Language Attitudes and Religion: Kurdish Alevis in the UK

Authors

  • Birgul Yilmaz British Academy Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Westminster

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33182/ks.v8i1.512

Keywords:

Language attitudes, religion, matched guise tests, Kurdish-Kurmanji, Alevis

Abstract

In this article, I report on results of a Matched Guise Tests (MGT) study investigating attitudes towards Bohtan (BHKr) and Maraş Kurmanji (MRKr) spoken among the UK diaspora. I focus on BHKr, which I use to refer to the Kurmanji that is identified as “good Kurmanji”, also referred to as “academic”/ “proper”, and MRKr to refer to the Kurmanji that is referred to as “bad Kurmanji” by Kurmanji speakers in the UK. The MGT, and questions pertaining to perceptual dialectology such as respondents’ perceptions of region, religion, gender and class in this study, show that attitudes towards what is perceived as BHKr and MRKr differ significantly. By concentrating on language attitudes towards Kurmanji which have never been studied in the UK context before, this paper investigates negative and positive evaluations of both BHKr and MRKr in relation to religious affiliation.

Abstract In Kurmanji

Helwêstên zimanî û dîn: Kurdên elewî li Ingiltereyê

Di vê gotarê de encamên taqîkirineke bi rêya testa "matched guise" li ser helwêstên beramber kurmanciya Botan û ya Mereşê li nav endamên diasporaya Ingiltereyê hatine pêşkêşkirin. Her du devokên kurmanciyê yên Botan û Mereşê hatine nirxandin, ku li nav axêverên kurmanciyê li Ilgiltereyê (Yilmaz, 2018) devoka Botan li beramber "kurmanciya baş" an jî "akademîk" tê danîn û kurmanciya Mereşê jî wek "kurmanciya xerab" tê danîn. Testê û pirsyarên li ser devoknasiya sehkî (perceptual dialectology), wek seh û nezera beşdaran li ser dever, dîn, cinsiyet û çînê di vê xebatê de nîşan didin ku sehên axêveran derheq kurmanciya Botan û Mereşê bi rengekî girîng ji hev cuda ne. Bi rêya hûrbûna li ser helwêstên zimanî beramber kurmanciyê, ku heta niha qet nehatiye vekolîn li Ilgiltereyê, ev gotar berê xwe dide tehlîla nirxandinên erênî û nerênî yên li ser devokên Botan û Mereşê di warê aîdiyeta dînî de.

Abstract in Sorani

Hellwêstî zmanî û ayîn: 'Elewîye Kurdekan le Şanşîne Yekgirtuwekan

Lem wtareda ew twêjîneweye radegeyenim ke ‏Matched Guise Testis ‎‏ ‏‎(MiGT) ‎î bo lêkollînewe le ‏hellwêstî Kurmancî ‏axêwerekanî Bohtan ‏‎(BiHKir)‎‏ we Maraş ‏‎(MiRKir) ‎‏ le naw dayesporay ‏şanşîne yekgirtuwekanda. ‏Min terkîzm xistote ser (‏‎(BiHKir‎, bo amaje dan bew kirmancaney ‏bekardênim ke be "kurmancî ‏baş" nasrawn, herweha wek "ekadîmî"/"lebar" amajeyan ‏pêdrawe, we ‏‎(MiRKir)‎‏ bo ew kurmancaney ke be ‏‏"kurmancî xrap" lelayen kurmancye ‏axêwerekanî şanşînî berîtana amajeyan pê dedrêt (‏‎(Yilmaz, 2018‎‏.)‏‎ (MIGT)‎‏ legell ‏pirsyarekanî peywest be pey birdin be zansitî zarawekan, bo nmûne sernicî ‏wellamgokanî naw ‏em twêjîneweye bo nawçe, ayîn, regez û çîn, ewe pîşandeden ke hewlliwêstekan ‏derbarey ‏ewaney ke be ‏‎(BiHKir)‎‏ û be ‏‎(MiRKir)‎‏ debînrên zor cyawazn. Be terkîz kirdne ser ‏hellwêste zmanîyekan ‏derbarey kurmancî ke hergîz pêştir le şanşîne yekgirtuwekan dîrase ‏nekrawe , em babete ‏lêkollînewe le hellsengandne erênî û nerênîyekanî heryek le ‏‎(BiHKir)‎‏ û ‏‎(MiRKir)‎‏  le peywend be ‏întîmay dînî dekat.

Abstract in Zazaki

Tewrê ziwanî û dîn: kurdê elewî yê Qiralîya Yewbîyayîye

Ez na meqale de netîceyanê cigêrayîşê Testanê Seypêkerdeyan ê Guiseyî (MGT) ke derheqê tewranê ziwanî yê kurmancîya Botanî (BHKr) û Mereşî (MRKr) yê ke dîyasporaya Qiralîya Yewbîyayîye de qesey benê, înan analîz kena. Ez giranî dana BHKr ser ke hetê qiseykerdoxanê kurmancî yê Qiralîya Yewbîyaye sey “kurmancîya rinde” yan zî “kurmancîya akademîke/raşte” hesibnîyena, û MRK ser ke sey “kurmancîya xirabine” hesibnîyena (Yilmaz, 2018). MGT û persê ke derheqê dîyalektolojîya îdrakîye de yê, sey dîyayîşê îdrakkerdoxan yê herêm, dîn, cinsîyet û sinife ke na meqale de ca girewto, ê musnenê ke tewrê înan ê hemverê BHKr û MRK yewbînan ra zaf cîya yê. Pê giranîdayîşê tewranê zimanî yê hemverê kurmancî ser, ke heta nika ê tewran ser o Qiralîya Yewbîyayîye de qet cigêrayîş nêameyo kerdene, na xebate erjnayîşanê BHRr û MRKr yê pozîtîf û negatîfan goreyê têkilîya xo ya dînî analîz kena.

References

References

Andrews, D. R. (2003). ‘Gender Effects in a Russian and American Matched-Guise Study: A Sociolinguistic Comparison’. Russian Linguistics 27 (3): 287–311.

Appel, R. & Muysken, P. (1987). Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward Arnold.

Author. 2018. Language ideologies and identities in Kurdish heritage language classrooms in London. International Journal of Sociology of Language. 253 (86): 173-200.

Author. 2016. Learning "my" language : moments of languages and identities among Kurds in the UK. PhD. Unpublished

Azjen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Aydın, S. (2017). The emergence of Alevism as an ethno-religious identity, National Identities. DOI: 10.1080/14608944.2016.1244521

Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and Language. Multilingual Matters.

Baker, W. & Bowie, D. (2010). Religious Affiliation as a Correlate of Linguistic Behaviour. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 15 (2 Selected papers from NWAW 37).

Beal, J. C. (2006). Language and Region. Taylor & Francis.

Bentahila, A. (1983). Language Attitudes among Arabic-French Bilinguals in Morocco. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Bradac, J. J., Aaaron, C.C. & Hallett, J. S.. (2001). Language Attitudes: Retrospect, Conspect, and Prospect. In The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, W. Peter Robinson & Howard Giles (eds), 137–55. Chichester and New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bright, W. (1998). Social Factors in Language Change. In Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 81–92. UK& USA: Blackwell Publishers.

Bhabha, H.K., (1984). Of Mimicry and Man: the Ambivalence of Colonial Discourse. The MIT Press 28, 125–133.

Cetin, U. (2017). Cosmopolitanism and the relevance of ‘zombie concepts’: the case of anomic suicide amongst Alevi Kurd youth. British Journal of Sociology. 68 (2), pp. 145-166.

Cetin, U. and Jenkis, C. (2014). Minority ethno-faith communities and social inclusion through the collaborative research. BERA: British Educational Research Association. Issue 9.

Crompton, R. (1989). Class Theory and Gender. The British Journal of Sociology 40 (4): 565–87.

Demir, I. (2012). ‘Battling with Memleket in London: The Kurdish Diaspora’s Engagement with Turkey’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38 (5): 815–31.

Dinç, N.K. (2015). The custom of Kirve in the memory of Kurds and Armenians https://repairfuture.net/index.php/en/identity-standpoint-of-turkey/the-custom-of-kirve-in-the-memory-of-kurds-and-armenians.

Eckert, P. (1998). Age as a Sociolinguistic Variable. In Handbook of Sociolinguistics, Florian Coulmas, 151–68. UK& USA: Blackwell Publishers.

Edwards, J. (1977). Students’ Reactions to Irish Regional Accents. Language and Speech. Language and Speech 20: 280–86.

———. 1985. Language, Society and Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Edwards, J. & Jacobsen, M. (1987). Standard and Regional Standard Speech: Distinctions and Similarities. Language in Society 16: 369–79.

Edwards, J. R. (1994). Multilingualism. London: Routledge.

Fasold, R. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell.

Friborg, O., Martinussen, M. & Rosenvinge J.H. (2006). Likert-Based vs. Semantic Differential-Based Scorings of Positive Psychological Constructs: A Psychometric Comparison of Two Versions of a Scale Measuring Resilience. Personality and Individual Differences 40 (5): 873–84.

Fuga, M. (2002). Attitude Change within Quebec’s Francophone Population. Unpublished Honours Thesis, Montreal: McGill University.

Gal, S. (1978). Peasant Men Don’t Get Wives: Language and Sex Roles in a Bilingual Community. Language in Society 7 (1): 1–16.

Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second- Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House.

Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to Language. Cambridge University Press.

Garrett, P., N. Coupland & Williams, A. 2003. Investigating Language Attitudes: Social Meanings of Dialect, Ethnicity and Performance. University of Wales Press.

Gibbons, J. (1987). Code-Mixing and Code Choice: A Hong Kong Case Study. Clevedon,UK.

Giles, H. (1971). Patterns of Evaluation in Reactions to RP, South Welsh and Somerset Accented Speech. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 10: 280–81.

———. 1973. Accent Mobility: A Modal and Some Data. Anthropological Linguistics 15: 87–105.

Giles, H. (1970). Evaluative Reactions to Accents. Educational Review, no. 22: 221–27.

Grillo, R. D. (1989). Dominant Languages: Language and Hierarchy in Britain and France. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Haig, G. (2006). Turkish influence on Kurmanji: Evidence from the Tunceli dialect. In: Johanson, L. & Bulut, C. (Eds.) Turkic-Iranian contact areas. Historical and linguistic aspects. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 283-299.

Hiraga, Y. (2005). British Attitudes towards Six Varieties of English in the USA and Britain. World Englishes 24: 289–308.

Hassanpour, A. 2001. The (re)production of patriarchy in Kurdish language, in Mojab, S. Women of a non-state nation: The Kurds, Mazda Publications, Irvine California pp. 227- 259.

Irvine, T.J. & Gal, S. (2000). Language Ideology and Linguistic Differentiation. In Regimes of Language: Ideologies, Polities, and Identities, P.V. Kroskrity (Ed.), 35–84. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

Jaffe, A. (1999). Locating Power: Corsican Translators and Their Critics. In Language Ideological Debates, Blommaert, J. (ed), 39–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Jenkins, C. & Cetin, U. (2018). From a ‘sort of Muslim’ to ‘proud to be Alevi’: the Alevi religion and identity project combatting the negative identity among second-generation Alevis in the UK, National Identities, 20:1, 105-123, DOI: 10.1080/14608944.2016.1244933

Jones, W.R. (1949). Attitude toward Welsh as a Second Language. A Preliminary Investigation. British Journal of Educational Psychology 19 (1): 44–52.

———. 1950. Attitude toward Welsh as a Second Language. A Further Investigation. British Journal of Educational Psychology 20 (2): 117–32.

Joseph, J. E. (2004). Language and Identity: National,Ethnic,Religious. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Keles, J. (2014). The Politics of Religious and Ethnic Identity among Kurdish Alevis in the Homeland and in Diaspora’. In Omarkhali, Khanna (ed.), Religious Minorities in Kurdistan: Beyond the Mainstream. Studies in Oriental Religions, vol. 68. Harr, Publisher: Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, pp.173–224

Kircher, R. (2015). The Matched-Guise Technique. In Research Methods in Intercultural Communication., Zhu Hua, 196–211. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kircher, R. (2009). Language Attitudes in Quebec: A Contemporary Perspective. London: University of London, Queen Mary.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R., Gardner, R.C. & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluation Reactions to Spoken Languages. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 60: 44–51.

Lawson, S. & Sachdev, I. (2004). Identity, Language Use, and Attitudes Some Sylheti-Bangladeshi Data from London, UK. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23 (1): 49–69.

Lippi Green, R. (1994). Accent, Standard Language Ideology, and Discriminatory Pretext in the Courts. Language in Society 23 (02): 163–98.

McDowall, D. (2004). A Modern History of The Kurds. 3d Edition. I.B.Tauris.

McNamara, T.F. (1988). Language and Social Identity. In Language and Ethnic Identity, W.B. Gudykunst and K.L. Schmidt (eds), 59–72. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Milroy, L. (1987). Language and Social Networks. Wiley-Blackwell.

Oakes, L. (2001). Language and National Identity: Comparing France and Sweden. John Benjamins Publishing.

Okan , N. (2017). Thoughts on the rhetoric that women and men are equal in Alevi belief and practice (Alevilik) – to Songül , National Identities, DOI: 10.1080/14608944.2016.1244936.

Olsson, T., Ozdalga, E. & Raudvere, C. (2005). Alevi Identity: Cultural, Religious and Social Perspectives. Routledge.

Omoniyi, T. & Fishman, and J. A. (2006). Explorations in the Sociology of Language and Religion. John Benjamins Publishing.

Öpengin, E. & Haig, G. (2014). Regional Variation in Kurmanji: A Preliminary Classification of Dialects. Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 143–76.

Özsoy, A. S. & Türkyılmaz, Y. 2006. Front Rounded Vowels in the Sinemili Dialect of Kurmanji- a Case of Language Contact? In Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas: Historical and Linguistic Aspects, Lars Johanson; Christiane Bulut, 300–310. Volume 63 of Turcologica Series. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.

Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. SAGE.

Preston, D. R. (1999). A Language Attitude Approach to the Perception of Regional Variety. In Handbook of Perceptual Dialectology, D. Preston (Ed.), Vol 1:359–73. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Preston, D.R. (1989). Perceptual Dialectology: Nonlinguists’ Views of Areal Linguistics. Walter de Gruyter.

Rosenberg, M.J. & Hovland, C.I. (1960). Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Components of Attitudes. In Attitude Organization and Change: An Analysis of Consistency Among Attitude Components, M. J. Rosenberg, C. I. Hovland (eds.). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ryan, E.B., Giles, H. & Hewstone, M. (1987). The Measurement of Language Attitudes. In Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, U. Ammon, N. Dittmar and K.J. Mattheier (eds), 2:1068–81. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Ryan, E.B., Giles, H. & Sebastian, R.J. (1982). An Integrative Perspective for the Study of Attitudes toward Language Variation. In Attitudes towards Language Variation, E.B. Ryan and H. Giles (eds), 1–19. London: Edward Arnold.

Shuy, R.W., Wolfram, W.A. & Riley, W.K. (1967). Linguistic Correlates of Social Stratification in Detroit Speech. Cooperative Research Project 6-1347: East Lancing: U.S. Office of Education.

Street, J. L. Richard, Brady, R. M.& Lee, R. (1984). Evaluative Responses to Communicators: The Effects of Speech Rate, Sex and Interaction Context. Western Journal of Speech Communication 48: 14–21.

Tajfel, H. (1974). Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour. Social Science Information 13: 65–93.

———. 1978. The Social Psychology of Minorities. Minority Rights Group Report 38. London: Minority Rights Group.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behaviour. In Psychology of Intergroup Relations, revised editio of The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 1979, S. Worchel and W.G. Austin (eds.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

Thackston, W.M. (2006). Kurmanji Kurdish: A Reference Grammar with Selected Readings. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.

Trudgill, P. (1974). The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, Covert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1: 179–95.

Van Bruinessen, M. (1991). Religion in Kurdistan. Kurdish Times (New York) Vol. 4 Nos. 1-2, 5-27.

Van-Trieste, R. F. (1990). The Relation between Puerto Rican University Students' Attitudes toward Americans and the Students’ Achievement in English as a Second Language. Homines 13–14: 94–112.

Wilson, J. and D. Bayard. (1992). Accent, Gender, and the Elderly Listener: Evaluations of NZE and Other English Accents by Rest Home Residents. TeReo 35: 19–56.

Wolfram, W.A. (1969). A Sociolinguistic Description of Detroit Negro Speech.

Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Zeydanlıoğlu, W. (2013). Repression or Reform? An Analysis of AKP’s Kurdish Language Policy. in Zeydanlıoğlu, W, & Gunes, C. (eds.). The Kurdish Question in Turkey: New Perspectives on Violence, Representation and Reconciliation. Routledge.

Zeydanlıoğlu, W. (2012). Turkey’s Kurdish Language Policy. International

Journal of the Sociology of Language 2012 (217): 99–125.

Zuckermann, G. (2006) . ‘“Etymythological Othering”, and the Power of “Lexical

Engineering” in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. A Socio-Philo(sopho)logical

Perspective’. In Explorations in the Sociology of Language and Religion (Discourse

Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture Series), Tope Omoniyi and Joshua A.

Fishman (eds), 237–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Published

2020-03-19

How to Cite

Yilmaz, B. (2020). Language Attitudes and Religion: Kurdish Alevis in the UK. Kurdish Studies, 8(1), 133-161. https://doi.org/10.33182/ks.v8i1.512