A Survey Analysis of the Use of Kurdish Kinship Terms and Persian Borrowed Equivalents (Based on Data from Kalhori Kurdish)

Jamali, Shahram; Gowhary, Habib

doi:10.22059/jolr.2020.295585.666597

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Shahram Jamali ¹
Habib Gowhary ²

¹ Ph.D Candidate of Linguistics, Ilam branch, Islamic Azad University , Ilam, Iran,

² Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Ilam branch, Islamic Azad University , Ilam, Iran,

https://doi.org/10.22059/jolr.2020.295585.666597

Abstract

This study set out to examine the use of Kurdish kinship terms comparing with Persian borrowed equivalents in Kalhori Kurdish. Matras (2009), Treffers-Daller (2010) and Muysken, (1987) were frequently cited and adopted as theoretical model. Methodologically, this study is quantitative and descriptive. To achieve the goals, a list composed of almost all Kurdish kinship terms together with Persian borrowed equivalents were distributed among the participants to choose from. Based on gender, age and educational backgrounds, the subjects were divided to eight groups: young male/ female educated; old male/ female educated; young male/ female uneducated; old male/ female uneducated participants. For each group, 10 people were selected randomly. Therefore, a total number of 80 participants were selected to respond to the provided list through interview. For each kinship term, different contexts were provided and then the participants were asked to choose either the local kinship term or the borrowed one from Persian. To analyze the data, SPSS (version 23) was employed. As for the statistical test, ANOVA was employed to find any meaningful relation between the three independent variables of the study (age, gender and educational background) and the participants’ choice among the Kurdish kinship terms and Persian borrowed ones (dependent variable). Unlike the predictions of the theory of borrowing hierarchy (Muysken (1987), the results indicated the Kurdish kinship terms were used much more frequently than their (more prestigious) Persian equivalents in Klahori Kurdish. Different groups employed at least 54.5% to 100% Kurdish kinship terms. Since, no Kurdish lexical gap was found in the provided list, the results were in line with the predictions of the theory of lexical gap (Matras, 2009). Regarding the attested variations among different groups, the statistical employed test (ANOVA) showed that education and age play a meaningful role, while, sex was found to be statistically insignificant.

Keywords

References

Abasi, B., Kazzazi, K. 2013. Analyzing Hawrami Kinship Terms Based on Murdock’s Criteria. Journal of Western Iranian Languages and Dialects, 2 (1): 31-55, [in Persian].

Bakker, P. 1996. A language of our own. The genesis of Michif — the mixed Cree-French language of the Canadian Métis. Oxford University Press.

Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. Holt, Reinhart & Winston.

Borg, A. and Azzopardi-Alexander, M. 1997. Maltese. London: Routledge.

Brown, C. H. 1999. Lexical acculturation in Native American languages. New York: Oxford University Press.

Comrie, B. 2000. Language contact, lexical borrowing, and semantic fields. In: Gilbers, D. G., Nerbonne, J., and Schaeken, J. eds. 73–86.

Estaji, A. 2015. A Diachronic Study of Kinship Terms in Persian. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects Biannual, 7 (2): 1-19, [in Persian].

Field, F. W. 2002. Linguistic borrowing in bilingual contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gowhary, H. Jamali, Sh. 2020. Investigating Lexical Borrowing based on Borrowing Hierarchies in Kolhari Kurdish Emphasizing Gender, age and Educational Background. Journal of Researches in Linguistics, Articles in Press. DOI: 10.22108/JRL.2020.120997.1445, [in Persian].

Heidari, A. 2020. The Borrowing Hierarchy of Azerbaijani from Persian. Journal of Western Iranian Languages and Dialects, 8 (28), 39-59, [In Persian].

Hekking, E. and Bakker, D. 2007. The case of Otomi: A contribution to grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective. In: Matras, Y. and Sakel, J. eds. 435–464.

Holmes, J. 2008. An introduction to sociolinguistics. Harlow, England: Pearson Longman.

Haugen, E. 1950. The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language 26: 210–231.

Matras, 2000. Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers. International Journal of Bilingualism 4(4): 505–528.

Matras Y. 2009. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Minett, J. W. and Wang, S.-Y. 2003. On detecting borrowing. Distance-based and character-based approaches. Diachronica 20, 289–330.

Moravcsik, E.A. 1978. Language Contact. In J. Greenberg (ed.) Universals of Human Language: 93–122. Stanford University Press.

Morgan, L.H. 1871. Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

Murdock, G.P. 1949. Social Structure. The MacMillan Company, New York.

Muysken, P. 1981a. Quechua en Spaans in het Andesgebied. [Quechua and Spanish in the Andes.] Tijdschrift voor Taal- en Tekstwetenschap 1: 124–138.

Muysken, P. 1987. Concepts, methodology and data in language contact research: Ten remarks from the perspective of grammatical theory. In Papers for the workshop on concepts, methodology and data, Network on Code-switching and language contact: 15–30. Basel.

Naghshbandi, Z. Maleki, N. Khani, A. 2016. Investigating Kinship Terms in Kalhori Variety of Eyvan. Journal of Western Iranian Languages and Dialects, 3 (12), 85-104, [In Persian].

Rahmani, S. Mansuri, M 2015. Kinship Term patterns in Iranian Languages. Journal of Comparative Linguistic Researches, 5 (10): 157-175, [in Persian].

Poplack, S., D. Sankoff & C. Miller 1988. The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics 26: 47–104.

Salverda De Grave, J.J. 1906. De Fransche woorden in het Nederlands. [French words in Dutch.] Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam. Afdeeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 6.

Stolz, T. 2003. Not quite the right mixture: Chamorro and Malti as candidates for the status of mixed language: In: Matras, Y. and Bakker, P. eds. 271–315. Thomason, S.G. (ed.) (1996). Contact languages. A wider perspective. John Benjamins.

Swadesh, M. 1952. Lexicostatistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96, 452–463.

Thomason, S.G. & T. Kaufman 1988. Language contact, creolization and genetic linguistics. University of California Press.

Treffers-Daller, J. 2010. Borrowing. In M. Fried, J. O. Ostman & J. Verschueren (Eds), Vocabulary Studies in first and second language acquisition. The interface between theory and applications (pp. 74-90). Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Vellupillai 2015. Pidgins, Creoles & Mixed Languages. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in contact. Mouton.

Language Research

A Survey Analysis of the Use of Kurdish Kinship Terms and Persian Borrowed Equivalents (Based on Data from Kalhori Kurdish)

References

References

Volume 11, Issue 1
October 2020
Pages 49-72

A Survey Analysis of the Use of Kurdish Kinship Terms and Persian Borrowed Equivalents (Based on Data from Kalhori Kurdish)

References

References

Volume 11, Issue 1October 2020Pages 49-72

Volume 11, Issue 1
October 2020
Pages 49-72