اطلس زبانی استان بوشهر و تعیین مرز همگویی واژگانی

In the present study, the linguistic atlas of Bushehr province is discussed, as the first linguistic atlas of the provinces in Iran. It is a collection of maps compiled to show the linguistic restrictions on a geographic area. The data collected for this study is based on the questionnaire of national linguistic atlas of Iran (105 words and 36 sentences) by Parmoon (1385); and interviews with speakers from 500 villages in the province. Then the interviews are transcribed into international phonetic alphabetic form (I.P.A). It is tried to show the aords with the least and the most dialectal diversities in the dialects of this province. It is also possible to see dialectal diversities of each word and sentence, in question, on the maps of this province in graphical forms and in different colors. Finally, the dialectal diversities of this province are analyzed and then explained linguistically.
 
Extended abstract
1.Introduction
Bushehr Province is located in south west of Iran. This province has 10 cities and has the highest water border with the Persian Gulf. One of the most notable points of the Province is its linguistic topics. According to researchers such as Rezaee Baghbidi (2011), some linguistic studies in this Province have been neglected: “the clear point is that the dialects of many regions are underregistered or not registered at all: like the common dialects in the Alborz mountain range from Azerbaijan to Khorasan, dialects of north of Bashagard and dialects of Dashtestan and southern Fars Province along the coast.
It is worth nothing that the dialects of Bushehr Province are divided into northern and southern groups. The phonetic characteristics of these dialects show that they are among the new Iranian dialects and belong to the southwest brunch of Iranian languages. In this paper, we focus on the dialects of Bushehr Province, to achieve a new horizon in linguistic studies of these dialects. In order to achieve the research objectivies, we try to answer these questions:

What influences have the dialects of Bushehr Province accepted?
How many linguistic variety are there in Bushehr Province?
What is the difference between geographical and dialectical boundaries?

 
2.Methodology
In this research, two methods of field and library studies have been used. In the field method  part, using the questionnaire of the “national linguistic atlas of Iran”, interviews were conducted with the speakers. Around 500 people of Bushehr Province villagers participated in this research. Speaker’s voices were recorded and then transcribed, using IPA. Finally, lexical variations and sentences were extracted and depicted on maps of Bushehr Province. It should be noted that the preparation and depicting of the linguistic atlas of Bushehr Province is done for the first time. In this method, the process of interviewing and extracting native speakers is an audio-visual one. The linguistic material compiled in this section is the main focus of documentation. In order to have the desired linguistic material, it is necessary for the interviewer to take the following points into account: it is necessary to attend the village for collecting the data; select a single speaker form each village; assign a separate raw questionnaire for each dialect; before the interview, the narrator should be informed of the necessity of conducting the interview and its values; start the interview and record the voice of the speaker digitally and with desired quality, when provides the aquivalents of the items in the questionnaire.
 
3.Results & Conclusion
In this study, the linguistic atlas of about 500 villages of Bushehr Province was drawn and the lexical isoglosses of those regions identified. The words with the highest (“Yoke”, with 10 variations) and the lowest (“cheese” word, with 2 variations) variations were identified in the dialects of Bushehr Province. This research make it possible to see the dialect variations of each word and sentence on the maps of Bushehr Province graphically and in different colors. Based on the efforts made, the following questions were answered:

What influences have the dialects of Bushehr Province accepted?

Bushehr Province is located in southwestern Iran. Due to the low relationship of many villages of this province with industrial areas and other ethnicities, the dialects of these villages have changed less than other villages. In the central cities of Bushehr Province (Dashti and Tangestan) a variety of dialects are common, often influenced by each other.
From the village of “Eshkali” in Tangestan city to Bardestan city in Dayer city, the difference between linguistic varieties and relatively prominent variations can be seen. It is noteworthy that the existence of gas and petrochemical industries in the south of Bushehr Province has increased the relations between the people of Assaluyeh and Kangan regions with immigrants from different parts of the country. This relationship has, in part, influenced the dialects of the peoples in these regions. Another point is that the Arabic dialect of these regions has been influenced by the dialects and languages of migrant workers to these regions.
Only in the east of Bushehr Province, i.e. east of Dashtestan and Dashti cities, Turkish is used. The results of the research indicate that in comparison to other language varieties, Turkisn has undergone less changes.

How many linguistic varieties are there in Bushehr Province?

Despite its small size, Bushehr Province has different language varieties such as Persian, Turkish, and Arabic. Persian language has more dialect variations. In the northern villages of Bushehr Province, due to the contacts with Lori-dwelling areas of Khuzestan, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad Provines, Lori dialect is common; and their dialect is less influenced by other dialects. Ganaveh, Deylam and north of Dashtestan city and even the northern villages of Bushehr city are among these regions. In the south of Bushehr Province, in most of the villages of Kangan and Asaluyeh counties, the Arabic is spoken and used. In the east of Bushehr Province (east of Dashti and Dashtestan counties), due to the settlement of nomads, the qashgai Turkish is common.

What is the difference between geographical and linguistic boundaries?

Geographical boundaries are actually political boundaries drawn by political centers. Linguistic boundaries cross political boundaries, in such a way that two or more neighboring counties may speak the same dialect, but in thier political divisions they are separate cities; for example, the dialect of the northern cities of Bushehr Province (Ganaveh and Daylam and the north of Dashtestan) is the same. While in political divisions, each of the villages of these part of the province belongs to a city. Findings of this research show the word “yoke” has the most variation, and the word “cheese” has the least variation among the words in the mwntioned questionare. In the convergence maps, it was also found that there are fewer lexical isoglosses in the cities urban regions of the Province, and in the divergence maps, more borders are observed.
 
Select Bibliography
Blench R. The linguistic geography of Nigeria and its implications for prehistory. Sheffield University on Nigerian Prehistory; 2009.
Chambers J. K., P. Trudgil. Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
Comrie B. The Atlas of Languages. Translated by Arsalan Golfam. Tehran: Tehran University Publications; 2008. [in Persian]
Jahangiri N. Accentology and Geography, Procedings of Geography Seminar (1), Mashhad: Foundation of Islamic Researches of Astan Quds Razavi; 1986. [in Persian]
Johanson L. Discoveries on the Turkic Linguistic Map. Swedish Research institute in Istanbul, Turkey; 2001.
Kurath H. A Word Geography of the Eastern United States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1949.
Oranski I. M. Iranian Languages. Translated by Ali Ashrafsadeghi, Tehran: Sokhan Publications; 2009. [in Persian]
Orton H., S. Sanderson, J. Widdowson. The Linguistic Atlas of England. 2nd edition. London: Routledge; 1978.
Rostambeyke Tafreshi A. Language Atlas and Measuring Dialect Distances in Hamedan, Language Related Research. 7(10): 39-58.