Global Journal of Social Sciences Studies

Volume 2, Number 2 (2016) pp 72-82 doi 10.20448/807.2.2.72.82 | Research Articles

 

A Cross-Cultural View of Iranian Multilingualism: The Case of Azerbaijani Turkish, Persian, Arabic and Kurdish Contact

Mostafa Shahiditabar 1 Hossein Pourghasemian 2
1 Department of Foreign Languages, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran
2 English Language Center, Qom University of Technology, Qom, Iran

Abstract

The study of language in relation to society is defined as sociolinguistic. One of the most important currents of sociolinguistic research focuses on language change since languages as social phenomena have always changed in the past and they defiantly continue to change today. Some social contexts are the places where languages come into contact with each other. Iran as a multicultural country which is replete with numerous languages and dialects brings some non – official languages like Azerbaijani Turkish or Arabic (which are official languages in other countries) into contact with the only official language of Iran namely Persian. The current study aims to consider the multilingual context of Iran and report any probable language changes on the first hand and argue against Rezvani & Asadpour (2008) on the other hand. The framework used in this study is 'change in apparent time' introduced by Lindguist (2009). Regarding the first part of the study, the results show that the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979 has entered some words into the languages investigated in this study mostly Arabic or Islamic terminology. Also, lexical change has been accrued in Kurdish since it borrowed some words from Turkish and Persian. The other finding of the current study is that both Turkish and Persian have exchanged some words thanks to the contact they have. Arabic as the language of Islam has an impact on both Persian and Turkish as well as Kurdish. Regarding the second part of the study, no change has occurred in Turkish structure and what Rezvani & Asadpour (Rezvani & Asadpour, 2008) report about Turkish and Persian for most part is not reliable.

Keywords: Language change, Language contact, Azerbaijani Turkish, Persian, Arabic, Kurdish, Islamic revolution.

DOI: 10.20448/807.2.2.72.82

Citation | Mostafa Shahiditabar; Hossein Pourghasemian (2016). A Cross-Cultural View of Iranian Multilingualism: The Case of Azerbaijani Turkish, Persian, Arabic and Kurdish Contact. Global Journal of Social Sciences Studies, 2(2): 72-82.

Copyright: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Funding : This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

History : Received: 6 June 2016/ Revised: 23 June 2016/ Accepted: 2 July 2016/ Published: 13 July 2016

Publisher: Online Science Publishing

1. Introduction

Sociolinguistic is defined as the study of language in relation to society (Hudson 1996). An important current of sociolinguistic research focuses on language change, and some of the most influential scholars in the field consider that the proper task of a sociolinguistic theory should be to explain and predict language change (Coulmas, 1998). Languages as social phenomena have always changed in the past and they defiantly continue to change today. Some social contexts are the places where languages come into contact with each other. Iran as a multicultural country which is replete with numerous languages and dialects brings some non – official languages like Turkish or Arabic (which are official languages in other countries) into contact with the only official language of Iran namely Persian.

2. Review of Literature

A review of literature shows that, language change in Turkish, Persian and Kurdish is investigated at least by Ralli (2011); Virtanen (2003); Rezvani& ;Asadpour (2008); Raymon (2001); Keshavarz (2000) and Jahangiri (1980) among others. Ralli (2011); Virtanen (2003) and Raymon (2001) are non-Iranian scholars and Rezvani& ;Asadpour (2008) ; Kehsavarz (2000) and Jahangiri (1980) are Iranian scholars who have argued about Turkish, Persian or Kurdish change.  Also the review of literature shows that, the impact of Islamic Revolution as a sociopolitical and language change in Iran on Persian speakers is investigated at least by Jahangiri (1980); Keshavarz (2000) and Rezvani& ; Asadpour (2008). Jahangiri (1980) describes the effect of Islamic Revolution on the forms of address without any elaboration on the subject. Keshavarz (2000) acknowledges the change in pronominal system of Persian as a result of the sociopolitical change in Iran. Rezvani& ; Asadpour (2008) believe that the Islamic Revolution with the idea of 'all people are equal' caused a development in solidarity semantics. They also argue about the contact of standard Persian with Turkish and Kurdish that is going to be argued in this essay.Rezvani& ; Asadpour (2008) believe that the Islamic Revolution has an impact on Iranian speakers specially a development in solidarity semantics. They also argue about the contact of standard Persian with Turkish and Kurdish and report that Persian as the only official language of Iran has a heavy dominance over other language spoken in Iran which brought about changes in the vocabulary, pronunciation as well as syntax of the languages. Keshavarz (2000) investigates the impact of Islamic Revolution as a sociopolitical change in Iran on the forms of address in Persian. He discusses the change in three detentions as 1: the speaker, 2: the addressee, and 3: other referent(s). He concludes that the revolution has promoted the use of reciprocal and solidary forms of address. He points out that the honorific forms have not been affected by the revolution and justifies that the main reason for this finding is the fact that honorific forms are deeply rooted in the Iranian culture. The author also reports that with regard to social factors that affect the choice of pronoun and forms of address, the main influence of revolution seems to have been on status and authority.Jahangiri (1980) investigates the social differences of the Persian language in capital city of Tehran according to collected data and interview analysis. The author speaks about politeness system on Persian after showing the co-variation of the linguistic variables and the social factors, such as class, sex and age, as well as style. Then he gives the pronouns and verbs and their variations and then he argues about the combination of these variations and their application in terms of power and solidarity. At the end, he gives an overview of the results of the analysis and discusses the various issues such as transition probabilities, lexical diffusion, and the sociolinguistic structure of Tehran. Ralli (2011) investigates how Turkish verbs are accommodated in Aivaliot, a Greek-based Asia Minor dialect, which belongs to a different typology from the donor language. The paper shows that loan verbs are adapted to the Aivaliot morphology following specific constraints of Greek word formation but they are also affected by features innate to Turkish. It deals with certain base-driven morphological characteristics, such as stem-based derivation and system allomorphy which play a major role in Greek derivation and inflection, and make Aivaliot a good candidate as a case study for language contact and morphological consideration. The paper also argues that with the help of the Aivaliot data, it is not particularly difficult for verbs to be borrowed, provided that certain structural/morphological conditions are met. Virtanen (2003) addresses the problems proposed in Turkish language policy and legislation by introducing the main issues of Turkish language policy. The paper begins with a brief summary of the historical background. Also, the role of Turkish language policy in Turkish nation-building is discussed in the essay from the point of view of contemporary theories on nationalism. It should be mentioned that non-official languages with reference to relevant legislation is considered in this work as well. The author concludes that Turkey has met the minimum requirement of internationally-accepted linguistic norms. This study confirms that full adaptation to the new legal framework will take time among Turkish speakers. At the end, the study proves that the success of the forms will depend maily on the reception and support of the Turkish people.

Raymon (2001) declares that language change is increasing. It points out that there are many new approaches which seek to expand and extend models in language change. The author speaks about different approaches which have been beneficial to the field and says that diachronic corpus analysis has caused versions of standard wisdom in the field. Also, historical dimension has been added to sociolinguistics according to this paper. As far as this work is concerned, ‘the more such approaches come together the greater the opportunity for cross-fertilization and the greater the likelihood that observed shifts in languages can be described in terms of described in terms which are analytically adequate’.

3. Significance of the Study

The present study, however, attempts to address the 'give and take' situation between Persian (or Farsi) and Azerbaijani Turkish (or Turkish), and also tries to investigate the impact of Arabic, as the language of Islam and Islamic Revolution to some extent, on Persian, Turkish and Kurdish. It also aims to scrutinize the contact between the mentioned languages and criticize Rezvani and Asadpour (Rezvani and Asadpour, 2008). 

More specifically, this study seeks to answer the following research questions:

  1. Are we witnessing any phonological change in Turkish and Persian?
  2. Are we witnessing any lexical borrowing in Turkish and Persian?
  3. Is the structure of Turkish influenced by Persian as Rezvani and Asadpour (2008) say?

4. Turkish Versus Kurdish

Azerbaijani or Azeri or Azerbaijani Turkish or Iranian Turkish is a language belonging to the Turkiclanguage family, spoken in southwestern Asia by the Turks. Azeri is member of the Oghuz branch of the Turkic languages (Keith Brown and Sarah Ogilvie, 2009). Turkish and Azeri are believed to be one language, since they are known to closely resemble each other. In other words the native speaker of one language is able to understand the other. The language that is going to be discussed in the current work is Azerbaijani or Azerbaijani Turkish or simply Turkish that is spoken in Iran. Kurdish is a dialect continuum spoken by Kurds in western part of Iran in Kurdistan. Some parts of Kurdistan are located in Turkey and Iraq as well. It has some dialects like Kurmanji, Zaza, Mokri and Gorani. (Bagheri, 2007, &Abolgasemi, 1999). It is a member of the Iranian branch of the Indo-Iranian group of Indo-European languages. Kurdish is not a unified standard language but a discursive construct of languages spoken by ethnic Kurds, referring to a group of speech varieties that are not necessarily mutually intelligible unless there has been considerable prior contact between their speakers (Hassanpour, 1992). Some other linguists believe that Kurdish is in danger and is going to die out (MohammadzadeSadigh, 2010).

5. Theoratical Framework

5.1. Methodology

Considering two facts led the authors to use corpus linguistic as the methodology for the current study; firstly, since the 1990, corpora have become very crucial tools for historical linguistics and secondly, one of the most rewarding things one can study in corpora is language change (Lindguist 2009).

To answer the research questions of the current study, 'change in apparent time' method is used. As far as Lindguist (2009) is concerned, 'if you have a number of people of different ages, and there are marked differences between the way different age groups speak, you can assume that language change is going on and that the language is moving in the direction of the way the younger speakers are talking.' (Lindguist 2009).

To explain the relevant language changes, the category of Trask (2003) has been used to draw systematic conclusions. Trask (2003) discusses the different ways in which languages can and do change. He outlines four main domains which language change occurs. With the idea of ‘language change is ceaseless and remorseless’, he believes that lexical andsemantic change, phonological change, morphological change and syntactic change are seen in all live languages which is inevitable. A summary of his ideas are listed in the following:

Lexical and semantic change: Trask points out that borrowing is the most important reason of lexical and semantic change. He believes that loan words which are very frequent in English or other languages (Indeed, if you leaf through the pages of an English dictionary that provides the sources of words, you will discover that well over half the words in it are taken from other languages in one way or another. (Trask 2003) have special phonological and morphological treatments that bring about lexical and semantic change.

Phonological change: According to Trask, all types of change in pronunciation are collectively known as phonological (or using a more traditional term, sound) change. He speaks about syntagmatic change as well as consequence of such change for phonological system of entire language.

Morphological change: Changes in morphological systems and changes in the morphological structure of lexical items and of inflected forms are labeled as morphological change according to Trask.

Syntactic change: As far as language change is concerned, drawing a sharp distinction between morphological and syntactic change seems to be difficult. Trask mentions three pathways of syntactic change as reanalysis, shift of markedness and grammaticalization

5.2. Subjects

The participants of this study were 30 Turkish and 30 Farsi informants. The Turkish participants were randomly selected from different strata of the society form Tabriz, Ardabil, Urmia and Zanjan cities since Azerbaijani Turkish speakers of Iran are mainly found and are native to the mentioned Iranian Azerbaijani regions. And the Persian speakers were selected from the Persian speakers of Tehran, Qom, Arak and Isfahan.

6. Causes of Language Change in iran

6.1. Sociopolitical Change

The sociopolitical upheaval of 1979 in Iran brought about changes in individuals' speech behavior as a result of the Islamic Revolution (Keshavarz, 2000). Abolishing class distinction was one of the values that the Islamic Revolution insisted on. Two new defined solitary forms of address emerged after the revolution. They were /barādar/ 'brother' and /xāhar/ 'sister' that are Persian words with broadened meanings. Persian, Turkish and all other spoken languages in Iran, then, were living at the point of political history where, all of them were experiencing some radical language changes especially in lexicon. /Emām/ 'Imam'the title given to the holy leader of revolution was one of the first words even started to be used before the revolution. Some other words like /emāmxomeyny/ 'Imam Khomeini' or /hazret-e emām/ 'Excellency Imam' were used with a nearly same meaning. Similar words emerged soon after his passing away like /margad-e emām/ 'Imam’s Shrine', /margad-e hazrat-e emām/ 'Excellency Imam’s Shrine' or even /margad-e hazrat-e emāmrahmatollahalayh/ 'Excellency Imam (mercy upon) Shrine' or /magām-e moazzam-e rahbarihazrat-e āyatollahxāmeneimoddazelloāli/ 'Suprem Leader, Excellency Great Ayatollah Khamene’i high tide of shadow'. Sometimes, Persian accepted stronger changes that extended from just or a word a phrase to sentences like /assalāmoalaykyāruhollah/ 'Peace at you, oh Ruhollah', /assalāmoalaykomvarahmatollah/ 'Peach at you (hello)' or /sabbahkomollahvalxeyr/ 'good morning'. The main reason for this language change may be the holy position of the leader and the idea of holding him in high regard.  An interesting word was /beyt/ 'house' which was collocated with /emām/ to say 'emām's house' as /beyt-e emām/. These terminologies are still continuing to be entered into Persian after approximately four decades. /Basyrat/ 'insight' or /fetne/ 'intrigue' are two new Arabic words that are entered by the present leader of Iran into Persian lexicon.   /Xān/ which used to refer to a landlord lost its meaning and now is used with or without first name as a polite addressing form that usually associated with speech of uneducated people. /śahyd/ 'martyr', /velāyat/ /God given leadership/, /rahbar/ 'leader' and /magām-e moazzam-e rahbary/ etc are other Arabic words that entered into Persian in the aftermath of Islamic Revolution.

6.2. Religious Factor

Religion is believed to be one of the dominant factors in language change. Any religion has its own culture, custom and language. People had different creeds in Iran like Zoroastrian before the entrance of Islam. They had their own religious words for God (ahurāmazda) for instance. By the entrance of Islam many customs changed and this change brought about language changes. /Xodā/ and /allāh/ substituted for /ahurāmazda/ in Persian that /allāh/ was an Arabic word and /xodā/ was a Persian word. Turkish on the hand chose /tānrɪ/ or /tārɪ/ as Turkish substitutions and /allāh/ with some phonological changes /āllāh/ as an Arabic equivalent for God. Kurdish borrowed /allāh/ without any changes but /xodā/ with some phonological changes as /xudā/ (Rezvani&Assadpour, 2008). Some other terms that are borrowed from Arabic are as follows: /axlāg/ 'morality', /adab/ 'politeness', /amr-e be ma’rufvanahy-e azmonkar/ 'calling people to do good and not letting them do bad', /isār/ 'sacrifice' and many other words. It should be pointed out that these words entered into Persian, Turkish and Kurdish. Some other terms coined by these languages like /ruze/ 'fast' by Persian and Kurdish or /oruj/ with the same meaning by Turkish.  In the present time most of the legal, political and Islamic texts are inundated with Arabic words. Persian, Turkish and Kurdish are influenced by these terminologies on the one hand, and the force of Persian as the official language of Iran, on the other hand have created Iran as a heaven of language contact and language change.

6.3. Language Contact

Prolonged and intimate contact between languages – generally, of course, between speakers of the languages – often results in extensive language change, especially when one of the languages is numerically or politically dominant, and especially also when much of the population speak both languages (Hudson, 2000). The multilingual context of Iran faces changes in languages as the lexical change which is undoubtedly the most common type of language change that means the appearance of new words in every language, Phonological change that refers to all types of change in pronunciation has been more intensively investigated than any other type of language change and morphological change which is a change in morphological structure of the lexical items.

7. Result and Discussion

7.1. Lexical Change

Crystal (2008) defines the lexicon or word stock of any language as its vocabulary. Then, lexical change is the appearance of new vocabularies in a language. Linguists believe that lexical change is the most common type of language change in the world as Trask writes:
Undoubtedly the most conspicuous type of language is the appearance of new words.

Trask (2003). Persian and Turkish are witnessing the appearance and dying out of many words in Iran. Table 1 and table 2 in the following show this change that is a kind of ‘give and take’ relation between Turkish and Persian. The following data is elicited from the participants using 'change in apparent time' method (Lindguist 2009).

Table-1. Some Turkish words interred into Persian:
Source: collected data of the current study

Table-2. Some Persian words interred into Turkish
Source: collected data of the current study

/Otāg/ 'room', /dolmā/ and /gorma/  'kinds of food' and other similar words are borrowed by Persian speakers from Turkish. On the other hand, /pākkon/ 'eraser' and /māhvāre/ 'satellite' are barrowed by Turkish speakers from Persian. It is worth mention that Turkish has some synonyms for the borrowed words while Persian has not any relevant synonyms for the loan words. It can be concluded that Turkish speakers do not use words like /pozan/ for /pākkon/ or /peyk/ for /māhvāre/ in Iran. The main reason for this phenomenon is that most of Turkish informants are not aware of the new-entered Turkish vocabularies for eraser and satellite and they just have heard the Persian words mainly at schools, since the only official language of Iran is Persian.

With regard to /qaçaqçı/ 'smuggler', it should be pointed out that it is not just a word that Persian has borrowed from Turkish but also a morphological change has occurred in Persian. Kurdish as a continuum dialect of Iranian languages borrowed many words from Persian, Turkish and Arabic as it can be seen in table 3.

Table-3. Kurdish borrowed words from other languages
Source: collected data of the current study

A glance to Kurdish borrowed words reveals that the dominance of Persian as the official language of Iran, Arabic as the language of revolution and Turkish as the dominant languages of Kurd-inhabitant areas of Iran (except in Kurdistan) are inevitable. Table 3 shows some examples of this dominance and as a result shows lexical change in Kurdish.

And Arabic as the language of Islam and Islamic Revolution has forced these languages to uses some of its words as it shown in table 4.

Table-4. Some Arabic words or phrases entered into Persian, Turkish and Kurdish:
Source: collected data of the current study

All of the words in table 4 or their synonyms are mentioned in Holy Quran. Turkish, Persian and Kurdish speakers in Iran are very respectful to the Holy Qur’an and this reason makes them use ‘Qur’an-related Words’ not their own language words for Islamic concepts. Of course, Persian speakers sometimes use /be nāmexodā/ for /besmellāherahmānerahim/.

7.2. Phonological Change

he study of ‘how the sound of speech are actually made’ is phonetics and ‘the study of phonemes and their relations in sound system is the business of phonology’ (Widdowson, 2009 &Samareh, 1999) and considering all kinds of changes in pronunciation is defined as the analysis of phonological changes. Persian, Turkish and Kurdish have witnessed some types of phonological changes.  Interviewing with native speakers of these languages and data analysis demonstrate that some small phonological changes are inevitable especially in loanwords in Persian and Turkish. Some Persian people especially clergymen have a phonological change in the pronunciation of the words like /besmellāherahmānerahim/ 'In the name of God, the merciful the compassionate'. For instance, they pronounce /bismillāhhirahmanirahim/ instead of /besmellāherahmānerahim/. Or some Persian speakers pronounce Pride (The Kia Pride is a subcompact car sold by the South Korean automobile manufacturer Kia Motors that is used by Iranian) as /prāyd/ instead of /perāyd /.  A similar kind of change is seen in Turkish in a word like /kāşān/. Some Turkish informants especially the ones who are living in Persian dominant cities change /kāşān/ to /kaşan/. About Kurdish, Rezvani&Assadpour believe that there are about 11 vowels and they were reduced to 6 vowels like Persian and all long vowels omitted (Rezvani&Assadpour, 2008).

7. 3. Morphological Change

Morphology which had a checkered career is defined as the study of the internal structure of words (Katamba&Stonham, 2006) and morphological change is believed to be the changes in the morphological structure of lexical items and of inflected forms and changes in the morphological system (Trask, 2003). As an example /çɪ/ that is a suffix (in Persian pronounced as /çy/) is borrowed from Turkish in words like /şekarçy/ (hunter) by Persian and Kurdish. Some morphological changes can be seen in both Persian and Kurdish by the force of Turkish in suffixes like:

  1. /çɪ/ (in Persian pronounced as /çy/): in words like şekarçy, howçy, davaçy, gāçāgçy.
  2. /başɪ/ (in Persian pronounced as /bāşy/): in words like āşpazbāşy, akāsbāşy.

It is worth mentioning that these morphological changes cannot be generalized to all Persian and Kurdish words especially /başɪ/ which is less common than /çɪ/ in these languages in the present time.

7.4. Syntactic Change

Syntax is the study of the way in which phrases and sentences are structured out of word (Radford, 2006 &Tallerman, 1998) and syntactic change is the change in the structure of the sentences of any language. As far as the collected data and a studying Persian and Turkish syntax references (Anvari&Ahmadigivi, 1992 &Böksel, &Kerslake, 2006) are concerned, and considering that syntactic change is harder to happen in comparison with other linguistic changes in any language, no syntax change is seen in this study. Meanwhile Rezvani&Asadpour (2008) reported that 'the structure of Turkish is for most part influenced by Standard Persian'. They just gave an example ((O gedebaga) 'he went to the garden') and justify that the verb and the subject are inverted and that inversion has caused an influence in most part of Turkish.

7.5. An Argument against Rezvani &Asadpour (2008)

As mentioned earlier, one of the aims of this study is to review Rezvani&Asadpour (2008) and see weather Turkish structure is influenced by Persian or not.

Rezvani&Asadpour in a work entitled ‘Language contact and Language change: Evolution or Putrefy (A cross-Cultural View of Multilingualism)’ proposed some ideas about Turkish, Persian and Kurdish that do not seem to be defendable from a linguistic point of view. In this part of the study, just the parts about Turkish and Persian languages are going to be discussed. In introduction they quoted:

'Azeri is believed to have been a part of the dialect continuum of Northwest Iranian languages' or 'Azeri would also have been very similar to classical Middle Persian'.

In the middle of the work, they say that Turkish uses /ruze/ for fast and Persian uses /galam/ for pencil. Also some false reports are made in this study. For instance the authors say that /bāriz/ and /baxšudegi/ are used in Azeri.

One of the most controversial points about this work is its results about Turkish structure. As it was mentioned earlier about the language family of Turkish and Persian, there is no doubt that Azeri or Azeri Turkish is believed to belong to the western group of the southwestern or Oghuz branch of Turkic language family not Iranian language family or Persian language as Rezvani&Asadpour (2008) say. As Keith Brown and Sarah Ogilvie write about Azeri or Azeri Turkish in 'Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World':

Azarbaijanian (Azerbaijani, Azeri) (Azerbaycandili, Azerbaycanca) belongs, like Turkish, to the western group of the southwestern or Oghuz branch of Turkic language family. It is spoken in northern and southern Azerbaijan (i.e., in the Republic of Azerbaijan), particularly in the province of Azerbaijan and in Iran (Brown & Ogilvie, 2009).

Also, Azeri or Turkish is a member of agglutinating languages but Persian which is a member of Indo-European languages is a flexional language. O'Grady et al (O'Grady William et al, 1989) believe that Azeri is a member of Turkic language family and Persian belongs to Indo-European languages family.

About the word /oruj/ in Turkish and /medād/ in Persian, the collected data shows that all of the Turks (Western Azerbaijanis or other Turks living in Tabriz, Ardabil, Urmiaor Zanjan) use the word /oruj/ for fast. Also, all the Persian participants use /medād/ for pencil not /galam/.

And about the words /bāriz/ and /baxšudegi/, it should be taken into account that these words are used in Persian not Turkish. A general conclusion that can be drawn from the mentioned points is that most of the mistakes show that the judgments are according to Persian and sometimes according to Kurdish intuitions. Maybe, it can be concluded that the authors are not native Turks but they have the basic knowledge of Turkish.  In regard to structure of Turkish, it needs to pointe out that 'O gedebaga' that is a false sentence in Turkish which is used as the only example of the authors should be written as 'O getdibağa' or ‘O gittibağa’ or 'O getdibaga' or ‘O gittibaga’ or some other similar pronunciations. It should be added that this sentence is a pure Turkish sentence and is not a Persian-structured sentence. Of course, the word order in Turkish is mainly subject-object-verb the same as Latin or Korean but other word orders are possible in Turkish. For instance, ‘O bagagitti’ with a stress on the word bag /garden/ or even ‘Baga O gitti’ with a stress on the word /O/ are possible. This is possible since the speaker uses it in Turkish to stress the importance of a certain word or phrase (Böksel  &  Celia, 2006).   Another point about this works is the fact that as far as language research and language assessment are concerned, some points should be taken into consideration in data collection or analyzing the linguistic data as the amount of data needed for research, reliability and validity (Backman, 2005; Wray &Blooeer, 2006; Jafarpour, 2002). The amount of the data in Rezvani&Asadpour (2008) is just an example. Also, its measurement is not reliable since the obtained result acts exactly opposite to the scientific definitions of reliability for instance. Reliability is defined as ‘similar scores will be obtained in the repeated measurements of the same ability or a measurement is reliable when similar results are obtained in repeated tastings (Jafarpour, 2002). Another point is about Rezvani&Asadpour (2008) conclusion. Lester (Lester, 1995) names certain mistakes in the conclusion. One of them is as ‘Avoid telling off into meaningless or irrelevant information’. A glance to the essay shows that there is some irrelevant information in conclusion. Of course, some other problems that are not going to be discussed here.

8. Conclusion

As stated earlier, this study aims to investigate language contact and language change in the multicultural context of Iran. It can be concluded that the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979 has entered some words into the languages investigated in this study mostly Arabic or Islamic terminologies. As far as the collected data is concerned, lexical change has been occurred in Kurdish since it borrowed some words from Turkish and Persian. The main reason for this finding may be that Kurdish is not a unified standard language but a dialect continuum of Iranian branchof the Indo-Iranian group of Indo-European languages, however, both Turkish and Persian are standard languages. Both Turkish and Persian have exchanged some words thanks to the contact they have. Arabic as the language of Islam has an impact on both Persian and Turkish languages as well as Kurdish. It is also conceivable that there are some tinges of phonological changes in Turkish and Persian especially in loanwords that is a very natural phenomenon and supports the idea that every language that is spoken continues to change as Trask (2003) says ' not just century by century, but day to day' or 'a consequence of the complete absence of any differences between members of this community is that language change is thereby ruled out' (Hudson, 1996). And with regard to the structure of Turkish, no change has occurred in Turkish structure and what Rezvani&Asadpour (Rezvani&Asadpour, 2008) report about Turkish and Persian is not reliable.

9. Acknowledgment

We are greatly indebted to Professor Dr. Hossein MohammadzadeSadigh (HuseyinDuzgun) and Dr. A. H. Sarkeshikian for their invaluable comments.

References

Anvari, Hassan &Ahmadigivi, Hassan.(1992). Persian Grammar. Tehran. Fatemi Publication.

Abolgasemi, M. (1999).The Short History of Persian Language.2th ed. Tehran.Tahoori Library.

Backman, Lyle, F. (2005) Statistical Analysis for Language assessment. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Böksel, Ash &Kerslake, Celia (2006).Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. Routlege.Taylor & Francis e-Library.

Bagheri, M. (2007).The History of Persian Language.11th ed. Tehran.GhatrePubliation.

Brown, Keith  & Ogilvie, Srah (2009). Concise Encyclopedian of Languages of the World. Elsevier Ltd.

Coulmas, Florian (1998). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics.Blackwell publishing.

Crystal, David. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics.6th ed. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Hassanpour, A. (1992). Nationalism and Language in Kurdistan.Sansfrancisco.Melalon Press.

Hudson, Richard A. (1996). Sociolinguistics.2nd ed. Cambridge.Cambridge University Press.

Hudson, G. (2000). Essential Introductory Linguistics.Massahusetts. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Hickey, Raymon (2001).Language change. In: Jefverschueren, Jan-Ola Ostman, Jan Blommaert (eds) Handbook of Pragmatics. (Amesterdam: John Benjamins, 2001 installment).

Jafarpur, A. (2002). A Course in Language Testing.Tehran. Payeme Noor University.

Jahangiri, N. (1980). A sociolinguistic study of Persian in Tehran.Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.University of London.

Keshavarz, M. H. (2000). Issues in Applied Linguistics. Tehran. Rahnema.

Katamba, F. &Stonham, J. (2006).Morphology.2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan.

Lester, D. James (1995) Writing Research Papers: A complete Guide. New York. Halper Collins College Publishers.

Lindquist, H. (2009). Corpus Linguistics and the Description of English. Edinburgh. Edinburgh University Press.

MohammadzadeSadigh. H. (2010).The Hypothesis of Azeri language and Kasravi. Tehran. Takderakht.

O'Grady, William, et al. (1989). Contemparary Linguistics: An Introduction. New York. St. Martin's Press.

Radford, Andrrew (2006). English Syntax: An Introduction. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Rezani, P. &Asadpour, H. (2008). Language Contact and Language Change: Evolution or Putrefy (A Cross-Cultural view of Multilingualism). 6th International METU Postgraduate Conference in Linguistics and Language Teaching.

Rally, Anjela (2011).Morphology in Language Contact: verbal loanblend formation in Asian Minor Greek (Aivaliot).  Thomas Stolz, Martine Vanhove, HitomiOtsuka&Urdze (edz.), Morphology in contact.(Studiatypologica). Berlin: AkademieVerlag.

Samareh, Y. (1999).  Persian Phonetics.2nd ed. Tehran.University Center Publication.

Tallerman, Maggie (1998). Understanding Syntax. London. Arnold.

Trask, R. L. (2003). Historical Linguistics. Landon. Arnold.

Virtanen, Eraydin, Özlem (2003). Recent Changes in Turkey’s Language Legislation. Barcelona.CIEMEN.

Wray, Alison & Bloomer, Aileen.(2006). Projects in Linguistics.2nd ed. London. Hodder Arnold.

Widdowson, H. G. (2009). Linguistics. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

About the Authors

Mostafa Shahiditabar
Department of Foreign Languages, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran
Hossein Pourghasemian
English Language Center, Qom University of Technology, Qom, Iran

Corresponding Authors

Mostafa Shahiditabar