Lexical Variation in Villages of Khorramabad

This research is about lexical variation in Khorramabad county of Lorestan province. The data come from the data gathered for Linguistic Atlas of Lorestan. The data are categorized as kinship terms, words related to natural objects, words related to human, animal names, words related to plants, words related to human-made objects, pronouns, demonstrative – place adverbs, question words, and numbers. The language varieties of the villages whose data are analyzed in this research are varieties of Lori and Laki languages for which the coefficient of variation is calculated and analyzed separately. We see not only considerable language variation in Khorramabad, but also many lexical differences in the varieties used in villages of the county. Findings indicate that in both Lori and Laki, the category of number has the least coefficient of variation, and the category of words related to human-made objects has the largest coefficient of variation. The analysis of the data also shows that words for “father”, “language”, “bread”, and “blood” have had the least variation in language varieties whose data have been analyzed in this research, so they can be considered as the most basic words of those language varieties.
 
1. Introduction
In sociolinguistics, dialectology is divided into two main branches, regional dialectology and social dialectology. The main purpose of regional dialectology is studying and documenting language varieties of a particular region, while the purpose of social dialectology is to do the same task about the language varieties of social classes. Based on this categorization, dialects are also divided into "regional dialects" and "social dialects". In Iran, attention to the importance of collecting data of the country's different dialects and the need to prepare an atlas for Iran's languages and dialects has been known by researchers since several decades ago. Lorestan is among the provinces that the Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism has started collecting its villages’ data to prepare the linguistic atlas of the province as a part of Iran's linguistic atlas. Based on these data, in this article, lexical variation of the language varieties of the villages of Khorramabad, the capital of Lorestan province, is analyzed and explained.
 
2. Theoretical Framework
Geeraerts et al. (1994: 3-4) have categorized lexical variation into four categories: "semasiological variation", "onomasiological variation", "contextual variation", and "formal variation". The lexical variation considered in this study is "formal variation" that is a"… situation that a particular referent or type of referent may be named by various lexical items, regardless of whether these represent conceptually different categories or not". In this type of lexical variation, a specific thing, relationship, or concept may be referred to by different lexical items. Such variations are seen in all languages ​​and they can be explained via considering social, historical, geographical, and stylistic factors.
 
3. Methodology
The data of this research have been collected in a field work, using a questionnaire and through face-to-face interviews with the speakers. The questionnaire included a group of words and sentences. The words and sentences are selected in a way that different lexical categories of the language variety in question and its different linguistic structures can be extracted. During the interviews, the data were recorded with the permission of the speakers. Then, using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) the data is transcribed. Then, the data are categorized, and studied and analyzed as kinship terms, words related to natural objects, words related to human, animal names, words related to plants, words related to human-made objects, pronouns, demonstrative-place adverbs, question words and numbers.
 
4. Results & Discussions
Investigation of lexical variation in the eight lexical categories of this study shows that in both Lori and Laki languages, there is no variation in the category of number and therefore this category can be considered as the most fundamental lexical category. Also, the greatest lexical variation, in both languages, can be seen in the category of "words related to human-made objects", that can be explained via consideration of the effect of the geographical environment in which individuals live has on the formation of those entities. A large part of the words of Lori and Laki language varieties of Khorramabad county are common. However, some words are used only in Laki and some only in Lori. As a result, by paying attention to some words, it is possible to know whether the variety in question is Lori or Laki. In addition, there may be an implicative relationship between the use of some words in which phonemes of /z/ and /ʒ/ are used, in a way that - in a number of  words - the use of /z/ can be a sign of the variety being Lori, and the use of /ʒ/ can be a sign of the variety being Laki (for example, the use of zæn  ‘woman’ and tɛzɡa ‘stove’ in Lori ʒæn ‘woman’ and tæʒɡa ‘stove’ in Laki). These points confirm that Laki and Lori belong to two different subbranches of Iranian languages, Northwestern Iranian and Southwestern Iranian respectively.
 
5. Conclusions & Suggestions
Investigation of lexical variation in the two Iranian languages ​​whose data were studied in this research shows that although language contact has affected the language varieties of the region, they have retained a number of their distinguishing features. Some lexical impacts of Laki on Lori varieties of Khorramabad county are evident, that is why some lexical items used in Lori of the region cannot be seen in other varieties of Lori in other regions of Iran. Among these lexical items, we can mention the use of the word kælæʃir ‘rooster’ in Lori varieties of the region which seems to have entered the Lori of the region of Lorestan from the northwestern Iranian languages ​​ through Laki.
 
Select Bibliography
Amanolahi Baharvand, S. 2000. Lors: A Historical and Sociological Analysis, Quarterly of National Studies, No. 6, 221-242. [In Persian]
Anonby, E. J. 2003. Update on Luri: How many Languages?, JRAS, Seris, (13), 171-197.
Dabirmoghadam, M. 2013. Typology of Iranian Languages, Volume 2, Tehran: SAMT. [In Persian]
Geeraerts, D., S. Grondelaers, P. Bakema 1994. The Structure of Lexical Variation: Meaning, Naming, and Context, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Izadpanah, H. 2001. Dictionary of Lori, Tehran: Asatir Publication. [In Persian]
Mackenzie, D. N. 1961. The Origins of Kurdish, Transactions of the Philological Society, Vol. 60, Issue 1.
Morgan, J. MCMIV/1904. Études Linguistiques, Dialectes Kurdes, Langues et Dialects du Nord de la Perse, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.
Rezayati Kishekhaleh, Moharram, A. Khademi Arde 1998. Thematic Dictionary of Taleshi – Persian, Rasht: Gilan University Publication. [In Persian]
Swadesh, M. 1971. The Origin and Diversification of Language, Joel Sherzer (ed.), forwaed by Dell Hymes, Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Zarinjuyi, M. 2017. Report of Gathering and Documentation of Regional Dialects of Khorramabad, Tehran: Research Institute for Cultural Heritage and Tourism, Faculty of Linguistics, Inscriptions, and Texts. [In Persian]