Maktab al-daa´im li 'l-ta`riib ('Permanent Bureau for Arabicization') and the
Algerian al-Majlis al-a`laa .... 791), who in his famous Kitaab al-`Ayn – the first.
MODERN PHONETIC TERMINOLOGY IN ARABIC : TRANSLATION AND EQUIVALENCE Daniel L. Newman Institut Supérieur de Traducteurs et Interprètes 34, rue Joseph Hazard 1180 Brussels Belgium 1. Introduction (1)
exicography in general, and terminology in particular have in recent years been the object of a constantly increasing body of scientific research. Specialized terminology in Arabic, in particular, has been beset by what at times seems to be an intractable lack of unification, commonly attributed to practical reasons such as the vastness of the speech community and linguistic factors such as diglossia. It is clear to even the casual observer that the absence of unified terminology affects almost every branch of science and even the most basic concepts. Indeed, even ‘terminology’ itself does not escape inconsistency, with `ilm al-muSTalaHaat, al-iSTilaaHiyaa, al-muSTalaHiyya all vying for precedence and, more worryingly, often being used interchangeably. Despite (or perhaps because of) the existence of several Arabic Language Academies (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Syria) – to which one should add various ‘unofficial’ academies like the Moroccan alMaktab al-daa´im li ‘l-ta`riib (‘Permanent Bureau for Arabicization’) and the Algerian al-Majlis al-a`laa li ‘l-lugha al-`Arabiyya (‘High Council of the Arabic Language’) - all attempts at constituting unified scientific terminology have to date failed miserably. If anything, the terminological chaos has grown, with what must undoubtedly be a record, at least in the field of phonetics, of 13 ( !) terms to denote the word ‘phoneme’ (with ‘phonology’ coming a close second with 11). The stakes are considerable since science, unlike literature, does not brook lexical ambiguity or inconsistency. Indeed, as the terminological inconsistency continues to grow unstintingly and exponentially with the advances in technology, this issue is, quite simply, the single-most important contemporary challenge facing Arabic. In an article entitled «Qu´advient-il des recommandations du Congrès d´Alger sur l´unification des terms scientifiques arabes?», A. El Ayed almost three decades ago reported on the various factors involved in the absence of a unified scientific terminology in Arabic. Then, as now, the reader’s answer to the question posited in the title of the article would have to be ‘very little’.
Aside from the inconsistency of dictionary makers, there is the equally damaging inconsistency of the terminology users themselves, whether they be scholars, technicians, etc. Indeed, it is clear that the primary responsibility for de facto unification lies with the latter since it is they, and they alone, who have the power of dissemination. The reality is, however, quite different. Inconsistencies abound at every level, with specialized dictionaries, the overwhelming majority of which run counter prevailing standards and practice of modern specialized lexicography as they are exclusively noncorpus based, seemingly aiming for thesaurus status, whereas the ‘terminology practitioners’ continue to coin their own neologisms often without any underlying rationale or aspiration for consistency. It is not, for instance, unusual to find the same author using
52
Revue Campus N°9
different terms for the same concept. That is not to say that the debate has not continued; quite the contrary. Every year there are calls for a unified Arabic Academy, or at least a consultation between the various academies.
Unfortunately, recommendations are only as good as their implementation and for various reasons, both practical and linguistic, we have yet to see a remedy for this most intractable issue. At the same time, the debate has become bound up with another question that preoccupies Arabic lexicographers and lexicologists alike, i.e. that of the influence of European borrowings on Arabic.40 (2) Indeed, partly because of the slowness with which Arabic Academies propose new coinings, partly because of a perception of excessive conservatism on the part of the Academies, partly because of the confusion resulting from different terms being suggested for identical concepts from Morocco to Syria, partly because of the vast numbers of scholars educated at European and North American universities, scientific terminology in use reveals a high degree of foreign influence. To this should be added that in a majority of Arabic countries (Syria being the notable exception), many scientific courses at university are still today – many decades after decolonization - taught in a European language – French in, for instance, Algeria and Tunisia, English in Egypt. While this is often adduced as being an obstacle, it is further proof of the absence of any semblance of a coherent policy predicated on a real will to arrive at a truly Arabic unified terminology. In addition, it has led to far more serious practical difficulties with, for instance, medical doctors being almost functionally illiterate in Arabic and thus unable to communicate with their patients in a wholly-Arabic environment, which is the one they are most likely to be faced with. One should hasten to add, however, that the question of expertise of the users is, of course, not limited to Arabic, though it does not perhaps manifest itself in quite the same way and magnitude. As M. Van Campenhoudt correctly points out, “l’analyse de corpus écrits ou oraux – en dehors de situations didactiques – montre que les spécialistes ne maîtrisent pas toujours parfaitement la terminologie de leur domaine et communiquent en utilisant des termes trop génériques, flous ou inadéquats.” (M. Van Campenhoudt 2001: 185-6). When talking about ‘top-down’ terminology creation, it is difficult not to talk about France, and the activities of its Académie française. But even this august institution, for all its efforts and the massive support it enjoys from the authorities, with France being the only country in Europe to actually legislate for linguistic usage, has been unable to stem the flow of foreign intrusions altogether. Yet, it must be said that in the scientific field it has succeeded where many other European languages have failed, i.e. it has played a crucial role in establishing a unified ‘native’ terminology, which is also actually in use. Naturally, one should guard against representing the French approach as a model. For a start, to any linguist the idea of legislating language use is nothing short of anathema. Secondly, the linguistic realities of Arabic are very different; France is a sovereign state that counts a mere 56 million inhabitants, whereas Arabic is spoken in more than twenty states by nearly 190 million people. Steering clear from French protectionism (France is after all also the only country to have quotas for the number of foreign films that can be shown on television and foreign songs that can be played on the radio), one should not altogether dismiss the French example as it does shows that the prerequisite for success is a coherent approach and a, to some extent, self-imposed drive for consistency on the part of the terminology users. In the course of this paper, we shall examine the way in which modern phonetic terminology has been translated into Arabic.
53
Revue Campus N°9
2. Corpus The corpus consists of two subcorpora ; one containing lemmata culled from dictionaries (eleven in all) and another with terminology collected from Arabic scholarly works on linguistics and phonetics (five in total), both modern and classical (3). With regard to the dictionaries, it is worth pointing out that the corpus includes both specialized and general bilingual dictionaries. General bilingual dictionaries were included in this study since they are used by specialists and laymen alike and thus also play a part within the ‘terminology chain’. Still with regard to the dictionaries, it is politic to make a distinction between active and passive translation dictionaries (see e.g. Krohmann 1984). This is predicated on the purpose of use; the ‘passive’ bilingual dictionary is intended to assist translation from a less to a more familiar language, i.e. primarily for comprehension, whereas the opposite is true for the ‘active’ counterpart, whose primary aim is production. In our corpus, the passive dictionaries are Wehr 1979 (Arabic-English), Baalbaki 1999 (English-Arabic), Mounged 1989 (French-Arabic), with the active category being represented by al-Hamzawi 1987 (Arabic-French) and Qitout 2001 (French-Arabic/Arabic-French). The choice of the non-specialized dictionaries was determined by their reference status for the languages concerned. The aim of the second corpus is related to some of the comments made earlier regarding the dissemination of terminology by the users (rather than by lexicographers), in this case contemporary Arab linguists and phoneticians.
The words that make up the list (an extract of which is appended at the end of this paper) are part of what may be considered basic phonetic terminology, with an emphasis on articulatory phonetics in order to avoid too much personal bias. They were divided into two categories in accordance with the two corpora used. 3. Results and Discussion
The total number of (English) entries amounted to 130, which yielded 410 Arabic terms (278 from the dictionaries, 132 from the ‘practitioners’). Of the number found in dictionairies, 209 were attested in only 1 dictionary, with the practitioner category counting 98 unique occurrences. Only 74 terms were common to both corpora. In light of the above discussion these figures should not come as a surprise and are consistent with earlier findings (cf. H. Darir 1993). More worrying, however, is the fact that in the case of the dictionaries, there are 64 cases in which two or more terms are given, whereas in the scholars’ works the number of multiple terms to denote the same concept is 15.
In terms of form, the entries in the list represent nearly all the basic morphosyntactic and morphosemantic lexicalization devices of Arabic, which may be summed up as follows : 1. rejuvenation or resuscitation of archaic words, combined with semantic extension (istinbaaT): e.g. jariida (‘palm branch stripped of leaves’ Æ ‘writing scroll’ Æ ‘newspaper’). 2. Analogical root derivation (ishtiqaaq, qiyaas): e.g. makhraj (‘place where something exits’). 3. Compounding (naht): - a. nominal compounding: e.g. thinsaa´it (diphthong’); - b. prepositional compounding: e.g. baynasnaanii (‘interdental’); - c. adjectival compounding: e.g. qaabil li’l-shifaa´ (‘curable’); - d. blending: e.g. basmala (to say bi ´smi ´illah al-raHmaan al-raHiim). 4. Calquing / loan translation (ta`riib al-asaaliib): e.g. Darbat al-mizmaar (‘coup de glotte’). 5. Direct borrowing (ta`riib): 54
Revue Campus N°9
a. arabicization (the transposed forms do not comply with phonotactic constraints): e.g. fuuniim;
b. hybridization (a foreign affix is added to an Arabic base): e.g. Sawtam (‘phoneme’), biyuuTibbiyya (‘biotechnology’) In addition to examples of the above mechanisms, the corpus contains a number of so-called ‘heritage’ (turaath) terms, i.e. from classical Arabic grammar. At this juncture it is important to point out that phonetic terminology has a long history in Arabic in whose extended linguistic tradition it occupied a key part. Indeed, Arab grammarians were often also formidable phoneticians. At this juncture, it is interesting to take a look at some of the relevant coinings of mediaeval Arab linguists. The first description of sound production was given by the Basran philologist Al-Khalil b. Ahmad al-Farahidi (d. 791), who in his famous Kitaab al-`Ayn – the first dictionary of Arabic - identified a number of ‘articulation regions or locales’ (Hayyiz) within the oropharyngeal tract, with each letter/sound having its own ‘place of exit’ (makhraj) (4) : 1. throat sounds (Huruuf al-khalq): `, H, h, gh, kh; 2. uvular (+ velar) sounds (Huruuf lahawiyya) : q, k ; 3. side (of the mouth) sounds (Huruuf shajriyya) : j, sh, D ; 4. apical sounds (Huruuf asaliyya) : S, s, z ; 5. prepalatal sounds (Huruuf niT`iyya) : T, d, t ; 6. gingival sounds (Huruuf lathawiyya) : Z, dh, th ; 7. tongue-tip sounds (Huruuf dhalqiyya) : r, l, n ; 8. labial sounds (Huruuf shafawiyya) : f, b, m ; 9. pectoral sounds (Huruuf jawfiyya) : w, uu, y, ii, aa, ?. This subdivision remained canonical inasmuch as very little substantial changes were made to the system, though his pupil, the great Sibawayh (d. 793), whose al-Kitaab (‘The Book’) was the first detailed account of the Arabic language (5), refined the system (1999 : IV, 573), adding the number of places of articulation to sixteen. (6) Abu Mansur al-Azhari’s treatise on phonetics which preceded his dictionary, Tahdhib al-lugha (9th c.), was, to a large extent, a copy of al-Khalil’s system (al-Azhari 1964 : I, 41-54) (7), albeit with some minor permutations : Huruuf Halqiyya : `, H, h, kh, gh ; Huruuf lahawiyya : q, k ; Huruuf shajriyya : j, sh, D ; Huruuf asaliyya : S, s, z ; Huruuf niT`iyya : T, d, t ; Huruuf lithawiyya : Z, dh, th ; Huruuf dhawlaqiyya : l, r, n ; Huruuf shafawiyya : f, b, m ; Huruuf hawaa´iyya : w, aa, ii, ?. The Mosul-born Ibn Jinni (d. 1001), for his part, retained of his predecessors the following (8): 1. Throat sounds (Huruuf al-khalq): ?, `, H, h, gh, kh; 2. dorsal sounds (Huruuf aqSaa ‘l-lisaan): q, k, j ; 3. mid-tongue sounds (Huruuf wasaT al-fam) : sh, y, D ; 4. apical sounds (Huruuf dhalaaqa) : l, r, n ; 5. labial sounds (Huruuf shafahiyya) : f, b, m, w. In addition to the above terms, the corpus also includes other classical terms such as majhuur/ mahmuus, rikhw (rakhw), idghaam, Sawt saakin, shadiid.
It is equally interesting to point out that some of the coinings found in the translation by the Tunisian scholar Sulayman al-Hara’iri of Lhomond’s French grammar (1857), which contains the earliest phonetic description of a foreign language in French-inspired terms, also appear in the corpus, some with the same meaning (e.g. mughlaq for a closed vowel, maftuuH for a closed vowel), others with transferred meaning (e.g. Saamit, which al-Hara’iri used to denote ‘muet’, but which appears in the corpus as ‘consonant’).
55
Revue Campus N°9
5. Summary and conclusions
The above clearly bears out the earlier comments regarding the huge inconsistencies both on the part of lexicographers/terminographers/terminologists and scholars. One may well wonder how this problem can and should be tackled. It seems to me that coherence is vital, but unfortunately this relies on a rigour on the part of the users and terminologists alike which is clearly lacking. While it is difficult to disagree with H. Darir (1993) who states that ‘what is needed is a framework’, the solution offered of ‘on the one hand,
on awzan al-mushtaqqat and, on the other hand, a system of affixation like that of European languages for instance’ skips one obvious stage. Indeed, Arabic is fortunate to have an existing terminological framework in the classical texts. But again the precondition is a coherent approach to the transference of meaning from the old terms to denote new concepts. At the risk of stating the obvious it is a question of using what is already available, with additions, at need, based in Arabic-based extension mechanisms, which may include foreign-based suffixation, but should exclude outright borrowing. The problem bedevilling modern Arabic scientific terminology is not, however, the making of choices, but the sticking to one as invariably the question will be ‘which one ?’. Dictionaries
(9)
Practitioners (10)
`ilm al-aSwaat al-fiiziyaa´ii (H) - (Sh) al-sam`iyyaat (M) - (B) diraasat al-mawjaat al-Sawtiyya al-lughawiyya (H)Sawtiyyat samaa`iyya (I) `ilm al-sam`iyyaat (Kh, Bk, Q) `ilm al-aSwaat (al-fiiziyaa´ii) (L, AL) fiiziyaa´ al-aSwaat (Bk) `ilm al-aSwaat (Mw, M) al-Sam`aniyya (Mw) `ilm al-sawtiyyaat (Mj) `ilm al-Sawt (Mj) `ilm al-aSwaat al-akuustiikii (H) akuustiik (L) allophone allufun (L, Kh) - (L, Sh, Has) Sawtam ta`aamulii (M) mutaghayyira Sawti (Sh) badal Sawtii (AL) tanawwu` (min al-waHda alSawtiyya) (Sh) badiil Sawtii aw lafZii (Bk) badiil (I) Suura Sawtiyya (Q) `awD (I) Sawt mantuuq (H) alveolar lithawii (Q, Bk, L, AL) - (B, Has, F, I, IJ, AZ, Khal) lithawiyya asnaaniyya (H) Maghaarizii (H) apex (tongue) asalat al-lisaan (Q, H, L, AL, Bk) - (B, I) Taraf al-lisaan (Sh) assimilation mumaathala (Kh, Bk, L) - (Sh) tamaathul (H, Bk) - (I) idghaam (M, Bk, Q, H) - (IJ, Sib, Khal, AZ) acoustics
56
Revue Campus N°9
consonant diphthong
ibdaal qiyaasii (H) taqriib Sawtii (L) mushaakfa (L) mujaawara (Bk) Sawt sakin (H) Harf (Q, Bk, AL) Samita (Q) Saa´it thunaa´ii (Kh, Bk) haraka muzdawija (M, Q) Sawt murakkab (H) Sawt Sa´it murakkab (H)
thinSaa´it (Kh) muSawwit muzdawij (AL) saa´it muzdawij (Bk) glottis mizmaar (Kh, Bk, Q, M) futHat al-mizmar (AL, L) zardama (Kh, Bk) glottal Hanjarii (Kh, Bk, AL, L) mizmaarii (Q, M, Bk) zarmadii (Bk) fi ‘l-Hanjara (Bk) phonation taSwiit (Q, Bk, L, AL) phone Sawt kalamii (Bk, Mw, Kh) Sawt kalaamii (L) Sawt lughawii (Kh) Sawt (M) iSaata (AL) Sawt muhaSSal (AL) waHdat al-Sawt (Mj) waHdat qiyaas al-Sawt (Mj( phoneme funiim (Bk, H, Kh) Sawtam (Q) waHda Sawtiyya (AL) waHda Sawtiyya Sughra (Bk) Sawtam lughawi (H, Mj) funiima (Mw) funiimiyya (Kh) Sawtim (Kh) Sawt mujarrad (Kh) Harf Sawtii (AL) LafiZ (Bk) phonetician aSwaatii (Mw, Mj, Q) `aalim Sawtii (Mj) `aalim al-aSwaat (Mj) `aalim al-Sawtiyyaat (Jn) phonetics Sawtiyyaat (Kh, Mj, M, Q, AL, L) `ilm al-aSwaat (Mj, Kh, M, AL, Q, L) `ilm makhaarij al-Huruuf (Mj)
57
Saamit (Has, Sh) - (I, B, B2) Haraka thunaa´iyya (Sh) Haraka muzdawija (Sh) Sa´it murakkab (L) Haraka murakkaba muzdawija (I)
- (Has, Sh) - (Sh, Has, I) aqSaa Halqii (B) - (B, IJ, I)
- (L, Sh, Has) - (B, I) - (Has) - (Sh) lafZ (VM) mutaSwit (Bk)
- (B, I)
- (I) - (B, Sh) `uluum al-Sawtiyya (B) aSwaatiyya (B) Revue Campus N°9
phonology
`ilm al-fuuniimaat (Kh)
uvula
Sawtamiyya (Q, M) fuunuuluujiyaa (Mw, L) Sawtiyyaat waZiifiyya (AL) Siwaata (Bk) `ilm waZaa´if al-aSwaat (Bk) `ilm al-nuTqiyyaat (Mj) `ilm al-aSwaat al-kalamiyya (Mw) Sawtiyya´ (Mw) Safiirii (Q, AL, L, Bk, Mw) Harf al-Safiir (W, Mw) Dhuu Safiir (Mj) maqTa` (Kh, L, L, Bk, Mw, Mj, W) maqTa` Sawti (AL) manTuuq (L) kalaam (Bk, AL) Hadiith (Bk, AL) qawl (Bk, Kh) nuTq (Kh) manTuuqa (Bk) ibaara (Bk) malfuuZ (M) Hadath al-kalzam (Q) lahaa (Q, Mw, L, AL, Bk, Mj)
vowel
Haraka (Mw, Mj, VM, M, Q)
sibilant syllable utterance
Saa´it (Bk, L, Kh) Saa´ita (Q) MuSawwit (Kh, Bk) Sawt al-liin (H) Sawt layyin (H)
`ilm al-aSwaat al-tashkiilii (Sh) - (B, I)
- (B, B2, I) Saamit Safiirii (Sh) Saamit al-Safiir (Sh) maqTa` (Sh, I, B) manTuuq (Sh) - (Has) lafZ (B, I)
- (Sh, Has, F, I, Sib, Khal, AZ, IJ) GhalSama (Sh) Haraka (Sh, B, Has, I, Sib, Khal, AZ, IJ) - (Sh)
Notes (1) For typographical reasons, no diacritical marks have been used in this paper. The transcription symbols are as follows: p (voiceless bilabial plosive), b (voiced bilabial plosive), t (voiceless dental plosive), d (voiced dental plosive), k (voiceless velar plosive), q (voiceless uvular plosive), ? (voiceless glottal plosive), f (voiceless labiodental fricative), s (voiceless alveolar fricative), z (voiced alveolar fricative), sh (voiceless palatoalveolar fricative), kh (voiceless velar fricative), gh (voiced uvular fricative), H (voiceless pharyngeal fricative), h (voiceless glottal fricative), j (voiced palatoalveolar affricate), r (voiced dental trill), l (voiced dental lateral), m (bilabial nasal), n (denti-alveolar nasal), j (voiced palatal approximant), w voiced labial-velar approximant). The so-called ‘emphatic’ (velarized) sounds are transcribed by capitals: S, T, D, Z. Proper nouns appear in their common anglicized forms: e.g. al-Khalil, rather than al-Khaliil. (2) See, for instance, D. Newman 2002. (3) These are: Shahin n.d.; al-Bakkush 1994; A. Ibrahim n.d.; M. K. Fayed 2001; M.H. Abd al-Aziz 1990 Theclassical works are those by Sibawayh, Ibn Jinni, al-Khalil and al-Azhari.
58
Revue Campus N°9
(4) As we are exclusively concerned with specific terminology here, we shall not go into the highly detailed qualification of these sounds by the grammarians. For more information, see, for instance, ElSaaran 1951; H. Fleish 1949, 1958; A. Roman 1977; S. I. Sara 1993, 1998. (5) In fact, Sibawayh’s work may be considered the first Arabic ‘book’ since al-Khalil’s Kitab al-`Ayn only surfaced ninety years later, which has, of course, given rise to much debate about its authorship. Whatever the case may be, there seems to be little doubt that the ideas are al-Khalil’s. (6) For a detailed study of the phonetics of Sibawayh, see A. al-Nassir 1993. (7) Also see S. I. Sara1998. (8) See M. Bakallah 1981; H. Fleisch 1958.. (9) The abbreviations used are: H (al-Hamzawi), Q (Qitout), Bk (Baraké), L (Bakallah) Mw (Mawrid), Mj (Mounjed), Kh (al-Khuli); AL (Arab League). (10) The abbreviations used are: B (al-Bakkush 1994), B2 (al-Bakkush 1992); Sh (Shahin); Has (M. H. `Abd al-Aziz); IJ (Ibn Jinni), Khal (Khalil), Sib (Sibawayh), AZ (al-Azhari). Bibliography `Abd al-Aziz, Muhammad Hasan (1988) : Madhkal ila ‘lugha, Cairo : Dar al-Fikr al-Arabi. Al-Azhari, Abu Mansur (1964) : Tahdhib al-lugha, ed. `Abd al-Salam Harun & M. `Ali al-Najjar, 15 vols, Cairo : al-Dar al-Misriyya li ‘l-ta´lif wa ‘l-nashr. Al-Hara´iri, Sulayman (1857) : Grammaire française de Lhomond traduite en arabe, Paris : Benjamin Duprat. Ali, Abdul Sahib Mehdi (1987): A linguistic study of the development of scientific vocabulary in Standard Arabic, London: Kegan Paul. Al-Khalil, Ibn Ahmad (1967-85): Kitab al-`Ayn, ed. M. al-Makhzumi, I. al-Samarrai´I, 8 vols, Baghdad: Dar al-Rashid. Al-Khuli, Muhammad Ali (1982): A dictionary of theoretical linguistics, Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Al-Nassir, A. A. (1993) : Sibawyh the phonologist. A critical study of the phonetic and phonological theory of Sibawayh a presented in his treatise Al-Kitab, London/New York : Kegan Paul.al-Shihabi, Mustafa (1966): al-Mustalahat al-`ilmiyya fi ‘l-lugha al-`Arabiyya, Damascus. Arab League Educational and Scientific Organization (1989): Unified dictionary of linguistic terms, Tunis: Arab League Educational Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO). Ba`albakki, Munir (1999): al-Mawrid, Beirut: Dar al-`ilm li ‘l-malayin. Badawi, Mohamed (1997) : Probleme des Fachwortschatzes im Arabischen dargestellt insbesondere an der Terminologie der Teleinformatik, Hildeshei: Geor Olms Verlag. Bakallah, M. H. (1981) : A chapter from the history of Arabic linguistics. Ibn Jinni : an early Arab Muslim phonetician. An interpretive study of his life and contribution to linguistics, London/Taipei. Bakalla M. et al. (1983) : A dictionary of modern linguistic terms, Beirut : Librairie du Liban. Al-Bakkush, al-Tayyib (trans.) (1994) : Mafatih al-alsuiniyya, Tunis : Manshurat Sa`idan. Al-Bakkush, T. (1992) : al-Tasrif al-`Arabi min khilal `ilm al-aswat al-hadith, 3rd ed., Tunis : Mu´assat `Abd al-Karim b. `Abd Allah. Baraké, Bassam (1984) : Dictionnaire de linguistique, Beirut : Jarous Press. Cantineau, Jean (1960) : Cours de phonétique arabe, in Études de linguistique arabe, Paris : Klincksieck. Chalabi, S. (1984): “Modern Arabic terminology and bilingual lexicography: activities and problems”, in J. Swales & H. Mustapha eds., English for Specific Purposes in the Arabic world, Aston. Danecki, Janusz : “Early Arabic phonetic theory. Phonetics of al-Halil Ibn Ahmad and Sibawaihi », Rocznkik Orientalistyczny, XXXIX, pp. 51-56. Darir, Hassane (1993): “The unification of Arabic scientific terms. Linguistic terms as an example”, The Arabist, 6/7, p. 155-79.
59
Revue Campus N°9
El Ayed, A.(1965) : “Qu’advient-il des recommandations du Congrès d’Alger sur l’unification des termes scientifiques arabes? ”, IBLA, 122, pp. 223-238. Fahmi, Hasan Husayn (1958): al-Maraji` fi ta`rib al-mustalahat al-`ilmiyya wa al-fanniyya wa alhandasiyya, Cairo. Fleisch, Henri (1958): “La conception phonétique des Arabes d’après le Sir Sina`at al-I`rab d’Ibn Jinni”, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 108, pp. 74-105. Gak, V. G. (1992) : “De la langue système dans la réalisation discursive dans un dictionnaire bilingue ’de type actif ’ ”, in H. Tomola et al. (eds.), Euralex ’92 Proceedings, Tampere : Tampereen Yliopisto, pp. 329-35. El-Saaran, M. H. A. (1951) : A critical study of the phonetic observations of the Arab grammarians, Unpubl. PhD diss., University of London. Fayed, Wafa Kamel (2001) : al-Bab al-sarfi wa sifat al-aswat. Dirasa fi ‘l-fi`l al-thulathi al-muda``af, Cairo : `Alam al-Kutub. Hamzaoui, M. R. (1985) : ” Terminilogie et transfert de technologie, bien traduire n´est pas trahir ”, Journal des Télécommunications, 52 :VII, pp. 417-20. Al-Hamzawi, M. (1987) : al-mustalahaat al-lughawiyya fi ‘l-lugha al-`Arabiyya. Mu`jam `Araabi a`jami wa a`jamai `Arabi, Tunis : al-Dar al-Tunisiyya li ‘l-Nashr. Ibn Jinni (2001) : Kitab al-Khasa´is, ed. A. Hindawi, 3 vols, Beirut : Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyya. Ibrahim, `Abd al-Fattah (n.d.) : Madkhal fi ‘l-sawtiyyat, Tunis : Sud Editions. Kromann, H.-P., T. Riiber & P. Rosbach (1984) : « "Active" and "Passsive" bilingual dictionaries : the Scerba concept revisted », in R. R. K. Hartmann (ed.), LEXeter ’83 Proceedings, Tübingen : Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 207-15. Kromann, H.-P., T. Riiber & P. Rosbach (1991) : «Principles of bilingual lexicography», in F. H. Hausman et al. (eds.), Wörterbücher. Dictionanries. Dictionnaires. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Lexickographie. International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Encyclopédie International de Lexicographie, Berlin/Nezw York : De Gruyter, vol. III, pp. 2711-28. Mseddi, Abdessalem (1984): Dictionnaire de linguistique, Beirut: Maison Arabe du Livre. Mounged (1995), Beirut: Dar el-Machreq. Newman, D. L. (2002): “The European influence on Arabic during the Nahda : lexical borrowing from European languages (ta`rib) in 19th-century literature”, Arabic Language and Literature, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 1-32. Quitout, Michel (2000) : Al-Lassin. Petit dictionnaire des termes des sciences du langage. Françaisarabe, arabe-français, Paris : L’Harmattan. Roman, André (1977): “Les zones d’articulation de la koinè d’après l’enseignement d’al-Halil”, Arabica, xxiv, pp. 58-65. Sara, Solomon, I. (1998): “The phonetics of Al-Zaharî”, The Arabist, 19-20 (Proceedings of the Arabic and Islamic Sections of the 35th International Congress of Asian and North African Studies, ed. K; Dévéryi, I), pp. 27-33. Sara, S. I. (1993): “The beginnings of phonological terminology in Arabic”, The Arabist, 6/7, pp. 181193. Sibawayh (1999) : al-Kitab, ed. A. Badi` Ya`qub, 5 vols, Beirut : Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyya.Wild, Stefan (1965) : Dat Kitab al-`Ain und die arabische Lexikographie, Wiesbaden : Otto Harrassowitz. Sa’id, Majid Farhan (1967): Lexical renovation through borrowing in Modern Standard Arabic, Princteton: Princeton University Press. Shahin, `Abd al-Sabur (trans.) (n.d.): `Ilm al-aswat, Cairo: Maktabat al-Shabab. Smeaton, Hunter B. (1973): Lexical expansion due to technical change as illustrated by the Arabic of Al hasa, Saudi Arabia, (Indiana University Language Science Monographs, 10), Bloomington: Indiana University. Professeur S.A. ARAB Université de Boumerdes
60
Revue Campus N°9
