1. Introduction

This study deals with linguistic insecurity (henceforth LI). It can be defined as a negative feeling, a damaging attitude or a psychological complex that individuals may develop against their native varieties of speech. It is also referred to as a sociolinguistic phenomenon, because it sources from social and linguistic parameters that discourage individuals form using their native speech patterns.

In the literature one can find plenty of studies that have examined Kurdish speakers’ LI only indirectly. These studies examine the status of the Kurdish language and the linguistic rights of Kurdish speakers under the hegemony of other nations such as Turks, Arabs or Iranians. Examples are Sherwani and Barlik’s article in 2020, titled “The present status of Kurdish language in Turkey: A sociolinguistic study of Van community” and Hassanpour, Sheyholislami and Skutnabb-Kangas’ 2012 article, “Introduction/Kurdish: Linguicide, resistance and hope”. Furthermore, such studies have examined interlinguistic situations. To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, there have been no studies so far that deal with LI as an intralinguistic phenomenon.

Therefore, this study tackles LI as an intralinguistic phenomenon among Mêrgesorî native speakers, who reside in Mêrgesor District. The district is mainly home to speakers of the Mêrgesorî variety of Badînî Kurdish subdialect and is located north east of Erbil, the capital city of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI).

The study covers six LI forms that have been suggested by renowned scholars in the field. Another form, feeling guilty for code-switching, is introduced by the researcher in this study. In fact, the six forms constitute the entire manifestations of LI that are proposed in the literature, except one. This is the Labovian LI, which focuses on the correct language usage. Examining this form requires construction of an independent specific tool, called index of LI. The tool generates a relatively big amount of data that can only be covered in an independent study.

The following research questions are addressed in this study:

1- To what extent do the seven forms of LI are represented in the Mêrgesorî Speech Community?

2- What social and linguistic factors are behind the existence of LI among members of the Mêrgesorî Speech Community?

This study can contribute to a better understanding of the native Mêrgesorî speakers’ attitudes towards their own speech patterns and the Kurdish varieties that they frequently interact with. It can also uncover the potential challenges they encounter regularly. Such a knowledge may also inform the language policy and planning in the KRI.

2. Theoretical Background on Linguistic Insecurity

The term LI was introduced by Labov, in his 1966 study of the English variety of the New Yorkers. He described LI as a negative feeling that accompanied the New Yorkers who aspired for speaking the Standard American English. The reason was that they regarded their regular linguistic patterns as incorrect and as an index of their socioeconomic backgrounds.

However, LI may not be confined to concerns of the correct usage of a single language. It could exist among speakers of a language which has a lower status in the community. As Bouchard (2023) explains this type of LI is tied to feelings of “inferiority" on a social level. This negative evaluation of the variety’s ranking by its native speakers makes them mistrust their variety (Ogunniyi, Abiodun and ‘Dapo, 2023: 41).

So far, mainly four models or frameworks for the study of LI have been suggested. The first one, suggested by Labov, focuses on the linguistic norms. Francard’s framework, on the other hand, distinguishes four forms of LI that could be realized from the speakers’ discourse (Bouchard, 2024b). These include the speakers’ cultural and linguistic dependence on an exogenous model, their demeaning discourses against their own native speech patterns, their employment of strategies to compensate for their variety’s unequal status in the face of the prestige or standard variety, and the language experts’ pessimism about the future of the variety or language (Francard, 2020: 30; Francard, 2021: 19-20). Clearly, Francard’s first representation is the same as the Labovian LI.

Following Francard, Calvet also introduced his model, which focused on language contact situations. He distinguished between the intralinguistic and the interlinguistic LI. According to him, LI could be an interlinguistic phenomenon in polyglottal societies, where only one language or more enjoy prestige. As for the intralinguistic manifestation, LI can arise in multi-dialectal communities in which different varieties of the same language have unequal status (Calvet, 2006:133-145). He called the intralinguistic LI as the formal LI or the Labovian one.

The last typology of LI was suggested by Abtahian and Quinn. It based on language shaming practices. The first type of LI occurs either when members of a speech community are scolded for communicating in their mother tongue or when using this code is not allowed or discouraged. The second happens to those young members of a speech community who are censured by the more linguistically skillful older members. The young people’s inability to speak their mother tongue “correctly” causes this form of LI. The third type arises when the solidarity, or identity or authenticity of native speech community members is doubled or withdrawn. The only reason for this shaming is that they are unable to speak their native variety. (Abtahian and Quinn, 2017: 142-143).

Regarding the signs that signal the existence of LI, Labov mentions hypercorrection, wide stylistic variation, and consciously using norm patterns that indicate a person experiences LI (Labov, 1972: 117,126). Even if speakers attempt to hide their accent and/or to match their usage with that of the publicly esteemed or authoritative code, they display LI (Levasseur, Bouchard and Ntiranyibagira, 2023: 18). Boudreau suggested another sign in in 1982 study that refers to speakers’ decision for keeping silent than speaking at the presence of those speakers whose varieties enjoy more prestige, (Bouchard, 2024a; Bouchard, 2024b). The most dramatic sign is perhaps when speakers abandon their native variety out of LI (Levasseur, Bouchard and Ntiranyibagira, 2023: 18).

3. Methodology

The proposed frameworks show overlap of the LI signs, LI types, LI manifestations and LI causes. Due to such intersections, for the current research a framework which encompasses almost all the suggested LI manifestations is constructed. This includes devaluing discourse, experts’ pessimism, employment of compensation strategies by native speakers (by Francard), silencing among speakers of dominant varieties (by Boudreau), code-switching (by Labov, as well as Levasseur, Bouchard and Ntiranyibagira) and abandoning native variety (by Levasseur, Bouchard and Ntiranyibagira). Besides, the native speakers’ feeling guilty over code-mixing is also included in the design. As for Abtahian and Quinn’s shaming practices, they are examined as reasons for LI in the speech community under investigation. As explained before, the Labovian or formal LI it is not dealt with in this study for space restrictions. This is because it requires an index of LI to compare Mêrgesorî to other relevant varieties of Badînî. The index requires transcription and translation of the linguistic items and a huge deal of explanation for the grammatical differences between the codes.

Since some of these manifestations are examined through the questionnaire and some through interviews with language experts, the study falls under a mixed method approach.

3.1 Sampling:

Labov (1966) and Sankoff (1980) both reject big numbers of respondents for linguistic research, on the ground that practical communication reduces the degree of heterogenous usage among members of a speech community (Milroy and Gordon, 2023:28). Therefore, for the quantitative part of the study, a total of 135 literate respondents who were all native Mêrgesorî speakers were chosen. They were residents of central Mêrgesor township and the neighboring Goretû subdistrict. They were chosen through the multi-stage sampling technique. This is a random and probability method of sampling, which is used for large or scattered geographical areas. In this method, the intended area is divided into several clusters. Then some clusters are chosen randomly. From those clusters, once again, smaller clusters are selected. The process of narrowing down the clusters continues until the eventual selection of respondents (Tavakoli, 2012:382).

For the qualitative part of the study, four language experts for Mêrgesorî speech community were chosen through judgmental sampling. The pre-condition for their selection was that they should be from Mêrgesor District and they should at least hold an MA degree in Kurdish language. However, because most of the older Kurdish language experts from the area held BA degrees, only young experts were left to be chosen. Furthermore, the researcher visited Mêrgesor educational directorate and the schools to find female Kurdish language experts, but it turned out there were no female experts from the district who have an MA degree in Kurdish language.

3.2 Tools and Data Collection Procedures :

Two tools were employed in this study: a questionnaire for the respondents and semi-structured interviews with the language experts.

The questionnaire included four sections. Apart from the items in section one, which collected the respondents’ demographic data, the items in the other sections were designed as rating scale questions. Section two asked the respondents to self-assess their linguistic competence in three relevant varieties of Kurdish. Section three included items about language attitudes, speech community and identity. Section four covered questions which specifically addressed LI forms and their causes.

The interviews also contained rating scale questions about code-switching patterns and language attitudes. They also included open-ended questions about language ideologies and the linguistic and non-linguistic factors behind LI.

The questionnaires were distributed and collected by the researcher during November and December 2024. They were analyzed using ANOVA test. The reliability and validity of the tool was confirmed through Cronbach’s Alpha measurement and the Pearson tests for validity.

As for the interviews, they were conducted by the researcher on a face-to-face basis in February 2025. They were all recorded, transcribed in Kurdish and then translated into English. The necessary strategies, such as avoidance of leading questions, were applied to the best of the researcher’s abilities to ensure neutrality in the data collection phase.

3. Findings and Discussion

3.1 Manifestations of LI in Mêrgesorî Speech Community:

The manifestations which were checked with the language experts and those which were confirmed by the respondents are presented under two separate subheadings below.

3.1.1 Manifestations Discussed with Language Experts:

These include the devaluing discourse, abandoning native variety, code-switching and experts’ pessimism towards the future of Mêrgesorî.

3.1.1.1 Devaluing Discourse:

There were four statements in the questionnaire which contained either negative or positive attributes about Mêrgesorî variety. However, due to reliability measures, they had to be disregarded. Instead, the language experts were asked to indicate to what extent devaluing discourses exist in Mêrgesorî speech community. They were asked if Mêrgesorî speakers explicitly state that their variety is not a good version of Kurdish. There was unanimity among them over the absence of this LI form in Mêrgesorî speech community. On the contrary, two of the experts believed that many Mêrgesorî speakers openly express their pride in their variety, hailing it as the tongue of a region, famous for Iraqi Kurdish revolution leadership and achievements of Kurds in general. However, Francard believes if speakers of a variety show pride in their variety, this means they are trying to compensate for a feeling of inferiority or fears of legitimacy of an endogenous variety, labelling this tendency “regiolectal valorization” (Francard, 1993:16).

3.1.1.2 Abandoning Native Variety :

The experts were asked if they have observed any instances of Mêrgesorî speakers abandoning their native variety and shifting towards another language or another Kurdish variety. Three of them thought no members of this community have swapped their native variety for another code permanently. The other expert, however, knew about a few Mêrgesorî speakers that had abandoned their mother variety for Soranî. He explained, due to the public administrative procedures and the schooling process that are conducted mainly in Soranî, these individuals and their speech community is constantly exposed to Soranî and this can change their attitude about the practicality of their native variety. As stated by Grenoble and Whaley, in order to adapt to a context in which a variety other than their native variety is advantageous to them, speakers may give up using their native speech patterns. They relate the decreased efficiency of the native variety to “an intricate matrix of variables dealing with the community’s self-identity, its relationship with other groups, the degree of political autonomy of the group, its access to avenues of material prosperity”, among other factors (Grenoble and Whaley,1998: 22).

3.1.1.3 Experts’ Pessimism:

Generally, the experts refuted the possibility that Mêrgesorî variety will die or undergo complete assimilation by being absorbed in either of the dominant variety in the KRI. Yet, recurrent in their discourse over the future of the variety was language change and borrowing, which is a natural process happening to any language described as vital. One expert saw language contact situations as a threat against a bright future for the variety. Meanwhile, others either thought such situations will positively enrich the variety or they believed the variety will be equally influenced by both Soranî and the general Badînî, while surrendering to neither.

3.1.1.3 Code-Switching:

For the phenomenon of code-switching, the language experts were presented with a number of situations for Mêrgesorî speakers’ code-switching behavior. They were asked to rate the code-switching tendencies in each situation from zero to four. The details are given in the following table.

The statement, which was presented to the respondents here, expressed linguistic essentialism. It said that Mêrgesorî is a core value of the culture of Mêrgesorî speech community and all members of this community should speak it. Embedded in the statement was also a guarantee for shaming and expelling any member who does speak the variety. The majority of respondents supported the ideology and only less than 10% of them rejected it. This linguistic essentialism ideology, which can also be regarded as an interpretation of the linguistic purism, can threaten the identity of those who regard themselves as the members of a speech community (Langer and Nesse, 2012: 607). Abtahian and Quinn specify that such a threat may get as substantial as depriving the individuals of their identity as native members of a speech community (Abtahian and Quinn, 2017:142-143)

It should be noted that Mêrgesorî has vitality and that there are no official pressures against Mêrgesorî speech community to shift to any of the two domineering Kurdish varieties in the KRI. Therefore, Mêrgesorî speakers’ emphasis on upholding the variety as a core value and the persistence of the language shaming habits may only source from the perception of a threat against the variety. Perhaps this threat is based on numerical strength of Mêrgesorî speech community. The size of this community is definitely very smaller than either the Soranî or the general Badînî speech communities, two varieties which are dynamically affecting Mêrgesorî.

3.2.2 Considerations of Appropriateness:

This factor surfaced in the language experts’ discussion of the reasons behind code-switching. They correlated Mêrgesorî speakers’ tendency for code-switching to their evaluation of the situation or the domain of language use. They thought the formal situations push Mêrgesorî speakers to alternate codes. Also, the preferred alternative code for them is Soranî and not to the general Badînî. However, the experts specified that these formal situations were of two types: the formal situations within Mêrgesor District and the ones in the Soranî or the general Badînî zones. The former did not lead to any considerable amount of code-switching, since the majority of employees working in the public and private offices in Mêrgesor District are either native Mêrgesorî speakers or are out-groups that can speak Mêrgesorî. The latter type, however, leads to code-switching, but only in Soranî zones. This is because Mêrgesorî speakers do not see that much difference between their variety and the general Badînî, according to the experts.

According to the ratings by the experts, the greatest level of code-switching occurs when the Mêrgesorî speakers are surrounded by a majority of Soranî speakers. They stressed this code-switching occurs, despite a relative degree of mutual intelligibility among Mêrgesorî and Soranî speakers. This means achieving a more efficient conversation and building solidarity with Soranî interlocutors count as the most important considerations for Mêrgesorî speakers in such situations.

Another consideration of appropriateness is tied to the Mêrgesorî speakers’ perception of the richness or poverty of their variety. If they feel, their variety does not provide them with the means to express their messages easily and completely, they turn to other varieties, as stated by the experts. Of course, in modern linguistics, there is no room for describing a language as poor or rich. What the experts referred to is the amount of codification of the variety. As compared to the two commanding varieties in the KRI, Mêrgesorî does not enjoy high levels of codification. This means its speakers might struggle to find the necessary vocabulary and terminologies to express their messages in some situation, like when they attempt to explain a specific topic about statistics or chemistry.

Another important issue related to consideration of appropriateness for code-switching in formal situations is related to the preferred alternative code. The experts agreed that this code is mainly the Semi-Standard Soranî. This is a version which is also used in the media and across the public offices in Erbil province and many other Soranî-populated zones. However, the Mêrgesorî speakers also have the option to convert to Hewlêrî variety of Soranî, which is spoken in Erbil. Mêrgesorî speakers’ inclination for converting mainly to the Semi-Standard Soranî, rather than other offshoots of Soranî alludes to the presence of a diglossic situation. In this situation the Semi-Standard Soranî can be regarded as the High variety and the rest of the Kurdish varieties as Low. There are a few studies that demonstrate some aspects of the diglossic situation in the KRI’s Soranî zones. For instance, Rasheed proves in his 2021 study that Soranî speakers choose to speak the formal version of Soranî in official domains. The current study reveals not only Soranî speakers, but also Mêrgesorî speakers abide by the requirements of the diglossic situation in Erbil. Their choice of the Semi-Standard Soranî is not exclusive to Erbil; It occurs in all Soranî zones. Additionally, in his dissertation, Saady (2009) states a diglossic situation is gradually developing in Erbil. Nearly two decades past this study and with the spread of mass media channels across Erbil, this diglossic situation has certainly earned a higher level of recognition.

3.3 Conclusions:

This study aimed at investigating to what extent seven LI forms existed among members of the Mêrgesorî speech community. It also sought to explain the socio-linguistic factors behind this phenomenon. It turned out that six manifestations existed to a more or lesser degree among the respondents. These were manifestations proposed by Francard, Labov, Boudreau, and Levasseur, Bouchard and Ntiranyibagira. The experts’ pessimism and employment of compensation strategies were proved to exist. The first manifested itself as a weak concern and the second as a strongly visible indication. The devaluing discourse from Francard’s model was reported as not existing in the community. The code-switching manifestation also existed to a considerable degree, which was the strongest among the Soranî-domineering audiences. There were also some few cases of the abandonment of the native variety. As for silencing among speakers of the majority varieties, nearly less than one third of the respondents indicated suffering from this LI realization. The last from was feeling guilty over code-mixing, which more than half of the respondents suffered from in various frequencies.

Regarding the reasons for LI, the study revealed that two major ideologies of linguistic purism and linguistic essentialism derive language shaming practices. Generally, half of the respondents confirmed falling victim to such practices, which can also threaten the identity of Mêrgesorî speakers. Yet, sometimes LI is incited by supposing Mêrgesorî as an inappropriate code for communication in some contexts, such as the formal situations. The results also suggested that mainly the non-linguistic and the social factors should be blamed for LI in Mêrgesorî speech community. The community’s location on the border between the Soranî-zone and the general Badînî-zone, its dependence on the Soranî-speaking Erbil for administration, and its members’ formal education in Soranî affect language attitudes towards the practicality and status of Mêrgesorî.

With respect to the realizations of LI, this research offered two developments. First, it adopted a quantitative measure for revealing the existence of employment strategies by Mêrgesorî speakers, while the original model by Francard offers a qualitative framework. The second development was the introduction of another manifestation of LI, i.e., feeling guilty over code-switching.

One limitation of the study is perhaps related to the devaluing discourse by speakers. Originally four five-point Likert scale statements in the questionnaires investigated this LI manifestation, which focuses on language attitudes. However, the respondents’ answers to these questions had to be ignored for clashing with reliability measures.

Therefore, one suggestion for further studies is investigating the Mêrgesorî speakers’ attitudes towards their native variety. This can help in either confirming or refuting the findings of the current study, including Mêrgesorî speakers’ pride in their variety or the absence of the devaluing discourse. The second suggestion is investigating the circumstances of language shift among Mêrgesorî speakers. This is because, according to the current study, there are a few cases of Mêrgesorî speakers who have abandoned their native variety for Soranî.

References

1. Abtahian, Maya Ravindranath and Quinn, Connor McDonough (2017), “Language Shift and Linguistic Insecurity”, In Hildebrandt, Kristine A., Carmen Jany and Wilson Silva. (Eds.) Documenting Variation in Endangered Languages. Language Documentation and Conservation Special Publication (13), pp. 137-151, Honolulu: University of Hawai’I Press.

2. Bouchard, Marie-Eve (2023) “What is linguistic insecurity and why we should dismantle it”, [online article] Retrieved from: https://www.arts.ubc.ca/news/what-is-linguistic-insecurity-and-why-we-should-dismantle-it/#:~:text=This%20annoying%20feeling%20has%20a,%E2%80%9Ccorrect%E2%80%9D%20or%20more%20prestigious on April 10, 2025.

3. Bouchard, Marie-Eve (2024a) “Language ideologies and the use of French in an English-dominant context of Canda: New insights into linguistic insecurity”, Multilingua, Vol. 43(3), pp. 427–453.

4. Bouchard, Marie-Eve (2024b) “A youth perspective on the challenges related to fostering linguistic security in the classroom: New insights from the English-dominant context of British Columbia”, Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics. Advanced Online Publication. Retrieved from: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/79 , on April 10, 2025.

5. Calvet, Louis-Jean (2006) Towards an ecology of world languages, (Andrew Brown, Trans.) Cambridge: Polity Press. (Original work published in 1999).

6. Erbil Governorate Website https://www.hawlergov.org/app/ku/content/%D9%82%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%B2%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%85%DB%8E%D8%B1%DA%AF%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%B3%DB%86%D8%B1

7. Francard, Michel (1993), “Linguistic insecurity in the French Community of Belgium”, French and Society, No. (6) Brussels, Ministry of Culture, French Language Service, pp. 12-20.

8. Grenoble, Lenore A. and Whaley, Lindsay J. (1998) “Toward a typology of language endangerment”, in Endangered Languages: Language loss and community response, Lenore A. Grenoble and Lindsay J. Whaley (Eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 22-54.

9. Hassanpour, Amir, Sheyholislami, Jaffer and Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, “Introduction. Kurdish: Linguicide, resistance and hope”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, no.217, pp.1-18. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2012-0047 on June 25, 2025.

10. Hudson, R. (2001) Sociolinguistics (2^nd ed), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11. Labov, William. (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

12. Langer, Nils and Nesse, Agnete (2012) “Linguistic Purism” in The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics, Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy and Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (Eds.) Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 607-625.

13. Levasseur, Catherine, Bouchard, Marrie-Eve, and Ntiranyibagira, Canstantin (2023) “From linguistic insecurity to security: complexity and diversity of contexts”, OLBI Journal, Vol.13, pp.17-30.

14. Milroy, Lesley and Gordon, Mattew (2003) Sociolinguistics: Method and interpretation, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

15. Ogunniyi, Okedigba Segun, Abiodun, Omowon Aderonke and ‘Dapo, Adelowo Abimbola (2023) “Impact of linguistic insecurity on the English oral productivity of students of selected colleges of education in south-western Nigeria”, International Journal of Linguistics, Vol.4(3), pp.40-53.

16. Piller, Ingrid (2017) “Explorations in language shaming” Retrieved from: https://www.languageonthemove.com/explorations-in-language-shaming/ on April 11, 2025.

17. Rasheed, Minwas Jamal (2021) “Diglossia: A mixed method survey analysis on the use of formal and informal speech among Sorani Kurdish speakers”, International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies, Vol.8(3), pp.249-268.

18. Saady, Dilovan Sayfuddin (2009) Diglossic situation in Hawler, PhD dissertation, University of Salahaddin, Erbil.

19. Tavakoli, Hossein (2012) A dictionary of research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics, Tehran: Rahnema.

لێکۆڵینەوە لە سیما و هۆکارەکانی نەبوونی ئاسایشی زمانەوانی لە کۆمەڵگەی زمانیی مێرگەسۆر/ هەولێر

پوختە:

نەبوونی ئاسایشی زمانەوانی دیاردەیەکی هزری و هەستییە، کە بە شێوازی جۆراوجۆر خۆی دەنوێنێت. توێژینەوەی بەردەست لێکۆڵینەوە لە حەوت لە سیماکان وهەروەها هۆکارەکانی ئەم دیاردە زمانەوانییە کۆمەڵایەتییە لە ناوچەی مێرگەسۆری هەرێمی کوردستانی عێراق دەکات. توێژینەوەکانی پێشوو لە هەرێم بە هیچ شێوەیەک، وەک دیاردەیەکی نێوان شێوەزار و بنزارەکانی کوردی، لێکۆڵینەوەیان لە نەبوونی ئاسایشی زمانەوانی نەکردووە. هەروەها، ناوچەی هەڵبژێردراو نموونەیکی باشە بۆ لێکۆڵینەوە لەم بابەتە. کۆمەڵگەیەکی تاڕادەیک بچووک لە ناوچەی مێرگەسۆردا دەژیت و بە شێوەزارێکی بادینی دەئاخڤێت کە لەم توێژینەوەیەدا بە مێرگەسۆری ناو دەبردرێت. ئەمەش لەکاتێکدایە کە ئەم کۆمەڵگەیە بۆ پەروەردە و کاروباری ئیداری دەکەوێتە بن دەسەڵاتی بنزاری سۆرانی. ناهاوسەنگی و دەسەڵاتی لەمجۆرە بەردەوام دەتوانن بۆچوونی زمانی ئەوتۆ درووست بکەن کە کاریگەرییان لەسەر رەفتاری زمانەوانیی ئاخێوەران هەیە. بە بەکارهێنانی رێبازێکی تێکەڵ، توێژەر فۆرمی راپرسی و چاوپێکەوتنی نیمچە رێکخستوو بەکار دێنێت. ١٣٥ ئاخێوەری مێرگەسۆری و چوار شارەزای زمانی لە ناوچەکە هەڵدەبژێردرێن بۆ وەڵامدانەوەی پرسیارەکانی توێژەر. ئەنجامەکانی توێژینەوەکە دەریدەخەن لە حەوت جۆرەکەی نەبوونی ئاسایشی زمانەوانی، تەنیا یەک جۆریان لە کۆمەڵگەکەدا بوونی نییە. جۆرێکی نوێی نەبوونی ئاسایشی زمانەوانیش، کە هەستکردنە بە گوناهباری بەهۆی تێکەڵکردنی شێوەزارەکان. لەلایەن توێژەر لەم لێکۆڵینەوەیەدا پێشکەش کراوە. سەبارەت بە هۆکارەکانیش، وەک دەردەکەوێت بەشێوەیەکی سەرەکی فاکتەرە کۆمەڵایەتییەکان و ئایدۆلۆژیای پەتیخوازی و ئیسێشیالیستی زمانەوانی هۆکاری سەرەکی نەبوونی ئاسایشی زمانەوانین لەناو ئاخێوەرانی مێرگەسۆریدا. گرینگی ئەم توێژینەوەیە لەوەدایە کە دەریدەخات چۆن بۆچوونەکانی زمانی رەفتاری ئاخێوەرانی مێرگەسۆری لە هەلومەرج و بارودۆخی جیاوازدا رێک دەخەن. هەروەها، ئەم توێژینەوەیە جەخت لە توێژینەوەکانی پێش خۆی دەکاتەوە سەبارەت بە هەبوونی دیاردەی دایگلۆسیا لە هەرێمی کوردستانی عێراق.

کلیلە وشەکان: نەبوونی ئاسایشی زمانەوانی، دیاردەی شەرمەزارکردنی ئاخیوەران بەهۆی زمانەوا، گۆڕینی شێوەزاری ئاخافتن، پەتیخوازیی زمانەوانی.

دراسة تمثيلات وأسباب انعدام الأمن اللغوي في مجتمع اللغة ميرگة سور /أربيل

الملخص:

يمكن تجسيد انعدام الأمن اللغوي كمفهوم ذهني وانفعالي بأشكال مختلفة . تتناول الدراسة الحالية سبع تجليات وأسباب لهذه الظاهرة في قضاء ميرگسور في إقليم كردستان العراق. لم تتناول أية دراسة سابقة انعدام الأمن اللغوي كظاهرة لغوية داخلية بين اللهجات الكردية في المنطقة. تعد المنطقة مثالاً جيداً، كون الكثافة السكانية في المنطقة منخفضة نسبياً ويتحدثون نمطاً لغوياً من لهجة بادينیة فرعية، المسمى ميرگسوري، لكن اللهجة السورانية تهيمن على التعليم و الإدارة في المنطقة. نتيجة لعدم الاتزان اللغوي تتكون مواقف لغوية تسيطر على السلوكيات اللغوية لسكان المنطقة . تستخدم الباحثة المنهج المختلط لدراسة انعدام الأمن اللغوي بين متحدثي المنطقة عن طريق كل من الاستبيان و المقابلة الشبه المنظمة. تم اختيار 135 متحدثاً وأربع خبراء لغة من المنطقة. تبين النتائج إن شكلاً واحداً فقط من بين سبع أشكال من انعدام الأمن اللغوي غير موجود في المجتمع الميرگسوري و تعد الشعور بالذنب للتناوب اللغوي احدى هذه الأشكال و التي تعتبر احدى التجليات الأصيلة والغير موجودة في الدراسات السابقة. كذلك تبين النتائج ان من أسباب وجود الظاهرة في المجتمع العامل الاجتماعي و النقاء اللغوي والأيدولوجيات السائدة . تكمن أهمية الدراسة في إظهار كيفية تنظيم المواقف اللغوية لسلوكيات اللغوية لمتحدثي المنطقة في المواقف والميادين المختلفة وتعزز الدراسات السابقة حول وجود حالة الازدواج اللغوي في إقليم كردستان العراق

الكلمات المفتاحية: انعدام الأمن اللغوي، التشهير اللغوي، التبديل اللغوي، النقاء اللغوي.

* Corresponding Author.

This is an open access under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

Statement	Expert1	Expert2	Expert3	Expert4
A. When they believe Mêrgesorî is not a good version of Badînî.	0	1	1	0
B. When they feel they are in a formal context.	1	2	3	1
C. When they believe Mêrgesorî is not rich enough to express their message completely.	0	3	2	0
D. When they are among a group, most of whom are Soranî speakers.	3	3	3	3
E. When they are among a group, most of whom are the general Badînî speakers.	0	1	1	0