Arab Identity Maintenance and Allegiance

Code-switching is used in many ways, its meaning can usually be traced to the basic meaning the ‘we-they’ differences, that are, consciously or unconsciously, part of ethnicity and expressing identification with one or other social group and the values associated with them. Such case is true with Hadhrami Arabs in Martapura, regardless of how limited their Arabic repertoires. Besides the tendency to practice endogamy, they still use some Arabic lexicons functioning as trade jargon, to maintain and perform acts of allegiance to Arab identity.


Trade Jargon Hadhrami Arabic In Martapura: Arab Identity Maintenance And Allegiance

Oleh : Saifuddin Ahmad Husin

A.Introduction
The emphasis of globalization has shifted from merely technological causes, rather it is the cultural flows between nations which above all else seem to typify the contemporary globalization process. These changes have resulted in diasporas of various kinds: that of the cosmopolitan academic, that of the international business/management/design consultant, and that of the migrant trader/laborer and refugee. The latter-often in search of a new home- have resulted in the linguistically, culturally and socially heterogeneous communities now typical of many parts of the globe. The Hadhramis, the Arabs from a place called Hadhramaut in southern part of Arab peninsula or part of Yemen, are represented in the latter group. Many studies have been undertaken to address directly the question of how these people manage the cultural diversities, however only few, if none at all, studied linguistic aspect of the Hadhrami immigrants, especially in Indonesia.
This article aims to study the use of some Arabic lexicons by Banjarese speakers of Hadhrami Arab Descents. Such use is assumed to have a relationship with some of the ways of this particular speech community express and maintain their identity. Linguistic data were derived mainly from participatory observations and interviews. The analysis is sociolinguistic in nature. In doing so, first, current situation of Arab descent community in South Kalimantan in general, and in Martapura in particular, including their history of immigration, number, main profession practiced by the community and linguistic characteristics is discussed. Second, the discussion deals with the relationship of Arabic as one of the most salient characteristics and unifying factors of the Arabs, and identity of Arabness. Finally, some socio-linguistics frameworks are proposed as analysis of the topic.
B. The Arabs in South Kalimantan: Overview of the Current Situation
In addition to hundreds of native ethnic groups living in Indonesia, a considerable number of people of Chinese, Indian, and Arab origins also live in this archipelago country. Although the Chinese comprise the largest ethnic group in terms of number, but the Arabs comparatively have far greater influence in cultural and linguistic aspects. This is due to the adoption of the religion of Islam, whose religious terms are expressed in Arabic, by the majority of people.
The Arabs are believed to have come to Indonesia during the early years of Hegira (Hijriyah) or 7th and 8th century AC. Initially, their arrival in Indonesia was said to be motivated solely by trading purposes. Later arrival was purely motivated by the spirit of spreading the religion of Islam to the local peoples. In other words, later migrants from the Middle East, especially from Hadhramaut and/or Arabia, were professional propagandists and preachers of Islam. These professional propagandists and preachers had been able to make local authorities and royal families of several ancient kingdoms in Indonesia convert to Islam.
Of the three foreign ethnic groups mentioned previously, the Arabs and Indians can be said to have adopted the language of their area of residency in totality. Therefore, the Arabs, for example, living in Central and East Java will speak Javanese. The same is true with the Arabs who live in South Kalimantan where people use Banjarese, a Malay dialect, as their vernacular. However, as an ethnic group or race, the Arabs still maintain some of their cultural identity, such as using some relics of Arabic vocabularies in their speech, having their own social organization, including having music group which perform music and songs of Arab origin, and the practice of endogamy.
According to historical research finding, most of the Arab communities in Indonesia are believed to have come from Hadhramaut, a region in the southern part of Arab Peninsula which was once the British protectorate. The word Hadhrami refers to adjective of the region named Hadhramaut. L.W.C van Den Berg wrote in his famous report to the Dutch colonial government Les Hadhramout et les Colonies Arabes dans L’Archipel Indiens; ‘Quant aux rares Arabs établies dans l’Archipel indien, qui ne sont pas du Hadhramout…’. This statement suggests that most of the Arabs in the former Dutch Indies’ archipelago were from Hadhramaut. In 1859 the Dutch East Indies government did the first census on the number of members of Arab community in Indonesia. Before the 1859 census, the Dutch administration in Indonesia mixed up the Arabs with Indians or Bengalis and other Arab-like Moslems.
The Arabs in Martapura, South Kalimantan were originally migrants who had lived there for quite a long time. Most of them are second to fourth generation Arabs. Their grandparents came to South Kalimantan approximately during the last decades of nineteenth and first decade of the twentieth century. As for the exact date, there is no record about that. Though many experts claimed that the Arabs came to Indonesia at about the same time with the advent of Islam to the Indonesian archipelago, their arrival in massive number did only happen during the last decades of the 18th century. Due to its status as one of the biggest and most accessible ports and cities in Borneo, Banjarmasin was one of the migrant Arabs’ destination. First generation or immigrant Arab Hadhramis are called Wulaiti (plural of wilayati, literally means ‘territory’; born in the territory of their homeland), while local-born Arabs are called al-Muwalladun (muwallad, singular), literally means ‘those who are born outside’. Following division and social stratification in their homeland, the Arabs in Indonesia are also divided into Sayyid and non-Sayyid members. The Sayyids are those who are considered as descendants of Prophet Muhammad from the lineage of al-Hasan and/or al-Husein.
In 1859 the number of Arab community in Indonesia was about 10.441. The number increased to 16.814 in 1870, 39.165 in 1885. According to the estimation of al-Irsyad (an organization whose members are mainly of non-Sayyid Arab descents), current number of Arab descents or al-Muwalladun in Indonesia is about 600,000.
L.W.C. van Den Berg claimed that the number of Arab in South Kalimantan before 1886 was 827. The term South Kalimantan was not yet used in van Den Berg’s report, rather he used cote meridionale et orientale de Borneo to refer to what is now range of coasts extending from southwestern to southeastern parts of Kalimantan. Of the total number of the Arabs living in South Kalimantan before 1886, 113 of them were immigrants or al-Wulaiti consisting of 105 adult males and 8 children or teenagers; of the 714 immigrants of Indonesia-born or al Muwalladun, 155 of them were men, 129 women, and 430 children. By noticing the statistics we can infer that rapid increase of the number of Arabs was not due to immigration, but because of high rate of birth among them. We can also claim that the immigrant Arabs did not bring their wives along with them, instead they married local women. This is supported by Berg’s report on Arabs in Indonesia before 1900s:
“Les Arabes dans l’Archipel indien sont mariés, soit à des femmes indegines, soit des filles de leurs compatriotes, les quelles n’ont quitté le pays et sont, par ce fait, entirément semblabes aux femmes indègines, sous le rapport de la langue, de la civilisation et des moeurs…..”
Although the Arabs now settle in most major cities all over South Kalimantan, major and large concentration of residency can be found in Banjarmasin, Barabai, and Martapura. Of the three cities Martapura has most Arab population.
Concentration of settlement of the Arabs in Martapura are found in at least six villages, Kampung Jawa, Pasayangan Laut, Keraton, Pekauman Ulu, Pasayangan Utara, and Melayu Mekar. Of the six villages where Arabs population can be found, transbordering Pekauman Ulu and Pasayangan Utara villages have comparatively more population of Arab stocks. However, there is no official record about the number of population of Arab descents for official census question did not include Arab identification as one’s ethnic identity. Various publications on the year 2000 census, for example, mentioned no Arab ethnic group as ethnic category. Estimated number of Arab population, which was made by senior members of Arab community in Martapura, is around 1000 people. In their daily conversations, these Hadhrami Arabs use the local vernacular, Bahasa Banjar, with its own characteristics such as the use of some Arabic vocabularies, and Arabic pronunciation and other Arabic language characteristics as explained by Berg:
“Une premiere consequence de ce qui précède, c’est que la langue parlée dans les maisons des Arabes n’est pas l’arabe mais la malais, le javanais, la langue de leur femme enfin. C’est aussi la langue qu’ils parlent à leurs enfants. Les garcons, devenus adultes, apprenent un peu d’arabe; les filles n’apprenent que quelques du Coran et de la prière.”
Because the Arabs in Indonesia are married to local women or daughters of their compatriotes, one primary consequence is that the language used at the homes of the Arabs was not Arabic, but Malay, Javanese, or the language of their women. Neither was Arabic the language spoken to their children. However, according to several observations in some concentration of Arabs dwelling in South Kalimantan, especially in the city of Martapura, only few Arabic words are still used mostly by younger Arab males in their use of local vernacular, the Banjarese. The situation is even far worse for female Arab descendants. Except a few greeting expression, none of them acquire or retain any Arabic speaking ability.
Although it is not the prime importance for current investigation to discuss varieties of Arabic, yet brief elaboration of variety of Arabic relics used by the Arabs in Martapura. First there is the Classical written language extending from pre-Islamic poetry to modern technical journals: this variety shows essentially the same sound system and morphology but with considerable variation in vocabulary, syntax, and forms of discourse. Next there is Colloquial Arabic, the chain of regional dialects which constitute the Arab’s mother tongue today. The extent of variation among these dialects is greater than that between what are recognized in other circumstances as separate languages (e.g. Norwegian and Swedish or Bahasa Indonesa and Bahasa Melayu Malaysia), but the speakers of these dialects have a strong sense of linguistic unity, and a speaker of Arabic recognizes that speakers of other dialects are also speaking Arabic.
Intermediate between the two varieties or sets of varieties, relatively ‘pure’ Classical and Colloquial, there are many shadings of ‘middle language’. These intermediate forms, some highly fluctuating and transitional, others more stable, represent two tendencies: classicization, in which a dialect is modified in the direction of classical, and koineization, in which dialects are homogenized by the modification or elimination of features which are felt to be especially distinctive of a particular regional dialect.
Finally, in certain areas and under certain social conditions where Arabic has been used for limited purposes by people of other mother tongues, it has developed pidginized forms in which the lexicon and overt grammatical categories of the language have been drastically reduced. One such example is trade jargon Arabic in Arab quarters of various cities in Indonesia such as in the village of Ampel in Surabaya; Batu, Malang; Empang, Bogor; and Martapura, South Kalimantan. One salient characteristic of trade jargon variety of a language is that it is merely a spoken language. Therefore, needless to say the Arabic lexicons maintained by the Arabs in Martapura came from spoken dialect, and not from classical or any other variety of Arabic.
As for profession, most Arabs in Martapura practiced commercial activities as their main profession. Their businesses range from jewel or diamond trade, garment and textile, groceries, mini markets, and live-stock, especially goat and sheep trade. Of the estimated total of Arab population, I could only observe that there are only 17 of them whose chose public position, be it government civil servant, teachers, lecturers, paramedic, or member of local legislative body. Of the seventeen members of Arab descents in Martapura, 10 of them are women. Seven of the women are teachers, two are university lecturers, and only 1 is a civil servant in a government office. As for the 7 men, three of them are teachers/lecturers, 1 paramedic, and the rest work in other government offices. This statistics reveal that most of the male members of Arab of Hadhrami descents in Martapura carry on the profession practiced by their predecessors.
As noted earlier that the Hadhrami immigrants migrated to Indonesia with the purpose of searching a new home with its social, cultural, and linguistic consequences. Socially and culturally they had to adapt to new places and ways of life, and linguistically they were motivated to learn and use a new language or the vernacular used in their new homes. Since most of them are business practitioners, the most probable place where they can be observed performing daily activities is market. It is in this very place words of Arabic origin, but not parts of Bahasa Indonesia, nor Banjarese, are commonly used by mainly members of Arab community and non-Arab as well.
C. Arabic and Arab Identity
Identity refers to the sharing of essential elements that define the character and orientation of people and affirm their common needs, interests, and goals with reference to joint action.
Since its inception, Arab national identity has been seen as based primarily on language. Halim Barakat quoting from Albert Hourani’s most famous book, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age, said Arabs are "more conscious of their language than any people in the world."
It has often been stated that the great majority of Arabs speak Arabic as their mother tongue and thus feel that they belong to the same nation regardless of race, religion, tribe, or region. This explains the tendency to dismiss the existing states as artificial and to call for political unity coinciding with linguistic identity. The prevailing view is that only a small minority of the citizens of Arab countries do not speak Arabic as their mother tongue and lack a sense of being Arab; this minority category includes the Kurds, Berbers, Armenians, and the ethnolinguistic groups of southern Sudan. Fewer still are those who speak Arabic as their mother tongue without sharing with the majority a sense of nationhood, a trend that may exist among the Maronites of Lebanon in times of conflict. Most other minority groups, such as the Orthodox Christians, Shi'ites, Alawites, and Druze, consider themselves Arabs with some qualifications and reservations.
There is, in fact, unanimous agreement among theoreticians of Arab nationalism on the great significance of language. Indeed, some proponents of this view have observed that it was language that historically contributed to the development of Arab consciousness prior to the emergence of Islam. Initially, Arabism had an ethnic focus, but it later took on a linguistic and cultural connotation. The two currents, Islam and Arabism, were closely linked at first, but subsequently followed separate courses. While both remained important to Arab development, it was the successes and failures of Arabism that determined the eventual geographic and human boundaries of the Arab nation.
This relationship between language and national identity is stressed more emphatically by an Iraqi scholar and ideologue, Sati' al-Husri, who dismisses several other elements, including religion, economy, and geography, as irrelevant to the formation of nationalism. For him, only language and history define national identity. The former is the heart and spirit of the nation, and the latter is its memory and feeling. He further declared that “every Arabic-speaking people is an Arab people, and every individual belonging to one of these Arabic-speaking peoples is an Arab, whether they consciously choose to be one or not.” Language, it should be noted here, is not a mere instrument of communication or container of ideas and feelings; it is the embodiment of a whole culture and a set of linkages across time and space.
The conception of Arab identity as being primarily linguistic lends itself to several criticisms. First, some other basic elements have to be taken into account in any serious and systematic attempt at defining national identity. These other elements are many and varied; they include social formations, economy, geography, culture in a broad sense, ethnicity, regionalism, external challenges and conflicts, and religion. Second, a definition of Arab identity in linguistic terms would have to demonstrate the uniqueness of the Arabic language in comparison to those of other societies in which groups shared the same language but evolved into different nationalities. Third, a definition of Arab identity rooted primarily or solely in language tends to ignore several aspects of the present state of the Arabic Ianguage such as the continuing gap between written and spoken Arabic, the different Arab dialects, the bilingualism in some Arab countries, and the limited literacy of the Arab masses. It is true that literary Arabic "tends to become the spoken language of the whole of the Arab world" _a development that took Arabic in the opposite direction from Latin, which evolved into separate languages,_but these aspects cannot be ignored. Fourth, the Arab sense of belonging has to be assessed in the light of overlapping and conflicting affiliations. Among the most significant of these overlapping identities are religious, regional, kinship or tribal and ethnic affiliations.
The treatment of language as the core ingredient and the most prominent manifestation of nationalism in general, and of ethnicity in particular, is characteristic of Arabic discourse on the topic which views language as not merely a means of communication but the genius of their nationhood. In spelling out this position, the Arab nationalists adopt the as an article of supreme faith the view is not just a means of communication, of conveying messages between interlocutors, but a most eloquent symbol of group identity and whose ultimate strength lies in its ability to provide the cultural and instrumental backbone of the group’s legitimate objective of furthering its ethnocultural self-interest. Muhammad Jabir al-Fayyad indirectly likens the function of the Arabic language in the construction of Arab identity to that of the air the Arabs breathe or the water on which their life so crucially depends. He then goes on to say that any attack on the Arabic language represents an all-out attack on every aspect of Arab culture. In the Arab nationalist discourse the universal theme that language cannot be separated from culture, in the same way as culture cannot be separated from culture, is imbued with meanings whose significance encompasses a broad spectrum of issues – particularly the role of the glorious Arab past, with its proud achievements in the human sciences- as the dominant authenticating base and legitimising infrastructure. Accessing culture through language thus becomes an exploration of the contribution of the medium and an articulation of the very essence of its content. Arab nationalism as a modernizing force is dynamically and inextricably rooted in this conception of the role of language in the life of the people, it is thus equipped with the durable ability to transcend the vast fluctuations in political fortunes which have befallen it over the past few decades.
D. The Arab World as the Outcome of Linguistico-Cultural Symbols
Language is the main dimension of human cultural-symbolic systems. Other dimensions are religious belief, knowledge, science, cultural norms and value systems, and so on. Contemporary sociology and anthropology have frequently used cultural-symbolic systems to explain, for instance, how the human community’s social order is maintained and how the processes of socialization are carried out through the transmission of cultural-symbolic components (elements) from generation to generation.
As far as language’s capacity to perpetuate the cultural-symbolic heritage of human individuals, groups and societies, there is a plenty of evidence that attests to that. On the collective level the written language enables human groups to record their collective memory and to preserve it and eternalize it in spite of their dissapearance as bio-organic entities. The Arabic language’s full maintenance of the Qur’anic text of the seventh century is classical example of language’s capacity to preserve for good the collective heritage and memory from the destruction and annihilation that inevitably strikes the organic physico-materialistic existence of those human collectivities.
Likewise, language enables individuals to survive cultural-symbolically their relatively short bio-organic lifespan. Well-known thinkers and writers of all human civilizations and of all ages could not have diffused and propagated in full their ideas, theories, and paradigms had they not had at their disposal a well-evolved language in their own culture. Deficiency in linguistic competence among members of any language group is a great threat to their identity.
In line with this, Dhaouadi further explained that human’s language function is not limited to its plain usage as a means of social communication between the social actors. It is the favourable instrument that permits human beings to be able to survive the inevitable destruction of their temporal physico-organic existence. Language allows humans to prolong their symbolic existence well beyond their physico-organic age.
The common Islamic and linguistico-cultural symbols have enabled Arabs in general, and Arab Muslims in particular, to preserve their religio-linguistic-cultural solidarity for over fourteen centuries. Their religio-linguistic-cultural ties are imbued with transcendental/metaphysical dimensions. By that fact, they are in a position to secure lasting bonds and alliances between social actors. The military, political, and economic alliances between nations and people hardly know such everlasting solidarities.
E. Code Switching
One of the definitions of socio-linguistics is the study of speakers’ socially motivated linguistic choices. This kind of definition implies the fundamental question: which languages or language varieties are spoken by members of different speech communities in different situations and why?
Language mixture in various kinds has long been the norm in many communities, and has become increasingly common as a result of various socio-historical forces that have led to increasing contact among different language groups within the same national and local communities. This phenomenon is known as code switching which involves several types of bilingual language mixture, including the alternating use of relatively complete utterances from two different languages, alternation between sentencial and/or casual structures from the two languages, and the insertion of (usually lexical) elements from one language into the other. Sankoff said that linguistic behavior involving shifting or switching is not specific or limited to multilinguals, that is, it does not differ qualitatively from the behavior of monolinguals. Hymes argued that: ”No normal person, and no normal community, is limited in repertoire to a single variety of code…” And according to Gumperz: “In many multilingual societies the choice of one language over another has the same signification as the selection among lexical alternates in linguistically homogeneous societies”.
All of these authors make the point that in every speech community there exist a variety of repertoires, of alternate means of expression. The existence of repertoire variety and alternate means of expression have social implications, that is, that in choosing among the various codes available to them, speakers indicate what might be called social meaning. As a consequence of this is that speakers in any community share rules regarding language usage, which allow them to interpret the social meaning of alternate linguistic choices.
Because people belong to different groups and have many potential identities, different codes will serve markers or even tools for forging these identities. Language is one of the most important forms of human symbolic behavior and is a key component of many groups’ social identities.
In line with this view, Gal claimed that changes in language choices derive from changes in how speakers wish to present themselves in interaction. She argued that “the process of language shift should be seen within a broader framework of expressively and symbolically used linguistic variation. Within this framework, the different language choices made by the speakers are linked somehow to their evaluations of the status of the other groups with which the available languages are associated.
This framework was supported by Le Page and Tabouret-Keller’s notion of acts of identity. In this way, linguistic change is first and foremost a social phenomenon. These acts of identity provide another framework from which to assess the process of emergence and disintegration of identities and the resulting language shift or language maintenance. In particular, language behavior is viewed as a series of acts of identity in which people reveal both their personal identity and their search for social roles by creating patterns so as to resemble those of the group or groups with which, from time to time, they wish to be identified. These authors further suggest that positive or negative motivation to identify with groups is “by far the most important of the constraints for linguistic behavior.” Thus, they stress the necessity of examining history, the sociolinguistic observation and the recording of the people’s attitudes towards and about the language and ethnicity concurrently, in order to understand identity process and linguistic choice/use.
The variation in language choice that might previously have been dismissed as random in fact quite systematic, and is a vehicle of social meaning. Speakers switch to a different language not necessarily because they are speaking to a different person or about a different subject, but because they want to express a feeling or a point of view about something that is going on. Although such code-switching seems to be used in a number of different ways, its meaning can usually be tracked down to the basic meaning the ‘we-they’ differences, that are, consciously or unconsciously, part of ethnicity and expressing identification with one or other social group and the values associated with them.
F. Language and Ethnicity
W.W. Isajiw in defining ethnicity included the term ‘collective, intergenerational cultural continuity’. The term inherently contains the sense of links to one’s own kind, i.e. one’s own people, to collectiveness that not only purportedly have historical depth but, more crucially, share putative ancestral origins, and therefore, the gifts and responsibilities, rights and obligations deriving all of society and culture, depending on the extent to which ethnicity does pervade and dictate all social sensings, doings, and knowings. In this context, Le Page & Tabouret-Keller in commenting these components of definition proposed three conclusive ethnicity-related questions: Who are we? From where do we come from? What is special about us? Fishman further claimed that language is part of the authentic ‘doing’ constellation and authentic ‘knowing’ constellation that are recurringly assumed to be dimensions of ethnicity.
It is indeed widely believed that there is a natural connection between the language spoken by members of a social group and that group’s identity. By their accent, their vocabulary, their discourse patterns, speakers identify themselves and are identified as members of this or that speech and discourse community. From this membership, they draw personal strength and pride, as well as sense of social importance and historical continuity from using the same language as the group they belong to.
Kosaku Yoshino, in discussing ethnicity, claimed that the uniqueness of the in-group is most directly felt in interactions with outsiders, the linguistic and communicative mode is the key area. Indeed, language together with culture, religion, and history, is a component of ethnicity and nationalism. In this context, language relates with past time pride and authenticity. Besides, it also functions as contrastive self-identification. The latter function can be in the form of unifying function and at the same time separating function. This means that using or choosing one code over the other implies the performance of cultural acts of identity.
Although ethnic differences are sometimes not accompanied by linguistic differences, it is rare to find two or more mutually unintelligible languages used in a society without the speakers belonging to different.
Combining the frameworks mentioned above, we can see that code-switching between Banjarese and Arabic is used by the Banjarese speakers of Hadhrami Arabs because they wish to be identified as Arabs. That is, Arab is associated with foreignness, genetically and physically more distinguished, economically prosperous, and religiously more pious. The last characteristic is especially true with the case of Sayyid Arabs, as for non-Sayyids, they were viewed almost the same with their local Banjarese counterpart. Meanwhile, Banjarese is associated with native, traditional, and other values. This is partly because most of the Arabs came to South Kalimantan as traders cum propagandist of the religion of Islam. The circumstances faced and experienced by the Arabs were alarming, and feelings of superiority and advantage were internalized in their interethnic relations. For example, their practice of endogamy is viewed by the majority of Arab community members as a means of maintaining or preserving their pure blood. Latest development of practices of Arab acts of identity have been the increase use of more Arab vocabularies in their day-to-day conversation among Arab community members and with other group whom they assume to have relatively intensive contacts with them, especially in the context of business transactions. This increase is perhaps due to more frequent contacts with fellow Arabs in Java, especially those of East Java cities of Malang, Surabaya, and Pasuruan. Since I am a native of one of the six villages where Arab quarters are found, I have been able to conclude, from personal experiences and encounters with some of the members of Arab community, that new Arabic lexicons are only used and understood by those who make frequent visits to their relatives living outside Kalimantan.
G. Conclusion
1. The fact that people belong to different groups and have many potential identities causes them to choose any possible markers or even tools for forging these identities. Language one of the most important forms of human symbolic behavior and is a key component of many groups’ social identities. Different language choices made by speakers are linked to the speakers’ evaluation of other groups with which the available languages are associated.
2. It is widely believed that there is a natural connection between the language spoken by members of a social group and that group’s identity. By their accent, their vocabularies, their discourse patterns, speakers identify themselves and are identified as members of his or that speech or discourse community. From this membership, they draw personal strength and pride, as well as sense of social importance and historical continuity from using the same language as the group they belong to.
3. Despite the well-established belief in the equation of one language = one culture, individuals assume several collective identities with others that are likely not only to change over time in dialogue with others, but are actually responsible to be in conflict with one another. For example, an immigrant’s sense of self, that was linked in his country of origin perhaps to his social class, his political views, or his economic status, becomes, in the new country, overwhelmingly linked this national citizenship or his religion, for this is the identity imposed on him by others, who see him now, for example in the case of Arab descents in Martapura, only an Arab, a Banjarese, or a Muslim. His sense of self, or cultural identity, changes accordingly. Out of nostalgia for the ‘old country’, he may tend to become more Arab than the Arabs and ascertain what experts have called as ‘long distance nationalism’. The Arabic language he speaks certainly become with the passing of time somewhat very different from the Arabic spoken today in the streets of Aden or Hadhramaut; the community he or his ancestors used to belong to is now more ‘imagined community’ than the actual present-day Hadhramaut.



Bibliography

Abdussalam, Ahmed Shehu. Islam and Language. Kuala Lumpur: Al-Hilal Publishing. 1999.
Al-Fayyad, Muhammad Jabir. “The Importance of Language in Human’s Life.” In al-Lugha al-‘Arabiyya wa al-Wa’y al-Qawmi, Beirut: Markiz Dirasat al-Wihda al-‘Arabiyya, 1984.
Al-Husari, Sati’. Fi al-Lugha wa al-Adab wa ‘Alaqatihima bi al-Qawmiya. Beirut: Markiz Dirasat al-Wihda al-Arabiyya. 1983.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Komunitas-Komunitas Terbayang, terj. Omi Intan Naomi. Yogyakarta, INSIST-Pustaka Pelajar, 2002.
Azra, Azyumardi. Jaringan Ulama Timur Tengah dan Kepulauan Nusantara Abad XVII dan XVIII, Bandung, Mizan, 1995.
Bensman, J. and Resenberg, B. “Socialization” in The Study of Society by P.I. Rose (ed.), New York, Random House, 1977.
Berg, L.W.C van Den. Les Hadhramout et Les Colonies Arabes dans L’Archipel Indiens, Westmead, Gregg International Publishers Ltd, 1969.
Coupland, N. and Jaworski. A Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook, New York, St. Martin’s Press. 1997.
Dhaouadi, Mahmoud. Toward Islamic Sociology of Cultural symbols, Kuala Lumpur, A.S. Noordeen. 1995.
Edwards, John. Language, Society and Identity. Oxford, Basil Blackwell. 1985.
Gal, S. Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria, New York, Academic Press. 1979.
Gellner, Ernest. and Ahmed, Akbar S. Islam and Globalization.. London, Routledge. 1994.
Gumperz, J. ‘The Speech Community’, in International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, vol. 9. 1968.
Hourani, Albert. Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 1983.
Hudson, R.A. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 1980.
Hymes, Dell. On Communicative Competence, In Pride and Holmes. 1972
Isajiw, Wsevolod W. Definitions of Ethnicity, Toronto, The Multicultural Society of Ontario, 1974.
Kramsch, Claire. Language and Culture, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 1998.
Le Page and Tabouret-Keller in Kramsch, Claire. Language and Culture, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 1998.
Sankoff, G. “Language Use in Multilingual Societies: Some Alternative Approaches.” In J.B. Pride and J. Holmes. Sociolingistics, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books. 1972.
Santoso, Budi. Peranan Keturunan Arab dalam Pergerakan Nasional Indonesia, Jakarta, Progress, 2000.
Shepard, John M. Sociology. 2nd edition, St. Paul, West Publishing Company, 1984.
Suleiman, Yasir. Arabic Sociolinguistics, London, Routledge Curzon. 1994.
Suryadinata, Leo. Arifin, Evi N., Ananta, Aris. Penduduk Indonesia: Etnis dan Agama Dalam Era Perubahan Politik, Jakarta, LP3ES. 2003.
Yoshino, Kosaku. Cultural Nationalism in Comtemporary Japan: A Sociological Enquiry, London, Routledge. 1995.