Repetition vs. Rule: What Arabic and English Reveal About the Meaning of the Ordinary

Introduction: Language as an Invisible Framework of Perception

Jacques Lacan argues that language does not merely serve a function of expression, but rather operates as a symbolic structure that precedes the subject, determining the conditions of thought and perception before individual consciousness emerges. Human beings do not stand outside language and use it as a tool; instead, they are born into an already-formed linguistic system that defines what can be said, what can be imagined, and what is perceived as self-evident or natural.

In this sense, language exerts its influence at an unconscious level. It does not implant specific ideas, but shapes the horizon within which things appear as “normal,” “acceptable,” or “deviant.” Many of our perceptions of the world are not the product of direct critical reflection, but rather the result of a silent interaction with deeply embedded linguistic structures operating in the background.

From this perspective, analyzing simple everyday concepts becomes a revealing entry point for understanding how language organizes our relationship to reality. Among such concepts, the notion of “the normal” stands out as a particularly telling example.

The Concept of “the Normal” العادي  in Arabic

In Arabic, the concept of “the normal” is connected to the root ʿāda (عاد), a root whose core semantic field carries the meaning of return and repetition. From this root emerge words such as al-ʿādī (“the ordinary”) and al-ʿādāt (“habits” or “customs”), in which the normal is not understood as a fixed rule, but as something that has occurred repeatedly over time until it becomes familiar.

Here, the normal does not derive its meaning from a prior standard or an explicit law, but from continuity across time. A habit is not an organizational decision, but a practical structure that emerges through practice and repetition within a specific context. What makes a behavior normal is its repetitive character, not its conformity to an ideal model.

In this sense, the concept of the normal in Arabic has a clearly temporal character; it is linked to process and becoming. The normal is not a static condition, but the result of interruption and return, since repetition implicitly presupposes an interruption followed by a return—otherwise it would be a permanent state rather than repetition. Thus, the normal becomes inscribed in the collective consciousness not as a law or rule, but as a form of familiarity produced by repeated appearance.

The Concept of “the Normal” in English

By contrast, the concept of the normal in English is linked to the word normal, derived from norm, meaning rule or standard. Here, the normal is understood as that which conforms to a defined reference point, and against which behavior or phenomena are measured.

In this context, the normal does not necessarily arise through repetition, but through specification. Something is considered normal because it corresponds to a recognized standard, whether legal, social, or institutional. As a result, the normal becomes closely associated with order, regularity, and compliance.

This gives the concept a clearly normative character: the normal is not merely what is common, but what ought to be. Deviating from the normal is therefore often understood as deviating from the rule or as a failure of compliance.

A Structural Comparison Between the Two Conceptions

This contrast reveals two distinct linguistic structures for organizing experience. In Arabic, the normal is understood as the outcome of temporal repetition within a living context, whereas in English it is understood as the result of normative fixation within an organizational system.
The normal in Arabic is descriptive in essence, emerging from practice, while the normal in English is normative, defined by reference to a rule or model.

This difference is reflected in the understanding of behavior: “normal” behavior in the Arabic context is what people have become accustomed to over time, whereas in the English context it is what aligns with an agreed-upon standard. I personally hypothesize that this difference also affects the psychological experience of speakers of the two languages: deviation in Arabic is often perceived as a departure from the familiar, while in English it is perceived as a violation of a rule.

Results: The Impact of Linguistic Structure on Worldview

This analysis shows that language does not merely describe the concept of “the normal,” but defines the framework within which behavior, order, and difference are understood. This appears on several levels:

First, in relation to law:
Arabic grants the normal a repetitive–temporal character, whereas English grants it a legal–organizational character. The normal in Arabic intersects with what has stabilized through repetition, while in English it is linked to what has been codified and fixed.

Second, in the conception of social order:
Order in Arabic is closer to a balance produced by continuity, whereas in English it is closer to an organized structure measured against standards.

Third, at the level of consciousness:
These differences are usually not perceived consciously; they operate implicitly through language itself, influencing judgments and expectations without the speaker’s awareness.

Conclusion

This comparison demonstrates that what we consider “normal” is not a neutral or universal truth, but the result of deep linguistic structures that shape our perception of the world prior to any conscious reflection. Language does not simply transmit reality; it organizes it symbolically, granting things their meaning and their limits. From this perspective, analyzing language is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a fundamental entry point for understanding how we see the world and position ourselves within it.