GENERATIONS
3.4. Data analysis procedures
The semantic units (words) used in Sabzevari dialect by three generations were investigated. The frequencies of their occurrence by each generation were tabulated. Then, a chi-square test of goodness of fit was conducted to investigate the differences in the observed frequency of words in Sabzevari dialect uttered by three generations in each category.
4. Results
The semantic units used in Sabzevari dialect were categorized into two different classes: those differed morphologically from the standard dialect (Persian), and those differed phonologically from the standard dialect. They were presented in table 1 and table 2, respectively. The frequencies of the use of each word in Sabzevari dialect by each generation (FG1, FG2 and FG3) were also mentioned in these tables.
Table1. Words from Sabzevari dialect differed morphologically from the standard dialect Semantic unit Standard dialect Sabzevari dialect F G1 F G2 F G3 Semantic unit Standard dialect Sabzevari dialect F G1 F G2 F G3
steam bɔkhar a:b khəvis 4 1 0 gloves dæstkəʃ Æljæk 4 0 0 clamsy dæstɔ pa
tʃɔlɔfti dæst
ɔ
paməræŋ 4 2 1 walnuts g
ərdu jɔ:z 4 3 2 leek tærə gəndɔnai 4 3 0 bee Zænbur dənd 4 3 1 dresser kɔmɔd əʃkæf 4 4 3 sticky nutʃ ələftʃ 4 3 2 tomato gɔjə
færæŋi
Bamanur 4 3 0 pigeon ya kæri:m musat təghi 4 3 3 lethargic bi ha:l kəlær 4 4 2 bucket Sætl du:l 4 0 0 lizard ma:rmulæ
k k
əlpæsæ 4 2 0 hanging Avizan dələn gɔu: 4 3 1 shavings khaʃa:k khəlæʃæ 4 2 0 sieve Ælæk ʃæhri: 4 3 0 dizzy gij kəlævæŋ 4 3 2 tray si:ni dəuri 4 0 0 nose bini: nɔs 4 3 3 pants ʃælvær təmbun 4 3 1
jar kuzə tɔngəli 4 3 0 mouth dæhæn Lεk 4 0 0
carpet færʃ pɔla:s 4 3 0 pool hɔ:z dəritʃæ 4 3 0 bread box Sændugh
na:n tækht
ə
mεʃk 4 0 0 story dæstæn
əusænæ 4 0 0 beetle Susk əudɔzdu 4 3 1 sparrow gɔnjəʃk tʃɔghɔk 4 3 3 slippers dæmpai: naʕlein 4 0 0 bag ki:sə khəltæ 4 0 0 bath tubs tæʃt
hæmum mæ
ʃræbæ 4 0 0 mattress tɔtʃæk nəli: 4 3 0 apron piʃbænd lərbænd 4 3 1 bunch khuʃə tələzg 4 0 0 strainer a:b kəʃ tʃəlɔ safi 4 0 0 necklace Gærdænbæ
nd
khəfti: 4 0 0 cricket jir jiræk sik
sikunæk 4 0 0 too much tʃəghædr ziad yu:k 4 4 4 insects hæʃærə Jəmændæ jumur 4 3 3 centipede həzær pa: guʃ khəzinu 4 0 0 flower bed baghtʃə khəvər 4 3 2 beak nɔk tʃi:ŋ 4 3 2 curd kæʃk ghɔri:t 4 2 0
Table2. Words from Sabzevari dialect differed phonologically from the standard dialect
Semantic Standar Sabzevari F F G 2 G 1 F Semantic G 3 Standard Sabzevari F FG 1 FG 2 G 3
unit d dialect dialect unit dialect dielect
home khanə khænæ 4 4 3 go bɔrɔ Bara 4 3 2
pot di:g dεg 4 4 2 bowl kasə kæsæ 4 3 0
pants ʃælvar ʃəlvar 4 3 1 chick jujə Ji:jæ 4 3 1 hello Salam Sulam 4 4 0 broth a:b gu:ʃt əu gu:ʃt 4 4 1 gloves dæstkəʃ distkæʃ 4 3 1 bicycle dotʃærkhə ditʃærkh
æ
4 3 3 book kətab kɔtab 4 4 1 pillow baləʃt bεləʃt 4 4 1
water a:b əu: 4 3 1 dress pirhæn pærhæn 4 4 2
lice ʃεpəʃ ʃi:piʃ 4 4
3 cage ghæfæs gh
əfæs 4 4 0
damaged khærab khɔrab 4 4 2 rope tænab tɔnab 4 4 1 shoulder ʃanə ʃænə 4 4 3 squash kædu kudi: 4 3 0 class kəlas kɔlas 4 4 1 thyme aviʃæn aviʃu: 4 3 1 train ghætar ghɔtar 4 4 1 finger ængɔʃt əngu:ʃt 4 3 1
sound səda sɔda 4 4 2 say bəgu baga 4 4 2
box jaʕbə jaʕbæ 4 4 0 tooth dændun dəndun 4 4 4 blanket pætu: pətu: 4 3 1 shoe kæfʃ kəuʃ 4 3 1
salt næmæk nəmæk 4 3 3 scream ji:gh Jεgh 4 3 3
refrigerator yækhtʃal yəkhtʃal 4 3 2 mad diva:nə divænə 4 4 3 fork tʃængal tʃingal 4 3 1 cool khɔnæk khɔnɔk 4 4 3 light tʃəragh tʃɔragh 4 3 0 cabbage kælæm kεlæm 4 3 3 television təlviziun tili:viziun 4 3 4 potato sib
zæmini
sib zimini
4 3 3
green sæbz Sauz 4 3 3 mildew pi:s Pεs 4 4 3
Table 3 shows the observed frequencies of the occurrence of semantic units of Sabzevari dialect in the speech of the mentioned three generations. To see if there was a difference among the frequencies of the use of Sabzevari dialect’s semantic units among three generations, chi-square test for goodness of fit was conducted. As it is evident in table 4, this test shows that there is a significant difference in the identified frequencies of the occurrence of semantic units in Sabzevari dialect which are different morphologically from the standard dialect in the speech of the three generations (Chi-square (2) =86.80, p < .000).
Table3. Total frequency of occurrence of semantic units in Sabzevari dialect in the speech of each generation First generation Second generation Third generation Semantic units differed morphologically from the
standard dialect
164 84 37
Semantic units differed phonologically from the standard dialect
168 147 73
As it is evident in table 3, the first generation more frequently used semantic units of sabzevari dialect which differed morphologically from the standard dialect, and the third generation used the least.
Table4. Chi-square test regarding the occurrence of semantic units different morphologically from the standard dialect in the speech of the three generations
chi-square 86.80
df 2
sig. .000
Table 5 shows the result of chi-square regarding the occurrence of semantic units which were different phonologically from the standard dialect in the speech of the three generations. As it is evident, there was a significant difference in the identified frequencies (Chi-square (2) =38.51, p < .000).
Table5. Chi-square test regarding the occurrence of semantic units different phonologically from the standard dialect in the speech of the three generations
chi-square 38.51
df 2
sig. .000
As it is evident in table 3, the first generation more frequently used semantic units of Sabzevari dialect, which differed phonologically from the standard dialect, and the third generation usesd them the least.
5. Discussion
The results of the study showed dialect leveling phenomenon. It is consistent with the results of studies conducted by Liamprawat (2011), Kerswill (2003), Chejne (1969) and Maryprasith (1991). The younger group used semantic units in Sabzevari dialect less than the older group. This phenomenon could be related to Ghafarsamar’s (2010) claim regarding Iran’s educational system which is monolingual and monodialectal. That is, all of the books are written in standard Persian. Furthermore, standard Persian is used for communication and teaching in the classes. The reason for using just standard variety in education system, rather than other existing varieties, is that policy makers try to unify the country. He also mentioned the effect of mass media. The medium of communication in most of the channels of TV and radio in Iran is the standard variety of language. Therefore, it affects peoples’ speech patterns and results in the modification of Persian dialects toward the standard one. Coulmas (2005) mentioned two reasons concerning the age related change in a dialect. According to him, during the time, the communication needs of interlocutors change. Therefore, generations should adjust their dialects to cope with their surrounding changing world. During the time, the communication abilities and needs of each generation differ from those of others. Thus, the generations should adjust their dialects to fulfill their needs and facilitate communicating with each other. Furthermore, when young people are communicating with others speaking in standard dialect, they accommodate their speech to the standard and prestigious dialect (Bell, 1984; Kerswill, 2006).
6. Conclusion
In this study, the use of semantic units in Sabzevari dialect which were different morphologically and phonologically from the standard dialect among three generation (differing in age range) was investigated. As it is shown, Sabzevari speakers belonging to the first generation (older informants in the age range of 60-80 years old) used more semantic units in Sabzevari dialect which were different both morphologically and phonologically from the standard dialect in their speech. The second generation (in the age range of 35-45 years old) used less semantic units in Sabzevari dialect than the first generation, but more semantic units in Sabzevari dialect than the third generation. Finally, the third generation (in the age range of 10-18 years old) used the least semantic units in Sabzevari dialect which differed both morphologically and phonologically from the standard dialect among the generations.
The implication of this study concerns consciousness raising. Curriculum developers, teachers, parents and students may be made cautious concerning the gap in the use of semantic units among different generations in a dialect. Curriculum developers and teachers may present and explain dialect leveling through providing some examples on the semantic units of older generations which are forgotten. Therefore, students will be caution concerning the phenomenon. And, this phenomenon might be prevented if it is explicitly emphasized and explained.
Some recommendations are provided for further studies. First, this study can be replicated in investigating the use of semantic units among different generations in other dialects. Second, a comparative study can be conducted to investigate the use of units among different generations in different dialects. Third, a questionnaire can be developed and distributed among the generations speaking a specific dialect. Their views regarding the change and the gap among the generations concerning the use of dialect can be investigated. Fourth, this study investigated the effect of age in lexical variation in a dialect. Some other studies can investigate the effect of other factors such as the level of education and sex on lexical variation in a dialect.
Reference
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design, Language in Society, 13, 145-204.
Chejne, A. (1969). The Arabic Language: Its Role in History. Mineapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Coulmas, F. (2005). Sociolinguistics: the Study of Speaker’s Choices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ghafar_Samar, R., Navidinia, H. & Mehrani, M. (2010). Globalization, Standardization, and Dialect
Leveling in Iran, Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 2, 18-30.
Kerswill, P. (2006). Language in the British Isles. Britain: Cambridge University Press.
Kerswill, P. (2003). Dialect leveling and geographical diffusion in British English, In D. Britain and J. Cheshire (eds.) Social Dialectology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Liamprawat, S. (2011). The Lexical Variations between Three Generations of Tai Dam, Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities and Arts (2), 59-77.
Maryprasith, P. (1991). Age-based Variation of the Linguistic Transition Area Between Central Thai and Southern Thai: A Lexical Study. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.
Modarresi, Y. (1989). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Tehran: Institute for Cultural Studies and Researches.
Naja, I. (1961). The Arabic Dialects. Al-Sa’ada Publishing: Egypt. Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Trudgill, P. (1994). Dialects. New York: Routledge.
Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin.
Vendryes, J. (1950). The Language. Egypt: Al-Bayan Al-Arabi Committee. Wardaugh, R. (1993). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.