Literatura académica sobre el tema "Kurdish language (Kurmanji dialect)"

Investigation in linguistics particularly applied linguistics and dialectology require consideration and experience in other fields, like phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. If we want to study the dialects, sub dialects and their characteristics, we must deal with the component of language carefully. So, in this paper to find out and illustrate the data of the sub dialects of central Kurmanji, northern Kurmanji, Hawrami Sub dialect, the data of these three dialects, sub dialects in term of morphology and syntax then Morphosyntax component have been demonstrated. Subsequently, thru analyses the examples, the similar and difference points have been represented and discussed which the similar and difference points of morphology, syntax of dialect and sub dialects of Kurdish language illuminated.

In this paper, we study a particular case of language planning in Diaspora through the activities of the Committee for Standardization of Kurdish Kurmanji dialect spoken by the majority of Kurds living in Turkey, in Syria and by part of the Kurds living in Iran and in Iraq. Despite its sizeable speaker community, Kurmanji is not officially recognized and public education is not provided in this dialect in the countries where it is spoken. The absence of official recognition and structural variation within Kurmanji led Kurdish intellectuals and researchers living in exile to form the Committee in 1987. Holding two meetings per year in a European city, the Committee tries to standardize and to revitalize the Kurmanji dialect without relying on government support. We examine the activities of the committee in the light of its research in the field of language policy and planning. The activities will be assessed by three typologies of language planning: 1) Haugen’s classical model of language planning (1991 [1983]); 2) Hornberger’s integrative framework of language planning (1988); 3) Nahir’s Language Planning Goals (2000). Our contribution focuses on two aspects of the activities: corpus planning and dissemination of results in exile. We study the practices of collection of vocabulary and neology in different scientific domains as well as the influences of these activities on the development of Kurmanji

There are many studies about using lemmatization and spell-checker with spell-correction regarding English, Arabic, and Persian languages but only few studies found regarding low-resource languages such as Kurdish language and more specifically for Kurmanji dialect, which increased the need of creating such systems. Lemmatization is the process of determining a base or dictionary form (lemma) for a specific surface pattern, whereas spell-checkers and spell-correctors determine whether a word is correctly spelled also correct a range of spelling errors, respectively. This research aims to present a lemmatization and a word-level error correction system for Kurdish Kurmanji Dialect, which are the first tools for this dialect based on our knowledge. The proposed approach for lemmatization is built on morphological rules, and a hybrid approach that relies on the n-gram language model and the Jaccard Coefficient Similarity algorithm was applied to the spell-checker and spell-correction. The process results for lemmatization, as detailed in this article, rates of 97.7% and 99.3% accuracy for noun and verb lemmatization, correspondingly. Furthermore, for spell-checker and spell-correction, accordingly, accuracy rates of 100% and 90.77% are attained.

This paper presents the results of the first investigation into Kurdish linguistic varieties and their spatial distribution. Kurdish dialects are used across five nation states in the Middle East and only one dialect, Sorani, has official status in one of these nation states. The study employs the “draw-a-map” task established in Perceptual Dialectology; the analysis is supported by Geographical Information Systems (GIS). The results show that, despite the geolinguistic and geopolitical situation, Kurdish respondents have good knowledge of the main varieties of their language (Kurmanji, Sorani, and the related variety Zazaki) and where to localize them. Awareness of the more diverse Southern Kurdish varieties is less definitive. This indicates that the Kurdish language plays a role in identity formation, but also that smaller isolated varieties are not only endangered in terms of speakers, but also in terms of their representations in Kurds’ mental maps of the linguistic landscape they live in.

Abstract This article is an autoethnographic account that traces the widening divide between Kurdish dialects in the age of nation-states. It aspires to problematize and go beyond the widespread gap characterizing the Kurdish language along two dialects and alphabets. From its emergence as a non-state language in the 1920s onward, Kurdish actors sought to revive Kurmanji Kurdish in Damascus, Beirut and Yerevan; and Sorani Kurdish in Sulaimaniya and Baghdad. While the Kurmanji side of the story and its actors have been studied to a certain degree, how Kurdish developed in Sulaimaniya and Baghdad has received little scholarly attention. Through its author’s autoethnographic account of acquiring literacy in both dialects which recently came to fruition at the Zheen Center for Documentation and Research in Sulaimaniya, this article provides some reflections on the story of the Kurdish language in the age of nation-states.

Every Friday, articles were presented at mosques, and the subject of the articles involved all aspects of human life, political, economic, social,…Any phenomenon in the society is mentioned in religious speeches. These articles will be part of religious discourse in Kurdistan, one of the subjects we have chosen for this investigation and we will study it from the perspective of a speech by Mala Araz about condemning the Turkish attack on the kurds. The aim of our study is to analyze religious discourse from a pragmatic perspective to achieve the goal that we have analyzed in the methodology, and we have received an example from the book" Mala Araz", which is in the context of the central Kurdish language kurmanji dialect.

In Kurdish land and because of language planning were increased 1980 till 2000. The most notable planning of the language that educators, researchers and linguists gained the support of the government for it, were because of the efforts of Vatey Group. For the efforts of these groups in Europe, the Kurmanji and Zazaki dialects reached the language standards of today and presented literary products. The immigrant and Diaspora communities, for the linguist's researcher in the field of language, the loss and assimilation of the language that appeared among the immigrants, gave them the opportunity to investigate in it. Those efforts of Diaspora showed that the language can be rescued. We wish that researches on the "purpose of language planning" continue, Mosh Nadir(2000) to value it. After we presented the construction of both institutes, we will shed light on the efforts of the language. The creation of language creation of language treasure, the archive of existing words, and the strategy of new words…etc

This paper seeks to identify various difficulties that translation students face during the translation process. The data for this descriptive qualitative and quantitative study came from students’ verbalizing their translation loudly. The participants in the study were five fourth-year students from the Department of Translation, University of Duhok who voluntarily participated to translate two texts (literary and non-literary) from English into Kurdish. Any use of resources was permitted, and think-aloud protocols, as a research tool was used to collect the data. The experiment recordings, and verbal reports produced by the participants were used to analyze the data. According to the study's findings, translation students had several difficulties within the process, including translating words with no equivalents, comprehending the figurative language (simile), translating cultural-specific items, struggling with the style of the given text, putting ideas together, relating background knowledge to the text at hand, choosing the right equivalent, and confusing between the two Kurdish dialects (Sorani and Kurmanji). The findings recommend additional research to look at potential solutions to such difficulties. The study's findings led to conclusions that have ramifications for theory and practice. The summary of the major translation difficulties demonstrates the theoretical value of the study. It was also found out that the difficulty of translation is not always anticipated and is not always conceptually explicable.

In this paper I review a semantic analysis of the Badini Kurdish modal particles dê and da (Unger, 2012). This analysis claims that the modal particles are procedural indicators in the sense of Blakemore (2002) triggering cognitive inferential procedures relating to assessing the speaker's commitment to the veracity of the communicated content and to the speaker's reliability for making true claims about the eventualities described. Since audiences interpret utterances for optimal relevance following a path of least effort (Sperber and Wilson 1995), these minimal clues for constraining the pragmatic interpretation process are enough to guide audiences arriving at the temporal, modal and aspectual interpretations intended by the speaker. I argue that the standard Kurmanji particle wê triggers slightly different procedures than Badini dê. These differences provide semantic explanations to variation in Northern Kurdish dialects with respect to the indication of future time and with reference to possible but non-factual worlds.Pirtikên raweyî yên dê û da di kurdiya badînî de: semantîka prosedûrî û cudatiyên zimanî ya navxweyîDi vê meqaleyê de ez vedigerime ser tehlîleke semantîk (Unger, 2012) a pêştir li ser pirtikên raweyî (modal particles) yên dê û da di kurdiya badînî de. Îdiaya vê tehlîlê ew e ku ev pirtikên raweyî nîşanên prosedûrî ne, li dû pênaseya Blakemore (2002), ku rê li ber prosedûrên hişî yên bimenakirinê vedikin ku ew prosedûr fikrekê didin derheqê pabendiya axêverî bi rastbûna muhtewayê axiftinê û derheqê pêbaweriya axêverî ji bo derbirîna gotinên rast li ser encam û muhtewayê axiftinê. Ji ber ku guhdar bêjeyan bi awayê herî zêde pêwendîdar û bi serfkirina kêmtirîn hewlan şîrove dikin (Sperber û Wilson, 1995), ev serben û nîşanên mînîmal yên destnîşankirina çeperên proseya şîrovekirina mercî bes in ku guhdar bikarin pê bigihine wan şîroveyên demî, raweyî û aspektî ku mebesta axêver in. Herwiha diyar dibe ku pirtika wê ya kurmanciya standard prosedûrên hinek cudatir ji yên dê ya badînî feal dike. Ev cudatî ye li pişt cihêrengiya zaravayên kurmanciyê ya di nîşandana dema tê de û di amajeya bi cîhanên mumkin lê ne waqi’î. ئامرازەکانی پەیوەندیدار بە کردار، دێ و دا لە کوردیی بادینیدا: ماناناسی ڕێکاری و جیاوازی زمانی لەم وتارەدا هەوڵ دەدەم پێداچوونەوەیەکم بۆ شیکاری ماناناسیانەی ئامرازەکانی پەیوەندیدار بە کردار لە کوردیی بادینیدا وەکوو دێ و دا هەبێت (ئانگر، ٢٠١٢). ئەم شیکارییە داخوازی ئەوە دەکات کە ئامرازەکانی پەیوەندیدار بە کردار بەو مانایەی کە لای بلەکمۆر (٢٠٠٢) هەیانە دەورێکی نیشاندەری ڕێکارییانەیان هەیە و بەم واتایە ئەو پرۆسە زانینیانەی کە ئەنجامێکیان لێ دەکەوێتەوە پەیوەندییان لەگەڵ بەراوردکردنی دەربەستبوونی ئاخێوەران، ڕاستیەتی ئەو بەستێنەی کە پەیوەندی چێ دەکات و هەروەها باوەڕپێکراوی ئاخێوەران بۆ سازدانی داخوازیگەلێکی ڕاست سەبارەت بەو ڕووداوانەی کە وەسف کراون هەیە. چونکە بیسەرەکان قسەکان لە ڕێگەیەکەوە ڕاڤە دەکەن کە بەباشترین شێوە پەیوەندی لەگەڵ ساز بکەن و هەروەها کەمەترین هەوڵی بۆ بدرێت (سپێربر و وێڵسن ١٩٩٥)، ئەم نیشانە بچووکانە کە پرۆسەی ڕاڤەیەکی کارەکی بەدەستەوە دەدەن بۆ ڕێنوێنی ئەو بیسەرانە بەس دەکەن کە بە چەند ڕاڤەیەکی کاتی، پەیوەندیدار بە کردار و کاتی ڕووداوەکانەوە دەگەن و ئاخێوەران مەبەستیانە. من بەڵگە دەهێنمەوە کە لە کرمانجی ستاندارددا ئامرازی وێ، بە بەراورد لەگەڵ دێ لە بادینیدا، دەبێتە هۆی چەند شێوازێکی نەختێک جیاواز. ئەم جیاوازییانە چەند لێکدانەوەیەکی ماناناسیانە دەستەبەر دەکەن و بەمگوێرەیە جۆراوجۆری زارەکانی کوردیی باکور لە ڕێگەی ئاوڕدانەوە لە نیشانەکانی دواڕۆژ و سەرچاوەدان بە چەند جیهانێکی گونجاو بەڵام ناواقێع دابین دەکرێت.

Abstract This article investigates the way that Kurdish language learners construct discourses around identity in two language schools in London. It focuses on the values that heritage language learners of Kurdish-Kurmanji attribute to the Kurmanji spoken in the Bohtan and Maraş regions of Turkey. Kurmanji is one of the varieties of Kurdish that is spoken mainly in Turkey and Syria. The article explores the way that learners perceive the language from the Bohtan region to be “good Kurmanji”, in contrast to the “bad Kurmanji” from the Maraş region. Drawing on ethnographic data collected from community-based Kurdish-Kurmanji heritage language classes for adults in South and East London, I illustrate how distinctive lexical and phonological features such as the sounds [a:] ~ [ɔ:] and [ɛ]/[æ] ~ [a:] are associated with regional (and religious) identities of the learners. I investigate how these distinct features emerge in participants’ discourses as distinctive identity markers. More specifically this article examines how language learners construct, negotiate and resist language ideologies in the classroom.

Depuis son émergence dans les années 1960, le champ de recherche de la planification et de la politique linguistiques est réservé, par des définitions et typologies, aux actions des instances gouvernementales sur les langues (Haugen, 1959 ; Nahir, 1984 ; Hornberger, 2006). Or, les interventions sur les questions de langue(s) ne se limitent plus aux structures étatiques. Les collectivités locales, les organisations non gouvernementales et les communautés linguistiques sont les principaux acteurs qui s’impliquent à la défense, la revitalisation et/ou la transmission de leurs langues (Boyer, 2010 ; Davis, 2014). Par conséquent, cette recherche a pour objectif d’étudier l’implication des locuteurs dans le devenir de leur propre langue en diaspora, à travers une analyse qui s’appuie sur les acteurs, leur production et leur impact. Pour ce faire, nous nous baserons sur les travaux de l’entreprise du Séminaire Kurmancî, créé en 1987 par des activistes kurdes en diaspora, basés à Paris, en France, et affilié à la Fondation de l’Institut Kurde de Paris. Le Séminaire Kurmancî consacre ses travaux à la variété kurmancî de la langue kurde, qui n’a pas pu bénéficier d’une prise en charge institutionnelle quant à l’élaboration d’une politique linguistique et à l’application de cette politique. Depuis sa création en 1987, le Séminaire Kurmancî publie les résultats de ses travaux sur le kurmancî dans leur revue intitulée Kurmancî. Notre observation du profil des membres permanents (11), anciens membres (11) et participants occasionnels (17) du Séminaire montre qu’ils sont tous des locuteurs engagés dans la promotion et le maintien du kurmancî. Notre étude de leur production, à savoir la revue Kurmancî (63 numéros au total) fait apparaitre que les domaines d’action du Séminaire Kurmancî concerne les aspects internes du kurmancî. Ces actions se répartissent en deux catégories : 1) la recension des mots à partir de multiples sources orales et écrites et 2) les propositions néologiques du vocabulaire scientifique et technique. En ce qui concerne la première catégorie d’action du Séminaire, notre corpus constitué de 155 entrées lexicales tirées de deux sources différentes (les parlers locaux et les classiques littéraires du kurmancî) a mis en évidence que la politique linguistique du Séminaire se base sur une approche descriptive. En ce qui concerne la deuxième catégorie d’action du Séminaire Kurmancî, l’analyse linguistique de 106 propositions néologiques issues de cinq domaines (linguistique, juridique, journalistique, footballistique et informatique) a révélé qu’il s’agit de mettre en profit des matrices internes et externes dans la création des néologismes. L’étude du niveau de diffusion des néologismes montre que la revue Kurmancî est un inventaire pré dictionnairique dont bénéficie principalement le Dictionnaire Français-Kurde (2017)
Since its emergence in the 1960s, the field of research in language planning and policy has been reserved by definitions and by typologies, for the actions of government bodies on languages (Haugen, 1959; Nahir, 1984; Hornberger, 2006). However, interventions on language(s) issues are no longer limited to state actions. Local governments, non-governmental organizations and language communities are the main actors involved in the defence, revitalization and / or transmission of their languages (Boyer, 2010; Davis, 2014).Therefore, this research aims to study the involvement of speakers in the future of their own language in the diaspora through an analysis based on the actors, their production and their impact. To do this, we will base on the works of the Séminaire Kurmancî, created in 1987 by Kurdish activists in the diaspora, based in Paris, France, and affiliated with the Kurdish Institute of Paris. The Séminaire Kurmancî dedicates its work to the Kurmancî variety of the Kurdish language, which has not been able to benefit from institutional support for the elaboration of a language policy and the application of this policy. Since its creation in 1987, the Séminaire Kurmancî has published the results of its work in their review entitled Kurmancî.Our observation of the profile of permanent members (11), former members (11) and occasional participants (17) of the Séminaire shows that they are all speakers committed to the promotion and maintenance of the kurmancî. Our study of their production, i.e. the review Kurmancî(63 issues in total) shows that the fields of action of the Séminaire Kurmancî concern the internal aspects of Kurmancî. These actions fall into two categories: 1) collecting of words from multiple oral and written sources and 2) neological propositions in the fields of scientific and technical vocabulary. With regard to the first category of Séminaire’s actions, our corpus of 155 lexical entries drawn from two sources (local speeches and literary classics of Kurmancî) has shown that the language policy of the Séminaire basis of a descriptive approach. With regard to the second category of action of Séminaire Kurmancî, the linguistic analysis of 106 neological propositions from five domains (linguistics, law, journalism, football, computer science) revealed that the aim is to taking advantage of internal and external matrices in the creation of neologisms. The study of the level of dissemination of neologisms shows the magazine Kurmancî is a pre-dictionary inventory from which the Kurdish-French Dictionary (2017) mainly benefits

Previous research about the acquisition of the case-marking systems of ergative languages suggests that children acquire ergative and accusative languages equally easily (Van Valin 1992), depending on the degree to which the case morphology is consistently ergative or accusative and the degree to which adults use the morphology (Pye 1990). However, split-ergative languages incorporate both accusative and ergative systems, some in the midst of a shift away from ergativity, thus providing variable and inconsistent input for children. Yet previous research suggests that children can acquire variable linguistic forms at early stages, reflecting frequencies in which the forms occur in caregiver input (Henry 1998, 2002, Miller 2006, 2007, Westergaard 2009). This study examines the acquisition of split-ergativity in Kurmanji Kurdish, where the direct case is used with both present-tense agents and past-tense patients and the oblique case is used with past-tense agents and present-tense patients. However, recent research suggests the weakening of ergativity in Kurmanji (Dorleijn 1996), resulting in variable use of case-marking. This study examines the acquisition of split-ergativity in Kurmanji when considering the split systems and inconsistent adult input. Data from children (n=12) and caretakers (n=24) include spontaneous speech samples and results from a modified Agent-Patient test (Slobin 1985). Four children from three age groups, 1;6, 2;6, and 3;6, were recorded interacting with caretakers every three months for one hour over a 12-month period. Statistical analyses were conducted focusing on adult patterns (input for children) and children’s production at different ages. Results suggest that Kurmanji may be shifting away from a split-ergative system, with the past tense extending to a double oblique pattern and nouns gradually losing oblique case-marking altogether, resulting in variable case-marking. Data show that children first use ergative case as early as 2;0 and show evidence of repeated use of split-ergative case-marking by 2;6. Even at these early ages, children use similar variability and frequency in case-marking as their caretakers, closer to usage of younger adults versus older adults. Thus children seem to use ergative case-marking early, and when faced with inconsistent input, they ultimately conform to the patterns modeled by the adult community.
text

Studies on Ezafe demonstrate that it displays considerable cross-linguistic variation, making it difficult to propose a unified analysis. Our goal is to achieve such unification by investigating the properties of Ezafe in two typologically different languages; Northern Kurdish/Kurmanji Kurdish (Iranian) and Turkish (Turkic). Taking Ezafe as a linking feature that marks dependency between the head and the non-head elements within the nominal domain, we propose that the variation can be explained with the head directionality of the language and the phase domain where the head noun lands in/remains. This allows us to account for data that were problematic for previous accounts and to extend the range of data to languages (specifically, Turkish) that have not been analyzed as Ezafe languages before.

Abstract This chapter seeks to account for accusative and ergative alignments in terms of head licensed case, i.e. in terms of Agree, rejecting dependent case approaches. In the accusative alignment, nominative case depends on T agreement and accusative case on v* agreement. In the ergative alignment, nominative/absolutive case depends on T, while ergative is an oblique. Importantly, not all oblique case is inherent—specifically DOM is structural (Sections 6.2–3). This distinction is relevant in approaching ergative case (Sections 6.4–5), in an active language (Punjabi) and in an ergative language proper (Kurmanji Kurdish). Ergative case can be construed as inherent in Punjabi, but must be construed as structural in Kurmanji. Furthermore, DOM and ergative are shown to oscillate between being able to enter Agree, or not. This is imputed to the possibility for them to project either as PPs or as DPs.