Diglossia, referring to the strict functional specialisation of at least two varieties of one language, has been regarded as a defining feature of the sociolinguistic profile of the Arabic-speaking world since Ferguson’s pioneering study on this phenomenon (1959). The rigid formality of fuṣḥā is put into sharp contrast with the colloquialism of ʿāmmiyya. Recent literature on Arabic diglossia is replete with models designed to depict as accurately as possible the complicated functional distribution, along the linguistic continuum, between the two poles of fuṣḥā and ʿāmmiyya. However, there are also studies addressing how Arabic diglossia is perceived by native Arabic speakers (Zughoul 1980; Mahmoud 1986; Suleiman 1986; Amara 1995; al-Kahtany 1997; Suleiman 2013b). This chapter follows the latter tradition and argues that the nativist dimension of diglossia is important, as it reveals how a seemingly linguistic issue is in fact deeply embedded in the sociopolitical and ideological environment of the native language community and is laden with extra-linguistic considerations, including how varieties of Arabic go beyond their communicative instrumentality to become political and ideological proxies.

This chapter examines the conception of Arabic diglossia as a linguistic- cum-sociopolitical problem in the ALA discourse and explores the reason behind the continuing reiteration of this conception therein. It identifies three discursive habiti viewing fuṣḥā and ʿāmmiyya as organisms, instruments and national symbols respectively. The first habitus sees ʿāmmiyya as a set of imperfect, hybrid lineages of fuṣḥā but nonetheless still affirms the role of ʿāmmiyya in keeping Arabic alive; the split and the anticipated reunification of Arabic are correlated with the fragmentation and reunification of the Arab nation. The second habitus understands fuṣḥā and ʿāmmiyya as tools of different qualities, values of utility and degrees of distribution in Arab society; the lack of integration between the two is believed to impede social cohesion and national solidarity. The third habitus considers fuṣḥā a key element in uniting the Arab nation but is ambivalent towards the various ʿāmmiyyas as symbols of both the political fragmentation and the geographical and cultural diversity of the Arab nation. To explain the reiteration of this ‘diglossia as a problem’ thesis in the ALA discourse, this chapter suggests that a major reason behind this is the persistent feeling of instability and insecurity concerning statecum- national identities among Arab intellectuals against the background of politically unrealised pan-Arabism and the rise and consolidation of modern Arab states.