Linguistic Landscape of Kurdish Language in the West Part of Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor in Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language & Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Razi University, Kermashan, Iran

2 M.A. in Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language & Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Razi University, Kermashan, Iran

3 Assistant Professor in Linguistics, Department of English Language & Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran.

Abstract

The present study aims to investigate linguistic landscape among Kurdish speakers in the west part of Iran. A total of 812 signs were photographed (772 photos were selected) and were later categorized according to the top-down (governmental) versus bottom-up (private sector) distinction in Kermanshah, Sanandaj, and Ilam. Out of these 772 photos, 578 photos were related to bottom-up and 194 photos were related to top-down signs. The results of linguistic landscape analysis showed that among bilingual signs, Persian-Kurdish signs has the highest frequency in Sanandaj, while Persian-English signs are more prevalent in Kermanshah and Ilam. In all of the cities, Persian-Arabic signs have the lowest frequency among bilingual signs. Sanandaj was the only city in which Kurdish was dominant in Persian-Kurdish signs
Introduction
Linguistic landscape is a relatively new area of research that has attracted many researchers in recent years. In their seminal work, "Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality," Landry and Bourhis (1997) state that the linguistic landscape is: “The language of public road signs, advertising billboards, street names, place names, commercial shop signs, and public signs on government buildings combines to form the linguistic landscape of a given territory, region, or urban agglomeration" (p. 25). Since Landry and Bourhis utilized the concept of Linguistic Landscape (LL) as the "visibility and salience of languages on public and commercial signs in a given territory or region" (p. 23), researchers in the fields of sociolinguistics, sociology, language policy, social psychology, geography, media studies, and cultural studies have been interested in uncovering the nuances and disparities in the languages used in the public space.
Materials and Methods
To find out which languages are present in the linguistic landscape and how these languages are represented, linguistic and semiotic properties of the signs were investigated. The codification of the signs relies on that developed by Ben-Rafael et al. (2006) and Cenoz and Gorter (2006), such as the languages used on the signs, languages of signs (monolingual, bilingual, multilingual), order of languages on a sign, and the types of signs (top-down and bottom-up signage). Using Excel, the signs were coded according to the following variables: 1. Language of signs: for every sign, the type was coded. The categories include: monolingual, bilingual, and multilingual signs. 2. Number of languages: the number of languages present on the signs was counted. The appearance of a language may consist of an entire text or of only one word. The main languages counted in all sites were: Persian, Kurdish, Arabic, and English. 3. Order of languages: by the order of languages, we mean in bilingual or multilingual signs which language is more dominant. In doing so, the languages written in larger fonts were considered dominant. 4. Types of signs: both top-down (governmental) and bottom-up (private sector) are regarded in this study.
Findings
A total of 772 signs were photographed and later categorized according to the top-down (governmental) versus bottom-up (private sector) distinction in Kermanshah, Sanandaj, and Ilam. Out of these 772 photos, 578 were related to bottom-up and 194 were related to top-down signs. The results showed that among bilingual signs, Persian-Kurdish has the highest frequency in Sanandaj, while Persian-English signs are more prevalent in Kermanshah and Ilam. In all of the cities, Persian-Arabic signs have the lowest frequency among bilingual signs. Sanandaj was the only city in which Kurdish was dominant in Persian-Kurdish signs.
Discussion and Conclusions
Observing the signs and signs in the respective streets of the studied cities led to interesting results. From the display of languages displayed (used) in the public space, one can realize the possibility of identifying their performance, credibility, position, and expansion. The distribution of minority languages in the city limits can be considered an indicator of the language status in an urban area. Linguistic perspective also expresses the existing political and cultural views and approaches to the position of national languages in multilingual societies. Another important finding of this research is the spread of the Persian language and also the presence of some signs in English, which shows the importance and influence of the English language as a global language. This study shows that the linguistic landscape has both communicative and symbolic functions. A linguistic perspective can be used as a tool to legitimize national identity. Although the language policy of the country insists that all languages should not be given equal rights, the Kurdish language is given attention in these cities, especially in Sanandaj, but this attention is very insignificant compared to the dominant language (Persian), and it is not good news for Kurdish speakers

Keywords

Main Subjects


Álvarez, A. A., & Bernardo-Hinesley, S. (2023). Uncovering minoritized voices: The linguistic landscape of Mieres, Asturies. Open Linguistics, 9(1), 20220237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opli-2022-0237
Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Amara, M. H., & Trumper-Hecht, N. (2006). Linguistic landscape as symbolic construction of the public space: The case of Israel. In D. Gorter (Ed.). Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism (pp. 7–30). Multilingual Matters.
Cenoz, J. & D. Gorter (2008). Linguistic Landscape as an additional source of input in second language acquisition. IRAL, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46(3), 257-276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2008.012
Cenoz, J., & D. Gorter (2006). Linguistic landscape and minority languages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3, 67–80.
Chan, V. (2018). The linguistic landscape of a Cambodia town in Lowell, Massachusetts. Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, 13(1), 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/ 2153-8999.1137
Coluzzi, P. (2016). The linguistic landscape of Brunei. World Englishes, 35(4), 497-508. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12221
Edmonds, A. J. (2013). The dialects of Kurdish. Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg.
Gorter, D. (2006a). Introduction: The study of the linguistic landscape as a new approach to multilingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3(1), 1-6.       https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710608668382
Gorter, D. (Ed.). (2006b). Linguistic landscape: A new approach to multilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hopkyns, S., & van den Hoven, M. (2021). Linguistic diversity and inclusion in Abu Dhabi’s linguistic landscape during the COVID-19 period. Multilingual, 41(2), 201-232. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2020-0187.
Husin, M. S., Ariffin, K., De Mello, G., Omar, N. H., & Anuardin, A. A. S. (2019). Mapping the linguistic landscape of Kuala Lumpur. International Journal of Modern Languages and Applied Linguistics, 3(4), 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.24191/ijmal.v3i2.7362
Jaworski, A., & C. Thurlow (Eds.) (2010) Semiotic landscapes. language, image, space. London and New York: Continuum.
Kallen, J. (2009) Tourism and representation in the Irish linguistic landscape. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.). Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 270-283). London: Routledge.
Karam, F. J., Warren, A., Kibler, A. K., & Shweiry, Z. (2020). Beiruti linguistic landscape: An analysis of private store fronts. International Journal of Multilingualism, 17(2), 196-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2018.1529178
Landry, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(1), 23-49.    http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X970161002
Lu, S., Li, G., & Xu, M. (2020). The linguistic landscape in rural destinations: A case study of Hongcun Village in China. Tourism Management, 77(1), 104005.      http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104005
Manan, S. A., David, M. K., Dumanig, F. P., & Naqeebullah, K. (2015). Politics, economics and identity: Mapping the linguistic landscape of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. International Journal of Multilingualism, 12(1), 31-50.    http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2014.905581
Mirvahedi, S. H. (2016). Linguistic landscaping in Tabriz, Iran: A discursive transformation of a bilingual space into a monolingual place. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2016(242), 195-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2016-0039
Mulyanah, A. (2017). The newest survey on language attitude of Sundanese urban community in west Java province, Indonesia against Sundanese, Indonesian, and foreign language: A study on multilingual speaker. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(1), 223-230.        http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.1p.223
Rezaei, S., & Tadayyon, M. (2018). Linguistic landscape in the city of Isfahan in Iran: The representation of languages and identities in Julfa. Multilingual, 37(6), 701-720. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2017-0031
Riadi, A., & Warti, F. W. (2021). Linguistic landscape: A language learning media in an underdeveloped region. Indonesian TESOL Journal, 3(1), 46-67. https://doi.org/10.24256/itj.v3i1.1782
Shang, G., & Guo, L. (2017). Linguistic landscape in Singapore: What shop names reveal about Singapore’s multilingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 14(2), 183-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2016.121849‏
Sheyholislami, J. (2023). Linguistic human rights in Kurdistan. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.). Handbook of linguistic human rights (pp. 357-372). Wiley-Blackwell.
Sloboda, M. (2009). State ideology and linguistic landscape: A comparative analysis of (post)communist Belarus, Czech Republic and Slovakia. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.) Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 173-188). London: Routledge.
Spolsky, B. (2009) .Prologomena to a sociolinguistic theory of public signage. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.). Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery (pp. 25-39). London: Routledge.
Thurlow, C., & Jaworski, A. (2010). Silence is golden: The anti-communicational linguascaping of super-elite mobility. In A. Jaworski, & C. Thurlow (Eds.). Semiotic Landscapes. Language, Image, Space (pp. 187-218). London and New York: Continuum.
Weisi, H. (2020). A Critical review of Kurdish language branches based on geographical residency. Journal of Kurdish Literature, 5(2), 125-140. https://doi.org/10.34785/J013.2020.619 (In Persian)
Weisi, H. (2021). Language dominance and shift among Kalhuri Kurdish speakers in the multilingual context of Iran: Linguistic suicide or linguicide? Language Problems and Language Planning, 45(1), 56-79. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.20010.wei