IJAES - Vol 15 - 2014.pdf

International Journal of Arabic-English Studies (IJAES) Vol. 15, 2014 References Abbès, Ramzi, and Joseph Dichy. (2008). ‘AraConc, an Arabic concordance software based on the DIINAR. 1 language resource’. The 6th International Conference on Informatics and Systems,. Giza, Egypt. 127- 134. Alansary, Sameh, Magdy Nagi, and Noha Adly. (2007). ‘Building an international corpus of Arabic (ICA): progress of compilation stage’. The 7th International Conference on Language Engineering, Cairo, Egypt, 5–6 December 2007. 1-30. Alansary, Sameh, Magdy Nagi, and Noha Adly. (2008). ‘Towards Analyzing the International Corpus of Arabic (ICA): Progress of Morphological Stage’. 8th International Conference on Language Engineering, Egypt. 1-23. Al-Daimi, K., and Abdel-Amir, M. (1994). “The Syntactic Analysis of Arabic by Machine”. Computers and Humanities, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 29-37. Al-Sulaiti, Latifa, and Eric Atwell. (2006). ‘The design of a corpus of contemporary Arabic’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(2), 135-171. Al-Sulaiti, Latifa. (2004). Designing and developing a corpus of contemporary Arabic. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds (School of Computing), UK. Anthony, Laurence. (2005). ‘AntConc: design and development of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom.’ Professional Communication Conference, 2005. IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International. IEEE. ARCHER (A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers). (2014). Available at: http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/ARCHER/. (Accessed on 20.12.2014). Attia, Mohammed, et al. (2011). ‘Lexical Profiling for Arabic’. Proceedings of eLex: 23-33. Attia, Mohammed, Lamia Tounsi, and Josef van Genabith. (2010). ‘Automatic Lexical Resource Acquisition for Constructing an LMF- Compatible Lexicon of Modern Standard Arabic’. Technical report, The NCLT Seminar Series, DCU, Dublin, Ireland. Boella, Marco, et al. (2011). ‘The SALAH Project: segmentation and linguistic analysis of adƯ Arabic texts’. Information Retrieval Technology. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 538-549. Dukes, Kais, and Nizar Habash. (2010). ‘Morphological Annotation of Quranic Arabic’. LREC. Friz, Gerd. (2012). ‘Theories of Meaning Change: An Overview’. In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, Vol. 3. Walter de Gruyter. 2625-2651. Hajjar, Mohammad, et al. (2010). ‘An Improved Structured and Progressive Electronic Dictionary for the Arabic Language: iSPEDAL’. Internet and 151

Ismael, Yagi and Hammo Corpus Linguistic Tools for Historical Semantics ... Web Applications and Services (ICIW), Fifth International Conference on. IEEE. Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. (2011). Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki. Available at: http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corpora/HelsinkiCorpus/HC_XML .html. (Accessed 15 January 2015). Khoja, Shereen, and Roger Garside. (1999). ‘Stemming Arabic text’. Technical report, Computing Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. Khoja, Shereen. (2009). ‘An RSS feed analysis application and corpus builder’. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools, Cairo, Egypt.. 115–118. Khoja Stemmer. Available at: http://zeus.cs.pacificu.edu/shereen/research.htm. Retrieved in March. 2014. O’Donnell, Mick. (2008). ‘The UAM CorpusTool: Software for corpus annotation and exploration’. Proceedings of the XXVI Congreso de AESLA. Roberts, Andrew, Latifa Al-Sulaiti, and Eric Atwell. (2006). ‘aConCorde: Towards an open-source, extendable concordancer for Arabic’. Corpora 1.1. Sánchez-Marco, Cristina, Gemma Boleda, and Lluís Padró. (2011). ‘Extending the tool, or how to annotate historical language varieties’. Proceedings of the 5th ACL-HLT workshop on language technology for cultural heritage, social sciences, and humanities. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sharaf, Abdul-Baquee M., and Eric Atwell. (2012a). ‘QurAna: Corpus of the Quran annotated with Pronominal Anaphora’. LREC. Sharaf, Abdul-Baquee M., and Eric Atwell. (2012b). ‘QurSim: A corpus for evaluation of relatedness in short texts’. LREC. Stanford Tagger. Available at: http://nlp.stanford.edu/downloads/tagger.shtml. Retrieved in March. 2014. Toutanova, Kristina, et al. (2003). ‘Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network’. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology-Volume 1. Association for Computational Linguistics. 152

International Journal of Arabic-English Studies (IJAES) Vol. 15, 2014 Literary Studies between Theory and Fallacy Abdulla Al-Dabbagh United Arab Emirates University Abstract: While theory has long become almost indispensable to modern literary studies, fallacy is not a word that is as often heard in this context. Yet, the two are closely linked and almost all recent theory in literary studies has contained the implication that all other approaches are somehow fallacious. One of the main purposes of this study is to show that modern theoretical approaches to literature, in their different forms, and fallacies, in their variety of ways, are inextricably linked. Keywords: theory and fallacy, literary studies While theory has long become almost indispensable to modern literary studies, fallacy is not a word that is as often heard in this context. Yet, the two are closely linked and almost all recent theory in literary studies has contained the implication that all other approaches are somehow fallacious. One of the main purposes of this study is to show that modern theoretical approaches to literature, in their different forms, and fallacies, in their variety of ways, are inextricably linked. Almost all the new theoretical advances in the field have contained fallacies of their own while they condemned the fallacies of the other approaches. Indeed, one of the first developments of modern literary theory in Anglo- American literary criticism, the so-called New Criticism, took its first theoretical steps by condemning two approaches to literary studies, which it labeled as the “intentional fallacy” and the “affective fallacy,” in a well-known work by Wimsatt and Beardsley, and to which it also added the more strongly worded “heresy of paraphrase”, first announced by Cleanth Brooks. It is interesting, also, that subsequent developments in certain trends of literary studies have built on precisely those areas regarded as fallacies by New Criticism, and established theoretical approaches of their own in, for example, psycho-analytic criticism and reader-response criticism. In fact, it is so noticeable that different positions in the academic study of literature, both in theory and in practice, have contained the rejection of all other positions, that one can speak of a kind of scholarly tyranny in literary academia, which many of us have experienced. It is ironic that modern theoretical approaches in the literary field, while claiming to be rigorous and aiming at a kind of empirical validity, generally treat each other in a most prejudiced and partisan manner. The focus of this paper, however, will be on the strange phenomenon in literary studies, whereby almost 153

Abdulla Al-Dabbagh Literary Studies between Theory and Fallacy every theoretical advance in the field has contained, and indeed has been built upon, a very clear and easily identifiable, and often identified, fallacy. This observation applies to Formalism (both the Russian variety and the Anglo-American New Criticism, as well as its subsequent continuation in Structuralism and Post-Structuralism), Psycho-analytic and Myth criticism, and, finally, the so-called Postcolonial criticism. The obvious fallacy of all formalism in its denial of content (and by extension of any authorial presence) can be seen not only in the early examples of Russian Formalism and the Anglo-American New Criticism, but also in their continuation in Structuralism and Deconstruction, as expressed in their fetishization of “the text” and in their proclamation of the so-called “death of the author.” One of the clear indications of the fallaciousness of such positions can be identified in the way Russian Formalism explicitly denied any positive content and the way the New Criticism implicitly contained very strong endorsements of a reactionary content. In other words, both approaches contained a basic self- contradiction, which was their key fallacy. The Russian Formalists, in treating content as a mere element of form, opposed the kind of content demanded by the revolutionary social circumstances of Russia at the time, while the American New Critics and the British Leavisite school indirectly smuggled in the most reactionary ideas and prejudices under the cover of excluding any open discussion of ideas, whether philosophic, historical, or social, during the course of literary analysis. It is interesting that the only work that is still readable from this early period of the foundation of modern Anglo-American criticism is one that did not share its assumptions and positions (its fallacies, one might say), either in theory or in practice, namely William Empson’s Seven Types of Ambiguity (1930). While the bulk of the critical essays of Leavis and Eliot is not something that one would ever return to, Empson’s work remains a classic of modern literary criticism in the English-speaking world. The undeniable excitement that accompanied the early rise of psycho- analytic and myth criticism, inspired by the pioneering ideas of Freud and Jung, no doubt produced some interesting early work. Both approaches, however, soon proved to be barren, abortive, and more like a dead-end than a bright, new field for literary studies. In fact, the early excitement created by the introduction of Freudian and Jungian ideas was very short-lived. As early as the twenties and thirties of the last century, the pioneering figures of British modernism, both in literature and in criticism, lost all interest in Freudianism. At the same time, the new “mythic method” hailed by Eliot, in that famous, short review of Joyce’s Ulysses, as the only modern way to write novels, proved to be tellingly unprophetic. The Joycean method of mythic parallelism was, in fact, not to be duplicated at all. Similarly, the grand system of the mythic archetypal approach enshrined in Northrop Frye’s Anatomy of Criticism (1957), became more of a dead monument than a creative, new departure in literary studies. 154

International Journal of Arabic-English Studies (IJAES) Vol. 15, 2014 The key fallacy in both approaches lay in their reduction of all literary work, regardless of their varieties of form and content, to a set of abstract, artificially imposed, and far from universally accepted, patterns, such as the id- ego-superego structure and the oral-anal-phallic stages of Freudianism and the mythic archetypes of Jung and Frye. The most glaring fallacy at the heart of postcolonial criticism is that the very term “postcolonial” is so wide and so general as to be virtually meaningless. Strictly speaking, “postcolonial” would cover not only the literature of the so-called developing nations, but would extend also to cover, for example, Joseph Conrad, Irish literature, and even all post-revolutionary literature of the United States which, we may remember, was also a colony at one time. In its wide and indiscriminate usage nowadays, the term has become almost meaningless. A quick glance at the modest acquisitions of our university library in this field revealed titles like, Baltic Postcolonialism, Beyond Borders: American Literature and Post-colonial Theory, The Post-colonial Arabic Novel, The Postcolonial Body in Queer Space and Time, The Postcolonial Citizen: The Intellectual Migrant, Postcolonial Green Environment Politics and World Narratives, and Postcolonial Moves Medieval through Modern. Thus, the term postcolonial literature seems to be a very inadequate, and perhaps even pernicious, attempt to replace the term “Third World Literature” that was widely current in the sixties and seventies. Pernicious because it is demeaning, as well as false, to reduce the rich literary and cultural heritage of the nations of the three continents to the very limited colonial period of their history, and to identify and label that heritage solely by that period. Moreover, postcolonial discourse entails trivializing the divide between colonizer and colonized and diverting the current struggle against contemporary imperialism and colonialism through advocating an imaginary “third space” and a “hybrid identity” where, presumably, no such conflicts and contradictions exist. The time has come to throw this term into the dustbin of literary history, and to replace it with anti-colonial literature and anti-colonial discourse. The question that arises then is this: does the development of literary theory basically entail the progress of a succession of fallacies, or, as Eliot put it in more respectful terms, “interesting ways of being wrong”? Terry Eagleton, whose Literary Theory: An Introduction (1983) was a best-selling textbook in this field, has come out twenty years later with a book titled After Theory (2004). Both titles are misleading in one important respect: they both imply that developments in literary criticism in those few decades are the “Theory”. Literary theory has existed at least since Aristotle and has continued since in a variety of interesting ways, not only in the West, but world- wide. No study of literature and literary theory would be complete without acknowledging the contributions of, limiting ourselves now only to Western civilization, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Romanticism, Realism, and so on. 155

Abdulla Al-Dabbagh Literary Studies between Theory and Fallacy th Even in the 20 century, and in the English-speaking world, the first academic book on this subject, Theory of Literature (1949) by René Wellek and Austin Warren, predates the developments discussed by Eagleton by a few decades. Wellek, in fact, is an important figure to be mentioned in this context. His scholarly contributions in the fields of criticism, comparative literature, and the history of criticism, are unique and extensive. They follow a classical scholarly path and are not connected to, or disturbed by, one might say, any of the theories and fallacies of literary criticism current at the time. Indeed René Wellek has been one of the early critics of some of the glaring, dangerous, and destructive, as he called them, fallacies of Structuralist and Poststructuralist literary theory. He has reserved his sharpest words for Deconstruction and has aptly summed up its inadequacies, characterizing it as the most negative of all the contemporary trends in literary theory. Wellek begins his critique of Deconstruction by describing it as a “self- proclaimed revolution that embraces nihilism as it basic philosophy,” which starts with “‘the death of the author,’ long ago formulated by Roland Barthes and ends with Derrida’s famous proclamation ‘there is nothing outside the text.’” He concludes in his closely argued essay, titled “The New Nihilism in Literary Studies,” that the deconstructionists make “preposterous claims or push some arguable doctrines to absurd extremes. No self, no author, no coherent work, no relation to reality, no correct interpretation, no distinction between art and nonart, fictional or expository writing, no value judgment, and finally not truth, but only nothingness—these are negations that destroy literary studies” (49). Further, Wellek addes that other critical approaches have had some positive contributions and interesting things to say, but Deconstruction did not and was all negative. In fact, Deconstruction may be regarded as the reductio ad absurdum of all the previous theories/fallacies mentioned. It shared with them two key points, which it, in fact, intensified: anti-humanism and a general reactionary perspective. Incidentally, outside the sphere of the scholarly tyranny of the advocates of so-called “Theory,” there has developed a fairly wide recognition (and explicit or implicit condemnation) of this clear anti-humanist content of Western postmodernist literary as well as philosophic approaches, seen for example in the work of Eric Hobsbaw. Such a recognition was endorsed, for example, by M. H. Abrams, in his classic literary dictionary, A Glossary of Literary Terms (1999), where he says: “It is notable that a number of structuralist and poststructuralist philosophical and critical theories are expressly antihumanistic, not only in the sense that they undertake to subvert many of the values proposed by traditional humanism, but in the more radical sense that they undertake to “decenter” or eliminate entirely the focus on the human being, or subject, as the major object of study and the major agency in effecting scientific, cultural, and literary achievements.”(118). Moreover, this reactionary outlook was of the most pernicious kind, one that verged towards the extremes of fascism and racism. Deconstruction stands 156

International Journal of Arabic-English Studies (IJAES) Vol. 15, 2014 vis-à-vis the earlier trends of New Criticism where postmodernism stands vis-à- vis modernism, the latter being a more intensified form of the former. It becomes understandable for the condemnation of the whole postmodernist “project” to lead to the condemnation of the whole culture that “produced” it, as in the controversial words of someone like Ziauddin Sardar in his Postmodernism and the Other: The New Imperialism of Western Culture (1998), where he says: “In its most oppressive and totalitarian phase as postmodernism, western civilization wants to drown the globe in the absolute blackness of its vision. Postmodernism continues the exponential expansion of colonialism and modernity. It is a worldview based on that pathological condition of the west, which has always defined reality and truth as its reality and truth, but now that this position cannot be sustained it seeks to maintain the status quo and continue unchecked in its trajectory of consumption of the Other by undermining all criteria of reality and truth” (40). Some of the key elements of the reactionary fallacies of modern literary theory lie in a) the fetishization of “the Text,” b) the attack on historicism, and c) the rejection of so-called grand narratives. The first amounts to cutting off all links between the literary text and the real world, the second severs all connection between literature and history, and the third dismisses the whole project of the European Enlightenment over the last two or three centuries, as well as the modern culmination of that project in liberal democracy and in a model society. The inevitable unacceptability of these fallacies and their ultimate degeneration into the incomprehensible jargon of a pseudo-scientific, abstruse but empty, theorizing was brilliantly exposed as sheer charlatanism and intellectual confidence trickery by Alan Sokal, in his famous Social Text hoax article that was later expanded into a full-length book written with Jean Bricmont, titled Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science (1998), and first published in France as Impostures Intellectuelles (1997). It is ironic that post-colonial discourse may be seen as a kind of neo- orientalism. Or, perhaps it is not so ironic, considering that Said himself may be regarded, at least in the initial phases of his career, as a kind of “orientalist,” in the same Saidian, negative sense. It is the nature of the task of literary studies and literary research to study genres, movements, themes, and motifs universally and across time and space in the whole world and in every culture. Any artificial limitation of this space is bound to lead to prejudice and ethno-centrism and even outmoded rivalries, such as between English and French, a la the world republic of letters of Pascal th Casanova, which harks back to the 19 century, with its competition between English and French colonialism and their respective spheres of cultural influence. Postmodernist and postcolonial critics who love to emphasize what they call “Difference” and the “Other” are gently condemned by the sounder cross- cultural approach of someone like Jorge Luis Borges, when he says: “We love 157

Abdulla Al-Dabbagh Literary Studies between Theory and Fallacy over-emphasizing our little differences, our hatreds, and that is wrong. If humanity is to be saved, we must focus on our affinities, the points of contact with all other human beings; by all means we must avoid accentuating our differences.” The question is raised on how capitalism and the capitalist world system are related to postcolonial studies. Those who criticize globalization and the contemporary phase of capitalism, like Myoshi, Dirlik, and others, do so openly and directly. Those who support them, however, do so indirectly and through different strategies, such as claiming an objective study of world systems, or selecting certain phenomena and terms like hybridity, Diaspora, across borders, and so on, in order to marginalize or dismiss the colonizer-colonized dichotomy and implicitly defend the existing globalized system. Such a defense is also at the heart of the pioneering ideas of Edward Said and Homi Bhabha in what was later to be dubbed “postcolonial studies.” There is probably no choice here. One either has to accept the so-called “postcolonial theory” or reject it. Many, of course, have rejected it and did so at the very early stages. Although many also continued to use it or pay lip service to it. In recent books with titles like Rerouting the Postcolonial (2010), After Theory (2004), and Theory after ‘Theory’ (2011) there is the increasing recognition, in different degrees, and in different ways, that the time has come not only to go beyond the term postcolonial, but also beyond literary theory as a whole, as it is conventionally understood. Abdulla Al-Dabbagh Department of English Literature College of Humanities & Social Sciences UAE University P.O. Box 15551, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates Phone : (+) 971 3 7136412 Email:[email protected] 158

International Journal of Arabic-English Studies (IJAES) Vol. 15, 2014 References Abrams, M. H. (1999). A Glossary of Literary Terms. New York: Hartcourt. Brooks, Cleanth. (1947). The Well-Wrought Urn: Studies in the Structure of Poetry. New York: Hartcourt. Eagleton, Terry. (1983). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Eagleton, Terry. (2004). After Theory. London: Allen Lane. Elliott, Jane and Derek Artridge (eds.) (2011). Theory after ‘Theory’. London: Routledge. Empson, William. (1930). Seven Types of Ambiguity. New York: Riverhead. Frye, Northrop. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hobsbawm, Eric. (1997). On History. London: Weidensfeld and Nicholson (especially Chapter One: “The New Threat to History”). Sardar, Ziauddin. (1998). Postmodernism and the Other: The New Imperialism of Western Culture. London: Pluto Press. Sokal, Alan and Jean Bricmont. (1998). Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. New York: Picador. Wellek, René. (1990). “The New Nihilism in Literary Studies,” in Francois Jost (ed.) Aesthetics and the Literature of Ideas: Essays in Honor of A. Owen Aldridge. University of Delaware Press. Wellek, René and Austin Warren. (1949). Theory of Literature. London: Jonathan Cape. Wilson, Janet, Cristina Sandru and Sarah Lawson Welsh (eds.). (2010). Rerouting the Postcolonial: New Directions for the New Millennium. London: Routledge. Wimsatt, W.K., Jr. and Monroe C. Beardsley. (1954). The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press. 159

Abdulla Al-Dabbagh Literary Studies between Theory and Fallacy 160

International Journal of Arabic-English Studies (IJAES) Vol. 15, 2014 Authors' Guide Length of Manuscript 1. Articles should normally be no longer than 9,000 words. 2. Book Reviews should be in the range of 500– 750 words. 3. Notes and Discussion should normally be no longer than 2000 words. No abstract is required for such pieces of writing. Abstracts A short abstract of up to 200 words should appear on the first page. The Abstract should be followed by a line showing Keywords (no more than 6 words) Submission of Manuscript Manuscripts submitted for publication in IJAES should not have been published previously or be under consideration for publication elsewhere in any form. Articles should be sent as email. Contributors are kindly requested to observe the following: 1. Do not send your article in the body of an email. Send it only as an attachment. 2. We can only accept attachments which are formatted as Microsoft Word document, with a file name yourname.doc, e.g. Hamdan.com 3. Please send two attachments. The one called yourname1.doc, e.g. Hamdan1.doc should contain your full name, rank, affiliation, postal and email address, fax number, and the title of your article; the other attachment called yourname2.doc, e.g. Hamdan2.doc should contain only the article without any reference to you, the author. This is the text that will be used for our blind reviewing process. Style Authors are particularly requested to observe the conventions listed below. 1. References Please give full bibliographical details of references and list them in alphabetical order of author, following the style of the examples given below. Only references mentioned in the text should appear in the list of references at the end of the article (bibliography). Books o Author’s surname are followed by comma and first name (and full points) in bold, with a word space between two or more first names/initials. Initials of first names are used only if they appear as such on the original work. o Spell out first names of authors and editors where known. 161

Authors’ Guide and Transliteration Symbols o For books with more than one author, the first names and/or initials come first on second, third, etc. authors. o Date is enclosed between parentheses followed by a full point. o Authors with two books in same year should be labeled a and b, on the basis of the alphabetical order of the title (immediately after date, no space, e.g. 1991a). o Book titles (in Roman) should appear in italic; main words have initial capitals including subtitles. Little, Arthur L., Jr. (2000). Shakespeare’s Jungle Fever: National-Imperial Revisions of Rape, Race and Sacrifice. Stanford: Stanford UP. Bloor, Thomas and Meriel Bloor. (1995). The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Arnold. Articles o Titles of journal articles appear in Roman with single inverted commas. o First word only has initial capitals except for names: Subtitles also start with a capital letter. o Full point is provided after the final inverted comma. o If an entry is a paper from an edited collection, put the title in Roman with single inverted commas. o Journal titles are in italic, followed by a comma; main words have initial capitals o Please check that all details have been included: volume, issue (if available), page numbers. Edmonds, Philip and Graeme Hirst. (2002). 'Near-synonymy and lexical choice'. Computational Linguistics, 28 (2):105-144. Edited books o If an edited book is referred to several times, put the full details as a separate entry with just authors and dates elsewhere; however, o If it is referred to only once, put the full details with the entry for the paper. o Please check that all works referred to have their full details somewhere. Moon, Rosamund. (1998). 'Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English'. In Anthony Cowie (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications, 79-100. Oxford: OUP. Sapir, Edward (1929). ‘The status of linguistics as a science’. Language, 5:207–14. Reprinted in David Mandelbaum (ed.), Selected Writings of Edward Sapir, 160– 66. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949. 162

International Journal of Arabic-English Studies (IJAES) Vol. 15, 2014 Dissertation Zabin, Aseel. (2013). The acquisition of metaphoric expressions by Jordanian EFL Learners. Unpublished MA Thesis, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan. Internet sources Little, David. (2009). The European Language Portfolio: Where pedagogy and assessment meet. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Language Policy Division. Document DGIV EDU Lang (2009) 19. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/elp/ (Retrieved on 14 March, 2015) Bibliographical references in the text x References are to be made in the text by giving in parentheses the name of the author, year of publication, and, where relevant, the page(s) referred to: (Setecka 2004:5-18). If the author’s name is part of the text, use the form: Setecka (2004:11) maintained that . . . . o No comma between author’s name and date. o Separate works referred to in the same parentheses should be in chronological order: (Whitney 1967; Hymes 1981). Separate them with semicolons as follows: (Fisiak 1985; Wenden 1986; Swain 1995). Initials should be used before an author’s name only when an article refers to more than one author with the same surname o When a work written by two or more authors is referred to, all names should be given in the first citation: (Weinreich, Labov and Herzog 1968). In later citations, use an abbreviated form: (Weinreich et al. 1968). o If more than one work was published in the same year, list these alphabetically by author’s name as follows: (Farghal 1985; Fisiak 1985; Asfour 1994; Bakir 1994; Atari 2004; Malzahn 2004) 2. Headings and subheadings o No more than three levels of heading below the title. o Headings should be numbered consecutively using Arabic numerals and so should subheadings (e.g. 2.1.1; 2.2.1; 2.3.1; etc.) o In headings and subheadings first word only has initial capitals. 3. Footnotes o Short notes can appear in the text within brackets. o There will be no footnotes on individual pages. o Longer notes should be collected together at the end of the article. Please number notes consecutively; use Arabic numerals and give clear superscript numbers in the appropriate places. 4. Paragraphs and long quotations o No line space should be left between paragraphs. 163

Authors’ Guide and Transliteration Symbols o The first line of new paragraphs should be indented, except straight after a heading. o Quotations of more than three lines should be displayed and indented. Check that page numbers of the source have been provided. 5. Tables and figures Tables and Figures should be inserted in the text. A separate file is also useful. Each Figure and Table should be clearly labeled with number and caption. They should be numbered Figure 1, Figure 2, Table 1, Table 2, etc. Transliteration Symbols for Arabic Vowels and Some Consonants Arabic Alphabet Symbol Example Meaning ˯ ᢺ ᢺamal hope c Ι th tha lab fox Ν j jamal camel Ρ h hub love Υ kh khubz bread Ϋ dh dhahab gold ί z zayt oil ε sh shams sun ι s sayf summer ν d dayf guest ρ t ti:n mud υ TH THuhr noon ω c c abd slave ύ gh gharb west ϕ q qalam pencil ˴ϭ w ward rose ˴ϱ y yawm day ˴ ( ΔΤΘϓ ) a kataba he wrote ˵ ( ΔϤο ) u kutub books ˶ ( Γήδϛ ) i sin tooth ΍ / ϯ ϞϳϮσ Ϊϣ a: ka:tib writer ϭ ΔϠϳϮσ ΔϤο u: fu:l beans ϱ ΔϠϳϮσ Γήδϛ i: fi:l elephant Diphthongs aw mawt death ( ΔΒϛήϣ ΔϠϋ Ε΍Ϯλ΃) ay bayt house 164