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma, a scholar from Mansoura, Egypt, born in 1940, who had collaborated various times with al-Nāqa, as previously noted. Ṭaʿīma was a prolific author, who dedicated many of his publications to Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language. Over the years, the scholar taught Arabic in Arab countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, where he presented a TAFL didactic work, apparently unpublished, entitled Naḥnu nataʿallamu al-ʿarabiyya (We learn Arabic) in 1978 at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm. He cooperated with many international organizations like ALECSO, UNESCO, the World Bank and ISESCO (cf. Albantani). Ṭaʿīma obtained his PhD in TAFL at the University of Minnesota in 1979; hence, he was an exemplary part of the phenomenon marking the Symposium of Riyadh, where a sizeable number of Arab scholars were affiliated to American universities, moving abroad in order to earn a specialization degree and starting a career there. By doing so, the scholar’s perspective on TAFL was opened to numerous authors, encompassing those in North America who wrote on foreign language teaching and Arabic language in general (e.g., Charles A. Ferguson, T.B. Irving, Wilga Rivers, Dell Hymes, Earl Stevick, T.F. Mitchell, Peter F. Abboud, Philip Khuri Hitti, etc.). In his book Ṭaʿīma questioned the nature of Arabic language, which was conferred and magnified through the words of illustrious American Arabists and Orientalists. Then, the scholar proposed a functional-notional syllabus for elementary-level Arabic. In practical terms, Ṭaʿīma listed a range

Development (1980s)

111

of themes and words necessary to complete the first (mustawà ibtidāʾī) of three levels of Arabic language study.18 On the one hand, this work was influenced by the trend of English language syllabus construction that the scholar saw in the United States and Europe in the 1970s; on the other hand, Ṭaʿīma built directly on the Arabic language vocabulary lists issued both inside and outside the Arab world so far. Even though Ṭaʿīma’s work did not differentiate grammatical notions, it is redolent of the Threshold Level project carried out by the Council of Europe from 1971 on (cf. van Ek). As for the vocabulary list proposed by Ṭaʿīma, the scholar selected the first thousand most common words in Modern Standard Arabic, which had been one of the very first aims discussed by scholars since the debut of TAFL – notably at the Madrid symposium – and reiterated various times over the years until the 1980s. In preparing the word list, Ṭaʿīma drew on the Arabic language vocabulary lists thus far available and published by Arab and non-Arab scholars. In particular, he took the words from the Riyadh list (Dāwūd ʿAbduh’s vocabulary list) of 1979 and others such as Brill’s (1940) and Landau’s (1959). These last references were so significant that other Arab scholars turned to them for guidance: for instance, ʿAbduh and the Arabic Proficiency Test Committee appointed by the AATA in 1973 (see Chapter 3). Nonetheless, Ṭaʿīma did not limit his research to these sources, as he also consulted the T-Level (van Ek 1975), the glossaries on Elementary Modern Standard Arabic by Abboud and McCarus (1968a, 1968b), Modern Standard Arabic Intermediate Level by Abboud (1971), the Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya bi-l-rādyū (Teaching Arabic by radio) textbook series published by the Egyptian Broadcasting Corporation (see Bakr, ʿAṭā, and al-ʿAzzāwī; Rušdī) during the 1970s and the Raṣīd luġawī waẓīfī (Functional syllabus) published in Tunis19 in 1975 by the Permanent Committee on the Language Syllabus (al-laǧna al-dāʾima li-l-raṣīd al-luġawī). The list of words gathered by Ṭaʿīma was then presented in a survey distributed to 50 Cairo University Arab students coming from different parts of the Arab world and having contact with foreign learners. For the project success, Ṭaʿīma collaborated with Maḥmūd Fahmī Ḥiǧāzī, to devise the survey. Its aim was to investigate the training needs of learners of Arabic as a foreign language in three areas: themes (mawāqif), vocabulary (mufradāt) and culture (malāmiḥ ḥaḍāriyya wa-taqāfiyya). Respondents were asked to 18 In this sense, Ṭaʿīma divided the study of Arabic in the three conventional levels: elementary (ibtidāʾī), intermediate (mutawassiṭ) and advanced (mutaqaddim). 19 The functional syllabus published in Tunis was a selection of the most diffused words for elementary school pupils (al-Swīsī 1979).

112 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

decide which themes, words and cultural aspects were the most important for foreign learners of Arabic. The decision to address questions to Arab university students instead of directly posing them to foreign learners was explained by Ṭaʿīma in that only Arabs could determine what the most useful words in their language and the most meaningful aspects of their culture were (cf. Ṭaʿīma 1982, p. 55). The fact that Ṭaʿīma presented the concepts of linguistic (kafāʾa luġawiyya) and communicative competence (kafāʾat al-ittiṣāl) in his works (i.e., Ṭaʿīma 1982, 1986) unquestionably bridges him to the communicative approach and to TAFL scholars such as Peter F. Abboud and Raji Rammuny, who showed similar positions during the 1970s and at the Riyadh symposium (Abboud 1980; Rammuny 1980c). Ṭaʿīma, in fact, intended language as a set of sounds and a creative process (ʿamaliyya ibdāʿiyya), used by people to communicate (ittiṣāl) with one another (Ṭaʿīma 1982, p. 28). According to the scholar, the main aim of TAFL was to bring learners to use active vocabulary (mufradāt ḥayya) – namely words that people use frequently and confidently – so as to be able to communicate efficiently with Arabic language speakers and live in the Arabophone community (muǧtamaʿ ʿarabī). In which case, the teacher of Arabic should not simply teach language, but also culture through it. He should encourage students in expressing their thoughts and feelings. In theory, this meant that the teacher was asked to play the role of ‘facilitator’ rather than leader while students – on their part – could actively engage in the knowledge acquisition process (taḥṣīl al-maʿrifa) (cf. Ṭaʿīma 1986, p. 115). Learners should be taught not only language aspects such as sounds, words, structures, concepts, but also the four traditional language skills and culture. To this extent, TAFL had a threefold objective: teaching Arabic, teaching through Arabic and teaching its culture. According to Ṭaʿīma, language was the receptacle of culture (al-luġa wiʿāʾ al-taqāfa) and one could be independent of the other (Ṭaʿīma 1986, p. 138). The scholar also warned against some particularities of Arabic; i.e., those connected to the diatopic variation of Modern Standard Arabic, corroborating the existence of multiple word uses in different places of the linguistic area. Despite his modern viewpoint, Ṭaʿīma did make some statements concurring with the positions held in the 1970s by other TAFL scholars, namely those who valued the structural approaches such as Riḍā al-Swīsī and the proponents of the Bourguiba School method. To give an example, in his work of 1986 entitled al-Murǧiʿ fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà (A reference guide on the teaching of Arabic to speakers of other languages), Ṭaʿīma expressed that the four traditional language skills should be put in a specific order in the teaching/learning process: listening, speaking, reading

Development (1980s)

113

and writing. The work was published in Mecca and dealt with a series of topics such as linguistic theories, foreign language teaching, curriculum and test design, not to mention teaching Arab studies, i.e., literature and culture. Moreover, the scholar summarized the most common theories on foreign language teaching and proposed a list of descriptors concerning the skills that should be encouraged in an elementary-level course of Arabic. In this, he was inspired by a broader study conducted at the end of the 1970s by Fatḥī ʿAlī Yūnis, an Egyptian scholar who obtained his PhD at Ain Shams University in 1974 and was later acclaimed for coauthoring one of the most influential TAFL textbooks with Essaid Mohammed Badawi (Badawi and Yūnis 1983). Yūnis distributed a large number of questionnaires in Egypt and the United States, then with the collected information he created descriptors of the four language skills for an elementary level of Arabic as a foreign language. This study influenced Ṭaʿīma, who formed his own descriptors. In essence, the aim of the book was to expound on new methodological trends and studies in foreign language teaching, besides providing TAFL teachers with a reference guide that helped them sort out practical problems in Arabic as a Foreign Language classes. The author affirmed the book was a guide that led teachers ‘out of the forest’ (cf. Ṭaʿīma 1986). All the works hitherto discussed were published by the Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà research unit in Mecca and enriched the book series dedicated to the Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language. Nonetheless, Mecca was not the only center of scholarly TAFL production in the 1980s. Tunisia and Egypt were likewise active poles thanks to research units, debates and dedicated publications. In 1980, Muḥammad Ibn Ismāʿīl wrote Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-l-inǧliziyya wa-l-faransiyya (Teaching Arabic to speakers of English and French), which was published in Cairo and followed by a similar work entitled al-ʿArabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-l-faransiyya (Arabic for French speakers) two years later. In 1983, the same scholar wrote ‘al-ʿArabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Arabic for non-Arabic speakers), this time published in Tunis, his home country. Muḥammad Ibn Ismāʿīl (also written as Ben Ismail) is a scholar born in Tunisia, who studied in Paris and was therefore influenced by French foreign language teaching theories, besides Arab and oriental studies produced in the country. There the scholar came across the famous French Orientalist and Arabist Régis Blachère (1900-1973), who asked him to teach Arabic at Lycée Voltaire of Paris. As per Ibn Ismāʿīl (1983, p. 1), his interest in Arabic language teaching started in French high school classes and matured into a series of experiences when he returned to his homeland. Once back,

114 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

the Tunisian scholar started to teach Arabic at the Bourguiba School and published works from the late 1960s on. At first, these were mainly textbooks, including those used at the Bourguiba School (Ibn Ismāʿīl, Ibn Ṣāliḥ, and al-ʿĀyid). Later, the scholar went on to pen theoretical works, which were the fruit of his teaching experience over the years in Tunisia and abroad. In 1983, Ibn Ismāʿīl presented his first theoretical dissertation, which was followed by a course for foreign learners of Arabic. The work was published by the Tunisian National Institute of Education Sciences and represented the first example of the institute’s commitment in the field of TAFL. The National Institute directed its attention to the cause of Arabic language teaching in the 1970s, introducing the dialogic method in the Tunisian school system through a pilot project (see above). The institute proceeded to specialize in the field of TAFL by creating a research unit (waḥdat al-baḥt) that studied issues and topics related to the specific field of TAFL both from theoretical and practical points of view. Hence, the book by Ibn Ismāʿīl would become indispensable in the field. The book was divided into two parts: theoretical and practical. In the first section the scholar focused on TAFL in an analysis of methods (e.g., translation, audio-lingual methods) and language skills, while in the second he proposed a textbook for the teaching of Arabic to foreigners. This latter was organized in 27 lessons, all completed with a test. Moreover, the book reflected the scholar’s philosophy on foreign language teaching and hence it incorporated an everyday life lexicon, did not employ of any vehicular languages (luġa wasīṭa) other than Arabic, was inclined toward the direct method and used audio-visual tools. These aspects of Ibn Ismāʿīl’s approach are like those of the Bourguiba School method, which is based on the same principles. In other words, the scholar regarded the language as a social means used by people to communicate and convey ideas (Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983, p. 7). Thus, the language teacher’s role was to foster a type of learning functional to everyday life situations, real needs, in a way that students could communicate with members of the society in which they lived (ibid.). Furthermore, the teacher had to let students speak, and use only the target language to interact and give instructions in class as needed, an idea that pervades the whole work by Ibn Ismāʿīl and derives from his teaching experience. More importantly, he dissociated himself from the translation as he was geared toward the direct method, a de facto Bourguiba School method. Ibn Ismāʿīl asserted following the direct method (ṭarīqa mubāšira), but described it as being structural and characterized by the principles of the Bourguiba School, officially outlined by its scholars at the Riyadh symposium some

Development (1980s)

115

years before (Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī). Thus, the method presented by Ibn Ismāʿīl was based on listening and repetition and encouraged good pronunciation and intonation; it fostered communication and the use of language in everyday life situations. The only vehicular language allowed in the AFL class was Arabic. Despite the fact that Ibn Ismāʿīl favored the use of audio-visual tools, this did not mean that he dismissed reading and writing activities within the class. This scholar favored the use of all language skills from the start in the following order: listening, speaking, reading and writing (Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983, p. 20). This stance was supported by scientific principles, exemplifying anecdotes and motivated by the fact that writing is an important phase of the language acquisition process since it ensures the fixation of vocabulary and language structures. Last but not least, Ibn Ismāʿīl refused the use of sentences with culturally implicit meanings that can be understood only by members of a specific culture. The scholar crystallized this position by citing a self-explanatory example: akala al-ǧamal al-bayt (the camel ate the house), which was a sentence that he came across in a grammar book during his teaching experience at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm. The sentence was intelligible for Sudanese but was obscure for foreigners, since no one knew that in the Sudanese rural areas houses or huts are thatched with hay. In Tunisia, ALECSO concentrated on the question of what kind of Arabic to teach as well as other TAFL issues. The organization, in fact, arranged meetings, published its own scientific journal partly dedicated to TAFL and above all promoted its al-Kitāb al-asāsī fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, al-ǧuzʾ al-awwal (Basic course for teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers, part 1) (Badawi and Yūnis 1983), where guidelines on the topic were provided. In the textbook the study of Arabic was divided in three levels. The first corresponded to the most basic of the levels and fostered the study of everyday language like purchases, real-life situations, etc. The second was more specific and concentrated on the language of literature, politics and religion, while asking students to read newspaper articles and texts of medium complexity. The third was the most complex in the language acquisition process and contained the language of legacy (turāt), which represented Arab-Islamic culture and its fruits, like Quranic exegesis, medicine, pharmacy, chemistry, philosophy, algebra, law, etc. As for the scientific journal, ALECSO started to publish al-Maǧalla alʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya (Arab journal of linguistic studies) from 1982 on. This was not issued in Tunis, but in Sudan, at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm. This choice was reflected in the typologies of articles published, which dealt with TAFL (al-Qāsimī 1982; ʿAwād 1983, 1985; Ṣamādī; Nūr, ʿAbd alḤalīm, and Sirāǧ), linguistics (al-Dawādī; al-Kārūrī; al-Musà 1985), Arab

116 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

and translation studies (Qāsim 1983), as well as the role of Arabic in the Sudanese linguistic panorama (Maḥmūd; Qāsim 1989) and that of Africa in general (ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm 1984). Interestingly, in the 1980s several scholars devoted their efforts to these topics, publishing comparative analyses between Arabic and Swahili (Ḥarīz 1984; ʿAbābina), Hausa (Muḥammad 1989), Yoruba, Mandinka (cf. Baldé), and Arabization in Africa (Ḥarīz 1983). Notably, the last topic was significant because it reconciled the early life of the TAFL discipline, when the Marīdī Institute started to Arabize speakers of Sudanese languages other than Arabic in South Sudan from 1955 on (see Chapter 2). In this sense, Arabization never ceased to be considered within the Sudanese debate on TAFL, developing into a hybrid research field that joined ranks of established curricula: applied linguistics, Arab and African studies. This represented a particularity of the Sudanese TAFL scholars and it contrasted with other Arab TAFL realities, which were less linguistically oriented. Scholars like the Moroccan linguist ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Fāsī al-Fihrī wrote an important article entitled ‘Taʿrīb al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-taʿrīb al-taqāfa’ (Arabic language and cultural Arabization), which dealt with Arabization of not only language but also culture (cf. al-Fāsī al-Fihrī). Of note, among the contributions on TAFL, are the article by Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa (1985b) on grammar in the TAFL curriculum, that by Bakrī Muḥammad al-Ḥāǧǧ, who reported an experimental project carried on AFL learners at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm (cf. al-Ḥāǧǧ) and that by Ḫalīl Aḥmad ʿAmāyra. The latter wrote ‘al-Naẓariyya al-tawlīdiyya al-taḥwīliyya wa-uṣūlu-hā fī al-naḥw al-ʿarabī’ (‘The transformational-generative theory and its origin in Arabic grammar’), where he elucidated readers on the specific theory of Arabic grammar (cf. ʿAmāyra 1985), anticipating the debate revealed in other TAFL works (al-ʿUṣaylī 2002; Madkūr and Harīdī) later published at the onset of the new century (see Chapter 6). In Saudi Arabia, Riyadh kept its leading role in the field of TAFL. In the Saudi capital, scholars such as Nāṣif Muṣṭafà ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Muṣṭafà Aḥmad Sulaymān and Ḥasan Ḫamīs al-Malīǧī published applied research and useful teaching tools. In 1988, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān wrote a listening comprehension workbook for beginner learners of Arabic as a foreign language. These scholars maintained that listening was poorly developed in the AFL class, since the diglossic nature of the language caused problems at the class level and did not encourage teachers in promoting listening activities. For this reason, they proposed a workbook that trained students on a dual level: firstly, it improved learner pronunciation, phonetic awareness and reading skills; secondly, it enabled learners to follow more complex oral texts in MSA

Development (1980s)

117

such as radio speeches, news, conversations and lessons. Hence, exercises gradually increased by degree, e.g., proceeding from sounds to letters, then to words, structures, paragraphs, dialogues, longer texts, stories, cultural concepts, etc. They also stimulated other language skills through answers to questions, which could be provided either in oral or written form. The book consisted of 120 exercises and four tests of level (iḫtibār marḥalī). The exercise typology varied: from true/false to multiple choice, to interactional work that employed Total Physical Response techniques such as role-play and mime. One year later, in 1989, Ḥasan Ḫamīs al-Malīǧī had his turn. The scholar published an anthology of literary texts for advanced learners – at least 1000 study hours – of Arabic as a foreign language (cf. al-Malīǧī). The book was issued by King Saʿud University in Riyadh and was entitled al-Adab wa-lnuṣūṣ li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-l-ʿarabiyya (Literary texts for non-Arabic speakers). It included 48 prose texts and poems that ranged from the Jahiliyyah to the present day. According to al-Malīǧī, the anthology had the purpose of training TAFL students both on a language level (e.g., language progress, vocabulary improvement) and cultural one, e.g., learning about Arab-Islamic culture by reading the classics, including those that are important today. Of note is the fact that the anthology represented a fair attempt to provide FL learners with an objective typically pursued by L1 students: the achievement of literary taste. Assessment was also a theme debated during this time. For example, Ṭaʿīma (1986) discussed the bases of evaluation (taqwīm), its different typologies and parameters. In 1985, al-Nāqa recommended that scholars create placement tests for TAFL students, those wanting to continue their studies at university level. This proposal was realized by Aḥmad Ḥusayn Ḥannūra, a scholar from Tanta (Egypt), who issued a placement test for higher education candidates. The book was entitled al-Mahārāt al-luġawiyya (Language skills) and was published in Alexandria in 1989. It contained both theoretical and practical chapters, as it tested abilities such as comprehension ( fahm), grammatical correctness (qudrat al-ṣiḥḥa) and stylistic accuracy (qudrat al-ǧawda) and provided explanations to the sections. Equally significant is the constant updating of the Arabic Proficiency Test proposed by Raji Rammuny at the University of Michigan in 1974. The APT was consequently revised in 1979 by a committee appointed by AATA. This was cochaired by Raji Rammuny, Salman al-Ani and included the contribution of Ḥamdī Qafīša, a scholar who took part in the Riyadh symposium and other meetings, and later fled to the United States like

118 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

many scholars of Arab origin. Since no major changes were added to the original version of the APT in 1979, it remained structurally the same.20 Rammuny discussed the results of APT administration first at the AATA Annual Meeting in 1982, then in an article published in Al-ʿArabiyya Journal one year later. The article reported the answers obtained from 125 testees representing 34 different programs in the United States. The results showed two relevant phenomena: demonstrated low proficiency levels for listening comprehension and writing; evident lack of language skills measurement mode compliance. The scholar affirmed: ‘each individual Arabic program seems to have its own policy for dividing Arabic instruction in terms of levels or years’ (Rammuny 1983, p. 88). Therefore, the scholar suggested integrating listening and writing into Arabic courses as early as possible and to develop three levels of Arabic instruction based on prof iciency requirements, which he identified with levels delineated as elementary, intermediate and advanced and proposed goals for them. After Rammuny’s indications, the debate on Arabic language proficiency was taken to a further level, broadening and enriching it through other scholars’ contributions, like those by Roger Allen, who discussed a first set of Arabic language proficiency guidelines in 1984 and 1985. These and other collaborations brought about the so-called ‘proficiency movement’. As Allen later explained, the emphasis in ALLT ‘gradually shifted to a four-skills approach, […] the development of descriptors for each skill and a number of different “levels”, and a quest for materials that were “authentic” (or even “simulated authentic”) examples of native-speaker behaviors’ (Ryding 2013, p. ix). This led to the creation of the ‘ACTFL Arabic Proficiency Guidelines’, which were published in 1989 in the Foreign Language Annals. Such an effort was the product of the effort of many scholars both of Arab and American origin. These were Peter F. Abboud, Roger Allen, Mahdi Alosh, Peter Heath, Carolyn Killean, Gerald Lampe, Ernest McCarus, Farouk Mustafa and Dilworth Parkinson. The guidelines contained descriptors of language behavior organized in four levels, ranging from ‘novice’ to ‘superior’. All levels referred to the four language skills and were precisely novice (low, mid, high), intermediate (low, mid, high), advanced (advanced plus) and superior. In the guidelines, the authors clarified the diglossic nature of Arabic and added that ‘it is desirable for those who aspire to replicate the native speaker proficiency in Arabic to become competent in both MSA and 20 The revised version tested both Medieval (Classical) and Modern Standard Arabic in five areas: listening comprehension, vocabulary, grammar, reading comprehension and writing.

Development (1980s)

119

at least one colloquial dialect’ (ACTFL 1989, p. 374). In this light, scholars took stances and encouraged the learning of both Modern Standard and Colloquial Arabic. Correspondingly, they also proposed that students be tested at the their respective instruction level, including novice, intermediate and advanced levels as well as both upper ones. Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, together with Nāṣif Muṣṭafà ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Muḫtār al-Ṭāhir Ḥusayn also discussed assessment from a practical perspective. In their work of 1985 (1406 H) entitled Muršid al-muʿallim fī tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Teacher’s guide for teaching Arabic as a foreign language), the three scholars provided a long series of exercises (tadrībāt luġawiyya) for all four skills and other language aspects like sounds, vocabulary and grammar. It must be said that the scholars had previously worked together for the drafting of al-ʿArabiyya li-l-nāšiʾīn (Arabic for beginners), which was organized in six levels and was accompanied by a teacher’s book (cf. Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1983). This time, vocabulary was given relative importance since the authors maintained that it represented only one aspect of the general system of language (cf. Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985, p. 85). In addition, they provided a sample test for oral comprehension and discussed the correction (taṣḥīḥ al-aḫṭāʾ) phase for each exercise typology. The book was published by the ABEGS, which took up the cause of TAFL as part of its general objective of Arabic language diffusion and learning. As previously outlined, the book aimed at helping teachers in sorting out practical problems in Arabic as a Foreign Language classes. For example, it provided instructions for lesson planning, classroom management, assessment and correction. Until then, however, the books on TAFL teachers’ training had favored theoretical discussions, while not providing practical applications. Hence, the authors felt the need to publish a teacher’s guide that gathered their experiences in teaching Arabic to foreign learners. Theory was also taken into consideration and the three authors borrowed the exercise categorization from American scholars (i.e., Paulston and Bruder), who classified them as automatic (tadrībāt āliyya), semantic (dilāliyya) and communicative (ittiṣaliyya). According to the three authors, the exercises had to follow a precise order, which started with the automatic and ended with the communicative type, also mentioned by Rammuny (1980c) and translated with ‘communicative practice’ (see above). The teacher’s guide by Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn is therefore an example of the communicative approach since it considered the communicative aspects of language as a learning objective. At the same time, the book accorded importance to grammar and reflected some of the concepts reiterated by Arab scholars who preferred the structural approaches, i.e., it put emphasis

120 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

on the use of traditional teaching tools together with audio-visual ones like audiocassettes, movies, overhead projectors or television. In addition, the three authors expressed their points of view on vocabulary learning. They maintained that the lexicon had to be learned in a natural context, without the interference of translation or the use of learners’ L1. Moreover, they affirmed that teachers had many ways of introducing vocabulary (i.e., tamtīl ‘representation’, deictic expressions, rephrasing, pictures, drawings, etc.), but they should not avoid considering a particular aspect of Arabic: the ‘derivation’ (ištiqāq). This allows learners to infer meanings and represents the utmost strongest language point (cf. Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985). With respect to the exercise difficulty level, the three authors proposed an array of exercises, starting from the early stages of language learning, including preliteracy skills such as identifying letters and shapes, phonological and phonemic awareness and the understanding of print concepts (e.g., print goes from right to left). This choice is frequent in Arabic language workbooks because foreign learners21 of Arabic usually begin to study the language from a lower point, where they have to relearn how to write with a different alphabet and pronounce unfamiliar sounds. In addition, the authors provided exercises that covered the elementary and intermediate levels. First level exercises were fortified with the use of images, giving paratextual information and clues that facilitate student comprehension. This expedient likens the teacher’s guide to the noteworthy textbook Min al-Ḫalīǧ ilà al-Muḥīṭ (From the gulf to the ocean), which used the same technique. Additionally, teachers were encouraged to introduce difficult exercises with global activities in a general conversation that elaborated key themes and meanings (Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985, p. 146). In this way students could be motivated and prepared to deal with the topics chosen for the lesson. Sounds, grammar and vocabulary were not the only language aspects tested, since Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn proposed exercises for the four language skills, which were considered essential for a good knowledge of the language. Dialogue played a key role both as a means of knowledge and a learning objective, helping students with oral production. Speaking was given paramount importance and was fostered through communicative questions (asʾila ittiṣāliyya), free expression, image description, class discussion and playful activities, which added enjoyment to the learning process, a technique already proposed by other Arab scholars (e.g., al-Swīsī 21 Here I exclude those learners whose mother tongue bases its writing system on the Arabic script, i.e., Farsi or Urdu speakers.

Development (1980s)

121

1979; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī). The three authors presented playful activities such as representation, vocabulary games and imaginative stories (see also ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz 1983). Ensuing such interactive work was reading in the form of exercises that met the objectives of stimulating language progress and introducing Arab-Islamic culture while it sought the long-term goal of reading books in Arabic. Writing followed and was introduced by other typologies of exercises, e.g., letters, story drafting and free writing.

Conclusion The 1980s were years of experimentation in the field of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language within the Arab world. To certain extent, scholars managed to go beyond theory and thanks to their teaching experience they made improvements in the field of TAFL, analyzing problems and issues that directly affected the specific case of Arabic language teaching. Theoretical works marked the principle TAFL stages, events and scholars’ positions; applied research increased in number and analyzed new topics such as curriculum design, learner training needs, etc.; textbooks covered both adult and young learners now. This decade saw the publication of works one after another. It was a time of development, as summarized by Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa: ‘We have to recognize that we are at the beginning of our path, in the stage of discovery [marḥalat al-istikšāf ] and we need to endeavor, try and make mistakes until we do it right.’22 These words leave behind both Charles Pellat’s revolution stage and Muḥammad Bākallā’s independence level and take Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language to the phase of exploration.

22 My translation (cf. al-Nāqa 1985c).

5

New Challenges (1990s)

In the 1990s, the Arab sociopolitical scene captured people’s attention again as concerns grew over the invasion of Kuwait by Ṣaddām Ḥusayn (1990), the consequent First Gulf War (1990-1991) and the Oslo Accords of 1993 between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, putting the Arab-Israeli conflict in the forefront. Other Arab countries like Tunisia, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia enjoyed relative stability and now had become part of a larger political scenario. Arabic was given a far more prominent position in Western societies than had previously been the case. Nielsen pointed out: ‘immigration, the abundance and availability of new media in Arabic, and the widely used interactive communication technology put new focus on choice of language varieties to consider in teaching, as well as on the content and the kinds of teaching materials to use’ (Nielsen 2009, p. 147). This situation also influenced the Arab world as some scholars in contact with Europe or the United States injected new life in the debates that kept Arab TAFL scholars busy. For example, attention was drawn to the teaching of Arabic to heritage learners (al-Munaẓẓama 1990, 1992), but also to Arabic language proficiency and reference levels (Badawi 1992a). In the 1990s, Arabic continued on its path of globalization and moved on from the questions discussed in the previous decade, when Turkī Rābiḥ inquired whether Arabic would become an international language. In 1996, scholars gathered in Kuala Lumpur to discuss Arabic language challenges of the twenty-first century, while at the turn of the century, Ṣāliḥ Balʿayd wrote an article entitled ‘al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya ḫāriǧ ḥudūdi-hā’ (‘Arabic outside its borders’), reporting Arabic language diffusion in Africa and Southeast Asia (cf. Balʿayd). Arabic was leaving the Arab region to spread through other countries in different contexts. During this time, ISESCO director-general representative Muḥammad al-Ġumārī pointed out that Arabic was not only the language of Arabs, but also the language of every Muslim, since it was the language of their Holy Book (al-Munaẓẓama 1992). The spread of the Arabic language and culture remained the most important objective of TAFL experts, educators and decision makers. In addition, according to some scholars (al-Ġumārī in al-Munaẓẓama 1992, p. 144), Arabic was the best means for the transmission of Islamic community conscience (waʿī al-umma al-islāmiyya) and the comprehension of its culture ( fahm madlūlāt al-taqāfa). With regards to this, al-Ġumārī moved a step forward, distancing himself from what other Arab scholars affirmed as a rule. He

124 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

emphasized that Arabic was not only the language of Qur’an, but also the language of communication (tawāṣul wa-ittiṣāl) between Muslim peoples, who represented a single community (umma wāḥida) and were the heirs of a common culture (ḥaḍāra) and legacy (turāt) (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1992). With respect to Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language, the cities active in this field during the 1990s were Tunis, Cairo, Riyadh and Khartoum. At the beginning of the decade, Tunisia saw the birth of two strategic TAFL actors: the Council of the Directors of TAFL Centers (maǧlis li-mudīrī al-maʿāhid wa-l-marākiz al-ʿarabiyya li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) and the TAFL Teachers’ League (rābiṭa li-muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā), which grouped directors, scholars and teachers of Arabic as a foreign language from the entire Arab world. Furthermore, the TAFL institutes that were created during the 1970s and 1980s continued to grow, develop and foster research and discussion. Among them, Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm, al-Riyāḍ, Umm al-Qurà and the American University in Cairo Arabic Language Institute continued to be reference points of salient studies produced. However, other institutes were founded during this time. In 1991, the Arabic Language and Culture Center (ALCC) of Cairo University (Markaz Ǧāmiʿat al-Qāhira li-l-luġa wa-l-taqāfa al-ʿarabiyya) was established in Cairo, as part of the Faculty of Arts. ALCC affiliation to Cairo University, however, only materialized with the turn of the century. Since its foundation, the ALCC has promoted activities focused on the teaching of both Modern Standard and Egyptian Colloquial Arabic to foreigners, but also MSA to Egyptians, as well as organizing scientific meetings on linguistics, culture, literature and special courses on calligraphy, Islamic studies, Egyptian society and culture.1 In 1994, Zarqa University (Ǧāmiʿat al-Zarqāʾ al-ahliyya) was founded in the city of Zarqa (Jordan), along with its Arabic Language Center for Non-Arabic Speakers (Markaz al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā). Maʿhad alZarqāʾ based on the curriculum of Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà (cf. ʿAbd al-Ḫāliq); it started with one student from Chechnya (cf. Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 122) and went on to train many AFL students later, with special attention to all language skills.2 In the same year, the Arabic Language Institute (Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya) of the International University of Africa (Ǧāmiʿat Ifrīqiyā al-ʿālamiyya) was opened in Khartoum. The institute aimed to give African students the opportunity to learn Arabic, besides promoting the diffusion 1 Cf. http://alcc.cu.edu.eg/HomeEn.aspx, accessed 21 June 2017. 2 Cf. http://zu.edu.jo/ar/Centers/arabicLanguageCenter/ArabicLanguageCenter. aspx?id=31&type=4, accessed 17 May 2017.

New Challenges (1990s)

125

of Arabic and Islamic culture, encouraging conferences, research, exchange of experiences, textbook drafting, and curriculum design in the field of TAFL.3 In this light, from the mid-1990s on, the institute conducted activities devoted to TAFL, and even published its own journal (see Chapter 6). For instance, taking inspiration from the experience of WFAIIS in the field, the Khartoum Institute started a program for AFL young learners in 1998 (cf. Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 54). Looking at 1994 again, the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance of Mauritania decided to build a TAFL center in the country, with the purpose of mending the rift in the Mauritanian society. The African country was in fact characterized by high tensions between ethnic groups: on one side, the Arabized community; on the other side, local peoples, who usually were vehement about non-Arab aspects. The center was effectively operative only in 1997 and was named Institute for the Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language and the Diffusion of Islamic Studies (Maʿhad taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā wa-našr al-ʿulūm al-islāmiyya). The institute had locations in the capital Nouakchott (Nuwākšūṭ), as well as in other regions, namely Brakna, Trarza, Gorgol, Guidimaka, Hodh el Gharbi and for this reason I chose to call it Maʿhad Mauritania. The primary mission of Maʿhad Mauritania was to teach Arabic to non-Arabs and diffuse Islamic studies, although it concentrated also on literacy and charitable activities. 4 With respect to the TAFL approach, Maʿhad Mauritania cultivated Arabic language learning in order to allow its students to read the sacred scriptures. Besides, Islamic studies revolved around subjects like Islamic law and the Prophetic biography. Considering this, Maʿhad Mauritania fostered the study of classical contents, following the traditional way of teaching Arabic historically customary in Mauritania, which concentrated on the memorization of the Holy Qur’an and grammar (Ibn al-Barāʾ, p. 105). However, the country did not remain untouched by modern TAFL methods and this had happened before, following the foundation of institutes like the Salvation Schools (Madāris al-falāḥ) in 1941 and the Management School of Nouakchott (al-Madrasa al-idāriyya) in 1988, which did not specialize in TAFL, despite trying to cope with the urgent demand for Arabic language training (see Chapter 4). Overall, in the 1990s TAFL underwent an extension covering the entire Arab world and reaching beyond. At this point, specialized centers dedicated to the subject were present in the majority of Arab countries: 3 4

Cf. http://arabic.iua.edu.sd/, accessed 7 January 2018. Cf. http://taalim-mr.org/, accessed 22 September 2016.

126 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Jordan, Syria, Algeria, Oman, Qatar and Mauritania. In parallel, in the United States, TAFL was experiencing a change, defined by Peter F. Abboud as ‘a welcome and timely development’ (Abboud 1995, p. 16). The scholar highlighted that in the 1970s most AFL college instructors were linguists, litterateurs, area specialists, in short: people not directly related to TAFL, who mostly acquired their pedagogical training on the job, through experience (Abboud 1968). Since then, the field of TAFL has had development and innovation mostly within the United States but has seen some evolution also in Europe and the Arab world. This turn in the trend was possible thanks to certain scholars, who specialized in education, foreign language teaching, curriculum and instruction, educational psychology, testing, applied linguistics and the like. According to Abboud (1995), their professionalization would revitalize TAFL and lead it to future innovation, experiments and research. Globally, TAFL had entered a new phase, where the subject was part of a network on an international level and exchange of expertise started to play an ever more important role. In 1998, for example, the Arab scholars Saʿīd Ismāʿīl and ʿAlī Aḥmad Madkūr visited Al-Noor School of Brooklyn (cf. Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 57), founded three years earlier, in 1995, and is today the largest Islamic school in New York.5 Noteworthy is the symposium of 1992 entitled The Teaching of Arabic in the 1990s: Issues and Directions, which was held at the School of Arabic in Middlebury, Vermont, for its tenth anniversary. The meeting was an opportunity for scholars to gather and discuss the new challenges related to the subject and its development. Among the lecturers one could find scholars from Egypt, Australia and above all instructors affiliated to American higher education institutions, who had moved to the United States from the Arab world in order to start their career there: Peter Abboud, Mahmoud al-Batal, Munther Younes, Mahdi Alosh, Ahmed Ferhadi and Raji Rammuny. In this light, osmosis between the Arab world and the FLT strongholds abroad was a critical factor in that it allowed the debate on TAFL to develop both within and outside the Arab world. Two workshops on the administration and scoring of the Arabic Speaking Proficiency Test (see below) were held in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 1992 and 1993, respectively (Rammuny 1995, p. 335). The workshops gathered Arabic language teachers from the United States, who had the opportunity to exchange expertise and discuss problems and issues in an event fully dedicated to AFL testing. Similarly, in 1993 the University of Brunei Darussalam organized a conference on TAFL, where Essaid Mohammed Badawi 5

Cf. http://www.alnoornyc.org/, accessed 15 May 2017.

New Challenges (1990s)

127

delivered a lecture on language planning in Islamic countries (Badawi 1993). Nonetheless, the symposia organized during the 1990s differed from those organized in the decades to come, which would be characterized by a full participation of experts from all over the world (see Chapter 6). After that, TAFL became significantly more specialized in the 1980s, its scholars were undoubtedly aware of some important scientific principles related to language teaching, e.g., the difference between first and foreign language learners, their training needs, etc. In particular, this last topic had been debated in the Arab world in the 1970s and represented one of the key research issues of that period (see, e.g., Ṭaʿīma 1982; al-Nāqa 1985a). Hence, the studies carried out during the 1980s served to further develop and widen TAFL discussions during the 1990s. For example, Riḍā al-Swīsī analyzed new findings concerning AFL learner training needs and at the same time stressed the importance of some language facts (muʿṭayāt), like the psychological and psycholinguistic peculiarities of the learners. The 1990s were characterized by scholarly debates that focused both on traditional topics and new ones. On the one hand, TAFL experts discussed language simplif ication (Badrān), Arabic language teaching methods (Yūnis, al-Nāqa, and Ṭaʿīma; ʿAbd al-Ḫāliq), diglossia (Ibn al-Barāʾ) and language curriculum (al-Duḫayl). On the other hand, new matters were included. These were, for example, frequent mistakes (al-Qumāṭī 1992; al-Ḫaṭīb in al-Munaẓẓama 1992; al-Ṭayyib al-Šayḫ 1993), teaching Arabic to heritage learners (al-Munaẓẓama 1990), TAFL best practices (al-Munaẓẓama 1992), innovative projects (al-Musà 1997), reference levels, Arabic language proficiency (Badawi 1992a; Elgibali and Taha) and testing (Rammuny 1992, 1993, 1995). These shifted the focus of TAFL to new problems and questions as Arab scholars faced the challenges of the 1990s. With respect to best practices, some institutes acquired expertise to boast. For example, the Sudanese experience still remained very important in the field of TAFL and this reflected the key role of Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm and the language prospect characterizing the African country. Language interference in Sudan was diffused, especially in the Southern regions, currently South Sudan. This condition had been reported by many TAFL scholars in the past (e.g., Abū Bakr 1980; Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ) and during the 1990s it returned to the debate table. Specifically, to this, Ḥusayn al-Ṭayyib al-Šayḫ (1992) – a Sudanese scholar born in 1945 – outlined the fundamental steps of TAFL in the country from the 1950s on, when the Arabization program was started in the Southern regions. Here, the Sudanese scholar cited the Maʿhad Marīdī foundation in 1954, Professor Ḫalīl Maḥmūd ʿAsākir’s commitment (see Chapter 4) and the creation of the Southern

128 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Bureaus Arabic Language Division for the Preliminary Study of Southern Languages (šuʿbat al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-mudīriyyāt al-ǧanubiyya bi-dirāsa awwaliyya fī luġāt al-ǧanūb), which dealt with Arabization, linguistics and TAFL in part. The mixture of these subjects was a trend witnessed in Sudan and characterized its debate on TAFL since its dawn, which was not pure as in other Arab states, however, and included reflections on the African country’s unique language panorama. While in Tunisia and Saudi Arabia TAFL showed secular and religious orientations, respectively, in Sudan the subject explored its relationship with similar disciplines. This aspect was a distinctive trait of the Sudanese TAFL debate and sometimes influenced other scholars’ positions (cf. Badrān) to such an extent that it was commonly discussed at conferences and periodic meetings, becoming an integral part of the TAFL conceived by Arabs scholars. Consequently, Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm was the most important promoter of this kind of research, as it fostered studies on TAFL, TAFL textbook drafting, frequency lists, curriculum design, and Sudanese African languages while issuing its own scientific journal (see Chapter 4). Moreover, Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm was a point of reference for both students and institutions. By 1991 it could count more than 700 graduates and 850 studies and dissertations completed on various topics: comparative language studies, TAFL, bilingual dictionaries, language interference in Sudan, etc. Some of its graduates continued studying in PhD programs either at Khartoum University (Ǧāmiʿat al-Ḫarṭūm) or Omdurman Islamic University (Ǧāmiʿat Umm Durmān al-islāmiyya); some others – enrolled in the TAFL teacher training course – had the opportunity to practice Arabic language teaching for two years in areas of the country characterized by language interference (Qāsim 1992). Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm also facilitated cooperation with various stakeholders, e.g., Omdurman Islamic University, Khartoum University, the African Islamic Center (al-Markaz al-islāmī al-ifrīqī) of Khartoum,6 Somali National University and the Islamic Bank7 of Jeddah. It centered on TAFL training sessions outside the Arab world, as in Nigeria, Pakistan, Djibouti, and Southeast Asia, where there were requests to train school teachers of Arabic, organize AFL sessions for military corps or collaborate on the creation of TAFL centers, e.g., Bayero University in Kano (Nigeria) in the early 1990s (cf. Qāsim 1992). Therefore, given Sudan’s landscape of language productive scientif ic activity, Sudan progressed considerably 6 The center promoted activities on TAFL according to the account left by Fatḥī Yūnis (1978) at the end of the 1970s. 7 Currently the ‘Islamic Development Bank’ (al-bank al-islāmī li-l-tanmiya).

New Challenges (1990s)

129

in regards to TAFL in the 1990s, following a path cleared by research and discussions. In other countries, the forefront of TAFL was different. Yūsuf Ibn al-Barāʾ, for example, pointed out the Mauritanian experience, emphasizing its achievements as well as current commitments (cf. Ibn al-Barāʾ). Similarly, Ḫalaf al-Maḫzūmī reported on Jordan at Yarmouk University Language Center, over which he presided as director. Al-Maḫzūmī, born in 1943, was a scholar from Jordan who obtained a PhD at the State University of New York, where he taught Arabic for a period of four years (al-Munaẓẓama 1994, p. 14). With respect to Jordanian best practices, the scholar reported the TAFL programs that were popular at the Language Center of Yarmouk during the 1990s. Among them one could find the summer programs of Yarmouk-University of Virginia and Yarmouk-Johns Hopkins. The first taught Arabic through the four language skills and organized classes in three levels: lower intermediate (mutawassiṭ adnà), upper intermediate (mutawassiṭ aʿlà) and advanced (mutaqaddim); the second concentrated on specific areas, namely journalism, politics, economics and translation. In addition, al-Maḫzūmī accounted the yearly Yarmouk-Exeter University program, the diploma in Arabic as a foreign language and the master’s degree in TAFL, which trained prospective AFL teachers in language teaching, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, evaluation, etc. (al-Maḫzūmī, p. 110). Concurrently, other institutions carried out relevant activities in the field of TAFL, so as to highlight a significant experience. These were ISESCO and the International Cooperation Board for Arab-Islamic culture development of ALECSO. ISESCO clearly demonstrated its commitment to supporting TAFL, as it had published dedicated works (al-Qāsimī and al-Sayyid) and completed eighteen training sessions directed at 662 participants – namely teachers of Arabic and Islamic education – by the beginning of the 1990s. It also advanced activities on the simplification of Arabic language diffusion and curricula development. The ALECSO International Cooperation Board was officially established in 1983 with the aim of promoting the Arabic language, supporting the creation of cultural institutes abroad and collaborating internationally. With respect to its significant contributions, notable is the foundation of a TAFL center in China, operating since 1988 (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1992, p. 137). Of note was the collaboration with Kenyan institutions in the organization of a TAFL teacher training session and the consequent curriculum design. In this light, the International Cooperation Board observed the purpose of supporting students – especially African – with opportunities in the field of TAFL, as it offered scholarships for AFL learners in Chad, Senegal, Gambia, Somalia, Kenya, Mali, Pakistan, France,

130 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Egypt and Thailand (al-Munaẓẓama 1992). Throughout the 1990s, the board continued in this direction. Furthermore, it supported the teaching of Arabic and Arab-Islamic culture in Russia, and developed dedicated television programs and TAFL in Africa, particularly in Djibouti, Senegal, Mali and Chad (ibid.). This demonstrates how the board persevered in spreading Arabic in Africa during the 1990s.

Terminology Regarding terminology, the 1990s saw a stabilization of the expressions that referred to TAFL in Arabic. If in the previous period there was a proliferation of phrasing formulations, now there was a consolidation of them in part. For instance, ‘teaching Arabic to non-native speakers’ (taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) and its slight variations became the frequently used choice in the field by specialists (al-Munaẓẓama 1992, 1994; al-Swīsī 1992; al-Qumāṭī 2000). However, another variation was introduced: ‘teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers’ (taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr mutakallimī-hā), although it represented an isolated case (al-Ṭayyib al-Šayḫ 1992). That said, ‘teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages’ (taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-lnāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà) was not abandoned, for it also reappeared in works published later (al-ʿUṣaylī 2002). Nonetheless, since the 1980s some scholars (cf. al-Nāqa 1985c) critiqued these expressions as too long and preferred more concise forms. Accordingly, Essaid Mohammed Badawi (1992a) used another expression to refer to TAFL in Arabic, ‘learning Arabic as an additional language’ (taʿallum al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa iḍāfiyya), which circumvented otherwise longer constructions. Despite this, Badawi’s formulation did not take root in the scientific field and experts continued to use the traditional expressions coined before.

Broader Debates In September 1991, ALECSO held a meeting in Tunis, bringing together the directors from TAFL centers in Arab countries. The Meeting of the Directors of Arab Centers Specialized in TAFL and Teacher Training (iǧtimāʿ mudīrī al-maʿāhid al-ʿarabiyya al-mutaḫaṣṣiṣa fī iʿdād muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-tadrīsi-hā li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) is hereafter referred to as Meeting of Tunis for simplification. The ALECSO International Cooperation Board was the main promoter of this meeting aimed to foster collaboration between

New Challenges (1990s)

131

institutes and encourage scholars to share experiences along with discussing problems, issues and future challenges related to the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language. At the meeting experts and scholars from Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Mauritania, Jordan and Syria convened. Among them were authorities in the field of TAFL such as Riḍā al-Swīsī, Essaid Mohammed Badawi from the American University in Cairo and Muḥammad al-Qumāṭī,8 a Libyan expert born in Tripoli in 1950, who enlivened the Libyan TAFL scene and chaired a dedicated department established at Al Fateh University (šuʿbat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib) from the late 1970s on. The other lecturers were directors of TAFL centers around the Arab world, whose scientific contributions were not as prominent. For example: Ḫalaf al-Maḫzūmī from the Yarmouk University Language Center, Muḥammad Mamdūh Badrān from Syria, ʿAlī Aḥmad ʿAlī al-Ḫaṭīb from al-Azhar, Yaḥyà Ibn al-Barāʾ from Mauritania, Ḥusayn al-Ṭayyib al-Šayḫ, a Sudanese scholar who taught in AFL training sessions in Pakistan and Sokoto (Nigeria) and was part of the Sudanese Southern bureaus division together with Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa Abū Bakr.9 The lecturers’ contributions were collected a year after in the proceedings of the Meeting of Tunis and published by ALECSO (al-Munaẓẓama 1992). The book summarized the scholars’ positions in the field and the best practices noted so far while indicating the recommendations outlined by the scholars. Of note were some debates on traditional topics, like TAFL teacher training, Arabic language mistakes, diglossia, but also new ones such as TAFL best practices, Arabic language proficiency and reference levels. Teacher training was one of the most debated arguments in the field of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language ever, to such an extent that it can be considered an independent branch of the main subject. Scholars habitually denounced the lack of preparation of educators, together with the limited number of books on methodology. However, during the 1990s, scholars (al-Swīsī 1992; Badrān; al-Duḫayl; Qāsim 1992; al-Amīn; ʿAmāyra 1998) underscored experiences and best practices, in addition to describing teacher language skills (kafāʾa luġawiyya), rather than problematizing the topic and reporting the shortage of qualified instructors as was done in the previous decades. For example, from 1991 on, the American University in Cairo held a series of 8 The complete name of the scholar is Muḥammad Munṣif ibn ʿAbdallāh al-Qumāṭī, cf. http:// www.muhammadalqmati.com. 9 Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa Abū Bakr was a renowned scholar, who participated in some of the most important TAFL conferences, namely the symposia held in Riyadh in 1978 and Rabat in 1981.

132 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

biennial teacher training seminars in cooperation with its Arabic Language Institute (Elgibali and Taha, p. 80). In Tunisia, al-Swīsī (1992) discussed TAFL teacher training, stressing the importance of the educational triangle, namely the subject (madda), the teacher (muʿallim) and the learner (mutaʿallim). According to the scholar, the teacher played a key role in the teaching/learning process. Moreover, some requirements were to be met, like being acquainted with linguistics, psycholinguistics (lisāniyya nafsiyya) and sociolinguistics (lisāniyya iǧtimāʿiyya), alongside more specific topics: foreign language teaching methods, language skills assessment and the use of audio-visual tools and computers in the FL classroom. Badrān and ʿAmāyra (1998) also delineated the profile of the AFL teacher. In this, Badrān considered the requirements proposed by al-Swīsī (1992), but he also identified other specific qualities, such as knowledge of Arabic language acquisition levels, AFL learner cultures,10 including their typical problems and way of thinking (namaṭ al-tafkīr). In addition, according to Badrān the teacher of Arabic as a foreign language had to consider student training needs and correspondingly know how to teach these learners the cultural aspects of the target language. Another general topic characterizing the TAFL debates in the 1990s was Arabic language proficiency and reference levels, which had previously been outlined in the 1980s by Arab scholars such as Ḥassān (1983), Ṭaʿīma (1982), al-Nāqa (1985a) and Rammuny (1983), who proposed a subdivision of Arabic language reference levels on the basis of proficiency (see Chapter 4). The debate went a further step with the publication of the ‘ACTFL Arabic Proficiency Guidelines’ in Al-ʿArabiyya Journal in 1985, revised in 1989. During the 1990s, a number of Arab scholars made respective contributions to the discussion. In Tunisia, Riḍā al-Swīsī (1992) divided Arabic language teaching and learning into three levels: the first ‘level of acquisition’ (marḥalat al-kasb), followed by the second and a third. In the first, the scholar proposed that students learned lexical units and basic structures, focusing on comprehension ( fahm, idrāk) with the use of audio-visual tools. In the second, students were asked to go in-depth and were encouraged to be freer with expression and employ explanations (tafsīr) provided on the blackboard or in the classroom. The third and last concentrated on ‘exploitation of the dialogue or text’ (istiġlāl kitābī li-l-ḥiwār aw al-naṣṣ) and attention was given to the topics covered in the previous levels. 10 Someone may argue that knowing every learner’s culture is uneconomical from the teacher’s point of view. The idea of rationalizing classes and learners’ training needs already appeared in J.A. van Ek (p. 2), who affirmed that one cannot ‘afford to run […] separate courses directly geared towards each individual’s needs’.

New Challenges (1990s)

133

In this regard, Badawi proposed a translation of the distinguished level (mutamayyiz) descriptors contained in the ‘ACTFL Arabic Proficiency Guidelines’ (ACTFL 1989). Even more importantly, he drew attention to a consequential discussion: injecting new life into the traditional debates on TAFL within the Arab world and prompting Arab scholars into the international scene of the 1990s. The Egyptian scholar argued that the f inal language objective (taḥdīd al-mustawà al-nihāʾī) often remained unaccomplished in the AFL class because many educators were firm in thinking their students would not be able to achieve an advanced level of Arabic, a position not shared by Tammām Ḥassān, who spoke of the enjoyment level in TAFL (Ḥassān 1983). This situation was referred to by Badawi (1992a, p. 49) as the ‘tacit agreement’ (ittifāq ṣāmit) or ‘general view’ (raʾī ʿāmm) and a trend change was postulated. Moreover, according to the scholar no works published within the Arab world spoke of proficiency, or final level definition, which the scholar also referred to as the ‘teaching ceiling’ (saqf taʿlīmī), apart from al-Kitāb al-asāsī fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, al-ǧuzʾ al-awwal (Basic course for teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers, part 1), published by ALECSO in 1983 (Badawi and Yūnis 1983). Conversely, outside the Arab world, the decade-long topic of Arabic language proficiency had been under discussion, particularly in the United States (Rammuny 1983; Allen 1984, 1985; ACTFL 1989). In underscoring this topic at the Meeting of Tunis, Badawi espoused the American scientific perspective and became a contributor to the debate on Arabic language proficiency, gradually acquiring importance in the international scene. A third discussion that defined the TAFL scene of this period was the reconsideration of the traditional debate on ‘which’ variety to teach. In 1992, Badawi reported that Roger Allen (in ACTFL 1989) proposed the study of MSA and a colloquial variety. The simultaneous teaching of Modern Standard and Colloquial Arabic was not new in the 1990s; however, it marked a further step: the integrated approach promoted in the United States by one of his main proponents: Munther Younes, a scholar from Jordan who obtained his PhD in 1982 at the University of Texas at Austin and taught Arabic language and linguistics at Cornell University in 1990. Badawi affirmed that using MSA only outside its domain11 was unreasonable (ġayr maqbūl) even among the most conservative speakers (cf. Badawi 1992a, p. 54), adding that the inappropriate use of MSA in situations could lead to embarrassment (ḥaraǧ), astonishment (istiġrāb), mockery (suḫriyya) or even anger (ġaḍab). In this, 11 To be precise, the scholar referred to the ‘sphere designated by the society for its use’ (cf. Badawi 1992a, p. 54).

134 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

the scholar disagreed with Tammām Ḥassān, who maintained that foreign students came to the Arab world to learn MSA and not Colloquial Arabic (Ḥassān 1983, p. 66). According to Badawi, interest in colloquial varieties was also significant, an aspect confirmed by the number of enrollments in Spoken Arabic courses around the Arab world, starting with the American University in Cairo and other institutes such as Yarmouk University in Jordan (cf. al-Maḫzūmī). Furthermore, the scholar stated that the type of Arabic to teach should be that of educated speakers (mustawà kafāʾat al-mutaqqaf ). This affirmation linked Badawi with the debate on Mixed Arabic or Educated Spoken Arabic, which occupied scholars also in Europe, e.g., T.F. Mitchell. In 1992, Ibn al-Barāʾ analyzed the interplay between Modern Standard and Colloquial Arabic from another perspective. The scholar affirmed that the Arabs’ mother tongue was the language they learned to speak from childhood; therefore, it could not but be a colloquial variety. In view of this, Ibn al-Barāʾ inquired whether MSA could be in any case considered L1 for Arabic language speakers or preferably L2. The scholar called diglossia into question from a scientific perspective, a trend also witnessed among other Arab scholars in the past (cf. Ibn al-Barāʾ, p. 103). Partially related to the subject examined above, the focus may also be put on ‘how’ to teach, i.e., the teaching methods to be used in the AFL class. Of note was an article by ʿAysà al-Šaryūfī, a Saudi scholar who obtained his PhD at Indiana University in 1992, was appointed dean of Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ between 1998 and 2002, and is now professor of linguistics in his homeland, at King Saʿud University.12 In his article, al-Šaryūfī explored the communicative features of the debate (munāẓara) in the AFL class, affirming that debating is a good activity that promotes oral communication as well as learning (al-Šaryūfī 1997). In addition, the topic of ‘how’ to teach was also addressed on two different occasions. The first was an international conference held at the International Islamic University of Kuala Lumpur in August 1996. The conference was entitled Arabic Language Issues and Challenges in the Twenty-first Century (qaḍāyā al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-taḥaddiyātu-hā fī al-qarn al-ḥādī wa-l-ʿišrīn) and gathered a series of scholars from Southeast Asia, the Arab world and Europe, who discussed various themes of TAFL, e.g., curriculum design, textbook drafting, testing, etc. The second was at the panel discussion (ḥalqat al-niqāš) held in Amman in 1997 entitled Development of AFL Teaching Styles (taṭwīr asālīb taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā), which focused on the main orientations concerning 12 Cf. http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/3046/Pages/cvenglish.aspx, 16 accessed 2017.

New Challenges (1990s)

135

Arabic language teaching methods (cf. al-Nāṣir), and the importance of listening (Abū Dalū in ʿAbd al-Ḫāliq). Noteworthy participation was that of Nuhād al-Musà, an influential Jordanian linguist and educator who cooperated with the UNESCO TAFL program in China 13 in 1983, with a presentation on the ‘ḥayy ʿarabī’ (Arab neighborhood) project. The Jordanian scholar recommended creating an artificial environment (iṣṭināʿ bīʾa taqāfiyya luġawiyya) for the learning of language and culture. This setting was represented by a simulated Arab neighborhood, where students used the language functionally, as they would sit in cafés and talk Arabic while sipping a cup of tea, read the newspaper, listen to news broadcasts, music, go to the post office, bank, etc., so that they could practice the language in a natural context. The panel discussion held in Amman was followed by the proceedings, where the lecturers’ academic papers were collected and published a year later (ʿAbd al-Ḫāliq). With respect to other broader debates, the matter of textbooks and the basic course (kitāb asāsī) of Arabic for foreigners still concerned TAFL scholars (al-Ġālī and ʿAbd Allāh; Badawi 1992a; Faraǧ 1999), who discussed their objectives during the 1990s. Al-Ġālī and ʿAbd Allāh coauthored a volume dedicated to the basic principles for drafting an AFL textbook, Usus iʿdād al-kutub al-taʿlīmiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-l-ʿarabiyya (Fundamentals of Arabic in foreign language textbook preparation), which was issued at the beginning of the decade in Riyadh. In the late 1990s, Maḥmūd ʿAbduh Aḥmad Faraǧ, professor at the Faculty of Education of al-Azhar at that time and later known for his directorship of Al Sheikh Zayed Center (see Chapter 6), published an article dedicated to pedagogical applications and new directions in schoolbook drafting, ‘al-Ittiǧahāt al-ḥadīta fī iʿdād al-kitāb al-madrasī maʿa taṭbīqāt tarbawiyya fī maǧāl al-kitāb al-ʿarabī al-islāmī’ (‘A modern approach to textbook preparation with educational applications in the f ield of the Arab-Islamic book’) in the Annales de l’Université Islamique du Niger, edited by Abdelali Oudrhiri (al-Wadġīrī) and promoted by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (cf. OIC). Moreover, the director of the International Cooperation Board, Ṭāhā Ḥasan al-Nūr, reported the interest of his institution in the basic course. Not by chance, during the 1980s the International Cooperation Board was the principle promoter of the basic course project, which led to the f irst publications (Badawi and Yūnis 1983; Badawi, ʿAbd alLaṭīf, and al-Batal) and reprints (Badawi and Yūnis [1983] 1988) of the 13 Cf. http://www.ecssr.ae/ECSSR/print/prf.jsp?lang=ar&prfId=/Profile/Profiles_2792.xml, accessed 4 April 2017.

136 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

textbook series. In the early 1990s, the third part of al-Kitāb al-asāsī f ī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Basic course for teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers) was being prepared (Badawi, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, and al-Rabīʿī) and this allowed al-Nūr to discuss the matter at the Meeting of Tunis. Beyond this topic, the International Cooperation Board was engaged in a diff icult task: the creation of a basic vocabulary book for AFL learners. This was achieved between the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the following decade, when the dictionary was published by ALECSO in cooperation with Larousse publishing house (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1992, p. 129). In the 1990s, the typology of AFL learners was further analyzed by not only completing and updating the dedicated studies previously published (e.g., al-Nāqa 1985a), but also by raising awareness about new topics. For instance, Muslim learners of Arabic were the object of debate again, when Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma presented a paper at the Conference for a Contemporary Islamic Theory of Education (muʾtamar naḥwa naẓariyya tarbawiyya islāmiyya muʿāṣira), which was held in Amman in July 1990. The scholar discussed the cultural contents to be included in the curriculum for Muslim learners of Arabic as a second language (al-Muḥtawà al-taqāf ī f ī barāmiǧ taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa tānya f ī al-muǧtamaʿāt al-islāmiyya) (cf. Ṭaʿīma 1990). As regards new topics, the teaching of Arabic to heritage learners (taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-abnāʾ al-muhāǧirīn al-ʿarab) was the focus. To this extent, the International Cooperation Board had been involved since the 1980s in the promotion of heritage language learning among the progeny of Arab migrants in Europe and the Americas. The topic of heritage language learning was also debated at the Islamic summit in Senegal in the early 1990s as well as the symposium organized by ALECSO in Tunis in December 1990, Symposium on Teaching Arabic to the Children of the Arab Communities in Europe (nadwat taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-abnāʾ al-ǧāliyāt al-ʿarabiyya fī Ūrūbbā). The symposium was redolent of a similar conference held in Paris in 1983 (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1988) as it discussed the question of heritage learners of Arabic, especially those of North African background (al-Munaẓẓama 1990). Heritage language learning continued to raise scholars’ interest, predominantly in Europe where students of Arab origin enrolled in schools and at university level (see, e.g., Ibrahim and Allam; Gandolf i; Bale; Grande, de Ruiter, and Spotti; Husseinali). Likewise, the Arab communities and Western societies felt the need for mutual understanding. Consequently, dedicated textbooks were published in this period (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1992, p. 133).

New Challenges (1990s)

137

Methods Past experiences on teaching methods and theories still influenced the TAFL field of the 1990s. For example, the Egyptian scholar ʿAlī Aḥmad ʿAlī al-Ḫaṭīb (in al-Munaẓẓama 1992), who took part in the Medina symposium of 1981, clarified the TAFL method used at al-Azhar University. This mainly adhered to the principle of simplicity for it started with the presentation of the elementary sounds and words and then gradually introduced complexity. Structural methods also influenced class techniques and teaching orientations. Indeed, al-Ḫaṭīb, gave much importance to speaking (ḥadīt) and encouraged the use of Arabic as the only vehicular language. This was also a time for reconsideration of theories: the functional teaching of Arabic (taʿlīm waẓīfiyyan) proposed by Dāwūd ʿAbduh (1979b) was source of inspiration to ʿUmar Sulaymān Muḥammad, who published a workbook for AFL learners in Riyadh in 1991 (see below). Dāwūd ʿAbduh was distinguished not only for the Qāʾimat al-Riyāḍ of 1979 (see Chapter 3), but also for his work entitled Naḥwa taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya waẓīfiyyan (Toward Arabic language functional teaching), issued in Kuwait in the same year. The scholar wrote the book after his teaching experience with Palestinian refugees commissioned by UNESCO. In this, ʿAbduh was astounded by the low levels of proficiency among Arab pupils. Thus, he proposed the functional way of teaching, which enabled students to properly use the language in real-life situations (mawāqif ṭabīʿiyya) through its natural functions, which he identified in the four language skills. Later, in the 1990s, ʿUmar Sulaymān Muḥammad reconsidered ʿAbduh’s theories by refusing the traditional dictation technique and embracing a functional kind of teaching, which encouraged natural use of language in real-life situations. This viewpoint is shared by Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī and the group of authors that published the textbook series al-Qirāʾa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-muslimīn (Reading Arabic for Muslims) (Ṣīnī et al. 1991, 1994, 1995). In the textbook preface the authors affirmed that learners were requested neither to learn by heart vocabulary lists, nor compose sentences exhibiting the use of grammar, but to achieve comprehension of texts through exercises. Hence, the textbook series was disposed to the functional grammar (naḥw waẓīfī) orientation. Other scholars showed a link with past experiences in Arabic or foreign language teaching in general. This was the case of ʿAysà al-Šaryūfī and Muḥammad Mamdūḥ Badrān. The first maintained that grammar could still be a key for comprehension (madḫal li-l-fahm), even though modern didactic approaches did not encourage its study (al-Šaryūfī 1998). At the same time, however, the scholar promoted useful communicative activities

138 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

such as class discussion (munāẓara), if carried out professionally (al-Šaryūfī 1997). The second scholar intended language as a social and communicative act; he elected the teaching of everyday language, good pronunciation and the use of audio-visual tools and Arabic in real-life situations. In this light, Badrān’s position suggested that of other scholars who made similar claims in the previous decades (Ḥardān et al.; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān 1988). Many TAFL scholars promoted everyday language learning either in textbooks or through scientific explanations. The focus on everyday language characterized acclaimed approaches, e.g., the Bourguiba School method, to such an extent that it could be considered a widespread trend rather than an influential orientation shared by Arab TAFL scholars on a larger scale. It is true that TAFL regional meetings could fuel the popularity of the ‘everyday language focus’, since it affected Arab scholars of different provenances and TAFL traditions, e.g., Lebanese, Tunisian or Saudi Arabian. However, more likely, the trend reflected a general tendency of considering everyday language in the foreign language classroom at international level and specifically with respect to the most taught languages, like English or French, which were often the basis of inspiration for Arab TAFL scholars (e.g., al-Swīsī 1979; Rammuny 1980c; al-Nāqa 1985c; Ṭaʿīma 1986; Badawi 1992a; Elgibali and Taha). The 1970s and 1980s, for example, harbored structural and communicative approaches encouraging the use of language in real-life situations. In addition, surveys on student training needs completed within the Arab world in these decades showed that the learner objective was communication (al-Fiqī; Ṣāliḥ; al-Wāsiṭī), although the situation changed in relation to the target of respondents. For example, while in Saudi Arabia, learners chose to study Arabic mainly for religious purposes (al-Nāqa 1985a), in Tunisia – as well as in Kuwait (cf. Ṣāliḥ) – learners’ training needs concentrated on everyday language, communicative and real-life situations. These survey results and methodological trends had an impact on textbooks and curricula drafting, which prioritized either religious aspects in Saudi Arabia (e.g., al-Ḥāmid), or secular contents of the Arab culture, as did the new textbook series published by Bourguiba School from the mid-1980s on (al-Qafṣī; Maʿhad Būrqība 1990). By virtue of this, the status of Modern Standard Arabic further complicated the situation. MSA is and was the language of literature and culture, which does not represent the register of daily communication, except for its special use by educated speakers. However, a good part of Arab scholars wanted their language to be used in real communicative situations also. This predilection produced its effects over the years leading to a series of ideas that favored communication in MSA, despite not being appropriate

New Challenges (1990s)

139

from the sociolinguistic point of view. As a consequence, in the Arab world it was common to note institutes training students on colloquial varieties, using dedicated textbooks (e.g., Hassanein and Kamel; al-Tonsi and al-Sawi) and others that geared only to MSA. The Bourguiba School published the second part of the new textbook series (silsila ǧadīda) dedicated to Modern Standard Arabic at the beginning of the 1990s (Maʿhad Būrqība 1990). The textbook encouraged students to use MSA in everyday language situations and was used at the school until the academic year 1999-2000 (Arbi 2001, p. 50). The book was part of the series al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira (Contemporary Arabic) and followed the first level, which was written in 1986 by Zahiyya al-Qafṣī and revised by Muḥammad Muwāʿada (Moada), a Tunisian scholar who participated in the Rabat symposium of 1981. The textbook series represented a development of Bourguiba School expertise in textbook drafting, which was possible thanks to the passing of time and the heightened awareness of the teachers working at the Tunisian institute. These teachers desired an updating of their teaching materials, which entailed a communicative approach (Arbi 2001, p. 50). Al-Qafṣī proposed a textbook that presented real-life situations and everyday language vocabulary. As Arbi (2001) pointed out, the textbook verbs corresponded 14 to those present in the reputable frequency lists15 issued in Tunis (cf. al-Laǧna al-dāʾima), Riyadh (ʿAbduh 1979a), and Mecca (cf. Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà) and that by Hartmut Bobzin (1980) between the late 1970s and early 1980s. The first level book was subdivided into sixteen lessons gradually increasing in difficulty, while the experimental second level version was organized into twelve lessons. In both books, every lesson began with one or more dialogues, which presented communicative situations, then shifted to the grammar and lexical sections. Grammar exercises were presented according to the Bourguiba School method, since students were requested to accomplish tasks on grammar rules by doing rather than listening to explanations. For instance, students completed exercises such as cloze texts or word/image connection (see also Abdur Rahim). Culture was integrated, often through the use of images, which demonstrated a structural orientation of the Tunisian school. For example, in the first level, one could see the characters of the dialogues wearing typical Arab dress, like the djellaba, the hijab (veil) or the classical Tunisian hat, the chéchia 14 Except from 32 verbs out of 270 (Arbi 2001, p. 123). 15 The Raṣīd luġawī waẓīfī (Functional syllabus) (cf. al-Laǧna al-dāʾima) was taken into account by al-Qafṣī for the vocabulary selection of the new series (al-Qafṣī; Maʿhad Būrqība 1990), even though the syllabus was targeted at L1 learners.

140 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

(šāšiyya) (Facchin 2012, p. 175). Tasks were written in Arabic and no use of other vehicular languages was present in the book. However, as previously noted, theories did not always correspond with practice, since a certain use of French as a vehicular language had been witnessed in the Bourguiba School AFL class (see Chapter 3). The Bourguiba School along with its teachers and well-known scholars such as Riḍā al-Swīsī were the main actors of TAFL in Tunisia. From a methodological point of view, al-Swīsī adhered to structural positions; however, these were reinforced by his theoretical and practical experience. In 1992, he asserted once again that audio-visual tools were a means for carrying out the lesson and refused to consider them as either objects of study or a method. He added that students had to develop grammatical automaticity (āliyya naḥwiyya), while the teacher held the key role in the education process. Moreover, written exercises were considered good for fixation. Al-Swīsī’s positions reflected his teaching experience and thus linked him to the Bourguiba School method, which influenced him and other Tunisian scholars such as Muḥammad Ibn Ismāʿīl. Other scholars’ positions on language teaching methods are to be recognized also. First, the Jordanian linguist Nuhād al-Musà described an innovative method – outlined above – namely the ‘Arab neighborhood’ project, which proposed the creation of an artificial environment for the functional learning of language and culture. This project represented an innovative example that enriched the methodological trends of the 1990s. Second, one can mention Essaid Mohammed Badawi. The Egyptian scholar’s motto was ‘languages are to be learned, never taught’. As for the TAFL textbook the scholar declared that it should inform students on words, structures, cultural contents and help them to master the four language skills so that they become autonomous in the learning process (cf. Badawi 1992a, p. 50). In this sense, Badawi would give students stacks of reading material in Arabic to improve their comprehension,16 a trend also witnessed among other scholars who taught in the same institution (Elgibali and Taha, p. 83). In addition, Badawi placed great importance on student interests and when addressing them one time said, ‘If you think I’m going to teach you Arabic you are mistaken. I am simply a resource for you to learn Arabic.’17 This affirmation directly links the scholar to a kind of teaching that encouraged student participation in the language acquisition 16 Cf. http://www1.aucegypt.edu/publications/auctoday/AUCTodayFall09/FacultySpotlight. htm, accessed 19 September 2016. 17 Cf. ibid.

New Challenges (1990s)

141

process within the classroom walls. This also recalls the learner-centered orientation communicative approach, explored by al-Nāqa (1985a) in the previous decade. However, Essaid Mohammed Badawi’s article of 1992 revealed that the scholar embraced a competency-based learning approach, which occupied educational theory from the 1950s on. The approach was in fact a manifestation of the behaviorist movement and concentrated on students, who were given credit for performing at a prespecified level of competency under prescribed conditions (Ainsworth, p. 322). Also, it had many names, which were not used synonymously from place to place. These were, for instance, proficiency-based, mastery-based, outcome-based, performance-based and standard-based learning or approach. In Arabic it could be translated with taʿallum al-luġāt al-qāʾim ʿalà al-kafāʾa. In Egypt, regarding Badawi’s positions, one could find Alaa Elgibali (al-Ǧibālī) and Zeinab Taha (Ṭāhā). In 1995, the two Egyptian scholars who emphasized the communicative aspect of Arabic language learning, highlighting what Badawi affirmed some years before: ‘learners of foreign languages expect to acquire the type of speech which enables them to communicate freely with at least their peers in the communities whose language they are learning’ (cf. Elgibali and Taha, p. 82). To this extent, the two Egyptian scholars went on by underlining the specificity of Teaching Arabic as a Second Language (TASL), which represented the teaching setting that generally characterized the TAFL 18 institutes in the Arab world, including the American University in Cairo (AUC), where the scholars taught. As a result, Elgibali and Taha stressed the learners’ possibility to acquire the language while using it in its natural context. This favored students, who could instantly test and modify their ‘working hypothesis’ in their interaction with a real language environment (cf. Elgibali and Taha, p. 81). The two scholars also had a predisposition for a type of teaching that used Arabic as a vehicular language, favored culturally authentic language input and saw the teacher more as a facilitator than a leader with a dogmatic role. The study of grammar was introduced as part of every language activity and skill, a position also shared by other Arab TAFL scholars and institutes in the past (e.g., Abboud and McCarus 1968a, 1968b; Nasr; al-Swīsī 1979; al-Ḥilyawī; Bākallā 1980; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; al-Qafṣī; Maʿhad Būrqība 1990; Ṣīnī et al. 1991, 1994, 1995). The four language skills fostered in ASL classroom practice at AUC were all considered very important; however, reading had a prominent role. 18 For a clarification on the proper use of the expressions ‘Teaching Arabic as a Second Language’ (TASL) and ‘Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language’ (TAFL), see the Introduction.

142 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

As to this, Elgibali and Taha took inspiration from Patricia Carell, who affirmed: ‘one learns how to read through the process of reading itself’ (cf. Carell, Devine, and Eskey, p. 269). For this reason, the Egyptian scholars would expose learners to challenging amounts of reading material like Badawi did. Prereading activities, clarifications, and class discussions were considered and motivation played a key role in this phase (see also Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985; al-Šaryūfī 1997). Listening was provided both in MSA and in Egyptian Colloquial at AUC. This aspect relates the two scholars to other colleagues who made similar assertions then (ACTFL 1989; Younes 1990a, 1990b; Badawi 1992a; al-Maḫzūmī). Furthermore, a series of practices were encouraged, i.e., pronunciation accuracy, role-play, question and answer, discussions, games, free expression, etc. According to Elgibali and Taha, the cultural dimension was of paramount importance in the ASL class, as it aimed to raise learner awareness of the Self and the Other, facilitate interaction by minimizing the likelihood of cross-cultural misunderstandings, and analyze cross-cultural differences and similarities (cf. Elgibali and Taha, p. 94). The scholars also probed the question of proficiency. They argued that the basic distribution of the speaking and listening skills of the ‘ACTFL Arabic Proficiency Guidelines’ should be reconsidered in terms of whether the tasks performed were to be in colloquial or MSA (Elgibali and Taha, p. 99, see also al-Batal 1995; Younes 2015), a question Taha reexamined more recently (cf. Taha 2008). Most importantly though, Elgibali’s and Taha’s article of 1995 showed their leaning toward Content-Based Instruction, which was an approach that simply focused on the content, rather than on the form in class activities and assignments. Nonetheless, it represented a pedagogically and administratively sophisticated endeavor (Brinton, Snow, and Wesche; Clegg). That is to say, the methodological positions of Elgibali and Taha showed their affinity with the European and North American FLT scientific context, for perhaps no Arab TAFL scholars had taken this approach into consideration before. However, on the theoretical level, some scholars (e.g., Ṭaʿīma 1982; al-Nāqa 1985a) encouraged a topic-led version of communicative language teaching, which resembled the Content-Based Instruction approach. In the American and European contexts, the 1990s were characterized by the influence of new technologies and new media in the field of foreign language teaching. The year 1989 marked the birth of the World Wide Web, while the following year ushered the creation of the first web browser computer program. Computers and new technologies started to profoundly affect the teaching and learning of foreign languages, including Arabic

New Challenges (1990s)

143

(Yaghi and Yaghi; Ferhadi; Parkinson; Rammuny 2000).19 For instance, in 1995, Ahmed Ferhadi discussed the use of video as a didactic tool in the AFL class; Parkinson – from his standpoint – presented the implications of computer-assisted language instruction in the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language in the same year (cf. al-Batal 1995). Notwithstanding, the update in TAFL did not originate from the Arab world, but from its strongholds outside of it, the United States in the first place. In this decade, economic and cultural globalization movement played a key role and produced a ‘paradigmatic change’ (Nielsen 2009, p. 147) in the form and content of instruction. Arab scholars proposed the integrated approach (ṭarīqa takāmuliyya), a teaching philosophy widely used nowadays in the United States and beyond, which combines the study of Modern Standard and a variety of Colloquial Arabic. This choice was proposed in order to reflect the diglossic nature of Arabic and the sociolinguistic realities of the Arab world in the most accurate and natural way possible (see, e.g., Younes 1990a, 1990b, 1995, 2010; al-Batal and Belnap; Nielsen 2012; Chekayri 2014). In particular, in the first half of the 1990s, Munther Younes published a series of works that presented the integrated approach (e.g., Younes 1990a, 1990b, 1995). For example, his Elementary Arabic: An Integrated Approach was based on listening exercises in Levantine Arabic. The textbook placed more importance on intelligibility than on grammatical accuracy while writing skills were considered less urgent. According to Younes, the focus was on developing the skill of listening for comprehension. In Europe, the integrated approach was established (cf. Woidich and Heinen-Nasr 1995, 1998, 2004; Kalati 2003, 2004; Nielsen 2009, 2012; Akar), although not everywhere. In particular, in the Nordic countries, Helle Lykke Nielsen of Southern Denmark University was one of the pioneers of communicative Arabic teaching (Akar, p. 564). The Danish scholar (Nielsen 2012) claimed that the TAFL focus at the university was ‘unambiguously communicative’ while the knowledge and skills taught applied to practical life with professional contexts (cf. Nielsen 2012; Akar). From another perspective, at the University of Amsterdam the TAFL approach20 of first studying Colloquial Arabic, then moving on to MSA, has been employed since the 19 One should also mention the paper by N. Yaqub, ‘Turning Students into Television Stars: Teaching Arabic through Interactive Video’, presented at the Arabic Symposium of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan (United States) in 1999. 20 Cf. Manfred Woidich, ‘From Colloquial to Standard Arabic: The Amsterdam Approach to Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language’, paper presented at the Foundations for a Pedagogy for Arabic Translation International Conference held at the University College Francisco Ferrer of Brussels, 19-20 October 2007.

144 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

early 1990s (Woidich, p. 79). Meanwhile, in Italy, Elie Kallas promoted the study of Lebanese Colloquial Arabic. In 1990 the scholar of Lebanese origin published a threshold level for Levantine Colloquial: Yatabi lebnaaniyyi: Un ‘Livello soglia’ per l’apprendimento del neo-arabo libanese. The work mirrored the Threshold Level project run by the Council of Europe at the beginning of the 1970s (cf. van Ek) (see Chapter 4), as it aimed to meet the communicative needs of AFL learners, as it was a tool for them to reach communication goals in Spoken Arabic. Lebanese Colloquial Arabic was also the object of study at the American University in Beirut, where the integrated approach had been promoted since the early twentieth century (Kozah, p. 284) and certainly since the AFL revival in the early twenty-first (Wilmsen, p. 145) (see Chapter 6). Finally, the multimethodological approach was witnessed in the Arab world during the 1990s, which should not be confused with the eclectic orientations advanced by some TAFL scholars during the previous 20 years (e.g., al-Qāsimī 1979; al-Nāqa 1985c). While the eclectic method was based on the principle that foreign language teachers had to choose the most appropriate teaching technique according to student training needs, the multimethodological approach was a combination of different teaching philosophies, which did not vary in classroom practice and was established as a fixed method. The Arabic Language Teaching Institute of Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University of Riyadh, together with its member Ḥamad ibn Nāṣir al-Duḫayl were in line with the multimethodological approach, although the scholar did not affirm this orientation. Al-Duḫayl was a Saudi scholar born in Al Majmaah near Riyadh in 1945 and was known in the TAFL field for participating in conferences like those held in Riyadh in 1986 and Islamabad in 1988. The scholar obtained his PhD at Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in 1982 (al-Munaẓẓama 1994, p. 47) and continued collaborating with its TAFL institute in the 1990s. In 1992, al-Duḫayl participated in the Meeting of Tunis, representing the aforementioned institute, which displayed the teaching orientation cited. Hence, al-Duḫayl reported a series of best practices, which took inspiration from various teaching philosophies debated in Saudi Arabia over the fifteen years that preceded. These tenets included communicative practices, structural orientations and propensity for traditional language contents. The scholar highlighted the importance of the use of audio-visual tools and communicative exercises in the AFL class. Moreover, the teaching practice used at the Arabic Language Teaching Institute put listening and speaking first, followed by reading and writing, a principle that linked educators from Riyadh to other TAFL scholars who

New Challenges (1990s)

145

took similar stances in the previous decades (e.g., al-Swīsī 1979; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983; al-Nāqa 1985c; Ṭaʿīma 1986; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān 1988; al-Qumāṭī 1992). Additionally, contents of lessons and textbooks concentrated on traditional themes in Arab-Islamic culture, such as the Holy Qur’an, the ḥadīt, Quranic exegesis, Islamic history, literature, rhetoric, etc. Accordingly, the Arabic Language Teaching Institute of Riyadh published a textbook series that encompassed the principles outlined by al-Duḫayl, who was one of its editors (see al-Ḥāmid). Related to the concept of a multimethodological approach, however different in its essence, was the teaching orientation followed at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm, which drew from the various TAFL teaching traditions brought to the Sudanese learning environment by its students coming from a multitude of foreign countries. In 1991, Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm director ʿAwn al-Šarīf Qāsim – a scholar born in 1933, who obtained his PhD at the University of Edinburgh in 1967 – affirmed that the institute tried to take advantage of this situation in order to improve and analyze the question of TAFL methods from various perspectives (Qāsim 1992, p. 117). However, regardless of the fact that research and dissertations explored this kind of syncretic considerations, putting theoretical affirmations and objectives into practice represented another challenge.

Scholarly Production Regarding TAFL scholarly production, the works in the 1990s were mainly theoretical research, textbooks, reports, proceedings, practical handbooks, reference guides, translations, syllabi, etc. (e.g., de Beaugrande; Ben Amor; Maʿhad Būrqība 1990; Richards and Rodgers; al-Swīsī 1990, 1991; Yūnis, al-Nāqa, and Ṭaʿīma 1990; al-Qāsimī and al-Sayyid; Muḥammad and Ṣīnī; Ṣīnī et al. 1991, 1994, 1995; Suwayd; al-Munaẓẓama 1992, 1994; al-Ṭayyib al-Šayḫ 1993; Badawi, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, and al-Rabīʿī; al-Batal 1995; Kallas; Yūnis and al-Kandarī; ʿAbd al-Ḫāliq; ʿAmāyra 1998; ʿAṭṭār; Harīdī; al-Šaryūfī 1998; ʿAwnī; Bahǧat 1999; Balʿayd; al-Qumāṭī 2000). These writings concentrated on various topics, such as reference levels, Arabic language proficiency, best practices, language simplification, teacher training, Arabic language teaching methods, testing, diglossia, language curriculum, young learners, etc. The countries in the Arab world where scholars actively contributed to develop TAFL in this time span were Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, but also Libya, Sudan, Jordan and Mauritania to a lesser degree. Libya, for one, saw the publication of TAFL textbooks (Suwayd; al-Qumāṭī 2000) and a

146 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

fair amount of activity on TAFL, while Sudan witnessed, on the one hand, participation of some of its scholars in international forums and, on the other hand, the weakening of certain organizations like the Southern bureaus division (Qāsim 1992, p. 99). Foremost was the movement on Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language in Tunisia, which involved many Arab scholars of different provenances. This movement was possible thanks to ALECSO and its International Cooperation Board, which fostered meetings, activities and the publication of textbooks and other significant works. For example, in 1992, ALECSO published the proceedings of the Meeting of Tunis held the year before, where the directors of the TAFL centers of the Arab world convened. The volume as a complete work grouped the most relevant scholarly positions and experiences in the field of TAFL from its dawn to the early 1990s. Best practices were presented and these regarded many Arab countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Jordan and Mauritania. The fundamental contribution by Essaid Mohammed Badawi is noteworthy. The prominent scholar produced two widely acclaimed publications: Mustawayāt al-ʿarabiyya al-muʿāṣira fī Miṣr (Levels of contemporary Arabic in Egypt) issued in Cairo in 1973, which dealt with linguistic issues, and A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic (Badawi and Hinds) in 1986. However, the scholar was best known for his affiliation to one of the most influential foreign TAFL institutes in the region. At that time, Badawi was the director of the Arabic Language Department of the American University in Cairo, which launched the master of arts in Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language in 1979. This status allowed him to keep abreast of the improvements carried out by those scholars who operated in the field of TAFL in the United States. Not by chance, Badawi introduced a topic of paramount importance linked to the theories and applied studies that he had the opportunity to come across. During the Meeting of Tunis, Badawi’s contribution concentrated on proficiency, which was translated with the term kafāʾa, usually employed for ‘competence’. The scholar described it as the ‘final objective [hadaf nihāʾī] of teaching and learning Arabic by means of the four language skills’.21 He added that without a serious definition of this final objective, nothing could be done, neither teaching Arabic for specific purposes nor programmed teaching, etc. (Badawi 1992a, p. 57). The question of Arabic language proficiency had been raised previously in the United States, when Raji Rammuny revised the APT in the early 1980s (Rammuny 1983) and proposed a subdivision of Arabic language reference 21 My translation (cf. Badawi 1992a, p. 48).

New Challenges (1990s)

147

levels on the basis of proficiency. The scholar motion was followed by a series of debates (e.g., Allen 1984, 1985; ACTFL 1989) and the so-called ‘proficiency movement’ (cf. Allen in Ryding 2013), which ‘focused on the development of measurable skills for real communication in language and took the educated native speaker as the model of instruction to achieve proficiency’ (Younes 2015, p. 24). After less than a decade, Badawi opened the discussion on proficiency in Tunis, made this topic a focus and started a change in the TAFL within the Arab world, which faced new challenges during the 1990s. For these reasons, Badawi’s contribution could be considered a manifesto of the new TAFL brought to a further stage after development within international discussion forums. The article contained pragmatic actions to be pursued and called for a general commitment among TAFL scholars, who should work on proficiency inside and outside the Arab world, without delaying or postponing the debate (Badawi 1992a). Badawi did not limit himself to discussing the topic outlined above, as he also considered a series of other matters, which were currently debated at international level by Arabists, e.g., diglossia, language registers, Educated Spoken Arabic, etc. In this, Badawi was a key figure, for he was a scholar that could be partially associated to the phenomenon that characterized other Arab TAFL colleagues, who moved from their homelands to the United States from the 1960s on. Badawi was born in al-Nakhas, in the Sharqiyya Governorate, in 1929, and after studying in Cairo and obtaining his PhD at the University of London, he had a brief teaching experience in Egypt and Sudan at Omdurman Islamic University. In 1969 he went to the American University in Cairo and became the curriculum advisor at the Center for Arabic Study Abroad (CASA) in 1970. Badawi had a connection to the United States while also instilling a love of Arabic in students in his home country. At the Meeting of Tunis, he proposed a translation of the distinguished level contained in the ‘ACTFL Arabic Proficiency Guidelines’ (ACTFL 1989). As for the other levels, they were not reported on extensively, but only mentioned in translation. These were: novice (mustaǧidd), intermediate (mutawassiṭ), advanced (mutaqaddim), superior (mutafawwiq) and distinguished (mutamayyiz). Nonetheless, Badawi’s translation was a useful tool for TAFL scholars, teachers and experts, who were given the opportunity to gap the bridges that had extensively been lacking in the field. The distinguished level descriptors effectively helped them to discuss, make arrangements and finally agree upon levels on the basis of student proficiency. Partially related to Arabic proficiency levels, was the discourse highlighted by al-Duḫayl on the curriculum followed in class and the textbook series published at Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh

148 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

(cf. al-Ḥāmid). The curriculum was divided into four levels: the first two were ‘elementary levels’ (marḥala asāsiyya) while the third and fourth were ‘scientific levels’ (marḥala ʿilmiyya) (al-Duḫayl, p. 71). These started with simple tasks and gradually increased in complexity, espousing traditional subjects such as Quranic exegesis, Islamic history, rhetoric, etc. This level partition, together with the textbook series, was fruit of a project started in early 1982 by the TAFL educators and editors at the Arabic Language Teaching Institute of Riyadh (1402 H). The aim of the textbook series was mainly a means of diffusing Islamic culture among students through the Arabic language. As a result, learners could broaden their knowledge on the topic and continue their studies in Arab universities. The series was composed of student’ books and a calligraphy copybook (kurrāsat al-ḫaṭṭ), but also teachers’ guides (dalīl al-muʿallim) and glossaries, which increased in number over time, with a total of over 50 books in 2004 (cf. al-Ḥāmid). At the Meeting of Tunis of 1992, al-Duḫayl presented the best practices carried out in Riyadh at the Arabic Language Teaching Institute, including a detailed description of the curriculum mentioned above. For instance, he indicated how special attention was drawn to good pronunciation and reading at normal speed in the first level. This principle represented an ascertained teaching practice, supported by theoretical discussions of many other TAFL scholars in the past (al-Swīsī 1979; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985; etc.). In addition, the first level encouraged free expression and the development of the four language skills alongside the study of religious sciences. The second level of the textbook series prompted students to perform more complex tasks like writing personal letters or summarizing thoughts. The third level increased in complexity of tasks and placed specific vocabulary (e.g., religious) next to basic lexis – still object of fixation – and topics learned in the second level. The improvement of calligraphy was also dealt with in this level, an aspect that showed the great importance given to handwriting by Arab educators. In addition, literature, history of literature (tārīḫ al-adab) and author biographies were studied in-depth. Lastly, level four was the curriculum created by the team of TAFL experts in Riyadh. It included scientific language, Islamic studies, rhetoric and specific focus on expressive clarity (bayān), adequacy (maʿān) and ornamentation (badīʿ). It trained students so that they could follow any lesson at university level; a matter prodding the creation of the Arabic Language Teaching Institute of Riyadh in the early 1980s. Interestingly, al-Duḫayl reported the existence of a placement test (iḫtibār taḥdīd al-mustawà al-luġawī) and a certificate of proficiency (šahāda) at

New Challenges (1990s)

149

the TAFL Institute of Riyadh, which had offered a master’s degree in TAFL, night classes and a diploma in AFL since the mid-1980s (al-Duḫayl, p. 85). The test placed students at the most appropriate level when starting the AFL courses, while the proficiency certificate gave an official recognition of linguistic level attained by students at the end of the cycle. Other lectures were presented during the Meeting of Tunis. The Tunisian scholar Riḍā al-Swīsī carried out an applied study by conducting a survey on 1000 foreign students of Arabic inside and outside the Arab world. To support it from the theoretical point of view, al-Swīsī referred to some traditional research in the TAFL field (al-Qāsimī 1979; Bākallā 1980; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; Rammuny 1980c) as well as more recent findings, including scholarly contributions such as by Madkūr (1985), Ṭaʿīma (1989), al-Swīsī (1990, 1991) and the Fourth International Forum on Arabic linguistics held in Tunis (al-Swīsī 1989). It is likewise worth mentioning that al-Swīsī generally would draw on European – especially French – references (e.g., al-Swīsī 1979); however, this time proved to be a shift in direction, as he intimated research conducted in the Arab world. The results of the survey revealed that AFL learners most often chose to study Arabic for cultural and work purposes (see, e.g., al-Duwayš), a trend that characterizes Arabic language learning still today. Another matter of discussion emphasized by other scholars at the Meeting of Tunis was language mistakes among foreign learners of Arabic, which sporadically had been discussed before (ʿAwād 1983). This was the case of Muḥammad al-Qumāṭī. In his contribution, the scholar maintained that mistakes (aḫṭāʾ) depended on different variables, namely the language, the environment and the student. However, most importantly, al-Qumāṭī provided a list of frequent mistakes made by AFL learners. These were extracted from the notebooks students were required to do homework and write compositions in. Moreover, al-Qumāṭī collected a series of oral mistakes, which he had transcribed from recordings of students’ oral interviews. The mistakes were then classified into categories, which mainly concerned spelling and translation. To this, analysis and solutions (ʿilāǧ) were provided. Al-Qumāṭī (1992) maintained that mistakes could be corrected through continuous training (tadrīb mustamirr) on sounds articulation, pairwise language comparisons, newspaper reading, listening and the use of Arabic as the only vehicular language in class. The Libyan scholar even suggested speaking Modern Standard Arabic in the AFL class to teachers, a position stressed by other scholars in the past (e.g., Ḥassān 1983). Thus, TAFL classroom practice evidenced how some instructors resorted to colloquial varieties while teaching, which other

150 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

scholars opposed as they deem MSA the only variety to be learned and taught. In addition, al-Qumāṭī (1992, p. 39) encouraged students to take advantage of the opportunities that allowed them to speak MSA outside the classroom. This suggestion represents not only a step toward student autonomy but also a strong will to use MSA in appropriate social contexts. Not less important, Muḥammad Mamdūḥ Badrān, a Syrian scholar born in 1936 (al-Munaẓẓama 1994), focused on classical TAFL themes such as: Arabic language simplification and teaching methods improvement. In addition, he asked, ‘What to teach?’ (mādā nudarrisu?) in the AFL class, a topic frequently debated among Arab scholars in the past. Nonetheless, instead of concentrating on the diglossic matter and on ‘which’ variety to teach, the scholar shifted the discussion focus to the contents of Arabic language teaching. Badrān (p. 42) affirmed that the content choice depended on the typology of students and their interests. This statement probably was rooted in the research published the previous decade, when scholars like Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma and Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa investigated the training needs of AFL learners and created notional syllabi (Ṭaʿīma 1982; al-Nāqa 1985a). Badrān consequently affirmed that if students’ interests were linked to tourism and contacts with speakers of Arabic, teachers had to provide them with everyday language, along with encouraging communication and Arabic language use in real-life situations. The Syrian scholar, then, posed another question, which the traditional debate on diglossia had postponed for many years. The query was ‘How to teach?’ (kayfa nudarrisu?) and analyzed the methods for Arabic language learning and teaching. In this, Badrān refused the traditional method, which consisted of theoretical teaching (talqīn naẓarī) and embraced a practical orientation, fitting between the structural and the communicative approach. At the Meeting of Tunis, the experts drafted a series of recommendations, which included the foundation of the Council of the Directors of TAFL Centers (maǧlis li-mudīrī al-maʿāhid wa-l-marākiz al-ʿarabiyya li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) and the TAFL Teachers’ League (rābiṭa li-muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā), proposed by the ALECSO director-general Musāriʿ al-Rāwī and the assistant director-general, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb Būḥdība. Their effective establishment was then entrusted to the ALECSO International Cooperation Board. With respect to the goals of the Council of the Directors of TAFL Centers, it proposed meeting every two years, in order to coordinate the efforts in the field of teaching Arabic as a foreign language and Arab-Islamic culture development abroad. It furthermore intended to conduct common projects; organize training sessions, like TAFL teacher training; exchange teachers,

New Challenges (1990s)

151

experiences and information; collaborate on the realization of curricula, teaching materials and audio-visual tools; publish books and studies, etc. As for the league, all the members working in the TAFL centers around the Arab world could take part in it. The league aimed to muster together TAFL educators and professionals in order to discuss issues, exchange experiences and amplify expertise, while it planned to achieve these objectives by means of translations, exchange of experiences, organization of conferences, teacher training sessions and publication of works devoted to TAFL such as frequency lists and theoretical/applied research. Its headquarters location was at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm. Furthermore, a series of actions and strategies for the future of the subject were added to the general Recommendations of Tunis. The group of the directors of TAFL centers, together with the TAFL scholars who lectured during the Meeting of Tunis, voiced favorable support for the creation of divisions and centers dedicated to TAFL within the Arab world. A proposal was made for these centers to offer scholarships for the development of theoretical/applied research and provide periodic teacher training sessions employing modern teaching methods. Hence, teachers were to be prepared with adequate knowledge of linguistics and phonetics (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1992). As for research, the scholars encouraged the dissemination of existing relevant works within the TAFL center network, in addition to producing more studies that examined the characteristics of the Arabic language. Finally, the Recommendations of Tunis aimed to remedy traditional problems related to the Arabic language, like rule simplification by capitalizing on modern linguistic research. The recommendations were soon put into practice. In 1994, after only two years, Dalīl al-ḫubarāʾ al-ʿarab f ī maǧāl taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Guide to Arab experts in the field of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language) was published by ALECSO and its International Cooperation Board in Tunis. The work represented the first step toward the effective creation of the TAFL Teachers’ League (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1994, p. 8), aimed at reporting the experience of the various Arab countries in the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language and providing a list of 121 scholars who contributed to this field. Scholars were presented with their biographical data, affiliation, scientific production and research fields, and subdivided according to their provenance, namely Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Tunisia, Sudan, Syria, Libya, United Arab Emirates and Qatar. The work was part of a series of guides promoted by the International Cooperation Board while also serving the purpose of promoting the Recommendations of Tunis. In essence, it functioned to help experts

152 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

in the field of TAFL through cooperation in a common mission and the exchange of expertise. Despite this good start, the second half of the 1990s proved to be less productive with a general lack of cooperation among the TAFL institutes participating in the Meeting of Tunis, while no other general meeting was organized until the turn of the new century. To this extent, al-ʿUṣaylī (2002) reported that there were no inter-institute visits, exchange of expertise, students or professors, as the recommendations had encouraged. Moreover, the dissertations and research carried out in these institutes were rarely shared in a network and therefore also remained unknown to field specialists. This situation lasted until 2003, when a new meeting of the directors of TAFL centers in Khartoum resumed cooperation (see Chapter 6). The 1990s corroborated other scholarly publications in Tunisia, which resulted in a fertile place for the debate on TAFL. For example, focusing again on TAFL, the Tunisian linguist Riḍā al-Swīsī published al-Hayākil al-asāsiyya li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya luġa tāniya (Structures and expressions: The fundamental structures of Arabic as a second language) in 1990 and issued a frequency list entitled ʿArabiyyat al-tawāṣul. Raṣīd muʿǧamī asāsī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya luġa tāniya li-l-kibār (Communicative Arabic: Fundamental lexical syllabus for adult learners of Arabic as a second language) the following year. Both were published in Tunis, where the scholar was acclaimed for his publications and contributions to the national debate on linguistics, TAFL and language teaching in general. The frequency list was a long-term achievement which al-Swīsī worked on since the late 1970s, when he underlined the urgency of syllabi construction (al-Swīsī 1979). In the early 1990s, the second part of the new Bourguiba textbook series was published in Tunis. The book and the first level of the series replaced the elder series, making history as a contender to other esteemed textbooks (e.g., Badawi and Yūnis 1983; Badawi, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, and al-Batal; al-Ḥāmid; Ṭaʿīma and al-Nāqa [1983] 2009). The second level presented a series of cultural topics like the f irst level, while also providing more complex texts on important contemporary Tunisians, e.g., the writer ʿAzz al-Dīn al-Madanī or the poet Abū al-Qāsim al-Šābbī (Echebbi), etc. The book remained an experimental version (nusḫa taǧrībiyya) until the end of the decade, contrary to the first level, written by Zahiyya al-Qafṣī, instructor at the Tunisian school, who later became known for her textbook, which a new generation of foreign learners studied. In 1998, the Saudi scholar ʿAysà al-Šaryūfī published an article in al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya (Arab journal of education) issued in Tunis. The article, entitled ‘Iʿtibārāt naẓariyya wa-taṭbīqiyya fī tadrīs al-qawāʿid li-mutaʿallimī al-ʿarabiyya

New Challenges (1990s)

153

min ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ (Theoretical and practical considerations on grammar teaching to foreign learners of Arabic), focused on how to teach grammar to AFL learners; it discussed objectives and the ways to realize them (al-Šaryūfī 1998). Other Arab countries hosted the emergence of works dedicated to TAFL in this period. In Medina, the Indian scholar Vaniyambadi Abdur Rahim published his Durūs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Arabic language lessons for non-native speakers), which was organized in four different levels and represented an example of teaching Arabic for religious purposes. In Riyadh, ʿUmar Sulaymān Muḥammad published a workbook with Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, entitled al-Imlāʾ al-waẓīfī li-l-mustawà al-mutawassiṭ min ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-l-ʿarabiyya (Functional dictation for intermediate AFL learners), in 1991. It was dedicated to dictation and helped foreign learners of intermediate Arabic to improve their writing skills (kitāba ṣaḥīḥa), with focus on orthography (hiǧāʾ) and punctuation (tarqīm). The work was conceived by Muḥammad after his teaching experience at Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ, which started in 1983 (cf. Muḥammad and Ṣīnī). It was also a personal response to a proven need by learners to properly develop writing skills. In addition, the workbook activities strengthened the other language skills through varied exercises, e.g., cloze text, transformation, decoding. In order to prepare students for language tasks and activities, Muḥammad encouraged the use of class discussion, an aspect often stressed by other scholars in the past (Qūra; al-Maʿhad al-qawmī; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān 1988). Moreover, the technique proposed by Muḥammad was clearly inductive: activities were introduced through class discussion where the teacher prepared his students on new vocabulary, then exercises were carried out and grammar rules were explained. Above all, the teaching philosophy that pervaded the entire work was inspired by Dāwūd ʿAbduh’s functional method, outlined in his Naḥwa taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya waẓīfiyyan (Toward Arabic language functional teaching). Muḥammad refused the traditional dictation technique, disparaging it as useless in real-life situations, and embraced ʿAbduh’s ‘functional approach’, which encouraged natural use of language. In Saudi Arabia, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, the scholar animating the TAFL scene during the 1970s and 1980s, did not only coauthor the workbook with ʿUmar Sulaymān Muḥammad, as he now centered on Arabic for specific purposes. Between 1991 and 1995, Ṣīnī published the textbook series entitled al-Qirāʾa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-muslimīn (Reading Arabic for Muslims), which consisted of three volumes (Ṣīnī et al. 1991, 1994, 1995), all published in Beirut by the Librarie du Liban. The volumes gradually increased in language

154 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

complexity, i.e., simple sentences to more complex texts, commensurate to levels from the first to the third. In order to create the textbooks, Ṣīnī cooperated with a group of scholars, namely Muḥammad H. Abū al-Futūḥ, Anwar R. Badr al-Dīn, Muṣṭafà Ḥumayda, Aḥmad A.W. al-Šaʿarānī and Ṣāliḥ M. Ṣāliḥ. The series was conceived by its authors in response to what they identified as an urgent need for Muslim learners of Arabic: reading Islamic texts (nuṣūṣ islāmiyya), an aspect that the scholars had the opportunity to notice during their teaching experience conducted in Saudi Arabia and abroad (cf. Ṣīnī et al. 1991). For this reason, the textbooks presented contents related to Islam, e.g., Islamic history and doctrine. The choice of vocabulary was based on the authors’ academic studies of the language of the Holy Qur’an, law, and on specific texts concerning Islamic culture. Consequently, an Arabic-English/EnglishArabic glossary was provided. Focus on written comprehension (madda ʿarabiyya maqrūʾa) was favored over burdening students with composition or expression. Exercises trained learners on comprehension (istīʿāb), lexicon (mufradāt) and grammatical structures (tarākīb naḥwiyya). This last, for instance, asked students to read either Quranic verses or prose texts. Even though these tasks seem to have a traditional teaching orientation, Ṣīnī (in Ṣīnī et al. 1991) affirmed that learners were not required to learn vocabulary lists by heart, or compose sentences showing the use of grammar, but to achieve comprehension of texts through exercises. In this sense, the textbook series tried to follow the functional grammar orientation. The textbook series by Ṣīnī confirms once again the leanings of the kind of TAFL that originated in Saudi Arabia. The tendency of incorporating Islamic religion and culture in the teaching of Arabic to foreign learners remained characteristic of Saudi TAFL in the 1990s as it did the previous decades. This fact distinguished the Saudi debate on TAFL from the other discussions that originated in other Arab countries, like Tunisia, Egypt or Sudan. There, debates and scholarly publications on TAFL acquired specific features, each different from the others due to numerous factors: from market trends to social, cultural or historical reasons. For example, while the language scene in Sudan influenced the debate on TAFL and the research conducted at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm, the discourse on TAFL in Tunisia was mainly secular and to a certain degree drew on foreign language teaching in the French context. In Saudi Arabia, the composition of AFL learners that studied in the country played a key role in the development of TAFL and research on it. In addition, the orientation of Saudi Arabia, ruled by a king, the Protector of the Two Holy Cities of Islam, predisposed TAFL to religious scopes rather than mere linguistic ones.

New Challenges (1990s)

155

In 1991, another champion of the TAFL debate, ʿAlī al-Qāsimī, published a book entitled al-Tiqniyyāt al-tarbawiyya fī tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Educational techniques in Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language) for ISESCO. The work reported a series of modern teaching techniques and explained how to use and take advantage of them in the AFL class environment, by stimulating and motivating learners. The book mixed both theory and practice and was mainly dedicated to Arabic language educators (al-Qāsimī and al-Sayyid). In 1993, Ḥusayn al-Ṭayyib al-Šayḫ wrote Taḥlīl aḫṭāʾ mutaʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya min ġayr ahli-hā bi-l-markaz al-islāmī al-ifrīqī bi-l-Ḫarṭūm (Analysis of the mistakes made by AFL learners at the African Islamic Center of Khartoum). The book contained the frequent mistakes of AFL learners and achieved acclaim nearing similar contributions of the same decade (al-Qumāṭī 1992; al-Ḫaṭīb in al-Munaẓẓama 1992). Analogously, rightful mention of scholarly work on TAFL issued in the United States in the 1990s is needed. The TAFL scene was in fact active in this period and concentrated on various topics, such as Arabic language proficiency, reference levels, curriculum, best practices, technology applied to the study of Arabic, testing, etc. First of all, the symposium The Teaching of Arabic in the 1990s: Issues and Directions held at the School of Arabic in Middlebury, Vermont, in 1992 was followed up with a proceedings publication. The lecturers’ extensive discussion on TAFL was to become an influential internationally acclaimed work as it was transcribed in The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language, edited by Mahmoud al-Batal in 1995. Al-Batal (al-Baṭal) was a prominent name in the field of TAFL: a scholar of Arab origin who generally wrote on TAFL and Arabic (e.g., al-Batal 1988, 1992) and participated in the drafting of the second volume of al-Kitāb al-asāsī fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Basic course for teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers) (Badawi, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, and al-Batal), issued by ALECSO in 1987. The scholar then moved to the United States and taught Arabic at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) from 1993 until 2006, when he became associate professor of Arabic at the University of Texas at Austin. He is currently professor of Arabic at the American University of Beirut. The work edited by al-Batal collected scholars’ perspectives on and practical experiences with TAFL, referring principally to the North American context; nevertheless, there were also some contributions of scholars affiliated to TAFL institutes based in the Arab world, such as the American University in Cairo (Elgibali and Taha; Taha 1995). This provided an opportunity to examine Arab contributions from an international setting, i.e., the pivotal

156 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

sequential TAFL meetings of the previous decades, e.g., the symposia in Madrid and Riyadh held in 1959 and 1978, respectively, etc. Elgibali and Taha reported the Egyptian experience carried out at the American University in Cairo Arabic Language Institute, which housed the Center for Arabic Study Abroad (CASA). Elgibali is an Egyptian scholar, who at the time taught at the American University in Cairo (AUC). Born in 1955 and receiving a doctorate in general linguistics from the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he later became a TAFL instructor and scholar. His work in the field includes teaching Arabic in the United States, Kuwait, Egypt, Lebanon (al-Munaẓẓama 1994), authoring several seminal publications22 (Elgibali 1996, 2005) and acting as associate editor of the Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics (Versteegh et al. 2006-2009). As for Zeinab Taha, she is an Egyptian scholar, who has been teaching Arabic at the AUC since 1981. Taha received her PhD from Georgetown University in 1995 and was later recognized in the field of TAFL for coediting the two volumes of the Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century with Kassem Wahba and Elizabeth England (Wahba, Taha, and England). In their article issued in the proceedings edited by al-Batal (1995), the two scholars reported the teaching methods, modus operandi, and frequent problems experienced in the ASL class at the Arabic Language Institute of Cairo. In addition, they discussed some issues that characterized the broader debates of that decade, namely the question of Arabic language proficiency and testing, referring to the Arabic Proficiency Test (APT) created in the United States in the previous decades (see Chapter 3). Accordingly, there should be mention of the contributions of other TAFL scholars of Arab origin who relocated to the United States to teach at university level there. For example, Raji Rammuny presented the development of the New APT in his lecture of 1992, and then in the proceedings of the symposium (Rammuny 1995). The scholar was renowned because he participated in the Riyadh symposium and collaborated in the construction of the APT with other Arab scholars, such as Sami Hanna, Salman al-Ani and Hamdi Qafisheh. Between 1991 and 1992 the APT was revised again; Raji Rammuny was now allied by Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī23 and a working team comprising John Clark, Ernest McCarus, Charles W. Stansfield and Dorry Kenyon (cf. Rammuny 1992). The New APT was field-tested, ensuring a high degree of reliability. Furthermore, it was revised and implemented, as its authors had now inserted a section dedicated to speaking, beside listening, reading and 22 Cf. https://sllc.umd.edu/user/elgibali, accessed 7 October 2016. 23 Cf. http://dr-mahmoud-ismail-saleh.blogspot.it/p/blog-page_10.html, accessed 7 March 2017.

New Challenges (1990s)

157

writing (Rammuny 1993). The test aimed to measure general proficiency in literary Arabic and included simple utterances, conversations, but also radio and television announcements, proverbs, jokes and poetry readings, gradually incrementing the level. It also followed the ‘ACTFL Arabic Proficiency Guidelines’, as it tested examinees at proficiency levels from ‘novice-high’ through ‘intermediate’ and ‘advanced’ to ‘superior’. It provided a Rater Training Manual, an Arabic Rating Scale and a scoring table with equivalences between percentage scores and the ACTFL scale. The Arabic Rating Scale was created by Rammuny and represented a grid of descriptors organized in four parameters: comprehensibility (fahm al-istiǧāba), fluency (ṭalāqa fī al-ḥadīt), quantity (kammiyya), linguistic and cultural accuracy (nawʿiyyat al-istiǧāba). The New APT also served a wide spectrum of situations, from placement to measurement of student progress and competency. With respect to speaking, the APT aimed to evaluate learner fluency and accuracy in Arabic through conversation, personal background, and topic, situation or picture-based questions (cf. Rammuny 1995, p. 333). According to Rammuny, the examinees taking the oral part were asked not to accommodate Arabic to the geographical dialects, but rather to use the type of Arabic which was linguistically and socially appropriate for each situation (cf. ibid.). Thus, the Arabic Speaking Proficiency Test differed from the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) in terms of duration and administration. The OPI is a conversation lasting 20 to 30 minutes that measures how well a candidate speaks a language by assessing their global speaking ability (ACTFL 2012). While the OPI is individually administered by a certified ACTFL tester, the (New) APT can be handed out to a group of examinees in the language laboratory (cf. Rammuny 1995, p. 337). In the 1990s, the path of the two tests converged and overlapped, as Rammuny (1995) affirmed that both the OPI and the New APT were to be administered to Arabic language students in the 1995 Summer Program at the University of Michigan and at Middlebury College. In 1995, the United States hosted the publication of another influential TAFL work, the textbook Al-Kitaab fii Taʿallum al-ʿArabiyya (A textbook for beginning Arabic; hereafter simply al-Kitaab). The first volume was issued initially in 1995 by Georgetown University Press and was followed by the second and third volumes in 1997 and 2001, respectively (Brustad, al-Batal, and al-Tonsi 1995a, 1995b, 1997, 2001). As Nielsen stated, with al-Kitaab the teaching of Arabic attained a genuine communicative textbook (cf. Nielsen 2009, p. 153). Its authors were Kristen Brustad, Mahmoud al-Batal and Abbas al-Tonsi. The latter two were already renowned in the Arab TAFL

158 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

arena. Al-Tonsi was an Egyptian scholar born in 1950, known for works like the textbook ʿArabiyyat wasāʾil al-iʿlām (Media Arabic) coauthored with Nariman N. Al-Warraki and published in 1989 by the American University of Cairo. Al-Tonsi was a member of the Arabic Language Institute of the American University in Cairo; from 1986 on, he worked as an instructor at the Middlebury Arabic summer school (cf. al-Munaẓẓama 1994) and is currently a senior instructor at Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar.24 The al-Kitaab textbook series used Modern Standard; however, it also provided dialogues in Egyptian Arabic,25 in the narrated story of Maha and Khalid, two Arab Egyptian characters, one living in the United States and one in Egypt. The lessons usually began with vocabulary, then a text, followed by questions and tasks. Soon after came grammatical explanations and exercises. At the end of the lesson a series of activities were proposed, e.g., role-plays, pair and group activities, reading and listening. According to Nielsen (2009), the textbook offered the learner a perspective on Arabic language and culture, pointing to the globalized reality which Arabic has been a part of since the early 1990s. Over time the textbook series became popular worldwide; it was reprinted several times and a third edition came out in 2013.

Conclusion In essence, the 1990s were a period of change in the field of TAFL, while the 1970s and 1980s had ushered the growth and development of the subject. Scholars now found themselves beyond the discovery phase described by al-Nāqa (1985c); they faced new challenges and discussed topics that were poorly debated in the previous period: Arabic proficiency, reference levels, teaching Arabic to heritage learners, etc. To this extent, Elgibali and Taha (p. 80) affirmed that important basic research had to be done on second language acquisition, teaching methodology, materials development and standardized testing. From a similar perspective, Roger Allen tried to describe the programmatic TAFL objectives of the mid-1990s, as he expressed the need ‘to embark upon a whole series of experiments in the teaching and learning of Arabic, approaching the process of curricular planning and innovation with enough flexibility to incorporate within […] 24 Cf. http://alcc.cu.edu.eg/HomeEn.aspx, accessed 21 June 2017. 25 Cf. https://www.alkitaabtextbook.com/books/, accessed 12 September 2018.

New Challenges (1990s)

159

[didactic] goals the wonderfully varied features of the Arabic language that should serve as a constant challenge to […] pedagogical creativity’ (Allen 1995). Furthermore, the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language was now part of a network, where new relationships had officially been established. As assistant director-general of ALECSO ʿAbd al-Wahhāb Būḥdība stated at the Meeting of Tunis: ‘We are on the path of cooperation’ (ʿalà ṭarīq al-taʿāwun).

6

In the Twenty-first Century (2000-2010)

The new century opened with an extraordinary event at an international level, influencing Western society and the Arab world. The incident marking this is commonly referred to as the September 11 attacks or 9/11, which had repercussions in the field of Arabic language learning and teaching: people were prompted to study the language to understand Arab culture and behavior better (cf. al-Ḥamd). The number of students of Arabic in American universities increased sharply, and as Nielsen (2009, p. 154) indicated, figures showed an increment of 92.5 per cent between 1998 and 2002. Student numbers almost doubled from 5505 to 10,584 (cf. Welles) and a similar growth occurred in Europe and in the Arab region. For instance, the Department of Arabic and Near Eastern Languages and the Center for Arabic and Middle East Studies (CAMES) of the American University in Beirut experienced a revival after the attacks (cf. Wilmsen, p. 145). The events of September 11 were not the only reason for the augmented enrollment rates of Arabic language courses at university level. Cultural and economic globalization, together with the political changes in the Middle Eastern region, were also decisive factors. The context once again consisted of the Arab world at the center of the international political scene, including the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, contested elections in Egypt, political assassinations in Lebanon and the beginning of the war in Iraq in 2003. Moreover, there was a growing phenomenon in Western societies: Arab migrants now represented a significant proportion of the population, bringing their culture with them and making Arabic a minority language spoken in many parts of the public sphere in Europe and the United States (cf. Nielsen 2009). At a time of significant turmoil, Marwan Kraidy stressed the developments of MSA as an oral communication language in international Arabic news media. The scholar affirmed that a media-compatible simplified version of MSA, which he named ‘white Arabic’, was becoming a lingua franca for regional public discourse. Furthermore, in 2010, UNESCO officially established World Arabic Language Day (al-yawm al-ʿālamī li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya), which is observed annually on 18 December as a celebration of multilingualism and cultural diversity.1 During this period, eminent TAFL scholars made contributions to the field. Among them was Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa Abū Bakr, who participated in the Riyadh symposium of 1978, ʿAlī Aḥmad Madkūr, Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma, 1

Cf. http://www.un.org/ar/events/languageday/, accessed 24 September 2017.

162 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa, and the first director of Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, hereafter called Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl (Ṣīnī) Ṣāliḥ. 2 Their works stimulated further discussion (e.g., Ṣīnī and al-Amīn; Ṭaʿīma 1985, 1989) as certain scholars referred to them and not only to foreign works, a phenomenon already witnessed in the previous decade (see Chapter 5), which saw TAFL gradually turning into a subject based on Arab scholars’ reference sources. Then, another group of scholars started to establish themselves as experts in the field of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language. Although the aforementioned renowned TAFL veterans still gave input, other younger scholars now engaged in the debates on TAFL, e.g., ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿUṣaylī (Alosaili), Zeinab Taha, Īmān Aḥmad Harīdī, ʿAysà al-Šaryūfī, Basma Aḥmad Ṣidqī al-Daǧānī (Dajani). These scholars offered new perspectives by reporting theories that were previously untouched – or partially so (i.e., ʿAmāyra 1985) – by Arab TAFL scholars such as the Prague school, the Silent Way (ṭarīqa ṣāmita) of Caleb Gattegno, the Natural Approach (madhab ṭabīʿī) of Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell or the Language Acquisition Device (ǧihāz iktisāb al-luġa) of Noam Chomsky (cf. al-ʿUṣaylī 2002). In general, all scholars presented scientific, up-to-date approaches to the discipline, founded on their diverse readings, treasured TAFL experiences and research, as well as linguistics and pedagogy, all of which related them to the achievements and scientific accuracy of the Arab TAFL scholars who wrote in the previous decades in efforts to correct erroneous concepts and bad practices such as alleged Arabic language difficulty or L1 textbooks use for AFL learners (see Chapter 3). Awareness of different class environments and heterogeneity of AFL students was now identified (e.g., Baraka 2000a). For instance, Madkūr and Harīdī clarif ied the differences among AFL for Muslim students, AFL for non-Arabs within the Arab world and that for those outside; they argued that the choice considered influenced the learning and teaching of Arabic. Moreover, the two scholars also informed readers about different learner purposes (e.g., religion, culture, commerce, 2 At a certain point of his career, the famous Saudi scholar Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī (Sieny) substituted his last name with Ṣāliḥ. The idea of changing his name was not new to him though, since he already authored works under the name of Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl in the past (e.g., Ismāʿīl [Ṣīnī] 1975). However, if until the mid-1990s the scholar published his works mainly under the name of Ṣīnī, from the end of the decade his production appears under the name of Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣāliḥ. For instance, at the time of the Khartoum symposium of 2000, the scholar had already changed his last name, so that if one looks at the lecturers that took part in the meeting, the name Ṣīnī does not appear anywhere. Today, the blog of the Saudi scholar is named after the new last name and not the older one. For the sake of clarity, I will mention both names in this study: Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl (Ṣīnī) Ṣāliḥ and provide cross reference in the bibliography. In particular, see under the names: Ismāʿīl [Ṣīnī], Ṣāliḥ [Ṣīnī] and Ṣīnī.

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

163

law, medicine, diplomacy, etc.) and provenances (i.e., Europe, the United States, Asia and Africa). Learning and teaching Arabic was therefore not only a matter of language, but also of culture. Furthermore, a growing interest in the internet and new technologies in teaching was witnessed (Madkūr 2003; Madkūr and Harīdī). Particularly relevant to the diversification of language learning scope is ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿUṣaylī (Alosaili), a Saudi scholar who devoted much attention to the specificities of AFL Muslim learners, namely the core market of Saudi TAFL institutes and the focus of Saudi TAFL since its onset (see Chapter 4 and Chapter 5). These learners needed not only distinct instruction, but also different learning material, as other scholars had previously highlighted (e.g., Bahǧat 1980; Ṭaʿīma 1982; Ṣīnī et al. 1991, 1994, 1995). In addition, al-ʿUṣaylī asserted that some teaching methods like audio-lingual instruction did not correspond to all aspects of the Arabic language, as typical communicative situations did not favor learners of MSA in their interactions with Arabic speakers (nāṭiqūn bi-l-luġa). Similarly, AFL Muslim learners could hardly take advantage of the communicative approach. Al-ʿUṣaylī was not the only author that showed this professional awareness, though. In 2004, ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥāmid reedited the AFL textbook series of Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University of Riyadh (al-Ḥāmid), which was mainly dedicated to training AFL Muslim students in Arabic and Arab-Islamic culture, including religion as a whole. Beside institutions, the centers for the teaching of Arabic to non-Arabs remained fairly unchanged, with some exceptions and new openings. For example, the TAFL Center of Al-Mustansiriyah University in Baghdad had closed due to greater forces to then reopen recently. In Oman, the University of Nizwa (Ǧāmiʿat Nazwà) was established in 2004, followed shortly after by its TAFL Center, called the Dhad Institute for TASOL (Maʿhad al-ḍād li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā).3 In Lebanon, an AFL program was launched at the American University in Beirut from 2001 and it comprised two separate approaches to the study-abroad experience (cf. Wilmsen). In Syria, the Francophone Digital Campus of Aleppo University (Ǧāmiʿat Ḥalab) was inaugurated in 2006, when it started its Teaching Arabic Language through the Culture of the Orient program (cf. Jamous and Chik), based on the principle of language and culture immersion. On the status of TAFL institutes, Madkūr and Harīdī left a complete account. At the same time, the two scholars affirmed their cooperation to issue up-to-date AFL textbooks that contained CDs and helped students to face Arabic language learning challenges. 3

Cf. http://www.unizwa.edu.om/dhad/index.php, accessed 19 February 2018.

164 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

The institutes remained based in a significant number of Arab countries: Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania, but also Oman, Qatar, Morocco, Algeria, Syria and Lebanon. In Egypt, there were four main institutes and countless other private schools, which are not cited in this study due to space limits. These institutes included the American University in Cairo (AUC), the Arabic Language and Culture Center (ALCC) of Cairo University, the TAFL Center of Alexandria and the Arabic Language Education Center for Foreign Students, also referred to as Maʿhad al-Qāhira in this study. At AUC students had the opportunity to enroll in the CASA program, where they developed and strengthened the four language skills both in Modern Standard and Egyptian Colloquial Arabic according to ACTFL standards. In addition, prospective teachers could enroll in the TAFL master’s degree and diploma programs, which comprised courses in current methods of teaching Arabic to children, writing system reform, grammar reform movements and issues relating to diglossia. 4 Furthermore, two other institutes in Egypt enlivened the TAFL scene. In 2005, the Institute for Education Studies of Cairo University (Maʿhad al-dirāsāt al-tarbawiyya bi-Ǧāmiʿat al-Qāhira) started a diploma program for prospective teachers of Arabic as a foreign language. At the end of the decade, al-Azhar University officialized its TAFL experience, which had already been imparted by ʿAlī Aḥmad ʿAlī al-Ḫaṭīb in the 1990s (in al-Munaẓẓama 1992; UAPR) and later by Madkūr and Harīdī. In 2010, the Al Sheikh Zayed Center for Teaching Arabic to Non-natives (Markaz al-Šayḫ Zāyid li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) was officially established in Nasr City (Cairo, Egypt) by a decree of the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Aḥmad Muḥammad Aḥmad al-Ṭayyib (el-Tayeb). The center is also referred to with its short name: Markaz al-Azhar (al-Azhar Center). The reason for its foundation was to instruct learners in all language skills, allowing them to continue their studies at al-Azhar University. In this sense, language (MSA) lessons not only served the function of preparing students for future careers, they also enabled them to learn about all fields of human activity (našāṭ insānī). According to the center director, Maḥmūd ʿAbduh Aḥmad Faraǧ, Arabic language learning gives access to Arab-Islamic culture.5 Other aims of the center concerned test preparation, textbook drafting, e-learning course planning and the prospective AFL teacher training. To this extent, its scholars and trainers displayed a scientific commitment to applied 4 Cf. http://catalog.aucegypt.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=15&poid=1786&returnto=4 74, accessed 26 June 2017. 5 Cf. http://azhar-ali.com/go/, accessed 7 January 2018.

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

165

linguistics, being involved in Arabic language testing and theoretical debates about TAFL in general. In particular, Arabic language test construction seemed to be a major challenge, shared among other TAFL centers and institutes all over the Arab world, beyond Markaz al-Azhar. In Egypt (Maʿhad al-Qāhira), Kuwait and Tunisia, other institutes used Arabic placement tests (imtiḥān taḥdīd al-mustawà) to assign students in the appropriate class according to their level of language knowledge. AFL testing was a didactic need, which was not exhaustively dealt with until the following decade when scholars from around the world met at Casa Árabe in Madrid to discuss this and other TAFL issues (see Chapter 7). In Saudi Arabia, the strongholds of TAFL continued to play a key role in the field. For instance, Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà continued to offer courses both to AFL Muslim learners and to prospective AFL teachers. The curriculum was organized in three levels and language was placed alongside literature, rhetoric and Islamic studies. Teachers used the ‘integrated graded unit system’ (tanẓīm al-waḥdāt al-mutadarriǧa wa-l-mutakāmila), which favored specific learner needs aligning them to language and cultural contents (cf. Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 126). Beside these institutes was the King Abdulaziz University TAFL Institute (Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā bi-Ǧāmiʿat al-malik ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz) based in Jeddah – Maʿhad Ǧudda – established in 2010 (1431 H)6 and the Medina Islamic University (al-Ǧāmiʿa al-islāmiyya bi-l-Madīna al-Munawwara), where a sizeable number of non-Arab students who had not mastered Arabic were enrolled in diverse courses that were difficult for them to follow. For this reason, the Medina Islamic University Arabic language teaching division (šuʿbat taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya bi-l-Ǧāmiʿa al-islāmiyya bi-l-Madīna al-Munawwara) established in 1966 (cf. al-Rabbāḥ) decided to become a fullfledged center called the Institute for Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers (Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) from 2001 (1422 H) on. This offered AFL courses to students from over 150 different countries, who were given the possibility to pursue their studies. Lessons began with a placement test designating each student to one of four different levels. The teaching staff were from different origins also, as the institute attracted instructors from Egypt, Sudan, Syria and, more recently, Saudi Arabia. Additionally, Maʿhad al-Madīna offered training for prospective teachers of Arabic (cf. al-Rabbāḥ). In the kingdom, Arabic for All (al-ʿarabiyya li-l-ǧamīʿ) was established in Riyadh in 2001 (1421 H). This venture aimed to spread the Arabic language/ Islamic culture as well as support TAFL centers and teachers all over the world, apart from realizing important AFL course books that satisfied 6 Cf. http://ali.kau.edu.sa/, accessed 5 January 2018.

166 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

learner needs and exploited new technologies benefiting Arabic language learning,7 i.e., radio, television, computer and internet (cf. Āl al-Šayḫ 2011, p. ii). Accordingly, it has been collaborating with many partners throughout the five continents, e.g., Bosnia Herzegovina, Switzerland, Morocco, Uganda, South Africa, Kazakhstan, China, Brazil, Australia, etc., to provide training sessions for prospective Arabic language teachers following modern teaching methods. Moreover, since 2002, it has issued its own course book series entitled al-ʿArabiyya bayna yaday-ka (Arabic between your hands), with consecutive improved editions over the years (Āl al-Šayḫ 2011, 2014) and the recently published fourth volume. This was made possible thanks to the training conducted abroad in addition to the help of students, experts at Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ and above all one teacher there, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ẓāfir al-Qaḥṭānī (cf. Āl al-Šayḫ 2011, p. iii). In the rest of the Arab world, other institutes established themselves as trustworthy for the longevity of their activity, e.g., the Bourguiba School in Tunis, the Yarmouk University Language Center, Markaz ʿAmmān, Maʿhad al-Zarqāʾ in Jordan and the IUA Institute in Sudan. Some specialized during their continuance. For example, the Bourguiba School, bastion of TAFL in Tunisia, had now published a new textbook series in which the editors al-ʿUtmānī and al-Swīsī (2009a) stressed the maturity of the Tunisian institute in the introduction. They affirmed that teaching practice was now fully developed (nuḍǧ) and it was characterized by integrity (iktimāl) of methods and pedagogic tools. The school could also rely on its international reputation, still representing the choice of many students worldwide, who traveled to Tunisia to study Arabic. Its know-how was to be acknowledged: it had emerged from classroom practice, following modern approaches and now included the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) as a standard (al-ʿUtmānī and al-Swīsī 2009a). In Jordan, Markaz ʿAmmān, offered lessons in Arabic for specific purposes, e.g., diplomacy, politics and economics (cf. al-Daǧānī), along with traditional AFL courses. It also set up new programs and partnerships, like those with the Middlebury College and the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), hosting 350 students of 35 different nationalities each year.8 In 2008, it even organized the First International Conference on TAFL, where Amīn al-Kuḫun presented an interesting 25-year retrospective (1982-2007) of TAFL in Jordan, in a collaborative effort with a vast number of other scholars, e.g., Dāwūd ʿAbduh, Victoria Aguilar, Basma Aḥmad Ṣidqī al-Daǧānī and Hādiyā Ḫazna Kātibī. 7 8

Cf. http://arabicforall.net/ar/about-us, accessed 4 August 2017. Cf. http://centers.ju.edu.jo/ar/ujlc/Pages/CNNaboutus.aspx, accessed 18 May 2017.

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

167

In turn, the IUA Institute teaching staff was highly qualified since it was now comprised instructors that completed their MA in TAFL at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm. Of note were the activities on TAFL carried out in Kuwait; in particular, the Arabic Language for Foreigners Unit (waḥdat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib) of the Kuwait University Language Center, which had already received acclaim in TAFL literature thanks to a weighty report by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ṣāliḥ (see Chapter 3). Other TAFL experiences outside the Arab world took place in reference to the decade. For instance, AFL teacher training sessions were regularly organized; in particular, they were held in Malang, Lambung (Indonesia), Penang (Malaysia) and Sian (China).9 In addition, in 2000, the Saudi scholar ʿAysà al-Šaryūfī, who had contributed to the debate on TAFL the decade before, now was taking part in an institutional visit to Taiwan with aims to promote cooperation in the field of Arabic language teaching. Activities carried out in the United States concerning TAFL at high school and university level were also reported; e.g., the Sister Clara Muhammad Schools and Al-Noor School (madrasat al-nūr al-islāmiyya) founded in Brooklyn10 in 1995 (cf. Rashid and Muhammad; al-Rīḥ; Madkūr and Harīdī). These and other schools were coordinated by the Muslim American Society Council for Islamic Schools (MASCIS), founded in 1993, which aimed to reconcile the education policies and methodologies of American Islamic schools. In this, the MASCIS encouraged Islamic education through the teaching of Arabic and the Arab-Islamic cultural legacy (turāt ʿarabī islāmī). In some of these schools, Arabic was taught through the renowned book series al-ʿArabiyya li-l-ḥayā (Arabic for life) (Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1983), officially adopted and used since 2000 (Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 57), assuring reading and comprehension activities on Arab-Islamic culture. Similarly, the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in Fairfax, Virginia, used another creditable textbook (cf. ibid., p. 132), issued by Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University of Riyadh.

Broader Debates Between 2000 and 2010 many conferences and meetings were organized. These were held in Europe, Asia (i.e., Taiwan) and the Arab world, where Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm played a prominent role. TAFL was now globally discussed and recognized at an international level; the debates were open to different 9 Cf. http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/3046/Pages/training.aspx, accessed 16 May 2017. 10 Cf. http://www.alnoornyc.org/, accessed 15 May 2017.

168 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

ideas and prospects, ergo the contagion of scholarly perspectives. For instance, in 2004, al-ʿArḍāwī reported French philosopher Gaston Bachelard’s (1884-1962) visions of mistakes, which were not considered as mere errors (ġalaṭ), but as having a different role in helping examine difficulties (tašḫīṣ al-ṣuʿūbāt), indispensable for truth, as Bachelard maintained: pas de vérité sans erreur rectifiée (lā ḥaqīqa bi-dūna ḫaṭāʾ). During discussions and on paper, both old and new debates coexisted in this period. These were, for example, teacher training, the TAFL teacher profile, etc. Other debates were now better esteemed in the Arab world and by Arab TAFL scholars, despite the fact that discussions had defined TAFL ever since it reached beyond the Arab region. Matters shaping TAFL reflected not only the bond between language and culture, but also the role of language, its teaching and learning in the era of technology, computer science and internet. Moreover, the question of computer-assisted instruction (CAI) was not new in the field of TAFL; however, it was rarely considered by Arab scholars within their homelands (e.g., al-Qāsimī 1979; Ṣīnī 1985; al-Swīsī 1992). This topic had often been addressed in debates and publications in the United States since the early 1970s (e.g., Abboud 1971, 1978; al-Batal 1995; Parkinson; Alhawary 2001, etc.). In this decade, Madkūr and Harīdī inquired how to adapt Arabic in the era of computer science and accordingly discussed didactic implications (see also ʿAbd Allāh; Madkūr 2003; al-Qaḥṭānī; al-Tinqārī and ʿUmar). Along the same line were the venerable Nabīl ʿAlī (1994, 2001) and the Jordanian linguist and educator Nuhād al-Musà, who specifically reflected on the relationships between Arabic language, new technologies and computational linguistics (i.e., al-Musà 2000). Al-Musà was the object of a dedication by Walīd al-ʿAnātī, whose work probed the scholar’s philosophy (ruʾà manhaǧiyya) in regards to Arabic language teaching methodologies (cf. al-ʿAnātī). Teacher training, one of the most debated TAFL topics since its birth, was to be focused on once again during this decade. In October 2000, ALECSO organized a symposium at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm, entitled Symposium on the Development of Programs for Teachers of Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages (nadwat taṭwīr barāmiǧ iʿdād muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà). As speakers had similarly asserted in the 1990s, the lecturers taking the floor at the symposium attested the best practices in the field, echoing scholarly publications (Bābā; Ṭāhir; Ṭaʿīma 2002; Ḫazna Kātibī 2003; al-Tinqārī; al-Ḥabīb) of the same decade concerning TAFL in Southeast Asia and Africa, especially in Uganda, Senegal and Cameroon (see below). For example, during the symposium, Essaid M. Badawi informed the audience on the master of arts in TAFL offered at the American University

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

169

in Cairo since the late 1970s; Muḥammad Zāyid Baraka (2000b) reported on the adeptness of Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm, the ʿAysà al-Šaryūfī AFL teacher training sessions of King Saʿud University and the Tāǧ al-Sirr Bašīr experience at the International University of Africa (IUA) Arabic Language Institute, hereafter shortened to IUA Institute (al-Šaryūfī 2000; Bašīr 2000). In addition, Ḥaḍīḍ al-Ṣāʿidī reported the experience of the ‘Arabic language teaching division’ (šuʿbat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya) of the Islamic University of Medina, which had been active since the late 1960s (cf. al-Ṣāʿidī; al-Rabbāḥ). In these lectures, other more focused presentations are to be included, such as that by the Palestinian scholar Ḫalīl Aḥmad ʿAmāyra, who stressed the cultural preparation of TAFL teachers (ʿAmāyra 2000), the Saudi scholars Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl (Ṣīnī) Ṣāliḥ and ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿUṣaylī, who discussed the professional aspects of TAFL teacher training and the implications of microteaching 11 (tadrīs muṣaġġar) in the training sessions (respectively, al-ʿUṣaylī 2000; Ṣāliḥ [Ṣīnī] 2000). Scholarly contributions of this period also dealt with the crucial issue of teacher training. For example, ʿAzz al-Dīn al-Būšayḫī (Bouchikhi) queried whether TAFL programs were in step with modern FLT theoretical progress (cf. al-Būšayḫī). Similarly, Madkūr and Harīdī explored the philosophy AFL teacher training programs were based on, while also examining the relative objective and content selections. In this, the two scholars analyzed both prior (Madkūr 1985) and recent reports (e.g., ʿAmāyra 2000; Bašīr 2000; al-Ṣāʿidī) and consequently updated them. They informed readers that Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ taught Arabic by means of considerably up-to-date methods (see also al-Šaryūfī 2000), while Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà favored the study of grammar, morphology, literature, rhetoric and Islamic studies. Moreover, some of the programs that were examined demonstrated to still have learners placed in proficiency level determined by the placement test at the start of the course. However, what the two authors now stressed was that no philosophy or vision was the basis of these programs, nor was there a proper focus on culture. Some of the lectures presented in Khartoum in 2000, along with subsequent scholarly contributions in the years to come, concentrated more on the TAFL teacher profile, an offshoot of teacher training, previously discussed (Madkūr 1985; al-Swīsī 1992; Badrān; ʿAmāyra 1998) and now called into question again. Regarding the symposium recommendations, lecturers called for proper training outside the Arab world, and therefore 11 With the term ‘microteaching’ I refer to the formative practice aimed to get constructive feedback so to improve teaching techniques. The term was coined at Stanford University by Dwight W. Allen (1967) in the mid-1960s.

170 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

turned to ALECSO, ISESCO and other institutes in order to have their requests realized. In the same year, Ǧābir ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Ǧābir published a work entitled Mudarris al-qarn al-ḥādī wa-l-ʿišrīn, al-mahārāt wa-l-tanmiya al-mihniyya (Twenty-first-century teacher, skills and professional development), in which he stressed the concept of professionalism (sulūk mihnī) (cf. Ǧābir). Two years later, in 2002, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿUṣaylī denounced that prospective teachers of AFL lacked preparation in education and were not proficient in any foreign language. For this reason, they only read works in translation, which in any case represented a minor part of the references on Foreign Language Teaching (FLT) available. Still AFL instructors were usually knowledgeable about Arabic language and literature; notwithstanding, the Saudi scholar added that they had to also master the history and development of the language in order to teach Arabic in class (cf. al-ʿUṣaylī 2002, p. 266). In 2004, the Tunisian scholar al-Hāšimī al-ʿArḍāwī furthered the debate. He affirmed that ASL teachers had to suitably know what their students had in mind, so as to help them improve their comprehension skills (cf. al-ʿArḍāwī, p. 85). Citing Canadian scholar Jacques Tardif (p. 116) and French Professor Michel Grangeat (p. 115), al-ʿArḍāwī also asserted that teachers had to possess scientific knowledge in second language learning and teaching, so as to strategically employ it in class and become a source of comprehension (maṣdar li-taḥsīn al-fahm) for their students rather than a source of imperatives and instructions (imlāʾāt wa-awāmir) as it was in the past. A more complete contribution on the issue is by Madkūr and Harīdī (p. 135), in a work providing both a series of guidelines for the proper training of TAFL teachers and a list of common topics that should be known in order to teach Arabic. In general, the authors stated that AFL teachers were not properly prepared; they usually did not take into consideration the particularities of their learners or the uniqueness of the learning environment. Hence, they drew on the contributions of Arab and non-Arab scholars (Catron and Allen; Ǧābir) and affirmed that the ideal teacher should be motivated (šaḫṣiyya dāfiʿiyya), behave professionally and have a propensity for success (tawāǧuh naḥwa al-naǧāḥ).12 In addition, an educator should be a cultivated person (šaḫṣ mutaqqaf ) that promotes the use of technology together with the four language skills, above all listening. The two authors maintained that all language skills had to be practiced in class, however, 12 The authors also cite the paper entitled ‘Teacher Enthusiasm: Behaviors Reported by Teachers and Students’ presented by V. Caruso, at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, held in New York in 1982.

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

171

to varying degrees: listening 45 per cent, speaking 30 per cent, reading 16 per cent, and writing 9 per cent, a thesis already supported by Madkūr four years before (cf. Madkūr 2002; Madkūr and Harīdī). This position contrasted with that of other scholars, such as Badawi, Elgibali and Taha, who would give students stacks of reading material in Arabic to improve their comprehension (see Chapter 5). Madkūr and Harīdī therefore outlined the TAFL teacher profile, as they described their ideal qualities, but also discussed themes related to classroom practice that partially involved teacher duties to their learners, thus examining the question in depth. Similarly, other scholars (ʿAbd al-Salām 2006; Hārūn) propounded their standpoints on the matter in the journal of Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Muḥammad Hārūn wrote an article on the fundamental skills of a Muslim teacher in the era of globalization. Once again, the topic of TAFL teacher training and profile took the lion’s share of the debates on Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language, confirming that even after 30 years the discussion had not been fully expounded yet. In January 2003, ALECSO organized another gathering at Maʿhad alḪarṭūm, the Symposium on the Teaching of Arabic for Specific Purposes (nadwat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-aġrāḍ ḫāṣṣa). On this occasion, lecturers who spoke about the main topic of the meeting included Ṭaʿīma (2003b), and al-Imām, who made a presentation on Arabic for journalism (al-ʿarabiyya li-aġrāḍ ṣaḥāfiyya). In addition, they spoke about other topics, such as the linguistic requisites of AFL teachers (cf. Abū Bakr 2003a), the TAFL experience of American schools, while giving particular attention to the Muslim American Society Council for Islamic Schools (MASCIS) (cf. al-Rīḥ). Of note is a second presentation by Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa Abū Bakr, who contributed to the field of Arabic for specific purposes with a lecture entitled ‘Naḥwa manhaǧ taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā min aǧl fahm al-Qurʾān al-Karīm’ (Toward a method of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language for understanding the Sacred Quran). His presentation was dedicated to Arabic language teaching for the sake of the Holy Qur’an (Abū Bakr 2003b) and recalled approaches and positions developed by other TAFL scholars in the previous decades (i.e., Bahǧat 1980; Ṭaʿīma 1982; al-Nāqa 1985a; Ṣīnī et al. 1991, 1994, 1995; ʿUbaydāt in ʿAbd al-Ḫāliq; al-ʿUṣaylī 2002; al-Ḥāmid). The teaching of Arabic for specific purposes was such a debated topic, that other scholars (e.g., Arbi 2001; al-ʿUṣaylī 2002; al-Daǧānī; Madkūr and Harīdī) turned their attention to it. For example, Madkūr and Harīdī (pp. 129-130) outlined the various typologies under the description ‘specific’ purposes. The two authors identified three of them: Arabic for religious purposes (al-ʿarabiyya li-aġrāḍ islāmiyya), for politics and economics

172 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

(li-aġrāḍ siyāsiyya wa-iqtiṣādiyya) and for orientalist purposes (li-aġrāḍ ḫāṣṣa bi-ʿamaliyyāt istišrāqiyya). To these branches, the authors added the aforementioned Arabic for journalism, as well as Arabic for science and technology (al-ʿarabiyya li-aġrāḍ al-ʿulūm wa-l-tiknūlūǧiyā), in which the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals based in Dhahran (Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Fahd li-l-bitrūl wa-l-maʿādin) and other oil companies of the Gulf recently specialized (Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 129). The driving forces of appeal for certain micro-linguistic aspects over others are various. With respect to this, Madkūr and Harīdī affirmed that learners of Arabic for politics and economics are usually moved either by touristic or other material reasons, whereas those learning it for religious purposes generally want to attain a better knowledge of Islam and the culture, as scholars had indicated before (al-Nāqa 1985a). In this sense, Āl al-Šayḫ (2011) stressed Arabic diversity compared to other languages: Arabic was learned for religion (dīn) and worship (ʿibāda). Noteworthy mention: the reflections made by al-ʿUṣaylī in his work published one year before the above cited dedicated symposium (al-ʿUṣaylī 2002). The Saudi scholar’s main aim was to describe writing problems of AFL students, who represent a typology of learners related to Arabic for specific purposes, or more precisely ‘Arabic for religious purposes’ (taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-aġrāḍ dīniyya). Al-ʿUṣaylī discussed the specificities of such learners and underlined that AFL Muslim students often tend to write words following the Quranic and not the MSA version (e.g., ayyu-ha instead of ayyu-hā). This discursively links al-ʿUṣaylī to more extensive contemplation; in other words, the pedagogical implications of ‘teaching Arabic for specific purposes’, which differs from TAFL as a whole. AFL Muslim learners have usually been exposed to Arabic before, especially regarding written texts like the Holy Qur’an and its recitation. As a result, the classes of AFL Muslim learners differ from simple AFL ones, and can be partially related to the ASL student learning process as well as TASL dynamics in general (see also Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 118). At the end of 2003, Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm organized another meeting, where directors of Arab TAFL centers convened, similar to the event in Tunis in the early 1990s. Not by chance, the conference bore a comparable name: Meeting of the Directors of TAFL Centers (iǧtimāʿ mudīrī maʿāhid taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà), hereafter referred to as the Meeting of Khartoum. During the meeting, the center directors addressed various topics. Among the participants was Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma, who spoke about TAFL centers in general (Ṭaʿīma 2003a). The fact that the center directors succeeded in assembling together for one dedicated event to reflect on the current and future challenges of the institutes and TAFL, meant that the

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

173

aims of the International Cooperation Board established during the 1980s and the 1990s had been somewhat fulfilled and a sort of network had been created. To this extent, further meetings were held at ISESCO in Rabat in May 2008 (cf. Šabbākī, p. 155). In September 2009, another important TAFL event took place, this time outside the Arab world, in Spain. The Congreso Internacional sobre Enseñanza del Árabe como Lengua Extranjera (henceforth Arabele2009) held in Madrid at Casa Árabe was different from the other conferences of the same decade, as it rekindled networking opportunities characteristic of the early days of TAFL in the Arab world. Arabele2009 managed to attract TAFL scholars from the Arab world, Europe and North America; it was not only regional but international in its scope. TAFL scholars there confronted positions and experiences once again, consonant to what had been done at the symposia in Riyadh or Rabat between the late 1970s and early 1980s. Scholars spoke about diglossia, teaching methods, new technologies applied to TAFL, error analysis, Arabic language proficiency, etc. (e.g., Alosh 2010; Younes 2010). Their contributions were compiled one year later in the proceedings of the conference by Aguilar, Pérez Cañada, and Santillán Grimm. This volume presents select lectures by the conference participants, which include the noteworthy cultural competence guidelines by Chekayri (2010) and the virtual method project Árabe en Línea (AeL) of Barcelona University described by Emilia Calvo (in Calvo et al.). The success of this event encouraged organizers to propose another meeting at the same location three years later (see Chapter 7). In the last months of 2009, two more important meetings were held in the Arab world: one in Riyadh and the other in Khartoum. The first was organized at Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ in November and was entitled International Conference on the Teaching of Arabic to Non-native Speakers (al-muʾtamar al-ʿālamī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā). Lecturers mainly came from the Arab world and presented various TAFL topics, such as learner mistakes by ʿĀṣim ʿĀmir, oral skill assessment following ACTFL guidelines by Muḥammad Būnaǧma and language planning by Fawwāz A. al-Zabūn. Other participants were Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa, Walīd al-ʿAnātī, and Nāṣir A. al-Ġālī and Saʿad al-Qaḥṭānī, who both referred to the Riyadh conference. Moreover, in this case lecturer contributions were collected in a volume of proceedings published online. The second meeting was held at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm between 28 and 29 December, it dealt with the use of new technologies in the TAFL field and was entitled International Symposium – New Technologies in Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers (al-nadwa al-duwaliyya – istiḫdām al-tiqniyyāt al-ḥadīta fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya

174 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā). Conferees agreed that new technologies had to be exploited in the AFL class to meliorate learning and teaching. Furthermore, in the meeting recommendations, scholars called for the diffusion of Arabic through the internet, besides the design of new programs, and the creation of new materials that galvanize cooperation between learners and the program (cf. Ramaḍān, p. 48). Other debates during this period involved the question of diglossia, adequacy of teaching methods in connection with Arabic, AFL textbooks and the bond between language and culture. While, the matter of diglossia remained the focus of the TAFL debates by and large. Interestingly, it was now integrated in the TAFL studies proposed by Arab scholars (Arbi 2001; al-ʿUṣaylī 2002; Madkūr and Harīdī), often as a starting point in further developing the discussions on ‘how’ to teach Arabic and not as the main research focus. For example, al-ʿUṣaylī encouraged studying Modern Standard Arabic, which he described as the language of the Holy Qur’an and did not place much importance on colloquial varieties, which – according to him – are not destined to become independent languages (al-ʿUṣaylī 2002, p. 177). Similarly, Madkūr and Harīdī (p. 79) argued that MSA should be the only teaching language in the AFL class: Giving too much vocabulary of the same concept, first in MSA then in one or more colloquial varieties, would disorient learners, a position analogous to what Tammām Ḥassān affirmed in the early 1980s (cf. Ḥassān 1983). The Saudi scholar ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿUṣaylī criticized the inadequacy of some teaching methods like the audio-lingual one (ṭarīqa samʿiyya šafahiyya) in connection with MSA. The method fostered communicative situations that resulted unprofitable for those learners who wanted to have contact with Arabic language speakers. This dysfunction was due to the diglossic nature of Arabic, to which al-ʿUṣaylī referred by citing the levels of Arabic theorized in the influential work by Badawi published in 1973 (cf. Badawi 1973). Madkūr and Harīdī also dealt with the problem of diglossia, mentioning Badawi’s levels of Arabic, and then went on to discuss more practical applications of Arabic language teaching. Taking a different stance, Munther Younes (2010) gave another contribution to the integrated approach, previously mentioned (see Chapter 5), which combined the study of both Modern Standard and Colloquial Arabic and was now part of the United States National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. This denoted that Arabic teaching ‘should adopt an integrative approach that allows the learner to develop control of the communication process’ (NSFLEP, p. 115), thus focusing on the five Cs, namely Communication, Cultures, Connections, Comparison and Communities (cf. Ryding 2013, p. 76).

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

175

Another debate that drew scholars’ attention was the partial adequacy of Foreign Language Teaching (FLT) theories and methods in connection with the Arabic language specific status. According to al-ʿArḍāwī learning Arabic was a complex task (ʿamaliyya muʿaqqada), which required strong language and communication skills (kifāyāt lisāniyya wa-tawāṣuliyya) barely attainable by ASL learners in schools due to various problems like, for instance, the use of instructions (taʿlīmāt). With respect to this, al-ʿUṣaylī (2002) pointed out that unless the orientations and ideas conceived in the teaching of foreign languages by European or North American scholars all in all were easily applied to the Arabic language, further discussion and modifications would be necessary. The question raised by the Saudi scholar may have come from his own reflections and observations, especially those stemming from his numerous readings, including work by North American and European FLT scholars. However, this question could also be observed in relation to another important issue, which has kept scholars busy to the present: the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) on Arabic. The translation of the CEFR into Arabic raised questions and many scholars pondered whether the document could be considered a proper tool and framework of reference for Arabic. The matter is still so debated among both Arab and non-Arab scholars that in October 2014 the Université du Québec à Montréal held the first international conference dedicated to the implications of CEFR and Arabic, Le CECRL et la didactique de l’arabe: bilan et horizons. The presentations at the conference were published in 2017 in a volume of proceedings edited by Hoda Moucannas and Nejmeddine Khalfallah. There, as in previous and later occasions, scholars had the opportunity to discuss this specific topic,13 at times also elaborating their reflections in writings (i.e., Toonen; Facchin 2012, 2014; Al Beibi; Aguilar et al.; Pashova; Saʿīd and Muḥammad; Būʿattūr; Moucannas and Khalfallah; Giolfo and Salvaggio 2018b; Soliman 2018). Finally, the bond between language and culture was a prominent object of debate during the same period. As many scholars (Makkī; Rammuny 1980c; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; Badawi and Yūnis 1983; Ḥassān 1983; al-Nāqa 1985a, 1985c; Ṭaʿīma 1982, 1986, 1990; al-Ġumārī in al-Munaẓẓama 1992; Elgibali and Taha) previously sustained, culture is a fundamental aspect of language learning. Moreover, research demonstrated that learners of Arabic as a Foreign Language were – and are – particularly interested in Arab-Islamic culture (e.g., al-Nāqa 1985a). This expedited Arab TAFL scholars to discuss, once again, the relationship between culture and language (Ṭaʿīma 2002; Abū 13 For conference presentations on this topic see Chapter 7.

176 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Bakr 2003b; Madkūr 2003; al-ʿArḍāwī; Madkūr and Harīdī). Ṭaʿīma (2002) affirmed that language and culture are two sides of the same coin (waǧhān li-ʿumla wāḥida), while al-ʿArḍāwī – citing Rušdī Aḥmad himself – insisted on the fact that the knowledge of cultural concepts (dalālāt taqāfiyya) veiled by language use in different situations is essential for the teacher of Arabic as a Second Language (cf. Ṭaʿīma 1989, p. 25). Following this, Madkūr and Harīdī developed an approach resolutely encompassing culture (see below). Previous debates were also examined by scholars, who referred to ‘traditional’ TAFL urgencies once more. Al-ʿUṣaylī (2002), Madkūr and Harīdī presented the problem of AFL textbooks, a topic extensively discussed in the previous decades, especially during the 1980s, when the first versions of the Basic Arabic course were issued (e.g., Badawi and Yūnis 1983; Ṭaʿīma and al-Nāqa [1983] 2009). In this period, scholars decried that the morphological rules were often introduced randomly in textbooks, were explained through traditional methods and were adapted to be consistent with Arab essays; however, these rules did not take into consideration AFL learner training needs.

Methods From 2000 to 2010, Arabic language teaching methods and FLT in general were examined in depth. Methods were discussed and Arab TAFL scholars took stances. In Tunisia, at the Bourguiba School (also shortened IBLV), a series of methodological principles were now written and better specified; the contents and language of textbooks were reconsidered. Lesson topics concentrated on the Tunisian reality (al-wāqiʿ al-tūnisī), its current events as well as its cultural, environmental, architectural and social heritage, where other realities were implied, e.g., Arab-Islamic, Mediterranean, Maghrebi and African, as Yūsuf al-ʿUtmānī, the Bourguiba School director, substantiated in the textbook series introduction (al-ʿUtmānī and al-Swīsī 2009a). Events were presented through a simplified language free from complexity and guttural sounds (ibid.). The overall objective of TAFL was to help learners become autonomous. As Canu recently reported, the Bourguiba School method changed from the grammar-translation method to the ‘integrated communicative’ approach (ṭarīqa tawāṣuliyya takāmuliyya), by means of the audio-lingual orientation and ‘traditional’ communicative approach. In this new teaching philosophy, the principles contained in the CEFR are considered. To this extent, the integrated communicative approach has been defined by Fāḍil al-Swīsī, one of the Bourguiba School teachers and scholars

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

177

(cf. Canu, p. 185). This is not to be confused with the integrated approach (ṭarīqa takāmuliyya), whose most eminent proponent is Munther Younes (see Chapter 5). The approach described by Fāḍil al-Swīsī represents an evolution of the Bourguiba School method as it focuses on communication as the main objective of language learning and teaching. Similarly, another IBLV teacher, Muḥammad al-Tūmī, asserted (in Canu, p. 53) that production activities usually concern authentic (ḥaqīqī) communicative situations, which help learners in their immediate needs (istiʿmāl taṭbīqī) when residing in Tunis, e.g., administrative issues, café orders, etc. Undoubtedly, the centrality attributed to communication by al-Swīsī and al-Tūmī echoes the Bourguiba School method and can be connected to the original teaching philosophy of the Tunisian institute (see Chapter 3). Furthermore, al-Swīsī puts an emphasis on the Second Language learning environment specifics, its external influences, and language skills development along with the acquisition of sociocultural competence (mahāra iǧtimāʿiyya taqāfiyya), which is fundamental for communication (cf. Canu, p. 54). This progress is achieved in two ways: satisfying learner training needs and through workshops on culture (Cours de civilisation contemporaine) usually held during IBLV summer sessions. However, according to al-Swīsī, the integrated communicative approach not only aims to develop communicative competence, but also expands its strategies through the use of audio-visual tools, structural and sentence transformation exercises, which were discarded by the traditional communicative approach. The approach here seems more of an eclectic method rather than an integrated approach, despite being greatly influenced by the communicative approach. The teacher plays a central role in classroom practice and leads students as a facilitator, satisfying their quest for knowledge of the studied language. As regards scholarly debates on language teaching methods in this period, Arab TAFL authors cited old and new methods and rediscovered tradition, while defending their viewpoint. For instance, Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma elucidated methodological developments in FLT, namely suggestopedia, the humanistic approach (madḫal insānī), total physical response (ṭarīqat al-istiǧāba al-ḥarakiyya al-kulliyya) and the interactive approach (madḫal tafāʿulī).14 Similarly, al-ʿUṣaylī (2002) reported on the subsequent language teaching philosophies on a time line and evinced the theoreticians and relative philosophies founding the most influential theories, e.g., Pavlov, Skinner, Edward Lee Thorndike, Ferdinand de Saussure, John Watson, 14 Cf. http://www.voiceofarabic.net/ar/articles/2009, accessed 3 December 2017.

178 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Henry Sweet, Otto Jespersen, Jean Piaget, Leonard Bloomf ield, Robert Lado, Stephen Krashen, Noam Chomsky, etc. These were the structural (naẓariyya bunyawiyya), behavioral (sulūkiyya), cognitive (maʿrifiyya) and transformational-generative (tawlīdiyya taḥwīliyya) theories. The report echoed a more exhaustive work by the same author issued in Riyadh three years before (al-ʿUṣaylī 1999). The work was entitled al-Naẓariyyāt al-luġawiyya wa-l-nafsiyya wa-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya (Psycholinguistic theories and Arabic language teaching), as it centered on the topic of foreign language teaching methods and theories. In 2006, Madkūr and Harīdī referred to a shared basis, as they explained the theories summarized by al-ʿUṣaylī in 2002; however, they went beyond that by rediscovering tradition and opening up a new perspective to the habitual debates on TAFL and foreign language teaching. The scholars cited structural theories by tapping into suppositions of famous theoretician Ferdinand de Saussure, who was now as esteemed as the Persian scholar and grammarian ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Ǧurǧānī. As modern critical opinion often emphasized (Ḫafāǧī; Makki), Madkūr and Harīdī (p. 20) also stressed the similarities between al-Ǧurǧānī’s vision of language and that of Saussure. For the former, nouns and – globally speaking – words, are signs that ascribe differing meanings to a concept: one cannot refrain from thinking of Saussure’s linguistic sign concept and the word pair signifiant/signifié (cf. Ghersetti, p. 93). Similarly, Ibn Ḫaldūn was regarded a predecessor of the behavioral theories demonstrated in his linguistic faculty (malaka lisāniyya) theory (Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 32) and in analogies such as that of Chomsky’s transformational grammar and traditional analysis by Arab grammarians, where his notions were evidenced (ibid.; Chekli; El-Marzouk). Although these TAFL authors, especially al-ʿUṣaylī (2002), tried to outline an unbiased overview on language teaching methods, leaving the reader to form their own opinion on the topic, they did take stances in the end. The Saudi scholar favored the natural approach (ṭarīqa ṭabīʿiyya), which he, however, described as difficult to carry out in class since no books, teaching tools or materials are usually intended (al-ʿUṣaylī 2002, p. 297). Scholars with a bias for good pronunciation, chose the four language skills as the objective of language learning, communication and eclecticism in language teaching (al-ʿUṣaylī 2002; Madkūr and Harīdī). Al-ʿUṣaylī affirmed that there was no right method, since the age, level, language and cultural background of learners affect teaching practices. His idea was partially supported by Madkūr and Harīdī (p. 5), who sought the best method to teach both linguistic and cultural aspects in class. In their findings, the two scholars affirmed that the most appropriate method of Arabic language teaching reflects the teacher

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

179

typology, the students, their language objectives and training needs, adding that every AFL class has a unique identity (mawqif farīd fī ḥadd dātihi). In this, the two scholars differed from their predecessors, for al-Qāsimī (1979) and al-Nāqa (1985c) previously described eclecticism in teaching as a matter of combining various methods so as to develop all language skills and choose the activities that most suited learners’ specific training needs. Contrary to them, Madkūr and Harīdī were predisposed to method openness rather than eclecticism and therefore preferred choosing one best method in relation to learners’ training needs rather than combining various ones (Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 288). Al-ʿUṣaylī discussed terminological issues concerning eclecticism. Unlike the previous decade’s TAFL scholars, who called the eclectic method ṭarīqa intiqāʾiyya, tawlīfiyya or muḫtāra (chosen method) (cf. al-ʿArabī), al-ʿUṣaylī maintained that these were inaccurate expressions since the method was not eclectic, but presented a wide range of varied activities and teaching styles that were suited to learner needs and learning situations. Thus, the scholar preferred to call the eclectic method: ṭarīqat al-ḥāǧa, literally ‘method of need’ or ṭarīqat al-mawāqif (situational method), which in essence focused on the same principles described by the other Arab scholars (al-Qāsimī 1979; al-ʿArabī; al-Nāqa 1985c). TAFL scholars took stances to also stress their vision of language. AlʿUṣaylī’s position was shaped by a multitude of readings, e.g., Noam Chomsky ([1968] 1972), Stephen Krashen (1987) and Robert Lado (1988), to cite only a few celebrated names. He analyzed the Natural Approach (madhab ṭabīʿī) of Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell, which was rarely mentioned by other Arab TAFL scholars before (e.g., al-Šaryūfī 1998). The Natural Approach was based on a new way of thinking which largely influenced the panorama of foreign language teaching. The approach is not to be confused with the ‘Natural Method’, which was followed a century earlier in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at the school of foreign languages founded by Gottlieb Heness and L. Sauveur. Therefore, the Natural Approach is not the direct descendant of the ‘Natural Method’, which then took the name of ‘Direct Method’,15 despite being founded on the same idea. The Natural Approach was distinguished 15 One should make clear that the aforementioned ‘Natural’ or ‘Direct Method’ is a teaching philosophy developed in a particular setting in place and time, namely the language school of Cambridge, Massachusetts, founded by instructors Gottlieb Heness and L. Sauveur in the second half of the nineteenth century. In this sense, it does not relate to what is frequently referred to as ‘direct’ or ‘natural method’ in this research, which is a practical kind of teaching that was also named either ‘direct’ or ‘natural’ according to the different cases and theoreticians that dealt with it, e.g., the ‘direct method’ of Jan Amos Komensky (commonly known as Comenius), the ‘natural method’ by Abbé Pluche, etc. (cf. Titone 1980). Generally, I refer to the general practical

180 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

for being principally a teaching philosophy rather than a method (cf. Serra Borneto, p. 253). It was also based on five hypotheses and followed principles similar to those ruling the natural process of first language acquisition. Al-ʿUṣaylī (2002) reported on some of these hypotheses, namely the monitor theory (naẓariyyat al-murāqib), the input (i + 1) hypothesis (farḍiyyat al-daḫl al-luġawī) and the affective filter (muṣaff infiʿālī), which were consequently made available to Arab scholars and readers in general. According to al-ʿUṣaylī, language was primarily a question of communication, be it spoken or written (cf. ʿAbd al-Mawǧūd); for other scholars it was communication between the teacher and its pupils (al-ʿArḍāwī, p. 3). Additionally, for al-ʿUṣaylī (2006, p. 26) language was the representation of a speech community’s identity. Regardless of the fact that communication played a key role in al-ʿUṣaylī’s vision of the language acquisition process, the scholar was not in favor of the communicative approach (madhab ittiṣālī) a priori. He affirmed – in fact – that certain learners like Muslim AFL students had very limited benefit from it, for the approach did not meet their training needs. By the same token, contrary to what Ryding Letzner theorized, the Community Language Learning approach was considered not suitable for such AFL students by al-ʿUṣaylī (2002, p. 378) since it used a range of terms derived from the Christian tradition, which did not concur with the target learners. Similarly, the audio-lingual method was also deemed unprofitable by the scholar since its typical communicative situations (mawāqif ittiṣāliyya) generally did not favor MSA learners in their interactions with Arabic speakers (nāṭiqūn bi-l-luġa). Furthermore, grammar and morphology were seen as interrelated and inseparable. Here, al-ʿUṣaylī had taken inspiration from the Egyptian linguist Kamāl Muḥammad Bišr, who described the relationship between morphology and grammar with a metaphor, where the former is the building material, and the latter is the actual building (cf. Bišr, p. 23). From a practical point of view, al-ʿUṣaylī encouraged the use of iʿrāb, as it fostered good pronunciation and knowledge of grammar (al-ʿUṣaylī 2002, p. 214). In addition, he favored the gradual introduction of useful vocabulary, which had to be selected according to the principle of diffusion (kalima šāʾiʿa al-istiʿmāl) and taught step by step, respecting the learner level (ibid., p. 243). In addition, the scholar encouraged the use of authentic texts (naṣṣ ḥaqīqī or ṭabīʿī), communicative exercises (ittiṣālī), not automatic (ālī) and the respect for the diversity of learners. His positions echoed of authors who method (also called ‘direct’ and ‘natural’) with small letters, while the ‘Natural Method’ by Heness and Sauveur is distinguished by capital ones.

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

181

shared analogous convictions in the past; notably Raji Rammuny (1980c), but also al-Nāqa (1985a), Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn (1985), Ṭaʿīma (1982, 1986), al-Qafṣī (1986), Maʿhad Būrqība (1990), Brustad, al-Batal, al-Tonsi (1995a, 1995b, 1997, 2001), who all embraced the communicative approach either from the theoretical or practical point of view. In the same period, Ṭaʿīma (2003c), Madkūr and Harīdī evidenced a leaning toward the communicative approach; however, the latter two added a series of further ideas. Much like what other scholars affirmed, the two authors suggested nurturing students’ personal interests and encouraged the use of role-plays, discussions (ḫiṭābāt), telephone conversations and an overall true use of the language for real purposes (aġrāḍ ḥaqīqiyya) employing authentic materials, favoring the liaison (tadāḫul) between language and communication. They also elected the vehicular language over the learner mother tongue and promoted the free use of media and audio-visual tools such as radio, television, newspapers, movies, etc. This vision was derived from particular scholarly translations such as those by Richards and Rodgers (1990) and de Beaugrande (1998), beside other specific readings like Byram and Morgan as well as Modern Foreign Languages in the National Curriculum, issued in 1995 by the British Department for Education (cf. DfE). Thanks to these and other readings, the two authors pieced together a basis to sustain that learning Arabic was a question of reasoning (dihn) and understanding (wāʿī) that allows students to master phonetic, grammatical and lexical patterns (anmāṭ). For this purpose, the two scholars did not refuse grammar in principle, as they suggested inserting it in a scientific method (manhaǧ ʿilmī). They also stressed the concept of cultural awareness (waʿī taqāfī) as a key element among the language domains to be taught in class and therefore proposed an AFL curriculum (see below) in which aspects of Arab-Islamic culture were integrated for learners. The curriculum was developed through a dedicated approach, which was bound to the authors’ own vision of teaching and it was named the ‘cultural approach’ (madḫal taqāfī). Like several other TAFL scholars, the two authors encouraged the study of culture along with language. According to this acumen, teaching Arabic without the background of the surrounding culture (ḫalfiyya taqāfiyya muḥīṭa) would not be possible (cf. Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 270). Culture, therefore, advances the knowledge of cultural models, concepts (anmāṭ wa-mafāhīm taqāfiyya), beyond language structures (tarākīb) and new vocabulary (cf. Ṭaʿīma 2003b). In 2003, scholars like Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma and Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa Abū Bakr lectured in Khartoum, highlighting the affinity between language and culture. More so, Abū Bakr stressed

182 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

the profusion of Arabic language expressions (tarwa lafẓiyya) specifically concerning the language of worship (luġat al-ʿibāda), which is properly mastered by Muslim learners and involves items like the five pillars of Islam, benevolence (ṣadaqa), the names of God, family law (aḥwāl al-usra), etc. (cf. Abū Bakr 2003b). Effectively, even for Madkūr and Harīdī (p. 269), Islamic culture – through Arabic – had the power to convoke sentiments of Muslims regardless of the distance that separates them. Nonetheless, the two authors also pointed out a prevalent trend in the teaching of Arab culture to foreigners: that of presenting only certain selected cultural aspects, i.e., readings taken from the Holy Qur’an, Islamic studies such as law, ḥadīt and the prophetic biography. In this light, the two authors stated that the cultural objectives of Arabic language teaching had to be revised, enriched and broadened with anthropological issues. For instance, they argued that Arabic is the language of not only the Holy Qur’an but also of natural sciences, medicine, algebra, astronomy, music, literature, poetry, etc. This vision of theirs was influenced by the studies of prominent orientalists such as T.B. Irving (1914-2002), Raphael Patai (1910-1996) and by theories of American sociologist Robert Bierstedt (1913-1998), which they could read in translation (cf. Thomas), bringing the two authors to affirm that culture is a global model (uslūb kullī) of social life, where religion is one of many other parts (cf. Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 271). Moreover, culture conforms to social ideas of divine nature (ulūhiyya), existence (kawn), mankind (insān) and life (ḥayā) – both on earth (al-dunyā) and hereafter (al-āḫira) – a theory already presented in an earlier work by Madkūr (2003) that upholds the structure of the AFL curriculum proposed in 2006 and the cultural approach. This can be therefore considered a philosophy, enhanced by specific teaching methods. According to Madkūr and Harīdī (p. 291), the ṭarīqat al-naẓm, namely ‘[discourse] organization method’ by al-Ǧurǧānī, represented the most appropriate method that conformed to their proposed cultural program. The method fostered cultural focuses, deduction of grammar rules and four language skills practice, so that learners could think, express themselves and communicate directly in their language of study. The method also represented a concrete example of the particular eclectic inclinations that the two authors proposed in the same volume, which was amenable to teaching contexts and training needs over ideals and theoretical principles (cf. Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 5). The work by Madkūr and Harīdī should not be considered for the cultural approach only. Indeed, in their book the two authors also mentioned a specific project, the ‘Arab neighborhood’, proposed by Nuhād al-Musà (1997) in the previous decade (see Chapter 5). As it turns out, the two scholars

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

183

tried to implement the project by finding new solutions for the artificial neighborhood, which now could be elaborated through virtual reality (wāqiʿ iftirāḍī also called wāqiʿ ḫāʾilī), thanks to technological progress. Nonetheless, the aim of the project remained the same since it still allowed students to practice the language in a natural environment (mawāqif ṭabīʿiyya). In this, Madkūr and Harīdī encouraged TAFL centers to create artificial environments where students could have breakfast while chatting in Arabic, then shift to other activities like those described by al-Musà, i.e., listening to a news broadcast, reading a newspaper, selling and buying items, etc. According to the two scholars, the purpose of the activity would provide enjoyment while practicing their language of study (cf. Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 133). Similarly, other methods were given attention in this period. In Syria, the authors of Asās al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-taʿlīm ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Fundamentals of Arabic for non-Arabic speakers) presented what they defined as the ‘direct method’ (ṭarīqa mubāšira), which was the result of the experiences conducted in East Asia, South Africa and India by the main textbook editor: the director of Darul Uloom of Hyderabad (India) and former Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà professor 16 ʿAbd Allāh ʿAbbās al-Nadwī (1925-2006). The authors’ philosophy favored Arabic as the only vehicular language to be used; new vocabulary explanations were made through images or gestures (bi-l-yad). The method fostered grammar (qawāʿid), dictation, expression, comprehension (istīʿāb), etc., and it was characterized by repetitions (takrār, iʿāda) of the lexicon (murāǧʿat al-qawāmīs) and reading aloud to favor memorization (iḫtizān), but also recognizing language tone (anġām) and intonation (īqāʿ) as well as enjoying the beauty of language (cf. ʿAbbās al-Nadwī et al.). As importantly, in Tunisia, al-Hāšimī al-ʿArḍāwī informed his dissertation readers about an unspecified method resembling Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) methodology. This focused on contents (muḥtawayāt) through language: francophone learners were asked to follow lessons on the history of Tunisia in Arabic (cf. al-ʿArḍāwī, p. 45). The method described by al-ʿArḍāwī was targeted at ASL school students in Tunisia; however, some experiences confirmed that it could be used with foreign learners as well.17 16 Cf. http://adabislami.org/p/a.nadwi.pdf, accessed 5 January 2018. 17 See, e.g., the presentation entitled ‘CLIL & Arabic Language’ by Azmeen Noreen created on 12 November 2013 (https://prezi.com/pmspnviwh9o-/clil-arabic-language/), and the presentation ‘Cross Curricular (CLIL) Teaching in Arabic’ by Fatma Khaled created on 30 October 2013 (https://prezi.com/h0qnk9v5n4al/cross-curricular-clil-teaching-in-arabic/), both pages accessed 28 July 2017.

184 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Scholarly Production The scholarly production of this period generally regarded textbooks, articles, theoretical treatises, experimental projects, online resources and translations. Scholars concentrated on many topics such as TAFL best practices (Badawi 2000; Baraka 2000b; Bašīr 2000; al-Ṣāʿidī; al-Daǧānī; al-Rīḥ; Madkūr and Harīdī; Nahla), Arabic language teaching for special purposes (Ṭaʿīma 2003b; al-Daǧānī), diglossia (Younes 2010), common problems among AFL learners (Muḥammad 2006), TAFL teacher’s profile (Ǧābir; al-ʿUṣaylī 2002; ʿAbd al-Salām 2006; Madkūr and Harīdī; Hārūn; Ḫazna Kātibī 2008), Arabic language teaching methods (Ṭaʿīma 2003c; Darwīš), theory and practice (Yūnis 2003), curriculum design (al-Nāqa 2001; Madkūr 2006), level scales (Taha 2008), learning strategies, language autonomy (istiqlāliyya) (al-ʿArḍāwī), fossilization (taḥaǧǧur) (al-ʿUṣaylī 2005), testing (al-Tinqārī and Ḥasan) and its implications with new technologies (ʿAbd Allāh; Madkūr 2003; al-Tinqārī and ʿUmar). In general, the works published in this decade were exhaustive, in a way that they tended to examine all aspects of the discipline. For instance, Arbi (2001) and al-ʿUṣaylī (2002) took into consideration eminent Arab authors of the past (e.g., Ibn Ǧinnī, Ibn Ḫaldūn), but also North American and European scholars of foreign language teaching, like Ferdinand de Saussure, Henry Sweet, Edward Sapir, Leonard Bloomfield and Noam Chomsky, including Arab TAFL authors, whose works became basic references for younger scholars (e.g., Yūnis 1978; al-Qāsimī 1979; Ṭaʿīma 1986). This was a trend also witnessed among other Arab TAFL scholars in the previous decades (i.e., al-Swīsī 1979, 1992; al-Qāsimī 1979; Ḥassān 1983, etc.). Among significant contributions is the work by Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa entitled Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-taḥaddiyāt al-taqāfiyya allatī tuwāǧihu manāhiǧu-nā al-dirāsiyya (Arabic language teaching and cultural challenges in the curricula). The book was published by Ain Shams University in 2001 and it promoted a cooperative kind (šakl mutaʾāzir) of teaching, in which all language aspects (funūn al-luġa) rendered the learning process more effective. In addition, the TAFL guide al-Murǧiʿ fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib. Min al-naẓariyya ilà al-taṭbīq (A guide for teaching Arabic to foreigners: From theory to practice) published by Fatḥī Yūnis in 2003 was a useful reference tool, as the scholar analyzed the discipline in regards to theory and practice. Of particular note is Asāsiyyāt taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà (Fundamentals of teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages), which was written by the Saudi scholar ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿUṣaylī and printed in Mecca in 2002 (1423 H). Al-ʿUṣaylī is a Saudi scholar, who

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

185

obtained his master’s degree at Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University of Riyadh in 1985, with a study on the oral mistakes made by AFL learners (al-ʿUṣaylī 1985). Having first studied at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, he later became the director of the Arabic Language Teaching Institute of Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University of Riyadh and is now professor of applied linguistics at the same university. In recent years he has cooperated with foreign institutions, for example, with the University of Leeds on the data collection for the Arabic Learner Corpus project (al-mudawwana al-luġawiyya li-mutaʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya).18 Al-ʿUṣaylī’s contribution of 2002 was part of a book series issued by Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà entitled silsilat buḥūt al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-ādābi-hā (Research on Arabic language and literature), which differed from the TAFL series published during the 1980s. The work represented a good tool for Arab scholars working both in the TAFL field and Foreign Language Teaching (FLT) in general, for it provided theoretical explanations and practical examples for a wide range of FLT methods that were chiefly implemented in non-Arab contexts (e.g., grammar-translation, direct, natural, reading methods, Total Physical Response, Community Language Learning, etc.). Every method was introduced by the author through its main features, teacher and student roles in class, and finally pros and cons. Nonetheless, the focus on TAFL dominates an important part of the publication. According to al-ʿUṣaylī, the work aimed to integrate various aspects and experiences of TAFL into one comprehensive work, which examined the characteristics of the Arabic language (ḫaṣāʾiṣ al-luġa) along with linguistic and educational principles (cf. al-ʿUṣaylī 2002). One chapter focuses on Arabic language specifics only, which differed from the particularities of other languages in relation to history, religion, culture, etymology (ištiqāq), etc. Therefore, the discourse on TAFL presented by al-ʿUṣaylī was distinguished for its development, as it displays a connection between the specific nature of the Arabic language and applied linguistics, often resorting to prime examples derived from the scholar’s various readings. For this reason, the work not only has the likeness of a foreign language teaching treatise, comparable to some works of the past, but also of an Arabic-language-oriented analysis, which is based on a plurality of reference works dealing with linguistics and the Arabic language, while also encompassing religion, translation studies, etc. (e.g., Ḥassān 1973; Bišr; Yūnis 1978; al-Qāsimī 1979; ʿAbd al-Mawǧūd, Ṭaʿīma, and Madkūr; Ṣīnī and al-Amīn; Bākallā 1983; ʿAbd al-Mawǧūd; al-Nāqa 1985c; Fahmī; Ibrāhīm 1985; Ṭaʿīma 1985, 1989; Ibn Murād). 18 Cf. http://www.arabiclearnercorpus.com/, accessed 7 January 2018.

186 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

The topics addressed in the work include general linguistic considerations, Arabic diglossia, common AFL learner problems, TAFL origins, TAFL teacher profiles, methods, teaching and testing. Concerning the past, al-ʿUṣaylī retraced the history of TAFL starting with the first centuries of Islam. In essence, the Saudi scholar delineated what Fahmī had done some years before (see Chapter 4). He narrated the genesis of AFL teaching practice in the Muslim countries of Asia, i.e., Iran, Pakistan and India, not forgetting their process of Arabization (intišār al-ʿarabiyya) and Islamizing. In this light, al-ʿUṣaylī was not removed from the scholars articulating similar views, albeit in other terms, and sustaining that TAFL had originated outside the Arab world. Some of them described the genesis of TAFL, referring to precedents in the Western context (Makkī; al-Swīsī 1979; Muḥammad Aḥmad; Badawi 1992a; Versteegh 2006), while some indicated occurrences in the Asian world (Fahmī; al-ʿUṣaylī 2002). However, as understood from the previous expository chapters (see Chapter 2) the TAFL research area – as we know it today – was born both inside and outside the Arab world contemporaneously, since it arose from the scholarly exchange between the new independent Arab countries and the rest of the world. Hence, al-ʿUṣaylī declared that modern TAFL actually differed from its inception because scholars and instructors now referred to scientific principles of language teaching and linguistics (cf. al-ʿUṣaylī 2002). In practical terms, al-ʿUṣaylī listed the most common learning problems among AFL students. In this, he highlighted pronunciation difficulty, often due to the interference of the first learner language, but also the challenges posed by the writing system, morphology, grammar, lexicon (e.g., false friends), culture, etc. The information that he provided was based principally on his master’s degree thesis, which centered on speaking mistakes (alʿUṣaylī 1985), and incorporated the consequential lecture by Aḥmad Muḫtār ʿUmar on the phonetic differences between the learner mother tongue and the target language at the Symposium of Medina in 1981 (cf. ʿUmar 1986). Most importantly, al-ʿUṣaylī did not limit his reasoning to a mere problem list; he also strove to find solutions to them. The Saudi scholar, in fact, proposed a series of guidelines related to the introduction of sounds (tadarruǧ fī taqdīm al-aṣwāt), which progressed gradually from the simplest to the most difficult, according to the principle of diffusion – or absence of, by contrast – among languages in general (cf. al-ʿUṣaylī 2002, p. 200). In addition, in order to rectify pronunciation problems, al-ʿUṣaylī suggested explanations and the use of pairwise language comparison exercises (tunāʾiyyāt ṣuġrà), as many others had done in the past (Nasr; al-Swīsī 1979; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985; al-Qumāṭī 1992).

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

187

Another noteworthy scholarly publication published in Egypt in 2006 is Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Teaching of Arabic to non-native speakers) by ʿAlī Aḥmad Madkūr and Īmān Aḥmad Harīdī. The work was a further comprehensive volume on TAFL, which drew on previous experiences (e.g., Yūnis 1978; al-Qāsimī 1979; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz 1988; Madkūr 1985, 2002, 2003, 2006; Yūnis, al-Nāqa, and Ṭaʿīma; Balʿayd; Ǧābir; al-Nāqa 2001), above all those of Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma (1986, 1989, 2003a). It addressed several topics, such as the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language within and beyond the Arab world, curriculum design, teaching methods, frequent problems among AFL learners, the teaching of Arabic for specific purposes, the training of trainers and most importantly the implications of Arab-Islamic culture teaching in the Arabic as a Foreign Language (AFL) class. Madkūr and Harīdī stressed that teaching culture in the AFL class was often a question of religious topics and sources, as previously outlined. Thus, the two scholars refused this routinely circumscribed vision and embraced a more extensive concept of culture, which included anthropological aspects. ʿAlī Aḥmad Madkūr was a scholar with a PhD from London University; he authored a significant work in the TAFL field in the early 1980s (Madkūr 1985) and continued to recent time, focusing on different topics of applied linguistics (e.g., Madkūr 2002, 2003, 2006). Īmān Aḥmad Harīdī (also Haridi and Hareedi) is professor of applied linguistics at Cairo University, and director of the Arabic Language Education Center for Foreign Students (al-Markaz al-taʿlīmī li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-ṭullāb al-wāfidīn) of the Egyptian Ministry of Education.19 Harīdī is also author of several publications devoted to various language learning topics, such as learning strategies, literary taste, reading skill, pedagogy (cf. Harīdī), but also TAFL, as she recently coauthored an important work, al-Murǧiʿ fī manāhiǧ taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà (A methodological guide for teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages) (Ṭaʿīma, Madkūr and Harīdī 2010). As a whole, the work of 2006 can be considered particularly significant for the AFL learner curriculum presented. Several readings (Zais; Badawi 1983; Spolsky; Ṭaʿīma 1989; Byram and Morgan; Madkūr 2006) were influential in that relative theoretical elements held to be essential were integrated, i.e., aims, contents, methods, teaching tools and evaluation. Furthermore, the authors affirmed that when there is a lack of objectives, curricula yields learning inefficiency and limits student progress; a position engendered by the theoretical works galvanizing their viewpoints. 19 Cf. http://www.mohe-casm.edu.eg/static_data/arabic_learn/arabic_top.jsp, accessed 5 January 2018.

188 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

The curriculum fostered communication in the language of study; it stressed the importance of MSA and it followed the principle of ʿurūba (Arabicness), which favored a pure Arabic vocabulary, like, for example, ḥāsūb as opposed to the English loanword kumbyūtir, a concept already highlighted by Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma in the 1980s (cf. Ṭaʿīma 1989). Subsequently, Madkūr and Harīdī proposed descriptors for the four traditional language skills in their curriculum, arranged in subobjectives encompassing various levels of Arabic language learning; for example, from letter recognition to written composition, from the identification of important oral text topics to the awareness of the speaker’s own perspective. Globally, the curriculum had no level specification; however, the authors indicated that AFL learners should have previous knowledge of Arabic sounds (taʿarruf al-aṣwāt al-ʿarabiyya), their variances, similarities and specific qualities (Madkūr and Harīdī, p. 278). The curriculum also underlined recurring TAFL subject matter, such as good pronunciation, silent and aloud reading, and Arabic language attributes, and even new topics like extralinguistic aspects (mā warāʾ al-luġa), i.e., the use of hand gestures (išārāt yadawiyya), dress code (aškāl al-malābis) and body language (taʿbīrāt al-waǧh wa-išārāt ǧismiyya). Furthermore, it integrated a coalesced approach that distinguished the two authors from other Arab TAFL scholars, namely the cultural approach (see above). Actually, there were two curriculum objectives: command of language performance (sayṭara ʿalà al-adāʾ al-luġawī) and cultural understanding ( fahm al-taqāfa). Therefore, in addition to providing language skills descriptors, the authors included cultural patterns, which regarded the Arab-Islamic society. These were organized in four sections corresponding to the principles of divine nature, existence, mankind and life, previously outlined. Hence, the sociological issue played a bigger role in the curriculum framework. According to Madkūr and Harīdī (p. 281), language is approached through the cultural realities (ḥaqāʾiq) of the four principles mentioned above. These realities include not only religious aspects (e.g., the Holy Qur’an, ḥadīt, the Islamic visions of worship, cult, etc.), but also life variables related to society, family, politics, economics, justice and organization. Among them, for instance, Islamic conception not limited to self (nafs), identity (huwiyya) and personality (šaḫṣiyya), but also freedom, society and its changes, the role of science, human justice in life (iʿmār al-ḥayā), etc. This was a time when Tunisia evidenced significant activity in the TAFL field, especially in terms of graduate theses. Among them, one can cite ‘Taʿlīmiyya al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya luġa aǧnabiyya’ (‘The teaching of Arabic as a foreign language’) by Amel Arbi (al-ʿArabī) and ‘Min qaḍāyā al-istidlāl fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya luġa tāniya bi-l-maʿāhid al-faransiyya bi-Tūnis:

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

189

fahm al-taʿlīma’ (‘On deduction problems in the teaching of Arabic as a second language in the French institutes of Tunisia: Understanding instructions’) by al-Hāšimī al-ʿArḍāwī. The first thesis was prepared at the Institut Supérieur de Education et Formation Continue (ISEFC) of Bardo (al-maʿhad al-ʿālī li-l-tarbiya wa-l-takwīn al-mustamirr) in 2001. The author, Amel Arbi, is a Tunisian instructor of the Bourguiba School, with international experience, i.e., at Deakin University, Melbourne (Australia). In her unpublished thesis, the scholar examined the silsila ǧadīda first level book of the Bourguiba School (cf. al-Qafṣī), thus its method, and analyzed it from various perspectives: lexical, grammatical, morphological, etc. The second thesis, also written at ISEFC, was presented in 2004. The institute specialized in preparing experts in the fields of education, linguistics and also TAFL. Another author, al-ʿArḍāwī, who focused on a niche but not less important topic: the question of deduction (istidlāl) in TASL. The thesis by al-ʿArḍāwī appertained to a multitude of readings, mainly of French background (e.g., Tardif; Reuter; François and Denhière; Grangeat) or translations (Sperber and Wilson; O’Malley and Chamot). It dealt with other topics also, e.g., general considerations on Arabic language and linguistics, comprehension problems among ASL school pupils, exercises instructions (taʿlīmāt), learning strategies (istrātīǧiyyāt al-taʿallum), language autonomy, evaluation and action research. The last topic was actually rarely present in TAFL works, thus attesting exhaustiveness of the dissertation, hence aiming to be a paramount scientific work. The term ‘action research’ here refers to a type of self-reflective analysis used by teachers to test their ideas, teaching styles, curriculum, work (taqyīm al-aʿmāl al-munǧiz), student learning process and to help learners with self-assessment (taqyīm dātī). Correspondingly, action research is also called ‘reflection in action’ or ‘self-reflective enquiry’ (see, i.e., Easen; Henry and Kemmis). Although al-ʿArḍāwī does not reconcile this practice in his dissertation – included only in a general paragraph on metacognition (ʿirfān wāṣif ) – he specif ies a series of classroom observation activities (adawāt mulāḥaẓa) ascribable to action research, especially those concerning student self-reflective analysis of their learning process. Four metacognitive techniques are proposed: firstly the survey (istibyān), where students are asked to reflect on their learning strategies by answering questions spontaneously and honestly (nazāha); secondly the ‘reflective interview’ (muqābala ʿākisa), where they talk about deduction strategies; thirdly the diary (ṣaḥīfa ḫāṣṣa), where students keep a log of the difficulties encountered in ASL learning from various standpoints; and lastly thinkaloud activities (tafkīr bi-ṣawt ʿāl). These techniques were aimed at making

190 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

students contemplate their Arabic language acquisition process, helping them to identify different learning strategies (i.e., active, interactive and semiotic modifications) and assisting the teacher to articulate exercise instructions better (cf. al-ʿArḍāwī, p. 88). In Sudan, Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm continued to publish al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya (Arab journal of linguistic studies), which had been distinguished by its specific focus on TAFL, linguistics and Arab as well as African studies for the entire decade and is still doing so today. Articles tackled various aspects of the teaching of Arabic to non-Arabs. For instance, Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa Abū Bakr reported on a topic invaluable to him, i.e., the problems faced in AFL classes specific to language interference areas (cf. Abū Bakr 2006). The article, entitled ‘Muškilāt al-taʿlīm bi-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī al-manāṭiq tunāʾiyya al-luġa fī al-waṭan al-ʿarabī’ (‘Problems of Arabic language teaching in Arab world bilingual areas’), recalled the scholar’s similar prior contributions (Abū Bakr 1980, 2003a), which had resulted in his being a reference for the Sudanese TAFL experience. Other topics addressed in the journal regarded the correction of language mistakes (Muḥammad 2006), Arabic language teaching methods (Darwīš; Madkūr 2004), the use of technology in class (ʿAbd Allāh; al-Tinqārī and ʿUmar), and practical experiences transpiring in Jordan (al-Daǧānī 2003), Malaysia (al-Tinqārī 2006) and in various African countries, such as Cameroon (Bābā 2002), Uganda (Ṭāhir 2002) and Senegal (al-Ḥabīb 2006). Accordingly, Ṭaʿīma (2002) provided information on the direction of Arabic language textbooks – mainly targeted at L1 learners – that were supplied to non-Arab Muslim countries as endowments by Arab education ministries, i.e., from Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan (cf. ibid.). Of note is the contribution by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Muḥammad Hārūn, entitled ‘al-Tadrīs al-faʿʿāl wa-mahārātu-hu al-lāzima li-l-muʿallim al-muslim fī ʿaṣr al-ʿawlama’ (‘Effective teaching and the skills required of Muslim teachers in an era of globalization’), providing advice about the fundamental skills (mahārāt lāzima) needed by Muslim teachers today (cf. Hārūn). Two other noteworthy articles are those by Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma and ʿUmar al-Ṣadīq ʿAbd Allāh, both published in 2003. The first article, entitled ‘Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya ittiṣāliyyan’ (‘Communicative Arabic language teaching’), represented a further step toward applying the communicative approach to TAFL (cf. Ṭaʿīma 2003c). The second article dealt with a practical aspect, namely the use of videos in the AFL class, which was not a topic often discussed by TAFL scholars worldwide until then 20 (e.g., Rammuny 1979, 2000; Al-Qadi; Yaghi and Yaghi; Ferhadi). 20 For an overview on the present period see Facchin (2016b).

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

191

In addition to the journal of Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm another important periodical was Maǧallat al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā (Journal of Arabic for non-native speakers), first published in 2004 by the International University of Africa Arabic Language Institute (IUA Institute). Today all issues are available online,21 and those from one to fifteen are also available in the Kaššāf maǧallat al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā (Index to the Journal of Arabic for non-native speakers) created by al-Ḥasan, Ibrāhīm, and Muḥammad, which groups all scholarly contributions from January 2004 to January 2013. These editions are dedicated to various topics, such as TAFL experiences, objective tests (iḫtibār mawḍūʿī), language mistakes, radio in language learning, vocabulary acquisition (iktisāb al-mufradāt), rhetoric, Khartoum Arabic, e-learning, but also biographies of celebrated TAFL pioneers (ruwwād), such as Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa Abū Bakr, ʿAwn al-Šarīf Qāsim, Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma, Muḫtār al-Ṭāhir Ḥusayn, etc. Testing was also debated in this period among Arab TAFL scholars as previously anticipated (e.g., al-ʿArḍāwī; al-Tinqārī and Ḥasan; Alosh 2010). For instance, al-ʿUṣaylī (2002) provided an extensive explanation on language testing, which mainly drew on North American authors like Henning (1987) and Worthen and Sanders (1987), but included Arab experts, such as Ṭaʿīma (1989) and Muḥammad (1996). After discussing terminological issues, the Saudi scholar went on to explain fundamental language testing principles (e.g., reliability, validity, practicality, etc.), and then exemplified test typologies. With respect to this he indicated that certain tests were more diffused than others in Arab TAFL centers. These were the essay test (iḫtibār al-maqāl), which comprises open questions that candidates answer with free expression and open responses. Moreover, TAFL centers programs deliberated on criterion referenced tests (iḫtibār dawāt al-maʿāyīr al-tābita), power tests (iḫtibār al-maʿrifa or al-quwwa) and achievement tests (iḫtibār al-taḥṣīl), so as to evaluate student language acquisition levels (cf. al-ʿUṣaylī 2002, p. 437). In 2004 al-Hāšimī al-ʿArḍāwī provided further examples on test typologies used in the Tunisian context. The scholar’s report specifically concerned ASL testing in French institutes in Tunisia. Teachers of Arabic as a Second Language usually built their tests following a standardized structure, which was usually composed of three units (cf. al-ʿArḍāwī, p. 77). Firstly, language (kifāyāt lisāniyya), where its lexical (muʿǧamī) and semantic (dilālī) aspects were assessed through translation and explanation (šarḥ al-mufradāt) exercises; then, written comprehension through specification (taʿyīn) and identifying (istiḫrāǧ) exercises; f inally, written expression 21 Cf. http://publications.iua.edu.sd; http://dspace.iua.edu.sd, both links accessed 7 July 2018.

192 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

through guided composition. Last but least, speaking evaluation (kafāʾa šafawiyya) was the focus of another contribution in this period. Alosh (2010) outlined the steps of the ACTFL Oral Proficiency Interview, which identified student speaking skill level through the selection (istiḫlāṣ) of an oral performance sample (ʿayyinat al-adāʾ al-šafawī). Examiner evaluation techniques included scrutiny (asʾilat al-taḥaqquq), survey (asʾilat al-sabr) and cut-off level determination (inhāʾ). AFL textbooks and courses to mention include the new edition of the Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University textbook series, published in 2004 and edited by ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥāmid, renowned in Saudi Arabia not only for his expertise in the TAFL field but also for being a poet, university professor and prominent human rights activist. The textbook series devoted to Arabic language teaching also dealt with Arab-Islamic culture, considering the target learners were mainly AFL Muslim students with the goal of mastering Arabic and practicing Muslim life. Likewise, other textbook series were published in Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan in 2006. In the first case, the series was geared to trained students with the same focus as that of Al-Imam. This was divided in three volumes entitled Asās al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-taʿlīm ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Fundamentals of Arabic for non-Arabic speakers), realized by a group of authors directed by ʿAbd Allāh ʿAbbās al-Nadwī, who selected various key aspects of MSA, such as grammar, dictation, expression, comprehension, etc. The textbook series favored the study of the Islamic thought revealed through language and literature, above all traditional examples, i.e., the Holy Qur’an and ḥadīt (cf. ʿAbbās al-Nadwī et al.). Texts were followed by comprehension questions, grammar exercises and other types of activities like rephrasing, cloze text, focus on content, short composition and summary. Similarly, from 2002 on, Arabic for All has published the new textbook series, al-ʿArabiyya bayna yaday-ka (Arabic between your hands) in Riyadh. It was edited by Professor Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Āl al-Šayḫ and among the authors includes the noteworthy ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ibrāhīm al-Fawzān, professor of applied linguistics at Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ.22 The textbook users were allowed to develop MSA on three levels. First, language competency (kifāya luġawiyya) was taken into consideration along with the four skills, sounds, lexicon and grammar. Second, cultural competency (kifāya taqāfiyya) was contemplated. Third, communication (kifāya ittiṣāliyya) played a key role, echoing the communicative teaching philosophy (see Chapter 3): learners could interact with Arabic language speakers in an 22 Cf. http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/3070/Pages/CV1121-1328.aspx, accessed 4 December 2017.

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

193

appropriate way and in different situations (mawāqif iǧtimāʿiyya muḫtalifa). The series has been reedited and improved over the years (Āl al-Šayḫ 2011, 2014), adding volume four recently. At the University of Jordan, the director23 of Markaz ʿAmmān, Professor Aḥmad Maǧdūba, coauthored a first level AFL learner textbook along with scholars like ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Ḥiyārī, Basma Aḥmad Ṣidqī al-Daǧānī and Hādiyā Ḫazna Kātibī. The textbook, entitled al-ʿArabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā (Arabic for non-native speakers), was followed by levels two and three (Maǧdūba et al. 2006, 2007), which have been object of analysis by scholars recently (al-Ḫabbāṣ; Al Ali and Olaimat; Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī; al-Marāšida). Notably, translations of new vocabulary are avoided and made instead through the use of images24 (tafsīr al-kalimāt bi-l-ṣuwar). The series, in fact, does not use any vehicular language other than Arabic and therefore follows the direct method. It also draws on the communicative approach (cf. Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī, p. 934), as listening and communicative exercises are integrated throughout the book. As regards the republication of important textbooks, a noteworthy new edition is al-Kitāb al-asāsī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà (Basic course for teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages) by Ṭaʿīma and al-Nāqa in 2009. The textbook, one of the previous examples of basic courses for AFL learners written in the 1980s, has been revised by the two Arab scholars in collaboration with other key TAFL figures such as ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Fiqī and two former directors of Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà ʿAbd Allāh al-Ǧarbūʿ (al-Jarboa) and ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿAbādī (see Chapter 4). Significant in the same order is the new edition of al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira (Contemporary Arabic), the Bourguiba School textbook series, which replaced silsila ǧadīda by Zahiyya al-Qafṣī (al-Qafṣī; Maʿhad Būrqība 1990). The series maintained its teaching orientations as it focused on speaking activities that enabled students to communicate with Arabic language speakers in everyday situations. Despite the fact that its objectives remained unchanged, the series now imbued the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (cf. al-ʿUtmānī and al-Swīsī 2009a) and was improved through a new competency system subdivision (niẓām al-kifāyāt), which had once concentrated in a single volume. This system consisted of three sections, i.e., three separate workbooks: language (al-luġa), written (qism al-našāṭ al-kitābī) and oral activities (qism al-našāṭ al-šafawī). Contents and language were also reconsidered, since units dealt with current issues 23 In charge from 1998 until 2006, cf. http://languages.ju.edu.jo/, accessed 29 July 2017. 24 Cf. http://research.ju.edu.jo/ar/arabic/Lists/Books/Disp_Form.aspx?ID=80, accessed 12 October 2018.

194 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

(al-ʿaṣr al-ḥāḍir), which were introduced through a simplified language (luġa mubassaṭa) free from complexity (taʿqīd) and guttural sounds (taqʿīr) (cf. al-ʿUtmānī and al-Swīsī 2009a). This improvement was made possible thanks to the Bourguiba School teachers, who constantly test, discuss, revise and rewrite units taught to students. These last seemed to have a role in suggesting contents also (cf. Canu, p. 52). The new textbook series was now written by new scholars: the school director, Yūsuf al-ʿUtmānī, and a teacher, Fāḍil al-Swīsī, edited the volumes of the first level organized in three parts: reading and writing ( fahm al-maktūb wa-intāǧuhu), listening and speaking (fahm al-masmūʿ wa-l-intāǧ al-šafawī) and language (al-luġa) (al-ʿUtmānī and al-Swīsī 2009a, 2009b, 2009c). The first level was preceded by the Kurrās al-ḥurūf wa-l-aṣwāt al-ʿarabiyya (Arabic letters and sounds workbook), edited by al-ʿUtmānī and al-Swīsī (n.d.) and dedicated to absolute beginners of Arabic. Then, these first volumes were followed by five further levels, each drafted by other Tunisian TAFL scholars, like Amel Arbi, Fāḍil al-Swīsī, and Wissām Ḥašīša (Wissem Hachicha) later renowned for the creation of the Wissem Arabic Language Institute25 (Maʿhad Wissām) in Tunis in 2016. Many of these volumes, which had already been issued as experimental copies (nusḫa taǧrībiyya) in 2005 (cf. Canu, p. 185), are currently being used for the various school courses (Arbi n.d.; Būmalāsa n.d., [2005a] n.d., [2005b] n.d.; Ḥašīša; Maʿhad Būrqība [2005a] n.d., [2005b] n.d.; al-Mīsāwī n.d., [2005] n.d.; al-Swīsī n.d., [2005] n.d.; al-ʿUtmānī and al-Swīsī n.d.). Like level one textbooks, the other levels exhibit a rich use of language skills exercises, e.g., readings, comprehension, true/false questions, multiple choice, cloze text, transformation, open questions, free composition (al-intāǧ al-ḥurr), controlled writing (taʿbīr kitābī muqayyad), communicative situations (waḍʿiyya tawāṣuliyya), etc. Of note is the new edition of al-Lahǧa al-tūnisiyya (The Tunisian dialect) by Zayna al-Ḫulayfī (cf. al-Ḫulayfī). Although a new volume dedicated to Tunisian Arabic was intended to substitute the old one (Maʿhad Būrqība n.d.), it was still in use at the school in spring 2014. Between 2007 and 2009 there was yet another significant publication, the Kallimni ʿArabi multilevel course book series by Samia Louis, who has been teaching Arabic at the International Language Institute (ILI) in Cairo.26 The series was designed for adult students aiming to learn Egyptian Colloquial Arabic and was organized in five levels, all presenting different aspects of Egyptian dialect and culture, covering cultural content, social topics, 25 Cf. http://wali.com.tn/, accessed 23 May 2017. 26 Cf. http://www.arabicegypt.com, accessed 26 July 2017.

In the T went y-first Century (2000 -2010)

195

real-life functional language and comprehensive grammar (Louis 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2009a, 2009b). Furthermore, in each book it was stated that the series followed ACTFL guidelines and put emphasis on listening and speaking through conversation units (dardiš maʿānā), communicative situations, interactive classroom tasks and varied exercises. Textbooks devoted to the learning of Spoken Arabic were no rarities in the European and North American contexts, being sizeable in number (e.g., Tapiéro; Girod; Halloun; Woidich and Heinen-Nasr 1995; Durand; Liddicoat, Lennane, and Abdul Rahim; Jomier and Khouzam; Harrell, Abu-Talib, and Carroll; Kassab; Ben Alaya and Quitout; Mermoud; Canamas, Neyreneuf, and Villet). However, exceptions on the Arab side occurred (Ben Abdelkader, Naouar, and Melki; Ben Amor; Boutros; Choura; ʿAwnī), colloquial varieties assumed a prominent role gradually in the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language within the Arab region and only at the end of the decade were other textbooks produced, for instance, the first level of Kalaam Gamiil by al-Tonsi, al-Sawi, and Massoud (2010); others would be issued in the following years (al-Tonsi, al-Sawi, and Massoud 2013; al-Tonsi, Salem, and Korica Sullivan). Regarding the North American situation, some influential works that were concurrently published are to be cited. First of all, in 2006, Kassem Wahba, Zainab Taha and Liz England edited the Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century. The work compiled a series of contributions by TAFL experts worldwide, especially the United States, the Arab region and Europe. Further developing the discussions on TAFL collected by al-Batal in 1995, it gained rank as an important reference work in the field of TAFL, to such an extent that it became the reference for other books and debates (cf. Aguilar, Pérez Cañada, and Santillán Grimm) in addition to being followed by a second volume in 2018 (Wahba, England, and Taha). The work was divided into nine sections, each devoted to a different aspect of TAFL, i.e., communicative competence, assessment, learners, technology applications, curriculum design, etc. Noteworthy contributions were made by Paul B. Stevens, who tried to debunk the myth of the alleged difficulty of Arabic in his ‘Is Spanish Really So Easy? Is Arabic Really So Hard? Perceived Difficulty in Learning Arabic as a Second Language.’ Moreover the contributions by Everhard Ditters (2006) and Paula Winke and Rajaa Aquil (2006) are to be cited. The first scholar provided an overview on ‘Technologies for Arabic Language Teaching and Learning’; the second two discussed TAFL from the point of view of assessment in their ‘Issues in Developing Standardized Tests of Arabic Language Proficiency’. In 2013, another work added to the ‘trilogy on TAFL’ published in the United States (al-Batal 1995; Wahba, Taha, and England; Ryding 2013). This was Teaching and Learning

196 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Arabic as a Foreign Language: A Guide for Teachers by Karin Ryding. In her work, Ryding analyzed the field from various perspectives, above all the position favoring Arabic teachers in teaching and learning practices. Last but not least, the decade saw the Arabic translation of an influential document in the field of modern foreign languages: the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) (CoE 2001). The work was published first in 2001, quickly becoming an important reference in the field of modern foreign languages in all its branches, from planning, to testing, etc. The work was then translated into 40 languages, both European and non-European. As for Arabic, the translated version was published in Egypt in 2008 by the Goethe Institut Ägypten in cooperation with the Elias Publishing House and was named al-Iṭār al-murǧiʿī al-ūrūbbī al-muštarak li-l-luġāt (CoE 2008). This was followed by another translation edited by Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà (cf. CoE 2016). At the very end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the document did not have much appeal either in the Arab FLT setting or on TAFL horizon. Accordingly, the CEFR adoption process is still in progress today within the language institutes of the Arab world. From the scientific point of view, the Arabic CEFR version presented a wide range of specific terminology to the Arab world and stressed the discussion of the ‘fifth language skill’, namely oral interaction (tafāʿul šafawī), which was later debated by Arabists such as Aguilar, but also Saʿīd and Muḥammad. The Spanish scholar Victoria Aguilar has discussed the implications of oral interaction, the Arabic language and TAFL. In particular, she encourages the simultaneous teaching of MSA and one colloquial variety. With this in mind, she takes the CEFR’s five language skills and applies them to the language testing of the two varieties. According to Aguilar, listening and reading should be tested both in MSA and Colloquial, writing only in MSA, speaking and interacting only in Colloquial Arabic (see also Giolfo and Salvaggio 2018b).

Conclusion To conclude, the period from 2000 to 2010 saw the succession of important junctures in the field of TAFL, from symposia and meetings, through scholarly publications, to online projects. In general, Arab scholars showed a marked exhaustiveness, as they aimed to analyze TAFL from various perspectives, including new ones. In this, Arab TAFL scholars endeavored to interface with and consequently apply the modern developments of foreign language teaching specifically to the Arabic language as well as TAFL as a whole, which they recognized as being different from the teaching of other languages.

7

The Present Period

In the early years of the new millennium the Arab world was complex with diverse sociopolitical scenarios. Saudi Arabia’s political prominence, the wealth of the Gulf, and the resurgence of Jordan and Morocco with their respective young monarchs ascending to the throne, contrasted with the fragile economic conditions, poverty, censorship, corruption, pervasive frustration and evaporating political credibility of other Arab nations like Tunisia and Egypt. In Tunisia, the Ben ʿAli government responded to dissent with repression; citizens were routinely denied access to the web, to such an extent that Reporters without Borders labeled Tunisia an ‘internet enemy’ (cf. Perkins, p. 215). Meanwhile, in Egypt the state monopolized dissemination of information and opinion formulation of the media (cf. Osman). Some contemporary political theorists (cf. Brumberg; Zakaria) tried to define the historical juncture these nations were going through by coining terms such as ‘illiberal democracies’ or ‘liberalized autocracies’, so as to depict the increasing deliberation that was underway in the Middle Eastern region. Not by chance, by 2011 the precarious political situation of Tunisia was about to erupt in a decisive turning point that has had ongoing repercussions on the whole region to the present. The Tunisian ‘revolution for dignity’ (Perkins, p. 214) overthrew the Ben ʿAli regime and offered inspiration to victims of similarly repressive autocracies in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, but with painful downsides. In this, the WikiLeaks disclosures of 2010 was instrumental in fomenting regime opponents (cf. ibid.), especially in Tunisia and Egypt (Mabon). Antigovernment protests broke out quickly. Social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, internet blogs and Skype became platforms where young people expressed their animosity toward the political entourage, and at the same time served as communication vehicles that globally broadcasted information and images taken with mobile phones. These vernal uprisings employing technology were followed by an extraordinary number of other historic happenings within a few years, such as the birth of the Islamic State – often referred to as IS, ISIS or by its Arabic name, dāʿiš – huge migration flows toward Europe, international instability and closure of borders. All these events have had an impact on language teaching, since the discipline is not ‘the result of trends succession’ (cf. Balboni in Serragiotto 2004, p. xxii), but follows the pendulum swings of history, politics and societal changes. Hence, the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language is not excluded (cf. Qināwī) in this period but is elaborated with new forms and

198 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

strategies, which are analyzed in this chapter, from 2011 to early 2018, albeit it is a limited account. As Yūsuf and al-Ġubārī (p. 3) affirm, the Arab Spring ‘has alerted the Arab world to the need for total change. [As a consequence], the teaching of Arabic as L2 […] in the world requires an instant uplift, [that instills] […] vigor and vitality into a sagging educational system.’ In this light, new expressions stemming from TAFL have been formulated, like Teaching Moroccan Arabic as a Foreign Language (TMAFL) and its Spanish translation árabe marroquí como lengua extranjera. Even though such expressions already existed for other colloquial varieties like Egyptian Arabic (see TCEAFL in Chapter 3), a certain terminological use of TMAFL has been witnessed among Spanish scholars recently (cf. Aguilar, Pérez Cañada, and Santillán Grimm; Moscoso García, Nouaouri Izrelli, Rodríguez García; Aguilar et al.; Rodríguez García; Santillán Grimm, Pérez Cañada, and Moscoso García). In this, the activities of Casa Árabe in Madrid, the ‘Arabele series’, the Congreso Internacional de Árabe Marroquí that held its sixth meeting in 2015 and publications devoted to the theme of Moroccan Arabic (e.g., Moscoso García 2006, 2007; Chekayri 2011) have helped to foster a lively debate in Spain, which has not been limited to TAFL, but has also considered the theoretical implications of teaching Moroccan Arabic to foreigners (cf. Nouaouri and Moscoso García; Moscoso García, Pérez Cañada, and Nouaouri, etc.). Such developments coincided with a period of great sociolinguistic change in the North African country (cf. de Ruiter and Ziamari). Similarly, changes have been corroborated in the TAFL field within the Arab world. Mohammed Drif (al-Ẓarīf), president of the Arabic language division (šuʿbat al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya) at Mohammed V University of Rabat (Ǧāmiʿat Muḥammad al-ḫāmis al-Swīsī), recently described TAFL in unlikely way (in Šabbākī 2014, p. 7), affirming that the study of Arabic and its culture has opened thanks to globalization (ʿawlama) along with new information and communication technologies (tiqniyyāt al-ittiṣāl al-ḥadīta), resulting in Arab states like Morocco being now oriented toward the international language scene (see also Qināwī). On this topic, Ṣāliḥ ([Ṣīnī] 2017) points out the internationalization of Arabic, besides the quantitative growth (tawassuʿ kammī) of institutions providing AFL courses worldwide. Likewise, Ḫazna Kātibī (2012) discusses Arabic language challenges in the light of contemporary international changes, while ʿAbd al-Karīm Šabbākī’s introduction of his AFL textbook (see below) reveals a new approach to TAFL, which takes into consideration both AFL learners within the Arab world and migrants’ children (ʿarab al-mahǧar) abroad; it does away with monotony (ratāba) and boredom (malal) while cultivating pleasure in learning and interaction

The Present Period

199

outside the classroom, as well as using multimedia tools like documentaries, newspapers, pictures and songs (Šabbākī, p. 14). Such unusual propositions suggest that TAFL has been experiencing changes in certain corners of the Arab world. This phenomenon is confirmed by Wahba, England and Taha, who assert that there has been a sea of change in the field of TAFL in recent years and that ‘such change has created an unprecedented level of research in different areas’ (Wahba, England, and Taha, p. xix). This TAFL progress is the object of further examination in this chapter. Aside from exceptions, traditional chronicles on TAFL are still present in current book forewords, introductions and scholarly writings on a whole (e.g., al-Ḥamd; Ḫazna Kātibī 2014; Ṣāliḥ [Ṣīnī] 2017). For instance, Šabbākī narrates some well-known stages of the discipline, which had already been reported by other TAFL scholars in the past on several occasions (e.g., Makkī; Muḥammad Aḥmad; al-Nāqa 1985c; Badawi 1992a; Versteegh 2006). Arabic is described as a language studied all over the world; schools, institutes and universities have recently specialized in its teaching for a multitude of purposes comprising culture, politics, economics, religion and security (cf. al-Ḥamd). The abundance of structures and training needs has led to a diversification of the ways to properly and effectively expand this language (cf. Šabbākī, p. 9). This evolvement of TAFL has been addressed with measures being taken: training AFL teachers, formulating appropriate methods (bināʾ manāhiǧ munāsiba) and establishing new institutes. By now, all the countries of the Arab world have seen the foundation of at least one TAFL institute. However, due to the political unrest deriving from the Arab Spring, some institutes have experienced changes and temporary closures. For example, the renowned Center for Arabic Study Abroad (CASA) established at AUC in 1967 and its newly established center in Damascus faced a difficult period in 2011, as the place came to be deemed too risky. That particular year, CASA organizers had to evacuate students from Cairo and Damascus. Some of them opted to complete their study-abroad programs at the American University in Beirut (AUB), described as an ‘island of stability in the region’ at the time (cf. Wilmsen, p. 142). Later, the program and students returned to Cairo for two years, and had to be evacuated once again in 2013. This time the director had devised a back-up option and sent students to the Qasid Arabic Institute (maʿhad qāṣid li-taʿlīm al-luġāt) in Amman for the rest of the year, a situation lasting until 2017/2018, when CASA was brought back to Cairo.1 1 I am particularly grateful to Mrs. Sarah Stoll of the CASA Program, who provided me with all the detailed information reported in these lines.

200 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

In Syria, education institutes have been seriously threatened by civil war since 2011. Such unrest has triggered a major refugee crisis and in response to that, some graduates of the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs have conceived the NaTakallam 2 project, which pairs displaced Syrians with Arabic learners around the world for language practice via Skype. Furthermore, before the conflict reached the city of Aleppo, the Francophone campus of the university organized a program called Teaching Arabic Language through the Culture of the Orient. Upon arrival students would do an evaluation test allowing them to be grouped according to their levels. Students would then be exposed to the Arabic language and culture; the latter intended in a broader sense, i.e., history, archeology, architecture, customs, ethics, etc. Even more, the program included the opportunity for students to visit families and stay in a real linguistic, social and cultural environment providing insight into Arab lifestyle in terms of culture, traditions, values and beliefs (cf. Jamous and Chik, p. 41). The deterioration of conditions in Syria spilled over into Lebanon, where the AFL program at American University in Beirut has registered enrollment numbers dropping and smaller class sizes (cf. Wilmsen). By contrast, other Arab countries are currently experiencing a positive situation regarding TAFL courses and research. For instance, Markaz ʿAmmān has been at the center stage of various practical studies (Al Ali and Olaimat; Ḫazna Kātibī 2014; Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī; Ḫazna Kātibī and al-ʿAsāsifa). Of note is the summer school for non-Arabic speakers Cours Intensifs de langue Arabe Dispensés aux Non Arabophones (CLANA), organized at Mohammed V University of Rabat – Faculty of Education Sciences.3 The school courses concentrate on MSA, with ventures into Moroccan culture; students are divided into six levels: beginners (débutant), intermediate (intermédiaire), and advanced (avancé), each split into parts A and B. A certificate of proficiency is issued after passing the final exam. The objectives of the course stated on its webpage are learner acquisition of the lexicon, allowing them to communicate in different social situations, training learners in listening, speaking, reading, writing as well as grammar rules and knowledge of cultural aspects, social purposes (usages sociaux) and mores (mœurs). In Saudi Arabia, institutes operating in the field of TAFL are present today in all the major cities of the kingdom: Riyadh, Mecca, Medina and Jeddah. In 2012 (1433 H) another institute opened at Princess Nourah bint 2 Cf. https://natakallam.com/, accessed 4 October 2018. 3 Cf. http://fse.um5.ac.ma/page/cours-intensif-de-langue-arabe-aux-non-arabophones, accessed 29 September 2017.

The Present Period

201

Abdulrahman University of Riyadh (Ǧāmiʿat al-amīra Nūra bint ʿAbd alRaḥmān), which granted instruction of women in the field within Saudi Arabia. This was called the Institute for Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers (Maʿhad taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā) and in its first year of activities it registered 350 female students enrolled coming from 44 different countries around the world. 4 Besides Arabic language diffusion, the principal aims of the institute are research-oriented, i.e., university program improvement, test construction, e-learning (barāmiǧ iliktrūniyya) development, TAFL investment project implementation, etc. As already seen, many TAFL institutes were established within the Arab region to provide international learners with the language skills they needed in order to enroll and attend lessons in Arabic at university level. These institutes were, for example, Maʿhad al-Qāhira, Markaz al-Azhar, Maʿhad al-Madīna (cf. al-Rabbāḥ) and the TAFL Center of Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University of Riyadh, etc. Maʿhad al-Qāhira appears to be one of the earliest institutes devoted to this specific field established in Egypt and within the Arab world. It has been teaching both Modern Standard and Egyptian Colloquial Arabic, apart from MSA for specific purposes. Nowadays, Maʿhad al-Qāhira is directed by Īmān Aḥmad Harīdī and its president is Ḥusām al-Malāḥī. The institute offers both annual and summer activities. These include AFL lessons, cultural trips, and delegation visits from Asian countries like China and Japan. Students can enroll from Egyptian Cultural Centers abroad (e.g., in Washington, DC, Montreal, Vienna, Prague, Athens, Moscow, etc.), but also from foreign embassies in Cairo. Students begin by taking a required placement test (imtiḥān mabdiʾī or imtiḥān taḥdīd al-mustawà). Results allow instructors to sort students into seven different levels: the first is tamhīdī (preparatory), and the other six follow the CEFR reference levels denomination, namely A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2. According to the institute website, AFL courses permit learners to master the language through life in Egypt (min ḫilāl al-ḥayā fī Miṣr) and hence speak fluently (ṭalāqa), so as to deal with contemporary linguistic phenomena. Additionally, Markaz al-Azhar (Al Sheikh Zayed Center in Egypt) has been training non-Arabic speakers in all language skills officially since 2010, so that they can easily continue their studies at al-Azhar University. The branch, located in Nasr City, is now a magnet for many delegations coming from Europe, the United States, Mauritius, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Malaysia and Japan. Moreover, it currently totals approximately 2000 students of 50 different nationalities per year. Once more, a placement test 4

Cf. http://www.pnu.edu.sa/, accessed 21 November 2017.

202 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

(iḫtibār kafāʾa luġawiyya) is administered in order to group students into seven levels, the last called mustawà mutamayyiz (distinguished). Testing is not only a mere practice at the center but also a research topic. Alongside its e-learning programs (barāmiǧ taʿlīmiyya iliktrūniyya), Markaz al-Azhar encourages the preparation of its staff in the field of testing, through the development of an international standardized test (iḫtibār miʿyārī ʿālamī), which has already seen sample versions in the last few years. A further aim of the institute is to promote an ‘al-Azhar University method’ (manhaǧ azharī) for Arabic language teaching, respecting the most up-to-date educational systems.5 The institute webpage, evidences diversified applications: from recitation videos uploaded by students to role-plays. In 2013, Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa was appointed scientific supervisor of the center. Finally, a multitude of Arabic language courses, both Modern Standard and Colloquial Arabic, have gone online.6 These vary in genre: formal – thus run by university TAFL centers – informal, nonformal, hence offered by experts, mother tongue, etc. For space and time limits, these are not cited, as private schools throughout the Arab territory were not mentioned either, except for the Qasid Arabic Institute based in Amman, Jordan, which represents a particular case substituting the CASA Egypt-based courses during the turmoil besetting the country in 2011 and for the Wissem Arabic Language Institute (WALI)7 (Maʿhad Wissām) based in Tunis and founded by the namesake teacher Wissem Hachicha of the Bourguiba School in 2016.

Broader Debates Theoretical debates relating to TAFL have repeatedly been the focus of meetings held in Cairo in 2011, 2013 and 2015, where AFL teachers gathered for the Second Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers Forum (multaqà muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā), organized by the Arab School of Translators. A further event to be included here is the Conference on TAFL Parameters and Strategies (muʾtamar taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, al-maʿāyīr wa-l-istrātīǧiyyāt) held at Suez Canal University (Ǧāmiʿat Qanāt al-Suways) at the end of 2017, which demonstrates the diffusion of this study area on a broader scale. 5 Cf. http://azhar-ali.com/go/, accessed 7 January 2018. 6 A satisfactory repository of these sites can be found at the following link: http://www.farum. it/earabo/, accessed 29 August 2017. 7 Cf. http://wali.com.tn/, accessed 29 May 2017.

The Present Period

203

Arab countries like the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan and Sudan have also hosted important conferences in recent years. For instance, in 2015 Qasid Arabic Institute of Amman organized the First International Conference on the Teaching of Arabic to Non-native Speakers (al-muʾtamar al-duwalī al-awwal: taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā) in cooperation with the Istanbul Foundation for Research and Education (ISAR) and AnNajah National University of Nablus. In addition, in 2017 the Saudi Arabia Cultural Mission in Khartoum organized the symposium entitled Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers.8 Outside the region, other important debates have been organized in Spain, Turkey, Italy, France, Southeast Asia, to cite a few: the Institut Avicenne des Sciences Humaines (Maʿhad Ibn Sīnā li-l-ʿulūm al-insāniyya) of Lille (France) organized three conferences dedicated to the implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) in Arabic; Arabele2012, the second Congreso Internacional sobre Enseñanza del Árabe como Lengua Extranjera took place in Madrid at the end of September 2012 and gathered a great number of TAFL scholars again, this time from eighteen different countries, e.g., Bulgaria, Egypt, France, Netherlands, Austria, Germany, Oman, Japan, Morocco, Portugal, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. In 2011, the Cultural Afro-Asian Friendship Society (ǧamʿiyyat al-ṣadāqa al-afrūʾasyawiyya al-taqāfiyya) organized the Symposium on the Teaching of Arabic to Non-Arabs in Europe and in the Arab World in Cairo, which was opened by a renowned TAFL scholar, namely ʿAlī Aḥmad Madkūr, who was professor of applied linguistics (manāhiǧ wa-ṭuruq tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya) at Cairo University, former dean of its Center for Educational Research and Services (Maʿhad al-dirāsāt al-tarbawiyya bi-Ǧāmiʿat al-Qāhira), now deceased and acclaimed as the ‘Islamic education pioneer’ (raʾid al-fikr al-tarbawī al-islāmī) by digital media announcing his death in May 2016.9 Just as important in the same year, two international TAFL seminars were organized in Southeast Asia: one on ‘the experience of teaching Arabic in Indonesia’ (taǧribat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī Indūnīsiyā) and the other, SAPBA’11, on Arabic language teaching. The first was held at Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University of Malang (Indonesia), while the second was held in Bangi, at the National University of Malaysia. Many scholars 8 Cf. http://www.alecso.org/en/events/news/1497-alecso-participates-in-symposium-onteaching-arabic-to-non-native-speakers-as-part-of-13th-khartoum-international-book-fair. html, accessed 4 December 2017. 9 See, e.g., https://almesryoon.com/, accessed 19 November 2017; http://www.misralbalad. com, accessed 29 August 2017.

204 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

participated in the second meeting, which was followed by publication of the proceedings. Contributions mainly focused on the seminar topic, TAFL Insights and Challenges of Malaysia and China, i.e., Arabic in China (Hong 2011), silent reading, TAFL and transformational-generative theories, language skills development (Muḥammad and Arifin 2011), textbook evaluation (Chik and Yaʿqūb 2011), testing (Jang 2011), etc. Of note are the lecture by Daud on video use as a multimedia tool in the AFL classroom and that by al-Rabbāḥ, who compared the various experiences of Saudi Arabia TAFL institutes. The first scholar reported an experimental study carried out at Sultan Ismail Petra International Islamic College in Kelantan (Malaysia), where he expounded on the use of information technology (tiknūlūǧiyā al-maʿlūmāt) in the AFL classroom. According to Daud, the use of video materials allows learners to practice the language actively and develop all language skills. The second contribution illustrated the experiences of six Saudi Arabia TAFL centers, namely Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ, Umm al-Qurà, al-Madīna and the TAFL institutes of Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud, King Abdulaziz and Princess Nourah universities, encompassing the research area of comparative and TAFL experiences, considerably debated since the late 1970s (al-Fiqī; Madkūr 1985; al-Munaẓẓama 1992; al-Duḫayl; Ḫaryūš; Madkūr and Harīdī). Specifically, al-Rabbāḥ examines and highlights the differences of the programs offered by these institutes, in regards to foreign learners and prospective AFL teachers. More recently, an increasing commitment has been evidenced in the TAFL field of certain Arab nations that had kept a low profile in the past. One of these is the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Indeed, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and other Emirati cities like Al-ʿAin have hosted important conferences on Arabic language, linguistics and teaching. For example, the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) of Al-ʿAin (Ǧāmiʿat al-Imārāt al-ʿArabiyya al-Muttaḥida) organized a conference called ExAL – Experimental Arabic Linguistics in 2013, where a notable presence of TAFL scholars was witnessed. Similarly, from 2012 on, the Arabic Language National Council (al-Maǧlis al-duwalī li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya) has organized an annual Arabic Language International Conference (al-muʾtamar al-duwalī li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya), holding its seventh event in Dubai in April 2018.10 In 2013, the Zayed House for Islamic Culture (ZHIC) hosted the Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations (muʾtamar Abū Ẓabī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā), which coincided with the World Arabic Language 10 Cf. http://www.alarabiahconference.org/, accessed 26 July 2018.

The Present Period

205

Day (18 December) and aimed at Arabic language diffusion. Among lecturers, Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa, Riḥāb Zinnātī and Maḥmūd Faraǧ participated, representing Markaz al-Azhar (Egypt). A sizeable number of UAE universities took part in the forum also, for instance, Zayed University, UAEU, the University of Sharjah (Ǧāmiʿat al-Šāriqa) and Al Ain University of Science and Technology (Ǧāmiʿat al-ʿAyn li-l-ʿulūm wa-l-tiknūlūǧiyā). From this last institute there were the scholars Zuhriyya Šanāʿa, ʿAyyād ʿAbd al-Maǧīd, ʿAyša Ḥasan, Wafāʾ Ḫarbaša and Dāliyā Mabrūk, reflecting the university’s keenness to support Arabic as a world language and its teaching to speakers of other languages as part of the propagation of Arab and UAE identity.11 Other speakers present came from Université Moulay Ismaïl of Meknès (Morocco), Markaz ʿAmmān, International Islamic University of Malaysia, University of Malaga, University of Leipzig, University of Siena, the Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales (INALCO), the École Normale Supérieure de Tunis, etc. Lectures concentrated on TAFL experiences within and outside the UAE, such as teaching Arabic in China (Jang 2013; Sirāǧ 2013), Indonesia (Oril 2013), Turkey (Ṣanūbar 2013), France (al-Bustānī 2013), Italy (al-Maraʿī 2013), Jordan (Abū ʿAmša 2013) and the Emirates (al-Ḥūsānī 2013; Šahmāt 2013). In addition, other topics were discussed: textbook drafting (al-Nāqa 2014), AFL curriculum design, evaluation of learners, testing, phonological difficulties and spelling mistakes (Faraǧ 2013). Nei Hanan Farhan presented a paper on the reading strategies of non-native speakers of Arabic and their influence on reading comprehension, and Saʿīd Ḥāfiẓ Muḥammad reported on his study on the effect that getting old has on learning Arabic by AFL learners. Of note also was Muḥammad al-Ǧannāš’ paper on techniques for the construction of an international Arabic language test to measure foreign learners’ skills, Ahmed Al Beibi’s presentation on the CEFR and its requirements for preparing an Arabic curriculum for speakers of other languages and Riḥāb Zinnātī’s paper on the parameters of AFL teachers in light of international parameters and requirements of teacher training, all in line with some recent TAFL debates that concentrated on assessment parameters (maʿāyīr) and qualification systems (see Chapter 6). The Forum of Abu Dhabi also elaborated a series of recommendations: first of all the importance of organizing TAFL meetings regularly, secondly the need to devise an international testing system for Arabic similar to TOEFL and IELTS, along with preparing a framework for AFL learners at all 11 Cf. https://www.aau.ac.ae/en/news/2013/abu-dhabi-forum-for-teaching-arabic-to-speakersof-other-languages/, accessed 23 September 2017.

206 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

levels in line with the CEFR and ACTFL guidelines.12 A number of selected presentations were also compiled and published in a scientific journal issued in 2014 by ZHIC. The year 2013 was undoubtedly a prolific one in regards to conferences and forums on TAFL. In fact, a series of meetings were also organized in Egypt. Of special note was the First Meeting on the Teaching of Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers (al-multaqà al-awwal ḥawla taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā) held at Markaz al-Azhar between 14 and 16 January and chaired by Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Fuḍayl al-Qawṣī and Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa. The Meeting of Cairo was distinguished by the participation of various institutions like ALECSO, ISESCO, IUA, Saudi TAFL centers and a multitude of scholars of different provenances. Lectures addressed testing, test construction (bināʾ iḫtibār), new technologies, the role of Egypt in the Arabic language diffusion outside the Arab world, the challenges and experiences of TAFL centers, i.e., Markaz al-Azhar, Maʿhad al-Qāhira and the IUA Institute. A series of recommendations were issued at the end of the meeting, including the establishment of the maǧlis ʿālamī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā (World TAFL Council), comprising the institutions taking part in the event. In November 2013, the School of Languages (Kulliyyat al-alsun) of Ain Shams University organized a conference entitled Arabic Studies in a Changing World: The First Conference of the Arabic Department (al-dirāsāt al-ʿarabiyya fī ʿālam mutaġayyir: al-muʾtamar al-awwal li-qism al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya). The speakers lectured on diverse areas of Arabic studies: grammar, rhetoric, translation studies, comparative literatures, poetry, Arabic L1 and TAFL. Regarding the last topic, the presentations on Arabic in Indonesia (Pancarani), Nigeria (ʿAbd al-Salām 2014; Adetunji) and Europe (ʿAbbūd; Facchin 2014) are noteworthy, as they all considered the implications of globalization (ʿawlama) in the field of TAFL. This argument was also the focus of a conference entitled Internationalizing the Arabic Language (naḥwa ʿālamiyyat al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya), organized by the Arabic Language and Culture Center (ALCC) of Cairo University in December of the same year. At the end of April 2014, the College of Art and Sciences of Qatar University (Ǧāmiʿat Qaṭar) held a conference entitled Linguistics and Arabic Language Teaching Development (al-lisāniyyāt wa-taṭwīr taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya) in Doha, which was devoted to various aspects of the linguistic theory and practice (e.g., text, computational linguistics), TAFL included. Arabic 12 Cf. http://zhic.ae/en/Events/News/NewsDetails.aspx?News=ad.zhic.teaching.speake, accessed 29 November 2017.

The Present Period

207

language teaching was analyzed in regards to L1 and FL learners, as its aperture to the international scene was considered. The clear distinction between first and foreign language issues showed maturity among conference organizers – chaired by ʿAlī Aḥmad al-Kabīsī, professor of grammar and morphology and head of the Arabic Department at Qatar University 13 – who insisted on the difference between target learners, namely Arabs and non-Arabs, and consequently on their respective curricula design. Conference lecturers came from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Oman. Of note is the presentation by Saʿad ibn ʿAlī al-Qaḥṭānī – professor of computer language teaching (taʿlīm al-luġa bi-wāsiṭat al-ḥāsūb) at King Saʿud University of Riyadh – dedicated to ‘professional standards of the AFL teacher’ (al-maʿāyīr al-mihniyya li-muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā). Two years later, in 2016, Markaz al-Dawḥa organized another international conference entitled Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers: Challenges of the Present, and Prospects of the Future, this time fully dedicated to TAFL. The conference aimed to discuss several topics like TAFL theory and practice, specific purposes, textbooks, practical experiments, heritage learners, challenges, and teaching colloquial varieties to non-native speakers.14 In October of the same year, a TAFL conference was held in Istanbul, where a sizeable number of experts gathered to discuss the current direction of the discipline. The conference, entitled Second International Conference at Istanbul: Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers (muʾtamar Isṭanbūl al-duwalī al-tānī: taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā), was devoted to learning strategies, skills (mahārāt) and competences (kifāyāt) among AFL learners. Among eminent lecturers participating was the author of the Ahlan wa Sahlan textbook series (see below), Mahdi Alosh (al-ʿUšš), ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿUṣaylī, Mohammad Alhawary (al-Ḥawārī) from the University of Michigan, and Muḥammad Būnaǧma, professor of Arabic at Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane (Morocco). The following year, again in Istanbul, Marmara University organized TANSC_2017, namely the Conference on Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers: A View to the Future (al-muʾtamar al-duwalī al-awwal, taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: naẓra naḥwa al-mustaqbal). Worth mentioning is the participation of other renowned scholars like Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl (Ṣīnī) Ṣāliḥ and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Ibrāhīm al-Fawzān, who took part in the preparation of 13 Cf. https://www.dohadictionary.org/EN/aboutus/councilmembers/pages/aliahmedalkabisi. aspx, accessed 22 September 2017. 14 Cf. http://www.qu.edu.qa/artssciences/anns/, accessed 5 December 2017.

208 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

al-ʿArabiyya bayna yaday-ka (Arabic between your hands). In addition, the lectures by Hānī Ramaḍān, Samīr Sayyīd on Arabic in Turkey, Basma Nuqalī on the religious training needs of AFL learners (cf. Nuqalī), Hiba Šannīk on TAFL for young learners and Muḥammad ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz from Markaz al-Azhar on speaking skill development based on the multiple intelligences theory (naẓariyyat al-dakāʾāt al-mutaʿaddida) principles (ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz 2017). These were all compiled in a volume of proceedings available online.15 Regarding today’s broader debates on TAFL, scholars have been discussing both old and new themes such as the AFL teacher profile, textbook evaluation, the affinity between language and culture, testing, rhetoric (ʿAbd al-Raḥīm), the study of colloquial varieties, the application of CEFR to TAFL (Saʿīd and Muḥammad), Arabic in the global era (Ḫazna Kātibī 2012; Yūsuf and al-Ġubārī; Ṣāliḥ [Ṣīnī] 2017), AFL learner difficulties, teaching performance, the Arabic chat alphabet (Ḫazna Kātibī 2012), the use of new technologies in the AFL classroom (Qināwī) and the teaching of Arabic for specific purposes, e.g., cultural (Chik; Jamous and Chik; al-Ḥamd) and touristic (Šabbākī). The figure of the educator has been frequently debated in TAFL from different perspectives, above all in regards to teacher preparation and specific training (see Chapter 3 and Chapter 4). In parallel, the teacher role has been reconsidered (al-Ḥamd; Zinnātī). The Moroccan professor ʿAbd al-Karīm Šabbākī explains in his textbook introduction that the Arabic language teacher is not a mere instructor (mulaqqin), but also an artist ( fannān), a creator (mubdiʿ); on a journey through language with students, guiding (yuršidu) and encouraging them to enquire, bridge gaps, read and speak (cf. Šabbākī, p. 11). Another typical debate regards the TAFL textbook. In the previous decades, scholars usually discussed the drafting of work; however, this time it was also a question of evaluation, in that case studies analyzed educational books from various perspectives (al-Ḫabbāṣ; Al Ali and Olaimat; Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī). For instance, Al Ali and Olaimat place great importance on the book and stress how it is core to and unmatched in the teaching and learning process. Their vision originates from certain distinguished readings, i.e., Ṭaʿīma (1983, 1985); al-Ġālī and ʿAbd Allāh; Wholey, Hatry, and Newcomer; Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen; Ṭaʿīma and al-Nāqa (2006, [1983] 2009). Consequently, the two scholars call attention to how the Jordan University TAFL textbook series lacks exercises; they confer its improvement and the domains that should be incorporated when writing an educational book. 15 Cf. http://tansc2017.wixsite.com/tansc2017/proceedings, accessed 29 November 2017.

The Present Period

209

Relative to this, Gago Gómez had examined lexical availability 16 in Arabic textbooks and proposed a list of common ‘centers of interest’, starting with the principle of vocabulary profitability and some specialized studies on lexical frequency (Amara 1999a, 1999b). The bond between language and culture is currently being further explored (cf. Šabbākī), however, from an unconventional angle. As many TAFL scholars (see Chapter 6) sustained in the past: culture is a fundamental aspect of language learning. In this period, Ossama disputes the topic once again, affirming that art ( fann) and culture should be taught along with language. This time, however, cultural and social aspects of language are introduced through an Egyptian song textbook while revealing history, culture, society, cinema, television series and the music of contemporary Egypt. The author of Kilma Hilwa (see below), in fact, wisely affirms that songs are not only didactic tools but more: they are the receptacle of a culture (wiʿāʾ taqāfa), people’s thoughts and are comparable to poetry and prose (cf. Ossama). Such equivalence is partly derived from previous works (Ṭaʿīma 1986; Ṭaʿīma and al-Nāqa 2006) and also used by al-Rabbāḥ, who adds that language is cultural nourishment (ġidāʾ). Similarly, Abdellah Chekayri (2011) promotes the study of Moroccan culture in a broader sense in his textbook. More precisely, the scholar puts emphasis on some cross-cultural aspects like cultural values (family, time, religion), clothing, music, habits, but also Moroccan history, geography and sociolinguistics. Besides the authors’ own choices, what is crystal clear is that the kind of Arab culture – be it Moroccan or Egyptian – displayed in these works varies from what was defined as significant for the Arab culture in the past. The question, however, is more complex than that. Both Ossama’s and Chekayri’s works refer to a specific culture, that of a single Arab country, and one could argue that such a comparison between today’s publications and previous studies on culture (e.g., Ṭaʿīma 1982; al-Nāqa 1985a) is futile as the focal points are different. Nevertheless, other contemporary Arab TAFL authors have examined the cultural issue of TAFL and taken stances similar to their peers. For example, Jamous and Chik (p. 39) affirm that Islamic culture refers to today’s ethical, spiritual and ideological attitudes. In spite of their theoretical position, the teaching of Arabic for cultural purposes program outlined in their study introduces the cultural elements such as history, archeology, architecture, customs, and ethics of Aleppo as a paradigm of Arab-Islamic culture. Not by 16 In this study lexical availability or lexicostatistics primarily refers to foreign or second language vocabulary selection, although it is employed today in other scientific disciplines like sociolinguistics, dialectology, ethnolinguistics and psycholinguistics (cf. Gago Gómez, p. 135).

210 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

chance, the two scholars affirm that ‘language exhibits the memory of the nation, through which heritage, values and concepts penetrate’ (ibid., p. 39). The aim of such a broad overview is to remedy distorted perceptions and misunderstandings promoted by mass media today, so as to raise cultural awareness among learners (see also Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī). By contrast, the study carried out by al-Rabbāḥ highlights that traditional Arab-Islamic cultural targets are still weighed in certain learning environments. As a matter of fact, the scholar points out that three out of four TAFL centers based in Saudi Arabia currently include religious subjects (ʿulūm šarʿiyya) in the AFL programs for foreign students. The fourth institute, Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ, provides lessons on Islamic culture (taqāfa islāmiyya) as well as offering dedicated programs on Arabic for medical, diplomatic and religious purposes. Arabic language testing has evidently been a further strategic argument recently, for scholars and institutes either express their intentions for test construction or have recently developed them (e.g., de Graaf; Alosh 2010; College voor Examens 2011a, 2011b; Jang 2011; telc; al-Ǧannāš; Benchina and Rocchetti; Feria et al.).17 AFL testing has been debated since the late 1960s within and outside the Arab world thanks to the efforts of some pioneers like Peter F. Abboud, Raji Rammuny (1980b, 1983, 1992, 1993, 1995) and Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī (cf. Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ). Moreover, TAFL centers of the Arab world have commonly provided placement tests to new students, for instance, in Egypt at Ain Shams University, Maʿhad al-Qāhira, Markaz al-Azhar, Markaz ʿAmmān, in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc., in order to place them in the most appropriate level (cf. Muḥammad Aḥmad; Ṣāliḥ; al-Duḫayl; Jamous and Chik). At the same time, scholars have never ceased to encourage the construction of standardized AFL tests (al-Nāqa 1985c; Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ; Ṭaʿīma 1986; al-Swīsī 1992; al-ʿUṣaylī 2002) and nowadays their recommendations seem to have been translated either into research results or practical outputs. The belief that testing represents a key research focus is prevalent today among scholars, 17 In addition to published material, one should cite a series of presentations held in several meetings during the last ten years. Among them, for example, were the papers presented at the international conference Arabele2012, held in Madrid at Casa Árabe in September 2012: ‘Proficiency Test for Arabic’ by Stefan Runge, and ‘Creación de Exámenes Normalizados de Árabe como lengua extranjera conforme al MCER’ by Gihane Amin, Azza Sheb, and Abeer Abd El Salam. Of note also was the paper ‘Online Language Testing of Immigrant Languages: A Nightmare or Just a Challenging Reality Check for the CEFR?’, presented by Christoph Schepers at the ALTE Sixth International Conference on Learning and Assessment: Making the Connections, held in Bologna, Italy, 3 to 5 May 2017, http://events.cambridgeenglish.org/alte2017-test/perch/resources/ book-of-abstractsfinal-v5-2.pdf, accessed 26 March 2018.

The Present Period

211

institute directors and experts taking part in specialized symposia and meetings. This may be explained with the fact that tests are often related to certifications (šahādāt) and these last have become an added value in the language market today. For this reason, Arabic Proficiency Tests (APTs) are currently offered by TAFL institutes based in the Arab world and other testing centers worldwide (see below). Some of them also issue certifications, which follow international standards (i.e., ACTFL and CEFR) or are consistent with the institute’s own parameters. Just as importantly, the question of Arabic language varieties has been likewise discussed. With respect to the study of MSA, Šabbākī (p. 10) affirmed that the language he chose for his textbook was a ‘widespread language’ (luġa mutadāwila), with functional sentences (ǧumal waẓīfiyya). By contrast, other Arab scholars’ positions can be considered groundbreaking if compared to classical views of some Arab TAFL authors. Beside the unconventional nature of Ossama’s textbook (see below), the Egyptian teacher sustains the study of Egyptian Colloquial Arabic, a position that is divergent to the stances previously taken by Ḥassān (1983) and al-ʿUṣaylī (2002). The teaching and learning of colloquial varieties in fact has been scarcely explored by Arab TAFL scholars, who have given due deliberation to the topic only in the last two decades (e.g., Louis 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2009a, 2009b; Chekayri 2011; al-Tonsi, Salem, and Korica Sullivan; Haydar, Haydar, and Sinno). Similarly, a certain interest in the Arabic chat alphabet 18 has been corroborated in recent TAFL debates. The Arab Spring, for instance, has prompted scholars to discuss new topics. Furthermore, a lively debate on the Arabic chat alphabet and its implications within the AFL classroom was observed at the conference organized by the ALCC of Cairo University in December 2013 entitled Internationalizing the Arabic Language.

Methods Currently, theoretical persuasions range from the great Arab tradition to the contemporary scientific advance in Foreign Language Teaching. Actually, Arab TAFL scholars had already drawn on the work of leading Arab authors 18 The Arabic chat alphabet is also known as ‘Arabish’, ‘Arabizi’ (ʿarabīzī) and Franco-Arabic. It represents one part of a broader phenomenon called ‘the language of the youth’ (Abdalla, p. 253). It mixes Latin script and numerals and it is used to communicate in Arabic over the internet and via mobile phones when the Arabic alphabet is unavailable. For a general overview on the topic, see Yaghan.

212 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

of the past like Ibn Ǧinnī or Ibn Ḫaldūn, prominent FLT theoreticians and Arab TAFL authors, as examined in Chapter 6. In this regard, the current trends have been forged from the previous decade. Nowadays, scholars aptly valorize various traditions and philosophies, from classical examples like Sībawayhi, al-Fārisī, al-Zaǧǧāǧ, Ibn Ḫaldūn, al-Ǧurǧānī to modern and contemporary theories originating within and outside the Arab region, e.g., those by Skinner, Robert Lado, Stephen Krashen and Noam Chomsky. Previous works on TAFL written by Arab scholars are also frequently cited today. These range from early contributions (e.g., al-Ḥadīdī) to the most recent and influential ones (al-ʿUṣaylī 2002; Madkūr and Harīdī), including essential guides like those by Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl (Ṣīnī) Ṣāliḥ, ʿAlī al-Qāsimī, Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma, Fatḥī Yūnis, Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa, and a series of other significant works (al-Fiqī; al-Ġālī and ʿAbd Allāh; al-Qumāṭī 1992; al-Duḫayl), thus encompassing over 50 years of debates and discussions in the field. Substantively, there have been consistent works published outside the Arab world (Wholey, Hatry, and Newcomer; Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen; Beacco; Gourguignon). For example, Ḫazna Kātibī (2014) represents this complex range of theoretical influence: she warns educators against Teacher Talking Time (TTT), while emphasizing good pronunciation (nuṭq ṣaḥīḥ), reading aloud and the use of Arabic as the only vehicular language in class, a series of methodological instructions already well established in the field of TAFL. A new approach in TAFL is revealed – albeit not thoroughly – by ʿAbd al-Karīm Šabbākī in his textbook series. The author, substantively, proposes a particular AFL methodology, which puts emphasis on learning pleasure, does away with monotony (ratāba) and boredom (malal) and fosters interaction outside the classroom as well as practice through the use of multimedia materials. Pleasure for personal discoveries (al-mutʿa fī al-iktišāf al-dātī) is highly regarded, as it develops personal abilities (qudrāt šaḫṣiyya) and individuality. On the other hand, Ryding (2013) discusses Arabic language learning and teaching in relation to a series of newer methods and approaches. Besides rarely cited teachings like the Natural Approach (e.g., al-ʿUṣaylī 1999, 2002), Content-Based Instruction (CBI) (Elgibali and Taha) and the Community Language Learning (cf. Ryding Letzner), she analyzes Counseling Learning (CL) and Task-Based Learning and Teaching (TBLT) in relation to AFL classroom specifics. Despite theoretical progress, old methods are still prevalent in certain learning environments. The audio-lingual method is promoted at CLANA in Rabat (see above), where AFL lessons are carried out using ‘une méthode

The Present Period

213

audio visuelle basée sur les enregistrements audio et sur les cassettes audio visuelles, les moyens médiatiques’.19 Similarly, a study carried out by al-Marāšida in 2016 demonstrated that the AFL textbook series used in Jordanian public university TAFL centers are still based on various outdated FLT approaches like the global, analytical, translation, audio-lingual and direct methods. In other cases, a communicative approach is confirmed. For instance, Jamous and Chik encourage learners to strengthen their ‘language and communication skills as well as their deep understanding of the target language culture’ (ibid., p. 37). Particular regard is also given to the learner needs and the situations dealt with in language use. According to Al Ali and Olaimat, ‘crowding the mind with information, grammatical concepts and features of the language will never lead the learner to use the language effectively unless he really has the opportunity to speak it’ (Al Ali and Olaimat, p. 876). In essence, learners should be given the opportunity to practice the language in ordinary situations daily and encouraged to solve problems in real life (cf. ibid., p. 878). According to Brustad, al-Batal, and al-Tonsi (2010), class time should be devoted to interactive activities, dictation, practicing writing and conversation. Similarly, Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī propose a syncretic communicative approach, which is the result of their diverse readings ranging from eminent foreign scholars like Ferdinand de Saussure, Noam Chomsky to renowned Arab TAFL authors (al-Ḥadīdī; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz 1983; Ṭaʿīma 1983, 1989; Yūnis 1983; Madkūr 1985; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985; al-Nāqa 1986; Ibrāhīm 1987; Abū Dalū in ʿAbd al-Ḫāliq; al-Dulaymī and al-Wāʾilī). Their approach represents an integration of various theories at the core of today’s FLT methodological development, eclectic orientations and the communicative approach, with special regard (murāʿā) to learner attributes ( furūqāt) and training needs (iḥtiyāǧāt). Accordingly, the two scholars mention communicative competence, asserting that every approach has its merits and shortcomings (cf. Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī, p. 932) and that language should be introduced through real situations (mawāqif ḥayya), functional grammar and with the aid of audio-visual tools (muʿayyanāt samʿiyya baṣariyya). Everyday language and functional topics (mawḍūʿāt waẓīfiyya) are also affirmed as a means to enable learners to interact with the society that surrounds them and consequently gain a more accurate and deeper understanding of the 19 My translation: ‘an audio-visual method based on audio recordings, videotapes, and mass media’. Cf. http://fse.um5.ac.ma/page/cours-intensif-de-langue-arabe-aux-non-arabophones, accessed 22 September 2017.

214 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

culture they are studying. The use of images is encouraged as it benefits sound retention. In addition, Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī promote a wide variety of classroom activities like computer games (alʿāb ḥāsūbiyya), playful activities (alʿāb luġawiyya), cultural focus on history and literature, which avert boredom and allow learners to easily associate old and new notions, in a carefree way with pleasure (tasliya) (cf. al-Ḫawlī). Listening is considered an important skill, a fundamental integral in the University of Jordan textbook series also (Maǧdūba et al. 2006, 2007). The authors hold that listening implies precision (diqqa) and concentration (tarkīz); it is organized in different levels (maǧmūʿa min mustawayāt) and hence should be taught gradually from easy to difficult and from short to long excerpts (cf. Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985). In regards to cognitive reckoning, before mastering communicative competence students have to get through simpler stages of language learning, a process that recalls the popular three level approach by Tammām Ḥassān (1983). Another example of the communicative approach is the textbook by Chekayri (2011) dedicated to Moroccan Arabic (see below), which invites learners to communicate meaning in real situations: essentially similar to the communicative competence theorized by Dell Hymes in 1972. Speaking activities are carried out in couples or small groups and students are trained so that they engage in everyday life. This shows that everyday language is still a focus of TAFL, as it transversally characterizes today’s teaching philosophies (Brustad, al-Batal, and al-Tonsi 2010; Al Ali and Olaimat; Younes, Weatherspoon, and Saliba Foster; Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī; al-Marāšida) as it did yesterday’s (e.g., Ibn Ismāʿīl, Ibn Ṣāliḥ, and al-ʿĀyid; Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān 1988). The approach proposed by Chekayri is communicative and puts emphasis on the teaching of everyday language. In addition, it is based for the most part on the al-Kitaab series, suitably defined by Nielsen (2009, p. 153) as a ‘genuine communicative textbook’. More specifically, Chekayri’s approach favors activating vocabulary rather than introducing it and working with grammar instead of explaining it (Brustad, al-Batal, and al-Tonsi 1995b). The approach is then strengthened by other scientific principles, such as avoiding localisms, striving for grammatical accuracy, and giving listening activities a central role, as the author affirms that ‘listening makes good listeners’, citing Auty, Harris, and Holes. Proven to be more than a communicative textbook, the al-Kitaab series is also well known for its integrated approach, which is supported today by a theoretical construct (Alosh 2010; Aguilar et al.; Chekayri 2014; Younes 2015; al-Batal 2018). Moreover, the revised third edition adds the study of a

The Present Period

215

second colloquial variety, namely Levantine Arabic (LA): vocabulary in šāmī is introduced alongside with MSA and Egyptian Arabic. Choosing to align the study of multiple varieties with that of MSA is not unique to the series, as other scholars advocate and modern AFL learning environments also promote this ‘new emerging trend’ (Alhawary 2018a, p. 415). Younes affirm that ‘if a student masters a major spoken variety […] well enough, he [or] she will be able to function in other spoken varieties, just as native speakers from different areas of the Arab world do’ (Younes, Weatherspoon, and Saliba Foster). Actually, this represents the maturation of the integrated approach, for it focuses on multiple varieties and registers of Arabic. According to Brustad, al-Batal, and al-Tonsi (2010) the latter should be considered a fullness to be embraced, rather than feared. The scholars’ philosophy rests on the assumption that the boundaries between spoken and formal register of Arabic are porous. Moreover, it is stressed that today there is an increasing number of multidialectal situations, yet too few comprise ‘pure’ dialects, above all outside the Arab world within Arabic-speaking communities (cf. ibid.). As de Ruiter and Ziamari also point out: international television channels currently broadcast programs watched by Arabophones of different nationalities (e.g., Arab Idol, Star Academy and The Voice), where a mélange de variété arabes, MSA included, is witnessed. Similarly, Ryding (2018) speaks about ‘multiple interrelated realities’ when defining the ‘complex dichotomy’ usually codified as the traditional binary distinctions between high and low variants (cf. ibid.). Although recent findings have revealed mutual intelligibility in Arabic cross-dialectal conversations (Soliman 2014), and that learners of spoken Arabic have positive attitudes and claim to be more motivated to study the language (Donitsa-Schmidt, Inbar, and Shohamy, p. 226), reflection should be given to Alhawary’s recommendation ‘to empirically investigate the efficacy of this approach and whether or not it has sound pedagogical underpinnings’ (Alhawary 2018a). The al-Kitaab series approach is demarcated by different philosophical principles, summarized in the textbook teacher’s section. Undoubtedly, these principles will continue to influence the TAFL debate on methods in the near future, considering the worldwide success of this influential textbook series. Wahba and Chaker (p. 118) point out that the authors adopt a markedly different philosophy in the treatment of diglossia by backing their claim that Arabic should be considered as ‘one language’, where each register reflects vital parts of the Arab culture. This perspective is also promoted in a seminal volume recently edited by al-Batal (2018), where many contributors advocate the integration of MSA and spoken Arabic into a unified curriculum for non-native speakers (e.g., Giolfo and Salvaggio

216 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

2018a; Younes 2018; Zaki and Palmer). Other key aspects of the approach are: accuracy, success rewarding and focusing on vocabulary. The scholars emphasize the role of this last, which is the foundation of Arabic skills, since ‘listening to a large number of words […] helps learners […] to internalize patterns and facilitate learning vocabulary’ (Brustad, al-Batal, and al-Tonsi 2010, p. xii). On the one hand, the theoretical scopes of TAFL approaches and methods are often easy to investigate, since there is an abundance of scholarly publications, textbooks introductions and scientific articles setting down teaching philosophies; on the other hand, classroom practice has always been very difficult to explore. Hence, Alhawary stresses that constant awareness is needed to address the disconnect between SL learning findings and actual teaching practices in the classroom (cf. Alhawary 2018a). At present, case studies occasionally report either methodological consistency with the adherent FLT/TAFL approach or by contrast disharmony. For instance, Ḫazna Kātibī (2014) investigated ASL student learning strategies at Markaz ʿAmmān, while Al Ali and Olaimat highlighted a lack of exercises in the Jordan University TAFL textbook series (Maǧdūba et al. 2007), an aspect reported in part also by Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī (p. 935), which likely compromised class lessons, as the educational book represents an indispensable tool apart from its contents or other.

Scholarly Production The current scholarly TAFL production concentrates on specialized research often bestowing scientific maturity and awareness of scholars. As Allen affirms: TAFL ‘professionalization […] is now not merely firmly established in academic institutions […], but also thriving as an environment for research on multiple aspects of both language teaching and learning’ (Wahba, England, and Taha, p. xi). In this paragraph, the production selected from a vast bibliography refers to printed material, electronic publications, scientific journals, articles, etc., while unaccredited materials that can be frequently found on the web today are excluded. Today, scholars grapple with the teaching of Arabic to young foreign learners (al-Raʾīs; al-Karmī; Šannīk), specific purposes (Ḫazna Kātibī 2012), TAFL case studies and experiences (al-Rabbāḥ; Šarābī; al-Marāšida; Nuqalī; Wilmsen), important TAFL analyses (Albantani; Maḥyūt), textbook evaluation (Al Ali and Olaimat; Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī), Arabic and globalization (Yūsuf and al-Ġubārī), language testing and social integration of AFL

The Present Period

217

students (indimāǧ iǧtimāʿī) (Ḫazna Kātibī and al-ʿAsāsifa). Contemporaneously, textbooks and other important editorial projects have been realized (e.g., Brustad, al-Batal, and al-Tonsi 2010; Chekayri 2011; Alosh and Clark 2013, 2014, 2015; al-Karmī; Younes, Weatherspoon, and Saliba Foster; Younes and al-Masri; Younes and Chami; Aguilar, Rubio, and Domingo; Šabbākī; Ossama; DiMeo and Hassan). In 2011, al-Rabbāḥ made a series of recommendations in a study published in the SAPBA’11 symposium proceedings. In his article entitled ‘maʿhad taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā fī al-Mamlaka al-ʿArabiyya al-Saʿūdiyya: dirāsa muqārana fī al-barāmiǧ wa-l-manāhiǧ’ (‘The TAFL Institute in Saudi Arabia: A comparative analysis of programs and curricula’), the scholar provided detailed information on the TAFL institutes currently operating in the kingdom. Foremost, the scholar summarized his idea of the imminent TAFL roadmap: indications already made in the past such as building Arabic language level tests, organizing TAFL meetings (see Al Ali and Olaimat; Ṣāliḥ [Ṣīnī] 2017), etc. The scholar also made some important observations fully representative of today’s TAFL scenario influenced by current social and geopolitical changes, as he called for the internationalization of TAFL institutes in order to share experiences, teachers, and promote common programs, including case studies examining AFL student learning difficulties and coming up with appropriate solutions. The internationalization of the Arabic language has indisputably taken center stage. In 2015, Yūsuf and al-Ġubārī published the proceedings of the Internationalizing the Arabic Language conference promoted by Cairo University ALCC two years earlier. In the work, scholars exchange views on the topic. Muḥammad ʿAnānī (in Yūsuf and al-Ġubārī) defines Arabic as an international language, i.e., a lingua franca ‘used in communication […] studied in the process of learning about Islam and the Quran’ (cf. ibid.). Subsequently, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl (Ṣīnī) Ṣāliḥ publishes similar affirmations (Ṣāliḥ [Ṣīnī] 2017), highlighting how today Arabic is a global language spoken within and outside the Arab world. Among noteworthy scholarly publications are numerous case studies issued during this time. The following selection is representative, albeit not exhaustive, of the current research categories. In 2012, Jamous and Chik left an account of the Francophone Program of Arabic at Aleppo University: the operative methodology and program features – based on the full-immersion principle – allowed students to learn Arabic and open windows to the culture. According to the authors, the program for teaching Arabic for specific (cultural) purposes focused on student needs and accentuated correction of misperceptions by raising cultural awareness among learners.

218 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Another scholar working in Jordan, Hādiyā Ḫazna Kātibī, has produced a series of practical studies recently, tapping into analogous research (e.g., al-ʿAbdān and al-Darwīš; Būšayḫī). In 2012 she analyzed the challenges that ASL students usually face in the learning process: language fossilization (taḥaǧǧur), the diffused use of the Arabic chat alphabet and that of colloquial varieties rather than MSA in various situations like songs, television talk shows, series (musalsalāt), etc. In addition, the scholar stressed the difference between AFL, ASL and heritage learners, pointing out that those with Islamic backgrounds are usually exposed to language through the sacred scriptures readings and therefore should be given relative consideration (cf. Ḫazna Kātibī 2012). Two years later the scholar interviewed 154 advanced level ASL students at Markaz ʿAmmān, in an effort to explore their learning strategies. The study found that learners used different strategies depending on their histories (Ḫazna Kātibī 2014). Similarly, Al Ali and Olaimat, and Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī carried out two case studies that evaluated the AFL textbook series used at Markaz ʿAmmān and analyzed instructors’ and students’ perspectives. The first study centered on the third level of the series (Maǧdūba et al. 2007), which had never been evaluated in a published study before, and suggested pertinent improvement. The two authors, however, took inspiration from similar TAFL research published (ʿAbduh 1985; Ḥusayn), and even unpublished (e.g., by Yosnan, Bint Othman, and al-Ḫabbāṣ). They also reflected the current trend in the direction of research analyzing textbook series from various perspectives (see also Arbi 2001; Facchin 2012; Canu). Not by chance, Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī published an article entitled ‘al-Mahārāt al-istiqbāliyya, al-istimāʿ wa-lqirāʾa, fī minhāǧ al-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayr al-ʿarabiyya. al-Kitāb al-tānī wa-l-kitāb al-tālit namūdaǧan’ (‘Receptive skills, listening and reading, in the Jordan University curriculum for non-native speakers of Arabic. The second and third book as a model’), where they surveyed students’ points of view on the second and third AFL textbook volumes used at Markaz ʿAmmān. One year later, Ṭalāl al-Marāšida published a complete study entitled Bināʾ al-mahārāt al-luġawiyya fī kutub taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā fī al-ǧāmiʿāt al-urduniyya al-rasmiyya (Building language skills in the Jordanian public university AFL textbooks), examining thirteen textbooks used at the University of Jordan, Yarmouk and Al al-Bayt University (Ǧāmiʿat Āl al-Bayt) of Mafraq (al-Mafraq) to teach Arabic to foreign learners. The scholar questions whether the activities for language skills development in the textbooks adequately provide learners opportunities to use the language in everyday situations and interact with native speakers. On the whole, the results of the study are positive; however,

The Present Period

219

it interestingly revealed that the textbook pedagogical foundations are connected to various methodological orientations like the global, analytic, audio-lingual, translation and direct methods. Inferring from the analysis outlined above, it may be affirmed that the TAFL research carried out in Jordan has recently taken a precise direction, i.e., textbook evaluation, case study examination, etc. (see also al-Fāʿūrī and Abū ʿAmša). Despite having circumscribed significance, the article group described above still represents a contemporary trend defining the current TAFL direction in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which is distinguished from that of TAFL debates both developed and evolving in other Arab countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Sudan today. Among new scholarly contributions, application of the CEFR to Arabic has had consequential influence. Although its Arabic translation was already available by 2008, there was evidential delay in the document adoption by FLT/TAFL institutes within the Arab world. This process is actually either rare (cf. al-ʿUtmānī and al-Swīsī 2009a) or still in progress. Despite the fact that Norrbom 20 reports that the CEFR is gaining ground in the region, especially in the Gulf States and with respect to English language teaching, there is little demonstrable employment or enforcement the CEFR in Arabic from either theoretical or practical standing (de Graaf, Richters, and de Ruiter). As Soliman points out,21 at present, application of the CEFR in Arabic rests on individual efforts, as certain scholars have endeavored to incorporate the CEFR into Arabic language education in recent years (i.e., Toonen; Facchin 2012, 2014; Al Beibi; Aguilar; Pashova; Moucannas and Khalfallah; Giolfo and Salvaggio 2018b; Soliman 2018).22 In an article, Saʿīd 20 Cf. Norrbom, Bjorn, ‘Arabic Profile: CEFR for Arabic – A Learner Corpus Approach’, paper presented at the Eleventh EALTA Conference 2014, Warwick, UK. 21 Cf. Soliman, Rasha, ‘The Common European Framework of Reference for Arabic Language Teaching and Learning: Implementation and Challenges’, paper presented at the Seventeenth Association of University Language Centres Conference, UK, January 2016. 22 It is worth mentioning in this instance some significant papers presented in international meetings during the last decade. For example, the research by Gihane Amin, Azza Sheb, and Abeer Abd El Salam, entitled ‘Creación de Exámenes Normalizados de Árabe como lengua extranjera conforme al MCER’, and that by Marta Higueras, ‘Conceptos básicos del Marco Común Europeo de Referencia y su aplicación a la enseñanza del árabe’, both presented at the international conference Arabele2012, held in Madrid at Casa Árabe in September 2012. Of note also the paper by Hanan Khalifa, ‘Developing Reference Level Descriptions for the Arabic Language’, presented in 2011 at the First Biennial CEFR Conference, The CEFR and Its Implications for the Gulf States, held in Dubai, UAE, at the HCT Dubai Men’s College. Last but not least, the papers presented at the international conference Le CECRL et la didactique de l’arabe: bilan et horizons, held at the Université du Québec à Montréal in October 2014 and M.H. Suçin’s paper, ‘Arabic Language Curriculum Based on the Common European Framework of Reference: A Model Curriculum’,

220 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

and Muḥammad stress the importance of structured reference. According to the authors, the document represents an urgent priority for those – like TAFL experts – aiming to plan (taḫṭīṭ) lessons or evaluate learner progress; it also helps to rethink language policies (siyāsāt luġawiyya), harmonize assessment parameters (maʿāyīr al-taqyīm) and improve the traditional three-level division (elementary, intermediate, advanced) by favoring the more adaptable six-level approach (al-mustawayāt al-sitta al-murǧiʿiyya). In addition, the two scholars propose the drafting of a common framework for Arabic (iṭār murǧiʿī ʿālamī muwaḥḥad li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya), together with organized meetings on the topic. Another aspect of scholarly production concerns AFL tests. Such assessment has been developed recently by groups of scholars (e.g., telc; Benchina and Rocchetti) and at TAFL institutes within23 and outside the Arab world; for instance, the Centre for Languages and Pre-University Academic Development of the International Islamic University of Malaysia, which designed a test to ensure proper placement for students in Quranic language levels.24 In addition, testing experiences were documented and discussed on an international level (e.g., Alosh 2010; Jang 2011; al-Ǧannāš; Feria et al.).25 Of note are the testing experiences carried out in the United States, such as the Arabic Proficiency Test (APT) developed and periodically revised by Raji Rammuny, the National Examinations in World Languages (NEWL) Arabic test, 26 and the ACTFL assessments, i.e., Writing, Listening and Reading Proficiency Test (WPT, LPT, RPT),27 the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) and the Oral Proficiency Interview by Computer (OPIc).28 In Europe, worthy of mention is the work carried out at CITO Netherlands, where APTs are issued at the end of every school year29 (cf. de Graaf; College voor Examens 2011a, 2011b; de Graaf, Richters, and de Ruiter). These are presented at the First International Conference on the Teaching of Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Visions and Experiences, held in Istanbul in 2015. 23 For example, the AFL test created by Al Sheikh Zayed Center for Teaching Arabic to Nonnatives of al-Azhar University, cf. http://azhar-ali.com/go/about/, accessed 23 November 2017. 24 Cf. http://www.iium.edu.my/celpad/placement-tests, accessed 22 August 2018. 25 See the paragraph on Broader Debates of this chapter. 26 Cf. https://www.americancouncils.org/services/testing-and-assessment/newl/arabic, accessed 23 November 2017. 27 Cf. https://www.actfl.org/assessment-professional-development/assessments-the-actfltesting-office, accessed 23 November 2017. 28 Cf. https://www.actfl.org/professional-development/assessments-the-actfl-testing-office/ oral-proficiency-assessments-including-opi-opic, accessed 23 November 2017. 29 Arabic language tests are available on different levels on the following website: https:// www.examenblad.nl, accessed 5 February 2018.

The Present Period

221

organized in different levels – vmbo (BB, KB, GL/TL), havo, VWO – comparable to the CEFR level equivalents (cf. Alderson et al.; Noijons, Kuijper, and Reichard). Other significant experiences have occurred in Spain (Feria et al.) and Germany at telc gGmbH30 and at Al-Arabiyya Institute,31 where the APT is offered at different CEFR levels, from B1 to C2. In Italy, Benchina and Rocchetti have written Test preparatori per la certificazione della lingua araba: livello A1, livello A2, which contains a series of AFL (MSA) proficiency tests for A1 and A2 levels. These tests are devised to train prospective examinees and consequently certify the respective Arabic language level in case of success. Other significant scholarly contributions are to be found in al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya (Arab journal of linguistic studies) by ALECSO at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm, which published its 40th issue in 2017. Issues 37 (2016) and 40 (2017) include a series of important articles by Maḥyūt on the figure of ʿAlī al-Qāsimī, Bābikir on learning strategies and al-Naǧrān on the difficulties encountered by Pakistani students learning Arabic as a foreign language. In regards to textbooks, there have been new editorial projects and important revised editions of series recently. For instance, al-Kitaab has been improved with the introduction of Levantine Colloquial Arabic (LCA, in Arabic šāmī) alongside Egyptian and Modern Standard. The series has been improved with new video scenes filmed in Damascus, which correspond to those in Egypt. According to Wahba and Chaker (p. 112), the Alif Baa colloquial vocabulary selection concurs to Ryding’s high-frequency verbs and function words, which ‘cover a great deal of common discourse ground and make life much easier for the speaker/hearer’ (Ryding 1991, p. 215). Between 2009 and 2015, the second edition of the Ahlan wa Sahlan textbook series by Mahdi Alosh was revised (cf. Alosh and Clark 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015). Alosh is a scholar of Syrian origin who obtained his PhD at Ohio State University (OSU) in 1987 and started his career in the United States at OSU, then at the US Military Academy and recently collaborated with King Saud University for the drafting of a computerized APT. He started to write his textbook series in the early 2000s (cf. Alosh 2000a, 2000b, 2005), providing learners with a book that – according to the title chosen by the author himself – gives value to a ‘functional’ type of Arabic. Wahba and Chaker (p. 118) defined the series approach as ‘geared specifically toward communicative and proficiency goals’. The textbook teaches learners Arabic, 30 https://www.telc.net, accessed 23 November 2017. 31 https://e-toafl.com/, accessed 23 November 2017.

222 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

while presenting the story of Adnan, a Syrian studying in the United States, and Michael, an American studying in Cairo.32 With the new edition, the authors decided to put the Arabic letters and sounds part in a separated workbook comprising six chapters. They also shifted focus to communicating in Arabic, integrated a DVD video filmed in Syria and expanded communicative activities, which were not present in the first edition. Between 2013 and 2014, Munther Younes published the three volumes (f irst, second and third part) of the Arabiyyat al-Naas series (Younes, Weatherspoon, and Saliba Foster; Younes and al-Masri; Younes and Chami). The series is accompanied by instructional materials (i.e., DVD, companion website) and incorporates MSA with LCA ‘in a way that reflects the use of the language by native speakers’ (Younes, Weatherspoon, and Saliba Foster). The central theme of the textbook is the story (and written diary) of Emily, an American student, who travels to the Arab world and deals with everyday situations. Learners are encouraged to develop all language skills, through videos (mušāhada), reading/composition activities, and other language work focusing on grammar. Songs and games help make the classroom experience more enjoyable for students. In 2014, ʿAbd al-Karīm Šabbākī, professor at Mohammed V University (Ǧāmiʿat Muḥammad al-ḫāmis), published his textbook entitled al-Ṭarīq ilà al-luġa (The way toward language) in Rabat. The book introduction is by Mohammed Drif – previously mentioned – who asserts the good qualities of the work: it closes the gaps while providing an effective tool for dismantling a recurring classroom practice, namely the teaching of Arabic to foreigners with L1 schoolbooks (kutub madrasiyya waṭaniyya), ignoring the communicative needs of AFL learners (ḥāǧiyāt tawāṣuliyya waẓīfiyya). In addition, Drif continues (cf. Šabbākī, p. 7) by stating that the author uses a ‘knowledge sieve’ (ġarbalat al-maʿārif), selecting the specific communicative language skills that are appropriate for AFL learners, which is commendable thanks to his experience at the Faculty of Education Sciences of Rabat, where he collaborated with Omar Eddejli (al-Daǧlī) and Nura Moustarhfir (Mustaġfir). The textbook is part of a three-level series. Starting gradually by moving from easy to difficult, it considers AFL learner specificities, the journey (riḥla) from their mother tongue to the language of study, i.e., a functional Arabic language (luġa ʿarabiyya waẓīfiyya) for touristic purposes and cultural interests. The advanced-level book has sixteen lesson texts, ranging from prose (natar) to poetry (šiʿr) and dealing with social and cultural issues, all 32 Cf. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300162905/ahlan-wa-sahlan-set, accessed 3 October 2017.

The Present Period

223

nurturing human values (qiyam insāniyya). Each text is accompanied by a comprehension check (istīʿāb al-afkār) assessing meaning, the writer’s points of view (ibdāʾ al-raʾī), and aspects of the lexicon, grammar, morphology and syntax. Finally, blank pages are provided for answers (zāwiyat al-iǧāba) and questioning (tasāʾul), as they represent a vehicle for written composition, practice, observations (mulāḥaẓāt), refection (irtiwāʾ) and the passage to language (cf. Šabbākī, p. 12). The alternation between reading and practice (taṭbīqāt luġawiyya) is proposed by the author in order to conquer monotony and boredom in classroom. Moreover, Šabbākī encourages the use of means such as documentaries, newspapers, pictures and songs, which make studying useful and enjoyable (mumtiʿ), a position that recalls the studies on motivation in language learning, the influence of emotional factors and the pleasure of learning (e.g., Dörnyei; Arnold; Serragiotto 2006). As for the teaching of Arabic literature to foreigners, this niche field has recently gained a new textbook. In 2016, DiMeo and Hassan published their work entitled The Travels of Ibn Battuta: A Guided Arabic Reader, a textbook for advanced learners of Arabic. The book is designed to introduce traditional Arabic literature; it is also rich with a historical background introduction to texts, supporting explanatory notes, vocabulary lists, and varied exercises – like writing composition, interpretation, comprehension and discussion questions – including a glossary at the end. With respect to the teaching and learning of colloquial varieties, important examples of textbooks issued in this period are to be cited. First of all, the work by Abdellah Chekayri entitled An Introduction to Moroccan Arabic and Culture and published in 2011, which takes inspiration from the al-Kitaab series approach but also from previous examples of Moroccan Arabic textbooks for foreigners such as those by Harrell, and Abdel-Massih. As the author states in the introduction, the book cultivates effective expression in Moroccan Arabic (cf. Chekayri 2011) and encourages learners to communicate meaning in real situations. The textbook is targeted at learners with prior knowledge of the Arabic alphabet and at least one year of MSA study. It centers on language and culture, as it presents not only listening comprehension, grammar, texts, oral role-plays, but also tasks on social, religious, historical and cross-cultural aspects of contemporary Moroccan society. For example, it gives students practice in Moroccan music, habits, cultural values like family, religion, time, and nonverbal aspects like clothing (ḥawāyǧ). In practical terms, it favors the use of interactive and multimedia content-based material, together with oral drills, and role-plays. Noteworthy is another textbook dedicated to the study of colloquial varieties, i.e., Egyptian Arabic: Kilma Hilwa: Egyptian Colloquial Arabic

224 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

through Songs. Intermediate Level by Bahaa Ed-din Ossama (Usāma), a successful anthology of Egyptian songs that allows users to explore the realm of Egyptian music, cinema and culture. The textbook fills a gap; it can be used by both teachers and students, in classroom practice but also for self-study. It is written in Egyptian Arabic, and therefore targeted at learners of Egyptian Arabic as a Foreign Language (EAFL). In addition, it is organized in 20 units, each corresponding to a song carefully selected among a copious production of Egyptian music covering more than 60 years. Units open with QR codes, allowing users to quickly find the song on SoundCloud or on YouTube; then the lyrics are presented. Texts encompass plentiful themes like passion, nostalgia, hardship, poverty, etc., favoring the study of the language in tandem with Egyptian culture, cinema and recent history. Following the lyrics, new vocabulary is given, then observations on language and culture are made and a series of exercises completed, including comprehension, grammar check, oral (munāqaša) and written production activities. Lastly, regarding the European and North American contexts, there have been several important accomplishments in the field of TAFL. In 2012, Martí Tormo and Lozano Cámara published Al-Kaššāf, Enseñanza y aprendizaje del árabe como segunda lengua, a reference manual that groups work on TASL and TAFL – mainly of non-Arab provenance – issued between 1980 and 2011. In Spain, 2014 welcomed the publication of Mabruk A2.1 AFL language textbook by Aguilar, Rubio, and Domingo, as well as the Arabele2012 conference proceedings compiling representative contributions par excellence (Aguilar et al.). These were grouped in four sections – methodology, lexicon, translation, resources – and refer to aforementioned works (Chekayri 2014; Gago Gómez; Moscoso and Rodríguez; Pashova 2014; Soliman 2014). As for the United States, a major TAFL publication is Teaching and Learning Arabic as a Foreign Language: A Guide for Teachers by Karin Ryding. The book was issued in 2013 by Georgetown University Press, already known by TAFL specialists for publishing outstanding handbooks like those by al-Batal (1995), Wahba, Taha, and England and later al-Batal (2018), and Wahba, England, and Taha. The guide by Ryding is distinguished by its practical orientation: being a helpful AFL teacher and instructor resource for developing curricula, referencing methods, building tests and conducting research (cf. Ryding 2013). It is founded on pedagogical principles derived from FLT theories and scientific progress, e.g., the use of Arabic as much as possible in the classroom, besides encouraging extensive deliberate practice, dealing with student expectations and building confidence (cf. ibid., p. 14). Moreover, the guide employs activities distinctive of ALLT, considered and

The Present Period

225

promoted also by Arab scholars in language treatises (e.g., Qūra; al-Ǧaʿāfira). ALLT examples include reading aloud (qirāʾa ǧahriyya) and a ‘prized asset in the Arabic-speaking world’ (Allen in Ryding 2013, p. xi), specifically, the development of good writing (ḫaṭṭ). Subsequently, North America beheld four seminal works between 2015 and 2018: f irst, Munther Younes’ The Integrated Approach to Arabic Instruction published in 2015: then, the second volume of the Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century by Wahba, England, and Taha, al-Batal’s Arabic as One Language, and Alhawary’s Routledge Handbook of Arabic Second Language Acquisition, all published in 2018. Among these works, the Handbook by Wahba, England, and Taha duly underlines a manifest phenomenon in TAFL, which is that ‘few academic and scholarly disciplines have seen [such] […] rapid development’ (Wahba, England, and Taha). In essence, the volume covers the extraordinary and extensive work completed in the last ten years (cf. ibid.), from the publication of the f irst Handbook (Wahba, Taha, and England) to 2017, while giving account of current thought on TAFL worldwide.

Conclusions Historical and societal changes in the Arab region have recently triggered monumental developments in the field of teaching and learning Arabic as a foreign language from different perspectives, those of teachers and learners, but also of scholars and experts operating in the language field. Newer methods have been proposed, discussed, and sometimes applied; case studies have examined AFL textbooks validity by reflection on the actual tools available to teachers. In concluding with alacrity but also heed, it could be argued that the period examined in this chapter (2011-2018) should be longer to warrant review; however, it may be affirmed without further ado that internationalization – be it the exchange of research, students or scholars – represents an elemental factor today, as it is markedly a sign of globalization. Arabic has become a language of ‘major importance’ in international politics, business and culture (Allen in Wahba, England, and Taha). Furthermore, as Šabbākī (p. 7) affirms: the study of Arabic and its culture has opened thanks to globalization (ʿawlama) and new information and communication technologies, so that Arab nations are now oriented toward the international language scene.

226 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

As historically proven, the scholars of any discipline are bound to enquire about the possible future directions of their area of study. Therefore, contemporary scholars cannot refrain from investigating the prospective TAFL developments. Alhawary (2018a), for instance, identifies some roads not taken and states that future SL Arabic research will hopefully expand coverage of other areas in depth and breadth and explore well-established and emerging models, trends and issues.

Conclusions This study has been a journey of discovery: on the one hand, there is the identification and examination of the origins, developments and current directions of the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language (TAFL), which started as a simple branch of applied linguistics, then turned into an independent field, faced new challenges and finally reached the status of a full-fledged discipline; on the other hand, there is also the exploration and discovery of a multitude of other related aspects, such as twentieth- and twenty-first-century events, social contexts, and political changes of the Middle Eastern region, while taking snapshots of the Arab world and its academic research environments over the last 60 years. Such background information has been included since TAFL, like language teaching in general, follows the pendulum swings of history, politics and societal changes; hence, representing essential aspects that cannot be omitted as they provide a better understanding of the different research contexts. The study initiates with the assumption that some Arab countries were more important than others in the field of TAFL. Thus, special attention was paid to three Arab nations, namely Tunisia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which have definitely played a key role in the development of the discipline. Nonetheless, after an accurate examination of the references, the research was extended to the whole Arab world – and even in part outside its boundaries – since debates and scholarly publications were sometimes interlaced with one another and had to be analyzed in a much wider context. North America, Europe, Southeast Asia and South America were taken into consideration, though no up-close examination was carried out since literature is already abundant in country-specific historical analyses and focuses (e.g., Abboud 1968; Kalati 2003, 2004; Amara 2006; Anghelescu; Hee-Man and El-Khazindar; Ryding 2006b, 2018; Gomes De Araújo; Sirajudeen and Adebisi; Akar; Sumi and Sumi). Therefore, this study aims to provide a historical overview as thorough as possible on the evolution of TAFL within the Arab world and partially outside of it between 1958 and 2018. The last 60 years have been fully described decade after decade in six different chapters (2 to 7), which were preceded by a historical background (Chapter 1) clarifying the situation before the birth of TAFL as a research area and giving readers the historical contexts of today’s trends. In general terms, the chapters focused on TAFL, its scholars, main publications, and the institutes that hosted important meetings, where approaches, methods and trends as well as various specific topics (e.g., scales of levels, guidelines, placement and proficiency tests) were debated.

228 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Despite the fact that many scholars have tried to describe the genesis of TAFL (e.g., Makkī; Nasr; al-Swīsī 1979; Altoma 1980; Muḥammad Aḥmad; Fahmī; Badawi 1992a; al-ʿUṣaylī 2002; Versteegh 2006, etc.) and in recent years there has been publication of many other seminal works (e.g., Wahba, Taha, and England; Aguilar, Pérez Cañada, and Santillán Grimm; Ryding 2013; Aguilar et al.; Younes 2015; al-Batal 2018; Wahba, England, and Taha), much remains to be investigated. Accordingly, this study intends to fill a gap in the literature, for as of today no comprehensive historical overview on TAFL has yet been produced. As a consequence, there has been limited information regarding the discipline developments within the Arab world. In this sense, this study reveals the Arab perspective on the topic, which had remained undisclosed for many years. At the same time, it highlights the interplay between the Arab region research environments and the rest of the world, together with scholarly Arab and non-Arab stances. In general, the research produced manifold results. As my proposed objective was to conduct a historical analysis of TAFL, the first and most important research question investigated the ‘when’; namely determining the outset of TAFL within the Arab world. In substance, the TAFL chronicles narrated by Arab scholars display a wide range of viewpoints. Some of them stressed the fact that TAFL practice concerned foreigners, i.e., non-Arabs. For instance, Makkī narrated the birth of TAFL for the first time in Toledo, at the Escuela de Traductores, the School of Translators, where Arabic was taught in the twelfth century. Some other authors placed the outset of TAFL as a research area both inside and outside the Arab region around the end of the 1950s with the meetings held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at Harvard University, Madrid at the Instituto de Estudios Islámicos and by citing the particular history of Maʿhad Marīdī of South Sudan, where Arabic was taught to local speakers of a language other than Arabic. In addition, the research rearward in time also unveiled early AFL teaching experiences. These were, for example, the AFL inception at the American University in Beirut (AUB), already in place in the early 1920s, when the famous Lebanese scholar Anīs Frayḥa began teaching new American faculty members and their wives Lebanese Colloquial Arabic at AUB. In addition, 1948 saw the establishment of the Middle East Centre for Arab Studies (MECAS) in the village of Shemlan (Lebanon), after functioning for a few years in Jerusalem and Zarqa. Much earlier, non-Arab converts, slaves, refugees and renegades, who moved to the Arab world, were – in a sense – the original learners of Arabic as a Foreign or Second Language for they learned Arabic either through the sacred scriptures or the local dialect in the field by natural contact with its speakers. These experiences did not

Conclusions

229

all receive exhaustive attention because they either did not represent pure examples of TAFL, such as in the case of Maʿhad Marīdī, or did not comprise the characteristics of the main focus of the study. However, what was crystal clear was that different chronological and geographical contexts had to be distinguished and that generalizations on the topic could not be formulated. Scholarly production included plenty of accounts and historical reconstructions and in order to answer identify the origins of TAFL, situations required differentiation. For instance, on the one hand, TAFL as a teaching practice was an old tradition outside the Arab world. Arabic developed from being a scholarly language studied for religious and commercial purposes in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to serving as one of the main foreign and second languages in the twenty-first century with worldwide diffusion in new contexts, e.g., Japan, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Korea, etc. On the other hand, the TAFL research area, as we know it today, was born both inside and outside the Arab region at the same time. The new branch sprung from the interplay, exchange and dialogue between the new independent Arab countries and the rest of the world in a specific milestone at the end of the 1950s, characterized by the reorganization of the world’s economic and political equilibrium. As a consequence, the outset of TAFL is blurred and there is no single turning point, though a series of important dates and events (see the List of Events) that sanctioned the birth of TAFL as a research area and marked AFL inceptions as a teaching practice according to the different geographical settings. To this extent, the Lebanese scholar Raja Tawfik Nasr affirmed in 1978 that his TAFL treatise was a personal response to what he perceived as a felt need by teachers of Arabic as a Foreign Language in the Middle East, East Africa, North Africa, Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States. With respect to TAFL influences, one can affirm that TAFL took inspiration from various disciplines. The hypothesis that TAFL was affected by the foreign language teaching practices previously developed within the Arab region revealed itself as an inaccurate assumption. Nonetheless, some of the strongholds of nineteenth-century modern instruction, where foreign languages were taught, played a key role in the early TAFL phases. For example, the School of Languages of Cairo – formerly the School of Translators – hosted a commission for the drafting of an AFL textbook in 1960. Despite the fact that this institute may have represented a fertile place for the newborn branch, no significant correlation of teaching practices confirmed the first hypothesis, namely that foreign language teaching within the Arab world influenced TAFL either on the theoretical or practical level.

230 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Initially, TAFL actually reflected first language (L1) teaching, namely Arabic to Arabs, at least on the practical level. The use of L1 textbooks in the AFL classroom remained a prevailing and recurring teaching practice in learning environments until the late 1970s. TAFL institutes of the Arab world often recruited educators that were not specialized although they could count on good field experience, as they were either professors of Arabic as L1 or foreign languages. In addition, this wrong practice was also common outside the region, since the Ministries of Education of certain Arab countries would ship Arabic L1 textbooks to African countries, such as Gambia. When the lecturers gathered at the Symposium of Riyadh in 1978, they left accounts of this textbook route while affirming that TAFL was being developed and needed to be implemented; they called for renewal of teaching methods, refusing the traditional ways and denouncing the aforementioned wrong practice. The debate generated in Riyadh displayed a general raising of awareness among Arab TAFL scholars, who gradually reached scientific maturity in the following decades, as they distinguished between L1 and FL learners. In general terms, L1 teaching impacted AFL classroom practice. However, from the theoretical point of view, the present study determines that TAFL was influenced by foreign language teaching theories that were formulated outside the Arab world. Indeed, Arab TAFL scholars mainly took inspiration from the works of foreign linguists and scholars, at least in the early phase of this research area. Previous experiences and publications dealing with English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and français langue étrangère (FLE) – this last particularly in Tunisia (i.e., al-Swīsī 1979; Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983) – were often considered, albeit only in part. TAFL was also affected by the Arabic language reform debate, which characterized scholarly Arab discussions for quite some time. In the early phase, Arab TAFL scholars (e.g., Makkī; Ismāʿīl [Ṣīnī]), in fact, enquired how to simplify the study of Arabic and its teaching to foreigners. Therefore, a comparative approach is employed here in examining the general trends of foreign language teaching outside the Arab world and relating them to the theories influencing TAFL and taking root within the region. Gradually, the aforementioned trend changed as Arab TAFL scholars began to cite more and more theories formulated by Arabs. This phenomenon has brought about certain results in recent years, as Arab TAFL scholars increasingly have drawn on a wide range of readings and background studies. Today, TAFL is characterized by the composite nature of the scholarly production sources, which merge both the Arab tradition (e.g., Sībawayhi, Ibn Ǧinnī, Ibn Ḫaldūn, etc.) and modern language teaching theories derived from linguists such as Leonard Bloomfield, Robert

Conclusions

231

Lado, Stephen Krashen and Noam Chomsky, but also scholars of French background, such as Ferdinand de Saussure, Jean Piaget, Gaston Mialaret, to cite a few. Moreover, previous works on TAFL written by Arab scholars have become benchmarks. These range from early contributions (e.g., al-Ḥadīdī) to the most recent influential ones (al-ʿUṣaylī 2002; Madkūr and Harīdī), including essential guides like those by Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl [Ṣīnī] Ṣāliḥ, ʿAlī al-Qāsimī, Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma, Fatḥī Yūnis, Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa, and a series of other significant works, which as a whole encompasses more than 50 years of studies in the field. As a result, TAFL bore a series of different theories and methodological viewpoints. To these, another important part of the TAFL literature is to be added, which is represented by the recent seminal publications issued outside the Arab world (e.g., Wahba, Taha, and England; Aguilar, Pérez Cañada, and Santillán Grimm; Ryding 2013; Aguilar et al.; Younes 2015; al-Batal 2018; Wahba, England, and Taha). These works are integral to the general analysis contained in this study, since they have become a major reference point for scholars, teachers and simple experts dealing with TAFL, as they consolidate various contributions from different contexts and analyze TAFL both from the practical and theoretical perspective. Aside from TAFL influences, certain unconventional theoretical orientations also emerged and were appropriately stressed; otherwise, they would have remained unknown. Overall, the study demonstrates that at the time when TAFL was described as an unfledged discipline, it had already displayed groundbreaking trends. For instance, Ḥusayn S. Qūra encouraged classroom discussion activities (munāqaša) at the end of 1960s, while other Arab scholars cultivated the development of listening and speaking before reading and writing in the AFL class (al-Qāsimī 1979; Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī; Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn 1985, etc.). These orientations demonstrate that TAFL was not always conceived in the traditional way, that is, as a mere exposition of grammar rules, but also as an opportunity to teach by using communicative material before turning to books. In general terms, developments comprised AFL teaching philosophies, for they evolved from the traditional method into the communicative approach, while going through a spectrum of other orientations like the direct, eclectic, SGAV method, etc. (see Chapters 1 to 7 and the Tables). Scholars showed different methodological visions, which were influenced by similarly diverse readings. In this sense, this study dispels a myth, as it proves that the seed of communicative teaching was sowed in regards to TAFL theory much earlier than presumed. Broadly speaking, scholars’ claims to modernization of TAFL methods suggested that the discipline

232 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

was strongly attached to traditions. However, research proved that such an assumption was a mere generalization, as these trends coincided with the development of TAFL, at least on a theoretical level. TAFL progress occurred also within its branches and niche fields, e.g., teacher training and profiles, textbook drafting, testing, and so on. Changes were witnessed in the typology of debates, as scholars gradually went from analyzing fundamental issues to more specific topics while exhibiting heightened scientific maturity. For example, the 1980s and 1990s ushered the ‘proficiency movement’, which aimed to introduce proficiency in the field of TAFL and ‘focused on the development of measurable skills for real communication in language and took the educated native speaker as the model of instruction to achieve proficiency’ (Younes 2015, p. 24). The question of proficiency was stressed during the 1980s (Rammuny 1983; Allen 1984, 1985; ACTFL 1989), though it culminated in the early 1990s when Badawi (1992a) presented it at the Meeting of Tunis and opened the discussion among other Arab TAFL scholars. Similarly, other topics were stressed over the years, like the AFL basic course in the early 1980s, the basic course for AFL Muslim learners in the 1990s, the relationship between TAFL and new technologies, language testing, assessment, textbook evaluation, Arabization and globalization during the following decades. Accordingly, scholars did not hesitate with important relative discussions, which originally focused on the field of applied linguistics and later shifted to TAFL. In this way, scientific headway was reported through application and by updating the teaching of Arabic. From the geographical point of view TAFL evolved throughout the Arab region. Although the present study centers principally on Tunisia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the rest of the Arab world was not left out of this analysis, since debates and scholarly publications were interwoven across borders and had to be analyzed in a much wider context. Occasionally, joint decisions were made, for instance, at the Meeting of Tunis when the Council of the Directors of TAFL Centers and the TAFL Teachers’ League were created. For this reason, other countries were added to the historical overview of TAFL, i.e., Sudan, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Mauritania, the United Arab Emirates, etc. However, despite TAFL connections, which were facilitated by meetings, the discipline developed distinctly in each Arab country, where changes occurred with different dynamics. These transformations were due to significant particularities, duly examined in this study. To illustrate, Sudan was distinguished by aspects of its TAFL debate, which included different topics involving linguistic matters, Sudanese and African languages, language interference, Arabization, which was exemplified through the articles in al-Maǧalla

Conclusions

233

al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya (Arab journal of linguistic studies) and the contributions of the Sudanese scholars speaking at international TAFL meetings over the years. The particular language situation in Sudan influenced both the debate on TAFL and the research completed at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm. In Saudi Arabia the composition of AFL learners that studied in the country played a key role in TAFL development and research. The fact that the kingdom was ruled by a king, the Protector of the Two Holy Cities of Islam, represented a fundamental aspect that oriented Saudi TAFL toward scopes that are also religious rather than only linguistic. For this reason, Saudi TAFL scholars have been publishing textbooks dedicated to the teaching of Arabic for religious purposes, which are still used today in Saudi TAFL institutes to teach Arabic alongside religious subjects (cf. al-Rabbāḥ). In contrast, Tunisian TAFL mainly displayed secular orientations and to a certain degree was based on foreign language teaching theories of French origin, confirming that Arab scholars had access to different sources according to the research environment they had been exposed to. Thus, the reading of diverse FLT works advanced a unique evolution of TAFL in each Arab country. Specifically, the focus on everyday language learning, the use of Arabic as the only vehicular language in class and the special attention for good pronunciation have characterized Tunisian AFL teaching practice, which was chiefly exemplified in the Bourguiba School method. Nonetheless, these features were not typical of Tunisia only. Everyday language learning was in fact a transversal focus of TAFL as it marked teaching philosophies regardless of the different provenances of TAFL scholars in the past (e.g., Ibn Ismāʿīl, Ibn Ṣāliḥ, and al-ʿĀyid; Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983; ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz and Sulaymān 1988) as it does today (al-ʿUtmānī and al-Swīsī 2009a; Brustad, al-Batal, and al-Tonsi 2010; Al Ali and Olaimat; Younes, Weatherspoon, and Saliba Foster; Ǧabr and al-Daǧānī; al-Marāšida). Subsequently, Egypt witnessed another kind of development in the TAFL field. The country actually represented the first Arab nation to hold a debate on TAFL. As previously specified, in 1960 the School of Languages of Cairo – formerly the School of Translators – hosted a conference for the drafting of an AFL textbook. In addition, the late 1960s saw the Egyptian capital leading the way for the first TAFL scholarly publications (Makkī; Šalabī 1966, 1967; al-Ḥadīdī). In general terms, many institutions contributed to the evolution of TAFL in Egypt, for instance, the American University in Cairo (AUC), al-Azhar University, Cairo University, the TAFL Center of Alexandria, etc. Their educators and scholars had an impact inside the country and abroad since their works became renowned references for TAFL researchers and experts operating outside Egypt: above all, the works by

234 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma, who was named ‘dean of Arab educators’ upon his death. Other Egyptian TAFL scholars are Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa, Īmān Aḥmad Harīdī, Zeinab A. Taha, Alaa Elgibali, the defunct Essaid M. Badawi and ʿAlī Aḥmad Madkūr, who taught applied linguistics at Cairo University and was called the ‘Islamic education pioneer’. If, on the one hand, Egyptian scholarly TAFL production reached across the Arab world, on the other hand, it remained somehow confined within the region, except for the contributions made by scholars operating at AUC. The American University in Cairo was not only the first Egyptian institute to offer a master of arts in TAFL, it connected Egyptian TAFL scholars to the rest of the world. Hence, AUC played an indisputable role in the development of the discipline within the country. Its scholars influenced the TAFL debate, discussing new topics like proficiency, proposing important solutions to the field of language assessment (e.g., Taha 2008) or making the Egyptian experience known in the international TAFL scene (Elgibali and Taha; Ibrahim and Allam). As importantly, the study demonstrated that Jordan was also impacted by specific developments in the field of TAFL. In the kingdom, TAFL was actually characterized by a propensity for practical research, as Jordanian scholars have dedicated their attention to textbook evaluation and case studies examination in recent times. Other Arab countries, such as Lebanon, Syria, Mauritania, the United Arab Emirates, etc., were undoubtedly touched by unparalleled developments. Debates and scholarly TAFL production acquired specific features, each of them unique because of various factors: from market trends to social, cultural or historical reasons, etc. In concluding, points concerning the current and future directions of the research are to be defined. Although this study aims to provide a comprehensive historical overview of TAFL within and partly outside Arab world, it is does not intend to be exhaustive; therefore, further studies in the TAFL f ield are encouraged. In particular, in-depth analyses on the historical developments of the discipline are needed. Such probes should comprise the Arab countries that are only partially examined in this study. Furthermore, terminological clarifications and more transversal comparative research on specif ic TAFL topics and branches like TAFL textbook drafting, teacher training sessions, testing, syllabi, etc., require exploration. As in the aforementioned explication, the reflections on TAFL approaches and methods reported in this study are principally theoretical considerations, as they reflect the words of TAFL authors. Besides significant historical accounts and empirical research, data on classroom practice is generally limited. Hence, practical TAFL applications still lack thorough

Conclusions

235

investigation. For this reason, it is critical to expand the research scope by studying the frequent disconnect between FL learning findings and actual teaching practices in the classroom. This information, which may be found in reports and Arabist travel biographies, would give an insight into TAFL classroom practices. A specific study of the learning environments where TAFL theories are applied would also provide more detailed information on the teaching of Arabic to foreigners. Therefore, scholars and researchers are encouraged to proceed in this direction, in order to further unveil and thoroughly examine this vast field.



List of Events

This list chronicles the most important TAFL milestones that occurred between 1958 and 2018. It includes conferences and essential publications, as well as the creation of dedicated institutes. In addition, some indisputably milestone events are listed, so as to provide a historical background while reading through the principle TAFL events of the last 60 years. 1958 Conference on the teaching of MSA at Harvard University 1959 Symposium on Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabs at the Instituto de Estudios Islámicos en Madrid (Symposium of Madrid) 1960 TAFL project and commission at the School of Languages of Cairo 1961 Conference of Belgrade 1963 Foundation of the Arabic section of Institut Bourguiba des Langues Vivantes in Tunis by a group of scholars 1964 Foundation of the Institut Bourguiba des Langues Vivantes in Tunis (Bourguiba School) Foundation of the Arabic Language Education Center for Foreign Students (Maʿhad al-Qāhira) in Cairo Accession to the throne of King Fayṣal in Saudi Arabia 1966 Publication of ‘Taysīr al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib’ by al-Ṭāhir Aḥmad Makkī Establishment of the Arabic language teaching division of the Islamic University of Medina Establishment of the program for the diffusion of the Arabic language and Islamic culture by the Egyptian Broadcasting Corporation Columbia University workshop on Arabic instructional and testing materials 1967 Publication of Muškilat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab by ʿAlī al-Ḥadīdī Creation of the first Arabic Proficiency Test by Peter F. Abboud Establishment of the Center for Arabic Study Abroad (CASA) at the American University in Cairo 1970 Establishment of ALECSO in Tunis Death of Ǧamāl ʿAbd al-Nāṣir on 28 September 1972 Publication of the article ‘On Communicative Competence’ by Dell Hymes

238 

1973

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Arabic is added to the official languages of the United Nations Conference of Brummana (Lebanon) The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) declares the oil embargo 1974 Foundation of Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm) Foundation of the King Saʿud University Arabic Language Institute (Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ) Creation of the Arabic Proficiency Test by a committee of experts chaired by Raji Rammuny 1975 Foundation of the Institute of Arabic Language in Mecca (Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà) Foundation of the Arab Bureau of Education for the Gulf States (ABEGS) in Riyadh Murder of King Fayṣal by hand of his nephew Fayṣal ibn Musāʿid 1977 Beginning of the radio project al-ʿarabiyya bi-l-rādyū li-Ġāmbyā 1978 First International Symposium on Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers in Riyadh (Symposium of Riyadh) Arab-German Symposium on Teaching Arabic to Nonnative Speakers in Cairo (Symposium of Cairo) The Middle East Centre for Arab Studies (MECAS) closes its doors, after being temporarily evacuated in 1976 because of the civil war in Lebanon The Egyptian president Anwar al-Sādāt and the Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin sign the Camp David Accords 1979 Establishment of the master of arts in TAFL at the American University in Cairo Foundation of the Language Center of Yarmouk University in Irbid, Jordan Egypt and Israel sign the Peace Treaty and consequent exclusion of Egypt from the Arab League 1980 Publication of al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, the proceedings of the Symposium of Riyadh Symposium on TAFL basic textbook at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm Symposium on TAFL textbook writing in Rabat 1981 Foundation of the Arabic Language Teaching Institute of Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University of Riyadh ABEGS symposia of Doha, Kuwait City and Medina Symposium on TAFL basic textbook at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm Ḥusnī Mubārak is elected president of Egypt

List of Events

1982 Publication of the first issue of al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya of Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm Symposium on TAFL basic textbook at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm Death of King Khaled and accession to the throne of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia 1983 Establishment of the International Cooperation Board for Arab-Islamic culture development Publication of al-Tamhīd fī iktisāb al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā by Tammām Ḥassān 1984 Foundation of the TAFL Center in Alexandria, Egypt The Arabic language proficiency guidelines are discussed for the first time ISESCO organizes in-service training summer sessions in Sierra Leone and Malaysia 1985 Publication of Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà by Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa 1986 Publication of al-Murǧiʿ fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà by Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma 1987 Foundation of the Arabic for Non-native Speakers Center of Qatar University (Markaz al-Dawḥa) 1988 TAFL program is inaugurated at the Management School of Nouakchott 1989 Birth of the World Wide Web Egypt reenters the Arab League Publication of the ‘ACTFL Arabic Proficiency Guidelines’ 1990 Invasion of Kuwait by Ṣaddām Ḥusayn and beginning of the First Gulf War (1990-1991) 1991 Meeting of the Directors of Arab Centers Specialized in TAFL and Teacher Training organized by ALECSO in Tunis (Meeting of Tunis) and establishment of the Council of the Directors of TAFL Centers and the TAFL Teachers’ League Establishment of the Arabic Language and Culture Center (ALCC) of Cairo University 1992 Symposium on the Teaching of Arabic in the 1990s: Issues and Directions, School of Arabic in Middlebury, Vermont Publication of the proceedings of the Meeting of Tunis Revision of the Arabic Proficiency Test by Raji Rammuny, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī, John Clark, Ernest McCarus, Charles W. Stansfield and Dorry Kenyon

239

240 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

1993 Signing of the Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization Publication of the New Arabic Proficiency Test by Raji Rammuny 1994 Foundation of International University of Africa Arabic Language Institute in Khartoum Foundation of Zarqa University (Jordan) and its Arabic Language Center for Non-Arabic Speakers (Maʿhad al-Zarqāʾ) 1995 Publication of The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language by Mahmoud al-Batal 1997 Establishment of the Institute for the Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language and the Diffusion of Islamic Studies in Nouakchott (Maʿhad Mauritania) Development of AFL Teaching Styles (panel discussion) in Amman, Jordan 1998 Establishment of the AFL program for young learners at the International University of Africa Arabic language center 2000 Symposium for the Development of the Programs for Teachers of Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages, organized by ALECSO at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm 2001 September 11 attacks, United States of America Creation of the Institute for Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers at Medina Islamic University (Maʿhad al-Madīna), which replaces the TAFL division Creation of the Arabic for All venture in Riyadh Establishment of the AFL program at the American University in Beirut (AUB) 2002 Publication of Asāsiyyāt taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-lnāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà by ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz al-ʿUṣaylī 2003 Beginning of the war in Iraq Symposium on the Teaching of Arabic for Specific Purposes organized by ALECSO at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm Meeting of directors of TAFL centers at Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm 2004 Establishment of the Dhad Institute for TASOL at the University of Nizwa (Oman) Publication of the first issue of Maǧallat al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā of the International University of Africa Arabic Language Institute 2005 Creation of the TAFL diploma at the Institute for Education Studies of Cairo University

List of Events

241

2006 Publication of Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem Wahba, Zeinab Taha and Liz England Publication of Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā by ʿAlī Aḥmad Madkūr and Īmān Aḥmad Harīdī Establishment of the TAFL program at the Francophone Digital Campus of Aleppo University 2008 Publication of the Arabic translation of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages by Goethe Institut Ägypten First International Conference on TAFL at Markaz ʿAmmān (Conference of Amman) 2009 Arabele2009: Congreso Internacional sobre Enseñanza del Árabe como Lengua Extranjera in Madrid International Conference on the Teaching of Arabic to Non-native Speakers in Riyadh (Conference of Riyadh) 2010 UNESCO establishes the World Arabic Language Day to be observed annually on 18 December Establishment of Al Sheikh Zayed Center for Teaching Arabic to Non-natives in Nasr City, Egypt (Markaz al-Azhar) Establishment of the King Abdulaziz University TAFL Institute in Jeddah (Maʿhad Ǧudda) 2011 Outbreak of the Tunisian revolution and the subsequent resignation of President Zine El-Abidine Ben ʿAli on 14 January Outbreak of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain CASA Program students are evacuated from Cairo and Damascus Symposium on the Teaching of Arabic to Non-Arabs in Europe and in the Arab World, organized by the Cultural Afro-Asian Friendship Society in Cairo 2012 Arabele2012: Congreso Internacional sobre Enseñanza del Árabe como Lengua Extranjera in Madrid Establishment of the Institute for Teaching Arabic to Nonnative Speakers at Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University of Riyadh First annual Arabic Language International Conference organized by the Arabic Language National Council in Dubai

242 

2013

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Publication of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language. A Guide for Teachers by Karin Ryding First Meeting on the Teaching of Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers held at Markaz al-Azhar (Meeting of Cairo) Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations, organized by the Zayed House for Islamic Culture (ZHIC) CASA Program is temporarily moved to Qasid Arabic Institute in Amman 2014 Linguistics and Arabic Language Teaching Development conference organized by the College of Art and Sciences of Qatar University in Doha Le CECRL et la didactique de l’arabe: bilan et horizons conference at Université du Québec à Montréal 2015 Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers Forum, organized by the Arab School of Translators in Cairo 2016 Conference on Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers: Challenges of the Present, and Prospects of the Future held at Markaz al-Dawḥa Second International Conference at Istanbul: Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers 2017 Conference on Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers, organized by the Saudi Arabia Cultural Mission in Khartoum Conference on Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers: A View to the Future (TANSC_2017), held at Marmara University, Turkey Conference on TAFL Parameters and Strategies at Suez Canal University 2018 Publication of the second volume of the Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century edited by Kassem Wahba, Liz England and Zeinab Taha Publication of Arabic as One Language edited by Mahmoud al-Batal



A TAFL Who’s Who (1958-2018)

Below is an insightful overview of the key Arab figures who contributed to the field of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language (TAFL) within and – partly – outside the Arab world over the last 60 years (1958-2018). The scholars presented in this section were selected either for their prominence or for the sizeable number of their contributions. Details about them pertain to their biographical histories, studies, experience, publications and commitment in the field of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language. Abboud, Peter Fouad Professor of Arabic at the University of Texas at Austin, founder of the Middlebury School of Arabic (Vermont) and husband to Victorine Abboud (1918-1984), who was among the first scholars to focus on designing and developing computer-assisted instruction in foreign languages. Peter F. Abboud was born in Palestine in 1931. He studied in London, Cairo and Austin, where he taught from 1961 on. He directed the drafting of the first Arabic Proficiency Test in 1967 and coauthored several Arabic language textbooks, among which the ‘orange book’ is the most famous, namely Elementary Modern Standard Arabic, a helpful reference for generations of Arabic language learners. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed (1929-2014) Influential Egyptian scholar, first director of the master of arts in TAFL at the American University in Cairo (AUC). Essaid M. Badawi (Badawī) was born in al-Nakhas, in the Sharqiyya Governorate in 1929. He studied in Cairo, then obtained his PhD at the University of London and started his teaching experience in Egypt, then went to Omdurman Islamic University in Sudan, and later to AUC as CASA curriculum advisor in 1969. He contributed to the field of TAFL with the publication of al-Kitāb al-asāsī fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Basic course for teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers), coauthored with ʿAlī Fatḥī Yūnis, in 1983, and by introducing new concepts like the ‘language ceiling’ and proficiency in the research field. al-Batal, Mahmoud Specialist in the fields of language pedagogy and TAFL, as well as coauthor of the renowned textbook series Al-Kitaab fii Taʿallum al-ʿArabiyya (A textbook for beginning Arabic). Al-Batal (al-Baṭal) graduated from the Lebanese

244 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

University in Beirut in 1977, and then completed his PhD in Arabic linguistics at the University of Michigan in 1985. He participated in the drafting of the second volume of al-Kitāb al-asāsī fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Basic course for teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers) together with Badawi, which was issued by ALECSO in 1987. He started teaching Arabic at Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) in 1993, then moved to the University of Texas at Austin (2006-2017) and is now professor of Arabic at the American University of Beirut (Lebanon). He edited some fundamental works on TAFL and coauthored the Al-Kitaab series with Kristen Brustad and Abbas al-Tonsi. al-Ḥadīdī, ʿAlī (1929-2003) Egyptian educator, professor of children’s literature and writer of one of the first works dedicated to TAFL in the Arab world: Muškilat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab (The problem of Arabic language teaching to non-Arabs), published in Cairo in 1967. He obtained his PhD in London in 1959, then became a member of the Academy of the Arabic Language in Cairo (maǧmaʿ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-l-Qāhira) in 1994 and taught Arabic at Ain Shams University and abroad. With his influential contribution, he gave impetus to the debate on TAFL in the following decades until the 1980s. Ḥassān, Tammām (1918-2011) Eminent Egyptian linguist, author of al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya: maʿnā-hā wamabnā-hā (The Arabic language: Its meaning and structure). Ḥassān was born in the little village of El-Karnak in Upper Egypt in 1918; he studied in Cairo at al-Azhar High School Institute and then obtained his MA and PhD in phonetics at the University of London. He contributed to the field of TAFL with his work entitled al-Tamhīd fī iktisāb al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Introduction to the acquisition of Arabic for nonnative speakers), published in the Mecca book series in 1983. In his work, he described a proposed approach consisting of three stages of language acquisition. Ibn Ismāʿīl, Muḥammad Tunisian educator and TAFL specialist. Ibn Ismāʿīl (or simply Ben Ismail) is a scholar born in Tunisia who studied in Paris and was therefore influenced by French language teaching theories. He was asked by the famous French orientalist Régis Blanchère (1900-1973) to teach Arabic at Lycée Voltaire of Paris. There, Ben Ismail took an interest in the field of TAFL and when he traveled back to his homeland, he started teaching at the Bourguiba School,

A TAFL Who’s Who (1958-2018)

245

where he coauthored its first textbook series, issued in 1966. For this reason, Ben Ismail can be considered an heir of the Bourguiba School method, which he embraced during the years of teaching at the institute. He is the author of some significant works in the Tunisian TAFL scene, including al-ʿArabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (Arabic for non-Arabic speakers), published in 1983. al-Nāqa, Maḥmūd Kāmil Egyptian scholar, author and coauthor of numerous theoretical works and textbooks in the field of TAFL. Al-Nāqa was born in the village of Ibyāʾ al-Ḥamrāʾ in the Beheira Governorate (Egypt) in 1939. After studying in Alexandria and Cairo, he began teaching at Ain Shams University in the early 1970s. In the early 1980s, he worked on the creation of a basic textbook for TAFL, al-Kitāb al-asāsī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà (Basic course for teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages), together with Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma, which was published in 1983. Of note are his contributions dedicated to AFL Muslim learners and the historical background of TAFL, both published in Mecca in 1985. Al-Nāqa inclined toward the ‘blended method’ (ṭarīqa intiqāʾiyya or tawlīfiyya) in TAFL, asserting that there is no best method in language teaching. al-Qāsimī, ʿAlī Muḥammad A complete scholar and author of the influential work Ittiǧāhāt ḥadīta fī taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-l-luġāt al-uḫrà (New directions in the teaching of Arabic to speakers of other languages), published in Riyadh in 1979. ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Qāsimī (al-Kassimi) was born in Hamza (Iraq) in 1942. He later moved to Morocco, where he now lives. He is the author of many books devoted to very different topics, such as education, applied linguistics, translation studies, literature, literary criticism, human rights, etc. Rammuny, Raji Professor emeritus of Arabic at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, where he taught from 1966 to 2014. Rammuny, a scholar of Arab origin, studied at Baghdad University and later moved to the United States and completed a PhD at the University of Michigan in 1966. His research focused on the methodology and practice of teaching Arabic at university level, besides Arabic grammar theory, second language acquisition and applied linguistics. He wrote numerous Arabic textbooks, such as Advanced Business Arabic and Islamic Arabic Reader. He is particularly distinguished for having developed and regularly updated the Arabic Proficiency Test since the late 1960s.

246 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Saudi scholar, f irst director of Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ and catalyst of the debate on TAFL in Saudi Arabia since the 1970s. Ṣīnī (also Sieny) was born in Medina in 1942; he received his PhD from Georgetown University (Washington, DC) in 1972 and later became an influential scholar in the field of applied linguistics and TAFL. He published a series of theoretical works devoted to TAFL, translation, and general/applied linguistics. He wrote the famous textbook series Uḥibbu al-ʿarabiyya (I love Arabic) for young learners and al-Qirāʾa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-muslimīn (Reading Arabic for Muslims) for Muslim students. He recently started publishing under the name Ṣāliḥ. al-Swīsī, Riḍā Tunisian linguist, author of the first example of theoretical and applied research on TAFL issued in Tunis: al-Taʿlīm al-haykalī li-l-ʿarabiyya al-ḥayya (Structural teaching of Arabic as a living language), published in 1979. Al-Swīsī (also Souissi) was born in 1930; he studied in France and completed his PhD at the Sorbonne in 1970. He taught Arabic and French as foreign languages both in Tunisia and abroad, where he had the opportunity to gain access to modern language teaching theories, especially those of French origin. Although he can be considered mainly a linguist, he contributed to the development of TAFL in his country, where he represented a proponent of the structural method (ṭarīqa haykaliyya) in the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad (1940-2013) Author and coauthor of numerous works in the f ield of TAFL and education in general. Ṭaʿīma (also written as Toeimah or Taima) was born in Mansoura (Egypt) in 1940. He was professor of applied linguistics (ṭuruq al-tadrīs) and dean of the Faculty of Education at Mansoura University, where he was frequently awarded. Of note is his notional syllabus of 1982, which recalls the experiment carried out by the Council of Europe during the 1970s. Ṭaʿīma collaborated with his most renowned colleague Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa on the creation of a basic textbook for TAFL, al-Kitāb al-asāsī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà (Basic course for teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages), which was published in 1983. Shortly before his death in 2013, he was named ‘dean of Arab educators’ (ʿamīd al-tarbawiyyīn al-ʿarab) by the newspaper Al-Wafd.

A TAFL Who’s Who (1958-2018)

247

al-ʿUṣaylī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Saudi scholar and professor of applied linguistics at Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saʿud Islamic University in Riyadh. Al-ʿUṣaylī obtained his master’s degree from Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saʿud Islamic University of Riyadh in 1985, then he studied at the University of Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) and became the dean of the TAFL institute of the university, where he now teaches. He dedicated his efforts to the specificity of AFL Muslim learners, who represent the core market of Saudi TAFL institutes. He focused his efforts on foreign language teaching methods, informing Arab readers about infrequently cited theories – in the field of TAFL – such as Stephen Krashen’s hypotheses. He recently collaborated with the University of Leeds on the Arabic Language Corpus project. Wahba, Kassem Professor of Arabic in the Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies of Georgetown University (Washington, DC). Wahba has taught in many countries, including the United States, Egypt, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, and Germany. In 2006 and 2018 he coauthored the two volumes of the Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century with Zeinab A. Taha and Liz England. The works represent a fundamental reference for AFL teachers, experts and professors; they are comparable to Mahmoud al-Batal’s volume of 1995 and Karin Ryding’s recent work, Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language: A Guide for Teachers, issued in 2013 by Georgetown University Press. Younes, Munther Proponent of the integrated approach (ṭarīqa takāmuliyya) and senior lecturer of Arabic language and linguistics at Cornell University (Ithaca, NY). Younes graduated from the University of Jordan in 1974 and received his PhD in Arabic linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin in 1982. He started teaching Arabic at Cornell University in 1990, when he published some relevant contributions dedicated to the study of both Modern Standard and Colloquial Arabic, such as An Integrated Approach to Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language and The Integrated Approach to Arabic Instruction. He is the author of the textbook series Arabiyyat al-Naas.



TAFL Institutes (1958-2018)

Below is a list of the main institutes in the field of teaching Arabic as a foreign language operating between 1958 and 2018. The short reference forms used in the work are provided in parentheses. – Alexandria University, Faculty of Art, Alexandria, Egypt – Al Sheikh Zayed Center for Teaching Arabic for Non-natives (Markaz al-Azhar), al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt – American University in Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon – Arabic Language and Culture Center (ALCC) of Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt – Arabic Language Education Center for Foreign Students (Maʿhad al-Qāhira), Cairo, Egypt – Arabic Language Teaching Institute of Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia – Center for Arabic Study Abroad (CASA), American University in Cairo, Cairo, Egypt – Dhad Institute for TASOL of the University of Nizwa, Nizwa, Oman – Egyptian Center for Cultural Cooperation, Cairo, Egypt – Francophone Digital Campus of Aleppo University, Aleppo, Syria – Institut Bourguiba des Langues Vivantes, Tunis, Tunisia – Institute for Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers of Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University of Riyadh, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia – Institute for the Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language and the Diffusion of Islamic Studies (Maʿhad Mauritania), Mauritania – Institute for the Teaching of Arabic to Foreigners, Syrian Ministry of Education, Damascus, Syria – Instituto de Estudios Islámicos, Madrid, Spain – International University of Africa Arabic Language Institute, Khartoum, Sudan – King Abdulaziz University TAFL Institute (Maʿhad Ǧudda), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia – King Saʿud University Arabic Language Institute (Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia – Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, Sudan – Maridi Institute, Maridi, South Sudan

250 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

– Medina Islamic University Institute for Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers (Maʿhad al-Madīna), Medina, Saudi Arabia – Middle East Centre for Arab Studies (MECAS) – Qatar University Arabic for Non-native Speakers Center (Markaz al-Dawḥa), Doha, Qatar – TAFL Center, Alexandria, Egypt – TAFL Center of Al-Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq – Umm al-Qura University Institute of Arabic Language (Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà), Mecca, Saudi Arabia – University of Jordan Language Center (Markaz ʿAmmān), Amman, Jordan – University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya – Yarmouk University Language Center, Irbid, Jordan – Zarqa University Arabic Language Center for Non-Arabic Speakers (Maʿhad al-Zarqāʾ), Zarqa, Jordan

Tables On the Approaches of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language in Short Historical overviews on approaches and methods of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language developed within the Arab world are rare to find in literature. The existing accounts on TAFL methods often refer to the trends followed outside the Arab world. Among these overviews one can find articles by Versteegh (2006), Nielsen (2009) and Akar, besides other countryspecific focuses on TAFL, such as Abboud (1968) and Ryding (2006b, 2018) for the United States, Kalati (2003, 2004) for Italy, Amara (2006) for Israel, Anghelescu for Romania, Hee-Man and El-Khazindar for Korea, Gomes De Araújo for Brazil, Sirajudeen and Adebisi for Nigeria, Akar for Finland, Sumi and Sumi for Japan, etc. The present section compiles the most important trends concerning teaching methods of Arabic as a foreign language developed within the Arab world in tables. These summarize the broader discussions reported in the chapters (1 to 7). The objective of this section is to give a concise overview of the TAFL trends that ensued in the Arab world during the periods analyzed in the research. The approaches and methods selected are written in a chronological order. These are: – Direct Method – Traditional Method – Grammar-Translation Method – Phonetic Method – Whole-Word Method – Aural-Oral Orientation – Structuro-Global Audio-Visual (SGAV) Method – Bourguiba School Method – Eclectic Method – Communicative Approach – Learner-Centered Orientation – Integrated Approach A table is dedicated to each teaching philosophy listed above. Each table is organized in five sections. The first two give the name of the philosophy both in English and Arabic, the latter in transliteration. In this instance,

252 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

the method often has more than one denomination; therefore, all the names arising in the examination of written sources are given. Following the two denominations, the literature of reference is given. In this case, the reference works reported generally refer to foreign language teaching philosophies theorized outside the Arab world. Occasionally, well-known examples of methods theorized within the Arab countries are reported, i.e., the Bourguiba School Method. In addition, the literature of reference is far from being complete. However, a selection of the most important works on the given method has been made and is listed below. The final two sections are dedicated to trend description and proponents. The first provides a short explanation of the main features of each trend, while the second lists the Arab TAFL authors that supported either the approach or the method. In this case, all authors who contributed to the development of the method both on theoretical and practical levels are mentioned.

The Direct Method Names

‘Direct’ or ‘natural method’

Name in Arabic

ṭarīqa mubāšira No literature in particular It is characterized by an extremely practical kind of teaching that favors oral ability while penalizing grammar and literature. A typical lesson would start with the teacher talking in the target language while the pupil listened. To this, brief explanations would follow as the teacher expected the student to repeat the contents of the lesson by even resorting to mnemonic acquisition. –

Literature of reference Description

Authors

253

Tables

The Traditional Method Name

‘Traditional method’

Name in Arabic Literature of reference Description

ṭarīqa taqlīdiyya No literature in particular Teachers explained grammatical aspects of the language, exceptions to the rule and particulars. At the end of the lesson the teacher would ask students to give examples of the topics explained by formulating suitable sentences. The method fostered translation and the memorization of grammar rules and vocabulary lists, with little application and real use of the language. It mainly consisted of theoretical teaching and corresponded to the translation method pervasive in Europe. Moreover, it purposed teaching the living language starting from reading and writing. –

Authors

The Grammar-Translation Method Name

‘Grammar-translation method’

Names in Arabic

ṭarīqat al-tarğama; ṭarīqat al-naḥw; ṭarīqat al-tarğama wa-l-qawāʿ id Education seen as respect of rules; various authors, e.g., Johann Franz Ahn, Heinrich Ollendorff, Karl Plötz It was a widely diffused approach; mainly artificial. It aimed at the systematic study of grammar, while language was codified and arranged into fixed rules learned by heart. –

Literature of reference Description

Authors

254 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

The Phonetic Method Names

‘Phonetic’, ‘Analytical’ or ‘Alphabet method’

Names in Arabic Literature of reference

ṭarīqa ṣawtiyya or ṭarīqa ğuzʾ iyya Henry Sweet, Sievers, Trautmann, Helmholtz, Passy, Rambeau and Klinghardt It originated in the late nineteenth century, when the newborn science of phonetics was considered indispensable for the teaching and learning of languages. It focused on the spoken word rather than the printed page and on the sound rather than the letter. It was at first exclusively oral and gave paramount importance to pronunciation. It was mainly reported by scholars who dealt with the teaching of Arabic as L1, e.g., Sāṭiʿ al-Ḥuṣrī in Iraq until the late 1930s.

Description

Authors

The Whole-Word Method Names

‘Whole-word’, ‘Global’ or ‘Sentence method’

Name in Arabic Literature of reference Description

ṭarīqa kulliyya John Dewey It consisted of a comprehensive reading that emphasized the word as the smallest chunk of meaning in the language acquisition process rather than the isolated sounds or letters, as it happened with the phonetic method. The use of the method was mainly reported by scholars who dealt with the teaching of Arabic as L1, like Muḥammad Fāḍil al-Ǧamālī, Mattà ʿAqrāwī in Iraq or Sumaya Fahmī and Muḥammad Saʿīd Qadrī in Egypt. The method also influenced the early developments of TAFL in Egypt, where the Egyptian Broadcasting Corporation program for the propagation of the Arabic language on air used this particular teaching orientation.

Authors

255

Tables

The Aural-Oral Orientation Names

‘Audio-lingual method’, ‘Aural-oral method’ or ‘orientation’

Names in Arabic Literature of reference

ṭarīqa samʿiyya šafawiyya or samʿ iyya nuṭqiyya Various authors, including B.F. Skinner and Leonard Bloomfield It is part of the structural orientations; a method developed around the Second World War that starts from sounds and then shifts to reading and writing. In essence, this approach is founded on the notion that language is basically a matter of listening and speaking. It favors aural acquisition and production activities in the target language. A great number of Arab TAFL authors claimed to be in favor of the aural-oral orientation. Among them: Abboud and McCarus (1968a, 1968b), Rammuny (1977, 1980c), Nasr (1978), Wālī al-ʿAlamī (in Ṣīnī 1978), al-Qāsimī (1979), al-Swīsī (1979), Bākallā (1980), Ibn Ismāʿīl (1983), Ḥassān (1983), etc. By contrast, al-ʿUṣaylī (2002) affirmed that this orientation did not favor learners of MSA in their interactions with Arabic speakers, since it did not correspond to all aspects of the Arabic language (i.e., its diglossic nature).

Description

Authors

Structuro-Global Audio-Visual (SGAV) Method Names

Originally ‘Méthodologie Structuro-Globale Audio-Visuelle’ (SGAV) or ‘Saint-Cloud Zagreb method’

Name in Arabic Literature of reference Description

ṭarīqa haykaliyya kulliyya samʿ iyya baṣariyya Petar Guberina; Paul Rivenc The method is today part of the structural orientations. It was developed by the Croatian scholar Petar Guberina together with Paul Rivenc. The SGAV method distinguished itself from the aural-oral approach firstly for the fact that the former was of European origin, while the latter was developed in the United States between the 1940s and the 1960s. Secondly, SGAV put great emphasis on comprehension, while the aural-oral approach was content with providing learners with auditory patterns, leaving comprehension to a later stage. Arab TAFL scholars who studied in France, such as Riḍā al-Swīsī (1979) and Muḥammad Ibn Ismāʿīl (1983)

Authors

256 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Bourguiba School Method Name

Original name in Arabic

Name in Arabic Literature of reference

ṭarīqat maʿ had Būrqība Bourguiba School scholars and instructors contribution in Ṣīnī and al-Qāsimī (1980); Ibn Ismāʿīl, Ibn Ṣāliḥ, and al-ʿĀyid; Zahiyya al-Qafṣī; Amel Arbi (2001) The Bourguiba School method favored good pronunciation, the use of a language laboratory, audio-visual tools and Arabic as the only vehicular language. It put listening and speaking skills first, and then developed reading and writing skills. It did not follow either the translation method or the traditional one. Grammar would be practiced in a natural way with exercises, rather than explained through theory. Additionally, another important feature of the method was flexibility, which allowed it to develop according to political and societal changes. Ibn Ismāʿīl, Ibn Ṣāliḥ, and al-ʿĀyid; Muḥammad Ibn Ismāʿīl (1974, 1983); al-Ḥilyawī; Zahiyya al-Qafṣī; Maʿhad Būrqība (1990)

Description

Authors

Eclectic Method Name

‘Eclectic method’

Names in Arabic Literature of reference

ṭarīqa intiqāʾ iyya or ṭarīqa tawlīfiyya No literature in particular; cited by Rivers (1968), al-Qāsimī (1979), ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (1980), al-Nāqa (1985c), al-ʿUṣaylī (2002) Generally, the eclectic method combines various teaching approaches according to training needs and language particularities. Scholars favoring the use of this method in class assert that there is no best method for language teaching, since each way of teaching has its pros and cons. For instance, when al-Qāsimī (1979) speaks about Arabic language teaching via radio, he suggests the aural-oral orientation, characterized by exercises and cultural content; however, he does not refuse grammar explanations a priori. al-Qāsimī (1979), al-Nāqa (1985c) (partially)

Description

Authors

257

Tables

Communicative Approach Name

‘Communicative approach’

Names in Arabic Literature of reference

madḫal ittiṣālī or madḫal tawāṣulī Various authors, including Noam Chomsky, Dell Hymes, Robert Lado and Stephen Krashen The communicative approach developed from the 1970s on and it evinced the deconstruction as a whole of the previous theories on language learning and teaching. It shifted the focus of language study to social conventions and the appropriate use of language in a given sociocultural context. It consolidated the language acquisition process rather than the language itself, favoring a transformation inside the classroom walls: the student became an active player in the acquisition process and the teacher was a facilitator rather than a leader. ‘Communicative practice’ was firstly witnessed in Rammuny (1980c). Then, from the 1980s on, other Arab TAFL scholars inclined versus the communicative approach, including al-Nāqa (1985a), Ṣīnī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Ḥusayn (1985), Ṭaʿīma (1982, 1986), al-ʿUṣaylī (2002) (partially), Badrān (partially).

Description

Authors

Learner-Centered Orientation Name

‘Learner-centered orientation’

Names in Arabic

tamarkuz taʿlīm al-luġāt ḥawla al-mutaʿallim or tadrīs al-luġa al-mutamarkaz ḥawla al-mutaʿallim Gardner and Lambert, Oller and Richards, Finocchiaro and Bonomo, Schumann and Stenson, Papalia The learner-centered orientation is part of the communicative approach, being considered one of its developments. It focuses on student interest and training needs and it aims to develop functional competence in students rather than simply communicative ability. Ṭaʿīma (1982), al-Nāqa (1985a), Badawi (1992a) (partially)

Literature of reference Description

Authors

258 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

The Integrated Approach Name

‘Integrated approach’

Name in Arabic Literature of reference Description

ṭarīqa takāmuliyya Coincides with its authors The integrated approach is a teaching philosophy widely used nowadays in the United States and beyond, which combines the study of Modern Standard and a variety of Colloquial Arabic. This choice was proposed in order to reflect the diglossic nature of Arabic and the sociolinguistic realities of the Arab world in the most accurate and natural way possible. Younes (1990a, 1990b, 1995, 2010), al-Batal and Belnap, Alosh (2010), Nielsen (2012), Aguilar et al., Chekayri (2014), Younes (2015), al-Batal (2018)

Authors

Bibliography The study is founded on works written both in Arabic and other languages. Although references should not be considered exhaustive, they are organized in two different sections: the first is a compilation of Arabic language learning textbooks and the second regards studies. Arabic reference works are reported in transliteration and ordered alphabetically (diacriticals ignored).

Arabic Language Learning Textbooks ʿAbbās al-Nadwī, ʿAbdullāh, Muḥsin al-ʿUtmānī, Muḥammad Nuʿmān al-Dīn, and ʿAbd al-Māǧid al-Ġūrī. 2006. Asās al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-taʿlīm ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Fundamentals of Arabic for non-Arabic speakers], 3 vols. Dimašq wa-Bayrūt: Dār ibn Katīr. Abboud, Peter, ed. 1971. Modern Standard Arabic Intermediate Level. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Abboud, Peter, and Ernest N. McCarus. 1968a. Elementary Modern Standard Arabic, 1: Pronunciation and Writing, Lessons 1-30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Abboud, Peter, and Ernest N. McCarus. 1968b. Elementary Modern Standard Arabic, 2: Arabic Grammar and Vocabulary, Lessons 31-45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Nāṣif Muṣṭafà, and Muṣṭafà Aḥmad Sulaymān. 1982. al-ʿArabiyya: aṣwātu-hā wa-ḥurūfu-hā li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Arabic: Its sounds and letters for non-native speakers]. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Nāṣif Muṣṭafà, and Muṣṭafà Aḥmad Sulaymān. 1988. Tadrībāt fahm al-masmūʿ li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-l-ʿarabiyya. Marḥalat al-mubtadiʾīn [Listening comprehension exercises for non-native speakers of Arabic. Beginners’ level]. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd. Abdur Rahim, Vaniyambadi. 1997. Durūs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Arabic language lessons for non-native speakers]. al-Madīna al-Munawwara: al-Maktaba al-ʿarabiyya al-saʿūdiyya, Wizārat al-taʿlīm al-ʿālī. Aguilar, Victoria, Ana Rubio, and Lourdes Domingo. 2014. Mabruk A2.1. Murcia: Diego Marín Librero-Editor. Alosh, Mahdi. 2000a. Ahlan wa Sahlan: Functional Modern Standard Arabic for Beginners. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Alosh, Mahdi. 2000b. Ahlan wa Sahlan: Functional Modern Standard Arabic for Beginners, Instructor’s Handbook: Interactive Teaching of Arabic. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Alosh, Mahdi. 2005. Ahlan wa Sahlan: Functional Modern Standard Arabic for Intermediate Learners. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Alosh, Mahdi, and Allen Clark. 2009. Ahlan wa Sahlan: Letters and sounds of the Arabic language, 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Alosh, Mahdi, and Allen Clark. 2013. Ahlan wa Sahlan: Functional Modern Standard Arabic for Intermediate Learners, 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Alosh, Mahdi, and Allen Clark. 2014. Ahlan wa Sahlan: Letters and Sounds of the Arabic Language, UK ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Alosh, Mahdi, and Allen Clark. 2015. Ahlan wa Sahlan: Functional Modern Standard Arabic for Beginners, 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

260 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Āl al-Šayḫ, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, ed. 2002. al-ʿArabiyya bayna yaday-ka. Kitāb al-muʿallim 1. [Arabic between your hands. Teacher’s book 1]. al-Riyāḍ: al-ʿArabiyya li-l-ǧamīʿ. Āl al-Šayḫ, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, ed. 2011. al-ʿArabiyya bayna yaday-ka. Kitāb al-ṭālib al-awwal. al-Qism al-awwal wa-l-tānī. [Arabic between your hands. Student’s book 1. Part 1 and 2]. al-Riyāḍ: al-ʿArabiyya li-l-ǧamīʿ. Āl al-Šayḫ, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, ed. 2014. al-ʿArabiyya bayna yaday-ka. Kitāb al-ṭālib. al-Ǧuzʾ al-awwal wa-l-tānī. [Arabic between your hands. Student’s book. Part 1 and 2], 8 vols. al-Riyāḍ: al-ʿArabiyya li-l-ǧamīʿ. Arbi, Amel. n.d. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira. al-Mustawà al-rābiʿ, fahm al-masmūʿ wa-l-taʿbīr alšafawī [Contemporary Arabic. Level 4, listening and oral expression]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. ʿAṭṭār, Samar. 1998. al-Qawāʿid al-ʿarabiyya fī maḍmūn mufīd: barnāmaǧ ḫāṣṣ li-l-aǧānib almutaqaddimīn f ī al-luġa [Modern Arabic grammar in context: An advanced course for foreign students]. Bayrūt: Maktabat Lubnān. Auty, Nadira, Rachael Harris, and Clive Holes. 1992. Just Listen ’n Learn Arabic. The Basic Course for Succeeding in Arabic and Communicating with Confidence. Lincolnwood, IL: Passport Books. ʿAwnī, Nāhid. 1999. Ānistūnā, al-ʿāmmiyya al-miṣriyya [Anistuna, Egyptian Colloquial Arabic]. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed, and Fatḥī ʿAlī Yūnis. 1983. al-Kitāb al-asāsī fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, al-ǧuzʾ al-awwal [Basic course for teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers, part 1]. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed, and Fatḥī ʿAlī Yūnis. (1983) 1988. al-Kitāb al-asāsī fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, al-ǧuzʾ al-awwal [Basic course for teaching Arabic to nonArabic speakers, part 1]. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed, Muḥammad Ḥamāsa ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, and Mahmoud al-Batal. 1987. al-Kitāb al-asāsī fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, al-ǧuzʾ al-tānī [Basic course for teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers, part 2]. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed, Muḥammad Ḥamāsa ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, and Maḥmūd al-Rabīʿī. 1993. al-Kitāb al-asāsī fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, al-ǧuzʾ al-tālit [Basic course for teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers, part 3]. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. Bakr, al-Sayyid Yaʿqūb, Muḥammad Šafīq ʿAṭā, and al-Sayyid Muḥammad al-ʿAzzāwī. 1975. Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya bi-l-rādyū [Teaching Arabic by radio]. al-Qāhira: Hayʾat al-idāʿa al-miṣriyya. Baybars, Aḥmad Samīr, and ʿAbd Allāh ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Suwayd. 1981. al-ʿArabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab [Arabic for non-Arabs]. Lībiyā: Dār al-ʿarabiyya li-l-kitāb. Ben Abdelkader, Rached, Aziza Naouar, and Mahmoud Melki. 1988. Tunisian Arabic. Tunis: Peace Corps Tunisia. Ben Alaya, Wahid, and Michel Quitout. 2004. L’Arabe tunisien de poche. Paris: Assimil. Ben Amor, Taoufik. 1990. A Beginners’ Course in Tunisian Arabic. Tunis: Peace Corps Tunisia. Boutros, Wadie. 1993. Ahlan wa-sahlan. Méthode d’arabe égyptien du Caire, 1 vol. Cairo: Dar el Nashr-Hatier. Brustad, Kristen, Mahmoud al-Batal, and Abbas al-Tonsi. 1995a. Alif Baa: Introduction to Arabic Letters and Sounds, 1st ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Brustad, Kristen, Mahmoud al-Batal, and Abbas al-Tonsi. 1995b. Al-Kitaab fii Taʿallum al-ʿArabiyya [A textbook for beginning Arabic], Part 1, 1st ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Brustad, Kristen, Mahmoud al-Batal, and Abbas al-Tonsi. 1997. Al-Kitaab fii Taʿallum al-ʿArabiyya [A textbook for Arabic], Part 2, 1st ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Bibliogr aphy

261

Brustad, Kristen, Mahmoud al-Batal, and Abbas al-Tonsi. 2001. Al-Kitaab fii Taʿallum al-ʿArabiyya [A textbook for Arabic], Part 3, 1st ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Brustad, Kristen, Mahmoud al-Batal, and Abbas al-Tonsi. 2010. Alif Baa: Introduction to Arabic Letters and Sounds, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Būmalāsa, ʿAmmār. n.d. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira. al-Mustawà al-rābiʿ, fahm al-maktūb wa-intāǧuhu [Contemporary Arabic. Level 4, reading comprehension and writing]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Būmalāsa, ʿAmmār. [2005a] n.d. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira. al-Mustawà al-ḫāmis, fahm al-maktūb wa-intāǧu-hu [Contemporary Arabic. Level 5, reading comprehension and writing]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Būmalāsa, ʿAmmār. [2005b] n.d. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira. al-Mustawà al-sādis, fahm al-maktūb wa-intāǧu-hu [Contemporary Arabic. Level 6, reading comprehension and writing]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Burǧ, Tawfīq. 1976. Miftāḥ wa-qāmūs li-l-ǧuzʾ al-awwal min kitāb al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab [Keys and vocabulary of the Arabic for non-Arabs book (first part)]. Hamburg: Šārikat Burǧ al-maḥdūda li-l-ṭibāʿa. Chekayri, Abdellah. 2011. An Introduction to Moroccan Arabic and Culture. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Choura, Abdessalem. 1993. Competency Based Language Education. Tunisian Arabic. Tunis: Peace Corps Tunisia. DiMeo, David, and Ines Hassan. 2016. The Travels of Ibn Battuta: A Guided Arabic Reader. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Halloun, Moïn. 1995-1996. Cours d’arabe parlé palestinien. Paris: L’Asiathèque. al-Ḥāmid, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥāmid, ed. (1986) 2004. Silsilat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, al-mustawà al-awwal, kitāb al-taʿbīr [Arabic language teaching textbook series. Level one, speaking]. al-Riyāḍ: Ǧāmiʿat al-imām Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd al-islāmiyya, Maʿhad taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya. Ḥardān, Ǧarǧūra, Roland Meynet, Henri Awaiss, Haytam al-Amīn, Joseph Dichy, and Yūsuf ʿAwn. 1979. Min al-Ḫalīǧ ilà al-Muḥīṭ [From the gulf to the ocean]. Bayrūt: Manšūrāt Didier (Dīdī). Harrell, Richard. 1962. A Short Reference Grammar of Moroccan Arabic. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Harrell, Richard, Mohammed Abu-Talib, and William S. Carroll. 2003. A Basic Course in Moroccan Arabic. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Ḥašīša, Wissām. n.d. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira, al-mustawà al-tālit, fahm al-masmūʿ wa-l-taʿbīr al-šafawī [Contemporary Arabic. Level 3, listening comprehension and speaking]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Hassanein, Ahmed, and Mona Kamel. 1986. Let’s Chat in Arabic: A Practical Introduction to the Spoken Arabic of Cairo. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Haydar, Adnan, Paula Haydar, and Nadine Sinno. 2014. Haki bil-Libnani, Part 1, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. al-Ḫulayfī, Zayna. n.d. al-Lahǧa al-tūnisiyya [The Tunisian dialect]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Ibn Ismāʿīl, Muḥammad. 1974. al-ʿArabiyya al-ḥadīta li-l-mubtadiʾīn [Modern Arabic for beginners]. Tūnis. Ibn Ismāʿīl, Muḥammad. 1980. Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-l-inǧlīziyya wa-l-faransiyya [Teaching Arabic to speakers of English and French]. al-Qāhira: ʿĀlam al-kutub. Ibn Ismāʿīl, Muḥammad. 1982. al-ʿArabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-l-faransiyya [Arabic for French speakers]. Tūnis.

262 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Ibn Ismāʿīl, Muḥammad. 1983. al-ʿArabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Arabic for non-Arabic speakers]. Tūnis. Ibn Ismāʿīl, Muḥammad, Muḥammad Ibn Ṣāliḥ, and Aḥmad al-ʿĀyid. 1966. Durūs fī mabādiʾ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya [Lessons on the principles of Arabic language]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Jomier, Jacques, and Joseph Khouzam. (1973) 2002. Manuel d’arabe égyptien (Parler du Caire). Paris: Klincksieck. al-Karmī, Zīnāt. 2013. Aṣdiqāʾ al-ʿarabiyya [Friends of Arabic], 3 vols. ʿAmmān: Dār al-manhal. Kassab, Jean. (1970) 2003. Manuel du parler arabe moderne au Moyen-Orient, vol. 1. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Liddicoat, Mary-Jane, Richard Lennane, and Iman Abdul Rahim. 1998. Syrian Colloquial Arabic: A Functional Course. Mary-Jane Liddicoat. www.syrianarabic.com Louis, Samia. 2007. Kallimni ‘Arabi: An Intermediate Course in Spoken Egyptian Arabic. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Louis, Samia. 2008a. Kallimni ‘Arabi Aktar: An Upper Intermediate Course in Spoken Egyptian Arabic. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Louis, Samia. 2008b. Kallimni ‘Arabi Bishweesh: A Beginners’ Course in Spoken Egyptian Arabic. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Louis, Samia. 2009a. Kallimni ‘Arabi fi Kull Haaga: A Higher Advanced Course in Spoken Egyptian Arabic. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Louis, Samia. 2009b. Kallimni ‘Arabi Mazboot: An Early Advanced Course in Spoken Egyptian Arabic. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Maǧdūba, Aḥmad, ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Ḥiyārī, ʿAwnī al-Fāʿūrī, Hādiyā Ḫazna Kātibī, Basma al-Daǧānī, and Ḫālid Abū ʿAmša. 2007. al-ʿArabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā. al-Mustawà al-tālit [Arabic for non-native speakers. Third level]. ʿAmmān: al-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya, Markaz al-luġāt. Maǧdūba, Aḥmad, ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Ḥiyārī, ʿAwnī al-Fāʿūrī, Muḥammad al-Šarīda, Basma al-Daǧānī, and al-Sayyid Rāʾid ʿAbd al-Raḥīm. 2006. al-ʿArabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā. al-Mustawà al-awwal [Arabic for non-native speakers. First level]. ʿAmmān: al-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya, Markaz al-luġāt. Maʿhad Būrqība (Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya). n.d. al-Lahǧa al-tūnisiyya: nusḫa taǧrībiyya [The Tunisian dialect, experimental version]. Tūnis: Wizārat al-taʿlīm al-ʿālī, Ǧāmiʿat Tūnis al-manār, Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Maʿhad Būrqība (Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya). 1990. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tānī, nusḫa taǧrībiyya [Contemporary Arabic. Level 2, experimental version]. Tūnis: Wizārat al-taʿlīm al-ʿālī, Ǧāmiʿat Tūnis al-manār, Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Maʿhad Būrqība (Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya). [2005a] n.d. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira. al-Mustawà al-tānī, fahm al-masmūʿ wa-l-intāǧ al-šafawī [Contemporary Arabic. Level 2, listening comprehension and speaking]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Maʿhad Būrqība (Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya). [2005b] n.d. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira. al-Mustawà al-tānī, fahm al-maktūb wa-intāǧu-hu wa-l-luġa [Contemporary Arabic. Level 2, reading comprehension, writing, and language]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. al-Mīsāwī, Šarīfa. n.d. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira. al-Mustawà al-tālit, fahm al-maktūb wa-intāǧu-hu [Contemporary Arabic. Level 3, reading comprehension and writing]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. al-Mīsāwī, Šarīfa. [2005] n.d. Barnāmaǧ al-luġa, nusḫa taǧrībiyya [Language program. Experimental copy]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Moscoso García, Francisco. 2006. Curso de árabe marroquí (Diálogos, gramática, ejercicios, glosario y bibliografía). Cádiz/Cuenca: Universidad de Cádiz/Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.

Bibliogr aphy

263

Moscoso García, Francisco, Nadi Hamdi Nouaouri Izrelli, and Óscar Rodríguez García. 2013. B chuya b chuya: árabe marroquí, arabe marocain, Moroccan Arabic. Almería: Albujayra. al-Malīǧī, Ḥasan Ḫamīs. 1989. al-Adab wa-l-nuṣūṣ li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-l-ʿarabiyya [Literary texts for non-Arabic speakers]. al-Riyāḍ: Maṭābiʿ Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd. Ossama, Bahaa Ed-din. 2015. Kilma Hilwa: Egyptian Colloquial Arabic through Songs. Intermediate Level. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. al-Qafṣī, Zahiyya. 1986. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira [Contemporary Arabic]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. al-Qumāṭī, Muḥammad Munṣif ʿAbd Allāh. 2000. al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Arabic language for non-native speakers]. Banġāzī: Dār al-kutub al-waṭaniyya. Rammuny, Raji. 1980a. Advanced Arabic Composition, Based on Literary Texts and Audiovisual Materials. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Department of Near Eastern Studies. Rammuny, Raji. 1994. Advanced Standard Arabic through Authentic and Audiovisual Materials. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Šabbākī, ʿAbd al-Karīm. 2014. al-Ṭarīq ilà al-luġa. Taqyīm malakāt al-lisān al-ʿarabī [The way toward language. Arabic language aptitudes evaluation]. al-Rabāṭ: Maṭbaʿat al-maʿārif al-ǧadīda. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl, Nāṣif Muṣṭafà ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Muḫtār al-Ṭāhir Ḥusayn. 1983. al-ʿArabiyya li-l-nāšiʾīn, manhaǧ mutakāmil li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-l-ʿarabiyya. Kitāb al-tilmīd wa-kitāb al-muʿallim [Arabic for beginners, an integrated method for non-native speakers of Arabic. Student’s and teacher’s book], 6 vols. al-Mamlaka al-ʿArabiyya al-Saʿūdiyya: Wizārat al-maʿārif, Idārat al-kutub al-madrasiyya. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl, Nāṣif Muṣṭafà ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Muḫtār al-Ṭāhir Ḥusayn. (1988) 2012. Uḥibbu al-ʿarabiyya, manhaǧ mutakāmil fī taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-ṣiġār al-nāṭiqīn bi-l-luġāt al-uḫrà [I love Arabic, an integrated method for teaching Arabic to young speakers of other languages]. al-Riyāḍ: Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl, Nāṣif Muṣṭafà ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Muḥyī al-Dīn Ṣāliḥ. 1982-1983. al-ʿArabiyya li-l-ḥayā, manhaǧ mutakāmil fī taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-awwal wa-l-tānī. [Arabic for life, an integrated method for teaching Arabic to non-native speakers. Parts one and two]. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl, Nāṣif Muṣṭafà ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Muṣṭafà Aḥmad Sulaymān. 1989. alʿArabiyya li-l-ḥayā, manhaǧ mutakāmil fī taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-rābiʿ [Arabic for life, an integrated method for teaching Arabic to non-native speakers. Part four]. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl, Nāṣif Muṣṭafà ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Muṣṭafà Aḥmad Sulaymān. (n.d.) 1995. al-ʿArabiyya li-l-ḥayā, manhaǧ mutakāmil fī taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tālit [Arabic for life, an integrated method for teaching Arabic to non-native speakers. Part three]. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl, Anwār Rašīd Badr al-Dīn, Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Šaʿarānī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn Abū al-Futūḥ, and Muṣṭafà ʿUmar Ḥumayda. 1995. al-Qirāʾa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-muslimīn, al-kitāb al-tālit [Reading Arabic for Muslims]. Bayrūt: Maktabat Lubnān. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl, Anwār Rašīd Badr al-Dīn, Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Šaʿarānī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn Abū al-Futūḥ, Muṣṭafà ʿUmar Ḥumayda, and Ṣāliḥ Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ. 1991. al-Qirāʾa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-muslimīn, al-kitāb al-awwal [Reading Arabic for Muslims]. Bayrūt: Maktabat Lubnān. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl, Anwār Rašīd Badr al-Dīn, Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Wahhāb al-Šaʿarānī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn Abū al-Futūḥ, Muṣṭafà ʿUmar Ḥumayda, and Ṣāliḥ Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ. 1994. al-Qirāʾa alʿarabiyya li-l-muslimīn, al-kitāb al-tānī [Reading Arabic for Muslims]. Bayrūt: Maktabat Lubnān.

264 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl, and Muḥammad ʿĀdil Šaʿbān. 1985. al-Qirāʾa al-muyassara, silsila fī al-qirāʾa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Simplified reading. AFL reading series]. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd. Suwayd, ʿAbd Allāh ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd. 1991. al-Istiʿdād li-l-qirāʾa wa-l-kitāba, kitāb mubtadiʾ [Preparation for reading and writing. Beginner’s book]. Lībiyā: Dār al-kutub al-waṭaniyya. al-Swīsī, Fāḍil. n.d. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira. al-Mustawà al-ḫāmis, fahm al-masmūʿ wa-l-taʿbīr al-šafawī [Contemporary Arabic. Level 5, listening comprehension and speaking]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. al-Swīsī, Fāḍil. [2005] n.d. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira. al-Mustawà al-sādis, fahm al-masmūʿ wa-l-taʿbīr al-šafawī [Contemporary Arabic. Level 6, listening comprehension and speaking]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad, and Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa. (1983) 2009. al-Kitāb al-asāsī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà [Basic course for teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages]. Makka al-Mukarrama: Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad, and Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa. 1984. Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-awwal, muršid al-muʿallim [Teaching Arabic to non-native speakers. Part one, teacher’s guide]. Makka al-Mukarrama: Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, Waḥdat al-buḥūt wa-l-manāhiǧ, Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà. Tapiéro, Norbert. 1971. Manuel d’arabe algérien moderne. Paris: Klincksieck. al-Tonsi, Abbas, and Laila al-Sawi. 1990. An Intensive Course in Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. al-Tonsi, Abbas, and Nariman Naili Al-Warraki. 1989. ʿArabiyyat wasāʾil al-iʿlām [Media Arabic]. al-Qāhira: Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, al-Ǧāmiʿa al-amrīkiyya bi-l-Qāhira. al-Tonsi, Abbas, Heba Salem, and Nevenka Korica Sullivan. 2013. Umm al-Dunya: Advanced Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. al-Tonsi, Abbas, Laila al-Sawi, and Suzanne Massoud. 2010. Kalaam Gamiil: An Intensive Course in Egyptian Colloquial Arabic, vol. 1. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. al-Tonsi, Abbas, Laila al-Sawi, and Suzanne Massoud. 2013. Kalaam Gamiil: An Intensive Course in Egyptian Colloquial Arabic, vol. 2. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. al-ʿUtmānī, Yūsuf, and Fāḍil al-Swīsī, ed. n.d. Kurrās al-ḥurūf wa-l-aṣwāt al-ʿarabiyya [Arabic letters and sounds workbook]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. al-ʿUtmānī, Yūsuf, and Fāḍil al-Swīsī, ed. 2009a. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira, al-luġa [Contemporary Arabic, language]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. al-ʿUtmānī, Yūsuf, and Fāḍil al-Swīsī, ed. 2009b. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira, fahm al-masmūʿ wa-l-intāǧ al-šafawī [Contemporary Arabic, listening and speaking]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. al-ʿUtmānī, Yūsuf, and Fāḍil al-Swīsī, ed. 2009c. al-ʿArabiyya al-muʿāṣira, fahm al-maktūb wa-intāǧu-hu [Contemporary Arabic, reading and writing]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Younes, Munther. 1990b. Elementary Arabic: An Integrated Approach. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Younes, Munther, and Hanada al-Masri. 2013. ʿArabiyyat al-Naas (Part Two): An Intermediate Course in Arabic. London: Routledge. Younes, Munther, and Yomna Chami. 2014. ʿArabiyyat al-Naas (Part Three): An Advanced Course in Arabic. London: Routledge. Younes, Munther, Makda Weatherspoon, and Maha Saliba Foster. 2013, ʿArabiyyat al-Naas (Part One): An Introductory Course in Arabic. London: Routledge.

Bibliogr aphy

265

Yūnis, Fatḥī. 1983. Dalīl al-muʿallim li-l-kitāb al-asāsī fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Basic course for teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers, teacher’s guide]. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. Yūnis, Fatḥī, and ʿAbd Allāh al-Kandarī. 1995. Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-mubtadiʾīn [Arabic language teaching for beginners]. al-Kuwayt: Dār al-tarǧama.

Studies ʿAbābina, Ǧaʿfar Nāyif. 1985. ‘al-Bināʾ al-ṣarfī fī al-luġatayn al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-sawāḥiliyya: dirāsa taqābuliyya’ [The morphological structure in Arabic and Swahili: A contrastive analysis]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 4, no. 1. ʿAbbās, Adīb. 1934. ‘Fī al-ʿāmmiyya balāġa yaǧibu allā tuhmala’ [In the dialect there is a rhetoric that should not be neglected]. al-Hilāl no. 2 (December): 201-204. Abboud, Peter. 1968. The Teaching of Arabic in the United States: The State of the Art. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Abboud, Peter. 1980. ‘Baʿḍ al-awlawiyyāt fī tadrīs al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa aǧnabiyya’ [Some preliminary remarks on teaching Arabic as a foreign language]. In al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tālit, edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm al-Šalaqānī, 3-19. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Abboud, Peter. 1995. ‘The Teaching of Arabic in the United States: Whence and Whither?’ In The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language, edited by Mahmoud al-Batal, 13-33. Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic. ʿAbbūd, Suhā. 2014. ‘ʿIlm al-lahǧāt fī aqsām al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-l-ǧāmiʿāt al-ūrūbbiyya’ [The study of colloquial varieties in the European universities Arabic language departments]. In al-Dirāsāt al-ʿarabiyya fī ʿālam mutaġayyir, al-muʾtamar al-awwal li-qism al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya 25-27 nūfimbir 2013. al-Ǧuzʾ al-awwal, edited by Maǧid Muṣṭafà al-Ṣaʿīdī, 3-19. al-Qāhira: Waḥdat Rifāʿa li-l-buḥūt wa-tanmiya al-maʿlūmāt al-luġawiyya wa-l-tarǧama. Abboud, Victorine. 1971. Barnāmaǧ taʿlīm al-kitāba al-ʿarabiyya [Program for the teaching of the Arabic script]. Mainframe. Abboud, Victorine. 1978. Barnāmaǧ al-mufrādāt wa-fahm al-nuṣūṣ li-l-ʿarabiyya al-muʿāṣira: al-marḥala al-mutawassiṭa [Program for vocabulary and text comprehension in Modern Standard Arabic: Intermediate level]. Mainframe. Abdalla, Mahmoud. 2010. ‘The Place of Media in the Arabic Curriculum.’ In Arabic and the Media: Linguistic Analysis and Applications, edited by Reem Bassiouney, 253-290. Leiden: Brill. ʿAbd Allāh, ʿUmar al-Ṣadīq. 2003. ‘Tadrīb mutaʿallimī al-luġa al-hadaf ʿalà al-mušāhada al-īǧābiyya li-aflām al-fīdyū al-taʿlīmiyya min ḫilāl muršid al-mušāhada’ [Language teachers’ training on positive educational movies vision through video guide]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya, no. 20 and 21. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Muḥammad Ḥasan. 1980. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā.’ [Teaching Arabic to non-Arabic speakers]. In al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tālit, edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm alŠalaqānī, 139-158. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Nāṣif Muṣṭafà. 1983. al-Alʿāb al-luġawiyya fī taʿlīm al-luġāt al-aǧnabiyya maʿa amtila litaʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Language games in the teaching of foreign languages, with examples on the teaching of Arabic to non-native speakers]. al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-Marrīḫ.

266 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Muḥammad Ḥasan. 1988. Madḫal ilà al-luġa [Language approach]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-fikr al-ʿarabī. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Muḥammad Ḥamīda. 2017. ‘Istrātīǧiyyāt muqtaraḥa qāʾima ʿalà naẓariyyat aldakāʾāt al-mutaʿaddida li-tanmiyat mahārat al-taḥaddut ladà dārisī al-mustawà al-mubtadiʾ al-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayr al-ʿarabiyya’ [Multiple intelligences theory-based strategies for developing the speaking skill among beginner learners of Arabic as a foreign language]. Paper presented at the conference on ‘Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers: A View to the Future’, Marmara University, Istanbul, 1 April. al-ʿAbdān, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, and Rāšid al-Darwīš. 1998. ‘Istrātīǧiyyāt taʿallum al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-waṣf i-hā luġa tāniya’ [Learning strategies in Arabic as a second language]. al-Luġa alʿarabiyya 16: 321-372. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm, Aḥmad. 1983. ‘Nadwat taʿlīm abnāʾ al-ʿummāl al-muhāǧirīn al-ʿarab fī Ūrubbā’ [Conference on teaching migrant workers’ children in Europe]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 2, no. 1: 111-126. ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm, Aḥmad. 1984. ‘al-Multaqà al-ʿarabī al-ifrīqī ḥawla al-ʿalāqāt bayna al-luġāt alifrīqiyya wa-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya’ [The Arab-African forum on the relationships between African languages and Arabic]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 3, no. 1: 63-74. ʿAbd al-Ḫāliq, Ġassān Ismāʿīl, ed. 1998. Waqāʾiʿ ḥalqat al-niqāš al-ūlà ḥawla taṭwīr asālīb taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. 8 Kānūn al-tānī 1998. [Panel discussion facts on Arabic as a foreign language teaching styles development, 8 January 1998]. Ǧāmiʿat Fīlādīlfyā. ʿAbd al-Maǧīd, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. 1956. al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya uṣūlu-hā al-nafsiyya wa-ṭuruq tadrīsi-hā [The Arabic language, its psychological principles and ways of teaching]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-maʿārif bi-Miṣr. ʿAbd al-Maǧīd, Ibrāhīm. 1961. ‘al-Ṭarīqa al-ḥadīta li-ʿarḍ al-adab’ [The modern method for introducing literature]. Maǧallat maǧmaʿ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, ʿadad al-buḥūt wa-l-muḥāḍarāt, November. ʿAbd al-Mawǧūd, Muḥammad ʿIzzat. 1983. Muḥāḍarāt fī taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya [Lessons on Arabic language teaching]. al-Riyāḍ: Ǧāmiʿat al-imām Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd al-islāmiyya. ʿAbd al-Mawǧūd, Muḥammad ʿIzzat, Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma, and ʿAlī Aḥmad Madkūr. 1981. Ṭuruq tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-ʿulūm al-dīniyya [Methods of teaching Arabic language and religious sciences]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-taqāfa. ʿAbd al-Raḥīm, ʿAlī Yaḥyà Naṣr. 2014. ‘Taʿlīm al-balāġa li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayr al-ʿarabiyya bi-stiḫdām al-wasāʾiṭ al-mutaʿaddida fī iṭār al-lisāniyyāt al-tadāwuliyya’ [Teaching rhetoric to non-native speakers of Arabic through the use of multimedia and in the framework of pragmalinguistics]. Paper presented at the ‘First International Conference on Arabic Language Teaching’, Language Center, Jordan University, Amman, 22-24 April. ʿAbd al-Salām, ʿAbd al-Rašīd Ūlātunǧī. 2014. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-l-maʿhad al-ʿarabī al-nīǧīrī Ibādan, muškilāt wa-ḥulūl’ [Teaching Arabic at the Arab-Nigerian Institute in Ibadan, problems and solutions]. In al-Dirāsāt al-ʿarabiyya fī ʿālam mutaġayyir, al-muʾtamar al-awwal li-qism al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya 25-27 nūfimbir 2013. al-Ǧuzʾ al-awwal, edited by Maǧid Muṣṭafà al-Ṣaʿīdī, 65-74. al-Qāhira: Waḥdat Rifāʿa li-l-buḥūt wa-tanmiya al-maʿlūmāt al-luġawiyya wa-l-tarǧama. ʿAbd al-Salām, Aḥmad Šayḫ. 2006. ‘Muwāṣafāt al-muʿallim al-nāǧiḥ fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-waṣfi-hā luġa tāniya’ [Features of the successful teacher of teaching Arabic as a second language]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 25. Abd-El-Jawad, Hassan R.S. 1992. ‘Is Arabic a Pluricentric Language?’ In Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations, edited by Michael G. Clyne, 261-304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bibliogr aphy

267

Abdel-Malek, Zaki N. 1972. ‘The Design of a Text-book Lesson for Teaching Colloquial Egyptian Arabic as a Foreign Language.’ International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 10, no. 1 (February): 47-60. Abdel-Massih, Ernest T. 1973. An Introduction to Moroccan Arabic. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Abd-el Wassie, Abd-el Wahab. 1970. Education in Saudi Arabia: A History of Fifteen Years Effort to Spread Education in a Developing Country, an Orthodox Diagnosis, and Some Proposals for a Better Future. London: Macmillan. ʿAbduh, Dāwūd ʿAṭiyya. 1979a. al-Mufrādāt al-šāʾiʿa fī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya [Arabic language frequent vocabulary]. al-Riyāḍ: Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya. ʿAbduh, Dāwūd ʿAṭiyya. 1979b. Naḥwa taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya waẓīfiyyan [Toward Arabic language functional teaching]. al-Kuwayt: Muʾassasat dār al-ʿulūm. ʿAbduh, Dāwūd ʿAṭiyya. 1985. ‘al-Tarākīb al-luġawiyya fī kutub taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, baʿḍ maʿāyīr iḫtiyāri-hā wa-baʿḍ al-mulāḥaẓāt ḥawla ṭarīqat šarḥi-hā’ [Language structures in the textbooks of Arabic as a foreign language, some selection parameters and observations on how they are explained]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 4, no. 1: 49-58. Abou-Hatab, Fouad. 1992. ‘Egypt.’ In International Psychology: Views from around the World, edited by Virginia S. Sexton and John D. Hogan, 111-128. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Abu Absi, Samir. 1986. ‘The “Simplified Arabic” of Iftaḥ Yā Simsim: Pedagogical and Sociolinguistic Implications.’ Al-‘Arabiyya 24: 111-121. Abu Absi, Samir. 1990. ‘A Characterization of the Language of Iftah ya Simsim: Sociolinguistic and Educational Implications for Arabic.’ Language Problems and Language Planning 14: 33-46. Abū ʿAmša, Ḥusayn. 2013. ‘Taǧribat maʿhad Qāṣid li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayri-hā fī al-Urdun’ [The Qasid Institute experience on the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language in Jordan]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. Abū Bakr, Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa. 1980. ‘Barāmiǧ iʿdād wa-tadrīb muʿallim al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (ʿalà ḍawʾ al-taǧriba al-sūdāniyya)’ [Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language teachers’ training programs (in light of the Sudanese experience)]. In al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-lnadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tānī, edited by Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī and ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Qāsimī, 61-67. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Abū Bakr, Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa. 1989. ‘Taʾattur mawādd taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā bi-mawādd taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-abnāʾ al-ʿarab’ [The influence of Arabic L1 materials on teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 7, no. 1 and 2: 52-57. Abū Bakr, Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa. 2003a. ‘al-Iʿdād al-luġawī li-muʿallim al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language teachers’ training]. Paper presented at the ALECSO symposium on ‘The Teaching of Arabic for Specif ic Purposes’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 4-6 January. Abū Bakr, Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa. 2003b. ‘Naḥwa manhaǧ li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā min aǧl fahm al-Qurʾān al-Karīm’ [Toward a method of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language for understanding the Sacred Quran]. Paper presented at the ALECSO symposium on ‘The Teaching of Arabic for Specific Purposes’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 4-6 January.

268 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Abū Bakr, Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa. 2006. ‘Muškilāt al-taʿlīm bi-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī al-manāṭiq tunāʾiyya al-luġa fī al-waṭan al-ʿarabī’ [Problems of Arabic language teaching in Arab world bilingual areas]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 23 and 24. Abugideiri, Hibba. 2010. ‘Colonizing the Egyptian Education: Creating an Anglo-Egyptian Civil Service.’ In Gender and the Making of Modern Medicine in Colonial Egypt, edited by Hibba Abugideiri, 53-78. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing. ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). 1989. ‘ACTFL Arabic Proficiency Guidelines.’ Foreign Language Annals 22: 373-392. ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages). 2012. Oral Proficiency Interview Familiarization Manual. ACTFL Inc. Adetunji, ʿAzz al-Dīn. 2014. ‘ʿAwāʾiq taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī kulliyyāt Nīǧīryā fī ʿaṣr alʿawlama: ʿarḍ wa-taḥlīl’ [Obstacles to Arabic language teaching in the Nigerian faculties in the globalization era: Considerations and analysis]. In al-Dirāsāt al-ʿarabiyya fī ʿālam mutaġayyir, al-muʾtamar al-awwal li-qism al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya 25-27 nūfimbir 2013. al-Ǧuzʾ al-awwal, edited by Maǧid Muṣṭafà al-Ṣaʿīdī, 75-86. al-Qāhira: Waḥdat Rifāʿa li-l-buḥūt wa-tanmiya al-maʿlūmāt al-luġawiyya wa-l-tarǧama. Aguilar, Victoria. 2014. ‘al-Taʿlīm al-muzdawiǧ li-l-ʿarabiyya al-fuṣḥà (fuṣḥà al-ʿaṣr) wa-l-dāriǧa al-maġribiyya’ [The simultaneous teaching of Modern Standard Arabic and Moroccan dialect]. In Arabele 2012: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe, edited by Victoria Aguilar, Miguel Ángel Manzano, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, Waleed Saleh, and Paula Santillán Grimm, 115-129. Murcia: Editum. Aguilar, Victoria, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, and Paula Santillán Grimm, ed. 2010. Arabele 2009: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe. Murcia: Editum. Aguilar, Victoria, Miguel Ángel Manzano, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, Waleed Saleh, and Paula Santillán Grimm, eds. 2014. Arabele 2012: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe. Murcia: Editum. Ainsworth, David. 1977. ‘Examining the Basis for Competency-based Education.’ Journal of Higher Education 48, no. 3: 321-332. Akar, Sylvia. 2013. ‘Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language: From Grammar Translation Method to the Audio-Lingual Approach.’ In Studia Orientalia 114, Travelling through Time: Essays in Honour of Kaj Öhrnberg, edited by in Sylvia Akar, Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, and Inka Nokso-Koivisto, 559-572. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society. Al Ali, Mohammad A., and Fatima M. Olaimat. 2012. ‘Teaching Arabic for Speakers of Other Languages from the Perspective of Instructors and Students.’ Education 132, no. 4: 862-888. Albantani, Azkia Muharom. 2014. ‘Mustawayāt taʿallum wa-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya ʿinda Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma’ [Arabic language learning and teaching levels in Rushdi Ahmed Taima]. Arabiyât Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Arab dan Kebahasaarab 1, no. 1: 137-146. Al Beibi, Ahmed. 2013. ‘al-Iṭār al-murǧiʿi al-ūrūbbī al-muštarak li-l-luġāt wa-muqtaḍayātu-hu li-bināʾ minhāǧ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā: dirāsa taqyīmiyya wa-taqwīmiyya’ [The CEFR and its requirements for preparing an Arabic curriculum for speakers of other languages]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. Alderson, J. Charles, Neus Figueras, Henk Kuijper, Guenter Nold, Sauli Takala, and Claire Tardieu. 2006. ‘Analysing Tests of Reading and Listening in Relation to the Common European Framework of Reference: The Experience of the Dutch CEFR Construct Project.’ Language Assessment Quarterly 3, no. 1: 3-30. Alhawary, Mohammad T. 2001. ‘Computer-Assisted Language Learning as a Reinforced and Remedial Tool for Proficiency-Oriented Syllabi.’ Al-‘Arabiyya 33: 55-100.

Bibliogr aphy

269

Alhawary, Mohammad T. 2009. Arabic Second Language Acquisition of Morphosyntax. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Alhawary, Mohammad T. 2018a. ‘Empirical Directions in the Future of Arabic Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Pedagogy.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, vol. 2, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Liz England, and Zeinab A. Taha, 408-421. London: Routledge. Alhawary, Mohammad T., ed. 2018b. Routledge Handbook of Arabic Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge. ʿAlī, Nabīl. 1994. al-ʿArab wa-ʿaṣr al-maʿlūmāt [Arabs and the age of information]. al-Kuwayt: Silsilat ʿālam al-maʿrifa, al-maǧlis al-waṭanī li-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm wa-l-ādāb, no. 148 (April). ʿAlī, Nabīl. 2001. al-Taqāfa al-ʿarabiyya wa-ʿaṣr al-maʿlūmāt: ruʾya li-mustaqbal al-ḫiṭāb al-taqāfī al-ʿarabī [Arab culture and the age of information: A vision of the future Arab cultural disquisition]. Silsilat ʿālam al-maʿrifa, al-maǧlis al-waṭanī li-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm wa-l-ādāb, no. 265 (January). Allen, Dwight W. 1967. Micro-teaching: A Description. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Allen, Roger. 1984. ‘Proficiency Guidelines for Arabic.’ Al-‘Arabiyya 17, no. 1/2: 119-123. Allen, Roger. 1985. ‘Arabic Proficiency Guidelines.’ Al-‘Arabiyya 18, no. 1/2: 45-70. Allen, Roger. 1995. ‘Higher Level Language Skills in Arabic: Parameters and Issues.’ In The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language, edited by Mahmoud al-Batal, 103-113. Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic. Alosh, Mahdi. 1984. ‘Implications of the Use of Modern Standard Arabic in the Arabic Adaptation of “Sesame Street.”’ MA thesis, Ohio University. Alosh, Mahdi. 2010. ‘Taqyīm al-kafāʾa al-šafawiyya fī al-Wilāyāt al-muttaḥida’ [Oral proficiency assessment in the United States]. In Arabele 2012: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe, edited by Victoria Aguilar, Miguel Ángel Manzano, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, Waleed Saleh, and Paula Santillán Grimm, 185-199. Murcia: Editum. Al-Qadi, Widad. 1984. ‘The Use of Video Cassette in Teaching Italian and Arabic.’ In Atti del II Convegno su la presenza culturale italiana nei paesi arabi: storia e prospettive. Sorrento. 18-20 novembre 1982, 247-251, Roma: Istituto per l’Oriente. Al-Rasheed, Madawi. 2004. Storia dell’Arabia Saudita. Milano: Bompiani. Al-Sayyid Marsot, Afaf Lutfi. 2007. A History of Egypt: From the Arab Conquest to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Altoma, Salih J. 1974. ‘Language Education in Arab Countries and the Role of the Academies.’ In Advances in Language Planning, edited by Joshua A. Fishman, 279-314, The Hague: Mouton. Altoma, Salih J. 1980. ‘Mulāḥaẓāt ḥawla al-ǧānib al-luġawī min iʿdād muʿallim al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [Observations on the linguistic aspects of AFL teacher training]. In al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tānī, edited by Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī and ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Qāsimī, 19-42. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Amara, Muhammad Hasan. 1999a. Politics and Sociolinguistics Reflexes: Palestinian Border Villages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Amara, Muhammad Hasan. 1999b. ‘Hebrew and English Borrowings in Palestinian Arabic in Israel: A Sociolinguistic Study in Lexical Integration and Diffusion.’ Language and Society in the Middle East and North Africa, edited by Yasir Suleiman, 81-103. Surrey: Curzon. Amara, Muhammad. 2006. ‘Teaching Arabic in Israel.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 81-96. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

270 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

ʿAmāyra, Ḫalīl. 1985. ‘al-Naẓariyya al-tawlīdiyya al-taḥwīliyya wa-uṣūlu-hā fī al-naḥw al-ʿarabī’ [The transformational-generative theory and its origin in Arabic grammar]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 4, no. 1. ʿAmāyra, Ḫalīl. 1998. ‘al-Kafāʿa al-luġawiyya li-muʿallim al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [Language proficiency of the AFL teacher]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya no. 15: 121. ʿAmāyra, Ḫalīl. 2000. ‘al-Iʿdād al-taqāfī li-muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [The cultural preparation of the teacher of Arabic as a foreign language]. Paper presented at the ‘Symposium for the Development of the Programs for Teachers of Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 27-30 October. al-Amīn, Isḥāq. (1997) 2008. Manhaǧ al-Īsīskū li-tadrīb muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. Asāsiyyāt ṭarīqat al-tadrīs wa-l-tarbiya al-ʿamaliyya li-dawrāt tadrīb almuʿallimīn [The ISESCO method for training the teachers of Arabic as a foreign language. Fundamentals of teaching methods and practical education for teacher training sessions]. Manšūrāt al-Munaẓẓama al-islāmiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-ʿulūm wa-l-taqāfa (ISESCO). Amir-Moezzi, Mohammad Ali, ed. 2007. Dizionario del Corano. Italian edition by Ida Zilio-Grandi. Milano: Mondadori. al-ʿAnātī, Walīd. 2005. Nuhād al-Musà wa taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya: ruʾà manhaǧiyya [Nuhad alMusà and Arabic language teaching: A methodological vision]. Wizārat al-taqāfa fī al-Urdun. Anghelescu, Nadia. 2006. ‘The Arabic Language at the University of Bucarest.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 115-122. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ʿĀqil, Fāḫir. 1953. al-Mufradāt al-asāsiyya li-l-qirāʾa al-ibtidāʾiyya [Basic vocabulary for reading at elementary level]. Dimašq. al-ʿArabī, Ṣalāḥ ʿAbd al-Maǧīd. 1981. Taʿallum al-luġāt al-ḥayya wa-taʿlīmu-hā bayna al-naẓariyya wa-l-taṭbīq [Language learning and teaching between theory and practice]. Bayrūt: Maktabat Lubnān. Arbi, Amel. 2001. ‘Taʿlīmiyya al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya luġa aǧnabiyya’ [The teaching of Arabic as a foreign language]. Thesis, Ǧāmiʿat Tūnis (University of Tunis). al-ʿArḍāwī, al-Hāšimī. 2004. ‘Min qaḍāyā al-istidlāl fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya luġa tāniya bi-l-maʿāhid al-faransiyya bi-Tūnis: fahm al-taʿlīma’ [On deduction problems in the teaching of Arabic as a second language in the French institutes of Tunisia: Understanding instructions]. Thesis, Ǧāmiʿat Tūnis (University of Tunis). Arifin, Muhammad Taha. 1994. ‘Manhaǧ muqtaraḥ li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa tāniya li-l-kibār fī Mālīziyā’ [A proposed method for teaching Arabic as a second language to adults in Malaysia]. MA thesis, International Islamic University of Malaysia. Arnold, Jane. 1999. Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ʿAṭiyyat Allāh, Aḥmad. 1933. ‘Maṣīf al-talāmīd fī Īṭāliyā’ [Italian children and summer resorts]. al-Tarbiya al-ḥadīta. Austin, John. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ʿAwād, Muḥammad. 1983. ‘Taḥlīl al-aḫṭāʾ wa-baʿḍ muškilāt taʿallum al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa aǧnabiyya’ [Errors analysis and some learning problems of Arabic as a foreign language]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 1, no. 2. ʿAwād, Muḥammad. 1985. ‘al-Lisāniyyāt al-muqārina wa-tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [Comparative linguistics and the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 3, no. 2.

Bibliogr aphy

271

Awaiss, Henri. 2010. ‘al-ʿArabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā. al-ʿĀʾila al-saʿīda’ [Arabic for non-native speakers: The happy family]. In Arabele 2009: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe, edited by Victoria Aguilar, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, and Paula Santillán Grimm, 209-217. Murcia: Editum. ʿAysà, Aḥmad. 1934. ‘Kayfa taḫdimu al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya’ [How Arabic works]. al-Hilāl no. 10 (August): 1209-1211. Azmoudeh, Khashayar. 2007. ‘Non-arabo.’ In Dizionario del Corano, edited by Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, Italian edition by Ida Zilio-Grandi, 585-586. Milano: Mondadori. Bābā, Muḥammad. 2002. ‘Awḍāʿ al-taʿlīm al-ʿarabī fī Ǧumhūriyyat al-Kāmīrūn: taḥaddiyāt al-ḥāḍir wa-āfāq al-mustaqbal’ [Arabic instruction in the Republic of Cameroon: Present challenges and future horizons]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 19: 162-163. Bābikir, Aḥmad Muḥammad. 2016. ‘Istiḫdām istrātīǧiyya al-muwāǧaha al-mukattafa fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [The use of the intensive interview strategy in the teaching of Arabic as a foreign language]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 37. Bach, Gerhard, and Johannes-Peter Timm, eds. 1989. Englischunterricht. Tübingen: Francke. Bachelard, Gaston. (1938) 1972. La formation de l’esprit scientifique. Paris: Librairie J. Vrin. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed. 1973. Mustawayāt al-ʿarabiyya al-muʿāṣira fī Miṣr [Levels of contemporary Arabic in Egypt]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-maʿārif. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed. 1980. ‘Awlawiyyāt al-baḥt fī maydān taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab’ [Research priorities in the field of teaching Arabic to non-Arabs]. In al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tālit, edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm al-Šalaqānī, 21-35. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed. 1985. ‘Educated Spoken Arabic: A Problem in Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language.’ In Scientific and Humanistic Dimensions of Language, edited by Kurt R. Jankowsky, 15-22. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed. 1992a. ‘Muqtaḍayāt al-kafāʾa fī taʿallum al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa iḍāfiyya’ [Proficiency requirements in the learning of Arabic as an additional language]. In Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: Qaḍāyā wa-taǧārib, edited by al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm, 47-59. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed. 1993. ‘al-Taḫṭīṭ al-luġawī wa-qaḍiyat al-ḥāf iz fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī al-bilād al-islāmiyya’ [Language planning and the question of motivation in Arabic language teaching in the Islamic countries]. Paper presented the ‘International Conference on the Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language in Brunei’, University of Brunei Darussalam. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed. 1995. ‘The Use of Arabic in Egyptian TV Commercials: A Language Simulator for the Training of Teachers of Arabic as a Foreign Language.’ Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1995, 33-39. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed. 2000. ‘Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, al-Ǧāmiʿa al-amrīkiyya bi-l-Qāhira. Barāmiǧ al-māǧistīr fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib’ [The American University in Cairo Arabic Language Institute. Master’s degree programs in teaching Arabic as a foreign language]. Paper presented at the ‘Symposium for the Development of the Programs for Teachers of Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 27-30 October.

272 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Badawi, Muhammad Mustafa, ed. 1992b. Modern Arabic Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Badawi, Essaid Mohammed, and Martin Hinds. 1986. A Dictionary of Egyptian Arabic. Beirut: Librarie du Liban. Badrān, Muḥammad Mamdūḥ. 1992. ‘al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa tadrīsu-hā li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. Naḥwa manhaǧ li-iʿdād mudarris al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [The Arabic language and its teaching to non-Arabic speakers. Toward a method for AFL teachers’ training]. In Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: Qaḍāyā wa-taǧārib, edited by al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm, 41-46. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. Bahǧat, Muǧāhid Muṣṭafà. 1980. ‘al-Rūḥ al-islāmiyya fī taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [The Islamic spirit in teaching Arabic to non-native speakers]. In al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tālit, edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm al-Šalaqānī, 183-215. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Bahǧat, Munǧid Muṣṭafà. 1999. ‘Rasāʾil al-māǧistīr fī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-waṣfi-hā luġa tāniya fī al-Ǧāmiʿa al-islāmiyya al-ʿālamiyya bi-Mālīziyā, dirāsa wa-taqwīm’ [Master’s degree theses in Arabic as a second language at the International Islamic University of Malaysia]. Maǧallat ittiḥād al-ǧāmiʿāt al-ʿarabiyya no. 35 (January). Bailey, Ewing M. 1953. A List of Modern Arabic Words. Cairo: Nile Mission Press. Bākallā, Muḥammad Ḥasan. 1983. al-Lisāniyyāt al-ʿarabiyya. Muqaddima wa-bibliyūġrāfyā [Arabic linguistics. Introduction and bibliography]. al-Riyāḍ: Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd. Bākallā, Muḥammad Ḥasan, ed. 1980. al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-awwal [Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers, part 1]. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Balard, Michel. 2002. ‘Il commercio dell’Egitto con le città italiane nel Medioevo.’ Levante 49, no. 1-2: 11-22. Balʿayd, Ṣāliḥ. 1999. ‘al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya ḫāriǧ ḥudūdi-hā’ [Arabic outside its borders]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 16. Balboni, Paolo. 2008a. Fare educazione linguistica: attività didattiche per l’italiano L1 e L2, lingue straniere e lingue classiche. Torino: UTET. Balboni, Paolo. 2008b. Le sfide di Babele: insegnare le lingue nelle società complesse. Torino: UTET. Balboni, Paolo, and Fabio Caon. 2015. La comunicazione interculturale. Venezia: Marsilio Editori. Baldé, Abdallah. 1984. ‘al-Iqtirāḍāt al-ʿarabiyya fī luġat al-māndink fī al-Sinġāl’ [Arabic loans in Mandinka in Senegal]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 3, no. 1. Baldinetti, Anna. 2002. ‘Gli italiani nella cultura egiziana 1900-1930.’ Levante 49, no. 1-2: 43-57. Baldissera, Eros. 2007. Orientaleggiando. Roma: Martini Maria Cristina Edizioni. Bale, Jeffrey. 2010. ‘Arabic as a Heritage Language in the United States.’ International Multilingual Research Journal 4, no. 2: 125-151. Balegh, Hédi. 1993. Proverbes tunisiens: Himl al-jamaah rish tous pour un et un pour tous. Tunis: Éditions La Presse. Baraka, Muḥammad Zāyid. 2000a. ‘al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya ladà al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā wa-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [Arabic language to Arabs and to non-Arabs]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya no. 17 (February). Baraka, Muḥammad Zāyid. 2000b. ‘Taǧribat maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm al-duwalī li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya’ [Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language experience]. Paper presented at the ‘Symposium for the Development of the Programs for Teachers of Arabic to Speakers of Other

Bibliogr aphy

273

Languages’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 27-30 October. Barakāt, Bahà al-Dīn. 1938. ‘Rasm al-kalimāt al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-ṣuʿūba allatī yulāqī-hā al-našʾ fī ḍabṭ al-nuṭq’ [Writing Arabic letters and pronunciation diff iculties found by youth]. Maǧallat al-tarbiya al-ḥadīta 3. Barakāt, Muḥammad Ḫalīfa. 1959. al-Ṭarīqa al-kulliyya, marāḥilu-hā wa-ṣuʿūbāt tanfīdi-hā wa-ʿilāǧu-hā [The whole method, its levels, implementation diff iculties and solutions]. al-Qāhira: Wizārat al-tarbiya wa-l-taʿlīm. Barrāda, Hudà. 1974. Iḫtibār dār al-kutub li-l-qirāʾa al-ṣāmita li-talāmīd al-marḥala al-ibtidāʾiyya, min kitāb al-aṭfāl yaqraʾūna [Dar al-kutub test for silent reading for primary school children, from the book Children Read]. al-Qāhira: al-Hayʾa al-miṣriyya al-ʿāmma li-l-kitāb. Bašīr, ʿAzz al-Dīn Waẓīf ʿAlī. 2013. ‘al-Taǧriba al-sūdāniyya fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā wa-taṭwīr manāhiǧ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [The Sudanese experience of teaching Arabic to non-native speakers and its curriculum development]. Maǧallat al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā 16: 43-97. Bašīr, Tāǧ al-Sirr. 2000. ‘Taǧribat maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, Ǧāmiʿat Ifrīqiyā al-ʿālamiyya’ [The Arabic language institute experience, International University of Africa]. Paper presented at the ‘Symposium for the Development of the Programs for Teachers of Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 27-30 October. Bassiouney, Reem. 2009. Arabic Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. al-Batal, Mahmoud. 1988. ‘Towards Cultural Proficiency in Arabic.’ Foreign Language Annals 21, no. 5: 443-453. al-Batal, Mahmoud. 1992. ‘Diglossia Prof iciency: The Need for an Alternative Approach to Teaching.’ In The Arabic Language in America, edited by Aleya Rouchdy, 284-304, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. al-Batal, Mahmoud, ed. 1995. The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language. Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic. al-Batal, Mahmoud. ed. 2018. Arabic as One Language: Integrating Dialect in the Arabic Language Curriculum. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. al-Batal, Mahmoud, and R. Kirk Belnap. 2006. ‘The Teaching and Learning of Arabic in the United States: Realities, Needs, and Future Directions.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 389-399. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Beacco, Jean-Claude. 2007. L’approche par compétences dans l’enseignement des langues. Paris: Didier. Belnap, R. Kirk, and Niloofar Haeri. 1997. Structuralist Studies in Arabic Linguistics: Charles A. Ferguson’s Papers, 1954-1994. Leiden: Brill. Benchina, Hocine, and Nadia Rocchetti. 2015. Test preparatori per la certificazione della lingua araba: livello A1, livello A2, 2 vols. Milano: Jouvence. Bendana, Kmar. 2008. ‘Traducteur en Tunisie aux XIXème-XXème siècles: le passage d’une condition à une profession.’ Rawafid 13: 126-139. Bergsträsser, Gotthelf. 1929. al-Taṭawwur al-naḥwī li-luġa al-ʿarabiyya [Arabic language grammar development]. al-Qāhira: Maṭbaʿat al-samāḥ. Berruto, Gaetano. 2011. La linguistica: un corso introduttivo. Torino: UTET. Bint Othman, N. 2005. ‘Evaluating the Textbook for Teaching Arabic for Speakers of Other Languages.’ MA thesis, Malaysia, Universal Islamic University.

274 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Bišr, Kamāl Muḥammad. 1969. Dirāsāt fī ʿilm al-luġa, al-qism al-tānī [Studies in linguistics, second class]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-maʿārif. Blanc, Haim. 1960. ‘Stylistic Variation in Spoken Arabic: A Sample of Interdialectal Educated Conversation.’ In Contributions to Arabic Linguistics, edited by Charles Albert Ferguson, 81-156. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bobzin, Hartmut. 1980. Zur Häufigkeit von Verben im Neuhocharabischen. Translated by Ismāʿīl ʿAmāyra. al-Riyāḍ: Ǧāmiʿat al-imām Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd al-islāmiyya. Boktor, Amir, and Russell Galt. 1933. ‘The Lecture Method.’ Journal of Modern Education, American University at Cairo, 7. Boularès, Habib. 2012. Histoire de la Tunisie. Tunis: Cérès Éditions. Boussofara-Omar, Naima. 2006. ‘Diglossia.’ In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Kees Versteegh, Mushira Eid, Alaa Elgibali, Manfred Woidich, and Andrzej Zaborski, vol. 1, 629-637. Leiden: Brill. Brill, Moshe. 1940. Qāmūs al-ṣaḥāfa al-ʿarabiyya [The Basic Word list of the Arabic Daily Newspaper]. al-Quds: al-Ǧāmiʿa al-ʿibriyya. Brinton, Donna M., Marguerite Ann Snow, and Marjorie Bingham Wesche. 1989. Content-Based Second Language Instruction. New York: Newbury House. Brumberg, Daniel. 2002. ‘The Trap of the Liberalized Autocracies.’ Journal of Democracy 13, no. 4: 56-68. Būʿattūr, Ṭāriq. 2015. ‘Naḥwa iṭār ʿarabī muštarak li-tadrīs al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [Toward an Arab common framework for teaching Arabic to non-native speakers]. Paper presented at the Conference of the Arabic Language and Culture Summer School, Università degli Studi di Roma ‘Tor Vergata’, 4 September. Burt, Cyril, ed. 1934. How the Mind Works. New York: D. Appleton-Century. al-Būšayḫī, ʿAzz al-Dīn. 2002. Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya min manẓūr waẓīfī [Arabic language teaching from a functional perspective]. Manšūrāt al-Munaẓẓama al-islāmiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-ʿulūm wa-l-taqāfa (ISESCO). al-Bustānī, Ṣubḥī. 2013. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī Faransā’ [Teaching Arabic in France]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. Byram, Michael, and Carol Morgan. 1994. Teaching-and-Learning Language-and-Culture. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cachia, Pierre. 1992. ‘Translations and Adaptations 1834-1914.’ In Modern Arabic Literature, edited by Muhammad Mustafa Badawi, 23-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Calamelli, Elisabetta. 2012. ‘Lingua araba e cultura marocchina in classe. Il mantenimento della lingua e cultura d’origine per i figli di migranti. Analisi di un’esperienza veneta.’ MA thesis, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia. Calvo, Emilia, Mercè Comes, Monserrat Díaz-Fajardo, Cristina Moreno, Roser Puig, Mònica Rius, and Elia Romo. 2010. ‘Aplicación de las nuevas tecnologías a la enseñanza del árabe en la Universidad: el proyecto Árabe en Línea (AeL) del GIDC Luga de la UB.’ In Arabele 2009: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe, edited by Victoria Aguilar, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, and Paula Santillán Grimm, 89-101. Murcia: Editum. Camera D’Afflitto, Isabella. 2006. Letteratura araba contemporanea. Dalla nahḍah a oggi. Roma: Carocci. Campanini, Massimo. 2006. Storia del Medio Oriente. Bologna: il Mulino. Canamas, Christine. 1980. ‘Enseigner l’arabe dans un collège de banlieue.’ Études Arabes, Analyses théorie 2: 107-123.

Bibliogr aphy

275

Canamas, Christine, Michel Neyreneuf, and Catherine Villet. 2005. Cours d’arabe maghrébin. Paris: L’Harmattan. Canu, Chiara. 2015. ‘Istituto Bourguiba: Analisi delle tecniche didattiche dei manuali del primo livello.’ MA thesis, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia. Carell, Patricia L., Joanne Devine, and David Eskey. 1988. Interactive Approaches to Second Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, Michael G. 2007. ‘Grammatical Tradition: History.’ In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Lutz Edzard and Rudolf de Jong. Leiden: Brill Online. Catron, Carol E., and Jan Allen. 1993. Early Childhood Curriculum. New York: Macmillan. Chaker, Salem. 1986. ‘Amaziγ (le/un Berbère).’ In Encyclopédie berbère, edited by Gabriel Camps, vol. 4, 562-568. Aix-en-Provence: Edisud. Chaker, Salem, and Hélène Claudot-Hawad. 2001. ‘Identité.’ In Encyclopédie berbère, edited by Gabriel Camps, vol. 24, 3623-3632. Aix-en-Provence: Edisud. Chekayri, Abdellah. 2010. ‘Prof iciency Guidelines vs. Cultural Competence: Four Stages for Students of Moroccan Arabic.’ In Arabele 2009: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe, edited by Victoria Aguilar, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, and Paula Santillán Grimm, 137-149. Murcia: Editum. Chekayri, Abdellah. 2014. ‘The Challenges of the Shift from a Modern Standard Arabic Only Approach to an Integrative Approach.’ In Arabele 2012: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe, edited by Victoria Aguilar, Miguel Ángel Manzano, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, Waleed Saleh, and Paula Santillán Grimm, 45-70. Murcia: Editum. Chekli, Ferid. 2009. ‘Transformational Grammar.’ In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Lutz Edzard and Rudolf de Jong. Leiden: Brill Online. Chik, Abdul Rahman. 2011. ‘Taṣmīm manāhiǧ taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-aġrāḍ ḫāṣṣa’ [Teaching Arabic for special purposes curriculum design]. In al-ʿArabiyya wa-taʿlīmu-hā li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā, edited by Munǧid Muṣṭafà Bahǧat. al-Ǧāmiʿa al-waṭaniyya bi-Mālīziyā. Chik, Abdul Rahman, and Muḥammad al-Bāqir Ḥāǧǧ Yaʿqūb. 2011. ‘Dirāsa taqwīmiyya li-kutub taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [Evaluation study on the textbooks for teaching Arabic to non-native speakers]. In Prosiding Seminar Antarabangsa Pengajaran Bahasa Arab 2011 (SAPBA’11): Wawasan dan Cabaran Malaysia-China, edited by Maheram Ahmad, Mohd Shukari Hamzah, Moktar Hussain, and Zhang Hong, 463-475. Bangi, Selangor: Unit Bahasa Arab, Fakulti Pengajian Islam, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. (1968) 1972. Language and Mind. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Clegg, John. 1990. Review of Content-Based Second Language Instruction, by Donna M. Brinton, Marguerite Ann Snow, and Marjorie Bingham Wesche. Issues in Applied Linguistics 1, no. 2: 253-259. Cochran, Anne. 1958. Modern Methods of Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Washington, DC: Educational Services. CoE (Council of Europe). 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CoE (Council of Europe). 2008. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Arabic translation. al-Qāhira: Dār Īlyās al-ʿaṣriyya li-ṭibāʿa wa-l-našr. CoE (Council of Europe). 2016. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Arabic translation. Makka al-Mukarrama: Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà, Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. College voor Examens. 2011a. Syllabus moderne vreemde talen Havo centraal examen 2013: Arabisch, Duits, Engels, Frans, Russisch, Spaans, Turks. Utrecht: College voor Examens.

276 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

College voor Examens. 2011b. Syllabus moderne vreemde talen VWO centraal examen 2013: Arabisch, Duits, Engels, Frans, Russisch, Spaans, Turks. Utrecht: College voor Examens. Craig, Sir James. 1998. Shemlan: A History of the Middle East Centre for Arab Studies. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Curran, Charles Arthur. 1976. Counseling Learning in Second Languages. Apple River, IL: Apple River Press. al-Daǧānī, Basma Aḥmad Ṣidqī. 2003. ‘Taǧribat markaz al-luġāt fī al-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-aġrāḍ ḫāṣṣa siyāsiyya wa-diblūmāsiyya’ [The Jordan University Language Center experience of teaching Arabic for political and diplomatic purposes]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 20 and 21. Darwīš, Aḥmad. 2004. ‘Taǧriba wa-manhaǧ fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib’ [Arabic as a foreign language teaching experience and curriculum]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 22. Daud, Azmin. 2011. ‘Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya min ḫilāl fīdiyū: taǧriba bi-kulliyyat sulṭān Ismāʿīl Bitrā al-islāmiyya al-ʿālamiyya Kūtābārū Kilantān’ [Teaching Arabic through video: The experience of Sultan Ismail Petra International Islamic College in Kelantan]. In Prosiding Seminar Antarabangsa Pengajaran Bahasa Arab 2011 (SAPBA’11): Wawasan dan Cabaran Malaysia-China, edited by Maheram Ahmad, Mohd Shukari Hamzah, Moktar Hussain, and Zhang Hong, 485-496. Bangi, Selangor: Unit Bahasa Arab, Fakulti Pengajian Islam, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. al-Dawādī, Maḥmūd. 1984. ‘Ǧudūr al-ʿarabiyya al-mufarnasa fī ḥadīt al-nisāʾ al-maġribiyyāt’ [The roots of frenchif ied Arabic in Moroccan women’s speech]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 2, no. 2. Dāwūd, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, and Nūr Šams al-Dīn. 2015. ‘Tawaǧǧuhāt dawlat Mālīziyā fī al-ḥifāẓ ʿalà huwiyyat al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-ḥaḍārati-hā’ [Malaysia’s directions in the preservation of the Arabic language and its culture]. Maǧallat Ǧāmiʿat al-Quds al-maftūḥa li-l-abḥāt wa-l-dirāsāt 36, no. 2: 341-362. de Beaugrande, Robert-Alain. 1998. Text, Discourse and Process: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science of Texts. Translated into Arabic by Tammām Ḥassān. al-Qāhira: ʿĀlam al-kutub. de Graaf, Anneke. 1999. Syllabus met voorbeeldexamens voor de centrale examens in de tweede fase havo/vwo Arabisch. Arnhem: Cito Netherlands. de Graaf, Anneke, Judith Richters, and Jan Jaap de Ruiter. 2012. ‘Assessing Arabic in the Secondary Dutch School System.’ In Mother Tongue and Intercultural Valorization: Europe and Its Migrant Youth, edited by Francesco Grande, Jan Jaap de Ruiter, and Massimiliano Spotti, 49-61. Milano: Franco Angeli. den Heijer, Johannes. 2012. ‘Introduction: Middle and Mixed Arabic, a New Trend in Arabic Studies.’ In Middle Arabic and Mixed Arabic: Diachrony and Synchrony, edited by Liesbeth Zack and Arie Schippers, 1-26. Leiden: Brill. de Ruiter, Jan Jaap, and Karima Ziamari. 2014. Le marché sociolinguistique contemporain du Maroc. Paris: L’Harmattan. DfE (Department for Education). 1995. Modern Foreign Languages in the National Curriculum, England and Wales. London: Department for Education. Dichy, Joseph. 1980. ‘Remarques sur l’enseignement audio-visuel de l’arabe écrit.’ Études Arabes, Analyses théorie 2: 26-67. Dichy, Joseph. 1994. ‘La pluriglossie de l’arabe.’ Bulletin d’Études Orientales 46: 19-42. Dickins, James. 2007. ‘Khartoum Arabic.’ In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Kees Versteegh, Mushira Eid, Alaa Elgibali, Manfred Woidich, and Andrzej Zaborski, vol. 2, 559-571. Leiden: Brill.

Bibliogr aphy

277

al-Disūqī, Muḥammad ʿAlī. 1940. ‘Taysīr al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-tahdību-hā’ [Arabic language simplification and revision]. Maǧallat ṣaḥīfat Dār al-ʿulūm, April. Ditters, Everhard. 2006, ‘Technologies for Arabic Language Teaching and Learning.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 239-252. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Donitsa-Schmidt, Smadar, Ofra Inbar, and Elana Shohamy. 2004. ‘The Effects of Teaching Spoken Arabic on Students’ Attitudes and Motivation in Israel.’ Modern Language Journal 88, no. 2 (Summer 2004): 217-228. Donner, Fred. 1993. ‘al-Lahǧāt al-ʿāmmiyya al-ʿarabiyya wa-ahammiyyat dirāsati-hā’ [The Arabic colloquial varieties and the importance of their study]. al-Abḥāt 41: 3-26. Dörnyei, Zoltan. 1998. ‘Motivation in Second and Foreign Language Learning.’ Language Teaching 31, no. 3: 117-135. al-Duḫayl, Ḥamad ibn Nāṣir. 1992. ‘Taǧribat maʿhad taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-Ǧāmiʿat al-imām Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd al-islāmiyya fī maǧāl taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [The Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Saʿud Islamic University Arabic Language Teaching Institute experience in the field of teaching Arabic to non-native speakers]. In Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: Qaḍāyā wa-taǧārib, edited by al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm, 69-91. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. al-Dulaymī, Ṭaha, and Suʿād al-Wāʾilī. 2003. al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya: manāhiǧu-hā wa-ṭarāʾiq tadrīsi-hā [Arabic language: Curricula and teaching methods]. ʿAmmān: Dār al-Šurūq. Durand, Olivier. 1996. Grammatica di arabo palestinese. Roma: Università La Sapienza. al-Duwayš, Rāšid ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. 1997. al-ʿArabiyya li-l-ʿāmilīn fī al-ḥaql al-ṭibbī min al-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà [Arabic for non-Arabic speakers who work in the field of medicine]. al-Riyāḍ: Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd. Easen, Patrick. 1985. Making School Centred INSET Work. London: Press Croom Helm. Elgibali, Alaa, ed. 1996. Understanding Arabic: Essays in Contemporary Arabic Linguistics in Honor of El-Said Badawi. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Elgibali, Alaa, ed. 2005. Investigating Arabic: Current Parameters in Analysis and Learning. Leiden: Brill. Elgibali, Alaa, and Zeinab A. Taha. 1995. ‘Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language: Challenges of the Nineties.’ In The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language, edited by Mahmoud al-Batal, 79-102. Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic. El-Hassan, Shahir Ata. 1977. ‘Educated Spoken Arabic in Egypt and the Levant: A Critical Review of Diglossia and Related Concepts.’ Archivum Linguisticum 8, no. 2: 112-132. El-Marzouk, Ghiath. 2018. ‘Ibn Khaldūn and Chomsky on Language: A Comparison.’ Journal of Arabic Linguistics Tradition 16: 21-45. Facchin, Andrea. 2012. ‘I livelli comuni di riferimento in arabo. Questioni, problematiche e studio sull’esperienza dell’Istituto Bourguiba di Tunisi.’ MA thesis, Università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia. Facchin, Andrea. 2014. ‘al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-iṭār al-muštarak al-ūrūbbī al-murǧiʿī li-l-luġāt: tārīḫ ṣadāqa ṭawīla?’ [The Arabic language and the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: History of a Long Friendship?]. In al-Dirāsāt al-ʿarabiyya fī ʿālam mutaġayyir, al-muʾtamar al-awwal li-qism al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya 25-27 nūfimbir 2013. al-Ǧuzʾ al-awwal, edited by Maǧid Muṣṭafà al-Ṣaʿīdī, 109-122. al-Qāhira: Waḥdat Rifāʿa li-l-buḥūt wa-tanmiya al-maʿlūmāt al-luġawiyya wa-l-tarǧama. Facchin, Andrea. 2016a. ‘Lingua araba: mare vasto senza sponde.’ Europa Vicina 33: 27-28.

278 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Facchin, Andrea. 2016b. ‘Studenti registi: realizzazione di un videoclip per stimolare il progresso linguistico nella classe di arabo LS di livello intermedio.’ In Dallo schermo alla didattica di lingua e traduzione: otto lingue a confronto, edited by Elisa Ghia, Giulia Marcucci, Fiorella Di Stefano, 207-224. PISA: Edizioni ETS. Facchin, Andrea. 2017. Review of Kilma Hilwa: Egyptian Colloquial Arabic through Songs. Intermediate Level, by Bahaa Ed-Din Ossama. Annali di Ca’ Foscari, Serie Orientale 53: 391-393. Facchin, Andrea, and Francesca Pacifici. 2010. ‘Il periodo del Protettorato francese.’ In Tunisia Italia: storia e prospettive di una lunga amicizia, edited by Francesca Pacifici and Maurizio Cociancich, 9-17. Roma: Alpes Italia. Fahmī, ʿAbd al-Salām ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. 1985 (1405 H). Kitāb Niṣāb al-ṣubyān wa-masīrat sittat qurūn fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-muslimīn ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [The Niṣāb al-ṣubyān book and the journey of six centuries in the teaching of Arabic to Muslim non-native speakers]. Makka al-Mukarrama: al-Markaz al-ʿālī li-l-taʿlīm al-islāmī, Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà. Faraǧ, Maḥmūd ʿAbduh Aḥmad. 1999. ‘al-Ittiǧahāt al-ḥadīta fī iʿdād al-kitāb al-madrasī maʿa taṭbīqāt tarbawiyya fī maǧāl al-kitāb al-ʿarabī al-islāmī’ [A modern approach to textbook preparation with educational applications in the field of the Arab-Islamic book]. In Annales de l’Université Islamique du Niger, edited by the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, 267-316. Niamey: Université Islamique du Niger. Faraǧ, Maḥmūd ʿAbduh Aḥmad. 2013. ‘Istiḫdām istrātīǧiyyat al-taḥlīl al-ṣawtī fī ʿilāǧ al-ṣuʿūbāt al-ṣawtiyya li-dārisī al-mustawà al-awwal min al-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayr al-ʿarabiyya’ [The use of phonetic analysis strategy for solving pronunciation problems among first level learners of Arabic as a foreign language]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. Farhan, Nei Hanan. 2013. ‘Istrātīǧiyyāt al-qirāʾa ladà al-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayr al-ʿarabiyya wa-madà taʾtīri-hā ʿalà mustawà istīʿābi-him al-qirāʾī’ [Reading strategies of non-native speakers of Arabic and their influence on reading comprehension]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. Farūḫ, ʿUmar. 1973. ‘Mašrūʿ al-ʿarabiyya al-asāsiyya: ʿarḍ al-mašrūʿ wa-tibyān ḫaṭari-hi ʿalà al-fuṣḥà’ [Basic Arabic project: Presentation and demonstration of its importance for Modern Standard Arabic]. Maǧallat al-maǧmaʿ al-ʿarabī 4, no. 48. al-Fāsī al-Fihrī, ʿAbd al-Qādir. 1985. ‘Taʿrīb al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-taʿrīb al-taqāfa’ [Arabic language and cultural Arabization]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 4, no. 1. al-Fāʿūrī, ʿAwnī, and Ḫālid Abū ʿAmša. 2005. ‘Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā: muškilāt wa-ḥulūl, al-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya namūdaǧan’ [Teaching Arabic to non-native speakers: Problems and solutions, the Jordan University model]. Dirāsat al-ʿulūm al-insāniyya wa-liǧtimāʿiyya 32, no. 3. al-Fawzān, Muḥammad ibn Ibrāhīm. 2014. ‘Inǧāzāt maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd f ī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [The King Saʿud University Arabic Language Institute experience of teaching of Arabic as a foreign language]. In al-Dirāsāt al-ʿarabiyya f ī ʿālam mutaġayyir, al-muʾtamar al-awwal li-qism al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya 25-27 nūfimbir 2013. al-Ǧuzʾ al-awwal, edited by Maǧid Muṣṭafà al-Ṣaʿīdī, 87-108. al-Qāhira: Waḥdat Rifāʿa li-l-buḥūt wa-tanmiya al-maʿlūmāt al-luġawiyya wa-l-tarǧama. Fazaa, Tahar. (2008) 2012. Proverbes de Tunisie, 2 vols. Tunis: Apollonia Éditions. Ferguson, Charles Albert. 1959a. ‘Diglossia.’ Word 15: 325-340. Ferguson, Charles Albert. 1959b. ‘The Arabic Koine.’ Language 35, no. 4: 616-630.

Bibliogr aphy

279

Ferguson, Charles Albert. 1990. ‘Come Forth with a Surah Like It: Arabic as a Measure of Arab Society.’ In Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics: Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics. Volume I: Salt Lake City, Utah 1987, edited by Mushira Eid, 39-51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ferguson, Charles Albert. (1991) 1996. ‘Diglossia Revisited.’ In Understanding Arabic: Essays in Contemporary Arabic Linguistics in Honour of El-Said Badawi, edited by Alaa Elgibali, 49-67. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Ferhadi, Ahmed. 1995. ‘Incorporating Video in Teaching Arabic.’ In The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language, edited by Mahmoud al-Batal, 319-330. Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic. Feria, Manuel, Rafael Ortega, Bachir Mahyoub Rayaa, and Naima Ilhami. 2017. ‘Developing an Examination for Accrediting B1 Level Arabic in the University of Granada.’ In Current Issues in Language Teaching: Developing and Innovating Approaches in the Language Classroom, edited by Raúl Ruiz-Cecilia and António Lopes, 89-94. Editorial Académica Española. Fernández, Mauro. 1993. Diglossia: A Comprehensive Bibliography 1960-1990 and Supplements. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ferrando, Ignacio. 2007. ‘History of Arabic.’ In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Lutz Edzard and Rudolf de Jong. Leiden: Brill Online. Finocchiaro, Mary, and Michael Bonomo. 1973. The Foreign Language Learner: A Guide for Teachers. New York: Regents Publishing Co. al-Fiqī, ʿAlī Muḥammad. 1980. ‘Anwāʿ ṭullāb al-ʿarabiyya min ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā wa-muškilātuhum’ [Students of Arabic as a foreign language, typologies and problems]. In al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tālit, edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm al-Šalaqānī, 109-128. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 2006. ‘Classical Arabic.’ In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Lutz Edzard and Rudolf de Jong. Leiden: Brill Online. Fitzpatrick, Jodie L., James R. Sanders, and Blaine R. Worthen. 2004. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines, 3rd ed. New York: Pearson Education Inc. Fontaine, F., and Fr.-A. Podevyn. 1970. Direct contact: manuel de directives de la méthode structurale audio-visuelle. Belgium: IVAC. François, Jacques, and Guy Denhière. 1997. Sémantique linguistique et psychologie cognitive. Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble. al-Ǧaʿāfira, ʿAbd al-Salām Yūsuf. 2014. Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī ḍawʾ al-ittiǧāhāt al-ḥadīta [Arabic language teaching in light of modern approaches]. al-ʿAin, al-Imārāt al-ʿArabiyya al-Muttaḥida: Dār al-kitāb al-ǧāmiʿī. Ǧābir, ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Ǧābir. 2000. Mudarris al-qarn al-ḥādī wa-l-ʿišrīn, al-mahārāt wa-l-tanmiya al-mihniyya [Twenty-first-century teacher, skills and professional development]. Dār al-fikr al-ʿarabī. Ǧabr, Ruqayya, and Basma Aḥmad Ṣidqī al-Daǧānī. 2015. ‘al-Mahārāt al-istiqbāliyya, al-istimāʿ wa-l-qirāʾa, fī minhāǧ al-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayr al-ʿarabiyya. al-Kitāb al-tānī wa-l-kitāb al-tālit namūdaǧan’ [Receptive skills, listening and reading, in the Jordan University curriculum for non-native speakers of Arabic. The second and third book as a model]. Dirāsāt al-ʿulūm al-insāniyya wa-l-iǧtimāʿiyya 42, no. 3: 929-940. Gabrieli, Francesco. 1986. ‘Adjam.’ In The Encyclopaedia of Islam, edited by Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen Gibb, Johannes Hendrik Kramers, Évariste Lévi-Provençal, and Joseph Schacht, vol. 1, 206. Leiden: Brill.

280 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Gago Gómez, Laura. 2014. ‘Some Remarks on Certain Lexico-statistical Resources for Vocabulary Selection in Arabic: Lexical Availability.’ In Arabele 2012: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe, edited by Victoria Aguilar, Miguel Ángel Manzano, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, Waleed Saleh, and Paula Santillán Grimm, 135-151. Murcia: Editum. al-Ġālī, Nāṣir ʿAbd Allāh, and ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd ʿAbd Allāh. 1991. Usus iʿdād al-kutub al-taʿlīmiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-l-ʿarabiyya [Fundamentals of Arabic in foreign language textbook preparation]. al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-Ġālī. Gandolfi, Paola. 2006. L’arabo a scuola? Progetti di insegnamento per figli di migranti nelle scuole primarie in Europa. Bologna: il Ponte. al-Ǧannāš, Muḥammad. 2013. ‘Tiqniyyāt bināʾ iḫtibār ʿālamī li-qiyās mahārāt al-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayr al-ʿarabiyya’ [Techniques for the construction of an international Arabic language test to measure foreign learners’ skills]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. Gardner, Robert, and Wallace Lambert. 1972. Attitudes and Motivations in Second-Language Learning. Newbury: Newbury House Publications. Ghersetti, Antonella. 2011. ‘Word in the Linguistic Thinking of ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī.’ In The Word in Arabic, edited by Giuliano Lancioni and Lidia Bettini, 87-108. Leiden: Brill. Gideon, A. 1909. ‘The Phonetic Method in Teaching Modern Languages.’ School Review 17, no. 7: 476-489. Giolfo, Manuela E.B., and Federico Salvaggio. 2018a. ‘A Digitally Assisted Model of Integration of Standard and Colloquial Arabic Based on the Common European Framework.’ In Arabic as One Language: Integrating Dialect in the Arabic Language Curriculum, edited by Mahmoud al-Batal, 93-113. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Giolfo, Manuela E.B., and Federico Salvaggio. 2018b. Mastering Arabic Variation: A Common European Framework of Reference Integrated Model. Roma: Aracne editrice. Girod, Alain. 1992. L’arabe moderne à partir de l’égyptien. Rennes: Centre National d’Enseignement à Distance (CNED). Gomes de Araújo, Reginaldo. 2008. ‘Línguas semíticas na Universidade de São Paulo.’ Revista de Estudos Orientais 6: 15-29. Gourguignon, Claire. 2010. Pour enseigner les langues avec le CECR, clés et conseils. Paris: Edition Delagrave. Grande, Francesco, Jan Jaap de Ruiter, and Massimiliano Spotti. 2012. Mother Tongue and Intercultural Valorization: Europe and Its Migrant Youth. Milano: Franco Angeli. Grangeat, Michel. 1999. ‘Processus cognitifs et différenciation pédagogique.’ In L’évaluation des compétences et des processus cognitifs, modèles, pratiques et contextes, edited by Christian Depover and Bernadette Noël, 115-127. Bruxelles: De Boeck Université. Günther, Sebastian. 2006. ‘Be Masters in That You Teach and Continue to Learn: Medieval Muslim Thinkers on Educational Theory.’ Comparative Education Review 50, no. 3: 367-388. al-Ḫabbāṣ, Muḥammad Ḥusayn Aḥmad. 2010. ‘al-Naḥw wa-l-ṣarf fī kutub taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā fī al-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya. Dirāsa waṣfiyya iḥṣāʾiyya’ [Grammar and morphology in TAFL textbooks at the University of Jordan. A statistic descriptive study]. MA thesis, al-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya, Kulliyyat al-dirāsāt al-ʿulyā. al-Ḥabīb, Šārnūkāh. 2006. ‘Taqrīr al-kitāb al-madrasī li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya fī al-Sinġāl’ [Arabic language teaching textbook evaluation in Senegal]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 23 and 24. al-Ḥadīdī, ʿAlī. 1967. Muškilat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab [The problem of Arabic language teaching to non-Arabs]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-kitāb al-ʿarabī.

Bibliogr aphy

281

Haeri, Niloofar. 2000. ‘Form and Ideology: Arabic Socio-linguistics and Beyond.’ Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 61-87. Ḫafāǧī, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Munʿim, ed. 1972. al-Imām ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Ǧurǧānī. Asrār al-balāġa. al-Qāhira: Maktabat al-Qāhira. al-Ḥāǧǧ, Bakrī Muḥammad. 1989. ‘Istiḫdām al-dārisīn ġayr al-ʿarab bi-maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm alduwalī li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-taqābul al-luġawī fī tadlīl ṣuʿūbāt taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-našri-hā’ [Non-Arab students’ use of the language interview to overcome difficulties in the Arabic language and its diffusion at Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 7, nos. 1 and 2. Ḥakīm, Salīm. 1966. Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī Nīǧīriyā [Arabic language teaching in Nigeria]. Baġdād: Wizārat al-taqāfa wa-l-iršād fī al-Ǧumhūriyya al-ʿirāqiyya. al-Ḥamd, ʿAlī Tawfīq. 2014. ‘al-ʿArabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [Arabic to non-native speakers]. Paper presented at the third ‘Arabic language international conference’, Dubai, 7-10 May. Ḥamza, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf. 1949. ‘Taǧriba fī tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya’ [Arabic language teaching experience]. Ṣaḥīfat al-tarbiya, October. Ḥannūra, Aḥmad Ḥusayn. 1989. al-Mahārāt al-luġawiyya: mustawayātu-hā wa-wasāʾil qiyāsi-hā [Language skills: Levels and measurement]. al-Iskandariyya: Dār al-maṭbūʿāt al-ǧadīda. Hary, Benjamin. 1996. ‘The Importance of the Language Continuum in Arabic Multiglossia.’ In Understanding Arabic: Essays in Contemporary Arabic Linguistics in Honor of El-Said Badawi, edited by Alaa Elgibali, 69-90. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Ḫaryūš, ʿAbd al-Raʾūf. 1998. ‘Barnāmaǧ taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: Ǧāmiʿat al-Naǧāḥ’ [An-Najah University TAFL program]. Maǧallat risālat al-naǧāḥ 56 and 57. Harīdī, Īmān Aḥmad. 1998. ‘Manhaǧ muqtaraḥ li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā min aṭfāl al-ḥalqa al-ūlà bi-l-taʿlīm al-asāsī’ [A proposed method for teaching Arabic as a foreign language to elementary school pupils of the f irst class]. MA thesis, Ǧāmiʿat al-Qāhira, Maʿhad al-dirāsāt al-tarbawiyya. al-Ḥarīrī, Ḥasan. 1948. ‘al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī al-madrasa al-namūdaǧiyya’ [The Arabic language in the model school]. Ṣaḥīfat al-tarbiya 1 (June): 91-93. Ḥarīz, Sayyid Ḥāmid. 1983. ‘Taʿrīb al-taʿlīm al-ǧāmiʿī fī al-Sūdān’ [The Arabization of instruction at university in Sudan]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 2, no. 1. Ḥarīz, Sayyid Ḥāmid. 1984. ‘al-Luġa al-sawāḥiliyya wa-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya’ [Swahili and Arabic]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 3, no. 1. Hārūn, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Muḥammad. 2006. ‘al-Tadrīs al-faʿʿāl wa-mahārātu-hu al-lāzima li-l-muʿallim al-muslim fī ʿaṣr al-ʿawlama’ [Effective teaching and the skills required of Muslim teachers in an era of globalization]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 23 and 24. Ḥasan, ʿAbbās. 1955. Azhār al-adab al-ʿarabī li-l-madāris al-tānawiyya [Arabic literature flowers for the secondary school]. al-Qāhira. al-Ḥasan, ʿAbd al-Qayūm, Muḥammad Aḥmad Ibrāhīm, and Ramzī Fuʾād Muḥammad. 2013. ‘Kaššāf maǧallat al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā, al-aʿdād 1-15’ [Index to the Journal of Arabic for non-native speakers, nos. 1-15]. Maǧallat al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā 16 (June): 1-40. Ḥassān, Tammām. 1973. al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya: maʿnā-hā wa-mabnā-hā [The Arabic language: Its meaning and structure]. al-Qāhira: al-Hayʾa al-miṣriyya al-ʿāmma li-l-kitāb. Ḥassān, Tammām. 1983. al-Tamhīd fī iktisāb al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Introduction to the acquisition of Arabic for non-native speakers]. Makka al-Mukarrama: Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà. Ḫāṭir, Maḥmūd Rušdī. n.d. Iḫtibārāt al-Mamlaka al-ʿArabiyya al-Saʿūdiyya li-l-qirāʾa wa-l-kitāba li-fuṣūl al-mukāfaḥa wa-l-mutābaʿa [Saudi Arabia tests for reading and writing for the classes

282 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

of illiteracy eradication and continuous learning]. al-Riyāḍ: Wizārat al-maʿārif, idārat taʿlīm al-kibār wa-maḥw al-ummiyya. Ḫāṭir, Maḥmūd Rušdī. 1956. ‘Taʿlīm al-qirāʾa wa-l-kitāba li-l-ṣiġār wa-l-kibār’ [The teaching of reading and writing to young people and adults]. Maǧallat al-tarbiya al-asāsiyya 3, no. 3. Ḫāṭir, Maḥmūd Rušdī. 1958. Iḫtibār Sirs al-Layyān li-l-qirāʾa al-ṣāmita [Sers el-Layyan test for silent reading]. Sirs al-Layyān: al-Markaz al-waẓīfī li-taʿlīm al-kibār. Ḫāṭir, Maḥmūd Rušdī. 1962a. Iḫtibār Sirs al-Layyān fī al-qirāʾa li-l-kibār. al-Marḥala al-tānī [Sers el-Layyan reading test for adults. Second level]. Sirs al-Layyān: Markaz al-tarbiya al-asāsiyya fī al-ʿālam al-ʿarabī. Ḫāṭir, Maḥmūd Rušdī. 1962b. Iḫtibār Sirs al-Layyān fī al-qirāʾa li-l-kibār. al-Marḥala al-ūlà [Sers el-Layyan reading test for adults. First level]. Sirs al-Layyān: Markaz al-tarbiya al-asāsiyya fī al-ʿālam al-ʿarabī. Ḫāṭir, Maḥmūd Rušdī. 1971. Iḫtibār Sirs al-Layyān fī al-taʿlīm al-waẓīfī li-l-kibār fī al-ʿālam al-ʿarabī [Sers el-Layyan test for adults’ functional education in the Arab world]. Sirs al-Layyān. Ḫāṭir, Maḥmūd Rušdī, and Muḥammad Ḫalīfa Barakāt. 1958. Iḫtibār al-qudra ʿalà al-fahm fī al-qirāʾa al-ṣāmita [Silent reading comprehension test ]. al-Ḫawālida, Muḥammad ʿAlī, ʿAbd al-Nāṣir al-Ǧarrāḥ, and Fayṣal Ḫalīl al-Rabīʿ. 2014. ‘Dāfiʿiyyat taʿallum al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya ladà al-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā fī al-Urdun wa-ʿalāqātu-hā bi-baʿḍ al-mutaġayyarāt’ [Arabic language learning motivation among non-native speakers in Jordan and its relationship with some transformations]. al-Maǧalla al-urduniyya fī al-ʿulūm al-tarbawiyya 10, no. 2: 191-204. al-Ḫawlī, Muḥammad ʿAlī. 1997. Taʿlīm al-luġa. Ḥālāt wa-taʿlīqāt [Language learning. Cases and remarks]. ʿAmmān: Dār al-Falāḥ. Ḫazna Kātibī, Hādiyā. 2003. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-ṭalaba al-āsiyawiyyīn, mašākil wa-ḥulūl wa-taṭwīr. Muʾtamar duwalī fī al-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya’ [Arabic language teaching to Asian students, problems, solutions and developments. International conference at the University of Jordan]. Maǧalla al-ʿalāqāt al-ʿarabiyya al-āsiyawiyya. Ḫazna Kātibī, Hādiyā. 2008. ‘al-Kifāyāt allatī yamtaliku-hā al-mudarris fī muwākabat altaṭawwurāt allatī taṭraʾu ʿalà maydān taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib’ [The teacher’s competences in the changes that occur to the field of TAFL]. Maǧallat (kūriyya) al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-adab al-ʿarabī, al-Ittiḥād al-kūrī li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-ādābi-hā: 2-12. Ḫazna Kātibī, Hādiyā. 2012. ‘al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa tāniya wa-l-taḥaddiyāt allatī tuwāǧihu dārisī-hā al-aǧānib’ [Arabic as a second language and the challenges faced by its foreign learners]. Maǧallat Ǧāmiʿat Dimašq 28, no. 2: 425-455. Ḫazna Kātibī, Hādiyā. 2014. ‘al-Istrātīǧiyyāt allatī yastaḫdimu-hā al-ṭalaba al-aǧānib al-dārisūn li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa tāniya fī markaz al-luġāt fī al-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya ṭalaba al-mustawà al-sādis anmūdaǧan’ [The strategies used by foreign learners of Arabic as a second language at the Jordan University Language Center. Students of the sixth level as a model]. Maǧallat Ǧāmiʿat Marmara 46 (April): 173-202. Ḫazna Kātibī, Hādiyā, and al-Mutannà Madd Allāh al-ʿAsāsifa. 2015. ‘al-Indimāǧ al-iǧtimāʿī ladà ʿayyina min mutaʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā fī al-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya’ [Social integration among AFL learners at Jordan University]. Dirāsāt al-ʿulūm al-iǧtimāʿiyya wa-l-insāniyya 43, no. 3: 847-858. Hee-Man, Sah, and Fouad El-Khazindar. 2006. ‘Teaching Arabic in Korea.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 97-105. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Henning, Grant. 1987. A Guide to Language Testing: Development-Evaluation-Research. New York: Newbury House.

Bibliogr aphy

283

Henry, Colin, and Stephen Kemmis. 1985. ‘A Point-by-Point Guide to Action Research for Teachers.’ Australian Administrator 6, no. 4. Heyworth-Dunn, James. 1968. An Introduction to the History of Education in Modern Egypt. London: Luzac. Ḥiǧāzī, Zakiyya. 1966. Muqawwimāt al-numū al-mutakāmil li-l-ṭifl fī al-marḥala al-ibtidāʾiyya [Children’s integrated development factors at elementary level]. al-Qāhira: al-Dār al-qawmiyya li-l-ṭibāʿa wa-l-našr. al-Ḥilyawī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq. 1980. ‘Taǧribat al-tadrīs li-l-aǧānib’ [Experience of teaching to foreigners]. In Aʿmāl al-multaqà al-maġrībī li-ṭuruq tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, edited by al-Maʿhad al-qawmī li-ʿulūm al-tarbiya, 109-111. Tūnis: Manšūrāt al-maʿhad al-qawmī li-ʿulūm al-tarbiya. Hong, Zhang. 2011. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī al-ǧāmiʿāt al-ṣīniyya’ [Arabic language teaching in Chinese universities]. In Prosiding Seminar Antarabangsa Pengajaran Bahasa Arab 2011 (SAPBA’11): Wawasan dan Cabaran Malaysia-China, edited by Maheram Ahmad, Mohd Shukari Hamzah, Moktar Hussain, and Zhang Hong, 158-174. Bangi, Selangor: Unit Bahasa Arab, Fakulti Pengajian Islam, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Hourani, Albert. 1983. Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, 1798-1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hudson, Alan. 1992. ‘Diglossia: A Bibliographical Review.’ Language in Society 21, no. 4: 611-674. Hunwick, John. 1965. Report of a Seminar on the Teaching of Arabic in Nigeria. Ibadan: Ahmadu Bello University Press. al-Ḥūsānī, Naǧwà. 2013. ‘Tawṣīf watīqat al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [Description of teaching Arabic as a foreign language document]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. Ḥusayn, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. 1986. ‘Taǧribat al-manhaǧ fī maʿhad taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā bi-Ǧāmiʿat al-imām Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd al-islāmiyya bi-l-Riyāḍ’ [The Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Saʿud Islamic University TAFL institute curriculum experience]. In Waqāʾiʿ nadwāt taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, edited by Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ. al-Riyāḍ: Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ. al-Ḥuṣrī, Sāṭiʿ. 1940. Durūs fī uṣūl al-tadrīs [Lessons on teaching principles]. Baġdād: al-Maṭbaʿa al-ahliyya. al-Ḥuṣrī, Sāṭiʿ. 1962. Durūs fī uṣūl al-tadrīs [Lessons on teaching principles]. Bayrūt: Maṭābiʿ al-ġandūr. Husseinali, Ghassan. 2012. ‘Arabic Heritage Language Learners: Motivation, Expectations, Competence and Engagement in Learning Arabic.’ Journal of the National Council of Less Commonly Taught Languages 11: 97-110. Hyde, Georgie D.M. (1978) 2013. Education in Modern Egypt: Ideals and Realities. London: Routledge. Hymes, Dell. 1972. ‘On Communicative Competence.’ In Sociolinguistics, edited by John B. Pride and Janet Holmes, 269-293. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Ibn al-Barāʾ, Yaḥyà. 1992. ‘al-Taǧriba al-mūrītāniyya fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [The Mauritanian experience of teaching Arabic to non-native speakers]. In Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: Qaḍāyā wa-taǧārib, edited by al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm, 102-108. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. Ibn Ismāʿīl, Muḥammad. 1983. al-ʿArabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Arabic for non-Arabic speakers]. Tūnis: Manšūrāt al-maʿhad al-qawmī li-ʿulūm al-tarbiya.

284 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Ibn Murād, Ibrāhīm. 1990. ‘Makānat al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bayna luġāt al-ʿālam al-wāsiʿa al-intišār’ [The place of Arabic among widely diffused world languages]. In Min qaḍāyā al-luġa alʿarabiyya al-muʿāṣira, edited by al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. Ibn Yūsuf, ʿĀdil. 2007. ‘al-Biʿtāt al-ʿilmiyya al-tūnisiyya ilà Ūrūbbā ḫilāl al-qarn al-tāsiʿ ʿašar’ [The Tunisian scientific missions to Europe during the nineteenth century]. Rawāfid 12: 11-41. Ibrāhīm, ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ Muḥammad. 1985. al-Kitāba al-ʿarabiyya wa-ṣalāḥu-hā li-taʿlīm al-luġa li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Arabic writing and its improvement in teaching non-native speakers]. Makka al-Mukarrama: Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà, al-Markaz al-ʿālī li-l-taʿlīm al-islāmī. Ibrāhīm, Ḥamāda. 1987. al-Ittiǧāhāt al-muʿāṣira fī tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-luġāt al-ḥayya al-uḫrà li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Current directions in the teaching of Arabic and other languages to foreigners]. Dār al-fikr al-ʿarabī. Ibrahim, Zeinab, and Jehan Allam. 2006. ‘Arabic Learners and Heritage Students Redefined: Present and Future.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 437-446. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. al-Imām, Āmāl Musà. 2003. ‘Manhaǧ li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-aġrād ṣaḥāfiyya’ [Curriculum for teaching Arabic for journalism]. Paper presented at the ALECSO symposium on ‘The Teaching of Arabic for Specif ic Purposes’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 4-6 January. Imām, Ibrāhīm. 1953. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġāt al-ḥayya’ [The teaching of living languages]. Ṣaḥīfat al-tarbiya 6, no. 1 (November). Ismāʿīl, Nabīh Ibrāhīm. 1981. al-Usus al-nafsiyya li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [The psychological bases of teaching Arabic to non-native speakers]. al-Qāhira: Maktabat al-anǧlū al-miṣriyya. Ismāʿīl [Ṣīnī], Maḥmūd. 1975. ‘Taysīr al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya’ [Arabic language simplif ication]. Al-‘Arabiyya 8, no. 1 and 2: 41-46. Jamous, Rawya, and Abdul Rahman Chik. 2012. ‘Teaching Arabic for Cultural Purposes: A Case Study of Francophone Program of Arabic at Aleppo University.’ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 66: 37-45. Jang, Liang. 2011. ‘Iḫtibārāt al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī al-Ṣīn: wāqiʿu-hā wa-taṣawwurātu-hā almustaqbaliyya’ [Arabic language tests in China: Evidence and future ideas]. In Prosiding Seminar Antarabangsa Pengajaran Bahasa Arab 2011 (SAPBA’11): Wawasan dan Cabaran Malaysia-China, edited by Maheram Ahmad, Mohd Shukari Hamzah, Moktar Hussain, and Zhang Hong, 892-906. Bangi, Selangor: Unit Bahasa Arab, Fakulti Pengajian Islam, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Jang, Liang. 2013. ‘Taqyīm al-kafāʾa fī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya ladà al-ṭalaba al-ṣīniyyīn al-ǧāmiʿiyyīn’ [Arabic language proficiency evaluation among Chinese university students]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. Kalati, Ali. 2003. ‘Storia dell’insegnamento dell’arabo in Italia (I parte: Roma e Napoli).’ AnnalSS 3: 279-296. Kalati, Ali. 2004. ‘Storia dell’insegnamento dell’arabo in Italia (II parte: Palermo e Venezia).’ AnnalSS 4: 299-330. Kallas, Elie. (1990) 1995. Yatabi lebnaaniyyi: Un ‘Livello soglia’ per l’apprendimento del neo-arabo libanese. Venezia: Libreria Cafoscarina Editrice.

Bibliogr aphy

285

al-Kārūrī, ʿAbd al-Munʿim. 1984. ‘al-ʿUnṣur al-sāmī fī al-luġa al-miṣriyya al-qadīma’ [The Semitic element in the ancient Egyptian language]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 2, no. 2. Katzner, Kenneth. 1986. The Languages of the World. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Kaye, Alan S. 1972. ‘Remarks on Diglossia in Arabic, Well-Defined vs. Ill-Defined.’ Linguistics 81: 32-48. Khater, Mahmoud Rushdi. 1954. Analyses of Reading and Writing Materials for Children and Adults in Egypt, 1950-1954. Sers el-Layyan, Manufiyya: Arab States Fundamental Education Centre. Khater, Mahmoud Rushdi. 1963. The Teaching of Arabic in the Arab World. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics of the Modern Language Association of America. Kildani, Hanna. 2010. Modern Christianity in the Holy Land. Bloomington, IN: Author House. Kozah, Mario. 2016. ‘On Anis Frayha.’ In One Hundred and Fifty, edited by Nadia Maria El-Cheikh, Lina Choueiri, and Bilal Orfali, 281-286. Beirut: American University in Beirut Press. Kraidy, Marwan. 2006. ‘Reality Television and Politics in the Arab World: Preliminary Observations.’ Transnational Broadcasting Studies 15: 7-28. Krashen, Stephen. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. London: Prentice-Hall International. Krashen, Stephen. 1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. London: PrenticeHall International. Krashen, Stephen, and Tracy D. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon. al-Kuḫun, Amīn. 2008. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā fī al-Urdun min ʿām 1982 ilà ʿām 2008: dirāsa wa-taqwīm’ [Teaching Arabic to non-native speakers in Jordan from 1982 until 2008: Study and evaluation]. Paper presented at the ‘First International Conference on Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language’, Jordan University Language Center, Amman, 6-8 May. Lado, Robert. 1988. Teaching English across Cultures. New York: McGraw-Hill. al-Laǧna al-dāʾima (al-Laǧna al-dāʾima li-l-raṣīd al-luġawī). 1975. al-Raṣīd al-luġawī al-waẓīfī li-l-marḥala al-ūlà min al-taʿlīm al-ibtidāʾī [Functional language syllabus for the first level of elementary instruction]. Tūnis: al-Hayʾa al-istišāriyya li-l-maġrib al-ʿarabī fī al-tarbiya wa-l-taʿlīm. al-Laḥḥām, Īmān. 1999. ‘Anšiṭa taṭbīqiyya fī ṣiyāġat al-mawādd al-taʿlīmiyya li-māddatay al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-tarbiya al-islāmiyya’ [Practical activities in educational subject drafting for Arabic and Islamic education]. In Annales de l’Université Islamique du Niger, edited by the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation, 317-360. Niamey: Université Islamique du Niger. Lanchec, Jean Yvon. 1976. Psycholinguistique et pédagogie des langues. Paris: Presses Universitaire de France. Landau, Jacob M. 1959. A Word Count of Modern Arabic Prose. New York: American Council of Learned Societies. Lange, Dale L., ed. 1981. Proceedings of the National Conference on Professional Priorities. November 1980, Boston, Massachusetts. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: ACTFL Material Center. Lecomte, Gérard. 1953. ‘Le livre des “règles de conduite des Maîtres d’École” d’Ibn Sahnun.’ Revue des Études Islamiques 21: 77-105. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Lévi-Provençal, Évariste. 1986. ‘Aljamía.’ In The Encyclopaedia of Islam, edited by Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen Gibb, Johannes Hendrik Kramers, Évariste Lévi-Provençal, and Joseph Schacht, vol. 1, 404-405. Leiden: Brill. Lewis, Bernard. 2004. From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

286 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Lipinski, Edward. 1997. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. Leuven: Peeters. Maamouri, Mohamed. 1983. ‘The Linguistic Situation in Independent Tunisia.’ In Language in Tunisia, edited Richard M. Payne, 11-21. Tunis: Bourguiba School of Modern Languages Tunisia. Maamouri, Mohamed, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf ʿAbīd, and Sālim al-Ġazālī. 1983. Taʾtīr al-luġāt al-aǧnabiyya fī taʿallum al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya [The influence of foreign languages in Arabic language learning]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. Mabon, Simon. 2013. ‘Aiding Revolution? Wikileaks, Communication and the “Arab Spring” in Egypt.’ Third World Quarterly 34, no. 10: 1843-1857. Mack, Rosamond. 2002. Bazaar to Piazza: Islamic Trade and Italian Art, 1300-1600. Berkeley: University of California Press. Madkūr, ʿAlī Aḥmad. 1985. Taqwīm barāmiǧ iʿdād muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [AFL teachers’ training programs evaluation]. al-Ribāṭ: Manšūrāt al-Īsīskū. Madkūr, ʿAlī Aḥmad. 2002. Tadrīs funūn al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya [Aspects of Arabic language teaching]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-fikr al-ʿarabī. Madkūr, ʿAlī Aḥmad. 2003. al-Tarbiya wa-taqāfat al-tiknūlūǧiyā [Education and the culture of technology]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-fikr al-ʿarabī. Madkūr, ʿAlī Aḥmad. 2004. ‘Barnāmaǧ li-taʿlīm mahārāt al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-abnāʾ al-muslimīn al-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà min ḫilāl al-taqāfa al-islāmiyya’ [A program for teaching Arabic through Islamic culture to non-native speakers’ Muslim children]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 22. Madkūr, ʿAlī Aḥmad. 2006. Naẓariyyāt al-manāhiǧ al-tarbawiyya [Theories of pedagogical methods]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-fikr al-ʿarabī. Madkūr, ʿAlī Aḥmad, and Īmān Aḥmad Harīdī. 2006. Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Naẓariyya wa-l-taṭbīq [Teaching Arabic to non-native speakers. Theory and practice]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-fikr al-ʿarabī. Maǧallat al-Hilāl. 1934. ‘Hal al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī ḥāǧa ilà iṣlāḥ?’ [Does the Arabic language need to be reformed?]. Maǧallat al-Hilāl no. 3 (January): 273-278. al-Maǧdūb, ʿAzz al-Dīn. 1988. ‘Musāhama fī iṣlāḥ nuṭq al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā min al-faransiyyīn’ [Pronunciation correction among French learners of Arabic as a foreign language]. Ḥawliyyāt al-Ǧāmiʿa al-tūnisiyya 29: 39-54. Maʿhad Madrīd (Maʿhad al-dirāsāt al-islāmiyya fī Madrīd). 1959-1960. ‘Nadwat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab’ [Symposium on teaching Arabic to non-Arabs]. In Ṣaḥīfat maʿhad al-dirāsāt al-islāmiyya fī Madrīd, al-ʿadad al-sābiʿ wa-l-tāmin, edited by Maʿhad al-dirāsāt al-islāmiyya fī Madrīd, 437-504. Madrid: Maʿhad al-dirāsāt al-islāmiyya fī Madrīd. al-Maʿhad al-qawmī (al-Maʿhad al-qawmī li-ʿulūm al-tarbiya). 1981. Ḥawla ṭuruq taʿlīm al-luġāt bi-Tūnis [On the methods of foreign language teaching in Tunisia]. Tūnis: Manšūrāt al-Maʿhad al-qawmī li-ʿulūm al-tarbiya. Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ (Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya). 1978. Iḫtibār al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab [Arabic language test for non-Arabs]. al-Riyāḍ: Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà (Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya). 1981. Qāʾimat Makka li-l-mufradāt al-šāʾiʿa [Mecca vocabulary list]. Makka al-Mukarrama: Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà. Mahmoud, Youssef. 1986. ‘Arabic after Diglossia.’ In The Fergusonian Impact: In Honor of Charles A. Ferguson on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Joshua Fishman, 239-251. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Maḥmūd, ʿUšārī Aḥmad. 1985. ‘Ǧadaliyyat al-waḥda wa-l-tašattut fī qaḍāyā al-luġa wa-l-waḥda al-waṭaniyya fī al-Sūdān’ [The dialectics of unity and division on the question of language and national unity in Sudan]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 4, no. 1.

Bibliogr aphy

287

Mahomed, Abdool Majid. 1998. ‘A Curriculum Framework for Arabic in the Further Education and Training Band.’ PhD thesis, Rand Afrikaans University. Maḥyūt, Kāhina. 2016. ‘ʿAlī al-Qāsimī wa-l-tafkīr al-muʿǧamī’ [Ali al-Qasimi and its lexical thinking]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 37. al-Maḫzūmī, Ḫalaf. 1992. ‘Taǧribat Ǧāmiʿat al-Yarmūk fī barāmiǧ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [The Yarmouk University experience in TAFL programs]. In Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: Qaḍāyā wa-taǧārib, edited by al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm, 109-114. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. Makkī, al-Ṭāhir Aḥmad. 1966. ‘Taysīr al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib’ [Arabic language simplification for foreigners]. al-Maǧalla 114 (June): 78-85. Makki, Mahmoud Ali, ed. 1995. Issues of Modernism in the Works of Abd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī. Egypt: Longman. Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ. 1986. Waqāʾiʿ nadwāt taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language symposia facts]. al-Riyāḍ: Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ. Malkāwī, Fatḥī Ḥasan, et al. 1990. Buḥūt al-muʾtamar al-tarbawī: muʾtamar naḥwa bināʾ naẓariyya tarbawiyya islāmiyya muʿāṣira, ʿAmmān, al-Mamlaka al-urduniyya al-hāšimiyya, 24-27 yūlyū 1990 [Papers of the educational conference: Toward an Islamic modern education theory development: Amman, Jordan, 24-27 July 1990]. ʿAmmān: Ǧamʿiyya al-dirāsāt wa-l-buḥūt al-islāmiyya. al-Maraʿī, ʿAqīl. 2013. ‘Taǧribat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī Īṭāliyā’ [Arabic language teaching experience in Italy]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. al-Marāšida, Ṭalāl ʿAbd Allāh. 2016. Bināʾ al-mahārāt al-luġawiyya fī kutub taʿlīm al-luġa alʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā fī al-ǧāmiʿāt al-urduniyya al-rasmiyya [Building language skills in the Jordanian public university AFL textbooks]. ʿAmmān: Dār al-ǧanāḥ li-l-našar wa-l-tawzīʿ. Marlowe, John. 1970. Cromer in Egypt. London: Elek Books. Martini Bonadeo, Cecilia, and Cleophea Ferrari. 2005. ‘Al-Fārābī.’ In Storia della filosofia nell’Islam, edited by Cristina D’Ancona, vol. 1, 380-448. Torino: Einaudi. Martí Tormo, Vicente, and Indalecio Lozano Cámara. 2012. Al-Kaššāf. Enseñanza y aprendizaje del árabe como segunda lengua. Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada. McCarus, Ernest N. 2012. ‘A Lust for Language.’ In Paths to the Middle East: Ten Scholars Look Back, edited by Thomas Naff, 181-198, Albany: SUNY Press. McCarus, Ernest N., and Raji Rammuny. 1968. Word Count of Elementary Modern Literary Arabic Textbooks. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. McKey, Donald Vernon. 1945. ‘The French in Tunisia.’ Geographical Review 35, no. 3: 368-390. Meiseles, Gustav. 1980. ‘Educated Spoken Arabic and the Arabic Language Continuum.’ Archivum Linguisticum 11: 118-148. Mermoud, Nicole. 2004. On peut tous apprendre l’arabe dialectale: Français-Marocain, 2nd ed. Nicole Mermoud. Meynet, Roland. 1971. L’écriture arabe en question: les projets de l’Académie de langue arabe du Caire de 1938 à 1968. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq. Mialaret, Gaston. 1964. Psycho-pédagogie des moyens audio-visuels. Paris: UNESCO. Milroy, James. 2001. ‘Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardization.’ Journal of Sociolinguistics 5/4: 530-555.

288 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Mitchell, Terence Frederick. 1986. ‘What Is Educated Spoken Arabic?’ International Journal of the Sociology of Language 61: 7-32. Moscoso, Francisco, and Óscar Rodríguez. 2014. ‘B šwiyya b šwiyya. Un manual A1 para el aprendizaje del árabe marroquí.’ In Arabele 2012: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe, edited by Victoria Aguilar, Miguel Ángel Manzano, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, Waleed Saleh, and Paula Santillán Grimm, 251-256. Murcia: Editum. Moscoso García, Francisco. 2007. Diccionario español-árabe marroquí, árabe marroquí-español. Almería: Fundación Ibn Tufayl. Moscoso García, Francisco, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, and Nadi Hamdi Nouaouri, eds. 2008. Actas del segundo Congreso Árabe Marroquí: Estudio, Enseñanza y Aprendizaje. Cádiz: Servicio Publicaciones UCA. Moucannas, Hoda, and Nejmeddine Khalfallah, eds. 2017. L’arabe langue étrangère. Didactique et traduction. L’approche pragmatique. Nancy: PUN – Éditions Universitaires de Lorraine. Mubārak, Muḥammad. 1978. ‘Muʿallim al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab: iʿdādu-hu, tadrību-hu, muwāṣafātu-hu’ [The teacher of Arabic to non-Arabs: preparation, training, description]. Maǧallat al-Fayṣal 19 (December): 68-81. Muǧāwir, Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn. 1974a. Iḫtibār al-mustawà al-taḥṣīlī li-l-marḥala al-ibtidāʾiyya li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya [Elementary-level achievement test for Arabic]. al-Kuwayt: Dār al-qalam. Muǧāwir, Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn. 1974b. Namādiǧ min al-iḫtibārāt al-mawḍūʿiyya fī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya [Samples of Arabic language objective tests]. al-Kuwayt: Dār al-qalam. Muǧāwir, Muḥammad Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn, et al. 1966. Sīkūlūǧiyā al-qirāʾa [Reading psychology]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-nahḍa al-miṣriyya al-ʿarabiyya bi-Miṣr. Muḥammad, ʿAbd al-Razzāq Ḥasan. 1989. ‘Mulāḥaẓāt ʿan al-alfāẓ al-hawsawiyya al-muqtaraḍa min al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya’ [Observations on Arabic loanwords in Hausa]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 7, nos. 1 and 2. Muḥammad, ʿAbd al-Razzāq Ḥasan. 2006. ‘Asālīb taṣḥīḥ al-aḫṭāʾ al-luġawiyya’ [Language error correction methods]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 23 and 24. Muḥammad, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḫāliq. 1996. Iḫtibārāt al-luġa [Language tests]. al-Riyāḍ: Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd. Muḥammad, Munawwar Muṣṭafà, and Zamri Arifin. 2011. ‘Tanmiyat mahārat al-taʿbīr fī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [Expression development in the teaching of Arabic to non-native speakers]. In Prosiding Seminar Antarabangsa Pengajaran Bahasa Arab 2011 (SAPBA’11): Wawasan dan Cabaran Malaysia-China, edited by Maheram Ahmad, Mohd Shukari Hamzah, Moktar Hussain, and Zhang Hong, 740-748. Bangi, Selangor: Unit Bahasa Arab, Fakulti Pengajian Islam, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Muḥammad, Saʿīd Ḥāf iẓ. 2013. ‘Taqaddum al-ʿumr al-zamanī wa-ataru-hu fī taʿllum al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [Getting old and its effect on learning Arabic by AFL learners]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. Muḥammad, ʿUmar Sulaymān, and Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī. 1991. al-Imlāʾ al-waẓīfī li-l-mustawà al-mutawassiṭ min ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-l-ʿarabiyya [Functional dictation for intermediate AFL learners]. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd. Muḥammad Aḥmad, ʿAbd al-Samīʿ. 1980. ‘Ṭullāb al-ʿarabiyya ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā wa-muškilātuhum. Taǧribat Kulliyyat al-alsun’ [AFL students and their difficulties: The Alsun experience]. In al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tālit, edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm al-Šalaqānī, 39-56. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ.

Bibliogr aphy

289

al-Munaẓẓama (al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm). 1981. Ṣināʿat al-muʿǧam al-ʿarabī li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. Abḥāt al-dawra al-tadrībiyya. [The construction of the Arabic lexicon for non-Arabic speakers: Training session research]. al-Ribāṭ. al-Munaẓẓama (al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm). 1983. Dalīl buḥūt taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-dīn al-islāmī fī al-waṭan al-ʿarabī (1900-1980) [Arabic language and Islamic religion research guide (1900-1980)]. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. al-Munaẓẓama (al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm). 1985. Bibliyūġrāfyā rasāʾil al-dirāsāt al-ʿulyā: al-diblūm wa-l-māǧistīr fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā (1981-1986) [Bibliography of higher studies dissertations: Diploma and master’s degree in Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language (1981-1986)]. al-Ḫarṭūm: Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm al-duwalī li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya. al-Munaẓẓama (al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm). 1988. Taʿlīm abnāʾ al-ʿummāl al-ʿarab al-muhāǧirīn fī Ūrūbbā [Arab migrant workers’ children education in Europe]. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. al-Munaẓẓama (al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm). 1990. Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-abnāʾ al-ǧāliyāt al-ʿarabiyya fī Ūrūbbā [Teaching Arabic to the children of the Arab communities in Europe]. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. al-Munaẓẓama (al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm). 1992. Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: Qaḍāyā wa-taǧārib [Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language: Issues and experiences]. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. al-Munaẓẓama (al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm). 1994. Dalīl al-ḫubarāʾ al-ʿarab f ī maǧāl taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Guide to Arab experts in the field of Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language]. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. al-Muršidī, Muḥammad Aḥmad. 1948. ‘Imtiḥānāt al-šahāda al-ibtidāʾiyya fī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya’ [Tests for primary school certification of Arabic]. Ṣaḥīfat al-tarbiya, June. al-Musà, Nuhād. 1985. ‘al-Aʿrāf aw naḥwa al-lisāniyyāt al-iǧtimāʿiyya fī al-ʿarabiyya’ [Usages, toward Arabic sociolinguistics]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 4, no. 1. al-Musà, Nuhād. 1997. ‘al-Ḥayy al-ʿarabī’ [The Arab neighborhood]. Paper presented at the ‘Development of AFL Teaching Styles’ (panel discussion), Philadelphia University, Amman, Jordan, 8 January. al-Musà, Nuhād. 2000. al-ʿArabiyya naḥwa tawṣīf ǧadīd fī ḍawʾ al-lisāniyyāt al-ḥāsūbiyya [Toward a new description of Arabic in light of computational linguistics]. Bayrūt: al-Muʾassasa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt wa-l-našar. al-Musà, Nuhād. 2005. ‘Taǧārib al-ǧāmiʿāt al-ʿarabiyya fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa tāniya’ [Arab universities’ experiences in the teaching of Arabic as a second language]. Paper presented at the ‘Conference on Foreign Languages and Studies’, Amman, Faculty of Arts, University of Jordan. al-Muṭawwiʿ, Naǧā ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. 2007. Taʾtīr al-luġāt al-aǧnabiyya ʿalà luġat al-umm [The influence of foreign languages on the first language]. al-Kuwayt. al-Naǧǧār, Farīd. 1940. ‘Mašākil taʿlīm al-aṭfāl fī al-ṣufūf al-ūlà’ [Teaching problems to elementary school pupils]. Maǧallat al-muʿallim al-ǧadīd: 111-120. al-Naǧrān, ʿUtmān ʿAbd Allāh. 2017. ‘Ṣuʿūbāt taʿallum aṣwāt al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya ladà al-ṭullāb al-nāṭiqīn bi-l-urdiyya’ [Pronunciation learning problems among AFL students who are speakers of Urdu]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 40.

290 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Nahla, Mahmoud Ahmad. 2006. ‘Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers at Alexandria University.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 67-79. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. al-Nāqa, Maḥmūd Kāmil. 1985a. Barāmiǧ taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-muslimīn al-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà fī ḍawʾ dawāfiʿi-him [Programs for teaching Arabic to Muslim speakers of other languages]. Makka al-Mukarrama: Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà. al-Nāqa, Maḥmūd Kāmil. 1985b. ‘Tadrīs al-qawāʿid fī barāmiǧ taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [Teaching grammar in TAFL programs]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 3, no. 2. al-Nāqa, Maḥmūd Kāmil. 1985c. Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà [Teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages]. Makka al-Mukarrama: Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà. al-Nāqa, Maḥmūd Kāmil. 1986. ‘Ḫuṭṭa muqtaraḥa li-taʾlīf kitāb asāsī li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-lnāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [A proposed project for drafting the teaching of Arabic to non-native speakers: Basic course]. In Waqāʾiʿ nadwāt taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, edited by Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ. al-Riyāḍ: Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ. al-Nāqa, Maḥmūd Kāmil. 2001. Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-l-taḥaddiyāt al-taqāfiyya allatī tuwāǧihu manāhiǧu-nā al-dirāsiyya [Arabic language teaching and cultural challenges in the curricula]. al-Qāhira: Kulliyyat al-tarbiya, Ǧāmiʿat ʿAin Šams. al-Nāqa, Maḥmūd Kāmil. 2014. ‘Muḫaṭṭaṭ iǧrāʾī li-iʿdād kitāb asāsī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [Procedural chart for the preparation of a basic course of teaching Arabic as a foreign language]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿilmiyya (ʿadad ḫaṣṣ) bi-muʾtamar Abū Ẓabī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā 2013, no. 1: 7-29. al-Nāqa, Maḥmūd Kāmil, and Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma. 2003. Ṭarāʾiq tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Arabic as a foreign language teaching methods]. al-Ribāṭ: Manšūrāt al-Munaẓẓama al-islāmiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-ʿulūm wa-l-taqāfa (ISESCO), Maṭbaʿat al-maʿārif al-ǧadīda. Nāṣif, Ḥifnī, Muḥammad Diyāb, Muṣṭafà Ṭamūḥ, Muaḥmmad Ṣāliḥ, and Maḥmūd ʿUmar. 1903a. al-Durūs al-naḥwiyya [Grammar lessons]. al-Qāhira: al-Maṭbaʿa al-kubrà al-amīriyya. Nāṣif, Ḥifnī, Muḥammad Diyāb, Sulṭān Muḥammad, and Muṣṭafà Ṭamūḥ. 1903b. Durūs al-balāġa [Lessons of rhetoric]. al-Qāhira: al-Maṭbaʿa al-kubrà al-amīriyya. al-Nāṣir, ʿAbd al-Munʿim. 1998. ‘Taṭwīr asālīb taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [Teaching Arabic to non-native speakers: Methods development]. In Waqāʾiʿ ḥalqat al-niqāš al-ūlà ḥawla taṭwīr asālīb taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. 8 Kānūn al-tānī 1998, edited by Ġassān Ismāʿīl ʿAbd al-Ḫāliq. Ǧāmiʿat Fīlādīlfyā. Nasr, Raja Tawf ik. 1978. The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language: Linguistic Elements. Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Nielsen, Helle Lykke. 2009. ‘Second Language Teaching.’ In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Kees Versteegh, Mushira Eid, Alaa Elgibali, Manfred Woidich, and Andrzej Zaborski, vol. 4, 146-156. Leiden: Brill. Nielsen, Helle Lykke. 2012. ‘E-learning and the Dilemma of Learner Autonomy: A Case Study of First-Year University Students of Arabic.’ Orientalia Suecana 61: 89-106. Noijons, José, Henk Kuijper, and Evelyn Reichard. 2007. De koppeling van de centrale examens leesvaardigheid Arabisch, Russisch, Spaans en Turks aan het Europees Referentiekader. Arnhem: Cito.

Bibliogr aphy

291

Nouaouri, Nadi Hamdi, and Francisco Moscoso García, eds. 2006. Actas del primer Congreso Árabe Marroquí: Estudio, Enseñanza y Aprendizaje. Cádiz: Servicio Publicaciones UCA. NSFLEP (National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project). 2006. Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. Lawrence, KS: Allen Press. Nuqalī, Basma bint ʿAbd Allāh. 2017. ‘Taḥlīl al-ḥāǧāt al-dīniyya ladà mutaʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī maʿāhid taʿlīm al-luġa bi-madīnat al-Riyāḍ wa-Nūrītš’ [Religion training needs analysis among learners of Arabic in the language centers of Riyadh and Norwich]. Paper presented at the conference on ‘Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers: A View to the Future’, Marmara University, Istanbul, 1 April. Nūr, Qāsim ʿUtmān, Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm, and ʿAbbās Sirāǧ. 1989. ‘al-Fihris al-muṣannaf li-rasāʾil al-diblūm wa-l-māǧistīr fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [TAFL dissertations index]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 8, no. 1. OIC (Organisation of Islamic Cooperation [Munaẓẓamat al-muʾtamar al-islāmī]). 1999. Annales de l’Université Islamique du Niger – Ḥawliyyāt al-Ǧāmiʿa al-islāmiyya bi-l-Nayǧar. Niamey: Université Islamique du Niger. Oller, John W., and Jack C. Richards. (1973) 1977. Focus on the Learner: Pragmatic Perspectives for the Language Teacher. Newbury: Newbury House Publications. O’Malley, J. Michael, and Anna Uhl Chamot. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oril, Bahreddin. 2013. ‘al-Mašārīʿ al-ǧadīda li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī Indūnīsiyā wataḥaddiyātu-hā wa-istišrāq al-mustaqbal’ [New Arabic language teaching projects in Indonesia: Challenges and the orientalism of the future]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. Osman, Tarek. (2010) 2013. Egypt on the Brink: From Nasser to the Muslim Brotherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Palfreyman, David, and Muhamed Al Khalil. 2007. ‘A Funky Language for Teenz to Use: Representing Gulf Arabic in Instant Messaging.’ In The Multilingual Internet: Language, Culture and Communication Online, edited by Brenda Danet and Susan Herring, 43-64. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palva, Heikki. 2006. ‘Dialects: Classification.’ In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Kees Versteegh, Mushira Eid, Alaa Elgibali, Manfred Woidich, and Andrzej Zaborski, vol. 1, 604-613. Leiden: Brill. Pancarani, Afridesy. 2014. ‘al-Manhaǧ al-mitālī fī tadrīs al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā al-indūnīsiyyīn namūdaǧan’ [Exemplary method of teaching Arabic to Indonesian learners as a model]. In al-Dirāsāt al-ʿarabiyya fī ʿālam mutaġayyir, al-muʾtamar al-awwal li-qism al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya 25-27 nūfimbir 2013. al-Ǧuzʾ al-awwal, edited by Maǧid Muṣṭafà al-Ṣaʿīdī, 47-64. al-Qāhira: Waḥdat Rifāʿa li-l-buḥūt wa-tanmiya al-maʿlūmāt al-luġawiyya wa-l-tarǧama. Papalia, Anthony. 1976. Learner-Centered Language Teaching: Methods and Materials. Newbury: Newbury House Publications. Parkinson, Dilworth B. 1995. ‘Computers and Proficiency Goals: Facing Facts.’ In The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language, edited by Mahmoud al-Batal, 291-317. Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic. Pashova, Tsvetomira. 2014. ‘A Corpus of Leaners Arabic Texts – A Tool for Linking the Teaching of Arabic to the CEFR.’ In Arabele 2012: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe, edited

292 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

by Victoria Aguilar, Miguel Ángel Manzano, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, Waleed Saleh, and Paula Santillán Grimm, 179-195. Murcia: Editum. Paulston, Christina Bratt, and Mary Newton Bruder. 1976. Teaching English as a Second Language: Techniques and Procedures. New York: Winthrop Publishers. Payne, Richard M., ed. 1983. Language in Tunisia. Tunis: Bourguiba School of Modern Languages Tunisia. Pellat, Charles. 1952. Langue et littérature arabes. Paris: Colin. Pellat, Charles. 1986. ‘Berbers.’ In The Encyclopaedia of Islam, edited by Hamilton Alexander Rosskeen Gibb, Johannes Hendrik Kramers, Évariste Lévi-Provençal, and Joseph Schacht, vol. 1, 1173-1187. Leiden: Brill. Perkins, Kenneth. 2004. A History of Modern Tunisia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Planel, Anne-Marie. 2000. ‘De la nation à la colonie: la communauté française de Tunisie au XIXème siècle d’après les archives civiles et notariées du consulat général de France à Tunis.’ PhD dissertation, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales. Procházka, Stephan. 2004. ‘The Turkish Contribution to the Arabic Lexicon.’ In Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion: Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, edited by Éva Ágnes Csató, Bo Isaksson, and Carina Jahani, 191-202. London: Routledge. al-Qaḥṭānī, Saʿad ibn ʿAlī. 2006. ‘Istiḫdām al-ḥāsib al-ālī wa-l-intirnit fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā bi-Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd’ [The use of computer and the internet in the teaching of Arabic to non-native speakers at King Saʿud University]. Paper presented at the conference ‘The International Side of King Saʿud University’, Riyadh. Qāsim, ʿAwn al-Šarīf. 1983. ‘al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya bayna al-faṣīḥa wa-l-ʿāmmiyya’ [Arabic between the standard and colloquial variety]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 2, no. 1. Qāsim, ʿAwn al-Šarīf. 1989. ‘al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī al-Sūdān’ [Arabic language in Sudan]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 7, no. 1 and 2. Qāsim, ʿAwn al-Šarīf. 1992. ‘Ǧuhūd wa-taǧribat Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm al-duwalī li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī iʿdād muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā wa-ishāmu-hu fī našar alʿarabiyya dāḫil wa-ḫāriǧ al-waṭan al-ʿarabī’ [The Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language efforts and experience in training AFL teachers and its contribution in the diffusion of Arabic language inside and outside the Arab world]. In Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: Qaḍāyā wa-taǧārib, edited by al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm, 115-124. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. al-Qāsimī, ʿAlī Muḥammad. 1979. Ittiǧāhāt ḥadīta fī taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà [New directions in the teaching of Arabic to speakers of other languages]. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. al-Qāsimī, ʿAlī Muḥammad. 1980. Muḫtabar al-luġa [The language laboratory]. al-Kuwayt: Dār al-qalam. al-Qāsimī, ʿAlī Muḥammad. 1982. ‘Istiḫdām al-sabbūra fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [The use of the blackboard in the teaching of Arabic to non-native speakers]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 1, no. 1. al-Qāsimī, ʿAlī Muḥammad, and Muḥammad ʿAlī al-Sayyid. 1991. al-Tiqniyyāt al-tarbawiyya fī tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Educational techniques in Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language]. Manšūrāt al-Munaẓẓama al-islāmiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-ʿulūm wa-l-taqāfa (ISESCO). al-Qawṣī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Muḥammad Saʿīd al-Qadrī, and Sumaya Fahmī. 1948. al-Luġa wa-l-fikr [Language and thought]. al-Qāhira: al-Maṭbaʿa al-amīriyya.

Bibliogr aphy

293

Qināwī, Šākir ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm. 2013. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā: Ālām wa-āmāl’ [Teaching Arabic to non-native speakers: Aches and expectations]. Paper presented at the ‘First Meeting on the Teaching of Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers’, Al Sheikh Zayed Center for Teaching Arabic to Non-natives, Cairo, 14-16 January. al-Qumāṭī, Muḥammad Munṣif ʿAbd Allāh. 1992. ‘Baʿḍ al-aḫṭāʾ al-luġawiyya ladà mutaʿallimī al-ʿarabiyya al-aǧānib (dirāsa taḥlīliyya)’ [Some mistakes among foreign learners of Arabic (an analysis)]. In Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: Qaḍāyā wa-taǧārib, edited by al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm, 24-40. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. Qūra, Ḥusayn Sulaymān. (1969) 1972. Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya: dirāsāt taḥlīliyya wa-mawāqif taṭbīqiyya [Arabic language teaching: Analytical studies and applications]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-maʿārif. al-Rabbāḥ, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. 2011. ‘Maʿhad taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā fī al-Mamlaka al-ʿArabiyya al-Saʿūdiyya: dirāsa muqārana fī al-barāmiǧ wa-lmanāhiǧ’ [The TAFL Institute in Saudi Arabia: A comparative analysis of programs and curricula]. In Prosiding Seminar Antarabangsa Pengajaran Bahasa Arab 2011 (SAPBA’11): Wawasan dan Cabaran Malaysia-China, edited by Maheram Ahmad, Mohd Shukari Hamzah, Moktar Hussain, and Zhang Hong, 218-237. Bangi, Selangor: Unit Bahasa Arab, Fakulti Pengajian Islam, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Rābiḥ, Turkī. 1981. ‘Hal tuṣbiḥ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī al-qarn al-ḫāmis ʿašar al-hiǧrī luġa ʿālamiyya min ǧadīd?’ [In the f ifteenth Hegira century will Arabic again become an international language?]. Maǧallat al-Fayṣal 45 (January): 20-29. Raḍwān, Muḥammad Maḥmūd. 1958. Taʿlīm al-qirāʾa li-l-mubtadiʾīn: asālību-hu wa-ususu-hu al-nafsiyya wa-l-tarbawiyya [Teaching reading to beginners: Methods, psychological and educational bases]. al-Qāhira: Maktabat Miṣr bi-l-Faǧǧāla. al-Raʾīs, Ibrāhīm ibn ʿAbd Allāh. 2011. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aṭfāl al-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā fī al-Mamlaka al-ʿArabiyya al-Saʿūdiyya fī ḍawʾ ārāʾ awliyāʾ umūri-him: dirāsa fī al-muškilāt wa-l-dawāfiʿ’ [Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language to young learners in Saudi Arabia in light of their parents’ views: A study of problems and motives]. MA thesis, Ǧāmiʿat al-imām Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd al-islāmiyya. al-Rajhi, Abdu. 2006. ‘A Plan for the Future of Teaching Arabic: A Viewpoint from within the Arab World.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 381-388. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ramaḍān, Hānī Ismāʿīl. 2017. Barnāmaǧ taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya ʿan buʿd li-l-ṭullāb al-atrāk – E-öğretim yoluyla Türk öğrencilere Arapça öğretim programı. al-Muntadà al-ʿarabī al-turkī. Rammuny, Raji. 1977. ‘Report on Seminar on the Present and Future of Arabic and Islamic Studies.’ Al-‘Arabiyya 10, no. 1/2: 70-76. Rammuny, Raji. 1979. ‘Integration of Literary Texts and Audiovisual Materials in Teaching Advanced Arabic Composition.’ Al-‘Arabiyya 12, no. 1: 5-19. Rammuny, Raji. 1980b. ‘Report on Arabic Proficiency Test Project.’ Al-‘Arabiyya 13, no. 1/2: 92-94. Rammuny, Raji. 1980c. ‘Ṭarīqat al-tadrībāt al-muwaḥḥada, mafhūmu-hā wa-dawru-hā fī tadrīs al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [The standardized exercises method: Its concept and role in the teaching of Arabic to non-native speakers]. In al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tānī, edited by Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī and ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Qāsimī, 159-180. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ.

294 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Rammuny, Raji. 1983. ‘Arabic Proficiency Test: Implementation and Implications.’ Al-‘Arabiyya 17, no. 1/2: 85-96. Rammuny, Raji. 1992. Report on the New Arabic Proficiency Test. Washington, DC: Department of Education. Rammuny, Raji. 1993. Arabic Proficiency Test. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Rammuny, Raji. 1995. ‘The Arabic Speaking Proficiency Test and Its Implementations.’ In The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language, edited by Mahmoud al-Batal, 331-348. Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic. Rammuny, Raji. 2000. ‘Technology-Assisted Multimedia Materials for Arabic Instruction.’ In Arabic Language and Culture in a Borderless World, edited by Lafi al-Harbi and Hani Azer, 121-125. Kuwait: Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences. Rammuny, Raji, and Darlene May. 1974. Arabic Proficiency Test ( for College Level), Manual and Report. Ann Arbor: Department of Near Eastern Studies, University of Michigan. Rashid, Hakim M., and Zakiyyah Muhammad. 1992. ‘The Sister Clara Muhammad Schools: Pioneers in the Development of Islamic Education in America.’ Journal of Negro Education 61, no. 2: 178-185. Rāšid, Maḥmūd Mursī. 1967. ‘al-Muqaddima’ [Introduction]. In Muškilat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab, edited by ʿAlī al-Ḥadīdī, 3-8. al-Qāhira: Dār al-kitāb al-ʿarabī. Reble, Albert. (1951) 2004. Geschichte der Pädagogik. Stuttgart: Clett-Kotta. Reid, Euan, and Hans Reich. 1992. Breaking the Boundaries, Migrant Workers’ Children in the E.C. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Adelaide: Multilingual Matters LTD. Reuter, Yves. 1993. Les interactions lecture-écriture. Switzerland: Peter Lang. Richards, Jack, and Theodore Rodgers. 1990. Approaches and Methods in Language teaching. Translated by Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī et al. al-Riyāḍ: Dār ʿālam al-kutub. al-Rīḥ, Tāǧ al-Sirr Ḥamza. 2003. ‘al-Luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-aġrāḍ ḫāṣṣa fī al-Wilāyāt al-Muttaḥida’ [Arabic language for specific purposes in the United States]. Paper presented at the ALECSO symposium on ‘The Teaching of Arabic for Specif ic Purposes’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 4-6 January. Rivers, Wilga M. 1968. Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rodríguez García, Óscar. 2014. ‘El enfoque comunicativo y los niveles del MCER en la enseñanza – aprendizaje del árabe marroquí: una aplicación práctica.’ In Árabe marroquí de la oralidad a la enseñanza, edited by Paula Santillán Grimm, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, and Francisco Moscoso García, 325-339. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Rogers, Carl. 1951. Client Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rušdī, ʿAlī ʿAbd al-Rḥmān. 1980. ‘Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya bi-l-rādyū’ [Teaching Arabic through radio]. In al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tānī, edited by Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī and ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Qāsimī, 261-300. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Ryding, Karin. 1991. ‘Proficiency Despite Diglossia: A New Approach for Arabic.’ Modern Language Journal 75, no. 4: 212-218. Ryding, Karin. 1993. ‘Creating a Learning Community: Community Language Learning for the Nineties.’ In Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1993, edited by James E. Alatis, 137-147. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Ryding, Karin. 2006a. ‘Educated Spoken Arabic.’ In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Lutz Edzard and Rudolf de Jong. Leiden: Brill Online. Ryding, Karin. 2006b. ‘Teaching Arabic in the United States.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 13-20. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bibliogr aphy

295

Ryding, Karin. 2010. ‘Media Arabic as a Regional Standard.’ In Arabic and the Media: Linguistic Analysis and Applications, edited by Reem Bassiouney, 219-228. Leiden: Brill. Ryding, Karin. 2013. Teaching and Learning Arabic as a Foreign Language: A Guide for Teachers. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Ryding, Karin. 2018. ‘Teaching Arabic in the United States II.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, vol. 2, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Liz England, and Zeinab A. Taha, 11-19. London: Routledge. Ryding Letzner, Karin. 1978. ‘The Community Language Learning Approach to Arabic: Theory and Application.’ Al-‘Arabiyya 11, no. 1/2: 10-14. Šahmāt, Muḥammad. 2013. ‘Taǧribat Dār Zāyid li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [The Zayed House experience of teaching Arabic to non-native speakers]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. al-Saʿīd, Amānī. 2014. ‘Imkāniyyat al-istifāda min istrātīǧiyyāt tadrīs al-qirāʾa ka-luġa tāniya fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya al-fuṣḥà li-l-ʿarab’ [Utilization possibilities of Arabic as a second language: Reading strategies in teaching Modern Standard Arabic to Arabs]. In al-Dirāsāt al-ʿarabiyya fī ʿālam mutaġayyir, al-muʾtamar al-awwal li-qism al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya 25-27 nūfimbir 2013. al-Ǧuzʾ al-awwal, edited by Maǧid Muṣṭafà al-Ṣaʿīdī, 135-141. al-Qāhira: Waḥdat Rifāʿa li-l-buḥūt wa-tanmiya al-maʿlūmāt al-luġawiyya wa-l-tarǧama. Saʿīd, ʿĀṭif al-Ḥāǧǧ, and Muḥammad Dāwūd Muḥammad. 2014. ‘al-Iṭār al-ūrūbbī al-murǧiʿī al-muštarak li-l-luġāt: ahdāfu-hu wa-maḥāwiru-hu wa-kayfiyyat al-istifāda min-hu fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya’ [The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Its objectives, key points and exploitability for Arabic language teaching]. Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā 18 (June): 101-130. al-Ṣāʿidī, Ḥaḍīḍ ibn Sāfir. 2000. ‘Taǧribat šuʿbat taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya: al-Ǧāmiʿa al-islāmiyya bi-l-Madīna al-Munawwara’ [Arabic language teaching division experience: The Islamic University of Medina]. Paper presented at the ‘Symposium for the Development of the Programs for Teachers of Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 27-30 October. Šalabī, Aḥmad. 1966. Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab [Arabic language teaching to non-Arabs]. al-Qāhira: Maktabat al-nahḍa al-miṣriyya. Šalabī, Aḥmad. 1967. Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wifqan li-aḥdat al-ṭuruq [Arabic language teaching in accordance with the most recent methods]. al-Qāhira: Maktabat al-nahḍa al-miṣriyya. al-Šalaqānī, ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm, ed. 1980. al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tālit [Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers, part 3]. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Ṣāliḥ, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān. 1980. ‘Anwāʿ ṭullāb al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā wa-muškilātu-hum: al-taǧārib al-ʿilmiyya’ [Students of Arabic as a foreign language, typologies and problems: Scientific experiences]. In al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tālit, edited by ʿAbd al-Ḥalīm al-Šalaqānī, 129-138. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Ṣāliḥ Ḥāmid, Muḥammad Aḥmad. 2010. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-waṣf i-hā luġa tāniya fī al-Ǧāmiʿa al-islāmiyya al-ʿālamiyya bi-Mālīziyā: dirāsa waṣf iyya taḥlīliyya ʿan dawr al-muʿallim wa-l-kitāb wa-ṭuruq al-tadrīs wa-l-wasāʾil al-taʿlīmiyya’ [Teaching Arabic as a second language at the Islamic International University of Malaysia: A descriptive-analytical

296 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

study on the role of the teacher, textbook, teaching methods and materials]. PhD dissertation, Islamic International University of Malaysia. Ṣāliḥ Ḥāmid, Muḥammad Aḥmad. 2014. ‘al-Tafrīq bayna al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa aǧnabiyya wa-luġa tāniya wa-dawāfiʿ al-mutaʿallim min-humā’ [The difference between Arabic as a foreign and second language]. In Prosiding Seminar Muʾtamar taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-taʿallumihā, edited by Zamri Arifin et al., 463-473. Bangi, Selangor: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Ṣāliḥ [Ṣīnī], Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl. 2000. ‘al-Iʿdād al-mihnī li-muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-lnāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà’ [The professional preparation of AFL teachers]. Paper presented at the ‘Symposium for the Development of the Programs for Teachers of Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 27-30 October. Ṣāliḥ [Ṣīnī], Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl. 2017. ‘Makānat al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bayna al-luġāt wa-ṭuruq našari-hā’ [The place of Arabic among languages and its diffusion]. Paper presented at the conference on ‘Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers: A View to the Future’, Marmara University, Istanbul, 1 April. al-Salmān, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh. 1999. al-Taʿlīm fī ʿahd al-malik ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz [Education during King ʿAbd al-ʿAziz’s time]. al-Riyāḍ: al-Amāna al-ʿāmma li-l-iḥtifāl bi-marār miʾat ʿām li-taʾsīs al-Mamlaka. Ṣamādī, ʿUqla. 1986. ‘Istrātīǧiyyāt iktisāb al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa aǧnabiyya’ [Arabic as a second language acquisition strategies]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 4, no. 2. Šannīk, Hiba ʿAbd al-Laṭīf. ‘Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aṭfāl al-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayr al-ʿarabiyya’ [Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language to young learners]. Paper presented at the conference on ‘Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers: A View to the Future’, Marmara University, Istanbul, 1 April. Santillán Grimm, Paula, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, and Francisco Moscoso García, eds. 2014. Árabe marroquí de la oralidad a la enseñanza. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. Ṣanūbar, Aḥmad. 2013. ‘Muškilāt taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā fī Turkiyā’ [Teaching Arabic to non-native speakers: Problems in Turkey]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. Šarābī, Maḥmūd ʿAlī. 2015. Dalīl mutaʿallimī al-ʿarabiyya al-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā [AFL learners’ guide]. al-Riyāḍ: Dār al-wuǧūh li-l-našar wa-l-tawzīʿ. Sartin, E.M. 1979. Graded Vocabulary for Learners of Arabic. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. al-Šaryūfī, ʿAysà. 1997. ‘al-Simāt al-ittiṣāliyya li-našāṭ al-munāẓara wa-dawru-hā fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [The communicative features of class discussion activity and their role in the teaching of Arabic to non-native speakers]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-insāniyya 59. al-Šaryūfī, ʿAysà. 1998. ‘Iʿtibārāt naẓariyya wa-taṭbīqiyya fī tadrīs al-qawāʿid li-mutaʿallimī al-ʿarabiyya min ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [Theoretical and practical considerations on grammar teaching to foreign learners of Arabic]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya 18, no. 2. al-Šaryūfī, ʿAysà. 2000. ‘Iʿdād muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: taǧribat maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd’ [AFL teachers’ training: The experience of the King Saʿud Arabic Language Institute]. Paper presented at the ‘Symposium for the Development of the Programs for Teachers of Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 27-30 October.

Bibliogr aphy

297

al-Šayḫ, al-Ḥāf iẓ ʿAbd al-Raḥīm. 2006. Mabādiʾ taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, taṭalluʿāt, namādiǧ, taṭbīqāt [Principles of teaching Arabic to non-native speakers: Aspirations, models, applications]. ʿĀlam al-kutub al-ḥadīt. Schmidt, Jean-Jacques. 1975. L’arabe sans peine. Paris: Assimil. Schumann, John H., and Nancy Stenson. 1974. New Frontiers in Second Language Learning. Newbury: Newbury House Publications. Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sebag, Paul. 1989. Tunis au XVIIe siècle: Une cité barbaresque au temps de la course. Paris: L’Harmattan. Sebag, Paul. 1991. Histoire des Juifs de Tunisie. Des origines à nos jours. Paris: L’Harmattan. Serra Borneto, Carlo, ed. (1998) 2005. C’era una volta il metodo. Roma: Carocci. Serragiotto, Graziano. 2004. Le lingue straniere nella scuola. Nuovi percorsi, nuovi ambienti, nuovi docenti. Torino: UTET. Serragiotto, Graziano, ed. 2006. Il piacere di imparare, il piacere di insegnare. Vicenza: La Serenissima. Simon, Reeva S. 2004. Iraq between the Two World Wars: The Militarist Origins of Tyranny. New York: Columbia University Press. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl. 1977. Taṣmīm iḫtibārāt al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-waṣfi-hā luġa aǧnabiyya [AFL test design]. al-Riyāḍ: Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl. 1978. ‘al-Kitāb al-madrasī li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-ʿarab’ [Textbook for teaching Arabic to non-Arabs]. Maǧallat al-Fayṣal 10 (August-September): 74-79. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl. 1979. Fī ṭarāʾiq tadrīs al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [On the methods of teaching Arabic to non-native speakers]. al-Riyāḍ: Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl. 1980. ‘Taṣmīm iḫtibārāt al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-waṣfi-hā luġa aǧnabiyya’ [AFL test design]. In al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tānī, edited by Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣīnī and ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Qāsimī, 195-220. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl. 1985. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġāt bi-istiḫdām al-ḥāsūb al-ālī’ [Language teaching through the use of computers]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 3, no. 2. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl, and ʿAlī Muḥammad al-Qāsimī. 1980. al-Siǧill al-ʿilmī li-l-nadwa al-ʿālamiyya al-ūlà li-taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. al-Ǧuzʾ al-tānī [Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers, part 2]. al-Riyāḍ: ʿImādat šuʾūn al-maktabāt, Ǧāmiʿat al-Riyāḍ. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl, and Isḥāq Muḥammad al-Amīn. 1982. al-Taqābul al-luġawī wa-taḥlīl al-aḫṭāʾ [Language interview and error analysis]. al-Riyāḍ: Ǧāmiʿat al-malik Saʿūd. Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl, Nāṣif Muṣṭafà ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, and Muḫtār al-Ṭāhir Ḥusayn. 1985. Muršid al-muʿallim fī tadrīs al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā. Taṭbīqāt ʿamaliyya li-taqdīm al-durūs wa-iǧrāʾ al-tadrībāt [Teacher’s guide for teaching Arabic as a foreign language: Practical applications for lessons and exercises]. al-Riyāḍ: Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ. Sirāǧ, Yūsuf. 2013. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-l-Ṣīn: tāriḫu-hu wa-ḥāḍiru-hu’ [Teaching Arabic in China: history and present]. Paper presented at the ‘Abu Dhabi Forum for Teaching Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages: Experiences and Aspirations’, Zayed House for Islamic Culture, Abu Dhabi, 18-19 December. Sirajudeen, Adam, and Abdul Wahid Adebisi. 2012. ‘Teaching Arabic as a Second Language in Nigeria.’ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 66: 126-135.

298 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Soliman, Rasha. 2014. ‘Arabic Cross-dialectal Conversations: A Missing Element in the Teaching of Arabic as a Second Language.’ In Arabele 2012: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe, edited by Victoria Aguilar, Miguel Ángel Manzano, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, Waleed Saleh, and Paula Santillán Grimm, 115-131. Murcia: Editum. Soliman, Rasha. 2018. ‘The Implementation of the Common European Framework of Reference for the Teaching and Learning of Arabic as a Second Language in Higher Education.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, vol. 2, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Liz England, and Zeinab A. Taha, 118-137. London: Routledge. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1989. La pertinence, communication et cognition. Paris: Minuit. Spolsky, Bernard. 1989. Conditions for Second Language Learning: Introduction to a General Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sraïeb, Noureddine. 1995. Le collège Sadiki de Tunis: 1875-1956: enseignement et nationalisme. Paris: CNRS éditions. Stansfield, Charles, and Ann Galloway. 1993. A Survey of Materials Development Needs in the Less Commonly Taught Languages: Final Report. Washington, DC: Office of International Education. Stern, H.H. 1983. ‘Toward a Multidimensional Foreign Language Curriculum.’ In Foreign Languages: Key Links in the Chain of Learning, edited by Robert G. Mead, 120-146. Middlebury, VT: North East Conference. Stevens, Paul B. 2006. ‘Is Spanish Really So Easy? Is Arabic Really So Hard?: Perceived Difficulty in Learning Arabic as a Second Language.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 35-63. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. St. Exupéry, Antoine de. 1997. Le petit Prince. Translated by Hédi Balegh. Tunis: Maison Tunisienne de l’Édition. Suleiman, Yasir. 1994. Arabic Sociolinguistics: Issues & Perspectives. London: Curzon Press. Sumi, Akiko M., and Katsunori Sumi. 2018. ‘Teaching and Learning Arabic in Japan.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, vol. 2, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Liz England, and Zeinab A. Taha, 20-35. London: Routledge. al-Swīsī, Riḍā. 1979. al-Taʿlīm al-haykalī li-l-ʿarabiyya al-ḥayya [Structural teaching of Arabic as a living language]. Tūnis: al-Šārika al-tūnisiyya li-funūn al-rasm. al-Swīsī, Riḍā. 1981. ‘Ṭuruq al-tadrīs bi-l-taʿlīm al-ʿālī bayna al-talqīn wa-l-tawāṣul al-alsunī’ [Teaching methods in higher education, between teaching and communication]. In Ḥawla ṭuruq taʿlīm al-luġāt bi-Tūnis, edited by al-Maʿhad al-qawmī li-ʿulūm al-tarbiya, 11-46. Tūnis: Manšūrāt al-Maʿhad al-qawmī li-ʿulūm al-tarbiya. al-Swīsī, Riḍā. 1989. ‘Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya luġa tāniya bi-musāʿadat al-ḥāsūb’ [Teaching Arabic as a second language with computers]. Paper presented at the ‘Fourth International Forum on Arabic Linguistics’, Tunis, Markaz al-dirāsāt wa-l-abḥāt al-iǧtimāʿiyya wa-l-iqtiṣādiyya. al-Swīsī, Riḍā. 1990. Hayākil banà wa-l-taʿābir: al-hayākil al-asāsiyya li-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya luġa tāniya [Structures and expressions: The fundamental structures of Arabic as a second language]. Tūnis: Markaz al-dirāsāt wa-l-abḥāt al-iǧtimāʿiyya wa-l-iqtiṣādiyya. al-Swīsī, Riḍā. 1991. ʿArabiyyat al-tawāṣul. Raṣīd muʿǧamī asāsī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya luġa tāniya li-l-kibār [Communicative Arabic: Fundamental lexical syllabus for adult learners of Arabic as a second language]. Tūnis: Maʿhad Būrqība li-l-luġāt al-ḥayya. al-Swīsī, Riḍā. 1992. ‘al-Takwīn al-tarbawī li-asātida al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [Pedagogical preparation of AFL teachers]. In Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: Qaḍāyā wa-taǧārib, edited by al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm, 7-23. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm.

Bibliogr aphy

299

al-Swīsī, Riḍā, Līlyān Abū Qaʿīqīṣ, Muḥammad al-Bašīr Ismāʿīl, and Muḥammad al-Ḫuwaynī. (1973) 1976. Naḥwa al-taʿbīr [Toward expression]. Rome. Taha, Zeinab A. 1995. ‘The Grammar Controversy: What to Teach and Why.’ In The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language, edited by Mahmoud al-Batal, 175-183. Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic. Taha, Zeinab A. 2008. ‘Educated Spoken Arabic: How Could It Help in Redef ining ACTFL Guidelines?’ Al-‘Arabiyya 40-41: 104-114. Ṭāhir, Ayyūb. 2002. ‘Waḍʿ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī Ūġandā’ [The Arabic language situation in Uganda]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 19: 177. al-Ṭahṭāwī, Rifāʿa Rāfiʿ. (1834) 2011. Taḫlīṣ al-ibrīz fī talḫīṣ Bārīz [The Quintessence of Paris]. al-Qāhira: Kalimāt ʿarabiyya li-l-tarǧama wa-l-našar. al-Ṭahṭāwī, Rifāʿa Rāfiʿ. 1988. Taḫlīṣ al-ibrīz fī talḫīṣ Bārīz. French translation by Louca Anouar. L’Or de Paris: relation de voyage 1826-1831. Paris: Sindbad. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 1971. Iḫtibārāt Sirs al-Layyān li-taʿlīm al-waẓīfī li-l-kibār fī al-ʿālam al-ʿarabī [Sers el-Layyan tests for adults’ functional teaching in the Arab world]. Sirs al-Layyān. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 1980. ‘Muškilāt al-inqirāʾiyya fī kutub taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [Readability problems in AFL textbooks]. Paper presented at the ‘Symposium on Writing TAFL Textbooks’, Rabat. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 1982. al-Usus al-muʿǧamiyya wa-l-taqāfiyya li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā [Lexical and cultural bases for teaching Arabic as a foreign language]. Makka al-Mukarrama: Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 1983. ‘Naḥwa adā mawḍūʿiyya li-taqwīm kutub taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā’ [Toward an objective tool for evaluating TAFL textbooks]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 1, no. 2: 61-95. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 1985. Dalīl ʿamal fī iʿdād al-mawādd al-taʿlīmiyya li-barnāmaǧ taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya [Practical guide for educational materials in the preparation of the Arabic language program]. Makka al-Mukarrama: Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 1986. al-Murǧiʿ fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà [A reference guide on the teaching of Arabic to speakers of other languages]. Makka alMukarrama: Maʿhad al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 1989. Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, manāhiǧ wa-asālīb [Teaching Arabic to non-native speakers: Curricula and methods]. ISESCO. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 1990. ‘al-Muḥtawà al-taqāfī fī barnāmaǧ taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya ka-luġa tāniya fī al-muǧtamaʿāt al-islāmiyya: iṭār muqtaraḥ’ [TASL program cultural content in Islamic societies: A proposed framework]. Paper presented at the ‘Conference for a Contemporary Islamic Theory of Education’, Amman, Jordan, 24-27 July. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 2002. ‘Muʿallim al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā fī Ifrīqiyā’ [The TAFL teacher in Africa]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 19. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 2003a. ‘Maʿāhid taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā bayna ittiǧāhāt al-taṭawwur, maʿāyīr al-iʿtimād, muʾašširāt al-ǧawda’ [TAFL centers between development directions, parameters, and quality indicators]. Paper presented at the ‘Meeting of the Directors of TAFL Centers’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 15-16 December. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 2003b. ‘Taʿlīm al-ʿarabiyya li-aġrāḍ ḫāṣṣa: mafāhimu-hu wa-ususu-hu wa-manhāǧiyyatu-hu’ [Teaching Arabic for specific purposes: Its concept, bases and methodology]. Paper presented at the ALECSO symposium on ‘The Teaching of Arabic for Specific

300 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Purposes’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 4-6 January. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 2003c. ‘Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya ittiṣāliyyan’ [Teaching communicative Arabic]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 20 and 21. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 2004a. al-Mahārāt al-luġawiyya: mustawayātu-hā, tadrīsu-hā, ṣuʿūbātu-hā [Language skills: Levels, teaching, and difficulties]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-fikr al-ʿarabī. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad. 2004b. al-Usus al-ʿāmma li-manāhiǧ taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya: iʿdādu-hā, taṭwīru-hā, taqwīmu-hā [The general bases of Arabic language teaching curricula: Preparation, development, and evaluation]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-fikr al-ʿarabī. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad, ʿAlī Aḥmad Madkūr, and Īmān Aḥmad Harīdī. 2010. al-Murǧiʿ fī manāhiǧ taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà [A methodological guide for teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-fikr al-ʿarabī. Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad, and Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa. 2006. Taʿlīm al-luġa ittiṣāliyyan: bayna al-manāhiǧ wa-l-istrātīǧiyyāt [Communicative language teaching: Between curricula and strategies]. ISESCO. Tardif, Jacques. 1992. Pour un enseignement stratégique: l’apport de la psychologie cognitive. Montreal: Éditions Logiques. Tawfīq, Ḥasan. 1924. Hidāyat al-aṭfāl [Children’s guidance]. al-Qāhira: al-Maṭbaʿa al-kubrà al-amīriyya. al-Ṭayyib Ḥasan, Muḥammad. 1934. ‘Kayfa tuṭabbaqu naẓariyyāt al-duktūr Ǧūn Dyūī ʿalà al-taʿlīm fī Miṣr’ [Dewey’s principles applied to Egyptian schools]. Maǧallat al-tarbiya al-ḥadīta 4 (February). al-Ṭayyib al-Šayḫ, Ḥusayn. 1992. ‘Taǧribat šuʿbat al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya fī manāṭiq al-tadāḫul al-luġawī fī Wizārat al-tarbiya bi-l-Sūdān’ [The Arabic language division in the regions of language interference of the Sudanese Ministry of Education]. In Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā: Qaḍāyā wa-taǧārib, edited by al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm, 92-101. Tūnis: al-Munaẓẓama al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya wa-l-taqāfa wa-l-ʿulūm. al-Ṭayyib al-Šayḫ, Ḥusayn. 1993. Taḥlīl aḫṭāʾ mutaʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya min ġayr ahli-hā bi-l-Markaz al-islāmī al-ifrīqī bi-l-Ḫarṭūm [Analysis of the mistakes made by AFL learners at the African Islamic Center of Khartoum]. ʿAmmān: al-Ǧāmiʿa al-urduniyya. telc. 2011. Iḫtibār tadrībī 1, al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya B1 [Test 1, Arabic B1]. https://www.telc.net/. Thomas, Michael, et al. 1998. Theory of Culture. Translated by Sayyīd al-Ṣāwī. al-Kuwayt: al-Maǧlis al-waṭanī li-l-taqāfa wa-funūn wa-l-ādāb. al-Tinqārī, Ṣāliḥ Maḥǧūb. 2006. ‘Istrātīǧiyyāt taʿallum al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-waṣfi-hā luġa tāniya ladà al-kibār min al-dārisīn al-mālīziyyīn’ [Learning strategies among adult Malaysian students of Arabic as a second language]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 25. al-Tinqārī, Ṣāliḥ Maḥǧūb, and Fikrī Ḥasan. 2006. ‘al-Iḫtibārāt al-luġawiyya’ [Language tests]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 25. al-Tinqārī, Ṣāliḥ Maḥǧūb, and Zakariyyā ʿUmar. 2010. ‘Ittiǧāhāt dārisī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya bi-waṣf i-hā luġa tāniya naḥwa al-ḥāsūb’ [Arabic as a second language for learners using computers]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 28. Titone, Renzo. 1968. Teaching Foreign Languages: An Historical Sketch. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Titone, Renzo. 1980. Glottodidattica: un profilo storico. Bergamo: Minerva Italica. Toonen, Wouter. 2009. ‘Taalniveaus Arabisch volgens het Europees Referentiekader; een onderzoek naar het opnemen van ontbrekende deskriptoren in het centraal examen leesvaardigheid Arabisch.’ MA thesis, Utrecht University.

Bibliogr aphy

301

Tullon, Hubert. 2009. ‘Arabe et Français dans les systèmes éducatifs Tunisien et Marocain au tournant du XXI siècle.’ Synerigies Tunisie 1: 39-51. al-Tūnisī, Abū al-Fatūḥ. 1958. ‘al-Ṭarīqa al-kulliyya bayna al-naǧāḥ wa-l-iḫfāq’ [The whole-word method between success and failure]. Maǧallat al-rāʾid 4, no. 1 (September). UAPR (University of Al-Azhar Public Relations). 1998. A Documentary Synopsis of Al-Azhar University: Post and Under Graduate Prospectus (1419 A.H., 1998 A.D.). Cairo: University of Al-Azhar. ʿUmar, Aḥmad Muḫtār. 1986. ‘al-Dirāsāt al-ṣawtiyya wa-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib’ [Phonological studies and teaching Arabic to foreigners]. In Waqāʾiʿ nadwāt taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-ġayr al-nāṭiqīn bi-hā, edited by Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ. al-Riyāḍ: Maktab al-tarbiya al-ʿarabī li-duwal al-Ḫalīǧ. ʿUmar, ʿAlī. n.d. Hidāya al-mudarris li-l-niẓām al-madrasī wa-ṭuruq al-tadrīs [Teacher’s school system management and teaching methods]. al-Qāhira: Maṭbaʿat Miṣr. al-ʿUṣaylī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Ibrāhīm. 1985. ‘al-Aḫṭāʾ al-šāʾiʿa fī al-kalām ladà ṭullāb al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya al-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà’ [Oral mistakes among learners of Arabic as a foreign language]. MA thesis, Ǧāmiʿat al-imām Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd al-islāmiyya. al-ʿUṣaylī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Ibrāhīm. 1999. al-Naẓariyyāt al-luġawiyya wa-l-nafsiyya wa-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya [Psycholinguistic theories and Arabic language teaching]. al-Riyāḍ: Maṭābiʿ al-tiqniyya. al-ʿUṣaylī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Ibrāhīm. 2000. ‘al-Tadrīs al-muṣaġġar fī maydān taʿlīm al-luġa al-aǧnabiyya wa taṭbīqu-hu ʿalà barāmiǧ iʿdād muʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà’ [Foreign languages microteaching and its application to AFL teachers’ training programs]. Paper presented at the ‘Symposium for the Development of the Programs for Teachers of Arabic to Speakers of Other Languages’, Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language (Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm), Khartoum, 27-30 October. al-ʿUṣaylī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Ibrāhīm. 2002. Asāsiyyāt taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-luġāt uḫrà [Fundamentals of teaching Arabic to speakers of other languages]. al-Riyāḍ: Maʿhad taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya, Ǧāmiʿat al-imām Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd al-islāmiyya. al-ʿUṣaylī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Ibrāhīm. 2005. ‘al-Taḥaǧǧur fī luġa mutaʿallimī al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya al-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā’ [Fossilization among learners of Arabic as a foreign language]. Maǧallat Ǧāmiʿat Umm al-Qurà li-ʿulūm al-šarīʿa wa-l-luġa al-ʿarabiyya wa-adābi-hā 71, no. 33. al-ʿUṣaylī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Ibrāhīm. 2006. ʿIlm al-luġa al-nafsī [Psycholinguistics]. al-Riyāḍ: Ǧāmiʿat al-imām Muḥammad ibn Saʿūd al-islāmiyya. van Ek, Jan Ate. 1975. Systems Development in Adult Language Learning: The Threshold Level in a European Unit/Credit System for Modern Language Learning by Adults. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Cooperation, Council of Europe. Versteegh, Kees. 1997. The Arabic Language. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press. Versteegh, Kees. 2006. ‘History of Arabic Language Teaching.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 3-12. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Versteegh, Kees, Mushira Eid, Alaa Elgibali, Manfred Woidich, and Andrzej Zaborski, eds. 2006-2009. Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, 5 vols. Leiden: Brill.

302 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Wāfī, ʿAlī ʿAbd al-Wāḥid. n.d. Fiqh al-luġa [Arabic philology]. al-Qāhira: Nahḍat Miṣr. Wahba, Kassem M. 2007. ‘First Language Teaching.’ In Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, edited by Kees Versteegh, Mushira Eid, Alaa Elgibali, Manfred Woidich, and Andrzej Zaborski, vol. 1, 104-113. Leiden: Brill. Wahba, Kassem M., and Aja Q. Chaker. 2013. ‘Arabic Language Learning Textbooks.’ Al-‘Arabiyya 46: 109-121. Wahba, Kassem M., Liz England, and Zeinab A. Taha, eds. 2018. Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, vol. 2. London: Routledge. Wahba, Kassem M., Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, eds. 2006. Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. al-Wāsiṭī, Sulaymān. 1981. ‘Dārisū al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya min al-aǧānib wa-nawʿiyyātu-hum’ [Foreign learners of Arabic and typologies]. Paper presented at the ‘TAFL Symposium of Doha’, Doha, Qatar, 5-7 May. Watson, Janet C.E. 2002. The Phonology and Morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Welles, Elizabeth B. 2004. ‘Foreign Language Enrolments in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2002.’ ADFL Bulletin 35, no. 2-3: 7-26. Wholey, Joseph S., Harry P. Hatry, Kathryn E. Newcomer, eds. 1994. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wightwick, Jane, and Mahmoud Gaafar. (1990) 2006. Mastering Arabic. New York: Hippocrene Books. Williamson, Bill. 1987. Education and Social Change in Egypt and Turkey: A Study in Historical Sociology. London: Macmillan. Wilmsen, David. 2018. ‘Arabic as a Foreign Language at AUB.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, vol. 2, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Liz England, and Zeinab A. Taha, 141-150. London: Routledge. Winke, Paula, and Rajaa Aquil. 2006. ‘Issues in Developing Standardized Tests of Arabic Language Prof iciency.’ In Handbook for Arabic Language Teaching Professionals in the 21st Century, edited by Kassem M. Wahba, Zeinab A. Taha, and Liz England, 221-233. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Woidich, Manfred. 2007. ‘Teaching Arabic at the Universiteit van Amsterdam: Colloquial First.’ Idioma 19: 75-95. Woidich, Manfred, and Rabha Heinen-Nasr. 1995. Kullu tamām: Inleiding tot de Egyptische omgangstaal. Amsterdam: Bulaaq. Woidich, Manfred, and Rabha Heinen-Nasr. 1998. al-ʿArabiyya al-Ḥadīta: Inleiding tot het Modern Standaard Arabisch. Amsterdam: Bulaaq. Woidich, Manfred, and Rabha Heinen-Nasr. 2004. Kullu tamām: Introduction to Egyptian Colloquial Arabic. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. Worthen, Blaine, and James Sanders. 1987. Educational Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. New York: Longman. Yaghan, Mohammad Ali. 2008. ‘Arabzi: A Contemporary Style of Arabic Slang.’ Desing Issues 24, no. 2 (Spring): 39-52. Yaghi, Hussam M., and Hussein M. Yaghi. 1992. ‘Let’s Learn Arabic: The Multimedia Way.’ In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference and Exhibition on Multi-lingual Computing (Arabic and Roman Script) 1992, edited by Adrian Brocket and Ahmad Ubaydli, 10.11.11-10.11.12. Durham: Center for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, University of Durham.

Bibliogr aphy

303

Yosnan, H.Y. 1996. ‘Analyzing and Evaluating Communicative Arabic Textbooks in Secondary Schools in Malaysia.’ MA thesis, International Islamic University Malaysia. Younes, Munther. 1990a. ‘An Integrated Approach to Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language.’ Al-‘Arabiyya 23, no. 1/2: 105-122. Younes, Munther. 1995. ‘An Integrated Curriculum for Elementary Arabic.’ In The Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language, edited by Mahmoud al-Batal, 233-255. Provo, UT: American Association of Teachers of Arabic. Younes, Munther. 2010. ‘al-Fuṣḥà wa-l-dāriǧa wa-takāmul dawray-himā fī minhāǧ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya’ [Modern Standard and Colloquial Arabic and their roles in the Arabic language curriculum]. In Arabele 2009: Enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua árabe, edited by Victoria Aguilar, Luis Miguel Pérez Cañada, and Paula Santillán Grimm, 63-75. Murcia: Editum. Younes, Munther. 2015. The Integrated Approach to Arabic Instruction. London: Routledge. Younes, Munther. 2018. ‘To Separate or to Integrate, That Is the Question: The Cornell Arabic Program Model.’ In Arabic as One Language: Integrating Dialect in the Arabic Language Curriculum, edited by Mahmoud al-Batal. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Yūnis, Fatḥī. 1978. Taṣmīm manhaǧ li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib [AFL curriculum design]. al-Qāhira: Dār al-taqāfa li-l-ṭibāʿa wa-l-našar. Yūnis, Fatḥī. 2003. al-Murǧiʿ fī taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-aǧānib. Min al-naẓariyya ilà al-taṭbīq [A guide for teaching Arabic to foreigners: From theory to practice]. al-Qāhira: Maktabat Wahba li-l-ṭibāʿa wa-l-našar. Yūnis, Fatḥī, Maḥmūd Kāmil al-Nāqa, and Rušdī Aḥmad Ṭaʿīma. 1990. Taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya: ususu-hu wa-iǧrāʾātu-hu [Arabic language teaching: Bases and practical applications]. al-Qāhira: Ǧāmiʿat ʿAin Šams. Yūsuf, Lubnà ʿAbd al-Tawwāb, and ʿAwad al-Ġubārī. 2015. Naḥwa ʿālamiyyat al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya [Internationalizing the Arabic language]. al-Qāhira: Kulliyyat al-ādāb, Ǧāmiʿat al-Qāhira. Zack, Liesbeth, and Arie Schippers, eds. 2012. Middle Arabic and Mixed Arabic: Diachrony and Synchrony. Leiden: Brill. Zais, Robert S. 1976. Curriculum Principles and Foundations. New York: Harper and Row. Zakaria, Fareed. 2003. The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Zaki, Mai, and Jeremy Palmer. 2018. ‘Integration and Students’ Perspectives in a Multidialect Environment.’ In Arabic as One Language: Integrating Dialect in the Arabic Language Curriculum, edited by Mahmoud al-Batal, 279-297. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Zinnātī, Riḥāb. 2014. ‘Maʿāyīr muʿallim al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā fī ḍawʾ al-maʿāyīr al-ʿālamiyya wa-l-ḥāǧāt al-tadrībiyya li-l-muʿallimīn (ʿaraban aw nāṭiqīn bi-ġayr al-ʿarabiyya) ilay-hā’ [The parameters of AFL teachers in light of international parameters and requirements of teacher training]. al-Maǧalla al-ʿilmiyya (ʿadad ḫaṣṣ) bi-muʾtamar Abū Ẓabī li-taʿlīm al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā 2013, no. 1: 109-140.

Index This section lists a series of personal names, institutions, realizations (i.e., projects, journals, famous textbook series), besides scientific terms, historical periods and toponyms, which have been selected according to their significance in the field of teaching Arabic as a foreign language. Arabic names of individuals are alphabetized after the article. As a general rule, abbreviations are avoided, except for frequent ones like TAFL or names of organizations conventionally known by their acronyms, e.g., ALECSO, UNESCO, ISESCO, etc. Foreign words, names of journals and important TAFL realizations, like well-known textbook series, are italicized so as to be easily identifiable. al-ʿAbādī, ʿAbd Allāh 88, 193 ʿAbbās Nadwī, ʿAbd Allāh 183, 192 Abbé Pluche 31, 179n15 Abboud, Peter Fouad 49, 67, 73-4, 106, 111-112, 118, 126, 210, 237, 243, 255 Abboud, Victorine 73-74, 81, 243 ʿAbd Allāh, ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd 135, 208 ʿAbd Allāh, ʿUmar al-Ṣadīq 190 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Āl Saʿūd (King) 33, 44 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Muḥammad 208 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Muḥammad Ḥasan 75, 90n4 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, Nāṣif Muṣṭafà 55, 90, 94, 99, 100, 116, 119-120, 181, 257 Abdel-Massih, Ernest T. 223 ʿAbd al-Ǧalīl, Badriyya 93 ʿAbd al-Maǧīd, ʿAyyād 205 ʿAbd al-Nāṣir, Ǧamāl 44, 47-48, 61, 237 ʿAbd al-Rāziq, ʿAlī 40 ʿAbd al-Qādir 36 ʿAbduh, Dāwūd 66-68, 80, 92, 105, 111, 137, 166 ʿAbduh, Muḥammad 36 Abdur Rahim, Vaniyambadi 153 ability comprehension 117, 170 manual 102n16 phonetic 116 Abū Bakr, Yūsuf al-Ḫalīfa 59, 96, 131, 161, 171, 181, 190-191 Abu Dhabi 204 Forum 204-205, 242 Abū al-Futūḥ, Muḥammad H. 154 accuracy 21, 75, 117, 142-143, 157, 162, 214, 216 cultural 157 language 157 stylistic 117 acquisition 31, 38, 42-43, 55, 71, 75, 101, 106-107, 112, 115, 132, 140, 158, 177, 180, 191, 200, 225, 244-245, 252-257 ‘ACTFL Arabic Proficiency Guidelines’ 118, 132-133, 142, 147, 157, 173, 195, 206, 239

action research 189 adequacy of expression (rhetoric) 148 affective filter 180 Afghanistan 65, 89 African Studies 92, 116, 128, 166, 190, 232 Union 87 African Islamic Center of Khartoum 155 ʿaǧam, aʿāǧim 28, 53 Aguilar, Victoria 166, 173, 196, 224, 258 Ahlan wa Sahlan (textbook series) 207, 221, 222n32 Ahn, Johann Franz 32, 253 Ain Shams University 44, 56, 106-107, 113, 184, 206, 210, 244-245 School of Languages 44, 49, 51, 57, 206, 229, 233, 237 Al-ʿAin 204 Al Ain University of Science and Technology 205 Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane 207 Al Ali, Mohammad A. 208, 213, 216-218 Al-Arabiyya Institute 221 Al-ʿArabiyya Journal 71, 118, 132 Al al-Bayt University 218 Al Beibi, Ahmed 205 ALECSO see Arab League Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization Aleppo 163, 200, 209, 217, 241, 249 Alexandria 29, 91, 117, 164, 233, 245, 250 TAFL Center 91, 164, 233, 239, 250 University 64, 91, 249 algebra 115, 182 Algeria 22, 26, 33-34, 40, 47, 64, 91-92, 126, 164, 207 Alhawary, Mohammad 14, 207, 215-216, 225-226 ʿAlī, Nabīl 168 Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University 147, 163, 167, 185, 192, 247

306 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Al-Kitaab fii Taʿallum al-ʿArabiyya 74, 157-158, 214-215, 221, 223, 243-244 Allen, Dwight W. 169n11 Allen, Roger 50, 118, 133, 158, 216 Al-Mustansiriyah University 93, 163, 250 Al-Noor School of Brooklyn 126, 167 Alosh, Mahdi 118, 126, 192, 207, 221, 258 Āl al-Šayḫ, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 172, 192 Al Sheikh Zayed Center for Teaching Arabic to Non-natives see Markaz al-Azhar Altoma, Salih J. 73 al-Alwāʾī, Muḥyī al-Dīn 97 Al-Warraki, Nariman 158 Alwaye, Mohiaddin see al-Alwāʾī, Muḥyī al-Dīn ʿAmāyra, Ḫalīl Aḥmad 116, 132, 169 American Association of Teachers of Arabic (AATA) 9, 68, 111, 117-118 American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) 9, 109,157, 164, 192, 211, 220 American University in Beirut (AUB) 15, 58, 144, 161, 163, 199-200, 228, 240, 249 American University in Cairo (AUC) 9, 15n3, 58, 64, 76, 94, 124, 131, 134, 140-142, 146-147, 155-158, 164, 199, 233-234, 237, 243, 249 ʿĀmir, ʿĀṣim 173 Amman 64, 101n15, 134-136, 199, 202-203, 240-242, 250 ʿāmmiyya see Colloquial Arabic, colloquial variety al-ʿAnānī, Muḥammad 217 al-ʿAnātī, Walīd 168, 173 andragogy 45, 48 al-Ani, Salman 49, 117, 156 An-Najah National University 203 anthropology 182, 187 approach cognitive 178 communicative 75, 97, 100, 109, 112, 119, 139, 141, 150, 163, 176-177, 180-181, 190, 193, 213-214, 231, 251, 257 Competency-Based learning 141 cultural 181-182, 188 functional 153 humanistic 177 integrated 108, 133, 143-144, 174, 177, 214-215, 225, 247, 251, 258 integrated communicative 176-177 interactive 177 learner-centered 100 multimethodological 144-145 Natural 172, 179, 212 practical 38 structural 82-83 ʿAqrāwī, Mattà 42-43, 254 Aquil, Rajaa 195 Arab Bureau of Education for the Gulf States (ABEGS) 9, 90, 97-98, 119, 238

Árabe en Línea (AeL) 173 Arabele2009 173, 241 Arabele2012 198, 203, 241 al-ʿArabī, Ṣalāḥ ʿAbd al-Maǧīd 53 Arabic as a Heritage Language 123, 127, 136, 158, 207, 218 as an additional language 130 chat alphabet, see Arabizi Educated Spoken 52n4, 76n13, 134, 147 Egyptian Colloquial 124, 142, 164, 194, 201, 211 for diplomats 163, 166, 210 for journalism 129, 171-172 for medical purposes 210 for orientalist purposes 172 for politics and economics 129, 166, 171-172, 199 for religious purposes 63, 92, 93n6, 109-110, 138, 153, 171-172, 210, 233 for specific purposes 16, 109, 146, 153, 166, 171-172, 187, 201, 207-208, 219 for touristic purposes 222 Gulf Spoken 88 in Europe 92 Language Education 26, 36, 38, 56, 99, 219 Language Learning 30, 40, 45, 48-49, 54, 56-57, 66, 93, 125, 141, 149-150, 161-164, 188, 212 Levantine Colloquial 143-144, 215, 221-222 Literary 157 Moroccan Colloquial 15, 198, 214, 223 Spoken 134, 144, 195, 215 Tunisian Colloquial 194 Arabic for All 165, 192, 240 Arabic for Non-native Speakers Center see Markaz al-Dawḥa Arabic Language and Culture Center (ALCC) of Cairo University 9, 124, 158n24, 164, 206, 211, 217, 239, 249 Arabic Language Education Center for Foreign Students see Maʿhad al-Qāhira Arabic Language National Council 204, 241 Arabic Language Teaching Institute of Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University 89-90, 95, 98, 144, 185, 201, 204, 238, 249 Arabic Proficiency Test (APT) 49-50, 67, 111, 117, 156, 220, 237-245 Arabic through radio in Gambia (Project) 70 Arab Idol (television program) 215 Arabish see Arabizi Arab-Israeli conflict 50, 87, 123, 161 Arabiyyat al-Naas (textbook series) 222, 247 Arabization 27, 35, 44, 59, 92, 116, 127-128, 186, 232 Arabizi (ʿarabīzī) 208, 211n18, 218 Arab League 87, 238-239

Index

Arab League Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO) 9, 38, 41, 53, 62, 92, 94, 96, 104-105, 110, 115, 129-133, 136, 146, 150-151, 155, 159, 168, 170-171, 203n8, 221, 237-240, 244 Arab neighborhood project 135, 140, 182 Arab Spring 198-199, 211, 241 Arbi, Amel 15, 139, 184, 188, 189, 194, 256 arbitrariness of language 80 archeology 200, 209 architecture 200, 209 al-ʿArḍāwī, al-Hāšimī 15, 168, 170, 175-176, 183, 189 Argentina 88, 229 Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) 46 artificial environment 135, 140 ʿAsākir, Ḫalīl Maḥmūd 59, 127 Asher, James 99 Asín Palacios, Miguel 56n5 assessment 48-49, 117, 119, 132, 173, 189, 195, 205, 220, 232, 234 Assimil 101 astronomy 182 Atay, Hüsein 73, 78 Aṭiyyat Allāh, Aḥmad 41n7 audiocassette 81, 120 audio-visual tools 71, 75-78, 81, 83, 96, 99, 102, 107, 110, 114-115, 132, 138, 140, 144, 151, 177, 181, 213, 256 Austin, John 100 Australia 54, 126, 166, 189 authentic text 54, 118, 141, 180-181 autonomy (in language learning) 150, 184, 189 Auty, Nadira 214 ʿAwnī, Muḥammad 79 al-ʿĀyid, Aḥmad 58, 256 al-Azhar University 48, 64, 91, 131, 135, 137, 164, 201-202, 220n23, 233, 244, 249 method see method Bâ, El Hadj Mahmoud 93n6 Bābikir, Aḥmad Muḥammad 221 Bachelard, Gaston 168 Badawi, Essaid Mohammed 52n4, 57, 64, 73, 76, 96, 105-106, 113, 126, 130-134, 140-142, 146-147, 168, 171, 174, 232, 234, 243-244, 257 badīʿ see ornamentation of speech Badrān, Muḥammad Mamdūḥ 55, 131-132, 137-138, 150, 257 Badr al-Dīn, Anwar R. 154 Baghdad, 42, 163, 245 250 Baghdadi Arabic 14 Bagley, William Chandler 26, 41 Bahǧat, Muǧāhid Muṣṭafà 76 Bahrain 197, 241 Bākallā, Muḥammad Ḥasan 70, 72, 78, 80, 85, 121, 255 Balʿayd, Ṣāliḥ 123 Bangladesh 109

307 Baraka, Muḥammad Zāyid 169 Barakāt, Bahà al-Dīn 44 Barcelona University 173 Basic Arabic 13, 51, 65-66, 176 Basic course of Arabic see al-Kitāb al-asāsī Basic English 65 Bašīr, ʿAzz al-Dīn Waẓīf 59n9 Bašīr, Tāǧ al-Sirr 169 al-Batal, Mahmoud 126, 155-157, 181, 195, 213-217, 224-225, 240, 242-243, 247, 258 bayan see clarity of speech Bayero University 128 Bazergan, Najm 69 Begin, Menachem 87, 238 Beirut 53, 58, 66, 77, 153 Beja (language) 62n1 Ben ʿAli, Zine El-Abidine 197, 241 Benchina, Hocine 221 benevolence (ṣadaqa) 182 Ben Ismail, Mohamed see Ibn Ismāʿīl, Muḥammad Ben Saleh, Mohamed see Ibn Ṣāliḥ, Muḥammad Bergsträsser, Gotthelf 37 Bierstedt, Robert 182 Bint Othman, N. 218 biography (prophetic) 125, 182 Bišr, Kamāl Muḥammad 180 Blachère, Régis 113 blackboard 132 Bloomfield, Leonard 12, 178, 184, 230, 255 Bobzin, Hartmut 139 Bojang, Hatab 78 Boredom 198, 212, 214, 223 Bosnia Herzegovina 166 Bourguiba, Habib 47 Bourguiba School see Institut Bourguiba des Langues Vivantes Bourguiba School method see method Brakna 125 Brazil 51, 57, 166, 229, 251 Brill, Musà 111 British Department for Education 181 Brustad, Kristen 157, 181, 213-217, 244 Būḥdība, ʿAbd al-Wahhāb 150, 159 Būnaǧma, Muḥammad 173, 207 Bunderson, Victor 81 Burt, Cyril 42 Būšayḫī, ʿAzz al-Dīn 169 Byram, Michael 181 Cairo 29, 32, 33, 42, 52, 53, 61, 64, 66-67, 76, 79, 88, 113, 124, 146-147, 164, 199, 201-203, 206, 238, 241-245 Cairo University 9, 32n3, 37, 59, 111, 124, 164, 187, 203, 206, 211, 217, 233, 234, 239-240 Institute for Education Studies 164, 240 calligraphy 49, 124, 148, 225 Calvo, Emilia 173 Cambridge (Massachusetts) 179, 228

308 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Cameroon 93n6, 168, 190 Carell, Patricia 192 Carrol, John B. 76, 80 Casa Árabe 165, 173, 198, 210n17, 219n22 cassette player 81, 83 Center for Arabic and Middle East Studies (CAMES) 161 Center for Arabic Study Abroad (CASA) 58, 68, 147, 156, 164, 199, 202, 237, 241-243, 249 Center of Islamic Education of Umm al-Qura University 89 certificate 148-149, 200 Chad 129-130 Chaker, Aja Q. 215, 221 charitable activities 125 Chechnya 124 Chik, Abdul Rahman 209, 213, 217 Chile 57, 229 China 129, 166-167, 201, 204-205 Chomsky, Noam 12, 75, 162, 178-179, 184, 212-213, 231, 257 Chouf Mountains 58 cinema 92, 209, 224 CITO Netherlands 220 CLANA 200, 212 clarity of speech 148 Clark, John 156, 239 class discussion 32, 99, 120, 138, 153, 223-224, 231 Classical Arabic 35-36, 68, 118n20 classroom 75, 94, 100, 132, 138, 141, 150, 199, 204, 208, 211-212, 222, 230, 257 management 119 practice 19, 95, 141, 144, 149, 166, 171, 177, 216, 222, 224, 230, 234 CLIL see Content and Language Integrated Learning clothing see dress code cloze text 139, 153, 192, 194 Colloquial Arabic, colloquial variety 14-16, 35, 40, 42, 52, 58, 64, 69, 77-78, 88, 108, 119, 124, 133-134, 139, 142-144, 149, 164, 174, 194-196, 198, 201-202, 207-208, 211, 215, 218, 221, 223, 228, 247, 258 colonization 21, 33-36, 44, 47 Columbia University 50, 200, 237 School of International and Public Affairs 200 Comenius 31, 179n15 Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) 166, 175-176, 193, 196, 201, 203, 205-206, 208, 211, 219, 221, 241 communication 27, 29, 31, 46, 66, 68, 70, 74, 80, 84, 102, 108-110, 115, 124, 134, 138, 144, 147, 150, 161, 174-175, 177-178, 180-181, 188, 192, 197, 213, 232 communicative practice 75, 119, 257 Community Language Learning (CLL) 71-72, 180, 185, 212

competence communicative 75, 100n14, 112, 177, 195, 214, 237 cultural 109, 173 functional 100, 257 linguistic 50 competency-based learning 141 composition 16, 49, 68, 154, 192, 194, 222-223 comprehensibility 157 comprehension check 223 listinenng, or oral 56, 68, 91, 104, 118-119, 123 written 154, 191 computer 142, 166 games 214 computer-assisted instruction (CAI) 80-81, 143, 168, 243 Conference of Amman 166, 241 of Brummana 66, 238 of Doha 206, 242 of Riyadh 173, 241 Congo 93n6 constructivism 101 Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) 43, 183 Content-Based Instruction (CBI) 142, 212 Cornell University 133, 247 corpus 44 Arabic Learner Corpus project 185, 247 correction 119, 190, 217 Corriente Córdoba, Federico 56n5 Council of Europe (CoE) 100, 111, 144, 246 Council of the Directors of TAFL Centers 124, 150, 232, 239 Counseling, Counseling Learning (CL) 71, 212 Cowan, Bill 49 creative activity 112 creativity 159 cross-cultural misunderstanding 142 Cultural Afro-Asian Friendship Society 203, 241 cultural awareness 109, 181, 210, 217 culture Arab-Islamic 58, 75, 92, 97-98, 110, 115, 117, 121, 129-130, 145, 150, 163-164, 175-176, 181, 187, 192, 209-210, 239 Egyptian 194, 223-224 in foreign language teaching 54, 66, 72, 91, 107, 111-113, 135, 139-140, 162-163, 168-169, 174-177, 181-182, 185-187, 199-200, 208-209, 213-214, 217, 225 Moroccan 200, 209 Curran, Charles A. 71 curriculum design 13, 121, 125, 128-129, 134, 184, 187, 195, 205 multidimensional 109-110

Index

dāʿiš see Islamic State al-Daǧānī, Basma 162, 193, 213-214, 216, 218 Damascus 199, 221, 241 Darul Uloom of Hyderabad 183 Daud, Azmin 204 de Beaugrande, Robert-Alain 181 de Boisgermain, Luneaud 31 decolonization 50, 52 deduction 182, 189 deictic expression 120 de la Granja Santamaría, Fernando 51n2 deliberation 107, 197, 211 derivation see ištiqāq de Ruiter, Jan Jaap 215 de Saussure, Ferdinand 12, 82, 101, 177-178, 184, 213, 231 Dewey, John 26, 41, 43, 254 Dhad Institute 163, 240, 249 Dhahran 172 dialect 14, 29, 36, 43n8, 106, 119, 157, 215, 228 dialectology 35, 209n16 diary 189, 222 diatopic variation 112 dictation 39, 137, 153, 183, 192 technique 137, 153 didactic activity 134, 141, 146, 183 in couples 204 diffusion (of the Arabic language) 65, 88, 90-93, 98, 119, 123-124, 174, 201, 205-206, 237 diglossia 40, 76, 127, 131, 134, 145, 147, 150, 173-174, 184, 186, 215 DiMeo, David 217, 223 al-Disūqī, Muḥammad ʿAlī 42 Ditters, Everhard 195 division Arabic language teaching d. of the Islamic University of Medina 57, 165, 169, 237 Mohammed V University of Rabat Arabic language d. 198 Southern bureaus d. 131, 146 TAFL d. of the University of Libya 64 Diyāb, Muḥammad 38 Djibouti 92, 128, 130 Doha 97, 206 dress code 139, 188, 209, 223 Drif, Mohammed 198, 222 drill see pattern drill Dubai 204, 219n22, 241 al-Duḫayl, Ḥamad ibn Nāṣir 144-149 Echebbi, Aboul-Qacem see al-Šābbī, Abū al-Qāsim École Normale Supérieure de Tunis 82 École Polytechnique du Bardo 18, 33n5 Eddejli, Omar 222 educational triangle 132 Egypt cinema 209, 224 culture 194, 223-224

309 history 25-46, 209, 224 music 209, 224 society 35, 64, 124, 209 Egyptian Broadcasting Corporation 70, 111, 237, 254 Egyptian Center for Cultural Cooperation 64, 49 Egyptian Ministry of Education 51-52, 187 e-learning 164, 191, 202 Elgibali, Alaa 141-142, 156, 158, 171, 234 English 21, 29, 32-35, 58n6, 65-69, 73, 138, 188, 219, 230 enjoyment 106-107, 120, 133, 183 Eritrea 77n14 error analysis 173 Erwin, Wallace 69, 73 Escuela de Traductores de Toledo 53, 228 ethics 200, 209 evaluation 117, 129, 187, 189, 192, 200, 205 everyday life situation 70, 90, 102, 106, 108, 114-115, 138-139, 150, 193, 213-214, 218, 222, 233 exegesis (Holy Qur’an) 110, 115, 145, 148 exercise abstract 75 automatic 119, 180 cloze text 139, 153, 192, 194 communicative see communicative practice communicative question 120 composition 16, 49, 68, 154, 192, 194, 222-223 comprehension question 116-117, 119, 154, 191-192, 194, 223-224 inductive 153 mechanic 75 multiple choice 117, 194 semantic 119 sentence transformation 177 structural 177 summary 192 true/false 117, 194 expression oral 49, 83-84, 120, 142, 148, 154, 191 written 183, 191-192 extralinguistic code 188 Facebook 197 Fahmī, ʿAbd al-Salām 89, 186 Fahmī, Manṣūr 40 Fahmī, Sumaya 43, 254 false friends 186 Faraǧ, Maḥmūd ʿAbduh Aḥmad 135, 164, 205 Farhan, Nei Hanan 205 Farīd, ʿAlī Maḥmūd 66 al-Fārisī, Abū Isḥāq 212 al-Fāsī al-Fihrī, ʿAbd al-Qādir 116 al-Fawzān, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 192, 207 al-Fayṣal (journal) see Maǧallat al-Fayṣal Fayṣal (King) 44-45, 47-48, 61-62, 65, 67, 237-238 Fayṣal I (King) 41

310 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Ferguson, Charles Albert 14, 50-51, 108 Ferhadi, Ahmed 126, 143 fiqh see Islamic law al-Fiqī, ʿAlī Muḥammad 97, 193 First Gulf War 123, 239 First International Symposium on Teaching Arabic to Non-Arabic Speakers see Symposium of Riyadh fixation 115, 140, 148 flannel board 83 flashcards 99 fluency 157 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 87 Foreign Language Teaching (FLT) 12, 15, 18, 21, 25, 36, 50, 54, 68, 71, 73, 79, 84, 97, 101, 108110, 113-114, 126, 137, 142, 154, 170, 175, 178-179, 184-185, 196, 211, 229-230, 233, 247, 252 fossilization 184, 218 français fundamental 66, 82 France 30-32, 37, 47-48, 51, 79, 82, 91, 102, 129, 203, 205, 246, 255 Franco-Arabic see Arabizi Frayḥa, Anīs 58, 228 Free Officers Movement 44, 47 French 12, 14-15, 21, 27, 29, 31-37, 45, 58-59, 66, 71, 73, 81-84, 94, 101, 113, 138, 140, 149, 154, 168, 170, 189, 191, 231, 233, 244, 246 frequency list 66, 77, 128, 151-152 frequency of use 68, 96, 101, 209, 221 Fröbel, Friedrich 49 functional grammar 137, 154, 213 functional teaching 137 Fur (language) 62n1

grammatical automaticity 140 grammatical correctness 117 Grand Imam of al-Azhar 164 Grangeat, Michel 170, 189 Gray, William 45 al-Ġubārī, ʿAwaḍ 198, 208, 217 Guberina, Petar 82, 255 Guidi, Ignazio 37 Guidimaka 125 Guilford, Joy Paul 75 Guinea 70, 93n6 al-Ġumārī, Muḥammad 123 al-Ǧurǧānī, ʿAbd al-Qāhir 178, 182, 212 guttural (sounds) 176, 194

Ǧābir, Ǧābir ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd 170 Ǧabr, Ruqayya 213-214, 216, 218 Gago Gómez, Laura 209, 224 al-Ǧāḥiẓ 30, 106 al-Ġālī, Nāṣir ʿAbd Allāh 135, 175, 208 al-Ǧamālī, Muḥammad Fāḍil 43, 254 Gambia 78n15, 129, 230 al-Ǧannāš, Muḥammad 205 al-Ǧarbūʿ, ʿAbd Allāh 88-89, 193 Gattegno, Caleb 162 al-Ġazālī 30 Georgetown University 63, 156, 158, 246-247 Press 157, 224, 247 Germany 49, 51, 91, 203, 221, 247 Gestalt 49 globalization 22, 25, 50, 88, 123, 143, 161, 171, 198, 206, 225, 232 Goethe Institut Ägypten 196, 241 Gorgol 125 grammar 30-32, 38, 42, 45-49, 54-58, 65-68, 71-82, 93n6, 102, 108, 115-116, 118n20, 119-120, 125, 137, 139, 141, 153-154, 164, 169, 178, 180-183, 186, 192, 195, 200, 206-207, 213-214, 222-224, 231, 245, 252-253, 256 grammarism 31-32

al-Ḫabbāṣ, Muḥammad 193, 208, 218 Hachicha, Wissem 194, 202 al-Ḥadīdī, ʿAlī 54-56, 66, 79, 104n17, 237, 244 ḥadīt 137, 145, 182, 188, 192 al-Hāǧǧ, Bakrī Muḥammad 116 Ḫalaf Allāh Aḥmad, Muḥammad 42 Ḫālid (King) 65, 87-88, 239 al-Ḥamad, Fāʾiz 93 al-Ḥāmid, ʿAbd Allāh 163, 192 hand gestures 183, 188 Hanna, Sami 49, 156 Ḥannūra, Aḥmad Ḥusayn 117 Ḫarbaša, Wafāʾ 205 al-Ḥārdallū, Ibrāhīm 55, 96 Ḥardān, Ǧarǧūra 70 Harīdī, Īmān Aḥmad 52n4, 162-165, 168-172, 174, 176, 178-179, 181-184, 187-188, 201, 234, 241 Harrell, Richard 223 Harris, Rachel 214 Hārūn, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Muḥammad 171, 190 Harvard University 17, 50-51, 54, 72, 228, 237 Ḥasan, ʿAyša 205 Ḥasan, Muḥammad al-Ṭayyib 41 al-Ḥasan, ʿAbd al-Qayūm 191 Hassan, Ines 223 Ḥassān, Tammām 48, 88-89, 94, 97, 99, 106-107, 132-134, 174, 211, 214, 239, 244, 255 al-Ḫaṭīb, ʿAlī Aḥmad 98, 131, 137, 164 Ḫāṭir, Maḥmūd Rušdī see Khater, Mahmoud Rushdi Hausa 116 al-Ḫawlī, Muḥammad 214 Haykal, Muḥammad Ḥusayn 39 Ḫazna Kātibī, Hādiyā 93, 166, 193, 198, 212, 216, 218 Heath, Peter 118 Heaton, John Brian 67 Helmholtz 43, 254 Heness, Gottlieb 179-180 Henning, Grant 191 Heritage Language 136 learners 123, 127, 136, 158, 207, 218 Ḥiǧāzī, Maḥmūd Fahmī 49, 111

311

Index

al-Ḥilyawī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq 95, 99, 101-102, 256 al-Ḥiyārī, ʿAbd al-Karīm 193 Hodh el Gharbi 125 Holes, Clive 214 Holy Qur’an 28, 93n6, 94, 103, 124-125, 145, 154, 171-172, 174, 182, 188, 192, 217 al-Ḫulayfī, Zayna 194 Ḥumayda, Muṣṭafà 154 Ḥusayn, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 98 Ḥusayn, Muḫtār al-Ṭāhir 55, 94, 99, 100, 119-120, 181, 191, 257 Ḥusayn, Ṣaddām 61, 123, 239 Ḥusayn, Ṭāhā 39-40, 44 al-Ḥuṣrī, Sāṭiʿ 43n8, 53, 254 Hymes, Dell 75, 110, 214, 237, 257 Ibn al-Barāʾ, Yūsuf 129, 131, 134 Ibn Ǧinnī 12, 106, 184, 212, 230 Ibn Ḫaldūn 12, 28n2, 178, 184, 212, 230 Ibn Ismāʿīl, Muḥammad 57-58, 62, 99, 101-102, 113-115, 140, 244-245, 255-256 Ibn Saḥnūn 30 Ibn Ṣāliḥ, Muḥammad 58, 256 Ibn Sinā 30 Ibrāhīm, Muḥammad Aḥmad 191 IELTS 205 ʿilāǧ, ʿilāǧ al-muškilāt 149 al-Imām, Āmāl Musà 171 immersion (language) 163, 217 India 89, 109, 183, 186 Indiana University 134 Indonesia 109, 167, 203, 205-206 induction 31, 153 Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) see technology Ingham, Bruce 73 input hypothesis (i + 1) 180 Institut Avicenne des Sciences Humaines 203 Institut Bourguiba des Langues Vivantes (IBLV) 55, 57-58, 61, 70-71, 76, 81, 92-93, 95, 99, 102, 112, 114, 138-140, 152, 166, 176-177, 189, 193-194, 202, 233, 237, 244-245, 249, 251-252, 256 Institute for Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers of Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University 200, 204, 249 Institute for the Teaching of Arabic as a Foreign Language and the Diffusion of Islamic Studies see Maʿhad Mauritania Institute of Arabic Language of Mecca see Maʿhad Umm al-Qurà Institute of Education of Cairo 45 Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences at Fairfax 167 Instituto de Estudios Islámicos en Madrid 51, 228, 237, 249 Institut Nationale des Langues et Civilisations Orientales (INALCO) 205 Institut Supérieur de Education et Formation Continue (ISEFC) 189

integrated graded unit system 165 interaction 29, 100n14, 117, 141-142, 163, 196, 198, 212, 255 International Cooperation Board for Arab-Islamic culture development 92, 129-130, 135-136, 146, 150-151, 173, 239 International Islamic University of Kuala Lumpur 134 internationalization 22, 76, 88, 198, 217 International Language Institute (ILI) 194 International University of Africa 124, 206 Arabic Language Institute 166-167, 169, 191, 240, 249 Internet 163, 166, 168, 174, 197, 211n18 interpreting 27, 30, 35 intonation 102, 115, 183 iʿrāb 180 Iran 65, 77n14, 87, 89, 186 Iraq 26, 39-43, 47, 61, 80, 87, 91, 93, 103, 126, 151, 161, 240, 245, 250, 254 war 87, 161, 240 Irbid 64, 93, 238, 250 Irving, T.B. 110, 182 Isaacs, Susan 42 ISESCO see Islamic Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization Islam 34, 39, 57, 63, 76, 88, 93n6, 105, 109, 154, 172, 186, 217, 233 five pillars 182 Islamabad 95, 98, 144 Islamic community 123 history 110, 145, 148, 154 law 63, 115, 125, 154, 163, 182 thought 192 Islamic Call Society 64 Islamic Development Bank 128n7 Islamic Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (ISESCO) 94-95, 110, 123, 129, 155, 170, 173, 206, 239 Islamic State (IS or ISIS) 197 Islamic University of Medina 57, 91, 165, 169, 237, 240, 250 islamization 186 Istanbul 207, 220n22, 242 Istanbul Foundation for Research and Education (ISAR) 203 ištiqāq 120, 185 Italy 37, 51n2, 69n9, 144, 203, 205, 210n17, 221, 251 Jahiliyyah 117 Jakarta 95, 98 Jamous, Rawya 209, 213, 217 Jeddah 128, 165, 200, 241, 249 Jerusalem 58n8, 228 Joint Program Production Institution of the Gulf Cooperation Council 70 jokes 157

312 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Jordan 58, 64, 87, 91, 93, 124, 126, 129, 131, 133-134, 145-146, 151, 166, 190, 192, 197, 202-203, 205, 218-219, 232, 234, 238, 240, 250

automaticity 84 beauty 106, 183 body 188 ceiling 133, 243 contact 27-30, 228 first 29, 35, 44, 51, 56, 66, 73, 78n15, 84, 94, 103, 106, 117, 120, 134, 139n15, 162, 180-181, 186, 190, 202, 206-207, 222, 230, 254 games 75, 121, 142, 222 heritage 108, 115, 124, 167 interference see language transfer laboratory see laboratory local 59, 62, 103 minority l. 161 of cult 188 official 40, 62, 77, 87, 238 of the educated 52, 76n13, 134, 138, 147, 232 reform 26, 39-40, 48, 53, 66, 164, 230 register 138, 215 second l. 14-15, 29-30, 35, 43, 52, 94n9, 136, 141, 158, 170, 176-177, 189, 191, 195, 209n16, 228, 245 simplified l. 51, 161, 176, 194 strategy 177, 184, 187, 189-190, 205, 207, 216, 218, 221 target l. 16, 30-31, 55, 102, 114, 132, 186, 213, 252, 255 testing 13, 20, 45, 49-50, 67, 74, 126-127, 134, 145, 155-158, 165, 184, 186, 191, 196, 202, 204-211, 216, 220, 232, 237 transfer 62 learner advanced 30, 117, 223 -centered teaching 100, 109, 141, 251, 257 Muslim 76-77, 90, 97, 103, 109, 136, 154, 163, 165, 172, 182, 232, 245, 247 young 41n7, 42, 46, 48, 71, 82n19, 106, 121, 125, 136, 145, 164, 198, 208, 240, 246 learning objective 100, 101n15, 119-120 Lebanese Civil War 65, 238 Lebanon 17, 26, 40, 47n1, 58-59, 65-66, 72, 79-80, 87, 156, 161, 163-164, 190, 200, 228, 232, 234, 238, 244, 249 level advanced 70, 90, 109, 111n18, 118, 129, 133, 147, 157, 200, 218, 220, 222 distinguished 133, 147, 202 intermediate 70, 90, 118-120, 129, 147, 153, 157, 200, 220 lower intermediate 129 novice 118-119, 147, 157 six l. approach 201, 220 superior 118, 147, 157 upper intermediate 129 lexical availability 209 lexicon 66, 68, 72, 80, 82, 91, 110, 114, 120, 132, 139, 152, 154, 181, 183, 186, 191-192, 200, 223-224 lexicostatistics see lexical availability Librarie du Liban (maktabat Lubnān) 153

al-Kabīsī, ʿAlī Aḥmad 207 Kallas, Elie 144 Kāmil, Murād 44 Kāmil, Muṣṭafà 36 Kano 98, 128 Kazakhstan 166 Kenya 17, 72, 129 Kenyon, Dorry 156, 239 Khaldounia (School) 36 Khaled (King) see Ḫālid (King) Khalfallah, Nejmeddine 175, 219 Khartoum 61, 66, 76, 88, 96, 107, 124, 128, 152, 155, 162n2, 169, 172-173, 181, 203, 238, 240, 242, 249 Arabic, 62n1 191 University 128 Khartoum International Institute for Arabic Language see Maʿhad al-Ḫarṭūm Khater, Mahmoud Rushdi 45-46, 49, 67, 70 Killean, Carolyn 118 King Abdulaziz University TAFL Institute see Maʿhad Ǧudda King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals 172 King Saʿud University 17, 45, 63, 70, 73, 117, 134, 169, 207, 221 Arabic Language Institute see Maʿhad al-Riyāḍ al-Kitāb al-asāsī 89, 104-105, 115, 133, 136, 155, 193, 243-246 Klein, Melanie 42 Klinghardt 43, 254 Komensky, Jan Amos see Comenius Korea 57, 201, 229, 247, 251 Kraidy, Marwan 161 Krashen, Stephen 162, 178-179, 212, 231, 247, 257 Kuala Lumpur 123, 134 al-Kuḫun, Amīn 166 Kurd ʿAlī, Muḥammad 40 kuttāb 34-35 Kuwait 17, 64, 67, 72, 91, 97-98, 123, 126, 137-138, 156, 164-165, 167, 210, 239 City 97, 238 Language Center 97, 167 Universit, 64, 97n11, 167 laboratory 70-71, 81, 83-84, 102, 157, 256 LAD see Language Acquisition Device under Language Lado, Robert 12, 67, 80, 178-179, 212, 231, 257 Lambung 167 Lampe, Gerald 118 Landau, Jacob M. 66, 68, 105, 111 language Acquisition Device (LAD) 162

Index

Libya 44, 47, 61, 64, 79, 131, 145-146, 151, 197, 241, 250 lingua franca 27, 161, 217 linguistic performance 188, 192 linguistics 12, 25, 32, 50, 71-72, 74, 78, 81-82, 92, 106, 115, 124, 128, 132-134, 149, 151-152, 156, 162, 186, 189-190, 204, 244, 247 applied 13, 25, 40, 46, 50, 63-64, 73, 78, 80, 82, 90, 116, 126, 185, 187, 192, 203, 227, 232, 234, 245-247 computational 168, 206 listening 49, 55-56, 68-69, 71, 74, 76, 78, 81, 83-84, 91, 93, 99, 102, 104, 108, 112, 115-116, 118, 135, 139, 142-144, 149, 156, 158, 170-171, 183, 193-196, 200, 214, 216, 218, 220, 223, 231, 255-256 Listening Proficiency Test (LPT) 220 literacy 45, 49, 67, 125 literary criticism 80, 245 literary taste 16, 48-49, 67, 106, 117, 187 literature 31, 40, 42, 48, 53, 56-57, 80, 90, 108, 113, 115, 124, 138, 145, 148, 165, 169-170, 182, 185, 192, 214, 223, 244-245, 252 history of 148 Llull, Ramon 56n5 Lord Cromer 34-35 Louis, Samia 194 Loyola University of Chicago 71 Lozano Cámara, Indalecio 224 Luṭfī al-Sayyid, Aḥmad 39 Lycée Carnot 35 Lycée pilote Boruguiba 35 Lycée Voltaire 113, 244 Maamouri, Mohamed 35, 56 maʿān see adequacy of expression Mabrūk, Dāliyā 205 Macheul, Louis 34 MacKey, William F. 75n12, 76, 80 al-Madanī, ʿAzz al-Dīn 152 Madkūr, ʿAlī Aḥmad 52n4, 94-95, 126, 149, 161-164, 168-174, 176, 178-185, 187-188, 203, 234, 241 Madrid 51, 56, 59, 66, 72, 107, 111, 156, 165, 173, 198, 203, 210n17, 219n22, 228, 237, 241, 249 Maǧallat (journals) al-ʿarabiyya li-l-dirāsāt al-luġawiyya 92, 96, 115, 190, 221, 233, 239 al-ʿarabiyya li-l-nāṭiqīn bi-ġayri-hā 191, 240 al-ʿarabiyya li-l-tarbiya 152 al-azhar 48 al-Fayṣal 77, 87 al-Hilāl 40 al-Maǧalla 48, 53 maǧmaʿ Dimašq 48 maǧmaʿ al-luġa al-ʿarabiyya 48 al-muʿallim al-ǧadīd 42 al-tarbiya al-ḥadīta 26, 40-42 al-ustād 48 Maǧdūba, Aḥmad 193

313 Maʿhad (Institute) Ǧudda 165, 241, 249 al-Ḫarṭūm 62, 66, 92, 94, 103, 106-107, 110, 115-116, 124, 127-128, 145, 151, 154, 167-169, 171-173, 190-191, 221, 233, 238-240, 249 al-Madīna 165, 201, 204, 240, 250 Marīdī 59, 116, 127, 228-229, 249 Mauritania 125, 240, 249 al-Qāhira 52, 57-58, 61, 164-165, 187, 201, 206, 210, 237, 249 al-Riyāḍ 63, 72, 78, 80, 89, 90, 94, 134, 153, 162, 166, 169, 173, 204, 210, 238, 246, 249 Umm al-Qurà 63, 76, 88-89, 94, 98, 105-107, 110, 113, 124, 139, 165, 169, 183, 185, 193, 196, 238 al-Zarqāʾ 124, 166, 240, 250 Maḥyūt, Kāhina 221 al-Maḫzūmī, Ḫalaf 93, 129, 131 Makkī, al-Ṭāhir Aḥmad 53-54, 56, 228, 237 al-Malāḥī, Ḥusām 201 Malang 167, 203 Malaysia 95, 109, 167, 190, 201, 203-205, 220, 239 Mali 70, 93, 129-130 al-Malīǧī, Ḥasan Ḫamīs 116-117 maktabat Lubnān see Librarie du Liban Markaz ʿAmmān 93, 166, 193, 200, 205, 210, 216, 218, 241, 250 al-Azhar 135, 164-165, 201-202, 205-206, 208, 210, 220n23, 241-242, 249 al-Dawḥa 93, 207, 239, 242, 250 Management School of Nouakchott 93, 125, 239 Mandinka 116 Mansoura University (Egypt) 93, 246 al-Marāšida, Ṭalāl ʿAbd Allāh 213, 218 Marmara University 207, 242 Martí Tormo, Vicente 224 Massignon, Louis 108 mass media 49-50, 70, 87, 92, 123, 142, 161, 181, 197, 203, 210, 213n19 Massoud, Suzanne 195 Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University of Malang 203 Mauritania 91-93, 125-126, 131, 145-146, 164, 232, 234, 240, 249 McCarus, Ernest 68, 74, 106, 111, 118, 156, 239, 255 measurement (testing) 49, 118, 157 Mecca 63, 76, 87-89, 98, 105-106, 109-110, 113, 184, 200, 238, 244-245, 250 Medina 57, 63, 87, 89, 91, 97, 137, 153, 165, 169, 186, 200, 237-238, 240, 246, 250 Medina Islamic University 57, 91, 165, 169, 237, 240, 250 Institute for Teaching Arabic to Non-native Speakers see Maʿhad al-Madīna Meeting of Cairo 206, 242 of Khartoum 172 of Tunis 130-133, 136, 144, 146-152, 159, 232, 239

314 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Meloni, Gerardo 37 memorization 30, 55, 74, 82, 93n6, 125, 183, 253 metacognition 189 method (of language teaching) audio-visual 69, 81, 83, 101-102, 109, 213 audio-visual oral-written (Ibn Ismāʿīl 1983) 102 aural-oral orientation 54, 69, 74-75, 78, 80, 82-83, 251, 255-256 al-Azhar University 202 blended 102, 108, 245 Bourguiba School 70-71, 76, 95, 99, 102, 112, 114, 138-140, 166, 176-177, 189, 233, 245, 251-252, 256 dialogic 84, 114 direct 25, 31-32, 54, 71, 101, 105, 114, 178-179, 180n15, 183, 185, 193, 213, 219, 231, 251-252 discourse organization (naẓm) 182 dual 102 eclectic 83, 102, 108-110, 144, 177, 179, 182, 213, 231, 251, 256 grammar 32 grammar-translation 25, 31-32, 54, 69, 74, 78, 80, 176, 185, 251, 253 indirect 43 integrated see approach lecture 41 natural see method, direct Natural 162, 179, 180n15, 212 phonetic 43, 46, 49, 108, 251, 254 practical see method, direct psychological 108 reading 108 simplification 66 structural 12, 49, 64, 67, 69-70, 72, 75, 78-79, 81-83, 96, 99, 101-102, 108, 112, 114, 119, 137-140, 144, 150, 178, 246, 255 structuro-global audio-visual (SGAV) 12, 82-83, 102, 231, 251, 255 traditional 12, 35, 55-56, 74, 81-82, 101, 150, 231, 251, 253 translation 55, 71, 101, 114, 213, 219, 253, 256 whole-word 43, 46, 49, 70, 213, 219, 251, 254 Mialaret, Gaston 82, 101, 231 microteaching 169n11 Middlebury School of Arabic 126, 155, 158, 239, 243 Middle East 28, 33, 44, 48, 79, 81, 87, 161, 229 Middle East Centre for Arab Studies (MECAS) 58, 65, 228, 238, 250 migrants 50, 136, 161, 198 mime 117 minimal pairs see pairwise language comparisons mistakes 84, 131, 149, 168, 173, 185-186, 190-191 correction 84, 190 frequent 97, 127, 149, 155 spelling 45, 205 misunderstanding 142, 210 Mitchell, T.F. (Terence Frederick) 76n13, 110, 134

Mixed Arabic 76n13, 134 Moada, Mohammed see Muwāʿada, Muḥammad mobile phone 197, 211n18 modernization 19, 26, 35-38, 88, 231 Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) 14-16, 39-40, 42, 50, 52, 68, 70, 76-78, 80n16, 88, 97, 106, 108, 111-112, 116, 118, 124, 133-134, 138-139, 142-143, 149-150, 161, 163-164, 172, 174, 180, 188, 196, 200-201, 211, 215, 218, 221-223, 237, 255 Mohammed V University of Rabat 198, 200, 222 monitor theory 180 monotony 198, 212, 223 Monroe, Paul 26, 41 Montessori, Maria 49 Morgan, Carol 181 Morocco 22, 44, 47n1, 64, 77, 91-92, 96, 98, 126, 164, 166, 197-198, 203, 205, 207, 245 culture 200, 209, 223 society 223 morphology 38, 55, 61, 169, 176, 180, 186, 189, 207, 223 mother tongue see language, first motivation 100, 110, 142, 223 Moustarhfir, Nura 222 movie 81, 83, 120, 181 Mubārak, Ḥusnī 87, 238 Mubārak, Muḥammad 78 Muǧāwir, Muḥammad 67 Muḥammad, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḫāliq 191 Muḥammad, Muḥammad Dāwūd 196, 219 Muḥammad, Ramzī Fuʾād 191 Muḥammad al-Ṣādiq ibn Ḥusayn (bey) 33 Muḥammad, Saʿīd Ḥāfiẓ 205 Muḥammad, ʿUmar Sulaymān 137, 153 Muḥammad Aḥmad, ʿAbd al-Samīʿ 49-51, 89 Muḥammad ʿAlī 26, 31 multidialect environment 215 multilingualism 161 munāqaša see class discussion al-Muršidī, Muḥammad Aḥmad 44 al-Musà, Nuhād 92, 135, 140, 168, 182-183 music 135, 182, 209, 223-224 Muslim American Society Council for Islamic Schools (MASCIS) 167, 171 Muslim World League 89, 98 Mustafa, Farouk 118 al-Mustansiriyya see Al-Mustansiriyah mutual intelligibility 215 Muwāʿada, Muḥammad 96, 139 Mzali, Mohammed 65 al-Naǧrān, ʿUtmān ʿAbd Allāh 221 Nallino, Carlo Alfonso 37 names of God 182 al-Nāqa, Maḥmūd Kāmil 62, 66, 88-89, 96-110, 116-117, 121, 132, 141, 145, 150, 152, 158, 162, 173, 176, 179, 181, 184, 193, 202, 205-206, 208, 212, 231, 234, 239, 245-246, 256-257

Index

al-Našīf, Hāla 93 Nāṣif, Ḥifnī 38 našr see diffusion Naṣr, Hilmī 51, 57 Nasr, Raja Tawfik 73, 77, 79-80, 84, 92, 229, 255 NaTakallam project 200 National Examinations in World Languages (NEWL) Arabic test 220 National University of Malaysia 203 Netherlands 72n11, 91, 203, 220 Netherlands-Flemish Institute in Cairo 15 newspaper 92, 115, 135, 149, 181, 183, 199, 223, 246 new technologies see technology New York 129, 170n12 Nielsen, Helle Lykke 74, 105, 123, 143, 157-158, 161, 214, 251, 258 Nigeria 57, 70, 98, 109, 128, 131, 205, 251 Nimayrī, Ǧaʿfar 61 non-Arabs 16, 18n4, 28-30, 35, 37, 53, 56-57, 59, 68-70, 76-77, 79, 87, 90-91, 93, 103, 125, 162, 190, 207 nonverbal 223 Norrbom, Bjorn 219 Nouakchott 93, 125, 239-240 Nubia 103 Nubian (language) 62n1 Nuqalī, Basma 208 al-Nūr, Ṭāhā Ḥasan 135-136 nuṭq salīm see pronunciation Ogden, Charles Key 80 Ohio State University 221 Olaimat, Fatima M. 208, 213, 216-218 Ollendorff, Heinrich 32, 253 Oman 91, 126, 163-164, 203, 207, 240, 249 Omdurman Islamic University 128, 147, 243 online resource 184 Open Sesame 70 oral interaction 196, 198, 212 Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) 157, 192, 220 Oral Proficiency Interview by Computer (OPIc) 220 Organisation of Islamic Cooperation 135 Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) 62, 238 ornamentation of speech (rhetoric) 148 orthography 153 Oslo Accords 123, 240 Ossama, Baha Ed-din 209, 211, 224 Oudrhiri, Abdelali 135 overhead projector 69, 120 pairwise language comparison 80, 83, 99, 149, 186 Pakistan 77n14, 88, 98, 109, 128-129, 131, 186, 221 Palestine 49, 87, 243 pan-Arabism 47-48, 61 pan-Islamism 47-48 parameter 67, 117, 157, 202, 205, 211, 220, 242 Paris 31-32, 82, 88, 95, 113, 136, 244

315 Parkhurst, Helen 49 Parkinson, Dilworth 118, 143, 168 Patai, Raphael 108, 182 pattern drill 75, 83, 223 Pavlov, Ivan 177 Payne Harris, David 67 Pédagogie par Objectifs (PPO) 101 pedagogy 30, 40, 67, 90, 143n20, 162, 187, 243 Pellat, Charles 51n2, 59, 121 Penang 167 Pérez Cañada, Luis Miguel 173 Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich 49 Philippines 109 phonetics 43, 151, 244, 254 awareness 116, 120 Piaget, Jean 45, 82, 101, 178, 231 picture 81, 120, 199, 223 Pimsleur, Paul 67 planning language 127, 173 lesson 16, 67, 100, 119, 158, 164, 196 playful activity 67, 121, 214 pleasure 198, 212, 214, 223 Plötz, Karl 32, 253 poetry 30, 157, 182, 206, 209, 222 Polytechnic Institute of London 63 Prague school 162 Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University 200, 204, 241, 249 proficiency 13, 49-50, 56, 67-68, 111, 117-118, 123, 126-127, 131-133, 137, 141-142, 145-149, 155-158, 169, 173, 192, 195, 200, 210-211, 220-221, 227, 232, 234, 237-240, 243, 245 based learning 141 movement 118, 147, 232 profitability of vocabulary 209 programs evaluation 94 pronunciation 43, 45, 55, 71, 84, 99, 102-103, 115-116, 138, 142, 148, 178, 180, 186, 188, 212, 233, 254, 256 correction 99 good (nuṭq salīm) 71, 84, 99, 102-103, 115, 138, 148, 178, 180, 188, 212, 233, 256 Prophetic biography 125, 182 prose 117, 154, 209, 222 proverb 71, 157 psycholinguistics 127, 129, 132, 209n16 punctuation 153 Qadrī, Muḥammad Saʿīd 43, 254 QadrīLuṭfī, Muḥammad 70 Qafīša, Ḥamdī 97, 117, 156 al-Qafṣī, Zahiyya 92, 139, 152, 181, 193, 256 al-Qaḥṭānī, ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ẓāfir 166 al-Qaḥṭānī, Saʿad ibn ʿAlī 173, 207 Qasid Arabic Institute 199, 202-203, 242 Qāsim, ʿAwn al-Šarīf 145, 191 al-Qāsimī, ʿAlī 70-73, 78-81, 83, 92, 96-97, 102, 104, 155, 179, 212, 221, 231, 245, 255-256

316 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Qatar 64, 91, 93, 97-98, 126, 151, 164, 203, 206-207, 239, 242, 250 University 93, 206, 239, 242, 250 University College of Art and Sciences 206, 242 al-Qawṣī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz 43 al-Qawṣī, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Fuḍayl 206 qiyas see measurement QR code 224 Quemada, Bernard 82, 101 al-Qumāṭī, Muḥammad 131, 149-150 Qūra, Ḥusayn Sulaymān 80, 231 Qur’an see Holy Qur’an

Riyadh 17, 33, 55, 61-63, 66, 67, 72-80, 87-90, 94, 96, 98, 105, 109-112, 114, 116-117, 124, 131n9, 134-135, 137, 139, 144-145, 147-149, 153, 156, 161-163, 165-167, 169, 173, 178, 185, 192, 200-201, 204, 207, 210, 230, 238, 240-241, 245-247, 249 Rocchetti, Nadia 221 Rodgers, Theodore 181 Rogers, Carl 71 role-play 117, 142, 158, 181, 202, 223 Russia 30, 130

Rabat 66, 96-97, 131n9, 139, 173, 198, 200, 212, 222, 238 al-Rabbāḥ, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf 204, 209-210, 217 Rābiḥ, Turkī 87, 123 radio 49, 54, 65, 69-70, 77, 81, 83, 92, 111, 117, 157, 166, 181, 191, 238, 256 Ramaḍān, Hānī 208 Rammuny, Raji 49, 67, 73-75, 112, 117-118, 126, 132, 146, 156-157, 181, 210, 220, 238-240, 245, 255, 257 Rāšid, Muḥammad Mursī 51, 54-55 al-Rāwī, Musāriʿ 150 readability 96 reading 30, 39, 42-43, 45-46, 48-49, 55-56, 65, 68, 71-72, 74, 76, 81-83, 99, 102-103, 108, 112, 115118, 121, 140-142, 144, 148-149, 154, 156, 158, 167, 171, 183, 185, 187-188, 196, 200, 204-205, 212, 220, 222-223, 225, 231, 253-256 aloud 183, 188-189, 212, 225 comprehension 118n20, 205 silent 188, 204 speed 148 Reading Proficiency Test (RPT) 220 real-life situations 31, 75-76, 115, 137-139, 150, 153, 195 recitation of the Holy Qur’an 172 reflection in action see action research reflective interview 189 reform see language, reform reliability (testing) 67, 156, 191 religion 22, 27-28, 30, 36, 63, 76, 92, 93n6, 107, 109-110, 115, 128, 138, 148, 153-154, 162-163, 171-172, 182, 185, 187-188, 199, 208-210, 223, 229, 233 repetition 31, 46, 102, 108, 115 Reporters without Borders 197 representation (tamtīl) 120-121 retention 214 revolution 22, 44, 47, 59, 65, 197, 241 rhetoric 145, 148, 165, 169, 191, 206, 208 Richards, I.A. (Ivor Armstrong) 80 Richards, Jack 181, 257 Rivenc, Paul 82, 255 Rivers, Wilga 80, 81n17, 110, 256

al-Šaʿarānī, Aḥmad 157 Ṣābir, Muḥyī al-Dīn 38, 105 Šabbākī, ʿAbd al-Karīm 199, 208, 211-212, 222-223, 225 al-Šābbī, Abū al-Qāsim 152 al-Sādāt, Anwar 61, 87, 238 Ṣaḥīfat dār al-ʿulūm 42 Ṣaḥīfat al-tarbiya 42, 46 Saʿīd, ʿĀṭif al-Ḥāǧ 196, 219 al-Ṣāʿidī, Ḥaḍīḍ 169 Šalabī, Aḥmad 53-54, 56 Salām, Dāwūd, 96 al-Šalaqānī, ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd 73 Ṣāliḥ, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān 65, 77n14, 78, 97, 138, 167 Ṣāliḥ, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl see Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl Ṣāliḥ, Ṣāliḥ M. 154 al-Salīm, Muḥammad 93 Salvation School (madrasat al-falāḥ) 93n6, 125 Šanāʿa, Zuhriyya 205 Sanders, James 191, 208 Šannīk, Hiba 208 Santillana, David 38 Santillán Grimm, Paula 173 Sapir, Edward 184 al-Šaryūfī, ʿAysà 134, 137, 152, 162, 167, 169 Saudi Arabia, 12, 17, 26, 33, 40, 44-45, 47, 49, 61-63, 65, 72, 76, 79, 87-91, 97-98, 105, 109-110, 116, 123, 126, 128, 131, 138, 144-146, 151, 153-154, 163-165, 192, 197, 200-201, 203-204, 206-207, 210, 217, 219, 227, 232-233, 237, 239, 242, 246-247, 249-250 Cultural Mission in Khartoum 203, 242 Sauveur, L. 179, 180n15 al-Šāwāšī, Tawfīq 97 al-Sawi, Laila 195 al-Sayyid, Aḥmad Luṭfī 39 al-Sayyid, Muḥammad ʿAlī 129, 155 Sayyid, Samīr 208 Scalzo, Rosa A. 100n14 School of Languages of Cairo, School of Translators (Madrasat al-alsun) see Ain Shams University, School of Languages School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) 166 Searle, John 100

Index

Second Language see language, second Second World War 25, 46-47, 50, 53-55, 81, 255 secular 33, 37, 61, 63, 76, 128, 138, 154, 233 security 72, 199 self-assessment 189 self-reflective enquiry see action research Senegal 70, 93n6, 129-130, 136, 168, 190 September 11 attacks 22, 161, 240 Serjeant, Robert B. 51n2 Sers el-Layyan 49 Sfar, Béchir 36 Shemlan 58, 228 Sian 167 Sībawayhi 12, 106, 212, 230 Sierra Leone 95, 239 Sievers 43, 254 sign 178 silent way 162 silsila 92, 139, 189, 193 simplification (language) 53, 91, 96, 127, 145, 150 Ṣīnī, Maḥmūd Ismāʿīl 55, 63, 67, 70, 72-73, 78-80, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96-97, 99-100, 119-120, 137, 153-154, 162, 169, 181, 198, 207, 210, 212, 217, 230-231, 239, 246, 255-257 sīra nabawiyya see Prophetic biography Sister Clara Muhammad schools 168 skill see listening, oral interaction, reading, speaking or writing Skinner, B.F. 80, 177, 212, 255 Skype 197, 200 sociolinguistics 33, 44, 52n4, 83, 129, 132, 139, 143, 198, 209, 258 Sokoto 131 Somalia 47n1, 77n14, 92, 129 Somali National University 128 Sorbonne 82, 246 SoundCloud 224 South Africa 166, 183 Southern Denmark University 143 South Sudan 59, 92, 103, 116, 127, 228, 249 Spain 51n2, 173, 198, 203, 221, 224, 249 speaking 46, 49, 55-56, 69, 71, 74, 76, 80-81, 83, 93, 99, 102-104, 106, 108, 112, 115, 120, 126, 137, 142, 144, 149, 156-157, 171, 186, 192-196, 200, 208, 214, 231, 255-256 global s. ability 157 speech 30, 84, 141, 180 act 100 spelling 45, 149, 205 Spuler, Bertold 51n2 Stanford University 169n11 Stansfield, Charles W. 156, 239 Star Academy (television program) 215 State University of New York 129 Stern, H.H. 109 Stevens, Paul B. 195 strategy see language, strategy student see learner

317 Sudan 17, 44, 47n1, 59, 61, 62n1, 72, 91-92, 96, 98, 103, 110, 115-116, 126-128, 131, 145-147, 151, 154, 164-166, 190, 203, 219, 228, 232-233, 243, 249 Sudanese African languages 62n1, 103, 116, 128, 228, 232 Suez Canal University 202, 242 Suez Crisis 44, 48 Suggestopedia 109, 177 Sulaymān, Muṣṭafà Aḥmad 99, 116 Sultan Ismail Petra International Islamic College 204 summary 192 survey 77, 97, 109-111, 138, 149, 189, 192 al-Suyūṭī 106 Swahili 116 Sweet, Henry 43, 178, 184, 254 al-Swīsī, Fāḍil 166, 176-177, 194 al-Swīsī, Riḍā 12, 55, 64, 79-84, 92, 95, 99, 101, 112, 127, 131-132, 140, 149, 152, 246, 255 Switzerland 166 syllabus 13, 104, 145, 234 construction 100, 111, 152 functional-notional 97, 100, 110, grammatical 104 notional 104, 150, 246 situational 104 Symposium of Cairo 79, 238 of Doha 97, 238 of Khartoum (1980, 1981, 1982) 96 of Khartoum (2000) 162n2, 169 of Kuwait City 97, 238 of Madrid 51, 59, 66, 72, 107, 111, 237 of Medina 97, 137, 186, 238 of Rabat 96-97, 139, 238 of Riyadh 17, 45, 55, 66, 72, 74-80, 88, 90n4, 96, 98, 110, 112, 114, 117, 156, 161, 230, 238 syntax 38, 223 Syria 26, 39, 40, 47, 50, 64, 87, 126, 131, 151, 163-165, 183, 192, 197, 200, 210, 222, 232, 234, 241, 249 tacit agreement 133 TAFL Center of Alexandria see Alexandria TAFL Teachers’ League 124, 150-151, 232, 239 Taha, Zeinab A. 141-142, 156, 158, 162, 171, 195, 199, 212, 224-225, 234, 241-242, 247 al-Ṭahṭāwī, Rifāʿa Rāfiʿ 31-32, 36, 44 Ṭaʿīma, Rušdī Aḥmad 55, 62, 88-89, 94, 96-101, 103-105, 107-108, 110-113, 117, 132, 136, 138, 149150, 161, 171-172, 176-177, 181, 187-188, 190-191, 193, 208, 212, 231, 234, 239, 245-246, 257 Taiwan 167 Ṭalfāḥ, ʿAlī 93 tamtīl see representation Ṭamūḥ, Muṣṭafà 38 TANSC_2017 207 target language see language, target

318 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

Task-Based Learning and Teaching (TBLT) 212 taysīr see simplification al-Ṭayyib, Aḥmad M.A. 164 al-Ṭayyib Ḥasan, Muḥammad 41 al-Ṭayyib al-Šayḫ, Ḥusayn 127, 131, 155 teacher 31, 41n6, 55, 71-73, 75, 78, 83-84, 91, 93-95, 97, 99, 107-108, 112, 114, 128-132, 140-141, 145, 150-151, 153, 164, 167-171, 176-178, 180, 185-186, 190, 205, 208, 212, 224, 232, 234, 239, 252-253, 257 as facilitator 75, 112, 141, 177, 257 as leader 75, 112, 141, 257 profile 95, 132, 168-169, 171, 184, 186, 208, 232 t. training see training teacher’s book 119 teacher’s guide 104, 113, 119-120, 148, 196, 224, 242, 247 Teacher Talking Time (TTT) 212 Teaching Arabic as a First Language 56 as a Second Language (TASL) 15, 29-30, 35, 52, 94, 136, 141, 172, 176, 189, 191, 224, 228 for Speakers of Other Languages (TASOL) 16, 103, 130, 168, 204-205, 220n22, 240, 242 to Heritage Learners 123, 127, 136, 158, 207, 218 to Non-Arab Speakers, or Non-Arabs 51, 59, 90, 103, 237 to Non-native Speakers 16, 51, 53, 63, 68, 78n15, 79, 103-104, 130, 165, 173, 191, 201203, 205, 207, 215, 218, 239-242, 249-250 teaching ceiling see also language, ceiling, 133 Teaching Colloquial Egyptian Arabic as a Foreign Language (TCEAFL) 15-16, 69, 198 Teaching Moroccan Arabic as a Foreign Language (TMAFL) 15-16, 198 technology 65, 123, 142, 155, 163, 166, 168, 170, 172-174, 184, 190, 195, 197-198, 204, 206, 208, 225, 232 telc gGmbH 210, 221 television 49, 69-70, 81, 92, 120, 130, 157, 166, 181, 209, 215, 218 series 70, 209 talk show 218 Terés, Elía 51n2 Terrell, Tracy 162, 179 test achievement 191 construction 16, 67, 110, 165, 201, 206, 210 design 67, 113 essay 191 language skill 49, 67-68, 117, 196 level 217 objective 67, 191 placement 117, 148, 165, 169, 201, 210 power 191 proficiency 13, 49-50, 67, 111, 117, 126, 156-157, 192, 210n17, 211, 220-221, 227, 237-245

standardized 158, 195, 202, 210 testing 13, 20, 45, 49-50, 67, 74, 126-127, 134, 145, 155-158, 165, 184, 186, 191, 196, 202, 204-211, 216, 220, 232, 237 textbook 13, 20, 46, 51, 54, 56, 58, 61, 63, 68, 70-71, 73-74, 77-78, 80, 85, 88-90, 92-94, 96-98, 104-106, 110-111, 113-114, 120-121, 125, 128, 134-140, 143, 145-148, 152-154, 157-158, 162-164, 166-167, 174, 176, 184, 190, 192-195, 198, 204-205, 207-209, 211-225, 229-230, 232-234, 238-239, 243, 245-247 design 96 drafting 13, 20, 77, 96, 125, 134, 139, 164, 205, 232, 234 evaluation 208, 216, 219, 232, 234 L1 56, 73, 78, 94, 162, 222, 230 Thailand 130, 201 theater 69, 92 theory behavioral 178 cognitive 178 monitor 180 multiple intelligences 208 speech acts 100 structural 67, 69n9, 72, 75, 79, 82-83, 108, 112, 119, 178 transformational-generative grammar 116, 178, 204 The Voice (television program) 215 Thomas, Bertram Sidney 58n8 Thorndike, Edward Lee 177 Threshold Level (T-Level) 100-101, 111, 144 Ticknor, George 32 Titone, Renzo 29 TOEFL 205 tone (language) 183 al-Tonsi, Abbas 157-158, 195, 213, 215, 244 Total Physical Response (TPR) 99, 117, 177, 185 training needs 77, 78n15, 83, 97, 100, 109, 111, 121, 127, 132, 138, 144, 150, 176-177, 179-180, 182, 199, 208, 213, 256-257 teacher t. 13, 45, 54, 63, 65-66, 73, 85, 91, 93-94, 97, 119, 128-132, 145, 150-151, 164-171, 199, 205, 208, 232, 234, 239 translation 27, 29, 74, 76, 80, 82, 92, 102, 120, 129, 143n20, 149, 191, 253 method see method, translation studies 80, 116, 185, 206, 224, 245-246 Trarza 125 Trautmann 43, 254 al-Tūmī, Muḥammad 177 Tunis 18, 29, 33n5, 36, 57, 66, 70, 76, 81, 84, 92, 95, 104-105, 111n19, 113, 115, 124, 130-131, 133, 136, 139, 144, 146-152, 159, 166, 172, 177, 194, 202, 205, 232, 237, 239, 246, 249 Tunisia 12, 14-15, 17-18, 22, 26, 32-36, 44, 47n1, 61-63, 72, 79, 81-82, 84, 91-92, 98-99, 101, 113115, 123-124, 126, 128, 131-132, 138, 140, 145-146,

Index

319

151-152, 154, 164-166, 176, 183, 188-189, 191, 197, 207, 219, 227, 230, 232-233, 244, 246, 249 history of 183 Tunisian National Institute of Education Sciences 84, 101, 114 Ṭūqān, Fawzān Aḥmad 77, 78n15 Turkey 17, 41, 72, 89, 109, 203, 205, 208, 242 Twitter 197 Tyler, Ralph 101n15

of Tripoli 64, 250 University of Jordan Language Center see Markaz ʿAmmān ʿurūba (Arabicness) 188 al-ʿUṣaylī, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz 152, 162-163, 169-170, 172, 174-180, 184-186, 191, 207, 211, 240, 247, 255-257 US Military Academy 221 al-ʿUtmānī, Yūsuf 166, 176, 194

Uganda 166, 168, 190 ʿUmar Aḥmad Muḫtār 186 ʿUmar, Maḥmūd 38 Umm al-Qura University 63, 88-89, 250 UNESCO see United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization unit Kuwait University Arabic Language unit 64, 167 Umm al-Qura TAFL unit 88, 105, 107, 110, 113 unit/credit system 100 United Arab Emirates 151, 203-205, 232, 234 University (UAEU) 204-205 United Kingdom 30, 51, 56, 65, 72n11, 73, 203, 219n20, 229 United Nations (UN) 62, 67, 238 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) 45, 87, 110, 135, 137, 161, 241 United States National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project 174 United States of America 13, 17, 41, 46-49, 51, 54, 62, 65, 67, 69, 71-75, 83, 87, 93, 111, 113, 117-118, 123, 126, 133, 143, 146-147, 155-158, 161, 163, 167-168, 174, 195, 201, 203, 220-222, 224, 229, 240, 245, 247, 251, 255, 258 Université du Québec à Montréal 175, 219n22, 242 Université Moulay Ismaïl of Meknès 205 Université Saint-Joseph 80 University of Aleppo, Francophone campus 163, 200, 217, 241, 249 of Brunei Darussalam 126 of Edinburgh 145 of Jordan 64, 77, 93, 193, 208, 216, 214, 218, 247, 250 of Leeds 185, 247 of Leipzig 205 of London 56, 147, 187, 243-244 of Madrid 56 of Malaga 205 of Michigan 54, 74, 79, 117, 126, 143, 157, 207, 244 of Minnesota 95, 110 of Pittsburgh 156, 185, 247 of Sharjah 205 of Siena 205 of Texas at Austin 49, 74, 81, 133, 155, 243-244, 247

validity (testing) 67, 191 van Ek, Jan Ate 132n10 Veccia Vaglieri, Laura 51n2 vehicular language 14, 71, 76, 102, 106, 114-115, 137, 140-141, 149, 181, 183, 193, 212, 233, 256 Vendryes, Joseph 45 Versteegh, Kees 34, 251 video 143, 190, 202, 204, 221-222 virtual reality 183 von Humboldt, Wilhelm 106 waḍʿ maqlūb 56 Wafd Party 39 Wahba, Kassem 156, 195, 199, 215, 221, 224, 225, 241-242, 247 Wālī al-ʿAlamī, Aḥmad 77-78, 96, 255 al-Wāsiṭī, Sulaymān 97 way of thinking 54, 132, 179 Wehr, Hans 51n2 white Arabic 161 WikiLeaks 197 Wilmsen, David 15 Winke, Paula 195 Wissem Arabic Language Institute (WALI) 202 Woidich, Manfred 143n20 workbook 38, 89, 116, 120, 137, 153, 193-194, 222 World Arabic Language Day 161, 204, 241 World Bank 110 World Federation of Arab Islamic International Schools (WFAIIS) 70, 98, 125 World Health Organization (WHO) 87 World TAFL Council 206 Worthen, Blaine 191 writing 30, 39, 42, 45-46, 49, 55-56, 65, 68, 71-72, 74, 76, 81, 83, 89, 96, 99, 102, 113, 115, 118, 121, 143-144, 148, 153, 157, 171-172, 186, 194, 196, 200, 213, 220, 223, 225, 231, 238, 253, 255-256 Writing Proficiency Test (WPT) 220 written composition see composition and exercise, composition Yaghan, Mohammad Ali 211n18 Yarmouk University 64, 93, 129, 131, 134, 166, 218, 238, 250 Language Center 64, 93, 129, 131, 166, 238, 250 – Exeter University program 129 – Johns Hopkins program 129

320 

Teaching Ar abic as a Foreign L anguage

– University of Virginia Arabic language program for foreigners 93, 129 Yemen 47, 197, 241 Yom Kippur War 62 Yoruba 116 Yosnan, H.Y. 218 Younes, Munther 27, 126, 133, 143, 174, 177, 215, 222, 225, 247, 258 YouTube 197, 224 Yūnis, ʿAlī Fatḥī 64, 67, 93, 96, 105-106, 113, 128n6, 212, 231, 243 Yūsuf, Lubnà 198, 217

al-Zabūn, Fawwāz 173 al-Zaǧǧāǧ 212 Zaġlūl, Saʿad 36 Zaydān, Ǧurǧī 36, 40 Zayed House for Islamic Culture (ZHIC) 204, 206, 242 Zayed University 205 Zaynī, Maḥmūd Ḥasan 89 Ziamari, Karima 215 Zinnātī, Riḥāb 205