پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 41 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 1,189 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,220 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 19,259,619 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 13,307,162 |
قابلیت فهم متقابل بین گویشهای کردی میانی و کردی جنوبی: مطالعة موردیِ گونههای مهابادی و بدرهای | ||
| فصلنامه علمی - پژوهشی زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 2، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 8، آذر 1398، صفحه 67-88 اصل مقاله (1.08 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30473/il.2019.43975.1229 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| منیژه میرمکری1؛ غلام حسین کریمی دوستان* 2؛ یادگار کریمی3؛ وحید غلامی4 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری زبان شناسی همگانی، گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، واحد سنندج، دانشگاه آراد اسلامی، سنندج، ایران | ||
| 2استاد، گروه زبان شناسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران | ||
| 3دانشیار، گروه ادبیات انگلیسی و زبان شناسی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران | ||
| 4استادیار، گروه زبان و ادبیات انگلیسی، واحد سنندج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، سنندج، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| پژوهش حاضر، مطالعهای تجربی برای اندازهگیری قابلیت فهم متقابل بین گونة مهابادی از آذربایجان غربی و گونة بدرهای از استان ایلام، مطابق معیارهای زبانشناختی و فرازبانشناختی در چارچوب اصل چندزبانهپذیری است. به این منظور، از آزمونهای عملکردی برای سنجش فهم زبانی و برای بررسی عوامل فرازبانشناختی مانند نگرش زبانی و برخورد زبانی از آزمون نظرسنجی استفاده شد. روش نمونهگیری تصادفی هدفمند بود. آزمونها در چهار سطح ترجمة جمله، مثل واژه و بازگویی متن، ضبط شدند و به سمع آزمودنیها رسیدند. آزمودنیها ترجمة مواد شنیداری گونة مقابل را به زبان فارسی در پاسخنامه قید میکردند. یافتهها نشان دادند قابلیت فهم دو گونة موردبررسی متقارن نیست و بهرغم آنکه نگرش گویشوران بدرهای نسبت به گونة مهابادی مثبتتر بود، نمرات گویشوران مهابادی در آزمونهای زبانی بالاتر بود. این نتیجه با مطالعات ماورود (1976) و نیز دلسینگ و آکسون (٢٠٠٥) که مدعی بودند میان نگرش مثبت و قابلیت فهم زبانی همبستگی مثبت وجود دارد، مغایرت داشت. همچنین یافتهها نشان داد از میان یازده خصیصة واژگانی که بهعنوان عوامل مؤثر بر قابلیت فهم، مورد تأکید کورشنر و همکاران (٢٠٠٨) است تفاوت آوایی و ریشهشناسی واژگانی نقشی مهمتر در میزان قابلیت فهم میان گویشوران این دو گونة زبانی دارند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| فهم متقابل؛ چندزبانهپذیری؛ نگرش زبانی؛ برخورد زبانی؛ گونة مهابادی؛ گونة بدرهای؛ زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Mutual Intelligibility between Central & Southern Kurdish Dialects: A Case Study of Mahabadi & Badrei Varieties | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Manijeh Mirmukri1؛ gholam hosein karimi doostan2؛ yadgar karimi3؛ vahid gholami4 | ||
| 1Department Of English language and literature, sanandaj branch, Islamic Azad University,sanandaj,Iran | ||
| 2Professor, Department of Linguistics, Tehran University | ||
| 3associate professor, Department of English Literature and linguistics, University of kurdistan,Sanandaj,Iran | ||
| 4Department of english Language and literature, Sanandaj branch, Islamic Azad University, Sanandaj,Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| The present writing is a report of an empirical study to measure the level of mutual intelligibility between Mahabadi variety from West Azarbayjan and Badrei one from Ilam Province based on linguistic and non-linguistic criteria and receptive multilingualism approach. For this purpose, two types of tests, that is, function tests and opinion tests were used. We used targeted sampling to exclude subjects who had previous language contact. Test materials which were translated into the most common language in both varieties, were recorded. Subjects wrote the meaning or translation of presented auditory items in Persian. Findings showed that intelligibility between two varieties was not symmetric and although the attitude of Badrei speakers was more positive compared to the other variety, the scores of Mahabadi speakers in function tests were higher. This finding contradicts the result of the previous studies conducted by Maurud (1976) and Delsing and Akesson (2005) who claimed that there was a positive correlation between positive attitude and intelligibility. Moreover, the findings showed that among the eleven lexical features emphasized by Gooskens et al. (2008) as factors affecting intelligibility, phonetic distance and lexical etymology influence intelligibility more than other factors in these varieties. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| mutual intelligibility, receptive multilingualism, language attitude, language contact, Mahabadi variety, Badrei variety, sociolinguistics | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
آتشپژوه، فاطمه (1389). ارگتیو در زبان کردی. تهران: نشر دانش.
داوریاردکانی، نگار (1386). نمادهای هویت ایرانی و زبان فارسی. فصلنامة مطالعات ملی. 30. س 8. ش 2: 3-26.
صفوی، کوروش (1374). واژگان قرضی در زبان فارسی. نامة فرهنگ. ش 19: 96-111.
کریمیدوستان، غلامحسین (١٣٨٠). کردی ایلامی (بررسی گویش بدره). مرکز پژوهشهای کردستانشناسی. سنندج: انتشارات دانشگاه کردستان.
کریمی، یادگار (1390). بازبینی حالت مطلق در ساخت کنایی (ارگتیو). مجله پژوهشهای زبانی. د 2. ش 2. پاییز و زمستان 1390: 95-113.
کلباسی، ایران (1380). گویش کردی مهاباد. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی.
مدرسی، یحیی و مظفری، شراره (1397). تأثیر نگرش گویشوران بر کابرد تنوعات گونهای زبان فارسی در استان فارس: پژوهشی اجتماعیـ شناختی. فصلنامة زبان‌شناسی اجتماعی: د 2. ش 1 (پیاپی 3). تابستان 1397. 22-50.
Biggs, B. (1956). Testing intelligibility amang Yaman Languages. IJAL, 23, 57-62. Bø, I. (1978). Ungdom of naboland. En undersøkelse av skolens of fjernsynets betydning for nabospråksforståelsen. [Youth and neighbouring country. An investigation of the influence of school and TV on inter-Scandinavian comprehension]. Stavanger: Rogalandsforskning. Braunmüller, K. (2007). Receptive multilingualism in Northern Europe in the Middle Ages: A description of a scenario. In J. D. Ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (eds.) Receptive multilingualism (pp. 25-47). Amsterdam: John Ben-jamins. Casad, E. H. (1987). Dialect intelligibility testing. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics. Chaoju, T. (2009). Mutual intelligibility of Chinese Dialects: An experimental approach. LOT, Utrecht. Chaoju, T., & van Heuven, V.J. (2009). Mutual intelligibility of Chinese dialects experimentally tested. Lingua, 119,709–732. Chambers, J. K., & Trudgill, P. (1998). Dialectology (2nd Ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crawford, J. C. (1967). Theoritical and methodological beginnings of dialect survey program. Paper presented in dialect suvey field worker’s coneference. Cuernavaca, Morelos. Mexico. Crystal, D. (ed.) (2011). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (6th ed). Blackedwell Publishing. Delsing, L. O., & Åkesson, K. L. (2005). Håller språket ihop Norden. En forskningsrapport omungdomars förståelse av danska, svenska och norska [Does language keep the Nordic countries together? A research report on how well young people understand Danish, Swedish and Norwegian]. Copenhagen: Nordiska ministerrådet. Eppler, E., & Benedikt. J. (2018). A perceptual dialectological approach to linguistic variation and spatial analysis of Kurdish varieties. Journal of Linguistic Geography, 5(2), 109-130. Feleke, T. L. (2017). The similarity and mutual intelligibility between Amharic and Tigrigna varieties. Proceeding of the Fourth Workshop on NLP for similar languages (pp. 47-54). Valencia, Spain: Varieties and Dialects. Garrett, P. (2007). Language attitude. In: L. Carmen, L. Mullany & P. Stockwell (Eds.). The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics (pp. 116-121). London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Golubović, J., & Gooskens, C. (2015). Mutual intelligibility between West and South Slaviclanguages. Russian Linguistics. 39(3), 351-373. Golubović, J. (2016). Mutual intelligibility in the Slavic language area. Groningen: Univerity of Groningen. Gooskens, C. (2007).The Contribution of linguistic factors to the intelligibility of closely related languages. Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 28 (6), 445-467. Gooskens, C. (2013). Experimental methods for measuring intelligibility of closely related language varieties. In R. Bayley, R. Cameron & C. Lucas (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 195–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gooskens, C., & Van Bezooijen, R. (2006). Mutual comprehensibility of written Afrikaans and Dutch: symmetrical or asymmetrical? Literary and Linguistic Computing, 21(4), 543-557. Gooskens, C., Heeringa, W., & Beijering, K. (2008). Phonetic and lexical predictors of intelligibility. International Journal of Humanities & Arts Computing, 2(1-2), 63-81. Gooskens, C., & Hilton, N. H. (2013). The effect of social factors on the comprehension of a closely related language. In J. M. Tirkkonen & E. Anttikoski (Eds.). Proceedings of the 24th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics (pp. 201-210). Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland. Gooskens, C., & Heeringa, W. (2014). The role of dialect exposure in receptive multilingualism. Applied Linguistics Review, 5 (1), 247-271. Gooskens, C., van Bezooijen, R., & van Heuven, V. (2015). Mutual intelligibility of Dutch-German cognates by children: The devil is in the detail. Linguistics, 53(2), 255-283. Gooskens, C., & Schneider, C. (2016). Testing mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in an oral society. University of Groningen and University of New England Revised Version, 10, 278–305. Gooskens, C., van Heuven, V., Golubović, J., Schüppert, A., Swarte, F & Voigt, S., (2018). Mutual intelligibility between closely related languages in Europe. International Journal of Multilingualism. 15(2), 169-193. doi: 10.1080/14790718. 2017.1350185 Gooskens, C., & van Heuven, V. J. (2019). How well can intelligibility of closely related languages in Europe be predicted by linguistic and non-linguistic variables? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.17084.goo Grosjean. F. (1982). Life with two languages. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press Haig, G. (2004). Alignment in Kurdish: a diachronic perspective. Unpublished thesis. University of Kiel, Germany. Haig, G., & Matras, Y. (2002). Kurdish linguistics: a brief overview. Language Typology and Universals, 55(1), 314. Haig, G., & Öpengin, E. (2014). Introduction to Special Issue – Kurdish: A critical research overview. Kurdish Studies, 2(2), 99-122. Hamid, T. S. (2015). The prosodic of phonology of central Kurdish. Newcastle University. Hassanpour, A. (1992). Nationalism and language in Kurdistan, 1918–1985. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press. Haugen, E. (1966). Semicommunication: The language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological Inquiry, 36, 280-297. Heeringa, W. J. (2004). Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein distance (PhD thesis), Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, Netherland. Heeringa, W., Swarte, F., Schüppert, A., & Gooskens, C. (2018). Measuring Syntactical Variation in Germanic Texts. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 33(2), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1093/ llc/fqx029 Hickerson, H., Turner, G. D., & Hickerson, N. P. (1952). Testing procedures for estimating transfer of information among Iroquois dialects and languages. International Journal of American Linguistics, 18(1),1-8. Kessler, B. (1995). Computational dialectology in Irish Gaelic. In Proceedings of the seventh conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 60-66). Dublin: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. Korpela, J. K. (2014). Introduction to Finnish. Helsinki: Suomen E-painos oy. Kürschner, S., Gooskens, C., & Van Bezooijen, R. (2008). Linguistic determinants of the intelligibility of Swedish words among Danes. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 2 (1-2), 83-100. Oakes, L. (2001). Language and National Identity: Comparing France and Sweden. Amesterdam: John Benjamins. Olmsted, D. L. (1954). Achumawi-Atsugewi non-reciprocal intelligibility. International Journal of American Linguistics, 20(3), 181-184. Öpengin, E. (2013). Clitic/affix interactions: A corpus-based study of the person marking in the Mukri variety of central Kurdish (doctoral dissertation). Universität Bamberg, Germany. Malmasi, Sh. (2016) Subdialectal differences in Sorani Kurdish. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Language Technology for Closely Related Languages, Varieties and Dialects (VarDial) (pp. 89-96). Osaka, Japan. Maurud, Ø. (1976). Reciprocal comprehension of neighbour languages in Scandinavia: An investigation of how well people in Denmark, Norway and Sweden understand each other's written and spoken languages. Stockholm: Nordiska Radet. Paul, L. (2008). Kurdish Language I: History of the Kurdish Language, Encyclopaedia Iranica. http://www. iranicaonline.org/ articles/kurdish-language-i, accessed 15/ 08/ 2012. Pierce, J. E. (1952). Dialect distance testing in Algonquian. IJAL, 18, 208-218. Rehbein, J., Ten Thije, J. D., & Verschik, A. (2012). Lingua receptiva (LaRa)–remarks on the quintessence of receptive multilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16 (3): 248-264. Schüppert, A., & Gooskens, C. (2010). The influence of extra-linguistic factors on mutual intelligibility: Some preliminary results from Danish and Swedish pre-schoolers. In: B. Heselwood & C. Upton (Eds.). Proceedings of Methods in dialectology (pp. 194–203). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang. Schüppert, A. & Gooskens, C. (2011). Investigating the role of language attitudes for perception abilities using reaction time. Dialectologia, 2, 119-140. Schüppert, A., & Gooskens, C. (2012). The role of extra-linguistic factors for receptive bilingualism: Evidence from Danish and Swedish pre-schoolers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 16 (3), 332-347. Smith, L. E. (1992). Spread of English and issues of intelligibility. In B. B. Kachru (Ed.). The other tongue: English across cultures (2nd ed). (pp. 75-90). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Swarte, F., & Hilton, N. H. (2013). Mutual intelligibility between speakers of North and West Frisian. In C. Gooskens & R. van Bezooijen (Eds.). Phonetics in Europe: Perception and Production (pp. 281-302). Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang. Swarte, F. H. E. (2016). Predicting the mutual intelligibility of Germanic languages from linguistic and extralinguistic factors. [Groningen]: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Ten Thije, J. D., & Zeevaert, L. (2007). Receptive multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Thomas, G. (1991). Linguistic purism. London & New York: Longman Van Bezooijen, R., & Gooskens, C. (2005). How easy is it for speakers of Dutch to understand spoken and written Frisian and Afrikaans, and why? In J. Doetjes & J. Van de Weijer (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers, 22, 13–24. Voegelin, C. F., & Harris, Z. S. (1951). Methods for determining intelligibility among dialects of national languages. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 95(3), 322-329. Wolff, H. (1959). Intelligibility and inter-ethnic attitudes. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Language in culture and society (pp. 440–445). New York: Harper & Row. Zeevaert, L. (2004). Interskandinavische Kommunikation. Strategien zur Etablierung von Verständigung zwischen Skandinaviern im Diskurs [Interscandinavian communication. Strategiestowards establishing the understanding among Scandinaviansin discourse]. Hamburg: Dr. Kova. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,074 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,045 |
||