Linguistic and Cultural Maintenance Among the Chechens of Jordan

Bader S. Dweik
Department of English, Amman Private University, Amman, Jordan
The paper explores and illustratesthe ways in which the Chechen language and culture are preserved in Jordan, despite a passage of almost 100 years since Chechens first arrived in the country. It explores the relationship between language maintenance and the non-linguistic processes that affect the outcome of the language situation. It appears that the social and cultural isolation of the Chechens from the mainstream Jordanian life, fostered by the formation of linguistic and cultural islands, has contributed to the maintenance of the Chechen language and culture. The result is that Chechen is used in a variety of functions and domains, i.e. home, school, neighbourhood, religious and cultural settings. It is spoken almost daily among Chechen family members, in their residential areas, and in their cultural institutions. The paper shows that the third and fourth generation Chechen Jordanians have maintained a diglossic use of Arabic, the language of the majority of Jordanians, and Chechen. This is despite the fact that most immigrant communities in the world tend to shift to the language of the majority.

Although investigations of language use and language attitudes among immigrant groups have been conducted in many places around the world, there is a shortage of research in the Middle East. The present study of the Chechens in Jordan aims to fill this gap. In particular, it seeks to uncover the factors that have helped the Chechen language and culture to survive over four generations of settlement in Jordan. This is contrary to the pattern of assimilation within three generations that has been observed world-wide, or as Fishman (1989: 206) put it: What begins as the language of social and economic mobility ends, within three generations or so, as the language of the crib as well, even in democratic and pluralism permitting contexts. In research done in Jordan, the Chechen community is mentioned only in passing (Richard, 1980; Zalloom, 1994). Attention is mostly given to larger ethnic groups that constitute the population of Jordan as a whole, i.e. Palestinians and Bedouins. Close to Amman, however, are the Chechen settlements of Sweileh and Zerka, which provide the setting for the present study. Essentially, my hypothesis is that the Chechens of Jordan, contrary to world-wide patterns of language assimilation, continue to use two languages, Arabic and Chechen, because the languages are associated with different domains and situations, and attitudes towards both languages are positive. In addition, the social isolation of the Chechens as well as their resistance to inter-ethnic marriages have strengthened the use of Chechen. I have used two research instruments, one to obtain sociological data related to the Chechen community in Jordan, and another to determine the extent of the use of Chechen and attitudes to the language. Before presenting the data, however, I look at the world literature on this topic.
0790-8318/00/02 0184-12 $10.00/0 LANGUAGE, CULTURE AND CURRICULUM 2000 B.S. Dweik Vol. 13, No. 2, 2000

184

Language Maintenance Among the Chechens of Jordan

185

Language Loyalty and Immigrant Languages

Most American sociolinguists who studied minority immigrant languages have elaborated on the factors that enhance language loyalty among first- and second-generation immigrants (Fishman 1966; Kloss 1966; Weinreich, 1974; Myers, 1973; Fishman, 1985, 1990). Concerning the maintenance of Arabic in the United States, they have concluded that Arabic is maintained by first and second generations but lost by third and fourth generations (El-Kholi, 1966; Aswad, 1974; Sawaie, 1985; Daher, 1988; Dweik, 1992). The shift occurs because of the economic and social rewards that the immigrants and their children attain as a result of using the host language of the new country. Fishmans model (1966) has been used. He pointed out that the field of language maintenance and language shift is concerned with the relationship between change or stability in habitual language use, on the one hand, and ongoing psychological, social, or cultural processes on the other, when populations differing in language are in contact with each other (Fishman, 1966: 424). He suggested three major topical subdivisions: (1) habitual language use at more than one point in time or space under conditions of intergroup control; (2) psychological, social and cultural processes related to stability or change in habitual language use under conditions of intergroup contact; (3) behaviour toward language in contact setting. Similarly, Weinreich (1974) pointed out that there is a significant relationship between ethnic languages and extra-linguistic factors, i.e. cultural, psychological, social and historical processes. He dedicated a chapter of his book to the study of the sociocultural setting of languages in contact. This dedication arose from his belief that linguistic divisions between mother-tongue groups could be influenced and caused by non-linguistic factors such as geographic areas, religion, race, sex, age, social status, occupation etc. (Weinreich, 1974: 8996). He drew attention to the notion of language loyalty, which he defined as a principle in the name of which people will rally themselves and their fellow speakers consciously and explicitly to resist changes in their language. He suggested that some ethnic groups stick to their mother tongue because it becomes a symbol of group integrity, based on the extensive emotional involvement of the speakers with the language during the period of its acquisition in childhood (Weinreich, 1974: 99100). A more detailed description of the factors that cause language loyalty among ethnic groups is given by Kloss (1966). In the introduction to his paper German-American Language Maintenance Efforts, he suggested six different factors that contributed to definite language maintenance. He cited religious and societal insulation as the number one factor. This occurs when members of a language group withdraw from the world that surrounds them and build up a community of their own with a strategy of non-participation in the mainstream American life. He noted that the point of departure of these groups was religion rather than nationality or language. Their isolation and non-participation is caused by strong religious feelings. According to Kloss (1966: 206), the mainte-

186

Language, Culture and Curriculum

nance of language in such communities occurs because members of these groups resist any kind of change, because change in itself is considered sinful. The other five factors that he identified were the following: (1) time of immigration, earlier than or simultaneously with the first Anglo-Americans; (2) the existence of language islands where the minority language is the principal tongue used in daily conversation by at least four-fifths of the inhabitants; (3) Affiliation with denominations fostering parochial schools; (4) Former use as the only official tongue during the pre-Anglo-American period; (5) Pre-immigration experience with language maintenance efforts. Holmes et al. (1993) examined the language situation among three ethnic minorities in New Zealand. She identified the following factors: (1) regular social interaction between community members; (2) use of the community language in the home; (3) positive attitudes to the language and high values placed on it in relation to ethnic identity; (4) residential contiguity; (5) resistance to inter-ethnic marriage; (6) support for community-language schools; (7) community-identified religious organisations; (8) a positive orientation to the homelands. In the Middle East, Dweik (1999) conducted a study on the Circassians of Jordan. The overall results in his paper confirmed that the Circassians of Jordan had maintained their language to a certain extent, despite the passage of one hundred years since their arrival in the country. He pointed out that the Circassians were using their mother tongue side by side with Arabic, the official language of the country. He noted that the survival of the Circassian language and culture had not been possible without the support and understanding of the Jordanian system of rules and regulations that allowed minorities of all origins to live in Jordan in peace and harmony.

The Chechens
According to Murad (1994) the name Chechen is derived from the village Chechen on the Arguni River. He further reports that the Chechen autonomous region had a population of 1 million and an area of 19,300 km bordered in the northeast, east, and southeast upon Daghestan; in the west upon Ingusehetia; in the northwest upon Kabardino-Balkaria; in the south upon the main Caucasian range and Georgia. Different sources report different reasons for their migration. Murad (1994) mentions that the Chechens were forced to leave their country as a result of the Tsars Russian occupation wars that started in 1722 and lasted until 1917. The Chechens were forced to migrate from their country to the Ottoman Empire. The first migration took place in 1865 when 50,000 Chechens migrated to Turkey,

Language Maintenance Among the Chechens of Jordan

187

Syria and the Golan Heights. The second migration happened in 1877 after their revolt against the Russians. The third migration occurred in 1901 and this time they took refuge in Jordan. The pioneer immigrants settled in Zerka in 1902, and another group settled in the village of Sweileh in 1905. And later a new group established the village of Al-Sukna near Zerka. Abu Jaber (1989: 202) mentions that the Ottomans felt, both as Muslims and as a State, that they had a moral obligation to assist these people who had fought valiantly in the cause of Islam and the Empire. Abu Jaber argues that they could not settle them in Turkey because of the animosity shown to the newcomers by Turkish villagers in Anatolia. Instead, the Ottomans facilitated their settlement in the empire and since the refugees were farmers who needed land for their livelihood, the Ottomans encouraged them to settle and practise agriculture in Syria and Jordan. Religious and linguistic background Murad (1994) in his article A summary of the Chechens history says that Islam reached the boundaries of the northern Caucasus in the year 22 Hijra (AD 643) during the reign of Khalifa Omar Ben Khattab. According to Krag and Funch (1994: 20), the Chechens became familiar with the teaching of Naqshubandia in the eighteenth century. As a result, they gave full strong support to the sufi uprising against the Russian conquest. Kisbi (1995: 45) also supports this information. The author states that the Chechens are Shafie Sunni, influenced heavily by the Sufi movement of Naqshubandia. Similarly, Baddeley (1908: 415) reported that Islam turned into a major unifying force of the mountain peoples in their struggle against Russian colonisation and brought an increasing awareness that in religious reform lay the one chance of preserving their cherished liberty and independence. It was assumed that Sheikh Mansoor, one of the greatest Chechen warriors, was affiliated in one way or another with a Sufi Naqshubani brotherhood. Therefore, it is of no surprise that the pioneer Chechens took upon themselves to build mosques in the midst of their new residential areas. Linguistically, the Caucasus region is composed of two parts, namely north Caucasus in Europe and south Caucasus in Asia. The great Caucasus Mountains separate them, which extend from the Black Sea to the Caspian. The Caucasian language family comprises four different groups namely Adighian-Abkhazo, Wainakh, Daghestani and Kartvelian. The Wainakh group from which the Jordanian Chechens are descended comprises the languages of the Chechen and Ingush nations who live in North Caucasus and the Bats nation who settled in South Caucasus in North Georgia. As for the Daghestani group, it includes 28 different languages that are used by the nations of the Autonomous Republic of Daghestan (Daghestani & Amerah, 1992: 27). There are 36 languages used in North Caucasus. But if we add to this the languages that are used by Armenians, Azeries, Ossetians, Kumyks, Noghays, Balkars, Kara-chay, Kurds, Greeks, Russians and Ukrainians, the total number of languages in North and South Caucasus would be 51 different languages. The Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Russian languages also influenced the Chechen language. As a result, it shows the influences of many other languages. Chechen was written in the Arabic script until 1928. This was replaced by the Latin script in the period 19281938, which in turn has now been replaced by the Cyrillic (Russian) script (Daghestani & Amerah, 1992: 29).

188

Language, Culture and Curriculum

The Jordanian Chechens The Chechens of today continue to live in the same areas their ancestors settled in. Among the different residential areas one can mention Zerka, Al-Sukhna, Sweileh and Al-Azraq Al-Janooby. It is very important to note that in the absence of any official census, it is very hard to estimate their population. This is why different sources mention different figures. The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA, 1995) reported their number to be between 35,000 and 150.000. This figure is very exaggerated and a recent book written by Al-Bashayer (1997: 169) which reported that their population is about 8776 persons is more likely to be accurate. Al-Bashayer reports that the majority of the Chechens work for the government, the army and public security (Al-Bashayer, 1997: 183). The Chechens established their own cultural centres, magazines, and associations, notably the Chechen Benevolent Association established in Zerka in 1958 with branches in Sweileh, Al-Sukhna and Al-Azraq. The Associationof the Friends of the Chechen Republic was founded in 1989. The first Jordanian sports club, the Caucasian Club, was established in Sweileh in 1932.Furthermore, they established intellectual centres such as the Sultan Murad Center for Chechen Studies founded in Zerka in 1994. Among them also emerged many writers and columnists who write regularly in Jordanian newspapers such as Taha Murad, Yousef Bilto, Ahmad Adel, Saeed Bino and Hameed Younes (Al-Bashayer, 1997: 210215).

The Study
The study aimed at collecting data on language proficiency, language use patterns and language attitudes. The questionnaires were administered and supplemented by interviews. In this study, each questionnaire was administered in a culturally appropriate way by an assistant with a strong interest in the community concerned. All of the assistants were well regarded and had friends and contacts in the Chechen community. The writer of this study sought cooperation with Chechen thinkers and intellectuals. He invited to his seminar at a Jordanian university Chechen authors and scholars who spoke to students about the Chechens in Jordan and supplied them with bibliographies and literature dealing with all aspects of Chechen life in Chechnya and Jordan. A sample of 100 subjects was chosen from the lists of names provided for my assistants by friends and contacts. Data were collected from 73 males and 27 females of which 40 were single, 58 married and 2 engaged. Their ages were between 10 and 59. Most of the respondents were aged between 20 and 39 reflecting the relative youth of the community. Table 1 illustrates the age distribution of the sample. The educational distribution of the respondents is illustrated in Table 2. The occupational distribution of the sample is represented in Table 3. The informants were offered the option of answering questions in Arabic or in English. Chechen was not offered because most informants could not read or write it. However, the informants used the language they preferred and most of them chose Arabic. They thought it was possible for people to fill in the questionnaire on their own but very few chose to do this. The information was mostly collected by interviews some of which were tape-recorded. The analysis covers three areas, namely language proficiency, language use and language attitudes.

Language Maintenance Among the Chechens of Jordan

189

Table 1 Age of respondents

Age 1014 1519 2029 3039 4049 5059 Total N 10 10 29 23 16 12 100

Table 2 Educational level of respondents

Grade 19 Grade 1012 Two-year college Four-year college Total N 19 39 10 32 100

Table 3 Occupation of respondents

Students Housewives Civil servants Mechanics and drivers Medical field Legal services Retired No occupation Farmers Others Total N 23 10 35 11 5 1 5 3 4 3 100

Proficiency in Chechen All in all, eight questions were asked to reveal the respondents proficiency in both languages, Arabic and Chechen. The results are presented in Table 4. They indicate that Chechen is maintained to a high degree. The ability to hold an informal conversation in Chechen is a simple and useful comparative measure of language proficiency. The figure of 96% is clear evidence of the high degree of maintenance of the ethnic language. On the other hand, the respondents low proficiency in reading and writing Chechen reflects the oral method of acquiring the language, and underlines the fact that the Chechen language is mostly oral.

190

Language, Culture and Curriculum

Table 4 Language proficiency in Arabic and Chechen

Language skills Can you understand a conversation in Chechen? Can you engage in a conversation in Chechen? Can you read Chechen? Can you write Chechen? Can you understand Arabic? Can you read Arabic? Can you write Arabic? Yes 96% 96% 16% 16% 95% 95% 95% No 58% 58% A little 4% 4% 26% 26% 5% 5% 5%

The results reported in Table 4 indicate the significance of the use of Chechen in the childhood home. It is clear that the second- and third-generation parents among the Chechens consciously decided to use Chechen with their children and this practice helped them maintain their proficiency. This is evidence of the pattern noted by Fishman (1985) where a younger generation becomes aware of the intrinsic value of the ethnic language and attempts to address the problem of its maintenance. The scanty percentage of subjects (5%) who reported knowing only a little Arabic should not be surprising at all. This is exactly the situation in regard to active use of the spoken language. However, what is important is that the majority of them (95%) reported understanding, reading and writing Arabic. Use of Chechen Fishmans model of language use in different domains and contexts is used in this study to determine the strength or weakness of the Chechen language and Arabic in a variety of domains. If Chechen is retreating in social and cultural settings, e.g. home, club etc., then a language shift towardsArabic is imminent. Respondents were asked to choose the language they used when they write personal letters, when they interact at home with family members, with relatives, with friends at school, in the market, neighbourhood, in religious domains and in two other very personal situations, namely when angry and when dreaming. Results reported in Table 5 indicate that Chechen is clearly the main language of ethnic, social, and cultural situations. It is still the language used strongly at home with family members and relatives, with friends in the neighbourhood, at school and in the market place. It is also the language of anger and dreaming, situations chosen to indicate the involvement of the language with very personal and intense psychological states. There are clear domains where the Chechen language predominates and where the norms are still determined by the Chechen community. The Chechen community is a closely-knit one and Chechen is used extensively whenever Chechens meet, except in praying, where Arabic, the language of the Quran, is dominant. Essentially, people in the Chechen community can still safely assume that a person who is Chechen will speak Chechen. The general rule is speak Chechen to Chechens whenever possible. The rule does not hold when Chechens

Language Maintenance Among the Chechens of Jordan

191

Table 5 Language use

1. What language do you use when you write a personal letter? 2. What language do you use when you speak with your neighbours? 3. What language do you use at home with your father? 4. What language do you use at home with your mother? 5. What language do you use with your relatives in Jordan when you talk to them face to face? 6. What language do you use when you meet friends at school? 7. What language do you use when you meet friends in the neighbourhood? 8. What language do you use when you invocate after praying? 9. What language do you use at religious meetings outside your place of worship? 10. What language do you use most commonly when you are angry? 11. In what language do you dream A++ 82% A+ 7% AC 9% C+ 2% C++ NR 100%

14%

2%

44%

9%

30%

1%

100%

2% 2% 5%

2% 4% -

4% 9%

14% 19% 25%

75% 74% 61%

3% 1% -

100% 100% 100%

16%

2%

44%

5%

33%

100%

12%

7%

30%

5%

46%

100%

45%

11%

39%

5%

100%

42%

5%

39%

2%

12%

100%

5%

2%

30%

19%

47%

7%

100%

4%

19%

7%

60%

10%

100%

Key: A++ Arabic only; A+ Arabic mostly; AC Arabic and Chechen; C++ Chechen only; C+ Chechen mostly; NR No response.

write personal letters because Chechen is acquired orally. Arabic is dominant in praying, invocation after prayer and in religious meetings. It is the language of religion. Nonetheless, it is significant to note that 45% of the Chechen subjects reported using only Arabic when they invoke after prayer, while only 5% reported doing so in Chechen, and the other 50% reported using both languages. Similarly, 42% reported using only Arabic in religious meetings outside the mosque while only 12% reported using Chechen in the same place. It is very clear that Arabic is the language of religious functions, but the exclusion of Chechen is by no means total. Attitudes to Chechen In order to discover the level of awareness in the Chechen community of the threat to their language, the study included some direct questions about commu-

192

Language, Culture and Curriculum

nity members attitudes to the ethnic language and also to Arabic, as well as to the idea of community language maintenance (Fishman et al., 1985; Gardner, 1985; Robinson, 1991). It is clear, as we see in Table 6, that the interviewed Chechens certainly valued the Arabic language, but they also valued their Chechen language and culture very highly and indeed they expressed the wish that they should speak the ethnic language. There is strong evidence in the Chechen community, from responses to direct questions asking peoples opinion about the Chechen language and Arabic, that in general Chechens feel very positive about both languages. The majority of the respondents strongly agreed with the positive statements about both languages.
Table 6 Language attitudes
Questions 1. What language is more beautiful? 2. What language is more useful to you? 3. What language would you prefer to use for instructions at school? 4. 5. 6. 7. Is it important for you to speak Arabic? Is it important for you to speak Chechen? Is Chechen dying in your home? Is Chechen dying in your community? Arabic 23% 30% 54% Chechen 30% 12% 2% Both 47% 58% 42% N 100 100 100

Yes 93% 89% 5% 5%

No 3% 2% 89% 89%

Dont know 4% 9% 6% 6%

100 100 100 100

In answering some open-ended questions, they regarded the knowledge of Arabic as noble, since it is the language of the Quran. They also regarded the knowledge of Chechen as an important component of the Chechen identity; a symbol of their heritage and culture. To them, any Chechen should be able to use Chechen, no matter where she or he is, because it is a mark of our identity as one respondent said, while another commented We should be very careful that we continue to use Chechen language because it is vital for the preservation of our culture. Responses indicated that all Chechens should know Chechen and Arabic. In addition to a high rating for its role as a marker of the Chechen identity, the majority of respondents mentioned how useful it is to be able to speak Chechen when they do not want others to understand. Most of the respondents want their children to be aware of their cultural and linguistic heritage. Many of the parents interviewed considered that it would be a good idea to have their children taught in both languages in the school system.

Language Maintenance Among the Chechens of Jordan

193

Discussion
An analysis of the overall results of the questionnaires and interviews indicates that both languages, Arabic and Chechen, are being used on a daily basis by members of the community. One language is used in certain formal situations and functions; the other is used in special informal ethnic and cultural domains. In other words they stand in a diglossic relation to each other, and contrary to what has happened to immigrant language communities all over the world, third- and fourth-generation members of the Chechen community still preserve their own language and culture. The study proves that Fishmans conclusion does not apply to this particular language group because their historical, cultural, religious and nationalistic background makes it essential for them to defend it, and to die for it if necessary, as they did for centuries long before their ancestors were forced to seek refuge, security and peace in Jordan and in other Arab and Moslem countries. When we ask how Chechen language and culture has survived in Jordan, the study suggests the following answers. (1) The existence of linguistic and cultural islands limits the interaction of Chechens with the majority culture, and intensifies community ties among them. (2) The use of the Chechen language in the home and in the community, whereby parents use the Chechen language with their children before school age in almost every normal daily interaction, has helped to keep the language alive. (3)The positive attitude towards the Chechen language and the Chechen homeland makes them regard the Chechen language as a symbol of their identity, which in turn strengthens the community language position and enhances its maintenance. (4) The residential closeness of the Chechens to each other makes mother-tongue communication easier. Living in the same neighbourhoods provides more opportunities for them to use their language outside their homes, in the local community shops, sports clubs, and community associations. (5) The Chechen resistance to inter-ethnic marriages also helps preserve the language. Young people are expected and encouraged to find marriage partners from their own ethnic group. When parents speak the same language and have the same cultural background, opportunities for language and cultural maintenance are higher than in mixed marriages. Thus the Chechens of Jordan have maintained their language and culture despite the passage of over one hundred years. The third and fourth generations of Jordanian Chechens are proud of their national origin and their Jordanian national identity. They have been able to use both languages, Arabic and Chechen almost in a diglossic relationship. They have not forgotten the mother tongue as the Fishman model would predict. On the contrary, all factors indicate that they have developed a kind of societal bilingualism.

194

Language, Culture and Curriculum

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Taha Sultan Murad and Yousef Belto for their valuable help with this study. Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Professor Bader S. Dweik, Department of English, Amman Private University, Amman, Jordan ([email protected]). References
Abu-Jaber, R. (1989) Pioneers Over Jordan: The Frontiers of Settlement in Transjordan 18501914 (pp. 195210). London: I.B. Tauris. Al-Bashayer R. (1997) Mujtama Ash-she-shan fil Urdon. Dirasa Jugraphia, Bashariya Wa Ijtimaiyya. Master thesis, College of Arts, Geography Department, The Lebanese University. Aswad, B. (1974) Arabic Speaking Communities in American Cities. New York: Center for Migration Studies. Baddeley. J. (1908) The Russian Conquest of the Caucasus. London: Longman. Daghestani. F. and Amerah, M. (1992) Muslims in the Soviet Union. Amman: Royal Scientific Press. Daher, N. (1988) Cleveland, Ohio: Language attrition in progress. Al-Arabiyya 21 (1/2), 318. Dweik, B. (1992) Lebanese Christians in Buffalo: Language maintenance and language shift In A. Rouchdy (ed.) The Arabic Language in America. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Dweik, B. (1999) The language situation among the Cirrcassians of Jordan. Al-Basaaer Journal 3 (2), 928. El-Kholy, A. (1966) The Arab Moslems in the United States: Religion and Assimilation. New Haven, CN: College and University Press. Fishman, J.A. (1966) Language Loyalty in the United States. The Hague: Mouton. Fishman, J. A. (1985) Language maintenance and ethnicity. In J. Fishman, M.H. Gertner, E.G. Lowy and W.G. Milan (eds) The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival (pp. 5776). Berlin: Mouton. Fishman, J.A. (1989) Language and Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J.A (1990) What is reversing language shift (RLS) and how can it succeed? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 11 (1), 536. Gardner, R.C. (1985) Social Psychology and Second Language Learning. London: Edward Arnold. Holmes, J., Roberts, M., Verivaki, M. Aipolo, A. (1993) Language maintenance and language shift in three New Zealand speech communities. Applied Linguistics 14 (1), 124. ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) (1995) Chechniya. New York: Muslim Alert Network. Kisbe, M. (1995) Ash-she-shan Bayna Al-Mihna Wa Wajeb Al-Muslimeen. Al-Azhar Magazine. Cairo. Kloss, H. (1966) German-American language maintenance efforts. In J.A. Fishman (ed.) Language Loyalty in the United States (pp. 20652). The Hague: Mouton. Krag, H. and Funch, L. (1994) The North Caucasus: Minorities at a Cross Roads. Jersey, Channel Islands. Kardinal Publishing. Murad, T. (1994) Summary of the Chechen history (unpublished paper). Sultan Murad Center for Chechen Studies. Myers, S. (1973)Language shift among migrants to Lima, Peru. The University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 147. Richard, N. (1980) Jordan: A Country Study. Washington, DC: The American University. Robinson, C. (1991) Language use and language attitudes: Communicating rural

Language Maintenance Among the Chechens of Jordan

195

development in Africa. In P. Meara and A. Ryan (eds) Language and Nation (pp. 7990). London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching. Sawaie, M. (1985) Language loyalty and language shift among early Arabic-speaking immigrants Arab Journal for Humanities 5 (20), 32336. Zalloom, H. (1994) Azzarqa: Madeeha Wa Hadiruha. Amman: First Print. Weinreich, U. (1974) Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton.