Linguistic Aspects of ṭ ax ṭ axa , a Sociolinguistic Perspective

One of the most interesting phenomena of using language in an administrative setting in Jordan is commonly referred to as ṭaxṭaxa ‘shooting’. That is, to use a specific version of Arabic to fight, argue against, or weaken the status of a person who is leading an administrative position or who has an administrative status. Linguistic investigation and complete understanding of this phenomenon, as far as I know, has not been studied yet.(Note 1) The present research attempts to explore the linguistic components associated with the use of language in an administrative setting. It shows that the use of language in such a setting triggers the application of specific linguistic structures that contain particular statements, expressions, terms, and idioms. It also views the use of language in an administrative setting as an art of fighting with words, as the user tends to apply ṭaxṭaxa aggressively to achieve certain objects. The paper discusses and provides evidence for the different elements of ‘shooting’ which include its definition, labels, levels, types, users, reasons, objects, times, reaction to, and effects, respectively.


Introduction
Current linguistic trends have presented two opposing views about the nature of using language as a tool of communication in a broad sense.One view suggests a peaceful use that aims at facilitating interaction between members of a linguistic community (Suleiman 1995, Coulmas1998, Searle 2000, Romaine 2000, Owens 2001, Boxer 2002, Downes 2005, Owens 2006, Coulmas 2006, and Bassiouney 2009), the other claims that language is a tool that utilizes a non-peaceful communication that initiates or copes with "conflicts."(Eadie and Nelson 2000, Rouchdy, 2003, Thomas et al 2003, and Suleiman. 2004).The complex and sophisticated nature of language use, however, justifies the realistic and reasonable vision of these conflicting views.Narrowing the scope of the second vision to include specific setting would help understand how language use functions in "conflicts", which "are dependent on how the speakers interpret the facts of their situation" (Suleiman 2004: 55), and provide further evidence to such view.As far as I know, using language the non-peaceful way in an administrative milieu is not investigated yet, an issue that raises a high need to fill in this gap in the current linguistic trends.(Note 2)

What is ṭaxṭaxa?
The literal translation for the term ṭaxṭaxa is 'shooting'.It is derived from the root ṭaxx, which means 'shoot'.
The process of 'shooting' can be defined as talking about or against someone to someone else.As shown in figure 1, below, person number 1 is talking to person 2 about 3. The process of ṭaxṭaxa is negatively looked at by people, because of its negative and non peaceful effect on the targeted person.(Note 3) It is derived from a root that denotes a sense of 'fighting', 'participating in a battle', or 'joining a war' to express its impact.It is a starting point or a trigger of what is known as "a war of words" (Suleiman, 2004), a case where the insight of Owens (2001Owens ( , 2006) ) is neither followed nor adopted, where sociolinguistics interaction does not proceed in a peaceful way and takes a form of a fight, a battle, or a war in which specific expressions are used and causalities, loss, or destructions are expected.

Labels
The person who practices ṭaxṭaxa is usually referred to by the following local terms: (2) Although these terms sound positive, but they are implicitly negative.

Levels of ṭaxṭaxa
There are two levels of shooting depending on who practices it and who the target is.

Low
This type goes in two dimensions.First, it could be practiced between employees, who, for certain reasons, don't get along with their boss.As show in Figure 2, employee A, B, and C are talking against their boss.Shooters usually express their disapproval of their boss by using certain strategies: 1) Imitating his way of speaking.
2) Repeating the same word or sentence said by him.
4) Making jokes about him.

5) Looking down to what he says.
Second, it might be used by employees themselves against one of their peers.An employee may express his disapproval of a peer by talking against this peer to the boss using the same strategies mentioned earlier, as shown in Figure 3 where employee A is talking against employee B to the boss.
Figure 3. Employee A is talking against employee B to the boss

High
This type takes place when an employee meets a higher boss to complain about his immediate boss.It also happens when a boss meets a higher boss to complain either about a competing person or an employee.A shooter in these situations follows the strategy of pointing out the weakness of the target.The three cases are illustrated in Figure 4, where (4.A) an employee is talking against his immediate boss to a higher boss, in (4.B) a boss is arguing against a competing person to a higher boss, and in (4.C) a boss is complaining about an employee to a higher boss.(The curved line represents the destination to which ṭaxṭaxa should arrive, the straight line represents the targeted person): Figure 4. (A) An employee is talking against his immediate boss to a higher boss.(B) A boss is arguing against a competing person to a higher boss.(C) A boss is complaining about an employee to a higher boss.

Types of ṭaxṭaxa
There are two types of ṭaxṭaxa; overt and covert.The former entails attacking the targeted person publicly on face to point out his problems and mistakes, while the latter is made indoors behind the target and normally addresses the boss of the target.

Overt
Examples of overt ṭaxṭaxa include the following statements used by a shooter in which the complement is always a negative statement: ( 5)  The audience who witnesses this type of 'shooting' usually labels it with negative terms like wağhana 'keeping face', šakwana 'complaining', and mzāwada 'claiming loyalty'.

Covert
This type is considered more effective and destructive since the targeted person is not given the chance to defend his view.It is referred to as fasfasa 'gossiping', dasdasa 'insertion', zarwaga 'zigzaging', naṭnaṭa 'jumping', or ṭahīna 'grounding'.
The shooter usually uses the following expressions: (

Users of ṭaxṭaxa
A normal employee may turn into a shooter who finds it a need to verbally attack his boss in the following situations.First, when the boss does not respond to the shooter's personal needs: (7) faššalny 'he disappointed me' nafaxit bgirba maxzūga 'I blew air in a torn bag' 'ana bwād wa hū bwād 'I am in a valley and he is in a different valley' mas'ūl ġaby 'a stupid boss' Second, when the boss applies regulations strictly so that the shooter objects are not met: (8) ğilif 'stubborn' mā buxiđ walā ba'ṭy 'he never gives or takes' 'abū atta'līmāt 'father of regulations' 'ala doary ṣār niẓ āmy 'he applies the rules on me' Third, when the boss is not fair: (9) 'ibin fiarām 'sun of a gun' ẓ ālim 'unjust' mal'ūn wāldein 'parents' disobedient' Fourth, when the boss is not flexible: (10) loafi 'a board' xašaba 'a wood' fieiṭ 'a wall' Fifth, when the boss practices bad or corrupted administration: (11) fāšil 'a failure' ṣāgiṭ 'unsuccessful' fāriġ 'empty' Meanwhile, a shooter may practice ṭaxṭaxa against a peer when reasons, as will be discussed below, are available.

Reasons for ṭaxṭaxa
The process of 'shooting' is triggered by one of the following factors, depending on the targeted person who might be a boss or a peer.

Objects of ṭaxṭaxa
A shooter struggles to achieve the following objectives:

To Gain the Trust of a Higher Boss
This entails talking to a higher boss against an immediate one.

To Achieve Boss Satisfaction
This requires spying on other peers and reporting their deeds to the boss (25) biddu ysawwi kađa 'he will do …..' fiakāli kađa 'he told me ….'

To Get Social Status
A shooter may compete his target as a way to get public reputation by talking against his target openly to take his position.The objects of the shooter in targeting a position can be understood from the following: (

Times of ṭaxṭaxa
The times in which ṭaxṭaxa occurs rely on the following situations.

Meeting the Immediate Boss
In this case, the target is a peer: (39) mā biğğāwab 'he never responds' xalliṣna minnuh 'for our sake get rid of him' xarrab šuġulna 'he destroyed our work'

Meeting the Higher Boss
The target in this case is the immediate boss.

Meeting Peers
In this case the target is the immediate boss or an other peer.

Reaction to ṭaxṭaxa
Skillful bosses believe in the local expression "mā fī nār bidūn duxxān", that is, 'there is no fire without smoke'.
They are familiar with ṭaxṭaxa, its reasons, and its objectives.They don't, in most cases, react or make a decision against the targeted person, unless the shooter provides critical evidence against his target.Inexperienced bosses, on the other hand, may not carefully examine the reasons and objectives of shooting and, thus, may take an action against the targeted person.However, when shooting takes place indoors with a skillful boss, there are four scenarios that represent the reaction of this boss.First, as shown in figure (5.A), an employee A is talking against his peer (B) to the boss.But the boss, as in figure (5.B), will be on touch with employee (B) to check all complaints against him as well as direct him.Eventually, as shown in (5.C), the boss does not make a decision against the targeted person (Note 4) except stopping communication with him, but maintains contact with the shooter to explore his reasons and objectives and, in certain cases, to use him as a source of information that provides a feedback about the work of other employees.Second, an employee is talking against his immediate boss to the higher boss as shown in figure (6.A).The higher boss, as in figure (6.B), will contact the concerned boss to question all complaints against him, while maintaining contact with the shooter to gather more details.The higher boss may not act against the target, as shown in (6.C), but will maintain listening to the shooter to get more feedback about the efficiency of the concerned boss for future evaluation or direction.
Figure 6.(A) An employee is talking against his immediate boss to the higher boss.(B) The higher boss contacts the concerned and maintains contact with the shooter.(C) The higher boss maintains listening to the shooter for future evaluation or direction.
Third, a boss may complain or argue against a competing person to a higher boss, as in (7.A).The higher boss, in turn, may maintain communication with both parties, as in (7.B).As a result, no action against the target may be taken.The higher boss may decide to discontinue communication with the shooter himself who fails to provide logical reasons against his target, as in (7.C).The shooter is a loser in this case, because the higher boss will maintain communication with his opponent.In other words, failure to practice strong shooting may change into a critical shooting against the shooter himself.Fourth, a boss may argue against an employee to a higher boss, as in (8.A).The higher boss, in turn, may maintain communication with this boss whose arguments might be convincing, as in (8.B).As a result, the higher boss may continue communication with the shooter to receive further information which will affect the status of the target and lead to making a decision against him.
Figure 8. (A) A boss may argue against an employee to a higher boss.(B) The higher boss maintains communication with this boss.
Fifth, the same scenario mentioned above might be repeated but with a different shooter and a different target.Employee A may argue against employee B to their boss, as in (9.A).The boss may listen to the shooter whose arguments might be convincing, as in (9.B).Eventually, the boss may maintain contact with the shooter to receive further details which will affect the status of the target and lead to making a decision against him.

Effects of ṭaxṭaxa
The question is does shooting affect the target.The answer is yes.This is evident from the following examples, where in (42) the shooter expresses his ability in achieving his aim through defeating his target: (42) 'axađha bil'aẓ al 'I gave it (the shot) to him in the muscle' fi aṣṣamīm '(he received the shot) in the heart' ṭil'at min rāṣuh 'it (the shot) went out of his head' To avoid consequences and as a protection measure, it becomes common among employees to warn each other by using labels that address a boss or certain peers who are skillful in practicing ṭaxṭaxa routinely.

Conclusion
The broad scenario of "a war of words" which represents "a conflict between languages or language and varieties" (Suleiman 2004;15) is clearly evident when it is narrowed to an administrative setting, as it sheds light on a specific instance of such war.In this particular setting, which has its own linguistic aspects and components, an aggressive version of Arabic is used.This version triggers a battle of words which concerns a linguistic fight or struggle "between the speakers of a language who compete over resources and values in their milieus".
In an administrative setting, a battle of words can occur.In this battle, a skillful ṭaxxīx 'shooter' or fiarbağy 'warrior'does his best to use the available weapons, which are words and expressions, to fight and defeat an opponent in "a conflict" triggered by a state of discord caused by the actual or perceived opposition of needs, values, and interests.
Note 3. The following notions will be used for figure 1-9.Head of the curved non-dotted line means talking with or complaining to, head of the straight line means talking against, head of the curved dotted line means talking against, two heads means making a continuous contact, and a circle with a cross means no action is taken.
Note 4. This is represented by a crossed circle.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Person number 1 is talking to person 2 about 3.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Employee A, B, and C are talking against their boss

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. (A) An employee A is talking against his peer (B) to the boss.(B) The boss is on touch with employee (B) checking complaints and directing.(C) The boss stops contact with the targeted person and maintains it with the shooter.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. (A) A boss may complain or argue against a competing person to a higher boss.(B) The higher boss maintains communication with both parties.(C) The higher boss may decide to discontinue communication with the shooter.

Figure 9 .
Figure 9. (A) Employee A may argue against employee B to their boss.(B) The boss may listen to the shooter whose arguments might be convincing.